INTERPRETERS are much divided with respect to the particular period which constitutes the subject of this prophecy. The modern Jews regard it as a promise of deliverance from their present exile and dispersion by the Messiah, whom they still expect. The Christian Fathers refer it to the time of the first advent. Modern writers are divided between this hypo thesis and that which confines it to the Babylonish exile. The truth appears to be, that this chapter is a direct continuation of the preceding declarations with respect to the vocation of the Church and the divine administration towards her. The possibility of her increase, as previously promised, i? evinced by the example of Abraham, from whom all Israel descended, vs. 1-3. In like manner many shall be added from the gentiles, vs. 4-6, Their enemies shall not only fail to destroy them, but shall be themselves destroyed, vs. 7, 8. This is confirmed by another historical example, that of Egypt, vs. 9, 10. The same assurances are then repeated, with a clearer promise of the new dispensation, vs. 11—16. The chapter closes with a direct address to Zion, who, though helpless in herself and destitute of human aid, is sure of God’s protection and of the destruction of her enemies and his, vs. 17-23.
1. Hearken unto me! A common formula, when the writer or speaker turns away from one object of address to another. It is here used because he is about to address himself to the faithful servants of Jehovah, the true Israel, who are described as seeking after righteousness, i. e, making it the end of all their efforts to be righteous, or conformed to the will of God. The sense of justifying righteousness or justification is as much out of place here as that of truth, which is given by the Targum: except so far as all these terms are employed, in Scripture usage, to express the general idea of moral goodness, piety, a character acceptable in God’s sight. The original application of the phrase here used is by Moses (Deut. 16: 20); from whom it is copied twice by Solomon (Prov. 15: 9. 21: 21), and twice by Paul (I Tim. 6:11.2 Tim. 2: 22). The same apostle uses, in the same sense, the more general expression, follow after good (1 Thess. 5: 15); which is also used by David (Ps. 38: 21, comp. Ps. 34: 15). The same class of persons is then described as seeking (or seekers of) Jehovah, i. e. seeking his presence, praying to him, worshipping him, consulting him. The first description is more abstract, the second expresses a personal relation to Jehovah; both together are descriptive of the righteous as distinguished from the wicked. Now as these have ever been comparatively few, not only in relation to the heathen world, but in relation to the spurious members of the church itself, a promise of vast increase (like that in ch. 49: 18-21) might well appear incredible. In order to remove this doubt, the Prophet here appeals, not, as in many other cases, to the mere omnipotence of God, but to a historical example of precisely the same kind, viz. that of Abraham, from whom the race of Israel had already sprung, in strict fulfilment of a divine promise.—Look unto the rock ye have been hewn. The earlier grammarians assume an ellipsis of the relative and preposition, the rock from which ye have been hewn; the later, and particularly Ewald, reject this as an occidental idiom, and suppose the Hebrew phrase to be complete, but give the same sense as the others. The same remark applies to the parallel clause, and to the hole of the pit (from which) ye have been digged. The reference of these figures to our Lord Jesus Christ, as the rock of ages and the source of spiritual life, is held by some of the Fathers, one of whom (Eusebius) supposes a collateral allusion to the rock in which our Saviour was entombed; but this interpretation is too mystical even for Vitringa, who admits that the figures of this verse are explained in the next by the Prophet himself. His Dutch taste again gets the better of his judgment and his reverent regard for the word of God, and allows him to put a revolting sense upon the figures here employed, in which Knobel follows him with still greater coarseness. The truth, as recognised by almost all interpreters, is that the rock and pit (or quarry) are two kindred metaphors for one and the same thing, both expressing the general idea of extraction or descent (compare ch. 48: 2) without particular reference to the individual parents, although both are mentioned in the next verse, for the sake of a parallel construction, upon which it is almost puerile to found such a conclusion as the one in question. In the same category may be safely placed the old dispute, whether Abraham is called a rock because he was strong in faith (Rom. 4: 20), or because he was as good as dead (Heb. 11: 12) when he received the promise. He is no more represented as a rock than as a pit or quarry, neither of which figures is applied to him distinctively, but both together signify extraction or origin in a genealogical sense.
2. Look unto Abraham your father and unto Sarah (that) bare you. That Sarah is mentioned chiefly for rhythmical effect, may be inferred from the writer’s now confining what he says to Abraham alone.—Instead of speaking further of both parents, he now says, For I have called him one; which does not mean, I have declared him to be such or so described him, but, I have called (i. e. chosen, designated) him, when he was only one, i. e. a solitary individual, although the destined father of a great nation (Gen. 12: 2.) This sense of the word one is clear from Ezek. 33: 24, where, with obvious allusion to this verse, it is put in opposition to many: Abraham was ONE, and he inherited the land; and we are MANY, (much more then) is the land given to us for an inheritance. The same antithesis is far more obvious and appropriate in this place, than that between Abraham, as sole heir of the promise, and the rest of men, who were excluded from it. The design of the Prophet is not so much to magnify the honour put upon Abraham by choosing him out of the whole race to be the father of the faithful, as it is to show the power and faithfulness of God in making this one man a nation like the stars of heaven for multitude, according to the promise (Gen. 15: 5). Noyes’s version, a single man, is rendered by the modern usage of that phrase almost ludicrously equivocal, and necessarily suggests an idea directly at variance with the facts of the case; unless he really infers from the exclusive mention of Abraham in this clause-, that he was called before his marriage, which can hardly be reconciled with the sacred narrative (compare Gen. 11: 29 and 12: 1, 5), and, even if it were true, would scarcely have been solemnly affirmed in this connexion, since the promise, whatever its precise date, presupposed his marriage as the necessary means of its fulfilment.—Interpreters, with almost perfect unanimity, explain the two verbs at the end of this verse as expressing past time (and I blessed him and caused him to increase&e), although the vav prefixed to neither has the pointing of the vav conversive, in default of which the preterite translation is entirely gratuitous and therefore ungrammatical. The masoretic pointing, it is true, is not of absolute authority, but it is of the highest value as the record of an ancient critical tradition; and the very fact that it departs in this case from the sense which all interpreters have felt to be most obvious and natural, creates a strong presumption that it rests upon some high authority or some profound view of the Prophet’s meaning. And we find accordingly that by adhering to the strict sense of the future, we not only act in accordance with a most important general principle of exegesis, but obtain a sense which, though less obvious than the common one, is really better in itself and better suited to the context. According to the usual interpretation, this verse simply asserts the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, leaving the reader to connect it with what follows as he can. But by a strict translation of the futures, they are made to furnish an easy and natural transition from the one case to the other, from the great historical example cited to the subject which it was intended to illustrate. The concise phrase, one I called him, really includes a citation of the promise made to Abraham, and suggests the fact of its fulfilment, so far as this had yet taken place. The Prophet, speaking in Jehovah’s name, then adds a declaration that the promise should be still more gloriously verified. As if he had said, I promised to bless him and increase him, and I did so, and I will bless him and increase him (still). But how? • By showing mercy to his seed, as I have determined and begun to do. This last idea is expressed in the first clause of the next verse, which is then no longer incoherent or abrupt, but in the closest and most natural connexion with what goes before. This consideration might have less force if the illustration had been drawn from the experience of another race,—for instance from the history of Egypt or Assyria, or even from the increase of the sons of Lot or Ishmael; but when the promise which he wished to render credible is really a repetition or continuation of the one which he cites as an illustrative example, the intimate connexion thus established or revealed between them is a strong proof that the explanation which involves it is the true one.
3. For Jehovah hath comforted Zion. The arbitrary character of the usual construction of these sentences may be learned from the fact that Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, not content with making both the futures at the close of the second verse preterites, explain both the preterites in this clause as futures,—a double violation of analogy and usage, which seems to leave the meaning of the writer wholly at the mercy of the reader or expounder. From the same erroneous understanding of the closing words of v. 2 springs the forced interpretation of the “O at the beginning of this, as meaning so (Gesenius), thus therefore (Lowth), and the still more unnatural construction of the whole clause by Hitzig, as the apodosis of a comparative sentence beginning in the first verse: ‘ As I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him, so does Jehovah pity Zion,’ etc. As soon as the strict sense of the futures in v. 2 has been reinstated, the connexion becomes obvious and ^3 retains its usual and proper sense. ‘I have blessed and increased him, and I will bless and increase him; for Jehovah has begun to comfort Zion.’ The strong assurance thus afforded by the strict translation of the preterite fin? conspires with analogy and usage to give it the preference over the vague evasive, present form, employed by Hitzig, Ewald, and De Wette. This view of the connexion also supersedes the necessity of laying an unusual stress on the name Jehovah, as J. H. Michaelis does, as if he had said, it is God not man that comforts Zion.—Gesenius translates en?, in this case, ‘will have mercy or compassion’ (wird sich erbarmen), in which he is followed by De Wette and Henderson. But even his own Lexicon gives no such definition of the Piel, and the Niphal, though coincident in this tense as to form, would, according to usage, take a preposition after it. Besides, the proper sense of comforting, retained by Ewald and the other Germans, is more appropriate, because it expresses not mere feel ing but its active exhibition, and because the same verb is employed at the very outset of these prophecies (ch. 40: 1) in the same application, but in a connexion where the sense of pitying or having mercy is wholly inadequate if not inadmissible. The comparison of that place also shows what we are here to understand by Zion, viz. Jehovah’s people, of which it was the capital, the sanctuary, and the symbol. What is there commanded is here, in a certain sort, performed, or its performance more distinctly and positively promised.—He hath comforted all her wastes (or ruins), i. e. restored cheerfulness to what was wholly desolate. This phrase proves nothing as to the Prophet’s viewing Zion merely as a ruinous city, since in any case this is the substratum of his metaphor. The question is not whether he has reference to Zion or Jerusalem as a town, but whether this town is considered merely as a town, and mentioned for its own sake, or in the sense before explained, as the established representative and emblem of the church or chosen people. (See above, on ch. 49: 21.)—And hath placed or made her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord. This beautiful comparison is the strongest possible expression of a joyful change from total barrenness and desolation to the highest pitch of fertility and beauty. It is closely copied in Ezekiel3l:9; but the same comparison, in more concise terms, is employed by Moses (Gen. 13: 10). Even there, notwithstanding what is added about Egypt, but still more unequivocally here, the reference is not to a garden or to pleasure-grounds in general, as Luther and several of the later Germans have assumed, with no small damage to the force and beauty of their versions, but Eden as a proper name, the garden of Jehovah, the Paradise, as the Septuagint renders it, both here and in Gen. 2: 8, the grand historical and yet ideal designation of the most consummate terrene excellence, analogous, if not still more nearly related, to the Grecian pictures of Arcadia and of Tempe. —Joy and gladness shall be found in her, i. e. in Zion, thus transformed into a paradise. The plural form, in them, employed by Barnes, is not only inexact but hurtful to the sense, by withdrawing the attention from the central figure of this glowing landscape. Shall be found does not simply mean shall be, as J. D. Michaelis paraphrases it, but also that they shall be there accessible, not only present in their abstract essence, as it were. but in the actual experience of those who dwell there.—Thanksgiving and the voice of melody. The music of the common version of this last clause is at once too familiar and too sacred to be superseded, simply for the pur pose of expressing more distinctly the exact sense of the last word, which originally signifies the sound of an instrument or instrumental music, but is afterwards used to denote song in general, or rather as a vehicle of praise to God.
4. Attend (or hearken) unto me, my people; and my nation, unto me give ear. This may seem to be a violation of the usage which has been already stated as employing this form of speech to indicate a change in the object of address. But such a change, although a slight one, takes place even here; for he seems no longer to address those seeking righteousness exclusively, but the whole body of the people as such. Some interpreters suppose a change still greater, namely a transition from the Jews to the Gentiles. In order to admit of this, the text must be amended or its obvious sense explained away. Lowth, of course, prefers the former method, and reads C^BS on the authority of two manuscripts, and t^53fr6 on the authority of nine. Gesenius gains the same end by explaining IBS and 153*156 as unusual plural forms, the first of which he also finds in three other places (2 Sam. 22: 44. Ps. 144: 2. Lam. 3: 14). Ewald denies the existence of such a termination, against which he argues with much force that in these four places, however inappropriate the sense my people may appear to the interpreter, no one pretends to say that it is absurd or impossible, while in every other case the very meaning of the noun is so obscure that it can throw no light upon the question of form. The discussion of the question by these eminent grammarians (in the Lehrgebaude § 124 and the Kritische Grammatik $ 164) has left the existence of the plural form in question at the least very doubtful (see Nordheimer <§> 553); and even if it be conceded, it is confessedly so rare that it is not to be assumed without necessity in such a case as this, simply because it may conceivably be true, when the sense which the word has in nearly two hundred places is perfectly appropriate here. The only argument in favour of it, drawn from the connexion, is without force, because the dependence of the gentiles upon Israel for saving knowledge might be just as well asserted in addressing the latter as the former, as appears from the analogy ofch. 2:3. The same reasons which have now been stated will suffice to set aside Maurer’s gratuitous interpretation of the words as singular collectives, which might be assumed in a case of extreme exegetical necessity, but in no other.—The next clause explains what it is that they are thus called upon to hear, viz. that law from me shall go forth, i. e. revelation or the true religion, as an expression of God’s will, and consequently man’s rule of duty. In like manner Paul describes the gospel as the law of faith (Rom. 3: 27), not binding upon one race or nation merely, but by the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations for the obedience of faith (Rom. 16: 26). J. D. Michaelis, followed by Rosenmiiller and De Wette, dilutes it into a doctrine (eine Lehre), which, although correct in point of etymology, is justified neither by the context nor by usage. Ewald gives the same translation of the word, but makes it less indefinite by adding the possessive pronoun (meine Lehre). The meaning of the clause is that the nations can expect illumination only from one quarter.—The same thing is then said in another form. And my judgment (EBTSE an equivalent to rnin and combined with it like lex and jus in Latin) for a light of the nations (as in ch. 42: 6. 49:6) will I cause to rest, i. e. fix. establish. Jarchi explains it by the synonyme rrsx, which is frequently employed in this sense (e. g. ch. 46: 7. 2 Kings 17: 29). The meanings given to the word by Calvin (patefaciam) 3 *Cocceius *(promovebo), Lowth (cause to break forth), and others, are either wholly conjectural or founded on a false etymology. Aben Ezra speaks of some as having made it a denominative from ”^. meaning ‘I will do it in a moment.’ Kimchi strangely says that CIBS -lixb may mean in the presence of the gentiles,—a suggestion which savours of rabbinical reluctance to believe in the conversion of the world to God. As specimens of exegesis on the most contracted scale, it may be mentioned, that Piscator understands by law, in this verse, Cyrus’s decree for the restoration of the Jewish exiles, and by light the knowledge of this great event among the nations; whereas Grotius explains judgment to mean penal inflictions on the Babylonians, and light the evidence thereby afforded that Jehovah was the true God. The groundless and injurious protrusion of the Babylonish exile as the great theme of the prophecy is here abandoned even by Kimchi and Abarbenel, although they refer the promise to the advent of Messiah as still future. The simple proposition that the world can be converted only by a revelation admits no more of being thus restricted than any of the spiritual promises and prophecies contained in the New Testament.
5. Near (is) my righteousness, i. e. the exhibition of it in the changes previously promised and threatened. Near, as often elsewhere in the prophecies, is an indefinite expression which describes it sim ply as approaching, and as actually near to the perceptions of the Prophet or to any one who occupies the same point of vision.—Gone forth is my salvation. Not only is the purpose formed, and the decree gone forth, but the event itself, in the sense just explained, may be described as past or actually passing. Hitzig, however, understands KXJ to mean 1 *it goes forth from my mouth/ as in ch. 48: 3. 55: 11. Umbreit agrees with Vitringa in supposing an allusion to the rising of the sun (Ps. 19: 6, 7), or, as Gesenius suggests, to the dawning of the day (ch. 47: 11); while Ewald and Knobel understand it as referring to the springing or incipient germination of plants, which is properly expressed by nsi£ (ch. 42: 9), the two verbs being elsewhere used as parallels in this sense (Job 5: 6). But none of these ingenious explanations is so natural as that which gives X2£ the same sense as in the preceding verse, viz. that of issuing or going forth from God (conceived as resident in heaven or in Zion) to the heathen world.—And my arms shall judge the nations.* As the foregoing clause contains a promise, some interpreters suppose it to be necessary to give judge the favourable sense of vindicating, righting (as in ch. 1: 17, 23), or at least the generic one of ruling (as in 1 Sam. 8: 5). But nothing can be more in keeping with the usage of the Scriptures, and of this book in particular, than the simultaneous exhibition of God’s justice in his treatment both of friends and foes. (Compare ch. 1: 27.) There is no objection, therefore, to Jarchi’s explanation of the verb as meaning here to punish; this at least may be included as a part of the idea which it was intended to express.—J. D. Michaelis, supposing the construction of?i”it (which is feminine) with a masculine verb to be ungrammatical, proposes, by a change of punctuation, to connect the one with what precedes, and then to read, the nations shall be judged. This hypercriticism provokes Gesenius to convict its author of deficiency in Hebrew grammar, which he does by showing that in Gen. 49: 24 and Dan. 11: 31 this form of the plural is construed as a masculine, to which he adds a like use of the singular itself in Is. 17: 5.—For me shall the islands wait, i. e. for me they must wait, until I reveal myself they must remain in darkness. (See above, on ch. 42: 4.) Here again, as in ch. 41: 1. 42: 4. etc., ta^x is explained to mean lands, distant lands, coasts, distant coasts, western lands, Europe, Northern Asia, and Asia Minor. As in all the former instances, however, the usual sense of islands is entirely appropriate, as a poetical or representative expression for countries in general, with more particular reference to those across the sea.—And in my arm they shall hope, i. e. in the exercise of my almighty power. As in ch. 42: 6, the sense is not so much that they shall exercise a feeling of trust, but that this will be their only hope or dependence. To be enlightened, they must wait for my revelation; to be saved, for the exertion of my power. It is not descriptive, therefore, of the feelings of the nations after the way of salvation is made known to them, but of their helpless and desperate condition until they hear it. True to their favourite hypotheses, Piscator understands by islands the Israelites captives in Assyria, Grotius the Persians residing on the sea-coast, who were not idolaters! Knobel, with equal confidence and equal reason, makes the verse refer to the downfal of Croesus and the conquests of Cyrus.
6. Raise to the heavens your eyes, and look unto the earth beneath. A similar form of address occurs above, in ch. 40: ^6. (Compare Gen. 15: 5.) Heaven and earth are here put, as in many other places, for the whole frame of nature. The next clause explains why they are called upon to look. For the heavens like smoke are dissolved or driven away. The verb in this form occurs no where else, and the interpreters have tried in vain to derive its meaning here from other cognate forms of the same root, which all have reference to salting (from the primitive noun nba salt). So Symmachus in this place, atiaovai. But this, according to analogy, would rather imply perpetuity than its opposite. The link between them may consist in the idea of reducing to powder or minute dust by trituration, which is equally appropriate to salt and to the dissolution of any solid substance. Most writers give this verb a future sense (or a present one as an evasive substitute), because the real future follows; but for this very reason it may be presumed that the writer used distinct forms to express distinct ideas, and that he first gives a vivid description of the dissolution as already past, and then foretells its consummation as still future.—And the earth like the gar ment (which grows old) shall grow old (or wear out). The same comparison occurs above in ch. 50: 9, and serves to identify the passages as parts of one continued composition. And their inhabitants shall die, 15~1^3. This is a difficult expression. Cocceius alone proposes three distinct interpretations, all peculiar to himself. In his version he translates the phrase ut quivis, which appears to mean like any body else.’ But in his commentary he suggests that it may possibly mean quemadmodumprobus, making •J3 an adjective, and supposing an allusion to the death of the righteous as described in ch. 57: 1, 2. His third supposition is that this is a case of aposiopesis or interrupted construction, and that the writer first says they shall die like—but before the comparison is finished ends by saying so—as if he pointed to the spectacle before him. Samuel Luzzatto makes the phrase mean in an instant, strictly in the time required to say “,5, which he compares to the German phrase, in einem Nu. Apart from these ingenious notions, there are only two interpretations of the phrase which are entitled to notice. The first takes both words in their ordinary sense, and under stands the whole as an intensive expression just so or exactly so. This seems to be the sense intended by the Septuagint (WGTIEQ taw a) and Vulgate (sicut haec), although they adhere less closely to the form of the original than Schmidius (sicut sic) and Riickert (50 wie so). The only other recent versions which retain this sense are those of Barnes and Henderson. Noyes and the modern Germans all adopt the opinion of De Dieu, Gussetius, and Vitringa, that -,3 is the singular of 3*^3, the word translated lice in the his tory of the plagues of Egypt (Ex. 8:12, 13), but explained by the later lexicographers to mean a kind of stinging gnat. Supposing the essential idea to be that of a contemptible animalcule, Vitringa renders it instar vermiculi, Lowth still more freely like the vilest insect. Noyes simply says like flies, which scarcely expresses the comparison supposed by these writers to have been intended. It is not impossible that this ingenious but fanciful translation will yet be abandoned in its turn by most interpreters for that recommended by analogy and usage as well as by the testimony of the ancient versions. The inhabitants shall die like a gnat, is a meaning which, in order to be purchased at so dear a rate, ought to possess some marked superiority above the old one, they shall likewise perish, to which there may possibly be an allusion in our Saviour’s words recorded in Luke 13: 3, 5.— The contrast to this general destruction is contained in the last clause. And my salvation to eternity shall be, and my righteousness shall not be broken, i. e. shall not cease from being what it is, in which sense the same verb is evidently used by Isaiah elsewhere (ch, 7:8). In this as in many other cases, salvation and righteousness are not synonymous but merely correlative as cause and effect. (See above, on ch. 42: 6.) The only question as to this clause is whether it is a hypothetical or absolute pro position. If the former, then the sense is that until (or even if) the frame of nature be dissolved, the justice and salvation of Jehovah shall remain unshaken. This explanation is preferred by Joseph Kimchi, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Maurer. The other interpretation understands the first clause as a positive and independent declaration that the heavens and earth shall be dissolved, which Vitringa understands to mean that the old economy shall cease, while others give these words their literal meaning. All these hypotheses are reconcilable by making the first clause mean, as similar expressions do mean elsewhere, that the most extraordinary changes shall be witnessed, moral and physical; but that amidst them all this one thing shall remain unchangeable, the righteousness of God as displayed in the salvation of his people. (See ch. 40: 8. 65: 17. Matt. 5: 18. 1 John 2: 17.) Knobel thinks that the ancient prophets actually looked for a complete revolution in the face of nature, coetaneous and coincident with the moral and spiritual changes which they foretold.
7. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, people (with) my law in their heart; fear not the reproach of men, and by their scoffs be not broken (in spirit, i. e. terrified). The distinction here implied is still that between the righteous and the wicked as the two great classes of mankind. Those who are described in v. 1 as seeking after righteousness are here said to ~know it, i. e. know it by experience. Vitringa and Gesenius explain the Hebrew verb as meaning love; but this is an arbitrary substitution of what may be considered as implied for what is really expressed. The presence of the law in the heart denotes not mere affection for it but a cor rect apprehension of it, as the heart in Hebrew is put for the whole mind or soul; it is therefore a just parallel to knowing in the other member of the clause.—The opposite class, or those who know not what is right, and who have7e not God’s law in their heart, are comprehended under the generic title man, with particular reference to the derivation of the Hebrew word from a root meaning to be weak or sickly, so that its application here suggests the idea of their frailty and mortality, as a sufficient reason why God’s people should not be afraid of them.
3..For like the (moth-eaten) garment shall the moth devour them, and like the (worm-eaten) wool shall the worm devour them; and my righteousness to eternity shall be, and my salvation to an age of ages. The same contrast between God’s immutability and the brief duration of his enemies, is presented in ch. 50: 9 and in v. 6 above.
9. Awake, awake, put on strength, arm of Jehovah, awake, as (in the) days of old, the ages of eternities; art not thou the same that hewed Rahab in pieces, that wounded the serpent or dragon? The Septuagint makes Jerusalem the object of address, in which it is followed by some modern writers, who suppose the arm of Jehovah to be mentioned as a synonyme or figurative paraphrase of the strength with which she is exhorted to invest herself. This addition would however be at once so harsh and so gratuitous, that most interpreters appear to acquiesce in the more obvious explanation of the words as addressed directly to the arm of Jehovah as the symbol of his power. Gesenius’s idea, that Jehovah thus calls upon his own arm to awake, is as unnatural as Vitringa’s supposition of a chorus of saints or doctors. The only probable hypothesis is that which puts the words into the mouth of the people or of the Prophet as their representative. The verse is then a highly figurative but by no means an obscure appeal to the former exertion of that power, as a reason for its renewed exertion in the present case. The particular example cited seems to be the overthrow of Egypt, here described by the enigmatical name Rahab, for the origin and sense of which see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 510. The same thing is probably intended by the parallel term “pan, whether this be understood to mean an aquatic monster in the general, or more specifically the crocodile, the natural and immemorial emblem of Egypt.
10. Art not thou the same that dried the sea, the waters of the great deep, that placed the depths of the sea (as) a way for the passage of redeemed ones 1 The allusion to the overthrow of Egypt is carried out and completed by a distinct mention of the miraculous passage of the Red Sea. The interrogative form of the sentence is equivalent to a direct affirmation that it is the same arm, or in other words, that the same power which destroyed the Egyptians for the sake of Israel still exists, and may again be exerted for a similar purpose. The confidence that this will be done is expressed somewhat abruptly in the next verse.
11. And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return and come to Zion with shouting, and everlasting joy upon their head; gladness and joy shall overtake (them), sorrow and sighing have fled away. The same words occur in ch. 35: 10, except that w^: is there written in its usual form, without the final *,, and that 103 is preceded by the Vav conversive. Some manuscripts exhibit the same reading here, and the difference might be considered accidental, but for the fact that such variations are often made intentionally. See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 587.
12. I, I, am he that comforteth you; who art. thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of man (who) is to die, and of the son of man who (as) grass is to be given? The important truth is here reiterated, that Jehovah is not only the deliverer but the sole deliverer of his people, and as the necessary consequence, that they have not only no need but no right to be afraid, which seems to be the force of the interrogation, Who art thou that thou shouldest be afraid, or still more literally, who art thou and thou hast been afraid? i. e. consider who is thy protector, and then recollect that thou hast been afraid. The etymological import of uisx is rendered still more prominent in this case by the addition of the word rw, before which a relative may be supplied in order to conform it to our idiom, although the original construction is rather that of a complete but parenthetical proposition. ‘ Afraid of man (he shall die), and of the son of man (as grass he shall be given).’ This last verb is commonly explained as if simply equivalent to he shall be or shall become, which is hardly consistent with its usage elsewhere. Some adhere more closely to the strict sense by supposing it to mean he shall be given up, abandoned to destruction. There is no need of supposing a grammatical ellipsis of the preposition 3, since the relation of resemblance is in many cases suggested by a simple apposition, as in the English phrase, he reigns a sovereign. On the comparison itself, see above, ch. 40: 6.
13. And hast forgotten Jehovah thy Maker, spreading the heavens 15 and founding the earth, and hast trembled continually all the day, from before the wrath of the oppressor as he made ready to destroy 1 And where is (now) the wrath of the oppressor 1 The form of expression in the first clause makes it still more clear that the statement in v. 12 is not merely hypothetical but historical, implying that they had actually feared man and forgotten God. The epithets added to God’s name are not merely orna mental, much less superfluous, but strictly appropriate, because suggestive of almighty power, which ensured the performance of his promise and the effectual protection of his people.— Continually all the day is an emphatic pleonasm, such as are occasionally used in every language.—From before is a common Hebrew idiom for because of, on account of, but may here be taken in its strict sense as expressive of alarm and flight before an enemy. (See ch. 2: 19.)—Some render “IEJO as if, to which there are two objections: first, the want of any satisfactory authority from usage; and secondly, the fact that the words then imply that no such attempt has really been made. As if he could destroy would be appropriate enough, because it is merely an indirect denial of his power to do so; but it cannot be intend ed to deny that he had aimed at it.—l-i’s is particularly used in reference to the preparation of the bow for shooting by the adjustment of the arrow on the string; some suppose that it specifically signifies the act of taking aim. (Ps. 7: 13. 11:2. 21: 13.)—The question at the close implies that the wrath is at an end, and the oppressor himself vanished. We have no authority for limiting this reference to any particular historical event. It is as if he had said, How often have you trembled when your oppressors threatened to destroy you, and where are they now? Beck absurdly imagines that the writer here betrays himself as writing after the event which he affects to foretell.—Ewald seems to make rvrrrn a denominative from nnd meaning to send to hell (in die Hdlle zu sendcn); but this, although it strengthens the expression, seems to do it at the cost of philological exactness.
14. He hastens bowing to be loosed, and he shall not die in the pit, and his bread shall not fail. The essential idea is that of liberation, but with some obscurity in the expression. Some give to MS’S here and in ch. 63: 1 the sense of marching, which would here be appropriate, but could not be so easily reconciled with the other cases where the word occurs. The modern lexicographers appear to be agreed that the radical meaning of the verb is that of bending, either backward (as in ch. 63: 1) or down ward (as in Jer. 48: 12 and here). The latest versions accordingly explain it as a poetical description of the prisoner bowed down under chains. With still more exactness it may be translated as a participle qualifying the indefinite subject of the verb at the beginning. There is however no objection to the usual construction of the word as a noun; the sense remains the same in either case.—The next clause is sometimes taken as an indirect subjunctive proposition, that he should not die; but it is best to make it a direct affirmation that he shall not. Ewald gives nnu: a sense corresponding to that of the verb in the preceding verse, and renders the entire phrase for hell, i. e. so as to descend into it. If the noun be taken in this sense, or in the kindred one of grave, the preposition cannot mean in, a sense moreover not agreeable to usage. Those who give it that sense here are under the necessity of making nnu; mean the dungeon, which is a frequent sense of the analogous term Tia. But whether the phrase in question mean for hell, or for the grave, or in the pit, or to destruction, the general sense is still that the captive shall not perish in captivity. This general promise is then rendered more specific by the assurance that he shall not starve to death, which seems to be the only sense that can be put upon the last clause.
15. And I (am) Jehovah thy God, rousing the sea and then its waves roar; Jehovah of Hosts (is) his name. Another appeal to the power of God as a pledge for the performance of his promise. siH has been understood in two directly opposite senses, that of stilling and that of agitating. The first is strongly recommended by the not unfrequent use of the derivative conjugations in the sense of quieting or being quiet. The other rests upon an Arabic analogy, confirmed however by the context, as 1^0*5 must indicate a consequence (and then or so that), and not an ante cedent (when they roar) as explained by the writers who take?:n in the sense of stilling, and even by Gesenius, who gives that verb the sense of frightening. Some of the older writers seem to have regarded 55’“i as a transposition for -sa rebuking, a word often used to express the divine control over nature, and especially the sea. (See above, ch. 17: 13.)
16. And I have put my words in thy mouth, and in the shadow of my hand I have hid thee, to plant the heavens, and to found the earth, and to say to Zion, Thou art my people. That these words are not addressed to Zion or the Church is evident; because in the last clause she is spoken of in the third person, and addressed in the next verse with a sudden change to the feminine form from the masculine which is here used. That it is not the Prophet may be readily inferred from the nature of the work described in the second clause. The only remaining supposition is that the Messiah is the object of address, and that his work or mission is here described, viz. to plant the heavens, i. e. to establish them, perhaps with allusion to the erection of a tent by the insertion of its stakes in the ground. There is no need of reading rviaai?, as Lowth does; since the usage of the Scriptures is rather in favour of variation than of scrupulous transcription. The whole clause is equivalent to creating a new world, which must here be taken in a figurative sense; because the literal creation, as a thing already past, would here be inappropriate, especially when followed by the words, to say to Zion, thou art my people. Nothing is gained by referring the infinitives to God him self, as Rosenmiiller does; because the person here addressed is still described as the instrument if not as the efficient agent. The new creation thus announced can only mean the reproduction of the church in a new form, by what we usually call the change of dispensations. The outward economy should all be new, and yet the identity of the chosen people should remain unbroken. For he whom God had called to plant new heavens and to found a new earth was likewise commissioned to say to Zion, Thou art still my people.
17. This may be considered a continuation of the address begun at the end of the preceding verse. The same voice which there said, Thou art my people, may be here supposed to say, House thyself! rouse thyself! Arise Jerusalem! (thou) who hast drunk at the hand of Jehovah the cup of his wrath; the bowl of the cup of reeling thou hast drunk, thou hast wrung (or sucked) out, i. e. drunk its very dregs. Some of the rabbins give the sense of dregs to rszp itself. The ancient versions either overlook it or explain it to mean a certain kind of cup. The modern writers are dis posed to regard it as a pleonastic expression similar to goblet-cup. According to its probable etymology, as traceable in Hebrew and Arabic, the word denotes the convex surface of a cup or bowl, while bi3 is properly the area or space within. The cup is of course put for its contents, a natural figure for any thing administered or proffered by a higher power. (Compare Jer. 25: 15, 16. 49: 12. 51: 7. Lam. 4: 21. Ob. 16. Ezek. 23: 34. Rev. 14: 10.)
18. There is no guide to her (or no one leading her) of all the sons she has brought forth, and no one grasping her hand of all the sons she has brought up. From addressing Zion in the second person, he now proceeds to speak of her in the third. This verse is not so much descriptive of unnatural abandonment as it is of weakness. The sense is not that no one will, but that no one can protect or guide her. Some interpreters suppose the figure of a drunken person to be still continued. J. D. Michaelis even goes so far as to translate the first words of the verse, No one brings her a drink of water. This is no doubt founded on the usual application of this verb to the watering of flocks, from which is deduced the secondary sense of guidance in general. Hengstenberg gives to it, wherever it occurs, the sense of fostering or nourishing. (See above, on ch. 40: 11.) The mother and the sons, i. e. the people collectively and individually, are distinguished only by a figure of speech.
19. Both those things are befalling (or about to befall) thee; who will mourn for thee 1 Wasting and ruin, famine and sword; who (but) I will comfort thee? A difficulty here is the mention of two things in the first clause, followed by an enumeration of four in the second. Some sup pose the two things to refer to what precedes, others to wasting and ruin only. Grotius thinks that wasting and famine, ruin and sword, are to be combined as synonymes. The modern writers understand the second phrase as an explanation or specification of the first. As if he had said, wasting and ruin (such as are produced by) famine and the sword. The last words of the verse, strictly translated, mean, who I will comfort thee. The Targum limits the interrogation to the first word, and supposes the others to contain the answer. The same construction is given by Henderson— Who 1 I myself will comfort thee. A much greater number of interpreters include the whole in the interrogation, and either give the verb a sub junctive form, who am I that I should comfort thee 1 or take “*» as an adverb, how shall I comfort thee 1 Hitzig: by whom (i. e. by what example of similar or greater suffering) shall I comfort thee? Still a different construction, although yielding substantially the same sense, is adopted above, in the translation of the verse. The general meaning evidently is that her grief was beyond the reach of any human comforter.
20. Thy sons were faint (or helpless). This explains why they did not come to her assistance.— They lie at the head of all the streets. A conspicuous place is evidently meant, but whether the corners or the higher part of an uneven street, is a question of small moment.—Like a wild bull in a net, i. e. utterly unable to exert their strength. The Hebrew word Kim is no doubt identical with the ixfi of Deut. 14: 5, and therefore must denote an animal. The ancient versions favour its identity with the oryx, a species of antelope or wild goat. Gesenius gives this explanation in his Lexicon, but here translates it stag (Hirsch). The common version (wild bull) is derived from the Targum, and is sufficient to convey the writer’s meaning by suggesting the idea of a wild animal rendered entirely powerless. The extra ordinary version given in the Septuagint, awrhor jjpieqs&ov, a half-cooked beet, owes its origin, no doubt, to some coincidence of form or sound between the obscure Hebrew word and an Egyptian one, with which the translator was familiar. The cognate form in Deuteronomy is rendered, in the same version, but no doubt by a different hand, oQvya. The precise sense of the Hebrew phrase appears to be, like an oryx of net, or a net-oryx, i. e. an ensnared one; but the sense may be best expressed in English by supplying the local preposition (in a net). Knobel supposes a particular allusion to the faintness produced by hunger, and refers to several passages in Jeremiah, especially to Lam. 2: 19, which is no doubt imitated from the one before us.—The true cause of their lying thus is given in the last clause. Filled (i. e. drunk, as Ewald explains it) with the wrath of Jehovah, the rebuke of thy God. In Hebrew usage rns>a approaches to the strong sense curse, and is so translated by Gesenius. The expression thy God is emphatic, and suggests that her sufferings proceeded from the alienation of her own divine protector. This verse is incorrectly applied by Vitringa to the siege of the ancient Jerusalem, whereas it is a figurative representation of the helpless ness of Zion or the Church when partially forsaken for a time by her offend ed Head.
21. Therefore pray hear this, thou suffering one and drunken but not with wine. The antithesis in the last clause is to be completed from the context. Not with wine, but with the wrath of God, which had already been described as a cup of reeling or intoxication. The same negative expression is employed in ch. 29: 9. The Targum supplies from distress. Kimchi inserts the wrath of God. Jarchi supposes an ellipsis of something else (“inx “m), and thus accounts for the construct form of the participle. But the Michlal Jophi explains it more correctly as an instance of the idiomatic use of the construct for the absolute in cases where a very intimate relation is to be expressed. Vitringa carries out his favourite method of interpretation, by explaining this verse as addressed specifically to the ancient church, when recovering from the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes,— a limitation which might just as well be made in reference to any of the general encouragements of true believers which the word of God contains.
22. Thus saith thy Lord, Jehovah, and thy God—he will defend (or avenge) his people—Behold, I have taken from thy hand the cup of reeling (or intoxication), the bowl of the cup of my fury; thou shall not add (continue or repeat) to drink it any more (or again). Even Knobel is compelled to admit that the writer has reference less to the place than to the people of Jerusalem, and even to this only as the representative of the entire nation; a concession which goes far to confirm the explanation of the “Zion” of these prophecies which has been already given.—It is usual to explain I’B? n^ as a relative clause (who pleads the cause of his people); but it is simpler, and at the same time more in accordance with the genius of the language, to regard it as a brief but complete parenthetical proposition. The same character is often ascribed elsewhere to Jehovah. (See ch. 1:17. 34:8. 41:11. 49:25.)—-As the cup was the cup of God’s wrath, not of man’s, so God himself is represented as withdrawing it from the sufferer’s lips, when its purpose is accomplished.
23. And put it into the hand of those that afflicted thee, that said to thy soul, Bow down and we will (or that we may) pass over; and thou didst lay thy back as the ground and as the street for the passengers. Ewald and Umbreit agree with Seeker and Lowth in reading Tp?1^ thy oppressors, as in ch. 49: 26, on the alleged authority of the ancient versions, which would be wholly insufficient if the fact were so, and Kocher has clearly shown that it is not. The common reading is confirmed, moreover, by the use of niin in Lam. 1: 12.— To thy soul is explained by Gesenius and others as a mere periphrasis for to thee. Vitringa supposes the expression to be used because the body could not be bowed down in the manner here described without a previous bowing of the mind. But the true explanation is no doubt that given by Hengstenberg in his exposition of Ps. 3: 3 (Commentary, I. p. 59), viz. that this form of speech always implies a strong and commonly a painful affection of the mind in the object of address. Who said to thy soul is then equivalent to saying, who distressed thy soul by saying. The last clause is commonly explained as a proverbial or at least a metaphorical description of extreme humiliation, although history affords instances of literal humiliation in this form. Such is the treatment of Vale rian by Sapor, as described by Lactantius and Aurelius Victor; with which may be compared the conduct of Sesostris to his royal captives, as described by Diodorus, and that of Pope Alexander III. to the Emperor Frederic, as recorded by the Italian historians. For scriptural parallels see Josh. 10: 24 and Judg. 1:7.—If we had any right or reason to restrict this prediction to a single period or event, the most obvious would be the humiliation of the Chaldees, who are threatened with the cup of God’s wrath in Jer. 25: 26. Yet Vitringa sets this application aside, upon the ground that Israel drank of the same cup afterwards, and understands the verse of the deliverance of the Jews from their Macedonian oppressors by the valour of the Maccabees. To the obvious objection that even this was not a final deliverance, he ingeniously replies that all the promises to Israel extend only to the end of the old dispensation,—an assumption which confounds the Jewish nation with the Israel of God, the Church, or chosen people, which continued to exist under every change of dispensation and economy, and, notwithstanding all its fluctuations and vicissitudes, shall ultimately be for ever rescued by the same hand which destroys its enemies. This is the simple substance of the promise in the verse before us, which includes without specifically signifying all that has been thus represented as its meaning.
