INSTEAD of suffering from the loss of her national prerogatives, the church shall be more glorious and productive than before, v. 1. Instead of being limited to a single nation, she shall be so extended as to take in all the nations of the earth, vs. 2, 3. What seemed at first to be her forlorn and desolate condition, shall be followed by a glorious change, v. 4. He who seemed once to be the God of the Jews only, shall now be seen to be the God of the Gentiles also, v. 5. The abrogation of the old economy was like the repudiation of a wife, but its effects will show it to be rather a renewal of the conjugal relation, v. 6. The momentary rejection shall be followed by an everlasting reconciliation, vs. 7, 8. The old economy, like Noah’s flood, can never be repeated or renewed, v. 9. That was a temporary institution; this shall outlast the earth itself, v. 10. The old Jerusalem shall be forgotten in the splendour of the new, vs. 11, 12. But this shall be a spiritual splendour springing from a constant divine influence, v. 13. Hence it shall also be a holy and a safe state, v. 14. All the enemies of the Church shall either be destroyed or received into her bosom, v. 15. The warrior and his weapons are alike God’s creatures and at his disposal, v. 16. In every contest, both of hand and tongue, the Church shall be triumphant, not in her own right or her own strength, but in that of Him who justifies, protects, and saves her, v. 17.
1. Shout oh barren, that did not bear, break forth into a shout and cry aloud, she that did not writhe (in childbirth); for more (are) the children of the desolate than the children of the married (wornaii), saith Jehovah. According to Grotius and some later writers, the object of address is the city of Jerusalem, in which no citizens were born during the exile, but which was afterwards to be more populous than the other cities of Judah which had not been reduced to such a state of desolation. Besides other difficulties which attend this explanation, it will be sufficient to observe that those who apply the first verse to the city of Jerusalem are under the necessity of afterwards assuming that this object is exchanged for another, viz. the people,—a conclusive reason for regarding this as the original object of address, especially as we have had abundant proof already that the Zion or Jerusalem of these Later Prophecies is the city only as a symbol of the church or nation.—Our idiom in the first clause would require didst not bear and didst not writhe; but Hebrew usage admits of the third person. Another Hebrew idiom is the expression of the same idea first in a positive and then in a negative form, barren that did not bear. This very combination occurs more than once elsewhere. (Judges 13: 2. Job 24: 21.)—For the sense of ris^i ^nsQ, see above, on ch. 52: 9; and for that of rraa’raj as opposed to nbws, compare 2 Sam. 13: 20. The same antithesis here used occurs in 1 Sam. 2: 5.
2. Widen the place of thy tent, and the curtains of thy dwellings let them stretch out; spare not (or hinder it not); lengthen thy cords and strengthen (or make fast) thy stakes. As in the parallel passage (ch. 49: 20, 21), the promise of increase is now expressed by the figure of enlarged accommodations. The place may either be the area within the tent or the spot on which it is erected. The curtains are the tent-cloths stretched upon the poles to form the dwelling. ^cia; though strictly a generic term, is often used in reference to tents, and particularly to the tabernacle. Some take ^ as a neuter or reflexive verb, let them stretch out or extend themselves; but Kimchi construes it with those who stretch, and Ewald with an indefinite subject, let them stretch. That this verb was habitually used in this connexion, may be learned from 2 Sam. 16: 22. The stakes are the tent-pins, to which the tent-cloths are attached by cords. The last verb may either mean take stronger pins, or fix them more firmly in the ground,— both implying an enlargement of the tent and a consequently greater stress upon the cords and stakes.
3. For right and left shalt thou break forth (or spread), and thy seed shall possess (or dispossess or inherit) nations, and repeople ruined (or forsaken) cities. Kimchi understands right and left as geographical terms equivalent to north and south, the east and west being represented by nations and cities. Knobel gives the same explanation of the first two, but accounts for the omission of the other two by saying that the sea was on the west and on the east a wilderness. A far more natural interpretation of the words is that which takes right and left as indefinite expressions meaning on both sides or in all directions. The verb “pfi was peculiarly appropriate because associated with the promise in Gen. 28: 14, in which case all the cardinal points of the compass are distinctly mentioned. ttJ”^ is not simply to possess but to inherit, i. e. to possess by succession, which in this case implies the dispossession of the previous inhabitants, so that the version drive out, given by Gesenius and others, although not a literal translation, really expresses no idea not expressed in the original. The figurative meaning of the terms, as in many other cases, is evinced by an immediate change of figure, without any regard to mere rhetorical consistency. The same thing which is first represented as the violent expulsion of an enemy from his dominions, is immediately afterwards described as the restoration of deserted places, unless hisatiji be supposed to mean forsaken by those just before expelled, which is hardly consistent with its usage as applied to desolations of long standing.—The whole verse is a beautiful description of the wonderful extension of the church, and her spiritual conquest of the nations.
4. Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed, and be not abashed, for thou shalt not blush; for the shame of thy youth thou shalt forget, and the reproach of thy widowhood thou shalt not remember any more. Here, as in many other cases, shame includes the disappointment of the hopes, but with specific reference to previous misconduct. (See Job 6: 20.) The first clause declares that she has no cause for despondency, the second disposes of the causes which might seem to be suggested by her history. The essential meaning is, thy former experience of my displeasure. The figurative form of the expression is accommodated to the chosen metaphor of a wife forsaken and restored to her husband. The specific reference of youth to the Egyptian bondage, and of widowhood to the Babylonian exile, is extremely artificial, and forbidden by the context.
5. For thy husband (is) thy Maker, Jehovah of Hosts (is) his name; and thy Redeemer (is) the Holy One of Israel, the God, of all the earth shall he be called. This verse is marked by a peculiar regularity of structure, the two members of the first clause corresponding, exactly to the similar members of the other. In each clause the first member points out the relation of Jehovah to his people, while the second proclaims one of his descriptive names. He is related to the church as her Husband and Redeemer; he is known or shall be known to all mankind as the Lord of Hosts and as the God of the whole earth, which are not to be regarded as equivalent expressions. As the Goel of the Jewish institutions, the redeemer of a forfeited inheritance, was necessarily the next of kin, it is appropriately placed in opposition to the endearing name of husband; and as the title Lord of Hosts imports a universal sovereignty, it is no less exactly matched with the God of the whole earth. But this last phrase expresses the idea of universal recognition.—There is no grammatical objection to the usual interpretation of the last word in the verse as meaning he is called, corresponding to his name is in the other clause, and signifying, in the Hebrew idiom, he is, with emphasis. But since no reason can in that case be assigned for the use of an^* instead of finpa, and since the strict translation of the future strengthens the expression by transforming a description into a prophecy, it seems best to retain the English Version, the God of the whole earth shall he be called, i. e. he shall be recognised hereafter in the character which even now belongs to him. (Compare ch. 45: 23 and Rom. 14: 11.) The Targum and the Vulgate, Aben Ezra and Kimchi, take T^sa in its primitive sense of thy lords or rulers; but this, though etymologically right, is less agreeable to usage, to the parallelism, the immediate context, and the analogy of other places where the conjugal relation is undoubtedly referred to. (See especially ch. 62: 4, 5.) The form of this word and T^o is regarded by Gesenius as an instance of the pluralis majestaticus, while Maurer makes the last a singular form peculiar to the ri}> derivatives, and supposes the other to be merely assimilated to it by a species of paronomasia.
6. For as a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit has Jehovah called thee, and («s) a wife of youth, for she shall be rejected, said thy God. Reduced to a prosaic form and order, this verse seems to mean, that Jehovah had espoused her in her youth, then cast her off for her iniquities, and now at last recalled her from her solitude and grief to be his wife again. (Compare Hosea 2: 4, 7, 14, 16, 19.)—A wife of youth, not merely a young wife, but one married early. (See Proverbs 5:18 and Malachi 2: 14.) As this description belongs not to the main subject but to the thing with which it is compared, there is no propriety in making youth mean a specific period in the history of Israel. The sense is not that she had been wedded to Jehovah in her youth and now recalled, but that he now recalled her as a husband might recall the long rejected wife of his youth.—The common version of the last clause, when thou wast refused, is ungrammatical, unless we take ONEPI as a license for ““sssfr like rnsn in ch. 57: 8, and such anomalies are not to be assumed much less to be multiplied without necessity. Most of the modern writers make it the third person, but retain the same construction: who has been (or when she has been) rejected. But this, besides being forced, would seem to require the praeter not the future, which Hitzig sets down as an inaccuracy of the writer. Still more unnatural and arbitrary is Luzzatto’s interrogative construction: ‘Can the wife of one’s youth be thus abhorred 1 Surely not.’ Ewald gains the same sense by making it an ironical exclamation: and the wife of one’s youth—(as if it were possible) that she could be treated with contempt! All these expedients are precluded by the fact that we obtain a good sense by adhering to the proper meaning of the ^3 and of the future, simply making these the words of Jehovah at the time of her rejection, and referring *iax to the same time and to this clause alone, instead of making it include the whole verse, which is the less natural because the first clause speaks of Jehovah in the first person. Thus understood, the last clause is an explanation of the first, in which she is said to have been recalled as a forsaken wife, and that a wife of youth, because her God had said to her at that time, thou shalt be rejected. This explanation, while it simplifies the syntax, leaves the meaning of the verse unaltered.—Henderson calls upon the reader to t: *mark the paronomasia in FQITS and fts^s).” Gesenius goes further and attempts to copy it *(ein vertriebnes Weib betrubten Herzens); while Hitzig, it may be for that very reason, doubts whether any paronomasia was designed at all.
7. In a little moment I forsook thee, and in great mercies I will gather thee. The metaphor is here carried out in the form of an affectionate assurance that the love now restored shall experience no further interruption. The use of the preterite and future implies an intermediate point of view between the opposite treatments here described. I did forsake thee, and now I am about to gather thee. Hitzig explains this last expression by the analogy of Judges 19: 15, where a cognate verb means to receive into one’s house. So Lowth translates it, I will receive thee again, and Ewald in like manner. Umbreit still more expressively, I draw thee to myself. Knobel applies the term directly to the people, whose scattered members were to be collected. (See ch. 27: 12. 43: 5.) According to Umbreit, the time of anger is called little in comparison with the provocation offered; according to Knobel, in comparison with the favour that should follow, which agrees far better with the parallelism and the context. Hitzig, however, says that it is not the period of alienation which is here described as short; but the anger which occasioned it. A similar antithesis is used by David, Ps. 30: 6. (Compare Isaiah 26: 20.) Instead of great mercies, Henderson has with the greatest tenderness.—If any specific application of the words be made, it must be to the momentary casting off of Israel which seemed to accompany the change of dispensations. The confusion of the metaphors in this whole passage springs from the complexity of the relations which they represent. As a nation, Israel was in fact cast off; but as a church, it never could be.
8. In a gush of wrath I hid my face a moment from thee, and in everlasting kindness I have had mercy on thee, saith thy Redeemer, Jehovah. The idea of the preceding verse is again expressed more fully. The word t]S!B occurs only here. The older writers conjectured from the context that it signified a short time or a little quantity. Rabbi Menahem is quoted by Jarchi as explaining it to mean heat or fury, which is no doubt also merely conjectural. Schultens explains it from an Arabic analogy as mean ing hardness or severity. Rosenmiiller and Gesenius identify it with tjao a flood or inundation, which is elsewhere used in reference to anger (Prov. 7: 24). So in ch. 42: 25, the wrath of God is said to have been poured out upon Israel. According to Gesenius, it is here written &}2W5 only for the sake of the resemblance to t]Sj3. This paronomasia is copied by Gesenius (in der Fluth der Zorngluth), by Hitzig (in derber Herbe), and by Ewald (als der Groll war voll). We do not find-that any of these writers make the rapid recurrence of this figure in so short a space an argument to prove that the. passage was written by a different author. Ewald gives ^n^n-i the sense which it has in Kal, and renders it. Hove thee. This is undoubtedly implied, but the sense of showing mercy is required not only by usage but by the context, which describes the relenting of one previously offended. This verse, like the one before it, is a general description of the everlasting favour which shall drown the very memory of former alienations between God and his people. The modern German school of course restrict it to the Babylonish exile. Cocceius extends it to the whole of the Old Testa ment economy, which although long to man was but a day in the divine sight. (Ps. 90: 4.) Vitringa, not content with these gratuitous appropria tions of a general promise, or with this prosaic disfiguration of an exquisite poetical conception, undertakes to give a different application to the two verses, applying the little moment of v. 7 to the Babylonish exile, and the angry moment of v. 8 to the Syrian persecution. With equal reason they might be pronounced descriptive of the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage, or of the Assyrian and the Babylonian, or of the Syrian and the Roman. If, because it is appropriate to one of these events, it has no reference to any other, then they all may be successively excluded, and with equal ease all proved to be the subject of the prophecy. The only specific application which is equally consistent with the form of the expression and the context is the one suggested in the note upon the foregoing verse.
9. For the waters of Noah is this to me; what I sware from the waters of Noah passing again over the earth (i. e. against their passing, or, that they should not pass), so I have sworn from being angry (that I will not be angry) against thee, and from rebuking (that I will not rebuke) thee. The assurance of the preceding verse is now repeated in another form. There can no more be another such effusion of my wrath than there can be another deluge, here called the waters of Noah, just as we familiarly say “ Noah’s flood.” The security in this case, as in that, is a divine oath or solemn covenant, like that recorded Gen. 8: 21 and 9:11. Vitringa, as usual, converts a simile into a symbol, and endeavours to enumerate the points of similarity between the world and the deluge, the church and the ark. It is only upon this erroneous supposition that such passages as Ps. 124: 4, 5, can be regarded as illustrative parallels. Such minute coincidences any reader is at liberty to search out for himself; but the text mentions only one point of comparison between the two events, namely, that neither can occur again. The Prophet does not say that God’s displeasure with the church is a flood which shall never be repeated, but that it shall never be repeated any more than the flood. When our Lord says it is easier for a camel lo go through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven, no one thinks of running a comparison between the rich man and the camel, or inquiring what the hump or the double stomach signifies; because the text suggests not a general analogy between the rich man and the camel, but a specific one confined to one particular. In the case before us, that particular, as we have seen already, is the certainty that neither of the things compared can ever be repeated. This certainty does not arise, as Ewald seems to think, from any natural necessity, or universal law forbidding- such expurgatory revolutions to occur more than once, but, as the text expressly tells us, from the oath and covenant of God.—Instead of ^ ^3 one or two manuscripts have ^3, all in one word, meaning as the days of Noah, and Kimchi speaks of this division as existing in some ancient codices of his day. This reading likewise appears in all the ancient versions but the Septuagint, and is preferred by Lowth (as in the days of Noah). It is also a remark able coincidence that this expression occurs twice in the New Testament (Matt. 24: 37. i Pet. 3: 20), but not in reference to this place or to the comparison here instituted. All the latest writers seem to be in favour of adhering to the common text, which is probably the only safe conclusion, although some of the reasons which have been assigned are not of much weight. Henderson, for instance, says that “ the conjunction ^3 could not have been omitted,” yet supposes two ellipses of the preposition 3 in this one sentence, and in this one clause of it. Another argument which some urge, namely, that the words fib”1*} are repeated afterwards, may be em ployed as well on one side as the other. For it might be said, with some plausibility at least, that such a repetition, not for the sake of parallelism, but in the same part of the sentence, is unusual, and also that the presence of these two words afterwards may easily have led to an error of transcription. The true ground for adhering to the common text is the traditional authority of almost every codex in existence, confirmed by that of the oldest version, and by its yielding a perfectly good sense.—There is no need of supplying any preposition before waters, as Gesenius does (wie bey den Wassern Noah’s); since the meaning is that this is the same thing as the flood, or just such another case, in what respect is afterwards explained. The closest copy of the original is Ewald’s, Noah’s Wasser ist mir dies. The plural waters is connected with the pronoun in the singular, simply because it is used only in the plural. The pronoun this is explained by Jarchi to mean this oath, by Kimchi this captivity, by Knobel this effusion of my wrath, etc. The best construction is to take it in the widest sense, as meaning this case, this affair, or the like. Hendewerk appears to be alone in supplying the future tense of the verb (this shall be) instead of the present (this is). On the privative use of the preposition ^ 5 see ch. 5:6, 8: II, where it has respect to negative commands or prohibitions. To me does not simply mean in my view or opinion, but expresses similarity of obligation; the oath was as binding in the one case as the other.—Vitringa and Lowth make I^N a particle of time, when I sware. Gesenius and the other modern writers take it as a particle of comparison, corresponding to “j3 just as the full expression “i^s does in ch. 14: 24, and as ““rttix itself does in Jer. 33: 22. Hendewerk understands it strictly as a relative, of which I sware; in which *& is not a parallel expression, but simply continues the discourse. The same construction of itfx might be retained without entirely destroying the antithesis, by rendering the former what. As if he had said. ’ what I sware then, that I swear now,’ but impaired the exact correspondence of the terms by changing that to so. It is a matter of indifference whether the second verb be rendered I have sworn or J swear; since even in the former case it means I have now sworn, as distinguished from the former swearing which he had just mentioned.—Rebuke must here be taken in the strong and pregnant sense which it has in ch. 17: 13. 50: 2. 51: 20, and very generally throughout the Old Testament, as signifying not a merely verbal but a practical rebuke. There is no need, however, of depart ing from the literal translation with Gesenius, who translates it curse, and Hitzig, who translates it punish. Umbreit has threaten, which is nearer to the strict sense, but excludes the actual infliction, which is a necessary part of the idea.—That this is not a general promise of security, is plain from the fact that the church has always been subjected to vicissitudes and fluctuations. Nor is there any period in her history to which it can be properly applied in a specific sense, except the change of dispensations, which was made once for all and can never be repeated. That the church shall never be again brought under the restrictive institutions of the ceremonial law, is neither a matter of course nor a matter of indifference, but a glorious promise altogether worthy of the solemn oath by which it is attested here.
10. For the mountains shall move and the hills shall shake; but my favour from thee shall not move, and my covenant of peace shall not shake, saith thy pitier Jehovah. Vitringa’s observation, that the futures in the first clause must not be so translated, because this would imply that hills and mountains might be moved, whereas they are here represented as immovable, affords a curious illustration of the tendency among interpreters to substitute what they would have said for what the writer has said. If the first clause does not literally mean that the mountains and the hills shall move, that idea cannot be expressed in Hebrew. This is indeed the customary method of expressing such comparisons. (See above, on ch. 40: 8 and 49: 15.) The meaning is not that God’s promise is as stable as the mountains, but that it is more so; they shall be removed, but it shall stand for ever. There is no need, therefore, of translating the verb let them shake or they may shake, as some of the latest writers do. Still more gratuitous is the present form given to the verbs by Gesenius, as if they expressed a thing of constant occurrence. Even Vitringa is compelled to admit that the mountains and hills in this place are not symbols of states and empires, but natural emblems of stability. (See Deut. 33: 15. Ps. 65: 7. 125: 1, 2.)—Gesenius supposes an allusion in covenant of peace to the covenant with Noah (Gen. 9: 8, 11). The phrase denotes a covenant, i. e. a divine promise or engage ment, securing the enjoyment of peace, both in the strict sense and in the wide one of prosperity or happiness. (Compare v. 13. ch. 53: 5. Ezek. 34: 25. 37: 26.) The suffix, as in many other cases, qualifies the whole phrase, not the last word merely. The covenant of my peace does not give the sense so fully as my covenant of peace, i. e. my peace-giving covenant, or as Rosenmuller phrases it, meum pacificum foedus.—The participle in “H^^B is construed as a noun, and the whole phrase means thy pitier. The force of the expression is impaired by the circumlocution of the common version, the Lord that hath mercy on thee, still more by Lowth’s diluted paraphrase, Jehovah who beareth toward thee the most tender affection.
11. Wretched, storm-tossed, comfortless! Behold I am laying (or about to lay) thy stones in antimony, and I will found thee upon sapphires. The past afflictions of God’s people are contrasted with the glory which awaits them, and which is here represented by the image of a city built of precious stones, and cemented with the substance used by oriental women in the staining of their eyelids. (2 Kings 9: 30. Jer. 4: 30.) This eye-paint, made of stibium or antimony, may be joined with sapphires as a costly substance, commonly applied to a more delicate use; or there may be allusion, as Hitzig thinks, to the likeness between stones thus set and painted eyes: either of which suppositions is more probable than that of Henderson, viz. that the idea meant to be conveyed is simply that of beauty in general, for which a thousand more appropriate expressions might have been employed. The stones meant are not corner or foundation-stones, but all those used in building. There is something singular, though not perhaps significant, in the application to these stones of a verb elsewhere used only in reference to animals. Knobel gravely observes that this verse can hardly be considered as expressing a real expectation of the Prophet; as if it were a literal description of a city built with gems instead of hewn stones, and stibium instead of mortar. Kimchi indeed thinks it possible that all this may be verified hereafter in the literal Jerusalem. Abarbenel more reasonably looks for its fulfilment in a figurative or spiritual sense. Those writers who insist upon applying the first verse of this chapter to the city as a city, although not particularly named there, are compelled to understand 288 CHAPTER LIT.
the one before us of the people, notwithstanding the minuteness and precision of the references to a city. If the city as such is not meant when stones and cement, gates and walls, are mentioned, how much less when none of these particulars appear, but every thing suggests a different subject.—TjiBa is rendered by Jerome per ordinem, and in the Septuagint v.v$QCMa, as if it were a kind of precious stone, as it appears to be in 1 Chr. 29: 2. But the modern lexicographers identify it with the Greek yvxog and the Latin fucus, i. e. face or eye-paint; and even in Chronicles it may mean nothing more than ornamental stones. Ludolf supposes the clause to mean that the stones should be powdered with antimony. Luzzatto like wise assumes a hypallage, and explains ‘I will lay thy stones in stibium’ to mean I will lay it on them. Henderson’s version of rnsb (tossed) is insufficient, as both etymology and usage require a reference to storm or tempest. Kimchi and Saadias apply it specifically to the exile, Jarchi to the storms of sorrow in general. Rosenmiiller explains it as a passive participle put for J”^?st3«, Gesenius as the usual Kal participle of “iso. It is agreed that fisnj is the contracted Pual participle for ttEn?», like n»rn in Hos. 1: 6, 8.—Maurer notes this as an example of the peculiar sense in which this writer used the verb DHS. (Compare ch. 49: 13. 51: 3, 12. 52: 9.) Knobel restricts the first clause to the siege of Jerusalem, especially by Nebuchadnezzar! Ewald, very unnecessarily, proposes to amend the text by reading in the last clause Tf.37^ thy foundations. If this be the specific sense intended, which is doubtful, it is sufficiently conveyed already by the common reading.
12. And 1 wiH make thy battlements (or pinnacles) rub)/, and thy gates to (be) sparkling gems, and all thy border to (be) stones of pleasure (or delight). The splendid image of the preceding verse is here continued and completed. The precise kinds of gems here meant are not of much importance. The essential idea, as appears from the etymology of the names, is that of sparkling brilliancy. The exact meaning of hi’3’i3 was unknown even in Jerome’s time. Aquila and Theodotion retain the Hebrew word, in which they are followed by Cocceius. rvu2E’,a is explained by Aben Ezra and Kimchi to mean windows or other apertures admitting the light of the sun. But the modern writers generally make it a poetical description of the battlements and spires of a city.—The Septuagint and Vulgate explain r-^px ^ax as denoting carved or sculptured stones; but its obvious connexion with the verb rrij? favours the modern explanation, sparkling gems.—The last phrase is a more generic term, including all the others, and equivalent to our expression, precious stones. So too bsna may be collective, and denote the whole congeries of buildings or their parts; although interpreters are more inclined to make it mean the outer wall of a fortified city, which is described as built of the same costly materials. But Gesenius thinks it possible that there may be allusion to 1 Kings 10: 27, and that the clause may represent the ground within the limits of the city as strewn with precious stones instead of pebbles.—The same interpreter regards the ^ in the last clause as a sign of the accusative, but Kimchi explains * ^sjnto as meaning *’ I will change into or render.’ Hitzig thinks it would have been “bequemer” and Knobel “passender,” if the writer, instead of saying that their gates should be turned into precious stones, had said they should be made of them.—Vitringa of course puts a specific sense on every part of the description, understanding by the TpB of the preceding verse the doctrine of Christ’s blood, by the gates the synods of the church, by the battlements its advocates and champions, etc. Lowth, with better taste and judgment, says that “these seem to be general images to express beauty, magnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to the ideas of the eastern nations, and to have never been intended to be strictly scrutinized, or minutely and particularly explained, as if they had each of them some precise moral or spiritual meaning.”
13. And all thy children disciples of Jehovah, and great (or plentiful) the peace of thy children. Ewald makes the sentence simply descriptive, by supplying are in the present tense. Most other writers supply shall be, and thus make it a prediction or a promise. ^?2, when used as a distinctive term, means sons; but it is constantly employed where we say children.—The common version, taught of God, which Lowth changes into taught by God, though not erroneous, is inadequate; since *W2^ js not a participle but a noun, used elsewhere to denote a pupil, follower, or disciple. (See ch. 8: 16.) The promise is not one of occasional instruction-, but of permanent connexion with Jehovah, as his followers and partakers of his constant teaching. That the words are applicable to the highest teach ing of which any rational being is susceptible, to wit, that of the Holy Spirit making known the Father and the Son, we have our Saviour’s own authority for stating. (See John 6: 44, and compare Matt. 23: 8. Heb. 8 r 11. 1 John 2: 27.) Paul too describes believers as dwdidaxTot in relation to the duties of their calling. (1 Thess. 4: 9.) Similar promises under the Old Testament are given in Jer. 31: 34 and elsewhere. Gesenius restricts the words to the promise of prophetic inspiration, the want of which is lamented in Lam. 2: 9. Ps. 74: 9, and the renewal of it promised in Joel 3:1. But this restriction is regarded as unauthorized even by Maurer. As in ch. 43: 9, all the gifts of the Spirit are included. The consequence of this blessed privilege is peace, no doubt in the widest sense of spiritual welfare and prosperity. (John 14: 27. Phil. 4: 7.) Knobel restricts the promise to the people of Jerusalem, and Hendewerk declares that it was 19 broken in the days of Antiochus Epipbanes. To prevent the tautological recurrence of T^s, Koppe reads Tj^si in the”first clause and Doderlein in the second, while J. D. Michaelis, for a different reason, makes the change in both. Kocher and Rosenmiiller cite examples of such repetition from ch. 16: 7. 55: 4, and 55: 10, together with Virgil’s famous line, Ambo florentes aetatibus Arcades ambo. Such precedents were surely not required to justify a bold but beautiful expression from the charges brought against it by pedantic rhetoricians.—Umbreit supposes that this verse contains an explanation of the striking figures in the one before it. Hitzig compares the first clause with the corresponding part of ch. 60: 21, and thy people all of them are righteous, which idea is expressed here in the next verse.
14. In righteousness shalt thou be established: be far from oppression, for thou shalt not fear, and from destruction, for it shall not come near to thee. An additional promise of complete security, made more emphatic by its repetition in a variety of forms. By righteousness J. H. Michaelis understands the righteousness or faithfulness of God, securing the performance of his promises; Vitringa, the justice of the government itself; Rosenmiiller and the other modern writers, the practice of righteousness among the people. The first, however, comprehends the others as its necessary consequences, public and private virtue being always represented in Scripture as the fruit of divine influence. (Compare ch. 1: 27. 9: 6. 11:5. 16: 5.)—The modern grammarians acquiesce in Aben Ezra’s explanation of ^ton as a Hithpael form like fxso, ch. 52: 5.—Of the next clause there are several interpretations. The Septuagint, Peshito, and Vulgate, understand it as a warning or dissuasion from the practice of oppression. But this does not agree with the context, which is evidently meant to be consolatory and encouraging. Still more unnatural is the opinion of Cocceius, that P^s here means spiritual robbery, such as robbing God of his glory, the soul of its salvation, etc. etc. Jerome arbitrarily renders it calumniam. The explanation which has been most generally acquiesced in, is the one proposed by Kimchi, who takes piB3 in a passive sense, i. e. as meaning the experience of oppression, and supposes the imperative to represent the future, or a promise to be clothed in the form of a command: ‘ Be far from oppression, i. e. thou shalt be far from it.’ Examples of this idiom are supposed to occur in Gen. 42: 18. Deut. 32: 50. Prov. 20: 13. But as this makes it necessary to give ^ the sense of yea with Lowth, or of therefore with Vitringa, Gesenius and the later writers choose to adhere to the strict sense of the imperative, and give p&y in this one place the mean ing of anxiety, distress, which they suppose to be the sense of ^£^3 in ch. 38: 14. The ground of this gratuitous assumption is the parallel expression ntnna consternation, fear, which seems to require in this place an analogous affection of the mind. It will be found, however, on investigation, that there are several instances in which finns cannot possibly mean fear (e. g. Ps. 89: 41. Prov. 10: 14. 13:3. 18:7); while in every place where it occurs, perhaps excepting Jer. 48: 39, the other sense destruction is entirely appropriate. On the soundest principles of lexicography, this meaning is entitled to the preference, and, if adopted here, forms an accurate parallelism to ptf in the sense which it uniformly has elsewhere (e. g. in ch. 30: 12 and 59: 13), viz. oppression or violent injustice. That the other term is stronger, only adds to the expression the advantage of a climax. There is no need, however, of explaining the imperative as a future, like the older writers, or of taking “3 in any but its usual and proper sense. Be far from oppression is not a promise of exemption from it, for that follows in the next clause, which the modern interpreters correctly understand as meaning, thou hast no cause to fear. The other words are well explained by Knobel as relating to the feelings of the person here addressed. Be far from oppression, i. e. far from apprehending it. The whole may then be paraphrased as follows: ‘ When once established by the exercise of righteousness on my part and your own, you may put far off all dread of oppression, for you have no cause to fear it, and of destruction, for it shall not come nigh you.’— With the promise of this clause, compare ch. 32: 16 and 62: 12.—Knobel and Hendewerk are actually able to persuade themselves that this verse contains a specific promise that Jerusalem should never be successfully besieged again. The truth of the promise, in its true sense, is vindicated by the fact that it relates to the course of the new dispensation as a whole, with special reference to its final consummation.
15. Lo, they shall gather, they shall gather, not at my sign (or signal). Who has gathered against thee 1 He shall fall away to thee. The promise of the preceding verse is here so modified as to provide for every possible contingency. If enemies should be assembled, it will not be by divine command (compare ch. 10:5. 47: 6), and they shall end by coming over to the side of those whom they assail. This, on the whole, appears to be the meaning, although every expression has received a different explanation. Gesenius gives fc,n the sense of if, as in Chaldee, and notes it as a proof of later date: to which it may be answered, first, that his own examples include some in the oldest books, e. g. Ex. 8: 22; then, that the assumption of this meaning in the present case is wholly gratuitous; and lastly, that it is a dubious question whether any such usage of the word exists at all. Cocceius follows Jarchi in giving ito the sense of fear, which it sometimes has, e. g. in Deut. 1: 17 and Psalm 22: 24. The Septuagint and Targum give it the still more frequent sense of < sojourning, dwelling as a stranger,’ and apply the clause to proselytes. In like manner Gousset, followed by Rosenmiiller, understands the words to mean, that no one who sojourns with Israel shall remain a stranger to the true religion. Tremellius makes it mean ‘contend,’ and Ewald, ‘ stir up bitterness,’ both apparently resorting to the cognate rna as a source of illustration. Most interpreters agree with Kimchi in giving “rta the same sense here as in Ps. 56: 7. 59: 4, on which places see Hengstenberg’s Commentary.—There is also a difference as to the construction. Luther makes the whole verse one interrogation. Gesenius, as we have already seen, makes the first clause conditional. Others translate it as a concession, {let them gather.’ But the simplest and most natural construction is to translate “fi^ as a future proper. They shall indeed (or no doubt) gather. The promise is not that they should never be assailed, but that they should never be conquered.—The Targum explains CBX to mean in the end; but most writers understand it as a simple negative. (See above, on ch. 52: 4.) ^xv is regarded by Gesenius as another proof of later date, the preposition rx being confounded with the objective particle. But here again examples of the same analogy are found as early as Lev. 15: 18, 24, and Josh. 23: 15. It is not the occasional occurrence of this form but its habitual use that marks the later writers, as is well observed by Havernick, who explains the case before us as an effect of the pause accent, while in the one below (ch. 59: 21) he maintains that nix is the noun meaning sign (Einleitung I. pp. 198, 222); which last explanation is still more applicable here, not by my sign or signal being not only perfectly in keeping with the usage of the same figure elsewhere, but yielding substantially the same sense which the word has according to the common explanation, namely, not by my authority or not at my command. (Compare h2Eia Hos. 7: 14.) Hitzig throws these words (^Ffi’SB c^) mt° a parenthesis—c which is not from me,’ and Ewald gives them the force of a proviso—’ only not from me,’ i. e. no attack shall be successful, provided it is made without my authority. The same writer takes ^ in its usual sense as an interrogative pronoun, while Gesenius and others make it mean who ever. (See above, on ch. 50: 10.) Vitringa and the English Version separate Tp.^9 from the following verb, and take the latter absolutely, ‘he shall fall,’ i. e. perish. Knobel obtains the same sense without a violation of the accents, by supposing?? ^S3 to be synonymous with “\3fib bss, ’ he shall fall before thee.’ But the former phrase is determined by a settled usage to denote the act of falling away or deserting to an enemy. (See 1 Chron. 12: 19, 20. 2 Chron. 15: 9. Jer. 21:9.) In one case (1 Sam. 29: 3) the same idea seems to be expressed by the verb when absolutely used. This explanation of the last words is as old as the Septuagint (sat <J£ x T«() and Vulgate (adjungetur tibi).
16. Lo, I have created the smith, blowing into the fire of coal, and bringing out a weapon for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. The general meaning evidently is that God can certainly redeem his pledge, because all instruments and agents are alike at his disposal and under his control. He is not only the maker of the weapons of war, but the maker of their maker, as well as of the warrior who wields them.—The pronoun in both clauses is emphatic. It is I (and not another) who created them.—The common version of the second member, that bloweth the coals in the fire, is inconsistent with the masoretic pointing and accentuation, which require ens uJx to be construed in regimine, as meaning a coal fire in opposition to an ordinary fire of wood. The same preposition is elsewhere used as a connective between this verb and the object blown upon or at (Ezek. 37: 9), and in one other place at least in reference to the same act of blow ing into fire (Ezek. 22: 21), an exact description of the process even at the present day. A similar glimpse into the ancient forge or smithy has already been afforded in the scornful attack upon the worshippers of idols, ch. 41: 6.—Bringing out does not mean bringing out of his workshop or his hands, as Knobel explains it, but bringing into shape or into being, precisely as we say bringing forth, producing, although commonly in reference to animal or vegetable life. Perhaps, however, it would be still better to explain it as meaning out of the fire, in which case there would be a fine antithesis between blowing into it and bringing the wrought iron out of it.— •^3 may denote any instrument, but here derives from the connexion the specific sense of weapon. (See above, on ch. 52: 11.) The next phrase has been variously understood. Interpreters are much divided as to the antecedent of the suffix pronoun. Some of the older writers understand it as applying to the instrument itself, bringing forth a weapon for its work, }. e. fitted for the work of destruction. Others suppose it to refer by prolepsis to the warrior or destroyer who is mentioned in the last clause, bring ing forth a weapon for his work or use. A still greater number understand it as referring to the smith or armourer himself. Besides the modern English versions, which are either unmeaning or inaccurate,—according to his work (Lowth). by his labour (Noyes), as the result of his work (Barnes), —this class includes the ingenious construction of the words by Ewald, bring ing forth a weapon as his own work, whereas I made the deadly weapon for destruction. According to this interpretation, ninizSa the destroyer is a poetical description of the weapon before mentioned; whereas most interpreters apply it to the warrior who wields it, as if he had said, I make the weapon of destruction and I also make the waster to destroy with it. Both these hypotheses agree in making the destruction mentioned to be that of enemies in battle, one ascribing it directly to the weapon and the other to the Combatant. But Gesenius follows Jarchi and Kimchi in supposing the destruction here meant to be that of the instruments themselves, as if he had said, I create the weapons of war and I also create the destroyer to destroy them. Gesenius seems to think that this construction is required by the repetition of ^bao, as clearly indicating an antithesis; but this is equally secured by Ewald’s version, and even in the common and more natural construction, the repeated pronoun has its proper emphasis. ‘ It is I that create the smith who makes the instruments, and it is also I that create the destroyer who employs them.’
17. Every weapon (that) shall be formed against thee shall not pros per, and every tongue (that) shall rise with thee in judgment thou shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness from me, saith Jehovah. The common version of the first clause expresses the same thought in the English idiom, no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, a form of speech which does not exist in Hebrew, and can only be supplied by combining negative and universal terms. The expression, though ambiguous, is determined by the context. It cannot mean that only some of the weapons formed should take effect—which might be the meaning of the phrase in English—because in the affirmative clause which follows, and which must be co-extensive in its meaning, there is no such ambiguity, it being said expressly that every tongue shall be condemned. Another difference of idiom here exemplified has reference to the ellipsis of the relative pronoun, which in English is familiarly omitted when the object of the verb, but never when its subject. Every weapon they form would be perfectly intelligible; but every weapon is formed (for which is formed) would convey a wrong idea.—Shall not prosper, . e. shall not take effect or accomplish its design. Vitringa needlessly supposes a litotes or meiosis, as if the words meant that the weapon should itself be destroyed; but this is not expressed, even if it is implied, which may be questioned.— To rise or stand in judgment, literally for or with respect to judgment, is to appear before a judgment-seat, to invoke the decision of a judge. With thee may either denote simply simultaneous action, that of standing up together, or it may have the stronger sense against thee, as it seems to have above in v. 15, and as it has in our expressions to fight with or to go to law with. The tongue is here personified, or used to represent the party litigant whose only weapon is his speech. Lowth translates ^spu^t) thou shalt obtain thy cause, which is the true sense, but requires the insertion of against before every tongue, which in Hebrew is governed directly by the verb. For the judicial or forensic usage of this verb, see above, on ch. 50: 9.—Hitzig explains what is here said of litigation as a mere figure for war, which is literally described in the foregoing clause; and Knobel cites a case (1 Sam. 14: 47) in which the verb?”wn is applied to conquest It is also easy to deduce the one sense from the other, by assuming as the intermediate link the idea—not confined to ancient nations—that success in arms is a criterion of right and wrong, the very principle on which the wager of battle and the ordeal of the duel rested. But in this case it is far more satisfactory and natural, instead of making one clause figurative and the other literal, to understand both either literally or figuratively as a comprehensive description of all controversy or contention. Kimchi supposes these two clauses to reduce all opposition and hostility to that of word and that of deed; but there may also be allusion to the obvious distinction between warfare in its military and its civil forms, or between what is properly called war and litigation. In all these varied forms of strife it is predicted that the church shall be victorious. (Compare Rom. 8: 37 and 2 Cor. 2: 14.) And this security is represented as her heritage or lawful possession and as her right, i. e. what is due to her from God, as the judge of the whole earth, who must do right. Lowth and Ewald understand it to mean justification: ‘this security shall prove that God acquits or justifies me from the charges brought against me by my enemies.’ Vitringa gives the Hebrew word the simple sense jus, or that to which the party is entitled. The diluted sense of blessing or prosperity, which some of the later writers prefer even here, no longer needs a refutation. The English Version makes this last an inde pendent clause, their righteousness is of me; which is wholly unnecessary, and affords a less appropriate sense than the construction above given, which is the one now commonly adopted.—According to Ewald this verse is an explanation of the promise at the close of ch. 53. Hendewerk goes further and identifies the heritage of this verse with the division of the spoil in that, and the collective servants here named with the individual servant mentioned there. Knobel is still more explicit, and asserts that the Prophet, having been disappointed in his hope that all Israel would return from exile, now discards the use of the word servant and confines himself to that of the plural. The only colour for this singular assertion is the fact, no doubt remarkable, that we read no more of the ‘ Servant of Jehovah’ who has been so often introduced before, but often of his < servants.’ It may no doubt be said in explanation of this fact, that the Prophet has completed his description of that august person under his various characters and aspects, but has still much to say of his followers or servants. But a full explanation is afforded only by the hypothesis assumed throughout this exposition, that the Servant of Jehovah is a name applied both to the Body and the Head, sometimes to both in union, sometimes, as in ch. 53, to one exclusively; from which it naturally follows that as soon as he has reached the final exaltation of Messiah, and withdrawn him from our view, the Prophet thenceforth ceases to personify his members, and applies to them the ordinary plural designation of’Jehovah’s servants.’
