WHILE the church, with its essential institutions, is to continue unimpaired, the old distinctions, national and personal, are to be done away, and the Jewish people robbed of that pre-eminence of which its rulers proved themselves unworthy.
The day is coming when the righteousness of God is to be fully revealed, without the veils and shackles which had hitherto confined it, v. 1. For this great change the best preparation is fidelity to the spirit of the old economy, v. 2. No personal or national distinctions will be any longer recognised, v. 3. Connexion with the church will no longer be a matter of hereditary right, vs. 4, 5. The church shall be henceforth co-extensive with the world, vs. 6-8. But first, the carnal Israel must be abandoned to its enemies, v. 9. Its rulers are neither able nor worthy to deliver the people or themselves, vs. 10—12.
1. Thus saith Jehovah, Keep ye judgment (or justice) and do righteousness; for near (is) my salvation to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. The Jews refer this passage to their present dispersion, and understand it as declaring the conditions of their restoration. Vitringa applies it to the beginning of the new dispensation; Piscator to the new dispensation generally; the modern Germans to the end of the Babylonish exile. These different classes of interpreters of course expound particulars in accordance with their general hypothesis, but none of them without undue restriction of that which in itself requires or at least admits a wider CH AFTER L VI. 311 application. On the principle heretofore assumed as the basis of our exposition, we can only regard it as a statement of the general laws which govern the divine dispensations towards the chosen people and the world at large. The reference is not merely to the ancient Israel, much less to the Jews of the captivity, still less to the Christian church distinctively considered, least of all to the Christian church of any one period. The doctrine of the passage is simply this, that they who enjoy extraordinary privileges, or expect extraordinary favours, are under corresponding obligations to do the will of God; and moreover that the nearer the manifestation of God’s mercy, whether in time or in eternity, the louder the call to righteousness of life. These truths are of no restricted application, but may be applied wherever the relation of a church or chosen people can be recognised. Without attempting to refute the various opinions founded on the false hypothesis of a local or temporal limitation, it will be sufficient to point out the absurdities attending that which in our day has the greatest vogue, viz. the notion that the passage relates merely to the Babylonish exile. Thus Maurer understands the Prophet as advising his contemporaries to act in a manner worthy of their approaching liberation, and Gesenius supposes him to take this opportunity of combating the Jewish prejudice against the calling1 of the gentiles. Why this error needed to be controverted at this precise juncture, he omits to explain. But this is not the worst thing in Gesenius’s interpretation of the place before us. After saying that a prose lyting spirit is inseparable from the belief in one exclusive way of salvation, and particularly pardonable in the Jewish exiles, surrounded as they were by idolaters, he goes on to represent the liberal spirit of this passage as directly at variance with the law of Moses, particularly as contained in Deut. 23: 2-8, which he says is virtually here repealed. This shallow and erroneous view of the relation which subsists between the Law and the Prophets will correct itself as we proceed with the detailed interpretation. EQ^ia seems here to be equivalent to fni’n, with which it is connected as a parallel in ch. 42: 4. 51:4.
2. Happy the man (that) shall do this, and the son of man that shall hold it fast, keeping the Sabbath from profaning it, and keeping his hand from doing all evil. The pronoun this seems to refer to what follows, as in Ps. 7: 4 and Deut. 32: 29. Son of man is simply an equivalent expression to the man of the other clause. The last clause is remarkable, and has occasioned much dispute among interpreters, on account of its combining a positive and negative description of the character required, the last of which is very general, and the first no less specific. A great variety of reasons have been given for the special mention of the Sabbath here. It has especially perplexed those writers who regard the Sabbath as a temporary ceremonial institution. Some of these endeavour to evade the difficulty, by supposing that the Sabbath here meant is a mystical or spiritual Sabbatism, a repose from suffering, sin, or ceremonial impositions. But how could such a Sabbath be observed, or how could they be called upon to keep it, as a condition of the divine favour? Some suppose the Sabbath to be here put for the whole Mosaic system of religious services, as being the most ancient, and, in some sort, the foundation of the rest. According to Gesenius, it is specified because it was the only part of the Mosaic institutions which could be perpetuated through the exile, that which was merely ceremonial and restricted to the temple being necessarily suspended. Rosenmuller thinks that it is here referred to, as a public national profession of the worship of one God. The true explanation is afforded by a reference to the primary and secondary ends of the Sabbatical institution, and the belief involved in its observance. In the first place, it implied a recognition of Jehovah as the omnipotent creator of the universe (Ex. 20: 11. 31:17); in the next place, as the sanctifier of his people, not in the technical or theological sense, but as denoting him by whom they had been set apart as a peculiar people (Ex. 31: 13. Ez. 20: 12); in the next place, as the Saviour of this chosen people from the bondage of Egypt (Deut. 5:15). Of these great truths the Sabbath was a weekly remem brancer, and its observance by the people a perpetual recognition and profession, besides the practical advantages accruing to the maintenance of a religious spirit by the weekly recurrence of a day of rest—advantages which no one more distinctly acknowledges, or states more strongly, than Gesenius. Holding fast, is a common idiomatic expression for consistent perseverance in a certain course. It occurs not unfrequently in the New Testament. (Heb. 4:4. 6:18. Rev. 2: 25. 3:11.) The suffix in xz refers to rxi, and like it has respect to the whole course of conduct afterwards described. Gesenius refers to ch. 1:13 as a rejection of the Sabbath, and in this detects a want of agreement between the genuine and spurious Isaiah,—a conclusion resting wholly on a false view of that passage, for the true sense of which see the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 9-12.
3. And let.not the foreigner say, who has joined himself unto Jehovah, saying, Jehovah will separate me wholly from his people; and let not the eunuch say, Lo, I am a dry tree. The essential meaning of this verse is, that all external disabilities shall be abolished, whether personal or national. To express the latter he makes use of the phrase -csn-ja, which strictly means not the son of the stranger, as the common version has it, but the son of strangeness, or of a strange country; ““23 corresponding to the German Fremde, which has no equivalent in English. The whole class of personal disqualifications is represented by the case of the eunuch. CH AFTER L VI. 313 in reference to Deut. 23: 1, and as Calvin thinks to the promise in Gen. 15: 5. and 22: 17, from which that class of persons ‘was excluded. Hensler’s idea that fc-nb here means an officer or courtier, is precluded by the addition of the words, I am a dry tree, a proverbial description of child lessness said to be still current in the east. It is possible, however, that the eunuch may be mentioned, simply because it stands at the beginning of the list of prohibitions in the law. In either case, the expression is generic or representative of more particulars than it expresses. Knobel’s restriction of the first clause to the Canaanites, who mingled with the Jews in their captivity, or occupied their places in their absence, is entirely gratuitous. The meaning is, that all restrictions, even such as still affected proselytes, should be abolished.
4, 5. For thus saith Jehovah to (or, as to) the eunuchs who shall keep my Sabbaths, and shall choose what I delight in, and take fast hold of my covenant, I will give to them in my house and within my vialls a place and name better than sons and than daughters; an everlasting name will I give to him, which shall not be cut off. According to Joseph Kimchi, the plural Sabbaths is intended to include the Sabbatical year and that of jubilee. If any distinction was intended, it was probably that between the wider and narrower meaning of the term Sabbaths, i. e. the Sabbath properly so called, and the other institutions of religion with which it is connected.—What it is that God delights in, may be learned from ch. 66: 4. Jer. 9: 24. Hos. 6:6. By holding fast my covenant is meant adhering to his compact with me, which includes obedience to the precepts and faith in the promises. The i at the beginning of v. 5 introduces the apodosis, and gives the verb a future meaning.—By my walls we are not to understand, with Jerome, those of Jerusalem, nor, with the modern writers, those of the temple, but in a more ideal sense, the walls of God’s house or dwelling, which had just been mentioned. The promise is not merely one of free access to the material sanctuary, but of a home in the household or family of God, an image of perpetual occurrence in the Psalms of David. (See especially Psalms 15, 23 and 24, as expounded by Hengstenberg.)—The use of the word *n in this connexion is obscure, although the essential meaning is determined by the context. Umbreit follows Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, in adhering to the usual sense hand, which he seems to think is mentioned as the natural instrument of seizure, and metaphorically applicable to the thing seized, for example, to a share or portion. Gesenius recognises this use of the plural in a few places, but appears to derive it from the primary idea of a handful. In the case before us he explains the word as meaning a memo rial or monument, which sense it seems to have in 2 Sam. 18: 18, perhaps with reference, as Gesenius supposes, to the uplifted hand and arm found on many ancient cippi or sepulchral columns. But as the antiquity and universality of this practice are uncertain, and as the meaning place is admissible in 2 Sam. 18: 18, as in many other cases, it appears to be entitled to the preference.—Better than sons and daughters may either mean better than the comfort immediately derived from children (as in Ruth 4: 15), or better than the perpetuation of the name by hereditary succession. Most interpreters prefer the latter sense, but both may be included. A beautiful coincidence and partial fulfilment of the promise is pointed out by J. D. Michaelis, in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch whose conversion is recorded in the eighth of Acts, and whose memory is far more honoured in the church than it could have been by a long line of illustrious descendants.
6, 7. And (as to) the foreigners joining themselves to Jehovah to serve him and to love the name of Jehovah, to be to him for servants, every one keeping the Sabbath from profaning it, and holding fast my covenant, I will bring them to my mount of holiness, and make them joyful in my house of prayer, their offerings and their sacrifices (shall be) to acceptance on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. Aben Ezra points out as a rhetorical peculiarity in the structure of this passage, that the writer, after mentioning the foreigners and eunuchs in v. 3, afterwards recurs to them in an inverted order. As an analogous example, he refers to Josh. 24: 31.—The verb rV]fl$, although strictly a generic term, is specially appropriated to the official service of the priests and Levites. Some interpreters accordingly suppose it to be here said that the heathen shall partake of the sacerdotal honours elsewhere promised to the church. (See ch. 61: 6. Ex. 19:6. 1 Pet. 2: 5, 9. Rev. 1: 6.)—To love the name of Jehovah, is to love his attributes as manifested in his word and works. (Compare ch. 60: 9. 66: 5.)—^sn n^s does not mean the house of my prayer, i. e. the house where prayer is made to me, but my house of prayer, as itthi? ^ri means my hill of holiness, or holy hill. Knobel supposes an allusion to the residence of the Nethinim on Ophel. (Neh. 3: 26. 11: 21.)—Shall be called, as in many other cases, implies that it shall be so. Our Saviour quotes a part of the last clause, not in reference to its main sense, but to what is incidentally mentioned, viz. its being called a house of prayer. This part of the sentence was applicable to the material temple while it lasted; but the whole prediction could be verified only after its destruction, when the house of God even upon earth ceased to be a limited locality, and became co-extensive with the church in its enlargement and diffusion. The form of expression is derived, however, from the ceremonies of the old economy, and worship is described by names familiar to the writer and his original readers. (Compare Hos. 14: 3. Heb. 13: 13. John 4: 21-23.) The general promise is the same as that in Mai. 1:11, and is so far from being inconsistent with the principles on which the old economy was founded, that it simply carries out its original design as settled and announced from the beginning.
8. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, the gatherer of the outcasts of Israel, Still (more) will I gather upon him (in addition) to his gathered. This may either mean, I will go on to gather still more of his outcasts, or, besides his outcasts I will gather others. There is less difference between the two interpretations than at first sight there might seem to be. In either case, the words are applicable to the calling of the gentiles. On the second supposition, which is commonly adopted, even by the Jewish writers, this is the direct and proper meaning of the words. But even on the other, they amount to the same thing, if we only give to Israel its true sense, as denoting not the Jewish nation as such, but the chosen people or the church of God, to which the elect heathen as really belong as the elect Jews, and are there fore just as much entitled to be called outcasts of Israel. It is true that our Saviour uses a similar expression (lost sheep of the House of Israel) in a restricted application to the Israelites properly so called; but it is in a connexion which brings the Jews and gentiles into evident antithesis, and therefore leaves no doubt as to the sense in which the name Israel is to be understood.—
9. All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, all ye beasts in the forest I The structure of this verse is somewhat unusual, consisting of two parallel members, with a third, equally related to both, interposed between them. It is an invitation to the enemies of Israel to destroy it. The people being represented, in the following verses, as a flock, their destroyers are naturally represented here as wild beasts. Hitzig and Knobel under stand the invitation as ironical, or as a mere poetical description of the defenceless state in which Israel was left through the neglect of its natural protectors. It is more natural, however, to explain it as an indirect prediction of an actual event, clothed in Isaiah’s favourite form of an apostrophe. Vitringa’s limitation of the prophecy to the subversion of the Roman empire by the barbarians, is as arbitrary as its application, in the Targum and by Kimchi, to Gog and Magog. We have here simply one of those alterna tions and transitions which are not only frequent in this book, but one of its characteristics, and indeed essential to the writer’s purpose of exhibiting God’s dealing with his church both in wrath and mercy. From the fore going promises of growth, he now reverts to intervening judgments and their causes. There is no ground, therefore, for Luzzatto’s assertion, that the next seventeen verses are entirely unconnected with what goes before, and must therefore be considered an interpolation. Ewald, on the other hand, alleges that from this verse to the middle of ch. 57: 11 is an extract from an older writer, inserted here in order to have something against idolatry, and because the author of the book could not hope to produce any thing better! As a further illustration of the value of such critical decisions, I may add that Hendewerk separates chs. 55, 56, and 57 from the foregoing and following context as a distinct prophecy! Besides the usual and natural interpretation of the verse before us as a threatening, may be mentioned that of Cyril and Jerome, who regard it as an invitation to all sorts of men to partake of the Lord’s supper; while Clericus explains it as a like invitation to the gentiles to frequent the temple and partake of the sacrificial feasts. The same sense was put upon the words by Rosenmiiller in his first edition; but he afterwards adopted a different grammatical construction of the sentence, being the one proposed by Aben Ezra, who explains the beasts of the forest as the object of the verb devour, and understands the sentence as an invitation to the heathen to destroy the wicked Jews. The same construction is adopted by Jarchi and Abarbenel, but with a very different result, as they suppose the invitation to be given to the proselytes to destroy the enemies of Israel. On the same grammatical foundation Cocceius erects his explanation of the verse as a call to the barbarians to destroy the corrupt Christians, while Schmidius regards it as an exhortation to the church to swallow up the gentiles by receiving them into her bosom! All the modern writers seem to be agreed that the last clause as well as the first is a description of the object of address, and that the thing to be devoured must be supplied from the following verses. With the metaphors of this verse compare Ex. 23: 29. Ez. 34: 5-8. Jer. 12: 9. 7: 33. 50: 17. Beasts of the field and of the forest are parallel expressions. Some interpreters make one a stronger expression than the other; but in deciding which it is, they directly contradict each other. Vitringa’s notion that the one may mean the Saracens, the other the Huns, Turks, and Tartars, is, to use his own words with respect to Cyril’s exposition of the verse, “ non commendabilis hac aetate ecclesiae.” +
10. His watchmen (are) blind all of them, they have not known (or do not know), all of them (are) dumb dogs, they cannot bark, dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber. The pronoun his refers to Israel, as in v. 8, and thus proves clearly that no new discourse begins either with v. 9 or with that before us, where the large V of the masoretic text, and the space before the verse in most manuscripts, seem to indicate a change of subject. But, as Gesenius correctly says, the writer merely pauses to take breath, and then resumes the thread of his discourse. Many give do not know the absolute sense of knowing nothing, being without knowledge; but in all CH AFTER L \ I. 317 such cases it seems better to connect it with an object understood. We may here supply their duty, or the state of the flock, or the danger to which it is exposed. The difference between the past and present form is imma terial here; because both are really included, the condition described being one of ancient date, but still continued. The dogs particularly meant are shepherds’ dogs (Job 30: 1), whose task it was to watch the flock, and by their barking give notice of approaching danger. But these are dumb dogs which cannot even bark, and therefore wholly useless. They are also negligent and lazy. Far from averting peril or announcing it, they do not see it. What is before expressed by the figure of a blind watchman, is here expressed by that of a shepherd’s dog asleep. fiYn is confounded by the Vulgate, Symmachus, and Saadias, with Q^n, which might either be a participle (seeing) or a noun (seers), corresponding to watchmen in the first clause. The common text is now very generally regarded as correct, and explained by the Arabic analogy to signify dreaming, or talking in sleep, or raving either from disease or sleep. Some suppose a particular allusion to the murmuring and growling of a dog in its dreams. Some writers make the watchmen of this verse denote the prophets, as in ch. 52: 8. Jer. 6: 17. Ez. 3: 17. 33: 1. But Gesenius more correctly understands it as a figure for the rulers of the people generally, not excluding even the false prophets. The figurative title is expressive of that watchfulness so frequently described in the New Testament as an essential attribute of spiritual guides. (Compare also Matth. 15: 4.)
11. And the dogs are greedy, they Icnow not satiety, and they, the shepherds (or the shepherds themselves), know not how to distinguish (or act wisely); all of them to their own way are turned, (every) man to his own gain from his own quarter (or without exception). A new turn is now given to the figures of the preceding verse. The dogs, though indolent, are greedy. Several of the ancient versions confound ££?. *w with D^sa *w$ hard-faced, and translate it impudent. The true sense of the former phrase is strong of appetite, i. e. voracious.—The pronoun nsn is emphatic, and may either mean that these same^dogs are at the same time shepherds, thus affording a transition to a different though kindred image, or it may be intended to distinguish between two kinds of rulers; as if he had said, while the dogs are thus indolent and greedy, they (the shepherds) are incompetent; or, while the shepherds’ dogs are such, the shepherds themselves know not how to distinguish. The latter is probably the true construction; for although the same class of persons may be successively compared to shepherds’ dogs and shepherds, it cannot even by a figure of speech be naturally said that the dogs themselves are shepherds. There is no need, however, of distinguishing between the dogs and shepherds as denoting civil and religious rulers, since both comparisons are equally appropriate to rulers in general. Etymologically, “pan may be understood to signify the act of discernment or discrimination. Usage would seem to require that of being wise or prudent; but its Hiphil form, and its being preceded by the verb to know, are in favour of explaining it to mean wise conduct, with particular reference in this case to official obligation. Their being all turned to their own way is expressive of diversity, and also of selfishness in each individual. The latter sense is then expressed more fully by the addition of tesa^, to or for his own gain or profit. That voluptuous as well as avaricious indulgences are here referred to, is apparent from what follows in the next verse. The last word literally means from his end or his extremity, to which the older writers gave the sense of his quarter or direction, corresponding to his own way; and Henderson says that it expresses the extreme lengths to which they went in their efforts to accumulate gain. Most of the modern writers have adopted the opinion of De Dieu, that inat^n means ad unum omnes, all without exception, i. e. all within a given space or number, from its very end or remotest limit. (Compare Gen. 19:4. Jer. 51: 31. Ez. 25: 9.)
12. Come ye, I will fetch wine, and we will intoxicate ourselves with strong drink, and like to-day (shall be) to-morrow, great, abundantly, exceedingly. The description of the revellers is verified by quoting their own words, as in ch. 22: 13. The language is that of one inviting others to join in a debauch; hence the alternation of the singular and plural. X3D is not merely to drink, nor even to be filled, but to be drunk. The futures might be rendered let me fetch and let us drink, without either injuring or bettering the sense.—The last clause professes or expresses a determination to prolong the revel till the morrow. The accents connect Di”1 with ^rra in the sense of dies crastinus. Another possible construction is, to make the pronoun fit agree with o-n although preceding it,—a combination less incredible in this case, because biia in the following member is supposed by some to agree with w as a noun, in which case the whole phrase would mean exceeding great abundance. Most interpreters, how ever, make w and i»a both adverbs, although both originally nouns, and construe great with day, a great day being naturally applicable to a day remarkable for any thing, as in the case before us for its revelry; just as we say in colloquial English, a high time, or a rare time, for a time of great enjoyment. CH AFTER L VII. 319
