THE fault of Israel’s rejection is not in the Lord but in themselves, vs. 1, 2. They are charged with sins of violence and injustice, vs. 3, 4. The ruinous effects of these corruptions are described, vs. 5, 6. Their violence and injustice are as fatal to themselves as to others, vs. 7, 8. The moral condition of the people is described as one of darkness and hopeless degradation, vs. 9-15. In this extremity Jehovah interposes to deliver the true Israel, vs. 16, 17. This can only be effected by the destruction of the carnal Israel, v. 18. The divine presence shall no longer be subjected to local restrictions, v. 19. A Redeemer shall appear in Zion to save the true Israel, v. 20. The old temporary dispensation shall give place to the dispensation of the Word and Spirit, which shall last for ever, v. 21.
1. Behold, not shortened is Jehovah’s hand from saving, and not benumbed is his ear from hearing, i. e. so as not to save, and not to hear, or too short to save, too dull to hear. On this use of the preposition, see above on ch. 58: 13, and the references there made. The Prophet merely pauses, as it were, for a moment, to exonerate his master from all blame, before continuing his accusation of the people. The beginning of a chapter here is simply a matter of convenience, as the following context has precisely the same character with that before it; unless we assume with Lowth that the Prophet now ascends from particulars to generals, or with J. D. Michaelis, that he here descends to a lower depth of wickedness. The only explanation of the passage which allows it to speak for itself, without gratuitous additions or embellishments, is that which likens it to ch. 42: 18— 25. 43: 22-28, and 50: 1, 2, as a solemn exhibition of the truth that the rejection of God’s ancient people was the fruit of their own sin, and not to be imputed either to unfaithfulness on his part, or to want of strength or wisdom to protect them. For the true sense of the metaphor here used, see above, on ch. 50: 2. Hendewerk is under the necessity of granting that the Israel of this passage is a moral i. e. an ideal person, corresponding not to any definite portion of the people at any one time, but to such of them at various times as possessed a certain character. Whatever may be thought of the necessity or grounds of this assumption in the case before us? he has no right to deny the possibility of others like it, even where he does not think them requisite himself. Hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim.
2. But your iniquities have been separating between you and your God, and your sins have hid (his) face from you, so as not to hear, t« *3 is the usual adversative after a negation, corresponding to the German sondern, which has no distinct equivalent in English. Ewald’s version, rather (vieltnehr), seems to weaken the expression; and Umbreit’s combination of the two (sondern viclmehr) is entirely gratuitous.—The present form given to the verb (they separate) by Luther and retained even by De Wette, is entirely inadequate. The original expression is intended to convey, in the strongest manner, the idea both of past time and of continuance or custom. Ewald expresses this by introducing the word bislang, but Umbreit better by retaining the exact form of the original (waren scheidend). Hitzig points out an allusion to the b^a^ w of Gen. 1: 6, which is the more remarkable because it may be likewise traced in the construction of the preposition “fa, both the modes of employing it which there occur being here combined.—The general idea of this verse is otherwise expressed in Jer. 5: 25, while in Lam. 3: 44 the same prophet reproduces both the thought and the expression, with a distinct mention of the intervening object as a cloud, which may possibly have been suggested by the language of Isaiah himself in ch. 44: 22.—Henderson adopts the explanation of?,-pnsn by Kimchi and Aben Ezra as a causative (have made him hide); but this is contrary to usage.—Seeker proposes to read ^a (my face), and Lowth 1^35 (his face), for which he cites the authority of the ancient ver sions; but in these, as in the modern ones, the pronoun is supplied by the translator, in order to remove an ellipsis which is certainly unusual, though not without example, as appears from Job 34: 29, where the noun without a suffix is combined with this very verb. For an instance of the same kind, though not perfectly identical, see above, ch. 53: 3. The omission of the pronoun is so far from being wholly anomalous that Luther simply has the face, in which he is followed both by Ewald and Umbreit.—The force of the particle before the last verb is the same as in ch. 44: 18 and 49: 15. It does not mean specifically that he will not, much less that he cannot hear, but, as Lowth translates it. that he doth not hear. It is still better, how ever, to retain the infinitive form of the original by rendering it, so as not to hear.
3. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken falsehood, your tongue will utter wicked ness. The Prophet now, according to a common usage of the Scriptures, classifies the prevalent iniquities as sins of the hands, the mouth, the feet, as if to intimate that every member of the social body was affected. On the staining of the hands with blood, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 12. Here again we have a marked and apparently unstudied similarity of thought and language to the genuine Isaiah. The form VKSS, which occurs only here and in Lam. 4: 14, is explained by Kimchi as a mixture of the Niphal and Pual, by Gesenius as a kind of double passive. The use of this form, instead of the Pual, which is found only in the latest books, is rather symptomatic of an earlier writer. The sense here put upon bxa, and in a few other places, seems so wholly unconnected with its usual and proper meaning, as to give some countenance to Henderson’s idea, which might otherwise seem fanciful, that it is a denominative from ^xa the avenger of blood.—Vitringa infers from v. 7, that the blood here meant is specifically that of the innocent or those unjustly put to death.—According to Grotius, the iniquity which stained their fingers was that of robbery and theft. It is far more natural, however, to consider hands and fingers as equivalent expressions, or at the utmost as expressing different degrees of the same thing. Thus Umbreit represents it as characteristic of the Old Testament severity in reprehending sin, that the Prophet, not content with staining the hands, extends his description to the very fingers. This is certainly ingenious, but perhaps too artificial to have been intended by the writer.—The restriction of the falsehood here charged to judicial fraud or misrepresentation, is unnecessary.—The preterite and future forms describe the evil as habitual, and ought to be retained in the translation, were it only for the purpose of exhibiting the characteristic form of the original.—The last verb is explained by Vitringa as expressive of deliberate promulgation (meditate proferi), and by Luther of invention (dichtet). J. D. Michaelis attenuates its sense to that of simple speech, while Hitzig coincides with the English Version (muttered). As the word, though applied to vocal utterance, is not confined to articulate speech, the nearest equivalent perhaps is utter, as conveying neither more nor less than the original.—Vitringa applies this verse likewise to the scandals of the reformed church, and especially to those arising from its coalescence with the state, observing that the interpreter is not bound to verify the truth of the description, as we know not what is yet to happen. This would be rational enough where the prophecy itself contained explicit indications of a specific subject; but where this is to be made out by comparison with history, a reference to future possibilities is laughable.—The wider meaning of the whole description is evident from Paul’s combining parts of it with phrases drawn from several Psalms remarkably resembling it, in proof of the depravity of human nature. (Rom. 3: 15-17.)
4. There is none calling with justice, and there is none contending with truth; they trust in vanity and speak falsehood, conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity. The phrase P*!^ N^P has been variously understood. The Septuagint makes it mean simply speaking just things (ovdiig laltl dixaia) which would hardly have been so expressed in Hebrew. The Chaldee paraphrase, praying in truth (i. e. sincerely), seems to be founded on the frequent description of worship, as calling on the name of God. Jerome’s version, qui invocet justitiam, is followed in the English Bible, calleth for justice, i. e. as Clericus explains it, there is no one who is willino- to commit his cause to such unrighteous judges. Hensler and Doderlein apply it to judicial decrees and decisions, which is wholly at variance with the usage of the verb. Kimchi understands it of one person calling to another for the purpose of reproving him; but then the essential idea is the very one which happens not to be expressed. Gesenius and Maurer follow Rosenmuller in attaching to sop the forensic sense of xata’co a? di’xqv and voco in jus: ‘ No one summons another, i. e. sues him, justly.’ In proof of such a Hebrew usage Knobel cites Job 5:1. 13: 22; which are at best very doubtful. The same sense seems to be designed by Lowth (preferreth his suit). It would be still more difficult to justify the sense of speaking for or advocating, here assumed by J. D. Michaelis and Henderson. In this uncertainty, some of the latest writers have gone back to Luther’s sense of preaching, which is easily deducible from that of calling publicly, proclaiming. According to Hitzig this is the proper Hebrew term for public speaking, such as that in the synagogues, which was free to all. (See Luke 4: 16. Acts 13: 15.) Luther makes righteousness the subject of the preaching, Ewald and Umbreit a description of its quality (aright or justly). The only argument against this explanation, and in favour of a more forensic or judicial one, is that afforded by the parallel expression, fisiraxs aara. Kimchi makes the verb a simple passive, meaning to be tried or judged—’ no one is fairly tried.’ Luther and J. D. Michaelis reverse this explanation and apply the clause to unjust judges. Most writers make the verb reciprocal (as in ch. 43: 26. Prov. 29: 9. Ez. 17: 20), and apply it either to forensic litigation, or to controversy and contention for the truth. In either case w«ra« must mean bona fides, and not truth as the subject or occasion of dispute, which is not the meaning of the Hebrew word. (See Hengstenberg on Ps. 33: 4.) The infinitive construction of the next clause cannot be retained in English. The nearest equivalent is that adopted in the common version. Lowth’s substitution of the participle (trusting, speak ing, etc.) is no better as to form, and really obscures the sense or at least the true grammatical relation of the clauses. The construction is the same as in ch. 5: 5. 21: 9. Vitringa supposes an ellipsis of the preterite, which is inadmissible, for reasons given in the Earlier Prophecies, p. 67. iriti is vigorously rendered by J. D. Michaelis nothing (auf ein Nichts). The falsehood mentioned in this clause is understood by some in the specific sense of false or unfair reasoning.—With the figure of the last clause compare Job 15: 35 and Psalm 7:15. It might here be understood to denote mere disappointment or failure, as in v. 13 below; but the analogy of ch. 33: 11 seems to show that the prominent idea is that of mischievous and spiteful machination. With the first of these interpretations seems to be connected the sense which J. D. Michaelis here attaches to “x, namely, that of pain or suffering.
5. Eggs of the basilisk they have hatched, and webs of the spider they will spin (or weave); the (one) eating of their eggs shall die, and the crushed (egg) shall hatch out a viper. The figure of the serpent is substantially the same as in ch. 14: 29. (Compare Deut. 32: 33.) The precise varieties intended are of little exegetical importance. The modern writers generally follow Bochart in explaining h?i’Bs to mean the basilisk, a serpent small in size but of a deadly venom. For the use of the verb in such connexions, see above, ch. 34: 15. The figure of the spider’s web is added to express the idea both of hurtfulness and futility. (See Job. 8: 14.) —rnsit for rnit (like nsb for n:b Zech. 5: 4) is the passive participle of 1*11 to press, applied in ch. 1: 4 to the curative compression of a wound. That it does not here denote incubation, as explained by Aquila (&a7.q)&w) Jerome (confotum),.and Jarchi, may be inferred from Job 39: 15, where the same verb is applied to the crushing of the eggs of the ostrich by the foot.—Luther, Lowth, J. D. Michaelis, and Gesenius make fnwi a nominative absolute, ’ if one is crushed there creeps out a viper.’ Maurer and the later writers construe it directly with the verb, as in the English Bible. To the objection that the viper is viviparous, Vitringa answers, that the Prophet intentionally uses a mixed metaphor; Gesenius, that we cannot look for accurate details of natural history in such a writer. Neither seems to have observed that the exact correspondence of the Hebrew word to viper is extremely problematical, although Gesenius himself defines it in his Lexicon, “ a viper, adder, any poisonous serpent,’ and J. D. Michaelis accordingly translates it by the general term schlange. The same writer looks upon the whole verse as peculiarly appropriate to the character and condition of the Jews immediately before their destruction by the Romans.
6. Their webs shall not become (or be for) clothing, and they shall not cover themselves with their works; their works are works of mischief (or iniquity), and the doing of violence is in their hands. The first clause 23 does not seem to form a part of what the writer meant at first to say, but is a kind of afterthought, by which he gives a new turn to the sentence, and expresses an additional idea without a change of metaphor. Having introduced the spider’s web, in connexion with the serpent’s egg, as an emblem of malignant and treacherous designs, he here repeats the first but for another purpose, namely, to suggest the idea of futility and worthlessness. This application may have been suggested by the frequent reference to webs and weaving as conducive to the comfort and emolument of men; but spiders’ webs can answer no such purpose. The idea that it is not fit or cannot be applied to this end, although not exclusively expressed, is really included in the general declaration that they shall not be so used.—Gesenius and Ewald make the second verb indefinite, they shall not (i. e. no one shall) employ them for this purpose. But the sentence is more pointed if we understand it as including a specific menace that the authors of these devices shall derive no advantage from them. Works in the first clause simply means what they have made; but in the second, where the metaphor is dropped, this version would be inadmissible. The common version of >sb (act) and Lowill’s emendation of it (deed), are both defective in not suggesting the idea of continued and habitual practice.
7. Their feet to coil will run, and they will hasten to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of mischief (or iniquity); wasting and ruin are in their paths. The first clause expresses not a mere disposition, but an eager proclivity to wrong. The word translated thoughts has here and elsewhere the specific sense of purposes, contrivances, devices, which last Lowth employs as an equivalent. Luther gives ^x here as well as in the foregoing verse the sense of trouble (MtiAe), in reference no doubt to the oppressors themselves. In like manner J. D. Michaelis explains ruin in their paths as meaning that it awaits themselves, but most interpreters take both expressions in an active sense, as meaning what they do to others, not what they experience themselves. Their paths are then the paths in which their feet run to evil and make haste to shed innocent blood.—The two nouns combined in the last clause strictly denote desolation and crushing, i. e. utter ruin. Destruction and calamity (Lowth) are as much too vague as destruction and wounds (J. D. Michaelis) or force and ruins (Ewald) are too specific. Knobel supposes the idea to be that of a country wasted by invading enemies. (See ch. 1: 4.)—With this verse compare Prov. 1:16, and the evil way of ch. 55: 7 above. Knobel of course applies it to the quarrelsome exiles, and gravely adds that nothing more can be determined with respect lo them than this that they sometimes did not hesitate lo rob and murder! The references which he adds lo ihis extraordinary statement are ch. 57: 20. 50: 11, and vs. 3 and 15 of this chapter. 355
8. The way of peace they have not known, and there is no justice in their paths; their courses they have rendered crooked for them; every one walking in them knows not peace. J. D. Michaelis and Umbreit go to opposite extremes in their interpretation of the first clause. The former makes the way of peace denote the way to happiness; the latter under stands the clause to mean that they refuse all overtures of reconciliation. The obvious and simple meaning is, that their lives are not pacific but con tentious. In order to vary the expression, Lowth translates arfcasTea in their tracks, which is retained by Henderson. With still more exact adherence to the primary meaning of the verb, they might have written in their ruts, irpr is twice used in the book of Proverbs as the opposite of upright or sincere. (Prov. 10: 9. 28: 18.) Hitzig gives the verb the specific sense of choosing crooked paths, which is not so simple or exact as the common English version (they have made them crooked paths), na is a neuter or indefinite expression. There is no need therefore of reading either nnn-ra with a single manuscript, or en \itli the ancient versions, between which emendations Lowth appears to hesitate. Knobel’s inference from this verse that some of the less corrupted Jews were led astray by wicked leaders, is as groundless as Vitiinga’s specific application of the passage to the excesses of victorious parties in religious controversy, not without evident allusion to the ecclesiastical disputes of the Reformed Dutch Church, to which he very naturally, but by no means very reasonably, yields an extravagantly disproportioned space, in determining the scope of this prophetic vision. The erroneous principle involved in both interpretations is refuted by the comprehensive sense which the apostle puts upon the words in the passage which has been already cited. (Rom. 3: 15-17.)
9. Therefore is judgment far from us, and righteousness will not overtake us; we wait for light and behold darkness; for splendours, (and) in obscurities we walk. The future form of all the verbs in this verse intimates that they expect this state of things to continue. Knobel explains judgment as meaning the practical decision between them and their enemies, which God would make when he delivered them. Why then may not the parallel expression, righteousness, be applied in the same way, without losing its original and proper sense in that of salvation? According to Hendewerk, it here denotes the righteous compensation which the Jews were to receive for their excessive sufferings. (See above, on ch. 40: 2.) J, D. Michaelis explains the expression overtake strictly, as denoting that they fled from it. (Compare ch. 35: 10. and 51: 11.) Vitringa applies this verse to the threatened extinction of religion in his own day; Knobel, to the delay in the deliverance from Babylon, occasioned by Cyrus’s attack on Croesus!
V, 10. We grope like the blind for the wall, like the eyeless we grope; we stumble at noonday as in twilight, in thick darkness like the dead. Lowth is so offended with the “ poverty and inelegance” of repeating FrstBM, which he thinks “extremely unworthy of the Prophet, and unlike his manner,” that he reads in the second place with Houbigant, JIMES we wander, candidly adding that the mistake, although very easy and obvious, “ is of long standing, being prior to all the ancient versions.” Whatever else may be said of “ this ingenious correction,” it cannot be described as of long standing; for no writer since Lowth appears to have adopted it. To an unsophisticated taste the repetition is a beauty, when used sparingly and in the proper place. The phrase t^-abxa has been variously rendered. Jerome, Luther, J. D. Michaelis, and Riickert, make the noun mean darkness or dark places (in caliginosis); the Targum, Saadias, Kimchi, and Grotius, in the tomb; which sense the elder Kimchi derives from trrx to be desolate. Lowth, Koppe, Doderlein, and Bauer, in the midst of fatness, abundance, or fertility; Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer, and Hendewerk, in fat or fertile fields; Aben Ezra, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and Umbreit, in the midst of the fat or healthy, with or without allusion to the prosperous heathen among whom they were scattered, or by whom they were oppressed. Knobel has gone back to the meaning darkness, as best suited to the context, and easily deducible from the sense of fatness, just as we speak of gross or thick darkness. Vitringa dissents from the application of this verse by Cocceius to the deposition of Ferdinand king of Bohemia, and the election of Frederick the Count Palatine. With this verse compare Dent. 28: 29 and Zeph. 1: L7.
11. We growl like the bears, all of us, and like the doves we moan (we) moan’, we wait for justice and there is none, for salvation (and) it is far from us. The Latin poets also speak of the voice of bears and doves as a gemitus or groaning. (See above, ch. 38: 14, and Ezek. 7: 16.) Umbreit supposes the two here to represent the extremes of violent and gentle grief. The same effect which is produced in the first clause, by the use of the phrase all of us, is produced in the other by the idiomatic repetition of the verb. Here, as in v. 9, we may understand by judgment or justice that which God does by his providential dispensations both to his people and his enemies.
12. For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and our iniquities— we know them. The Prophet here begins a general confession in the name of God’s people. For the form of expression, compare Ps. 51: 5. The construction of the verb nws with a plural noun is explained by Tremellius and Vitringa as implying an ellipsis (quodque). Cocceius in like manner supplies id ipsum. The modern grammarians, who in general are averse to the gratuitous assumption of ellipses, seem disposed to regard it as an idiomatic license of construction. Lowth translates w&K cleave fast unto us; but interpreters generally prefer the sense expressed in the English Version—they are with us, i. e. in our sight or present to our memory.
13. To transgress and lie against Jehovah, and to turn lack from behind our God, to speak oppression and departure, to conceive and utter from the heart words of falsehood. The specifications of the general charge are now expressed by an unusual succession of infinitives, not as Hitzig says because the persons were^already known—which would require the adoption of the same form in a multitude of places where it is not found at present—but because the writer wished to concentrate and condense his accusation. This rhetorical effect is materially injured by the substitution of the finite verb. Although by no means equal in conciseness to the Hebrew, our infinitive may be employed as the most exact translation. Gesenius makes atea a future form, but Maurer an infinitive from 503. Departure means departure from the right course or the law (Deut. 19: 16), i. e. transgression or iniquity. Knobel applies the term specifically to idol atry, and understands pito as implying that the exiles in Babylon oppressed each other!
14. And judgment is thrust (or driven) back, and righteousness afar off stands; for (ruth has fallen in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. The description is now continued in the ordinary form by the finite verb. The word translated street properly means an open place or square, especially the space about the gate of an oriental town where courts were held and other public business transacted. (See Job 29: 7. Neh. 8: 1.) The present form which seems to be required by our idiom is much less expressive than the preterite and futures of the original. Those interpreters who commonly apply whatever is said of tyranny to the oppression of the Jews in exile are compelled in this case, where the sin is charged upon the Jews themselves, to resort to the imaginary fact of gross misgovernment among the exiles, for the purpose of avoiding the conclusion that the passage has respect to a condition of society like that described in the first chapter.
15. Then truth was missed (i. e. found wanting), and whoso departed from evil made himself a prey (or was plundered). Then Jehovah saw and it was evil in his eyes that there was no judgment (or practical justice). The Vav conversive in both clauses indicates a sequence of events, and may be best expressed by then in English. The passive participle is here used with the substantive verb, as the active is in v. 2, to denote anterior habitual action. Hitzig understands the first clause to mean that honesty (i. e. the honest people) was betrayed, in direct opposition to the usage both of the noun and verb in Hebrew. For the sense of -nss, see above, on ch. 34: 16. 40: 26. Lowth’s version, utterly lost, is substantially correct, though per haps too strong. Jarchi, Cocceius, and J. D. Michaelis understand ^WB? as meaning, was accounted mad, which is also given in the margin of the English Bible, but has no foundation either in etymology or usage. It is now commonly agreed that this verbal form is near akin to the noun bVa spoil or plunder, and has here the same sense as in Ps. 76: 6. This explanation is sustained by the authority of the Targum and Jerome. Kimchi understands it to describe the godly man as snatched away, perhaps in allusion to ch. 57: 1. Ewald derives from what he thinks the true sense of the root the meaning, he became rare (wurde selteii).
16. And he saw that there was no man, and he stood aghast that there was no one interposing; and his own arm saved for him, and his own righteousness, it upheld him. The repetition of the words and he saw connects this verse in the closest manner with the one before it. Rosenmiiller, Umbreit, and others, follow Jarchi in supposing u^x to be emphatic and to signify a man of the right sort, a man equal to the occasion. This explanation derives some colour from the analogy of Jer. 5:1; but even there, and still more here, the strength of the expression is increased rather than diminished by taking this phrase in the simple sense of nobody. What was wanting was not merely a qualified man, but any man whatever, to maintain the cause of Israel and Jehovah. A like absolute expression is employed in 2 Kings 14: 26, where it is said that Jehovah saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter, and that there was no helper for Israel, not merely no sufficient one, but none at all. The desperate nature of the case is then described in terms still stronger and only applicable to Jehovah by the boldest figure. The common version (wondered), though substantially cor rect, is too weak to express the full force of the Hebrew word, which strictly means to be desolate, and is used in reference to persons for the purpose of expressing an extreme degree of horror and astonishment. (See Ps. 143:4, and compare the colloquial use of desole in French.) As applied to God, the term may be considered simply anthropopathic, or as intended to imply a certain sympathetic union with humanity, arising from the mode in which this great intervention was to be accomplished.—?^*B^3 strictly denotes causing to meet or come together, bringing into contact. Hence it is applied to intercessory prayer, and this sense is expressed here by the Chaldee para phrase. But the context, etymology, and usage, all combine to recommend 359
the wider sense of intervention, interposition, both in word and deed. (See above, on ch. 53: 12.) This sense is well expressed by Lowth (there was none to interpose), except that he gratuitously substitutes the infinitive for the active participle, which is more expressive as suggesting that the danger was imminent and unavoidable without the aid of some one actually inter posing to avert it. The full force of the last clause can be given in English only by the use of the emphatic form his own, which is implied but cannot be distinctly expressed in the original except by a periphrasis. To do any thing with one’s own hand or arm, is an expression frequently used else where to denote entire independence of all foreign aid. (See Judges 7: 2. 1 Sam. 4: 9. 25: 26. Ps. 44: 4. 98: 1.)—The meaning of this clause has been much obscured by making ft the object of the verb. The obvious incongruity of representing God as saving or delivering himself has led to different evasions. Some interpreters attenuate the meaning of the verb from save to help, which is the favourite expedient of the modern writers; while the older ones content themselves with making it intransitive and absolute, brought salvation (English Version), wrought salvation (Lowth). The only simple and exact translation is, his arm saved for him, leaving the object to be gathered from the context, namely, Israel or his people. The ft means nothing more than that his own arm did it for him, without reliance upon any other. This same idea is expressed in the last words of the verse, where his righteousness sustained him means that he relied or depended upon it exclusively. By righteousness in this case we are not to understand a simple consciousness of doing^ right, nor the possession of a righteous cause, nor a right to do what he did, all which are modifications of the same essential meaning, nor a zealous love of justice, which Vitringa deduces from the use of the word fury (5. e. ardent zeal) in the parallel passage ch. 63: 5. It is far more satisfactory to give the word its strict and proper sense as denoting an attribute of God, here joined with his power, to show that what are commonly distinguished as his moral and his natural perfections are alike pledged to this great work, and constitute his only reliance for its execution.—The extraordinary character of this description, and the very violence which it seems to offer to our ordinary notions of the divine nature, unavoidably prepare the mind for something higher than the restoration of the Jews from exile, or the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The embarrassment occasioned by this passage to the champions of the Babylonian theory may be inferred from their complex and unnatural hypo thesis, that because the magistrates and elders of the captivity did not repress and punish the offences just described, God would himself do it, not by continuing the exile as a punishment, but by destroying Babylon, and with it the ungodly Jews, while the better portion should escape and be restored to their own country! It is a strange and peculiar idea of Ewald’s, that the Prophet here reproaches Israel that no Messiah had arisen from amonothemselves according to the ancient promise, so that God had as it were been under the necessity of raising up a foreign instrument for their deliverance, namely Cyrus. If all things else were as much in favour of this wild invention as they are against it, a sufficient refutation would be still afforded by the obvious unsuitableness of the language to express the alleged mean ing. A reluctant use of foreign agents by Jehovah might be described as any thing rather than his own arm doing the work for him. If arm means power, it was no more exerted in the one case than it would have been exerted in the other; if it means instrumentality, the one employed was not so truly or emphatically his own arm as it would have been if raised up from among his own people.
17. And he clothed himself with righteousness as a coat of mail, and a helmet of salvation on his head, and he clothed himself with garments of vengeance (for) clothing, and put on, as the cloak (or tunic), jealousy. Here again the verse is closely connected with the one before it by the repetition of n^s. Its relation to the other verse is not, however, that of an explanation, as implied in Hendewerk’s translation of the particle by for. The writer simply carries out in detail his general declaration that Jehovah undertook the cause of Israel himself, under figures borrowed from the usages of war. The older writers have in vain perplexed themselves with efforts to determine why righteousness is called a breastplate or salvation a helmet, and to reconcile the variations in Paul’s copies of this picture (Eph. 6:4-17, 1 Thess. 5: 8) with the original. The true principle of exegesis in such cases is the one laid clown by Clericus, who may speak with authority whenever the question in dispute is a question not of doctrine or experience but of taste. Justice, says this accomplished rhetorician, might just as well have been a sword, salvation a shield, vengeance a javelin or spear, and zeal or jealousy a torch with which to fire the hostile camp. Ratio habenda est scopi, non singularum vocum. The correctness of this principle is clear from the general analogy of figurative language and from the endless license of invention which would follow from the adoption of the other method, so that in aiming at precision and fulness we should unavoidably involve the sense of Scripture in incurable uncertainty. That the figures in this case were intended to convey the general idea of martial equipment, may be gathered from a fact which even Vitringa has observed, that there is no reference whatever to offensive weapons, an omission wholly unaccountable upon his own hypothesis. There is no ground for Rosenmuller’s explanation of n^nst as denoting the desire of vengeance, unless this be a periphrasis for retributive or vindicatory justice. Equally groundless is the explanation of rw:n by Gesenius and the later writers in the sense of vie-
lory. ^ However appropriate and striking this idea may be in so martial a description, it is not the one expressed by the writer, who looks far beyond mere victory to the salvation of God’s people as the great end to be answered by it. There is much more plausibility in Knobel’s suggestion, that the first two nouns have reference to Israel, and the last two to his enemies; the same catastrophe which was to secure justice and salvation to the former would bring the zeal and vengeance of Jehovah on the latter. This dis tinction is no doubt correct so far as the terms vengeance and salvation are concerned; but it cannot be so well sustained as to the others, since n^s signifies the righteousness of God, as the cause of the catastrophe in question, and nxa|5 not merely his zeal against his enemies, but his jealous regard for his own honour and the welfare of his people. (See the usage of this word fully stated in the Earlier Prophecies, p. 165.) The particular expressions of the verse need little explanation. The first piece of armour specified is not the breast-plate, as the older writers generally render it, perhaps in reference to Eph. 6: 14, but the habergeon or coat of mail. The first and third terms, denote parts of armour properly so called, the second and fourth the dress as distinguished from the armour. The V^a is either the tunic or the military cloak, often mentioned in the classics as being of a purple colour. The same noun is construed with the same verb in 1 Sam. 28: 14. The meaning of the whole verse is, that God equipped himself for battle, and arrayed his power, justice, and distinguishing attachment to his people, against their persecutors and oppressors.—Jubb proposes to omit nias&n as superfluous, inelegant, and probably a gloss from the margin. But even Lowth, although he quotes the proposition, leaves the text unchanged, and Henderson is betrayed into the opposite extreme of pronouncing the word “ singularly beautiful.”
18. According to (their) deeds, accordingly will he repay, wrath to his enemies, (their) desert to his foes, to the isles (their) desert will he repay. The essential meaning of this verse is evident and undisputed; but the fpnn of expression in the first clause is singular, if not anomalous. Some of the latest writers, such as Maurer, Henderson, and Umbreit, get rid of the difficulty simply by denying its existence, which is easy enough after every method of solution has been suggested by preceding writers. That there is a grammatical difficulty in the clause is evident not only from the paraphrastic forms adopted by the ancient versions, but also from the attention given to the question by such scholars as De Dieu, Cocceius, and Gesenius. Ewald, it is true, passes it by in silence, as he usually does when he has nothing to suggest but what has been already said by his predecessors. Another proof of the existence of a difficulty is, that even those who deny it paraphrase the text instead of rigidly translating it, and thus go safely round the hard place rather than triumphantly through it. The difficulty is not exegetical, hut purely grammatical, arising from the unexampled use of the preposition h> without an object: According to their deeds —according to—will he repay. Cocceius and Vitringa give to bs its original value as a noun, which very rarely occurs elsewhere (Hos. 11:7. 7: 16), and understand it here to mean the height or highest degree: ’ According to the height of their deserts, according to the height, will I repay.’ Lowth after quoting Vitringa’s opinion, that Cocceius and himself had together made out the true sense, adds with some humour, “ I do not expect that any third person will ever be of that opinion.” He little imagined that his own would never even be seconded. His proposition is to read h>2 for bs3 in either case, on the authority of the Chaldee para phrase of this place compared with that of ch. 35: 4 and Prov. 22: 24, in all which cases the Chaldee has i-na corresponding to the Hebrew brs, lord or master. The text thus amended Lowth translates, He is mighty to recompense, he that is mighty to recompense will requite, of which Hender son observes that it is drawling and paraphrastical at best, and incorrectly rendered; as it ought to have been, He is the Retributor, the Retributor will requite. But even granting Lowth the right to fix the meaning of a text manufactured by himself, it is evident that such an emendation must be critically worthless. De Dieu and Rosenmiiller explain b? when used in the sense of propter as equivalent to a noun meaning cause or reason; as if he had said, ’ on account of their deeds on (that) account, will I repay.’ But besides the artificial character of this solution, it overlooks the fact that although b2 by itself might simply indicate the cause or ground, the 3 prefixed denotes proportion, as in other cases where it follows verbs of recompense. (E. g. Ps. 18: 21. 62: 13. Jer. 50: 39.) The latest writers seem to have come back to the simple and obvious supposition of the oldest writers, such as Jerome and the rabbins, that it is a case of anomalous ellipsis, the object of the preposition being not expressed, but mentally repeated from the foregoing clause: According to their deeds, according to (them), he will repay. In the mere repetition there is nothing singular, but rather something characteristic of the Prophet. (See above, ch. 52:6.) Maurer and several later writers choose, however, to regard it not as a mere repetition of the same words in the same sense, but as an instance of the idiomatic use of 3—3, as equivalent to our as—50. The sense will then be. ‘as according to their deeds, so according to (their deeds) will he repay.’ But this construction would create a difficulty, even if these writers were correct in denying its existence there already. All that need be added is. that the English Version happily approaches to a perfect reproduction of the Hebrew expression by employing the cognate terms according and accord ingly, which has the advantage of retaining essentially the same term, and yet varying it so as to avoid a grammatical anomaly by which it might have been rendered unintelligible.—^*, according to the modern lexicographers, is not directly recompense, but conduct either good or bad, and as such worthy of reward or punishment. For Hengstenberg’s peculiar explanation of the verb and its derivatives, see his Commentary on the Psalms, I. p. 147, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 46. The feminine plural here used in the first clause, corresponds to the singular in 2 Sam. 19: 37. —The last clause, relating to the islands, J. D. Michaelis in his usual ostentatious manner, declares himself incompetent to understand, and, as he says himself of Kennicott elsewhere, seems disposed to wonder that any body else should be so bold as to understand it better than himself. On the whole he is inclined to regard it as a promise that the true religion should be spread throughout Europe. The modern writers who restrict the passage to the Babylonian exile, are again embarrassed by the writer’s losing sight of the wicked Jews whom he had been describing, and, as J. D. Michaelis says, threatening to visit their offences on the Gentiles. Knobel easily gets over this obstruction by observing that, although the wicked Jews were to be implicated in the ruin of the Babylonians, yet as these were the direct object of attack to Cyrus, they alone are mentioned. How far this will make it appear natural to s:ay, ‘ because ye are wicked, I will punish the Gentiles/ let the reader judge. There is also something very artificial in Henderson’s distinction between the enemies and adversaries of this verse, as meaning the wicked Jews destroyed or scattered by the Romans, and the isles, as meaning the Romans themselves, who were to be overthrown by the barbarians. The objection to such exegetical refinements is not that they are in themselves absurd or incredible, but simply that a thousand others might be invented not an atom more so. The only satisfactory solution is the one afforded by the hypothesis that the salvation here intended is salvation in the highest sense from sin and all its consequences, and that by Israel and the isles (or Gentiles) we are to understand the church or people of God, and the world considered as its enemies and his.
19. And they shall fear from the west the name of Jehovah, and from the rising of the sun his glory; for it shall come like a straitened stream, the spirit of Jehovah raising a banner in it. Luther and Ewald mark the dependence of this verse upon the one before it by translating the i so that; but there seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the simplicity of the original construction. The name and glory of Jehovah are here not only parallels but synonymes, as we learn from other places where the two terms are jointly or severally used to signify the manifested excellence or glorious presence of Jehovah. (See above, ch. 30: 27. 35: 2. 40: 5. 42: 11.) As in these and other places (e. g. ch. 8:9. 18: 3.
33: 13), the remotest nations or ends of the earth, here represented by the east and west (ch. 43: 5. 45: 6), are said to see this name or glory, Knobel accordingly translates the first verb they shall see. But although this affords a good sense and is justified by usage, it effects no such improvement in the meaning of the passage as would compensate for the violation of the masoretic pointing, confirmed by the authority of all the ancient versions Let it also be observed that the seeing is implied or presupposed in the fearing, and that the mention of this last effect agrees best with the mean ing of the last clause, which on any exegetical hypothesis suggests the thought of conflict and coercion.—Gesenius gratuitously changes from to in, as if the apparent necessity of that sense in a few doubtful cases could justify its substitution for the proper one in cases like the present, where it not only yields an intelligible sense but suggests an idea which must other wise be lost, viz. that of convergence from these distant points as to a common centre. There is the same objection to the sense which Lowth and Henderson attach to ITS, viz. that of belonging to (they from the west, those of the west), besides the dubious grammatical correctness of regarding as the subject of the verb what appears to be dependent on it as a qualifying phrase. There is something pleasing, if no more, in the suggestion of Vitringa, that the usual order of the east and west (ch. 43: 5. Mai. 1:11) is here reversed, as if to intimate that the diffusion of the truth shall one day take a new direction, an idea which Henderson applies specifically to the Christian missions of Great Britain and America, not only to new countries but to Asia, the cradle of the gospel, of the law, and of the human race.— The last clause of this verse has been a famous subject of dispute among interpreters, who differ more or less in reference to every word, as well as to the general meaning of the whole. The least important question has respect to the *o at the beginning of the clause; for whether this be rendered when or for, the sense remains essentially the same, because the one implies the other. The only weighty reasons for preferring the latter, are first its natural priority as being the usual and proper sense, and then the simplicity of structure which results from it as being more accordant with the genius and usage of the language. As to the next word (^) the only question is in relation to its subject or nominative, some connecting it with name, or glory in the other clause, some with Jehovah, some with ^ con sidered as a noun. Of those who thus explain “is, some suppose it to mean anguish or distress as in ch. 63: 8, others an enemy as in v. 18 above. Of those who consider it an adjective, one understands it to mean hostile, but the great majority narrow or compressed. The questions as to n*n are whether it means breath or spirit, and whether it is a poetical description of the wind, or a personal designation of the Holy Ghost. The only doubt in reference to JTJSTJ is whether it is idiomatically used to qualify the word before it (as a strong wind), or employed more strictly as a divine name. But the great theme of controversy is the next word noob, which some derive from 013, and some from ow; some regard as a participle, others as a preterite; some understand as meaning to set up a banner, others to put to flight, to drive along, or scatter. Lastly ia is by some construed directly with the verb as its object (drive it, scatter it, etc.), while by others it is separately understood as meaning either in it or against it. From the combination of these various senses have resulted several distinct interpretations of the whole clause, two of which deserve to be particularly mentioned, as the two between which most writers have been and are still divided. The first of these is the interpretation found, as to its essence, in several of the ancient versions, and especially the Vulgate, cum venerit quasi flumus viohntus quern Spiritus Domini cogit. This is substantially retained by Luther and by Lowth (when he shall come like a river straitened in his course, which a strong wind driveth along). It is also given by most of the recent German writers, with trivial variations,—Gesenius reading when, Ewald for. and the like. According to this view of the matter, njrn run is either a Hebrew idiom for a strong wind, or a poetical description of the wind in general as the breath of God. The former explanation, although Lowth prefers it, is aesthetically far below the other, which the later writers commonly adopt. It will also be observed that this interpretation makes now the causative of o« to fly, and takes “tt as an adjective, and in its primary etymological sense of narrow or compressed (Num. 22: 26), the idea being that of a stream confined in a narrow channel and flowing violently through it. The other principal interpretation of the clause gives ^3 the sense of when, ^ that of enemy, construes the latter with the verb to come, derives noob from 03 a banner, and explains the whole to mean that when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him. This is the version of the English and Dutch Bibles, of Vitringa, Alting, Henderson, and others. Between these two main interpretations there are others too numerous to be recited, which agree essentially with one but in some minor points coincide with the other or dissent from both. Thus Jarchi gives to now the sense of consuming^ which he thinks it has in ch. 10: 18, and J. D. Michaelis that of drying up, which he founds upon an Arabic analogy. Aben Ezra and Hitzig, though they construe ^ with the preceding verb, make it a substantive signifying pressure or distress. Maurer agrees with the second exposition of the clause in all points, except that he explains now in the sense of dispelling, and applies it to the stream itself. The objections to the first (and now prevailing) exposition, as stated by Rosenmuller and Maurer, are, its needless violation of the masoretic accents, which forbid the intimate conjunction of ^n; and nx as noun and adjective: the incongruity of likening Jehovah to a river which his own breath drives along; and the improbability that ^x is here used in a different sense from that which all attach to the plural in v. 18. To this may be added the unnatural image of a stream rendered rapid by the wind, and (against Maurer’s own interpretation) the gratuitous assumption that the Polel of 012 is used in this one place and as a causative, when that idea is expressed so often elsewhere by the Hiphil of the same verb. On the other hand, Gesenius himself derives oa from a root boa to raise, which might therefore be poetically used without the noun to express the whole idea; or the form before us might without absurdity be looked upon as an amalgam of the words ca K:ra, which are combined in ch. 5: 26. 13: 2. etc. (Compare the compound forms ns^n and n^abn, as explained by Hengstenberg in his Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. I. p. 218.) The common version of this vexed clause, therefore, is entirely defensible, and clearly preferable to the one which has so nearly superseded it. Considering, however, the objections to which both are open, it may be possible to come still nearer to the true sense by combining what is least objectionable in the other expositions; and in this view, no interpreter perhaps has been more successful than Cocceius, who translates the clause, quia veniet tanquam fluvius hostis in quo Spiritus Domini signum praeftrt. Besides giving every word its strictest or most probable interpretation, this ingenious version, as if by anticipation, shuns the last objection to Vitringa’s, namely that of Knobel, that the context does not lead us to expect an allusion to the coming of God’s enemies against him, but rather to his coming against them, as the preceding clause declares that all the ends of the earth shall fear his name and his glory. The objection of Vitringa, that the instruments of the divine purpose would not here be called an enemy, is without weight; since enemy is a relative expression, and Jehovah is continually represented as sustaining this relation to the wicked world. Another merit of Cocceius’s interpretation is that instead of giving 13 the rare and doubtful sense of against him., or the still more doubtful office of a mere connective of the verb and object, he explains it strictly as denoting in it, and at the same time introduces a new and striking image, that of the triumphant flag or signal erected in the stream itself and floating on its waves as it approaches. —On the whole, then, the meaning of the verse appears to be, that the ends of the earth shall see and fear the name and glory of Jehovah; because when he approaches as their enemy, it will be like an overflowing stream (ch. S: 7, 8. 28: 15), in which his spirit bears aloft the banner or the signal of victory.—The specific explanation of -.ns3 in the Targum as denoting the Euphrates is a very insufficient ground for Vitringa’s application of the passage to the Saracens and Tartars.
20. Then shall come for Zion a Redeemer, and for the converts of apostasy in Jacob, saith Jehovah. The English then is here used to convey the full force of the Vav conversive, which cannot be expressed in our idiom by the simple copulative and. The original construction necessarily suggests the idea of succession and dependence, b is not the proper particle of motion or direction, though it often supplies its place as well as that of other prepositions. This arises from the fact repeatedly stated heretofore, that b properly denotes relation in the widest sense, and is most commonly equivalent to as to, with respect to, the precise relation being left to be determined by the context. So in this place yi*:zb strictly means nothing more than that the advent of the great deliverer promised has respect to Zion or the chosen people, without deciding what particular respect, whether local, temporal, or of another nature altogether. Hence the Septuagint version, trtxsv 2i(uv, though it may be too specific, is not contradictory to the original; and even Paul’s translation, 1% 2icor, although it seems completely to reverse the sense, is not so wholly inconsistent with it as has sometimes been pretended. For although the Hebrew words do not mean from Zion, they mean that which may include from Zion in its scope; because it might be by going out of Zion that he was to act as her deliverer, and the Apostle might intend by his translation to suggest the idea that Zion’s redeemer was to be also the redeemer of the Gentiles. In no case, therefore, is there any ground for charging the Apostle with perversion, or the Hebrew text with corruption, as Lowth and J. D. Michaelis do by their assimilation of it to the words of Paul. It seems to me, however, that the variation in the latter not only from the Hebrew but the Septuagint, together with the use which the Apostle makes of this citation, warrant the conclusion that he is not there interpreting Isaiah, but employing the familiar language of an ancient prophecy as the vehicle of a new one. Other examples of this practice have occurred before, nor is there any thing unworthy or unreasonable in it, when the context in both cases clearly shows the author’s drift, as in the case befcr us, where it seems no less clear that Paul employs the language to predict the future restoration of the Jews, than that Isaiah uses it to foretell the deliverance of God’s people from their enemies in case of their repentance, without any reference to local, temporal, or national dis tinctions. This hypothesis in reference to Paul’s quotation has the advantage of accounting for his change of the original expression, which may then be regarded as a kind of caution against that very error into which interpreters have generally fallen. As to Knobel’s figment of Zion representing the captivity in Babylon, it seems to call for no additional discussion. (See above, on ch.40: 2.)—The expression converts of transgression or apostasy is perfectly intelligible, though unusual and perhaps without exampie; since according to analogy the phrase would seem to mean those relapsing into apostasy, the impossibility of which sense conspires with the context to determine as the true sense that which every reader spontaneously attaches to it.
21. And I (or as for me)—this (is) my covenant with them, saith Jehovah. My Spirit which is on thee, and my words which I have placed in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith Jehovah, from hence forth and for ever (or from now and to eternity). The absolute pronoun at the beginning is not merely emphatic, but intended to intimate a change of person, God himself reappearing as the speaker. There may also be allusion to the use of the pronoun in the promise to JXoah (Gen. 9: 9), which was ever present to the mind of Jewish readers as the great standing type and model of God’s covenants and promises, rvns denotes the stipulation which Jehovah condescends to make in return for the repentance and con version implicitly required in the verse preceding. This view of the connexion may serve still further to explain the introduction of the pronoun, as denoting upon my part, and referring to the previous requisition of some thing upon theirs. The only natural antecedent of the pronoun them is the converts of apostasy in Jacob, to whom the promise in v. 20 is limited. These are then suddenly addressed, or rather the discourse is turned to Israel himself as the progenitor or as the ideal representative of his descendants, not considered merely as a nation but as a church, and therefore including proselytes as well as natives, Gentiles as well as Jews, nay believing Gentiles to the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews. This idea of the Israel of God and of the Prophecies is too clearly stated in the Epistle to the Romans to be misapprehended or denied by any who admit the authority of the Apostle. This interpretation is moreover not a mere incidental application of Old Testament expressions to another subject, but a protracted and repeated exposition of the mutual relations of the old and new economy and of the natural and spiritual Israel. To this great body, considered as the Israel of God, the promise now before us is addressed, a promise of continued spiritual influence exerted through the word and giving it effect. The phrase, upon thee, here as elsewhere implies influence from above and has respect to the figure of the Spirit’s descending and abiding on the object. The particular mention of the mouth cannot be explained as having reference merely to the reception of the word, in which case the ear would have been more appropriate. The true explanation seems to be that Israel is here, as in many other parts of this great prophecy, regarded not merely as a receiver but as a dispenser of the truth,—an office with which as we have seen the Body i? invested in connexion with the Head, and in perpetual subordination to him. Israel, as well as the Messiah, and in due dependence on him, was to be the light of the gentiles, the reclaimer of apostate nations; and in this high mission and vocation was to be sustained and prospered by the neverfailing presence of the Holy Spirit, as the author and the finisher of all revelation. (See above, ch. 42: 1-7. 44: 3. 49: 1-9. 51: 16. 54: 3. 56: 6-8. 53: 12. And compare Jer. 31:31. Joel 2: 28. Ezek. 36: 27. 39: 29.)
