THIS chapter opens, like the fortieth and forty-third, with cheering promises to Israel, followed by reasons for confiding in them, drawn from the wisdom, power, and goodness of Jehovah.
The specific promise, which constitutes the theme or basis of the prophecy, is that of abundant spiritual influences and their fruits, not only internal prosperity, but large accessions from without, vs. 1-5.—The pledge for the fulfilment of this promise is afforded by the proofs of God’s omniscience, as contrasted with all other gods. vs. 6-9.—The folly of image-worship is then established by two arguments. The first is that idols are themselves the creatures of mere men, vs. 10-14. The other is that they are not only made, and made by man, but made of the very same materials applied to the most trivial domestic uses, vs. 15-20.— From this demonstration of the power of Jehovah to perform his promise we are now brought back to the promise itself, vs. 21-24. This is again confirmed by an appeal to God’s creative power, and illustrated by the raising up of Cyrus as a deliverer to Israel, vs. 25-28.
Here again it is important to the just interpretation of the passage that we keep in view the true relation which the main theme (the safety and prosperity of Israel) bears to the arguments and illustrations drawn from God’s foreknowledge as established by prediction, from the impotence of idols, and the raising up of Cyrus. Through all these varied forms of promise and of reasoning there runs a thread uniting them, and this thread is the doctrine of the church, its origin, its design, and its relation to its Head and to the world around it.
1. And now hear, Jacob my servant, and Israel I have chosen him (i. e. whom 1 have chosen). The transition here is the same as at the opening of the foregoing chapter, and the now, as there, has rather a logical than a temporal meaning. For reasons which have been already given, there is no need of supposing that a different Israel is here addressed (Cocceius), viz. the penitent believing Jews in exile (Grotius); or a different period referred to, namely, that succeeding the calamities before described; nor even that the and is here equivalent to notwithstanding, as explained by Kimchi. It is simply a resumption and continuation of the Prophet’s argument, intended to exhibit the true relation between God and his people. The election here affirmed, which Calvin understands directly of a personal election from eternity, is better explained by J. H. Michaelis as the choice and separation of the church, or God’s peculiar people, from the rest of men.
2. Thus saith Jehovah, thy maker and thy former from the womb will help thee; fear not, my servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen. It has been a subject of dispute among interpreters, whether “,02^ ought to be connected with s^sp (as it is in the Septuagint and by the rabbins), or with ^pn (as in the Targum and the Vulgate). The masoretic accents are in favour of the first construction; but Gesenius rejects it as not yielding a good sense, and reads, who helped thee from the womb. But this translation of the future as a praeter is entirely gratuitous, and therefore ungrammatical. The simplest construction is to make the words of Jehovah begin with thy maker, the transition from the third to the first person being altogether natural and one of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah. Thy maker will help thee is equivalent to I, who am thy maker, will help thee. But even on the common supposition, that the words of God begin with the second clause, it is better to take he will help thee as a short independent clause, parenthetically thrown in to complete the description or to connect it with what follows. Thus saith thy maker and thy former from the womb— he will help thee—Fear not etc. As to the combination maker from the womb, it can seem incongruous only to a hypercritical grammarian; so that there is no need even of adopting J. H. Michaelis’s suggestion, that “^aa means ex quo in utero esse coepisti. The use of these expressions in address ing Israel only shows that the conception present to the writer’s mind is that of an individual man. Although the specific explanation of the figures here used has been sometimes pushed too far, there can be no doubt that the maturing of Israel as a nation in Egypt is often represented as a period of gestation, and the exodus as a birth; but whether there is any such allusion here, may be considered doubtful.—Jeshurun occurs only here and in Deut. 32: 15. 33:5, 26. Some of the old attempts to ascertain its etymology were ludicrous enough. Thus Vitringa quotes Forster as deriving it from liti an ox, and Cocceius from vm^ they shall see, i. e. the people who should see Christ in the flesh, quod nemo dixerit non esse hyperbolicum et remutum (Vitringa). Grotius’s derivation of the word from ^*w is a philological impossibility; but his explanation of it as a diminutive or term of endear ment is now commonly adopted, but with reference to the root w upright, as an epithet of Israel, not “in consideration of their entire abandonment of idolatry,” as Henderson supposes, but in reference to their normal or ideal character, the end for which they were created, and the aspect which they ought to have exhibited. Hengstenberg gives the same sense to the word as a proper name, but not as a diminutive or term of endearment, which he rejects as unsustained by etymological analogy and wholly inappropriate in the places where it is originally used. (See his History and Prophecies of Balaam, pp. 98-101.) The word is rendered, as a general expression of endearment, by the Septuagint (yyunqpevoii), and with closer adherence to the etymology by the other Greek versions (ev&w, ev&vTfttos). The diminutive form is imitated in Latin by Gesenius (rectulus,justulus),and in German by Hitzig and Ewald (Frommchen). Rosenmuller’s version (fortunate) is supported only by the false analogy of P7.s as denoting good luck or pro sperity.
3. For I will pour waters on the thirsty, and flowing (waters) on the dry (land); I will pour my spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring. This is the grand reason why God’s people should not despair. The two clauses explain each other, the water of the first being clearly identical with the spirit of the second. This is a common figure for influences from above. (See ch. 32: 15. Ez. 34: 26. Mai. 3: 10.) Knobel indeed understands the two clauses strictly and distinctly, taking the first as a promise to the land, and the second as a promise to the people. But xvx most probably refers to persons, as it is not feminine like rr::^. Grotius understands this as a promise to send prophets to the Jews in exile, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi! Gesenius also seems to think the promise here made strictly coincident with that in Joel 3:1,2. But it is more extensive, and includes all the influences of the Holy Spirit. —The offspring of the people, as distinguished from itself, is supposed by Knobel to denote the individuals of whom the aggregate body was composed. Jarchi and Vitringa apply it to the strangers or proselytes who were to be added by conversion to the natural Israel. The simplest and most obvious interpretation is, that the ideal object of address is Jacob as the national progenitor, and that the Jews themselves are here described as his descend ants. Even this, however, does not necessarily exclude the spiritual offspring of the patriarch, who are explicitly referred to in the context.
4. And they shall spring up in the midst of the grass, like willows on (or by) the water-courses. This verse describes the effect of the irrigation and effusion promised in the one before it. There is no need, however, of making the construction a subjunctive one (so that they shall spring up), as Luther and some later writers do.—The subject of the verb is not the spirit and bles?ing of Jehovah, as Aben Ezra strangely imagines, but the offspring or descendants of Israel, by whom the blessing was to be experienced.—Lowth and Ewald read -nstn c^ -pris, like grass amidst the water, on the authority of the Septuagint version (coy avupwov vdarog ypQtog), which seems, however, to be simply a paraphrase or free translation. Gesenius retains the comparative form of expression (as among), but without a change of text, by making the panicle itself comparative, an idiom of which there is no clear example elsewhere. All these expedients are intended to remove the imaginary solecism in between. But the true explanation has been long since given by Vitringa, namely, that “pa has here its primitive and proper use, as a noun corresponding to the English midst. So far is the common text from being incorrect or irregular, that it is really the only form in which the idea could have been expressed, since “pa as a preposition always means between or among, and is followed by a plural noun. When, on the contrary, a singular noun is to be used, as here, the Hebrew idiom prefixes not the preposition but a noun meaning midst (‘ps or “in) with a particle before it.—The grass and the willows are separated only by the rhythmical arrangement of the sentence. The simple meaning of the whole verse is, that they shall grow as willows grow among the grass, i. e. in a moist or marshy spot. The question who are meant by the grass as distinguished from the willows, is absurd. It might as well be asked, when an object is compared to the rose of Sharon, what is meant by Sharon as distinguished from the rose. Lowth seems to look upon aqueducts as more poetical and better English than the common version, water-courses.
5. This shall say, To Jehovah I (belong); and this shall call on (or by) the name of Jacob; and this shall inscribe his hand (or with his hand), To Jehovah, and with the name of Israel shall entitle. The repetition of the pronoun this implies, according to Kimchi’s explanation, persons of various classes or from different quarters. It is commonly agreed that this verse predicts the accession of the gentiles, whom it represents as publicly pro fessing their allegiance to Jehovah and attachment to his people. The act of calling one by name, and that of calling on his name (invoking him), are intimately blended in the Hebrew usage. Most interpreters understand it here as meaning to praise or celebrate. Some of the older writers follow Symmachus in giving it a passive sense (this shall be called), either reading ^1^ for s^FT. 5 or supplying the reflexive pronoun after it. The same diversity exists in reference to the last verb in the sentence, nsa^i, which some understand to mean he shall surname himself (or be surnamed), others he shall name the name of Jacob in a flattering or respectful manner.—Of the intermediate clause there are two ancient explanations, one of which makes it mean he shall write (with) his hand, in allusion to the signing of contracts (Jer. 32: 10. Neh. 9:38); the other, he shall write upon (inscribe) his hand, in allusion to the ancient custom, mentioned by Procopius, of marking soldiers, slaves, and other dependents, with the name of their superior, to which there seems to be a reference in Ex. 13: 9 and Rev. 13: 16. This last sense is supposed to be expressed in the Septuagint version
6. Thus saith Jehovah, king of Israel, and his redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: I (am) first, and I (am) last, and without me there is no God. This is a description of the God whom the nations, in the preceding verse, are represented as acknowledging. The attributes ascribed to him afford, at the same time, a sufficient reason for confiding in his promises. In like manner Zeus, the supreme god of the Greeks, is described by Orpheus as being dr>%r] ndvTKiv narrow 18 rtletrj, and in another place, Zei>£ TZ^WTOC; tytv&to Zsvs vGrarog. Henderson points out the appropriation of the terms here used to the Lord Jesus Christ in Rev. 1: 18. 2: 8, 22: 13.— There is no need of giving to hbu’b:ro, in this and the parallel places, the restricted sense besides, which is really included in the usual and. strict sense of without, i. e. without my knowledge and permission, or without subjection to my sovereign authority. The meaning is not simply, that there is no other true God in existence, but that even the fayopevoi &eol (I Cor. 8:5) exist only by his sufferance, and cannot therefore be his equals or competitors.
7. And who, like me, will call, and tell it, and state it to me, since I placed the ancient people; and coming things and things which are to come will tell to them (or for themselves) 1 There is no reason why the interrogation should not be considered as extending through the verse, the rather as a different construction splits the sentence into several, and arbitrarily explains some of the futures as imperatives. Still more objectionable is the construction of N^p>*; as a preterite, which is given by all the later writers except Ewald. The question who has called like me is in no respect more pertinent than the question, who will (or caii) call as I have done, which leaves the reference to past time equally explicit, without doing any grammatical violence to the form of expression. The usual construction of the next words is, let him tell it etc.; but this imperative meaning is sufficiently implied in the strict translation of the words as interrogative futures, who will tell it etc. N”nj3 is to call aloud or publicly announce. It differs from the next verb, if at all, by denoting an authoritative call, and suggesting the idea not only of prediction but of creation. — 7p^ is correctly explained by Gesenius as a forensic term meaning to state a case. The sense of comparing, preferred by Ewald, is less frequent elsewhere and less appropriate here. The words since I placed etc. are to be connected with “?iB3, who can call, as I have done, ever since I placed etc. To place is here to constitute, create, or give existence. Of the phrase Dbte-DS there are three interpretations. The first is that of the rabbins, who explain it to mean ancient people; this is retained in the English and some other versions. The second makes it mean eternal people, but refers it simply to the divine purpose or decree of election. The third gives it the sense of everlasting people, i. e. a people who shall last for ever. In all these senses the description is appropriate to Israel, not simply as a nation but a church, the existence and prerogatives of which are still continued in the body of Christ. Ecclesia corpus Christi est, quo nihil antiquiiis aut majus esse potest (Calvin). It may be doubted, however, whether any thing more was here intended than a reference to the origin of the human race. (See above, on ch. 42:5,6.)—According to Kimchi, Grotius, and Vitringa, the last clause contains a distinct reference both to a proximate and remote futurity. This distinction is rejected by Gesenius, without any other reason than the groundless one that synonymes are characteristic of this writer, i. e. the writer of these later prophecies, as distinguished from the genuine Isaiah. But this is, to some extent, characteristic not of one but of all the Hebrew writers, and abundant illustration might be drawn from the earlier and even from the undisputed passages. The truth, however, is that the distinction made by Kimchi is so natural and simple, and agrees so well with the con text and analogy, that it would be entitled to consideration, even if the two forms of expression in themselves appeared to be entirely synonymous. Much more, when such a difference is indicated by the very form. Not only are two different verbs used,—which might be otherwise explained, and by itself can have no weight,—but one is in the participial form, the clearest mode in Hebrew of expressing present action or a proximate futurity, the other in the future proper. Wherever there is a difference of form, there is presumptively a difference of meaning; and if any such difference is here intended, it can only be the difference between things actually coming to pass now, and those which are to come to pass hereafter.
8. Quake not and fear not; have 1 not since then let thee hear and told (thee), and are ye not my witnesses? Is there a God without me 1 And there is no rock, I know not (any). The alternation of the singular and plural form in reference to Israel, is peculiarly appropriate to an ideal or collective person, and in strict agreement with the usage of the Pentateuch, especially with that of Deuteronomy, in which the same apparent confusion of numbers is not a mere occasional phenomenon, but one of perpetual occurrence.—The verb Witt, which occurs only here, is derived by Hitzig from riri-j, by Gesenius from T\^, and explained by Ewald as an error of the text for wvn. It is more probably to be derived from the synonymous and cognate pn1;.—^ is usually taken in the vague sense of long ago; but it may here be strictly understood as meaning since that time, which Jarch refers to the giving of the law on Sinai, Knobel to the first appearance of Cyrus, and Maurer, with more probability than either, to the event mentioned in the preceding verse, viz. the constitution of the dMsre?.—And ye are my witnesses is usually construed as an independent clause; but a possible construction is to include it in the question as above.—Vitringa’s explanation of “px as an interrogative particle is any thing but justified by the analogy of J Sam. 5^2: 8, to which he appeals.—Here, as in many other cases, God is called a Rock, as being the refuge of his people, and the firm foundation of their hopes.
9. The image-carvers all of them are vanity, and their desired (or beloved) ones are worthless; and their witnesses themselves will not see and will not know, that they may be ashamed. Having fortified his promise by a solemn affirmation of his own supremacy, in contrast with the ignorance and impotence of idols, he now carries out this contrast in detail.—The literal meaning of the first phrase is the formers of a graven image, here put for idols in general.— Vanity is here to be taken as a negative expression of the strongest kind, denoting the absence of all life, intelligence, and power, and corresponding to the parallel expression they cannot profit, i. e. they are worthless. The desired or favourite things of the idolaters are the idols themselves, upon which they lavished time, expense, and misplaced confidence.—The next phrase is commonly explained to mean their witnesses are themselves, . e. they are their own witnesses, which may either represent the idols as witnessing against their worshippers, or the worshippers against the idols, or either of these classes against themselves. Cocceius connects these words with the following verbs (testes illorum ipsi non vident), which construction is substantially renewed by Ewald and approved by Umbreit. The meaning then is, that the idolaters who bear witness to the divinity of their idols are themselves blind and ignorant.—The puncta extraordinaria over ri52h were designed, says Henderson, to fix the attention of the reader on the dumb idols being constituted witnesses against the stupidity of their worshippers. But why in this particular case? A much more probable explanation is that the masoretic critics considered the word doubtful, per haps because it appeared pleonastic, whereas it is in fact emphatic.—There is no need of giving know the vague and doubtful sense of having know ledge; the meaning rather is, they will not see or know it, i. e. what has just been said, as to the impotence of idols.—The last clause is explained by Gesenius as meaning that they are given up to blindness, that they may be ashamed or confounded. Umbreit, on the other hand, supposes it to mean that they have not knowledge or sense enough to be ashamed,—an aggravation of the previous description.
10. Who formed the god and cast the image to no use (or profit)’? Most interpreters regard this as an exclamation of contemptuous surprise, implying that no one in his senses would do so. (Grotius: quis nisi demens?) But the true sense is the one proposed by Gesenius, who explains what follows as the answer to this question. Having affirmed the worthlessness of idols in general, he now proceeds to prove it from their origin.—So far from being makers they are made themselves, and who made them This is the precise force of the verse before us.—Here as elsewhere there is pungent sarcasm in the application of the name ^ (mighty God) to idols.
11. Lo all his fellows shall be ashamed., and the workmen themselves are of men; they shall assemble all of them, they shall stand, they shall tremble, they shall be ashamed together. Jarchi, followed by Lowth, Eichhorn, Gesenius, Maurer, and Ewald, refers the suffix in ^^^ to the maker of the image, and understands by his fellows his fellow-workmen or fellowworshippers. But why should the workman’s fellows be ashamed and not himself? A much more natural construction is the one given in the Targum, and approved by Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Knobel, who refer the suffix to the idol itself, and by his fellows understand all who have any thing to do with it, either as manufacturers or worshippers. (Compare Num. 25:3. Deut. 11:22. 30:20. Is. 56:3, 6. Hos. 4:17. 1 Cor. 10: 20.)—Lowth affirms that the common text of the next clause yields no tolerable sense, and is unworthy of the Prophet; for which reason he proposes to read taixa as a passive participle meaning reddened, and translates accord ingly, even the workmen themselves shall blush, adding that if any one should think the singular irregular, he may read o-‘aixa,—and the one assumption is undoubtedly as reasonable as the other. It is worthy of remark not only that this emendation has commended itself to no later.writer, but also that the common text is universally regarded as affording a perfectly appropriate sense, and one essential to the Prophet’s argument, viz. that the makers of the idol are themselves mere men, and cannot therefore produce any thing divine. Vitringa’s explanation of ETX as meaning ‘ common people ‘ (plebs) is destructive of the argument, as well as contrary to usage. The comparative sense put by some upon the phrase, as meaning that they are less than men (Cocceius), or that they shall be ashamed more than other men (Junius), is too unnatural to need refutation. The meaning of the verse is that the senseless idol and its human makers shall be witnesses against each other, and shall all be involved in the same condemnation and confusion.
12. He has carved iron (with) a graver, and has wrought (it) in the coals, and with the hammers he will shape it, and then work it with his arm of strength. Besides (or moreover), he is hungry and has no strength, he has not drunk water and is faint. The construction of ui’in as a verb, which is given in the Targum, is much the simplest and most obvious; though most interpreters regard it as the construct form of the derivative noun snn a workman (as in Exodus 28: 11), with it-ia added to restrict its application to a worker in iron, i. e. a smith; as B^sss d’nn in the next verse is supposed to signify a worker in wood, i. e. a carpenter. (Compare the plural Q”1^? h^n 2 Sam. 5: 11.) Those who agree in this explanation of the first two words differ as to their construction with what follows. Apart from Lowth’s gratuitous emendation of the masoretic pointing by proposing to read ^ssa as a participle of ^23 to cut, and the suggestion of Cappellus that it is synonymous with sint,—the English and some other versions take it in the sense of tongs, a mere conjecture from the context; but most of the modern writers make it mean an axe, as in Jer. 10: 3, or more generically any sharp or pointed instrument. The noun thus explained is construed with what goes before in three different ways. The older writers generally understand it as a noun of instrument. Thus the English Version has the smith with the tongs etc. Vitringa, Gesenius, and others make the noun the object of a verb to be supplied (the smith makes an axe), and understand the verse as describing the formation, not of the idol itself, but of the tools to be employed in making it. Ewald and Knobel explain ^issa as a second term used to qualify ti’nn, or in other words as qualifying the complex phrase before it. To the whole expression Ewald gives the sense of an iron and file worker, i. e. one who works with iron and the file; Knobel that of a tool-smith or a maker of edged tools. Both make this complex name the subject of the verb bra, and the i before it an idiomatic pleonasm. But as both these grammatical assumptions are without satisfactory authority from usage, they are only admissible in case of exegetical necessity. Hitzig like wise makes the first two words the subject of the verb, but takes the third as its object, and understands the clause to mean that the smith converts an axe into an idol, as in ch. 2: 4 the sword becomes a ploughshare and the spear a pruning-hook. Knobel’s objection that the idol would be too small is of no great moment, if it can be assumed that images were ever made of iron; but in that case the most satisfactory construction is the one first given, which makes the verse describe the proceedings not of the professional smith, but of the laborious worshipper himself. The common version, strength of his arms, is a needless and enfeebling transposition. The true sense of the words is his arm of strength. Vitringa directs attention to the beautiful parallel in Virgil (Georg. IV. 170-175), and especially to this line: itti inter sese magna vi brachia tollunt. The description in the last clause seems intended to convey these several ideas: that the man who undertakes to make a god is himself a mortal, subject to ordinary human infirmities; that his god is utterly unable to relieve him or supply his wants; and that neither these considerations nor the toil which he must undergo in order to attain his end are sufficient to deter him from his self-tormenting efforts.
13. He has carved wood, he has stretched a line, he will mark it with the awl (or graver), he will form it with the chisels, and with the compass (or circle) he will mark it, and then make, it (or now he has made it) like the structure (i. e. after the model) of a man, like the beauty of man kind, to dwell in a house. In this translation ttnn is taken as a verb and referred to the same subject as in v. 12, i. e. the idol-manufacturer, who goes through all these laborious processes himself, in order to produce a god. But the great majority of writers here assume a transition from the maker of metallic idols to the maker of wooden ones, or from the smith who makes the carpenter’s tools to the carpenter himself, a^ss £nn, the worker in wood.—In this verse, as in that before it, the alternation of the preterite and future introduces us into the very midst of the process, and describes it as already begun but not yet finished. This distinctive feature of the passage is destroyed by making all the verbs indiscriminately present. The conversive future at the opening of the second clause may either denote simply that the act described is subsequent to that just mentioned, or it may represent what was just now future as already done, thereby rendering the view of a progressive operation still more vivid. The two mark ings or delineations mentioned are commonly supposed to have respect to the general dimensions of the figure and then to its precise form and pro portions. Henderson arbitrarily translates the same verb first he sketcheth its figure, and then he marketh it off; which, even if it gave the sense, would not convey the form of the original.—According to the rabbins, ^into means a ‘ red or other coloured string’ used by workmen in their measurements (Montanus: filo tincto). It is applied to the colouring substance by Luther (Rothtlstein) and Lowth (red ochre I). Gesenius and the other modern writers draw from the Talmudical and Arabic analogy the sense of a sharp tool or graving instrument.—anx and ir^x seem to have their strict sense here, as a generic and specific term, the beauty of man, the structure of a man. The Targum seems to find a reference to both sexes; in support of which some of the old Jewish writers refer to Num. 31: 35, where D-IN is applied to women alone. Jarchi gains the same end in a different way, by saying that the woman is the glory of her husband (r>ia?3 P^Sp f”Dt t>ltft> f»C>). —Jerome and Rosenmiiller seem to understand the last words of the verse as meaning that the idol has to stay at home because it cannot move. Gesenius gives n^a the specific sense of temple. Gill supposes a particular reference to household gods. But the meaning seems to be that the idol, being like a man in form, is, like a man, to dwell in a house.
14. To hew him down cedars; and (now) he has taken a cypress and an oak—and has strengthened (i. e. raised it) for himself among the trees of the forest—he has planted a pine, and the rain shall increase (it, i. e. make it grow). To show more clearly the absurdity of ascribing deity to material images, he here goes back, not only to their human origin and their base material, but to the very generation of the trees by which the wood is furnished. The particulars are stated in an inverse order. He begins with the felling of the trees, but interrupts himself in order to go still further back to their very cultivation. The essential idea is that man, instead of being the creature, is in some sort the creator of the wood he worships, since it does or may owe its existence to his agency. The supposition just suggested of an interruption in the syntax seems more natural than that of a grammatical ellipsis. Few interpreters, indeed, would go so far as Clericus, who introduces at the beginning of the sentence these words, mittit ad Libanum homines, and adds, with characteristic cool ness, haec fuerunt necessario supplenda; although in the very next sentence he observes of the Septuagint and Vulgate versions, constructioncs quam non inveniebant de suo concinnarunt. Ewald, in his larger Grammar (p. 622) enumerates this among the examples of an infinitive denoting necessity or obligation, just as we might say familiarly in English, he has to cut etc. But in his exposition of the passage, he agrees with Gesenius and others in making it equivalent to a finite verb, with the additional suggestion that it may be an orthographical mistake for rnsv—The modern writers seem to be agreed that the fit “in is a sj.ecies of oak, so called from its hardness, like the Latin robur. To avoid tautology and pedantry, however, the common version cypress may be retained, as it yields an appropriate sense, and as botanical precision is in this case of no exegetical importance, since the meaning of the verse would be the same whatever species had been mentioned.—Most writers give y^s the sense of choosing, designating, here and in Ps. 80: 16, which they suppose to be easily deducible from that of strengthening, confining, fixing. Ewald even goes so far as to take rn3 in the sense of choosing, on the alleged authority of Jer. 10: 3. This is purely arbitrary; and as -pax, in every other case where it occurs, admits of the translation strengthened, it cannot be consistently abandoned here without necessity; and this necessity cannot exist, because the strict sense of making strong is not only relevant in this connexion, but corresponds exactly to that of making great expressed by b^, both meaning here to cause to grow. Thus understood, the word helps to bring out with more strength and clear ness the main idea of the verse, viz. that the idolater not only chooses suitable trees, but plants and raises them for the purpose. It is not necessary to suppose that this is a description of a usual or frequent custom. It is rather an ideal exhibition of the idol-manufacture carried out to its extreme 7 If so, the active subject of the whole description is the self-deluded devotee; which furnishes another reason for believing that the smith and the carpenter are not distinctly mentioned in the two preceding verses. It also removes the seeming incongruity of making the carpenter raise his own timber, whereas the same thing, when alleged of the idolater, is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the description.—The object of the verb -psx-i may be either the trees previously mentioned, or more indefinitely trees in general. Lowth arbitrarily translates this clause, and layeth in good store of the trees of the forest. Clericus, still more boldly and extravagantly, makes it mean that he furnishes his workshop with the trees of the forest. Less absurd, and yet untenable, because not justified by usage, is Henderson’s translation, and what lie deemeth firm among the trees of the forest. Umbreit’s sugo-estion, that the last clause was designed to intimate the man’s dependence after all upon the rain of heaven for the very material of which he makes his god, is not entirely natural. The clause is rather added to complete the picture of the natural origin and growth of that which the idolater adores as superhuman and divine. In this as well as the foregoing verses the confusion of the tenses in most versions greatly mars the force and beauty of the Prophet’s language.—What is gained by the violent and ungrammatical construction, he has planted and the rain has nourished, or the vague and evasive one, he plants and the rain nourishes; when the exact translation, he has planted and the rain will nourish, is not only just as clear, coherent, and appropriate, but far more graphic and expressive, as it hurries us at once in medias res, and exhibits the work described as partly past and partly future? At the same time it implies the patient perseverance of the devotee, who first does his part and then waits for natural causes to do theirs, and all for the production of an idol!
15. And it shall be to men for burning (i. e. for fuel), and he has taken of them and warmed himself; yes, he will kindle and bake bread; yes, he will form a god and fall prostrate; he has made it a graven image and bowed down to them. The future meaning of the first verb is deter mined by its intimate connexion with the last word of the foregoing verse. (See Nordheimer $ 219.) c^ very seldom means an individual man, and seems here to be used indefinitely for man or men in general. The singular verb ni?1? does not refer to this noun, but to the worshipper or devotee who is still the subject of description. The plural form tohn is referred by Hitzig to the trees of the forest mentioned in v. 14, by Knobel to the cn£3> or sticks of wood into which the tree must be divided. The same explanation may be given of tab, although Ewald and Hitzig maintain that this suffix is employed as a singular by later writers (e. g. ch. 53: 8. Ps. 11: 7). But even admitting the existence of this usage, which Gesenius utterly denies, the strict and usual meaning is to be retained where possible, and therefore here, where the Prophet seems designedly to interchange the singular and plural forms, in order to identify with more effect the idol worshipped and the sticks consumed. He takes of them (the sticks), kindles a fire, warms himself, bakes bread, then makes a god, and worships, yes, bows down before them (the sticks of wood). The argument of this and the succeeding verses is intended to exhibit the absurdity of worshipping the same material that is constantly applied to the most trivial domestic uses. All the interpreters since Calvin quote the striking parallel from Horace (Sat. I. 8). Olim tmncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum; Quum faber, incortus scamnum faceretne Priapum, Maluit esse Deum.
16. Half of it he hath burned in the fire, on half of it he will eat flesh, he will roast roast and be filled; yea, he will warm himself and say, Aha, lam warm, I have seen fire. Both etymology and usage give ^n the sense of half, i. e. one of two parts into which a given whole may be divided, whether equal or unequal. The indefinite translation part, given in all the English versions, except that of Noyes, is intended to avoid the incongruity of making two halves and a remainder. But this incongruity, although justly chargeable on Umbreit’s version, which distinctly mentions the one half, the other half, and the remainder, has no existence in the original; because, as all the other modern writers are agreed, the first and second •psnofv. 16 are one and the same half, and the other is not introduced until the next verse. Henderson indeed refers the second to the wooden dish or platter upon which the meat was literally eaten. But this disturbs the parallel between the two main uses of the wood, as fuel and a god, which is so distinctly carried out in the preceding and the following context. It is better, therefore, to explain the phrase, on half of it he eats flesh, as a pregnant or concise expression of the idea, that over or by means of the fire made with half of it he cooks flesh for his eating. The obscurity of this clause is immediately removed by the addition of the unambiguous words, he roasts a roast and satisfies himself. The force ofC]K. both here and in the foregoing verse, appears to be equivalent to that of our expression nay more, not only this but also, or moreover.—Gesenius and others give Wjp in the last clause the generic sense of perceiving by the senses; Hitzig the more specific one of feeling, in support of which he quotes the observation of Schilling, that the skin is the eye for warmth, whereupon Hendewerk no less characteristically says, that the Prophet may with more probability be supposed to have ascribed these words to the idolater in the sense of an ancient fire-worshipper than in that of a modern pantheist. The truth is, that the Hebrew verb not only may but must have here its proper meaning I have seen; because the noun which follows does not denote the heat of fire but its light, and there could not be a more natural expression of the feeling meant to be conveyed than by referring to the cheerful blaze of a large wood fire. To the indiscriminate translation of the verbs, both in this verse and the next, as descriptive presents, the same objections may be made as in the foregoing context.
17. And the rest of it (i. e. the other half) he has made into a god, into his graven image; he will bow down to it, and will worship, and will pray to it, and say, Deliver me, for thou (art) my god. The consecution of the tenses is the same as in the preceding verse, and has the same effect of fixing the point of observation in the midst of the process. He has kindled his fire, and will use it to prepare his food. He has made his idol, and will fall down and pray to it. The pronoun at the end may be regarded as emphatic and as meaning thou and thou alone.
18. They have not known, and they will not under stand, for he hath smeared their eyes from seeing, their hearts from doing wisely. The combination of the preterite and future makes the description more complete and comprehensive. Some give “3 the sense of that, and make it indicate the object of their ignorance and inconsideration. Junius and Tremellius, who adopt this construction, refer HE to the idol; they do not know that it has blinded them. The Septuagint explains the verb as a passive plural, and Gesenius has the same form in his version (their eyes are smeared), which he resolves however into an indefinite construction (one has smeared their eyes). But the analogy of ch. 6: 10. 29: 10. Job 17: 4, confirms Aben Ezra’s statement, that Jehovah is the agent or subject (ots frr> h?irt>)- As the smearing of the eyes is merely a figure for spiritual blindness, it is here extended to the heart, of which it is not literally predicable.—On the negative or privative force of “ja, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 68.—As the use of the Hiphil form in any but an active sense is called in question by some eminent grammarians, ^sbn may here, as in some other cases, have the sense of acting wisely.
19. And he will not bring it home to himself (or to his heart), and (there is) not knowledge, and (there is) not understanding to say, Half of it I have burned in the fire, and have also baked bread on its coals, I will roast flesh and eat, and the rest of it I will make to (be) an abomination, to a log of wood (or the trunk of a tree) I will cast myself down. The essential meaning is, that they have not sense enough to describe their conduct to themselves in its true colours; if they did, they would stand amazed at its impiety and folly. In the form of expression the writer passes from the plural to the singular, i. e. from idolaters in general to the individual idolater.—The first phrase does not correspond exactly to the English lay to heart, but comprehends reflection and emotion. The construction of the last clause as an explanation or an interrogation has arisen from a wish to avoid the incongruity of making the man call himself a fool, or express his resolution to perform a foolish act. But this very incongruity is absolutely necessary to the writer’s purpose, which is simply to tell what the infatuated devotee would say of his own conduct if he saw it in its true light. Instead of saying, I will worship my god, he would then say, I will worship a stick of wood, a part of the very log which I have just burned, upon which I have just baked my bread, and on which I am just about to cook my dinner. The more revolting and absurd this language, the more completely does it suit and carry out the writers purpose. Hence too the use of the term abomination, i. e. object of abhorrence, not in the worshipper’s actual belief, but as it would be if his eyes were opened.
20. Feeding on ashes, (his) heart is deceived, it has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself (or his soul), and he will not say, Is there not a lie in my right hand 1 Another statement of the reason why he cannot see his conduct in its just light or describe it in correct terms, viz. because his very mind or heart is deceived, and this because it feeds on ashes. This last expression is strangely understood by some interpreters, following the Targum, to describe the idol as a piece of half-burnt wood; and even Umbreit seems to recognise such an allusion in the sentence. But the great majority of writers, far more naturally, make it a figure for the love and prosecution of unsatisfying objects, analogous to feeding on wind, Hos. 12:2. Gesenius, in his Commentary, says that the translation feedeth on ashes is in no case appropriate (in keinem Falle passend). He accordingly trans lates it there sectatur cinerem; but in his Thesaurus he abandons this gratuitous multiplication of senses, and explains it as a figurative application of the common meaning, “ pasci aliqua re, metaph. i. q. delectari re.” The word, however, denotes something more than simply to take pleasure in an object, and suggests the idea of choosing it and resting in it as a portion.— The usual construction of the next words, a deceived heart has seduced him, is commonly explained by assuming an ellipsis of the relative, (his) heart (which) is deceived has seduced him. But the simplest and most natural construction is the one proposed by Knobel, who makes two short independent clauses, the heart is deceived, it leads him astray. The futures of the last clause have, in part if not exclusively, a potential meaning. It is best perhaps to combine the ideas of unwillingness and inability.—The concluding question is equivalent in import to the long speech put into the mouth of the idolater in v. 19. By a lie we are to understand that which professes to be what it is not, and thereby deceives the hopes of those who trust in it. (See Jer. 10:14. Ps. 33: 17.) This description some apply to the idol itself, as if he had said, Is not this, which I carry in my right hand, a deception? But as this makes a part of the interrogation literal and a part metaphorical, most writers give it uniformity by understanding all the terms as fio-urative: Is not this, about which I am busied, and upon which I am spending strength and labour, a deception? To any one rational enough to ask the question, the reply would be affirmative of course.
21. Remember these (things), Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant; I have formed thee, a servant unto me art thou; Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten by me. Having completed his detailed exposure of the folly of idolatry, or rather of the impotence of idols, as contrasted with the power of God, he now resumes the tone of promise and encouragement with which the chapter opens, and assures the chosen people, here personified as Israel or Jacob, that having been constituted such by Jehovah for a special purpose, they could not cease to be the objects of his watchful care. —These things may possibly refer to the immediately succeeding state ments, which may then be rendered that thou art my servant etc. To most interpreters, however, it has seemed more natural to understand by these things the whole foregoing series of arguments against the divinity of idols and in favour of Jehovah’s sole supremacy.—Ewald connects *b~*i~$ with the preceding verb, so as to mean, I have formed thee as a servant for myself. The only difficulty in the way of this construction is the fins, which cannot be the object of the verb, but must agree with one expressed or understood. This objection might be done away by disregarding the masoretic interpunction, and transferring the disjunctive accent to the preceding word; in which case the latter member of the clause would read, thou Israel etc., with an emphasis upon the pronoun. This construction has the advantage of removing the apparent tautology arising from the repetition of thou art my servant, which is more observable in most translations than in the original, where two different forms of expression are employed.—The last word in the verse is explained in the ancient versions, arid by some modern writers, as a deponent verb, thou shalt not forget me. But Gesenius and Ewald, with greater probability, make it a proper passive, and explain the suffix as equivalent to a dative or an ablative in Latin, thou shalt not be forgotten (by) me; which is much more appropriate, in this connexion, than an exhortation not to forget God. This construction is as old as Aben Ezra, who paraphrases the expression thus: -p:>ff> >:fr ^j »:T>p t>t:p f>i.
22. I have blotted out, like a cloud, thy transgressions, and, like a vapour, thy sins; return to me, for I have redeemed thee. As the previous assurances were suited to dispel any doubt or hesitation as to the power of Jehovah, so the one in this verse meets another difficulty, namely, that arising from a sense of guilt. The assurance given is that of entire and gratuitous forgiveness. The analogy of Exodus 32: 32, 33, would seem to favour an allusion to the blotting out of an inscription or an entry in a book of accounts. The cloud may then be a distinct figure to denote what is transient or evanescent. (See Hos. 6: 4. 13: 3. Job 7: 9. 30: 15.) This is Hitzig’s explanation of the verse; but most interpreters suppose the blot ting and the cloud to be parts of one and the same metaphor, although they differ in their method of connecting them. Junius strangely understands the clause to mean, as a cloud (when condensed into rain) purges away filth. The great majority of writers are agreed, however, that the cloud itself is here described as being blotted out. Gill supposes an allusion to the height and distance of the clouds as being far beyond man’s reach, implying that forgiveness is a divine prerogative. Hendewerk sees a forced allusion to the cloud which went before the people in the wilderness. A more usual and natural interpretation is that the clouds in general are here considered as intervening between heaven and earth, as sin is expressly said, in ch. 59:2, to separate between God and his people. This explanation of the metaphor, however, does not exclude the supposition of a reference to the fleeting nature of the cloudy vapour, and the ease and suddenness with which it is dispelled by sun or wind.—29 and ‘j-S are poetical equivalents. So far as they can be distinguished, either in etymology or usage, the correct distinction is the one expressed in the English Version (thick cloud and cloud), which Henderson reverses.—Return unto me is a phrase descriptive of all the restorations of God’s people from their spiritual wanderings and estrange ments. The restriction of this phrase and the one which follows it to the restoration of the Jews from exile, is as forced and arbitrary as the future form given to the verb in many versions.
23. Sing, oh heavens, fur Jehovah hath done (it); shout, ye lower parts of the earth; break forth, ye mountains, into song, the forest and every/ tree in it: for Jehovah hath redeemed Jacob, and in Israel he will glorify himself. The prediction of glorious and joyful changes, as in many other cases, is clothed in the form of an exhortation to all nature to rejoice. It is essential to the writer’s purpose that the universe itself should be addressed, which precludes the explanation of the verse by Grotius, as addressed to angels, kings, and common men; or by Vitringa, as addressed to the apostles and prophets (from a misplaced comparison of Rev. 18: 20). Equally inconsistent with his purpose and at variance with good taste is the explanation of mountains as meaning kingdoms, forests, cities, etc.— The thing done is what is mentioned in the last clause, i. e. the redemption of Israel, including the deliverance from exile in Babylon, but not confined to it.—The arbitrary version of the two verbs in the last clause as a preterite and present or a present and a future is in no respect to be preferred to the exact translation as a preterite and a future, expressive of what God had done and would yet do for the chosen people.
24. Thus saith Jehovah thy redeemer, and thy former from the womb, I Jehovah, making all. stretching the heavens alone, spreading the earth by myself (or, who was with mel* Some refer *thus saith to the preceding promises, and take all that follows till the end of the chapter as a description of the being who uttered them. Others refer thus saith to what follows, supply the verb am before Jehovah, and regard the last clause of the verse as the divine declaration. A third conceivable construction would restrict it to the closing question, v:ho (is) with me? i. e. who can claim equality or likeness with me?—There is no need of giving to the phrase thy former a moral sense as signifying the formation of character or manners, as the words from the womb are not necessarily exclusive of the period before birth. For the meaning of the figure itself, see above, on v. 2; for that of ^’hP, on ch. 42: 5.—The textual reading of the last word makes it an interrogation, Tiara, who (is or was) with mel implying strong negation and equivalent in meaning to the affirmation, there was no one with me. The marginal reading yields the same sense in another way, httx^, from, by, or of myself. (Compare •’SEE Hos. 8: 4 and an f^avrov John 5: 30.) The objection that the textual reading interrupts the construction is valid only on the supposition that the sentence is continued through the following verses. If, as most interpreters assume, the last clause of this verse contains a proposition, interrogative or affirmative, this reading affords an appropriate conclusion to the sentence, and a striking parallel to the phrase ^^ in the other clause.
25. Breaking the signs of babblers, and diviners he will madden; turning sages back, and their knowledge he will stultify. The whole verse is descriptive of Jehovah as convicting all prophets, except his own, of folly and imposture, by falsifying their prognostications. trtis is commonly translated either lies or liars; but it is rather an expression of contempt, denoting praters, vain or idle talkers, and by implication utterers of false hood. Signs are properly the pledges and accompaniments of predictions, but may here be regarded as equivalent to prophecy itself. These are said to be broken in the same sense that breaking may be predicated of a promise or a covenant. The effect of course would be to make such prophets seem like fools or madmen. (See 2 Sam. 15:31. Hos. 9:7.) The restriction of these terms to the false prophets of the Babylonish exile is not only arbitrary, but at variance with the context, which repeatedly contrasts the omnipotence and omniscience of Jehovah with the impotence of idols and the ignorance of heathen prophets.—Because turning back and being put to shame are often joined together elsewhere, Gesenius, according to his favourite method, makes them simply synonymous; whereas the first expression strictly signifies defeat, disappointment, failure, with which shame is naturally connected but surely not identical.—The alternation of the future and participle seems to have a rhythmical design. The distinction may however be, that while the latter signifies habitual or customary action, the former expresses certain futurity and fixed determination.
26. Confirming the word of his servant, and the counsel of his messengers he will fulfil; the (one) saying to (or as to) Jerusalem, She shall be inhabited, and to (or as.to) the cities of Mah, They shall be built, and her ruins 1 will raise. With the frustration of the heathen prophecies is here contrasted the fulfilment of Jehovah’s, who is himself represented as securing their accomplishment, t^n has here the same sense as in Jer. 29: 10. 33: 14, viz. that of bringing a promise or prophecy to pass.—By his servant Jarchi understands Moses, Hitzig Jeremiah, Gesenius the prophets as a class, Knobel the genuine believing Israel, whose hopes were embodied in these prophecies. Simpler and more satisfactory than either of these explanations is that which supposes his servant to be primarily and directly the writer himself, but considered as one of a class who are then distinctly mentioned in the other member as his messengers. The specific application of the title of God’s servant to the prophets is apparent from 2 Kings 24: 2. Jer. 29: 19. 35: 15. 44: 4.—Gill’s question, why his servant may not denote Paul as Cocceius supposes, is unanswerable.— Counsel, according to Henderson, here means the counsel or purpose of God, as declared by his servants. Gesenius and most other writers make it a description of prophecy, considered as involving or suggesting counsel and advice with respect to the future. (Compare the similar application of the verb in ch.41: 28.)—The last clause, beginning with the word “lEJtrj, might be considered as a more specific designation or description of his servant, viz. the (servant) saying etc. But this interpretation is precluded by the double repetition of “in$in in the two succeeding verses and in evident application to Jehovah himself.—The construction of nuin as a verb of the second person (thou shall be inhabited) is forbidden by its masculine form, which could be connected with the name Jerusalem only in cases where the latter is put for its inhabitants. For the sake of uniformity the parallel expression is to be translated in like manner. Gesenius arbitrarily translates the first of these verbs as an imperative, the second as a future, and the third as a present. To raise up the ruins of a city is of course to rebuild it. 106 CH AFTER XLIV.
27. The (one) saying to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy floods (or streams). The Targum, followed by Kimchi and others, explains r&ix as a metaphorical description of Babylon, so called on account of its wealth, its population, or its site. Vitringa, Lowth, and some of the latest writers, understand by nbis the Euphrates, and apply the whole verse to the stratagem by which Cyrus gained access to Babylon, as related in the first book of Herodotus and the seventh of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Henderson thinks there may be also an allusion to his division of the river Gyndes. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 236.) Ewald and others under stand the verse as a description of God’s power over nature and the elements, with or without an allusion to the passage of the Red Sea at the exodus. This exposition is strongly recommended by the analogy of ch. 42: 15. 43: 16. 50: 2. 51: 10. Thatof Jer. 50: 33. 51: 36 does not prove that Isaiah’s description was designed to have exclusive reference to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, but only that this was included in it as a signal instance of God’s power to overcome all obstacles, and that the later prophet made a specific application of the.words accordingly. There is no need of giving hbsia any other than its widest sense as a description of the ocean. The word streams or floods is applied in the same way to the sea by David (Ps. 24: 2) and Jonah (2: 4), in the last of which cases it is connected with the cognate form rtett. (Compare Zech. 10: 11, and Isaiah 19: 5.) —The strict translation of the last verb by Ewald as a future (I will dry up) is not only more exact but more expressive than the present form preferred by Gesenius and others.
28. The (one) saying to (or as to) Cyrus, My shepherd, and all my pleasure he will fulfil, and saying to Jerusalem, Thou shall be built, and (to) the temple, Thou shall be founded. It is now universally admitted that this verse has reference to Cyrus the Elder or the Great, the son of Cambyses king of Persia and the grandson of Astyages the Mede, the hero of the Cyropaedia and of the first book of Herodotus, the same who appears in sacred history (2 Chr. 36: 23. Ezra 1: 1) as the actual restorer of the Jews from exile. He is here called Jehovah’s shepherd, which may either be the usual poetical designation of a king, so common in the oldest classics, or (as Umbreit suggests) a special description of his mission and vocation to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is characteristic of John David Michaelis, and of the notions prevalent in his day as to fidelity and freedom of translation, that instead of my shepherd he has the king appointed by me; for which variation he apologizes on the ground that the former title, if applied to so great a king, might sound indecorous (unanstandig Iclingen), because shepherds now are low and vulgar people.—With w we may either supply thou art or he is, or regard it as a simple exclamation. A curious illustration of the ancient mode of writing Hebrew is afforded by Jerome’s remark on this word: Verbum Hebraicum Roi, si per res literarn legamus, intelligitur pastor mens; si per daleth, sciens vel intelligens: quarum similitudo parvo apice distinguitur.’—All my pleasure, i. e. with respect to the deliverance of the Jews from exile.—The construction of ^IES^I is obscure and difficult. Luther refers it to an indefinite subject, so that one may say (dass man sage). Knobel makes it dependent on ^xfi in the sense of commanding to say. Ewald regards it as an idiomatic use of the infinitive instead of the finite verb, and refers it to Jehovah. Gesenius refers it to Cyrus, and understands it as explaining how he was to fulfil Jehovah’s pleasure, namely, by saying etc. This, on the whole, is the most natural construction, although, like the others, it leaves unexplained the introduction of the copulative particle before the verb, which must either be rendered as in the English Version (even saying), or disregarded as an idiomatic pleonasm.—The same ambiguity respecting the person of the verbs exists in the last clause of this verse as in v. 26. Some take both in the second person, which requires a preposition to be introduced before br^tt. Others make both in the third person, which requires ba^n to be construed as a feminine in this one place exclusively. This last is the construction finally adopted by Gesenius. In his Commentary he had assumed an abrupt transition from the third to the second person.—There are two points in this verse upon which the higher criticism of modern times has fastened, as proofs that the passage is of later origin than that which tradition has assigned to it. The first of these is the use of yen in the sense of business or affair, repeated instances of which are cited from the later books or what are so considered. But even in the cases thus alleged the change of usage is extremely doubtful, while in that before us it is purely imaginary or fictitious. The word has here its strict, original, and usual sense of inclination, will, or pleasure, that which one delights in, chooses, or desires; and the substitution of affair or business would be not only arbitrary but ridiculous. —The other supposititious proof of later date is the distinctness with which Cyrus is foretold by name, and which is said to be at variance with the general analogy and usage of the prophecies. Moller’s attempt to set aside this difficulty by explaining is’nis as a descriptive name of Israel itself, has found no adherents among later writers, and instead of mitigating aggravates the evil. Without disturbing the unanimous consent among interpreters that Cyrus is the subject of this prophecy, the objection admits of satisfactory solution. In the first place, let it be observed, that it proceeds upon a false assumption, namely that no form of expression or prediction can occur but once. Why may not this be a single exception to the general rule, analogous to that presented by the occasional introduction of precise 108 CH AFTER XLIV. dates notwithstanding the usual vagueness of prediction? The want of analogy might render it a priori more improbable, and make the necessity of clear proof more imperative, but could not, in the face of such proof, make the fact itself incredible. But in the next place, the precision of this prophecy is not so totally without analogy as the objectors commonly assume. One clearly defined instance of the same kind is sufficient to relieve the case before us from the charge of being wholly unparalleled, and such an instance is afforded by the prophecy respecting Josiah in 1 Kings 13: 2. The assertion that the name of Josiah was interpolated by a later hand, is not only perfectly gratuitous but equally available in this case, where a similar assumption would at once remove all evidence of later date. If that is an interpolation, so may this be. If that is not one, this is not without analogy. But in the third place, the alleged violation of analogy is much less real than apparent; since in both the cases there is reference to the meaning of the name as a generic or descriptive title, and not merely to its application as an individual denomination. That Josiah was intended to be thus significant, as well in 2 Kings 13: 2 as in Zech. 6:10, has been proved by Hengstenberg in his exposition of the latter passage. (Christologie II. p. 71.) That ttrn’3 was likewise a descriptive title of the Persian kings, is rendered probable by several distinct considerations. The Hebrew name has been identified, by some of the most eminent comparative philologists, with a Persian word which means the sun. The use of such a title would agree well not only with the ancient religion of that people, but with a well known oriental usage of describing certain royal races as descendants of the sun, whether this be regarded as a superstitious myth or a poetical hyperbole. It is expressly asserted by Herodotus that Cyrus originally bore another name. This name is said by Strabo to have been Agradates, which Hitzig reckons as a mere mistake occasioned by confounding the river KVQO*; with the monarch of the same name, whereas Pott, Von Lengerke, and others, trace it to the same root with urp3, and the same primary sense of sun. To this etymology there seems to be allusion in ch. 41:2, 25, where Cyrus is so emphatically said to have risen in the east and pursued his course westwards. This explanation of the name is strongly favoured by the numerous analogies in this and other languages, the Egyptian Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the Philistian Abimelechs, the Amalekitish Agags, the Roman Caesars. The result of these considerations is, that the prophecy before us, although still relating to the individual Cyrus, is not so variant in form from the usual analogy of prophecy, as to afford any ground for the suspicion that the passage is on that account of later date. For the most satisfactory discussion of this point, see Hengstenberg’s Christologie I. p. 192 and Havernick’s Einieitung II. p. 163. CH AP T E R XL V. 1Q9
