A GLORIOUS change awaits the church, consisting in a new and gracious manifestation of Jehovah’s presence, for which his people are exhorted to prepare, vs. 1-5. Though one generation perish after another, this promise shall eventually be fu!611ed, because it rests not upon human but divine authority, vs. 6-8. Zion may even now see him approaching as the conqueror of his enemies, and at the same time as the shepherd of his people, vs. 9-11. The fulfilment of these pledges is insured by his infinite wisdom, his almighty power, and his independence both of individuals and nations. vs. 12-17. How much more is he superior to material images, by which men represent him or supply his place, vs. 18-25. The same power which sustains the heavens is pledged for the support of Israel, vs. 26—31.
The sp^fcific application of this chapter to the return from Babylon is without the least foundation in the text itself. The promise is a general one of consolation, protection, and change for the better, to be wrought by the power and wisdom of Jehovah, which are contrasted, first, with those of men. of nations, and of rulers, then with the utter impotence of idols. That the ultimate fulfilment of the promise was still distant, is implied in the exhortation to faith and patience. The reference to idolatry proves nothing with respect to the date of the prediction, although more appropriate in the writings of Isaiah than of a prophet in the Babylonish exile. It is evidently meant, however, to condemn idolatry in general, and more particularly all the idolatrous defections of the Israelites under the old economy.
VI. Comfort ye. comfort ye my people, saith your God. This command is not addressed specifically to the priests or prophets, much less to the messengers from Babylon announcing the restoration of the Jews, but to any who might be supposed to hear the order, as in ch. 13: 2, or to th« people themselves, who are then required to encourage one another, as in ch. 35: 3. 4. The Vulgate even goes so far as to put my people in the vocative (popuh meus). The imperative form of the expression is poetical. Instead of declaring his own purpose, God summons men to execute it. 1 Instead of saying, I will comfort, he says, comfort ye. The same idea might have been expressed by saying, in the third person, let them comfort her, or in the passive voice, ht her be comforted. The possessive pronouns are emphatic, and suggest that, notwithstanding what they suffered, they were still Jehovah’s people, he was still their God. There is also meaning in the repetition of the verb at the beginning. Such repetitions are not unfrequent in the earlier prophecies. (Seech. 24: 16. 26:3.29: 1.38: 11,17,19.) The use of the future ^ for the preterite ins (saith) is peculiar to Isaiah. Gesenius cites as instances in other books, Jer. 42: 20, Zech. 13: 9, and Hos. 2: 23. But in the first and second cases, the future has its proper sense and not that of the present; while in the third, the Hebrew word is not ^so but cxa. At the same time, he omits the only real instance not in Isaiah, viz. Ps. 12: 6. Calvin insists upon the strict translation of the future (dicet), as implying that the order to console the people was not to be actually given till a later period, and is only mentioned here by anticipation. But even if it be explained as a present, it is worthy of remark that this form of expression is not only peculiar to Isaiah, but common to both parts of the book. (See ch. 1: 11. 18. 33: 10.)—The prefatory exhortation in this verse affords a key to the whole prophecy, as being consolatory in its tone and purpose. There is evident allusion to the threatening in ch. 39: 7. (Compare the Earlier Prophecies, p. 652.) Having there predicted the captivity in Babylon, as one of the successive strokes, by which the fall of Israel as a nation and the total loss of its peculiar privileges should be brought about, the Prophet is now sent to assure the spiritual Israel, the true people of Jehovah, that although the Jewish nation should soon cease to be externally identified with the church, the church itself should not only continue to exist, but in a far more glorious state than ever. This is the c: people “ here meant, and this the “ comfort” wherewith they were to be comforted.
2. Speak to (or according to) the heart of Jerusalem, and cry to her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she hath received from the hand of Jehovah double for all her sins. By speak ing to the heart, we are to understand speaking so as to affect the heart or feelings, and also in accordance with the heart or wishes, i. e. what the per son addressed desires or needs to hear. Jerusalem is here put for the church or chosen people, whose metropolis it was, and for whose sake the place itself was precious in the sight of God. Those who refer the passage to the Babylonish exile are under the necessity of assuming (with Rosenmuller) that the consolation was addressed to those left behind in Judah, or (\with Gesenius) that Jerusalem means its inhabitants in exile. Warfare includes the two ideas of appointed time and hard service, in which sense the verb and noun are both applied to the routine of sacerdotal functions (Num. 4: 23. 8: 24, 25), but here still more expressively to the old dispensation, as a period of restriction and constraint. The next phrase strictly means her iniquity is accepted, i. e. an atonement for it, or the punishment already suffered is accepted as sufficient, not in strict justice, but in reference to God’s gracious purpose. The same idea is supposed by some to be expressed in the last clause, where c^ss (double) is not used mathematically to denote proportion, but poetically to denote abundance, like the equivalent expression natti in ch. 6L: 7, Job 42: 10, Zech. 9:12. The sense will then be that she has been punished abundantly, not more than she deserved, yet enough to answer the design of punishment. But as giving or receiving double, in all the other cases cited, has respect, not to punishment, but to favour after suffering, so this clause may be understood to mean, that she has now received (or is receiving) double favours notwithstanding all her sins. The n has then the same sense as in ch. 5: 25. 9: 11, 16, 20. 10: 4. Either of these explanations makes it unnecessary to give sin the rare and doubtful sense of punishment. The verbs are pr&terita prophetica, but for that very reason should not be exchanged for futures, as we have no right to depart without necessity from the descriptive form in which it pleased the Holy Ghost to clothe this prophecy. The continuance of the ceremonial system and the hardships of the old dispensation are here and elsewhere represented as chastisements due to the defections of the chosen people, notwithstanding which they should continue to exist, and in a far more glorious character, not as a national church, but as a spiritual church, set free from ritual and local fetters.
3. A voice crying—in the wilderness—clear the way of Jehovah make straight (or level) in the desert a highway for our God. The Septuagint version, retained in the New Testament, is ycovt] poavroe, which amounts to the same thing. Both in the Hebrew and the Greek, the words in the wilderness may be connected either with what follows or with what precedes; but the usual division is more natural, and the other has been insisted upon chiefly for the purpose of rendering the verse inapplicable to John the Baptist, who came preaching in a wilderness, and to whom the words are applied expressly in Matthew 3: 3, Mark 1: 3, Luke 3: 4, as the herald of the new dispensation. Those who deny the inspiration of the Prophet are compelled to reject this as a mere accommodation, and apply the verse exclusively to the return from Babylon, of which there is no me,ntion in the text or context. It is said indeed that God is here represented as marching at the head of his returning people. But in all the cases which Lowth cites as parallel, there is express allusion to the exodus from Egypt. Here, on the contrary, the only image presented is that of God returning to Jerusalem, revisiting his people, as he did in every signal manifestation of his presence, but above all at the advent of Messiah and the opening of the new dispensation. The verb rendered prepare denotes a particular kind of preparation, viz. the removal of obstructions, as appears from Gen. 24: 31, Lev. 14: 36, and may therefore be expressed by clear in English. The parallel verb means rectify or make straight, either in reference 10 obliquity of course or to unevenness of surface, most probably the latter, in which case it may be expressed by level To a general term meaning way or path is added a specific one denoting an artificial causeway raised above the surface of the earth. There is no need of supposing (with Lowth) that the Prophet here alludes to any particular usage of the oriental sovereigns, or (with Grotius) that the order of the first and second verses is continued (let there be a voice crying). The Prophet is describing what be actually hears—a voice crying!—or as Ewald boldly paraphrases the expression—hark, one cries!
4. Every valley shall be raised and every mountain and hill brought low, and the uneven shall become level and the ridges a plain. This may be considered as an explanation of the manner in which the way of the Lord was to be prepared. Grotius supposes the command at the beginning of the chapter to be still continued (let every valley etc.), and the latest German writers give the same construction of this verse, although they make a new command begin in the one preceding. The form of the following verb (rrrn). though not incompatible with this explanation, rather favours the strict interpretation of the future, which is of course, on general principles, to be preferred. The common version (exalted) seems to imply that the valleys and mountains were to exchange places; but this would not facilitate the passing, which requires that both should be reduced to a common level.— The translation crooked is retained and defended by some modern writers, on the ground that the parallel expression requires it; but as “ria^a may denote not only lineal but superficial rectitude, so =ps, as its opposite, may naturally signify unevenness of surface, which is more appropriate in this connexion than obliquity or irregularity of course, o^a*), according to its etymology, denotes gorges or ravines, or rather difficult passes; but in this case it seems to be the opposite of flat or level ground, and may therefore be expressed by ridges. The application of these several terms to different moral or spiritual objects—such as various classes in society or nations of the earth— rests upon the false assumption that the features of a portrait or the figures in a landscape are to be considered one by one, and not in their mutual relations, as composing a whole picture. (Compare the comment on ch. 5: 4, Earlier Prophecies, p. 66.) The whole impression here intended to be 4 made is that of a way opened through a wilderness by levelling the ground and the removal of obstructions, as a natural image for the removal of the hinderances to God’s revisiting his people.
5. And the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see (it), for the mouth of Jehovah speaks (or hath spoken). The subjunctive construction of the first clause by Junius and Tremellius (ut reveletur) is adopted by Hitzig and Ewald, but without necessity. The idea seems to be that as soon as the way is opened, the Lord will show himself, iw may express either coincidence of time (at once) or totality (altogether), more probably the latter. Ewald needlessly reads tea??, which he supposes to be implied in the Septuagint version (TO aoartjQiov tov dsoii), retained by Luke (3: 6). But this only shows that salvation was included in the glory which should be revealed. Gesenius follows Luther in making the last clause express the thing to be seen (shall see that the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken); but this construction is precluded by the fact that this is the only case in which the sense thus put upon the formula is even possible; in all others the meaning of the clause not only may but must be, for (because) the mouth of the Lord hath spoken, as a reason why the declaration should be credited. (See ch. 1: 2, 20. 22: 25. 58: 14. Jer. 13: 15. Joel 4:8. Ob. 1: 18.) To this, the only tenable construction, all the later German writers have returned. To see God’s glory, is a common expression for recognizing his presence and agency in any event. (See Exod. 16: 7. Is. 35: 2. 66: 18.) The specific reference of this verse to the restoration of the Jews from exile is not only gratuitous but inconsistent with the strength and comprehensive ness of its expressions. The simple meaning is, that when the way should be prepared, the glory of God would be universally displayed; a promise too extensive to be fully verified in that event or period of history.
6. A. voice saying, Cry! And he said (or says), What shall I cry 1 All flesh is grass, and all its favour like a flower of the field! Here, as in v. 3, the participle is construed in the genitive by the Septuagint (qpow/ h’yovTov) and the Vulgate (vox dicentis); but the simplest construction makes it agree with voice as an adjective. That two distinct speakers are here introduced, seems to be granted by all interpreters, excepting Junius and Tremellius, who refer “vast and ittx to the same subject, and exclude the interrogation altogether. A voice says, Cry, and it also says (or tells me) what 1 shall cry. Cocceius supplies is heard at the beginning. Ewald adopts the same form of expression as in v. 3. Hark! one sai/s, Cry. The force and beauty of the verse are much impaired by any version which does not represent the writer as actually hearing what he thus describes. The Septuagint and Vulgate have and I said, either because they read which is found in one or two manuscripts, or because they understood the form used in the common text as certainly referring to the Prophet himself. August! supplies the herald says, which is unnecessary. There is a pleasing mystery, as Hitzig well observes, in the dialogue of these anonymous voices, which is dispelled°by undertaking to determine too precisely who the speak ers are. All that the words necessarily convey is, that one voice speaks and another voice answers. Interpreters are universally agreed that the last clause contains the words which the second speaker is required to utter. It is possible, however, to connect these words immediately with what precedes, and understand them as presenting an objection to the required proclamation. What shall (or can) I cry, (since) all flesh is grass eic. The advantages of this construction are, that it assumes no change of speaker where none is intimated in the text, and that it does away with an alleged tautology, as will be seen below. According to the usual construction we are to supply before the last clause, and the first voice said again (or answered), Cry as follows: All flesh etc. This last phrase is here used, not in its widest sense, as comprehending the whole animal world (Gen. 6: 7, 13, 17), but in its more restricted application to mankind, of which some examples may be found in the New Testament (John 17:2. Rom. 3: 20). The comparison of human frailty to grass is common in the Scriptures. (See ch. 37: 27. 51: 12. Ps. 103: 15, 16. James 1: 10, 11.) J. D. Michaelis supposes an allusion, in the last clause, to the sudden blasting of oriental flowers by the burning east wind. The Septuagint and Vulgate give “i-sn the sense of glory, which is retained by Peter (1 Pet. 1: 24, 25). From this Grotius, Houbigant, and others infer that the original reading was rriru Gesenius rejects this as altogether arbitrary, but with as little ground assumes that ^cn, in this one place, is synonymous with “,n, when used (like the English grace and favour) in the sense of beauty. Hendewerk even goes so far as to say that jf«(>/v, in Luke 2: 40, has an (esthetic sense. To assume a new sense of “ion in this one case is a violation of the soundest principles of lexicography, and instead of letting the writer express his own ideas, forces upon him what the commentator thinks he might have said or should have said. There may be cases where a word must be supposed to have a peculiar sense in some one place; but such assumptions can be justified by nothing but extreme necessity, and that no such necessity exists in this case is apparent from the fact that the usual explanation gives a perfectly good sense. The contrast is then between the shortlived and precarious favour of man and the infallible promise of God. The quotation in Peter confirms the supposition, here suggested by the context, that the words have reference to the preaching of the gospel or the introduction of the new dispensation.
7. Dried is the grass, faded the flower; for the breath of Jehovah has blown upon it. Surely the people is grass. The present form usually given to the verbs conveys the sense correctly as a general proposition, but not in its original shape as a description of what has actually happened, and may be expected to occur again.—The translation when (instead of /or), preferred by Gesenius and some older writers, is only inadmissible because it is a needless deviation from the usual meaning of the particle, which yields a perfectly good sense in this connexion.—If rrn does not here denote a divine agent, which is hardly consistent with the figurative form of the whole sentence, it should be taken in its primary sense of breath, not in the intermediate one of wind; although this, as Gesenius suggests, may be what the figure was intended to express, the figure itself is that of a person breathing on the grass and flower and causing them to wither. It is strange that Lowth should have overlooked this natural and striking image, to adopt the unpoetical and frigid notion, that “ a wind of Jehovah is a Hebraism, meaning no more than a strong wind.”—IDS, which properly means surely, verily, is here equivalent to an affirmative particle, yea or yes, and is so explained by Luther.—The treatment which this last clause has experienced affords an instructive illustration of the real value of the ‘ higher criticism. Koppe, the father of this modern art or science, rejects the clause as spurious because it violates the parallelism. He is followed, with some hesitation, by Gesenius, who assigns as additional reasons, that the sense is watery and incoherent, and that the clause is wanting in the Septuagint, although he does not hesitate to retain the first clause, which is also omitted in that ancient version. Hitzig grants that this omission may have been a mere mistake or inadvertence, but still rejects the clause, upon the ground, that it contains a false explanation of what goes before, because esn, when absolutely used, must mean the Jews, whereas the reference in this whole con text is to the gentiles; as if the latter allegation did not utterly subvert the other, by determining in what sense crn must here be taken. Instead of arguing that, because the gentiles are referred to in the context, therefore they must be meant here likewise, he assumes that they are not meant here, and then pronounces the clause inconsistent with the context. The clause is retained as genuine by all the German writers since Hitzig. Another curious instance of the confidence, with which the higher critics can affirm contradictory propositions, is the fact that while Hitzig says that n^j must mean Israel, Gesenius quietly assumes that it must mean the Babylonians.
8. Dried is the grass, faded the flower, and the word of our God shall stand for ever. The comparatively rare use of adversative particles in Hebrew is apparent from this verse, in which the relation of the clauses can g CHAPTERXL. be fully expressed in English only by means of the word but.—Kimchi explains word to mean the word of prophecy, while others give it the specific sense of promise, and others understand it as denoting the gospel, on the authority of 1 Peter 1: 25. All these explanations can be reconciled by suffering the Prophet to express his own ideas, without any adventitious limitation, and admitting, as the only sure conclusion, that by word he means neither promise, nor prophecy, nor gospel merely, but every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Deut. 8: 3. Matth. 4: 4). There is a tacit antithesis between the word of God and man; what man says is uncertain and precarious, what God says cannot fail. Thus understood it includes prediction, precept, promise, and the offer of salvation, and although the latter is not meant exclusively, the Apostle makes a perfectly correct and most important application of the verse when, after quoting it, he adds, and this is the word which is preached (i-vayyeliG&tv) unto you, that is to say, this prophetic declaration is emphatically true of the gospel of Christ. To stand for ever is a common Hebrew phrase for perpetuity, security, and sure fulfilment. The expression our God contains, as usual, a reference to the covenant relation between God and his people. Even according to the usual arrangement and construction of these verses, the emphatic repetition in vs. 7 and 8 can only be thought watery by critics of extreme refinement. It is possible, however, to avoid the appearance of tautology by means of an arrangement which has been already hinted at as possible, although it does not seem to have occurred to any of the interpreters. The proposition is to give the passage a dramatic form, by making the last clause of v. 6 and the whole of v. 7 a continuation of the words of the second voice, and then regarding v. 8 as a rejoinder by the first voice. The whole may then be paraphrased as follows. A voice says, ‘ Cry!’ And (another voice) says, What shall I cry’ (i. e. to what purpose can I cry, or utter promises like those recorded in vs. 1-5), since all flesh is grass &c.; the grass withereth &z,c.; surely the people is grass (and cannot be expected to witness the fulfilment of these promises). But the first voice says again: ‘ The grass does wither, and the flower does fade; but these events depend not on the life of man, but on the word of God, and the word of God shall stand for ever.’ There are no doubt some objections to this exegetical hypothesis, especially its somewhat artificial character; and therefore it has not been introduced into the text, but is simply thrown out here, as a possible alternative, to those who are not satisfied with the more obvious and usual construction of the passage.
9. Upon a high mountain get thee up, bringer of good news, Zion! Raise with strength thy voice, bringer of good news, Jerusalem! Raise (it), fear not, say to the towns of Judah, Lo your God! The reflexive form, get thee up, though not a literal translation, is an idiomatic equivalent to the Hebrew phrase (ascend for thee or for thyself). Some suppose an allusion to the practice of addressing large assemblies from the summit or acclivity of hills. (See Judges 9: 7. Deut. 27: 12. Matth. 5:1.) J. D. Michaelis compares the ancient practice of transmitting news by shouting from one hill-top to another, as described by Caesar (Bell. Gall. vii. 3). Celeriter ad omnes Gall’ia civiiates fama perfertur; nam ubi major atque illustrior incidit res, clamore per agros regionesque significant; hunc alii deinceps excipiunt et proximis tradunt. The essential idea is that of local elevation as extending the diffusion of the sound.—There are two constructions of •J’PS rntesia and the parallel expression. The first supposes the words to be in regimen, the other in apposition. According to the former, which is given in the Septuagint, Targum, and Vulgate, and retained by Grotius, Lowth, Gesenius. and others, the person addressed is the bearer of good tidings to Zion and Jerusalem (compare ch. 52: 7. Nah. 2: 1). The feminine form is explained by Grotius as an enallage for the masculine, like nbn’p Preacher, an idiom, as Dathe thinks, peculiar to official titles. Gesenius regards it as an instance of the idiomatic use of the feminine singular as a collective, like raur for D^T^ (Mic. 1:11,12), and agrees with the Targum in making the prophets the object of address. But this whole theory of collective feminines is so unnatural, and so imperfectly sustained by the cases which Gesenius cites (Lehrg. p. 477. Heb. Gr. <§> 105. 2. c.), that if the construction now in question be adopted, it is better to revert to the hypothesis of Lowth and J. D. Michaelis, that the Prophet alludes to the practice of celebrating victories by the songs of women. (See Ex. 15: 20, 21. Judg. 11: 34. 1 Sam. 18: 6, 7.) But although this explanation is decidedly more natural than that of Grotius and Gesenius, it is perhaps less so than the ancient one con tained in the Peshito and the three Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, according to which Zion or Jerusalem herself is represented as the bearer of good tidings to the towns of Judah. This construction is further recommended by the beautiful personification, which it introduces, of the Holy City as the seat of the true religion and the centre of the church. The office here ascribed to it is the same that is recognised in ch. 2:3: the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Not only in the restoration from captivity, or in the personal advent of the Saviour, but in every instance of the Lord’s return to his forsaken people, it is the duty of the church to communicate as well as to receive the joyful tidings.—The explanation of Jerusalem and Zion as meaning their inhabit ants among the captivity is still more arbitrary here than in v. 2, because no reason can be given why the exiles from the Holy City should be called upon to act as heralds to the others, whereas there is a beautiful poetical propriety in giving that office to the Holy City itself.—Let the reader carefully observe how many exegetical embarrassments arise from the attempt to confine the application of the passage to the period of the exile or to any other not particularly indicated. The exhortation not to fear does not imply that there was danger in making the announcement, but that there might be doubt and hesitation as to its fulfilment.—Barnes thinks it necessary to prevent abuse of this text by affirming that it ‘will not justify boisterous preaching, or a loud and unnatural tone of voice, alike offensive to good taste, injurious to health, and destructive of the life of the preacher.’ He also infers from it that ‘the glad tidings of salvation should be delivered in an animated and ardent manner; the future punishment of the wicked in a tone serious, solemn, subdued, awful.’
10. Lo, the Lord Jehovah will come (or is coming) in (the person of) a strong one, and his arm (is) ruling for him. Lo, his hire is with him and his wages before him. The double nsn represents the object as already appearing or in sight. Of the phrase ptna there are several interpretations. All the ancient versions make it mean with strength; but this abstract sense of the adjective is not sustained by usage, and the same objection lies, with still greater force, against Ewald’s version, in victory. Aben Ezra and Kimchi supply n^ (with a strong hand); but wherever the entire phrase occurs, the noun is construed as a feminine. Jarchi makes it mean against the strong one, which Vitringa adopts and applies the phrase to Satan. But usage requires that so’a, when it has this sense, should be construed with its object, either directly, or by means of the prepositions bs, ^x, or b. De Dieu regards the a as pleonastic or a beth essentia, corresponding to the French construction en roi, in (the character or person of) a king. The existence of this idiom in Hebrew is questioned by some eminent grammarians, and is at best so unusual that it should not be assumed without necessity. (See the comment on ch. 26: 4, in the Earlier Prophecies, p. 440.) The choice, however, seems to lie between this and the construction which explains the words to mean that he will come with a strong one; as in ch. 28: 2, the Lord is said to have a strong and mighty one, who should cast the crown of Ephraim to the ground with his hand. What God is said to do himself in one case, he is represented in the other as accomplishing by means of a powerful instrument or agent, which, however, is defined no further. The essential meaning, common to the two constructions, is, that Jehovah was about to make a special exhibition of his power.—The participle ruling, in the next clause, is expressive of continuous action. The 1’b cannot refer to arm, which Gesenius suggests as a possible construction, because si*!], al though sometimes masculine, is here expressly construed as a feminine. The antecedent of the pronoun must be either Jehovah or the Strong One, according to the sense in which ptrja is taken, as descriptive of God himself, CHAPTERXL. li or of his instrument. Those who understand that phrase to mean against the strong one, give the next the sense of ruling over him. But although * strictly denotes relation in general *(as to, with respect to), and admits of various equivalents in English, it is never elsewhere used in this sense after btiStt to rule, which, with scarcely an exception, is followed by the preposition 2. The true sense of ibis probably the obvious one for him, and the clause is a poetical description of the arm as acting independently of its possessor, and as it were in his behalf.—Here, as in Lev. 19: 13, Ps. 109: 20, Is. 49: 4, filbsB work is put for its effect, reward, or product. There is no need of assuming, with Kimchi, an ellipsis of iato before it. The word itself, as Aben Ezra well explains it, is equivalent in meaning to bsn’arj *qb.—J. D. Michaelis considers it as doubtful whether the person here referred to is described as dispensing or receiving a reward, since in either case it would be his. The former explanation is preferred by most interpreters, some of whom suppose a specific allusion to the customary distribution of prizes by commanders after victory. Upon this general supposition, Lowth explains the phrase before him,&s referring to the act of stretching forth the hand, or holding out the thing to be bestowed. Those who restrict the passage to the Babylonish exiles, for the most part understand this clause as promising a recompense to such of the captives as had patiently endured God’s will and believed his promises. Knobel, however, understands it as referring to the redeemed people as being themselves the recompense of their deliverer; and Henderson adopts the same construction, but applies it to the recompense earned by the Messiah. This explanation is favoured by what follows in the next verse, where Jehovah or his Strong One is described as a shepherd.—The two verses may be readily connected, without any change of figure, by supposing that the lost sheep which he has recovered are the recompense referred to in the verse before us. Thus understood, the passage may have furnished the occasion and the basis of our Saviour’s beautiful description of himself as the true shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep, as well as of the figure drawn from the recovery of a lost sheep to illustrate the rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner. But a still more decisive argument in favour of this interpretation is the fact, that in every case without exception where ^ab and nh>a have the same sense as here, the hire or wages of a person is the hire or wages paid to him, and not that paid by him. To give it the latter meaning in this one case there fore would be to violate a usage, not merely general but uniform; and such a violation could be. justified only by a kind and degree of exegetical necessity which no one can imagine to exist in this case. Upon these grounds it is probable, not only that Jehovah is here represented as receiving a reward, but that there is special reference to the recompense of the Messiah’s sufferings and obedience by the redemption of his people. According to the view which has been taken of the nexus between these two verses, before him may possibly contain an allusion to the shepherd’s following his flock; but it admits of a more obvious and simple explanation, as denoting that his recompense is not only sure but actually realized, being already in his sight or presence, and with him, i. e. in immediate possession.
11. Like a shepherd his flock will he feed, with his arm will he gather the lambs, and in his bosom carry (them); the nursing (ewes) he will (gently) lead. Although the meaning of this verse is plain, it is not easily translated, on account of the peculiar fitness and significancy of the terms employed. The word correctly rendered feed denotes the whole care of a shepherd for his flock, and has therefore no exact equivalent in English. To gather with the arm coincides very nearly, although not precisely, with our phrase to take up in the arms. A very similar idea is ex pressed by bearing in the bosom. The last clause has been more misunderstood than any other. Most interpreters appear to have regarded nib? as denoting pregnant, whereas it is the active participle of the verb b*is, to suckle or give suck, and is evidently used in that sense in 1 Samuel 6: 7, 10. The former explanation might appear to have arisen from a misapprehension of the Vulgate version, fcetas, which, as Bochart has shown by quotations from the classics, is sometimes applied to animals after delivery, but while still giving suck. But the erroneous explanation is much older, being unambiguously given in the Septuagint (fV ya.Gi(n l^ovaa^). Aben Ezra also explains nibs as synonymous with rvhii, whereas Solomon ben Melek gives the correct interpretation (pip’;»r:> pirw:)). The essential meaning of br^ is admitted to be that of leading by all interpreters excepting Hengstenberg, who undertakes to show that it always has reference to sustenance. (Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. II. p. 64.) His strongest argument is that derived from Gen. 47: 17; but he seems to have over looked 2 Chron. 28: 15; arid even Ex. 15: 13, which he owns to be against him, cannot be satisfactorily explained on his hypothesis. In that case, both the parallelism and the construction in the second clause are decidedly in favour of the old opinion, from which there seems, upon the whole, to be no sufficient reason for departing. From the primary and simple sense of leading may be readily deduced that of carefully leading or conducting, which as readily suggests the accessory idea of benignant and affectionate protection. Henderson’s statement, that this verse and the one before it exhibit certain attributes of the character and work of Christ is correct, but too restricted, since the passage is descriptive of the whole relation which Jehovah sustains to his people, as their shepherd, and of which inferior but real exhibitions were afforded long before the advent of the Saviour; for example, in the restoration of the Jews from exile, which is no more to be excluded from the scope of this prophetic picture than to be regarded as its only subject.
12. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended in a measure the dust of the earth, and ivcighed in a balance the mountains, and the hills in scales 1 There are two directly opposite opinions as to the general idea here expressed. Gesenius and others understand the question as an indirect negation of the possibility of doing what is here described. The implied answer, upon this hypothesis, is, JNo one, and the verse is equivalent to the exclamation, How immense are the works of God! The other and more usual interpretation understands the question thus: Who (but God) has measured or can measure etc.? Thus understood, the verse, so far from affirming the immensity of God’s works, represents them as little in comparison with him, who measures and distributes them with perfect ease. The first explanation derives some countenance from the analogy of the next verse, where the question certainly involves an absolute negation, and is tantamount to saying, that no one does or can do what is there described. But this consideration is not sufficient to outweigh the argument in favour of the other explanation, arising from its greater simplicity and obviousness in this connexion. It is also well observed by Hitzig, that in order to convey the idea of immensity, the largest measures, not the smallest, would have been employed. An object might be too large to be weighed in scales, or held in the hollow of a man’s hand, and yet very far from being immense or even vast in its dimensions. On the other hand, the smallness of the measure is entirely appropriate as showing the immensity of God himself, who can deal with the whole universe as man deals with the most minute and trivial objects.—bs&j is properly a handful (1 Kings 20: 10. Ezek. 13: 19), but is here put for the receptacle or measure of that quantity.—By waters we are not to understand specifically either the ocean (Grotius) or the waters above the firmament (Rosenmuller), but water as a constituted element or portion of the globe.—The primary meaning of *&t* is supposed by Gesenius to be that of weighing, here transferred to the measure of extension. Maurer, with more probability, regards it as a generic term for measurement, including that of weight, capacity, and extension.—The span is mentioned as a natural and universal measure of length, to which we must likewise apply Jerome’s translation *(tribus digitis), and not, as Gill imagines, to the quantity of dust which “a man can hold between his thumb and two fingers.’WIn every other place where ^3 occurs, it is the construct or abbreviated form of Vs, the nearest equivalent to our all, but uniformly construed as a noun, meaning properly the whole of any thing. The Septuagint translates it so in this case likewise (naaav i\v yJj?), and Gesenius, in his Lehrgebaude (p. 675), gives it as one of the cases in which the governing and governed noun are separated by an intervening word. In quoting the Hebrew he inadvertently inserts a mdkkeph (•:rVir2-‘=?), thus conforming the orthography to the usual analogy. But having afterwards observed that the Hebrew text has ^ with a conjunctive accent, he corrected the error in his lexicon and commentary, and referred the word to the root!=”3, which does not occur elsewhere in Kal, but the essential idea of which, as appears from the Chaldee and Arabic analogy, as well as from its own derivatives in Hebrew, is that of measuring, or rather that of holding and containing, which agrees exactly with the common English version (comprehended). It is a curious and characteristic circumstance, that Hitzig, in his note upon this passage, revives the explanation which Gesenius had given by mistake and afterwards abandoned, appealing to Ps. 35: 10 as an example of the use of ^3 (all) with a conjunctive accent, and to Isaiah 38: 16 as an instance of its separation from the dependent noun. To this unexpected defence of his own inadvertent error, Gesenius replies in his Thesaurus (II. 665) that clear expressions are not to be elucidated by the analogy of dark ones, and that a verb is needed here to balance the verbs measure, mete, and weigh, in the other clauses.—The terms used in the English Bible, scales and balance, are retained above but transposed, in order to adhere more closely 10 the form of the original, in which the first word is a singular (denoting properly an apparatus like the steelyard), while the other is a dual, strictly denoting a pair of scales. This is in fact the etymological import of balance, according to the usual explanation of the Latin bilanx, as denoting a double dish or plate; but be this as it may, the English balance does not at once and of necessity suggest the form of the instrument like scales.—The dust of the earth seems to be here put for the earth itself, and is therefore not erroneously though freely rendered in the Vulgate, molem terra, ti^ttj is properly a third, i. e. the third of another measure, probably the ephah, which is often rendered in the Septuagint TQIU ^TQU, while the seah is translated [inyov. The name is analogous to quart (mean ing fourth), and exactly coincident with tierce, which Skinner defines to be “ a measure so called because the third part (triens) of another measure called a pipe,” but which is also used in old English writers for the third part of other measures. (See Richardson’s Dictionary, p. 1910.) The ephah, according to the best computation, was equivalent to one Italian modius and a half. J. D. Michaelis is probably singular in thinking it necessary to express the value of the measure in translation, by making the Prophet ask, who measures the dust of the earth with the third part of a bushel. This is not only in bad taste, but hurtful to the sense; because the literal comprehension of the earth in this specific measure is impossible, and all that the words were intended to suggest is a comparison between the customary measurement of common things by man, and the analogous control which is exercised by God over all his works. For this end the general sense of measure, which the word has in Ps. 80: 6, and which is given to it here by the Targum (xb^:;?a), is entirely sufficient. The exact size of the w^d is of no more importance to the exposition than that of the balance or the scales. —The idea of accurate exact adjustment which by some interpreters is thought to be included in the meaning of this verse, if expressed at all, is certainly not prominent, the main design of the description being simply to exhibit, not the power or the wisdom of God as distinguishable attributes, but rather the supreme control in which they are both exercised.—Ewald connects this verse with the argument that follows, by suggesting as the answer to the question, that certainly no man, and much less the image of a man, could do what is here described.—Umbreit connects it with what goes before by supposing the Prophet to affirm that the gracious shepherd, just before described, is at the same time all-wise and omnipotent, and therefore able to make good the promise of protection to his people.
13. Who hath measured the spirit of Jehovah, and (who, as) the man of his counsel, will teach him (or cause him to know) 1 According to J. D. Michaelis, the connexion between this verse and the one before it is, that he who can do the one can do the other; if any one can weigh the hills etc., he can also measure the divine intelligence. But the natural connexion seems to be, that he who weighs the hills etc. must himself be inde pendent, boundless, and unsearchable.—The various explanations of “jstn as meaning known, instructed, prepared, directed, searched, etc. are mere substitutions of what ought to have been said (in the interpreter’s opinion) for what is said. Although not impossible, it is highly improbable that the word should have a different meaning here from that which it evidently has in the foregoing verse, where the sense is determined by the mention of the span. What seems to be denied is the possibility of limiting or estimating the divine intelligence.—According to Calvin, we are not to understand by •insn here the Holy Spirit, as a person of the Godhead, but the mind or intellect of God. The Targum arbitrarily explains it as denoting the Holy Spirit (i. e. inspiration) in the mouth of all the prophets.—The last clause is not an answer to the first, but a continuation of the question. Most interpreters suppose the who to be repeated. Luther and Rosenmiiller make it agree directly with the following phrase. ( What counsellor etc.) The latest writers make the construction relative as well as interrogative. Who was (or is) the counsellor that taught him 1 A simpler construction is that given in our Bible, which supplies neither interrogative nor relative: and (being) his counsellor, or (as) his counsellor, hath taught him. The translation of thejgst verb as a preterite is entirely arbitrary. Both tenses seem to have used, as in many other cases, for the purpose of making the implied negation more exclusive. Who has, and who will or can 1—Ewald, reject ing the usual combination of man with counsel in the sense of counsellor, makes one the subject and the other the object of the verb: < and reveals— though a man—his counsel to him.’ The same construction seems to be at least°as old as Arias Montanus, who translates the clause, vir consilium ejus scirefacict eum. In favour of the usual interpretation is its greater simplicity, and the occurrence of the plural form, the men of my counsel, in the obvious sense of counsellors, in Ps. 119: 24.—Lowth’s translation (one of his council) gives a sense tons? not sustained by usage, and Barnes’s modification of it (one of his counsel) introduces an idea wholly modern and irrelevant.—Calvin supposes that the Prophet, having spoken of the goodness of God in v. 11, and of his power in v. 12, here proceeds to magnify his wis dom. But both these verses are designed alike to set forth his supremacy and independence, by describing him as measuring and regulating all things, while himself incapable either of measurement or regulation.
14. Whom did he consult (or with whom took he counsel) and he made him understand, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and the way of understanding (who) will make him know? The consecution of the tenses is the same as in the foregoing verse. The indirect construction of the second and following verbs, by Lowth and the later German writers (that he should instruct him etc.), is not only forced, but inconsistent with the use of the conversive future, and a gratuitous substitution of an occidental idiom for the somewhat harsh but simple Hebrew syntax, in which the object of the first verb is the subject of the second. What man did he (the Lord) consult, and he (the man) made him (the Lord) to understand etc. The sense is given, with but little change of form, in the English Version, by repeating the interrogative pronoun. With whom took he counsel, and (who) instructed him or made him understand 1— The preposition before path is understood by Hitzig, Ewald, and Umbreit, as denoting the subject of instruction: taught him respecting or concerning (uber) the path of judgment. Gesenius and Hendewerk regard it as a mere connective of the verb with its object: taught^him the path etc. But the most satisfactory explanation is the one proposed by Knobel, who attaches to the verb the sense of guiding, and retains the proper meaning of the particle. This is confirmed by the analogy of the synonymous verb rrnn, which originally means to guide, and is also construed with the same preposition (Ps. 32: 8. Prov. 4: 11).—By judgment we must either understand discretion, in which case the whole phrase will be synonymous with way of understanding in the parallel clause; or rectitude, in which case the whole phrase will mean the right way, not in a moral sense, but in that of a’way conducting to the end desired, the right way to attain that end. As these are only different expressions of the same essential idea, the question is of little exegetical importance.—The plural nVcn, literally understandings, is not an Arabism, as Knobel elsewhere affirms of this whole class of words, but a genuine Hebrew idiom, denoting fulness or an eminent degree of the quality in question, just as rvm=n is used in the book of Proverbs to denote the highest wisdom, the sapientia hypostatica. (See Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 258, and on the Psalms, vol. n. p. 459.)—Jarchi, with characteristic nationality, regards this as a contrast, not between God and man, but between Israel and other nations: ( *With which of the gentiles did he take counsel as he did with the prophets, as it is said of Abraham, The Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?’—Junius and Tremellius make the first verb reciprocal and all the rest reflexive *(Cum quo communicavit consilium, ut instrueret se etc.?), which is wholly gratuitous and forced.—The first clause of this verse is quoted in Rom. 11: 34, with the following words added, or who hath first given to him. and it shall be recompensed unto him again 1 As this addition is also found in the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, J. D. Michaelis infers that it has dropped out of the Hebrew. It is more probable, however, that the words were introduced into the Septuagint from the text in Romans, where they are really no part of the quotation from Isaiah, but the apostle’s own para phrase of it or addition to it, the form of which may have been suggested by the first clause of Job 41: 3 (in the English Bible 41: 11). Such allu sive imitations occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings. (See the remarks on 1 Cor. 1: 20, and its connexion with Isaiah 33: IS, in the Earlier Prophecies, p. 551.) In the present case, the addition agrees fully with the spirit of the passage quoted; since the aid in question, if it had been afforded, would be fairly entitled to a recompense.
15. JLo, nations as a drop from a bucket, and as dust on scales are reckoned; lo, islands as an atom he will take up. He is independent, not only of nature and of individual men, but of nations. The Septuagint gives “t?7. the Chaldee sense of if, leaving the sentence incomplete, notwithstanding the attempts of the modern editors to carry the construction through several verses. By supplying are in the first clause, the English Version impairs the compact strength of the expression. Both members of the clause are to be construed with the verb at the end. This verb De Wette and Hendewerk explain as meaning are to be reckoned (sind zu achten); but although this future sense is common in the Niphal participle, it is not to be assumed in the preterite without necessity. The sense is rather that they are already so considered. Luther gives *^B “ia the sense of a drop remaining in a bucket when the water is poured out, correspond- 2 IQ *CHAPTER XL. ing to the parallel expression of an atom which remains in the balance after any thing is weighed. Hitzig also translates the last word *in the bucket (im Elmer). Maurer gives the strict translation from a bucket, and supposes hanging to be understood (de situla pendens). But as this is not an obvious ellipsis, it is better to explain the “& as simply expressing the proportion of the drop to the contents of the bucket, a drop out of a whole bucket. Next to this, the simplest explanation is the one suggested in the English Version, which seems to take the phrase as an indirect expression for a drop of water. But as the mention of the bucket would in that case be superfluous, the other explanation is entitled to the preference. Dust of the scales or balance, i. e. dust resting on it, but without affecting its equilibrium. The Vulgate version (momentum staterae) seems directly to reverse the meaning of the phrase, in which the dust is obviously spoken of as having no appreciable weight. The exegetical tradition is decisive in favour of explaining pntf to mean fine dust, while the uniform usage of the word in other cases would require the sense of cloud. It is possible indeed that the image which the prophet intended to suggest was that of a cloud in the balance, the idea of extreme levity being then conveyed by comparison with the weight of what is commonly regarded as imponderable. The weight of authority is all in favour of the other sense, which may be readily connected with the common one, by supposing pntJ to mean first a cloud in general, then a cloud of dust in particular, and then dust in general, or more specifically fine minute dust, p1^, from PJ?^ to crush or pulverize, denotes any minute portion of a solid substance, and in this connexion may be well expressed by atom. The Seventy seem to have mistaken it for pH, saliva, spittle, and translate it citlos. Gesenius gives n-^x the general sense of lands, and then notes this usage of the word as a sign of later date. But why may not islands, in the strict sense, be intended here as much as hills and mountains in v. 12? The only objection is founded on the parallelism; but this is imperfect, even if we give c^x its widest sense. J. D. Michaelis goes to the opposite extreme, by making it mean Europe and Asia Minor. Rabbi Jonah explains bta-i as the Niphal of to to throw or cast, and this explanation is retained by Knobel. In like manner, Aquila has I.ETTTOV $al- MpEvov. But most interpreters agree in making it the future Kal of ^05, which in Syriac and Chaldee means to raise or lift up. On the former sup position, it must either agree irregularly with the plural islands, or with a relative to be supplied (like an atom which is cast away). This last construction is consistent also with the other derivation of the verb. Thus Rosenmiiller has, quern tollit tollens; and Maurer, which it (the wind) car ries off. But the simplest construction is the one which makes DI?K the direct object of the verb, as in the English Version. Ewald gives the verb itself the sense of poising, weighing, which is too specific.
16. And Lebanon is not enough for burning, and its beasts are not enough for a sacrifice. The supremacy and majesty of God are now presented in a more religious aspect, by expressions borrowed from the Mosaic ritual. He is not only independent of the power but also of the good-will of his creatures. This general allusion to oblation, as an act of homage or of friendship, suits the connexion better than a specific reference to expiation. The insufficiency of these offerings is set forth, not in a formal proposition, but by means of a striking individualization. For general terms he substitutes one striking instance, and asserts of that what might be asserted of the rest. If Lebanon could not suffice, what could? The imagery here used is justly described by Umbreit as magnificent: nature the temple; Lebanon the altar; its lordly woods the pile; its countless beasts the sacrifice. There is a strong idiomatic peculiarity of form in this verse. “pN and ^ are properly both nouns in the construct state, the first meaning non-existence and the other sufficiency. The nearest approach in English to the form of the original is nothing of sufficiency of burning; but ?x, as usual, includes or indicates the verb of existence, and ^ is followed by a noun expressive of the end for which a thing is said to be or not to be sufficient. Clericus and Rosenmuller give i?a the sense of kindling, which it sometimes has (e. g. Ex. 35: 3. Lev. 6:5); but as this differs from burning only in being limited to the inception of the process, and as it seems more natural to speak of wood enough to burn than of wood enough to kindle, there is no cause of departing from the usual interpretation. The collective njr] (animal for animals), having no equivalent in English, although common in Hebrew, can be represented only by a plural.—rftis is the technical name appropriated in the law of Moses to the ordinary sacrifice for general expiation. It seems to denote strictly an ascension or ascent, being so called, either from the mounting of the vapour, or from the ascent of the whole victim on the altar. As the phrase by which it is commonly translated in the English Bible (burnt-offering) is not an exact etymological equivalent, and as no stress seems to be laid here upon the species of oblation, the general term offering or sacrifice would seem to be sufficiently specific. (Compare with this verse ch. 66: 1. 1 Kings 8: 27. 2 Chr. 6: 18. Ps. 50: 8-13.)
17. All the nations as nothing before him, less than nothing and vanity are counted to him. The proposition of v. 15 is repeated, but in still more absolute and universal terms. Instead of nations, he says all the nations; instead of likening them to grains of sand or drops of water, he denies their very being. Before him does not simply mean in his view or estimation, but in comparison with him, the primary import of IM being such as to suggest the idea of two objects brought together or confronted for the purpose of comparison. So too the parallel expression ft does not mean by 2Q CHAPTERXL. him (which is seldom, if ever, so expressed in Hebrew), but with respect to him, or simply to him in the same sense as when we say that one thing or person is nothing to another, i. e. not to be compared with it. The same use of to, even without a negative, is clear from such expressions as “ Hype rion to a Satyr.” That God is the arbiter who thus decides between him self and his creatures, is still implied in both the phrases, although not the sole or even prominent idea meant to be expressed by either.—The structure of the sentence is exactly like that of the first clause of v. 15, and the same remark is applicable, as to the insertion of the substantive verb in the English Version.—The particle as may either be a mere connective, reck oned as nothing, i. e. reckoned for or reckoned to be nothing, which is rather an English than a Hebrew idiom, or it may serve to soften the expression by suggesting that it is not to be literally understood, in which case it is nearly equivalent to as it were. So the Vulgate: quasi non sint, sic sunt coram eo. The etymological distinction between -px and b£x is that the latter means annihilation or the end of being, the former absolute nonentity. In this case, the weaker term is assimilated to the stronger by the addition of another word, denoting desolation or emptiness, and here used as a formula of intense negation.—The preposition before osx is explained by some as connective of the verb with its object, reckoned for nothing; which construction seems to be as old as the Septuagint (^V ov&iv lloyiadqaav), but is not sufficiently sustained by the usage of the Hebrew particle. Others make it an expression of resemblance, like the Vulgate (quasi nihilum): which seems to be a mere conjecture from the parallelism, and is equally at variance with usage. Calvin (followed by the English Version, Clericus. Vitringa, Umbreit, and Ewald in the first edition of his Grammar) makes the -,ia comparative, and understands the phrase as meaning less than nothing. To this it is objected by Gesenius, that it does not suit the parallelism (a virtual assertion that a climax is impossible in Hebrew composition), and that the idea is too far-fetched (zu gesucht); to which Hitzig adds that there is no word to mean less, and that if the ‘,? were really comparative, the phrase would necessarily mean more than nothing. These objections are renewed by Knobel, without any notice of Umbreit’s answer to the last, viz. that the idea of minority is suggested by the context; that less than nothing could not well be otherwise expressed; and that even if it meant more than nothing, it would still be an equivalent expression, meaning more of nothing than nothing itself. Gesenius, in his Commentary, makes the “an an expletive or pleonastic particle, of common use in Arabic, so that the phrase means simply nothing. But in his Lexicons he agrees with Hitzig and Maurer in giving it a partitive sense, of nothing, i. e. a part of nothing, which, as Hitzig says, is here conceived of as a great concrete or aggregate of which the thing in question is a portion. But as the whole must be greater than the part, this explanation is essentially identical with Calvin’s (less than nothing), which Gesenius admits, but still objects to the latter, as being less poetical than mathematical. The reader may determine for him self whether it is any more gesucht than that preferred to it, or than that proposed by Hendewerk, who seems to understand the IBas indicating the material or source, as if he had said, (made or produced) out of nothing and vanity. The common ground assumed by all these explanations is, that the verse contains the strongest possible expression of insignificance and even non-existence, as predicable even of whole nations, in comparison with God, and in his presence.
18. And (now) to whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye compare to him 1 The inevitable logical conclusion from the previous considerations is that God is One and that there is no other. From this, the prophet now proceeds to argue, that it is folly to compare God even with the most exalted creature, how much more with lifeless matter. The logical relation of this verse to what precedes, although not indicated in the text, may be rendered clearer by the introduction of an illative particle (then, therefore, etc.), or more simply by inserting now, which is often used in such connexions. (See for example Ps. 2:10, and Hengstenberg’s Commentary, vol. i. p. 44.) The last clause admits of two constructions, both amounting to the same thing in the end. What likeness or resemblance (i. e. what similar object) will ye compare to him? Or, what comparison will ye institute respecting him? The last agrees best with the usage of the verb, as meaning to arrange, prepare, or set in order (to compare, only indirectly and by implication); while at the same time it avoids the unusual combination of comparing a likeness to a thing or person, instead of comparing the two objects for the purpose of discovering their likeness.—The use of the divine name bx (expressive of omnipotence) is here emphatic and significant, as a preparation for the subsequent exposure of the impotence of idols. The force of the original expression is retained in Vitringa’s version (Deumfortem).
19. The image a carver has wrought, and a gilder with gold shall overlay it, and chains of silver (he is) casting. The ambiguous construction of the first clause is the same in the original, where we may either sup ply a relative, or make it a distinct proposition. In favour of the first, which is a frequent ellipsis both in Hebrew and English, is the fact, that the verse then contains a direct answer to the question in the one before it. What have you to set over against such a God? The image which an ordinary workman manufactures. It enables us also to account for the position of the image at the beginning of the sentence, and for its having the definite article, while the following nouns have none, both which forms of expression seem to be significant, the image which a workman (i. e. any workman) can produce.—The consecution of the tenses seems to show, that the writer takes his stand between the commencement and the end of the process, and describes it as actually going on. The carver has already wrought the image, and the gilder is about to overlay it.—There is a seeming incongruity between the strict etymological senses of the nouns and verb in this clause: tthn is properly a carver, and £&3 a carved or graven image; whereas r\o), as descriptive of a process of art, can only mean to melt, cast, or found. This can only be accounted for upon the supposition, that the verb, or the nouns, or both, have acquired in usage a more extensive or indefinite meaning. In the translation above given, the discrepancy has been removed by giving to the verb the general sense of wrought, and to the first noun that of image, which it evidently has in other places, where a contrast is exhibited between God and idols, of course without regard to the mode of their formation. (See for example ch. 42: 8, and the note on ch. 30: 22 in the Earlier Prophecies, p. 519.)—r^is is properly a mclter, and is elsewhere applied both to the smelter or finer of metals (Prov. 25: 4) and to the founder or caster of images (Judges 17:4). The word gilder, although not an exact translation, has been used above, as more appropriate in this connexion than the common version, goldsmith.—srfn, which elsewhere means to beat out metal into thin plates, here denotes the application of such plates as an ornamental covering. Henderson repeats this verb, in its original sense of beating out, before chains of silver. Hitzig and Ewald continue the construction of the first clause through the second, and take trYSt as a noun, repeated for the sake of a sarcastic effect. (And with silver chains the goldsmith.) A similar construction had before been given by Cocceius, who supplies the substantive verb (et sunt catenae argcnteae aurifabri). But the different mode of writing the word in the two clauses (q-Ys and q^rj; seems to favour the opinion of Gesenius and most other writers, that the latter is a verbal form. Lowth reads t^s in the preterite, on the authority of twenty-seven manuscripts and three editions. Maurer explains it as the Praeter Poel, of which, however, there is no example elsewhere. Gesenius regards it as a participle used for the present tense. It is really equivalent to our continuous or compound present, denoting what is actually now in progress.—The silver chains may be considered either simply ornamental, or as intended to suspend the image and prevent its falling.
20; (As for) the (man) impoverished (by) offering, a tree (that) will not rot he chooses, a wise carver he seeks for it, to set up an image (that) shall not be moved. While the rich waste their gold and silver upon idols, the pflor are equally extravagant in wood. None of the usual mean ings oi “jib is here appropriate. From the noun niis&E (treasures, stores), Rabbi Jonah derives the sense of rich, while all the modern writers are agreed in giving it the opposite meaning, although doubtful and divided as to the etymology. As the form is evidently that of a participle passive, the best translation seems to be impoverished, and the best construction that proposed by Gesenius in his Lehrgebaude (p. 821), impoverished by oblation or religious gifts. It is true, that in his Commentary and Lexicons he abandons this construction, on the ground of an objection made by one of his reviewers, that it does not suit the context, and adopts the one which most succeeding writers have repeated, viz. poor as to offering, that is, too poor to make a costly one, or, as Cocceius slightly modifies the sense, frugalior oblationis. To this there is a strong philological objection, that ttasnn, though a very common word, is nowhere else applied to an image, and that an image could not be naturally called an offering. On the other hand, the objection from the context, so submissively allowed by Gesenius, is not only vague but founded on a superficial view of the connexion. To say that the poor man uses wood instead of gold and silver, is coherent and appropriate, but far less significant and striking than to say, that the man who has already reduced himself to want by lavish gifts to his idol, still continues his devotions, and as he no longer can afford an image of the precious metals, is resolved at least to have a durable wooden one. Thus understood, the verse adds to the general description a particular trait highly expressive of the folly of idolaters. This desertion by Gesenius of his first opinion differs from that mentioned in the exposition of v. 12 in this respect, that while he there relinquishes his former ground as having been assumed through inadvertence and mistake, he here continues to assert that what he first proposed is still the most grammatical construction (as evinced by the analogy of ch. 1: 20. 1 Kings 22: 10. Ex. 28: 11, etc.), but abandons it in deference to an unmeaning and gratuitous objection. The obscurity of this phrase, even to the ancient writers, is apparent from its omission in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and from Jerome’s explanation of amsuchan as a kind of wood. — In the next clause, the Vulgate makes 5^n ttinn the subject of the verb (artifcx sapiens quaerit quomodo etc.); but the common construction is more natural, because it makes the conduct of the devotee still the subject of description. Wise is here used in what appears to be its primary meaning of artistically skilful. (See the note on ch. 3: 3, E. P. p. 42.) ‘ib may either be reflexive (for himself), as some consider it in v. 1 1. and as all admit r£ to be in v. 9, or it may be referred to p?. Having secured the stuff, he seeks for it a skilful workman. As \r$ is an obvious antecedent, and as the reflexive use of the pronouns is comparatively rare, this last construction seems entitled to the preference. — Although to prepare is a very common meaning of “pan, its primary sense of setting upright or erecting is entitled to the preference, not only upon etymological grounds, but because it agrees better with the following expression,:rsn K?, which stands in antithesis, not to the preparation of the image, but to its erection or establishment, in which the previous preparation is of course implied.— As kinds of wood regarded by the ancients as peculiarly durable, Grotius enumerates the cypress, grape-vine, juniper, and mulberry; Rosenmiiller the olive, cedar, fir, and oak; to which Gesenius adds the lotus and the figtree. There is no need, however, of supposing a specific reference to any one or more of these varieties.
21. Will you not know 1 will you not hear? has it not been told you from the first? have you not understood the foundations (or from the foundations’) of the earth 1 The tenses of the verbs in the first clause have been variously and arbitrarily explained by different interpreters. The English Version and some others exchange both the futures for praeters (have ye not known 1 have ye not heard?) without any satisfactory reason or authority. So far is such a reason from being afforded by the addition of the preterite ian in this place, or the use of the praeters ns”n and n^aj in v. 28? that it rather proves the contrary and makes it necessary to retain the strict sense of the futures. Still more capricious is the explanation of the first verb as a present and the second as a praeter, by the Vulgate and some modern writers (do you not know 1 have you not heard?). With as much or as little reason, Cocceius combines the present and the future (do you not know? will yu not hear?). There is less objection to the rendering of both verbs in the present tense by Luther (know you not? hear you not?). But the most satisfactory, because the safest and most regular construction, is the strict one given in the Septuagint (ov yvmasa&8] oi>x «xoiJ<T*<T#«;), revived by Lowth (will ye not know? will ye not hear?), and approved by Ewald (o wollt ihr nicht erkennen? o wollt ihrnicht horen?). The clause is then not a mere expression of surprise at their not knowing, but of concern or indignation at their being unwilling to know. There is no inconsistency between this explanation of the first two questions and the obvious meaning of the third; because the proof of their unwillingness to hear and know was the fact of their having been informed from the beginning.—tij&ho is not a mere indefinite expression meaning long ago, of old, or the like; but must refer to some specific terminus a quo, which Aben Ezra takes to be the beginning of life. This would be more appropriate if an individual were the object of address. Others understand it to mean, from the beginning of yournational existence; which supposes too exclusive a reference to the Jews in exile. Neither of these objections lies against the reference of the words to the beginning of the human race, or of the world itself, which is moreover favoured by the subsequent appeal to the creation. Kimchi explains isahs as an allusion to the cabbalah or Jewish tradition, and Hitzig likewise thinks there is a twofold appeal to nature and tradition, or as Calvin more scripturally states it, to the word and works of God. But although this affords a good sense, it may perhaps be too great a refinement on the plain import of the words, which would seem to refer simply to the testimony of external nature, and to mean that they who question the existence or supremacy of one God are without excuse, as Paul says, because the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, to wit, his eternal power and Godhead. (Rom. 1: 20. Compare Acts 14: 17. 17: 24.)—In the last clause Gesenius and most of the later writers connect the verb directly with the noun, as meaning, have you not considered (or have you not understood) the foundations of the earth 1 Others, adhering to the masoretic accents, which forbid the immediate grammatical conjunction of the verb and noun, prefix a preposition to the latter. Have you not understood (from) the foundations of the earth 1 The particle thus supplied may either be a particle of time, as explained by Junius and Ewald (since the creation), of indicate the source of knowledge (from the creation), as explained by Calvin. The latter is more obvious and simple in itself; but the other is favoured by the parallelism, as ttJaHa is universally allowed to have a temporal meaning. Lowth’s emendation of the text, by the actual insertion of the preposition, is superfluous and there fore inadmissible.—By the foundations of the earth we are not to understand a literal description of its structure, nor an allusion to the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, upon which Kimchi here inserts a dissertation, but a substitution of the concrete for the abstract, the foundations of the earth being put by a natural and common figure for its being founded, i. e. its creation.
22. The (one) sitting on (or over) the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants (arc) as grasshoppers (or locusts); the one spreading like a veil (or awning) the heavens, and he stretches them out like the tent to dwell in. The relative construction, he that silteth, is substantially correct, but it is better to retain, as far as possible, the form of the original, as given above. The words may then be construed with the verb of existence understood, as in the English Version (it is he that sitteth), or with the last verb in the preceding verse (have ye not considered the one sitting etc.?).—The circle of the earth may either mean the earth itself, or the heavens by which it is surmounted and encompassed. (Solomon Ben Melek: pf>p 33ipr> ijh.) This expression has been urged with equal propriety by Gill as a proof that the prophet was acquainted with the true shape of the earth, and by Knobel as a proof that he had a false idea of the heavens. On the absurdity of such conclusions, see E. P. p. 559. As a parallel to this may be mentioned the remark of Hendewerk, that God is here described as bearing just the same proportion to mankind, that the latter bear to insects! The same comparison occurs in Num. 13: 33. s$n is now commonly explained to mean a species of locust, which of course has no effect upon the point of the comparison, the essential idea being that ofbestiolae (Calvin) or minuta animantia (Grotius).—p^i is properly a fine cloth, here applied, as Lowth supposes, to the awning spread over the open courts of oriental houses. It has been disputed whether the last words of the verse mean for himself to dwell in, or for man to dwell in. But they really form part, not of the direct description, but of the comparison, like a tent pitched for dwelling in, an idea distinctly expressed in the translation both by Henderson (a dwelling-tent) and Ewald (das Wohnzelt).—Whh this v,erse compare ch. 42: 5. 44: 24. Job 9: 8. Ps. 104: 2.
23. The (one) bringing (literally giving or putting) princes to nothing, the judges (or rulers) of the earth like emptiness (or desolation) he has made. Not only nature but man, not only individuals but nations, not only nations but their rulers, are completely subject to the power of God. The Septuagint understands f:^ as meaning so as to rule over nothing (cog ovdtv «(?/«»•), implying the loss of their authority. The Vulgate strangely renders tP2n-i secretorum scrutatores, a version probably suggested by the Chaldee t^ a secret.
24. Not even sown were they, not even planted, not even rooted in the ground their stock, and he just breathed (or blew) upon them, and they withered, and a whirlwind like the chaff shall take them up (or away). The Targum gives ba?,x the sense of though (i^sx), Aben Ezra and Kimchi that of as if (Vbxs), which last is adopted by Luther and Calvin. Gesenius and the later German writers all agree that the compound phrase has here the sense of scarcely. t]X by itself denotes accession, and may sometimes be expressed by yea or yes, sometimes by also or even. It is not impossible that in the present case, the qx in one clause and the correspond ing na in the other, were intended to connect the statements of this verse with the one before it. As if he had said, not only can God ultimately bring them to destruction, but also when they are not yet planted etc.; riot only by slower and more potent means, but also by breathing on them. Another possible solution is that yes and no are here combined to express the idea of uncertainty, as if he had said, they are and are not sown, planted, etc. i. e. when they are scarcely sown, or when it is still doubtful whether they are sown. But perhaps the simplest and most natural construction is the one assumed above in the translation, where the phrase is taken as substantially equivalent to our not even, yielding the same sense in the end with the usual modern version scarcely. The future form which some give to the verbs is wholly arbitrary. He is describing the destruction of the great ones of the earth as already effected; and even if the praeters be praeterita prophetica, there is no more need of giving them the future form in English than in Hebrew. The transition to the future in the last clause is analogous to that in v. 19, and has the same effect of showing that the point of observation is an intermediate one between the beginning and the end of the destroying process. The essential meaning of the whole verse is, that God can extirpate them, not only in the end, but in a moment; not only in the height of their prosperity, but long before they have attained it. J. D. Michaelis supposes a particular allusion to the frequency with which the highest families became extinct, so that there is not now on earth a royal house which is the lineal representative of any race that reigned in ancient times. It is possible, however, that the words may have reference to the national existence of Israel as a nation, the end of which, with the continued and more glorious existence of the church independent of all national restrictions, may be said to constitute the great theme of these prophecies.
25. And (now) to whom will ye liken me, and (to whom) shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. He winds up his argument by coming back to the triumphant challenge of v. 18. This repetition does not seem to have struck any one as indicating a strophical arrangement, although such a conclusion would be quite as valid as in many other cases. The indirect construction of the second verb as a subjunctive (that I may or should be equal), although preferred by Luther, Calvin, and most modern writers, is much less simple in itself, and less consistent with the genius and usage of the language, than its strict translation as a future, continuing directly the interrogation of the other clause.—The epithet Holy is in this connexion well explained by J. D. Michaelis as including all that distinguishes between God and his creatures, so that the antithesis is perfect. (Compare ch. 6: 3, and E. P. p. 89.)
26. Lift up on high your eyes and see—who hath created all these? —(and who is) the (one) bringing out by number their host?—to all of them by name will he call—from abundance of might and (because) strong in power—not one faileth (literally a man is not missed or found wanting). The same exhortation to lift up the eyes occurs elsewhere in Isaiah (ch. 37: 23. 49: 18. 60: 4).—The construction is not, see (him) who created these, or, see who created these, but, as the accents indicate, see, behold, the heavens and the heavenly bodies, and then as a distinct interrogation, who created these 1 There is more doubt as to the question whether the follow ing words continue the interrogation or contain the answer to it. In the former case, the sense is. Who created these 1 (who is) the (one) bringing out etc? In the latter case, Who created these 1 The (one) bringing out etc. This last is favoured by the analogy of ch. 41: 4, 26. 42: 24 and other places, where a similar question is immediately succeeded by the answer. But in this case such an answer would be almost unmeaning, since it would merely say that he who rules the heavenly bodies made them. It is much more natural to understand the last clause as completing the description.— To bring out is a military term, as appears from ch. 43: 17 and 2 Sam. 5: 2. It is applied as here to the host of heaven in Job 38: 32.—Instead of by number, Zwingle and Henderson understand the phrase to mean in num ber, i. e. in great numbers, just as nba means with might or mightily. But the common explanation of the phrase as denoting order and arrangement is favoured, not only by the military form of the whole description, but by the parallel expression by name, which is not used to qualify the noun but the verb, and to show in what way the commander of this mighty host exerts his power, in what way he brings out and calls his soldiers, viz. by number and by name. The reference of these clauses to the rising of the heavenly bodies makes them too specific, and confounds direct description with comparison. The sense is that the stars are like an army which its leader brings out and enumerates, the particular points of the resemblance being left to the imagination. The explanation of “pas by Gesenius and others as an abstract meaning strength is neither justified by usage nor required by the context, since the word may be applied as a descriptive epithet to God who is the subject of the sentence. It is an old and singular opinion that the strength here spoken of is that residing in the stars themselves, “ttss &ib may also be regarded as a military phrase. The feminine form of the same expression occurs in a different application ch. 34: 16. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 573.)
27. Why wilt thou say oh Jacob, and why (thus) speak oh Israel? Hidden is my way from Jehovah, and from my God my cause will pass (or is about to pass) away. The future verbs in this verse have been rendered as variously as those in v. 21. The precise question asked by the Prophet is not why hast thou said, why dost thou say, or why shouldest thou say, but why wilt thou still go on to say, implying that it had been said, was still said, and would be said again.—The two names of the patriarch are here combined, as in many other cases, to describe his offspring.—Hidden may either mean unknown, or neglected, or forgotten, in which last sense it is used below in ch. 65: 16. The same verb is applied in Gen. 31: 49 to persons who are absent from each other and of course out of sight.— Way is a common figure for the course of life, experience, or what the world calls fortune, destiny, or fate.—The figure in the last clause is forensic, the idea that of a cause or suit dismissed, lost sight of, or neglected by the judge. The expression is analogous to that in ch. 1: 23, where it is said of the un just judges, that the cause of the widow does not come unto them or before them. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 17.) The state of mind described is a skeptical despondency as to the fulfilment of God’s promises. Since this form of unbelief is more or less familiar to the personal experience of believers in all ages, and the terms of the expostulation here are not restricted to any single period in the history of Israel, the grave conclusions drawn by Gesenius and Knobel with respect to the prevalence of an epicu rean skepticism at the period of the Babylonish exile, have an air of solemn trifling, and the proofs of later date which they afford are like unto them.
28. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard ] The God of eternity (or everlasting God), Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, will not faint, and will not tire; there is no search (with respect} to his understanding. Most of the modern writers prefer Lowth’s construction, that Jehovah (is) the everlasting God; but this, by making several distinct propositions, impairs the simplicity of the construction. The translation of the futures in the presenter potential form (does not or cannot faint), though not erroneous, is inadequate, since both these senses are included in the promiscuous form or future proper. That he will not faint or tire, implies sufficiently in this case that he neither does nor can, while it expresses his unwillingness to do so. The ends of the earth is a common Hebrew phrase for its limits and all that they include. The Septuagint makes the prophet say that Jehovah will not hunger (ov ntivuGti).—This verse contains an answer to the unbelieving fears expressed in that before it, which ascribed to God an imperfection or infirmity with which he is not chargeable. The last clause may either be a general assertion that he cannot leave his people unprotected through a want of understanding and of knowledge, or, as Hitzig supposes, a suggestion that his methods of proceeding, though inscru table, are infinitely wise, and that the seeming inconsistency between his words and deeds, far from arguing unfaithfulness or weakness upon his part, does but prove our incapacity to understand or fathom his profound designs. Even supposing that the former is the strict sense of the words, the latter is implicitly contained in them.
29. Giving to the faint (or weary) strength, and to the powerless might will he increase. He is not only strong in himself, but the giver of strength to others, or, to state it as an argument a fortiori, he who is the only source of strength to others must be strong himself, and able to fulfil his promises.—The construction is similar to that in vs. 22, 23, not excepting the transition from the participle to the finite verb, inb is not strictly a periphrasis for the present tense, as rendered in the English Version, but agrees with Jehovah as the subject of the preceding verse. The position of this word at the beginning and of the corresponding verb at the end of the verse is emphatic and climacteric, the first meaning simply to give, the other to give more or abundantly.—The Septuagint has, giving to the hungry strength, and to those that grieve not sorrow.
30. And (yet) weary shall youths be and faint, and chosen (youths) shall be weakened, be weakened. There is here an obvious allusion to the terms of v. 28. What is there denied of God, is here affirmed, not only of men in general, but of the stoutest and most vigorous, aptly represented by the young men chosen for military service, which appears to be a better explanation of tj-nina than the one given by Gesenius, viz. choice or chosen, in reference to personal beauty. (Compare ch. 9: 16, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 177.) Furst, with still less probability, supposes the essential meaning to be that of growth or adolescence. That the prominent idea here conveyed is that of manly strength and vigour, is not questioned.— For the evidence that to? strictly means to grow weak or be weakened, see 1 Sam. 2: 4, Zech. 12: 8, and Gesenius’s Thesaurus, torn. n. p. 720. —The intensive repetition of the verb may either be expressed by the addition of an adverb, as in the English Version (utterly fall), or retained in the translation as above.
31. And (on the other hand) those waiting for Jehovah shall gain new strength; they shall raise the pinion like the eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint. The marked antithesis between this verse and that before it, justifies the use of but in English, although not in the original. WJD is to wait for or expect, implying faith and patience. This is also the old English meaning of the phrase to wait upon, as applied to servants who await their master’s orders; but in modern usage the idea of personal service or attendance has become predominant, so that the English phrase no longer represents the Hebrew one. Jehovah’s waiters, which is Ewald’s bold and faithful version (Jahve’s Harrer), would convey if not a false an inadequate idea to the English reader. The class of persons meant to be described are those who show their confidence in God’s ability and willingness to execute his promises, by patiently awaiting their fulfilment. The restriction of these words to the exiles in Babylon is entirely gratuitous. Although applicable, as a general proposition, to that case among others, they admit of a more direct and striking application to the case of those who under the old dispensation kept its end in view, and still “waited for the consolation of Israel,” and “looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” (Luke 1: 25,38.)—The phrase translated they shall gain new strength properly means they shall exchange strength; but the usage of the verb determines its specific meaning to be that of changing for the better or improving. The sense is therefore correctly given in the English Version (they shall renew their strength).—Of the next phrase there are three dis tinct interpretations. 1. The English Bible follows Luther in explaining i^3£ as the future Kal, and tais$ as a qualifying noun, equivalent to the ablative of instrument in Latin (they shall mount up with wings). This construction is also adopted by Junius, Cocceius, Vitringa, Augusti, Henderson, and Barnes. 2. The second opinion is expressed in Lowth’s trans lation: they shall put forth fresh feathers like the moulting eagle. The reference is then to the ancient belief of the eagle’s great longevity and of its frequently renewing its youth. (Psalm 103: 5.) The rabbinical tradition, as recorded by Saadias, is that the eagle, at the end of every tenth year, soars so near the sun as to be scorched and cast into the sea, from which it then emerges with fresh plumage, till at the end of the tenth decade or a century complete, it sinks to rise no more. This explanation of the phrase before us is given not only by the Septuagint (nreQocpvqaovaiv) and the Vulgate (assument pennas), but by the Targum and Peshito, although more obscurely. In later times it is approved by Grotius, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and De Wette. The principal objections to it are, that ^?£ has no where else the sense of putting forth (although the root does sometimes mean to sprout or grow), and that ^ox does not denote feathers in general, but a wing-feather or a pinion in particular. 3. A third construction, simpler than the first and more agreeable to usage than the second, gives the verb its ordinary sense of causing to ascend or raising and the noun its proper sense of pinion, and connects the two directly as a transitive verb and its object, they shall raise the pinion (or the wing) like the eagles. This construction is adopted by Calvin, Hensler, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, Umbreit, Hendewerk, and Knobel; and, though charged by Beck with enormous flatness, is even more poetical than that which supposes an allusion not to the soaring but the moulting of the eagle. In the last clause the verbs ^ and S^ are introduced together for the third time in a beautiful antithesis. In v. 28 they are applied to Jehovah, in v. 30 to the strongest and most vigorous of men, as they are in themselves, and here to the waiters for Jehovah, the believers in his promises, who glory in infirmity that his strength may be perfect in their weakness. (2 Cor. 12: 9.)—Knobel’s comment on this promise is characteristic of his age and school. After condescendingly showing that the thought is a correct one (der Gedanke ist richtig), he explains himself by saying, that trust in divine help does increase the natural powers, and that this effect is viewed by the pious writer (i. e. Isaiah) as a direct gift of God in requital of the confidence reposed in him. All this, though absolutely true, is relatively false, so far as it implies superiority, in point of elevation and enlargement, on the part of the expounder as imagining himself to be more than a prophet. (Luke 11:9.)
