INTERPRETERS are strangely divided in opinion as to the connexion of this chapter with the context. The arbitrary and precarious nature of their judgments may be gathered from the fact, that Ewald separates the first two verses from the body of the chapter and connects them with the one before it, while Hendewerk on the other hand commences a new “ cycle “ with the first verse of this chapter, and Knobel dogmatically represents it as an isolated composition, unconnected either with what goes before or follows. Even the older writers, who maintain the continuity of the discourse, appear to look upon the order of its parts as being not so much an organic articulation as a mere mechanical juxtaposition. They are therefore obliged to assume abrupt transitions, which, instead of explaining any thing else, need to be explained themselves. CHAPTERXLVI.
All this confusion is the fruit of the erroneous exegetical hypothesis, that the main subject and occasion of these later prophecies is the Babylonish exile and the liberation from it, and that with these the other topics must be violently brought into connexion by assuming a sufficiency of types and double senses, or by charging the whole discourse with incoherence. Equally false, but far less extensive in its influence, is the assumption that the whole relates to Christ and to the new dispensation, so that even what is said o. Babylon and Cyrus must be metaphorically understood. Common to both hypotheses is the arbitrary and exclusive application of the most comprehensive language to a part of what it really expresses, and a distorted view of the Prophet’s themes considered in their mutual relations and connexions. The whole becomes perspicuous, continuous, and orderly, as soon as we admit what has been already proved to be the true hypothesis, viz. that the great theme of these prophecies is God’s designs and dealings with the church and with the world, and that the specific predictions which are introduced are introduced as parts or as illustrations of this one great argument. By thus reversing the preposterous relation of the principal elements of the discourse, and restoring each to its legitimate position, the connexion becomes clear and the arrangement easy.
In confirmation of the general threats and promises with which ch. XLV. is wound up, the Prophet now exhibits the particular case of the Babylonian idols, as a single instance chosen from the whole range of past and future history. They are described as fallen and gone into captivity, wholly unable to protect their worshippers or save themselves, vs. 1, 2. With these he then contrasts Jehovah’s constant care of Israel in time past and in time to come, vs. 3, 4. The contrast is carried out by another description of the origin and impotence of idols, vs. 5—7, and another assertion of Jehovah’s sole divinity, as proved by his knowledge and control of the future, and by the raising up of Cyrus in particular, vs. 8-11. This brings him back to the same solemn warning of approaching judgments, and the same alter native of life or death, with which the foregoing chapter closes, vs. 12, 13.
1. Bel is bowed down, Nebo stooping: their images are (consigned) to the beasts and to the cattle. Your burdens are packed up (as) a load to the weary (beast). The connexion with what goes before may be indicated thus: see for example the fate of the Babylonian idols. Of these two are mentioned, either as arbitrary samples, or as chief divinities. To these names, or rather to the subject of Babylonian mythology, Gesenius devotes an excursus or appendix of thirty pages, the results of which are given in his Thesaurus and Lexicon. He connects Bel etymologically with the Hebrew V>?a, and Nebo with K2i (^s), the two corresponding to the Zeus and Hermes of the Greek mythology, or rather to the planets Jupiter and Mercury. The dignity of these two imaginary deities among the Babylonians may be learned from the extent to which these names enter into the composition of the names of men, both in sacred and profane history. Such are Belshazzar, Belteshazzar, Belesys, Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, Nabopolassar, Nabonned, etc. Beyond this nothing more is needed for the right interpretation of the passage, where the names are simply used to represent the Babylonian gods collectively.—The verb b^’p occurs only here. The Septuagint renders the two, fallen and broken; the Vulgate gives the latter sense to both. But i’^3 is the common term for stooping, bowing, especially in death (Judges 5: 27. 2 Kings 9: 24. Ps. 20: 9): and that the other is substantially synonymous, may be inferred not only from the parallelism, but from the analogy of the derivative noun D^p., a hook, a tache, as being curved or bent. Although not essential to the general meaning, it is best to give the praeter and the participle their distinctive sense, as meaning strictly that the one has fallen and the other is now falling, in strict accordance with Isaiah’s practice, in descriptive passages, of hurrying the reader in medias res, of which we have already had repeated instances.—The pronoun in their images might be supposed to refer to the Babylonians, though not expressly mentioned; but as these are immediately addressed in the second person, it is best to understand the pronoun as refer ring to Bel and Nebo, who, as heavenly bodies or imaginary deities, are then distinguished from the images which represented them in the vulgar worship. The suggestion of J. D. Michaelis, that there may be an allusion to some actual decay of the metallic idols in the shrines of Babylon is inconsistent with what follows in relation to their going into exile.—The Septuagint, the Targum, and Jerome, seein to understand the next clause as meaning that their images become beasts, which is scarcely intelligible. Most writers follow Kimchi and De Dieu in supplying s’taa from the other clause, they are (a burden) to the beasts etc. But this assumes a very harsh ellipsis and is wholly unnecessary, since usage allows b *“>ft to be taken in the sense of they are to, i. e. they now belong to, or are abandoned and con signed to. The common version, on the beasts, is too paraphrastical. Kimchi supposes n*n and fi^fta to be used in their distinctive sense of wild beasts and domesticated cattle, understanding by the latter common beasts of burden, by the former camels, elephants, etc. J. D. Michaelis imagines that there may be an allusion to the mythological use of wild beasts, such as the lions of Cybele etc. Most interpreters regard the words as simple equivalents or at the most as merely distinguishing oxen, asses, mules, etc. from camels, dromedaries, and perhaps horses.—rj<b5 is properly a passive participle used as a noun and meaning your carried things (in old English, great image of Bel at Babylon was not destroyed until the time of Xerxes, carriages’), the things which you have been accustomed to carry in pro cessions or from place to place, but which are now to be carried in a very different manner, on the backs of animals, as spoil or captives. r.iWESj properly means lifted up in order to be carried, but may here be rendered packed or loaded, though this last word is ambiguous.—x’fiv does not necessarily denote a heavy load, but simply that they are a load, i. e. something to be carried. The idea of weight is suggested by the following word, which the Vulgate renders as an abstract meaning weariness (usque ad lassitudinem), but which is properly a feminine adjective agreeing w7ith n*n or rrarja understood.
2. They stoop, they bow together; they cannot save the load; themselves are gone into captivity. The first clause may mean that they are now both fallen; or together may have reference to the other gods of Babylon, so as to mean that not only Bel and Nebo but all the rest are fallen.—The last member of the first clause has been variously explained. Gesenius is disposed to make &W9a an abstract meaning the carrying, a sense not worth obtaining by so harsh a supposition. The Vulgate arbitrarily reverses the meaning, and instead of the thing borne understands the bearer (non potuerunt salvare portantem). Of those who adhere to the strict sense, load or burden, some understand by it the Babylonian state or empire, which ought to have been borne or sustained by its tutelary gods. But the most satisfactory interpretation is the one which gives the word the same sense as in v. 1, and applies it to the images with which the beasts were charged or laden. These are then to be considered as distinguished by the writer from the gods which they represented. Bel and Nebo are unable to rescue their own images. This agrees well with the remainder of the sentence, themselves are gone (or literally their self is gone) into captivity. This is the only way in which the reflexive pronoun could be made emphatic here without an awkward circumlocution. There is no need, therefore, of ex plaining sto to mean their soul, i. e. the animating principle or spirit by which the image was supposed to be inhabited; much less their desire, i. e. the darling idols of the heathen, like nrrwn in ch. 44: 9. The antithesis is really between the material images of Bel and Nebo and themselves, so far as they had any real existence. The whole god, soul and body, all that there was of him, was gone into captivity. The idea of the conquest and captivity of tutelary gods was common in the ancient east, and is alluded to, besides this place, in Jer. 48:7. 49:3. Hos. 10: 5, 6. Dan. 11:8, to which may be added 1 Sam. 5: 1.—Whether the Prophet here refers to an actual event or an ideal one, and how the former supposition may be reconciled with the statement of Herodotus and Diodorus, that the are questions growing out of the erroneous supposition that the passage has exclusive reference to the conquest by Cyrus; whereas it may include the whole series of events which resulted in the final downfal of the Babylonian idol worship. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 242.)
3. Hearken unto me, oh house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, those borne from the belly, those carried from the womb. By the remnant of the house of Israel Kimchi understands the remains of the ten tribes who were in exile; but this is a gratuitous restriction of the meaning. The participles rendered borne and carried are the masculine forms of those used in v. 1. This repetition, analogous to that in ch. 42: 2. 3, is intended to suggest a contrast between the failure of the idols to protect their worshippers and God’s incessant care of his own people. The gods of the heathen had to be borne by them, but Jehovah was himself the bearer of his followers. And this was no new thing, but coeval with their national existence. The specific reference to Egypt or the exodus is no more necessary here than in ch. 44: 2, 24. 48: 8. The carrying meant is that of children by the nurse or parent. The same comparison is frequent elsewhere. (See Num. 11: 12. Deut. 1:31. Ex. 19:4. Is. 63: 9, and compare Deut. 32: 11, 12. Hos. 11: 3. Is. 40: 11.)—For belly and womb Noyes, by way of euphemistic variation, substitutes birth and earliest breath. —”jn ISE is identical with “I^SIE ch. 44: 24. The same form of the particle occurs in Job 20: 4. and Ps. 44: 19.
4. The figure of an infant and its nurse was not sufficient to express the whole extent of God’s fidelity and tenderness to Israel. The first of these’relations is necessarily restricted to the earliest period of life, but God’s protection is continued without limit. And to old age I am He (i. e. the same), and to gray hair I will bear (you); I have done it and I will carry and I will bear and save (you). Hitzig supposes this to mean that Israel was already old, as in ch. 47: 6; but others much more probably refer it to the future, and regard the expressions as indefinite. As I have done in time past, so I will do hereafter. The general analogy between the life of individuals and that of nations is sufficiently obvious, and is finely expressed by Florus in his division of the Roman History into the periods of child hood, youth, manhood, and old age. But Vitringa mars the beautiful analogy when he undertakes to measure off the periods in the history of Israel from his birth in Egypt, through his infancy in the desert, his youth under the Judges, his manhood until Jotham, his old age until Alexander, and his gray hairs or extreme old age beyond that period.—The reference of these terms to God himself as the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7: 9), is too absurd to need refutation or admit of it. 9
5. To whom will ye liken me and equal and compare me, that we may be (literally, and we shall be) like ] This is an indirect conclusion from the contrast in the foregoing context. If such be the power of idols, and such that of Jehovah, to whom will ye compare him? The form of expression is like that in ch. 40: 18, 25.
| 6. The prodigals (or lavish ones) will weigh gold from the bag, and silver with the rod; they will hire a gilder, and he will make it a god; they will bow down, yea they will fall prostrate, n^t is commonly explain ed as a participle in the sense of pouring out or lavishing; but thus understood it is of difficult construction. Vitringa resolves it into n^t en; but this is contrary to usage. If we make it agree with the subject of the verbs in v. 5 (ye who pour out etc.), we must suppose an abrupt change of person in the next clause. The first construction above given is the one proposed by Schmidius, who makes Q^JC! the subject of the verb ‘iVpoS’i. We may then explain o”2>? either as meaning taken out of the purse, or in reference to the bag of weights, in which sense it is used in Deut. 25: 13. Mic. 6:11. n: | 5 is properly a reed, then any rod or bar, such as the shaft of a candlestick (Ex. 25:31), and here the beam of a balance or the graduated rod of a steelyard.—The verse has reference to the wealthier class of idol-worshippers. |
7. They will lift him on the shoulder, they will carry him, they will set him in his place, and he will stand (there), from his place he will not move; yes, one will cry to him, and he will not answer; from his distress he will (or can) not save him. The idol is not only the work of man’s hands, but entirely dependent on him for the slightest motion. No wonder therefore that he cannot hear the prayers of his worshippers, much less grant them the deliverance and protection which they need.
| 8. Remember this and show yourselves men; bring it home, ye apostates, to (your) mind (or heart).—By this Jarchi understands what follows; but it rather means what goes before, viz. the proof just given of the impotence of idols, the worshippers of which, whether Jews or gentiles, are addressed in this verse as apostates or rebels against God. The restriction of the term to apostate Jews is perfectly gratuitous.— The verb sittJtzJKrn is a anaE, teyopwov and admits of several different explanations. Joseph Kimchi derived it from vxfire, and explained it to mean, < be inflamed or reddened7 i. e. blush. So the Vulgate, confundamini. The Targum and Jarchi understand it to mean f fortify or strengthen yourselves,’ and connect it with fiiia-niix foundations (ch. 16: 7). Bochart derives it from w*X a man, and identifies it with the avdoi&a&s of 1 Cor. 16: 13. Vitringa objects that the apostates would not be exhorted to fortify themselves in unbelief. Hitzig replies that the clauses are addressed to different parties, which is wholly arbitrary. Gesenius removes the objection by giving to the verb the sense of acting rationally, not like children (I Cor. 14: 20), or as Kimchi says, like beasts which have neither judgment nor consideration. Vitringa objects moreover that the form would be ^srxnn; Hitzig more plausibly, that it would be ‘icsxnn from the acknowledged root irsx; but there is no absurdity in supposing that the verbal form was derived from the contracted tirx which is in common use.—As an exegetical monstrosity it may be stated here that Paulus explains the Hebrew word by the Arabic one JL | , mean ing to drive camels by the use of the syllable is! is! |
9, 10. Remember former things of old (or from eternity), for I am the Mighty and there is no other, God and there is none like me, declaring from the first the last, and from ancient time the things which are not (yet) done (or made), saying, My counsel shall stand and all my pleasure I will do. He calls upon them to consider the pi-oofs of his exclusive deity, afforded not only by the nullity of all conflicting claims, but by the fact of his infallible foreknowledge, as attested by the actual prediction of events long before their occurrence.—Instead of for some read that, on the ground that the thing to be believed was his divinity; the former things being cited merely as the proofs of it.—Declaring the last from the first, or the end from the beginning, means declaring the whole series of events included between these extremes, n’nnx does not strictly mean the end as opposed to the beginning, but the latter part of any thing as opposed to the preceding part, whatever the extent of either or their relative proportions. Hence it often means futurity, both absolute and relative, without necessarily defining the terminus a quo from which it is to be computed.—My counsel shall stand, i. e. my purpose shall be executed. (See ch. 7: 7. 8: 10. 14: 24. 44: 26.) All the modern writers seem to be agreed in giving *5tsn the sense of my will or pleasure, although not at all more natural or necessary here than in ch. 44: 28, where it is made a proof of later date and of a diction different from that of Isaiah.—All the expressions of the ninth verse have occurred before in different combinations. (See ch. 42: 14. 43:18. 45:21 etc.) According to Maurer, former things here means former events, as in ch. 43: 18. 48: 3, not former predictions, as in ch. 42: 9. 43: 9.
11. Calling from the east a bird of prey, from a land of distance the man of his counsel; I have both said and will also bring it to pass, I have formed (the plan) and will also do it. From the general assertion of his providence and power, he now passes to that specific proof of it which has so frequently been urged before, viz. the raising up of Cyrus; but without the mention of his name in this case, and with an indefiniteness of expression which is perfectly well suited to the general analogy of prophecy, as well as to the views already taken in the exposition of ch. 44: 28. (See above7 p. 106.)—Calling includes prediction and efficiency, not only announcing but calling into being. Most of the modern writers give to 07? here the specific sense of eagle, some on account of a supposed affinity between the Hebrew name and the Greek aero?, others because of the frequent similar allusions to the eagle elsewhere (see Jer. 49: 22. Ezek, 17: 2, 3, 12. Comp. Isaiah 40: 31), others supposing a reference to the Persian ensign. But the very vagueness of the usual sense entitles it to the preference for reasons just suggested.—The point of comparison is not mere swiftness or rapidity of conquest (Hos. 8:1, Hab, 1: 8, Jer. 48: 40) 7 but rapacity and fierceness, Knobel arbitrarily assumes that Media and Persia are distinctly and specifically meant by the east and thejfar country, whereas the language is designedly indefinite.—Man of his counsel does not mean his counsellor, as it does in ch. 40: 13, but either the executor of his purpose, or the agent himself purposed i. e. foreordained by God. The marginal reading (my counsel) probably arose from the seeming harshness of the enallage personae, but this is a figure much too frequent in Isaiah to require elimination by a change of text. It is as if he had said, I am he that calls the man of his counsel, after which the construction is continued regularly in the first person.—^x denotes accession, and is sometimes equivalent to also, sometimes to nay more. It has here the force of not only this but also that, or both this and also that.—”is^ is not here synonymous with nias as in ch, 44: 2, but opposed to it, meaning to conceive or form the plan of any thing, as in ch, 22: 1 K 37: 26. Jer. 18: 11. Ps. 94: 20. Is. 37: 26. The antithesis expressed is that between design and execution. —The feminine suffix corresponds to our neuter pronoun it, referring to the feminine noun nss> i. e. purpose or counsel.
12. Hearken to me, ye stout of heart, those far from righteousness, By an easy and natural association, he subjoins to these proofs of his own divinity, both past and future, a warning to those who were unwilling to receive them. Strength of heart implies, though it does not directly signify, stubbornness or obstinacy and a settled opposition to the will of God. Because T^ax is sometimes absolutely used in the sense of a bull (Ps. 22: 13. 50: 13), Hitzig says that it here strictly means bulls in intellect (Stiere an Vernunft).—The same persons are described as far from righteousness, which some understand as meaning far from rectitude or truth, i. e. deceitful, insincere. Others explain it to mean those who regard the exhibition of God’s righteousness as still far distant. But the only natural interpretation is the one which gives the words their obvious and usual sense, as signifying those who are not righteous before God, in other words the wicked, the words far from expressing the degree of their depravity.
13. I have brought near my righteousness, it shall not be far off; and my salvation, it shall not tarry; and I will give (or place) in Zion my salvation, to Israel my glory. Because righteousness and salvation frequently occur as parallel expressions, most of the modern German writers treat them as synonymous, whereas one denotes the cause and the other the effect, one relates to God and the other to man. The sense in which salvation can be referred to the righteousness of God is clear from ch. 1: 27. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 19.) The exhibition of God’s ighteousness consists in the salvation of his people and the simultaneous destruction of his enemies. To these two classes it was therefore at the same time an object of desire and dread. The stout-hearted mentioned in v. 12 were not prepared for it, and, unless they were changed, must perish when God’s righteousness came near.—The last words admit of two constructions, one of which repeats the verb and makes it govern the last noun (I will give my glory unto Israel); the other makes the clause a supplement to what precedes, I will give salvation in Zion unto Israel (who is) my glory. In illustration of the latter, see ch. 44: 23. 62: 3. Jer. 33: 9. The other construction has more of the parallel or balanced form which is commonly considered characteristic of Hebrew composition. In sense they ultimately coincide, since Israel could become Jehovah’s glory only by Jehovah’s glory being bestowed upon him.
