BY the removal of the old restrictions, the church is, for the first time, open to the whole world, as a source or medium of the richest spiritual blessings, v. 1. It is only here that real nourishment can be obtained, v. 2. Life is made sure by an oath and covenant, v. 3. The Messiah is a witness of the truth and a commander of the nations, v. 4. As such he will be recognised by many nations who before knew nothing of the true religion, v. 5. These are now addressed directly, and exhorted to embrace the offered opportunity, v. 6. To this there is every encouragement afforded in the divine mercy, v. 7. The infinite disparity between God and man should have the same effect, instead of hindering it, vs. 8, 9. The commands and promises of God must be fulfilled, vs. 10, 11. Nothing therefore can prevent a glorious change in the condition of the world under the dispensation of the Spirit, v. 12. This blessed renovation, being directly promotive of God’s glory, shall endure for ever, v. 13.
1. Ho every thirsty one, come ye to the waters; and he to whom there is no money, come ye, buy (food) and eat; and come, buy, without money and without price, wine and milk. The promises contained in the preceding chapters to the church, are now followed by a general invitation to partake of the blessings thus secured. Water, milk, and wine, are here combined to express the ideas of refreshment, nourishment, and exhilaration. Under these figures are included, as Calvin well observes, all things essential to the spiritual life. The Targum restricts the terms to intellectual supplies: c whoever will learn let him come and learn.’ The same application is made by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, and Vitringa admits that the language is highly appropriate to the Gentiles who were seeking after wis dom. (I Cor. 1: 22.) But the benefits here offered must of course bear some proportion to the means by which they were secured, viz. the atoning death of the Messiah and the influences of his Spirit. Among the earlier writers Grotius alone restricts the passage to the period of the Babylonish exile. Even the Rabbins understand it as relating to their present dispersion. Grotius’s further limitation of the passage to the teachings of Jeremiah, as a rich supply offered to the heathen, is of course rejected by the modern Germans, not so much because of its absurdity as on account of its recognis-
ing Isaiah as the author. They adhere, however, to his Babylonian theory, and task their powers of invention to explain the general terms of this gracious invitation in accordance with it. Thus Hendewerk regards the chapter as an intimation to the exiles that they should be freed as soon as they were brought into a proper state of mind, together with a promise that when once restored they should obtain for nothing in their own land what they could not even buy for money in the land of their oppressors. In like manner Knobel understands the Prophet as declaring the conditions upon which the exile was to cease, and promising to those who should return the enjoyment of unparalleled abundance in the Holy Land. It is easy to perceive that this specific explanation of a passage in itself unlimited is far more easy than the unauthorized extension of one really specific, because in the former case there is nothing in the passage itself which can be urged against a limitation which is only false because it is gratuitous. The best refutation is afforded by the ease with which a thousand other limitations, once assumed, might be brought into seeming agreement with the terms of the prediction. If, for example, some new critic, still more intrepid than his predecessors, should maintain that this book is of later date than the Babylonian exile, having been written at the period of the Maccabees, or even in the days of Josephus, whatever difficulties might arise from definite allusions to anterior events in other places, it would require but little ingenuity to reconcile the foregone conclusion with the general terms of such a prophecy as that before us. The hypothesis once granted, the details would all seem to follow of course. The impartial interpreter is therefore bound to resist all such unauthorized restrictions and to give the Prophet’s words their full scope, as relating to the benefits which God proposed from the beginning to bestow upon the nations through the medium of his church. The mixed or half-way theory of Henderson that this passage relates to the Babylonish exile and also to the reign of the Messiah, has all the inconveniences of both the others without the advantages of either.—Most of the modern writers follow Jarchi in explaining ^’n as a mere particle of invitation, which is variously expressed by Luther (wohlan!), Gesenius (aufl), De Wette (ha I), etc. Maurer insists, however, on the usual and strict sense of the particle as expressing pity for the exiles (heu. alas!), not only here but in Zech. 2: 10, 11.—xas is not properly a participle (thirsting), but a verbal adjective (athirst or thirsty). Vitringa strangely makes it neuter (omne sitiens), although the very nature of the invitation points out persons as the object of address, and although this is the only form in which an address to persons could have been expressed; whereas if a distinction were designed, the neuter would, according to the Hebrew idiom, be represented by the feminine. The combination of the singular (every one) with the plural verb (come ye) may be either an idiomatic license or intended to extend the call to every individual.—The reference to the water of baptism, which some of the Fathers found in this verse, is excluded by the fact that the water here meant is not water for washing but water to be drunk.— And. he, after the universal expression every one, does not add a new idea, but explains the one expressed already, and is therefore equivalent to even he in English. The same remark applies to the and before the second come, which is not incorrectly rendered yea come in the common version.—To whom there is not money is the only equivalent in Hebrew to our phrase who has no money. Instead of this generic term Lowth retains the original meaning of the Hebrew word, silver, in which he is followed by Ewald and Umbreit.—”fi^ is not to buy in general, but to buy food, or still more specifically to buy grain or breadstuffs. It is here absolutely used, as in Gen. 41: 57. 42: 2, 5. Henderson’s paraphrase (procure) is too indefinite, and not at all needed to remove the seeming incongruity of buying without money or any other price. This apparent contradiction was intended by the writer to express in the strongest manner the gratuitous nature of the purchase. Wine and milk are combined, either as necessities or luxuries, by Jacob in Gen. 49: 12.—The images of this verse are essentially the same with those in ch. 12: 3. 25: 6. 62: 8, 9. 65: 13. John 4: 14. 7: 37. Rev. 22: 17.—Sanctius, in order to connect this chapter with the one before it, supposes the idea to be that of a feast provided in the habitation which is there described as having been enlarged. Vitringa thinks it better to call up the image of a market and a public fountain. Neither of these conceptions would spontaneously occur to any ordinary reader.
2. Why will ye weigh money for (that which is) not bread, and your labour for (that which is) not to satiety 1 Hearken, hearken unto me, and eat (that which is) good, and your soul shall enjoy itself in fatness. The gratuitous blessings offered by Messiah are contrasted with the costly and unprofitable labours of mankind to gain the same end in another way. It was not that they refused food, nor even that they were unwilling to buy it; but they mistook for it that which was not nourishing. In the first clause there is reference to the primitive custom of weighing instead of counting money, from which have arisen several of the most familiar denomi nations, such as the Hebrew shekel, the Greek talent, the French livre, and the English pound. The essential idea here is that of paying. Bread, as the staff of life, is here and in many other cases put for food in general.— Labour, as in ch. 45: 14, means the product or result of labour. It is well expressed by Umbreit (euer Ermuhetes). Ewald’s translation (euer Erspartes) rather suggests the idea of that which is saved or hoarded, whereas the writer seems to have in view the immediate expenditure of what is earned.—The emphatic repetition of the verb to hear may be variously expressed in English as denoting to hear diligently, attentively, by all means, or to purpose; but the best translation, because it may be considered as including all the rest, is that which copies most exactly the peculiar form of the original. The old mode of doing this by joining the participle with the finite verb (hearkening ye shall hearken) is at once less exact and less expressive than the simple repetition used by Ewald elsewhere, although here he introduces the word rather (vielmehr hort).—The mention of the soul admits of two explanations. We may give the Hebrew word its frequent sense of appetite, exactly as the appetite is said in common parlance to be gratified, indulged, pampered, mortified, etc. This is a good sense in itself, but less in keeping with the rest of the description than another which may be obtained by supposing that the soul is mentioned for the purpose of showing that the hunger and the food referred to are not bodily but spiritual. Most of the modern writers explain tea a as an imperative used for the future according to a common Hebrew idiom. (See ch. 45: 22 and Gen. 42: 18.) But there is no need of departing from the strict construction which makes ibas a command. The promise is not that if they hearkened they should eat, but that if they hearkened and ate they should be happy.—Good is emphatic, meaning that which is truly good, in opposition to the no-bread of the first clause, which Vitringa and the later writers take as a peculiar compound phrase like ps-aft (ch. 10: 15), Kx-rib and rnvrib (ch. 31: 3). Fat, by a figure common in all languages, is put for richness both of food and soil. (See ch. 5: 1. Ps. 36: 9. 63: 6. Job 36: 16.) There is some thing almost laughable in Rosenmiiller’s saying that the orientals are extremely fond of gross food, when the fact is notoriously otherwise, and such a charge has often been alleged against the Germans either truly or falsely. Luther degrades the text itself by rendering it shall grow fat. As a sample of the opposite extreme of false refinement, we may give Lowth’s paraphrase, your soul shall feast itself with the richest delicacies.—The application of the figures is self-evident upon the general hypothesis before assumed. Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who suppose the blessing offered to be purely intellectual, apply the first clause to foreign or exotic wisdom (pinsp PVJDD). But the hardest task devolves on those who understand the passage as relating exclusively to the deliverance of Israel from Babylon. In what sense could the exiles there be said to spend their money for what was not bread, and their labour for what did not satisfy? Koppe was brave enough to make it refer literally to the bad bread which the Jews were compelled to eat in Babylonia. Hitzig only ventures to make this a part of the calamity described, which he explains, with Gesenius, as consisting in the slavery to which they were subjected, not as tributaries merely, but as labourers without reward. (Compare Josh. 9: 27. 1 Kings 9:21.) Maurer refers the clause to the expensive worship of idols, from whom no favours were obtained in recompense. (See ch. 46: 6, 7.) Knobel sees merely a strong contrast between Babylon, where the Jews spent much without enjoyment or advantage, and the Holy Land, where they should enjoy much and spend nothing. The last he might consistently regard as a mere vision ary expectation; but the only proof which he adduces of the fact first mentioned is the reference to Israel’s oppression in ch. 14: 3. 47: 6. 51: 14. A comparison of these interpretations with the true one will show how much is gained by the assumption of the Babylonian theory, and how strong the motive must be which induces men of ingenuity and learning to adopt it in spite of the embarrassments with which it is encumbered.
3. Incline your ear and come unto me, hear and your soul shall live (or let it live), and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, the sure mercies of David. This is obviously a repetition of the same offer in another form; which shows that the two preceding verses cannot have respect to literal food or bodily subsistence. Here again the use of the word soul necessarily suggests the thought of spiritual life, and this sense is admitted here by Kimchi and Abarbenel. Neither of the animal life nor of the appetite could it be said that it should live. The abbreviated form *t?e* may either give the future an imperative sense or be taken as a poetical substitute for the full form of the future proper. The regular construction of rvna rns is with fcs. That with b, according to Vitringa, simply means a promise; according to Gesenius, an engagement on the part of a superior. (See ch. 61:8. Josh. 9: 15. 24: 25.) There is no need of assuming a zeugma in the last clause, with Gesenius, or supposing rns to include the idea of bestowing, with Knobel; since the *mercies of David are not directly go verned by that verb, but simply added as an explanation of the everlasting covenant. As if he had said, I will make with you an everlasting covenant which shall be the same with the mercies of David. Of this phrase, which is also used by Solomon (2 Chr. 6: 42), there are three interpretations. The rabbins and Grotius understand it to mean favours, like those which were enjoyed by David. Cocceius regards David as a name of the Messiah, as in Ezek. 34: 23. 24, to which he adds Hos. 3:5; but this may be understood, with Hitzig, as merely meaning David’s house or family. The third explanation, and the one most commonly adopted, is, that the mercies of David means the mercies promised to him, with particular reference to 2 Sam. 7: 8-16. (Compare 1 Chr. 17: 11, 12 and Psalm 89: 3, 4.) As the main theme of this promise was a perpetual succession on the throne of David, it was fulfilled in Christ, to whom it is applied in Acts 13: 34. (Compare Is. 9: 6 and Luke 1: 32, 33.) The Greek word oai-a there used is borrowed from the Septuagint Version, and is so far correct as it conveys the idea of a sacred and inviolable engagement. That the promise to David was distinct from that respecting Solomon (1 Chr. 22: 8-13), and had not reference to any immediate descendant, Henderson has shown from 1 Chr. 17: 12—14. Thus understood, the text contains a solemn assurance that the promise made to David should be faithfully performed in its original import and intent. Hence the mercies of David are called sure, i. e. sure to be accomplished; or it might ‘be rendered faithful, credible, or trusted, without any material effect upon the meaning. With this interpretation of the verse may be compared that of Knobel, who explains it as a promise that the theocratic covenant should be restored (as if it had been abrogated), or, of Rosenmuller, who supposes it to have been given to console the exiles under the despondency arising from the ruin of the House of David during the captivity, and the apparent violation of the promise which had long before been given to himself. So far as there is any truth in this interpretation, it is but a small part of the full sense of the passage as relating to the everlasting reign of the Messiah.
4. Lo, (as) a witness of nations I have given him, a chief and commander of nations. The emphasis appears to be on nations, which is therefore repeated without change of form. The essential meaning is the same as that of ch. 49: 6, viz. that the Messiah was sent to be the Saviour not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles. His relation to the latter is expressed by three terms. First he is a witness, i. e. a witness to the truth (John 18: 37) and a witness against sinners (Mai. 3: 5). The same office is ascribed to Christ in Rev. 1:5. 3:14. (Compare 1 Tim. 6: 13.) The application of this verse to the Messiah, therefore, is entirely natural if taken by itself. But an objection is presented by the fact that the Messiah is not named in the foregoing context. It is hardly an adequate solution to affirm with Vitringa that the verse must be connected with the fifty-third chapter, and the fifty-fourth considered parenthetical. Cocceius refers the suffixes to David in v. 3, which he explains there as a name of the Messiah. The same resort is not accessible to Henderson, who arbitrarily makes David in the third verse mean the ancient king and in the fourth the Messiah,—an expedient which may be employed to conquer any difficulty. All the modern Germans except Umbreit understand the verse before us as describing the honours actually put upon king David. Lo, I gave him as a witness of the nations, a leader and commander of the nations. This is certainly the simplest and most natural construction of the sentence, but one not without-its difficulties.. According to general analogy, the interjection “ft has reference not to a past event, but to one either present or future. This argument from usage is confirmed by the fact that “in at the beginning of the next verse does undoubtedly relate to the future, and that the connex ion of the verses is obscure and abrupt if that before us be referred to David. 302 CH AFTER LV. Another difficulty is, that David could not with truth be so emphatically styled the chief or leader of the nations. For although he did subdue some foreign tribes, they did not constitute the main part of his kingdom, and the character in which the Scriptures always represent him is that of a theocratic king of Israel. Another difficulty in relation to the use of the term witness is evaded by supposing is, in this one place, to mean a ruler (Gesenius) or a legislator (Maurer). Ewald’s translation of the word by law seems to be an inadvertence. This violation of a perfectly defined and settled usage would be treated by these writers in an adversary as a proof of ignorance or mala fides. The only shadow of evidence which they adduce from usage or analogy, is the assertion, equally unfounded, that the verbal root sometimes means to enjoin, and the collateral derivatives r^? and rns laws or precepts. The utmost that can be established by a philological induction is, that in some cases the alleged sense would be relevant, whereas the proper one of testimony is in every case admissible. If in the face of these facts we may still invent a new sense for a word which has enough already to account for every instance in the Hebrew Bible, there is no such thing as principles or laws of lexicography, and every critic has a full discretion to confound the application of a term with its essential meaning when he pleases. As to its being here combined with other words expressive of authority, let it be noted, that words thus connected cannot always be synonymous, and in the next place that the usual meaning of the term, as applied to the Messiah or to God, implies as much authority as either of the others, for it means an authoritative witness of the truth, and this is substantially equivalent to Prophet or Divine Teacher,—an office with which David never was invested in relation to the gentiles. The more restricted sense of monitor (^nta) which Kimchi puts upon the word is no less arbitrary than the vague one (ai) given in the Targum.—i^a is properly the one in front, the foremost, and is therefore naturally used to signify a chief or leader. This title is expressly applied to the Messiah by Daniel (9: 25), and the corresponding titles U.QI&V and ag^jog to Christ in the New Testament (Acts 3: 15. Heb. 2: 10. Rev. 1: 5), considered both as an example and a leader.—The third name (f^a), being properly the participle of a verb which means to command, might be considered as equivalent either to preceptor or commander, both derivatives from verbs of the same meaning. Now as one of these definitions agrees well with the explanation which has been adopted of the first title (witness), and the other with the obvious meaning of the second (leader), and as the offices of preceptor and commander are by no means incompatible and actually meet in Christ, there seems to be no sufficient reason for excluding either in the case before us. At the same time, let it be observed that as nyt sometimes means to command in a military sense, but never perhaps to teach or give instruction, the idea of commander must predominate in any case, and is entitled to the preference, if either must be chosen to the entire exclusion of the other.—Of the objections which the modern writers urge against the application of this verse to the Messiah, that which they appear to consider the most cogent and conclusive is precisely that which we have seen, from the beginning of the book, to be the weakest and most groundless, namely, that these Later Prophecies know nothing of a personal Messiah; which is established in the usual manner by denying all the cases seriatim, and refusing to let one of them be cited in defence or illustration of another. It is proper to observe in this connexion, that both Umbreit and Hendewerk retain the usual sense of ^, and that the latter understands the verse as a description of the office which the Jewish people should discharge in reference to the other nations after their return from exile. This is a near approach to the correct interpretation, and may be blended with it by recurring to the exegetical hypothesis, of which we have so often spoken, that the Body and the Head are often introduced as one ideal person. This, though at variance with Knobel’s notion that the Prophet has now ceased to speak of Israel as one individual servant of Jehovah (see above, on ch. 54: 17), is in perfect accordance with the general tenor of the Scriptures as to the vocation and the mission both of Christ and of the Church.
5. Lo, a nation (that) thou Icnowest not thou shalt call, and a nation (that) have not known thee shall run unto thee, for the sake of Jehovah thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel, for he hath glorified thee. The question which has chiefly divided interpreters, in reference to this verse, is, whether the object of address is the Messiah or the Church. The former opinion is maintained by Calvin, Sanctius, and others; the latter by Grotius and Vitringa. The masculine forms prove nothing either way; because the Church is sometimes presented in the person of Israel, and sometimes personified as a woman. The most natural supposition is, that after speaking of the Messiah, he now turns to him and addresses him directly. If this be so, the verse affords an argument against the application of v. 4 to David, who could not be the subject of such a promise ao;es after his decease. At the same time, the facility with which the words can be applied to either subject, may be considered as confirming the hypothesis that although the Messiah is the main subject of the verse, the Church is not entirely excluded. —The construction of the second *Ha with two plural verbs shows it to be collective. Lowth’s version, the nation, is unnecessary here, although the article is frequently omitted both in poetry and elevated prose.—Their run ning indicates the eagerness with which they shall attach themselves to him and engage in his service. According to Jarchi, thou shalt call means thou shalt call into thy service. (See Job 19: 16.)—For he hath glorified thee. This expression is repeatedly used in the New Testament with reference to Christ. (See John 17: I, 5. Acts 3: 13.) Henderson gives ^ what is supposed by some to be its primary sense, viz. that of a relative pronoun (who hath glorified ihee); which is wholly unnecessary here, and rests upon a very dubious etymological assumption.—The form of expression in a part of this verse seems to be borrowed from 2 Sam. 22: 44; but the resemblance neither proves that the Messiah is the subject of that passage nor that David is the subject of this.—The nation means of course the gentiles. What is said of the Messiah’s not knowing them is thus explained by Schmidius. “ Messias non noverat gentiles ut ecclesiae suae membra actu, et gentiles ipsum non noverant, saltern fide, plerique etiam de ipso quicquam non audiverant.”
6. Seek ye Jehovah while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near. The 3, as usual when joined with the infinitive, is a particle of time. The literal translation would be, in his being found, in his being near. By a sudden apostrophe he turns from the Messiah to those whom he had come to save, and exhorts them to embrace this great salvation, to be reconciled with God. A similar exhortation, implying like the present that the day of grace is limited, occurs in Zeph. 2: 2. There are two limitations of the text before us, which have no foundation but the will of the interpreters. The first restricts it to the Jews in general, either making it a general advice to them to seize the opportunity of restoration (Rosenmiiller), or a special warning to those hardened sinners who refused to do so (Knobel), and particularly such as were addicted to idolatry. These expositions are doubly arbitrary, first in restricting the passage to that period of Jewish history, and then in assuming the imaginary fact that a portion of the exiles were unwilling to return; the passages appealed to in support of which are wholly inconclusive. An equally unfounded but less violent assumption is, that this passage has respect to the Jews not at that time merely, but in general, as distinguished from the gentiles. Like many other similar hypotheses, when this is once assumed, it is easy to accommodate the general expressions of the passage to it; but it would be difficult to find in the whole chapter any adequate reason for applying its commands and exhortations either to gentiles or to Jews exclusively. In either case there were peculiar reasons for obeying the injunction, but it seems to be addressed to both alike. The Jew had great cause to beware lest the gentile should outstrip him, and the gentile might be reasonably urged to partake of those advantages which hitherto had been restricted to the Jew; but both are called to the same duty, namely, that of seeking and calling upon God,— expressions elsewhere used both severally and together to express the whole work of repentance, faith, and new obedience.—Lowth seems to find the common version of the last word (near) too simple, and enlarges it accord ingly to near at hand.
7. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the man of iniquity his thoughts, and let him return unto Jehovah, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon (literally, multiply to pardon). This is a continuation of the foregoing call, and at the same time an explanation of the way in which it was to be obeyed. We are here taught that the seeking of Jehovah, and the calling upon him just enjoined, involve an abandonment of sin and a return to righteousness of life. The imperative version of the futures is warranted, if not required, by the abbreviated form 22*. Even the future form, however, would convey the same essential meaning both in Hebrew and in English. The wicked shall forsake etc. is in fact the strongest form of a command. Way is a common figure for the course of life. What is here meant is the evil way, as Jeremiah calls it (56: 1), i. e. a habitually sinful course.—”x is a negative expression, strictly meaning non-existence or non-entity, and then, in a secondary moral sense, the destitution of all goodness, which is put, by a common Hebrew idiom, for the existence of the very opposite. The common version (the unrighteous man) gives the sense but not the whole force of the original construction, which is here retained by Hendewerk (der Mann der Missethat). The same writer speaks of these two verses as an interruption, by the Prophet, of the divine discourse. This criticism is founded on the mention of Jehovah in the third person, which is a form of speech constantly occurring, even where he is himself the speaker, not to mention the futility of the assumption that the passage is dramatic or a formal dialogue. It mattered little to the writer’s purpose whether he seemed to be himself the speaker or a mere reporter of the words of God, to whom in either case they must be finally ascribed. Hence the constant alternation of the first, second, and third persons, in a style which sets all rules of unity and rigid laws of composition at defiance.—The word translated thoughts is commonly employed not to denote opinions but designs or purposes, in which sense it is joined with way, in order to express the whole drift of the character and life. To return to God in both these respects is a complete description of repentance, implying an entire change of heart as well as life.—The indirect construction of ttiarw, which is given in most modern versions (that he may have mercy on him), is not only a gratuitous intrusion of the occidental idiom, but injurious to the sense by making that contingent which is positively pro mised. The encouragement to seek God is not merely that he may, but that he will have mercy. Lowth’s decoction of the same words (will 20 306 CH AFTER LV. receive him with compassion) is enfeebling in another way, and inexact; because the act of receiving is implied, not expressed, and the verb denotes not mere compassion but gratuitous and sovereign mercy.—There is further encouragement contained in the expression our God. To the Jew it would suggest motives drawn from the covenant relation of Jehovah to his people, while the gentile would regard it as an indirect assurance that even he was not excluded from God’s mercy.—Another weakening of this sentence is effected by the modern version of the last clause as a mere description (Lowth: for he aboundeth in forgiveness), and not as an explicit promise that he will abundantly forgive, which is not only the natural and obvious import of the terms, but imperatively required by the favourite law of parallelism.
8. For my thoughts (are) not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith Jehovah. Clear and simple as these words are in themselves, they have occasioned much dispute among interpreters, in reference to their nexus with what goes before. The earliest commentators, Jews and Christians, seem to have understood them as intended to meet an objection to the promise arising from its vastness and its freeness, by assuring us that such forgiveness, however foreign from the feelings and the practices of men, is not beyond the reach of the divine compassion. As if he had said, ‘to you such forgiveness may appear impossible; but my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways.’ This is the sense put upon the words by Cyril, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Oecolampadius, Piscator, Henderson. Thus understood, the text may be compared with Matt. 19: 26. Another explanation, that of Vitringa, rests upon the false assumption that the words have reference to the Jews, and were intended to correct their prejudice against the calling of the gentiles as at variance with the promises of God to themselves. As if he had said, ’ you may think the extension of my grace to them a departure from my settled ways and purposes; but my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways.’ This specific application of the words could scarcely be suggested to any ordinary reader, either by the text or context, and at most can only be considered as included in its general import. Jerome and Rosenmiiller, while they seem to acquiesce in the principle of the interpretation first proposed, so far modify it as to make the faithfulness and truth of the divine assurances a prominent idea. This sense is also put upon the words by Gesenius and several of the later writers, who suppose the meaning of this verse to be determined by the analogy of vs.. 10, 11, and accordingly explain it as denoting the irrevocable nature of God’s purposes and promises. In this sense, it may be considered parallel to Num. 23: 19 and 1 Sam. 15: 29. Is. 31:2. 45:23. But this is neither the natural meaning of the words, nor one which stands in any obvious relation to what goes before; in consequence of which some who hold it are under the necessity of denying that the h3 at the beginning of the verse has its proper causal meaning. It is indeed hard to see any coherence in this sequence of ideas,’ let the wicked man repent, for my promise is irrevocable.’ This objection does not lie against another very ancient explanation of the passage, that proposed by Jarchi, but maintained by scarcely any later writer except Sanctius. This hypothesis is founded on the obvious correspondence of the terms employed in this verse and in that before it, and especially the parallel expressions ways and thoughts, there applied to man and here to God. According to this last interpretation, we have here a reason given why the sinner must forsake his ways and thoughts, viz. because they are incurably at variance with those of God himself: ‘Let the wicked forsake his way. and the unrighteous man his thoughts; for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways.’ Vitringa’s objection to this exposition, that the fact asserted is too obvious and familiar to be emphatically stated, is an arbitrary allegation, as to which the tastes of different men may naturally differ. There is more weight in the objection that the moral dis similitude between God and man would hardly be expressed by a reference to the height of the heavens above the earth. But the difference in question is in fact a difference of elevation, on the most important scale, that of morals, and might therefore be naturally so expressed. At all events, this interpretation has so greatly the advantage of the others, in facility and beauty of connexion with what goes before, that it must be considered as at least affording the formal basis of the true interpretation, but without excluding wholly the ideas which according to the other theories these words express. They may all be reconciled indeed by making the disparity asserted have respect not merely to moral purity, but also to constancy, benevolence, and wisdom. As if he had said, ’ you must forsake your evil ways and thoughts, and by so doing, you infallibly secure my favour; for as high as the heavens are above the earth, so far am I superior to you in mercy, not only in the rigour and extent of my requirements, but also in compassion for the guilty, in benevolent consideration even for the gentiles, and in the constancy and firmness of my purposes when formed.’—In his comment upon this verse, Vitringa gives his definition of the ways of God, which has so frequently been cited or repeated without citation: “ Viae Dei sunt vel quibus ipse incedit, vel quibus homines incedere vult.” For the meaning of his thoughts, see Ps. 33: 11 and Jer. 51: 29. If the sense which has been put upon the sentence be correct, it means far more than that which Hitzig quotes from Homer, aLl’ aiei re Aioq xQeicaaw voog ijensQ avdQcov. Knobel can of course see nothing here but an allusion to Cyrus and Croesus. 308 CH AFTER LV.
9. For (as) the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. This is an illustration by comparison of the negative assertion in the verse preceding. The as in the protasis of the comparison is left out, as in Hos. 11:2. Ps. 48: 6. Job 7: 9. Jer. 3: 20. There can be no ground therefore for sup posing, with Seeker, Houbigant, and Lowth, that it has dropped out of the text in this place. The full expression may be seen in ch. 10: 11. The •jn might here be taken in its proper sense of from, away from, as the reference is in fact to an interval of space; but our idiom would hardly bear the strict translation, and comparison is certainly implied, if not expressed. The same comparison and in a similar application occurs Ps. 103: 11.
10,11. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and thither returneth not, but when it has watered the earth and made it bear and put forth and has given seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be, which goeth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void (or without effect), but when it has done that which I desired, and successfully done that for which I sent it. This is a new comparison, suggested by the mention of the heavens and the earth in the preceding verse. The tenth and eleventh form a single sentence of unusual length in Hebrew composition. The one contains the comparison properly so-called, the other makes the application. The futures ‘rn and aw^ strictly mean will come down, will return, imply ing that the same series of events might be expected to recur; but as a still more general recurrence is implied, the true sense is conveyed by the English present.—The construction of ex ^3 is precisely the same as in Gen. 32: 27. Lev. 22: 6. Ruth 2: 16. 3: 18. Amos 3: 7, in all which cases it indicates the sine qua non, the condition without which the event expressed by the future cannot take place. Hitzig asserts however that the Hebrews knew nothing of the rain going back to heaven by evaporation, and on this ground will not let the words have their obvious and necessary meaning. The impossibility of proving any thing from such expressions, either as to the ignorance or knowledge of the laws of nature which the ancients possessed, has been repeatedly pointed out. But it is certainly too much to violate analogy and syntax for the purpose of involving the writer in a real or apparent blunder.—The word of v. 11 is not merely prophecy or promise, much less the command of God to Cyrus respecting Israel (Henderson), least of all the Prophet himself as an incarnation of Jehovah’s word (Hendewerk), but every thing that God utters either in the way of prediction or command.—The construction of i^nnbtt) IIBX is essentially the same as in 2 Sam. 11: 22. That rbv governs two accusatives is evident from such places as 1 Kings 14:6.—The English Version refers CH AFTER LV. 309 •jna to the earth; but this construction is precluded by the difference of gender. The effect is metaphorically represented as produced directly by the rain and snow.—rr^sirj does not mean prosper in, but make to prosper or do prosperously, the active sense being inseparable from the Hiphil form. The general design of these two verses is to generate and foster confidence in what Jehovah has engaged to do.
12. For with joy shall ye go forth, and in peace shall ye be led; the mountains and the hills shall break out before you into a shout, and all the trees of the field shall clap the hand. Here as in many other places the idea of joyful change is expressed by representing all nature as rejoicing. (See ch’. 35: 1, 2. 44: 23. 49: 13. 52: 9. Ps. 98: 8.) The expression go forth is eagerly seized upon by some interpreters as justifying the restriction of the passage to the restoration from the Babylonish exile. But the real allusion in such cases is to the deliverance from Egypt, which is constantly referred to as a type of deliverance in general, so that every signal restoration or deliverance is represented as a spiritual exodus. Vitringa, with much more probability, applies the words to the joy of the first heathen converts when they heard the gospel (Acts 13: 48. 1 Thess. 1:6). The rabbins upon their part understand the passage as a prophecy of Israel’s deliverance from the present exile and dispersion. All the interpreters since Lowth repeat his fine quotation from Virgil, ipsi laetitia monies etc.
13. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress, and instead of the nettle the myrtle, and it shall be to Jehovah for a name, for an ever lasting sign that shall not be cut off. The same change which had just been represented by the shouting of the hills and the applause of the forests is now described as the substitution of the noblest trees for the most unprofitable and offensive plants. (Compare ch. 41: 19.) An analogous but different figure for the same thing is the opening of rivers in the desert. (See above, ch. 35: 6, 7. 43: 19, 20.) For the mean ing of psss and im’-iajsee the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 129,272. The name ^B^t? occurs only here. Simonis and Ewald understand it as denoting a species of mustard plant. Jerome describes it as a worthless and offensive weed. The Seventy have xovv£a. The modern writers are disposed to acquiesce in the Vulgate Version, urtica or nettle. All that is essential to the writer’s purpose is, that it be understood to signify a mean and useless plant, and thus to form a contrast with the myrtle as the thorn does with the cypress.—Instead of it shall be, the modern Germans as usual prefer the indirect construction, that it may be, which is neither so exact nor so expressive as the strict translation. Knobel makes the trees the subject of this last clause also; but it seems more natural to understand it as refer-
I 310 CHAPTER LV1. ring to the change itself, described in this and the preceding verse. Drop ping the metaphor, the Prophet then says, in direct terms, that the glorious change predicted shall redound to the glory of its author. It shall be for a name, i. e. it shall serve as a memorial, which is then described in other words as a sign of perpetuity or everlasting token, with allusion, as Vitringa thinks, to those commemorative obelisks or pillars mentioned elsewhere (e. g. ch. 19: 19). This memorial is called perpetual because it shall not be cut *off> Pass away> or be abolished.—It will here be sufficient simply to state the fact that Knobel understands this as a promise that the homeward journey of the exiles should be comfortable and pleasant (bequem und angenehm).
