THE design of this chapter is to show the connexion between the sins and sufferings of God’s people, and the necessity of further judgments, as means of purification and deliverance.
The popular corruption is first exhibited as the effect of alienation from God, and as the cause of national calamities, vs. 2—9. It is then exhibited as coexisting with punctilious exactness in religious duties, and as rendering them worthless, vs. 10-20. It is finally exhibited in twofold contrast, first with a former state of things, and then with one still future, to be brought about by the destruction of the wicked, and especially of wicked rulers, vs. 21—31. The first part of the chapter describes the sin and then the suffering of the people. The former is characterized as filial ingratitude, stupid inconsideration, habitual transgression, contempt of God, and alienation from him, vs. 2-4. The suffering is first represented by the figure of disease and wounds, and then in literal terms as the effect of an invasion, by which the nation was left desolate, and only saved by God’s regard for his elect from the total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, vs. 5—9.
The second part is connected with the first by the double allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah, with which one closes and the other opens. In this part the Prophet shows the utter inefficacy of religious rites to counteract the natural effect of their iniquities, and then exhorts them to the use of the true remedy. Under the former head, addressing them as similar in character to Sodom and Gomorrah, he describes their sacrifices as abundant and exact, but not acceptable; their attendance at the temple as punctual, and yet insulting; their bloodless offerings as abhorrent, and their holy days as wearisome and hateful on account of their iniquities; their very prayers as useless, because their hands were stained with blood, vs. 10-15. As a necessary means of restoration to God’s favour, he exhorts them to for sake their evil courses and to exercise benevolence and justice, assuring them that God was willing to forgive them and restore the advantages which they had forfeited by sin, but at the same time resolved to punish the impenitent transgressor, vs. 16—20. 1
The transition from the second to the third part is abrupt, and introduced by a pathetic exclamation. In this part the Prophet compares Israel as it is with what it has been and with what it shall be. In the former comparison, he employs two metaphors, each followed by a literal explanation of its mean ing; that of a faithful wife become a harlot, and that of adulterated wine and silver, both expressive of a moral deterioration, with special reference to magistrates and rulers, vs. 21-23. In the other comparison, the coming judgments are presented in the twofold aspect of purification and deliverance to the church, and of destruction to its wicked members. The Prophet sees the leading men of Israel destroyed, first as oppressors, to make room for righteous rulers and thus save the state, then as idolaters consumed by that in which they trusted for protection, vs. 24-31.
This chapter is referred by Grotius and Cocceius to the reign of Uzziah, by Lowth and De Wette to the reign of Jotham, by Gesenius and Ewald to the reign of Ahaz, by Jarchi and Vitringa to the reign of Hezekiah. This disagreement has arisen from assuming that it must be a prediction in the strict sense, and have reference to one event or series of events exclusively, while in the prophecy itself there are no certain indications of the period referred to. The only points which seem to furnish any data for determining the question, are the invasion mentioned in v. 7, and the idolatry referred to in vs. 28—31. But the former is almost equally applicable to the Syrian invasion under Ahaz and the Assyrian under Hezekiah. And the idolatry is mentioned in connexion with a punctilious regard to the forms of the Mosaic ritual. At the same time, it is evident that the chapter contains one continuous coherent composition. It is probable, therefore, that this prophecy belongs to the class already mentioned (in the Introduction) as exhibiting a sequence of events, or providential scheme, which might be realized in more than one emergency; not so much a prediction as a prophetic lesson with respect to the effects which certain causes must infallibly produce. Such a discourse would be peculiarly appropriate as an introduction to the prophecies which follow; and its seeming inconsistences are all accounted for, by simply supposing that it was written for this purpose about the time of Sennacherib’s invasion in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign, and that in it the Prophet takes a general survey of the changes which the church had under gone since the beginning of his public ministry.
1. This is a general title of the whole book or one of its larger divisions (ch. 1-39 or 1-12), defining its character, author, subject, and date. The Vision (supernatural perception, inspiration, revelation, prophecy, here put collectively for Prophecies) of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw (perceived, received by inspiration) concerning Judah (the kingdom of the two tribes, which adhered to the theocracy after the revolt of Jeroboam) and Jerusalem (its capital, the chosen seat of the true religion), in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah.—The •••• Septuagint renders b§ against; but as all the prophecies are not of an unfavourable character, it is better to retain the wider sense concerning.—Aben Ezra and Abarbenel regard this as the title of the first chapter only, and to meet the objection that a single prophecy would not have been referred to four successive reigns, instead of which he saw read who saw (i. e. was a seer) in the days of Uzziah, etc. But the tenses of rttn are not thus absolutely used, and the same words occur in ch. 2:1, where the proposed construction is impossible.—Vitringa’s supposition that the sentence originally consisted of the first clause only, and that the verb was added at a later date to make it applicable as a general title, is entirely gratuitous, and opens the door to endless license of conjecture. Hendewerk goes further, and calls in question the antiquity and genuineness of the whole verse, but without the least authority. According to ancient and oriental usage it was probably prefixed by Isaiah himself to a partial or complete collection of his prophecies. To the objection that *ptn is singular, the answer is, that it is used collectively because it has no plural, and appears as the title of this same book or another in 2 Chr. 32: 32. To the objection that the prophecies are not all concerning Judah and Jerusalem, the answer is, a potiori fit denominatio, to which may be added that the prophecies relating to the ten tribes and to foreign powers owe their place in this collection to their bearing, more or less direct, upon the interests of Judah. To the objection that the first chapter has no other title, we may answer that it needs no other, partly because it is sufficiently distinguished from what follows by the title of the second, partly because it is not so much the first in a series of prophecies as a ggnffiaj p^e^gg. With respect to the names Isaiah and Amoz, and the chronology of this verse, see the Introduction.
2. The prophet first describes the moral state of Judah, vs. 2—4, and then the miseries arising from it, vs. 5-9. To the former he invites attention by summoning the universe to hear the Lord’s complaint against his people, who are first charged with filial ingratitude. Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, as witnesses and judges, and as being less insensible yourselves than men, for Jehovah speaks, not man. Sons I have reared and brought up, literally made great and made high, and they, with emphasis on the pronoun which is otherwise superfluous, even they have revolted from me, or rebelled against me, not merely in a general sense by sinning, but in a special sense by violating that peculiar covenant which bound God to his people. It is in reference to this bond and to the conjugal relation which the Scriptures represent God as sustaining to his church or people, that its constituent members are here called his children.—Vitringa and others understand heaven and earth as meaning angels and men; but although these may be included, it is plain that the direct address is to the frame of nature, as in Deut. 32: 1, from which the form of expression is borrowed.—Knobel and other recent writers exclude the idea of bearing witness altogether, and suppose heaven and earth to be called upon to listen, simply because Jehovah is the speaker. But the two ideas are entirely compatible, and the first is recommended by the analogy of Deut. 30: 19, and by its poetical effect.—Cocceius takes ^fiV^a in the sense of bringing up, but iiraBii in that of exalting to peculiar privileges, which disturbs the metaphor, and violates the usage of the two verbs, which are elsewhere joined as simple synonymes. (See ch. 23 :fy. Ezek. 31:^4.) Both terms are so chosen as to be applicable, in a lower sense, to children, and in a higher sense, to nations.—The English Bible and many other versions read Jehovah has spoken, which seems to refer to a previous revelation, or to indicate a mere repetition of his words, whereas he is himself introduced as speaking. The preterite may be here used to express the present, for the purpose of suggesting that he did not thus speak for the first time. Compare Heb. 1:1.
3. Having tacitly compared the insensible Jews with the inanimate creation, he now explicitly compares them with the brutes, selecting for that purpose two which were especially familiar as domesticated animals, subjected to man’s power and dependent on him for subsistence, and at the same time as proverbially stupid, inferiority to which must therefore be peculiarly disgraceful. The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master’s crib or feeding place. Israel, the chosen people, as a whole, without regard to those who had seceded from it, doth not know, my people doth not con sider, pay attention or take notice. Like the ox and the ass, Israel had a master, upon whom he was dependent, and to whom he owed obedience; but, unlike them, he did not recognize and would not serve his rightful sovereign and the author of his mercies.—The Septuagint supplies me after know and consider (ps ovx tyvw…. pe ov GwqxEv). The Vulgate, followed by Michaelis, Lowth, and others, supplies me after the first verb, but leaves the other indefinite. Gesenius, De Wette, and Hendewerk supply him, referring to owner and master. Clericus, Ewald, and Umbreit take the verbs in the absolute and general sense of having knowledge and being considerate, which is justified by usage, but gives less point and precision to the sentence.
4. As the foregoing verses render prominent the false position of Israel with respect to God, considered first as a father and then as a master (comp. Mai. 1: 6), so this brings into view their moral state in general, resulting from that alienation, and still represented as inseparable from it. The Prophet speaks again in his own person, and expresses wonder, pity, and indignation at the state to which his people had reduced themselves. Ah, sinful nation, literally nation sinning, i. e. habitually, which is the force here of the active participle, people heavy with iniquity, weighed down by guilt as an oppressive burden, a seed of evil-doers, i. e. the offspring of wicked pa rents, sons corrupting themselves, i. e. doing worse than their fathers, in which sense the same verb is used Judges 2: 19. (Calvin: filii degeneres.) The evil-doers are of course not the Patriarchs or Fathers of the nation, but the intervening wicked generations. As the first clause tells us what they were, so the second tells us what they did, by what acts they had merited the character just given. They have forsaken Jehovah, a phrase descriptive of iniquity in general, but peculiarly expressive of the breach of covenant obligations. They have treated with contempt the Holy One of Israel, a title almost peculiar to Isaiah, and expressing a twofold aggravation of their sin; first, that he was infinitely excellent; and then, that he was theirs, their own peculiar God. They are alienated back again. The verb denotes estrange ment from God, the adverb retrocession or backsliding into a former state.— By a seed of evil-doers most writers understand a race or generation of evil doers, and by children corrupting (their ways or themselves, as Aben Ezra explains it) nothing more than wicked men. Gesenius and Henderson render dwrj^ft corrupt, Barnes corrupting others. The sense of mischievous, destructive, is given by Luther, and the vague one of wicked by the Vulgate. The other explanation, which supposes an allusion to the parents, takes s^t and Qh32 in their proper meaning, makes the parallelism of the clauses more complete, and converts a tautology into a climax.—The sense of blaspheming given to ytf? by the Vulgate and Luther, and that of provoking to anger by the Septuagint, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and others, are rejected by the modern lexicographers for that of despising or treating with contempt. The last two are combined by Junius (contemtim irritaverunt) and the old French Version (ils ont irrite parmepris).—The Niphal ibrm.^M is by most writers-treated as simply equivalent in meaning to the Kal—’ they have departed;’ but the usage of the participles active and passive (Ps. 69: 9) in the sense of strange and estranged is in favour of the interpretation given by Aquila and Theodotion, aTtyM.OTQiw&qaav els ra oni6&.
5. To the description of their moral state, beginning and ending with apostasy from God, the Prophet now adds a description of the consequences, vs. 5-9. This he introduces by an expostulation on their mad perseverance in transgression, notwithstanding the extremities to which it had reduced them. Whereupon, i. e. on what part of the body, can ye be stricken, smit ten, punished, any more, that ye add revolt, departure or apostasy from God, i. e. revolt more and more? Already the whole head is sick and the whole heart faint.—The same sense is attained, but in a less striking form, by reading, with Hitzig, why, to what purpose, will ye be smitten any morel why continue to revolt 1 If their object was to make themselves miserable, it was already accomplished.—Calvin, followed by the English version and others, gives a different turn to the interrogation: Why should ye be smitten any more 1 of what use is it? ye will revolt more and more. But the reason thus assigned for their ceasing to be smitten is wholly different from that given in the last clause and amplified in the following verse, viz. that they were already faint and covered with wounds. The Vulgate version (super quo percutiemini?) is retained by Luther, Lowth, Gesenius, and others. The very same metaphor occurs more than once in classical poetry. Lowth quotes examples from Euripides and Ovid (vix habet in nobis jam nova plaga locum).—Hendewerk supposes the people to be asked where they can be smitten with effect, i. e. what kind of punishment will do them good; but this is forced, and does not suit the context. Ewald repeats whereupon before the second verb: ’ upon what untried transgression build ing will ye still revolt?’ which is needless and unnatural.—Instead of the whole head, the whole heart, Winer and Hitzig render every head and every heart, because the nouns have not the article. But see ch. 9: 11. Ps. 111: 1. The omission of the article is one of the most familiar licenses of poetry. The context too requires that the words should be applied to the head and heart of the body mentioned in v. 6, viz. the body politic.—The head and heart do not denote different ranks (Hendewerk), or the inward and outward state of the community (Umbreit), but are mentioned as well-known and important parts of the body, to which the church or nation had been likened.—Gesenius explains hbnb to mean in sickness, Ewald (inclined) to sickness, Knobel (belonging) to sickness, Clericus (given up) to sickness, Rosenmuller (abiit) in morbum. The general sense is plain from the parallel term ^ faint or languid from disease.
6. The idea suggested at the beginning of v. 5, that there was no more room for further strokes, is now carried out with great particularity. From the sole of the foot and (i. e. even) to the head (a common scriptural expression for the body in its whole extent) there is not in it (the people, or in him i. e. Judah, considered as a body) a sound place; (it is) wound and bruise (paftcoi/>, vibex, the tumour produced by stripes) and fresh stroke. The wounds are then described as not only grievous but neglected. They have not been pressed’, and they have not been bound or bandaged, and it has not been mollified with ointment, all familiar processes of ancient surgery.— Calvin argues that the figures in this verse and the one preceding cannot refer to moral corruption, since the Prophet himself afterwards explains them as descriptive of external sufferings. But he seems to have intended to keep up before his readers the connexion between suffering and sin, and therefore to have chosen terms suited to excite associations both of pain and corruption. — The last verb, which is singular and feminine, is supposed by Junius and J. H. Michaelis to agree with the nouns distributively, as the others do collectively: ’ none of them is mollified with ointment.’ Ewald and Umbreit connect it with the last noun exclusively. All the verbs are rendered in the singular by Cocceius and Lowth, all in the plural by Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis. The most probable solution is that proposed by Knobel, who takes = 3- indefinitely, ‘it has not been softened,’ i. e. no one has softened, like the Latin ventum est for ’ some one came.’ This construction, although foreign from our idiom, is not uncommon in Hebrew. — fi^P “”^ is n°t a running or putrefying sore (Eng. Vers. Barnes), but a recently inflicted stroke. — The singular nouns may be regarded as collectives, or, with better effect, as denoting that the body was one wound, &c. — The suffix in is can not refer to n*i5 understood (Henderson), which would require na. — thn may be an abstract meaning soundness (LXX. bloxJujQia), but is more probably a noun of place from
7. Thus far the sufferings of the people have been represented by strong figures, giving no intimation of their actual form, or of the outward causes which produced them. But now the Prophet brings distinctly into view foreign invasion as the instrument of vengeance, and describes the country as already desolated by it. The absence of verbs in the first clause gives great rapidity and life to the description. Your land (including town and country, which are afterwards distinctly mentioned) a waste! Your towns (including cities and villages of every size) burnt with fire! Your ground (including its produce), i. e. as to your ground, before you (in your presence, but beyond your reach) strangers (are) devouring it, and a waste, (it is a waste) like the overthrow of strangers, i. e. as foreign foes are wont to waste a country, in which they have no interest, and for which they have no pity. (Vulg. sicut in vastitate hostili.) — As a’pt often includes the idea of strangers to God and the true religion, and as nasna in every other instance means the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Hitzig and Ewald adopt Kimchi’s explanation of this clause, as containing an allusion to that event, which is the great historical type of total destruction on account of sin, often referred to elsewhere, and in this very context, two verses below. This ex position, though ingenious, is unnecessary, and against it lies almost the whole weight of exegetical authority. — Saadias explains c”nt not as a plural but a singular noun derived from c’nt to flow or overflow, in which he is followed by Doderlein and Lowth (‘as if destroyed by an inundation.’) But no such noun occurs elsewhere, and it is most improbable that two nouns, wholly different in meaning yet coincident in form, would be used in this one sentence.
8. The extent of the desolation is expressed by comparing the church or nation to a watch-shed in a field or vineyard, far from other habitations, and forsaken after the ingathering. And the daughter of Zion, i. e. the people of Zion or Jerusalem, considered as the capital of Judah, and therefore representing the whole nation, is left, not forsaken, but left over or behind as a survivor, like a booth, a temporary covert of leaves and branches, in a vineyard, like a lodge in a melon-field, like a watched city, i. e. watched by friends and foes, besieged and garrisoned, and therefore insulated, cut off from all communication with the country.—Interpreters, almost without exception, explain daughter of Zion to mean the city of Jerusalem, and suppose the extent of desolation to be indicated by the metropolis alone remaining unsubdued. But on this supposition they are forced to explain how a besieged city could be like a besieged city, either by saying that Jerusalem only suffered as if she were besieged (Ewald); or by taking the a as a caph veritatis expressing not resemblance but identity, like a be sieged city as she is’ (Gesen. ad loc. Henderson); or by reading ’ so is the besieged city (Gesen. Lex. Man.); or by gratuitously taking rn*i23 *P9 in the sense of ‘turris custodiae’ or watch-tower (Tingstad. Hitzig. Gesen. Thes.). If, as is commonly supposed, daughter of Zion primarily signifies the people of Zion or Jerusalem, and the city only by a transfer of the figure, it is better to retain the former meaning in a case where departure from it is not only needless but creates a difficulty in the exposition. According to Hengstenberg (Comm. on Psalm 9: 15), daughter of Zion means the daughter Zion, as city of Rome means the city Rome. But even granting this, the church or nation may at least as naturally be called a daughter, i. e. virgin or young woman, as a city. That Jerusalem is not called the daughter of Zion from its local situation on that mountain, is clear from the analogous phrases daughter of Tyre, daughter of Baby on, where no such explanation is admissible.—The meaning saved, preserved, which is put upon rniis; by Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Gesenius in his Commentary, seems inappropriate in a description of extreme desolation, but does not materially affect the interpretation of the passage.
9. The idea”of a desolation almost total is expressed in other words, and with an intimation that the narrow escape was owing to God’s favour for the remnant according to the election of grace, who still existed in the Jewish church. Except Jehovah of Hosts had left unto us (or caused to remain over, to survive, for us) a very small remnant, we should have been like Sodom, we should have resembled Gomorrah, i. e. we should have been totally and justly destroyed.—By the very small remnant Knobel understands the city of Jerusalem, compared with the whole land and all its cities; Clericus the small number of surviving Jews. But that the verse has reference to quality as well as quantity, is evident from Rom. 9: 29, where Paul makes use of it, not as an illustration, but as an argument to show that mere connexion with the church could not save men from the wrath of God. The citation would have been irrelevant if this phrase denoted merely a small number of survivors, and not a minority of true believers in the midst of the prevailing unbelief.—Clericus explains Jehovah of Hosts to mean the God of Battles; but it rather means the Sovereign Ruler of “ heaven and earth and all the host of them,” i. e. all their inhabitants (Gen. 2: 1).—Lowth and Barnes translate 1:^3 soon, as in Ps. 81: 15; but the usual translation agrees better with the context and with Paul’s quotation.
10. Having assigned the corruption of the people as the cause of their calamities, the Prophet now guards against the error of supposing that the sin thus visited was that of neglecting the external duties of religion, which were in fact punctiliously performed, but unavailing because joined with the practice of iniquity, vs. 10-15. This part of the chapter is connected with what goes before by repeating the allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah. Having just said that God’s sparing mercy had alone prevented their resembling Sodom and Gomorrah in condition, he now reminds them that they do resemble Sodom and Gomorrah in iniquity. The reference is not to particular vices, but to general character, as Jerusalem, when reproached for her iniquities, ‘is spiritually called Sodom’ (Rev. 11: 8). The comparison is here made by the form of address. Hear the word of Jehovah, ye judges (or rulers) of Sodom, give ear to the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. Word and law both denote the revelation of God’s will as a rule of faith and duty. The particular exhibition of it meant, is that which follows, and to which this verse invites attention like that frequent exhortation of our Saviour, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.—Junius, J. D. Michaelis, and the later Germans, take rrni’ti in the general sense of doctrine or instruction, which, though favoured by its etymology, is not sus tained by usage. Knobel, with more probability, supposes an allusion to the ritual or sacrificial law; but there is no need either of enlarging or restricting the meaning of the term.—The collocation of the words is not intended to suggest that the rulers and the people were as much alike as Sodom and Gomorrah (Calvin), but to produce a rhythmical effect. The sense is that the rulers and people of Judah were as guilty as those of Sodom and Gomorrah.
11. Resuming the form of interrogation and expostulation, he teaches them that God had no need of sacrifices on his own account, and that even those sacrifices which he had required might become offensive to him. For what (for what purpose, to what end, of what use) is the multitude of your sacrifices to me (i. e. offered to me, or of what use to me) 1 saith Jehovah. I am full (i. e. sated, I have had enough, I desire no more) of burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts (fattened for the altar), and the blood of buttocks and lambs and he-goats I desire not (or delight not in). Male animals are mentioned, as the only ones admitted in the h^2 or burnt-offer ing; the fat and blood, as the parts in which the sacrifice essentially con sisted, the one being always burnt upon the altar, and the other sprinkled or poured out around it.—Hendewerk and Henderson suppose an allusion to the excessive multiplication of sacrifices; but this, if alluded to at all, is not the prominent idea, as the context relates wholly to the spirit and con duct of the offerers themselves.—Some German interpreters affect to see an inconsistency between such passages as this and the law requiring sacrifices. But these expressions must of course be interpreted by what follows, and especially by the last clause of v. 13.—Bochart explains d^-na as denoting a species of wild ox; but wild beasts were not received in sacrifice, and this word simply suggests the idea of careful preparation and assiduous compliance with the ritual. Aben Ezra restricts it to the larger cattle, Jarchi to the smaller; but it means fed or fattened beasts of either kind.
12. What had just been said of the offerings themselves, is now said of attendance at the temple to present them. When you come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my courts, not merely to frequent them, but to trample on them, as a gesture of contempt? The courts here meant are the enclosures around Solomon’s temple, for the priests, worshippers, and victims. The interrogative form implies negation. Such appearance, such attendance, God had not required, although it was their duty to frequent his courts.—Cocceius takes *3 in its ordinary sense, without a material change of meaning: ’ that ye come, &ic., who hath required this at your hands?’ Junius makes the first clause a distinct inter rogation (quod advenitis, an ut appareatis in conspectu meo?), Ewald sees in the expression at your hand, an allusion to the sense of power, in which i? is sometimes used; but the expression, in its proper sense, is natural and common after verbs of giving or demanding.—Hitzig supposes the trampling mentioned to be that of the victims, as if he had said, Who hath required you to profane my courts by the feet of cattle? But the word appears to be applied to the worshippers themselves in a twofold sense, which cannot be expressed by any single word in English. They were bound to tread his courts, but not to trample them. Vitringa lays the emphasis on your: Who hath required it at your hands, at the hands of such as you? Umbreit strangely thinks the passive verb emphatic: when you come to be seen and not to see. The emphasis is really on this. Who hath required this, this sort of attendance, at your hands? One manuscript agrees with the Peshito in reading firs}!? to see; but the common reading is no doubt the true one, •’sa being used adverbially for the full form ^K or 13 B fs, which is else where construed with the same passive verb (Exod. 23: 17. 34: 23, 24).
13. What he said before of animal sacrifices and of attendance at the temple to present them, is now extended to bloodless offerings, such as incense and the nnjE or meal-offering, as well as to the observance of sacred times, and followed by a brief intimation of the sense in which they were all unacceptable to God, viz. when combined with the practice of iniquity. The interrogative form is here exchanged for that of direct prohibition. Ye shall not add (i. e. continue) to bring a vain offering (that is, a useless one, because hypocritical and impious). Incense is an abomination to me: (so are) new moon and sabbath, the calling of the convocation (at those times, or at the annual feasts, which are then distinctly mentioned with the weekly and monthly ones): I cannot bear iniquity and holy day (abstinence from labour, religious observance), meaning of course, I cannot bear them together. This last clause is a key to the preceding verses. It was not religious observance in itself, but its combination with iniquity, that God abhorred. Aben Ezra: $•)$$ tr nf> iispi iDif> f>i- J- H. Michaelis: ferre non possum pravitatem et ferias, quae vos conjungitis. So Cocceius, J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Ewald, Henderson, &c. Other constructions, inconsistent with the Masoretic accents, but substantially affording the same sense, are those of Rosenmuller (‘ as for new moon, sabbath &ic., I cannot bear iniquity’ &ic.) and Umbreit (c new moon and sabbath, iniquity and holy day, I cannot bear’). Another, varying the sense as well as the construction, is that of Calvin (solennes indictiones non potero—vana res est— nee conventum) copied by Vitringa, and, with some modification, by the English Version, Clericus, and Barnes (c it is iniquity—even the solemn closing meeting’), which violates both syntax and accentuation. Clericus and Gesenius give to vain oblation the specific sense of false or hypocritical; J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, and Ewald, that of sinful; Cocceius that of presumptuous (temerarium); but all these seem to be included or implied in the old and.common version vain or worthless. (LXX. ^aTaiov. Vulg. frustra. Luther, vergeblich.) Cocceius and Ewald construe the second member of the sentence thus: c it (the meal-offering) is abominable incense to me f which is very harsh. The modern lexicographers (Gesenius, Winer, Fiirst) make convocation or assembly the primary idea of rnxs; but all agree that it is used in application to times of religious observance.
14. The very rites ordained by God himself, and once acceptable to him, had, through the sin of those who used them, become irksome and dis gusting. Your new moons (an emphatic repetition, as if he had said, Yes, your new moons) and your convocations (sabbaths and yearly feasts) my soul hateth (not a mere periphrasis for I hate, but an emphatic phrase denoting cordial hatred, q. d. odi ex animo), they have become a burden on me (implying that they were not so at first), I am weary of bearing (or have wearied myself bearing them).—Lowth’s version months is too indefinite to represent D*wn, which denotes the beginnings of the lunar months, observed as sacred times under the law of Moses (Num. 28: 11. 10: 10). Kocher supposes they are mentioned here again because they had been peculiarly abused; but Henderson explains the repetition better as a rhetorical epanalepsis, resuming and continuing the enumeration in another form. Hengstenberg has shown (Christol. vol. 3. p. 87) that n^isia is applied in Scripture only to the sabbath, passover, pentecost, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles. The common version of the second clause (they are a trouble unto me) is too vague. The noun should have its specific sense of burden, load, the preposition its proper local sense of on, and the verb with b its usual force, as signifying not mere existence but a change of state, in which sense it is thrice used in this very chapter (vs. 21, 22, 31). The last particular is well expressed by the Septuagint (tyewq&jjr* ^°0 an<^ Vulgate (facta sunt mihi), and the other two by Calvin (superfuerunt mihi loco oneris), Vitringa (incumbunt mihi instar oneris), Lowth (they are a burthen upon me), and Gesenius (sie sind mir zur Last); but neither of these versions gives the full force of the clause in all its parts. The Septuagint, the Chaldee Paraphrase, and Symmachus take KIBS in the sense of forgiving, which it has in some connexions; but the common meaning agrees better with the parallel expression, load or burden.
15. Not only ceremonial observances but even prayer was rendered useless by the sins of those who offered it. And in your spreading (when you spread) your hands (or stretch them out towards heaven as a gesture of entreaty) I will hide mine eyes from you (avert my face, refuse to see or hear, not only in ordinary but) also when ye multiply prayer (by fervent importunity in time of danger) I am not hearing (or about to hear, the participle bringing the act nearer to the present than the future would do). your hands are full of blood (literally bloods, the form commonly used when the reference is to bloodshed or the guilt of murder). Thus the Prophet comes back to the point from which he set out, the iniquity of Israel as the cause of his calamities, but with this difference, that at first he viewed sin in its higher aspect, as committed against God, whereas in this place its injurious effects on men are rendered prominent.—By multiplying prayer Henderson understands the jSazzoAoy/w or vain repetition^ condemned by Christ as a customary error of his times; but this would make the threatening less impressive. The force of &a as here used (not only this but, or nay more) may be considered as included in the old English yea of the common version, for which Lowth and Henderson have substituted even. The latter also takes 13 in the sense of though, without effect upon the meaning of the sentence, and suggests that the preterite at the end of the verse denotes habitual action; but it simply denotes previous action, or that their hands were already full of blood. Under blood or murder Calvin supposes all sins of violence and gross injustice to be comprehended; but although the mention of the highest crime against the person may suggest the others, they can hardly be included in the meaning of the word.—Junius and Clericus translate fi’W murders (caedibus plenae); but the literal translation is at once more exact and more expressive. It is a strange opinion mentioned by Fabricius (Diss. Phil. Theol. p. 329) that the blood here meant is the blood of the victims hypocritically offered.—For the form tD^*}S see Nordheimer, $$ 101. 2. a. 476.
16. Having shown the insufficiency of ceremonial rites and even of more spiritual duties to avert or cure the evils which the people had brought upon themselves by their iniquities, he exhorts them to abandon these and urges reformation, not as the causa qua but as a causa sine qua non of deliverance and restoration to God’s favour. Wash you (tern a word appropriated to ablution of the body, as distinguished from all other washings), purify yourselves (in a moral or figurative sense, as appears from what follows). Remove the evil of your doings from before mine eyes (out of my sight, which could only be done by putting an end to them, an idea literally expressed in the last clause), cease to do evil.—Luther, Gesenius, and most of the late writers render?H as an adjective, your evil doings; but it is better to retain the abstract form of the original, with Ewald, Lowth, Vitringa, and the ancient versions.—In some of the older versions D^Vsa is loosely and variously rendered. Thus the LXX. have souls, the Vulgate thoughts, Calvin desires, Luther your evil nature. The meaning of the term may now be looked upon as settled.—Some have understood from before mine eyes as an exhortation to reform not only in the sight of man but in the sight of God; and others as implying that their sins had been committed to God’s face, that is to say, with presumptuous boldness. But the true meaning seems to be the obvious and simple one expressed above. Knobel imagines that the idea of sin as a pollution had its origin in the ablutions of the law; but it is perfectly familiar and intelligible wherever conscience is at all enlightened.—Aben Ezra explains totfi as the Hithpael of fist, to which Hitzig and Henderson object that this species is wanting in all other verbs beginning with that letter, and that according to analogy it would be te^rr. They explain it therefore as the Niphal of T£t; but Gesenius (in his Lexicon) objects that this would have the accent on the penult. Compare Nordheimer <§> 77. 1. c.
17. The negative exhortation is now followed by a positive one. Ceasing to do evil was not enough, or rather was not possible, without beginning to do good. Learn to do good, implying that they never yet had known what it was. This general expression is explained by several specifications, showing how they were to do good. Seek judgment, . e. justice; not in the abstract, but in act; not for yourselves, but for others; be not content with abstinence from wrong, but seek opportunities of doing justice, especially to those who cannot right themselves. Redress wrong, judge the fatherless, i. e. act as a judge for his benefit, or more specifically, do him justice; befriend the widow, take her part, espouse her cause. Orphans and widows are continually spoken of in Scripture as special objects of divine compassion, and as representing the whole class of helpless inno cents.—By learning to do good, Musculus and Hitzig understand forming the habit or accustoming one’s self; but the phrase appears to have a more emphatic meaning.—Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, and Knobel, take “psn in the active sense of an oppressor, or a proud and wicked man, and understand the Prophet as exhorting his readers to conduct or guide such, i. e. to reclaim them from their evil courses. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Rabbins, make “p^n a passive participle, and the exhortation one to rescue the oppressed (gvaaGfts, ttdixovpsvov, subvenite oppresso), in which they are followed by Luther, Calvin, Cocceius, Rosenmuller, Henderson, and Umbreit. Vitringa adopts Bochart’s derivation of the word from y^n to ferment (emendate quod corruptum est); but Maurer comes the nearest to the truth in his translation (aequum facite iniquum). The form of the word seems to identify it as the infinitive of f EH i. q. Don to be violent, to do violence, to injure. Thus understood the phrase forms a link between the general expression seek justice and the more specific one do justice to the orphan. The common version of the last clause (plead for the widow) seems to apply too exclusively to advocates, as distinguished from judges.
18. Having shown that the cause of their ill success in seeking God was in themselves, and pointed out the only means by which the evil could be remedied, he now invites them to determine by experiment on which side the fault of their destruction lay, promising pardon and deliverance to the penitent and threatening total ruin to the disobedient, vs. 18-20.—This verse contains an invitation to discuss the question whether God was willing or unwilling to show mercy, implying that reason as well as justice was on his side, and asserting his power and his willingness to pardon the. most aggravated sins. Come now (a common formula of exhortation) and let us reason (argue, or discuss the case) together (the form of the verb denoting a reciprocal action), saith Jehovah, Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow, though they be red as crimson they shall be as wool, i. e. clean white wool. Guilt being regarded as a stain, its removal denotes restoration to purity. The implied conclusion of the reasoning is that God’s willingness to pardon threw the blame of their destruction on themselves.— Gesenius understands this verse as a threatening that God would contend with them in the way of vengeance, and blot out their sins by condign punishment; but this is inconsistent with the reciprocal meaning of the verb. Umbreit regards the last clause as a threatening that their sins, however deeply coloured or disguised, should be discoloured, i. e. brought to light; an explanation inconsistent with the natural and scriptural usage of white and red to signify innocence and guilt, especially that of murder. J. D. Michaelis and Augusti make the verbs in the last clause interrogative: l *Shall they be white as snow?’ i. e. can I so regard them? implying that God would estimate them rightly and reward them justly. This, in the absence of J;he interrogative particle, is gratuitous and arbitrary. Clericus under stands the first clause as a proposition to submit to punishment (turn agite, nos castigari patiamur, ait enim Jehova); but although the verb might be a simple passive, this construction arbitrarily supposes two speakers in the verse, and supplies *for after the first verb, besides making the two clauses inconsistent; for if they were pardoned, why submit to punishment?—According to Kimchi, the word translated crimson is a stronger one than that translated scarlet; but the two are commonly combined to denote one colour, and are here separated only as poetical equivalents.
19. The unconditional promise is now qualified and yet enlarged. If obedient, they should not only escape punishment but be highly favoured. If ye consent to my terms, and hear my commands, implying obedience, the good of the land, its choicest products, ye shall eat, instead of seeing them devoured by strangers.—Luther and others understand consent and hear as a hendiadys for consent to hear (wollt ihr mir gehorchen); but this is forbidden by the parallel expression in the next verse, where refuse and rebel cannot mean refuse to rebel, but each verb has its independent mean ing. LXX. sav &&IJTS xal siaaxov^rjis fiov. Vulg. si volueritis et audieritis. So Gesenius, Ewald, etc.
20. This is the converse of the nineteenth verse, a threat correspond ing to the promise. And if ye refuse to comply with my conditions, and rebel, continue to resist my authority, by the sword of the enemy shall ye be eaten. This is no human menace but a sure prediction, for the mouth of Jehovah speaks, not man’s. Or the sense may be, the mouth of Jehovah has spolccn or ordained it. (Targ. Jon. “p •nta ^ an^a, the word of Jehovah has so decreed.)—According to Gesenius, *ib3Mi literally means ye shall be caused to le devoured by the sword, i. e. I cause the sword to devour you. But, as Hitzig observes, the passive causative, according to analogy, would mean ye shall be caused to devour, and so he renders it (so musset ihr das Schwerdt verzehren). But in every other case, where such a metaphor occurs, the sword is not said to be eaten but to eat. (See Deut. 32: 42. Isai. 34: 6. 2 Sam. 2: 26.) The truth is that tex is nowhere else a causative at all, but a simple passive, or at most an intensive passive of Vax. (See Exodus 3: 2. Neh. 2: 3. 13.)
21. Here the Prophet seems to pause for a reply, and on receiving no response to the promises and invitations of the foregoing context, bursts forth into a sudden exclamation at the change which Israel has undergone, which he then describes both in figurative and literal expressions, vs. 21—23. In the verse before us he contrasts her former state, as the chaste bride of Jehovah, with her present pollution, the ancient home of justice with the present haunt of cruelty and violence. How has she become an harlot (faithless to her covenant with Jehovah), the faithful city (f^F?, no^ig, including the ideas of a city and a state, urbs et civitas, the body politic, the church, of which Jerusalem was the centre and metropolis),^// of justice (i. e. once full), righteousness lodged (i. e. habitually, had its home, resided) in it, and now murderers, as the worst class of violent wrong-doers, whose name suggests though it does not properly include all others.—Kimchi and Knobel suppose a particular allusion to the introduction of idolatry, a forsaking of Jehovah the true husband for paramours or idols. But although this specific application of the figure occurs elsewhere, and is extended by Hosea into allegory, there seems to be no reason for restricting the expressions here used to idolatry, although it may be included.—The particle at the beginning of the verse is properly interrogative, but like the English how is also used to express surprise. < How has she become?’ i. e. how could she possibly become? how strange that she should become!—For the form ^xba see Ges. Heb. Gr. § 93. 2. Ewald, § 406. For the tense of “p^, Nor’dh. <§> 967. 1. b.
22. The change, which had just been represented under the figure of adultery, is now expressed by that of adulteration, first of silver, then of wine. Thy silver (addressing the unfaithful church or city) is become dross (alloy, base metal), thy wine iveaJccned (literally cut, mutilated) with water. Compare the words of Martial, scelus estjugulare Falernum. The essential idea seems to be that of impairing strength.—The Septuagint applies this text in a literal sense to dishonest arts in the sale of wines and the exchange of money. 01 xdanfioi GOV fiiayovai rbv oivov vdan. But this interpretation, besides its unworthiness and incongruity, is set aside by the Prophet’s own explanation of his figures, in the next verse.
23. The same idea is now expressed in literal terms, and with special application to magistrates and rulers. They who were bound officially to suppress disorder and protect the helpless, were themselves greedy of gain, rebellious against God, and tyrannical towards man. Thy rulers are rebels and fellows of thieves (not merely like them or belonging to the same class, but accomplices, partakers of their sin), every one of them loving a bribe (the participle denoting present and habitual action) and pursuing rewards (c^: compensations. LXX. avTanodopa. Symm. a(iot.fid<i) • The fatherless (as being unable to reward them, or as an object of cupidity to others) they judge not, and the cause of the widow cometh not unto them, or before them; they will not hear it; they will not act as judges for their benefit. They are not simply unjust judges, they are no judges at all, they will not act as such, except when they can profit by it. (J. D. Michaelis: dem Waisen halten sie kein Gericht.) Rulers and rebels is a sufficient approximation to the alleged paronomasia in E^io T^to, a gratuitous and vain attempt to copy which is made by Gesenius (deine Vorgesetzten sind widersetzlich) and Ewald (deine Herren sind Narren!).—Knobel supposes the rebellion here meant to be that of which Judah was guilty in becoming dependent upon Assyria (comp. ch. 30: 1). But there is nothing to restrict the application of the terms, which simply mean that instead of suppressing rebellion they were rebels themselves.
24. To this description of the general corruption the Prophet now adds a premise of purgation, which is at the same time a threatening of sorer judgments, as the appointed means by which the church was to be restored to her original condition, vs. 24-31.—In this verse, the destruction of God’s enemies is represented as a necessary satisfaction to his justice. Therefore, because the very fountains of justice have thus become corrupt, saith the Lord, the word properly so rendered, Jehovah of Hosts, the eternal Sovereign, the mighty one of Israel, the almighty God who is the God of Israel, Ah, an interjection expressing both displeasure and concern, I will comfort myself, ease or relieve myself, of my adversaries, literally, from them, i. e. by ridding myself of them, and 1 will avenge myself of mine enemies, not foreign foes, of whom there is no mention in the context, but the enemies of God among the Jews themselves.—Cocceius understands by baoiui TOX the champion or hero of Israel, and Knobel the mightiest in Israel; but the first word seems clearly to denote an attribute of God, and the second his relation to his people. Henderson translates the phrase, Protector of Israel; but this idea, though implied, is not expressed. The latest versions follow Junius and Tremellius in giving to cxi its proper form as a passive participle used as a noun, like the Latin dictum, and applied exclusively to divine communications. Henderson: Hence the announcement of the Lord. So Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit.
25. The mingled promise and threatening is repeated under one of the figures used in v. 22. The adulterated silver must be purified by the separation of its impure particles. And I will turn my hand upon thee, i. e. take thee in hand, address myself to thy case, and will purge out thy dross like purity itself, i. e. most purely, thoroughly, and will take, away all thine alloy, tin, lead, or other base metal found in combination with the precious ores.—Luther, Junius and Tremellius render bs against, and make the first clause wholly minatory in its import. But although to turn the hand has elsewhere an unfavourable sense (Ps. 81: 15. Amos 1: 8), it does not of itself express it, but simply means to take in hand, address one’s self to any thing, make it the object of attention. (J. D. Michaelis: in Arbeit nehmen.) It appears to have been used in this place to convey both a promise and a threatening, which run together through this whole context. Augusti and the later Germans use the ambiguous term gegen which has both a hostile and a local meaning.—The Targum of Jonathan, followed by Kimchi, Schmidius, J. D. Michaelis, and the latest Germans, makes ^ a noun mean ing potash or the vegetable alkali used in the smelting of metals. Hender son: as with potash. The usual sense of purity is retained by Luther (auf s lauterste), the English Version (purely), Gesenius (rein), and Barnes (wholly). The particle is taken in a local sense by the Septuagint (els xa&otQov), Vulgate (ad purum), Cocceius (ad puritatem), Calvin and Vitringa (adjliquidum), and the clause is paraphrased, as expressing restoration to a state of purity, by Junius (ut justae puritati restituam te), and Augusti (bis es rein wird). But this is at variance with the usage of the particle.—The conjectural emendations of Clericus (‘•os like a furnace), Seeker and Lowth (-on in the furnace) are perfectly gratuitous.
26. Here again the figurative promise is succeeded by a literal one of restoration to a former state of purity, to be effected not by the conversion of the wicked rulers but by filling their places with better men. And I will restore, bring back, cause to return, thy judges, rulers, as at first, in the earliest and best days of the commonwealth, and thy counsellors, ministers of state, as in the beginning, after which it shall be called to thee, a Hebrew idiom for thou shalt be called, i. e. deservedly, with truth, City of Righteousness, a Faithful State. There is here a twofold allusion to v. 21. She who from being a faithful wife had become an adulteress or harlot, should again be what she was; and justice which once dwelt in her should return to fa old home.—It is an ingenious but superfluous conjecture of Vitringa, that Jerusalem was anciently called p^s as well as dbiij (Gen. 14: 18), since the same king bore the name of p”i2jri3b:g (king of righteousness) and oiiD T^B (king of peace), and a later king (Jos. 10: 1) was called p^-^iix. (lord of righteousness). The meaning of the last clause would then be that the city should again deserve its ancient name, which is substantially its meaning now, even without supposing an allusion so refined and far-fetched.
27. Thus far the promise to God’s faithful people and the threaten ing to his enemies among them had been intermingled, or so expressed as to involve each other. Thus the promise of purification to the silver involved a threatening of destruction to the dross. But now the two elements of the prediction are exhibited distinctly, and first the promise to the church. Zion, the chosen people, as a whole, here considered as consisting of believers only, shall be redeemed, delivered from destruction, in judgment, i. e. in the exercise of justice upon God’s part, and her converts, those of her who return to God by true repentance, in righteousness, here used as an equivalent to justice.—Gesenius and the other modern Germans adopt the explanation given in the Targum, which assumes in judgment and in righteous ness to mean by the practice of righteousness on the part of the people. Calvin regards the same words as expressive of God’s rectitude, which would not suffer the innocent to perish with the guilty. But neither of these interpretations is so natural in this connexion as that which understands the verse to mean that the very same events, by which the divine justice was to manifest itself in the destruction of the wicked, should be the occasion and the means of deliverance to Zion or the true people of God.—The Septuagint, Peshito, and Luther, understand by msfcJ her captivity or captives (as if from i”i3’tf), Calvin and others her returning captives (qui reducentur ad earn); but the great majority of writers, old and new, take the word in a spiritual sense, which it frequently has elsewhere. See for ex ample ch. 6: 10.
28. The other element is now brought out, viz. the destruction of the wicked, which was to be simultaneous and coincident with the deliverance promised to God’s people in the verse preceding. And the breaking, crushing, utter ruin, of apostates, revolters, deserters from Jehovah, and sinners, is or shall be together, i. e. at the same time with Zion’s redemption, and the forsakers of Jehovah, an equivalent expression to apostates in the first clause, shall cease, come to an end, be totally destroyed. The terms of this verse are appropriate to all kinds of sin, but seem to be peculiarly descriptive of idolatry, as defection or desertion from the true God to idols, and thus prepare the way for the remainder of the chapter, in which that class of transgressors are made prominent.—Umbreit supplies no verb in the ftrst clause, but reads it as an exclamation: ’ Ruin to apostates and sinners all together!’ which is extremely harsh without a preposition before the nouns. Ewald, more grammatically, ’ Ruin of the evil-doers and sinners altogether!’ But the only natural construction is the common one.—Some writers under stand together as expressing the simultaneous destruction of the two classes mentioned here, apostates and sinners, or of these considered as one class and the forsakers of Jehovah as another. But the expression is far more emphatic, and agrees far better with the context, if we understand it as connecting this destruction with the deliverance in v. 27, and as being a final repetition of the truth stated in so many forms, that the same judgments which destroyed the wicked should redeem the righteous, or in other words, that the purification of the church could be effected only by the excision of her wicked members.—Junius differs from all others in supposing the metaphor of v. 25 to be here resumed. *i *And the fragments (“I5’^) of apostates, and of sinners likewise, and of those who forsake Jehovah, shall fail or be utterly destroyed.’
29. From the final destruction of idolaters the Prophet now reverts to their present security and confidence in idols, which he tells them shall be put to shame and disappointed. For they shall be ashamed of the oaks or terebinths which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens which ye have chosen as places of idolatrous worship.—Paulus and Hitzig think that nothing more is here predicted than the loss of the fine pleasure-grounds in which the wealthy Jews delighted. But why should this part of their property be specified in threatening them with total destruction? And why should they be ashamed of these favourite possessions and confounded on account of them? As these are terms constantly employed to express the frustration of religious trust, and as groves and gardens are continually spoken of as chosen scenes of idol-worship (see, for example, ch. 65: 3. 66: 17. Ezek. 6: 13. Hos. 4: 13), there can be little doubt that the common opinion is the true one, namely, that both this verse and the one preceding have particular allusion to idolatry.—Vitringa understands the first clause thus: they (the Jews of a future generation) shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye (the contemporaries of the Prophet) have desired. It is much more natural however to regard it as an instance of enallage personae (Gesen. § 134. 3), or to construe the first verb indefinitely, they,, i. e. men in general, people, or the like, shall be ashamed, etc., which construction is adopted by all the recent German writers (Gesenius: zu Schanden wird man, u. s. w.)—Knobel renders ^3 at the beginning 50 that, which is wholly unnecessary, as the verse gives a reason for the way in which the Prophet had spoken of persons now secure and flourishing, and the proper meaning of the particle is therefore perfectly appropriate.—Lowth renders D^p\x ilexes, Gesenius and the other Germans Terebinthen, which is no doubt botanically accurate; but in English oak may be retained as more poetical, and as the tree which, together with the terebinth, composes almost all the groves of Palestine.—The preposition before oaks and gardens may imply removal from them, but is more probably a mere connective of the verb with the object or occasion of the action, like the o/and for in English.
30. The mention of trees and gardens, as places of idolatrous worship, suggests a beautiful comparison, under which the destruction of the idolaters is again set forth. They who choose trees and gardens, in preference to God’s appointed place of worship, shall themselves be like trees and gardens, but in the most alarming sense. For, in answer to the tacit question why they should be ashamed and confounded for their oaks and gar dens, ye yourselves shall be like an oak or terebinth, fading, decaying, in its leaf or as to its leaf, and like a garden which has no water, a lively emblem, to an oriental reader, of entire desolation.—Some writers understand the Prophet to allude to the terebinth when dead, on the ground that it never sheds its leaves when living; but according to Robinson and Smith (Bib. Res. vol. iii. p. 15), the terebinth or “ butm is not an evergreen, as is often represented; its small feathered lancet-shaped leaves fall in the autumn and are renewed in the spring.”—Both here and in the foregoing verse, Knobel supposes there is special allusion to the gardens in the valley of Hinnom, where Ahaz sacrificed to Moloch (2 Chr. 28: 3. Isai. 30: 33, compared with ch. 22: 7), and a prediction of their being wasted by the enemy; but this, to say the least, is not a necessary exposition of the Prophet’s general expressions.—For the construction of n^ f^^j see Gesenius <§> 116. 3.
31. This verse contains a closing threat of sudden, total, instantaneous destruction to the Jewish idolaters, to be occasioned by the very things which they preferred to God, and in which they confided. And the strong, the mighty man, alluding no doubt to the unjust rulers of the previous con text, shall become tow, an exceedingly inflammable substance, and his work, his idols, often spoken of in Scripture as the work of men’s hands, shall become a spark, the means and occasion of destruction to their worshippers, and they shall burn both of them together, and there shall shall be no one quenching or to quench them.—All the ancient versions treat “jbn as an abstract, meaning strength, which agrees well with its form, resembling that of an infinitive or verbal noun. But even in that case, the abstract must be used for a concrete, i. e. strength for strong, which last is the sense given to the word itself by all the modern writers. Calvin and others understand by the strong one the idol viewed as a protector or a tutelary god, and by ibsfe his maker and worshipper, an interpretation which agrees in sense with theTme given above, but inverts the terms, making the idol to be burnt by the idolater and not vice versa. But why should the worshipper burn himself with his idol? A far more coherent and impressive sense is yielded by the other exposition.—Gesenius, Hitzig, and Hendewerk suppose the work (^?b as in Jer. 22: 13), by which the strong man is consumed, to be his conduct in general, Junius his efforts to resist God, Vitringa his contrivances and means of safety. But the frequent mention of idols as the work of men’s hands, and the prominence given to idolatry in the immediately preceding context, seem to justify Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, in attributing to b?b that specific meaning here, and in understanding the whole verse as a prediction that the very gods, in whom the strong men of Jerusalem now trusted, should involve their worshippers and makers with themselves in total, instantaneous^ irrecoverable ruin.
