HOWEVER low the natural Israel may sink, the true Church shall become more glorious than ever, being freed from the impurities connected with her former state, v. 1. This is described as a captivity, from which she is exhorted to escape, v. 2. Her emancipation is the fruit of God’s gratuitous compassion, v. 3. As a nation she has suffered long enough, vs. 4, 5. The day is coming when the Israel of God shall know in whom they have believed, v. 6. The herald of the new dispensation is described as already visible upon the mountains, v. 7. The watchmen of Zion hail their coming Lord, v. 8. The very ruins of Jerusalem are summoned to rejoice, v. 9. The glorious change is witnessed by the whole world, v. 10. The true Church or Israel of God is exhorted to come out of Jewry, v. 11. This exodus is likened to the one from Egypt, but described as even more auspicious, v. 12. Its great leader, the Messiah, as the Servant of Jehovah, must be and is to be exalted, v. 13. And this exaltation shall bear due proportion to the humiliation which preceded it, vs. 14, 15.
1. Awake, awake,put on thy strength, oh Zion! Put on thy gar ments of beauty, oh Jerusalem, the Holy City! For no more shall there add (or continue) to come into thee an uncircumcised and unclean (person). The encouraging assurances of the foregoing context are now followed by a summons similar to that in ch. 51: 17, but in form approaching nearer to the apostrophe in ch. 51: 9.—Vitringa objects to the version awake, on the ground that it was not a state of sleep from which she was to rouse herself. This is true so far as literal slumber is concerned; but sleep is one of the most natural and common figures for a despondent lethargy. The essential idea is, no doubt, that of rousing or arising, which Gesenius and the later Germans express by an interjection meaning up (auf! auf!). The same writers give to T3>, in this as in many other cases, the factitious sense of beauty, glory, simply on account of the parallelism. This is a gratuitous weakening of the sense; for beauty and beauty is certainly much less than beauty and strength. To put on strength is a perfectly intelligible figure for resuming strength or taking courage, and is therefore entirely appropriate in this connexion; while the other meaning is not only less agreeable to usage, but excluded by the clear analogy of ch. 51: 9, where the sense of strength is universally admitted. It might be objected that the sense is there determined by the use of the word arm, if the meaning strength were a rare and doubtful one; but since it is confessedly the usual and proper one, the case referred to merely confirms the strict interpretation, which is here retained by Ewald (Macht).—That the city is here addressed only as a symbol of the nation, is certain from the next verse; so that Hitzig is compelled to assume two different objects of address, in utter violation of analogy and taste.—Beautiful garments is by most interpreters regarded as a general expression meaning fine clothes or holiday dresses; but some suppose a special allusion to a widow’s weeds (2 Sam. 14:2) or to prisongarments (2 Kings 25: 29). It is a bold but not unnatural idea of Knobel, that the Prophet here resumes the metaphor of ch. 49: 18, where Zion’s children are compared to bridal ornaments.— The Holy City, literally, city of holiness, an epithet before applied to Zion (ch. 48: 2), and denoting her peculiar consecration, and that of her people, to the service of Jehovah. (Compare Dan. 8:24.) Henceforth the name is to be more appropriate than ever, for the reason given in the last clause. The meaning of tpoi1’, when followed by the future, is precisely equivalent to the more usual construction with the infinitive, of which we have an instance in ch. 51: 22.— Uncircumcised is an expression borrowed from the ritual law and signifying unclean. That it is not here used in its strict sense, is intimated by the addition of the general term KBB. The restriction of these epithets to the Babylonians is purely arbitrary, and intended to meet the objection drat Jerusalem was not free from heathen intrusion after the exile. The same motive leads Vitringa to explain the promise as addressed to the Jewish church after its deliverance from the insults and oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Jews refer it to a future period, and the Germans easily dispose of it as a visionary expectation which was never realized. Thus Beck explains it as a prophecy that all mankind should be converted to Judaism, which is a virtual concession of the truth of the interpretation above given. The question is not materially varied by substituting come against for come into. The true solution is the one above suggested, namely, that the words contain a general promise of exemption from the contaminating presence of the impure and unworthy, as a part of the blessedness and glory promised to God’s people, as the end and solace of their various trials.
2. Shake thyself from the dust, arise, sit, oh Jerusalem! loose the bands of thy neck, oh captive daughter Zion (or of Zion)! The dust, from which she is to free herself by shaking it off, is either that in which she had been sitting as a mourner (ch. 3: 26. 47: 1. Job 2: 13), or that which, in token of her grief, she had sprinkled on her head (Job 2: 12).— 234 CH AFTER L II. Koppe and Hitzig make *aa5 a noun, meaning captivity or captives collectively, like the corresponding feminine rvati in the other clause. Rosenmuller’s objection, that “n’lJ would in that case have a conjunctive accent, is declared by Hitzig to be groundless, and is certainly inconclusive. A more serious objection is the one made by Gesenius, that ha^ is always masculine, and would not therefore agree with the feminine verb *wp. Hitzig’s reply, that •’arc, as a collective, may be here used as a feminine, is not only wholly gratuitous but utterly precluded by the existence of a dis tinct feminine form and its occurrence in this very sentence. Because feminines have sometimes a collective sense, it does not follow that a masculine, when used collectively, becomes a feminine, least of all when a feminine form exists already. Among the writers who explain it as a verb, there is a difference of judgment with respect to the meaning of the exhortation, sit! The common English version, sit down, till explained, suggests an idea directly opposite to that intended. Gesenius, on the contrary, makes it mean sit up, in opposition to a previous recumbent posture. To this it may be objected, that the verb is elsewhere absolutely used in the sense of sitting down, especially in reference to sitting on the ground as a sign of grief; and also, that the other verb does not merely qualify this, but expresses a distinct idea, not merely that of rising but that of standing up, which is inconsistent with an exhortation to sit up, immediately ensuing. Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, therefore, agree with Vitringa and Lowth in adopting the interpretation of the Targum, sit upon thy throne, from which she is supposed to have been previously cast down.—The textual reading sinnsnn may be either a preterite or an imperative. In the former case, the Hithpael must have a passive sense, the bands of thy neck are loosed, or have loosed themselves. In the other case, the words may be considered as addressed to the bands themselves (be loosed}, which is hardly compatible, however, with the use of the second person in thy neck; or the object of address may be the captives, which is equally at variance with the following singular, captive daughter of Zion. The marginal reading ^nnann preserves both the parallelism and the syntax, and is therefore regarded as the true text by Ewald and Knobel with the older writers. The latter, followed by Rosenmiiller, suppose an ellipsis of the preposition from. Tnus the English Version: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck. Gesenius and Ewald make bands the object of the verb, which they explain, not as a strict reflexive, but a modification of it, corresponding to the middle voice in Greek. Loose for thyself the bands of thy neck.—On the different constructions of the phrase fi^-ra, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 8.—As a whole, the verse is a poetical description of the liberation of a female captive from degrading servitude, designed to represent the complete emancipation of the Church from tyranny and persecution. CHAPTER LTI. 335
V. 3. For thus saith Jehovah, Ye were sold for nought, and not for money shall ye be redeemed. These words are apparently designed to remove two difficulties in the way of Israel’s deliverance, a physical and a moral one. The essential meaning is, that it might be effected rightly and easily. As Jehovah had received no price for them, he was under no obligations to renounce his right to them; and as nothing had been gained by their rejection, so nothing would be lost by their recovery. The only obscurity arises from the singular nature of the figure under which the truth is here presented, by the transfer of expressions borrowed from the commercial intercourse of men to the free action of the divine sovereignty. The verse, as explained above, agrees exactly with the terms of Ps. 44: 13, notwithstanding Hengstenberg’s denial (Commentary, II. p. 391). The reference to the blood of Christ as infinitely more precious than silver and gold, would here be wholly out of place, where the thing asserted is that they shall be redeemed as they were sold, viz. without any price at all, not merely without silver and gold. This misconception has arisen from the use of analogous expressions in the New Testament in application to a far more important subject, the redemption of mankind from everlasting ruin. The reflexive meaning given to erns^a in the English Version (ye have sold yourselves), is not sustained by usage nor required by the context, either here or in Lev. C25: 39, 47, where Gesenius admits it. (See above, on ch. 50: 1.)
4. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Into Egypt went down my people at the first to sojourn there, and Assyria oppressed them for nothing. The interpretation of this verse and the next has been not a little influenced by the assumption of one or more strongly marked antitheses. Thus some writers take it for granted that the Prophet here intended to contrast the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage. They accordingly explain the verse as meaning that the first introduction of Israel into Egypt was without any evil design upon the part of the Egyptians, who did not begin to oppress them until there arose a king who knew not Joseph (Ex. 1: 8), whereas the Assyrian deportation of Israel was from the beginning a high-handed act of tyranny. Another antithesis, maintained by some in connexion with the one already mentioned, and by others in the place of it, is that between n:ii)x-]2 at the first, and GExa at the last. A third hypothesis supposes Egypt and Assyria together to be here contrasted with the Babylonian tyranny described in the next verse. But even here there is a question, whether the comparison has reference merely to time, and the Prophet means to say that what Jehovah had done he would do again—or whether there is also a de signed antithesis between the former oppressions as less aggravated and the present one as more so. Knobel appears to exclude the supposition of a contrast altogether, and to understand the passage as a chronological enumeration of events, designed to show how much had been endured already as a reason why they should endure no more. (Compare ch. 40: 2.) In ancient times they were oppressed by the Egyptians, at a later period by Assyria, and later still by Babylonia, whose oppressions are supposed to be described in v. 5, either as already suffered, or as an object of prophetic foresight. This is the simplest and most natural interpretation, and is very strongly recommended by the difficulty of defining the antithesis intended on the other supposition.—Of the phrase fc&xa there are three interpretations. Saadias, Lowth, and Henderson explain it as a particle of time, the opposite of na&Sjna. The objection to this is the want of any other case in which the noun is thus applied to time, together with its frequent use to describe nonentity or nothing. It is no doubt true, as Havernick alleges, that the word may as well denote extremity of time as of place; but even the latter application is confined to the plural in the frequent formula “ps IOBX. The argument derived from the parallelism is of no avail; because, as we have seen, one of the points at issue is the question whether nsEJOn stands opposed to &£xn or to nns in the next verse. Most writers therefore under stand it as meaning for nothing or without cause, i. e. unjustly, or as Kimchi expresses it, PSEP f>i>3. Knobel, however, makes it strictly synonymous with csn in v. 3, and understands the clause to mean that the Assyrians had enslaved Israel gratuitously, i. e. without paying any price for him, and therefore had no right to him, when God chose to reclaim him,—which is precisely the idea expressed in the foregoing verse.—The explanation of Assyria as meaning or including Babylonia, though not without authority from usage, is as unnecessary here as in various other places where it has been proposed. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 125).—The unsatisfactory nature of exegetical conclusions drawn from doubtful premises is strongly illustrated by the fact, that while Gesenius argues from this verse that the writer must have lived long after the Assyrian bondage, since he couples it with that of Egypt as a thing of ancient date, Havernick (Einleitung II. 2, p. 187) insists that it must have been written in the days of Isaiah, because it contrasts the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage as the first and the last which Israel as a nation had experienced. The chief use of such reasonings is to cancel one another. Though we may not venture to rest the genuine ness of these prophecies on such a basis, we may cheerfully accept the assurance thus afforded that the arguments against it are of no validity.
5. And now what is there to me here (what have I here), saith Jehovah, that my people is taken away for nothing, its rulers howl, saith Jehovah, and continually, all the day, my name is blasphemed 1 Some understand now strictly as meaning at the present time, in opposition to the ancient times when Israel suffered at the hands of Egypt and Assyria. The same antithesis may be obtained by giving now a modified sense so as to mean in the present case, as distinguished from the two already mentioned. It would even be admissible to give the now its logical sense as substantially meaning since these things are so, although such a departure from the proper import of the word is by no means necessary.—The other adverb, here, admits of no less various explanations. Hitzig and some older writers under stand it to mean heaven as the customary residence of God. (1 Kings 8: 30.) Some suppose it to mean Babylon, while others, with a bolder departure from the strict sense, understand it as equivalent to in the present case, viz. that of the Babylonian exile; which, however, even if correct in sub stance, is rather a paraphrase than a translation.—With the meaning put upon this adverb varies the interpretation of the whole phrase, what have I here? If here mean in Babylon, the sense would seem to be, what else have I to do here but to free my people? If it mean in heaven, then the question is, what is there to detain me here from going to the rescue of my people? If it mean in the present case, whether this be referred to the Babylonish exile or more generally understood, the best explanation of the question is the one proposed by Knobel, what have I gained in this case, any more than in the others, since my people are still taken from me with out any compensation? But Beck supposes it to mean, how much more cause have I to interfere in this case than in any of the others. The conclusion implied, though not expressed, is that in this, as in the other instances referred to, a regard to his own honour, metaphorically represented as his interest, requires that he should interpose for the deliverance of his people.— The next clause likewise has been very variously explained. The most extraordinary exposition is the one preferred by Aben Ezra, which gives d^ttba the same sense as in Num. 21: 27, and explains the whole clause thus: their poets howl, i. e. their songs, instead of being joyous, have become mere lamentations. This ingenious notion is revived by Luzzatto, who refers in illustration to the prophecy of Amos (8: 3), that the songs of the temple shall in that day howl, or, as the English Version phrases it, be howlings. Among the vast majority of writers who retain the common meaning of the word as a derivative from bttSa to rule, the question chiefly in dispute is whether it denotes the native rulers of the Jews themselves, as in ch. 28: 14, or their foreign oppressors, as in ch. 49: 7. Vitringa and Hitzig, who prefer the former supposition, understand the clause as meaning that the chiefs, who represent the people, howl or wail in their distress. (Compare Exod. 5:15, 21.) Knobel objects to this interpretation, that the context requires a description not of their distress but of its cause, and also that the Jews had no chiefs but the Babylonians while in exile; which is at once historically false, because the internal organization of the people seems tohave continued almost without change through all their revolutions and vicissitudes, and wholly irrelevant if true, because the limitation of the passage to the exile is gratuitous and therefore inadmissible. Most interpreters, however, seem disposed to understand vVfiStt as meaning his foreign oppressors, notwithstanding the difficulty then attending the interpretation of the verb ^VrH- More contempt than it really deserves has been expressed by later writers for Jerome’s straightforward explanation, they shall howl when punished for their tyranny hereafter. This is, to say the least, far better than to derive it from b^n, or to read sibb’in’j wilh the Targum and Jarchi, Houbigant and Lowth, Michael is and Doderlein, Dathe and Eichhorn. The causative sense, expressed by Kimchi and the English Version (make them to hoivfy, is wholly unsustained by Hebrew usage. The favourite interpretation with the latest writers is essentially the same proposed by Kocher, who explains the Hebrew verb as expressive of the violent and angry domination of the rulers; upon which the moderns have improved by making it expressive of a joyful shout, as o).o/.i’^w is employed by jEschylus, and as Lucan, speaking of the shout of victory, uses the words, laetis ulalare triumphis. This explanation is adopted by gesenius in his Lexicon, although explicitly rejected in his Commentary, as not sufficiently sustained by usage. —The only difficulty in the last clause has relation to the form of the word fKSTa, which Jarchi explains as a Hithpael passive, and Kimchi as a mixture of the Hithpael and Pual.—The form of expression in this last clause is copied by Ezekiel (>]6: 20, 23), but applied to a different subject; and from that place, rather than the one before us, the Apostle quotes in Rom. 2: 24.
6. Therefore (because my name is thus blasphemed) my people shall know my name; therefore in that day (shall they know) that 1 am he that said, Behold me! The exact sense of the last words according to this construction is, ‘ I am he that spake (or promised) a Behold me!’ This is the sense given by Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, who understand the clause as meaning that in that day (when the promise is fulfilled) it shall be known that he who promised to be with them and deliver them was God himself. Gesenius gives a. somewhat different construction, {they shall know that I who spoke to them am present,’ or in other words that I who promised to be present have fulfilled my promise.’ But this paraphrastical interpretation of n3in is by no means so natural as that which understands it as the very language of the promise itself. To know the name of God, is to know his nature so far as it has been revealed; and in this case more specifically it is to know that the name blasphemed among the wicked was deserving of the highest honour. The second therefore is admitted by all the modern writers to be pregnant and emphatic; although Lowth esteemed it so unmeaning and superfluous, that he expunged it from the text on the authority of several ancient versions, which were much more likely to omit it inadvertently than all the manuscripts to introduce it without reason or authority. It is also commonly agreed that *3 means that, and that the verb shall know must be repeated with a different object. It might, however, be considered simpler and more natural to repeat the object with the verb, and let the last clause give a reason for the first: ‘ therefore in that day shall they know it (i. e. know my name), because I am he that said, Behold me (or, Lo here I am)!’ The English Version differs from all the constructions which have now been stated, in explaining ^sn as a mere reiteration of what goes before: ‘they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak; behold it is I.’ But according to usage, issn, especially when standing at the end of a clause or sentence, does not merely reiterate the subject of a foregoing verb, but constitutes a new proposition; it does not mean lo I, or lo I am, but lo I am here, and is therefore the common idiomatic Hebrew answer to a call by name
7. How timely on the mountains are the feet of one bringing glad tidings, publishing peace, bringing glad tidings of good, publishing salvation, saying to Zion, Thy God reigneth. The verb 11x2 means to be suitable, becoming, opportune, and though not applied to time in either of the two cases where it occurs elsewhere, evidently admits of such an application, especially when there is no general usage to forbid it. It is here recommended by the context; which is much more coherent if we under stand this verse as intimating that the help appears at the very juncture when it is most needed, than if we take it as a mere expression of delight. It is also favoured by the analogy of JNah. 2:1, where a similar connexion is expressed by the word nsn. It is favoured lastly by the use of the Greek word MQaioi in Paul’s translation of the verse (Rom. 10: 15), of which K>QK in our copies of the Septuagint is probably a corruption. This Greek word, both from etymology and usage, most explicitly means timely or seasonable, although sometimes employed in the secondary sense of beautiful (Matt. 23: 27. Acts 3: 2), like the Hebrew iiw (Cant. 1: 10), decorus in Latin, and becoming in English. The mountains meant may be the mountains round Jerusalem, or the word may be more indefinitely understood as adding a trait to the prophetic picture.—Hitzig gratuitously changes the form of the expression, by substituting foot and messengers for feet and messenger. The word iteaa has no equivalent in English, and must therefore be expressed by a periphrasis, in order to include the two ideas of annunciation and the joyful character of that which is announced. The sense is perfectly ex pressed by the Greek Iva^s^o^svog: but our derivatives, evangelizing and evangelist, are technical not popular expressions, and would not convey the meaning to an ordinary reader. The joyous nature of the tidings brought is still more definitely intimated in the next clause by the addition of the word good, which is not explanatory but intensive. The peculiar form of the original is marred in some translations, by rendering the first liana as a noun and the second as a verb; whereas in Hebrew there are two participles, both repeated. The explanation of “Vtsaa as a collective referring to the prophets, or the messengers from Babylonia to Jerusalem, is perfectly gratuitous. The primary application of the term is to the Messiah, but in itself it is indefinite; and Paul is therefore chargeable with no misapplication of the words when he applies them to the preachers of the gospel. The contents of the mes sage are the manifestation of the reign of God, the very news which Christ and his forerunner published when they cried saying, The kingdom of God is at hand.
8. The voice of thy watchmen! They raise the voice, together will they shout; for eye to eye shall they see in Jehovah’s returning to Zion. Lowth complains that none of the ancient versions or modern interpreters have cleared up the construction of the first clause to his satisfaction, or supplied the ellipsis in any way that seems to him easy and natural. He therefore proposes to read b= for bip (all thy watchmen lift up their voice), which he says perfectly rectifies the sense and the construction. It is hard to reconcile with Lowth’s reputation for refined taste the preference of this prosaic reading (the only external evidence for which is that P stands on a rasure in one manuscript) to the obvious assumption of a poetical apostrophe or exclamation, which has commended itself to all later writers, and had been before proposed by Vitringa. There is no need even of supplying is heard with Knobel, sounds with Gesenius in his Commentary, or hark with the same writer in his German version. The exact translation is not only admissible, but more expressive than any other. Gesenius and De Wette, by connecting Ynn^ with the word before it (erheben die Stimme allzumal), not only violate the accents, but are under the necessity of supplying and before the next verb.—This is one of the cases where it seems most allow able to look upon the preterite and future as equivalent to our present; but according to the general rule hitherto adopted, it is best to retain the original difference of form, whenever, as in this case, we can do so without injuring the sense. Thus understood, the clause would seem to intimate that they should have still further cause to shout hereafter; they have already raised the voice, and ere long they shall all shout together. Because the prophets are elsewhere represented as watchmen on the walls of Zion (ch. 56: 10. Jer. 6: 17. Ez. 3: 17. 33:2, 7), most interpreters attach that meaning to the figure here; but the restriction is unnecessary, since the application of a metaphor to one object does not preclude its application to another, and objectionable, as it mars the unity and beauty of the scene presented, which is simply that of a messenger of good news drawing near to a walled town, whose watchmen take up and repeat his tidings to the people within.-r- Ewald strangely takes the last clause as the words to be uttered by the watchmen, and explains them to mean, ‘ How will they see eye to eye!’ etc. This is far less natural than the usual construction, which regards the last clause as the Prophet’s explanation of the joy described in the first.— The phrase eye to eye, or, as Hitzig and De Wette have it, eye in eye, occurs only here and in Num. 14: 14. The sense put upon it in the Targum and adopted by Gesenius (with their eyes), though not erroneous, is inadequate. According to Vitringa, it denotes with both eyes, i. e. not imperfectly or dimly, but distinctly; and the same idea is expressed by Symmachus (oq>&et).iioq,avajj). The same essential meaning is attached to the expression by Ewald, but with a distinct intimation of local proximity, the phrase being properly descriptive of two persons so near as to look into each other’s eyes. The phrases face to face (Ex. 33: 11) and mouth to mouth (Num. 12:8) are kindred and analogous, but not identical with that before us.—The verb ^^ may be construed either with tp?’s or with an indefinite subject, they (i. e. the people of Jerusalem or men in general) shall see.—Rosenmiiller explains a before aitti as the connective which the verb ftx^ takes after it when it means to see with pleasure or to gaze at \with delight. The same construction seems to be implied in Ewald’s paraphrase of ^w (sich weideri): but it seems much simpler to construe the verb absolutely or without an object expressed (they shall see, i. e. look), and to make the s a particle of time, as it usually is when prefixed to (he infinitive.—The transitive meaning ascribed to -V^ in this and many other places has been clearly shown by Hengstenberg (Pentateuch, I. pp. 104—106) to have no foundation either in etymology or usage, and to be wholly inadmissible even in the frequent combination nwtt) avj, much mere in cases like the present, where the proper sense is not only appropriate but required by the context and the analogy of other places in which the reconciliation between God and his people is represented as a return after a long absence. (See above, on ch. 40: 11.)—The direct construction/on of the verb of motion with the noun of place is a Hebrew idiom of constant occurrence; so that it is not necessary even to suppose an ellipsis of the preposition.
9. Burst forth, shout together, ruins of Jerusalem! For Jehovah hath comforted his people, hath redeemed Jerusalem. The phrase ftS”! nss, to burst forth into shouting, is a favourite expression with Isaiah (see above, ch. 14: 7. 44: 23. 49: 13, and below, ch. 54: 1. 55: 12); but in this case the qualifying noun is exchanged for its verbal root,—a combination which occurs elsewhere only in Ps. 98: 4. As nss is never used in any 16 other connexion, and therefore denotes only this one kind of bursting, it may be considered as involving the idea of the whole phrase, and is so translated in the English Version (break forth into joy), while Gesenius gives the same sense to the two words, and translates the phrase exactly like the usual one, rip nss—Together may either mean all of you, or at the same time with the watchmen mentioned in v. 8. Hitzig even goes so far as to say that the ruins are here called upon to imitate the watchmen. Knobel adds that the ruins had particular occasion to rejoice, because they were to be transformed into a splendid city (ch. 44: 26). Such appeals to inanimate objects are of frequent occurrence in Isaiah. (See above, ch. 44: 23. 49: 13, and below, ch. 55: 12.)—The translation of the verbs in the last clause as presents is unnecessary and enfeebling, as it takes away the strong assurance always conveyed by the praeteritum propheticum. See above, on ch. 49: 13.
10. Jehovah hath bared his holy arm to the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. The allusion in the first clause is to the ancient military practice of going into battle with the right arm and shoulder bare. Thus Porus is described by Arrian as ds£iov wpov eywv yvpvbv tv rfj fid^; Diana by Silius Italicus, exscitos avide pugnae nudata lacertos; Tydeus by Statms, exscitare humeros nudamquc, lacessere pugnam. The same Hebrew verb is used in the same application by Ezekiel (4: 7). The baring of the arm may either be mentioned as a preparation for the conflict, or the act of stretching it forth may be included, as Rosenmiiller and Gesenius suppose. The bare arm is here in contrast either with the long sleeves of the female dress, or with the indolent insertion of the hand in the bosom. (Ps. 74: 11.) The exertion of God’s power is elsewhere expressed by the kindred figure of a great hand (Ex. 14: 30), a strong ha^d (Ez. 20: 34), or a hand stretched out (Is. 9: 11). The act here described is the same that is described in ch. 51: 9. The comparison of Jehovah to a warrior occurs above in ch. 42: 13. Jehovah’s arm is here described as holy, because, as Knobel thinks, his holiness or justice is exercised in punishing the wicked; but the word is rather to be taken in its wide sense, as denoting the divine perfection, or whatever distinguishes between God and man, perhaps with special reference to his power, as that by which his deity is most frequently and clearly manifested to his creatures. The sense of sanctifying, i. e. glorifying arm, which Rosenmiiller suggests as possible, is much less natural and scarcely reconcilable with the expression. In this clause Ewald has retained the strict translation of the preterite instead of the enfeebling present form preferred by most of the late writers. In the last clause he adopts the subjunctive form, 50 that all nations see, which is substantially correct, as CHAPTER LIT. 243 ijni introduces the effect or consequence of the action described in the fore going clause. Compare this clause with ch. 18: 3. 33: 13. and Ps. 98: 3, where it is repeated word for word. Another coincidence between this passage of Isaiah and that Psalm has been already pointed out in expound ing the foregoing verse.
11. Away! away! go out from thence! the unclean touch not! come out from the midst of her! be clean (or cleanse yourselves) ye armourbearers of Jehovah! The first word in Hebrew is a verb, and literally means depart; but there is something peculiarly expressive in Gesenius’s translation of it by an adverb. The analogy of ch. 48: 20 seems to show that the Prophet had the departure from Babylon in view; but the omission of the name here, and of any allusion to that subject in the context, forbids the restriction of the words any further than the author has himself restricted them. The idea that this high-wrought and impassioned composition has reference merely to the literal migration of the captive Jews, says but little for the taste of those who entertain it. The whole analogy of language and especially of poetical composition shows that Babylon is no more the exclusive object of the writer’s contemplation than the local Zion and the literal Jerusalem in many of the places where those names are mentioned. Like other great historical events, particularly such as may be looked upon as critical conjunctures, the deliverance becomes a type, not only to the prophet, but to the poet and historian, not by any arbitrary process, but by a spontaneous association of ideas. As some names, even in our own day, have acquired a generic meaning and become descriptive of a whole class of events, so in the earliest authentic history, the Flood, the Fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, the Babylonish Exile, are continually used as symbols of divine interposition both in wrath and mercy. There is no inconsistency whatever, therefore, in admitting that the Prophet has the exodus from Babylon in view, and yet maintaining that his language has a far more extensive scope. The error of those Christian writers who adopt this confined hypothesis is not so obvious in their own interpretations as it is in those which have been raised upon the same base by the German neologists, who, not content with this limitation of the meaning, sneer at the contracted Jewish spirit which the writer here betrays, by insisting on the old Levitical distinctions and denouncing all communion with the gentiles as pollution. In order to maintain this unworthy view of the writer’s mean ing, they explain the exhortation in the last clause as requiring ceremonial ablutions, and adopt Jarchi’s groundless and absurd interpretation of NEB as referring exclusively to persons, with allusion to the •fixri-‘^ia rxaa of Ezra 6:21. This restriction of the terms is so unreasonable and unfair, that Ewald and Knobel, though belonging to the same school, both explain CHAPTER L II.
ra as a neuter (Unreines), that which is unclean. It would indeed be impossible to frame a more general dehortation or dissuasion from religious and moral impurity, and thousands of intelligent readers have so understood the words, without detecting in them those “ angstliche pedantische Grundsatze” since brought to light by a mode of criticism which, even in a mere aesthetic point of view, deserves to be characterized as eminently dngsdich andpedaniisch. The same spirit shows itself in the exposition of the closing words of this verse by the same class of writers. Not content with identify ing the rnrn ^3 with the ttnp ^3 of Num. 4: 15. 1 Chron. 9: 29, an assumption not entirely devoid of probability, they make this an address to the Priests and Levites, the official bearers of these vessels, and explain it as implying a hope that the sacred utensils taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the temple (2 Kings 25: 14, 15. Dan. 5: 1) would be restored by Cyrus, as they afterwards were. (Ezra 1 :l-\i.) And this anticipated restitution is the great theme of the grand yet brilliant passage now before us, in the eyes of those very critics who have gone to an extreme in holding up Isaiah’s baldest prose as unmixed poetry! They reject of course the sense which Rosenmiiller, following some older writers, puts upon the closing words as meaning the armour-bearers of Jehovah. This would not be Jewish and Levitical enough to serve their purpose of really degrading what they affect to magnify c with faint praise.’ Yet this sense is not only in the highest degree suitable to the idea of a solemn march, but strongly recommended by the fact that tpbri tf’iJi in historical prose is the appropriated title of an armour-bearer. (See 1 Sam. 14: 1, 6, 7. 16: 21.) At the same time the mention of the sacred vessels would scarcely be omitted in the description of this new exodus. Both explanations may be blended without any violation of usage, and with great advantage to the beauty of the passage, by supposing an allusion to the nfixture of the martial and the sacerdotal in the whole organization of the host of Israel during the journey through the wilderness. Not even in the crusades were the priest and the soldier brought so near together, and so mingled, not to say identified, as in the long march of the chosen people from the Red Sea to the Jordan. By applying this key to the case before us, we obtain the grand though blended image of a march and a procession, an army and a church, a ’ sacramental host’ bearing the sacred vessels not as Priests and Levites merely, but as the armour-bearers of Jehovah, the weapons of whose warfare, though not carnal, are mighty to the pulling down of strong holds. (2 Cor. 10: 4.) With this comprehensive exposition of the clause agrees the clear and settled usage^e of the word s^3 in the wide sense of implements, including weapons on the one hand and vessels on the other. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 249.)—The application of the terms of this verse by John to the spiritual Babylon (Rev. 18:4), so far from standing in the way of the enlarged interpretation above given, really confirms it by showing that the language of the prophecy is suited to express far more than the literal exodus of Israel from Babylon.
12. For not in haste shall ye go out, and in flight ye shall not depart; for going before you (is) Jehovah, and bringing up your rear the God of Israel. This verse is crowded with allusions to the earlier history of Israel, some of which consist in the adaptation of expressions with which the Hebrew reader was familiar, but which must of course be lost in a translation. Thus the hasty departure out of Egypt is not only recorded as a fact in the Mosaic history (Ex. 11:1. 12: 33, 39), but designated by the very term here used “ji’Tsn (Ex. 12: 11. Deut. 16: 3), meaning terrified and sudden flight. So also T»V^ and Sl&Xtt are military terms familiar to the readers of the ancient books. (See Num. 10: 25. Josh. 6: 9, 13.) There is likewise an obvious allusion to the cloudy pillar going sometimes before and sometimes behind the host (Ex. 14: ]9, 20), and possibly to Moses’ poetical description of Jehovah as encompassing Israel with his protection (Deut. 32: 10). These minute resemblances are rendered still more striking by the distinction which the Prophet makes between the two events. The former exodus was hurried and disorderly; the one here promised shall be solemn and deliberate. How far the exquisite poetical beauty of the passage is appreciated by some modern critics, may be gathered from the fact that Rosenmuller quotes without dissent the ridiculous remark of Schuster, that the verse has reference to the dangers of the desert between Babylonia and Judea (Ezra 8: 22, 31), and the still more curious fact that Knobel understands it as assigning a reason why they need not neglect their Levitical ablutions before setting out; while Hitzig infers from this last verse that the purification enjoined in the one before it was “ etwas Zeitraubcndes” or something that required time for its performance. Such aesthetics, if applied to any of the master-works of classical genius, would be laughed to scorn; but even the transcendent merit of the passage now before us, simply considered as a piece of composition, cannot wash out the offensive stain of Judaismus, or enable certain critics to forget or even to forgive its being Scripture. The true connexion of the verse with that before it must be obvious to every unsophisticated reader. The for, as in many other cases, has relation to an intermediate thought which may be easily supplied though not expressed. Or rather, it has reference to the promise, implied in the preceding exhortation, of protection and security. To many thousands both of learned and unlearned readers, this connexion has been obvious for ages; whereas not more than two or three, we may venture to believe, ever dreamed that this magnificent description of Jehovah’s presence with his people was intended to assure the Jewish exiles that before leaving Babylon they would have time enough to wash themselves at leisure!—From this verse, taken in connexion with the one before it, we may derive a confirmation of our previous conclusions, first that the image there presented is a military no less than a priestly one; and secondly that this whole passage has a wider scope and higher theme than the deliverance from Babylon, because the latter is no more vividly exhibited to view than the deliverance from Egypt; arid if this is a mere emblem, so may that be, nay it must be, when we add to the consideration just presented, the result of the inductive process hitherto pursued in the interpretation of these prophecies, viz. that the deliverance of Israel from exile does not constitute the theme of the predictions, but is simply one remarkable historico-prophetical example which the Prophet cites in illustration of his general teachings as to the principle and mode of the divine administration, and his special predictions of a great and glorious change to be connected with the abrogation of the old economy.
13. Behold, my servant shall do wisely, (and as a necessary consequence) shall rise and be exalted and high exceedingly. The parenthesis introduced to show the true relation of the clauses serves at the same time to preclude the necessity of giving ^sizr the doubtful and secondary sense of prospering, as most modern writers do. The objection to this interpretation is the same as in the case of ^ and n^ist, which it is the fashion now to render victory, salvation, or the like. The parallel expressions in the present case are not synonymous but simply correlative, the mutual relation being that of cause and effect. He shall be exalted because he shall act wisely, in the highest sense, i. e. shall use the best means for the attainment of the highest end. This kind of wisdom involves prosperity, not merely as a possible result, but as a necessary consequence. We have no right, however, to substitute the one for the other, or to merge the primary idea in its derivative. Hengstenberg undertakes to blend both senses by translating the verb he shall rule well, i. e. both wisely and successfully. But to this there are two objections: first, that it introduces an idea (that of ruling) which is not expressed at all in the original; and then, that it confounds two things which in the original are kept distinct, the antecedent and the consequent, wisdom and prosperity. The latter has the less claim to be forced into the first clause, because in the last it is so fully and strongly ex pressed, by combining, as Hengstenberg himself well says, all the Hebrew verbs that denote exaltation and then adding the intensive adverb. The version of the Septuagint (avvfoei) and the Vulgate (intelliget) is only defective because it makes the verb denote the possession of intelligence, and not its active exercise, which is required by the Hiphil form and by the connexion, as well here as in the parallel passage, Jer. 23: 5. (Compare
1 Kings 2: 3.)—Connected with this verse there are two exegetical questions which are famous as the subject of dispute among interpreters. The first and least important has respect to the division and arrangement of the text, viz. whether this verse is to be connected with what goes before, or separated from it and regarded as the introduction of a new subject. The former method is adopted in the older versions and in the masoretic Hebrew text. The latter, according to Procopius and others, was pursued in the ancient distribution of the book, with which the Fathers were familiar, and has been adopted in our own day by most writers on Isaiah. A particular exegetical motive may be easily detected in some cases for preferring the one or the other of these methods. Thus Abarbenel is naturally led to sever these three verses (13—15) from what follows, by a wish to establish his peculiar hypothesis that the Messiah is the subject of these verses, but not of the next chapter. On the other hand, those writers who restrict the foregoing context to the restoration of the Jews from exile have a strong inducement to make this the beginning of a new discourse upon another subject, as the best means of disguising the unnatural and violent transition which their hypothesis compels them to assume. But to this statement there are certainly exceptions. Thus the usual division is retained by Hitzig notwithstanding his adherence to the Babylonian theory, while Ewald, who adopts the other method, admits that the fifty-third chapter begins in an entirely new tone. The ease with which arbitrary arrangements of the text may be multiplied derives some illustration from Hendewerk’s assertion that ch. 5-2: 7 to 54: 17 is a distinct prophecy, consisting of three parallel parts, ch. 52: 7-15, ch. 53: 1-12, ch. 54: 1-17, so that the favourite modern separation of ch. 52: 13 to 53: 12 from the context as a separate discourse is not only arbitrary but a ’ mutilation of the oracle.’ Common to all these arrangements is the radical error of supposing that the book is susceptible of distribution into detached and independent parts,—a notion which, as we have seen already, is not only theoretically groundless, but practically hurtful in a high degree to the sound interpretation of these prophecies. What seems to be gained, in such cases, by combining things which ought to go together, is more than outweighed by the disadvantage of separating others which are no less closely connected. The only satisfactory method, as we have already seen, is to regard the whole as a continuous composition, and to recognise the usual division into chapters, simply because it is familiar and on the whole convenient, although sometimes very injudicious and erroneous. According to this view of the matter, the precise distribution of the chapters is of no morft importance than that of the para graphs in any modern book, which may sometimes facilitate and sometimes hinder its convenient perusal, but can never be regarded as authoritative in determining the sense. In the case immediately before us, it is proper to resist the violent division of the chapter; because when read in its natural connexion, it shows how easy the transition was from the foregoing promise of deliverance to the description of the Servant of Jehovah as the leader of the grand march just described, and confirms our previous conclusions as to the exalted meaning of the promises in question, and against a forced restriction of them to the Babylonish exile. At the same time it is equally important that the intimate connexion of these verses with the following chapter should be fully recognised, in order that the Servant of the Lord, whose humiliation and exaltation are here mentioned, may be identified with that mysterious person whose expiatory sufferings and spiritual triumphs form the great theme of the subsequent context. To the general agreement among Jews and Christians as to this identity, the forced hypothesis already quoted from Abarbenel may be regarded as the sole exception. It follows, therefore, that the meaning of the whole passage, to the end of the fifty-third chapter, turns upon the question, Who is meant by ^as (my servant) in the verse before us? An individual or a collective body? If the latter, is it Israel as a whole, or its better portion, or the Prophets, or the Priesthood? If the former, is it Moses, Abraham, Uzziah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Cyrus, an anonymous prophet, the author himself, or the Messiah? This is the other exegetical question which has been referred to, as connected with this verse and materially affecting the interpretation of the whole passage. The answer to this question, which at once suggests itself as the result of all our previous inquiries, is that the Servant of Jehovah here, as in ch. 42: 1-6 and ch. 49: 1-9, is the Messiah, but presented rather in his own personality than in conjunction with his people. According to the rule already stated (see above, p. 50), the idea of the Body here recedes, and that of the Head becomes exclusively conspicuous; because, as we shall see below, the Servant of Jehovah is exhibited, not merely as a teacher or a ruler, but as an expiatory sacrifice. That this application of the verse and the whole passage to the Messiah was held by the oldest school of Jewish interpreters, appears from the Targum of Jonathan, who here has my Servant the Messiah, and is admitted by Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Abarbenel, and other Jews, who have themselves abandoned this opinion because it would constrain them to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah of their Scriptures. Detailed proofs from the ancient Jewish books themselves are given by Hengstenberg in his Christology (Vol. I. pp. 292-294). Gesenius, too, explicitly admits that the later Jews were no doubt led to give up the old interpretation of the passage by polemic opposition to the Christians. (Commentary II. p. 161.) The same interpretation was maintained, almost without exception, in the Christian church, till near the end of the eighteenth century, when it was abandoned by the German theologians along with the doctrines of atonement and prophetic inspiration. Even in Germany, however, it has always had its zealous adherents, and in our own day some of its most able, learned, and successful advocates. In its favour may be urged, besides the tradition of the synagogue and church, the analogy of the other places where the Servant of Jehovah is mentioned, the wonderful agreement of the terms of the prediction with the character and history of Jesus Christ, and the express application of the passage to him by himself and his inspired apostles, who appear to have assumed it as the basis of their doctrine with respect to the atonement, and to have quoted it comparatively seldom only because they had it constantly in view, as appears from their numerous allusions to it, and the perfect agreement of their teachings with it; so that even Gesenius, while in one place he argues from their silence that they did not find the doctrine of atonement in the passage, says expressly in another, with a strange but gratifying inconsistency, that most Hebrew readers, being already familiar with the notions of sacrifice and substitution, must of necessity have so explained the place, and that undoubtedly the apostolic doctrine as to Christ’s expiatory death rests in a great measure upon this foundation. (Comm. II. p. 191.) The detailed proofs of the Messianic exposition will be given in the course of the interpretation and compared with the other hypotheses main tained by Jews and Christians, which will therefore only be enumerated here in order that the reader may recall them for the purpose of comparison. The individual subjects which have been assumed besides the Messiah, are Josiah by Abarbenel, Jeremiah by Grotius, Uzziah by August!, Hezekiah by Bahrdt, Isaiah by Staudlin, and (according to some) Moses and the Rabbi Akiba by a tradition quoted in the Talmud, although Hengstenberg supposes that these are mentioned only as examples or representatives of a whole class. An anonymous German writer understands by the Servant of this verse an unknown prophet who suffered martyrdom during the exile! Another anonymous writer of the same country applies the name as a collective to the Maccabees; another to the nobles carried off by Nebuchadnezzar, or to their descendants who returned; Bolten applies it in like manner to the house or family of David. Another nameless German understands by the Servant of Jehovah the priesthood as a class or body. This is near akin to Rosenmuller’s early doctrine that it means the prophets, which was after wards abandoned by its author, but renewed by Gesenius in his Commentary, and by De Wette and Winer, while Umbreit attempts to blend it with the Messianic exposition by supposing the Messiah to be set forth as the greatest of the prophets or as their ideal. Instead of this hypothesis, Rosenmiiller afterwards adopted that of the rabbins who reject the Messianic doctrine (such as Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra), viz. that the Servant of Jehovah is the Jewish people; and the same opinion is maintained by Eichhorn and Hitzig, but with this important difference between the soi-disant Christian and the Jewish writers, that the latter apply the passage to the present dispersion of their people, and the former to the Babylonish exile. As modifications of this general hypothesis may he mentioned Eckermann’s extravagant idea, that the people as such or considered in the abstract is here distinguished from its individual members, whose words he supposes to be given in the following chapter. Another modification of the same opinion is the ground assumed by Paulus, Maurer, Gesenius in his Lexicon, and in a still more qualified manner by Ewald and Knobel, viz. that the Servant of Jehovah is the spiritual Israel, the better portion of the Jewish people, as distinguished either from their ungodly brethren, or from the heathen, or from both. Some of these explanations are so perfectly groundless and extravagant that they can no more be refuted than established. This is especially the case with those which make the Servant of Jehovah any individual except the Messiah, of which it has been well said that they might be multiplied ad libitum, there being no more show of reason for the names suggested than for a multitude of others which have never been proposed. This remark may be extended to the theories which identify the Servant of Jehovah with the Maccabees, the House of David, the Noble Exiles, and the Priesthood, leaving as the only plausible hypotheses besides the Messianic one, those which severally understand the title as denoting the order of Prophets or the Jewish people, either as a whole or in relation to its better part. To these the attention of the reader will be therefore directed in comparison with that which is assumed as the basis of the exposition, leaving the others to refute themselves. Of those which have been mentioned as entitled to comparative consideration, that which approaches nearest to the truth is the hypo thesis of Beck and Ewald, that by the Servant of Jehovah we are to under stand the ideal Israel, or rather it denotes the Israel of God, not considered as a nation or a race, but as the church or chosen people, who in some sense represented the Messiah till he came, and is therefore often blended with him in the prophetic picture as a complex person, sometimes more and some times less conspicuous, but here, as we have seen already, totally eclipsed by the image of the Head himself. And yet even in this case there are visible such striking points of similarity between the Body and the Head, that although this passage can directly refer only to the latter, it confirms the previous conclusion that in other cases the reverse is true. The general views which have been now expressed on this and other points will be reduced to a more specific form in the progress of the exposition, during the course of which respect will be had, not only to the commentaries usually quoted in this work, but to one or two important monographs or special expositions of this passage, the most important of which are Martini’s Commentatio Philologico-critica (Rostock, 1791), to which most later writers have been largely indebted, and Hengstenberg’s excellent interpretation contained in the second part of his Christologie, the valuable substance of which it is proposed to reproduce in the ensuing pages, with some changes both of form and substance, and many additions from more recent sources. —In the verse immediately before us all that need be added is, that the extraordinary exaltation promised in the last clause is such as could never have been looked for by the Prophet, for himself or for his order, especially upon the modern supposition, that he lived in the time of the exile, when the grounds for such an expectation were far less than at any former period. It may also be observed that the personification of the prophets as an ideal individual is foreign from the usage of the Scriptures; the parallelism of servant and messengers, in the first clause of ch. 44: 26, no more proves the first to be collective, than the like relation of Jerusalem and cities of Judah in the last clause proves the same thing of Jerusalem. The objection, that the title servant is not applied elsewhere to Messiah, would have little force if true, because the title in itself is a general one and may be applied to any chosen instrument; it is not true, however, as the single case of Zech. 3: 8 will suffice to show, without appealing to the fact that the same application of the title, either partial or exclusive, has been found admissible above in ch. 42: 1. 49:3, and 50: 10.
Vs. 14, 15. As many were shocked at thee—so marred from man his look, and his form from the sons of man—so shall he sprinkle many nations: concerning him shall kings stop their mouth, because what was not recounted to them they have seen, and what they had not heard they have perceived. His exaltation shall bear due proportion to his humiliation; the contempt of men shall be exchanged for wonder and respect. According to the common agreement of interpreters, v. 14 is the protasis and v. 15 the apodosis of the same sentence, the correlative clauses being introduced, as usual in cases of comparison, by ^j»3 and “3. The construction is somewhat embarrassed by the intervening I? at the beginning of the last clause of v. 14, which most interpreters however treat as a parenthesis explanatory of the first clause: ‘ as many were shocked at thee (because his countenance was so marred etc.), so shall he sprinkle many nations,’ etc. A simpler construction, thoitgh it does not yield so clear a sense, would be to assume a double apodosis: ‘ as many were shocked at thee, so was his countenance marred etc., so also shall he sprinkle,’ etc. As thus explained the sense would be, their abhorrence of him was not without reason and it shall not be without requital. i^sir expresses a mixture of surprise, contempt, and aversion; it is frequently applied to extraordinary instances of suffering when viewed as divine judg ments. (Lev. 26: 32. Ezek. 27: 35. Jer. 18: 16. 19: 8.) It is followed by the preposition ty as usual when employed in this sense.—Many does not mean all, nor is nations to be anticipated from the other clause; there seems to be rather an antithesis between many individuals and many nations. As a single people bad despised him, so the whole world should admire him. rnida is a verbal noun, equivalent in this connexion to an infinitive or passive participle. It strictly means corruption, but is here put for disfiguration or deformity. De Dieu’s derivation of this word from ncs (to anoint,’ has found no adherents among later writers. Henderson con strues it with linx’TO (the disfiguration of his appearance), notwithstanding the interposition of^1^. The other recent writers make it the predicate and ins^a the subject of the same proposition. By look and form we are neither to understand a mean condition nor the personal appearance, but, as an intermediate idea, the visible effects of suffering. The preposition from, away from, may be taken simply as expressive of comparison (more than), or more emphatically of negation (so as not to be human), which are only different gradations of the same essential meaning. Jahn supposes a climax in the use of ai^x and c^x—his appearance should be far below that even of the lowest men; but this is looked upon by Hengstenberg as weakening the expression, and is certainly unnecessary, as well as founded on a dubious usage.—n-f^ is the technical term of the Mosaic law for sprinkling water, oil. or blood, as a purifying rite. Jerome supposes a specific reference to the blood of Christ and the water of baptism. Hengstenberg gives the verb the secondary sense of cleansing, but still with reference to the effects of the atonement. The explanation of this word by the majority of modern writers as denoting that he shall cause them to leap for joy (Paulus, Winer, Gesenius in Comm.), or rise from their seats with reverence (Ewald, Gesenius in Thes.), or start with astonishment (Eichhorn, Hitzig), or be struck with cordial admiration (Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Umbreit, Knobel), is in direct opposition to a perfectly uniform Hebrew7 usage, and without any real ground even in Arabic analogy. The ostensible reasons for this gross violation of the clearest principles of lexicography are: first, the chimera of a perfect parallelism, which is never urged except in case of great necessity; and secondly, the fact that in every other case the verb is followed by the substance sprinkled, and connected with the object, upon which it is sprinkled, by a preposition. But since both the constructions of the verb ‘to sprinkle’ are employed in other languages—as we may either speak of sprinkling a person or of sprinkling water on him—the transition must be natural, and no one can pretend to say that two or more examples of it in a book of this size are required to demonstrate its existence. The real motive of the strange unanimity with which the true sense has been set aside, is the desire to obliterate this clear description, at the very outset, of the Servant of Jehovah as an expiatory purifier, one who must be innocent himself in order to cleanse others, an office and a character alike inapplicable either to the prophets as a class, or to Israel as a nation, or even to the better class of Jews, much more to any single individual except the One who claimed to be the Purifier of the guilty, and to whom many nations do at this day ascribe whatever purity of heart or life they either have or hope for. Another objection to the modern explanation of the word is, that it then anticipates the declaration of the next clause, instead of forming a connecting link between it and the first. This clause is understood by some to mean that they shall be reverently silent before him, by others that they shall be dumb with wonder on account of him, by others that they shall be silent respecting him., . e. no longer utter expressions of aversion or contempt. Gesenius asks whether kings ever personally bowed to Christ, as intimated here and in ch. 49: 7; to which Hengstenberg replies, that the only word which creates the difficulty (personally) is supplied by the objector,—that multitudes of kings have bowed to Christ in one sense, whereas none, in any sense, have ever thus acknowledged their subjection to the prophets, or to Israel, or even to the pious Jews, or could have been expected so to do.— The reason of this voluntary humiliation is expressed in the last clause, viz. because they see things of which they had never had experience or even knowledge by report. This expression shows that many nations must be taken in its natural and proper sense, as denoting the gentiles. It is accord ingly applied by Paul (Rom. 15:21) to the preaching of the gospel among those who had never before heard it. Interpreters have needlessly refined in interpreting the verb see as signifying mental no less than bodily perception. The truth is that the language is not scientific but poetical; the writer does not put sight for experience, but on the contrary describes experience as simple vision.—For the stopping of the mouth, as an expression of astonishment or reverence, see Job 29: 9. 40: 4. Ps. 107:42. Ezek. 16:63. Mic. 7: 16.
