UNTIL the ends of Israel’s national existence are accomplished, that existence must continue, in spite of hostile nations and their gods, who shall all perish sooner than the chosen people, vs. 1-16. However feeble Israel may be in himself, Jehovah will protect him, and raise up the necessary instruments for his deliverance and triumph, vs. 17-29.
1. Be silent to me, oh islands, and the nations shall gain new strength; they shall approach, then shall they speak, together to the judg ment-seat will we draw near. Having proved the impotence of idols in a direct address to Israel, Jehovah now summons the idolaters themselves to enter into controversy with him. The restriction of islands here to certain parts of Europe and Asia seems preposterous. The challenge is a general one directed to the whole heathen world, and islands is a poetical variation for lands or at the most for maritime lands or sea-coasts. Silence in this connexion implies attention or the fact of listening, which is expressed in Job 33: 31. The imperative form at the beginning gives an imperative sense likewise to the future, which might therefore be translated let them approach etc. There is an obvious allusion in the first clause to the promise in ch. 40: 31. As if he had said: they that hope in Jehovah shall renew their strength; let those who refuse renew theirs as they can.—The particle then makes the passage more graphic by bringing distinctly into view the successive steps of the process. This seems to recommend the explanation of BBttSa as a local rather than an abstract noun. The same judicial or forensic figure is applied to contention between God and man by Job (9: 19, 20, 32). Lowth’s paraphrase of this verse is more than usually languid and diluted: e. g. let the distant nations repair to me with new force of mind let us enter into solemn debate. The same writer reads inj-nnn on the authority of the Septuagint (fyxam’Sea&i), and says that the same mistake occurs Zeph. 3:17. But the Hiphil of tthn does not occur elsewhere, and the common text is confirmed by Aquila (xcog;£t>Wr«) and Symmachus (ai^Wc), as well as by the other ancient versions.
2. Who hath raised up (or awakened) from the east 1 Righteous ness shall call him to its foot; it shall give nations before him, and cause him to tread upon kings; it shall give (them) as dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow. The simplest construction of the first clause is that which assumes an abrupt transition from the form of interrogation to that of prediction. The speaker, as it were, interrupts his own question before it is complete, in order to supply what must otherwise be presupposed. Instead of going on to ask who brought the event to pass, he pauses to describe the event itself. The same sense is obtained, but with a change of form, by supplying a relative and continuing the interrogation. Who raised up from the east (him whom) righteousness etc. The old construction which makes righteousness the object of the verb and regards it as an abstract used for a concrete (righteousness for righteous one), is wholly arbitrary and at variance with the masoretic accents. Gesenius and the later German writers understand the clause to mean whom victory meets at every step. This new sense of p^st is entirely gratuitous, and violates the fundamental laws of lexicography, by multiplying senses without any necessity and confounding the definition of a term with its application. Here and elsewhere p*is means the righteousness of God as manifested in his providence, his dealings with his people and their enemies. (See ch. ]: 27, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 19.) Because it suggests, in such connexions, the idea of its consequences or effects, it no more follows that this is the proper meaning of the word, than that wrath means suffering because the wrath of God causes the sufferings of the guilty. Another objection to this version of the clause is its giving an£ the less usual sense of meet, and i^V that of at every step, which is certainly not justified by the obscure and dubious analogy of Gen. 30: 30, especially when taken in connexion with the usage of the same phrase elsewhere to mean in the foot steps, train, suite, or retinue of any one. (See 1 Sam. 25:42. Job 18: 11. Hab. 3: 5.) In his lexicons, Gesenius admits the idea to be that of following, and actually introduces that verb into the clause, a virtual concession that his own translation of an^1? is at variance not only with usage but the context. To call to one’s foot is a Hebrew idiom for calling to one’s service, or summoning to take a place among one’s followers. This act is here ascribed to the divine righteousness as a personified attribute. The other verbs may agree with the same subject or directly with Jehovah. In the last clause Gesenius and the later Germans make the suffixes collective, and by his sword, his bow, understand the sword and bow of the nations or their kings. As the modern writers are so much accustomed to reject the old interpretations with contempt, it may not be amiss to mention here, that this construction is as old as Kimchi, and that it is set aside by Vitringa as an expositio violenta quae nihil sani praefert. The enallao-e 3 of number is in fact too violent to be assumed without necessity. Vitringa himself supposes the sword and bow to be those of the conqueror, and to be described as like dust or chaff in rapidity of motion. But the image, which is that of dust or chaff driven by the wind, is always used elsewhere in a passive and unfavourable sense, never as expressive of activity or energy. On the whole, there seems to be no construction more free from objection than the old one of the English Version, the Targum, and the Vulgate, which gives ”^ the same sense, the same subject, and the same object as in the preceding clause. The difficulty which arises from supposing an ellipsis of the preposition before sword and bow, may be removed by taking these words as adverbial or qualifying nouns, a Hebrew idiom of constant occurrence. This construction becomes still more natural if we understand the clause to mean that he makes the enemy like dust or chaff with or by means of Ins sword and bow. In that case, the verb may be construed either with mm, p’ls, or the conqueror himself. The construction may be rendered clearer by restoring the Hebrew collocation. Kings he shall subdue (and) shall make like dust (with) his sword and like driven chaff (with) his bow.—The explanation of the futures as preterites is wholly arbitrary, and even the descriptive present appears inadmissible when the strict sense is so perfectly appropriate. —The question, whose appearance is predicted in this verse, has been always a subject of dispute. Eusebius, Theodoret, and Procopius understand it as describing the triumphs of the true religion or the gospel, here called righteousness. Cyril and Jerome apply it to the Lord Jesus Christ himself as the Righteous One or the Lord our Righteousness. Cocceius stands alone in his application of the verse to the apostle Paul. The Jews make Abraham the subject of the passage, excepting Aben Ezra, who, with Vitringa and all the latest writers, understands it as a prophecy of Cyrus. The inappropriateness of the terms employed to our Saviour or the Gospel, to Abraham or Paul, is almost self-evident, and equally clear is its appropriateness to the case of Cyrus. The argument in favour of the latter application drawn from the analogy of ch. 45: 1, 46: 11, is less conclusive, because he is there expressly named. The truth appears to be that this is a more general intimation of a great eventful movement from the east, which is afterwards repeated with specific reference to Cyrus and his conquests. It might even be supposed without absurdity that there is here an allusion to the general progress of the human race, of conquest, civilization, and religion, from the east to the west. Umbreit supposes a specific reference to the course of the sun, from which the name of Cyrus was derived, as we shall see.
3. He shall pursue them; he shall pass (in) peace (or safety); a path with his feet he shall not go. There is the same objection here as in the preceding verse to the explanation of the verbs as preterites; but most interpreters, not content with this, make the future in the last clause a pluperfect (the way that he had not gone with his feet). This method of translation involves the whole subject in uncertainty. If the past and the future senses may be interchanged at pleasure and without necessity, the interpreter may make the author say what he pleases. In the case before us, J. D. Michaelis adheres to the proper future sense, and explains the clause to mean that he shall not have occasion to retrace his steps. But as this, like the common explanation before mentioned, leaves the phrase with his feet pleonastic and unmeaning, the preference is due to Ewald’s supposition that the clause describes the swiftness of his motions, as flying rather than walking on foot. This, which would be natural and striking, even in itself considered, is confirmed by the analogy of Daniel 8: 5, where we read that an he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground.
4. Who hath wrought and done (it), calling the generations from the beginning 1 I Jehovah, the first and with the last, I (am) he. Another construction of the verse, preferred by the latest writers, includes the last part of the first clause in the answer to the question. Who hath wrought and done it 1 He that calleth the generations etc. But besides the unequal distribution of the verse which thus arises, this construction makes the answer speak of God both in the first and second person, and gives to the indefinite ao’p the sense of the emphatic Nt)pn, neither of which departures from the usus loquendi, though admissible in case of necessity, ought to be assumed without it.— Calling the generations may either mean calling them into existence or proclaiming them, i. e. predicting them; probably the latter, since the event itself, although it proved a superhuman agency, did not prove it to be that of Jehovah, which could only be established by the fulfilment of predictions uttered in his name. With the last does not simply mean the last, which is the form employed in ch. 41: 21-25, 46: 8-10, but co-existent with the last, a mode of expression which would seem to imply that although Jehovah existed before all other beings he will not outlast them all. xsin 135$ is explained by some of the older writers as meaning lam God; by the latest, I am the same (i. e. unchangeable); but the simplest construction is the common one, I am he, i. e. the being to whom the interrogation has respect, I am he who has wrought and done it.
5. The isles have seen it and are afraid, the ends of the earth tremble; they have approached and come. Some regard this as a description of the effect produced by the foregoing argument, but others as a part of the argument itself, drawn from the effect of the appearance of the person mentioned in v. 2. As an instance of the length to which specific historical interpretation can be carried by the new as well as by the old school of interpreters, it may be mentioned that Hendewerk, with the first book of Herodotus before him, explains islands here to mean the Greek states in the west of Asia Minor,—their approach, the message which they sent to Cyrus after the defeat of Croesus,—the mutual encouragement described in the next verse, the deliberations of the Panionion! All this, however, he supposes to be here described, not by a prophet in the proper sense, but by a contemporary writer.
6. A man his neighbour (i. e. one another) they will keep, and to his brother (one) will say, Be strong! This general description is then filled up, or carried out into detail in the next verse, both containing a sarcastic description of the vain appeal of the idolaters to the protection of their tutelary deities.
7. And the carver has strengthened the gilder, the smoother with the hammer the smiter on the anvil; he says (or is saying) of the solder, It is good; and he has strengthened it with nails; it shall not be moved. The sarcasm consists in making the idolaters dependent upon idols which are themselves dependent upon common workmen and the most trivial mechanical operations for their form and their stability. Hence the particular enumeration of the different artificers employed in the manufacture of these deities. J. D. Michaelis explains ess dVn to mean the treader on the bellows, i. e. the bellows-blower.—The text of the English Version has it is ready for the soldering; but the other construction is now universally adopted. The last clause implies that the strength of the idol is not in itself, but in the nails that keep it in its place or hold its parts together.
8. And thou Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. The prominent idea is still that of the contrast between Israel as the people of God, and the heathen as his enemies. The insertion of the substantive verb in the first clause, thou art Israel my servant (Vitringa), or thou Israel art my servant (English Version), is unnecessary. This whole verse with the next may be understood as a description of the object of address, or of the person to whom the exhortation in v. 10 is directed. The two names of Jacob are again combined in application to his progeny. The race is described as God’s servant and his elect, or, combining the two characters, his chosen servant, chosen to be his servant. Vitringa understands this last term as including the idea of a worshipper or votary; and Hitzig compares it with Abdastartus, a servant of Astarte, and the favourite Arabic name Abdallah or a worshipper of Allah.—The people are here described not only as the sons of Jacob but of Abraham. hrt!!K cannot of itself denote an object of divine love, as it is explained in the Septuagint (ov fydnqaa), nor can it be both active and passive, amans and amatus, as Vitringa supposes. The latter idea is implied but not expressed. The same honourable title is bestowed on Abraham in 2 Chr. 20: 7, James 2: 23, and in the common parlance of the Arabs, by whom he is usually styled aJUt JuJLs the Friend of God, or absolutely, JoJlit the Friend.
9. Thou whom I have grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its joints (or sides) have called thee, and said to thee, My servant (art) thou I have chosen thee and not rejected thee. The description of the object of address is still continued. The essential idea here expressed is that of election and separation from the rest of men, a bringing near of those who were afar off. Interpreters have needlessly disputed whether the vocation of Israel in Abraham, or at the exodus, is here particularly meant; since both are really included in a general description of the calling and election of the people. The objection that Israel is distinguished from Abraham in v. 8, is of no weight, except against the supposition (if maintained by any) that Abraham himself is here the object of address. The application of analogous expressions to the exodus from Egypt, in Deut. 39: 10, Ezek. 20: 5, only proves that this was one of the great crises or junctures in the progress of the people, at which their election or vocation was declared, and as it were renewed. The question in what sense Egypt could be called the ends of the earth, is as trifling as the answer which some give it, that it was remote from Babylon. The phrase in question is a common idiomatic expression for remoteness, often used without reference to particular localities (see ch. 5: 26. 13: 2). The idea meant to be conveyed is identical with that expressed by Paul when he says (Eph. 2: 13), vpeit; ol TTOTS ovres (laxQav s;7»4,’ tyzvt’j&tiTE. The translation I have taken is inadequate, the Hebrew verb meaning to hold fast, and the idea of removal being rather implied than expressed. The parallel expression (n^sx) is explained by Gesenius from the analogy of bsx side, by Maurer from that of ^srx a joint, which seems to be also presupposed in the version of Symmachus (ayxwvwv). The rabbinical interpretation, chief men, is founded on the analogy of Ex. 24: 11. Some of the Jewish writers understand “ft as meaning in spite of, others in preference to, but both without authority.—Lowth’s translation of r^nox^ as a future is entirely arbitrary, and overlooks the peculiar Hebrew idiom of saying the same thing positively and negatively. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 46.)
10. Fear thou not, for I (am) with thee; look not around, for 1 (am) thy God; 1 have strengthened thee, yea I have helped thee, yea I have upheld thee with my right hand of righteousness. This may be regarded as the conclusion of the sentence beginning in v. 8, as the address to which the two preceding verses are an introduction.—Vitringa derives rnttStj from ssiti. Ewald makes it an orthographical variation of nxryiin (Gen. 24: 21). Gesenius and most other modern writers- make it the Hithpael of nstsj, and explain it to mean, do not look around fearfully as if for help. Hitzig compares it with the Homeric verb naniaivm.—The 5rx, which might be rendered nay more, seems to give the last clause the form of a climax, although such a progression cannot easily be traced in the thoughts. The English Version, which adheres to the strict translation of the preterites in v. 9, here gratuitously employs the future form, which wholly changes the complexion of the sentence. It is not a simple promise, but a reference to what God had already done and might therefore be expected to do again. The present form employed by Rosenmiiller (corroboro te) is less objection able than the future, but in no respect preferable to the strict translation.— Equally arbitrary is the introduction by the later Germans of their favourite idea that p^s in these prophecies means prosperity or success; whereas it does not even suggest that notion, except so far as it flows from the righteous ness of God as an effect from its cause. Hitzig’s translation gracious arm is at once a departure from the old and the new interpretation. It is not even necessary to assume with Lowth that p”is here denotes the faithfulness of God, and to translate accordingly my faithful right hand. The truesense is the strict one of righteousness or justice, the appeal to which in such connexions has already been explained. (See above, on v. 2.) The right hand of my righteousness supposes the attribute to be personified,.—a supposition which may be avoided by referring the suffix to the whole complex phrase, my right hand of righteousness or just right hand.—As specimens of ultra-specific exposition, without any foundation in the text, it may be mentioned that Knobel understands this as an exhortation to the Jewish exiles not to be afraid of Cyrus.
11. Lo, ashamed and confounded shall be all those incensed (or inflamed) against thee; they shall be as nothing (or as though they werenot), and destroyed shall be thy men of strife (or they that strive with thee). Not only shall Israel himself escape, but his enemies shall perish. To be ashamed and confounded, here as usual, includes the frustration of their plans and disappointment of their hopes. On the meaning of as nothing, see above, p. 20. The construction of the phrase thy men of strife, is the same as that of my right hand of righteousness in v. 10.
12. Thou shalt seelc them and not find them, thy men of quarrel; they shall be as nothing and as nought, thy men of war (i. e. they who quarrelled and made war with thee). The first clause contains a common Hebrew figure for complete disappearance and destruction. (See Ps. 37: 36. Jer. 50: 20. Amos 8:12. Hos. 5: 6.) V\x and OSN strictly denote non-existence and annihilation. (See above, on ch. 40: 17.)
13. For I, Jehovah thy God, (am) holding fast thy right hand; the (one) saying to thee, Fear not, I have helped thee, i. e. I, who command thee not to fear, have already helped thee, or secured thy safety. J. D. Michaelis gives p^trra the causative sense of strengthening; but this sense is rare, except in a few of the later books, and the other is recommended here, not only by the general agreement of interpreters, but by the analogy of v. 9.
14. Fear not, thouworm Jacob and ye men of Israel; I have helped thee, saith Jehovah, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. The same encouragement is here repeated, but with a direct contrast between Israel’s weakness and the strength of God.—The feminine form of the verb has reference to that of the noun n^b*in. This epithet expresses not merely the contempt of others, as in Ps. 22: 7, much less the Babylonian oppression of the Jews, as J. H. Michaelis and others think, but the real meanness and unworthiness of man, as in Job 25: 6. As the parallelism seems to require an analogous expression of contempt in the next clause, some either read •M (dead men) with Aquila (T^V^T^, Theodotion (VMQOI), and Jerome (qui mortui estls ex Israel), or regard ^rs as a modification of that word denoting mortals. Vitringa and Hitzig gain the same end by explaining it as an ellipsis for “IBS? ^rra men Of number, i. e. few men, used in Ps. 105: 12. So the Septuagint has 6ktyo67o£, but omits worm altogether. Ewald completes the parallelism in a very summary manner, by reading ^izp nxn, and translating it gekrummtes Israel. Maurer, on the other hand, discovers that the parallelism is not always perfect, and advises the reader to trans late it boldly (redde intrepide) men of Israel, which seems to be the simplest and most obvious course, leaving the accessory idea of fewness or weakness to suggest itself.—The word bxh redeemer would suggest to a Hebrew reader the ideas of a near kinsman (Lev. 25: 24, 25) and of deliverance from bondage by the payment of a ransom. Its highest application occurs here and in Job 19: 25. The reference to the Son of God, although it might not be perceptible of old, is now rendered necessary by the knowledge that this act, even under the old dispensation, is always referred to the same person of the Trinity. The substitution of the future for the preterite by the English and some other versions has already been seen to be gratuitous and arbitrary.
15. Behold I have placed thee for (i. e. appointed thee to be, or changed thee into) a threshing-sledge, sharp, new, possessed of teeth (or edges’); thou shalt thresh mountains and beat (them) small, and hills like, the chaff shalt thou place (or make). The erroneous idea that he simply promises to furnish Israel with the means of threshing mountains, has arisen from the equivocal language of the English Version, I will make thee, which may either mean, I will male e for thee, or will make thee to become, whereas the last sense only can by any possibility be put upon the Hebrew, as liter ally translated above. The oriental threshing machine is sometimes a sledge of thick planks armed with iron or sharp stones, sometimes a system of rough”h rollers joined together like a sledge or dray. Both kinds are dragged over the grain by oxen. (See Robinson’s Palestine, III. p. 143.)—pE’n is properly to crush, pound fine, or pulverize, m’sB^e strictly denotes mouths; but like the primitive noun from which it is derived, it is sometimes applied to the edge of a sharp instrument, perhaps in allusion to the figure of devour ing. Here it signifies the edges, blades, or teeth, with which the threshingwain is armed. The reduplicated form is supposed to denote the number of such parts by Ewald (vielspitzig) and Knobel (vielschneidig). The literal sense of ^3 is possessor, owner. There seems to be no ground for the common assumption that hills and mountains are specific emblems here for states or governments. The image presented is the strange but strong one of a down-trodden worm reducing hills to powder, the essential idea being that of a weak and helpless object overcoming the most disproportionate obstacles, by strength derived from another.
16. Thou shalt fan (or winnow) them, and a wind shall take them up, and a whirlwind shall scatter them, and thou shalt joy in Jehovah, in the Holy One of Israel shalt thou boast (or glory). The figure of the preceding verse is here carried out and completed. The mountains, having been completely threshed, are winnowed, in the usual oriental mode, by being thrown to the wind. Israel, on the other hand, is safe, not through his own strength but in that of his protector, in whom, i. e. in his relation to whom, he finds his highest happiness and honour. The writer’s main design is evidently still to exhibit the contrast between God and his people on the one hand, and the idols and their people on the other.
17. The suffering and the poor (are) seeking water, and it is not (there is none); their tongue with thirst is parched. I Jehovah will hear (or answer) them, (I) the God of Israel will not forsake them. The first clause describes the need of a divine interposition, the last the interposition itself. The images are so unlike those of the foregoing verse that they might seem to be unconnected, but for the fact that the whole passage is entirely metaphorical. Thirst is a natural and common metaphor for suffering. Those who restrict the verse to the Babylonish exile are divided on the question whether it literally describes the hardships of the journey through the wilder ness, or metaphorically those of the captivity itself. Both suppositions are entirely arbitrary, since there is nothing in the text or context to deprive the passage of its genuine and full sense as a general promise, tantamount to saying, When my people feel their need, I will be present to supply it. Such a promise those in exile could not fail to find appropriate in their case; but it is equally appropriate in others, and especially to the glorious deliverance of the church from the fetters of the old economy. ^35 is not to hear in general, but to hear prayer in a favourable sense, to answer it. The conditional turn given to the sentence in our version (when the poor and needy seek etc.) is substantially correct, but a needless departure from the form of the original.
18. I will open upon bare hills streams, and in the midst of valleys fountains; I will place the desert for (i. e. convert it into) a pool of water, and a dry land for (or into) springs of water. The same figure for entire and joyful change occurs in ch. 30: 25 and ch. 35: 7, and with its opposite or converse in Ps. 107: 33, 35. It is now commonly admitted that n^ti includes the idea of barrenness or nakedness. (Compare fiQti? from the same root, ch. 13: 2.)
19. I will give in the wilderness cedar, acacia, and myrtle, and oiltree; I will place in the desert fir, pine, and box together. The main idea, common to all explanations of this verse, is that of trees growing where they never grew before. It is comparatively unimportant therefore to identify the species, although J. D. Michaelis supposes them to have been selected because such as do not naturally grow together. With respect to the cedar and the myrtle there is no doubt. Vitringa regards Matt? (which has no and before it) as an epithet of nx, and translates it cedrus praestantissima. Since Lowth however it has been commonly regarded as the Hebrew name of the acacia, a thorny tree growing in Arabia and Egypt. (See Robinson’s Palestine, Vol. II. p. 349.)—By the oil-tree is meant the oleaster or wild olive, as distinguished from the n^t or cultivated tree of the same species. For the different explanations of tf’ha, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 272, According to the latest authorities, WSJ is neither the pine, the elm, nor the plane-tree, but the ilex, holm, or hard oak, so called from T!^ to endure or last. By the same writers limn is understood to be a species of the cedar of Lebanon, so called from its erectness and loftiness.
20. That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of Jehovah hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it. The verbs in the first clause may refer to men in general, or to those immediately concerned as subjects or spectators of the change described, ^tb; they may place, seems to be an elliptical expression for zb sraito^ may place their heart, i. e. apply their mind, or give attention. There is no need of introducing sb into the text, as Lowth does, since the very same ellipsis has been pointed out by Kocher in Judges 19: 30. Still less ground is there to amend the text with Houbigant by reading laia’j (may be astonished).—There is a climax in the last clause: he has not only done it but created it, i. e. produced a new effect by the exertion of almighty power.
21. Present your cause (literally bring it near or cause it to approach, i. e. into the presence of the judge), saith Jehovah; bring forward your defences (or strong reasons), saith the king of Jacob. The Septuagint changes the whole meaning of the sentence by making it a simple affirmation (your judgment draweth near).—Jerome applies the last clause to their idols: accedant idola vestra quae putatis esse fortissimo. But most interpreters refer it to the arguments by which they were to main tain their cause. The metaphor is commonly supposed to be that of bulwarks or entrenchments; but this, as Knobel has observed, is hardly consistent with the call to bring them forward. It is better therefore to O give the word its wider sense of strength or strong thing.
22. They shall bring forward (or let them bring forward) and show forth to us the (things) which are to happen; the former things, what they were, show forth, and we will set our heart (apply our mind, or pay attention to them), and know their issue; or (else) the coming (events) make us to hear. The prescience of future events is here appealed to as a test of divinity. (Compare Deut. 18: 22. Jer. 28: 9, and ch. 43: 12 below.) Vitringa, Lowth, and others, understand by former things a proximate futurity; but the antithesis between this and coming things shows that the former must mean prophecies already fulfilled, or at least already published. They are required to demonstrate their foreknowledge, either by showing that they had predicted something, or by doing it now. Knobel’s question whether we and us mean God alone or God and the Prophet together, is not in the best taste or particularly reasonable, since the whole idea which the text conveys is that of two contending parties at a judgment-seat. They means the party of the false gods and their worshippers, we that of Jehovah and his people.
23. Show forth the (things) to come hereafter, and we will know that ye are gods; yes, ye shall do good or do evil, and we will look about and see together. The subjunctive construction, that we may know, gives the sense of the original, but with a needless change of form. The same remark applies to the imperative translation of the futures in the next clause (do good, do evil). The use of the disjunctive, on the other hand, is rendered almost unavoidable by an entire difference of idiom, the Hebrews constantly employing and where or in English seems essential to the sense. The verbs in this clause are strictly and distinctly understood by Vitringa, as relating to the reward of worshippers and the punishment of enemies. Henderson explains the clause as challenging the false gods to perform a miracle. But most interpreters retain the idiomatic meaning of the same expressions elsewhere, namely, that of doing any thing whatever, good or bad. (See Jer. 10: 5. Zeph. 1: 12.) Lowth and Henderson understand nsniSJs as denoting terror, and change the pointing so as to derive the following verb from an1; to fear. Gesenius makes the former verb synonymous with nx/in: (2 Kings 14: 8), let us look one another in the face, i. e. con front one another in dispute or battle. It is much more probable, however, that the word has the same sense as in v. 10 above, where it seems to express the act of looking round or about upon those present, in that case with the secondary notion of alarm (as looking round for help), but in this case with that of inspection or consideration (we will look about us). Hitzig refers the word together to the two acts which the verbs express; but it is much more natural to understand it as denoting that the two contending parties unite in the same act.
24. Lo, ye are of nothing (or less than nothing) and your work of nought (or less than nought); an abomination (is he that) chooseth (or will choose) you. This is the conclusion drawn from their failure or refusal to accept the challenge and to furnish the required proof of their deity. For the meaning of •pNia, see above, on ch. 40: 17. The parallel term »BS is regarded by some of the Rabbins as synonymous with n?fis (worse than a viper); but the context requires an expression not of quality but of nonentity. Solomon Ben Melek makes it a synonyme of sex, Vitringa an ortho graphical variation of the same; either of which is better than the supposition now most commonly adopted of an error in the text, the retention of which, even supposing its occurrence, it would not be very easy to account for. Augusti and Hitzig understand the phrase to mean of nothing or belonging to nothing, which Knobel explains as tantamount to saying that they had no work, or in other words, that they could do nothing.—S”C»in is a strong expression often used to describe an object of religious abhorrence. On the choosing of gods, compare Judg. 5: 8.
25. I have raised up (one) from the north, and he has come; from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name; and he shall come upon princes as upon mortar, and as a potter treadeth clay. This is correctly understood by Knobel as a specific application of the general conclusion in v. 24. If the gods of the heathen could do absolutely nothing, it was impossible that they should be the authors of any one remarkable event, and especially of that on which the Prophet has his eye. The expressions are remarkably similar to those in v. 2, so that the Prophet may be here said to resume the train of thought which had been interrupted at the end of v. 4. Having taken occasion to describe the effect of the event foretold upon the worshippers of idols, and from that to show the impotence of the gods themselves, he returns to the event which he had been describing, and continues his description. As before, he takes his stand at an intermediate point between the beginning and the end of the whole process, as appears from the successive introduction of the preterite and future. This peculiar feature of the passage is obscured if not effaced by rendering them all alike, or by arbitrarily distinguishing between the tense of ^niT^n and nx*i. With the single substitution of he has come for he shall come, the common version is entirely correct. The mention of the north and east together has been variously explained. Jerome and Luther understand the clause to mean, that he was called from the north, but came from the east. Eusebius, Cyril, and Jerome refer the first clause to the nations and the last to Christ, which is entirely gratuitous. Calvin refers the first to the Chaldees and the last to Cyrus, which is better but still arbitrary. J. D. Michaelis supposes the two subjects of the clause to be Darius or Cyaxares the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, whose respective countries lay to the north and east of Babylonia. The later writers modify this explanation by referring all to Cyrus, here considered at the same time as a Persian and a Mede. A still more satisfactory hypothesis, perhaps, is that the subject of this passage is not a determinate individual, but the conqueror indefinitely, who is not identified till afterwards. The use of the word c^io, which is the appropriate description of the Babylonian nobles, contains a covert intimation of the particular events in view. Instead of showing that the passage is of later date, as some imagine, it affords a remarkable example of prophetic foresight. The act of calling on the name of Jehovah is commonly regarded as an allusion to the profession of the true religion, or at least the recognition of Jehovah as the true God, on the part of Cyrus (Ezra 1: 2).—Compare the figures of the last clause with ch. 10: 6. 25: 10.
26. Who declared from the beginning? (Say) and we will know; and beforehand, and we will say, Right (or True). Nay, there was, none that told; nay, there was none that uttered; nay, there was none that heard your words. Because the adverbs of time do not necessarily express remote antiquity, Knobel infers that they here mean since the first appearance of Cyrus. But such an appeal to the prediction of what one man could foresee as well as another would be simply ridiculous. The sense of pi’nst is determined by that of HEX in ch. 43: 9. The meaning of the whole verse is that the events in question had been foretold by Jehovah and no other.
27. First to Zion, Behold, behold them! and to Jerusalem a bringer of good news will I give. This very peculiar idiomatic sentence may be paraphrased as follows. I am the first to say to Zion, Behold, behold them! and to give Jerusalem a bringer of good news. The simplest construction is to make the verb at the end govern both clauses; but in English the sense may be expressed more clearly by supplying the verb say. The common version of the last clause is correct, but that of the first appears to have no meaning. The sense is not the first shall say, but I first, I. e. before any other God or prophet.
28. And 1 will look, but there is no man; and of these, but there is no one advising (or informing); and I will ask them, and they will return a word (or answer). He allows them as it were another opportunity of proving their divinity. In the first two clauses, the expectation and the disappointment are described together; in the third, the expectation only is expressed, the result being given in the following verse. First he looks, but finds not what he seeks. Then again, but with the same result. Once more he interrogates them and awaits an answer, but (as the next verse adds) discovers them to be impostors. There is something singularly beautiful in this peculiar structure of the sentence, which is wholly marred by the indirect constructions that are commonly adopted, that when I asked them could answer a word, or, that I should question them and they return an answer. The verse is full of laconic and elliptical expressions, which however may be easily completed, as will appear from the following brief paraphrase. I will look (once more to see whether any of these idols or their prophet can predict the future), but there is no one (who attempts it). From among (all) these (I seek for a response, but there is none). Yet once more I will ask them, and (perhaps) they will return an answer. The same application of the verb Y$* to the prediction of the future occurs below in ch. 44: 26. The form here used is to be strictly construed as a participle.
29. Lo, they (are) all nought, nothing their works, wind and emptiness their molten images. This is, at once, the termination of the sentence.
