i U-' ''' , iM 
 ji '' ' i 
 
 : 
 
 \ 
 
 
 i, 
 i 
 
 '■ '■ 
 
 
 k 
 
 mii 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hm] 1 
 
 pi 
 i: i 
 
 Ik 
 
 „ 
 
 ■.H' 
 
 Hi ■ ! 
 
 till , ,i'y.. 
 
LieKARV 
 
 o:-- Tin: 
 
 University of California. 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. 
 
 Received October, 1894. 
 Accessions No. 6 "J C ^ Class No. 
 
\ 
 
THE 
 
 LATER PROPHECIES 
 
 OF 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER, 
 
 PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. 
 
 NEW-YORK & LONDON: 
 
 WILEY AND PUTNAM. 
 
 1847. 
 

 ijift 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by 
 
 Joseph Addison Alexander, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This volume is a sequel to the one which appeared about a 
 year ago, under the title of the Earlier Prophecies, the two toge- 
 ther forming a continuous Commentary on Isaiah. While the same 
 plan has been here retained without alteration, I have aimed at 
 greater uniformity of execution, as well as a more critical selection 
 of materials. The reasons for a separate investigation of these 
 later chapters have been stated in the introduction to the other 
 volume. In addition to the authors there enumerated, I have 
 carefully compared the English version and remarks of Noyes 
 (second edition, Boston, 1843) and die Cyro-jesaianischen 
 Weissagungen of Beck (Leipzig, 1844) ; the first of which, though 
 elegant and scholarlike, is too closely modelled on Gesenius to 
 afford much new matter, and the other is remarkable chiefly for 
 the boldness of its ultra-rationalistic doctrines, and the juvenile 
 flippancy with which they are expressed. Of both these works 
 occasional citations will be met with in the present volume. 
 
 In the exposition of the last seven chapters, too polemical an 
 attitude, perhaps, has been assumed with respect to a distinguished 
 living writer. Dr. Henderson, to whose abilities and learning I 
 have elsewhere endeavoured to do justice. The prominence here 
 given to his book has arisen from his happening to be not only 
 the best but the sole representative of certain views among the 
 professed expounders of Isaiah. As to the question in dispute, 
 the ground which I have taken and endeavoured to maintain is 
 the negative position, that the truth of these " exceeding great 
 and precious promises " is not suspended on the future restoration 
 of the Jews to Palestine, without denying such a restoration to 
 be possible or promised elsewhere. 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 In this, as well as in the other volume, I may possibly have 
 pushed the rule of rigorous translation to an extreme ; but if so, it 
 is an extreme from which recession is much easier and safer than 
 recovery from that of laxity and vagueness. By the course thus 
 taken, I am not without hope that some light may be thrown 
 upon the darker parts of Hebrew Grammar, and especially the 
 doctrine of the tenses, which can never be completely solved 
 except by a laborious induction of particulars. 
 
 While I deem it proper to observe that I have read only two 
 sheets of this volume during its progress through the press, I am 
 happy to add that it has passed through the hands of Mr. W. W. 
 Turner, to whom so many other works in this department are 
 indebted for the accuracy of their execution. 
 
 I have still kept steadily in view, as my immediate readers, to 
 whose wants the work must be adapted, clergymen and students 
 of theology, considered as the actual or future teachers of the 
 Church. Through them I may perhaps indulge the hope of doing 
 something to promote correct opinions, and a taste for exegetical 
 j)ursuits, as means of intellectual and spiritual culture, even though 
 this should prove to be my last as well as first contribution to the 
 stores of sacred learning. 
 
 Princeton, March 20, 1847. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 One of the most important functions of the prophetic office was the 
 exposition of the Law, that is to say, of the Mosaic institutions, the peculiar 
 form in which the Church was organized until the advent of Messiah. This 
 inspired exposition was of absolute necessity, in order to prevent or to 
 correct mistakes which were constantly arising, not only from the blindness 
 and perverseness of the people, but from the very nature of the system 
 under which they lived. That system, being temporary and symbolical, 
 was necessarily material, ceremonial, and restrictive in its forms; as nothing 
 purely spiritual could be symbolical or typical of other spiritual things, nor 
 could a catholic or free constitution have secured the necessary segregation 
 of the people from all others for a temporary purpose. 
 
 The evils incident to such a state of things were the same that have 
 occurred in many other like cases, and may all be derived from the superior 
 influence of sensible objects on the mass of men, and from the consequent 
 propensity to lose sight of the end in the use of the means, and to confound 
 the sign with the thing signified. The precise form and degree of this 
 perversion no doubt varied with the change of times and circumstances, and 
 a corresponding difference must have existed in the action of the Prophets 
 who were called to exert a corrective influence on these abuses. 
 
 In the days of Hezekiah, the national corruption had already passed 
 through several phases, each of which might still be traced in its effects, 
 and none of which had wholly vanished. Sometimes the prevailing tendency 
 had been to make the ceremonial form of the Mosaic worship, and its 
 consequent coincidence in certain points with the religions of surrounding 
 nations, an occasion or a pretext for adopting heathen rites and usages, at 
 first as a mere extension and enlargement of the ritual itself, then more 
 boldly as an arbitrary mixture of heterogeneous elements, and lastly as an 
 open and entire substitution of the false for the true, and of Baal, Ashtoreth, 
 or Moloch, for Jehovah. 
 
 At other times the same corruption had assumed a less revolting form 
 and been contented with perverting the Mosaic institutions while externally 
 
yl INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and zealously adhering to them. The two points from which this insidious 
 process of perversion set out were the nature and design of the ceremonial 
 law, and the relation of the chosen people to the rest of men. As to the 
 first, it soon became a current and at last a fixed opinion with the mass of 
 irreligious Jews, that the riiual acts of the Mosaic service had an intrinsic 
 efficacy, or a kind of magical effect upon the moral and spiritual state of the 
 worshipper. Against this error the Law itself had partially provided by 
 occasional violations and suspensions of its own most rigorous demands, 
 plainly implying that the rites were not intrinsically efficacious, but signi- 
 ficant of something else. As a single instance of this general fact it may be 
 mentioned, that although the sacrifice of life is every where throughout the 
 ceremonial law presented as the symbol of atonement, yet in certain cases, 
 where the circumstances of the offerer forbade an animal oblation, he was 
 suffered to present one of a vegetable nature, even where the service was 
 directly and exclusively expiatory, — a substitution wholly inconsistent with 
 the doctrine of an intrinsic virtue or a magical effect, but perfectly in 
 harmony with that of a symbolical and typical design, in which the uni- 
 formity of the external symbol, although rigidly maintained in general, 
 might be dispensed with in a rare and special case without absurdity or 
 inconvenience. 
 
 It mi^ht easily be shown that the same corrective was provided by the 
 Law itself in its occasional departure from its own requisitions as to time and 
 place and the officiating person ; so that no analogy whatever really exists 
 between the Ijcvitical economy, even as expounded by itself, and the ritual 
 systems which in later times have been so confidently built upon it. But 
 the single instance which has been already cited will suffice to illustrate the 
 extent of the perversion which at an early period had taken root among the 
 Jews as to the real nature and design of their ceremonial services. The 
 natural effect of such an error on the spirit and the morals is too obvious in 
 itself, and too explicitly recorded in the sacred history, to require either 
 proof or illustration. 
 
 On the other great point, the relation of the Jews to the surrounding 
 nations, their opinions seem to have become at an early period equally 
 erroneous. In this as in the other case, they went wrong by a superficial 
 judgment founded on appearances, by looking simply at the means before 
 them, and neither forwards to their end, nor backwards to their origin. 
 From the indisputable facts of Israel's divine election as the people of 
 Jehovah, his extraordinary preservation as such, and his undisturbed exclu- 
 sive possession of the written word and the accompanying rites, they had 
 drawn the natural but false conclusion, that this national pre-eminence was 
 founded on intrinsic causes, or at least on some original and perpetual 
 distinction in their favour. This led them to repudiate or forget the funda- 
 
INTRODUCTION. vii 
 
 mental truth of their whole history, to wit, that they were set apart and 
 kept apart, not for the ruin and disgrace, but for the ultimate benefit and 
 honour of the whole world, or rather of the whole church which was to be 
 gathered from all nations, and of which the ancient Israel was designed to 
 be the symbol and the representative. As it had pleased God to elect a 
 certain portion of mankind to everlasting life through Christ, so it pleased 
 him that until Christ came, this body of elect ones, scattered through all 
 climes and ages, should be represented by a single nation, and that this 
 representative body should be the sole depository of divine truth and a 
 divinely instituted worship; while the ultimate design of this arrangement 
 was kept constantly in view by the free access which in all ages was afforded 
 to the gentiles who consented to embrace the true religion. 
 
 It is difficult indeed to understand how the Jews could reconcile the 
 imm.eraorial reception of proselytes from other nations, with the doo-nia of 
 national superiority and exclusive hereditary right to the divine favour. The 
 only solution of this singular phenomenon is furnished by continual recur- 
 rence to the great representative principle on which the Jewish church was 
 organized, and which was carried out not only in the separation of the 
 body as a whole from other men, but in the internal constitution of the 
 body itself, and more especially in the separation of a whole tribe from the 
 rest of Israel, and of a single family in that tribe from the other Levites, 
 and of a single person in that family, in whom was finally concentrated the 
 whole representation of the Body on the one hand, while on the other he 
 was a constituted type of the Head. 
 
 If the Jews could have been made to understand or to remember that 
 their national pre-eminence was representative, not original ; symbolical, not 
 real ; provisional, not perpetual, it could never have betrayed them into 
 hatred or contempt of other nations, but would rather have cherished an 
 enlarged and catholic spirit, as it did in the most enlightened, — an effect 
 which may be clearly traced in the writings of Moses, David, and Isaiah. 
 That view of the Mosaic dispensation which regards this Jewish bigotry as 
 its genuine spirit is demonstrably a false one. The true spirit of the old 
 economy was not indeed a latitudinarian indifference to its institutions, or a 
 premature anticipation of a state of things still future. It was scrupulously 
 faithful even to the temporary institutions of the ancient church ; but while 
 it looked upon them as obligatory, it did not look upon them as perpetual. 
 It obeyed the present requisitions of Jehovah, but still looked forward to 
 something better. Hence the failure to account, on any other supposition, 
 for the seeming contradictions of the Old Testament, in reference to the 
 ceremonies of the Law. If worthless, why were they so conscientiously 
 observed by the best and wisest men ? If intrinsically valuable, why are 
 they disparaged and almost repudiated by the same men ? Simply because 
 
VIII 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 they were neiiher worthless nor intrinsically valuable, but appointed tempo- 
 rary signs ofsonieiliing to be otherwise revealed thereafter; so that it was 
 equally impious and foolish to rtject them altogether with the skeptic, and to 
 rest in them for ever with the formalist. 
 
 It is no less true, and for exactly the same reason, that the genuine 
 spirit of the old economy was equally adverse to all religious mixture with 
 the heathen or renunciation of the Jewish privileges on one hand, and to all 
 contracted national conceit and hatred of the gentiles on the other. Yet 
 both these forms of error had become fixed in the Jewish creed and character 
 long before the days of Ilezekiah. That they were not universal even then, 
 we have abundant proof in the Old Testament. Even in the worst of 
 times, there is reason to believe that a portion of the people held fast to the 
 true doctrine and the true spirit of the extraordinary system under which 
 they lived. How large this more enlightened party was at any time, and 
 to how small a remnant it was ever reduced, we have not the means of 
 ascertaining ; but we know that it was always in existence, and that it 
 constituted the true Israel, the real church of the Old Testament. 
 
 To this class the corruption of the general body must have been a cause 
 not only of sorrow but of apprehension ; and if express prophetic threaten- 
 ings had been wanting, they could scarcely fail to anticipate the punishment 
 and even the rejection of their nation. But in this anticipation they were 
 themselves liable to error. Their associations were so intimately blended 
 with the institutions under which they lived, that they must have found it 
 bard to separate the idea of Israel as a church from that of Israel as a 
 nation, — a difficulty similar in kind, however different in degree, from that 
 which we experience in forming a conception of the continued existence of 
 the soul without the body. And as all men, in the latter case, however 
 fully they may be persuaded of the separate existence of the spirit and of 
 its future disembodied state, habitually speak of it in terms strictly applicable 
 only to its j)resent state, so the ancient saints, however strong their faith, 
 were under the necessity of framing their conceptions, as to future things, 
 upon the model of those present; and the imperceptible extension of this 
 process beyond the limits of necessity, would naturally tend to generate 
 errors not of form merely but of substance. Among these we may readily 
 suppose to have had place the idea that, as Israel had been unfaithful to its 
 trust, and was to be rejected, the Church or People of God must as a body 
 share the same fate; or in other words, that if the national Israel perished, 
 the spiritual Israel must perish with it, at least so Air as to be disorganized 
 and resolved into its elements. 
 
 The same confusion of ideas still exists among the uninstructed classes, 
 and to some extent among the more enlightened also, in those countries where 
 the Church has for ages been a national establishment, and scarcely known 
 
INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 in any other form ; as, for instance, in Sweden and Norway among Protes- 
 tants, or Spain and Portugal among the Papists. To the most devout in 
 such communities the downfal of th3 iiierarchical estabhshment seems 
 perfectly identical with the extinction of the church ; and nothing but a 
 long course of jnstruction, and perhaps experience, could enable them to 
 form the idea of a disembodied, unestablished Christian church. If such 
 mistakes are possible and real even now, we have little reason either to 
 dispute their existence or to wonder at it, under the complicated forms and 
 in the imperfect light of the Mosaic dispensation. It is not only credible 
 but altogether natural, that even true believers, unassisted by a special reve- 
 lation, should have shunned the extreme of looking upon Israel's pre-emi- 
 nence among the nations as original and perpetual, only by verging towards 
 the opposite error of supposing that the downfal of the nation would involve 
 the abolition of the church, and human unbelief defeat the purposes and 
 make void the promises of God. 
 
 Here then are several distinct but cognate forms of error, which appear 
 to have gained currency among the Jews before the time of Hezekiah, in 
 relation to the two great distinctive features of their national condition, the 
 ceremonial law and their seclusion from the gentiles. Upon each of these 
 points there were two shades of opinion entertained by very different classes. 
 The Mosaic ceremonies were with some a pretext for idolatrous observances; 
 while others rested in them, not as types or symbols, but as efficacious means 
 of expiation. The pre-eminence of Israel was by some regarded as perpe- 
 tual; while others apprehended in its termination the extinction of the 
 church itself. These various forms of error might be variously combined 
 and modified in different cases, and their general result must of course have 
 contributed largely to determine the character of the church and nation. 
 
 It was not, perhaps, until these errors had begun to take a definite and 
 settled form among the people, that the Prophets, who had hitherto confined 
 themselves to oral instruction or historical composition, were directed to utter 
 and record for constant use discourses meant to be corrective or condemna- 
 tory of these dangerous perversions. This may at least be regarded as a 
 plausible solution of the fact that prophetic writing in the strict sense 
 became so much more abundant in the later days of the Old Testament 
 history. Of these prophetic writings, still preserved in our canon, there is 
 scarcely any part which has not a perceptible and direct bearing on the 
 state of feeling and opinion which has been described. This is emphati- 
 cally true of Isaiah's Earlier Prophecies, which, though so various in form 
 are all adapted to correct the errors in question, or to establish the antago- 
 nistic truths. This general design of the predictions might be so used as to 
 throw new light upon their exposition, by connecting it more closely with 
 the prevalent errors of the ancient church than was attempted in the other 
 
X INTRODUCTION. 
 
 volume. Guided even by this vague suggestion, an attentive reader will be 
 able for the most part to determine with respect to each successive portion 
 whether it was specially intended to rebuke idolatry, to rectify the errors of 
 the formalist in reference to the ceremonial system, to bring down the 
 arrogance of a mistaken nationality, or to console the true believer by 
 assuring him that though the carnal Israel should perish, the true Israel 
 must endure for ever. 
 
 But although this purpose may be traced, to some extent, in all the 
 prophecies, it is natural to suppose that soinc part of the canon would be 
 occupied with a direct, extensive, and continuous exhibition of the truth 
 upon a subject so momentous; and the date of such a prophecy could 
 scarcely be assigned to any other period so naturally as to that which has 
 been specified, the reign of Hezekiah, when all the various forms of error 
 and corruption which had successively prevailed were co-existent, when 
 idolatry, although suppressed by law was still openly or secretly practised, 
 and in many cases superseded only by a hypocritical formality and ritual 
 relif^ion, attended by an overweening sense of the national pre-eminence of 
 Israel, from which even the most godly seem to liave found refuge in 
 despondent fears and skeptical misgivings. At such a time, — when the 
 theocracy had long since reached and passed its zenith, and a series of 
 providential shocks, with intervals of brief repose, had already begun to 
 loosen the foundations of the old economy in preparation for its ultimate 
 removal, — such a discourse as that supposed must have been eminently 
 seasonable, if not absolutely needed, to rebuke sin, correct error, and sustain 
 the hopes of true believers. It was equally important, nay, essential to the 
 (Treat end of the temporary system, that the way for its final abrogation 
 should be gradually prepared, and that in the meantime it should be main- 
 tained in constant operation. 
 
 If the circumstances of the times which have been stated are enough to 
 make it probable that such a revelation would be given, they will also aid 
 us in determining beforehand, not in detail, but in the general, its form and 
 character. The historical occasion and the end proposed would naturally 
 lead us to expect in such a book the simultaneous or alternate presentation 
 of a few great leading truths, perhaps with accompanying refutation of the 
 adverse errors, and with such reproofs, remonstrances and exhortations, 
 promises and threatenings, as the condition of the people springing from these 
 errors might require, not only at the date of the prediction but in later 
 times. In executing this design the Prophet might have been expected to 
 pursue a method more rhetorical than logical, and to enforce his doctrine 
 not so much by dry didactic statements as by animated argument combined 
 with earnest exhortation, passionate appeals, poetical apostrophes, impres- 
 sive repetitions, and illustrations drawn both from the ancient and the later 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XI 
 
 history of Israel. In fine, from what has been ah-eady said, It follows that 
 the doctrines which would naturally constitute the staple of the prophecy 
 in such a case, are those relating to the true design of Israel's vocation and 
 seclusion from the gentiles, and of the ceremonial institutions under which 
 he was in honourable bondage. The sins and errors which find their condem- 
 nation in the statement of these truths are those of actual idolatry, a ritual 
 formality, a blinded nationality, and a despondent apprehension of the 
 failure of Jehovah's promise. Such might even a priori be regarded as the 
 probable structure and complexion of a prophecy or series of prophecies 
 intended to secure the end in question. If the person called to this important 
 service had already been the organ oC divine communications upon other 
 subjects, or with more direct reference to other objects, it would be reason- 
 able to expect a marked diversity between these former prophecies and that 
 uttered under a new impulse. Besides the very great and striking differ- 
 ence which must always be perceptible between a series of detached compo- 
 sitions, varying, and possibly remote from one another as to date, and a 
 continuous discourse on one great theme, there would be other unavoidable 
 distinctions springing directly from the new and wide scope of prophetic 
 vision, and from the concentration in one vision of the elements diffused 
 through many others. This diversity would be enhanced, of course, by 
 any striking difference of outward circumstances, such as the advanced age 
 of the writer, his matured experience, his seclusion from the world and from 
 active life, or any other changes which might have the same effect ; but 
 even in the absence of these outward causes, the diversity would still be 
 very great and unavoidable. 
 
 From these probabilities let us now turn to realities. Precisely such a 
 book as that described is extant, having formed a part of the collection of 
 Isaiah's Prophecies as far back as the history of the canon can be traced, 
 without the slightest vestige of a different tradition among Jews or Chris- 
 tians as to the author. The tone and spirit of these chapters are precisely 
 such as might have been expected from the circumstances under which they 
 are alleged to have been written, and their variations from the earlier chap- 
 ters such as must have been expected from the change in the circumstances 
 themselves. 
 
 A cursory inspection of these Later Prophecies is enough to satisfy the 
 reader that he has before him neither a concatenated argument nor a mass 
 of fragments, but a continuous discourse in which the same great topics are 
 continually following each other, somewhat modified in form and combi- 
 nation, but essentially the same from the beginning to the end. If required 
 to designate a single theme as that of the whole series, we might safely give 
 the preference to Israel, the Peculiar People, the Church of the Old Testa- 
 ment, its origin, vocation, mission, sins and sufferings, former experience and 
 
j^i; INTRODUCTION. 
 
 final destiny. The doctrine inculcated as to this great subject may be 
 sunnnarily stated thus. Tiie race of Israel was chosen from among the 
 oiht-r nations, and maintained in the possession of peculiar privileges, not 
 for the sake of any original or acquired merit, but by a sovereign act of the 
 divine will ; not for their own exclusive benefit and aggrandizement, but for 
 the ultimate salvation of the world. The ceremonies of the Law were of no 
 intrinsic efficacy, and when so regarded and relied on became hateful in the 
 sit^ht of God. Siill more al)surd and impious was the practice of analogous 
 ceremonies not in obedience lo Jehovah's will, but in the worship of imagi- 
 nary deities or idols. The Leviiical rites, besides immediate uses of a lower 
 kind, were symbols of God's holiness and man's corruption, the necessity of 
 expiation in general, and of expiation by vicarious suffering in particular. 
 Amon"- them there were also types, prophetic symbols, of the very form in 
 which the f'real work of atonement was to be accomplished, and of Him by 
 whom it was to be performed. Until this work was finished, and this 
 Saviour come, the promise of both was exclusively entrusted to the chosen 
 people, wli^were bound to preserve it both in its written and its ritual form. 
 To this momentous trust a large part of the nation had been unfaithful, some 
 avowedly forsaking it as open idolaters, some practically betraying it as 
 formal hypocrites. For these and other consequent offences, Israel as a 
 nation was to be rejected and deprived of its pre-eminence. But in so 
 doing God would not cast off his people. The promises to Israel, consi- 
 dered as the people of Jehovah, should enure to the body of believers, the 
 remnant according to the election of grace. These were in fact from the 
 beoinnin<r the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham, the Jews who were 
 Jews inwardly. In these the continued existence of the church should be 
 secured and perpetuated, first within the limits of the outward Israel, and 
 then by the accession of believing gentiles to the spiritual Israel. When the 
 fulness of time should come for the removal of the temporary and restrictive 
 institutions of the old economy, that change should be so ordered us not 
 only to effect the emancipation of the church from ceremonial bondage, but 
 at the same time to attest the divine disapprobation of the sins committed by 
 the carnal Israel throughout their history. While these had every thing to 
 fear from the approaching change, the spiritual Israel had every thing to 
 l,ope, — not only the continued existence of the church, but its existence 
 under a more spiritual, free, and glorious dispensation, to be ushered in by 
 the appearance of that great Deliverer towards whom the ceremonies of the 
 Law all pointed. 
 
 From this succinct statement of the Prophet's doctrine, it is easy to 
 account for some peculiarities of form and phraseology, particularly for the 
 constant alternation of encouragement and threatening, and for the twofold 
 sense or rather application of the national name, Israel. This latter usage 
 
INTRODUCTION. xiii 
 
 is explained by Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans (ch. 2 : 17-29. 9 : 6-9. 
 11 : 1-7), where the very same doctrine is propounded in relation to the 
 ancient church that we have just obtained by a fair induction from Isaiah's 
 Later Prophecies. There is in fact no part of the Old Testament to which 
 the New affords a more decisive key in the shape of an authoritative and 
 inspired interpretation. 
 
 Anotlier peculiarity of form highly important in the exposition of these 
 Prophecies is the frequent introduction of allusions to particular events in 
 the history of Israel, as examples of the general truths so constantly 
 repeated. The events thus cited are not numerous, but of the greatest 
 magnitude, such as the calling of Abraham, the exodus from Egypt, the 
 destruction of Babylon, the return from exile, and the advent of Messiah. 
 These events have sometimes been confounded by interpreters, and even so 
 far misconceived as to put a new and false face on the whole prediction, as 
 we shall have occasion more explicitly to state below. At present, let it 
 be observed that the prophetical discourse is continually varied and relieved 
 by these historical allusions. 
 
 The fairest and the most decisive test by which the foregoing views of 
 the design and subject of these Later Prophecies can be tried, is one within 
 the reach of any reader who will take the trouble to apply it, by a careful 
 perusal of the prophecies themselves, even without any other comment than 
 the general suggestions which have been already made. If this should still 
 prove insufficient to establish the correctness of the exegetical hypothesis 
 proposed, that end may still be answered by comparing this hypothesis with 
 others which have more or less prevailed among interpreters. 
 
 Let us first compare with the hypothesis just stated, the one assumed 
 wholly or in part by Cocceius and others, who appear disposed to recog- 
 nise in these Later Prophecies specific periods and events in the history of 
 the Christian church. Of this abundant illustration will be given in the 
 Commentary on the Prophecies themselves. Meantime, it may be stated 
 in the general, that besides the arbitrary character of such interpretation, 
 and the infinite diversity which it exhibits in the hands of different writers, 
 it creates the necessity of putting the most forced interpretations on the 
 plainest terms, and of denying that Babylon, Israel, etc. were intended 
 to mean Babylon, Israel, etc. in any sense warranted by Hebrew usage. 
 And even in those parts of the Pro|)hecy which do refer to later times and 
 to the new dispensation, these interpreters are under the necessity of 
 violating one of the most strongly marked peculiarities of this whole book, 
 viz. the general view which it exhibits of the new dispensation as a whole, 
 from its inception to its consummation, as contrasted with the more specific 
 mention of particular events before the change, even when future to the 
 Prophet's own times. This mode of exposition, at least in its extreme 
 
xivr INTRODUCTION. 
 
 forms, lias received its most effective refutation from the lapse of time. 
 When we find such writers as Cocceius, and less frequently Vitringa, 
 seeking the fulfilment of grand prophecies in petty squabbles of the Dutch 
 Church or Republic, which have long since lost their place in general 
 history, the practical lesson thus imparted is of more force than the most 
 ingenious arguments, to show that such interpretation rests upon a fiilse 
 hypothesis. 
 
 A very different fate has been experienced by the ancient and still 
 current doctrine that the main subject of these Prophecies throughout, is 
 the restoration from the Babylonish exile. While this hypothesis has been 
 assumed as undeniable by many Christian writers, it affords the whole foun- 
 dation of the modern neological criticism and exegesis. It is worth while, 
 therefore, to examine somewhat closely the pretensions of this theory to 
 general reception. 
 
 In the first place, let it be observed how seldom, after all, the book 
 mentions Babylon, the Exile, or the Restoration. This remark is made in 
 reference to those cases only where these subjects are expressly mentioned, 
 i. e. either named totidcm verbis, or described in terms which will apply to 
 nothing else. An exact enumeration of such cases, made for the first time, 
 might surprise one whose previous impressions had been all derived from 
 the Svveeping declarations of interpreters and critics. It is true the cases 
 may be vastly multiplied by taking into the account all the indirect allusions 
 which these writers are accustomed to assume, i. e. by applying to the 
 Exile all the places and particular expressions which admit by possibility of 
 such an application. Having first inferred from the explicit prophecies 
 respecting Babylon, that this is the great subject of the book, it is perfectly 
 easy to apply to this same subject hundreds of phrases in themselves inde- 
 finite and wholly dependent for specific meaning upon some hypothesis like 
 that in question. 
 
 The necessary tendency of such a method to excess, is illustrated by 
 the gradual advances of the later German writers in the specific explanation 
 of these chapters. WHiere Rosenmiiller and Gesenius were contented to 
 find general poetical descriptions of the Exile and the Restoration, Hitzig 
 detects precise chronological allusions to particular campaigns and battles 
 in the progress of Cyrus ; and this again is pushed so far by Hendewerk 
 and Knobel, that they sometimes find more striking and minute coincidences 
 between this Hebrew writer and Herodotus or Xenophon, than any of the 
 old-fashioned orthodox writers ever dreamed of finding between him and the 
 New Testament. To hear these writers talk of the battle of Pasargada, the 
 defeat of Neriglassar, the first and second attack on Babylonia, the taking 
 of Sardis, etc. etc. we might fiuicy ourselves listening to Eusebius or 
 Cocceius, with a simple substitution of profane for sacred history. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xv 
 
 The fallacy of this mode of interpretation lies in the fact that the inde- 
 finite expressions thus applied to one event or series of events, might just as 
 naturally be applied to others, if these others were first fixed upon as being 
 the mam subject of the whole composition. Thus, all admit that there are 
 frequent allusions in these later chapters to the exodus from Egypt. Now 
 if any interpreter should be intrepid and absurd enough to argue that they 
 must have been composed by Moses, and that the great deliverance then 
 wrought must be the subject of the whole book, whatever difSculties, and 
 however insurmountable, this doctrine might encounter in a different direc- 
 tion, it could find none in adapting what is said of crossing seas and rivers, 
 opening fountains, journeys through the desert, subjugation of enemies, rest 
 in the promised land, etc. etc. to the original exodus, with far less violence 
 than to the restoration from captivity. It is equally true, but in a less 
 degree, that Grotius, who refers some portions of this book to the period of 
 the Maccabees, is perfectly successful, after having once assumed this as the 
 subject, in accommodating to it many of the very same expressions which 
 another class of writers no less confidently claim as clear allusions to the 
 Babylonian exile. 
 
 The fallacy of such exegelical reasoning may be further exposed by 
 applying the same process to a distinct but analogous case. In the Epistle 
 to the Romans, Paul is now almost universally regarded as foretelling the 
 restoration of the Jews to the favour of God. Assuming this to be the 
 theme not only of those passages in which it is expressly mentioned, but of 
 the whole Epistle, an interpreter of no great ingenuity might go completely 
 through it, putting upon every general expression a specific sense, in strict 
 agreement with his foregone conclusion. All that relates to justification 
 might be limited to the Jews of some future day ; the glorious truth that 
 there is no condemnation to believers in Christ Jesus, made a specific and 
 exclusive promise to converted Jews ; and the precious promise that all 
 things shall work together for good to them that love God, made to mean 
 that all events shall be so ordered as to bring about the future restoration of 
 the Jews. The very absurdity of such conclusions makes them better 
 illustrations of the erroneous principles involved in similar interpretations of 
 the more obscure and less familiar parts of Scripture. 
 
 Setting aside the cases which admit of one application as well as 
 another, or of this application only because of a foregone conclusion, the 
 truth of which cannot be determined by expressions deriving their specific 
 meaning from itself, let the reader now enumerate the instances in which 
 the reference to Babylon, the Exile, and the Restoration, is not only possible 
 but necessary. He must not be surprised if he discovers as the fruit of his 
 researches, that the Prophet speaks of Babylon less frequently than Egypt ; 
 
XVI 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 that the ruins, desolations, and oppressions, which he mentions iji a multi- 
 tude of places, are no more Babylonian than Egyptian or Roman in the 
 text itself, and only made so by the interest or fancy of some writers, the 
 authority of others, and the easy faith of the remainder. 
 
 In opposition to these strained conclusions, we have only to propound 
 the obvious supposition that the downfal of Babylon is repeatedly men- 
 tioned, like the exodus from Egypt, as a great event in the history of 
 Israel, — but that the subject of the prophecy is neither the Egyptian nor 
 the Babylonian bondage, nor deliverance from either, but the whole 
 condition, character, and destiny of Israel as the chosen people and the 
 church of the Old Testament. 
 
 All the hypotheses which have been mentioned are agreed in assuming 
 the unity of these predictions as the product not only of a single age, but of 
 a single writer. This unity, however, was by no means recognised by 
 those who first applied the principles and methods of the Higher Criticism to 
 Isaiah. The earliest hint of any new discovery is commonly ascribed to 
 Koppe, who in a note upon his German edition of Bishop Lowth's work 
 suggests that the fiftieth chapter may have been written by Ezekiel or 
 some other Jew in exile. A similar opinion was expressed about the same 
 time by Doderlein and Eichhorn with respect to the entire latter part of 
 Isaiah. The same hypothesis was then cariied out in detail by Justi, and 
 adopted by Bauer, Paulus, Bertholdt, and Augusti ; so that not long after 
 the beginning of this century, it was established as the current doctrine of 
 the German schools. 
 
 This revolution of opinion, though ostensibly the pure result of critical 
 analysis, was closely connected with the growing unbelief in inspiration, 
 and the consequent necessity of explaining away whatever appeared either 
 to demonstrate or involve it. It must also be noted, as a circumstance of 
 great importance in the history of this controversy, that the young theolo- 
 gians of Germany for fifty years were almost as uniformly taught and as 
 constantly accustomed to assume the certainty of this first principle, as 
 their fathers had been to assume the contrary. This fact will enable us to 
 estimate at something like their real value the pretensions to superior 
 candour and impartiality advanced by the neological interpreters, and more 
 especially by some of recent date, who are in truth as strongly biassed by 
 the prejudice of education as their immediate predecessors by the love of 
 novelty and passion for discovery. 
 
 The defenders of the unity of this part of Isaiah were in process of time 
 relieved from much of the Irksome task which they had undertaken by the 
 concessions of the adverse party, that the Higher Criticism had been pushed 
 too far, and made to prove too much ; in consequence of which a retroces- 
 
INTRODUCTION. xvii 
 
 sion became necessary, and in fact took place under the guidance of new 
 leaders, not without an earnest opposition on the part of the oric^inal 
 discoverers. 
 
 This retreat was effected with great skill and conduct, but with no small 
 sacrifice of logical consistency, by Gesenius in the Introduction to his second 
 volume. Without any appeal to general principles or any attempt to dis- 
 tinguish clearly between what he abandons as " extreme " and what he 
 adopts as rational conclusions, he proceeds, by his favourite method of accu- 
 mulation and arrangement of particulars, to prove that these twenty-seven 
 chapters are the work of the same author, and that in the main they are still 
 in the same order as at first, the only material exception being a surmise that 
 the last chapters may possibly be older than the first ; which seems to have 
 been prompted by a natural reluctance to acknowledge that an ancient com- 
 position could remain so long unchanged, not without a misgiving with 
 respect to the influence which this concession might exert hereafter on the 
 criticism of the earlier chapters. 
 
 Although Gesenius's argument in favour of the unity of these predictions 
 is entirely successful, a large proportion of his detailed proofs are quite 
 superfluous. It is an error of this German school, and of its imitators 
 elsewhere, that identity of authorship must be established by minute resem- 
 blances of diction, phraseology, and syntax, which are therefore raked 
 together and displayed with a profusion far more confounding than 
 convincing to the reader. To the great mass of cultivated minds, conviction 
 in such cases is produced by data not susceptible of exhibition in the form 
 of schedules, catalogues, or tables, but resulting from a general impression 
 of continuity and oneness, which might be just as strong if not a single 
 phrase or combination occurred more than once, and the want of which 
 could never be supplied by any number or servility of verbal repetitions. 
 It is thus that the modern imitators of the classics may be almost infallibly 
 detected, though their diction be but a cento of quotations from their 
 favourite author, renewed and multiplied usgue ad nauseam; while the 
 original is known wherever he appears, however innocent of copyino^ 
 himself. 
 
 This error of the higher or lower criticism, even when enlisted on the 
 right side of a question, it is important to expose ; because many of its boasted 
 triumphs in behalf of error have been gained by the very petitesse of its 
 expedients. The readers of Isaiah, in particular, have often been bewil- 
 dered and unfairly prepossessed against the truth, by the interminable cata- 
 logues of Hebrew words and phrases which are crovv^ded into prefaces and 
 introductions as preliminary proofs of a position that can only be established, 
 if at all, by the cumulative weight of a detailed interpretation; the effect 
 of which is often to expose the absolute futility of arguments, considered 
 
 B 
 
will 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 one by one and in ihcir proi)cr place, which seem to gain reality and force by 
 insulation from the context, and by being thrown together in crude masses, 
 or forced into unnatural protrusion by the forms of a systematic catalogue. 
 The minute details which constitute this portion of Gesenius's argument 
 at^ainst the fragmentary theory, must be sought in his own work, or in those 
 which have transcribed it. jNIuch more important and conclusive is that 
 part of his argument derived from the unquestionable fact, that certain 
 threads may be traced running through the entire texture of these Later 
 Prophecies, sometimes dropj)ed but never broken, crossing each other, and 
 at times appearing to be hopelessly entangled, but all distinguished, and yet 
 all united in the dinouemcnt. The perpetual recurrence and succession of 
 these topics is correctly represented by Gesenius as the strongest proof of 
 unity. In opposition to Augusti, who alleges that some topics are more 
 prominent at first than afterwards, and vice versa, Gesenius replies that 
 pro<Tress and variety arc perfectly consistent with the strictest unity ; that 
 the author's ideal situation is the same throughout ; and that all the topics 
 which become more prominent as he proceeds, had at least been lightly 
 touched before, to which he adds another list of verbal parallels between 
 the parts described as most dissimilar. (See Gesen. Comm. vol. II. p. 15.) 
 This reasoning is worthy of particular attention, on account of its 
 remarkable affinity with that by which the defenders of the old opinions 
 have maintained the genuineness of disputed places in the Earlier Prophe- 
 cies, against objections of Gesenius himself, precisely analogous to those of 
 Augusti which he here refutes. It w^ould greatly contribute to the correct 
 decision of these questions, among men who are accustomed to the weighing 
 of evidence on other subjects, if their attention could be drawn to the 
 facility with which the same degree and kind of proof are admitted or 
 excluded by the Higher Critics, according to the end at which they happen 
 to be aiming. Perhaps one of our most valuable safeguards against German 
 innovations is afforded by our civil institutions, and the lifelong Aimiliarity 
 of our people, either through the press or by personal participation, with the 
 public administration of justice and the practical discrimination between 
 trull) and falsehood, — an advantage which can never be replaced by any 
 method or amount of mental cultivation. 
 
 If then these twenty-seven chapters are confessedly the work of one 
 man and indeed a continuous discourse on one great subject, and if a 
 perfectly uniform tradition has attached them to the writings of Isaiah, it 
 remains to be considered whether we have any reason to deny or even to 
 dispute the fact so solemnly attested. All the presumptions are in favour 
 of its truth. For two thousand years, at least, the book was universally 
 regarded as Isaiah's, and no other name has ever been connected with it 
 even by mistake or accident. It is just such a book as the necessities of 
 
INTRODUCTION. xix 
 
 that age might have been expected to call forth. Its genuineness, therefore, 
 as a writing of Isaiah, is not a fact requiring demonstration by detailed and 
 special proof, but one attested both by its external history and its internal 
 structure, unless positive reasons can be given for rejecting a conclusion 
 which appears not only obvious but unavoidable. 
 
 Among the objections to Isaiah as the author of these later chapters, 
 there are two upon which the whole weight of the argument depends, and 
 to which all otliers may be reckoned supplementary. The first of these 
 has reference to the matter of the prophecies, the second to their form. 
 The latter is entirely posterior in date, and has been growing more and 
 more prominent as the necessity of something to sustain the first and main 
 objection has been forced upon its advocates by the resistance which it has 
 encountered. This chronological relation of the two main objections is 
 here stated not only as a curious fact of literary history, but also as directly 
 bearing on the issue of the whole dispute, for reasons which will be 
 explained below. 
 
 The first and main objection to the doctrine that Isaiah wrote these 
 chapters, although variously stated by the writers who have urged it, 
 is in substance this: that the Prophet every where alludes to the circum- 
 stances and events of the Babylonish Exile as those by which he was him- 
 self surrounded and with which he was familiar, from which his conceptions 
 and his images are borrowed, out of which he looks both at the future and 
 the past, and in the midst of which he must as a necessary consequence 
 have lived and written. 
 
 This objection involves two assumptions, both which must be true, or 
 it is wholly without force. One of these, viz. that the Babylonish exile 
 is the subject of the whole book, has already been disproved ; and there 
 is strictly, therefore, no need of considering the other. But in order 
 that the whole strength of our cause may be disclosed, it will be best to 
 show that even if the supposition just recited were correct, the other, which 
 is equally essential to the truth of the conclusion, is entirely unfounded. 
 This is the asumption that the local and historical allusions of a prophet 
 must be always those of his own times. 
 
 Some of the later German writers try to rest this upon general grounds, 
 by alleging that such is the invariable practice of the Hebrew Prophets. 
 But as the book in question, i. e. the latter portion of Isaiah, is admitted by 
 these very critics to deserve the highest rank among prophetic writings, and 
 to have exercised a more extensive influence on later writers and opinions 
 than any other, it is unreasonable to appeal to a usage of which the book 
 itself may be considered as a normal standard. It is in fact a begging of 
 the question to deny that such was the prophetic usage, when that denial 
 really involves an allegation that it is not so in the case before us. 
 
^x INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Another answer to this argument from usage may be drawn from the 
 analogy of other kinds of composition, in which all grant that a writer may 
 assume a " Standpunkt " different from his own, and personate those earlier 
 and later than himself. The classical historians do this when they put 
 their own words into the mouths of ancient heroes and statesmen ; the 
 dramatic poets when they carry out this personation in detail ; and still 
 more imaginalivc writers, when they throw themselves into the future, and 
 surround themselves by circumstances not yet in existence. If it be natural 
 for poets thus to speak of an ideal future, why may not prophets of a real 
 one? The only answer is, because they cannot knoiv it; and to this point 
 all the tortuous evasions of the more reserved neologists as surely tend as 
 the positive averments of their bolder brethren. In every form, this argu- 
 ment af^ainst the genuineness of the book before us is at bottom a denial of 
 prophetic inspiration as Impossible. For if the Prophet could foresee the 
 future, his allusions only prove that he did foresee it; and the positive 
 assertion that the prophets never do so, unless it be founded upon this 
 hypothesis, is just as foolish as it would be to assert that historians and 
 poets never do the like. Unless we are prepared to go the same length, 
 we cannot consistently reject these, prophecies as spurious, on the ground 
 that they allude to events long posterior to the writer's times, even if these 
 allusions were as numerous and explicit as we have seen them to be few 
 when clear, and in all other cases vague and doubtful. 
 
 It has indeed been said, in confirmation of this main objection, that a 
 real foresight would extend to more remote as w^ell as proximate events, 
 whereas in this case what relates to the period of the Exile is minutely 
 accurate, while all beyond is either blank or totally erroneous; in proof of 
 which we are referred to the extravagant descriptions of the times which 
 should succeed the Restoration. 
 
 Both parts of this reasoning rest upon a false assumption as to the space 
 which is occupied in this book by the Babylonish Exile. If, as we have 
 seen or shall see, the alleged minute descriptions of that period are imaginary, 
 and if the alleged extravagant descriptions of its close relate to events alto- 
 gether different, then this auxiliary argument must share the fate of that 
 which it is brought in to sustain. To this same category appertains the special 
 objection founded on the mention of Cyrus by name. That it may readily 
 be solved by an application of the same principle, will be shown in the 
 exposition of the passage where the prophecy occurs. (See below, p. 
 116 seq.) 
 
 Another erroneous supposition, which has tended to confirm this first 
 objection to the genuineness of the Later Prophecies, is that they must have 
 been intended solely for the contemporaries of the writer. This hypothesis 
 is closely connected with the denial of divine inspiration. The idea that 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 Isaiah wrote for after ages is of course a ^' nichtige Annahme'^ to an infidel. 
 The prophet's work, according to this theory, is more confined than that of 
 the orator or poet. These may be said to labour for posterity ; but his 
 views must be limited to those about him. Ewald alone of those who deny 
 a real inspiration (unless Umbreit may be likewise so described) admits a 
 far-reaching purpose in the ancient prophecies. The rest appear to be 
 agreed that nothing could be more absurd than consolation under sorrows 
 which were not to be experienced for ages. Here again may be seen the 
 working of a double error, that of making the Exile the great subject of the 
 book, and that of denying that it could have been foreseen so long before- 
 hand. Of all the evils afterwards matured, the germ, if nothing more, 
 existed in Isaiah's time. And even if it did not, their appearance at a later 
 date might well have been predicted. If the book, as we have reason to 
 believe, was intended to secure a succession of the highest ends, — the 
 warning tnd instruction of the Prophet's own contemporaries, the encour- 
 agement and consolation of the pious exiles, the reproof and conviction of 
 their unbelieving brethren, the engagement of the Persians and especially 
 of Cyrus in the service of Jehovah, the vindication of God's dealings with 
 the Jews both in wrath and mercy, and a due preparation of the minds of 
 true believers for the advent of Messiah, — then such objections as the one 
 last cited must be either unmeaning and impertinent, or simply equivalent 
 to a denial of prophetic inspiration. 
 
 To the same head may be referred those objections which have been 
 derived from the alleged appearance of opinions in these chapters which are 
 known to have arisen at a later period. Besides the palpable jpetitio 
 principii involved in such an argument, so far as it assumes that to be late 
 which these prophecies if genuine demonstrate to be ancient, there is here 
 again a confident assumption of a fact as certain which at best is doubtful, 
 and in my opinion utterly unfounded, namely, that the strict observance of 
 the Sabbath and a particular regard to the Levitical priesthood and the 
 sanctuary, all belong to a species of Judaism later than the times of the 
 genuine Isaiah. It is by thus assuming their own paradoxical conclusions 
 as unquestionable facts, that the Higher Critics of the German school have 
 been enabled to construct some of their most successful arguments. 
 
 All that need be added in relation to the arguments against the genuine- 
 ness of these chapters drawn from their matter or contents, is the general 
 observation that their soundness may be brought to the test by inquiring 
 whether they do not either take for granted something as belonging to the 
 prophecy which is not found there by a simple and natural interpretation, 
 or proceed upon some general false principle, such as the denial of prophetic 
 inspiration as impossible. If either of these flaws is fatal to the argument 
 affected by it, how much more must it be vitiated by the co-existence of the 
 
xxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 two, which is the case in many minor arguments of this class, and empha- 
 tically true of that main argument to which they are auxiliary, namely, that 
 Isaiah cannot be the writer of these chapters on account of their minute 
 and constant reference to the Babylonian Exile. The alleged fact and the 
 inference are equally unfounded. 
 
 The other main objection to the genuineness of these prophecies is 
 founded not upon their matter but their manner, or in other w^ords, their 
 diction, phraseology, and style, which are said to be entirely unlike those of 
 Isaiah. The minute specifications of this argument, so far as they can lay 
 claim even to a passing notice, are reserved for the exposition of the 
 passages from which they are derived, and where they may be calmly 
 viewed in their original connexion, and without the artificial glare produced 
 by an immense accumulation of detached examples, which may blind the 
 reader by their number and variety, without affording him the means of 
 judging for himself how many may at best be dubious, how many incon- 
 clusive, and how many more entirely irrelevant. For the same reason no 
 reliance will be placed upon a similar display of minute resemblances 
 between these later chapters and the undisputed writings of Isaiah, although 
 such are furnished in abundance by Kleinert, Havernick, and others. On 
 the value of such proofs and the soundness of the inferences drawn from 
 them, a reference may be made to the General Introduction (Earlier 
 Prophecies, pp. xxix-xxxl). At the same time it cannot be denied that the 
 counter-proofs collected by these writers are of great importance, as esta- 
 blishing the fact of their existence upon both sides of the controversy, and 
 as serving, if no higher purpose, that of cancelling such proofs when urged 
 against the genuineness of the prophecies by writers w4io to all alleged resem- 
 blances reply that " such trifles can prove nothing," or that the style has 
 been assimilated by a later hand. For this reason some of the most striking 
 coincidences of expression will be noticed in the exposition, as well as the 
 discrepancies which have been alleged in proof of later origin. 
 
 It has been already mentioned that this argument from difference of 
 language is much later in its origin than that derived from the historical 
 allusions. This is a significant and important circumstance. Had the 
 Higher Criticism set out from some palpable diversity of diction as a starting 
 point, and, after vainly trying to identify the writers upon this ground, been 
 compelled to own a corresponding difference of matter and substantial indi- 
 cations of a later age than that of Isaiah, the critical process, although still 
 inconclusive, would at least have been specious, and the difficulty of defence 
 proportionally greater. But what is the true state of the case ? Eichhorn 
 and Bertholdt, though disposed to assume not only a later date but a 
 plurality of authors, could find nothing to sustain this assumption in the 
 language of the book itself. Augusti, who occupied the same ground, went 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxiii 
 
 so far as to account for the traditional incorporation of these chapters with 
 Isaiah from their perfect imitation of his style and manner. Rosenmiiller 
 dwells altogether on the first objection drawn from the allusions to the 
 Babylonish Exile. Even Gesenius admits that the peculiarities of this class 
 are less numerous than might have been expected, but succeeds in specifying 
 some which had been overlooked. From that time the discovery (for such 
 it may well be termed) of these philological diversities has been in constant 
 and accelerated progress. Even Maurer, who is commonly so sparing of 
 details, adds to the black list several particulars. Hitzig enlarges it still 
 further, but unluckily admits that some of the expressions which he notes 
 are not to be found either in the earlier or later books. Ewald as usual 
 supplies the want of detailed proofs by authoritative affirmations. Umbreit 
 considers the work done already, and declines attempting to refute Heng 
 stenberg and Kleinerf as a work of supererogation. But this forbearance is 
 abundantly made good by the zeal of Hendewerk and Knobel, who have 
 carried their citation of neologisms so far, that little now seems left for 
 their successors but to gather the remainder of the book by way of glean- 
 ings. 
 
 But although the general course of this peculiar criticism has been 
 onward, there have not been wanting certain retrograde movements and 
 obliquities to break the uniformity of progress. Every one of the later 
 writers above mentioned rejects some of the examples cited by his prede- 
 cessors as irrelevant, and not seldom with expressions of contempt. But 
 still the aggregate has grown, and by a further application of the same 
 means may continue growing, until the materials are exhausted, or the 
 Higher Criticism chooses to recede from this extreme, as it receded five and 
 twenty years ago from that of Eichhorn and Augusti, who would no doubt 
 have looked down upon the notion that these twenty-seven chapters were 
 the work of the same hand, with almost as much contempt as on the old 
 belief that this hand was Isaiah's. It is indeed not a matter of conjecture 
 but of history, that Eichhorn in the last edition of his Introduction finds fault 
 with Gesenius for having abandoned the plurality of authors, and evidently 
 pities him as one who from excess of light had gone back into darkness. 
 By a similar reaction we might look for some concession in favour even of 
 Isaiah as the writer ; but although such an expectation need not be discou- 
 raged by the fear of any scrupulous regard to logic or consistency among 
 the Higher Critics, it is rendered hopeless for the present by the obvious 
 necessity which it involves of abandoning their fundamental principle, the 
 impossibility of inspiration or prophetic foresight. For to this, as the original, 
 the chief, and I had almost said the only ground of the rejection of these 
 chapters, we are still brought back fi'om every survey of the arguments by 
 which it is defended. The obvious deduction from the sketch which has 
 
xxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 been given of the progress of discovery in this department is, that the 
 philological objection would have slept for ever, had it not become absolutely 
 necessary to secure the rejection of a book, which, if genuine, carried on its 
 face the clearest proofs of inspiration. 
 
 Be it remembered, then, that the rejection of these chapters was not 
 forced upon the critics by a palpable diversity of style and diction, but that 
 such diversities were hunted up, laboriously and gradually brought to light, 
 in order to justify the previous rejection. By parity of reasoning it may be 
 foreseen that whoever cannot be convinced of the reality of inspiration, will 
 consider these detailed proofs of later date conclusive ; while the reader who 
 knows better, or at least has no misgivings upon that point, will as certainly 
 pronounce them " trifles light as air." If we gain nothing more by this 
 investigation, it is at least satisfactory to know that all depends upon a fore- 
 gone conclusion, and that as to faith in such things no less than in higher 
 matters, he that hath receiveth, and from him that hath not shall be taken 
 even that which he hath. 
 
 The objection drawn from other more indefinite diversities of tone and 
 manner, such as a more flowing style and frequent repetitions, is so far from 
 having any force, that the absence of these differences would in the circum- 
 stances of the case be well adapted to excite suspicion. In other words, 
 Isaiah writing at a later period of life, and when withdrawn from active 
 labour, with his view directed not to the present or a proximate futurity, 
 but one more distant, and composing not a series of detached discourses, 
 but a continuous unbroken prophecy, not only may but must have difTered 
 from his former self as much as tliese two parts of the collection differ from 
 each other. This antecedent probability is strengthened by the fact that 
 similar causes have produced a still greater difference in some of the most 
 celebrated writers ancient and modern, who exhibit vastly more unlikeness 
 to themselves in different parts of their acknowledged writings than the most 
 microscopic criticism has been able to detect between the tone or manner 
 of Isaiah's Earlier and Later Prophecies. 
 
 The only other objections to the genuineness of these chapters which 
 appear to deserve notice are those derived from the silence or the testimony 
 of the other books. That these are not likely to do more than confirm the 
 conclusions previously reached on one side or the other, may be gathered 
 from the fact that they are urged with equal confidence on both sides of the 
 (pjcstion. Thus Gesenius argues that if these later chapters had been known 
 to .Jeremiah, ho would have appealed to them in self-vindication, as he did 
 to Micah. On the other hand, Hengstenberg alleges that by parity of reason- 
 ing, Micah 4 : 10 could not have been extant, or the enemies of Jeremiah 
 would have quoted it against him. At the same time, he maintains that 
 there are obvious traces of these chapters in the writings of tiiat prophet. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxv 
 
 The truth is, that the advocates on both sides first determine which is the 
 older writer, and then explain the appearances of quotation or allusion 
 accordingly. The same is true of similar appearances in Nahum, Zephaniah, 
 and Habakkuk ; which Hitzig cites as proofs of imitation on the part of the 
 Pseudo-isaiah, while Havernick claims them all as proofs of his priority. It 
 is a very important observation of the last mentioned writer, that the influ- 
 ence of Isaiah on these later prophets is not to be estimated by detached 
 expressions, but by more pervading indications, which he thinks are clearly 
 perceptible throughout the writings both of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 
 
 As samples of the arguments in favour of their genuineness drawn from 
 the same quarter, may be cited Zech. 7 : 4—12, where " the former pro- 
 phets,'' who cried in the name of Jehovah to the people " when Jerusalem 
 was inhabited and in prosperity," must include the writer of these chapters. 
 In reference to. all these minor arguments, however, it will be felt by every 
 reader that they have no practical effect, except to corroborate the main 
 ones which have been discussed, and with which they must stand or fall. 
 
 Enough has now been said to show that there is no sufficient reason for 
 rejecting the traditional ascription of these chapters to Isaiah. Let us now 
 turn the tables, and inquire what objections lie against the contrary hypo- 
 thesis. These objections may be all reduced to this, that the oblivion of 
 the author's name and history is more inexplicable, not to say incredible, 
 than any thing about the other doctrine can be to a believer in prophetic 
 inspiration. This is a difficulty which no ingenuity has ever yet been able 
 to surmount. That a writer confessedly of the highest genius, living at one 
 of the most critical junctures in the history of Israel, when the word of God 
 began to be precious and prophetic inspiration rare, should have produced 
 such a series of prophecies as this, with such effects upon the exiles and 
 even upon Cyrus as tradition ascribes to them, and then have left them to 
 the admiration of all future ages, without so much as a trace of his own per- 
 sonality about them, is a phenomenon of literary history compared with 
 which the mystery of Junius is as nothing. It would be so even if we had 
 no remains of the same period to compare with these ; but how immensely 
 is the improbability enhanced by the fact that the other prophets of the 
 exile, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, are not only well known and 
 easily identified, but minutely accurate in the chronological specifications 
 of their prophecies, a feature absolutely wanting in these chapters, though 
 alleged to be the work of a contemporary writer. It is in vain to say, with 
 Ewald, that the suppression of the author's name and the oblivion of his 
 person may be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances of the times, 
 when the other writings of those times still extant not only fail to prove 
 what is alleged, but prove the very opposite. 
 
 Even this, however, though sufficiently incredible, is still not all we are 
 
XX vi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 required (o believe ; for we must also grant that these anonymous though 
 admirable writings were attached to those of a prophet who flourished in 
 the preceding century, and with whose productions they are said to have 
 scarcely any thing in common, and that this mysterious combination took 
 place so early as to lie beyond the oldest tradition of the Hebrew Canon, 
 and was so blindly acquiesced in from the first that not the faintest intima- 
 tion of another author or another origin was ever heard of for two thousand 
 years, when the Higher Criticism first discovered that the prophecies in 
 question were the work of many authors, and then (no less infallibly) that 
 tliey were really the work of only one, but (still infallibly) that this one 
 could not be Isaiah ! 
 
 It is in vain that the Germans have endeavoured to evade this fatal 
 obstacle by childish suppositions about big rolls and little rolls, or by citing 
 cases of concealment or oblivion wholly dissimilar and far less wonderful, or 
 by negligently saying that we are not bound to account for the fact, provided 
 we can prove it ; as if the proof were not dependent in a great degree upon 
 the possibility of accounting for it, or as if the only business of the Higher 
 Critics were to tie knots which neither we nor they can untie. The ques- 
 tion here at issue only needs to be presented to the common sense of man- 
 kind, and especially of those who are accustomed to weigh evidence in real 
 life, to be immediately disposed of by the prompt decision that the modern 
 hypothesis is utterly incredible, and that nothing could make it appear 
 otherwise to any man acquainted with the subject, but an irresistible desire 
 to destroy a signal proof and instance of prophetic inspiration. 
 
 To this intrinsic want of credibility now add, as positive considerations, 
 the ancient and uniform tradition of the Jews ; the testimony of the general 
 title, which must be regarded as inclusive of these chapters, in the absence 
 of all countervailing evidence ; the influence exerted by these prophecies, 
 according to Josephus, on Cyrus and the Restoration, implying their antiquity 
 and previous notoriety ; the recognition of the whole book as Isaiah's by 
 the Son of Sirach (48 : 22-25) ; and the indiscriminate citation of its differ- 
 ent parts in the New Testament. 
 
 Again, to these external testimonies may be added, as internal proofs, 
 the writer's constant representation of himself as living before some of the 
 events which he describes, and as knowing them by inspiration ; his repeated 
 claim to have predicted Cyrus and the Restoration, long before the first 
 appearances of those events ; the obvious allusions to Jerusalem and Judah 
 as the writer's home, to the temple and the ritual as still subsisting, and to 
 idolatry as practised by the people, which the Higher Critics can evade 
 only by asserting that the Jews did not cease to be idolaters in Babylon ; 
 the historical allusions to the state of the world with which the writer was 
 familiar, precisely similar to those in the genuine Isaiah ; the very structure 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxvii 
 
 of the prophecies relating to the exile, clear enough to be distinctly verified, 
 and yet not so minute as a contemporary writer must have made them ; 
 and lastly, the identity of Messiah here described with the Messiah of the 
 undisputed prophecies. 
 
 It is perhaps impossible for any writer on this subject to do full justice 
 to the adverse arguments, especially to those of a minor and auxiliary cha- 
 racter. This is the less to be regretted, because every fresh discussion of 
 the subject makes it more and more apparent that the question really at 
 issue is not whether either party has established its position by direct proofs, 
 but whether it has furnished the other with sufficient reasons for abandoning 
 its own. If the Higher Critics can find nothing in the arguments alleged 
 against them to make inspiration and prophetic foresight credible, they have 
 certainly done still less to drive us from our position, that Isaiah's having 
 written this book is unspeakably more probable than any other supposition. 
 
 Having now traced the history of the criticism of these prophecies, it may 
 not be amiss to look at that of their interpretation, not through the medium 
 of minute chronological or bibliographical details, but by exhibiting the 
 several theories or schools of exegesis which, at different times or at the 
 same time, have exerted an important influence on the interpretation of 
 these chapters. 
 
 The first of these proceeds upon the supposition that these Later Pro- 
 phecies have reference throughout to the New Dispensation and the Chris- 
 tian Church, including its whole history, with more or less distinctness, from 
 the advent of Christ to the end of the world. This is a favourite doctrine 
 of the Fathers who have written on Isaiah, to wit, Cyril, Eusebius, Jerome, 
 and of some modern writers, among whom the most distinguished is Coc- 
 ceius. The difference between those who maintam it respects chiefly the 
 degree of fulness and consistency with which they carry out their general 
 idea, some admitting much more frequently than others the occasional 
 occurrence of predictions which were verified before the Advent. 
 
 This system of prophetic exegesis is founded, to a great extent, on the 
 assumption that the Book of Revelation was designed to be a key to the 
 meaning of the ancient prophecies, and not a series of new predictions, often 
 more enigmatical than any of the others. Because Babylon is there named 
 as a power still existing and still threatened with destruction, it was inferred 
 that the name must be symbolical in Isaiah likewise, or at least that it 
 might be so explained at the interpreter's discretion. This opened an 
 illimitable field of conjecture and invention, each interpreter pursuing his own 
 method of determining the corresponding facts in Church History, without 
 any settled rule to guide or to control him. 
 
 The extravagant conclusions often reached in this way, and the general 
 uncertainty imparted to the whole work of interpretation, together with the 
 
xxvili INTRODUCTION. 
 
 seeming incoiTCCtnessof ilio principle assumed in regard to the Apocalypse, led 
 many, and particularly those in whom the understanding strongly predominated 
 over the imagination, to reject this theory in favour of its opposite, viz. that 
 the main subject of these chapters must be sought as far as possible before 
 the Advent, and as a necessary consequence either in the period of the 
 Babylonian Exile, or in that of the Syrian domination, with the periods of 
 reaction which succeeded them respectively, since it was only these that 
 furnished events of sufficient magnitude to be the subject of such grand 
 predictions. 
 
 It is evident at once that both these theories involve some truth, and 
 that their application must evolve the true sense of some passages. The 
 fatal vice of both is their exclusiveness. The unbiassed reader of Isaiah 
 can no more be persuaded that he never speaks of the New Dispensation 
 than that he never speaks of the Old. After both systems had been pushed 
 to an extreme, it was found necessary to devise some method of conciliating 
 and combining them. 
 
 The first and rudest means employed for this end, even by some of the 
 most strenuous adherents of the two extreme hypotheses, when forced at 
 times to grant themselves a dispensation from the rigorous enforcement of 
 their own rule, was to assume arbitrarily a change of subject when it 
 appeared necessary, and to make the Prophet skip from Babylon to Rome, 
 and from the Maccabees to Doomsday, as they found convenient. This 
 arbitrary mixture of the theories is often perpetrated by Cocceius, and occa- 
 sionally even by Vitringa ; neither of whom seems to think it necessary to 
 subject the application of the prophecies to any general principle, or to 
 account for it in any other way than by alleging that it suits the text and 
 context. 
 
 A more artificial method of combining both hypotheses is that of 
 Grotius, whose interpretation of these prophecies appears to be governed by 
 two maxims : first, that they all relate to subjects and events before the 
 time of Christ ; and secondly, that these are often types of something after- 
 wards developed. What renders this kind of interpretation unsatisfactory, 
 is the feeling which it seldom fails to generate, that the text is made to mean 
 too much, or rather too many things ; that if one of the senses really belongs 
 to it, the other is superfluous; but above all, that the nexus of the two is 
 insufficient ; that although a gradual or even a repeated execution of a 
 promise or a threatening is conceivable, it seems unreasonable that the inter- 
 preter should have the discretionary right of saying that the same passage 
 means one thing in ancient times and an altogether different thing in modern 
 times — that the same words, for example, are directly descriptive of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes and Antichrist, of Judas Maccabaeus and Gustavus 
 Adolphus. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxix 
 
 A third mode of reconciling these two theories of interpretation is the 
 one pursued by Lowth, and still more successfully by Hengstenberg. It rests 
 upon the supposition that the nearer and the more remote realization of the 
 same prophetic picture might be presented to the Prophet simultaneously or 
 in immediate succession ; so that, for example, the deliverance from Babylon 
 by Cyrus insensibly merges into a greater deliverance from sin and ruin by 
 Christ. The principle assumed in this ingenious doctrine is as just as it is 
 beautiful, and of the highest practical importance in interpretation. The 
 only objection to its general application in the case before us is, that it 
 concedes the constant reference to Babylon throughout this book, and only 
 seeks to reconcile this fundamental fact with the wider application of the 
 Prophecies. 
 
 It still remains to be considered, (herefore, whether any general hypo- 
 thesis or scheme can be constructed, which, without giving undue promi- 
 nence to any of the topics introduced, without restricting general expressions 
 to specific objects, without assuming harsh transitions, needless double senses, 
 or imaginary typical relations, shall do justice to the unity and homoge- 
 neousness of the composition, and satisfactorily reconcile the largeness and 
 variety of its design with the particular allusions and predictions which can 
 only be eliminated from it by a forced and artificial exegesis. 
 
 Such a hypothesis is that propounded at the beginning of this Intro- 
 duction, and assumed as the basis of the following Exposition. It supposes 
 the main subject of these Prophecies, or rather of this Prophecy, to be the 
 Church or people of God, considered in its members and its head, in its 
 design, its origin, its progress, its vicissitudes, its consummation, in its 
 various relations to God and to the world, both as a field of battle and a 
 field of labour, an enemy's country to be conquered and an inheritance to 
 be secured. 
 
 Within the limits of this general description it is easy to distinguish, as 
 alternate objects of prophetic vision, the two great phases of the Church on 
 earth, its state of bondage and its state of freedom, its ceremonial and its 
 spiritual aspect — in a word, what we usually call the Old and New Economy 
 or Dispensation. Both are continually set before us, but with this observ- 
 able distinction in the mode of presentation, that the first great period is 
 described by individual specific strokes, the second by its outlines as a defi- 
 nite yet undivided whole. To the great turning-point between the two 
 dispensations the prophetic view appears to reach with clear discrimination 
 of the intervening objects, but beyond that to take all in at a sinHe o-lance. 
 Within the boundaries first mentioned the eye passes with a varied uniformity 
 from one salient point to another; but beyond them it contemplates the end 
 and the beginning, not as distinct pictures, but as necessary elements of 
 one. This difference might naturally be expected in a Prophecy belonging 
 
XXX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 10 the Okl Dispensation, while in one belonging to the New we should as 
 naturally look for the same definiteness and minuteness as the older prophets 
 used in ilirir descriptions of the older times ; and this condition is completely 
 answered by the Book of Revelation. 
 
 If this be so, it throws a new light on the more specific Prophecies of 
 this part of Isaiah (such as those relating to the Babylonish Exile) ; which 
 are then to be regarded, not as the main subject of the Prophecy, but only 
 as prominent figures in the great prophetic picture, some of which were to 
 the Prophet's eye already past, and some still future. In this respect the 
 Prophecy is perfectly in keeping with the History of Israel, in which the 
 Exile and the Restoration stand conspicuously forth as one of the great 
 critical conjunctures which at distant intervals prepared the way for the 
 removal of the ancient system, and }^t secured its continued operation till 
 the time of that removal should arrive. How far the same thing may be said 
 of other periods which occupy a like place in the history of the Jews, such 
 as the period of the Maccabees or Hasmonean Princes, is a question rendered 
 doubtful by the silence of the Prophecy itself, and by the absence of any 
 indications which are absolutely unambiguous. The specific reference of 
 certain passages to this important epoch both by Grotius and Vitringa, has 
 no antecedent probability against it ; but we cannot with the same unhesi- 
 tating confidence assert such an allusion as we can in the case of Babylon 
 and Cyrus, which are mentioned so expressly and repeatedly. It may be 
 that historical discovery, the march of which has been so rapid in our own 
 day, will enable us, or those who shall come after us, to set this question 
 finally at rest. In the meantime it is safest to content ourselves with care- 
 fully distinguishing between the old and new economy as represented on 
 the Prophet's canvass, without attempting to determine by conjecture what 
 particular events are predicted even in the former, any further than we 
 have the certain guidance of the Prophecy itself. 
 
 As to a similar attempt in reference to the New Dispensation, it is 
 wholly inconsistent with the view which we have taken of the structure of 
 these Prophecies, and which regards them not as particular descriptions of 
 this or that event in later times, but as a general description of the Church 
 in its emancipated state, or of the Reign of tlie Messiah, not at one time or 
 another, but throughout its whole course, so that the faint light of the dawn 
 is blended with the glow of sunset and the blaze of noon. The form under 
 which the Reign of Christ is here presented to and by the Prophet is that 
 of a glorious emancipation from the bondage and the darkness of the old 
 economy, in representing which he naturally dwells with more minuteness 
 upon that part of the picture which is nearest to himself, while the rest is 
 bathed in a flood of ligiit ; to penetrate beyond which, or to discriminate 
 the objects hid beneath its dazzling veil, formed no part of this Prophet's 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxi 
 
 mission, but was reserved for ihe prophetic revelations of tlie New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 It is not however merely to the contrast of the tv/o dispensations that 
 the Prophet's eye is here directed. It would indeed have been impossible 
 to bring this contrast clearly into view without a prominent exhibition of the 
 great event by which the transition was effected, and of the great person 
 who effected it. That person is the Servant of Jehovah, elsewhere spoken 
 of as his Anointed or Messiah, and both here and elsewhere represented as 
 combining the prophetic, regal, and sacerdotal characters suggested by that 
 title. The specific relation which he here sustains to the Israel of God, is 
 that of the Head to a living Body ; so that in many cases what is said of 
 him appears to be true wholly or in part of them, as forming one complex 
 person, an idea perfectly accordant with the doctrines and the images of the 
 New Testament. It appears to have been first clearly stated in the dictum 
 of an ancient writer quoted by Augustin : " De Christo et Corpore ejus 
 Ecclesia tanquam de una persona in Scriptura saepius mentionem fieri, cui 
 quaedam tribuuntur quae tantum in Caput, quaedam quae tantum in Corpus 
 competunt, quaedam vero in utrumque," There is nothing in these Pro- 
 phecies more striking or peculiar than the sublime position occupied by 
 this colossal figure, standing between the Church of the Old and that of the 
 New Testament, as a mediator, an interpreter, a bond of union, and a com- 
 mon head. 
 
 If this be a correct view of the structure of these prophecies, nothing 
 can be more erroneous or unfriendly to correct interpretation, than the 
 idea, which appears to form the basis of some expositions, that the primary 
 object in the Prophet's view is Israel as a race or nation, and that its 
 spiritual or ecclesiastical relations are entirely adventitious and subordi- 
 nate. The natural result of this erroneous supposition is a constant dis- 
 position to give every thing a national and local sense. This is especially 
 the case with respect to the names so frequently occurring, Zion, Jeru- 
 salem, and Judah ; all which, according to this view of the matter, must 
 be understood, v/herever it is possible, as meaning nothing more than the 
 liill, the city, and the land, which they originally designate. This error 
 has even been pushed by some to the irrational extreme of making Israel 
 as a race the object of the promises, after their entire separation from the 
 church and their reduction for the time being to the same position with the 
 sons of Ishmael and of Esau. That this view should be taken by the 
 modern Jews, in vindication of their own continued unbelief, is not so strange 
 as its adoption by some Christian writers, even in direct opposition to their 
 own interpretation of former prophecies, almost identical in form and sub- 
 stance. The, specifications of this general charge will be fully given in the 
 exposition. 
 
xxxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The claim of this mode of interpretation to the praise of strictness and 
 exactness is a false one, if the Israel of prophecy is not the nation as such 
 merely, but the nation as the temporary frame-work of the church, and if 
 the promises addressed to it, in forms derived from this transitory state, were 
 nevertheless meant to be perpetual, and must be therefore independent of 
 all temporary local restrictions. The true sense of the prophecies in this 
 respect cannot be more strongly or explicitly set forth than in the words of 
 the Apostle, when he says that "God hath not cast away his people which 
 he foreknew ;" — " Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but 
 the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded ;" '' not as though 
 the word of God hath taken none effect, for they are not all Israel which 
 are of Israel." 
 
 One effect of the correct view of this matter is to do away with vague- 
 ness and uncertainty or random license in the explanation of particular 
 predictions. This requires to be more distinctly stated, as at first view the 
 effect may seem to be directly opposite. It was a favourite maxim with an 
 old school of interpreters, of whom Vitringa may be taken as the type and 
 representative, that the prophecies should be explained to mean as much as 
 possible, because the word of God must of course be more significant and 
 pregnant than the word of man. Without disputing the correctness of the 
 reason thus assumed, it may be granted that the rule itself is good or bad, 
 in theory and practice, according to the sense' in which it is received and 
 applied. By the interpreters in question it was practically made to mean, 
 that the dignity of prophecy required the utmost possible particularity of 
 application to specific points of history, and the greatest possible number 
 and variety of such applications. The sincerity with which the rule was 
 recognised and acted on, in this sense, is apparent from the zeal with which 
 Vitringa seeks minute historical allusions under the most general expressions, 
 and the zest with which he piles up mystical senses, as he calls them, on 
 the top of literal ones, plainly regarding the assumption of so many senses 
 not as a necessary evil, but as a desirable advantage. 
 
 The evils of this method are, however, more apparent when the senses 
 are less numerous, and the whole fulfilment of the prophecy is sought in 
 some one juncture ; because then all other applications are excluded, whereas 
 the more they arc diversified the more chance is allowed the reader of 
 discovering the true generic import of the passage. For example, when 
 Vitringa makes the Edom of these prophecies denote the Roman Empire, 
 and also the Church of Rome, and also the unbelieving Jews, he widens 
 the scope of his interpretation so far as unwittingly to put the reader on the 
 true scent of a comprehensive threatening against the inveterate enemies of 
 God and of his people, among whom those specified are only comprehended, 
 if at all, as individual examples. But when, on the other hand, he asserts 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxiii 
 
 » 
 that a particular prophecy received its whole fulfilment In the decline of 
 Protestant theology and piety after the Reformation, he not only puts a 
 meaning on the passage which no one else can see there without his assist- 
 ance, but excludes all other applications as irrelevant. In some interpreters 
 belonging to the same school, but inferior to Vitringa both in learning and 
 judgment, this mode of exposition is connected with a false view of pro- 
 phecy as mere prediction, and as intended solely to illustrate the divine 
 omniscience. 
 
 Now in aiming to make every thing specific and precise, this kind of 
 exposition renders all uncertain and indefinite, by leaving the particular 
 events foretold to. the discretion or caprice of the interpreter. Wliere the 
 event is expressly described in the prophecy itself, as the conquests of Cyrus 
 are in ch. 44 and 45, there can be no question ; it is only where a strict 
 sense is to be imposed upon indefinite expressions, that this evil fruit appears. 
 The perfect license of conjecture thus afforded may be seen by comparing 
 two interpreters of this class, and observing with what confidence the most 
 incompatible opinions are maintained, neither of which would be suggested 
 by the language of the prophecy itself to any other reader. What is thus 
 dependent upon individual invention, taste, or fancy, must be uncertain, 
 not only till it is discovered, but for ever; since the next interpreter may 
 have a still more felicitous conjecture, or a still more ingenious combination, 
 to supplant the old one. It is thus that in aiming at an unattainable preci- 
 sion these interpreters have brought upon themselves the very reproach 
 which they were most solicitous to shun, that of vagueness and uncertainty. 
 If, instead of this, we let the Prophet say precisely what his words most 
 naturally mean, expounded by the ordinary laws of human language and a 
 due regard to the immediate context and to general usage, without attempt- 
 ing to make that specific which the author has made general, any more than 
 to make general what he has made specific, we shall not only shun the 
 inconveniences described, but facilitate the use and application of these pro- 
 phecies by modern readers. Christian interpreters, as we have seen, have 
 been so unwilling to renounce their interest, and that of the Church gene- 
 rally, in these ancient promises, encouragements, and warnings, that they 
 have chosen rather to secure them by the cumbrous machinery of allegory, 
 anagoge, and accommodation. But if the same end may be gained without 
 resorting to such means, — if instead of being told to derive consolation from 
 God's [)romi5es addressed to the Maccabees or to the Jews in exile, because 
 he will be equally gracious to ourselves, we are permitted to regard a vast 
 proportion of those promises as promises to the Church, and the ancient 
 deliverances of the chosen people as mere samples or instalments of their 
 ultimate fiilfilment, — such a change in the relative position of tin; parties 
 to these covenant transactions, without any change in the matter of the 
 
 c 
 
xxxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 covenant itself, may perhaps not unreasonably be described as recom- 
 mending the method of interpretation which alone can make it possible. 
 An exegesis marked by these results is the genuine and only realization 
 of the old idea, in its best sense, that the word of God must mean as much 
 as possible. All this, however, has respect to questions which can only be 
 determined by the slow but sure lest of a thorough and detailed inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 Before proceeding to apply this test, it will be necessary to consider 
 briefly the arrangement and division of these Later Prophecies. This is not 
 a question of mere taste, or even of convenience, but one which may mate- 
 rially influence the exposition. Here again a brief historical statement may 
 be useful, and not wholly without interest. 
 
 The older writei's on Isaiah, being free from the influence of any arti- 
 ficial theory, and taking the book just as they found it, treated these chapters 
 as a continuous discourse, with little regard to the usual divisions of the text, 
 except as mere facilities for reference. 
 
 Vitringa's fondness for exact and even formal method, led him to attempt 
 a systematic distribution of these chapters, similar to that which he had 
 given of the Earlier Prophecies. He accordingly throws them into condones 
 or discourses, and divides these into sectiones, often coinciding with the 
 chapters, but sometimes either longer or shorter. These subdivisions he 
 provides with his favourite apparatus of analysis, anacrisis, elc. under which 
 heads he appropriates distinct paragraphs to the description of the scope, 
 design, occasion, argument, etc. of each section. The inappropriateness of 
 this method, cumbrous at best, to these later chapters, is betrayed by the 
 inanity of many of the prefaces, which have the look of frames or cases 
 without any thing to fill them. This is particularly true of the paragraphs 
 professing to exhibit the occasion upon which the several sections were 
 composed. Here the author not unfrequendy is under the necessity of simply 
 referring to the preceding chapter as affording the occasion of the next, — an 
 indirect concession that the separation of the parts, at least in that case, is 
 gratuitous and artificial. 
 
 J. H. and J. D. Michaelis, Lowth, Gill, and other writers of the same 
 period, while they wholly discard this embarrassing and wearisome ma- 
 chinery, and content themselves with the common division into chapters, are 
 sometimes chargeable with treating these too much as an original arrange- 
 ment of the author's matter by himself, and thus converting the whole into 
 a series of detached discourses. The same thing is still more apparent in 
 the popular and useful works of Henry, Scott, and others ; where the reader 
 is permitted, if not taught, to look upon the chapters as in some sense inde- 
 pendent compositions, and to regard the first verse of each as introducing 
 and the last as winding up a complete subject. This would be hurtful to 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxv 
 
 correct inlerpretation, even if the cliajDters were divided with the most 
 consummate skill, much more when they are sometimes the result of the 
 most superficial inspection. 
 
 The Higher Critics of the elder race, such as Eichhorn and his follow- 
 ers, carried out their idea of entire corruption and the consequent necessity 
 of total revolution, not only by assuming a plurality of writers, but by taking 
 for granted that their compositions had been put together perfectly at ran- 
 dom, and could be reduced to order only by the constant practice of invent- 
 ive ingenuity and critical conjecture. The practical effects of this hypo- 
 thesis were valuable only as exhibiting its folly and producing a reaction 
 towards more reasonable views. As a specimen of this school may be men- 
 tioned Bertholdl's distribution of the prophecies, in which certain chapters and 
 parts of chapters are picked out and classified as having been written before 
 (he invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus, others after the invasion but before the 
 siege of Babylon, others during the siege, others after the catastrophe, 
 
 Gesenins holds, in opposition to this theory, as we have seen, the one- 
 ness of the author and of his design. With respect to the actual arrangement 
 of the book, he is inclined to regard it as original, but grants it to be possi- 
 ble that some transpositions may have taken place, and more particularly 
 that the last chapters, as they now stand, may be older than the first, 
 
 Hitzig maintains the strict chronological arrangement of the chapters, 
 with the exception of the forty-seventh, which he looks upon as older, but 
 incorporated with the others by the writer himself. He also maintains, 
 with the utmost confidence, the oneness of the composition, and rejects all 
 suggestions of interpolation and corruption with disdain. This departure 
 from his method in the earlier portion of the book is closely connected with 
 his wish to bring the date of the prophecies as near as possible to that of 
 the fulfilment. For the same reason he assumes the successive composition 
 of the parts with considerable intervals between them, during which lie 
 supposes the events of the Persian war to have followed one another and 
 repeatedly changed the posture of affairs. In addition to this chronological 
 arrangement of his own, Hitzig adopts Riickeri's threefold division of the 
 book into three nearly equal parts, as indicated by the closing words of ch. 
 48 and 57. Ewald adopts the same view of the unity and gradual production 
 of these prophecies, but with a different distribution of the parts. Ch, 40-48 
 he describes as the first attempt, exhibiting the freshest inspiration ; ch. 49 
 — 60 as somewhat later, with a pause at the end of ch, 57, To these he 
 adds two postscripts or appendixes, an earlier one ending ch. 63 : 6, and a 
 later one extending to the close of the book, 
 
 Hendewerk divides the whole into two parallel series, the first endin"- 
 with the forty-fifth chapter. He rejects Riickert's threefold division, as 
 founded on an accidental repetition. He also rejects Hitzig's theory as to 
 
xxxvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ch. 47, but goes still further in determining the precise stages of the compo- 
 sition and tracing in the prophecy the principal events in the history of 
 Cyrus. Knobel divides the whole into three parts, ch. 40-48, ch. 49-62, 
 ch. G3-66. 
 
 A comparison of these minute arrangements shows that they are founded 
 on imaginary allusions, or prompted by a governing desire to prove that the 
 writer must have been contemporary with the exile, a wish which here pre- 
 dominates over the habitual disposition of these critics to explain away 
 apparent references to history rather than to introduce them where they do 
 not really exist. 
 
 Discarding these imaginary facts, Havernick goes back to the rational 
 hypothesis of a continuous discourse, either uninterrupted in its composition 
 or unaffected in its structure by the interruptions which are now beyond the 
 reach of critical discovery, and for the same reason wholly unimportant. 
 This is substantially the ground assumed by the old interpreters, and even 
 by Gesenius, but now confirmed by the utter failure of all efforts to establish 
 any more artificial distribution of the text. As to arrangement, Havernick 
 adopts that of Ruckert, which is rather poetical than critical, and founded 
 on the similar close of ch. 4S and 57, coinciding with the usual division 
 into chapters, so as to throw nine into each of the three portions. As an 
 aid to the memory, and a basis of convenient distribution, this hypothesis 
 may be adopted without injury, but not as implying that the book consists 
 of three independent parts, or that any one of the proposed divisions can be 
 satisfactorily interpreted apart from the others. The greater the pains tnken 
 to demonstrate such a structure, the more forced and artificial must the 
 exposition of the book become; and it is therefore best to regard this inge- 
 nious idea of Ruckert as an aesthetic decoration rather than an exegetical 
 expedient. 
 
 After carefully comparing all the methods of division and arrangement 
 which have come lo my knowledge, I am clearly of opinion that in this part 
 of Scripture, more perhaps than any other, the evil to be shunned is not so 
 much defect as excess ; that the book is not only a continued but a desul- 
 tory composition ; that although there is a sensible progression in the whole 
 from the beginning to the end. it cannot be distinctly traced in every minor 
 part, being often interrupted and obscured by retrocessions and resumptions, 
 which, though governed by a natural association in each case, are not reduci- 
 ble to rule or system. The conventional division into chapters, viewed as a 
 mechanical contrivance for facilitating reference, is indispensable, and cannot 
 be materially changed with any good effect at all proportioned to the incon- 
 venience and confusion which would necessarily attend such a departure from 
 a usage long established and now universally familiar. The disadvantages 
 attending it, or springing from an injudicious use of it by readers and 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxvii 
 
 expounders, are the frequent separation of parts which as really cohere 
 together as those that are combined, and the conversion of one o-reat shifting 
 spectacle, in which the scenes are constantly succeeding one another in a 
 varied order, into a series of detached and unconnected j)ictures, throwing 
 no light on each other even when most skilfully divided, and too often 
 exhibiting a part of one view in absurd juxtaposition with another less akin 
 to it than that from which it has been violently sundered. 
 
 A similar caution is required in relation to the summaries or prefatory 
 notes with which the chapters, in conformity to usage and the prevalent 
 opinion, are provided in the present work. In order to prevent an 
 aggravation of the evils just described, a distinction must be clearly- 
 made between these summaries, and logical analyses so useful in the 
 study of an argumentative context. It is there that such a method is at 
 once most useful and most easy ; because the logical nexus, where it really 
 exists, is that which may be most successfully detected and exhibited as 
 well as most tenaciously remembered. But in the case of an entirely 
 different structure, and especially in one where a certain cycle of ideas is 
 repeated often, in an order not prescribed by logic but by poetical associa- 
 tion, there is no such facility, but on the other hand a tendency to sameness 
 and monotony which weakens rather than excites the attention, and affords 
 one of the strongest confirmations of the views already taken with respect 
 to the structure of the whole book and the proper mode of treating it. 
 
 The most satisfactory and useful method of surveying the whole book 
 with a view to the detailed interpretation of the pa^'ts is, in my opinion, to 
 obtain a clear view of the few great themes with v^'hich the writer's mind 
 was filled, and of the minor topics into which they readily resolve them- 
 selves, and then to mark their varied combinations as they alternately pre- 
 sent themselves, some more fully and frequently in one part of the book, 
 some exclusively in one part, others with greater uniformity in all. The 
 succession of the prominent figures will be pointed out as we proceed in the 
 interpretation of the several chapters. But in order to afford the reader 
 every preliminary aid before attempting the detailed interpretation, I shall 
 close this Introduction with a brief synopsis of the whole, presenting at a 
 single glance its prominent contents and the mutual relation of its parts. 
 
 The prominent objects here presented to the Prophet's view are these 
 five. 1. The carnal Israel, the Jewish nation, in its proud self-reliance and 
 its gross corruption, whether idolatrous or only hypocritical and formal. 2. 
 The spiritual Israel, the true Church, the remnant according to the election 
 of grace, considered as the object of Jehovah's favour and protection, but at 
 the same time as weak in faith and apprehensive of destruction. 3. The 
 Babylonish Exile and the Restoration from it, as the most important inter- 
 mediate point between the date of the prediction and the advent of Messiah, 
 
xxxviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and as an earnest or a sample of Jehovah's future dealings with his people 
 both in wrath and mercy. 4. The Advent itself, with the person and 
 character of Him who was to come for the deliverance of his people not 
 only from eternal ruin but from temporal bondage, and their introduction 
 into "glorious liberty." 5. The character of this new condition of the 
 Church or of the Christian Dispensation, not considered in its elements but 
 as a whole ; not in the way of chronological succession, but at one view ; 
 not so much in itself, as in contrast with the temporary system that pre- 
 ceded it. 
 
 These are the subjects of the Prophet's whole discourse, and may be 
 described as present to his mind throughout ; but the degree in which they 
 are respectively made prominent is different in different parts. The attempts 
 which have been made to show that they are taken up successively and 
 treated one by one, are unsuccessful, because inconsistent with the frequent 
 repetition and recurrence of the same theme. The order is not that of strict 
 succession, but of alternation. It is still true, however, that the relative 
 prominence of these great themes is far from being constant. As a general 
 fact, it may be said that their relative positions in this respect answer to 
 those which they hold in the enumeration above given. The character of 
 Israel, both as a nation and a church, is chiefly prominent in the beginning, 
 the Exile and the Advent in the middle, the contrast and the change of 
 dispensations at the end. With this general conception of the Prophecy, 
 the reader can have very little difficulty in perceiving the unity of the 
 discourse, and marking its transitions for himself, even without the aid of such 
 an abstract as the following. 
 
 The form in which the Prophecy begins has been determined by its 
 intimate connexion with the threatening in the thirty-ninth chapter. To 
 assure the Israel of God, or true church, that the national judgments which 
 had been denounced should not destroy it, is the Prophet's purpose in the 
 fortieth chapter, and is executed by exhibiting Jehovah's power, and willing- 
 ness, and fixed determination to protect and save his own elect. In the 
 forty-first, his power and omniscience are contrasted with the impotence of 
 idols, and illustrated by an individual example. In the forty-second, the 
 person of the great Deliverer is introduced, the nature of his influence 
 described, the relation of his people to himself defined, and their mission or 
 vocation as enligliteners of the world explained. The forty-third completes 
 this exposition by exhibiting the true design of Israel's election as a people, 
 its entire inde[)endence of all merit in themselves, and sole dependence on 
 the sovereign will of God. In the forty-fourth the argument against idolatry 
 is amplified and urged, and the divine sufficiency and faithfulness exemplified 
 by a historical allusion to the exodus from Egypt, and a prophetic one to 
 the deliverance from Babylon, in which last Cyrus is expressly named. The 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxix 
 
 last part of this chapter should have been connected with the first part of 
 the forty-fifth, in which the name of Cyrus is repeated, and his conquests 
 represented as an effect of God's omnipotence, and the prediction as a proof 
 of his omniscience, both which attributes are then again contrasted with the 
 impotence and senselessness of idols. The same comparison is still conti- 
 nued in the forty-sixth, with special reference to the false gods of Babylon, 
 as utterly unable to deliver either their worshippers or themselves. In the 
 forty-seventh the description is extended to the Babylonian government, as 
 wholly powerless in opposition to Jehovah's interference for the emancipation 
 of his people. The forty-eighth contains the winding up of this great argu- 
 ment from Cyrus and the fall of Babylon, as a conviction and rebuke to the 
 unbelieving Jews themselves. The fact that Babylon is expressly men- 
 tioned only in these chapters is a strong confirmation of our previous conclu- 
 sion that it is not the main subject of the prophecy. By a natural transition 
 he reverts in the forty-ninth to the true Israel, and shows the groundlessness 
 of their misgivings, by disclosing God's design respecting them, and showing 
 the certainty of its fulfilment notwithstanding all discouraging appearances. 
 The difference in the character and fate of the two Israels is still more 
 exactly defined in the fiftieth chapter. In the fifty-first the true relation of 
 the chosen people both to God and to the gentiles is illustrated by historical 
 examples — the calling of Abram and the exodus from Egypt, and the same 
 power pledged for the safety of Israel in time to come. In the last part of 
 this chapter and the first of the fifty-second, which cohere in the most 
 intimate manner, the gracious purposes of God are represented as fulfilled 
 already, and described in the most animating terms. This view of the future 
 condition of the church could not be separated long from that of Him by 
 whom it was to be effected ; and accordingly the last part of this chapter, 
 forming one unbroken context with the fifty-third, exhibits him anew, no 
 longer as a teacher, but as the great sacrifice for sin. No sooner is this 
 great work finished than the best days of the church begin, the loss of national 
 distinction being really a prelude to her glorious emancipation. The promise 
 of this great change in the fifty-fourth chapter, is followed in the fifty-fifth 
 by a gracious invitation to the whole world to partake of it. The fifty-sixth 
 continues the same subject, by predicting the entire abrogation of all local, 
 personal, and national distinctions. Having dwelt so long upon the prospects 
 of the spiritual Israel or true church, the Prophet, in the last part of the 
 fifty-sixth and the first part of the fifty-seventh, looks back at the carnal 
 Israel, as it was in the days of its idolatrous apostacy, and closes with a 
 threatening which insensibly melts into a promise of salvation to the true 
 Israel. The fifty-eighth again presents the carnal Israel, not as idolaters 
 but as hypocrites, and points out the true mean between the rejection of 
 appointed rites and the abuse of them. The fifty-ninth explains Jehovah's 
 
xl INTRODUCTION. 
 
 dealings with the nation of the Jews, and shows that their rejection was the 
 fruit of their own doings, as the salvation of the saved was that of God's 
 onHii|)otent compassions. In the sixtieth he turns once more to the true 
 Israel, and begins a series of magnificent descriptions of the new dispen- 
 sation as a whole, contrasted with the imperfections and restrictions of the 
 old. The prominent figures of the picture in this chapter are immense 
 increase by the accession of the gentiles, and internal purity and peace. 
 The prominent figure in the sixty-first is that of the Messiah as the agent in 
 this great work of spiritual emancipation. In the sixty-second it is that of 
 Zion, or the Church herself, in the most intimate union with Jehovah and 
 the full fruition of his favour. But this anticipation is inseparably blended 
 with that of vengeance on the enemies of God, which is accordingly presented 
 in the sublime vision of the sixty-third chapter, followed by an appeal to 
 God's former dealings with his people, as a proof that their rejection was 
 their own fault, and that he will still protect the true believers. These are 
 represented in the sixty-fourth as humbly confessing their own sins and 
 suing for the favour of Jehovah. In the sixty-fiftli he solemnly announces 
 the adoption of the gentiles and tlie rejection of the carnal Israel because of 
 their iniquities, among which idolatry is once more rendered prominent. He 
 then contrasts the doom of the apostate Israel with the glorious destiny 
 awaiting the true Israel. And this comparison is still continued in the sixty- 
 sixth chapter, where the Prophet, after ranging through so wide a field of 
 vision, seems at last to fix his own eye and his reader's on the dividing line 
 or turning point between the old and new economy, and winds up the whole 
 drama with a vivid exhibition of the nations gathered to Jerusalem for 
 worship, while the children of the kingdom, i. e. Israel according to the 
 flesh, are cast forth into outer darkness, where their worm dieth not and 
 their fire is not quenched. Upon this awful spectacle the curtain falls, and 
 we are left to find relief from its impressions in the merciful disclosures of a 
 later and more cheering revelation. 
 
COMMENTARY. 
 
 CHAPTER XL. 
 
 A GLORIOUS change awaits the church, consisting in a new and gracious 
 manifestation of Jehovah's presence, for which his people are exhorted to 
 prepare, vs. 1—5. Thougli one generation perish after another, this promise 
 shall eventually he fulfilled, because it rests not upon human but divine 
 authority, vs. 6-8. Zion may even now see him approaching as the con- 
 queror of his enemies, and at the same time as the shepherd of his people, 
 vs. 9-11. The fulfilment of these pledges is insured by his infinite wisdom, 
 his almighty power, and his independence both of individuals and nations, 
 vs. 12-17. How much more is he superior to material images, by which 
 men represent him or supply his place, vs. 18-25. The same power 
 which sustains the heavens is pledged for the support of Israel, vs. 26—31. 
 
 The specific application of this chapter to the return from Babylon is 
 without the least foundation in the text itself. The promise is a general one 
 of consolation, protection, and change for the better, to be wrought by the 
 power and wisdom of Jehovah, which are contrasted, first, with those of 
 men, of nations, and of rulers, then with the utter impotence of idols. That 
 the ultimate fulfilment of the promise was still distant, is implied in the 
 exhortation to faith and patience. The reference to idolatry proves nothing 
 with respect to the date of the prediction, although more appropriate in the 
 writings of Isaiah than of a prophet in the Babylonish exile. It is evidently 
 meant, however, to condemn idolatry in general, and more particularly all 
 the idolatrous defections of the Israelites under the old economy. 
 
 V. 1. Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. This com- 
 mand is not addressed specifically to the priests or prophets, much less to 
 the messengers from Babylon announcing the restoration of the Jews, but to 
 any who might be supposed to hear the order, as in ch. 13: 2, or to the 
 people themselves, who arc then required to encourage one another, as in 
 ch. 35: 3, 4. The Vulgate even goes so far as to put my people in the 
 vocative (^papule mens). The imperative form of the expression is poetical. 
 Instead of declaring his own purpose, God summons men to execute it. 
 
 1 
 
2 CHAPTER XL. 
 
 Instead of saying, / will comfort, he says, comfort ye. The same idea might 
 have been expressed by saying, in ihe third person, let them comfort her, or 
 in the passive voice, let her be comjorted. The possessive pronouns are 
 emphatic, and suggest that, notwithstanding what they suffered, they were still 
 Jehovah's people, he was still their God. There is also meaning in the 
 repetition of the verb at the beginning. Such repetitions are not unfrequent 
 in the earlier prophecies. (Seech. 24: 16. 26:3.29: 1.38: 11,17,19.) 
 The use of the future -'rxi for the preterite -'.rx (^saith) h peculiar to Isaiah. 
 Gesenius cites as instances in other books, Jer. 42: 20, Zech. 13: 9, and 
 Hos. 2 : 23. But in the first and second cases, the future has its proper 
 sense and not that of the present ; while in the third, the Hebrew word is 
 not '^^s"' but CN3. At the same time, he omits the only real instance not in 
 Isaiah, viz. Ps. 12:6. Calvin insists upon the strict translation of the future 
 (dicei), as implying that the order to console the people was not to be ac- 
 tually given till a later period, and is only mentioned here by anticipation. 
 But even if it be explained as a present, it is worthy of remark that this 
 form of expression is not only peculiar to Isaiah, but common to both parts 
 of the book. (See ch. 1 : 11. 18. 33: 10.) — The prefatory exhortation in 
 this verse affords a key to the whole prophecy, as being consolatory in its 
 tone and purpose. There is evident allusion to the threatening in ch. 39: 7. 
 (Compare the Earlier Prophecies, p. 652.) Having there predicted the 
 captivity in Babylon, as one of the successive strokes, by which the fall of 
 Israel as a nation and the total loss of its peculiar privileges should be 
 brouidit about, the Prophet is now sent to assure the spiritual Israel, the true 
 people of Jehovah, that although the Jewish nation should soon cease to be 
 externally identified with the church, the church itself should not only con- 
 tinue to exist, hut in a far more glorious state than ever. This is the 
 ••people" here meant, and this the '-'comfort" wherewith they were to be 
 comforted. 
 
 V. 2. Speak to (or ncronling to) the heart of Jerusalem, and cry to her, 
 that her warfare is accomj/lishtd. that her iniquity is ■pardoned, that she 
 hath received from the hand o/ Jehovah double Jor all her sins. By speak- 
 ing to the heart, we are to understand speaking so as to aflect the heart or 
 feelings, and also in accordance with the heart or wishes, i. e. what the per- 
 son addressed desires or needs to hear. Jerusalem is here put for the church 
 or chosen people, whose metropolis it was, and for whose sake the place 
 itself was precious in the sight of God. Those who refer the passage to the 
 Babylonish exile are under the necessity of assuming (with Rosenmijller) 
 that the consolation was addressed to those left behind in Judah, or (with 
 Gesenius) that Jerusalem means its inhabitants in exile. Warfare includes 
 the two ideas of appointed time and hard service, in which sense the verb 
 
CHAPTERXL, 3 
 
 and noun are both ap[)lied to the routine of sacerdotal functions (Num. 4 : 
 23. 8 : 24, 25), but here still more expressively to the old dispensation, as a 
 period of restriction and constraint. The next phrase strictly means her 
 iniquity is accepted, i. e. an atonement for it, or the punishnient already 
 suffered is accepted as sufficient, not in strict justice, but in reference to 
 God's gracious purpose. The same idea is supjiosed by some to be expressed 
 in the last clause, where c^^es (^double') is not used mathematically to denote 
 proportion, but poetically to denote abundance, like the equivalent expres- 
 sion nrojia in ch. 61:7, Job 42 ; 10, Zech. 9 : 12. The sense will then be 
 that she has been punished abundantly, not more than she deserved, yet 
 enough to answer the design of punishment. But as giving or receiving 
 double, in all the other cases cited, has respect, not to punishment, but to 
 favour after suffering, so this clause may be understood to mean, that she 
 has now received (or is receiving) double favours notwithstanding all her 
 sins. The a has then the same sense as in ch. 5 : 25. 9 : 11, 16, 20. 
 10 : 4. Either of these explanations makes it unnecessary to give 5m the rare 
 and doubtful sense of punishment. The verbs are prteterita prophetica, hut 
 for that very reason should not be exchanged for futures, as we have no 
 right to depart without necessity from the descriptive form in which it pleased 
 the Holy Ghost to clothe this propliecy. The continuance of the ceiemo- 
 nial system and the hardships of the old dispensation are here and elsewhere 
 represented as chastisements due to the defections of the chosen people, 
 notwithstanding which they should continue to exist, and in a far more glo- 
 rious character, not as a national church, but as a spiritual church, set free 
 from ritual and local fetters. 
 
 V. 3. A voice crying — in the wilderness — clear the way of Jehovah 
 
 make straight (or level) in the desert a highway for our God. The Sep- 
 tua-gint version, retained in the New Testament, is cfbivtj ^odjpzot;, which 
 amounts to the same thing. Both in the Hebrew and the Greek, the words 
 in the wilderness may be connected eiiher with what follows or with what 
 precedes ; but the usual division is more natural, and the other has been 
 insisted upon chiefly for the purpose of rendering the verse inapplicable to 
 John the Baptist, who came preaching in a wilderness, and to whom the 
 words are applied expressly in Matthew 3: 3, Mark 1 : 3, Luke 3:4 as 
 the herald of the new dispensation. Those who deny the inspiration of the 
 Prophet are compelled to reject this as a mere accommodation, and apply 
 the verse exclusively to the return from Babylon, of which there is no men- 
 tion in the text or context. It is said indeed that God is here represented 
 as marching at the head of his returning people. But in all the cases which 
 Lowth cites as parallel, there is express allusion to the exodus from Egypt. 
 
4 CHAPTERXL. 
 
 Here, on the contrary, the only image presented is that of God returning to 
 Jerusalem, revisiting his people, as he did in every signal manifestation of 
 his presence, but above all at the advent of Messiah and the opening of the 
 new dispensation. The verb rendered prepare denotes a particular kind of 
 preparation, viz. the removal of obstructions, as appears from Gen. 24: 31, 
 Lev. 14: 36, and may therefore be expressed by clear in English. The 
 parallel verb means rectify or make straight, either in reference lo obliquity 
 of course or to unevenness of surface, most probably the latter, in which case 
 it may be expressed by level. To a general term meaning way or path is 
 added a specific one denoting an artificial causeway raised above the surface 
 of the earth. There is no need of supposing (with Lowth) that the Prophet 
 here alludes to any particular usage of the oriental sovereigns, or (with Gro- 
 tius) that the order of the first and second verses is continued (Jet there be a 
 voice crying). The Prophet is describing what he actually hears — a voice 
 crying ! — or as Ewald boldly paraphrases the expression — hark, one cries ! 
 
 V. 4. Every valley shall be raised and every mountain and hill brought 
 low, and the uneven shall become level and the ridges a plain. This may be 
 considered as an explanation of the manner in which the way of the Lord 
 was to be prepared. Grotius supposes the command at the beginning of the 
 chapter to be still continued (let every valley etc.), and the latest German 
 writers give the same construction of this verse, although they make a new 
 command begin in the one preceding. The form of the following verb 
 (n;;n'i), though not incompatible with this explanation, rather favours the strict 
 interpretation of the future, which is of course, on general principles, to be 
 preferred. The common version (exalted) seems to imply that the valleys 
 and mountains were to exchange places ; but this would not facilitate the 
 passing, which requires that both should be reduced to a common level. — 
 The translation crooked is retained and defended by some modern writers- on 
 the ground that the parallel expression requires it ; but as "nt»3i53 may denote 
 not only lineal but superficial rectitude, so n'p:^, as its opposite, may naturally 
 signify unevenness of surface, which is more appropriate in this connexion 
 than obliquity or irregularity of course, o'^or'-i, according to its etymology, 
 denotes gorges or ravines, or rather difficult passes ; but in this case it seems 
 to be the opposite of flat or level ground, and may therefore be expressed 
 by ridges. The application of these several terms to different moral or 
 spiritual objects — such as various classes in society or nations of the earth — 
 rests upon the false assumption that the features of a portrait or the figures 
 in a landscape are to be considered one by one, and not in their mutual 
 relations, as composing a whole picture. (Compare the comment on ch. 
 5 : 4, Earlier Prophecies, p. 66.) The whole impression here intended to be 
 
CHAPTERXL. 5 
 
 made is that of a way opened through a wilderness by levelling the ground 
 and the removal of obstructions, as a natural image for the removal of the 
 hinderances to God's revisiting his people. 
 
 V. 5. And the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, arid all Jlesh shall 
 see (it), for the mouth of Jehovah speaks (or hath spoken). The subjunc- 
 tive construction of the first clause by Junius and Tremellius (ut reveletur) 
 is adopted by Hitzig and Ewald, but without necessity. The idea seems to 
 be that as soon as the way is opened, the Lord will show himself. I'in'i may 
 express either coincidence of time (at once) or totality (altogether), more 
 probably the latter. Ewald needlessly reads i^'tt^"', which he supposes to be 
 implied in the Septuagint version (to acozi'iniov tov &tov), retained by Luke 
 (3 : 6). But this only shows that salvation was included in the glory which 
 should be revealed. Gesenius follows Luther in making the last clause express 
 the thing to be seen (shall see that the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken) ; but 
 this construction is precluded by the fact that this is the only case in which 
 the sense thus put upon the formula is even possible ; in all others the 
 meaning of the clause not only may but must he, for (because) the mouth of- 
 the Lord hath spoken, as a reason why the declaration should be credited. 
 (See ch. 1 : 2, 20. 22: 25. 58: 14. Jer. 13: 15. Joel 4:8. Ob. 1 : 18.) 
 To this, the only tenable construction, all the later German writers have 
 returned. To see God's glory, is a common expression for recognizing his 
 presence and agency in any event. (See Exod. 16 : 7. Is. 35 : 2. QQ : 18.) 
 The specific reference of this verse to the restoration of the Jews from exile 
 is not only gratuitous but inconsistent with the strength and comprehensive- 
 ness of its expressions. The simple meaning is, that when the way should 
 be prepared, the glory of God would be universally displayed ; a promise too 
 extensive to be fully verified in that event or period of history. 
 
 V. 6. A voice saying, Cry ! And he said (or says). What shall I cry 1 
 All jlesh is grass, and all its favour like a flower of the field ! Here, as in 
 V. 3, the participle is construed in the genitive by the Septuagint (cpavij 
 XtyovTO'i) and the Vulgate (vox dicentis) ; but the simplest construction makes 
 it agree with voice as an adjective. That two distinct speakers are here 
 introduced, seems to be granted by all interpreters, excepting Junius and 
 Tremellius, who refer ^53j< and "iiax to the same subject, and exclude the 
 interrogation altogether. A voice says, Cry, and it also says (or tells 7ne) 
 what 1 shall cry. Cocceius supplies is heard at the beginning. Ewald 
 adopts the same form of expression as in v. 3. Hark ! one says, Cry. 
 The force and beauty of the verse are much impaired by any version which 
 (does not represent the writer as actually hearing what he thus describes. 
 
Q CHAPTERXL. 
 
 The Septuagint and Vulgate have and I said, either because they read "i^si 
 vvliich is found in one or two manuscripts, or because they understood the 
 form used in the common text as certainly referring to the Prophet himself. 
 Augusti supplies the herald says, which is unnecessary. There is a pleasing 
 mystery, as Hitzig well observes, in the dialogue of these anonymous voices, 
 which is dispelled by undertaking to determine too precisely who the speak- 
 ers are. All that the words necessarily convey is, that one voice speaks 
 and another voice answers. Interpreters are universally agreed that the last 
 clause contains the words which the second speaker is required to utter. It 
 is possible, however, to connect these words immediately with what precedes, 
 and understand them as presenting an objection to the required proclama- 
 tion. JVhat shall (or can) I cry, (^since) all Jiesh is grass etc. The 
 advantages of this construction are, that it assumes no change of speaker 
 where none is intimated in the text, and that it does away with an alleged 
 tautology, as will be seen below. According to the usual construction we 
 are to supply before the last clause, and the first voice said again (or an- 
 swered), Cry as follotvs : All fiesh etc. This last phrase is here used, not 
 in its widest sense, as comprehending the whole animal world (Gen. 6 : 7, 
 13, 17), but in its more restricted application to mankind, of which some 
 examples may be found in the New Testament (John 17:2. Rom. 3: 20). 
 The comparison of human frailty to grass is conunon in the Scriptures. (See 
 eh. 37 : 27. 51 : 12. Ps. 103 : 15, 16. James 1 : 10, 1 1.) J. D. Michaelis 
 supposes an allusion, in the last clause, to the sudden blasting of oriental 
 flowers by the burning east wind. The Septuagint and Vulgate give i'Xin 
 the sense of glory, which is retained by Peter (1 Pet. 1 : 24, 25). From 
 this Grotius, Houbigant, and others infer that the original reading was iiin. 
 Gesenius rejects this as altogether arbitrary, but w ith as little ground assumes 
 that non, in this one place, is synonymous with "(H, when used (like the 
 English ^r«ce ?in(\ favour) in the sense of beauty. Hendewerk even goes 
 so far as to say that /«(>/*, in Luke 2 : 40, has an asthetic sense. To 
 assume a new sense of ion in this one case is a violation of the soundest 
 principles of lexicography, and instead of letting the writer express his own 
 ideas, forces upon him what the commentator thinks he might have said or 
 should have said. There may be cases where a word must be supposed to 
 have a peculiar sense in some one place ; but such assumptions can be jus- 
 tified by nothing but extreme necessity, and that no such necessity exists in 
 this case is apparent from the fact that the usual explanation gives a perfectly 
 good sense. The contrast is then between the shortlived and precarious 
 favour of man and the infallible promise of God. The quotation in Peter 
 confirms the supposition, here suggested by the context, that the words have 
 reference to the preaching of the gospel or the introduction of the new 
 dispensation. 
 
CHAPTERXL. 7 
 
 V. 7. Dried is the grass, failed the Jlower ; for the breath of Jehovah 
 has blown upon it. Surely the people is grass. The present form usually 
 given to the verbs conveys the sense correctly as a general proposition, but 
 not in its original shape as a description of what has actually happened, 
 and may be expected to occur again. — The translation when (instead of 
 for), preferred by Gesenius and some older writers, is only inadmissible 
 because it is a needless deviation from the usual meaning of the particle, 
 which yields a perfectly good sense in this connexion. — If nn does not here 
 denote a divine agent, which is hardly consistent with the figurative form of 
 the whole sentence, it should be taken in its primary sense of breath, not in 
 the intermediate one of wind ; although this, as Gesenius suggests, may be 
 what the figure was intended to express, the figure itself is that of a person 
 breathing on the grass and flower and causing them to wither. It is strange 
 that Lowth should have overlooked this natural and striking image, to adopt 
 the unpoetical and frigid notion, that " a wind of Jehovah is a Hebraism, 
 meaning no more than a strong wind." — '3X, which properly means surely, 
 verily, is here equivalent to an affirmative particle, yea or yes, and is so 
 explained by Luther. — The treatment which this last clause has experienced 
 affords an instructive illustration of the real value of the ' higher criticism.* 
 Koppe, the father of this modern art or science, rejects the clause as spuri- 
 ous because it violates the parallelism. He is followed, with some hesitation, 
 by Gesenius, who assigns as additional reasons, that the sense is ivatcry and 
 incoherent, and that the clause is wanting in the Septuagint, although he 
 does not hesitate to retain the first clause, which is also omitted in that 
 ancient version. Hitzig grants that this omission may have been a mere 
 mistake or inadvertence, but still rejects the clause, upon the ground, that it 
 contains a false explanation of what goes before, because tijn, when abso- 
 lutely used, must mean the Jews, whereas the reference in this whole con- 
 text is to the gentiles ; as if the latter allegation did not utterly subvert the 
 other, by determining in what sense nyn must here be taken. Instead of 
 arguing that, because the gentiles are referred to in the context, therefore 
 they must be meant here likewise, he assumes that they are not meant here, 
 and then pronounces the clause inconsistent with the context. The clause 
 is retained as genuine by all the German writers since Hitzig. Another 
 curious instance of the confidence, with which the higher critics can affirm 
 contradictory propositions, is the fact that while Hitzig says that csn 
 must mean Israel, Gesenius quietly assumes that it must mean the Baby- 
 lonians. 
 
 V. 8. Dried is the grass, faded the Jlower, and the word of our God 
 shall stand for ever. The comparatively rare use of adversative particles in 
 Hebrew is apparent from this verse, in which the relation of the clauses can 
 
8 CHAPTERXL. 
 
 be fully expressed in English only by means of the word hut. — Kimchi 
 explains word to mean the word of prophecy, wliile others give it the specific 
 sense of promise, and others understand it as denoting the gospel, on the 
 authority of 1 Peter 1 : 25. All these explanations can be reconciled by 
 suffering the Prophet to express his own ideas, without any adventitious 
 limitation, and admitting, as the only sure conclusion, that by word he 
 means neither promise, nor prophecy, nor gospel merely, but every word 
 that proccedcth out of the mouth of God (Deut. 8 : 3. IMatth. 4 : 4). There 
 is a tacit antithesis between the word of God and man ; what man says is 
 uncertain and precarious, what God says cannot fail. Thus understood it 
 includes prediction, precept, promise, and the offer of salvation, and although 
 the latter is not meant exclusively, the Apostle makes a perfectly correct 
 and most important application of the verse when, after quoting it, he adds, 
 and this is the word, which is preached (evayyBha&iv) unto you, that is to 
 say, this prophetic declaration is emphatically true of the gospel of Christ. 
 To stand for ever is a common Hebrew phrase for perpetuity, security, and 
 sure fulfilment. The expression our God contains, as usual, a reference to 
 the covenant relation between God and his people. Even according to the 
 usual arrangement and construction of these verses, the emphatic repetition 
 in vs. 7 and 8 can only be thought watery by critics of extreme refinement. 
 It is possible, however, to avoid the appearance of tautology by means of an 
 arrangement which has been already hinted at as possible, although it does 
 not seem to have occurred to any of the interpreters. The proposition is to 
 give the passage a dramatic form, by making the last clause of v. 6 and the 
 whole of v. 7 a continuation of the words of the second voice, and then 
 regarding v. 8 as a rejoinder by the first voice. The whole may then be 
 paraphrased as follows. A voice says, ' Cry !' And (another voice) says, 
 ' What shall I cry' (i. e. to what purpose can I cry, or utter promises like 
 those recorded in vs. 1-5), since all flesh is grass &c. ; the grass withereth 
 Sec. ; surely the people is grass (and cannot be expected to witness the ful- 
 filment of these promises). But the first voice says again : ' The grass does 
 wither, and the flower does fade ; but these events depend not on the life of 
 man, but on the word of God, and the word of God shall stand for ever.' 
 There are no doubt some objections to this exegetical hypothesis, especially 
 its somewhat artificial character ; and therefore it has not been introduced 
 into the text, but is simj)]y thrown out here, as a possible alternative, to 
 those who are not satisfied with the more obvious and usual construction of 
 the passage. 
 
 V. 9. Upon a high niountnin get thee up, brit\ger of good news, Zion! 
 Raise with strength thy voice, hringer of good news, Jerusalem I Raise 
 (it), fear not, soy to the towns of Judah, Lo your God! The reflexive 
 
CHAPTERXL. 9 
 
 form, get thee up, though not a literal translation, is an idiomatic equivalent 
 to the Hebrew phrase (^ascend for thee or for thyself). Some suppose an 
 allusion to the practice of addressing large assemblies from the summit or 
 acclivity of hills. (See Judges 9 : 7. Deut. 27 : 1 2. Matth. 5:1.) J. D. 
 Michaelis compares ihe ancient practice of transmitting news by shouting 
 from one hill-top to another, as described by Cajsar (Bell. Gall. vii. 3). 
 Celcriter ad omnes Gallia civiiates fama perfertur ; nam ubi major atque 
 illustrior incidit res, clamore per agros regionesque significant ; hunc alii 
 deinceps excipiunt et proximis tradant. The essential idea is that of local 
 elevation as extending the diffusion of the sound. — There are two construc- 
 tions of "ii'S n"!ta^^ and the parallel expression. The first supposes the words 
 to be in regimen, the other in apposition. According to the former, which 
 is given in the Septuagint, Targum, and Vulgate, and retained by Grotius, 
 Lowth, GeseniuS; and others, the person addressed is the bearer of good tidings 
 to Zion and Jerusalem (compare ch. 52 : 7. Nah. 2 : 1). The feminine form 
 is explained by Grotius as an enallage for the masculine, like nbn'p Preacher, 
 an idiom, as Dathe thinks, peculiar to official titles. Gesenius regards it as 
 an instance of the idiomatic use of the feminine singular as a collective, like 
 raoji for ci^d"i (Mic. 1:11, 12), and agrees with the Targum in making the 
 prophets the object of address. But this whole theory of collective feminines 
 is so unnatural, and so imperfectly sustained by the cases which Gesenius 
 cites (Lehrg. p. 477. Heb. Gr. <§» 105. 2. c), that if the construction now in 
 question be adopted, it is better to revert to the hypothesis of Lowth and 
 J. D. Michaelis, that the Prophet alludes to the practice of celebrating victo- 
 ries by the songs of women. (See Ex. 15: 20, 21. Judg. 11:34. 1 Sam. 
 18 : 6, 7.) But although this explanation is decidedly more natural than 
 that of Grotius and Gesenius, it is perhaps less so than the ancient one con- 
 tained in the Peshito and the three Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, 
 and Theodotion, according to which Zion or Jerusalem herself is represented 
 as the bearer of good tidings to the towns of Judah. This construction is 
 further recommended by the beautiful personification, which it introduces, of 
 the Holy City as the seat of the true religion and the centre of the church. 
 The office here ascribed to it is the same that is recognised in ch. 2:3: the 
 laiv shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 
 Not only in the restoration from captivity, or in the personal advent of the 
 Saviour, but in every instance of the Lord's return to his forsaken people, it 
 is the duty of the church to communicate as well as to receive the joyful 
 tidings. — The explanation of Jerusalem and Zion as meaning their inhabit- 
 ants among the captivity is still more arbitrary here than in v. 2, because no 
 reason can be given why the exiles from the Holy City should be called upon 
 to act as heralds to the others, whereas there is a beautiful poetical propriety 
 in giving that office to the Holy City itself. — Let the reader carefully ob- 
 
JO CHAPTERXL. 
 
 serve how many exegetical embarrassments arise from the attempt to confine 
 the application of the passage to the period of the exile or to any other not 
 particularly indicated. The exhortation not to fear does not imply that 
 there was danfrer in makino; ihe announcement, but that there mi";ht be 
 doubt and hesitation as to its fulfihnent. — Barnes thinks it necessary to pre- 
 vent abuse of this text by affirming that it ' will not justify boisterous 
 preaching, or a loud and unnatural tone of voice, alike offensive to good 
 taste, injurious to health, and destructive of the life of the preacher.' He 
 also infers from it that 'the glad tidings of salvation should be delivered in 
 an animated and ardent manner; the future punishment of the wicked in a 
 tone serious, solemn, subdued, awful.' 
 
 V. 10. Lo, the Lord Jehovah will come (or is coming) in {the person 
 of) a strong one, and his arm {is) ruling for him. Lo, his hire is with him 
 and his wages btfore him. The double r^ir\ represents the object as already 
 appearing or in sight. Of the phrase Pjns there are several interpretations. 
 All the ancient versions make it mean with strength; but this abstract sense 
 of the adjective is not sustained by usage, and the same objection lies, with 
 still greater force, against Ewald's version, in victory. Aben Ezra and 
 Kimchi supply i^ (ivith a strong hand) ; but wherever the entire phrase 
 occurs, the noun is construed as a feminine. Jarchi makes it mean against 
 the strong one, which Vitringa adopts and applies the phrase to Satan. But 
 usage requires that xia, when it has this sense, should be construed with its 
 object, either directly, or by means of the prepositions h-J, bx, or h. De Dieu 
 regards the 2 as pleonastic or a beth essentice, corresponding to the French 
 construction en roi, in (the character or person of) a king. The existence of 
 this idiom in Hebrew is questioned by some eminent grammarians, and is at 
 best so unusual that it should not be assumed without necessity. (See the 
 comment on ch. 26 : 4, in the Earlier Piophecies, p. 440.) The choice, 
 however, seems to lie between this and the construction which explains the 
 words to mean that he will come with a strong one ; as In ch. 28 : 2, the 
 Lord is said to have a strong and mighty one, who should cast the crown 
 of Ephraim to the ground with his hand. What God is said to do himself 
 in one case, he is represented in the other as accomplishing by means of a 
 powerful instrument or agent, which, however, is defined no further. The 
 essential meaning, common to the two constructions, is, that Jehovah was 
 about lo make a special exhibition of his power. — The participle ruling, in 
 the next clause, is expressive of continuous action. The ib cannot refer to 
 arm, which Gesenius suggests as a possible construction, because sii", al- 
 though sometimes masculine, is here expressly construed as a feminine. The 
 antecedent of the pronoun must be either Jehovah or the Strong One, 
 according to the sense in which pjna is taken, as descriptive of God himself, 
 
CHAPTERXL. U 
 
 or of his instrument. Those who understand that phrase to mean against 
 the strong one, give the next the sense of ruling over him. But although 
 b strictly denotes relation in general (os to, with respect to), and admits of 
 various equivalents in English, it is never elsewhere used in this sense after 
 h^-Q to rule, which, with scarcely an exception, is followed by the preposition 
 3. The true sense of ib is probably the obvious one for him, and the clause 
 is a poetical description of the arm as acting independently of its possessor, 
 and as it were in his behalf. — Here, as in Lev. 19 : 13, Ps. 109 : 20, Is. 
 49 : 4, ii^ss work is put for its effect, reward, or product. There is no need 
 of assuming, with Kimchi, an ellipsis of "lab before it. The word itself, as 
 Aben Ezra well explains it, is equivalent in meaning to bsian laia. — J. D. 
 Michaelis considers it as doubtful whether the person here referred to is 
 described as dispensing or receiving a reward, since in either case it would 
 be his. The former explanation is preferred by most interpreters, some of 
 whom suppose a specific allusion to the customary distribution of prizes by 
 commanders after victory. Upon this general supposition, Lowth explains 
 the phrase before him, as referring to the act of stretching forth the hand, or 
 holding out the thing to be bestowed. Those who restrict the passage to 
 the Babylonish exiles, for the most part understand this clause as promising 
 a recompense to such of the captives as had patiently endured God's will 
 and believed his promises. Knobel, however, understands it as referring to 
 the redeemed people as being themselves the recompense of their deliverer ; 
 and Henderson adopts the same construction, but applies it to the recompense 
 earned by the Messiah. This explanation is favoured by what follows in 
 the next verse, where Jehovah or his Strong One is described as a shep- 
 herd. — The two verses may be readily connected, without any change of 
 figure, by supposing that the lost sheep which he has recovered are the 
 recompense referred to in the verse before us. Thus understood, the pas- 
 sage may have furnished the occasion and the basis of our Saviour's beauti- 
 ful description of himself as the true shepherd, who lays down his life for the 
 sheep, as well as of the figure drawn from the recovery of a lost sheep to 
 illustrate the rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner. But a still 
 more decisive argument in favour of this interpretation is the fact, that in 
 every case without exception where "sb and n^sja have the same sense as 
 here, the hire or wages of a person is the hire or wages paid to him, and 
 not that paid by him. To give it the latter meaning in this one case there- 
 fore would be to violate a usage, not merely general but uniform ; and such 
 a violation could be justified only by a kind and degree of exegetical neces- 
 sity which no one can imagine to exist in this case. Upon these grounds it 
 is probable, not only that Jehovah is here represented as receiving a reward, 
 but that there is special reference to the recompense of the Messiah's suf- 
 ferings and obedience by the redemption of his people. According to the 
 
12 CHAPTERXL. 
 
 view which has been taken of the nexus between these two verses, before 
 him may possibly contain an allusion to the shepherd's following his flock ; 
 but it admits of a more obvious and simple explanation, as denoting that his 
 recompense is not only sure but actually realized, being already in his sight 
 or presence, and with him, i. c. in immediate possession. 
 
 V. ] 1 . Like a shepherd his Jlock will he feed, with his arm will he 
 gather the lambs, and in his bosom carry (them) ; the nursing (eit-ts) he 
 will (gentli/) lead. Although the meaning of this verse is plain, it is not 
 easily translated, on account of the peculiar fitness and significancy of the 
 terms employed. The word correctly rendered feed denotes the whole 
 care of a shepherd for his flock, and has therefore no exact equivalent in 
 English. To gather with the arm coincides very nearly, although not pre- 
 cisely, with our phrase to take up in the arms. A very similar idea is ex- 
 pressed by bearing in the bosom. The last clause has been more misunder- 
 stood than any other. Most interpreters appear to have regarded mb? as 
 denoting pregnant, whereas it is the active participle of the verb b>i:', to 
 suckle or give suck, and is evidently used in that sense in 1 Samuel 6 : 7, 
 10. The former explanation might appear to have arisen from a misappre- 
 hension of the Vulgate version, fcetas, which, as Bochart has shown by 
 quotations from the classics, is sometimes applied to animals after delivery, 
 but while still giving suck. But the erroneous explanation is much older, 
 being unambiguously given in the Septuagint (fV yaoTQl i/^ovaag'). Aben 
 Ezra also explains r.ibs as synonymous with ^'i~f^, whereas Solomon ben 
 Melek gives the correct interpretation (pip'^'Pri pift'Sri). The essential 
 meaning of brtr is admitted to be that of leading by all interpreters ex- 
 cepting Hengstenberg, who undertakes to show that it always has reference 
 to sustenance. (Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. II. p. 64.) His strongest 
 argument is that derived from Gen. 47 : 17; but he seems to have over 
 looked 2 Chron. 28 : 15; and even Ex. 15 : 13, which he owns to be 
 against him, cannot be satisfactorily explained on his hypothesis. In that 
 case, both the parallelism and the construction in the second clause are de- 
 cidedly in favour of the old opinion, from which there seems, upon the 
 whole, to be no sufficient reason for departing. From the primary and 
 simple sense of leading may be readily deduced that of carefully leading or 
 conducting, which as readily suggests the accessory idea of benignant and 
 affectionate protection. Henderson's statement, that this verse and the one 
 before it exhibit certain attributes of the character and work of Christ is 
 correct, but too restricted, since the passage is descriptive of the whole 
 relation which Jehovah sustains to his people, as their shepherd, and of which 
 inferior but real exhibitions were afforded long before the advent of the 
 Saviour; for example, in the restoration of the Jews from exile, which is no 
 
CHAPTERXL. ]3 
 
 more to be excluded from the scope of this prophetic picture than to be 
 regarded as its only subject. 
 
 V. 12. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and 
 meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended in a measure the dust 
 of the earth, and weighed in a balance the mountains, and the hills in scales? 
 There are two directly opposite opinions as to the general idea here expressed. 
 Gesenius and others understand the question as an indirect negation of the 
 possibility of doing what is here described. The implied answer, upon this 
 hypothesis, is, No one, and the verse is equivalent to the exclamation. How 
 immense are the works of God ! The other and more usual interpretation 
 understands the question thus : Who (but God) has measured or can measure 
 etc. ? Thus understood, the verse, so far from affirming the immensity of 
 God's works, represents them as little in comparison with him, who measures 
 and distributes them with perfect ease. The first explanation derives some 
 countenance from the analogy of the next verse, where the question cer- 
 tainly involves an absolute negation, and is tantamount to saying, that no one 
 does or can do what is there described. But this consideration is not suffi- 
 cient to outweigh the argument in favour of the other explanation, arising 
 from its greater simplicity and obviousness in this connexion. It is also 
 well observed by Hitzig, that in order to convey the idea of immensity, the 
 largest measures, not the smallest, would have been employed. An object 
 might be too large to be weighed in scales, or held in the hollow of a man's 
 hand, and yet very far from being immense or even vast in its dimensions. 
 On the other hand, the smallness of the measure is entirely appropriate as 
 showing the immensity of God himself, who can deal with the whole universe 
 as man deals with the most minute and trivial objects. — bsiu is properly a 
 handful (1 Kings 20 : 10. Ezek. 13 : 19), but is here put for the receptacle 
 or measure of that quantity. — By waters we are not to understand specifi- 
 cally either the ocean (Grotius) or the waters above the firmament (Rosen- 
 miiller), but water as a constituted element or portion of the globe. — The 
 primary meaning of ')3Pi is supposed by Gesenius to be that of weighing, here 
 transferred to the measure of extension. Maurer, with more probability, 
 regards it as a generic term for measurement, including that of weight, 
 capacity, and extension. — The span is mentioned as a natural and universal 
 measure of length, to which Ave must likewise apply Jerome's translation 
 (tribus digitis), and not, as Gill imagines, to the quantity of dust which "a 
 man can hold between his thumb and two fingers." — In every other place 
 where ^3 occurs, it is the construct or abbreviated form of bb, the nearest 
 equivalent to our all, but uniformly construed as a noun, meaning properly 
 the whole of any thing. The Septuagint translates it so in this case likewise 
 (naaav ttjv yijv), and Gesenius, in his Lehrgebaude (p. 675), gives it as one 
 
14 C H A P T E R X L. 
 
 of the cases in which the governing and governed noun are separated by an 
 intervening word. In quoting the Hebrew he inadvertently inserts a makkeph 
 (i-'bii'^-^ri), thus conforming the orthography to tlie usual analogy. But 
 having afterwards observed that the Hebrew text has ^3 with a conjunctive 
 accent, he corrected the error in his lexicon and commentary, and referred 
 the word to the root ^^^, which does not occur elsewhere in Kal, but the 
 essential idea of which, as appears from the Chaldee and Arabic analogy, 
 as well as from its own derivatives in Hebrew, is that of measuring, or rather 
 that of holding and containing, which agrees exactly with the common En- 
 glish version (comprehended). It is a curious and characteristic circumstance, 
 that Hitzig, in his note upon this passage, revives the explanation which 
 Gesenius had given by mistake and afterwards abandoned, appealing to Ps. 
 35 : 10 as an example of the use of ^3 (all) with a conjunctive accent, and 
 to Isaiah 3S : 16 as an instance of its separation from the dependent noun. 
 To this unexpected defence of his own inadvertent error, Gesenius replies in 
 his Thesaurus (II. 665) that clear expressions are not to be elucidated by 
 the analogy of dark ones, and that a verb is needed here to balance the 
 verbs measure, mete, and weigh, in the other clauses. — The terms used in 
 the English Bible, scales and balance, are retained above but transposed, in 
 order to adhere more closely to the form of the original, in which the first word 
 is a singular (denoting properly an apparatus like the steelyard), while the 
 other is a dual, strictly denoting a pair of scales. This is in fact the etymo- 
 logical import of balance, according to the usual explanation of the Latin 
 bilunx, as denoting a double dish or plate ; but be this as it may, the English 
 balance does not at once and of necessity suggest the form of the instrument 
 like scales. — The dust of the earth seems to be here put for the earth itself, 
 and is therefore not erroneously though freely rendered in the Vulgate, 
 tnolem terra, tb'^hia is properly a third, i. e. the third of another measure, 
 probably the ephah, which is often rendered in the Septuagint rqla fAtzga, 
 while the seah is translated fu'T{)ov. The name is analogous to quart (mean- 
 ing fourth), and exactly coincident with tierce, which Skinner defines to be 
 " a measure so called because the third part (triens) of another measure 
 called a pipe," but which is also used in old English writers for the third 
 part of other measures. (See Richardson's Dictionary, p. 1910.) The 
 ephah, according to the best computation, was equivalent to one Italian mo- 
 dius and a half. J. D. Michaelis is probably singular in thinking it necessary 
 to express the value of the measure in translation, by making the Prophet 
 ask, who measures the dust of the earth with the third part of a bushel. 
 This is not only in bad taste, but hurtful to the sense ; because the literal 
 comprehension of the earth in this specific measure is impossible, and all that 
 the words were intended to suggest is a comparison between the customary 
 measurement of common things by man, and the analogous control which is 
 
CHAPTERXL. 15 
 
 exercised by God over all his works. For this end the general sense of 
 measure, which the word has in Ps. 80 : 6, and which is given to it here by 
 the Targum (yh^z-z), is entirely sufficient. The exact size of the ui-bd is of 
 no more importance to the exposition than that of the balance or the scales. 
 — The idea of accurate exact adjustment which by some interpreters is 
 thought to be included in the meaning of this verse, if expressed at all, is 
 certainly not prominent, the main design of the description being simply to 
 exhibit, not the power or the wisdom of God as distinguishable attributes, 
 but rather the supreme control in which they are both exercised. — Ewald 
 connects this verse with the argument that follows, by suggesting as the 
 answer to the question, that certainly no man, and much less the image of a 
 man, could do what is here described. — Umbreit connects it with what goes 
 before by supposing the Prophet to affirm that the gracious shepherd, just 
 before described, is at the same time all-wise and omnipotent, and therefore 
 able to make good the promise of protection to his people. 
 
 V. 13. Who hath measured the spirit of Jehovah, and {who, as) the 
 man of his counsel, ivill teach him (or cause him to hnow) ] According to 
 J. D. Michaelis, the connexion between this verse and the one before it is, 
 that he who can do the one can do the other ; if any one can weigh the 
 hills etc., he can also measure the divine intelligence. But the natural con- 
 nexion seems to be, that he who weighs the hills etc. must himself be inde- 
 pendent, boundless, and unsearchable. — The various explanations of '{37\ as 
 meaning known, instructed, prepared, directed, searched, etc. are mere 
 substitutions of what ought to have been said (in the interpreter's opinion) 
 for what is said. Although not impossible, it is highly improbable that the 
 word should have a different meaning here from that which it evidently has 
 in the foregoing verse, where the sense is determined by the mention of the 
 span. What seems to be denied is the possibility of limiting or estimating 
 the divine intelligence. — According to Calvin, we are not to understand by 
 in^ii here the Holy Spirit, as a person of the Godhead, but the mind or intel- 
 lect of God. The Targum arbitrarily explains it as denoting the Holy 
 Spirit (i. e. inspiration) in the mouth of all the prophets. — The last clause 
 is not an answer to the first, but a continuation of the question. Most inter- 
 preters suppose the who to be repeated. Luther and Rosenmiiller make it 
 agree directly with the following phrase. {What counsellor etc.) The latest 
 writers make the construction relative as well as interrogative. Who was 
 (or is) the counsellor that taught him 1 A simpler construction is that o-iven 
 in our Bible, which supplies neither interrogative nor relative : and (being) 
 his counsellor, or {as) his counsellor, hath taught him. The translation of 
 the last verb as a preterite is entirely arbitrary. Both tenses seem to have 
 been used, as in many other cases, for the purpose of making the implied 
 
16 CIIAPTERXL. 
 
 negation more exclusive. JVho has, and who will or can? — Evvald, reject- 
 ing the usual combination of ma7i with counsel in the sense of counsellor, 
 makes one the subject anil the other the object of the verb : 'and reveals — 
 though a man — his counsel to him.' The same construction seems to be at 
 least as old as Arias JMontanus, who translates the clause, vir consilium ejus 
 scire faciei cum. In favour of the usual interpretation is its greater simpli- 
 city, and the occurrence of the plural form, the men of my counsel, in the 
 obvious sense of counsellors, in Ps. 119: 24. — Lowth's translation (one of 
 his council) gives a sense to nsr not sustained by usage, and Barnes's modi- 
 fication of it (^onc of his counsel) introduces an idea wholly modern and irre- 
 levant. — Calvin supposes that the Prophet, having spoken of the goodness of 
 God in V. II, and of his power in v. 12, here proceeds to magnify his wis- 
 dom. But both these verses are designed alike to set forth his supremacy 
 and independence, by describing him as measuring and regulating all things, 
 while himself incapable either of measurement or regulation. 
 
 V. 14. Whom did he consult (or with whom tooh: he counsel) and he 
 made him understand, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught 
 him knowledge, and the tvay of understanding (who) will make him knoiv ? 
 The consecution of the tenses is the same as in the foregoing verse. The 
 indirect construction of the second and following verbs, by Lowth and the 
 later German writers (that he should instruct him etc.), is not only forced, 
 but inconsistent with the use of the conversive future, and a gratuitous sub- 
 stitution of an occidental idiom for the somewhat harsh but simple Hebrew 
 syntax, in which the object of the first verb is the subject of the second. 
 What man did he (the Lord) consult, and he (the man) 7nade him (the 
 Lord) to understand etc. The sense is given, with but little change of 
 form, in the English Version, by repeating the interrogative pronoun. With 
 whom took he counsel, and (who) instructed him or made him understand 1 — 
 The preposition before path is understood by Hitzig, Ewald, and Umbreit, 
 as denoting the subject of instruction : taught him respecting or concerning 
 (iibcr) the path of judgment. Gesenius and Hendewerk regard it as a mere 
 connective of the verb with its object: taught him the path etc. But the 
 most satisfactory explanation is the one proposed by Knobel, who attaches 
 to the verb the sense of guiding, and retains the proper meaning of the par- 
 ticle. This is confirmed by the analogy of the synonymous verb tTiin, which 
 originally means to guide, and is also construed with the same preposition 
 (Ps. 32 : 8. Prov. 4 : 1 1). — Hy judgment we must either understand discre- 
 tion, in which case the whole phrase will be synonymous with ivay of 
 understanding in the parallel clause ; or rectitude, in which case the whole 
 phrase will mean the right way, not in a moral sense, but in that of a way 
 conducting to the end desired, the right way to attain that end. As these 
 
CHAPTERXL. 17 
 
 are only different expressions of the same essential idea, the question is of 
 little exegetical importance. — The plural -^D-zn, literally understandings, is 
 not an Arabism, as Knobel elsewhere affirms of this whole class of words, 
 but a genuine Hebrew idiom, denoting fulness or an eminent degree of the 
 quality in question, just as ni:::n is used in the book of Proverbs to denote 
 the highest wisdom, the sajnentia hypostatica. (See Hengstenberg on the 
 Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 258, and on the Psalms, vol. ii. p. 459.) — Jarchi, 
 with characteristic nationality, regards this as a contrast, not between God 
 and man, but between Israel and other nations : ' With which of the gentiles 
 did he take counsel as he did with the prophets, as it is said of Abraham, The 
 Lord said. Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do ?' — Junius 
 and Tremellius make the first verb reciprocal and all the rest reflexive 
 (^Cum quo communicavit consilium, ut instrueret se etc.?), which is wholly 
 gratuitous and forced. — The first clause of this verse is quoted in Rom. 
 1 1 : 34, with the following words added, or who hath first given to him, 
 and it shall be recompensed unto him again 1 As this addition is also found 
 in the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, J. D. Michaelis infers that it has 
 dropped out of the Hebrew. It is more probable, however, that the words 
 were introduced into the Septuagint from the text in Romans, where they 
 are really no part of the quotation from Isaiah, but the apostle's own para- 
 phrase of it or addition to it, the form of which may have been suggested 
 by the first clause of Job 41 : 3 (in the English Bible 41 : 11). Such allu- 
 sive imitations occur elsewhere in Paul's writings. (See the remarks on 
 1 Cor. 1 : 20, and its connexion with Isaiah 33 : 18, in the Earlier Prophe- 
 cies, p. 551.) In the present case, the addition agrees fully with the spirit 
 of the passage quoted ; since the aid in question, if it had been afibrded, 
 would be fairly entitled to a recompense. 
 
 V. 15. Lo, nations as a drop from a bucket, and as dust on scales are 
 reckoned ; lo, islands as an atom he ivill take up. He is independent, not 
 only of nature and of individual men, but of nations. The Septuagint 
 gives iri the Chaldee sense of if, leaving the sentence incomplete, notwith- 
 standing the attempts of the modern editors to carry the construction 
 through several verses. By supplying arc in the first clause, the English 
 Version impairs the compact strength of the expression. Both members of 
 the clause are to be construed with the verb at the end. This verb De 
 Wette and Hendewerk explain as meaning are to be reckoned (sind zu 
 achten) ; but although this future sense is common in the Niphal participle, 
 it is not to be assumed in the preterite without necessity. The sense is 
 rather that they are already so considered. Luther gives "'^'^^. 152 the sense 
 of a drop remaining in a bucket when the water is poured out, correspond- 
 
 2 
 
18 CHAPTERXL. 
 
 ing to the parallel expression of an atom which remains in the balance after 
 any thing is weighed, llitzig also translates the last word in the bucket (im 
 Eimcr). Maurer gives the strict translation from a bucket, and supposes 
 hanging to be understood ((/e situla pendens). But as this is not an ob- 
 vious ellipsis, it is better to explain the "i": as simply expressing the propor- 
 tion of the drop to the contents of the bucket, a drop out of a whole bucket. 
 Next to this, the simplest explanation is the one suggested in the English 
 Version, which seems to take the phrase as an indirect expression for a drop 
 of ivater. But as the mention of the bucket would in that case be super- 
 fluous, the other explanation is entitled to the preference. Dust of the 
 scales or balance, i. e. dust resting on it, but without affecting its equili- 
 brium. The Vulgate version (momcntuvi staterae) seems directly to reverse 
 the meaning of the phrase, in which the dust is obviously spoken of as 
 having no appreciable weight. The exegetical tradition is decisive in 
 favour of explaining pn"4 to mean fine dust, while the uniform usage of the 
 word in other cases would require the sense of cloud. It is possible indeed 
 that the image which the prophet intended to suggest was that of a cloud in 
 the balance, the idea of extreme levity being then conveyed by comparison 
 with the weight of what is commonly regarded as imponderable. The 
 weight of authority is all in favour of the other sense, which may be readily 
 connected with the common one, by supposing P~d to mean first a cloud in 
 general, then a cloud of dust in particular, and then dust in general, or more 
 specifically fine minute dust. P'n , from Pp^ to crush or pulverize, denotes 
 any minute portion of a solid substance, and in this connexion may be well 
 expressed by atojn. The Seventy seem to have mistaken it for p"i , saliva, 
 spittle, and translate it ai'tloi;. Gesenius gives d^'sn the general sense of 
 lands, and then notes this usage of the word as a sign of later date. But 
 why may not islands, in the strict sense, be intended here as much as hills 
 and mountains in v. 12 ? The only objection is founded on the parallelism :. 
 but this is imperfect, even if we give D"'!'i< its widest sense. J. D. Michaelis 
 goes to the opposite extreme, by making it mean Europe and Asia Minor. 
 Rabbi Jonah explains V'i^'^ as the Niphal of ^^'-^ to throw or cast, and this 
 explanation is retained by Knobel. In like manner, Aquila has lenrhv ^al- 
 KOfifiov. But most interpreters agree in making it the future Kal of biaj. 
 which in Syriac and Chaldee means to raise or lift up. On the former sup- 
 position, it must either agree irregularly with the plural islands, or with a 
 relative to be supplied (like an atom which is cast away). This last con- 
 struction is consistent also with the other derivation of the verb. Thus 
 Rosenmi'iller has, quem iollit tollcns ; and Maurer, which it (the wind) car- 
 ries off. But the simplest construction is the one which makes C'l'S the 
 direct object of the verb, as in the English Version. Ewald gives the verb 
 itself the sense of poising, weighing, which is too specific. 
 
CHAPTERXL. 19 
 
 V. 16. And Lebanon is not enough fo?- hurning, and its beasts are not 
 enovgh for a sacrifice. The supremacy and majesty of God are now pre- 
 sented in a more religious aspect, by expressions borrowed from the Mosaic 
 ritual. He is not only independent of the power but also of the good-will 
 of his creatures. This general allusion to oblation, as an act of homage or of 
 friendship, suits the connexion better than a specific reference to expiation. 
 The insufticiency of these offerings is set forth, not in a formal proposition, 
 but by means of a striking individualization. For general terms he substi- 
 tutes one striking instance, and asserts of that what might be asserted of the 
 rest. If Lebanon could not suffice, what could ? The imagery here used 
 is justly described by Umbreit as magnificent : nature the temple ; Lebanon 
 the altar ; its lordly woods the pile ; its countless beasts the sacrifice. 
 There is a strong idiomatic peculiarity of form in this verse. ')''>? and '^'n are 
 properly both nouns in the construct state, the first meaning non-existence 
 and the other sufficiency. The nearest approach in English to the form of 
 the original is nothing of sufficiency of burning ; but ')"'X, as usual, includes 
 or indicates the verb of existence, and '^^ is followed by a noun expressive 
 of the end for which a thing is said to be or not to be sufficient. Clericus 
 and RosenmiiUer give ^*->,^ the sense of kindling, which it sometimes has 
 (e. g. Ex. 35 : 3. Lev. 6:5); but as this diffeis from burning only in being 
 limited to the inception of the process, and as it seems more natural to speak 
 of wood enough to burn than of wood enough to kindle, there is no cause of 
 departing from the usual interpretation. The collective .i;jn (^animal for 
 animals'), having no equivalent in English, although common in Hebrew, 
 can be represented only by a plural. — ^Y^^ 's ^he technical name appropri- 
 ated in the law of Moses to the ordinary sacrifice for general expiation. It 
 seems to denote strictly an ascension or ascent, being so called, either from 
 the mounting of the vapour, or from the ascent of the w^hole victim on the 
 altar. As the phrase by which it is commonly translated in the English 
 Bible (burnt-offering) is not an exact etymological equivalent, and as no 
 stress seems to be laid here upon the species of oblation, the general term 
 offering or sacrifice would seem to be sufficiently specific. (Compare with 
 this verse ch. 66 : L 1 Kings 8 : 27. 2 Chr. 6 : 18. Ps. 50: 8-13.) 
 
 V. 17. All the nations as nothing before him, less than nothing and 
 vanity are counted to him. The proposition of v. 15 is repeated, but in still 
 more absolute and universal terms. Instead of nations, he says all the 
 nations ; instead of likening them to grains of sand or drops of water, he 
 denies their very being. Before him does not simply mean in his view or 
 estimation, but in comparison with him, the primary import of "i^? being such 
 as to suggest the idea of two objects brought together or confronted for the 
 purpose of comparison. So too the parallel expression ib does not mean hy 
 
20 CHAPTERXL. 
 
 him (which is seldom, if ever, so expressed in Hebrew), but ivith respect to 
 him, or simply to him in the same sense as when we say that one thing or 
 person is nothing to another, i. e. not to be compared with it. The same 
 use of to, even without a negative, is clear from such expressions as " Hype- 
 rion to a Satyr." That God is the arbiter who thus decides between him- 
 self and his creatures, is still implied in both the phrases, although not the 
 sole or even prominent idea meant to be expressed by either. — The struc- 
 ture of the sentence is exactly like that of the first clause of v. 15, and the 
 same remark is applicable, as to the insertion of the substantive verb in the 
 English Version. — The particle as may either be a mere connective, reck- 
 oned as nothing, i. e. reckoned for or reckoned to he nothing, which is 
 rather an English than a Hebrew idiom, or it may serve to soften the expres- 
 sion by suggesting that it is not to be literally understood, in which case it 
 is nearly equivalent to as it ivcre. So the Vulgate: quasi non sint, sic sunt 
 coram eo. — The etymological distinction between ■'^vX and C3x is that the 
 latter means annihilation or the end of being, the former absolute nonentity. 
 In this case, the weaker term is assimilated to the stronger by the addition 
 of another word, denoting desolation or emptiness, and here used as a formula 
 of intense negation. — The preposition before osx is explained by some as 
 connective of the verb with its object, reckoned for nothing ; which con- 
 struction seems to be as old as the Septuagint (4' oidtv iloyi'aOijaui), but 
 is not sufficiently sustained by the usage of the Hebrew particle. Others 
 make it an expression of resemblance, like the Vulgate [quasi nihilmn) ; 
 which seems to be a mere conjecture from the parallelism, and is equally at 
 variance with usage. Calvin (followed by the English Version, Clericus, 
 Vitrino-a, Umbreit, and Ewald in the first edition of his Grammar) makes 
 the "i- comparative, and understands the phrase as meaning less than nothing. 
 To this it is objected by Gesenius, that it does not suit the parallelism (a 
 virtual assertion that a climax is impossible in Hebrew composition), and 
 that the idea is too far-fetched {zu gesucht) ; to which Hitzig adds that 
 there is no word to mean less, and that if the "|*3 were really comparative, the 
 phrase would necessarily mean more than nothing. These objections are 
 renewed by Knobel, without any notice of Umbreit's answer to the last, 
 viz. that the idea of minority is suggested by the context; that less than 
 nothing could not well be otherwise expressed ; and that even if it meant 
 more than nothing, it would still be an equivalent expression, meaning more 
 of nothing than nothing itself. Gesenius, in his Commentary, makes the 1^ 
 an expletive or pleonastic particle, of common use in Arabic, so that the 
 phrase means simply nothing. But in his Lexicons he agrees with Hitzig 
 and Maurer in giving it a partitive sense, of nothing, i. e. a part of nothing, 
 which, as Hitzig says, is here conceived of as a great concrete or aggregate 
 of which the thing in question is a portion. But as the whole must be 
 
CHAPTERXL. 21 
 
 greater than the part, this explanation is essentially identical with Calvin's 
 (less than nothing), which Gesenius admits, but still objects to the latter, as 
 being less poetical than mathematical. The reader may determine for him- 
 self whether it is any more gesucht than that preferred to it, or than that 
 proposed by Hendewerk, who seems to understand the "i^ as indicating the 
 material or source, as if he had said, (made ov produced) out of nothing and 
 vanity. The common ground assumed by all these explanations is, that the 
 verse contains the strongest possible expression of insignificance and even 
 non-existence, as predicable even of whole nations, in comparison with God, 
 and in his presence. 
 
 V. 18. And (jioiv) to lohom will ye liken God, and what likeness will 
 ye compare to him? The inevitable logical conclusion from the previous 
 considerations is that God is One apd that there is no other. From this, the 
 prophet now proceeds to argue, that it is folly to compare God even with the 
 most exalted creature, how much more with lifeless matter. The logical 
 relation of this verse to what precedes, although not indicated in the text, 
 may be rendered clearer by the introduction of an illative particle {then, 
 therefore, etc.), or more simply by inserting noiv, which is often used in 
 such connexions. (See for example Ps. 2:10, and Hengstenberg's Com- 
 mentary, vol. I. p. 44.) The last clause admits of two constructions, both 
 amountino; to the same thing in the end. What likeness or resemblance 
 (i. e. what similar object) will ye compare to him ? Or, what comparison 
 will ye institute respecting him ? The last agrees best with the usage of the 
 verb, as meaning to arrange, prepare, or set in order (to compare, only indi- 
 rectly and by implication) ; while at the same time it avoids the unusual 
 combination of comparing a likeness to a thing or person, instead of com- 
 paring the two objects for the purpose of discovering their likeness. — The 
 use of the divine name ^x (expressive of omnipotence) is here emphatic and 
 significant, as a preparation for the subsequent exposure of the impotence of 
 idols. The force of the original expression is retained in Vitringa's version 
 (Deumfortem). 
 
 V. 19. The image a carver has ivrought, and a gilder U'ith gold shall 
 overlay it, and chains of silver (he is) casting. The ambiguous construc- 
 tion of the first clause is the same in the original, where we may either sup- 
 ply a relative, or make it a distinct proposition. In favour of the first, which 
 is a frequent ellipsis both in Hebrew and English, is the fact, that the verse 
 then contains a direct answer to the question in the one before it. What 
 have you to set over against such a God ? The image which an ordinary 
 workman manufactures. It enables us also to account for the position of the 
 image at the beginning of the sentence, and for its having the definite article, 
 
22 CII AP T E R XL. 
 
 while the following nouns have none, both which forms of expression seem 
 to be significant, the image wiiich a icorkman (i. e, any woiknian) can pro- 
 duce. — The consecution of the tenses seems to show, that the writer takes 
 his stand between the commencement and the end of the process, and 
 describes it as actually going on. The carver has already wrought the image, 
 and the gilder is about to overlay it. — There is a seeming incongruity 
 between the strict etymological senses of the nouns and verb in this clause: 
 vi'^n is properly a carver, and bca a carved or graven image ; whereas 7^553, as 
 descri])tive of a process of art, can only mean to melt, cast, or found. This 
 can only be accounted for upon tlie supposition, that the verb, or the nouns, 
 or both, have acquired in usage a more extensive or indefinite meaning. In 
 the translation above given, the discrepancy has been removed by giving to 
 the verb the general sense of wrought, and to the first noun that of image, 
 which it evidently has in other places, where a contrast is exhibited between 
 God and idols, of course without regard to the mode of their formation. (See 
 for example ch. 42 : 8, and the note on ch. 30 : 22 in the Earlier Prophe- 
 cies, p. 519.) — ~"i':i is properly a melter, and is elsewhere applied both to the 
 smelter or finer of metals (Prov. 25 : 4) and to the founder or caster of 
 images (Judges 17 : 4). The word gilder, although not an exact translation, 
 has been used above, as more appropriate in this connexion than the common 
 version, goldsmith. — 'Jp_'^ , which elsewhere means to beat out metal into thin 
 plates, here denotes the application of such plates as an ornamental covering. 
 Henderson repeats this verb, in its original sense of beating out, before chains 
 of silver. Hitzig and Ewald continue the construction of the first clause 
 through the second, and take rVii as a noun, repealed for the sake of a sar- 
 castic effect. (^And ivith silver chains the goldsmith.^ A similar construc- 
 tion had before been given by Cocceius, who supplies the substantive verb 
 (e^ sunt catenae argcnteac aurifabri). But the different mode of writing 
 the word in the two clauses (^ni: and M';ii:J^ seems to favour the opinion of 
 Gesenius and most other writers, that the latter is a verbal form. Lowth 
 reads Ci'i^ in the preterite, on the authority of twenty-seven manuscripts and 
 three editions. Maurer explains it as the Praeter Poel, of which, however, 
 there is no example elsewhere. Gesenius regards it as a participle used for 
 the present tense. It is really equivalent to our continuous or com|)ound 
 present, denoting what is actually now in progress. — The silver chains may 
 be considered either simply ornamental, or as intended to suspend the image 
 and prevent its falling. 
 
 V. 20. (^As for) the (nian) impoverished, (by) offering, a tree (that) 
 will not rot he chooses, a wise carver he seeks for it, to set up an image 
 (that) shall not be moved. While the rich waste their gold and silver upon 
 idols, the poor are equally extravagant in wood. None of the usual mean 
 
CHAPTERXL. 23 
 
 ings ol "iao is here appropriate. From the noun ni:35^ (^treasures, stores), 
 Rabbi Jonah derives the sense of rich, while all the modern writers are 
 agreed in giving it the opposite meaning, although doubtful and divided as 
 to the etymology. As the form is evidently that of a participle passive, the 
 best translation seems to be impoverished, and the best construction that 
 proposed by Gesenius in his Lehrgebaude (p. 821), impoverished by obla- 
 tion or religious gifts. It is true, that in his Commentary and Lexicons he 
 abandons this construction, on the ground of an objection made by one of 
 his reviewers, that it does not suit the context, and adopts the one which 
 most succeeding writers have repeated, viz. poor as to offering, that is, too 
 poor to make a costly one, or, as Cocceius slightly modifies the sense, 
 frugalior ohlalionis. To this there is a strong philological objection, that 
 n^^inpi, though a very common word, is nowhere else applied to an image, 
 and that an image could not be naturally called an offering. On the other 
 hand, the objection from the context, so submissively allowed by Gesenius, 
 is not only vague but founded on a superficial view of the connexion. To 
 say that the poor man uses wood instead of gold and silver, is coherent and 
 appropriate, but far less significant and striking than to say, that the man 
 who has already reduced himself to want by lavish gifts to his idol, still 
 continues his devotions, and as he no longer can afford an image of the 
 precious metals, is resolved at least to have a durable wooden one. Thus 
 understood, the verse adds to the general description a particular trait highly 
 expressive of the folly of idolaters. This desertion by Gesenius of his first 
 opinion differs from that mentioned in the exposition of v. 12 in this respect, 
 that while he there relinquishes his former ground as having been assumed 
 through inadvertence and mistake, he here continues to assert that what he 
 first proposed is still the most grammatical construction (as evinced by the 
 analogy of ch. I : 20. 1 Kings 22: 10. Ex. 23 ; 11, etc.), but abandons it 
 in deference to an unmeaning and gratuitous objection. The obscurity of 
 this phrase, even to the ancient writers, is apparent from its omission in the 
 Septuagint and Vulgate, and from Jerome's explanation of amsuchau as a 
 kind of wood. — In the next clause, the Vulgate makes -zr\ m-\n the subject 
 of the verb (^artifcx sapiens quatrit quomodo etc.) : but the common con- 
 struction is more natural, because it makes the conduct of the devotee still 
 the subject of description. Wise is here used in what appears to be its pri- 
 mary meaning of artistically skilful. (See the note on ch. 3:3, E. P. 
 p. 42.) 15 may either be reflexive (for himself) , as some consider it in v. 1 1 
 and as all admit T^^ to be in v. 9, or it may be referred to ■]'?. Havino^ 
 secured the stuff, he seeks for it a skilful workman. As yv is an obvious 
 antecedent, and as the reflexive use of the pronouns is comparatively rare, 
 this last construction seems entitled to the preference. — Allhough to prepare 
 is a very common meaning of T^rfi, its primary sense of setting upright or 
 
24 CHAPTERXL. 
 
 erecting is entitled to the preference, not only upon etymological grounds, 
 but because it agrees better with the following expression, a'sa"] xb, which 
 stands in antithesis, not to the preparation of the image, but to its erection 
 or establishment, in which the previous preparation is of course implied, — 
 As kinds of wood regarded by the ancients as peculiarly durable, Grotius 
 enumerates the cypress, grape-vine, juniper, and mulberry; Rosenmiiller 
 the olive, cedar, fir, and oak ; to which Gesenius adds the lotus and the fig- 
 tree. There is no need, however, of supposing a specific reference to any 
 one or more of these varieties. 
 
 V. 21. Will you not Icnotvl ivill you not hearl has it not heen told 
 you from the first 1 have you not understood the foundations (or from the 
 foundations) of the earth 1 The tenses of the verbs in the first clause have 
 been variously and arbitrarily explained by different interpreters. The En- 
 glish Version and some others exchange both the futures for praeters (fiave 
 ye not Tcnown? have ye not heard!) without any satisfactory reason or 
 authority. So far is such a reason from being afforded by the addition of the 
 preterite irvti in this place, or the use of the praeters n^']^ and n:^':© in v. 28, 
 that it rather proves the contrary and makes it necessary to retain the strict 
 sense of the futures. Still more capricious is the explanation of the first verb 
 as a present and the second as a praeter, by the Vulgate and some modern 
 writers (do you not know ? have you not heard ?). With as much or as little 
 reason, Cocceius combines the present and the future (do you not Jcnoiv? 
 will yu not hear ?). There is less objection to the rendering of both verbs 
 In the present tense by Luther (knoiv you not? hear you notl). But the 
 most satisfactory, because the safest and most regular construction, is the 
 strict one given in the Septuagint (ov p'Oiae(Si}£; ov-/, «MOt'(76(Ti>t::), revived by 
 Lowth (icill ye not Jcnowl ivill ye not hearl), and approved by Ewald 
 (o wollt ihr nicht erkennen ? o wollt ihr nicht horen ?). The clause is then not 
 a mere expression of surprise at their not knowing, but of concern or indig- 
 nation at their being unwilling to know. There is no inconsistency between 
 this explanation of the first two questions and the obvious meaning of the 
 third ; because the proof of their unwillingness to hear and know was the fact 
 of their having been informed from the beginning. — tN-i?2 is not a mere 
 indefinite expression meaning long ago, of old, or the like ; but must refer to 
 some specific terminus a quo, which Aben Ezra takes to be the beginning of 
 life. This would be more appropriate if an individual were the object of 
 address. Others understand it to mean, from the beginning of yournational 
 existence ; which supposes too exclusive a reference to the Jews in exile. 
 Neither of these objections lies against the reference of the words to the 
 beginning of the human race, or of the world itself, which is moreover 
 favoured by the subsequent appeal to the creation. Kimchi explains cjinn 
 
CHAPTERXL. 25 
 
 as an allusion to the cabbalah or Jewish tradition, and Hitzig likewise thinks 
 there is a twofold appeal to nature and tradition, or as Calvin more scri|)tur- 
 ally states it, to the word and works of God, But although this aflbrds a 
 good sense, it may perhaps be too great a refinement on the plain import of 
 the words, which would seem to refer simply to the testimony of external 
 nature, and to mean that they who question the existence or supremacy of 
 one God are without excuse, as Paul says, because the invisible things of him 
 from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
 things that are made, to wit, his eternal power and Godhead. (Rom. 1 : 20. 
 Compare Acts 14 : 17. 17 : 24.) — In the last clause Gesenius and most of 
 the later writers connect ihe verb directly with the noun, as meaning, have 
 you not considered (or have you not understood) the foundations of the 
 earth 1 Others, adhering to the masoretic accents, which forbid the imme- 
 diate grammatical conjunction of the verb and noun, prefix a preposition to 
 the latter. Have you not understood (^froin) the foundations of the earth 1 
 The particle thus supplied may either be a particle of time, as explained by 
 Junius and Ewald {since the creation), or indicate the source of knowledge 
 {from the creation), as explained by Calvin. The latter is more obvious 
 and simple in itself; but the other is favoured by the parallelism, as tix-i-o is 
 universally allowed to have a temporal meaning. Lowth's emendation of 
 the text, by the actual insertion of the preposition, is superfluous and there- 
 fore inadmissible. — By the foundations of the earth we are not to understand 
 a literal description of its structure, nor an allusion to the four elements of 
 earth, air, fire, and water, upon which Kimchi here inserts a dissertation, but 
 a substitution of the concrete for the abstract, the foundations of the earth 
 being put by a natural and common figure for its being founded, i. e. its 
 creation. 
 
 V. 22. The {one) sitting on (or over) the circle of the earth, and its 
 inhabitants {are) as grasshojipers (or locusts) ; the one spreading like a 
 veil (or awning) the heavens, and he stretches them out like the tent to dwell 
 in. The relative construction, he that sitteth, is substantially correct, but it 
 is better to retain, as far as possible, the form of the original, as given above. 
 The words may then be construed with the verb of existence understood, as 
 in the English Version {it is he that sitteth), or with the last verb in the 
 preceding verse {have ye not considered the one sitting etc. ?). — The circle 
 of the earth may either mean the earth itself, or the heavens by which it is 
 surmounted and encompassed. (Solomon Ben INIclek : pf^r? 33ipri ^j^j.) 
 This expression has been urged with equal propriety by Gill as a proof that 
 the prophet was acquainted with the true shape of the earth, and by Knobel 
 as a proof that he had a false idea of the heavens. On the absurdity of such 
 conclusions, sec E. P. p. 559. As a parallel to this may be mentioned the 
 
26 C H A P T E R X L . 
 
 remark of Hendewcrk, that God is here described as bearing just the same 
 proportion to mankind, that the latter bear to insects ! The same compari- 
 son occurs in ]\um. 13: 33. 2:.ri is now commonly explained to mean a 
 species of locust, which of course has no effect upon the point of the com- 
 parison, the essential idea being that of bcsliolne (Calvin) or minuta onimanda 
 (Grotius). — p'n is properly a fine cloth, here applied, as Lovvth supposes, to 
 the awning spread over the open courts of oriental houses. It has been 
 disputed whether the last words of the verse mean for himself to dwell in, or 
 for man to dwell in. But they really form part, not of the direct descrip- 
 tion, but of the comparison, like a tent pitched for dwelling in, an idea 
 distinctly expressed in the translation both by Henderson (a dwelling-tent) 
 and Ewald {dos fVohnzclt). — With this verse compare ch. 42: 5. 44: 24. 
 Job 9: 8. Ps. 104: 2. 
 
 V. 23. The (one) bringing (literally giving or putting) princes to 
 nothing, the judges (or rulers) of the earth like emptiness (or desolation) he 
 has made. Not only nature but man, not only individuals but nations, not 
 only nations but their rulers, are completely subject to the power of God. 
 The Septuagint understands "i'ns as meaning so as to rule over nothing 
 (w,' 0(6'^' ('ar/iir), implying the loss of their authority. The Vulgate strangely 
 renders n'^sni secretorum scrutatores, a version probably suggested by the 
 Chaldee T'n a secret. 
 
 V. 24. Not even sown were they, not even planted, not even rooted in the 
 ground their stock, and he ju<'( breathed, (or blew) upon them, and they 
 withered, and a whirlwind like the chaff shall fake them up (or away). 
 The Targum gives ba qx the sense of though (■'b-Ex), Aben Ezra and 
 Kimchi that of as if (i^xr), which last is adopted by Luther and Calvin. 
 Gesenius and the later German writers all agree that the compound phrase 
 has here the sense of scarcely. Cix by itself denotes accession, and may 
 sometimes be expressed by yea or yes, sonietimes by also or even. It is not 
 impossible that in the present case, the Cix in one clause and the correspond- 
 ing cj in the other, were intended to connect the statements of this verse 
 witli the one before it. As if he had said, not only can God ultimately 
 bring them to destruction, but also when they are not yet planted etc. ; not 
 only by slower and more potent means, but also by breathing on them. 
 Another possible solution is that yes and no are here combined to express 
 the idea of uncertainty, as if he had said, they are and are not sown, planted, 
 etc. i. e. when they are scarcely sown, or when it is still doubtful whetl)er 
 they are sown. But perhaps the siuiplest and most natural construction is 
 the one assumed above in the translation, where the phrase is taken as sub- 
 stantially equivalent to our 7iot even, yielding the same sense in the end with 
 
CHAPTERXL. 27 
 
 the usual modern version scarcely. Tlie future form which some give to 
 the verbs is wholly arbitrary. He is describing the destruction of the great 
 ones of the earth as already effected ; and even if the praeters be •praeterita 
 propheticn, there is no more need of giving them the future form in English 
 than in Hebrew. The transition to the future in the last clause is analogous 
 to that in v. 19, and has the same effect of showing that the point of obser- 
 vation is an intermediate one between the beginning and the end of the 
 destroying process. The essential meaning of the whole verse is, that God 
 can extirpate them, not only in the end, but in a moment ; not only in the 
 height of their prosperity, but long before they have attained it. J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis supposes a particular allusion to the frequency with which the highest 
 families became extinct, so that there is not now on earth a royal house 
 which is the lineal representative of any race that reigned in ancient times. 
 It is possible, however, that the words may have reference to the national 
 existence of Israel as a nation, the end of which, with the continued and 
 more glorious existence of the church independent of all national restrictions, 
 may be said to constitute the great theme of these prophecies. 
 
 V. Q5. And (iioiu) to ivhom will ye liken me, and (to whom) shall I be 
 equal? saith the Holy One. He winds up his argument by coming back 
 to the triumphant challenge of v. 18. This repetition does not seem to have 
 struck any one as indicating a strophical arrangement, although such a con- 
 clusion would be quite as valid as in many other cases. The indirect 
 construction of the second verb as a subjunctive (that I may or should he 
 equal), although preferred by Luther, Calvin, and most modern writers, is 
 much less simple in itself, and less consistent with the genius and usage of 
 the language, than its strict translation as a future, continuing directly the 
 interrogation of the other clause. — The epithet Holy is in this connexion 
 well explained by J. D. Michaelis as including all that distinguishes between 
 God and his creatures, so that the antithesis is perfect. (Compare ch. 6 : 3, 
 and E. P. p. 89.) 
 
 V. 26. Lift up on high your eyes and see — ivho hath created all these 1 
 — (and who is) the (one) bringing out by ruunher their host 1 — to all of 
 them by name will he call — from abundance of might and (because) strong 
 in power — 7wt one faileth (literally a man is not missed ov found wanting). 
 The same exhortation to lift up the eyes occurs elsewhere in Isaiah (ch. 
 37: 23. 49: 18. 60: 4). — The construction is not, see (him) who created 
 these, or, see ivho created these, but, as the accents indicate, see, behold, the 
 heavens and the heavenly bodies, and then as a distinct interrogation, who 
 created these 1 There is more doubt as to the question whether the follow- 
 ing words continue the interrogation or contain the answer to it. In the 
 
28 CHAPTERXL. 
 
 former case, the sense is, Uho created these ? (who is) the {one) bringing 
 out etc ? In the latter case, IVho created these ? The (^one) bringing out etc. 
 This last is favoured by the analogy of ch. 41:4, 26. 42: 24 and other 
 places, where a similar question is immediately succeeded by the answer. 
 But in this case such an answer would be almost unmeaning, since it would 
 merely say that he wbo rules the heavenly bodies made them. It is much 
 more natural to understand the last clause as completing the description. — 
 To bring out is a military term, as appears from ch. 43 : 17 and 2 Sam. 5 : 
 2. It is applied as here to the host of heaven in Job 38: 32. — Instead of 
 by number, Zwingle and Henderson understand the phrase to mean in num- 
 ber, i. e. in great numbers, just as nba means loith might or mightily. But 
 the common explanation of the phrase as denoting order and arrangement is 
 favoured, not only by the military form of the whole description, but by the 
 parallel expression by name, which is not used to qualify the noun but the 
 verb, and to show in what way the commander of this mighty host exerts his 
 power, in what way he brings out and calls his soldiers, viz. by number and 
 by name. The reference of these clauses to the rising of the heavenly 
 bodies makes them too specific, and confounds direct description with com- 
 parison. The sense is that the stars are like an army which its leader brings 
 out and enumerates, the particular points of the resemblance being left to 
 the imagination. The explanation of 'i^^^x by Gesenius and others as an 
 abstract meaning strength is neither justified by usage nor required by the 
 context, since the word may be applied as a descriptive epithet to God who 
 is the subject of the sentence. It is an old and singular opinion that the 
 strength here spoken of is that residing in the stars themselves. ^TS>i, sib may 
 also be regarded as a military phrase. The feminine form of the same 
 expression occurs in a different application ch. 34: 16. (See the Earlier 
 Prophecies, p. 573.) 
 
 V. 27. Why ivilt thou say oh Jacob, and why (thus) speaJc oh Israel? 
 Hidden is my way from Jehovah, and from my God my cause will j^ass (or 
 is about to pass) away. The future verbs in this verse have been rendered 
 as variously as those in v. 21. The precise question asked by the Prophet 
 is not why hast thou said, why dost thou say, or why shouldest thou say, but 
 why wilt thou still go on to say, implying that it bad been said, was still 
 said, and would be said again. — The two names of the patriarch are here 
 combined, as in many other cases, to describe his offspring. — Hidden may 
 either mean unknown, or neglected, or forgotten, in which last sense it is 
 used below in ch. 65 : 16. The same verb is applied in Gen. 31:49 to 
 persons who are absent from each other and of course out of sight. — Way is 
 a common figure for the course of life, experience, or what the world calls 
 fortune, destiny, or fate. — The figure in the last clause is forensic, the idea 
 
CHAPTERXL. 29 
 
 that of a cause or suit dismissed, lost sight of, or neglected by the judge. 
 The expression is analogous to that in ch. 1 : 23, where it is said of the un- 
 just judges, that the cause of the widow does not come unto them or before 
 them. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 17.) The state of mind described 
 is a skeptical despondency as to the fulfilment of God's promises. Since 
 this form of unbelief is more or less familiar to the personal experience of 
 believers in all ages, and the terms of the expostulation here are not 
 restricted to any single period in the history of Israel, the grave conclusions 
 drawn by Gesenius and Knobel with respect to the prevalence of an epicu- 
 rean skepticism at the period of the Babylonish exile, have an air of solemn 
 trifling, and the proofs of later date which they aftbrd are like unto them. 
 
 V. 28. Hast thou not known 1 hast thou not heard ? The God of eter- 
 nity (or everlasting God), Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, 
 will not faint, and ivill not tire ; there is no search (with respect) to his 
 understanding. Most of the modern writers prefer Lowth's construction, 
 that Jehovah (is) the everlasting God ; but this, by making several distinct 
 propositions, impairs the sim|)licity of the construction. The translation of 
 the futures in the present or potential form (does not or cannot faint) , though 
 not erroneous, is inadequate, since both these senses are included in the 
 promiscuous form or future proper. That he ivill not faint or tire, implies 
 sufficiently in this case that he neither does nor can, while it expresses his 
 unwillingness to do so. The ends of the earth is a common Hebrew phrase 
 for its limits and all that they include. The Septuagint makes the prophet 
 say that Jehovah will not hunger (ov nttvuasi). — This verse contains an 
 answer to the unbelieving fears expressed in that before it, which ascribed 
 to God an imperfection or infirmity with which he is not chargeable. The 
 last clause may either be a general assertion that he cannot leave his people 
 unprotected through a want of understanding and of knowledge, or, as 
 Hitzig supposes, a suggestion that his methods of proceeding, though inscru- 
 table, are infinitely wise, and that the seeming inconsistency between his 
 words and deeds, far from arguing unfaithfulness or weakness upon his 
 part, does but prove our incapacity to understand or fathom his profound 
 designs. Even supposing that the former is the strict sense of the words, 
 the latter is implicitly contained in them. 
 
 V. 29. Giving to the faint (or weary) strength, and to the powerless 
 might will he increase. He is not only strong in himself, but the giver of 
 strength to others, or, to state it as an argument a fortiori, he who is the 
 only source of strength to others must be strong himself, and able to fulfil 
 his promises. — The construction is similar to that in vs. 22, 23, not except- 
 
30 C H A P T E R X L . 
 
 ing the transition from the participle to the finite verb, "jri is not strictly 
 a periphrasis for the present tense, as rendered in the English Version, but 
 agrees with Jehovah as the subject of the preceding verse. The position of 
 this word at the beginning and of the corresponding verb at tbe end of the 
 verse is empbatic and climacteric, tbe first meaning simply to give, the other 
 to give more or abundantly. — The Septuagint has, giving to the hungry 
 stremrth, and to those that s;rieve not sorrow. 
 
 V. 30. And [yet) ivcary shall youths he arid faint, and chosen (^youths) 
 shall be uxalicned, be weah'ened. There is here an obvious allusion to the 
 terms of v. 2S. What is there denied of God, is here affirmed, not only of 
 men in o-eneral, but of the stoutest and most vigorous, aptly represented by 
 the young men chosen for military service, which appears to be a better 
 explanation of c^nsina than the one given by Gesenius, viz. choice or chosen, 
 in reference to personal beauty. (Compare ch. 9:16, and the Earlier 
 Prophecies, p. 177.) Fi'irst, with still less probability, supposes the essen- 
 tial meaninor to be that of growth or adolescence. That the prominent idea 
 here conveyed is that of manly strength and vigour, is not questioned. — 
 For the evidence that Vi323 strictly means to grow weak or be weakened, 
 see 1 Sam. 2 : 4, Zech. 12 : 8, and Gesenius's Thesaurus, torn. ii. p. 720. 
 
 The intensive repetition of t' e verb may either be expressed by the 
 
 addition of an adverb, as in the English Version (iitterly fall), or retained 
 in the translation as above. 
 
 V. 31. And (on the other hand) those ivaiting for Jehovah shall gain 
 new strength ; they shall raise the jnnion like the eagles, they shall run and 
 not be weary, they shall walk and not faint. The marked antithesis 
 between this verse and that before it, justifies the use of hut in English, 
 although not in the original, in^l^ is {o iv ait for ov expect, \m^\y\ng{2i\\\\ and 
 patience. This is also the old English meaning of the phrase to ivait upon, 
 as applied to servants who await their master's orders ; but in modern usage 
 the idea of personal service or attendance has become predominant, so that 
 the English phrase no longer represents the Hebrew one. Jehovah's 
 waiters, which is Ewald's bold and faithful version (Jahve's Harrer), would 
 convey if not a false an inadequate idea to the English reader. The class 
 of persons meant to be described are those who show their confidence in 
 God's ability and willingness to execute his promises, by patiently awaiting 
 their fulfilment. The restriction of these words to the exiles in Babylon is 
 entirely gratuitous. Although applicable, as a general proposition, to that 
 case among others, they admit of a more direct and striking application to 
 the case of those who under the old dispensation kept its end in view, and 
 
CHAPTERXL. 31 
 
 still "waited for the consolation of Israel," and "looked for redemption in 
 Jerusalem." (Luke 1 : 25,38.) — The phrase translated they sJioll gain new 
 strength properly means they shall exchange strength ; but the usage of the 
 verb determines its specific meaning to be that of changing for the better or 
 improving. The sense is therefore correctly given in the English Version 
 (^they shall renew their strength). — Of the next phrase there are three dis- 
 tinct interpretations. 1. The English Bible follows Luther in explaining 
 i^?|] as the future Kal, and "i^x as a qualifying noun, equivalent to the 
 ablative of instrument in Latin Qhey shall mount up with ivings . This 
 construction is also adopted by Junius, Cocceius, Vitringa, Augusti, Hen- 
 derson, and Barnes. 2. The second opinion is expressed in Lowth's trans- 
 lation : they shall put forth fresh feathers like the moulting eagle. The 
 reference is then to the ancient belief of the eagle's great longevity and of 
 its frequently renewing its youth. (Psalm 103 : 5.) The rabbinical tradi- 
 tion, as recorded by Saadias, is that the eagle, at the end of every tenth 
 year, soars so near the sun as to be scorched and cast into the sea, from 
 which it then emerges with fresh plumage, till at the end of the tenth decade 
 or a century complete, it sinks to rise no more. This explanation of the 
 phrase before us is given not only by the Septuagint (nr^QOfpvi'iaovaiv) and 
 the Vulgate (assument pejmas), but by the Targum and Peshito, although 
 more obscurely. In later times it is approved by Grotius, Clericus, J. D. 
 Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and De Wette. The principal objections 
 to it are, that ^'^^_^_ has no where else the sense of putting forth (although the 
 root does sometimes mean to sprout or grow), and that ^isx does not denote 
 feathers in general, but a whig-feather or a pinion in particular. 3. A 
 third construction, simpler than the first and more agreeable to usage than 
 the second, gives the verb its ordinary sense of causing to ascend or raising 
 and the noun its proper sense of pinion, and connects the two directly as a 
 transitive verb and its object, they shall raise the pinion (or the tving) like 
 the eagles. This construction is adopted by Calvin, Hensler, Gesenius, 
 Maurer, Hitzig, Umbreit, Hendewerk, and Knobel ; and, though charged by 
 Beck with enormous flatness, is even more poetical than that which supposes 
 an allusion not to the soaring but the moulting of the eagle. In the last 
 clause the verbs "?^ and t\'S1 are introduced together for the third time in a 
 beautiful antithesis. In v. 28 they are applied to Jehovah, in v. 30 to the 
 strongest and most vigorous of men, as they are in themselves, and here to 
 the waiters for Jehovah, the believers in his promises, who glory in infirmity 
 that his strength may be perfect in their weakness. (2 Cor. 12 : 9.) — Kno- 
 bel's comment on this promise is characteristic of his age and school. After 
 condescendingly showing that the thought is a correct one (der Gedanke ist 
 richtig), he explains himself by saying, that trust in divine help does 
 increase the natural powers, and that this effect is viewed by the pious writer 
 
32 CHAPTERXLI. 
 
 (i. e. Isaiah) as a direct gift of God in requital of the confidence reposed in 
 him. All this, though ahsolutely true, is relatively false, so far as it implies 
 su|)enoiity, in point of elevation and enlargement, on the part of the 
 expounder as imagining himself to be more than a prophet. (Luke 11:9.) 
 
 CHAPTER XLI. 
 
 Until the ends of Israel's national existence are accomplished, that 
 existence must continue, in spite of hostile nations and their gods, who shall 
 all perish sooner than the chosen people, vs. 1-16. However feeble Israel 
 may be in himself, Jehovah will protect him, and raise up the necessary 
 instruments for his deliverance and triumph, vs. 17-29. 
 
 V. 1 . Be silent to me, oh islands, and the nations shall gain new 
 strength; they shall approach, then shall they speak, together to the judg- 
 ment-seat will we draw near. Having proved the impotence of idols in a 
 direct address to Israel, Jehovah now sunmions the idolaters themselves to 
 enter into controversy with him. The restriction o( islands here to certain 
 parts of Europe and Asia seems preposterous. The challenge is a general 
 one directed to the whole heathen world, and islands is a poetical variation 
 for lands or at the most for maritime lands or sea-coasts. Silence in this 
 connexion implies attention or the fact of listening, v/hich is expressed in 
 Job 33 : 31. The imperative form at the beginning gives an imperative 
 sense likewise to the future, which might therefore be translated let them 
 approach etc. There is an obvious allusion in the first clause to the promise 
 in ch. 40 : 31. As if he had said : they that hope in Jehovah shall renew 
 their strength ; let those who refuse renew theirs as they can. — The parti- 
 cle then makes the passage more graphic by bringing distinctly into view the 
 successive steps of the process. This seems to recommend the explanation 
 of ::B'^'a as a local rather than an abstract noun. The same judicial or 
 forensic figure is applied to contention between God and man by Job (9 : 19, 
 20, 32). Lowth's paraphrase of this verse is more than usually languid 
 and diluted : e. g. let the distant nations repair to me with new force of 
 
 mind let us enter into solemn debate. The same writer reads 
 
 i;!3"innn on the authority of the Septuagint (iynainX^a&t), and says that the 
 same mistake occurs Zeph. 3:17. But the Hiphil of HJ^n does not occur 
 elsewhere, and the common text is confirmed by Aquila (xcoq^Evaaze) and 
 Symmachus (aiyijaaii), as well as by the other ancient versions. 
 
CHAPTERXLI. 33 
 
 V. 2. Who hath raised up (or aivaJcened) from the east 1 Righteous- 
 ness shall call him to its foot ; it shall give nations before him, and cause 
 him to tread upon kings ; it shall give (them) as dust to his sword, and as 
 driven stubble to his bow. The simplest construction of the first clause is 
 that which assumes an abrupt transition fi-om the form of interrogation to 
 that of prediction. The speaker, as it were, interrupts his own question 
 before it is complete, in order to supply what must otherwise be presup- 
 posed. Instead of going on to ask who brought the event to pass, he 
 pauses to describe the event itself. The same sense is obtained, but with 
 a change of form, by supplying a relative and continuing the interrogation. 
 Who raised up from the east (Jiiin whom) righteousness etc. The old con- 
 struction which makes righteousness the object of the verb and regards it as 
 an abstract used for a concrete (i-ighteousness for righteous one), is wholly 
 arbitrary and at variance with the masoretic accents. Gesenius and the 
 later German writers understand the clause to mean whom victory meets at 
 every step. This new sense of pnii is entirely gratuitous, and violates the 
 fundamental laws of lexicography, by multiplying senses without any 
 necessity and confounding the definition of a term with its application. 
 Here and elsewhere P7.:i means the righteousness of God as manifested in 
 his providence, his dealings with his people and their enemies. (See eh. 
 ] : 27, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 19.) Because it suggests, in such 
 connexions, the idea of its consequences or effects, it no more follows that 
 this is the proper meaning of the word, than that ivrath means sufferino- 
 because the wrath of God causes the sufferings of the guilty. Another 
 objection to this version of the clause is its giving 5<np the less usual sense 
 of meet, and i^S']^ that of at every step, which is certainly not justified by 
 the obscure and dubious analogy of Gen. 30 : 30, especially when taken in 
 connexion with the usage of tlie same phrase elsewhere to mean in the foot- 
 steps, train, suite, or retinue of any one. (See 1 Sam. 25:42. Job 18: 11. 
 Hab. 3 : 5.) In his lexicons, Gesenius admits the idea to be that oi fol- 
 lowing, and actually introduces that verb into the clause, a virtual concession 
 that his own translation of N'^P? is at variance not only with usage but the 
 context. To call to one's foot is a Hebrew idiom for callin"- to one's 
 service, or summoning to take a place among one's followers. This act is 
 here ascribed to the divine righteousness as a personified attribute. The 
 
 other verbs may agree with the same subject or directly with Jehovah. 
 
 In the last clause Gesenius and the later Germans make the suffixes col- 
 lective, and by his sword, his bow, understand the sword and bow of the 
 nations or their kings. As the modern writers are so much accustomed to 
 reject the old interpretations with contempt, it may not be amiss to mention 
 here, that this construction is as old as Kimchi, and that it is set aside by 
 Vitringa as an expositio violcnta quae nihil sani praefcrt. The enaJJao-e 
 
 3 
 
34 C H A P T E R X L I . 
 
 of number is in fact too violent to be assumed witbout necessity. Vitringa 
 himself supposes tbe sword and bow to be tbose of the conqueror, and to be 
 described as like dust or chair in rapidity of motion. But the iuiage, which 
 is that of dust or chaff driven by the wind, is always used elsewhere in a 
 passive and unfavourable sense, never as expressive of activity or energy. 
 On the whole, there seems to be no construction more free from objection 
 than the old one of tlie English Version, the Targum, and tbe Vulgate, 
 which gives 'in"^ the same sense, the same subject, and the same object as in 
 the preceding clause. The difficulty which arises from supposing an ellipsis of 
 the preposition before sivord and bo2o, may be removed by taking these words 
 as adverbial or qualifying nouns, a Hebrew idiom of constant occurrence. 
 This construction becomes still more natural if we understand the clause to 
 mean that he makes the enemy like dust or clmffivith or by means o/his sword 
 and bow. In that case, the verb may be construed either with nini , pni^j , 
 or the conqueror himself. The construction may be rendered clearer by 
 restoring the Hebrew collocation. Kings he shaU subdue («nf/) shall make 
 like dust (with) his sivord and like driven chaff (with) his boio. — The explana- 
 tion of the futures as preterites is wholly arbitrary, and even the descriptive 
 present appears inadmissible when the strict sense is so perfectly appropriate. 
 — The question, whose appearance is predicted in this verse, has been always 
 a subject of dispute. Eusebius, Theodoret, and Procopius understand it as 
 describing the triumphs of the true religion or the gospel, here called 
 righteousness. Cyril and Jerome apply it to the Lord Jesus Christ himself 
 as the Righteous One or the Lord our Righteousness. Cocceius stands 
 alone in his application of the verse to the apostle Paul. The Jews make 
 Abraham the subject of the passage, excepting Aben Ezra, who, with 
 Vitringa and all the latest writers, understands it as a prophecy of Cyrus. 
 The inappropriateness of the terms employed to our Saviour or the Gospel, 
 to Abraham or Paul, is almost self-evident, and equally clear is its appro- 
 priateness to the case of Cyrus. The argument in favour of the latter appli- 
 cation drawn from the analogy of ch. 45 : 1, 46 : 11, is less conclusive, 
 because he is there expressly named. The truth appears to be that this is 
 a more general Intimation of a great eventful movement from the east, which 
 is afterwards repeated with specific reference to Cyrus and his conquests. 
 It might even be supposed without absurdity that there is here an allusion 
 to tbe general progress of the human race, of conquest, civilization, and 
 religion, from the east to the west. Umbreit supposes a specific reference 
 • to the course of the sun, from which the name of Cyrus was derived, as we 
 shall see. 
 
 V. 3. He shall pursue them; he shall pass (in) peace (or safety) ; a 
 path with his feet he shall not go. There is the same objection here as in 
 
C H A P T E R X L 1 . 35 
 
 the preceding v^erse to the explanation of the verbs as preterites ; but most 
 interpreters, not content with this, make the future in tiie last clause a 
 pluperfect (the way that he had not gone with his feet). This method of 
 translation involves the whole subject in uncertainty. If the past and the 
 future senses may be interchanged at pleasure and without necessity, the 
 interpreter may make the author say what he pleases. In the case before 
 us, J. D. Michaelis adheres to the proper future sense, and explains the 
 clause to mean that he shall not have occasion to retrace his steps. But as 
 this, like the common explanation before mentioned, leaves the phrase iviih 
 his feet pleonastic and unmeaning, the preference is due to Ewald's suppo- 
 sition that the clause describes the swiftness of his n)olions, as flyino- rather 
 than walking on foot. This, which would be natural and striking, even 
 in itself considered, is confirmed by the analogy of Daniel 8 : 5, where we 
 read that an he-goat came from the ivest on the face of the whoJe earth, and 
 touched not the ground. 
 
 V. 4. JVho hath wrought and done (it), calling the generations from the 
 beginning? I Jehovah, the first and ivith the last, I (a in) he. Another 
 construction of the verse, preferred by the latest writers, includes the last 
 part of the first clause in the answer to the question. M^ho hath wrought 
 and done it 1 He that calleth the generations etc. But besides the unequal 
 distribution of the verse which thus arises, this construction makes the answer 
 speak of God both in the first and second person, and gives to the indefinite 
 xnp the sense of the emphatic N-ip-n , neither of which departures from the 
 tisus loquendi, though admissible in case of necessity, ought to be assumed 
 without it. — Calling the generations may either mean calling them into 
 existence or proclaiming them, i. e. predicting them ; probably the latter, 
 since the event itself, although it proved a superhuman agency, did not prove 
 it to be that of Jehovah, which could only be established by the fulfilment 
 of predictions uttered in his name. With the last does not simply mean the 
 last, which is the form employed in ch. 41 : 21-25, A6: 8-10, but co-existent 
 with the last, a mode of expression which would seem to imply that although 
 Jehovah existed before all other beings he will not outlast them all. i<!-,n i:x 
 is explained by some of the older writers as meaning I am God ; by the 
 latest, I am the same (i. e. unchangeable) ; but the simplest construction is 
 the common one, I am he, i. e. the being to whom the interrogation has 
 respect, / am he ivho has wrought and done it. 
 
 V. 5. The isles have seen it and are afraid, the ends of the earth 
 tremble ; they have approached and come. Some regard this as a description 
 of the effect produced by the foregoing argument, but others as a part of the 
 argument itself, drawn from the effect of the appearance of the person men- 
 
36 C H A FT E R XLI. 
 
 tioned in v. 2. As an instance of the length to which specific historical 
 interpretation can be carried by the new as well as by the old school of 
 interpreters, it may be mentioned that Hendewevk, with the first book of 
 Herodotus before him, explains islatifh here to mean the Greek states in the 
 west of Asia Minor, — their approach, the message which they sent to Cyrus 
 after the defeat of Croesus, — the mutual encouragement described in the next 
 verse, the deliberations of the Panionion ! All this, however, he supposes 
 to be here described, not by a prophet in the proper sense, but by a contem- 
 porary writer. 
 
 V. G. A man his neighbour (i. e. one another) ihey wiU Jceep, and to 
 his brother (one) will say, Be strong ! This general description is then 
 filled up, or carried out into detail in the next verse, both containing a 
 sarcastic description of the vain appeal of the idolaters to the protection of 
 their tutelary deities. 
 
 V. 7. And the carver has strengthened the gilder, the smoother ivith 
 the hammer the smiter on the anvil ; he says (or is saying) of the solder, 
 It is good ; and he has strengthened it with nails ; it shall not be moved. 
 The sarcasm consists in making the idolaters dependent upon idols which 
 are themselves dependent upon common workmen and the most trivia;} 
 mechanical operations for their form and their stability. Hence the par- 
 ticular enumeration of the different artificers employed in the manufacture 
 of these deities. J. D. Michaelis explains c"5 nVn to mean the treader on 
 the bellows, i, e. the bellows-blower. — The text of the English Version has 
 it is ready for the soldering ; but the other construction is now universally 
 adopted. The last clause implies that the strength of the idol is not in itself, 
 but in the nails that keep it in its place or hold its parts together. 
 
 V. 8. And. thou Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed 
 of Abraham my friend. The prominent idea is still that of the contrast 
 between Israel as the people of God, and the heathen as his enemies. The 
 insertion of the substantive verb in the first clause, thou art Israel my servant 
 (Vitringa), or thou Israel art my servant (English Version), is unnecessary. 
 This whole verse with the next may be understood as a description of the 
 object of address, or of the person to whom the exhortation in v, 10 is 
 directed. The two names of Jacob are again combined in application to 
 his progeny. The race is described as God's servant and his elect, or, com- 
 bining the two characters, his chosen servant, chosen to be his servant. 
 Vitringa understands this last term as including the idea of a worshipper or 
 votary ; and Hitzig compares it with Abdastartus, a servant of Astarte, and 
 the favourite Arabic name Abdallah or a worshipper of Allah. — The people 
 
CHAPTERXLI. 37 
 
 are here described not only as the sons of Jacob but of Abraham. "^^0.^ 
 cannot of itself denote an object of divine love, as it is explained in the 
 Septuagint (^6i> yyantjaa), nor can it be both active and passive, amans and 
 «rafliws, as Vitringa supposes. The latter idea is implied but not expressed. 
 The same honourable title is bestowed on Abraham in 2 Chr. 20; 7, James 
 2 : 23, and in the common parlance of the Arabs, by whom he is usually 
 styled icU! JoyLi^ tlie Friend of God, or absolutely, JuJL^t the Friend. 
 
 V. 9. Thou lohorti I have grasped from the ends of the earth, and from 
 its joints (or sides) have called thee, and said to thee, My servant (ar/) 
 thou, I have chosen thee and not rejected thee. The description of the 
 object of address is still continued. The essential idea here expressed is 
 that of election and separation from the rest of men, a bringing near of those 
 who were afar oft'. Interpreters have ueedlessly disputed whether the voca- 
 tion of Israel in Abraham, or at the exodus, is here particularly meant ; since 
 both are really included in a general description of the calling and election 
 of the people. The objection that Israel is distinguished from Abraham in 
 V. 8, is of no weight, except against the supposition (if maintained by any) 
 diat Abraham himself is here the object of address. The application of 
 analogous expressions to the exodus from Egypt, in Deut. 39: 10, Ezek. 
 20 : 5, only proves that this was one of the great crises or junctures in the 
 progress of the people, at which their eleciioa or vocation was declared, and 
 as it were renewed. The question in what sense Egypt could be called the 
 ends of the earth, is as trifling as the answer which some give it, that it was 
 remote from Babylon. The phrase in question is a common idiomatic 
 expression for remoteness, often used without refereEce to particular local- 
 ities (see ch. 5 ; 26. i3 : 2). Tlie idea meant to be conveyed is identical 
 with that expressed by Paul when he says (Epb. 2 : 13), vlihI^ 01 note uireg 
 tiu}<(.'uv g'/pi,' iytt'i'j&ijze^ The translation / have taken is inadequate, the 
 Hebrew verb meaning to hold fast, and the idea of removal being rather 
 implied than expressed. The parallel expression (n-^p-i^ix) is explained by 
 Geseniiis from the analogy of ^sx side, by Ma^rer from that of b-^sx a joint, 
 which seems to be also presupposed in tlie version of Synmiaclius (fiy/Mvav). 
 The rabbinical interpretation, chief men^ is founded on the analogy of Ex. 
 24 : 11. Some of the Jewish writers understand l'^ as meaning in spite of 
 others in preference to, but both without authority. — Lowth's translation of 
 rpnoxti as a future is entirely arbitrary, and overlooks the peculiar Hebrew 
 idiom of saying the same thing positively aiad negatively. (See the Earlier 
 Prophecies, p. 46.) 
 
 V. 10. Ftar thou not, for I (awt) with thee ; look not around, for I 
 (nm) thy God ; 1 have strengthened thee, yea I have helped thee, yea I have 
 
38 C H A P T E R X L I . 
 
 upheld thee lo'ith my right hand of righteousness. This may be regarded 
 as the conclusion of the sentence beginning in v. 8, as the address to which 
 the two preceding verses are an iiitrocUiciion. — Vitringa derives rnain from 
 'JVC . Ewald makes it an orthographical variation of nsn-n (Gen. 24 : 21). 
 Gesenius and most other modern writers make it the Hiihpacl of nr-^j , and 
 explain it to mean, do not look around fearfully as if for help. Hitzig 
 compares it with the Homeric verb numuirco. — The Cix , which might be 
 rendered nay more, seems to give the last clause the form of a climax, 
 although such a progression cannot easily be traced in the thoughts. The 
 English Version, which adheres to the strict translation of the preterites in 
 V. 9, here gratuitously employs the future form, which wholly changes the 
 complexion of the sentence. It is not a sin)ple promise, but a reference to 
 what God had already done and might therefore be expected to do again. 
 The present form employed by Rosenmiiller (corroboro te) is less objection- 
 able than the future, but in no respect preferable to the strict translation. — 
 Equally arbitrary is the introduction by the later Germans of their favourite 
 idea that PT4, in these prophecies means prosperity or success ; whereas it 
 does not even suggest that notion, except so far as it flows from the righteous- 
 ness of God as an effect from its cause. Hitzig's translation gracious arm 
 is at once a departure from the old and the new interpretation. It is not 
 even necessary to assume with Low th that pl^i here denotes the faithfulness 
 of God, and to translate accordingly my faithful right hand. The true 
 sense is the strict one o{ righteousness or justice, the appeal to which in such 
 connexions has already been explained. (See above, on v. 2.) The right 
 hand of 7ny righteousness supposes the attribute to be personified, — a suppo- 
 sition which may be avoided by referring the suffix to the whole complex 
 phrase, my right hand of righteousness or just right hand. — As specimens 
 of ultra-specific exposition, without any foundation in the text, it may be 
 mentioned that Knobel understands this as an exhortation to the Jewish 
 exiles not to be afraid of Cyrus. 
 
 V. 11. Lo, ashamed and confounded shall be all those incensed (or 
 inflamed) against thee ; they shall be as nothing (or as though they ivere 
 not), and destroyed shall be thy men of strife (or they that strive with thee). 
 Not only shall Krael himself escape, but his enemies shall perish. To be 
 ashamed and conibunded, here as usual, includes the frustration of their plans 
 and disappointment of their hopes. On the meaning of as nothing, see 
 above, p. 20. The construction of the phrase thy men of strife, is the same 
 as that of wy right hand of righteousness in v. 10. 
 
 V. 12. Thou shalt seek them and not find them, thy men of quarrel ; 
 they shall be as iiothing and as nought, thy men of war (i. e. they who 
 
CHAPTER XLI. 39 
 
 quarrelled and made war with thee). The fiist clause contains a common 
 Hebrew figure for complete disappearance and destruction. (See Ps. 
 37 : 36. Jer. 50: 20. Amos 8 : 12. Hos. 5 : 6.) ">x and dsx strictly denote 
 non-existence and annihilation. (See above, on ch. 40 : 17.) 
 
 V. 13. For I, Jehovah thy God, (f//«) holding fast ihy right hand ; 
 the {one) saying to thee, Fear not, I have helped thee, i. e. I, who com- 
 mand thee not to fear, have already helped thee, or secured thy safety. 
 J. D. Michaelis gives P'^Tn-o the causative sense of strengthening ; but this 
 sense is rare, except in a few of the later books, and the other is recom- 
 mended here, not only by the general agreement of interpreters, but by the 
 analogy of v. 9. 
 
 V. 14. Fear not, thou worm Jacob and ye men of Israel; I have helped 
 thee,saith Jehovah, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. The same 
 encouragement is here repeated, but with a direct contrast between Israel's 
 weakness and the strength of God. — The feminine form of the verb has 
 reference to that of the noun rvhin . This epithet expresses not merely the 
 contempt of others, as in Ps. 22 : 7, much less the Babylonian oppression of 
 the Jews, as J. H. Michaelis and others think, but the real meanness and 
 unworthiness of man, as in Job 25 : 6. As the parallelism seems to require 
 an analogous expression of contempt in the next clause, some either read 
 in^ {dead men) with Aquila (rt&isooTeg), Theodotion {vey.Qof), and Jerome 
 {qui mortui estis ex Israel), or regard "'r'c as a modification of that word 
 denoting mortals. Vitringa and Hitzig gain the same end by explaining it 
 as an ellipsis for "ispia ''T!^ men of number, i. e. few men, used in Ps. 105: 
 12. So the Septuagint has ohyoaroc, but omits xvorm aUogether. Ewald 
 completes the parallelism in a very summary manner, by reading ^>?"'wi r^sn , 
 and translating it gelcrummtes Israel. Maurer, on the other hand, discovers 
 that the parallelism is not always perfect, and advises the reader to trans- 
 late it boldly {redde intrepide) men of Israel, which seems to be the simplest 
 and most obvious course, leaving the accessory idea of fewness or weakness 
 to suggest itself. — The word ^sj redeemer would suggest to a Hebrew 
 reader the ideas of a near kinsman (Lev. 25 : 24, 25) and of deliverance 
 from bondage by the payment of a ransom. Its highest application occurs 
 here and in Job 19: 25. The reference to the Son of God, although it 
 might not be perceptible of old, is now rendered necessary by the knowledge 
 that this act, even under the old dispensation, is always referred to the same 
 person of the Trinity. The substitution of the future for the preterite by the 
 English and some other versions lias already been seen to be gratuitous and 
 arbitrary. 
 
40 CHAPTERXLI. 
 
 V. 15. Behold I have placed thee for (i. e. appointed thee to be, or 
 changed thee into) a threshing-sledge, sharp, neiu, possessed of teeth (or 
 edges) ; thou shalt thresh mountains and heat (jJiem) small, and hills like 
 the chaff" shalt thou jjlace (or 7nakc). The erroneous idea thai he simply 
 promises to furnish Israel with the means of thresliing mountains, has arisen 
 from the equivocal language of the English Version, I will make thee, which 
 may cither mean, I icill make for thee, or will make thee to become, whereas 
 the last sense only can by any possibility be put upon the Hebrew, as liter- 
 ally translated above. The oriental threshing machine is sometimes a sledge 
 of thick planks armed with iron or sharp stones, sometimes a system of 
 rough rollers joined together like a sledge or dray. Both kinds are dragged 
 over the grain by oxen. (See Robinson's Palestine, III. p. 143.) — Pi^'n is 
 properly to crush, pound fine, or pulverize, r">S"'Q strictly denotes mouths ; 
 but like the primitive noun from which it is derived, it is sometimes applied 
 to the edge of a sharp instrument, perhaps in allusion to the figure of devour- 
 ing. Here it signifies the edges, blades, or teeth, with which the threshing- 
 wain is armed. The reduplicated form is supposed to denote the number 
 of such parts by Ewald (yielspitzig) and Knobel (yielschneidig) . The 
 literal sense of h'^^ is possessor, owner. There seems to be no ground for 
 the common assumption that hills and mountains are specific emblems here 
 for states or governments. The image presented is the strange but strong 
 one of a down-trodden worm reducing hills to powder, the essential idea 
 being that of a weak and helpless object overcoming the most dispropor- 
 tionate obstacles, by strength derived from another. 
 
 V. 10. Thou shalt fan (or winnow) them, and a wind shall take them 
 up, and a whirlwind shall scatter them, and thou shalt joy in Jehovah, in 
 the Holy One of Israel shall thou boast (or glory). The figure of the 
 preceding verse is here carried out and completed. The mountains, having 
 been completely threshed, are winnowed, in the usual oriental mode, by 
 being thrown to the wind. Israel, on the other hand, is safe, not through 
 his own strength but in that of his protector, in whom, i. e. in his relation to 
 whom, be finds his highest happiness and honour. The writer's main design 
 is evidently still to exhibit the contrast between God and his peo])le on the 
 one hand, and the idols and their people on the other. 
 
 V. 17. The suffering and the poor (are) seeking water, and it is not 
 {there is none) ; their tongue with thirst is parched. I Jehovah ivill hear 
 (or answer) them, (/) the God of Israel will not forsake them. The first 
 clause describes the need of a divine interposition, the last the interposition 
 itself. The images are so unlike those of the foregoing verse that they might 
 
CHAPTERXLI. 41 
 
 seem to be unconnected, but for the flict that the whole passage is entirely 
 metaphorical. Thirst is a natural and common metaphor for suffering. Those 
 who restrict the verse to the Babylonish exile are divided on the question 
 whether it literally describes the hardships of the journey through the wilder- 
 ness, or metaphorically those of the captivity itself. Both suppositions are 
 entirely arbitrary, since there is nothing in the text or context to deprive the 
 passage of its genuine and full sense as a general promise, tantamount to 
 saying. When my people feel their need, I will be present to supply it. 
 Such a promise those in exile could not fail to find appropriate in their case; 
 but it is equally appropriate in others, and especially to the glorious deliver- 
 ance of the church from the fetters of the old economy, f^3:^' is not to hear 
 in general, but to hear prayer in a favourable sense, to answer it. The 
 conditional turn given to the sentence in our version (when the poor and 
 needy seek etc.) is substantially correct, but a needless departure from the 
 form of the original. 
 
 V. 18. / will open upon bare hills streams, and in the midst of valleys 
 fountains ; I ivill place the desert for (\. e. convert it into) a poo/ of water, 
 and a dry land for (or into^ springs of water. The same figure for entire 
 and joyful change occurs in ch. 30 : 25 and ch. 35 : 7, and with its opposite 
 or converse in Ps. 107 : 33, 35. It is now commonly admitted that ci'iauj 
 includes the idea of barrenness or nakedness. (Compare t^S'iJ? from the same 
 root, ch. 13 : 2.) 
 
 V. 1 9. / will give in the wilderness cedar, acacia, and myrtle, and oil- 
 tree ; I will place in the desert fir, pine, and. box together. The main 
 idea, common to all explanations of this verse, is that of trees growing 
 where they never grew before. It is comparatively unimportant therefore 
 to identify the species, although J. D. INIichaelis supposes them to have been 
 selected because such as do not naturally grow together. With respect to 
 the cedar and the myrtle there is no doubt. Vitringa regards ^^'^, (which 
 has no and before it) as an epithet of tin , and translates it cedrus praestan- 
 tissima. Since Lovvth however it has been commonly regarded as the 
 Hebrew name of the acacia, a thorny tree growing in Arabia and Egypt. 
 (See Robinson's Palestine, Vol. II. p. 349.) — By the oil-tree is meant the 
 oleaster or wild olive, as distinguished from the T\'^,'i or cultivated tree of the 
 same species. For the different explanations of ttJi"i2, see the Earlier 
 Prophecies, p. 272. According to the latest authorities, "iJ^in is neither the 
 pine, the elm, nor the plane-tree, but the ilex, holm, or hard oak, so called 
 from "1^^ to endure or last. By the same writers "iit'sn is understood to be 
 a species of the cedar of Lebanon, so called from its erectness and loftiness. 
 
42 C H A P T E R X L I . 
 
 V. 20. That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand 
 together, that the hand of Jehovah hath done this, and the Holy One of 
 Israel hath created it. The verbs in the first clause may refer to men in 
 general, or to those immediately concerned as subjects or spectators of the 
 change described, ^-"ia'; they may place, seems to be an elliptical exjiression 
 for -p i""'!"^ may place their heart, i. e. a])ply their mind, or give attention. 
 There is no need of introducing -^ into the text, as Lowlh does, since the 
 very same ellipsis has been pointed out by Kocher in Judges 19: 30. Still 
 less ground is there to amend the text with Houbigant by reading 'isia'] 
 {may he astonished). — There is a climax in the last clause : he has not only 
 done it but created it, i. e. produced a new effect by the exertion of almighty 
 power. 
 
 V. 21. Present your cause (literally bring it near or cause it to ap- 
 proach, i. e. into the presence of the judge), saith Jehovah ; bring forward 
 your defences (or strong reasons), saith the king of Jacob. The Septua- 
 gint changes the whole meaning of the sentence by making it a simple 
 affirmation (^your judgment draweth near). — Jerome applies the last clause 
 to their idols : accedant idola vestra quae putatis esse fortissimo. But 
 most interpreters refer it to the arguments by whicli they were to main- 
 tain their cause. The metaphor is commonly supposed to be that of 
 bulwarks or entrenchments ; but this, as Knobel has observed, is hardly 
 consistent with the call to bring them forward. It is better therefore to 
 give the word its wider sense of strength or strons; thing. 
 
 V. 22. They shall bring forward (or let them bring forward) and show 
 forth to us the (^things) which are to happen; the former things, what they 
 were, show forth, and we will set our heart (apply our mind, or pay atten- 
 tion to them), and know their issue ; or {else) the coming {events) make us 
 to hear. The prescience of future events is here appealed to as a test of 
 divinity. (Compare Deut. 18 : 22. Jer. 28: 9, and ch. 43 : 12 below.) 
 Vitringa, Lowth, and others, understand by former things a proximate 
 futurity ; but the antithesis between this and coming things shows that the 
 former must mean prophecies already fulfilled, or at least already published. 
 They are required to demonstrate their foreknowledge, either by showing 
 that they had predicted something, or by doing it now. Knobel's question 
 whether we and us mean God alone or God and the Prophet together, is not 
 in the best taste or particularly reasonable, since the whole idea which the 
 text conveys is that of two contending parties at a judgment-seat. They 
 means the party of the false gods and their worshippers, we that of Jehovah 
 and his people. 
 
CHAPTERXLI. 43 
 
 V. 23. Shoio forth the (^things) to come hereafter, and tve tviJl knoiv 
 that ye are gods ; yes, ye shall do good or do evil, and we will look ahout 
 and see together. The subjunctive construction, that toe may know, gives 
 the sense of the original, but with a needless change of form. The same 
 remark applies to the imperative translation of the futures in the next clause 
 (do good, do evil). The use of the disjunctive, on the other hand, is 
 rendered almost unavoidable by an entire difference of idiom, the Hebrews 
 constantly employing and where or in English seems essential to the sense. 
 The verbs in this clause are strictly and distinctly understood by Vitringa, 
 as relating to the reward of worshippers and the punishment of enemies. 
 Henderson explains the clause as challenging the false gods to perform a 
 miracle. But most interpreters retain the idiomatic meaning of the same 
 expressions elsewhere, namely, that of doing any thing whatever, good or 
 bad. (See Jer. 10:5. Zeph. 1 : 12.) Lowth and Henderson understand 
 nrri":3; as denoting terror, and change the pointing so as to derive the fol- 
 lowing verb from x"]'; to fear. Gesenius makes the former verb synonymous 
 with ns/^n: (2 Kings 14 : 8), let us look one another in the face, i. e. con- 
 front one another in dispute or battle. It is much more probable, however, 
 that the word has the same sense as in v. 10 above, where it seems to express 
 the act of looking round or about upon those present, in that case with the 
 secondary notion of alarm (as looking round for help), but in this case with 
 that of inspection or consideration (we will look about us). Hitzig refers 
 the word together to the two acts which the verbs express ; but it is much 
 more natural to understand it as denoting that the two contending parties 
 unite in the same act. 
 
 V. 24. Lo, ye are of nothing (or less than nothing) and your ivork of 
 nought (or less than nought) ; an abomination (is he that) chooseth (or will 
 choose) you. This is the conclusion drawn from their failure or refusal to 
 accept the challenge and to furnish the required proof of their deity. For 
 the meaning of "N-a , see above, on ch. 40 : 17. The parallel term i'sx is 
 regarded by some of the Rabbins as synonymous with nrtx (^worse than a 
 viper) ; but the context requires an expression not of quality but of nonentity. 
 Solomon Ben Melek makes it a synonyme of Dsx , Vitringa an ortho- 
 graphical variation of the same; either of which is better than the suppo- 
 sition now most commonly adopted of an error in the text, the retention of 
 which, even supposing its occurrence, it would not be very easy to account 
 for. Augusti and Hitzig understand the phrase to mean of nothing or 
 belonging to nothing, \\'h\ch Knobel explains as tantamount to saying that 
 they had no work, or in other words, that they could do nothing. — J^^^^'R is 
 a strong expression often used to describe an object of religious abiiorrence. 
 On the choosing of gods, compare Judg. 5 : 8. 
 
44 CHAPTERXLI. 
 
 V. 25. I have raised up (one) from the north, and he has come ; from 
 the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name ; and he shall come upon 
 pj-inces as upon mortar, and as a potter treadeth clay. This is correctly 
 understood by Knobel as a specific application of the general conclusion in 
 V. 24. If the gods of the heathen could do absolutely nothing, it was 
 impossible that they should be the authors of any one remarkable event, and 
 especially of that on which the Prophet has his eye. The expressions are 
 remarkably similar to those in v. 2, so that the Prophet may be here said to 
 resume the train of thought which had been interrupted at the end of v. 4. 
 Having taken occasion to describe the effect of the event foretold upon the 
 worshippers of idols, and from that to show the impotence of the gods them- 
 selves, he returns to the event which he had been describing, and continues 
 his description. As before, he takes his stand at an intermediate point 
 between the beginning and the end of the whole process, as appears from 
 the successive introduction of the preterite and future. This peculiar feature 
 of the passage is obscured if not effaced by rendering them all alike, 
 or by arbitrarily distinguishing between the tense of "'ninisn and nx^i . 
 With the single substitution of he has come for he shall come, the common 
 version is entirely correct. The mention of the north and east together has 
 been variously explained. Jerome and Luther understand the clause to 
 mean, that he was called from the north, but came from the east. Eusebius, 
 Cyril, and Jerome refer the first clause to the nations and the last to Christ, 
 which is entirely gratuitous. Calvin refers the first to the Chaldees and the 
 last to Cyrus, which is better but still arbitrary. J. D. Michaelis supposes 
 the two subjects of the clause to be Darius or Cyaxares the Mede, and Cyrus 
 the Persian, whose respective countries lay to the north and east of Baby- 
 lonia. The later writers modify this explanation by referring all to Cyrus, 
 here considered at the same time as a Persian and a Mede. A still more 
 satisfactory hypothesis, perhaps, is that the subject of this passage is not a 
 detern)inate individual, but the conqueror indefinitely, who is not identified 
 till afterwards. The use of the word ci:50 , which is the appropriate 
 description of the Babylonian nobles, contains a covert intimation of the 
 particular events in view. Instead of showing that the passage is of later 
 date, as some imagine, it affords a remarkable example of prophetic foresight. 
 The act of calling on the name of Jehovah is commonly regarded as an 
 allusion to the profession of the true religion, or at least the recognition of 
 Jehovah as the true God, on the part of Cyrus (Ezra 1 : 2). — Compare the 
 figures of the last clause with ch. 10 : 6. 25 : 10. 
 
 V. 26. Who declared from the beginning ? {Sa7j) and we will know ; 
 and beforehand, and ive will say, Right (or True). Nay, there ivas none 
 thai told ; nay, there was none that uttered ; nay, there was none that heard 
 
CHAPTERXLI. 45 
 
 your words. Because the adverbs of time do not necessarily express remote 
 antiquity, Knobel infers that they here mean since the first appearance of 
 Cyrus. But such an appeal to the prediction of what one man could foresee as 
 well as another would be simply ridiculous. The sense of p^^i is determined 
 by that of r^x in ch. 43 : 9. The meaning of the whole verse is that the 
 events in question had been foretold by Jehovah and no other. 
 
 V. 27. First to Zion, Behold, behold them ! and to Jerusalem a hrin^er 
 of good news will I give. This very peculiar idiomatic sentence may 
 be paraphrased as follows. / am the first to say to Zion, Behold, behold 
 them,! and to give Jerusalem a briuger of good netvs. The simplest con- 
 struction is to make the verb at the end govern both clauses ; but in English 
 the sense may be expressed more clearly by supplying the verb say. The 
 common version of the last clause is correct, but that of the first appears to 
 have no meaning. The sense is not the first shall say, but I first, i. e. 
 before any other God or prophet. 
 
 V. 28. And 1 will look, but there is no man ; and of these, but there is 
 no one advising (or informing) ; and I will ask them, and they will return 
 a word (or ansiver). He allows them as it were another opportunity of 
 proving their divinity. In the first two clauses, the expectation and the 
 disappointment are described together ; in the third, the expectation only is 
 expressed, the result being given in the following verse. First he looks, but 
 finds not what he seeks. Then again, but with the same result. Once 
 more he interrogates them and awaits an answer, but (as the next verse 
 adds) discovers them to be impostors. There is something singularly beau- 
 tiful in this peculiar structure of the sentence, which is wholly marred by 
 the indirect constructions that are commonly adopted, that when I asked 
 them could answer a word, or, that I should question them and they return 
 an answer. The verse is full of laconic and elliptical expressions, which 
 however may be easily completed, as will appear from the following brief 
 paraphrase. I will look (once more to see whether any of these idols or 
 their prophet can predict the future), but there is no one (who attempts it). 
 From among (all) these (I seek for a response, but there is none). Yet once 
 more / ivill ask them, and (perhaps) they tvill return an answer. The same 
 application of the verb 7?; to the prediction of the future occurs below 
 in ch. 44 : 26. The form here used is to be strictly construed as a 
 participle. 
 
 V. 29. Lo, they (^are) all nought, nothing their works, wind and emp- 
 tiness their molten images. This is, at once, the termination of the sentence 
 
46 C H A P T E R X L I I . 
 
 he'^nn in the last clause of the verse preceding, and the summary conclusion 
 pf the whole preceding controversy as to the divinity of any gods except 
 Jehovah. To the usual expressions of nonentity the Prophet adds two 
 other strong descriptive terms, viz. wind and emptiness. 
 
 CHAPTER XLII. 
 
 This chapter exhibits to our view the Servant of Jehovah, i. e. the 
 Messiah and his people, as a complex person, and as the messenger or 
 representative of God among the nations. His mode of operation is 
 described as being not violent but peaceful, vs. 1-5. The effects of his 
 influence are represented as not natural but spiritual, vs. 6-9. The power 
 of God is pledged for his success, notwithstanding all appearances of 
 inaction or indifference on his part, vs. 10-17. In the latter portion of the 
 chapter, the Church or Body of Christ, as distinguished from its Head, and 
 representing him until he came, is charged with unfaithfulness to their great 
 trust, and this unfaithfulness declared to be the cause of what it suffered, 
 vs. 18-25. Several important exegetical questions with respect to the 
 Servant of Jehovah will be fully canvassed in the exposition of the chapter. 
 
 V. !. Behold my servant ! I will hold him fast ; my chosen one (in 
 whom) my soul delights ; I have given (or put) my Spirit upon him ; 
 judgment to the nations shall he cause to go forth. There is no need of 
 assuming (with the English Version) an ellipsis of the relative twice in the 
 same clause. The separate construction of the first two words, as an intro- 
 duction to the following description, makes them far more impressive, like 
 the ecce homo (Jds 6 uvOimno^) of John 19: 5. — The first verb, construed 
 as it is here, signifies to hold fast, for the most part with the accessory idea 
 of holding up, sustaining, or supporting. Elect or chosen does not mean 
 choice or excellent, except by implication ; directly and strictly it denotes 
 one actually chosen, set apart, for a definite purpose. — n:s'i is the verb ap- 
 plied in the Law of Moses to the acceptance of a sacrifice, from which some 
 have inferred that there is here an allusion to expiatory merit ; but this, 
 although admissible, is not an obvious or necessary supposition. — By Spirit, 
 as in all such cases, we arc to understand, not only divine influence, but the 
 divine person who exerts it. (See the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 59, 219.) — 
 The use of the phrase on him, where in him might have seemed more 
 
//. 
 
 HAPTERXLII. 47 
 
 natural, Is probably intended to suggest th^ idea of descent, or of an influence 
 from heaven. — The last clause is understood by Grotius as denoting that 
 the person here described should denounce the penal judgments of Jehovah 
 on the Medes and Babylonians. But besides the unreasonable limitation of 
 the words to these two nations, this explanation is at variance with the usa^e 
 of the singular '^siij'a and with the context, which describes the servant of 
 Jehovah as a source of blessing to the gentiles. The same objection does 
 not lie against an explanation of '^^^.'o by Clericus as meaning justice 
 or just government ; but this is too restricted, as appears from the subsequent 
 context. The most satisfactory interpretation is the common one. which 
 understands this word as a description of the true religion, and the whole 
 clause as predicting its diffusion. The office thus ascribed to the servant 
 of Jehovah, both here and in the following context, as a teacher of the truth, 
 makes the description wholly inappropriate to Cyrus, who is nevertheless 
 regarded as the subject of the prophecy, not only by Saadias among the 
 Jews, but by Hensler, Koppe, and even Ewald, though the last combines 
 this application with another which will be explained below. Aben Ezra, 
 Grotius, and some later writers, understand the passage as descriptive of 
 Isaiah himself; and this hypothesis is modified by De Wetle and Gesenius in 
 his Commentary, so as to embrace all the prophets as a class. Besides the 
 objection to the first of these opinions, somewhat flippantly alleged by J. D. 
 Michael is, that if Isaiah had thus spoken of himself, he would have proved 
 himself a madtnan rather than a prophet, it may be objected to the whole 
 hypothesis, that the Prophets of the old dispensation are invariably repre- 
 sented as the messengers of God to the Jews and not the gentiles. And 
 the same thing is still more emphatically true of the Levitical priesthood. 
 Of some but much less weight is the objection to the later form of the same 
 theory, that the collective sense which it puts upon the plirase is neither 
 natural nor countenanced by any satisfactory analogy. There is indeed, as 
 all admit, such a collective use of the phrase 5eri'a?i^ of Jehovah, m applica- 
 tion not to any rank or office or profession, but to Israel the chosen people 
 as such considered. Of this usage we have already had an example in ch. 
 41:8, and shall meet with many more hereafter. The distinction between 
 this application of the title and the one which De Wette proposes is, 
 that in the former case the national progenitor is put by a natural meto- 
 nymy for his descendants, whereas there is no such individual Prophet (not 
 even Moses) in whom the whole succession is concentrated either by 
 natural association or by established usage. A third objection to this theory 
 may be drawn from the analogy of other places, where the same great 
 servant of Jehovah is described, not only as a sufferer, but as an atonino- 
 sacrifice. Even admitting the gratuitous assumption, that the Prophets, 
 as a class, were habitually subject to malignant persecution, the repre- 
 
48 CHAPTERXLII. 
 
 sentation of these sufterings as vicarious and expiatory would be forced 
 and arbitrary in itself, as well as contradicted by the tenor of Scripture. 
 This last objection also lies against the exclusive application of the title to 
 Israel as a people, or to the pious and believing portion of them, which has 
 been maintained by various writers from Solomon Jarchi down to Knobel, 
 who supposes that the servant of Jehovah sometimes means the whole body 
 of the Jews in exile who externally adhered to the worship of Jehovah, 
 sometimes the real spiritual Israel included in this number. But the repre- 
 sentation of the Jewish nation as atoning for the sins of the gentiles, or 
 of the pious Jews as atoning for the sins of the whole nation, is without 
 analogy in any other part of the Old Testament. The objections which 
 have now been stated to these various hypotheses may negatively serve 
 to recommend the one adopted in the Targum and by Kimchi and Abar- 
 benel, who represents the champions of the others as struck with judicial 
 blindness. This ancient doctrine of the Jewish church, and of the great 
 majority of Christian writers, is that the servant of the Lord is the Messiah. 
 The lengths of paradoxical extravagance to which the unbelieving critics 
 are prepared to go rather than admit this supposition, may be learned 
 from Knobel's positive assertion, that the Old Testament Messiah is no 
 where represented either as a teacher or a sufferer, and that the later 
 chapters of Isaiah contain no allusion to a Messiah at all. In favour of 
 the Messianic exposition may be urged not only the tradition of the Jewish 
 church already cited, and the perfect facility with which this hypothesis at 
 once accommodates itself to all the requisitions of the passages to which it is 
 applied, but also the explicit and repeated application of these passages to 
 Jesus Christ in the New Testament. These applications will be noticed 
 seriatim as the texts successively present themselves. To this first verse 
 there are several allusions more or less distinct and unequivocal. Besides 
 the express citation of it, with the next three verses, in Matth. 12 : 19-21, 
 there is an obvious allusion to its terms, or rather a direct application of 
 them made by God himself, in the descent of the Holy Spirit on our Saviour 
 at his baptism, and in the words pronounced from heaven then and at the 
 time of his transfiguration : This is my beloved Son in whom 1 am well 
 pleased (Matt. 2:17. 17 : 5). The connecting link between the Servant 
 of Isaiah and the Son of Matthew, is afforded by the nai^' of the Sep- 
 tuagint, which includes both ideas. According to the explanation which 
 has just been given, vlhg is neither a translation of "i3^, nor a perversion 
 of its meaning, but a clearer designation of the subject of the prophecy. 
 That Christ was sent to the Jews and not the Gentiles, is only true of his 
 personal ministry and not of his whole work as continued by his followers, 
 who were expressly commissioned to go into all the world, to make disci- 
 ples of all nations, the only restriction imposed being that of beginning at 
 
CHAPTER XLII. 
 
 49 
 
 Jerusalem. It only remains to be considered, whether this application of the 
 title and the description to our Saviour is exclusive of all others, as its 
 advocates commonly maintain. This inquiry is suggested by the fact 
 which all interpreters admit, that Israel, the chosen people, is not only 
 called by this same name, but described as having some of the same 
 attributes, not only elsewhere, but in this very context, and especially 
 in vs. 19, 20, of this chapter, where any other explanation of the 
 terms, as we shall see, is altogether inadmissible. Assuming, then, that 
 the Messiah is the servant of Jehovah introduced at the beginning of the 
 chapter, there are only two ways of accounting for the subsequent use of 
 the same language with respect to Israel. The first way is by alleging 
 a total difierence of subject in the different places ; which in fact thoucrh 
 not in form is to decline all explanation of the fact in question, as being 
 either needless or impossible. That such a twofold application of equi- 
 valent expressions to entirely different subjects is conceivable and must 
 in certain cases be assumed, there is no need of denying. But unless 
 we abandon all attempt to interpret language upon any sett'ed princi- 
 ple, we cannot but admit that nothing short of exegetical necessity can 
 justify the reference of the same descriptive terms to different subjects in one- 
 and the same context. If then there is an exegetical hypothesis by which 
 these applications can be reconciled, without doing violence to usao-e or 
 analogy, it seems to be clearly entitled to the preference. Such a hypothesis, 
 it seems to me, is one obscurely stated by some older writers, but which 
 may be more satisfactorily propounded thus, that by the servant of Jehovah 
 in these Later Prophecies of Isaiah, we are to understand the Church with 
 its Head, or rather the IMessiah with the Church which is his body, sent by 
 Jehovah to reclaim the world fron) its apostasy and ruin. This agrees 
 exactly with the mission both of the Redeemer and his people as described 
 in Scripture, and accounts for all the variations which embarrass the inter- 
 pretation of the passages in question upon any more exclusive exegetical 
 hypothesis. It is also favoured by the analogy of Deut. 18, where the 
 promised Prophet, according to the best interpretation, is not Christ 
 exclusively, but Christ as the Head of the prophetic body who possessed 
 his spirit. Another analogy is furnished by the use of the phrase Abraham's 
 seed, both individually and collectively He whom Paul describes as the 
 seed of Abraham, and Moses as a prophet like unto himself, in a personal 
 but not an exclusive sense, is described by Isaiah as the servant of Jehovah, 
 in his own person, but not to the exclusion of his people, so far as they can 
 be considered his co-workers or his representatives. Objections founded on 
 the want of agreement between some of these descriptions and the recorded 
 character of Israel, are connected with a superficial view of Israel considered 
 simply as a nation and like other nations, except so far as it was brought 
 
 4 
 
50 C H A P T E R X L I I . 
 
 into cxlernal and forlulloiis connexion with the true religion. An essential 
 feature in the theory |HO|)ose(l is that this race was set apart and organized 
 for a sjiecific jiurpose, and that its national character is constantly subor- 
 dinate to its ecclesiastical relation. There is precisely the same variation 
 in the language used respecting it as in the use and ap|)lication of the term 
 iaxXr/diu in the New Testament. Israel is sometimes described as he was 
 meant to be, and as he should have been ; sometimes as he actually was. 
 The na:iie is sonietimcs given to the whole race and sometimes to the 
 faiiljful portion of it, or, which amounts to the same thing, it is sometimes 
 used to denote the real sometimes the nominal Israel. The apparent 
 violence of applying the same description to an individual ptn'son and a 
 body, will be lessened by considering, that t!ie former i. e. Christ was in 
 the highest and the truest sense the servant of Jehovah and his messenger 
 to man, but that his body, church, or people, was and is a sharer in the 
 same vocation, under the gospel as an instrument or fellow-worker, under 
 the law as a type or representative of one who had not yet become visible. 
 Hence the same things might be predicated to a great extent of both. As 
 the IMessiah was the servant and messenger of God to the nations, so was 
 Israel. It was his mission also to diffuse the true religion and reclaim the 
 nations. From the very first it was intended that the law should go forth 
 from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Ch. 2:3) The 
 •national restrictions of the old economy were not intended to exclude the 
 gentiles from the church, but to preserve the church from assimilation to the 
 ■gentiles. All the world might have come in if they would by ccjmplying 
 with the terms presciib(Ml ; and nothing is more clear from the Old Testament 
 than the fact that the privileges of the chosen people were not meant to be 
 restricted even then to the natural d(>scendants of Israel, for this would have 
 excluded proselytes entirely. IMuliitudes did embrace the tiue religion 
 before Clnist came ; and that more did not, was partly their own fault, partly 
 the fault of the chosen people, who neglected or mistook their high vocation 
 as the Messiah's representative and as Jehovah's messenger. If it be asked, 
 how the different ai)plications of this honourable title are to be distinguished 
 so as to avoid confusion or capricious inconsistency, the answer is as follows. 
 Where the terms are in their nature ajiplicable both to Clnist as the Head 
 and to his Church as the Body, there is no need of distinguishing at all 
 betw(H'n them. Where sinlul imperfection is implied in what is said, it 
 must of course be ap|)lied to the body only. Where a freedom from such 
 imperfection is implied, the language can have a direct and literal reference 
 only to the Head, but may be considered as descriptive of the body, in so 
 far as its idea or design is concerned, though not in reference to its actual 
 condition. Lastly, when any (hing is said implying deity or infinite merit, 
 the application to the Head becomes not only predominant but exclusive. 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 51 
 
 It may further be observed that as the Church, acconJing to this view of the 
 matter, represents its Head, so it is represented by its leaders, whetlier 
 prophets, priests, or kings ; and as all tiiese functions were to meet in Christ, 
 so all of them may someiimes be particularly prominent in prophecy. With 
 this explanaiion, the hypoihesis proposed may be considered as approaching 
 very nearly to the one maintained by Umbreit in his work upon the Strvant 
 of God (Knccht Goitis, Hamburg, lS40),aswell as in his Commentary on 
 Isaiah. A similar theory is broached by Ewald, but with this essential 
 difference, that he excludes all leference fo Christ, and identifies the 
 Messiali of these prophecies with Cyrus. A correct view of the manifold 
 and variable usagi> of the title f^in-;! iz'j is given by Gesenius in his Thesaurus 
 and the later editions of his Lexicon. How far the theory here stated with 
 respect to the nir.-i izv is either necessary to explain the prophecies or really 
 consistent with their terms can only be determined by a specific application 
 of the principle to the successive parts of the de-cription. If applied to this 
 first verse, it would determine its interpretation, as describing Israel, the 
 ancient church, to be in a peculiar sense the servant of Jehovah, protected 
 and sustained by Him, enlightened by a special revelation, not for his own 
 exclusive use but as a source of saving light to the surrounding nations. At 
 the same time it would show him to possess this character not in his own ri'^ht 
 but in that of anothei', as the representative and instrument of one who, 
 though he was with God and was God, took upon him the form of a servant 
 and received the Spirit without measure, that he might be a light to lighten 
 (he gentiles as well as the glory of his people Israel. (Luke '2 : 32.) The 
 reference to Christ is here so evident, however, that there is no need of sup- 
 posing any distinct reference to his people at all, nor any advantage in so 
 doing, except that of rendering the subsequent verses still more significant, 
 as descriptive not only of his personal ministry, but of the spirit and conduct 
 of his people, both before and after his appearance. 
 
 "\'. 2. He shall not cry (or call aloud), and he shall not raise (his 
 voice), and he shall not let his voice be heard in the street (or abroad, 
 without). The Vulgate strangely supplies =:-:Q after xia*] (^non accipiet 
 personam), and so obtains the customary technical expression for respect 
 of persons or judicial partiality. This construction, w hich was probably 
 suggested by the supposed analogy of ch. 11:3, 4, is precluded by its want 
 of agreement with what goes before and follows. The same objection lies, 
 though in a less degree, against Cocceius's construction of the vejb as a 
 reflexive (ic ejf'eret), which is moreover not grammatically tenable. It is 
 not even necessary to assume an ellipsis of the noun voice in the fiist clause, 
 although this may be required to make the sense clear in a version. The 
 Hebrew construction is continued through both clauses, i. e. both verbs 
 
52 CHAPTERXLII. 
 
 govern the same noun. Tie shall not raise nor suffer to be heard in the 
 street his voice. The simple meaning of the verse is, he shall not be noisy 
 but quiet. Giotius supposes an allusion to the fact ihat angry persons often 
 speak so loud at home as to be heard in the street. Clericus justly denies 
 any special reference to anger, but perhaps goes too Air when he translates 
 S'laiii'i, dabit operam ut audiatur. The idea seems rather to be that of 
 suffering the voice to be heard in public places. As applied both to Christ 
 and to the Church, this verse describes a silent, unostentatious method of 
 proceeding. The quotation in Malth. 12 : 18 is commonly explained as 
 referrino^ to our Saviour's mild and modest demeanour ; but it rather has 
 respect to the nature of his kingdom, and to the means by v^hich it was to 
 be established. His forbidding the announcement of the miracle is not 
 recorded simply as a trait of personal character, but rather as implying that 
 a public recognition of his claims \\ as not included in his present purpose. 
 
 V. 3. A bruised (or crushed) reed he ivill not break, and a dim nick 
 he will not quench ; by the truth will he bring forth judgment. Tiie verbs 
 of the first clause have no exact equivalents in English. The first appears 
 to mean broken but not broken off, which last is denoted by the other. 
 Clericus supposes an allusion to the growing plant, which may be broken 
 and yet live, but if entirely broken ofi' must die. — The common version, 
 smoking Jlax, is that of the Septuagint and Vulgate. The Hebrew noun 
 really denotes flax (Ex. 9 : 31), but the adjective means faint or dim ; so 
 that in order to convey the meaning in translation, the former must be taken 
 in the specific sense o( wick, which it also has in ch. 43 : 17. The appli- 
 cation of these figures to the sparing of enemies, or the indulgence of weak 
 friends, or the sustentation of sincere but feeble faith, is too specific and 
 exclusive. The verse continues the description of the mode in which the 
 Messiah and his people v/ere to bring forth judgment to the natiovs, or in 
 other words to spread the true religion. It was not to be by clamour or by 
 violence. The first of these ideas is expressed in the preceding verse, the 
 last in this. That such is the true import of the words is clear from the 
 addition of the last clause, which would be unmeaning if the verse related 
 merely to a compassionate and sympathetic temper. That this verse is 
 included in Matthew's quotation (ch. 12 : 19), shows that he did not quote 
 the one before it as descriptive of a modest and retiring disposition. For 
 although such a temper might be proved by Christ's prohibiting the publi- 
 cation of his miracles, this prohibition could not have been cited as an 
 evidence of tenderness and mildness. The only way in which the whole 
 quotation can be made appropriate to the case in hand, is by supposing that 
 it was meant to be descriptive not of our Saviour's human virtues, but of 
 the nature of his kingdom and of the means by which it was to be established. 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 53 
 
 That he was both lowly and compassionate is true, but it is not the truth 
 which he established by his conduct upon this occasion, nor the truth which 
 the evangelist intended to illustrate by the citation of these words. As well 
 in their oniiinal connexion as in Matthew's application of them, they describe 
 that kingdom u'hich was not of this world ; which canje not with obser- 
 vation (Luke IT : 20) ; which was neither meat nor drink, but righteousness, 
 and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. 14 : 17) ; which was founded 
 and promoted not by might nor by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord ; 
 and of which its founder said (John 18 : 36), If my kingdom were of this 
 world, then ivouJd my servants fght, that I should not be delivered to the 
 Jews, hat now is my kingdom not from hence. And again (John 18 : 27), 
 when Pilate said unto him, Art thou a king then ? Jesas answered, Thou 
 sayest (rightly) that lam a king; to this end tcxis I born, and jor this 
 cause came 1 into the world, thai I should Lear ivitncss to the truth ; every 
 one that is of ihe truth keareth my voice. How perfectly does this august 
 description tally with the great prophetic picture of the Servant of Jehovah 
 who wa:5 to bring forth judgment to the nations, and in doing so was not to 
 cry or raise his voice or let men hear it in the streets, not by brutal force to 
 «jreak the cmshed reed or quench the dim wick, but to conquer by healing 
 and imparting strength. This passage also throws light on the true sense 
 of the somewhat obscure phrase r-cs^ , b3' showing that it means ivith 
 respect to the truth, which is here equivalent to saying by the truth. This 
 construction, by presenting an antithesis between the true and false way of 
 bringing forth judgment to the gentiles, is much to be preferred to those 
 constructions which explain the phrase as simply meaning in truth (i. e. 
 truly), or in permanence (\. e, surely), or unto truth (i. e. so as to establish 
 and secure it). All these may be suggested as accessor}^ ideas ; but the 
 jnain idea seems to be the one first stated, namely, that the end in question 
 is to be accomplished not by clamour, not b}' violence, but by the truth. 
 
 V. 4- He shall not be dim^ and he shall not be crushed, until he shall 
 set judgment in the earth, and for his law (he isles shall wait. He shall 
 neither conquer nor be conquered by violence. This verse is a new proof 
 chat the one before it does not describe mere tenderness and pity for the 
 weak. The antithesis would then be, he shall neither be unkind to the 
 infirm nor infirm himself. On the other hand, the sense is clear and perti- 
 nent, if V. 3 means tliat he shall not use violence towards those who are 
 weaker than himself, and v. 4 that he shall not suffer it from those who are 
 more powerful ; or rather that he shall not subdue others nor himself be 
 subdued by force. Son^e interpreters have been misled by not observing 
 the exact correspondence of the verbs nns^ and y^"^"^ with the adjectives 
 "3 and y'^"^- The same oversight has led Cocceiusand "\^itringa to derive 
 
54 C H A P T E R X L I I . 
 
 Y^'^''■ from y^'-i to run, and to understand the clause as meaning that he shall 
 neither be remiss nor precipitate. This construction, it is true, makes the 
 clause itself more antithetical and pointed, bui only by the sacrifice of an 
 obvious and beautiful antith(;sis between it and the first clause of v. 3. — To 
 set or place judgment in the cnrih is to estabhsh and confirm the true religion. 
 — r3y his law we arc to understand his word or revelation, considered as a 
 rule of duty. — Here again the islands is a poetical expression for the nations, 
 or more specifically for the transmarine and distant nations. The restriction 
 of the term to Europe and Asia Minor (J. D. iMichaelis) is as false in 
 geography as it is in tast(\ — On the ground that the heathen cijuld not wait 
 or hope for that of which they were entirely ignorant, some understand the 
 last verb as meaning thci/ shall trust (i. e. after they have heard, they shall 
 believe it). Besides the preference thus given to a secondary over a pri- 
 mary and proper sense, the general meaning of the clause, and its connexion 
 with what goes before, appear to be misapprehended. The hojie meant is 
 not so much subjective as objective. The thing described is not the feeling 
 of the gentiles towards the truth, but their dependence on it for salvation, 
 and on Christ for the knowledge of the truth itself. For his law the isles 
 are waiting (or must ivaii), and till it comes they must remain in darkness. 
 
 V. 5. Thus snith the mighty (^God), Jehovah, creating the heavens and 
 stretching them out, spreading the earth and its issues, giving breath to the 
 people on it, and spirit to those walking in it. Ewald refers thus saith to 
 the preceding verses, wliicli lie su])poses to be here described as the words 
 of God himself. But as the following verses also contain the words of God, 
 there is no need of departini,^ from the ordinary usage of the Scriptures, 
 according to which the name of the speaker is prefixed to the report of what 
 he says. We may indeed assume an equal connexion with what goes before 
 and follows, as if he had said, Thus haih Jehovah spoken and he speaks 
 still further. — The appeal is so directly to the power of Jehovah, that the 
 name '^«!7, which is expressive of tli;it attribute, ought not to be resolved 
 into the general term God. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 75.) — The 
 substitution of the preterite for the participle in the English Version (Ae that 
 created the heavens and stretched them out) is not only a gratuitous departure 
 from the form of the original, but hides from the English reader the allusion 
 to the creative power of God as constantly exercised in the continued exist- 
 ence of his works. The same figure is exhibited more fully in ch. 40 : 22, 
 and the places there referred to. (See above, p. 25, 26.) — This clause is 
 not a scientific but a poetical description. To the eye, the heavens have the 
 appearance of a canopy or curtain, and the verdant surface of the earth that 
 of a carpet. There is no need therefore of supplying a distinct verb to 
 govern its issues. '"'P.'}: though originally used to signify the beating out of 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 55 
 
 metal into thin plates, has acquired in usage the more general sense of 
 spreading or expanding, and is equally applicable to the earth as an appa- 
 rently flat surface, and to its vegetation as the tapestry which covers it. 
 The prophet's picture is completely marred by making ""pn mean consolida- 
 ting, which is wholly inappropriate to ^"'Xiix^, and has no etymological 
 foundation. Even "'P.'^ in the first chapter of Genesis means an expanse ; 
 the idea of a firmament comes not from the Hebrew but the ancient versions. 
 No single English word is so appropriate as issues to express both the 
 meaning and the derivation of the corresponding one in Hebrew, which 
 denotes the things that come out of the earih, its produce, growth, or vege- 
 tation, with particular allusion here to grass. — Here, as in ch. 40 : 7, the 
 word people is evidently used in application to the whole human race, a fact 
 of some importance in the exposition of what follows. Cocceius alone 
 supposes an antithesis between the people (i. e. Israel) and the rest of men. 
 If this had been intended, the word spirit would no doubt have been con- 
 nected with the former. By the side of this may be placed Kimchi's notion 
 that a contrast was intended between men and brutes, on the grovmd that 
 .T:'i"2 is limited in usage to the former. =n"'Tr'i- in the first clause of this verse 
 is explained by some as z jjluralis majesiaflcns, by others as a singular form 
 peculiar to thenb verbs and their derivatives. (See the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 72.) — The enumeration of Jehovah's attributes in this verse is intended 
 to accredit the assurances contained in the context. 
 
 V. 6. T Jehovah have called thee in righteousness, and will lay hold of 
 thee (or hold thee fast), and ivill keep thee, and ivill give thee for a covenant 
 of (he people, for a light of the gentiles. — The act of calling here implies 
 selection, designation, and providential introduction to God's service. — In 
 righteousness, i. e. in the exercise of righteousness on God's part, including 
 the fulfilment of his promises as well as of his threatenings. Unto righteous- 
 ness, i. e. to be righteous, is an idea foreign from the context, and one which 
 would not have been thus expressed in Hebrew. Lowth's translation (for 
 a righteous purpose), although too paraphrastical, may be considered as 
 substantially id(>ntical with that first stated. Those of Gesenius (/o so/i'o- 
 tion) and Hitzig (//j grace) are equally gratuitous and contrary to usage. — 
 I will hold thee fast, and thereby hold thee up, sustain thee. (See above, 
 V. I.) — Lowth and Barnes esteem it an improvement of the common English 
 Version to change keep into preserve. — I will give thee for, i. e. create, 
 appoint, or constitute thee. — Hitzig understands by =» n"i"!3 a covenant- 
 people (Bundesvolk), Ewald a mediatorial people (Mittelsvolk), both 
 denoting a peo|)le called or sent to act as a niediator or a bond of unioa 
 between God and the nations. But tlii>. although it yields a good sense, is 
 a German and English rather than a Hebrew construction, the instances ia 
 
56 CHAPTERXLII. 
 
 which a prefixed noun quahfies the other being very rare and dubious. 
 This objection is sufficient, without adding that the phrase as thus explained 
 woukl be iiiapi)licahlo to an iiuliviihial, whereas the other epithets employed 
 are equally a ppi'opriate to persons and coninmnities. Most other writers are 
 agreed in adhering to the obvious construction and in understanding by a 
 covenant of the jjcojjIc a negotiator between God and the people. This 
 use o{ covenant, although unusual, is in itself not more unnatural or forced 
 than that of light in the next phrase. As light of the nations must mean 
 a source or dispenser of light to them, so covenant of people, in the very 
 same sentence, may naturally mean the dispenser or mediator of a covenant 
 with them. Tl)e only reason why the one appears less natural and simple 
 than the other, is that light is habitually used in various languages both for 
 the element of light and for its source or a luminous body, whereas no such 
 twofold usage of the other word exists, although analogies might easily be 
 traced in the usage of such words us justice forjudge, counsel for counsellor, 
 in both which cases the functionary takes the name of that which he dispenses 
 or administers. — But supposing this to be the true construction of the phrase, 
 the question still arises, who are the contracting parties, or in other words, 
 what are we to understand by people! The great majority of writers make 
 it mean the Jcivs, the chosen people of Jehovah, and the covenant the 
 mediator or negotiator of a new covenant between them and Jehovah, 
 according to the representation in Jer. 31 : 31-33. To this it may be 
 objected that ^v has not the article as usual when employed in that sense, 
 and thai even with the article it is applied in the preceding verse to mankind 
 in general. To this it may be added that the word rmi'ion^ in the next clause 
 may as well be exegetical of ptople as in contrast with it. The first 
 supposition is indeed much more natural, because the words are in such close 
 connexion, and because there is no antithesis between tlie correlative 
 expressions, light and covenant. To this it is replied, that the reference to- 
 Israel in this case is determined by the clear unambiguous analogy ofch. 
 49 : 8, where the phrase recurs and in a similar connexion. This conclusion 
 not only rests upon a false assumption as to the meaning of the context there, 
 but is directly contradicted by the language of v. 6, where it is expressly- 
 said that it was not enough for Christ to be the restorer of Israel, he must 
 also be a light to the gentiles ; and in direct continuation of this promise it is 
 added in v. 8, without the show of a distinction or antithesis, that he should 
 be a covenant of the people (i. e. of the nations), to restore or re-establish 
 the earth (not the land, which is a perfectly gratuitous restriction), to cause 
 to be inherited the desolate heritages (i. e. the ruins of an apostate world), 
 and to say to the prisoners, Go forth, the arbitrary reference of which words 
 to the Babylonish exile is in fact the only ground for the opinion now- 
 disputed. So Air is this passage, then, from disproving the wide explanation 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 57 
 
 of the word C3 in the place before us, that it really affords a very strong 
 analogical reason in its favour, and we need no longer hesitate to understand 
 the clause as a description of the servant of Jehovah in the character, not 
 only of a light (or an enlightener) to the nations, but of a mediator or 
 negotiator between God and the people, i. e. men in general. These are 
 epithets applying in their highest sense to Christ alone, to whom they are in 
 fact applied by Simeon (Luke 2 : 32) and Paul (Acts 13 : 47). That 
 neither of these quotes the phrase a covenant of the pcoph, does not prove 
 that it has no relation to the gentiles, but only that it does not relate to them 
 exclusively, but to the whole human race ; whereas the other phrase, as 
 applying specifically to the gentiles, and as being less ambiguous, was 
 exactly suited to Paul's purpose. — At the same time let it be observed that 
 this description is entirely appropriate, not only to the Head but to the Body 
 also in subordination to him. Not only the INIessiah but the Israel of God 
 was sent to be a mediator or connecting link between Jehovah and the 
 nations. The meaning put upon =s n^-ia by Hitzig and Ewald, although 
 not philologically accurate, is perfectly consistent with the teachings of the 
 Old Testament respecting the mission and vocation of Israel, the ancient 
 church, as a covenant-race or middle-people between God and the apostate 
 nations. 
 
 V. 7. To open blind eyes, to bring out from prison thebondman, from 
 the house of confinement the dwellers in darkness. This was the end to be 
 accomplished by the Servant of Jehovah in the character or office just 
 ascribed to him. The spiritual evils to be remedied are represented under 
 the figures of imprisonment and darkness, the removal of the latter having 
 obvious allusion to the light of the nations in v. 6. The fashionable expla- 
 nation of these words, which refers them to the restoration of the Jews from 
 exile, is encumbered with various and complex difficulties. What is said of 
 bondage must be either strictly understood or metaphorically. If the former 
 be preferred, how is it that the Prophet did not use expressions more exactly 
 descriptive of the state of Israel in Babylon ? A whole nation carried 
 captive by its enemies could hardly be described as prisoners in dark dun- 
 geons. Knobel, with readiness almost rabbinical, supplies the necessary 
 fact by saying that a part of the Jews were imprisoned. But even granting 
 that they were in prison, were they also blind ? If it be said that this is a 
 figurative representation of confinement in the dark, the principle of strict 
 interpretation is abandoned, and the imprisonment itself may be a metaphor for 
 other evils. There is then left no specific reason for applying this description 
 to the exile any more than to a hundred other seasons of calamity. Another 
 and more positive objection to this limitation is that it connects this verse 
 with only part of the previous description, and that the part to which it 
 
5S CHAPTERXLII. 
 
 bears the least resemblance. Even supposing what has been disproved, 
 that covenant of the people has respect to Israel alone, how is it that the 
 other attribute, a h'ght to the gentiles, must be excUuk'd in iiiterpr(iing 
 what follows ? It was surely not in this capacity that tlie Servant of 
 Jehovah was to set the Jewish exiles free. If it be said tliat this verse has 
 respect to only one of these two characters, this supposition is not only 
 arbitrary, but doubly objectionable ; first, because it passes over the nearest 
 antecedent (c^is "ix) to connect the verse exclusively with one more distant 
 (pv ri"''n2), and then, because it passes by the very one to which the figures 
 of this verse have most analogy. The opening of the eyes and the deliver- 
 ance of those that sit in darkness are correlative expressions to the light of 
 the srentiles, which on this account, and as the nearest antecedent, must 
 decide the sense of this verse, if that sense depend on either of these attri- 
 butes exclusively. / will mnhe thee a light to the gentiles, to open the 
 blind eyes etc. cannot mean, I will make thee an instiuctor of the heathen 
 to restore the Jews from captivity in Babylon. Whether the verse before 
 us therefore be strictly or figuratively understood, it cannot be applied to the 
 captivity without doing violence at once to the text and context. The 
 very same reasoning applies to the analogous expressions used in ch. 49: 9, 
 and thus corroborates our previous conclusion, that tb.e context in neither of 
 these places favours, much less requires, the restriction of cs r^is to the 
 Jews. The only natural interpretation of the verse before us is that which 
 makes it figurative like the one preceding it, and the only natural interpretation 
 of its figures is the one which understands them as descriptive of spiritual 
 blindness and spiritual bondage, both which are metaphors of constant 
 application to the natural condition of mankind in the Old as well as the 
 New Testament. The removal of these evils is the work of Christ, as the 
 revealerof the Father who has brought life and immortality to lii^lit : but in 
 subordination to him, and as his representative, his church may n\<o be 
 correctly represented as a covenant of the people and a light of the nations; 
 since the law, though a divine revelation, was to go forth from Zion and the 
 word of the Lord fiom Jerusalem. 
 
 V. 8. lam Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory to another will I 
 not give, and my praise to graven images. The name Jehovah is here used 
 with emphasis in reference to its etymological import as descriptive of a self- 
 existent, independent, and eternal being. There is no sufficient ground for 
 the opinion that the pronoun x>in is ever used as a divine name, cogmite and 
 equivalent to Jehovah. In this case the obvious and usual construction is 
 entirely satisfactory. Graven im.ages are here put, as in many other cases, 
 for idols in general, without regard to the mode of their formation. The 
 connexion of this verse with what precedes may seem obscure, but adniits 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 59 
 
 of an easy explanation. Frotn the assertion of Jehovah's power and per- 
 fection as a ground for his people's confidence, the Prophet now proceeds, 
 by a natural transition, to exhibit it in contrast with the impotence of those 
 gods in whom the gentiles trusted. These are re()resented not only as 
 inferior to God, but as his enemies and rivals, any act of worship paid to 
 whom was so much taken from what he claimed as his own and as his own 
 exclusively. The genei'al doctrine of the verse is that true and false relitj^ion 
 cannot coexist ; because, however tolerant idolatry may be, it is essential to 
 the worship of Jehovah to be perfectly exclusive of all other gods. This is 
 included in the very name Jehovah, and accounts for its solemn proclamation 
 here. 
 
 V. 9. The first (^OY former) things — /o, thci/ have come, and new things 
 T (nm) telling ; before they spring forth (^sprout or germinate) I will make 
 (or let) ijou hear (^them). This is an appeal to former prophecies already 
 verified, as grounds of confiflence in those yet unfulfilled. The atten)pts 
 which have been made to give specific meanings to former things and new 
 things as denoting certain classes of prophecies, are unsuccessful because 
 perfectly gratuitous. The most plausible hypothesis of this kind is Vitringa's, 
 which applies the one term to the prophecies respecting Cyrus and the 
 Babylonish exile, the oiher to the prophecies respecting the Messiah and 
 the new dispensation. But the simple meaning of the words appears to be, 
 that as former prophecies (not of Isaiah but of older prophets) had come to 
 pass, so those now uttered should be likewise verified. The strong and 
 beautiful expression in the last clause can only mean that the events about 
 to be predicted were l)eyond the reach of human foresight, and is therefore 
 destructive of the modern notion, that these prophecies were written after 
 Cyrus had appeared, and at a time when the fui-ther events of his history 
 could be foreseen by an ol)server of unusual sagaciiy. Such a prognosli- 
 cator, unless he was also a deliberate deceiver, a char^e which no one brino^s 
 against this writer, could not have said of what he thus foresaw, that he 
 announced it before it had begun to germinate, i. e. while the seed was in 
 the earth, and before any outward indications of the plant could be perceived. 
 As this embraces all the writer's prophecies, it throws the date of composi- 
 tion back to a period bef )re the rise of Cyrus, and thereby helps to invalidate 
 the arguments in favour of )-egarfling it as contemporaneous with the Baby- 
 lonish exile. 
 
 V. 10. Sing to Jehovah a neto song, his praise from the end of the 
 earth, (ijc) going down to the sea and its fulness, isles and their inhabitants ! 
 To sing a new song, according to Old Testament usage, is to praise God 
 for some n(nv manifestation ol his power and goodness. It implies, there- 
 
60 CHAPTERXLII. 
 
 fore, not only fresh praise, but a fresh occasion for it. Reduced to ordinary 
 prose style, it is a jjrediction that changes are to take place joyfully affecting 
 the condition of the whole world. That this is a hyperhole, relating to the 
 restoration of the Jews from Babylon, is too gratuitous and forced a suppo- 
 sition to be imposed upon any reader of the prophecy against his will. Let 
 those who can, receive and make the most of it. The great majority of 
 readers will be apt to reject an assumption w liicli has no foundation in the 
 text and which reduces a sublime prediction to an extravaganza. — Gesenius, 
 for some reason not explained, chooses to read at instead oi from the end. 
 The obvious meaning of the phrase is, that the sound of praise should be 
 heard coming from the remotest quarters. — lis fulness may either be con- 
 nected with the sea and both dependent on go down (to the sea and its 
 fulness), or regarded as a distinct object of address. In the latter case, the 
 marine animals would seem to be intended ; in the former, the whole mass 
 of water with its contents ; the last is more poetical and natural. The 
 antithesis is then between the sea with its frequenters on the one hand and 
 the isles with their inhabitants on the other. 
 
 V. 11, The desert and its iotvns shall raise {the voice), the enclosures 
 (or encampments, in which) Kedar dwells ; the dwellers in the Rock shall 
 shout, from the top of mountains shall they cry aloud. Tiiis is a direct 
 continuation of the previous description, in which the whole world is repre- 
 sented as exulting in the promised change. The leference of this verse to 
 the course of the returning exiles through the intervening desert is forbidden 
 by the mention of the sea and its fulness, the isles and the ends of the earth, 
 in the preceding and following verses. If these are not all pans of the same 
 great picture, it is impossible to frame one. If they are, it is absurd to take 
 the first and last parts in their widest sense as an extravagant hyperbole, 
 and that which is between them in its strictest sense as a literal description. 
 The only consistent supposition is that sea, islands, deserts, mountains, 
 towns, and camps, are put together as poetical ingredients of the general 
 conception, that the earth in all its parts shall have occasion to rejoice, — The 
 mention of cities as existing in the wilderness appears less strange in the 
 original than in a modern version, because both the leading words ("^^l^ and 
 "1"^") have a greater latitude of meaning than their usual equivalents, the first 
 denoting properly a pasture-ground, and being applicable therefore to any 
 uncultivated region whether uninhabited or not, the other answering to town 
 in its widest English sense inclusive of both villages and cities. There is no 
 need therefore of supposing a particular allusion to oases in the arid desert, 
 or of assuming, as Gesenius does in his Tliesaurus, that ~^-J sometimes means 
 nothing more than a military station, post, or watch-tower. (See the Earlier 
 Prophecies, p. 8.) — The translation of ni-^an by villages is too restricted, 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 61 
 
 since the Hebrew word is applicable also to collections of tents or nomadic 
 encampments, which appears to be the prominent idea here. Kedar was 
 the second son of Ishmael. (Gen. 25: 13.) Here, as in ch. 21 : 16, the 
 name is put for his descendants, or by a natural metonymy for the Arabians 
 in general. The rabbinical name for the Arabic language is the tongue of 
 Kedar. The Septuagint takes it as the name of the country (ond those 
 inhabitivg Kedar). The Vulgate makes this clause a promise (Kedar shall 
 dwell in houses), and the preceding verb a passive (^let the desert and its 
 ioivns be exalted). Cocceius has the same construction, but gives both the 
 verbs an imperative meaning, and follows the Septuagint in explaining 
 Kedar (efferat se desertnm ct oppida (jus ; per pagos habit etur Kedarena). 
 Most writers, ancient and modern, have regarded a relative construction as 
 more natural (ivhich Kedar doth inhabit). The use of Kedar as a feminine 
 is contrary to general usage, which distinguishes between the name of the 
 country as feminine and that of the nation possessing it as masculine. The 
 rabbins explain it by supposing an ellipsis of nns? before it. More probably, 
 however, it is an irregularity or license of construction, such as we have 
 seen already in ch. 21 : 2 and elsewhere. — Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, and 
 some later writers, explain sh'o as the proper name of Petra ; but the whole 
 connexion renders it more natural to take it in its general sense oi rock, and 
 as corresponding not so much to Kedar as to the appellatives, desert, towns, 
 encampments, mountains. 
 
 V. 12. They shall place (or give) to Jehovah honour, and his praise in 
 the islands they shall shoio forth (or declare). Still another mode of sav- 
 ing, the whole world shall praise him. The islands are again mentioned, 
 either as one out of several particulars before referred to, or with emphasis, 
 as if he had said, even in the islands, beyond sea, and by implication in the 
 furthest regions. — As the verb to give, in Hebrew usage, has the secondary 
 sense of placing, so the verb to place is occasionally used as an equivalent 
 to that of giving. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 445.) — -The translation 
 of the verbs in this verse as imperatives (let (hem give glory and declare), 
 although substantially correct, is a needless departure from the form of the 
 original, in which the idea of command or exhortation is sufficiently implied 
 though not expressed. — The verbs do not agree with the series of nouns in 
 the foregoing verse (desert, towns, etc.), for these could not celebrate 
 Jehovah in the islands. The construction is indefinite, they, i. e. men in 
 general, a form of speech of far more frequent occurrence in Hebrew than 
 would be suspected by a reader of the English Bible. 
 
 V. 13. Jehovah, like a strong one, will go forth ; like a warrior (lite- 
 rally a man of battle) he tvill rouse (his) zeal ; he will shout, yea he will 
 
62 C II A P T E R X L I I . 
 
 cry; against his foes he ic ill make (or show) himself strong. From the 
 eliect he now reverts to tlie eOlcient cause. The miiveijal joy before 
 described is to arise fioin Jciiovah's tiiuiiiph over liis enemies. '1 he mar- 
 tial fiu^ures of the verse an', intellijiible in themselves and all familiar to the 
 usa«re of the Scriptures. — Lowih and Barnes amend the coiimion version of 
 the 6rst clause by readinir, he shall march forth like a hero. The modern 
 Germans also use the word Held (hero). Liilhcr and Calvin pvek-r giant. 
 It may be doubted whether any English word is more ap|)ropriate oi- striking 
 than the strict translalion strong or mighty. To go J'orih is the connuon 
 Hebrew phrase for going out to war or batile. (See above, on ch. 40 : 26.) 
 Junius and Tremellius understand the j)lural battles as a superlative expres- 
 sion, and translate the phrase vir bellicosissimus evigilans zelo. The ver- 
 sions of Clericus (vir rniliiaris) and Viiringa (^erilus bellator) greatly 
 weaken the expression. r;x:p may either have its general sense of ardour, 
 stronf and violent affection of whatever kind, or its more specific sense of 
 jealousy or sensitive regaid for his own honour and for the welfare of his 
 people. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 165.) The idea is that of an 
 ancient warrior exciting his ow n courage by a shout or w :ir-cry. — The last 
 clause may be understood to mean, he shall prevail over his enemies ; but 
 although this idea is undoubtedly included, it is best lo retain the reflexive 
 form and import of the verb, as far as may be, in translation. 
 
 V. M. 1 have long been still (saying) 1 will hold my peace, I will 
 restrain myself. (But now) like the travailing (woman) I ivill shriek, I 
 will pant and gasp at once. The consecution of the tenses in the first clause 
 has occasioned the most opposite constructions. Of these the most violent and 
 uno-rammatical is that of Augusti, who translates all the verbs of the verse as 
 preterites. With this exception, it appears to be agreed on all hands that the 
 verbs of the last clause are either futures proper, or descriptive presents, and 
 the only question is in reference to those of the first. According to Luther, 
 these are all presents ; while the Vulgate, followed by most modern writers, 
 makes them all refer to past time. That such assimilations do occur, is certain ; 
 but a general maxim of interpretation makes it highly desirable to regard the 
 distinction of the tenses, where we can, as intentional and significant. Lowth 
 and Ewald accordingly follow the Sepiuagint in retaining the future form of 
 the second and third verbs, but read them interrogatively (I have long been 
 silent. Shall 1 hold my peace and restrain myself for ever?). This involves the 
 necessity of reading nM:-bn (for ever ?) and connecting it against the accents 
 with what follows. It is true that interrogative sentences, without the 
 interrogative particle expressed, are not unknown to Hebrew usage ; but 
 their occurrence is comparatively rare, and ought not to be assumed without 
 necessity, which of course has no existence if the clause can be affirmatively 
 
CHAPTERXLIl. 63 
 
 read without abandoning the strict sense of the futin-e. This con be done, 
 as may be seen in the iianslatlon above given, by regarding the second and 
 third verlisas the expression of his own deierniination or intention while ihe 
 silence lasted. The omission of the verb to say before such repetitions 
 or citations is not only frequent in general usage, but the more natural 
 in this case from the fact ihat this whole verse is universally regarded as the 
 words of God himself, although he is not expressly introduced as the speaker. 
 The necessity of su})plying (at least in thought) the words but now before 
 the last clause, is not peculiar to this view of the passage, but common lo it 
 with all others, except Augusti's paradoKical construction. — The word n:;-;x 
 is twice used elsew here by Isaiah (30 : 0. 59 : 5) as a noun meaning a viper 
 or some other venomous serpent, in wdiich sense it is also used by Job (20 : 
 16). The general piinciples of analogical intei pretalion would requiie this 
 sense to be retained here ; but the only writers w ho have ventured so to do 
 are Junius and Tremellius who translate the c\a.use, ut jjai-iuricntcm vipiram 
 desolobo. Even the rabbins give the word the sense of crying, w hich is 
 j)lainly a conjecture from the context. I3ochart attempts a compromise 
 between the two opinions, l)y supposing that the word originally means to 
 hiss like a serpent; and Gesenius connects it with nss to blow. The only 
 oltjection to the common version, shriek ov scream, is that it seems too sirono- 
 both for the etymology and the analogy of the verbs w hich follow and w hich 
 seem to denote a suppressed sound rather than a loud one, I ivill pant and 
 gasp at once. There is indeed another veiy ancient explanation of these 
 two verbs, given in the Vulgate and by Calvin, Grotius, Hitzig, and Hen- 
 dewerk. as well as in the English Version, I will destroy and devour at once. 
 This refers cii-x to the root -^c to lay waste (and more generally to destroy), 
 and gives CixttJ tlie sense of swallowing and then (like :."t3) that of destroy- 
 ing. But ~|Xd means elsewhere to pant or gasp ; and ci"x may be readily 
 regarded as a synonyme, if derived from nii;: to breathe, o( which it would be 
 the Jiatural future. It is true that this verb does not occur elsew here, but 
 its derivative ^"^'Jf^ breath is of perpetual occurrence ; and the very same 
 writers who reject tlie derivation from cJ: on this ground, assume that of 
 nrJEX from ~V's not only in the absence of any othei- instar)ce, but in opposi- 
 liiiu to the usage which determines it lo be a noun. The authority of 
 Gesenius may be cited upon both sides of this question, not only fiom iiis 
 earlier and later works but from the last edition of his Lexicon, in which the 
 two explanations of this clause are separ;it( ly given as correct, the one 
 under "iXiu, which is explained as meaning to breathe hard, to j)ant, lo blow, 
 " e. g. of an angry person Js. 42: 14," the other under criij, where the two 
 verbs are translated, " I will destroy and gulp down together." The para- 
 phrase added in the latter case, " my wrath, long restiained, 1 will now 
 let break forth," is no doubt the true sense of the verse on either supposition. 
 
64 CHAPTERXLII. 
 
 V. 15. / will lay waste mountains and hills, and all their herbage will 
 I dry up ; and I will turn (literally place) streams to islands, and pools (or 
 la]{es) will I dry up. Having described the effect and the cause of the 
 great future change, he now describes the change itself, under the common 
 form of a complete revolution in the face of nature, sometimes with special 
 reference to the heavens (ch. K3 : JO), sometimes (as here and in ch. 
 35 : 6, 7) to the earth. It is strange that, with these analogies in view and 
 after such descriptions as those previously given, any should still suppose that 
 by mountains and hills we are here to understand states and governments, and 
 by their herbs the citizens or subjects. There is more probability in the 
 opinion that the verse contains an allusion to the ancient cultivation of the 
 hills of Palestine, by means of terraces, many of which are still in existence. 
 (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 134.) Houbigant and Lowth read D'^'^is 
 (dry deserts'), which is not only needless but contrary to usage, as ci*^ 
 no where signifies deserts themselves, but always their inhabitants. Gese- 
 nius and the other modern writers suppose c^'^n to be here used in the sense 
 of dry land as opposed to water. The necessity of this explanation may 
 however be avoided by adopting the ingenious suggestion of Clericus, that 
 what is here described is the actual appearance of islands in the channels of 
 the streams on the subsiding of the water. — The drying of the bed of the 
 Euphrates by Cyrus can at the utmost only be the subject of an indirect 
 allusion. A literal prophecy of that event would be entirely misplaced in a 
 series of bold metaphorical descriptions. — Rosenmiiller goes to an extrava- 
 gant length in attempting to connect this verse with the preceding context 
 by explaining it to mean that the excited warrior will dry up vegetation 
 with his burning breath. 
 
 V. 16. And I will make the blind walk in a way they knew not, in 
 paths ihey knew not I will make them tread ; I will set (or tuini) dark- 
 ness before them to light, and obliquities to straightness. These are the 
 words; I have made them (or done them) and have not left them. The 
 particle before the first verb is conversive i. e. gives a future meaning to the 
 preterite, because preceded by the future proper. (See Nordheimer, <§> 219.) 
 The ellipsis of the relative, which twice occurs in this clause, is pre- 
 cisely the same both in Hebrew and in English. — ""-^^P"-. may be translated 
 crooked or uneven places, as opposed to what is level, or to superficial 
 rectitude. (See above, on ch. 40 : 4, p. 4.) The combination of these 
 two antitheses (light and dark, crooked and straight) shows clearly that they 
 are both metaphorical expressions for the same thing that is represented 
 under other figures in the verse preceding, viz. total change ; in what 
 respect and by what means, the metaphors themselves do not determine. 
 And yet some writers understand the first clause as specifically meaning, 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 65 
 
 that the exiles in Bahylon should be delivered at a time and in a manner 
 which they had not expected; while another class apply the words exclu- 
 sively to spiritual exercise or religious experience. To both these objects the 
 description admits of an easy application ; but neither of them is to be 
 considered its specific subject. It is impossible, without the utmost violence, 
 to separate this one link from the chain of which it forms a part, that is to 
 say, from the series of strong and varied metaphors, by which the Prophet is 
 expressing the idea of abrupt and total change. The same thing that Is 
 meant by the wasting of cultivated hills, the withering of herbage, and the 
 drying up of streams and lakes, is also meant by the leading of blind men in 
 a new path, i. e. causing them to witness things of which they had had no 
 previous experience. — The usual construction of the last clause supplies 
 a relative before the leading verb and takes its suffix as a dative — ' these 
 are the words or things which I have done for them and have not left 
 them.' Another construction separates the members as distinct proposi- 
 tions — ' these are the words (or the things which I have promised to the 
 people) ; I have made them and have not forsaken them.' The simplest 
 and most regular construction is that given by Jerome and Cocceius, 
 which refers the pronouns not to a noun understood but to the expressed 
 antecedent : These are the words (i. e. my promises), / have performed 
 them and have not abandoned them, that is to say, I have not relinquished 
 my design until it was accomplished. (Compare the last clause of Ezekiel 
 17 : 24.) The translation of these verbs as futures has arisen merely from 
 a feeling on the part of the interpreter that tlie words ought to contain 
 a promise ; whereas the promise is implied or rather superseded by the 
 declaration that the work is done already, or at least that the effect is 
 already secured. The usual construction, which makes one a preterite and 
 one a future, is doubly arbitrary and capricious. 
 
 V. 17. Theij are turned hack, they shall be ashamed ivith shame (i. e. 
 utterly ashamed), those trusting in the graven image, those saying to the 
 molten image. Ye are our gods. This verse describes the effect to be pro- 
 duced by the expected changes on the enemies of God and tlie worshippers 
 of idols. They are turned back, utterly defeated, foiled in their malignant 
 opposition. Nor is this all ; for they are yet to be utterly ashamed, con- 
 founded, disappointed, and disgraced. In the last clause it is plain that the 
 graven and molten image are separated only by the parallelism, because the 
 address at the end is in the plural form, not thou art, but ye are our gods. 
 On the usage of these two nouns, sec Earlier Prophecies, p. 519. 
 
 V. 18. Ye deaf, hear! and ye blind, look to see! From the con- 
 nexion, this would seem to be a call upon the worshippers of idols, to open 
 
QQ C H A P T E R X L I I . 
 
 iheir eyes and oars, and become conscious of iheir own delusions. — The 
 infinitive at the enci ol' tlie sentence does not express the manner but the 
 purpose of the act required. Vitringa's version therefore (videndo intuemini) 
 is less correct than that ol' Jerome (intuemini ad videndum). 
 
 V. 19. IVho (is) blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger 
 (whom) I icill send J J I ho (is) blind like the devoted one, and blind like 
 the servant of Jehovah. Wliy ^llould he call the heathen blind and deaf, 
 when Israel himself, with all his honours and advantages, refused to see or 
 hear ? The very people whose mission and vocation it was to make the 
 gentiles see and hear, seemed to emulate their insensibility. The most 
 difhcult expression in this verse is c^c?3 , which the Seventy seem to have 
 read i-br-c and understood as meaning those that have dominion over ihem. 
 The various explanations of the common text may all be reduced to two 
 distinct senses of the verbal root, viz. that of being at peace and that of being 
 perfect or complete. The latter meaning is assumed by Luther, Calvin, 
 Cocceius, and Vitringa ; while Clericus modifies it so as to mean a man of 
 consummate ivlsdom, and Lovvili one 'perfectly instructed. On the other 
 hypothesis, Junius renders it donafus pace; Gesenius, the friend of God ; 
 Hiizi"', E\\ aid, and Uinbreit, the devoted or the God-devoted. This last is 
 favoured by the analogy of (^JLww.xi in Arabic, tl)e name by which the Moham- 
 medans desciil)o themselves, and which denotes one who gives himself to 
 God. From the use of the Piel in the sense of completing, making good, 
 repaying, are derived the Vulgate version (vcnundatus) and that of Kosen- 
 muller (redemtus). As to the application oi the term here, Clericus supposes 
 that it means the High Priest or some eminent person of the sacerdotal order. 
 But the great majority of writers understand it as descriptive of Israel, the 
 chosen people. The ohjeciion arising from the use of similar expressions at 
 the beginning of the chaj)ter with respect to the Messiah is usually set aside 
 by arbitrarily assuming entire diversity of subject. Henderson alone has the 
 intrepidity to umlerstand this verse of the Messiah likewise, accounting for 
 the application of such epithets to such a subject by assuming that it 
 expresses the opinion of the unbelieving Jews respecting Christ. The 
 obvious objection to this mode of exposition is, that it opens the door to 
 endless license of interpretation, by admitting that a passage may be referred 
 at will to the subj(>ct which it is least adapted to describe, by simply making 
 it express the mind not of the writer, as it seems to do, but of another party 
 not expressly mentioned. A purely arbitrary suj)position cannot be justified 
 by the assumption of another like it. The true solution of the difficulty 
 seems to be the one already given in explaining the first verse, viz. that the 
 Servant of Jehovah is a title applying not only to the Head but to the Body 
 also. Here, where the language implies censure and reproach, the terms 
 
CHAPTERXLII. Q^ 
 
 must be referred exclusively to Israel, the messenger whom God had sent to 
 open the eyes of the oiher nations, but who had himself become wilfully 
 blind. The future n^^"^. implies that the mission was not yet fulfilled. 
 Jerome's construciion, unto ivhom I sent my messtngers, is wholly ung;ram- 
 matical and a mere expedient to avoid a seeming difficulty. It is scarcely 
 credible that Clericus seems half-inclined to take "^^x^^ as the proper name 
 of Mulachi. 
 
 V. 20. Thou hast seen many things, and wilt not observe. (Sent) to 
 open ears ! and he will not hear. In t'lo first clause he turns to Israel and 
 addresses him directly ; in the last he turns away from him again, and, as 
 it were, expresses his surprise and i'ldignation to the by-standers. The 
 sense of the whole, leaving out of view this difference of form, is the same 
 as in the foregoing verse, namely, that Israel had eyes but saw not, and 
 instead of opening the ears of others was himself incapable of hearing. 
 The sentence may be said to exhibit a climax. In the first clause the 
 contrast is between the blindness of the people and the light which they 
 enjoyed ; in the last it is between their deafness and their high vocation to 
 open the ears of others. Hence the abrupt and impassioned form of 
 expression in the latter case. The marginal reading nxn , though suscep- 
 tible of explanation as an infinitive, is an unnecessary emendation of the 
 textual tr^x-i . The infinitive n'pn miiiht be considered as derivinu- a preterite 
 sense fioni the preceding verb ; but a better oxj)Ianation is afforded by the 
 analogy of v. 7, where the same infinitive describes the end for which the 
 Servant of Jehovah was sent. 
 
 V. 21. Jehovah (is) icilling for his righteousiiess' sake ; he will mag- 
 nify the laxo and make it honourable. The people, being thus unfaithful to 
 their trust, had no claim to be treated any longer as an object of Jehovah's 
 favour; and yet he continues propitious, not on their account, but out of 
 regard to his own engagements, and for the execution of his righteous pur- 
 poses. For these reasons he will still put honour on the chosen people and 
 the system under which they lived. Gesenius and Hiizig arbitrarily construe 
 yzn with ^""^Ji^ , is pleased to magnify, of which construction there is no 
 example elsewhere, and then make this an idiom of the later Hebrew. 
 Still less grammatical is the construction of the ancient versions, ' it pleased 
 God to justify or sanctify him,' whether this be understood to imply the 
 reading ip'^2? , or taken as a paraphrase of the common text. The appli- 
 cation of the words to the righteousness of Christ is inconsistent with the 
 terms of censure and disapprobation which precede and follow. 
 
 V. 22. And (ye/) it (is) a people spoiled and robbed, ensnared in holes 
 
68 CHAPTERXLII. 
 
 all of them, and in houses of confinement they are hidden. They have 
 ■become a spoil, and there is none delivering ; a prey, and there is none 
 saying, Restore. Here another contrast is brought into view. As the 
 conduct of the people did not answer to their high vocation, so their treat- 
 ment docs not answer to the preceding declaration of God's purpose. If he 
 still designed to honour them, though not for their own sake, how was this 
 to be reconcilcfl with what they suffered at the hands of their enemies ? 
 The terms are no doubt metaphorical, and therefore not exclusively descrip- 
 tive of literal captivity. At the same time it may be admitted that the suffer- 
 ings of Israel in exile furnished one of the most memorable instances of what 
 is here described in general. — C)"''i!in2 is explained in the ancient versions, and 
 by many modern writers, to mean youths or chosen men, as it does above in 
 ch. 40 : 30. But why should this class be described as in captivity ? Coc- 
 ceius and Vitringa change the meaning of the clause by making T}t'n the 
 infinitive of n^3 to blow or puff , and explaining the whole phrase, 'they are 
 all the puffing of the young men,' i. e. objects of derision and contempt. 
 But this construction violates the parallelism for the sake of an extremely 
 forced and far-fetched meaning. JMost of the modern writers follow Luther 
 in explaining Q'^'i'ina to mean in holes oy pitfalls, corresponding to c^^s ""Pis 
 in the other member. 
 
 V. 23. Who among you will give ear to this, will hearken and hear 
 for the time to come 1 By this we are not to understand merely the fact 
 recorded in the foregoing verse, but the doctrine of the wliole preceding 
 context as to the vocation and mission of Israel and as to his actual condition. 
 God had appointed him to be a source or at least a medium of light and 
 blessing to the nations ; but instead of acting up to this high character, he 
 not only left tJie nations without light, but was wilfully blinded and insen- 
 sible himself. Yet God would still be true to his engagements, and put 
 honour on the special revelation which he had already given. Why, then, 
 it might be asked, was Israel suffered to fall before his enemies ? The 
 answer to this question is introduced by an indirect caution to consider it 
 and bear it in mind. The interrogative form implies the possibility of their 
 neglecting or refusing to obey it. — The last phrase is explained to mean 
 behind or backwards by Vitringa (a tergo) and Ewald {zuruckw'drts^, who 
 seem to understand it as denoting reflection on the past, or the act of meditating 
 upon what they heard. — Most other writers understand it as relating either 
 to the time of hearing (henceforth or hereafter) or the subject of the declara- 
 tions to be heard {concerning the future). 
 
 V. 24. Who has given Jacob for a prey, and Israel to spoilers 7 Has 
 not Jehovah, against whom we have sinned, and they ivere not tvilling in 
 
CHAPTERXLII. 69 
 
 MS ways to walk, and did not hearken to his Inio 1 This was what they 
 were to bear in mind, viz. that what they suffered was ordained of God and 
 on account of their iniquities. Tlie errors of which this verse is the negation 
 are those of supposing that they suffered without fauU, and that they suffered, 
 as it were, in spite of God's protection, or because he was unable to prevent 
 it. The interrogation makes the statement more emphatic : Who else can 
 be imagined to have done it, or for what other cause except our sins ? The 
 change of person in the last clause is a common Hebrew idiom and does not 
 seem to be significant. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. -20.) If the Prophet 
 identifies himself with the people in the first phrase, he cannot be supposed 
 to exclude himself in that which follows. — Hitzig's translation of the last 
 word (his instruction) is too weak, as it fails to suggest the idea of obli- 
 gation. It is also at variance with usage, which requires nn-in to be taken 
 not in its etymological sense merely but in that of law. — This verse is strictly 
 applicable to the sufferings of the Jews in Babylon, and it was no doubt so 
 applied by them ; but in itself it is a general declaration of a fact which 
 has been often verified and was especially exemplified in ancient Israel, 
 viz. that the sufferings even of God's people are the consequence of sin. 
 
 V. 25. And he (Jehovah) poured upon him (^Israel) fury (^even) his 
 ivrath and the strength (or violence) of war : and it set him on fire round 
 about, and he knew (it) not ; and it burned him, and he ivill not lay it to 
 heart. This continues and concludes the description of God's judgments 
 and of Israel's insensibility. Most writers explain ~-:n as an absolute form 
 used for the construct {Jury of his anger). Junius and Vitringa make it an 
 adverbial expression qualifying iSN (excandescentid or cum excandescentid 
 iram). The simplest construction is to put the nouns in apposition, either 
 as mere equivalents (my anger as fury), or as exegetical the one of the other 
 (fury, to wit, my anger). — He knew not does not here mean unawares, 
 without his knowledge, but, as the parallel clause shows, implies extreme 
 insensibility. The tianslation of the last verb as a preterite is ungram- 
 matical, and the assimilation of the two as presents an evasion. That a 
 preterite precedes, instead of sliowing that the future must refer to past time, 
 shows the contrary, by leaving us unable to account for the difference of 
 form if none of meaning was intended. However necessary such assimi- 
 lations may be elsewhere, they are inadmissible in cases like the present, 
 where the change of tense admits of an easy explanation, to wit, that the 
 writer intended to describe the people not only as having been insensible 
 before but as likely to continue so in time to come. — On tlic usao-e of the 
 phrase to put or lay upon the heart, see above, p. 42. 
 
70 CHAPTERXLIII, 
 
 CHAPTER XI. III. 
 
 The main subject of this chapter is the true relation of Israel to 
 Jehovah, and its application in the way both of warning and encourage- 
 ment. The doctrine taught is that their segregation from the rest of men. 
 as a peculiar people, was an act of sovereignty, independent of all merit in 
 themselves, and not even intended for their benefit exclusively, but for the 
 accomplishment of God's gracious purposes respecting men in general. 
 The inferences drawn from this fact are, that Israel would certainly escape 
 the dangers which environed him however imminent, and on the other hand 
 that he must suffer for his unfaithfulness to God. In illustration of these 
 truths, the Prophet introduces several historical allusions and specific pro- 
 phecies, the most striking of the former having respect to the exodus from 
 Egypt, and of the latter to the fall of Babylon. It is important to the just 
 interpretation of the cliapter that these parts of it should be seen in their 
 true light and proportion, as incidental illustrations, not as the main subject 
 of the prophecy, which, as already stated, is the general relation between 
 God and his ancient people, and his mode of dealing with them, not at one 
 time but at all times. 
 
 Israel is the peculiar people of Jehovah, cherished and favoured at the 
 expense of other nations, vs. 1-4. But these are one day to become par- 
 takers of the same advantages, vs. 5-9. The proofs of the divine pro- 
 tection are afforded by the history of Israel, vs. 10-13. One of the most 
 remarkable, yet future, is the downfal of Babylon and the liberation of the 
 exiles, vs. 14, 15. An analogous example in more ancient times was the 
 deliverance from Egypt, vs. 16, 17. But both these instances shall be 
 forgotten in comparison with the great change which awaits the church 
 hereafter, vs. 18-21. Of all these distinguishing favours none was owing 
 to the merit of the people, but all to the sovereign grace of God, vs. 22-25. 
 The people were not only destitute of merit, but deserving of punishment, 
 which they had experienced and must experience again, vs. 26-28. 
 
 V. 1 . And now, thus saith Jehovah, thy creator, oh Jacob, and thy 
 former, oh Israel, Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by 
 thy name, thou art mine (literally, to me art thou). The juxtaposition of 
 this promise with the very different language at the close of the preceding 
 chapter has led to various false assumptions as to the connexion of the 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 71 
 
 passages. Some give and now the sense of a/ef or nevertheless, while others 
 understand it as referring to a period following that just mentioned ; as if he 
 had said, After these things have heen suffered, fear no longer. But this 
 interpretation is forbidden by the reasons here suggested for not fearing, 
 viz. that Jehovah was already their Creator and Redeemer, and had ah'eady 
 called them and made them his peculiar people. It will also be observed 
 that in ch. xlii, as well as here, there is the same alternation and apparent 
 confusion of the encouraging and minatory tone, which cannot therefore be 
 explained by referring any one part of the context to a particular period of 
 history. Another solution of the difficulty is that the Prophet has in view 
 a twofold Israel, the false and true, the carnal and spiritual. This is correct 
 so far as what he says relates to internal character ; but it is evident that 
 he has reference likewise to the outward fortunes of God's people as an 
 organized body. The simplest and most satisfactory hypothesis is that, in 
 this whole context, he is accounting for the sufferings of Israel and his 
 preservation from destruction on the same ground, namely, that Jehovah 
 had chosen them and therefore would preserve them, but that they were 
 unfaithful and must therefore suffer. The intermingling of the promises and 
 threatenings is not to be explained by supposing a reference to different 
 periods or different subjects ; nor is it to be set down as capricious and 
 unmeaning, but as necessary to the Prophet's purpose. Tlie noiv will then 
 have a logical rather than a temporal meaning, as introductory to an expla- 
 nation of the strange fact that the bush was burned but not consumed. — 
 Create and form have reference not merely to the natural creation, nor to 
 the spiritual renovation of individuals, but to the creation or constitution of 
 the church. God was the maker of Israel in a peculiar sense. He existed 
 as a nation for a special purpose. — Fear not, i. e. fear not that thou canst 
 be utterly destroyed. It is not an assurance of imnumity from sufiering, 
 the experience of which is implied and indeed expressly threatened in what 
 follows. — I have redeemed thee. There is here an allusion to the redemption 
 of the first-born under the Mosaic law, as appears from the metaphor of 
 substitution used in vs. 3 and 4. Thus understood, the meaning of this 
 clause is, thou art not like the other nations of the earth, for I have pur- 
 chased or redeemed thee to myself as a peculiar people. — To call by name 
 includes the ideas of specific designation, public announcement, and solemn 
 consecration to a certain work. This and the other clauses of the verse can 
 be applied to the election and vocation of individuals only by accommo- 
 dation, and only so far as the case of the individual members is included in 
 that of the whole body. — It is a curious idea of Menochius, that nrs-^b is 
 the name assigned, as if he had said, / have called thee by thy name 
 Li-attah (^Thou-art-mine). The true sense is, thou art mine because 
 I have expressly called thee so to be. — Rosenmuller discovers here 
 
rS CHAPTERXLIII. 
 
 another obstetrical allusion in the phrase ^"^S^ . (See the Earlier Pro- 
 phecies, p. 451.) 
 
 V, 2. JVhcii thou passest through the nmters, I will he iviih thee ; and 
 through the rivers, they shall not ovcrjlow thee: when thou ivalkest through 
 the fire, thou shall not be scorched, and the jlame shall not hum thee. Fire 
 and water are couiinon figures for calamity and danger. (See Ps. 66 : 12.) 
 To explain one as meaning civil and the other religious persecutions, as 
 Vitringa does, is wholly arbitrary, and might be reversed with just as much 
 or rather just as little reason. — Although when conveys the true sense here, 
 and is given in the lexicons as a distinct meaning of the Hebrew "3 , the 
 latter really retains its proper meaning, yb?-, because. It is the genius of the 
 language to delight in short independent clauses, where we use more involved 
 and complicated periods. ' For thou shalt pass through the waters, I will 
 be with thee,' is the idiomatic Hebrew mode of saying, If or when thou 
 passest, etc. — The last clause might be rendered, when thou walkest in the 
 fire, the preposition throiigh being used even in the first clause only because 
 the English idiom requires it after pass. — Hitzig gives n'sri a reflexive 
 meaning (6u?vi thyselj), which is unnecessary, although it agrees well both 
 with Hebrew usage and the English idiom. Augusti takes the same verb 
 'in the more specific sense of being branded, i. e. marked by the fire. (Com- 
 pare the derivative noun ""S ch. 3 : 24.) But this does not suit the more 
 indefinite expressions in the parallel clauses. — The common version of the 
 last words, shall not kindle upon thee, is of doubtful authority, and seems to 
 introduce a needless anticlimax, as burning is much more than kindling. — 
 The application of this promise to individual believers is an accommodation, 
 but one justified by the natural relation between the body and its several 
 members. 
 
 V. 3. For I, Jehovah, thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour, 
 have give7i (^as) thy ransom Kgypt, Ethiopia, and Seba, instead of thee. 
 This is an amplification of the phrase / have redeemed thee in v. 1. As 
 the Israelite under the Mosaic law was obliged to redeem his first-born by 
 the payment of a price, or by the substitution of some other object, so 
 Jehovah secured Israel as his own by giving up the other nations, here 
 represented by a single group, just as the forest-trees are represented in 
 ch. 41 : 19 by a few well-known species. The group here selected is 
 composed of three contiguous and cognate nations. Cush, which was 
 placed by the older writers either wholly or partly in Arabia, is admitted 
 by the moderns to be coincident with the Ethiopia of the Greek geographers. 
 Seba is now commonly suj)posed, on the authority of Josephus, to be Meroe, 
 a part of Ethiopia surrounded by the branches of the Nile, and celebrated 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 73 
 
 by the ancient writers for its wealth and commerce. The connexion of the 
 countries was not only geographical but genealogical. According to Gen. 
 10 : 6, 7, Cush was the brother of Mizraini and the lather of Seba. Accord- 
 ing to this exegetical hypothesis, the same essential meaning might have 
 been conveyed by the mention of any other group of nations. At the same 
 time it may be admitted that the mention of Egypt was probably suggested 
 by its intimate connexion with the history of Israel, and by its actual sacri- 
 fice, in some sort, to the safety of the latter at the period of the exodus. 
 Many interpreters go further and suppose that the words would have been 
 applicable to no other nations than those specifically mentioned, and that 
 the Prophet here alludes to the real or anticipated conquest of these coun- 
 tries by Cyrus, as a sort of compensation for the loss of Israel. But the 
 necessity of this prosaic explanation is precluded by the prophetfc usage of 
 specifying individuals as representatives of classes, while the sense thus put 
 upon ransom or atonement is extremely forced and far-fetched. That the 
 terms although specific were designed to have a wider application may be 
 safely inferred from the generic expressions substituted for them in the next 
 verse. — The essential idea of ^£3, here and elsewhere, is that of vicarious 
 compensation. — The insertion of the substantive verb in the first clause, so 
 as to make it a distinct proposition (/ am Jehovah), greatly weakens the 
 whole sentence. The description of the speaker in the first clause is 
 intended to conciliate regard to what he says in the other. It was in the 
 character, not only of an absolute and sovereign God, but in that of Israel's 
 God, his Holy One, his Saviour, that Jehovah had thus chosen him to the 
 exclusion of all other nations. 
 
 V. 4. Since thou ivast precious in my eyes, thou hast been honoured, 
 and I have loved thee, and will give man instead of thee and nations instead 
 of thy soul (or life). There is precisely the same anibiguity in since as in 
 the Hebrew ""ij><";? • Both expressions may be taken either in a temporal or 
 causal sense. Because thou ivast precious, ov, from the time that thou wast 
 precious. The former sense is really included in the latter. If Israel had 
 been honoured ever since Jehovah c.dled him, it is plainly implied that this 
 vocation was the cause of his distinction. — The first clause, as the whole 
 context clearly shows, does not refer to intrinsic qualities, but to an arbitrary 
 sovereign choice. Since I began to treat thee as a thing of value, thou hast 
 been distinguished among the nations. The verse, so far from ascribing any 
 merit to the people, refers all to God. Some continue the construction through 
 the whole verse, making the apodosis begin with the second clause, since thou 
 art precious in my sight, and art honoured, and I love thee, 1 will give etc. 
 This yields a good sense, but is grammatically inadmissible, because it 
 supplies a conjunction in the first clause, and omits one in the second. 
 
74 C H A P T E R X L I I I . 
 
 Either of these assumptions iiii^ht be justified by usage and analogy ; but the 
 coincidence appears unnatuial, and makes the wliole construction harsh. 
 At the same time, this construction weakens the sentence by making it a 
 mere repetition of what goes before, whereas it is a repetition with a pointed 
 affirmation that the nation owed its eminence entirely to God. — The future 
 {I xoill give) shows that the substitution mentioned in v. 3 did not relate 
 merely to the past, but to the future also. — Man is here used collectively or 
 indefinitely for other men or the rest of men, as in Judg. 16 : 7, Ps. 73 : 5. 
 Job 31 : 33. Jer, 3'2 : 20. Thy soul, life, or person, seems to be an 
 allusion to the usage of the same Hebrew word in the Law, with respect to 
 enunieration or redemption. (See Kx. 12:4. Lev. 27 : 2.) Tlie general 
 terms of this clause make it wholly improbable that v. 3 has specific and 
 exclusive reference to the nations named there. 
 
 V. 5. Fear not, for I (ani) with thee ; from the east will I make (or 
 let) thy seed come, and from the ivest ivill I gather thee. The reference 
 of this verse to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon is not only arbi- 
 trary and without foundation, but forbidden by the mention of the west as 
 well as the east. That it refers to any restoration is the more improbable, 
 because the Prophet does not say bring back but simply bring. — The only 
 interpretation which entirely suits the text and context, without supplying 
 or assuming any thing beyond what is expressed, is that which makes the 
 verse a promise to the church that she should be completed, that all her 
 scattered members should be ultimately brought together. (Compare John 
 1 1 : 52. Rom. 3 : 29. 1 John 2 : 2.) — Thy seed has reference to Israel or 
 Jacob as the ideal object of address. 
 
 V. 6. I ivill say to the north, Give, and to the south, Withhold not, let 
 my sons come from far, and my daughters from the end of the earth. This 
 is a poetical amplification of the promise in the foregoing verse. As it was 
 there declared that God would bring and gather the whole seed of Israel, so 
 here he represents himself as calling on the north and the south to execute 
 his purpose. The feminine form of the verbs is explained by the rabbins 
 on the ground that the address is to the north and south ivind, as in Cant. 
 4:16. Gesenius makes the words themselves of common gender. Perhaps 
 the case falls under the same general principle with names of countries, 
 provinces, etc. which are uniformly feminine. Hitzig's suggestion that ■'i<"'2n 
 does not here mean bring hui suffer to come, \s favoured by the juxtaposition 
 of ivithhold not. 
 
 V. 7. Every one called by my name, and for my glory I have created 
 him ; I have formed him, yea I have made him. The construction is con- 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 75 
 
 tinued from the foregoing verse. My sons and my daughters, even every one 
 called by my name. Augusti's construction, Every one of them is colled by 
 my name, is forbidden by the article. — The reflexive sense, thai calls himself, 
 implying profession rather than divine vocation, is wholly unnecessary and 
 less agreeable to general usage. — And I have created him is a common 
 Hebrew idiom equivalent to ivhom I have created. — The distinctions drawn 
 by some between created, formed, and made, are more ingenious than well- 
 founded. Thus Viiringa runs a parallel between the creation of matter out 
 of nothing, its configuration, and the completion of its parts; the regenera- 
 tion of the soul, its conformation to God's image, and its ultimate perfection. 
 It seems to be rather an exhaustive accumulation of synonymous expres- 
 sions. — For my glory is emphatic. God had not only made them what 
 they were, but he had done it for his own sake, not for theirs. So like- 
 wise he now speaks of their being called by his name, as he did before of 
 his calling them by their name, the latter denoting special designation, the 
 former special authority and right. 
 
 V. 8. He hath hroughi out the blind people, and. there are eyes (to 
 them) ; and the deaf, and (there are) ears to them. The two clauses are 
 so constructed as to supply one another's ellipsis. Most writers make K"^sin 
 imperative (bring forth) after the example of the Vulgate (educ). But as 
 this form in thirty-five places is the praeter, and in thirty the infinitive, while 
 the imperative without an augment always elsewhere takes the form N^in, 
 such an assumption is in the highest degree unsafe and precarious. Some 
 more correctly make it the infinitive (to bring forth), which yields a good 
 sense and is justified by the analogy of npa in 42 : 20. The preterite con- 
 struction, however, is not only simpler in itself, but agrees better with the 
 1J^ which follows, and which is usually found in affirmative propositions. 
 The first verb may then be construed either with Jehovah, or with the sub- 
 ject of the preceding sentence, i. e. the chosen people or the individuals 
 composing it, whose work or office is declared to be that of turning the heathen 
 from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God. (Acts 26 : 
 18.) A Very different sense is put upon the verse by those interpreters 
 who take ni3"'S ai;; as descriptive of the blind people (that have eyes), and 
 apply it to the Jews, who in spite of their advantages were blind to spiritual 
 objects. This agrees well with ch. 42: 19, 20, as explained above. But 
 it then becomes difficult to understand in what sense they are said to be 
 brought out. On this hypothesis the best explanation is that they are 
 summoned to behold the demonstration of Jehovah's prescience, either as 
 adverse parties or spectators. This would require the imperative construction 
 of K'^Sin , the grammatical objections to which have been already stated. 
 On the whole, the most satisfactory interpretation of the verse is that which 
 
76 CHAPTERXLIII. 
 
 understands it as descriptive of the change wrought or to be wrought in the 
 condition of mankind by Juhovah, tln"ough the agency of his people, whether 
 the latter be expressly mentioned here or not. He (i. e. God, or Israel as 
 his messenger) hath brought out a people (once) blind, and (now) they have 
 eyes, and (once) deaf, and (now) they have ears, i. e. of course, seeing eyes 
 and hearing ears. This agrees perfectly with all that goes before and 
 follows with respect to the mission and vocation of God's people. 
 
 V. 9. All the nations are gathered together, and the peoples are to be 
 assembled. Who among them will declare this and let us hear the first 
 things. Let them give (or produce^ their tvitnesses and be justified ; and 
 (if they cannot do this) let them hear (my witnesses), and say, (It is) the 
 truth. The translation of the first verb, by Rosenmiiller and others, as a 
 future or imperative, is wholly unauthorized by usage, the cases cited to 
 establish it being themselves of very doubtful import. At all events, it is 
 incomparably safer and more satisfactory to retain the proper meaning when 
 it yields a tolerable sense, than to pioceed upon the strange assumption, 
 that when a writer deliberately uses two distinct forms, he intended them to 
 be received as one. Here the sense would seem to be, that the nations have 
 been gathered, but that the process is not yet completed. This gathering 
 of the nations has been conmionly explained as a judicial metaphor like that 
 in ch. 41:1. In that case the verse describes the heathen as assembled at 
 the judgment-seat to plead tlieir cause against Jehovah. This agrees well 
 with the forensic terms employed in the subsequent context. It is possible, 
 however, that this first clause may have been intended to describe not the 
 process but the subject of adjudication. The gathering of the nations will 
 then denote their accession to the church, as predicted in vs. 5-7 ; and this, 
 in the next clause, will refer to the same event. Who among them (i. e. 
 the nations) could have foretold their own change of condition ? On the 
 other supposition, this must either be indefinite, or mean the restoration of 
 the Jews from exile, of which, as we have seen, there is no specific mention 
 in the foregoing context. In either case, the usual alternative is offered, 
 viz. that df pointing out some previous instance of foreknowledge and predic- 
 tion. — The last clause admits of two constructions. It may either be read, 
 let them be just (or candid) and hear and say it is the truth ; or, let them be 
 justified (by the witnesses whom they produce), and (if not) let them hear 
 (my witnesses) and say, it is the tiuth. The latter seems more natural, 
 because the other connects ^P'^it'^ not with its own part of the clause but with 
 what follows, r^x is here equivalent to p"''ns in ch. 41 : 26. 
 
 V. 10. Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom 1 
 have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and may understand that 1 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 77 
 
 am He ; before me was not formed a god, and after me there shall not he. 
 Some regard the heathen as the object of address in the first clause, and 
 understand my servant as denoting Israel. But there is no consistent sense 
 in which the former could be cited as witnesses against themselves; and this 
 application is besides forbidden by the obvious analogy of v. 12, where the 
 same words are explicitly applied to Israel. Of those who correctly under- 
 stand them so in this case likewise, the greater number refer my servant to 
 a different subject, either Isaiah, or the Prophets as a class, or the Messiah. 
 Ye (the Jews) are my witnesses, and (so is this) my servant. But the sim- 
 plest and most natural construction of the sentence is to niake my servant 
 not a subject but a predicate. Ye are my witnesses and (ye are) tny servant 
 whom I have chosen (for this very purpose). The combination of the plural 
 witnesses with the singular servant, although sti'ange in itself, is in perfect 
 agreement with the previous representations of Israel, both as a person and 
 a body politic. On the other hypothesis, the relative clause, that ye may 
 know etc., depends upon witnesses, and the words whom I have chosen form 
 a pleonastic adjunct to the phrase my servant. But according to the expla- 
 nation just proposed, that ye may Icnow depends upon the words immediately 
 preceding whom I have chosen, and the clause declares the purpose not only 
 of the testimony here adduced, but of the election and vocation of his servant. 
 The witness to whom God appeals is Israel, his servant, constituted such 
 for the very end that he might know and understand and believe that of 
 which all other nations were entirely ignorant, viz. that Jehovah was He, 
 i. e. the being in question, the only wise God, the only infallible foreteller of 
 futurity. — Various attempts have been made to explain away the singular 
 expression, thei-e ivas no god formed before me, as a solecism, or at least an 
 inaccuracy of expression ; whereas nothing else could have conveyed the 
 writer's meaning in a form at once sarcastic, argumentative, and graphic. 
 Instead of saying, in a bald prosaic form, all other gods are the work of men's 
 hands, but I am uncreated and exist from all eternity, he condenses all into 
 the pregnant declaration, there was no god manufactured before me, i. e. 
 all other gods were made, but none of them was made before I had a being. 
 There is not even such an incongruity of form as some suppose, — a notion 
 resting on the false assumption that before me must in this connexion mean 
 before I was formed, whereas it only means before I existed, just as the 
 parallel phrase after me does not mean after I am formed, but after I shall 
 cease to exist. The sarcasm is rendered still more pungent by the use of the 
 divine name ^s . thus bringing into the most revolting contrast the pretended 
 divinity of idols and their impotence ; as if he had said, none of these 
 almighty gods were made before I had a being. — cns is properly a passive 
 participle used as a noun, like the Latin dictum, and exclusively applied to 
 divine communications. 
 
78 CHAPTERXLIII. 
 
 V. 11. /, /, Jehovah, and besides mc (or apart from mc) (here is no 
 Saviour. In the first clause we may sirn|)]y supply am, as in the English 
 and most other versions, or arn He from the preceding verse, and in the 
 sense there explained. The exclusive honour here claimed is not merely 
 that of infalliijle foreknowledge, but of infinite power. Jehovah was able 
 not only to ft)reiell the salvation of his people, but to save them. These 
 terms are not to be restricted, if applied at all directly, to the final salvation 
 of individual believers. There is evident allusion to the deliverance of Israel 
 as a people from external sufferings or dangers, of which one signal instance 
 is refeired to in v. 14 and another in v. 16. At the same time, the doctrine 
 here propounded, or the character ascribed to God, affords a sure foundation 
 for the personal trust of all who have really a place among his people. 
 
 V. 12. I have told and have saved and have declared (or let you hear 
 beforehand), and there is not umong you {any) stranger ; and ye are my 
 witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I (ant) God. Having laid claim successively 
 to divine prescience and power, he here combines the two, and represents 
 himself both as the foreteller and the giver of salvation. The expression of 
 the first idea twice, before and after the expression of the other, does not 
 seem to have any special meaning, as some interpreters imagine, except so 
 far as it gives special prominence to the divine omniscience and the proof of 
 it afforded in prediction, as the evidence of deity which he had particularly 
 urged before, and which he is about to urge again. — The emphatic insertion 
 of the pronoun / at the beginning of the verse can only be expressed in 
 English by a circumlocution, it is 1 that have told etc. — Vitringa and 
 Rosenmiiller omit the substantive verb in the last member of the first clause 
 as superfluous, and construe the words thus, I have declared and no strange 
 (god) among you, i. e. no strange god declared it. But in that case, Hebrew 
 usage would require x^ instead of "rx , which is not an adverb of negation, 
 but an idiomatic equivalent to the negative verb of existence, and can only 
 mean there is not or there was not. Most of the modern writers refer it to 
 past time, and explain the clause as an assertion that the prophecies in 
 question were uttered at a lime when idolatry did not prevail in Israel. It 
 is more agreeable, however, both to usage and the context, to translate it in 
 the present, as a declaration that Jehovah was the only God whom they had 
 reason to acknowledge, from their own experience and observation. — "t , 
 which is a conunon term for stranger, used in reference to men, may be 
 here considered an ellipsis for the full phrase "ij ^^? , which is not uncommon 
 elsewhere. 
 
 V. 13. Also (or even) from the day I am He, and there is no one free- 
 ing from my hand ; I will do, and who will undo it ? The assonance in the 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 79 
 
 last clause is not in tlie original, which literally means, I uill act (ovmolcc), 
 and loJio will cause it to return, i.e. reverse or nullify it ? Tlie inlerr(\!.^;ilive 
 form implies negation. A simihir expression of the same idea is lound in 
 ch. 14 : 27. Wliat is said specifically in the first clause of delivering from 
 Jehovah's power, is extended in the last to all counteraction or reversal of 
 his acts. Tlie ca at the beginning indicates a climax not only now, or on 
 any occasion, but ui'^ . This last is understood by some as refming to a 
 specific terminus a quo, such as the oiigin of Isia(;l as a nation, the exodus, 
 etc. Others make it indefinite, 0/ oW or /o//_g- .vi/jce. But the best inter- 
 preters explain it as meaning since the first day, or since time began. The 
 words are then universal, both in the extent of power claimed, and in relation 
 to the time of its execution. Over every object and in every age the power 
 of Jehovah had been clearly proved to be supreme and absolute. 
 
 V. 14. Thus saith Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: 
 For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down (or triode to 
 descend) fugitives all of i hem ; and the thaldeans, in the ships thdr shout 
 (or song). This is a particular instance of the general protection vouch- 
 safed by Jehovah to his people, and more especially of that providential 
 substitution or redemption, of whici) we read above in vs. 3, 4. The 
 inference before drawn from the general terms of v. 4, that the nations 
 mentioned in v. 3 are only representatives or samples, is confirmed by this 
 explicit mention of the fall of Babylon as an example of the same great 
 truth. — The titles added to Jehovali's name are not mere expletives or 
 words of course, but intimate that he would bring this great event to pass 
 in his distinctive character as the Redeenier and the Holy One of Israel. — 
 Fiom the past tense of the verb {I have sent) some infer that this verse was 
 written after the event, while otlieis endeavour to avoid this conclusion by 
 translating it as future (7 ivill send). One of these inferences is ju^t as 
 groundless as the other. The event, although still future to the writer, is 
 described as past, in reference not only to the purposes of God, but also the 
 perceptions of the Prophet. As presented to his view by the prophetic 
 inspiration, the destruction of Babylon was just as truly a l)istorical event 
 as that of Pharaoh and his host. This is what is meant by the prueteritum 
 prophtticnm, to render which as future is a wanton violation of tlie form of 
 the original and a gratuitous confounding of the text and comment. — The 
 Targuiii strangely understands this clause as referring not to the downfall of 
 the Babylonians but to the deportation of the Jews. Behold, on account of 
 your sins T sent (you) to Babylon. But this agrees neither with the usa^-e 
 oi D2:v^h nor with the meaning of the other clause. Interpreters are com- 
 monly agreed that the object of the verb is Cyrus or the Medes and Persians. 
 — From the earliest times D"'n'i-i2 has received a twofold explanation, viz. 
 
80 C H A P T E R X L I I I . 
 
 that o{ fugitives, as in the Septuagint, and that of bars, as in the Vulgate. 
 The same question arises in the exposition ol'ch. 15: 5. (See the Earlier 
 Prophecies, p. 305.) But there the pointing favours the last sense, whereas 
 here it seems to recommend the other. Of those who prefer the meaning 
 bars even here, some suppose a literal allusion to the gates of Bahylon, 
 others a figurative one (o its protectors. The other sense of fugitives is 
 applicahle either to the Babylonians themselves, or to the foreigners resident 
 among them. (See ch. 13 : 14, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 256.) 
 BinitJS is the proper name of the foicign race by which Babylonia had been 
 occupied before Isaiah wrote. (See ch. 23 : 13, and the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 411.) It is an interesting fact, that recent etymological research has 
 identified the c^'nirs of the Hebrew ethnography, not only vsith the Xaldaioi 
 of the Greeks, but with the Kurds of modern Asia. Here, however, they 
 are mentioned simply as the inhabitants of Babylonia. — The last two words 
 are variously construed and explained. Some connect them only with what 
 goes before, as a description of the Chaldeans, ivhose cry is in the ships, 
 implying their devotion to nautical pursuits ; or, whose shout (or song) was 
 in the ships, implying their habitual use of ships or boats for pleasure. The 
 same idea is otherwise expressed by those who read in the ships of their 
 joyful cry (i. e. their pleasure-ships). On this, which is Gesenius's inter- 
 pretation, Hitzig observes, with a play upon words which cannot be retained 
 in a translation, that the pleasure-ships are air-ships (die Lustschiffe sind 
 Luftschiffe) i. e. imaginary or fictitious. The same thing has been said of 
 the naval or maritime activity of Babylon ; but Lowth has made it probable 
 at least, that it really existed in very early times. — Another construction of 
 these closing words connects them with ^n"!"]!,-! , ' and brouglit down the 
 Chaldees into the ships of their triumph or delight.' Hitzig makes nrjx 
 the plural of M*!i!< (ch. 29 : 2), and understands the clause to mean that 
 God had brought down the rejoicing of the Chaldeans into lamentations. 
 But this requires a different pointing of n'.ijx from the one attested by the 
 critical tradition of the Jews, and a very harsh construction of diiii:^ . 
 Hitzig's construction is adopted by Ewald, who moreover changes n^a nin-'-a 
 into Ci"j'i3 D-n"i'i5ia (their harp or music into groans), on the authority (as he 
 affirms) of Zeph. 1 : 14 and Job 30: 31. Either of the old interpretations, 
 whether that which makes the clause descriptive of the Chaldees or of their 
 destruction, yields a better sense, without the arbitrary violence of these 
 pretended emendations. 
 
 V. 15. / Jehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King. 
 This verse may possibly have been intended merely to identify the subject 
 of the one before it. / sent to Babylon etc. even I, Jehovah, your Holy 
 One etc. It is simpler, however, and more in accordance with the usage 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 81 
 
 of the language to make this a disiinct proposition by supplying the verb of 
 existence. / am Jehovah, or, 1 Jehovah am your Holy One etc., or, I 
 Jehovah, your Holy One, am the Creator of Israel, your King, Even in 
 this case, the event predicted in v. 14 is referred to, as the proof of his beino- 
 what he here asserts. 
 
 V. 16. Thus saith Jehovah, the (one) giving in the sea a tvay, and in 
 mighty waters a path. As the participle is very commonly employed in 
 Hebrew to denote continued and habitual action, this verse might be regard- 
 ed as a general description of God's usual control of the elements and 
 conquest of all difficulties. But the terms of the next verse, and the subse- 
 quent contrast between old and new deliverances, have led most interpreters 
 to understand this likewise as an allusion to the passage of the Red Sea. — 
 Some, however, follow Aben Ezra in a|jplying the words to the passa"-e of 
 the Euphrates by Cyrus, a gratuitous departure from the strict and custom- 
 ary sense of 5eo. — ="'■;?, besides its etymological meaning strong or mighty, 
 suggests the idea of impetuous, violent, and fierce. 
 
 V. 17. TJlc (one) bringing out chariot and horse, force and strong ; 
 together they shall lie, they shall not rise ; they are extinct, like tow (or 
 like a loick) they are quenched. "fVJ is properly an adjective and may be 
 understood as qualifying h-^n , a force and (i. e. even) a strong one. Some 
 however regard it as indefinite or abstract (strong for strength) and an 
 equivalent or parallel to "'"^n . Some suppose; a new sentence to beo-in with 
 this verse, and make N"^2i"i:3n collective: those bringing out the chariot and 
 the horse, shall lie together, they shall not rise etc. But most interpreters 
 continue the construction from the foregoing verse, and make the first word 
 agree directly with Jehovah. Of these, liowever, some understand the verse 
 as having reference to a naval victory of Cjrus over the Chaldeans, others 
 as relating to the destruction of Pharaoh and his host. It is no objection to 
 the latter that 'i~3'ii'^ is future, as this verb denotes not merely the act of 
 lying down, but the state of lying still, and is therefore a poetical equivalent 
 and parallel to shall not rise. That something long past is intended, may 
 be gathered from the exhortation of the next verse. 
 
 V. 18. Remember not former things, and old, things consider not. As 
 if he had said, why should I refer to ancient instances of God's almio-hty 
 intervention in behalf of his people, when others equally remarkable are 
 yet to come ? Some refer this to the advent of Christ, but most to the fall 
 of Babylon and restoration of the Jews from exile. The necessity of this 
 specific application by no means follows from the express mention of that 
 event in v. 14 : because, as we have seen, it is there introduced as a single 
 
 6 
 
82 C 11 A P T E R X L I I I . 
 
 illustration or example of a general tiutli, \\hich had before been stated, and 
 which may possibly be here repeated. This supposition is at least sufficient 
 to meet all the requisitions of the text and context. 
 
 V. 19. Behold I (aDi) doing {something) neiv, it is now (or yet) to 
 sprout (or germinate) ; do you not know it 1 Yes, Iivill place in the wilder- 
 ness a way, in the desert streams. The now does not necessarily denote a 
 proxiniate futurity, but only that the thing is yet to happen, or in other 
 words, that it is something new, as distinguished from all former instances. 
 As if he had said, it is still future. The figure of germination implies that 
 as yet there was no appearance of the final issue. (See the same expression 
 in ch. 42 : 9.) Do you not knoio it, i. e. know what it is ? Or, icill you 
 not know it, i. e. are you not willing to be convinced ? Or, shall you not 
 know it, i. e. is not the event to be attested by your own experience ? — The 
 ^x may be regarded as equivalent to yea, yes, or as indicating something 
 more than had as yet been experienced. Not content with having made a 
 way through the sea, he would make one through the desert. Now as this 
 is really a less extraordinary act of power than tlie other, it would seem to 
 favour the opinion, that v. 16 and the one before us do not relate indefinitely 
 to the exhibition of Jehovah's omnipotence, but specifically to the exodus from 
 Egypt and the restoration of the Jews from exile. Even on this hypothesis, 
 however, the terms of this verse must be understood not as a description of 
 the literal return, but as a figurative representation of deliverance and relief, 
 whereas v. 16 describes a literal deliverance. On the whole, therefore, it is 
 best to take both verses as strong metaphorical descriptions of deliverance 
 from suffering and danger by a direct divine interposition. Even supposing 
 an allusion to the literal journey through the desert, what is said of rivers 
 must be figurative, which makes it probable that the whole sentence is of 
 the same description. Thus understood, the Prophet's language means that 
 God could change the face of nature and control the angry elements in 
 favour of his people ; that he had so done in time past, and would again do 
 so in time to come. 
 
 V. 20. The living creature of the field shall honour me, jackals (or 
 wolves) and ostriches ; because I have given in the wilderness waters, and 
 streams in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen. The change 
 is further described by representing the irrational inmates of the desert as 
 rejoicing in its irrigation. This bold conception makes it still more evident 
 that what precedes does not relate to the literal journey of a people through 
 a literal desert. — As the first phrase seems to be a general one, including 
 the two species afterwards mentioned, the translation beast is too restricted, 
 and should give way to that which is etymologically most exact, viz. ^wor. 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 83 
 
 animal, or living creature. The form is singular, the sense collective. 
 The two species represent the whole class of animals inhabitinn- the wilder- 
 ness. (Compare ch, 13: 21, 22.) The common version of the last words 
 of this verse is the correct one. My chosen people would be otherwise 
 expressed. To the simple designation of my people, he adds, by a kind of 
 afterthought, my chosen or elect. 
 
 V. 21. The people (or this people) I have formed for myself ; my praise 
 shall they recount (or they are to recount my praise.) Another declaration 
 of the end for which Israel existed as a nation. This brings us back to the 
 main proposition of the chapter, namely, that Jehovah had not only made 
 them what they were, but had made them for the purpose of promoting his 
 own glory, so that any claim of merit upon their part, and any apprehension 
 of entire destruction, must be equally unfounded. 
 
 V". 22. And not me hast thou called, oh Jacob ; for thou hast been 
 weary of me, oh Israel. Interpreters, almost without exception, give J^^^'^f^ 
 here the sense of called upon, invoked, or worshipped. There is much_. 
 however, to be said in favour of the sense attached to it by J. H. IVIichaelis, 
 namely, thou hast not called me, I have called thee ; as our Saviour says to 
 his disciples, ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. (John 15 : 16.) 
 Having thus far represented the vocation of Israel as a sovereign act on 
 God's part, he now presents the converse of the same proposition. This 
 construction is further recommended by its accounting for the unusual position 
 of the words at the beginning of the verse, without resorting to the arbitrary 
 supposition that it is characteristic of a later age than that of Isaiah : q. d. it 
 is not I that have been called by you. — According to the usual construction 
 of the first clause, the second may be rendered either when or because thou 
 wast weary of me. The common version of the ^3 as meaning but, and 
 Gesenius's unnatural construction thou hast not called upon me so as to be 
 troubled loith me, although very different, are equally gratuitous. — It is not 
 easy to determine whether labour or fatigue is the primary meaning of Si'. 
 Sometimes the one idea is more prominent, sometimes the other. In this 
 case both would naturally bo suggested, as in the following paraphrase : It 
 is not I that have been called by thee ; for so far from manifesting such a 
 preference, thou hast been wearied and disgusted with the labour which 
 attends my service. The indirect construction, that thou shouldst be weary 
 of me, is only admissible in case of extreme exegetical necessity. 
 
 V. 23. Thou hast not brought to me the sheep of thy burnt-offering. 
 and (with) thy sacrifices thou hast not honoured me. I have not made thee 
 serve with oblation, and I have not made thee labour (or wearied thee) with 
 
84 CHAPTERXLIII. 
 
 incense. The whole IMo-aic ritual is here represented by an emimcralion 
 of some of the prliici|Kil olTcrin^rs ; ili(> olah or general expiation, the zcbn- 
 him or animal sacrifices in -general, the minhah or meal-offering, and the 
 lebonah ov aromatic fiuiiigation. — nb includes the goat as well as the sheep, 
 and is therefore correctly rendered in the English Version by the phrase 
 small cattle. — Of the whole verse there are several distinct interpretations or 
 rather applications. Some place the emphasis upon the pronouns. Tt is 
 not to me that thou hast offered all this, but to idols. This, though a pos- 
 sible construction, is not llu? one most readily suggested by the words. Nor 
 is it easy, upon this supposition, to account for the total want of any distinct 
 reference to idols in the context. Another class of writers understand the 
 passage strictly as charging the Jews with culpable neglect of the ceremonial 
 law. But of this they were not generally guilty ; and the restriction of the 
 charge to the reign of Ahaz or to any other limited period is gratuitous, and 
 hardly consistent with the general expressions of the context. A third 
 hypothesis applies the passage to the unavoidable suspension of the cere- 
 monial service during the captivity in Babylon, which it supposes to be here 
 urged as a proof that the deliverance of Israel from exile was an act of 
 mercy, not of righteous retribution for their national obedience and fidelity. 
 This explanation, although much more plausible than either of the others, is 
 open to the same charge of gratuitous restriction, without any thing to indi- 
 cate it in the text or context. It may also be objected, that the error thus 
 supposed to be refuted by the Prophet, is one which could not possibly be 
 entertained ; for how could the exiled Jews imagine that their liberty was 
 bought by services which not only had not been but could not have been 
 rendered ? If it be said that this is merely a specific illustration of the 
 general truth that they were not saved by any merit of their own, it still 
 remains incredible that this truth should have been exemplified by reference 
 not to a real case but to one wholly imaginary and impossible. How much 
 more natural and satisfactory to give the words the general and unrestricted 
 meaning which they naturally bear as a description of the people's conduct, 
 not at one time or at one place, but throughout their history. The last 
 clause is by some understood to mean, that the system imposed upon the 
 people was not burdensome. But this is consistent neither with the circum- 
 stances of the case, nor with the statements of the New Testament respecting 
 them (Acts 1.5 : 10. Gal. 5 : 1), nor with the parallel clause, in which it is 
 simply said that Israel had not offered what was due. The most satisfactory 
 interpretation of the verse, and that which best agrees with the whole con- 
 text, is, that it has reference not merely to the outward or material act, 
 but to its moral value and effect. You have not so performed your cere- 
 monial duties as to lay me under any obligation to protect you. You have 
 not really given me your cattle, you have not truly honoured me with sacri- 
 
CHAPTERXLIII. 85 
 
 fices. The best explanation of the last clause is, I have not succeeded in 
 inducing you to serve me, I have not prevailed upon you to exert your- 
 selves, much less wearied or exhausted you in ceremonial services. 
 
 V. 24. Thou hast not bought for me sweeA cane with money, and {loiih') 
 the fat of thy sacrifices thou hast not drenched me ; thou hast only made 
 me serve with thy sins, and made me toil (or wearied me) ivith thine iniqui- 
 ties. According to Jarchi, the sweet or aromatic cane is mentioned as a 
 common product of the Holy Land, which they were consequently not 
 obliged to purchase in order to the preparation of the holy ointment. (Ex. 
 30 : 23.) But Kimchi and most other writers proceed upon the contrary 
 assumption, that this cane was an exotic, which could only be procured 
 with trouble and expense. This particular is mentioned, like the others 
 with which it stands connected, as a specimen or sample of the whole con- 
 geries of ceremonial services. The antithesis between the clauses seems to 
 show that the idea meant to be conveyed in this whole context is, that their 
 external services were nullified by sin. So far from being satisfied or pleased 
 with what they offered, God was only vexed with their transgressions and 
 neglects. 
 
 V. 25. /, I am he blotting out thy transgressions for mine own sake, 
 and thy sins I ivill not remember. This is the conclusion to which all that 
 goes before was meant to lead, to wit, that God's goodness to his people is 
 gratuitous. If they, instead of choosing God and his service, were averse to 
 both, — if, instead of pleasing him by their attentions, they had grieved him 
 by their sins, — it follows of course that he could still show them favour only 
 by gratuitously blotting out their sins from his remembrance, or in other 
 words, freely forgiving them. 
 
 V. 26. Remind me ; let us plead together (or judge one another) ; state 
 {thy case) that thou may est be justified. After asserting, in the foregoing 
 verse, the total want of merit in the people and their dependence upon 
 God's gratuitous compassion, he now, as it were, allows them to disprove 
 his allegation, by reminding him of some forgotten merit on their part. 
 The badness of their case could not have been more strongly or sarcastically 
 stated than in this ironical invitation to plead their own cause and establish 
 their own rights if they could, with a tacit condition, not expressed but 
 implied, that if they could not justify themselves in this way, they should 
 submit to the righteousness of God and consent to be justified by grace. 
 
 V. 27. Thy first father sinned, and thy interpreters rebelled against me. 
 Gesenius and some others give the first words a collective sense, as signifying 
 
86 CIIAPTERXLIII. 
 
 either the succession of priests or ancestors in general. The older writers, 
 for the most part, give the singular its strict sense, and apply it cither to 
 Ahaz or Manasseh, as kintrs and therefore bound to be the fathers of their 
 people, or to Abraham as the progenitor of Israel, or to Adam as the father 
 of the human race. Vitringa even makes it mean Uriah, the unfaithful high 
 priest in the reign of Ahaz. This and the first interpretation mentioned 
 are entirely arbitrary. That which understands the phrase of Abraham is 
 supposed by some to be at variance with the uniform mention of that 
 patriarch in terms of commendation. But these terms are perfectly con- 
 sistent with the proposition that he was a sinner, which may here be the 
 exact sense of n::h. To the application of the phrase to Adam it has been 
 objected, that he was not peculiarly the father of the Jews. To this it may 
 be answered, that if the guilt of the national progenitor would prove the 
 point in question, much more would it be established by the fact of their 
 belonging to a guilty race. At the same time it may be considered as 
 implied, that all their fathers who had since lived shared in the original 
 depravity, and thus the same sense is obtained that would have been 
 expressed by the collective explanation of first father, while the latter is 
 still taken in its strict and full sense as denoting the progenitor of all man- 
 kind. — Interpreters, or organs of communication, is a title given elsewhere 
 to ambassadors (2 Chr. 32 : 31) and to an interceding angel (Job 33 : 23). 
 It here denotes all those who, under the theocracy, acted as organs of com- 
 munication between God and the people, whether prophets, priests, or rulers. 
 The idea, therefore, is the same so often expressed elsewhere, that the 
 people, and especially their leaders, were unfaithful and rebellious. 
 
 V. 28. And I will profane the holy chiefs, and will give up Jacob to 
 the curse and Israel to reproaches. The character just given of the people 
 in all ages is urged not only as a proof that God's compassion must be per- 
 fectly gratuitous, but also as a reason for the strokes which they experienced. 
 The vav before the first verb is not conversive but conjunctive, so that the 
 reference is entirely to the future, or to the universal present, as explained 
 by Kimchi, who observes that vav has pattah because it does not express past 
 time ; but the sense is, that in all ages God profanes the holy chiefs. This 
 last phrase is descriptive of the same persons called interpreters in v. 27, 
 namely, all the official representatives and leaders of the holy (i. e. conse- 
 crated and peculiar) people. Its specific application to the priests in 1 Chr. 
 24 : 5 no more proves that this is its whole meaning, than it proves that Dinb 
 always means religious olTtcer?. The name includes the priests, no doubt, 
 but it includes much more. 
 
CHAPTERXLIV. 87 
 
 CHAPTER XLIV. 
 
 This chapter opens, like the fortieth and forty-third, with cheering 
 promises to Israel, followed by reasons for confiding in them, drawn from 
 the wisdom, power, and goodness of Jehovah. 
 
 The specific promise, which constitutes the theme or basis of the pro- 
 phecy, is that of abundant spiritual influences and their fruits, not only 
 internal prosperity, but large accessions from without, vs. 1-5. — The 
 pledge for the fulfihnent of this promise is afforded by the proofs of God's 
 omniscience, as contrasted with all other gods. vs. 6—9. — The folly of 
 image-worship is then established by two arguments. The first is that 
 idols are themselves the creatures of mere men, vs. 10-14. The other 
 is that they are not only made, and made by man, but made of the very 
 same materials applied to the most trivial domestic uses, vs. 15-20. — 
 From this demonstration of the power of Jehovah to perform his promise 
 w^e are now brought back to the promise itself, vs. 21—24. This is again 
 confirmed by an appeal to God's creative power, and illustrated by the 
 raising up of Cyrus as a deliverer to Israel, vs. 25-28. 
 
 Here again it is important to the just interpretation of the passage that 
 we keep in view the true relation which the main theme (the safety and 
 prosperity of Israel) bears to the arguments and illustrations drawn from 
 God's foreknowledge as established by prediction, from the impotence of 
 idols, and the raising up of Cyrus. Through all these varied forms of 
 pi'omise and of reasoning there runs a thread uniting them, and this thread 
 is the doctrine of the church, its origin, its design, and its relation to its Head 
 and to the world around it. 
 
 V. 1. And 7101V hear, Jacob my servant, and Israel I have chosen him 
 (i. e. whom 1 have chosen). The transition here is the same as at the 
 opening of the foregoing chapter, and the now, as there, has rather a logical 
 than a temporal meaning. F'"or reasons which have been already given, 
 there is no need of supposing that a dillerent Israel is here addressed (Coc- 
 ceius), viz. tlie ])enitent believing Jews in exile (Grotius) ; or a different 
 period referred to, namely, that succeeding the calamities before described ; 
 nor even that the and is here equivalent to notwithstanding, as explained by 
 Kimchi. It is simply a resumption and continuation of the Prophet's argu- 
 ment, intended to exhibit the true relation between God and his people. 
 
83 CHAPTER XLIV. 
 
 The election here affirmed, which Calvin understands directly of a personal 
 election from eternity, is better explained by J. H. JMichaelis as the choice 
 and separation of the church, or God's peculiar people, from the rest of men. 
 
 V. 2. Thus saith Jehovah, thij maker and thy former from the womb 
 ivill help thee ; fear not, my servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have 
 chosen. It has been a subject of dispute among interpreters, whether "V.?'? 
 ought to be connected with ?i"^^.^ (as it is in the Septuagint and by the 
 rabbins), or with ~Q]".1 (as in the Targum and the Vulgate). The masoretic 
 accents arc in favour of the first construction ; but Gesenius rejects it as not 
 yielding a good sense, and reads, who helped thee from the womb. But 
 this translation of the future as a praeter is entiiely gratuitous, and therefore 
 ungrammatical. The simplest construction is to make the words of Jehovah 
 begin with thy maker, the transition from the third to the first person being 
 altogether natural and one of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah. Thy maker 
 ivill help thee is equivalent to /, ivho am thy maker, will help thee. But 
 even on the common su])position; that the words of God begin with the 
 second clause, it is better to take he will help thee as a short independent 
 clause, parenthetically thrown in to complete the description or to connect it 
 with what follows. Thus saith thy maker and thy former from the womb — 
 he tvill help thee — Fear not etc. As to the combination maker from the 
 womb, it can seem incongruous only to a hypercritical grammarian ; so that 
 there is no need even of adopting J. H. INIichaelis's suggestion, that "^3^ 
 means ex quo in utcro esse coepisti. The use of these expressions in address- 
 ing Israel only shows that the conception present to the writer's mind is that 
 of an individual man. Although the specific explanation of the figures here 
 used has been sometimes pushed too far, there can be no doubt that the 
 maturing of Israel as a nation in Egypt is often represented as a period of 
 gestation, and the exodus as a birth ; but whether there is any such allusion 
 here, may be considered doubtful. — Jeshurun occurs only here and in Deut. 
 32:15.33:5,26. Some of the old attempts to ascertain its etymology 
 were ludicrous enoufrh. Thus Vitrinira quotes Forster as derivin"; it from 
 ^I'lJ an or, and Cocceius from ^n^^.iii; they shall see, i. e. the people who should 
 see Christ in the flesh, quod nemo dixtrit non esse hyperbolicum et remutum 
 (Vitringa). Grotius's derivation of the word from 'X'j'-^'l is a philological 
 impossibility ; but his explanation of it as a diminutive or term of endear- 
 ment is now commonly adopted, but with reference to the root "I'ij;: upright, 
 as an epithet of Israel, not "in consideration of their entire abandonment of 
 idolatry," as Henderson supposes, but in reference to their normal or ideal 
 character, the end for which they were created, and the aspect which they 
 ought to have exhibited. Hengstenberg gives the same sense to the word 
 as a proper name, but not as a diminutive or term of endearment, which he 
 
CHAPTERXLIV. 89 
 
 rejects as unsustained by etymological analogy and wholly inappropriate in 
 the places where it is originally used. (See his History and Prophecies of 
 Balaam, pp. 98-101.) The word is rendered, as a general expression of 
 endearment, by the Septuagint (^i]yun)jiit'ro^), and with closer adherence to 
 the etymology by the other Greek versions (ti'i>i't,', thOvrarog). The diminu- 
 tive form is imitated in Latin by Gesenius (rectuJus, justulus) , Sind in German 
 by Hitzig and Ewald (Frbmrnchen) . Rosenmiiller's version (^fortunate) is 
 supported only by the false analogy of p'i:J as denoting good luck or pro- 
 sperity. 
 
 V. 3. For I will pour waters on the thirsty, and flowing (waters) on the 
 dry (land) ; I will ponr my spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thine 
 offspring. This is the grand reason why God's people should not despair. 
 The two clauses explain each other, the water of the first being clearly 
 identical with the spirit of the second. This is a common figure for influ- 
 ences from above. (See ch. 32: 15. Ez. 34 : 26. Mai. 3:10.) Knobel 
 indeed understands the two clauses strictly and distinctly, taking the first as 
 a promise to the land, and the second as a promise to the people. But n^2 
 most probably refers to persons, as it is not feminine like ^"^^1 . Grotius 
 understands this as a promise to send prophets to the Jews in exile, such as 
 Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi ! Gesenius also seems 
 to think the promise here made strictly coincident with that in Joel 3:1,2. 
 But it is more extensive, and includes all the influences of the Holy S])irit. 
 — The offspring of the people, as distinguished from itself, is supposed by 
 Knobel to denote the individuals of whom the aggregate body was composed. 
 Jarchi and Vitringa apply it to the strangers or proselytes who were to be 
 added by conversion to the natural Israel. The simplest and most obvious 
 interpretation is, that the ideal object of address is Jacob as the national 
 progenitor, and that the Jews themselves are here described as his descend- 
 ants. Even this, however, does not necessarily exclude the spiritual offspring 
 of the patriarch, who are explicitly referred to in the context. 
 
 V. 4. And they shall spring up in the midst of the grass, like ivillows on 
 (or by) the water-courses. This verse describes the effect of the irrigation and 
 effusion promised in the one before it. There is no need, however, of making 
 the construction a subjunctive one {so that they shall spring up), as Luther 
 and some later writers do. — The subject of the verb is not the spirit and 
 blessing of Jehovah, as Aben Ezra strangely imagines, but the offspring or 
 descendants of Israel, by whom the blessing was to be experienced. — Lowth 
 and Ewald read T'sn c^a ???, like grass amidst the water, on the authority 
 of the Septuagint version (cog avn^itaov tdazog pc^Oi')? which seems, however, 
 
90 C H A P T E Tx X L I V . 
 
 to be simply a paraphrase or free translation. Gesenius retains the compa- 
 rative form of expression (as among), but without a change of text, by 
 making the particle itself coni])arative, an idiom of which there is no clear 
 example elsewhere. All these expedients arc intended to remove the ima- 
 ginary solecism in between. But the true explanation has been long since 
 given by Vitringa, namely, that "2 has here its primitive and proper use, as 
 a noun corresponding to the English midst. So fiir is the common text 
 from being incorrect or irregular, that it is really the only form in which 
 the idea could have been expressed, since "i"? as a preposition always means 
 between or among, and is followed by a plural noun. When, on the con- 
 trary, a singular noun is to be used, as here, the Hebrew idiom prefixes not 
 the preposition but a noun meaning 7nidst (r^ or "jin) with a particle before 
 it. — The grass and the willows are separated only by the rhythmical 
 arrangement of the sentence. The simple meaning of the whole verse is, 
 that they shall grow as willows grow among the grass, i. e. in a moist or 
 marshy spot. The question who are meant by the grass as distinguished 
 from the willows, is absurd. It might as well be asked, when an object is 
 compared to the rose of Sharon, what is meant by Sharon as distinguished 
 from the rose. Lowth seems to look upon aqueducts as more poetical and 
 better English than the common version, waier-courses. 
 
 V. 5. This shall say, To Jehovah I (belong) ; and this shall call on (or 
 by) the name of J acob ; and this .shall inscribe his hand (or ivith his hand), 
 To Jehovah, and loith the name of Israel shall entitle. The repetition of the 
 pronoun this implies, according to Kimchi's explanation, persons of various 
 classes or from different quarters. It is commonly agreed that this verse 
 predicts the accession of the gentiles, whom it represents as publicly pro- 
 fessing their allegiance to Jehovah and attachment to his people. The act 
 of calling one by name, and that of calling on his name (invoking him), are 
 intimately blended in the Hebrew usage. Most interpreters understand it 
 here as meaning to praise or celebrate. Some of the older writers follow 
 Symmachus in giving it a passive sense (this shall be called), either reading 
 ^tli^l for ^"^p^. , or supplying the reflexive pronoun after it. The same diver- 
 sity exists in reference to the last verb in the sentence, nsa"] , which some 
 understand to mean he shall surname himself (or be surnamed), oihers he 
 shall name the name of Jacob in a flattering or respectful manner. — Of the 
 intermediate clause there are two ancient explanations, one of which makes 
 it mean he shall write (with) his hand, in allusion to the signing of contracts 
 (Jer. 32: 10. Neh. 9:38) ; the other, he shall write upon (inscribe) his 
 hand, in allusion to the ancient custom, mentioned by Procopius, of marking 
 soldiers, slaves, and other dependents, with the name of their superior, to 
 
CHAPTER XLIV. 91 
 
 which there seems to he a reference in Ex. 13 : 9 and Rev. 13 : 16. This 
 last sense is supposed to he expressed in the Septuagint version (iniyQuxpEi 
 
 V. 6. Thus saith Jehovah, Jchig of Israel, and his redeemer, Jehovah of 
 Hosts : I (am) first, and I (atn) last, and without me there is no God. This 
 is a description of the God whom the nations, in the preceding verse, are 
 represented as acknowledging. The attributes ascribed to him afford, at 
 the same time, a sufficient reason for confiding in his promises. In like 
 manner Zeus, the supreme god of the Greeks, is described by Orpheus as 
 being unpj nuvrav navzav re relsT/j, and in another place, Ztv^' ttqmtoi^ iytvEro 
 Ztvg vGTarog. Henderson points out the appropriation of the terms here 
 used to the Lord Jesus Christ in Rev. 1 : 18. 2:8. 22: 13. — There is no 
 need of giving to ^I'jh'zri , in this and the parallel places, the restricted sense 
 besides, which is really included in the usual and strict sense of without, i. e. 
 without my knowledge and permission, or without subjection to my sovereign 
 authority. The meaning is not simply, that there is no other true God in 
 existence, but that even the Xeyofisvoi deal (1 Cor. 8: 5) exist only by his 
 sufferance, and cannot therefore be his equals or competitors. 
 
 V. 7. And ivho, like me, will call, and tell it, and state it to me, since 
 I placed the ancient people; and coming things and things which are to 
 come ivill tell to them (or for themselves^ 1 There is no reason why the 
 interrogation should not be considered as extending through the verse, the 
 rather as a different construction splits the sentence into several, and arbi- 
 trarily explains some of the futures as imperatives. Still more objectionable 
 is the construction of ^('^^■; as a preterite, which is given by all the later 
 writers except Ewald. The question tvho has called like me is in no respect 
 more pertinent than the question, who will (or Crt«) call as J have done, which 
 leaves the reference to past time equally explicit, without doing any gramma- 
 tical violence to the form of expression. The usual construction of the next 
 words is, let him tell it etc. ; but this imperative meaning is sufficiently implied 
 in the strict translation of the words as interrogative futures, \vho will tell it 
 etc. N"!?^ is to call aloud or publicly announce. It differs from the next 
 verb, if at all, by denoting an authoritative call, wm] suggesting the idea not 
 only of prediction but of creation. — T\Vi is correctly explained by Gesenius 
 as a forensic term meaning to state a case. The sense of comparing, pre- 
 ferred by Ewald, is less frequent elsewhere and less appropriate here. The 
 words since I placed etc. are to be connected with "S'i'as, who can call, as I 
 have done, ever since I placed etc. To place is here to constitute, create, or 
 give existence. Of the phrase cbiJ'D^ there are three interpretations. The 
 
92 CHAPTERXLIV. 
 
 first is that of the rabbins, who explain it to mean ancient yeople ; this 
 is retained in the English and some other versions. The second makes 
 it mean eternal people, but refers it simply to the divine purpose or decree 
 of election. The third gives it the sense of everlasting people, i. e. a 
 people who shall last for ever. In all these senses the description is 
 appropriate to Israel, not simply as a nation but a church, the existence 
 and prerogatives of which are still continued in the body of Christ. Eccle- 
 sia corpus Christi est, quo nihil antiquixis aut majus esse potest (Calvin). 
 It may be doubted, however, whether any thing more was here intended 
 than a reference to the origin of the human race. (See above, on ch. 
 42 : 5, 6.) — According to Kimchi, Grotius, and Vitringa, the last clause 
 contains a distinct reference both to a proximate and remote futurity. 
 This distinction is rejected by Gesenius, without any other reason than the 
 groundless one that synonymes are characteristic of this writer, i. e. the 
 writer of these later prophecies, as distinguished from the genuine Isaiah. 
 But this is, to some extent, characteristic not of one but of all the Hebrew 
 writers, and abundant illustration might be drawn from the earlier and even 
 from the undisputed passages. The truth, however, is that the distinction 
 made by Kimchi is so natural and simple, and agrees so well with the con- 
 text and analogy, that it would be entitled to consideration, even if the two 
 forms of expression in themselves appeared to be entirely synonymous. 
 Much more, when such a difference is indicated by the very form. Not 
 only are two different verbs used, — which might be otherwise explained, and 
 by itself can have no weight, — but one is in the participial form, the clearest 
 mode in Hebrew of expressing present action or a proximate futurity, the 
 other in the future proper. Wherever there is a difterence of form, there is 
 presumptively a difference of meaning ; and if any such difference is here 
 intended, it can only be the difference between things actually coining to 
 pass now, and those which are to come to pass hereafter. 
 
 V. 8. Quake not and fear not ; have 1 not since then let thee hear and 
 told (ihee), and are ye not my witnesses ? Is there a God without me 1 And 
 there is no rock, I know not (any). The alternation of the singular and 
 plural form in reference to Israel, is peculiarly appropriate to an ideal or 
 colleciive person, and in strict agreement with the usage of the Pentateuch, 
 especially with that of Deuteronomy, in which the same apparent confusion 
 of numbers is not a mere occasional phenomenon, but one of perpetual occur- 
 rence. — The verb >in"iti , which occurs only here, is derived by Hitzig from 
 nn'n , by Gesenius from Pin- , and explained by Ewald as an error of the 
 text for "xn^n . It is more probably to be derived from the synonymous 
 and cognate n"}'; . — is'o is usually taken in the vague sense of Zon^ ago ; but 
 
CHAPTERXLIV. 93 
 
 it may here be strictly understood as meaning since that time, which Jarch 
 refers to the giving of the law on Sinai, Knobel to the first appearance of 
 Cyrus, and Maurer, with more probability than either, to the event men- 
 tioned in the preceding verse, viz. the constitution of the c:;1:.-cr . — And ye 
 are my ivittiesses is usually construed as an independent clause ; but a possi- 
 ble construction is to include it in the question as above. — Vitringa's expla- 
 nation of "I'^x as an interrogative particle is any thing but justified by the 
 analogy of 1 Sam. 22:8, to which he appeals. — Here, as in many other 
 cases, God is called a Rock, as being the refuge of his people, and the firm 
 foundation of their hopes. 
 
 V. 9. The imugc-carvers all of them are vanity, and their desired (or 
 beloved^ ones are worthless ; and their ivitncsscs ihemselvcs ivill not see and 
 uill not knoiv, that they may be ashamed. Having fortified his promise by 
 a solenm affirmation of his own supremacy, in contrast with the ignorance 
 and impotence of idols, he now carries out this contrast in detail. — The 
 literal meaning of the first phrase is the formers of a graven image, here put 
 for idols in general. — Vanity is here to be taken as a negative expression of 
 the strongest kind, denoting the absence of all life, intelligence, and power, 
 and corresponding to the parallel expression they cannot profit, i. e. they are 
 worthless. The desired or favourite things of the idolaters are the idols 
 themselves, upon which they lavished time, expense, and misplaced confi- 
 dence. — The next phrase is commonly explained to mean their witnesses 
 are themselves, i. e. they are their own witnesses, which may either represent 
 the idols as witnessing against their worshippers, or the worshippers against 
 the idols, or either of these classes against themselves. Cocceius connects 
 these words with the following verbs {testes illorum ipsi non vident), which 
 construction is substantially renewed by Evvald and approved by Umbreit. 
 The meaning then is, that the idolaters who bear witness to the divinity of 
 their idols are themselves blind and ignorant. — The puncta extraordinaria 
 over f^5:l^ were designed, says Henderson, to fix the attention of the reader 
 on the dumb idols being constituted witnesses against the stupidity of their 
 w^orshippers. But why in this particular case ? A much more probable 
 explanation is that the masoretic critics considered the word doubtful, per- 
 haps because it appeared pleonastic, whereas it is in fact emphatic. — There 
 is no need of giving Tcnow the vague and doubtful sense of having know- 
 ledge ; the meaning rather is, they will not see or know it, i. e. what has 
 just been said, as to tiie impotence of idols. — The last clause is explained 
 by Gesenius as meaning that they are given up to blindness, that they may 
 be ashamed or confounded. Umbreit, on the other hand, supposes it to 
 mean that they have not knowledge or sense enough to be ashamed, — an 
 aggravation of the previous description. 
 
94 C H A P T E 11 X L I V . 
 
 V. 10. Who formed the god and cast the image to no use (or profit) 1 
 Most interpreters regard this as an exclamation of contemptuous surprise. 
 implying that no one in his senses would do so. (Grotius : qiiis nisi 
 demens ?) But the true sense is the one proposed by Gesenius, who explains 
 what follows as the answer to this question. Having affirmed the worthless- 
 ness of idols in general, he now proceeds to prove it from their origin. — So 
 far from being makers they are made themselves, and who made them ? 
 This is the precise force of the verse before us. — Here as elsewhere there is 
 pungent sarcasm in the application of the name ^x (mighty God) to idols. 
 
 V. ] 1. Lo all his fellows shall be ashamed, and the worJcmcn themselves 
 are of men; they shall assemble all of them, they shall stand, they shall 
 tremble, they shall he ashamed together. Jarchi, followed by Lowth, Eich- 
 horn, Gesenius, Maurer, and Ewald, refers the suffix in i''';i^n to the maker 
 of the image, and understands by his felloivs his fellow-workmen or fellow- 
 worshippers. But why should the workman's fellows be ashamed and not 
 himself? A much more natural construction is the one given m the Targum, 
 and approved by Vitringa, Rosenm Her, Hitzig, and Knobel, who refer the 
 suffix to the idol itself, and by his fellows understand all who have any 
 thing to do with it, either as manufacturers or worshippers. (Compare 
 Num. 25:3. Deut. 11:22. 30:20. Is. 56:3, 6. Hos. 4:17. 1 Cor. 
 10: 20.) — Lowth affirms that the conmion text of the next clause yields no 
 tolerable sense, and is unworthy of the Prophet ; for which reason he proposes 
 to read dix^ as a passive participle meaning reddened, and translates accord- 
 ingly, even the ivorhneii themselves shall blush, adding that if any one should 
 think the singular irregular, he may read n-^anx^, — and the one assumption is 
 undoubtedly as reasonable as the other. It is worthy of remark not only 
 that this emendation has commended itself to no later writer, but also that 
 the common text is universally regarded as affording a perfectly appropriate 
 sense, and one essential to the Prophet's argument, viz. that the makers of 
 the idol are themselves mere men, and cannot therefore produce any thing 
 divine. Vitringa's explanation of nnx as meaning ' common people ' (plebs) 
 is destructive of the argument, as well as contrary to usage. The com- 
 parative sense put by some upon the phrase, as meaning that they are less 
 than men (Cocceius), or that they shall be ashamed more than other men 
 (Junius), is too unnatural to need refutation. The meaning of the verse is 
 that the senseless idol and its human makers shall be witnesses against each 
 other, and shall all be involved in the same condemnation and confusion. 
 
 V. 12. He has carved iron (iviih) a graver, and has wrought (it) in 
 the coals, and with the hammers he whl shape it, and then work it with his 
 arm of strength. Besides (or moreover), he is hungry and has no strength. 
 
CHAPTERXLIV. 95 
 
 he has not drunk water and is faint. The construction of aJnn as a verb, 
 which is given in the Targum, is much the simplest and most obvious ; 
 though most interpreters regard it as the construct form of the derivative 
 noun ©"nn a loorhman (as in Exodus 28 : 11), with bt-^s added to restrict its 
 apphcation to a worker in iron, i. e. a smith ; as n"^::^ dnn in the next verse 
 is supposed to signify a ivorker in ivood, i. e. a carpenter. (Compare the 
 phu'al ^''^^■;. ■'"^'^rj 2 Sam. 5 : 11.) Those who agree in this explanation of 
 the first two words differ as to their construction with what follows. Apart 
 from Lowth's gratuitous emendation of the masoretic pointing by proposing 
 to read iiiS'ri as a participle of i^:j to cut, and the suggestion of Cappellus 
 that it is synonymous with ii^iit , — the English and some other versions take 
 it in the sense of tongs, a mere conjecture from the context ; but most of the 
 modern writers make it mean an axe, as in Jer. 10 : 3, or more generically 
 any sharp or pointed instrument. The noun thus explained is construed 
 with what goes before in three different ways. The older writers generally 
 understand it as a noun of instrument. Thus the English Version has the 
 smith with the tongs etc. Vitringa, Gesenius, and others make the noun 
 the object of a verb to be supplied (the smith makes an axe), and understand 
 the verse as describing the formation, not of the idol itself, but of the tools 
 to be employed in making it. Ewald and Knobel explain i^2>^ as a second 
 term used to qualify ^"nn , or in other words as qualifying the complex phrase 
 before it. To the whole expression Ewald gives the sense of an iron and 
 file worker, i. e. one who works with iron and the file ; Knobel that of a 
 tool-smith or a maker of edged tools. Both make this complex name the 
 subject of the verb 1:?q , and the i before it an idiomatic pleonasm. But as 
 both these grammatical assumptions are without satisfactory authority from 
 usage, they are only admissible in case of exegetical necessity. Hitzig like- 
 wise makes the first two words the subject of the verb, but takes the third as 
 its object, and understands the clause to mean that the smith converts an 
 axe into an idol, as in ch. 2 : 4 the sword becomes a ploughshare and the 
 spear a pruning-hook. Knobel's objection that the idol would be too small 
 is of no great moment, if it can be assumed that images were ever made of 
 iron ; but in that case the most satisfactory construction is the one first given, 
 which makes the verse describe the proceedings not of the professional smith, 
 but of the laborious worshipper himself. The common version, strength of 
 his arms, is a needless and enfeebling transposition. The true sense of the 
 words is his arm of strength. Vitringa directs attention to the beautiful 
 parallel in Virgil (Georg. IV. 170-175), and especially to this line: illi 
 inter sese magna vi hrachia tollunt. The description in the last clause 
 seems intended to convey these several ideas : that the man who undertakes 
 to make a god is himself a mortal, subject to ordinary human infirmities ; 
 that his god is utterly unable to relieve him or supply his wants ; and that 
 
96 C II A P T E R X L I V . 
 
 neither these considerations nor the toil which he must undergo iu order to 
 attain his end are sufficient to deter him from his self-tormentinw efforts. 
 
 V. 13. He has carved ivood, he has stretched a line, he xoill mark it 
 with the awl (ov graver), he unll form it with the chisels, and with the com- 
 pass (or circle) he ivill mark it, and then make it (or noiv he has made it) 
 like the structure (i. e. after the model) of a man, like the beauty of man- 
 kind, to dwell in a house. In this translation c-^n is taken as a verb 
 and referred to the same subject as in v. 1-2, i. e. the idol-manufacturer, 
 who goes through all these laborious processes himself, in order to produce 
 a god. But the great majority of writers here assume a transition from the 
 maker of metallic idols to the nmker of wooden ones, or from the smith who 
 makes the carpenter's tools to the carpenter himself, ^^'4'J V'^'n , the worker 
 in wood. — In this verse, as in that before it, the alternation of the preterite 
 and future introduces us into the very midst of the process, and describes it 
 as already begun but not yet finished. This distinctive feature of the 
 passage is destroyed by making all the verbs indiscriminately present. 
 The conversive future at the opening of the second clause may either 
 denote simply that the act described is subsequent to that just mentioned, 
 or it may represent what was just now future as already done, thereby ren- 
 dering the view of a progressive operation still more vivid. The two mark- 
 ings or delineations mentioned are commonly supposed to have respect to 
 the general dimensions of the figure and then to its precise form and pro- 
 portions. Henderson arbitrarily translates the same verb first he skctcheth 
 its figure, and then he marketh it off; which, even if it gave the sense, would 
 not convey the form of the original. — According to the rabbins, ti^j means 
 a ' red or other coloured string' used by workmen in their measurements 
 (Montanus : filo tincto). It is applied to the colouring substance by Luther 
 (Rolhelstein) and Lowih (red ochre !). Gesenius and the other modern 
 writers draw from the Talmudical and Arabic analogy the sense of a sharp 
 tool or ^raving instrument. — n'lx and c-'X seem to have their strict sense 
 here, as a generic and specific term, the beauty of man, the structure of a 
 man. The Targum seems to find a reference to both sexes ; in support of 
 which some of the old Jewish writers refer to Num. 31 : 35, where n'lx is 
 applied to women alone. Jarchi gains the same end in a different way, by 
 saying that the woman is the glory of her husband (rir>3 ^■5^^p f"r>C "ottTi f"r>). 
 
 Jerome and Rooenmiiller seem to understand the last words of the verse 
 
 as meaning that the idol has to stay at home because it cannot move. 
 Gesenius gives r*^? the specific sense of temple. Gill supposes a par- 
 ticular reference to household gods. But the meaning seems to be that 
 the idol, being like a man in form, is, like a man, to dwell in a house. 
 
CH AP T E R X LI V. 97 
 
 V. 14. To hew him doivn cedars; and Qiou') he has taken a cypress 
 and an oak — and has strengthened (i. c. raised h) for hhnstlf among the 
 trees of the forest — he has planted a pine, and the rain shall increase (it, 
 i. e. make it grow). To show more clearly the absurdity of ascribing 
 deity to material images, he here goes back, not only to their human origin 
 and their base material, but to the very generation of the trees by which the 
 wood is furnished. The particulars are stated in an inverse order. He 
 begins with the foiling of the trees, but interrupts himself in order to go still 
 further back to their very cultivation. The essential idea is that man, 
 instead of being the creature, is in some sort the creator of the wood he 
 worships, since it does or may owe its existence to his agency. The 
 supposition just suggested of an interruption in the syntax seems more 
 natural than that of a grammatical ellipsis. Few interpreters, indeed, 
 would go so far as Clericus, who introduces at the beginning of the sentence 
 these \\ords, mitiit ad Libanum homines, and adds, with characteristic cool- 
 ness, haec fucrunt necessario supphnda ; although in the very next sentence 
 he observes of the Sepluagiiit and Vulgate versions, constructiones guam non 
 intenicbant de suo concinnarunt. Ewald, in his larger Grammar (p. 622) 
 enumerates this among the examples of an infinitive denoting necessity or 
 obligation, just as we might say ftmiliarly In English, he has to cut etc. 
 But in his exposition of the passage, he agrees with Gesenius and others in 
 making it equivalent to a finite verb, witli the additional suggestion that it 
 may be an orthographical mistake for n"i:';i. — The modern writers seem to 
 be agreed that the nnn is a sj)ec!es of oak, so called from its hardness, like 
 the Latin robur. To avoid tautology and pedantry, however, the common 
 version cypress may be retained, as it yields an appropriate sense, and as 
 botanical precision is in this case of no exegetical importance, since the 
 meaning of the verse would be the same whatever species had been men- 
 tioned. — Most writers give "j'^sn the sense of choosing, designating, here and 
 in Ps. 80 : 16, which they suppose to be easily deducible from that of 
 strengthening, confining, fixing. Ewald even goes so far as to take n^3 in 
 the sense of choosing, on the alleged authority of Jer. 10:3. This is 
 purely arbitrary; and as "^ax, in every other case where it occurs, admits of the 
 translation strengthened, it cannot be consistently abandoned here without 
 necessity ; and this necessity cannot exist, because the strict sense of makino- 
 strong is not only relevant in this connexion, but corresponds exactly to 
 that of making great expressed by biis"^ , both meaning here to cause to "-row. 
 Thus understood, the word helps to bring out with more strength and clear- 
 ness the main idea of the verse, viz. that the idolater not only chooses 
 suitable trees, but plants and raises them for the purpose. It is not necessary 
 to suppose that this is a description of a usual or frequent custom. It is 
 rather an ideal exhibition of the idol-manufacture carried out to its extreme 
 
 7 
 
98 C H A P T E R X L I V . 
 
 If so, the active subject of the whole description is the self-deluded devotee ; 
 which furnishes another reason for believing that the smith and the carpen- 
 ter are not distinctly mentioned in the two preceding verses. It also 
 removes the seeming incongruity of making the carpenter raise his own 
 timber, whereas the same thing, when alleged of the idolater, is perfectly in 
 keeping with the rest of the description. — The object of the verb ■j":?^'^ may 
 be either the trees previously mentioned, orniore indefinitely trees in general. 
 Lowih arbitrarily translates this clause, and layeth in good store of the trees 
 of the forest. Cieiicus, still more boldly and extravagantly, makes it mean 
 that he furnishes his workshop with tlie trees of the forest. Less absurd, 
 and yet untenable, because not justified by usage, is Henderson's translation, 
 and what he dccmeth frm among the trees of the forest. Umbreii's sug- 
 o-estion, that the last clause was designed to intimate the man's dependence 
 after all upon the rain of heaven for the very material of which he makes 
 his god, is not entirely natural. The clause is rather added to complete the 
 picture of the natural origin and growth of that which the idolater adores as 
 superhuman and divine. In this as well as the foregoing verses the confusion 
 of the tenses in most versions greatly mars the force and beauty of the 
 Prophet's language. — What is gained by the violent and ungrammatical 
 construction, he has planted and the rain has nourished, or the vague and 
 evasive one, he plants and the rain nourishes ; when the exact translation, 
 he has planted and the rain ivill nourish, is not only just as clear, coherent, 
 and appropriate, but far more graphic and expressive, as it hurries us at once 
 in medias res, and exhibits the work described as partly past and partly 
 future ? At the same time it implies the patient perseverance of the devotee, 
 who first does his part and then waits for natural causes to do theirs, and 
 all for the production of an idol 1 
 
 V. 15. And it shall be to men for huming (i. e. for fuel), and he has 
 taken of them and warmed himself; yes, he nnll Icindle and bake bread ; 
 yes, he will form a god and fall prostrate ; he has made it a graven image 
 and bowed down to them. The future meaning of the first verb is deter- 
 mined by its intimate connexion with the last word of the foregoing verse. 
 (See Nordheimer <§> 219.) cnsj very seldom means an individual man, and 
 seems here to be used indefinitely for man or men in general. The singular 
 verb n;?"^ does not refer to this noun, but to the worshipper or devotee who 
 is still the subject of description. The plural form cin^ is referred by Hitzig 
 to the trees of the forest mention-ed in v. 14, by Knobel to the a'^stJ) orsticks 
 of wood into which the tree must be divided. The same explanation may 
 be given of i^b, although Ewald and Hitzig maintain that this suffix is 
 employed as a singular by later writers (e. g. ch. 53 : 8. Ps. 11 : 7). But 
 even admitting the existence of this usage, which Gesenius utterly denies, 
 
C H A P T E R X L I V. 99 
 
 the strict and usual meaning is to be retained where possible, and therefore 
 here, where the Prophet seems designedly to interchange the singular and 
 plural forms, in order to identify with more effect the idol worshipped and 
 the sticks consumed. He takes of them (the sticks), kindles a fire, warms 
 himself, bakes bread, then makes a god, and worships, yes, bows down before 
 them (the sticks of wood). The argument of this and the succeeding verses 
 is intended to exhibit the absurdity of worshipping the same material that is 
 constantly applied to the most trivial domestic uses. All the interpreters 
 since Calvin quote the striking parallel from Horace (Sat. I. 8). 
 
 Oliin tnincus eram ficulnus, inntiie lignum; 
 Q,uum faber, incertus scamnum faceretne Priapum, 
 Maluit essii Deuni. 
 
 V. 16, Half of it he hnih burned in thefre, on half of if, he will eat 
 Jlesh, he tvill roast roast and be filled ; yea, he will warm himself and say, 
 Aha, lam warm, I have seen fire. Both etymology and usage give isn the sense 
 o( half, i. e. one of two parts into which a given whole may be divided, 
 whether equal or unequal. The indefinite translation p«7-^, given in all the 
 English versions, except that of Noyes, is intended to avoid the incongruity 
 of making two halves and a remainder. But this incongruity, although 
 justly chargeable on Umbreit's version, which distinctly mentions the one 
 half the other half and the remainder^ has no existence in the original ; 
 because, as all the other modern writers are agreed, the first and second 
 i-^isnof V. 16 are one and the same half, and the other is not introduced 
 until the next verse. Henderson indeed refers the second to the wooden 
 dish or platter upon which the meat was literally eaten. But this disturbs 
 the parallel between the two main uses of the wood, as fuel and a god, 
 which is so distinctly carried out in the preceding and the following context. 
 It is better, therefore, to explain the phrase, on half of it he eats flesh, as a 
 pregnant or concise expression of the idea, that over or by means of the fire 
 made with half of it he cooks flesh for his eating. The obscurity of this 
 clause is immediately removed by the addition of the unambiguous words, 
 he roasts a roast and satisfies himself The force ofvjx, both here and in 
 the foregoing verse, appears to be equivalent to that of our expression nay 
 more, not only this but also, or moreover. — Gesenius and others give "'^'^x"i 
 in the last clause the generic sense of perceiving by the senses ; Hitzig the 
 more specific one oi feeling, in support of which he quotes the observation 
 of SchcUing, that the skin is the eye for warmth, whereupon Hendewerk no 
 less characteristically says, that the Prophet may with more probability be 
 supposed to have ascribed these words to the idolater in the sense of an 
 ancient fire-worshipper than m that of a modern pantheist. The truth is, 
 that the Hebrew verb not only may but must have here its proper meaning 
 J havQ seen ; because the noun which follows does not denote the heat of 
 
100 CHAPTER XLIV. 
 
 fire but its light, and there could not be a more natural expression of the 
 feeling meant to be conveyed than by referring to the cheerful blaze of a 
 large wood fire. To the indiscriminate translation of the verbs, both in this 
 verse and the next, as descriptive presents, the same objections may be made 
 as in the foregoing context. 
 
 V. 17. And the rest of h (i. e. the other half) he has made into a god, 
 into his graven image ; he will bow doicn to it, and will ivorshij), and will 
 pray to it, and say, Deliver me, for thou {art) my god. The consecution 
 of the tenses is the same as in the preceding verse, and has the same effect 
 of fixing the point of observation in the midst of the process. He has 
 kindled his fire, and will use it to prepare his food. He has made his idol, 
 and will fall down and pray to it. The pronoun at the end may be regarded 
 as emphatic and as meaning thou and thou alone. 
 
 V. IS. They have not known, and they ivill not under stand, for he hath 
 smeared their eyes from seeing, their hearts from doing wisely. The 
 combination of the preterite and future makes the description more complete 
 and comprehensive. Some give "3 the sense of that, and make it indicate 
 the object of their ignorance and inconsideration. Junius and Tremellius, 
 who adopt this construction, refer r.-j to the idol ; they do not know that it 
 has blinded them. The Septuagint explains the verb as a passive plural, 
 and Gesenius has the same form in his version {their eyes are smeared), 
 which he resolves however into an indefinite construction {one has smeared 
 their eyes). But ihe analogy of ch. 6: 10. 29: 10. Job 17:4, confirms 
 Aben Ezra's statement, that Jehovah is the agent or subject (otri f>)T) irirr>)- 
 As the smearing of the eyes is merely a figure for spiritual blindness, it is 
 here extended to the heavt, of which it is not literally predicable. — On the 
 negative or privative force of l^, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 63. — As 
 the use of the Hiphil form in any but an active sense is called in question by 
 some eminent grammarians, t"'3bn may here, as in some other cases, have 
 the sense of acting wisely. 
 
 V. 19. And he will not bring it home to himself {or to his heart), and 
 {there is) not knowledge, and {there is) not understanding to say, Half of 
 it I have burned in the fire, and have also baked, bread on its coals, I will 
 roast Jltsh and eat, and the rest of it I will make to {be) an abomination, to 
 a log of wood (or the trunk of a tree) I will cast myself down. The 
 essential meaning is, that they have not sense enough to describe their 
 conduct to themselves in its true colours; if they did, they would stand 
 amazed at its impiety and folly. In the form of expression the writer passes 
 from the plural to the singular, i. e. from idolaters in general to the individual 
 
CH A PTE R XL I V. 101 
 
 idolater. — The first phrase does not correspond exactly to the English lay 
 to heart, but comprehends reflection and emotion. The construction of the 
 last clause as an explanation or an interrogation has arisen from a wish to 
 avoid the incongruity of making the man call himself a fool, or express his 
 resolution to perform a foolish act. But this very incongruity is absolutely 
 necessary to die writer's purpose, which is simply to tell what the infatuated 
 devotee would say of his own conduct if he saw it in its true light. Instead 
 of saying, I will worship my god, he would then say, I will worship a stick 
 of wood, a part of the very log which I have just burned, upon which I have 
 just baked my bread, and on which I am just about to cook my dinner. The 
 more revolting and absurd this language, the more completely does it suit and 
 carry out the writer's purpose. Hence too the use of the term abomination, 
 i. e. object of abhorrence, not in the worshipper's actual belief, but as it 
 would be if his eyes were opened. 
 
 V. 20. Feeding on ashes, (A/s) heart is deceived, it has Jed him astray, 
 and he cannot deliver himself (ov his soul), end he will not say, Is there not 
 a lie in my right hand ? Another statement of the reason why he cannot 
 see his conduct in its just light or describe it in correct terms, viz. because 
 his very mind or heart is deceived, and this because it feeds on ashes. This 
 last expression is strangely understood by some interpreters, followin"- the 
 Targum, to describe the idol as a piece of half-burnt wood ; and even Um- 
 breit seems to recognise such an allusion in the sentence. But the great 
 majority of writers, far more naturally, make it a figure for the love and 
 prosecution of unsatisfying objects, analogous lo feeding on wind, Hos. 12 : 2. 
 Gesenius, in his Commentary, says that the translation feedeth on ashes is 
 in no case appropriate (in keinem Falle passend). He accordingly trans- 
 lates it there sectatur cinerem ; but in his Thesaurus he abandons this 
 gratuitous multiplication of senses, and explains it as a figurative application 
 of the common meaning, " pasci aliqua re, metaph. i. q. delectari re." The 
 word, however, denotes something more than simply to take pleasure in an 
 object, and suggests the idea of choosing it and resting in it as a portion. — 
 The usual construction of the next words, a deceived heart has seduced him, 
 is conmionly explained by assuming an ellipsis of the relative, (his) heart 
 (ivhich) is deceived has seduced him. But the simplest and most natural 
 construction is the one proposed by Knobel, who makes two short indepen- 
 dent clauses, the heart is deceived, it lends him astray. The futures of the 
 last clause have, in part if not exclusively, a potential meaning. It is best 
 perhaps to combine the ideas of unwillingness and inabihty. — The concluding 
 question is equivalent in import to the long speech put into the mouth of the 
 idolater in v. 19. By a lie we are to understand that which professes to be 
 what it is not, and thereby deceives the hopes of those who trust in it. (See 
 
102 C H A P T E R XL I V. 
 
 Jer. 10 : 14. Ps. 33 : 17.) This description some apply to the idol itself, as if 
 he had said, Is not this, which I carry in my right hand, a deception ? But 
 as this makes a part of the interrogation literal and a part metaphorical, most 
 writers give it uniformity by understanding all the terms as figurative : Is 
 not this, about which I am busied, and upon which I am spending strength 
 and labour, a deception ? To any one rational enough to ask the question, 
 the reply would be affirmative of course. 
 
 V. 21. Jlemcmher these (things), Jacob and Israel, for thou art my 
 servant ; I have formed thee, a servant unto me art thou ; Israel, thou 
 shalt not he forgotten by me. Having completed his detailed exposure of 
 the folly of idolatry, or rather of the impotence of idols, as contrasted with 
 the power of God, he now resumes the tone of promise and encouragement 
 with which the chapter opens, and assures the chosen people, here personi- 
 fied as Israel or Jacob, that having been constituted such by Jehovah for a 
 special purpose, they could not cease to be the objects of his watchful care. 
 — These things may possibly refer to the immediately succeeding state- 
 ments, which may then be rendered that thou art my servant etc. To most 
 interpreters, however, it has seemed more natural to understand by these 
 things the whole foregoing series of arguments against the divinity of idols 
 and in favour of Jeliovah's sole supremacy. — Ewald connects "'V"?^. wit'i 
 the preceding verb, so as to mean, I have formed thee as a servant for 
 myself. The only difficulty in the way of this construction is the ^rix , 
 which cannot be the object of the verb, but must agree with one expressed 
 or understood. This objection might be done away by disregarding the 
 masoretic interpunction, and transferring the disjunctive accent to the pre- 
 ceding word ; in which case the latter member of the clause would read, thou 
 Israel etc., with an emphasis upon the pronoun. This construction has the 
 advantage of removing the apparent tautology arising from the repetition of 
 thou art my servant, which is more observable in most translations than in 
 the original, where two different forms of expression are employed. — The 
 last word in the verse is explained in the ancient versions, and by some 
 modern writers, as a deponent verb, thou shalt not forget me. But Gesenius 
 and Ewald, with greater probability, make it a proper passive, and explain 
 the suffix as equivalent to a dative or an ablative in Latin, thou shalt not be 
 forgotten (by) me ; which is much more appropriate, in this connexion, than 
 an exhortation not to forget God. This construction is as old as Aben 
 Ezra, who paraphrases the expression thus : -pDtf> ':f>i 'i-^Di 'iri' t)t:p ^i* 
 
 V. 22. / have blotted out, like a cloud, thy transgressions, and, like a 
 vapour, thy sins ; return to me, for I have redeemed thee. As the previous 
 assurances were suited to dispel any doubt or hesitation as to the power of 
 
CHAPTERXLIV. 103 
 
 Jehovah, so the one in this verse meets anotlier difficuUy, namely, that 
 arising from a sense of guilt. The assurance given is that of entire and 
 gratuitous forgiveness. The analogy of Exodus 32 : 32, 33, would seem to 
 favour an allusion to the blotting out of an inscription or an entiy in a book 
 of accounts. The cloud may then be a distinct figure to denote what is 
 transient or evanescent. (See Hos. 6 : 4. 13 : 3. Job 7 : 9. 30 : 15.) This 
 is Hitzig's explanation of the verse ; but most interpreters suppose the blot- 
 ting and the cloud to be parts of one and the same metaphor, although they 
 differ in their method of connecting them. Junius strangely understands the 
 clause to mean, as a cloud (when condensed into rain) purges away filth. 
 The great majority of writers are agreed, however, that the cloud itself is 
 here described as being blotted out. Gill supposes an allusion to the height 
 and distance of the clouds as being far beyond man's reach, implying that 
 forgiveness is a divine prerogative. Hendewerk sees a forced allusion to the 
 cloud which went before the people in the wilderness. A more usual and 
 natural interpretation is that the clouds in general are here considered as 
 intervening between heaven and earth, as sin is expressly said, in ch. 59:2, 
 to separate between God and his people. This explanation of the metaphor, 
 however, does not exclude the supposition of a reference to the fleeting 
 nature of the cloudy vapour, and the ease and suddenness with which it is 
 dispelled by sun or wind. — zv and )'.'J are poetical equivalents. So far as 
 they can be distinguished, either in etymology or usage, the correct distinc- 
 tion is the one expressed in the English Version {thick cloud and cloud), 
 which Henderson reverses. — Return unto me is a phrase descriptive of all 
 the restorations of God's people from their spiritual wanderings and estrange- 
 ments. The restriction of this phrase and the one which follows it to the 
 restoration of the Jews from exile, is as forced and arbitrary as the future 
 form given to the verb in many versions. 
 
 V. 23. Sing, oh heavens, fu?- Jehovah hath done (it) ; shout, ye lower 
 parts of the earth ; break forth, ye mountains, into song, the forest and 
 every tree in it : for Jehovah hath redeemed Jacob, and in Israel he will 
 glorify himself. The prediction of glorious and joyful changes, as in many 
 other cases, is clothed in the form of an exhortation to all nature to rejoice. 
 It is essential to the writer's purpose that the universe itself should be 
 addressed, which precludes the explanation of the verse by Grotius, as 
 addressed to angels, kings, and common men ; or by Vitringa, as addressed 
 to the apostles and prophets (from a misplaced comparison of Rev. 18: 20). 
 Equally inconsistent with his purpose and at variance with good taste is 
 the explanation of mountains as meaning kingdoms, forests, cities, etc. — 
 The thing done is what is mentioned in the last clause, i. e. the redemption 
 of Israel, including the deliverance from exile in Babylon, but not confined 
 
104 C H A P T E R X L I V. 
 
 to it. — The nrbitrary version of the two verbs in the last clause as a preterite 
 and present or a present and a future is in no respect to be preferred to the 
 exact translation as a preterite and a iuture, expressive of what God had 
 done and would yet do for the chosen people. 
 
 V. 24. Thus sailh Jehovah thy redeemer, and thij former from the 
 womb, I Jehovah, making all. sintchiiig the heavens alone, spreading the 
 earth by myself {ov, loho xvas whh mel). Some refer thus saith to the 
 precedin(,r promises, and take all that follows till the end of the chapter as a 
 description of the being who uttered then). Others refer thus saith to what 
 follows, supply the verb am before Jehovah, and regard the last clause of the 
 verse as the divine declaration. A third conceivable construction would 
 restrict it to the closing question, who (ts) with me? i. e. who can claim 
 equality or likeness with me ? — There is no need of giving to the phrase 
 thy former a moral sense as signifying the formation of character or manners, 
 as the words from the ivomh are not necessarily exclusive of the period 
 before birth. For the meaning of the figure itself, see above, on v. 2 ; for 
 that of "|5"i, on ch. 42:5. — The textual reading of the last word makes it 
 an interrogation, "tix "'^ , who (is or ivas) ivith mel implying strong negation 
 and equivalent in meaning to the affirmation, there was no one with me. 
 The marginal reading yields the same sense in another way. '^f}^<'? , from, by, 
 or of myself. (Compare ""5|ri Hos. 8 : 4 and an tfiuvjov John 5 : 30.) The 
 objection that the textual reading interrupts the construction is valid only 
 on the supposition that the sentence is continued through the following 
 verses. If, as most interpreters assume, the last clause of this verse contains 
 a proposition, interrogative or affirmative, this reading affords an appropriate 
 conclusion to the sentence, and a striking parallel to the phrase "''^^^ in the 
 other clause. 
 
 V.'25. 13realcing the signs of babblers, and diviners he ivill madden; 
 turning sages bnclc, and their knowledge he will stultify. The whole verse 
 is descriptive ofJehovah as convicting all prophets, except his own, of folly 
 and imposture, by falsifying their prognostications. c^'na is commonly 
 translated either lies or liais ; but it is rather an expression of contempt, 
 denoting praters, vain or idle talkers, and by implication utterers of false- 
 hood. Signs are properly the pledges and accompaniments of predictions, 
 but may here be regarded as equivalent to prophecy itself. These are said 
 to be broken in the same sense that breaking may be predicated of a promise 
 or a covenant. The effect of course would be to make such prophets seem 
 like fools or madmen. (See 2 Sam. 15:31. Hos. 9:7.) The restriction 
 of these terms to the false prophets of the Babylonish exile is not only arbi- 
 trary, but at variance with the context, which repeatedly contrasts the 
 
CHAPTERXLIV. 105 
 
 omnipotence and omniscience of Jehovah with the impotence of idols and 
 the ignorance of heathen prophets. — Because turning back and being put 
 to shatne are often joined together elsewhere, Gesenius, according to his 
 favourite method, makes them simply synonymous ; whereas the first expres- 
 sion strictly signifies defeat, disappointment, failure, with which shame is 
 naturally connected but surely not identical. — The alternation of the future 
 and participle seems to have a rhythmical design. The distinction may 
 however be, that while the latter signifies habitual or customary action, the 
 former expresses certain futurity and fixed determination. 
 
 V. 26. Confirming the word of his servant, and the counsel of his 
 messengers he will fulfil ; the (one) saying to (or as to) Jerusalem, She 
 shall be inhabited, and to (or as to) the cities of Judah, They shall be built, 
 and her ruins 1 ivill raise. With the frustration of the heathen prophecies 
 is here contrasted the fulfilment of Jehovah's, who is himself represented as 
 securing their accomplishment, t^^p,^}^ has here the same sense as in Jer. 
 29 : 10. 33 : 14, viz. that of bringing a promise or prophecy to pass. — By 
 his servant Jarchi understands Moses, Hitzig Jeremiah, Gesenius the 
 prophets as a class, Knobel the genuine believing Israel, whose hopes were 
 embodied in these prophecies. Simpler and more satisfactory than eitherof 
 these explanations is that which supposes his servant to be primarily and 
 directly the writer himself, but considered as one of a class who are then 
 distinctly mentioned in the other member as his messengers. The specific 
 application of the title of God's servant to the prophets is apparent from 
 2 Kings 24 : 2. Jer. 29 : 19. 35 : 15. 44 : 4.— Gill's question, why his 
 servant may not denote Paul as Cocceius supposes, is unanswerable. — 
 Counsel, according to Henderson, here means the counsel or purpose of God, 
 as declared by his servants. Gesenius and most other writers make it a 
 description of prophecy, considered as involving or suggesting counsel and 
 advice with respect to the future. (Compare the similar application of the 
 verb in ch.4I : 28.) — The last clause, beginning with the word -:Hn. might 
 be considered as a more specific designation or description of his servant, 
 viz. the (servant) saying etc. But this interpretation is precluded by the 
 double repetition of i^axn in the two succeeding verses and in evident 
 application to Jehovah himself. — The construction of awn as a verb of the 
 second person (^thou shah be inhabited) is forbidden by its masculine form, 
 which could be connected with the name Jerusalem only in cases where 
 the latter is put for its inhabitants. For the sake of uniformity the parallel 
 expression is to be translated in like manner. Gesenius arbitrarily translates 
 the first of these verbs as an imperative, the second as a future, and the third 
 as a present. To raise up the ruins of a city is of course to rebuild it. 
 
106 CH AP T E R XLI V. 
 
 V. 27. The (one) saying to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry vp thy 
 Jloods (or streams). The Targuin, followed by Kiiiichi and others, exjjlains 
 n;v^ as a metaphorical description of Babylon, so called on account of its 
 wealth, its population, or its site. Vitringa, Lowth, and some of the latest 
 writers, understand by n'piis the Euphrates, and apply the whole verse to 
 the stratagem by which Cyrus gained access to Babylon, as related in the 
 (irst book of Herodotus and the seventh of Xenophon's Cyropaedla. Hen- 
 derson thinks there may be also an allusion to his division of the river 
 Gyndes. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 236.) Ewald and others under- 
 stand the verse as a description of God's power over nature and the elements, 
 with or without an allusion to the passage of the Red Sea at the exodus. 
 This exposition is strongly recommended by the analogy of ch. 42 : 15. 
 43 : 16. 50 : 2. 51 : 10. Thatof Jer. 50 : 33. 51 : 36 does not prove that 
 Isaiah's description was designed to have exclusive reference to the conquest 
 of Babylon by Cyrus, but only that this was included in it as a signal 
 instance of God's power to overcome all obstacles, and that the later prophet 
 made a specific application of the words accordingly. There is no need of 
 giving r\hr^ any other than its widest sense as a description of the ocean. 
 The word streams or Jloods is applied in the same way to the sea by David 
 (Ps. 24 : 2) and Jonah (2 : 4), in the last of which cases it is connected 
 with the cognate form nb^i^i-a . (Compare Zech. 10 : 11, and Isaiah 19: 5.) 
 — The strict translation of the last verb by Ewald as a future (I will dry 
 up) is not only more exact but more expressive than the present form pre- 
 ferred by Gesenius and others. 
 
 V. 28. The (one) saying to (or as to) Cyrus, My shepherd, and all my 
 pleasure he ivill fulfil, and saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt he built, and 
 (to) the temple, Thou shalt he founded. It is now universally admitted that 
 this verse has reference to Cyrus the Elder or the Great, the son of Cam- 
 byses king of Persia and the grandson of Astyages the Mede, the hero of 
 the Cyropaedia and of the first book of Herodotus, the same who appears 
 in sacred history (2 Chr. 36 : 23. Ezra 1 : 1) as the actual restorer of the 
 Jews from exile. He is here called Jehovah's shepherd, which may either 
 be the usual poetical designation of a king, so common in the oldest classics, 
 or (as Umbreit suggests) a special description of his mission and vocation to 
 gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is characteristic of John 
 David Michaelis, and of the notions prevalent in his day as to fidelity and 
 freedom of translation, thai instead of my shepherd he has the king appointed 
 by me ; for which variation he apologizes on the ground that the former title, 
 if applied to so great a king, might sound indecorous (unanstundig klingen), 
 because shepherds now are low and vulgar people. — With ■'>'n we may 
 
CH APT E R XL I V. 107 
 
 either supply thou art or he is, or regard it as a simple exclamation, A 
 curious illustration of the ancient mode of writing Hebrew is afForded by 
 Jerome's remark on this word : Verbum Hebraicum Roi, si per res literam 
 legamus, intelligitur pastor mens ; si per daleth, sciens vel intelh'gens : 
 quarum simiiitudo parvo apice distinguitur.' — All my •pleasure, i. e. with 
 respect to the deliverance of the Jews from exile. — The construction of 
 "ibxb'i is obscure and difficult. Luther refers it to an Indefinite subject, so 
 that one may say (dass man sage). Knobel makes it dependent on "irxri in 
 the sense of commanding to say, Ewald regards it as an idiomatic use of 
 the infinitive instead of the finite verb, and refers it to Jehovah. Gesenius 
 refers it to Cyrus, and understands it as explaining how he was to fulfil 
 Jehovah's pleasure, namely, hy saying etc. This, on the whole, is the most 
 natural construction, although, like the others, it leaves unexplained the intro- 
 duction of the copulative particle before the verb, which must either be 
 rendered as in the English Version (even saying), or disregarded as an 
 idiomatic pleonasm. — The same ambiguity respecting the person of the 
 verbs exists in the last clause of this verse as in v. 26. Some take both in 
 the second person, which requires a preposition to be introduced before bs^n . 
 Others make both in the third person, which requires ^^n to be construed 
 as a feminine in this one place exclusively. This last is the construction 
 finally adopted by Gesenius. In his Commentary he had assumed an abrupt 
 transition from the third to the second person. — There are two points in this 
 verse upon which the higher criticism of modern times has fastened, as 
 proofs that the passage is of later origin than that which tradition has 
 assigned to it. The first of these is the use of -j-Bn in the sense of business 
 or affair, repeated instances of which are cited from the later books or what 
 are so considered. But even in the cases thus alleijed the chanfe of usao-e 
 is extremely doubtful, while in that before us it is purely imaginary or ficti- 
 tious. The word has here its strict, original, and usual sense of inclination, 
 will, or pleasure, that which one delights in, chooses, or desires; and the 
 substitution o( affair or business would be not only arbitrary but ridiculous. 
 — The other supposititious proof of later date is the distinctness with which 
 Cyrus is foretold by name, and which is said to be at variance with the 
 general analogy and usage of the prophecies. Moller's attempt to set aside 
 this difficulty by explaining onis as a descriptive name of Israel itself, has 
 found no adherents among later writers, and instead of mitigating aggravates 
 the evil. Without disturbing the unanimous consent among interpreters 
 that Cyrus is the subject of this prophecy, the objection admits of satis- 
 factory solution. In the first place, let it be observed, that it proceeds upon 
 a false assumption, namely that no form of expression or prediction can 
 occur but once. Why may not this be a single exception to the general 
 rule, analogous to that presented by the occasional introduction of precise 
 
108 C H A P T E R X L I V. 
 
 dates notwithstanding the usual vagueness of prediction ? The want of 
 analogy might render it a priori more improbable, and make the necessity of 
 clear proof more imperative, but could not, in the face of such proof, make 
 the fact itself incredible. But in the next ])lace, the precision of this pro- 
 phecy is not so totally without analogy as the objectors commonly assume. 
 One clearly defined instance of the same kind is sufficient to relieve the case 
 before us from the charge of being wholly unparalleled, and such an instance 
 is afforded by the prophecy respecting Josiah in 1 Kings 13 : 2. The 
 assertion that the name of Josiah was interpolated by a later hand, is not 
 only perfectly gratuitous but equally available in this case, where a similar 
 assumption would at once remove all evidence of later date. If that is an 
 interpolation, so may this be. If that is not one, this is not without analogy. 
 But in the third place, the alleged violation of analogy is much less real than 
 apparent ; since in both the cases there is reference to the meaning of the 
 name as a generic or descriptive title, and not merely to its application as 
 an individual denomination. That Josiah was intended to be thus signi- 
 ficant, as well in 2 Kings 13 : 2 as in Zech. 6:10, has been proved by 
 Hengstenberg in his exposition of the latter passage. (Christologie II. 
 p. 71.) That ttJ"i-'3 was likewise a descriptive title of the Persian kings, is 
 rendered probable by several distinct considerations. The Hebrew name 
 has been identified, by some of the most eminent comparative philologists, 
 with a Persian word which means the sun. The use of such a title would 
 agree well not only with the ancient religion of that people, but with a w^ell 
 known oriental usage of describing certain royal races as descendants of the 
 sun, whether this be regarded as a superstitious myth or a poetical hyperbole. 
 It is expressly asserted by Herodotus that Cyrus originally bore another 
 name. This name is said by Strabo to have been Agradates, which Hitzig 
 reckons as a mere mistake occasioned by confounding the river Kvgog with 
 the monarch of the same name, whereas Pott, Von Lengerke, and others, 
 trace it to the same root with a;-ii3 , and the same primary sense of sun. 
 To this etymology there seems to be allusion in ch. 41 : 2, 25, where Cyrus 
 is so emphatically said to have risen in the east and pursued his course 
 westwards. This explanation of the name is strongly favoured by the 
 numerous analogies in this and other languages, the Egyptian Pharaohs and 
 Ptolemies, the Philistian Abimelechs, the Amalekitish Agags, the Roman 
 Caesars. The result of these considerations is, that the prophecy before us, 
 although still relating to the individual Cyrus, is not so variant in form from 
 the usual analogy of prophecy, as to afford any ground for the suspicion that 
 the passage is on that account of later date. For the most satisfactory dis- 
 cussion of this point, see Hengstenberg's Christologie I. p. 192 and Haver- 
 nick's Einleitung II. p. 163. 
 
C H AP T E R XL V. 109 
 
 CHAPTER XLV. 
 
 This chanter contains the same essential elements witli those before it, 
 but in new coinbinatlons and a varied form. The great theme of the pro- 
 j)hecy is still the relaiion of Israel to God as his chosen people, and to the 
 nations as a source or medium of saving knowledge. This last idea is 
 brought out with great distinctness at the close of the chapter. The proofs 
 and illustrations of the doctrine taught are still drawn from the power of 
 Jehovah, as displayed in the creation of the world, and as contrasted witli 
 the impotence of idols. The evidence of prescience afforded by prophecy 
 is also here repeated and enlarged upon. As a particular prospective exhi- 
 bition both of power and foreknowledge, we have still before us the con- 
 quests of Cyrus, which are specifically foretold and explicitly connected 
 with the favour of Jehovah as their procuring cause, and wiih the liberation 
 of his people and the demonstration of his deity as their designed effect. 
 
 As to the order and arrangement of the parts, the chapter opens, in 
 direct continuation of the forty-fourth, with a further prophecy of Cyrus 
 and of his successes, vs. 1-3. These are then referied to the power of God 
 and his design of mercy towards his people, so that all misgivings or distrust 
 must be irrational and impious, vs. 4-13. Then leaving Cyrus out of view, 
 the Prophet turns his eyes to the nations, and declares that they must be 
 subdued, but only in order to be blessed and saved, which is declared to 
 have been the divine purpose and revealed as such from the beginning, 
 vs. 14-25. 
 
 V. 1. Thus soith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand 
 I have held fast, to tread down before him ncitious, and the loi)is oj' kings 
 I will loose ; to open before him double doors, nnd gates shall not be shut. 
 The words of Jehovah seem to begin regularly with the next verse ; but even 
 in this, which is strictly introductory, they are mingled with the Prophet's 
 description of Cyrus, a mode of composition very common in Hebrew, and 
 among the oldest writers, who thought more of the idea than of the form in 
 which it was expressed. The accumulation of descriptive epithets, which 
 Gesenius represents as characteristic of these Later Prophecies, arises from 
 the fact that one main object which the writer had in view was to impress 
 upon the reader's mind the attributes of God and of his chosen instruments. 
 — Cyrus is here called the Lord's anointed, a designation elsewhere limited, 
 
110 CH A P T E R XL V. 
 
 as Calvin says, to the sacerdotal monarchy of Judah, which prefigured Christ 
 in hotli his offices of priest and king. — INlost writers understand it here as a 
 synonyme of kin^, derived from Jewish usages, and not intended to indicate 
 any thing peculiar in the royalty of Cyrus, except that he was raised up by 
 Jehovah for a special purpose. Calvin thinks it still more pregnant and 
 emphatic, and descriptive of Cyrus as a representative of Christ, in this one 
 thing, that he was instrumentally the saviour or deliverer of Israel from 
 bondage. — The treading down of nations is a trait peculiarly appropriate in 
 this case, as the Greek historians give long catalogues of distinct nations 
 subjugated by Cyrus, such as the Medes, Hyrcanians, Assyrians, Arabians, 
 Cappadocians, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, Babylonians^ etc. — To loose 
 the loins of kings is explained by Calvin as meaning co weaken them, 
 because the strength is in the loins ; and Rosenmi'iller cites, in illustration of 
 this usage, the Latin verb and adjective, dehimbo and dumbis. Luther, 
 Clericus, and J. D. Michaelis suppose an allusion to the removal of the 
 sword-belt, as the ancient method of disarming or dismissing from active 
 service. Either of these explanations is better than Jerome's, which sup- 
 poses an allusion simply to the royal cincture as a badge of office. But 
 most of the modern writers are agreed that the words at least include a 
 reference to the ordinary use of the girdle as a part of oriental dress, on 
 which the activity of the wearer and his exercise of strength are in a great 
 degree dependent, as it gathers up and tightens the flowing garments which 
 would otherwise impede his movements. — The exclusive reference of this 
 clause to the kings of Lydia and Babylon is arbitrary, and detracts from the 
 greatness of the promise and description. — The dual t'^n^'n is the proper 
 Hebrew term for valves, folding-doors, or two-leaved gates. All inter- 
 preters admit that while this clause, in its most general sense, is perfectly 
 appropriate to all the fortified places which were attacked by Cyrus, it is 
 specifically and remarkably appropriate to the taking of Babylon. It can 
 scarcely be considered a fortuitous coincidence, that Herodotus speaks of 
 the gates which led to the river as having been left open on the night of the 
 attack ; and Xenophon says the doors of the palace itself having been 
 unguardedly opened, the invaders took possession of it almost without 
 resistance. These apparent allusions to particular circumstances and 
 events, couched under general predictions, are far more striking and con- 
 clusive proofs of inspiration than the most explicit and detailed prediction 
 of the particular event alone could be. 
 
 V. 2. I icill go before thee, and uneven places I will level, doors of 
 brass I ivill break, and bars of iron I ivill cut. The first clause describes 
 the removal of difficulties under the figures used for the same purpose in 
 eh. 40 : 4. The other clause w^ould seem at first sight to contain an analo- 
 
CH A P T E R XL V. HI 
 
 goiis figure ; but it really includes one of those minute coincidences with 
 history, of which we have already had an example in the preceding verse. 
 Herodotus and Abydenus say expressly that the gates of Babylon were all 
 of brass. (Compare Ps. 107 : 16.) 
 
 V. 3. And I will give thee treasures of darkness and hidden riches of 
 secret places, in order that thou marjest know that I Jehovah, the (^one) calling 
 thee by name, am the God of Israel. It is thought by some eminent writers 
 that no conquests have ever been attended with such acquisition of wealth 
 as those of Cyrus. Pliny's account of what he obtained from Croesus 
 makes it, according to Brerewood's computation, more than 126,000,000 
 pounds sterling. The last clause gives a reason why this circumstance is 
 mentioned, namely, in order that Cyrus might be able to identify the being 
 who brought it to pass with the being who foretold it. The same con- 
 sideration will account for the mention of the name of Cyrus ; so that even 
 if it were a bolder violation of analogy and usage than it is, there would still 
 be a sufficient explanation of it furnished by the divine purpose to exert a 
 direct influence through this prediction upon Cyrus himself. That such an 
 influence was really exerted by the writings of Isaiah is expressly asserted 
 by Joseph us, and would seem to be implied in the monarch's solemn recog- 
 nition of Jehovah as the true God and the author of his own successes. 
 (Ezra 1 : 2.) 
 
 V. 4. For the sake of my servant Jacob and Israel my chosen, therefore 
 will I call thee by thy name, I will give thee a title and thou host not knoion 
 vie. Not only for God's glory in the general, but with a view to the promotion 
 of his gracious purposes towards Israel. — The i before Si'^p*?. introduces the 
 apodosis, and may be taken as equivalent to therefore. — The sense oi speak- 
 ing kindly, which the modern writers give to ?]i3N , is here much less appro- 
 priate than that of giving a title of honour, with apparent reference to the 
 epithets of shepherd and anointed, bestowed on Cyrus alone among the 
 heathen princes. Thou hast not known me may either mean that he was not 
 a follower of the true religion, or that the name was given long before he 
 did or could know any thing of him who gave it. The verb expresses 
 past time not in reference to the date of the prediction, but to that of the 
 fulfilment. 
 
 V. 5. / am Jehovah (i. e. the eternal, self-existent God) and there is 
 no other ; except me there is no God ; I will gird thee and thou hast not 
 known me. What is said before of naming him is here said of girding him, 
 i. e. investing him with royal dignity or personally strengthening him ; both 
 may be included. 
 
11-2 C 11 A P T E R X L ^^ 
 
 V. 6. That they may liwiv, from the rising of the sun to the west (or 
 to his going down), that there is none ivithout me; I oni Jehovah, and there 
 is no other. AVli:it was said before of Cyrus in particular is now said of 
 men in general, viz. that they must he convinced in this way that the God 
 of Israel is the one true God. Some of the Jewish critics regard the final 
 letter of ns^r-a as a suffix referring to the feminine noun uio^;:, notwithstand- 
 ing the absence of mappik. The noun to which it is annexed would then 
 have its primary sense (fjccasus, setting) ; otherwise it is a feminine designa- 
 tion of the west. 
 
 V. T. Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating 
 evil, I (rt///) Jehovah doing all these (jhings.) Saadias, followed by 
 Vitringa, Lowth, J. D. Michaelis, Henderson, and Umbreit, supposes an 
 allusion to the dualism or doctrine of two co-eternal principles as held by 
 the ancient Persians. Gesenius objects that the terms are too indefinite, 
 and their general sense too obvious, to admit of this specific application. 
 But this whole passage is characterized by the recurrence of expressions, 
 the generic sense of which seems clear, but which, at the same time, seem 
 to bear and even to require a more specific explanation, unless we choose 
 rather to assume an extraordinary series of fortuitous coincidences. The 
 open doors, the gates of brass, the hidden treasures, are examples of this 
 double sense, if such it may be called, within the compass of three verses. 
 This analogy makes it rather probable than otherwise that in the case before 
 us, while the Prophet's language may be naturally taken as a general 
 description of God's universal power, an allusion was intended to the great 
 distinctive doctrine of the faith in which Cyrus had most probably been 
 educated. For although it cannot be distinctly proved, it can as little be 
 disproved, and is intrinsically altogether credible, that the doctrine of the 
 Zendavesia is as old as Cyrus. 
 
 V. 8. Drop (or distil) ye heavens from above, and let the clouds pour out 
 righteousness ; let the earth open, and let salvation and. righteousness grow, let 
 her bring {them) forth together. I Jehovah have created it. There is a 
 singular equivoque in the common version of the first clause, drop doivn ye 
 heavens from above, which might seem to be a call upon thesJcies to fall, if the 
 sense were not determined by the parallel expression. The prediction of events 
 in the form of a command is peculiarly frequent in Isaiahs later prophecies. 
 The modern explanation of PT;2£ and ni^^Si as meaning victory, prosperity, etc. is 
 entirely arbitrary, as we have already seen in other cases. The manifesta- 
 tion of God's righteousness, including his fidelity to his engagements, is 
 constantly recognised in Scripture as one chief end of his dispensations. — 
 In the second clause there is a difficulty of construction, arising from the 
 
C H A P T E R X L V. 113 
 
 use of the plural form ^^S'^, to explain which some make y^ii a collective, 
 others, 55!ij';i. (Compare ch. 16:4. and Ps. 119 : 103.) After all attempts, 
 however, to resolve the syntax, the most satisfactory construction, ahhough 
 not the most consistent with the masoretic accents, is the one proposed by 
 Kimchi, who connects the plural verb witli the next two nouns, and repeats 
 y-tii. as the subject of n'i:c5ir!. Next to this is the one given by Luzzatto, 
 who makes ii-is-; mean bring forth (as in Deut. 29 : 17) and agree with 
 Q-iTjtD. — J, D. Michaelis explains this whole verse as relating to prophecy 
 and its fulfilment. 
 
 V. 9. Woe to (or aJas for) him striving with his maJcer — a potsherd 
 with potsherds of earth. Shall day say to its former, What art thou doing? 
 and thy ivork, He has no hands ? The translation of ^in as a simple 
 exclamation by Hitzig (^Ha !) and Ewald (O/) does not meet the requisitions 
 either of general usage or the context, which require it to be taken as an 
 expression of displeasure, or sympathy, or both. — Striving with God is not 
 merely active resistance, but opposition of judgment and affection. — The 
 word i"i:i\ used twice in this verse, is peculiarly expressive ; because it 
 derives from etymology the general sense of former, fashioiier, and from 
 usage the specific sense of potter, which is in strict agreement with tfce 
 fitrurative lanfruaee of both clauses. — The second member of the first c^mse 
 has been very variously construed. The analogy of what precedes would 
 seem to make it mean, woe to the potsherd (^striving) with the poi^herds of 
 the earth. But this is universally agreed to be inadmissible, ^ proof that 
 the principle of parallelism has its limitations. Mariana ingeniously but 
 needlessly proposes to read '^'iJ'in : let the potsherd strive w'f^ the workmen 
 (i. e. potters) of the earth. Vitringa applies the same .construction to the 
 common text : let the potsherd strive with the potsh»i"^is of the earth, but 
 not with God. The Peshito renders it, a potsherf of (ov from) the pot- 
 sherds of the earth, thus making the whole phrasers description of the weak- 
 ness and insignificance of man. This constru&ion is adopted by the modern 
 writers, almost without exception ; most of n-hom, however, give to rx its 
 proper sense o{ ivith, which they suppose .'pimply likeness and relationship, 
 like DS in Ecc. 2 : 16.— It seems to be a just observation of Hitzig, that 
 earth is not mentioned as the dwellini: of the potsherd, but as its material, 
 which is indeed the predominant u-^age of n^-js as distinguished from -("^x. 
 The verb at the beginning of tlipi'ast clause might be rendered either does, 
 will, can, or should say ; but afi that is necessary to the writer's purpose 
 may be considered as implieii or included in the simple future. (Compare 
 ch. 10: 15, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 195.) The same thing is sub- 
 stantially true of the verb ntosn; but in this case, the exact force of the 
 
 ' 8 
 
114 C H A P T E R X L V. 
 
 Hebrew word meiy be best expressed by our compound present, icliat art 
 thou doing or about to do ! This is the common Hebrew formula for calling 
 to account, or questioning the propriety of what one does. (See Job 9 : 12. 
 Ecc. 8:4. Dan. 4: 32.) — The last words of the verse have also been the 
 subject of many discordant explanations. Some of the older writers make 
 them a continuation of the same speech: ivhat art thou doing 1 and (as 
 for) thy work, it has no hands, i. e. it is unfinished. But most interpreters 
 agree that thi/ work introduces a new speaker. And (^shall) thy ivork (say 
 of thee), he has no hands] The unexpected introduction of the second 
 person (thy work) led Houbigant and Lowih to suppose a transposition of 
 the pronouns, and to read his work and thou hast no hands, which may 
 be safely set aside as a violent and worthless emendation. INIaurer accounts 
 for the second person by supposing it to be employed indefinitely, ^At/ ivork, 
 L e. the work of any one to whom the words may be addressed. Hitzig 
 still better makes the Prophet pass abruptly from the sign to the thing 
 signified, from the supposed case to the real one, from the potter to Jehovah. 
 There are no hands to him, i. e. he has no power. The absurdity consists 
 in the thing made denying the existence of the hands by which it was itself 
 produced. The essential idea is the same as in ch. 10: 15, but the 
 e-pression here much stronger, since the instrument is not merely charged 
 w'lit exaltino" itself above the efficient agent, but the creature with denying 
 the ptAver or skill of its creator. — The lestrietion of tljis verse, and of those 
 which fUlow, to the Babylonians, or the Jews in exil^, is entirely arbitrary 
 and at varunce with the context, which refers to the conquests of Cyrus 
 and their co^equences, not as the main subject of the pvophecy, but as 
 illustrations of k aeneral truth. — The form of speech used by Paul in Rom. 
 9 : 20. (why hasithou made me thus ?) is not a version but a paraphrase of 
 nt;?.;p-na, in which iowever it is really included. 
 
 V. 10. Woe to (him J saying to a father, JVhativilt thou hcgci, and to a 
 woman, What wilt thou ht'ng forth! The same idea is again exj)ressed, 
 but in a form still more emp\.atic and revolting. The incongruities which 
 have perplexed interpreters in ti^is verse are intentional aggravations of the 
 impious absurdity which it descrnjes. The arbitrary change of the future 
 to the present (what hegettesi thou J^ or the past (what hast thou brought 
 forth 1) is not only incorrect in point of grammar, but subversive of the 
 writer's main design, which is to represem. the doubt and discontent of men 
 in reference to God's future dealings with t\xem as no less monstrous than 
 the supposition of a child's objection to its own birth. Such an objection, 
 it is true, cannot be offered in the case supposed ; but in the real case it 
 ouffht to be held equally impossible. This view of the Prophet's meaning, 
 
CHAPTERXLV. ]15 
 
 if correct, of course precludes the explanation of the words as a complaint 
 of weakness or deformity, or an expression of disgust with life like that in 
 Job 3 : 20. and Jeremiah 20 : 14. 
 
 V. 1 J . Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker, 
 Ask me {of^ the things to come, concerning my sons and concerning the work 
 of my hands ye may command me. The Septuagiut divides the sentence 
 difterently, and reads 6 >To<;^'rr«i,- T« f,Yf(»;^o«fr«. This, which seems to be a 
 mere inadvertence or mistake, is regarded by Lowth as a sufficient reason 
 for a change of text, and he translates accordingly he that formtth the things 
 ivhich are to come. All other writers seem to follow the masoretic inter- 
 ))unctlon, which connects the participle with the second clause. Verbs of 
 asking, as in Latin, govern two accusatives. (See Ps. 137 : 3.) — Vitringa 
 takes ■'^^'X"^ as a preterite, and makes the last clause an interrogation, 
 They ask me, and will ye command me 1 But we have then an abrupt 
 transition, not only from affirmation to interrogation, but from the third to 
 the second person. Hitzig removes one of these anomalies by aggravating 
 the other, reading both the verbs interrogatively, f/o they ask? and will 
 ye command ? By far the simplest syntax is the common one, which 
 makes the first verb an imperative, analogous in form to "^s^r'caj (Gen. 23 : 8), 
 whereas the preterite would be ":?ibsd, as in Ps. 137 : 3. (Compare "i^^'iJ 
 Gen. 32 : 18.) Some who adopt this explanation of the first verb give the 
 other an imperative form also, a neeJJess and dubious assimilation. There 
 is also a diversity of judgment us to thc^ rt-latiou of these verbs, and of the 
 sentences in which they sfand, to one another. Most of the late interpreters 
 suppose an antithetical relation, and explain the clause as meaning, you may 
 ask me about tJiings to come, but leave the disposal of my children to 
 myself. This not only requires an adversative particle to be inserted, which 
 is often tl)e force of the Hebrew copulative, but involves a distinction without 
 a dilference ; since the fortunes of God's children were themselves things to 
 come, and the very things to come respecting which the people would be 
 probably most anxious to inquire. It is better therefore to regard the 
 parallelism as synonymous, not antithetical, and to understand both verbs as 
 conceding an indulgence to those who are addressed. You may ask me 
 concerning things to come, for I am able to inform you ; you may trust my 
 children to my care, for I am abundantly able to protect them. — b? n^jt is a 
 common expression for giving one authority over any thing or person, or in 
 other words committing it to him, and leaving it at his disposal. — For the 
 meaning o( work of my hands as an equivalent to my children or my people, 
 see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 367. 
 
 V. 12. / made the earth, and man upon it I created ; I, my hands, 
 
116 C H A P T E R XL V. 
 
 spread the heavens, and all their host commanded. This is a justification of 
 the claim in the last clause of the foregoing verse, or a statement of the 
 reason why he could ho trusted to protect his people, namely, because he 
 was almighty, and had proved himself to be so in creation. — The personal 
 pronoun is emphatic in both clauses, as if he had said, it is I ivho made, ox, 
 I {and no other) made etc. The construction of the second of these 
 pronouns with my hands has been variously explained. Some regard the 
 latter as equivalent to an ablative of instrument in Latin: I with my hands 
 have spread etc. Others consider it an instance of the idiom which adds the 
 personal pronoun to the suffix for the sake of emphasis : I, my hands, spread, 
 i. e. my own hands spread. In such constructions the personal pronoun 
 commonly stands last. A third supposition is that the pronoun is in 
 apposition with the noun itself, and not so much emphatic as explanatory. 
 I(thatis to say, my hands) have spread. (Compare Ps. 3 : 5. 17 : 13. 14. 
 44:3. 60: 1.) — The last words of the verse admit of two explanations. 
 We may understand the figure as a military one, and give the verb the 
 military sense of commanding. Or we may take host as a common 
 expression for contents or inhabitants, and understand the verb as meaning 
 called into existence. (Cou\pare Ps. 33 : 9.) In itself, the former explana- 
 tion seems entitled to the. preft^rence ; but it requires the verb to be construed 
 as an indefinite praeter oi a present, whereas all the other verbs, though 
 similar in form, relate to a exterminate past time, viz. the time of the 
 creation. 
 
 V. 13. I (and no other) raised him up in righteousness, and all his 
 tvays ivill I make straight (or level) ; {it is) he {that) shall build my city, 
 and my captivity (or exiles) he will send {home), not for reward, and not 
 for hire, saith Jehovah of Hosts. From the general proof of divine power 
 afforded by creation he descends to the particular exercise of his omnipo- 
 tence and wisdom in the raising up of Cyrus, who is thus referred to without 
 the express mention of his name, because he had been previously made the 
 subject of a similar appeal, and the Prophet simply takes up the thread 
 which he had dropped at the close of the fifth verse, or perhaps of the 
 seventh. For the sense of raising up in righteousness see above, on 
 oh. 41 : 2, 25. 42 : 6. In this, as well as in the other places, Vitringa 
 supposes an allusion to the personal character of Cyrus, which he defends 
 with f^reat warmth against Burnet's remark in his History of the Reforma- 
 tion, that God sometimes uses bad men as his instruments, such as the cruel 
 Cyrus. The statements of Herodotus to this effect Vitringa treats as 
 fabulous, and claims full credit for the glowing pictures of the Cyropaedia. 
 This distinction is not only strange in itself, but completely at war with the 
 conclusions of the ablest modern critics and historians. Nor is there the 
 
CHAPTERXLV. 117 
 
 least need of Insisting thus upon the moral excellence of Cyrus, who in either 
 case was just as really a consecrated instrument of the divine righteousness, 
 as the Medes and Persians generally, who are so described in ch. 13 : 3. 
 (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 246.) At the same time allowance must 
 be made for the difference between what Cyrus was before and after he 
 became acquainted with the true religion, (See above, on v. 3.) Tiie 
 figure of straight or level paths has the same sense as in ch. 40 : 3. — My 
 city, i. e. the holy city, Jerusalem, of which Cyrus was indirectly the re- 
 builder. — The form of the verb send here used is not unfrequently applied 
 to the setting free of prisoners or slaves. — The last clause seems decisive of 
 the question whether ch. 43 : 3, 4. should be understood as a general 
 declaration of God's distinguishing affection for his people, disposing him to 
 favour them at the expense of other nations, or as a specific promise that 
 Cyrus should conquer Ethiopia and Egypt, as a compensation for releasing 
 Israel, in which case he could not be said, in any appropriate sense, to have 
 set them free without reward or hire. 
 
 V. 14. Thus sait/i Jehovah, The toil of Egypt and the gain of Cush 
 and the Sebaim men of measure unto thee shall pass, and to thee shall they 
 belotig, after thee shall they go, in chains shall they jmss over (or along) ; 
 and unto thee shall they how themselves, to thee shall they pray (saying), 
 Only in thee (is) God, and there is none besides, no (pother) God. The 
 first clause specifies labour and traffic as the two great sources of wealth, 
 here put for wealth itself, or for the people who possessed it. -''5$7^ is 
 construed by some writers as a genitive dependent on "no , the trade of 
 Ethiopia and of the Sabeans ; by others, as the nominative to the next 
 verb, the Sabeans shall pass over to thee ; a grammatical distinction not 
 afiecting the sense. For the true sense of the geographical or national names 
 here mentioned, see above, on ch. 43 : 3. In both i)lace3 they are named, 
 as Hitzig well observes, by way of sample (beispielsweise) for the heathen 
 world. To the reasons before given for this interpretation we may here add 
 the general reference to idolaters in v. {Q. — The Targum seems to explain 
 n-?3 here as meaning trade (x-i^no) ; and others give it that of tribute, which 
 it has in Chaldee (Ezra 4:20) and in Neh. 5:4. But the meaning men 
 of measure, i. e. of extraordinary stature, is determined by the analogy of 
 Num. 13:32. 1 Chr. 11:23. 20:6, and confirmed by the description of 
 the Ethiopians in ancient history, Herodotus speaking of them as ^ayiaroi 
 uvOQanar, and Solinus more specifically as duodecim pedes longi. Ac- 
 cording to Knobel, their stature is here mentioned, in order to show that 
 they were able-bodied, and would be profitable servants to the Jews ; but 
 most interpreters correctly understand it as a circumstance intended to 
 enhance the glory and importance of the concjuest. — 7\^,\'-l nfight be under- 
 
118 CHAPTERXLV. 
 
 stood to mean against thee ; but this sense is precluded by the next phrase, 
 they shall he (or belong) to thee, as well as by the epexegetical addition, 
 they shall pass in chains. Whether these are here considered as imposed 
 by their conquerors, or by themselves in token of a voluntary submission, is 
 a question which the words themselves leave undecided. The same thing 
 may be said of the prostration mentioned afterwards, which in itself might 
 be considered as denoting the customary oriental act of obeisance or civil 
 adoration, although usually found in such connexions as require it to be 
 taken in a religious sense, which is here furtlier Indicated by the addition of 
 the verb to pray. Tlie seeming incongruity of thus ascribing divine honours 
 to a creature, may be avoided by taking Tp^it in a local sense, as meaning 
 towards thee, but not to thee, as the object of the adoration. But a simpler 
 solution of the difficulty is, that these strong expressions were employed 
 because the explanation was to follow. Instead of saying, they shall icorship 
 God who dwells in thee, the Prophet makes his language more expressive 
 by saying, they shall worship thee ; and then immediately explains his own 
 language by adding their acknowledgment, only in thee is God, or to give 
 the Hebrew word its full force, an almighty God, implying that the gods of 
 other nations were but gods in name. Tliis exclusive recognition of the God 
 of Israel is then repeated in a way which may to some seem tautological, 
 but which is really emphatic in a high degree. — The application of the suf- 
 fixes in this verse to Cyrus is inconsistent with the masoretic pointing, which 
 makes them feminine. This is regarded by Vitringa and Gesenius as an 
 oversight of Grotius, occasioned by his looking at the Latin text and not the 
 Hebrew. But the same construction seems to be approved by Aben Ezra 
 and Ewald, who must therefore be considered as departing from the common 
 punctuation. The feminine pronouns of the common text may be referred 
 either to r^i^;. (captivity) in v. 13, or to "'"^'^ (my city) in the same verse, or 
 to ^i*'^^"'? ri'is (the congregation of Israel), in all which cases the real object 
 of address is still substantially the same, viz. the ancient church or chosen 
 people. — The question now presents itself, in what sense the subjection of 
 the nations is here promised. That a literal conquest of Ethio])ia and Egypt 
 by the Jews themselves is here predicted, none can maintain but those who 
 wish to fasten on Isaiah the charge of ignorance or gross imposture. An 
 ingenious Jewish writer of our own day, Luzzatto, supposes the Prophet to 
 foretell a literal subjection of these countries, not by Israel, but by Cyrus ; 
 and explains the whole verse as describing the conduct of the captives when 
 they should pffS5 by the land of Israel in chains on their way to Persia, and 
 acknowledge the supremacy of Jehovah by worshipping towards his earthly 
 residence. In order to sustain' this ingenious and original interpretation, its 
 author is under the necessity of taking i>"'Si and ^ns as elliptical exjiressions 
 for TT, "'i^^^ and nnc^ -^scsx , men of labour, men of traffic, i. e. labourers and 
 
C H A P T E R X L V. II9 
 
 traders. He is also forced to explain away some of the most significant 
 expressions, such as they shall be thine, they shall go after thee, as merely 
 indicating disposition or desire. The violence tliiis done to the obvious 
 meaning of the Prophet's language is sufficient to condemn the exposition 
 which involves it. The same interpretation is substantially proposed by 
 Ewald, but more briefly and obscurely, and with his usual omission of all 
 reference to other writers, which leaves it doubtful whether he derived it 
 from Luzzatto, or arrived at it by an independent process. Enough has 
 now been said to show that the most natural interpretation of the passage is 
 the common one which makes it a prophecy of moral and spiritual conquests, 
 to be wrought by the church over the nations, and, as one illustrious exam- 
 ple, by the Jews' religion over the heathenism of many countries, not 
 excepting the literal Ethiopia, as we learn from Acts 8: 27. 
 
 V. 15. Verily thou art a God hiding thyself, oh God of Israel, the 
 Savioiir ! The abrupt transition here has much perplexed interpreters. 
 Vltringa efTects nothing by his favourite and far-fetched supposition of a 
 responsive choir or chorus. Ewald and Luzzatto suppose the words of the 
 Egyptian captives to be still continued. It is fav mure natural to take the 
 verse as an apostrophe, expressive of the Prophet's own strong feelings in 
 contrasting what God had done and would yet do, the darkness of the present 
 with the brightness of the future. If these things are to be hereafter, then 
 oh thou Saviour of thy people, thou art indeed a God that hides himself, 
 that is to say, conceals his purposes of mercy under the darkness of his 
 present dispensations. Let it be observed, however, that the same words, 
 which furnish a vehicle of personal emotion to the Prophet, are in fact a 
 formula of wider import, and contain the statement of a general truth. 
 Ewald assumes two distinct propositions, reading the last clause thus, the 
 God of Israel is a Saviour ; which is perfectly grammatical and agreeable to 
 usage, but unnecessary here and undesirable, because it detracts from the 
 simplicity and unity of the construction. 
 
 V. 16. They are ashamed and also confounded all of them together, 
 they are gone into confusion (or atvay in confusion) — the carvers of images. 
 Unless we assume, without necessity or warrant, an abrupt and perfectly 
 capricious change of subject, this verse must contain the conclusion of the 
 process described in the foregoing context. We might therefore expect to 
 find Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba, introduced again by name ; but instead of 
 these, the sentence closes with a general expression, which has already been 
 referred to as a proof that the war in question is a spiritual war, and that 
 the enemies to be subdued are not certain nations, in themselves considered^, 
 but the heathen world, the vast mixed multitude who worship idols. These 
 
120 CHAPTER X L V. 
 
 are described as the carvers or artificers of images, which strengthens the 
 conclusion before drawn, that the smith and carpenter and cook and baker 
 and cultivator of rh. 44 : 12-16. are one and the same person, viz. the idol- 
 atrous devotee himself. 
 
 V. 17. Israel is saved in Jehovah (^with) an everlasting salvation (lite- 
 rally, sclvation of ages or eternities) ; ye shall not he ashamed, and ye shall 
 not be confounded for ever (literally, until the ages of eternity), or as the 
 English Version has it, loorld ivithout end. This is the counterpart and 
 contrast to the threatening in tlie verse preceding, upon which it throws 
 some light by showing that the shame and confusion which awaits the idol- 
 ater is not mere wounded pride or sense of disappointment, but the loss and 
 opposite of that salvation which is promised to God's people, or in other 
 words, eternal perdition. Israel is saved already, i. e. his salvation is 
 secured, not merely through the Lord but in him, i. e. by virtue of an inti- 
 mate and vital union with him, as genuine and living members of his body. 
 The general form of this solemn declaration, and the eternity again and 
 again predicated of the salvation promised, seem to show that the Israel of this 
 text and of others like it, is not the Jewish people, considered simply as an an- 
 cient nation, but the Jewish people considered as the church of God, a body 
 which has never ceased and never will cease to exist and claim the promises. 
 
 V. 18. For thus saith Jehovah, the creator of the heavens — he is God 
 — the former of the earth and its mal:er — he established it — not in vain (or 
 not to be empty) did he create it — to dwell in (or to be inhabited) he formed 
 it — I am Jehovah, and there is none besides. This verse assigns a reason 
 for believing in the threatening and the promise of the two preceding verses, 
 viz. that he who uttered them not only made the heavens and the earth, but 
 made them for a certain purpose, which must be accomplished. The only 
 difficulty of construction is the question where Jehovah's words begin, and 
 this admits of several different answers. \\ e may read, Thus saith Jeho- 
 vah, The creator of the heavens is God ; in which case the divine address 
 begins with a formal statement of the argument derived from the creation. 
 Again, we may read. Thus saith Jehovah, The creator of the heavens is the 
 God who formed the earth. This is Vitringa's explanation of the verse, 
 which he regards as a denial of the doctrine that the heavens and the earth 
 derive their origin from different creators. But most interpreters suppose 
 the beginning of Jehovah's own words lo be marked by the introduction of 
 the pronoun of the first })erson, / am Jehovah and there is no other. All 
 that precedes is then to be regarded as a description of the speaker, includ- 
 ing two parenthetical propositions, each beginning with the pronoun N*in : 
 the creator of the heavens Qie is God), the former of the earth and its 
 
C H A P T E R X L V. 121 
 
 maker (he established it). — Some understand f^J^'is to mean prepared (or 
 fitted) it, i. e. for man to dwell in. But the other sense is favoured by the 
 predominant usage of the verb and by the analogy of Ps. 119:90. The 
 common version of the next clause, he created it not in vain, is admissible, 
 but less expressive than the more specific rendering, he created it not (to be) 
 a waste (or empty). Grotius understands by ]"l^^ the Holy Land, and by 
 the whole clause that God would not let it remain uninhabited. But the 
 antithesis with heavens makes the wider sense more natural, in which the 
 more restricted one, as Hitzig has suggested, may be comprehended. The 
 earth, and the Holy Land as part of it, was made to be inhabited, not empty. 
 — Vitringa's distinctions between making, forming, and creating, though 
 ingenious, are no more natural or necessary here than in ch. 43 : 7. (See 
 above, p. 75.) In the last clause Jehovah is employed as a descriptive 
 title, and is really equivalent to ?x , which the Prophet uses in a similar con- 
 nexion in V. 22 below. 
 
 V. 19. JS'ot in secret have I spoken, in a dark place of the earth (or in 
 a place, to wit, a land of darkness). 1 have not said to the seed of Jacob, 
 In vain seek ye me. I (am) Jehovah, speaking truth, declaring rectitudes 
 (or right things). The doctrine of the preceding verse is no new revela- 
 tion, but one long ago and universally made known. Vitringa, Lowth, 
 Ewald, and Umbreit suppose an allusion to the mysterious and doubtful 
 responses of the heathen oracles. The objections of Gesenius are of no 
 more weight than in vs. 1, 2, 3, the analogy of which places makes it not 
 improbable that such an allusion to the oracles is couched under the general 
 terms of the verse before us. — Of the next clause there are several distinct 
 interpretations. The oldest and most common makes it mean that God had 
 not required the people to consult him in relation to futurity without obtaining 
 satisfactory responses. According to Hitzig, he bad not required them to 
 seek him (i. e. serve or worship him) for nothing, or without reward. J. D. 
 Michaelis and Luzzatto give a local sense to 'n'n, in the ivilderness, which 
 Hendewerk explains as equivalent to land of darkness, both denoting the 
 heathen world, in which Jehovah had not taught his people to seek him or 
 expect responses from him. — Lowth gives c^'i'.U'ija the specific sense o^ direct 
 answers, as opposed to the equivocal responses of the oracles ; but this is 
 hardly justified by usage, which requires both this word and the parallel 
 expression to be here taken in the sense o[ truth. 
 
 V. 20. Gather yourselves and come, draw near together ye escaped of 
 the nations. They know not, those carrying the wood, their graven image, 
 and praying to a God (ivho) cannot save. In the first clause the idolaters 
 are addressed directly ; in the second they arc spoken of again in the third 
 
122 CHAPTERXLV. 
 
 person. The challenge or summons at the beginning is precisely similar to 
 that in ch. 41 : 21 and 43 : 9. Escaped of (he nations has been variously 
 explained to mean the Jews who had escaped from the oppression of the 
 gentiles, and the gentiles who had escaped from the dominion of idolatry. 
 But these last would scarcely have been summoned to a contest. On the 
 whole, it seems most natural to understand the nations who survived the 
 judgments sent by God upon them. The Hebrew phrase is in itself ambi- 
 guous, the noun added to "^'^"'^s sometimes denoting the whole body out of 
 which a remnant has escaped, sometimes the power from which they are 
 delivered. (Compare Judg. 12 : 4. Ez. 6:9. 7:16. Ob. 11, with Jer. 
 45 : 23. Ez. 6 : 8.) The predominant usage and the context here decide 
 in favour of the first interpretation. Gesenius and Luzzatto both apply the 
 phrase to the conquests of Cyrus, but in contrary senses. The first regards 
 it as describing those whom he should spare, the other those whom he 
 should conquer, and who are exhibited as fleeing with their idols on their 
 shoulders. But the explanation which agrees best with the whole con- 
 nexion is the one that supposes the idolaters still left (i. e. neither converted 
 nor destroyed) to be the object of address. If there are any still absurd 
 enough to carry about a wooden god and pray to one who cannot save, let 
 them assemble and draw near. — They do not Jcnoiv is commonly explained 
 to mean they have no knowledge ; but it is more accordant with the usage 
 of the language to supply a specific object. They do not know it, or, they 
 do not know what they are doing, they are not conscious of their own 
 impiety and folly. — The verse contains two indirect reflections on the idols, 
 first, that they are wooden, then, that they are lifeless and dependent on 
 their worshippers for locomotion. 
 
 V. 21. Sring forward and bring near ! Yea, let them consult together. 
 Who has caused, this to be heard of old, since then declared it? Have not 
 1 Jehovah 1 and there is no other God besides me ; a 7-ighteous and a saving 
 God, there is Jione besides me. The object of the verbs in the first clause, 
 according to Vitringa, is your cause or your arguments, as in ch. 41 : 21. 
 This, which Gesenius is pleased to regard as an ignorant blunder of his great 
 predecessor, has nevertheless commended itself to the judgment of most 
 later writers. Gesenius himself explains the first clause as meaning pro- 
 claim it and bring them near (i. e. the heathen), without explaining what 
 is to be proclaimed or by whom. According to Vitringa's exposition, the 
 idolaters are called upon to state their case and to defend it. — The change 
 of person in the next clause implies that they are unable or unwilling to 
 accept the challenge, or at least in doubt and hesitation with respect to it. 
 They are therefore invited to deliberate together, or, as some understand it, 
 to take counsel of those wiser than themselves. Instead of waiting longer 
 
CHAPTERXLV. 123 
 
 for their plea, however, he presents his own, in the common form of an 
 interrogation, asking who except himself had given evidence of prescience 
 by explicitly foretelling events still far distant, and of saving power by 
 delivering his people from calamity and bondage. — txt2 , although it strictly 
 has relation to a determinate past time, seems here to be employed inde6- 
 nitely as an equivalent to C'!!I?"2 . — Have not I Jehovah, and there is no 
 other God besides me ? is a Hebrew idiom equivalent to the English question. 
 Have not I, besides whom there is no other God. 1 
 
 V. -2'2. Tarn unto me and be saved all ye ends of the earth, for I am 
 God and there is none besides. From the preceding declarations it might 
 seem to follow that the gentile world had nothing to expect but the per- 
 dition threatened in v. 15. But now the Prophet brings to view a gracious 
 alternative, inviting them to choose between destruction and submission, and 
 showing that the drift of the foregoing argument was not to drive the heathen 
 to despair, but to shut them up to the necessity of seeking safety in the 
 favour of the one true God, whose exclusive deity is expressly made the 
 ground of the exhortation. — ^5Q does not correspond exactly to the English 
 Jool:, but denotes the act of turning round in order to look in a different 
 direction. The text therefore bears a strong analogy to those in which the 
 heathen when enlightened are described as turning from their idols unto 
 God. (See 1 Thess. I : 9. Acts 14 : 15. 15 : 19.)— TAc ends of the earth 
 is a phrase inclusive of all nations, and is frequently employed in reference 
 to the conversion of the gentiles. (See Ps. 22 : 28. 72: 8. Zech. 9 : 10.) 
 De Wette's version, let yourselves be saved, appears to be a needless refine- 
 ment on the simple meaning of the passive. — The question whether Christ 
 is to be regarded as the speaker in this passage, is of little exegetical impor- 
 tance. To us, who know that it is only through him that the Father saves, this 
 supposition appears altogether natural ; but it does not follow that any such 
 impression would be made or was intended to be made upon an ancient reader. 
 
 V. 23. By myself I have sworn; the word is gone out of a mouth of 
 righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me shall boiv every Jcnee, shall 
 swear every tongue. The form of the divine oath elsewhere used is by my 
 life or as I live. (Num. 14 : 21, 28. Deut. 32 : 40.) Hence Paul in his 
 quotation of this text (Roin. 14 : 11) uses the formula, Zco fyoi}, which may 
 be rej^arded as an accurate paraphrase, though not as a rigorous translation. 
 — The construction of the words "i^^ ^7^1^ has perplexed interpreters. 
 Jerome arbitrarily transposes them, and translates the phrase as if it were 
 n;:'is i^"! word of righteousness. Rosenmiiller gains the same end by sup- 
 posing an unusual combination righteousness-word, like P^.^.'J^*:? in Ps. 
 45 : 5. Most of the modern writers make ^p^'}^ the subject of the verb X5i", 
 
124 C H AP T ER XL V. 
 
 notwiihstandinfi; the diversity of gender, and regard i<5" as equivalent to 
 N3 "I'i.s . Truth has gone out of my mouthy a ivord ivhich shall not return. 
 The simplest construction, although none of the later writers seem to have 
 adopted it, is that proposed by J. D. INIichaelis, who regards "^e as the con- 
 struct form of fiQ without a suflix, and ripj-iji as a genitive dependent on it, 
 the mouth of righteousness or truth (aus dem untriigUchen Munde). — A 
 word, i. e. a promise or a prophecy, is said in Hebrew to return when it is 
 cancelled or recalled. (See Isaiah 55 : 11.) The kneeling and swearing 
 in the last clause arc acts of homage, fealty, or allegiance, which usually 
 went together (1 Kings 19 : IS) and involved a solemn recognition of the 
 sovereignty of him to whom they were tendered. This verse affords a clear 
 illustration of the difference between the act of swearing to and swearing by 
 another. (Compare ch. 19 : 18, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 357.) — 
 This text is twice applied by Paul to Christ (Rom. 14 : 11. Phil. 2 : 10), 
 in proof of his regal and judicial sovereignty. It does not necessarily predict 
 that all shall be converted to him, since the terms are such as to include 
 both a voluntary and a compulsory submission, and in one of these ways all 
 without exception shall yet recognise him as their rigiitful sovereign. 
 
 V. 24. Only in Jehovah have I, says he, righteousness arid strength ; 
 unto him shall he come, and all that were incensed (or injlamcd) at him 
 shall he ashamed. Joseph Kimchi takes the first words as an oath. Yes by 
 Jehovah! David Kimchi gives the "x its proper meaning, and connects the 
 clause with the last words of the foregoing verse. — Every tongue shall swear 
 (but) only by Jehovah. Most interpreters suppose a sentence to begin with 
 this verse, and t^J-T^a to mean in Jehovah. They differ very much among 
 themselves, however, as to the meaning of the words "i^x "'^ . Vitringa, 
 Ewald, and some others, render the phrase said to me, but without satisflic- 
 torily showing its relation to the context. The most usual construction 
 is, one says of me, which is grammatical but seems to make the clause 
 unmeaning or at least superfluous. Perhaps the best construction is De 
 Dieu's, who insulates "I'sx and understands it to mean says one or says he, 
 while he connects the following words with ^b , as meaning are to me, the 
 only Hebrew phrase corresponding to / have. In either case the general 
 meaning evidently is that God alone can justify or give protection. 
 Vitringa's explanation of VJ as meaning grace is as groundless as the 
 similar translation of n^^'^s by the modern Germans. — The masoretic inter- 
 punction refers the singular verb it'ia'i and the plural ^en;; to the same 
 subject, namely, that which follows. But the difierence of number seems 
 designed to indicate a difference of subject, corresponding to the kinds of 
 submission hinted at in v. 23. The singular Nia; may naturally have a 
 common subject with the singular ^'^x , viz. the ' every one ' who should 
 
CHAPTERXLVI. J25 
 
 eventually bow the knee and swear allegiance to Jehovah, while the plural 
 ras'^ may be regularly construed with the plural Q'^'^t!',? • Jarchi explains 
 the whole of the last clause as describing the repentance of Jehovah's 
 enemies ; but this is really the meaning only of xi^^ T'"!^ , while the rest 
 describes the final and desperate confusion of incorrigible sinners, as in v. 16. 
 On the phrase Kin^ i^iy compare ch. 19 : 22, and on in a-nna ch. 41 : 22. 
 and Cant. 1 : 6. 
 
 V. 25. In Jehovah shall he justified and boast themselves (pv glory) oil 
 the seed of Israel. This closing promise is restricted by Jarchi, in the 
 genuine spirit of rabbinism, to the literal or natural descendants of Jacob ; 
 but this is less surprising when we know that he actually violates the syntax 
 of the preceding verse in order to bring T(X and "'^ together in the sense of 
 onlif to me, the speaker being Israel ! So far is this from being the correct 
 interpretation of the verse, that it is really intended to wind up the previous 
 addresses to the gentiles with a solemn declaration of their true relation to 
 the chosen people, as composed of those who really believed and feared 
 God, whether Jews or gentiles. This principle was recognised in every 
 admission of a proselyte to the communion of the ancient church, and at the 
 change of dispensations it is clearly and repeatedly asserted as a funda- 
 mental law of Christ's kingdom under every variety of form. (See Rom. 
 10 : 12. Gal. 3 : 28, 29. Col. 3:11.) 
 
 CHAPTER XLVI. 
 
 Interpreters are strangely divided in opinion as to the connexion of 
 this chapter with the context. The arbitrary and precarious nature of their 
 judgments may be gathered from the fact, that Ewald separates the first two 
 verses from the body of the chapter and connects them with the one before 
 it, while Hendewerk on the other hand commences a new " cycle " with 
 the first verse of this chapter, and Knobel dogmatically represents it as an 
 isolated composition, unconnected either with what goes before or follows. 
 Even the older writers, who maintain the continuity of the discourse, appear 
 to look upon the order of its parts as being not so much an organic articu- 
 lation as a mere mechanical juxtaposition. They are therefore obliged to 
 assume abrupt transitions, which, instead of explaining any thing else, need 
 to be explained themselves. 
 
I OG C H A P T E R X L V I . 
 
 All iliis confusion is the fiuit of iho erroneous exegetical hypothesis, that 
 the main subject and occasion of these later prophecies is the Babylonish 
 exile and the liberation from it, and liiat with these the other topics must be 
 violently brought into connexion by assuming a sufficiency of types and 
 double senses, or by charging the whqje discourse with incoherence. Equally 
 false, hut far less extensive in its iuHuence. is the assumption that the whole 
 relates to Christ and to the new dispensation, so that even what is said o. 
 Babylon and Cyrus must be metaphorically understood. Common to both 
 hypotheses is the arbitrary and exclusive application of the most compre- 
 hensive language to a part of what it really expresses, and a distorted view 
 of the Prophet's themes considered in their mutual relations and connexions. 
 The whole becomes perspicuous, continuous, and orderly, as soon as we 
 admit what has been already proved to be the true hypothesis, viz. that the 
 great theme of these prophecies is God's designs and dealings with the 
 church and with the world, and that the specific predictions which are intro- 
 duced are introduced as parts or as illustrations of this one great argument. 
 By thus reversing the preposterous relation of the principal elements of the 
 discourse, and restoring each to its legitimate position, the connexion becomes 
 clear and the arrangement easy. 
 
 In confirmation of the general threats and promises with which eh. xlv. 
 is wound up, the Prophet now exhibits the particular case of the Baby- 
 lonian idols, as a single instance chosen from the whole range of past and 
 future history. They are described as fallen and gone into captivity, wholly 
 unable to protect their worshippers or save themselves, vs. I, 2. With these 
 he then contrasts Jehovah's constant care of Israel in time past and in time 
 to come, vs. 3, 4. The contrast is carried out by another description of 
 the origin and impotence of idols, vs. 5-7, and another assertion of Jehovah's 
 sole divinity, as proved by his knowledge and control of the future, and by 
 the raising up of Cyrus in particular, vs. 8-11. This brings him back to 
 the same solemn warning of a[)proaching judgments, and the same alter- 
 native of life or death, with which the foregoing chapter closes, vs. 12, 13. 
 
 V. 1. Bel is bowed down, Ncho stooping ; their images ore (consigned^ 
 to the beasts and to the cattle. Your burdens are packed up (as) a load to 
 the weary (^beast). The connexion with what goes before may be indicated 
 thus : see for example the fate of the Babylonian idols. Of these two are 
 mentioned, either as arbitrary samples, or as chief divinities. To these 
 names, or rather to the subject of Babylonian mythology, Gesenius devotes 
 an excursus or appendix of thirty pages, the results of which are given in 
 his Thesaurus and Lexicon. He connects Bel etymologically with the 
 Hebrew '??, and Nebo with x::; (J^'^^j), the two corresponding to the Zeus 
 and Hermes of the Greek mythology, or rather to the planets Jupiter and 
 
CHAPTERXLVI. 127 
 
 Mercury. The dignity of these two imaginary deities among the Baby- 
 lonians may be learned from the extent to which these names enter into the 
 composition of the names of men, both in sacred and profane history. Such 
 are Belshazzar, Belieshazzar, Belesys, Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, 
 Nabopolassar, Nabonned, etc. Beyond tliis nothing more is needed for 
 the right interpretation of the passage, where the names are simply used to 
 represent the Babylonian gods collectively. — The verb C^lp occurs only 
 here. The Septuagint renders the two, fallen and broken; the Vulgate 
 gives the latter sense to both. But v^O is the common term for stooping, 
 bowing, especially in death (Judges 5 : 27. 2 Kings 9 : 24. Ps. 20 : 9) : 
 and that the other is substantially synonymous, may be inferred not only 
 from the parallelism, but from the analogy of the derivative noun o^ijr , a 
 hook, a tache, as being curved or bent. Although not essential to the 
 general meaning, it is best to give the praeter and the participle their dis- 
 tinctive sense, as meaning strictly that the one has fallen and the other is 
 now falling, in strict accordance with Isaiah's practice, in descriptive passaues, 
 of hurrying the reader inmcJias res, of which we have already had repeated 
 instances. — The pronoun in their images might be supposed to refer to the 
 Babylonians, though not expressly mentioned ; but as these are immediately 
 addressed in the second person, it is best to understand the pronoun as refer- 
 ring to Bel and Nebo, who, as heavenly bodies or imaginary deities, are 
 then distinguished from the images which represented them in the vulvar 
 worship. The suggestion of J. D. Michaells, that there may be an allusion 
 to some actual decay of the metallic idols in the shrines of Babylon is incon- 
 sistent with what follows in relation to their going into exile. — The Sep- 
 tuagint, the Targum, and Jerome, seem to understand the next clause as 
 meaning that their images become beasts, which is scarcely intelligible. 
 Most writers follow Kimchi and De Dieu in supplying a^'o from the other 
 clause, they are (a burden) to the beasts etc. But this assumes a very harsh 
 ellipsis and is wholly unnecessary, since usage allows h rn to be taken in 
 the sense of they are to, i. e. they now belong to, or are abandoned and con- 
 signed to. The common version, on the beasts, is too paraphi'astical. Kimchi 
 supposes n'jn and ^^n2 to be used in their distinctive sense of wild beasts 
 and domesticated cattle, understanding by the latter common beasts of 
 burden, by the former camels, elephants, etc. J. D. Michaelis imagines 
 that there rnay be an allusion to the mythological use of wild beasts, such 
 as the lions of Cybele etc. Most interpreters regard the words as simple 
 equivalents or at the most as merely distinguishing oxen, asses, mules, etc. 
 from camels, dromedaries, and perhaps horses. — rxcs is properly a passive 
 participle used as a noun and meaning your carried things (in old English, 
 great image of Bel at Babylon was not destroyed until the lime of Xerxes, 
 
123 C H A P T E R X L VI. 
 
 carriages), the things which you have been accustomed to carry in pro- 
 cessions or from place to place, but which are now to be carried in a very 
 different manner, on the backs of animals, as spoil or captives. rit:^-2'J 
 properly means lifted up in order to be carried, but may here be rendered 
 jmcked or loaded, though this last word is ambiguous. — x'^a*? does not neces- 
 sarily denote a hcavij load, but simply that they are a load, i. e. something 
 to be carried. The idea of weight is suggested by the following word, 
 which the Vulgate renders as an abstract meaning weariness (usque ad lassi- 
 iudinem), but which is properly a feminine adjective agreeing with n*n or 
 n^na understood. 
 
 V. 2. They stoop, they how together ; they cannot save the load ; 
 themselves are gone into captivity. The first clause may mean that they 
 are now both fallen ; or together may have reference to the other gods of 
 Babylon, so as to mean that not only Bel and Nebo but all the rest are 
 fallen. — The last member of the first clause has been variously explained. 
 Gesenius is disposed to make 5*'*^^ an abstract meaning the carrying, a 
 sense not worth obtaining by so harsh a supposition. The Vulgate arbitrarily 
 reverses the meaning, and instead of the thing borne understands the bearer 
 (non potuerunt sahare portantem). Of those who adhere to the strict sense, 
 load or burden, some understand by it the Babylonian state or empire, which 
 oufrht to have been borne or sustained by its tutelary gods. But the most 
 satisfactory interpretation is the one which gives the word the same sense as 
 in V. 1, and applies it to the images with which the beasts were charged or 
 laden. These are then to be considered as distinguished by the writer from 
 the fods which they represented. Bel and Nebo are unable to rescue their 
 own imac^es. This agrees well with the remainder of the sentence, them- 
 selves are gone (or literally their self is gone) into captivity. This is the 
 only way in which the reflexive pronoun could be made emphatic here 
 without an awkward circumlocution. Tliere is no need, therefore, of ex- 
 plaining tDtljSD to mean their soul, i. e. the animating principle or spirit by 
 which the image was supposed to be inhabited ; much less their desire, i. e. 
 the darling idols of the heathen, like nn-'nsian in ch. 44 : 9. The antithesis 
 is really between the material images of Bel and Nebo and themselves, 
 so far as they had any real existence. The whole god, soul and body, all 
 that there was of him, was gone into captivity. The idea of the conquest 
 and captivity of tutelary gods was common in the ancient east, and is 
 alluded to, besides this place, in Jer. 48:7. 49 : 3. Hos. 10: 5, 6. Dan. 
 11 : 8, to which may be added 1 Sam. 5 : 1. — Whether the Prophet here 
 refers to an actual event or an ideal one, and how the former supposition 
 may be reconciled with the statement of Herodotus and Diodorus, that the 
 
CHAPTERXLVl. 129 
 
 are questions growing out of the erroneous supposition that the passage has 
 exclusive reference to the conquest by Cyrus ; whereas it may include the 
 whole series of events which resulted in the final downfal of the Babylonian 
 idol worship. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 242.) 
 
 V. 3. Hearlcen unto vie, oh house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the 
 house of Israel, those borne from the belli/, those carried from the ivomb. By 
 the remnant of the house of Israel Kimchi understands the remains of the 
 ten tribes who were in exile ; but this is a gratuitous restriction of the 
 meaning. The participles rendered borne and carried are the masculine 
 forms of those used in v. 1. This repetition, analogous to that in ch. 
 42 : 2; 3, is intended to suggest a contrast between the failure of tlie idols to 
 protect their worshippers and God's incessant care of his own people. The 
 gods of the heathen had to be borne by them ; but Jehovah was himself the 
 bearer of his followers. And this was no new thing, but coeval with their 
 national existence. The specific reference to Egypt or the exodus is no 
 more necessary here than in ch. 44 : 2, 24. 48: 8. The carrying meant is 
 that of children by the nurse or parent. The same comparison is frequent 
 elsewhere. (See Num. 1 1 : 12. Deut. 1:31. Ex. 19 : 4. Is. 63 : 9, and 
 corapare Deut. 32 : II, 12. Hos. 11:3. Is. 40 : 11.) — For belli/ and woinb 
 Noyes, by way of euphemistic variation, substitutes birth and earliest breath. 
 — "jn ''ixi is identical with ",:^2'3 ch. 44 : 24. The same form of the particle 
 occurs in Job 20 : 4. and Ps. 44 : 19. 
 
 V. 4. The figure of an infant and its nurse was not sufficient to express 
 the whole extent of God's fidelity and tenderness to Israel. The first of 
 these relations is necessarily restricted to the earliest period of life, but God's 
 protection is continued without limit. And to old age I am He (i. e. the 
 same), and to gray hair I will bear (you) ; I have done it and I will carry 
 and I will bear and save (you). Hitzig supposes this to mean that Israel 
 was already old, as in ch. 47 : 6 ; but others much more ])robably refer it to 
 the future, and regard the expressions as indefinite. As I iiave done in time 
 past, so I will do hereafter. The general analogy between the life of 
 individuals and that of nations is sufficiently obvious, and is finely expressed 
 by Florus in his division of the Roman History into the periods of child- 
 hood, youth, manhood, and old age. But Vitringa mars the beautiful 
 analogy when he undertakes to measure off the periods in the history of 
 Israel from his birth in Egypt, through his infancy in the desert, his youth 
 under tbe Judges, his manhood until Jotham, his old age until Alexander, 
 and his gray hairs or extreme old age beyond that period, — The reference 
 of these terms to God himself as the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7 : 9), is too 
 absurd to need refutation or admit of it. 
 
 9 
 
130 C 11 A P T E R XL V I. 
 
 V. 5. To xcJwm ivill ye liken me and equal and compare me, that we 
 may be (literally, and we shall be) like ? This is an indirect conclusion from 
 the contrast in the foregoing context. If such be the power of idols, and 
 such that of Jehovah, to whom will yc compare him ? The form of 
 expression is hke that in ch. 40 : 18, 25. 
 
 V. 6. The j^rodigals (or lavish ones) will weigh gold from the bag, 
 and silver with the rod ; they will hire a gilder, and he will make it a god ; 
 they will bow down, yea they loill fall prostrate, cib: is commonly explain- 
 ed as a participle in the sense o^ pouring out or lavishing; but thus 
 understood it is of difficult construction. Vitringa resolves it into d'^^J en ; 
 but this is contrary to usage. If we make it agree with the subject of the 
 verbs in v. 5 (i/e it7to jwwr om^ etc.), we must suppose an abrupt change 
 of person in the next clause. The first construction above given is the one 
 proposed by Schmidius, who makes ^'^VJ^! the subject of the verb ^Vpiii"! , 
 We may then explain 0^313 either as meaning taken out of the ])urse, or in 
 reference to the bag of weights, in which sense it is used in Deut. 25: 13. 
 Mic. 6:11. ^'rP^ is properly a reed, then any rod or bar, such as the shaft 
 of a candlestick (Ex. 25:31). and here the beam of a balance or the 
 oraduated rod of a steelvard. — The verse has reference to the wealthier 
 class of idol-worshippers. 
 
 V. 7. They will lift him on the shoulder, they will carry him, they will 
 set him in his place, and he will stand (there), from his place he will not 
 move ; yes, one will cry to him, and he ivill not answer ; from his distress 
 he will (or can) not save him. The idol is not only the work of man's 
 hands, but entirely dependent on him for the slightest motion. No wonder 
 therefore that he cannot hear the prayers of his worshippers, much less grant 
 them the deliverance and protection which they need. 
 
 V. 8. Remember this and show yourselves men ; bring it home, ye apos- 
 tates, to (your) mind (or heart). — By this Jarchi understands what follows ; 
 but it rather means what goes before, viz. the proof just given of the 
 impotence of idols, the worshippers of which, whether Jews or gentiles, are 
 addressed in this verse as apostates or rebels against God. The restriction 
 of the term to apostate Jews is perfectly gratuitous. — The verb ^aitrxnn is a 
 ana^ hyoutrov and admits of several different explanations. Joseph Kimchi 
 derived it from ^iifire, and explained it to mean, ' be inflamed or reddened' 
 i. e. blush. So the Vulgate, confundamini. The Targum and Jarchi 
 understand it to mean ' fortify or strengthen yourselves,' and connect it with 
 <a^tysi'»., foundations (ch. 16: 7). Bochart derives it from a:"'J^ a man, and 
 identifies it with the uv$QiL,£o{)e of 1 Cor. 16 : 13. Vitringa objects that 
 
CHAPTERXLVI. 131 
 
 the apostates would not be exhorted to fortify themselves in unbelief. 
 Hitzig replies that the clauses are addressed to different parties, which is 
 wholly arbitrary. Gesenius removes the objection by giving to the verb the 
 sense of acting rationally, not like children (1 Cor. 14: 20), or as Kimchi 
 says, like beasts which have neither judgment nor consideration. Vitringa 
 objects moreover that the form would be TOsii^Nrri; Hitzig more plausibly, 
 that it would be '"^^'iXrr; from the acknowledged root iiiix; but there is no 
 absurdity in supposing that the verbal form was derived from the contracted 
 aJ'^N which is in common use. — As an exegetical monstrosity it may be stated 
 
 here that Paulus explains the Hebrew word by the Arabic one ^j^t , mean- 
 ing to drive camels by the use of the syllable is ! is ! 
 
 V. 9, 10. Remember former things of old (or from eternity), for I am 
 the Mighty and there is no other, God and there is none like me, declaring 
 from the first the last, and from ancient time the things which are not (yet) 
 done (or made), saying, My counsel shall stand and all my pleasure I icill 
 do. He calls upon them to consider the proofs of his exclusive deity, 
 afforded not only by the nullity of all conflicting claims, but by the fact of 
 his infallible foreknowledge, as attested by the actual prediction of events 
 long before their occurrence. — Instead of for some read that, on the ground 
 that the thing to be believed was his divinity ; the former things being cited 
 merely as the proofs of it. — Declaring the last from the first, or the end from 
 the beginning, means declaring the whole series of events included between 
 these extremes, n'^'ini* does not strictly mean the end as opposed to the 
 beginning, but the latter part of any thing as opposed to the preceding part, 
 whatever the extent of either or their relative proportions. Hence it often 
 means futurity, both absolute and relative, without necessarily defining the 
 terminus a quo from which it is to be computed. — My counsel shall staiid, 
 i. e. my purpose shall be executed. (See ch. 7 : 7. 8 : 10. 14 : 24. 44 : 26.) 
 All the modern writers seem to be agreed in giving "5£3n the sense of my 
 will or pleasure, although not at all more natural or necessary here than in 
 ch. 44: 28, where it is made a proof of later date and of a diction different 
 from that of Isaiah. — All the expressions of the ninth verse have occurred 
 before in different combinations. (See ch. 42 : 14. 43:18. 45:21 etc.) 
 According to Maurer, former things here means former events, as in ch. 
 43 : 18. 48 : 3, not former jpredictions, as in ch. 42 : 9. 43 : 9. 
 
 V. 11. Calling from the east a bird of prey, from a land of distance 
 the man of his counsel ; 1 have both said and will also bring it to jyass, I 
 have formed, (the plan) and ivill also do it. From the general assertion of 
 his providence and power, he now passes to that specific proof of it which 
 has so frequently been urged before, viz. the raising up of Cyrus ; but without 
 
] 32 C H A P T E R X L V I . 
 
 the mcniion of his name in this case, and with an indefiniteness of expression 
 which is perfectly well suited to the general analogy of prophecy, as well as 
 to the views already taken in the exposition of ch. 44 : 28. (See above, 
 p. 106.) — Calling includes prediction and efficiency, not only announcing 
 but calling into being. Most of the modern writers give to ^s'^i? here 
 the specific sense of eagle, sonie on account of a supposed affinity 
 between the Hebrew name and the Greek duroi;, others because of the 
 frequent similar allusions to the eagle elsewhere (see Jer. 49 : 22. Ezek. 
 IT : 2, 3, 12. Comp. Isaiah 40 : 31), others supposing a reference to the 
 Persian ensign. But the very vagueness of the usual sense entitles it to the 
 preference for reasons just suggested. — The point of comparison is not mere 
 swiftness or rapidity of conquest (Hos. 8:1. Hab. 1 : 8. Jer. 48 : 40), 
 but rapacity and fierceness. Knobel arbitrarily assumes that Media and 
 Persia are distinctly and specifically meant by the east and theyb?* country^ 
 whereas the language is designedly indefinite. — Man of his counsel does not 
 mean his counsellor, as it does in ch. 40 : 13, but either the executor of his 
 purpose, or the agent himself purposed i. e. foreordained by God. The 
 marginal reading [my counsel) probably arose from the seeming harshness of 
 the enallage personae , but this is a figure much too frequent in Isaiah to 
 require elimination by a change of text. It is as if he had said, / am he 
 that calls the man of his counsel, after which the construction is continued 
 reo-ularly in the first person. — t^x denotes accession, and is sometimes equiva- 
 lent to aho, sometimes to nay more. It has here the force o( not only this 
 hut also that, or both this and also that. — "is'; is not here synonymous with 
 nbi" as in ch. 44 : 2, but opposed to it, meaning to conceive or form the 
 plan of any thing, as in ch. 22 : 11. 37 : 26. Jer. 18 : 11. Ps. 94 : 20. 
 Is. 37 : 26. The antithesis expressed is that between design and execution. 
 — The feminine suffix corresponds to our neuter pronoun it, referring to the 
 feminine noun nas i. e. purpose or counsel. 
 
 V. 12. Hearlcen to me, ye stout of heart, those fai- from righteousness. 
 By an easy and natural association, he subjoins to these proofs of his own 
 divinity, both past and future, a warning to those who were unwilling to 
 receive them. Strength of heart implies, though it does not directly signify, 
 stubbornness or obstinacy and a settled opposition to the will of God. 
 Because "I'^ax is sometimes absolutely used in the sense of a bull (Ps. 22 : 13. 
 50 : 13), Ilitzig says that it here strictly n)eans bulls in intellect (^Stiere 
 an Vernunft), — The same persons are described as far from righteousness, 
 which some understand as meaning far from rectitude or truth, i. e. deceitful, 
 insincere. Others explain it to mean those who regard the exhibition of 
 God's righteousness as still far distant. But the only natural interpretation 
 is the one which gives the words their obvious and usual sense, as signifying 
 
C H A P T E R XL V I I. I33 
 
 those who are not righteous before God, in other words the wicked, the 
 words far from expressing the degree of their depravity. 
 
 V. 13. / have brought near my righteousness, it shall not he far off; 
 and my salvation, it shall not tarry ; and I will give (or place) in Zion my 
 saltation, to Israel my glory. Because righteousness and salvation frequently 
 occur as parallel expressions, most of the modern German writers treat them 
 as synonymous, whereas one denotes the cause and the other the effect, one 
 relates to God and the other to man. The sense in which salvation can be 
 referred to the righteousness of God is clear from ch. 1 : 27. (See the 
 Earlier Prophecies, p. 19.) The exhibition of God's ighteousness consists 
 in the salvation of his people and the simultaneous destruction of liis enemies. 
 To these two classes it was therefore at the same time an object of desire 
 and dread. The stout-hearted mentioned in v. 12 were not prepared for it, 
 and, unless they were changed, must perish when God's righteousness came 
 near. — The last words admit of two constructions, one of which repeats the 
 verb and makes it govern the last noun (I will give my glory unto Israel) ; 
 the other makes the clause a supplement to what precedes, I will give sal- 
 vation in Zion unto Israel (who is) my glory. In illustration of the latter, 
 see ch- 44 : 23. 62 : 3. Jer. 33 : 9. The other construction has more of 
 the parallel or balanced form which is commonly considered characteristic 
 of Hebrew composition. In sense they ultimately coincide, since Israel 
 could become Jehovah's glory only by Jehovah's glory being bestowed 
 upon him. 
 
 CHAPTER XLVII. 
 
 Here again we meet with the most discordant and unfounded assump- 
 tions, as to the connexion of this chapter with the context, and arising from 
 the same misapprehension of the general design of the whole prophecy. 
 Hitzig, because he cannot make it fit into an artificial system of his own, 
 involving the hypothesis of several successive compositions, corresponding to 
 the progress of events under Cyrus, arbitrarily describes it as an insulated 
 prophecy, older than those which now precede it, and afterwards wrought 
 into its present place. In support of this violent and desperate assumption 
 he appeals to the close connexion between the last verse of ch. xlvi. and 
 the first of ch. xlviii ; an argument which might be used, with equal plausi- 
 
134 C H AP T E R XL VII. 
 
 bility, to throw out any portion of the book, because throughout these later 
 prophecies certain apostrophes and other formulas are constantly recurring 
 at irregular intervals. Hendewerk, on the other hand, so far from seeing 
 any want of continuity between this chapter and the two before and after it, 
 represents the three as constituting a "cycle" or division of a cycle. But 
 even those who hold a middle course between these violent extremes 
 conmiit the usual error of inverting the legitimate relation of the topics to 
 each other, by making the prediction of the downfal of Babylon the Pro- 
 phet's main theme, and not a specific illustration of it. The difficulties 
 which this false assumption has occasioned with respect to the arrangement 
 of the chapter will be seen below from the interpretation of the fourth verse. 
 Another undesirable effect of the same error is the necessity imposed upon 
 some eminent interpreters, Vitringa for example, of superadding to their 
 exposition of the chapter an account of what they call its mystical sense, 
 that is to say, the application of its terms in the New Testament to Rome, 
 both Pagan and Apostate (Rev. xviii). Such a proceeding may be looked 
 upon as necessary on the supposition that the Babylon here threatened is 
 the great theme of the prophecy ; but if it is merely introduced as a remarka- 
 ble example of God's dealings with his enemies and those of his people, it is 
 difficult to see why its images and terms may not be used in other prophecies 
 directed against other objects, without compelling us to comprehend those 
 objects in the proper scope of the original prediction. Cowper has para- 
 phrased the song of Israel over the fallen king of Babylon in ch. xiii, and 
 put it in the mouth of the Peruvian Incas upbraiding their Spanish tyrants. 
 If it could now be proved that Cowper was inspired when he wrote this 
 poem, would it follow that the thirteenth chapter of Isaiah had reference 
 either literal or mystical to Pizarro or Peru ? If this would not be a legiti- 
 mate conclusion in the supposed case, then all the facts of the real case 
 may be sufficiently accounted for, by simply assuming that the costume of 
 this prophecy was reproduced by inspiration in another, on a subject similar 
 but not identical ; that this new prophecy is not a repetition or an expla- 
 nation but at most an imitation of the old one ; and finally that what Vitringa 
 calls the mystical sense of the chapter now before us is really the strict sense 
 of another passage, and belongs therefore not to the interpretation of Isaiah 
 but to that of the Apocalypse. The following seems to be the true analysis. 
 Having exemplified his general doctrine, as to God's ability and purpose 
 to do justice both to friends and foes, by exhibiting the downfal of the Baby- 
 lonian idols, he now attains the same end by predicting the downfal of Baby- 
 lon itself and of the state to which it gave its name. Under the figure of a 
 royal virgin, she is threatened with extreme degradation and exposure, 
 vs. 1-3. Connecting this event with Israel and Israel's God, as the great 
 themes which it was intended to illustrate, v. 4, he predicts the fall of the 
 
CHAPTERXLVII. 135 
 
 empire more distinctly, v. 5, and assigns as a reason the oppression of God's 
 people, V. 6, pride and self-confidence, vs. 7-9, especially reliance upon 
 human wisdom and upon superstitious arts, all which would prove entirely 
 insufficient to prevent the great catastrophe, vs. 10-15. 
 
 V. 1. Come down! By a beautiful apostrophe, the mighty power to 
 be humbled is addressed directly, and the prediction of her humiliation 
 clothed in the form of a command to exhibit the external signs of it. — Sii 
 on the dust ! This, which is the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, 
 may be conformed to our idiom either by substituting in for on, or by under- 
 standing "iss to denote, as it sometimes does, the solid ground. (See ch. 
 2:19, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 35.) The act of sitting on the ground 
 is elsewhere mentioned as a customary sign of grief. (See ch. 3 : 26. 
 Lam. 2 : !0. Job 2 : 13.) But here it is designed, chiefly if not exclu- 
 sively, to suggest the idea of dethronement which is afterwards expressed 
 distinctly. — The next phrase is commonly explained to mean virgin 
 daughter of Babel (i. e. BabifJon), which, according to Gesenius, is a 
 collective personification of the inhabitants. But as ri^^ina , notwithstanding 
 its construct form, is really in apposition with r? (^virgin daughter), so nn 
 may be in apposition with ^^^ (daughter Babel), and denote not the 
 daughter of Babylon, but Babylon itself, personified as a virgin and a 
 daughter, in which case the latter word may have the wide sense of the 
 French fille, and be really synonymous with virgin. (See ch. 37 : 22, and 
 the Earlier Prophecies, p. 616.) But whatever may be the primary import 
 of the phrase, it is admitted upon all hands to be descriptive either of the 
 city of Babylon, or of the Babylonian state and nation. Whether that 
 power is described as a virgin because hitherto unconquered, is much more 
 doubtful, as this explanation seems to mar the simplicity of the description 
 by confounding the sign with the thing signified. — Sit to the earth ! i. e. 
 close to it, or simply on it, as in Ps. 9 : 5, where the vague sense of the 
 particle is determined by the verb and noun with which it stands connected. 
 To sit as to a throne can only mean to sit upon it. There is no throne. 
 Someconnect this with what goes before, in this way : sii on the earth without 
 a throne. But there is no need of departing from the idiomatic form of the 
 original, in which these words are a complete proposition, which may be 
 connected with what goes before by supplying a causal particle : 'sit on the 
 earth, for you have now no throne.' — Daughter of Chasdim ! This last is 
 the common Hebrew name for the Chaldees or Chaldeans, the race intro- 
 duced by the Assyrians, at an early period, into Babylonia. (See ch. 
 23 : 13, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 411. Compare also what is said 
 above, on ch. 43 : 14.) If taken here in this sense, it may be understood 
 to signify the government or the collective members of this race. Rosen- 
 
136 CII A P T E R X L VI I. 
 
 miiller applies it to the city, and supposes it to be so called because built by 
 the Chaldeans. But this is equally at variance with history and with the 
 analogy of other cases where a like explanation would be inadmissible. 
 Daughter of Chasdim must of course be an analogous expression to the 
 parallel phrase davghtcr of BahcJ, which certainly cannot mean a city built 
 by Babylon. Besides the strict use of c^'nrs as a plural, it is unequivocally 
 used now and then as the name of the country, analogous to c^'^J^ia which is a 
 dual. See for example Jer. 51 : 24, 35, where we read of the inhabitants 
 of Chasdim, and Ezek. 16 : 29, where it takes the local or directive n. If 
 the word be so explained in this case, it will make the correspondence of 
 the clauses still more exact. — For thou shall not add (or continue) to he 
 called, would be the natural and usual conclusion of the phrase; instead of 
 which we have here ihctj shall not call thee, wliich is common enough as 
 an indefinite expression equivalent to a passive, and onl}' remarkable fiom 
 its combination with the preceding words, although the sense of the whole 
 clause is quite obvious. Thou shah not continue to be called (or they shall n& 
 longer call thee) tender and delicate, i. e. they shall no longer have occasior^ 
 so to call thee, because thou shalt no longer be so. The same two epithets 
 are found in combination Deut. 2S : 54, from which place it is clear that 
 they are not so much descriptive of voluptuous and vicious habits as of a 
 delicate and easy mode of life, such as that of a princess compared with that 
 of a female slave. The testimonies of the ancient writers as to the preva- 
 lent iniquities of Babylon belong rather to a subsequent part of the descrip- 
 tion. All that is here meant is that the royal virgin must descend from the 
 throne to the dust, and relinquish the luxuries and comforts of her former 
 mode of life. 
 
 V. 2. Take niill-stones and grind meal! Even among^ the Romans 
 this was considered one of the most servile occupations. In the east it was 
 especially the work of female slaves. (Ex. 11:5. Matth. 24 : 41.) — 
 Uncover (i.e. lift up or remove) thy veil! One of the Arabian poets 
 speaks of certain ladies as appearing unveiled so that they resen>bled slaves, 
 which is exactly the idea here expressed. Vitringa and others render ""'3:£ 
 thy hair or thy braided locks, which rests on an Arabic analogy, as the sense 
 of vtil, now commonly adopted, does on Chaldee usage. The parallel word 
 h'y:j is also understood by some as meaning hair, by others the foot, or the 
 sleeve ; but most interpreters are now agreed in giving it the sense of skirt, 
 and to the whole phrase that of lift up (literally strip) thy skirt (or train), 
 corresponding to the lifting of the veil in the preceding clause. — Uncover the 
 leg, cross streams ! The only question as to this clause is whether it refers, 
 as Gesenius and Ewald think, to the fording of rivers by female captives as 
 they go into exile, or to the habitual exposure of the person, by which 
 
CHAPTER XL VII. 137 
 
 women of the lowest class are especially distinguished in the east. The 
 latter explanation, which is that of Vitringa, is entitled to the preference, 
 not only hecaiise we read of no deportation of the Babylonians by Cyrus, 
 but because the other terms of the description are confessedly intended to 
 contrast two conditions of life or classes of society. 
 
 V. 3. The same idea of exposure is now carried out to a revolting 
 extreme. Let thy nakedness be uncovered, likewise let thy shame he seen. 
 This conveys no new idea, but is simply the climax of the previous descrip- 
 tion. — I ivill take vengeance. The metaphor is here exchanged for literal 
 expressions by so easy a transition that it scarcely attracts notice. The 
 destruction of Babylon is frequently set forth as a righteous retribution for 
 the wrongs of Israel. (See Jer. 50: 15, 23.) — I will not (or / shall not) 
 meet a man. Of the various and discordant explanations of this clause, it 
 will suffice to mention one or two of the most current or most plausible. 
 Some give "53 the sense which it has elsewhere when followed by the prepo- 
 sition 2, viz. that of interceding. Thus Jarchi understands the words to 
 mean, I will not intercede with (or solicit) any man to avenge me, but 
 avenge myself. Grotius gives the verb the sense of admitting intercession ; 
 and Lowth, for the same purpose, reads ""2S in the Hiphil form (^neither will 
 I suffer man to intercede with me). Gesenius, in his Commentary, traces an 
 affinity between r:Q and ^p,^ to visit, and explains the clause to mean / will 
 spare no man. In his Thesaurus he connects it with '"^s, TTJ'/j'M'ro, and pacis- 
 cor, and agrees with Maurer in translating, I will strike (or ratify) a league 
 with no man. But the explanation most agreeable to usage, and at the same 
 time simplest as to syntax, is, I shall (or will) meet no man. This is not to 
 be understood, however, with Vitringa, as meaning that he would find no 
 one to avenge him, or that if he did not he would still avenge himself. The 
 true sense is that expressed by Rosenmiiller, I shall encounter no man, i. e. 
 no man will be able to resist me. This simple explanation is at the same 
 time one of the most ancient, as we find it distinctly expressed by Symma- 
 chus (ot'x aniaTr^aeTui ^oi ui^Qconog) and in the Vulgate (non resistet mild 
 homo). — Independently of these minuter questions, it is clear that the whole 
 clause is a laconic explanation of the figures which precede, and which are 
 sunmied up in the simple but terrific notion of resistless and inexorable ven- 
 geance. 
 
 V. 4. Our Redeemer (or as for our Redeemer), Jehovah of Hosts (/s) 
 his name, the Holy One of Israel. The down fill of Babylon was but a 
 proof that the Deliverer of Israel was a sovereign and eternal being, and yet 
 bound to his own people in the strongest and tenderest covenant relation. 
 Thus understood, the verse does not even interrupt the sense, but makes it 
 
138 C H A P T E R XL VI I. 
 
 clearer, by recalling to the reader's mind the great end for wliicli the event 
 took })lacc and for which it is here predicted. Compare with this Lowth's 
 pedantic supposition of a cliorus, which is scarcely more natural than that 
 of a committee or a jury, and Eichhorn's deplorable sugifestion that the verse 
 is a devout reflection of some Jewish reader, accidentally transplanted from 
 the margin to the text. This is justly represented by Gesenius as a make- 
 shift (NothbchelJ), a description equally appropriate to many of his own 
 erasures elsewhere, if not to his extravagant assumption here, that the words 
 thus soith have been left out at the beginning of the sentence. Maurer im- 
 proves upon this strange exegetical device by making the verse merely 
 introductory to that which follows, Thus saith our Redeemer, whose name is 
 Jehovah of Hosts, the Holy One of Israel, Sit in silence etc. In this way 
 every thing may easily be made to denote any thing. The only tenable 
 conclusion is the obvious and simple one, that this is a distinct link in the 
 chain of the prophetic argument, by which the fall of Babylon is brought 
 into connexion and subordination to the proof of God's supremacy as shown 
 in the protection and salvation of his people. That the Prophet speaks 
 here in his own person, is but a single instance of a general usage, charac- 
 teristic of the whole composition, in which God is spoken of, spoken to, or 
 introduced as speaking, in constant alternation ; yet without confusion or 
 the slightest obscuration of the general meaning. 
 
 V. 5. Sit silent (or in silence), and go into darkness (or a dark place'), 
 daughter of Chasdim ! The allusion is to natural and usual expressions of 
 sorrow and despondency. (See Lam. 2: 10, 3 : 2, 28.) The explanation 
 o( darkness as a m.etaphor hv jjrison does not suit the context, and is no 
 more natural or necessary here than in ch. 42 : T. — For thou shnlt not 
 continue to he called (or they shall not continue to call thee) mistress of 
 kingdoms. This is an allusion to the Babylonian empire, as distinguished 
 from Babylonia proper, and including many tributary states, which Xenophon 
 enumerates. In like manner the Assyrian king is made to ask (ch. 10: 8), 
 Are not my princes altogether kings ? 
 
 V. 6. I was wroth against my people ; I profaned my heritage, i. e. I 
 suffered my chosen and consecrated people to be treated as something com- 
 mon and unclean. In the same sense God is said before (ch. 43 : 28) to 
 have profaned the holy princes. Israel is called Jehovah's heritage, as 
 being his perpetual possession, continued from one generation to another. 
 This general import of the figure is obvious enough, although there is an 
 essential difference between this case and that of literal inheritance, because 
 in the latter the change and succession affect the proprietor, whereas in the 
 former they affect the thing possessed, and the possessor is unchangeable. — 
 
CHAPTERXLVII. 139 
 
 And I gave them into thy hand, as my instruments of chastisement. Thou 
 didst not show them mercy, literally place (give or appoint) it to them. 
 God's providential purpose was not even known to his instruments, and 
 could not therefore be the rule of their conduct or the measure of their 
 responsibility. Though unconsciously promoting his designs, their own 
 ends and motives were entirely corrupt. In the precisely analogous case of 
 the Assyrian, it is said (ch. 10: 7), he loill not think so, and his heart not 
 so will purpose, because to destroy (is) in his heart and to cut off nations 
 not a feio. — The general charge is strengthened by a specific aggravation. 
 On the aged thou didst aggravate thy yoke (or make it heavy) exceedingly. 
 Koppe, Gesenius, Maurer, and Hitzig understand this of the whole people, 
 whom they suppose to be described as old, i. e. as having reached the period 
 of natural decrepitude. Umbreit agrees with Grotius and Vitringa in pre- 
 ferring the strict sense of the words, viz. that they were cruelly oppressive 
 even to the aged captives, under which Vitringa is disposed to include 
 elders in office and in rank as well as in age. This particular form of inhu- 
 manity is charged upon the Babylonians by Jeremiah twice (Lam. 4: 16. 
 5 : 12), and in both cases he connects 0^5,^1 with a parallel term denoting 
 rank or office, viz. priests and princes. Between the two interpretations of 
 the clause which have been stated, Knobel undertakes to steer a middle 
 course, by explaining )]:,] to mean aged in the strict sense, but supposing at 
 the same time that this single act of tyranny is put for inhumanity in general. 
 (Compare Deut. 28 : 50.) The essential meaning of the clause, as a descrip- 
 tion of inordinate severity to those least capable of retaliation or resistance, 
 still remains the same in either case. 
 
 V. 7. And thou saidst. For ever I shall be a mistress, i. e. a mistress of 
 kingdoms, the complete phrase which occurs above in v. 5. The sense of 
 queen is therefore wholly inadequate, unless we understand it to mean queen 
 of queens or queen of kings. The ellipsis suggested may perhaps account 
 for the use of what might seem to be a construct form, instead of the syno- 
 nymous JT^'^aa (I Kings 11: 19). Hitzig, however, goes too far when he 
 makes this a ground for disregarding the accentuation and connecting the 
 two words ^? n-i2r. in the sense of a mistress of eternity, i. e. a perpetual 
 mistress. (Compare Gen. 49 : 26. Hab. 3 : 6. Is. 9 : 5.) As examples of 
 the segholate termination of the absolute form, Maurer cites ri-jb-j (Ez. 
 16:30) and r'l^x (Cz. 17:8). Mitzig also objects to the masoretic inter- 
 punction, that it requires i? to be taken in the sense of so (hat, contrary to 
 usage. But this, though assumed by Gesenius and most of the other modern 
 writers, is entirely gratuitous. The conjunction has its proper sense of until, 
 as in Job H : 6. 1 Sam. 20:41 ; and the meaning of the clause is, that she 
 had persisted in this evil course until at last it had its natural effect of blind- 
 
140 CHAPTERXLVII. 
 
 in^f the mind and hardening the heart. Thou saiJst, For ever I shall be a 
 mistress, till (at last) thou didst not lay these (things) to thy heart. The 
 idea of causal dependence {so thai) is imphed but not expressed. Laying 
 to heart, including an exercise of intellect and feeling, occurs, with slio^ht 
 variations as to form, in ch. 42 : 2-5. 44 : 19. 46 : 8. — Thou didst not remem- 
 ber the end (or latter part, or issue) of it, i. e. of the course pursued, the 
 feminine pronoun being put for a neuter as in ch. 46 : 11. and often elsewhere. 
 The apparent solecism of remembering the future may be solved by observ- 
 ing that the thing forgotten was the knowledge of the future once possessed, 
 just as in common parlance we use hope in reference to the past, because 
 we hope to find it so, or hope that something questionable now will prove 
 hereafter to be thus and thus. 
 
 V. 8. And now, a common form of logical resumption and conclusion, 
 very nearly corresponding to our phrases, this being so, or, such being the 
 case. — Hear this, i. e. what I have just said, or am just about to say, or 
 both. — Oh voluptuous one! The common version, thou that art given to 
 pleasures, is substantially correct, but in form too paraphrastical. The 
 translation delicate, which some give, is inadequate, at least upon the com- 
 mon supposition that this term is not intended, like the kindred ones in v. 1, 
 to contrast the two conditions of prosperity and downfal, but to bring against 
 the Babylonians the specific charge of gross licentiousness, in proof and 
 illustration of which Vitringa quotes the words of Quintus Curtius : Jiihil 
 urbis ejus corruptius moribus, nee ad irritandas illiciendasque immodicas 
 voluptates instruciius, to which, after certain gross details, the historian adds, 
 Babylonii maxime in vinum et quae ebrietatem sequuntur effusi sunt. This 
 corruption of morals, as in other like cases, is supposed to have been aggra- 
 vated by the wealth of Babylon, its teeming population, and the vast con- 
 course of foreign visitors and residents. After all, however, as this charge 
 is not repeated or insisted on, it may be doubted whether the epithet in 
 question was intended to express more than the fact of her abundant pro- 
 sperity about to be exchanged for desolation and disgrace. — The (one) 
 sitting in security. The common version, divellest, is as much too vague as 
 that of Ewald, which explains it to mean sitting on a throne, is too specific. 
 Sitting seems rather to be mentioned as a posture of security and ease. — 
 The (one) saying in her heart (or to herself), / (am) and none besides, i. e. 
 none like or equal to me. There has been much dispute respecting the 
 precise sense of "'O^x ; but the question is only of grammatical importance, 
 as all admit that the whole phrase I'l:? '^pBX is equivalent in import to the 
 common one lis T^x (ch. 45:5, 6, IS, etc.). The only doubt is whether 
 "^DBX is simply negative like '|"^x , or exceptive (besides me), or at the same 
 time negative and exceptive (^none besides me). This double explanation is 
 
CHAPTERXLVII. Hi 
 
 given by Noldius and Vitringa, but is justly regarded by the later writers as 
 untenable. Cocceius makes it mean besides me, and assumes an interroga- 
 tion, which is altogether arbitrary. De Dieu adojjts the same construction, 
 but suggests that "Ssn may mean only I, as C3n certainly means o)tli/ in 
 Num. 2-2:35. 23: 13. This is adopted by Gesenius in his Commentary. 
 Hitzig objects that Ti" is then superfluous, and that analogy would require 
 ■'ix D|x . He therefore makes it simply exceptive (^besides me), and supposes 
 an ellipsis of the negative. Rosenmiiller, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel, and 
 Gesenius in the notes to the second edition of his version, follow J. H. Mi- 
 chaelis in making it a paragogic form and simply negative {there is no other, 
 or none besides). Maurer goes further, and explains ^rJ as a substantive 
 dependent on the construct form before it ; literally, nothing of more. The 
 sentiment expressed is that of Martial with respect to Rome, cui par est 
 nihil et nihil secundum. (Compare the words of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 
 4 : 30.) There is even an assumption of divine supremacy in these words, 
 when compared with the frequent use of the pronoun /, in the solemn decla- 
 rations of Jehovah (ch. 45:6, 12. 43: 1 1, etc.). — / shall not sit (as) a 
 widow. The figure of a virgin is now exchanged for that of a wife, a strong 
 proof that the sign was, in the writer's view, of less importance than the 
 thing signified. It is needless to inquire, with Viti'inga, whether the hus- 
 band, whose loss is here implied, be tlie king or the chief men collectively. 
 It is not the city or the state of which widowhood is directly predicated, but 
 the royal personage that represents it. The same comparison is used by 
 Jeremiah of Jerusalem (Lam. 1 : 1. Compare Is. 51 : 18-20. 54: 1, 4, 5. 
 Rev. 14:7). According to J. D. Michaelis, the state is the mother, the 
 soldiers or citizens her sons, and the king her husband, which he illustrates 
 by the use of the title Dey and other terms of relationship to designate the 
 state, the government, etc. in Algiers and other parts of Barbary. To sit 
 as a widow is considered by Gesenius as suggesting the idea of a mourner ; 
 yet in his German version he omits the word entirely, and translates, 'I shall 
 never be a widow,' in which he is closely followed by De Wette. All the 
 interpreters, from Grotius to Ewald, seem to understand widowhood as a 
 specific figure for the loss of a king ; but Knobel boldly questions it, and 
 applies the whole clause to the loss of allies, or of all friendly intercourse 
 with foreign nations. — And I shall not know (by experience) the loss of 
 children. This paraphrastical expression is the nearest approach that we 
 can make in English to the pregnant Hebrew word ^i:b . Bereavement 
 and childlessness may seem at first sight more exact, but the first is not 
 exclusively appropriate to the loss of children, and the last does not suggest 
 the idea of loss at all. This last clause is paraphrased by Noyes, nor see 
 myself childless ; better by Henderson, 7ior know what it is to be childless. 
 
142 CH A PT E R XL VII. 
 
 V. 9. And they shall come to thee. The form of expression seems to 
 have some reference to the plirase I shall not hnoio in tiie preceding verse. 
 As if he had said, they shall no longer be unknown or at a distance, they 
 shall come near to thee. — These two, or both these (things), from which she 
 thought herself secure for ever. — SadJenhj. rsn is a noun, and originally 
 means the twinkling of an eye and then a moment, but is often used 
 adverbially in the sense oi suddenly. That it has the derivative sense here 
 may be inferred from the addition of the words in one day, which would be 
 a striking aniicliniax if":'"; strictly mpant a moment or the twinkling of an 
 eye. This objection is but partially removed by Lowth's change of the 
 interpunction (these two things in a moment, in one day loss of children 
 and widowhood !), because the first expression is still much the strongest, 
 unless we understand in one day to express not mere rapidity or suddenness 
 but the concurrence of the two privations. — Loss of children and widow- 
 hood, as in the verse preceding, are explained by most interpreters as figures 
 for the loss of king and people. — In their perfection, literally, according to 
 it, 1. e. in the fullest measure possible, implying total loss and destitution. — 
 They have come upon thee. The English Version makes it future like the 
 verb in the preceding clause; but this is wholly arbitrary. There is less 
 objection to the present form adopted by the modern German writers ; but 
 according to the i)rinciple already stated and exemplified so often, it is best 
 to give the word its proper meaning, and to understand it not as a mere 
 repetition of what goes before, but as an addition to it, or at least a varia- 
 tion in the mode of exhibition. What he at first saw coming, he now sees 
 actually come, and describes it accordingly. — Of the 2 in the next clause 
 there are three interpretations. Ewald agrees with the English Version and 
 the Vulgate hi explaining it to mean propter, on account of, and supposing 
 it to bring a new specific charge against the Babylonians, by assigning a nev^ 
 cause for their destruction, viz. their cultivation of the occult arts. Gesenius 
 and the other recent writers follow Calvin and Vilringa in making it mean 
 notwithstanding, as in ch. 5 : 25. and Num. 14 : 11. There is then no new 
 charge or reason assigned, but a simple declaration of the insufficiency of 
 superstitious arts to save them. But a better course than either is to give 
 the particle its proper sense o{ in or in the midst of, which suggests both 
 the other ideas, but expresses more, viz. that they should perish in the very 
 act of using these unlawful and unprofitable means of preservation. — In the 
 multitude of thy enchantments, in the abundance of thy spells (or charms). 
 The parallel terms, though applied to the same objects, are of different origin, 
 the first denoting primarily prayers or acts of worship, and then superstitious 
 rites; the other specifically meaning bans or spells (from "inn to bind), with 
 reference, as Gesenius supposes, to the outward act of tying magical knots, 
 
CHAPTERXLVII. 143 
 
 but as the older writers think, to the restraining or constraining influence 
 supposed to he exerted on the victim or even on the gods themselves. — The 
 construction of 'nx'2 jiere is unusual. Gesenius regards it as immediately 
 dependent upon f^^^^ although separated from it by an intervening word, 
 the multitude of strength i. e. the strong multitude of thy enchantments. 
 Maurer says that ix^ is construed as an adjective ; while Hitzig makes it as 
 usual an adverb, qualifying i^^^^? which is here equivalent to an infinitive. 
 In either case the sense is essentially the same, viz. that of very powerful, 
 or very numerous, or very powerful and numerous enchantments. The 
 prevalence of these arts in ancient Babylon is explicitly affirmed by Diodorus 
 Siculus, and assumed as a notorious fact by other ancient writers. 
 
 V. 10. And {yei) thou art (or wasi) secure iJi thy wickedness. Vitringa 
 and most of the later writers have thou trustedsl in thy wickedness, but differ 
 as to the precise sense of the last word, some referring it, with Jerome, to the 
 occult arts of the preceding verse, others making it denote specifically tyranny 
 or fraud, or both combined as in ch. 33 : 1. But even in the places which 
 are cited in proof of this specific explanation (such asch. 13: 11. Nah. 3: 9, 
 etc.), the restriction is either suggested by the context or entirely gratuitous. 
 There is therefore no sufficient reason for departing from the wide sense of 
 the word as descriptive of the whole congeries of crimes with which the 
 Babylonians were chargeable. But neither in the wide nor the restricted 
 sense could their wickedness itself be an object of trust. It is better, there- 
 fore, to give the verb the absolute meaning which it frequently has elsewhere, 
 and to explain the whole phrase as denoting that they went on in their wick- 
 edness without a fear of change or punishment. In this way, moreover, we 
 avoid the necessity of multiplying the specific charges against Babylon, by 
 giving to the Prophet's words a technical and formal meaning which they 
 will not naturally bear. Thus Vitringa introduces this verse as the statement 
 of a fourth crime or impulsive cause of Babylon's destruction, namely, her 
 wickedness (nialitia); and as this of course includes all the rest, he is under 
 the necessity of explaining it to mean specifically cwnni/?^ and reliance on it. 
 The construction which has been proposed above may be the one assumed 
 in the Vulgate (^fduciam habuisli in malitia tua^ ; but the only modern 
 version where I find it expressed is that of Augusti (</« warst sicher bci 
 deiner Bosheit), which De VVette, in his in)proved version, has abandoned 
 for the old one. The idea of security in ivickedness agrees precisely with 
 what follows. — Thou hast said, there is no one seeing me, a form of speech 
 frequently ascribed to presumptuous sinners and unbelievers in the doctrine 
 of providential retribution. (See Ps. 10: 11. 94 : 7. Ezek. 8: 12. 9:9. 
 Job 22: 14.) This, on the other hand, is not a natural expression of 
 
144 CHAPTERXLVII. 
 
 specific trust in any form of wickedness. He who relies upon his power or 
 his cunning as a complete protection will be not so apt to say " None seeth 
 nie" as to feel indifierent whether he is seen or not. — Thy wisdom and thy 
 Tcnoioledge, it has seduced thee. The insertion of the pronoun (x^n) admits 
 of a twofold explanation. It may mean thy very wisdom, upon which thou 
 hast so long relied for guidance, has tise^ misled thee. But at the same 
 time it may serve to show that wisdom and knowledge are not here to be 
 distinfuished but considered as identical. He does not say thy u-isdotn and 
 knowledge they have, but it has, seduced thee. By wisdom and knowledge 
 some understand astronomy and astrology, others political sagacity and 
 diplomatic skill, for which it is inferred that the Babylonians were distin- 
 guished, from the places where their ivise men are particularly mentioned. 
 (See for example Jer. 50 : 35. 51 : 57.) But in these descriptions of the 
 Babylonian empire, and the analogous accounts of Tyre (Ezek. 28 : 4) and 
 Egypt (Is. 19 : 11), the reference seems not so much to any thing peculiar 
 to the state in question, as to that peculiar political wisdom which is pre- 
 supposed in the very existence, much more in the prosperity, of every great 
 empire. Gesenius understands these expressions as ironical, an indirect 
 denial that they were possessed of wisdom. But this is an unnecessary 
 supposition, and not entirely consistent with the tone of the whole context. 
 It was probably not merely the conceit of knowledge but its actual possession 
 that had led the Babylonians astray. The verb 25111: means to turn aside 
 (convert) from one course to another, and is used both in a good sense and 
 a bad one. An example of the former may be found below in ch. 49: 5, 
 and of the latter here, where the word means not exactly io pervert, or as 
 Low til translates it, \.o pervert the mind, but rather to misguide, seduce, or 
 lead astray, like T\v.'r> in ch. 44 : 20. Thy knoivkdge and thy ivisdom., it has 
 seduced thee. — The remainder of the verse describes the effect of this 
 perversion or seduction in the same terms that had been employed above in 
 V. 8, and which occur elsewhere only in Zeph. 2 : 15, which appears to be 
 an imitation of the place before us, and not its original as Hitzig and others 
 arbitrarily assume. — And thou saidst (or hast said) in thy heart. The indi- 
 rect construction, so that thou hast said, contains more than is expressed, but 
 not more than is implied, in the original. — / am and there is no other. J. D. 
 Michaelis understands this boast to mean, I am Babylon and there is no other. 
 But most interpreters prefer the general meaning, I am what no one else is ; 
 there is no one like me, much less equal to me. (See above, on v. 8.) This 
 arrogant presumption is ascribed to their wisdom and knowledge, not as its 
 Icfritimate effect, but as a necessary consequence of its perversion and abuse, 
 as well as of men's native disposition to exaggerate the force and authority 
 of unassisted reason. (Compare ch. 5: 21, and the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 78.) 
 
CHAPTERXLVII. I45 
 
 V. 11. And (so) there comeih (or has come') upon thee evil; wiih an 
 evident allusion to the use of n^n in the verse preceding, so as to suggest a« 
 antithesis between natural and moral evil, sin and suffering, evil done and e*^il 
 experienced. The vav at the beginning is not properly conversive, <is it 
 does not depend upon a foregoing future (Nordheimer "^ 219) ; so tl^t the 
 common version (therefore shall evil come) is not strictly accurate Most 
 of the modern writers make it present ; but the strict sense of the »reterite is 
 perfectly consistent with the context and the usage of the Pophet, who 
 continually depicts occurrences still future, first as coming, t'^n as come, 
 not in fact but in vision, both as certain to occur and as hi-^oiically repre- 
 sented to his own mind. The phrase come upon is expla'"'6d ^Y Vitringa 
 as implying descent from above or infliction by a hig't^r power. — Of the 
 next clause ihere are several distinct interpretations all of which agree 
 in making it descriptive of the evil threatened in tl>' one before it. From 
 the use of the verb nnd in Ps. 73: 34 and elsewhef^j Lowth and others give 
 it here the sense of intercession (thou shalt not kno^' f^ow to deprecate), which 
 seems to be also given in the Targum and a'P'^o^ed by Jarchi. Jerome 
 takes "ina as a noun meaning dawn, and un^'^i'slands by it the origin or 
 source of the calamity (_nescis ortum ejus), in**'l"ch he is followed by Viiringa 
 and Rosenmiiller, who appear however to^pply ^lie term, not merely to the 
 source of the evil, but to the time of !^' commencement, which should be 
 like a day without a dawn, i. e. sudf^" and without premonition. There 
 is something so unnatural, howeve*'- and at variance with usage, in the 
 representation of misfortune as a a'iA'ning day, that Gesenius, Maurer, and 
 Umbreit, wiio retain the same tn-nslation of the word, reverse the sense of 
 the whole phrase by supposiiV^^ ^° "^^an not a preceding but a following 
 dawn ; in which case the e'-^ is described not as a day without a dawn 
 before it, but as a nighr wf-hout a dawning after it, — a figure natural and 
 striking in itself, and ver^ strongly recommended by the use of nnd in the 
 same sense by Isaiah elst^-^^l^ere. (See ch. 8 : 20, and the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 149.) Hitzig and ^vvald still prefer, however, the hypothesis of J. D. 
 Michaelis and others, vf'ho identify "^n-jj with the Arabic^, and explain it 
 either as a noun (a^ri/isi which thou hast no charm) or as an infinitive (thou 
 shalt not know kow to charm or conjure it away). This construction has 
 the advantage ofcreating a more perfect correspondence between this word 
 and the simil?' verbal form (rrjs?) with which the next clause ends. 
 Grotius and 6lericus appear to regard -^n'4 as a mere poetical equivalent to 
 day, which is highly improbable and not at all sustained by usage. — And 
 there shall fall upon thee (a still stronger expression than the one before it, 
 there shall come upon thee) ruin. According to the modern lexicographers, 
 the noun itself means /a//, but in its figurative application to destruction or 
 calamity. It occurs only here and in Ezek. 7 : 26 — Thou shalt not he able 
 
 10 
 
146 C H AP T E R XL VII. 
 
 to avert it, or resolving the detached Hebrew clauses into one English period. 
 j'hich thou sholt not be able to avert. The exact meaning of the last word 
 is atone for, expiate, and in tiiis connexion, to avert by expiation, whether 
 in tte strict sense of atoning sacrifice or in the wider one of satisfaction and 
 propiiation. If we assume a personification of the evil, the verb may mean 
 to apptnse, as in Gen. 3:2: 21. Prov. 16: 14. In any case, the clause 
 describes the threatened judgment as inexorable and inevitable. — And there 
 shall come upon thee suddenly a crash, — or as J. D. Michaelis renders it, a 
 crashing fall 2i common metaphor for sudden ruin, — (which) thou shalt not 
 Tcnow. This nay either mean, of which thou shalt have no previous 
 experience, or tf which thou shalt have no previous expectation. The 
 former meaning is^he one most readily suggested by the words. The latter 
 may be justified b) the analogy of Job 9 : 5, who removeth the mountains 
 and they know not, w^jch can only mean that he removes them suddenly or 
 unawares. Because th- same verb "^""n in the first clause governs a follow- 
 ing word {tho}i shalt not Uiqk;. {is da^vn, or how to conjure it aicay), Lowth 
 adopts Seeker's hint that . similar dependent word has here been lost, but 
 does not venture to detern^^e what it was, though he thinks it may have 
 been njr^ nita , as in Jer. 11 :\i. 
 
 V. 12. Stand now I It musti^Q borne in mind that xj is not a particle 
 
 of time but of entreaty, very often Cd-responding to I pray, or if you please. 
 
 In this case it indicates a kind of concession to the people, if they still choose 
 
 to try the virtue of their superstitious a^s which be had already denounced 
 
 as worthless. Some interpreters have ^pne too far in representing this 
 
 passage as characterized by a tone of bilng sarcasm. — Stand noiv in thy 
 
 spells (or charms). Viiringa supposes an alhgjon to the customary standing 
 
 posture of astrologers, conjurers, etc. Others xinderstand the verb to mean 
 
 stand fast, be firm and courageous. But the modern writers generally follow 
 
 Lowth in understanding it to mean jsersfs^ or {^^vsevere, which of course 
 
 requires the preposition to be taken in its usual proper sense of in. — Persist 
 
 noiv in thy spells and in the abundance of thy charni\ the same nouns that 
 
 are joined above in v. 9. In which thou hast lahow\l Gesenius in his 
 
 Grammar (-§. 121. 2) mentions this as one of the only tvo cases in which 
 
 the Hebrew relative is governed directly by a preposition, {^ lohich instead 
 
 of which in them, the usual idiomatic combination. But Hizig and Ewald 
 
 do away with this exception, by supposing the particle to be-lependent on 
 
 the verb at the beginning, and the relative directly on the verb inat follows : 
 
 persist in that %ohich (or in that respecting ivhich) thou hast laloured (or 
 
 ivearied thyself; see above, on ch. 43 : 22) from thy youth. T\iis may 
 
 either mean of old, or more specifically, since the earliest period of thy 
 
 national existence. The antiquity of occult arts, and above all of astrclogy, 
 
CHAPTERXLVII. I47 
 
 in Babylon, is attested by various profane writers. Diodorus Siculus indeed 
 derives them from Egyj)t, and describes the Chaldees or astrologers of 
 Babylon as Egyptian colonists. But as this last is certainly erroneous (see 
 above on v. l), the other assertion can have no authority. The Babylonians 
 are reported by the same and other writers to have carried back their own 
 antiquity, as proved by recorded scientific observations, to an extravagant 
 and foolish length, to which some think there is allusion here in the expression 
 from tuy youth. — Perhaps thou wilt be able to succeed, or keep thyself, the 
 verb commonly tvanslaied jjroft. (See above, ch. 44 : 10.) ''h^a originally 
 means if not or whether not, but in usage corresponds more nearly io perhaps 
 than it does to the conditional con)|)ouiid, if so be, which is the common 
 English Version liere. This faint suggestion of a possibility is more expressive 
 than a positive denial. — Perhaps than uilt grow strong, or prevail, as the 
 ancient versions render it; or resist, as Rosenmiiller, Hiizig, and Ewald 
 explain it from an Arabic analogy ; or terrify (thine adversary), as Gcsenius 
 explains it from the analogy ofch. 2: 19, 21. (Compare Ps. 10: IS and 
 Job 13 : 25.) In ehher case the word is a specification of the more general 
 term succeed or profit. 
 
 V. 13. Thou art u-ioried in the mullitude of thy counsel, not merely 
 weary o/it, but exhausted by it, and in the very act of usino- it. rpr^ss 
 seems to be a singular noun with a plural suffix, a combination which may 
 be supposed to have aiisen either from the want of any construct plural 
 form in lliis case, or from a designed assimilation with the plurals in v. J 2. 
 As ::"t may denote either numerical multitude or aggregate abundance, it is 
 o/ten construed with a singular, for instance in Ps. 5:8. 52 : 9. Is. 37 : 24. 
 By counsel we are not to understand the computations or conferences of the 
 asn-onomers, but all the devices of the government ,^or self-defence. The 
 German writers have introduced an idiom of their own into the first clause 
 wholly foreign from the usage of the Hebrew language, by making it con- 
 ditional, which Noyes has copied by giving it the form of an interrogation : 
 art thou ivcary etc. ? The original form is that o( a short indeiiendent 
 proposition. — Let now (ov jjray let) them stand and save thee. We may 
 take stand, either in the same sense which it has above in v. 12, or in that 
 of appearing, coming forward, presenting themselves. The use of "Jr ? , jn 
 the sense of rising, is erroneously alleged as a peculiar feature in the diction 
 of these Later Prophecies. — The subject of the verbs is then defined. The 
 dividers of the heavens, i. e. the astrologers, so called because they divided 
 the heavens into houses with a view to their prognostications. Henderson's 
 reference to the twelve signs of the Zodiac is loo restricted. The chethibh 
 or textual reading ('■-") is regarded by some as an old form of the plural 
 
148 C H A P T E R X L V I I. 
 
 construct, but by others ns the third person plural of the preterite, agreeing 
 with the relative pronoun understood (^icho divide). Kinichi regards division 
 as a figure for decision or determination, which is wholly unnecessary. Some 
 read ''"il^n, and suppose an allusion to the derivative noun in v. 12; while 
 others trace it to the Arabic root ^j^ , and suppose the phrase to mean those 
 who know the heavens. All admit however that the general sense is correctly 
 given by the Sepluagint {acrnoXnyoi rov Dvnavov) and the Vulgate (augures 
 coeli). — The same class of persons is then spoken of as star-gazers, an 
 English phrase which well expresses the peculiar force of n^-'n followed by 
 the preposition 3. Some however give the former word its frequent sense 
 of seers or prophets, and regard what follows as a limiting or qualifying 
 term, the whole corresponding to the English phrase star-prophets, i. e. 
 such as prophesy by means of the stars. — The next phrase does not mean 
 making known the. neiv moons, for these returned at stated intervals and 
 needed no prognosticator to reveal them. The sense is either at the ncio 
 moons, or hy means of the new moons, i, e. the changes of the moons, of 
 which the former is the simpler explanation. — Interpreters are much divided 
 as to the way in which the remaining words of this verse are to be connected 
 with what goes before. Aben Ezra and Vitringa make the clause dependent 
 on the verb save : ' Let them save them from (the things) which are about 
 to come upon thee.' The only objections to this construction are the 
 distance of the words thus connected from each other, and the absolute sense 
 which it puts upon 5^5"'l"in by removing its object. The modern writers, 
 with a very few exceptions, connect this participle with what follows, 
 making known at the ncto moons ivhat shall come upon thee. The "i^ may 
 then be partitive (sojiie of the things etc.) or indicate the subject of the 
 revelation (o/ i. e. concerning ivhat shall come etc.). To the former Vitringa 
 objects, that the astrologers would undertake of course to reveal not only 
 some but all things still future. But Jarchi suggests, that the new moon 
 could afford only partial information ; and J. D. Michaelis, that this limited 
 pretension would afford the astrologers a pretext and apology for frequent 
 failures. But the other construction is now commonly preferred, except that 
 Ewald gives to "I'r"^.^. the meaning whence, i. e. from what source or quarter 
 these things are to come upon thee. 
 
 V. 14. Behold they are like stubble, fire has burned them (the Baby- 
 lonian astrologers). The construction given by Gesenius (stubble which the 
 fire consumes) is inconsistent with the plural suffix. Behold brings their 
 destruction into view as something present. It is on this account more 
 natural, as well as more exact, to give the verbs a past or present form, as 
 Ewald does, than to translate them in the future. He not only prophesies 
 
CHAPTERXLVII. 149 
 
 that they shall be burnt, but sees them burning. The comparison with 
 stubble seems intended to suggest that they are worthless and combustible, 
 whose end is to be burned. (Heb. 6 : 8.) At the same time a contrast is 
 designed, as Kimchi well observes, between the burning of stubble and the 
 burning of wood, the former being more complete and rapid than the latter. 
 — They cannot deliver themselves from the hand (i. e. the power) of the fame. 
 Gesenius and most of the later writers translate ctlJS3 their life ; Hitzig and 
 Ewald still more rigidly, their soul. But the reflexive sense themselves is 
 not only favoured by the analogy of ch. 46 : 2, but required by the context. 
 There is at least much less significance and point in saying that they cannot 
 save their lives, than in saying that they cannot even save themselves, much 
 less their votaries and dependents. — The last clause contains a negative 
 description of the fire mentioned in the first. Of this description there are 
 two interpretations. Grotius, Clericus, Vitringa, Lowth, Gesenius, and 
 Maurer, understand it to mean that the destruction of the fuel will be so 
 complete that nothing will be left at which a man can sit and warm himself. 
 But as this gratuitously gives to 'ps the sense there is not left, without the 
 least authority from usage, Ewald and Knobel agree with J. D. Michaelis 
 and others in explaining it to mean, (this fre) is not a coal (at which) to 
 warm one^s self, a fire to sit before, but a devouring and consuming con- 
 flagration. The only difficulty in the way of this interpretation is a slight 
 one, namely, that it takes rbnr. in the sense of a coal-fire and not a single 
 coal. With either of these expositions of the whole clause may be reconciled 
 a different interpretation of the word aianb proposed by Saadias and inde- 
 pendently of him by Cocceiiis. These writers give the word the sense which 
 it invariably has in every other place where it occurs, viz. their bread. 
 (See Job 30 : 4. Prov. 30 : 25. Ezek. 4 : 13. 12 : 19. Hos. 9 : 4.) The 
 whole expression then means that it is not a common fire for baking bread, 
 or, on the other supposition, that there are not coals enough left for that 
 purpose. The phrase c^cn^ rhni (coal of their bread) presents a harsh and 
 unusual combination, rendered less so however by the use of both words in 
 ch. 44: 19. This construction is approved by Rosenmiiller ; but the other 
 modern writers seem to be agreed in making D^cnb ihe infinitive of ccn 
 (ch. 44: 15, IG) with a preposition, analogous in form to =:=:3n fiom 'sn 
 (ch. 30 : 18). One manuscript has ^^an':; , which is nearer to the usual analog)- 
 of this class of verbs, but embarrasses the syntax with a pleonastic suffix. — 
 The general sense of sudden, rapid, and complete destiuction, is not affected 
 by these minor questions of grammatical analysis. 
 
 V. 15. Thus arc they to thee, i. e. such is their fate, you see what has 
 become of them. The ~|"v is not superfluous, as Gesenius asserts, although 
 
150 C H APT E R XL VI I. 
 
 foreign from our idiom. It s(i<rgests the additional idea that the person 
 addressed was interested in them and a Avitness of their ruin. — JVith respect 
 to whom thou hast laboured. This may either mean with whom or for 
 whom ; or both m;iy be included in the general idea that these had been the 
 object and occasion of her labours. — Thy dealers (or traders) from thy 
 youth. This is commonly regarded as explanatory of the foregoing clause. 
 Thus the English Version, they with whom thou hast laboured, even thy 
 merchants etc. It then becomes a question whether these are called traders 
 in the literal and ordinary sense, or at least in that of national allies and 
 negociators ; or whether the epithet is given in contempt to the astrologers 
 and wise men of the foregoing context, as trafficking or dealing in imposture. 
 J. D. Michaelis supposes them to be described as travelling dealers, i. e. 
 pedlers and hawkers, who removed from place to place lest their frauds 
 should be discovered. He even compares them with the gipsy fortune- 
 tellers of our own day, but admits that the astrologers of Babylonia held a 
 very different position in society. Against any application of the last clause 
 to this order it may be objected that the preceding verse, of which this is a 
 direct continuation, represents them as already utterly consumed. The true 
 solution of the difficulty seems to be afforded by the masoretic interpunction 
 of the sentence, which connects Ti'^'^nb not with what precedes but with what 
 follows. According to this arrangement we are not to read and so are thy 
 dealers, or even thy dealers, but thy dealers fram thy youth wander each his 
 own way. We have then two classes introduced, and two distinct events 
 predicted. As if he had said, thy astrologers etc. are utterly destroyed, and 
 as for thy dealers, they wander home etc. w idely different in fate, but both 
 alike in this, that they leave thee defenceless in the hour of extremity. Thy 
 traders nray then be taken either in its strict sense as denoting foreign 
 merchants, or in its wider sense as comprehending all, whether states or 
 individuals, with whom she had intercourse, commercial or political. Ewald 
 revives Houbigant's interpretation of the word as meaning sorcerers, in order 
 to sustain which by the Arabic analogy, he seems inclined to read Tj'?'!!'!!^? 
 without the least necessity or warrant. — These are described as thirtking 
 only of providing for their own security. (Compare cb. 13 : 14. 43 : 14.) 
 Each to his oxon quarter, side, direction, — substantially synonymous with 
 T^jQ ''■::2-bs (Ezek. 1 : 9, 12), and other phrases all meaning straight before 
 him, without turnini^ to the right hand or the left, — they wander (or have 
 wandered), a term implying not only flight but confusion. The plural form 
 agrees with the subject understood, and not with the distributive expression 
 a5is by whicb that subject is defined arid qualified. — There is no one help- 
 ing thee, or still more strongly, saving thee, thou hast no saviour, — with 
 particular reference to those just mentioned, who, Instead of thinking upon 
 
CHAPTER XLVIII. L5I 
 
 her or bringing her assistance, would be wholly engrossed by a sense -of 
 their own danger and the effort to escape it. There is no need of supposing, 
 with Hitzig, that the image of a great conflagration is still i)resent to the 
 writer's mind, and that 110 one helps (or saves) thee means specifically no one 
 quenches thee. The figurative dress would rather seem to have been laid 
 aside, in order to express the naked truth more plainly. 
 
 CHAPTER XLVIII. 
 
 From his digression with respect to the causes and effects of the catas- 
 trophe of Babylon, the Prophet now returns to his more general themes, 
 and winds up the first great division of the Later Prophecies by a reiteration 
 of the same truths and arguments which run through the previous portion of 
 it, with some variations and additions which will be noticed in the proper 
 place. The disproportionate prominence given to the Babylonish exile and 
 the liberation from it, in most modern expositions of the passage, has pro- 
 duced the same confusion and the same necessity of assuming arbitrary 
 combinations and transitions, as in other cases which have been already 
 stated. The length to which this false hypothesis has influenced the prac- 
 tice of interpreters may be inferred from the fact, that one of the most recent 
 English writers describes this chapter as -''renewed assurances of restoration 
 from Babylon." This is less surprising in the present case, however ; 
 because the Prophet, in the close as in the opening of this first book, does 
 accommodate his language to the feelings and condition of the Jews in exile, 
 though the truths which he inculcates are still of a general and compre- 
 hensive nature. 
 
 Although Israel is God's chosen and peculiar people, he is in himself 
 unworthy of the honour and unfaithful to the trust, vs. J, 2. Former pre- 
 dictions had been uttered expressly to prevent his ascribing the event to 
 other gods, vs. 3-5. For the same reason new predictions will be uttered 
 now, of events which have never been distinctly foretold, vs. 6-8. God's 
 continued favour to his people has no reference to merit upon their part, but 
 is the fruit of his own sovereign mercy and intended to promote his own 
 designs, vs. 9— IL [!e again asserts his own exclusive deity, as proved by 
 the creation of the world, by the prediction of events still future, and espe- 
 cially by the raising up of Cyrus, as a promised instrument to execute his 
 purpose, vs. 12-16. The sufierings of Israel are the fiuit of his own sin, 
 
152 CHAPTERXLVIII. 
 
 his prosperity and glory of God's sovereign grace, vs. 17-19. The book 
 closes as it opened with a promise of deliverance from exile, accompanied, 
 in this case, by a solemn limitation of the promise to its proper objects, 
 vs. 20-22. 
 
 It is evident that these are the same elements which enter into all the 
 Later Prophecies, so far as we have yet examined them, and that these 
 elements are here combined in very much the usual proportions, although 
 not in precisely the same shape and order. The most novel feature of this 
 chapter is the fulness with which one principal design of prophecy, and the 
 connexion between Israel's sufferings and his sins, are stated. 
 
 The confidence with which the most dissimilar hypotheses may be main- 
 tained when resting upon no detenninate or valid principle, is forcibly exem- 
 plified in this case by the fact, that Vitringa and Schmidius both divide the 
 chapter into two parts relating to two different periods of history ; but the 
 former applies vs. 1—1 1 to the Jews of Isaiah's time, and vs. 12—22 to those 
 of the captivity; while the latter applies vs. 1—1 5 to the Jews of the captivity 
 and vs. 16-22 to those contemporary with our Saviour. This divergency 
 both as to the place of the dividing line, and as to the chronological relation 
 of the parts, is a sufficient proof that the hypothesis, common to both, of a 
 reference to two successive periods, is altogether arbitrary, and with equal 
 reason might be varied indefinitely by supposing that the first part treats 
 of the apostolic age and the second of the period of the reformation, or 
 the first of the middle ages and the last of the millennium, or the first of 
 the French Revolution and the last of the Day of Judgment. The only 
 safe assumption is that the chapter contains general truths with special 
 illustrations and examples. 
 
 V. 1. Hear this, not exclusively what follows or what goes before, hut 
 this whole series of arguments and exhortations. This is a formula by which 
 Isaiah frequently resumes and continues his discourse. Because the verb 
 occurs at the beginning of ch. 46 : 12, Hitzig infers that these two chapters 
 originally came together, and that the forty-seventh was afterwards introduced 
 between them ; which seems frivolous. — Oh house of Jacob, the {inen) 
 called by the name of Israel, a periphrasis for Israelites or members of the 
 ancient church. — And from the waters of Judah they have come out. By 
 an easy transition, of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah, the construction is 
 continued in the third person ; as if the Prophet, after addressing them 
 directly, had proceeded to deseiibe them to the by-standers. The people, 
 by a natural figure, are described as streams from the fountain of Judah. 
 (Compare eh. .51 : 1 and Ps. 68 : 27.) Gesenius and other German writers 
 fasten on this mention of Judah as a national progenitor, as betraying a later 
 date of composition than the days of Isaiah. But this kind of reasoning 
 
CHAPTERXLVIII. ]53 
 
 proceeds upon the shallow and erroneous supposition that the application of 
 this name to the whole people was the result of accidental causes at a com- 
 paratively recent period, whereas it forms part of a change designed from 
 the beginning, and developed by a gradual process, through the whole course 
 of their history. Even in patriarchal times the pre-eminence of Judah was 
 determined. From him the Messiah was expected to descend (Gen. 49:10). 
 To him the first rank was assigned in the exodus, the journey through the 
 desert, and the occupation of the promised land. In his line the royal 
 power was first permanently established. To him, though deserted by five- 
 sixths of the tribes, the honours and privileges of the theocracy were still 
 continued ; so that long before the Babylonish exile or the downfal of the 
 kingdom of the ten tribes, the names of Israel and Judah were convertible, 
 not as political distinctions, but as designations of the chosen people, the 
 theocracy, the ancient church. In this sense Israelite and Jew were as 
 really synonymous when Isaiah wrote, as they are now in common par- 
 lance. — Those sioearing by the name of Jehovah, i. e. swearing by him as 
 their God, and thereby not only acknowledging his deity, but solemnly 
 avouching their relation to him. (See above, on ch. 45 : 23.) — And of the 
 God of Israel make mention, not in conversation merely, but as a religious 
 act, implying public recognition of his being and authority, in which sense 
 the same Hebrew phrase with unimportant variations in its form is frequently 
 used elsewhere. (For examples of the very form which here occurs, see 
 Josh. 23 : 7. Ps. 20 : 8. 45 : 18.) — Not in truth and not in righteousness, 
 uprightness, sincerity. It is not necessary to infer from these words, that 
 the Prophet's language is addressed to a distinct class of the Jews, or to the 
 Jews of any one exclusive period, his own, or that of the captivity, or that 
 of Christ. The clause is an indirect reiteration of the doctrine so con- 
 tinually taught throughout these prophecies, and afterwards repeated in this 
 very chapter, that God's choice of Israel and preservation of him was no 
 proof of merit upon his part, nor even an act of mere compassion upon 
 God's part, but the nece sary means to an appointed end. The reference 
 therefore here is not so much to individual hypocrisy or unbelief, as to the 
 general defect of worthiness or merit in the body. Some, supposing the 
 whole emphasis to rest upon this last clause, understand what goes before 
 as descriptive of outward profession and pretension, and for that reason give 
 to the passive participle 0"^N"^p3 the reflexive sense of calling themselves ; 
 which is unnecessary and without analogy in the other terms of the descrip- 
 tion. They were really called by the name of Israel, and that not only by 
 themselves and one another, but by God. Almost equally erroneous, on 
 the other hand, is llitzig's supi)osition, that this last clause is an obiter dictum 
 not essential to the sense. Both parts are equally essential, the description 
 of the Jews as the chosen people of Jehovah, and the denial of their merit ; 
 
154 C H A P T E R X L V I I I . 
 
 for the error into which they were continually fulling was the error of sacri- 
 ficing one of these great doctrines to the other, or imagining that they were 
 incompatible. It was necessary to the Prophet's [)nrpose that the people 
 should never forget either, but believe them both. From all this may be 
 readily inferred the shallowness and blindness of the " higher criticism," 
 which talks of the accumulation of descriptive epithets in this place as a 
 rhetorical peculiarity and symptomatic of a later age ; whereas it is a distinct 
 enumeration of the theocratical prerogatives of Israel, and one essential to 
 the writer's purpose. 
 
 y. 2. For from the Holy City they arc called. The same name is 
 given to Jerusalem below (ch. 51:1), and also in the later books (Dan. 
 9 : 24. Neh. 12 : 1) and the New Testament (Matth. 4 : 5. 27 : 53). It 
 is so called as the seat of the true religion, the earthly residence of God, 
 and the centre of the church. That the reference is not to mere locality is 
 plain from the application of the name to the whole people. The "^3 at the 
 beginning of this verse has somewhat perplexed interpreters. Cocceius 
 makes it introduce the proof or reason of the words immediately preceding : 
 'not In truth and not in righteousness, because they call themselves after 
 the Holy Ciiy,' instead of calling themselves by the name of God. This 
 description would certainly be appropriate to ritualists and all who let the 
 church usurp the place of its great head. But tliis interpretation is pre- 
 cluded, as Vitringa has observed, by what immediately follows, and upon 
 the God, of Israel rely, which certaiidy would not have been adduced as a 
 proof of insincerity or even imperfection. Some connect the clauses in a 
 different manner, by giving "^3 the sense o( although : ' not in truth and not 
 in righteousness, although they are called after the Holy City.' But the 
 sense thus obtained is dearly purchased by assuming so unusual and dubious 
 a meaning of the particle. The safest because the simplest course is to 
 take it in its ordinary sense o{ for, because, and to regard it as continuing 
 the previous description, or rather as resuming it after a momentary inter- 
 ruption, for which reason /or Is used instead o[ and. The connexion may 
 be thus rendered clear by a paraphrase : ' I speak to those who bear the 
 name of Israel and worshi|) Israel's God, however insincerely and imper- 
 fectly ; for they are still the chosen people, and as such entitled to rely 
 upon Jehovah.' This last is then descriptive not of a mere professed nor of 
 a real yet presumptuous reliance, but of the prerogative of Israel considered 
 as the church or chosen people, a prerogative not forfeited by their unfaith- 
 fulness, so long as its continuance was necessary to the end for which it was 
 originally granted. The falscinterpretations of the passage have arisen from 
 applying it directly to the faith or unbelief of individuals, In which case there 
 appears to be an incongruity between the parts of the description ; but as 
 
CHAPTER XLVIII. 155 
 
 soon as we apply it to the body, this apparent incongruity is clone away, it 
 being not only consistent with Isaiah's purpose, but a necessary part of it, 
 to hold up the prerogatives of Israel as wholly independent of all merit upon 
 their part. — Jehovah of Hosts (is) his name. These words are added to 
 identify the object of reliance more completely, as the being who was called 
 the God of Israel and Jehovah of Hosts. At the same time they suggest 
 the attributes implied in both parts of the name. As if he had said, they 
 rely upon the God of Israel, whom they acknowledge as an independent and 
 eternal Being, and the Sovereign of the universe. 
 
 V. 3. The first {ox former things) since then I have declared. That is, I 
 prophesied of old the events which have already taken place. For the sense 
 of the particular expressions, see above on ch. 45 : 21. 46 : 10. There is no 
 abrupt transition here, as some interpreters assume. This verse asserts God's 
 prescience, not absolutely as in other cases, but for the purpose of explain- 
 ing why he had so carefully predicted certain future events. It can be fidly 
 understood, therefore, only in connexion with what goes before and follows. 
 — And out of my mouth they loent forth. Some regard this as a proof that 
 rirJN'i means former prophecies and not events ; but even the latter might 
 be figuratively said to have gone out of his mouth, as having been predicted 
 by him. — And I cause them to he heard, a synonymous expression. — Sud- 
 denly I do (them) and they come to pass. All this is introductory to what 
 follows respecting the design of prophecy. The sense is not simply, I fore- 
 tell things to come, but 1 foretell things to come for a particular purpose, 
 which is now to be explained. 
 
 V. 4. From my knowing. This may either mean because I knew or 
 since I knew, or the last may be included in the first, as in ch. 43 : 4. — That 
 thou art hard. This is commonly considered an ellipsis for a^-nrp (Ezek. 
 3:7) or Ci^ji-'-ni^ip^ (Deut. 9:6), hard-hearted or stiff-necked; more proba- 
 bly the latter, as the sense required by the context is not so much that of 
 insensibility as that of obstinate perverseness. The same idea is ex[)ressed 
 still more strongly by the following words, and an iron sinew (is) thy neck. 
 The substitution of bar for sineiv, which is elsewhere the invariable sense of 
 T^V , is not only gratuitous, but inexact and enfeebling. — And thy forehead 
 brass. The hardening of the face or forehead, which is sometimes used in 
 a good sense (e. g. ch. 50 : 7), here denotes shameless persistency in oppo- 
 sition to the truth. The allusion is not, as Vitringa supposes, to the colour 
 of brass, but to its hardness, with some reference, as Knobel thinks, to the 
 habits of animals which push or butt with the forehead. 
 
 V. 5. Therefore I told thee long ago. This is often the force of the 
 
156 CHAPTERXLVIII. 
 
 conjunction and after a conditional clause or sentence. Because I knew 
 thee to be such, and I told thee, i. e. therefore I told thee. — Before it comes 
 I have let thee hear (/V), lest thou saij, My idol did, them, i. e. did tlie things 
 before referred to collectively in the singular. The Hebrew word for idol, 
 from the double meaning of its root, sugfTests the two ideas of an image and 
 a torment or vexation. — My graven image and my molten image ordered 
 them, i. c. called them into being. — Gousset takes "25: in the sense of my 
 libation or drink-offering. 
 
 V. 6. Thou hast heard, (the prediction), sec all of it (accomplished). 
 And ye (idolaters or idols), ivill not ye declare, the same word used above 
 for the prediction of events, and therefore no doubt meaning here, will not ye 
 predict something ? This is Hitzig's explanation of the words ; but most 
 interpreters suppose the sense to be, will you not acknowledge (or bear 
 witness^ that these things were predicted by Jehovah ? In favour of the 
 first is its taking T'.^^ in the sense which it has in the preceding verse, and 
 also the analogy of ch. 41 : 2-2, 23, where the very same challenge is given 
 in nearly the same form ; to which may be added the sudden change to the 
 plural form and the em])hatic intioduction of the pronoun, implying a new 
 object of address, and not a mere enallage, because he immediately resumes 
 the address to the people in the singular. — / have made thee to hear new 
 things. He appeals not only to the past but to the future, and thus does 
 what he vainly challenged them to do. There is no need of inquiring what 
 particular predictions are referred to. All that seems to be intended is the 
 general distinction between past and future, between earlier and later pro- 
 phecies. — From now, henceforth, after the present time. It is a curious 
 fact that HItzig, who regards the old interpretation of csN;a (Jess than 
 nothing) in ch. 40: 17 as absurd, makes i^J^i"? in the case before us a com- 
 j)arative expression, and translates the whole phrase newer than now, which 
 he says is a circundocution for the future. — And (^things) kept (in reserve), 
 and thou hast not known them, or in our idiom, which thou hast not known. 
 Beck, by some unintelligible process, reaches the conclusion that this verse 
 contains a perfectly indisputable case o( vaticinium post evcntum. 
 
 V. 7. JSow they are created (i. e. brought into existence for the first 
 time) and not of old, or never before. The literal meaning of the next 
 words is, and before the day and thou hast not heard them, J. D. Michaelis 
 and some others seem to understand this as meaning, one day ago thou hadst 
 not heard them ; but this is a German or a Latin idiom, wholly foreign from 
 the Hebrew usage. Others, with more probability, explain it to mean, 
 before this day (or before to-day) thou hast never heard them, ti"' being put 
 by poetical license for err: with the article. Gesenius understands by day 
 
CH APT E R XL VI II. 157 
 
 the lime of the fulfihnent ; which is not so obvious nor so appropriate, because 
 the prophecy must be made known before it can be verified by the event. 
 In all tiiese constructions, the i before J^^ is supposed to be the idiomatic 
 sign of the apodosis, very frequent afler specifications of time. (See Gen. 
 2-2 : 4.) The same reason is assigned as before : Lest thou shouldest say, 
 Behold, 1 Icneiv them. In the last word the feminine suffix takes the place 
 of the masculine in the verse preceding, equivalent in import to the Greek 
 or Latin neuter. 
 
 V. 8. ISay, thou didst not hear ; nay, thou didst not linow. The idiom- 
 atic form of this sentence is not easily expressed in a translation, which, if too 
 exact, will fail to show the true connexion. Having given the perverse- 
 ness of the people as a reason why they knew so much by previous revela- 
 tion, he now assigns it as a reason why they knew so little. These, although 
 at first sight inconsistent statements, are but varied aspects of the same 
 thing. God had told them so much beforehand, lest they should ascribe 
 the event to other causes. He had told them no more, because he knew 
 that they would wickedly abuse his favour. In a certain sense and to a 
 certain extent, it was true that they had heard and known these things 
 beforehand. In another sense, and beyond that extent, it was equally true 
 that they had neither heard nor known them. This seems to be the true 
 force of the c^. It was true that they had heard, but it was also true that 
 they had not heard. The strict sense of the clause is, likewise thou hadst 
 not heard, likewise thou hadst not known ; but as this form of expression is 
 quite foreign from our idiom, nay may be substituted, not as a synonyme. 
 but an equivalent. The yea of the common version fails to indicate the 
 true connexion, by suggesting the idea of a climax rather than that of an 
 antithesis, of something more rather than of something different. — Likewise 
 of old (or beforehand) thine ear was not open, literally, did not open, the 
 Hebrew usage coinciding with the English in giving to this verb both a 
 transitive and intransitive sense. (For another clear example of the latter, 
 see below, ch. 60; 11 ) Vitringa understands the whole of this first clause 
 as meaning that they would not hear or know, but stopped their ears and 
 minds against the revelation which was offered to them. For this supposi- 
 tion he assigns a reason that is really conclusive on the other side, viz. that 
 the last clause describes them as treacherous and disloyal, which he says 
 would be unjust if they had had no revelation to abuse. But this argument 
 proceeds upon a false view as to the connexion of the clauses. It supposes 
 the first to give a reason for the last, whereas the last gives a reason for the 
 first. The sense is not, that because they would not hear or know what 
 was revealed, God denounced them as traitors and apostates ; but that 
 because they were traitors and apostates, he would not allow them to hear 
 
153 C H A PT E R XL VIII. 
 
 or know the things in question. This construction is required by the "3 
 (^because) at the beginning of the second clause ; by the words Ikneio, which, 
 on the other supposition, are unmeaning ; and by the form I'-'r", which 
 cannot, without arl)itrary violence, have any other sense here but the strict 
 one of the future, or of some tense involving the idea of futurity. — / l^noiv 
 thou ivilt (or / Icneiv thou looulJcst) act very treachcroushj. Lowth 
 supposes the emphatic repetition of the verb to express certainty rather than 
 intensity, and both may be included, i. e. both would perhaps be unavoid- 
 ably suggested by this form of expression to a Hebrew reader. Beck's 
 tiiumphant charge against the writer of the " naivest self-contradiction," 
 proceeds upon the false assumption that the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus 
 is the chief or rather the sole subject of the prophecy, an error which has 
 been already more than once exposed. — And apostate (rebel, or deserter) 
 from the ivomb ivas called to thee, i. e. this name was used in calling thee, 
 or thou wast called. Besides the idiom in the syntax, there is here another 
 instance of the use of the verb call or name to express the real character. 
 They were so called, i. e. they might have been so, they deserved to be so. 
 (See above, ch. 1 : 2G, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 18.) — Here, as in ch. 
 42:2, 24, most interpreters explain the ivomb as meaning Egypt; and 
 Jerome carries this idea so far as to paraphrase the words thus, quando de 
 j^gypfo liberatus, quasi mco ventre conceptus cs. In all the cases, it seems 
 far more natural to understand this trait of the description as belonging 
 rather to the sign than the thing signified, as representing no specific circum- 
 stance of time or place in the history of Israel, but simply the infancy or 
 birth of the ideal person substituted for him. 
 
 V. 9. For viy namc^s sake. A ben Ezra understands this to mean, for 
 the sake of my name by which ye are called ; but most interpreters explain 
 it as an equivalent but stronger expression than for my own sake, for the 
 sake of the revelation which I have already made of my own attributes. This 
 explanation agrees well with the language of v. 11 below. — I wi/l defer my 
 anger. Literally, j3?-oZon^ it ; but this would be equivocal in English. To 
 avoid the equivoque, Vitringa adopts the absurd translation, I will lengthen 
 (or prolong) my nose, which he explains by saying that a long flice is a sign 
 of clemency or mildness, and a short or contracted face of anger, — an opin- 
 ion which appears to have as little foundation in physiognomy as in etymo- 
 logy. It seems most probable that v^x anger and c^EX the nostrils are at 
 most collateral derivatives from v]?^ to breathe. The common version, / 
 will defer my anger, is approved by the latest writers, and confirmed not 
 only by our familiar use oriong and slow, in certain applications, as convert- 
 ible terms, but also by the unequivocal analogy of the Greek fiuxQoOvftog 
 and the Latin longanimis. — And {for) my praise I will restrain (it) towards 
 
CHAPTERXLVIII. I59 
 
 thee. Praise is here the parallel to name, and may be governed by "j?^^ 
 repeated from the other clause. The more obvious construction, which 
 would make it dependent on the following verb, is forbidden by the accents, 
 and yields no coherent sense. Gesenius makes S'l^hx reflexive, or at least 
 supplies the reflexive pronoun after it (I refrain myself); but it is simpler 
 to assume the same object (niy torath) in both clauses. — The last words of 
 the verse express the effect to be produced, so as not to cut thee off, or 
 destroy thee. 
 
 V. 10. Behold I have melted thee. This is the original meaning of the 
 word; but it is commonly applied to tbe smelting of metals, and may there- 
 fore be translated proved or tried thee. — And not with silver. Some read 
 ^0=3 (as silver), and others take the 2 itself as a particle of comparison, or 
 bring out substantially the same sense by rendering it with (i. e. in company 
 with) silver, or by means of the same process. This is explained by Hitzio- 
 strictly as denoting that he had not literally melted them like silver, but only 
 metaphorically in the furnace of affliction, an assurance no more needed 
 here than in any other case of figurative language. Apart from these inter- 
 pretations, whicb assume the sense like silver, the opinions of interpreters 
 have been divided chiefly between two- The first of these explains the 
 Prophet's words to mean, riot for silver (or money), but gratuitously. This 
 is certainly the meaning of CiGra in a number of places ; but it seems to be 
 entirely inappropriate when speaking of affliction, which is rather aggravated 
 than relieved by the idea of its being gratuitous, i. e. for nothin<r. The 
 other explanation, and the one now commonly adopted, takes the sense to 
 be, not with silver (i. e. pure metal) as the result of the process. This 
 agrees well with the context, which makes the want of merit on the part of 
 Israel continually prominent. It also corresponds exactly to the other 
 clause, I have chosen thee (not in wealth, or power, or honour, but) in the 
 furnace of affliction. The explanation of "'P'^ns as synonymous with "^Pisns 
 is entirely gratuitous. There is no word the sense of which is more deter- 
 minately fixed by usage. The reason given by Gesenius for making j^fove 
 or try the primary meaning of this verb, without a single instance to establish 
 it, is the extraordinary one that trial must precede choice, which assumes 
 the very question in dispute, viz. that ~n3 means to try at all, a fact which 
 cannot be sustained by Aramean analogies in the teeth of an invariable 
 Hebrew usage. But even if the method of arriving at this sense were less 
 objectionable than it is, the sense itself would still be less appropriate and 
 expressive than the common one. I have proved thee in the furnace of 
 affliction, means I have afflicted thee ; but this is saying even less than the 
 first clause, whatever sense may there be put upon ^osa. It is not very 
 likely that the Prophet simply meant to say, I have afflicted thee in vain, I 
 
160 CHAPTER XLVII I. 
 
 have ajjllcled thee. It is certainly more probable and more in keeping with 
 the context and his whole design to understand him as saying, I have found 
 no merit in thee, and have chosen thee in the extreme of degradation and 
 affliction. If the furnace of affliction was designed to have a distinct 
 historical meaning, it probably refers not to Babylon but Egypt, which is 
 repeatedly called an iron furnace. This would agree exactly with the 
 representations elsewhere made respecting the election of Israel in Egypt. 
 
 V. 1 1. For my oicn sake, for my own sake, I ivill do what is to be done. 
 This is commonly restricted to the restoration of the Jews from exile; but 
 this specific application of the promise is not made till afterwards. The 
 terms are comprehensive and contain a statement of the general doctrine, as 
 the sum of the whole argument, that what Jehovah does for his own 
 people, is in truth done not for any merit upon their part, but to protect his 
 own divine honour. — For how u-ill it be profaned ] This may either mean, 
 How greatly would it be profaned ! or, How can I suffer it to be profaned? 
 Gesenius anticipates honour from the other clause ; but most interpreters 
 make 7iamc the subject of the verb, a combination which occurs in several 
 other places. (See Lev. 18:21. 1 9 : 22. Ez. 36 : ^O.—And my glory (or 
 honour) to another iviil I not give, as he must do if his enemies eventually 
 triumph over his own people. The same words with the same sense occur 
 above in ch. 42 : 8. 
 
 V. 1 2. Hearken unto me, oh Jacob, and Israel my called ; lam He, I am 
 the First, also I the last. A renewed assurance of his ability and willing- 
 ness to execute his promises, the latter being implied in the phrase my called. 
 i. e. specially elected by me to extraordinary privileges. The threefold 
 repetition of the pronoun / is supposed by some of the older writers to contain 
 an allusion to the Trinity, of which interpretation Vitringa wisely says : 
 quam meditationem hoc loco non urgto neque refello. I am He is understood 
 by the later writers to mean I am the Being in question, or, it is I that am 
 the First and the Last. The older writers give the ^<'l^ a more emphatic 
 sense, as meaning He that really exists. — Lowth supplies my servant after 
 Jacob, on the authority of one manuscript and two old editions. On like 
 authority he changes vi^ into the simple conjunctive i, which he says is 
 more proper. — Compare with this verse ch. 41 : 4. 43 : 10. 44 : 6. 
 
 V. 13. Also my hand founded the earth, and m.y right hand spanned the 
 heavens. The force of the qx seems to be this : not only am I an Eternal 
 Being, but the Creator of the heavens. Hand and right hand is merely a 
 poetical or rhetorical variation. — The Septuagint renders i^ns:? iarsgrnae, 
 by assimilation to the parallel term founded. The Vulgate has mensa est, 
 
C H A P T E R X L VI I I. 161 
 
 which is approved by Kimchi. The Chaldee suspended, which may be 
 taken either strictly or in tlie sense of balanced, iveighed. Aben Ezra, 
 followed by most modern writers, makes it mean expanded ; which explana- 
 tion is confirmed by the Syriac analogy, and by the parallel passao-e oh. 
 51 : 13, where the founding of the earth is connected with the spreadinf of 
 the skies, and the latter expressed by the unambiguous word n'jis. Luzzatto 
 points out a like combination of the derivative nouns in 1 Kings 7 : 9. — 
 Vitringa construes '3X N'^p like an ablative absolute in Latin (me vocante), 
 and the same sense is given, with a difference of form, in the English Version 
 (i^hen I call). But in Hebrew usage, the pronoun and participle thus 
 combined are employed to express present and continuous action, 1 (am) 
 calling, i. e. I habitually call. The words are not therefore naturally 
 applicable to the original creation (7 called), as Cocceius, Gesenius, and 
 others explain them, but must either be referred, with Kimchi, to the constant 
 exertion of creative power in the conservation of the universe, or, with 
 Vitringa and most later writers, to the authority of the Creator over his 
 creatures as his instruments and servants. I call to them (summon them), 
 and they ivill stand up together (i. e. all without exception). This agrees 
 well with tlje usage of the phrase to stand before, as expressing the attend- 
 ance of the servant on his master. (See for example 1 Kings 17 : I.) The 
 same two ideas of creation and service are connected in Ps. 119:90, 91. 
 The exclusive reference of the whole verse to creation, on the other hand, 
 is favoured by the analogy of Rom. 4:17 and Col. 1 : 17. — For the differ- 
 ent expressions here used, see above, ch. 40 : 22. 42 : 5. 44 : 24. 45 : 12. 
 
 V. 14. Assemble yourselves, all of you, and hear! The object of 
 address is Israel, according to the common supposition, but more probably 
 the heathen. Who among them, i. e. the false gods or their prophets, hath 
 declared (predicted) these things, the whole series of events which had been 
 cited to demonstrate the divine foreknowledge. Jehovah loves him, i. e, 
 Israel, and to show his love, he will do his pleasure (execute his purpose) 
 in Babylon, and his (Jehovah's) arm (shall be upon) the Chaldees. This 
 explanation, which is given by J. H, Michaelis, seems to answer all the 
 conditions of the text and context. Most interpreters, however, make the 
 clause refer to Cyrus, and translate it thus : ' he whom Jehovah loves shall do 
 his pleasure in Babylon, and his arm (i. e. exercise his power or execute 
 his vengeance) on the Chaldees.' Another construction of the last words 
 makes them mean that ' he (Cyrus) shall be his arm (i. e. the arm of Jehovah) 
 against the Chaldees.' But for this use of arm there is no satisfactory analogy. 
 Kocher supposes it to mean that ' the Chaldees (shall be) his arm,' in allu- 
 sion to the aid which Cyrus received from Gobryas and Gadates, as related 
 in the fourth book of the Cyropaedia. Vitringa is inclined to assume an 
 
 11 
 
16-2 C H A P T E R X L V I I I. 
 
 aposiopesis and to read, 'his arm (shall conquer or destroy) the Chaldees.' 
 Aben Ezra refers both the suffixes to Cyrus, who is then said to do his own 
 pleasure upon Babylon. — Others refer both to God (his pleasure and his 
 arm) ; but most interpreters take a middle course, referring one to each. 
 
 V. 15. /, /, have spoken (i. e. predicted) ; / have also called him 
 (effectually by my providence) ; I have brought him (into existence, or into 
 public view) ; and he prospered his ivay. The reference of the last verb to 
 Jehovah as its subject involves a harsh enallage personae, which Vitringa 
 and others avoid by making the verb neuter or intransitive, Ais z^oj/ prospers. 
 But rp.'^ is feminine, not only in general usage, but in combination with this 
 very verb (Judges 18 : 5). The safe rule is, moreover, to give Hiphil an 
 active sense wherever it is possible. The true solution is to make Cyrus or 
 Israel the subject, and to understand the phrase as meaning, he makes his 
 own way prosperous, i. e. he prospers in it. (Compare Ps. 1 : 3, and 
 Hengstenberg's Commentary, Vol. I. p. 17.) 
 
 V. 16. Draw near unto me! As Jehovah is confessedly the speaker 
 in the foregoing and the following context, and as similar language is ex- 
 pressly ascribed to him in ch. 45: 19, Calvin and Gesenius regard it as 
 most natural to make these his words likewise, assuming a transition in the 
 last clause from Jehovah to the Prophet, who there describes himself as sent 
 by Jehovah. Instead of this distinction between the clauses, Jarchi and 
 Rosenmiiller suppose the person of the Prophet and of God to be confused 
 in both. Hitzig and Knobel follow some of the other Jewish writers in 
 making the whole verse the words of Isaiah. Vitringa and Henderson agree 
 with Athanasius, Augustin, and other Fathers, who reconcile the clauses by 
 making Christ the speaker. Those who believe that he is elsewhere intro- 
 duced in this same book, can have no difficulty in admitting a hypothesis, 
 which reconciles the divine and human attributes referred to in the sentence, 
 as belonging to one person. — Hear this ; not from the beginning in secret 
 have I spoken. See above, on ch. 45: 19. — From the time of its being. 
 OEcolampadius refers this to the eternal counsel of Jehovah ; but Vitringa 
 well observes that usage has appropriated n^n to express the execution not 
 the formation of the divine purpose. Brentius supposes an allusion to the 
 exodus from Egypt and a comparison between it and the deliverance from 
 Babylon ; but this is wholly fanciful and arbitrary. The rabbins, with as 
 little reason, make it mean, since the beginning of my ministry, since I 
 assumed the prophetic office. But most interpreters refer the suffix (t/) to 
 the raising up of Cyrus and the whole series of events connected with it, 
 which formed the subject of the prophecies in question. (See above, ch. 
 46 : 11 .) — Since these events began to take place, 1 tvas there. Lovvth 
 
C H A P T E R X L V I I 1 . 163 
 
 proposes to read cb and to translate tlie phrase, Iliad decreed it. But the 
 obvious analogy of Prov. 8 : 27 is of itself sufficient to establish the masoretic 
 reading. Those who regard these as the words of Isaiah, understand them 
 to mean that he had predicted them, or as Knobel exjoresses it, that he was 
 present as a public speaker. Those who refer the words to the Son of God 
 specifically, make the verse substantially identical in meaning with the one 
 in Proverbs just referred to, which the church in every age has been very 
 much of one mind in applying to the second person of the Godhead as the 
 hypostatical wisdom of the Father. Those who take the words more 
 generally as the language of Jehovah, understand him to declare that these 
 events had not occurred without his knowledge or his agency : that he was 
 present, cognizant, and active, in the whole affair. — Thus far this last 
 hypothesis must be allowed to be the simplest and most natural. The 
 difficulties which attend it arise wholly from what follows. — And now. 
 This seems to be in evident antithesis to (lixiig or to •^rjji'^'t) r>?2 , the latter 
 being the most obvious because it is the nearest antecedent. — The Lord 
 Jehovah hath sent tne. Those w ho regard Isaiah as the speaker in the whole 
 verse understand this clause to mean, that as he had spoken before by divine 
 authority and inspiration, he did so still. Those who refer the first clause 
 simply to Jehovah, without reference to personal distinctions, are under the 
 necessity of here assuming a transition to the language of the Prophet 
 himself. The third hypothesis, which makes the Son of God the speaker, 
 understands both clauses in their strict sense as denoting his eternity on one 
 hand and his mission on the other. The sending of the Son by the Father 
 is a standing form of speech in Sciipture. (See Ex. 23 : 20. Is. 61 : 1. 
 Mai. 3:1. John 3 : 34. 17:3. Heb. 3 : \.)—And his Spirit. It has long 
 been a subject of dispute whether these words belong to the subject or the 
 object of the verb hath sent. The English Version removes all ambiguity 
 by changing the collocation of the words (//te Lord God and his Spirit hath 
 sent me). The same sense is given in the Vulgate (et spiritus ejus) ; while 
 the coincidence of the nominative and accusative (ro nvtviia) makes the 
 Septuagint no less ambiguous than the original. With the Latin and 
 English agree Calvin, Rosenmiiller, Uiiibreit, and Ilendeweik, Vitiinga, 
 Henderson, and Knobel adopt Origen's inlerpretalion (uia/oTirQa dntaTtilsv o 
 naTr-jQ, lov acor/jQa y.ai lo ayiov nrtvfin). Gesenius and the other modern 
 Germans change the form of expression by insprting the preposition with, 
 which however is intended to represent the Spirit not as the sender but as 
 one of the things sent. — The exegetical question is not one of much im- 
 poitance ; because both the senses yielded are consistent with the usage of 
 the Scriptures, and the ambiguity may be intended to let both suggest 
 themselves. As a grammatical question, it is hard to be decided from 
 analogy ; because, on either supposition, inn-n cannot be considered as holdin* 
 
164 C H A P T E R X L V I I I . 
 
 its regular position in the sentence, but must be regarded as an afterthought. 
 The main proposition is, the Lord God hath sent me. The supplementary 
 expression and his Spirit may be introduced, without absurdity or any 
 violation of the rules of syntax, either before the verb or after it. Mere 
 usage therefore leaves the question undecided. — As little can it be deter- 
 mined by the context or the parallelisms. The argument, which some urge, 
 that the Spirit is never said to send the Son, takes for granted that the latter 
 is the speaker, an assumption which precludes any inference from the lan- 
 guage of this clause in proof of that position. Those, on llie other hand, 
 who consider these the words of Isaiah, argue in favour of the other con- 
 struction, that the Spirit is said to send the prophets. — On the whole this may 
 be fairly represented as one of the most doubtful questions of construction in 
 the book, and the safest course is either to admit that both ideas were meant 
 to be suggested, although probably in different degrees, or else to fall back 
 upon the general rule, though liable to numberless exceptions, that the 
 preference is due to the nearest antecedent or to that construction which 
 adheres most closely to the actual collocation of the words. The applica- 
 tion of this principle in this case would decide the doubt in favour of the 
 prevailing modern doctrine, that Jehovah had sent the person speaking and 
 endued him with liis Spirit, as a necessary preparation for the work to which 
 he was appointed. Beck's ridiculous assertion, that the writer is here guilty 
 of the folly of appealing to his present prediction of events already past as a 
 proof of his divine legation, only shows the falsehood of the current notion 
 that the object of address is the Jewisli people at the period of the exile, 
 and its subject the victories of Cyrus. 
 
 V. 17. Thus saiih Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel 
 (see the same prefatory formulas above, ch. 41 : 14. 43 : 14), lam Jehovah 
 thy God (or I Jehovah am thy God), teaching thee to profit (or I, Jehovah, 
 thy God, am teaching thee to profit). Henderson's version, I teach, does 
 not convey the precise force of the original, which is expressive of continued 
 and habitual instruction, and the same remark applies to the participle in the 
 other clause. To profit, i. e. to be profitable to thyself, to provide for thy 
 own safety and prosperity, or as Cocceius phrases it, tibi consulcre. There 
 seems to be a reference, as Vitringa suggests, to the unprofitableness so often 
 charged upon false gods and their worship. (See ch. 44 : 10. 45 : 19. Jer. 
 2: 11.) — Leading thee (literally, making thee to tread) in the way thou 
 shah go. The ellipsis of the relative is just the same as in familiar English. 
 The future includes the ideas of obligation and necessity, without expressing 
 them directly; the precise sense of the words is, the way thou wilt go if 
 thou desirest to profit. Augusti and Ewald make it present (goest) ; but this 
 is at the same time less exact and less expressive. — J. H. Michaelis under- 
 
CHAPTER XLVIIl. 165 
 
 stands these as the words of Christ, the teaching mentioned as the teaching 
 of the gospel, the way the way of salvation etc. To all this the words are 
 legitimately applicable, but it does not follow that they were specifically 
 meant to convey this idea to the reader. 
 
 V. 18. J. D. Michaelis suggests the possibility of reading xib, a form 
 in which the negative x"? occurs, according to the Masora, thirty-five times 
 in the Old Testament. The first clause would then contain a direct nega- 
 tion, thou hast not attended. In his version, however, he adheres to the 
 masoretic pointing, and translates the word as a conditional particle (wenn 
 du doch), which is also recognised by Winer as the primary meaning of the 
 word, although Gesenius and Ewald reverse the order of deduction, making 
 if a. secondary sense of the optative particle oh that ! The former supposi- 
 tion may be illustrated by our own colloquial expression, if it ivere only so 
 and so, implying a desire that it were so. The verb which follows is com- 
 monly taken in the wide sense of attending, that of listening being looked 
 upon as a specific application of it. Vitringa here translates it, animum 
 advertisses ; J. H. Michaelis, with more regard to usage, aures ct animum. 
 It may be questioned, however, whether there is any clear case of its being 
 used without explicit reference to hearing. If not, this must be regarded as 
 the proper meaning, and the wider sense considered as implied but not 
 expressed. RosenmiiUer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel, understand this 
 verb as referring to the future : Oh that thou ivouldst hearken to my com- 
 mandments ! But the only instance which they cite of this use of the praeter 
 (Is. 63: 19), even if it did not admit (as it evidently does) of the other 
 explanation, could not be set off against the settled usage of the language, 
 which refers *i^ with the praeter to past time. (See Ewald's Grammar 
 4>605, and Nordheimer >§. 1078.) Accordingly Maurer, De Wette, Ewald, 
 Umbreit, and Gesenius (though less explicitly), agree with the older writers 
 in explaining it to mean, Oh that thou hadst hearkened to my command- 
 ments ! The objection, that this does not suit the context, is entirely 
 unfounded. Nothing could well be more appropriate at the close of this 
 division of the pr6phecies, than this affecting statement of the truth, so 
 frequently propounded in didactic form already, that Israel, although the 
 chosen people of Jehovah, and as such secure from total ruin, was and was to 
 be a sufferer, not from any want of faithfulness or care on God's part, but 
 as the necessary fruit of his own imperfections and corruptions. — The Vav 
 conversive introduces the apodosis, and is equivalent to then, as used in 
 English for a similar purpose. Those who refer the first clause to the pre- 
 sent or the future, give the second the form of the imperfect subjunctive, 
 then would thy peace he like a river ; the others more correctly that of the 
 pluperfect, then had thy jfcace been (or then icould thy peace have been) as 
 
166 CHAPTERXLVIII. 
 
 a river. The strict sense of the Hebrew is (he river, which Vitringa and 
 others understand to mean the Euphrates in particular, with whose inunda- 
 tions, as well as with its ordinary flow, the Prophet's original readers were 
 familiar. It seems to be more natural, liowever, to regard the article as 
 pointing out a definite class of objects rather than an individual, and none 
 the less because the parallel expression is the sea, v\ hich some, with wanton 
 violence, apply to the Euphrates also. — Peace is here used in its wide sense 
 of prosperity ; or rather peace, in the restricted sense, is used to represent all 
 kindred and attendant blessings. The parallel term righteousness adds 
 moral good to natural, and supplies the indispensable condition without 
 which the other cannot be enjoyed. After the various affectations of the 
 modern German writers in distorting this and similar expressions, it is refresh- 
 ing to find Ewald, and even Hendewerk, returning to the old and simple 
 version. Peace and Righteousness. The ideas suggested by the figure of a 
 river, are abundance, perpetuity, and freshness, to which the waves of the 
 sea add those of vastness, depth, and continual succession. 
 
 V. 19. The7i should have been like the sand thy sted, a common scrip- 
 tural expression for great multitude, with special reference, in this case, to 
 the promise made to Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 22: 17. 32: 12), the partial 
 accomplishment of which (2 Sam. 17:11) is not inconsistent with the 
 thought here expressed, that, in the case supposed, it would have been far 
 more ample and conspicuous. Here, as in ch. 44 : 3, Knobel understands by 
 seed or offspring the individual members of the nation as distinguished from 
 the aggregate body. But the image is rather that of a parent (here the 
 patriarch Jacob) and his personal descendants. — And ihe issues (or off- 
 spring^ of thy hoivcls (an equivalent expression to thy seed). — Of the next 
 word ris't; there are two interpretations. The Targum, the Vulgate, and the 
 rabbins, give it the sense of stones, pebbles, gravel, and make it a poetica] 
 equivalent to sand. J. D. JMichaells and most of the later Germans make it 
 an equivalent to c"sr witli a feminine termination, because figuratively used. 
 The antithesis is then between thy boivels and its bowels, viz. those of the 
 sea ; and the whole clause, supplying the ellipsis, will read thus, the offspring 
 of thy bowels like {the offspring of) its bowels, in allusion to the vast 
 increase of fishes, which J. D. Michaelis illustrates by saying that the whale 
 leaves enough of its natural food, the herring, to supply all Europe with it 
 daily. Ewald has returned to the old inl(M-pretation, which he defends fiom 
 the charge of being purely conjectural, by tracing both t:-^;ia and rii'-a to the 
 radical idea of softness, the one being ap|)lied to the soft inward parts of the 
 body, the other to the soft fine ])articles of sand or gravel. We may then 
 refer the suffix, not to the remoter antecedent c*; , but to the nearer bin. — 
 His name. We must either suppose an abrupt transition from the second 
 
C H AP T E R XL V I I I. 167 
 
 to the third person, or make seed the antecedent of the pronoun, wiiich is 
 harsh in itself, and rendered more so by the intervening plural forms, 
 Lowth as usual restores uniformity by reading thy name on the authority of 
 the Septuagint version. Vitringa supposes a particular allusion to genealo- 
 gical tables and the custom of erasing names from them under certain 
 circumstances. But all the requisitions of the text are answered by the 
 common understanding of name, in such connexions, as equivalent to 
 memory. The excision or destruction of the name from before God is 
 expressive of entire extermination. — The precise sense of the futures in this 
 clause is somewhat dubious. Most interpreters assimilate them to the futures 
 of the forecroins clause, as in the English Version (should not have been cat 
 off nor destroyed^. Those who understand the first clause as expressing a 
 wish in relation to the present or the future, make this last a promise, either 
 absohite (Jiis name shall not be cut off') or conditional (Ais 7iame should not 
 be cut off'). Nor is this direct construction of the last clause inconsistent 
 with the old interpretation of the fiist ; as we may suppose that the writer, 
 after wishing that the people had escaped the strokes provoked by their ini- 
 quities, declares that even now they shall not be entirely destroyed. This is 
 precisely the sense given to the clause in the Septuagint (^ol^e rvv anolthai), 
 and is recommended by two considerations : first, the absence of the Vav 
 conversive, which in the other clause may indicate an indirect construction ; 
 and secondly, its perfect agreement with the whole drift of the passage, and 
 the analogy of others like it, where the explanation of the sufierings of the 
 people as the fruit of their own sin is combined with a promise of exemption 
 from complete destruction, 
 
 V. "20. Go forth from Babel! This is a prediction of the deliverance 
 from Babylon, clothed in the form of an exhortation to escape from it. We 
 have no right to assume a capricious change of subject, or a want of all 
 coherence with what goes before. The connexion may be thus stated. 
 After the general reproof and promise of the nineteenth verse, he recurs to 
 the great example of deliverance so often introduced before. As if he had 
 said, Israel, notwithstanding his unworthiness, shall be preserved ; even in 
 extremity his God will not forsake him ; even from Babylon he shall be 
 delivered ; — and then turning in prophetic vision to the future exiles, he 
 invites them to come forth. — Flee from the Chasdim (or Chaldees) ! Vi- 
 tringa, Gesenius, and most other writers, supply "'ix before c^'^s, or regard 
 the latter as itself the name of the country. (See above, on ch. 47: 1.) 
 But Maurer well says that he sees no reason why we may not here retain 
 the proper meaning of the plural, and translate, ^^ee ye from the Chaldeans, 
 which is precisely the common English version of the clause. — JVith a voice 
 of joy. The last word properly denotes a joyful shout, and not articulate 
 
16S CHAPTER XLVIII. 
 
 song. The whole phrase means, with the sound or noise of such a shout. 
 It lias been made a question whether these words are to be connected with 
 what goes before or will) what follows. Gesenius and Hendewerk prefer 
 the former, most interpreters the latter ; but Vitringa thinks the masoretic 
 accents were intended to connect it equally with both parts of the context, 
 as in ch. 40 : 3. — Tell this, cause it to be heard. The Hebrew collocation 
 (tell, cause to be heard, this) cannot be retained in English. Utter it (cause 
 it to go forth) even to the end of the earth. Compare ch. 42: 10. 43: 6. 
 Say ye, Jehovah hath redeemed his servant Jacob. The present form 
 adopted by J. D. Michaelis and Augusti is not only unnecessary but inju- 
 rious to the effect. These are words to be uttered after the event ; and the 
 preterite must therefore be strictly understood, as it is by most interpreters. 
 The deliverance from Babylon is here referred to, only as one great exam- 
 ple of the general truth that God saves his people. 
 
 V. 21. And they thirsted not in the deserts (through which) he made 
 them go. The translation of the verbs as futures, by J. H. Michaelis and 
 Hitzig, is entirely ungrammatical and inconsistent with the obvious inten- 
 tion of the writer to present these as the words of an annunciation after the 
 event. The present form, adopted by J. D. Michaelis and the later Ger- 
 mans, although less erroneous, is a needless and enfeebling evasion of the 
 true sense, whi'jli is purely descriptive. — Water from a well he made to flow 
 for them ; and he clave the rock, and ivaters gushed out. There is evident 
 reference here to the miraculous supply of water in the journey through the 
 wilderness. (Ex. 17 : 6. Num. 20: 11. Ps. 78 : 15.) It might even seem as 
 if the writer meant to state these facts historically. Such at least would be 
 the simpler exposition of his words, which would then contain a reference 
 to the exodus from Egypt, as the great historical example of deliverance. 
 As if he had said, Relate how God of old redeemed his servant Jacob out 
 of Egypt, and led him through the wilderness, and slaked his thirst with 
 water from the solid rock. Most interpreters, however, are agreed in apply- 
 ing the words to the deliverance from Babylon. Kimchi understands the 
 language strictly, and expresses his surprise that no account of this great 
 miracle was left on record by Ezra or any other inspired historian. Gese- 
 nius sneers at the rabbin's naivete, but thinks it matched by the simplicity 
 of some Christian writers who know not what to make of ideal anticipations 
 which were never realized. Perhaps, however, the absurdity is not altogether 
 on the side where he imagines it to lie. Kimchi was right in assuming, that 
 if the flight and the march through the wilderness were literal (a supposition 
 common to Gesenius and himself), then the accompanying circumstances 
 must receive a literal interpretation likewise, unless there be something 
 in the text itself to indicate the contrary. Unless we are prepared to assume 
 
CHAPTERXLIX. 169 
 
 an Irrational confusion of language, setting all interpretation at defiance, our 
 only alternative is to conclude, on the one hand, that Isaiah meant to foretell 
 a miraculous supply of water during the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, 
 or that the whole description is a figurative one, meaning simply that the 
 wonders of the exodus should be renewed. Against the former is the silence 
 of history, alleged by Kimchi ; against the latter nothing but the foregone 
 conclusion that this and other like passages must relate exclusively to Baby- 
 lon and the return from exile. 
 
 V. 22. There is no peace, saith Jehovah, to the wicked. The meaning 
 of this sentence, in itself considered, is too clear to be disputed. There is 
 more doubt as to its connexion with what jroes before. That it is a mere 
 aphorism, added to this long discourse, like a moral to an ancient fable, can 
 only satisfy the minds of those who look upon the whole book as a series of 
 detached and incoherent sentences. Vastly more rational is the opinion, 
 now the current one among interpreters, that this verse was intended to 
 restrict the operation of the foregoing promises to true believers, or the ge- 
 nuine Israel ; as if he had said, All this will God accomplish for his people, 
 but not for the wicked among them. The grand conclusion to which all 
 tends is, that God is all and man nothing ; that even the chosen people 
 must be sufferers, because they are sinners ; that peculiar favour confers no 
 immunity to sin or exemption from responsibility, but that even in the Israel 
 of God and the enjoyment of the most extraordinary privileges, it still 
 remains for ever true that "there is no peace to the wicked." 
 
 CHAPTER XLIX. 
 
 This chapter, like the whole division which it introduces, has for its 
 great theme the relation of the clnu-ch to the world, or of Israel to the gen- 
 tiles. The relation of the former to Jehovah is of course still kept in view, 
 but with less exclusive prominence than in the First Part (ch. xl-xlviii). 
 The doctrine there established and illustrated, as to the mutual relation of 
 the body and the head, is here assumed as the basis of more explicit teach- 
 ings with respect to their joint relation to the world and the great design of 
 their vocation. There is not so much a change of topics as a change in 
 their relative position and proportions. 
 
 The chapter opens with an exhibition of the Messiah and his people, 
 under one ideal person, as the great appointed Teacher, Apostle, and 
 
no C H AP T E R X L I X. 
 
 Restorer, of the apostate nations, vs. 1-9. This is followed by a promise 
 of divine |)rotection and of glorious enlargement, attended by a joyous revo- 
 lution in the state of the whole world, vs. 10—13. The doubts and appre- 
 hensions of the church herself are twice recited under different forms, 
 vs. 14 and 24, and as often met and silenced, first by repeated and still 
 stronger promises of God's unchanging love to his people and of their 
 glorious enlargement and success, vs. 15-23 ; then by an awful threatening 
 of destruction to their enemies and his, vs. 25, 26. 
 
 V. 1. Hearken ye islands unto me, and attend ye nations from afar. 
 Here, as in ch. 41 : 1, he turns to the gentiles and addresses tlieni directly. 
 There is the same diversity in this case as to the explanation of a"''^N , Some 
 give it the vague sense of nations, others that of distant nations, while J. D. 
 Michaelis again goes to the opposite extreme by making it mean Europe and 
 Asia Minor. Intermediate between these is the meaning coasts, approved 
 by Ewald and others. But there seems to be no sufficient reason for 
 departing from the sense o( islands, which may be considered as a poetical 
 representative of foreign and especially of distant nations, although not as 
 directly expressing that idea. — From afar is not merely at a distance 
 (although this explanation might, in case of necessity, be justified by usage), 
 but suggests the idea of attention being drawn to a central point /row other 
 points around it. — Jehovah from the womb hath called me, from the boivels 
 of my mother he hath mentioned my name (or literally, caused it to be 
 remembered). This does not necessarily denote the literal prediction of an 
 individual by name before his birth, although, as Hengstenberg suggests, 
 there may be an intentional allusion to that circumstance, involved in the 
 wider meaning of the words, viz. that of personal election and designation to 
 office. Vitringa's explanation of 'r??^ as meaning before birth, is not only 
 unauthorized, but as gratuitous as Noyes's euphemistic paraphrase, in my 
 very childhood. The expression from the tvotnb may be either inclusive of 
 the period before birth, or restricted to the actual vocation of the s|ieaker to 
 his providential work. — The speaker in this and the following verses is not 
 Isaiah, either as an individual, or as a representative of the prophets gene- 
 rally, on either of which suppositions the terms used are inappropriate 
 and extravagant. Neither the prophets as a class, nor Isaiah as a single 
 prophet, had been intrusted with a message to the gentiles. In favour of 
 supposing that the speaker is Israel, the chosen people, there are various 
 considerations, but especially the aid which this hypothesis affords in the in- 
 terpretation of the third verse. At the same time there are clear indications 
 that the words are the words of the Messiah. These two most plausible 
 interpretations may be reconciled and blended, by assuming that in this case 
 as in ch. 42 : 1, the ideal speaker is the Messiah considered as the head of 
 
CH AP T E R XLIX. 171 
 
 his people and as forming with them one complex person, according to the 
 canon of Tichonius already quoted, de Christo et Corpora ejus Ecdesia tan- 
 quam de una persona in Scriptura saeyius mentionem fieri, cui guaedam iri- 
 buuntur quae tantum in Caput, qvaedam quae tantum in Corpus competunt, 
 quaedam vera in utrumque. The objections to this assumption here are for 
 the most part negative and superficial. That of Hengstenberg, that if this 
 were the true interpretation here, it would admit of being carried out else- 
 where, is really a strong proof of its truth ; as we have seen conclusive 
 reasons, independently of this case, to explain the parallel passage in ch. 
 42 : 1 on precisely the same principle. The whole question as to the sub- 
 jects and connexions of these Later Prophecies has made a very sensible 
 advance towards satisfactory solution since the date of the Christology, as 
 may be learned by comparing the general analysis and special expositions 
 of the latter with the corresponding passages of Havernick and Drechsler. 
 If, as we have seen cause to believe, the grand theme of this whole book is 
 the Church, in its relation to its Head and to the World, the anterior pre- 
 sumption is no longer against but decidedly in favour of the reference of this 
 verse to the Head and the Body as one person, a reference confirmed, as we 
 shall see, by clear New Testament authority. 
 
 V. 2. And he hath placed (i. e. rendered or made) my mouth like a 
 sharp sword. By mouth we are of course to understand speech, discourse. 
 The comparison is repeated and explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (4 : 12) : "The word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any 
 two-ed^ed sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and 
 of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the 
 heart." In both cases these qualities are predicated not of literal speech 
 merely, but of the instruction of which it is the natural and common instru- 
 ment. As tropical parallels, Lowth refers to Pindar's frequent description 
 of his verses as darts, but especially to the famous panegyric of Eupolis on 
 Pericles, that he alone of the orators left a sting in those who heard him 
 (twvo^ Tco^■ Q)j7(')Q0M> TO 'AH'TQOv fyxuTtXtins roi>; «x()oco/<Ho^'). — In the shadow 
 of his hand he hid me. It has been made a question whether in the shadow 
 of his hand means in his hand or under it ; and if the latter, whether there 
 is reference to the usual position of the sword-belt, or to the concealment of 
 the drawn sword or dagger under the arm or in the sleeve. Most inter- 
 preters, however, prefer the obvious sense, in the protection of his hand, or 
 rather in its darkness, since the reference is not so much to safety as to con- 
 cealment. Thus understood, the figure is appropriate not only to the per- 
 sonal Messiah, but to the ancient church, as his precursor and represen- 
 tative, in which high character it was not known for ages to the nations. — 
 And he placed me for (that is, rendered me, or, used me as) a polished 
 
172 C H A P T E R X L I X. 
 
 arroiv. This is the parallel expression to the first member of the other 
 clause. What is there called a sword is here an arrow. The essential idea 
 is of course the same, viz. that of penetrating power, but perhaps with an 
 additional allusion to the directness of its aim and the swiftness of its flight. 
 The common version shaft is not entirely accurate, the Hebrew word denot- 
 ing strictly the metallic head of the arrow. The Septuagint gives "^i3 the 
 sense of chosen or elect, which is retained by Vitringa ; but most inter- 
 preters prefer the sense of polished, which is near akin to that of sharpened, 
 sharp. — hi his quiver he has hid me. This is the corresponding image to 
 the hiding in the shadow of God's hand. It is still more obvious in this 
 case that the main idea meant to be conveyed is not protection but conceal- 
 ment. The archer keeps the arrow in his quiver not merely that it may be 
 safe, but that it may be ready for use and unobserved until it is used. 
 
 V. 3. And he (Jehovah) said to me, Thou art my servant, i. e. my 
 instrument or agent constituted such for a specific and important purpose. 
 In this same character both Israel and the Messiah have before been intro- 
 duced. There is therefore the less reason for giving any other than the 
 strict sense to the words which follow, Israel in whom I ivill he glorified or 
 glorify myself. The version / will glory seems inadequate and not suffi- 
 ciently sustained by usage. Gesenius, unable to reconcile this form of 
 address with the hypothesis that the speaker is Isaiah or the Prophets as a 
 class, pro])oses in his commentary what had been before proposed by J. D. 
 Michaelis, to expunge the word ^n';"^'? as spurious, — a desperate device which 
 he abandons in the second edition of his version, and adopts the opinion of 
 Umbreit, that the Israel of this passage is the chosen people as a whole or 
 with respect to its better portion. The other devices, which have been 
 adopted for the purpose of evading this difficulty, although not so violent, 
 are equally unfounded. E. g. ' It is Israel in whom I will be glorified by 
 thee.' ' Thou art an Israelite indeed, or a genuine descendant of Israel.' 
 Another gratuitous hypothesis is that of a sudden apostrophe to Israel after 
 addressing the Messiah or the Prophet. The only supposition which adheres 
 to the natural and obvious meaning of the sentence, and yet agrees with the 
 context, is the first above mentioned, viz. that of a complex subject includ- 
 ing the Messiah and his people, or the body with its head. 
 
 V. 4. And, I said, in opposition or reply to what Jehovah said. The 
 pronoun in Hebrew, being not essential to the sense, is emphatic. — In vain 
 (or for a vain thing, i. e. an unattainable object) have I toiled. The Hebrew 
 word suggests the idea of exhaustion and weariness. — For emptiness and 
 vanity my strength have I consumed. But my right is with Jehovah and 
 my worTc with my God. n^ssj is no doubt here used in the same sense as in 
 
C H A P T E R XL IX. 173 
 
 ch. 40 : 10, viz. that of recompense, work being put for its result or its 
 equivalent. If so, it is altogether probable that '^'JQi^'? here means that to 
 which I have a right or am entitled, that is to say in this connexion, my 
 reward or recompense. This explanation of the term is certainly more 
 natural than that which makes it mean my cause, my suit, as this needlessly 
 introduces a new figure, viz. that of litigation over and above that of labour 
 or service for hire. This clause is universally explained as an expression of 
 strong confidence that God would make good what was wanting, by bestow- 
 ing the reward which had not yet been realized. JVifh therefore means in 
 his possession, and at his disposal. The next verse shows that the failure 
 here complained of is a failure to accomplish the great work before described, 
 viz. that of converting the world. 
 
 V. 5. And now, saith Jehovah, my maker (or who formed me) from, the 
 womb, for a servant to himself, i. e. to be his servant in the sense before 
 explained. The noiv may be here taken either in its temporal or logical 
 sense. — To convert (or bring back) Jacob to him. This cannot mean to 
 restore from exile ; for how could this work be ascribed directly either to 
 the Prophet or the Prophets, or to the Messiah, or to Israel himself? It 
 might indeed apply to Cyrus, but the whole context is at war with such an 
 explanation. All that is left, then, is to give the verb the sense of bringing 
 back to a state of allegiance from one of alienation and revolt. But how 
 could Jacob or Israel be said to bring himself back ? This is the grand 
 objection to the assumption that the servant of Jehovah was Israel himself. 
 In order to evade it, Rosenmiiller and Hitzig deny that ^^i^^ is dependent 
 on the words immediately preceding, and refer it to Jehovah himself, that 
 he might bring back Jacob to himself But this construction, not an obvious 
 or natural one in itself, if here assumed, must be repeated again and again 
 in the following verses, where it is still more strained and inappropriate. 
 Nor is it necessary even hei'e, to justify the reference of the passage to 
 Israel, which may be effected by assuming a coincident reference to the 
 Messiah, as the head of the body, and as such conspicuously active in restor- 
 ing Israel itself to God. — This is one of the cases where the idea of the 
 head predominates above that of the body, because they are related to each 
 other as the subject and object of one and the same action. The vocation 
 of Israel was to reclaim the nations ; that of the Messiah was first to reclaim 
 Israel himself and then the nations. — In the next clause there is an ancient 
 variation of the text, preserved in the Kethib and Keri of the Masora. The 
 marginal emendation is ib to him, which many modern interpreters prefer, 
 and make it for the most part a dependent clause, to restore Jacob to him 
 and that Israel may be gathered to him. In the sentence construed thus it 
 might seem strange that different prepositions should be used in the two 
 
174 C H A P T E R X L I X. 
 
 parallel members, and that ib should stand before the verb instead of 
 closing the phrase as i^^x does. But these might be considered trivial 
 points, were it not that the marginal reading is so easily accounted for, as 
 an attempt to remove the difficulties of the older text, in which the si^ has 
 its natural and necessary place before the verb. Luther, adhering to the 
 textual reading, gives the verb an unfavourable sense, thai Israel may not be 
 snatched away or carried off. But most of those who retain the old reading 
 give the verb the favourable sense of gathering that which is dispersed. 
 Some then read the clause as an interrogation, shall not Israel be gathered ? 
 Others as a concession, although Israel be not gathered. Others as a 
 simple affirmation in the present tense, and (yet) Israel is not gathered. 
 All that is needed to give this last the preference is the substitution of the 
 future for the present, after which the whole verse may be paraphrased as 
 follows : Thus saith Jehovah, who formed me from the womb as a servant 
 for himself, to restore Jacob to him, and (yet) Israel will not be gathered — 
 and (yet) I shall be honoured in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God has 
 (already) been my strength. The first yet introduced to show the true con- 
 nexion is equivalent to saying, though I was called and raised up for this 
 purpose ; the other is equivalent to saying, although Israel will not be 
 gathered. This last phrase may be taken as a simple prediction that they 
 should not be gathered, or a declaration that they would not (consent to) be 
 gathered. This last, if not expressed, is implied. — The translation of "^Tr as 
 meaning my praise is entirely gratuitous and hurtful to the sense, which is, 
 that God had sustained him notwithstanding the apparent failure of his mis- 
 sion. The general meaning of the verse is that Messiah and his people 
 should be honoured in the sight of God, although the proximate design of 
 their mission, the salvation of the literal Israel, might seem to fail. 
 
 V. 6. And he said. This does not introduce a new discourse or 
 declaration, but resumes the construction which had been interrupted by the 
 parenthetic clauses of the foregoing verse. It is in facta repetition of the 
 '^j'"'? "^^ at the beginning of that verse. And now saith Jehovah (loho 
 formed me from the womb to be a servant to himself to restore Jacob to 
 him, and yet Israel will not be gathered, and yet I shall be honoured in the 
 eyes of Jehovah, and my God has been my stre7igth^ — he said or says as 
 follows. It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant. The 
 original form of expression is so purely idiomatic, that it cannot be retained 
 in English. According to the usual analogy, the Hebrew words would seem 
 to mean it is lighter than thy being my servant ; but this can be resolved 
 into it is too light for thee to be my servant, with at least as much ease as a 
 hundred other formulas, the sense of which is obvious, however difficult it 
 may be to account for the expression. Hitzig's assertion, therefore, that it 
 
CHAPTERXLIX. 175 
 
 is at variance with the laws of thought and language, though adopted by 
 Gesenius in his Thesaurus, is not only arbitrary but absurd, as it assumes 
 the possibility of ascertaining and determining these laws independently of 
 actual usage. The most that can be said with truth is that the form of 
 expression is anomalous and rare, though not unparalleled, as may be seen 
 by a comparison of this verse with Ezek. 8: 17. The sense, if it were 
 doubtful in itself, would be clear from the context, which requires this to be 
 taken as a declaration that it was not enough for the Messiah (and the 
 people as his representative) to labour for the natural descendants of Abra- 
 ham, hut he and they must have a wider field. — Thy being to mc a ser- 
 vant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and the preserved of Israel to restore. 
 This form of expression shows very clearly that in this and the parallel 
 passages servant is not used indefinitely but in the specific sense of an 
 appointed instalment or agent to perform a certain work. That \vork is 
 here the raising up of Jacob, a phrase which derives light from the parallel 
 expression, to restore the preserved of Israel, i. e. to raise them from a state 
 of degradation, and to restore them from a state of estrangement. A specific 
 reference to restoration from the Babylonish exile would be gratuitous ; much 
 more the restriction of the words to that event, which is merely included 
 as a signal instance of deliverance and restoration in the general. The 
 textual reading "^y^} appears to be a verbal adjective occurring no where 
 else, and therefore exchanged by the masoretic critics for the passive parti- 
 ciple "'ll^^J . J. D. Michaelis, more ingeniously than wisely, makes "i"^:?; 
 synonymous with ^:i} (ch. 11 : 1) a shoot or sprout, and gives to :;2t; the 
 corresponding sense of a twig or branch — the shoots of Jacob and the iwip"s 
 of Israel. All other writers seem to take the latter in its usual sense of tribe, 
 and the other in that of preserved — meaning the elect or ' such as should be 
 saved.' — And 1 have give?! thee for a light of the gentiles (as in ch. 42 : 6), 
 to be my salvation even to the end of the earth. This, according to the 
 English idiom, would seem to mean that thou viayest be my salvation etc.; 
 but Hebrew usage equally admits of the interpretation, that my salvation 
 may be (i. e. extend) to the end of the earth, which is in fact preferred by 
 most interpreters. The meaning of this verse is not, as some suppose, that 
 the heathen should be given to him in exchange and compensation for the 
 unbelieving Jews, but that his mission to the latter was, from the beginnin^j 
 but a small part of his high vocation. The application of this verse by Paul 
 and Barnabas, in their address to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 
 13 : 47) is very important, as a confirmation of the hypothesis assumed 
 above, that the person here described is not the IMessiah exclusively, but that 
 his people are included in the subject of the description. — " It was necessary 
 that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you ; but seeing ye 
 put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn' 
 
176 CH A P T E R X L IX. 
 
 to the gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us (saying), I have set 
 thee to be a light of the gentiles, that thou shouldesi be for salvation unto the 
 ends of the earth." Although this, as Hengstenberg observes, is not irrecon- 
 cilable with the exclusive Messianic explanation of the verse before us, its 
 agreement with the wider explanation is too striking to be deemed fortuitous. 
 
 V. 7. Thus snith Jehovah, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to 
 the heartily despised, to the nation exciting abhorrence. The two epithets 
 in this clause are exceedingly obscure and difficult. S^'ts has been variously 
 explained as an infinitive, a passive participle, and an adjective in the con- 
 struct state, which last is adopted by Gesenius and most later writers — ttJE3 
 is commonly explained as meaning me/i, chiefly because the parallel ex- 
 pression in Ps. 22 : 7 is c^ ""iiTa. Another explanation takes it in its proper 
 sense of soul, and understands it to qualify hts, as meaning despised from 
 the soul, ex animo. (Compare (iJsja la^x (Ps. 17 : 9.) The meaning 
 men belongs to the word only in certain cases, chiefly those in which 
 we use the same expression, not a soul, forty^ souls, poor soul, etc. No 
 one, from this English usage, would infer (hat hated by souls meant hated 
 by persons. — The other epithet is still more difficult, as it is necessary 
 to determine whether ^rn^a has its usual sense, and whether "'i-" is its subject 
 or its object. Whom the nation ahhorreth, who abhorrcth the nation, who 
 excites the abhorrence of the nation, the nation which excites abhorrence, 
 — all these are possible translations of the Hebrew words, among which 
 interpreters choose according to their different views respecting the whole 
 passage. In any case it is descriptive of deep abasement and general con- 
 tempt, to be exchanged hereafter for an opposite condition. — To a servant of 
 rulers, one who has hitherto been subject to them but is now to receive their 
 homage — .Kings shall see (not himovthem, butz^, viz. that which is to happen) 
 and rise up (as a tokenof respect), princes {shall see) and bow themselves. It is 
 an ingenious thought of Hitzig, though perhaps too refined, that kings, being 
 usually sealed in the presence of others, are described as rising from their 
 thrones ; while princes and nobles, who usually stand in the presence of their 
 sovereigns, are described as falling prostrate. — For the sake of Jehovah who 
 is faithful (to his promises), the Holy One of Israel, and he hath chosen 
 thee, or in our idiom who hath chosen thee. This last clause not only ascribes 
 the promised change to the power of God, but represents it as intended solely 
 to promote his glory. 
 
 V. 8. Thus saith Jehovah, In a time of favour have I heard (or answer- 
 ed^ thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee. The common 
 version, an acceptable time, does not convey the sense of the original, which 
 signifies a suitable or appointed time for showing grace or favour. The 
 
C H A P TE R X L IX. I77 
 
 object of address is still the Messiah and his people, whose great mission is 
 again described. And I will liccp thee, and n-ill give tlicc for a covenant 
 of the people, i. e. of men in general (see above, ch. 42 : 7), to raise vp the 
 earth or world from its present state of ruin, and to cause to inherit the 
 desolate heritages, the moral wastes of hcathenisni. There is allusion to the 
 division of the land by Joshua. Here again we have clear Apostolical 
 authority for applying this description to the Chui'ch, or people of God, as 
 the Body of which Christ is the Head. Paul says to the Corinthians, " We- 
 then as workers together (with him) beseech you also that ye receive not 
 the word of God in vain. For he saith, I have heard thee in a lime accepted, 
 and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee." What follows is no part 
 of the quotation but Paul's comment on it. "Behold, now is the accepted 
 time ; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2 Cor. 6 : 2.) This, taken in 
 connexion with the citation of v. 6 in Acts 13 : 47, precludes the supposition 
 of an accidental or unmeaning application of this passage to the people or. 
 ministers of Christ as well as to himself. 
 
 V. 9. To say to those bound, Come forth ; to (those) who (are) in^ 
 darkness, Be revealed (or shoiv yourselves), -■'tab might here be taken in 
 its usual sense after verbs of speaking, viz. that of scri/?77o- ; but it seems 
 more natural to make it a correlative of the infinitives cijrrib and ^Tijnb ^ 
 to raise vp — to cause to inherit — to say. Gesenius paraphrases rather than 
 translates l-JH) cowe to the light; which is carefully copied by his later 
 imitators as a faithful version. — On the ivays (ox- roads) they shall feed, and 
 in all bare hills (shall be) their pasture. There is here a change of figure., 
 the delivered being represented not as prisoners or freedmen but as flocks. 
 Some read by the way or on their ivay homeward ; but it is commonly 
 agreed that the Prophet simply represents the flock as finding pasture even 
 without going aside to seek it, and even in the most unlikely situations. The 
 restriction of these figures to deliverance from Babylon, can seem natural 
 only to those who have assumed the same hypothesis throughout the fore- 
 going chapters. 
 
 V. 10. They shall not hunger and they shall not thirst, and there shall 
 not smite them mirage and sun ; for he that hath mercy on them shall guide 
 them, and by springs ofivater shall he lead them. The image of a flock is 
 still continued. (Compare ch. 40: 10, 11. 41 : 18. 43: 19.) nn':3 is the 
 same word that is now universally explained in ch. 35 : 7 to mean the 
 mirage, or delusive appearance of water in the desert. (See the Earlier 
 Prophecies, p. 582.) Jarchi explains it here by cin /iea<, which Rosenmiiller 
 supposes to be here substituted for the proper meaning. Gesenius, on the 
 other hand, makes heat the primary, and mirage the secondary sense. The 
 
 12 
 
178 CH AP T E R X LIX. 
 
 reason for excluding the latter here is that it does not seem to suit the verb 
 smite ; but as this verb is used with considerable latitude, and as a zeugma 
 may be easily assumed, Hitzij;, Ewald, and Knobel give the noun the same 
 sense in both places. Most of the modern writers understand the last clause 
 to mean, to s^jrings of water he shall had them ; but alo7ig or by may be 
 considered preferable, as suggesting more directly the idea of progressive 
 motion. As he leads them onwards, he conducts them along streams of 
 water. This may however be supposed to give too great a latitude of meaning 
 to the word translated springs. — For the true sense of the verb ^f]?"', see 
 above, on cb. 40 : II. 
 
 V. 1 1. And I will place all my mountains for the ivay, and my roads 
 shall be high. Tlie image of a flock is now exchanged for that of an army 
 on the march. Rosenmiiller omits my, and explains ■'":^ as an old plural 
 form ; to which Gesenius objects, not only as gratuitous, but also as at variance 
 with the parallelism which requires a suffix. My mountains is by some 
 understood to mean the mountains of Israel ; but why these should be men- 
 tioned is not easily explained. Others with more probability explain it as 
 an indirect assertion of God's sovereignty and absolute control, and more 
 especially his power to remove the greatest obstacles from the way of his 
 people. The original expression is not merely /or a way but /or the way, 
 i. e. the way in which my people are to go. -^^^la is an artificial road or 
 causeway made by throwing up the earth, which seems to be intended by 
 the verb at the close. (Compare the use of Vbo ch. 57 : 14. 62: 19.) The 
 discrepance of gender in the verb and noun is an anomaly, but one which 
 does not in the least obscure the sense or even render the construction 
 doubtful. Compare with this verse ch. 35 : 8. 40 : 4. 
 
 V. 12. Behold, these from afar shall come, and behold these from the 
 north and from the sea, and these from the land of Siriim. There is not 
 the least doubt as to the literal translation of this verse ; and yet it has been 
 a famous subject of discordant expositions, all of which turn upon the question 
 what is meant by the land of Sinim. In addition to the authors usually 
 cited, respect will here be had to an interesting monograph, by an American 
 Missionary in China, originally published in the Chinese Repository, and 
 republished in this country under the title of" The Land of Sinim, or an 
 exposition of Isaiah 49: 12, together with a brief account of the Jews and 
 Christians in China." (Philadelphia, 1845.) It is well said by this writer, 
 that the verse before us is the central point of the prophetical discourse, of 
 which it forms a part ; inasmuch as it embodies the great promise, which m 
 various forms is exhibited before and afterwards. This relation of the text 
 to the context is important, because it creates a presumption in favour of the 
 
C H A P T E R X L IX. I79 
 
 widest meaning which can he put upon tlie terms of the ])rediction, and 
 against a restricted local application. A preliminary question, not devoid of 
 exegetical importance, is the question with respect to the mutual relation of 
 the clauses, as divided in the masoretic text. The doubtful point is whether 
 the first clause is a single item in an enumeration of particulars, or a generic 
 statement, comprehending the specific statements of the other clause. 
 Almost all interpreters assume the former ground and undeistand the verse 
 as naming or distinguishing the four points of the compass. But the other 
 supposition is ingeniously maintained by the JMissionary in China, who 
 makes the first clause a general prediction that converts shall come from the 
 remotest nations, and the other an explanation of this vague expression, as 
 including the north, the west, and the land of Sinim. Upon this construction 
 of the sentence, which is certainly plausible and striking, it may be observed, 
 in the first place, that it is not necessary for the end at which the author 
 seems to aim in urging it. This end appears to be the securing of some 
 proof that the specifications of the second clause relate to distant countiies. 
 But this conclusion is almost as obvious, if not entirely so, upon the other 
 supposition; for if one of the four quarters is denoted by the phrase from 
 afar, the idea necessarily suggested is that all the other points enumerated 
 are remote likewise. The same thing would moreover be sufficiently appar- 
 ent from the whole drift of the context as relating not to proximate or local 
 changes but to vast and universal ones. Nothing is gained therefore even 
 for the author's own opinion, by the admission of this new construction. 
 Another observation is that the authority on which he seems to rest its claims 
 is inconclusive, namely, that of the masoretic interpunction, as denoted by 
 the accents. He states the testimony thus afforded much too strongly, when 
 he speaks of " a full stop" after the clause from- afar they shall come, and 
 points the verse accordingly. The Athnach, as a general rule, indicates the 
 pause not at the end but in the middle of a sentence or complete proposition. 
 It is therefore prima facie proof that the sense is incomplete; and althouidi 
 there may be numerous excej)tions, it cannot possibly demonstrate that the first 
 clause does not form a ))art of the same series of particulars w liich is concluded 
 in the second. That the first clause frequently contains w hat may be loficalU'- 
 called an essential portion of the second, any reader may convince himself by 
 the most cursory inspection of the book before us ; and for two decisive 
 examples in this very chapter, he has only to examine the fifih and seventh 
 verses, where the substitution of a " full stop" for the Athnach would 
 destroy the sense. But even if the testimony of the accents were still more 
 explicit and decisive than it is, their comparatively recent date and their 
 mixed relation to rhythmical or musical as well as to grammatical and lo<rical 
 distinctions make it always proper to subject their decisions to the requisitions 
 of the text and context in themselves considered. Notwithstandin"- the threat 
 
180 C H A P T E R X L IX. 
 
 value of i\i<^ inasorelic accents as an aid to interpretation, the appeal njust 
 after all be to the obvious meaning of the words, or in default of this to analogy 
 and usage. The accents leave us therefore perfectly at liberty to look upon the 
 mutual relation of the clauses as an o|)en question, by inquiring whether there 
 is any valid reason for departing from the ancient and customary supposition 
 that the four points of the compass, or at least four quarters or directions, 
 are distinctly mentioned. Tliis leads me, in the third place, to observe that 
 the objection whicii the Missionary makes to this hypothesis, apart from the 
 question of accentuation, is an insufficient one. He objects to Vitringa's 
 explanation of the phrase from afar as meaning from the cast (and the 
 same objection would Ijy parity of reasoning apply to the explanation of it 
 as denoting yro?H the south), that afar does not mean the east, and is not 
 elsewhere used to denote it. But what Vitringa means to say is not that 
 afar means the cast, but simply that it here supplies its place. If any one. 
 in numbering the points of the compass, should, instead of a complete enu- 
 meration, say the north, south, east, and so on, his obvious meaning could 
 not well be rendered doubtful by denying thai and so on ever means the 
 west. It is not the words themselves, but the place which they occupy, 
 and their relation to the rest of the sentence, that suggests rather than 
 expresses the idea. So here, the north, the west, the land of Sinim, and 
 afar, may denote the four points of the compass, although not so explicitly 
 as in the case supposed, because in that before us we have not merely one 
 doubtful point, but two, if not three ; and also because the one most dubious 
 (^from afar) is not at the end like and so on, but at the beginning. Still it 
 seems most natural, when four distinct local designations are given, one of 
 which is certainly, another almost certainly, and a third most probably, 
 indicative of particular quarters or directions, to conclude that the fourth is 
 so used likewise, however vague it may be in itself, and however situated in 
 the sentence. The presumption thus created is confirmed by the fact that 
 the hypothesis of only three divisions admits that the whole earth was meant 
 to be included ; and it thus becomes a question, which is most agreeable to 
 general usage, and to that of Scripture in |)articular, a threefold or a fourfold 
 distribution of the earth in such connexions ? \i the latter, then analogy is 
 strongly in favour of the common supposition that the first clause is not 
 coextensive with the other, but contains the first of four particulars enume- 
 rated. Over and above this argument derived from the usual distinction of 
 four points or quarters, there is another furnishrnl by the usage of the pronoun 
 these, when repealed so as to express a distributive idea. In all such cases. 
 these and these means some and others ; nor is there probably a single 
 instance in which the first these comprehends the whole, while the others 
 divide it into parts. This would be just as foreign from the Hebrew idiom 
 as it is from ours to say, ' Some live in Europe, some in France, some in 
 
C H A P T E R X L I X. 181 
 
 Holland,' when we mean that some live in Holland, some in France, and 
 all in Europe. The proposed construction would be altogether natural, if 
 !^^x were omitted in the first clause ; but its presence cannot be accounted 
 for, if that clause is inclusive of the other. That the distributive use of the 
 demonstrative is not confined to two such pronouns only, may be seen from 
 ch. 41 : 5, where the singular ^l is twice repeated, just as the plural ^^^5 js 
 here, and in a connexion which admits of no doubt as to the distributive 
 import of all three. — From all this it seems to follow that the verse most 
 probably contains the customary distribution of the earth or ln-avens into 
 four great quarters, and that one of these is designated by the ])hrase yrom 
 nfar. Which one is so described can only be determined by determining 
 the true sense of the other three. The Missionary in China is therefore 
 perfectly correct in setting aside all arguments against his own opinion 
 founded on the supposition xhai from afar must mean the south or the east. 
 The expression is so vague that it must be determined by the others, and 
 cannot therefore be employed to determine them, without reasoning in a 
 vicious circle. This serves to show that the question aff^'r all is of no great 
 exegetical importance, since in eitlier case the same conclusion may be 
 reached. It is always best, however, to adhere to the more obvious and 
 usual construction of a passage, in the absence of decisive reasons for depart- 
 ing from it. Assuming then that four points are mentioned, and that the 
 first {from afar') can only be determined by determining the others, let us 
 now attempt to do so. One of these {the nortfy) is undisputed : foi' although 
 interpreters may differ as to its precise bounds and extent, its relative posi- 
 tion is unquestionably fixed by the usage of the Hebrew v.'ord. Another 
 term, which most interpreters, and among the rest the Missionary in Ciiina, 
 seem to look upon as equally settler! and beyond dispute, is more ambiguous 
 than they imagine, and has recently received a very different explanation. 
 This is w- , which strictly means the sea, but is often used for west, because 
 on that side Palestine is naturally bounded by the Mediterranean. Hitzig, 
 however, very confidently says that here and in Ps. 103 : 7, where it is put 
 in opposition to the north, "^1 means the soutii sea, and as a term of geogra- 
 phy the south. This is not mentioned as having any probability, of which 
 it is entirely destitute, because the geographical import of the term is not to 
 be decided by the parallelism or the context in any given case, but by the 
 predominant usage, which determines it to mean the west, and so it is 
 explained both by the oldest and the latest writers. Having two points 
 thus determined, we are sure that the two which remain must be the east 
 and south ; and as we have already seen ih^i from afar from its vagueness 
 must receive but cannot give light, we have now to ascertain, if possible, in 
 which of these directions lay the land of Sinim. The discrepancy of the 
 versions as to these concluding words is remarkable, and shows the doubt in 
 
182 CHAPTERXLIX. 
 
 which the subject was involved at a very early period. The Missionary in 
 China makes an observation on this difference which is less just than inge- 
 nious, viz. that no one of the authors of these versions seems to have regarded 
 his own country as the Land of Sinim ; " for it can scarcely be supposed," 
 says he, " that the authors of a version living in the very country referred 
 to, should so utterly fail of perceiving it as to give the preference to other 
 lands." It is not easy to perceive, however, why the same causes that 
 have made the j)rophecy obscure to others, should not make it equally 
 obscure to the people of the country meant, especially if the name used 
 was intended to be enigmatical, as some interpreters supijose. Indeed, by 
 parity of reasoning it would seem to follow that if the author of the Septua- 
 gint Version had supposed it to be Egypt, this would have decided tlie 
 question. But although this observation does not seem entitled to any influ- 
 ence upon the exegesis, the difference between the ancient versions, as well 
 as the commentators of all ages, is still very remarkable. Without atten)pt- 
 ing to enumerate all the explanations, it will not be amiss to give some 
 samples of the different classes. Some would seem to be mere conjectural 
 inferences from the context. Thus the Targum and Vulgate make it mean 
 the land of the south or southern land, assuming no doubt that from afar 
 must mean the east, and that the south alone remained to be supplied. 
 Proceeding on the contrary hypothesis, that from afar must mean the south, 
 the Septuagint puts the Land of Sinim in the east, but gives it the specific 
 sense of Persia, N\hich appears to be entirely arbitrary. The same thing 
 may be said of Matthew Henry's notion that the Land of Sinim was a 
 Babylonian province. As a specimen of fanciful interpretation, may be 
 given Adam Clarke's suggestion ihat as '^o means a bush, nirp may 
 mean bushes, woods, or a woody country, and be here used to denote the 
 region occupied by the descendants of the ten tribes, perhaps in West Africa 
 or North America ! Dismissing these gratuitous conjectures, we may now 
 confine ourselves to those interpretations which have some foundation or 
 appearance of it either in philology or history. Among these may be men- 
 tioned, first, the supposition that the land of Sinim is the country of the 
 Sinitcs spoken of in Gen. 10: 17 and 1 Chron. 1 : 15. But why should a 
 Canaanitish tribe of no importance, and which no where reappears in history, 
 be here made to represent one of the four quarters of the globe ? This 
 question becomes still more difficult to answer when it is added that the 
 Sinites must have been immediately adjacent to the land of Israel, and on 
 the north side which is separately mentioned. Grotius indeed transfers 
 them to the south side, but by sheer mistake, and for the purpose of connect- 
 ing them with the wilderness of Sin and Mount Sinai, which are wholly 
 distinct from it. Jerome and Jarchi also understand the Land of Sinim to 
 be the wilderness of Sin or the peninsula of Sinai, but without identifying 
 
CHAPTERXLIX. 183 
 
 these with the country of the Canaanitish Sinites, as Grotius does. To their 
 opinion the decisive objection is not the one which the Missionary in China 
 draws from the difference of name and from the plural form Siiiim. That 
 "there were not two deserts of Sin," proves no more in this case than the 
 assertion that there were not two Hermons proves against the application of 
 the plural Hermonim to that mountain in Ps. 42 : 7. If a luountain might 
 be so called, why not a desert ? And if Hermonim means Ilermonites, why 
 may not Sinim mean Sinites ? This question is especially appropriate, 
 because the author gives no explanation of the plural form, upon his own 
 hypothesis. But although this objection is invalid, the other which the 
 author urges is conclusive, namely, that Sinai and the wilderness of Sin were 
 too near and too limited to be employed in this connexion. Another 
 explanation founded on analogy of names is that of Aben Ezra, Kimchi, 
 Bochart, Vitringa, J. D. ]\Jichaelis, and Ewald, that the land of Sinim 
 is the land of Egypt, so called from Si/cnc, as Michaehs supposes, or 
 from Sin, i. e. Pelusium, mentioned under that name by Ezekiel (30: 15, 
 16) as maintained by Bochart, Vitringa, and Ewald. Here again 
 it seems unfair to argue, with the Missionary in China, from the plural 
 form of the Hebrew name ; for if, as he observes, it is merely fanciful to 
 refer it to the old geographical distinction of Upper and Lower Egypt, is 
 it not more than fanciful to refer it to China where there is no such dis- 
 tinction to account for it at all ! If it be^'-said, that Sinim means the 
 Chinese, it may just as easily be said that it means the Egyptians. There 
 is no force therefore in the argument from this peculiarity in form, any 
 more than in the argument which the Missionary in Ciilna hiniself admits 
 to be here inapplicable, that Egypt was not sufficiently important to be 
 made the representative of one great quarter. As little weight attaches to 
 his argument that this interpretation of the name would make the distribu- 
 tion too unequal ; for as he adjusts the limits of the north and even of the 
 land of Sinim at discretion, there is no sufficient reason why the same thing 
 might not be done with Sinim if it did mean Egypt. The really decisive 
 ground, assumed by the same writer, is that Egypt, notwithstanding its 
 extent and historical importance, was too near at hand to suit the context, 
 which requires a remote land to be here meant, whether /rom afar be taken 
 as a general description or as a distinct specification. Another strong objec- 
 tion is that no cause can be shown, from analogy or otherwise, for the desig- 
 nation of this well known country, in this one place only, by a name derived, 
 from one of its cities, and that not of the first rank. The only remaining 
 explanation, which will be referred to, is that the land of Sinim is China, as 
 maintained by Manasseh Ben Israel, Montanus, Calmet, Gesenius, Winer, 
 Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, Umbreit, Hendewerk, Knobel, and Beck. An 
 objection to this interpretation is suggested to some minds by its resemblance 
 
134 C H A P T E R X L I X. 
 
 to an etymological conceit founded merely on an assonance of names. It 
 was prolnihly this prejudice which caused it to be spoken of with such con- 
 tempt by Grotius, Clericus, and Vitringa. But in modern times, the cur- 
 rent has completely changed,, and this despised notion has been warmly 
 espoused not only by the most distinguished writers on Isaiah (Rosenmiiller 
 and Ewald being almost the only excepiions in the German school), but by 
 the most eminent comparative jjhilologists, such as Langles, Lassen, and 
 others, who have investigated the question as one of historical and literary 
 interest. The only plausible objections which are still urged against it may 
 be reduced to two. The first is that China was unknown to the Jews at 
 the date of the prophecy. To this it may be answered, first, Uiat no one 
 who believes in the inspiration of the prophets, can refuse to admit the pos- 
 sil/ility of such a prediction, even if the fact were so ; and secondly, that in 
 all probability China was known to the Jews at a very early period. The 
 rashness of asserting a negative in such cases has been clearly proved by 
 the modern discovery of porcelain vessels with Chinese inscriptions in the 
 monuments of Thebes. But it is still objected, that the name SiJiim is not 
 that used by the Chinese themselves, nor by other nations until long after 
 the date of this prophecy, it having been derived from a family w hich did 
 not ascend the throne until about 246 years before the biith of Christ. It 
 is remarkable how readily this date in Chinese history is taken for granted 
 as undoubtedly correct by those who wish to use it for an argument, although 
 it rests upon a dark and dubious tradition of a distant unknown country; 
 although the very text before us makes it doubtful ; although the universal 
 prevalence of the name Sin, Chin, or Jin, throughout \\'estern and southern 
 Asia from time immemorial presupposes an antiquity still more remote ; and 
 although Chinese historians themselves record that the family from w hich 
 the name derives its origin, for ages before it ruled the empire ruled a pro- 
 vince or kingdom on the western frontier, whence the name might easily 
 have been extended to the western nations. There are In Aict few cases of 
 a name being more extensively or longer prevalent than that of China, the 
 very form which it exhibits in the Sanscrit, the mother language of southern 
 Asia. That the Chinese themselves have nev'er used it, although acquainted 
 with it, is nothing to the purpose. A Hebrew writer would of course use 
 the name familiar in the west of Asia. This vmiversal name is allowed to 
 be essentially identical with ""'o by the highest philological authorities. 
 There is therefore no conclusive force in either of the arguments advanced 
 against this explanation of the name. As positive reasons on the other side, 
 'besides the main one drawn from the coincidence of name, may be men- 
 >tioned the agreement of so many different and independent writers, and the 
 .appropriateness of the ex[)lanatlon to the context. Under the first head 
 -may be classed precisely those philologists whose pecidiar studies best entitle 
 
CHAPTERXLIX. 185 
 
 them to speak with autliority on such a point, and those German commen- 
 tators on Isaiah, who are most accustomed to diifer among themselves and 
 with the older writers, especially where any thing is likely to be added by a 
 proposed interpretation to the strength of revelation or rather to the clear- 
 ness of its evidences. Prejudice and interest would certainly have led this 
 class of writers to oppose rather tlian favour a hypothesis which tends to 
 identify the subject of this prophecy with China, the great object of mis- 
 sionary effort at the present day. — Tiie other confirmation is afforded by the 
 suitableness of the sense thus evolved to the connexion. If the land of 
 Sinim meant the wilderness of Sin or even Egypt, it would be diflicult if not 
 impossible to give a satisfactory solution of its singular position here as one 
 of the great quarters or divisions of the world. But if it mean China, that 
 extreme limit of the eastern world, that hive of nations, supposed to com- 
 prehend a third part of the human race, the enigma explains itself. Even to 
 us there would be notliing unintelligible or absurd, however strange or novel, 
 in the combination, north, west, south, and Cliina. On the whole, then, a 
 hypothesis which solves all difficulties, satisfies the claims of philology and 
 history, unites the sufli'ages of the most independent schools and parties, 
 fully meets the requisitions of the text and context, and opens a glorious field 
 of expectation and of effort to the church, may be safely regarded as the 
 true one. For an interesting view of the extent to which the promise lias 
 already been fulfilled, and of the encouragements to hope and pray for its 
 entire consummation, the reader is referred to the little book, of which we 
 have so frequently made mention, although our citations have been neces- 
 sarily confined to the fiist or expository chapter, the remaining four being 
 occupied witli the fulfilment of the prophecy. 
 
 V. 13. Shout, oh heavens, and rejoice, oh earth, let the mountains hurst 
 into a shout ; because Jehovah has comforted his jfcople, and on his sufferers 
 he will have mercy. This is a very common method with Isaiah of fore- 
 telling any joyful change by summoning all nature to exult in it as already 
 realized. See especially ch. 44 : '23, where instead of the future w:iS'i we 
 have the imperative ^n^a , in imitation of which the Keri here reads WJIS!! , 
 and Lowth simply iin^a on the authority of two or three manuscripts and 
 the ancient versions. There is of course no sullicient reason for departing 
 from the ancient reading still preserved in the text. — Jehovah's consolation 
 of his jieople, as Gesenius observes, is administered by deed as well as by 
 word. (Compare ch. 51:3, 12. 52 : 9. 66 : 13. Luke 2 : 25, 38.) The 
 consolation here meant is the joyful assemblage of his people from all parts 
 of the earth, predicted in the foregoing verse. — The modern writers render 
 both the preterite and future in the last clause by the present (comforts, has 
 mercy) ; which is not only arbitrary but injurious to the force of the expres- 
 
186 C H A P T E R X L IX. 
 
 sion, which describes the consolation as both past and future, that is to say 
 as already begun and still to be continued ; unless the change of tense be 
 designed to intimate that what is vividly described in the preceding words 
 as past is really still future. — ":» , which is commonly translated in the 
 English Bible poor, is here rendered more correctly ajjlicted. The expres- 
 sion his ajflicied intimates at once their previous condition and their intimate 
 relation to the Lord as their protector. 
 
 V. 14. And(jei) Zion said, Jehovah hath forsaken me, and the Lord 
 hath forgotten me. So far was this glorious change from having been pro- 
 cured by confidence in God, that Zion thought herself forsaken and forgotten. 
 Those who restrict these prophecies to the Babylonish exile are compelled 
 to understand this either of the captive inhabitants of Zion, as distinguished 
 from the other exiles, or of Jerusalem itself, complaining of its desolation. 
 But the former distinction is as arbitrary here as in ch. 40 : 9, and the long 
 argumentative expostulation which ensues would be absurd if addressed to 
 the bare walls of an empty town. The only satisfactory conclusion is, that 
 Zion or Jerusalem is mentioned as the capital of Israel, the centre of the true 
 religion, the earthly residence of God himself, and therefore an appropriate 
 and natural emblem of his chosen people or the ancient church, just as we 
 speak of the corruptions or spiritual tyranny of Rome, meaning not the city 
 but the great ecclesiastical society or corporation which it represents and of 
 which it is the centre. — The translation Zion says, although not ungram- 
 raatical, is less appropriate here, because it represents the church as still 
 complaining ; whereas the original describes her previous unbelief, before 
 the event, or before the truth of the promise had been guaranteed. It is 
 worthy of remark that the same translators who make the first verb present 
 give the other two their proper past sense, a diversity admissible in case of 
 necessity, but not without it. 
 
 V. 15. Will a woman forget her suckling, from having mercy (i. e. so 
 as not to have mercy) on the son of her ivonih ? Also (or even) these ivill 
 forget, and I will not forget thee. The constancy of God's affection for his 
 people is expressed by the strongest possible comparison derived from human 
 instincts. There is a climax in the thought, if not in the expression. What 
 is indirectly mentioned as impossible in one clause, is declared to be real in 
 the other. He first declares that he can no more forget them than a woman 
 can forget her child, he then rises higher and declares that he is still more 
 mindful of them than a mother. The future verb at the beginning implies 
 without expressing a potential sense. If she will, she can ; if she cannot, 
 then of course she will not. For the negative use of the preposition ",^, see 
 above, on ch. 44 : 18. — "Ja might seem to have the general sense o( body, 
 
CHAPTERXLIX. 187 
 
 as we find it applied to males in Job 19: 17. Mic. 6 : 7. — The precise force 
 of the fi^ is this : not only strangers but also mothers ; it may therefore 
 be correctly expressed by even. Most interpreters make the first part of the 
 last clause conditional, and Gesenius even understands cj as an ellipsis for 
 13 ca although. (See ch. 1 : 15.) But this is not so much a version as a 
 paraphrase, a substitution of equivalent expressions. There is no need of 
 departing from the obvious meaning of the prophet's language, which is not 
 hypothetical but categorical. He does not say that if or though a woman 
 could forget her child he would not follow her example, but asserts directly 
 that she can and will, and puts this fact in contrast with his own unwavering 
 constancy. The plural in the last clause, like the singular in the first, denotes 
 the whole class. He does not say that all mothers thus forget their children, 
 nor that mothers generally do so, but that such oblivion is not unknown to 
 the experience of mothers as a class, or of woman as an ideal individual. 
 The primitive simplicity with which the Hebrew idiom employs the simple 
 copulative and, where we feel the strongest adversative expression to be 
 necessary, really adds to the force of the expression, when it is once under- 
 stood and familiar. The atid may be retained, and yet the antithesis 
 expressed in English by supplying yet : and (yet) I will not forget thee. 
 
 V. 16. Behold, on (my) palms I have graven thee ; thy walls (are) 
 before me continually. Paulus understands the first clause as meaning, 
 upon (thy) hands I have graven (i. e. branded, marked) thee, as belonging 
 to me. Gesenius seems to object to this construction of the suffix with the 
 verb, although precisely similar to that of ii^ ::nD"i in v. 44 : 5, as explained 
 by himself. His other objection is a better one, viz. that such an explana- 
 tion of the first clause makes the second almost unmeaning. Doderlein 
 explains it to mean, ivith {my) hands I have sketched (or drawn) thee, in 
 allusion to a builder's draught or plan before he enters on the work of con- 
 struction. (Compare Ex. 25 : 40. 1 Chron. 23 : 11, 19.) But this use of 
 the preposition bt' has no authority in usage, and the palms of the hands would 
 not be mentioned as the instruments in such a process. Vitringa avoids both 
 these objections by supposing the plan or picture to be drawn upon Jehovah's 
 hands, because there would be something incongruous in representing him 
 as using paper or a table. The Dutch taste of this excellent interpreter lets 
 him go the length of adding that the divine hands are to be conceived of as 
 large and allowing ample room for such a delineation as the one supposed. 
 The true sense of the Prophet's figure seems to be the one expressed by 
 Gesenius and other modern writers, who suppose him to allude not to a 
 picture or a plan of Zion but her name imprinted on his hands for a memorial, 
 as the ancient slave and soldier wore his master's name but for a ditferent 
 purpose. (See above, on ch. 44 : 5.) The use of the woid palms implies a 
 
188 C H A P T E R X L IX. 
 
 double inscription and in an unusual position, chosen with a view to its being 
 constantly in sight. Tlie idea of a picture was suggested by the other clause, 
 considered as a j)arallel expression of the same thing as the first. Thy walls, 
 i. e. the image of thy walls upon my hands. But this is not necessarily or 
 certainly the true relation of the clauses, which may be considered not as 
 parts of the same image but as two distinct images of one and the same thing. 
 The essential idea, I will not forget thee, may be first expressed by saying, 
 I will write thy name upon my hands, and then by saying, I will keep 
 thy walls constantly before me, i. e. in my sight and memory. (See 
 Ps. 16 : 8. Is. 38 : 13, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 639.) — The mention 
 of the walls is no proof that Zion is mentioned merely as a city, since 
 the image of a city is the proximate object here presented, even if the 
 object which it symbolizes be the church or chosen people. 
 
 V. 17. Thy sons hasten (to thee) ; thy destroyers and thy wasters shall 
 go out from thee. This is the proof that God had not forsaken her. 
 Rosenmuller follows the older writers in translating the first vei'b as a future, 
 which is wholly arbitrary. Gesenius and others render both the first and 
 last verb in the present tense. The true construction, as in many other 
 cases, seems to be that which represents the process as begun but not com- 
 plete. Already had her sons begun to hasten to her, and ere long her ene- 
 mies should be entirely departed. The Septuagint, Targum, and Vulgate, 
 seem to read, instead of thy sons (T('??3), thy builders (7^:2), which differs 
 from it only in a single vowel, and agrees well with the parallel expression, 
 destroyers, literally, pullers down. Lowth amends the text accordingly ; 
 but Vitiinga, Gesenius, and the later writers, adhere to the masoretic point- 
 ino", on account of its a^rreement with the thoufrhts and words of vs. 20—22. 
 — By wasters and destroyers Vitringa understands internal enemies, Gese- 
 nius foreign oppressors, Knobel the strangers who had taken possession of 
 Jerusalem and the rest of the country, which, as he acknowledges, it here 
 represents. The natural interpretation of the words is that which under- 
 stands them as containing simply an emphatic contrast between friends and 
 foes, the latter taking their departure, and the former coming into possession. 
 
 V. 18. Lift up thine eyes round about and sec, all of them are gathered 
 together, they arc come to thee. {As) I live, saith Jehovah, (I swear) that 
 all of them as an ornament thou shalt put on, and bind (or gird) them like 
 the bride. The sons, described in v. 17 as rapidly approaching, are now 
 in sight, and their mother is invited to survey them, by lifting up her eyes 
 round about, i. e. in all directions, with allusion to their coming from the 
 four points of the compass, as predicted in v. 12. The common version of 
 vh'3, all these, seems to introduce a new subject. The strict translation, all 
 
CHAPTERXLIX. 189 
 
 of them, refers to what precedes, and means all the sons who are described 
 in the first clause of v. 17 as hastening to her. They are now already 
 gathered, i. e. met together at the point to which they tended from so many 
 distinct quarters. They come to thee is an inadequate translation. The true 
 sense is that they are actually come, i. e. arrived. — In the second clause, 
 the "^3 may correspond to the Greek ozi after verbs of speaking, or retain its 
 ordinary sense with an ellipsis of I swear before it. The formula of swear- 
 ing here used strictly means, / (am) alive (or Jiving), and is itself equivalent 
 to I sivear in English. — The sons are then compared to ornaments of dress, 
 which the mother girds or binds upon her person. At the end Lowtli 
 inserts rj^t.? in the text from ch. 61 : 10. But this is wholly unnecessary, 
 as the same idea is suggested by the more concise expressions of the conmion 
 text, which Lowth is utterly mistaken in supposing to describe the bride as 
 binding children round her ; for, as Doderlein conectly says, the point of 
 comparison between the type and antitype is not children but decoration. 
 As a bride puts on her ornaments, so thou shalt be adorned with thy children. 
 
 V. 1 9. For thy ruins, and thy wastes, and thy land of desolation (i. e. thy 
 desolated land) — for now thou shalt he too narroiv for the inhabitant, and 
 far off shall be thy devourers (those who swallow thee up). The general 
 meaning of this verse is evident, although the constiuction is obscure. 
 Most writers take the nouns at the beginning as absolute nominatives, i. e. 
 agreeing with no verb expressed. As for thy xvastes etc. thou shalt he too 
 narroio. But this still leaves the double "3 to be accounted for, which 
 Rosenmiiller supposes to depend upon the verb I swear, as in v. 18, and to 
 signify that. Maurer regards the second as a pleonastic or emphatic repeti- 
 tion not belonging to the regular construction. Others give it the supposi- 
 titious sense o( certainly ov surely. Beck makes the first clause mean, 'thy 
 ruins and thy wastes and thy desolations shall exist no longer ;' but this 
 requires another verb to be supplied or understood. Perhaps the best solu- 
 tion is the one proposed by Hitzig, who supposes the construction to be 
 interrupted and resumed : For thy wastes, and thy ruins, and thy land of 
 desolation — (then beginning anew, without completing the first sentence) — 
 for thou shalt be too narrow etc. This mode of composition, not unhke 
 what appears in the first draft of any piece of writing till obliterated by 
 correction, is comparatively frequent in the ancient writers, not excepting 
 some of the highest classical models, though proscribed as inelegant and 
 incorrect by the fastidious rules of modern rhetoric. This explanation of 
 the double "3 makes it unnecessary to assume an absolute nominative in the 
 first clause. Knobel carries liitzig's hypothesis too far when he assumes 
 an actual ellipsis of the same verb in the first clause — "^"sri (derived bv 
 Ewald from ^"^ , by Gesenius from the cognate and synonymous "4"^) can 
 
190 CH A PT ER XLIX. 
 
 only be the second person feminine. The common version, therefore, 
 which refers it to the land, although it f;ives substantially the true sense, is 
 grammatically incorrect. — -For the inhabitant is literally //-owi the inhabitant, 
 the Hebrew preposition being here used as in I Kings 19:7. — Knobel 
 supposes the connexion of the clauses to be this, that there would not be 
 room even for the rightful possessors, much less for strangers and enemies. 
 For the application of the verb s^s to enemies, see Lam. 2:2, 5. — The 
 (Jcvourcrs of this verse are of course the destroyers of v. 17. 
 
 V. 20. Aicnin (or still) shall they say in thine ears, the sojis of thy 
 childlessness, {Too) narrow for me is the place ; come near for me, and I 
 will dicell (or that I may dwell). The li:' may simply indicate that some- 
 thino- more is to be said than had been said before, in which case it is nearly 
 equivalent to over and above 'this or moreover. Or it may have its true 
 sense as a particle of time, and intimate that these words shall be uttered 
 more than once, again and again, or still, i. e. continually, as the necessity 
 becomes more urgent. The relative position of the verb and its subject is 
 retained in the translation, as it causes no obscurity, and exhibits more 
 exactly the characteristic form of the original. Jarchi explains the sons of 
 thy childlessness to mean the sons of whom thou wast bereaved, referring to 
 the exiled Jews. The later writers more correctly make it mean the sons 
 of thee a childless one, or, thy sons oh childless one. The apparent contra- 
 diction is intentional, as appears from what follows. She who was deemed 
 by others, and who deemed herself, a childless mother, hears the voices 
 of her children, complaining that they have not a sufficient space to 
 dwell in. — In thy cars means in thy hearing, although not addressed to 
 thee. (Compare 2 Sam. 18 : 12.) Even in ch. 5 : 9 the idea seems to be 
 not merely that of hearing, but of overhearing. That the same thing is 
 intended in the case before us, may be gathered fron) the masculine iroia , 
 which shows that they shall say does not mean they shall say to thee, but 
 they shall say to one another. Rosenmiiller explains "i:^ as an adjective ; 
 but usage and authority determine it to be a verb, the contracted form of 
 "t-.5£ , here used in precisely the same sense as the future of the same verb or 
 a cognate root in the preceding verse. The idea of excess (nimis, too) is 
 not expressed as in that case, but implied, the strict translation being simply 
 this, the place is narrow for me. — All interpreters agree that ''^■"i^a means 
 malce room for me, as rendered in the Septuagint (noijjaov nononov) and the 
 Vulgate (/flc mihi spatium) ; but they differ in explaining how this sense 
 may be extracted from the Hebrew words. Gesenius, as in many other 
 cases, resorts to the easy supposition of a word inaccurately used to express 
 directly opposite ideas, and explains the verb, both here and in Gen. 19: 9, 
 as meaning to recede or move away from any one. But even if the general 
 
C H A P TE R XL IX. 191 
 
 usage, which he alleges to exist with respect to verbs of motion, were more 
 certain than it is, a serious difficulty in the way of its assumption here would 
 be presented by the fact that in every other case excepting these two 
 (which may be regarded as identical), the verb means to come near or ap- 
 proach. Rosenniiiller adheres to the only sense authorized by usage, and 
 explains the phrase to mean, Come near to me, that there may be more 
 room, Maurer defends this explanation of the word (both here and in Gen. 
 19: 9) against the objections of Gesenius, but without replying to the main 
 one, namely, that the sense thus given to the words is inappropriate, because 
 the person speaking demands room not for others but for himself, which he 
 could not possibly secure by calling on his neighbour to come close to him. 
 The whole difficulty seems to have arisen from assuming that "^^ means to 
 me, and denotes the direction of the motion, in opposition to the fact that h 
 is never so used after CS3 , but always indicates the purpose or design, not 
 only when prefixed to the infinitive (as in Lev. 21 : 21. 2 Kings 4 : 27), but 
 also when prefixed to frst^^'a , the only noun with which it is connected after 
 this verb, and with which it signifies not to the battle but for battle, or to 
 fight, being equivalent to an infinitive construction. The only cases, there- 
 fore, where the h is thus used (Judges 20:23. 2 Sam. 10: 13. 1 Chron. 
 19: 14. Jer. 46:3), are not even exceptions to the rule, but strong corro- 
 borations of the staten)ent, that this particle when added to the verb denotes 
 the object ybr which, not the place to which, one approaches. This induc- 
 tion fully justifies the explanation of the phrase before us given by Jarchi, 
 * approach to one side for me or on my account' ('i'3M 7rf' 7ii 3"?prr»), 
 leaving the precise direction of the motion undetermined, to express which 
 the dominant usage of the language would require the preposition ^n . The 
 sense just given to ""h (^forme) is the more probable, because it is precisely that 
 which it has in the first clause of this verse and the first clause of the next. — 
 J. D. Michaelis and Ewald take nacx in its primitive sense of s2Y^r«_g-, rather 
 than its secondary one of dwelling, which is preferred by most interpreters. 
 The former version makes the passage still more graphic by presenting the 
 image of children contending for a seat, and calling on each other, in the 
 presence of their mother, to make room. But even if we grant that there is 
 nothing unworthy or incongruous in this conception, the hypothesis that it 
 was here intended is precluded by the use of the participle affii^ in the verse 
 preceding, where the sense of inhabitant is rendered necessary by its close 
 connexion with the nouns land, wastes, and ruins. 
 
 V. 21. And thou shalt say in thine heart, i. e. to thyself, in strict 
 agreement with the preceding verse, as a dialogue not between the mother 
 and her children, but between the children in their mother's hearing. This 
 is consequently not an answer to what goes before, but an observation uttered, 
 
19-2 C H A P T E R X L I X . 
 
 as it were, aside by an eye and ear witness of the struggle and the clamour 
 for nioi'c room. With them the question is, where they shall dwell ; with 
 her it is, whence they came. — Ji ho hath produced these for me 1 Interpreters 
 have vexed themselves with the inquiry whether ^\'^ here means to bear or 
 to beget, or in other words whether she is asking for the father or the mother 
 of the children whom she sees around her. Vitringa, Lowth, GeseniuS; 
 Ewald, and Umbreit, who prefer the former sense, suppose an allusion to 
 the conjugal relation of Jehovah to his people, and to the repudiation spoken 
 of below in ch. 50: 1. But such allusion seems, in this connexion, far- 
 fetched and unnatural. Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Knobel, choose the other 
 sense, which is really the strict and common one, and here recommended by 
 the (act that the combination p "i?-; is often applied elsewhere to the mother, 
 but never to tlie father. This might be esteemed conclusive, but for two 
 material points of diflerence between the cases cited and the one before us. 
 The first is that in these cases h is followed by the name of the father, 
 whereas here the speaker is supposed to be a woman. The other is that in 
 all those cases the verb itself is feminine, whereas here it is masculine. But 
 these diversities, although they leave some room for doubt and difference of 
 opinion, do not necessarily preclude the explanation of the phrase as refer- 
 ring to the mother. The masculine form of the verb in this case is easily 
 accounted for ; because its nominative is not, as in all the other cases, a 
 female name or other feminine noun, but the interrogative pronoun, which is 
 invariable and naturally followed by the verb in its original or simplest form, 
 not because tiiat form includes both genders, but because both verb and pro- 
 noun are used vaguely, without any distinct reference to sex at all. So too 
 the use of"""? "i^" by a female speaker, although a violation of analogy, is one 
 very easily explained, because intentional and even necessary in the extra- 
 ordinary case supposed. As in other cases the mother is said to bear a child 
 to the father, so in this case one mother may without absurdity be said to 
 bear a child to another, because in either case the essential idea is that of 
 one person being provided with a child by another, whether it be a husband 
 by his wife, or a childless woman by a woman who has children. — The 
 truth is, however, that the force and beauty of the passage are exceedingly 
 impaired by cutting its bold figures to the quick, and insisting on a rigorous 
 conformity to artificial rules, instead of resting in the general conception, 
 so clearly and alTectingly presented, of a childless mother finding herself 
 suddenly surrounded by the clamour of a multitude of children, and asking 
 in amazement whence they came and who they are. The distinction be- 
 tween father and mother is one which would never occur to the speaker in 
 such a case, and may therefore be safely overlooked by the interpreter. — 
 The cause of her astonishment is then assigned. And I was bereaved and 
 barren. These almost incompatible expressions for a childless one are joined 
 
C H A P T E R X L IX. I93 
 
 for the purpose of expressing that idea in the strongest manner, and with 
 more regard to the idea itself than to the rules of rhetorical propriety. — An 
 exile and a banished one. The last word strictly means removed, i. e. from 
 home and from society. — And these who brought up ? literally made wreat, 
 as in ch. 1 : 2. The general sense put upon i"^"; ""a is conhrmed by the 
 analogy of this phrase, which has no specific reL'rence to either parent, and 
 is masculine in form simply because there was no reason why it should be 
 feminine. — Behold, I was left alone (or by myself) ; these, where ivere they ? 
 The pronoun at the end is emphatic : where were they 1 She asks how it is 
 that she was so long desolate and childless, when she sees so many children 
 round her now. Rosenmiiller changes the whole figure by supposing that 
 long absent children are described as returning to their mother with a numer- 
 ous offspring. It is essential to the writer's purpose that the children should 
 be all regarded as the speaker's own ; for this alone could afford any adequate 
 ground for the astonishment expressed. — Some of the modern writers find it 
 very hard to reconcile the language of this verse with their hypothesis that 
 the Zion of this passage is the forsaken city of Jerusalem as such considered. 
 The inconveniences of such a supposition may be gathered from the fact that 
 Knobel represents the Prophet as departing from his own chosen image in 
 tile words an exile and a banished one, which are of course inapplicable to 
 the town itself, and then returning to it in the words I was left alone, which 
 readily admit of such an application. If such abrupt transitions may be 
 assumed at pleasure, how can any thing be proved to be the sense intended 
 by the author ? The very fact that they are necessary on a given supposition. 
 is a strong proof that it is a false one, and ought to be exchanged for one 
 which is equally consistent with all the parts of the description. Such is 
 the hypothesis assumed as the basis of our exposition, viz. that the Zion of 
 this context is the ancient church or chosen peopie, represented both in 
 fiction and in fact by the Sanctuary and the Holy City, as its local centre 
 and appointed symbol. Of this ideal subject, desolation, childlessness, 
 captivity, exile, and the other varying conditions here described, may all be 
 predicated with the same propriety. U this, however, be the true exegetical 
 hypothesis, and no other seems to answer all the requisitions of the case, 
 then the Babylonish exile, and the state of the church at that period of her 
 history, has no claim to be recognised as any thing more than a particular 
 exemplification of the general promise, that the church, after passing through 
 extreme depression and attenuation, should be raised up and replenished 
 like a childless mother who suddenly finds herself surrounded by a lar^e and 
 joyous family of children. 
 
 V. 22. VYtus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I will lift up to the 
 nations my hand, and I loill set up to the peoples my standard (or signal) : 
 
 13 
 
] 94 C H A P T E R X L I X . 
 
 and they icill bring ihij sons in (he bosom (or arms), and ihy daughters on 
 the shoulders shall be carried. The idea expressed by the figures of the 
 first clause is that of suinnioning the nations to perform their part in this 
 great work. The figures themselves are the same as in ch. 13:2, viz. the 
 shaking or waving of the hand and the erection of a banner, pole, or other 
 signal, with distinct reference perhaps to persons at a distance and at hand. 
 The figurative promise would be verified by any divine influence securing 
 the co-operation of the heathen in accomplishing Jehovah's purpose, whatever 
 might be the external circumstances either of the call or their compliance 
 with it. The effect of that compliance is described in the last clause, as the 
 bringing home of Zion's sons and daughters, with all the tender care which 
 is wont to be lavished upon infants by their parents or their nurses. The 
 same image is again presented in ch. 60 : 4. 66: 12. Peculiar to this case 
 is the use of the word '^h, which seems most probably to signify either the 
 bosom or the arm, when spoken of in reference to carrying and especially 
 the carrying of children. Strictly perhaps the word expresses an idea inter- 
 mediate between arm and bosom, or including both, viz. the space enclosed 
 by tbem in the act of grasping or embracing. This likewise seems to be the 
 sense of the cognate "jsn which occurs in Ps. 129:7. The only other 
 instance of the form '^'n is Neh. 5 : 13, where it is rendered lap, and evi- 
 dently signifies some part of the dress, perhaps the wide sleeve of an oriental 
 garment, which would connect it with the meaning arm, but more probably 
 the bosom of the same. According to Rosenmiiller it denotes any' curvature 
 or fold of the body or the dress, like the Latin sinus. That the sense of 
 bosom is at least included here, may be inferred from the analogy of Num. 
 n : 12 and Ruth 4 : 16, where the same act is described by the use of the 
 unambiguous term "^^n . Gesenius's translation, aj-m, is therefore too restricted. 
 It is somewhat curious that Hitzig, while he renders this word bosom, uses 
 i'rm as an equivalent to Cin:^ , which is an arbitrary explanation of the common 
 word for shoulder, and one so often mentioned in connexion with the act of 
 bearing burdens. (See above, ch. 30: 6. 46: 7. Ezek. 12: 6. INum. 7 : 9.) 
 Arm, however, is a favourite word witli Hitzig, who substitutes it frequently 
 for hand, without the least necessity or reason. Those who restrict the 
 promise to the exiled Jews in Babylon are under the necessity of making 
 this a restoration, which is not only perfectly gratuitous but inconsistent with 
 the verse preceding, where these same children are described as appearing 
 for the first time and thereby exciting the surprise of the forsaken mother. 
 
 V. 23. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nuis- 
 ing mothers ; face to the ground shall thty bow to thee, and the dust of thy 
 feet shall they lick ; and thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, whose waiters 
 (or hopers, i. e. those who trust in him) shall not be ashamed (or disappointed). 
 
CH A P T E R XL IX. ] 95 
 
 The same promise is repeated in substance with a change of form. Instead 
 of the nations, we have now their kings and queen? j and instead of Zion's 
 sons and daughters, Zion herself. This last variation, while it either per- 
 plexes or annoys the rhetorical precisian, aids the rational interpreter by 
 showing that the figures of the preceding verse, however natural and just, 
 are not to be rigidly explained. In other words, it shows that between the 
 Zion of this passage and her children there is no essential difference, and 
 that what is promised to the one is promised to the other. This identity is 
 clear from the apparent solecism of representing the bereaved and childless 
 mother as herself an infant in the arms and at the breast, because really as 
 much in need of sustenance and care as those before called her sons and 
 daughters, or i-ather because she is but another figure for the same thin"^. 
 This confusion of imagery all tends to confirm the supposition that the Zion 
 of these prophecies is not a city, which could scarcely be thus confounded 
 with its citizens, but a society or corporation, between which as an ideal 
 person and its individual inembers or any given portion of them, there is no 
 such well defined and palpable distinction. — )-qi(. , to v/hich the En<dish 
 Version and some others give the sense o( nourishers, is now explained to 
 mean a carrier or bearer, which last name is applied by the En<>-lish in 
 Hindoslan to the male nurses of their children. Some regard it as equivalent 
 to ncuSayayog (Gal. 3 : 24), and as referring to a later period of childhood 
 than ^T'T^. which is properly a suckler or wet-nurse. But as there is nothing 
 in the text to suggest the idea of succession in time, they may be reoarded 
 as poetical equivalents. Hitzig's notion that the kings and queens are merely 
 represented as the servile attendants of Zion is forbidden by the specific 
 offices ascribed to them. As little can it be supposed with Knobel, that she 
 is here to be conceived of as a queen upon her throne, who could scarcely be 
 supposed to need the tender attentions of a bearer and a wet-nurse. The 
 image is still that of a tender infimt, with an almost imperceptible substitution 
 of the mother for her children — n^^ix d-qn is a kind of compound adverb 
 like our English phrases sword-in-hand, arm-in-arm, but still more concise. 
 The addition of these words determines the meaning of the precedino- verb as 
 denoting actual prostration, which is also clear from the next clause where 
 the licking of the dust cannot be naturally understood as a strong expression 
 for the kissing of the feet or of the earth in token of homafe but is rather 
 like the biting of the dust in Homer, a poetical description of complete and 
 compulsory prostration, not merely that of subjects to their sovereign, but 
 of vanquished enemies before their conquerors. (Compare Mic. 7-17 
 Ps. 72 : 9.) Tn the last clause -'I'H is not a conjunction, meaning that or for, 
 but as usual a relative, to be connected with \"'p in construction, ivho my 
 hopers, i. e. whose hopers, those who hope in me. 
 
1 96 C H A P T E R X L I X . 
 
 V. 24. Shall the preij he taken from the mighty, and shall the captivity 
 of the righteous be delivered 1 This verse suggests a difficulty in the way 
 of the fulfihnent of the promise, n'-p^-c and "^^a are combined likewise else- 
 where to describe wdiatever can be taken in war, including prisoners and 
 booty. (Num. 31 : 11, 12, 27, 32.) -::':J , though properly an abstract, is 
 continually used as a collective term for captives. Its combination here 
 with p'"n^ has perplexed interpreters. Houbigant, Lowth, Ewald, and 
 Knobel read "i'"'"]^' "^^ffl , as in the next verse, which is a mere subterfuge. 
 Rosenmiiller follows Albert Schultens in giving to p"''^s the sense of rigid, 
 stern severe ; which is not in the least justified by Hebrew usage. Beck 
 follows J. D. iMichaelis in explaining it to mean vic\orious according to the 
 sense of t'i^^ory now commonly put upon P1.^. , notwithstanding the objection 
 of Gesenius that there is no authority in usage for the application of this 
 term to the successes of the wicked, without regard to its original import. 
 Svmmachus, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Hitzig, understand the phrase to mean 
 the rio-hteous captives, i. e. the exiled Jews. Gesenius, Maurer, and Um- 
 breit, the prey or plunder of the righteous, i. e. taken from the righteous. 
 But this explanation of ^y^_ is harsh, and the parallelism, as well as the 
 analoo-y of v. 25, requires that p"^"^^ should be referred to the subject not the 
 object of the action. The English Version makes it agree directly with •^::ii3 , 
 in the sense of lawful captive, i. e. one who has been lawfully enslaved, or 
 one who deserves to be a captive. The simplest and most obvious con- 
 struction of the words is that which makes them mean the captives of a 
 rio-hteous conqucior. The argument may then be stated thus : Shall the 
 cnptiveseven of a righteous conqueror be freed in such a case? How much 
 more the captives of an unjust oppressor ! 
 
 V. 25. For thus saith Jehovah, also (or even) the captivity (or captives) 
 of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered, 
 and loith thy strivers will I strive, and thy sons ivill I save. There is no 
 need of giving to the ^3 at the beginning the factitious sense of yes, no, nay, 
 more, veVily, or the like. Its proper meaning may be retained by supplying 
 in thought an aflirmative answer to the foregoing question. Shall the cap- 
 tives of the righteous be delivered ? Yes, and more ; for thus saith Jehovah, 
 not only this but also the captives of the tyrant or oppressor. There is a 
 very material difference between supplying what is not expressed and 
 changing the meaning of what is. The latter expedient is never admissible ; 
 the former is often necessary. The logical connexion between this verse 
 and the one before it has been already stated. Its general sense is clear, as 
 a solemn declaration that the power of the captor can oppose no real obsta- 
 cle to the fulfilment of the promise of deliverance. The same idea is 
 expressed in the last clause in more general and literal terms. 
 
CHAPTERL. 197 
 
 V. 26. Aiid I loUl make thy oppressors eat their (own) jicsh, and as 
 with new ivine, loith their blood shall they he drunh'cn ; and all jiesh shall 
 Jcnoiv, that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour, and (ihat^ thy Redeemer is the 
 Mighty One of Jacob. The first clause is commonly explained as a strong 
 metaphorical description of intestine wars and mutual destruction, similar to 
 that in Zech. 11 r 9. In this case, however, as in ch. 9:19, the image is 
 perhaps rather that of a person devouring his own flesh in impotent and de- 
 sperate rage. The Targum gratuitously changes the sense by interpreting 
 the first clause to mean, 'I will give their flesh for food to the birds of 
 heaven,' or, as Jarchi has it, ' to the beasts of the field.' The last clause 
 winds up this part of the prophecy by the usual return to the great theme 
 of the whole book, the relation of Jehovah to his people, as their Saviour, 
 Redeemer, and Protector, self-existent, eternal, and almighty in himself, yet 
 condescending to be called the Mighty One of Jacob. The last words may 
 be construed as a single proposition, ' that 1 am Jehovah thy Saviour and thy 
 Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.' This will be found upon comparison, 
 however, to express much less than the construction above given, which 
 asserts not only that the speaker is Jehovah etc. but that the Being who 
 possesses these attributes is the peculiar covenanted God of Israel or Jacob. 
 For the different epithets of this clause, see above, ch. 1 : 2^1, 41 : 14, 43 : 3. 
 For a similar statement of the purpose of God's providential dealings with 
 his people, see ch. 45 : 3, and v. 23 of this same chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 This chapter contains no entirely new element, but a fresh view of 
 several which have already been repeatedly exhibited. The first of these 
 is the great truth, that the sufferings of God's people are the necessary fruit 
 of their own sins, vs. 1. The second is the power of Jehovah to accom- 
 plish their deliverance, vs. 2, 3. The third h- the Servant of Jehovah, his 
 mission, his qualifications for it, his endurance of reproach and opposition on 
 account of it, vs. 4-9. The fourth is the way of salvation and the certain 
 doom of those who neglect it, vs. 10, 11. 
 
 This perpetual recurrence of the same great themes in various combi- 
 nations makes the mere division of the chapters a comparatively unimpor- 
 tant matter, although some writers seem to attach great importance to the 
 
198 CHAPTERL. 
 
 separation of the first three verses from what follows, and their intimate con- 
 nexion witli what goes before. It should be ever borne in mind that these 
 divisions are conventional and modern, and that in this part of Isaiah more 
 especially ihey might have been omitted altogether without any serious 
 inconvenience to the reader or inlerpretei-. A much greater evil than the 
 want of these divisions is the habit of ascribing to them undue authority and 
 suffering the exposition to be governed by them, as if each were a separate 
 prediction or discourse, instead of being arbitrary though convenient breaks 
 in a continued composition, not materially differing from the paragraphs now 
 used in every modern book. The re-arrangement of the chapters in the 
 present case would answer no good purpose, since the first three verses are 
 not more closely connected with the end of the preceding chapter than what 
 follows Is with its beginning. The true course is to make use of the common 
 divisions as convenient pauses, but to read and expound the text as one con- 
 tinuous discourse. 
 
 V. 1. Thus saith Jthovah. This prefatory formula lias no doubt had 
 some Influence on the division of the chapters. It does not, however, always 
 indicate the introduction of a new subject, as may be seen by a comparison 
 of ch. 48 : 17 with ch. 49 : I. — Where is or ivhat is 1 'i^, by itself Is the 
 Interrogative adverb ivhcrel When joined with t~>7 , it seems to be equiva- 
 lent to our Interrogative ivhat or which, but aKvays with reference to place, 
 and for the most ])art with a noun of place following. The most frequent 
 combination Is, which way 1 This leaves it doubtful whether it is used In 
 the general sense of what, as explained by Ewald, or in the more specific 
 one of what place I. e. ichere, preferred by Gesenlus and most other writers. 
 This Is a question of but little moment as to the general meaning of the sen- 
 tence ; since the question ' where Is it? ' as we shall see below. Is here sub- 
 stantially equivalent to 'what is it?' — The bill of divorcement, ViteraWy, 
 writing of excision or repudiation, translated in the Septuagint §i^h'ov tov 
 «;70(77«ct/oi', which form is retained in the New Testament (Alatth. 19:7. 
 Mark 10 : 4) though sometimes abridged (]Mattl). 5 : 31). The Hebrew 
 phrase denotes the legal instrument by which the Mosaic law allowed a 
 husband to repudiate his wife (Deut. 24 : 1-3). — Of your mother. The 
 persons addressed are the Individual members of the church or nation ; their 
 mother is the church or nation itself. These are of course distinguished 
 from each other only by a poetical figure. — Whom I have sent (or jmi) 
 away. These words admit of a twofold construction. AccoTding to the 
 common Hebrew idiom, the relative pronoun, wiien the object of a verb, is 
 followed by the personal pronoun which It represents. According to this 
 id\om, whom I have sent her means nothing more that whom I have sent, 
 except that It more distinctly Indicates the gender of the object. This con- 
 
CHAPTERL. 199 
 
 slruction is recommended here, not only by its strict conformity to general 
 usage, but by its recurrence in the very next clause, where ib c=rs ■n-i3T3 irx 
 is agreed on all hands to mean to ivhom I sold you. But as the verb to send 
 governs two accusatives in Hebrew, the relative may take the place of one 
 of them, denoting the end for which or the means by which, as it actually 
 does in ch. 55 : 11. 2 Sam. 1 I : 22. 1 Kings 14 : 6, and in the case before 
 us, according to the judgment of most modern writers, who explain the 
 words to mean wherewith I have sent her away. — The use of the disjunc- 
 tive or in Hebrew is comparatively rare, and consequently more significant 
 when it does occur, as in this case, where it seems designed to intimate that 
 the two figures of the clause are to be taken separately, not together, that is 
 to say that the punishment of the people is not compared to the repudiation 
 of a wafe and the sale of her children in the same ideal case, but represented 
 by the two distinct emblems of a wife divorced and children sold. Or which 
 of my creditors (is it) to whom I have sold yotil We have here an allusion 
 to another provision of the Mosaic law, which allows debtors to be sold in 
 payment of their debts (Matt. 18 : 25), and even children by their parents 
 (Exod. 21 : 7). — The answer follows in the other clause. Behold, for 
 your iniquities ye have been sold. The reflexive meaning, ye have sold 
 yourselves, is frequently expressed by this form of the verb, but not inva- 
 riably nor even commonly ; it is not, therefore, necessary here, nor even 
 favoured by the parallelism, as the corresponding term is a simple passive of 
 a different form, and one which cannot, from ihe nature of the case, denote 
 a reflexive or reciprocal action. — And for your transgressions. Vitringa's 
 suggestion, that one of the parallel terms may signify civil and the other 
 religious offences, is entirely gratuitous. Your mother has been sent (ov put) 
 away. The repetition of //ou/-, where Aer transgressions might have been 
 expected, only serves to show more clearly the real identity of those who 
 are formally distinguished as the mother and the children. — The interroga- 
 tion in the first clause of this verse has been variously understood. Jerome 
 and the Rabbins explain it as an indirect but absolute negation, implying 
 that she had not been divorced at all, but had wilfully forsaken her husband, 
 and, as Abarbenel says, gone out from his house of herself or of her own 
 accord (p'3:) iv T>i>i^ OPiuy i>'7>). This, tliou'j;h a good sense in itself, is not 
 an obvious one, or that which the words would readily suggest. If this had 
 been the writer's meaning, and he had chosen to express it in the form of 
 an interrogation, he would more probably have said, Have I given your 
 mother a bill of divorcement ? Have 1 sold you to my creditors? Besides, 
 the explanation of this clause as an absolute negation is at variance with the 
 j)ositive statement in the last clause that she had been put away, as well as 
 with the parallel assertion that they had been sold, which last indeed may 
 be explained away by adopting the reflexive sense, but no such explanation 
 
•200 CHAPTER L. 
 
 is admissible in the other case. In order to avoid this objection, some 
 explain the clause not as an absolute negation but a qualified one. Thus 
 Vitringa understands it to mean that she iiad been put away and they sold, 
 not by him, i. e. not by the husband and the father, but by judicial process, 
 which he undertakes to reconcile with ancient Jewish usage by the authority 
 of Buxtorf and Seldcn. It is evident, however, that the qualification, which 
 is needed to reconcile the clauses, is, in this interpretation, wholly sup- 
 plied by the imagination of the reader or interpreter, without the least 
 foundation in the text or context. The same remark applies, though 
 in a less degree, to the modification of this negative hypothesis by Grotius, 
 who supposes it to be denied that she had been divorced without sufli- 
 cient reason, and by Gesenius, who explains it as denying that she had 
 received a bill or writing of the ordinary kind. Tlie difficulty common to 
 all these hypotheses is that the qualification assumed is altogether arbitrary 
 and dependent on the fancy or discretion of the reader. — This is equally 
 true of some interpretations which assume that she had been put away, for 
 example that of Hitzig, who ingeniously supposes that the bill of divorce- 
 ment is called for that it may be cancelled, and the creditor that he may be 
 paid. The most emphatic and significant portion of the sentence is in this 
 case not expressed at all, and never would occur to any reader but the one 
 whose ingenuity invented it. — The simplest and most obvious interpretation 
 of the first clause is the one suggested by the second, which evidently stands 
 related to it as an answer to the question which occasions it. In the present 
 case, the answer is wholly unambiguous, viz. that they were sold for their 
 sins, and that she was put away for their transgressions. The question 
 naturally corresponding to this answer is the question, why the motlier was 
 divorced, and why the sons were sold. Supposing this to be the substance 
 of the first clause, its form is very easily accounted for. Ifhtre is your 
 mother's bill of (J iv or cement 1 produce it that we may see the cause of her 
 repudiation. Where is the creditor to whom I sold xjoul let him appear 
 and tell us what was the occasion of your being sold. Gesenius's objection, 
 that the Jewish bills of divorcement did not state the cause, is trivial, even if 
 the fact alleged be admitted to be true, for which there is no sufficient reason. 
 The objection that God could not have a creditor, from which some have 
 argued that the first clause must be negatively understood, has no more force 
 than the objection that he could not be a husband or a writer, both involving 
 an egregious misconception or an utter disregard of the figurative nature of 
 the passage. If Jehovah's casting off his people might be likened to a 
 Jewish husband's repudiation of his wife, then the same thing might be 
 likened to a Jewish debtor's sale of himself or his children to his creditors, 
 without any greater incongruity or contradiction in the one case than the 
 other. The general idea of rejection is twice clothed in a figurative dress, 
 
C H A P T E R L. 201 
 
 first by emblems borrowed from the law and custom of divorce, and then by 
 emblems borrowed from the law and custom of imprisonment for debt. — 
 The restriction of this passage to the Babylonish exile is entirely arbitrar)^ 
 If it admits of any special application, it is rather to the repudiation of the 
 Jewish people at the advent. 
 
 V. 2. Why did I come, and there was no man 1 (why) did I call, and 
 there tvas no one answering 7 The idiom of occidental languages would 
 here admit, if not require, a more involved and hypothetical construction. 
 ' Why, when I came, was there no one (to receive me), and, when I called, 
 no one to answer me ?' (See above, ch. 5 : 4, and the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 66.) The Targum explains this of God's coming and calling by the 
 Piopliets, and the modern Germans adopt the same interpretation. Vitringa 
 and many other writers undeistand it of Christ's coming in the flesh. Both 
 explanations are erroneous if exclusive, both correct as specific applications 
 of a general expression. In themselves, the words imply nothing more than 
 that God had come near to the people, by his word and providence, but 
 without any suitable response on their part. The clause is explanatory of 
 their being sold and |7»Y aivay, as represented in the foregoing verse. The 
 general truth which it teaches is, that God has never and will never put 
 away his people even for a time without preceding disobedience and aliena- 
 tion upon their part. Particular examples of this general truth are furnished 
 by tlie Babylonish exile and by every season of distress and persecution. — 
 The other clause precludes the vindication of their unbelief and disobedience 
 on the ground that they had not sufficient reason to obey his commands and 
 rely upon his promises. Such doubts are rendered impious and foolish by 
 the proofs of his almighty power. This power is first asserted indirectly by 
 a question implying the strongest negation : Is my hand shortened, shortened, 
 from redemption ? and is there with me no power (i. e. have I no power) 
 to deliver 1 Shortness of hand or arm is a common oriental figure for 
 defect of power, especially in reference to some particular effect, which 
 is thus represented as beyond the reach. (See ch. 59: 1. Num. 1 1 : 23. 
 cf. ch, 37 : 17.) According to Gesenius, Artaxerxes Longinianus was so 
 called, not in reference to any corporeal peculiarity, but as being possessed 
 of extraordinary power. The emphatic repetition of the Hebrew verb 
 may, as usual, be variously expressed in translation by the introduction of 
 intensive phrases, such as altogether or at all, or by a simple repetition of 
 the verb in English. From, redemption, i. e. so as not to redeem or deliver 
 from distress. (See above, on ch. 49: 15.) — Behold, by my rebuke (a term 
 often used to express God's control over the elements) I will dry up the sea. 
 I can make a complete change in the face of nature. INIost of the modern 
 writers use the present form, / dry up the sea. But this, as expressing an 
 
202 CHAPTER L. 
 
 habitual act, fails to give the sense of the original, which is not a description 
 of what he usually does, but a declaration of what he can do and what he 
 will do in the present instance if it should be necessary. Hence the best 
 translation of the verb is the exact one which adheres to the strict sense of 
 the future. As in many other cases, this general expression may involve a 
 particular allusion, namely, to the crossing of the Red Sea at the exodus 
 from Egypt. But to make this the direct and main sense of the words, is 
 equally at variance with good taste and the context. It is only upon this 
 erroneous supposition that Vitringa could imagine himself bound to apply 
 what follows (I will make streams a ivilderness) to the passage of the Jordan, 
 and to justify the plural designation of that river by appealing to its magni- 
 tude, historical importance, etc. It is really a poetical reiteration of what 
 goes before, extending what was there said of the sea to streams and other 
 waters. Tl)e remaining words of this verse are intended merely to complete 
 the picture, by subjoining to the cause its natural effect. — Let their ftsh 
 stink for want of water and die of thirst. The abbreviated form nan seems 
 to show that the writer here passes from the tone of prediction or general 
 description to that of actual command. It may however be a poetic varia- 
 tion of the ordinary future form, in which case the sense will be, their fish 
 snail die etc. ; or the abbreviated form may indicate an indirect or oblique 
 construction, so that their fish shall stink etc., which last explanation is the 
 one preferred by the latest writers. The pronoun their refers to sea and 
 rivers, or to the last alone, which is masculine, though feminine in form. — 
 For cxan Lowth reads ^z'^n (their fish is dried up), on the authority of one 
 manuscript confirmed by the Septuagint version (hiQavOi^aovica). The col- 
 lective use of the word fish is the same in Hebrew and in English. For 
 the true sense of 'rJ<^ , see above, ch. 5 : 9, and the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 70. 
 
 V. 3. The description of Jehovah's ])ower, as displayed in his control 
 of the elements, is still continued. / will clothe the heavens in blackness. 
 The Hebrew noun, according to its etymology, denotes not merely a black 
 colour, but such a colour used as a sign of mourning. Thus understood, it 
 corresponds exactly to the following words, where the customary mourning 
 dress of ancient times is mentioned. And sackcloth I loill place (or make) 
 their covering. The reference of this verse to the plague of darkness in 
 the land of Egypt is admissible only in the sense explained above with 
 respect to the passage of the Red Sea, namely, as a particular allusion 
 comprehended in a general description. J. D. Michaelis and some later 
 writers understand it as referring to the usual phenomena of storms, or even 
 to the obscuration of the sky by clouds ; but it is inconceivable that such 
 an every-day occurrence should be coupled with the drying up of seas and 
 
CHAPTER L. 203 
 
 rivers, as a proof of God's power over nature and the elements. The sense 
 required by the connexion is that of an extraordinary darkness (such as that 
 of an eclipse), or even an extinction of the heavenly bodies, as in ch. 13 : 10. 
 (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 253.) 
 
 V. 4. The Lord Jehovah hath given to me. As Jehovah is the speaker 
 in the foregoing verse, Cocceius, Viiringa, and many others, regard this 
 clause as a proof that these are the words of the jNIessiah, who, in virtue of 
 his twofold nature, might speak in the person of Jehovah, and yet say, 
 Jehovah hath given to me. The rabbins and the Germans explain them as 
 the \vords of Isaiah himself, speaking either in his own name or in that of 
 the prophets as a class. But some of the things which follow are inappli- 
 cable to such a subject, an objection not relieved by assuming with Grotius 
 that Isaiah is here a type of Christ. The true hypothesis is still the same 
 which we have found ourselves constrained to assume in all like cases 
 throughout the foregoing chapters, namely, that the servant of Jehovah, as 
 he calls himself in v. 10 below, is the Messiah and his People, as a complex 
 person, or the Church in indissoluble union with its Head, asserting his 
 divine commission and authority to act as the great teacher and enlightener 
 of the world. For this end God had given him a ready tongue or speech. 
 JMost interpreters adopt a different version of ci";!!":? in the first and last 
 clause, giving it at first the sense o( learned, and afterwards that of learners. 
 These two ideas, it is true, are near akin, and may be blended in the 
 Hebrew word as they are in the English scholar, which is used both for a 
 learner and a learned person. It is best, however, for that very reason, to 
 retain the same word in translation, as is done by Hitzig, who translates it 
 discijjles, Ewald apostles, and Henderson those who are taught. Grotius 
 agrees with the Septuagint in making c^n^rs? an abstract noun meaning 
 instructive — yXaocfar nai(it(u^, an instructive tongue. Gesenius considers it 
 equivalent to taught ox practised tongue. In every other case the word is 
 a concrete, meaning persons taught, disciples. (See above, ch. 8: 16, and 
 below, ch. 54 : 13.) From this expression Hitzig and Knobel strangely 
 infer that Isaiah was an uneducated prophet like Amos (7:14), which 
 would be a very forced conclusion, even if Isaiah were the subject of the 
 passage. As applied to Christ, it is descriptive of that power of conviction 
 and persuasion which is fi'equently ascribed in the New Testament to his 
 oral teachings. As his representative and instrument, the Church has 
 always had a measure of the same gift enabling her to execute her high 
 vocation. — To know (that I might know) to help or succour the weary 
 (with) a word. This explanation of the verb W? , which occurs only here, is 
 that given by Aquila {I'TtocTi^niaui), Jerome (sustentare), Gesenius (stiirken). 
 
204 CHAPTERL. 
 
 and several of the later writers. Near akin to this, and founded on another 
 Arabic analogy, is the sense of refreshing, which is expressed by Ruckert, 
 Ewald, and Umbreit. J, D. IMichaelis explains it to mean change, and 
 applies it to the endless variety of our Saviour's instructions. Paulus and 
 Hiizig make the ^ radical, and identify the word with the Arabic LiJ to 
 speak ; but this, according to Knobel, would be applicable only to frivo- 
 lous, unmeaning speech. Most of the older writers understand r^^v as a 
 denominative verb from r» dine, meaning to speak seasonably. This 
 explanation seems to be implied in the Septuagint paraphrase (lov yravai 
 iji/.a dn tintir ).6yor). But according to the probable etymology of rv , the 
 verb derived from it would assume another form, and the construction with 
 two objects, as Gesenius observes, would be harsh ; whereas it is not 
 uncommon with verbs of supporting or sustaining. (See Gen. 47:13. 
 1 Kings 18:4.) The Chaldee paraphrase, 'that I might know how to 
 leach wisdom to the righteous panting for the words of the law,' or, as Jarchi 
 and Kimchi have it, ' thirsting for the words of God,' appears to be conjec- 
 tural. — He toil/ waken, in the morning, in the tnorning, he will waken for 
 me the ear, i. e. he will waken my ear, rouse my attention, and open my 
 mind to the reception of the truth. (See ch. 48 : 8. 1 Sam. 9: 15. 20: 2. 
 Ps. 41:7.) The present tense (he wakeneth) asserts a claim to constant 
 inspiration ; the future expresses a confident belief that God will assist and 
 inspire him. — The accents require in the morning in the morning to be read 
 together, as in ch. 28: 19, where it is an intensive repetition meaning every 
 mornin<r. It mioht otherwise be thouirht more natural to read the sentence 
 thus, he will waken in the morning, in the morning he will loaken, a twofold 
 expression of the same idea, viz. that he will do so early. In either case 
 the object of both verbs is the same ; the introduction of the pronoun me 
 after the first in the English Version being needless and hurtful to the 
 sentence. — The last words of the verse declare the end or purpose of this 
 wakening, to hear (i. e. that I may hear) like the disciples or the taught, 
 i. e. that I may give attention as a learner listens to his teacher. Luzzatto 
 understands this verse as an assertion of the pious and believing Jews, that 
 God enables them to hear and speak as if they were all prophets, which, if 
 correctly understood and duly limited, appears to be the true sense as 
 explained above. 
 
 V. 5. The Lord Jehovah opened for me the ear, and I resisted not. 
 The common version, 1 was not rebellions, seems to convert the description 
 of an act into that of a habit. — I did not draw hack, or refuse the office, on 
 account of the hardships by which I foresaw that it would be accompanied. 
 There may be an allusion to the conduct of Moses (4 : 13) in declining the 
 
CHAPTER L. 205 
 
 dangerous but honourable work to which the Lord had called him. (Com- 
 pare Jer. 1:6. 17 : 16.) Henderson's reflection on this sentence is, " How 
 different the conduct of the INIessiah from that of Jonah !" 
 
 V. 6. 31y hack I gave to (those) smiting. We may understand by 
 gave either yielded unresistingly or offered voluntarily. (Compare Matth. 
 5 : 39.) The punishment of scourging was a common one, and is particu- 
 larly mentioned in the history of our Lord's maltreatment. — And my cheeks 
 to (those) 2^^ 'Peking (the beard or hair). It is well observed by Hitzig that 
 the context here requires something more than the jjlayful or even the con- 
 temptuous pulling of the beard, the vellere bai-bam of Horace and Persius, 
 to which preceding writers had referred. A better parallel is Neh. 13 : 25, 
 where the Tirshatha is said lo have contended with the Jews, and cursed 
 them, and smote them, and plucked off' their hair. (Com.pare Ezra 9 : 3.) 
 This particular species of abuse is not recorded in the history of our Saviour's 
 sufferings, but some suppose it to be comprehended in the general term hif- 
 feting. — My face I did not hide from shame and spitting. The plural 
 form ri-s^s may be either an intensive or einphaiic expression for extreme 
 shame or abundant shame, or a term comprehending various shameful acts, 
 such as smiting on the face, spitting in it, and the like. In the phrase 
 / did not hide my face there may be an allusion to the common fit^ure of 
 confusion covering the face (Jer. 51 : 51), in reference no doubt to the 
 natural expression of this feeling by a blush, or in extreme cases by a livid 
 paleness overspreading the features. Some have imagined that by spitting 
 nothing more is meant than spitting on the ground in one's presence, \\hich, 
 according to the oriental usages and feelings, is a strong expression of abhor- 
 rence and contempt. But, as Lowth well says, if spitting in a person's 
 presence was such an indignity, how much more spitting in his face; and 
 the whole connexion shows that the reference is not to any mitigated form 
 of insult but to its extreme. That this part of the description was fulfilled 
 in the experience of our Saviour, is expressly recorded, Matth. 26 : 67. 
 27 : 30. That it was literally verified in that of Isaiah, is not only without 
 proof but in the last degree improbable, much more the supposition that it 
 was a common or habitual treatment of the prophets as a class. As to 
 Isaiah himself, it is worthy of remark that a learned and ingenious rabbin of 
 our own day (Samuel Luzzatto) argues against this application of the pro- 
 phet's language, first, because he was not a prophet of evil, and could not 
 therefore be an object of the popular hatred ; secondly, because his predic- 
 tions were not addressed to his contemporaries but to future ages ; thirdly, 
 because even on the supposition that he lived at the time of the Babylonish 
 exile, he must have written in the name and person of an older prophet, and 
 could not therefore have exposed himself to any public insult. From lhi> 
 
206 C H A P T E R L . 
 
 impossibility of proving any literal coincidence between the prophetic 
 description and the personal experience of the prophet himself, when 
 taken in connexion with the palpable coincidences which have been already 
 pointed out in the experience of Jesus Christ, many interpreters infer that 
 it was meant to he a literal prediction of his sufferings. But even Vitringa 
 has observed that if it were so, its fulfilment, or the record of it, would be 
 imperfect, since the points of agreement are not fully commensurate with 
 those of the description. (See for example what has been already said with 
 respect to the plucking of the beard or hair.) The most satisflictory solu- 
 tion of the difficulty is the one suggested by Vitringa himself, who regards 
 the prophecy as metaphorical, and as denoting cruel and contemptuous 
 treatment in general, and supposes the literal coincidences, as in many other 
 cases, to have been providentially secured, not merely to convict the Jews 
 as Grotius says, but also to identify to others the great subject of the pro- 
 phecy. But if the prophecy itself be metaphorical, it may apply to other 
 subjects, less completely and remarkably but no less really, not to Isaiah, it 
 is true, from whom its terms, even figuratively understood, are foreign, but 
 to the church or people of God, the body of Christ, which like its head has 
 ever been an object of contempt with those who did not understand its 
 character or recognise its claims. What is literally true of the Head is 
 metaphorically true of the Body. 'I gave my back to the smiters and my 
 cheeks to the pluckers, my fiice I did not hide from shame and spitting.' 
 
 V. 7. And the Lord Jehovah will help me, or afford help to me. The 
 adversative paiticle, which most translators have found necessary here to 
 show the true connexion, is not required by the Hebrew idiom. (See 
 above, on ch. 40: 8.) — Therefore I am not confounded by the persecution 
 and contempt described in the foregoing verses. The common version, / 
 shall not be confounded, is not only arbitrary but injurious to the sense, 
 which is not that God's protection will save him from future shame, but 
 that the hope of it saves him even now. The words strictly mean I have 
 not been confounded, which implies of course that he is not so now. — 
 Therefore I have set my face as a flint. This is a common description of 
 firmness and determination, as expressed in the countenance. It is equally 
 applicable to a wicked impudence (Jer. 5:3. Zech. 7:12) and a holy 
 resolution (Ezek. 3:8, 9). The same thing is expressed by Jeremiah 
 under different but kindred figures. (Jer. 1 : 17, 18. 15:20.) It is pro- 
 bable, as J. H. Michaelis suggests, that Luke alludes to these passages, when 
 he says that our Lord stedfasthj set his face (rh nQoamnov avtov iarTJQi^e) to 
 go to Jerusalem. (Luke 9:51.) The strong and expressive English 
 phrase set my face is in all respects better than those which later versions 
 have substituted for it, such displace (Barnes) , present (Noyes), etc. — And 
 
CHAPTERL. 207 
 
 Iknoiv that I shall not be ashamed. The substitution o{ because for and is 
 an unnecessary deviation from the Hebrew idiom. 
 
 V. 8. Near (is) my justijier (or the one justifying me). P^'^5?n is 
 strictly a forensic term meaning to acquit or pronounce innocent, in case of 
 accusation, and to right or do justice to, in case of civil controversy. The 
 use of this word and of several correlative expressions, may be clearly 
 learned from Deut. 25 : 1. The justifier is of course Jehovah. His being 
 near is not intended to denote the proximity of an event still future, but to 
 describe his intervention as constantly within reach and available. It is not 
 the justification which is said to be near to the time of speakino^, but the 
 justifier who is said to be near the speaker himself. The justification of his 
 servant is the full vindication of his claims to divine authority and inspi- 
 ration. At the same time there is a designed coincidence between the 
 terms of the prediction and the issue of our Saviour's trial ; but the pro- 
 phecy is not to be restricted to this object. The general meaning of the 
 words is, all this reproach is undeserved, as will be seen hereafter. Since 
 God himself has undertaken his defence, the accuser's case is hopeless. He 
 therefore asks triumphantly, Who ivill contend with me ? The Hebrew 
 verb denotes specifically litigation, or forensic strife. Rom. 8: 33, 34, is 
 an obvious imitation of this passage as to form. But even Vitrincra, and 
 the warmest advocates for letting the New Testament explain the Old, are 
 forced to acknowledge that in this case Paul merely borrows his expressions 
 from the Prophet, and applies them to a different object. In any other case 
 this class of writers would no doubt have insisted that the justifier must be 
 Christ and the justified his people ; but from this they are precluded by 
 their own assumption, that the Messiah is the speaker. Both hypotheses, 
 so far as they have any just foundation, may be reconciled by the supposi- 
 tion that the ideal speaker is the Body and the Head in union. In the 
 sense here intended, Christ is justified by the Father, and at the same time 
 justifies his people. — We will stand (or let us stand) together, at the bar, 
 before the judgment-seat, a frequent application of the Hebrew verb. (See 
 Num. 27 : 2. Deut. 19 : 17. I Kings 3 : 16.) This is an indirect defiance 
 or ironical challenge ; as if he had said. If any will still venture to accuse 
 me, let us stand up together. — The same thing is then expressed in other 
 words, the form of interrogation and proposal being still retained. Who is 
 my adversary 1 This is more literally rendered in the margin of the Eno-lish 
 Bible, 7/7(0 is the master of my cause ? But even this liiils to convey the 
 precise sense of the original, and may be even said to reverse it, for the 
 master of my cause seems to imply ascendency or better right, and is not 
 therefore applicable to a vanquished adversary whose case was just before 
 described as hopeless. The truth is that the pronoun 7ny belongs not to 
 
'203 C H A P T E R L . 
 
 the last word meroiy but to the whole complex phrase, and ^?3 simply 
 means ' possessor,' i. e. one to whom a given thing belongs. Thus a cause- 
 7nostcr (elsewhere called c"^"'^ '?? , Exod. 24 : 14) means one who has a 
 cause or lawsuit, a party litigant, and tny cause-master means one who has 
 a controversy with me, my opponent or adversary ; so that the common ver- 
 sion really conveys the meaning better than what seems to be the more 
 exact translation of the margin. In sense, the question is precisely parallel 
 and tantamount to the one before it, ivho will contend with me? — Let him 
 draw near to me, confront me, or engage in conflict with me. — The forensic 
 flo-ures of this verse and some of its expressions, have repeatedly occurred in 
 the course of the preceding chapters. (See ch. 41 : 1, 21. 43 : 9, 26. 
 45:20. 48 : 14, 16.) 
 
 V. 9. Behold, the Lord Jehovah ivill help me ; ivho (is) he (that) will 
 condemn me 1 The help specifically meant is that aflbrded by an advocate 
 or judge to an injured party. T''^.y] is the technical antithesis to p'^'^i^H used 
 in V. 8. Both verbs with their cognate adjectives occur in Deut. 25: 1. — 
 The potential meaning (can condemn) is included in the future (will con- 
 demn), though not directly much less exclusively expressed by it. — The 
 last clause adds to the assurance of his own safety that of the destruction of 
 his enemies. All they (or all of them, his adversaries, not expressly men- 
 tioned but referred to in the questions which precede) like the garment shall 
 ^row old (or be ivorn out), i. e. like the garment which is worn out or 
 decays. — The moth shall devour them. Gesenius condemns the relative 
 construction which the moth devours (referring to iJan as a collective), 
 because inadmissible in the parallel passage, ch. 51 : 8. He nevertheless 
 adopts it in his own German version (wie ein Gewand das die Motle ver- 
 zehrt). The real objection to it is, that it is needless and rests upon a 
 frivolous rhetorical punctilio. By a perfectly natural and common transi- 
 tion, the writer passes from comparison to metaphor, and having first trans- 
 formed them into garments, says directly that the moth shall devour them, 
 not as men, in which light he no longer views them, but as old clothes. 
 This is a favourite comparison in Scripture to express a gradual but sure 
 decay. (Compare ch. 51 : 8 and Hos. 5 : 12.) In Job 13 : 28. Ps. 39: 12, 
 it seems to denote the effect of pining sickness. Not contented with this 
 obvious and natural interpretation of the figure, Vitringa supposes an allusion 
 to the official dresses of their chief men, which is not a whit more reasonable 
 than the notion of Cocceius, which he sets aside as far-fetched, that the 
 prophets, priests, and rulers of the old economy were but a garment, under 
 which the Messiah was concealed until his advent, and of which he stripped 
 himself (dnexdvadfisvog, Col. 2:15) at death. The necessity of thus 
 explaining why the enemies of Christ and his people are compared to gar- 
 
CHAPTER L. 209 
 
 ments is precluded by the obvious consideration, that the main point of the 
 simile is the slow consuming process of the moth, and that the clothes are 
 added simply as the substances in which it is most frequently observed. 
 
 V. 10. JVho among you is a fearer of Jehovah, hcarlccning to the voice 
 of his servant, loho ivalketk in darkness and there is no light to him 1 Let 
 him trust in the name of Jthovah, and lean ujjon his God. The same 
 sense may be attained by closing the interrogation at liis servant, and read- 
 ing the remainder of the sentence thus : ivhoso icaJlcciJi in darkness and hath 
 no light, let him trust etc. This construction, which is given by De Wette, 
 has the advantage of adhering more closely to the masoretic interpunction. 
 A different turn is given to the sentence by J. D. Michaelis, who terminates 
 the question at Jthovah, and makes all the rest an answer to it. ' Who 
 among you is a fearer of Jehovah ? He that hearkeneth to the voice of his 
 servant, that walketh in darkness where he has no dawn, yet trusts in Jeho- 
 vah and relies upon liis God.' To this ingenious and original construction 
 it may be objected, first, (hat it divides the sentence into two very unequal 
 parts, directly contrary to Hebrew usage ; and in the next place, that it 
 makes the participle, present, and future, all precisely synonymous and 
 equally descriptive of the pious man's habitual conduct. All the construc- 
 tions which have now been mentioned give the ^"q its usual and proper 
 sense, as an interrogative pronoun corresponding to the English ivho 1 But 
 Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and Maurer, choose to give it an indefinite 
 
 sense, tvhoso or ivhoever, and exclude the interrogation altoo-ether the 
 
 same superficial lexicography which confounds ikbr, with rt^n , because the 
 Hebrev/ employed one form of expression where we should more naturally 
 use the other. Because whoever might be used, and would be used more 
 readily by us in such a case than who, it does not follow that the former is 
 the true sense of the Hebrew word in that case. All the instances alleged 
 by Gesenius in his Lexicon as proofs that "o is sometimes an indefinite, 
 admit, with one exception, of the usual interrogative translation, not only 
 without damage to the sense, but with a more exact adherence to the genius 
 of the language, which delights in short detached propositions, where an occi- 
 dental writer would prefer a series of dependent members formino- one com- 
 plex period. Thus in Judg, 7 : 3 the occidental idiom would be, Whosoever 
 is fearful and afraid let him return ; but tlie genuine Hebrew form is. 
 Who is fearful and afraid 1 let him return. The same thino- is true of 
 Exod. 24 : 14. Prov. 9 : 4. Eccl. 5 : 9. Is. 54 : 15, in all which cases there 
 is nothing whatever to forbid the application of the general rule, that the 
 usual and proper sense must be retained unless there be some reason for 
 departing from it ; and such a reason cannot be afforded by the bare possi- 
 bility of a different construction. The single exception above mentioned. 
 
 14 
 
210 C H A P T E R L. 
 
 and the only case of the indefinite use of "^'^ alleged by Ewald in his Gram- 
 mar, is 2 Sam. 18: 12, which is too anomalous and doubtful to prove any 
 thing, and w liich may be as properly alleged on one side as the other. 
 The occasional combination of "^ with "ittJx , instead of favouring the views 
 here combated, affords an argument against them, as the obvious meaning 
 of the words, both in Exod. 32 : 33 and 2 Sam. 20 : 1 1 , is, ivlio (is he) that 1 
 All that need be added upon this point is, that the latest German writers 
 have returned to the old and true translation, whol — Obedience to the 
 word is implied in hearing it, but not expi'cssed. Lowth, on the authority 
 of two ancient versions, reads J'^'ii-; for "SjZp , let him hearken, which is 
 copied by Gesenius, perhaps through inadvertence, as he says nothing of a 
 change of text, and no such sense can possibly be put upon the participle. 
 This mistake or oversight, if such it be, although corrected by the later 
 Germans, has been carefully retained by Noyes (Jet him hearken to the 
 voice of his servant). Henderson, on the other hand, retains the common 
 interrogative translation, but explains the '^^2 , in his note, as "a substitute 
 for the relative "iv^Js; , he ivho" which is scarcely intelligible. — Darkness is 
 here used as a natural and common figure for distress. (See above, ch. 
 8:20. 9: I.) J. D. Michaelis gives to ri:.': the specific sense of dawn, 
 break of day, or morning light, hke "inaJ in ch, 8 : 20 and 47 : 11. Vitringa 
 understands it to mean splendor or a great degree of light, and thus avoids 
 the absolute negation of all spiritual light, which would not suit his exege- 
 tical hypothesis. The great majority of writers, late and early, are agreed 
 in making it a poetical equivalent or synonyme of "lix. — The futures in the 
 last clause may, with equal propriety, if not still greater, be translated, he 
 will trust and lean ; the exhortation being then implied but not expressed. 
 
 The preterite "^n may be intended to suggest that the darkness spoken 
 
 of is not a transient state, but one which has already long continued. 
 Trusting in the name of Jehovah is not simply trusting in himself, or in the 
 independent self-existence which that name implies, but in his manifested 
 attributes, attested by experience, which seems to be the full sense of the 
 word name, as applied to God in the Old Testament. — Two exegetical 
 questions, in relation to this verse, have much divided and perplexed inter- 
 preters. The first has respect to the person speaking and the objects of 
 address ; the other to the servant of Jehovah. These questions, from their 
 close connexion and their mutual dependence, may be most conveniently 
 discussed together. There would be no absurdity, nor even inconsistency, 
 in supposing that his servant means the prophet or the prophets indefinitely, 
 as the organs of the divine communications. This may be granted even by 
 those who give the title a very different meaning elsewhere, as it cannot 
 reasonably be supposed that so indefinite a name, and one of such perpetual 
 occurrence, is invariably used in its most pregnant and emphatic sense. It 
 
C H A PT ER L. 211 
 
 is certain, on the contrary, that it is frequently applied to the prophets and 
 to other public functionaries of the old economy. There is therefore no 
 absurdity in Calvin's explanation of the phrase as here descriptive of God's 
 ministers or messengers in general, to whom those who fear him are required 
 to submit. The verse may then be connected immediately with what 
 precedes, as the words of the same speaker. But while all this is unques- 
 tionably true, it cannot be denied that the frequency and prominence with 
 which the Servant of Jehovah is exhibited in these Later Prophecies, as 
 one distinguished from the ordinary ministry, makes it more natural to make 
 that application of the words in this case, if it be admissible. The only 
 difficulty lies in the mention of the Servant of Jehovah in the third person, 
 while the preceding context is to be considered as his own words. (See 
 above, on ch. 49 : 1.) This objection may be easily removed, if we assume, 
 as Ewald does, that the words of the Servant of Jehovah are concluded in 
 the preceding verse, and that in the one before us the Prophet goes on to 
 speak in his own person. This assumption, although not demonstrably 
 correct, agrees well with the dramatic form of the context, both before and 
 after, and the frequent changes of person, without any explicit intimation, 
 which even the most rigorous interpreters are under the necessity of grant- 
 ing. On this hypothesis, which seems to be approved by the latest as 
 well as by the older writers, the Servant o( Jehovah here referred to is the 
 same ideal person who appears at the beginning of the forty-ninth and 
 forty-second chapters, namely, the Messiah and his People as his type and 
 representative, to vv'hose instructions in the name of God the world must 
 hearken if it would be saved. The question, which part of the complex 
 person here predominates, must be determined by observing what is said of 
 him. If the exhortation of the verse were naturally applicable to the world 
 at large, as distinguished from the chosen people, then the latter might be 
 readily supposed to be included under the description of the Servant of 
 Jehovah. But as the terms employed appear to be descriptive of the peo- 
 ple of Jehovah, or of some considerable class among them, the most proba- 
 ble conclusion seems to be, that by the Servant of Jehovah we are here to 
 understand the Head as distinguished from the Body, with a secondary 
 reference, perhaps, to his official representatives, so far as he employs them 
 in communicating even with the Body itself. There is no need of pointino- 
 out the arbitrary nature of Vitringa's theory, that this verse relates to a 
 period extending from the advent to the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, — a 
 chronological hypothesis in which the terminus a quo is only less gratuitous 
 and groundless than the terminus ad quern. 
 
 V. 11. Lo, all of you kindling fire, girding sparks (or fiery darts), go 
 in the light of your fire, and in the sparks ye have kindled. From my hand 
 
212 CHAPTER L. 
 
 is this to you; in pain (or at the jjJace of torment) shall ye lie down. The 
 construction of the first clause is ambiguous, as kindling and girding, with 
 their adjuncts, may be either the predicates or subjects of the proposition. 
 J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, and Hendewerk, prefer the latter supposition, and 
 explain the clause to mean, all of you are kindling fre etc. This being 
 inconsistent with the character described in the preceding verse, Hitzig 
 supposes that the speaker here acknowledges his error, or admits that the 
 fearers of Jehovah, whose existence he had hypothetical!}' stated, were in 
 fact not to be found. As if he had said, 'But you are not such, all of you 
 are kindling,' etc. The harshness of this interpretation, or perhaps other 
 reasons, have induced the great majority of writers to adopt the other syn- 
 tax, and explain the participles as the subject of the proposition, or a 
 description of the object of address, all of you kindling, i. e. all of you who 
 kindle. Thus understood, the clause implies that the speaker is here turn- 
 ing from one class of hearers to another, from the gentiles to the Jews, or 
 from the unbelieving portion of the latter to the pious, or still more gene- 
 rally from the corresponding classes of mankind at large, without either 
 national or local limitation. The wider sense agrees best with the compre- 
 hensive terms of the passage, whatever specific applications may be virtually 
 comprehended in it or legiiimavely inferable from it. This is of course too 
 vague an hypothesis to satisfy the judgment or the feelings of the excellent 
 Vitringa, by whom it is repeatedly affirmed that all who admit the applica- 
 tion of the prophecy to Christ, must grant that this verse is addressed to 
 the Pharisaic party of the Jews, — a consequence the logical necessity of 
 which is very far from being evident. — There is also a difference of opinion 
 with respect to the import of the figures. That of kindling fre is explained 
 by Junius and Tremellius as denoting the invention of doctrines not revealed 
 in Scripture, while the sparks represent the Pharisaical traditions. The 
 rabbinical interpreters suppose the fire to denote the wrath of God, in proof 
 of which they are able to allege not only the general usage of the emblem 
 in that sense, but the specific combination of this very noun and verb in 
 Deut. 32:22. Jer. 15: 14. 17:4. In all these cases the meaning of the 
 figure is determined by the addition of the words in my anger, or as some 
 absurdly choose to render it, in my nose. (See above, on ch. 48 : 9.) 
 This is certainly a strong analogical argument in favour of the rabbinical 
 interpretation, and Vitringa's method of evading it is not a little curious. 
 He rests his proof on the omission of this very phrase ("^Qx^), in default of 
 which, he says, nemo hie necessario cogitat de ira Dei. The same rule, if 
 applied with equal rigour to his own interpretations, would exclude a very 
 large proportion of his favourite conclusions. Even in this case, he has no 
 diccuQirinov, as he calls it, to compel the adoption of his own idea, that the 
 •fire kindled is the fire of sedition and intestine strife, still less to prove that 
 
CHAPTERL. 213 
 
 the particular sedition and intestine conflict meant is that which raged among 
 the Jews before the final downfal of Jerusalem. Lowtli seems unwillinf to 
 reject this explanation, though his better taste inclines him to prefer the 
 wider sense of human devices and worldly policy, exclusive of faith and 
 trust in God. This is substantially the explanation of the words now com- 
 monly adopted, though particular interpi'eters diverge from one another in 
 details, according to the sense which they attach to the parallel metaphor, 
 ^■'P"''! "'t!^'? • The rabbinical tradition gives the noun the sense of sparks, 
 which is retained in many versions. But others follow Albert Schultens in 
 explaining it to mean small bundles of combustibles, employed like matches 
 or as missiles in ancient warfare. This is generalized by Lowth into fuel, 
 while Gesenius makes it signify specifically burning arrows, fiery darts, the 
 ^i'Xtj Tienvgafisva of Eph. G: 16. J. D. Michaelis adopts the kindred sense 
 of torches. No less doubtful is the meaning of the verb in this connexion. 
 Lowth translates the whole phrase, ivho heap the fuel round about, and 
 Vitringa, qui circumponilis malleolos. Gesenius retains the usual sense of 
 girding, and supposes them to be described as wearing the r.ipiT at the 
 girdle. Most interpreters incline to the generic sense surroundins;, as 
 equally compatible with several different interpretations of the following 
 noun. Any of these interpretations is better than the desperate device of 
 emendation, which is here resorted to by Cappellus and Seeker, the last of 
 whom suggests ^T^"^. ; Hitzig proposes '^fi'^^? which seems to be approved 
 by Ewald. — Common to all the explanations is the radical idea of a fire 
 kindled by themselves to their own eventual destruction. This result is 
 predicted, as in many other cases, under the form of a command or exhorta- 
 tion to persist in the course which nmst finally destroy them. Go (i. e. go 
 on) in the light of your fire. This seems to favour the opinion that the 
 fire is supposed to have been kindled for the sake of its light, which is 
 implied indeed in Lowth's interpretation. Hitzig, however, understands 
 the fire to be kindled for the purpose of destroying the righteous, instead of 
 which result those who kindle it are called upon to enter into it and be con- 
 sumed. For this is their appointed doom, — From my hand is this to you, 
 i. e. my power has decreed and will accomplish what is now about to be 
 declared, viz. that you shall lie down in sorrow, or a place of sorrow, if 
 with Ewald we give the noun the local sense usual in words of this forma- 
 tion. The expression is a general one, denoting final ruin, and of course 
 includes, although it may not specifically signify, a future state of misery. — 
 It may here be mentioned, as a specimen of misplaced ingenuity, that J. D. 
 Michaelis understands the scene depicted to be that of travellers in the 
 dark who strike a liglit, and when it is extinguished find it darker than 
 before, in consequence of which they fall among the rocks and hurt them- 
 selves severely, which is meant by lying down in pain. It is characteristic 
 
214 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 of tliis writer and his age, that ahhough rather supercihous and reserved in 
 allowing the aesthetic merits of Isaiah, he describes this passage, thus dis- 
 torted by himself, as a specimen of oriental imagery which ' really deserves 
 to be introduced even into our poetry ;' while many of the Prophet's loftiest 
 fliffhts elsewhere, if not entirely overlooked, are noticed in a kind of apolo- 
 getic tone, as if the critic were ashamed of his subject. The spirit of such 
 criticism is not yet extinct, although its grosser forms are superseded by a 
 purer taste, even in Germany. 
 
 CHAPTER LI 
 
 Interpreters are much divided with respect to the particular period 
 which constitutes the subject of this prophecy. The modern Jews regard 
 it as a promise of deliverance from their present exile and dispersion by the 
 Messiah, whom they still expect. The Christian Fathers refer it to the 
 time of the first advent. Modern writers are divided between this hypo- 
 thesis and that which confines it to the Babylonish exile. The truth appear? 
 to be, that this chapter is a direct continuation of the preceding declarations 
 with respect to the vocation of the Church and the divine administration 
 towards her. The possibility of her increase, as previously promised, is 
 evinced by the example of Abraham, from whom all Israel descended, vs. 
 1-3. In like manner many shall be added from the gentiles, vs. 4-6. 
 Their enemies shall not only fail to destroy them, but shall be themselves 
 destroyed, vs. 7, 8. This is confirmed by another historical example, that 
 of Egypt, vs. 9, 10. The same assurances are then repeated, with a clearer 
 promise of the new dispensation, vs. 11-16. The chapter closes with a 
 direct address to Zion, who, though helpless in herself and destitute of 
 human aid, is sure of God's protection and of the destruction of her enemies 
 and his, vs. 17-23. 
 
 V. 1. Hearken unto me! A common formula, when the w^'iter or 
 speaker turns away from one object of address to another. It is here used 
 because he is about to address himself to the faithful servants of Jehovah; 
 the true Israel, who are described as seeking offer righteousness, i. e. 
 making it the end of all their efforts to be righteous, or conformed to the 
 will of God. The sense of justifying righteousness or justification is as 
 much out of place here as that of truth, which is given by the Targum ; 
 
CH AP TER LI. 215 
 
 except so far as all these terms are employed, in Scripture usage, to express 
 the general idea of moral goodness, piety, a character acceptable in God's 
 sight. The original application of the phrase here used is by IMoses (Deut. 
 16: 20) ; from whom it is copied twice by Solomon (Prov. 15:9. 21 : 21), 
 and twice by Paul (L Tim. 6 : 11.2 Tim. 2 : 22). Tlie same apostle uses, 
 in the same sense, the more general expression, follow after good (1 Thess. 
 5: 15); which is also used by David (Ps. 38: 21, comp. Ps. 34: 15). 
 The same class of persons is then described as seeking (or seekers of) 
 Jehovah, i. e. seeking his presence, praying to him, worshipping him, con- 
 sulting him. The first description is more abstract, the second expresses a 
 personal relation to Jehovah ; both together are descriptive of the righteous 
 as distinguished from the wicked. Now as these have ever been compara- 
 tively few, not only in relation to the heathen world, but in relation to the 
 spurious members of the cliurch itself, a promise of vast increase (like that 
 in ch. 49: 18-21) might well- appear incredible. In order to remove this 
 doubt, the Prophet here appeals, not, as in many other cases, to the mere 
 omnipotence of God, but to a historical example of precisely the same 
 kind, viz. that of Abraham, from whom the race of Israel had already 
 sprung, in strict fulfilment of a divine promise. — Look unto the rock ye 
 have been heivn. The earlier grammarians assume an ellipsis of the rela- 
 tive and preposition, the rock from which ye have been hewn ; the later, 
 and particularly Evvald, reject this as an occidental idiom, and suppose the 
 Hebrew phrase to be complete, but give the same sense as the others. The 
 same remark apph'es to the parallel clause, and to the hole of the pit (from 
 which) ye have been digged. The reference of these figures to our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, as the rock of ages and the source of spiritual life, is held by 
 some of the Fathers, one of whom (Eusebius) supposes a collateral allusion 
 to the rock in which our Saviour was entombed ; but this interpretation is 
 too mystical even for Vitringa, who admits that the figures of this verse are 
 explained in the nest by the Prophet himself. His Dutch taste again gets 
 the better of his judgment and his reverent regard for the word of God, 
 and allows him to put a revolting sense upon the figures here employed, in 
 which Knobel follows him with still greater coarseness. The truth, as 
 recognised by almost all interpreters, is that the rock and pit (or quarry) 
 are two kiiuhed metaphors for one and the same thing, both cxpressin"- the 
 general idea of extraciion or descent (compare ch. 48: 2) without particu- 
 lar reference to the individual parents, although both are mentioned in the 
 next verse, for the sake of a parallel construction, upon which it is almost 
 puerile to found such a conclusion as the one in question. In the same 
 category may be safely placed the old dispute, whether Abraham is 
 called a rock because he was strong in faith (Rom. 4 : 20), or because he 
 was as good as dead (Heb. 11 : 12) when he received the promise. He is 
 
■216 C H A P T E R L I. 
 
 no more represented as a rock than as a pit or quarry, neither of which 
 figures is apphed to him distinctively, but both together signify extraction 
 or oritrjn in a genealoiiical sense. 
 
 o o o 
 
 V. 2. Lool: unto Abraham your father and unto Sarah (^that) bare you. 
 That Sarah is mentioned chiefly for rhythmical effect, may be inferred from 
 the writer's now confining what he says to Abraham alone. — Instead of 
 speaking further of both parents, he now says. For I have called him one ; 
 which does not mean, I have declared him to be such or so described him, 
 but, I have called (i. c. chosen, designated) him, when he was only one, 
 1. e. a solitary individual, although the destined father of a great nation (Gen. 
 12: 2.) This sense of the word one is clear from Ezek. 33: 24, where, 
 with obvious allusion to this verse, it is put in opposition to many : Abra- 
 ham was ONE, and he inherited the land ; and we are many, (much more 
 then) is the land given to us for an inheritance. The same antithesis is 
 far more obvious and appropriate in this place, than that between Abraham, 
 as sole heir of the promise, and the rest of men, who were excluded from 
 it. The design of the Prophet is not so much to magnify the honour put 
 upon Abraham by choosing him out of the whole race to be the father of 
 the faithful, as it is to show the power and faithfulness of God in making 
 this one man a nation like the stars of heaven for multitude, according to 
 the promise (Gen. 15: 5). Noyes's version, a single man, is rendered by 
 the modern usage of that phrase almost ludicrously equivocal, and neces- 
 sarily suggests an idea directly at variance with the facts of the case ; unless 
 he really infers from the exclusive mention of Abraham in this clause, thai 
 he was called before his marriage, wliich can hardly be reconciled with the 
 sacred narrative (compare Gen. 11 : 29 and 12:1, 5), and, even if it were 
 true, would scarcely have been solemnly aflirmed in this connexion, since 
 the promise, whatever its precise date, presupposed bis marriage as the 
 necessary means of its fulfilment. — Interpreters, with almost perfect unani- 
 mity, explain the two verbs at the end of this verse as expressing past time 
 (and I blessed him and caused him to increase), although the vav prefixed 
 to neither has the pointing of the vav conversive, in default of which the 
 preterite translation is entirely gratuitous and therefore ungrammatical. The 
 masoretic pointing, it is true, is not of absolute authority, but it is of the 
 highest value as the record of an ancient critical tradition ; and the very fact 
 that it departs in this case from the sense which all interpreters have felt to 
 be most obvious and natural, creates a strong presumption that it rests upon 
 some high authority or some profound view of the Prophet's meaning. And 
 we find accordingly that by adhering to the strict sense of the future, we 
 not only act in accordance with a most important general principle of exe- 
 gesis, but obtain a sense which, though less obvious than the common one, is 
 
CHAPTER LI. 217 
 
 really better in Itself and better suited to the context. According to the 
 usual interpretation, this verse simply asserts the fulfilment of the promise to 
 Abraham, leaving the reader to connect it with what follows as he can. 
 But by a strict translation of the futures, they are made to furnish an easy 
 and natural transition from the one case to the other, from the great histori- 
 cal example cited to the subject which it was intended to illustrate. The 
 concise phrase, one I called him, really includes a citation of the promise 
 made to Abraham, and suggests the fact of its fulfilment, so far as this had 
 yet taken place. The Prophet, speaking in Jehovah's name, then adds a 
 declaration that the promise should be still more gloriously verified. As if 
 he had said, I pron)ised to bless him and increase him, and I did so, and I 
 will bless him and increase him (still). Rut how ? By showing mercy to 
 his seed, as I have determined and begun to do. This last idea is expressed 
 in the first clause of the next verse, which is then no longer incoherent or 
 abrupt, but in the closest and most natural connexion with what goes before. 
 This consideration might have less force if the illustration had been drawn 
 from the experience of another race, — for instance from the history of Egypt 
 or Assyria, or even from the increase of the sons of Lot or Ishmael ; but 
 when the promise which he wished to render credible is really a repetition 
 or continuation of the one which he cites as an illustrative example, the 
 intimate connexion thus established or revealed between them is a strong 
 proof that the explanation which involves it is the true one. 
 
 V. 3. For Jehovah hath comforted Zion. The arbitrary character of 
 the usual construction of these sentences may be learned from the fact that 
 Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, not content with making both the futures at the 
 close of the second verse preterites, explain both the preterites in this clause 
 as futures, — a double violation of analogy and usage, which seems to leave 
 the meaning of the writer wholly at the mercy of the reader or expounder. 
 From the same erroneous understanding of the closing words of v. 2 springs 
 the forced interpretation of the "^3 at the beginning of this, as meaning so 
 (Gesenius), thus therefore (Lovvth), and the still more unnatural construc- 
 tion of the whole clause by Hitzig, as the apodosis of a comparative sen- 
 tence beginning in the first verse : ' As I called him alone, and blessed him, 
 and increased him, so does Jehovah pity Zion,' etc. As soon as the strict 
 sense of the futures In v. 2 has been reinstated, the connexion becomes 
 obvious and "^3 retains its usual and proper sense. 'I have blessed and 
 increased him, and I will bless and increase him ; for Jehovah has begun to 
 comfort Zion.' The strong assurance thus afforded by the strict translation 
 of the preterite on? conspires with analogy and usage to give it the pre- 
 ference over the vague evasive present form, employed by Hitzig, Ewald, 
 and De Wette. This view of the connexion also supersedes the necessity 
 
218 CH A P TE R L I. 
 
 of laying an unusual stress on the name Jehovah, as J. H. Michaelis does, 
 as if ho had said, it is God not man that comforts Zion. — Gesenius translates 
 cnD , in this case, ' will have mercy or compassion ' (wird sich crharmeii), in 
 which he is followed hy De Wette and Henderson. But even his own 
 Lexicon gives no such definition of the Piel, and the Niphal, though coin- 
 cident in this tense as to form, would, according to usage, take a preposition 
 after it. Besides, the proper sense of comforting, retained by Ewald and 
 the other Germans, is more appropriate, because it expresses not mere feel- 
 ing but its active exhibition, and because the same verb is employed at the 
 very outset of these prophecies (ch. 40 : 1) in the same application, but in 
 a connexion where the sense of pitying or having mercy is wholly inade- 
 quate if not inadmissible. The comparison of that place also shows what 
 we are here to understand by Zion, viz. Jehovah's people, of which it was 
 the capital, the sanctuary, and the symbol. What is there commanded is 
 here, in a certain sort, performed, or its performance more distinctly and 
 positively promised. — He hath comforted all her wastes (or ruins), i. e. 
 restored cheerfulness to what was wholly desolate. This phrase proves 
 nothing as to the Prophet's viewing Zion merely as a ruinous city, since 
 in any case this is the substratum of his metaphor. The question is not 
 whether he has reference to Zion or Jerusalem as a town, but whether this 
 town is considered merely as a town, and mentioned for its own sake, or in 
 the sense before explained, as the established representative and emblem of 
 the church or chosen people. (See above, on ch. 49 : 21 .) — And hath placed 
 or made her loilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord. 
 This beautiful comparison is the strongest possible expression of a joyful 
 change from total barrenness and desolation to the highest pitch of fertility 
 and beauty. It is closely copied in Ezekiel 31:9; but the same com- 
 parison, in more concise terms, is employed by Moses (Gen. 13 : 10). 
 Even there, notwithstanding what is added about Egypt, but still more 
 unequivocally here, the reference is not to a garden or to pleasure-grounds 
 in general, as Luther and several of the later Germans have assumed, with 
 no small damage to the force and beauty of their versions, but Eden as a 
 proper name, the garden of Jehovah, the Paradise, as the Septuagint 
 renders it, both here and in Gen. 2: 8, the grand historical and yet ideal 
 designation of the most consummate terrene excellence, analogous, if not 
 still more nearly related, to the Grecian pictures of Arcadia and of Tempe. 
 — Joy and gladness shall he found in her, i. e. in Zion, thus transformed 
 into a paradise. The plural form, in them, employed by Barnes, is not 
 only inexact but hurtful to the sense, by withdrawing the attention from the 
 central figure of this glowing landscape. Shall be found does not simply 
 mean shall be, as J. D. Michaelis paraphrases it, but also that they shall 
 be there accessible, not only present in their abstract essence, as it were. 
 
CHAPTER LI. 219 
 
 but in the actual experience of those who dwell there. — Thanksgiving and 
 the voice of melody. The music of the common version of this last clause 
 is at once too familiar and too sacred to be superseded, simply for the pur- 
 pose of expressing more distinctly the exact sense of the last word, which 
 originally signifies the sound of an instrument or instrumental music, but is 
 afterwards used to denote song in general, or rather as a vehicle of praise 
 to God. 
 
 V. 4. Attend (or hearken) unto me, my people ; and my nation, unto 
 me give ear. This may seem to be a violation of the usage which has been 
 already stated as employing this form of speech to indicate a change in the 
 object of address. But such a change, although a slight one, takes place 
 even here ; for he seems no longer to address those seeking righteousness 
 exclusively, but the whole body of the people as such. Some interpreters 
 suppose a change still greater, namely a transition from the Jews to the 
 Gentiles. In order to admit of this, the text must be amended or its obvious 
 sense explained away. Lowth, of course, prefers the former method, and 
 reads ci»? on the authority of two manuscripts, and cibx^ on the authority 
 of nine. Gesenius gains the same end by explaining "'M? and "lasix^, as 
 unusual plural forms, the first of which he also finds in three other places 
 (2 Sam. 22 : 44. Ps. 144 : 2. Lam. 3 : 14). Ewald denies the existence 
 of such a termination, against which he argues with much force that in these 
 four places, however inappropriate the sense my people may appear to the 
 interpreter, no one pretends to say that it is absurd or impossible, while in 
 every other case the very meaning of the noun is so obscure that it can 
 throw no light upon the question of form. The discussion of the question 
 by these eminent grammarians (in the Lehrgebaude ^ 124 and the Kritische 
 Grammatik '^ 164) has left the existence of the plural form in question at 
 the least very doubtful (see Nordheimer *§. 553) ; and even if it be conceded, 
 it is confessedly so rare that it is not to be assumed without necessity in 
 such a case as this, simply because it may conceivably be true, when the 
 sense which the word has in nearly two hundred places is perfectly appro- 
 priate here. The only argument in favour of it, drawn from the connexion, 
 is without force, because the dependence of the gentiles upon Israel for 
 saving knowledge might be just as well asserted in addressing the latter as 
 the former, as appears from the analogy of ch. 2 : 3. The same reasons 
 which have now been stated will suffice to set aside Maurer's gratuitous 
 interpretation of the words as singular collectives, which might be assumed 
 in a case of extreme exegetical necessity, but in no other. — The next 
 clause explains what it is that they are thus called upon to hear, viz. that 
 law from me shall go forth, i. e. revelation or the true religion, as an 
 
220 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 expression of God's will, and consequently man's rule of duty. In like 
 manner Paul describes the gospel as the latv of faith (Rom. 3 : 27), not 
 binding upon one race or nation merely, but by the commandment of the 
 everlasting God made known to all nations for the obedience of faith 
 (Rom. IG : 26). J. D. Michaelis, followed by Rosenmiiller and De Wette, 
 dilutes it into a doctrine (eine Lehre), which, although correct in point of 
 etymology, is justified neither by the context nor by usage. Ewald gives 
 the same translation of the word, but makes it less indefinite by adding the 
 possessive pronoun (meim Lehre). The meaning of the clause is that the 
 nations can expect illumination only from one quarter. — The same thing is 
 then said in another form. And my judgment (y^'^.'>r an equivalent to iTJ'in 
 and combined with it like lex and jus in Latin) for a light of the nations 
 (as in cli. 42 : 6. 49 ; 6) will I cause to rest, i. e. fix. establish. Jarchi 
 explains it by the synonyme n'^sx , which is frequently en)ployed in this 
 sense (e. g. ch. 46 : 7. 2 Kings 17 : 29). The meanings given to the word 
 by Calvin (^j^atefaciam), Cocceius (^promovebo), Lowth (cause to break 
 forth), and others, are either wholly conjectural or founded on a false ety- 
 mology. Aben Ezra speaks of some as having made it a denominative 
 from "i"! , meaning ' I will do it in a moment.' Kimchi strangely says that 
 n^5s:^ nixb may mean in the irresence of the gentiles, — a suggestion which 
 savours of rabbinical reluctance to believe in the conversion of the world to 
 God. As specimens of exegesis on the most contracted scale, it may be 
 mentioned, that Piscator understands by law, in this verse, Cyrus's decree 
 for the restoration of the Jewish exiles, and by light the knowledge of this 
 great event among the nations ; whereas Grotius explains yuc/g-mcn^ to mean 
 penal inflictions on the Babylonians, and light the evidence thereby aflbrded 
 that Jehovah was the true God. The groundless and injurious piotrusion 
 of the Babylonish exile as the great theme of the prophecy is here aban- 
 doned even by Kimchi and Abarbenel, although they refer the promise to 
 the advent of Messiah as still future. The simple proposition that the 
 world can be converted only by a revelation admits no more of being thus 
 restricted than any of the spiritual promises and prophecies contained in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 V. 5. Near (is) my righteousness, i. e. the exhibition of it in the 
 changes previously promised and threatened. Near, as often elsewhere 
 in the prophecies, is an indefinite expression which describes it sim- 
 ply as approaching, and as actually near to the perceptions of the Pro- 
 phet or to any one who occupies the same point of vision. — Go7ie forth 
 is my salvation. Not only is the purpose formed, and the decree gone 
 forth, but the event itself, in the sense just explained, may be described 
 
CHAPTERLI. 221 
 
 as past or actually passing. HItzig, however, understands ns*i to mean 
 'it goes forth from my mouth/ as in ch. 48: 3. 55 : ] 1. Umbreit agrees 
 with Vitringa in supposing an allusion to the rising of the sun (Ps. 
 19:6, 7), or, as Gesenius suggests, to the dawning of the day (ch. 
 47 : 11) ; while Ewald and Knobel understand it as referrino- to the 
 springing or incipient germination of plants, which is properly expressed by 
 nri (ch, 42: 9), the two verbs being elsewhere used as parallels in this 
 sense (Job 5 : 6). But none of these ingenious explanations is so natural 
 as that which gives ss;;i the same sense as in the preceding verse, viz. that 
 of issuing or going forth from God (conceived as resident in heaven or in 
 Zion) to the heathen w^orld. — And my arms shall judge the nations. As 
 the foregoing clause contains a promise, some interpreters suppose it to be 
 necessary to give judge the favourable sense of vindicating, righting (as in 
 ch. 1 : 17, 23), or at least the generic one of ruling (as in 1 Sam. 8: 5). 
 But nothing can be more in keeping with the usage of the Scriptures, 
 and of this book in particular, than the simultaneous exhibition of God's 
 justice in his treatment both of friends and foes. (Compare ch. 1 : 27.) 
 There is no objection, therefore, to Jarchi's explanation of the verb as 
 meaning here to punish ; this at least may be included as a part of the idea 
 which it was intended to express. — J. D. IMichaelis, supposing the construc- 
 tion of r-"~'f (which is feminine) with a masculine verb to be ungrammatical, 
 proposes, by a change of punctuation, to connect the one with what pre- 
 cedes, and then to read, the nations shall be judged. This hypercriticism 
 provokes Gesenius to convict its author of deficiency in Hebrew grammar, 
 which he does by showing that in Gen. 49: 24 and Dan. 11 : 31 this form 
 of the plural is construed as a masculine, to w'hich he adds a like use of the 
 singular itself in Is. 17 : 5. — For me shall the islands wait, i. e. for me 
 they must wait, until I reveal myself they must remain in darkness. (See 
 above, on ch. 42 : 4.) Here again, as in ch. 41 : 1. 42: 4. etc., c^x is 
 explained to mean lands, distant lands, coasts, distant coasts, western lands, 
 Europe, Northern Asia, and Asia Minor. As in all the former instances, 
 however, the usual sense o[ islands is entirely appropriate, as a poetical or 
 representative expression for countries in general, with more particular refer- 
 ence to those across the sea. — And in my arm they shall hope, i. e. in the 
 exercise of my almighty power. As in ch. 42 : 6, the sense is not so much 
 that they shall exercise a feeling of trust, but that this will be their onlv 
 hope or dependence. To be enlightened, they must v/ait for my revelation : 
 to be saved, for the exertion of my power. It is not descriptive, therefore, 
 of the feelings of the nations after the way of salvation is made known to 
 them, but of their helpless and desperate condition until they hear it. True 
 to their favourite hypotheses, Piscator understands by islands the Israelites 
 
222 C H A P T E R L I . 
 
 captives in Assyria, Grolius the Persians residing on the sea-coast, who 
 were not idolaters! Knobel, with equal confidence and ecjiial reason, makes 
 tile verse refer to the downfal of Croesus and the conquests of Cyrus. 
 
 V. 6. Raise to the heavens your eyes, and look unto the earth beneath. A 
 similar form of address occurs above, in ch. 40 : 26. (Compare Gen. 15 : 5.) 
 Heaven and earth are here put, as in many other places, for the whole frame 
 of nature. The next clause explains why they are called upon to look. 
 For the heavens like smoke are dissolved or driven away. The verb in this 
 form occurs no where else, and the interpreters have tried in vain to derive 
 its meaning here from other cognate forms of the same root, which all have 
 reference to salting (from the primitive noun n'^a salt). So Symmachus in 
 this place, aliaovai. But this, according to analogy, would rather imply 
 perpetuity than its opposite. The link between them niay consist in the 
 idea of reducing to powder or minute dust by trituration, which is equally 
 appropriate to salt and to the dissolution of any solid substance. JMost 
 writers give this verb a future sense (or a present one as an evasive substi- 
 tute), because the real future follows ; but for this very reason it may be 
 presumed that the writer used distinct forms to express distinct ideas, and 
 that he first gives a vivid description of the dissolution as already past, and 
 then foretells its consummation as still future. — And the earth like the gar- 
 ment (which grows old) shall grow old (or wear out). The same compari- 
 son occurs above in ch. 50: 9, and serves to identify the passages as parts 
 of one continued composition. And their inhabitants shall die, "i^'i-S. 
 This is a difficult expression. Cocceius alone proposes three distinct inter- 
 pretations, all peculiar to himself. In his version he translates the phrase 
 ut quivis, which appears to mean ' like any body else.' But in his com- 
 mentary he suggests that it may possibly mean quemadmodum jjrohus, making 
 ',3 an adjective, and supposing an allusion to the death of the righteous as 
 described in ch. 57: 1,2. His third supposition is that this is a case of 
 aposiopesis or interrupted construction, and that the writer first says they 
 shall die like — but before the comparison is finished ends by saying so — as 
 if he pointed to the spectacle before him. Samuel Luzzatto makes the 
 phrase mean in an instant, strictly in the time required to say "i? , which he 
 compares to the German phrase, in einem Nu. Apart from these ingenious 
 notions, there are only two interpretations of the phrase which are entitled 
 to notice. The first takes both words in their ordinary sense, and under- 
 stands the whole as an intensive expression just so or exactly so. This 
 seems to be the sense intended by the Septuagint (Jogtisq ravia) and Vulgate 
 {sicut haec), although they adhere less closely to the form of the original 
 than Schraidius (sicut sic) and Ruckert (^so wie so). The only other recent 
 versions which retain this sense are those of Barnes and Henderson. Noyes 
 
CHAPTERLI. 223 
 
 and the modern Germans all adopt the opinion of De Dieu, Gussetius, and 
 Vitringa, that ]3 is the singular of ""^iS, the word translated lice in the liis- 
 tory of the plagues of Egypt (Ex. 8:12, 13), hut explained by the later 
 lexicographers to mean a kind of stinging gnat. Supposing the essential 
 idea to be that of a contemptible animalcule, Vitringa renders it instar ver- 
 micuK, Lowth still more freely like the vilest insect. Noyes simply says 
 like flies, which scarcely expresses the comparison supposed by these writers 
 to have been intended. It is not impossible that this ingenious but fanciful 
 translation will yet be abandoned in its turn by most interpreters for that 
 recommended by analogy and usage as well as by the testimony of the an- 
 cient versions. The inhabitants shall die like a gnat, is a meaning which, 
 in order to be purchased at so dear a rate, ought to possess some marked 
 superiority above the old one, they shall likewise perish, to which there may 
 possibly be an allusion in our Saviour's words recorded in Luke 13:3, 5. — 
 The contrast to this general destruction is contained in the last clause. 
 And my salvation to eternity shall be, and my righteousness shall not be 
 broken, i. e. shall not cease from being what it is, in which sense the same 
 verb is evidently used by Isaiah elsewhere (ch. 7 : 8). In this as in many 
 other cases, salvation and righteousness are not synonymous but merely 
 correlative as cause and effect. (See above, on ch. 42 : 6.) The only 
 question as to this clause is whether it is a hypothetical or absolute pro- 
 position. If the former, then the sense is that until (or even if) the frame 
 of nature be dissolved, the justice and salvation of Jehovah shall remain 
 unshaken. This explanation is preferred by Joseph Kimchi, Rosenmiil- 
 ler, Gesenius, and Maurer. The other interpretation understands the first 
 clause as a positive and independent declaration that the heavens and earth 
 shall be dissolved, which Vitringa understands to mean that the old economy 
 shall cease, while others give these words their literal meaning. All these 
 hypotheses are reconcilable by making the first clause mean, as similar 
 expressions do mean elsewhere, that the most extraordinary changes shall be 
 witnessed, moral and physical ; but that amidst them all this one thing shall 
 remain unchangeable, the righteousness of God as displayed in the salvation 
 of his people. (See ch. 40: 8. 65: 17. Matt. 5: 18. 1 John 2: 17.) 
 Knobel thinks that the ancient prophets actually looked for a complete revo- 
 lution in the face of nature, coetaneous and coincident with the moral and 
 spiritual changes which they foretold. 
 
 V. 7. Hearken unto me, ye that knoic righteousness, people (with) my 
 law in their heart; fear not the reproach of men, arid by their scoffs be not 
 broken (in spirit, i. e. terrified). The distinction here implied is still that 
 between the righteous and the wicked as the two great classes of mankind. 
 
224 CHAPTERLI. 
 
 Those who are described in v. 1 as seclcing after righteousness are here 
 said to knoiv it, i. e. know it by experience. Vitringa and Gesenius explain 
 the Hebrew verb as meaning love ; but this is an arbitrary substitution of 
 what may be considered as imphed for what is really expressed. The 
 presence of the law in the heart denotes not mere affection for it but a cor- 
 rect apprehension of it, as the heart in Hebrew is put for the whole mind or 
 soul ; it is therefore a just parallel to knowing in the other member of the 
 clause, — The opposite class, or those who know not what is right, and who 
 have not God's law in their heart, are comprehended under the generic title 
 tnan, with particular reference to the derivation of the Hebrew word from a 
 root meaning to be weak or sickly, so that its application here suggests the 
 idea of their frailty and mortality, as a sufficient reason why God's people 
 should not be afraid of them. 
 
 V. 8. For like the (moth-eaten) garment shall the moth devour thtm. 
 and like the (worm-eaten) wool shall the ivorm devour them.; and my right- 
 eousness to eternity shall be, and my salvation to an age of ages. The 
 same contrast between God's immutability and the brief duration of his 
 enemies, is presented in ch. 50 : 9 and in v. 6 above. 
 
 V. 9. Awake, awake, put on strength, arm of Jehovah, awake, as (in 
 the) days of old, the ages of eternities ; art not thou the same that heived 
 Rahah in jjicces, that ivounded the serpent or dragonl The Septuagint 
 makes Jerusalem the object of address, in which it is followed by some 
 modern writers, who suppose the arm of Jehovah to be mentioned as a 
 synonyme or figurative paraphrase of the strength with which she is 
 exhorted to invest herself. This addition would however be at once so 
 harsh and so gratuitous, that most interpreters appear to acquiesce in the 
 more obvious explanation of the words as addressed directly to the arm of 
 Jehovah as the symbol of his power. Gesenius's idea, that Jehovah thus 
 calls upon his own arm to awake, is as unnatural as Vitringa's supposition 
 of a chorus of saints or doctors. The only probable hypothesis is that 
 which puts the words into the mouth of the people or of the Prophet a? 
 their representative. The verse is then a highly figurative but by no means 
 an obscure appeal to the former exertion of that power, as a reason for its 
 renewed exertion in the present case. The particular example cited seems 
 to be the overthrow of Egypt, here described by the enigmatical name 
 Rahah, for the origin and sense of which see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 510. 
 The same thing is probably intended by the parallel term V?^; whether 
 this be understood to mean an aquatic monster in the general, or more spe- 
 cifically the crocodile, the natural and immemorial emblem of Egypt. 
 
CHAPTERLI. 225 
 
 V. 10. Art not thou the same that dried the sea, the tenters of the 
 great deejj, that placed the depths of the sea (^as) a way for the pa.'isaire of 
 redeemed ones? The allusion to tlie overthrow of Egypt is ciuried out and 
 completed by a distinct mention of the miraculous passa^^e of the Rt d Sra. 
 The interrogative form of the sentence is equivalent to a direct afiiniuiiion 
 that it is the same arm, or in other words, that the same power which 
 destroyed the Egyptians for the sake of Israel still exists, and ma}' again be 
 exerted for a similar purpose. The confidence that this will be done is 
 expressed somewhat abruptly in the next verse. 
 
 V. 11. And the ransotned of Jehovah shall return and come to Zion 
 ivith shouting, and everlasting joy upon their head ; gladness and joy shall 
 overtake (^them), sorrow and sighing have fled away. The same wcncis occur 
 in ch. 35 : 10, except that ^t'^-^ is there written in iis usual form, wiiliout 
 the final ' , and that >id3 is preceded by the Vav conversive. Some manu- 
 scripts exhibit the same reading here, and the difft^rence mii;ht be considered 
 accidental, but for the fact that such variations are often nuule inientionally. 
 See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 587. 
 
 V. 12. /, /, am he that comforteth you; loho art thou, that thou 
 shouldest be afraid of man (loho) is to die, and of the son of man uho 
 (as) grass is to be given! The important truth is here rc-iterated, that 
 Jehovah is not only the deliverer but the sole deliverer of his people, and 
 as the necessary consequence, that they have not only no need Ijiit no right 
 to be afraid, which seems to be the force of the interrogation, Uho art thou 
 that thou shouldest be afraid, or still more literally, who art thou and thou 
 hast been afraid! i. e. consider who is thy protector, and then recollect that 
 thou hast been afraid. The elytr)ological import ol ci:x is rendered still 
 more prominent in this case by the additio/i of the word ^^'Z'^ , before w hich 
 a relative may be supplied in order to conform it to our idiom, although the 
 original construction is rather that of a complete but parenthetical propo- 
 sition. ' Afraid of man (he shall die), and of the son of man (as grass he 
 shall be given).' This last verb is commonly explained as if simply equiva- 
 lent to he shall be or shall become, which is hardly consistent with its usatre 
 elsewhere. Some adhere more closely to the strict sense by supposing it to 
 mean he shall be given up, abandoned to destruction. There is no need of 
 supposing a grammatical ellipsis of the preposition 3, since the relation of 
 resemblance is in many cases suggested by a simple ap|)osition, as in the 
 English phrase, he reigns a sovereign. On the comparison itself, see above, 
 ch. 40 : 6. 
 
 V. 13. And hast forgotten Jehovah thy Maker, spreading the heavens 
 
 15 
 
226 C II A P T E R L r . 
 
 and founding the earth, and hast trembled continuaUy all the day, from 
 before the wrath of the oppressor as he made ready to destroy ? And where 
 is (now) the wrath of the oppressor 1 The form of expression in the first 
 clause makes it still more clear that the statement in v. 12 is not merely 
 hypothetical but historical, implying that they had actually feared man and 
 forgotten God. Tlie epithets added to God's name are not merely orna- 
 mental, much less superfluous, but strictly appropriate, because suggestive of 
 almighty power, which ensured the performance of his promise and the 
 effectual protection of his people. — Continually all the day is an emphatic 
 pleonasm, such as are occasionally used in every language. — From before is 
 a common Hebrew idiom for because of, on account of, but may here be 
 taken in its strict sense as expressive of alarm and flight before an enemy. 
 (See ch. 2: 19.) — Some render "i^'xs as if, to which there are two objec- 
 tions : first, the want of any satisfactory authority from usage ; and secondly, 
 the fact that the words then imply that no such attempt has really been 
 made. As if he could destroy would be appropriate enough, because it is 
 merely an indirect denial of his power to do so ; but it cannot be intend- 
 ed to deny that he had aimed at it. — 'Sis is particularly used in reference 
 to the preparation of the bow for shooting by the adjustment of the arrow 
 on the string ; some suppose that it specifically signifies the act of taking 
 aim. (Ps. 7 : 13. 11 : 2. 21 : 13.) — The question at the close implies that 
 the wrath is at an end, and the oppressor himself vanished. We have no 
 authority for limiting this reference to any particular historical event. It is 
 as if he had said, How often have you trembled when your oppressors 
 threatened to destroy you, and where are they now ? Beck absurdly ima- 
 gines that the writer here betrays himself as writing after the event which 
 he aftects to foretell. — Ewald seems to make n^ntrn a denominative from 
 nnTiJ meaning to send to hf>11 (^Vl die Holle zu senden) ; but this, although 
 it strengthens the expression, bt-ptns to do it at the cost of philological 
 exactness. 
 
 V. 14. He hastens hoiving to be loosed, and he shall not die in the pit, 
 and his bread shall not fail. The essential idea is that of liberation, but 
 with some obscurity in the expression. Some give to nsbi here and in ch. 
 63 : 1 the sense of marching, which would here be appropriate, but could 
 not be so easily reconciled with the other cases where the word occurs. 
 The modern lexicographers appear to be agreed that the radical meaning 
 of the verb is that of bending, either backward (as in ch. 63 : 1) or down- 
 ward (as in Jer. 48 : 12 and here). The latest versions accordingly explain 
 it as a poetical description of the prisoner bowed down under chains. With 
 still more exactness it may be translated as a participle qualifying the indefi- 
 nite subject of the verb at the beginning. There is however no objection 
 
CHAPTERLl. 227 
 
 to the usual construction of the word as a noun ; the sense remains the same 
 in either case. — The next clause is sometimes taken as an indirect subjunc- 
 tive proposition, that he should not die ; but it is best to make it a direct 
 affirmation that he shall not. Ewald gives rn^ij a sense corresponding to 
 that of the verb in the preceding verse, and renders the entire phrase for 
 hell, i. e. so as to descend into it. If the noun be taken in this sense, or in 
 the kindred one of ^/\7i'e, the preposition cannot mean in, a sense moreover 
 not agreeable to usage. Those who give it that sense here are under the 
 necessity of making nniu mean the dungeon, which is a frequent sense of the 
 analogous term "lia . But whether the phrase in question mean for hell, or 
 for the grave, or in the jnt, or to destruction, the general sense is still that 
 the captive shall not perish in captivity. This general promise is then 
 rendered more specific by the assurance that he shall not starve to death, 
 which seems to be the only sense that can be put upon the last clause. 
 
 V. 15. And I («m) Jehovah thy God, rousing the sea and then its 
 waves roar ; Jehovah of Hosts (is) his name. Another appeal to the 
 power of God as a pledge for the performance of his promise. "?"i has 
 been understood in two directly opposite senses, that of stilling and that of 
 agitating. The first is strongly recommended by the not unfrequent use of 
 the derivative conjugations in the sense of quieting or being quiet. The 
 other rests upon an Arabic analogy, confirmed however by the context, as 
 'I'^C'iv- 'iTust indicate a consequence (^and then or so that), and not an ante- 
 cedent (jvhen they roar) as explained by the writers who take i'?") in the 
 sense of stilling, and even by Gesenius, who gives that verb the sense of 
 frightening. Some of the older writers seem to have regarded ?5~ as a 
 transposition for ^'^i rebuking, a word often used to express the divine con- 
 trol over nature, and especially the sea. (See above, ch. 17 : 13.) 
 
 V. 16. And I have put my words in thy mouth, and in the shadow of 
 my hand I have hid thee, to plant the heavens, and to found the earth, and 
 to say to Zion, Thou art my people. That these words are not addressed to 
 Zion or the Church is evident ; because in the last clause she is spoken of 
 in the third person, and addressed in the next verse with a sudden change 
 to the feminine form from the masculine which is here used. That it is not 
 the Prophet may be readily inferred from the nature of the work described 
 in the second clause. The only remaining supposition is that the Messiah 
 is the object of address, and that his work or mission is here described, viz. 
 to plant the heavens, i. e. to establish them, perhaps with allusion to the 
 erection of a tent by the insertion of its stakes in the ground. There is no 
 need of reading riiaab , as Lowth does ; since the usage of the Scriptures is 
 
228 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 rather in favour of variation than of scrupulous transcription. The whole 
 clause is equivalent to creating a new world, which must here he taken in 
 a figurative sense ; hecause the literal creation, as a thing already past, would 
 here be inappropriate, especially when followed by the words, to nay to Ziori, 
 thou art my people. Nothing is gained by referring the infinitives to God him- 
 self, as Rosenmiiller does ; because the person here addressed is still described 
 as the instrument if not as the efficient agent. The new creation thus 
 announced can only mean the reproduction of the church in a new form, by 
 what we usually call the change of dispensations. The outward economy 
 should all be new, and yet the identity of the chosen people should remain 
 unbroken. For he whom God had called to plant new heavens and to 
 found a new earth was likewise commissioned to say to Zion, Thou art still 
 ray people. 
 
 V. 17. This may be considered a continuation of the address begun at 
 the end of the preceding verse. The same voice which there said. Thou 
 art my people, may be here supposed to say, Rouse thyself! rouse thyself! 
 Arise Jerusalem ! (^thou) who hast drunk at the hand of Jehovah the cup 
 of his wrath ; the boxvl of the cup of reeling thou hast drunk, thou hast 
 wrung (or sucked) out, i. e. drunk its very dregs. Some of the rabbins 
 give the sense of dregs to r:;2p itself. The ancient versions either overlook 
 it or explain it to mean a certain kind of cup. The modern writers are dis- 
 posed to regard it as a pleonastic expression similar to goblet-cup. According 
 to its probable etymology, as traceable in Hebrew and Arabic, the word 
 denotes the convex surface of a cup or bowl, while D"i3 is properly the area 
 or space within. The cup is of course put for its contents, a natural figure 
 for any thing administered or proftered by a higher power. (Compare 
 Jer. 25 : 15, 16. 49 : 12. 51 : 7. Lam. 4 : 21. Ob. 16. Ezek. 23 : 34. 
 Rev. 14 : 10.) 
 
 V. 18. There is no guide to her (or no one leading her) of all the sons 
 she has brought forth, and no one grasping her hand of all the sons she 
 has brought up. From addressing Zion in the second person, he now 
 proceeds to speak of her in the third. This verse is not so much descrip- 
 tive of unnatural abandonment as it is of weakness. The sense is not 
 that no one will, but that no one can protect or guide her. Some inter- 
 preters suppose the figure of a drunken person to be still continued. J. D. 
 Michaelis even goes so far as to translate the first words of the verse, ]\o 
 one brings her a drink of water. This is no doubt founded on the usual 
 application of this verb to the watering of flocks, from which is deduced the 
 secondary sense of guidance in general. Hengstenberg gives to it, wherever 
 
C H A P T E R L 1 . 229 
 
 it occurs, the sense of fostering or nourishing. (See above, on eh. 40 : 11.) 
 The mother and tlie sons, i. e. the people collectively and individually, are 
 distinguished only by a figure of speech. 
 
 V. 19. Both those things are hef ailing (or about to befall) thee ; who 
 will mourn for thee 1 Wasting and ruin, famine and sivord ; who (but) 
 I will comfort thee 1 A difficulty here is the mention of two things in the 
 first clause, followed by an enumeration oi four in the second. Some sup- 
 pose the two things to refer to what precedes, others to wasting and ruin 
 only. Grotius thinks that wasting and famine, ruin and sword, are to be 
 combined as synonymes. The modern writers understand the second phrase 
 as an explanation or specification of the first. As if he had said, wasting 
 and. ruin (such as are produced by) famine and the sword. The last words 
 of the verse, strictly translated, mean, tvho I ivill comfort thee. The 
 Targum limits the interrogation to the first word, and supposes the others 
 to contain the answer. The same construction is given by Henderson — 
 Whol I myself ivill comfort thee. A much greater number of interpre- 
 ters include the whole in the interrogation, and either give the verb a sub- 
 junctive form, who am I that J should comfort thee 1 or take '•'o as an 
 adverb, hoiv shall I comfort thee 1 Hitzig : by whom (i. e. by what 
 example of sin)ilar or greater suffering) shall I comfort thee 1 Still a differ- 
 ent construction, although yielding substantially the same sense, is adopted 
 above, in the translation of the verse. The general meaning evidently is 
 that her grief was beyond the reach of any human comforter. 
 
 V. 20. Thy sons were faint (or helpless). This explains why they did 
 not come to her assistance. — They lie at the head of all the streets. A 
 conspicuous place is evidently meant, but whether the corners or the higher 
 part of an uneven street, is a question of small moment. — Like a wild bull 
 in a net, i. e. utterly unable to exert their strength. The Hebrew word 5<'iR 
 is no doubt identical with the ixn of Deut. 14 : 5, and therefore must denote 
 an animal. The ancient versions favour its identity with the oryx, a species 
 of antelope or wild goat. Gesenius gives this explanation in his Lexicon, but 
 here translates it stag (Hirsch). The common version (wild bull) is derived 
 from the Targum, and is sufficient to convey the writer's meaning by sug- 
 gesting the idea of a wild animal rendered entirely powerless. The extra- 
 ordinary version given in the Septuagint, asvrhov rjfittcf&ov, a half-cooked 
 btet, owes its origin, no doubt, to some coincidence of form or sound between 
 the ohscm-e Hebrew word and an Egyptian one, with which the translator 
 was familiar. The cognate form in Deuteronomy is rendered, in the same 
 version, but no doubt by a difierent hand, unvya. The precise sense of the 
 
230 CHAPTERLI. 
 
 Hebrew phrase appears to be, like an oryx of net, or a net-oryx, \. e. an 
 ensnared one ; but the sense may be best expressed in English by supplying 
 the local preposition {in a net). Knobel supposes a particular allusion to 
 the faintness produced by hunger, and refers to several passages in Jeremiah, 
 especially to Lam. 2: 19, which is no doubt imitated from the one before 
 us. — The true cause of their lying thus is given in the last clause. Filled 
 (i. e. drunk, as Ewald explains it) with the wrath of Jehovah, the rebuke 
 of thy God. In Hebrew usage nnri: approaches to the strong sense curse, 
 and is so translated by Gesenius. The expression thy God is emphatic, and 
 suo"o"ests that her sufFerinss proceeded from the alienation of her own divine 
 protector. This verse is incorrectly applied by Vitringa to the siege of the 
 ancient Jerusalem, whereas it is a figurative representation of the helpless- 
 ness of Zion or the Church when partially forsaken for a time by her offend- 
 ed Head. 
 
 V. 21. Therefore pray hear this, thou suffering one and drunken but 
 not with ivine. The antithesis in the last clause is to be completed from 
 the context. Not with wine, but with the wrath of God, which had already 
 been described as a cup of reeling or intoxication. The same negative 
 expression is employed in ch. 29: 9. The Targum supplies from distress. 
 Kimchi inserts the tvrath of God. Jarchi supposes an ellipsis of something 
 else ("ins "im), and thus accounts for the construct form of the participle. 
 But the Michlal Jophi explains it more correctly as an instance of the idio- 
 matic use of the construct for the absolute in cases where a very intimate 
 relation is to be expressed. Vitringa carries out his favourite method of 
 interpretation, by explaining this verse as addressed specifically to the ancient 
 church, when recovering from the persecutions of Antioclms Epiphanes, — 
 a limitation which might just as well be made in reference to any of the 
 general encouragements of true believers which the word of God contains. 
 
 V. 22. Thus saith thy Lord, Jehovah, and thy God — he will defend 
 (or avenge) his people — Behold, I have taken from thy hand the cup of 
 reeling (or intoxication), the bowl of the cup of my fury ; thou shalt not 
 add {continue or repeat) to drink it any more (or again). Even Knobel 
 is compelled to admit that the writer has reference less to the place than to 
 the people of Jerusalem, and even to this only as the representative of the 
 entire nation ; a concession which goes far to confirm the explanation of 
 the " Zion" of these prophecies which has been already given. — It is usual 
 to explain ia? S''~i" as a relative clause {who jjlcads the cause of his people) ; 
 but it is simpler, and at the same time more in accordance with the genius 
 of the language, to regard it as a brief but complete parenthetical proposi- 
 
CH APT ER L I. 231 
 
 tlon. The same character is often ascribed elsewhere to Jehovah. (See 
 ch. 1 : 17. 34:8. 41 : 11. 49:25.) — As the cup was the cup of God's 
 wrath, not of man's, so God himself is represented as withdrawing it from 
 the sufferer's lips, when its purpose is accomplished. 
 
 V. 23. And put it into the hand of those that ajffiicted thee, that said 
 to thy soul, Bow down and we will (or that ive may^ pass over ; and thou 
 didst lay thy back as the ground and as the street for the 2)<^ssengers. 
 Ewald and Uinbreit agree with Seeker and Lowth in reading T("!?'i^ thy 
 oppressors, as in ch. 49 : 26, on the alleged authority of the ancient versions, 
 which would be wholly insufficient if the fact were so, and Kocher has 
 clearly shown that it is not. The common reading is confirmed, moreover, 
 by the use of •'^J'it^ in Lam. 1 : 12. — To thy soul is explained by Gesenius 
 and others as a mere periphrasis for to thee. Vitringa supposes the expres- 
 sion to be used because the body could not be bowed down in the manner 
 here described without a previous bowing of the mind. But the true expla- 
 nation is no doubt that given by Hengstenberg in his exposition of Ps. 3:3 
 (Commentary, I. p. 59), viz. that this form of speech always implies a 
 strong and commonly a painful afFontinn of th*^ mind in thft object of address. 
 Who said to thy soul is then equivalent to saying, who distressed thy soul hy 
 saying. The last clause is commonly explained as a proverbial or at least 
 a metaphorical description of extreme humiliation, although history affords 
 instances of literal humiliation in this form. Such is the treatment of Vale- 
 rian by Sapor, as described by Lactantius and Aurelius Victor; with which 
 may be compared the conduct of Sesostris to his royal captives, as described 
 by Dlodorus, and that of Pope Alexander III. to the Emperor Frederic, as 
 recorded by the Italian historians. For scriptural parallels see Josh. 10: 24 
 and Judg. 1 :7. — If we had any right or reason to restrict this prediction to 
 a single period or event, the most obvious would be the humiliation of the 
 Chaldees, who are threatened with the cup of God's wrath in Jer. 25:26. 
 Yet Vitringa sets this application aside, upon the ground that Israel drank 
 of the same cup afterwards, and understands the verse of the deliverance of 
 the Jews from their JNIacedonian oppressors by the valour of the Maccabees. 
 To the obvious objection that even this was not a final deliverance, he 
 ingeniously replies that all the promises to Israel extend only to the end of 
 the old dispensation, — an assumption which confounds the Jewish nation 
 with the Israel of God, the Church, or chosen people, which continued to 
 exist under every change of dispensation and economy, and, notwithstanding 
 all its fluctuations and vicissitudes, shall ultimately be for ever rescued by 
 the same hand which destroys its enemies. This is the simple substance of 
 the promise in the verse before us, which includes without specifically 
 signifying all that has been thus represented as its meaning. 
 
232 CHAPTER L I I 
 
 CHAPTER LI I. 
 
 IIowF.VF.R low the natural Israel may sink, the true Church shall 
 become more "^loiious than ever, being freed from the impurities connected 
 with her former state, v. 1. This is described as a captivity, from which 
 she is exhorted to escape, v. 2. Her emancipation is the fruit of God's 
 gratuitous com|)assion, v. 3. As a nation she lias suffered long enough, 
 vs. 4, 5. The day is coming when the Israel of God shall know in whom 
 ihey have believed, v. 6. The herald of the new dispensation is described 
 as already visible upon the mountains, v. 7. The watchmen of Zion hail 
 their romin:^ Lord, v. 8. The very ruins of Jerusalem are sunnnoned to 
 rejoice, v. 9. The glorious change is witnessed by the whole world, v. 10. 
 The true CInirch or hrnr-l nf Gnd is RKhorted to come out of Jewry, v. IL 
 This exodus is likened to the one from Egypt, but described as even more 
 auspicious, v. 12, Its great leader, the Messiah, as the Servant of Jeho- 
 vah, must be and is to be exalted, v. 13. And this exaltation shall bear 
 due proportion to the humiliation which preceded it, vs. 14, 15. 
 
 V. 1. Awcike, awake, put on thy strength, oh Zion ! Put on thy gar- 
 ments of beauty, oh Jerusalem, the Holy City ! For no more shall there 
 add (or continue) to come into thee an uncircumcised and unclean (^person). 
 The encouraging assurances of the foregoing context are now followed by 
 a suinmons similar to that in ch. 51 : 17, but in form approaching nearer to 
 the apostrophe in ch. 51 : 9. — Vitringa objects to the version awake, ox) the 
 grotmd thai it was not a state of sleep from which she v/as to rouse herself. 
 This is true so far as literal slumber is concerned ; but sleep is one of the 
 most natural and common figures for a despondent lethargy. The essential 
 idea is, no doubt, that of rousing or arising, which Gesenius and the later 
 Germans express by an interjection meaning up (auf! auf!). The same 
 writers give to i" , in this as in many other cases, the factitious sense of 
 beauty, glory, simply on account of the parallelism. This is a gratuitous 
 weakening of the sense ; for beauty and beauty is certainly much less than 
 beauty and strength. To put on strength is a perfectly intelligible figure 
 for resuming strength or taking courage, and is therefore entirely appropriate 
 in this connexion ; while the other meaning is not only less agreeable to 
 usage, but excluded by the clear analogy of ch. 51:9, where the sense of 
 
CHAPTER LII. 233 
 
 strength Is universally admitted. It iniglit be objected that the sense is 
 there determined by the use of the word arm, if the meaning strength were 
 a rare and doubtful one ; but since it is confessedly the usual and proper 
 one, the case referred to merely confirms the strict int(M'preiation, which is 
 here retained by Ewald (^Macht). — That the city is here addressed only as 
 a symbol of the nation, is certain from the next verse ; so that Hitzig is 
 compelled to assume two different ohjec-ts of address, in utter violation of 
 analogy and taste. — Beautiful garments is by most inteipreters regarded as 
 a general expression meaning fine clothes or holiday di esses ; l)ut some 
 suppose a special allusion to a widow's weeds (Q. Sam. 14 : '2) or to prison- 
 garments (2 Kings 25 : 29). It is a bold but not unnatural idea of Knobel, 
 that the Prophet here resumes the metaphor of ch. 49: 18, where Zion's 
 children are compared to bridal ornaments. — The Holy City, literally, city 
 of holiness, an e[)ithet before applied to Zion (ch. 45: 2), and denoting her 
 peculiar consecration, and that of her j)eople, to the service of Jehovah. 
 (Compare Dan. 8:24.) Henceforth the name is to be more appropriate 
 than ever, for the reason given in the hist clause. The meaning of ^''^i'', 
 when followed by the future, is precisely equivalent to the nioie usual con- 
 struction with the infinitive, of which we have an instance in ch. 51 : 22. — 
 Uncircumcisecl is an expression borrowed from the ritual law and signifying 
 unclean. That it is not here used in its strict sense, is intimated by the 
 addition of the general term x^co . The restriction of these epithets to the 
 Babylonians is purely arbitrary, and intended to meet the objection that 
 Jerusalem was not free from heathen intrusion after the exile. The same 
 motive leads Vitringa to explain the promise as addressed to the Jewish 
 church after its deliverance from the insults and oppressions of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes. The Jews refer it to a future period, and the Germans easily 
 dispose of it as a visionary expectation which was never realized. Thus 
 Beck explains it as a prophecy that all mankind should be converted to 
 Judaism, which is a virtual concession of the truth of the interpretation 
 above given. The question is not materially varied by substituting come 
 against for come into. The true solution is the one above suggested, 
 namely, that the words contain a general promise of exemption from the 
 contaminating presence of the impure and unworthy, as a part of the bless- 
 edness and glory promised to God's people, as the end and solace of their 
 various trials. 
 
 V. 2. Shake thyself from, the dust, arise, sit, oh Jerusalem ! loose 
 the hands of thy neck, oh captive daughter Zion (or of Zion) ! The dust, 
 from which she is to free herself by shaking it off, is either that in which 
 she had been sitting as a mourner (eh. .3:26. 47: I. Job 2: I'-i), or that 
 which, in token of her grief, she had sprinkled on her head (Job 2: 12). — 
 
234 C H A P T E R L II. 
 
 Koppe and Hitzlg make ":?'J a noun, meaning captivity or captives collect- 
 ively, like the corresponding feminine f^;3ttj in the other clause. Rosen- 
 miiller's objection, that "'^o would in that case have a conjunctive accent, 
 is declared by Ilitzig to be groundless, and is certainly inconclusive. 
 A more serious objection is the one made by Gesenius, that "^n'r is always 
 masculine, and would not therefore agree with the feminine verb ^^.'P . 
 Hitzig's reply, that ^'^^. , as a collective, may be here used as a feminine, is 
 not only wholly gratuitous but utterly precluded by the existence of a dis- 
 tinct feminine form and its occurrence in this very sentence. Because 
 feminines have sometimes a collective sense, it does not follow that a mas- 
 culine, when used collectively, becomes a feminine, least of all when a 
 feminine form exists already. Among the writers who explain it as a verb, 
 there is a difference of judginent with respect to the meaning of the exhor- 
 tation, sit ! The common English version, sit down, till explained, suggests 
 an idea directly opposite to that intended. Gesenius, on the contrary, 
 makes it mean sit up, in opposition to a previous recumbent posture. To 
 this it may be objected, that the verb is elsewhere absolutely used in the 
 sense of sitting down, especially in reference to sitting on the ground as a 
 sign of grief; and also, that the other verb does not merely qualify this, but 
 expresses a distinct idea, not merely that of rising but that of standing up, 
 which is inconsistent with an exhortation to sit up, immediately ensuing. 
 Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, therefore, agree with Vitringa and Lowth in 
 adopting the interpretation of the Targum, sit upon thy throne, from which 
 she is supposed to have been previously cast down. — The textual reading 
 wriQrn may be either a preterite or an imperative. In the former case, the 
 Hithpael must have a passive sense, the bands of thy neck are loosed, or 
 have loosed themselves. In the other case, the words may be considered as 
 addressed to the bands themselves {be loosed), which is hardly compatible, 
 however, with the use of the second person in thy neck ; or the object of 
 address may be the captives, which is equally at variance with the following 
 singular, captive daughter ofZion. The marginal reading "'nnarn preserves 
 both the parallelisnj and the syntax, and is therefore regarded as the true 
 text by Ewald and Knobel with the older writers. The latter, followed by 
 Rosenmiiller, suppose an ellipsis of the preposition from. Tnus the English 
 Version : loose thyself from the bands of thy neck. Gesenius and Ewald 
 make bands the object of the verb, which they explain, not as a strict 
 reflexive, but a modification of it, corresponding to the middle voice in Greek. 
 Loose for thyself the bands of thy neck. — On the different constructions of 
 the phrase 'p'S-ra, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 8. — As a whole, the 
 verse is a poetical description of the liberation of a female captive from 
 degrading servitude, designed to represent the complete emancipation of the 
 Church from tyranny and persecution. 
 
CHAPTERLII. 235 
 
 V. 3. For thus saith Jehovah, Ye were sold for nought, and not for 
 money shall ye be redeemed. These words are apparently designed to 
 remove two difficulties in the way of Israel's deliverance, a physical and a 
 moral one. The essential meaning is, that it might be effected rightly and 
 easily. As Jehovah had received no price for them, he was under no obli- 
 gations to renounce his right to them ; and as nothing had been gained by 
 their rejection, so nothing would be lost by their recovery. The only 
 obscurity arises from the singular nature of the figure under which the truth 
 is here presented, by the transfer of exjiressions borrowed from the commer- 
 cial intercourse of men to the free action of the divine sovereignty. The 
 verse, as explained above, agrees exactly with the terms of Ps. 44 : 13, 
 notwithstanding Hengstenberg's denial (Commentary, II. p. 391). The 
 reference to the blood of Christ as infinitely more precious than silver and 
 gold, would here be wholly out of place, where the thing asserted is that 
 they shall be redeemed as they were sold, viz. without any price at all, not 
 merely without silver and gold. This misconception has arisen from the 
 use of analogous expressions in the New Testament in application to a far 
 more important subject, the redemption of mankind from everlasting ruin. 
 The reflexive meaning given to cnnr^rs in the English Version (ye have sold 
 yourselves), is not sustained by usage nor required by the context, either 
 here or in Lev. 25 : 39, 47, where Gesenius admits it. (See above, on ch. 
 50: 1.) 
 
 V. 4. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Into Egypt loent down my 
 people at the first to sojourn there, and Assyria oppressed them for nothing. 
 The interpretation of this verse and the next has been not a little influenced 
 by the assumption of one or more strongly marked antitheses. Thus some 
 writers take it for granted that the Prophet here intended to contrast the 
 Egyptian and Assyrian bondage. They accordingly explain the verse as 
 meaning that the first introduction of Israel into Egypt was without any evil 
 design upon the part of the Egyptians, who did not begin to oppress them 
 until there arose a king who knew not Joseph (Ex. 1 : 8), whereas the 
 Assyrian deportation of Israel was from the beginning a high-handed act of 
 tyranny. Another antithesis, maintained by some in connexion with the 
 one already mentioned, and by others in the place of it, is that between 
 nsiiJK'ia at the first, and osxa at the last. A third hypothesis supposes 
 Egypt and Assyria together to be here contrasted with the Babylonian tyranny 
 described in the next verse. But even here there is a question, whether the 
 comparison has reference merely to time, and the Prophet means to say that 
 what Jehovah had done he would do again — or whether there is also a de- 
 signed antithesis between the former oppressions as less aggravated and the 
 present one as more so. Knobel appears to exclude the supposition of a 
 
236 CHAPTERLII. 
 
 contrast altogether, and to understand the passage as a chronological enu- 
 meration of events, designed to show how much had been endured already 
 as a reason why they should endure no more. (Compare ch. 40: 2.) In 
 ancient times they were oppressed by the Egyptians, at a later period by 
 Assyria, and later still by Babylonia, whose oppressions are supposed to be 
 described in v. 5, either as already suffered, or as an object of prophetic 
 foresight. This is the simplest and most natural interpretation, and is very 
 strongly recommended by the difficulty of defining the antithesis intended 
 on the other supposition. — Of the phrase 02i<2 there are three interpretations. 
 Saadias, Lowth, and Henderson explain it as a particle of time, the opposite 
 of njiJxna. The objection to this is the want of any other case in which 
 the noun is thus applied to time, together with its frequent use to describe 
 nonentity or nothing. It is no doubt true, as Havernick alleges, that the 
 word may as well denote extremity of time as of place ; but even the latter 
 application is confined to the plural in the frequent formula "j'lN "'dex. 
 The argument derived from the parallelism is of no avail ; because, as we 
 have seen, one of the points at issue is the question whether n3i:JX"i2 stands 
 opposed to 02X3 or to nns in the next verse. JMost writers therefore under- 
 stand it as meaning ybrno^/uV?^ or without cause, i. e. unjustly, or as Kimchi 
 expresses it, prt;)' f'ia . Knobel, however, makes it strictly syncjnymous 
 with nrn in v. 3, and understands the clause to mean that the Assyrians 
 ,had enslaved Israel gratuitously, i. e. without paying any price for him, and 
 therefore had no right to him, when God chose to reclaim him, — which is 
 precisely the idea expressed in the foregoing verse. — The explanation of 
 Assyria as meaning or including Babylonia, though not without authority 
 from usage, is as unnecessary here as in various other places where it has 
 been proposed. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 125). — The unsatisfactory 
 nature of exegetical conclusions drawn from doubtful premises is strongly 
 illustrated by the fact, that while Gesenius argues from this verse that the 
 writer must have lived long after the Assyrian bondage, since he couples it 
 with that of Egypt as a thing of ancient date, Havernick (Einleitung H. 2, 
 p. 187) insists that it must have been written in the days of Isaiah, because 
 it contrasts the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage as the first and the last 
 which Israel as a nation had experienced. The chief use of such reasonings 
 is to cancel one another. Though we may not venture to rest the genuine- 
 ness of these prophecies on such a basis, we may cheerfully accept the 
 assurance thus afforded that the arguments against it are of no validity. 
 
 V. 5. And now what is there to me here (ivhat have I here), saith 
 Jehovah, that my people is taken away for nothing, its rulers howl, saith 
 Jehovah, and continually, all the day, my name is blasphemed 1 Some 
 understand now strictly as meaning at the present time, in opposition to the 
 
CHAPTER LII. 237 
 
 ancient times when Israel suffered at the hands of Egypt and Assyria. The 
 same antithesis may be obtained by giving now a modified sense so as to 
 mean m the present case, as distinguished from the two aheady mentioned. 
 It would even be admissible to give the now its logical sense as substantially 
 meaning since these things ore so, although such a departure from the proper 
 import of the woid is by no means necessary. — The other adverb, here, 
 admits of no less various explanations. Hiizig and some older writers under- 
 stand it to mean heaven as the customary residence of God. (1 Kings 8 : 30.) 
 Some suppose it to mean Babylon, while others, with a bolder departure 
 from the strict sense, understand it as equivalent to in the present case, 
 viz. that of the Babylonian exile ; which, however, even if correct in sub- 
 stance, is rather a paraphrase than a translation. — With the meaning put 
 upon this adverb varies the interpretation of the whole phrase, what have I 
 here 1 If here mean in Babylon, the sense would seem to be, what else 
 have I to do here but to free my people ? If it mean in heaven, then the 
 question is, what is there to detain me here from going to the rescue of my 
 people? If it mean in the present case, whether this be referred to the 
 Babylonish exile or more generally understood, the best explanation of the 
 question is the one proposed by Knobel, what have I gained in this case, 
 any more than in the others, since my people are still taken from me with- 
 out any compensation ? But Beck supposes it to mean, how much more 
 cause have 1 to interfere in this case than in any of the others. The con- 
 clusion implied, though not expressed, is that in this, as in the other instances 
 referred to, a regard to his own honour, metaphorically represented as his 
 interest, requires that he should interpose for the deliverance of his people. — 
 The next clause likewise has been very variously explained. The most 
 extraordinary exposition is the one preferred by Aben Ezra, which gives 
 D'^baixj the same sense as in Num. 21 : 27, and explains the whole clause 
 thus : their poets howl, i. e. their songs, instead of being joyous, have become 
 mere lamentations. This ingenious notion is revived by Luzzatto, who 
 refers in illustration to the prophecy of Amos (8; 3), that the songs of the 
 temple shall in that day howl, or, as the English Version phrases it, be bowl- 
 ings. Among the vast majority of writers who retain the common meaning 
 of the word as a derivative fiom 'bt_^ to rule, the question chiefly in dispute 
 is whether it denotes the native rulers of the Jews themselves, as in ch. 
 28 : 14, or their foreign oppressors, as in ch. 49 : 7. Vitringa and Hitzig, who 
 prefer the former supposition, understand the clause as meaning that the 
 chiefs, who represent the people, howl or wail in their distress. (Compare 
 Exod. 5:15, 21.) Knobel objects to this interpretation, that the context 
 requires a description not of their distress but of its cause, and also that the 
 Jews had no chiefs but the Babylonians while in exile ; which is at once 
 historically false, because the internal organization of the people seems to 
 
238 C H A P T E R L I I . 
 
 have continued almost without change through all their revolutions and 
 vicissitudes, and wholly irrelevant if true, because the limitation of the pas- 
 sage to the exile is gratuitous and therefore inadmissible. Most interpreters, 
 however, seem disposed to understand "."'^'W^ as meaning his foreign oppres- 
 sors, notwithstanding the difficulty then attending the interpretation of the 
 verb '"5''^"'r!'^. More contempt than it leally deserves has been expressed by 
 later writers for Jerome's straightforward explanation, they shall howl when 
 punished for their tyranny hereafter. This is, to say the least, far better 
 than to derive it from bbn, or to read '^"'^Y'^l ^^'^'^ ^^^® Targum and Jarchi, 
 Houbigant and Lowth, Michaelis and Doderlein, Dathe and Eichhorn. 
 The causative sense, expressed by Kimchi and the English Version (make 
 them to Iwivl), is wholly unsustained by Hebrew usage. The favourite 
 interpretation with the latest writers is essentially the same proposed by 
 Kocher, who explains the Hebrew verb as expressive of the violent and 
 angry domination of the rulers ; upon which the moderns have improved by 
 making it expressive of a joyful shout, as oP.o/.i'^w is employed by ^schylus, 
 and as Lucan, speaking of the shout of victory, uses the words, laetis ululare 
 triumphis. This explanation is adopted by tiesenius in his Lexicon, although 
 explicitly rejected in his Commentary, as not sufficiently sustained by usage. 
 — The only difficulty in the last clause has relation to the form of the word 
 •j'S-73 , which Jarchi explains as a Hithpael passive, and Kimchi as a mixture 
 of the Hithpael and Pual. — The form of expression in this last clause is 
 copied by Ezekiel (86: 20, 23), but applied to a different subject ; and 
 from that place, rather than the one before us, the Apostle quotes in Rom. 
 2 : 24. 
 
 V. 6. Therefore (because my name is thus blasphemed) my people shall 
 Jcnoiv my name ; therefore in that day (shall they know) that I am he that 
 said, Behold me ! The exact sense of the last words according to this 
 construction is, ' I am he that spake (or promised) a Behold me ! ' This is 
 the sense given by Hitzig, Ewald, and Knohel, who understand the clause 
 as meaning that in that day (when the promise is fulfilled) it shall be known 
 that he who promised to be with them and deliver them was God himself. 
 Gesenius gives a somewhat different construction, 'they shall know that I 
 who spoke to them am present,' or in other words ' that I who promised to 
 be present have fulfilled my promise.' But this paraphrastical interpretation 
 of ""Siil is by no means so natural as that which understands it as the very 
 language of the promise itself. To know the name of God, is to know his 
 nature so far as it has been revealed ; and in this case more specifically it is 
 to know that the name blasphemed among the wicked was deserving of the 
 highest honour. The second therefore is admitted by all the modem writers 
 to be pregnant and emphatic ; although Lowth esteemed it so unmeaning 
 
CHAPTER LII. 239 
 
 and superfluous, tbat he expunged it from the text on the authority of several 
 ancient versions, which were much more hkely to omit it inadvertently than 
 all the manuscripts to introduce it without reason or authority. It is also 
 commonly agreed that "^3 means that, and that the verb shall Icnoiv must be 
 repeated with a different object. It might, however, be considered simpler 
 and more natural to repeat the object with the verb, and let the last clause 
 give a reason for the first: 'therefore in that day shall they know it (i. e. 
 know my name), because I am he that said, Behold me (or, Lo here I am) !' 
 The English Version differs from all the constructions which have now been 
 stated, in explaining "'liH as a mere reiteration of what goes before : 'they 
 shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak ; behold it is I.' But 
 according to usage, "'5.?^ ? especially when standing at the end of a clause or 
 sentence, does not merely reiterate the subject of a foregoing verb, but con- 
 stitutes a new proposition ; it does not mean lo I, or lo I am, but lo I am 
 here, and is therefore the common idiomatic Hebrew answer to a call by 
 name 
 
 V. 7. How timely on the mountains are the feet of one bringing glad 
 tidings, publishing peace, bringing glad tidings of good, publishing salva- 
 tion, saying to Zion, Thy God reigneth. The verb 'nJ*; means to be suita- 
 ble, becoming, opportune, and though not applied to time in either of the 
 two cases where it occurs elsewhere, evidently admits of such an applica- 
 tion, especially when there is no general usage to forbid it. It is here 
 recommended by the context; which is much more coherent if we under- 
 stand this verse as intimating that the help appears at the very juncture 
 when it is most needed, than if we take it as a mere expression of delight. 
 It is also favoured by the analogy of Nah. 2:1, where a similar connexion 
 is expressed by the word nsH . It is favoured lastly by the use of the Greek 
 word coQaToi in Paul's translation of the verse (Rom. 10 : 15), of which mqu 
 in our copies of the Septuagint is probably a corruption. This Greek word, 
 both from etymology and usage, most explicitly means timely or seasonable, 
 although sometimes employed in the secondary sense of beautiful (Matt. 
 23 : 27. Acts 3 : 2), like the Hebrew ^ix: (Cant. 1 : 10), decorus in Latin, 
 and becoming in English. The mountains meant may be the mountains 
 round Jerusalem, or the word may be more indefinitely understood as adding 
 a trait to the prophetic picture. — Hitzig gratuitously changes the form of the 
 expression, by substituting foot and messengers for feet and messenger. The 
 word "i'>y2^ has no equivalent in English, and must therefore be expressed 
 by a periphrasis, in order to include the two ideas of annunciation and the 
 joyful character of that which is announced. The sense is perfectly ex- 
 pressed by the Greek ivayy£Xi^6ftEvog : but our derivatives, evangelizing and 
 evangelist, are technical not popular expressions, and would not convey the 
 
'^40 CHAPTER LI I. 
 
 nieaninir to an ordinary reader. The joyous nature of the tidings brought is 
 still more definitely iniiiualed in the next clause by the addition of the word 
 good, uliieh is not explanatory but intensive. The peculiar form of tlie 
 original is marred in some translations, by renrlering the firt "i^!?*: as a noun 
 and the second ais a vei b ; whereas in Hebrew there are two participles, both 
 repeated. The explanmion of "'^aa^ as a collective referring to the prophets, 
 or the messengers from Babylonia to Jerusalem, is perfectly gratuitous. The 
 primary applii-aiion of the term is to the Messiah, but in itself it is indefinite ; 
 and Paul is therefore chargeable with no misapplication of the words when 
 he applies iIumu to tin; preachers of the gospel. The contents of the mes- 
 sage are the manifestation of llie reign of God, the very news which Christ 
 and his forerunner published when they cried saying, The kingdom of God 
 is at hand. 
 
 V. 8. The voice of thij walchmen ! They raise the voice, together 
 ivill they shout ; for eye to eye shall they see in Jehovah's returning to Zion. 
 Lowih complains that none of the ancient versions or modern interpreters 
 liave cleared up the construction of the first clause to his satisfaction, or 
 supplied the ellipsis in any way that seems to him easy and natuial. He 
 therefore |)roposes to read -= for ^"? (<iU thy watchmen lift up their voice), 
 which he says perfectly rectifies the sense and the constiuction. It is hard 
 to reconcile with Lowih's reputation for refined taste the preference of this 
 prosaic reading (the only external evidence for which is that P stands on a 
 rasure in one manuscript) to the obvious assumption of a poetical apostrophe 
 or exclamation, which has commended itself to all later writers, and had 
 been before proposed by Vitringa. There is no need even of supplying is 
 heard with Knobel, sounds with Gesenius in his Commentary, or hark with 
 the same writer in his German version. The exact translation is not only 
 admissible, but more expressive than any other. Gesenius and De \\ ette, 
 by connecting I'^n';; with the word before it {trhehen die Stinme allzamal), 
 not only violate the accents, but are under the necessity of supplying and 
 before the next verb. — This is one of the cases where it seems most allow- 
 able to look upon the preterite and future as ecpiivalent to our present ; but 
 according to the general rule hitherto adopted, it is best to retain the original 
 difference of form, whenever, as in this case, we can do so without injuring 
 the sense. Thus urulerstood, the clause would seem to intimate that they 
 should have still further cause to shout hereafter ; they have already raised 
 the voice, and ere long they shall all shout together. Because the prophets 
 are elsewhere represented as ivatchmen on the walls of Zion (ch. 56: 10. 
 Jer. 6: 17. Ez. 3 : 17. 33 : 2, 7), most interpreters attach that meaning to 
 the figure licre ; but the restriction is unnecessary, since the application of 
 a metaphor to one object does not preclude its application to another, and 
 
CHAPTER LII. 24 1 
 
 objectionable, as it mars the unity and beauty of the scene presented, which 
 is simply that of a messenger of good news drawing near to a walled town, 
 whose watchmen take up and repeat his tidings to the people within. — 
 Ewald strangely takes the last clause as the words to be uttered by the 
 watchmen, and explains them to mean, ' How will they see eye to eye !' 
 etc. This is far less natural than the usual construction, which regards the 
 last clause as the Prophet's explanation of the joy described in the first. — 
 The phrase eye to eye. or, as Hiizig and De Wette have it, eye in eye, 
 occurs only here and in Num. 14 : 14. The sense put upon it in the Tar- 
 gum and adopted by Gesenius {luith their eyes), though not erroneous, is 
 inadequate. According to Vitringa, it denotes with both eyes, i. e. not 
 imperfectly or dimly, but distinctly ; and the same idea is expressed by 
 Symmachus (oqi&cdfioq.avcog) . The same essential meaning is attached to 
 the expression by Ewald, but with a distinct intimation of local proximity, 
 the phrase being properly descriplive of two persons so near as to look into 
 each other's eyes. The phrases face to face (Ex. 33 : 11) and month to 
 mouth (Num. 12:8) are kindred and analogous, but not identical with that 
 before us. — The verb ^ixn-i may be construed either with T\'^t:i or with an 
 indefinite subject, they (i. e. the people of Jerusalem or men in general) shall 
 see. — Rosenmiiller explains 3 before nw as the connective which the verb nx'n 
 takes after it when it means to see with pleasure or to gaze at with delitrht. 
 The same construction seems to be implied in Ewald's para])hrase of ^i<'i'' 
 (^sich weiden) ; but it seems much simpler to construe the verb absolutely 
 or without an object expressed (they shall see, i. e. look), and to make the 
 :: a particle of time, as it usually is when prefixed to the infinitive. — The 
 transitive meaning ascribed to -tii in this and many other places has been 
 clearly shown by Hengstenberg (Pentateuch, I. pp. 104-106) to have no 
 foundation either in etymology or usage, and to be wholly inadmissible even 
 in the frequent combination r.^sui nvj, much more in cases like the present, 
 where the proper sense is not only appropriate but required by the context 
 and the analogy of other places in which the reconciliation between God 
 and his people is represented as a return after a long absence. (See above,- 
 on ch. 40: 11.) — The direct construction of the verb of motion with the 
 noun of place is a Hebrew idiom of constant occurrence ; so that it is not 
 necessary even to suppose an ellipsis of the preposition. 
 
 V. 9. Burst forth, shout together, ruins of Jerusalem ! For Jehovah 
 hath comforted his people, hath redeemed Jerusalem. The phrase iis^ nss 
 to burst forth into shouting, is a favourite expression with Isaiah (see above, 
 ch. 14 : 7. 44 : 23. 49 : 13, and below, ch. 54 : 1. 55 : 12) ; but in this 
 case the qualifying noun is exchanged for its verbal root, — a combination 
 which occurs elsewhere only in Ps. 98 : 4. As use is never used in any 
 
 16 
 
042 CHAPTER LII. 
 
 other connexion, and therefore denotes only this one kind of bursting, it 
 may be considered as involving the idea of the whole phrase, and is so 
 translated in the English Version (break forth into joy), while Gesenius 
 irives the same sense to the two words, and translates the phrase exactly 
 like tlie usual one, np niis. — Together may either mean oil of you, or at 
 the same time with the watchmen mentioned in v. 8. Hitzig even goes so 
 iar as to say that the ruins arc here called upon to imitate the watchmen. 
 Knobel adds that the ruins had particular occasion to rejoice, because they 
 were to be transformed into a splendid city (ch. 44 : 2G). Such appeals to 
 inanimate objects are of frequent occurrence in Isaiah, (See above, ch. 
 44 : 23. 49 : 13, and below, ch. 55 : 12.) — The translation of the verbs in 
 the last clause as presents is unnecessary and enfeebling, as it takes away 
 the strong assurance always conveyed by the praeteritum propheticum. 
 See above, on ch. 49 : 13. 
 
 V. 10. Jehovah hath bared his holy arm to the eyes of all the nations, 
 and all (he ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. The 
 allusion in the first clause is to the ancient military practice of going into 
 battle with the right arm and shoulder bare. Thus Porus is described by 
 Arrian as SflSiov w/eof sx^y yvfxvov sv r;] ;««/»; ; Diana by Silius Italicus, 
 exscitos avide pugnae nudata lacertos ; Tydeus by Statins, exscitare hume- 
 ros nudnmque lacessere pugnam. The same Hebrew verb is used in the 
 same application by Ezekiel (4 : 7). The baring of the arm may either be 
 mentioned as a preparation for the conflict, or the act of stretching it forth 
 may be included, as Rosenmiiller and Gesenius suppose. The bare arm is 
 here in contrast either with the long sleeves of the female dress, or with the 
 indolent insertion of the hand in the bosom. (Ps. 74 : 11.) The exertion 
 of God's power is elsewhere expressed by the kindred figure of a great hand 
 (Ex. 14 : 30), a strong hand (Ez. 20 : 34), or a hand stretched out (Is. 
 9 : 11). The act here described is the same that is described in ch. 51 : 9. 
 The comparison of Jehovah to a warrior occurs above in ch. 42: 13. 
 Jehovah's arm is here described as holy, because, as Knobel thinks, his 
 holiness or justice is exercised in punishing the wicked ; but the word is 
 rather to be taken in its wide sense, as denoting the divine perfection, or 
 whatever distinguishes between God and man, perhaps with special refer- 
 ence to his power, as that by which his deity is most frequently and clearly 
 manifested to his creatures. The sense of sanctifying, i. e. glorifying arm, 
 which Rosenmiiller suggests as possible, is much less natural and scarcely 
 reconcilable with the expression. In this clause Ewald has retained the 
 strict translation of the preterite instead of the enfeebling present form 
 preferred by most of the late writers. In the last clause he adopts the 
 subjunctive form, so that all nations see, which is substantially correct, as 
 
CHAPTERLII. 243 
 
 i-iXV introduces the effect or consequence of the action described in the fore- 
 ^foing clause. Compare tliis clause with ch. 18:3. 33 : 13. and Ps. 98 : 3, 
 where it is repeated word for word. Another coincidence between this 
 passage of Isaiah and that Psalm has been already pointed out in expound- 
 ing the forefroinff verse. 
 
 V. 11. Away ! aivay ! go out from thence ! the unclean touch not ! 
 come out from the midst of her ! be clean (or cleanse yourselves) ye armour- 
 bearers of Jehovah ! The first word in Hebrew is a verb, and literally 
 means depart ; but there is something peculiarly expressive in Gesenius's 
 translation of it by an adverb. The analogy of ch. 48 : 20 seems to show 
 that the Prophet had the departure from Babylon in view ; but the omission 
 of the name here, and of any allusion to that subject in the context, forbids 
 the restriction of the words any further than the author has himself restricted 
 them. The idea that this high-wrought and impassioned composition has 
 reference merely to the literal migration of the captive Jews, says but little 
 for the taste of those who entertain it. The whole analogy of language and 
 especially of poetical composition shows that Babylon is no more the exclu- 
 sive object of the writer's contemplation than the local Zion and the literal 
 Jerusalem in many of the places where those names are mentioned. Like 
 other great historical events, particularly such as may be looked upon as 
 critical conjunctures, the deliverance becomes a type, not only to the pro- 
 phet, but to the poet and historian, not by any arbitrary process, but by a 
 spontaneous association of ideas. As some names, even in our own day, 
 iiave acquired a generic meaning and become descriptive of a whole class 
 of events, so in the earliest authentic history, the Flood, the Fall of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah', the Exodus, the Babylonish Exile, are continually used as 
 symbols of divine interposition both in wrath and mercy. There is no 
 inconsistency whatever, therefore, in admitting that the Prophet lias the 
 exodus from Babylon in view, and yet maintaining that his language has a 
 far more extensive scope. The error of those Christian writers who adopt 
 this confined hypothesis is not so obvious in their own interpretations as it is 
 in those which have been raised upon the same base by the German neolo- 
 gists, who, not content with this limitation of the meaning, sneer at the 
 contracted Jewish spirit which the writer here betrays, by insisting on the 
 old Levitical distinctions and denouncing all communion with the gentiles 
 as pollution. In order to maintain this unworthy view of the writer's mean- 
 ing, they explain the exhortation in the last clause as requiring ceremonial 
 ablutions, and adopt Jarchi's groundless and absurd interpretation of x^:j as 
 referring exclusively to persons, with allusion to the ■|"?.5<f]"'';^i5 t"5<'a^ of Ezra 
 6:21. This restriction of the terms is so unreasonable and unfair, that 
 Ewald and Knobel, though belonging to the same school, both explain 
 
244 CHAPTER LII. 
 
 X^"J as a neutin- (^Vnreincs), that which is unclean. It would indeed be 
 impossible to fianie a more general dehortation or dissuasion from religious 
 and moral impurity, and thousands of intelligent readers have so understood 
 the words, without detecting in them those " angstliche pedantische Grund- 
 satze" since brought to light by a mode of criticism which, even in a mere 
 aesthetic point of view, deserves to be characterized as eminently aiigstUch 
 ^nd pedantisch. The same spirit shows itself in the exposition of the closing 
 words of this verse by the same class of writers. Not content with identify- 
 in"- the nin-; "ibs with the 13'^'p "'^s of Num. 4 : 15. 1 Chron. 9:29, an 
 assumption not entirely devoid of probability, they make this an address to 
 the Priests and Levites, the official bearers of these vessels, and explain it as 
 implying a hope that the sacred utensils taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the 
 temple (2 Kings 25 : 14, 15. Dan. 5 : 1) would be restored by Cyrus, as 
 they afterwards were. (Ezra 1 :7-ll.) And this anticipated restitution 
 is the threat theme of the grand yet brilliant passage now before us, in the 
 eyes of those very critics who have gone to an extreme in holding up Isaiah's 
 baldest prose as unmixed poetry ! They reject of course the sense which 
 Rosenmiiller, following some older writers, puts upon the closing words as 
 meaning the armour-bearers of Jehovah. This would not be Jewish and 
 Levitical enough to serve their purpose of really degrading what they aflect 
 to magnify ' with faint praise.' Yet this sense is not only in the highest 
 degree suitable to the idea of a solemn march, but strongly recommended by 
 the fact that f^s ^V.^ in historical prose is the appropriated title of an 
 armour-bearer. (See 1 Sam. 14 : 1, 6, 7. 16 : 21.) At the same time the 
 mention of the sacred vessels would scarcely be omitted in the description 
 of this new exodus. Both explanations may be blended without any viola- 
 tion of usage, and with great advantage to the beauty of the passage, by 
 supposing an allusion to the mixture of the martial and the sacerdotal in the 
 whole oro-anization of the host of Israel during the journey through the 
 wilderness. Not even in the crusades were the priest and the soldier 
 broucrht so near together, and so mingled, not to say identified, as in the 
 lono- march of the chosen people from the Red Sea to the Jordan. By 
 applying this key to the case before us, we obtain the grand though blended 
 imaf^e of a march and a procession, an army and a church, a 'sacramental 
 host' bearing the sacred vessels not as Priests and Levites merely, but as the 
 armour-hearers of Jehovah, the weapons of whose warfare, though not car- 
 nal, are mighty to the pulling down of strong holds. (2 Cor. 10:4.) 
 With this comprehensive exposition of the clause agrees the clear and settled 
 usage of the word c^^s in the wide sense of imphments, including weapons 
 on the one hand and vessels on the other. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 
 249,) — The application of the terms of this verse by John to the spiritual 
 Babylon (Rev. 18 : 4), so far from standing in the way of the enlarged 
 
CHAPTERLII. 245 
 
 interpretation above given, really confirms it by showing that the language 
 of the prophecy is suited to express far more than the literal exodus of Israel 
 from Babylon. 
 
 V. 12. For not in haste shall ye go out, and in jiight ye shall not 
 depart ; for going before you (is) Jehovah, and bringing up your rear 
 the God of Israel. This verse is crowded with allusions to the earlier 
 history of Israel, some of which consist in the adaptation of expressions with 
 which the Hebrew reader was familiar, but which must of course be lost in 
 a translation. Thus the hasty departure out of Egypt is not only recorded 
 as a fact in the Mosaic history (Ex. 11 : 1. 12 : 33, 39), but designated by 
 the very term here used "iiTsn (Ex. 12 : 11. Deut. 16 : 3), meaning terrified 
 and sudden flight. So also T\^^ and ^&5<^ are military terms familiar to the 
 readers of the ancient books. (See Num. 10 : 25. Josh. 6 : 9, 13.) There 
 is likewise an obvious allusion to the cloudy pillar going sometimes before 
 and sometimes behind the host (Ex. 14 : 19, 20), and ])ossibly to Moses' 
 poetical description of Jehovah as encompassing Israel with his protection 
 (Deut. 32 : 10). These minute resemblances are rendered still more strik- 
 ing by the distinction which the Prophet makes between the two events. 
 The former exodus was hurried and disorderly ; the one here promised shall 
 be solemn and deliberate. How far the exquisite poetical beauty of the 
 passage is appreciated by some modern critics, may be gathered from the 
 fact that Rosenmiiller quotes without dissent the ridiculous remark of 
 Schuster, that the verse has reference to the dangers of the desert between 
 Babylonia and Judea (Ezra 8 : 22, 31), and the still more curious fact that 
 Knobel understands it as assigning a reason why they need not neglect their 
 Levitical ablutions before setting out ; while Hitzig infers from this last 
 verse that the purification enjoined in the one before it was '^ etivas Zeit- 
 rauhcndes," or something that required time for its performance. Such 
 aesthetics, if applied to any of the master-works of classical genius, would 
 be laughed to scorn ; but even the transcendent merit of the passage now 
 before us, simply considered as a piece of composition, cannot wash out the 
 offensive stain of Judaismus, or enable certain critics to forget or even to 
 forgive its being Scripture. The true connexion of the verse with that 
 before it must be obvious to every unsophisticated reader. Tlieyor, as in 
 many other cases, has relation to an intermediate thought which may be 
 easily supplied though not expressed. Or rather, it has reference to the 
 promise, implied in the preceding exhortation, of protection and security. 
 To many thousands both of learned and unlearned readers, this connexion 
 has been obvious for ages ; whereas not more than two or three, we may 
 venture to believe, ever dreamed that this magnificent description of Jeho- 
 vah's presence with his people was intended to assure the Jewish exiles that 
 
246 CHAPTERLII. 
 
 before leaving Babylon they would have time enough to wash themselves 
 at leisure ! — From this verse, taken in connexion with the one before it, we 
 may derive a confirmation of our previous conclusions, first that tiie image 
 there presented is a military no less than a priestly one ; and secondly that 
 this whole passage has a wider scope and higher theme than the deliverance 
 from Babylon, because the latter is no more vividly exhibited to view than 
 the deliverance from Egypt ; and if this is a mere emblem, so may that be, 
 nay it must be, when we add to the consideration just presented, the result 
 of the inductive process hitherto pursued in the interpretation of these pro- 
 phecies, viz. that the deliverance of Israel from exile does not coiistiuue the 
 theme of the predictions, but is simply one remarkable historico-propheiical 
 example which the Prophet cites in illustration of his general teachings as 
 to the principle and mode of the divine administration, and his special pre- 
 dictions of a great and glorious change to be connected with the abrogation 
 of the old economy. 
 
 V. 13. Behold, my servant shall do wisely, (and as a necessary conse- 
 quence) shall rise and be exalted and high exceedingly. The parenthesis 
 introduced to show the true relation of the clauses serves at the same time 
 to preclude the necessity of giving ^"'S'^l the doubtful and secondary sense of 
 prospering, as most modern writers do. The objection to this interpretation 
 is the same as in the case of P'lS and npr'iii , which it is the fashion now to 
 render victory, salvation, or the like. The parallel expressions in the pre- 
 sent case are not synonymous but simply correlative, the mutual relation 
 being that of cause and effect. He shall be exalted because he shall act 
 wisely, in the highest sense, i. e. shall use the best means for the attainment 
 of the highest end. This kind of wisdom involves prosperity, not merely 
 as a possible result, but as a necessary consequence. We have no right, 
 however, to substitute the one for the other, or to merge the primary idea in 
 its derivative. Hengstenberg undertakes to blend both senses by translating 
 the verb he shall rule well, i. e. both wisely and successfully. But to this 
 there are two objections : first, that it introduces an idea (that of ruling) 
 which is not expressed at all in the original ; and then, that it confounds 
 two things which in the original are kept distinct, the antecedent and the 
 consequent, wisdom and prosperity. The latter has the less claim to be 
 forced into the first clause, because in the last it is so fully and strongly ex- 
 pressed, by combining, as Hengstenberg himself well says, all the Hebrew 
 verbs that denote exaltation and then adding the intensive adverb. The 
 version of the Septuagint (avvi^Gti) and the Vulgate (intelliget) is only de- 
 fective because it makes the verb denote the possession of intelligence, and 
 not its active exercise, which is required by the Hiphil form and by the 
 connexion, as well here as in the parallel passage, Jer. 23 : 5. (Compare 
 
CHAPTERLII. 247 
 
 1 Kings 2 : 3.) — Connected with this verse there are two exegetical ques- 
 tions which are famous as the suhject of dispute among interpreters. The 
 first and least important has respect to the division and arrangement of the 
 text, viz. whether this verse is to be connected with what goes before, or 
 separated from it and regarded as the introduction of a new subject. The 
 former method is adopted in the older versions and in the masoretic Hebrew 
 text. The latter, according to Procopius and others, was pursued in the 
 ancient distribution of the book, with which the Fathers were familiar, and 
 has been adopted in our own day by most writers on Isaiah. A particular 
 exegetical motive may be easily detected in some cases for preferring the 
 one or the other of these methods. Thus Abarbenel is naturally led to 
 sever these three verses (13-15) from what follows, by a wish to establish 
 his peculiar hypothesis that the Messiah is the subject of these verses, but 
 not of the next chapter. On the other hand, those writers who restrict the 
 foregoing context to the restoration of the Jews from exile have a strong 
 inducement to make this the beginning of a new discourse upon another 
 subject, as the best means of disguising the unnatural and violent transition 
 which their hypothesis compels them to assume. But to this statement 
 there are certainly exceptions. Thus the usual division is retained by Hit- 
 zig notwithstanding his adherence to the Babylonian theory, while Ewald, 
 who adopts the other method, admits that the fifty-third chapter begins in 
 an entirely new tone. The ease with which arbitrary arrangements of the 
 text may be multiplied derives some illustration from Hendewerk's assertion 
 that ch. 5-2 : 7 to 54 : 17 is a distinct prophecy, consisting of three parallel 
 parts, ch. 52 : 7-15, ch. 53 : 1-12, ch. 54 : 1-17, so that the favourite 
 modern separation of ch. 52 : 13 to 53 : 12 from the context as a separate 
 discourse is not only arbitrary but a ' mutilation of the oracle.' Common 
 to all these arrangements is the radical error of supposing that the book 
 is susceptible of distribution into detached and independent parts, — a notion 
 which, as we have seen already, is not only theoretically groundless, 
 but practically hurtful in a high degree to the sound interpretation of these 
 prophecies. What seems to be gained, in such cases, by combining thinfrs 
 which ought to go togetlier, is more than outweighed by the disadvantage of 
 separating others which are no less closely connected. The only satisfac- 
 tory method, as we have already seen, is to regard the whole as a continu- 
 ous composition, and to recognise the usual division into chapters, simplv 
 because it is familiar and on the whole convenient, although sometimes very 
 injudicious and erroneous. According to this view of the matter, the precise 
 distribution of the chapters is of no more importance than that of the para- 
 graphs in any modern book, which may sometimes facilitate and sometimes 
 hinder its convenient perusal, but can never be regarded as authoritative in 
 determining the sense. In the case immediately before us, it is proper to 
 
248 CHAPTERLII. 
 
 resist the violent division of the chapter; because when read In its natural 
 connexion, it siiows how easy the transition was from the foregoing promise 
 of deliverance to the description of the Servant of Jehovah as the leader 
 of the grand march just described, and confirms our previous conclusions as 
 to the exalted meaning of the promises in question, and against a forced 
 restriction of tiicni to the Babylonish exile. At the same time it is equally 
 important that tin; Inilmate connexion of these verses with the following 
 chapter should be fully recognised, in order that the Servant of the Lord, 
 whose huiuiliation and exaltation are here mentioned, may be identified with 
 that mysterious per,-on whose expiatory sufferings and spiritual triumphs form 
 the great theme of tlie subsequent context. To the general agreement 
 among Jews and Christians as to this identity, the forced hypothesis already 
 quoted from Abarbenel may be regarded as the sole exception. It follows, 
 therefore, that the meaning of the whole passage, to the end of the fifty-third 
 chapter, turns upon the question, Who is meant by "''nns (my servant) in the 
 verse before us? An individual or a collective body? If the latter, is it 
 Israel as a whole, or its better portion, or the Prophets, or the Priesthood ? 
 If the former, is it Moses, Abraham, Uzziah, Joslah, Jeremiah, Cyrus, an 
 anonymous prophet, the author himself, or the Messiah ? This is the other 
 exegetical question which has been referred to, as connected with this verse 
 and materially affecting the interpretation of the whole passage. The answer 
 to this question, which at once suggests itself as the result of all our previous 
 inquiries, is that the Servant of Jehovah here, as in ch. 42 : 1—6 and ch. 
 49 : 1—9, is the Messiah, but presented ratlier in his own personality than 
 in conjunction with his people. According to the rule ah-eady stated (see 
 above, p. 50), the idea of the Body here recedes, and that of the Head 
 becomes exclusively conspicuous ; because, as we shall see below, the Ser- 
 vant of Jehovah is exhibited, not merely as a teacher or a ruler, but as an 
 expiatory sacrifice. That this application of the verse and the whole pas- 
 sage to the Messiah was held by the oldest school of Jewish interpreters, 
 appears from the Targum of Jonathan, who here has my Servant the Mes- 
 siah, and is admitted by Aben Ezra, Jarchl, Abarbenel, and other Jews, who 
 have themselves abandoned this opinion because it would constrain them to 
 acknowledge Christ as the Messiah of their Scriptures. Detailed proofs 
 from the ancient Jewish books themselves are given by Hengstenberg in his 
 Christology (Vol. I. pp. 292-294). Gesenius, too, explicitly admits that the 
 later Jews were no doubt led to give up the old interpretation of the pas- 
 sage by polemic opposition to the Christians. (Commentary II. p. 161.) 
 The same interpretation was maintained, almost without exception, in the 
 Christian church, till near the end of the eighteenth century, when it was 
 abandoned by the German theologians along with the doctrines of atonement 
 and prophetic inspiration. Even in Germany, however, it has always had 
 
CHAPTER LII. 249 
 
 its zealous adherents, and in our own day some of its most able, learned, 
 and successful advocates. In its favour may be urged, besides the tradition 
 of tiie synagogue and church, the analogy of the other places where the 
 Servant of Jehovah is mentioned, the wonderful agreement of the terms of 
 the prediction with the character and history of Jesus Christ, and the express 
 application of the passage to him by himself and his inspired apostles, who 
 appear to have assumed it as the basis of their doctrine with respect to the 
 atonement, and to have quoted it comparatively seldom only because they 
 had it constantly in view, as appears from their numerous allusions to it, and 
 the perfect agreement of their teachings with it ; so that even Gesenius, while 
 in one place he argues from their silence that they did not find the doctrine 
 of atonement in the passage, says expressly in another, with a strange but 
 gratifying inconsistency, that most Hebrew readers, being already familiar with 
 the notions of sacrifice and substitution, must of necessity have so explained 
 the place, and that undoubtedly the apostolic doctrine as to Christ's expia- 
 tory death rests in a great measure upon this foundation. (Comm. II. p. 
 191.) The detailed proofs of the Messianic exposition will be given in the 
 course of the interpretation and compared with the other hypotheses main- 
 tained by Jews and Christians, which will therefore only be eimmerated 
 here in order that the reader may recall them for the purpose of comparison. 
 The individual subjects which have been assumed besides the Messiah, are 
 Josiah by Abarbenel, Jeremiah by Grotius, Uzziah by Augusti, Hezekiah 
 by Bahrdt, Isaiah by Staudlin, and (according to some) Moses and the 
 Rabbi Akiba by a tradition quoted in the Talmud, although Hengstenberg 
 supposes that these are mentioned only as examples or representatives of a 
 whole class. An anonymous German writer understands by the Servant of 
 this verse an unknown prophet who suffered martyrdom during the exile ! 
 Another anonymous writer of the same country applies the name as a collec- 
 tive to the Maccabees ; another to the nobles carried off by Nebuchadnezzar, 
 or to their descendants w ho returned ; Bolten applies it in like manner to the 
 house or family of David. Another nameless German understands by the 
 Servant of Jehovah the priesthood as a class or body. This is near akin 
 to Rosenmiiller's early doctrine that it means the prophets, which was after- 
 wards abandoned by its author, but renewed by Gesenius in his Commen- 
 tary, and by De Wette and Winer, while Umbreit attempts to blend it with 
 the Messianic exposition by supposing the Messiah to be set forth as the 
 greatest of the ])ropliets or as their ideal. Instead of this hypothesis, Rosen- 
 miiller afterwards adopted that of the rabbins who reject the Messianic 
 doctrine (such as Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra), viz. that the Servant of 
 Jehovah is the Jewish people; and the same opinion is maintained by Eich- 
 horn and Hilzig, but with this important difference between the soi-disant 
 Christian and the Jewish writers, that the latter apply the j)assage to the 
 
250 CHAPTERLII. 
 
 present dispersion of iheir people, and the former to the Babylonish exile. 
 As modifications of this general hypothesis may be mentioned Eckermann's 
 extravagant idea, that the people as such or considered in the abstract is 
 here distinguished from Its individual members, whose words he supposes to be 
 given in the following ciiapter. Another modification of the same opinion is 
 the ground assumed by Paulus, iNIaurer, Gesenius in his Lexicon, and in a still 
 more qualified manner by Ewald and Knobel, viz. that the Servant of Jehovah 
 is the spiritual Israel, the better portion of the Jewish people, as distinguished 
 either from their ungodly brethren, or from the heathen, or from both. Some 
 of these explanations are so perfectly groundless and extravagant that they 
 can no more be refuted than established. This is especially the case with 
 those which make the Servant of Jehovah any individual except the Messiah, 
 of which it has been well said that they might be multiplied ad libitum, 
 there being no more show of reason for the names suggested than for a mul- 
 titude of others which have never been proposed. This remark may be 
 extended to the theories which identify the Servant of Jehovah with the 
 Maccabees, the House of David, the Noble Exiles, and the Priesthood, leav- 
 ing as the only plausible hypotheses besides the Messianic one, those which 
 severally understand the title as denoting the order of Prophets or the Jewish 
 people, either as a whole or in relation to its better part. To these the 
 attention of the reader will be therefore directed in comparison with that 
 which is assunjed as the basis of the exposition, leaving the others to refute 
 themselves. Of those which have been mentioned as entitled to compara- 
 tive consideration, that which approaches nearest to the truth is the hypo- 
 thesis of Beck and Ewald, that by the Servant of Jehovah we are to under- 
 stand the ideal Israel, or rather it denotes the Israel of God, not considered 
 as a nation or a race, but as the church or chosen people, who in some sense 
 represented the Messiah till he came, and is therefore often blended with 
 him in the prophetic picture as a complex person, sometimes more and some- 
 times less conspicuous, but here, as we have seen already, totally eclipsed 
 by the image of the Head himself. And yet even in this case there are 
 visible such striking points of similarity between the Body and the Head, 
 that although this passage can directly refer only to the latter, it confirms 
 the previous conclusion that in other cases the reverse is true. The general 
 views which have been now expressed on this and other points will be 
 reduced to a more specific form in the progress of the exposition, during the 
 course of which respect will be had, not only to the commentaries usually 
 quoted in this work, but to one or two important monographs or special 
 expositions of this passage, the most important of which are IMartini's Com- 
 mentatio Pl)iloIogico-critica (Rostock, 1791), to which most later writers 
 have been largely indebted, and Hengstenberg's excellent interpretation 
 contained in the second part of his Christologie, the valuable substance of 
 
CHAPTERLII. 251 
 
 wliicl) it is proposed to reproduce in the ensuing pages, with some changes 
 both of form and substance, and many additions from more recent soui-ces. 
 — In the verse immediately before us all that need be added is, that the 
 extraordinary exaltation promised in the last clause is such as could never 
 have been looked for by the Prophet, for himself or for his order, especially 
 upon the n)odern supposition, that he lived in the time of the exile, when 
 the grounds for such an expectation were far less than at any former period. 
 It may also be observed that the personification of the prophets as an ideal 
 individual is foreign from the usage of the Scriptures ; the parallelism o[ ser- 
 vant and nusstngers, in the first clause of ch. 44 : 26, no more proves the 
 first to be collective, than the like relation oi Jerusalan and cities of Judah 
 in the last clause proves the same thing of Jerusalem. The objection, that 
 the title servant is not applied elsewhere to Messiah, would have little force 
 if true, because the title in itself is a general one and may be applied to any 
 chosen instrument ; it is not true, however, as the single case of Zech. 3 : 8 
 will suffice to show, without appealing to the fact that the same application 
 of the title, either partial or exclusive, has been found admissible above in 
 ch. 42: 1. 49:3, and 50: 10. 
 
 Vs. 14, 15. As many ivere shocked at thee — so marred from man his 
 look, and his form from the sons of man — so shall he sprinkle many nations ; 
 concerning him shall kings stoji their mouth, because what was not recounted 
 to them they have seen, and what they had not heard they have perceived. 
 His exaltation shall bear due proportion to his humiliation ; the contempt of 
 men shall be exchanged for wonder and respect. According to ihe common 
 agreement of interpreters, v. 14 is the protasis and v. 15 the apodosis of the 
 same sentence, the correlative clauses being introduced, as usual in cases of 
 compaiison, by "^li^.i^S and 1? . The construction is somewhat embarrassed 
 by the intervening "i? at the beginning of the last clause of v. 14, uhich 
 most interpreters however treat as a parenthesis explanatory of the first 
 clause : ' as many were shocked at thee (because his countenance was so 
 marred etc.), so shall he sprinkle many nations,' etc. A simpler construc- 
 tion, though it does not yield so clear a sense, would be to assume a double 
 apodosis : ' as many were shocked at thee, so w as his countenance marred etc., 
 so also shall he sprinkle,' etc. As thus exphiined the sense would be, their 
 abhorrence of him was not without reason and it shall not be without requital. 
 ^"cc'C expresses a mixture of surprise, contempt, and aversion ; it is frequently 
 applied to extraordinary instances of suffering when viewed as divine judg- 
 ments. (Lev. 26 : 32. Ezek. 27 : 35. Jer. 18 : 16. 19 : 8.) It is fol- 
 lowed by the preposition ^? as usual when employed in this sense. — Many 
 does not mean all, nor is nations to be anticipated from the otlier clause ; 
 there seems to be rather an antithesis between many individuals and many 
 
252 CHAPTER LI I. 
 
 nations. As a single people liad despised him, so the whole world should 
 admire him. nnu3o is a verbal noun, equivalent in this connexion to an 
 infinitive or passive participle. It strictly means corruption, but is here put 
 for disfiguration or deformity. De Dieu's derivation of this word from n^ria 
 ' to anoint,' has found no adherents among later writers. Henderson con- 
 strues it with 'ni*"?"? (the disfiguration of his oppearnnct), notwithstanding 
 the interposition of tti-^^^'2 . The other recent writers make it the predicate 
 and ^i^x-iTQ the subject of the same proposition. By look and /orm we are 
 neither to understand a mean condition nor the personal appearance, but, as 
 an intermediate idea, the visible effects of suffering. The preposition from, 
 away from, may be taken simply as expressive of comparison (more than), 
 or more emphatically of negation (so as not to be human), w^hich are only 
 different gradations of the same essential meaning. Jahn supposes a climax 
 in the use of ■■r"'5< and cnij — his appearance should be far below that even 
 of the lowest men ; but this is looked upon by Hengstenberg as weakening 
 the expression, and is certainly unnecessary, as well as founded on a dubious 
 usage. — Wj is the technical term of the Mosaic law for sprinkling water, 
 oil, or blood, as a purifying rite. Jerome supposes a specific reference to 
 the blood of Christ and the water of baptism. Hengstenberg gives the verb 
 the secondary sense of cleansing, but still with reference to the effects of the 
 atonement. The explanation of this word by the majority of modern writers 
 as denoting that he shall cause them to leap for joy (Paulus, Winer, Gesenius 
 in Comm.), or rise from their seats with reverence (Ewald, Gesenius in 
 Thes.), or start with astonishment (Eichhorn, Hitzig), or be struck with 
 cordial admiration (Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Umbreit, Knobel), is in 
 direct opposition to a perfectly uniform Hebrew usage, and without any real 
 ground even in Arabic analogy. The ostensible reasons for this gross vio- 
 lation of the clearest principles of lexicography are: first, the chimera of a 
 perfect parallelism, which is never urged except in case of great necessity ; 
 and secondly, the fact that in every other case the verb is followed by the 
 substance sprinkled, and connected with the object, upon which it is sprinkled, 
 by a preposition. But since both the constructions of the verb ' to sprinkle ' 
 are employed in other languages — as \ve may either speak of sprinkling a 
 person or of sprinkling water on him — the transition must be natural, and 
 no one can pretend to say that two or more examples of it in a book of this 
 size are required to demonstrate its existence. The real motive of the 
 strange unanimity with which the true sense has been set aside, is the 
 desire to obliterate this clear description, at the very outset, of the Servant 
 of Jehovah as an expiatory purifier, one who must be innocent himself in 
 order to cleanse others, an office and a character alike inapplicable either to 
 the prophets as a class, or to Israel as a nation, or even to the better class 
 of Jews, much more to any single individual except the One who claimed to 
 
C H A P T E R L I 1 1 . 253 
 
 be the Purifier of the guilty, and to whom many nations do at this day 
 ascribe whatever purity of heart or life they either have or hope for. Another 
 objection to the modern explanation of the word is, that it then anticipates 
 the declaration of the next clause, instead of forming a connecting link 
 between it and the first. This clause is understood by some to mean that 
 they shall be reverently silent before him, by others that they shall be dumb 
 with wonder on account of him, by others that they shall be silent respecting 
 him, i. e. no longer utter expressions of aversion or contempt. Gesenius 
 asks whether kings ever personally bowed to Christ, as intimated here and 
 in ch. 49 : 7 ; to which Hengstenberg replies, that the only word which 
 creates the difficulty (^pcrsonaUy) is supplied by the objector, — that multi- 
 tudes of kings have bowed to Christ in one sense, whereas none, in any 
 sense, have ever thus acknowledged their subjection to the prophets, or to 
 Israel, or even to the pious Jews, or could have been expected so to do. — 
 The reason of this voluntary humiliation is expressed in the last clause, viz. 
 because they see things of which they had never had experience or even 
 knowledge by report. This expression shows that many nations must be 
 taken in its natural and proper sense, as denoting the gentiles. It is accord- 
 ingly applied by Paul (Rom. 15:21) to the preaching of the gospel among 
 those who had never before heard it. Interpreters have needlessly refined 
 in interpreting the verb see as signifying mental no less than bodily percep- 
 tion. The truth is that the language is not scientific but poetical ; the 
 writer does not put sight for experience, but on the contrary describes expe- 
 rience as simple vision. — For the stopping of the mouth, as an expression of 
 astonishment or reverence, see Job 29 : 9. 40 : 4. Ps. 107 : 42. Ezek. 
 16:63. Mic. 7 : 16. 
 
 CHAPTER LIII. 
 
 Notwithstanding these and other prophecies of the Messiah, he is not 
 recognised when he appears, v. 1. He is not the object of desire and trust 
 for whom the great mass of the people have been waiting, v. 2. Nay, his 
 low condition, and especially his sufferings, make him rather an object of 
 contempt, v. 3. But this humiliation and these sufferings are vicarious, not 
 accidental or incurred by his own fault, vs. 4-6. Hence, though peraonally 
 innocent, he is perfectly unresisting, v. 7. Even they for whom he suffers 
 may mistake his person and his office, v. 8. His case presents the two 
 
254 C H A P T E R L I I I . 
 
 extremes of righteous punishment and perfect innocence, v. 9. But the 
 glorious fruit of these very sufformgs will correct all errors, v. 10. He 
 becomes a Saviour only by becoming a substitute, v. 11. Even after the 
 \vork of expiation is completed and his glorious reward secured, the work of 
 intercession will be still continued, v. 12. 
 
 V. 1. JJ'ho hath believed our report! and the arm of Jehovah, to ichom 
 (or upon whom) has it been revealed? While most modern writers, as we 
 have already seen, detach the three preceding verses and prefix them to this 
 chapter, Hitzig goes to the opposite extreme of saying that the writer here 
 begins afresh, without any visible connexion with the previous context. 
 Ewald more reasonably makes this a direct continuation, but observes a 
 change of tone, from that of joyous confidence to that of penitent confession, 
 on the part of the believing Jews, in reference to their former incredulity. 
 Martini, Jahn, and Rosenmiiller put these words into the mouth of the hea- 
 then, acknowledging their error with respect to the sufferings of Israel. But 
 this hypothesis, besides being arbitrary in itself, and unsustained by any 
 j)arallel case in which the heathen are thus introduced as speaking, requires 
 a forced interpretation to be put upon the language of the verse. Thus 
 Rosenmiiller understands the first clause as meaning, 'who of us would have 
 believed this, had we merely heard instead of seeing it?' And the last clause 
 in like manner, 'unlo whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed as unto 
 us?' Gcsenlus and the later writers much more naturally understand the 
 Prophet as speaking in his own name or in that of the prophets generally, 
 not his predecessors or contemporaries merely, as Jerome and Van Der Palm 
 assume without necessity. They also for the most part retain the strict sense 
 of the preterite, which Hengstenberg and Hendewerk exchange for the pre- 
 sent form, believes and is revealed. — n^iitsoi is properly the passive participle 
 of the verb to hear, the feminine being used like the neuter to denote what 
 is heard, and may therefore be applied to rumour, to instruction, or to speech 
 in general. (See ch. 28 : 9, 19. Jer. 49: 14, and compare the Greek uxo/;, 
 Rom. 10: 16. Gal. 3:2. 1 Thess. 2: 13.) Hitzig supposes that the word 
 was here suggested by the wroi of the preceding verse. The restricted 
 applications of the term, by Gesenius and Maurer to the news of the deli- 
 verance from Babylon, and by Hendewerk to the preceding strophe (ch. 52: 
 7—15), are alike gratuitous. Martini, Jahn, and Rosenmiiller, in accordance 
 with their notion that the heathen are here speaking, understand the whole 
 phrase passively, as meaning ' that which we have heard ;' and the same sense, 
 on a wholly different hypothesis, is also given by Umbreit and Knobel, the 
 last of whom applies the term to that which the Prophet is described as hav- 
 ing heard in ch. 50 : 4, 5. Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others understand 
 it actively, as meaning that which we have published in the hearing of 
 
C H A P T E R L I I 1 . 255 
 
 others ; which agrees well with the context and with Paul's quotation (Rom. 
 10: 16), and is perfectly consistent with the strict sense of the Hebrew 
 words, though not sustained by any definite usage, as Henderson alleges. 
 That the words might have either of these senses in different connexions, 
 may be gathered from the fact, that in 2 Sam. 4: 4, the qualifying noun 
 denotes neither the author nor the recipient of the declaration, but its sub- 
 ject, so that in itself the phrase is quite indefinite. Some understand the 
 interrogation in this clause as implying an absolute negation, which, accord- 
 ing to Hendewerk, includes the very Servant of Jehovah himself, who is 
 described as blind and deaf in ch. 42: 19. But there, as we have seen, the 
 prominent idea in the Servant of Jehovah is the Body, whereas here it is the 
 Head. According to Hengstenberg the implied negation is not absolute, 
 but simply expressive of wonder at the paucity of true believers in the 
 world at large, but more especially among the Jews, to whom, with Van Der 
 Palm, he understands the passage as specifically referring, because it had 
 already been predicted, in the foregoing verse, that the heathen would 
 believe. There is no inconsistency, however, even if we take the words 
 before us in their widest sense; because, as Calvin has observed, the 
 Prophet interrupts his prediction of success and triumph to bewail the dis- 
 couragements and disappointments which should intervene. The same 
 thing had already been predicted indirectly in ch. 42 : 24, and similar 
 objections to his own assurances occur in ch. 49 : 14, 24. The last clause 
 is understood by Knobel as assigning a reason for the unbelief described in 
 the first: they did not believe what they heard, because they did not see 
 the arm of Jehovah visibly revealed. But most interpreters regard the two 
 as parallel expressions of the same idea, — to believe what God said, and to 
 see his arm revealed, being really identical. The advent of Christ, his 
 miracles, his resurrection, his ascension, are among the clearest proofs of the 
 divine omnipotence and of its real exercise, a skeptical misgiving as to which 
 is involved in a refusal to believe. The arm as the seat of active -strength 
 is often put for strength itself (2 Chr. 32:8. Job 22:8. Jer. 17: 5), and 
 especially for the power of Jehovah (ch. 59: 16. Deut. 4: 34. 5: 15. 
 2G:8). In this sense it is commonly regarded as convertible with hand; 
 but Hendewerk maintains that the latter only is applied to a gracious exer- 
 cise of power (ch. 41 : 20. 45: 11, 12. 48: 13. 49:2, 22. 59: 1), while 
 the former always has respect to war (ch. 40: 10. 52: 10. 63:5. 59: 16). 
 He therefore gives the clause exclusive reference to what God had already 
 done for Cyrus and designed to do for Israel, by making them victorious 
 over all their enemies. But this distinction, though ingenious, is fallacious ; 
 because it confounds the usual application of a figure with its essential 
 meaning, and entirely overlooks the many cases in which hand has reference 
 to the divine vengeance (e. g. ch. 9:11, 20. 10:4. 19: 16. 25: 10. 
 
256 C H A P T E R L I I I . 
 
 51 : 17), while in some of the cases where tlie arm is mentioned (eh. 40 : 12 
 and 51 : 5) it is hard to discover any reference to war. But the true solu- 
 tion of the difficulty is, that the manifestation of God's justice is commonly 
 described by Isaiah as including at the same time the deliverance of his 
 friends and the destruction of his enemies. (See above, ch. 51 : 5.) — The 
 use of X' in the last clause is explained by some as a mere variation of the 
 usual construction w ith bs or 5 ; but Hengstenberg regards it as implying 
 that the revelation comes from above, and Hitzig supposes an allusion to the 
 elevation of the arm itself. 
 
 V. 2. And he came up like the tendtr plant before him, and like the 
 root from a dry ground ; he had no form nor comeliness, and we shall see 
 him, and no sight that we should desire it. There is something almost 
 ludicrous to modern readers in Vitringa's pedantic notion that the Prophet 
 puts these words into the mouth of a chorus of converted Jews. There is 
 also something too artificial in V^an Der Palm's dramatic distribution of the 
 passage, according to which the Prophet's censure of the unbelief of the 
 Jews (v. 1) is followed by their justification of it (vs. 2, 3), while the first 
 clause of the fourth verse contains the Prophet's answer and the last the 
 rejoinder of the Jews, after which the Prophet speaks again without any 
 further interruption. Most of the modern writers agree with Gesenius in 
 making all that follows the first verse the language of the people acknow- 
 ledo-ing their own incredulity with respect to the Messiah, and assigning as 
 its cause th.eir carnal expectations of a temporal prince, and their ignorance 
 of the very end for which he came. The hypothesis of Rosenmiiller and 
 others who regard this as the language of the heathen, acknowledging their 
 error with respect to Israel, has been already mentioned. (See above, on 
 ch. 52 : 13.) A novel and ingenious but untenable hypothesis has been 
 more recently proposed by Hendewerk, viz. that the speakers are the elder 
 race of exiles in Babylon, by whose transgressions that infliction was occa- 
 sioned, and that the sufferer here described is the younger race, for whose 
 sake it was terminated, just as in the case of the fathers and children who 
 came out of Egypt. — The i at the beginning of this verse is not causative 
 but narrative, determining the past sense of the future form and connecting 
 the sentence, either with ch. 52 : 14 or 15, or, which is the simplest and 
 most natural construction, with the verse immediately preceding, which, 
 although interrogative in form, involves an affirmation, namely, that the 
 people were incredulous, which general statement is here amplified. — The 
 common version of br^;i as a future proper (Ae shall grow up) is utterly 
 precluded by the Vav conversive, and gratuitously violates the uniformity of 
 the description, which presents the humiliation of Messiah as already past. — 
 pii"! is properly a suckling, but is here used precisely like the cognate 
 
CH A P TE R Lll I. 257 
 
 Englisli word sucker, by which Lowth translates it. On the meanintr of 
 ttiniu, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 228. — Out of a dry ground implies a 
 feeble, sickly growth, and as its consequence a mean appearance. The dry 
 ground, according to Alexander Morus, is Bethlehem, which he describes, 
 on the authority of Strabo, as a barren spot. Along with this may be 
 recorded the opinion of Eusebius and other Fathers, that the dry ground* 
 was the Virgin Mary ; of which Calvin might well say, extra rem loquuntur. 
 Out of a dry ground and the parallel expression {before him) may be con- 
 sidered as qualifying both the nouns, and separated only for the sake of the 
 rhythmical arrangement of the sentence. Before him is translated by Hen- 
 derson before them, and by Lowth in their sight, in accordance with the 
 explanation of J. H. Michaelis, who regards it as descriptive of the popular 
 misapprehension and contempt of Christ. IMost writers take it strictly as a 
 singular, referring to Jehovah, and analogous in meaning to those words of 
 Peter, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious (1 Pet. 
 2 : 4). It is well observed by Henderson, however, that it was not in the 
 sight of God that the Messiah was a root out of a dry ground, but in that of 
 the people. — He had not, literally, there was not to him, the only form in 
 which that idea can be expressed in Hebrew. — Form is here put for beauti- 
 ful or handsome form ; as in 1 Sam. 16 : IS, David is called a man of form, 
 i.e. a comely person. The two nouns here used are combined in literal 
 description elsewhere (e. g. Gen. 29 : IT. 1 Sam. 25 : 31), and in this very 
 passage (see above, ch. 52 : 13). They denote in this case, not mere- 
 personal appearance, but the whole state of humiliation, and as Calvin says 
 are to be understood de toto regno ciijus mdla in oculis hoviinum forma 
 nullus decor, mdla magnificentia fuit. — The modern writers generally disre- 
 gard the masoretic interpunction of this sentence, and connect ^nx-iii ^ith 
 the first clause, as a parallel to •i!TT^n:i . The meaning then is, no form or 
 beauty that we should look at him, no appearance that we should desire 
 him. This is precisely the construction adopted by Symmachus, ha ^iSnim'^ 
 Iva im&vfitjOM^isp. But as this relation of the clauses is too obvious to have 
 escaped the masoretic critics, it is reasonable to conclude that they were 
 influenced In setting it aside by high traditional authority. There is besides 
 a difficulty, if it be retained, in explaining the use of the verb r;s-i , which 
 means to view with pleasure only when followed by the preposition 2 and 
 the sense that we should look at him does not seem entirely adequate. If 
 we adhere to the masoretic interpunction, there is no need of paraphrasing 
 sinK-ir with the English Version (ivhcn we shall see him) ; it is better to 
 give it its direct and proper sense (and we shall see him). But as both 
 these versions suppose a transition from the form of narrative to that of pro- 
 phecy, there is the same objection to them as to the common version of 
 ^5sn . On the whole, therefore, leaving out of view the authority of the 
 
 17 
 
•258 C II A P T E R L I I I . 
 
 Masorah, the usual conslmciion is the most satisfactory. — In what sense the 
 prophets thus grew up like suckers from a dry soil, or the Jew ish nation 
 while in exile, or the pious portion of them, or the younger race, it is as 
 difficult to understand, or even to conceive, as it is easy to recognise tliis 
 trait of the prophetic picture in the humiliation of our Saviour, and the gene- 
 ral contempt to which it exposed him. 
 
 V. 3. Despised and forsaken of men (or ceasing from among men'), a 
 man of sorrows and acquainted with sickness, and like one hiding the face 
 from him (or us), despised, and ive esletm,ed him not. From the general 
 description of his humiliation, the Prophet now passes to a more particular 
 account of his sufferings. — ^"n , from h-m to cease, is by some taken in a 
 passive and by others in an active sense. On the former supposition, the 
 whole phrase may mean rejected of men (E\iglish Version), forsaken by 
 men, i. e. by his friends, as in Job 19:14 (Gesenius), or avoided by men, as 
 an object of abhorrence (Hitzig, Ewald, Hendeweik). On the other sup- 
 position, it is explained by Hengstenberg as meaning one who ceases from 
 amoniT men, i. e. ceases to be a man or to be so considered. This is proba- 
 bly the sense intended by the Septuagint version, and \s certainly the one 
 expressed by Aben Ezra (D'c:f' 03? 3Croi !;7r)- The version of Symma- 
 chus (uuj[iuro^ ar8()on'), with which the Vulgate and Peshito substantially 
 ainee, seems to rest upon the same construction of ^^n that is proposed by 
 Martini, who regards both this word and "i.^? as adjectives deriving a super- 
 lative import from the })lural following, the most despised and forsaken of 
 men. (Compare Ps. '22 : 7. Prov. 15 : 20.) But for this sense there is 
 no authority in usage. — The phrase 7nan of sorrows seems to mean one 
 whose afflictions are his chief characteristic, perhaps with an allusion to 
 their number in the plural form. (Compare Prov. 29 : 1.) Symmachus 
 translates the phrase yvoiazhg roaoj , which is generally understood to mean, 
 known or distinguished by disease ; and this sense is retained by J. D. 
 Michaelis, Paulas, Jahn, RosenmiiUer, Gesenius in his Commentary, 
 Maurer, and Umbreit. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshito, give the 
 first word the sense of knoiving (tiScog, scicns), from which Lowth infers 
 that they read ?':;'i"' . But Hengstenberg and others have shown that the 
 passive participle is itself employed like acquainted in English, so that there 
 is no need of supposing any difference of text, or even that the passive form 
 was used in an active sense. (Compare Song Sol 3 : 8. Ps. 112 : 7. 
 103 : 14.) Gesenius in his Commentary characterizes this interpretation 
 of the word as " false," but quietly adopts it in the second edition of his 
 German Version. — In the next phrase "^noia is by some regarded as a parti- 
 ciple and by others as a noun. On the former supposition, the entire phrase 
 is explained by the Septuagint, Vulgate, Targum, Aquila, Jarchi, Lowth, 
 
CHAPTER LIII. 259 
 
 Koppe, De VVette, and others, as meaning, he ivns like one hiding his face 
 from lis, with allusion to the veiling of the face by lepers (Lev. 13 : 45) or 
 by niourneis (2 Sam. 15 : .'30. Ez. 14 : 17), or as an expression of shame 
 (Micah 3 : 7). To this Gesenius objects in his Commentary, that the 
 whole description has respect not to the conduct of the sufferer but to his 
 appearance in the sight of others. In the Thesaurus, he adopts this very 
 explanation, without noticing his own objection, though he still avows a 
 preference for his former construction, notwithstanding the harshness with 
 which it may be charged, viz. like one from whom one hides the face. J. H. 
 Michaelis and Rosenmiiller give the Hiphil, as usual, a causative sense, 
 like one making (others) hide the face from him. But in every other case 
 •T'riDn simply means to hide, and occurs repeatedly in that sense with this 
 very noun cae. It may also be objected to the explanation of the word as 
 a participle, that analogy and usage would require the form i"'PiO^. , which 
 is actually found in four manuscripts, but no doubt as a conjectural emenda- 
 tion. Kimchi, Martini, and Hengstenberg, take "iRD^ as an abstract noun, 
 meaning properly concealment, and explain the whole phrase, like conceal- 
 ment of the face from it, i. e. like that which causes men to hide the face 
 from it. But although the hiding of the face is elsewhere mentioned as a 
 natural expression of displeasure, shame, and sorrow, it does not occur as 
 an expression of contemptuous astonishment, and seems to be a forced and 
 exaggerated method of expressing such a feeling. It may therefore be 
 better on the whole to combine the ex[)lanation of ~np'5 as a noun with that 
 of sisaia as a pronoun of the first person, and to understand the whole phrase 
 as meaning, like a hiding of the face from us, i. e. as if he hid his fiice from 
 us in shame and sorrow ; notwithstanding the objection of Gesenius, that the 
 subject of description is not the demeanour of the sufferer, which has not 
 only been abandoned by himself (although renewed by Hengstenberg), but 
 is in itself unreasonable, since the writer's purpose was not to observe the 
 unities of rhetoric, but to make a strong impression of the voluntary 
 humiliation of the Messiah, which could not be more effectively secured by 
 any single stroke than by the one before us, thus explained. — Gesenius, 
 Hengstenberg, and Umbreit follow the Peshito in making ht:; the first person 
 plural (^we despised him) ; and Martini supplies the want of a suffix by read- 
 ing N^ "^tiTSS instead of n^t ntsa . But the anomalous use of the future creates 
 a difficulty not to be gratuitously introduced ; and the analogy of njSD in 
 the first clause makes it much more natural to take this as a participle like- 
 wise, with the other ancient versions, and with Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and 
 Knobel. — Here again the reader is invited to compare the forced application 
 of this verse to the Prophets, to all Israel, to the pious Jews, or to the 
 younger race of exiles, with the old interpretation of it as a prophecy of 
 Christ's humiliation. 
 
260 CHAPTERLIII. 
 
 V. 4. Surely our sicknesses he bore, and our griefs he carried ; and tve 
 thought him stricken, smitten of God, and affiicted. "|3X is determined, 
 both by its etymology and usage, to be a particle of affirmation. The sense 
 of but, assumed by most interpreters, is rather what they think the writer 
 should have said than what he has said. The comparatively rare use of 
 adversative particles in Hebrew has already been mentioned as a striking 
 idiomatic peculiarity. The metaphor is that of a burden, and the meaning 
 of the whole verse, that they had misunderstood the very end for which 
 Messiah was to come. Sickness, as in the verse preceding, is a repre- 
 sentative expression for all suffering. Our griejs, ihose which we must 
 otherwise have suffered, and that justly. The plural "^rbn is defectively 
 written for ■i3''"'^n ^ which last appears, however, in eleven manuscripts and 
 eighteen editions ; while on the other hand twenty manuscripts and two 
 editions have the defective form ^33X3^: , which cannot be singular, because 
 the pronoun which refers to it is plural. Henderson makes his English 
 version more expressive of the writer's main drift by employing the idiomatic 
 form, it was our griefs he hare, it ivas our sorrows he carried. — The expla- 
 nation of Nto; as meaning merely took away, is contradicted by the context 
 and especially by the parallel phrase n^^o , which can only mean he bore 
 or carried them. It is alleged indeed that one is never said to bear the sins 
 of another, and some go so fir as to explain these words as meaning that he 
 bore with them patiently, while others understand the sense to be that he 
 shared in the sufferings of others. But the terms are evidently drawn from 
 the Mosaic law of sacrifice, a prominent feature in which is the substitution 
 of the victim for the actual offender, so that the former bears the sins of the 
 latter, and the latter, in default of such an expiation, is said to bear his own 
 sin. (See Lev. 5: 1, 17. 17: 16. -24: 15. Num. 9: 13. 14:3:3. Ex. 
 23 : 38. Lev. 10 : 17. 10 : 2:2.) For the use of '=o in the same vicarious 
 sense, see Lam. 5:7. (Compare Ez. 18: 19.) The Septuagint in the 
 case before us has qifQft, Symmachus av^Xu^s. The application of these 
 words by Matthew (8 : 17) to the removal of bodily diseases cannot involve 
 a denial of the doctrine of vicarious atonement, which is clearly recognised 
 in Matt. 20: 28 ; nor is it an exposition of the passage quoted in its full 
 sense, but, as Calvin well explains it, an intimation that the prediction had 
 begun to be fulfilled, because already its effects were visible, the Scriptures 
 always representing sorrow as the fruit of sin. — Stricken, as in some other 
 cases, has the pregnant sense of stricken from above, as Noyes expresses it, 
 or smitten of God, as it is fully expressed in the next clause. (See Gen. 
 12:17. 2 Kings 15:5. 1 Sam. 6 : 9.) There is no need, therefore, of 
 supposing an ellipsis. The other verb nnj was particularly applied to the 
 infliction of disease (Num. 14 : 12. Deut. 28: 22), especially the leprosy; 
 which led Jerome to give ?^5; the specific sense leprous. Hence the old 
 
C H A P T E R L I I r. 261 
 
 Jewish notion that the Messiah was to be a leper. Theodoret more correctly 
 uses the generic term fit^iuaziyM^drog, equivalent to the 7zXtjyt].s^ Otov udmiyi of 
 iEschylus. — Instead of the construct form MS-a , some manuscripts exhibit the 
 absolute ns-a ; which is preferred by Bellarmine and some others, who explain 
 the whole phrase as meaning a stricken God, and use it as a proof of the 
 divinity of Christ. — By stricken, smitten, and afflicted, we are of course not 
 to understand stricken, smitten, and afflicted for his own sins, or merely 
 stiicken, smitten, and afflicted, without any deeper cause or higher purpose 
 than in other cases of severe suffering. It is scarcely necessary to suppose 
 a reference to the notion that great suffering was a proof of great iniquity. 
 (Compare Luke 13:1. John 9 : 2.) — In order to reconcile this verse with 
 their hypotheses, Knobel and Hendewerk are under the necessity of proving 
 that the pious Jews or younger race of exiles suffered more in the captivity 
 than any others, which they do with great ease by applying thus all the 
 descriptions of maltreatment which occur throughout the Later Prophecies. 
 
 V. 5. And he loas pierced (or ivounded) for our transgressions, bruised 
 (or criished) for our iniquities ; the chastisement (or punishment^ of our 
 peace (tvas) upon him, and by his stripes we were healed. The translation 
 of the particle at the beginning by ivhcreas, yea, or the like, is a departure 
 from the Hebrew idiom wholly unnecessary to the clearness of the passage, 
 which is continued in the simple narrative or descriptive form. Aben Ezra's 
 application of the verse to the sufferings of the Jews in their present exile 
 and dispersion, is worthy of a place by the side of Hendewerk's assertion 
 that the Prophet here speaks as one of the older race of captives in Baby- 
 lon, acknowledging the error of himself and his contemporari^ with respect 
 to the younger and better generation. — ^^"'n-a is derived by Cocceius from 
 ^w to writhe with pain, and translated excrucialus est ; but the true deriva 
 tion is no doubt the common one from ^^n to perforate, transfix, or pierce 
 with special reference to mortal wounds, — so that the derivative ^bn, though 
 strictly meaning pierced or wounded, is constantly applied to persons slain 
 by violence, and especially in battle. Hence the Peshito version of VjItd 
 (killed), although apparently inaccurate, is really in strict accordance with 
 the Hebrew usage. Vitringa and Henderson suppose a particular allusion 
 to the crucifixion. Hengstenberg explains the word more generally as a 
 metaphorical expression for extreme suffering. This agrees well with the 
 parallel expression, crushed or bruised, to which there is nothing literally 
 corresponding in our Saviour's passion ; and if this must be taken as a figure 
 for distress of mind or suffering in general, the other can be naturally under- 
 stood only in the same way. It is very possible, however, that tlicrt- niay 
 be a secondary and implicit reference to the crucifixion, such as we have 
 met with repeatedly before in cases where the direct and i)roper meaning of 
 
262 CHAPTER I. I I I . 
 
 the words was more extensive. — As ~C>i^ is often applied elsewhere to cor- 
 rection by words, some explain it to mean here instruction, as to the means of 
 obtainincr peace with God. But the stronger sense of chostisemenf or 
 punishment not only suits the context better, but is really the most consis- 
 tent with the usage of the verbal root, and of the noun itself, in such cases 
 as Job 5 : 17. Prov. 22 : 15. 23 : 13, as well as with the subsequent expres- 
 sion on him, which is hardly reconcilable with the supposition of mere 
 precept or example. Whether the word was intended at the same time, as 
 Hengstenberg supposes, to suggest the idea of a warning to others, may be 
 made a question. The chastisement of jjcace is not only that which tends 
 to peace, but that by which j)eace is procured directly. It is not, to use 
 the words of an extreme and zealous rationalist, a chastisement morally 
 salutary for us, nor one w hich merely contributes to our safety, but, accord- 
 in"- to the parallelism, one which has accomplished our salvation, and in 
 this way, that it was inflicted not on us but on him, so that we came off 
 safe and uninjured. (Hitzig.) The application of the phrase to Christ, 
 without express quotation, is of fiequent occurrence in the New Testament. 
 (See Eph. 2: 14-17. Col. 1 : 20, 21. Ileb. 13:20, and compare Isaiah 
 9: 6. Mic. 6 : 5. Zech. 1 : 13.) — '^'^t'^ '^ properly a singular, denoting the 
 tumour raised by scourging, here put collectively for stripes, and that for 
 suffering in general, but probably with secondary reference to the literal 
 infliction of this punishment upon the Saviour. — X5";3 is not a noun, as 
 Henderson explains it, but a passive verb, here used impersonally, it ivas 
 healed to us, the >i3^ limiting the action to a specific object. It was healed 
 is a general proposition ; tviih respect to ?/s is the specific limitation. The 
 use of the h may be otherwise explained by supposing that the verb has 
 here the modified sense of healing ivas imparted, as in v. 11^ P^'^^H 
 means to impart righteousness or justification. Healing is a natural and 
 common figure for relief from suffering considered as a wound or malady. 
 (Compare ch. 6 : 10. J 9 : 22. 30 : 26. Jer. 8 : 22. oO : 17. 2 Chron. 7:14.) 
 The preterite is not used merely to signify the certainty of the event, but 
 because this effect is considered as inseparable from the procuring cause 
 which had been just before described in the historical or narrative form as 
 an event already past : when he was smitten we were thereby healed. It 
 is therefore injurious to the strength as well as to the beauty of the sentence, 
 to translate wiili Henderson, that hij his stripes ive might be healed. The 
 mere contingency thus staled is immeasurably less than the positive asser- 
 tion that by his stripes we ivcre healed. The same objection, in a less 
 degree, applies to the common version, we are healed, which makes the 
 statement too indefinite, and robs it of its peculiar historical form. — Above 
 thirty manuscripts and as many editions have is'^xj'i^rj in the j)lural, — a form 
 which does not occur elsewhere. — The hypothesis that this passage has 
 
CHAPTERLIII. 263 
 
 exclusive reference to the Babylonish exile, becomes absolutely ludicrous 
 when it requires us to understand the Prophet as here saying that the people 
 were healed (i. e. restored to their own land) by the stripes of the prophets, 
 or by those of the true believers, or that the old and wicked race were 
 healed by the stripes of their more devout successors. This last hyi)othesis 
 of Hendewerk's, besides the weak points which it has in common with the 
 others, involves two very improbable assumptions : first, that the distinction 
 of good and bad was coincident with that of young and old among the 
 exiles ; and secondly, that this younger race was not only better than the 
 older, but endured more suffering. 
 
 V. 6. All tve like sheep had gone astray, each to his orvn xvay tvc had 
 turned, and Jehovah laid on him the iniquitij of us all. This verse describes 
 the occasion or rather the necessity of the sufferings mentioned in those 
 before it. It was because men were wholly estranged from God, and an 
 atonement was required for their reconciliation. All ice dqes not mean all 
 the Jews or all the heathen, but all men without exception. The common 
 version, have gone astray, have turned, does not express the historical form 
 of the original sufficiently, but rather means we have done so up to the 
 present time, whereas the prominent idea in the Prophet's mind is that we 
 had done so before Messiah suffered. Noyes's version we ivere going 
 astray is ambiguous, because it may imply nothing more than an incipient 
 estrangement. — The figure of wandering or lost sheep is common in Scrip- 
 ture to denote alienation from God and the misery which is its necessary 
 consequence. (See Ezek. 34 : 5. Matth. 9 : 36.) The entire comparison 
 is probably that of sheep without a shepherd (1 Kings 22 : 17. Zech. 10:2). 
 The second clause is understood by Augusti as denoting selfishness and a 
 defect of public spirit or benevolence; and this interpretation is admitted by 
 Hengstenberg as correct if " taken in a deeper sense," viz. that union amono- 
 men can only spring from their common union with God. But this idea, 
 however just it may be in itself, is wholly out of place in a comparison with 
 scattered sheep, whose running oft' in different directions does not spring 
 from selfishness but from confusion, ignorance, and incapacity to choose the 
 right path. A much better exposition of the figure, although still too limited, 
 is that of Theodoret, who underst^inds it to denote the vast variety of false 
 religions, as exemplified by the diff^orent idols worshipped in Egypt, Phe- 
 nicia, Scythia, and Greece, alike in nothing but the common error of depar- 
 ture from the true God. Ei y.iu diucfnom r/yt,- TiXuriji,' oi TQnnoi, navze^' oiinnog 
 rbv orra Otov •/.niaXtlntnoTe^i. — The original expression is like the sheep (or 
 collectively the flock) i. e. not sheep in general but the sheep that wander 
 or that have no shepherd. — The idea of a shepherd, altliough not expressed, 
 
264 C H A P T E R L I I I . 
 
 appears to have been present to the writer's mind, not only in the first 
 clause but the last, where the image meant to be presented is no doubt that 
 of a shepherd laying down his life for the sheep. This may be fairly inferred 
 not merely from the want of connexion which would otherwise exist between 
 the clauses, and which can only be supplied in this way, nor even from the 
 striking analogy of Zech. 13 : 7 where the figure is again used, but chiefly 
 from the application of the metaphor, with obvious though tacit reference to 
 this part of Isaiah, in the New Testament to Christ's laying down his life 
 for his people. (See John 10:11-18 and 1 Peter 2:21, 25.)— The read- 
 ing of one manuscript, >^r.ri for "'v^H, is probably an accidental variation. 
 The meaning given to this verb in the margin of the English Bible (made 
 to meet) is not sustained by etymology or usage, as the primitive verb rsa 
 does not mean simply to come together, but always denotes some degree of 
 violent collision, either physical as when one body lights or strikes upon 
 another, or moral, as when one person falls upon i. e. attacks another. 
 The secondary senses of the verb are doubtful and of rare occurrence. 
 (See above, on ch. 47 : 3, and below, on ch. 64 : 4.) Kimchi supposes the 
 punishment of sin to be here represented as an enemy whom God permitted 
 or impelled to fall upon, assail, the sufferer. Vitringa and Henderson, 
 with much more questionable taste, suppose tlie image to be that of a wild 
 beast by which the flock is threatened, and from which it is delivered only 
 by the inteiposilion and vicarious exposure of the shepherd to its fury. 
 Most interpreters appear to be agreed in giving it a more generic sense. 
 The common version {laid upon him) is objectionable only because it is too 
 weak, and suggests the idea of a mild and inoffensive gesture, whereas that 
 conveyed by the Hebrew word is necessarily a violent one, viz. that of 
 causing to strike or fall, which is faithfully expressed by Umbreit (liess 
 fallen), still more closely by Ewald and De Wette {liess treffen), and cor- 
 rectly but less definitely by Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others {\varf). 
 Among the ancient versions Symmachus has xutuvt7juui tTzoiijcrtr, and Jerome 
 posuit in eo, which last, although it scarcely gives the full sense of the verb, 
 retains that of the preposition, as denoting strictly in him, i. e. not merely 
 on his head or on bis body, but in bis soul, or rather in his person, as 
 expressive of the whole man. The word y-^ does not of itself mean punish- 
 ment, but sin ; which, however, is said to have been laid upon the Messiah, 
 only in reference to its effects. If vicarious suffering can be described in 
 words, it is so described in these two verses ; so that the attempts to explain 
 them as denoting mere forbearance or participation in the punishment of 
 others, may be fairly regarded as desperate expedients to make the passage 
 applicable to the imaginary persecutions of the proj)hets, or the pious Jews, 
 or the younger race during the Babylonish exile. The amount of ingenuity 
 
CHAPTER L I I 1 . 265 
 
 expended on these sophisms only shows how artificial and devoid of solid 
 basis the hypotheses must be which require to be thus supported. — With 
 this and the foregoing verse compare Rom. 4 : 25. 2 Cor. 5 :21. 1 Pet. 
 2 : 22-25. 
 
 V. 7. He was oppressed and he humbled himself, and he will not open 
 his mouth — as a lamb to the slaughter is brought, and as a sheep before its 
 shearers is dumb — and he will not open his mouth. Having explained the 
 occasion of INIessiah's sufferings, tlie Prophet now describes his patient 
 endurance of them. As c^d is sometimes applied to the rigorous exaction 
 of debts, De Dieo translates it here exactus est, Tremellius exigebatur poena. 
 Lowth has the same sense, but makes the verb impersonal, it was exacted 
 and he was made answerable ; but !^:^ is not used like the Latin respondeo 
 as a technical forensic term. Van Der Palm explains the first verb, he was 
 demanded, i. e. by the people, to be crucified ; but t'Sj does not mean to 
 demand in general, its primary meaning is to urge or press. (See ch. 3 : 5, 
 and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 43.) The general voice of the interpreters 
 is strongly in favour of the old translation, he was oppressed or piersecuted. — 
 The next phrase has been usually understood as a simple repetition of the 
 same idea in other words. Thus the English Version renders it, he was 
 oppressed and he was afflicted. Besides the tautology of this translation 
 (which would prove nothing by itself), it fails to represent the form of the 
 original, in which the pronoun x^^n is introduced before the second verb, and 
 according to usage must be regarded as emphatic. ^Martini's proposition to 
 transpose the particle, so as to read ^-V}.) ^'^ -i? , is merely an ingenious 
 expedient to evade a difficulty of construction. Gesenius gives X'ni the 
 sense o( although, and explains the whole as meaning that he was oppressed 
 although before afflicted, and the same interpretation is adopted by Umbreit, 
 Hendewerk, and Knobel. There does not seem to be much force in Heng- 
 stenberg's objection, that r^'J as well as b53 is applied to severe suffering. 
 Gesenius's interpretation would be no less admissible on the supposition that 
 the verbs are perfectly synonymous, the distinction lying not in the verbs 
 themselves, but in the ohnehin which he supplies. The true objection is 
 that he does supply it, arbitrarily referring the two verbs to different points 
 of time, and also that the meaning which he gives xwi is forced and foreign 
 from Hebrew usage. The same objection lies against Hitzig's construction 
 of the clause, he ivas oppressed, and although persecuted opened not his 
 mouth, which moreover omits in translation not only the first Vav but the 
 second, Ewald explains it thus : he u-as persecuted although he humbled 
 himself. The same reflexive meaning had been given to f^5.?^3 by Koppe, 
 Jahn, and others, and appears to be implied in the paraphrastic versions of 
 Symmachus (x«) avro^ vni'inovae) and Jerome (quia ipse voluit). Supposing 
 
266 C H A P T R R L I I I . 
 
 this sense of the verb to be adinissible, by far the simplest and most natuial 
 construction is to give niJTi its ordinary sense as a conjunction and emphatic 
 pronoun, he was oppressed and he himself submitted to ajflictinn, or allowed 
 himself to be afflictefl. There is then no tautology nor any arbitrary differ- 
 ence of tense assumed between the two verbs, while the whole sense is good 
 in itself and in perfect agreement with the context. The same sense, sub- 
 stantially, is put upon the clause by Beck's explanation of "wr«3 as the first 
 person plural (tvir ervnesen uns tyrannisch) ; which is favoured by the 
 obvious opposition of the first and third person in the preceding verse, and 
 by the useof s'^i in this. All other writers seem agreed, however, that '(i"'! 
 is the third person singular of Niphal. All interpreters^ perhaps without 
 exception, render nns" as a praeter or a present, which is no doubt substan- 
 tially correct, as the whole passage is descriptive. It seems desirable, 
 however, to retain, as far as possible, the characteristic form of the original, 
 especially as it is very hard to account for the repeated use of the future 
 here, if nothing more was intended than might have been expressed by the 
 praeter. At all events, the strict sense of the form should be retained, if it 
 can be done without injury to the sense, which is certainly the case here, as 
 we have only to suppose that the writer suddenly but naturally changes his 
 position from that of historical retrospection to that of actual participation in 
 the passing scene, and, as if he saw the victin) led to the slaughter, says, ' he 
 will not open his mouth.' There is no need, therefore, of supposing with 
 Hitzig that the i , though separated from the verb, exerts a conversive influ- 
 ence upon it. The repetition of the same words at the end, so far from 
 being even a rhetorical defect, is highly graphic and impressive. In the 
 intermediate clause, we may either suppose an ellipsis of the relative, equally 
 common in Hebrew and in Englisli (like a lamb tvhich is led), or suppose 
 the preposition to be used as a conjunction (as o Iamb is led), without effect 
 upon the meaning of the sentence. The i before the last clause is not the 
 sign of the apodosis, nor need it be translated so, the form adopted in the 
 Septuagint version (oi'rcoi,' ovx droiyst to atoiut), for the purpose of showing 
 that the words refer to the subject of the first clause, and not to the sheep 
 or lamb, as Luther and Gesenius assume, in violation of the syntax (^nn 
 being feminine) and the poetical, structure of the sentence, which depends 
 materially on the repetition of the same words in the same sense and appli- 
 cation as before. Besides those places where Christ is called the Lamb of 
 God (e. g. John ] : 29. 1 Peter 1 : 18, 19. Acts 8 : 32, 35), there seems 
 to be reference to this description of his meek endurance in 1 Peter 2 : 23. — 
 It might seem almost incredible, if it were not merely one out of a thousand 
 such examples, that Vitringa formally propounds the question, quando ton- 
 sus sit Christus Dominus ? and gravely answers, when he was shorn of his 
 prerogatives and rights by the Jewish Sanliedrim. As if there were no 
 
CHAPTERLIII. 267 
 
 difference, or as if such a man as Vitringa could not see it, between saying 
 he was silent and submissive like a sheep before hs shearers, and saying he 
 was silent and submissive before his shearers like a sheep. 
 
 V. 8. -From distress and from jiulgment he was taken; and in his gene- 
 ration who will think, that he was cut off from the land of the living, for 
 the transgression of my people, (^as) a curse for them ? Every clause of this 
 verse has been made the subject of dispute among interpreters. The first 
 question is, whether the particle at the beginning denotes the occasion or 
 the cause, as all agree that it does before I't^ in the last clause, or whether 
 it is to be taken in its ordinary sense o{ from. This is connected with another 
 question, viz. whether tal{:cn means delivered, or taken up, or taken away to 
 execution, or taken out of life. It is also disputed whether "i:Ji' means 
 imprisonment or oppression and distress in general, and also whether ::Qtt3Ta 
 means judicial process, sentence, or punishment. From the combination of 
 these various explanations have resulted several distinct interpretations of 
 the whole clause. Thus the text of the English Version has, he was taken 
 from prison and from judgment , the margin of the same, he was taken away 
 by distress and judgment ; Hengstenberg and others, he was taken (to exe- 
 cution) by an oppressive judgment. Most of the older writers understand 
 these words as descriptive of his exaltation — from distress and judgment he 
 was freed or taken up to heaven. So Jerome and J. H. Michaelis. Gese- 
 nius, Riickert, and Umbreit also understand it to mean that he was freed 
 from his sufferings by death. To this interpretation Hengstenberg objects, 
 that the account of the Messiah's exaltation begins in v. 10, while the inter- 
 vening verse still relates to the circumstances of his death ; and also that the 
 reference of njsb to a violent death is here determined by the parallel expres- 
 sion, ' he was cut off from the land of the living.' He might have added that 
 even in Gen. 5 : 24 and 2 Kings 2:9, 10, the word is used in reference to 
 a singular departure from the ordinary course of nature. Luzzatto and 
 Henderson give "i^: the privative sense of it-iVAou^, and understand the clause 
 to mean that he was taken off without restraint or authority. The same 
 construction seems to have been anticipated by Zwingle, who paraphrases 
 the expression thus, indicia causa citraqne judicium. — In the next clause, 
 the interpretation tmns upon the question whether "I'i'^ means life, dwelling, 
 posterity, or contemporaries, and the verb to think or speak. Luther, Cal- 
 vin, and Vitringa understand the clause to mean, who can declare the length 
 of his life hereafter? Kimchi and Hengstenberg ex[)lain it to mean, who 
 can declare his posterity or spiritual seed ? To this it is objected that the 
 verb requires a connective particle before its object, and that Christ is not 
 called tlie father but the brother of his people, and that "'"'i has this sense 
 
268 CHAPTERLIII. 
 
 only in the plural. Clericus sujiposes it to mean, who can worthily describe 
 his course of life? But this sense of i"^ is not sustained by usage. Ro- 
 senuiiiller, Gesenius,. and others follow Storr in making inin-rx an absolute 
 noiuiiiative — as to his generation (i.e. his contemporaries), who considered 
 it, or cared for it? To this construction Hengstenberg objects that rx sel- 
 dom if ever denotes the subject of the verb, and also that nniu'i is then left 
 without an object. Neither of these objections lies against Ewald's modifi- 
 cation of this same exposition, which makes rx a preposition, and continues 
 the interrogation through the sentence — in (or among) liis generation (i. e. 
 his contemporaries), who considered that he was cut off from the land of the 
 living, etc. ? Hofmann's extravagant inter[)retation of the clause as meaning, 
 who cares for his dwelling, i.e. where he is? deserves no refutation. — *^U: ? 
 according to some writers, is employed in Ps. 88 : G and Lam. 3 : 54, in 
 reference to a natural and quiet death ; but Hengstenberg maintains that even 
 there a violent departure is implied. — Paulus infers from the singular form 
 "^53? , that Jehovah here begins to speak again ; but Hengstenberg explains 
 it as equivalent to us, and a similar use of the singular form by a plurality 
 of speakers is exemplified in 1 Sam. 5 : 10. Zech. 8 : 21. — Of the last words 
 1>05 "53 there are several interpretations. Aben Ezra and Abarbenel, fol- 
 lowed by Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, apply them to the sufferer here 
 described, as meaning, he was smitten, and infer from the use of the plural 
 suffix that the subject of the chapter is collective. Others adopt the same 
 sense and application of the words, but deny the inference, upon the ground 
 that Ta , though properly a plural suffix, is not unfiequently used for a sin- 
 gular, as the very same form is in Ethiopic. This ground is also maintained 
 by Ewald in his Grammar. Hengstenberg admits that the pronoun is here 
 plural, but refers it to the people, and supplies a relative — for the transgres- 
 sion of my people who were smitten, literally to whom there was a stroke 
 or punishment, i. e. due or appointed. Ewald, without suj)posing an ellipsis, 
 renders it, a stroke for them, i. e. smitten in their place and for their benefit. 
 Cocceius gives the same sense to the words, but applies them very differently 
 as a description of the people, plaga ipsis adhaeret, i. e. impuri sunt. (See 
 the use of 3>55 in Ex. 1 1 : 1.) — According to Hendewerk, (he land of the living 
 is the Holy Land, and the verse is descriptive of the Babylonish exile. ' By 
 a divine judgment was the people taken away, and yet who can declare its 
 future increase? It was cut off from its own land, for the transgression of 
 the fathers were the children smitten.' It is not surprising that the wi'iter 
 who invented this interpretation should sneer at the Messianic exposition as 
 extravagant and groundless. The reading r/i^^ , which appears to be implied 
 in the Septuagint Version and is adopted by Houbigant and Lowth, is 
 wholly without critical authority or intrinsic worth to recommend it. 
 
CHAPTER LIU. 0(59 
 
 V. 9. jind he gave with ivicked (men) his grave, and loith a rich (man) 
 in his death ; because (or although) he had done no violence, and no deceit 
 (was) in his mouth. The second member of the first clause is thus trans- 
 lated by Martini : tumulum sejjulchralem cum violentis ; which supposes 
 rri^a to be the plural of in^2, a height or high place, here put for a monu- 
 mental mound or hillock. The same interpretation is approved by Kenni- 
 cott and Jubb. But as the plural ni^a retains its first vowel when followed 
 by a suffix or another noun (Deut. 32 : 29. Mic. 3 : 12), Ewald adopts the 
 pointing "iT^iiia , which is found in three manuscripts ; but it still remains 
 impossible to prove from usage any such meaning of s^^s. Thenius goes 
 further and reads rninia. And all this for the sake of a more perfect 
 parallelism, although the common text affords a perfectly good sense, viz. 
 in his death, i. e. after it, as in Lev. 11 : 31. 1 Kings 12:31. Esther 2 : 7, 
 and the only difficulty is the one presented by the plural form, which is 
 surely not so serious as to require its removal by an arbitrary change of text. 
 It is not even necessary to explain it with Jarchi as denoting all kinds of 
 death, or with Abarbenel as implying a collective not an individual sub- 
 ject. It is much more natural to assume with Hitzig that the suffix is 
 assimilated to the apparent plural termination rii , or that it is simply a case 
 of poetic variation, as in Ezek. 28 : 8, 10. — Rosenmiiller's version is, he 
 gave himself up to the wicked to be buried, or he left his burial to the 
 wicked. But besides the forced construction here assumed, this explanation 
 leaves I'^niTsa unexplained, and does not agree with what is afterwards 
 asserted, that he did no wrong etc. — Rabbi Jonah, as quoted in the Michlal 
 Jophi, explains ^"^(li^ to mean a wicked man ; and this explanation is adopt- 
 ed by Luther, Calvin, and Gesenius, who regard the word as suggesting the 
 accessory idea of one who sets his heart upon his wealth, or puts his trust in 
 it, or makes an unlawful use of it. This is so arbitrary, that Martini and 
 some later writers abandon the Hebrew usage altogether, and derive the 
 sense of wicked from the Arabic root yjis.. But this is doubly untenable, 
 first, because the Hebrew usage cannot be postponed to the Arabic analogy 
 without extreme necessity, which does not here exist ; and secondly, be- 
 cause the best authorities exhibit no such meaning of the Arabic word itself. 
 Ewald, aware of this, and yet determined to obtain the same sense, effects 
 his purpose with his usual boldness, by changing "I'^^^J into P'^t'S — a con- 
 venient word invented for the purpose. Beck, with scarcely less violence, 
 explains it as an orthographical variation of }'■''}» (ch. 49 : 25). It may 
 appear surprising that this forced imposition of a new and foreign meaning 
 on a word so familiar should be thus insisted on. Luther and Calvin no 
 doubt simply followed the rabbinical tradition ; but the later writers have a 
 deeper motive for pursuing a course which in other circumstances they 
 
270 C H A P T E R L I I I . 
 
 would boldly charge upon the great Reformers' ignorance of Hebrew. 
 That motive is the wish to do away with the remarkable coincidence 
 between the circumstances of oui- Saviour's burial and the language of this 
 verse, as it has commonly been understood since Cappellus. This interpre- 
 tation, as expressed by Ilengstenberg, makes the verse mean, that they 
 appointed liim his grave with the wicked, but that in his death he really 
 reposed with a rich man, viz. Joseph of Arimathea, who is expressly so 
 called, INIatt. 27 : 57. The indefinite construction of the verb, and the 
 sense thus put upon it, are in perfect accordance with usage. (See e. g. 
 Ps. 72:15. Eccl. 2:21. Gen. 15:18. Is. 55:4. Jer. 1:4.) Even 
 Aben Ezra explains gave by adding, i. e. in intention. It is also possible to 
 make '^^'■> the subject of the verb, but wholly unnecessary. Some refer it to 
 Jehovah, and suppose the sense to be that he appeai'ed to assign him his 
 grave with the wicked. Malefactors were either left unburied or disgraced 
 by a promiscuous interment in an unclean place, — a usage explicitly assert- 
 ed by Josephus and JVIaimonides. As the Messiah was to die like a crimi- 
 nal, he might have expected to be buried like one ; and his exemption from 
 this posthumous dishonour was occasioned by a special providential interfe- 
 rence. To the different interpretations which have now been given of this 
 first clause, may be added two as curiosities. The first is that of Jerome, 
 who makes rx the sign of the accusative, and thus translates the whole, 
 (labit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte suo. The other that of 
 Hohnann, they (my people) treated him (my servant) like a wealthy tyrant. 
 — '^^ (for itax b?) is properly a causative particle equivalent to for that or 
 because ; but most interpreters regard it as equivalent to although, which is 
 more agreeable to our idiom in this connexion. — Knobel observes, with 
 great naivete, that the reference of this verse to the burial of Christ has 
 found its way into the exposition of the passage in connexion with its gene- 
 ral application to that subject ; to which we may add, that it can only find 
 its way out in connexion with a wish to get rid of that unwelcome applica- 
 tion. At the same time it must be observed that even if "i''-" be taken in 
 the sense of wicked, although we lose the striking allusion to the burial of 
 Christ in the sepulchre of Joseph, the verse is still applicable to his burial, 
 as the last clause then means, like the first, that they appointed him his 
 grave with malefactors. Clericus and Kennicott propose to transpose ii3p 
 and T^m^sn, because there seems to be an incongruity in saying that he made 
 his grave with the wicked and was with the rich in his death, when accord- 
 ing to the history he died with the wicked and was buried with the rich. 
 But this apparent difficulty rests upon a false interpretation both of "(n"? and 
 l"irnT23. There is no need of following in detail the laborious attempt to 
 reconcile this verse, even after some of its expressions have been wrested 
 
C H A P T E R L I I I. 271 
 
 for the purpose, with the supposition that the subject of the prophecy is 
 Israel in exile, and that the burial here spoken of is merely political and 
 civil, as in ch. 23: 8. 26 : 19. 
 
 V. 10. And Jehovah was i)hascd to crush (or bruise) him, he put him 
 to grief {ox made him sick) ; if {ov xcheii) his soul shall make an offtring 
 for sin, he shall sec (his) seed, he shall prolong (his) days, and the pleasure 
 of Jehovah in his hand shall prosper. Here begins the account of the 
 Messiah's exaltation. All the previous sufferings were to have an end in 
 the erection of God's kingdom upon earth. As the first clause is in contrast 
 with the last of v. 9, it may be read, and {yet) Jehovah was pleased, i. e. 
 notwithstanding the Messiah's perfect innocence. The sense is not, as 
 Barnes expresses it, that Jehovah was pleased with his being crushed, which 
 might imply that he was crushed by another, but that Jehovah was pleased 
 himself to crush or bruise him, since the verb is not a passive but an active 
 one. Luzzatto makes Iks';! an adjective used as a noun, his crushed or 
 afflicted one, contritus suus. Hitzig makes "^rCvl a noun with the article, it 
 pleased Jehovah that disease should, crush him. But most inter})reters 
 appear to be agreed that tlie first is the Piel infinitive of sr-i, and the last 
 the Hiphil preterite of nbn , strictly meaning he made sick, but here used, 
 like the cognate noun in vs. 3, 4, to denote distress or suffering in general. 
 Martini and Gesenius make iN3'n the object of "'^nn , it pleased Jehovah to 
 make his wound sick, i. e. to aggravate his wounds or wound him sorely. 
 This construction, although somewhat favoured by the analogy of Micah 
 6 : 13 (compare Nah. 3 : 19), does violence to both words and is incon- 
 sistent with their collocation in the sentence. Jahn accounts for the future 
 form of ni"c;ri by supplying "I'^x^i , and regarding what follows as the words 
 of Jehovah, who is afterwards spoken of, however, in the third person. But 
 this is not unusual even in cases where Jehovah is undoubtedly the speaker. 
 Hitzig and Hendewerk agree with De Dieu and other early writers in 
 explaining c^'n as the second person, which is also given in the text of the 
 English Version (when thou shalt make etc.) ; but as Jehovah is no where 
 else directly addressed in this whole context, the construction in the margin 
 (when his soul shall make) is the one now commonly adopted. Hengsten- 
 berg in his Christology explains 'ii^"£? as a mere periphrasis for x^!^ ; but he 
 may be considered as retracting this opinion in his Commentary on Ps. 3 : 3, 
 where he denies that the expression is ever so employed. Vitringa under- 
 stands it here to signify that the oblation was a voluntary one. It seems 
 more natural however to explain it as referring the oblation to the life itself, 
 which was really the thing offered ; just as the blood of Christ is said to 
 cleanse from all sin (I John 1 : 7), meaning that Christ cleanses by his 
 blood i. e. his ex[)iatory death. — C':;s primarily signifies a trespass or offence, 
 
07^ CHAPTER LIU. 
 
 and secondarily a trespass-offering. In the law of INIoses it is technically 
 used to designate a certain kind of sacrifice, nearly allied to the rx'^n or sin- 
 ofFering, and yet very carefully distinguished from it, although archaeologists 
 have never yet been able to determine the precise distinction, and a learned 
 modern rabbi, Samuel Luzzatto, expresses his conviction that they differed 
 only in the mode of offering the blood. The word is here used not with 
 specific reference to this kind of oblation, but as a generic term for expiatory 
 sacrifice. The use of analogous expressions in the New Testament will 
 be clear from a comparison of Rom. 3 : 25. 8 : 3. 2 Cor. 5 : 21. 1 John 
 2:2. 4: 10. Heb. 9: 14. In the case last quoted, as in that before us, 
 Christ is represented as offering himself to God. — As the terms used to 
 describe the atonement are borrowed from the ceremonial institutions of the 
 old economy, so those employed in describing the reward of the Messiah's 
 sufferings are also drawn from theocratical associations. Hence the promise 
 of lonff life and a numerous offspring, which of course are applicable only 
 in a figurative spiritual sense. The Septuagint and Vulgate, followed by 
 Lowth, connect the two successive members of the clause as forming only 
 one promise (/te shall see a seed ivhich shall jjroloug their days). The 
 separate construction is not only simpler but requisite in order to express 
 the full sense of the promise, which was literally given and fulfilled to Job 
 in both its parts (Job 42 : 16), and in its spiritual sense is frequently applied 
 to Christ (e. g. Heb. 7 : 16, 25. Rev. 1 : 18). The seed here mentioned 
 is correctly identified by Hengstenberg and others with the mighty, whom 
 he is described as sprinkling in ch. 52 : 15, and as spoiling in v. 13 below, 
 whom he is represented in v. 1 1 as justifying, in v. 5 as representing, in v. 12 
 as interceding for. They are called his seed, as they are elsewhere called 
 the sons of God (Gen. 6 : 2), as the disciples of the prophets were called 
 their sons (1 Kings 2:25), and as Christians are to this day in the east 
 called the offspring or family of the Messiah. — nba^ does not refer to past 
 time, as Martini explains it (^Jelicissime executus est), but to the future, into 
 which the glorious reward of the Messiah is and must be considered as 
 extending. 
 
 V. 1 1 . From the labour of his soul (or life) he shall see, he shall be 
 satisfied ; by his knoivledge shall my servant (as) a righteous one give 
 righteousness to many, and their iniquities he will bear. In this verse 
 Jehovah is again directly introduced as speaking. The )r: at the beginning 
 is explained by Gesenius, Hitzig, and Maurer as a particle of time, after the 
 labour of his soul, like the Latin ab itinere. Others explain it from, 
 implying freedom or deliverance. Knobel makes it mean tvithont, which 
 yields the same sense. Most interpreters follow the Vulgate in making it 
 denote the efficient or procuring cause : Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus. 
 
CH APT E R LII I. 273 
 
 The English Version makes it partitive ; but this detracts from the force of 
 the expression, and imphes that he should only see a portion of the fruit of 
 his labours. The allusion to the pains of parturition, which some English 
 writers find here, has no foundation in the Hebrew text, but only in the 
 ambiguity of the common version, which here employs the old word travail 
 not in its specific but its general sense of toil or labour. The Hebrew word 
 includes the ideas of exertion and of suffering as its consequence. J. D. 
 Michaelis understands the clause as meaning, ' from his labour he shall joy- 
 fully look up ;' but there is no sufficient authority for this interpretation of the 
 verb, which simply means to see, and must be construed with an object 
 either expressed or understood. This object is supposed by Kimchi to be 
 good in general ("12 'J1•::^^ ma nxii) ; by Jerome seed, as in the foregoing 
 verse ; by Hengstenberg the whole blessing there promised. Abarbenel 
 supposes the two parts of that promise to be specially referred to, ' he shall 
 see his seed, he shall be satisfied with days,' a common scriptural expression. 
 (Gen. 25 : 8. 35 : 29.) — >2b means to be satisfied, not in the sense of 
 being contented, but in that of being filled or abundantly supplied. It is 
 applied to spiritual no less than to temporal enjoyments. (Ps. 17 : 15. 
 123 : 3. Jer. 31 : 14.) Clericus and Hengstenberg suppose an allusion to 
 the processes of agriculture and the abundant produce of the earth. Some 
 interpreters regard this as a case of hendiadys, in which the one word sim- 
 ply qualifies the other: he shall see he shall be satisfied, i. e. he shall abun- 
 dantly see or see to his heart's content. JMaurer adopts this construction, 
 and moreover connects in^^na with what goes before, and gives ^ixi.'i the 
 sense of seeing with delight : mirijice laetabitur sapientid sua. Martini 
 has the same construction, but explains ^v\'j^_ to mean the knowledge of God,, 
 i. e. piety or true religion. But as Jehovah is himself the speaker,, Jahn 
 refers the suffix to Messiah and gives the phrase a passive sense, 'he shall 
 be satiated with the knowledge of himself,' i. e. abundantly enjoy the hap- 
 piness of being recognised by others as their highest benefactor. But this 
 is neither a natural construction nor consistent with the accents. The 
 explanation of r'Jj^ as meaning doctrine is entirely without foundation 
 in usage. The only satisfactory construction is the passive one which 
 makes the phrase mean by the knoivledge of him upon the part of others • 
 and this is determined by the whole connexion to mean practical experi- 
 mental knowledge, involving faith and a self-appropriation of the Messiah's 
 
 righteousness, the effect of which is then expressed in the followino- words. 
 
 Gesenius gives P"nxri the sense of converting to the true religion, or turning 
 to righteousness, as in Dan. 12 : 3. But that justification in the strict 
 forensic sense is meant, may be argued from the entire context, in which the 
 Messiah appears not as a Prophet or a Teacher, but a Priest and a Sacrifice, 
 and also from the parallel expression in this very verse, and their iniquities 
 
 18 
 
274 CHAPTERLIII. 
 
 he will hear. The construction with h Cocceius, Hengstenberg, and Maurer 
 explain, by giving to the verb the sense of bestowing or imparting right- 
 eousness, in which way other active verbs are construed elsewhere. (See 
 for example ch. 14 : 3. Gen. 45 : 7. 2 Sam. 3 : 30.) Another solution 
 of the syntax is afforded by taking > in its strict sense as denoting general 
 relation, and the verb as meaning to perforin the act of justification, not in 
 the general, but in reference to certain objects — he shall be a justifier with 
 respect to many. In the next clause Lowth omits p'^'^a because it stands 
 before the substantive, which he pronounces an absurd solecism. Gesenius 
 supposes the adjective to be prefixed because it is peculiarly emphatic. 
 Heno^stenberg goes further and supposes it to be used as a noun, the right- 
 eous one, my servant. But as this would seem to require the article, it is 
 perhaps better to explain P'^'^s with Ewald, as a righteous person (als 
 Gerechter), which idea Maurer thus expresses paraphrastically, for my 
 servant is righteous. Martini's explanation of the clause as meaning, the 
 Saviour my servant shall save many, has met with little favour, even among 
 those who adopt an analogous explanation of P"!^ and >^i^'7^ elsewhere. 
 According to Beck the sense of the whole clause is, ' by his knowledge of 
 God he shall justify himself or show himself righteous ; righteous is my 
 servant for many, i. e. for their benefit.' — All mistake and doubt as to the 
 nature of the justification here intended, or of the healing mentioned in v. 6, 
 or of the cleansing mentioned in ch. 52 : 15, is precluded by the addition 
 of the words, and he shall bear their iniquities. The introduction of the 
 pronoun makes a virtual antithesis, suggesting the idea of exchange or 
 mutual substitution. They shall receive his righteousness, and he shall 
 bear their burdens. One part of the doctrine taught is well expressed by 
 Jerome : et iniquitates eorum ipse portahit, quas illi portare non poterant, 
 et quorum pondere opprimehantur. The whole is admirably paraphrased 
 by Calvin : Christus justijicat homines dando ipsis justitiam suam, et 
 vicissim in se suscipit peccata ipsorum, ut ea expiet. — The preterite sense 
 given to "^'-T: by Martini and others is entirely arbitrary and rejected by the 
 later Germans as forbidden by the futures which precede and follow, all 
 referring to the state of exaltation. Gesenius, however, though he makes 
 the expression future, extenuates it by explaining it to mean that he shall 
 make their burden lighter by his doctrine and by promoting their moral 
 improvement. But this is at once inconsistent with the context and with 
 his own interpretation of the fourth verse, where he understands the similar 
 expressions as referring to vicarious atonement, while Hitzig is guilty of the 
 same inconsistency, but in a reversed order, making this verse teach the 
 doctrine and the other not.-^-In order to do justice to the theories which 
 represent this passage as a prophecy of the return from exile, it should here 
 be mentioned that Maurer understands this verse as meaning that the pious 
 
CHAPTERLIII. 275 
 
 Jews should not refuse to shace the punishment incurred by their ungodly 
 brethren, and Luzzatto that they should endure with patience the maltreat- 
 ment and misconduct of the world around them. As for Hendewerk, he 
 boldly denies that P"''^i£! is used in a forensic sense, or that baoi means to 
 bear in any other sense than that of the Latin phrase toUere morbum or do- 
 lores. Knobel sums up his exposition of the verse by saying that the many 
 are without doubt the heathen who should be converted, and to whom the 
 Jews sustained the same relalion as a jirophet or a priest to laymen. 
 
 V. 12. Therefore will 1 diviJe to him among the many, and loith the 
 strong shall he divide the spoil, in lieu of this that he bared unto death his 
 soul, and with the transgressors loas numbered, and he {liimself) bare the 
 sin of many, and for the transgressors he shall make intercession. The 
 Septuagint and Vulgate make the many and the strong the very spoil to be 
 divided (^xhjQovofiijoei TzoXlovg , dispertiam ei plurimos). The same con- 
 struction is retained by Lowth, Martini, Rosenmliller, Hengstenberg, and 
 others. It would scarcely be natural, however, even if both adjectives were 
 preceded by the ambiguous particle rx , much less when the first has 3 before 
 it, which occurs no where else as a connective of this verb with its object. 
 It is better therefore to adopt the usual construction, sanctioned by Calvin, 
 Gesenius, and Ewald, which supposes him to be described as equal to the 
 greatest conquerors. If this is not enough, or if the sense is frigid, as Mar- 
 tini alleges, it is not the fault of the interpreter, who has no right to strengthen 
 the expressions of his author by means of forced constructions. The simple 
 meaning of the first clause is that he shall be triumphant, not that others 
 shall be sharers in his victory, but that he shall be as gloriously successful 
 in his enterprise as other victors ever were in theirs. Indeed the same sense 
 may be thus obtained, for which the writers above mentioned have departed 
 from the obvious construction, if, instead of making a and ns denote com- 
 parison, we understand them to denote locality, and to describe him as 
 obtaining spoil not ivith but among the many and the strong, and thus secur- 
 ing as the fruits of victory not only their possessions but themselves. — 
 Hengstenberg gives tj^s'i the sense of mighty, simply because that idea is 
 expressed by the parallel term ; which rather proves the contrary, as a 
 synonymous parallelism would in this case be enfeebling, and the very same 
 word is admitted to mean many by Hengstenberg himself in the last clause. 
 — Abarbenel's objection, that Christ never waged war or divided spoil, has 
 been eagerly caught up and repeated by the rationalistic school of critics. 
 But Hengstenberg has clearly shown that spiritual triumphs must be here 
 intended, because no others could be represented as the fruit of voluntary 
 humiliation and vicarious suffering, and because the same thing is described 
 in the context as a sprinkling of the nations, as a bearing of their guilt, as 
 
076 C H A P T E R L I I I . 
 
 their justification. The many and the strong of this verse are the nations 
 and the kings of ch. 52 : 15, the spiritual seed of v. 8 and 10 above. 
 (Compare ch. 11 : 10 and Ps. 2 : 8.) — The last clause recapitulates the 
 claims of the Messiah to this glorious reward, nn^n is commonly explained 
 to mean poured out, with an allusion to the shedding of blood considered as 
 the vehicle of life. (Gen. 9 : 4. Lev. 17 : 11.) Beck even goes so far as 
 to say that the writer looks upon the soul itself as a material fluid running 
 in the blood. Not only is this inference a forced one, but the premises from 
 which it is deduced are doubtful ; for it seems more accordant with the 
 usage of the verb, and at the same time to afford a better sense, if we explain 
 it to mean 7nade bare or exposed to death. The assertion that n"-^ would 
 then be superfluous is refuted by the analogy of Judg. 5 : 18. — The reflex- 
 ive sense which Hengstenberg and others give to ^^^i (numbered himself or 
 suffered himself to be numbered), though not absolutely necessary, is strongly 
 recommended by the context, and the obvious consideration that his being 
 numbered passively among them was not such a claim to subsequent reward 
 as a voluntary acquiescence in their estimation. — The application of this 
 clause to our Saviour's crucifixion between thieves (Mark 15 : 28) is justly 
 said by Hengstenberg not to exhaust the whole sense of the prophecy. It 
 rather points out one of tho-e remarkable coincidences which were brought 
 about by Providence between the prophecies and the circumstances of our 
 Saviour's passion. — '■t"-:^.1 does not mean he fell among sinners, i. e. he was 
 reckoned one of them (Maurer), but, as in Jer. 06 : 25, denotes intercession, 
 not in the restricted sense of prayer for others, but in the wider one of meri- 
 torious and prevailing intervention, which is ascribed to Christ in the New 
 Testament, not as a work already finished, like that of atonement, but as 
 one still going on (Rom. 8 : 34. Heb. 9 : 24. 1 John 2:1), for which 
 cause the Prophet here employs the future form. There is no ground, 
 therefore, for explaining it as a descriptive present, or perverting it into a 
 preterite, nor even for transforming X"^3 to a future likewise for the sake of 
 uniformity. Because the Prophet speaks of the atonement as already past, 
 and of the work of intercession as still future, it follows, not as some imagine 
 that he meant to represent both as past or both as future, but on the con- 
 trary that he has said precisely what he meant to say, provided that we 
 give his words their simple, obvious, and unforced meaning. The X'rTi does 
 not mean and yet, whereas, or although, but is either designed to make the 
 pronoun emphatic (he himself or he on his part), or, as Hengstenberg sug- 
 gests, to show that the last two members of the clause are not dependent on 
 the "iijs*, rrn . This last phrase does not simply mean because, but expresses 
 more distinctly the idea of reward or compensation. The most specious 
 objection to the old interpretation of this verse, as teaching the doctrine of 
 vicarious atonement, is the one made by Luzzatto, who asserts that xbj » 
 
C H A P T E R L I I 1 . 277 
 
 when directly followed by a noun denoting sin, invariably means to forgive 
 or pardon it, except in Lev. 10 : 17, where it means to atone for it, but 
 never to bear the sins of others, which can only be expressed by 2 Nbj , as 
 in Ezek. 18 : 19, 20. In proof of his general assertion, he appeals to Gen. 
 50 : 17. Ex. 10 : 17. 32 : 32. 34 : 7. Ps. 32 : 5. 85 : 3. Job 7 : 21, in 
 all which cases it must be admitted that the sense which he alleges is the 
 true one. It is no sufficient answer to this argument to say that the parallel 
 expression (=J^3'i^ ^25"') determines the meaning of the phrase in question ; 
 since all parallelisms are not synonymous, and no parallelism can prove any 
 thing in opposition to a settled usage. But although the parallel phrase 
 cannot change or even ascertain the sense of this, it does itself undoubtedly 
 express the idea which the objector seeks to banish from the text ; since no 
 one can pretend to say tliat ^50 miCans to pardon, and it matters not on 
 which side of the parallel the disputed doctrine is expressed, if it only be 
 expressed at all. Little or nothing would be therefore gained by proving 
 that xisn srs only means to pardon. But this is very far from being proved 
 by the induction which Luzzatto has exhibited, and by which he has unin- 
 tentionally put a weapon into the hands of his opponents while attempting 
 to disarm them. How can this learned and ingenious Jew account for the 
 fact, which he himself asserts, that the idea of forgiveness is expressed in 
 Hebrew by the verb n^d ? The most plausible account which he could 
 probably give is that i<^i means to take away, and that to pardon is to take 
 away sin. But let it be observed, in the first place, that the two ideas are 
 by no means identical, and that to many, perhaps most minds, the phrase 
 to take aivay sin suggests the idea, not of pardon properly so called, but of 
 something preparatory to it ; and what is this something but atonement ? 
 In the next place, the primary and proper meaning of xioj is not to take 
 away, but to take up, or to take upon one's self; its most frequent secondary 
 meaning is to take about or carry, and even in the cases where it means to 
 take away, it means to take away by taking up and bearing : so that even 
 if N::n X'i^a means to take away sin, it would necessarily suggest the idea of 
 its being, in some sense, taken up and borne, as the means of its removal. 
 In the third place, the only satisfactory solution of the question above stated 
 is, that the usage, to which it relates, presupposes the doctrine, that the 
 only way in which a holy God can take away sin is by bearing it ; in other 
 words he can forgive it only by providing an atonement for it. This alone 
 enables him to be supremely just and yet a justifier, not of the innocent, but 
 of the guilty. Thus the usage, which Luzzatto so triumphantly adduces to 
 disprove the doctrine of atonement, is found, on deeper and more thorough 
 scrutiny, itself to presuppose that very doctrine. But lastly, let it be 
 observed that Luzzatto is compelled to grant that X'^'J may mean to bear 
 the guilt of others as a substitute, but modestly asks us to believe that it 
 
278 C H A P T E R L I I I . 
 
 • 
 
 has this sense only in one place (Ezek. 18 : 20), and even there only 
 because followed by a 2; as if that construction, which is perpetually 
 interchanged with the direct one, could have more effect in that case, 
 than the context and parallelism in the one before us. The only other 
 aberration which it will be necessary here to notice, is the strange opin- 
 ion, broached by Ewald, with his characteristic confidence and absti- 
 nence from proof, that this whole passage, from the thirteenth verse of 
 the preceding chapter, is the work of an older writer than the Great 
 Unknown to whom he ascribes the other chapters, and whom he supposes 
 to have thrust it into the midst of his own composition, without any reason 
 why it should stand any where, and still less why it should stand just in 
 this place ; since, according to Ewald's own account, it has no direct con- 
 nexion either with what goes before or follows. The arguments by which 
 he undertakes to justify this wild hypothesis are such as we have long since 
 learned to rate at their true value, such as the use and repetition of expres- 
 sions and ideas which occur no where else, together with the vague meta- 
 phorical assertion, that the atmosphere of this piece is entirely different 
 from that of the other chapters, always excepting ch. 5G : 9 to 57 : 11, which 
 (we may almost say, of course) is likewise an interpolation. It is strange 
 that such an intellect as Ewald's should have failed to perceive that all this 
 is an ill-disguised confession of his own incapacity to trace the true connex- 
 ion in a difficult portion of an ancient writing, and proceeds upon the prin- 
 ciple, which even he would hardly venture to propound in terms, that it is 
 better to expunge a passage from the text than to acknowledge its obscurity 
 or leave it unexplained. If it be true, as he asserts, that this is the only 
 way in which the existing controversy as to the fifty-third chapter can be 
 settled, it had better not be settled at all. It is worthy of remark that 
 neither Ewald's reasoning nor his authority appear to have made any con- 
 verts to this neoteric doctrine. With respect to the frequent repetitions 
 which he charges on the passage, it may be added in conclusion, that so 
 far from being rhetorical defects or indications of another author, they are 
 used with an obvious design, viz. that of making it impossible for any inge- 
 nuity or learning to eliminate the doctrine of vicarious atonement from this 
 passage, by presenting it so often and in forms so varied and yet still the 
 same, that he who succeeds in expelling it from one place is compelled to 
 meet it in another, as we have already seen to be the case in the comparison 
 of vs. 4 and 11, as interpreted by Hitzig and Gesenius. Whether the 
 dreaded inconvenience is more bravely met or more effectually remedied by 
 making this incorrigible prophecy still older than the rest with which it 
 stands connected, is a question which we leave to the decision of the reader. 
 
CHAPTER LI V. 279 
 
 CHAPTER LIV. 
 
 Instead of suffering from the loss of her national prerogatives, the church 
 shall be more glorious and productive than before, v. 1. Instead of being 
 limited to a single nation, she shall be so extended as to take in all the 
 nations of the earth, vs. 2, 3. What seemed at first to be her forlorn and 
 desolate condition, shall be followed by a glorious change, v. 4. He who 
 seemed once to be the God of the Jews only, shall now be seen to be the 
 God of the Gentiles also, v. 5. The abrogation of the old economy was 
 like the repudiation of a wife, but its effects will show it to be rather a 
 renewal of the conjugal relation, v. 6. The momentary rejection shall be 
 followed by an everlasting reconciliation, vs. 7, 8. The old economy, like 
 Noah's flood, can never be repeated or renewed, v. 9. That was a tempo- 
 rary institution ; this shall outlast the earth itself, v. 1 0. The old Jerusalem 
 shall be forgotten in the splendour of the new, vs. 11, 12. But this shall 
 be a spiritual splendour springing from a constant divine influence, v. 13. 
 Hence it shall also be a holy and a safe state, v. 14. All the enemies of 
 the Church shall either be destroyed or received into her bosom, v. 15. 
 The warrior and his weapons are alike God's creatures and at his disposal, 
 v. 16. In every contest, both of hand and tongue, the Church shall be tri- 
 umphant, not in her own right or her own strength, but in that of Him who 
 justifies, protects, and saves her, v. 17. 
 
 V. 1. Shout oh ban-en, (hat did not hear, break forth into a shout and 
 cry aloud, she that did not writhe (in childbirth) ; for more (are) the children 
 of the desolate than the children of the married (woman^, saith Jehovah. 
 According to Grotius and some later writers, the object of address is the city 
 of Jerusalem, in which no citizens were born during the exile, but which was 
 afterwards to be more populous than the other cities of Judah which had not 
 been reduced to such a state of desolation. Besides other difficulties which 
 attend this explanation, it will be sufficient to observe that those who apply 
 the first verse to the city of Jerusalem are under the necessity of afterwards 
 assuming that this object is exchanged for another, viz. the people, — a 
 conclusive reason for regarding this as the original object of address, espe- 
 cially as we have had abundant proof already that tlic Zion or Jerusalem 
 of these Later Prophecies is the city only as a symbol of the church or 
 nation. — Our idiom in the first clause would require didst not bear and 
 
280 CHAPTERLIV. 
 
 didst not urithe ; but Hebrew usage admits of the third person. Another 
 Hebrew idiom is the expression of the same idea first in a positive and then 
 in a negative form, barren that did not bear. This very combination occurs 
 more than once elsewhere. (Judges 13 : 2. Job 24 : 21.) — For the sense 
 of ns'i "^naa, see above, on ch. 52 : 9 ; and for that of '^^"='1'^ as opposed to 
 nbsisa , compare 2 Sam. 13 : 20. The same antithesis here used occurs in 
 1 Sam. 2 : 5. 
 
 V. 2. Widen the 2>^ace of thy tent, and the curtains of thy dicellings 
 let them stretch out ; spare not (or hinder it not) ; lengthen thy cords and 
 strengthen (or make fast) thy stakes. As in the parallel passage (ch. 49 : 
 20, 21), the promise of increase is now expressed by the figure of enlarged 
 accommodations. The place may either be the area within the tent or the 
 spot on which it is erected. The curtains are the tent-cloths stretched 
 upon the poles to form the dwelling. 'Si^'^ > though strictly a generic term, 
 is often used in reference to tents, and particularly to the tabernacle. Some 
 take 1:2^ as a neuter or reflexive verb, let them stretch out or extend them- 
 selves ; but Kimchi construes it with those loho stretch, and Ewald with an 
 indefinite subject, let them stretch. That this verb was habitually used in 
 this connexion, may be learned from 2 Sam. 16 : 22. -The stakes are the 
 tent-pins, to which the tent-cloths are attached by cords. The last verb 
 may either mean take stronger pins, or fix them more firmly in the ground, — 
 both implying an enlargement of the tent and a consequently greater stress 
 upon the cords and stakes. 
 
 V. 3. For right and left shalt thou break forth (or spread), and thy 
 seed shall possess (or disjjossess or inherit) nations, and repeople ruined (or 
 forsaken) cities. Kimchi understands right and left as geographical terms 
 equivalent to north and south, the east and west being represented by nations 
 and cities. Knobel gives the same explanation of the first two, but accounts 
 for the omission of the other two by saying that the sea was on the west 
 and on the east a wilderness. A. far more natural interpretation of the 
 words is that which takes right and left as indefinite expressions meaning 
 on both sides or in all directions. The verb ■j":!^ was peculiarly appropriate 
 because associated with the promise in Gen. 28 : 14, in which case all the 
 cardinal points of the compass are distinctly mentioned. TiJ"]^ is not simply 
 to possess but to inherit, i. e. to possess by succession, which in this case 
 implies the dispossession of the previous inhabitants, so that the version drive 
 out, given by Gesenius and others, although not a literal translation, really 
 expresses no idea not expressed in the original. The figurative meaning of 
 the terms, as in many other cases, is evinced by an immediate change of 
 figure, without any regard to mere rhetorical consistency. The same thing 
 
CHAPTERLIV. 281 
 
 which is first represented as the violent expulsion of an enemy from his 
 dominions, is immediately afterwards described as the restoration of deserted 
 places, unless nisirs be supposed to <ftiean forsaken by those just before 
 expelled, which is hardly consistent with its usage as applied to desolations 
 of long standing. — The whole verse is a beautiful description of the won- 
 derful extension of the church, and her spiritual conquest of the nations. 
 
 V. 4. Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed, and be not abashed, for 
 thou shalt not blush ; for the shame of thy youth thou shalt forget, and the 
 reproach of thy widowhood thou shalt not remember any more. Here, as in 
 many other cases, shame includes the disappointment of the hopes, but with 
 specific reference to previous misconduct. (See Job 6 : 20.) The first 
 clause declares that she has no cause for despondency, the second disposes 
 of the causes which might seem to be suggested by her history. The essen- 
 tial meaning is, thy former experience of my displeasure. The figurative 
 form of the expression is accommodated to the chosen metaphor of a wife 
 forsaken and restored to her husband. The specific reference of youth 
 to the Egyptian bondage, and of widowhood to the Babylonian exile, is 
 extremely artificial, and forbidden by the context. 
 
 V. 5. For thy husband (is) thy Maker, Jehovah of Hosts (is) his 
 name ; and thy Redeemer (is) the Holy One of Israel, the God of all the 
 earth shall he be called. This verse is marked by a peculiar regularity of 
 structure, the two members of the first clause corresponding exactly to the 
 similar members of the other. In each clause the first member points out 
 the relation of Jehovah to his people, while the second proclaims one of 
 his descriptive names. He is related to the church as her Husbaiid and 
 Redeemer ; he is known or shall be known to all mankind as the Lord of 
 Hosts and as the God. of the ivhole earth, which are not to be regarded as 
 equivalent expressions. As the Goel oC the Jewish institutions, the redeemer 
 of a forfeited inheritance, was necessarily the next of kin, it is appropriately 
 placed in opposition to the endearing name of husband ; and as the title 
 Lord of Hosts imports a universal sovereignty, it is no less exactly matched 
 with the God of the whole earth. But this last phrase expresses the idea 
 of universal recognition. — There is no grammatical objection to the usual 
 interpretation of the last word in the verse as meaning he is called, corre- 
 sponding to his name is in the other clause, and signifying, in the Hebrew 
 idiom, he is, with emphasis. But since no reason can in that case be 
 assigned for the use of x'^l?" instead of N'p?, and since the strict translation 
 of the future strengthens the expression by transforming a description into a 
 prophecy, it seems best to retain the English Version, the God of the whole 
 earth shall he be called, i. e. he shall be recognised hereafter in the character 
 
282 C H A P T E R L I V . 
 
 which even now belongs to him. (Comjjare oh. 45 : 23 and Rom. 14 : 11.) 
 The Targum and the Vulgate, Aben Ezra and Kimchi, take T\l\'-;'^ in its 
 primitive sense o{ thy lords or rulers; but this, though etymologically right, 
 is less agreeable to usage, to the parallelism, the immediate context, and the 
 analogy of other places where the conjugal relation is undoubtedly referred 
 to. (See especially eh. 62 : 4, 5.) The form of this word and Tj^i'S is 
 regarded by Gesenius as an instance of the pluralis majestnticus, while 
 Maurer makes the last a singular form peculiar to the Hi'b derivatives, and 
 supposes the other to be merely assimilated to it by a species of paronomasia. 
 
 V. 6. f 07' as a wife forsaken and grieved in sjjirlt has Jehovah called 
 thee, and (as) a wife of youth, for she shall be rejected, said thy God. 
 Reduced to a prosaic form and order, this verse seems to mean, that 
 Jehovah had espoused her in her youth, then cast her off for her iniquities, 
 and now at last recalled her from her solitude and orief to be his wife again. 
 (Compare Hosea 2: 4,1, 14, 16, 19.) — A wife of youth, not merely a 
 young wife, but one married early. (See Proverbs 5:18 and Malachi 
 2: 14.) As this description belongs not to the main subject but to the 
 thing with which it is compared, there is no propriety in making youth 
 mean a specific period in the history of Israel. Tiie sense is not that she 
 had been wedded to Jehovah in her youth and now recalled, but that he 
 now recalled her as a husband might recall the long rejected wife of his 
 youth. — The common version of the last clause, ivhen thou wast refused, is 
 ungrammatical, unless we take ^^^"^ as a license for ''Oxan like ^i^n in ch. 
 57 : 8, and such anomalies are not to be assumed much less to be multiplied 
 without necessity. Most of the modern writers make it the third person, but 
 retain the same construction : who has been (or lohen she has been) rejected. 
 But this, besides being forced, would seem to require the praeter not the 
 future, which Hitzig sets down as an inaccuracy of the writer. Still more 
 unnatural and arbitrary is Luzzatto's interrogative construction: 'Can the 
 wife of one's youth be thus abhorred! Surely not,' Ewald gains the same 
 sense by making it an ironical exclamation : and the wife of one's youth — (as 
 if it were possible) thai she could be treated ivith contempt ! All these expe- 
 dients are precluded by the fact that we obtain a good sense by adhering to 
 the proper meaning of the '^3 and of the future, simply making these the 
 words of Jehovah at the time of her rejection, and referring "I'^x to the same 
 time and to this clause alone, instead of making it include the whole verse, 
 which is the less natural because the first clause speaks of Jehovah in the 
 fust person. Thus understood, the last clause is an explanation of the first, 
 in which she is said to have been recalled as a forsaken wife, and that a 
 wife of youth, because her God had said to her at that time, thou shall be 
 rejected. This explanation, while it simplifies the syntax, leaves the mean- 
 
CHAPTERLIV. 233 
 
 ing of the verse unaltered. — Henderson calls upon the reader to '• mark the 
 paronomasia in iin^n? and ti^n^^s?. ." Gesenius goes further and attempts to 
 copy it (^ein vertriebnes Weib hetr'uhten Herzens) ; while Hitzig, it may be 
 for that very reason, doubts whether any paronomasia was designed at all. 
 
 V. 7. In a little moment I forsook thee, and in great mercies I will 
 gather thee. The metaphor is here carried out in the form of an affectionate 
 assurance that the love now restored shall experience no further interrup- 
 tion. The use of the preterite and future implies an intermediate point of 
 view between the opposite treatments here described. I did forsake thee, 
 and now I am about to gather thee. Hitzig explains this last expression 
 by the analogy of Judges 19 : 15, where a cognate verb means to receive 
 into one's house. So Lowth translates it, / will receive thee again, and 
 Ewald in like manner. Umbreit still more expressively, / draiu thee to 
 myself. Knobel applies the term directly to the people, whose scattered 
 members were to be collected. (See ch. 27 : 12. 43 : 5.) According to 
 Umbreit, the time of anger is called little in comparison with the provoca- 
 tion offered ; according to Knobel, in comparison with the favour that should 
 follow, which agrees far better with the parallelism and the context. Hitzig, 
 however, says that it is not the period of alienation which is here described 
 as short ; but the anger which occasioned it. A similar antithesis is used 
 by David, Ps. 30 : 6. (Compare Isaiah 26 : 20.) Instead of great mer- 
 cies, Henderson has with the greatest tenderness. — If any specific applica- 
 tion of the words be made, it must be to the momentary casting off of Israel 
 which seemed to accompany the change of dispensations. The confusion 
 of the metaphors in this whole passage springs from the complexity of the 
 relations which they represent. As a nation, Israel was in fact cast off; 
 but as a church, it never could be. 
 
 V. 8. In a gush of wrath I hid my face a moment from thee, and in 
 everlasting kindness I have had mercy on thee, saith thy Redeemer, Jehovah. 
 The idea of the preceding verse is again expressed more fully. The word 
 C|2ty occurs only here. The older writers conjectured from the context that 
 it signified a short time or a little quantity. Rabbi Menahem is quoted 
 by Jarchi as explaining it to mean heat or fury, which is no doubt also 
 merely conjectural. Schultens explains it from an Arabic analogy as mean- 
 ing hardness or severity. Rosenmiiller and Gesenius identify it with tr^v 
 a flood or inundation, which is elsewhere used in reference to anger (Prov. 
 7 : 24). So in ch. 42 : 25, the wrath of God is said to have been poured 
 out upon Israel. According to Gesenius, it is here written ^:ini. only for the 
 sake of the resemblance to C]S|5 . This paronomasia is copied by Gesenius 
 (in der Fluth der Zorngluth), by Hitzig (in derber Herbe), and by Ewald 
 
234 CHAPTERLIV. 
 
 (oh dcr GroU irar voU). We do not find that any of these writers make 
 the rapid recurrence of this figure in so short a space an argument to prove 
 that the passage was written by a different author. Ewald gives "^n^n-i tlie 
 sense which it has in Kal, and renders it, I love thee. This is undoubtedly 
 implied, but the sense of showing mercy is required not only by usage but 
 by the context, which describes the relenting of one previously offended. — 
 This verse, like the one before it, is a general description of the everlasting 
 favour which shall drown the very memory of former alienations between 
 God and his people. The modern German school of course restrict it to 
 the Babylonish exile. Cocceius extends it to the whole of the Old Testa- 
 ment economy, which although long to man was but a day in the divine 
 sight. (Ps. 90: 4.) Vitringa, not content with these gratuitous appropria- 
 tions of a general promise, or with this prosaic disfiguration of an exquisite 
 poetical conception, undertakes to give a different application to the two 
 verses, applying the little moment of v. 7 to the Babylonish exile, and the 
 angry moment of v. 8 to the Syrian persecution. With equal reason they 
 might be pronounced descriptive of the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage, or 
 of the Assyrian and the Babylonian, or of the Syrian and the Roman. If, 
 because it is appropriate to one of these events, it has no reference to any 
 other, then they all may be successively excluded, and with equal ease all 
 proved to be the subject of the prophecy. The only specific application 
 which is equally consistent with the form of the expression and the context 
 is the one suggested in the note upon the foregoing verse. 
 
 V. 9. For the ivaters of Noah is this to me ; what I sivare from the 
 waters of Noah passing again over the earth (i. e. against their passing, 
 or, that they should not pass), so I have sworn from being angry (that I will 
 not be angry) against thee, and from rebuking (that I will not rebuke) thee. 
 The assurance of the preceding verse is now repeated in another form. 
 There can no more be another such effusion of my wrath than there can be 
 another deluge, here called the waters of Noah, just as we familiarly say 
 '' Noah's flood." The security in this case, as in that, is a divine oath or 
 solemn covenant, like that recorded Gen. 8 : 21 and 9:11. Vitringa, 
 as usual, converts a simile into a symbol, and endeavours to enumerate the 
 points of similarity between the world and the deluge, the church and the 
 ark. It is only upon this erroneous supposition that such passages as Ps. 
 124 : 4, 5, can be regarded as illustrative parallels. Such minute coinci- 
 dences any reader is at liberty to search out for himself ; but the text men- 
 tions only one point of comparison between the two events, namely, that 
 neither can occur again. The Prophet does not say that God's displeasure 
 with the church is a flood which shall never be repeated, but that it shall 
 never be repeated any more than the flood. When our Lord says it is easier 
 
CHAPTERLIV. 285 
 
 for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven, 
 no one thinks of running a comparison between the rich man and the camel, 
 or inquiring what the hump or the double stomach signifies ; because the 
 text suggests not a general analogy between the rich man and the camel, 
 but a specific one confined to one particular. In the case before us, that 
 particular, as we have seen already, is the certainty that neither of the things 
 compared can ever be repeated. This certainty does not arise, as Ewald 
 seems to think, from any natural necessity, or universal law forbidding such 
 expurgatory I'evolutions to occur more than once, but, as the text expressly 
 tells us, from the oath and covenant of God. — Instead of "'^ "'S one or two 
 manuscripts have '^'^'S, all in one word, meaning as (he days of Noah, and 
 Kimchi speaks of this division as existing in some ancient codices of his day. 
 This reading likewise appears in all the ancient versions but the Septuagint, 
 and is preferred by Lowth (as in the Jays of Noah). It is also a remark- 
 able coincidence that this expression occurs twice in the New Testament 
 (Matt. 24 : 37. 1 Pet. 3 : -20), but not in reference to this place or to the 
 comparison here instituted. All the latest writers seem to be in favour of 
 adhering to the connnon text, which is probably the only safe conclusion, 
 although some of the reasons which have been assigned are not of much 
 weight. Henderson, for instance, says that " the conjunction ^3 could not 
 have been omitted," yet supposes two ellipses of the preposition 3 in this 
 one sentence, and in this one clause of it. Another argument which some 
 urge, namely, that the words T!''^^. are repeated afterwards, may be em- 
 ployed as well on one side as the other. For it might be said, with some 
 plausibility at least, that such a repetition, not for the sake of parallelism, 
 but in the same part of the sentence, is unusual, and also that the presence 
 of these two words afterwards may easily have led to an error of transcrip- 
 tion. The true ground for adhering to the coinmon text is the traditional 
 authority of almost every codex in existence, confirmed by that of the oldest 
 version, and by its yielding a perfectly good sense. — There is no need of 
 supplying any preposition before icaters, as Gesenius does ((c/e bty den 
 Wassern NoaKs); since the meaning is that this is the same thing as the flood, 
 or just such another case, in what respect is afterwards cxphiined. The 
 closest copy of the original is Ewald's, Noah^s JVasscr ist mir dies. The 
 plural waters is connected with the pronoun in the singular, simply because 
 it is used only in the plural. The pronoun this is explained by Jarchi to 
 mean this oath, by Kimchi this captivity, by Knobel this effusion of my 
 wrath, etc. The best construction is to take it in the widest sense, as 
 meaning this case, this affair, or the like. Hendewerk appears to be alone 
 in supplying the future tense of the verb (^ihis shall be) instead of the present 
 (this is). On the privative use of the preposition p , see ch. 5:6, 8 : II, 
 where it has respect to negative commands or prohibitions. To me does 
 
2SG CHAPTERLIV. 
 
 not simply mean in uiy view or opinion, but expresses similarity of obliga- 
 tion ; tbe oath was as binding in the one case as the other. — Vitringa and 
 Lowth make *iisjx a particle of time, when I stvare. Gesenius and the other 
 modern writers take it as a particle of comparison, corresponding to "3 just 
 as the full expression "^^xs does in ch. 14 : 24, and as "I'ix itself does in 
 Jer. 33 : 22. Hendewcrk understands it strictly as a relative, of ivhich I 
 sivare ; in which "3 is not a parallel expression, but simply continues the 
 discourse. The same construction of ""ijx might be retained without entirely 
 destroying the antithesis, by rendering the former ivhat. As if he had said. 
 ' what 1 sware then, that T swear now,' but impaired the exact correspondence 
 of the terms by changing that to so. It is a matter of indifference whether 
 the second verb be rendered I have sworn or / sioear ; since even in the 
 former case it means /Aaue noz^ siror/t, as distinguished from the former 
 swearing which he had just mentioned. — Rebuke must here be taken in the 
 strong and pregnant sense which it has in ch. 17 : 13. 50 : 2. 51 : 20, and 
 very generally throughout the Old Testament, as signifying not a merely 
 verbal but a practical rebuke. There is no need, however, of depart- 
 ing from the literal translation with Gesenius, who translates it curse, 
 and Hitzig, who translates it punish. Umbreit has threaten, which is 
 nearer to the strict sense, but excludes the actual infliction, which is a 
 necessary part of the idea. — That this is not a general promise of secu- 
 rity, is plain from the fact that the church has always been subjected to 
 vicissitudes and fluctuations. Nor is there any period in her history to 
 which it can be properly applied in a specific sense, except the change of 
 dispensations, which was made once for all and can never be repeated. 
 That the church shall never be again brought under the restrictive institu- 
 tions of the ceremonial law, is neither a matter of course nor a matter of 
 indifference, but a glorious promise altogether worthy of the solemn oath by 
 which it is attested here. 
 
 V. 10. For the mountains shall move and the hills shall shake ; but my 
 favour from thee shall not move, and my covenant of peace shall not shake, 
 saith thy pitier Jehovah. Vitringa's observation, that the futures in the first 
 clause must not be so translated, because this would imply that hills and 
 mountains might be moved, whereas they are here represented as immov- 
 able, affords a curious illustration of the tendency among interpreters to sub- 
 stitute what they would have said for what the writer has said. If the first 
 clause does not literally mean that the mountains and the hills shall move, 
 that idea cannot be expressed in Hebrew. This is indeed the customary 
 method of expressing such comparisons. (See above, on ch. 40 : 8 and 
 49 : 15.) The meaning is not that God's promise is as stable as the moun- 
 tains, but that it is more so ; they shall be removed, but it shall stand for 
 
C H A P T E R L I V . 287 
 
 ever. There is no need, therefore, of translating tlie verb Id them shake 
 or they may shake, as some of the latest writers do. Still more gratuitous is 
 the present form given to the verbs by Gesenius, as if they expressed a tiling 
 of constant occurrence. Even Vitringa is compelled to admit that the moun- 
 tains and hills in this place are not symbols of states and empires, but natural 
 emblems of stability. (See Deut. 33 : 15. Ps. 65 : 7. 125:1,2.) — Gesenius 
 supposes an allusion in covenant of peace to the covenant with Noah (Gen. 
 9 : 8, 11). The phrase denotes a covenant, i. e. a divine promise or engage- 
 ment, securing the enjoyment of peace, both in the strict sense and in the 
 wide one of prosperity or happiness. (Compare v. 13. ch. 53 : 5. Ezek. 
 34 : 25. 37 : 26.) The suffix, as in many other cases, qualifies the whole 
 phrase, not the last word merely. The covenant of my peace does not give 
 the sense so fully as my covenant of peace, i. e. my peace-giving covenant, 
 or as Rosetimiiller phrases it, meum pacificum foedus. — The participle in 
 ^^n^^ is construed as a noun, and the whole phrase means thy pitier. The 
 force of the expression is impaired by the circumlocution of the common 
 version, the Lord that hath mercy on thee, still more by Lowtli's diluted 
 paraphrase, Jehovah loho heareth toivard thee the most tender affection. 
 
 V. 11. Wretched, storm-tossed, comfortless! Behold I am laying (or 
 about to lay) thy stones in antimony, and I will found thee upon sapphires. 
 The past afflictions of God's people are contrasted with the glory which 
 awaits them, and which is here represented by the image of a city built of 
 precious stones, and cemented with the substance used by oriental women 
 in the staining of their eyelids. (2 Kings 9 : 30. Jer. 4 : 30.) This eye- 
 paint, made of stibium or antimony, may be joined with sapphires as a 
 costly substance, commonly applied to a more delicate use ; or there may 
 be allusion, as Hitzig thinks, to the likeness between stones thus set and 
 painted eyes : either of which suppositions is more probable than that of 
 Henderson, viz. that the idea meant to be conveyed is simply that of beauty 
 in general, for which a thousand more appropriate expressions might have 
 been employed. The stones meant are not corner or foundation-stones, but 
 all those used in building. There is something singular, though not perhaps 
 significant, in the application to these stones of a verb elsewhere used only 
 in reference to animals. Knobel gravely observes that this verse can 
 hardly be considered as expressing a real expectation of the Prophet ; as if 
 it were a literal description of a city built with gems instead of hewn stones, 
 and stibium instead of mortar. Kimchi indeed thinks it possible that all 
 this may be verified hereafter in the literal Jerusalem. Abarbenel more 
 reasonably looks for its fulfilment in a figurative or spiritual sense. Those 
 writers who insist upon applying the first verse of this chapter to the city as 
 a city, although not particularly named there, are compelled to understand 
 
288 C H A P T E R L I V , 
 
 the Olio before us of the people, notwithstanding the minuteness and preci- 
 sion of (he references to a city. If the city as such is not meant when 
 stones and cement, gates and walls, are mentioned, how much less when 
 none of these particulars appear, but every thing suggests a different sub- 
 ject. — "^23 is rendered by Jerome per ordinem, and in the Septuagint 
 av&Qay.tt, as if it were a kind of precious stone, as it appears to be in 1 Chr. 
 29 : 2. But the modern lexicographers identify it with the Greek q.vxog 
 and the Latin fuctis, i. e. face or eye-paint ; and even in Chronicles it may 
 mean nothing more than ornamental stones. Ludolf supposes the clause to 
 mean that the stones should be powdered with antimony. Luzzatto like- 
 wise assumes a hypallage, and explains 'I will lay thy stones in stibium' 
 to mean I will lay it on them. Henderson's version of tT;!?b (^tossed) is 
 insufficient, as both etymology and usage require a reference to storm or 
 tempest. Kimchi and Saadias apply it specifically to the exile, Jarchi to 
 the storms of sorrow in general. Rosenmiiller explains it as a passive parti- 
 ciple put for rr^V.b"^ 5 Gesenlus as the usual Kal participle of ^?o. It is 
 atrreed that i^^^ns is the contracted Pual participle for J^^nro , like "T^n"? '^^ 
 Hos. 1 : 6, 8. — ISIaurer notes this as an example of the peculiar sense in 
 which this writer used the verb ens. (Compare ch. 49: J3. 51 : 3, 12. 
 52 : 9.) Knobel restricts the first clause to the siege of Jerusalem, espe- 
 cially by Nebuchadnezzar ! Ewald, very unnecessarily, proposes to amend 
 the text by reading in the last clause ~i?^x thy foundations. If this be the 
 specific sense intended, which is doubtful, it is sufficiently conveyed already 
 by the common reading. 
 
 V. 12. And 1 ivUl make thy hatllements (or pinnacles) ruby, and thy 
 gates to (he) spai-kling gems, and all thy border to (be) stones of pleasure (or 
 delight). The splendid image of the preceding verse is here continued and 
 completed. The precise kinds of gems here meant are not of much impor- 
 tance. The essential idea, as appears from the etymology of the names, is 
 that of sparkling brilliancy. The exact meaning of "is*]? was unknown 
 even in Jerome's time. Aquila and Theodotion retain the Hebrew word, 
 in which they are followed by Cocceius. rrr-o'i" is explained by Aben 
 Ezra and Kimchi to mean windows or other apertures admitting the light of 
 the sun. But the modern writers generally make it a poetical description 
 of the battlements and spires of a city. — The Septuagint and Vulgate 
 explain n-px ""inx as denoting carved or sculptured stones ; but its obvious 
 connexion with the verb rri;^ favours the modern explanation, sparkling 
 gems. — The last phrase is a more generic term, including all the others, and 
 equivalent to our expression, precious stones. So too ^^3.^ may be collec- 
 tive, and denote the w hole congeries of buildings or their parts ; although 
 interpreters are more inclined to make it mean the outer wall of a fortified 
 
CHAPTERLIV. 289 
 
 city, which is described as built of the same costly materials. But Gesenius 
 thinks it possible that there may be allusion to 1 Kings 10 : 27, and that 
 the clause may represent the ground within the limits of the city as strewn 
 with precious stones instead of pebbles. — The same interpreter regards the 
 }> in the last clause as a sign of the accusative, but Kimchi explains b ''ri^b 
 as meaning 'I will change into or render.' Hitzig thinks it would have been 
 ^' bequemer," and Knobel ^^ passender" if the writer, instead of saying that 
 their gates should be turned into precious stones, had said they should be 
 made of them. — Vitringa of course puts a specific sense on every part of the 
 description, understanding by the T('Q of the preceding verse the doctrine of 
 Christ's blood, by the gates the synods of the church, by the battlements 
 its advocates and champions, etc. Lowth, with better taste and judgment, 
 says that "these seem to be general images to express beauty, magnificence, 
 purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to ibe ideas of the eastern nations, 
 and to have never been intended to be strictly scrutinized, or minutely and 
 particularly explained, as if they had each of them some precise moral or 
 spiritual meaning." 
 
 V. 13. And all thy children disciples of Jehovah, and great (or plenti- 
 ful) the peace of thy children. Ewald makes the sentence simply descrip- 
 tive, by supplying are in the present tense. Most other writers supply 
 shall be, and thus make it a prediction or a promise. a"':2 , when used as a 
 distinctive term, means sons ; but it is constantly employed where we say 
 children. — The common version, taught of God, which Lowth changes 
 into taught by God, though not erioneous, is inadequate ; since 1^53^ is not 
 a participle but a noun, used elsewhere to denote a pupil, follov/er, or disci- 
 ple. (See ch. 8 : 16.) The promise is not one of occasional instruction, 
 but of permanent connexion with Jehovah, as his followers and partakers of 
 his constant teaching. That the words are applicable to the highest teach- 
 ing of which any rational being is susce{)tible, to wit, that of the Holy Spirit 
 making known the Father and the Son, we have our Saviour's own author- 
 ity for stating. (See John 6 : 44, and compare Matt. 23 : 8. Heb. 8:11. 
 1 John 2 : 27.) Paul too describes believers as OsodtSay.roi in relation to 
 the duties of their calling. (1 Thess. 4 : 9.) Similar promises under the 
 Old Testament are given in Jer. 31 : 34 and elsewhere. Gesenius restricts 
 the words to the promise of prophetic insjjiration, the want of which is 
 lamented in Lam. 2 : 9. Ps. 74 : 9, and the renewal of it promised in Joel 
 3:1. But this restriction is regarded as unauthorized even by Maurer. As 
 in ch. 43 : 9, all the gifts of the Spirit are included. The consequence of 
 this blessed privilege is peace, no doubt in the widest sense of spiritual wel- 
 fare and prosperity. (John 14 : 27. Phil. 4 : 7.) Knobel restricts the 
 promise to the people of Jerusalem, and Hendewerk declares that it was 
 
 19 
 
290 CHAPTER L I V . 
 
 broken in the days of Anliocluis Epiphancs. To prevent the tautological 
 recurrence of Tf :2 , Koppe reads ~"^ in the first clause and Doderlein in 
 the second, while J. D. Michaelis, for a different reason, makes the change 
 in both. Kocher and Rosen rniiller cite examples of such repetition from 
 ch. 16:7. 55:4, and 55: 10, together with Virgil's famous line, Amho 
 Jiorentes aetatibus Arcades amho. Such precedents were surely not required 
 to justify a bold but beautiful expression from the charges brought against 
 it by pedantic rhetoricians. — Umbrcit supposes that this ver^'e contains an 
 explanation of the striking figures in the one before it. Hitzig compares the 
 hist clause with the corresponding part of ch. GO : 21, and thy people all of 
 them are righteous, which idea is expressed here in the next verse. 
 
 V. 14. In righteousness shnlt thou be established : be far from oppres- 
 sion, for thou shalt not fear, and from destruction, for it shall not come 
 near to thee. An additional promise of complete security, made more 
 emphatic by its repetition in a variety of forms. By righteousness J. H. 
 Michaelis understands the righteousness or faithfulness of God, securing the 
 performance of his p;on:iises ; Vitringa, the justice of the government itself; 
 Rosenmiiller and the other modern writers, the practice of righteousness 
 among the people. The first, however, comprehends the others as its 
 necessary consequences, public and private virtue being always represented 
 in Scripture as the fruit of divine influence. (Compare ch. 1 : 27. 9 : 6. 
 11:5. 16: 5.) — The modern grammarians acquiesce in Aben Ezra's 
 explanation of "."3^" ^^^ a Hithpacl form like yiy-''-. , ch. 52 : 5. — Of the next 
 clause there are several interpretations. The Septuagint, Peshito, and 
 Vulo-ate, understand it as a warning or dissuasion from the practice of 
 oppression. But this docs not agree with the context, which is evidently 
 meant to be consolatory and encouraging. Still more unnatural is the opin- 
 ion of Cocceius, that pii^p here means spiritual robbery, such as robbing God 
 of his glory, the soul of its salvation, etc. etc. Jerome arbitrarily renders it 
 calumniam. The -explanation which has been most generally acquiesced in, 
 is the one proposed by Kimchi, who takes P\^ in a passive sense, i. e. as 
 meaning the experience of oppression, and supposes the imperative to repre- 
 sent the future, or a promise to be clothed in the form of a command : ' Be 
 far from oppression, i. e. thou shalt be far from it.' Examples of this idiom 
 are supposed to occur in Gen. 42 : 18. Deut. 32 : 50. Prov. 20 : 13. But 
 as this makes it necessary to give '"2 the sense of yea with Lowth, or of 
 therefore with Vitringa, Gesenius and the later writers choose to adhere to 
 the strict sense of the imperative, and give pajs" in this one place the mean- 
 ing of anxiety, distress, which they suppose to be the sense of i^I^^^ in ch. 
 38 : 14. The ground of this gratuitous assumption is the parallel expression 
 nnn^ consternation, fear, v/hich seems to require in this place an analogous 
 
CH AP T E R L I V. 291 
 
 affection of the mind. It will be found, however, on investigation, that there 
 are several instances in whicli i^nn?3 cannot possibly mean ftar (e. g. Ps. 
 89 : 41. Prov. 10 : 14. 13 : 3. 18 : 7) ; while in every place where it 
 occurs, perhaps exce[)ting Jer. 48 : 39, the other sense destruction is entirely 
 appropriate. On the soundest principles of lexicography, this meaning is 
 entitled to the preference, and, if adopted here, forms an accurate parallelism 
 to P''^p in the sense which it uniformly has elsewhere (e. g. in ch. 30 : 12 
 and 59 : 13), viz. oppression or violent injustice. That the other term is 
 stronger, only adds to the expression the advantage of a climax. There is 
 no need, however, of explaining the imperative as a future, like the older 
 writers, or of taking "3 in any but its usual and proper sense. Be far from 
 oppression is not a promise of exemption from it, for that follows in the next 
 clause, which the modern interpreters correctly understand as meaning, thou 
 hast no cause to fear. The other woids are well explained by Knobel as 
 relating to the feelings of the person here addressed. Be fiu' fiom oppres- 
 sion, i. e. far from apprehending it. The whole may then be paraphrased 
 as follows: ' When once established by the exercise of righteousness on my 
 part and your own, you may put far off all dread of oppression, for you have 
 no cause to fear it, and of destruction, for it shall not come nigh you.' — 
 With the promise of this clause, compare ch. 32 : 16 and 62 : 12. — Knobel 
 and Hendewerk are actually able to persuade themselves that this verse 
 contains a specific promise that Jerusalem should never be successfully 
 besieged again. The truth of the promise, in its true sense, is vindicated 
 by the fact that it relates to the course of the new dispensation as a whole, 
 with special reference to its final consummation. 
 
 V. 15. Z<o, they shall gather, they shall gather, not at my sign (or 
 signal). Who has gathered against thee ? He shall fall away to thee. 
 The promise of the preceding verse is here so modified as to provide for 
 every possible contingency. If enemies should be assembled, it will not be 
 by divine command (compare ch. 10:5. 47 : 6), and they shall end by 
 coming over to the side of those whom they assail. This, on the whole, 
 appears to be the meaning, although every expression has received a differ- 
 ent explanation. Gesenius gives )^: the sense of if, as in Chaldee, and 
 notes it as a proof of later date : to \\hich it may be answered, first, that his 
 own examples include some in the oldest books, e. g. Ex. 8 : 22 ; then, 
 that the assumptign of this meaning in the present case is wholly giatuilous ; 
 and lastly, that it is a dubious question whether any such usage of the word 
 exists at all. Cocceius follows Jarchi in giving ^=13 the sense of fear, which 
 it sometimes has, e. g. in Deut. 1 : 17 and Psalm 22 : 24. The Septua- 
 gint and Targum give it the still more frequent sense of ' sojourning, dwelling 
 
392 C H A P T E R L I V . 
 
 as a stranger,' and apply the clause to proselytes. In like manner Gousset, 
 followed by Rosenmiiller, understands the words to nnean, that no one who 
 sojourns with Israel shall remain a stranger to the true religion. Tremellius 
 makes it mean 'contend,' and Ewald, ' stir up bitterness,' both apparently 
 resorting to the cognate nnj as a source of illustration. Most interpreters 
 agree with Kimchi in giving "iis the same sense here as in Ps. 56 : 7. 59 : 4, on 
 which places see Hengstenberg's Commentary. — There is also a difference 
 as to the construction. Luther makes the whole verse one interrogation. 
 Gesenius, as we have already seen, makes the first clause conditional. 
 Others translate it as a concession, ' let them gather.' But the simplest and 
 most natural construction is to translate "^iJ^ as a future proper. They 
 shall indeed (or no doubt) gather. The promise is not that they should 
 never be assailed, but that they should never be conquered. — The Targum 
 explains D2S to mean in the end ; but most writers understand it as a simple 
 negative. (See above, on ch. 52 : 4.) "'""'X^ is regarded by Gesenius as 
 another pioof of later date, the preposition rx being confounded with the 
 objective particle. But here again examples of the same analogy are found 
 as early as Lev. 15 : 18, 24, and Josh. 23 : 15. It is not the occasional 
 occurrence of this form but its habitual use that marks the later writers, as 
 is well observed by Havernick, who explains the case before us as an effect 
 of the pause accent, while in the one below (ch. 59 : 21) he maintains that 
 mx is the noun meaning sign (Einleitung I. pp. 198, 222) ; which last 
 explanation is still more applicable here, not by my sign or signal being not 
 only perfectly in keeping w ith the usage of the same figure elsewhere, but 
 yielding substantially the same sense which the word has according to the 
 common explanation, namely, not by my authority or not at my command. 
 (Compare "^s^^ Hos. 7 : 14.) Hitzig tlirows these words (""nisia GSs) into 
 a parenthesis — ' which is not from me,' and Ewald gives them the force of a 
 proviso — 'only not from me,' i. e. no attack shall be successful, provided it 
 is made without my authority. The same writer takes "''^ in its usual sense 
 as an interrogative pronoun, while Gesenius and others make it mean ivho- 
 ever. (See above, on ch. 50 : 10.) Vitringa and the English Version separate 
 T.^? from the following verb, and take the latter absolutely, 'he shall fall,' 
 i. e. perish. Knobel obtains the same sense without a violation of the 
 accents, by supposing '?;> ^s: to be synonymous with ""zth bs: , 'he shall fall 
 before thee.' But the former phrase is determined by a settled usage to 
 denote the act of falling away or deserting to an enemy. (See 1 Chron. 
 12 : 19, 20. 2 Chron. 15 : 9. Jer. 21 : 9.) In one case (1 Sam. 29 : 3) the 
 same idea seems to be expressed by the verb when absolutely used. This 
 explanation of the last words is as old as the Septuagint (iTzl at: xaracpev^ov- 
 Tfltt) and Vulgate (adjungetur iibi). 
 
CH AP TE R LI V. 293 
 
 V. 16. Lo, I have created the smith, hloiving into the fire of coal, and 
 bringing out a iveapon for his work ; and I have created the waster to 
 destroy. The general meaning evidently is that God can certainly redeem 
 his pledge, because all instruments and agents are alike at his disposal and 
 under his control. He is not only the maker of the weapons of war, but 
 the maker of their maker, as well as of the warrior who wields them. — The 
 pronoun in both clauses is emphatic. It is I (and not another) who created 
 them. — The common version of the second member, that hjoiveth the coals 
 in the fire, is inconsistent with the masoretic pointing and accentuation, which 
 require ens 'rx to be construed in regimine, as meaning a coal fire in oppo- 
 sition to an ordinary fire of wood. The same preposition is elsewhere used 
 as a connective between this verb and the object blown upon or at (Ezek. 
 37 : 9), and in one other place at least in reference to the same act of blow- 
 ing into fire (Ezek. 22: 21), an exact description of the process even at the 
 present day. A simihir glimpse into the ancient forge or smithy has already 
 been afforded in the scornful attack upon the worshippers of idols, ch. 
 41 : 6. — Bringing out does not mean bringing out of his workshop or his 
 hands, as Knobel explains it, but bringing into shape or into being, precisely 
 as we say bringing forth, producing, although commonly in reference to 
 animal or vegetable life. Perhaps, however, it would be still better to 
 explain it as meaning out of the fire, in which case there would be a fine 
 antithesis between blowing into it and bringing the wrought iron out of it. — 
 •^^3 may denote any instrument, but here derives from the connexion the 
 specific sense o^ loeapon. (See above, on ch. 52 : 11.) The next phrase 
 has been variously understood. Interpreters are much divided as to the 
 antecedent of the suffix pronoun. Some of the older writers understand it 
 as applying to the instrument itself, bringing forth a weapon for its tcork, 
 i. e. fitted for the work of destruction. Others suppose it to refer by pro- 
 lepsis to the warrior or destioyer who is mentioned in the last clause, bring- 
 ing forth a iveapon for his work or use. A still greater number understand 
 it as referring to the smith or armourer himself. Besides the modern Eng- 
 lish versions, which are either unmeaning or inaccurate, — according to his 
 work (Lowth); by his labour (Noycs), as the result of his ivork (Barnes)^ 
 — this class includes the ingenious construction of the words by Ewald, bring- 
 ing forth a weapon as his own work, ivhereas I made the deadly weapon 
 for destruction. According to this interpretation, r''n':3-a the destroyer is a 
 poetical description of the weapon before mentioned ; whereas most inter- 
 preters apply it to the warrior who wields it, as if he had said, I make the 
 weapon of destruction and I also make the waster to destroy with it. Both 
 these hypotheses agree in making the destruction mentioned to be that of 
 enemies in battle, one ascribing it directly to the weapon and the other to 
 the combatant. But Gesenius follows Jarchi and Kimchi in supposing the 
 
294 CHAPTERLIV. 
 
 destruction here meant to be that of the instruments themselves, as if be had 
 said, I create the weapons of war and I also create the destroyer to destroy 
 them. Gesenius seems to think that this construction is required by the 
 repetition of '^2;s'i , as clearly indicating an antithesis; but this is equally 
 secured by Ewald's version, and even in the common and more natural con- 
 struction, the repeated pronoun has its proper emphasis. ' It is I that create 
 the smith who makes the instruments, and it is also I that create the 
 destroyer who employs them.' 
 
 V. 17. Every weapon (that) shall be formed against thee shall not pros- 
 per, and every tongue (that) shall rise with thee in judgment thou shall con- 
 demn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their right- 
 eousness from me, saith Jehovah. The common version of the first clause 
 expresses the same thought in the English idiom, wo weapon that is formed 
 against thee shall prosper, a form of speech which does not exist in Hebrew, 
 and can only be supplied by combining negative and universal terms. The 
 expression, though ambiguous, is determined by the context. It cannot 
 mean that only some of the weapons formed should take effect — which 
 might be the meaning of the phrase in Englisli — because in the affirmative 
 clause which follows, and which must be co-extensive in its meaning, there 
 is no such ambiguity, it being said expressly that every tongue shall be con- 
 demned. Another difference of idiom here exemplified has reference to the 
 ellipsis of the relative pronoun, which in English is familiarly omitted when 
 the object of the verb, but never when its subject. Every weapon they 
 form would be perfectly intelligible ; but every weapon is formed (for which 
 is formed) would convey a wrong idea. — Shall not prosper, \. e. shall not 
 take effect or accomplish its design. Vitringa needlessly supposes a litotes 
 or meiosis, as if the words meant that the weapon should itself be destroyed ; 
 but this is not expressed, even if it is implied, which may be questioned. — 
 To rise or stand in judgment, literally /or or with respect to judgment, is to 
 appear before a judgment-seat, to invoke the decision of a judge. JVith 
 thee may either denote simply simultaneous action, that of standing up 
 together, or it may have the stronger sense against thee, as it seems to have 
 above in v. 15, and as it has in our expressions io fight witJi or to go to law 
 with. Tlie tongue is here personified, or used to re[)resent the party litigant 
 whose only weapon is his speech. Lowth translates "^S'''ir~n thou shall 
 obtain thy cause, which is the true sense, but requires the insertion of 
 against before every tongue, which in Hebrew is governed directly by the 
 verb. For the judicial or forensic usage of this verb, see above, on ch. 
 50 : 9. — Hitzig explains what is here said of litigation as a mere figure for 
 war, which is literally described in the foregoing clause ; and Knobel cites a 
 case (1 Sam. 14 : 47) in which the verb "-i^ty^ is applied to conquest. It 
 
CHAPTERLIV. 295 
 
 is also easy to deduce the one sense from the other, by assuming as the 
 intermediate link the idea — not confined to ancient nations — that success in 
 arms is a criterion of right and wrong, the very principle on which the wager 
 of battle and the ordeal of the duel rested. But in this case it is far more 
 satisfactory and natural, instead of making one clause figurative and the other 
 literal, to understand both either literally or figuratively as a comprehensive 
 description of all controversy or contention. Kimchi supposes these two 
 clauses to reduce all opposition and hostility to that of word and that of 
 deed ; but there may also be allusion to the obvious distinction between 
 warfare in its military and its civil forms, or between what is properly called 
 war and litigation. In all these varied forms of strife it is predicted that the 
 church shall be victorious. (Compare Rom. 8 : 37 and 2 Cor. 2: 14.) 
 And this security is represented as her heritage or lawful possession and as 
 her right, i. e. what is due to her from God, as the judge of the whole earth, 
 who must do right. Lowth and Ewald understand it to meB.n justification : 
 'this security shall prove that God acquits or justifies me from the charges 
 brought against me by my enemies.' Vitringa gives the Hebrew word the 
 simple sense jus, or that to which the party is entitled. The diluted sense 
 of blessins: or prosperity, which some of the later writers prefer even here, 
 no longer needs a refutation. The English Version makes this last an inde- 
 pendent clause, their righteousness is of me ; which is wholly unnecessary, 
 and affords a less appropriate sense than the construction above given, 
 which is the one now commonly adopted. — According to Ewald this verse 
 is an explanation of the promise at the close of ch. 53. Hendewerk goes 
 further and identifies the heritage of this verse with the division of the spoil 
 in that, and the collective servants here named with the individual servant 
 mentioned there. Knobel is still more explicit, and asserts that the Prophet, 
 having been disappointed in his hope that all Israel would return from exile, 
 now discards the use of the word servant and confines himself to that of the 
 plural. The only colour for this singular assertion is the fact, no doubt 
 remarkable, that we read no more of the ' Servant of Jehovah' who has been 
 so often introduced before, but often of his 'servants.' It may no doubt be 
 said in explanation of this fact, that the Prophet has completed his descrip- 
 tion of that august person under his various characters and aspects, but has 
 still much to say of his followers or servants. But a full explanation is 
 afforded only by the hypothesis assumed throughout this exposition, that the 
 Servant of Jehovah is a name ajiplied both to the Body and the Head, 
 sometimes to both in union, sometimes, as in ch. 53, to one exclusively ; from 
 which it naturally follows that as soon as he has reached the final exaltation 
 of INIessiah, and withdrawn him from our view, the Prophet thenceforth 
 ceases to personify his members, and applies to them the ordinary plural 
 desiirnation of 'Jehovah's servants.' 
 
-296 C H A P T E R L V , 
 
 CHAPTER L V . 
 
 By the removal of the old reslrictions, the church is, for the first time, 
 open to the whole world, as a source or medium of the richest spiritual 
 blessings, v. 1. It is only here that real nourishment can be obtained, v. 2. 
 Life is made sure by an oath and covenant, v. 3. The Messiah is a witness 
 of the truth and a commander of the nations, v. 4. As such he will be 
 recognised by many nations who before knew nothing of the true religion, 
 v. 5. These are now addressed directly, and exhorted to embrace the offered 
 opportunity, v. 6. To this there is every encouragement afforded in the 
 divine mercy, v. 7. The infinite disparity between God and man should 
 have the same effect, instead of hindering it, vs. 8, 9. The commands and 
 promises of God must be fulfilled, vs. 10, 1 1. Nothing therefore can prevent 
 a glorious change in the condition of the world under the dispensation of the 
 Spirit, V. 12. This blessed renovation, being directly pronjotive of God's 
 glory, shall endure for ever, v. 13. 
 
 V. 1. Ho every thirsty one, come ye to the waters ; and he to whom 
 there is no money, come ye, buy (food) and cat ; and come, buy, without 
 money and ivithout price, ivine and milk. The promises contained in the 
 preceding chapters to the church, are now followed by a general invitation 
 to partake of the blessings thus secured. Water, milk, and wine, are here 
 combined to express the ideas of refreshment, nourishment, and exhilaration. 
 Under these figures are included, as Calvin well observes, all things essen- 
 tial to the spiritual life. The Targum restricts the terms to intellectual 
 supplies : ' whoever will learn let him come and learn.' The same applica- 
 tion is made by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, and Viiringa admits that the 
 language is highly appropriate to the Gentiles who were seeking after wis- 
 dom. (I Cor. 1 : 22.) But the benefits here offered must of course bear 
 some proportion to the means by which they were secured, viz. the atoning 
 death of the Messiah and the influences of his Spirit. Among the earlier 
 writers Grotius alone restricts the passage to the period of the Babylonish 
 exile. Even the Rabbins understand it as relating to their present disper- 
 sion. Grotius's further limitation of the passage to the teachings of Jeremiah, 
 as a rich supply offered to the heathen, is of course rejected by the modern 
 Germans, not so much because of its absurdity as on account of its recognis- 
 
CHAPTERLV. 297 
 
 ing Isaiah as the author. They adhere, liowever, to his Babylonian theory, 
 and task their powers of invention to explain the general terms of this 
 gracious invitation in accordance with it. Thus Hendewerk regards the 
 chapter as an intimation to the exiles that they should be freed as soon as 
 they were brought into a proper state of mind, together with a promise that 
 when once restored they should obtain for nothing in their own land what 
 they could not even buy for money in the land of their oppressors. In like 
 manner Knobel understands the Prophet as declaring the conditions upon 
 which the exile was to cease, and promising to those who should return the 
 enjoyment of unparalleled abundance in the Holy Land. It is easy to per- 
 ceive that this specific explanation of a passage in itself unlimited is far more 
 easy than the unauthorized extension of one really specific, because in the 
 former case there is nothing in the passage itself which can be urged against 
 a limitation which is only false because it is gratuitous. The best refuta- 
 tion is afforded by the ease with which a thousand other limitations, once 
 assumed, might be brought into seeming agreement with the terms of the 
 prediction. If, for example, some new critic, still more intrepid than his 
 predecessors, should maintain that tliis book is of later date than the Baby- 
 lonian exile, having been written at the period of the Maccabees, or even 
 in the days of Josephus, whatever difficulties might arise from definite allu- 
 sions to anterior events in other places, it would require but little ingenuity 
 to reconcile the foregone conclusion with the general terms of such a pro- 
 phecy as that before us. The hypothesis once granted, the details would 
 all seem to follow of course. The impartial interpreter is therefore bound 
 to resist all such unauthorized restrictions and to give the Prophet's words 
 their full scope, as relating to the benefits which God proposed from the 
 beginning to bestow upon the nations through the medium of his church. 
 The mixed or half-way theory of Henderson that this passage relates to the 
 Babylonish exile and also to the reign of the Messiah, has all the inconve- 
 niences of both the others without the advantages of either. — Most of the 
 modern writers follow Jarchi in explaining ^"in as a mere particle of invita- 
 tion, which is variously expressed by Luther (^icohlan !), Gesenius (auf!^, 
 De Wette (ha!), etc. Maurer insists, however, on the usual and strict 
 •sense of the particle as expressing pity for the exiles (heu. alas !), not only 
 here but in Zech. 2 : 10, 11. — s^^ is not properly a participle (^thirsting), 
 but a verbal adjective (^aihirst or thirsty). Vitringa strangely makes it 
 neuter (pmne sitiens), although the very nature of the invitation points out 
 persons as the object of address, and although this is the only form in which 
 an address to persons could have been expressed ; whereas if a distinction 
 were designed, the neuter would, according to the Hebrew idiom, be repre- 
 sented by the feminine. The combination of the singular (every one) with 
 the plural verb (come ye) may be either an idiomatic license or intended to 
 
298 CHAPTERLV. 
 
 extend the call to every individual. — The reference to the water of baptism, 
 whicli some of the Fathers found in this verse, is excluded by the fact that 
 the water here meant is not water for washing but water to be drunk. — 
 And he, after the universal expression eve7-y one, does not add a new idea, 
 but explains the one expressed already, and is therefore equivalent to even 
 he in English. The same remark applies to the and before the second come, 
 which is not incorrectly rendered yea come in the common version. — To 
 ivhom there is not money is the only equivalent in Hebrew to our phrase 
 ivho has no money. Instead of this generic term Lowth retains the original 
 meaning of the Hebrew word, silver, in which he is followed by Ewald and 
 Umbreit. — "ia(ij is not to buy in general, but to buy food, or still more spe- 
 cifically to buy grain or breadstufFs. It is here absolutely used, as in Gen. 
 41 : 57. 42 : 2, 5. Henderson's paraphrase (^procure) is too indefinite, 
 and not at all needed to remove the seeming incongruity of buying without 
 money or any other price. This apparent contradiction was intended by 
 the writer to express in the strongest manner the gratuitous nature of the 
 purchase. M^ine and milk are combined, either as necessities or luxuries, 
 by Jacob in Gen. 49 : 12. — The images of this verse are essentially the 
 same with those in ch. 12 : 3. 25 : 6. 62 : 8, 9. 65 : 13. John 4 : 14. 
 7 : 37. Rev. 22 : 17. — Sanctius, in order to connect this chapter with the 
 one before it, supposes the idea to be that of a feast provided in the habita- 
 tion which is there described as having been enlarged. Vitringa thinks it 
 better to call up the image of a market and a public fountain. Neither of 
 these conceptions would spontaneously occur to any ordinary reader. 
 
 V. 2. fVhy will ye weigh money for (that which is) not bread, and 
 your labour for (that which is) not to satiety 1 Hearken, hearken unto 
 me, and eat (that which is) good, and your soul shall enjoy itself in fatness. 
 The gratuitous blessings offered by Messiah are contrasted with the costly 
 and unprofitable labours of mankind to gain the same end in another way. 
 It was not that they refused food, nor even that they were unwilling to buy 
 it ; but they mistook for it that which was not nourishing. In the first 
 clause there is reference to the primitive custom of weighing instead of 
 counting money, from which have arisen several of the most familiar denomi- 
 nations, such as the Hebrew shekel, the Greek talent, the French livre, and 
 the English pound. The essential idea here is that of paying. Bread, as 
 the staff of life, is here and in many other cases put for food in general. — 
 Labour, as in ch. 45 : 14, means the product or result of labour. It is well 
 expressed by Umbreit (euer Ermiihetes). Ewald's translation (ewer Er- 
 spartes) rather suggests the idea of that which is saved or hoarded, whereas 
 the writer seems to have in view the immediate expenditure of what is 
 earned. — The emphatic repetition of the verb to hear may be variously 
 
CHAPTER LV. 299 
 
 expressed in English as denoting to hear dihgently, attentively, by all means, 
 or to purpose; but the best translation, because it may be considered as 
 including all the rest, is that which copies most exactly the peculiar form of 
 the original. The old mode of doing this by joining the participle with 
 the finite verb {hear'kening ye shall hearken) is at once less exact and less 
 expressive than the simple repetition used by Ewald elsewhere, although 
 here he introduces the word rather (yielmehr hort). — The mention of the 
 soul admits of two explanations. We may give the Hebrew word its fre- 
 quent sense of appetite, exactly as the appetite is said in common parlance 
 to be gratified, indulged, pampered, mortified, etc. This is a good sense in 
 itself, but less in keeping with the rest of the description than another which 
 may be obtained by supposing that the soul is mentioned for the purpose of 
 showing that the hunger and the food referred to are not bodily but spiritual. 
 Most of the modern writers explain ^^x as an imperative used for the future 
 according to a common Hebrew idiom. (See ch. 45 : 22 and Gen. 42 : 18.) 
 But there is no need of departing from the strict construction which makes 
 ^^3i< a command. The promise is not that if they hearkened they should eat, 
 but that if they hearkened and ate they should be happy. — Good is em- 
 phatic, meaning that which is truly good, in opposition to the no-bread of 
 the first clause, which Vitringa and the later writers take as a peculiar com- 
 pound phrase like fij-xb (ch. 10 : 15), Vx-xb and mi-xb (ch. 31 : 3). Fat, 
 by a figure common in all languages, is put for richness both of food and 
 soil. (See ch. 5:1. Ps. 36 : 9. 63 : 6. Job 36 : 16.) There is some- 
 thing almost laughable in Rosenmiiller's saying that the orientals are 
 extremely fond of gross food, when the fact is notoriously otherwise, and 
 such a charge has often been alleged against the Germans either truly or 
 falsely. Luther degrades the text itself by rendering it shall grow fat. As 
 a sample of the opposite extreme of false refinement, we may give Lowth's 
 paraphrase, your soul shall feast itself with the richest delicacies. — The 
 application of the figures is self-evident upon the general hypothesis before 
 assumed. Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who suppose the blessing offered to be 
 purely intellectual, apply the first clause to foreign or exotic wisdom (nrrp 
 PV'?d:i). But the hardest task devolves on those who understand the passage 
 as relating exclusively to the deliverance of Israel from Babylon. In what 
 sense could the exiles there be said to spend their money for what was not 
 bread, and their labour for what did not satisfy ? Koppe was brave enough 
 to make it refer literally to the bad bread which the Jews were com])e]led 
 to eat in Babylonia. Hitzlg only ventures to make this a part of the 
 calamity described, which he explains, with Gesenius, as consisting in the 
 slavery to which they were subjected, not as tributaries merely, but as 
 labourers without reward. (Compare Josh. 9 : 27. 1 Kings 9:21.) Maurer 
 refers the clause to the expensive worship of idols, from whom no favours 
 
300 CHAPTER L V. 
 
 were obtained in recompense. (See eh. 4G : 6, 7.) Knobel sees merely a 
 strong contrast between Babylon, where the Jews spent much without 
 enjoyment or advantage, and the Holy Land, where they should enjoy much 
 and spend nothing. The last he might consistently regard as a mere vision- 
 ary expectation ; but the only proof which he adduces of the fact first men- 
 tioned is the reference to Israel's oppression in ch. 14:3. 47 : 6. 51 : 14. 
 A comparison of these interpretations with the true one will show how 
 much is gained by the assumption of the Babylonian theory, and how strong 
 the motive must be which induces men of ingenuity and learning to adopt 
 it in spite of the embarrassments with which it is encumbered. 
 
 V. 3. Incline your ear and come unto me, hear and your soul shall live 
 (or let it live), and I will make ivith you an everlasting covenant, the sure 
 mercies of David. This is obviously a repetition of the same offer in ano- 
 ther form ; which shows that the two preceding verses cannot have respect 
 to literal food or bodily subsistence. Here again the use of the word soul 
 necessarily suggests the thought of spiritual life, and this sense is admitted here 
 by Kimchi and Abarbenel. Neither of the animal life nor of the appetite 
 could it be said that it should live. The abbreviated form ^1t^l may either 
 give the future an imperative sense or be taken as a poetical substitute for 
 the full form of the future proper. The regular construction of n-'"ia n'lS 
 is with ny . That with b, according to Vitringa, simply means a promise ; 
 according to Gesenius, an engagement on the part of a superior. (See ch. 
 61:8. Josh. 9 : 15. 24 : 25.) There is no need of assuming a zeugma in 
 the last clause, with Gesenius, or supposing n'^s to include the idea of 
 bestowing, with Knobel ; since the mercies of David are not directly go- 
 verned by that verb, but simply added as an explanation of the everlasting 
 covenant. As if he had said, I will make with you an everlasting covenant 
 which shall be the same with the mercies of David. Of this phrase, which 
 is also used by Solomon (2 Chr. 6 : 42), there are three interpretations. 
 The rabbins and Grotius understand it to mean favours, like those which 
 were enjoyed by David. Cocceius regards David as a name of the Mes- 
 siah, as in Ezek. 34 : 23, 24, to which he adds Hos. 3:5; but this may be 
 understood, with Hitzig, as merely meaning David's house or family. The 
 third explanation, and the one most commonly adopted, is, that the mercies 
 of David means the mercies promised to him, with particular reference to 
 2 Sam. 7 : 8-16. (Compare 1 Chr. 17 : 1 1, 12 and Psalm 89 : 3, 4.) As 
 the main theme of this promise was a perpetual succession on the throne of 
 David, it was fulfilled in Christ, to whom it is applied in Acts 13 : 34. 
 (Compare Is. 9 : 6 and Luke 1 : 32, 33.) The Greek word oaia there 
 used is borrowed from the Septuagint Version, and is so far correct as it 
 conveys the idea of a sacred and inviolable engagement. That the promise 
 
CHAP T E R L V. 301 
 
 to David was distinct from that respecting Solomon (1 Chr. 22 : 8-13), and 
 had not reference to any immediate descendant, Henderson has shown from 
 1 Chr. 17 : 12-14. Thus understood, the text contains a solemn assurance 
 that the promise made to David should be faithfully performed in its original 
 import and intent. Hence the mercies of David are called sure, i. e. sure 
 to be accomplished ; or it might be rendered faithful, credible, or trusted, 
 without any material effect upon the meaning. With this interpretation of 
 the verse may be compared that of Knobel, who explains it as a promise 
 that the theocratic covenant should be restored (as if it had been abrogated), 
 or of Rosenmiiller, who supposes it to have been given to console the exiles 
 under the despondency arising from the ruin of the House of David during 
 the captivity, and the apparent violation of the promise which had long 
 before been given to himself. So far as there is any truth in tliis interpre- 
 tation, it is but a small part of the full sense of the passage as relating to 
 the everlasting reign of the Messiah. 
 
 V. 4. Lo, (ffs) a witness of 7ialions I have given him, a chief and 
 commander of nations. The emphasis appears to be on nations, which is 
 therefore repeated without change of form. The essential meaning is the 
 same as that of ch. 49 : 6, viz. that the Messiah was sent to be the Saviour 
 not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles. His relation to the latter is 
 expressed by three terms. First he is a witness, i. e. a witness to the truth 
 (John 18 : 37) and a witness against sinners (Mai. 3 : 5). The same office 
 is ascribed to Christ in Rev. 1:5. 3: 14. (Compare 1 Tim. 6: 13.) 
 The application of this verse to the Messiah, therefore, is entirely natural if 
 taken by itself. But an objection is presented by the fiict that the Messiah 
 is not named in the foregoing context. It is hardly an adequate solution to 
 affirm with Vitringa that the verse must be connected with the fifty-third 
 chapter, and the fifty-fourth considered parenthetical. Cocceius refers the 
 suffixes to David in v. 3, which he explains there as a name of the Messiah. 
 The same resort is not accessible to Henderson, who arbitrarily makes 
 David in the third verse mean the ancient king and in the fourth the Mes- 
 siah, — an expedient which may be employed to conquer any difficulty. 
 All the modern Germans except Umbreit understand the verse before us as 
 describing the honours actually put upon king David. Lo, I gave him as 
 a witness of the nations, a leader and commander of the nations. This is 
 certainly the simplest and most natural construction of the sentence, but 
 one not without its difficulties. According to general analogy, the inteijec- 
 tion "iv] has reference not to a past event, but to one either ])resent or future. 
 This argument from usage is confirmed by the fact tiiat 1^ at the beginning 
 of the next verse does undoubtedly rehite to the future, and that the connex- 
 ion of the verses is obscure and abrupt if that befoie us be referred to David. 
 
302 C H A P T E R L V. 
 
 Another difficulty Is, that David could not with truth be so emphatically 
 styled the chief or leader of the nations. For although he did subdue some 
 foreign tribes, they did not constitute the main part of his kingdom, and the 
 character in which the Scriptures always represent him is that of a theo- 
 cratic king of Israel. Another difficulty in relation to the use of the term 
 witness is evaded by supposing "i", , in this one place, to mean a ruler 
 (Gesenius) or a legislator (Maurer). Ewald's translation of the word by 
 law seems to be an inadvertence. This violation of a perfectly defined and 
 settled usage would be treated by these writers in an adversary as a proof 
 of ignorance or mala fides. The only shadow of evidence which they 
 adduce from usage or analogy, is the assertion, equally unfounded, that the 
 verbal root sometimes means to enjoin, and the collateral derivatives ri>i"i5 
 and tTi» laws or precepts. The utmost that can be established by a philo- 
 logical induction is, that in some cases the alleged sense would be relevant, 
 whereas the proper one of testimony is in every case admissible. If in the 
 face of these facts we may still invent a new sense for a word which has 
 enouffh already to account for every instance in the Hebrew Bible, there 
 is no such thing as principles or laws of lexicography, and every critic 
 has a full discretion to confound the application of a term with its essential 
 meaninff when he pleases. As to its being here combined with other words 
 expressive of authority, let it be noted, that words thus connected cannot 
 always be synonymous, and in the next place that the usual meaning of the 
 term, as applied to the Messiah or to God, implies as much authority as 
 either of the others, for it means an authoritative witness of the truth, and 
 this is substantially equivalent to Prophet or Divine Teacher, — an office 
 with which David never was invested in relation to the gentiles. The 
 more restricted sense of monitor (n"^ri^5D) which Kimchi puts upon the word 
 is no less arbitrary than the vague one (n-i) given in the Targum. — T'SJ is 
 properly the one in front, the foremost, and is therefore naturally used to 
 signify a chief or leader. This title is expressly applied to the Messiah by 
 Daniel (9 : 25), and the corresponding titles uqik^v and (ii>x>]yog to Christ in 
 the New Testament (Acts 3 : 15. Heb. 2:10. Rev. 1:5), considered both 
 as an example and a leader. — The third name (n.;;^^), being properly the 
 participle of a verb which means to command, might ,be considered as 
 equivalent either to preceptor or commander, both derivatives from verbs of 
 the same meaning. Now as one of these definitions agrees well with the 
 explanation which has been adopted of the first title (witness), and the other 
 with the obvious meaning of the second (leader), and as the offices of pre- 
 ceptor and commander are by no means incompatible and actually meet m 
 Christ, there seems to be no sufficient reason for excluding either in the 
 case before us. At the same time, let it be observed that as njs sometimes 
 means to command in a military sense, but never perhaps to teach or give 
 
CHAPTER LV. 303 
 
 instruction, the idea of coinnaander must predominate in any case, and is 
 entitled to the preference, if either must be chosen to the entire exclusion of 
 the other. — Of the objections which the modern writers urge against the 
 application of this verse to the Messiah, that which they appear to consider 
 the most cogent and conclusive is precisely that which we have seen, from 
 the beginning of the book, to be the weakest and most groundless, namely, 
 that these Later Prophecies know nothing of a personal Messiah ; which is 
 established in the usual manner by denying all the cases seriatim, and refus- 
 ing to let one of them be cited in defence or illustration of another. It is 
 proper to observe in this connexion, that both Umbreit and Hendewerk 
 retain the usual sense of "i? , and that the latter understands the verse as a 
 description of the office which the Jewish people should discharge in refer- 
 ence to the other nations after their return from exile. This is a near 
 approach to the correct interpretation, and may be blended with it by 
 recurring to the exegetical hypothesis, of which we have so often spoken, 
 that the Body and the Head are often introduced as one ideal person. 
 This, though at variance with Knobel's notion that the Prophet has now 
 ceased to speak of Israel as one individual servant of Jehovah (see above, 
 on ch. 54 : 17), is in perfect accordance with the general tenor of the Scrip- 
 tures as to the vocation and the mission both of Christ and of the Church. 
 
 V. 5. Lo, a nation (that) thou knotvest not thou shalt call, and a nation 
 (that) have not known thee shall run unto thee, for the sake of Jehovah thy 
 God, and for the Holy One of Israel, for he hath glorified thee. The 
 question which has chiefly divided interpreters, in reference to this verse, is, 
 whether the object of address is the Messiah or the Church. The former 
 opinion is maintained by Calvin, Sanctius, and others ; the latter by Grotius 
 and Vitringa. The masculine forms prove nothing either way ; because the 
 Church is sometimes presented in the person of Israel, and sometimes per- 
 sonified as a woman. The iDOst natural supposition is, that after speaking 
 of the Messiah, he now turns to him and addresses him directly. If this be 
 so, the verse affords an argument against the application of v. 4 to David, 
 who could not be the subject of such a jiromise ages after his decease. At 
 the same time, the facility with which the words can be applied to either 
 subject, may be considered as confirming the hypothesis that although the 
 Messiah is the main subject of the verse, the Church is not entirely excluded. 
 — The construction of the second "'is with two plural verbs shows it to be 
 collective. Lowth's version, the nation, is unnecessary here, alihoufdi the 
 article is frequently omitted both in poetry and elevated prose. — Their run- 
 ning indicates the eagerness with which they shall attach themselves to him 
 and engage in his service. According to Jarchi, thou shah call means thou 
 
304 CHAPTER LV. 
 
 shall call into thy service. (See Job 19 : 16.) — For he hath glorified thee. 
 This expression is repeatedly used in the New Testament with reference to 
 Christ. (See John 17 : 1,5. Acts 3 : 13.) Henderson gives ''S what is 
 supposed by some to be its ])rimary sense, viz. that of a relative pronoun 
 (who hath glorified ihec) ; which is wholly unnecessary here, and rests upon 
 a very dubious etymological assumption. — The form of expression in a part 
 of this verse seems to be borrowed from 2 Sam. 22 : 44 ; but the resem- 
 blance neither proves that the Messiah is the subject of that passage nor 
 that David is the subject of this. — The nation means of course the gentiles. 
 What is said of the Messiah's not knowing them is thus explained by Schmi- 
 dius. " Messias non noverat gentiles ut ecclesiae suae membra actu, et 
 gentiles ipsum non noverant, saltem fide, plerique etiam de ipso quicquam 
 non audiverant." 
 
 V. 6. SeeJc ye Jehovah ivhile he may he found ; call ye upon him while 
 he is near. The n, as usual when joined with the infinitive, is a particle of 
 tini,e. The literal translation would be, in his being found, in his being 
 near. By a sudden apostrophe he turns from the Messiah to those whom 
 he had come to save, and exhorts them to embrace this great salvation, to 
 be reconciled with God. A similar exhortation, implying like the present 
 that the day of grace is limited, occurs in Zeph. 2 : 2. There are two 
 limitations of the text before us, which have no foundation but the will of 
 the interpreters. The first restricts it to the Jews in general, either making 
 it a general advice to them to seize the opportunity of restoration (Rosen- 
 midler), or a special warning to those hardened sinners, who refused to do so 
 (Knobel), and particularly such as were addicted to idolatry. These expo- 
 sitions are doubly arbitrary, first in restricting the passage to that period of 
 Jewish history, and then in assuming the imaginary fact that a portion of 
 the exiles were unwilling to return ; the passages a|)pealed to in support of 
 which are wholly inconclusive. An equally unfounded but less violent 
 assumption is, that this passage has respect to the Jews not at that lime 
 merely, but in general, as distinguished from the gentiles. Like many other 
 similar hypotheses, when this is once assumed, it is easy to accommodate 
 the general expressions of the passage to it ; but it would be difficult to find 
 in the whole chapter any adequate reason for applying its commands and 
 exhortations either to gentiles or to Jews exclusively. In either case there 
 were peculiar reasons for obeying the injunction, but it seems to be addressed 
 to both alike. The Jew had great cause to beware lest the gentile should 
 outstrip iiim, and the gentile might be reasonably urged to partake of those 
 advantages which hitherto had been restricted to the Jev^ ; but both are 
 called to the same duty, namely, that of seeking and calling upon God, — 
 
C H A P T E R L V . 305 
 
 expressions elsewhere used both severally and together to express the whole 
 work of repentance, faith, and new obedience. — Lowth seems to find the 
 common version of the last word (/tear) too simple, and enlarges it accord- 
 ingly to near of hand. 
 
 V. 7. Let the tvicked forsake his ivay, and the man of iniquity his 
 thoughts, and let him return unto Jehovah, and he ivill have vxercy on him, 
 and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon (literally, niultiply to pardon^. 
 This is a continuation of the foregoing call, and at the same time an expla- 
 nation of the way in which it was to be obeyed. We are here taught that 
 the seeking of Jehovah, and the calling upon him just enjoined, involve an 
 abandonment of sin and a return to righteousness of life. The imperative 
 version of the futures is warranted, if not required, by the abbreviated form 
 -w^ . Even the future form, however, would convey the same essential 
 meaning both in Hebrew and in English. The wicked shall forsake etc. is 
 in fact the strongest form of a command. U^ay is a common figure for the 
 course of life. What is here meant is the evil way, as Jeremiah calls it 
 (56 : 1), i. e. a habitually sinful course. — "i'n is a negative expression, strictly 
 meaning non-existence or non-entity, and then, in a secondary moral sense, 
 the destitution of all goodness, which is put, by a common Hebrew idiom, 
 for the existence of the very opposite. The common version (r/ie unright- 
 eous man^ gives the sense but not the whole force of the original construc- 
 tion, which is here retained by Hendewerk (c/er Mann der Misscthat). The 
 same writer speaks of these two verses as an interruption, by the Prophet, 
 of the divine discourse. This criticism is founded on the mention of Jehovah 
 in the third person, which is a form of speech constantly occmring, even 
 where he is himself the speaker, not to mention the futiliiy of the assump- 
 tion that the passage is dramatic or a formal dialogue. It mattered little to 
 the writer's purpose whether he seemed to be himself the speaker or a mere 
 reporter of the words of God, to whom in either case they must be finally 
 ascribed. Hence the constant alternation of the first, second, and third 
 persons, in a style which sets all rules of unity and rigid laws of composi- 
 tion at defiance. — The word translated thoughts is commonly employed not 
 to denote opinions but designs or purposes, in which sense it is joined with 
 way, in order to express the whole drift of the character and life. To 
 return to God in both these respects is a complete description of repentance, 
 implying an entire change of heart as well as life. — The indirect construc- 
 tion of ^!^^'^.'^"'!i , which is given in most modern versions (that he may have 
 mercy on him), is not only a gratuitous intrusion of the occidental idiom, but 
 injurious to the sense by making that contingent which is positively pro- 
 mised. The encouragement to seek God is not merelj^ that he may, but 
 that he will have mercy. Lowth's decoction of the same words (will 
 
 20 
 
306 CHAPTER L V . 
 
 receive him ivilh compassioii) is enfeebling in another way, and inexact; 
 because the act of receiving is implied, not expressed, and the verb denotes 
 not mere compassion but gratuitous and sovereign tnercy. — There is further 
 encouragement contained in the expression our God. To the Jew it would 
 suggest motives drawn from the covenant relation of Jehovah to his peoj)Ie, 
 while the gentile would regard it as an indirect assurance that even he was 
 not excluded from God's mercy. — Another weakening of this sentence is 
 effected by the modern version of the last clause as a mere description 
 (Lowth : for he aboundeth in forgiveness), and not as an explicit promise 
 that he will abundantly forgive, which is not only the natural and obvious 
 import of the terms, but imperatively required by the favourite law of 
 parallelism. 
 
 V. 8. For my thoughis (^nrc) not your thoughts, nor your ivays my 
 ways, saith Jehovah. Clear and simple as these words are in themselves, 
 they have occasioned much dispute among interpreters, in reference to their 
 nexus with what goes before. The earliest commentators, Jews and Chris- 
 tians, seem to have understood them as intended to meet an objection to the 
 promise arising from its vastness and its freeness, by assuring us that such 
 forgiveness, however foreign from the feelings and the practices of men, is 
 not beyond the reach of the divine compassion. As if he had said, 'to you 
 such forgiveness may appear impossible; but my thoughts are not your 
 thoughts, neither your ways my ways.' This is the sense put upon the 
 words by Cyril, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Oecolampadius, Piscator, Henderson. 
 Thus understood, the text may be compared with Matt. 19: 26. Another 
 explanation, that of Vitringa, rests upon the false assumption that the words 
 have reference to the Jews, and were intended to correct their prejudice 
 against the calling of the gentiles as at variance with the promises of God 
 to themselves. As If he had said, ' you may think the extension of my grace 
 to them a departure from my settled ways and purposes; but my thoughts 
 are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways.' This specific application 
 of the words could scarcely be suggested to any ordinary reader, either by 
 the text or context, and at most can only be considered as included in its 
 general import. Jerome and Rosenmiiller, while they seem to acquiesce in 
 the principle of the interpretation first proposed, so far modify it as to make 
 the faithfulness and truth of the divine assurances a prominent idea. This 
 sense is also put upon the words by Gesenius and several of the later writers, 
 who suppose the meaning of this verse to be determined by the analogy of 
 vs. 10, 11, and accordingly explain it as denoting the irrevocable nature of 
 God's purposes and promises. In this sense, it may be considered parallel 
 to Num. 23 : 19 and 1 Sam. 15 : 29. Is. 31 : 2. 45 : 23. But this is neither 
 the natural meaning of the words, nor one which stands in any obvious rela- 
 
CH AP T E R L V. 307 
 
 tion to what goes before; in consequence of which some who hold it are 
 under the necessity of denying that the ''S at the beginning of the verse has 
 its proper causal meaning. It is indeed hard to see any coherence in this 
 sequence of ideas, ' let the wicked man repent, for my promise is irrevocable.' 
 This objection does not lie against another very ancient explanation of the 
 passage, that proposed by Jarchi, but maintained by scarcely any later writer 
 except Sanctius. This hypothesis is founded on the obvious correspondence 
 of the terms employed in this verse and in that before it, and especially the 
 parallel expressions ways and thoughts, there applied to man and here to 
 God. According to this last interpretation, we have here a reason given 
 why the sinner must forsake his ways and thoughts, viz. because they are 
 incurably at variance with those of God himself: 'Let the wicked forsake 
 his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts ; for my thoughts are not your 
 thoughts, neither your ways my ways.' Vitringa's objection to this exposi- 
 tion, that the fact asserted is too obvious and familiar to be emphatically 
 stated, is an arbitrary allegation, as to which the tastes of different men may 
 naturally differ. There is more weight in the objection that the moral dis- 
 similitude between God and man would hardly be expressed by a reference 
 to the height of the heavens above the earth. But the difference in question 
 is in fact a difference of elevation, on the most important scale, that of 
 morals, and might therefore be naturally so expressed. At all events, this 
 interpretation has so greatly the advantage of the others, in facility and 
 beauty of connexion with what goes before, that it nmst be considered as 
 at least affording the formal basis of the true interpretation, but without 
 excluding wholly the ideas which according to the other theories these 
 words express. They may all be reconciled indeed by making the disparity 
 asserted have respect not merely to moral purity, but also to constancy, 
 benevolence, and wisdom. As if he had said, 'you must forsake your evil 
 ways and thoughts, and by so doing, you infallibly secure my favour ; for 
 as high as the heavens are above the earth, so far am I superior to you in 
 mercy, not only in the rigour and extent of my requirements, but also in 
 compassion for the guilty, in benevolent consideration even for the gentiles, 
 and in the constancy and firmness of my purposes when formed.' — In his 
 comment upon this verse, Viiringa gives his definition of the ways of God, 
 which has so frequently been cited or repeated without citation : " Viae 
 Dei sunt vel quibus ipse incedit, vel quibus homines incedere vult." For 
 the meaning of his thoughts, see Ps. 33 : 11 and Jer. 51 : 29. If the sensii 
 which has been put upon the sentence be correct, it means far more than 
 that which Hitzig quotes from Homer, dll^ aisi 7E Jiog y.Qei'aacov voog Jitntii 
 uvSqmi'. Knobel can of course sec nothing here but an allusion to Cyrus 
 and Croesus. 
 
30S C H A P T E R L V . 
 
 V. 9. For (rts) the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways 
 higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Tl)is is an 
 illustration by comparison of llie negative assertion in the verse precedino;. 
 The as in the protasis of the comparison is left out, as in Hos. 11:2. Ps. 
 48 : 6. Job 7 : 9. Jer. 3 : 20. There can be no ground therefore for sup- 
 posing, with Seeker, Houbigant, and Lowth, that it has dropped out of the 
 text in this place. The full expression may be seen in ch. 10: 11. — The 
 "TO might here be taken in its proper sense o{ from, away from, as the refer- 
 ence is in fact to an interval of space ; but our idiom would hardly bear 
 the strict translation, and comparison is certainly implied, if not expressed. 
 The same comparison and in a similar application occurs Ps. 103 : 11. 
 
 V. 10, 1 1. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and 
 thither returneth not, but when it has loatered the earth and made it bear and put 
 forth and has given seed to the soivcr and bread to the eater, so shall my ivord 
 be, which goeth out of my mouth ; it shall not return unto me void (or ivithout 
 effect^, but when it has done that which I desired, and successfully done that 
 for which 1 sent it. This is a new comparison, suggested by the mention of 
 the heavens and the earth in the preceding verse. The tenth and eleventh 
 form a single sentence of unusual length in Hebrew composition. The one 
 contains the coujparison properly so-called, the other makes the application. 
 The futures "'7:'! and 3vr"j strictly mean \\ill come down, will return, imj)ly- 
 in<T that the same series of events might be expected to recur; but as a still 
 more general recurrence is implied, the true sense is conveyed by the Eng- 
 lish present. — The construction of ex "3 is precisely the same as in Gen. 
 32 : 27. Lev. 22 : 6. Ruth 2 : 16. 3 : 18. Amos 3 : 7, in all which cases 
 it indicates the sine qua non, the condition without which the event 
 expressed by the future cannot take place. Hitzig asserts however that the 
 Hebrews knew nothing of the rain going back to heaven by evaporation, 
 and on this ground will not let the words have their obvious and necessary 
 meaning. The impossibility of proving any thing from such expressions, 
 either as to the ignorance or knowledge of the laws of nature which the 
 ancients possessed, has been repeatedly pointed out. But it is certainly 
 too much to violate analogy and syntax for the purpose of involving the 
 writer in a real or apparent blunder. — The word of v. 11 is not merely 
 prophecy or promise, much less the command of God to Cyrus respecting 
 Israel (Henderson), least of all the Prophet himself as an incarnation of 
 Jehovah's word (Hendewerk), but every thing that God utters either in the 
 way of prediction or command. — The construction of T^nnViU ^L'X is essen- 
 tially the same as in 2 Sam. 1 1 : 22. That n^tj governs two accusatives is 
 evident from such places as 1 Kings 14:6. — The English Version refers 
 
CHAPTER LV. 309 
 
 'r; to the earth ; but this construction is precluded by the difference of 
 gender. The effect is metaphorically represented as produced directly by 
 the rain and snow. — fl'^^H does not mean prosper in, but make to prosper 
 or do prosperously, ilie active sense being inseparable from the Hiphll form. 
 The general design of these two verses is to generate and foster confidence 
 in what Jehovah has en^affed lo do. 
 
 o o 
 
 V. 12. For with joy shall ye go forth, and in peace shall ye he led ; (he 
 mountains and the hills shall break out before you into a shout, and all the 
 trees of the field shall clap the hand. Here as in many other places the 
 idea of joyful change is expressed by representing all nature as rejoicing. 
 (See ch. 35 : 1, 2. 44 : 23. 49 : 13. 52 : 9. Ps. 98 : 8.) The expression 
 go forth is eagerly seized upon by some interpreters as justifying the restric- 
 tion of the passage to the restoration from the Babylonish exile. But the 
 real allusion in such cases is to the deliverance from Egypt, which is con- 
 stantly referred to as a type of deliverance in general, so that every sio^nal 
 restoration or deliverance is represented as a spiritual exodus. Vitringa, 
 with much more probability, applies the words to the joy of the first heathen 
 converts when they heard the gospel (Acts 13 : 48. 1 Thess. 1 : 6). The 
 rabbins upon their part understand the passage as a prophecy of Israel's 
 deliverance from the present exile and dispersion. All the interpreters 
 since Lowth repeat his fine quotation from Virgil, ipsi laetitia monies etc. 
 
 V^. 13. Instead of the thorn shall come vp the cypress, and instead of 
 the nettle the myrtle, and it shall he to Jehovah for a name, for an ever- 
 lasting sign that shall not be cut off. The same change which had just 
 been represented by the shouting of the hills and the applause of the 
 forests is now described as the substitution of the noblest trees for the 
 most unprofitable and offensive plants. (Compare ch. 41 : 19.) An 
 analogous but different figure for the same thing is the opening of rivers 
 in the desert. (See above, ch. 35: 6, 7. 43: 19, 20.) For the mean- 
 ing of '{''■^"}. and T::ii2, see the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 129, 272. The 
 name "'S'^o occurs only here. Simonis and Ewald understand it as denot- 
 ing a species of mustard plant. Jerome describes it as a worthless and 
 offensive weed. The Seventy have y.ovv'Su. The modern writers are 
 disposed to acquiesce in the Vulgate Version, nrtica or nettle. All that 
 is essential to the writer's purpose is, that it be understood to signify a mean 
 and useless plant, and thus to form a contrast with the myrtle as the thorn 
 does with the cypress. — Instead o^ it shall be, the modern Germans as usual 
 prefer the indirect construction, that it may he, which is neither so exact nor 
 so expressive as the strict translation. Knobel makes the trees the subject 
 of this last clause also ; but it seems more natural to understand it as refer- 
 
310 CH A P T E R L VI. 
 
 ring to the change itself, described in this and the preceding verse. Drop- 
 ping the metaphor, the Prophet tlien says, in direct terms, that the glorious 
 change predicted shall redound to the glory of its author. It shall be for a 
 name, i, e. it shall serve as a memorial, which is then described in other 
 words as a sign of perpetuity or everlasting token, with allusion, as Vitringa 
 thinks, to those commemorative obelisks or pillars mentioned elsewhere (e. g. 
 ch. 19 : 19). This memorial is called perpetual because it shall not he cut 
 off, pass away, or be abolished. — It will here be sufficient simply to state 
 the fact that Knobel understands this as a promise that the homeward 
 journey of the exiles should be comfortable and pleasant (bequem und 
 angenehm) . 
 
 CHAPTER LVI. 
 
 While the church, with its essential institutions, is to continue unim- 
 paired, the old distinctions, national and personal, are to be done away, and 
 the Jewish people robbed of that pre-eminence of which its rulers proved 
 themselves unworthy. 
 
 The day is coming when the righteousness of God is to be fully revealed, 
 without the veils and shackles which had hitherto confined it, v. 1. For 
 this great change the best preparation is fidelity to the spirit of the old 
 ^conomy, v. 2. No personal or national distinctions will be any longer 
 recognised, v. 3. Connexion with the church will no longer be a matter of 
 hereditary right, vs. 4, 5. The church shall be henceforth co-extensive 
 with the world, vs. 6-8. But first, the carnal Isi-ael must be abandoned to 
 its enemies, v. 9. Its rulers are neither able nor worthy to deliver the 
 people or themselves, vs. 10-12. 
 
 V. 1. Thus saith Jehovah, Keep ye judgment (ov justice) and do right- 
 eousness ; for near {is) my salvation to come, and my righteousness to be 
 revealed. The .Jews refer this passage to their present dispersion, and 
 understand it as declaring the conditions of their restoration. Vitringa 
 applies it to the beginning of the new dispensation ; Piscator to the new 
 dispensation generally ; the modern Germans to the end of the Babylonish 
 exile. These different classes of interpreters of course expound particulars 
 in accordance with their general hypothesis, but none of them without 
 undue restriction of that w hich in itself requires or at least admits a wider 
 
C H A P T E R L V I. 31[ 
 
 application. On the principle heretofore assumed as the basis of our expo- 
 sition, we can only regard it as a statement of the general laws which govern 
 the divine dispensations towards the chosen people and the world at large. 
 The reference is not merely to the ancient Israel, much less to the Jews of 
 the captivity, still less to the Christian church distinctively considered, least 
 of all to the Christian church of any one period. The doctrine of the 
 passage is simply this, that they who enjoy extraordinary privileges, or 
 expect extraordinary favours, are under corresponding obligations to do the 
 will of God ; and inoreover that the nearer the manifestation of God's 
 mercy, whether in time or in eternity, the louder the call to righteousness 
 of life. These truths are of no restricted application, but may be applied 
 wherever the relation of a cliurch or chosen people can be recognised. 
 Without attempting to refute the various opinions founded on the false 
 hypothesis of a local or temporal limitation, it will be sufficient to point out 
 the absurdities attending that which in our day has the greatest vogue, viz. 
 the notion that the passage relates merely to the Babylonish ex,ile. Thus 
 Maurer understands the Prophet as advising his contemporaries to act in a 
 manner worthy of their approaching liberation, and Gesenius supposes him 
 to take this opportunity of conibating the Jewish prejudice against the call- 
 ing of the gentiles. Why this error needed to be controverted at this 
 precise juncture, he omits to explain. But this is not the worst thing in 
 Gesenius's interpretation of the place before us. After saying that a prose- 
 lyting spirit is inseparable from the belief in one exclusive way of salvation, 
 and particularly pardonable in the Jewish exiles, surrounded as they were 
 by idolaters, he goes on to represent the liberal spirit of this passage as 
 directly at variance with the law of Moses, particularly as contained in 
 Deut. 23 : 2-8, which he says is virtually here repealed. This shallow and 
 erroneous view of the relation which subsists between the Law and the Pro- 
 phets will correct itself as we proceed with the detailed interpretation. 
 aadia seems here to be equivalent to iT^iFi , with which it is connected as a 
 parallel in ch. 42 : 4. 51 : 4. 
 
 V. 2. Happy (he man (jhat) shall do this, and the son of man that 
 shall hold it fast, keeping the Sabbath from profaning it, and keeping his 
 hand from doing all evil. The pronoun this seems to refer to what follows, 
 as in Ps. 7 : 4 and Deut. 32 : 29. Son of man is simply an equivalent 
 expression to tlie man of the other clause. The last clause is remarkable, 
 and has occasioned much dispute among interpreters, on account of its 
 combining a positive and negative description of the character required, 
 the last of which is very general, and the first no less specific. A great 
 variety of reasons have been given for the special mention of the .Sabbath 
 here. It has especially perplexed those writers \\ ho regard the Sabbath as 
 
312 C H A P T E R L V I . 
 
 a temporary ceremonial institution. Some of these endeavour to evatle the 
 difficulty, by supposing that the Sabbath here meant is a mystical or 
 spiritual Sabbatism, a repose from suffering, sin, or ceremonial impositions. 
 But how could such a Sabbath be observed, or how could they be called 
 upon to Jvccp it, as a condition of the divine favour? Some suppose the 
 Sabbath to be here put for the whole Mosaic system of religious services, as 
 being the most ancient, and, in some sort, the foundation of the rest. 
 According to Gesenius, it is specified because it was the only part of the 
 Mosaic institutions which could be perpetuated through the exile, that 
 which was merely ceremonial and restricted to the temple being necessarily 
 suspended. Rosenmiiller thinks that it is here referred to, as a public 
 national profession of the worship of one God. The true explanation is 
 afforded by a reference to the primary and secondary ends of the Sabbatical 
 institution, and the belief involved in its observance. In the first place, it 
 implied a recognition of Jehovah as the omnipotent creator of the universe 
 (Ex. 20 : 1 1 . 31:17); in the next place, as the sanctifier of his people, not 
 in the technical or theological sense, hut as denoting him by whom they had 
 been set apart as a peculiar people (Ex. 31 : 13. Ez. 20 : 12) ; in the next 
 place, as the Saviour of this chosen people from the bondage of Egypt 
 (Deut. 5 : 15). Of these great truths the Sabbath was a weekly remem- 
 brancer, and its observance by the people a perpetual recognition and 
 profession, besides the practical advantages accruing to the maintenance of 
 a religious spirit by tlie weekly recurrence of a day of rest — advantages which 
 no one more distinctly acknowledges, or states more strongly, than Gesenius. 
 Holding fast, is a common idiomatic expression for consistent perseverance 
 in a certain course. It occurs not unfrequently in the New Testament. 
 (Heb. 4:4. 6:18. Rev. 2 : 25. 3:11.) The suffix in pt3 refers to rxT, 
 and like it has respect to the whole course of conduct afterwards described. 
 Gesenius refers to ch. 1 : 13 as a rejection of the Sabbath, and in this 
 detects a want of agreement between the genuine and spurious Isaiah, — a 
 conclusion resting wholly on a false view of that passage, for the true sense 
 of which see the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 9-12. 
 
 V. 3. And, let not the foreigner say, who has joined himself unto 
 Jehovah, saijing, Jehovah will separate me wholUj from his people ; and let 
 not the eunuch say, Lo, T am a dry tree. The essential meaning of this 
 verse is, tliat all external disabilities shall be abolished, whether personal or 
 national. To express the latter he makes use of the phrase "^sn-ja, which 
 strictly means not the son of the stronger, as the common version has it, 
 but the son of strangeness, or of a strange country ; ~=! corresponding to 
 the German Frcmde, which has no equivalent in English. The whole 
 class of personal disqualifications is represented by the case of the eunuch. 
 
CHAPTER LVI. 313 
 
 in reference to Deut. 23 : I, and as Calvin thinks to the promise in Gen. 
 15 : 5. and 22 : 17, from which that class of persons was excluded. 
 Hensler's idea that 0"'"iO here means an officer or courtier, is precluded by 
 the addition of the words, I am a dry tree, a proverbial description of child- 
 lessness said to be still current in the east. It is possible, iiowever, that the 
 eunuch may be mentioned, simply because it stands at the beginning of the 
 list of prohibitions in the law. In either case, the expression is generic or 
 representative of more particulars than it expresses. Knobel's restriction of 
 the first clause to the Canaanites, who mingled with the Jews in their 
 captivity, or occupied their places in their absence, is entirely gratuitous. 
 The meaning is, that all restrictions,, even such as still affected proselytes, 
 should be abolished. 
 
 V. 4, 5. For (has saith Jehovah to (or, as to) the eunuchs who shall keep 
 my Sabbaths, and shall choose what T delight in, and take fast hold of my 
 covenant, I ivill give to them in my house and within my ivalls a place and 
 name better than sons and than daughters ; an everlasting name toill I give 
 to him, which shall not be cut off. According to Joseph Kimchi, the plural 
 Sabbaths is intended to include the Sabbatical year and that of jubilee. If 
 any distinction was intended, it was probably that between the wider and 
 narrower meaning of the term Sabbaths, i. e. the Sabbath properly so called, 
 and the other institutions of religion with which it is connected. — What it 
 is that God delights in, may be learned from ch. GQ : 4. Jer. 9 : 24. Hos. 
 6 : 6. By holding Aist my covenant is meant adhering to his compact with 
 me, which includes obedience to the precepts and faith in the promises. 
 The 1 at the beginning of v. 5 introduces the apodosis, and gives the verb 
 a future meaning. — By 7ny walls we are not to understand, with Jerome, 
 those of Jerusalem, nor, with the modern writers, those of the temple, but in 
 a more ideal sense, the walls of God's house or dwelling, which had just been 
 mentioned. The promise is not merely one of free access to the material 
 sanctuary, but of a home in the household or family of God, an image of 
 perpetual occurrence in the Psalms of David. (See especially Psalms 
 15, 23 and 24, as expounded by Hengstenbei-g.) — The use of the word "^ 
 in this (connexion is obscure, although the essential meaning is determined 
 by the context. Umbreit follows Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, in 
 adhering to the usual sense hand, which he seems to think is mentioned as 
 the natural instrument of seizure, and metaphorically applicable to the thing 
 seized, for example, to a share or portion. Gesenius recognises this use of 
 the plural in a few places, but appears to derive it from the primary idea of 
 a handful. In the case before us he explains th(> word as meaning a memo- 
 rial or monument, which sense it seems to have in 2 Sam. 18 : 18, perhaps 
 with reference, as Gesenius supposes, to the uplifted hand and arm found on 
 
314 CHAPTERLVI. 
 
 many ancient cij)pi or sepulchral columns. But as the antiquity and uni- 
 versality of this practice are uncertain, and as the meaning j^/ace is admissi- 
 ble in 2 Sam. 18 : 18, as in many other cases, it appears to be entitled to 
 the preference. — Better than sons and dau<rhters may either mean better 
 than the comfort inmicdiately derived from children (as in Ruth 4 : 15), or 
 better than the perpetuation of the name by hereditary succession. Most 
 interpreters prefer the latter sense, but both may be included. A beautiful 
 coincidence and partial fulfilment of the promise is pointed out by J. D. 
 Michaelis, in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch whose conversion is recorded 
 in the eighth of Acts, and whose memory is far more honoured in the church 
 than it could have been by a long line of illustrious descendants. 
 
 V. 6, 7. And (as to) the foreigners joining themselves to Jehovah to 
 serve him and to love the name of Jehovah, to be to him for servants, every 
 one keeping the Sabbath from profaning it, and holding fast my covenant, 
 I will bring them to my mount of holiness, and make them joyful in my 
 house of prayer, their offerings and their sacrifices {shall be) to acceptance 
 on my altar ; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. 
 Aben Ezra points out as a rhetorical peculiarity in the structure of this pas- 
 sage, that the writer, after mentioning the foreigners and eunuchs in v. 3, 
 afterwards recurs to them in an inverted order. As an analogous example, 
 he refers to Josh. 24 : 31. — The verb rtitiJ , although strictly a generic term, 
 is specially appropriated to the official service of the priests and Levites. 
 Some interpreters accordingly suppose it to be here said that the heathen 
 shall partake of the sacerdotal honours elsewhere promised to the church. 
 (See ch. 61 : 6. Ex. 19 : 6. 1 Pet. 2 : 5, 9. Rev. 1 : 6.)— To love the 
 name of Jehovaii, is to love his attributes as manifested in his word and 
 works. (Con)pare ch. 60 : 9. 66 : 5.) — "^^^-.^ ^'''? does not mean the 
 house of my prayer, i. e. the house where prayer is made to me, but my 
 house of prayer, as "'^lilF? "i^ means my hill of holiness, or holy hill. Knobel 
 supposes an allusion to the residence of the Nethinim on Ophel. (Neb. 
 3 : 26. 11 : 21.) — Shall be called, as in many other cases, implies that it 
 shall be so. Our Saviour quotes a ])art of the last clause, not in reference 
 to its main sense, but to what is incidentally mentioned, viz. its being called 
 a house of prayer. This part of the sentence was applicable to the material 
 temple while it lasted ; but the whole prediction could be verified only after 
 its destruction, when the house of God even upon earth ceased to be a 
 limited locality, and became co-extensive with the church in its enlargement 
 and diflusion. The form of expression is derived, however, from the cere- 
 monies of tht! old economy, and worship is described by names familiar to 
 the writer and his original readers. (Compare Hos. 14:3. Heb. 13 : 13. 
 John 4 : 21-23.) The general promise is the same as that in Mai. 1:11, 
 
C H AP TE R L VI. 315 
 
 and is so far from being inconsistent with the principles on which tlie old 
 economy was founded, that it simply carries out its original design as settled 
 and announced from the beginning. 
 
 V. S. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, the gatherer of the outcasts of 
 Israel, Still Qnore) will I gather upon him (in addition) to his gathered. 
 This may either mean, 1 will go on to gather still more of his outcasts, or, 
 besides his outcasts I will gather others. There is less difierence between 
 the two interpretations than at first sight there might seem to be. In either 
 case, the words are applicable to the calling of the gentiles. On the second 
 supposition, which is commonly adopted, even by the Jewish writers, this is 
 the direct and proper meaning of the words. But even on the other, they 
 amount to the same thing, if we only give to Israel its true sense, as denoting 
 not the Jewish nation as such, but the chosen people or the church of God, 
 to which the elect heathen as really belong as the elect Jews, and are there- 
 fore just as much entitled to be called outcasts of Israel. It is true that 
 our Saviour uses a similar expression (lost sheep of the House of Israel) in 
 a restricted application to the Israelites properly so called ; but it is in a 
 connexion which brinu;s the Jews and gentiles into evident antithesis, and 
 therefore leaves no doubt as to the sense in which the name Israel is to 
 be understood. — t^Vs may either mean simply to him or upon him, implying 
 vast accumulation. 
 
 V. 9. All yc beasts of the field, come to devour, all ye beasts in the 
 forest ! The structure of iliis verse is somewhat unusual, consisting of two 
 parallel members, with a third, equally related to both, interposed between 
 them. It is an invitation lo the enemies of Israel to destroy it. The peo- 
 ple being represented, in the following verses, as a flock, their destroyers 
 arc naturally represented here as wild beasts. Hitzig and Knobel under- 
 stand the invitation as ironical, or as a mere poetical description of the 
 defenceless state in which Israel was left through the neglect of its natural 
 protectors. It is more natural, however, to explain it as an indirect predic- 
 tion of an actual event, clothed in Isaiah's favourite form of an a[)Ostrophe. 
 Vitringa's limitation of the prophecy to the subversion of the Roman empire 
 by the barbarians, is as arbitrary as its application, in the Targum and by 
 Kimchi, to Gog and Magog. We have here simply one of those alterna- 
 tions and transitions which arc not only frequent in this book, but one of its 
 characteristics, and indeed essential to the writer's purpose of exhibiting 
 God's dealing with his church both in wrath and inercy. From the fore- 
 going promises of growth, he now reverts to intervening judgments and their 
 causes. There is no ground, therefore, for Luzzatto's assertion, that the 
 next seventeen verses are entirely unconnected with what goes before, and 
 
316 C H A P T E R L VI. 
 
 must therefore be considered an Interpolation. Ewald, on the other liand, 
 alleges that from this verse to the middle of ch. 57 : 1 1 is an extract from 
 an older writer, inserted here in order to have something against idolatry, 
 and because the author of the book could not hope to produce any thing 
 better ! As a further illustration of the value of such critical decisions, I 
 may add that Hendewerk separates chs. 55, 56, and 57 from the foregoing 
 and following context as a distinct prophecy ! Besides the usual and 
 natural interpretation of the verse before us as a threatening, may be men- 
 tioned that of Cyril and Jerome, who regard it as an invitation to all sorts 
 of men to partake of the Lord's supper ; while Ciericus explains it as a like 
 invitation to the gentiles to frequent the temple and partake of the sacrificial 
 feasts. The same sense was put upon the words by Rosenmiiller in his 
 first edition ; but he afterwards adopted a different grammatical construction 
 of the sentence, being the one proposed by Aben Ezra, who explains the 
 beasts of the forest as the object of the verb devour, and understands the 
 sentence as an invitation to the heathen to destroy the wicked Jews. The 
 same construction is adopted b}?^ Jarchi and Abarbenel, but with a very 
 different result, as they suppose tlie invitation to be given to the proselytes 
 to destroy the enemies of Israel. On the same grammatical foundation 
 Cocceius erects his explanation of the verse as a call to the barbarians to 
 destroy the corrupt Christians, while Schmidius regards it as an exhortation 
 to the church to swallow up the gentiles by receiving them into her bosom ! 
 All the modern writers seem to be agreed that the last clause as well as the 
 first is a description of the object of address, and that the thing to be 
 devoured must be supplied from the following verses. With the metaphors 
 of this verse compare Ex. 23 : 29. Ez. 34 : 5-8. Jer. 12 : 9. 7 : 3:3. 50 : 17. 
 Beasts of the field and of the forest are parallel expressions. Some inter- 
 preters make one a stiongcr expression than the other ; but in deciding which 
 it is, they directly contradict each other. Vitringa's notion that the one 
 may mean the Saracens, the other the Huns, Turks, and Tartars, is, to use 
 his own words with respect to Cyril's exposition of the verse, " non com- 
 mendabilis hac aetate ecclesiae." 
 
 V. 10. His watchmen (are) blind all of them, they have not knoum (or 
 do not knoiv), all of them (^are) dumb dogs, they cannot bark, dreaming, 
 lying doxni, loving to slumber. The pronoun his refers to Israel, as in v. 8, 
 and thus proves clearly that no new discourse begins either with v. 9 or 
 with that before us, where the large IT of the masoretic text, and the space 
 before the verse in most manuscripts, seem to indicate a change of subject. 
 But, as Gesenius correctly says, the writer merely pauses to take breath, 
 and then resumes the thread of his discourse. Many give do not know the 
 absolute sense of knowing nothing, being without knowledge ; but in all 
 
CH A P TE R L \ I. 317 
 
 such cases it seems better to connect it with an object understood. We 
 may here supply their duty, or the state of the flock, or the danger to wliich 
 it is exposed. The difference between the past and present form is imma- 
 terial here; because both are really included, the condition described beini^ 
 one of ancient date, but still continued. The dogs particularly meant are 
 shepherds' dogs (Job 30 : 1), whose task it was to watch the flock, and by 
 their barking give notice of approaching danger. But these are dumb do^s 
 which cannot even bark, and therefore wholly useless. They are also 
 negligent and lazy. Far from averting peril or announcing it, they do not 
 see it. What is before expressed by the figure of a blind watchman, is here 
 expressed by that of a shepherd's dog asleep. t:--h is confounded by the 
 Vulgate, Symmachus, and Saadias, with c-t n , which might either be a 
 participle (seeing) or a noun (^sccrs), corresponding to ivatchmtn in the first 
 clause. The common text is now very generally regarded as correct, and 
 explained by the Arabic analogy to signify dreaming, or talking in sleep, 
 or raving either from disease or sleep. Some suppose a particular allusion 
 to the murmuring and growling of a dog in its dreams. Some writers make 
 the watchmen of this verse denote the prophets, as in ch. 52 : 8. Jer. 6 : 17. 
 Ez. 3 : 17. 3-i : 7. But Gesenius more correctly understands it as a figure 
 for the rulers of the people generally, not excluding even the false prophets. 
 The figurative title is expressive of that watchfuhiess so frequently described 
 in the New Testament as an essential attribute of spiritual guides. (Com- 
 pare also Matth. 15 : 4.) 
 
 V. 11. And the dogs are greedy, they Jcnoiv not satiety, and they, the 
 shepherds (or the shepherds themselves), know not hoiv to distinguish (or 
 act wisely) ; all of them to their own ivay are turned, (^tvery) man to his own 
 gain from his own quarter (or icithout exception). A new tuin is now 
 given to the figures of the preceding verse. The dogs, though indolent, are 
 greedy. Several of the ancient versions confound ^'S3 "i-n' with era "'W 
 hard-faced, and translate it impudent. The true sense of the former phrase 
 is strong of appetite, i. e. voracious. — The pronoun f^Tzrt is emphatic, and 
 may either mean that these same dogs are at the same time shepherds, thus 
 affording a transition to a different though kindred image, or it may be 
 intended to distinguish between two kinds of rulers ; as if he had said, while 
 the dogs are thus indolent and greedy, they (the shepherds) are incompe- 
 tent ; or, while the shepherds' dogs are such, the shepherds themselves 
 know not how to distinguish. The latter is probably the true construction ; 
 for although the same class of persons may be successively compared to 
 shepherds' dogs and shepherds, it cannot even by a figure of speccli be 
 naturally said that the dogs themselves are shepherds. There is no need, 
 however, of distinguishing between the dogs and shepherds as denoting civil 
 
318 CH A PT E R L VI. 
 
 and religious rulers, since both comparisons are equally appropriate lo rulers 
 in general, Etymologically, 1'':;^ may be understood to signify the act of 
 discernment or discrimination. Usage would seem to require tbat of being 
 wise or prudent ; but its llipbil form, and its being preceded by the verb to 
 know, are in favour of explaining it to mean wise conduct, with particular 
 reference in this case to official obligation. Their being all turned to their 
 own way is expressive of diversity, and also of selfishness in each individual. 
 The latter sense is then expressed more fully by the addition of "i"^^^ , to 
 or for his own gain or profit. That voluptuous as well as avaricious indul- 
 gences are here referred to, is apparent from what follows in the next verse. 
 — The last word literally means jTrom his end or his extremity, to which the 
 older writers gave the sense of his quarter or direction, corresponding to his 
 own way ; and Henderson says that it expresses the extreme lengths to 
 which they went in their efforts to accumulate gain. Most of the modern 
 writers have adopted the opinion of De Dieu, that 'in^iSiD means ad unmn 
 omncs, all without exception, i. e. all within a given space or number, from 
 its very end or remotest limit. (Compare Gen. 19:4. Jer. 51 :3l. Ez. 
 25 : 9.) 
 
 V. 12. Come ye, I iviJl fetch wine, and ive will intoxicate ourselves with 
 strong drink, and like to-day (^shall be) to-morroio, great, abundantly, 
 exceedingly. The description of the revellers is verified by quoting their 
 own words, as in ch. 22 : 13. The language is that of one inviting others 
 to join in a debauch ; hence the alternation of the singular and plural. 
 N^o is not merely to drink, nor even to be filled, but to be drunk. The 
 futures might be rendered let me fetch and let us drink, without either 
 injuring or bettering the sense. — The last clause professes or expresses a 
 determination to prolong the revel till the morrow. The accents connect 
 nil Yvith "in^ in the sense of dies crasiinus. Another possible construction 
 is, to make the pronoun ni agree witli ci"i although preceding it, — a combi- 
 nation less incredible in tiiis case, because ^iij in the following member is 
 supposed by some to agree with "in^ as a noun, in which case the whole 
 phrase would mean exceeding great abundance. Most interpreters, how- 
 ever, make "it]'?, and 'I'x^ both adverbs, although both originally nouns, and 
 construe great with day, a great day being naturally applicable to a day 
 remarkable for any thing, as in the case before us for its revelry ; just as 
 we say in colloquial English, a high time, or a rare time, for a time of great 
 enjoyment. 
 
CHAPTER LVII. 319 
 
 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 The righteous who died during the old economy were taken away from 
 the evil to come, vs. 1, 2. The wicked who despised them were them- 
 selves proper objects of contempt, vs. 3, 4. Their idolatry is first described 
 in literal terms, vs. 5, 6. It is then represented as a spiritual adultery, vs. 
 7—9. Their obstinate persistency in sin is represented as the cause of their 
 hopeless and remediless destruction, vs. 10-13. A way is prepared for 
 spiritual Israel to come out from among them, v. 14. The hopes of true 
 believers shall not be deferred for ever, vs. 15, 16. Even these must be 
 chastened for their sins, v. 17. But there is favour in reserve for all true 
 penitents, without regard to national distinctions, vs. 18, 19. To the 
 incorrigible sinner, on the other hand, peace is impossible, vs. 20, 21. 
 
 V. 1 . The righteous perisheth, and there is no man laying (^it) to heart, 
 and men of mercy are taken away, loith none considering (or perceiving^ 
 that from the presence of evil the righteous is taken aivay. Henderson 
 says that whether Hezekiah or Josiah be meant by the righteous, cannot be 
 determined, nor indeed whether any particular individual be intended. 
 This doubt may not appear so utterly insoluble when we consider that there 
 is no further reference to either of the persons mentioned, nor any thing like 
 an individual description in the text or context ; that ""^l^n is used gene- 
 rically for a whole class elsewhere (e. g. Eccl. 3 : 17. Ez. IS : 20. Ps. 37 : 
 12) ; and that the parallel expression here is plural. This last considera- 
 tion, it is true, would have no weight against Tertullian and Cyprian, who 
 explain the righteous to be Christ and men of mercy his apostles ; but even 
 Vitringa speaks of this hypothesis as nulla specie probahilem, and therefore 
 needing no refutation. The terms of this verse are specifically applicable 
 neither to violent nor natural death as such considered, but are appro))riate 
 to either. Even Kimchi points out that tiie righteous is not here said to 
 perish, either in the sense of ceasing to exist or in that of ceasin'^ to be 
 happy, but in that of being lost to the world and to society. Laying to 
 
 heart is not merely feeling or appreciating, but observing and perceivin'^ 
 
 Men of mercy is another description of the righteous, so called as the objects 
 of God's mercy and as being merciful themselves. (Sec IMatth. 5 : 7.) — 
 The verb 5:;0X is doubly appropriate, first in its general though secondary 
 sense of taking away, and then in its primary specific sense of gathering, 
 
;jO0 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 i. e. gathering to one's fatiiers or one's people, — an expression frequently 
 applied in the Old Testament to death, and especially to that of godly men. 
 (See Gen. 49 : 29. Judges 2 : 10.) The verb is used absolutely in this 
 sense by Moses (Num. 20 : 26). — T^iia means strictly i7i default or in the 
 absence o/(Prov. 8 : 24. 26 : 20). — Most interpreters give •'^_ the sense of 
 that, and understand the last clause as stating what it is that no one lays to 
 heart or understands, viz. the fact that the righteous is taken away, etc. 
 Some, however, translate '''^.for, and make the last clause a mere reiteration 
 of the fact twice stated in the first. Upon this point Hitzig's version and 
 his comment are directly contradictory, the former having for (^clenn) and 
 the latter saying expressly, " "3 here means not for {denn'), but that (dass) ; 
 their death is observed, but not its cause." There is also a difference of 
 opinion as to ^}M'^ , which some suppose to mean because of others before 
 (in reference to time), and others /ro/TZ the face o\' preseyice of So too the 
 evil is by some understood in a physical sense, viz. that of misery or suffer- 
 ino-, by others in a moral sense, viz. that of guilt or sin. Those who adopt 
 the latter imderstand the clause to mean that the death of the righteous is 
 occasioned by the sins of the people. But why may not this be asserted of 
 the death of the sinner likewise ? On the other hypothesis, the sense is 
 either that the righteous is destroyed by his calamities, or that he is removed 
 before they come upon the people. To the latter it is objected by Maurer, 
 that the subsequent context represents great prosperity as in reserve for the 
 people. But this objection presupposes an erroneous limitation of the pas- 
 sage to the period of the exile. 
 
 V. 2. He shall go in peace (or enter into peace) ; they shall rest vpon 
 their beds — icalking straight before him. The alternation of the singular 
 and plural shows that the subject of the sentence is a collective person. 
 Kimchi makes c'^^ij the subject of the first and last members, and regards 
 the intermediate one as a parenthesis : Peace shall go walking straight 
 before him or straight forwards, i. e. shall conduct him or escort hiin out of 
 this life to a place of rest. Aben Ezra refers the pronoun in inbs to Jeho- 
 vah, walking before him, i. e. in his presence. (Compare Judges 18:6.) 
 But the explanation commonly approved is that of Jarchi, who makes this 
 phrase an additional description of the righteous, as one walking in his 
 uprightness, or, as Cocceius expresses it, straight before him (^qui recta 
 ante se inccdit). It seems to be added as a kind of afterthought, to limit 
 what immediately precedes, and preclude its application to all the dead 
 without distinction. The peace and rest here meant are those of the body 
 in the grave and of the soul in heaven ; the former being frequently referred 
 to as a kind of pledge and adumbration of the latter. Vitringa understands 
 this verse as stating the alleviations which attend the lamentable loss of 
 
C H A P T E R L VI I. 321 
 
 good men. Ewald regards it as a kind of pious wish analogous to requiescat 
 in pace I Gesenlus supposes an antithesis between this and the next verse : 
 ' The righteous is at rest (or let him rest), but as for you,' etc. This sugges- 
 tion is of value so far as it removes the appearance of abrupt transition, and 
 shows the continuity of the discourse. 
 
 V. 3. And ye (or as for you), draw near hither, yc sons of the witch, 
 seed of the adulterer and the harlot. According to Jarchi, these words are 
 addressed to the survivors of the judgments by which the righteous are 
 described as having been removed. They are summoned, according to the 
 same rabbin, to receive their punishment, but as Kimchi thinks, simply to 
 appear before the judgment-seat. (Compare ch. 41 : 1.) The description 
 which follows was of course designed to be extremely opprobrious ; but 
 interpreters differ as to the precise sense of the terms employed. Gesenius 
 supposes that instead of simply charging them with certain crimes, he bring? 
 the charge against their parents, — a species of reproach peculiarly offensive 
 to the orientals. Hendewerk supposes this form of contumely to have been 
 selected for the purpose of identifying those who were immediately addressed 
 with their progenitors. In this way he ingeniously accounts for the subse- 
 quent description of idolatry, which Ewald and many others look upon as 
 applicable only to the times of Tsaiah himself. Vitringa and the older 
 writers generally give a more specific meaning to the Prophet's metaphors, 
 understanding by the adulterer the idol, by the harlot the apostate church, 
 and by the children the corrupted offspring of this shameful apostasy. — 
 Instead of sorceress or witch, the Septuagint and Targum have iniquity. 
 Grotius supposes that they read ns'ii", Rosenmiiller nulls'. The Peshito 
 seems to make it a participle of «^5S (afflicted). Jerome quotes Theodotion 
 as retaining the original word onena, which is the common text. For the 
 meaning of the word, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 28. The occult arts 
 are mentioned as inseparable adjuncts of idolatry. — A grammatical difficulty 
 is presented by the verb i^STW , where the noun iijif might have been ex- 
 pected. None of the modern writers seem to have assumed a noun of that 
 form, although not without analogy. The current explanation is the one 
 adopted by Gesenius, which supposes an ellipsis of the relative (she who 
 committed whoredom), and a change of construction from the participle to 
 the finite verb. Luzzatto objects that in all such cases the participle and 
 the finite verb have one and the same subject. He accordingly agrees 
 with Abarbenel and Gousset in explaining <^i|^l as the second person, the 
 seed of an adulterer, and (therefore) thou hast thyself committed whore- 
 dom. Essentially the same interpretation is proposed by Piscator and 
 Cocceius. — Whoredom and sorcery arc again combined in Mai. 3 : 5 and 
 elsewhere. 
 
 21 
 
SO) CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 V. 4. At whom do you amuse yourselves ? At whom do you enlarge 
 the jnouth, prolong the tongue I Are you not children of rebellion (or 
 apostasy), a seed of falsehood] Tliis retorts the impious contempt of the 
 apostates on themselves. Tliere is no need, however, of supposing that 
 they had cast these very same reproaches on the godly. The meaning is 
 not necessarily that they were what they falsely charged their brethren with 
 being. All that is certainly implied is, that they were unworthy to treat 
 them with contempt. Jarchi gives ^? 52srn the sense of delighting in, 
 which it has in ch. 5S : 11. Job -22 : 26. 27 : 10. Ps. 37 : 4 ; but most 
 interpreters suppose the next clause to determine that the words express 
 derision. The opening or stretching of the mouth in mockery is mentioned 
 Ps. 22 : S, 14. 35 : 21. Lam. 2 : 16, and in chap. 58 : 9 below. The 
 lolling of the tongue as a derisive gesture is referred to by Persius in poetry 
 and Livy in prose. According to Hitzig there are not two different gestures 
 here described but one, the mouth being opened for the purpose of exhibiting 
 the tongue. The form of expostulation is similar to that in ch. 37 : 23. — 
 Jarchi supposes tlie prophets to be specially intended as the objects of this 
 v.icked mockery. (See 2 Chron. 36 : 16.) — Here, as in the preceding 
 verse., some regard seed and children as mere idiomatic pleonasms, or at 
 most, as rhetorical embellishments. Of those who understand them strictly, 
 some suppose the qualities of falsehood and apostasy to be predicated of the 
 parents, others of the children. Both are probably included ; they were 
 worthy of their parentage, and diligently filled up the measure of their 
 fathers' iniquity. (See ch. 1 : 4.) By 'a seed of falsehood' we may 
 understand a spurious brood, and at the same time one itself perfidious and 
 addicted to a false religion. 
 
 V. 5. Iiijlamcd (or inflaming yourselves) among the oaks (or terebinths) , 
 under every green tree, slaughtering the children in the valleys, under the 
 clefts of the rocks. Their idolatrous })raclices are now described in detail. 
 The first word of this verse properly denotes libidinous excitement, and is 
 here used with reference to the previous representation of idolatry as spiritual 
 whoredom or adultery. The reflexive version of the Niphal strengthens the 
 expression, but is not required by usage or the context. — tD^bxa is commonly 
 translated with idols, in accordance with the ancient versions. The objec- 
 tions are that 3 is not a natural connective of the foregoing verb with its 
 object, and that l=x is constantly employed by this writer with direct allusion 
 to its proper sense (almighty) , and in reference to false gods only where 
 they are sarcastically placed in opposition to the true. Maurer, Ewald, and 
 Knobel, have revived the old interpretation given by Jarchi and Kimchi, 
 which gives n'l^^^ the sense of oaks (or terebinths), as in ch. 1 : 29. The 
 objection usually made, viz. that the next words are descriptive of the place, 
 
CHAPTER LVII. 323 
 
 only shows how easily the parallelism may be made to sustain either side of 
 any question. The interpreter has only to allege that the words in question 
 must or must not mean the same thing with the next words, as the case may 
 be, and his purpose is accom|)lished. This objection is, moreover, incon- 
 clusive, because it proves too much ; for it equally applies to the consecutive 
 expressions in the last clause, both of which are universally regarded as 
 descriptive of localities. Hitzig renders the objection somewhat more plau- 
 sible, by saying that the terebinth is necessarily included under every green 
 tree ; but if the genius of the language would admit of two consecutive 
 expressions being perfectly synonymous, how much more of such as really 
 involve a climax — 'among the terebinths, and not only so but under every 
 green tree.' Sacrificial infanticide is often mentioned in the Scriptures as a 
 rite of heathen worship, and especially of that paid to Moloch, in which it 
 seems to have been usual to burn the children ; but we find the word 
 slaughter frequently applied to it (see Ez. 16 : 21. 23 : 39), either in the 
 wide sense of slaying (Gesenius), or because the children were first 
 slaughtered and then burnt (Hitzig), or because both modes of sacrifice were 
 practised. Hitzig adds very coolly to his observations on this subject, 
 "compare Gen. 22," a reference which obviously implies much more than 
 the opinion entertained by some older writers, that human sacrifices owed 
 their origin to a misapprehension of the history of Isaac. The Hebrew 
 bn3 is applied both to a valley and a stream flowing through it. Jerome 
 has here torreniibus, by which he may have meant their beds or channels. 
 According to Vitringa, there is special reference to the great valley of 
 Lebanon, between the chains of Libanus and Antilibanus, a region infamous 
 for its idolatry. A much more natural interpretation is the one which 
 supposes an allusion to the valleys round Jerusalem, in one of which, the 
 valley of the son of Hinnom, we know that Moloch was adored w ith human 
 victims. The clefts of the rocks, or cliffs projecting in consequence of 
 excavations, is a circumstance perfectly in keeping with the topography of 
 that spot. The minute description of idolatry given in this passage is 
 exceedingly perplexing to those writers who fix the date of composition at 
 the period of the exile. Hendewerk, as we have seen, intrepidly main- 
 tains that the children are here charged with the sins of their fathers ; but 
 along with this extravagant assertion he makes one concession really valu- 
 able, namely, that the efforts of Gesenius and Hitzig to reconcile the terms 
 of the description with the state of things during the captivity are wholly 
 abortive. A perfect solution of the difficulty is afforded by our own 
 hypothesis, that the Prophet, from the whole field of vision spread before 
 him, singles out the most revolting traits and images by which he could 
 present in its true aspect the guilt and madness of apostasy from God. 
 
3-24 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 V. 6. Among the smooth (stones) of the volley (or the brook) is thy 
 portion ; they, they, are thy lot ; also to them hast thou poured out a drink- 
 offering, thou hast brought up a meal-off'ering. Shall 1 for these things be 
 consoled (i. e. satisfied without revenge) ? Thy portion, i. e. the objects 
 of thy choice and thy affection (Jer. 10: 16). The word stones is correctly 
 supplied in the English Version. (See 1 Sam. 17 : 40.) Others supply 
 places, and suppose the phrase to mean open cleared spots in the midst of 
 wooded valleys, places cleared for the performance of religious rites. In 
 Hivour of this meaning, is the not unfrequent use of the Hebrew word to 
 signify not hairy, and in figurative application to the earth, not wooded, free 
 from trees. According to this interpretation, which is that of Paulus, De 
 Wette, Hitzig, Riickert, and Umbreit, the first clause merely describes ihe 
 place where the idols were worshipped. According to the other, which is 
 given in the Targum, and approved by Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Grotius, 
 Clericus, Lowth, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Knobel, it is a description of 
 the idols themselves. Smooth stones may mean either polished or anointed 
 stones, such as were set up by the patriarchs as memorials (Gen. 28 : 18. 
 35 : 12), and by the heathen as objects of worship. Thus Arnobius says, 
 that before his conversion to Christianity he never saw an oiled stone 
 (l.ubricatum lapidem et ex olivi junguine sordidatmn) without addressing it 
 and praying to it. This explanation of the first clause agrees best with 
 what follows and with the emphatic repetition, they, they, are thy j)ortion. 
 which is more natural in reference to the objects than to the mere place of 
 
 n 
 
 worship. Most writers find here a play upon the double sense of 
 {smooth and portion) ; but Ewald gives to both the sense of stone (an des 
 Thales Steinchen ist dein Stein), and makes them the plural of P^f^ a 
 synonyme of psn (1 Sam. 17 : 40). Beck, on the other hand, makes both 
 mean part or portion. Libations and vegetable offerings are here put for 
 offerings in general, as being the simplest kinds of sacrifice. There seems 
 to be another lusus verborum in the use of the word cnsx, which may either 
 mean to remain satisfied without vengeance, or to satisfy one's self by taking 
 it. (See ch. 1 : 24.) 
 
 V. 7. O71 a high and elevated mountain thou hast placed thy bed ; also 
 there (or even thither) hast thou gone up to offer sacrifice. The figure of 
 adulterous attachment is resumed. (Compare Ez. 16 : 24. 25 : 31.) That 
 the mountain is not used as a mere figure for an elevated spot is clear from 
 the obvious antithesis between it and the valleys before mentioned. Still 
 less ground is there for supposing any reference to the worship of mountains 
 themselves. By the bed here, Spencer understands the couch on which the 
 ancients reclined at their sacrificial feasts. All other writers seem to give it 
 
CHAPTER LVII. 325 
 
 the same sense as in Prov. 7 : 17 and Ezek. 23 : 17. In the last clause 
 the figure is resolved and making the bed explained to mean offering sacrifice. 
 Knobel supposes a particular allusion to the labour of ascending mountains 
 as a proof of self-denying zeal in the worshipper. 
 
 V. 8. And behind the door and the dooi'-jjost thou hast placed thy 
 memorial, for aioay from me thou hast uncovered (thyself or thy bed), and 
 hast gone up. thou hast enlarged thy bed and hast covenanted from them, 
 thou hast loved their bed, thou hast provided room. Interpreters are much 
 divided as to the particular expressions of this very obscure verse, although 
 agreed in understanding it as a description of the grossest idolatry. 
 Gesenius and Maurer explain '^"^t as meaning memory, by which the 
 former understands posthumous fame or notoriety, the latter something 
 cherished or remembered with affection, meaning here the idol as a beloved 
 object. The same sense is obtained in another way by those who make 
 the word mean a memorial, or that which brings to mind an absent object. 
 In this sense the image of a false god may be reckoned its memoria]. 
 Grotius and Hitzig suppose an allusion to Deut. 6 ; 9, the former supposing 
 that the idolaters are here described as doing just the opposite of what is 
 there required, the latter that the Prophet represents them as putting the 
 required memorial of Jehovah's sole divinity out of sight, by going to an 
 inner apartment. A still more natural application of the same sense would 
 be to suppose that they are here described as thrusting the memorial of 
 Jehovah into a corner to make room for that of the beloved idol. Some 
 suppose a special reference to the worship of Penates, Lares, or household 
 gods. The rest of the verse describes idolatry as adulterous intercourse. 
 tn:2 n-=n has been variously explained to mean, thou hast covenanted with 
 them — thou hast bargained for a reward from them — thou hast made a 
 covenant with some of them. The masculine form n-i:n is used for the 
 feminine as in ch. 15:5. Hitzig supposes this to have been usual for 
 Vav conversive. (Compare Ewald's H. G. p. 643. S. G. >§, 234.) The 
 most probable interpretation of the last words in the verse is that which 
 gives to t; the same sense as in ch. 56 : 5. Tliis is strongly favoured by 
 the parallel expression "-=1"^ r-n-n. Others understand it to mean, 
 wherever thou hast seen (their) memorial or monument ; others, wherever 
 thou seest a hand (beckoning or inviting thee). The sense gratuitously put 
 upon the phrase by Doderlein, and the praises given him for the discovery, 
 are characteristic of neological aesthetics. 
 
 V. 9. And thou hast gone to the king in oil and hast multiplied thine 
 unguents, and hast sent thine ambassadors even to a far-off (land), and hast 
 gone (or sent) down even to hell. The first verb has been variously 
 
326 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 explained as meaning to see, to look around, to appear, to be adorned, to 
 sing, to carry gifts, which last is founded on the analogy of the noun ir^vrn 
 a gift or present (1 Sam. 9 : 7). Gesenius derives the noun from this verb 
 in the sense of going with or carrying, and the modern writers generally 
 acquiesce in this interpretation founded on an Arabic analogy. By the Icing 
 some understand the king of Babylon or Egypt, and refer the clause to the 
 eagerness with which the Prophet's contemporaries sought out foreign 
 alliances. Most writers understand it as a name for idols generally, or for 
 Moloch in particular. '"^^.^ is commonly exj)laincd to mean tvith oil or 
 ointment (as a gift) ; but Hitzig understands it to mean in oil, i. e. anointed, 
 beautified, adorned. Upon the explanation of this phrase of course depends 
 that of the next, where the unguents are said to be multiplied, either in the 
 way of gifts lo others or as means of self-adornment. Gesenius and the 
 later writers make ^V^'^^^ qualify "^nsqri understood as a kind of auxiliary, 
 thou host sent down deep to hell, i. e. to the lower world, as opposed to 
 heaven, of wliich Moloch was esteemed the king. (See the same construc- 
 tion of the verb in Jer. 13 : 18.) It is much more natural, however, to give 
 it an independent meaning as exjn-essive of extreme indignation and abhor- 
 rence. There is no need of ascribing a reflexive meaning to the Hiphil, as 
 the same end may be gained by supplying wai/ or some other noun denoting 
 conduct. INIanrer wonders that any interpreter should fail to see that the 
 simplest explanation of this clause is that which makes it signify extreme 
 remoteness. But nothing could in fact be more unusual or unnatural than 
 the expression of this idea by the j)hrase, humbling even to Sheol. 
 
 V. 10. In the greatness of thy icay (or the abundance of thy travel) 
 thou hast laboured ; {but) thou hast not said, There is no hope. Thou hast 
 found the life of thy hand ; therefore thou art not iveak. Whether way 
 be understood as a figure for the whole course of life, or as involving a 
 specific allusion to the journeys mentioned in v. 9, the general sense is still 
 the same, viz. that no exertion in the service of her false gods could weary 
 or discourage her. This is so obviously the meaning of the whole, that the 
 common version of tp'j^i (thou art ivearied) seems to be precluded, the rather 
 as the verb may be used to denote the cause as well as the effect, i. e. exer- 
 tion no less than fatigue. Lowih reverses the declaration of the text by 
 omitting the negative (^thou host said) on the authority of a single manu- 
 scrii)t, in which the text, as Kocher well observes, was no doubt conjec- 
 turally changed in order to conform it to Jer. 2 : 25. 18 : 12. In both 
 these places the verb 'i'xi: is employed as it is here impersonally, despcratum 
 est, a form of speech to which we have no exact equivalent in English. — 
 Saadias and Koppe give r^n the sense of animal or beast, in reference to 
 idols of that form. All other writers seem airreed that the essential idea 
 
CHAPTERLVII. 327 
 
 which the whole phrase conveys is that of strength. Some accordingly 
 attach this specific sense to r^n , others to "i^ ; but it rather belongs to the 
 two in combination. In translation this essential sense may be conveyed 
 under several different forms : Thou hast found thy hand still alive, or still 
 able to sustain life, etc. i^^fj does not merely mean to be sick or to be 
 grieved, but to be weak or weakened, as in Judg. 16 : 7. 11 : 17. — Accord- 
 ing to Luzzatlo, ivay means specifically wicked way, as in Prov. 31:3. 
 
 V. 11. And whom hast thou feared and been afraid of, that thou 
 shouldest lie 1 and me thou hast not remembered, thou hast not called to 
 mind (or laid to heart). Is it not (because) 1 hold my jjeace, and that of 
 old, that thou wilt not fear mel De Dieu, Cocceius, and Vitringa, under- 
 stand this as ironical, and as meaning that the fear which they affected as 
 a ground for their forsaking God had no foundation. Gesenius and others 
 understand it as a serious and consolatory declaration that they had no 
 cause to fear. Hiizig supposes an allusion to the mixture of idolatrous 
 worship with the forms of the true religion in the exile. With the excep- 
 tion of the last gratuitous restriction, this agrees well with the form of expres- 
 sion, and may be applied to ail hypocritical professors of the truth. They 
 have no real fear of God ; why then should they affect to serve him ? His 
 forbearance only served to harden and embolden them. ' Have I not long 
 kept silence ? It cannot be that you fear me.' There is no need, there- 
 fore, of making the last clause interrogative, as Ewald does, wilt thou not 
 fear me 1 Still more gratuitous and violent is De Wette's construction, 
 ' thou needest not have feared me.' This is certainly no better than Luther's 
 interrogative constiuction of the last clause, ' do you think that I will always 
 hold my peace ?' Luzzatto renders "'r'l^v "'^ ^^^^^ ^''^^" mightcst fail, and 
 refers to ch. 58 : 11. Rut waters are there said to deceive llie expectation 
 by their failure, an expression which is utterly inapplicable to the failure of 
 the strength. Instead of csi-r?, Lowth reads C"'^^'"?^ and hide (my eyes), 
 with the noun omitted as in Ps. 10 : I. Henderson also thinks the common 
 reading justly suspected, because the Complutensian and other editions, with 
 a number of manuscripts, read c^:":^ . But this is merely the defective 
 orthography of the common text, and precisely the kind of variation which 
 most frequently occurs in Hebrew manuscripts. Kocher, moreover, has 
 shown to the satisfaction of most later writers, that the i before nb'r-2 is 
 equivalent to et quidem in Latin or and that too in English. — The use of 
 niin is the same as in ch. 64 : 11. 65 : 6. — The image is identical with 
 that presented in ch. 42 : 14. Knobel contrives to limit the passage to the 
 Babylonish exile, by explaining this verse as a declaration that the Jews had 
 no need of the Bal)ylonian idols to protect them, and alleging that a portion 
 of the captives had renounced the worship of Jehovah because they thought 
 
323 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 his power insufficient to deliver them. In the same taste and spirit he 
 explains cbir^ to mean since the beginning of the exile. — Compare with 
 this verse ch. 40 : 21 and 51 : 12, 13. 
 
 V. 12. I ivill declare thy righteousness and thy ivories, and they shall 
 not profit (or avail) thee. Lowth reads my righteousness, on the authority 
 of the Peshito and a few manuscripts. Hendewerk understands ~(rii;?1^ to 
 mean thy desert, thy righteous doom: Ewald, thy justification; Umbreit, 
 thy righteousness, which I will give thee notwithstanding thy unworthiness. 
 Gesenius and Knobel still adhere to their imaginary sense of happiness, 
 salvation, which is not only arbitrary in itself but incoherent with the next 
 clause, which they are obliged to understand as meaning, as for thy own 
 works they can profit thee nothing. Knobel, however, follows Hitzig in 
 making thy ivorks mean thy idols, elsewhere called the work of men's fingers. 
 De Dieu makes the last clause an answer to the first. Shall I declare thy 
 righteousness and works ? They will profit thee nothing. But this, in the 
 absence of the form of interrogation, is entirely arbitrary. The earlier 
 writers who retain the sense of ■^I^'J'S for the most part follow Jerome and 
 Zwingle in making the first clause ironical. But this is unnecessary, as the 
 simplest and most obvious construction is in all respects the most satisfactory. 
 I will declare thy righteousness, i. e. I will show clearly whether thou art 
 righteous, and in order to do this I must declare thy ivorks ; and if this is 
 done, they cannot profit thee, because instead of justifymg they will con- 
 demn thee. There is no need, therefore, of supposing i at the beginning of 
 the last clause to mean which, for, that, or any thing but and. One of the 
 latest writers on the passage, Thenius, agrees with one of the oldest, Jarchi, 
 in explaining the first clause to mean, I will show how you may be or ought 
 to be righteous ; but this is sufficiently refuted by a simple statement of the 
 true sense, which has been already given. 
 
 V. 13. In thy crying (i. e. when tI:ou criest for help), let thy gatherings 
 save thee ! And (yet) all of them the wind shall take up and a breath 
 shall take away, and the (one) trusting in me shall inherit the land and 
 possess my holy mountain. This is merely a strong contrast between the 
 impotence of idols and the power of Jehovah to protect their followers 
 respectively. Hitzig, without a change of sense, makes Ty;^'^1 an ironical 
 exclamation, the.y shall save thee ! This is much better than De Wette's 
 interrogative construction, will they save theel which is altogether arbitrary. 
 Most of the modern writers follow Jarchi in explaining T|':^'t2)5 to mean thy 
 gatherings of gods, thy whole pantheon, as Gesenius expresses it, so called, 
 as Maurer thinks, because collected from all nations. (Compare Jer. 2 : 28.) 
 Knobel denies that there was any such collection, or that gods could be 
 
CHAPTERLVII. 329 
 
 described as blown away, and therefore goes back to Vltringa's explanation 
 of the word as meaning armies, i. e. as he thinks those of Babylon, in which 
 the idolatrous Jews trusted to deliver them from Cyrus, and which might 
 therefore be correctly called their gatherings ! It may be questioned 
 whether any of these explanations is entitled to the preference above that 
 of Aben Ezra, who appears to understand the word generically, as denoting 
 all that they could scrape together for their own security, including idols, 
 armies, and all other objects of reliance. This exposition is the more enti- 
 tled to regard, because the limitation of the passage to the exile is entirely 
 gratuitous, and it is evidently levelled against all unbelieving dependence 
 upon any thing but God. — In the consecution of ^3^J and H^"i there is a 
 climax : even a wind is not required for the purpose ; a mere breath would 
 be sufficient. This fine stroke is effaced by J. D. Michaelis's interpretation 
 of the second word as meaning vapour, and the whole clause as descriptive 
 of evaporation. The promise of the last clause is identical with that in 
 ch. 49 : 8. 60 : 21. 65 : 9. Ps. 37 : 11. 69 : 37, 38. Matt. 5 : 5. Rev. 
 5 : 10. — Those who restrict the passage to the Babylonish exile must of 
 course explain the promise as relating merely to the restoration ; but the 
 context and the usage of the Scriptures is in favour of a wider explanation, 
 in which the possession of the land is an appointed symbol of the highest 
 blessings which are in reserve for true believers here and hereafter. 
 
 V. 14. And he shall say, Cast up, cast up, clear the ivai/, take up the 
 stumbling-block from the way of my people ! Lowth and J. D. Michaelis 
 read "i^xi (^then ivill 1 say), the correctness of which change Lowth alleges 
 to be plain from the pronoun my in the last clause, a demonstration which 
 appears to have had small effect upon succeeding writers. — Gesenius and 
 Ewald make ^Jdx impersonal, they say, one says, or it is said. Vitringa in 
 like manner long before had paraphrased it thus, exit vox ; and Aben Ezra 
 earlier still had proposed substantially the same thing, by supplying X';ii>fl as 
 the subject of 'n^x . Maurer agrees with the English Version in connecting 
 this verb with the foreo-oinff sentence and making it agree with t^tinn the 
 one trusting. The sense will then be that the man whose faith is thus 
 rewarded will express his joy when he beholds the promise verified. Hitzig 
 thinks it equally evident, however, that Jehovah is the speaker ; and Umbreit 
 further recommends this hypothesis by ingeniously combining it with what 
 is said of the divine forbearance in v. 11. He who had long been silent 
 speaks at last, and that to announce the restoration of his people. The 
 image here presented, and the form of the expression, are the same as in 
 ch. 35 : 8. 40 : 3. 49 : 1 1. 6-2 : 10. Knobel is not ashamed to make the 
 verse mean that the way of the returning captives home from Babylon shall 
 be convenient and agreeable. There is certainly not much to choose, in 
 
330 CFIAPTER LVII. 
 
 point of taste and exegetical discretion between this liypothesis and that of 
 Vitringa, who labours to find references to the reformation and the subse- 
 quent efforts made by ministers and magistrates to take away all scandals 
 both of doctrine and discipline, with special allusion, as he seems to think, 
 to the hundred grievances presented to Pope Adrian by the German princes 
 in 1523. Such interpreters have no right to despise each other ; for the only 
 error with w hich either can be charged is that of fixing upon one specific 
 instance of the thing foretold and making that the whole theme and the sole 
 theme of a prophecy, which in design as well as hct is perfectly unlimited 
 to any one event or period, yet perfectly defined as a description of God's 
 mode of dealing with his church and with those who although in it are 
 not of it. 
 
 V. 15. For thus saith (he High and Exalted One, inhabiting eternity, 
 and Holy is his name : On high and holy ivill I dwell, and with the broken 
 and humble of sjjirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the 
 heart of the broken (or contrite ones). This verse assigns a reason why 
 the foregoing promise might be trusted, notwithstanding the infinite disparity 
 between the giver and the objects of his favour. Notwithstanding the inti- 
 mate connexion of the verses, there is no need of referring thus saith to what 
 goes before, as if he had said, these assurances are uttered by the High and 
 Exalted One. Analogy and usage necessarily connect them with what 
 follows, the relation of the verse to that before it being clearly indicated by 
 the ybr at the beginning. You need not hesitate to trust the promise which 
 is involved in this command, for the High and Holy One has made the fol- 
 lowing solemn declaration. — The only reason for translating xia? exalted 
 rather than lofty, is that the former retains the partici[)ial form of the origi- 
 nal. The same two epithets are joined in ch. 6:1, which is regarded by 
 the modern critics as the oldest extant composition of the genuine Isaiah. 
 J. D. Michaelis disregards the masoretic accents, and explains the next 
 words as meaning that his name is the inliabitant of eternity and the sanc- 
 tuary, which last he regards as a hendiadys for the everlasting sanctuary 
 i. e. heaven as distinguislied from material and temporary structures. Luz- 
 zatto gives the same construction of the clause, but supposes the noun "i? 
 (like the cognate preposition) to be applicable to space as well as lime, and 
 in this case to denote infinite height, which sense he likewise attaches to 
 D^isi when predicated of the hills etc. All other modern writers follow the 
 accentuation, making holy the predicate and name the subject of a distinct 
 proposition. On this hypothesis, '^Jin^v may either be an adjective qualify- 
 ing ca , his name is holy, i. e. divine or infinitely above every other name ; 
 or it may be absolutely used and qualify Jehovah understood, his name is 
 Holy or the Holy One. The ambiguity in English is exactly copied from 
 
C H AP T E R L V I r. 33I 
 
 the Hebrew. — As niia is not an adjective but a substantive denoting a high 
 place, the following liii;? must either be referred to cip?3 understood or con- 
 strued with nin?2 itself, a height, and that a holy one, will I inhabit. — Ewald 
 takes rxi at the beginning of the last clause as a sign of the nominative 
 absolute, and the infinitives as expressive of necessity or obligation : And 
 as for the broken and contrite of spirit, (it is necessary) to revive etc. 
 Henderson and Knobel regard rx as the objective particle showing what 
 follows to be governed directly by the verb "S'^J*: 'I inhabit (or dwell in) 
 the broken and humble of spirit.' This would be more natural if the other 
 objects of the same verb were preceded by the particle ; but as this is not 
 the case, the most satisfactory construction is the common one, which takes 
 rx as a preposition meaning with. — The future meaning given to "iSitix by 
 Lowth is strictly accurate and more expressive than the present, as it inti- 
 mates that notwithstanding God's condescension he will still maintain his 
 dignity. The idea of habitual or perpetual residence is still implied. — The 
 reviving of the spirit and the heart is a common Hebrew phrase for conso- 
 lation and encouragement. — Hitzig denies that contrition and humility are 
 here propounded as conditions or prerequisites, and understands the clause 
 as a description of the actual distress and degradation of the exiles. — Vitringa 
 finds here a specific reference to the early sufferers in the cause of reforma- 
 tion, such as the Waldenses and Bohemian Brethren. — Compare with this 
 verse ch. 33 : 5. 63 : 15. 66 : 1, 2. Ps. 22 : 4. 113 : 5, 6. 13S : 6. 
 
 V. 16. For not to eternity will I contend, and not to perpetuity will I 
 be wroth ; for the spirit from before me will faint, and the souls (which) 
 I have made. A reason for exercising mercy is here drawn from the frailty 
 of the creature. (Compare ch. 42: 3. Ps. 78 : 38, 39. 103 : 9, 14.) Suf- 
 fering being always represented in Scripture as the consequence of sin, its 
 infliction is often metaphorically spoken of as a divine quarrel or controversy 
 with the sufferer. (See above, ch. 27 : 8, and the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 461.) — The verb Cii-^ll has been very variously exi)lained, as meaning 
 to go forth (Septuagint and Vulgate), return (De Dieu), have mercy (Cap- 
 pellus), etc. ; but the only sense sustained by etymology and usage is that 
 ofcov(M-lng. The Targum seems to make the clause descriptive of a resur- 
 rection similar to that in Ezekiel's vision, the life-giving Spirit covering the 
 bones with flesh and breathing into the nostiils the breath of life. Cocceius 
 understands it of the Spirit by his influences covering the earth as the waters 
 cover the sea (ch. 11:9). Clericus makes it descriptive of the origin of 
 man, in which the spirit covers or clothes itself with matter. The modern 
 writers are agreed in making it intransitive and elliptical, the full expression 
 being that of covering with darkness, metaphorically applied to extreme 
 depression, faintness, and stupor. Maurer translates it even here, caligine 
 
332 CH AP TE R L VI I. 
 
 obvolviiur. The figurative use is clear from the analogy of Ps. 61: 3. 
 102 : 1, compared with that of the reflexive form in Ps. 107 : 5. 143 : 4. 
 Jon. 2 : 8. Rosenmiiller follows Jarchi in giving "'S the sense of when, and 
 takes the last clause as a promise : when the spirit from before me faints, I 
 graut a breathing time (respirationcs concedo). The credit of this last inter- 
 pretation is perhaps due to Grotius, who translates the clause, et veniulum 
 faciam. But n^'i'3 is evidently used as an equivalent to t%}_ in Prov. 20 : 27, 
 and is here the parallel expression to nn . Lowth's translation limng souls 
 multiplies words without expressing the exact sense of the Hebrew, which is 
 breaths. The ellipsis of the relative is the one so often mentioned hereto- 
 fore as common both in Hebrew and English. From before me is connected 
 by the accents with the verb to faint, and indicates God's presence as the 
 cause of the depression. A more perfect parallelism would, however, be 
 obtained by understanding /rom before me as referring to the origin of human 
 life and as corresponding to the words ivhich I have made in the other mem- 
 ber. Umbreit's explanation of the verse, as meaning that God cannot be 
 for ever at enmity with any of his creatures, is as old as Kimchi, but without 
 foundation in the text and inconsistent with the uniform teaching of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 V. 17. For his covetous iniquity I am tvroth and ivill smite him, (I 
 will) hide me and will be u-roth ; for he has gone on turning away (i. e. 
 persevering in apostasy) in the way of his heart (or of his own inclination). 
 The futures in the first clause show that both the punishment and mercy 
 are still future. The interpreters have generally overlooked the fact that 
 the 1 before these futures is not Vav conversive, and there is nothing in the 
 text or context to require or justify either an arbitrary change of pointing or 
 an arbitrary disregard of the difference between the tenses. — The first phrase 
 in the verse ("i-^S V?) has been very variously understood. Lowth says 
 the usual meaning of the second noun would here be "quite beside the pur- 
 pose," and accordingly omits the suffix and takes 2;:S3 as an adverb meaning 
 for a short time ; of which it can only be said that the criticism and lexico- 
 graphy are worthy of each other. Koppe adopts another desperate expedient 
 by calling in the Arabic analogy to prove that the true sense of 2.'33 is scor- 
 tatio. J, D. Michaelis and Henderson make one noun simply qualify the 
 other and explain the whole as meaning his accumulated guilt or his exor- 
 bitant iniquity. Vitringa and Gesenius suppose covetousness to be here 
 used in a wide sense for all selfish desires or undue attachment to the things 
 of time and sense, a usage which they think may be distinctly traced both 
 in the Old and New Testament. (See Ps. 119 : 36. Ez. 33 : 31. 1 Tim. 
 6 : 10. Eph. 5 : 5.) Perhaps the safest and most satisfactory hypothesis 
 is that of Maurer, who adheres to the strict sense of the word, but supposes 
 
CHAPTERLVII. 333 
 
 covetousness to be here considered as a temptation and incentive to other 
 forms of sin. — The singular pronouns his and him refer to the collective 
 noun people, or rather to Israel as an ideal person. — ^Pion is an adverbial, 
 rendered equivalent in this case by its collocation to the futures which pre- 
 cede and follow. In the last clause the writer suddenly reverts from the 
 future to the past, in order to assign the cause of the infliction threatened in 
 the first. This connexion can be rendered clear in English only by the use 
 of the word for, although the literal translation would be and he went. 
 Jarchi's assumption of a transposition is entirely unnecessary. Hendewerk's 
 translation, but he went on, rests upon the false assumption that the first 
 clause is historical. Luther seems to understand the last clause as describ- 
 ing the effect of the divine stroke (r/a gingen sie hin und her). With the 
 closing words of this clause compare ch. 42 : 24. 53 : 6. 56 : 11. 65 : 12. 
 — The best refutation of Vitringa's notion, that this verse has special refer- 
 ence to the period from the death of Charles the Bald to the beginning of 
 the Reformation, is suggested by his own apology for not going into the 
 details of the fulfilment: " Narrandi nullus hie finis est si inceperis." 
 
 V. 18. His ways I have seen, and I icill heal him, and will guide him, 
 and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners. The healing here 
 meant is forgiveness and conversion, as correctly explained by Kimchi, with 
 a reference to ch. 6:10 and Ps. 41:5. This obvious meaning of the 
 figure creates a difficulty in explaining the foregoing words so as to make 
 the connexion appear natural. Gesenius supposes an antithesis, and makes 
 the particle adversative. 'I have seen his (evil) ways, but I will (never- 
 theless) heal him.' There is then a promise of gratuitous forgiveness similar 
 to that in ch. 43 : 25 and 48 : 9. The Targum puts a favourable sense on 
 ivays, as meaning his repentance and conversion. So Jarchi, I have seen 
 his humiliation ; and Ewald, I have seen his patient endurance of trial. 
 Hitzig strangely understands the words to mean that God saw punishment 
 to be without effect and therefore pardoned him, and cites in illustration 
 Gen. 8: 21, where the incorrigible wickedness of men is assigned as a 
 reason for not again destroying them. But even if this sense were correct 
 and natural considered in itself, it could hardly be extracted from the words 
 here used. — Knobel supposes ways to mean neither good nor evil works but 
 sufferings, the length of which, without regard to guilt or innocence, induced 
 Jehovah to deliver them. — / will guide him is supposed by Hitzig to mean 
 I will guide him as a shepherd guides his flock through the wirderness. (See 
 ch. 48 : 21. 49: 10.) But as this does not agree with the mention of con- 
 solation and of mourners in the other clause, it is better to rest in the general 
 sense of gracious and providential guidance. (Compare Ps. 73:24.) Clericus 
 
334 C H A P T E R L V I I . 
 
 rendt-rs \\ feci quiescere, In reference to the rest of the exiles in their own 
 land. This interpretation, which is mentioned although not approved by 
 Jarchi, supposes an arbitrary change at least of vowels so as to derive the 
 word from »!!^5. — The promise to restore consolation implies not only that it 
 had been once enjoyed but also that it should compensate for the intervening 
 sorrows, as the Hebrew word means properly to make good or indenmify. — 
 The addition of the words and to his mourners has led to a dispute among 
 interpreters, whether the writer had in mind two distinct classes of sufferers 
 or only one. Cocceius adopts the former supposition and assumes a dis- 
 tinction in the cliurcii itself. Others understand by his mourners those who 
 mourned for him, and Henderson applies it specifically to the heathen prose- 
 lytes who sympathized with Israel in exile. Hitzig and Knobel understand 
 the "1 as meaning and especially, because those who suffered most were most 
 in need of consolation. Perhaps it would be still more satisfactory to make 
 these words explanatory of the i^, to him i. e. to his mourners. Whether 
 these were but a part or coextensive with the whole, the form of expression 
 then leaves undecided. Luzzatto gets rid of the difficulty by connecting 
 these words with the next verse, ' and for his mourners I create' etc. 
 Koppe throws not only this verse and the next but the one following all into 
 one sentence, making this the expression of a wish and the next a continua- 
 tion of it. ' I saw his ways and would have healed him, guided him, consoled 
 him and his mourners, creating etc. — but the wicked are like the troubled 
 sea,' etc. This is ingenious, but too artificial and refined to be good Hebrew. 
 Vitringa sees a special connexion between this verse and the supplication 
 of the Austrian nobles to the Emperor Ferdinand in 1541. 
 
 V. 19. Creating the fruit of the lips, Peace, peace to the far off and 
 to the near, saith Jehovah, and I heal him. Luzzatto adds to this verse the 
 concluding words of v. 18, 'and for his mourners I create' etc. This, 
 besides the arbitrary change in the traditional arrangement of the text, 
 requires the participle X'n'is to be taken as an independent verb, which 
 although a possible construction, is not to be assumed without necessity. 
 The usual construction connects S'l'ia with Jehovah as the subject of the 
 foregoing verse. — The fruit or product of the lips is speech, and creating as 
 usual implies almighty power and a new effect. Rosenmiiller understands 
 the clause to mean that nothing shall be uttered but the following proclama- 
 tion, ' Peace, peace' etc. Gesenius understands by the fruit of the lips praise 
 or thanksgiving, as in Heb. 13 : 15 and Hos. 14 : 3. Hitzig supposes it to 
 mean the promise which Jehovah had given and would certainly fulfil. — By 
 the /ar and near Henderson understands the Jews and Gentiles. (Compare 
 Acts 10: 36. Eph. 2: 17.) Jarchi and Knobel explain it to mean all the 
 
CHAPTER LVII. 335 
 
 Jews wherever scattered (cli. 43: 5-7. 49: 12). The Targum makes the 
 distinction an internal one, — the just who have kept the hivv, and sinners 
 who have returned to it by sincere repentance. Kimchi in like manner ' 
 understands the words as abolishing all difFerefice between the earlier and 
 later converts, an idea similar to that embodied in our Saviour's parable of 
 the labourers in the vineyard. Hilzig directs attention to the \\ ay in which 
 the writer here comes back to the beginning of v. 18, as an observable rhe- 
 torical beauty. — The present form is used above in the translation of the 
 last verb, because it is doubtful whether the Vav has a conversive influence 
 W'hen separated so far from the futures of the foregoing verse. 
 
 V. 20. And the ivicked (are) like the troubled sea, for rest it cannot, 
 and its ivaters cast up mire and dirt. Koppe's unnatural construction of 
 this verse as the apodosis of a sentence beginning in v. IS has already been 
 refuted. Interpreters are commonly agreed in making it a necessary limita- 
 tion of the foregoing promise to its proper objects. Hitzig regards it as a 
 mere introduction to the next verse. There is a force in the original which 
 cannot be retained in a translation, arising from the etymological affinity 
 between the words translated wicked, troubled, and cast up. Among the 
 various epithets applied to sinners, the one here used is that which originally 
 signifies their turbulence or restlessness. (See Hengstenberg on Ps, 2:1.) 
 Henderson's strange version of the first clause (as for the wicked they are 
 each tossed about like the sea ivhich cannot resf^ seems to be founded upon 
 some mistaken view of the construction, and is certainly not worth ])urchas- 
 ing by a violation of the accents. — Hendewerk's version of the clause is 
 peculiar only in the use of the indefinite expression a sea. Gesenius in his 
 Lexicon makes this one of the cases in which "'S retains its original meaninfr 
 as a relative pronoun, like the troubled sea which cannot rest. The Enn^lish 
 Version and some others take it as a particle of time (ivhen it cannot rest). 
 All the latest German writers follow Lowth in giving it its usual sense of 
 for, because. The only objection to this version, that it appears to make the 
 sea itself the subject of comparison, Knobel ingeniously removes by addino-, 
 ' any more than you can.' The future form -='"' implies that such will be the 
 case hereafter as it has been heretofore, which is sufficiently expressed by 
 the reference to futurity in our verb can. The Vav conversive prefixed to 
 the last verb merely shows its dependence on the one before it, as an effect 
 upon its cause, or a consequent upon its antecedent. Its waters cannot rest, 
 and (so or therefore) they cast up mire and mud. Lowth's version of this 
 last clause is more than usually plain and vigorous : its ivaters ivork up mire 
 and filth. The verb means strictly to expel or drive out, and is therefore 
 happily descriptive of the natural process here referred to. There seems to 
 
336 CHAPTER LVIII. 
 
 be allusion to this verse in the y.vi^aza uyQiu ^aXaoaiig of Jude v. 13. Most 
 of the later writers have repeated the fine parallel which Clericus quotes 
 from Ovid : 
 
 Cumque sit liftiernis agitatum fluctibus acquor, 
 Pectora sunt ipso turbiiiiora mari. 
 
 V. 21. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Gesenius has 
 for the wicked, i. e. in reserve for them. Ewald follows Luther in exchang- 
 ing the oriental for an occidental idiom, the wicked have no peace, which 
 although perfectly correct in sense, is an enfeebling deviation from the 
 Hebrew collocation and construction. That peace is here to be taken in 
 its strict sense, and not in that of welfare or prosperity, is clear from the 
 comparison in the preceding verse. Twenty-two manuscripts assimilate 
 this verse to ch. 48 : 22 by reading ni.-rn for ''n'^i* . The Alexandrian text 
 of the Septuagint combines both readings, KVQiog 6 Oeog. So too Jerome 
 has Dominus Deus, which Grotius thinks ought to be read Dominus mens, 
 not observing that the form of expression would still be different from that 
 of the original. It is somewhat surprising that the " higher criticism " has 
 not detected in this repetition a marginal gloss or the assimilating hand of 
 some redactor. But even Hitzig zealously contends, without an adversary, 
 that the verse is genuine both here and in ch. 48 : 22, and that its studied 
 repetition proves the unity and chronological arrangement of the whole 
 book. The only wonder is that in a hundred cases more or less analogous 
 the same kind of reasoning is rejected as beneath refutation. This verse, 
 according to the theory of Riickert, Hitzig, and Havernick, closes the second 
 great division of the Later Prophecies. For the true sense of the words 
 themselves, see above, on ch. 48 : 22. 
 
 CHAPTER LVIII. 
 
 The rejection of Israel as a nation is the just reward of their unfaithful- 
 ness, V. 1. Their religious services are hypocritical, v. 2. Their mortifi- 
 cations and austerities are nullified by accompanying wickedness, vs. 3-5. 
 They should have been connected with the opposite virtues, vs. 6 — 7. In 
 that case they would have continued to enjoy the divine favour, vs. 8 — 9. 
 They are still invited to make trial of this course, with an ample promise of 
 prosperity and blessing to encourage them, vs. 10-14. 
 
C H A P T E R L V I I 1 . 337 
 
 V. 1. Cry with the throat, spare not, like the trumpet raise thy voice, 
 and tell to my people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their 
 sins. Although this may be conveniently assigned as the beginning of the 
 third part, according to the theory propounded in the Introduction, it is 
 really, as Knobel well observes, a direct continuation of the previous dis- 
 course. Ewald's suggestion that the latter may have produced some effect 
 upon the people before this was uttered, rests on a supposition which has 
 probably no foundation in fact. The utmost that can be conceded is that 
 the Prophet, after a brief pause, recommences his discourse precisely at the 
 point where he suspended it. — The object of address is the Prophet himself, 
 as expressed in the Targum, and by Saadias (he said to me). That he is 
 here viewed as the representative of prophets or ministers in general, is not 
 a natural or necessary inference. Crying with the throat or from the lungs 
 is here opposed to a simple motion of the lips and tongue. (See I Sam. 
 1 : 13.) The common version (cry aloud) is therefore substantially correct, 
 though somewhat vague. The Septuagint in like manner paraphrases it 
 fV laxi'i- The Vulgate omits it altogether. J. D. Michaelis reads, as loud 
 as thou canst. The positive command is enforced by the negative one, 
 spare not, as in ch. 54 : 2. The comparison with a trumpet is of 
 frequent occurrence in the Book of Revelations. (See e. g, 1 : 10. 
 4:1.) The loudness of the call is intended to suggest the import- 
 ance of the subject, and perhaps the insensibility of those to be convinced. 
 The Prophet here seems to turn away from avowed apostates to hypocriti- 
 cal professors of the truth. The restriction of the verse to Isaiah's contem- 
 poraries by the rabbins, Grotius, and Piscator — and to the Jews of the 
 Babylonish exile by Sanctius and the modern writers — is as perfectly gratu- 
 itous as its restriction by Eusebius and Jerome to the Pharisees of Christ's 
 time, and by Vitringa to the Protestant churches at the decline of the 
 Reformation. The points of similarity with all or any of these periods 
 arise from its being a description of what often has occurred and will occur 
 again. It was important that a phase of human history so real and import- 
 ant should form a part of this prophetic picture, and accordingly it has not 
 been forgotten. 
 
 V. 2, And me day (by) day they will seek, and the knowledge of my 
 ways they will delight in (or desire), like a nation which has done right 
 and the judgment of its God has not forsaken ; they will ask of me right- 
 eous judgments, the approach to God (or of God) they will delight in (or 
 desire). The older writers understand this as a description of hypocrisy, 
 as practised in a formal seeking (i. e. worshipping) of God and a professed 
 desire to know his ways (i. e. the doctrines and duties of the true religion), 
 the external appearance of a just and godly people, who delight in nothing 
 
 22 
 
333 C H A P T E R L V I I I . 
 
 more than in drawing near lo God (i. e. in worship and communion with 
 him). Cocceius and Vitringa, while they differ on some minor questions, 
 e. g. whether seeking denotes consultation or worship, or includes them both, 
 agree as to the main points of the exposition which has just been given. 
 But Gesenius and all the later German writers put a very different sense 
 upon the passage. They apply it not to hypocritical formality, but to a 
 discontented and incredulous impatience of delay in the fulfilment of God's 
 promises. According to this view of the matter, seeking God daily, means 
 importunate solicitation : delight in the knowledge of his ways, is eager 
 curiosity to know his providential plans and purposes ; the judgments of 
 righteousness which they demand are either saving judgments for themselves 
 or destroying judgments for their enemies ; the approach which they desire 
 is not their own approach to God, but his approach to them for their deli- 
 verance ; and the words like a nation etc. are descriptive not of a simulated 
 piety, but of a self-righteous belief that by their outward services they had 
 acquired a meritorious claim to the divine interposition in their favour. Ii 
 is somewhat remarkable that a sentence of such length should without vio- 
 lence admit of two interpretations so entirely different, and the wonder is 
 enhanced by the fact that both the senses may be reconciled with the ensuing 
 context. The only arguments which seem to be decisive in favour of the 
 first, are its superior simplicity and the greater readiness with which it is 
 suggested to most readers by the language of the text itself, together with 
 the fact that it precludes the necessity of limiting the words to the Baby- 
 lonish exile, for which limitation there is no ground either in the text or 
 context. The objection to the modern explanation, founded on the sense 
 which it attaches to the verb ysn , is met by the analogous use of the verb 
 love in Ps. 40 : 17. 70 : 5. 2 Tim. 4 : 8. — Luther understands the last 
 clause as accusing them of wishing to contend with God, and venturing to 
 charge him with injustice. 
 
 V. 3. Why have we fasted and thou hast not seen (it), ajffiicted our 
 soul (or ourselves) and thou xvilt not know (it) 1 Behold, in the day of 
 your fast ye will find pleasure, and all your labours ye will exact. The 
 two interpretations which have been propounded of the foregoing verse 
 ao-ree in making this a particular exemplification of the people's self-right- 
 eous confidence in the meritorious efficacy of their outward services. The 
 first clause contains their complaint, and the last the prophet's answer. 
 This relation of the clauses Saadias points out by prefixing to one the words 
 " they say," and to the other " Prophet, answer them." Cocceius and 
 Vitringa suppose fasting to be here used in a wide sense for the whole 
 routine of ceremonial services. The same end is attained by adhering to 
 the strict sense, but supposing what is said of this one instance to be appli- 
 
CHAPTERLVIII. 339 
 
 cable to the others. The structure of the first clause is like that in ch. 5 : 4. 
 50 : 2. In our idiom the idea would be naturally thus expressed, Why- 
 dost thou not see when we fast, or recognise our merit when we mortify 
 ourselves before thee ? The word ffi?.3 here may either mean the appetite, 
 or the soul as distinguished from the body, or it may supply the place of ihe 
 reflexive pronoun self, which is entitled to the preference, because the con- 
 text shows that their mortifications were not of a spiritual but of a corporeal 
 nature. The combination of the preterite (hast not seen) and the future 
 (^ivilt not knoiv) includes all time. The clause describes Jehovah as indif- 
 ferent and inattentive to their laboured austerities. The reason given is 
 analogous to that for the rejection of their sacrifices in ch. 1 : 11-13, viz. 
 the combination of their formal service with unhallowed practice. The 
 precise nature of the alleged abuse depends upon the sense of the word 
 "sn . Gesenius and most later writers understand it to mean business, as 
 in ch. 44 : 28. 53 : 10, and explain the whole clause as a declara- 
 tion that on days set apart for fasting they were accustomed to pursue 
 their usual employments, or as Henderson expresses it, to " attend to busi- 
 ness." But this explanation of the word, as v/e have seen before, is per- 
 fectly gratuitous. If we take it in its usual and proper sense, the meaning 
 of the clause is that they made their pretended self-denial a means or an 
 occasion of sinful gratification, J. D. Michaelis supposes the specific plea- 
 sure meant to be that afibrded by the admiration of their superior goodness 
 by the people. But this is a needless limitation of the language, which may 
 naturally be applied to all kinds of enjoyment inconsistent with the morti- 
 fying humiliation which is inseparable from right fasting. — The remaining 
 member of the sentence has been still more variously explained. Accord- 
 ing to the Septuagint and Vulgate, it charges them with specially oppressing 
 their dependents {yno-/is(Qiovg and subjcctos) at such times. Luther agrees 
 with Symmachus in supposing a particular allusion to the treatment of 
 debtors. Gesenius in his Commentary, Umbreit, and De VVette, prefer the 
 specific sense of labourers or workmen forced to toil on fast-days as at other 
 times. Maurer, Hitzig, and Gesenius in his Thesaurus, coincide with the 
 English Version in the sense, ye exact all your labours, i. e. all the labour 
 due to you from your dependents. As these substitute labours for labourers 
 so the Rabbins debts for debtors. Aben Ezra uses the expression mammon, 
 which may mean your gains or profits ; but siis , as Maurer well observes, 
 does not signify emolument in general, but hard-earned wages, as appears 
 both from etymology and usage. (See Prov. 5 : 10. 10 : 22. Ps. 127 : 2.) 
 J. D. Michaelis ingeniously explains the clause as meaning that they 
 demanded of God himself a reward for their meritorious services. — On the 
 stated fasts of the Old Testament, see Jer. 36 : 9. Zech. 7:3. 8 : 19. — 
 According to Luzzatto, n^is originally signifies the convocation of the people 
 
340 CH A P T ER L VI II. 
 
 for prayer and preaching ; so that when Jezebel required a fast to be pro- 
 claimed, Naboth was set on high among the people, i. e. preached against 
 idolatry, on which pretext he was afterwards accused of having blasphemed 
 God and the king. (I Kings 21 : 9-13.) 
 
 V. 4. Behold, for strife and contention ye will fast, and to smite with 
 the fist of wickedness ; ye shall not (or ye vnll not) fast to-day (so as) to 
 malce your voice heard on high. Some understand this as a further reason 
 why their fasts were not acceptable to God ; others suppose the same to be 
 continued, and refer what is here said to the maltreatment of the labourers 
 or debtors mentioned in the verse preceding. Gesenius understands the h 
 in the first clause as expressive merely of an accompanying circumstance, 
 ye fast with strife and quarrel. But Maurer and the later writers, more 
 consistently with usage, understand it as denoting the effect, either simply 
 so considered, or as the end deliberately aimed at. J. D. Michaelis tells a 
 story of a lady who was never known to scold her servants so severely as 
 on fast days, which he says agrees well with physiological principles and 
 facts. Vitringa applies this clause to the doctrinal divisions among Protest- 
 ants, and more particularly to the controversies in the church of Holland on 
 the subject of grace and predestination. To smite with the fist of wicked- 
 ness is a periphrasis for fighting, no doubt borrowed from the provision of 
 the law in Ex. 21 : 18. — Luther and other early writers understand the last 
 clause as a prohibition of noisy quarrels, to make the voice heard on high 
 beino- taken as equivalent to letting it be heard in the street (ch. 42 : 3). 
 Vitringa and the later writers give it a meaning altogether different, by taking 
 Di"iT3 in the sense of heaven (ch. 57 : 15), and the whole clause as a decla- 
 ration that such fasting would not have the desired effect of gaining audience 
 and acceptance for their prayers. (See Joel 1 : 14. 2 : 12.) All the 
 modem writers make ci^s synonymous with ai'n to-day, as in I Kings 1:31. 
 Jarchi's explanation, as the day (ought to be kept) involves a harsh ellipsis 
 and is contrary to usage. — Instead of ^h sr^ui , Lowth reads ''b hts h'S u:n , 
 and translates 'to smite with the fist the poor ; wherefore fast ye unto me 
 in this manner ?' The only authority for this pretended emendation is the 
 raneivov Ivari fioi of the Septuagint version, and the strange idea that it 
 " trives a much better sense than the present reading of the Hebrew." 
 
 V. 5. Shall it be like this, the fast that I will choose, the day of man's 
 humbling himself? Is it to hang his head like a bulrush and make sack- 
 cloth and ashes his bed ? Wilt thou call this a fast, and a day of accept- 
 ance (an acceptable day) to Jehovah 1 The general meaning of this verse 
 is clear, although its structure and particular expressions are marked with a 
 strong idiomatic peculiarity which makes exact translation very difiicult. 
 
CHAPTERLVIII. 341 
 
 The interrogative form, as in many other cases, implies strong negation 
 mingled with surprise. Nothing is gained but something lost by dropping 
 the future forms of the first clause. The preterite translation of "ir!2i< (/ 
 have chosen) is in fact quite ungrammatical. No less gratuitous is the 
 explanation of this verb as meaning love by Gesenius, and approve by Hen- 
 derson ; neither of which ideas is expressed, although both are really implied 
 in the exact translation, choose. The second member of the first clause is 
 not part of the contemptuous description of a mere external fast, but belongs 
 to the definition of a true one, as a time for men to practise self-humilia- 
 tion. He does not ask whether the fast which he chooses is a day for a 
 man to afflict himself, implying that it is not, which would be destructive 
 of the very essence of a fast ; but he asks whether the fast which he has 
 chosen as a time for men to humble and afflict themselves is such as this, 
 i. e. a mere external self-abasement. — ""-i^ means to spread any thing under 
 one for him to lie upon. (See above, ch. 14 : 11.) The effect of fasting 
 as an outward means and tokt^n of sincere humiliation, may be learned from 
 the case of Ahab (1 Kings 21 : 27-29) and the Ninevites (Jonah 3 : 5-9). 
 The use of sackcloth and ashes in connexion with fasting is recorded in 
 Esther 9 : 3. Even Gesenius regards this general description as particu- 
 larly applicable to the abuse of fasting in the Romish and the Oriental 
 churches. The sense attached to ci"' by Luther (des Tages) and Lowth 
 (^for a day) changes the meaning of the clause by an arbitrary violation of 
 the syntax. 
 
 V. 6. Is not this the fast that I will choose, to loosen bands ofivicked- 
 ness, to undo the fastenings of the yoke, and to send away the crushed (or 
 broken) free, and every yoke ye shall break 1 Most interpreters suppose a 
 particular allusion to the detention of Hebrew servants after the seventh 
 year, contrary to the express provisions of the law (Ex. 21 : 2. Lev. 
 25:39. Deut. 15: 12). Grolius applies the terms in a figurative sense to 
 judicial oppression ; Cocceius to impositions on the conscience (Matt. 23 : 4. 
 Acts 15: 28. Gal. 5:1); Vitringa, still more generally, to human domi- 
 nation in the church (1 Cor. 7 : 23), with special reference to the arbitrary 
 imposition of formulas and creeds. It is evident, however, that the terms 
 were so selected as to be descriptive of oppression universally ; to make 
 which still more evident, the Prophet adds a general command or exhorta- 
 tion, Ye shall break every yoke. The Targum explains ii'^i'2 to mean 
 unjust decrees ("'-d-2 ^n "'-~=), and the Septuagint applies it to fraudulent 
 contracts, an idea which Gesenius thinks was probably suggested to the 
 translator by his know ledge of the habits of the Alexandrian Jews. Hitzig 
 agrees with Jarchi in deriving the first i^a'i« from fiaj and making it synony- 
 mous with tis^ (Ez. 9 : 9), the perversion of justice. (For this application of 
 
342 CH A PT E R L VIII. 
 
 the verb, see above, ch. 29 : 21. 30: 1 1). But although this affords a more 
 perfect parallelism with rr"^., it is dearly purchased by assuming that the 
 same form T^•Ji'.^ is iiere used in two entirely different senses. For the use 
 ofy^n in reference to oppression see 1 Sam. 12:3, 4, and compare Isaiah 
 42: 3. Gesenius here repeats his unwarrantable mistranslation of x^n as 
 synonymous with nsn. In this he is followed by Hitzig; but the later 
 writers have the good taste to prefer the strict translation. The change of 
 construction in the last clause from the Infinitive to the future, is so common 
 as to be entitled to consideration, not as a solecism but a Hebrew idiom. 
 There is no need therefore of adopting the indirect and foreign construction, 
 that ye break every yoke. — In reply to the question, how the acts here men- 
 tioned could be described as fasting, J. D. Mlchaells says that they are all 
 to be considered as involving acts of conscientious self-denial, which he 
 illustrates by the case of an American slaveholder brought by stress of con- 
 science to emancipate his slaves. The principle is stated still more clearly 
 and more generally by Augustine, in a passage which Gesenius quotes in 
 illustration of the verse before us. Jejunium magnum et generale est abstl- 
 nere ab Iniquitatibus et ilhcitls voluptatibus seculi, quod est perfectum jeju- 
 nium. Hendewerk understands this passage of Isaiah as expressly con- 
 demning and prohibiting all fasts, but the other Germans still maintain the 
 old opinion that it merely shows the spirit which is necessary to a true fast, 
 
 V. 7. Is it not to break unto the hungry thy bread, and the nfUcted, 
 the homeless, thou shah bring home : for thou shah see one naked and 
 shah clothe him, and from thine own Jlesh thou shalt not hide thyself. 
 The change of construction to the future in the first clause is precisely the 
 same as in the preceding verse. — Grotius explains the phrase to break 
 bread (meaning to distribute) from the oriental practice of baking bread in 
 thin flat cakes. — Lowth's version of the next phrase (^(he wondering poor) 
 is now commonly regarded as substantially correct. (Compare Job 15 : 23.) 
 cnnnis Is properly an abstract, meaning ivandering (from '^^"'), here used for 
 the concrete expression wanderers. There is no need of explaining it with 
 Henderson as an ellipsis for C'^n^n^ ^itdx men of wanderings. The essentia! 
 idea is expressed in the Septuagint version (^uarirjovg) which Ewald copies 
 (Dachlose), and still more exactly in the Vulgate [vagos). Jarchi explains 
 it to mean moxirning, by metathesis for C'n'ni'a a passive participle from 
 Ti"; . Hitzig derives it from "^yo to rebel, but gives it the specific sense of 
 fugitive rebels. Thou shalt bring home, 1. e. as Knobel understands it, for 
 the purpose of feeding them ; but this is a gratuitous restriction. — The 
 construction of the second clause is similar to that in v. 2. It is best to 
 retain the form of the original, not only upon general grounds, but because 
 thou shah see the naked seems to be a substantive command corresponding 
 
CHAPTERLVIII. 343 
 
 to ihoii shall not hide thyself. — For the use o^ flesh to signify near kindred, 
 see Gen. 29: 14. 37: 27. 2 Sam. 5:1. The Septuagint paraphrase is, 
 anh rmv oixeimv tov antQiiarog gov. — With the general precepts of the verse 
 compare ch. 32: 6. Job 31 : 16-22. Ez. 18 : 7. Prov. 22 : 9. Ps. 112: 9. 
 Matt. 25 : 36. Rom. 12 : 11. Heb. 13 : 2. James 2 : 15, 16; and with 
 the last clause, Matth. 15 : 5, 6. 
 
 V. 8. Then shall break forth as the daion thy light, and thy healing 
 speedily shall spring up ; then shall go before thee thy righteousness, and 
 the glory of Jehovah shall be thy rereward (or bring up thy rear). Kimchi 
 connects this with the foregoing context by supplying as an intermediate 
 thought, thou shalt no longer need to fast or lie in sackcloth and ashes. It 
 is evident, however, that the writer has entirely lost sight of the particular 
 example upon which he had been dwelling so minutely, and is now entirely 
 occupied with the effects which would arise from a conformity to God's will, 
 not in reference to fasting merely, but to every other part of duty. Then, 
 i. e. when this cordial compliance shall have taken place. The future form 
 is preferable here to the conditional (ivould break forth), not only as more 
 obvious and exact, but as implying that it will be so in point of fact, that 
 the effect will certainly take place, because the previous condition will be 
 certainly complied with. The verb to break forth (literally, to be cleft), 
 elsewhere applied to the hatching of eggs (ch. 59:5) and the gushing of 
 water (ch. 35 : 6), is here used in reference to the dawn or break of day, a 
 common figure for relief succeeding deep affliction. (See ch. 8 : 22. 47 : 11. 
 60: 1.) — ■^^''"N is properly a bandage, but has here the sense of healing, as 
 in Jer. 8: 22. 30: 17. 33: 6. By a mixture of metaphors, which does 
 not in the least obscure the sense, this healing is here said to sprout or ger- 
 minate, a figure employed elsewhere to denote the sudden, rapid, and spon- 
 taneous growth or rise of any thing. (See above, on ch, 42 : 9 and 43 : 19.) 
 In the last clause a third distinct figure is employed to express the same 
 idea, viz. that of a march like the journey through the wilderness, with the 
 pillar of cloud, as the symbol of God's presence, going before and after. 
 (See above, on ch. 52 : 12; and compare Ex. 13 : 21. 14 : 19.) — Thy 
 righteousness shall go before thee cannot mean that righteousness shall be 
 exacted as a previous condition, which is wholly out of keeping with the 
 figurative character of the description. Luther has also marred it by trans- 
 lating the last verb, shall take thee to himself, overlooking its peculiar mili- 
 tary sense, for which see above on ch. 52: 12. Knobel Improves upon 
 Gesenlus's gratuitous assumption that p"!:i means salvation, by explaining it 
 in this case as an abstract used for the concrete, and accordingly translating 
 it thy Saviour. Ail the advantages of this interpretation are secured 
 
344 CHAPTERLVIII. 
 
 without the slightest violence to usage, by supposing that Jehovah here 
 assumes the conduct of his people, as their righteousness or justifier. (See 
 Jer. 23 : 6. 33 : 16 ; and compare Isaiah 54 : 17.) The parallel term glory 
 may then be understood as denoting the manifested glory of Jehovah, or 
 Jehovah himself in glorious epiphany ; just as his presence with his people 
 in the wilderness was manifested by the pillar of cloud and of fire, which 
 sometimes went before them and at other times brought up their rear. (See 
 above, on ch. 52: 12.) This grand reiteration of a glorious promise is 
 gratuitously weakened and belittled by restricting it to the return of the 
 exiled Jews from Babylon ; which, although one remarkable example of the 
 thing described, has no more claim to be regarded as the whole of it, than 
 the deliverance of Paul or Peter from imprisonment exhausted Christ's 
 engagement to be with his servants always even to the end of the world. 
 
 V. 9. Thtn shalt thou call and Jehovah ivill answer, thou shalt cry 
 and he ivill say, Behold me (here I am), if thou wilt put away from the 
 midst of thee the yoke, the pointing of the finger, and the speaking of 
 vanity. The tx may either be connected with what goes before or corre- 
 spond to CN in the other clause, like then, ivhen, in English. That ex may 
 thus be used as a particle of time, will be seen by comparing ch. 4 : 4. 
 24 : 13. The conditional form of the pron)ise implies that it was not so with 
 them now, of which indeed they are themselves represented as complaining 
 in v. 3. The idea of this verse might be expressed in the occidental idiom 
 by saying, when thou callest, Jehovah will answer ; when thou criest, he will 
 say, Behold me. (See above, on ch. 50 : 2.) — The yoke is again men- 
 tioned as the symbol of oppression. (See v. 6.) De Wette needlessly 
 resolves it into subjugation (Unierjochung), Hendewerk still more boldly 
 into slavery. — The pointing of the finger is a gesture of derision. Hence 
 the middle finger is called by Persius digitus infamis ; Martial says, ridcto 
 multum, and in the same connexion, digitum porrigito medium; Plautus, 
 in reference to an object of derision, intende digitum in hunc. The Arabs 
 have a verb derived from ^/t^e?' and denoting scornful ridicule. The object 
 of contempt in this case is supposed by Grotius to be the pious ; by Hitzig, 
 the Prophet or Jehovah himself; by Knobel, the unfortunate, who are after- 
 wards described as objects of sympathy. — Words of vanity in Zech. 10: 2 
 mean falsehood, which is here retained by J. D. Michaelis, while Dathe 
 gives it the specific sense of slander, and Paulus that of secret and malig- 
 nant machination. Vitringa understands it as relating to censorious and 
 unnecessary fault-finding; Kimchi, Ewald, and Gesenius, to strife and bicker- 
 ings. All these may be included in the general sense of evil speech or 
 wicked words. The Targum has, words of oppression, or as Gesenius 
 explains it, violence. 
 
CHAPTERLVIII. 345 
 
 V. 10. And (if) thou wilt let out thy soul to the hungry, and the 
 afflicted soul wilt satisfy, then shall thy light arise in the darkness, and thy 
 gloom as the (double light or) 7ioon. For "j'^rSD Lowth reads "^nb thy 
 bread, in which he is supported by eight manuscripts. The Septuagint 
 version he considers as combining the two readings. But Vitringa under- 
 stands fx ^'v/Ji^' as denoting the cordiahty of a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9 : 7. 
 Rom. 12 : 8). Luzzatto, by means of a curious etymological analogy, 
 makes p'^sn synonymous with the i<"^2^n of Lev. 9 : 12, 13, 18, and trans- 
 lates the whole phrase, ' if thou wilt present thy person.' Gesenius takes 
 IJSD in the sense of appetite or hunger, here put for the thing desired or 
 enjoyed (deinen Bissen). Hitzig and Ewald, with the same view of the 
 writer's meaning, retain the more exact sense of desire in their translations. 
 Hendewerk's explanation, 'if thou wilt turn thy heart to the hungry,' is 
 near akin to Luther's, ' if thou let the hungry find thy heart,' which seems 
 to rest upon the same interpretation of the verb that has been quoted from 
 Luzzatto. By a distressed soul Hitzig here understands one suffering from 
 want and craving sustenance. (See ch. 29 : 8.) The figure in the last 
 clause is a cominon one for happiness succeeding sorrow. (See Judg. 5 : 3L 
 Ps. 112:4. Job 11: 17.) Vitringa asserts roundly (aio rotunde) that 
 this prophecy was not fulfilled until after the Reformation, when so many 
 German, French, Italian, and Hungarian Protestants were forced to seek 
 refuge in other countries. The true sense of the passage he has given 
 without knowing it, in these words : " Post tot beneficia et stricturas lucis 
 ecclesiae inductas, restat meridies quem expectat." 
 
 V. 11. And Jehovah will guide thee ever, and satisfy thy soul in 
 drought, and thy bones shall he invigorate, and thou shalt be like a wa- 
 tered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters shall not fail. The 
 promise of guidance had already been given in ch. 57 : 18. (Compare Ps. 
 73 : 24, 78 : 14.) Jerome's translation (requiem tibi dabit) derives the 
 verb from hjij , not nns. Driessen and some others make nin-^n^a mean with 
 clear or bright waters; but the sense of glistening, dazzling, which belongs 
 to the Arabic root, is equally applicable to the burning sands of a desert. 
 Ewald translates it fever-heat. The common version, drought, which 
 Lowth changes to severest drought, in order to express the intensive mean- 
 ing of the plural form, agrees well with the verb to satisfy, referring to 
 thirst, as v. 10 does to hunger. The common version of the next clause 
 (and make fat thy bones) is sanctioned by the Septuagint and Kimchi, 
 who appeals to the analogy of Prov. 15 : 30. The Vulgate version (ossa 
 liberabit) seems both arbitrary and unmeaning. The Peshito and Saadias 
 translate the verb will strengthen, which is adopted by most modern writ- 
 ers. Seeker's emendation (f|"'^n': ^f^^^s), which Lowth adopts (renew 
 
346 CHAPTERLVIII. 
 
 thy strength), derives some countenance not only from the Targum, but 
 from the analogy of ch. 40 : 31 and 41:1, and is only inadmissible be- 
 cause it is gratuitous. Similar allusions to the bones as the seat of strength, 
 occur in Ps. 51:10 and Job 21 : 24. The figure in the last clause is 
 the converse of that in ch. 1 : 30. There is here a climax. Not content 
 with the image of a well-watered garden, he substitutes that of the stream, 
 or rather of the spring itself. The general idea is a favourite with Isaiah. 
 (See above, ch. 30 : 25. 33 : 21. 35 : 5, 7. 41 : 17. 43 : 20. 44 : 4. 
 48 : 21. 49 : 10.) On the deceiving of the waters, see Jer. 15 : 18, and 
 compare the analogous expressions of Hosea with respect to wine, and of 
 Habakkuk with respect to oil. (Hos. 5 : 2. Hab. 3 : 17.) Hitzig and 
 Knobel understand what is here said of heat and drought in literal applica- 
 tion to the journey of the exiles through the wilderness, while all the ana- 
 logous expressions in the context are regarded as strong figures. The truth 
 is, that the exodus from Egypt had already made these images familiar and 
 appropriate to any great deliverance. 
 
 V. 12. And they shall build from thee the ruins of antiquity (ov per- 
 petuity), foundations of age and age (i. e. of ages) shalt thou raise up; 
 and it shall he called to thee (or thou shalt be called) Repairer of the 
 breach, Restorer of paths for divelling. Ewald reads ^^2 , they shall be 
 built by thee; but this passive form does not occur elsewhere, and is here 
 sustained by no external evidence. Kimchi understands ^33 as referring 
 not to persons, but effects (opera), which is very unnatural. Hitzig retains 
 the old interpretation of the clause as referring to children or descendants ; 
 and the latter writer gives it a specific application to the younger race of 
 exiles, whom he supposes to be the Servant of Jehovah in these Later Pro- 
 phecies. Gesenius denies the reference to children, and explains r^'q as 
 meaning those belonging to thee, or, as he paraphrases it, thy people. The 
 simplest supposition is that of some rabbinical writers, who supply as the 
 subject of the verb its correlative noun, builders. But as "s^ properly 
 means y/o;« thee, it denotes something more than mere connexion, and, un- 
 less forbidden by something in the context, must be taken to signify a going 
 forth from Israel into other lands. Thus understood, the clause agrees ex- 
 actly with the work assigned to Israel in ch. 42 : 14 and 57 : 11, viz. that 
 of reclaiming the apostate nations, and building the wastes of a desolated 
 world. As D;ii' obviously refers to past time, this is the only natural inter- 
 pretation of the corresponding phrase, ^ii; "ii'n ; although Luther and others 
 understand the latter as referring to foundations which shall last for ever. 
 Gesenius understands by foundations, buildings razed to their foundations 
 (Ps. 137 : 7) ; and Hitzig supposes it to have the secondary sense o( ruins, 
 like D'l'r'^^JX , in ch. 16 : 7. The sense will then be, if referred to past 
 
CHAPTERLVIII. 347 
 
 time, foundations which have lain bare, or buildings whose foundations have 
 lain bare, for ages. For the metaphor, compare Am. 9 : 11 ; for that of a 
 highway, ch. 19 : 23. 35 : 8 ; and for that of the breach, Ez. 13 : 5. 22 : 30. 
 The addition of the last phrase, nn'^jb , has perplexed interpreters. Cocceius 
 understands it to mean that the paths themselves shall be inhabited. Gese- 
 nius arbitrarily translates it, in the inhabited land. Knobel no less gratui- 
 tously gives to paths the sense of beaten or frequented regions. Jerome 
 and Grotius make the word a derivative from nsa5 , and translate it in 
 quietem, or ad qiiiescendum. The most satisfactory hypotheses are those of 
 Hiizig and Maurer, the former of whom makes the phrase mean ad hahitan- 
 dum sc. terram., that the land may be inhabited. The latter understands the 
 paths to be described as leading not to ruins and to deserts as before, but 
 to inhabited regions. Of these the former seems entitled to the preference. 
 It will be sufficient to record the fact, that Vitringa finds in this verse an 
 allusion to fundamental doctrines, canons, formulas, etc. etc. 
 
 V. 13. If thou wilt turn aioay thy foot from the Sabbath to do thy 
 pleasure on my holy day, and wilt call the Sabbath a delight, (^and) the 
 holy (day) of Jehovah honourable, and wilt honour it by not doing thy own 
 ways, by not finding thy pleasure and talking talk. The version of Hen- 
 derson and others, turn away thy foot on the Sabbath, is inconsistent with 
 the form of the original, as well as with the figure, which is that of some- 
 thing trodden down and trampled, or at least encroached upon. Most 
 interpreters agree with Kimchi in supplying '"o before mb? , a combination 
 which is actually found in one manuscript. Hitzig supposes that the gram- 
 matical effect of the first '"a extends to this infinitive. Maurer supplies 
 nothing, and translates ut agos. The modern version of ytn (business) is 
 much less natural, even in this connexion, than the old one, thy pleasure, 
 especially as paraphrased by Luther, ivhat thou ivilt (was dir gefdllt) . Hit- 
 zig observes a climax in the requisitions of this clause, not unlike that in 
 Prov. 2 : 2-4. The mere outward observance was of no avail, unless the 
 institution were regarded with reverence, as of God ; nay more, with compla- 
 cency, as in itself delightful. To call it a delight, is to acknowledge it as such. 
 The h before "iii^f? appears to interrupt the construction, which has led some 
 interpreters to disregard it altogether, and others to take laiip as a verb, or an 
 adjective agreeing with Jehovah — honoured in order to sanctify (or glorify) 
 Jehovah — honoured by the sanctification of Jehovah — honoured for the sake 
 of the Holy One, Jehovah. But the simplest explanation is the one pro- 
 posed by De Dieu and adopted by Vitringa, which treats the b before 
 psir , and that before ^'^'ip , as correlatives, alike connecting the verb Nip 
 with its object. As the construction of this verb is foreign from our idiom, 
 it may be best explained by a paraphrase : ' If thou wilt give to the Sab- 
 
348 C H A P T E R L V I I I . 
 
 bath (rrrs) the name of a dehght, and to the holy (o'.ip^) day or ordi- 
 nance of Jehovah that of honourable.' But mere acknowledgment is not 
 enough — it must not only be admitted to deserve honour, but in fact re- 
 ceive it. Hence he adds, and if thou wilt honour it thyself, hy not doing, 
 literally, away from doing, so as not to do. (On this use of •,ia , see ch. 5 : 6. 
 49: 15.) Here again, to find one's pleasure on the Sabbath is more natural 
 than to find one's business. Doing thy own ways, although not a usual 
 combination, is rendered intelligible by the constant use of way in He- 
 brew to denote a course of conduct. Speaking speech or talking talk is 
 by some regarded as equivalent to speaking vanity, in v. 9. The Septua- 
 gint adds fV op/f;. The modern writers, for the most part, are in favour of 
 the explanation, speaking mere words, idle talk. (Compare Matt. 12 : 36.) 
 The classical parallels adduced by Clericus, Gesenius, and others, are very 
 little to the purpose. As to the importance here attached to the Sabbath, 
 see above, on ch. 56 : 2. 
 
 V. 14. Then shah thou be happy in Jehovah, and I will malie thee ride 
 upon the heights of the earth, and 1 ivill make thee eat the heritage of 
 Jacob thy father, for Jehovah's mouth hath sjyoken it. The verb Jsrnn is 
 combined with the divine name elsewhere to express both a duty and a 
 privilege. (Compare Psalm 37 : 4 with Job 22 : 26. 27 : 10. — ^nns-in 
 does not mean I will raise thee above (Jerome), or I will cause thee to sit 
 (Cocceius), but I will cause thee to ride. The whole phrase is descriptive 
 not of a mere return to Palestine the highest of all lands (Kimchi), nor of 
 mere security from enemies by being placed beyond their reach (Vitringa), 
 but of conquest and triumphant possession, as in Deut. 32 : 13, from which 
 the expression is derived by all the later writers who employ it. There is 
 no sufficient ground for Knobel's supposition that riirs in this phrase means 
 the fortresses erected upon hills and mountains. — To eat the heritage is to 
 enjoy it and derive subsistence from it. Kimchi correctly says that it is 
 called the heritage of Jacob as distinct from that of Ishmael and Esau, 
 although equally descended from the Father of the Faithful. — The last 
 clause is added to ensure the certainty of the event, as resting not on human 
 but divine authority. See ch. 1 : 2. 
 
CHAPTER LIX. 349 
 
 CHAPTER LIX. 
 
 The fault of Israel's rejection is not in the Lord but in themselves, vs. 
 1, 2. They are charged with sins of violence and injustice, vs. 3, 4. 
 The ruinous effects of these corruptions are described, vs. 5, 6. Their 
 violence and injustice are as fatal to themselves as to others, vs. 7, 8. The 
 moral condition of the people is described as one of darkness and hopeless 
 degradation, vs. 9-15. In this extremity Jehovah interposes to deliver the 
 true Israel, vs. 16, 17. This can only be effected by the destruction of 
 the carnal Israel, v. 18. The divine presence shall no longer be subjected 
 to local restrictions, v. 19. A Redeemer shall appear in Zion to save the 
 true Israel, v. 20. The old temporary dispensation shall give place to the 
 dispensation of the Word and Spirit, which shall last for ever, v. 21. 
 
 V. 1 . Behold, 7iot shortened is Jehovah'' s hand from saving, and not 
 benumbed is his ear from hearing, i. e. so as not to save, and not to hear, 
 or too short to save, too dull to hear. On this use of the preposition, see 
 above on ch. 58 : 13, and the references there made. The Prophet merely 
 pauses, as it were, for a moment, to exonerate his master from all blame, 
 before continuing his accusation of the people. The beginning of a chapter 
 here is simply a matter of convenience, as the following context has precisely 
 the same character with that before it ; unless we assume with Lowth that 
 the Prophet now ascends from particulars to generals, or with J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis, that he here descends to a lower depth of wickedness. The only 
 explanation of the passage which allows it to speak for itself, without gratu- 
 itous additions or embellishments, is that which likens it to ch. 42 : 18- 
 25. 43 : 22-28, and 50 : 1,2, as a solemn exhibition of the truth that 
 the rejection of God's ancient people was the fruit of their own sin, and not 
 to be imputed either to unfaithfulness on his part, or to want of strength or 
 wisdom to protect them. For the true sense of the metaphor here used 
 see above, on ch. 50 : 2. Hendewerk is under the necessity of granting 
 that the Israel of this passage is a moral i. e. an ideal person, correspondino- 
 not to any definite portion of the people at any one time, but to such of 
 ihem at various times as possessed a certain character. Whatever may be 
 thought of the necessity or grounds of this assumption in the case before us, 
 
350 C H A P T E R L I X . 
 
 he has no ri^ht to deny the possibility of others like it, even where he does 
 not think them requisite liimself. Hanc veniam ^etimusquc damusque 
 vicissim. 
 
 V. 2. But your iniquities have hecn sejjarating between you and your 
 God, and your sins have hid (/t/s) face from you, so as not to hear, ex -3 
 is the usual adversative after a negation, corresponding to the German son- 
 dern, which has no distinct equivalent in English. Ewald's version, rather 
 (vielinehr), seems to weaken the expression ; and Umbreit's combination of 
 the two (^soiidcrn vielmehr) is entirely gratuitous. — The present form given 
 to the verb (^they separate) by Luther and retained even by De Wette, is 
 entirely inadequate. The original expression is intended to convey, in the 
 strongest manner, the idea both of past time and of continuance or custom. 
 Ewald expresses this by introducing the word bislang, but Umbreit better 
 by retaining the exact form of the original (icareit scheidend). Hitzig 
 points out an allusion to the ^^'^'^^ 'ni of Gen. 1 : 6, which is the moie 
 remarkable because it may be likewise traced in the construction of the 
 preposition 'pa, both the modes of employing it which there occur being 
 here combined. — The general idea of this verse is otherwise expressed in 
 Jer. 5 : 25, while in Lam. 3 : 44 the same prophet reproduces both the 
 thought and the expression, with a distinct mention of the intervening 
 object as a cloud, which may possibly have been suggested by the language 
 of Isaiah himself in ch. 44 : 22. — Henderson adopts the explanation of 
 ■T^ncii by Kimchi and Aben Ezra as a causative (^have made him hide) ; 
 but this is contrary to usage. — Seeker proposes to read ^:s (my face), and 
 Lowth 1*^:3 (his face), for which he cites the authority of the ancient ver- 
 sions ; but in these, as in the modern ones, the pronoun is supplied by the 
 translator, in order to remove an ellipsis which is certainly unusual, though 
 not without example, as appears from Job 34 : 29, where the noun without 
 a suffix is combined with this very verb. For an instance of the same kind, 
 though not perfectly identical, see above, ch. 53 : 3. The omission of the 
 pronoun is so far from being wholly anomalous that Luther simply has the 
 face, in which he is followed both by Ewald and Umbreit. — The force of 
 the particle before the last verb is the same as in ch. 44 : 18 and 49 : 15. 
 It does not mean specifically that he will not, much less that he cannot hear, 
 but, as Lowth translates it, that he doth not hear. It is still better, how- 
 ever, to retain the infinitive form of the original by rendering it, so as not 
 to hear, 
 
 V. 3. For your hands are defied with blood, and your fingers with 
 iniquity ; your lips have spoken falsehood, your tongue will utter wicked- 
 ness. The Prophet now, according to a common usage of the Scriptures, 
 
CH APT E R LIX. 351 
 
 classifies ilie prevalent iniquities as sins of the bands, the mouth, the feet, 
 as if to intimate that every member of the social body was affected. 
 On the staining of the hands with blood, see the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 12. Here again we have a marked and apparently unstudied simi- 
 larity of thought and language to the genuine Isaiah. The form ^n:? , 
 which occurs only here and in Lam. 4 : 14, is explained by Kimchi as a 
 mixture of the JNiphal and Pual, by Gesenius as a kind of double passive. 
 The use of this form, instead of the Pual, which is found only in the latest 
 books, is rather symptomatic of an earlier writer. The sense here put upon 
 ^xa , and in a few other places, seems so wholly unconnected w ith its usual 
 and proper meaning, as to give some countenance to Henderson's idea, 
 which might otherwise seem fanciful, that it is a denominative from bxJi the 
 avenger of blood. — Vitringa infers from v. 7, that the blood here meant is 
 specifically that of the innocent or those unjustly put to death. — According 
 to Grotius, the iniquity which stained their fingers was that of robbery and 
 theft. It is far more natural, however, to consider hands and fingers as 
 equivalent expressions, or at the utmost as expressing different degrees of 
 the same thing. Thus Umbreit represents it as characteristic of the Old 
 Testament severity in reprehending sin, that the Prophet, not content with 
 staining the hands, extends his description to the very fingers. This is 
 certainly ingenious, but perhaps too artificial to have been intended by the 
 writer. — The restriction of the falsehood here charged to judicial fraud or 
 misrepresentation, is unnecessary. — The preterite and future forms describe 
 the evil as habitual, and ought to be retained in the translation, were it only 
 for the purpose of exhibiting the characteristic form of the original. — The 
 last verb is explained by Vitringa as expressive of deliberate promulgation 
 (^meditate prof ert), and by Luther of invention (dichtet). J. D. Michaelis 
 attenuates its sense to that of simple speech, while Hitzig coincides with the 
 English Version (muttered). As the word, though applied to vocal utter- 
 ance, is not confined to articulate speech, the nearest equivalent perhaps is 
 uUer, as conveying neither more nor less than the original. — Vitringa applies 
 this verse likewise to the scandals of the reformed church, and especially 
 to those arising from its coalescence with the state, observing that the inter- 
 preter is not bound to verify the truth of the description, as we know not 
 what is yet to happen. This would be rational enough where the prophecy 
 itself contained explicit indications of a specific subject ; but where this is 
 to be made out by comparison with histoiy, a reference to future possibilities 
 is laughable. — The wider meaning of the whole description is evident from 
 Paul's combining parts of it with phrases drawn from several Psalms 
 remarkably resembling it, in proof of the depravity of human nature. 
 (Rom. 3 : 15-17.) 
 
35-3 CHAPTER LIX. 
 
 V. 4. There is none calling icith justice, and there is none contending 
 ivith truth ; they trust in vanity and speak falsehood, conceive mischief and 
 bring forth iniquity. The phrase p^-^^ sn'p has been variously understood. 
 The Septuagint makes it mean simply speaking just things (ov8t]g lain 
 dr/.aia) which would hardly have been so expressed in Hebrew. The 
 Chaldce paraphrase, praying in truth (i. e. sincerely), seems to be founded 
 on the frequent description of worship, as calling on the name of God. 
 Jerome's version, cjui invocet justitiam, is followed in the English Bible, 
 calleth for justice, i. e. as Clericus explains it, there is no one who is will- 
 inn^ to commit his cause to such unrighteous judges. Hensler and Doderlein 
 apply it to judicial decrees and decisions, which is wholly at variance with 
 the usance of the verb. Kimchi understands it of one person calling to 
 another for the purpose of reproving him ; but then the essential idea is the 
 very one which happens not to be expressed. Gesenius and Maurer fol- 
 low Rosenmiiller in attaching to xip the forensic sense of >t«J.m f<v Smjv and 
 voco in jus : ' No one summons another, i. e. sues him, justly.' In proof of 
 such a Hebrew usage Knobel cites Job 5:1. 13 : 2-2 ; which are at best 
 very doubtful. The same sense seems to be designed by Lowth (^preferreth 
 his suit). It would be still more difficult to justify the sense of speaking 
 for or advocating, here assumed by J. D. Michaelis and Henderson. In 
 this uncertainty, some of the latest writers have gone back to Luther's 
 sense o^ preaching, which is easily deducible from that of calling publicly, 
 proclaiming. According to Hitzig this is the proper Hebrew term for pub- 
 lic speaking, such as that in the synagogues, which was free to all. (See 
 Luke 4 : 16. Acts 13 : 15.) Luther makes righteousness the subject of 
 the preaching, Ewald and Umbreit a description of its quality (^aright or 
 justly). The only argument against this explanation, and in favour of a 
 more forensic or judicial one, is that afforded by the parallel expression, 
 nj^^xs L:sr3 . Kimchi makes the verb a simple passive, meaning to be tried 
 or judged — ' no one is fairly tried.' Luther and J. D. Michaelis reverse this 
 explanation and apply the clause to unjust judges. Most writers make the 
 verb reciprocal (as in ch. 43 : 26. Prov. 29 : 9. Ez. 17 : 20), and apply 
 it either to forensic litigation, or to controversy and contention for the truth. 
 In either case <^5^^?< must mean bona fides, and not truth as the subject or 
 occasion of dispute, which is not the meaning of the Hebrew word. (See 
 Hengstenberg on Ps. 33 : 4.) The infinitive construction of the next clause 
 cannot be retained in English. The nearest equivalent is that adopted in 
 the common version. Lowth's substitution of the participle (trusting, speak- 
 ing, etc.) is no better as to form, and really obscures the sense or at least 
 the true grammatical relation of the clauses. The construction is the same 
 as in ch. 5 : 5. 21 : 9. Vitringa supposes an ellipsis of the preterite, which 
 
CH A P T E R LIX. 353 
 
 is inadmissible, for reasons given in the Earlier Prophecies, p. 67. — 'fin is 
 vigorously rendered by J. D. Michaelis nothing (auf cin Nichts). The 
 falsehood mentioned in this clause is understood by some in the specific 
 sense of false or unfair reasoning. — With the figure of the last clause com- 
 pare Job 15 : 35 and Psahn 7:15. It might here be understood to denote 
 mere disappointment or failure, as in v. 13 below ; but the analogy of ch. 
 33 : 11 seems to show that the prominent idea is that of mischievous and 
 spiteful machination. With the first of these interpretations seems to be 
 connected the sense which J. D. Michaelis here attaches to "C^ , namely, 
 that of pain or suffering. 
 
 V. 5. Eggs of the basiUslc they have hatched, and webs of the spider 
 they will spin (or iveove) ; the (one) eating of their eggs shall die, and 
 the crushed (egg) shall hatch out a viper. The figure of the serpent is 
 substantially the same as in ch. 14 : 29. (Compare Deut. 32 : 33.) The 
 precise varieties intended are of little exegetical importance. The modern 
 writers generally follow Bochart in explaining ""--^^ to mean the basilisk, a 
 serpent small in size but of a deadly venom. For the use of the verb in 
 such connexions, see above, ch. 34 : 15. The figure of the spider's web 
 is added to express the idea both of burtfulness and futility. (See Job. 8 : 14.) 
 — iT^'iT for iTi^T (like ri:h for n:b Zech. 5 : 4) is the passive participle of n^7 
 to press, applied in ch. 1 : 4 to the curative compression of a wound. That 
 it does not here denote incubation, as explained by AquiJa (OuXqj&ev), 
 Jerome (confotum), and Jarcbi, may be inferred from Job 39 : 15, where 
 the same verb is applied to the crushing of the eggs of the ostrich by the 
 foot. — Luther, Lowth, J.D. Michaelis, and Gesenius make iTi^tn a nomina- 
 tive absolute, 'if one is crushed there creeps out a viper.' Maurer and the 
 
 later writers construe it directly with the verb, as in the Eno-h'sh Bible. 
 
 To the objection that the viper is viviparous, Vltringa answers that the 
 Prophet intentionally uses a mixed metaphor ; Gesenius, that we cannot look 
 for accurate details of natural history in such a writer. Neither seems to 
 have observed that the exact correspondence of the Hebrew word to 
 viper is extremely problematical, although Gesenius himself defines it in 
 his Lexicon, " a viper, adder, aiiy poisonous serpent" and J. D. Michaelis 
 accordingly translates it by the general term schlange. The same writer 
 looks upon the whole verse as peculiarly appropriate to the character 
 and condition of the Jews immediately before their destruction by the 
 Romans. 
 
 V. 6. Their webs shall not become (or be for) clothing, and they shall 
 not coxier themselves with their works ; their works are works of mischief 
 (or iniquity), and the doing of violence is in their hands. The first clause 
 
 23 
 
354 CHAPTER L 1 X . 
 
 does not seem to foim a pari of what the writer meant at first to say, but is 
 a kind of aftertliouylit, by which he gives a new turn to the sentence, and 
 expresses an additional idea without a change of metaphor. Having intro- 
 duced the spider's web, in connexion with the serpent's egg, as an emblem 
 of malignant and treacherous designs, he here repeals the first but for another 
 purpose, namely, to suggest the idea of futility and worthlessness. This 
 application may have bi;en suggested by the frequent reference to webs and 
 weaving as conducive to the comfort and emolument of men ; bui spiders' 
 webs can answer no such purpose. The idea that it is not fit or cannot be 
 applied to this end, although not exclusively expressed, is really included 
 in the general declaration liiat they shall not be so used. — Gesenius and 
 Ewald make the second verb indefinite, thty shall not (i. e. no one shall) 
 employ them for this purpose. J3ul the sentence is more pointed if we 
 understand it as including a specific menace that the authors of these devices 
 shall derive no advantage from them. Works in the first clause simply 
 means what they have inaile ; but in the second, where the metaphor is 
 dropped, this version would be inadmissible. The common version of 
 irb (^act) and Lowth's emendation of it {(Iced), are both defective in not 
 sui-o-esting the idea of continued and habitual practice. 
 
 V. 7. Their feet to evil loUl run, and they ivill hasten to shed innocent 
 
 blood ; their ihoiighis are thoughls of mischief {ov iniquity) ; wastiiig and 
 
 ruin are in their puihs. The first clause expresses not a mere disposition, 
 
 but an eager proclivity to wrong. The word translated thoughts has here 
 
 and elsewhere the specific sense of purposes, connivances, devices, which 
 
 lasi Lowth employs as an equivalent. Luther gives -i^!:* here as well as in 
 
 the foregoing verse the sense of trouble (Muhe), in reference no doubt to 
 
 the oppressors themselves. In like manner J. D. Michaelis explains ruin in 
 
 their paths as meaning that it awaits themselves , but most interpreters take 
 
 both expressions in an active sense, as meaning what they do to others, not 
 
 what they experience themselves. Their paths are then the paths in which 
 
 their feet run to evil and make haste to shed innocent blood. — The two 
 
 nouns combined in the last clause strictly denote desolation and crushing, 
 
 i. e. utter ruin. Destruction and calamity (Lowth) are as much too vague 
 
 as destruction and wounds (J. D. Michaelis) ov force and ruins (Ewald) are 
 
 too specific. Knobel supposes the idea to be that of a country wasted by 
 
 invading enemies. (Seech. I : 4.) — With this verse compare Prov. 1 : 16, 
 
 and the evil way of ch. 55 : 7 above. Knobel of course applies it to the 
 
 quarrelsome exiles, and gravely adds that nothing more can be determined 
 
 with respect to them than this that they sometimes did not hesitate to rob 
 
 and murder! The references which he adds to this extraordinary statement 
 
 are ch. 57 : 20. 50: 11, and vs. 3 and 15 of this chapter. 
 
CHAPTER L I X . 355 
 
 V. 8. The ivnij of peace iheij have voi knoivn, and there is no justice 
 in their paths ; their courses they have rendered crooked for them; every 
 one icalking in them knows not peace. J. D- Michaelis and Umbreit go to 
 opposite extremes in their interpretation of the first clause. The former 
 makes the way of peace denote the way to happiness ; the latter under- 
 stands the clause to mean that ihey refuse all overtures of reconciliation. 
 The obvious and simple meaning is, tliat their lives are not pacific but con- 
 tentious. In order to vary the expression, Lowth translates Dn'^ssra in 
 their tracks, which is retained by Henderson. With still more exact adhe- 
 rence to the primary meaning of the verb, they might have written in (heir 
 ruts, irpr is twice used in the book of Proverbs as the opposite of upright 
 or sincere. (Prov. 10 : 9. 28 : 18.) Ilitzig gives the verb the specific 
 sense o( choosing crooked paths, which is not so simple or exact as the 
 common English version (they have made them crooked paths), ns is a 
 neuter or indefinite expression. There is no need therefore of reading 
 either oraTJ with a single manuscript, or t:i with the ancient versions, 
 between which emendations Lowth appears to hesitate. Knobel's infer- 
 ence fiom this verse that some of the less corrupted Jews were led astray 
 by wicked leaders, is as groundless as Vitiinga's specific application of the 
 passage to the excesses of victorious parties in religious controversy, not 
 without evident allusion to the ecclesiastical disputes of the Reformed 
 Dutch Church, to which he very naturally, but by no means very reasona- 
 bly, yields an extravagantly disproportioned space, in determining the scope 
 of this prophetic vision. Tlie erroneous principle involved in both interpre- 
 tations is refuted by the comprehensive sense wliich the apostle puts upon 
 the words in the passage which has been already cited. (Rom. 3: 15-17.) 
 
 V. 9. Therefore is judgment far from us, and righteousness ivill not 
 overtake us; ive wait for light and behold darkness ; for splendours, (and) 
 in obscurities ive walk. The future form of all the verbs in this verse inti- 
 mates that they expect this state of things to continue. Knobel explains 
 judgment as meaning the practical decision between them and their ene- 
 mies, which God would make when he delivered them. Why then may 
 not the parallel expression, righteousness, be applied in the same way, 
 without losing its original and proper sense in that o( salvation! Accordino^ 
 to Hendewerk, it here denotes the righteous compensation which the Jews 
 were to receive for their excessive sufferings. (See above, on ch. 40 : 2.) 
 J. D. Michaelis explains the expression overtake strictly, as denoting that 
 they fled from it. (Compare ch. 35 : 10. and 51 : 11.) Vitringa applies 
 this verse to the threatened extinction of religion in his own day ; Knobel, 
 to the delay in the deliverance from Babylon, occasioned by Cyrus's attack 
 on Croesus ! 
 
356 C H A P T E R L I X . 
 
 V. 10. We grope like ih.c blind for the «'«//, like the eyeless ux grope ; 
 we stumble at noonday as in twilight, in thick darkness like the dead. 
 Lowth is so offended with the " poverty and inelegance"' of repeating 
 n-r'c;53 . which he thinks "extremely unworthy of the Prophet, and unlike his 
 manner," that he reads in the second phce with Houbigant, n;.5r: we ivan- 
 der, candidly adding that the mistake, although very easy and obvious, '' is 
 of long standing, being prior to all the ancient versions." Whatever else 
 may be said of " this ingenious correction," it cannot be described as 
 of long standing ; for no writer since Lowth appears to have adopted it. 
 To an unsophisticated taste the repetition is a beauty, when used sparingly 
 and in the proper place. The phrase n-^2T:exa has been variously ren- 
 dered. Jerome, Luther, J. D. Michaelis, and Ruckeri, make the noun 
 mean darkness or dark places (in caliginosis) ; the Targum, Saadias, 
 Kirachi, and Grotius, in the tomb ; which sense the elder Kimchi derives 
 from tD^x to be desolate. Lowth, Koppe, Doderlein, and Bauer, in the 
 midst of fatness, abundance, or fertility ; Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer, and 
 Hendewerk, in fat or fertile fields ; Aben Ezra, RosenmiiUer, Ewald, and 
 Umbreit, in the midst of the fat or healthy, with or without allusion to the 
 prosperous heathen among whom they were scattered, or by whom they 
 were oppressed. Knobel has gone back to the meaning darkness, as best 
 suited to the context, and easily deducible from the sense of fatness, just as 
 we speak of gross or thick darkness. Vitiinga dissents from the application 
 of this verse by Cocceius to the deposition of Ferdinand king of Bohemia, 
 and the election of Frederick the Count Palatine. With this verse com- 
 pare Deut. 28 : 29 and Zeph. I : 17. 
 
 V. 11. J^e grou-l like the bears, all of us, and like the doves we moan 
 (loe) moan; we loaii for justice and there is none, for salvation (and) it 
 {s far from us. The Latin poets also speak of the voice of bears and doves 
 as a o-cmitus or groaning. (See above, ch. 38 : 14, and Ezek. 7 : 16.) 
 Umbreit supposes the two here to represent the extremes of violent and 
 o-entle o'rief. The same effect which is produced in the first clause, by the 
 use of the phrase all of us, is produced in the other by the idiomatic repe- 
 tition of the verb. Here, as in v. 9, we may understand by judgment or 
 iustice that which God does by his providential dispensations both to his 
 people and his enemies. 
 
 V. 12. For our ii'ansgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins 
 testify against us ; for our transgressions are with us, and our iniquities — 
 xve knou) them. The Prophet here begins a general confession in the name 
 of God's people. For the form of expression, compare Ps. 51:5. The 
 construction of the verb nnss with a plural noun is explained by Tretnel- 
 
CHAPTER LIX. 357 
 
 lius and Vitringa as implying an ellipsis (quodque). Cocceius in like 
 manner supplies id ipsum. The modern grammarians, who in general 
 are averse to the gratuitous assumption of ellipses, seerh disposed to 
 regard it as an idiomatic license of construction. Lowth translates >i3Pis , 
 cleave fast unto us ; but interpreters generally prefer the sense expressed 
 in the English Version — they are with us, i. e. in our sight or present to 
 our memory. 
 
 V. 13. To transgress and lie against Jehovah, and to turn hack from 
 behind our God, to speak oppression and departure, to conceive and utter 
 from the heart ivords of falsehood. The specifications of the general charge 
 are now expressed by an unusual succession of infinitives, not as Hitzig 
 says because the persons were already known — which would require the 
 adoption of the same form ia a muhitude of places where it is not found at 
 present — but because the writer wished to concentrate and condense his 
 accusation. This rhetorical effect is materially injured by the substitution 
 of the finite verb. Although by no means equal in conciseness to the 
 Hebrew, our infinitive may be employed as the most exact translation. 
 Gesenius makes i'icj a future form, but INIaurer an infinitive from ioj. 
 Departure means departure from the right course or the law (Deut. 19 : 16), 
 l. e. ti'ansgression or iniquity. Knobel applies the term specifically to idol- 
 atry, and understands ptii::? as implying that the exiles in Babylon oppressed 
 each other ! 
 
 V. 14. And judgment is thrust (or driven) back, and righteousness afar 
 ojf stands ; for truth has fallen in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. 
 The description is now continued in the ordinary form by the finite verb. — 
 The word translated street propeily means an open place or square, espe- 
 cially the space about the gate of an oriental town where courts were held 
 and other public business transacted. (See Job 29 : 7. Neh. 8:1.) The 
 present form v/liich seems to be required by our idiom is much less expres- 
 sive than the preterite and futures of the original. Those interpreters who 
 commonly apply whatever is said of tyranny to the oppression of the Jews 
 In exile are compelled in this case, where the sin is charged upon the Jews 
 themselves, to resort to the imaginary fact of gross misgovernment among 
 the exiles, for the purpose of avoiding the conclusion that the passage has 
 respect to a condition of society like that described in the first chapter. 
 
 V. 15. Then truth was missed (i. e. found wanting), and whoso departed 
 from evil made himself a prey (or was plundered). Then Jehovah saw and 
 it was evil in his eyes that there rvas no judgment (or practical justice). 
 The Vav conversive in both clauses indicates a sequence of events, and may 
 
35S CHAPTER L I X . 
 
 be best expressed by then in English. The passive pailiciple is here used 
 with the substantive verb, as the active is in v. 2, to denote anterior habitual 
 action. Ilitzig unilerstands the first clause to mean that honesty (i. c. the 
 honest people) was betrayed, in direct opposition to the usage both of the 
 noun and verb in Hebrew. For the sense of msJJ, see above, on ch. 34 : 16. 
 40 : 26. Lowih's version, utlerhj lost, is substantially correct, ihou'^h per- 
 haps too strong. Jarchi, Cocceius, and J. D. Michaelis understand ^b"r,"^'2 
 as .meaning, ivas accounted mad, wliich is also given in the margin of the 
 English Bible, but has no foundation either in etymology or usage. It is 
 now commonly agreed that this verbal form is near akin to the noun ^^w' 
 spoil or plunder, and has here the same sense as in Ps. 76 : 6. This 
 explanation is sustained by the authority of the Targum and Jerome. 
 Kimchi understands it to describe the godly man as snatched away, perhaps 
 in allusion to ch. .37 : 1. Ewald derives from what he thinks the true sense 
 of the root the meaning, he became rare [ivurde selten). 
 
 V. 16. An'l he saw that there was no man, and he stood aghast that 
 there was no one interposing ; and, his own arm saved for him, and his own 
 righteousness, it upheld him. The re[)et!tion of the words and he saw con- 
 nects this verse in the closest manner with the one before it. Rosenmiiller, 
 Umbreit, and others, follow Jarchi in supposing t'"^x to be emphatic and to 
 signify a man of the right sort, a man equal to (he occasion. This explana- 
 tion derives some colour from the analogy of Jer. 5:1; but even there, 
 and still more here, t!)e strength of the expression is increased rather than 
 diminished by taking this phrase in the simple sense oi nobody. What was 
 wanting was not merely a qualified man, biit any man whatever, to maintain 
 the cause of Israel and Jehovah. A like absolute expression is employed 
 in 2 Kings 14 : 26, where it is said that Jehovah saw the affliction of Israel, 
 that it was very bitter, and that there was 7io helper for Israel, not merely 
 no sufficient one, but none at all. The desperate nature of the case is then 
 described in terms still stronger and only applicable to Jehovah by the 
 boldest figure. The common version (ivondcred), though substantially cor- 
 rect, is too weak to express the full force of the Hebrew word, which strictly 
 means to be desolate, and is used in reference to persons for the purpose of 
 expressing an extreme degree of horror and astonishment. (See Ps. 143:4, 
 and compare the colloquial use of desolc in French.) As applied to God, 
 the term may be considered simply anthropopathic, or as intended to imply 
 a certain sympathetic union with humanity, arising from the mode in which 
 this great intervention was to be accomplished. — ?''?5'? strictly denotes caus- 
 ing to meet or come together, bringing into contact. Hence it is applied to 
 intercessory prayer, and this sense is expressed here by the Chaldee para- 
 phrase. But the context, etymology, and usage, all combine to recommend 
 
CHAPTER LIX. 359 
 
 the wider sense of intervention, interposition, botii in word and deed. (See 
 above, on ch. 53 : 12.) This sense is well expressed by Lowth {there was 
 none to interpose), except that he gratuitously substitutes the infinitive for 
 the active participle, which is more expressive as sujigestinfj that tiie danger 
 was imminent and unavoidable without the aid of some one actually inter- 
 posing to avert it. The full force of the last clause can be given in English 
 only by the use of the emphatic form his own, which is implied but cannot 
 be distinctly expressed in the original except by a periphrasis. To do any 
 thing with one's own hand or arm, is an expression frequently used else- 
 where to denote entire independence of all foreign aid. (See Judges 7 : 2. 
 1 Sam. 4:9. 25 : 26. Ps. 44 : 4. 98 : 1 .) — The meaning of this clause 
 has been much obscured by making ib the object of the verb. The obvious 
 incongruity of representing God as saving or delivering himself has led to 
 different evasions. Some interpreters attenuate the meaning of the verb 
 from save to help, which is the favourite expedient of the modern writers; 
 while the older ones content themselves with making it intransitive and 
 absolute, brought salvation (English Version), tvrovght salvation (Lowth). 
 The only simple and exact translation is, A?'s arm saved for him, leaving 
 the object to be gathered from the context, namely, Israel or his people. 
 The ib means nothing more than that his own arm did it for him, without 
 reliance upon any other. This same idea is expressed in the last words of 
 the verse, where his righteousness sustained him means that he relied or 
 depended upon it exclusively. By righteousness in this case we are not to 
 understand a simple consciousness of doing right, nor the possession of a 
 righteous cause, nor a right to do what he did, all which are modifications 
 of the same essential meaning, nor a zealous love of justice, which Vitringa 
 deduces from the use of the word fury (i. e. ardent zeal) in the parallel pas- 
 sage ch. 63 : 5. It is fir more satisfactory to give the word its strict and 
 proper sense as denoting an attribute of God, here joined with his power, to 
 show that what are commonly distinguished as his moral and his natural 
 perfections are alike pledged to this great work, and constitute his only reli- 
 ance for its execution. — The extraordinary character of this description, and 
 the very violence which it seems to offer to our ordinary notions of the divine 
 nature, unavoidably prepare the mind for something higher than the restora- 
 tion of the .lews from exile, or the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 
 The embarrassment occasioned by this passage to the champions of the 
 Babylonian theory may be inferred from their coniplex and unnatural hypo- 
 thesis, that because the magistrates and elders of the captivity did not repress 
 and punish the offences just described, God would himself do it, not by 
 continuing the exile as a punishment, but by destroying Babylon, and with 
 it the ungodly Jews, while the better portion should escape and be restored 
 to their own country ! It is a strange and peculiar idea of Ewald's, that 
 
360 C H A P T E R L I X . 
 
 tlie Prophet here reproaches Israel that no IMessiah had arisen from among 
 themselves according to the ancient promise, so that God had as it were 
 heen under the necessity of raising up a foreign instrument for their deliver- 
 ance, namely Cyrus. If all things else were as much in favour of this wild 
 invention as they are against it, a sufilcient refutation would be still aflbrded 
 by the obvious unsuitableness of the language to express the alleged mean- 
 ing. A reluctant use of foreign agents by Jehovah might be described as 
 any thing rather than his own arm doing the work for him. If arm means 
 power, it was no nion^ exerted in the one case than it would have been 
 exerted in the other; if it means instrumentaiiiy, the one employed was not 
 so truly or emphatically his own arm as it would have been if raised up 
 from among his own people. 
 
 V. 17. And he clothed himself ivith righteousness as a coat of mail, 
 and a helmet of salvation on his head, and he clothed himself with garments 
 of vengeance (for) clothing, and put on, as the cloak [or tunic), jealous ij. 
 Here again the verse is closely connected with tlie one before it by the 
 repetition of ^j^^i: . Its relation to the other verse is not, however, that of 
 an explanation, as impHed in Hendewerk's translation of the particle by for. 
 The writer simply carries out in detail his general declaration that Jehovah 
 undertook the cause of Israel himself, under figures borrowed from the usages 
 of war. The older writers have in vain perplexed themselves with efforts 
 to determine why righteousness is called a breastplate or salvation a helmet, 
 and to reconcile the variations in Paul's copies of this picture (Eph. 6 : 4-17, 
 1 Thess. 5 : 8) widi the original. The true principle of exegesis in such 
 cases is the one laid down by Clericus, who may speak with authority 
 whenever the question in dispute is a question not of doctrine or experience 
 but of taste. Justice, says this accomplished rhetorician, might just as well 
 have been a sword, salvation a shield, vengeance a javelin or spear, and 
 zeal or jealousy a torch with which to fire the hostile camp. Ratio hahenda 
 est scopi, non singularum vocum. The correctness of this j)i-inciple is 
 clear from the general analogy of figurative language and from the endless 
 license of invention which would follow from the adoption of the other 
 method, so that in aiming at precision and fulness we should unavoidably 
 involve the sense of Scripture in incurable uncertainty. That the figures 
 in this case were intended to convey the general idea of martial equipment, 
 may be gathered from a fact which even Vitringa has observed, that there 
 is no reference whatever to offensive weapons, an omission wholly unac- 
 countable upon his own hypothesis. There is no ground for Rosenmiiller's 
 explanation of ^'i^'m as denoting the desire of vengeance, unless this be a 
 periphrasis for retributive or vindicatory justice. Equally groundless is the 
 explanation of nrvr'ji by Gesenlus and the later writers in the sense of vie- 
 
CH AP T E R LIX. 361 
 
 lory. However appropriate and striking this idea may be in so martial a 
 description, it is not the one expressed by the writer, who looks far beyond 
 mere victory to the salvation of God's peo[)le as the great end to be answered 
 by it. There is much more plausibility in Knobel's suggestion, that the 
 first two nouns have reference to Israel, and the last two lo his enemies; 
 the same catastrophe which was to secure justice and salvation to the former 
 would bring the zeal and vengeance of Jehovah on the latter. This dis- 
 tinction is no doubt correct so far as the terms vengeance and salvation are 
 concerned ; but it cannot be so well sustained as to the others, since ^^1'-^^ 
 signifies the righteousness of God, as the cause of the catastrophe in ques- 
 tion, and nxsp not merely his zeal against his enemies, but his jealous regard 
 for his own honour and the welfare of his people. (See the usage of this 
 word fully slated in the Earlier Prophecies, p. 165.) Tlie particular 
 expressions of the verse need little explanation. The first piece of armour 
 specified is not the breast-plate, as the older writers generally render it, 
 perhaps in reference to Eph. 6 : 14, but the habergeon or coat of mail. The 
 first and third terms denote parts of armour properly so called, the second 
 and fourth the dress as distinguished from the armour. The ^"'^''^ is either 
 the tunic or the military cloak, often mentioned in the classics as being of a 
 purple colour. The same noun is construed with the same verb in 1 Sam. 
 •28 : 14. The meaning of the whole verse is, that God equipped himself 
 for battle, and arrayed his power, justice, and distinguishing attachment to 
 his people, against their persecutors and oppressors. — Jubb proposes to omit 
 rr::i"-n as superfluous, inelegant, and probably a gloss from the margin. But 
 even Lowth, although he quotes the proposition, leaves the text unchanged, 
 and Henderson is betrayed into the opposite extreme of pronouncing the 
 word " singularly beautiful." 
 
 V. 18. According to (their) deeds, accordinghj icill he repay, ivrath to 
 his enemies, (their) desert lo his foes, to the isles (their) desert u-ill he 
 repay. The essential meaning of this verse is evident and undisputed; but 
 the form of expression in the first clause is singular, if not anomalous. 
 Some of the latest writers, such as JNIaurer, Henderson, and Umbreit, get rid 
 of the difficulty simply by denying its existence, which is easy enough after 
 every method of solution has been suggested by preceding writers. That 
 there is a grammatical difficulty in the clause is evident not only from the 
 paraphrastic forms adopted by the ancient versions, but also from the atten- 
 tion given to the question by such scholars as De Dieu, Cocceius, and Gese- 
 nius. Ewald, it is true, passes it by in silence, as he usually docs when 
 he has nothing to suggest but what has been already said by his predeces- 
 sors. Another proof of the existence of a difficulty is, that even those who 
 deny it paraphrase the text instead of rigidly translating it, and thus go 
 
36-2 CHAPTER LIX. 
 
 safely round the hard place rather than triumphantly through it. Tiie diffi- 
 culty is not exegetical, hut purely grammatical, arising from the unexam- 
 pled use of the preposition ^v without an object : According to (heir deeds 
 — according to — irill he repay. Cocceius and Vitringa give to \*J its ori- 
 ginal value as a noun, which very rarely occurs elsewhere (Hos. 11:7. 
 7 : 16), and understand it here to mean the height or highest degree : 
 ' According to the height of their deserts, according to the height, will I 
 repay.' Lowth after quoting Vitringa's opinion, that Cocceius and himself 
 had together made out the true sense, adds with some humour, " I do not 
 expect that any third person will ever he of that opinion." He little 
 imagined that his own would never even be seconded. His proposition is 
 to read bsa for brs in either case, on the authority of the Chaldee para- 
 phrase of this place compared with that of eh. 35 : 4 and Prov. 22 : 24, 
 in all which cases the Chaldee has i-i^ corresponding to the Hebrew b?3 , 
 lord or master. The text thus amended Lowth translates, He is mighty to 
 recompense, he that is mighty to recompense ivill requite, of which Hender- 
 son observes that it is drawling and paraphraslical at best, and incorrectly 
 rendered ; as it ought to have been, He is the Retributor, the Retributor 
 will requite. But even granting Lowth the right to fix the meaning of a 
 text manufactured by himself, it is evident that such an emendation must 
 be critically worthless, De Dieu and Roscnmiiller explain b:s when used in 
 the sense o( propter as equivalent to a noun meaning cause or reason ; as 
 if he had s-^id, 'on account of their deeds on (that) account, will I repay.' 
 But besides the artificial character of this solution, it overlooks the fact that 
 although bs by itself might simply indicate the cause or ground, the 3 pre- 
 fixed denotes proportion, as in other cases where it follows verbs of recom- 
 pense. (E. g. Ps. 18 : 21. 62: 13. Jer. 50: 39.) The latest writers seem 
 to have come back to the simple and obvious supposition of the oldest 
 writers, such as Jerome and the rabbins, that it is a case of anomalous 
 ellipsis, the object of the preposition being not expressed, but mentally 
 repeated from the foregoing clause : According to their deeds, according to 
 (Mew), he will repay. In the mere repetition there is nothing singular, but 
 rather something characteristic of the Prophet. (See above, ch. 52:6.) 
 Maurer and several later writers choose, however, to regard it not as a mere 
 repetition of the same words in the same sense, but as an instance of the 
 idiomatic use of 3 — 3 , as equivalent to our as — so. The sense will then be. 
 ' as according to their deeds, so according to (their deeds) will he repay.' 
 But this construction would create a difficulty, even if these writers were 
 correct in denying its existence there already. All that need be added is, 
 that the English Version happily approaches to a perfect reproduction of the 
 Hebrew expression by employing the cognate terms according and accord- 
 ingly, which has the advantage of retaining essentially the same term, and 
 
CHAPTER LIX. 363 
 
 yet varying it so as to avoid a grammatical anomaly by which it might 
 have been rendered unintelligible. — ^^-? , according to the modern lexico- 
 graphers, is not directly recompense, but conduct either good or bad, and 
 as such worthy of reward or punishment. For Hengstenberg's peculiar 
 explanation of the verb and its derivatives, see his Conimentary on the 
 Psalms, I. p. 147, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 46. The feminine plural 
 here used in the first clause, corresponds to the singular in 2 Sam. 19 : 37. 
 — The last clause, relating to the islands, J. D. Michaelis in his usual osten- 
 tatious manner, declares hiinself incompetent to understand, and, as he says 
 himself of Kennicott elsewhere, seems disposed to wonder that any body 
 else should be so bold as to understand it better than himself. On the 
 whole he is inclined to regard it as a promise that the true religion should 
 be spread throughout Europe. The modern writers who restrict the passage 
 to the Babylonian exile, are again embarrassed by the writer's losing sight 
 of the wicked Jews whom he had been describing, and, as J. D. Michaelis 
 says, threatening to visit their offences on the Gentiles. Knobel easily gets 
 over this obstruction by observing that, although the wicked Jews were to 
 be iniplicated in the ruin of the Babylonians, yet as these were the direct 
 object of attack to Cyrus, they alone are mentioned. How far this will make 
 it appear natural to ?ay, ' because ye are wicked, I will })unish the Gentiles,' 
 let the reader judge. There is also something very artificial in Henderson's 
 distinction between the enemies and adversaries of this verse, as meaning 
 the wicked Jews destroyed or scattered by the Romans, and the isles, as 
 meaning the Romans themselves, who were to be overthrown by the barba- 
 rians. The objection to such exegetical refinements is not that they are 
 in themselves absurd or incredible, but simply that a thousand others might 
 be invented not an atom more so. The only satisfactory solution is the 
 one afforded by the hypothesis that the salvation here intended is salvation 
 in the highest sense from sin and all its consequences, and that by Israel 
 and the isles (or Gentiles) we are to understand the church or people of 
 God, and the world considered as its enemies and his. 
 
 V. 19. And they shall fear from the west the name of Jehovah, and 
 from the rising of the sun his glory ; for it shall come like a straitened 
 stream, the spirit of Jehovah raising a banner in it. Luther and Ewald 
 mark the dependence of this verse upon the one before it by translating the 
 1 so that ; but there seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the 
 simplicity of the original construction. The name and glory of Jehovah 
 are here not only parallels but synonymes, as we learn from other places 
 where the two terms are jointly or severally used to signify the manifested 
 excellence or glorious presence of Jehovah. (See above, ch. 30 : 27. 35 : 2. 
 40 : 5. 42 : 11.) As in these and other places (e. g. ch. 8 : 9. 18 : 3. 
 
364 C H A P T E R L I X . 
 
 33 : 13), the remotest nations or ends of the earth, here represented by the 
 east and west (eh. 43 : 5. 45 : (3), are said to see this name or glory, Kno- 
 bcl aecordin^ly translates the first verb thei/ shall sec. But although this 
 affords a good sense and is justified by usage, it effects no such improvement 
 in the meaning of the passage as would compensate for the violation of the 
 inasorelic pointing, confirmed by the authority of all the ancient versions 
 Let it also be observed that the seeing is implied or presupposed in the 
 fearing, and that the mention of this last effect agrees best with the mean- 
 ing of the last clause, which on any exegetical hypothesis suggests the 
 thought of conflict and coercion. — Gesenius gratuitously changes /rom to i/f, 
 as if the apparent necessity of that sense in a few doubtful cases could 
 justify its substitution for the proper one in cases like the present, where it 
 not only yields an intelligible sense but suggests an idea which must other- 
 wise be lost, viz. that of convergence from these distant points as to a common 
 centre. There is the same objection to the sense which Lowth and Hen- 
 derson attach to )^ , viz. that of belonging to (they from the west, those of 
 the ivest), besides the dubious grammatical correctness of regarding as the 
 subject of the verb what appears to be dependent on it as a qualifying 
 phrase. There is something pleasing, if no more, in the suggestion of 
 Vitringa, that the usual order of the east and west (ch. 43 : 5. Mai. 1:11) 
 is here reversed, as if to intimate that the diffusion of the truth shall one day 
 take a new direction, an idea which Henderson applies specifically to the 
 Christian missions of Great Britain and America, not only to new countries 
 but to Asia, the cradle of the gospel, of the law, and of the human race. — 
 The last clause of this verse has been a famous subject of dispute among 
 interpreters, who differ more or less in reference to every word, as well as 
 to the general meaning of the whole. The least important question has 
 respect to the ''S at the beginning of the clause; for whether this be ren- 
 dered when or for, the sense remains essentially the same, because the one 
 implies the other. The only weighty reasons for preferring the latter, are 
 first its natural priority as being the usual and proper sense, and then the 
 simi)licity of structure which results from it as being more accordant with 
 the genius and usage of the language. As to the next word (^3^) the only 
 question is in relation to its subject or nominative, some connecting it with 
 nai7ie or glory in the other clause, some with Jehovah, some with is con- 
 sidered as a noun. Of those who thus explain "^Ji , some suppose it to mean 
 anguish or distress as in ch. 63 : 8, others an enemy as in v. 18 above. Of 
 those who consider it an adjective, one understands it to mean hostile, but 
 the great majority narrow or compressed. The questions as to nn are 
 whether it means breath or spirit, and whether it is a poetical description of 
 the wind, or a personal designation of the Holy Ghost. The only doubt in 
 reference to t^J-T? is whether it is idiomatically used to qualify the word 
 
CHAPTER LIX. 365 
 
 before it (as a strong wind), or employed more strictly as a divine name. 
 But the great theme of controversy is tlie next word 5^^-?' \vliieh some 
 derive from Cii;, and some from coj ; some regard as a jiarticiple, others as a 
 preterite ; some understand as meaning to set up a banner, others to put to 
 flight, to drive along, or scatter. Lastly 12 is by some construed directly 
 with the verb as its object (drive it, scatter it, etc.), while by others it is 
 separately understood as meaning either in it or against it. From the com- 
 bination of these various senses have resulted several distinct interpretations 
 of the whole clause, two of which deserve to be particularly mentioned, as 
 the two between which most writers have been and are still divided. The 
 first of these is the interpretation found, as to its essence, in several of the 
 ancient versions, and especially the Vulgate, cum venerit quasi flavins vio- 
 lentus quern Spiritus Domini cogit. This is substantially retained by Luther 
 and by Lowth (when he shall come like a river straitened in his course, 
 which a strong wind driveth along). It is also given by most of the recent 
 German writers, with trivial variations, — Gesenius reading ivhen, F.\\'a\d for. 
 and the like. According to this view of the matter, nlni nn is either a 
 Hebrew idiom for a strong wind, or a poetical description of the wind in 
 general as the breath of God. The former explanation, although Lowth 
 prefers it, is aesthetically far below the other, which the later writers com- 
 monly adopt. It will also be observed that this interpretation makes fioob 
 the causative of 013 to jly, and takes "i:s as an adjective, and in its primary 
 etymological sense of narrow or compressed (Num. 22 : 26), the idea being 
 that of a stream confiaed in a narrow channel and flowing violently through 
 it. The other principal interpretation of the clause gives "'S the sense of 
 ivhen, "S that of enemy, construes the latter with the verb to come, derives 
 riDOb from 05 a banner, and explains the whole to mean that when the enemy 
 shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard 
 against him. This is the version of the English and Dutch Bibles, of 
 V^itringa, Alting, Henderson, and others. Between these two main inter- 
 pretations there are others too numerous to be recited, which agree essen- 
 tially with one but in some minor points coincide with the other or dissent 
 from both. Thus Jarchi gives to noDj the sense of consuming, which he 
 thinks it has in ch. 10 : 18, and J. D. Michaelis that of drying up, which 
 he founds upon an Arabic analogy. Aben Ezra and Hitzig, though they 
 construe ^x with the preceding verb, make it a substantive signifying pres- 
 sure or distress. Maurer agrees with the second exposition of the clause in 
 all points, except that he explains «^ooa in the sense of dispelling, and applies 
 it to the stream itself. The objections to the first (and now prevailing) 
 exposition, as stated by Rosenmiiller and Maurer, are, its needless violation 
 of the masoretic accents, which forbid the intimate conjunction of irj? and is 
 
.3G6 CHAPTER L 1 X . 
 
 as noun and adjective ; ll)e incongruity of likening Jehovah to a river which 
 his own breath drives along; anel the iniprohahility that "'^ is here used in 
 a dillrient sense from thai wlilcli all attach to the plural in v. 18. 'J'o this 
 may be added the unnatural image of a stream rendered rapid by the wind, 
 and (against Maurer's own interpretation) the gratuitous assumption that 
 the Polel of Cfl3 is used in this one place and as a causative, when that idea 
 is expressed so often elsewhere by the Hiphil of the same verb. On the 
 other hand, Gesenius iiimself derives c: from a root DC3 to raise, which 
 might therefore be poetically used without the noun to express the whole 
 idea ; or the form beCoie us might without absurdity be looked upon as an 
 amalgam of the words C3 N'l": , which are combined in ch. 5 : 26. 13 : 2. etc. 
 (Compare the compound forms tizihn and =^i<:bn, as explained by Heng- 
 stenberg in his Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. I. p. 218.) The common 
 version of this vexed clause, therefore, is entirely defensible, and clearly 
 preferable to the one which has so nearly superseded it. Considering, 
 however, the objections to which botli are open, it may be possible to come 
 still nearer to the true sense by combining what is least objectionable in the 
 other expositions; and in this view, no interpreter perhaps has been more 
 successful than Cocceius, who translates the clause, quia venict ianquam 
 jluvius hostis in quo Spiritus Domini signum praefcrt. Besides giving 
 every word its strictest or most probable interpretation, this ingenious version, 
 as if by anticipation, shuns the last objection to Vitringa's, namely that of 
 Knobel, that the context does not lead us to expect an allusion to the com- 
 ing of God's enemies against him, but rather to his coming against them, as 
 the preceding clause declares that all the ends of the earth shall fear his 
 name and his glory. The objection of Vitringa, that the instruments of the 
 divine purpose would not here be called an enemy, is without weight ; since 
 enemy is a relative expression, and Jehovah is continually represented as 
 sustaining this relation to the wicked world. Another merit of Cocceius's 
 interpretation is that instead of giving ia the rare and doubtful sense of 
 against him, or the still more doubtful office of a mere connective of the 
 verb and object, he explains it strictly as denoting in it, and at the same 
 time introduces a new and striking image, that of the triumphant flag cr 
 signal erected in the stream itself and floating on its waves as it approaches. 
 — On the whole, then, the meaning of the verse appears to be, that the ends 
 of the earth shall see and fear the name and glory of Jehovah ; because when 
 he approaches as their enemy, it will be like an overflowing stream (ch. 
 8 : 7, 8. 28 : 15), in which his spirit bears aloft the banner or the signal of 
 victory. — The specific explanation of "if^S? in the Targum as denoting the 
 Euphrates is a very insufficient ground for Vitringa's application of the pas- 
 sage to the Saracens and Tartars. ' 
 
CHAPTERLIX. 267 
 
 V. 20. Then shall come for Zion a Redeemer, one! fur the converts of 
 apostasy in Jacob, saith Jehovah. The English then is here used to con- 
 vey ihe full force of the Vav conversive, which cannot be expressed in our 
 idiom by the simple copulative and. The original construction necvssarily 
 suggests the idea of succession and dependence, b is not the proper par- 
 ticle of motion or direction, though it often supplies its place as well as that 
 of other prejjositions. This arises from the fact repeatedly stated heretofore, 
 that ^ properly denotes relation in the widest sense, and is most commonly 
 equivalent to as to, with respect to, the precise relation being left to be 
 determined by the context. So in this place V''^i strictly means nothing 
 more than that the advent of the great deliverer promised has respect to 
 Zion or the chosen people, without deciding what particular respect, 
 whether local, temporal, or of another nature altogether. Hence the Sep- 
 tuagint version, tir/.tv 2VcoV, though it may be too specific, is not contra- 
 dictory to the original; and even Paurs translation, ex -iTtcJr, although it 
 seems completely to reverse the sense, is not so wholly inconsistent with it 
 as has sometimes been pretended. For although the Hebrew words do not 
 mean from Zion, they mean that which may include /rora Zion in its scope ; 
 because it might be by going out of Zion that he was to act as her deliverer, 
 and the Apostle might intend by his translation to suggest the idea that 
 Zion's redeemer was to be also the redeemer of the Gentiles. In no case 
 therefore, is there any ground for charging the Apostle with perversion, or 
 the Hebrew text wath conuption, as Lowth and J. D. iMichaelis do by their 
 assimilation of it to the words of Paul. It seems to me, however that the 
 variation in the latter not only from the Hebrew but the Septuaifint too-ether 
 with the use which the Apostle makes of this citation, warrant the conclusion 
 that he is not there interpreting Isaiah, but employing the familiar lanouao-e 
 of an ancient prophecy as the vehicle of a new one. Other examples of 
 this practice have occurred before, nor is there any thing unworthy or unrea- 
 sonable in it, when the context in both cases clearly shows the author's drift 
 as in the case befcr us, where it seems no less clear that Paul employs the 
 language to predict the future restoration of the Jews, than that Isaiah uses 
 it to foretell the deliverance of God's people from their enemies in case of 
 their repentance, without any reference to local, temporal, or national dis- 
 tinctions. This hypothesis in reference to Paul's quotation has the advan- 
 tage of accounting for his change of the original expression, which may then 
 be regarded as a kind of caution against that very error into which inter- 
 preters have generally fallen. As to Knobel's figment of Zion representing 
 the captivity in Babylon, it seems to call for no additional discussion. (See 
 above, on ch. 40: 2.) — The expression converts of transgression or apos- 
 tasy is perfectly intelligible, though unusual and perhaps without exam- 
 
3G3 C FI A P T E R LIX. 
 
 pic ; since according to analogy the phrase would seem to mean those 
 relapsing into apostasy, the impossibility of which sense conspires with 
 the context to determine as the true sense that which every reader spon- 
 taneously attaches to it. 
 
 V. 21. And /(or as for ??/c) — (his {is) my covenant with them, saith 
 Jehovah. My Spirit which is on thee, and my words ivhich I have placed 
 in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy 
 seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith Jehovah, from, hencc- 
 feri.h and for ever (ov from noiv and to eternity). The absolute pronoun 
 at the beginning is not merely emphatic, but intended to intimate a change 
 of person, God himself reappearing as the speaker. There may also be 
 allusion to the use of the pronoun in the promise to Noah (Gen. 9 : 9), which 
 was ever present to the mind of Jewish readers as the great standing type 
 and model of God's covenants and promises, n'^n^ denotes the stipulation 
 which Jehovah condescends to make in return for the repentance and con- 
 version implicitly required in the verse preceding. This view of the con- 
 nexion may serve still further to explain the introduction of the pronoun, as 
 denoting upon my part, and re/erring to the previous requisition of some- 
 thin"- upon theirs. The only natural antecedent of the pronoun them is the 
 converts of apostasy in Jacob, to whom the promise in v. 20 is limited. 
 These are then suddenly addressed, or rather the discourse is turned to Israel 
 himself as the progenitor or as the ideal representative of his descendants, not 
 considered merelv as a nation but as a church, and therefore including prose- 
 lytes as well as natives, Gentiles as well as Jews, nay believing Gentiles to 
 the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews. This idea of the Israel of God and 
 of the Prophecies is too clearly stated in the Epistle to the Romans to be 
 misapprehended or denied by any who admit the authority of the Apostle. 
 This interpretation is moreover not a mere incidental application of Old 
 Testament expressions to another subject, but a protracted and repeated 
 exposition of the mutual relations of the old and new economy and of the 
 natural and spiritual Israel. To this great body, considered as the Israel of 
 God the promise now before us is addressed, a promise of continued spiritual 
 influence exerted through the word and giving it effect. The phrase, upon 
 thee here as elsewhere implies influence from above and has respect to the 
 figure of the Spirit's descending and abiding on the object. The particular 
 mention of the mouth cannot be explained as having reference merely to the 
 reception of the word, in which case the ear would have been more appro- 
 priate. The true explanation seems to be that Israel is here, as in many 
 other parts of this great prophecy, regarded not merely as a receiver but as 
 a dispenser of the truth, — an office with which as we have seen the Body is 
 
CHAPTER LX. 
 
 369 
 
 invested in connexion with the Head, and in perpetual subordination to him, 
 Israel, as well as the IMessiah, and in due dependence on him, was to be the 
 light of the gentiles, the reclaimer of apostate nations; and in this hio-h 
 mission and vocation was to be sustained and prospered by the never- 
 failing presence of the Holy Spirit, as the author and the finisher of all 
 revelation. (See above, ch. 42 : 1-7. 44: 3. 49 : 1-9. 51 : 16. 54 : 3. 
 56: 6-S. 58 : 12. And compare Jer. 31 : 31. Joel 2 : 28. Ezek. 36 : 27. 
 39 : 29.) 
 
 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 Having repeatedly and fully shown that the national pre-eminence of 
 Israel was not to be perpetual, that the loss of it was the natural conse- 
 quence and righteous letribution of iniquity, and that their loss did not 
 involve the destruction of the true church or spiritual Israel, the Prophet 
 now proceeds to show that to the latter the approaching change would be a 
 glorious and blessed one. He accordingly describes it as a new and divine 
 light rising upon Zion, v. 1. He contrasts it with the darkness of surround- 
 ing nations, v. 2. Yet these are not excluded from participation in the light, 
 v. 3. The elect in every nation are the children of the church, and shall be 
 gathered to her, vs. 4, 5. On one side he sees the oriental caravans and 
 flocks approaching, vs. 6, 7. On the other, the commercial fleets of western 
 nations, vs. 8, 9. What seemed to be rejection is in fact the highest favour, 
 V. 10. The glory of the true church is her freedom from local and national 
 restrictions, v. 11. None are excluded from her pale but those who exclude 
 themselves and thereby perish, v. 12. External nature shall contribute to 
 her splendour, v. 13. Her very enemies shall do her homage, v. 14. Instead 
 of being cast off, she is glorified for ever, v, 15. Instead of being identified 
 with one nation, she shall derive support from all, v. 16. All that is 
 changed in her condition shall be changed for the better, v. 17. The evils 
 of her former state are done away, v. 18. Even some of its advantages are 
 now superfluous, v. 19. What remains shall no longer be precarious, v. 20. 
 The splendour of this new dispensation is a moral and a spiritual splendour, 
 but attended by external safety and protection, vs. 21, 22. All this shall; 
 certainly and promptly come to pass at the appointed time, v. 22. 
 
 24 
 
370 C II A P T E R L X . 
 
 Here as elsewhere tlie new dispensation is contrasted, as a whole, with 
 that before it. We are not therefore to seek the fulfihnent of the prophecy 
 in any one period of history exchisively, nor to consider actual corruptions 
 and afflictions as inconsistent with the splendid vision of the New Jerusalem 
 presented to tlie Proj)h(.t, not in its successive stages, but at one grand 
 panoramic view. 
 
 V. 1. Arise, be liirht ; for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah 
 has risen upon thee. Tiiese are the words, not of a prophetic chorus, as 
 Vitrin"'a imagines, but of Isaiah,, speaking in the name of God to Zion or 
 Jerusalem, not merely as a city, nor even as a capital, but as the centre, 
 representative, and syn^bol of the church or chosen people. A precisely 
 analoc'"OUs example is alForded by the use of the name Uome in modern reli- 
 gious controversy, not to denote the city or the civil government as such, but 
 the Roman Catholic Church, with all lis parts, dependencies, and interests. 
 The one usage is as natural and intelligible as the other ; and if no one hesi- 
 tates to say that Newman has apostatized to Rome, or that his influence has 
 added greatly to the strength of Rome in England, no one can justly treat 
 it as a wresting of the Prophet's language to explain it in precisely the same 
 manner. And the aigimi; lUs em[)loyed to prove that the Isiael and Jeru- 
 salem of these prediciions are the natural Israel and the literal Jerusa- 
 lem, would equally avail to prove, in future ages, that the hopes and fears 
 expressed at this day in relation to the growing or decreasing power of l^ome 
 have reference to the increase of the city, or the fall of the temporal monarchy 
 established there. — The object of address is here so plain that several of the 
 ancient versions actually introduce tiie name Jerusalem. The Septuagint 
 renders both the verbs at the beginning by mKuCCov, which is probably to be 
 regarded not as a difference ol text but as a mere inadvertence. The com- 
 mon version shine is dei'ective only in not showing the aflinity between the 
 verb and noun which is so marked in the original. The English risen is 
 also less expressive, because more ambiguous and vague, than the Hebrew 
 n")| , which means not to rise in general, but to -rise above the iiorizon, to 
 appear. The glory of Jehovah is his manifested presence, with allusion to 
 the cloudy pillar and the Shecbinah. Upon thee represents Jerusalem as 
 exposed and subjected to the full blase of this rising light. Rosenn)uller's 
 notion that he light, means be cheerful, as the eyes are elsewhere said to be 
 enlightened (1 Sam. 14 : '27, 29), is inconsistent with the figure of a rising 
 sun. The explanation of the words by others as an exhortation to come to 
 the light, supposes the object of address to be a person, which is not the 
 case. Light, and especially the light imparted by the divine presence, is a 
 common figure for prosperity, both temporal and spiritual. Hitzig gravely 
 represents it as certain from this verse, taken in connexion with ch. 62 : 11, 
 
C II A P T E R L X . 37 1 
 
 that between the completion of the foreyoin^ chapter and the beginning of 
 this. Cyrus issued his decree for the return of the captivity to Palestine. To 
 an unbiassed reader it must be evident that this is a direct continuation of 
 the foregoing context, and that what follows Is distinguished from what 
 goes before only hy the increasing prominence willi which the normal and 
 ideal perfection of the church is set forth, as the projjhecy draws near to a 
 conclusion. 
 
 V. 2. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and a gloom the 
 nations, and upon thee shall Jehovah rise, and his glory upon thee shall be 
 seen. The general description in the first vevsa is now amplified and carried 
 out into detail. Of this specification the verse before us contains only the 
 beginning. To regard it as the w hole would be to make the Prophet say 
 the very opposite of what he does say. The perfection of the glory 
 promised to the church is not to arise from its contrast with the darkness of 
 the world around it, but fron) the difiusion of its light until that darkness 
 disappears. The Pioj)het here reverts foi- a moment to the previous con- 
 dition of the world, in order to describe with more effect the glorious change 
 to be produced. He is not therefore to be understood as sa) ing that Zion 
 shall be glorious because while the nations are in darkness she is to enjoy 
 exclusive light, but because the light imparted to her first shall draw the 
 nations to her. — ^i;'"? is essentially equivalent to "tf.n , but stronger and 
 more poetical. Louth translates it vapour, which would be an anti-cliujax, 
 and has no etymological exactness to recommend it. Gesenius translates 
 it night, but in his lexicon explains it as a compound or mixed form, mearn'ng 
 a dark cloud. Jehovah and his glory, which are jointly said to rise in the 
 preceding verse, are here divided between two parallel members, and the 
 rising predicated of the first aloni". Lowth's version of the last word, shall 
 he conspicuous, is vastly inferior both in vigour and exactness to the com- 
 mon version. Instead of w/;o/t ihee Noyes has over thee, which gives a 
 good sense in itself, but not an adequate one, besides gratuitously vaiying 
 the translation of the particle in one short sentence. 
 
 V. 3. And 7iations shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness 
 of thy rising, i. e. thy rising brightness, or the bright light which shall rise 
 upon thee. The common version, to thy light, may seem at first sight 
 more exact than the one here given, but is really less so. The Hebrew 
 preposition h does not correspond lo our to as a particle of motion or direc- 
 tion, but expresses relation in the widest and most general manner. It is 
 often therefore interchanged with other particles, and to, among the rest, but 
 is not to be so translated here or in any other case without necessity. In 
 this case it seems to mean that they shall walk with reference to the light 
 
372 CHAPTER L X . 
 
 in question, which in English may be best expressed by iji, but not as a 
 literal translation. The sense thus yielded is in some respects better than 
 the other, as suggesting the idea not of mere attraction but of general diffu- 
 sion. By light we are then to understand the radiation from the luminous 
 centre and not merely the centre itself. This explanation of the verse is 
 given by the best of the modern interpreters. Some of these, however, arbi- 
 trarily apply it to the restoration of the Jews from exile, who were to be 
 accompanied by heathen king? as their guides and protectors. As a pro- 
 phecy this never was fulfilled. As a visionary anticipation it could never 
 have been entertained by a contemporary writer, such as these interpreters 
 suppose the author of the book to be. Those who with J. D. Michaelis 
 and Henderson apply this passage exclusively to the future restoration of 
 the Jews, are of course cut off from all historical illustration of its meaning, 
 which the first of these writers therefore properly dispenses with. The allega- 
 tion of the other that his own position is the only one " that can be maintained 
 consistently with a strict adherence to definite principles of interpretation,'' 
 may be denied as boldly as it is affirmed. His charge of " a perpetual vacil- 
 lancy between the literal and the spiritual, the Jews and the Gentiles, the 
 past and the future," lies only against those interpretations which regard the 
 book as a succession of specific and detached predictions. If our hypothesis 
 be true, that it is one indivisible exhibition of tiie Church, under its two 
 successive phases, and in its essential relations to its Head and to the world; 
 the objection is not only inconclusive but absurd. How far it can be alleged 
 with truth, and without bringing the Old and New Testament into collision, 
 that the future glory of the Jew ish people as a people is the great theme of 
 these prophecies, and that the Gentiles are biought forward chiefly for the 
 purpose of " gracing the triumphs " of the Jews, will be seen hereafter, if not 
 evident already. In the meantime, notl)ing has been yet alleged to justify 
 the arbitrary supposition of a sudden leap fiom one subject to another, 
 scarcely more " satisfactory*' than a " perpetual vacillancy" between 
 the two. 
 
 V. 4. Lift up thine eyes round about (i. c. in all directions) and sec ; all 
 of them are gathered, they come to thee, thy sons from afar shall come, and 
 thy daughters at the side shall be borne. See ch. 43 : 5-7 and 49 : 18-23. 
 The English Version seems to suppose an antithesis between pinnTo and 
 Ti-^s , which last it accordingly translates at thy side, i. e. near thee. 
 Lowth and Henderson suppose an allusion to the oriental practice, described 
 by Chardin, of carrying young children astride upon the hip. The latest 
 writers simply give to is the sense of arm, because the arm is at the side ! 
 The primary sense of l^x seems to be that of carrying, with special refer- 
 ence to children. Jerome understands it to mean nursing, in the sense of 
 
CHAPTER LX. 373 
 
 giving suck, and translates the phrase before us lac sugent, which has been 
 corrupted in the Vulgate text to ex latere surgent, Grotius needlessly 
 infers that Jerome read t:: instead of "i:s. Those who confine tliese prophe- 
 cies to the Babylonish exile, understand this as describing the agency of 
 heathen states and sovereigns in the restoration. But in this, as in the 
 parallel passages, there is, by a strange coincidence, no word or phrase 
 implying restoration or return, but the image evidently is that of enlarge- 
 ment and accession ; liie children thus brought to Zion being not tliose 
 whom she had lost, but such as she had never before known, as is evident 
 from ch. 49:21. The event predicted is therefore neither the former 
 restoration of the Jews, as Henderson alleges in the other cases, nor their 
 future restoration, as he no less confidently alleges here. The two inter- 
 pretations are both groundless and destructive of each other. This perpe- 
 tual insertion of ideas not expressed in the original, is quite as unreasonable 
 as Vitringa's being always haunted by his phantom of a chorus, which he 
 here sees taking Zion by the hand, consoling her, etc. He is also of opinion 
 that by daughters we are here to understand weak Christians who require 
 peculiar tenderness from ministers. There is more probability in Knobel's 
 suggestion, that the Prophet made his picture true to nature by describing 
 the sons as walking, and the daugljters as being carried. 
 
 V. 5. Then shall thou see (ov fear) and brighten up (or overjioio), and 
 thy heart shall throb and swell ; because (or when) the abundance of the 
 sea shall he turned upon thee, the strength of nations shall come unto thee. 
 This translation exhibits the points of agret-ment as well as of difference 
 among interpreters in reference to this verse. All agree that it describes a 
 great and joyful change to be produced by the accession of the gentiles to 
 the churcl) or chosen people, and tlie etlect of this enlargement on the 
 latter. Aben Ezra, Lowth, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Doderlein, Justi, 
 Gesenius, and Umbreit, derive ^X';n from N""^, to fear, and apply it to the 
 painful sensation which often attends sudden joy, and which is certainly 
 described in the next clause. Nearly all the later writers repeat Lowth's 
 fine parallel quotation from Lucretius : 
 
 His tibi me rebus qijaei.l.iiii (iiviria voliiptas 
 Percipit attjue horror — . 
 
 Above sixty manuscripts and one of the oldest editions (Bib. Soncin.) 
 require this explanation, by reading either "X"i"ri , ^N":ri , or "^x"!;}, none of 
 which can regularly come from nxn to see. Yet the latter derivation is not 
 only sanctioned by all the ancient versions, and preferred by Kimchi, but 
 approved by Luther, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, 
 Ewald, and Knobel. It is curious to see how the parallelism is urged on 
 cither side of this dispute, and that with equal plausibility. Thus Vitringa 
 
371 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 t!)iiiks that thou shall see \\oii!(l he a vain repetition of the lift up thine 
 eyes and see in v. 4, while Knobel describes the double reference to fear in 
 this verse as a " lasti^e Tautolo'ne." As to "Hj the difficidty is in choosinj' 
 between its two admitted senses of flowing (ch. 2: 2) and of shining (Ps. 
 34:6). The former is preferred by Jerome, who translates it ojliics ; by 
 Junius and Tremellius, who have covjlucs ; and by the English and Dutch 
 Versions, the latter of which refers it to the confluence of crowds produced 
 by any strange occurrence. Vitringa makes it mean \o jloiv out, and Lowth 
 to overjloiv with joy. But all the latest writers of authority give tlie word 
 the same sense as in Ps. 34 : G, which is well expressed by Henderson in 
 strong though homely English, thou shall look and brighten up. His ver- 
 sion of the next clause, thy heart shall throb and. dilate, may be in^proved 
 by changing the last word, which he took from Lowth, to the equivalent 
 but plainer 5U*67/. — 'ine , which Lowth renders rtrfflcd, is admitted by most 
 writers to be here used in its primary sense of trembling, w hicl) in reference 
 to the heart may be best expressed by beating or throbbing. But the usual 
 though secondary sense of fearing is retained by Luzzatto, who regards it as 
 descriptive of her terror at the sight of su[)posed enemies approaching; and by 
 Hendewerk, who applies it to her apprehension that she would not have suffi- 
 cient room for the accommodation of the strangers. The usual and proper sense 
 of "3 (for, because) is perfectly appropriate ; the only reason for preferring that 
 of when, ns Vitringa, Gesenius, and others do, is its apparent relation to 
 tlie TX at the beginning of the sentence, as if he had said, ichen the abun- 
 dance of the sea, etc. then shalt thou see, etc. According to the other 
 explanation of this particle, the ts refers to the foregoing context. Another 
 doubt arises from the ambiguity of the nouns ■■irn and b';n , both of which 
 may be applied either to things or persons, — the first denoting sometimes a 
 multitude (ch. 17 : 12), sometimes abundance (Ps. 37: 16); the other 
 signifying sometimes a military force (Ex. 14 : 28), sometimes wealtls 
 (Gen. 34 : 29.) As in either case the different meanings arc only modifi- 
 cations of one radical idea — a midtitude of persons and a multitude of 
 things, a tnilitary force and pecuniary force, — as both the meanings of each 
 word are here appropriate, — and as interpieters^ whichever meaning they 
 prefer, contrive to join the other with it, — we may safely infer that it was 
 also the intention of the writer to convey the whole idea, that the gentiles 
 should devote themselves and their possessions to the service of Jehovah. 
 (Compare Zech. 14 : 14.) — For of the sea J. D. Michaelis has from the 
 west ; and other writers who retain the strict translation, suppose a designed 
 antithesis between the west in this verse and the eastern nations mentioned 
 in the next. The conversion here predicted has the same sense as in 
 English, viz. the conversion of the property of one to the use of another. 
 Upon can hardly be a simple substitute for to, but is rather intended to 
 
CHAPTER LX. 375 
 
 suggest the same idea as when we speak of gifts or favours being showered 
 or lavished on a person. This force of the particle is well expressed in 
 Lowth's translation, whin the riches of the sea shall be poured in upon thee, 
 but with too little regard to the proper meaning of the Hebrew verb. The 
 next clause is a repetition of the same thought, but without a figure. If this 
 had reference to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon, it was an extra- 
 vagant anticipation utterly falsified by tlie event. But this, although it tnay 
 commend the hypothesis to those who deny the inspiration of the prophet, 
 is itself a refutation of it to the minds of those who occupy a contrary posi- 
 tion. The most natural interpretation of the verse is that which makes it a 
 promise of indefinite enlargement, compreiiending both the persons and the 
 riches of the nations. There is something amusing at the present day in 
 Vitringa's suggesting as a difficulty to be cleared away from the interpretation 
 of the passage, that as Christianity is a spiritual religion it can have no great 
 occasion for gold or silver. Even literally understood, the promise is intelli- 
 gible and most welcome to the philanthropic Christian, as affording means 
 for the diffusion of the truth and the conversion of the world. 
 
 V. 6. A stream of camels shall cover thee, young camels (or dromeda- 
 ries) of Midian and Ephah, all of them from Sheba shall come, gold and 
 incense shall they bear, and the ^^raz.'jfs of Jehovah as i^ood news. This 
 last form of expression is adopted in order to convey the full force of the 
 Hebrew verb, which does not mean simply to announce or even to announce 
 with joy, but to announce glad tidings. (See above, on ch. 40 : 9.) Re- 
 taining this sense here, the word would seem to signify not ihe direct praise 
 of God, but the announcement of the fact that others praised him, and the 
 messengers would be described as bringing to Jerusalem the news of the 
 conversion of their people. It is possible, however, that the primary mean- 
 ing of "i"J^3 may be simply to announce, as in ch. 52:7. 1 Kings 1 : 42. 
 I Sam. 4 : 17. 2 Sam. 18 : 20, 26, and that the derivation given by Gese- 
 nius is fictitious. But in no case is it necessary, with Vitringa, to exchange 
 the settled meaning of m^np for the doubtful one of praiseworthy acts. — 
 Ewald has greatly improved upon the usual translation of !^"S^ by exchang- 
 ing multitude for stream or food, the version given by Jerome (inundatio), 
 and not only more expressive than the other, but in perfect accordance with 
 the etymology, and with the usage of the noun itself in Job. 22 : 11. 38 : 34.. 
 When applied in prose to a drove of horses (Ez. 20 : 10) or a trooj) of 
 horsemen (2 Kings 9 : 17), it requires of course a different version. Thig 
 explanation of f^"s\y throws light upon the })hrase shall cover thee, a term> 
 elsewhere applied to water (e. g. ch. 1 1 : 9). and suggesting here the jioet- 
 tcal idea of a city not merely thronged but flooded with .\rabian caravans. 
 
376 O H A P T E R L X . 
 
 This is at least more natural liian Vitringa's notion that the camels are said 
 to cover that which they approach, because they are so tall that they over- 
 top and overshadow it. The camel has been always so peculiarly associ- 
 ated with the Arabs tliat ihoy are described by Strabo as amirliui y.afAtjXn^oaxoi. 
 They are here, according to Isaiah's practice, represented by a group of 
 ancestral names. Ephah was the eldest son of Midian (Gen. 25 : 4), who 
 was himself the son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25 : 2) and the brother 
 of Jokshan the father of Sheb;i. (Gen. 25 : 1-4.) The first two represent 
 northern and central Arabia, the third Arabia Felix, so called by the old 
 geou-raphers because of the rich products which it furnished to the northern 
 traders, either from its own resources or as an entrepot of Indian commerce. 
 The queen of this country, by whom Solomon was visited, brought with her 
 gold, gems, and spices in abundance (I Kings 10:2), and we read else- 
 where of its frankincense (Jer. 6 : 20), its Plieniclan commerce (Ezek. 
 27 : 29), and its caravans (Job 6 : 19), while those of Midian are men- 
 tioned even in the patriarchal history (Gen. 37 : 28). Bochart supposes 
 the Midian of this passage to be the Madiene of Josephus and the Modion 
 of Ptolemy, and identifies Ephah with ihe''ln7Tog of the Greek geographers. 
 It is more accordant with usage, however, to explain them as the names of 
 the national progenitors, representing their descendants. — It matters little 
 whether dromedaries or young camels be the true translation. (For the 
 arguments on both sides see Bochari's Ilicrozoicon, Vol. I. p. 15, with 
 Rosenmiiller's Note.) The former is preferable only because it gives us a 
 distinct name, as in the original, which is perhaps the reason that Gesenius 
 retains it in his Version but rejects ]t in his Commentary. Aben Ezra and 
 Saadias make z a preposition and ^^- the plural of "o , which in Gen. 31 : 34 
 denotes a litter or woman's saddle used in riding upon camels. — The verb 
 nsn;; docs not agree with the preceding nouns, as the camels of Midian and 
 Ephah could not come from Sheba, but with all of than, which may either 
 be indefinite, 'they (i.e. men) shall come all of them,' or more specifically 
 signify the merchants of Sheba. Most interpreters agree with the Targum 
 in referring the last verb (ii^?"?) to the men who come with the camels and 
 the gifts ; but as ^ix"^": properly denotes the act of the animals themselves, 
 it is not without a show of reason that Vitringa construes the other verb in 
 the same manner, and supposes the camels by their very burdens to praise 
 God or rather to announce the disposition of these tribes to praise him. 
 This is rendered still more probable by the analogy of the next verse, where 
 kindred acts api)ear to be ascribed to other animals. — It is a common opin- 
 ion of interj)reters that this verse represents the east as joining in the acts 
 of homage and of tribute which the one before it had ascribed to the west ; 
 but it may well be doubted whether this distinctive meaning can be put 
 
C H A P T E R L X . 377 
 
 upon the terms sea and nations there employed, and the antithesis would 
 hardly be in keeping with another which appears to be designed between 
 these two verses and the eighth, as will be explained below. 
 
 V. 7. All the flocks of Kcdar shall be gathered for thee, the rams of 
 Nebaioth shall minister to thee, they shall ascend with good-will (or accept- 
 ably) my altar, and my house of beauty I loill beautify. To the traders of 
 Arabia with tlieir caravans and precious wares he now adds her shepherds 
 with their countless flocks. While Kin)chi explains all as meaning many, 
 and Knobel all kinds, Vitriuga insists upon the strict sense as an essential 
 feature of the prophecy. Kedar, tlie second son of Ishmael (Gen. 25: 13), 
 who represents Arabia in ch. 21 : 16 and 42 : 11, is here joined for the 
 same purpose with his elder brother Nebaioth, obviously identical with the 
 Nabataei, the name given to the people of Arabia Petraea by Strabo and 
 Diodorus Siculus, who represent tiiem as possessed of no wealth except 
 flocks and herds, in which they were extremely rich. Ezekiel also speaks 
 of Tyre as trading with Arabia and all the chiefs of Kedar in lambs and 
 rams and goats. (Ezek. 27 : 21.) These are here described as gathered 
 in one vast flock to Jerusalem, or rather for her, i. e. for her use or service, 
 which agrees best with what follows, and with the usage of the Hebrew pre- 
 position. They are then, by a bold and striking figure, represented as offer- 
 ing themselves, which is first expressed by the general term serve or minister, 
 and then more unequivocally by declaring that they shall themselves ascend 
 the altar. Kimchi endeavours to get rid of this bold metaphor by intro- 
 ducing ivith before the rams of Nebaioth and referring both verbs to the peo- 
 ple themselves: (JVith) the rams of Nebaioth shall they serve thee, atid 
 cause (them) to ascend, etc. But the common judgment of interpreters 
 is in favour of explaining the words strictly, and retaining the unusual figure 
 unimpaired. They are not disposed however to go all lengths with Vitringa, 
 who supposes the rams to be personified as priests offering themselves upon 
 the altar. — The ascent of the victim on the altar is repeatedly connected 
 elsewhere with the phrase Ti^";^ , to acceptance or acceptably. (See above, 
 ch. 56 : 7 and Jer. 6 : 20.) But in this one place we have the phrase 
 *i:jn-^y , as if the last noun had usurped the place o{ altar, which immedi- 
 ately follows. Of this unusual construction there are several distinct expla- 
 nations. Kimchi regards it as a case of "iiro or metathesis, which may be 
 thus resolved: "in::-"2 !=:? •,^:nb ibri . Gesenius obtains precisely the same 
 meaning by explaining "'H?'!"? ^^ ^" accusative after a verb of motion, and 
 making ")'i:j"^"Vi' a simple variation of the common j)hrase Ti^"^'? . Ilitzig and 
 Henderson adopt the same construction, but suppose the two phrases to be 
 different in sense as well as form, '\'^^~^. meaning to (divine) acceptance, 
 ■jiisn-^^' with good will or complacency. The phrase then only serves to 
 
;JT3 C H A P T E R L X . 
 
 streiigilien the description of the victims as spontaneously offerinf,^ themselves, 
 an idea wliich Lowth finely, but perhaps too artificially, illustrates hy cita- 
 tions fioui Suetonius and Tacitus, showing that the ancients viewed reluc- 
 tance in the victims as an evil omen, and l)y parity of reasoning the appear- 
 ance of spontaneous self-devotion as a good one. — In the last clause the 
 meaning of the i)hrase "^n-xsn ri3 is determined by the parallel expressions 
 in eh. 64 : 10, where the suffix necessarily belongs to the governing word, 
 or rather to the whole complex phrase, and the whole means, not the house 
 of our holiness and our henuty, but our house of holiness and beauti/, or 
 resolved into the occidental idiom, our holy and our beautiful house, which 
 is the common English version. The LXX have here my house of prayer, 
 as in ch. 56 : 7 ; and Hitzig regards this as the genuine reading, though he 
 does not adopt it in his German version. His reason for this critical decision 
 is a very insufficient one, viz. that God is nowhere else said to glory in the 
 temple, which is not the meaning of the common text, ri"ixsn being here 
 used in its primary and ordinary sense of beauty, as appears from its con- 
 junction with the verb "ixa , which, in this connexion, even upon Hiizig's 
 own hypothesis, must mean to beautify. — Grotius supposes this prediction 
 to have been literally verified in Herod's temple. Gesenius and the other 
 Germans easily dispose of it as a finatical anticipation. It is much more 
 embarrassing to those who make the passage a prediction of the future resto- 
 ration of the Jews and the future splendour of the literal Jerusalem. Some 
 of the most intrepid writers of this class consistently apply their fundamen- 
 tal principle of literal interpretation, and believe that the Mosaic ritual or 
 something like it is to be restor.-d. But such interpreters as J. D. Michaelis 
 and Henderson, who cannot go to this length, are obliged to own that spi- 
 ritual services are here represented under forms and titles borrowed from the 
 old dispensation. " Whatever the descendants of those oriental tribes may 
 
 possess shall be cheerfully placed at the disposal of the restored Jews 
 
 There shall be no want of any thing that is required for the full restoration 
 of divine worship, when the mosque of Omar shall give pbce to a new 
 temple to be erected for the celebration of the services of that ministration 
 which exceedeth in glory. 2 Cor. 3 : 8-1 1." This is the ' literal interpre- 
 tation ' of a school which will not allow Israel to mean the church or chosen 
 people as such considered, but insists upon its meaning the nation of the 
 Jews! The picture which this interpretation makes the Prophet draw may 
 well be called a mixed one, consisting of a literal Jerusalem, literal caravans 
 and camels, but a figurative altar, figurative victims, and a material temple 
 to be built upon the site of the old one for a spiritual worship exclusive of 
 the very rites which it is hei-e predicted shall be solemnly performed there. 
 Of such a figment upon such a subject we may say, with more than ordi- 
 nary emphasis, and even with a double sense, Credai Judatus apella ! On 
 
CHAPTER LX. 379 
 
 the other hand, the prophecy explains itself to those who believe that the 
 ancient Israel is still in existence and that the Jews as a nation form no 
 part of it. The charge of mystical or allegorical interpretation does not lie 
 against this view of the matter, but against Vitringa's needless and fantastic 
 addition to his real exegesis of a set of riddles or enigmas, in which he puz- 
 zles both his readers and himself by attempting to determine whether camels 
 mean laborious and patient Christians, rams strong ones, sheep those fat- 
 tened by the word and clothed in the white wool of holiness, etc. To any 
 but Vitringa himself it must be difficult to see in what respect all this is any 
 better than the notion for which he reproves Eusebius, Jerome, and Proco- 
 pius, that camels here mean rich men, as in l\!atth. 19:24. And yet after 
 saying in regard to these erring Fathers, vitanda utique sunt in applicatio- 
 nibus myslicis uD.nycrJi, he adds with great complacency, nostrae rationeshic 
 sunt liquidae ! If any proof were needed of the risk attending the admis- 
 sion of a false exegetical principle, however harndess in appearance, it 
 would be afforded by these melancholy triflings on the part of one of the 
 most able, learned, orthodox, devout, accomplished, and with this exception 
 sensible interpreters of Scripture, that the world has ever seen or can expect 
 to see again. 
 
 V. 8. Who are these that jly as a cloud and as doves to their windows 7 
 It is a fine conception of Vitringa, that the ships expressly mentioned in the 
 next verse are here described in their first appearance at a distance resem- 
 bling with their outspread sails and rapid course a fleecy cloud driven by 
 the wind, and a flight of doves returning to their young. Both comparisons 
 are elsewhere used as here to indicate rapidity of motion. (Job 30 : 15. Ps. 
 55:7. Hos. 11 : 11. Jer. 4: 13.) Mucii less felicitous is Vitringa's idea 
 that the imaije here presented is that of a prophetic chorus standing with 
 the church on the roof of the city, and asked by her, or asking, what it is 
 they see approaching. Houbiganl's emendation of the text by reading 
 Dni.n-i::x , though approved by Lowth and even improved by the change of 
 bx to b^ on the authority of more than forty manuscripts, so as to admit of 
 the translation like doves upon the iving, is justly characterized by Gesenius 
 as an "'elende Coiijectur." The common text means lattices or latticed loin- 
 dows, cither of which is better than Henderson's translation holes, though 
 even this is preferable to the vague and weak term habitations used by 
 Noyes. 
 
 V. 9. Because for me the isles are waiting (or must wait), and the 
 ships of Tarshish in the first place, to bring thy sons from far, their silver 
 and their gold ivith them, for the name of Jehovah thy God, and for the 
 Holy One of Israel, because he has glorified thee. This verse contains a 
 
380 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 virtual though not a formal answer to the question in the one before it. 
 As if he had said, Wonder not that these are seen approaching, for the 
 whole world is only awaiting my command to bring thy sons, etc. This 
 view of the connexion makes it wholly unnecessary to give ^3 the sense 
 of surely, yes, or any other than its usual and proper one of /or, because. 
 For the true sense of "^1^7, see above on ch. 42: 4, and for ships of 
 Tarshish, the Earlier Prophecies, p. 405. Luzzatto here gratuitously reads 
 ni;37 let them be gathered, which is applied to a confluence of nations in 
 Jer. 3:17. The Septuagint, which elsewhere explains Tarshish to 
 mean the sea, here retains the name ; but the Vulgate even here has naves 
 maris. .1. D. Michaelis, the ships of Spain. Jarchi and Kimchi supply s 
 before nicxnn , and explain it to mean as at first, or as of old, referring to 
 the days of Solomon and Hiram. This reading is actually found in twenty- 
 five manuscripts, and sanctioned by the Peshito ; but even Lowth retains 
 the common text. The Hebrew phrase is generally understood to mean in 
 the first rank either as to time or place. (Compare Num. 10: 13, 14.) 
 Both may be included, as they really imply one another. The pronoun 
 their may have for its antecedent either sons or islands ; but the former, as 
 the nearer, is more natural. The last clause is repeated from ch. 55 : 5, 
 where )S^h takes the place of the first h and determines it to mean not to 
 but ybr. There is no need therefore of explaining 7iame to mean the place 
 where the divine name was recorded. J. D. Michaelis still declines to say 
 in what precise form this prediction is to be fulfilled ; but Henderson, less 
 cautious or more confident, affirms that the property of the Jews as well as 
 themselves shall be conveyed free of charge to Palestine, adding that many 
 of them resident in distant parts can only conveniently return by sea. The 
 principle involved in this interpretation is, that we have no right to make 
 the Zion here addressed any other than the literal Jerusalem, or the ships, 
 the silver, and the gold, any other than literal silver, gold, and ships. This 
 rule to be of any practical avail must apply to all ])arts of the passage, and 
 especially to all parts of the verse alike, without which uniformity interpre- 
 tation becomes wholly arbitrary or mere guess-work. It is an interesting 
 question, therefore, what we are to understand in this connexion by the ships 
 of Tarshish, to which such extraordinary prominence is given in the work 
 of restoration. As to this point, Henderson refers us to his note on ch. 
 23 : 10, where we read as follows : " By Tarshish there can no longer be 
 any reasonable doubt we are to understand Tartessus, the ancient and 
 celebrated emporium of the Phenicians, situated between the two mouths 
 of the river Bactis (now Guadalquiver) on the south-western coast of Spain." 
 Are we to understand then that the vessels of this part of Spain are to be 
 foremost in the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, just as the descendants 
 of the ancient Kedar, Ephah, and Sheba, are to place their possessions at 
 
C H A P T E R LX. 381 
 
 the disposal of the restored Jews ? If so, this meaning should have been 
 distinctly stated, as it partly is by Michaelis in translating Tarshish S])(mi. 
 If not, and if as we suspect the ships of Tarshish are secretly identified with 
 the commercial navy of Great Britain and perhaps America, we then have 
 another medley like that in v. 7, but in this case consisting of a literal 
 return to the literal Jerusalem in literal ships but belonging to a figurative 
 Tarshish. In these repeated instances of mixed interpretation there is 
 something like a vacillancy between the literal and the spiritual, which is 
 any thing but satisfactory. To the assumption that commercial intercourse 
 and navigation are here represented under forms and names derived from 
 the Old Testament history, I am so far from objecting, that I wish to apply 
 it to the whole prediction, and to use precisely the same liberty in under- 
 standing what is said of Zion and her sons, as in understanding what is said 
 of Tarshish and her ships. Let it also be added to the cumulative proofs 
 already urged in favour of our own hypothesis, that here, as in so many 
 former instances, the writer does not even accidentally use any term expli- 
 citly denoting restoration or return, but only such as are appropriate to mere 
 accession and increase ab extra. It cannot therefore be absurd, even if it 
 is erroneous, to apply what is here said, with Vitringa, to the growth of the 
 true Israel or chosen people by the calling of the gentiles, with particular 
 allusion to the wealth of the commercial nations, from amonp- whom the 
 elect of God, the sons of Zion, when they come to the embraces of their 
 unknown mother, shall come bringing their silver and gold with them. 
 
 V. 10. And strangers shall build thy walls, and their kings shall serve 
 thee ; for in my wrath I smote thee, and in my favour I have had mercy on 
 thee. For the true sense of the phrase "'^.r"'.?^ , see above, on ch. 56 : 3 ; 
 and with the last clause compare ch. 54 : 7, 8. The "^3 relates to the whole 
 of that clause taken together, not to the first member by itself. It was not 
 because God had been angry, but because he had been angry and relented, 
 that they were to be thus favoured. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 238.) 
 There is no need, however, of substituting an involved occidental syntax for 
 the simple Hebrew construction, as Vitringa and Rosenmiiller do, by reading, 
 ' for although in my wrath I may have smitten thee, etc' The English ver- 
 sion of the last verb in the sentence is correct. Lowth's emendation of it, 
 in which he is followed by Henderson and Noyes, is wholly ungrammatical, 
 since the preceding verb is not a future but a preterite. The change is 
 also needless, since the mercy is described as past, not in reference to the 
 date of the prediction, but of its fulfilment. There is something at once 
 inexact and mawkish in Lowth's paraphrase of this verb, / will embrace 
 thee with the most tender affection. If any departure from the usual trans- 
 lation were required or admissible, the preference would be due to Ewald's 
 
38-> C II A P T E R L X . 
 
 version (licb ich dich wiedcr). — Eiclihori-! supposed ilic expectation here 
 expressed to have been excited by the benefactions of the Persian kings to 
 the restored Jews (Ezra 1 : 8. 6 : 8, 9) ; but even Gesenius regards the 
 date thus assi;;iied to tlie prediction as too kite. Knobel applies the text 
 to the neii^hbouring heathen, called "fr''^^ by Nehciniah (ch. 9: 2. comp. 
 Ps. 18 : 45. Ill : 7, II), who were to be driven from the lands upon 
 which they had intruded during the captivity, and reduced to bondage by 
 the restored Jews. Henderson's explanation of the verse as meaning that 
 foreigners shall count it an honour to be employed in rebuilding Jerusalem 
 and '• in any way contributing to the recovery of the lost happiness of 
 Israel, and that even monarchs shall regaid it as a privilege to aid in the 
 work by employing whatever legitimate influence they may possess in 
 advancing it," is hardly a fair specimen of strictly literal interpretation, but 
 rather an insensible approximation to the old opinion, as expressed by 
 Vitrin'fa, that the Prophet here foretells the agency of strangers or new con- 
 verts in promoting the safety and prosperity of Israel, under figures borrowed 
 from the old economy, and implying a vicissitude or alternation of distress 
 and joy, such as Isaiah frequently exhibits. The building of the walls here 
 mentioned is the same as that in Ps. 51 : 20 and 147 : 2, where it is no 
 more to be literally understood than the captivity of Zion in Ps. 14 : 7 or 
 that of Job in ch. 42 : 10. (See Hengstenberg on the Psalms, Vol. I. 
 p. 291.) 
 
 V. 11. And thy gates shall be open confinually, day and night they 
 shall not bt shut, to bring info thee the strength of nations and their 
 Jcings led (captive or in trinrnj)!')- According to Hitzig there is here a 
 resumption of the figures in v. 6, and the gates are represented as kept open 
 day and night by the perpetual influx of Arabian caravans. But without 
 going back to the peculiar imageiy of that verse, we may understand the 
 one before us as relating to the influx of strangers and nev/ converts gene- 
 rally. The two ideas expressed are those of unobstructed access and undis- 
 turbed tranquillity. The use of ^nno is the same as in ch. 48 : 8, nearly 
 but not entirely coincident with that of the corresponding verb in English; 
 when we speak of a door's opening instead of being opened. The difference 
 is simply that between the description of a momentary act and of a perma- 
 nent condition. The intransitive construction is in either case the same. 
 Upon this verse, perhaps combined with Zech. 14 : 7, is founded that beau- 
 tiful and grand description, the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, 
 for (here shall be no night there (Rev. 21 : 25), of which Vitringa speaks 
 as an inspired exposition of the verse before us, while Henderson says more 
 correctly that the Apostle "borrows the language in his description of the 
 New Jerusalem." — ^"'n has the same ambiguity or latitude of meaning as 
 
C H A P T E 11 L X . 383 
 
 in V. 5, above. The sense of wealth or treasure is preferred hy most of the 
 late writers, but Ilosenniuller has excrcilus. Belter than either, beeausi? 
 comprehending both, is Vilringa's version cop'ia, to w hieh we have no 
 exact equivalent in English. — Vitringa and Rosenniiiller follow Kinichi in 
 explaining c^iin: lo mean escorted, led in procession, or. as Lowili has it, 
 pompously aitendtd, which they take to be the meaning of the verb in i\ah. 
 2 : 8. But as that place is itself obscure and doubtful, and as the verb is 
 clearly employed elsewhere to express the act of leading captive (ch. 20: 4. 
 1 Sam. 30 : 2), several of the later writers have reverted to this explanation, 
 which is also gii'en in the Targum ("rp^P]) and by A ben Ezra, and agrees 
 well with ch. 45: 14 (compare Ps. 149: ^). Gesenius in his Commentary 
 charges Koppe with omitting to observe that this sense is at variance with 
 the idea of voluntary adhesion expressed throughout the context; but in his 
 Thesaurus he adopts this very explanation, without attempting lo refute his 
 own objection. Hitzig's solution of it is that the nations are described as 
 coming to Jerusalem tn masse, and bringing their reluctant kings in chains 
 along with them. Knobel proposes an entirely new explanation, in which 
 D'^aws is to have an active meaning (like ii^ip^ and Tins), and to be trans- 
 lated leaders ; but if ever the invention of a new sense was without the faint- 
 est colour of necessity, it is so here. The geneial meaning no doubt is that 
 earthly sovereigns must unite in this adhesion to the true religion, either wil- 
 lingly or by compulsion. The diflerent impressions made by such a passage 
 on intelligent interpreters, according to their several hypotheses or previous 
 conclusions, may be shown by comparing the remarks of Henderson and 
 Umbreit upon this verse. While the latter confidently asks who can here 
 fail to read tlie daily progress of God's kingdom by accretion from the 
 gentiles, in which sense the doors of Zion are still open, kings and nations 
 streaming in by day and night, the other gravely observes that "modern 
 travellers greatly con)plain of the inconvenience to which they are put, when 
 they do not reach Jerusalem before the gates are closed." This is either 
 nothing to the purpose or implies that the blessing piomised in the text is 
 a more convenient regulation of the gate-police after the restoration of the 
 Jews. 
 
 V. 12. For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve thee shall 
 perish, and. the nations shall be desolated, desolated. Similar threatenin^s 
 are found in Zechariah 10 : 1, 12 : 1, and 14 : 17, in the last of which 
 places there is a specific threat of drought, as the appointed punishment. 
 This has led Hitzig and some later writers to explain the last verb here as 
 meaning to be utterly dried u[) or parched. But in ch. 37 : IS, above, it is 
 applied to nations in the general sense of desolation. The for at the 
 beginning of the verse is commonly explained as introducing a reason for 
 
334 C II A P T E R L X. 
 
 the confl'jence of strangers just before predicted, namely, the desire of 
 escaping tliis destruction ; but it may as well be understood to give a reason 
 for the promise of increase in general. The gates of Zion shall be crowded, 
 because all shall enter into them but those who are to perish. The nations 
 in the last clause may mean tiie nations just described, or, as the common 
 version expresses it. those nations. But it may also mean, perhaps more 
 naturally, those who still continue to be gentiles, heathen, by refusing to 
 unite themselves with Israel. — The threatening in this verse is a very seri- 
 ous one, however understood ; but it is also very strange and unaccountable 
 if understood as meaning that all nations shall be utterly destroyed which 
 will not serve the Jews when restored to their own country. Even if we 
 give to serve the mitigated sense of showing favour and assisting, there is 
 still something almost revolting in the penalty annexed to the omission ; 
 how much more if we understand it as denoting actual subjection and hard 
 bondage. It is no wonder that a writer so acute as Henderson is forced by 
 the pressure of this difficulty on his theory to seek for a "raeiosis" in the 
 sentence, and to understand the threatening as directed only against those 
 who are chargeable with " positive hostility," a forced assumption not to be 
 supported by a reference to Judges 5 : 23. The whole is rendered clear 
 by the assumption, not got up for the occasion, but resulting from an exten- 
 sive exegetical induction, that the threatening was intended to apply, in its 
 most obvious and strongest sense, to all those nations which refuse to be 
 connected with the church or Israel of God. 
 
 V. 13. The glory of Lebanon to thee shall come, cypress, plane, and 
 box together, to adorn the place of my sanctuary, and the place of my feet 
 1 will honour. Tlie glory of Lebanon is its cedars. For the other trees 
 here mentioned, see above, on ch. 41 : 19, where, as here, they are merely 
 representatives of ornamental forest-trees in general. The place of my 
 sanctuary has been generally understood to mean the sanctuary itself; but 
 several of the latest writers understand by it Jerusalem, as being the place 
 where the temple was erected. The same sense is put by Maurer and 
 others on the place of my feet, that is, the place where I habitually stand 
 or walk. (Ezek. 43 : 7.) Vitringa and the older writers generally seem 
 to understand by it the ark of the covenant, considered as the footstool of 
 Jehovah (I Chron. 28 : 2. Ps. 99 : 5. 132 : 7) when enthroned between 
 the cherubim (ch. 37 : 16. Ps. 80 : 2). In favour of the wider sense is 
 the analogy of ch. QG : 2, where the same description is applied to the 
 whole earth, but in reference to heaven as the throne of God. — Another 
 topic upon which interpreters have been divided, is the question whether 
 the adorning mentioned here is that of cultivated grounds by living trees, 
 or that of buildings by the use of the choicest kinds of timber. The latter 
 
CHAPTERLX. 385 
 
 opinion has most commonly prevailed ; but Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, 
 are decidedly in favour of the other, which is far more pleasing in itself and 
 more in keeping with the poetical tone of the whole context. In either case 
 the meaning of the figure is that the earthly residence of God shall be 
 invested with the most attractive forms of beauty. Even Grotius, as Vitringa 
 has observed, was ashamed to rest in the material sense of this description, 
 and has made it so far tropical as to denote the conquest of many parts of 
 Syria by the Jews. But Henderson goes back to ground which even 
 Grotius could not occupy, and understands the verse not only of material 
 trees but of material timber. " A literal temple or house of worship being 
 intended, the language must be literally understood. ^^ But why are literal 
 trees more indispensable in this case than literal sheep and rams and a literal 
 altar in v. 7, or than literal ships of Tarshish in v. 9 ? This perpetual vacil- 
 lancy between the literal and the spiritual is any thing but satisfactory. 
 " From all that appears to be the state of Palestine in regard to wood, sup- 
 plies from Lebanon will be as necessary as they were when the ancient temple 
 was constructed," With this may be worthily compared the use of the 
 same text to justify the 'dressing of churches' at the festival of Christmas- 
 
 V. 14. Then shall come to thee bending the sons of thy oppressors, then 
 shall how down to the soles of thy feet all thy dcsjyiscrs, and shall call thee 
 the City of Jehovah, Zion the holy place of Israel (or the Zion of the Holy 
 One of Israel). For the sanje ideas and expressions, see above, ch. 45 : 14 
 and 49 : 23. The Vj before nias is not simply equivalent to at, but 
 expresses downward motion, and may be translated doivn to. The act 
 described is the oriental prostration as a sign of ihe profoundest reverence. 
 The Vulgate makes he sense still stronger, and indeed too strong, by 
 attaching to the verb a religious meaning, and regarding niQ? as its object 
 (^adorabunt vestigia pedum tuoruin). The sons are mentioned either for the 
 purpose of contrasting the successive generations more emphatically, or as a 
 mere oriental idiom without distinctive meaning. In favour of the latter 
 supposition is the circumstance that it is wanting in the other clause, where 
 the despisers are themselves represented as doing the same thing with the 
 sons of the oppressors, yxa means not only to despise in heart but to treat 
 with contempt. These humbled enemies are represented as acknowledging 
 the claim of Zion to be recognised as the holy place and dwelling of Jeho- 
 vah. The old construction of the last words, the Zion of the Holy One of 
 Israel, supposes Zion as a proper name to govern the next word, contrary 
 to the general rule, but after the analogy of such combinations as Beth- 
 lehem of Judah and Jehovah of Hosts. Hitzig prefers to make l"i'5? an 
 appellative synonymous witli ']i''5: , the pillar of the Holy One of Israel. 
 Maurer more plausibly suggests that tDinp here me.ms not a holy person but 
 
 25 
 
386 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 a holy or consecrated place, ns in cli. 57 : 15. Ps. 46 : 5. 65 : 5. On 
 
 any of these suppositions, the sense of the acknowledgment remains the 
 same. That sense is determined by the parallel passage ch. 45 : 14, 
 where a part of the confession is in these words, oidy in thee is God. 
 (See above, p. 118.) The same sense must here be attached to the acknow- 
 ledgment of Zion as the City of Jehovah, in order to explain or justify the 
 strength of the expressions put into the mouth of her repentant enemies. 
 The old Jerusalem was not merely a holy place, a city of Jehovah, but the 
 holy place, the city of Jehovah. Its exclusive possession of this character 
 was perfectly essential, and is always so described in Scripture. Are we to 
 understand, then, that Jerusalem, when rebuilt and enlarged hereafter, is 
 again to be invested with its old monopoly of spiritual privileges? If it is, 
 how can such a restoration of the old economy be reconciled with the New 
 Testament doctrines ? If it is not, why are these repentant enemies described 
 as rendering precisely the same homage to the New Jerusalem, which 
 properly belonged to the old ? If this is a mere figure for deep reverence 
 and so forth, what becomes of the principle of literal interpretation ? Whether 
 these questions are of any exegetical importance, and if so, whether they 
 are satisfactorily solved by Henderson's interpretation of the verse as 
 meaning that " the descendants of her oppressors will acknowledge the 
 wrongs that have been done to her, and humbly crave a share in her privi- 
 leges," is left to the decision of the reader. On the supposition hitherto 
 assumed as the basis of the exposition, this verse simply means that the 
 enemies of the Church shall recognise her in her true relation to her divine 
 Head. 
 
 V. 15. Instead of thy being forsaken and hated and with none passing 
 (through thee), and I will place thee for a boast of perpetuity, a joy of age 
 and age. The rnn may express either simj)ly a change of condition 
 (whereas), or the reason of the change (because), or the further idea of 
 equitable compensation. Uitzlg su[)j!0ses an allusion in rN>i:b to the use of 
 the same word in the law with respect to a less beloved wife (Gen. 29 : 31. 
 Deut. 21 : 15). But in the phrase "i^ii" 'pN the personification seems 
 entirely merged in the idea of a city. The i at the beginning of the second 
 clause is commonly regarded as the sign of the apodosis, and as such can- 
 not be expressed in English. It may however have its usual copulative 
 meaning if the first clause be connected with the foregoing verse as a part 
 of the same sentence. In either case the i must at the same time be conver- 
 sive and connect the verb with those of the preceding verse, or else it must 
 be taken as a praeler like "'P^fl"! in v. 10. In order probably to make the 
 application of the verse to the material Jerusalem more natural, Henderson 
 observes that cbis is here used, as in many other places, for a period of long 
 
CHAPTER LX. 387 
 
 and unknown duration. As this is certainly the primitive meaning of the 
 word, it is often so applied, and yet it may be noted that according to the 
 true interpretation of the prophecy, this expression may be taken in its 
 utmost strength and latitude of meaning. 
 
 V. 16. And thou shall sucJc the milk of nations, and the breast of kings 
 shah thou suck, and thou shalt know that I, Jehovah, am thy saviour, and 
 (that) thy redeemer (is) the Mighty One of Jacob. All interpreters agree 
 with the Targum in applying this verse to the influx of wealth and power 
 and whatever else the kings and nations of the earth can contribute to the 
 progress of the true religion. The figure is derived from Deut. 33 : 19, 
 they shall suck the abundance of the seas. Tii cannot here mean desolation, 
 as above in ch. 59 : 7 and below in v. 18, but must be a variation of the 
 usual form ""IJ as in Job 24 : 9. The catachresis in the second clause is 
 not a mere rhetorical blunder, but as Hitzig vv'ell says, an example of the 
 sense overmastering the style, a license the occasional use of which is cha- 
 racteristic of a bold and energetic writer. It also serves the useful purpose 
 of showing how purely tropical the language is. Lowth and Noyes gratu- 
 itously try to mitigate the harshness of the metaphor by changing the second 
 suck \nto fostered at and nursed from the breast of kings. Vitringa speaks 
 of some as attempting to remove the solecism altogether by making A;?/7^s 
 mean queens or the daughters of kings, or by appealing to extraordinary 
 cases in which males have given suck ! The construction of the last clause 
 is the one expressed by INoyes. Each member of that clause contains a 
 subject and a predicate, and therefore a complete proposition. The sense 
 is not merely that Jehovah is the Mighty One of Jacob, but that the Mighty 
 God of Jacob is Israel's redeemer, and the self-existent everlasting God his 
 saviour. Here, as in ch. 1 : 24, Henderson translates T'^^^ protector ; but 
 see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 1 8. 
 
 V. 17. Instead of brass (or copper) I will bring gold, and instead of 
 iron I will bring silver, and instead, of wood brass, and instead of stones iron, 
 and I ivill place (or make) thy government peace and thy rulers righteous- 
 ness. Grotius follows the Targum in explaining the first clause as a promise 
 of ample compensation for preceding losses. As if he had said, 'for the 
 brass which thy enemies have taken from thee I will bring thee gold,' etc. 
 Knobel, on the contrary, understands the clause as meaning that the value 
 of the precious metals shall be lowered by their great abundance. Hender- 
 son likewise understands it as a promise that " the temporal prosperity of 
 the restored Israelites shall resemble that of their ancestors in the days of 
 Solomon." (See 1 Kings TO : 27. 2 Clir. 9 : 20, 27.) J3ut the thought 
 which is naturally suggested by the words is that expressed by Vitringa, 
 
3S8 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 namely, that all things shall be changed for the better. The change 
 described is not a change in kind, i. e. from bad to good, but in degree, i. e. 
 from good to belter ; because the same things which appear to be rejected 
 in the first clause are expressly promised in the second. The arrangement 
 of the items Vitringa endeavours to explain as havin/; reference to the out- 
 ward appearance of the substances, those being put together which are most 
 alike. See a similar gradation in ch. 30 : 26. Zech. 14 : 20. 1 Cor. 3 : 12. 
 
 15 : 41. The last clause resolves the figures into literal expressions, and 
 
 thus shows that the promise has respect not to money but to moral advan- 
 tac^es. ~nps properly means office, magistracy, government, here put for 
 those who exercise it, like nobility, ministry, and other terms in English. 
 (Compare Ezek. 9 : 1. 2 Kings 11 : 18.) a^-:??, which has commonly a 
 bad sense, is here used for magistrates or rulers in general, for the purpose 
 of suggesting that instead of tyrants or exactors they should now be under 
 equitable government. The two parallel expressions Henderson decides to 
 signify the temporal and spiritual chiefs of the restored Jewish community, 
 without assigning any ground for the alleged distinction. There is much 
 more force in his remark that the similarity of structure between this verse 
 and ch. 3 : 24 corroborates the genuineness of these later prophecies. Koppe's 
 explanation of the last clause as meaning, •' I will change thy punishment 
 into peace and thy afflictions into blessing,' is justly represented by Gesenius 
 as arbitrary. 
 
 V. 18. There shall no more be heard violence in thy land, desolation 
 and ruin in thy borders (or within thy bounds) ; and thou shalt call salvation 
 thy walls, and thy gates praise. According to Vitringa o^:" was the cry for 
 help usually uttered in case of personal violence. (See Job 19:7. Jer. 
 20 : 8.) But there is no need of departing from ihe strict sense of violence 
 itself, which shall never more be heard of. He also distinguishes TiJ and 
 -in© as relating severally to lands and houses. The most natural explana- 
 tion of the last clause is that which makes it mean that the walls shall afford 
 safety (ch. 26 : 1) and the gates occasion of praise. Henderson's explana- 
 tion, that the gates shall resound with praise, does not agree well with the 
 parallel. Some understand by praise the praise of God for her continued 
 safety ; others the praise or fame of her defences, considered either as aris- 
 ing from victorious resistance to assault, or as preventing it. For n^nri the 
 Septuagint has ylvfifiu sculpture, and for rxn^ the Vulgate occupabit. Thou 
 shalt call, as in many other cases, means, thou shalt have a right and reason 
 so to call them. With this verse compare ch. 65 : 19-25. 
 
 V. 19. No more shall be to thee the sun Jor a light by day, and for 
 brightness ihe moon shall not shine to thee, and Jehovah shall become thy 
 
CHAPTER LX. 389 
 
 everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. The h before t^sb is neglected by 
 the ancient versions, and Hitzig in like manner makes it a sign of the nomi- 
 native absolute, as for the brightness of the moon, etc. (See above, ch. 
 32 : 1, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 534.) But the rnasoretic accents 
 j-equire rtjbb to be construed separately as meaning with its light (Gesenius), or 
 for light (English Version). Some regard this merely as a figurative promise 
 of prosperity, of which light is a natural and common emblem. Others 
 understand it as a promise of God's residence among his people, clothed in 
 such transcendent brightness as to make the light of the sun and the moon 
 useless. The true sense of the figures seems to be that all natural sources 
 of illumination shall be swallowed up in the clear manifestation of the pre- 
 sence, power, and will of God, According to Henderson, this verse and the 
 next depict the superlative degree of happiness which shall be enjoyed by 
 the new and holy Jerusalem church, expressed in language of the most 
 sublime imagery, Wliy we are thus more at liberty to treat the sun and 
 moon of this passage as mere "imagery," while the trees of v. 13 "must be 
 literally explained " as meaning timber, we are not informed. — With this 
 verse compare Rev. 21 : 23. 22 : 5. — Lowth and J. D. Michaelis need- 
 lessly insert by night, on the authority of the ancient versions, which prove 
 zaothing, however, as to a difference of text. The occasional violation of 
 the exact parallelism is not so much a blemish as a beauty. 
 
 V. 20- Thy sun shall set no more, and thy rnoon shall not be ivithdrawn ; 
 for Jehovah shall he unto thee for an eternal light, and completed the days 
 of thy mourning. There is no need of supposing any want of consistency 
 between this verse and that before it, nor even that the Prophet gives a new 
 t'Urn to his metaphor- Thy sun shall set no more, is evidently tantamount 
 to saying, thou shalt no more have a sun that sets or a moon that withdraws 
 herself, because, etc. The active verb "tJX is used in the same way by 
 Joel, where he says that the stars withdraw their brightness, i. e. cease to 
 shine. The expression is generic, and may comprehend all failure or 
 decrease of light, whether by setting, waning, or eclipse, or by the tempo- 
 rary intervention of a cloud. The last words of this verse are correctly said 
 by Henderson to furnish a key to the whole description, by identifying joy 
 with light, and grief with darkness. — Compare with this verse ch. 25 : 8. 
 Zech. 14 : 7. Rev. 7 : 16. 21 : 4; and for the phrase, days of mourning, 
 Gen. 27 : 41. 
 
 V. 21. And thy people, all of them, righteous, for ever shall inherit the 
 earth, the branch (or shoot) of my planting, the work of my hands, to glorify 
 If (or to be glorifed).— Compare ch. 4 : 3. 33 : 24. 35 : 8. 52 : 1. 
 
390 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 Rev. 21:7, 27. The 6rst clause may also be read as two distinct propo- 
 sitions, thy people all of them are (or shall he) righteous, for ever they shall 
 inherit the earth. According to the literal interpretation, so called, this is 
 a promise that the Jews shull possess the Holy Land for ever. But even 
 granting land to be a more literal and exact translation, which it is not, still 
 the usage of the Scriptures has attached to this prophetic formnia a much 
 higher meaning, the possession of the land being just such a type or symbol 
 of the highest future blessings as the exodus from Egypt is of ultimate 
 deliverance, or the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah of sudden, condign, 
 irretrievalile destruction. But in favour of the wider version, earth, is the 
 analogy of ch. 49 : 8, where Israel is represented as occupying and restor- 
 ing the desolate heritages of the whole earth. — The Septuagint renders -5£3 
 by q^vXuoocor, as if written "^': . For the meaning of the word, see above, 
 ch. 11:1.14:19, and the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 218, 286. According to 
 Hendewerk, it here denotes the population of the new Jerusalem, and is 
 identical with the plant and root of ch. 53 : 2 ; from which he gravely infers 
 that the Qipi'ns of this verse and the P'"^s of ch. 53 : 11 must also be iden- 
 tical. The dependence of God's people on himself for the origin and sus- 
 tentation of their spiritual life is forcibly expressed by the figure of a plant 
 which he has planted (Ps. 92 : 14. Matt. 15 : 13. John 15 : 1, 2), and 
 by that of a work which he has wrought (ch. 29 : 23. 43 : 7) : in reference 
 to the last of which the Apostle says (Eph. 2 : 10), ur. are his ti'orkman- 
 ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good tvorks, vjhich God hath before 
 ordained that we should walk in them ; and in reference to the first, our Lord 
 himself (John 15 : 8), herein is my Father glorified that ye bear much fruit, 
 so shall ye be my disciples : and again, with an entire change of figure (Matt. 
 5 : 16), let your light so shine before men thai they may see your good 
 works and glorify your Father ivhich is in heaven. The same ultimate 
 design is set forth in the words of the verse before us. — The textual reading 
 iS'jn is regarded by Gesenius and most other writers as an error of transcrip- 
 tion for ''"-■3 , as given in the margin. But Rosenmuller seems to tiiink that 
 the pronoun of the third person may refer to ""^n , which is sometimes mas- 
 culine ; De Dieu refers it to the people ; and Maurer thinks it possible to 
 connect it with Jehovah, by a sudden enallage so common in the prophets ; 
 which last is approved by Hitzig, but avoided as too harsh in his translation. 
 As to his notion that ii<2rn describes God as being proud of Israel, see 
 above, on v. 13. — To the question whether all the rs^storod Jews are to be 
 righteous. Henderson says nothing ; but Michaelis maintains that this expres- 
 sion does not necessarily imply regeneration or denote true piety, but simply 
 signifies the prevalence of sb.tial virtue, such as may exist even among the 
 heathen, much more among those who are in possession of the true religiou. 
 
CHAPTERLX 391 
 
 — According to my own view of the Prophet's meaning, he here predicts 
 the elevation of the church to its normal or ideal state, a change of which 
 we may already see the rudiments, however far we may be yet from its final 
 consummation. 
 
 V. 22. The little one shall become a thousand, and the small one a 
 strong nation ; I, Jehovah, in its time will hasten it. The superlative sense 
 given to the adjectives little and small by Gesenius and Ewald is a needless 
 departure from the idiomatic form of the original. The substantive verb 
 with h may also be rendered shall be for, i. e. shall be so reckoned, which 
 amounts to the same thing. Kimchi, and Rosenmuller after him, very 
 unnecessarily observe that small and little here relate to number, not to 
 size, Gesenius and several of the later writers understand them as denoting 
 one without a family, or with a small one ; in which case the Cib.i!< might be 
 taken in its genealogical sense of household, family, or other subdivision of 
 a tribe. (Judges 6 : 15. 1 Sam. 10 : 12. 23 : 23. Micah 5:1.) But 
 this whole interpretation is less natural than that of Vitringa, who applies 
 the epithets to Israel itself, falsely, according to Gesenius, whose ipse dixit 
 loses much of its authority in consequence of his own frequent changes of 
 opinion upon insufficient grounds, or none at all. The verse, on the face 
 of it, is simply a description of increase, like that in ch. 26; 15. 49: 19,20. 
 etc. — The pronouns in the last clause are correctly explained by Knobel as 
 neuters, referring to the whole preceding series of prophecies. (Compare 
 ch. 43: 13. 46: 11.) The his in the common version is equivalent to its in 
 modern English, a possessive form apparently unknown to the translators of 
 the Bible. — I will hasten it, has reference to the time ordained for the event, 
 or may denote the suddenness of its occurrence, without regard to its remote- 
 ness or the length of the intervening period, which seems to be the sense 
 conveyed by the Vulgate version, subito faciam. (See above, ch. 13 : 22, 
 and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 266.) — The reference of these promises to 
 the literal Jemsalem is ascribed by Jerome to the Jews and half-Jews (semi- 
 judaei) of his own day, and opposed by Vitringa on a very insufficient 
 ground, viz. the impossibility of ascertaining the precise site of the ancient 
 Jerusalem, an impossibility which may be considered as already realized. 
 (See Robinson's Palestine, I. p. 414.) The true ground of objection is the 
 violation of analogy involved in this interpretation. The idea of Eusebius 
 and Procopius, that the prophecy is literal, but conditional, and now rescinded 
 by the unbelief of those to whom it was addressed, opens the door to endless 
 license and makes exegesis either useless or impossible. It is a curious fact 
 that Gregory VII. applied this passage to the church of Rome, in the palmy 
 state to which she was exalted by himself. The hypothesis of Grotius, that 
 it has exclusive reference to the restoration of the Jews from Babvlon, is 
 
392 C H A P T E R L X I . 
 
 now the current one among the Germans, who of course are unaffected by 
 Vitringa's objection that the prophecy in this sense never was fulfilled. The 
 real argument against it, is the absence of explicit reference to the supposed 
 subject, and the ease with which an indefinite number of analoo-ous restric- 
 tions or specific applications might be devised and carried out on "rounds of 
 equal plausibility. The only hypothesis which seems to shun the opposite 
 extremes of vagueness and minuteness, and to take the language in its obvi- 
 ous sense, without forced constructions or imaginary facts, is the one pro- 
 posed in the introduction, and on which the exposition of the chapter has 
 been founded. It is not the doctrine of some early writers, that the Jerusa- 
 lem or Zion of this passage is the primitive or apostolic church, to which 
 the description is in many points inapplicable ; whereas it is perfectly 
 appropriate to the JNevv Jerusalem, the Christian Church, not as it was, or is, 
 or will be at any period of its history exclusively, but viewed in reference 
 to the whole course of that history, and in contrast with the m.any disad- 
 vantages and hardships of the old economy. 
 
 CHAPTER LXI 
 
 After describing the new condition of the Church, he again introduces 
 the great personage by whom the change is to be brought about. His 
 mission and its object are described by himself in vs. 1—3. Its grand result 
 shall be the restoration of a ruined world, v. 4. The church, as a mediator 
 between God and the revolted nations, shall enjoy their service and support, 
 vs. 5, 6. The shame of God's people shall be changed to honour, v. 7. 
 His righteousness is pledged to this eiFect, v. 8. The church, once restricted 
 to a single nation, shall be recognised and honoured among all, v. 9. He 
 triumphs in the prospect of the universal spread of truth and righteousness, 
 vs. 10, 11. 
 
 V. 1. The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah (is) ujjon me, because Jehovah 
 hath anointed me to bring good news to the humble, he hath sent me to bind 
 up the broken in heart, to proclaim to captives freedom, and to the bound 
 open opening (of the eyes or of the prison-doors.) Unction in the Old 
 Testament is not a mere sign of consecration to office, whether that of a 
 Prophet, Priest, or King (I Kings 19 : 16. Lev. 8:12. 1 Kings 1 : 31), 
 but the symbol of spiritual influences, by which the recipient was both 
 
CHAPTERLXI. 393 
 
 qualified and designated for his work (See 1 Sam. 10 : 1, 6. 16 : 13.) 
 Hence Kimchi's definition of the rite, as a sign of the divine choice 
 (f»t5':>if» inp'"???? p^i>), although not erroneous, is inadequate. The office here 
 described approaches nearest to the prophetic. The specific functions 
 mentioned have all occurred and been explained before. (See above, on 
 eh. 42 : 1-7. 48 : 16. 49 : 1-9. 50 : 4. 51 : 16.) The proclamation of 
 liberty has reference to the year of jubilee under the Mosaic law (Lev. 
 25 : 10, 13. 27 : 24. Jer. 34 : 8-10), which is expressly called the year 
 of liberty or liberation by Ezekiel (46 : 17). — nip-n;rQ is explained by 
 Kimchi and Jarchi to mean opening of the prison, the second word being 
 regarded as a derivative of n;^b to take. De Dieu obtains the same sense 
 by appealing to the Ethiopic usage. Gesenius and the other modern 
 writers are disposed to follow Aben Ezra in treating it as one word (nipni^s), 
 not a compound but an intensive or reduplicated form, intended to express 
 the idea of complete or thorough opening. (See above, ch. 2: 20, and the 
 Earlier Prophecies, p. 36.) This Gesenius understands to mean the open- 
 ing of the prison, but in opposition to the settled usage which restricts npQ 
 and its derivatives to the opening of the eyes and ears, and which cannot 
 be set aside by alleging that the corresponding verb in Arabic is used more 
 widely. Ewald adheres to the only authorized sense, but explains it as a 
 figurative description of deliverance from prison, which may be poetically 
 represented as a state of darkness, and deliverance from it as a restoration of 
 the sight. But for reasons which have been already given, the only natural 
 sense which can be put upon the words is that of spiritual blindness and 
 illumination. (See above, on ch. 42:7. 50: 10.) With this question is 
 connected another as to the person here introduced as speaking. According 
 to Gesenius, this is the last of the Prophet's self-defences (^Selbstajjologie) ; 
 and he even goes so far as to assert that all interpreters are forced (iiothge- 
 drungen) to regard Isaiah as himself the speaker. Umbreit supposes him 
 to be the speaker, but only as the type and representative of a greater 
 Prophet. Vitringa and other ortliodox interpreters regard the question as 
 decided by our Lord himself in tlie synagogue at Nazareth, when, after 
 reading this verse and a portion of the next from the book of the Prophet 
 Isaiah, he began to say unto them, this ilay is this scripture fuffUed in 
 your ears. (Luke 4 : 16-22.) The brevity of this discourse, compared with 
 the statement which immediately follows, that the people bare him witness, 
 and wondered at the gracious words tvhich jjroceeded out of his mouth, and 
 connected with the singular expression that he began thus to say unto them, 
 makes it probable that we have only the beginning or a sunnnary of what 
 the Saviour said on that occasion. That the whole is not recorded may 
 however be regarded as a proof that his discourse contained no interpreta- 
 tion of the place before us which may not be gathered from the few words 
 
394 CHAPTERLXI. 
 
 left on record, or from the text and context of the prophecy itself. Now it 
 must be admitted that the words of Christ just quoted do not necessarily 
 import that he is the direct and only subject of the prophecy; for even if 
 the subject were Isaiah, or the Prophets as a class, or Israel, yet if at the 
 same tin)e the effects foretold were coming then to pass, our Lord might 
 say, this day is this scripture fuIJiUed in your cars. Upon this ground 
 J. D. Michaelis adopts the application to Isaiah, without disowning the 
 authority of Christ as an interpreter of prophecy. But this restriction of the 
 passage is at variance with what we have already seen to be the true sense 
 of the parallel places (ch. 42: 1-7 and ch. 49: 1-9), where the form of 
 expression is the same, and where all agree that the same speaker is brought 
 forward. If it has been concluded on sufficient grounds that the ideal person 
 there presented is the Messiah, the same conclusion cannot, without arbitrary 
 violence, be avoided here, and thus the prophecy itself interprets our Lord's 
 words instead of being interpreted by them. This in the present case is 
 more satisfactory, because it cuts off all objection drawn from the indefinite 
 character of his expressions. At the same time, and by parity of reasoning, 
 a subordinate and secondary reference to Israel as a representative of the 
 Messiah, and to the Prophets as in some sense the representatives of Israel 
 as well as of Messiah in their prophetic character, must be admitted ; and 
 thus we are brought again to Christ as the last and the ideal Prophet, and 
 to the ground assumed by the profound and far-seeing Calvin, for which he 
 has been severely censured even by Calvinistic writers, and which Vitringa, 
 while professing to defend him, calls a concession to the Jews (hie aliquid 
 indulgendum censuit Judaeis), instead of a concession to candour, faith, 
 good taste, and common sense. Henderson's exposition of this passage 
 differs from that of other orthodox interpreters only in connecting the Mes- 
 siah's office, here described specifically, with the future restoration of the 
 Jews. It might have been supposed that some obstruction would have been 
 presented to a literal interpreter in this case by the very strong expression 
 of our Lord, this day is this prophecy fulfilled in your ears. But the pro- 
 cess of literal interpretation is in practice very simple and convenient. 
 While the personal reference of the words to Christ, which is not affirmed 
 by himself at all, is represented as " the highest possible authority " for so 
 explaining them, the actual fulfilment of the prophecy at that time, which 
 is affirmed as strongly as it could be, goes for nothing. The two parts of 
 this singular process cannot be presented in more striking contrast than 
 by direct quotation. " No principle of accommodation, or of secondary 
 application, can at all satisfy the claims of the announcement, this day is 
 this scripture fulfilled in your ears. It must, however, be observed, that 
 this completion merely lay in our Lord's entering upon the public discharge 
 of his prophetic office among the Jews. Far from being confined to the 
 
CHAPTERLXI. 395 
 
 instructions of that particular day, it was to be exercised in perpetuity, 
 during the continuance of the church upon earth, and pre-eminkntly as 
 IT RESPECTS THE Jews, at the future period here referred to." This prin- 
 ciple of gradual or continued fulfilment, not at a single point of time, but 
 through a course of ages, is not only sound and often absolutely necessary 
 to a correct interpretation of the prophets, but the very principle which in a 
 hundred other instances is sacrificed without a scruple to the chimera of a 
 purely "literal " interpretation. Another remarkable comment of the same 
 able writer upon this verse is as follows: "The terms captives and prison- 
 ers are to be taken metaphorically, and have no reference to external 
 restraint." It is only Jerusalem and Zion, and the temple and the trees 
 required in building it, that " must be literally explained." See above on 
 ch. 60 : 13. 
 
 V. 2. To proclaim a year of favour for Jehovah and a day of ven- 
 geance for our God, to comfort all mourners, Gesenius and Rosenmiiller 
 explain h as the idiomatic sign of the genitive when separated from its 
 governing noun, 'Jehovah's year of grace, God's day of vengeance.' It is 
 equally agreeable to usage, and more natural in this case, to give the particle 
 its wider sense as denoting relation in general, a year of favour as to or con- 
 cerning God, which may here be expressed by the English /or. Vitringa 
 quotes Clement of Alexandria as inferring from the use of the word year 
 in this verse that our Lord's public ministry was only one year in duration, 
 a conclusion paradoxically maintained by Gerard John Vossius, but wholly 
 irreconcilable with the gospel history. The expression is correctly explained 
 by Vitringa as a poetical equivalent to day, suggested by the previous 
 allusion to the year of jubilee ; and Hitzig adds that there is probably a 
 reference to God's vengeance as a transitory act, and to his mercy as a 
 lasting one. The same two words occur as parallels in ch. 34 : 8. 63 : 4, 
 while in ch. 49 : 8 we have the general expression time of favour. For the 
 meaning of the last words of the verse, see above, on cIk 49 : 13 and 
 57 : 18. They may either be descriptive of sufferers, as the persons needing 
 consolation, or of penitents, as those who shall alone receive it. 
 
 V. 3. To put upon Zion's mourners — to give them a croxcn instead of 
 ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, a garment of praise for a faint spirit ; 
 and it shall he called to them (or they shall be called^ the oaks of righteous- 
 ness, the planting of Jehovah (i. e. planted by Jehovah) to glorify himself 
 The construction seems to be interiupted and resumed, a practice not unfre- 
 quent with Isaiah. There is no need, therefore, of supplying joy after the 
 first verb, as Houbigant and Lowth do. Of the many senses which might 
 here be attached to the verb err, the most appropriate is \\\a\. o{ putting on, 
 
396 CHAPTER LXI. 
 
 as applied to dress, though with another particle, in Gen. 37 : 34. 41 : 42, 
 and often elsewhere. The English Version has appoint, and Gesenius give ; 
 both of which are justified by usage, but less suitable in this case than the 
 one above proposed. By the repetition of the word mourners, this verse is 
 wrought into the foregoing context in a mode of which we have had several 
 examples. (See above, on ch. 60 : 15.) Zion's mourners may be simply 
 those who mourn in Zion, or those who mourn for her (ch. 66 : 10) •, but as 
 these ideas are not incompatible, both may be included. (Compare ch. 
 
 57 : IS. 60 : 20.) Gesenius speaks of the paronomasia between ins and 
 1SX as something entirely distinct from the antithesis in sense between an 
 ornamental head-dress and the ashes strewn upon the head by mourners. 
 But this relation of ideas may be looked upon as really essential to a true 
 paronomasia. Augusti's ridiculous travesty of this phrase {Putzfur Schmutz) 
 has been actually revived by De VVette. Ewald with purer taste neglects 
 the verbal assonance, and reproduces Jerome's fine translation (coronam pro 
 cinere.) That ointment was not used by mourners but rejoicers, may be 
 learned from a comparison of 2 Sam. 14 : 2 with Ps. 23 : 5. Hitzig 
 derives f^\^'n from the Kal of bbn and explains it to mean brightness as the 
 parallel term rins is applied to a pale colour (Lev. 13 : 21) ; but a sufficient 
 contrast is afforded by the usual sense praise, the whole phrase meaning 
 garments which excite admiration. For the meaning and translation of 
 fi'^p'^s, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 21. By oaks of righteousness Gese- 
 nius understands such as enjoy the divine favour or blessing; Lovvth, such 
 as prove by their flourishing condition that they were planted by him ; 
 Henderson, such as bear the fruit of righteousness ; Luzzatto, terebinths of 
 long duration, as in ch. 1 : 26 ; instead of city of righteousness and fliithful 
 city, he reads city of permanence, enduring city. The mixture not only of 
 metaphors but also of literal and figurative language in this verse, shows 
 clearly that it has respect to spiritual not external changes. (Compare ch. 
 44 : 4. 60 : 21.) 
 
 V. 4. And they shall build up the ruins of antiquity, the desolations of 
 the ancients they shall raise, and shall renew the cities of ruin (i. e. ruined 
 cities), the desolations of age and age. Both the thought and language of 
 this verse have been explained already. (See above, on ch. 49: 8. 54 : 3. 
 58: 12.) Lowth, not contented with the difficulty of explaining "i^^ in ch. 
 
 58 : 12, would insert it here, on the authority of four manuscripts and David 
 Kimchi ; but Kocher understands the latter as distinctly pointing out the 
 difference between the places. — The older writers take n^;t\s-i as an adjec- 
 tive agreeing with ri^rir, but this is feminine ; Gesenius and Ewald, as an 
 absolute adjective or noun corresponding to majorcs, ancestors or ancients ; 
 Umbreit, as a noun meaning ancient times. — Hendewerk agrees with Gese- 
 
C H A P T E R L X 1 . 397 
 
 niiis, but applies the term specifically to the Jews who were alive at the 
 destruction of the temple. The verb reneiv is applied as in 2 Chr. 15:8. 
 24:4. — According to Henderson, this verse and the next "admit of no 
 consistent interpretation except on the principle that the Jews are to be 
 restored to the land of their fathers. The ruins and desolations are those of 
 cities that had once been inhabited, and cannot, without the utmost violence, 
 be applied to the heathen world." But why may they not be explained as 
 " imagery," like ch. 60 : 19, 20, or be " taken metaphorically" and without 
 reference to external desolation, like the captives and prisoners of v. 1 ? If 
 this be what is meant by "consistent interpretation," it is very dearly pur- 
 chased by assuming as a " principle" a fact not mentioned in the text or 
 context, and supposing this to be literally alluded to wherever the hypo- 
 thesis is possible, while all the accompanying circumstances are explained 
 away as figures. 
 
 V. 5. Then shall stand strangers and feed your flocks, and the children 
 of outland {shall be) your ploughmen and your vinedressers. For the sense 
 of ~=;""':2 , see above, on ch. 60 : 10. Kimchi explains stand to mean, they 
 shall rise and come for the purpose. Some suppose it to be an idiomatic 
 pleonasm, others a periphrasis for service ; but the first is a mere evasion, 
 and the second sense belongs to the verb only when standing in the pre- 
 sence of another is expressed or implied. (Deut. 1 : 38. 1 Kings 1 : 28. 
 Jer. 52 : 12.) The conjunction of these verbs here and in Mic. 5: 3 may 
 justify the supposition that the primary reference in either case is to a prac- 
 tice of the oriental shepherds. As to the meaning of the prophecy, inter- 
 preters are much divided. Some seem to take it in the strictest sense as a 
 promise that the heathen should be slaves to the Jews. (See above, ch. 
 14: 2, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 268.) Gesenius understands it as 
 meaning that the Jews should confine themselves to spiritual services, 
 and leave mere secular pursuits to the gentiles. Nearly allied to this is 
 Hitzig's explanation, that the Jews and gentiles are described as sustaining 
 the relation of priests and laymen to each other. Ewald qualifies it still 
 more by describing the relation to be that of the Levites to the other tribes, 
 and even this restricted by the promise in ch. 66 : 21. But that verse 
 shows conclusively that no exclusive promise of Levitical or sacerdotal rank 
 to the Jews, as distinguished from the gentiles, can be here intended. This 
 is confirmed by the language of Peter, who applies the promise of the next 
 verse to the Christian church (1 Pet. 2 : 5). The only way in which all 
 these seeming discrepancies can be reconciled, is by supposing, a^ we have 
 done hitherto, that even in Ex. 19:6 the promise is addressed to Israel 
 not as a nation but a church ; so that when the Jewish people ceased to bear 
 this character, they lost all claim to the fulfilment of the promise, which is 
 
393 CHAPTER LXI. 
 
 still in force and still enures to the benefit of those to whom it was originally 
 given, namely, the Israel of God, that is to say, his church or chosen people. 
 This view of the matter sets aside not only the interpretations which have 
 been already mentioned as confining the promise to the natural descendants 
 of Israel, but also that of Jerome and Procopius, who, although they cor- 
 rectly recognise the church as the object of address, make tliis a threatening 
 that the Jews shall be supplanted by the gentiles as the pastors or ministers 
 of the flock of God. That the holders of this office might in strict accordance 
 with the usage of Scripture and of this book be described as shepherds, hus- 
 bandmen, and vinedressers, may be seen by a comparison of cl). 3 : 14. 
 5:1. 11:6. 27 : 2. 30 : 23, 24. 40:11 with Acts 20 : 28. 1 Cor. 3 : 9. 
 9 : 7, and with the imagery of our Saviour's parables. It does not follow 
 necessarily, however, that the office here assigned to strangers and foreigners 
 is that of spiritual guides, much less that ihey are doomed to a degrading 
 servitude. The simplest exj)lanation of the verse is that which understands 
 it as descriptive not of subjugation but of intimate conjunction, as if he had 
 said, those who are now strangers and foreigners shall yet be sharers in your 
 daily occupations and intrusted with your dearest interests. By strangers 
 we are then to understand not gentiles as opposed to Jews, but all who have 
 been aliens from the covenant of mercy and the church of God. — The only 
 comment made by Henderson on this verse is included in the observation 
 already quoted that these two verses (4 and 5) " admit of no consistent inter- 
 pretation, except on the principle that the Jews are to be restored to the 
 land of their fathers." How the author would apply this in detail to the 
 fifth verse we can only argue analogically from his exposition of the fourth ; 
 and as he there insists upon a literal rebuilding of the cities once inhabited 
 by Jews as the only sense of which the prophecy admits " without the utmost 
 violence," so here he may be understood as tacitly believing in a future sub- 
 jection of the gentiles to the restored Jews, as their husbandmen and shep- 
 herds. If, on the other hand, he understands the service here exacted to be 
 metaphorical or spiritual, we have only to repeat what we have said before 
 as to the worth of that " consistent interpretation " which results from the 
 application of this novel "principle." 
 
 V. 6. And ye (or more emphatically, as for you), the priests of Jeho- 
 vah shall ye be called, the ministers of our God shall be said to you (or of 
 you), the strength of nations shall ye eat, and in their glory shall ye substi- 
 tute yourselves (or into their glory shall ye enter by exchange). Most of 
 the earlier writers, down to Gesenius in his Commentary, agree substantially 
 with Jerome in bis version of the last word (sujjerbietis), which they regard 
 as a cognate form or an orthographical variation of ii'axn'i in Ps. 94 : 4, where 
 it seems to denote talking of one's self, and, by a natural transition, glorying 
 
CHAPTER LXI. 399 
 
 or boasting. Albert Schultens tried to found upon an Arabic analogy the 
 sense of ' providing for one's self,' and Scheid that of ' floating or swimming 
 in abundance.' But all the latest writers, not excepting Gesenius in his 
 Thesaurus, have gone back to Jarchi's explanation of the word as denoting 
 'mutual exchange or substitution.' This supposes it to be derived from 
 i^'i , a cognate form and synonyme of i^"a , to change or exchange, occur- 
 ring only in the Hiphil, Jer. 2:11. This word is important as determining 
 the sense not only of the whole verse, but of that before it, by requiring 
 both to be considered as descriptive not of exaltation and subjection, but of 
 mutual exchange, implying intimate association. Some, it is true, attempt 
 to carry out the first idea even here, by making this last word denote an 
 absolute exclusive substitution, i. e. the dispossession of the gentiles by the 
 Jews. But the context, etymology, and usage, all combine to recommend 
 the idea of recipi'ocal exchange or mutual substitution. Interpreters in seek- 
 ing a factitious antithesis between the verses, have entirely overlooked the 
 natural antithesis between the clauses of this one verse. They have sup- 
 posed the contrast intended to he that between servitude and priesthood : 
 'they shall be your servants, and ye shall be their priests.' But we have seen 
 already that the fifth verse cannot, in consistency with ch. 66 : 10, denote 
 any thing but intimate conjunction and participation. The tiue antithesis 
 is : 'ye shall be their priests, and they shall be your purveyors; you shall 
 supply their spiritual wants, and they shall supply your temporal wants.' 
 This explanation of the verse, to which we have been naturally led by 
 philological induction and the context, coincides, in a manner too remarka- 
 able to be considered accidental, with the words of Paul in writing to the 
 Romans of the contribution made by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia 
 for the poor saints at Jerusalem : It hath pleased them verihj, and their 
 debtors they are (i. e. they have chosen to do it, and indeed were bound to 
 do it) ; for if the gentiles have been made partalcers of their spiritual 
 things, their duty is also to minister vnto them, in carnal things. (Rom. 
 15 : 27.) This may seem, however, to determine the object of address to 
 be the Jews ; but no such inference can fairly be deduced from the words 
 of the Apostle, who is oidy making one specific application of the general 
 truth taught by the Pro[)li'.>t. What was tiue of the gentile converts then, 
 in relation to the Jewish Christi;ins as their mother-church, is no less true of 
 the heathen now, or even of converted Jews, in reference to the Christians 
 who impart the gospel to them. The essential idea in both places is, that 
 the church, the chosen people, or the Israel of God, is charged with the 
 duty of communicating spiritual things to those without, and entitled in 
 return to an increase of outward strength from those who thus become 
 incorporated with it. — But it is not merely in this lower sense that the peo- 
 ple of God are in the law (Ex. 19 : 20) and the gospel (1 Pet. 1 : 3), as 
 
400 CHAPTER LXl. 
 
 well as in the prophets, represented as the ministers and priests of God. 
 Not only as instructors and reclaimers of the unbelieving world do they 
 enjoy this sacred dignity, but also as the only representatives of their Great 
 High Priest, in him and through him possessing free access to the fountain 
 of salvation and the throne of grace. (Heb. 4 : 14-16.) In this respect, 
 as in every other which concerns the method of salvation and access to God, 
 there is no distinction of Jew and gentile, any more than of Greek and 
 barbarian, male and female, bond and free ; but all are Christ's, and Christ 
 is God's, and all alike are priests and ministers of God. — It only remains to 
 add, that on the principle of limiting this prophecy to the future restoration 
 of the Jews, it might have been supposed that this verse would be literally 
 understood as promising both temporal and spiritual superiority to other 
 nations ; but according to the able representative of that opinion, who has 
 been so often quoted, it "implies holiness, spirituality, and devotedness to 
 thfe service of God ; so abundant shall be the supplies, that there shall be 
 no absorption of time by the cares and distraction of business." This, it 
 seems, is the literal interpretation of the promise that the Jews shall be the 
 priests and ministers of God, and as such shall consume the wealth of the 
 nations and have their riches at command ; for such is the meaning put upon 
 !n52"rn by Henderson, who traces it to "^s, in the sense of commanding. 
 Why there is any less " violence" in this interpretation of the verse before us 
 than in the reference of v. 4 to the universal spread of the gospel, does not 
 appear. 
 
 V. 7. Instead of your shame (ye shall have) double, and (instead of 
 their) confusion, they shall celebrate their portion ; therefore in their land 
 shall they inherit double, everlasting joy shall be to them. Vitringa and 
 Rosenmiiller understand the therefore at the beginning of the second clause 
 as deciding that the recompense must be described exclusively in that clause, 
 while the first is wholly occupied with the account of their previous suffer- 
 ings : ' Instead of your double shame, and instead of your lamenting (or their 
 exulting), that confusion was their portion.' etc. From this and other simi- 
 lar unnatural constructions, Gesenius and all the later writers have gone 
 back to the one given in the Targuni and by Jaichi, which makes double 
 refer not to shame but recompense, and gives ^s't; the same subject with the 
 other verbs. It is still considered necessary, however, to assume an enallage 
 of person, so that your shame and their portion may relate to the same sub- 
 ject. It is not impossible, however, that the Prophet has in view the same 
 two classes who are distinctly mentioned in the preceding verses, — a construc- 
 tion which would not only do away with the enallage, but go far to confirm 
 the explanation which has been already given of those verses as descriptive 
 of mutual participation. — There is no need of explaining eps^n with Gesenius 
 
CHAP TER LXI. 401 
 
 as an accusative of place, or supplying in before it, with the older writers ; 
 since the verb may govern it directly, as in Ps. 51 : 16. 59 : 17. — Lowth 
 complains of the confusion in the Hebrew text, and applies an extraordinary- 
 remedy, by substituting the Peshito version, after first amending it. — Accord- 
 ing to Henderson, this verse means that the honour conferred by God upon 
 the restored Jews, and the estimation in which they shall be held by believing 
 gentiles, will far overbalance the contenijit to which they have been subject. 
 The limitation of the passage to the "restored Jews" is as groundless and 
 arbitrary here as elsewhere. — Double is used indefinitely to denote a large 
 proportion. Compare ch. 40 : 2. 
 
 V. 8. For lam Jehovah, loving justice, hating (that which is) ialien 
 aivay unjustly, and I will give their hire truly, and an everlasting covenant I 
 strike for them. The Vulgate and the rabbins give rials' its usual sense 
 of a burnt-offering, and explain the clause to mean that God hates unjust 
 violence, especially (or even) in religious offerings. The modern writers 
 generally follow the Septuagint in making it synonymous with tih'P, (which 
 is actually found in a few manuscripts), an explanation countenanced by 
 the undoubted use of the corresponding plural and paragogic forms in that 
 sense. (Job 5 : 16. Ps. 58 : 3. 64 : 7.) Jerome's objection that all rob- 
 bery is unjust, would apply to a multitude of other places where there seems 
 to be a redundance of expression, and proceeds upon the false assumption 
 that hn necessarily expresses the complex idea robbery, whereas it may 
 be here used in its primary and strict sense of violent seizure or privation, 
 
 the idea of injustice, which is commonly implied, being here expressed. 
 
 For the usage of tn^sia , see above, on ch. 40 : 11, and for that of n-i-is n'ns, 
 on ch. 28 : 15. 55 : 3. — This verse is commonly applied to the violence 
 practised upon Israel by the Babylonians. (Compare ch. 42 : 24.) It is 
 rather an enunciation of the general truth, that the divine justice renders 
 absolutely necessary the destruction of his obstinate enemies, and the deli- 
 verance of his people from oppression. (Compare 2 Thess. 1 : 6-8.) 
 
 V. 9. T/ten shall he known among the nations their seed, and their 
 issue in the midst of the j;eoples. All seeing them shall achnorvledge them 
 that they are a seed Jehovah has blessed. Vitringa, Gesenius, and some 
 later writers, give to 2."^i^ the emphatic sense of being famous or illustrious 
 as in Ps. 76 : 2, where the parallel expression is i^TiJ binj, . But in the case 
 before us, the parallelism, far from requiring this peculiar sense, requires the 
 usual one o( being knoivn, as corresponding better to the phrase they shall 
 recognise them. Thus understood, the first clause means that they shall be 
 known among the nations in their true character as a seed or race highly 
 favoured of Jehovah. Issue means progeny or offspring, as in ch. 48 : 19. 
 
 26 
 
402 CHAPTER LXI. 
 
 In order to apply this to the restored Jews, we must depart from the literal 
 and obvious import of among and in the midst, and understand them as 
 denoting merely that they shall be heard of ; for how can they be said to 
 be among and in the midst of the nations at the very time when they are 
 gathered from them to their own land. And yet the whole connexion seems 
 to favour the first meaning, and to show that they are here described as 
 being scattered through the nations, and there recognised by clear distinctive 
 marks as being God's peculiar i)eople, just as the Jews took knowledge of 
 Peter and John that tliey had been with Jesus. (Acts 4 : 13.) It may 
 be on account of this apparent inconsistency between the obvious sense of 
 this verse and his own adopted " principle," tliat Henderson has no remark 
 upon it, save that "a in tin-S'^ is pleonastic." Some of the older writers, 
 to avoid this assumption, render "^3 because, — ' all that see them shall acknow- 
 ledo-e them, because they are a seed which Jehovah has blessed.' But, as 
 Vitrinfi-a well observes, the verb requires a more specific statement of its 
 object. Gesenius and the later writers liken the construction to that in 
 Gen. 1 : 4, God saw the light that it was good ; not simply saw that the 
 lio-ht was good, but saw the light itself, and in so doing saw that it was 
 good. So here the meaning is not merely that all seeing them shall acknow- 
 ledf^e that they are a seed, etc., but that all seeing them shall recognise them 
 by recognising the effects and evidences of the divine blessing. — The ellipsis 
 of the relative is the same in Hebrew and colloquial English. — The true 
 application of the verse is to the Israel of God in its diffusion among all the 
 nations of the earth, who shall be constrained by what they see of their 
 spirit, character, and conduct, to acknowledge that they are the seed which 
 the Lord hath blessed. The glorious fulfilment of this promise in its origi- 
 nal and proper sense, may be seen already in the influence exerted by the 
 eloquent example of the missionary on the most ignorant and corrupted 
 heathen, without waiting for the future restoration of the Jews to the land of 
 iheir fathers. 
 
 V. 10. (/ ivill) joy, I will joy in Jehovah, Jet my soul exult in my God ; 
 for he hath clothed me with garments of salvation, a mantle of righteous- 
 ness has he put on me, as the bridegroom adjusts his priestly crown, and as 
 the bride arrays her jewels. Vitringa here leads his chorus off the stage, 
 where he has kept it since the beginning of v. 4, and lets the church come 
 on, but whether as a male or female he considers a doubtful and perplexing 
 question. To a reader unencumbered with this clumsy theatrical machinery, 
 it must be evident that these are the words of the same speaker who appears 
 at the beginning of this chapter and the next. J. D. Michaelis supposes an 
 allusion to the oriental practice of bestowing the caftan or honorary dress 
 upon distinguished culprits who have been acquitted. Luzzatto, in order 
 
CH A PTE R LXI. 403 
 
 to avoid the assumption of a root "?•; in this one case, reads ^Vr.'^.l from iTjs ; 
 but this, besides being arbitrary, throws the syntax of the tenses into a con- 
 fusion which, although it may be elsewhere unavoidable, is not to be assumed 
 in any case without necessity. — -ri'^ is to put on or wear, but always used 
 in reference to ornaments. c^bs may signify not merely gems, but orna- 
 mental dress in general. (See Deut. 2'2: 5.) — Gesenius in his Commentary 
 gives 'iv]3 the general sense of beautifying or adorning ; but in his Thesaurus 
 he agrees with the modern writers in acknowledging the derivation from "(ins 
 a priest, for which no satisfactory etymology has yet been proposed. 'As 
 the bridegroom priests his turban.' So Aquila cos,' rvfiqxov lEQatsvofiEvov 
 aiecpdim. The reference is no doubt to the sacerdotal mitre, which was 
 probably regarded as a model of ornamental head-dress, and to which "^Ji^a is 
 explicitly applied (Ex. 39: 28. Ez. 44 : 18). — Salvation and righteousness 
 are here combined, as often elsewhere, to denote the cause and the effect, 
 the justice of God as displayed in the salvation of his people. (See v. 8, 
 above.) Or righteousness may be referred to the people, as denoting the 
 practical justification afforded by their signal deliverance from suffering. 
 
 V. 11. For as the earth puts forth its growth, and as the garden makes 
 its plants to grow, so shall the Lord Jehovah make to grow righteousness 
 and praise before all the nations. Compare ch. 45 : 8 and Ps. 85 : II, 12. 
 The exact construction of the first clause may be, like the earth (which) 
 puts forth ; or the idiom may resemble that in vulgar English which employs 
 like as a conjunction no less than a preposition, like the earth puts forth. 
 (See above, ch. 8 : 23, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 153.) The studied 
 assonance of PTJ'^:?, n'^'^^in. and ri-rs"^ , is retained in the latest versions, after 
 the example of the Vulgate, which has germen, germinat, and germinabit. 
 By praise we are to understand the manifestation of excellence in general, 
 by righteousness that of moral excellence in particular. The confusion of 
 these terms by Vitringa and some later writers, as all denoting salvation, is as 
 bad in its effect as it is groundless in its principle, — Knobel thinks it proba- 
 ble that the writer had by this time heard the news of Cyrus's conquests in 
 the west, by which his somewhat languid hopes had been revived. But 
 there is nothing either in the text or context to restrict this verse to the 
 former restoration of the Jews from the Babylonian exile, any more than to 
 their future restoration to the Holy Land. The glory of the promise is its 
 universality, in which the fulfilment will no doubt be coextensive with the 
 prophecy itself. 
 
404 C II x\ P T E R L X I I . 
 
 CHAPTER LXII. 
 
 The words of the great Deliverer are continued from the foregoing 
 chapter. He will not rest until the glorious change in the condition of his 
 people is acconriplished, v. 1. They shall he recognised by kings and 
 nations as the people of Jehovah, vs. 2, 3. She who seemed to be for- 
 saken is still his spouse, vs. 4, 5. The Church is required to watch and 
 pray for the fulfilment of the promise, vs. 6, 7. God has sworn to protect 
 her and supply her wants, vs. 8, 9. Instead of a single nation, all the 
 nations of the earth shall flow unto her, v. 10. The good news of salvation 
 shall no longer be confined, but universally diffused, v. 11. The glory of 
 the church is the redemption of the world, v. 12. 
 
 V. 1. For Zion's sake I will not he still, and for Jerusalem's sake I 
 will not rest, until her righteousness go forth as brightness, and her salva- 
 tion as a lamp (that) burneth. Hitzig argues from the absence of the copu- 
 lative particle, that this is the beginning of a new discourse, and that if the 
 Prophet be the speaker here, he cannot be the speaker in the two preceding 
 verses. Both these conclusions are unfounded ; since the particle is fre- 
 quently omitted where the same svibject is still treated, and in the same 
 manner. On the other hand, the Prophet constantly assumes the person 
 and expresses the feelings of different characters in this great drama, without 
 any express intimation of the change in the text itself. Kimchi follows the 
 Targum in explaining this verse as the language of Jehovah, who, as J. D. 
 Michaelis thinks, is here replying to the thanksgiving of the church in the 
 foresoins: verses. The rest and silence must be then understood to denote 
 inaction and indifference, as in ch. 42 : 14. In like manner Grotius makes 
 it a specific promise of Jehovah that he will not rest until Cyrus is victo- 
 rious. Cocceius supposes the Messiah to be speaking, and assuring his 
 people of his intercession. Henderson also, on the ground of the frequency 
 with which the Redeemer is thus abruptly introduced by our Prophet, sup- 
 poses the Messiah to be here represented as interesting himself for the pros- 
 perity of Zion, and assuring her that through his mediatorial intercession the 
 Jews shall be restored to their standing in the church of God. Vitringa 
 thinks it clear from the analogy of v. 6, that the silence here prohibited is 
 that of Zion's watchmen or the rulers of the church, of whom he accord- 
 
CHAPTER LXII. 405 
 
 ingly makes up a chorus in accordance with his favourite theatrical hypo- 
 thesis. A simpler and more ohvious sense is the one now commonly 
 adopted, that the Prophet himself declares his resolution not to cease from 
 the prediction of Zion's future glory, as Forerius supposes, but according to 
 the general opinion, from prayer to God on her behalf. Eichhorn absurdly 
 ascribed the passage to a Jew in Palestine who wrote it on hearing of the 
 edict by Cyrus for the restoration of the exiles. Perhaps the most satisfac- 
 tory conclusion is, that if the Prophet here speaks of himself, he also speaks by 
 implication of his associates and successors in the office, not excluding Christ 
 as the last and greatest of the series ; so that several of the exegetical hypo- 
 theses already mentioned may in this way be combined and reconciled. If 
 an exclusive subject must be chosen, it is no doubt the same as in the first 
 verse of the foregoing chapter. The sense of righteousness and salvation is 
 the same as in ch. 61 ; 10 and elsewhere. By a singular change of the 
 abstract to the concrete, the Vulgate has Justus ejus et salvator ejus. — The 
 going forth here mentioned is the same as in Ps. 19 : 6, 7 ; and brightness, or 
 as Lowth translates it, strong light, may specifically signify the dawn of day 
 or the rising of the sun as in Prov. 4 : 18. Lowth's version of the parallel 
 expression (blazing torch) is stronger than the common version, but adheres 
 less closelv to the form of the oriffinal. 
 
 V. 2. yind nations shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory ; 
 and there shall be called to thee a new name, which the mouth of Jehovah 
 shall utter (or pronounce distinctly). Here again the Vulgate applies the 
 abstract terms to Christ, by rendering them jusfum tuum, inclytum tuum. 
 Grotius retains this inaccurate translation, but applies the epithets to Cyrus, 
 as the illustrious patron of the Jews, and at the same time a type of Christ. 
 The substitution o^ glory for salvation does not seem to be regarded by any 
 of the modern writers as a proof that salvation means glory, although quite 
 as clear as that righteousness means salvation. The mention of kings is 
 intended to imply the submission even of the highest ranks to this new 
 power. (Compare ch. 49: 7, 23. 52 : 15.) Vitringa's explanation of ix'^ 
 as meaning to experience or to know in a spiritual sense, at once perverts 
 the Prophet's meaning, and enfeebles his expression. The idea evidently is 
 that they shall witness it and stand astonished. — The nciv name may be that 
 which is afterwards stated in v. 4, or the expression may be understood 
 more generally as denoting change of condition for the better. (See above, 
 ch. 1 : 26. 60 : 14, and compare Jer. 3 : 16. 33 : 16. Ezek. 48: 35. Rev. 
 2:17. 3:12.) Some one quoted by Vitringa supposes an allusion to the 
 change in the name of the chosen people from Jew to Christian ; but the 
 former name is still applied to the spiritual Israel, in Rom. 2 : 9 and Rev. 
 2: 9. (See below, on ch. 65 : 15.) J, D. Michaclis supposes an allusion 
 
406 CHAPTERLXII. 
 
 to the oriental practice of imposing new names upon towns which have been 
 ruined and rebuilt. The translation of the last verb by Lowth (^shalljlx 
 upon thee) and by JXoyes (^shall give thee) does not convey its exact sense, 
 which, according to the lexicons is that of pronouncing or uttering distinctly, 
 though the common version (shall na?7ie) is justified by usage. (Com[)are 
 JNuin. 1:17. 1 Chron. I'i : 31. Amos 6:1.) Henderson finds no difficulty 
 in admitting that this clause is not to be understood of a mere name, but 
 has special reference to state and character, according to the common idiom 
 by which any thing is said to be called what it really is. Is it absolutely 
 certain then that Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion, are in all cases strictly national 
 and local designations, and that they never have respect to state and cha- 
 racter rather than to natural descent or geographical position ? 
 
 V. 3. And thou shall be a croicn of beauty in Jehovah^s hand, and a 
 diadem of royalty in the palm of thy God. The only difficulty in this verse 
 has respect to the crown's being twice emphatically placed in the hand and 
 not upon the head. Aben Ezra refers to the practice of wearing wreaths 
 and circlets on the arms; but the text speaks expressly of the hand and of 
 the palm, and both the ornaments described are such as were worn upon 
 tiie head. Some of the older writers quote Suetonius's account of the 
 athletae as wearing the Olympic crown upon the head and carrying the 
 Pythian in the hand ; but this, as RosenmiiUer well says, was a mere act 
 of necessity, and what is here said has respect to royal not athletic crowns. 
 Ewald agrees with Brenllus in supposing that Jehovah Is here represented 
 as holding the crown in his hand to adn)lre it ; Coccelus and Ewald, for 
 the purpose of exhibiting it toothers; Piscator, for the purpose of crowning 
 himself. J. D. Michaelis takes in the hand of God to mean at his disposal, 
 or bestowed by him. This is a good sense in itself; but upon whom could 
 Zion or Jerusalem be thus bestowed ? Hltzig and Henderson think it per- 
 fectly obvious that it would be incongruous to place the crown upon 
 Jehovah's head ; and as it could not be placed upon the ground, as in ch. 
 28 : 1, the only place remaining was the hand! Gesenius understands the 
 hand of God to mean his power or protection, w hich approaches nearly to 
 Vitrlnga's explanation of the phrase as meaning he shall hold it fast or keep 
 it safe. (Compare Rev. 3 : II.) Maurer gives the same sense to the 
 phrase, but connects it with the subject of the verse, and not with the figure 
 of a crown ; as if it had been said, under his protection thou shalt be a crown 
 of beauty and a dUidcni of royalty. — Lowth's version of tlie last phrase in 
 the grasp of thy God is vigorous but inexact. The true sense is the one 
 expressed by Henderson {the palm). The original combination of two 
 nouns is more expressive than the adjective construction into which it is 
 resolved by most translators. The beautiful crown of Lowth and the magni- 
 
C H A P T E R L X I 1 . 407 
 
 Jicent crown of Noyes, are much inferior to the literal translation, crown of 
 beauty or of glory, and not required by the parallelism, since the cor- 
 responding phrase strictly means a diadtm of royalty. According to Gataker 
 the last word is added to distinguish the t]"'::: here mentioned from the sacer- 
 dotal turban or mitre. 
 
 V. 4. JVo more shall it be called to thee (shall thou be called) Azubah 
 (Forsakeii), and thy land shall no more be called Shemamah (^Desolate^ ; 
 but thou shalt be called Hephzibah {jny delight is in her), and thy land 
 Beulah (^Married), for Jehovah delights in thee, and thy land shall be 
 married. The joyful change of condition is further expressed in the Pro- 
 phet's favourite manner, by significant names. The common version not 
 only mars the beauty of the passage, but rendeis it in some degree unintel- 
 ligible to the English reader, by translating the first two names and retaining 
 the others in their Hebrew dress. It is obvious that all four should be 
 treated alike, i. e. that all the Hebrew forms should be retained, or none. 
 Henderson prefers the latter method on the ground that " the names are 
 merely symbolical and will never be employed as proper names."' It is 
 probable, however, that they were all familiar to the Jews as female names in 
 real life. This we know to have been the case with two of them : the mother 
 of Jehoshaphat was named Azubah (1 Kings 22 : 42), and the mother of Ma- 
 nasseh Hephzibah (2 Kings 21 : 1 ). It is better therefore to retain the Hebrew 
 forms, in order to give them an air of reality as proper names, and at the 
 same time to render them intelligible by translation. In the last clause there 
 is reference to the primary meaning of the verb, viz. that of owning or 
 possessing; and as the inhabitants of towns are sometimes called in Hebrew 
 their possessors, D'^^y^ a noun derived from this very verb (Josh. 24 : 11. 
 Judg. 9:2. 2 Sam. 21:12 compared with 2 Sam. 2:4), its use here 
 would suggest, as at least one meaning of the promise, thy land shall be 
 inhabited, and so it is translated in the Targum. 
 
 V. 5. For (as) a young man marrieth a virgin, (so) shall thy sons 
 marry thee, and (xnlh) the joy of a bridegroom over a bride shall thy God 
 rejoice over thee. The particles of comparison are omitted as in Jer. 17 : 21. 
 Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the comparison is only an 
 implied one, and that the strict translation is, ' a young man marrieth ?* 
 virgin, thy sons shall marry thee,' leaving the copula and so to be suggested 
 by the context. So in the other clause there is no absolute need of 
 assuming an ellipsis ; since the Hebrew idiom admits of such expressions- 
 as joying the joy o[ a. bridegroom, just as we may say in English a man lives 
 the life of a saint, or dies the death of the righteous, both which combina- 
 
408 CHAPTER LXII. 
 
 tions occur in our translation of^the Bible. (Gal. 2 : 20. Num. 23 : 10.) 
 In order to avoid the seeming incongruity of a mother's being married to her 
 sons, Lowih reads T(7:2 Uiy Builder or Founder ; an emendation which J. D. 
 JVIichaelis rejects in his notes upon Lowth's Lectures, but adopts in his trans- 
 lation of Isaiah. To Gesenius's objection, that the pluralis majestaticus is 
 construed with a verb in the singular, Henderson conclusively replies by 
 citing Gen. 20 : 13. 35 : 7. 2 Sam. 7 : 23. The true objection to the 
 change is that it is not necessary. The solution of the difficulty in the 
 common text is afforded by the explanation already given of the strict sense 
 of '^3 and the usage of the derivative noun ^'■i^_ . As '?2Pi in v. 4 really 
 means thou shall be inhabited, so "i^^::"] here conveys the same idea as well 
 as that of marriage, and thy sons has reference not to the latter but the 
 former sense. Vitringa gives substantially the same explanation, when he 
 says that the Prophet mixes two distinct metaphors in one expression. 
 
 Vs. 6, 7. On thy walls, oh Jerusalem, I have set watchmen ; all the day 
 and all the night long they shall not be silent. Ye that remind Jehovah, let 
 there be no rest to you, and give no rest to him, until he establish and until 
 he place Jerusalem a praise in the earth. According to Vitringa, the pro- 
 phetic chorus is here relieved by an ecclesiastical one; and as the first words 
 do not well suit this imaginary speaker, he removes all difficulty by sup- 
 plying thus saith Jehovah. To the more obvious supposition that Jehovah 
 is himself the speaker he makes a very singular objection, viz. that the 
 Prophet would hardly have introduced God as speaking for so short a time. 
 According to the Targum and the Rabbins, he is here represented as 
 appointing angels to keep watch over the ruined walls of Zion. Ewald 
 adopts a similar interpretation, and refers to Zech. 1 : 12—17, upon which 
 the Jewish exposition may be founded. Gesenius understands these as the 
 words of the Prophet himself, and by watchmen, devout Jews among the 
 ruins of Jerusalem awaiting the return of the exiles, and praying to God for 
 it. For this limitation of the passage to Jerusalem in ruins and to the 
 period of the exile there is not the least foundation in the text. The promise 
 is a general one, or rather the command that those who are constituted 
 guardians of the church should be importunate in prayer to God on her 
 behalf. D"in"^3TEri admits of three interpretations, all consistent with Isaiah's 
 usage. In ch. 36 : 3, 22 it seems to mean an official recorder or historio- 
 grapher. In ch. 66 : 3 it means one burning incense as a memorial obla- 
 tion. Hence !t;i^^>? the name used in the law of Moses to denote such an 
 offering. (See Lev. 2 : 2. 5 : 12. 24 : 7. Num. 5 : 26.) In ch. 43 : 26 
 the verb means to remind God of something which he seems to have for- 
 gotten ; and as this is an appropriate description of importunate intercession, 
 
CHAPTERLXII. 409 
 
 it is here entitled to the preference. Gesenius speaks of a behef in the 
 effect of such entreaties as pecuhar to the ancient Orientals ; but our Lord 
 himself expressly teaches it (Luke 18 : 1), and Tertullian finely says of \t, 
 haec vis Deo grata est. 
 
 V. 8. Sworn hath Jehovah by his right hand and by his arm of 
 strength, If I give (i. e. I will not give) thy corn any more as food to thine 
 enemies, and if the sons of the outland shall drink thy new ivine which thou 
 hast laboured in (I am not God). On the elliptical formula of swearing, 
 see above, on cb. 22 : 14, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 69. The declaration 
 though conditional in form is in fact an absolute negation. In swearing by 
 his hand and arm, the usual symbols of strength, he pledges his omnipo- 
 tence for the fulfilment of the promise : ' As sure as I am almighty, thou 
 shalt suffer this no more.' — For the true sense of ^3.j"^:3, see above, on 
 eh. 56 : 3. 
 
 V. 9. For those gathering it shall eat it and shall praise Jehovah, and 
 those collecting it shall drink it in my holy courts (or in the courts of 
 my sanctuary). The ^'3 is not directly equivalent to but, as some explain it, 
 but retains its proper meaning, in relation to an intermediate thought not 
 expressed. As if he had said, it shall not be so, or, it shall be far other- 
 wise, because those gathering, etc. Lowlh has they that reap the harvest 
 and they that gather the vintage, which, although correct in sense, is not a 
 version but a paraphrase. The indefinite it takes the place both of corn 
 and wine, but all ambiguity is removed by the use of the verbs eat and 
 drink. Gesenius and Rosenmiiller agree with Grotius and the other early 
 writers in supposing an allusion to the sacrificial feasts of the Mosaic law. 
 (See Lev. 19:23-25. Deut. 12: 17, 18. 14:23.) But Hitzig and 
 Knobel refer what is here said simply to the sacerdotal standing to be occu- 
 pied by Israel in reference to the gentiles. (See above on ch. 61 : 6.) To the 
 former supposition Knobel objects that the Levitical feasts had exclusive 
 reference to the tithes and first-fruits, whereas the promise here is universal. 
 Tliis appears to be a needless refinement, and is wholly insufficient to explain 
 away the obvious allusion in the terms of the promise to the ancient institu- 
 tions of the law. That these, however, are but types and emblems of 
 abundance, and security, and liberty of worship, is acknowledged even by 
 that school of interpreters supposed to be most strenuous in favour of attaching 
 to these promises their strictest sense. Thus Henderson, instead of urging, as 
 consistency might seem to require, that the language of this passage, like 
 that of ch. 60, "must be literally explained," interprets it as meaning that 
 "the enemies of Israel having all been swept away by the powerful judg- 
 ments of God, the most perfect tranquillity shall reign throughout the land, 
 
410 CHAPTER LXII. 
 
 and those who may go up to worship at Jerusalem shall enjoy unmolested 
 the fruit of their labour." Here again we may perceive, although unable 
 to reduce to rule, the exercise of a large discretion in determining what shall 
 and what shall not be strictly understood. The literal Jerusalem, with its 
 temple and its courts, and literal corn and wine, appear to be intended ; 
 but for aught that appears, the eating and drinking in the courts of that 
 temple is a mere figure for exemption from annoyance and loss while present 
 there for worship. 
 
 V. 10. Pass, pass through the gates, clear the ivay of the people, raise 
 high, raise high the highway, free (it) from stones, raise a banner (or a 
 signal) over the nations. Vitringa puts these words into the mouth of his 
 prophetic chorus ; Maurer thinks they may be uttered by the watchmen of 
 V. 6 ; but most interpreters appear to be contented with the obvious hypo- 
 thesis that Isaiah is here speaking in the name of God. As to the object 
 of address, Eichhorn supposes it to be the Jews still lingering among the 
 ruins of the Holy City ; Maurer, the remaining population of that city, which 
 he seems to think considerable; Gesenius, the exiled Jews in Babylon and 
 other lands ; Henderson, "the inhabitants of the cities that may lie in the 
 way of the returning Israelites." The readiness with which these inter- 
 preters accommodate the terms of the text to their several hypotheses may 
 show how little ground there is for any definite conclusion, and thus serve 
 to recommend the hypothesis of Hitzig, that the order is supposed to be 
 given to those whose duty it is to execute it. Another subject of dispute is 
 the direction of the march required. According to Rosenmiiller, Maurer, 
 and Henderson, ' pass through the gates ' means, go out of them ; according 
 to Gesenius and others, go into them. It means neither one nor the other, 
 but go through them, leaving the direction to be gathered from the context, 
 which, combined with the analogy of ch. 57 : 14, makes it probable that 
 what is here described is the entrance of the nations into Zion or the church, 
 an event so frequently and fully set forth in the preceding chapters. The 
 use of the term 0*53^ in the last clause is so favourable to this exposition, or 
 at least so adverse to the supposition that the restoration of the Jews from 
 Babylon is here intended, that Gesenius, in order to evade this difficulty, has 
 recourse to an expedient which he would have laughed to scorn if used in 
 vindication of the truth of prophecy. This is the explanation of Q'^^as as 
 meaning tribes, or more specifically those of Israel, on the authority as he 
 alleges of Deut. 32 : 8. 33 : 3, 19. Nothing but extreme exegetical neces- 
 sity could warrant this interpretation of the word here, if it were true that 
 Moses so employed it. But this very fact is still more doubtful than the 
 one which it is called in to confirm, or rather it is still more certain that 
 0''5S2) in Deuteronomy denotes the gentiles than it is in this case. On the 
 
CH A P T E R LXl I. 411 
 
 other hand, the singular form cs is used repeatedly in these very prophecies 
 to signify the gentiles or mankind at large. (See above, ch. 42 : 5. 49 : 8.) 
 It may therefore be alleged in opposition to the views which have been 
 quoted, with as much plausibility at least, that this is not a prediction of 
 the former restoration of the Jews from Babylon, or of their future restora- 
 tion from the ends of the earth, but of the increase of the church or chosen 
 people by the accession of the gentiles. The gates are then the gates of 
 the ideal Zion or Jerusalem, the passage is an inward not an outward 
 passage, and the exhortation of the text is one to all concerned, or all who 
 have the opportunity to take away obstructions and facilitate their entrance. 
 The argument in favour of the reference to Babylon, derived from the analogy 
 of ch. 57 : 19, lies equally against the hypothesis of Henderson, who cannot 
 consistently repel it, as we do, by appealing to our uniform assertion that the 
 Babylonish exile is referred to only as a signal example of deliverance. 
 What is said in one place, therefore, with acknowledged reference to Babylon 
 proves nothing where the same generic terms are used without any trace of 
 local allusion. The verb ^bpo , which is ambiguous (compare ch. 5 : 2 and 
 2 Sam. 16 : 6), is here determined by the addition of the phrase '|3i<.^ , in 
 which the noun is used as a collective. In the last clause, some explain 
 ^? with the Septuagint and Vulgate as simply meaning to, others with J. D. 
 Michaelis for. Knobel not only makes it perfectly synonymous with hn , 
 but then notes this imaginary fact as one proof of a later age. The most 
 exact and at the same time most poetical idea is Luther's, ' raise the banner 
 high above the nations ;' to which Hitzig theoretically acquiesces, but trans- 
 lates the preposition for, like others. 
 
 V. 11. Behold, Jehovah has caused it to he heard to the end of the 
 earth, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, behold, thy salvation cometh, 
 behold, his reward is with him and his hire before him. There is some 
 doubt as to the connexion of the clauses. It may be questioned whether 
 the verse contains the words uttered by Jehovah to the end of the earth, 
 and if so, whether these continue to the end of the verse, or only to the third 
 behold. Hitzig supposes ^^''^'^P. to be absolutely used, and to denote that 
 God has made a preclamation, but without saying what ; after which the 
 Prophet goes on to address the messengers mentioned in ch. 40 : 9 and 
 52 : 7. But as the verb ?"''a1jf^ seems to require an object after it, and 
 as the words immediately succeeding are precisely such as might thus bo 
 uttered, it is certainly most natural to understand what follows as the words 
 or substance of the proclamation. It has also been made a question whether 
 the pronoun his refers to Jehovah or to the nearest antecedent, salvation ; 
 and if the latter, whether that word is to be translated saviour, as it is by 
 Lowth and in the ancient versions. This last is a question of mere form, and 
 
412 CHAPTER LXII. 
 
 the otliei' of but little exegetical imi)ortance, since the saviour or salvation 
 meant is clearly represented elsewhere as identical with God himself. The 
 last clause is a repetition of ch. 40 : 10, and if ever the identity of thought, 
 expression, and connexion, served to indicate identity of subject, it is so in 
 this case. The reader therefore may imagine the inducement which could 
 lead even Henderson to speak of the two places as " strictly parallel in 
 language, though the advents in the two passages are different." If this be 
 so, then nothing can ever be inferred from similarity of language, and an 
 unlimited discretion is allowed to the interpreter to parry all attacks upon 
 his theory by stoutly maintaining a diversity of subject in the very places 
 where the opposite appears to be most manifest. Another arbitrary state- 
 ment rendered necessary in a dozen lines by the determination to apply 
 the passage to the future restoration of the Jews to Palestine, is that " the 
 daughter of Zion means here the rightful inhabitants of Jerusalem scattered 
 over the face of the earth," a sense which even this interpreter attaches to 
 the words in this place only, out of the many in which Isaiah uses them. 
 But while these violent expedients are required to bring the passage even 
 into seeming application to the future restoration of the Jews, it is, if possi- 
 ble, still more inapplicable to their former restoration from the Babylonish 
 exile. In the first place, w4iy should the ends of the earth be summoned 
 to announce this event to Zion ? Hitzig replies, as we have seen already, 
 that the two clauses are entirely unconnected ; Knobel more boldly explains 
 end of the earth to mean " the end of the oriental world, whose west end 
 touched the Mediterranean sea, i. e. Palestine " 1 Whether a theory 
 requiring such contrivances can well be sound, is left to the decision of the 
 reader. But another difficulty in the way of this interpretation is presented 
 by the last clause. Even supposing that the old opinion as to this clause 
 is the true one, and that his reward means that which he bestows, in what 
 sense can the restoration of the Jews from Babylon be represented as the 
 coming of salvation (or a saviour) to the daughter of Zion, bringing a reward ? 
 The daughter of Zion is throughout these prophecies the suffering person, 
 and the object of encouraging address. Even where it primarily means the 
 city, it is only as the centre, representative, and symbol of the church or 
 chosen people. How then could the saviour be described as coming to his 
 people, bringing themselves with him as a recompense for what they had 
 endured. But if, for reasons given in expounding ch. 40 : 10, we under- 
 stand his reward as meaning that which he receives, what constitutes this' 
 recompense in the case supposed ? The image then presented is that of 
 Jehovah coming back to his people, and bringing his people with him as 
 his recompense. The incongruity of this verse with the Babylonian theory 
 was either overlooked by its ablest modern champions, or occasioned such 
 laconic comments as that of Rosenmiiller, who contents himself with saying 
 
C II A P T E R LXI I. 413 
 
 that the last clause has already been explained in the note upon ch. 40 : 10 ; 
 while Gesenius slill more briefly says, "' dieselben Worle 40 : 10 ;" and 
 Maurer, "eadem verba leginuis 40 : 10." This is the enlire exposition of 
 the whole verse by these three distinguished writers, while those of later 
 date, who have been less reserved, have found themselves driven to the 
 forced constructions which have been already mentioned. On the other 
 hand, the plain sense of the words, the context here, and the analogy of 
 ch. 40 : 10, are all completely satisfied by the hypothesis that the Messiah 
 (or Jehovah) is here described as coming to his people, bringing with him a 
 vast multitude of strangers, or new converts, the reward of his own labours, 
 and at the same time the occasion of a vast enlargement to his church. At 
 the same time, let it be observed that this hypothesis is not one framed for 
 the occasion, without reference ; or even in opposition to the previous expla- 
 nation of passages in every point resembling this, but one suggested at the 
 outset of the book, and found upon comparison, at every step of the inter- 
 pretation, to be more satisfactory than any other. 
 
 V. 12. And they shall call them the Holy People, the redeemed of 
 Jehovah, and thou shah be called Denishah {sought for), Ir-lo-neezahah 
 {City not forsaken). The first verb is indefinite, they (i. e. men) shall 
 call ; hence the parallel expression has the passive form. On the con- 
 struction and the idiomatic use of call, see the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 18. The distinction here so clearly made by the use of the second 
 and third persons, is supposed by the modern Germans to be that between 
 the city and her returning citizens ; but this, as we have seen repeat- 
 edly before, involves a constant vacillation between different senses of 
 Jerusalem and Zion in the foregoing context. The only supposition which 
 can be consistently maintained, is that it always means the city, but the 
 city considered merely as a representative or sign of the whole system and 
 economy of which it was the visible centre. The true distinction is between 
 the church or chosen people as it is, and the vast accessions yet to be 
 received from the world around it. Even the latter shall be honoured with 
 the name of Holy People, while the church itself, becoming coextensive 
 with the world, shall cease to be an object of contempt or disregard to God 
 or man. The sense of sought for seems to be determined by the parallel 
 description in Jer. 30 : 14, as expressing the opposite of the complaint in 
 ch. 49 : 14. — According to Henderson, the meaning of the verse is that 
 " the Jews shall now," i. e. after their restoration to their own land, " be a 
 holy people, redeemed from all iniquity, and thronging their ancient capita! 
 for religious purposes." The only prospect opened to the gentiles in the 
 whole prediction, thus expounded, is that of becoming ploughmen, shepherds, 
 and purveyors to the favoured nation. 
 
414 CHAPTERLXIIl, 
 
 CHAPTER LXIII. 
 
 The influx of the gentiles into Zion having been described in the pre- 
 ceding verses, the destruction of her enemies is now sublimely represented 
 as a sanguinary triumph of Jehovah or the Messiah, vs. 1-6. The Prophet 
 then supposes the catastrophe already past, and takes a retrospective view 
 of God's compassions towards his people, and of their unfaithfulness during 
 the old economy, vs. 7-14. He then assumes the tone of earnest supplica- 
 tion, such as might have been offered by the believing Jews when all seemed 
 lost in the destruction of their commonwealth and temple, vs. 15-19. 
 
 V. 1. Who (is) this coming from Edom, bright (as to his) garments from 
 Bozrnh, this one adorned in his apparel, bending in the abundance of his 
 strength 1 I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save. Tlie hypothesis 
 that this is a detached prophecy, unconnected with what goes before or fol- 
 lows, is now commonly abandoned as a mere evasion of the difficulty. Hitzlg 
 indeed adheres to it in order to sustain his theory as to the gradual composition 
 of the book. The dramatic form of the description is recognised by modern 
 writers, without the awkward supposition of a chorus, adopted by Vitringa and 
 Lowth. It is not necessary even to introduce the people as a party to the 
 dialogue. The questions may be naturally put into the mouth of the Prophet 
 himself. Interpreters are much divided as to the Edom of this passage. That 
 it is not merely a play upon the meaning of the name (viz. red), is clear from 
 the mention of the chief town, Bozrah. The reference to Rome, whether 
 the Roman Empire or the Romish Church, is purely fanciful. J. D. Michae- 
 lis consistently applies the passage, like the foregoing context, to a future 
 event ; but Henderson unexpectedly pronounces it unjustifiable " to apply 
 it to any future judgments to be inflicted on the country formerly occupied 
 by the Edomites." His own opinion is that " the object of the Piophet is 
 to deduce an argument from God's dealings with his ancient people in favour 
 of his graciously regarding them in their then distantly future dispersion." 
 He does not explain why this is any less " unjustifiable " than the reference 
 of the passage to a '-'distantly future" event. While J. D. Michaelis thus 
 makes both the threatening and the promise alike future, and Henderson makes 
 one distantly future and the other distantly past, Knobel makes both past, and 
 supposes Jehovah to be here described merely as coming through the land 
 
CH AP T E R LXIII. 415 
 
 of Edom from the slaughter of the nations confederate with Croesus, who 
 had just been overthrown by Cyrus in a battle near Sardis. With these 
 exceptions, most interpreters, even of the modern German school, suj)pose 
 Edom to be here, as in ch. 34, the representative of Israel's most inveterate 
 enemies. For this use of the name, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 560. The 
 connexion with what goes before, as Rosenmiiller states it, is that the 
 restored Jews might apprehend the enmity of certain neighbouring nations, 
 who had rejoiced in their calamity ; and that the prophecy before us was 
 intended to allay this apprehension. y'^'zn strictly means fermented, then 
 acetous, sharp, but is here applied to vivid colour, like the Greek 6^v XQco/iu. 
 "ii^rj properly means swollen, inflated, but is here metaphorically used in 
 the sense of adorned, or, as Vitringa thinks, terrible, inspiring awe. For 
 the sense of the word nj'b: , see above, on ch. 51 : 14. Vitringa understands 
 it to mean liere the restless motion of one not yet recovered from the 
 excitement of a conflict ; Gesenius, the tossing or throwing back of the 
 head as a gesture indicative of pride ; Hitzig, the leaning of the head to one 
 side with a similar effect. The Vulgate version (^gradiens) conveys too 
 little. Speaking in righteousness is understood by most of the modern 
 writers in the sense of speaking about it or concerning it, in which case 
 righteousness must have the sense of deliverance, or at least be regarded as 
 its cause. It is much more natural, however, to explain the phrase as 
 meaning, I that speak in truth, I who promise and am able to perform. — 
 The terms of this description are applied in Rev. 19 : 13 to the victorious 
 Word of God, a name which has apparently some reference to la'i^ . 
 
 V. 2. Why (is there) redness to thy raiment, and {why are) thy 
 garments like {those of) one treading in a ivine-press 1 The adjective D^x 
 is here used substantively, just as we speak of a deep red in English. Or 
 the word here employed may be explained as the infinitive of Cix to be red. 
 There is no need, in any case, of making the h pleonastic or a sign of the 
 nominative case, with Rosenmiiller and some older writers, or of reading 
 -oi-bi: with Lowth. Twenty-one manuscripts and one edition give the 
 noun a plural form, but of course without effect upon the meaning. The 
 allusion is of course to the natural red wine of the east, that of some vine- 
 yards on Mount Lebanon, according to J. D. Michaelis, being almost black. 
 The PS is the wine-press properly so called, as distinguished from the -p.'^ 
 or reservoir. It is a slight but effective stroke in this fine picture, that the 
 first verse seems to speak of the stranger as still at a distance, whereas in 
 the second he has come so near as to be addressed directly. 
 
 V. 3. The press 1 have trodden by myself, and of the nations there was 
 not a man with me ; and I will tread them in my anger and trample them in 
 
416 CH AP T E II LXIII. 
 
 my fury, and their juice shall spirt upon my garments, and all my vesture I 
 have stained. The word here used for press is different from that in the 
 foregoing verse, and occurs elsewhere only in Hagg. 2 : IG. According to 
 its seeming derivation, it denotes the place where grapes are crushed or 
 broken, as p? does the place where they are pressed or trodden. The 
 comparison suggested in the question (v. 2) is here carried out in detail. 
 Be'in" asked why he looks like the treader of a wine-press, he replies that 
 he has been treading one, and that alone, which Rosenniiiller understands 
 to mean without the aid of labourers or servants. The meaning of the figure 
 is then expressed in literal terms. ' Of the nations there was not a man with 
 me.' This expression and the otherwise inexplicable alternation of the 
 tenses make it probable that two distinct treadings are here mentioned, one 
 in which he might have expected aid from the nations, and another in which 
 the nations should themselves be trodden down as a punishment of this 
 ne<dect. Or the futures may denote merely a relative futurity, i. e. in refer- 
 ence to the act first mentioned. The more general opinion is, however, 
 that but one act of treading is here mentioned, and that the nations are 
 themselves represented as the grapes. In order to make this appear more 
 natural, Jarchi and Tremellius explain with me as meaning against me, or 
 to contend with me, which is not justified by usage. The most satisfactory 
 solution seems to be that these words are added to convey the idea that all 
 the nations were on the adverse side, none on that of the conqueror. The 
 sense will then be not that they refused to join in trampling others, but 
 simply that they were among the trampled. As if he had said, I trod the 
 press alone, and all the nations, without exception, were trodden in it. By 
 all the nations we are of course to understand all but God's people. The 
 principle of this limitation is recognised by Knobel, though he makes an 
 absurd application of it by supposing the exception to be Cyrus and the 
 Persians, who derived no aid from other nations in the overthrow of Croesus. 
 Henderson understands it as implying that the punishment here mentioned 
 was inflicted upon Edom without the intervening aid of any foreign power, 
 which he thinks was verified in their subjection by a native Jewish con- 
 queror, Hyrcanus. The meaning given to n-^3 is justified by the use of the 
 verb in Arabic as meaning to sprinkle. tVxsn is a mixed form, considered 
 by the modern Germans as a proof of later date ; but such anomalies are 
 usually introduced by slow degrees, and may for the most part be traced 
 back to certain singularities of diction in the older books. The treading of 
 the wine-press alone is an expression often applied in sermons and in reli- 
 gious books and conversation to our Saviour's sufferings. This application 
 is described as customary in his own time by Vitringa, who considers it as 
 having led to the forced exposition of the whole passage by the Fathers and 
 Cocceius as a description of Christ's passion. While the impossibility of 
 
C H AP T ER LXIII. 417 
 
 such a sense in the original passage cannot be too strongly stated, there is no 
 need of denying that the figure may be happily acconiniodated in the way 
 suggested: as many expressions of the Old Testament may be applied to 
 different objects with good effect, provided we are careful to avoid con- 
 founding such accommodations with the strict and primary import of the 
 passage. 
 
 V. 4. For the day of vengeance (is) in my heart, and the year of my 
 redeemed is come. For the sense of day and year in this connexion, see 
 above, on ch. 61 : 2. In my heart, i. e. my mind or purpose. Some 
 writers needlessly and arbitrarily change 7ny redeemed to my redemption. 
 It is not even necessary to explain the participle in a future sense (to be 
 redeemed), since their redemption was as firmly settled in the divine pur- 
 pose as the day of vengeance. 
 
 V. 5. And Hook, and there is none keeping ; and I stand aghast, and 
 there is none sustaining ; and my own arm saves for me, and my fury it 
 sustains me. These expressions have already been explained in ch. 59: 16. 
 Hitzig's idea that this is the original, and that a quotation from memory, and 
 his inference that this is the older composition, are alike unfounded. With 
 equal if not greater plausibility it might be argued from the greater regularity 
 and finish of the sentence here, that it is an improvement on the other. 
 Fury here takes the place of righteousness in ch. 59 : 16, not as a synonyme 
 but as an equivalent. God's wrath is but the executioner and agent of his 
 justice. Upon either he might therefore be described as exclusively relying. 
 The present form is used in the translation, on account of the uncertainty in 
 which the use of the tenses is involved, and which may arise in part from 
 an intentional confusion of the past and future in the mind of one who had 
 begun a great work, and was yet to finish it. 
 
 V. 6. And I tread the nations in my anger, and I make them drunk in 
 my wrath, and I bring down to the earth their juice. The use of the word 
 tread leads to the resumption of the figure of a wine-press, which is 
 employed besides this passage in Lam. 1 : 15. Joel 4 : 13. Rev. 14 : 19, 20. 
 For D";}3'ii^! I tnake them drunk, most of the modern writers since Cappellus 
 read Dtis-^*. I crush them ; which is not only confirmed by many manu- 
 scripts and some editions, as well as by the Targum, but recommended by 
 its suiting the connexion belter. This very circumstance, however, throws 
 suspicion on the emendation, as a device to get rid of a difficulty. In order 
 to connect the common reading with the context, we have only to assume a 
 mixture of metaphors, such as we continually meet with in Isaiah. There 
 
 27 
 
418 C H A P T E R L XI I I. 
 
 is no need of going with Vitringa to the extravagant and revolting length 
 of supposing that the nations are describe-d as rolling in their own blood till 
 it gets into their mouths and down their throats. There is simjily a sudden 
 change of figure, which is not only common, but characteristic of Isaiah, 
 notwithstanding Gesenius's paradoxical denial. 
 
 V. 7. The mercies of Jehovah I will cause to he remembered, the praises 
 
 of Jehovah according to all that Jehovah hath done for us, and the great 
 
 goodness to the house of Israel lohich he hath done for them, according to 
 
 his compassions and according to the multitude of his mercies. The sudden 
 
 chano^e of tone in this verse has of course Ifd to many suppositions as to its 
 
 connexion with what goes before and follows. The easiest expedient is the 
 
 one which Lowth adopts, by denying all immediate connexion with what 
 
 goes before ; but it is also the least saiisflictory. Evvald begins the closing 
 
 section of the book here, and thinks it quite indubitable that events had 
 
 made considerable progress between the dates of the sixth and seventh 
 
 verses. The prevalent opinion among Christian interpreters is that we 
 
 have here the beginning of a prophecy relating to the future restoration of 
 
 Israel. Even Vitringa, who shows little partiality to this hypothesis in the 
 
 foregoing chapters, acquiesces in it here. His arguments, however, only go 
 
 to show that this interpretation is better than the one which applies the 
 
 passage to the Babylonish exile. Lowth simply says that it is so, without 
 
 assi<i^ning any reason. On the general principle assumed throughout our 
 
 exposition as to the design and subject of these prophecies, a more general 
 
 application is entitled to the preference, and the passage must be understood 
 
 as relating to the favours experienced and the sins committed by the chosen 
 
 people throughout the period of the old dispensation. There is no need of 
 
 assuming any speaker but the Prophet himself. The plural form mercies, 
 
 may be intended to denote abundance. I ivill cause to be retnembered, may 
 
 have reference to men ; in which case the phrase is equivalent to celebrate, 
 
 record, or praise. But as these acknowledgments are merely preparatory to 
 
 a prayer that God would renew his ancient favours to them, it is better to 
 
 understand it as meaning, I will cause God himself to remember, or remind 
 
 him, in which application the verb is often used, e. g. in the titles of Ps. 38 
 
 and 70. (See Hengstenberg on the Psalms, vol. II. p. 293.) There is no 
 
 need of giving to nibnn the factitious sense of praiseworthy acts or virtues, 
 
 as the Scpluagint does (^aQnag). The proper sense of praises is appropriate 
 
 and sufficient. For the sense of ^>3 and -';5 , see above on cli. 59 : 18. 
 
 We have here another illustration of the ease with which the parallelism 
 
 may be urged on diflcreni sides of the same question. It had been made a 
 
 question whether -"'J -"i is governed by '"=tj< or by ^3*3 . The former is 
 
CHAPTER LXIII. 419 
 
 maintained by Maurer, the latter by Hitzig, on precisely the same ground : 
 ita postulante parallelismo, says the one — diess vcrlangt dtr ParaUelismus, 
 says the other. 
 
 V. 8. And he said, Only they are my people, (my) children shall not 
 lie (or deceive), and he became a saviour for them. To the general acknow- 
 ledgment of God's goodness to his people, there is now added a specification 
 of his favours, beginning with the great distinguishing favour by which they 
 became what they were. This verse is commonly explained as an expres- 
 sion of unfounded confidence and hope on God's part, surely they are my 
 people, children that will not lie. This must then be accounted for as 
 anthropopathy ; but although the occurrence of this figure in the Sciiptures 
 is indisputable, it is comparatively rare, and not to be assumed without 
 necessity. Besides, the explanation just referred to rests almost entirely 
 on the sense attached to T(X as a mere particle of asseveration. Now, in 
 every other case where Isaiah uses it, the restrictive sense of only is not 
 admissible merely, but necessary to the full force of the sentence. It is 
 surely not the true mode of interpretation, to assume a doubtful definition 
 for the sake of obtaining an unsatisfactory and offensive sense. Another 
 advantage of the strict translation is, that it makes the Prophet go back to 
 the beginning of their course, and instead of setting out from the hopes 
 which God expressed after the choice of Israel, records the choice itself. 
 Thus understood, the first clause is a solemn declaration of his having chosen 
 Israel, to the exclusion of all other nations. Only they (and no others) are 
 my people. The objection which may seem to arise from the collocation of 
 "J? with n52n rather than "'S^ , applies only to the occidental idiom ; since in 
 Hebrew a qualifying particle is often attached to the first word of the clause, 
 even when it is more closely related to some other. But even if the force 
 of this objection were allowed, it could not prove that r(X must here be taken 
 in a sense which does not properly belong to it, but only that it must be 
 made to qualify "^^as? . The sense will then be, they are only my people, 
 i. e. nothing else ; which, although less satisfactory than the other sense, is 
 still far better than the one which makes Jeliovah here express a groundless 
 expectation. — The second clause may possibly mean, (their) sons shall not 
 deal falsely, i. e. degenerate from their fathers' faith. In either case, the 
 future is the future of command, as in the decalogue, not that of mere pre- 
 diction. Gesenius explains ^'^p^a^ as an elliptical expression, to be supplied 
 by the analogy of Ps. 44 : IS and 89 : 34 ; but it is simpler to understand 
 it absolutely, as in I Sam. 15 : 29. — The English Version, so he teas their 
 saviour, is a needless departure from the simplicity of the original, and 
 aggravates the misinterpretation of the first clause, by suggesting that he 
 
420 C H A P T E R L X I I I . 
 
 was ihcir saviour because he believed they would be faithful. The verse 
 in Hebrew simply states two facts, without intimating any causal relation 
 between them. He chose them and he saved them. 
 
 V. 9. In all their enmity he ivas not an enemy, and the angel of his face 
 (or presence) saved them, in his love and in his sjjaring mercy he redeemed 
 them, and he took them up and carried them all the days of old. The 6rst 
 clause is famous as the subject of discordant and even contradictory interpreta- 
 tions. These have been multiplied by the existence of a doubt as to the text. 
 The IMasora notes this as one of fifteen places in which xb not is written 
 by mistake for ib to him or it. Another instance of the same alleged error 
 in the text of Isaiah occurs in ch. 9 : 2. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 
 J 56.) Rabbi Jonah, according to Solomon Ben Melek, understands the 
 amended text to mean that in all their distress they still had a rock or 
 refuge, making ^^ synonymous with "i^:i , which is wholly unsustained by 
 usage. A far better sense is that of Aben Ezra, that in all their distress 
 there was distress to him, or as the English Version renders it, in all their 
 affliction he was afflicted. This explanation, with the text on which it is 
 founded, and which is exhibited by a number of manuscripts and editions, 
 is approved by Luther, Vitringa, Clericus, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Hende- 
 werk, and Knobel. It is favoured, not only by the strong and affecting 
 sense wiiich it yields, but by the analogy of Judges 10 : 16. 11:7, in one 
 of which places the same phrase is used to denote human suffering, and in 
 the other God is represented as sympathizing with it. The objections to it 
 are, that it gratuitously renders necessary another anthropopathic explana- 
 tion ; that the natural collocation of the words, if this were the meaning, 
 would be "ib is , as in 2 Sam. 1 : 26 ; that the negative is expressed by all 
 the ancient versions ; and that the critical presumption is in favour of the 
 Kethib, or textual reading, as the more ancient, which the Masorites merely 
 corrected in the margin, without venturing to change it, and which ought not 
 to be now abandoned, if a coherent sense can be put upon it, as it can in 
 this case. Jerome, in his version, makes the clause assert the very opposite 
 of that sense which is usually put upon the marginal reading, or Keri, in 
 omni tribulntione eorum non est tribulatus. The Septuagint makes it con- 
 tradict the next clause, as it is usually understood, by rendering it ov nQta§vg 
 ov8l uyyulog dXX avrog saoi^ev avtoig. This is followed by Lowth even so 
 far as to connect the first words of the clause with the preceding verse : and 
 he became their saviour in all their distress. It ivas not an envoy nor an 
 angel of his jjresence that saved them, etc. Not to mention other difficulties 
 in the way of this interpretation, its making 15£ synonymous with I'^s is 
 wholly arbitrary. Another forced construction, given by Cocceius, and 
 
CH APT ER LXIII. 421 
 
 approved by Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and almost by Gesenlus, explains there 
 was not an adversary, and he saved them, to mean, there scarcely was (or 
 no sooner was there) an adversary, when he saved them. The only exam- 
 ple of this harsh and obscure syntax which is cited, namely 2 Kings 20 : 4, 
 is nothing to the purpose, because there it is expressly said, and no doubt 
 meant, that Isaiah had not gone out into the court ; whereas here it cannot 
 possibly be meant that Israel had no adversaries. A much more natural 
 construction is the one proposed by Jerome in his commentary, 'in all their 
 affliction he did not afflict (them) ;' which, however, is scarcely reconcilable 
 with history. This difficulty is avoided by Henderson's modification of 
 the same construction, in all their ajffliction he was not an adversary, i. e. 
 although he afflicted them, he did not hate them. This agrees well with 
 what immediately follows, but is still liable to the objection that it takes ^!^ 
 and i^i'^^ in entirely different senses, which can only be admissible in case of 
 necessity. Others accordingly regard them as synonymous expressions, and 
 in order to remove the appearance of a contradiction, supply some qualifica- 
 tion of the second word. Thus Jarchi understands the clause to mean that 
 in all their affliction there was no such affliction as their sins had merited. 
 Aurivillius supposes the masculine form to express the same thing with the 
 feminine essentially, but in a higher degree, ' in all their affliction there was 
 no extreme or fatal affliction.' Gesenius rejects this explanation of the forms 
 as too artificial, but adopts a similar interpretation of the clause, which he 
 explains to mean that in all their distress there was no real or serious dis- 
 tress, none that deserved the name ; which could hardly be alleged with 
 truth. It is also hard to account in this case for the use of the different 
 forms IS and n-i:i to express the same idea, after rejecting Aurivillius's solu- 
 tion. This circumstance appears to point to an interpretation which shall 
 give the words essentially the same sense, yet so far modified as to explain 
 the difference of form. Such an interpretation is the one suggested by De 
 Wette's version of the clause, which takes "i:i and ^^-'s as correlative deriva- 
 tives from one sense of the same root, but distinguished from each other as 
 an abstract and a concrete, enemy and enmity. A real difficulty in the way 
 of this interpretation, is the want of any usage to sustain the latter definition, 
 which, however, is so easily deducible from the primary meaning, and so 
 clearly indicated by the parallel expression, that it may perhaps be properly 
 assumed in a case where the only choice is one of difficulties. Thus under- 
 stood, the clause simply throws the blame of all their conflicts with Jehovah 
 on themselves : in all their enmity (to him) he was not an enemy (to them). 
 The proof of this assertion is that he saved them, not from Egypt merely, 
 but from all their early troubles, with particular reference perhaps to the 
 period of the Judges, in the history of which this verb very frequently occurs. 
 (See Judges 2 : 16, 18. 3 : 15. 6 : M. etc.) This salvation is ascribed, 
 
422 C H A P T E R L X I I I. 
 
 however, not directly to Jehovah, but to the angel of his face or presence. 
 Kimchi explains this to mean the agency of second causes, which he says 
 are called in Scripture aiii^els or messengers of God. Abarbenel gives it a 
 personal sense, but applies it to the angels collectively. Jarchi makes it 
 not only a personal but an indivichial description, and explains it to mean 
 Michael, as the tutelary angel of Israel (Dan. 12 : 1). Aben Ezra, with 
 sagacity and judgment superior to all his brethren, understands it of the angel 
 whom Jehovah promised to send with Israel (Ex. 23 : 20-23), and whom 
 he did send (Ex. 14 : 19. Num. 20 : 16), and who is identified with the 
 presence of Jehovah (Ex. 33 : 14, 15) and with Jehovah himself (Ex. 
 33 : 12). The combination of these passages determines the sense of 
 the angtl of his presence, as denoting the angel whose presence was the 
 presence of Jehovah, or in whom Jehovah was personally present, and pre- 
 cludes the explanation given by Clericus and many later writers, who sup- 
 ])ose it to mean merely an angel who habitually stands in the presence of 
 Jehovah (I Kings 22 : 19), just as human courtiers or officers of state 
 are said to see the king's face (Jer. 52 : 25). Even Hitzig admits the 
 identity of the angel of Jehovah's presence with Jehovah himself, but 
 explains it away by making angel an abstract term, not denoting in any 
 case a person, but the manifestation of Jehovah's presence at a certain time 
 and place. Hendewerk, on the other hand, alleges that the angel is always 
 represented as a personality distinct from Jehovah himself. By blending 
 these concessions from two writers of the same great school, we obtain a 
 striking testimony, if not to the absolute truth, to the scriptural correctness 
 of the old Christian doctrine, as expounded with consummate force and 
 clearness by Vitringa in his comment on this passage, viz. the doctrine that 
 the Angel of God's presence, who is mentioned in the passages already cited, 
 and from time to time in other books of the Old Testament (Gen. 28 : 13. 
 31 : 11. 48 : 16. Ex. 3 : 2. Josh. 5 : 14. Judges 13 : 6. Hos. 12 : 5. 
 Zech. 3:1. ]\Ial. 3 : 1. Ps. 34 : 8), was that divine person who is repre- 
 sented in the New as the brightness of the Father's glory and the express 
 image of his person (Heb. 1 : 3), the image of God (2 Cor. 4 : 4. Col. 
 1 : 15), in whose face the glory of God shines (2 Cor. 4 : 6), and in whom 
 dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily (Col. 2 : 9). Lovvth's 
 unfortunate adoption of the Septuagint version or perversion of the text, led 
 him to argue ingeniously, but most unfairly, that although the Angel of 
 Jehovah's presence is sometimes identified with Jehovah himself, yet in 
 other places he is explicitly distinguished from him, and must therefore be 
 considered as a creature ; so that in the case before us, which is one of those 
 last mentioned, the honour of Israel's deliverance is denied to this angel and 
 exclusively ascribed to God himself. All this not only rests upon a fanciful 
 and false translation; but is contradicted by the unanimous consent of Jews 
 
CHAPTERLXIII. 423 
 
 and Infidels as well as Christians, tliat the salvation of God's people is 
 directly ascribed to the Angel of Jehovah's presence. — Vitringa insists, per- 
 haps with too much pertinacity, upon applying what immediately follows to 
 the Angel and not to Jehovah : first, because the question is in fact a doubt- 
 ful one, and both constructions are grammatical ; and secondly, because it is 
 a question of no moment, after the essential identity of the Angel and Jehovah 
 has been ascertained from other quarters. — The Hebrew >^\'^T\ , from h'c'n to 
 spare, has no exact equivalent in English, and can only be expressed by a 
 periphrasis. The same aflections towards Israel are ascribed to Jehovah in 
 the Pentateuch. (Deut. 32 : 9-11. Ps. 77 : 15.) — For the true sense of 
 what follows, as to taking up and carrying them, see above, on ch. 46 : 3. 
 — obi? , which Vitringa regards as identical with the Latin olim, is like it 
 applied as well to the past as to the future. It originally signifies unknown 
 or indefinite duration, and in such a case as this, remote antiquity ; the 
 whole phrase being used precisely in the s'ame sense as by Amos (9 : 11) 
 and IMicah (7 : 14). — The verb redeem, is not only one of frequent occur- 
 rence in these prophecies (ch. 43 : 1. 44 : 22, 23. 48 : 20. 49 : 7. etc.), 
 but is expressly applied elsewhere to the redemption of Israel from Egypt 
 (Ex. 6 : 5. Ps. 74 : 2. 77 : 16), and is therefore applicable to all other 
 analogous deliverances. 
 
 V. 10. And they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit (or spirit of holi- 
 ness), and he was turned for them into an enemy, he himself fought against 
 them. The pronoun at the beginning is emphatic : they on their part, as 
 opposed to God's forbearance and long-suffering. There seems to be an 
 allusion in this clause to the injunction given to tiie people at the exodus, 
 in reference to the Angel who was to conduct them : Beware of him and 
 obey his voice, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions, 
 for my name is in him (Ex. 23 : 21). From this analogy Vitringa argues 
 that the verse before us has specific reference to the disobedience or resist- 
 ance offered by the people to the Angel of God's presence. As the next 
 clause may have reference to Jehovah, it cannot be demonstrated from it 
 that the spirit here mentioned is a personal spirit, and not a mere disposition 
 or affection. But the former supposition, which is equally consistent with 
 the language here used, in itself considered, becomes far more probable 
 when taken in connexion with the preceding verse, where a personal angel 
 is joined with Jehovah precisely as the Spirit is joined with him here. 
 Assuming that the following words relate to this Spirit, he is then described 
 as endued with personal susceptibilities and performing personal acts, and 
 we have in these two verses a distinct enumeration of the three divine per- 
 sons. That the Spirit of this verse, like the Angel of the ninth, is repre- 
 sented as divine, is evident not only from a comparison of Ps. 7S : 17, 40, 
 
424 CHAPTERLXIII. 
 
 where the same thing is said of God himself, but also from the fact that 
 those interpreters who will not recognise a personal spirit in this passage, 
 unanimously understand the spirit either as denoting an attribute of God or 
 God himself. Henderson thinks it necessary to explain away a seeming 
 contradiction between this verse and the first clause of v. 9, by making "lit a 
 stronger expression than 2r:< . The true solution is, that the passage is in 
 some sort historical, and shows the progress of the alienation between God 
 and Israel. Having shown in the j)receding verse that it began upon the 
 part of Israel, and was long resisted and deferred by Jehovah, he now shows 
 how at length his patience was exhausted, and he really became what he 
 was not before. This is the true sense of the verb "Siif. , to which many 
 of the moderns give a reflexive form, he changed himself. The disputes 
 among interpreters whether this verse has reference to the conduct of the 
 people in the wilderness, or under the judges, or before the Babylonish 
 exile, or before the final destruction of Jerusalem, are only useful as a 
 demonstration that the passage is a general description, which was often 
 verified. — From this verse Paul has borrowed a remarkable expression in 
 Eph. 4 : 30. (Compare Matt. 12:31. Acts 7 : 51. Heb. 10 : 29.) 
 
 V. 11. And he remembered the days of old, DJoses (^aiid) his people. 
 Where is he that brought them up from the sea, the shepherd of his Jlock? 
 Where is he that put within him his Holy Spirit ? Grotius and others 
 make Jehovah the subject of the first verb, and suppose liim to be here 
 described as relenting;. This construction has the advantajre of avoiding an 
 abrupt change of person without any intimation in the text. But as the 
 following can be naturally understood only as the language of tiie people, 
 especially when compared with Jer. 2 : 6, most writers are agreed in refer- 
 ring this clause to the people also. Cyril and Jerome, it is true, combine 
 both suppositions, by referring he remembered to Jehovah, and explaining 
 what follows as the language of the people. But a transition so abrupt is 
 not to be assumed without necessity. The Targum gives a singular turn to 
 the sentence by supplying Itst they say before the second clause, which then 
 becomes the lani^uao-e of the enemies of Israel, exultinjr in the failure of 
 Jehovah's promises. This explanation may appear to derive some support 
 from the analogy of Deut. 32 : 17, which no doubt suggested it ; but a fatal 
 objection is the one made by Vitringa, that the essential idea is one not 
 expressed but arbitrarily supplied. Another singular interpretation is the 
 one contained in the Dutch Bible, which makes God the subject of the first 
 verb but includes it in the language of the people, complaining that he dealt 
 with them no longer as he once did : Once he remembered the days of old 
 etc. but now where is he etc. But here again but noiv, on which the whole 
 depends, must be supplied without authority. The modern writers, since 
 
CHAPTERLXIII. 425 
 
 Vitringa, are agreed that the first clause describes the repentance of the 
 people, and that the second gives their very words, contrasting their actual 
 condition with their former privileges and enjoyments. There is still a dif- 
 ference of opinion, however, with respect to the grammatical construction of 
 the first clause. Rosenmiiller and most of the later writers follow Jarchi in 
 making ias the subject of the verb : and his people remembered the days of 
 old etc. As such a collocation falls in with the German idiom, the writers 
 in that language have easily been led to regard it as entirely natural, though 
 really as foreign from Hebrew as frotn English usage. The solitary case 
 which Hitzig cites (Ps. 34 : 22) would prove nothing by itself, even if it 
 were exactly similar and unambiguous, neither of which is really the case. 
 But another difficulty still remains, viz. that of construing the words i^'-> ^'4"^, 
 which seem to stand detached from the remainder of the sentence. Lovvth 
 resorts to his favourite but desperate method of reading i'nizs his servant, on 
 the authority of the Peshito and a few manuscripts. Geseiiius, on the other 
 hand, is half inclined to strike out >'i'^P^ as a marginal gloss still wanting in the 
 Septuagint. These emendations, even if they rested upon surer grounds, 
 would only lessen not remove the difficulty as to the construction of nr"2 or 
 ISiS vvith what goes before. Gesenius makes days of old a complex noun 
 governing Moses: the ancient days of Moses. This construction, harsh and 
 unusual as it is, has been adopted by the later German writers except 
 Maurer, who, after denying the existence of the difficulty, brings out as if 
 it were a new discovery, the old construction, given in the English Bible 
 and maintained at length by Vitringa, which makes Moses and his people 
 correlatives, as objects of the verb remembered : He remembered the ancient 
 days, viz. those of Moses and his people. So Gesenius, in the notes to the 
 second edition of his German version, calls attention to the explanation of 
 •t^'o as a noun or participle meaning tlie deliverer of his people, as having 
 been recently proposed by Horst, whereas it is at least as old as Aben Ezra, 
 who recites without adopting it. — Henderson is disposed to omit the pronoun 
 in c)3?53r! , on the authority of two old manuscripts, apparently confirmed by 
 that of two old versions, or to gain the same end by regarding the construc- 
 tion as an Aramaic one, in which the pronoun is prefixed in pleonastic anti- 
 cipation of the noun which follows. In either case the tn will be not a 
 preposition meaning with, but the objective particle, ' he that brought up 
 from the sea the shepherds of his flock.' The objection to making rx a 
 preposition is that it seems to separate the case of Moses from that of the 
 people. The Targum seems to make it a particle of likeness or comparison, 
 as a shepherd does his flock, which Gesenius thinks a far better sense; but 
 Hitzig thinks it false, because shepherds do not bring their flocks up from the 
 sea. The simplest construction is to repeat nbs^n before nri : Where is 
 
426 CHAPTER LXIII. 
 
 he that brought them up from the sea, (that brought up) the shepherd of his 
 flock ? All these constructions suppose the shepherd to be JMoses ; but 
 Knobel understands it to be God himself, as in Ps. 78 : 52, and repeats the 
 verb remembered, ' it (the people) remembered the shepherd of his flock,' 
 which makes an equally good sense. But nearly sixty manuscripts and 
 forty editions read '•'^'^ in the plural, which may then be understood as 
 including Aaron (Ps. 77 : 21), and as Vitringa thinks Miriam (Micah 6 : 4), 
 or perhaps the seventy elders who are probably referred to in the last clause 
 as under a special divine influence. (See Num. 11: 17. Con)pare Ex. 
 31:3. 35 : 31.) The suffix in la'ip;^ refers to C2. The noun itself is used 
 as in 1 Kings 17: 22. The clause implies, if it does not express directly, 
 the idea of a personal spirit, as in the preceding verse. 
 
 V. 12. Leading ihem by the right hand of Moses (o/ir/) his glorious 
 arm, cleaving the waters from before them, to male e for him an everlasting 
 name ? The sentence and the interrogation are continued from the forego- 
 ing verse. The participle with the article there defines or designates the 
 subject as the one bringing up; the participle here without the article sim- 
 ply continues the description. Vitringa and the later writers follow Jarchi 
 in giving a very different construction to the first clause, making his glorious 
 arm the object of the verb. The meaning of the whole then is as follows : 
 causing his glorious arm to march at the right hand of Moses, i. e. as Jarchi 
 explains it, causing his almighty power, of which the arm is the established 
 symbol (ch. 40 : 10. 59 : 16. 63 : 5), to be near or present with the Pro- 
 phet when he needed its interposition. This is a good sense, but it seems 
 more natural to give T("'V'"2 the same object as in the next verse, the pronoun 
 which is there expressed being here understood. The b, which the writers 
 above mentioned understand as in Ps. 16:8, may agreeably to usage denote 
 general relation, the specific sense o{ by being not expressed but suggested 
 by the context. The right hand may be mentioned in allusion to the wield- 
 ing of the rod by Moses, and the glorious arm may be either his or that of 
 God himself, which last sense is expressed in the English version by a 
 change of preposition (by the right hand of Moses tvith his glorious arm). 
 The same ambiguity exists in the last clause, where the everlasting name 
 may be the honour put upon Moses or the glory which redounded to Jeho- 
 vah himself, as in ch. 55 : 13. Knobel is singular and somewhat para- 
 doxical in understanding W^-q rj^ia as descriptive of the smiting of the rock 
 to supply the people's thirst, simply because the passive of the same verb is 
 applied in ch. 35 : 6 to the bursting forth of water in the desert; whereas it 
 is repeatedly employed, both in the active and the passive form, in reference 
 to the cleaving of the waters of the Red Sea (Ex. 14: 21. Ps. 78: 13. 
 
CHAPTERLXIII. 427 
 
 Nell. 9: 11), and is so understood here by all other writers whom I have 
 consulted. It also agrees better with the expression from before them, which 
 innplies the removal of a previous obstruction. 
 
 V. 13. Making them walk in the depths, like the horse in the desert 
 they shall not stumble. The description of the exodus is still continued, and 
 its perfect security illustrated by comparisons. There is no need of givinp; 
 to nirnpi with the modern writers the distinct sense of waves in this and 
 other places, as the proper meaning depths is more appropriate and striking 
 in a poetical description. The desert is commonly supposed to be referred 
 to as a vast plain free from inequalities. But J. D. Michaelis, after twice 
 announcing that he never rode on horseback through a desert in his life, 
 makes the point of comparison to lie in the fine gravel or coarse sand with 
 which the desert of Arabia is covered, and which makes an admirable foot- 
 ing for horses. In the san)e note and in the same spirit he discards the 
 word stumbling {straucheln) , which he says would be employed by one who 
 never sat upon a horse, and substitutes another {anstosseii) as the technical 
 term of the manege, although requiring explanation to tiie common reader. 
 The last verb would seem most naturally to refer to the horse ; but its plural 
 form forbids this construction, while its future form creates a difficulty in 
 referring it to Israel. IMost versions get around this difficulty by periphrasis, 
 without stumbling, so as not to stumble, or the like. The true solution is 
 afforded by the writer's frequent habit of assuming his position in the midst 
 of the events which he describes, and speaking of them as he would have 
 spoken if he had been really so situated. The comparison in the first clause 
 brings up to his view the people actually passing through the wilderness ; 
 and in his confident assurance of their safe and easy progress he exclaims, 
 'they will not stumble!' The same explanation is admissible in many 
 cases where it is customary to confound the tenses, or regard their use as 
 perfectly capricious. As Knobel in the foregoing verse supposes an allusion 
 to the smiling of the rock, so here he refers the description to the passage of 
 the Jordan, as if unwilling to acknowledge any reference to the Red Sea or 
 the actual exodus from Egypt. 
 
 V. 14. As the herd into the valley ivill go down, the Spirit of Jehovah 
 will make him rest. So didst thou lead thy people, to make for thyself a 
 name of glory. — sr^na is probably here used in its collective sense of cattle, 
 rather than in that of an individual animal or beast. This version is not 
 only more exact than the common one, but removes the ambiguity in the 
 construction, by precluding the reference of him, in make him rest, to the 
 preceding noun, which is natural enough in the English Version, though for- 
 bidden in Hebrew by the difference of gender. — The him really refers to 
 
428 CHAPTER LXIII. 
 
 Israel or people. J. D. Michaclis and Lowlh follow the ancient versions, 
 which they understand as reading iin:n will guide him. But the idea of 
 guidance is sufficiently inn plied in the common reading, which may be 
 understood as meaning ' will bring him to a place of rest,' a form of expres- 
 sion often used in reference to the promised land. (Deut. 12: 9, 10. Ps. 
 95 : 11. etc.) A similar agency is elsewhere ascribed to the Spirit of God. 
 (Ps. 143 : 10. Hagg. 2 : 5. Neh. 9 : 20.) — The use of the futures in this 
 clause is precisely tlie same as in the foregoing verse. In the last clause 
 the Prophet ceases to regard the scene as actually present and resumes the 
 tone of historical retrospection, at the same time summing up the whole in 
 one comprehensive proposition, ihus didst thou lead thy people. — With the 
 last words of the verse compare ch. 60 : 21. 61:3. 
 
 V. 15. LooTc (down) from heaven and see from thy dwelling-place of 
 holiness and beauty ! Where is thy zeal and thy might (or mighty deeds) 1 
 The sounding of thy bowels and thy mercies towards me have ivithdrawn 
 themselves. The foregoing description of God's ancient favours is now 
 made the ground of an importunate appeal for new ones. The unusual 
 word for dwelling-place is borrowed from the prayer of Solomon. (I Kings 
 8 : 13.) For a similar description of heaven, see above, ch. 57 : 15. God 
 is here represented as withdrawn into heaven and no longer active upon 
 earth. For the meaning of his zeal, see above, on ch. 59 : 17. Jarchi adds 
 n:r.snn i. e. thy former zeal. Eighteen manuscripts, two editions, and the 
 ancient versions, read ?)r^i25, in the singular. The plural probably denotes 
 mighty deeds or feats of strength, as in 1 K. 15: 23. 16: 27. 22: 46. 
 V^n is not to be taken in its secondary sense of multitude, as it is by the 
 Septuagint (nJSj&og) and the Vulgate (multitudo), but in its primary sense 
 of commotion, noise. The verbal root is applied in like manner to the 
 movements of compassion, ch. 16 : 11. Jer. 31 : 20. 48 : 36, in the last of 
 which places it is connected with the verbal root of ci-^m the parallel 
 expression in the case before us. Although we are obliged to render one of 
 these nouns by a literal and the other by a figurative term, both of them 
 properly denote the viscera, on the figurative use of which to signify strong 
 feeling, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 322. — The last verb in the verse 
 denotes a violent suppression or restraint of strong emotion (Gen. 43 : 30. 
 45 : 1), and is sometimes applied directly to God himself. (See above, ch. 
 42 : 14, and below, ch. 64 : 11.) The last clause may be variously divided 
 without a material change of meaning. The English Version makes the 
 last verb a distinct interrogation, are they restrained! Henderson makes 
 the second question the larger of the two, are the sounding of thy bowels 
 etc. ? The objection to both is that the second question is not natural, and 
 that they arbitrarily assume an interrogative construction without any thing 
 
CHAPTER LXIII. 429 
 
 to indicate it, as the where cannot be repeated. Vitringa and Hitzig make 
 the whole one question and supply the relative before the last verb, where 
 is thy zeal etc. which are restrained ? But the simplest construction is that 
 which makes the last clause a simple affirmation (Gesenius), or an impas- 
 sioned exclamation (Ewald). There is something peculiarly expressive in 
 Luther's paraphrase of this last clause : deine grosse herzliche Barmherz- 
 igkeit halt sich hart gegen mich. 
 
 V. 16. For thou (art) our father ; for Abraham hath not known us, 
 and Israel will not recognise us, thou Jehovah (art) our father, our redeemer 
 of old (or from everlasting) is thy name. The common version needlessly 
 obscures the sense and violates the usage of the language by rendering the 
 first ■'S doubtless, and the second though. Rosenmiiller gives the first the 
 sense of but, simply observing that the particle is here not causal but adver- 
 sative. This wanton variation from the ordinary sense of terms, whenever 
 there appears to be the least obscurity in the connexion, is one of the errors 
 of the old school of interpreters, retained by Rosenmiiller, who is a kind of link 
 between them and the moderns. The later German writers are more rigidly 
 exact, and Maurer in particular observes in this case that the ''s has its 
 proper causal sense in reference to the first clause of v. 15. Why do we 
 ask thee to look down from heaven and to hear our prayer? Because thou 
 art our father. This does not merely mean our natural creator, but our 
 founder, our national progenitor, as in Deut. 32 : 6. Here, however, it 
 appears to be employed in an emphatic and exclusive sense, as if he had 
 said, ' thou and thou alone art our father ;' for he immediately adds, as if to 
 explain and justify this strange assertion, ' for Abraham has not known us, 
 and Israel will not recognise or acknowledge us.' The assimilation of these 
 tenses, as if both past or future, is entirely arbitrary ; and their explanation 
 as both present, a gratuitous evasion. As in many other cases, past and 
 future are here joined to make the proposition universal. Dropping the 
 peculiar parallel construction, the sense is that neither Abraham nor Israel 
 have known or will know any thing about us, have recognised or will here- 
 after recognise us as their children. The meaning, therefore, cannot be that 
 Abraham and Israel are ashamed of us as unworthy and degenerate descend- 
 ants, as Piscator understands it ; or that Abraham and Israel cannot save 
 us by their merits, as Cocceius understands it ; or that Abraham and Israel 
 did not deliver us from Egypt, as the Targum understands it; or that 
 Abraham and Israel, being now dead, can do nothing for us, as Vitringa 
 and the later writers understand it. All these interpretations, and a number 
 of unnatural constructions and false versions, some of which have been 
 already mentioned, owe their origin to the insuperable difficulty of applying 
 
430 CHAPTERLXIII. 
 
 these words, in their strict and unperverted sense, to the Jews as the natural 
 descendants of the patriarchs in question. Henderson's mode of reconcihng 
 what is here said with his general aj)pHcation of the prophecy is curious 
 enough. After justly observing that "the hereditary descent of the Jews 
 from Abraham, and their dependence upon his merits and those of Isaac 
 and Jacob, form the proudest grounds of boasting among them at the present 
 day, as they did in the time of our Lord," he adds that "when converted, 
 thev shall be ashamed of all such confidence, and glory in Jehovah alone." 
 Such an effect of individual conversion and regeneration may be certainly 
 expected; but a general restoration of the Jews as a people, not only to 
 the favour of God but to the land of their fathers, and not only to the land 
 of their fathers, but to pre-eminence among the nations, so that their temple 
 shall again be universally frequented, and the whole world reduced to the 
 alternative of perishing or serving them, is so far from naturally tending to 
 correct the evil which has been described, that nothing but a miracle would 
 seem sufficient to prevent its being aggravated vastly by the very means 
 which Henderson expects to work a final cure. The true sense of the 
 verse, as it appears to me, is that the church or chosen people, although 
 once, for temporary reasons, coextensive and coincident with a single race, 
 is not essentially a national organization, but a spiritual body. Its father is 
 not Abraham or Israel, but Jeliovah, who is and always has been its 
 redeemer, who has borne that name from everlasting ; or as Hitzig under- 
 stands the last clause, he is our redeemer, whose name is from everlasting. 
 Most interpreters, however, are agreed in understanding this specific name 
 of our redeemer to be here described as everlasting or eternal. According 
 to the explanation which has now been given, this verse explicitly asserts 
 what is implied and indirectly taught throughout these prophecies, in refer- 
 ence to the true design and mission of the Church, and its relation to Jehovah, 
 to the world, and to the single race with which of old it seemed to be 
 identified. This confirmation of our previous conclusions is the more satis- 
 factory, because no use has hitherto been made of it, by anticipation, in 
 determining the sense of many more obscure expressions, to which it may 
 now be considered as affording a decisive key. It only remains to add, as 
 a preventive of misapprehension, that the strong terms of this verse are of 
 coui-se to be comparatively understood, not as implying that the church 
 will ever have occasion to repudiate its historical relation to the patriarchs, 
 or cease to include among its members many of their natural descendants, 
 but simply as denying all continued or perpetual pre-eminence to Israel as a 
 race, and exalting the common relation of believers to their great Head as 
 paramount to all connexion with particular progenitors — the very doctrine so 
 repeatedly and emphatically taught in the New Testament. 
 
C H A P T E R L X I I I. 431 
 
 V. 17. Why ivilt thou make its luonder, oh Jehovah, from thy ways ; 
 (why) wilt thou harden our heart from thy fear? Return, for the sake of 
 thy servants, the tribes of thy inheritance. The earnestness of the prayer 
 is evinced by an increasing boldness of expostulation. Rosenmiiller shows, 
 by a reference to Deut. 2 : 28 and I Sam. 14 : 36, that the Hiphil often 
 signifies permission rather than direct causation. But although this usage 
 is indisputable, it is here forbidden by the parallel expression, which can 
 hardly mean to suffer to grow hard, and rendered unnecessary by the 
 frequency and clearness with which such an agency is ascribed to God him- 
 self elsewhere. As to the sense of such expressions, see the Earlier 
 Pro})hecies, p. 96. Equally shallow and malignant are the comments of the 
 German writers on this subject ; as a specimen of which may be given 
 Hitzig's statement that " Jehovah makes men sinners for the sake of punishing 
 them afterwards ; to the question why he does so, the East [by which he 
 means the Bible] makes no answer. Compare Rom. 9 : 17-22." The 
 future verbs are not to be arbitrarily explained as preterites, or (with Ilitzig) 
 as implying that the action still continues, but as asking why he will continue 
 so to do. The second verb occurs only here and in Job 39 : 16, where it 
 is applied lo the ostrich's hard treatment of her young. It is obviously near 
 akin to n'r^^ , and Vitring^ thinks the substitution of the stronger guttural has 
 an intensive effect upon the meaning. The particle in from thy fear is 
 commonly supposed to have a privative or negative meaning, so as not to 
 fear thee ; but there is rather an allusion to the wandering just before 
 mentioned, as if he had said, 'and why wilt thou make us to wander, by 
 hardening our heart, from thy fear?' This last expression, as in many other 
 cases, includes all the duties and affections of true piety. — For the sense of 
 God's returning to his people, see above, on ch. 52 : 8. The tribes of thine 
 inheritance is an equivalent expression to thy people ; which oiiginated in 
 the fact that Israel, like other ancient oriental races, was divided into tribes. 
 The argument drawn from this expression in favour of applying the whole 
 passage to the Jews, proves too much ; for the distinction into tribes is as 
 much lost now among the Jews as among the gentiles. The Jews, indeed, 
 are properly but one tribe, that of Judah, in which the remnants of the 
 others were absorbed after the exile. 
 
 V. 18. For a little thy holy people possessed, our enemies trod doum 
 thy sanctuary. The sense of this verse is extremely dubious. "i^5£^5 is else- 
 where used in reference to magnitude (Gen. 19 : 20) and number (2 Chr. 
 24 : 24), not to time. J, D. Michaelis connects it with the foregoing verse, 
 and reads, ' the tribes of thy inheritance have become a little thing,' i. e. an 
 object of contempt. So the Vulgate, quasi nihilum. The Sepuingint also 
 
432 C H A P T E R L X I I I. 
 
 joins the first clause with v. 17, and omits the second, ' that we may inherit 
 a little of thy holy mountain,' reading in for c" which is approved by Lowth. 
 Cocceius takes "^^J^^^ in the sense of almost, like ^?";3 (Gen. 26 : 10. 
 Ps. 73 : 2). Lowth, Kocher, and Rosenmiiller make it equivalent to 
 the Latin parviim. But Vitringa and the later writers understand it as 
 an adverb of time, cognate and equivalent to "i>]^ (ch. 10 : 25. 29 : 17). 
 Another question is whether thy holy people is the subject or object of the 
 verb possessed. Thus Grotius understands the clause to mean that the 
 enemy /or a Utile luhile possessed thy holy people ; and Cocceius, that they 
 almost possessed thy holy people ; Kocher and Rosenmiiller, it was not 
 enough that they possessed thy holy people, they also trampled on thy 
 sanctuary ; Lowth, it was little that they did both, if God had not besides 
 rejected them. The subject is then to be supplied from the other clause, or 
 brought into this, by a removal of the accent and a consequent change of 
 interpunction. The modern writers are agreed, however, in making holy 
 people the subject of the verb, and supplying the object from the other 
 clause, thy sanctuary, which is understood by Hitzig as denoting the entire 
 holy land (Zech. 2 : 16), as the cities of Judah are, he thinks, called holy cities 
 in ch. 64 : 9. Maurer suggests another method of providing both a subject 
 and an object to the verb by omitting the makkeph and reading ^^^"^i^ c» w-i;; , 
 the people possessed thy holy (thing or place). According to the usua] 
 construction of the sentence, it assigns as a reason for Jehovah's interference, 
 the short time during which the chosen people bad possessed the land of 
 promise. But it may be objected that "lyai:^ would naturally seem to 
 qualify both clauses, which can only be prevented by supplying arbitrarily 
 between them and then or now. This consideration may be said to favour 
 Grotius's construction ; which is further recommended by its grammatical 
 simplicity, in giving to both verbs one and the same subject. What is 
 common to both explanations is the supposition that the verse describes a 
 subjection to enemies. The question upon which they disagree is whether 
 this subjection is itself described as temporary, or the peaceable possession 
 which preceded it. In no case can an argument be drawn from it to prove 
 that this whole passage has respect to the Jews in their present dispersion : 
 first, because the sufferings of the church in after ages are frequently 
 presented under figures drawn from the peculiar institutions of the old 
 economy ; and secondly, because the early history of Israel is as much the 
 early history of the Christian church as of the Jewish nation, so that we have 
 as much rigiit as the Jews to lament the profanation of the Holy Land, and 
 more cause to pray for its recovery by Christendom, than they for its restoration 
 to themselves. Gesenius's translation of ^DOiaas meaning 2^/M«(/erc(/, although 
 copied by Umbreit, is most probably an inadvertence ; as no such meaning 
 
CHAPTER LXIII. 433 
 
 of the verb Is given or referred to in any of his Hebrew lexicons. The 
 error was observed and corrected even by De Wette and Noyes, the two 
 most faithful followers of Gesenius in his version of Isaiah. 
 
 V. 19. JVe are of old, thou hast not ruled over them, thy name has not 
 been called upon them. Oh that thou ivouldst rend the heavens (and) come 
 down, (that) from before thee the mountains might quake (or flow down). 
 Most of the modern writers have adopted a construction of the first clause 
 suggested by the paraphrastic versions of the Septuagint and Vulgate. 
 This supposes the description of the people's alienation from God to be 
 continued : We have long been those (or like those) over whom thou didst 
 not rule, and who were not called by thy name ; that is to say, thou hast 
 long regarded and treated us as aliens rather than thy chosen people. The 
 tbi3.'53 is then referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar or 
 by Titus, according to the general exegetical hypothesis of each interpreter. 
 The ellipsis of the relative involved in this construction can create no diffi- 
 culty, as it is one of perpetual occurrence ; but the sense which it puts upon 
 the clause is very far from being obvious, or one which a Hebrew writer 
 would be likely to express in this way. Another old and well known 
 construction of the clause is founded on the Chaldee Paraphrase, which 
 understands this not as a description of their misery but an assertion of their 
 claim to relief, in the form of a comparison between themselves and their 
 oppressors. This is the sense given in the English Version : We are thine, 
 thou never barest rule over them etc. To this form of the interpretation it 
 has been objected, not without reason, that it puts upon the verb ive are 
 or have been a sense not justified by usage, or in other words, that it arbi- 
 trarily supplies the essential idea upon which the whole turns, namely, thine 
 or thy people. But this objection may be easily removed by connecting the 
 verb with ^^"^ , loe are of old. The point of comparison is then their 
 relative antiquity, the enemy being represented as a new race come into 
 possession of the rights belonging to the old. There is then no need of 
 supplying thine, the relation of the people to Jehovah being not particularly 
 hinted here, although suggested by the whole connexion. With this modifi- 
 cation the construction of the Targum and the English Bible seems entitled 
 to the preference — Thou didst not rule over them. This has no reference, 
 of course, to God's providential government, but only to the peculiar theocra- 
 tical relation which he bears to his own people. The same idea is expressed 
 by the following words, as to the sense of which see above on cli. 48 : 1. 
 The inconvenience of strongly marked divisions in a book like this, is exem- 
 plified by the disputes among interpreters, whether the remaining words of 
 this verse as it stands in the masoretic text should or should not be separated 
 from it and connected with the following chapter. Gesenius and the later 
 
 28 
 
434 CH A P TE R LXI V. 
 
 writers choose the latter course, while Rosenmiiller steadfastly adheres to 
 the masoretic interpunction. The simple truth is that there ought to be no 
 pause at all in this place, the transition from complaint to the expression of 
 an ardent wish being not only intentional but highly effective. It is true 
 that this clause ought not to be separated from what follows ; but it does 
 not follow that it ought to be severed from what goes before, — a gross non 
 sequitur, with which the reasoning of some learned writers is too often justly 
 chargeable. Ewald reckons the remainder of this sentence as the first verse 
 of the sixty-fourth chapter, on the authority of the ancient versions, but 
 obviates the inconvenience commonly attending it, by throwing the whole 
 context from v. 18 to v. 5 of the next chapter, both inclusive, into one 
 unbroken paragraph. Our own exposition will proceed upon the principle 
 heretofore applied, that this is a continuous composition, that the usual 
 divisions are mere matters of convenience or inconvenience as the case may 
 be, and that more harm is likely to result from too much than from too little 
 separation of the parts. The passionate apostrophe in this clause, far from 
 being injured or obscured, is rendered more expressive by its close connexion 
 with the previous complaints and lamentations. The idea now suggested 
 is, that weary of complaint the people or the prophet speaking for them 
 suddenly appeals to God directly with an ardent wish that he would deal 
 with them as in days of old. For the construction of the optative particle 
 t<!ib , see above, on ch. 48 : 18. The TargumandLuzzatto make it negative, 
 as if written x""? or x^ , a variation which does not materially affect the 
 sense, but merely changes the expression of a wish that something might 
 be done, to a complaint that it is not done : ' thou hast not rent the heavens,' 
 etc. The remaining words are a poetical description of Jehovah's interpo- 
 sition or the manifestation of his presence, under figures drawn perhaps 
 from the account of his epiphany on Sinai. Gesenius explains 'i^ij to denote 
 commotion ; Ewald adheres to the old etymology and sense of melting. 
 
 CHAPTER LXIV. 
 
 This chapter, like the one before it, from which it is in fact inseparable, 
 has respect to the critical or turning point between the old and new dispen- 
 sations, and presents it just as it might naturally have appeared to the 
 believing Jews, i. e. the first Christian converts, at that juncture. The 
 
CHAPTER L XIV. 435 
 
 strongest confidence is expressed in the divine power, founded upon former 
 experience, vs. ]-3. The two great facts of Israel's rejection as a nation, 
 and the continued existence of the church, are brought together in v. 4. 
 The unworthiness of Israel is acknowledged still more fully, vs. 5, 6. The 
 sovereign authority of God is humbly recognised, v. 7. His favour is 
 earnestly implored, v. 8. The external prerogatives of Israel are lost, v. 9. 
 But will God for that cause cast off the true Israel, his own church or 
 people? v. 10. 
 
 V. 1. As fire kindles brush, fire boils ivater — to make known thy name 
 to thine enemies, from before thee nations shall tremble. The last clause 
 coheres directly with the preceding verse, while the first is a parenthetical 
 comparison ; for which cause some of the latest writers throw the last words 
 of cb. 63 into this sentence. This, for reasons which have been already- 
 given, is unnecessary ; it is sufficient to observe the connexion upon which 
 the proposed arrangement rests. As n^ps is both transitive and intransitive, 
 either of two constructions maybe here adopted — as a fire of brushwood 
 burns, or, as fire kindles brush — the last of which is preferred by most inter- 
 preters, as simpler in itself, and because fire is the subject of the verb in 
 the next clause also. The various explanations of Qioicn by the older 
 writers are detailed by Vitringa and Rosenmiiller. The ancient versions 
 and several of the rabbins derive it from ooa to melt, but in violation of 
 etymological analogy. The first hint of the true sense was given by Rabbi 
 Jonah, who pronounces it to mean dry stubble {tT tp), and the definition 
 has been since completed by the Arabic analogy. Schultens' construction 
 of the next words, aquae effervescunt igne, involves a twofold irregularity, 
 viz. in gender and in number, which is not to be assumed without necessity. 
 The point of comparison in both these clauses is the rapidity and ease with 
 which the effect is produced. Hitzig supposes a specific allusion in the 
 second to the bouleversement or complete transposition of the particles of 
 boiling water, as an emblem of the general confusion which the presence of 
 Jehovah would produce ; but this is more ingenious and refined than natural. 
 The literal effect is described in the next words, to make known thy name, 
 i. e. to manifest thy being and thine attributes to thine enemies. In both 
 parts of the sentence the construction passes as it were insensibly from the 
 infinitive to the future, a transition not unfrequent in Hebrew syntax. The 
 last future is supposed by the latest writers to be still dependent on the 
 optative particle in ch. 63 : 19, 'oh that the nations at thy presence mi^ht 
 tremble.' But as the infinitive immediately precedes, and as x^i? is there 
 construed with the praeter, it is better to regard iti-.i simply as a statement 
 of what would be the effect of God's appearance. 
 
436 CH A PT E R LXI V. 
 
 V. 2. In thy doing fearful things (which) we expect not, (oh that) thou 
 wouldst come doivn, (that) the mountains from before thee might flow down. 
 There are two very difTerent constructions of this verse. Gesenius agrees 
 with the English Version in making it a direct historical statement of a past 
 event : When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou 
 camest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence. This seems to 
 be the simplest possible construction ; but it is attended by a serious gram- 
 matical difficulty, viz, the necessity of referring the future n|!i^3 to past time, 
 without any thing in the connexion to facilitate or justify the version. On 
 the other hand, this word appears to be decisive of the future bearing of the 
 whole verse, and in favour of the syntax adopted by Hitzig, Ewald, and 
 Knobel, which supposes the influence of the optative particle to be still 
 continued through this verse, as well as that before it : (Oh that) in doing 
 terrible things, such as we expect not, thou wouldst come down, etc. 
 There is then no need of resorting to forced explanations of the sense in 
 which the Prophet could speak as if he had been present at Mount Sinai. 
 The construction of the praeterlte with x>'.^ is the same as in ch. 63 : 19. 
 
 V. 3. And from eternity they have not heard, they have not perceived 
 by the ear, the eye hath not seen, a God beside thee (who) will do for (one) 
 waiting for him. This verse assigns a reason why such fearful things should be 
 expected from Jehovah, namely, because he alone had proved himself able to 
 perform them. Kimchi supplies m^ixna^zoMs, as the subject of the plural verbs; 
 but they are really indefinite, and mean that men in general have not heard, 
 or, as we should say, that no one has heard, or in a passive form, it has not 
 been heard. Do may be either taken absolutely, or as governing them, i. e. 
 the fearful things mentioned in v. 2. Waiting for God implies faith, hope, 
 and patient acquiescence. (See above, on ch. 40 : 31.) The construction 
 here piven is the one now commonly adopted, and is also given in the margin 
 of the English Bible, and by Grotius and Cocceius ; while the text of that 
 version, with Vitringa and others, makes Q'^nbx a vocative, and ascribes to 
 God not only the doing but the knowledge of the fearful things in question. 
 This construction is preferred by Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and many others, 
 and agrees better with Paul's quotation (2 Cor. 2:9) of the words as 
 descriptive of the gospel as a mystery or something hidden till revealed by 
 the Spirit. (Compare Rom. 15 : 26, and Matth. 13 : 17.) But in this, 
 as in many other cases, the apostle, by deliberately varying the form of the 
 expression, shows that it was not his purpose to interpret the original passage, 
 but simply to make use of its terms in expressing his own thoughts on a 
 kindred subject. Least of all can any emendation of the text be founded 
 upon this quotation, such as the change of ''sna to ■'^nn from aan, which, as 
 
CHAPTERLXIV. 437 
 
 Vitringa well observes, although applied to the divine love for man, is 
 inappropriate to human love for God, not to mention the unusual construction 
 with 15. 
 
 V. 4. Thou hast met with one rejoicing and executing righteousness ; 
 in thy ways shall they remember thee ; behold, thou hast been wroth, and 
 we have sinned ; in them is perpetuity, and we shall be saved. There is 
 perhaps no sentence in Isaiah, or indeed in the Old Testament, which has 
 more divided and perplexed interpreters, or on which the ingenuity and 
 learning of the modern writers have thrown less light. To enumerate the 
 various interpretations, would be endless and of no avail. Gesenius pro- 
 fesses to recite them, but gives only a selection. A more full detail is fur- 
 nished by Vitringa and Rosenmiiller, and in Poole's Synopsis. Nothing 
 more will here be attempted than to give the reader some idea of the various 
 senses which have been attached to the particular expressions, as a means 
 of showing that we have at best but a choice of difficulties, and of procuring 
 for our own exposition a more favourable hearing than it might be thought 
 entitled to in other circumstances. The first verb has been variously taken 
 in the sense of meeting as an enemy and meeting as a friend, making a 
 covenant, removing out of life, interceding, and accepting intercession. It 
 has been construed as a simple affirmation, both in the past and present 
 form ; as a conditional expression (si incidas) ; and as the expression of a 
 wish (utinam offenderes). The next verb has been also treated both as a 
 direct and as a relative expression, they will remember thee, and those who 
 remember thee. Thy ways has been explained to mean the way of God's 
 commandments and of his providential dispensations. In them has been 
 referred to ways, to sins, to sufferings, to the older race of Israelites, tsis 
 has been treated as a noun and as an adverb ; as meaning perpetuity, eternity, 
 a long time, and for ever. S'^^'S has been changed to "-s: , and the common 
 reading has been construed interrogatively (shall or could we be saved?), 
 optatively (may we be saved), and indicatively, present, past, and future 
 (we have been, are, or shall be saved). Of the various combinations cf 
 these elements on record, the most important in relation to the first clause 
 are the following : Thou hast taken away those who rejoiced to do right- 
 eousness and remembered thee in thy ways (KimchI), Thou didst accept 
 the intercession of those who rejoiced etc. (Aben Ezra). Thou didst 
 encounter or resist as if they had been enemies those who rejoiced etc. 
 (Cocceius). Thou meetest as a friend him rejoicing etc. (Jerome). If 
 thou meet with or light upon one rejoicing etc. they will remember thee in 
 thy ways (Vitringa). Oli that thou mightest meet with one rejoicing etc. 
 (Ros). — Of the second clause, the following constructions may be noted : 
 In them (i. e. our sins) we have been always, and yet we shall be saved 
 
438 CHAPTERLXIV. 
 
 (Jerome). We have sinned against them (i. e. thy ways) always, and yet 
 have been delivered. In them (i. e. thy ways of mercy) there is continu- 
 ance, and we are saved (Piscator). Thou wast angry after we had sinned 
 against them (i. e. our fathers), and yet we are safe (Vitringa). J. D. 
 Michaelis : we sinned an eternity (i. e. for ages) among them (the heathen) 
 and apostatized (rrE:i). Lowth : thou art angry, for we have sinned ; 
 because of our deeds ("5"'^^? -2), for we have been rebellious (s'l'ssi). Rosen- 
 miiller: we have sinned in them (thy ways) of old, and can we be saved? 
 Kocher : in them (our miseries) there is long continuance ; oh may we be 
 saved ! Maurer: in tiiem (the ways of duty) let us ever go, and we shall 
 be saved. Hitzig : thou wast angry, and we sinned on that account (cna) 
 continually, and can we be saved ? Grotius : had we been always in them 
 (thy ways), we should have been saved. Gesenius substantially agrees 
 with Kocher ; De Wette and Umbreit with Rosenmiiller ; Henderson with 
 Piscator; Ewald with Hitzig ; Hendewerk with Grotius; Knobel, partly 
 with Jerome, partly with Lowth, and partly with Kocher. It is curious 
 enough that Vitringa, whose construction has probably never been adopted 
 by another writer on the passage, says of it himself, sensus facillimus et 
 optimus ut quisque viderit. Yet in his exposition of the very next verse 
 he says, aegre aspicio homines, ne videantur nihil scribere, ea in certis con- 
 signare, quae ipsi facile praevideant neminem recepturum esse. As if to 
 show that exegetical invention is not yet exhausted, the ingenious modern 
 rabbin, Samuel Luzzatto, closes his curious notes on Isaiah, prefixed to the 
 abridgment of Rosenmuller's Scholia, with still another exposition of this 
 verse, and of the whole connexion, which deserves to be stated, were it only 
 for its novelty. He understands the people as denying at the close of the 
 preceding chapter (v. 19) that Jehovah had attested his divinity by suitable 
 exertion of his power in their behalf. At the beginning of this chapter they 
 correct themselves, and own that he has proved himself able to secure his 
 ends as easily as fire kindles chaff or causes water to boil (v. 1) ; but as he 
 does not do it, this neglect is to be regarded as the cause or the occasion of 
 iheir sins. They then assure him that they know his ancient deeds, even 
 when they were not looked for (v. 2), and can compare them not only with 
 the impotence of idols (v. 3), but with his present inaction : ' Thou hast to 
 do with those who remember thee as joyfully exercising righteousness in thy 
 ways (or dispensations) ; oh that thou wouldst persevere in them (those 
 ways) forever, that we might be saved.' — I shall not attempt to define what 
 is correct and what erroneous in these various constructions, but simply to 
 justify the one assumed in my own version. The general meaning of the 
 sentence may be thus expressed in paraphrase : ' Although thou hast cast off 
 Israel as a nation, thou hast nevertheless met or favourably answered every 
 one rejoicing to do righteousness, and in thy ways or future dispensations 
 
CHAPTER LXIV. 439 
 
 such shall still remember and acknowledge thee ; thou hast been angry, and 
 with cause, for we have sinned ; but in them, thy purposed dispensations, 
 there is perpetuity, and we shall be saved.' The abrogation of the old 
 economy, though fatal to the national pre-eminence of Israel, was so far 
 from destroying the true church or the hopes of true believers, that it revealed 
 the way of life more clearly than ever, and substituted for an insufficient, 
 temporary system, a complete and everlasting one. In this construction of 
 the sentence, the verb s?J5 and the noun tibis are taken in their usual sense, 
 and the pronoun in ens refers to its natural antecedent ^'^^yi . 
 
 V. 5. And we were like the unclean all of us, and like a filthy garment 
 all our righteousnesses (virtues or good works), and ive faded like the (fading) 
 leaf all of us, and our iniquities like the wind will take us up (or carry 
 us away). Having shown what they are or hope to be through the mercy 
 of God and the righteousness of Christ, ihey state more fully what they are 
 in themselves, and what they must expect to be if left to themselves. This 
 twofold reference to their past experience and their future destiny accounts 
 for the transition from the praeter to the future, without arbitrarily confound- 
 ing them together. — Vitringa makes J*'?^^! descriptive of a leper, which is 
 wholly arbitrary ; the adjective appears to be used absolutely for the unclean, 
 or that which is unclean, perhaps with a superlative emphasis, like iv^l^n , in 
 eh. 60 : 22. Vitringa and Gesenius dwell with great zest and fulness on 
 the strict sense of Ci"''^^ '15a . Some understand the comparison with with- 
 ered leaves as a part of the description of their sin, while others apply it to 
 their punishment. The first hypothesis is favoured by the difference of the 
 tenses, which has been already noticed : the last by the parallelism of the 
 clauses. It is probable, however, that here as in ch. 1 : 4 the two things 
 ran together in the writer's mind, and that no refined distinction as to this 
 point was intended. (With the figures of the last clause compare ch. 57 : 13. 
 Ps. 1:1. Job 27 : 21.) Hilzig and Hendewerk apply this last expression 
 to the actual deportation of the Jews to Babylon. Vitringa, having satisfied 
 himself that this whole context has respect to the present exile and disper- 
 sion of the Jews, takes pleasure in applying the particular expressions to the 
 circumstances of that great affliction. It is very remarkable, however, that 
 in this, as in other cases heretofore considered, there is no expression 
 which admits of this application exclusively, and none which admit of it at 
 all hut for their generality and vagueness, which would equally admit an 
 application to any other period of distress which had been previously set 
 down as the specific subject of the prophecy. 
 
 V. 6. Arid there is no one calling on thy name, rousing himself to lay 
 hold on thee ; for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast melted us because 
 
440 CHAPTERLXIV. 
 
 of (or hy means of) our iniquities. Tlie German writers make the whole 
 historical and retrospective, so as to throw what is here described far enough 
 back to be the antecedent and procuring cause of the Babylonish exile. 
 But although there is evident allusion to the past implied in the very form 
 of the expression, the description reaches to the present also, and describes 
 not only what the speakers were, but what they are when considered in 
 themselves, as well as the effects of their own weakness and corruption, 
 which they have already experienced. — Calling on the name of God is here 
 used in its proper sense of praying to him and invoking his assistance and 
 protection ; which idea is expressed still more strongly by the next phrase, 
 rousing himself (which implies a just view of the evil and a strenuous exer- 
 tion to correct it) to lay hold upon thee, a strong figure for attachment to a 
 person and reliance on him. — Lowth's version of the next words, 'therefore 
 thou hast hidden,' is wholly unauthorized and wholly unnecessary, since the 
 withdrawal of divine grace is constantly spoken of in Scripture both as the 
 cause and the effect of men's continued alienation from God. Grotius, 
 Cappellus, Houbigant, Lowth, and Ewald, read i3;;^n from p^, 'thou hast 
 delivered us into the hand of our iniquities.' (See Gen. 14 : 20. Prov. 4 : 9.) 
 This sense is also expressed by several of the ancient versions, but has pro- 
 bably arisen not from a difference of text, but from a wish to assimilate the 
 verb to the following expression, in the hand. Gesenius and most of the 
 late writers, suppose sit^ in this one place to have the transitive sense of 
 causing to dissolve, in which twofold usage it resembles the corresponding 
 English verb to mdt. Hitzig notes this among the indications of a later 
 writer, notwithstanding the analogous use of "^'iJ by Amos (9 : 14). In the 
 hand may either mean by means of, in the midst of, or because of; or we 
 may suppose with Rosenmiiller that the phrase strictly means, thou dost 
 melt us into the hand of our iniquities, i. e. subject us to them, make us 
 unable to resist thein, and passively submissive to their power. 
 
 V. 7. And noiv, Jehovah, our father (art) thou, ivc the clay and thou 
 our ijottcr, and the work of thy hands (are) we all. Instead of relying upon 
 any supposed merits of their own, they appeal to their very dependence upon 
 God as a reason why he should have mercy on them. Lowth follows two 
 editions and five manuscripts in reading t^nx twice, which repetition has 
 great force, he thinks, whereas the other woixl may well be spared. In other 
 cases where a word is repeated in the common text, he substitutes a differ- 
 ent one, because the repetition is inelegant. The Bishop's judgment upon 
 such points was continually warped by his predominant desire to change the 
 text. He overlooked in this case the obvious use of notv, not merely as a 
 particle of time, but as a formula of logical resumption, which could not be 
 omitted without obscuring the relation of this verse to the preceding context, 
 
CH A P T E R LX I V. 441 
 
 as a summing up of its appeals and arguments. Vitringa regards npix as the 
 origin of the Homeric arza, lina ; but the Hebrew word is not expressive 
 of endearment, it is absolutely necessary to the sense. The Prophet here 
 resumes the thought of ch. 63 : 16, where, as here, the paternity ascribed 
 to God is not that of natural creation in the case of individuals, but the cre- 
 ation of the church or chosen people, and of Israel as a spiritual and ideal 
 person. The figure of the potter and the clay, implying absolute authority 
 and power, is used twice before (ch. 29 : 6. 45 : 9), and is one of the con- 
 necting links between this book and the acknowledged Isaiah. — There is 
 more dignity in the original expression than in the English phrase our potter, 
 as the Hebrew word properly denotes one forming or imparting shape to any 
 thing, though specially applied in usage to a workman in clay, when that 
 material is mentioned. Lowth retains the general meaning, but in order to 
 avoid the ambiguity attending the word former, treats it as a finite verb, 
 thou hast formed us, which is clear enough, but inexact and drawling. The 
 use of the word all in this verse, and its emphatic repetition in the next, 
 exclude the application of the passage to an idolatrous party in the Baby- 
 lonish exile, even if that limitation would be otherwise admissible. The 
 same plea, derived from the relation of the creature to the maker, is used in 
 Ps. 138 : 8, forsake not the work of thy hands. (Compare Ps. 76 : 1. 
 79 : 1.) In either case there is a tacit appeal to the covenant and promise 
 in Gen. 17 : 7. Lev. 26 : 42-15. Deut. 7 : 6. 26 : 17, 18. 
 
 V. 8. Be not angry, oh Jehovah, to extremity, and. do not to eternity 
 remember guilt ; lo, look, ive pray thee, thy people (^arc) we all. This is 
 the application of the argument presented in the foregoing verse, the actual 
 prayer founded on the fact there stated. The common version of ix^"n? 
 (very sore') fails to reproduce the form of the original expression, as consist- 
 ing of a preposition and a noun. This is faithfully conveyed in Lowth's 
 version {to the uttermost), and still more in Henderson's (Co excess) ; although 
 the latter is objectionable as suggesting the idea of injustice or moral wrong, 
 which is avoided in the version above iriven. The first defect is also charire- 
 able upon the common version of "^"^ , for ever ; which, although a fair equi- 
 valent, and perfectly sufficient in all ordinary cases, is neither so exact nor 
 so expressive as the literal translation in the case before us, where there 
 seems to be an intentional regard to the peculiar form and sound as well as 
 to the meaning of the sentence. The common version is besides defective, 
 or at least ambiguous, in seeming to make 'n a verb and NJ a particle of 
 time ; w hereas the former is an interjection, and the latter the peculiar Hebrew 
 formula of courteous or importunate entreaty. 
 
 V. 9. Thy holy cities are a desert, Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a tvaste. 
 
442 CHAPTERLXIV. 
 
 By holy cities, Grotius understands the towns of Judah ; Vltringa, Jerusalem 
 alone, considered as consisting of two towns, the upper and the lower, here 
 called Zion and Jerusalem, though each of these names sometimes compre- 
 hends the whole, and the latter is dual in its very form. Gesenius cites 
 Ps. 78 : 54 to show that even the frontier of the land was reckoned holy, 
 and that its cities might he naturally so described likewise. But the ques- 
 tion is not one of possibility or propriety, but of actual usage ; not what 
 they might be called, but what they are called. The passage in the Psalms, 
 moreover, is itself too doubtful to throw light upon the one before us. A 
 better argument is that of Hitzig, in his note on ch. 63 : 18, drawn from the 
 use of the phrase iiJip n^is by Zechariah (2 : 16) in application to the 
 whole. Even this, however, is not conclusive ; since the writer, if he had 
 intended to employ the terms in this wide sense, would hardly have confined 
 his specifications in the other clause to Zion and Jerusalem. In any case, 
 these must be regarded as the chief if not the only subjects of his proposi- 
 tion. — There is something worthy of attention in the use here made of the 
 substantive verb sr^n . To express mere present existence, Hebrew usage 
 employs no verb at all, though the pronoun which would be its subject is 
 occasionally introduced. The preterite form of the verb as here used 
 must either have the sense of was, in reference to a definite time past, 
 or has been, implying a continuation of the same state till the present. 
 The former meaning is excluded and the latter rendered necessary by the 
 obvious allusions in the context to the evils mentioned as being still experi- 
 enced. To express the idea has become, which is given in some versions, 
 usage would require the verb to be connected with the noun by the prepo- 
 sition h. On the whole, the true sense of the verse, expressed or implied, 
 appears to be that Zion has long been a desolation and Jerusalem a waste. 
 
 V. 10. Our house of holiness and beauty (in) ivhich our fathers praised 
 thee has been burned up vnth fire, and all our delights (or desirable places) 
 have become a desolation. The elliptical use of the relative in reference 
 to place is the same as in Gen. 39 : 20. Burned up, literally, become a 
 burning of fire, as in ch. 9 ; 6. The reference in this verse is of course to 
 the destruction of the temple, but to which destruction is disputed. The 
 modern Germans all refer it to the Babylonian conquest, when the temple, 
 as we are expressly told, was burnt (Jer. 52 : 13 ); Grotius to its profana- 
 tion by Antiochus Epiphanes, at which lime, however, it was not consumed 
 by fire ; Vitringa and many later writers, with the Jews themselves, to its 
 destruction by the Romans, since which the city and the land have lain 
 desolate. To the first and last of these events the words are equally appro- 
 priate. Either hypothesis being once assumed, the particular expressions 
 admit of being easily adapted to it. With our own hypothesis the passage 
 
CHAP T E R LX V. 443 
 
 may be reconciled in several different ways. There is nothing, however, 
 in the terms themselves, or in the analogy of prophetic language, to forbid 
 our understanding this as a description of the desolations of the church itself 
 expressed by figures borrowed from the old economy and from the ancient 
 history of Israel. If literally understood, the destruction of the temple and 
 the holy city may be here lamented as a loss not merely to the Jewish 
 nation, but to the church of God to which they rightfully belong and by 
 which they ought yet to be recovered, a sense of which obligation blended 
 with some superstitious errors gave occasion to the fanatical attempt of the 
 crusades. (See above, on ch. 63 : 18.) 
 
 V. 12. TVilt thou for these (things) restrain thyself, oh Jehovah, wilt 
 thou keep silence and ajflict us to extremity 1 This is simply another appli- 
 cation of the argument by way of an importunate appeal to the divine com- 
 passions. Self-restraint and silence, as applied to God, are common figures 
 for inaction and apparent indifference to the interests and especially the suf- 
 ferings of his people. (See above, on ch. 42: 14 and 63 : 15.) The 
 question is not whether God will remain silent in spite of what his people 
 suffered, but whether the loss of their external advantages will induce him 
 to forsake them. The question as in many other cases implies a negation 
 of the strongest kind. The destruction of the old theocracy was God's own 
 act and was designed to bring the church under a new and far more glorious 
 dispensation. How the loss of a national organization and pre-eminence 
 was to be made good is fully stated in the following chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 The great enigma of Israel's simultaneous loss and gain is solved by a 
 prediction of the calling of the gentiles, v. 1. This is connected with the 
 obstinate unfaithfulness of the chosen people, v. 2. They are represented 
 under the two main aspects of their character at different periods, as gross 
 idolaters and as pharisaical bigots, vs. 3-5. Their casting off was not occa- 
 sioned by the sins of one generation but of many, vs. 6, 7. But even in 
 this rejected race there was a chosen remnant, in whom the promises shall 
 be fulfilled, vs. 8-10. He then reverts to the idolatrous Jews and threatens 
 them with condign punishment, vs. 11, 12. The fate of the unbelieving 
 carnal Israel is compared with that of the true spiritual Israel, vs. 13-16. 
 
444 CHAPTERLXV. 
 
 The gospel economy is described as a new creation, v. 17. Its blessings 
 are described under glowing figures borrowed from the old dispensation, vs. 
 18, 19. Premature death shall be no longer known, v. 20. Possession 
 and enjoyment shall no longer be precarious, vs. 21-23. Their very desires 
 shall be anticipated, v. 24. All animosities and noxious influences shall 
 cease for ever, v. 25. 
 
 V. 1. / have been inquired of by those that ashed not, 1 have been 
 found by those that sought me not, I have said, Behold me, behold me, to a 
 nation (that) was not called by my name. There is an apparent inconsis- 
 tency between the first two members of the sentence in the English Version, 
 arising from the use of the same verb (sought) to express two very different 
 Hebrew verbs. ilJ|52 is here used in the general sense of seeking or trying 
 to obtain, ilJ'^'n in the technical religious sense of consulting as an oracle. In 
 the latter case the difficulty of translation is enhanced by the peculiar form 
 of the original, not simply passive but reflexive, and capable of being ren- 
 dered in our idiom only by periphrasis. The exact sense seems to be, I 
 allowed myself to be consulted, I afforded access to myself for the purpose 
 of consultation. This is not a mere conjectural deduction from the form of 
 the Hebrew verb or from general analogy, but a simple statement of the 
 actual usage of this very word, as when Jehovah says again and again of 
 the ungodly exiles that he will not be inquired of or consulted by them (Ez. 
 14 : 3. 20 : 3), 1. e. with effect or to any useful purpose. In this connexion 
 it is tantamount to saying that he will not hear them, answer them, or reveal 
 himself to them ; all which or equivalent expressions have been used by dif- 
 ferent writers in the translation of the verse before us. There is nothing 
 therefore incorrect In substance, though the form be singular, in the Septua- 
 gint version of this verb, retained in the New Testament, viz. fficfavr^g eye- 
 rt'j&rjv, I became manifest, i. e. revealed myself. The object of the verb 
 asked, if exact uniformity be deemed essential, may be readily supplied 
 from the parallel expression sought me. — Behold me, or as It is sometimes 
 rendered in the English Bible, Acre I am, is the usual idiomatic Hebrew 
 answer to a call by name, and when ascribed to God contains an assurance 
 of his presence rendered more emphatic by the repetition. (See above, ch. 
 52 : 6. 58 : 9.) It is therefore equivalent to being Inquired of and being 
 found. This last expression has occurred before in ch. 55 : 6, and as here 
 in combination with the verb to seek. A people not called by my name, 
 i. e. not recognised or known as my people. (See above, ch. 48: 2.) All 
 interpreters agree that this is a direct continuation of the foregoing context, 
 and most of them regard it as the answer of Jehovah to the expostulations 
 and petitions there presented by his people. The modern Germans and the 
 Jews apply both this verb and the next to Israel. The obvious objection 
 
C H A PTE R LX V. 445 
 
 is that Israel even in its worst estate could never be described as a nation 
 which had not been called by the name of Jehovah. Jarchi's solution of 
 this difficulty, namely, that they treated him as if they were not called by 
 his name, is an evasion tending to destroy the force of language and con- 
 found all its distinctions. It is a standing characteristic of the Jews in the 
 Old Testament, that they were called by the name of Jehovah ; but if they 
 may also be described in terms directly opposite, whenever the interpreter 
 prefers it, then may any thing mean any thing. With equal right may we allege 
 that the seed of Abraham in ch. 41:8 means those who act as if they were 
 his seed, and that the nation who had never known Messiah (ch. 55 : 5) 
 means a nation that might just as well have never known him. On the 
 other hand, Kimchi's explanation of the clause as meaning that they were 
 unwilling to be called his people, is as much at variance with the facts of 
 history as Jarchi's with the principles of language. In all their alienations, 
 exiles, and dispersions, the children of Israel have still retained that title as 
 their highest glory and the badge of all their tribes. The incongruity of 
 this interpretation of the first verse is admitted by Rabbi Moshe Haccohen 
 among the Jews, and by Hendewerk among the Germans ; the last of whom 
 pronounces it impossible, and therefore understands the passage as applying 
 to the Persians under Cyrus, who, without any previous relation to Jehovah, 
 had been publicly and honourably called into his service. A far more 
 obvious and natural application may be made to the gentiles generally, 
 whose vocation is repeatedly predicted in this book, and might be here used 
 with powerful effect in proof that the rejection of the Jews was the result of 
 their own obstinate perverseness, not of God's unfaithfulness or want of 
 power. This is precisely Paul's interpretation of the passage in Rom. 
 9:20, 21, where he does not as in many other cases merely borrow the 
 expressions of the Prophet, but formally interprets them, applying this verse 
 to the gentiles and then adding, ' but to Israel (or of Israel) he saith ' what 
 follows in the next verse. The same intention to expound the Prophet's 
 language is clear from the apostle's mention of Isaiah's boldness in thus 
 shocking the most cherished prepossessions of the Jews. Grotius takes no 
 notice of this apostolical interpretation, but applies both verses to the Jews 
 in Babylon, although Abarbenel himself had been constrained to abandon 
 it, and understand the passage as referring to the Jews in Egypt. Gesenius 
 merely pleads for the reference to Babylon as equally admissible with that 
 which Paul makes, and as better suited to the context in Isaiah. Hiizig as 
 usual goes further, and declares it to be evident (offenhar) that the word^ 
 relate only to the Jews as alienated from Jehovah. This contempt for 
 Paul's authority is less surprising in a writer who describes Jehovah's 
 answer to the expostulations of the people as moving in a circle, and 
 pronounces both incompetent to solve the question, why Jehovah should 
 
446 CH A PTE R LX V. 
 
 entice men into sin and then punish them. Instead of 8<"7P Lowth reads x'^l? 
 (never invoked my name) on the authority of the Septuagint (^exaXEaav). 
 The last clause is not included in Paul's quotation. 
 
 V. 2. I have spread (or stretched) out my hands all the day (or every 
 day) to a rebellious people, those going the way not good, after their own 
 thoughts (or designs). The gesture mentioned in the first clause is variously 
 explained as a gesture of simple calling, of instruction, of invitation, of 
 persuasion. According to Hitzig it is an offer of help on God's part, 
 corresponding to the same act as a prayer for help on man's. (See ch. 
 I : 15.) All agree that it implies a gracious offer of himself and of his 
 favour to the people. Whether all the day or eve7-y day be the correct 
 translation, the idea meant to be conveyed is evidently that of frequent 
 repetition, or rather of unremitting constancy. There is no need of supposing 
 with Vitringa and others, that it specifically signifies the period of the old 
 dispensation. The rebellious people is admitted upon all hands to be 
 Israel. The last clause is an amplification and explanatory paraphrase of 
 the first. Going and ivay are common figures for the course of life. A way 
 not good, is a litotes or meiosis for a bad or for the worst way. (See Ps. 
 36 : 5. Ezek. 36 : 31. Thoughts, not opinions merely, but devices and 
 mventions of wickedness. (See above, on ch. 55 : 7.) With this descrip- 
 tion compare that of Moses, Deut. 32 : 5, 6. 
 
 V. 3. The people angering me to my face continually, sacrificing in the 
 gardens, and censing on the bricks. We have now a more detailed descrip- 
 tion of the ivay not good, and the devices mentioned in the foregoing verse. 
 The construction is continued, the people provoking me etc. being in direct 
 apposition with the rebellious people going etc. To my face, not secretly 
 or timidly (Job 31 : 27), but openly and in defiance of me (ch. 3 : 9. Job 
 1:11), which is probably the meaning o( before me in the first command- 
 ment (Ex. 20 : 3). Animal offerings and fumigations are combined to 
 represent all kinds of sacrifice. As to the idolatrous use of groves and gar- 
 dens, see above, on ch. 57 : 5, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 20. Vitringa's 
 distinction between groves and gardens is gratuitous, the Hebrew word 
 denoting any enclosed and carefully cultivated ground, whether chiefly 
 occupied by trees or not. Of the last words, on the bricks, there are four 
 interpretations. The first is that of many older writers, who suppose an 
 allusion to the prohibition in Exod. 20 : 24, 25. But bricks are not there 
 mentioned, and can hardly come under the description of "hewn stone," 
 besides the doubt which overhangs the application of that law, and especially 
 the cases in which it was meant to operate. This evil is not remedied but 
 rather aggravated, by supposing an additional allusion to Lev. 26 : 1 and 
 
CHAPTERLXV. 447 
 
 Num. 33 : 52, as Grotius does, and understanding by the bricks such as 
 were Impressed with unlawful decorations or inscriptions. A second hypo- 
 thesis is that of Bochart, who supposes bricks to mean roofing-tiles (Mark 
 2 : 4. Luke 5 : 19), and the phrase to be descriptive of idolatry as practised 
 on the roofs of houses. (2 Kings 23 : 12. Jer. 19 : 13. 32 : 29. Zeph. 
 I : 5.) Ewald approves of this interpretation, and, to make the parallelism 
 perfect, changes nisa gardens to fii-J roofs. Vitringa^s objection to this 
 reading, drawn from the analogy of ch. 1 : 29 and 56 : 17, Ewald converts 
 into a reason for it, by supposing the common text to have arisen from 
 assimilation. An objection not so easily disposed of is the one alleged by 
 Knobel, namely, that Hebrew usage would require a different preposi- 
 tion before niJa . A third hypothesis is that of Rosenmiiller, who supposes 
 an allusion to some practice now unknown, but possibly connected with 
 the curiously inscribed bricks found in modern times near the site of ancient 
 Babylon. Gesenius hesitates between this and a fourth interpretation, 
 much the simplest and most natural of all, viz. that the phrase means 
 nothing more than altars, or at most altars slightly and hastily constructed. 
 Of such altars bricks may be named as the materials, or tiles as the superficial 
 covering. 
 
 V. 4. Sitting in the graves and in the holes they will lodge, eating the 
 Jlesh of sivine, and broth of filthy things (is in) their vessels. All agree 
 that this verse is intended to depict in revolting colours the idolatrous 
 customs of the people. Nor is there much doubt as to the construction of 
 the sentence, or the force of the particular expressions. But the obscurity 
 which overhangs the usage referred to, affords full scope to the archaeological 
 propensities of modern commentatois, some of whom pass by in silence 
 questions of the highest exegetical importance, while they lavish without 
 stint or scruple time and labour, ingenuity and learning, on a vain attempt 
 to settle questions which throw no light on the drift of the passage, nor 
 even on the literal translation of the words, but are investigated merely for 
 their own sake or their bearing upon other objects, so that Rosenmiiller 
 interrupts himself in one of these antiquarian inquiries by sayinnr, sed 
 redeamus ad locum vatis in quo explicando versamur. Such are the 
 questions, whether these idolaters sat in the graves or among them ; whether 
 for necromantic purposes, i. e. to interrogate the dead, or to perform sacri- 
 ficial rites to their memory, or to obtain demoniacal inspiration ; whether 
 DiniS3 means monuments, or caves, or temples ; whether they were lod,o-ed 
 in for licentious purposes, or to obtain prophetic dreams ; whether they are 
 charged with simply eating pork for food, or after it had been sacrificed to 
 idols ; whether swine's flesh was forbidden for medicinal reasons, or because 
 
448 C H AP T E R LX V. 
 
 the heaihen sacrificed and ate it, or on other grounds ; whether P'^fi means 
 broth or bits of meat, and if the former, whether it was so called on account 
 of the bread broken in it, or for other reasons, etc. The only question of 
 grammatical construction which has found a place among these topics of 
 pedantic disquisition, is as such entitled to consideration, though of small 
 importance with respect to the interpretation of the passage. It is the 
 question whether t.'n^^'s is to be governed by a preposition understood 
 (Rosenmiiller), or explained as an accusative of place (Gesenius), or as the 
 predicate of the proposition, broth of abominable meats are their vessels 
 (Maurer). This last construction is retained by Knobel, but he changes 
 the whole meaning of the clause by explaining the last word to mean their 
 instruments or implements, and giving to P~s the sense of bits or pieces : 
 ' pieces of abominable meat are their instruments of divination,' in allusion to 
 themantic inspection of the sacrificial victims by the heathen priests as means 
 of ascertaining future events. Even if we should successively adopt 
 and then discard every one of the opinions some of which have now been 
 mentioned, the essential meaning of the verse would still remain the same, 
 as a highly wrought description of idolatrous abominations. 
 
 V". 5. The (^men) saying, Keep to thyself, come not near to me, for I 
 am, holy to thee, these (are) a smoke in my wrath, a fire burning all the day 
 (or every day). Gesenius's obscure addition mid noch sagt is faithfully 
 transcribed by Noyes, ivho yet say. The peculiar phrase ?i"^^x -^p is 
 analogous but not precisely equivalent to "^"i^'^i; in ch, 49 : 20. (See above, 
 p. 190.) The literal translation is approach to thyself; and as this implies 
 removal from the speaker, the essential meaning is correctly expressed, 
 though in a very different form from the original, both by the Septuagint 
 (;7o'(j^co an c'/ioi') and by the Vulgate {recede a me). The common English 
 version {stand by thyself) and Henderson's improvement of it {keep by 
 thyself) both suggest an idea not contained in the original, viz. that of 
 standing alone, whereas all that is expressed by the Hebrew phrase is the 
 act of standing away from the speaker, for which Lovvth has found the 
 idiomatic equivalent {keep to thyself). Another unusual expression is 
 Tl-Titinp , which may be represented by the English words, lam holy thee. 
 The Targum resolves this into 'yo.'n ^T^o^p , and Vitringa accordingly assumes 
 an actual ellipsis of the preposition '^ as a particle of comparison. But as 
 this ellipsis is extremely rare, De Dieu and Cocceius assume that of b , lam 
 holy to thee. Gesenius adopts the same construction, but explains the ^^ 
 as a mere pleonasm, and translates accordingly, I am holy, which is merely 
 omitting what caiuiot be explained. The particle no doubt expresses general 
 relation, and the phrase means, I am holy with respect to thee; and as this 
 
CHAPTER LXV. 449 
 
 implies comparison, the same sense is attained as by the old construction, 
 but in a manner more grammatical and regular. Tlie implied compaiison 
 enables us to reconcile two of the ancient versions as alike in spirit, although 
 in letter flatly contradictory. The Septuagint has / am pure (i. e. in 
 comparison with thee) ; the Vulgate, Thou art impure (i. e. in comparison 
 with me). There is no need, therefore, of resorting to the forced explanation 
 proposed by Thenius in a German periodical, which takes ""P}^"!!^ in the 
 sense of separating, one which occurs no where else in actual usage, and is 
 excluded even from the etymon, by some of the best modern lexicographers. 
 Equally gratuitous is Hitzig's explanation of the verb (in which he seems 
 to have been anticipated by Luther) as transitive, and meaning, lest 1 hallow 
 thee, i. e. by touching thee, a notion contradictory to that expressed in 
 Hagg. 2 : 12, 13, and affording no good sense here, as the fear of making 
 others holy, whetlier as an inconvenience or a benefit, would hardly have 
 been used to characterize the men described. As to the question who are 
 here described, there are two main opinions: first, that the clause relates 
 to the idolaters mentioned in the foregoing verses ; the other, that it is 
 descriptive of a wholly different class. On the first supposition, Gesenius 
 imagines that Jewish converts to theParsee religion are described as looking 
 at their former brethren with contempt. On the other, Henderson assumes 
 that the Prophet, having first described the idolatrous form of Jewish 
 apostasy, as it existed in his own day and long after, then describes the 
 Pharisaical form of the same evil, as it existed in the time of Christ, both 
 being put together as the cause of the rejection of the Jews. To any 
 specific application of the passage to the Babylonish exile, it may be 
 objected that the practice of idolatry at that time by the Jews can only be 
 established by a begging of the question in expounding this and certain 
 parallel passages. The other explanation is substantially the true one. The 
 great end which the Prophet had in view was to describe the unbelieving 
 Jews as abominable in the sight of God. His manner of expressing this 
 idea is poetical, by means o( figures drawn from various periods of their 
 history, without intending to exhibit either of these periods exclusively. To 
 a Hebrew writer what could be more natural than to express the idea of 
 religious corruption by describing its subjects as idolaters, diviners, eaters of 
 swine's flesh, worshippers of outward forms, and self-righteous hypocrites. 
 Of such the text declares God's abhorrence. Smoke and fire maybe taken 
 as natural concomitants and parallel figures, as if he had said, against whom 
 my wrath smokes and burns continually. Or the smoke may represent the 
 utter consumption of the object, and the fire the means by which it is 
 effected, which appears to have been Luther's idea. That "x in such 
 connexions does not mean the nose, but wrath itself, has been shown in the 
 exposition of ch. 48 : 9. (See above, p. 158.) 
 
 29 
 
450 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 Vs. 6, 7. Lo, it is ivriiten before mc. I will not rest except I repay, 
 and J will repay into their bosom your iniquities and the iniquities of your 
 fathers together, saith Jehovah, who burned incense on the mountains and 
 on the hills blasphemed me, and 1 will measure their first work into their 
 bosom. The particle at the beginning calls attention both to the magnitude 
 and certainty of the event about to be predicted.-^Lowth, for some reason 
 unexplained, thinks proper to translate nnsirs is recorded in writing, which 
 is abridged by Noyes to stands recorded, and still more by Henderson to 
 is recorded. One step further in the same direction brings us back to the 
 simple and perfectly sufficient version of the English Bible, it is written. 
 This may serve as an instructive sample of the way in which the later 
 En'dish versions sometimes improve upon the old. The figure which these 
 verbs express is variously understood by different writers. Umbreit seems 
 think that what is said to be written is the eternal law^ of retribution. 
 Hitzig and Knobel understand by it a booJc of remembrance (Mai. 3 : 16), 
 i. e. a record of the sins referred to afterwards, by which they are kept per- 
 petually present to the memory of Jehovah (Daniel 7 : 10). Vitringa and 
 most later writers understand by it a record, not of the crime, but of its 
 punishment, or rather of the purpose or decree to jiunish it (Dan. 5 : 5, 21), 
 in reference to the written judgments of the ancient courts (ch. 10 : 1). 
 This last interpretation does not necessarily involve the supposition that the 
 thing here said to be written is the threatening which immediately follows, 
 although this is by no means an unnatural construction. — / will not rest or 
 be silent, an expression used repeatedly before in reference to the seeming 
 inaction or indifference of Jehovah. (See above, ch. 42 : 14. 57 : 11, and 
 compare Ps. 50 : 21. Hab. 1 : 13.) — Gesenius and De Welte follow the 
 older writers in translating, / will not keep silence, but ivill recompense. But 
 although n« "3 , like the German sondern, is the usual adversative after a 
 negation, this construction of the preterite "^Pir^a would be contrary to usage, 
 and Di< ^3 must be construed as it usually is before the preterite, as meaning 
 unless or until, in which sense it is accurately rendered both by Hitzig (bis) 
 and Ewald (ausser). See above, on ch. 55 : 10, where this same construc- 
 tion is gratuitously set aside by Hitzig on the ground that it would argue 
 too much knowledge of natural [)hilosophy in a Hebrew writer. (Compare 
 also 2 Sam. 1 : 18.) — For repay into their bosom, we have in the seventh 
 verse measure into their bosom, which affords a clue to the origin and real 
 meaning of the figure ; as we read that Boaz said to Ruth, Bring the veil 
 (or cloak) that is upon thee and hold it, and she held it, and he measured 
 six (measures of) barley and laid it on her (Ruth 3 : 15). Hence the 
 phrase to measure into any one's bosom, i. e. into the lap or the fold of the 
 garment covering the bosom. (See above, on ch. 49 : 22.) The same 
 6gure is employed by Jer. 32 : 18 and in Ps. 79 : 12, and is explained by 
 
C H A P T E R LX V. 45I 
 
 Rosenmiiller in his Scholia on the latter, and by Winer in his Lexicon, 
 as implying abundance, or a greater quantity than one could carry in the 
 hand. (Compare Luke 6 : 38.) But Gesenius and Maurer understand 
 the main idea to be not that of abundance, but of retribution, any thing being 
 said to return into one's own bosom, just as it is elsewhere said to return upon 
 his own head (Judg. 9 : 57. Ps. 7 : 17). Both these accessory ideas are 
 appropriate in the case before us. In Jer. 3'2 : 18 and Ps. 79 : 12 the 
 preposition ^. is used, and the same form is also found here in some manu- 
 scripts, and even in the Masora upon the next verse, though the hv is no 
 more likely to be wrong there than here, nor at all, according to Maurer, 
 who explains it as denoting motion towards an object from above. The 
 sudden change from their to your at the beginning of v. 7, has been com- 
 monly explained as an example of the enallage personae so frequently occur- 
 ring in Isaiah. Th.is supposition is undoubtedly sufficient to remove all 
 difficulty from the syntax. It is possible, however, that the change is not 
 a mere grammatical anomaly or license of construction, but significant, and 
 intended to distinguish between three generations. I will repay into their 
 bosom (that of your descendants) your iniquities and the iniquities of your 
 fathers. If this be not a fanciful distinction, it gives colour to Henderson's 
 opinion that the previous description brings to view successively the gross 
 idolatry of early times and the pharisaical hypocrisy prevailing at the time 
 of Christ. Supposing his contemporaries to be the immediate objects of 
 address, there would then be a distinct allusion to their idolatrous progeni- 
 tors, the measure of whose guilt they filled up (Matt. 23 : 32), and to their 
 children, upon whom it was to be conspicuously visited (Luke 24 : 28). 
 But whether this be so or not, the meaning of the text is obvious, as leach- 
 ing that the guilt which had accumulated through successive generations 
 should be visited, though not exclusively, upon the last. — The whole of 
 idolatry is here summed up in burning incense on the mountains, which are 
 elsewhere mentioned as a favourite resort of those who worshipped idols 
 (ch. 57 : 7. Jer. 3:6. Ez. 6 : 13. 18 : 6. Hos. 4 : 13), and blaspheming 
 God upon the hills, which may either be regarded as a metaphorical descrip- 
 tion of idolatry itself, or strictly taken to denote the oral expression of con- 
 tempt for Jehovah and his worship, which might naturally be expected to 
 accompany such practices. — There is some obscurity in the word n.'itJN-) as 
 here used. Ewald takes it as an adverb, meaning first, or at first (zuerst), 
 and appears to understand the clause as meaning, their reward (that of your 
 fathers) will I measure first into their bosom. But this does not seem to 
 agree with the previous declaration that the sons should suffer for the fathers' 
 guilt and for their own together. At the same time, the construction is less 
 natural and obvious than that of Gesenius and other writers, wiio make 
 njiJJxn an adjective agreeing with !^*SQ, their former work, i. e. its product 
 
452 
 
 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 or reward, as in ch. 40 : 10. (See above, p. 11.) The only sense in 
 which it can be thus described is that of ancient, as distinguished not from 
 the subsequent transgressions of the fathers, but from those of the chihlren 
 who came after them. — According to the sense which the Apostle puts 
 upon the two first verses of this chapter, we may understand those now 
 before us as predicting the excision of the Jews from the communion of the 
 church and from their covenant relation to Jehovah, as a testimony of his 
 sore displeasure on account of the unfaithfulness and manifold transgressions 
 of tiiat chosen race throughout its former history, but also on account of 
 the obstinate and spiteful unbelief with which so many later generations 
 have rejected the Messiah for whose sake alone they ever had a national 
 existence and enjoyed so many national advantages. 
 
 V. 8. Thus saith Jehovah, as {lohcn) juice is found in the cluster and 
 one says, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, so will I do for the sake of 
 my servants, not to destroy the ivhole. Gesenius objects to the translation 
 of I'-ax? as if or as when, in the Vulgate and many other versions, on the 
 eround that, though "I'^s is sometimes elliptically used for tvhen, the com- 
 pound particle never denotes as when. He therefore gives it the conditional 
 sense of if or ivhen, as in Gen. 27 : 40, and takes i as in that case for the 
 sign of the apodosis, ' when (or if) juice is found in the cluster, then one 
 says,' etc. But most interpreters consider it more natural to make "I'iJ.SfS 
 and 'i? correlatives, as usual in cases of comparison, equivalent to as and so 
 in Entdlsh. We may then either supply when, as Maurer does, or translate 
 it strictly, with Ewald and the English Version, as the new wine is found 
 in the cluster, and one says destroy it not, so will I do, etc. — Although 
 ttJiT'Pi , according to the derivation usually given, means fermented grape- 
 iuice of the first year, it is evidently here applied to the juice in its original 
 state, unless we understand it to be used proleptically for the pledge or 
 earnest of new wine. A blessing is in it, seems to mean something more 
 than that it has some value. The idea meant to be suggested is, that God 
 has blessed it, and that man should therefore not destroy it. The meaning 
 of the simile in this clause appears obvious, and yet it has been strangely 
 misconceived both by the oldest and the latest writers. Knobel understands 
 it to mean that as a grape or a cluster of grapes is preserved for the sake of 
 the juice, notwithstanding the presence of the stem, skin, and stones, which 
 are of no use, so the good Jews shall be saved, notwithstanding the bad 
 ones who are mingled with them. But this explanation would imply that 
 men are sometimes disposed to destroy good grapes because they consist 
 partly of unprofitable substances, and need to be reminded that the juice 
 within is valuable. Much nearer to the truth, and yet erroneous, is Jerome's 
 explanation of the clause as relating to a single good grape in a cluster, 
 
CHAPTER LXV. 453 
 
 \ 
 
 which diminishes the force of the comparison by making the redeemino- ele- 
 ment too insignificant. The image really presented by the Prophet, as 
 Vitringa clearly shows, and most later writers have admitted, is that of a 
 good cluster (bisajx), in which juice is found, while others are unripe or 
 rotten. — I will do is by some understood as meaning / will act, or I will 
 cause it to be so ; but this is not the usage of the Hebrew verb, which rather 
 means precisely what the English I will do denotes in such connexions, i. e. 
 1 will do so, or will act in the same manner. — My servants is by some under- 
 stood to mean the patriarchs, the fathers, for whose sake Israel was still 
 beloved (Rom. 11 : 28). It is more natural, however, to apply it to the 
 remnant, according to the election of grace (Rom. 11 : 5), the true 
 believers represented by the ripe and juicy cluster in the foregoing simile. — 
 The construction of the last words is the same as in ch. 48 : 9. — The whole 
 is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, and at once more exact and 
 more expressive than the conmion version, them all. 
 
 V. 9. A)id I will bring forth from Jacob a seed and from Judah an 
 heir of my mountains, and my chosen ones shall inherit it, and my servants 
 shall dwell there. This is an amplification of the promise, I will do so, in 
 the foregoing verse. Knobel's interpretation of sf^T as meaning a generation, 
 i. 6. a body of contemporaries, is at variance both with etymology and usage, 
 with the parallel expression heir or inheritor, and with the figurative import 
 of the verb, which is constantly applied to the generation of new animal and 
 vegetable products. (See ch. 1 : 4.) That there is reference to propaga- 
 tion and increase is also rendered probable by the analogy of ch. 27 : 6 anjj 
 37 : 31. Objections of the same kind may be urged against the needless 
 attenuation of the proper sense of ti^i"^, so as to exclude the idea of regular 
 succession and hereditary right. My mountains is supposed by Vitringa to 
 denote Mount Zion and Moriah, or Jerusalem as built upon them ; but the 
 later writers more correctly suppose it to describe the whole of Palestine, as 
 being an uneven, hilly country. See the same use of the plural in ch. 
 14 : 25, and the analogous phrase, mountains of Israel, repeatedly employed 
 by Ezekiel (36 : 1,8. 38 : 8). The corresponding singular, ?»y mountain 
 (11:9. 57 : 13), is by many understood in the same manner. Lowth 
 restores that reading here on the authority of the Septuagint and Peshito, 
 but understands it to mean Zion, which he also makes the antecedent of the 
 suffix in the phrase inherit it, while Maurer refers it to the land directly, 
 and some of the older writers make it a collective neuter. The adverb at 
 the end of the sentence properly means thither, and is never perhaps put for 
 there except in cases where a change of place is previously mentioned or 
 implied. If so, the sense is not merely that they shall abide there, but that 
 they shall first go or return thither, which in this connexion is peculiarly 
 
454 C H A P T E R L X V . 
 
 ajipropriatc. — Of the promise bore recorded there are three principal inter- 
 pretations. The first, embraced by nearly all the modern Germans, is that 
 the verse predicts the restoration of the Jews from Babylon. The second 
 may be stated in the words of Henderson, viz. that " the future happy occu- 
 pation of Palestine by a regenerated race of Jews is here clearly predicted." 
 The third is that the verse foretells the perpetuation of the old theocracy or 
 Jewish church ; not in the body of the nation, but in the remnant which 
 believed on Christ ; and which, enlarged by the accession of the gentiles, is 
 identical in character and rights wiih the church of the old dispensation, the 
 heir to all its i)romise?, and this among the rest, which either has been or 
 is to be fulfilled both in a literal and figurative sense ; in the latter, because 
 the Church already has what is essentially equivalent to the possession of 
 the land of Canaan under a local ceremonial system ; in the former, because 
 Palestine is yet to be recovered from the Paynim and the Infidel, and right- 
 fully occupied, if not by Jews, by Christians, as the real seed of Abraham, 
 partakers of the same faith and heirs of the same promise (Heb. 11 : 9), for 
 the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or 
 to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 
 4 : 13). If it should please God to collect the natural descendants of the 
 patriarch in that land and convert them in a body to the true faith, there 
 would be an additional coincidence between the prophecy and the event, 
 even in minor circumstances, such as we often find in the history of Christ. 
 But if no such national restoration of the Jews to Palestine should ever 
 happen, the extension of the true religion over that benighted region, which 
 both prophecy and providence encourage us to look for, would abundantly 
 redeem the pledge which God has given to his people in this and other parts 
 of Scripture. 
 
 V. 10. And Sfiaron shall be for (or become) a home of flocks, and the 
 Valley of Achor a lair of herds, for my people who have sought me. This 
 is a repetition of the promise in the foregoing verse, rendered more specific 
 by the mention of one kind of prosperity, viz. that connected with the rais- 
 ing of cattle, and of certain places where it should be specially enjoyed, viz. 
 the valley of Achor and the plain of Sharon. Two reasons have been given 
 for the mention of these places, one derived from their position, the other 
 from their quality. As the valley of Achor was near Jericho and Jordan, 
 and the plain of Sharon on the Mediterranean, between Joppa and Cesarea, 
 some suppose that they are here combined to signify the whole breadth of 
 the land, from East to West. And as Sharon was proverbial for its verdure 
 and fertility (see above, ch. 33 : 9. 35 : 2), it is inferred by some that Achor 
 was so likewise, which they think is the more probable because Hosea says 
 that the valley of Achor shall be a door of hope (Hos. 2 : 17). But this 
 
CH AP TE R LX V. 455 
 
 may have respect to the calamity which Israel experienced there at his first 
 entrance on the land of promise (Josh. 7 : 26), so that where his troubles 
 then began his hopes shall now begin. For these or other reasons Sharon 
 and Achor are here mentioned, in Isaiah's characteristic manner, as samples 
 of the whole land, or its pastures, just as flocks and herds are used as images 
 of industry and wealth, derived from the habits of the patriarchal age. That 
 this is the correct interpretation of the flocks and herds, is not disputed 
 even by the very writers who insist upon the literal construction of the 
 promise that the seed of Jacob shall possess the land, as guaranteeing the 
 collection of the Jews into the region which their fathers once inhabited. 
 By what subtle process the absolute necessity of literal interpretation is 
 transformed into a very large discretion when the change becomes conve- 
 nient, is a question yet to be determined. — That to seek Jehovah sometimes 
 has specific reference to repentance and conversion, on the part of those 
 who have been alienated from him, may be seen by a comparison of ch. 
 9: 12 and 55 : 6. 
 
 V. 11. And (^as for) you, forsakcrs of Jehovah, the (men) forgetting 
 my holy mountain, the (men) setting for Fortune a tabic, and the (^men) filling 
 for Fate a mingled draught. This is only a description of the object of 
 address ; the address itself is contained in the next verse. The form cnx"! 
 indicates a contrast with what goes before, as in ch. 3 : 14. The class of 
 persons meant is first described as forsakers of Jehovah and forgetters of his 
 holy mountain. Rosenraiiller understands this as a figurative name for the 
 despisers of his worship ; but Knobel, as a literal description of those exiles 
 who had lost all affection for Jerusalem, and had no wish to return thither. 
 The description of the same persons in the last clause is much more obscure, 
 and has occasioned a vast amount of learned disquisition and discussion. 
 The commentators on the passage who have gone most fully into the details, 
 are Vitringa and Rosenmiiller: but the clearest summary is furnished by 
 Gesenius. The strangest exposition of the clause is that of Zeltner, in a 
 dissertation on the verse (1715), in which he applies it to the modern Jews 
 as a j)rolific and an avaricious race. Many interpreters have understood the 
 two most important words ("iJ and "^^r) as common nouns denoting troop 
 and number (the former being the sense put upon the name Gad, in Gen. 
 30: II), and referred the whole clause cither to convivial assemblies, 
 perhaps connected with idolatrous worship, or to the troop of planets and 
 the multitude of stars, as objects of such worship. But as the most essential 
 words in this case are supplied, the later writers, while they still suppose 
 the objects worshipped to be here described, explain the descriptive terms 
 in a difft'rent manner. Luther retains the Hebrew names Gad and Meni, 
 which are also given in the margin of the English Bible ; but most inter- 
 
456 C H A P T E R LX V. 
 
 preters explain them by equivalents. Gesenius ingeniously argues from the 
 etymology of the names that they relate to human destiny; and from the 
 mythology of the ancient eastern nations, that they relate to heavenly 
 bodies. He dissents, however, from Vitringa's opinion that the sun and 
 moon are meant, as well as from the notions of older writers, that the 
 names are descriptive of the planetary system, the signs of the Zodiac, 
 particular constellations, etc. His own opinion is that "'S is the planet 
 Jupiter (identical with Bel or Baal), and "i^ the planet Venus (identical 
 with Ashtoreth), which are called in the old Arabian mythology the 
 Greater and Lesser Fortune or Good Luck, while Saturn and Mars were 
 known as the Greater and Lesser Evil Fortune or 111 Luck. J. D. 
 Micbaelis had long before explained the names here used as meaning Fortune 
 and Fate, or Good and Evil Destiny ; and Ewald, in like manner, under- 
 stands the planets here intended to be Jupiter and Saturn, while Knobel 
 goes back to the old hypothesis of Vitringa and the others, that the names 
 denote the Sun and Moon, the latter assumption being chiefly founded on 
 the supposed affinity between '-"^ and fii;vti. Others connect it with the 
 Arabic SUjo, an idol worshipped at Mecca before the time of Mohammed. 
 Some supposed the moon to be called ■?^ (from n;^ to measure), as a 
 measure of time. x\midst this diversity of theories and explanations, only 
 a very minute part of which has been introduced by way of sample, it is 
 satisfactory to 6nd that there is perfect unanimity upon the only point of 
 exegetical importance, namely, that the passage is descriptive of idolatrous 
 worship ; for even those w ho apply it directly to convivial indulgences 
 connect the latter with religious institutions. This being settled, the details 
 still doubtful can be interesting only to the philologist and antiquarian. The 
 kind of offering described is supposed to be identical with ihe lectisternia 
 of the Roman writers ; and Gesenius characteristically says, the show- 
 bread in the temple at Jerusalem was nothing else (nichts anders). The 
 heathen rite in question consisted in the spreading of a feast for the con- 
 sumption of the gods. Herodotus mentions a rQantL,a i^Xiov as known in 
 Egypt ; and Jeremiah twice connects this usage with the worship of the 
 queen of heaven. (Jer. 7 : 18. 44 : 17.) T\^,'r'r denotes mixture, and may 
 either mean spiced wine, or a compound of different liquors, or a mere 
 preparation or infusion of one kind. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 78.) — 
 As to the application of the passage, there is the usual division of opinion 
 among the adherents of the different hypotheses. Henderson's reasoning 
 upon this verse is remarkable. Having applied vs. 3-5 to the ancient 
 Jewish idolatry, he might have been expected to attach the same sense to 
 the words before us, where the Prophet seems to turn again to those of whom 
 he had been speaking when he began to promise the deliverance of the elect 
 remnant (v. 8). But " it seems more natural to regard them as the impe- 
 
CH AP TER LX V. 457 
 
 nitent and worldly portion of the Jews who shall live at the time of the 
 restoration." The reason given for this sudden change can only satisfy the 
 minds of those who agree with the author in his foregone conclusion, namely, 
 that "the persons addressed in this and the four following verses are 
 contrasted with those who are to return and enjoy the divine favour in 
 Palestine." But even after the application of the terms is thus decided, 
 there is a question not so easily disposed of, as to what they mean. The 
 principle of strict interpretation might be thought to require the conclusion 
 doubtingly hinted at by J. D. iMirhaelis, that the Jews are to worship Gad 
 and Meni hereafter. But, according to Henderson, " there is no reason to 
 imagine that the Jews will again become actual idolaters," as if the strict 
 interpretation of this verse would not itself afford a reason not for imagining 
 but for believing that it will be so. But rather than admit this, he declares 
 that " all attempts to explain Gad and Mcni of idols literally taken, are 
 aside from the point." From what point they are thus aside does not 
 appear, unless it be the point of making half the prophecy a loose metapho- 
 rical description, and cutting the remainder to the quick by a rigorously 
 literal interpretation. "Israel," " Jerusalem," " the land," must all denote 
 the "Israel," "Jerusalem," and "land" of ancient times and of the 
 old economy; but all attempts to explain Gad and Meni of idols literally 
 taken are aside from the point. And thus we are brought to the curious 
 result of one literal interpretation excluding another as impossible. The 
 true sense of the passage seems to be the same as in vs. 3—7, where 
 Henderson himself regards the Prophet as completing his description of the 
 wickedness of Israel, by circumstances drawn from different periods of his 
 history, such as the idolatrous period, the pharisaical period, etc. 
 
 V. 15. And I have numbered you to the sword, and all of you to the 
 slaughter shall how ; because I called and ye did not answer, 1 spake and 
 ye did not hear, and ye did the (thing that was) evil in my eyes, and that 
 which I desired not ye chose. The preceding verse having reference only 
 to the present and the past, the Vav at the beginning of this can have no 
 conversive influence upon the verb, which is therefore to be rendered as a 
 preterite. The objections to making it the sign of the apodosis have been 
 already stated. The paraphrastic version, therefore, is entirely gratuitous. 
 Gesenius gives the verb in this one place the diluted sense of allotting or 
 appointing; but the strict sense of numbering or counting is not only admis- 
 sible, but necessary to express a portion of the writer's meaning, namely, 
 the idea that they should be cut off one by one, or rather one with another, 
 i. e. all without exception. (See ch. 27 : 12 and the Earlier Prophecies, 
 p. 467.) Knobel, indeed, imagines that a universal slaughter cannot be 
 intended, because he goes on to tell what shall befall the survivors, viz. 
 
 • 
 
453 CH APTE R LX V. 
 
 hunger, thirst, disgrace, distress, etc. Ilitzig had taste enough to see that 
 these are not described as subsequent in time to the evils threatened in the 
 verse before us, but specifications of the way in which that threatening 
 should be executed. The sense above given to ^^j''^'^ is confirmed and 
 illustrated hy its application elsewhere to the numbering of sheep. (Jer, 
 33 : 13.) In its use here there is evident allusion to its derivative "i:^ in 
 the preceding verse, which some of the German writers try to make percep- 
 tible to German readers by combining cognate nouns and verbs, such as 
 Shicksal and schicke, Verhangniss and verhdnge, Bestimmung and beslimmc, 
 etc. The same effect, if it were worth the while, might be produced in 
 English by the use o^ destiny and destine. Vitringa, in order to identify the 
 figures of the first and second clauses, makes a'^n rnean a butcher's knife; 
 but an opposite assimilation would be better, namely, that of making nn:: 
 mean slaughter in general, not that of the slaughter-house exclusively. Both 
 sword and slaughter are familiar figures for violent destruction. The verb 
 r'ng is also applied elsewhere to one slain by violence (Judg. 5 : 27. 2 
 Kings 9 : 24). Bowing or stooping to the slaughter is submitting to it either 
 willingly or by compulsion. Gesenius takes n:-j in the local sense o^Schlacht- 
 bank, to suit which he translates the verb kneel, and the particle before. 
 This last JXoyes retains without the others, in the English phrase boiv down 
 before the slaughter, which is either unmeaning, or conveys a false idea, 
 that of priority in time. The remainder of the verse assigns the reason of 
 the threatened punishment. The first expression bears a strong resemblance 
 to the words of Wisdom, in Prov. 1 : 24-31. Knobel's explanation of the 
 ' thing that was evil in my eyes ' as a description of idolatry, is as much too 
 restricted as Vitringa's explanation of' that which I desired not or delighted 
 not in' as signifying ritual or formal as opposed to spiritual worship. Of the 
 two the former has the least foundation, as the only proof cited is ch. 38 : 3, 
 whereas Vitringa's explanation of the other phrase derives no little counte- 
 nance from Ps. 40 : 7. 51 : 18. Hos. 6 : 6. The only objection to either 
 is that it mistakes a portion of the true sense for the whole. — As to the 
 application of the words, there is the usual confidence and contradiction. 
 Knobel regards them as a threatening of captivity and execution to the 
 Jews who took sides with the Babylonians against Cyrus. Henderson applies 
 them to the inevitable and condign punishment of those Jews who shall 
 prefer the pleasures of sin to those of true religion embraced by the great 
 body of the nation, which punishment, he adds, " will, in all jJfobability, 
 be inflicted upon them in common with the members of the antichristian 
 confederacy, after their believing brethren shall have been securely settled 
 in Palestine." The grounds of this all-probable anticipation are not given. 
 Vitringa understands the passage as predicting the excision of the Jewish 
 nation from the church, not only for the crowning sin of rejecting Christ, 
 
C H A P T ER LX V. 459 
 
 but for their ago;regate offences as idolaters and hypocrites, as rebels against 
 God and despisers of his mercy, with which sins they are often charged in 
 the Old Testament (e. g. ch. 50 : 2. 65 : 2. 66 : 4. Jer. 7:13, -25), and 
 still more pointedly by Christ himself in several of his parables and other 
 discourses, some of which remarkably resemble that before us both in senti- 
 ment and language. (See Matt. 23 : 37. 22 : 7. Luke 19 : 27, and 
 compare Acts 13 : 46.) Besides the countenance which this analogy 
 affords to Vitringa's exposition, it is strongly recommended by its strict 
 agreement with what we have determined, independently of this place, to 
 be the true sense of the wliole foregoing context. Interpreted by these 
 harmonious analogies, the verse, instead of threatening the destruction of 
 the Babylonish Jews before the advent, or of the wicked Jews and Anti- 
 christ hereafter, is a distinct prediction of a far more ciitical event than 
 either, the judicial separation of the Jewish nation and the Israel of God, 
 which had for ages seemed inseparable, not to say identical. 
 
 Vs. 13, 14. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Lo ! my servants 
 shall eat and ye shall hunger ; lo, my servants shall drink and yc shall 
 thirst ; lo, my servants shall rejoice and ye shall be ashamed ; lo, my ser- 
 vants shall shout from gladness of heart, and ye shall cry from grief of 
 heart, and from- brokenness of spirit ye shall howl. These verses merely 
 carry out the general threatening of the one preceding, in a series of poetical 
 antitheses, where hunger, thirst, disgrace, and anguish, take the place of 
 sword and slaughter, and determine these to be symbolical or emblematic 
 terms. Knobel's Inteipretation of these verses as predicting bodily priva- 
 tions and hard hondage to those who should escape the sword of Cyrus, is 
 entitled to as little deference as he would pay to the suggestion of Vitrlnga, 
 that the eating and drinking have specific reference to the joy with which 
 the first Christian converts partook of the Lord's supper (Acts 2 : 46. 9:31). 
 This is no doubt chargeable with undue refinement and particularity, but 
 notwithstanding this excess, the exposition is correct in princlj)le, as we may 
 learn from the frequent use of these antagonist metaphors to signify spiritual 
 joy and horror, not only in the Prophets (see above, ch. 8:21. 33 : IG. 
 55 : 1. 58 : 14), but by our Saviour when he speaks of his disciples as 
 eating bread in the kingdom of heaven (Luke 14 : 13), where many shall 
 come from the east and the west, and sit down (or recline at table) with 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt. 8:11); and ascribes to the king in the 
 parable the solemn declaration, I say unto you none of tliose men that were 
 bidden shall taste of my supper (Luke 14 : 24). Thus understood, the 
 passage Is a solenm prediction of happiness to the believing and of misery 
 to the unbelieving Jews. The latter are directly addressed, the former 
 designated as my servants. — Gladness of heart, literally goodness of heart, 
 
460 C H A P T E R LX V. 
 
 which in our idiom would express a diflerent idea, on account of our pre- 
 dominant use of the first word in a moral sense. For the Hebrew expression 
 see Deut. 28 : 47. Judg. 19:6, 22. For brokcnness of spirit, compare 
 ch. 61:1 and Ps. 51 : 17. — To be ashamed, as often elsewhere, includes 
 disappointment and frustration of hope. 
 
 V. 15. And ye shall leave your name for an oath to my chosen ojies, 
 and the Lord Jehovah shall slay thee, and shall call his servants by another 
 name (literally, call another name to them). The object of address is still 
 the body of the Jewish nation, from' which the believing remnant are distin- 
 guished by the names my chosen and my servants. Oath is here put for 
 curse, as it is added to it in Dan. 9:11, and the two are combined in Num. 
 5 : 21, where the oath of cursing may be regarded as the complete expres- 
 sion of which oath is here an ellipsis. To leave one's name for a curse, 
 according to Old Testament usage, is something more than to leave it to be 
 cursed. The sense is that the name shall be used as a formula of cursing, 
 so that men shall be able to wish nothing worse to others than a like cha- 
 racter and fate. This is clear from Jer. 29 : 22 compared with Zech. 3 : 2, 
 as well as from the converse or correlative promise to the patriarchs and 
 their children that a like use should be made of their names as a formula of 
 blessing (Gen. 22 : 18. 48 : 20). As in other cases where the use of 
 names is the subject of discourse, there is no need of supposing that any 
 actual practice is predicted, but merely that the character and fate of those 
 addressed will be so bad as justly to admit of such an application. — Ewald 
 ingeniously explains the words riinn "jnx ^n^rn^ as the very form of cursing 
 to be used, so may the Lord Jehovah slay thee! This construction, though 
 adopted by Umbreit and Knobel, is far from being obvious or natural. The 
 preterite, though sometimes construed with the optative particles, would 
 hardly be employed in that sense absolutely, especially in the middle of a 
 sentence, preceded and followed by predictive clauses, each beginning with 
 1 , which on Ewald's supposition must be either overlooked as pleonastic or 
 violently made to bear the sense of 50. Even if this were one of the mean- 
 ings of the particle, a more explicit form would no doubt have been used in 
 a case where the comparison is every thing. The wish required by the con- 
 text is that God would kill them so, or in like manner; a bare wish that he 
 would kill them, would be nothing to the purpose. The violence of this 
 construction might be counteracted as an argument against it by exegetical 
 necessity, but no such necessity exists. The use of the singular pronoun 
 thee, so far from requiring it, is in perfect keeping with the rest of the sen- 
 tence. As the phrase your nume shows that the object of address is a plu- 
 rality of persons bearing one name, or in other words an organized commu- 
 nity, so the singular form slay thee is entirely appropriate to this collective 
 
CH AFTER LXV. 461 
 
 or ideal person. — Of the last clause there are three interpretations. The 
 rabbinical expounders understand it as the converse of the other clause. As 
 your name is to be a name of cursing, so my servants are to have another 
 name, i. e. a name of blessing, or a name by which men shall bless. Others 
 give it a more general sense, as meaning their condition shall be altogether 
 different. A third opinion is that it relates to the substitution of the Chris- 
 tian name for that of Jew, as a distinctive designation of God's people. 
 The full sense of the clause can only be obtained by combining all these 
 explanations, or at least a part of each. The first is obviously implied, if 
 not expressed. The second is established by analogy and usage, and the 
 almost unanimous consent of all interpreters. The only question is in refer- 
 ence to the last, which is of course rejected with contempt by the neologists, 
 and regarded as fanciful by some Christian writers. These have been influ- 
 enced in part by the erroneous assumption that if this is not the whole sense 
 of the words, it cannot be a part of it. But this is only true in cases where 
 the two proposed are incompatible. The true state of the case is this : 
 According to the usage of the prophecies the promise of another name 
 imports a different character and state, and in this sense the promise has 
 been fully verified. But in addition to this general fulfilment, which no one 
 calls in question, it is matter of history that the Jewish commonwealth or 
 nation is destroyed ; that the name of Jew has been for centuries a bye-word 
 and a formula of execration, and that they who have succeeded to the spi- 
 ritual honours of this once favoured race, although they claim historical iden- 
 tity therewith, have never borne its name, but another, which from its very 
 nature could have no existence until Christ had come, and which in the 
 common parlance of the Christian world is treated as the opposite of Jew. 
 Now all this .must be set aside as mere fortuitous coincidence, or it must be 
 accounted for precisely in the same way that we all account for similar coin- 
 cidences between the history of Christ and the Old Testament in minor 
 points, where all admit that the direct sense of the prophecy is more exten- 
 sive. As examples, may be mentioned John the Baptist's preaching in a 
 literal wilderness, our Saviour's riding on a literal ass, his literally opening 
 the eyes of the blind, when it is evident to every reader of the original pas- 
 sage that it predicts events of a far more extensive and more elevated nature. 
 While I fully believe that this verse assures God's servants of a very different 
 fate from that of the unbelieving Jews, I have no doubt that it also has 
 respect to the destruction of the Jewish state and the repudiation of its 
 name by the true church or Israel of God. 
 
 V. 16. (By) which the (inaii) blessing himself in the land (or earth) 
 shall bless himself by the God of truth, and (by which) the (man) swearing 
 in the land (or earth) shall swear by the God of truth, because forgotten 
 
462 CHAPTERLXV. 
 
 are the former enmities (or troubles), and because they are hidden from my 
 eyes. Two things have divided and perplexed interpreters in this verse, as 
 it stands connected with the one before it. The first is the apparent change 
 of subject, and the writer's omission to record the new name which had just 
 been promised. The other is the very unusual construction of the relative 
 "it'^ • The first of these has commonly been left without solution, or refer- 
 red to the habitual freedom of the writer. The other has been variously 
 but very unsuccessfully explained. Kiiochi takes it in the sense of when, 
 Luther in that of so that. Vitringa connects it with the participle, as if it 
 were a future. Rosenmiillcr and Gesenius regard it as redundant, whicli is 
 a mere evasion of the difficulty, as the cases which they cite of such a 
 usage are entirely irrelevant, as shown by Maurer, whose own hypothesis is 
 not more satisfactory, viz. that either the article or relative was carelessly 
 inserted (negligentius dictum). Ewald gives the relative its strict sense, 
 and makes Jehovah the antecedent, by supplying before it, thus saith Jeho- 
 vah (or saith he) by whom the man that blesses etc. This has the advan- 
 tage of adhering to the strict sense of the pronoun, but the disadvantage of 
 involving an improbable ellipsis, and of making the writer say circuitously 
 what he might have said directly. Thus saith he by whom the person 
 blessing blesses by the God of truth, is perfectly equivalent to Thus saith 
 the God of truth. Both these objections may be obviated by referring "iiiix 
 to an expressed antecedent, viz. name, a construction given both in the 
 Septuaginl and Vulgate versions, although otherwise defective and obscure. 
 Another advantage of this construction is that it removes the abrupt transi- 
 tion and supplies the name, which seems on any other supposition to be 
 wanting. According to this view of the place, the sense is that the people 
 shall be called after the God of truth, so that his name and theirs shall be 
 identical, and consequently whoever blesses or swears by the one blesses or 
 swears by the other also. The form in which this idea is expressed is pecu- 
 liar, but intelligible and expressive : ' His people he shall call by another 
 name, which (i. e. with respect to which, or more specifically by which) he 
 that blesseth shall bless by the God of truth,' etc. Ewald supposes blessing 
 and cursing to be meant, as oath is used above to signify a curse ; but most 
 interpreters understand by blessing himself, praying for God's blessing, and 
 by swearing, the solemn invocation of his presence as a witness, both being 
 mentioned as acts of religious worship and of solemn recognition. — '^J* is 
 probably an adjective meaning sure, trustworthy, and therefore including 
 the ideas of reality and faithfulness, neither of which should be excluded, and 
 both of which are comprehended in the English phrase, the true God, or 
 retaining more exactly the form of the original, the God of truth. Hender- 
 son's versioQ, " faithful God," expresses onjy half of the idea. This Hebrew 
 word is retained in the Greek of the New Testament, not only as a particle 
 
CH AP TER LX V. 463 
 
 of asseveration, but In a still more remarkable manner as a name of Christ 
 (Rev. 1 : 18. 3 : 14), with obvious reference to the case before us ; and 
 there must be something more than blind chance in the singular coincidence 
 thus brought to light between this application of the phrase and the sense 
 which has been put upon the foregoing verse, as relating to the adoption of 
 the Christian name by the church or chosen people. As applied to Christ, 
 the name is well explained by Vitringa to describe him as very God, as a 
 witness to the truth, as the substance or reality of the legal shadows, and as 
 the fulfiller of the divine promises. Ewald agrees with the older writers in 
 rendering 71N3 in the earth, but most interpreters prefer the more restricted 
 version, {71 the land. The difference is less than might at first sight be sup- 
 posed, as ' in the land ' could here mean nothing less tlian in the land of pro- 
 mise, the domain of Israel, the church in its widest and most glorious diffu- 
 sion. — The last clause gives the reason for the application of ihe title, God 
 of truth, viz. because in his deliverance of his people he will prove himself 
 to be the true God in both senses, truly divine and eminently faithful. This 
 proof will be afforded by the termination of those evils which the sins of his 
 own people once rendered necessary. Usage is certainly in favour of the 
 common version, troubles or distresses ; but there is something striking in 
 Lowth's version, provocations, which agrees well with what seems to be the 
 • sense of trns in ch. 63 : 9. As commonly translated, it is understood by 
 Gesenius as meaning that God will forget the former necessity for punishing 
 his people, which is equivalent to saying that he will forget their sins. But 
 Maurer understands the sense to be that he will think no more of smiting 
 them again. Both seem to make the last words a poetical description of 
 oblivion ; but Knobel refers what is said of forgetting to the people, and 
 only the remaining words to God. 
 
 V. 17. For lo I (am) creating (or about to create) neiv heavens and a 
 new earth, and the former (^things) shall not be remembered, and shall not 
 come up into the mind (literally, on the heart). Some interpreters refer 
 former to heavens and earth, which makes the parallelism more exact ; but 
 most interpreters refer it to ni-isn in v. 16, where the same adjective is 
 used, or construe it indefinitely in the sense of /orwer things. Of the whole 
 verse there are several distinct interpretations. Aben Ezra understands it 
 as predicting an improvement in the air and soil, conducive to longevity 
 and uninterrupted health ; and a similar opinion is expressed by J. D. 
 Michaelis, who illustrates the verse by the supposition of a modern writer 
 who should describe the vast improvement in Germany since ancient times, 
 by saying that the heaven and the earth are new. A second explanation of 
 the verse is that of Thomas Burnet and his followers, which makes it a 
 
464 CH AP TE R LX V. 
 
 prediction of the renovation of the present earth with its skies etc. after the 
 destruction of the present at the day of judgment. A third is that of 
 Vitringa, who regards it as a figurative prophecy of clianges in the church, 
 according to a certain systematic explication of the several parts of the 
 material universe as symbols. Belter than all these, because requiring less 
 to be assumed, and more in keeping with the usage of prophetic language, 
 is the explanation of the verse as a promise or prediction of entire change 
 in the existing state of things, the precise nature of the change and of the 
 means by whicli it shall be brought about forming no part of the revelation 
 here. That the words are not inapplicable to a revolution of a moral and 
 spiritual nature, we may learn from Paul's analogous description of the 
 change wrought in conversion (2 Cor. 5 : 17. Gal. 6 : 15), and from 
 Peter's application of this very passage. Nevertheless, we, according to his 
 promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteous- 
 ness (2 Peter 3 : 13). That the words have such a meaning even here, is 
 rendered probable by the last clause, the oblivion of the former state of 
 things being much more naturally connected with moral and spiritual 
 changes than with one of a material nature. 
 
 V. 18. But rejoice and be glad unto eternity (in) that ivhich I (am) 
 creating, for lo I (am) creating Jerusalem a joy, and her people a rejoicing, 
 i. e. a subject or occasion of it. There is no need of explaining the impera- 
 tives as futures, though futurity is of course implied in the command. It 
 would be highly arbitrary to explain ivhat I create in this place as different 
 from the creation in the verse preceding. It is there said that a creation 
 shall take place. It is here enjoined upon God's people to rejoice in it. 
 But here the creation is declared to be the making of Jerusalem a joy and 
 Israel a rejoicing. Now the whole analogy of the foregoing prophecies leads 
 to the conclusion that this means the exaltation of the church or chosen 
 people ; and the same analogy admits of that exaltation being represented 
 as a revolution in the frame of nature. On the other hand, a literal predic- 
 tion of new heavens and new earth would scarcely have been followed by 
 a reference merely to the church ; and if Jerusalem and Zion be explained 
 to mean the literal Jerusalem and the restored Jews, the only alternative is 
 then to conclude that as soon as they return to Palestine, it and the whole 
 earth are to be renewed, or else that what relates to Jerusalem and Israel 
 is literal, and what relates to the heavens and the earth metaphorical, 
 although, as we have just seen, the connexion of the verses renders it neces- 
 sary to regard the two events as one. From all these incongruities we are 
 relieved by understanding the whole passage as a poetical description of 
 a complete and glorious change. 
 
CHAPTERLXV. 465 
 
 V. 19. And I ivill rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people ; and 
 there shall not be heard in her again the voice of loceping and the voice of 
 crying. Considered as the language of the Prophet himself, this would 
 express his sympathetic interest in the joyous changes which awaited his 
 people. But such an application would be wholly arbitrary, as Jehovah is 
 undoubtedly the speaker in the foregoing verse, where he claims creative 
 power; and even here there is an implication of divine authority in the 
 promise that weeping shall no more be heard in her. There is something 
 very beautiful in the association of ideas here expressed. God shall rejoice 
 in his people, and they shall rejoice with him. They shall no longer know 
 what grief is, because he shall cease to grieve over them ; their former 
 distresses shall be forgotten by them and for ever hidden from his eyes. 
 
 ■V, 20. There shall be no more from there an infant of days, and an 
 old man who shall not fulfil his days ; for the child a hundred years old 
 shall die, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. — Some 
 refer c^'^ to time, and understand it to mean thenceforth, a departure from 
 the settled usage which can be justified only by necessity. Others reo-ard 
 the preposition as unmeaning, and read there, which is as arbitrary as 
 Lowth's reading ti^ , neither of which proceedings can be justified by the 
 example of the ancient versions. The strict translation thejice (from there) 
 is not only admissible but necessary to the sense. It does not, however, 
 mean springing or proceeding thence, but taken away thence, or as Kimchi 
 has it, carried thence to burial. It is thus equivalent to r\'!\^i in the next 
 clause, and denotes that none shall die there in infancy. In consequence 
 of not correctly apprehending this, Hitzig alleges that this first clause by 
 itself can only mean that there shall be no longer any infants, to avoid 
 which paralogism he connects n''"2"i bi2> as well as "pT with the following 
 words : neither infant nor old man who shall not fulfil their days. But there 
 is no need of this tautological construction if c^-q n-^p'i implies death, and 
 ta-ia;; a few days only, which last is more agreeable to usage than the specific 
 sense of year, which some assume. A curious turn is given to the sentence 
 by some of the older writers, who take fulfil his days in the moral sense of 
 spending them well, with special reference to improvement in knowledo-e, 
 and the child as meaning one who even at a very advanced ao-e continues 
 still a child in understanding, and shall therefore die. Still more unnatural 
 is the modification of this exposition by Cocceius, who explains the whole 
 to mean that men shall have as abundant opportunities of instruction in the 
 truth as if they enjoyed a patriarchal longevity, so that he who perishes for 
 lack of knowledge will be left without excuse. Vitringa justly repudiates 
 these far-fetched explanations, but agrees with them in understanding shall 
 
 30 
 
466 C H A P T E R L X V . 
 
 die as an emphatic threatening, and in departing from the ordinary sense 
 of "I?? , which he takes to be here an equivalent to sinner. All the modern 
 writers are agreed as to the literal meaning of this last clause, though they 
 differ as to the relation of its parts. Some regard it as a synonymous paral- 
 lelism, and understand the sense to be that he who dies a hundred years 
 old will be considered as dying young, and by a special curse from God, 
 interrupting the ordinary course of nature. Others follow De Dieu in making 
 the parallelism antithetic, and contrasting the child with the sinner. Perhaps 
 the true view of the passage is, that it resumes the contrast drawn in vs. 
 13—15 between the servants of Jehovah and the sinners there addressed. 
 Vs. 16-19 may then be regarded as a parenthetical amplification. As if he 
 had said, My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry ; my servants shall 
 drink, but ye shall be thirsty ; my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall mourn ; 
 my servants shall be just beginning life when ye are driven out of it ; among 
 the former, he who dies a hundred years old shall die a child ; among you, 
 he who dies at the same age shall die accursed. On the whole, however, 
 the most natural meaning is the one already mentioned as preferred by most 
 modern writers. Premature death, and even death in a moderate old age, 
 shall be unknown ; he who dies a hundred years old shall be considered 
 either as dying in childhood, or as cut off by a special malediction. The 
 whole is a highly poetical description of longevity, to be explained precisely 
 like the promise of new heavens and a new earth in v. 17. Beck's gross 
 expressions of contempt for the absurdity of this verse are founded on a 
 wilful perversion or an ignorant misapprehension. Ewald is equally unjust 
 but less indecent in his representation of this verse as a fanatical anticipa- 
 tion of the literal change which it describes. 
 
 Vs. 21, 22. And they shall build houses and inhabit (them), and shall 
 plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them, they shall not build and another 
 inhabit, they shall not plant and another eat ; for as the days of a tree (shall 
 be) the days of my people, and the work of their hands my chosen ones shall 
 wear out (or survive). This is a promise of security and permanent enjoy- 
 ment, clothed in expressions drawn from the promises and threatenings of 
 the Mosaic law. By the age of a tree is generally understood the great age 
 which some species are said to attain, such as the oak, the banyan, etc. 
 But Knobel takes it in the general sense of propagation and succession, and 
 understands the promise to be that, as trees succeed each other naturally 
 and for ever, so shall the chosen of Jehovah do. The essential idea is in 
 either case that of permanent continuance, and the figures here used to 
 express it make it still more probable that in the whole foregoing context 
 the predictions are to be figuratively understood. 
 
CHAPTERLXV. 467 
 
 V. 23. They shall not labour in vain, and they shall not bring forth for 
 terror ; for the seed of the blessed of Jehovah are they, and their offspring 
 with them. The sense o^ sudden destruction given to f^^f^a by some modern 
 writers, is a mere conjecture from the context, and no more correct than the 
 translation curse, which others derive from the Arabic analogy, and which 
 Henderson regards as the primitive meaning. The Hebrew word properly 
 denotes extreme agitation and alarm, and the meaning of the clause is that 
 they shall not bring forth children merely to be subjects of distressing soli- 
 citude. Knobel, as in ch. 1 : 4, takes v^^ in the sense of a generation or 
 contemporary race ; but it adds greatly to the strength of the expression if 
 we give its more usual sense of progeny or offspring : they are themselves 
 the offspring of those blessed of God, and their own offspring likewise, as 
 the older writers understand tnx , while the moderns suppose it to mean 
 shall be with them, i. e. shall continue with them, as opposed to the alarm 
 referred to in the other clause. Umbreil's idea that the picture of domestic 
 happiness is here completed by the unexpected stroke of parents and chil- 
 dren still continuing to live together, is ingenious and refined, perhaps too 
 much so to be altogether natural in this connexion. 
 
 V. 24. And it shall be (or come to pass), that they shall not yet have 
 called and I will answer, yet (shall) they (be) speakiiig and I will hear. 
 A strong expression of God's readiness to hear and answer prayer, not a 
 mere promise that it shall be heard (like that in Jer, 29 : 12. Zecb. 13 : 9), 
 but an assurance that it shall be granted before it is heard. The nearest 
 parallel is Matth. 6 : 8, where our Lord himself says. Your Father knoweth 
 what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Compare ch. 30: 19. 
 58 : 9. Ps. 145 : 18, 19.) — taVt: is commonly explained here as a conjunc- 
 tion, before they call, and Gesenius gives this as the primary meaning of the 
 Hebrew particle. But according to Hitzig and Maurer, this is always 
 expressed by the compound form Q'lZia , and the simple form invariably 
 means not yet. This construction, which might otherwise seem very harsh, 
 is favoured by the use of the conjunction and, which, on the usual hypo- 
 thesis, must be omitted or regarded merely as a sign of the apodosis, whereas 
 in the parallel clause it occupies precisely the same place, and can only be 
 taken in its usual sense. Lowth attempts to reproduce the form of the 
 original, but not with much success, by rendering the last clause, " they 
 shall be yet speaking and I shall have heard." The parallel verbs both 
 mean to hear prayer in a favourable sense, and are therefore rendered in the 
 Vulgate by the cognate forms audiam and exaudiam. The last verb is 
 curiously paraphrased in the Septuagint, / ivill say, what is it ? (f()al zi hri ;) 
 
 V. 25. The ivolf and the lamb shall feed as otic, and the lion like th 
 
463 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 ox shall cat straw, and the serpent dust {for) his food. They shall not 
 hurt and they shall not cornqjl (or destroy) in all my holy mountain, saith 
 Jehovah. Tlie promise of a happy change is wound up in the most appro- 
 priate manner by repeating the prophecy in ch. 1 1 : 6-9, that all hurtful 
 influences shall for ever cease in the holy hill or church of God. Yet Knobel 
 ventures to assert that it is an unmeaning imitation of that passage, introduced 
 here without any just connexion, and perhaps by a different hand from that 
 of the ori'nnal writer. Another fact which had escaped preceding writers, 
 is that the phrase as one belongs to the later Hebrew, because used in Ecc. 
 11:6, whereas it is essentially identical with as one man in Judges 20 : 8. 
 1 Sam. 11:7. It is not a simple synonyme of thJi'! together (the word used 
 in ch. 11 : 6), but much stronger and more graphic; so that Lowth only 
 weakens the expression by proposing to assimilate the readings on the autho- 
 rity of a single manuscript. Another point in which the description is here 
 heightened is the substitution of n^^ , a young and tender lamb, for c'S3 , a 
 he-lamb of riper age. Ewald expresses the distinction here by using the 
 diminutive term Lammlein. — Instead of the lion like the ox, the Vulgate has 
 the lion and the ox (Ico et bos), and that the et is not an error of the text 
 for ui appears from the plural form of the verb comedent. — Most of the 
 modern writers construe "ii'nj as a nominative absolute, as for the serpent, 
 dust (shall be) his food. A more obvious construction is to repeat the verb 
 shall eat, and consider dust and food as in apposition. J. D. Michaelis 
 supplies continue (bleibe^, and most writers regard this idea as implied 
 though not expressed : The serpent shall continue to eat dust. Michaelis 
 and Gesenius suppose an allusion to the popular belief that serpents feed on 
 dust because they creep upon the ground, and understand the prophecy to 
 be that they shall henceforth be contented with this food and cease to prey 
 on men or other animals. But ihis, as Vitringa well observes, would be too 
 small a promise for the context, since a very small part of the evils which 
 men suffer can arise from this cause. He therefore understands the clause 
 to mean that the original curse upon the serpent who deceived Eve (Gen. 
 3 : 14) shall be fully executed. (Compare Rev. 20 : 1-3.) He refers to 
 some of his contemporaries as explaining it to mean that the serpent should 
 henceforth prey only upon low and earthly men ; but this would be too 
 large a concession, and the true sense seems to be that, in accordance with 
 his ancient doom, he shall be rendered harmless, robbed of his favourite 
 nutriment, and made to bite the dust at the feet of his conqueror. (Gen. 
 3 : 15. Rom. 16 : 20. 1 John 3 : 8. Compare Isaiah 49 : 20.)— The last 
 clause resolves the figures of the first. The verbs are therefore to be under- 
 stood indefinitely, as in ch. 11 : 9; or if they be referred to the animals pre- 
 viously mentioned, it is only a symbolical or tropical expression of the same 
 idea. Hitzig gratuitously says that the verbs which in the other place relate 
 
CHAPTER LXVI. 469 
 
 to men, are here determined to refer to animals by the connexion ; to which 
 Knobel flippantly replies that this is not the case, because there is no con- 
 nexion to determine it. The truth is that the form of expression is the 
 same in either case, except that what begins a verse in the eleventh chapter 
 here concludes one. Had the passage here repeated been in one of the 
 so-called later chapters, it would no doubt have been cited as a proof of the 
 author's identity ; but no such proof can be admitted by the " higher criticism " 
 in favour of identifying the writer of this chapter with the genuine Isaiah. 
 Rather than listen to such reasoning, the " higher critics " make it a case of 
 imitation and abridgment, and one of them, as we have seen, of ignorant 
 interpolation. — For any further explanation of this verse, the reader is refer- 
 red to the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 224-227. 
 
 CHAPTER LXVI. 
 
 This cliapter winds up the prophetic discourse with an express prediction 
 of the change of dispensations, and a description of the difference between 
 them. Jehovah will no longer dwell in temples made with hands, v. 1. 
 Every sincere and humble heart shall be his residence, v. 2. The ancient 
 sacrifices, though divinely instituted, will henceforth be as hateful as the 
 rites of idolatry, v. 3. They who still cling to the abrogated ritual will be 
 fearfully but righteously requited, v. 4. The true Israel cast out by these 
 deluded sinners shall ere long be glorified, and the carnal Israel fearfully 
 rewarded, vs. 5, 6. The ancient Zion may already be seen travailing with 
 a new and glorious dispensation, vs. 7-9. They who mourned for her 
 seeming desolation now rejoice in her abundance and her honour, vs. 10-14. 
 At the same time the carnal Israel shall be destroyed, as apostates and 
 idolaters, vs. 14-17. The place which they once occupied shall now be 
 filled by the elect from all nations, v. 18. To gather these, a remnant of 
 the ancient Israel shall go forth among the gentiles, v. 19. They shall 
 come from every quarter and by every method of conveyance, v. 20. They 
 shall be admitted to the sacerdotal honours of the chosen people, v. 21. 
 This new dispensation is not to be temporary, like the one before it, but 
 shall last for ever, v. 22. While the spiritual Israel is thus replenished from 
 all nations, the apostate Israel shall perish by a lingering decay in the sight 
 of an astonished world, vs. 23, 24. 
 
470 CHAPTERLXVI. 
 
 V. 1. Thus saith Jehovah, The heavens (are^ my throne, and the earth 
 my footstool ; ivhere is (or what is) the house which ye will build for me, 
 and where is (or ichat is) the place of my rest 1 literally the place my rest, 
 i. e. the place which is or can be my rest or permanent abode. The same 
 term is elsewhere applied to the temple, as distinguished from the tabernacle 
 or moveable sanctuary. (See 2 Sam. 7:6. 2 Chron. 6:41. Ps. 132 : 8.) 
 As to the sense of nT-^x , see above on ch. 50 : 1. In this case where is 
 less appropriate than what, as the inquiry seems to have respect to the nature 
 or the quality ratiie'r than the mere locality of the edifice in question. Hitzig 
 translates ri'^a strictly a house, and !i32P} is variously rendered ye build, in the 
 English Bible ; ye would build, by Ewald ; ye could build, by Gesenius, 
 etc.; but the simplest and best version is ye will build, as including all the 
 others. All interpreters agree that this question implies disapprobation of 
 the building, as at variance with the great truth propounded in the first 
 clause, namely, that the frame of nature is the only material temple worthy 
 of Jehovah. This obvious relation of the clauses is sufficient of itself to 
 set aside two of the old interpretations of the passage. The first is that of 
 Kimchi, favoured more or less by Calvin and some later writers, which 
 supposes that this chapter is a counterpart to the first, and that the Prophet 
 here recurs to his original theme, the corruptions and abuses of his own age. 
 But besides the undisputed references to the future in the latter part of this 
 very chapter, it has been conclusively objected by Vitringa to the theory in 
 question, that in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah there could be no thought 
 of building or rebuilding, nor even of repairing or adorning the temple, but 
 rather of despoiling it. (2 Kings 16: 17, 18. 18: 15.) The same objection 
 lies against the theory of Grotius, that this chapter was intended to console 
 the pious Jews who were debarred from the customary public worship during 
 the profanation of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. In neither of these 
 cases could there be occasion for objecting to the building or rebuilding of 
 the temple. Those who refer this whole series of predictions to the period 
 of the Babylonish exile find it hard to explain this chapter upon that hypo- 
 thesis, since the building of the temple is urged upon the people as a duty 
 by the acknowledged prophets of the exile. In order to facilitate the pro- 
 cess, some of them detach it from the foregoing context, on the ground of its 
 abrupt commencement, which is not at all more striking than in other cases 
 where no such conclusion has been drawn, because not felt to be necessary 
 for the critic's purpose. Eichhorn found this a fit occasion for the applica- 
 tion of the "higher criticism," and he accordingly strikes out vs. 1-17 of 
 this chapter as an older composition than the rest, the exact date not defin- 
 able, but certainly prior to the downf\il of the Jewish monarchy. Paulus 
 and Rosenmiiller, on the other hand, regard the whole as later than the first 
 return from Babylon. Between these extremes Gesenius as usual under- 
 
CH A P T E R L X V I. 471 
 
 takes to mediate, condemns the first as " trennende Kiit'ik," and refutes it 
 by a copious but superfluous detail of minute coincidences both of thought 
 and language between the disputed passage and the foregoing chapters, 
 which he therefore supposes to belong to the same period. From this deci- 
 sion there is no material dissent among the later writers, although Hitzig 
 asserts in the strongest terms the utter want of connexion between this and 
 the preceding chapters. The same assertion might be made with equal plau- 
 sibility in any other case of a continued composition where the writer is not 
 trammelled by a systematic method, but passes freely from one topic to 
 another, in obedience to a lively and unchecked association of ideas. No 
 reader or interpreter who has not a hypothesis to verify will find any reason 
 for supposing a greater interruption here than at the end of an ordinary 
 paragraph. The fallacy of the contrary assertion has been shown by Vitringa 
 to consist in assuming that the passages are unconnected unless the first 
 verse of the second carries out the thought expressed in the last verse of the 
 first, whereas the chapter now before us is in some sense parallel to that 
 before it, taking up the subject at the same point and bringing it at last to 
 the same issue. That exposition is indeed most probably the true one which 
 assumes the most intimate connexion of the chapters here, and is least 
 dependent upon forced divisions and arbitrary intervals crowded with imagi- 
 nary events. Thus Rosenmiiller thinks that in the interval between these 
 chapters the tribes of Benjamin and Judah had resolved to exclude the others 
 from all participation in the rebuilding of the temple, and that the passage 
 now before us was intended to reprove -them for their want of charity, as if 
 this end could be accomplished by proclaiming the worthlessness of all mate- 
 rial temples, which is tantamount to saying, why do you refuse to let your 
 countrymen assist in the rebuilding of the temple, since no temples are of 
 any value? Hitzig's imagination is still more prolific, and invents a project 
 to erect another temple in Chaldea as a succedaneum for returning to Jeru- 
 salem. At the same time his superior acuteness guards against the palpable 
 absurdity already mentioned, by supposing the error here coi'rected to be 
 that of believing that the mere erection of a temple would discharge their 
 obligations and secure their welfare, without any reference to what Jehovah 
 had commanded. They are therefore taught that he has no need of material 
 dwellings, and that these, to be of any value, must be built exactly when 
 and where and as he pleases to require. (1 Sam. 15 : 22, 23.) This inge- 
 nious exposition would be faultless if it rested upon any firmer basis than a 
 perfectly imaginary fact. That there is any proof of it from other quarters, 
 is not pretended. That it is not a necessary inference from that before us, 
 will be clear when the true interpretation has been given. It is necessary 
 first to state, however, that while Hitzig thus infers from the text itself a 
 fact unknown to history because it never happened, Henderson with equal 
 
472 C II A P T E R L X V I . 
 
 confidence infers from it a fact as little known to history, but for a very dif- 
 ferent reason. While the one considers it as proving that a party of the 
 exiles in Babylon desired to build a temple there instead of going back to 
 Palestine, the other considers it as proving that part of the restored Jews 
 will unlawfully attempt to rebuild the old temple in Palestine itself, and that 
 this passage is intended to reprove them. Yet in ch. 60 : 7, 13 we read 
 not only of a sanctuary to be literally built of the most costly timber, but of 
 an altar and of victims to be offered on it ; all which may be tortured into 
 figures, it appears, provided that the future restoration of the Jews be strictly 
 expounded in a local sense. — With these interpretations, and the forced 
 hypotheses which they involve, we may now compare another which has 
 been approved by various judicious writers, but by none more clearly stated 
 or more successfully maintained than by Vitringa. It is simply this, that 
 having held up in every point of view the true design, mission, and vocation 
 of the church or chosen people, its relation to the natural descendants of 
 Abraham, the causes which required that the latter should be stripped of 
 their peculiar privileges, and the vocation of the gentiles as a part of the 
 divine plan from its origin, the Prophet now addresses the apostate and 
 unbelieving Jews at the close of the old dispensation, who, instead of prepar- 
 ing for the general extension of the church and the exchange of ceremonial 
 for spiritual worship, were engaged in the rebuilding and costly decoration 
 of the temple at Jerusalem. The pride and interest in this great public 
 work, felt not only by the Herods but by all the Jews, is clear from inciden- 
 tal statements of the Scriptures (John 2 : 20. Matt. 24 : 1) as well as from 
 the ample and direct assertions of Josephus. That the nation should have 
 been thus occupied precisely at the time when the Messiah came, is one of 
 those agreements between prophecy and history which cannot be accounted 
 for except upon the supposition of a providential and designed assimilation. 
 To the benefit of this coincidence the exposition which has last been given 
 is entitled, and by means of it the probabilities, already great, may be said 
 to be converted into certainties, or if any thing more be needed for this 
 purpose it will be afforded by the minuter j)oinls of similarity which will be 
 presented in the course of the interpretation. One advantage of this exposi- 
 tion is that it accounts for the inference here drawn from a doctrine which was 
 known to Solomon and j)ublic]y announced by him (I Kings 8 : 27), though 
 described by Gesenius as unknown to the early Hebrews, who supposed 
 that God was really confined to earthly temples. (1 Chron. 23 : 2. Ps. 99 : 5. 
 132 : 5.) It may be asked, then, why this trutli did not forbid the erection 
 of the temple at first, as well as its gorgeous reconstruction in the time of 
 Christ. The answer is, that it was necessary for a temporary purpose, but 
 when this temporary purpose was accomplished it became not only useless 
 hut unlawful. Henceforth the worship was to be a spiritual worship, the 
 
C H A P T E R L X V 1 . 473 
 
 church universally diffused, and the material sanctuary, as J. D. Michaelis 
 says, no longer an earthly residence for God but a convenient place of meet- 
 ing for his people. 
 
 V. 2. And all these my oim hand made, and all these were (or are), 
 saith Jehovah ; and to this one ivill I look, to the ajjlicted and contrite in 
 spirit and trembling at my ivord. By all these it is universally admitted 
 that we are to understand the heavens and the earth, of which he claims to 
 be not only the sovereign, as in the preceding verse, but the creator. — The 
 next expression may be differently understood. Lowth supplies ^? to me, 
 on the authority of the Septuagint (JaTiv f^ia), and adds that this word is 
 absolutely necessary to the sense. But according to Hebrew usage, the 
 verb would not have been expressed if this had been the meaning ; and the 
 clause as Lowth completes it does not mean they are mine, but they tvere 
 (or have been) mine. The same objection lies in some degree against the 
 explanation of ^H!] without ''^ as meaning they exist (i.e. by my creative 
 power). The reference is rather to the time of actual creation, my hand 
 made them and they ivere, i. e. began to be. (See Gen. 1 : 3. Ps. 33 : 9.) 
 Both tenses of the verb arc combined to express the same idea in Rev. 
 4 : 11. J. D. Michaelis and Ewald show the true connexion by translating, 
 ' my hand made them and so they were or came into existence.' — It is impor- 
 tant to the just interpretation of these verses to observe the climax in them. 
 First the temples made by men are contrasted with the great material tem- 
 ple of the universe ; then this is itself disparaged by Jehovah as his own 
 handiwork, and still more in comparison with a nobler temple of a spiritual 
 nature, the renewed and contrite heart. (See ch. 57 : 15. 2 Cor. 6 : 16.) 
 The same condescending favour is expressed for the same objects elsewhere. 
 (Ps. 34 : 19. 138 : G.) To look to, is to have regard to, and implies both 
 approbation and affection. (See Gen. 4 : 4, 5. Ex. 2 : 25. Num. 16 : 15. 
 Judg. 6: 14. Ps. 25: 16.) The Septuagint and Vulgate make the last 
 clause interrogative: To whom shall I look but? etc. — Contrite or broken 
 in heart or spirit is a scriptural description of the subjects of divine grace in 
 its humbling and subduing influences. (Ch. 61 : 1.65 : 14.) The Septuagint 
 renders it 7javj[iov quiet, implying patient acquiescence in the will of God. — 
 The nt refers to the following description, like nk; in ch. 56: 2. — Gesenius 
 illustrates hv inn by citing I Sam. 4 : 13, where Eli is described as trem- 
 bling for the ark of God ; but Hitzig justly represents the cases as unlike, 
 and explains the one before us as denoting not solicitude about the word of 
 God, but an earnest inclination to it, or as Ewald renders it a trembling to 
 his word, i. e. an eager and yet fearful haste to execute his will. (Com- 
 pare Hos. 3:5. 1 1 : 10, 1 1.) The use of the phrase in historical prose by 
 Ezra (9:4. 10 : 3) is probably borrowed from the place before us. 
 
474 C H A P T E R L X V I . 
 
 V. 3. Slai/ing (he ox, smitirig o man — sacrificing the sheep, hrealcing 
 a dog^s neck — offering an oblation, blood of swine — making a memorial of 
 incense, blessing vanity — also they have chosen their ways, and in their 
 abominations has their soul delighted. This translation, although scarcely 
 English, will convey some idea of the singular form of the original, and ren- 
 der intelhgible what is said as to the different constructions of the sentence. 
 — The first clause consists of four similar members, in each of which are 
 coupled a form of sacrifice under the Mosaic law and an offering which 
 according to that law was inadmissible and even revolting. The ox and 
 the sheep represent the animal sacrifices, the J^n;^ or meat-offering, and 
 the incense those of an unbloody nature. The verbs connected with these 
 nouns are likewise all selected from the technical vocabulary of the law. 
 -n\r and nnt both originally signify to slay or slaughter, but are especially 
 applied to sacrificial slaughter in the Pentateuch, tn^?^ is the participle of 
 a verb which means to cause to ascend, and in the language of the ritual, 
 upon the altar. ^^'^]^ is another, of obscurer origin and strict signification^ 
 though its use and application are as clear as any of the rest. The modern 
 writers commonly derive it from the noun i^'^sfx the technical name of a 
 certain kind of offering, especially of incense (Lev. 24 : 7) with or without 
 other vegetable substances (Num. 5 : 26). It seems to mean memorial and 
 is usually so translated, and explained upon the ground that the fumes of 
 the incense were conceived of as ascending into heaven and reminding God 
 of the worshipper. The same figure was then transferred to prayers and 
 other spiritual offerings. — Thus we read in Acts 10: 4 that the angel said 
 to Cornelius, thy prayers and thine alms are come up before God for a 
 memorial eig ftvTjfioavvov, the very phrase employed by the Septuagint in the 
 case before us. The verb then means to offer this oblation, but may be 
 considered as expressing more directly the recalling of the worshipper to 
 God's remembrance, as it literally means to remind. Being also used in 
 the sense of mentioning, it is so understood here by Luther, while the Vulgate 
 gives it the meaning of its primitive, remembering. — Smiting has here, as 
 often elsewhere, the emphatic sense of wounding mortally or killing. (Gen. 
 4 : 15. Ex. 2 : 12. Josh. 20 : 5. 1 Sam. 17 : 26.) ^"iv (from tr^ the 
 neck) is a technical term used in the law to denote the breaking of the neck 
 of unclean animals when not redeemed from consecration to Jehovah. (Ex, 
 13 : 13. Deut. 21 : 4.) It expresses therefore a peculiar mode of killing. 
 The dog has ever been regarded in the east as peculiarly unclean, and in 
 that light is coupled with the swine not only in the Bible (Matt. 7 : 6. 
 2 Pet. 2 : 22) but by Horace, who twice names dog and swine together as 
 the vilest animals. Swijie^s blood alone is without a verb to govern it, 
 which Lowth thinks a defect in the existing text, while Hitzig ascribes it to 
 the haste of composition, Bochart supplies eating, but Vitringa properly 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 475 
 
 objects that all the rest relates to sacrifice. The simplest course is to repeat 
 the leading verb of the same member. — "illij is commonly supposed to mean 
 an idol, as it does in a few places ; but it is better to retain its generic 
 sense, as more expressive. This is by some understood to be vanity, non- 
 entity, or worthlessness, as attributes of idols ; by others, injustice or iniquity 
 jn general. The whole phrase is commonly explained to mean blessing 
 (i. e. praising or worshipping) an idol, or as Hitzig thinks, saluting it by 
 kissing (1 Kings 19 : 18. Job 31 : 27) ; but Luther gives it the general 
 sense o[ praising wickedness, an act to which he supposes that of mentioning 
 incense to be likened, while Knobel understands V.x adverbially, and the 
 phrase as meaning one who worships God unlawfully or wickedly ; but this 
 would be comparing a thing merely with itself, and as all the other secondary 
 phrases denote rites of worship, it is better so to understand this likewise. 
 Such is the meaning of the several expressions ; but a question still remains 
 as to their combination. The simplest syntax is to supply the verb of 
 existence, and thus produce a series of short propositions : He that slays 
 an ox smites a man, etc. Lowth and Ewald understand this to mean that 
 the same person who offers sacrifice to God in the form prescribed by law is 
 also guilty of murder and idolatry, a practice implying gross hypocrisy as 
 well as gross corruption. The ancient versions all supply a particle of 
 likeness — he that slays an ox is like one that murders a man, etc. This is 
 adopted by most of the modern writers, but of late without supplying any 
 thing, the words being taken to assert not mere resemblance but identity, 
 which is the strongest form of comparison. It is certainly more expressive 
 to say that an offerer of cattle is a murderer, than to say that he is like one, 
 though the latter may be after all the real meaning. He is a murderer, i. e. 
 God so esteems him. According to Lowth and Ewald, the verse describes 
 the coexistence of ritual formality with every kind of wickedness, especially 
 idolatry, as in the first chapter. Gesenius objects that this presupposes the 
 existence of the Mosaic ritual when the passage was written, never dreaming 
 that instead of presupposing it might prove it. His own interpretation and 
 the common one is that the passage relates not to the actual practice of the 
 abominations mentioned, but to the practice of iniquity in general, which 
 renders the most regular and costly offerings as hateful to Jehovah as the most 
 abominable rites of idolatry. Among those who adopt this explanation of 
 the sentence there is still a difference as toils application. Gesenius applies 
 it to the worthlessness of ritual performances without regard to moral duty ; 
 Hitzig and Knobel to the worthlessness of sacrifices which might be offered 
 at the temple built in Babylonia ; Henderson to the unlawfulness of sacri- 
 fices under the Christian dispensation, with particular reference to the case 
 of the restored Jews and their temple at Jerusalem. I still regard Vitringa's 
 exposition as the most exact, profound, and satisfactory, whether considered 
 
476 C n A P T E R L X V I . 
 
 in itself or In relation to the whole preceding context. He agrees with 
 Gesenius in making the text the general doctrine that sacrifice is hatcfid in 
 the sight of God if offered in a wicked spirit, but with a special refercnco 
 to those wb.o still adlicrcd to the old sacrifices after the great sacrifice for 
 sin was come and had been offered once for all. Thus understood this 
 verse extends to sacrifices that which the foregoing verses said of the temple, 
 after the change of dispensations. 
 
 V. 4. I also will choose their vexations, and their fear I will bring 
 upon them; because I called and. there was no one answering, I spake and 
 they did not hear, and they did evil in my eyes, end that which J delight 
 not in they chose. The larger part of this verse, from because to the end, 
 is repeated from ch. .65 : 12, and serves not only to connect the passages 
 as parts of an unbroken composition, but also to identify the subjects of 
 discourse in the two places. According to the usual analogy of tlie masoretic 
 interpunction, the first words of the verse before us ought to be connected 
 as a parallel clause with the last words of v. 3, partly because each verse is 
 complete and of the usual length without the clause in question, partly 
 because the parallelism is indicated by the repetition of the 05. This repe- 
 tition occurs elsewhere as an equivalent to the Greek nai — x«t', the Latin 
 €t — et, and our both — and, as in the phrase also yesterday, also to-day (Ex. 
 5 : 14). In the case before us it is paraphrased by some translators, as they 
 chose, so I choose, by others, as well they as 1 chose ; but perhaps the 
 nearest equivalent in English is, on their part they chose, and on my part I 
 choose. The obvious antithesis between the pronoun of the third and first 
 person precludes the supposition that a different class of persons is denoted 
 by iT|r? ca . The common version of c^^i^J-n (^delusions) seems to be founded 
 on a misconception of the Vulgate illusioncs, which was probably intended 
 to suggest the idea of derision like the funaiy^ara of the Scptuagint. The 
 true sense of the word here is essentially the same but somewhat stronger, 
 viz. annoyances, vexations, which last is employed to represent it by 
 Cocceius. It is in the cognate sense of petulance, caprice, that it is used 
 to denote children in ch. 3 : 4. This etymological afHnity is wholly disre- 
 garded by translating the word here calamities, with Lowth, Gesenius, and 
 others. Their fear is the evil which they fear, as in Prov. 10 : 24, where 
 the same idea is expressed almost in the same words. 
 
 V. 5. Hear the word of Jehovah, ye that tremble at his word. Your 
 brethren say, (^those) hating you and casting you out for my name^s sake, 
 Jehovah will be glorified and we shall gaze upon your joy — a7id they shall 
 be ashamed. Trembling at (or rather to) Jehovah's word seems to mean 
 reverently waiting for it. Ye that thus expect a message from Jehovah, 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 477 
 
 now receive it. Vitringa adheres strictly to the inasorelic accents, which 
 connect for my name' s sake with what follows : ' Your brethren say — those 
 hating you and casting you out — for my name's sake Jehovah shall be 
 glorified.' To this construction there are two objections : first, that the 
 same persons who are three times mentioned in the plural are abruptly made 
 to speak in the singular, for 7ny name's sake, an enallage which althouoh 
 possible is not to be assumed without necessity ; and secondly, that /or my 
 name's sake is not the appropriate expression of the thought supposed to be 
 intended, which would rather be hy my means. The majority of later 
 writers are agreed in so far departing from the accents as to join the phrase 
 in question with what goes before ; which is the less objectionable here, as 
 we have seen already in the preceding verses some appearance of inaccu- 
 racy in the masoretic interpunction. The neuter verb las"^ is here applied 
 to God, as it is elsewhere to men (Job 14 : 21) and cities (Ezek. 27 : 25), 
 in the sense of being glorious rather than glorified, which would require a 
 passive form. It may be construed either as an optative or future ; but the 
 last is more exact, and really includes the other. All are agreed that these 
 two words (f^p"] '^s^l) are put into the mouth of the brethren before 
 mentioned ; but it is made a question whether the next phrase, tanniaba rtx'isT , 
 is spoken by them likewise. Piscator, followed by the English and Dutch 
 versions, makes this the language of the Prophet, and translates it, and he 
 shall appear to your joy. Besides the doubtful sense thus put upon the 
 preposition, this translation really involves a change of pointing, so as to 
 read nsj"!? or a very unusual construction of the participle. Vitringa makes 
 these words the language of a chorus, and supposes them to mean, 'but we 
 shall see your joy and they shall be ashamed.' The modern writers who 
 refer ^^'ii , as we have seen, to God himself, are obliged to make nx'is the 
 language of another speaker, — unless they assume a pluralis majestaticus, as 
 some old Jewish writers did, according to Aben Ezra, which they do by 
 adding it to what immediately precedes, — ' Your brethren say, Jehovah shall 
 be glorified and we shall see your happiness ;' the verb nxn , as usual when 
 followed by the preposition 3 , meaning to view or gaze at with strong feeling, 
 and in this case with delight. This construction is unanimously sanctioned 
 by the latest German writers, and is in itself much simpler and more natural 
 than any other. As to the application of the verse there is the usual diver- 
 sity of judgment. Jarchi and Abarbenel apply it to the treatment of the 
 Jews in their present exile by the Mohammedans and Romans, called their 
 brethren because descendants of Ishmael and Esau. Gesenius seems to 
 understand it as relating to the scornful treatment of the exiled Jews in 
 Babylon by their heathen enemies. Knobel denies that the latter would be 
 spoken of as brethren, and applies it to the treatment of the pious Jews by 
 their idolatrous countrymen. Hitzig questions even this application of 
 
478 C H A P T E R L X V I . 
 
 brethren, and explains the verse of the contempt with which the exiles who 
 were willing to return were treated by the unbelievers who remained behind. 
 But how could those who thus remained be said to cast out such as insisted 
 on returning? The phrase may possibly be taken in the vague sense of 
 despising or treating with contempt ; but this diluted explanation, though 
 admissible in case of necessity, cannot take precedence of the strict one, or 
 of the interpretation which involves it. Vitringa, although rather infelicitous 
 in his construction and translation of the sentence, has excelled all other 
 writers in his exhibition of its general import. He applies it, in accordance 
 with his previous hypothesis, to the rejection of the first Christian converts 
 by the unbelieving Jews : Hear the word (or promise) of Jehovah, ye that 
 wait for it with trembling confidence : your brethren (the unconverted 
 Jews) who hate you and cast you out for my name's sake, have said (in so 
 doing), ' Jehovah will be glorious (or glorify himself in your behalf no doubt), 
 and we shall witness your salvation ' (a bitter irony like that in ch. 5 : 19) ; 
 but they (who thus speak) shall themselves be confounded (by beholding 
 what they now consider so incredible). Besides the clearness and coherence 
 of this exposition in itself considered, and its perfect harmony with what we 
 have arrived at as the true sense of the whole foregoing context, it is strongly 
 recommended by remarkable coincidences with the New Testament, some 
 of which Vitringa specifies. That the unbelieving Jews might still be 
 called the brethren of the converts, if it needed either proof or illustration, 
 might derive it from Paul's mode of address to them in Acts 22 : 1, and of 
 reference to them in Rom. 9 : 3. The phrase those hating yon may be 
 compared with John 15 : 18. 17 : 14. Matt. 10 : 22. 1 Thess. 2 : 14 ; 
 and casting you out with John 16 : 2. and Matthew 18 : 17 ; for my 
 name's sake with Matt. 24 : 10 ; to which may be added the interesting 
 fact that the verb trna and its derivatives are used to this day by the Jews in 
 reference to excommunication. Thus understood the verse is an assurance 
 to the chosen remnant in whom the true Israel was to be perpetuated, that 
 although their unbelieving countrymen might cast them out with scorn and 
 hatred for a time, their spite should soon be utterly confounded. The great 
 truth involved in the change of dispensations may be signally developed and 
 exemplified hereafter, as Henderson infers from this passage that it will be, 
 in the case of the restored Jews who receive the doctrine of the gospel and 
 their brethren who persist in endeavouring to establish the old ritual ; but 
 we dare not abandon the fulfilment which has actually taken place for the 
 sake of one which may never happen, since we have not been able thus far 
 to discover any clear prediction of it. 
 
 V. 6. A voice of tumult from the city 1 A voice from the temple ! The 
 toice of Jehovah, rendering requital to his enemies ! The Hebrew word 
 
CHAPTER LXVI. 479 
 
 *,isttj is never applied elsewhere to a joyful cry or a cry of lamentation, but 
 to the tumult of war, the rushing sound of armies and the sliock of battle, 
 in which sense it is repeatedly employed by Isaiah. The enemies here 
 mentioned must of course be those who had just been described as the 
 despisers and persecutors of their brethren, and whose confusion after being 
 threatened generally in the verse preceding is here graphically represented 
 in detail. Even Aben Ezra says, these enemies of God are those who cast 
 the others out. The description therefore cannot without violence be under- 
 stood of foreign or external enemies. These data furnished by usage and 
 the context will enable us to estimate the various interpretations of the verse 
 before us. If what has just been stated be correct, the noise heard by the 
 Prophet cannot be the rejoicing of the Maccabees and their adherents when 
 the temple was evacuated by Antiochus, as Grotius imagines ; nor the 
 preaching of the gospel by the apostles beginning at Jerusalem, as Junius 
 and Tremellius think ; nor a voice calling for vengeance on the Romans, 
 according to Jarchi ; nor the blasphemies of the heathen, according to Abar- 
 benel. Nor can the words, if rightly understood as meaning the tumult of 
 war, be applied to the destruction of Gog and Magog, as by Kimchi ; or to 
 any other external enemies, as by the modern Germans. These indeed are 
 not a little puzzled to explain the verse in any consistency with their hypo- 
 thesis. Gesenius admits that there is so far a difficulty as the anti-theocratic 
 party stayed behind in Babylon, and queries whether the Prophet may not 
 have expected many such to go up in the hope of worldly advantages, and 
 there to be smitten by the divine judgments ! Maurer as usual sees no 
 difficulty in the case, because Jehovah is described as punishing the wicked 
 Jews not in Jerusalem but from it. Hitzig makes it a description of the 
 general judgment foretold by Joel, when all the nations should be judged at 
 Jerusalem (Joel 4 : 2). Knobel confidently adds that the Prophet expected 
 this great judgment to fall specially upon the Babylonians, whom Cyrus 
 had not punished sufficiently, and with them on the idolatrous exiles. 
 Umbreit, who seems to float in mid-air between faith and unbelief in his 
 interpretation of this passage, makes the noise a joyful noise and separates 
 !i from Jehovah's voice bringing vengeance to his external enemies. — The 
 only Christian interpreter that need be quoted here is Henderson, who says 
 that " by a remarkable and astounding interposition of Jehovah the scheme of 
 the Jews shall be defeated ; the very temple which they shall be in the act 
 of erecting shall be the scene of judgment." Then adopting the groundless 
 notion of the German writers, that the voice of Jehovah always means thun- 
 der, he adds that "in all probability the projected temple will be destroyed 
 by lightning." This is certainly sufficiently specific, but by no means so 
 entitled to belief as the fulfilment of the prophecy which has already taken 
 place. In strict adherence to the usage of the words and to requisitions of 
 
480 CHAPTERLXVI. 
 
 the context, both immediate and remote, the verse may be applied to the 
 frivinor up of Zion and the temple to its enemies, as a final demonstration 
 that the old economy was at an end, and that the sins of Israel were now to 
 be visited on that generation. The assailants of Jerusalem and of the Jews 
 were now no longer those of God himself, but rather chosen instruments to 
 execute his vengeance on his enemies, the unbelieving Jews themselves. 
 Vitrin^a f^oes too far when he restricts the tumult here described to the 
 noise actually made by the Romans in the taking of Jerusalem. — It rather 
 comprehends the whole confusion of the siege and conquest, and a better 
 commentary on this brief but grand prediction cannot be desired than that 
 afforded by Josephus in his narrative of what may be regarded as not only 
 the most dreadful siege on record but in some respects the most sublime and 
 critical conjuncture in all history, because coincident with the transition from 
 the abrogated system of the old economy to the acknowledged introduction 
 of the new, a change of infinitely more extensive influence on human cha- 
 racter and destiny than many philosophical historians have been willing to 
 admit or even able to discover. 
 
 V. 7. Before she travailed she brought forth, before her pain came 
 she was delivered of a male. All interpreters agree that the mother here 
 described is Zion, that the figure is essentially the same as in ch. 49: 21, 
 and that in both cases an increase of numbers is represented as a birth, 
 while in that before us the additional idea of suddenness is expressed by the 
 fii/ure of an unexpected birth. The difference between the cases is that in 
 the other a plurality of children is described, whne in this the whole increase 
 is represented in the aggregate as a single birth. As to the specification of 
 the sex, some regard it as a mere illustration of the oriental predilection for 
 male children, not intended to have any special emphasis, while others make 
 it significant of strength as well as numbers in the increase of the people. 
 As to the application of the passage there is nothing in the terms employed 
 which can determine it, but it must follow the sense put upon the foregoing 
 context or the general hypothesis of the interpreter. Those who see nothing 
 in these chapters but the restoration of the Jews from Babylon explain this 
 verse as meaning simply that the joyful return of the exiles to the long for- 
 saken city would be like an unexpected birth to a childless mother. Accord- 
 ing to Henderson, " the language forcibly expresses the sudden and unex- 
 pected reproduction of the Jewish nation in their own land in the latter day ; 
 their future recovery is the object of the divine purpose, and every provi- 
 dential arrangement shall be made for effecting it ; yet the event shall be 
 unexpectedly sudden." In both these cases there is an accommodation of 
 the passage to the exegetical hypothesis without any attempt to show that 
 the latter derives confirmation from it. In both cases too there is a certain 
 
C H A P T E R L X V 1 . 481 
 
 abruptness in the transition fiom the judgment threatened in the preceding 
 verse to the promise here recorded. Knobel somewhat awkwardly describes 
 the general judgment on the nations at Jerusalem, including specially the 
 Babylonians and apostate Jews, as being foUou-ed by the speedy return of 
 the believing exiles. Henderson in like manner makes the restoration /o/Zoz^; 
 the destruction of the projected temple by lightning, and yet supposes it to 
 be described as unexpectedly sudden. Such retrogressions in the order of 
 events are not without example, but they certainly give no advantage to 
 the theories in which they are involved over such as have no need of them. 
 Of this description is Vitringa's doctrine that the passage has respect to the 
 vocation of the gentiles as immediately consequent upon the excision of the 
 Jews — a sequence of events which is continually held up to view in the 
 New Testament history. (Luke 24 : 47. Acts 3 : 26. 13 : 46. 18 : 6. 
 Rom. 1 : 16. 2 : 10.) The only questionable point in his interpretation is 
 his pressing the mere letter of the metaphor too far by representing the gen- 
 tiles or the gentile churches as the male child of which the apostolic church 
 was unexpectedly delivered. It is perfectly sufficient and in better taste, 
 to understand the parturition as a figure for the whole eventful crisis of the 
 change of dispensations, and the consequent change in the condition of the 
 church. This indestructible ideal person, when she might have seemed to 
 be reduced to nothing by the defection of the natural Israel, is vastly and 
 suddenly augmented by the introduction of the gentiles, a succession of 
 events which is here most appropriately represented as the birth of a male 
 child without the pains of childbirth. 
 
 V. S. TVho hath heard such a thing ? ivho hath seen such things 1 
 Shall a land he brought forth in one day, or shall a nation be born at 
 once 1 For Zion hath travailed, she hath also brought forth her children. 
 This verse, in the form of pointed interrogation, represents the event previ- 
 ously mentioned as without example. The terms of the sentence are exceed- 
 ingly appropriate both to the return from Babylon and the future restoration 
 of the Jews, but admit at the same time of a wider application to the change 
 of economy, the birth of the church of the New Testament. 'j"^x appears 
 to be construed as a masculine, because it is put for the inhabitants, as in 
 ch. 9 : 18. 26 : 18 (compare Judges 18 : 30) ; or the verb may take that 
 form according to the usual license when the object follows, as in Gen. 
 13 : 6. Ps. 105 : 30. — The causative sense given to this verb in the Eno-lish 
 and some other versions is not approved by the later lexicographers, who 
 make ^ri!i"' a simple passive. Beck's application of the phrase to the crea- 
 tion of the earth is forbidden by the parallel term "^is . — To avoid the appa- 
 rent contradiction between this and the foregoing verse as to the pains of 
 childbirth, some explain t^'ib'' n5 n^n to mean, ' scarcely had she travailed 
 
 31 
 
48-2 C H A P T E R L X V I . 
 
 when she brought forth,' which is a forced construction. Hitzig attains the 
 same end by making sons the object of both verbs, and making both synony- 
 mous. Both these expedients are unnecessary, as the reference is merely 
 to the short time required for tlie birth, as if he had said, she has (already) 
 travailed, she has also brought forth. 
 
 V. 9. Shall I bring to (he birth and not cause to bring forth ? saiih 
 Jehovah. Or am I the one causing to bring forth, and shall I shut up 1 
 saith thy God. ^Vithout pretending to enumerate the various explanations 
 of this verse, some of which are as disgusting as absurd, it will be sufficient 
 to adduce as specimens Jerome's interpretation, which supposes him to ask 
 whether he who causes others to bring forth shall not bring forth himself; 
 and that of Cocceius, whether he who causes others to bring forth shall not 
 cause Zion to do so likewise. The sense now put upon the figure by the 
 general consent of interpreters, is that he who begins the work may be 
 expected to accomplish it, to be both its author and its finisher. The reason 
 why it is expressed in this form is not any peculiar adaptation or expressive- 
 ness in these unusual metaphors, but simply that the increase of the church 
 had been already represented as a birth, and the additional ideas of the 
 writer are expressed without a change of figure. The precise connexion of 
 the verse with that before it seems to be that it extenuates the wonder 
 which had been described by representing it as something which was to be 
 expected in the case supposed. That is to say, if God had undertaken to 
 supply the place of what his church had lost by new accessions, the extent 
 and suddenness of the effect could not be matters of surprise. On the con- 
 trary, it would have been indeed surprising, if he who began the change had 
 stopped it short, and interfered for the prevention of his own designs. — On 
 the metaphor of this verse and the one preceding, compare ch. 26 : 18; on 
 the peculiar use of "i:?-^ in this application. Gen. 16 : 2. 20 : 18. 
 
 V. 10. Rejoice ye ivith Jerusalem and exult in her, oil that love her ; be 
 glad with her with gladness, all those mourning for her. This is an indirect 
 prediction of the joyful change awaiting Zion, clothed in the form of a com- 
 mand or invitation to her friends to rejoice with her. The expression i^3 si^'^a 
 may either have the same sense, viz. that of sympathetic joy, or it may 
 mean rejoice in her or within her in a local sense, or iji her as the object of 
 your joy, all which constructions are grammatical and justifiable by usage. 
 Different interpreters, according to their various exegetical hypotheses, 
 explain this as a prophecy of Israel's ancient restoration from the Babylonish 
 exile, or of their future restoration from the present exile and dispersion, or 
 of the glorious enlargement of the church after the excision of the unbelieving 
 Jews and the throes of that great crisis in which old things passed away and 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 483 
 
 the new heavens and the new earth came into existence ; which last I beHeve 
 to be the true sense, for reasons which have been aheady fully stated. 
 
 V. 1 1 . That ye may suck and be satisfied from the breast of her con- 
 solations, that ye may milk out and enjoy yourselves from the fulness (or 
 the full breast) of her glory. Those who have sympathized with Zion in 
 her joys and sorrows sliall partake of her abundance and her glory. The 
 figure of a mother is continued, but beautifully varied. The Targum takes 
 litj in its usual sense of spoil or plunder ; but see above on ch. 60 : 16. 
 Hendewerk, with some of the older writers, reads because instead of so that 
 or in order that ; but this is a needless substitution of a meaning rare and 
 doubtful at the best. Suck and be satisfied, milk out and enjoy yourselves 
 may be regarded as examples of hendiadys, meaning suck to satiety and 
 milk out with delight ; but no such change in the form of the translation is 
 required or admissible. The Targum explains f^] as meaning wine ; Lowth 
 proposes to read 'pi provision, but there is no such word ; Cocceius trans- 
 lates it animals, as in Ps. 50 : 11. SO : 14, which makes no sense ; Jerome 
 and Symmachus make it mean variety (omnimoda) ; but the modern writers 
 are agreed that it originally signifies radiation or a radiating motion, then the 
 radiating flow of milk or other liquids, and then fulness or the full breast 
 whence the radiation flows. Glory includes wealth or abundance, but much 
 more, viz. all visible superiority or excellence. 
 
 V. 12. For thus saith Jehovah, Behold I am extending to her peace like 
 a river, and like an overfloiving stream the glory of nations — and ye shall 
 suck — on the side shall ye be borne, and on the knees shall ye be dandled. 
 As ^x is sometimes interchanged with ^? , Vitringa here translates extending 
 over, i. e. so as to cover or submerge. But the force and beauty of the 
 Prophet's figure is secured, without any departure from the ordinary usage, 
 by supposing it to represent a river suddenly or gradually widening its chan- 
 nel or its flow until it reaches to a certain spot, its actual submersion beino- 
 not expressed, though it may be implied. That the particle retains its pro- 
 per meaning may be argued fron) the use of the entire phrase in Gen. 39 : 21. 
 Another suggestion of Vitringa, which has been rejected by the later writers 
 is that "iinj and ^na here denote specifically the Euphrates and the Nile 
 which last he regards as a derivative of the Hebrew word. But the incor- 
 rectness of this etymology, the absence of the article which elsewhere makes 
 the nouns specific, and the uselessness of this supposition to the force and 
 beauty of the passage, all conspire to condemn it. Peace is here to be 
 taken in its frequent sense of welfare or prosperity. (See above, on ch. 
 48 : 18.) The words and ye shall suck are added to announce a resumption 
 of the figure of the foregoing verse. The Targum and Vulgate read i\a b» 
 
484 
 
 CHAPTER LXVI. 
 
 instead of 'r^ 1;? , while Houbigant and Lowth insert the fornner after sucJc 
 (ye shall suck at the breast, ye shall be carried at the side). Equally gra- 
 tuitous is the addition of the pronoun by Henderson (ye shall suck them) 
 and Hendewerk (ye shall suck it), and Gesenius's paraphrase (zum Gcnuss). 
 For the sense of i:i ^? , see above, on ch. 60 : 4, and compare ch. 49 : 22, 
 The objects of address in this verse, are the sons of Zion, to be gathered 
 from all nations. 
 
 V. 13. As a man whom his mother comfortcih, so will I comfort yon, 
 and in Jerusalem shall ye be comforted. De Wette's version, ' as a man who 
 comforts his mother' (der seine Mutter trostet) is so utterly at variance with 
 the form of the original, that it must be regarded as an inadvertence, or per- 
 haps as an error of the press. The image 48 : 18 is essentially the same 
 with that in ch. 49 : 15, but with a striking variation. The English Version, 
 which, in multitudes of cases, inserts man where the original expression is inde- 
 finite, translating oi'5i(V, for example, always no man, here reverses the process 
 and dilutes a man to one. The same liberty is taken by many other versions 
 old and new, occasioned no doubt by a feeling of the incongruity of making 
 a full-grown man the subject of maternal consolations. The difficulty mighty 
 if it were necessary, be avoided by explaining tt3ix to mean a man-child, as 
 it does in Gen. 4:1.1 Sam. 1 : 11, and in many other cases. But the 
 truth is that the solecism, which has been so carefully expunged by these 
 translators, is an exquisite trait of patriarchal manners, in their primitive 
 simplicity. Compare Gen. 24 : 67. Judges 17:2. 1 Kings 2 : 19, 20, 
 and the affecting scenes between Thetis and Achilles in the Iliad. Of the 
 modern writers, Umbreit alone does justice to this beautiful allusion, not 
 only by a strict translation, but by adding as a gloss, * with the consolation 
 of a mother who, as no other can, soothes the ruffled spirit of a man {des 
 Mannes).' Equally characteristic is the brief remark of Hitzig, that 'the 
 ti'^x is not well chosen.' — Lowth in another respect shows what would now 
 be thought a morbid distaste for simplicity by changing the passive, ye shall 
 he comforted into ye shall receive consolation, in order to avoid a repetition 
 which to any unsophisticated ear is charming. — The in Jerusalem suggests 
 the only means by which these blessings are to be secured, viz. a union of 
 afTection and of interest with the Israel of God, to whom alone they are 
 promised. 
 
 V. 14. And ye shall see, and your heart shall leap (with joy), and your 
 hones like grass shall sprout, and the hand of Jehovah shall be known to 
 his servants, and he shall be indignant at his enemies. The object of 
 address still continues to be those who had loved Zion, and had mourned 
 for her, and whom God had promised to comfort in Jerusalem. They are 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 485 
 
 here assured that they shall see for themselves the fulfilment of these promises. 
 — Ewald gives bb its primary sense of bounding, leaping, which agrees well 
 with the strong figure in the next clause, where the bones, as the seat of 
 strength, or the framework of the body, are compared with springing herbage 
 to denote their freshness and vigour. Here again Ewald makes the lano-uao-e 
 more expressive by translating become green like the young grass, which, 
 however, is a paraphrase and not an exact version, as the primary meaning 
 of tiie Hebrew verb is to burst out or put forth. (For the figure, compare 
 ch. 27 : 6. 53 : 1 1. Job 21 : 24. Prov. 3:8. 15 : 30. Ps. 51 : 10, and 
 e converso Ps. 6:3. 22: 15. 31: 11.) There is no need of supposing 
 with Hitzlg that the human frame is likened to a tree of which the bones 
 are the branches, and the muscles, flesh, and skin, the leaves. (See Job 
 10:1 1.) — The hand of God is known when his power is recognised as the 
 cause of any given effect. Gesenius makes f^^l'p the passive of S'^'i'in and 
 nx the sign of the second accusative (it is made known his servants i. e. to 
 his servants). But Hitzig explains the first word as the passive of 21^ and 
 nx as a preposition equivalent to ^> in ch. 53 : 1 and to ^3"'>^ in Ezek. 
 38 : 23, wliere the same passive verb is used. The English Version follows 
 Luther in translating cs'T as a noun, which never has this form, however, out 
 of pause. It is correctly explained by A.ben Ezra as a verb with Vav con- 
 versive. The nx may be either the objective particle, as this verb usually 
 governs the accusative, or a preposition equivalent to ^> crt in Dan. 11 : 30, 
 and to our expression, he is angry with another. Noyes makes this verb 
 agree with hand; which would be ungrammatical, as i; is feminine. The 
 whole clause is omitted in Hendevverk's translation. It is important as 
 affording a transition from the promise to the threatening, in accordance with 
 the Prophet's constant practice of presenting the salvation of God's people 
 as coincident and simultaneous with the destruction of his enemies. 
 
 V. 15. For lo, Jehovah in fire loill come, and like the u-hirlwind his 
 chariots, to appease in fury his anger, and his rebuke in flames of fire. 
 This is an amplification of the brief phrase at the end of v. 14. Lowth 
 reads as afire, with the Septuagint version, which is probably a mere inad- 
 vertence. Luther and others translate tvith fire (see v. 16), but the modern 
 writers generally in fire, that is enveloped and surrounded by it, as on Sinai. 
 (See above, ch. 29 : 6. 30: 27, 30, and compare Ps. 50 : 3.) — The second 
 clause is repeated in Jer. 4 : 13. The points of comparison are swiftness 
 and violence. The allusion is to the two-wheeled chariots of ancient war- 
 fare. Vitringa supposes angels to be mealit, on the authority of Ps. 68 : 18. 
 (Compare Ps. 18 : II.) Hendewerk supposes an allusion to the chariots 
 and horses of fire, mentioned 2 Kings 2:11. 6 : 17. (Compare Hab. 3 : 8.) 
 The English Version supplies ivilh before his chariots, but this is forbidden 
 
486 C II A P T E R L X V I . 
 
 by the order of the words in Hebrew, and unnecessary, as the chariots may 
 be construed either with shall come or with the substantive verb are or shall 
 he. — Ewald agrees with the older writers who give -'«;rj the sense of ren- 
 dering, returning, recompensing, wliich it has in Ps. 54:7. Hos. 12: 15, 
 and in which it is construed with vengeance in Deut. 32 : 41, 43. Render-* 
 son prefers the sense of causing to return, implying repetition and severity. 
 Gesenius adheres to the usage of this very verb and noun in Ps. 78 : 38 and 
 Job 9 : 13 (compare Gen. 27 : 44, 45), where it means to withdraw anger 
 i. e. to appease it, which may seem to be at variance with the context here, 
 but is really, as Maurer has observed, the most appropriate and elegant 
 expression of the writer's meaning, which is that of wrath appeased by 
 being gratified. (Compare ch. 1 : 24 and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 17.) — 
 Lowth's emendation of the test by reading 3"'t;in (from -'^f) to breathe out 
 is gratuitous and not supported by the usage of that verb itself. — Luther 
 and Hendewerk make "Isx n^n a kind of intensive compound (Zornesgluth), 
 as in ch. 42 : 25 ; but it is better with Maurer to regard <^?n3 as qualifying 
 S'^^'n and explaining how his anger was to be appeased, viz. in fury, i. e. in 
 the free indulgence of it. — God's rebuke is often coupled with his wrath as 
 its effect or practical manifestation. (See above, ch. 17 : 13. 51 : 20. 
 54 : 9.) Most writers seem to make rebuke dependent on the preceding 
 verb ; but Hendewerk apparently regards it as an independent clause, exactly 
 similar in form to the second member of the sentence, and like the whirlwind 
 his chariots, and his rthuke inflames ofjire. The leading noun may then, 
 instead of being governed by -^-Jj^ , agree with is or shall be understood. 
 The whole verse represents Jehovah, considered in relation to his enemies, 
 as a consuming fire. (Deut. 4 : 24. Heb. 12 : 29. Comp. 2 Thess. 1 : 8.) 
 
 V. 16. For by fire is Jehovah striving and bij his sword ivith all flesh, 
 and multiplied (or many) are the slain of Jehovah. Fire and sword are 
 mentioned as customary means of destruction, especially in war. The 
 reflexive form use? has here its usual sense of reciprocal judgment, litiga- 
 tion, or contention in general. (See above, ch. 43 : 26.) Gesenius makes 
 it mean directly to punish, which it never means except by implication : and 
 Hitzig, on the same ground, explains rix as the sign of the accusative ; but 
 that it is really a preposition is clear from Ezek. 17 : 20 and Joel 4 : 2. — 
 The repetition of with by Noyes and Henderson, ' with fire, with his sword, 
 with all flesh,' is a cacophonous tautology not found in the original, where 
 two distinct prepositions are employed, which Lowth has well translated by 
 and with. — According to Knobel, all flesh means all nations, and especially 
 the Babylonians who had not been sufficiently punished by Cyrus. Hen- 
 derson applies the verses to the battle of Armageddon, described in Rev. 
 16: 14-21. 19: 1 1-21, and Vitringa admits a reference to the same event. 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 487 
 
 But this interpretation rests upon the false assumption, often noticed iiereto- 
 fore, that the Apocalyptic prophecies are exegetical of those in the Old Tes- 
 tament from which their images and terms are borrowed. — A much surer clew 
 to the primary application of the one before us is aftbrded by our Saviour's 
 words in Matlh. 24 : 2-2, where in speaking of the speedy destruction of 
 Jerusalem he says that excepting the elect no flesh should be saved, i. e. 
 no portion of the Jewish race but those who were ordained to everlasting 
 life through faith in him. This application of Isaiah's prophecy agrees 
 exactly with the view already taken of the whole preceding context as relat- 
 ing to that great decisive crisis in the history of the church and of the world, 
 the dissolution of the old economy and the inauguration of the new. Accord- 
 ing to this view of the passage what is here said of fire, sword, and slaughter, 
 was fulfilled not only as a figurative prophecy of general destruction, but in 
 its strictest sense in the terrific carnage which attended the extinction of the 
 Jewish state, and of which, more emphatically than of any other event out- 
 wardly resembling it, it might be said that many were the slain of Jehovah. 
 
 V. IT. The (men) hallowing themselves and the (men) cleansing 
 themselves to (or towanis) the gardens after one in the midst, eaters of 
 swine's flesh and vermin and mouse, together shall cease (or come to an end), 
 sailh Jehovah. This verse is closely connected with the one before it, and 
 explains who are meant by the slain of Jehovah. It is almost universally 
 agreed that these are here described as gross idolaters ; but Henderson, with 
 some of the old Jewish writers, is inclined to understand it of the Moham- 
 medans, as we shall see. But even among those who understand it of 
 idolaters, there is no small difference of opinion in relation to particular 
 expressions. The class of persons meant is obviously the same as that 
 c^escribed in ch. 65 : 3, 5, the gardens and the swine's flesh being common 
 to both. The reflexive participles in the first clause are technical terms for 
 ceremonial purification under the law of Moses, here transferred to heaths 
 rites. The older writers for the most part follow the Vulgate in explaining 
 miin-'bN as synonymous with niiSa in ch. 65 : 3. Even Gesenius admits 
 this sense, although he gives the preference to that of for. But Maurer 
 speaks of it as one no longer needing refutation, and returns to the strict 
 translation of the Septuagint (kV toiV" x/^ttoiv), implying that they purified 
 themselves not in but on their way to the gardens, which is essentially the 
 sense conveyed by the translation for, i. e. in preparation for the gardens 
 where the idolatrous services were to be performed. The next words 
 (~!!fj5 "^r!? ''•^^) are those which constitute the principal difficulty of the 
 sentence. This some have undertaken to remove by emendations of the 
 text. Even theMasora reads rnx , which is only changing the gender of the 
 numeral. Ewald assimilates the first two words so as to read "ins iris , 
 
488 CHAPTERLXVI. 
 
 which he renders hinteii hinten, i. e. far back. Lowth on the other hand 
 reads "inx inx one one, i. e. one by one, or one after the other. The same 
 reading seems to be implied in Luther's version, one here and another there. 
 The Peshito has one after another, and the same sense is expressed by the 
 Targum, crowd after crowd, and by Symmachus and Theodotion ont'aco 
 aXX/jlwv. SchelHng accordingly inserts a word, reading "inx inw'< nnx . 
 Whether a various reading is implied in the Septuagint version (ev roig 
 nQodvQoi^) or merely a peculiar explanation of in>{ is a matter of dispute. 
 Some, without a change of text, bring out the same sense by supposing an 
 ellipsis. JMost interpreters take "inx (or according to the masoretic Keri 
 nnx) as the numeral one, agreeing either with grove (Aben Ezra), or with 
 pool (Kiinchi),or with tree (Saadias), or with priest or priestess (Gesenius) ; 
 which last may be given as the current explanation, in which an allusion is 
 supposed to an idolatrous procession led by a hierophant. Maurer applies 
 inx to the idol, which he supposes to be so called in contempt, one being 
 then equivalent to the Latin quidam,nescio quern. Vitringa follows Scaliger, 
 Bochart, and other learned men of early date, in treating inx as the proper 
 name of a Syrian idol, called by Sanchoniathon "/^(^co^Oj,- and by Pliny and 
 Macrobius Adad, the last writer adding expressly that the name means one. 
 For the difference of form various explanations have been suggested, and 
 among the rest a corruption in the classical orthography, which is rendered 
 exceedingly improbable, however, by the substantial agreement of the Greek 
 and Latin writers above cited. Rosenmiiller acquiesces in Vitringa's 
 suggestion that the difference of form may be explained by the exclusion of 
 the aspirate from the middle of a Greek word, the hiatus being remedied by 
 the insertion of a dental ; but Gesenius replies that "rns would more naturally 
 have been written "A-j^aSog and Achadiis in Greek and Latin. The maso- 
 retic reading nnx is identified by Clericus with Hecate, in whose Egyptian 
 worship swine's flesh was particularly used. Henderson calls attention to a 
 very striking coincidence between the use of this word here and the constant 
 application of the cognate one in Arabic (tX^() by the Mohammedans to 
 God as being One, in express contradiction to the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 This is especially the case in the ll2th Surah of the Koran, to which they 
 attach peculiar doctrinal importance. The common editions of the Vulgate 
 render "inx here hy janua (like the Peshito) ; but some of more authority 
 have unam, in accordance with the marginal Keri. Besides the difliculty 
 which attends the absolute use of the numeral without a noun, there is 
 another of the same kind arising from the like use of ':\)^ midst without any 
 thing to limit or determine it. Gesenius attaches to it here, as he does in 
 2 Sam. 4 : 6, the sense of the interior or court of an oriental house, and 
 applies it to the edifice in which the lustrations were performed before 
 entering the gardens ; which may also be the meaning of the Septuagint 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 4S9 
 
 version, cjV '^ovg yJinovg, iv loTg TTQoO^vQoig. Maurerand others follow Scaliger, 
 who makes it mean the midst of the grove or garden, where the idol was 
 commonly erected. But Knobel, by ingeniously combining Gen. 42 : 5. 
 Ps. 42 : 5. Ps. 68 : 26, makes it not improbable that in the midst means 
 in the crowd or procession of worshippers. All these constructions adhere 
 to the masoretic points and interpunclion. But Lowth and Henderson 
 follow Theodotion and Symmachus in reading ""ina and connecting it 
 directly with what follows, in the midst of those eating sivine's Jlesh, etc. 
 implying, as Lowth thinks, a participation in tliese impure rites, while 
 Henderson supposes the Mohammedans to be distinguished, as to this point, 
 from the Pagans who surround them. Boettcher departs still further from 
 the usual interpunction, and includes "ins not in the description of the sin, 
 but in the threatening of punishment — in the midst of the eaters of swine's 
 flesh etc. together shall they perish. One reason urged by Henderson in 
 favour of his own construction is without weight, namely, that c^bsx being 
 without the article cannot be in apposition with the words at the beginning 
 of the sentence, but must designate a totally different class of persons. He 
 did not observe that ■^^=x is rendered definite by the addition of a qualifying 
 noun, which being equivalent to the article excludes it. As to the eating 
 of swine's flesh, see above, on ch. 65 : 4. — yi^.'^. may either have its generic 
 sense of abomination or abominable food, or the more specific sense of flesh 
 offered to idols (Hitzig), or of the smaller unclean animals, whether quad- 
 rupeds, insects, or reptiles, to which it is specially applied in the Law (Lev. 
 11 : 41—43), and in reference to which it corresponds very nearly, in effect, 
 to the English word vermin. Spencer thinks that it means a kid boiled in 
 its mother's milk. (Ex. 2.3 : 19. 34 : 26.) Against the wide sense of 
 abomination and in favour of some more specific meaning is the collocation 
 of the word between swine's flesh and the mouse, or as the modern writers 
 understand the word the jerboa or Arabian field-mouse, which is eaten by 
 the Arabs. The actual use of any kind of mouse in the ancient heathen 
 rites has never been established, the modern allegations of the fact being 
 founded on the place before us. As to the application of the passage, those 
 who make the Babylonian exile the great subject of the prophecy, see 
 nothing here but a description of the practices of those Jews who aposta- 
 tized to heathenism, and who were to be cut off by the same judgments 
 which secured the restoration of their brethren. J. D. jMichaelis confesses 
 his uncertainty in what sense this description will be verified hereafter ; and 
 Henderson, who holds the same hypothesis, pleads guilty to a part of the 
 same ignorance, but bravely and ingeniously endeavours, by the combination 
 of the particular contrivances already mentioned, to impart some plausi- 
 bility to his assumption that the prophecy has reference to the future 
 restoration of the Jews. This could not have been done with greater skill 
 
490 CHAPTERLXVl. 
 
 or more success than he has shown in lils attempt to make it probable that 
 what is here predicted is the future destruction of the Moslems as the 
 enemies of Christ's divinity, and noted for their trust in outward rites, espe- 
 cially ablutions — their destruction in the midst of the idolaters whom now 
 they hate most bitterly and most profoundly scorn. This explanation seems 
 to have been framed by its ingenious author without any reference to the 
 dictum of the Rabbins, that the first clause of the verse is a description of 
 the Moslems and their purifications, but the next of the Christians as eaters 
 of swinc-fiesh, and regardless of all difference in meats and drinks. The 
 most offensive part of this interpretation, although extant in the writings of 
 Kimchi himself, has been expunged from most editions for prudential 
 motives. (See Vitringa on the passage.) It is not to be expected that the 
 advocates of any exegetical hypothesis will here abandon it if able by any 
 means to reconcile it with the Prophet's language, and accordingly I see no 
 cause to change my previous conclusion that this prophecy relates to the 
 excision of the Jews and the vocation of the gentiles, or in other words the 
 change o( dispensation. The apparent difficulty which arises from the 
 description of such gross idolatry as all admit to have had no existence 
 among the Jews after their return from exile, is removed by the considera- 
 tion that the Jews were cast off not for the sins of a single generation, but 
 of the race throughout its ancient history, and that idolatry was not only 
 one of these, but that which most abounded in the days of the Prophet ; so 
 that when he looks forward to the great catastrophe and paints its causes, 
 he naturally dips his pencil in the colours which were nearest and most vivid 
 to liis own perceptions, without meaning to exclude from his description 
 other sins as great or greater in themselves, which afterwards supplanted 
 these revolting practices as the besetting national transgressions of apostate 
 Israel. A writer in the early days of Wilberforce and Clarkson in denouncing 
 God's wrath upon England would most naturally place the oppression of 
 the negro in the foreground of his picture, even if he had been gifted to 
 foresee that this great evil in the course of time would be completely 
 banished from the sight of men by new forms of iniquity successively 
 usurping its conspicuous position, such as excessive luxury, dishonest specu- 
 lation, and ambitious encroachment on the rightful possessions of inferior 
 powers in the east. If it were really God's purpose to destroy that mighty 
 kingdom for its national offences, he would not lose sight of ancient half- 
 forgotten crimes, because they have long since given place to others more 
 or less atrocious. So in reference to Israel, although the generation upon 
 whom the final blow fell were hypocrites, not idolaters, the misdeeds of their 
 fathers entered into the account, and they were cast off not merely as the 
 murderers of the Lord of Life, but as apostates who insulted Jehovah to his 
 face by bowing down to stocks and stones in groves and gardens, and by 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 491 
 
 eating swine's flesh, the abomination, and the mouse. And as all this was 
 included in the grounds of their righteous condemnation, it might well be 
 rendered prominent in some of the predictions of that great catastrophe. — 
 Another possible interpretation of the passage, in direct application to the 
 unbelieving Jews who were contemporary with our Saviour, is obtained by 
 supposing an allusion to v. 3, where those who still clung to the abrogated 
 ritual are put upon a level with the grossest idolaters, and may here be 
 absolutely so described, just as the rulers and people of Jerusalem in ch. 
 1 : 9 are addressed directly as rulers of Sodom and people of Gomorrah, on 
 account of the comparison immediately preceding. This view of the passage 
 is undoubtedly favoured by the mention of swine's flesh in both places, which 
 would naturally make the one suggestive of the other. Neither of these 
 exegetical hypotheses requires the assumption of imaginary facts, such as the 
 practice of idolatry by the Jews in exile, or their return to it hereafter. 
 
 V. 18. And I — their ivorks and their thoughts — it is come — to gather 
 all the nations and the tongues — and they shall come and see my glory. 
 This is an exact transcript of the Hebrew sentence, the grammatical con- 
 struction of which has much perplexed interpreters. Luther cuts the knot 
 by arbitrary transposition, / will come and gather all their worlcs and 
 thoughts tvith all nations etc. ; J. D. Michaelis, by a no less arbitrary 
 change of pointing, so as to read, they are my vjorJc, even mine, and my 
 thought, i. e. care. Tremellius and Cocceius among the older writers, Hitzig 
 and Hendewerk among the moderns, follow Jarchi in taking the pronoun as 
 a nominative absolute and construing ^in2 with the nouns preceding : As 
 for me — their works and thoughts are come to gather etc. Hitzig explains 
 are come as meaning they have this effect ; while Hendewerk gives to the 
 nouns themselves the sense of recompense, as in ch. 40 : 10 and Rev. 14 : 13. 
 Henderson has substantially the same construction, but supplies before me 
 after come, and takes "j'?!^^ as a simple future, I will assemble ; both which 
 assumptions are extremely forced. Vitringa, Gesenius, and most other 
 writers, suppose an aposiopesis or a double ellipsis, supplying a verb after 
 "'^ifj and a noun before t^5<2. The verb most commonly supplied is know, 
 as in the English Version (I know their works and their thoughts), and sub- 
 stantially in the Chaldee Paraphrase (revealed before me are their works 
 and thoughts). The noun supplied is time, according to the dictum of Aben 
 Ezra. But the verb supplied by Maurer is / ivill punish, and he makes 
 nxa impersonal, it comes or it is come, as we say, Is it come to this ? without 
 referring to a definite subject. In this obscurity and doubt as to the syntax, 
 there is something attractive in the theory of Ewald and Knobel, who sup- 
 ply nothing, but regard the first clause as a series of broken and irregular 
 ejaculations, in which the expression of the thought is interrupted by the 
 
492 CHAPTERLXVI. 
 
 writer's feelings. — Common to all these explanations is the general assump- 
 tion that the words and thoughts of the persons in question are in some way 
 represented as the cause or tiie occasion of the gailiering mentioned in the 
 other clause. The use of the word tongues as as an equivalent to nations, 
 has reference to national distinctions springing from diversity of language, 
 and is founded on Gen. 10 ; 5, 20, 31, by the influence of which passage 
 and the one before us it became a phrase of frequent use in Daniel, whose 
 predictions turn so much upon the calling of the gentiles. (Dan. 3 : 4, 7, 31. 
 5 : 19.) The representation of this form of speech as an Aramaic idiom by 
 some modern critics is characteristic of their candor. — To see the glory of 
 Jehovah is a phrase repeatedly used elsewhere to denote the special mani- 
 festation of his presence and his power (ch. 40 : 4. 59 : 19. 60 : 2), and 
 is applied by Ezekiel to the display of his punitive justice in the sight of 
 all mankind (Ezek. 39: 8). Cocceius refers this passage to the Reforma- 
 tion and the Council of Trent. The Jews understand it of the strokes to 
 be inflicted hereafter on their enemies. But as we have seen that the crimes 
 described in the foregoing verses are not those of the heathen, but of the 
 apostate Jews, whose deeds and thoughts must therefore be intended in the 
 first clause, the explanation most in harmony with this immediate context, 
 as well as with the whole drift of the prophecy thus far, is that which makes 
 the verse before us a distinct prediction of the calling of the gentiles, both 
 to witness the infliction of God's vengeance on the Jews, and to supply their 
 places in his church or chosen people. It is perhaps to the language of 
 this prophecy that Christ himself alludes in Matt. 24 : 31. (Compare also 
 John 5 : 25.) 
 
 V. 19. And 1 10 III jjlace in them (or among them) a sign, and I will 
 send of them survival's (or escaped oJies) to the nations, Tarshish, Pul, and 
 Lud, drawers of the how, Tubal and Javan, the distant isles, which have 
 not heard my fame and have not seen my glory, and they shall declare my 
 glory among the nations. By a sign Grotius understands a signal, making 
 nix equivalent to o? in ch. 5 : 26. 11 : 12. 18 : 3. 62 : 10. Gesenius 
 objects to the sense thus put upon J^ix as not sustained by usage ; but Mau- 
 rcr defends it as easily deducible from that of a military standard, which it 
 has in Num. 2 : 2. Most modern writers agree, however, with Gesenius in 
 determining the sense of the whole phrase from that which it evidently has 
 in Ex. 10 : 1, 2, wliere God is twice said to have placed his signs among 
 the Egyptians, with evident allusion to the plagues as miraculous evidences 
 of his power. Explained by this analogy, the clause before us would 
 appear to mean, I will work a miracle among them or before them. — The 
 c^a^Q, as in ch. 4 : 3, are the survivors of the judgments previously men- 
 tioned. These are sent to the nations, of whom some arc then particularly 
 
CHAPTER LXVI. 493 
 
 mentioned. For the sense of Tarshish, see above, on cb. 60 : 9. Its use 
 here may be regarded as decisive of the question whether it denotes the sea. 
 Even the Septuagint, the oldest authority for that interpretation, here retains 
 the Hebrew word ; and Luther, though lie still translates it sea, is compelled 
 to avoid a palpable absurdity by altering the syntax so as to read to the 
 nations on the sea, whereas Tarshish is added to the general term nations 
 precisely as the other names are added afterwards. The incongruity of this 
 translation of the word is exhibited without disguise in the Vulgate, ad 
 gcjitcs, in mare, in Africam, etc., so that the sea stands first in a catalogue 
 o{ nations. — Pul is identified by Bochart with the island Philae in the Nile 
 on the frontier of Ethiopia and Egypt ; which Gesenius rejects as improbable, 
 without proposing any better explanation. Hitzig and Knobel regard it as 
 an orthographical variation or an error of the text for Put or Phut, which 
 is elsewhere joined with L}t(I (Jer. 46 : 9. Ezek. 27 : 10) and rejieatedly 
 written in the Septuagint fl'ovd (Gen. 10:6. 1 Chron. 1 : 8), the same 
 form which that version here employs. All agree that the name belongs to 
 Africa, like that which follows, Lud, the Liidim of Gen. 10:3 and Jer. 
 46 : 9, elsewhere represented as archers (Ezek. 27 : 10. 30 : 5). There 
 is no ground, therefore, for suspecting, with Lowth and J. D. Michaelis, that 
 nop ■'zon is an error of the text for "['C'o Meshech, although that name fre- 
 quently occurs in connexion with the following name Tubal (Gen. 10:2. 
 Ez. 27 : 13, etc.) as denoting the Moaxoi y.(u Ti^anrivo] of Herodotus. Javan 
 is the Hebrew name for Greece (Gen. 10 : 2. Dan. 8 : 21. Zech. 9: 13), 
 perhaps identical with Ion or Ionia. Gesenius quotes a Scholiast on Aristo- 
 phanes as saying, nurrag tovg'EXXijvag 'luovug oi ^uQ^aQot r/.aXovv. The same 
 name essentially exists in Sanscrit. Even Henderson, instead of finding 
 here, as might perhaps have been expected, a specific promise of the future 
 conversion (or reconversion) of the nations specified, affirms that they are 
 "obviously given as a sample." This is rendered still more certain by the 
 addition of the general expression, the remote coasts or islands ; for the sense 
 of which see above, on ch. 41 : 1. It is not without plausibility suggested 
 by Vitringa, that some of the obscure names here used were selected for the 
 express purpose of conveying the idea of remote and unknown regions. 
 The restriction of the promise to the very places mentioned would be like 
 the proceeding of a critic who should argue hereafter from the mention of 
 Greenland, India, Africa, and Ceylon, in Heber's Missionary Hymn, that 
 the zeal of English Protestants extended only to those portions of the hea- 
 then world. As this interpretation of the hymn would be forbidden, not 
 only by the general analogy of figurative language and of lyric composition, 
 but by the express use of such universal phrases as "from pole to pole" in 
 the very same connexion, so in this case it is plain that the essential mean- 
 ing of the whole enumeration is that expressed in the following clause : ivho 
 
494 C H A P T E R L X V I . 
 
 have 7iot heard my fame and have not seen my glory ? Lowlh's poor attempt 
 at emendation of the text by reading name for fame ("rtii for ''^.'ct) is not 
 only built upon a false assumption of unvaried uniformity in the expression 
 of the same idea, but unsupported even by the Septuagint version (ovofm), 
 which Kocher has shown to be a frequent equivalent in that translation for 
 the Hebrew ^^'^^ . — As to the meaning of the whole verse, or the nature of 
 the event which it predicts, interpreters differ in exact accordance with their 
 several hypotheses. Gesenius understands by the sign here promised, the 
 extraordinary confluence of Jews from all parts of the world. Hitzig agrees 
 with the Rabbins in supposing it to designate a miraculous slaughter of the 
 enemies of Zion, which they however represent as future, while he supposes 
 that the writer expected it to take place at the time of the return from Baby- 
 lon. According to Henderson, " the missionaries to be sent to the different 
 parts of the world are gentiles, who sliall have been present at, but have 
 not perished in, the great overthrow in Palestine." All these explanations 
 proceed upon the supposition that the pronoun (hem, which is twice used in 
 the first clause, must refer to the tongues and nations mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding verse, and Henderson speaks of its reference to the Jews themselves 
 as " violent." But this is only true on the assumption that the nineteenth 
 verse describes something subsequent in time to the eighteenth, which is not 
 only needless but at variance with the context. For with what consistency- 
 could the Prophet represent all nations as assembled at Jerusalem and then 
 the survivors or escaped among them being sent to all the 7iations 1 To 
 say that the first is a figure of speech, is only saying what may just as well 
 be said of the other. If the Prophet really presents to us in v. 18 the image 
 of a general assemblage of the nations, we have no right to suppose that in 
 the next verse he has quite forgotten it. The only way in which these 
 seeming contradictions can be reconciled is by assuming what is in itself 
 most natural and perfectly agreeable to usage, namely, that v. 19 does not 
 describe the progress of events beyond the time referred to in v, IS, but 
 explains in what way the assemblage there described is to be brought about. 
 I will gather all nations. By what means ? I will send those who escape 
 my judgments to invite them. Both verses being then collateral and equally 
 dependent on v. 17, the pronoun them refers to the persons there described, 
 viz. the apostate Jews whose excision is the subject of this prophecy. The 
 whole may then be paraphrased as follows : Such being their character, I 
 will cast them off and gather the nations to take their place ; for which end 
 I will send forth the survivors of the nation, the elect for whose sake these 
 •days shall be shortened when all besides them perish, to declare my glory 
 in the regions where my name has never yet been heard. Thus understood, 
 the passage is exactly descriptive of the preaching of the gospel at the 
 beginning of the new dispensation. All the first preachers were escaped 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 495 
 
 Jews, plucked as brands from the burning, saved from that perverse genera- 
 tion (Acts 2:40). The sign will then denote the whole miraculous display 
 of divine power, in bringing the old dispensation to a close and introducing 
 the new, including the destruction of the unbelieving Jews on the one hand, 
 and on the other all those signs and wonders and divers miracles and eifts of 
 the Holy Ghost (Heb. 2 : 4), which Paul calls the signs of an apostle 
 (2 Cor. 12 : 12), and which Christ himself had promised should follow 
 them that believed (Mark 16 : 17). All these were signs placed among 
 them, i. e. among the Jews, to the greater condemnation of the unbelievers, 
 and to the salvation of such as should be saved. — That there will not be 
 hereafter an analogous display of divine power in the further execution of 
 this promise, cannot be proved, and need not be affirmed ; but if there never 
 should be, it will still have had a glorious fulfilment in a series of events com- 
 pared with which the restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Canaan 
 is of little moment. 
 
 V. 20. And they shall bring all your brethren from all nations, an 
 oblation to Jehovah, with horses, and with chariot, and with litters, and 
 with mules, and with dromedaries, on my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith 
 Jehovah, as the children of Israel bring the oblation in a clean vessel to the 
 house of Jehovah. The verb at the beginning may be construed either with 
 the messengers of v. 1 9, or indefinitely as denoting ' men shall bring your 
 brethren,' equivalent in Hebrew usage to 'your brethren shall be brought.' 
 Although this last construction is in perfect agreement with analogy, the 
 other is not only unobjectionable but entitled to the preference as much 
 more graphic and expressive. The survivors sent forth to the nations are 
 then described as bringing back the converts to the true religion as an offer- 
 ing to Jehovah. Their return for this purpose is described as easy, swift, 
 and even splendid, all the choicest methods of conveyance used in ancient 
 times being here combined to express that idea. As to the sense of the 
 particular expressions there is no longer any dispute or doubt, and a general 
 reference may be made to the lexicons. Lowth here exhibits an extraordi- 
 nary lapse of taste and judgment in transforming litters into councs, as if this 
 uncouth Persian word, which he had found in Thevenot, could make the' 
 sentence either more perspicuous or better English, With equal riuht he 
 might have introduced the native or vernacular name of the peculiar oriental 
 mule etc. It does not even matter as to the general meaning of the verse, 
 whether a -:2 was a coach, a litter, or a wagon, since either would suggest 
 the idea of comparatively rapid and convenient locomotion. — The nn?^ was 
 the stated vegetable offering of the Mosaic ritual. It was commonly com- 
 posed of flour with oil and incense ; but the name, in its widest sense, may 
 be considered as including fruits and grain in a crude as well as a prepared 
 
496 CH AP T ER LX VI. 
 
 state. This oblation seems to be selected here as free from the concomitant 
 ideas of cruelty and grossness which were inseparable from bloody sacrifices. 
 The 'ix'^2;; at the end cannot be grammatically rendered as a past tense, 
 which form Hitzig here adopts perhaps in accommodation to his theory as 
 to the composition of the passage during the Babylonish exile. Even in 
 that case, however, the future would be perfectly appropriate, as implying 
 an expected restoration of the ancient rites, much more if we suppose that 
 the verse was written before they had ever been suspended. — The only 
 general excgetical question in relation to this verse is whether your brethren 
 means the scattered Jews or the converted gentiles. Here again, all depends 
 upon a foregone conclusion. Henderson says, " that your brethren means 
 the Jews there can be no doubt," in which he is sustained by ihe Jews 
 themselves, and by Maurer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel ; while the 
 opposite conclusion is considered equally indubitable not only by Vitringa 
 but by Gesenius, Ewald, and Umbreit. In answer to the question how the 
 Jews are to be thus brought by the nations, when the gathering of the 
 nations is itself to be occasioned by the previous gathering of tiie Jews, he 
 replies that the verse " regards such Jews as might not yet have reached 
 the land of their fathers," as if this contingent possible residuum could be 
 described as all your brethren from all nations ! How inextricably this 
 one case is implicated in the general question as to the subject and design 
 of the prophecy, appears from the fact that those who apply this expression 
 to the Jews content themselves with citing all the other places in Isaiah 
 where precisely the same doubt exists as in the case before us. In favour 
 of the other explanation Vitringa adduces and perhaps too strongly urges 
 Paul's description of the gentiles as an oblation which he as an officiating 
 priest offered up to God. (Rom. 15 : 26.) Although it may be doubted 
 whether Paul, as Vitringa says, there formally explains or even quotes this 
 prophecy, his obvious allusion to its images and terms shows at least that 
 he considered them as bearing such an application, and in the absence of 
 any other gives it undoubtedly a clear advantage. Another suggestion of 
 Vitringa, not unworthy of attention, is that there may here be special refer- 
 ence to the early converts from the heathen world considered as the Jirst 
 fruits of the spiritual harvest ; which agrees well with the wide use of the 
 technical term nns-a as already stated, and with the frequent application of 
 the figure of first fruits to the same subject in the books of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 V. 21. And also of them will I take for the priests for the Leviies 
 3aith Jehovah. Many manuscripts supply and before the second for, and 
 Lowth considers it necessary to the sense, and accordingly inserts it. The 
 peculiar form of the common text may be intended to identify the two 
 
CHAPTERLXVI. 497 
 
 classes, as in point of fact the priests were all without exception Levites. 
 It seems at least to be implied that the distinction is in this case of no con- 
 sequence, both names being given lest either should appear to be excluded. 
 The only question here is to what the pronoun them refers. The Jews of 
 course refuse to understand it of the gentiles ; and even Joseph Kimchi, who 
 admits this application as required by the context, avoids all inconvenient 
 consequences by explaining for the priests and Levites, to mean for their 
 service, as hewers of wood and drawers of water ! Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, 
 Maurer, Ewald, and Umbreit, do not hesitate to understand the promise of 
 the gentiles, and to see in it an abrogation of the ancient national distinc- 
 tions, without seeming to remember the directly opposite interpretation put 
 by some of themselves upon ch. 61 : 5, 6. Hitzig and Knobel, more con- 
 sistent in their exposition, go back to the ground maintained by Grotius and 
 the rabbins, namely, that of them means of the scattered Jews, who should 
 not be excluded from the honours of the priestly office. But why should 
 mere dispersion be considered as disqualifying Levites for the priesthood ? 
 Or if the meaning be that the levitical prerogative should be abolished, why 
 is the promise here restricted to the exiles brought back by the nations ? If 
 the Prophet meant to say, all the other tribes shall share the honours of the 
 tribe of Levi, he could hardly have expressed it more obscurely than by 
 saying, 'also of them (the restored Jews) will he take for priests and 
 Levites.' — Of those who adopt the natural construction which refers of 
 them to gentile converts, some with Cocceius understand this as a promise 
 that they shall all be admitted to the spiritual priesthood common to 
 believers. But Vitringa objects that the expressions I will take and of 
 them, both imply selection and discrimination. He theiefore refers it to the 
 Christian ministry, to which the gentiles have as free access as Jews. There 
 can be no doubt that this office might be so described in a strongly figura- 
 tive context, where the functions of the ministry were represented in the 
 same connexion as sacerdotal functions. But the only offering here men- 
 tioned is the offering of the gentile converts as an oblation to Jehovah, and 
 the priesthood meant seems therefore to be merely the ministry of those by 
 whom their conversion was effected. The most natural interpretation there- 
 fore seems to be as follows. The mass of the Jewish people was to be cast 
 off from all connexion with the church ; but the elect who should escape 
 were to be sent among the nations and to bring them for an offering to Jeho- 
 vah, as the priests and Levites ofiered the oblation at Jerusalem. But this 
 agency was not to be confined to the Jews who were first entrusted with it ; 
 not only of them, but also of the gentiles themselves, priests and Levites 
 should be chosen to offer this oblation i. e. to complete the vocation of the 
 gentiles. Should the context be supposed to require a still more general 
 meaning, it may be that the sacerdotal mediation of the ancient Israel 
 
 32 
 
498 CHAPTERLXVI. 
 
 between Jehovah and the other nations, which was symbolized by the 
 Levitical and Aaronic priestliood, was to cease with the necessity that 
 brought it into being, and to leave the divine presence as accessible to one 
 race as another. 
 
 V. 22. For as the neiv heavens and the new earth, which I am ma'king 
 (or about to make), are standing (or about to stand) before me, saith Jeho- 
 vah, so shall stand your name and your seed. To the reference of the pre- 
 ceding vei-se to the gentiles it is urged as one objection, that the verse before 
 us does not give a reason for the promise so explained ; for how could it be 
 said that God woidd put them on a level with the Jews because the name 
 and succession of the latter were to be perpetual ? But this objection rests 
 upon the false assumption, running through the whole interpretation of this 
 book, that the promise is addressed to Israel as a nation ; whereas it is 
 addressed to Israel as a church, from which the natural descendants of 
 Jacob for the most part have been cut off, and the object of this verse is to 
 assure the church that notwithstanding this excision it should still continue 
 to exist, not only as a a church but as the church, the identical body which 
 was clothed in the forms of the old dispensation and which still survives 
 when they are worn out and rejected. The grand error incident to a change 
 of dispensations was the very one which has perverted and obscured the 
 meaning of these prophecies, the error of confounding the two Israels whom 
 Paul so carefully distinguishes, and of supposing that the promises given to 
 the church when externally identified with one race are continued to that 
 race even after their excision from the church. It was to counteract this 
 very error that the verse before us was recorded, in which God's people, 
 comprehending a remnant of the natural Israel and a vast accession from the 
 gentiles, are assured that God regards them as his own chosen people, not a 
 new one, but the same that was of old, and that the very object of the great 
 revolution here and elsewhere represented as a new creation was to secure 
 their perpetuity and constant recognition as his people. Since then he 
 creates new heavens and a new earth for this very purpose, that purpose 
 cannot be defeated while these heavens and that earth endure. — The Jews 
 themselves understand this as a promise that their national pre-eminence shall 
 be perpetual, and several of the modern German writers give it the same 
 sense in reference to the New Jerusalem or Jewish state after the Babylo- 
 nish exile. Henderson goes with them in making it a promise to the Jews, 
 but stops short at the turning-point and represents it as ensuring merely that 
 " they shall never be any more rejected, but shall form one fold with the 
 gentiles under the one Shepherd and Bishop of souls, the Great Messiah." 
 How this assurance affords any ground or reason for the previous declara- 
 tion, as explained by Henderson, " that the performance of divine service 
 
CHAPTER LXVl. 499 
 
 shall not be restricted to the tribe of Levi, but shall be the common privilege 
 of the whole people," does not appear, and cannot well be imagined. 
 
 V. 23. And it shall be (or C07ne to pass) that from new-moon to new- 
 moon (or on every new-moon), and from sabbath to sabbath (or 07i every 
 sabbath), shall come all flesh to bow themselves (or ivorshij)) before me, 
 saith Jehovah. The form of expression in the first clause is so idiomatic 
 and peculiar that it does not admit of an exact translation. A slavish copy 
 of the original would be, ' from the sufficiency of new moon in its new moon 
 and from the sufficiency of sabbath in its sabbath.' As to '^'il'?, see above, 
 oh. 28: 19. It often stands where we should say as often as (1 Sam. 
 18 : 30. 1 Kings 14 : 28). The antecedent of the pronoun seems to be the 
 noun itself. Gesenius accordingly explains the whole to mean, as often as 
 the new-moon comes in its new-moon, i. e. its appointed time. (Compare 
 Num. 28 : 10.) But although the form is so peculiar, there is no doubt 
 among modern writers as to the essential meaning, viz. from new-moon to 
 new-moon or at every new-moon. The idea of Cocceius that every new- 
 moon is here represented as occurring in a new-moon, and every sabbath 
 in a sabbath, because there is one perpetual new-moon and sabbath, shows 
 a disposition to convert an idiom into a mystery. The Septuagint and Vul- 
 gate read 'there shall be a month from a month, and a sabbath from a sab- 
 bath,' which appears to have no meaning. The other ancient versions are 
 equally obscure. — At these stated periods of public worship under the old 
 economy (those of most frequent recurrence being specified) all fesh shall 
 come up to worship before me. According to the Jewish doctrine this can 
 only mean 'must come up to Jerusalem,' and the Septuagint actually has the 
 name. Against this restriction Henderson protests, " as it is absolutely 
 Impossible that all should be able to repair thither." Yet in his note upon 
 the next verse he observes that " the scene is laid in the environs of Jeru- 
 salem ;" and he makes no attempt to Indicate a change of subject in the verbs, 
 or an interruption of the regular construction. By combining his two com- 
 ments, therefore, we obtain this sense, that ' from month to month and from 
 sabbath to sabbath all flesh shall come to worship before God, wherever they 
 may be, in all parts of the earth, and shall go out into the environs of Jeru- 
 salem and see' etc. If it be possible in any case to reason from the context, 
 it would seem plain here, that as the scene in the last verse is laid in the 
 environs of Jerusalem it must be laid there in the one before it; as the same 
 sentence is continued through botli verses, and the subjects of the verbs in 
 the contiguous clauses are confessedly identical. On our hypothesis there 
 is no more need of excluding Jerusalem from one verse than the other, since 
 the Prophet, in accordance with his constant practice, speaks of the eman- 
 cipated church in language borrowed from her state of bondage ; and that 
 
500 CHAPTERLXVl. 
 
 this form of expression is a natural one, may be inferred from the facility 
 with which it is perpetuated in the common parlance of the church and of 
 religion, the Jerusalem or Zion of our prayers and hymns being perfectly 
 identical with that of the prophecy before us. Thus understood, the verse 
 is a prediction of the general diffusion of the true religion with its stated 
 observances and solemn forms. 
 
 V. 24. And they shall go forth and gaze upon the carcases of the men 
 who revolted (or apostatized) from me, for their worm shall not die and 
 their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an horror to all flesh. 
 The first verb may be construed as it is by Ewald indefinitely, ' they i. e. 
 men,' without defining them ; but in so vivid a description, it is certainly more 
 natural to give the verbs a definite subject, and especially the one that had 
 been previously introduced, viz. the worshippers assembled from all nations 
 to do homage at Jerusalem. — The noun I'iN'nn occurs only here and (with a 
 slight variation) in Dan. 12: 2. The ancient versions seem to have derived 
 it from nxn, and to have given it the sense of sight or spectacle. The Sep- 
 tuagint has. simply tig oQaaiv; but the Targum and Vulgate seem to make 
 tile word a compound from ns'i and "'';] , as the former has, ' the wicked shall 
 be judged in Gehenna till the just say of them, we have seen enough,' and 
 the latter, erunt usque ad saiietatem visionis. The modern lexicographers 
 refer it to an Arabic root expressive of repulsion, and explain the noun itself 
 to mean abhorrence or disgust. — This sublime conclusion has been greatly 
 weakened and obscured, by the practice of severing it from the context as a 
 kind of moral, application, practical improvement, or farewell warning to 
 the reader. All this it is incidentally and with the more complete effect 
 because directly and primarily it is an integral part of the " great argument" 
 with which the whole book has been occupied, and which the Prophet never 
 loses sight of to the end of his last sentence. The grand theme of these 
 prophecies, as we have seen, is the relation of God's people to himself and 
 to the world, and in the latter stages of its history, to that race with which 
 it was once outwardly identical. The great catastrophe vy'ith which the 
 vision closes is the change of dispensations, comprehending the final aboli- 
 tion of the ceremonial law, and its concomitants, the introduction of a spiritual 
 worship and the consequent diffusion of the church, its vast enlargement by 
 the iiitr()(hiclion of all gentile converts to complete equality of privilege and 
 honour wiili the believing Jews, and the excision of the unbelieving Jews 
 from all connexion with the church or chosen people, which they once ima- 
 gined to have no existence independent of themselves. The contrast 
 between these two bodies, the rejected Jews, and their believing brethren 
 forming one great mass with the believing gentiles, is continued to the end, 
 and presented for the last time in these two concluding verses, where the 
 
CHAPTER LXV I. 501 
 
 whole is condensed into a single vivid spectacle, of which the central figure 
 is Jerusalem and its walls the dividing line between the two contrasted 
 objects. Within is the true Israel, without the false. Within, a great con- 
 gregation, even " all flesh," come from the east and the west, and the north 
 and the south, while the natural children of the kingdom are cast out. (Matth. 
 8 : 12.) The end of the former is left to be imagined or inferred from other 
 prophecies, but that of the latter is described, or suggested in a way more 
 terrible than all description. In the valley of the son of Hinnom, under the 
 very brow of Zion and Moriah, where the children were once sacrificed to 
 Moloch, and where purifying fires were afterwards kept ever burning, the 
 apostate Israel is finally exhibited, no longer living but committed to the 
 flames of Tophet. To render our conception more intense the worm is 
 added to the flame, and both are represented as undying. That the con- 
 trast hitherto maintained may not be forgotten even in this closing scene, 
 the men within the walls may be seen by the light of those funereal fires 
 coming forth and gazing at the ghastly scene, not with delight as some inter- 
 preters pretend, but as the text expressly says with horror. The Hebrew 
 phrase here used means to look with any strong emotion, that of pleasure 
 which is commonly suggested by the context being here excluded not by 
 inference or implication merely but by positive assertion. The whimsy of 
 Grotius that the verse describes the unburied bodies of the enemies slaugh- 
 tered by the Maccabees and the protracted conflagration of their dwellings, 
 needs as little refutation as the Jewish dream that what is here described 
 is the destruction of the enemies of Israel hereafter. In its primary mean- 
 ing, I regard it as a prophecy of ruin to the unbelieving Jews, apostate 
 Israel, to whom the Hebrew phrase here used ("^3 diSJ'iiQii) is specially 
 appropriate. But as the safety of the chosen remnant was to be partaken 
 by all other true believers, so the ruin of the unbelieving Jew is to be shared 
 by every other unbeliever. — Thus the verse becomes descriptive of the final 
 doom of the ungodly, without any deviation from its proper sense, or any 
 supposition of a mere allusion or accommodation in the use of the same 
 figures by our Lord himself in reference to future torments. All that is 
 requisite to reconcile and even to identify the two descriptions is the con- 
 sideration that the state of ruin here described is final and continuous, how- 
 ever it may be divided, in the case of individuals, between the present life 
 and that which is to come. Hell is of both worlds, so that in the same 
 essential sense although in difli'erent degrees it may be said both of him who 
 is still living but accursed, and of him who perished centuries ago, that his- 
 worm dieih not and his fire is not quenched. 
 
 THE END. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 7 13^ 
 
 Pr-.^. 
 
 ^rr p vr' , ^ 
 
 : ' ) / 
 
 LIBRARY USE 
 
 ^N V:}^r>i 
 
 DEC 11 1951 
 
 ^(L'^V^ jf^JXtK 
 
 Q^ui^Cc -/u^- 
 
 ^ 
 
 IBRARY 
 
 ^t?r 
 
 ■^ 
 
 INTER 
 
 LDAR 
 
 i^' 
 
 5-p 2i m3 
 
 RFC^D LE^ 
 
 JAN 2 9 'G4 - 9 A M 
 
 ! ) .. 
 
 r^OO ' H 
 
 pa9 
 
 gr 
 
 M/';^ 7 '67 -a 
 
 LO/ 
 
 NOV 2 ^- 
 
 LD 21-100m-7,'39(402s) 
 
U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CD^7^^33S7 
 
 t- 
 
 ■'■»<