THIS chapter contains a song of praise and thanksgiving to be sung by Israel after his deliverance, vs. 1-19. To this is added a postscript, intimating that the time for such rejoicing was not yet at hand, vs. 20, 21.
The song opens with an acknowledgment of God’s protection and an exhortation to confide therein, vs. 1—4. This is founded on the exhibition of his righteousness and power in the destruction of his foes and the oppressors of his people, vs. 5-11. The church abjures the service of all other sovereigns, and vows perpetual devotion to him by whom it has been de livered and restored, vs. 12-15. Her utter incapacity to save herself is then contrasted with God’s power to restore his people to new life, with a joyful anticipation of which the song concludes, vs. 16-19. The additional sentences contain a beautiful and tender intimation of the trials, which must be endured before these glorious events take place, with a solemn assurance that Jehovah is about to visit both his people and their enemies with chastisement, vs. 20, 21.
1. In that day shall this so?ig be sung in the land of Judah: We have a strong city; salvation will he place (as) walls and breastwork. The condition and feelings of the people after their return from exile are ex pressed by putting an ideal song into their mouths. Though the first clause does not necessarily mean that this should actually be sung, but merely that it might be sung, that it would be appropriate to the times and to the feelings of the people, it is not at all improbable that it was actually used for this purpose, which could more readily be done as it is written in the form and manner of the Psalms, with which it exhibits many points of resemblance. The day meant is the day of deliverance which had just been promised. Lowth connects in the land of Judah with what follows, in violation of the accents and without the least necessity. Nor can it be supposed that the song itself would have begun with such a formula, unless the singers are assumed to be the Jews still in exile, which is hardly consistent with the following verse. Knobel on the other hand asserts, that the singers are no doubt the Jews left by the Babylonians in the land of Judah. This is necessarily involved in his hypothesis, that ch. xxiv-xxvii were written immediately after Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest. (See the introduction to chap, xxiv.) Another inference from this supposition is, that the verse before us describes Jerusalem in its dismantled state, as still protected by the divine favour, whereas it is rather a description of the divine help and favour, as the city’s best defence, or as that without which all others would be useless. Ewald, however, makes it mean that walls and bulwarks give salvation (Heil geben Mauern und Graben), which, besides the harsh construction, yields a sense directly opposite to that intended. The obvious and natural construction of mici is with mni understood. The future form implies that the description is prospective. Vn is the outer and lower wall protecting the trench or moat of a fortification. The whole phrase is rendered by the Septuagint za/o^ xal 7T?QiTei%og. Junius adds to his translation of this verse the word dicendo, so as to make the next the words of God himself.
2. Open ye the gates, and let the righteous nation enter, keeping truth (or faith). The supposition of responsive choruses gives a needless complexity to the structure of the passage. The speakers are the same as in the first verse, and the words are addressed to those who kept the doors. Knobel understands this as the language of the remaining Jews, exhorting themselves or one another to receive the returning exiles. These are de scribed as righteous and as keeping faith, probably in reference to the cessation of idolatry among the Jews during the exile. Lowth connects “laia c*1D’sx with the first clause of the next verse. J. D. Michaelis makes it an independent proposition (he preserves the faithful). Knobel says that the use of “is. in application to the Jews is a later usage, which assertion is un doubtedly true if every place where it occurs is assumed to be of recent date.
3. The mind stayed (on thee) thou wilt preserve in peace (in) peace (i. e. in perfect peace), because in thee (it is) confident (literally confided). This is a general truth deduced from the experience of those who are sup posed to be the speakers. Lowth adds the last words of the foregoing verse constant in the truth, stayed in mind, by which nothing is gained and the masoretic interpunction needlessly violated. Calvin makes the first two words an independent clause (cogitatio fixa), and Ewald seems to adopt the same construction (die Einbildung steht fest) probably meaning that what follows is a just thought or a certain truth. Luther seems to refer it to God’s promise (nach gewisser Zusage). But the best construction is the common one, which connects *pBO “^ with the following words. *IS*MS the invention (or perhaps the constitution) of the mind, put for the mind itself. The elliptical construction in the English Bible (him whose mind is stayed on thee) is not very natural; still less so that of Knobel, who refers ‘yciD to the person understood, and makes ns^ a qualifying noun (stayed as to mind) citing as examples of a similar inversion ch. 22: 2. Nah. 3: 1. Barnes omits *is£ altogether in his version (him that is stayed on thee). Henderson gives the true construction, making lain govern nx? directly, though he renders T^’o firm, which is hardly an adequate translation, as the word necessarily includes the idea of reliance i. e. upon God. Ewald derives ‘isin from ist^ instead of 12H, and translates it thou wilt form (or create) peace. For this no reason can be given, except that it evolves a new paronomasia, both in sense and sound, between the noun and verb. The mere assonance exists of course, however the words may be explained; and though Gesenius was so unhappy as to overlook it, Knobel has copied it by the combination Festigen festigest. The idiomatic iteration, peace peace, to express a superlative, is perfectly in keeping with the frequent reduplications of the twenty-fourth chapter, and may serve to show, that the accumulation of such idioms there arises from a difference of subject or of sentiments to be expressed, and not from want of genius or corruption of taste. There is no need of ex plaining WM as a passive substituted for an active participle. The word corresponds both in form and meaning to assured in English.
4. Trust ye in Jehovah forever (literally, even to eternity), for in Jah Jehovah is a rode of ages (or an everlasting rock). To the general truth stated in v. 3, a general exhortation is now added, not addressed by one chorus to another, but by the same ideal speakers to all who hear them or are willing to receive the admonition. This is one of the few places in which the name Jehovah is retained by the common English Version. On the origin and usage of the name fc vide supra, ch. 12: 2. The occurrence of the combination here confirms its genuineness there. In this place it is at least as old as Aquila, who has iv ico xvQt<p xvQiog. Knobel however chooses to reject FiVrn, as a mere explanation or correction of PP, added by a later hand. Cocceius, in accordance with his own etymology of tr;, trans lates it in decentia Jehovae, which is very much like nonsense. Vitringa makes these names the subject of the proposition (Jah Jehovah est rupes saeculorutn), according to DeDieu’s observation, that the preposition 3 is often pleonastic. The same construction is adopted by Gesenius, on the ground that a is frequently a beth esscntiae, corresponding to the French en in the phrase en roi, i. e. in (the character or person of) a king. The existence of this idiom in Hebrew is denied, both by Winer in his Lexicon and Ewald in his Grammar, but maintained against them by Gesenius in his Thesaurus. It is evident however that in all the cases where it is assumed, that conclusion can only be defended on the ground of exegetical necessity, and that such analogies cannot require or even authorize the preference of this obscure and harsh construction where the obvious and simple one is perfectly admissible. In the case before us, Gesenius is obliged to create a necessity for his construction, by gratuitously making ft the subject and rns-n the predicate of the proposition. This he chooses to translate, Jehovah is God, but it ought to have been Jah is Jehovah, and as one of these names is explained by himself to be a mere abbreviation of the other, the clause becomes an identical proposition, meaning nothing more than that Jehovah is himself. All that is gained by the supposition of a beth essentiae may be secured, without departing from the ordinary meaning of the preposition, by supplying an active verb, as in Augusti’s version, in him (ye have) an everlasting rock. But the simplest and most accurate of all constructions is the common one, retained by Ewald, who omits neither Jah nor the particle before it, but translates the clause, for in Jah Jahve, is an everlasting rock. This figurative name, as applied to God, includes the two ideas of a hiding place and a foundation, or the one complex idea of a permanent asylum. Barnes translates the whole phrase, everlasting refuge. Lowth’s neverfailing protection is correct in sense, but in form a diluted paraphrase.
5. For he hath brought down the inhabitants of the high place, the exalted city; he will lay it low, he will lay it low, to the very ground; he will bring it to the very dust. He has proved himself able to protect his people, and consequently worthy to be trusted by them, in his signal overthrow of that great power by which they were oppressed. nsiKaa means lofty in the sense of being inaccessible, and is especially applied to for tresses, as we have seen with respect to the derivative noun aaiaa, ch. 25: 12. Hitzig explains *wi to mean those enthroned; but its connexion with ni-m requires it to be taken in the sense of inhabitants. The alternation of the tenses here is somewhat remarkable. Henderson translates them all as preterites; Barnes uses first the present, then the preterite; both which constructions are entirely arbitrary. The English Version more correctly treats them all as presents, which is often allowable where the forms are intermingled and is also adopted by the latest German writers. But in this case, a reason can be given for the use of the two tenses, even if strictly understood. The Prophet looks at the events from two distinct points of observation, his own and that of the ideal speakers. With respect to the latter, the fall of Babylon was past; with respect to the former it was still future. He might ‘ therefore naturally say, even in the same sentence, he has brought it low and he shall bring it to the dust. Cocceius as usual reproduces the precise form of the Hebrew sentence. Nothing can well be more unlike than the 442 looseness of this§ writer’s exegesis and the critical precision of his mere translation. Henderson thinks the masoretic interpunction wrong, and throws ftDbiBtt^ into the first clause, to which arrangement there are three objections: first, that it is arbitrary and against the textual tradition: second, that it makes the suffix in the verb superfluous, the object having been expressed before; and third, that it renders less effective, if it does not quite destroy, the idiomatic iteration of the verb, which is characteristic of this whole prediction, ^y strictly means as far as, and may be expressed in English, either by the phrase even to, or by the use of the intensive very, as above in the translation.
6. The foot shall trample on it, the feet of the afflicted, the steps of the weak. The ruins of the fallen city shall be trodden under foot, not only by its conquerors, but by those whom it oppressed. Neither ^as nor bi strictly signifies poor. The prominent idea in the first is that of suffering, in the second that of weakness. They are here used, like Vi and ynnx in ch. 25: 4. as epithets of Israel while subjected to the Babylonian tyranny, “rass. which Luther translates heels (Ferse) and Junius footsteps (vestigia), is here a poetical equivalent iofeet. Henderson here translates the verbs in the present, Barnes more exactly in the future.
7. The way for the righteous is straight (or level); thou most up right wilt level (or rectify) the path of the righteous. A man’s way is a common scriptural figure for his course of life. A straight or level way is a prosperous life. It is here declared that the course of the righteous is a prosperous one, because God makes it so. ninupa strictly denotes straight-ness^ the plural being used as an abstract. The moral sense of uprightness does not suit the connexion. ^E”1 may either be construed as a vocative, or with the name of God understood (as a righteous God). Knobel makes it an adverbial accusative, thou dost rectify the path of the righteous straight, i. e. so as to make it straight. The primary idea of obs is to render even; it is therefore applied both to balances and paths; but the two applications are not to be confounded; paths may be made even, but they cannot be weighed.
8. Also in the woy of thy judgments, oh Jehovah, we have waited for thee; to thy name and thy remembrance (was our) souVs desire. For this manifestation of thy righteousness and goodness we have long been waiting in the way of thy judgments, i. e. to see thee come forth as a judge. for the vindication of thy people and the destruction of their enemies. Name and remembrance or memorial denote the manifestation of God’s attributes in his works. Ewald translates the second fame or glory (Ruhm). J. D. Michaelis connects the first words with the seventh verse, ’ thou dost regulate the path of the righteous, but also the way of thy judgments.’ Lowth takes “pafittrain the sense of laws and li^p in that of trusting. It is more probable however that the same idea is expressed here as in ch. 25: 9.
9. ( With) my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea (with) my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments (come) to the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness. The desire here expressed is not a general desire for the knowledge and favour of God, but a special desire that he would manifest his righteousness by appearing as a judge. This explanation is required by the connexion with what goes before and with what follows in this very verse. Gesenius takes my soul as a periphrasis for I. Maurer supposes it to be in apposition with the pronoun. Ewald and Knobel retain the old construction, which supplies a preposition before ^S3, or regards it as an adverbial accusative or qualifying noun, cor responding to the ablative of instrument or cause in Latin. The night is mentioned, not as a figure for calamity or ignorance, nor as a time peculiarly appropriate to meditation, but for the purpose of expressing the idea, that he feels this wish at all times, by night and by day. This shows that the recent lexicographers are wrong in excluding from the Piel of *>rn!J the sense of seeking in the morning, seeking early, to which exclusion it may also be objected, that the soundest principles of lexicography tend to the union and not to the multiplication of roots. The question whether these are the words of the Prophet, or of each of the people, or of a choir or chorus representing them, proceeds upon the supposition of an artificial structure and a strict adherence to rhetorical propriety, which have no real existence in the writ ings of the Prophet. The sentiments, which it was his purpose and his duty to express, are sometimes uttered in his own person, sometimes in that of another, and these different forms of speech are interchanged, without regard to the figments of an artificial rhetoric. Some give to IITKS its strict sense as a particle of comparison, and understand the clause to mean that men learn how to practise righteousness by imitating God’s example. By judgments, here as in the foregoing context, we can only understand judicial providences. The doctrine of the verse is, that a view of God’s severity is necessary to convince men of his justice. The Septuagint has pafove in the imperative, which gives a good sense, but is forbidden by the obvious address to God himself throughout the verse.
10. Let the wicked be favoured, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of right he will do wrong, and will not see the exaltation of Jehovah. The reasoning of the preceding verse is here continued. As it was there said that God’s judgments were necessary to teach men righteous ness, so it is here said that continued prosperity is insufficient for that pur pose. The wicked man will go on to do wickedly, even in the very place where right conduct is peculiarly incumbent. Though the verse is in the form of a general proposition, and as such admits of various applications, there is obvious reference to the Babylonians, who were not only embold ened by impunity to do wrong in the general, but to do it even in the land of right or rectitude, the holy land, Jehovah’s land, where such transgressions were peculiarly offensive. There are two other explanations of rrinb: y^K which deserve attention. The first understands the phrase to mean, in the midst of a righteous population, surrounded by examples of good conduct. The other supposes an allusion not to moral but to physical rectitude or straightness, as a figure for prosperity. This last would make the clause a repetition of the sentiment expressed before it, viz. that favour and indulgence do not teach men righteousness. But neither of these latter explanations agrees so well with the last words of the verse as the one first given, according to which they represent the wrong-doer as not knowing or believing or considering that the land, in which he practices his wickedness, belongs to the most High God. J. D. Michaelis explains the closing words to mean that God is too exalted to be seen by them (den zu erfiabenen Gott).
11. Jehovah, thy hand is high, they will not see; (yes) they will see (and be ashamed) thy zeal for thy people; yea, the fire of thine enemies shall devour them. The tenses in this verse have been very variously and arbitrarily explained. Some make them all past, others all future, and a few all present. Even the double future (i^tm and itm) is referred to different tenses, past and future, past and present, present and future. They have not seen, but they shall see; they do not see, but they shall see; they did not see, but they do see. Some make ifm an optative: but may they see! All these constructions are grammatical, but the very fact that so many are possible, makes it advisable to adhere somewhat rigorously to the proper mean ing of the forms. As to ira-», it matters little whether it be rendered as a preterite or present, as the one implies the other; but as to ‘j’nmi and itm, the safest course is to translate them both alike as simple futures. The seeming contradiction instantly explains itself,as being a kind of after-thought. They will not see, (but yes) they will see. There are two ways of connecting es nxip with what precedes. The obvious construction found in most of the old versions, makes it the object of the verb immediately before it: ’ they shall be ashamed of their zeal against (or envy of) the people.’ This of course supposes C3> P«ap to denote the envy of the heathen against Israel, or, which is much less probable, the jealousy of Israel with respect to the accession of the Gentiles. But as usage is decidedly in favour of interpret ing the phrase to mean the jealousy or zeal of God himself in behalf of his own people, Gesenius and several later writers construe it with Tm”> and throw iunni into a parenthesis, ’ they shall see (and be ashamed) the zeal etc.’ which is equivalent to saying, (they shall see with shame, etc.’ Another construction, given independently by Henderson and Knobel, construes the phrase in question, not as the object of a verb preceding, but as the subject of the verb that follows, i *zeal for thy people, yea fire against thine enemies, shall devour them (or may it devour them).’ In favour of this construction is the strict agreement of the sense which it affords with m anyother passages, in which the same divine acts are described as acts of mercy to the righteous and of wrath to the wicked. (See for example ch. 1: 27 and the commentary on it.) It is also recommended by the strong emphatic meaning which it gives to C]». Knobel moreover makes “p”i2t the object of the verb bsstn and regards the suffix to the latter as an idiomatic pleonasm, which is not only arbitrary and extremely harsh (and therefore not required by a few examples where no other solution of the syntax is ad missible), but destructive of a beautiful antithesis between God’s *zeal for his people and fire for his enemies. Of the two constructions, therefore, Henderson’s is much to be preferred. Fire does not simply denote war (Gesenius) or sudden death (J. D. Michaelis), but the wrath of God, as a sudden, rapid, irresistible, and utterly destroying agent.
12. Jehovah, thou wilt give us peace, for even all our works thou hast wrought for us. This is an expression of strong confidence and hope, founded on what has already been experienced. God certainly would favour them in future, for he had done so already. The translation of the first verb as a preterite or present, though admissible if necessary, cannot be justified in such a case as this, where the strict translation gives a perfectly good sense, lab ns^n literally means thou wilt place to us, which some under stand to mean appoint or ordain for us; but Gesenius more correctly explains it as the converse of the idiomatic usage of *n5 to give in the sense of placing. Peace is, as often elsewhere, to be taken in the wide sense of prosperity or welfare, w, though omitted in translation by Gesenius and others, is emphatic, and should be connected, not with the pronoun or the verb, as in the English Version, but as in Hebrew with the phrase all our works, as if he had said, even all our works i. e. all without exception. It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that our works here means not the works done by us but the works done for us, i. e. what we have experienced, or as Calvin ex presses it in French, nos affaires. The version of the last clause in the text of the English Bible (thou hast wrought all our works in us) is connected with an old interpretation of the verse, as directly teaching the doctrine of human dependence and efficacious grace. This translation, however, is equally at variance with the usage of the Hebrew preposition (^) and with the connexion here. The context, both before and after, has respect, not to spiritual exercises, but to providential dispensations. It is not a little curious that while Cocceius, in his Calvinistic zeal, uses this verse as an argument against the Arminian doctrine of free-will, Calvin himself had long before declared that the words cannot be so applied. Qui hoc testimonio usi sunt ad evertendum liberum arbitrium, Prophetae mentern assecuti non sunt. Verum quidem est Deum solum bene agere in nobis, et quicquid recte instituunt homines esse ex illius Spiritu; sed hie simpliciter docet Propheta omnia bona quibus fruimur ex Dei rnanu adeptos esse: unde colligit nullum fore beneficentiae finem donee plena felicit asaccedat. This brief extract is at once an illustration of the great reformer’s sound and independent judgment, and of the skill with which he can present the exact and full sense of a passage in a few words.
13. Jehovah, our God, (other) lords beside thee have ruled us; (but henceforth) thee, thy name, only will we celebrate. In this verse again there is great diversity as to the explanation of the tenses. Clericus renders both the verbs as preterites, and understands the verse as saying, that even when the Jews were under foreign oppression, they maintained their allegiance to Jehovah. Ewald gives the same sense, but in reference to the present fidelity of Israel under present oppression. Gesenius, more correctly, distinguishes between the verbs as preterite and present. There is no good ground, however, for departing from the strict sense of the forms as preterite and future, which are faithfully expressed in all the English versions. The usual construction of the last clause understands “p as meaning through thee i. e. through thy favour, by thy help, we are enabled now to praise thy name. But Ewald, Barnes, and Henderson regard the pronoun as in apposition with thy name, and the whole clause as describing only the object of their worship, not the means by which they were enabled to render it. The construction of “p is in that case somewhat singular, but may have been the only one by which the double object of the verb could be distinctly ex pressed without the repetition of the verb itself. As to the lords who are mentioned in the first clause, there are two opinions. One is, that they are the Chaldees or Babylonians, under whom the Jews had been in bondage. This is now the current explanation. The other is, that they are the false gods or idols, whom the Jews had served before the exile. Against the for mer and in favour of the latter supposition it may be suggested, first, that the Babylonian bondage did not hinder the Jews from mentioning Jehovah’s name or praising him; secondly, that the whole verse looks like a confession of their own fault and a promise of amendment, rather than a reminiscence of their sufferings; and thirdly, that there seems to be an obvious comparison between the worship of Jehovah as our God, with some other worship and some other deity. At the same time let it be observed, that the ideas of religious and political allegiance and apostasy or of heathen rulers and of idol gods, were not so carefully distinguished by the ancient Jews as by ourselves, and it is therefore not impossible that both the kinds of servitude referred to may be here included, yet in such a manner that the spiritual one must be considered as the prominent idea, and the only one, if either must be fixed upon to the exclusion of the other. An additional argument, in favour of the reference of this verse to spiritual rulers, is its exact correspondence with the singular fact in Jewish history, that since the Babylonish exile they have never even been suspected of idolatry. That such a circumstance should be adverted to in this commemorative poem, is so natural that its omission would be almost unaccountable.
14. Dead, they shall not live: ghosts, they shall not rise: therefore thou hast visited and destroyed them, and made all memory to perish with respect to them. Those whom we lately served are now no more; thou hast destroyed them and consigned them to oblivion, for the very purpose of securing our freedom and devotion to thy service. Most of the recent writers follow Clericus in referring this verse to the Babylonians exclusively. Hitzig, Ewald, and Umbreit apply it to the forefathers of the supposed speakers, who had perished on account of their idolatry. It seems best however to refer it to the strange lords of the foregoing verse, i. e. the idols themselves, but with some allusion, as in that case, to the idolatrous oppressors of the Jews. The reason for preferring this interpretation to that of Hitzig is, that the latter introduces a new subject which had not been previously mentioned. The first clause may indeed be rendered as a general proposition, the dead live not, etc.; but this still leaves the transition an abrupt one, and the allusion to the departed Israelites obscure. The dis junctive accents which accompany DT\» and D^NS^I also show that, according to the masoretic tradition, these words are not the direct subject of the verb but in apposition with it. The sense is correctly given in the English Ver sion: they are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise. An attempt, however, has been made above to imitate more closely the concise and compact form of the original. For the meaning of t^jxm, vide supra, ch. 14: 9. It is here a poetical equivalent to DTia, and may be variously rendered, shades, shadows, spirits, or the like. The common version (deceased) leaves too entirely out of view the figurative character of the expression. Giants, on the contrary, is too strong, and could only be employed in this connexion in the sense of gigantic shades or shadows. The Targum strangely makes these terms denote the worshippers of dead men and of giants, i. e. probably of heroes. The Septuagint gives a curious turn to the sentence by reading CPKSp physicians (laTQol ov py avaaT^covai). Gesenius needlessly attaches to ^ the rare and dubious sense because, which Ewald regards as a fictitious one, deduced from a superficial view of certain passages, in which the meaning therefore seems at first sight inappropriate. The other sense is certainly not to be assumed without necessity. In this case the apparent necessity is done away by simply observing, that therefore may be used to introduce, not only the cause, but the design of an action. Though the words cannot mean, thou hast destroyed them because they are dead and powerless, they may naturally mean, thou hast destroyed them that they might be dead and powerless. The same two meanings are attached to the English phrase for this reason, which may either denote cause or purpose. The meaning of the verse, as connected with the one before it, is that the strange lords who had ruled them should not only cease to do so, but, so far as they were concerned, should cease to exist or be remembered.?
15. Thou hast added to the nation, oh Jehovah, thou hast added to the nation; thou hast glorified thyself; thou hast put far off all the ends of the land. By this deliverance of thy people from the service both of idols and idolaters, thou hast added a great number to the remnant who were left in the Holy Land, so that larger territories will be needed for their occupation; and in doing all this, thou hast made an exhibition of thy power, justice, truth, and goodness. Thus understood, the whole verse is a grateful acknowledgment of what God had done for his suffering people. Some, on the contrary, have understood it as relating wholly to his previous judg ments. Thus DeDieu, with his usual ingenuity and love of paradox, con founds the idea of adding to the nation with that of gathering a person to his people or his fathers, a common idiomatic periphrasis for death. This is founded on the etymological affinity of 5]bi and t]b». To match this in the other clause, he makes “p» nl2p mean the extremities of the land, i. e. its highest extremities or chief men, whom Nebuchadnezzar carried into exile. A more common explanation of the verse is that which supposes the last clause to describe the exile and the first the restoration. To re move the VGTSQOV TiQOTeQov which thus arises, it becomes necessary to make nprn a pluperfect, as in the English version, which moreover supplies a pronoun as the object of the verb, and a preposition before ends. A much simpler construction of the last clause is the one now commonly adopted, which supposes no ellipsis, makes “pa iisp itself the object of the verb, and identical in meaning with the latin fines terrae in the sense of boundaries, the removing of which further off denotes of course territorial enlargement. Junius supplies life after added in the first clause; J. D. Michaelis and others supply gifts or favours; but the obvious meaning seems to be that God had added to the number of the people, not by an aggregate increase of the whole nation, but by the reunion of its separated parts, in the restoration of the exiles from Babylon. The word i-ja, as Knobel well observes, may here denote the remnant left in Judah, to which the analogous term tts is repeatedly applied by Jeremiah. The enlargement of the boundaries may either be explained as a poetical description of the actual increase and expected growth of the nation (ch. 49: 19), or literally understood as referring to the fact, that after the return from exile the Jews were no longer restricted to their own proper territory, but extended themselves more or less over the whole country. Knobel gives ^1^:33 the specific meaning, thou hast made thyself great, i. e. the king of a great nation; but the wider and more usual sense is much to be preferred. The translation of the verb as a reflexive, rather than a simple passive, greatly adds to the strength of the expression!
16. Jehovah, in distress they visited thee; they uttered a whisper; thy chastisement was on them. It was not merely after their deliverance that they turned from idols unto God. Their deliverance itself was owing to their humble prayers. Visit is here used in the unusual but natural sense of seeking God in supplication. Hitzig and Hendewerk prefer the second ary sense of asnb, incantation (Beschworung); but the primary meaning is not only admissible but beautifully expressive of submissive humble prayer, like that of Hannah when she spake in her heart and only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard, although, as she said herself, she poured out her soul before God, which is the exact sense of “ppx in this place. A. like ex pression is applied to prayer in the title of Psalm 102. Barnes explains ttjnb here to mean a sighing, a calling for help, as if the two things were identical, whereas the idea of a call or cry is at variance with the figurative import of the language. This is one of the few cases in which the plural of the preterite takes a paragogic nun. Whether it was meant to be intensive, as Henderson supposes, or to affect the sense in any way, may be doubted. Knobel supplies a preposition before “pova, and says that the Prophet would have written D-IOVO, but for the necessity of adding the suffix of the second person, which required that of the third to be separately written with a preposition. It is simpler, however, to supply the substantive verb and take the words as a short independent clause. It is implied, though not expressed, that their prayer was humble and submissive because they felt that what they suffered was a chastisement from God. Ewald,who usually makes an advance upon his predecessors, in the way of simple and exact translation, is here misled by his fondness for critical emendation, and proposes to read ttinb as a verb, and Tips as a noun derived from p« to press. (lii) distress it was lisped (or whispered) by them 29 Thy chastisement! The construction thus obtained is as harsh and infelicitous as the correction of the text is arbitrary.
17. As when a pregnant (woman) draws near to the birth, she writhes, she cries out in her pangs, so have we been, from thy presence, oh Jehovah! Before we thus cast ourselves upon thy mercy in submissive prayer, we tried to deliver ourselves, but only to the aggravation of our sufferings. The comparison here used is not intended simply to denote extreme pain as in many other cases, but as the next verse clearly shows, the pain arising from ineffectual efforts to relieve themselves. te3, like the corresponding English 05, is properly a particle of comparison, but constantly applied to time, as a synonyme of when. The full force of the term may be best expressed in this case by combining the two English words. The future is here used to denote a general fact which not only does, but will occur. Hendewerk translates the last verb as a present; but it seems clear that the prophet is reverting to the state of things before the deliverance which had just been acknowledged. Knobel, in accordance with his general hypothesis as to the date and subject of the prophecy, applies this verse to the condition of the Jews who were left behind in Palestine, but the great majority of writers, much more probably, to that of the exiles. There are three explanations of the phrase ^aBa. Clericus and Hitzig take it in its strictest sense as meaning from thy presence, i. e. cast out or removed far from it. Knobel, on the contrary, excludes the proper local sense of the expression and translates it on account of thee, i. e. because of thine anger. Gesenius and Ewald give the intermediate sense before thee, in thy presence. Even in the cases cited by Knobel, the evils experienced are described as coming from the presence of Jehovah. Some of the older writers even give Bias itself the sense of anger, which is wholly unnecessary and unauthorized. The only way in which the question can be settled is by the application of the general principle, that where a choice of meaning is presented, that is entitled to the preference which adheres most closely to the strict sense of the terms. On this ground the translation from thy presence is to be preferred; but whether with the accessory idea of removal, alienation, or with that of infliction, is a question not determined by the phrase itself, but either left uncertain or to be decided by the context.
18. We were in travail, we were in pain, as it were we brought forth wind. Deliverances we could not make the land, nor would the in habitants of the world fall. The figure introduced in the preceding verse is here carried out and applied. Ewald makes iaSD mean as if, but neither this nor as it were is fully justified by usage. Gesenius renders it when as in v. 17, but this requires a verb to be supplied, when we brought forth (it was) wind. The general sense is evident. The next clause admits of several different constructions. The simplest supplies a preposition before y^x, in or for the land. The one now commonly adopted is, we could not make the land safety, . e. could not make it safe or save it. The same writers generally make rvjra the passive participle, in which case it must agree, either with y-ix which is usually feminine, or with rn”.it!3^ which is both feminine and plural. The possibility of such constructions does not warrant them, much less require them, when as here the obvious one is perfectly appropriate and in strict agreement with the parallel ibs^. The objection urged to making rrrrra future is that the people could not save the country, which is the very thing the future was intended to assert. The future form of the verb has respect to the period described. As the people then might have said, we shall not save the land, so the same expression is here put into their mouths retrospectively. The best equivalent in English is the potential or subjunctive form, we could not. Gesenius and the other recent German writers understand this as a description of the Holy Land after the return from exile. We cannot save the country, and the inhabitants of the land will not be born (ibs”1) i. e. it is still very thinly peopled. This is far from being an obvious or natural interpretation. The foregoing context, as we have seen, relates to the period of captivity itself. The meaning given to ^>S3, though sustained by analogies in other languages, derives no countenance from Hebrew usage. Nor is it probable that the figure of parturition would be here resumed, after it had been dropped in the preceding member of the sentence. The way in which the metaphors of this verse have been treated by some commentators furnishes an instance of the perversion and abuse of archaeological illustration. J. D. Michaelis imagined that he had discovered an allusion to a certain medical phenomenon of very rare occurrence. This suggestion is eagerly adopted by Gesenius. who, not content with naming it in his text, pursues the subject with greai zest in a note, and appears to have called in the assistance of his colleague, the celebrated medical professor Sprengel. From one or the other of these sources the details are copied by several later writers, one of whom, lest the reader’s curiosity should not be sated, says that the whole may be seen fully described in the books on obstetrics. It is a curious fact that some, who are often reluctant to recognise New Testament doctrines in the prophecies, can find there allusions to the most extraordinary medical phenomena. The best comment upon this obstetrical elucidation is con tained in Hitzig’s caustic observation, that by parity of reasoning the allusion in ch. 33: 11 is to an actual bringing forth of straw (eine wirkliche Strohgeburt). Knobel has also pointed out, what any reader might dis cover for himself, that wind is here used, as in ch. 41: 29, Hos. 12: 2, as a common metaphor for failure, disappointment, bafi is variously explained according to the sense put upon the whole verse. Those who refer it to the period after the return from exile regard bun as equivalent to ynx. Those who suppose the exile itself to be the time in question, understand by bzn the Babylonian empire as in ch. 13: 11.
19. Thy dead shall live, my corpses shall arise; (awake and sing ye that dwell in the dust I) for the dew of herbs is thy dew, and (on) the earth (on) the dead, thou wilt cause it to fall. This verse is in the strongest contrast with the one before it. To the ineffectual efforts of the people to save themselves, he now opposes their actual deliverance by God. They shall rise because they are thy dead, i. e. thy dead people. The construction of T^-S with “pEip*1 is not a mere grammatical anomaly. The noun and suffix are singular, because the words are those of Israel as a body. The verb is plural, because the corpse of Israel included in reality a multitude of corpses The explanation of the suffix as a parogogic syllable is contrary to usage, which restricts paragoge to the construct form. Kimchi supplies a preposition (with my dead body) which construction is adopted in the English version and in several others, but is now commonly abandoned as incongruous and wholly arbitrary. Neither the Prophet, nor the house of Israel/in whose name he is speaking, could refer to their own body as distinct from the bodies of Jehovah’s dead ones. Awake, etc. is a joyful apostrophe to the dead, after which the address to Jehovah is resumed. There are two interpretations of.-nix, both ancient and supported by high modern authorities. The first gives the word the usual sense of -list light; the other •.that of plants, which it has in 2 Kings 4: 39. The first is found in the Targum, Vulgate, and Peshito, and is approved by Grotius. Ewald, Umibreit, and Gesenius in his Commentary. The other is given by Kimchi, Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Hitzig, and Gesenius in his [•Lexicon. To the former it may be objected, that it leaves the plural form ^unexplained, that it arbitrarily makes light mean life, and that it departs.from the acknowledged meaning of r.Six in the only other place where.it occurs. The second interpretation, on the other hand, assumes but one sense of the word, allows the plural form its proper force, and supposes an obvious and natural allusion to the influence of dew upon the growth of plants. In either case the reference to the dew is intended to illustrate the vivifying power of God. Gesenius and Ewald both explain the verbs as optatives and the verse as expressive of a wish that God would raise the dead and thus repeople the now empty country. This construction, though admissible in case of necessity, has nothing to entitle it to preference, when.the strict interpretation yields a perfectly good sense. The obvious meaning of the words is an expression of strong confidence and hope, or rather of prophetic foresight, that God will raise the dead, that his life-giving influence will be exerted. The use of ‘^BPJ here is certainly obscure. Gesenius, Ewald, and the other late interpreters, suppose it to denote the act of bearing, bringing forth, as the Kal in v. 18 means, according to the same writers, to be born. But if it there seems unnatural to suppose a resumption of that figure, it is much more so here, where another figure, that of vegetation, goes before. The mere rhetorical objection to mixed metaphors, as we have seen in other cases, ought to weigh but little where the sense is clear; but in determining a doubtful sense, we are rather to presume that a figure once begun is continued, than that it is suddenly exchanged for another. An additional objection to this exposition is the incongruity of making the earth bring forth the dead, and thus putting the two extremes of life into juxtaposition. To avoid this incongruity, Gesenius and Ewald are obliged to give ^23, both here and in v. IS, not only the precarious sense of bearing and of being born, but the arbitrary and specific one of bearing again and being born again. Some of the older writers make b-‘Bn the second person (which agrees well with the previous address to God) and understand the words to mean thou wilt cause the giants to fall to the earth. But the combination of c^s-i with DTE in v. 14, and the repetition of the latter here, decides the meaning of the former, as denoting the deceased, the dead. Retaining the construction of b^sn as a second person, and supposing the allusion to the influence of dew upon the growth of plants to be continued, we may render the words thus: (upon) the earth, (upon) the dead thou wilt cause it to fall. As if he had said, thou hast a life-giving influence and thou wilt exert it; as thy dew makes plants to grow, so shall it make these dead to live. That the ellipsis of the preposition before f-ix and c^xa-i, although not without analogy, is somewhat harsh, must be admitted, and the only view with which this construction is proposed is, that its difficulties and advantages may be compared with those of the translation given by Gesenius and Ewald, the earth brings forth the dead. All these interpretations coincide in applying the verse to a resurrection of the dead, and the question now arises, what resurrection is referred to? All the answers to this question may be readily reduced to three. The first, is, that the prophet means the general resurrection of the dead, or according to an old rabbinical tradition, the exclusive resurrection of the righteous, at the last day. The second is, that he refers to a resurrection of the Jews already dead, not as an actual or possible event, but as a passion ate expression of desire that the depopulated land might be replenished with inhabitants. The third is, that he represents the restoration of the exiles and of the theocracy under the figure of a resurrection, as Paul says the restoration of Israel to God’s favour will be life from the dead. The obvious objection to the first of these opinions is, that a prediction of the final resurrection is as much out of place in this connexion as the same expectation seemed to Martha as a source of comfort for the loss of Lazarus. But as our Saviour, when he said to her, thy brother shall rise again, designed to console her by the promise of an earlier and a special resurrection, so in this case what was needed for the comfort of God’s people was something more than the prospect of rising at the day of judgment. The choice therefore lies between the other two hypotheses, that of a mere wish that the dead might literally rise at once, and that of a prediction that they should rise soon but in a figure (iv naQafiolri) as Paul says of Isaac’s resurrection from the dead (Heb. 11: 19). The objection to the first of these interpretations is, that the optative construction of the verbs, as we have seen already, is not the obvious and natural construction, and ought not to be assumed unless it yields a better sense and one more appropriate in this connexion. But so far is this from being the case, that the mere expression of a wish which could not be fulfilled would be a most unnatural conclusion of this national address to God, whereas it could not be more suitably wound up, or in a manner more in keeping with the usage of the prophecies, than by a strong expression of belief, that God would raise his people from the dust of degradation and oppression, where they had long seemed dead though only sleeping. On these grounds the figurative exposition seems decidedly entitled to the preference. Upon this allusion to a resurrection Gesenius fastens as a proof that the prophecy could not have been written until after the doctrine of the resurrection had been borrowed by the Jews from Zoroas ter. To this it may be answered, first, that the alleged derivation of the doctrine is a figment, which no authoritative writer on the history of opinion would now venture to maintain; secondly, that the mention of a figurative resurrection, or the expression of a wish that a literal one would take place, has no more to do with the doctrinal belief of the writer, than any other lively figure or expression of strong feeling; thirdly, that if a knowledge and belief of the doctrine of a general resurrection is implied in these expressions, the text, instead of being Tclassisch as a proof of later Jewish opinions, is Idassisch as a proof that the doctrine was known to Isaiah, if not to his contemporaries. If Gesenius, believing this prediction to belong to the period of the exile, is entitled to adduce it as a proof of what opinions were then current, those who believe it to be genuine are equally entitled to adduce it as a proof of what was current in the days of Isaiah. It is easy to affirm that the prophecy is known on other grounds to be of later date; but it is just as easy to affirm that the alleged grounds are sophistical and inconclusive. Holding this to be the truth, we may safely conclude that the text either proves nothing as to a general resurrection of the dead, or that it proves the belief of such a resurrection to be at least as old as the prophet Isaiah.
20. Go, my people, enter into thy chambers, and shut thy doors after thee, hide thyself for a little moment, till the wrath be past. Having wound up the expectations of the people to a full belief of future restoration from their state of civil and religious death, the Prophet by an exquisite transition intimates, that this event is not yet immediately at hand, that this relief from the effects of God’s displeasure with his people must be preceded by the experience of the displeasure itself, that it is still a time of indignation, and that till this is elapsed the promise cannot be fulfilled. This painful postponement of the promised resurrection could not be more tenderly or beautifully intimated than in this fine apostrophe. The inferences drawn by certain German writers, as to the date of the composition, can have no effect on those who believe that Isaiah was a prophet, not in the sense of a quid nunc or a ballad-singer, but in that of an inspired revealer of futurity. The similar conclusion drawn by Knobel from the form “on is equally frivolous, it being commonly agreed at present that what are called Aramean forms may just as well be archaisms as neologisms, since they may have arisen, not from later intercourse with neighbouring nations, but from an original identity of language. Gesenius and others understand this verse as an exhortation to the Jews in Babylon to keep out of harm’s way during the storming of the city. A more prosaic close of a poetical context could not be imagined. Those who refer v. 19 to the general resurrection understand the verse before us as an intimation that they must first rest in the grave until the time is come. Such an allusion is of course admissible on the supposition of a figurative resurrection. It is more natural, however, to suppose that the people of God are here addressed as such, and warned to hide themselves until God’s indignation against them is past. On this specific usage of the word est, vide supra ch. 10:5. On the idiomatic usage of the verbs T£ and xa, vide supra, ch. 22: 15. The textual variation •pr^ and “pVi is of no exegetical importance, “psa strictly means without thee or outside of thee, implying that the person is shut in. It first occurs in Gen. 7:16, where it is said that God shut Noah in the ark. Knobel explains srm BSES as meaning like the smallness of a moment. The a is a particle of time, equivalent, or nearly so, to our about. The English Version (as it were) is therefore incorrect. The period of suffering is described as very small in comparison with what had gone before and what should follow it, as Paul says (Rom. 8: 18), that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
21. For behold, Jehovah (is) coming out of his place, to visit the iniquity of the inhabitant of the earth upon him, and the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This is a reason both for expect ing ultimate deliverance and for patiently awaiting it. The reason is that God has a work of chastisement to finish, first upon his own people, and then upon their enemies. During the former process, let the faithful hide themselves until the wrath be past. When the other begins, let them lift up their heads, for their redemption draweth nigh. This large interpretation of the verse is altogether natural and more satisfactory than those which restrict it either to the judgments upon Israel or to those upon Babylon. On the latter the eye of the Prophet of course chiefly rests, especially at last, so that the closing words may be applied almost exclusively to the retribution which awaited the Chaldean for the slaughter of God’s people. On the idiomatic usage of the plural d^*! where the reference is to murder, vide supra, ch. 1:15. Rosenmiiller and Hitzig understand the last clause as a prediction that the dead should actually come out of the graves, Knobel as a poetical anticipation of the same event. But it seems far more natural to understand the clause, with Gesenius and Umbreit, as a simple variation of the one before it. The blood, which the earth had long since drunk in, should as it were be vomited up, and the bodies of the murdered, which had long been buried, should be now disclosed to view. It agrees best with the wider meaning put upon this verse, and is at the same time more poetical, to give “px in both clauses its generic sense of earth, rather than the specific one of land. Instead of the simple version slain, Gesenius employs with good effect the strong expression murdered (die Gemordeten), as one of the French versions had done long before (ses massacres). Without laying undue stress on the mere rhetorical aspect of the sacred writings, it may safely be affirmed that at the bar of the most elevated criticism, the concluding verses of the chapter now before us would at once be adjudged to possess intrinsic qualities of beauty and sublimity (apart from the accident of rhythm and parallelism, in which some writers find the essence of all poetry) sufficient to brand with the stigma of absurdity the judgment that can set the passage down as the work of a deteriorated age or an inferior writer.
