THE righteous who died during the old economy were taken away from the evil to come, vs. 1, 2. The wicked who despised them were themselves proper objects of contempt, vs. 3, 4. Their idolatry is first described in literal terms, vs. 5, 6. It is then represented as a spiritual adultery, vs. 7—9. Their obstinate persistency in sin is represented as the cause of their hopeless and remediless destruction, vs. 10-13. A way is prepared for spiritual Israel to come out from among them, v. 14. The hopes of true believers shall not be deferred for ever, vs. 15, 16. Even these must be chastened for their sins, v. 17. But there is favour in reserve for all true penitents, without regard to national distinctions, vs. 18, 19. To the incorrigible sinner, on the other hand, peace is impossible, vs. 20, 21.
1. The righteous perisheth, and there is no man laying (it) to heart, and men of mercy are taken away, with none considering (or perceiving) that from the presence of evil the righteous is taken away. Henderson says that whether Hezekiah or Josiah be meant by the righteous, cannot be determined, nor indeed whether any particular individual be intended. This doubt may not appear so utterly insoluble when we consider that there is no further reference to either of the persons mentioned, nor any thing like an individual description in the text or context; that p^sti is used generically for a whole class elsewhere (e. g. Eccl. 3: 17. Ez. 18: 20. Ps. 37: 12); and that the parallel expression here is plural. This last consideration, it is true, would have no weight against Tertullian and Cyprian, who explain the righteous to be Christ and men of mercy his apostles; but even Vitringa speaks of this hypothesis as nulla specie probabilem, and therefore needing no refutation. The terms of this verse are specifically applicable neither to violent nor natural death as such considered, but are appropriate to either. Even Kimchi points out that the righteous is not here said to perish, either in the sense of ceasing to exist or in that of ceasing to be happy, but in that of being lost to the world and to society. Laying to heart is not merely feeling or appreciating, but observing and perceiving.— Men of mercy is another description of the righteous, so called as the objects of God’s mercy and as being merciful themselves. (See Matth. 5: 7.)— The verb V)&K is doubly appropriate, first in its general though secondary sense of taking away, and then in its primary specific sense of gathering, i. e. gathering to one’s fathers or one’s people,—an expression frequently applied in the Old Testament to death, and especially to that of godly men. (See Gen. 49: 29. Judges 2: 10.) The verb is used absolutely in this sense by Moses (Num. 20: 26).—T^a mjeans strictly in default or in the absence o/(Prov. 8: 24. 26: 20).—Most interpreters give ^ the sense of that, and understand the last clause as stating what it is that no one lays to heart or understands, viz. the fact that the righteous is taken away, etc. Some, however, translate *3for, and make the last clause a mere reiteration of the fact twice stated in the first. Upon this point Hitzig’s version and his comment are directly contradictory, the former having for (denn) and the latter saying expressly, “ ^ here means not for (denn), but that (dass); their death is observed, but not its cause.” There is also a difference of opinion as to ^BB, which some suppose to mean because of, others before (in reference to time), and others from the face or presence of. So too the evil is by some understood in a physical sense, viz. that of misery or suffer ing, by others in a moral sense, viz. that of guilt or sin. Those who adopt the latter understand the clause to mean that the death of the righteous is occasioned by the sins of the people. But why may not this be asserted of the death of the sinner likewise? On the other hypothesis, the sense is either that the righteous is destroyed by his calamities, or that he is removed before they come upon the people. To the latter it is objected by Maurer, that the subsequent context represents great prosperity as in reserve for the people. But this objection presupposes an erroneous limitation of the passage to the period of the exile.
2. He shall go in peace (or enter into peace}; they shall rest upon their beds—walking straight before him. The alternation of the singular and plural shows that the subject of the sentence is a collective person. Kimchi makes D^tfl the subject of the first and last members, and regards the intermediate one as a parenthesis: Peace shall go walking straight before him or straight forwards, i. e. shall conduct him or escort him out of this life to a place of rest. Aben Ezra refers the pronoun in inba to Jehovah, walking before him, i. e. in his presence. (Compare Judges 18:6.) But the explanation commonly approved is that of Jarchi, who makes this phrase an additional description of the righteous, as one walking in his uprightness, or, as Cocceius expresses it, straight before him (qui recta ante se incedit). It seems to be added as a kind of afterthought, to limit what immediately precedes, and preclude its application to all the dead without distinction. The peace and rest here meant are those of the body in the grave and of the soul in heaven; the former being frequently referred to as a kind of pledge and adumbration of the latter. Vitringa understands this verse as stating the alleviations which attend the lamentable loss of good men. Ewald regards it as a kind of pious wish analogous to reguicscat in pace! Gesenius supposes an antithesis between this and the next verse: ‘ The righteous is at rest (or let him rest), but as for you,’ etc. This suggestion is of value so far as it removes the appearance of abrupt transition, and shows the continuity of the discourse.
3. And ye (or as for you), draw near hither, ye sons of the witch, seed of the adulterer and the harlot. According to Jarchi, these words are addressed to the survivors of the judgments by which the righteous are described as having been removed. They are summoned, according to the same rabbin, to receive their punishment, but as Kimchi thinks, simply to appear before the judgment-seat. (Compare ch. 41: 1.) The description which follows was of course designed to be extremely opprobrious; but interpreters differ as to the precise sense of the terms employed. Gesenius supposes that instead of simply charging them with certain crimes, he brings the charge against their parents,—a species of reproach peculiarly offensive to the orientals. Hendewerk supposes this form of contumely to have been selected for the purpose of identifying those who were immediately addressed with their progenitors. In this way he ingeniously accounts for the subsequent description of idolatry, which Ewald and many others look upon as applicable only to the times of Isaiah himself. Vitringa and the older writers generally give a more specific meaning to the Prophet’s metaphors, understanding by the adulterer the idol, by the harlot the apostate church, and by the children the corrupted offspring of this shameful apostasy.— Instead of sorceress or witch, the Septuagint and Targum have iniquity. Grotius supposes that they read nsis, Rosenmiiller nVis. The Peshito seems to make it a participle of n:3 (afflicted). Jerome quotes Theodotion as retaining the original word onena, which is the common text. For the meaning of the word, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 28. The occult arts are mentioned as inseparable adjuncts of idolatry.—A grammatical difficulty is presented by the verb nstw, where the noun Mjit might have been expected. None of the modern writers seem to have assumed a noun of that form, although not without analogy. The current explanation is the one adopted by Gesenius, which supposes an ellipsis of the relative (she who committed whoredom), and a change of construction from the participle to the finite verb. Luzzatto objects that in all such cases the participle and the finite verb have one and the same subject. He accordingly agrees with Abarbenel and Gousset in explaining firm as the second person, the seed of an adulterer, and (therefore) thou hast thyself committed whore dom. Essentially the same interpretation is proposed by Piscator and Cocceius.—Whoredom and sorcery are again combined in Mai. 3: 5 and elsewhere. 21
4. At whom do you amuse yourselves? At whom do you enlarge the mouth, prolong the tongue 1 Are you not children of rebellion (or apostasy), a seed of falsehood] This retorts the impious contempt of the •apostates on themselves. There is no need, however, of supposing that they had cast these very same reproaches on the godly. The meaning is not necessarily that they were what they falsely charged their brethren with being. All that is certainly implied is, that they were unworthy to treat them with contempt. Jarchi gives b? ^srri the sense of delighting in, which it has in ch. 58: 11. Job 22: 26. 27: 10. Ps. 37: 4; but most interpreters suppose the next clause to determine that the words express derision. The opening or stretching of the mouth in mockery is mentioned Ps. 22: 8, 14. 35: 21. Lam. 2: 16, and in chap. 58: 9 below. The lolling of the tongue as a derisive gesture is referred to by Persius in poetry and Livy in prose. According to Hitzig there are not two different gestures here described but one, the mouth being opened for the purpose of exhibiting the tongue. The form of expostulation is similar to that in ch. 37: 23.— Jarchi supposes the prophets to be specially intended as the objects of this wicked mockery. (See 2 Chron. 36: 16?)—Here, as in the preceding verse, some regard seed and children as mere idiomatic pleonasms, or at most, as rhetorical embellishments. Of those who understand them strictly, some suppose the qualities of falsehood and apostasy to be predicated of the parents, others of the children. Both are probably included; they were worthy of their parentage, and diligently filled up the measure of their fathers’ iniquity. (See ch. 1: 4.) By ‘a seed of falsehood’ we may understand a spurious brood, and at the same time one itself perfidious and addicted to a false religion.
5. Inflamed (or inflaming yourselves) among the oaks (or terebinths),.under every green tree, slaughtering the children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks. Their idolatrous practices are now described in detail. The first word of this verse properly denotes libidinous excitement, and is here used with reference to the previous representation of idolatry as spiritual whoredom or adultery. The reflexive version of the Niphal strengthens the expression, but is not required by usage or the context.—&”txa is commonly translated with idols, in accordance with the ancient versions. The objections are that a is not a natural connective of the foregoing verb with its object, and that ^x is constantly employed by this writer with direct allusion to its proper sense (almighty), and in reference to false gods only where they are sarcastically placed in opposition to the true. Maurer, Ewald, and Knobel, have revived the old interpretation given by Jarchi and Kimchi, which gives n^s the sense of oaks (or terebinths), as in ch. 1: 29. The objection usually made, viz. that the next words are descriptive of the place, only shows how easily the parallelism may be made to sustain either side of any question. The interpreter has only to allege that the words in question must or must not mean the same thing with the next words, as the case may be, and his purpose is accomplished. This objection is, moreover, inconclusive, because it proves too much; for it equally applies to the consecutive expressions in the last clause, both of which are universally regarded as descriptive of localities. Hitzig renders the objection somewhat more plausible, by saying that the terebinth is necessarily included under every green tree; but if the genius of the language would admit of two consecutive expressions being perfectly synonymous, how much more of such as really involve a climax—’ among the terebinths, and not only so but under every green tree.’ Sacrificial infanticide is often mentioned in the Scriptures as a rite of heathen worship, and especially of that paid to Moloch, in which it seems to have been usual to burn the children; but we find the word slaughter frequently applied to it (see Ez. 16:21. 23: 39), either in the wide sense of slaying (Gesenius), or because the children were first slaughtered and then burnt (Hitzig), or because both modes of sacrifice were practised. Hitzig adds very coolly to his observations on this subject, “compare Gen. 22,” a reference which obviously implies much more than the opinion entertained by some older writers, that human sacrifices owed their origin to a misapprehension of the history of Isaac. The Hebrew bn: is applied both to a valley and a stream flowing through it. Jerome has here torrentibus, by which he may have meant their beds or channels, According to Vitringa, there is special reference to the great valley of Lebanon, between the chains of Libanus and Antilibanus, a region infamous for its idolatry. A much more natural interpretation is the one which supposes an allusion to the valleys round Jerusalem, in one of which, the valley of the son of Hinnom, we know that Moloch was adored with human victims. The clefts of the rocks, or cliffs projecting in consequence of excavations, is a circumstance perfectly in keeping with the topography of that spot. The minute description of idolatry given in this passage is exceedingly perplexing to those writers who fix the date of composition at the period of the exile. Hendewerk, as we have seen, intrepidly main tains that the children are here charged with the sins of their fathers; but along with this extravagant assertion he makes one concession really valuable, namely, that the efforts of Gesenius and Hitzig to reconcile the terms of the description with the state of things during the captivity are wholly abortive. A perfect solution of the difficulty is afforded by our own hypothesis, that the Prophet, from the whole field of vision spread before him, singles out the most revolting traits and images by which he could present in its true aspect the guilt and madness of apostasy from God. 324
6. Among the smooth (stones) of the valley (or the brook) is thy portion; they, they, are thy lot; also to them hast thou poured out a drinkoffering, thou hast brought up a meal-offering. Shall 1 for these things be consoled (i. e. satisfied without revenge)? Thy portion, i. e. the objects of thy choice and thy affection (Jer. 10: 16). The word stones is correctly supplied in the English Version. (See 1 Sam. 17: 40.) Others supply places, and suppose the phrase to mean open cleared spots in the midst of wooded valleys, places cleared for the performance of religious rites. In favour of this meaning, is the not unfrequent use of the Hebrew word to signify not hairy, and in figurative application to the earth, not wooded, free from trees. According to this interpretation, which is that of Paulus, De. Wette, Hitzig, Ruckert, and Umbreit, the first clause merely describes the place where the idols were worshipped. According to the other, which is given in the Targum, and approved by Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Grotius, Clericus, Lowth, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Knobel, it is a description of the idols themselves. Smooth stones may mean either polished or anointed stones, such as were set up by the patriarchs as memorials (Gen. 28: 18. 35: 12), and by the heathen as objects of worship. Thus Arnobius says, that before his conversion to Christianity he never saw an oiled stone (lubricatum lapidem et ex olivi unguine sordidatum) without addressing it and praying to it. This explanation of the first clause agrees best with what follows and with the emphatic repetition, they, they, are thy portion, which is more natural in reference to the objects than to the mere place of worship. Most writers rmd here a play upon the double sense of p^n (smooth and portion): but Ewald gives to both the sense of stone (an des Thales Steinchen ist dein Stein), and makes them the plural of pin a synonyme of pV| (1 Sam. 17: 40). Beck, on the other hand, makes both mean part or portion. Libations and vegetable offerings are here put for offerings in general, as being the simplest kinds of sacrifice. There seems to be another lusus verborum in the use of the word tnax, which may either mean to remain satisfied without vengeance, or to satisfy one’s self by taking it. (See ch. 1: 24.)
7. On a high and elevated mountain thou hast placed thy bed; also there (or even thither) hast thou gone up to offer sacrifice. The figure of adulterous attachment is resumed. (Compare Ez. 16: 24. 25: 31.) That the mountain is not used as a mere figure for an elevated spot is clear from the obvious antithesis between it and the valleys before mentioned. Still less ground is there for supposing any reference to the worship of mountains themselves. By the bed here, Spencer understands the couch on which the ancients reclined at their sacrificial feasts. All other writers seem to give it 325 the same sense as in Prov. 7:17 and Ezek. 23: 17. In the last clause the figure is resolved and making the bed explained to mean offering- sacrifice. Knobel supposes a particular allusion to the labour of ascending mountains as a proof of self-denying zeal in the worshipper.
8. And behind the door and the door-post thou hast placed thy memorial, for away from me thou hast ‘uncovered (thyself or thy bed), and hast gone up, thou hast enlarged thy bed and hast covenanted from them, thou hast loved their bed, thou hast provided room. Interpreters are much divided as to the particular expressions of this very obscure verse, although agreed in understanding it as a description of the grossest idolatry. Gesenius and Maurer explain “p-ct as meaning memory, by which the former understands posthumous fame or notoriety, the latter something cherished or remembered with affection, meaning here the idol as a beloved object. The same sense is obtained in another way by those who make the word mean a memorial, or that which brings to mind an absent object. In this sense the image of a false god may be reckoned its memorial. Grotius and Hitzig suppose an allusion to Deut. 6; 9, the former supposing that the idolaters are here described as doing just the opposite of what is there required, the latter that the Prophet represents them as putting the required memorial of Jehovah’s sole divinity out of sight, by going to an inner apartment. A still more natural application of the same sense would be to suppose that they are here described as thrusting the memorial of Jehovah into a corner to make room for that of the beloved idol. Some suppose a special reference to the worship of Penates, Lares, or household gods. The rest of the verse describes idolatry as adulterous intercourse. fina iron has been variously explained to mean, thou hast covenanted with them—thou hast bargained for a reward from them—thou hast made a covenant with some of them. The masculine form rrcn is used for the feminine as in ch. 15:5. Hitzig supposes this to have been usual for Vav conversive. (Compare Ewald’s H. G. p. 643. S. G. $ 234.) The most probable interpretation of the last words in the verse is that which gives to *n the same sense as in ch. 56: 5. This is strongly favoured by the parallel expression -psra nsrrn. Others understand it to mean, wherever thou hast seen (their) memorial or monument; others, wherever thou seest a hand (beckoning or inviting thee). The sense gratuitously put upon the phrase by Doderlein, and the praises given him for the discovery, are characteristic of neological aesthetics.
9. And thou hast gone to the Icing in oil and hast multiplied thine unguents, and hast sent thine ambassadors even to a far-off (land), and hast gone (or sent) down even to hell. The first verb has been variously explained as meaning to see, to look around, to appear, to be adorned, to sing, to carry gifts, which last is founded on the analogy of the noun rnrrin a gift or present (1 Sam. 9: 7). Gesenius derives the noun from this verb in the sense of going with or carrying, and the modern writers generally acquiesce in this interpretation founded on an Arabic analogy. By the ‘king some understand the king of Babylon or Egypt, and refer the clause to the eagerness with which the Prophet’s contemporaries sought out foreign alliances. Most writers understand it as a name for idols generally, or for Moloch in particular. V^.? is commonly explained to mean with oil or ointment (as a gift); but Hitzig understands it to mean in oil, i. e. anointed, beautified, adorned. Upon the explanation of this phrase of course depends that of the next, where the unguents are said to be multiplied, either in the way of gifts to others or as means of self-adornment. Gesenius and the later writers make •’VsuJn qualify ^n^qn understood as a kind of auxiliary. thou hast sent down deep to hell, i. e. to the lower world, as opposed to heaven, of which Moloch was esteemed the king. (See the same construction of the verb in Jer. 13: 18.) It is much more natural, however, to give it an independent meaning as expressive of extreme indignation and abhorrence. There is no need of ascribing a reflexive meaning to the Hiphil, as the same end may be gained by supplying way or some other noun denoting conduct. Maurer wonders that any interpreter should fail to see that the simplest explanation of this clause is that which makes it signify extreme remoteness. But nothing could in fact be more unusual or unnatural than the expression of this idea by the phrase, humbling even to Sheol.
10. In the greatness of thy way (or the abundance of thy travel) thou hast laboured; (but) thou hast not said, There is no hope. Thou hast found the life of thy hand; therefore thou art not weak. Whether way be understood as a figure for the whole course of life, or as involving a specific allusion to the journeys mentioned in v. 9, the general sense is still the same, viz. that no exertion in the service of her false ^ods could weary or discourage her. This is so obviously the meaning of the whole, that the common version of ns^ (thou art wearied) seems to be precluded, the rather as the verb may be used to denote the cause as well as the effect, i. e. exertion no less than fatigue. Lowth reverses the declaration of the text by omitting the negative (thou hast said) on the authority of a single manuscript, in which the text, as Kocher well observes, was no doubt conjecturally changed in order to conform it to Jer. 2: 25. 18: 12. In both these places the verb ttSsos is employed as it. is here impersonally, dcsperatum est, a form of speech to which we have no exact equivalent in English.— Saadias and Koppe give m the sense of animal or beast, in reference to idols of that form. All other writers seem agreed that the essential idea which the whole phrase conveys is that of strength. Some accordingly attach this specific sense to n*n, others to “n; but it rather belongs to the two in combination. In translation this essential sense may be conveyed under several different forms: Thou hast found thy hand still alive, or still able to sustain life, etc. nbn does not merely mean to be sick or to be grieved, but to be weak or weakened, as in Judg. 16: 7. 11: 17.—Accord ing to Luzzatto, way means specifically wicked way, as in Prov. 31:3.
11. And whom hast thou feared and been afraid of, that thou shouldest He 1 and me thou hast not remembered, thou hast not called to mind (or laid to heart). Is it not (because) 1 hold my peace, and that of old, that thou wilt not fear met De Dieu, Cocceius, and Vitringa, under stand this as ironical, and as meaning that the fear which they affected as a ground for their forsaking God had no foundation. Gesenius and others understand it as a serious and consolatory declaration that they had no cause to fear. Hitzig supposes an allusion to the mixture of idolatrous worship with the forms of the true religion in the exile. With the exception of the last gratuitous restriction, this agrees well with the form of expression, and may be applied to all hypocritical professors of the truth. They have no real fear of God; why then should they affect to serve him? His forbearance only served to harden and embolden them. ‘ Have I not long kept silence? It cannot be that you fear me.’ There is no need, there fore, of making the last clause interrogative, as Ewald does, wilt thou not fear me? Still more gratuitous and violent is De Wette’s construction. ’ thou needest not have feared me.’ This is certainly no better than Luther’s interrogative construction of the last clause, c do you think that I will always hold my peace?’ Luzzatto renders ^-tan *•$ that thou mightcst fail, and refers to ch. 58: 11. But waters are there said to deceive the expectation by their failure, an expression which is utterly inapplicable to the failure of the strength. Instead of =V’”^ Lowth reads n^s-csi and hide (my eyes). with the noun omitted as in Ps. 10: I. Henderson also thinks the common reading justly suspected, because the Complutensian and other editions, with a number of manuscripts, read cb”^. But this is merely the defective orthography of the common text, and precisely the kind of variation which most frequently occurs in Hebrew manuscripts. Kocher, moreover, has shown to the satisfaction of most later writers, that the i before cbira is equivalent to et quidem in Latin or and that too in English.—The use of nan is the same as in ch. 64: 11. 65: 6.—The imao-e is identical with T T O that presented in ch. 42: 14. Knobel contrives to limit the passage to the Babylonish exile, by explaining this verse as a declaration that the Jews had no need of the Babylonian idols to protect them, and alleging that a portion of the captives had renounced the worship of Jehovah because they thought his power insufficient to deliver them. In the same taste and spirit he explains D^l’sa to mean since the beginning of the exile.—Compare with this verse ch. 40: 27 and 51: 12, 13.
12. I will declare thy righteousness and thy works, and they shall not profit (or avail) thee. Lowth reads my righteousness, on the authority of the Peshito and a few manuscripts. Hendewerk understands V?£1^ to mean thy desert, thy righteous doom: Ewald, thy justification; Umbreit, thy righteousness, which I will give thee notwithstanding thy unworthiness. Gesenius and Knobel still adhere to their imaginary sense of happiness, salvation, which is not only arbitrary in itself but incoherent with the next clause, which they are obliged to understand as meaning, as for thy own works they can profit thee nothing. Knobel, however, follows Hitzig in making thy ivories mean thy idols, elsewhere called the work of men’s fingers. De Dieu makes the last clause an answer to the first. Shall I declare thy righteousness and works? They will profit thee nothing. But this, in the absence of the form of interrogation, is entirely arbitrary. The earlier writers who retain the sense of nj^st for the most part follow Jerome and Zwingle in making the first clause ironical. But this is unnecessary, as the simplest and most obvious construction is in all respects the most satisfactory. I will declare thy righteousness, i. e. I will show clearly whether thou art righteous, and in order to do this I must declare thy works; and if this is done, they cannot profit thee, because instead of justifying they will condemn thee. There is no need, therefore, of supposing 1 at the beginning of the last clause to mean which, for, that, or any thing but and. One of the latest writers on the passage, Thenius, agrees with one of the oldest, Jarchi, in explaining the first clause to mean, I will show how you may be or ought to be righteous; but this is sufficiently refuted by a simple statement of the true sense, which has been already given.
13. In thy crying (i. e. when thou criest for help), let thy gatherings save thee! And (yet) all of them the wind shall take up and a breath shall take, away, and the (one) trusting in me shall inherit the land and possess my holy mountain. This is merely a strong contrast between the impotence of idols and the power of Jehovah to protect their followers respectively. Hitzig, without a change of sense, makes Tj^ss^ an ironical exclamation, they shall save thee! This is much better than De Wette’s interrogative construction, will they save thee which is altogether arbitrary. Most of the modern writers follow Jarchi in explaining T^Sf) to mean thy gatherings of gods, thy whole pantheon, as Gesenius expresses it, so called, as Maurer thinks, because collected from all nations. (Compare Jer. 2: 28.) Knobel denies that there was any such collection, or that gods could be CH AFTER L VII. 3.39
described as blown away, and therefore goes back to Vitringa’s explanation of the word as meaning armies, i. e. as he thinks those of Babylon, in which the idolatrous Jews trusted to deliver them from Cyrus, and which might therefore be correctly called their gatherings! It may be questioned whether any of these explanations is entitled to the preference above that of Aben Ezra, who appears to understand the word generically, as denoting all that they could scrape together for their own security, including idols, armies, and all other objects of reliance. This exposition is the more entitled to regard, because the limitation of the passage to the exile is entirely gratuitous, and it is evidently levelled against all unbelieving dependence upon any thing but God.—In the consecution of bsrj and rni there is a climax: even a wind is not required for the purpose; a mere breath would be sufficient. This fine stroke is effaced by J. D. Michaelis’s interpretation of the second word as meaning vapour, and the whole clause as descriptive of evaporation. The promise of the last clause is identical with that in ch. 49: 8. 60: 21. 65: 9. Ps. 37: 11. 69: 37, 33. Matt. 5: 5. Rev. 5: 10.—Those who restrict the passage to the Babylonish exile must of course explain the promise as relating merely to the restoration; but the context and the usage of the Scriptures is in favour of a wider explanation, in which the possession of the land is an appointed symbol of the highest blessings which are in reserve for true believers here and hereafter.
14. And he shall say, Cast up, cast up, dear the way, take up the stumbling-block from the way of my people! Lowth and J. D. Michaelis read -IBsi (then will 1 say), the correctness of which change Lowth alleges to be plain from the pronoun my in the last clause, a demonstration which appears to have had small effect upon succeeding writers.—Gesenius and Ewald make -iax impersonal, they say, one says, or it is said. Vitringa in like manner long before had paraphrased it thus, exit vox; and Aben Ezra earlier still had proposed substantially the same thing, by supplying sni>n as the subject of las. Maurer agrees with the English Version in connecting this verb with the foregoing sentence and making it agree with ftbinri the one trusting. The sense will then be that the man whose faith is thus rewarded will express his joy when he beholds the promise verified. Hitzig thinks it equally evident, however, that Jehovah is the speaker; and Umbreit further recommends this hypothesis by ingeniously combining it with what is said of the divine forbearance in v. 11. He who had long been silent speaks at last, and that to announce the restoration of his people. The image here presented, and the form of the expression, are the same as in ch. 35: 8. 40: 3. 49: 11. 6-2: 10. Knobel is not ashamed to make the verse mean that the way of the returning captives home from Babylon shall be convenient and agreeable. There is certainly not much to choose, in 330 0 H A P T E R L V 1 I. point of taste and exegetical discretion between this hypothesis and that of Vitringa, who labours to find references to the reformation and the subsequent efforts made by ministers and magistrates to take away all scandals both of doctrine and discipline, with special allusion, as he seems to think, to the hundred grievances presented to Pope Adrian by the German princes in 1523. Such interpreters have no right to despise each other; for the only error with which either can be charged is that of fixing upon one specific instance of the thing foretold and making that the whole theme and the sole theme of a prophecy, which in design as well as fact is perfectly unlimited to any one event or period, yet perfectly defined as a description of God’s mode of dealing with his church and with those who although in it are not of it.
15. For thus saith the High and Exalted One, inhabiting eternity, and Holy is his name: On high and holy will I dwell, and with the broken and humble of spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the broken (or contrite ones). This verse assigns a reason why the foregoing promise might be trusted, notwithstanding the infinite disparity between the giver and the objects of his favour. Notwithstanding the intimate connexion of the verses, there is no need of referring thus saith to what goes before, as if he had said, these assurances are uttered by the High and Exalted One. Analogy and usage necessarily connect them with what follows, the relation of the verse to that before it being clearly indicated by the for at the beginning. You need not hesitate to trust the promise which is involved in this command, for the High and Holy One has made the following solemn declaration.—The only reason for translating xtea exalted rather than lofty, is that the former retains the participial form of the original. The same two epithets are joined in ch. 6:1, which is regarded by the modern critics as the oldest extant composition of the genuine Isaiah. J. D. Michaelis disregards the masoretic accents, and explains the next words as meaning that his name is the inhabitant of eternity and the sanctuary, which last he regards as a hendiadys for the everlasting sanctuary i. e. heaven as distinguished from material and temporary structures. Luzzatto gives the same construction of the clause, but supposes the noun 1? (like the cognate preposition) to be applicable to space as well as time, and in this case to denote infinite height, which sense he likewise attaches to cbi:? when predicated of the hills etc. All other modern writers follow the accentuation, making holy the predicate arid name the subject of a distinct proposition. On this hypothesis, ^V”^ may either be an adjective qualify ing cuj, his name is holij, i. e. divine or infinitely above every other name; or it may be absolutely used and qualify Jehovah understood, his name is Holy or the Holy One. The ambiguity in English is exactly copied from the Hebrew.—As m’-ia is not an adjective but a substantive denoting a high place, the following tiinj? must either be referred to cipa understood or con strued with D-ha itself, a height, and that a holy one, will I inhabit.—Ewald takes PXI at the beginning of the last clause as a sign of the nominative absolute, and the infinitives as expressive of necessity or obligation: And as for the broken and contrite of spirit, (it is necessary) to revive etc. Henderson and Knobel regard rx as the objective particle showing what follows to be governed directly by the verb Tistfx: ‘ I inhabit (or dwell in) the broken and humble of spirit.’ This would be more natural if the other objects of the same verb were preceded by the particle; but as this is not the case, the most satisfactory construction is the common one, which takes rx as a preposition meaning with.—The future meaning given to yisaix by Lowth is strictly accurate and more expressive than the present, as it intimates that notwithstanding God’s condescension he will still maintain his dignity. The idea of habitual or perpetual residence is still implied.—The reviving of the spirit and the heart is a common Hebrew phrase for consolation and encouragement.—Hitzig denies that contrition and humility are here propounded as conditions or prerequisites, and understands the clause as a description of the actual distress and degradation of the exiles.—Vitrino-a finds here a specific reference to the early sufferers in the cause of reformation, such as the Waldenses and Bohemian Brethren.—Compare with this verse ch. 33: 5. 63: 15. 66: 1,2. Ps. 22: 4. 113: 5, 6. 138:6.
16. For not to eternity will I contend, and not to perpetuity will I be wroth; for the spirit from before me will faint, and the souls (which) I have made. A reason for exercising mercy is here drawn from the frailty of the creature. (Compare ch. 42: 3. Ps. 78: 38, 39. 103:9,14.) Suffering being always represented in Scripture as the consequence of sin, its infliction is often metaphorically spoken of as a divine quarrel or controversy with the sufferer. (See above, ch. 27: 8, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 464.)—The verb?p25£ has been very variously explained, as meaning to go forth (Septuagint and Vulgate), return (De Dieu), have mercy (Cappellus), etc.; but the only sense sustained by etymology and usage is that of covering. The Targum seems to make the clause descriptive of a resurrection similar to that in Ezekiel’s vision, the life-giving Spirit covering the bones with flesh and breathing into the nostrils the breath of life. Cocceius understands it of the Spirit by his influences covering; the earth as the waters cover the sea (ch. 11: 9). Clericus makes it descriptive of the origin of man, in which the spirit covers or clothes itself with matter. The modern writers are agreed in making it intransitive and elliptical, the full expression being that of covering with darkness, metaphorically applied to extreme depression, faintness, and stupor. Maurer translates it even here, caligine obvolvitur. The figurative use is clear from the analogy of Ps. 61: 3. 102: 1, compared with that of the reflexive form in Ps. 107: 5. 143: 4. Jon. 2: 8. Rosenmiiller follows Jarchi in giving *3 the sense of when, and takes the last clause as a promise: when the spirit from before me faints, I grant a breathing time (respirationes concede). The credit of this last interpretation is perhaps due to Grotius, who translates the clause, et ventulum faciam. But Frattja is evidently used as an equivalent to ttSsa in Prov. 20: 27, and is here the parallel expression to run. Lowth’s translation living souls multiplies words without expressing the exact sense of the Hebrew, which is breaths. The ellipsis of the relative is the one so often mentioned hereto fore as common both in Hebrew and English. From before me is connected by the accents with the verb to faint, and indicates God’s presence as the cause of the depression. A more perfect parallelism would, however, be obtained by understanding from before me as referring to the origin of human life and as corresponding to the words which I have made in the other mem ber. Umbreit’s explanation of the verse, as meaning that God cannot be for ever at enmity with any of his creatures, is as old as Kimchi, but without foundation in the text and inconsistent with the uniform teaching of the Scriptures.
17. For his covetous iniquity I am wroth and will smite him, (I will) hide me and will be wroth; for he has gone on turning away (i. e. persevering in apostasy) in the way of his heart (or of his own inclination). The futures in the first clause show that both the punishment and mercy are still future. The interpreters have generally overlooked the fact that the i before these futures is not Vav conversive, and there is nothing in the text or context to require or justify either an arbitrary change of pointing or an arbitrary disregard of the difference between the tenses.—The first phrase in the verse (teaa “p?) was ^een veI7 variously understood. Lowth says the usual meaning of the second noun would here be “quite beside the pur pose,” and accordingly omits the suffix and takes 222 as an adverb meaning for a short time; of which it can only be said that the criticism and lexicography are worthy of each other. Koppe adopts another desperate expedient by calling in the Arabic analogy to prove that the true sense of ssa is scortatio. J. D. Michaelis and Henderson make one noun simply qualify the other and explain the whole as meaning his accumulated guilt or his exor bitant iniquity. Vitringa and Gesenius suppose covetousness to be here used in a wide sense for all selfish desires or undue attachment to the things of time and sense, a usage which they think may be distinctly traced both in the Old and New Testament. (See Ps. 119: 36. Ez. 33: 31. 1 Tim. 6: 10. Eph. 5: 5.) Perhaps the safest and most satisfactory hypothesis is that of Maurer, who adheres to the strict sense of the word, but supposes covetousness to be here considered as a temptation and incentive to other forms of sin.—The singular pronouns his and him refer to the collective noun people, or rather to Israel as an ideal person.—^Ort is an adverbial, rendered equivalent in this case by its collocation to the futures which precede and follow. In the last clause the writer suddenly reverts from the future to the past, in order to assign the cause of the infliction threatened in the first. This connexion can be rendered clear in English only by the use of the word for, although the literal translation would be and he went. Jarchi’s assumption of a transposition is entirely unnecessary. Hendewerk’s translation, but he went on, rests upon the false assumption that the first clause is historical. Luther seems to understand the last clause as describing the effect of the divine stroke (da gingen sie hin und her). With the closing words of this clause compare ch. 42: 24. 53: 6. 56: 11. 65: 12. —The best refutation of Vitringa’s notion, that this verse has special reference to the period from the death of Charles the Bald to the beginning of the Reformation, is suggested by his own apology for not going into the details of the fulfilment: “ Narrandi nullus hie finis est si inceperis.”
18. His ways I have seen, and I will heal him, and will guide him, and restore, comforts unto him and to his mourners. The healing here meant is forgiveness and conversion, as correctly explained by Kimchi, with a reference to ch. 6:10 and Ps. 41:5. This obvious meaning of the figure creates a difficulty in explaining the foregoing words so as to make the connexion appear natural. Gesenius supposes an antithesis, and makes the particle adversative. ‘I have seen his (evil) ways, but I will (never theless) heal him.’ There is then a promise of gratuitous forgiveness similar to that in ch. 43: 25 and 48: 9. The Targum puts a favourable sense on ways, as meaning his repentance and conversion. So Jarchi, I have seen his humiliation; and Ewald, I have seen his patient endurance of trial. Hitzig strangely understands the words to mean that God saw punishment to be without effect and therefore pardoned him, and cites in illustration Gen. 8: 21, where the incorrigible wickedness of men is assigned as a reason for not again destroying them. But even if this sense were correct and natural considered in itself, it could hardly be extracted from the words here used.—Knobel supposes ways to mean neither good nor evil works but sufferings, the length of which, without regard to guilt or innocence, induced Jehovah to deliver them.—/ will guide him is supposed by Hitzig to mean I will guide him as a shepherd guides his flock through the wilderness. (See ch. 48: 21. 49: 10.) But as this does not agree with the mention of con- I O solation and of mourners in the other clause, it is better to rest in the general sense of gracious and providential guidance. (Compare Ps. 73:24.) Clericus renders it fed quiescere, in reference to the rest of the exiles in their own land. This interpretation, which is mentioned although not approved by Jarchi, supposes an arbitrary change at least of vowels so as to derive the word from n^.—The promise to restore consolation implies not only that it had been once enjoyed but also that it should compensate for the intervening sorrows, as the Hebrew word means properly to make good or indemnify.— The addition of the words and to his mourners has led to a dispute among interpreters, whether the writer had in mind two distinct classes of sufferers or only one. Cocceius adopts the former supposition and assumes a dis tinction in the church itself. Others understand by his mourners those who mourned for him, and Henderson applies it specifically to the heathen proselytes who sympathized with Israel in exile. Hitzig and Knobel understand the i as meaning and especially, because those who suffered most were most in need of consolation. Perhaps it would be still more satisfactory to make these words explanatory of the ^, to him i. e. to his mourners. Whether these were but a part or coextensive with the whole, the form of expression then leaves undecided. Luzzatto gets rid of the difficulty by connecting these words with the next verse, ‘ and for his mourners I create’ etc. Koppe throws not only this verse and the next but the one following all into one sentence, making this the expression of a wish and the next a continuation of it. ‘ I saw his ways and would have healed him, guided him, consoled him and his mourners, creating etc.—but the wicked are like the troubled sea,’ etc. This is ingenious, but too artificial and refined to be good Hebrew. Vitringa sees a special connexion between this, verse and the supplication of the Austrian nobles to the Emperor Ferdinand in 1541.
19. Creating the fruit of the lips, Peace, peace to the far off and to the near, saith Jehovah, and I heal him. Luzzatto adds to this verse the concluding words of v. 18, ‘and for his mourners I create’ etc. This, besides the arbitrary change in the traditional arrangement of the text, requires the participle ante to be taken as an independent verb, which although a possible construction, is not to be assumed without necessity. The usual construction connects an’ia with Jehovah as the subject of the foregoing verse.—The fruit or product of the lips is speech, and creating as usual implies almighty power and a new effect. Rosenmuller understands the clause to mean that nothing shall be uttered but the following proclamation, ’ Peace, peace’ etc. Gesenius understands by the fruit of the lips praise or thanksgiving, as in Heb. 13: 15 and Hos. 14: 3. Hitzig supposes it to mean the promise which Jehovah had given and would certainly fulfil.—By the far and near Henderson understands the Jews and Gentiles. (Compare Acts 10: 36. Eph. 2: 17.) Jarchi and Knobel explain it to mean all the Jews wherever scattered (ch. 43: 5-7. 49: 12). The Targum makes the distinction an internal one, — the just who have kept the law, and sinners who have returned to it by sincere repentance. Kimchi in like manner understands the words as abolishing all difference between the earlier and later converts, an idea similar to that embodied in our Saviour’s parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Hitzig directs attention to the way in which the writer here comes back to the beginning of v. 18, as an observable rhetorical beauty. — The present form is used above in the translation of the last verb, because it is doubtful whether the Vav has a conversive influence when separated so far from the futures of the foregoing verse.
20. And the wicked (are) like (he troubled sea, for rest it cannot, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. Koppe’s unnatural construction of this verse as the apodosis of a sentence beginning in v. 18 has already been refuted. Interpreters are commonly agreed in making it a necessary limitation of the foregoing promise to its proper objects. Hitzig regards it as a mere introduction to the next verse. There is a force in the original which cannot be retained in a translation, arising from the etymological affinity between the words translated wicked, troubled, and cast up. Among the various epithets applied to sinners, the one here used is that which originally signifies their turbulence or restlessness. (See Hengstenberg on Ps. 2:1.) Henderson’s strange version of the first clause (as for the °wicked*they are each tossed about like the sea which cannot rest) seems to be founded upon some mistaken view of the construction, and is certainly not worth purchas ing by a violation of the accents.— Hendewerk’s version of the clause is peculiar only in the use of the indefinite expression a sea. Gesenius in his Lexicon makes this one of the cases in which “3 retains its original meaning as a relative pronoun, like the troubled sea which cannot rest. The English Version and some others take it as a particle of time (when it cannot rest). All the latest German writers follow Lowth in giving it its usual sense of for, because. The only objection to this version, that it appears to make the sea itself the subject of comparison, Knobel ingeniously removes by adding < any more than you can.’ The future form ^ implies that such will be the case hereafter as it has been heretofore, which is sufficiently expressed by the reference to futurity in our verb can. The Vav conversive prefixed to the last verb merely shows its dependence on the one before it, as an effect upon its cause, or a consequent upon its antecedent. Its waters cannot rest, and (so or therefore) they cast up mire and mud. Lowth’s version of this last clause is more than usually plain and vigorous: its waters work up mire and filth. The verb means strictly to expel or drive out, and is therefore happily descriptive of the natural process here referred to. There seems to be allusion to this verse in the y.vpaTa ayQia &ala.vatjg of Jude v. 13. Most of the later writers have repeated the fine parallel which Clericus quotes from Ovid:
Cumque sit hibemis agitatum fluctibus aequor, Pectora sunt ipso turbidiora mari.
21. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Gesenius has for the wicked, i. e. in reserve for them. Ewald follows Luther in exchangintf the oriental for an occidental idiom, the wicked have no peace, which although perfectly correct in sense, is an enfeebling deviation from the Hebrew collocation and construction. That peace is here to be taken in its strict sense, and not in that of welfare or prosperity, is clear from the comparison in the preceding verse. Twenty-two manuscripts assimilate this verse to ch. 48: 22 by reading fvj’Ti for TJ^H • The Alexandrian text of the Septuagint combines both readings, xvQiog o #foV. So too Jerome has Dominus Deus, which Grotius thinks ought to be read Dominus meus, not observing that the form of expression would still be different from that of the original. It is somewhat surprising that the “ higher criticism “ has not detected in this repetition a marginal gloss or the assimilating hand of some redactor. But even Hitzig zealously contends, without an adversary, that the verse is genuine both here and in ch. 48: 22, and that its studied repetition proves the unity and chronological arrangement of the whole book. The only wonder is that in a hundred cases more or less analogous the same kind of reasoning is rejected as beneath refutation. This verse, according to the theory of Riickert, Hitzig, and Havernick, closes the second great division of the Later Prophecies. For the true sense of the words themselves, see above, on ch. 48: 22.
