FROM his digression with respect to the causes and effects of the catastrophe of Babylon, the Prophet now returns to his more general themes, and winds up the first great division of the Later Prophecies by a reiteration of the same truths and arguments which run through the previous portion of it, with some variations and additions which will be noticed in the proper place. The disproportionate prominence given to the Babylonish exile and the liberation from it, in most modern expositions of the passage, has produced the same confusion and the same necessity of assuming arbitrary combinations and transitions, as in other cases which have been already stated. The length to which this false hypothesis has influenced the practice of interpreters may be inferred from the fact, that one of the most recent English writers describes this chapter as “ renewed assurances of restoration from Babylon.” This is less surprising in the present case, however; because the Prophet, in the close as in the opening of this first book, does accommodate his language to the feelings and condition of the Jews in exile, though the truths which he inculcates are still of a general and comprehensive nature.
Although Israel is God’s chosen and peculiar people, he is in himself unworthy of the honour and unfaithful to the trust, vs. 1, 2. Former predictions had been uttered expressly to prevent his ascribing the event to other gods, vs. 3-5. For the same reason new predictions will be uttered now. of events which have never been distinctly foretold, vs. 6-8. God’s continued favour to his people has no reference to merit upon their part, but is the fruit of his own sovereign mercy and intended to promote his own designs, vs. 9-11. He again asserts his own exclusive deity, as proved by the creation of the world, by the prediction of events still future, and especially by the raising up of Cyrus, as a promised instrument to execute his purpose, vs. 12-16. The sufferings of Israel are the fruit of his own sin, his prosperity and glory of God’s sovereign grace, vs. 17-19. The book closes as it opened with a promise of deliverance from exile, accompanied, in this case, by a solemn limitation of the promise to its proper objects, vs. 20-22.
It is evident that these are the same elements which enter into all the Later Prophecies, so far as we have yet examined them, and that these elements are here combined in very much the usual proportions, although not in precisely the same shape and order. The most novel feature of this chapter is the fulness with which one principal design of prophecy, and the connexion between Israel’s sufferings and his sins, are stated.
The confidence with which the most dissimilar hypotheses may be main tained when resting upon no determinate or valid principle, is forcibly exemplified in this case by the fact, that Vitringa and Schmidius both divide the chapter into two parts relating to two different periods of history; but the former applies vs. 1-11 to the Jews of Isaiah’s time, and vs. 12-22 to those of the captivity; while the latter applies vs. 1-15 to the Jews of the captivity and vs. 16-22 to those contemporary with our Saviour. This divergency both as to the place of the dividing line, and as to the chronological relation of the parts, is a sufficient proof that the hypothesis, common to both, of a reference to two successive periods, is altogether arbitrary, and with equal reason might be varied indefinitely by supposing that the first part treats of the apostolic age and the second of the period of the reformation, or the first of the middle ages and the last of the millennium, or the first of the French Revolution and the last of the Day of Judgment. The onlysafe assumption is that the chapter contains general truths with special illustrations and examples.
1. Hear this, not exclusively what follows or what goes before, but this whole series of arguments and exhortations. This is a formula by which Isaiah frequently resumes and continues his discourse, Because the verb occurs at the beginning of ch. 46: 12, Hitzig infers that these two chapters originally came together, and that the forty-seventh was afterwards introduced between them; which seems frivolous.— Oh house of Jacob, the (men) called by the name of Israel, a periphrasis for Israelites or members of the ancient church.—And from the waters of Judah they have come out. By an easy transition, of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah, the construction is continued in the third person; as if the Prophet, after addressing them directly, had proceeded to describe them to the by-standers. The people, by a natural figure, are described as streams from the fountain of Judah. (Compare ch. 51: I and Ps. 68: 27.) Gesenius and other German writers fasten on this mention of Judah as a national progenitor, as betraying a later date of composition than the days of Isaiah, But this kind of reasoning proceeds upon the shallow and erroneous supposition that the application of this name to the whole people was the result of accidental causes at a comparatively recent period, whereas it forms part of a change designed from the beginning, and developed by a gradual process, through the whole course of their history. Even in patriarchal times the pre-eminence of Judah was determined. From him the Messiah was expected to descend (Gen. 49:10). To him the first rank was assigned in the exodus, the journey through the desert, and the occupation of the promised land. In his line the royal power was first permanently established. To him, though deserted by fivesixths of the tribes, the honours and privileges of the theocracy were still continued; so that long before the Babylonish exile or the downfal of the kingdom of the ten tribes, the names of Israel and Judah were convertible, not as political distinctions, but as designations of the chosen people, the theocracy, the ancient church. In this sense Israelite and Jew were as really synonymous when Isaiah wrote, as they are now in common par lance.—Those swearing by the name of Jehovah, i. e. swearing by him as their God, and thereby not only acknowledging his deity, but solemnly avouching their relation to him. (See above, on ch. 45: 23.)—And of the God of Israel make mention, not in conversation merely, but as a religious act, implying public recognition of his being and authority, in which sense the same hebrew phrase with unimportant variations in its form is frequently used elsewhere. (For examples of the very form which here occurs, see Josh. 23: 7. Ps. 20: 8. 45: 18.)—Not in truth and not in righteousness, uprightness, sincerity. It is not necessary to infer from these words, that the Prophet’s language is addressed to a distinct class of the Jews, or to the Jews of any one exclusive period, his own, or that of the captivity, or that of Christ. The clause is an indirect reiteration of the doctrine so continually taught throughout these prophecies, and afterwards repeated in this very chapter, that God’s choice of Israel and preservation of him was no proof of merit upon his part, nor even an act of mere compassion upon God’s part, but the necessary means to an appointed end. The reference therefore here is not so much to individual hypocrisy or unbelief, as to the general defect of worthiness or merit in the body. Some, supposing the whole emphasis to rest upon this last clause, understand what goes before as descriptive of outward profession and pretension, and for that reason give to the passive participle fiWpa the reflexive sense of calling themselves; which is unnecessary and without analogy in the other terms of the description. They were really called by the name of Israel, and that not only by themselves and one another, but by God. Almost equally erroneous, on the other hand, is Hitzig’s supposition, that this last clause is an obiter dictum not essential to the sense. Both parts are equally essential, the description of the Jews as the chosen people of Jehovah, and the denial of their merit; for the error into which they were continually falling was the error of sacrificing one of these great doctrines to the other, or imagining that they were incompatible. It was necessary to the Prophet’s purpose that the people should never forget either, but believe them both. From all this may be readily inferred the shallowness and blindness of the “higher criticism,” which talks of the accumulation of descriptive epithets in this place as a rhetorical peculiarity and symptomatic of a later age; whereas it is a distinct enumeration of the theocratical prerogatives of Israel, and one essential to the writer’s purpose.
2. For from the Holy City they are called. The same name is given to Jerusalem below (ch. 51: 1), and also in the later books (Dan. 9: 24. Neh. 12: 1) and the New Testament (Matth. 4:5. 27: 53). It is so called as the seat of the true religion, the earthly residence of God, and the centre of the church. That the reference is not to mere locality is plain from the application of the name to the whole people. The h3 at the beginning of this verse has somewhat perplexed interpreters. Cocceius makes it introduce the proof or reason of the words immediately preceding: ’ not in truth and not in righteousness, because they call themselves after the Holy City,’ instead of calling themselves by the name of God. This description would certainly be appropriate to ritualists and all who let the church usurp the place of its great head. But this interpretation is precluded, as Vitringa has observed, by what immediately follows, and upon (he God of Israel rely, which certainly would not have been adduced as a proof of insincerity or even imperfection. Some connect the clauses in a different manner, by giving *3 the sense of although: i *not in truth and not in righteousness, although they are called after the Holy City.’ But the sense thus obtained is dearly purchased by assuming so unusual and dubious a meaning of the particle. The safest because the simplest course is to take it in its ordinary sense of /or, *because, and to regard it as continuing the previous description, or rather as resuming it after a momentary inter ruption, for which reason for is used instead of and. The connexion may be thus rendered clear by a paraphrase: ‘ I speak to those who bear the name of Israel and worship Israel’s God, however insincerely and imperfectly: for they are still the chosen people, and as such entitled to rely upon Jehovah.’ This last is then descriptive not of a mere professed nor of a real yet presumptuous reliance, but of the prerogative of Israel considered as the church or chosen people, a prerogative not forfeited by their unfaith fulness, so long as its continuance was necessary to the end for which it was originally granted. The false interpretations of the passage have arisen from applying it directly to the faith or unbelief of individuals, in which case there appears to be an incongruity between the parts of the description; but as soon as we apply it to the body, this apparent incongruity is done away, it being not only consistent with Isaiah’s purpose, but a necessary part of it, to hold up the prerogatives of Israel as wholly independent of all merit upon their part.—Jehovah of Hosts (is) his name. These words are added to identify the object of reliance more completely, as the being who was called the God of Israel and Jehovah of Hosts. At the same time they suggest the attributes implied in both parts of the name. As if he had said, they rely upon the God of Israel, whom they acknowledge as an independent and eternal Being, and the Sovereign of the universe.
3. The first (or former things) since then I have declared. That is, I prophesied of old the events which have already taken place. For the sense of the particular expressions, see above on ch. 45: 21. 46: 10. There is no abrupt transition here, as some interpreters assume. This verse asserts God’s prescience, not absolutely as in other cases, but for the purpose of explain ing why he had so carefully predicted certain future events. It can be fully understood, therefore, only in connexion with what goes before and follows. —And out of my mouth they went forth. Some regard this as a proof that nirtfsn means former prophecies and not events; but even the latter might be figuratively said to have gone out of his mouth, as having been predicted by him.—And I cause them to be heard, a synonymous expression.—Sud denly I do (them) and they come to pass. All this is introductory to what follows respecting the design of prophecy. The sense is not simply, I fore tell things to come, but I foretell things to come for a particular purpose, which is now to be explained.
4. From my knowing. This may either mean because I knew or since Ikneiv, or the last may be included in the first, as in ch. 43: 4.— That thou art hard. This is commonly considered an ellipsis for sb-nujp? (Ezek. 3:7) or J^ir-nirj? (Deut. 9:6), hard-hearted or stiff-necked; more probably the latter, as the sense required by the context is not so much that of insensibility as that of obstinate perverseness. The same idea is expressed still more strongly by the following words, and an iron sinew (is) thy neck. The substitution of bar for sinew, which is elsewhere the invariable sense of “vs, is not only gratuitous, but inexact and enfeebling.—And thy forehead brass. The hardening of the face or forehead, which is sometimes used in a good sense (e. g. ch. 50: 7), here denotes shameless persistency in opposition to the truth. The allusion is not, as Vitringa supposes, to the colour of brass, but to its hardness, with some reference, as Knobel thinks, to the habits of animals which push or butt with the forehead.
5. Therefore I told thee long ago. This is often the force of the conjunction and after a conditional clause or sentence. Because I knew thee to be such, and I told thee, i. e. therefore I told thee.—Before it comes I have let thee hear (it), lest thou say, My idol did them, i. e. did the things before referred to collectively in the singular. The Hebrew word for idol, from the double meaning of its root, suggests the two ideas of an image and a torment or vexation.—My graven image and my molten image ordered them, i. e. called them into being.—Gousset takes ^353 in the sense of my libation or drink-offering.
6. Thou hast heard (the prediction), see all of it (accomplished). And ye (idolaters or idols), will not ye declare, the same word used above for the prediction of events, and therefore no doubt meaning here, will not ye predict something? This is Hitzig’s explanation of the words; but most interpreters suppose the sense to be, will you not acknowledge (or bear witness) that these things were predicted by Jehovah? In favour of the first is its taking *TW in the sense which it has in the preceding verse, and also the analogy of ch. 41: 22, 23, where the very same challenge is given in nearly the same form; to which may be added the sudden change to the plural form and the emphatic introduction of the pronoun, implying a new object of address, and not a mere enallage, because he immediately resumes the address to the people in the singular.—/ have made thee to hear new things. He appeals not only to the past but to the future, and thus does what he vainly challenged them to do. There is no need of inquiring what particular predictions are referred to. All that seems to be intended is the general distinction between past and future, between earlier and later prophecies.—From now, henceforth, after the present time. It is a curious fact that Hitzig, who regards the old interpretation of OSSE (less than nothing) in ch. 40: 17 as absurd, makes f^?^? in the case before us a comparative expression, and translates the whole phrase newer than now, which he says is a circumlocution for the future.—And ((hings) kept (in reserve), and thou hast not known them, or in our idiom, which thou hast not known. Beck, by some unintelligible process, reaches the conclusion that this verse contains a perfectly indisputable case of vaticinium post eventum.
7. Now they are created (i. e. brought into existence for the first time) and not of old, or never before. The literal meaning of the next words is, and before the day and thou hast not heard them. J. D. Michaelis and some others seem to understand this as meaning, one day ago thou hadst not heard them; but this is a German or a Latin idiom, wholly foreign from the Hebrew usage. Others, with more probability, explain it to mean, before this day (or before to-day) thou hast never heard them, fn being put by poetical license for ci*n with the article. Gesenius understands by day the time of the fulfilment; which is not so obvious nor so appropriate, because the prophecy must be made known before it can be verified by the event. In all these constructions, the i before Jsb is supposed to be the idiomatic sign of the apodosis, very frequent after specifications of time. (See Gen. 22: 4.) The same reason is assigned as before: Lest thou shouldest say, Behold, 1 Imcw them. In the last word the feminine suffix takes the place of the masculine in the verse preceding, equivalent in import to the Greek or Latin neuter.
8. Nay, thou didst not hear; nay, thou didst not know. The idiomatic form of this sentence is not easily expressed in a translation, which, if too exact, will fail to show the true connexion. Having given the perverseness of the people as a reason why they knew so much by previous revelation, he now assigns it as a reason why they knew so little. These, although at first sight inconsistent statements, are but varied aspects of the same thing. God had told them so much beforehand, lest they should ascribe the event to other causes. He had told them no more, because he knew that they would wickedly abuse his favour. In a certain sense and to a certain extent, it was true that they had heard and known these things beforehand. In another sense, and beyond that extent, it was equally true that they had neither heard nor known them. This seems to be the true force of the ca. It was true that they had heard, but it was also true that they had not heard. The strict sense of the clause is, likewise thou hadst not heard, likewise thou hadst not known; but as this form of expression is quite foreign from our idiom, nay may be substituted, not as a synonyme. but an equivalent. The yea of the common version fails to indicate the true connexion, by suggesting the idea of a climax rather than that of an antithesis, of something more rather than of something different.—-Likewise of old (or beforehand) thine ear was not open, literally, did not open, the Hebrew usage coinciding with the English in giving to this verb both a transitive and intransitive sense. (For another clear example of the latter, see below, ch. 60: 11.) Vitringa understands the whole of this first clause as meaning that they would not hear or know, but stopped their ears and minds against the revelation which was offered to them. For this supposition he assigns a reason that is really conclusive on the other side, viz. that the last clause describes them as treacherous and disloyal, which he says would be unjust if they had had no revelation to abuse. But this argument proceeds upon a false view as to the connexion of the clauses. It supposes the first to give a reason for the last, whereas the last gives a reason for the first. The sense is not, that because they would not hear or know what was revealed, God denounced them as traitors and apostates; but that because they were traitors and apostates, he would not allow them to hear or know the things in question. This construction is required by the *-5 (because) at the beginning of the second clause; by the words Iknew, which, on the other supposition, are unmeaning; and by the form ^riaapi, which cannot, without arbitrary violence, have any other sense here but the strict one of the future, or of some tense involving the idea of futurity.—/ know thou wilt (or I knew thou, wouldest) act very treacherously. Lowth supposes the emphatic repetition of the verb to express certainty rather than intensity, and both may be included, i. e. both would perhaps be unavoidably suggested by this form of expression to a Hebrew reader. Beck’s triumphant charge against the writer of the “ naivest self-contradiction,” proceeds upon the false assumption that the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus is the chief or rather the sole subject of the prophecy, an error which has been already more than once exposed.—And apostate (rebel, or deserter) from the womb was called to thee, i. e. this name was used in calling thee, or thou wast called. Besides the idiom in the syntax, there is here another instance of the use of the verb call or name to express the real character. They were so called, i. e. they might have been so, they deserved to be so. (See above, ch. 1:26, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 18.)—Here, as in ch. 42:2, 24, most interpreters explain the womb as meaning Egypt; and Jerome carries this idea so far as to paraphrase the words thus, quando de j^Egypto liberatus, quasi meo ventre conceptus es. In all the cases, it seems far more natural to understand this trait of the description as belonging rather to the sign than the thing signified, as representing no specific circumstance of time or place in the history of Israel, but simply the infancy or birth of the ideal person substituted for him.
9. For my name’s sake. Aben Ezra understands this to mean, for the sake of my name by which ye are called; but most interpreters explain it as an equivalent but stronger expression than for my own sake, for the sake of the revelation which I have already made of my own attributes. This explanation agrees well with the language of v. 11 below.—/ will defer my anger. Literally,prolong it; but this would be equivocal in English. To avoid the equivoque, Vitringa adopts the absurd translation, I will lengthen (or prolong} my nose, which he explains by saying that a long face is a sign of clemency or mildness, and a short or contracted face of anger,—an opinion which appears to have as little foundation in physiognomy as in etymology. It seems most probable that w]X anger and B*?BK the nostrils are at most collateral derivatives from &]5*$ to breathe. The common version, I will defer my anger, is approved by the latest writers, and confirmed not only by our familiar use of long and slow, in certain applications, as convertible terms, but also by the unequivocal analogy of the Greek pwtQO&vpos and the Latin longanimis.—And (for) my praise I will restrain (it) towards CHAPTER XL VIII. 159 thee. Praise is here the parallel to name, and may be governed by V^ repeated from the other clause. The more obvious construction which would make it dependent on the following verb, is forbidden by the accents, and yields no coherent sense. Gesenius makes dans reflexive, or at least supplies the reflexive pronoun after it (I refrain myself); but it is simpler to assume the same object (my wrath) in both clauses.—The last words of the verse express ‘the effect to be produced, 50 as not to cut thee off, or destroy thee.
10. Behold I have melted thee. This is the original meaning of the word; but it is commonly applied to the smelting of metals, and may there fore be translated proved or tried thee.—And not with silver. Some read f]B23 (as silver), and others take the 2 itself as a particle of comparison, or bring out substantially the same sense by rendering it with (i. e. in company with) silver, or by means of the same process. This is explained by Hitzig strictly as denoting that he had not literally melted them like silver, but only metaphorically in the furnace of affliction, an assurance no more needed here than in any other case of figurative language. Apart from these interpretations, which assume the sense like silver, the opinions of interpreters have been divided chiefly between two. The first of these explains the Prophet’s words to mean, not for silver (or money), but gratuitously. This is certainly the meaning of C]G2_a in a number of places; but it seems to be entirely inappropriate when speaking of affliction, which is rather aggravated than relieved by the idea of its being gratuitous, i. e. for nothing. The other explanation, and the one now commonly adopted, takes the sense to be, not with silver (i. e. pure metal) as the result of the process. This agrees well with the context, which makes the want of merit on the part of Israel continually prominent. It also corresponds exactly to the other clause, I have chosen thee (not in wealth, or power, or honour, but) in the furnace of affliction. The explanation of ^na as synonymous with “wana is entirely gratuitous. There is no word the sense of which is more determinately fixed by usage. The reason given by Gesenius for making prove or try the primary meaning of this verb, without a single instance to establish it, is the extraordinary one that trial must precede choice, which assumes the very question in dispute, viz. that ^3 means to try at all, a fact which cannot be sustained by Aramean analogies in the teeth of an invariable Hebrew usage. But even if the method of arriving at this sense were less objectionable than it is, the sense itself would still be less appropriate and expressive than the common one. I have proved thee in the furnace of affliction, means I have afflicted thee; but this is saying even less than the first clause, whatever sense may there be put upon S]O23. It is not very likely that the Prophet simply meant to say, I have afflicted thee in vain, I have afflicted thee. It is certainly more probable and more in keeping with the context and his whole design to understand him as saying, I have found no merit in thee, and have chosen thee in the extreme of degradation and affliction. If the furnace of affliction was designed to have a distinct historical meaning, it probably refers not to Babylon but Egypt, which is repeatedly called an iron furnace. This would agree exactly with the representations elsewhere made respecting the election of Israel in Egypt.
11. For my own sake, for my own sake, I will do what is to be done. This is commonly restricted to the restoration of the Jews from exile; but this specific application of the promise is not made till afterwards. The terms are comprehensive and contain a statement of the general doctrine, as the sum of the whole argument, that what Jehovah does for his own people, is in truth done not for any merit upon their part, but to protect his own divine honour.—.For how will it be profaned 1 This may either mean, How greatly would it be profaned! or, How can I suffer it to be profaned? Gesenius anticipates honour from the other clause; but most interpreters make name the subject of the verb, a combination which occurs in several other places. (See Lev. 18: 21. 19:22. Ez. 36: 20.—And my glory (or honour) to another will I not give, as he must do if his enemies eventually triumph over his own people. The same words with the same sense occur above in ch. 42: 8.
12. Hearken unto me, oh Jacob, and Israel my called; lam He, I am the First, aho I the last. A renewed assurance of his ability and willing ness to execute his promises, the latter being implied in the phrase my called, i. e. specially elected by me to extraordinary privileges. The threefold repetition of the pronoun I is supposed by some of the older writers to contain an allusion to the Trinity, of which interpretation Vitringa wisely says: quam meditationem hoc loco non urgeo neque refello. I am He is understood by the later writers to mean I am the Being in question, or, it is I that am the First and the Last. The older writers give the x^in a more emphatic sense, as meaning He that really exists.—Lowth supplies my servant after Jacob, on the authority of one manuscript and two old editions. On like authority he changes C]X into the simple conjunctive 1, which he says is more proper.—Compare with this verse ch. 41: 4. 43: 10. 44: 6.
13. Also my hand founded the earth, and my right hand spanned the heavens. The force of the C]X seems to be this: not only am I an Eternal Being, but the Creator of the heavens. Hand and right hand is merely a poetical or rhetorical variation.—The Septuagint renders nnea taregmas, by assimilation to the parallel term founded. The Vulgate has mensa est, CHAPTER XL VI H. 161 which is approved by Kimchi. The Chaldee suspended, which may be taken either strictly or in the sense of balanced, weighed. Aben Ezra, followed by most modern writers, makes it mean expanded; which explanation is confirmed by the Syriac analogy, and by the parallel passage ch. 51: 13, where the founding of the earth is connected with the spreading of the skies, and the latter expressed by the unambiguous word na’ia. Luzzatto points out a like combination of the derivative nouns in 1 Kings 7: 9.— Vitringa construes ^ sop like an ablative absolute in Latin (me vocan(e), and the same sense is given, with a difference of form, in the English Version (when I call). But in Hebrew usage, the pronoun and participle thus combined are employed to express present and continuous action, 1 (am) calling, i. e. 1 habitually call. The words are not therefore naturally applicable to the original creation (J called), as Cocceius, Gesenius, and others explain them, but must either be referred, with Kimchi, to the constant exertion of creative power in the conservation of the universe, or, with Vitringa and most later writers, to the authority of the Creator over his creatures as his instruments and servants. I call to them (summon them),. and they will stand up together (i. e. all without exception). This agrees well with the usage of the phrase to stand before, as expressing the attendance of the servant on his master. (See for example 1 Kings 17: I.) The same two ideas of creation and service are connected in Ps. 119:90, 91.. The exclusive reference of the whole verse to creation, on the other hand,. is favoured by the analogy of Rom. 4:17 and Col. 1: 17.—For the different expressions here used, see above, ch. 40: ‘22. 42: 5. 44: 24. 45: 12.
14. Assemble yourselves, all of you, and hear! The object of address is Israel, according to the common supposition, but more probably the heathen. Who among them, i. e. the false gods or their prophets, hath declared (predicted) these things, the whole series of events which had been cited to demonstrate the divine foreknowledge. Jehovah loves him, i. e. Israel, and to show his love, he will do his pleasure (execute his purpose) in Babylon, and his (Jehovah’s) arm (shall be upon) the Chaldees. This explanation, which is given by J. H. Michaelis, seems to answer all the conditions of the text and context. Most interpreters, however, make the clause refer to Cyrus, and translate it thus: ’ he whom Jehovah loves shall do his pleasure in Babylon, and his arm (i. e. exercise his power or execute his vengeance) on the Chaldees.’ Another construction of the last words makes them mean that he (Cyrus) shall be his arm (i. e. the arm of Jehovah) against the Chaldees.’ But for this use of arm there is no satisfactory analogy. Kocher supposes it to mean that ‘ the Chaldees (shall be) his arm,’ in allusion to the aid which Cyrus received from Gobryas and Gadates, as related in the fourth book of the Cyropaedia. Vitringa is inclined to assume an 11 aposiopesis and to read, ‘his arm (shall conquer or destroy) the Chaldees.’ Aben Ezra refers both the suffixes to Cyrus, who is then said to do his own pleasure upon Babylon.—Others refer both to God (his pleasure and his arm); but most interpreters take a middle course, referring one to each.
15. I, I, have spoken (i. e. predicted); I have also called him (effectually by my providence); I have brought him (into existence, or into public view); and he prospered his way. The reference of the last verb to Jehovah as its subject involves a harsh enallage personae, which Vitringa and others avoid by making the verb neuter or intransitive, his way prospers. But TV^ is feminine, not only in general usage, but in combination with this very verb (Judges 18: 5). The safe rule is, moreover, to give Hiphil an active sense wherever it is possible. The true solution is to make Cyrus or Israel the subject, and to understand the phrase as meaning, he makes his own way prosperous^ i. e. he prospers in it. (Compare Ps. 1: 3, and Hengstenberg’s Commentary, Vol. I. p. 17.)
16. Draw near unto me! As Jehovah is confessedly the speaker in the foregoing and the following context, and as similar language is ex pressly ascribed to him in ch. 45: 19, Calvin and Gesenius regard it as most natural to make these his words likewise, assuming a transition in the last clause from Jehovah to the Prophet, who there describes himself as sent by Jehovah. Instead of this distinction between the clauses, Jarchi and Rosenmuller suppose the person of the Prophet and of God to be confused in both. Hitzig and Knobel follow some of the other Jewish writers in making the whole verse the words of Isaiah. Vitringa and Henderson agree with Athanasius, Augustin, and other Fathers, who reconcile the clauses by making Christ the speaker. Those who believe that he is elsewhere introduced in this same book, can have no difficulty in admitting a hypothesis, which reconciles the divine and human attributes referred to in the sentence, as belonging to one person.—Hear this; not from the beginning in secret have I spoken. See above, on ch. 45: 19.—From the time of its being. CEcolampadius refers this to the eternal counsel of Jehovah; but Vitringa well observes that usage has appropriated n^ft to express the execution not the formation of the divine purpose. Brentius supposes an allusion to the exodus from Egypt and a comparison between it and the deliverance from Babylon; but this is wholly fanciful and arbitrary. The rabbins, with as little reason, make it mean, since the beginning of my ministry, since I assumed the prophetic office. But most interpreters refer the suffix (if) to the raising up of Cyrus and the whole series of events connected with it, which formed the subject of the prophecies in question. (See above, ch. 46: 11.)—Since these events began to take place, 1 was there. Lowth proposes to read fcb and to translate the phrase, I had decreed it. But the obvious analogy of Prov. 8: 27 is of itself sufficient to establish the masoretic reading. Those who regard these as the words of Isaiah, understand them to mean that he had predicted them, or as Knobel expresses it, that he was present as a public speaker. Those who refer the words to the Son of God specifically, make the verse substantially identical in meaning with the one in Proverbs just referred to, which the church in every age has been very much of one mind in applying to the second person of the Godhead as the hypostatical wisdom of the Father. Those who take the words more generally as the language of Jehovah, understand him to declare that these events had not occurred without his knowledge or his agency: that he was present, cognizant, and active, in the whole affair.—Thus far this last hypothesis must be allowed to be the simplest and most natural. The difficulties which attend it arise wholly from what follows. And now. This seems to be in evident antithesis to aS&on or to fin’rrj PSE, the latter being the most obvious because it is the nearest antecedent.— The Lord Jehovah hath sent me. Those who regard Isaiah as the speaker in the whole verse understand this clause to mean, that as he had spoken before by divine authority and inspiration, he did so still. Those who refer the first clause simply to Jehovah, without reference to personal distinctions, are under the necessity of here assuming a transition to the language of the Prophet himself. The third hypothesis, which makes the Son of God the speaker, understands both clauses in their strict sense as denoting his eternity on one hand and his mission on the other. The sending of the Son by the Father is a standing form of speech in Scripture. (See Ex. 23: 20. Is. 61: 1. Mai. 3:1. John 3: 34. 17: 3. Heb. 3: I.)—And his Spirit. It has long been a subject of dispute whether these words belong to the subject or the object of the verb hath sent. The English Version removes all ambiguity by changing the collocation of the words (the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me). The same sense is given in the Vulgate (et spiritus ejus); while the coincidence of the nominative and accusative (TO nvsvfjta) makes the Septuagint no less ambiguous than the original. With the Latin and English agree Calvin, Rosenmiiller, Umbreit, and Hendewerk. Vitringa, Henderson, and Knobel adopt Origen’s interpretation (upyottQa antaredev o jrarijQ, TOV acoriJQa xai TO ayiov ptsvpa). Gesenius and the other modern Germans change the form of expression by inserting the preposition with, which however is intended to represent the Spirit not as the sender but as one of the things sent.—The exegetical question is not one of much importance; because both the senses yielded are consistent with the usage of the Scriptures, and the ambiguity may be intended to let both suggest themselves. As a grammatical question, it is hard to be decided from analogy; because, on either supposition, in^ni cannot be considered as holding its regular position in the sentence, but must be regarded as an afterthought. The main proposition is, the Lord God hath sent me. The supplementary expression and his Spirit may be introduced, without absurdity or any violation of the rules of syntax, either before the verb or after it. Mere usage therefore leaves the question undecided.—As little can it be deter mined by the context or the parallelisms. The argument, which some urge, that the Spirit is never said to send the Son, takes for granted that the latter is the speaker, an assumption which precludes any inference from the language of this clause in proof of that position. Those, on the other hand, who consider these the words of Isaiah, argue in favour of the other construction, t-hat the Spirit is said to send the prophets.—On the whole this may be fairly represented as one of the most doubtful questions of construction in the book, and the safest course is either to admit that both ideas were meant to be suggested, although probably in different degrees, or else to fall back upon the general rule, though liable to numberless exceptions, that the preference is due to the nearest antecedent or to that construction which adheres most closely to the actual collocation of the words. The application of this principle in this case would decide the doubt in favour of the prevailing modern doctrine, that Jehovah had sent the person speaking and endued him with his Spirit, as a necessary preparation for the work to which he was appointed. Beck’s ridiculous assertion, that the writer is here guilty of the folly of appealing to his present prediction of events already past as a proof of his divine legation, only shows the falsehood of the current notion that the object of address is the Jewish people at the period of the exile, and its subject the victories of Cyrus.
17. Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel (see the same prefatory formulas above, ch. 41:14. 43: 14), lam Jehovah thy God (or I Jehovah am thy God), teaching thee to profit (or I, Jehovah, thy God, am teaching thee to profit}. Henderson’s version, I teach, does not convey the precise force of the original, which is expressive of continued and habitual instruction, and the same remark applies to the participle in the other clause. To profit, i. e. to be profitable to thyself, to provide for thy own safety and prosperity, or as Cocceius phrases it, tibi consulere. There seems to be a reference, as Vitringa suggests, to the unprofitableness so often charged upon false gods and their worship. (See ch. 44: 10. 45: 19. Jer. 2: 11.)—Leading thee (literally, making thee to tread) in the way thou shalt go. The ellipsis of the relative is just the same as in familiar English. The future includes the ideas of obligation and necessity, without expressing them directly; the precise sense of the words is, the way thou wilt go if thou desirest to profit. Augusti and Ewald make it present (goest); but this is at the same time less exact and less expressive.—J. H. Michaelis understands these as the words of Christ, the teaching mentioned as the teaching of the gospel, the way the way of salvation etc. To all this the words are legitimately applicable, but it does not follow that they were specifically meant to convey this idea to the reader.
18. J. D. Michaelis suggests the possibility of reading xib, a form in which the negative xb occurs, according to the Masora, thirty-five times in the Old Testament. The first clause would then contain a direct negation, thou hast not attended. In his version, however, he adheres to the masoretic pointing, and translates the word as a conditional particle (wenn du dock), which is also recognised by Winer as the primary meaning of the word, although Gesenius and Ewald reverse the order of deduction, making (/”a secondary sense of the optative particle oh that! The former supposition may be illustrated by our own colloquial expression, if’it were only so and so, implying a desire that it were so. The verb which follows is commonly taken in the wide sense of attending, that of listening being looked upon as a specific application of it. Vitringa here translates it, animum advertisses; J. H. Michaelis, with more regard to usage, aures ct animum. It may be questioned, however, whether there is any clear case of its being used without explicit reference to hearing. If not, this must be regarded as the proper meaning, and the wider sense considered as implied but not expressed. Rosenmuller, Hitzig. Hendewerk, and Knobel, understand this verb as referring to the future: Oh that thou wouldst hearken to my commandments! But the only instance which they cite of this use of the praeter (Is. 63: 19), even if it did not admit (as it evidently does) of the other explanation, could not be set off against the settled usage of the language, which refers ib with the praeter to past time. (See Ewald’s Grammar $ 605, and Nordheimer <§> 1078.) Accordingly Maurer, De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit, and Gesenius (though less explicitly), agree with the older writers in explaining it to mean, Oh that thou hadst hearkened to my command ments! The objection, that this does not suit the context, is entirely unfounded. Nothing could well be more appropriate at the close of this division of the prophecies, than this affecting statement of the truth, so frequently propounded in didactic form already, that Israel, although the chosen people of Jehovah, and as such secure from total ruin, was and was to be a sufferer, not from any want of faithfulness or care on God’s part, but as the necessary fruit of his own imperfections and corruptions.—The Vav conversive introduces the apodosis, and is equivalent to then, as used in English for a similar purpose. Those who refer the first clause to the present or the future, give the second the form of the imperfect subjunctive, then would thy peace be like a river; the others more correctly that of the pluperfect, then had thy peace been (or then would thy peace have been) as a river. The strict sense of the Hebrew is the river, which Vitringa and others understand to mean the Euphrates in particular, with whose inundations, as well as with its ordinary flow, the Prophet’s original readers were familiar. It seems to be more natural, however, to regard the article as pointing out a definite class of objects rather than an individual, and none the less because the parallel expression is the sea, which some, with wanton violence, apply to the Euphrates also.—Peace is here used in its wide sense of prosperity; or rather peace, in the restricted sense, is used to represent all kindred and attendant blessings. The parallel term righteousness adds moral good to natural, and supplies the indispensable condition without which the other cannot be enjoyed. After the various affectations of the modern German writers in distorting this and similar expressions, it is refresh ing to find Ewald, and even Hendewerk, returning to the old and simple version, Peeree’and Righteousness. The ideas suggested by the figure of a river, are abundance, perpetuity, and freshness, to which the waves of the sea add those of vastness, depth, and continual succession.
19. Then should have been like the sand thy seed, a common scriptural expression for great multitude, with special reference, in this case, to the promise made to Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 22: 17. 32: 12), the partial accomplishment of which (2 Sam. 17: 11) is not inconsistent with the thought here expressed, that, in the case supposed, it would have been far more ample and conspicuous. Here, as in ch. 44: 3, Knobel understands by seed or offspring the individual members of the nation as distinguished from the aggregate body. But the image is rather that of a parent (here the patriarch Jacob) and his personal descendants.—And the issues (or off spring) of thy bowels (an equivalent expression to thy seed).—Of the next word nisa there are two interpretations. The Targum, the Vulgate, and the rabbins, give it the sense of stones, pebbles, gravel, and make it a poetical equivalent to sand. J. D. Michaelis and most of the later Germans make it an equivalent to D^>E with a feminine termination, because figuratively used. The antithesis is then between thy bowels and its bowels, viz. those of the sea; and the whole clause, supplying the ellipsis, will read thus, the offspring of thy bowels like (the offspring of) its bowels, in allusion to the vast increase of fishes, which J. D. Michaelis illustrates by saying that the whale leaves enough of its natural food, the herring, to supply all Europe with it daily. Ewald has returned to the old interpretation, which he defends from the charge of being purely conjectural, by tracing both D^B and rvira to the radical idea of softness, the one being applied to the soft inward parts of the body, the other to the soft fine particles of sand or gravel. We may then refer the suffix, not to the remoter antecedent c;>, but to the nearer bin.— His name. We must either suppose an abrupt transition from the second to the third person, or make seed the antecedent of the1 pronoun, which is harsh in itself, and rendered more so by the intervening plural forms. Lowth as usual restores uniformity by reading thy name on the authority of the Septuagint version. Vitringa supposes a particular allusion to genealogical tables and the custom of erasing names from them under certain circumstances. But all the requisitions of the text are answered by the common understanding of name, in such connexions, as equivalent to memory. The excision or destruction of the name from before God is expressive of entire extermination.—The precise sense of the futures in this clause is somewhat dubious. Most interpreters assimilate them to the futures of the foregoing clause, as in the English Version (should not have been cut off nor destroyed}. Those who understand the first clause as expressing a wish in relation to the present or the future, make this last a promise, either absolute (his name shall not be cut off} or conditional (7m name should not be cut off}. Nor is this direct construction of the last clause inconsistent with the old interpretation of the first; as we may suppose that the writer, after wishing that the people had escaped the strokes provoked by their iniquities, declares that even now they shall not be entirely destroyed. This is precisely the sense given to the clause in the Septuagint (ovde vvv ajrofocrai), and is recommended by two considerations: first, the absence of the Vav conversive, which in the other clause may indicate an indirect construction: and secondly, its perfect agreement with the whole drift of the passage, and the analogy of others like it, where the explanation of the sufferings of the people as the fruit of their own sin is combined with a promise of exemption from complete destruction.
20. Go forth from Babel! This is a prediction of the deliverance from Babylon, clothed in the form of an exhortation to escape from it. We have no right to assume a capricious change of subject, or a want of all coherence with what goes before. The connexion may be thus stated. After the general reproof and promise of the nineteenth verse, he recurs to the great example of deliverance so often introduced before. As if he had said, Israel, notwithstanding his unworthiness, shall be preserved; even in extremity his God will not forsake him; even from Babylon he shall be delivered;—and then turning in prophetic vision to the future exiles, he invites them to come forth.—Flee from the Chasdim (or Chaldees)! Vi tringa, Gesenius, and most other writers, supply “fnx before t^Ti’S, or regard the latter as itself the name of the country. (See above, on ch. 47: 1.) But Maurer well says that he sees no reason why we may not here retain the proper meaning of the plural, and translate, flee ye from the Chaldeans, which is precisely the common English version of the clause.— With a voice of joy. The last word properly denotes a joyful shout, and not articulate song. The whole1 phrase means, with the sound or noise of such a shout. It has been made a question whether these words are to be connected with what goes before or with what follows. Gesenius and Hendewerk prefer the former, most interpreters the latter; but Vitringa thinks the masoretic accents were intended to connect it equally with both parts of the context, as in ch. 40: 3.— Tell this, cause it to be heard. The Hebrew collocation (tell, cause to be heard, this) cannot be retained in English. Utter it (cause it to go forth) even to the end of the earth. Compare ch. 42: 10. 43: 6. Say ye, Jehovah hath redeemed his servant Jacob. The present form adopted by J. D. Michael is and August! is not only unnecessary but injurious to the effect. These are words to be uttered after the event; and the preterite must therefore be strictly understood, as it is by most interpreters. The deliverance from Babylon is here referred to, only as one great example of the general truth that God saves his people.
21. And they thirsted not in the deserts (through which) he made them go. The translation of the verbs as futures, by J. H. Michaelis and Hitzig, is entirely ungrammatical and inconsistent with the obvious intention of the writer to present these as the words of an annunciation after the event. The present form, adopted by J. D. Michaelis and the later Ger mans, although less erroneous, is a needless and enfeebling evasion of the true sense, which is purely descriptive.— Water from a well he made to flow for them; and he clave the rock, and waters gushed out. There is evident reference here to the miraculous supply of water in the journey through the wilderness. (Ex. 17: 6. Num. 20: 11. Ps. 78: 15.) It might even seem as if the writer meant to state these facts historically. Such at least would be the simpler exposition of his words, which would then contain a reference to the exodus from Egypt, as the great historical example of deliverance. As if he had said, Relate how God of old redeemed his servant Jacob out of Egypt, and led him through the wilderness, and slaked his thirst with water from the solid rock. Most interpreters, however, are agreed in apply ing the words to the deliverance from Babylon. Kimchi understands the language strictly, and expresses his surprise that no account of this great miracle was left on record by Ezra or any other inspired historian. Gesenius sneers at the rabbin’s naivete, but thinks it matched by the simplicity of some Christian writers who know not what to make of ideal anticipations which were never realized. Perhaps, however, the absurdity is not altogether on the side where he imagines it to lie. Kimchi was right in assuming, that if the flight and the march through the wilderness were literal (a supposition common to Gesenius and himself), then the accompanying circumstances must receive a literal interpretation likewise, unless there be something in the text itself to indicate the contrary. Unless we are prepared to assume an irrational confusion of language, setting all interpretation at defiance, our only alternative is to conclude, on the one hand, that Isaiah meant to foretell a miraculous supply of water during the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, or that the whole description is a figurative one, meaning simply that the wonders of the exodus should be renewed. Against the former is the silence of history, alleged by Kimchi; against the latter nothing but the foregone conclusion that this and other like passages must relate exclusively to Babylon and the return from exile.
22. There is no peace, saith Jehovah, to the wicked. The meaning of this sentence, in itself considered, is too clear to be disputed. There is more doubt as to its connexion with what goes before. That it is a mere aphorism, added to this long discourse, like a moral to an ancient fable, can only satisfy the minds of those who look upon the whole book as a series of detached and incoherent sentences. Vastly more rational is the opinion, now the current one among interpreters, that this verse was intended to restrict the operation of the foregoing promises to true believers, or thqTge nuine Israel; as if he had said, All this will God accomplish for his people, but not for the wicked among them. The grand conclusion to which all tends is, that God is all and man nothing; that even the chosen people must be sufferers, because they are sinners; that peculiar favour confers no immunity to sin or exemption from responsibility, but that even in the Israel of God and the enjoyment of the most extraordinary privileges, it still remains for ever true that “there is no peace to the wicked.”
