THE rejection of Israel as a nation is the just reward of their unfaithful ness, v. 1. Their religious services are hypocritical, v. 2. Their mortifications and austerities are nullified by accompanying wickedness, vs. 3—5. They should have been connected with the opposite virtues, vs. 6—7. In that case they would have continued to enjoy the divine favour, vs. 8—9. They are still invited to make trial of this course, with an ample promise of prosperity and blessing to encourage them, vs. 10-14.
1. Cry with the throat, spare not, like the trumpet raise thy voice, and tell to my people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins. Although this may be conveniently assigned as the beginning of the third part, according to the theory propounded in the Introduction, it is really, as Knobel well observes, a direct continuation of the previous dis course. Ewald’s suggestion that the latter may have produced some effect upon the people before this was uttered, rests on a supposition which has probably no foundation in fact. The utmost that can be conceded is that the Prophet, after a brief pause, recommences his discourse precisely at the point where he suspended it.—The object of address is the Prophet himself, as expressed in the Targum, and by Saadias (he said to me). That he is here viewed as the representative of prophets or ministers in general, is not a natural or necessary inference. Crying with the throat or from the lungs is here opposed to a simple motion of the lips and tongue. (See 1 Sam. 1: 13.) The common version (cry aloud) is therefore substantially correct, though somewhat vague. The Septuagint in like manner paraphrases it lv iGyv’i. The Vulgate omits it altogether. J. D. Michaelis reads, as loud as thou canst. The positive command is enforced by the negative one, spare not, as in ch. 54: 2. The comparison with a trumpet is of frequent occurrence in the Book of Revelations. (See e. g. 1: 10. 4:1.) The loudness of the call is intended to suggest the importance of the subject, and perhaps the insensibility of those to be convinced. The Prophet here seems to turn away from avowed apostates to hypocritical professors of the truth. The restriction of the verse to Isaiah’s contemporaries by the rabbins, Grotius, and Piscator—and to the Jews of the Babylonish exile by Sanctius and the modern writers—is as perfectly gratuitous as its restriction by Eusebius and Jerome to the Pharisees of Christ’s time, and by Vitringa to the Protestant churches at the decline of the Reformation. The points of similarity with all or any of these periods arise from its being a description of what often has occurred and will occur again. It was important that a phase of human history so real and import ant should form a part of this prophetic picture, and accordingly it has not been forgotten.
2. And me day (by) day they will seek, and the knowledge of my ways they will delight in (or desire), like a nation which has done right and the judgment of its God has not forsaken; they will ask of me righteous judgments, the approach to God (or of God) they will delight in (or desire). The older writers understand this as a description of hypocrisy,, as practised in a formal seeking (i. e. worshipping) of God and a professed desire to know his ways (i. e. the doctrines and duties of the true religion), the external appearance of a just and godly people, who delight in nothing 22 more than in drawing near to God (i. e. in worship and communion with him). Cocceius and Vitringa, while they differ on some minor questions, e. g. whether seeking denotes consultation or worship, or includes them both, agree as to the main points of the exposition which has just been given. But Gesenius and all the later German writers put a very different sense upon the passage. They apply it not to hypocritical formality, but to a discontented and incredulous impatience of delay in the fulfilment of God’s promises. According to this view of the matter, seeking God daily, means importunate solicitation: delight in the knowledge of his ways, is eager curiosity to know his providential plans and purposes; the judgments of righteousness which they demand are either saving judgments for themselves or destroying judgments for their enemies; the approach which they desire is not their own approach to God, but his approach to them for their deliverance; and the words like a nation etc. are descriptive not of a simulated piety, but of a self-righteous belief that by their outward services they had acquired a meritorious claim to the divine interposition in their favour. It is somewhat remarkable that a sentence of such length should without violence admit of two interpretations so entirely different, and the wonder is enhanced by the fact that both the senses may be reconciled with the ensuing context. The only arguments which seem to be decisive in favour of the first, are its superior simplicity and the greater readiness with which it is suggested to most readers by the language of the text itself, together with the fact that it precludes the necessity of limiting the words to the Babylonish exile, for which limitation there is no ground either in the text or context. The objection to the modern explanation, founded on the sense which it attaches to the verb yen, is met by the analogous use of the verb love in Ps. 40: 17. 70: 5. 2 Tim. 4: 8.—Luther understands the last clause as accusing them of wishing to contend with God, and venturing to charge him with injustice.
3. Why have we fasted and thou hast not seen (it), afflicted our soul (or ourselves) and thou wilt not know (it) ] Behold, in the day of your fast ye will find pleasure, and all your labours ye will exact. The two interpretations which have been propounded of the foregoing verse agree in making this a particular exemplification of the people’s self-righteous confidence in the meritorious efficacy of their outward services. The first clause contains their complaint, and the last the prophet’s answer. This relation of the clauses Saadias points out by prefixing to one the words “ they say,” and to the other “ Prophet, answer them.” Cocceius and Vitringa suppose fasting to be here used in a wide sense for the whole routine of ceremonial services. The same end is attained by adhering to the strict sense, but supposing what is said of this one instance to be applicable to the others. The structure of the first clause is like that in ch. 5: 4. 50: 2. In our idiom the idea would be naturally thus expressed, Why dost thou not see when we fast, or recognise our merit when we mortify ourselves before thee? The word aiss here may either mean the appetite, or the soul as distinguished from the body, or it may supply the place of the reflexive pronoun self, which is entitled to the preference, because the con text shows that their mortifications were not of a spiritual but of a corporeal nature. The combination of the preterite (hast not seen) and the future (wilt not know) includes all time. The clause describes Jehovah as indifferent and inattentive to their laboured austerities. The reason given is analogous to that for the rejection of their sacrifices in ch. 1: 11—13, viz. the combination of their formal service with unhallowed practice. The precise nature of the alleged abuse depends upon the sense of the word Y^n. Gesenius and most later writers understand it to mean business, as in ch. 44: 28. 53: 10, and explain the whole clause as a declaration that on days set apart for fasting they were accustomed to pursue their usual employments, or as Henderson expresses it, to “ attend to business.” But this explanation of the word, as we have seen before, is perfectly gratuitous. If we take it in its usual and proper sense, the meaning of the clause is that they made their pretended self-denial a means or an occasion of sinful gratification. J. D. Michaelis supposes the specific plea sure meant to be that afforded by the admiration of their superior goodness by the people. But this is a needless limitation of the language, which may naturally be applied to all kinds of enjoyment inconsistent with the morti fying humiliation which is inseparable from right fasting.—The remaining member of the sentence has been still more variously explained. Accord ing to the Septuagint and Vulgate, it charges them with specially oppressing their dependents (yno-^Qiovg and subjectos) at such times. Luther agrees with Symmachus in supposing a particular allusion to the treatment of debtors. Gesenius in his Commentary, Umbreit, and De Wette, prefer the specific sense of labourers or workmen forced to toil on fast-days as at other times, Maurer, Hitzig, and Gesenius in his Thesaurus, coincide with the English Version in the sense, ye exact all your labours, i. e. all the labour due to you from your dependents. As these substitute labours for labourers so the Rabbins debts for debtors. Aben Ezra uses the expression mammon, which may mean your gains or profits; but s:is>, as Maurer well observes, does not signify emolument in general, but hard-earned wages, as appears both from etymology and usage. (See Prov. 5: 10. 10: 22. Ps. 127: 2.) J. D. Michaelis ingeniously explains the clause as meaning that they demanded of God himself a reward for their meritorious services.—On the stated fasts of the Old Testament, see Jer. 36: 9. Zech. 7: 3. 8: 19.— According to Luzzatto, fiis originally signifies- the convocation of the people for prayer and preaching; so that when Jezebel required a fast to be pro claimed, Naboth was set on high among the people, i. e. preached against idolatry, on which pretext he was afterwards accused of having blasphemed God and the king. (1 Kings 21: 9-13.)
4. Behold, for strife and contention ye will fast, and to smite with the fist of wickedness; ye shall not (or ye will not) fast to-day (so as) to make your voice heard on high. Some understand this as a further reason why their fasts were not acceptable to God; others suppose the same to be continued, and refer what is here said to the maltreatment of the labourers or debtors mentioned in the verse preceding. Gesenius understands the b in the first clause as expressive merely of an accompanying circumstance, ye fast with strife and quarrel. But Maurer and the later writers, more consistently with usage, understand it as denoting the effect, either simply so considered, or as the end deliberately aimed at. J. D. Michaelis tells a story of a lady who was never known to scold her servants so severely as on fast days, which he says agrees well with physiological principles and facts. Vitringa applies this clause to the doctrinal divisions among Protest ants, and more particularly to the controversies in the church of Holland on the subject of grace and predestination. To smite with the fist of wicked ness is a periphrasis for fighting, no doubt borrowed from the provision of the law in Ex. 21: 18.—Luther and other early writers understand the last clause as a prohibition of noisy quarrels, to make the voice heard on high being taken as equivalent to letting it be heard in the street (ch. 42: 3). Vitringa and the later writers give it a meaning altogether different, by taking n-i-na in the sense of heaven (ch. 57: 15), and the whole clause as a declaration that such fasting would not have the desired effect of gaining audience and acceptance for their prayers. (See Joel 1: 14. 2: 12.) All the modern writers make ai*? synonymous with ai*n to-day, as in I Kings 1:31, Jarchi’s explanation, as the day (ought to be kept) involves a harsh ellipsis and is contrary to usage.—Instead of &6 run, Lowth reads *b ns to un, and translates ’ to smite with the fist the poor; wherefore fast ye unto me in this manner?’ The only authority for this pretended emendation is the ranEivbv Ivan poi of the Septuagint version, and the strange idea that it “ crives a much better sense than the present reading of the Hebrew.” o
5. Shall it be like this, the fast that I will choose, the day of man’s humbling himself 1 Is it to hang his head like a bulrush and make sack cloth and ashes his bed 1 Wilt thou call this a fast, and a day of acceptance (an acceptable day) to Jehovah 1 The general meaning of this verse is clear, although its structure and particular expressions are marked with a strong idiomatic peculiarity which makes exact translation very difficult. The interrogative form, as in many other cases, implies strong negation mingled with surprise. Nothing is gained but something lost by dropping the future forms of the first clause. The preterite translation of ^ns^ (I have chosen) is in fact quite ungrammatical. No less gratuitous is the explanation of this verb as meaning love by Gesenius, and approve by Henderson; neither of which ideas is expressed, although both are really implied in the exact translation, choose. The second member of the first clause is not part of the contemptuous description of a mere external fast, but belongs to the definition of a true one, as a time for men to practise self-humiliation. He does not ask whether the fast which he chooses is a day for a man to afflict himself, implying that it is not, which would be destructive of the very essence of a fast; but he asks whether the fast which he has chosen as a time for men to humble and afflict themselves is such as this, i. e. a mere external self-abasement.—ss^ means to spread any thing under one for him to lie upon. (See above, ch. 14: 11.) The effect of fasting as an outward means and token of sincere humiliation, may be learned from the case of Ahab (I Kings 21: 27-29) and the Ninevites (Jonah 3: 5-9). The use of sackcloth and ashes in connexion with fasting is recorded in Esther 9: 3. Even Gesenius regards this general description as particularly applicable to the abuse of fasting in the Romish and the Oriental churches. The sense attached to t^ by Luther (des Tages) and Lowth (for a day) changes the meaning of the clause by an arbitrary violation of the syntax.
6. Is not this the fast that I will choose, to loosen bands of wicked ness, to undo the fastenings of the yoke, and to send away the crushed (or broken) free, and every yoke ye shall break 1 Most interpreters suppose a particular allusion to the detention of Hebrew servants after the seventh year, contrary to the express provisions of the law (Ex. 21: 2. Lev. 25:39. Deut. 15: 12)- Grotius applies the terms in a figurative sense to judicial oppression; Cocceius to impositions on the conscience (Matt. 23: 4. Acts 15: 28. Gal. 5: 1); Vitringa, still more generally, to human domination in the church (1 Cor. 7: 23), with Special reference to the arbitrary imposition of formulas and creeds. It is evident, however, that the terms were so selected as to be descriptive of oppression universally; to make which still more evident, the Prophet adds a general command or exhortation, Ye shall break every yoke. The Targum explains main to mean unjust decrees (•’BOB “pi ^src), and the Septuagint applies it to fraudulent contracts, an idea which Gesenius thinks was probably suggested to the translator by his knowledge of the habits of the Alexandrian Jews. Hitzig agrees with Jarchi in deriving the first nate from rraa and making it synonymous with rrao (Ez. 9: 9), the perversion of justice. (For this application of the verb, see above, ch. 29: 21. 30: 11). But although this affords a more perfect parallelism with sen, it is dearly purchased by assuming that the same form riEi’Ta is here used in two entirely different senses. For the use of Y*1 in reference to oppression see 1 Sam. 12:3, 4, and compare Isaiah 42:3. Gesenius here repeats his unwarrantable mistranslation of fiftni as synonymous with ran. In this he is followed by Hitzig; but the later writers have the good taste to prefer the strict translation. The change of construction in the last clause from the infinitive to the future, is so common as to be entitled to consideration, not as a solecism but a Hebrew idiom. There is no need therefore of adopting the indirect and foreign construction. that ye break every yoke.—In reply to the question, how the acts here mentioned could be described as fasting, J. D. Michaelis says that they are all to be considered as involving acts of conscientious self-denial, which he illustrates by the case of an American slaveholder brought by stress of con science to emancipate his slaves. The principle is stated still more clearly and more generally by Augustine, in a passage which Gesenius quotes in illustration of the verse before us. Jejunium magnum et generale est abstinere ab iniquitatibus et illicitis voluptatibus seculi, quod est perfectum jejunium. Hendewerk understands this passage of Isaiah as expressly condemning and prohibiting all fasts, but the other Germans still maintain the old opinion that it merely shows the spirit which is necessary to a true fast.
7. Is it not to break unto the hungry thy bread, and the afflicted, the homeless, thou shalt bring home; for thou shalt see one naked and shalt clothe him, and from thine own fle&h thou shalt not hide thyself. The change of construction to the future in the first clause is precisely the same as in the preceding verse.—Grotius explains the phrase to break bread (meaning to distribute) from the oriental practice of baking bread in thin flat cakes.—Lowth’s version of the next phrase (the wandering poor) is now commonly regarded as substantially correct. (Compare Job 15:23.) dinna is properly an abstract, meaning wandering (from 111), here used for the concrete expression wanderers. There is no need of explaining it with Henderson as an ellipsis for Q-n’ma •’dsx men of wanderings. The essential idea is expressed in the Septuagint version (uG-rbyovg) which Ewald copies (Dachlose), and still more exactly in the Vulgate (vagos). Jarchi explains it to mean mourning, by metathesis for c^^ra a passive participle from W. Hitzig derives it from na to rebel, but gives it the specific sense of fugitive rebels. Thou shalt bring home, i. e. as Knobel understands it, for the purpose of feeding them; but this is a gratuitous restriction.—The construction of the second clause is similar to that in v. 2. It is best to retain the form of the original, not only upon general grounds, but because thou shalt see the naked seems to be a substantive command corresponding to thou shalt not hide thyself.—For the use of flesh to signify near kindred, see Gen. 29: 14. 37: 27. 2 Sam. 5:1. The Septuagint paraphrase is, ano TWV oixstcov rov (sn^arog GOV.—With the general precepts of the verse compare ch. 32: 6. Job 31: 16-22. Ez. 18: 7. Prov. 22: 9. Ps. 112: 9. Matt. 25: 36. Rom. 12: 11. Heb. 13: 2. James 2: 15, 16; and with the last clause, Matth. 15: 5, 6.
8. Then shall break forth as the dawn thy light, and thy healing speedily shall spring up; then shall go before thee thy righteousness, and the glory of Jehovah shall be thy rereward (or bring up thy rear). Kimchi connects this with the foregoing context by supplying as an intermediate thought, thou shalt no longer need to fast or lie in sackcloth and ashes. It is evident, however, that the writer has entirely lost sight of the particular example upon which he had been dwelling so minutely, and is now entirely occupied with the effects which would arise from a conformity to God’s will, not in reference to fasting merely, but to every other part of duty. Then, i. e. when this cordial compliance shall have taken place. The future form is preferable here to the conditional (would break forth), not only as more obvious and exact, but as implying that it will be so in point of fact, that the effect will certainly take place, because the previous condition will be certainly complied with. The verb to break forth (literally, to be cleft), elsewhere applied to the hatching of eggs (ch. 59: 5) and the gushing of water (ch. 35: 6), is here used in reference to the dawn or break of day, a common figure for relief succeeding deep affliction. (See ch. 8: 22. 47: 11. 60: 1.)—fisT’S is properly a bandage, but has here the sense of healing, as in Jer. 8: 22. 30: 17. 33: 6. By a mixture of metaphors, which does not in the least obscure the sense, this healing is here said to sprout or germinate, a figure employed elsewhere to denote the sudden, rapid, and spontaneous growth or rise of any thing. (See above, on ch. 42: 9 and 43: 19.) In the last clause a third distinct figure is employed to express the same idea, viz. that of a march like the journey through the wilderness, with the pillar of cloud, as the symbol of God’s presence, going before and after. (See above, on ch. 52: 12; and compare Ex. 13: 21. 14: 19.)—Thy ‘righteousness shall go before thee cannot mean that righteousness shall be exacted as a previous condition, which is wholly out of keeping with the figurative character of the description. Luther has also marred it by trans lating the last verb, shall talte thee to himself, overlooking its peculiar military sense, for which see above on ch. 52: 12. Knobel improves upon Gesenius’s gratuitous assumption that p^s means salvation, by explaining it in this case as an abstract used for the concrete, and accordingly translating it thy Saviour. All the advantages of this interpretation are secured without the slightest violence to usage, by supposing that Jehovah here assumes the conduct of his people, as their righteousness or justifier. (See Jer. 23: 6. 33: 16; and compare Isaiah 54: 17.) The parallel term glory may then be understood as denoting the manifested glory of Jehovah, or Jehovah himself in glorious epiphany; just as his presence with his people in the wilderness was manifested by. the pillar of cloud and of fire, which sometimes went before them and at other times brought up their rear. (See above, on ch. 52: 12.) This grand reiteration of a glorious promise is gratuitously weakened and belittled by restricting it to the return of the exiled Jews from Babylon; which, although one remarkable example of the thing described, has no more claim to be regarded as the whole of it, than the deliverance of Paul or Peter from imprisonment exhausted Christ’s engagement to be with his servants always even to the end of the world.
9. Then shall thou call and Jehovah will answer, thou shalt cry and he will say, Behold me (here I am), if thou wilt put away from the midst of thee the yoke, the pointing of the finger, and the speaking of vanity. The TK may either be connected with what goes before or correspond to fix in the other clause, like then, when, in English. That ox may thus be used as a particle of time, will be seen by comparing ch. 4: 4. 24: 13. The conditional form of the promise implies that it was not so with them now, of which indeed they are themselves represented as complaining in v. 3. The idea of this verse might be expressed in the occidental idiom by saying, when thou callest, Jehovah will answer; when thou criest, he will say, Behold me. (See above, on ch. 50: 2.)—The yoke is again mentioned as the symbol of oppression. (See v. 6.) De Wette needlessly resolves it into subjugation (Unterjochung), Hendewerk still more boldly into slavery.—The pointing of the finger is a gesture of derision. Hence the middle finger is called by Persius digitus infamis; Martial says, rideto multum, and in the same connexion, digitum porrigito medium; Plautus, in reference to an object of derision, intende digitum in hunc. The Arabs have a verb derived from finger and denoting scornful ridicule. The object of contempt in this case is supposed by Grotius to be the pious; by Hitzig, the Prophet or Jehovah himself; by Knobel, the unfortunate, who are after wards described as objects of sympathy.—Words of vanity in Zech. 10:2 mean falsehood, which is here retained by J. D. Michaelis, while Dathe gives it the specific sense of slander, and Paulus that of secret and malignant machination. Vitringa understands it as relating to censorious and unnecessary fault-finding; Kimchi, Ewald, and Gesenius, to strife and bicker ings. All these may be included in the general sense of evil speech or wicked words. The Targum has, words of oppression, or as Gesenius explains it, violence.
10. And (if) thou wilt let out thy soul to the hungry, and the afflicted soul wilt satisfy, then shall thy light arise in the darkness, and thy gloom as the (double light or) noon. For “jttJBJ Lowth reads “pnb thy bread, in which he is supported by eight manuscripts. The Septuagint version he considers as combining the two readings. But Vitringa under stands £x yvtfjs as denoting the cordiality of a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9: 7. Rom. 12: 8). Luzzatto, by means of a curious etymological analogy, makes p^Sfi synonymous with the x^snn of Lev. 9: 12, 13, 18, and trans lates the whole phrase, if thou wilt present thy person.’ Gesenius takes ttJsa in the sense of appetite or hunger, here put for the thing desired or enjoyed (deinen Bissen). Hitzig and Ewald, with the same view of the writer’s meaning, retain the more exact sense of desire in their translations. Hendewerk’s explanation, ‘if thou wilt turn thy heart to the hungry,’ is near akin to Luther’s, ‘ if thou let the hungry find thy heart,’ which seems to rest upon the same interpretation of the verb that has been quoted from Luzzatto. By a distressed soul Hitzig here understands one suffering from want and craving sustenance. (See ch. 29: 8.) The figure in the last clause is a common one for happiness succeeding sorrow. (See Judg. 5:31. Ps. 112:4. Job 11: 17.) Vitringa asserts roundly (aio rotunde) that this prophecy was not fulfilled until after the Reformation, when so many German, French, Italian, and Hungarian Protestants were forced to seek refuge in other countries. The true sense of the passage he has given without knowing it, in these words: “ Post tot beneficia et stricturas lucis ecclesiae inductas, restat meridies quern expectat.”
11. And Jehovah will guide thee ever, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and thy bones shall he invigorate, and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters shall not fail. The promise of guidance had already been given in ch. 57: 18. (Compare Ps. 73: 24, 78: 14.) Jerome-‘s translation (requiem tibi dabit) derives the verb from nw, not nrn. Driessen and some others make rvinxnsa mean with clear or bright waters; but the sense of glistening, dazzling, which belongs to the Arabic root, is equally applicable to the burning sands of a desert. Ewald translates it fever-heat. The common version, drought, which Lowth changes to severest drought, in order to express the intensive mean ing of the plural form, agrees well with the verb to satisfy, referring to thirst, as v. 10 does to hunger. The common version of the next clause (and make fat thy bones) is sanctioned by the Septuagint and Kimchi, who appeals to the analogy of Prov. 15: 30. The Vulgate version (ossa liberabit) seems both arbitrary and unmeaning. The Peshito and Saadias translate the verb will strengthen, which is adopted by most modern writ ers. Seeker’s emendation (sp^n? *jn£2W), which Lowth adopts (renew thy strength)^ derives some countenance not only from the Targum, but from the analogy of ch. 40: 31 and 41:1, and is only inadmissible be cause it is gratuitous. Similar allusions to the bones as the seat of strength, occur in Ps. 51: 10 and Job 21: 24. The figure in the last clause is the converse of that in ch. 1: 30. There is here a climax. Not content with the image of a well-watered garden, he substitutes that of the stream, or rather of the spring itself. The general idea is a favourite with Isaiah. (See above, ch. 30: 25. 33: 21. 35: 5, 7. 41: 17. 43: 20. 44: 4. 48: 21. 49: 10.) On the deceiving of the waters, see Jer. 15: 18, and compare the analogous expressions of hosea with respect to wine, and of Habakkuk with respect to oil. (Hos. 5: 2. Hab. 3: 17.) Hitzig and Knobel understand what is here said of heat and drought in literal application to the journey of the exiles through the wilderness, while all the analogous expressions in the context are regarded as strong figures. The truth is, that the exodus from Egypt had already made these images familiar and appropriate to any great deliverance.
12. And they shall build from thcc the ruins of antiquity (or perpetuity), foundations of age and age (i. e. of ages) shalt thou raise up; and it shall be called to thce (or thou shalt be called) Repairer of the breach, Restorer of paths for dwelling. Ewald reads sisa, they shall be built by thee; but this passive form does not occur elsewhere, and is here sustained by no external evidence. Kimchi understands «a as referring not to persons, but effects (opera), which is very unnatural. Hitzig retains the old interpretation of the clause as referring to children or descendants; and the latter writer gives it a specific application to the younger race of exiles, whom he supposes to be the Servant of Jehovah in these Later Prophecies. Gesenius denies the reference to children, and explains r,^ as meaning those belonging to thee, or, as he paraphrases it, thy people. The simplest supposition is that of some rabbinical writers, who supply as the subject of the verb its correlative noun, builders. But as r,^ properly means from thee, it denotes something more than mere connexion, and, un less forbidden by something in the context, must be taken to signify a going forth from Israel into other lands. Thus understood, the clause agrees ex actly with the work assigned to Israel in ch. 42: 14 and 57: 11, viz. that of reclaiming the apostate nations, and building the wastes of a desolated world. As cbi’s obviously refers to past time, this is the only natural interpretation of the corresponding phrase, ^nj -i-to; although Luther and others understand the latter as referring to foundations which shall last for ever. Gesenius understands by foundations, buildings razed to their-foundations (Ps. 137: 7); and Hitzig supposes it to have the secondary sense of ruins, like t^urm, in ch. 16: 7. The sense will then be, if referred to past time, foundations which have lain bare, or buildings whose foundations have lain bare, for ages. For the metaphor, compare Am. 9: 11; for that of a highway, ch. 19: 23. 35: 8; and for that of the breach, Ez. 13: 5. 22: 30. The addition of the last phrase, rTrb, has perplexed interpreters. Cocceius understands it to mean that the paths themselves shall be inhabited. Gesenius arbitrarily translates it, in the inhabited land. Knobel no less gratuitously gives to paths the sense of beaten or frequented regions. Jerome and Grotius make the word a derivative from riri, and translate it in (juietem, or ad quiescendum. The most satisfactory hypotheses are those of Hitzig and maurer, the former of \whom makes the phrase mean ad habitandum sc. terram, that the land may be inhabited. The latter understands the paths to be described as leading not to ruins and to deserts as before, but to inhabited regions. Of these the former seems entitled to the preference. It will be sufficient to record the fact, that Vitringa finds in this verse an allusion to fundamental doctrines, canons, formulas, etc. etc.
13. If thou wilt turn away thy foot from the Sabbath to (Jo thy pleasure on my holy day, and wilt call the Sabbath a delight, (and) the holy (day) of Jehovah honourable, and wilt honour it by riot doing thy own ways, by not finding thy pleasure and talking talk. The version of Henderson and others, turn away thy foot on the Sabbath, is inconsistent with the form of the original, as well as with the figure, which is that of some thing trodden down arid trampled, or at least encroached upon. Most interpreters agree with Kimchi in supplying •? before rvito?, a combination which is actually found in one manuscript. Hitzig supposes that the grammatical effect of the first “, extends to this infinitive. Maurer supplies nothing, and translates ut agas. The modern version of yen (business) is much less natural, even in this connexion, than the old one, thy pleasure, especially as paraphrased by Luther, what thou wilt (was dir gefdlli). Ilitzig observes a climax in the requisitions of this clause, not unlike that in Prov. 2: 2-4. The mere outward observance was of no avail, unless the institution were regarded with reverence, as of God; nay more, with complacency, as in itself delightful. To call it a delight, is to acknowledge it as such. The b before si’-i^ appears to interrupt the construction, which has led some interpreters to disregard it altogether, and others to take isnp as a verb, or an adjective agreeing with Jehovah—honoured in order to sanctify (or glorify) Jehovah—honoured by the sanctification of Jehovah—honoured for the sake of the Holy One. Jehovah. But the simplest explanation is the one pro posed by De Dieu and adopted by Vitringa, which treats the ^ before pTr, and that before cinp, as correlatives, alike connecting the verb jnp with its object. As the construction of this verb is foreign from our idiom, it may be best explained by a paraphrase: ’ If thou wilt give to the Sabbath (raits?) the name of a delight, and to the holy (wpb) day or ordinance of Jehovah that of honourable.’ But mere acknowledgment is not enough—it must not only be admitted to deserve honour, but in fact receive it. Hence he adds, and if thou wilt honour it thyself, by not doing, literally, away from doing, so as not to do. (On this use of -,«, see ch. 5: 6. 49: 15.) Here again, to find one’s pleasure, on the Sabbath is more natural than to find one’s business. Doing thy own ways, although not a usual combination, is rendered intelligible by the constant use of way in He brew to denote a course of conduct. Speaking speech or talking talk is by some regarded as equivalent to speaking vanity, in v. 9. The Septuagint adds tv OQ^. The modern writers, for the most part, are in favour of the explanation, speaking mere words, idle talk. (Compare Matt. 12: 36.) The classical parallels adduced by Clericus, Gesenius, and others, are very little to the purpose. As to the importance here attached to the Sabbath, see above, on ch. 56: 2.
14. Then shall thou be happy in Jehovah, and I will make thee ride upon the heights of the earth, and 1 will make thee eat the heritage of Jacob thy father, for Jehovah’s mouth hath spoken it. The verb iornn is combined with the divine name elsewhere to express both a duty and a privilege. (Compare Psalm 37: 4 with Job 22: 26. 27: 10.—^rn^n does not mean I will raise thee above (Jerome), or I will cause thee to sit (Cocceius), but I will cause thee to ride. The whole phrase is descriptive not of a mere return to Palestine the highest of all lands (Kimchi), nor of mere security from enemies by being placed beyond their reach (Vitringa), but of conquest and triumphant possession, as in Deut. 32: 13, from which the expression is derived by all the later writers who employ it. There is no sufficient ground for Knobel’s supposition that rvina in this phrase means the fortresses erected upon hills and mountains.—To eat the heritage is to enjoy it and derive subsistence from it. Kimchi correctly says that it is called the heritage of Jacob as distinct from that of Ishmael and Esau, although equally descended from the Father of the Faithful.—The last clause is added to ensure the certainty of the event, as resting not on human but divine authority. See ch. 1: 2.
