THIS chapter, like the whole division which it introduces, has for its great theme the relation of the church to the world, or of Israel to the gen tiles. The relation of the former to Jehovah is of course still kept in view, but with less exclusive prominence than in the First Part (ch. XL-XLVIII). The doctrine there established and illustrated, as to the mutual relation of the body and the head, is here assumed as the basis of more explicit teach ings with respect to their joint relation to the world and the great design of their vocation. There is not so much a change of topics as a change in their relative position and proportions.
The chapter opens with an exhibition of the Messiah and his people, under one ideal person, as the great appointed Teacher, Apostle, and Restorer, of the apostate nations, vs. 1-9. This is followed by a promise of divine protection and of glorious enlargement, attended by a joyous revolution in the state of the whole world, vs. 10—13. The doubts and apprehensions of the church herself are twice recited under different forms, vs. 14 and 24, and as often met and silenced, first by repeated and still stronger promises of God’s unchanging love to his people and of their glorious enlargement and success, vs. 15—23; then by an awful threatening of destruction to their enemies and his, vs. 25, 26.
1. Hearken ye islands unto me, and attend ye nations from afar. Here, as in ch. 41: I, he turns to the gentiles and addresses them directly. There is the same diversity in this case as to the explanation of D^x. Some give it the vague sense of nations, others that of distant nations, while J. D. Michaelis again goes to the opposite extreme by making it mean Europe and Asia Minor. Intermediate between these is the meaning coasts, approved by Ewald and others. But there seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the sense of islands, which may be considered as a poetical representative of foreign and especially of distant nations, although not as directly expressing that idea.—From afar is not merely at a distance (although this explanation might, in case of necessity, be justified by usage), but suggests the idea of attention being drawn to a central point from other points around it.—Jehovah from the womb hath called me, from the bowels of my mother he hath mentioned my name (or literally, caused it to be remembered). This does not necessarily denote the literal prediction of an individual by name before his birth, although, as Hengstenberg suggests, there may be an intentional allusion to that circumstance, involved in the wider meaning of the words, viz. that of personal election and designation to office. Vitringa’s explanation of “JBSE as meaning before birth, is not only unauthorized, but as gratuitous as Noyes’s euphemistic paraphrase, in my very childhood. The expression from the womb may be either inclusive of the period before birth, or restricted to the actual vocation of the speaker to his providential work.—The speaker in this and the following verses is not Isaiah, either as an individual, or as a representative of the prophets gene rally, on either of which suppositions the terms used are inappropriate and extravagant. Neither the prophets as a class, nor Isaiah as a single prophet, had been intrusted with a message to the gentiles. In favour of supposing that the speaker is Israel, the chosen people, there are various considerations, but especially the aid which^this hypothesis affords in the interpretation of the third verse. At the same time there are clear indications that the words are the words of the Messiah. These two most plausible interpretations may be reconciled and blended, by assuming that in this case as in ch. 42: 1, the ideal speaker is the Messiah considered as the head of CHAPTER XLtX. 171 his people and as forming with them one complex person, according to the canon of Tichonius already quoted, de Christo et Corpore ejus Ecclesia tanquam de una persona in Scripiura saepius mentionem fieri, cui quaedam tribuuntur quae tantum in Caput, quaedam quae tantum in Corpus competunt, quaedam vero in utrumque. The objections to this assumption here are for the most part negative and superficial. That of Hengstenberg, that if this were the true interpretation here, it would admit of being carried out else where, is really a strong proof of its truth; as we have seen conclusive reasons, independently of this case, to explain the parallel passage in ch. 42: 1 on precisely the same principle. The whole question as to the subjects and connexions of these Later. Prophecies has made a very sensible advance towards satisfactory solution since the date of the Christology, as may be learned by comparing the general analysis and special expositions of the latter with the corresponding passages of Havernick and Drechsler. If, as we have seen cause to believe^the grand theme of this whole book is the Church, in its relation to its Head and to the World, the anterior presumption is no longer against but decidedly in favour of the reference of|#iis verse to the Head and the Body as one person, a reference confirmed, as we shall see, by clear New Testament authority.
2. A.nd he hath placed (i. e. rendered or made) my mouth like a sharp sword. By mouth we are of course to understand speech, discourse. The comparison is repeated and explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews (4: 12): “ The word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” In both cases these qualities are predicated not of literal speech merely, but of the instruction of which it is the natural and common instrument. As tropical parallels, Lowth refers to Pindar’s frequent description of his verses as darts, but especially to the famous panegyric of Eupolis on Pericles, that he alone of the orators left a sting in those who heard him (jMoVot? TOOV QUIOQ&V TO xt’vTQov r/xaTtlfine TDK; «x(>ooo^’0/t,’).—In the shadow of his hand he hid me. It has been made a question whether in the shadow of his hand means in his hand or under it; and if the latter, whether there is reference to the usual position of the sword-belt, or to the concealment of the drawn sword or dagger under the arm or in the sleeve. Most interpreters, however, prefer the obvious sense, in the protection of his hand, or rather in its darkness, since the reference is not so much to safety as to con- 1 cealment. Thus understood, the figure is appropriate not only to the personal Messiah, but to the ancient church, as his precursor and representative, in which high character it was not known for ages to the nations^— And he placed me for (that is, rendered me, or, used me as) a polished arrow. This is the parallel expression to the first member of the other clause. What is there called a sword is here an arrow. The essential idea is of course the same, viz. that of penetrating power, but perhaps with an additional allusion to the directness of its aim and the swiftness of its flight. The common version shaft is not entirely accurate, the Hebrew word denoting strictly the metallic head of the arrow. The Septuagint gives -una the sense of chosen or elect, which is retained by Vitringa; but most interpreters prefer the sense of polished,, which is near akin to that of sharpened, sharp.—In his quiver he has hid me. This is the corresponding image to the hiding in the shadow of God’s hand. It is still more obvious in this case that the main idea meant to be conveyed is not protection but conceal ment. The archer keeps the arrow in his quiver not merely that it may be safe, but that it may be ready for use and unobserved until it is used.
3. And he (Jehovah) said to me, Thou art my servant, i. e. my instrument or agent constituted such for a specific and important purpose. In^his same character both Israel and the Messiah have before been introduced. There is therefore the less reason for giving any other than the strict sense to the words which follow, Israel in whom I will be glorified or glorify myself. The version I will glory seems inadequate and not sufficiently sustained by usage. Gesenius, unable to reconcile this form of address with the hypothesis that the speaker is Isaiah or the Prophets as a class, proposes in his commentary what had been before proposed by J. D. Michaelis to expunge the word ^^ as spurious,—a desperate device which he abandons in the second edition of his version, and adopts the opinion of Umbreit, that the Israel of this passage is the chosen people as a whole or with respect to its better portion. The other devices, which have been adopted for the purpose of evading this difficulty, although not so violent, are equally unfounded. E. g. ‘ It is Israel in whom I will be glorified by thee.’ ’ Thou art an Israelite indeed, or a genuine descendant of Israel.’ Another gratuitous hypothesis is that of a sudden apostrophe to Israel after addressing the Messiah or the Prophet. The only supposition which adheres to the natural and obvious meaning of the sentence, and yet agrees with the context, is the first above mentioned, viz. that of a complex subject including the Messiah and his people, or the body with its head.
4. And I said, in opposition or reply to what Jehovah said. The pronoun in Hebrew, being not essential to the sense, is emphatic.—In vain (or for a vain thing, i. e. an unattainable object) have I toiled. The Hebrew word suggests the idea of exhaustion and weariness.—For emptiness and vanity my strength have I consumed. But my right is with Jehovah and my work with my God. r&ss is no doubt here used in the same sense as in cb. 40: 10, viz. that of recompense, work being put for its result or its equivalent. If so, it is altogether probable that ‘‘BBEE here means that to which I have a right or am entitled, that is to say in this connexion, my reward or recompense. This explanation of the term is certainly more natural than that which makes it mean my cause, my suit, as this needlessly introduces a new figure, viz. that of litigation over and above that of labour or service for hire. This clause is universally explained as an expression of strong confidence that God would make good what was wanting, by bestow ing the reward which had not yet been realized. With therefore means in his possession, and at his disposal. The next verse shows that the failure here complained of is a failure to accomplish the great work before described, viz. that of converting the world.
5. And now, saith Jehovah, my maker (or u-ho formed me) from the womb, for a servant to himself, i. e. to be his servant in the sense before explained. The now may be here taken either in its temporal or logical sense.— To convert (or bring back) Jacob to him. This cannot mean to restore from exile.; for how could this work be ascribed directly either to the Prophet or the Prophets, or to the Messiah, or to Israel himself? It might indeed apply to Cyrus, but the whole context is at war with such an explanation. All that is left, then, is to give the verb the sense of brino-in”back to a state of allegiance from one of alienation and revolt. But how could Jacob or Israel be said to bring himself back? This is the grand objection to the assumption that the servant of Jehovah was Israel himself. In order to evade it, Rosenmiiller and Hitzig deny that asitib is dependent on the words immediately preceding, and refer it to Jehovah himself, that he might bring back Jacob to himself. But this construction, not an obvious or natural one in itself, if here assumed, must be repeated again and again in the following verses, where it is still more strained and inappropriate. Nor is it necessary even here, to justify the reference of the passage to Israel, which may be effected by assuming a coincident reference to the Messiah, as the head of the body, and as such conspicuously active in restoring Israel itself to God.—This is one of the cases where the idea of the head predominates above that of the body, because they are related to each other as the subject and object of one and the same action. The vocation of Israel was to reclaim the nations; that of the Messiah was first to reclaim Israel himself and then the nations.—In the next clause there is an ancient variation of the text, preserved in the Kethib and Keri of the Masora. The marginal emendation is ib to him, which many modern interpreters prefer, and make it for the most part a dependent clause, to restore Jacob to him and that Israel may be gathered to him. In the sentence construed thus it might seem strange that different prepositions should be used in the two parallel members, and that “fr should stand before the verb instead of closing the phrase as Tb» does. But these might be considered trivial points, were it not that the marginal reading is so easily accounted for, as an attempt to remove the difficulties of the older text, in which the tib has its natural and necessary place before the verb. Luther, adhering to the textual reading, gives the verb an unfavourable sense, thai Israel may not be snatched away or carried of. But most of those who retain the old reading give the verb the favourable sense of gathering that which is dispersed. Some then read the clause as an interrogation, shall not Israel be gathered? Others as a concession, although Israel be not gathered. Others as a simple affirmation in the present tense, and (yet) Israel is not gathered. All that is needed to give this last the preference is the substitution of the future for the present, after which the whole verse may be paraphrased as follows: Thus saith Jehovah, who formed me from the womb as a servant for himself, to restore Jacob to him, and (yet) Israel will not be gathered— and (yet) I shall be honoured in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God has (already) been my strength. The first yet introduced to show the true connexion is equivalent to saying, though I was called and raised up for this purpose; the other is equivalent to saying, although Israel will not be gathered. This last phrase may be taken as a simple prediction that they should not be gathered, or a declaration that they would not (consent to) be gathered. This last, if not expressed, is implied.—The translation of *w as meaning my praise is entirely gratuitous and hurtful to the sense, which is, that God had sustained him notwithstanding the apparent failure of his mission. The general meaning of the verse is that Messiah and his people should be honoured in the sight of God, although the proximate design of their mission, the salvation of the literal Israel, might se^m to fail.
6. And he said. This does not introduce a new discourse or declaration, but resumes the construction which bad been interrupted by the parenthetic clauses of the foregoing verse. It is in fact a repetition of the rvirn -rj< at the beginning of that verse. And now saith Jehovah (who formed me from the womb to be a servant to himself, to restore Jacob to him, and yet Israel will not be gathered, and yet I shall be honoured in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God has been my strength)—he said or says as follows. It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant. The original form of expression is so purely idiomatic, that it cannot be retained in English. According to the usual analogy, the Hebrew words would seem to mean it is lighter than thy being my servant; but this can be resolved into it is too light for thee to be my servant, with at least as much ease as a hundred other formulas, the sense of which is obvious, however difficult it may be to account for the expression. Hitzig’s assertion, therefore, that it is at variance with the laws of thought and language, though adopted by Gesenius in his Thesaurus, is not only arbitrary but absurd, as it assumes the possibility of ascertaining and determining these laws independently of actual usage. The most that can be said with truth is that the form of expression is anomalous and rare, though not unparalleled, as may be seen by a comparison of this verse with Ezek. 8: 17. The sense, if it were doubtful in itself, would be clear from the context, which requires this to be taken as a declaration that it was not enough for the Messiah (and the people as his representative) to labour for the natural descendants of Abraham, but he and they must have a wider field.— Thy being to me a servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and the preserved of Israel to restore. This form of expression shows very clearly that in this and the parallel passages servant is not used indefinitely but in the specific sense of an appointed instrument or agent to perform a certain work. That work is here the raising up of Jacob, a phrase which derives light from the parallel expression, to restore the preserved of Israel, i. e. to raise them from a state of degradation, and to restore them from a state of estrangement. A specific reference to restoration from the Babylonish exile would be gratuitous: much more the restriction of the words to that event, which is merely included as a signal instance of deliverance and restoration in the general. The textual reading “l^2?? appears to be a verbal adjective occurring no where else, and therefore exchanged by the masoretic critics for the passive participle ^^. J. D. Michaelis, more ingeniously than wisely, makes T’sa synonymous with -1x3 (ch. 11: 1) a shoot or sprout, and gives to arm: the corresponding sense of a twig or branch—the shoots of Jacob and the twigs of Israel. All other writers seem to take the latter in its usual sense of tribe,( and the other in that of preserved—meaning the elect or ‘ such as should be: saved.’—And 1 have given thee for a light of the gentiles (as in ch. 42: 6), to be my salvation even to the end of the earth. This, according to the English idiom, would seem to mean that thou mayest be my salvation etc.; but Hebrew usage equally admits of the interpretation, that my salvation may be (i. e. extend) to the end of the earth, which is in fact preferred by most interpreters. The meaning of this verse is not, as some suppose, that I the heathen should be given to him in exchange and compensation for the unbelieving Jews, but that his mission to the latter was, from the beginning, but a small part of his high vocation. The application of this verse by Paul and Barnabas, in their address to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13: 47) is very important, as a confirmation of the hypothesis assumed above, that the person here described is not the Messiah exclusively, but that his people are included in the subject of the description.—” It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles. FOR so HATH THE LORD COMMANDED us (saying), I have set thee to be a light of the gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” Although this, as Hengstenberg observes, is not irreconcilable with the exclusive Messianic explanation of the verse before us, its agreement with the \wider explanation is too striking to be deemed fortuitous.
7. Thus saith Jehovah, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to the heartily despised, to the nation exciting abhorrence. The two epithets in this clause are exceedingly obscure and difficult, rna has been variously explained as an infinitive, a passive participle, and an adjective in the construct state, which last is adopted by Gesenius and most later writers—ttifia is commonly explained as meaning men, chiefly because the parallel ex pression in Ps. 22: 7 is c^ “^la. Another explanation takes it in its proper sense of soul, and understands it to qualify Jiia, as meaning despised from the soul, ex animo. (Compare tfssa -n^x (Ps. 17: 9.) The meaning men belongs to the word only in certain cases, chiefly those in which we use the same expression, not a soul, forty souls, poor soul, etc. No one, from this English usage, would infer that hated by souls meant hated by persons.—The other epithet is still more difficult, as it is necessary to determine whether arr.a has its usual sense, and whether ^I’a is its subject or its object. Whom the nation abhorreth, who abhorreth the nation, who excites the abhorrence of the nation, the nation which excites abhorrence, —all these are possible translations of the Hebrew words, among which interpreters choose according to their different views respecting the whole passage. In any case it is descriptive of deep abasement and general con tempt, to be exchanged hereafter for an opposite condition.— To a servant of rulers, one who has hitherto been subject to them but is now to receive their homage—.Kings shall sec (not him or them, but it, viz. that which is to happen) and rise up (as a tokenof respect), princes (shall see) and bow themselves. It is an ingenious thought of Hitzig, though perhaps too refined, that kings, being usually seated in the presence of others, are described as rising from their thrones; while princes and nobles, who usually stand in the presence of their sovereigns, are described as falling prostrate.— For (he sake of Jehovah who is faithful (to his promises), the Holy One of Israel, and he hath chosen thee, or in our idiom who hath chosen thee. This last clause not only ascribes the promised change to the power of God, but represents it as intended solely to promote his glory.
8. Thus saith Jehovah, In a time of favour have I heard (or answer ed) thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee. The common version, an acceptable time, does not convey the sense of the original, which signifies a suitable or appointed time for showing grace or favour. The 17 object of address is still the Messiah and his people, whose great mission is again described. And I will keep thee, and will give thee for a covenant of the people, i. e. of men in general (see above, ch. 42: 7), to raise up the earth or world from its present state of ruin, and to cause to inherit the desolate heritages, the moral wastes of heathenism. There is allusion to the division of the land by Joshua. Here again we have clear Apostolical authority for applying this description to the Church, or people of God, as the Body of which Christ is the Head. Paul says to the Corinthians, u We then as workers together (with him) beseech you also that ye receive not the word of God in vain. For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee.” What follows is no part of the quotation but Paul’s comment on it. “ Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. 6: 2.) This, taken in connexion with the citation of v. 6 in Acts 13: 47, precludes the supposition of an accidental or unmeaning application of this passage to the people or ministers of Christ as well as to himself.
9. To say to those bound, Come forth; to (those) who (are) in darkness, Be revealed (or show yourselves), ifcxb might here be taken in its usual sense after verbs of speaking, viz. that of saying; but it seems more natural to make it a correlative of the infinitives cijrhb and ^ri=*^?v to raise up—to cause to inherit—to say. Gesenius paraphrases rather than translates iban, come to the light; which is carefully copied by his later imitators as a faithful version.— On the ways (or roads) they shall feed, and in all bare hills (shall be) their pasture. There is here a change of figure, the delivered being represented not as prisoners or freedmen but as flocks.. Some read by the way or on their way homeward; but it is commonly agreed that the Prophet simply represents the flock as finding pasture even without going aside to seek it, and even in the most unlikely situations. The restriction of these figures to deliverance from Babylon, can seem natural only to those who have assumed the same hypothesis throughout the fore going chapters.
10. They shall not hunger and they shall not thirst, and there shall not smite them mirage and sun; for he that hath mercy on them shall guide them, and by springs of water shall he lead them. The image of a flock is still continued. (Compare ch. 40: JO, 11. 41: 18. 43: 19.) a^ta is the same word that is now universally explained in ch. 35: 7 to mean the mirage, or delusive appearance of water in the desert. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 582.) Jarchi explains it here by din heat, which Rosenmiiller supposes to be here substituted for the proper meaning. Gesenius, on the other hand, makes heat the primary, and mirage the secondary sense. The 12 reason for excluding the latter here is that it does not seem to suit the verb smite; but as this verb is used with considerable latitude, and as a zeugma may be easily assumed, Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel give the noun the same sense in both places. Most of the modern writers understand the last clause to mean, to springs of water he shall lead them; but along or by may be considered preferable, as suggesting more directly the idea of progressive motion. As he leads them onwards, he conducts them along streams of water. This may however be supposed to give too great a latitude of meaning to the word translated springs.—For the true sense of the verb bna-j, see above, on ch. 40: 11.
11. And I will place all my mountains for the way, and my roads shall be high. The image of a flock is now exchanged for that of an army on the march. Rosenmiiller omits my, and explains “nrj as an old plural form; to which Gesenius objects, not only as gratuitous, but also as at variance with the parallelism which requires a suffix. My mountains is by some understood to mean the mountains of Israel; but why these should be mentioned is not easily explained. Others with more probability explain it as an indirect assertion of God’s sovereignty and absolute control, and more especially his power \o remove the greatest obstacles from the way of his people. The original expression is not merely for a way but for the way, i. e. the way in which my people are to go. •”&&» is an artificial road or causeway made by throwing up the earth, which seems to be intended by the verb at the close. (Compare the use of bbo ch. 57: 14. 62: 19.) The discrepance of gender in the verb and noun is an anomaly, but one which does not in the least obscure the sense or even render the construction doubtful. Compare with this verse ch. 35: 8. 40: 4.
12. Behold, these from afar shall come, and behold these from the north and from the sea, and these from the land of Sinim. There is not the least doubt as to the literal translation of this verse; and yet it has been.a famous subject of discordant expositions, all of which turn upon the question what is meant by the land of Sinim. In addition to the authors usually cited, respect will here be had to an interesting monograph, by an American Missionary in China, originally published in the Chinese Repository, and republished in this country under the title of “ The Land of Sinim, or an exposition of Isaiah 49: 12, together with a brief account of the Jews and Christians in China.” (Philadelphia, 1845.) It is well said by this writer, that the verse before us is the central point of the prophetical discourse, of which it forms a part; inasmuch as it embodies the great promise, which in various forms is exhibited before and afterwards. This relation of the text to the context is important, because it creates a presumption in favour of the widest meaning which can be put upon the terms of the prediction, and against a restricted local application. A preliminary question, not devoid of exegetical importance, is the question with respect to the mutual relation of the clauses, as divided in the masoretic text. The doubtful point is whether the first clause is a single item in an enumeration of particulars, or a generic statement, comprehending the specific statements of the other clause. Almost all interpreters assume the former ground and understand the verse as naming or distinguishing the four points of the compass. But the other supposition is ingeniously maintained by the Missionary in China, who makes the first clause a general prediction that converts shall come from the remotest nations, and the other an explanation of this vague expression, as including the north, the west, and the land of Sinim. Upon this construction of the sentence, which is certainly plausible and striking, it may be observed, in the first place, that it is not necessary for the end at which the author seems to aim in urging it. This end appears to be the securing of some proof that the specifications of the second clause relate to distant countries. But this conclusion is almost as obvious, if not entirely so, upon the other supposition; for if one of the four quarters is denoted by the phrase from afar, the idea necessarily suggested is that all the other points enumerated are remote likewise. The same thing would moreover be sufficiently apparent from the whole drift of the context as relating not to proximate or local changes but to vast and universal ones. Nothing is gained therefore even for the author’s own opinion, by the admission of this new construction. Another observation is that the authority on which he seems to rest its claims is inconclusive, namely, that of the masoretic interpunction, as denoted by the accents. He states the testimony thus afforded much too strongly, when he speaks of “ a full stop” after the clause from afar they shall come, and points the verse accordingly. The Athnach, as a general rule, indicates the pause not at the end but in the middle of a sentence or complete proposition. It is therefore prima facie proof that the sense is incomplete; and although there may be numerous exceptions, it cannot possibly demonstrate that the first clause does not form a part of the same series of particulars which is concluded in the second. That the first clause frequently contains what may be logically called an essential portion of the second, any reader may convince himself by the most cursory inspection of the book before us; and for two decisive examples in this very chapter, he has only to examine the fifth and seventh verses, where the substitution of a “ full stop” for the Athnach would destroy the sense. But even if the testimony of the accents were still more explicit and decisive than it is. their comparatively recent date and their mixed relation to rhythmical or musical as well as to grammatical and logical distinctions make it always proper to subject their decisions to the requisitions of the text and context in themselves considered. Notwithstanding the great value of the masoretic accents as an aid to interpretation, the appeal must after all be to the obvious meaning of the words, or in default of this to analogy and usage^e. The accents leave us therefore perfectly at liberty to look upon the mutual relation of the clauses as an open question, by inquiring whether there is any valid reason for departing from the ancient and customary supposition that the four points of the compass, or at least four quarters or directions, are distinctly mentioned. This leads me, in the third place, to observe that the objection which the Missionary makes to this hypothesis, apart from the question of accentuation, is an insufficient one. He objects to Vitringa’s ^explanation of the phrase from afar as meaning from the east (and the ^aifeHibjection would by parity of reasoning apply to the explanation of it as denoting from the south), that afar does not mean the east, and is not elsewhere used to denote it. But what Vitringa means to say is not that afar means the east, but simply that it here supplies its place. If any one, in numbering the points of the compass, should, instead of a complete enumeration, say the north, south, east, and so on, his obvious meaning could not well be rendered doubtful by denying that and so on ever means the west. It is not the words themselves, but the place which they occupy, and their relation to the rest of the sentence, that suggests rather than expresses the idea. £o here, the north, the west, the land of Sinim, and afar, may denote the four points of the compass, although not so explicitly as m the case supposed, because in that before us we have not merely one doubtful point, but two, if not three; and also because the one most dubious (from afar) is not at the end like and so on, but at the beginning. Still it seems most natural, when four distinct local designations are given, one of which is certainly, another almost certainly, and a third most probably, indicative of particular quarters or directions, to conclude that the fourth is so used likewise, however vague it may be in itself, and however situated in the sentence. The presumption thus created is confirmed by the fact that the hypothesis of only three divisions admits that the whole earth was meant to be included; and it thus becomes a question, which is most agreeable to general usage, and to that of Scripture in particular, a threefold or a fourfold distribution of the earth in such connexions? If the latter, then analogy is strongly in favour of the common supposition that the first clause is not coextensive with the other, but contains the first of four particulars enumerated. Over and above this argument derived from the usual distinction of four points or quarters, there is another furnished by the usage of the pronoun these, when repeated so as to express a distributive idea. In all such cases, these and these means some and others; nor is there probably a single instance in which the first these comprehends the whole, while the others divide it into parts. This would be just as foreign from the Hebrew idiom as it is from ours to say, some live in Europe, some in France, some in Holland,’ when we mean that some live in Holland, some in France, and all in Europe. The proposed construction would be altogether natural, if r&x were omitted in the first clause; but its presence cannot be accounted for, if that clause is inclusive of the other. That the distributive use of the demonstrative is not confined to two such pronouns only, may be seen from ch. 44: 5, where the singular fit is twice repeated, just as the plural nlbx is here, and in a connexion which admits of no doubt as to the distributive import of all three.—From all this it seems to follow that the verse most probably contains the customary distribution of the earth or heavens into four great quarters, and that one of these is designated by the phrase from afar. Which one is so described can only be determined by determining the true sense of the other three. The Missionary in China is therefore perfectly correct in setting aside all arguments against his own opinion founded on the supposition that from afar must mean the south or the east. The expression is so vague that it must be determined by the others, and cannot therefore be employed to determine them, without reasoning in a vicious circle. This serves to show that the question after all is of no great exegetical importance, since in either case the same conclusion may be reached. It is always best, however, to adhere to the more obvious and usual construction of a passage, in the absence of decisive reasons for depart ing from it. Assuming then that four points are mentioned, and that the first (from afar) can only be determined by determining the others, let us now attempt to do so. One of these (the north) is undisputed: for although interpreters may differ as to its precise bounds and extent, its relative position is unquestionably fixed by the usage of the Hebrew word. Another term, which most interpreters, and among the rest the Missionary in China, seem to look upon as equally settled and beyond dispute, is more ambiguous than they imagine, and has recently received a very different explanation. This is c1;, which strictly means the sea, but is often used for west, because on that side Palestine is naturally bounded by the Mediterranean. Hitzig, however, very confidently says that here and in Ps. 103: 7, where it is put in opposition to the north, ^ means the south sea, and as a term of geography the south. This is not mentioned as having any probability, of which it is entirely destitute, because the geographical import of the term is not to be decided by the parallelism or the context in any given case, but by the predominant usage, which determines it to mean the west, and so it is explained both by the oldest and the latest writers. Having two points thus determined, we are sure that the two which remain must be the east and south; and as we have already seen that/ro?n afar from its vagueness must receive but cannot give light, we have now to ascertain, if possible, in which of these directions lay the land of Sinim. The discrepancy of the versions as to these concluding words is remarkable, and shows the doubt in which the subject was involved at a very early period. The Missionary in China makes an observation on this difference which is less just than ingenious, viz. that no one of the authors of these versions seems to have regarded his own country as the Land of Sinim; “ for it can scarcely be supposed,” says he, “ that the authors of a version living in the very country referred to, should so utterly fail of perceiving it as to give the preference to other lands.” It is not easy to perceive, however, why the same causes that have made the prophecy obscure to others, should not make it equally obscure to the people of the country meant, especially if the name used was intended to be enigmatical, as some interpreters suppose. Indeed, by parity of reasoning it would seem to follow that if the author of the Septuagint Version had supposed it to be Egypt, this would have decided the question. But although this observation does not seem entitled to any influence upon the exegesis, the difference between the ancient versions, as well as the commentators of all ages, is still very remarkable. Without attempt ing to enumerate all the explanations, it will not be amiss to give some samples of the different classes. Some would seem to be mere conjectural inferences from the context. Thus the Targum and Vulgate make it mean the land of the south or southern land, assuming no doubt that from afar must mean the east, and that the south alone remained to be supplied. Proceeding on the contrary hypothesis, that from afar must mean the south, the Septuagint puts the Land of Sinim in the east, but gives it the specific sense of Persia, which appears to be entirely arbitrary. The same thing may be said of Matthew Henry’s notion that the Land of Sinim was a Babylonian province. As a specimen of fanciful interpretation, may be given Adam Clarke’s suggestion that as V° means a bush, D^O may mean bushes, woods, or a woody country, and be here used to denote the region occupied by the descendants of the ten tribes, perhaps in West Africa or North America! Dismissing these gratuitous conjectures, we may now confine ourselves to those interpretations which have some foundation or appearance of it either in philology or history. Among these may be mentioned, first, the supposition that the land of Sinim is the country of the Smites spoken of in Gen. 10: 17 and 1 Chron. 1: 15. But why should a Canaanitish tribe of no importance, and which no where reappears in history, be here made to represent one of the four quarters of the globe? This question becomes still more difficult to answer when it is added that the Smites must have been immediately adjacent to the land of Israel, and on the north side which is separately mentioned. Grotius indeed transfers them to the south side, but by sheer mistake, and for the purpose of connect ing them with the wilderness of Sin and Mount Sinai, which are wholly distinct from it. Jerome and Jarchi also understand the Land of Sinim to be the wilderness of Sin or the peninsula of Sinai, but without identifying these with the country of the Canaanitish Sinites, as Grotius does. To their opinion the decisive objection is not the one which the Missionary in China draws from the difference of name and from the plural form Sinim. That “there were not two deserts of Sin,” proves no more in this case than the assertion that there were not two Hermons proves against the application of the plural Hermonim to that mountain in Ps. 42: 7. If a mountain might be so called, why not a desert? And if Hermonim means Hermonites, why may not Sinim mean Sinites? This question is especially appropriate, because the author gives no explanation of the plural form, upon his own hypothesis. But although this objection is invalid, the other which the author urges is conclusive, namely, that Sinai and the wilderness of Sin were too near and too limited to be employed in this connexion. Another explanation founded on analogy of names is that of Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Bochart, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, and Ewald, that the land of Sinim is the land of Egypt, so called from Syenc, as Michaelis supposes, or from Sin, i. e. Pelusium, mentioned under that name by Ezekiel (30: 15, 16) as maintained by Bochart, Vitringa, and Ewald. Here again it seems unfair to argue, with the Missionary in China, from the plural form of the Hebrew name; for if, as he observes, it is merely fanciful to refer it to the old geographical distinction of Upper and Lower Egypt, is it not more than fanciful to refer it to China where there is no such dis tinction to account for it at all! If it be said, that Sinim means the Chinese, it may just as easily be said that it means the Egyptians. There is no force therefore in the argument from this peculiarity in form, any more than in the argument which the Missionary in China himself admits to be here inapplicable, that Egypt was not sufficiently important to be made the representative of one great quarter. As little weight attaches to his argument that this interpretation of the name would make the distribution too unequal; for as he adjusts the limits of the north and even of the land of Sinim at discretion, there is no sufficient reason why the same thing might not be done with Sinim if it did mean Egypt. The really decisiveground, assumed by the same writer, is that Egypt, notwithstanding its extent and historical importance, was too near at hand to suit the context,, which requires a remote land to be here meant, whether from afar be taken as a general description or as a distinct specification. Another strong objection is that no cause can be shown, from analogy or otherwise, for the designation of this well known country, in this one place only, by a name derived from one of its cities, and that not of the first rank. The only remaining explanation, which will be referred to, is that the land of Sinim is China, as maintained by Manasseh Ben Israel, Montanus, Calmet, Gesenius, Winer, Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, Umbreit, Hendewerk, Knobel, and Beck. An objection to this interpretation is suggested to some minds by its resemblance to an etymological conceit founded merely on an assonance of names. It was probably this prejudice which caused it to be spoken of with such con tempt by Grotius, Clericus, and Vitringa. But in modern times, the cur rent has completely changed, and this despised notion has been warmly espoused not only by the most distinguished writers on Isaiah (Rosenmiiller and Ewald being almost the only exceptions in the German school), but by the most eminent comparative philologists, such as Langles, Lassen, and others, who have investigated the question as one of historical and literary interest. The only plausible objections which are still urged against it may be reduced to two. The first is that China was unknown to the Jews at the date of the prophecy. To this it may be answered, first, that no one who believes in the inspiration of the prophets, can refuse to admit the possibility of su^li a prediction, even if the fact were so; and secondly, that in all probability China was known to the Jews at a very early period. The rashness of asserting a negative in such cases has been clearly proved by the modern discovery of porcelain vessels with Chinese inscriptions in the monuments of Thebes. But it is still objected, that the name Sinim is not that used by the Chinese themselves, nor by other nations until long after the date of this prophecy, it having been derived from a family which did not ascend the throne until about 246 years before the birth of Christ. It is remarkable how readily this date in Chinese history is taken for granted as undoubtedly correct by those who wish to use it for an argument, although it rests upon a dark and dubious tradition of a distant unknown country; although the very text before us makes it doubtful; although the universal prevalence of the name Sin, Chin, or Jin, throughout western and southern Asia from time immemorial presupposes an antiquity still more remote; and although Chinese historians themselves record that the family from which the name derives its origin, for ages before it ruled the empire ruled a pro vince or kingdom on the western frontier, whence the name might easily have been extended to the western nations. There are in fact few cases of a name being more extensively or longer prevalent than that of China, the very form which it exhibits in the Sanscrit, the mother language of southern Asia. That the Chinese themselves have never used it, although acquainted with it, is nothing to the purpose. A Hebrew writer would of course use the name familiar in the west of Asia. This universal name is allowed to be essentially identical with TO by the highest philological authorities. There is therefore no conclusive force in either of the arguments advanced against this explanation of the name. As positive reasons on the other side, besides the main one drawn from the coincidence of name, may be mentioned the agreement of so many different and independent writers, and the appropriateness of the explanation to the context. Under the first head may be classed precisely those philologists whose peculiar studies best entitle them to speak with authority on such a point, and those German commentators on Isaiah, who are most accustomed to differ among themselves and with the older writers, especially where any thing is likely to be added by a proposed interpretation to the strength of revelation or rather to the clear ness of its evidences. Prejudice and interest would certainly have led this class of writers to oppose rather than favour a hypothesis which tends to identify the subject of this prophecy with China, the great object of missionary effort at the present day.—The other confirmation is afforded by the suitableness of the sense thus evolved to the connexion. If the land of Sinim meant the wilderness of Sin or even Egypt, it would be difficult if not impossible to give a satisfactory solution of its singular position here as one of the great quarters or divisions of the world. But if it mean China, that extreme limit of the eastern world, that hive of nations, supposed to comprehend a third part of the human race, the enigma explains itself. Even to us there would be nothing unintelligible or absurd, however strange or novel, in the combination, north, west, south, and China. On the whole, then, a hypothesis which solves all difficulties, satisfies the claims of philology and history, unites the suffrages of the most independent schools and parties, fully meets the requisitions of the text and context, and opens a glorious field of expectation and of effort to the church, may be safely regarded as the true one. For an interesting view of the extent to which the promise has already been fulfilled, and of the encouragements to hope and pray for its entire consummation, the reader is referred to the little book, of which we have so frequently made mention, although our citations have been necessarily confined to the first or expository chapter, the remaining four being occupied with the fulfilment of the prophecy.
13. Shout, oh heavens, and rejoice, oh earth, let the mountains burst into a shout; because Jehovah has comforted his people, and on his sufferers he will have mercy. This is a very common method with Isaiah of fore telling any joyful change by summoning all nature to exult in it as already realized. See especially ch. 44: 23, where instead of the future ^n^s^ we have the imperative WSQ, in imitation of which the Keri here reads ins&l, and Lowth simply SIHSB on the authority of two or three manuscripts and the ancient versions. There is of course no sufficient reason for departing from the ancient reading still preserved in the text.—Jehovah’s consolation of his people, as Gesenius observes, is administered by deed as well as by word. (Compare ch. 51: 3, 12. 52: 9. 66: 13. Luke 2: 25, 38.) The consolation here meant is the joyful assemblage of his people from all parts of the earth, predicted in the foregoing verse.—The modern writers render both the preterite and future in the last clause by the present (comforts, has mercy); which is not only arbitrary but injurious to the force of the expression, which describes the consolation as both past and future, that is to say as already begun and still to be continued; unless the change of tense be designed to intimate that what is vividly described in the preceding words as past is really still future.—^, which is commonly translated in the English Bible poor, is here rendered more correctly afflicted. The expression his afflicted intimates at once their previous condition and their intimate relation to the Lord as their protector.
14. And (yet) Zion said, Jehovah hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me. So far was this glorious change from having been pro cured by confidence in God, that Zion thought herself forsaken and forgotten. Those who restrict these prophecies to the Babylonish exile are compelled to understand this either of the captive inhabitants of Zion, as distinguished from the other exiles, or of Jerusalem itself, complaining of its desolation. But the former distinction is as arbitrary here as in ch. 40: 9, and the long argumentative expostulation which ensues would be absurd if addressed to the bare walls of an empty town. The only satisfactory conclusion is, that Zion or Jerusalem is mentioned as the capital of Israel, the centre of the true religion, the earthly residence of God himself, and therefore an appropriate and natural emblem of his chosen people or the ancient church, just as we speak of the corruptions or spiritual tyranny of Rome, meaning not the city but the great ecclesiastical society or corporation which it represents and of which it is the centre.—The translation Zion says, although not ungrammatical, is less appropriate here, because it represents the church as still complaining; whereas the original describes her previous unbelief, before the event, or before the truth of the promise had been guaranteed. It is worthy of remark that the same translators who make the first verb present give the other two their proper past sense, a diversity admissible in case of necessity, but not without it.
15. Will a woman forget her suckling, from having mercy (i. e. so as not to have mercy) on the son of her womb 1 Also (or even) these will forget, and I will not forget thee. The constancy of God’s affection for his people is expressed by the strongest possible comparison derived from human instincts. There is a climax in the thought, if not in the expression. What is indirectly mentioned as impossible in one clause, is declared to be real in the other. He first declares that he can no more forget them than a woman can forget her child, he then rises higher and declares that he is still more mindful of them than a mother. The future verb at the beginning implies without expressing a potential sense. If she will, she can; if she cannot, then of course she will not. For the negative use of the preposition IB, see above, on ch. 44: 18.—”jaa might seem to have the general sense of body, as we find it applied to males in Job 19: 17. Mic. 6: 7 The precise force of the M is this: not only strangers but also mothers; it may therefore be correctly expressed by even. Most interpreters make the first part of the last clause conditional, and Gesenius even understands oa as an ellipsis for •»3 ca although. (See ch. 1: 15.) But this is not so much a version as a paraphrase, a substitution of equivalent expressions. There is no need of departing from the obvious meaning of the prophet’s language, which is not hypothetical but categorical. He does not say that if or though a woman could forget her child he would not follow her example, but asserts directly that she can and will, and puts this fact in contrast with his own unwavering constancy. The plural in the last clause, like the singular in the first, denotes the whole class. He does not say that all mothers thus forget their children, nor that mothers generally do so, but that such oblivion is not unknown to the experience of mothers as a class, or of woman as an ideal individual. The primitive simplicity with which the Hebrew idiom employs the simple copulative and, where we feel the strongest adversative expression to be necessary, really adds to the force of the expression, when it is once under stood and familiar. The and may be retained, and yet the antithesis expressed in English by supplying yet: and (yet) I will not forget thee.
16. Behold, on (my) palms I have graven thee; thy walls (are) before me continually. Paulus understands the first clause as meaning, upon (thy) hands I have graven (i. e. branded, marked) thee, as belonging to me. Gesenius seems to object to this construction of the suffix with the verb, although precisely similar to that of rn ahD1? in v. 44: 5, as explained by himself. His other objection is a better one, viz. that such an explanation of the first clause makes the second almost unmeaning. Doderlein explains it to mean, with (my) hands I have sketched (or drawn) thee, in allusion to a builder’s draught or plan before he enters on the work of construction. (Compare Ex. 25: 40. 1 Chron. 28: 11, 19.) But this use of the preposition b? has no authority in usage,and the palms of the hands would not be mentioned as the instruments in such a process. Vitringa avoids both these objections by supposing the plan or picture to be drawn upon Jehovah’s hands, because there would be something incongruous in representing him as using paper or a table. The Dutch taste of this excellent interpreter lets him go the length of adding that the divine hands are to be conceived of as large and allowing ample room for such a delineation as the one supposed. The true sense of the Prophet’s figure seems to be the one expressed by Gesenius and other modern writers, who suppose him to allude not to a picture or a plan of Zion but her name imprinted on his hands for a memorial, as the ancient slave and soldier wore his master’s name but for a different purpose. (See above, on ch. 44: 5.) The use of the word palms implies a double inscription and in an unusual position, chosen with a view to its being constantly in sight. The idea of a picture was suggested by the other clause, considered as a parallel expression of the same thing as the first. Thy walls, i. e. the image of thy walls upon my hands. But this is not necessarily or certainly the true relation of the clauses, which may be considered not as parts of the same image but as two distinct images of one and the same thing. The essential idea, I will not forget thee, may be first expressed by saying, I will write thy name upon my hands, and then by saying, I will keep thy walls constantly before me, i. e. in my sight and memory. (See Ps. 16: 8. Is. 38: 13, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 639.)—The mention of the walls is no proof that Zion is mentioned merely as a city, since the image of a city is the proximate object here presented, even if the object which it symbolizes be the church or chosen people.
17. Thy sons hasten (to thee); thy destroyers and thy wasters shall go out from thee. This is the proof that God had not forsaken her. Rosenmuller follows the older writers in translating the first verb as a future, which is wholly arbitrary. Gesenius and others render both the first and last verb in the present tense. The true construction, as in many other cases, seems to be that which represents the process as begun but not complete. Already had her sons begun to hasten to her, and ere long her enemies should be entirely departed. The Septuagint, Targum, and Vulgate, seem to read, instead of thy sons (7p?2), thy builders (“^s), which differs from it only in a single vowel, and agrees well with the parallel expression, destroyers, literally, pullers down. Lowth amends the text accordingly; but Vitringa, Gesenius, and the later writers, adhere to the masoretic point ing, on account of its agreement with the thoughts and words of vs. 20-22. —By wasters and destroyers Vitringa understands internal enemies, Gesenius foreign oppressors, Knobel the strangers who had taken possession of Jerusalem and the rest of the country, which, as he acknowledges, it here represents. The natural interpretation of the words is that which under stands them as containing simply an emphatic contrast between friends and foes, the latter taking their departure, and the former coming into possession.
18. Lift up thine eyes round about and see, all of them are gathered together, they are come to thee. (As) I live, saith Jehovah, (I swear) that all of them as an ornament thou shalt put on, and bind (or gird) them like the bride. The sons, described in v. 17 as rapidly approaching, are now in sight, and their mother is invited to survey them, by lifting up her eyes round about, i. e. in all directions, with allusion to their coming from the four points of the compass, as predicted in v. 12. The common version of C&3, all these, seems to introduce a new subject. The strict translation, all of them, refers to what precedes, and means all the sons who are described in the first clause of v. 17 as hastening to her. They are now already gathered, i. e. met together at the point to which they tended from so many distinct quarters. They come to thee is an inadequate translation. The true sense is that they are actually come, i. e. arrived.—In the second clause, the 13 may correspond to the Greek on. after verbs of speaking, or retain its ordinary sense with an ellipsis of I swear before it. The formula of swear ing here used strictly means, I (am) alive (or living), and is itself equivalent to I swear in English.—The sons are then compared to ornaments of dress, which the mother girds or binds upon her person. At the end Lowth inserts h^3 in the text from ch. 61:10. But this is wholly unnecessary, as the same idea is suggested by the more concise expressions of the common text, which Lowth is utterly mistaken in supposing to describe the bride as binding children round her; for, as Doderlein correctly says, the point of comparison between the type and antitype is not children but decoration. As a bride puts on her ornaments, so thou shalt be adorned with thy children.
19. For thy ruins, and thy wastes, and thy land of desolation (i. e. thy desolated land)—for now thou shalt be too narrow for the inhabitant, and far off shall be thy devourers (those who swallow thee up). The general meaning of this verse is evident, although the construction is obscure. Most writers take the nouns at the beginning as absolute nominatives, i. e. agreeing with no verb expressed. As for thy wastes etc. thou shalt be too narrow. But this still leaves the double *3 to be accounted for, which Rosenmiiller supposes to depend upon the verb I swear, as in v. 18, and to signify that. Maurer regards the second as a pleonastic or emphatic repetition not belonging to the regular construction. OtheTTgive it the supposititious sense of certainly or surely. Beck makes the first clause mean, < thy ruins and thy wastes and thy desolations shall exist no longer;’ but this requires another verb to be supplied or understood. Perhaps the best solution is the one proposed by Hitzig, who supposes the construction to be interrupted and resumed: For thy wastes, and thy ruins, and thy land of desolation—(then beginning anew, without completing the first sentence)— for thou shalt be too narrow etc. This mode of composition, not unlike what appears in the first draft of any piece of writing till obliterated by correction, is comparatively frequent in the ancient writers, not excepting some of the highest classical models, though proscribed as inelegant and incorrect by the fastidious rules of modern rhetoric. This explanation of the double h3 makes it unnecessary to assume an absolute nominative in the first clause. Knobel carries Hitzig’s hypothesis too far when he assumes an actual ellipsis of the same verb in the first clause—^stj (derived by Ewald from “PS, by Gesenius from the cognate and synonymous is?) can only be the second person feminine. The common version, therefore, which refers it to the land, although it gives substantially the true sense, is grammatically incorrect.—For the inhabitant is literally from the inhabitant, the Hebrew preposition being here used as in I Kings 19:7.—Knobel supposes the connexion of the clauses to be this, that there would not be room even for the rightful possessors, much less for strangers and enemies. For the application of the verb sfca to enemies, see Lam. 2:2, 5.—The devourers of this verse are of course the destroyers of v. 17.
20. Again (or still) shall they say in thine ears, the sons of thy childlessness, (Too) narrow for me is the place; come near for me, and I will dwell (or that I may dwell). The Tis may simply indicate that some thing more is to be said than had been said before, in which case it is nearly equivalent to over and above this or moreover. Or it may have its true sense as a particle of time, and intimate that these words shall be uttered more than once, again and again, or still, i. e. continually, as the necessity becomes more urgent. The relative position of the verb and its subject is retained in the translation, as it causes no obscurity, and exhibits more exactly the characteristic form of the original. Jarchi explains the sons of thy childlessness to mean the sons of whom thou wast bereaved, referring to the exiled Jews. The later writers more correctly make it mean the sons of thee a childless one, or, thy sons oh childless one. The apparent contra diction is intentional, as appears from what follows. She who was deemed by others, and who deemed herself, a childless mother, hears the voices of her children, complaining that they have not a sufficient space to dwell in.—In thy ears means in thy hearing, although not addressed to thee. (Compare 2 Sam. 18: 12.) Even in ch. 5: 9 the idea seems to be not merely that of hearing, but of overhearing. That the same thing is intended in the case before us, may be gathered from the masculine naja, which shows that they shall say does not mean they shall say to thee, but they shall say to one another. Rosenmiiller explains is as an adjective; but usage and authority determine it to be a verb, the contracted form of •nst, here used in precisely the same sense as the future of the same verb or a cognate root in the preceding verse. The idea of excess (nimis, too) is not expressed as in that case, but implied, the strict translation being simply this, the place is narrow for me.—All interpreters agree that h;?~rH§& means make room for me, as rendered in the Septuagint (noiqcrdv pot toaov) and the Vulgate (fac mihi spatium); but they differ in explaining how this sense may be extracted from the Hebrew words. Gesenius, as in many other cases, resorts to the easy supposition of a word inaccurately used to express directly opposite ideas, and explains the verb, both here and in Gen. 19:9, as meaning to recede or move away from any one. But even if the general 191
usage, which he alleges to exist with respect to verbs of motion, were more certain than it is, a serious difficulty in the way of its assumption here would be presented by the fact that in every other case excepting these two (which may be regarded as identical), the verb means to come near or approach. Rosenmiiller adheres to the only sense authorized by usage, and explains the phrase to mean, Come near to me, that there may be more room. Maurer defends this explanation of the word (both here and in Gen. 19: 9) against the objections of Gesenius, but without replying to the main one, namely, that the sense thus given to the words is inappropriate, because the person speaking demands room not for others but for himself, which he could not possibly secure by calling on his neighbour to come close to him. The whole difficulty seems to have arisen from assuming that i*> means to me, and denotes the direction of the motion, in opposition to the fact that * is never so used after M, but always indicates the purpose or design, not only when prefixed to the infinitive (as in Lev. 21: 21. 2 Kings 4: 27), but also when prefixed to nanha, the only noun with which it is connected after this verb, and with which it signifies not *to the battle but for battle, or to fight, being equivalent to an infinitive construction. The only cases, there fore, where the b is thus used (Judges 20:23. 2 Sam. 10: 13. 1 Chron. 19: 14. Jer. 46:3), are not even exceptions to the rule, but strong corroborations of the statement, that this particle when added to the verb denotes the object for which, not the place to which, one approaches. This induction fully justifies the explanation of the phrase before us given by Jarchi, 1 *approach to one side for me or on my account’ (»i»3W 7pf> *•?£ mpp:>), leaving the precise direction of the motion undetermined, to express which the dominant usage of the language would require the preposition bx. The sense just given to ^ (forme) is the more probable, because it is precisely that which it has in the first clause of this verse and the first clause of the next. J. D. Michaelis and Ewald take rrnex in its primitive sense of sitting, rather than its secondary one of dwelling, which is preferred by most interpreters. The former version makes the passage still more graphic by presenting the image of children contending for a seat, and calling on each other, in the presence of their mother, to make room. But even if we grant that there is nothing unworthy or incongruous in this conception, the hypothesis that it was here intended is precluded by the use of the participle ati-n in the verse preceding, where the sense of inhabitant is rendered necessary by its close connexion with the nouns land, wastes, and ruins.
21. And thou shalt say in thine heart, i. e. to thyself, in strict agreement with the preceding verse, as a dialogue not between the mother and her children, but between the children in their mother’s hearing. This is consequently not an answer to what goes before, but an observation uttered, as it were, aside by an eye and ear witness of the struggle and the clamour for more room. With them the question is, where they shall dwell; with her it is, whence they came.— Who hath produced these for me? Interpreters have vexed themselves with the inquiry whether ^ here means to bear or to beget, or in other words whether she is asking for the father or the mother of the children whom she sees around her. Vitringa, Lowth, Gesenius; Ewald, and Umbreit, who prefer the former sense, suppose an allusion to the conjugal relation of Jehovah to his people, and to the repudiation spoken of below in ch. 50: 1. But such allusion seems, in this connexion, far fetched and unnatural. Rosenmuller, Hitzig, and Knobel, choose the other sense, which is really the strict and common one, and here recommended by the fact that the combination ^ ^; is often applied elsewhere to the mother, but never to the father. This might be esteemed conclusive, but for two material points of difference between the cases cited and the one before us. The first is that in these cases b is followed by the name of the father, whereas here the speaker is supposed to be a woman. The other is that in all those cases the verb itself is feminine, whereas here it is masculine. But these diversities, although they leave some room for doubt and difference of opinion, do not necessarily preclude the explanation of the phrase as refer ring to the mother. The masculine form of the verb in this case is easily accounted for; because its nominative is not, as in all the other cases, a female name or other feminine noun, but the interrogative pronoun, which is invariable and naturally followed by the verb in its original or simplest form, not because that form includes both genders, but because both verb and pro noun are used vaguely, without any distinct reference to sex at all. So too the use of *b ^ by a female speaker, although a violation of analogy, is one very easily explained, because intentional and even necessary in the extra ordinary case supposed. As in other cases the mother is said to bear a child to the father, so in this case one mother may without absurdity be said to bear a child to another, because in either case the essential idea is that of one person being provided with a child by another, whether it be a husband by his wife, or a childless woman by a woman who has children.—The truth is, however, that the force and beauty of the passage are exceedingly impaired by cutting its bold figures to the quick, and insisting on a rigorous conformity to artificial rules, instead of resting in the general conception, so clearly and affectingly presented, of a childless mother finding herself suddenly surrounded by the clamour of a multitude of children, and asking in amazement whence they came and who they are. The distinction be tween father and mother is one which would never occur to the speaker in such a case, and may therefore be safely overlooked by the interpreter.— The cause of her astonishment is then assigned. And I was bereaved and barren. These almost incompatible expressions for a childless one are joined for the purpose of expressing that idea in the strongest manner, and with more regard to the idea itself than to the rules of rhetorical propriety.—An exile and a banished one. The last word strictly means removed, i. e. from home and from society.—And these who brought up 1 literally made ^great, as in ch. 1: 2. The general sense put upon “Vv*sj is confirmed by the analogy of this phrase, which has no specific reference to either parent, and is masculine in form simply because there was no reason why it should be feminine.—Behold, 1 was left alone (or by myself); these, where were they? The pronoun at the end is emphatic: where were they 1 She asks how it is that she was so long desolate and childless, when she sees so many children round her now. Rosenmuller changes the whole figure by supposing that long absent children are described as returning to their mother with a numerous offspring. It is essential to the writers purpose that the children should be all regarded as the speaker’s own; for this alone could afford any adequate ground for the astonishment expressed.—Some of the modern writers find it very hard to reconcile the language of this verse with their hypothesis that the Zion of this passage is the forsaken city of Jerusalem as such considered.. The inconveniences of such a supposition may be gathered from the fact that Knobel represents the Prophet as departing from his own chosen image in, the words an exile and a banished one, which are of course inapplicable to the town itself, and then returning to it in the words I was left alone, which readily admit of such an application. If such abrupt transitions may be assumed at pleasure, how can any thing be proved to be the sense intended by the author? The very fact that they are necessary on a given supposition, is a strong proof that it is a false one, and ought to be exchanged for one which is equally consistent with all the parts of the description. Such is the hypothesis assumed as the basis of our exposition, viz. that the Zion of this context is the ancient church or chosen people, represented both in fiction and in fact by the Sanctuary and the Holy City, as its local centre and appointed symbol. Of this ideal subject, desolation, childlessness, captivity, exile, and the other varying conditions here described, may all be predicated with the same propriety. If this, however, be the true exegetical hypothesis, and no other seems to answer all the requisitions of the case, then the Babylonish exile, and the state of the church at that period of her history, has no claim to be recognised as any thing more than a particular exemplification of the general promise, that the church, after passing through extreme depression and attenuation, should be raised up and replenished like a childless mother who suddenly finds herself surrounded by a large and joyous family of children.
22. 77ms saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I will lift up to the nations my hand, and I u-ill set up to the peoples my standard (or signal); 13 194 CHAPTER, XLIX. and they will bring thy sons in the bosom (or arms), and thy daughters on the shoulders shall be carried. The idea expressed by the figures of the first clause is that of summoning the nations to perform their part in this great work. The figures themselves are the same as in ch. 13:2, viz. the shaking or waving of the hand and the erection of a banner, pole, or other signal, with distinct reference perhaps to persons at a distance and at hand. The figurative promise would be verified by any divine influence securing the co-operation of the heathen in accomplishing Jehovah’s purpose, whatever might be the external circumstances either of the call or their compliance with it. The effect of that compliance is described in the last clause, as the bringing home of Zion’s sons and daughters, with all the tender care which is wont to be lavished upon infants by their parents or their nurses. The same image is again presented in ch. 60: 4. 66: 12. Peculiar to this case is the use of the word fc,2’n, which seems most probably to signify either the bosom or the arm, when spoken of in reference to carrying and especially the carrying of children. Strictly perhaps the word expresses an idea inter mediate between arm and bosom, or including both, viz. the space enclosed by them in the act of grasping or embracing. This likewise seems to be the sense of the cognate “(sn which occurs in Ps. 129:7. The only other instance of the form “jxn is Neh. 5: 13, where it is rendered lap, and evidently signifies some part of the dress, perhaps the wide sleeve of an oriental garment, which would connect it with the meaning arm, but more probably the bosom of the same. According to Rosenmiiller it denotes any curvature or fold of the body or the dress, like the Latin sinus. That the sense of bosom is at least included here, may be inferred from the analogy of Num. U: 12 and Ruth 4: 16, where the same act is described by the use of the unambiguous term p^n. Gesenius’s translation, arm, is therefore too restricted. It is somewhat curious that Hitzig, while he renders this word bosom, uses •f-rrn as an equivalent to S]r}3. which is an arbitrary explanation of the common word for shoulder, and one so often mentioned in connexion with the act of bearing burdens. (See above, ch. 30: 6. 46: 7. Ezek. 12: 6. Num. 7: 9.) .Arm, however, is a favourite word with Hitzig, who substitutes it frequently ibr hand, without the least necessity or reason. Those who restrict the promise to the exiled Jews in Babylon are under the necessity of making this a restoration, which is not only perfectly gratuitous but inconsistent with the verse preceding, where these same children are described as appearing for the first time and thereby exciting the surprise of the forsaken mother.
23. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers; face to the ground shall thry bow to thee, and the dust of thy feet shall they lick; and thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, whose waiters (or hopers, i. e. those who trust in him) shall not be ashamed (or disappointed). The same promise is repeated in substance with a change of form. Instead of the nations, we have now their kings and queens; and instead of Zion’s sons and daughters, Zion herself. This last variation, while it either per plexes or annoys the rhetorical precisian, aids the rational interpreter by showing that the figures of the preceding verse, however natural and just, are not to be rigidly explained. In other words, it shows that between the Zion of this passage and her children there is no essential difference, and that what is promised to the one is promised to the other. This identity is clear from the apparent solecism of representing the bereaved and childless mother as herself an infant in the arms and at the breast, because really as much in need of sustenance and care as those before called her sons and daughters, or rather because she is but another figure for the same thing. This confusion of imagery all tends to confirm the supposition that the Zion of these prophecies is not a city, which could scarcely be thus confounded with its citizens, but a society or corporation, between which as an ideal person and its individual members or any given portion of them, there is no such well defined and palpable distinction.—•}»&, to which the English Version and some others give the sense of nourishers, is now explained to mean a carrier or bearer, which last name is applied by the English in Hindostan to the male nurses of their children. Some regard it as equivalent to TrafSayooyoV (Gal. 3: 24), and as referring to a later period of childhood than rfcSTa which is properly a suckler or wet-nurse. But as there is nothing in the text to suggest the idea of succession in time, they may be regarded as poetical equivalents. Hitzig’s notion that the kings and queens are merely represented as the servile attendants of Zion is forbidden by the specific offices ascribed to them. As little can it be supposed with Knobel, that she is here to be conceived of as a queen upon her throne, who could scarcely be supposed to need the tender attentions of a bearer and a wet-nurse. The image is still that of a tender infant, with an almost imperceptible substitution of the mother for her children —ns’iK t*m is a kind of compound adverb like our English phrases sword-in-hand, arm-in-arm, but still more concise. The addition of these words determines the meaning of the preceding verb as denoting actual prostration, which is also clear from the next clause, where the licking of the dust cannot be naturally understood as a strong expression for the kissing of the feet or of the earth in token of homage, but is rather like the biting of the dust in Homer, a poetical description of complete and compulsory prostration, not merely that of subjects to their sovereign, but of vanquished enemies before their conquerors. (Compare Mic. 7:17. Ps. 72: 9.) in the last clause lias is not a conjunction, meaning that or for. but as usual a relative, to be connected with ^’p in construction, who my hopers, i. e. whose hopers, those who hope in me.
24. Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, and shall the captivity of the righteous be delivered? This verse suggests a difficulty in the way of the fulfilment of the promise, nip^ and “oai. are combined likewise else where to describe whatever can be taken in war, including prisoners and booty. (Num. 31:11, 12, 27, 3*2.) ^, though properly an abstract, is continually used as a collective term for captives. Its combination here with p^x has perplexed interpreters. Houbigant, Lowth, Ewald, and Knobel read f”1”:? “i^,, as in the next verse, which is a mere subterfuge. Rosenmuller follows Albert Schultens in giving to p^s the sense of rigid, stern, severe; which is not in the least justified by Hebrew usage. Beck follows J. D. michaelis in explaining it to mean victorious according to the sense of victory now commonly put upon p’ls, notwithstanding the objection of Gesenius that there is no authority in usage for the application of this term to the successes of the wicked, without regard to its original import. Symmachus, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Hitzig, understand the phrase to mean the righteous captives, i. e. the exiled Jews. Gesenius, Maurer, and Urabreit, the prey or plunder of the righteous, i. e. taken from the righteous. But this explanation of *c’a is harsh, and the parallelism, as well as the analogy of v. 25, requires that P^x should be referred to the subject not the object of the action. The English Version makes it agree directly with “^ttJ, in the sense of lawful captive, i. e. one who has been lawfully enslaved, or one who deserves to be a captive. The simplest and most obvious construction of the words is that which makes them mean the captives of a righteous conqueror. The argument may then be stated thus: Shall the captives even of a righteous conqueror be freed in such a case? How much more the captives of an unjust oppressor!
25. For thus saith Jehovah, also (or even) the captivity (or captives) of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered, and with thy strivers will I strive, and thy sons will I save. There is no need of giving to the n2 at the beginning the factitious sense of yes, no, nay, more, verily, or the like. Its proper meaning may be retained by supplying in thought an affirmative answer to the foregoing question. Shall the captives of the righteous be delivered? “i es, and more; for thus saith Jehovah, not only this but also the captives of the tyrant or oppressor. There is a very material difference between supplying what is not expressed and changing the meaning of what is. The latter expedient is never admissible; the former is often necessary. The logical connexion between this verse and the one before it has been already stated. Its general sense is clear, as a solemn declaration that the power of the captor can oppose no real obstacle to the fulfilment of the promise of deliverance. The same idea is expressed in the last clause in more general and literal terms.
26. And I will make thy oppressors eat their (own) flesh, and as with new wine, with their blood shall they be drunken-, and all flesh shall know, that I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour, and (that) thy Redeemer is the Mighty One of Jacob. The first clause is commonly explained as a strong metaphorical description of intestine wars and mutual destruction, similar to that in Zech. 11:9. In this case, however, as in ch. 9:19, the image is perhaps rather that of a person devouring his own flesh in impotent and de sperate rage. The Targum gratuitously changes the sense by interpreting the first clause to mean, ‘ I will give their flesh for food to the birds of heaven,’ or, as Jarchi has it, ’ to the beasts of the field.’ The last clause winds up this part of the prophecy by the usual return to the great theme of the whole book, the relation of Jehovah to his people, as their Saviour, Redeemer, and Protector, self-existent, eternal, and almighty in himself, yet condescending to be called the Mighty One of Jacob. The last words may be construed as a single proposition, ‘ that I am Jehovah thy Saviour and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.’ This will be found upon comparison, however, to express much less than the construction above given, which asserts not only that the speaker is Jehovah etc. but that the Being who possesses these attributes is the peculiar covenanted God of Israel or Jacob. For the different epithets of this clause, see above, ch. I: 24, 41: 14, 43: 3. For a similar statement of the purpose of God’s providential dealings with his people, see ch. 45: 3, and v. 23 of this same chapter.
