THIS chapter contains a vision and a prophecy of awful import. At an early period of his ministry, the Prophet sees the Lord enthroned in the temple and adored by the Seraphim, at whose voice the house is shaken, and the Prophet, smitten with a sense of his own corruption and unworthiness to speak for God or praise him, is relieved by the application of fire from the altar to his lips, and an assurance of forgiveness, after which, in answer to the voice of God inquiring for a messenger, he offers himself and is accepted, but with an assurance that his labours will tend only to aggra- V^te the guilt and condemnation of the people, who are threatened with judicial blindness, and, as its necessary consequence, removal from the desolated country; and the prophecy closes with a promise and a threatening 86 both in one, to wit, that the remnant which survives the threatened judg ments shall experience a repetition of the stroke, but that a remnant after all shall continue to exist and to experience God’s mercy.
The chapter naturally falls into two parts, the vision, vs. 1-8, and the message or prediction, vs. 9-13. The precise relation between these two parts has been a subject of dispute. The question is, whether the vision is an introduction to the message, or the message an appendage to the vision. Those who take the former view suppose that in order to prepare the Prophet for a discouraging and painful revelation, he was favoured with a new view of the divine majesty and of his own unworthiness, relieved by an assurance of forgiveness, and encouraged by a special designation to the self-denying work which was before him. Those who assume the other ground proceed upon the supposition, that the chapter contains an accpunt of the Prophet’s original induction into office, and that the message at the close was added to prepare him for its disappointments, or perhaps to try his faith.
Either of these two views may be maintained without absurdity and without materially affecting the details of the interpretation. The second is not only held by Jewish writers, but by the majority of Christian interpreters in modern times. The objection to it, founded on the place which the chapter holds in the collection, is met by some with the assertion, that the prophecies are placed without regard to chronological order. But as this is a gratuitous assumption, and as the order is at least prima facie evidence of date, some of the latest writers (Ewald for example) hold that the date of composition was Jong posterior to that of the event, and one writer ‘(Hitzig) goes so far as to assume, that this is the latest of Isaiah’s writings, and was intended to exhibit, in the form of an ex post facto prophecy, the actual result of his official experience. This extravagant hypothesis needs no refutation, and neither that of Ewald, nor the common one, which makes this the first of Isaiah’s writings, should be assumed without necessity, that is, without something in the chapter itself forbidding us to refer it to any other date than the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry. But the chapter contains nothing which would not have been appropriate at any period of that ministry, and some of its expressions seem to favour, if they do not require, the hypothesis of previous experience in the office. The idea of so solemn an inauguration is affecting and impressive, but seems hardly sufficient to out weigh the presumption arising from the order of the prophecies in favour of the otber supposition, which requires no facts to be assumed without authority, and although less striking, is at least as safe.
1. In the year that king Uzziah died (B. C. 758), I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and his skirts (the train of his royal robe) filling the palace, or, taking the last word in its more specific sense, the temple, so called as being the palace of the great King. “ No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1: 18), and God himself hath said, “ There shall no man see me and live” (Ex. 34: 20). Yet we read not only that “ the pure in heart shall see God” (Matt. 5:8), but that Jacob said, “ I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32: 30). It is therefore plain that the phrase to “ see God” is employed in different senses, and that although his essence is and must be invisible, he may be seen in the manifestation of his glory or in human form. The first of these senses is given here by the Targum and Grotius, the last by Clericus, with more probability, as the act of sitting on a throne implies a human form, and Ezekiel like wise in prophetic vision saw, “ upon the likeness of a throne, an appearance as the likeness of a man above upon it” (Ez. 1: 26). It has been a /’ general opinion in all ages of the church, that in every such manifestation it was God the Son who thus revealed himself. In John 12: 41, it is said to have been Christ’s glory that Isaiah saw and spoke of, while Paul cites vs. 9 and 10 (Acts 28: 25, 26) as the language of the Holy Ghost. It seems needless to inquire whether the Prophet saw this sight with his bodily eyes, or in a dream, or in an ecstasy, since the effect upon his own mind must have been the same in either case. It is also a question of no moment whether he beheld the throne erected in the Holy Place, or in the Holy of Holies, or in heaven, or, as Jarchi imagines, reaching from earth to heaven. The scene of the vision is evidently taken from the temple at Jerusalem, but not confined to its exact dimensions and arrangements. It has been disputed whether what is here recorded took place before or after the death > of Uzziah. Those who regard this as the first of Isaiah’s prophecies are forced to assume that it belongs to the reign of Uzziah. It is also urged in favour of this opinion, that the time after his death would have been de scribed as the first year of Jotham. The design, however, may have been to fix, not the reign in which he saw the vision, but the nearest remarkable event. Besides, the first year of Jotham would have been ambiguous, because his reign is reckoned from two different epochs, the natural death of his father, and his civil death, when smitten with the leprosy, after which he resided in a separate house, and the government was administered by Jotham as prince-regent, who was therefore virtually king before he was such formally, and is accordingly described in the very same context as having reigned sixteen and twenty years (2 Kings 15: 30, 33). It does not follow, however, that by Uzziah’s death the Prophet here intends his leprosy, as the Targum and some of the Rabbins suppose, but merely that the mention of Uzziah is no proof that the vision was seen before he died.— Abarbenel and Rosenmuller refer the epithets high and lofty to the Lord, as in ch. 57: 15, and Calvin understands by the train the edging of the cloth which covered the throne. But the common explanation is in either case more natural.—The conjunction before nanx. is not to be connected with M^h understood (Hendewerk), or rendered also (English Version), but explained as an example of a common Hebrew idiom which prefixes this particle to the apodosis of a sentence, especially when the first clause con tains a specification of time. It is here substantially equivalent to then, and is so rendered by Junius and Tremellius, Gesenius, Henderson, and others.
2. He sees the Lord not only enthroned but attended by his ministers. Seraphim, burning spirits, standing above it, the throne, or above him that sat upon it. Six wings, six wings, to one, i. e. to each. With two he covers his face, as a sign of reverence towards God, and with two he covers his feet, for the same purpose, or to conceal himself from mortal view, and with two he flics, to execute God’s will. The Hebrew word seraphim is retained by the Septuagint, Peshito, and Vulgate, but by the Targum para phrased as holy ministers. It is rightly explained by Kimchi and Abulwalid as meaning angels of fire, from C^to to burn, the name being descriptive either of their essence, or, as Clericus supposes, of their ardent love, or, according to Grotius, of God’s wrath which they execute. Lightfoot supposes a particular allusion to the burning of the temple, which is needless and un natural. This reference to heat as well as light, to something terrible as well as splendid, does away with Gesenius’s objection that the root means to burn, not to shine, and also with his own derivation of the noun from the Arabic ^Jii^X, noble, because angels are the nobility of heaven, and Michael is called one of the chief princes (Dan. 10: 13). Still less attention is due to the notion that the word is connected in its origin with Serapis (Hitzig) and signifies serpents (Umbreit), sphinxes (Knobel), mixed forms like the cherubim (Ewald), or the cherubim themselves (Hendewerk). The word occurs elsewhere only as the name of the fiery serpents of the wilderness (Num. 21: 6, 8. Dent. 8: 15), described by Isaiah (14: 29. 30: 6) as flying serpents. The transfer of the name to beings so dissimilar rests on their possession of two common attributes. Both are described as winged and both as burning.—Umbreit considers standing as synonymous with serving, because servants are often said in the Old Testament to stand before their masters. But it is better to retain the proper meaning, not as imply ing necessarily that they rested on the earth or any other solid surface, but that they were stationary, even in the air. This will remove all objection to the version above Aim, which may also be explained as describing the relative position of persons in a standing and sitting posture. There is no need therefore of the rendering above it, which is given in our Bible, nor of taking the compound preposition in the unusual sense of near (Grotius, Henderson), or near above (Junius), around (Sept. Ges. Ew.), or around above (Targ. Cocc. Arg. Um.).—The repetition of the phrase six wings sup plies the place of a distributive pronoun (Ges. <§> 118. 5). The version six pairs of wings rests on an entire misconception of the Hebrew dual, which is never a periphrasis of the number two, but is simply a peculiar plural form belonging to nouns which denote things that natur?lly exist in pairs. Hence the numeral prefixed always denotes the number, not of pairs, but of individual objects. (See Ewald’s Heb. Gr. <§> 365.)—The future form of the verbs denotes continued and habitual action. According to Origen there were only two seraphs, and these were the Son and Holy Spirit, who are here described as covering, not their own face and feet, but the face and feet of the Father, to imply that although they are his revealers, they conceal the beginning and the end of his eternity. Jerome denounces this ingenious whim as impious, but retains the same construction (faciem ejus, pedes ejus.) The Chaldee paraphrase is, l *with two he covered his face, *lest he should see; with two he covered his body, lest he should be seen; and with two he served.’ The covering of the feet may, however, according to oriental usage, be regarded as a reverential act, equivalent in import to the hiding of the face.
3. He now describes the seraphim as praising God in an alternate or responsive doxology. And this cried to this, i. e. one to another, and said, Holy, Holy, Holy (is) Jehovah of Hosts, the fulness of the whole earth, that which fills the whole earth, is his glory!—It was commonly agreed among the Fathers, that only two seraphim are mentioned here, and this opinion is maintained by Hendewerk. It cannot be proved, however, from the words this to this, which are elsewhere used in reference to a greater number. (See Ex. 14: 20. 36: 10. Jer. 46: 16.) Clericus explains this to this as relating not to the cry but the position of those crying, alter ad alterum conversus. Rosenmiiller understands the trine repetition as implying that the words were uttered first by one choir, then by another, and lastly by the two together, which is a very artificial hypothesis. The allusion to the trinity in this rQiadyiov is the more probable because different parts of the chapter are referred in the New Testament to the three persons of the Godhead. Calvin and Cocceius admit that the doctrine of the trinity cannot be proved from this expression, and that a like repetition is used else where simply for the sake of emphasis. See for example Jer. 7:4. 22: 9. Ezek. 21: 27. But according to J. H. Michaelis, even there the idea of trinity in unity was meant to be suggested (cum unitate conjuncta triplicitas.) Holy is here understood by most interpreters as simply denoting moral purity, which is certainly the prominent idea. Most probably, however, it denotes the whole divine perfection, that which separates or distinguishes between God and his creatures. “ I am God and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee.” Hos. 11: 9. On the etymology and usage of this word, see Hengstenberg on Ps. 22: 4, and 29: 9. Grotius strangely restricts its import by referring it in this case to God’s righteousness in dealing with the king and people. Umbreit supposes the idea of a separate or personal God, as opposed to the pantheistic notion, to be included in the meaning of the term. Grotius and Junius understand by yixn-^3 all the land, Luther and Hendewerk, all lands; the last of which, although inaccurate in form, is really synonymous with all the earth, and the former is forbidden by the strength of the expressions in the text and context. Clericus makes glory not the subject but the predicate: the fulness of the earth, all that the earth contains, is thy glory, or promotes it. But the common construction is sus tained by the analogy of ch. 8: 8, where fulness of the earth is the predicate, and that of the prayer and prediction in Ps. 72: 19 (let the whole earth be filled with his glory), and Num. 14: 21 (all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Jehovah). The words may have reference not only to the present but the future, implying that the judgments about to be denounced against the Jews, should be connected with the general diffusion of God’s glory. There may also be allusion to the cloud which filled the temple, as if he had said, the presence of God shall no longer be restricted to one place, but the whole earth shall be full of it. By the glory of God J. H. Michaelis understands his essence (Wesen) or God himself. But the idea of special manifestation seems to be not only expressed but prominent. The same writer renders nixsa nw, here and elsewhere, God of gods. Clericus as usual makes it mean God of armies or battles. The Hebrew word is retained by the Septuagint, Luther, Augusti and Umbreit. The use of the preterite at the beginning of the verse is probably euphonic. The Vav has no conversive influence, because not preceded by a future verb. (Nordh. §219.)
4. The effect of this doxology, and of the whole supernatural appearance, is described. Then stirred, or shook, the bases of the thresholds at the voice that cried, or at the voice of the one crying, and the house is filled with smoke. The words n^Qsn niax are explained to mean the lintel or upper part of the door-frame, by the Septuagint, Luther, and J. D. Michaelis. The Vulgate gives the second word the sense of hinges (superliminaria cardinum). It is now commonly admitted to mean thresholds, and the other word foundations. The common version, posts, is also given by Clericus and Vitringa. The door may be particularly spoken of, because the prophet was looking through it from the court without into the interior. The participle crying may agree with voice directly, voce clamante (Junius and Tremellius), or with seraph understood. Clericus makes it a collective, at the voice of those crying, in which he is followed by Gesenius and others; but Hendewerk supposes the singular form to intimate that only one cried at a time. Cocceius and J. H. Michaelis understand it to mean every one that cried. By smoke Knobel and others understand a cloud or vapour showing the presence of Jehovah. Most interpreters, however, understand it in its proper sense of smoke, as the natural attendant of the fire which blazed about the throne of God, or of that which burned upon the altar, as in Lev. 16: 13 the mercy-seat is said to be covered with a “cloud of incense.” In either case it was intended to produce a solemn awe in the beholder. The reflexive sense, it filled, itself, given to the last verb by Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, and Umbreit, is not so natural as the simple passive, it was filled or it became full.
5. The Prophet now describes himself as filled with awe, not only by the presence of Jehovah, but also by a deep impression of his own sinfulness, especially considered as unfitting him to praise God, or to be his messenger, and therefore represented as residing in the organs of speech. And I said, when I saw and heard these things, then I said. Woe is me, woe to me, or alas for me, a phrase expressing lamentation and alarm, for I am undone, or destroyed, for a man impure of lips, as to the lips, am I, and in the midst of a people impure of lips, of impure lips, I am dwelling, and am therefore undone, for the King, Jehovah of Hosts, my eyes have seen. The allusion is not merely to the ancient and prevalent belief that no one could see God and live (Gen. 32: 30. Judg. 6: 22-24. 13: 22. Ex. 4: 10, 12. 33: 20. 1 Sam. 6: 19), but to the aggravation of the danger arising from the moral contrast between God and the beholder.—According to an old interpretation, wa^is is a statement of the reason why he was alarmed, to wit, because he had kept silence, quia tacui (Vulgate), either when he heard the praises of the seraphim, or when it was his duty to have spoken in God’s name. The last sense is preferred by Grotius, the first by Lowth (I am struck dumb), and with some modification by J. D. Michaelis (that I must be dumb). This sense is also given to the verb by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Peshito, and in some copies of the Septuagint, the common text of which has xarcmVt^o*, I am smitten with compunction. Most other writers, ancient and modern, understand the word as meaning lam ruined or destroyed. It is possible, however, as suggested by Vitringa, that an allusion was intended to the meaning of the verb in its ground-form, in order to suggest that his guilty silence or unfitness to speak was the cause of the destruction which he felt to be impending. Above sixty manuscripts and several editions read Tflaii, which, as Henderson observes, is probably a mere orthographical variation, not affecting the sense. The lips are mentioned as the seat of his depravity, because its particular effect, then present to his mind, was incapacity to speak for God or in his praise. That it does not refer to official unfaithfulness in his prophetic office, is apparent from the application of the same words to the people. The preterite form of the verb implies that the deed was already done and the effect already certain. The substitution of the present, by Luther and many of the late writers, weakens the expression.
6. He now proceeds to describe the way in which he was relieved from this distress by a symbolical assurance of forgiveness. And there flew (or then flew) to me one of the seraphim, and in his hand a live coal (or a hot stone) with tongs he took it from off (or from upon) the altar of in cense, according to Hendewerk and others, but according to Grotius, that of burnt-offering, which stood without the temple in the court where the Prophet is supposed to have been stationed. Both these interpretations take for granted the necessity of adhering to the precise situation and dimensions of the earthly temple, whereas this seems merely to have furnished the scenery of the majestic vision. Knobel understands by the altar the golden altar seen by John in heaven, Rev. 8: 3. 9: 13. All that is necessary to the understanding of the vision is, that the scene presented was a temple and included an altar. The precise position of the altar or of the Prophet is not only unimportant, but forms no part of the picture as here set before us. As tips1! elsewhere means a pavement, and its verbal root to pave, and as the Arabs call by the same name the heated stones which they employ in cooking, most modern writers have adopted Jerome’s explanation of the word, as meaning a hot stone taken from the altar, which was only a consecrated hearth or fireplace. The old interpretation coal is retained by Hendewerk, who denies that stones were ever used upon the altar. In the last clause either the personal or relative pronoun may be supplied, he took it or which he took; but the former (which is given by Hendewerk, De Wette, and Umbreit) seems to agree better with the order of the words in Hebrew. The word translated tongs is elsewhere used to signify the snuffers of the golden candlestick, and tongs are not named among the furniture of the altars; but such an implement seems to be indispensable, and the Hebrew word may be applied to any thing in the nature of a forceps.—Hitzig and others, who regard the seraphim as serpents, sphinxes, or mixed forms, are under the necessity of explaining hand to mean forefoot or the like. Nothing in the whole passage implies any variation from the human form, except in the addition of wings, which are expressly mentioned.
7. And he caused it to touch (i. e. laid it on) my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquity is gone, and thy sin shall be atoned for (or forgiven). In the Chaldee Paraphrase the coal from off the altar is transformed into a word from the shechinah, which is put into the Prophet’s mouth, denoting his prophetic inspiration. So Jeremiah says: “ The Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth, and the Lord said unto me, behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” (Jer. 1: 9). And Daniel: “ One like the similitude of the sons of men touched.my lips; then I opened my mouth and spake” (Dan. 10: 16). Hence the Rabbins and Grotius understand the act of the seraph in the case before us as a symbol of prophetic inspiration. But this leaves unexplained the additional circumstance, not mentioned in the case of Jeremiah or Daniel, that the Prophet’s lips were not only touched, but touched with fire. This is ex plained by Jerome as an emblem of the Holy Spirit, and by others as a symbol of purification in general. But the mention of the altar and the assurance of forgiveness, or rather of atonement, makes it far more natural to take the application of fire as a symbol of expiation by sacrifice, although it is not necessary to suppose, with J. D. Michaelis, that the Prophet actually saw a victim burning on the altar. The fire is applied to the lips for a twofold reason: first, to show that the particular impediment of which the Prophet had complained was done away; and secondly, to show that the gift of inspiration is included, though it does not constitute the sole or chief meaning of the symbol. The gift of prophecy could scarcely be described as having taken away sin, although it might naturally accompany the work of expiation. The preterite and future forms are here combined, perhaps to intimate, first, that the pardon was already granted, and then that it should still continue. This, at least, seems better than arbitrarily to confound the two as presents.
8. The assurance of forgiveness produces its usual effect of readiness to do God’s will. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall Isend, and who will go for us 1 And I said, Here am I (literally, behold me, or, lo I am) send me. The form of expression in the first clause may imply that the speaker was now invisible, perhaps concealed by the smoke which filled the house. According to Jerome, the question here recorded was not addressed to Isaiah himself, because it was intended to elicit a spontaneous offer upon his part. ’ Non dicit Dominus quern ire praecipiat, sed proponit audientibus optionem, ut voluntas praemium consequatur.’ The same idea is suggested by J. H. Michaelis and Umbreit. For us is regarded by Vitringa as emphatic, ‘ who will go for us, and not for himself, or any other object?’ But the phrase is probably equivalent to saying, ’ who will be our messenger?’ This is the version actually given by Luther, J. D. Michaelis, and Gesenius. Most of the other German writers follow the Vulgate ver sion, quis nobis ibit 1 The plural form, us instead of me, is explained by Gesenius, Barnes, and Knobel, as a mere pluralis majestaticus, such as kings and princes use at this day. Hitzig denies the existence of that idiom among the orientals, either ancient or modern, and undertakes to give a metaphysical solution, by saying that the speaker looks upon himself as both the subject and object of address. Kimchi and Grotius represent the Lord as speaking, not in his own name merely, but in that of his angelic council (tanquam de sententia concilii angelorum), and the same view is taken by Clericus and Rosenmuller. The Peshito omits for us, while the Septuagint supplies instead of it the words to this people, and the Targum, to teach— £ whom shall I send to prophesy, and who will go to teach?’ Jerome’s ex planation of the plural, as implying a plurality of persons in the speaker, is approved by Calvin, who was doubtful with respect to the tQiadyiov in v. 3. This explanation is the only one that accounts for the difference of number in the verb and pronoun—’ whom shall I send, and who will go for us ¥ Jerome compares it with the words of Christ, “ Ego et Pater unurn sumus; unum ad naturam referimus, sumus ad personarum diversitatem.” The phrase ^35n is the usual idiomatic Hebrew answer to a call by name, and common ly implies a readiness for service. J. D. Michaelis translates it I am ready. A beautiful commentary upon this effect of pardoned sin is afforded in David’s penitential prayer, Psalm 51: 12-15.
9. The prophet now receives his commission, together with a solemn declaration that his labours will be fruitless. This prediction is clothed in the form of an exhortation or command addressed to the people themselves, for the purpose of bringing it more palpably before them, and of aggravating their insanity and wickedness in ruining themselves after such a warning. And he said, Go and say to this people, Hear indeed, or hear on, but under stand not, and see indeed, or continue to see, but ~know not. In most predictions some obscurity of language is required to secure their full [accomplishment. But here, where the blindness and infatuation of the people are foretold, they are allowed an abundant opportunity of hindering its fulfilment if they will. Not only is their insensibility described in the strongest terms, implying extreme folly as well as extreme guilt, but, as if to provoke them to an opposite course, they are exhorted, with a sort of solemn irony, to do the very thing which would inevitably ruin them, but with an explicit intimation of that issue in the verse, ensuing. This form of speech is by no means foreign from the dialect of common life. As J. D. Michaelis well observes, it is as if one man should say to another in whose good resolutions and engagements he had no faith, ’ Go now and do the very opposite of all that you have said.’ A similar expression is employed by Christ himself when he says to the Jews (Matt. 23: 32), Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. The Septuagint version renders the imperatives as futures, and this version is twice quoted in the New Testament (Matt. 13: 14. Acts 28: 26), as giving correctly the essential meaning of the sentence as a prophecy, though stripped of its peculiar form as an ironical command. J. H. Michaelis and Gesenius make even the original expression a strict prophecy, by rendering the future forms as futures proper (nee tamen intelligetis) on the ground that ^x is sometimes simply equivalent to s<b, or that the second of two imperatives sometimes expresses the result dependent on the act denoted by the first. But even admitting these assertions, both of which may be disputed, the predominant usage is so clear as to forbid any departure from the proper sense of the imperatives without a strong necessity, which, as we have seen, does not exist. Another mode of softening the apparent harshness of the language is adopted by the Targum, which converts the sentence into a description of the people, ‘who hear indeed but understand not, and see indeed but know not. ‘ Ewald and some older writers under stand this people as a phrase expressive of displeasure and contempt intentionally substituted for the phrase my people, not only here but in several other places. See for example Ex. 32: 9. Isai. 9: 16. 29: 13. Jer. 7: 16. The idiomatic repetition of the verbs hear and see is disregarded in translation by Luther, Clericus, and De Wette, and copied, more or less exactly, by the Septuagint (axojj ctxowm, {tt.KnovTe$ (tttyezs), the Vulgate (auditeaudientes/Videte visionem), Calvin, Cocceius, and Vitringa. Neither of these methods conveys the true force of the original expression, which is clearly emphatic, and suggests the idea of distinctness, clearness (J. D. Michaelis), or of mere external sight and hearing (Angusti), or of abundant sight and hearing (J. H. Michaelis sufficients sime), or of continued sight and hearing (Junius indesinenter), probably the last, which is adopted by Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Henderson, and Ewald. Maurer makes the prominent idea that of repetition (iterum iterumque.) The idea of hearing and seeing without perceiving may have been proverbial among the Jews as it seems to have been among the Greeks from the examples given by Wetstein in his note on Matt. 13: 13. Demosthenes expressly cites it as & proverb (naQOipia.), bq^vrag py oQav x«« axovovra? ^r\ axovtiv, and the Prometheus of ^Ischylus employs a like expression, in describing the primitive condition of mankind, on which one of the Greek scholiasts observes, dion vovv
10. As the foregoing verse contains a prediction of the people’s in sensibility, but under the form of a command or exhortation to themselves, so this predicts the same event, as the result of Isaiah’s labours, under the form of a command to him. Make fat, gross, callous, the heart of this people, i. e. their affections or their minds in general, and its ears make heavy, dull or hard of hearing, and its eyes smear, close or blind, lest it see with its eyes, and with its ears hear, and its heart understand, perceive or feel, and it turn to me, i. e. repent and be converted, and be healed, or literally and one heal it, the indefinite construction being equivalent in meaning to a passive. The thing predicted is judicial blindness, as the natural result and righteous retribution of the national depravity. This end would be promoted by the very preaching of the truth, and therefore a command to preach was in effect a command to blind and harden them. The act required of the Prophet is here joined with its ultimate effect, while the intervening circumstances, namely, the people’s sin and the withholding of God’s grace, are passed by in silence. But although not expressed, they are implied, in this command to preach the people callous, blind, and deaf, as J. D. Michaelis phrases it. The essential idea is their insensibility, considered as the fruit of their own depravity, as the execution of God’s righteous judgment, and as the only visible result of Isaiah’s labours. i *Deus sic praecipit judicialiter, populus agit criminaliter, propheta autem ministerialiter’ (J. H. Michaelis). In giving Isaiah his commission, it was natural to make the last of these ideas prominent, and hence the form of exhortation or command in which the prophecy is here presented. Make them insensible, not by an immediate act of power, nor by any direct influence whatever, but by doing your duty, which their wickedness and God’s righteous judgments will allow to have no other effect. In this sense the Prophet might be said to *preach them callous. In other cases, where his personal agency no longer needed to be set forth or alluded to, the verse is quoted, not as a command, but a description of the people, or as a declaration of God’s agency in making them insensible. Thus in Matt. 13: 15, and in Acts 28: 26, the Septuagint version is retained, in which the people’s own guilt is the prominent idea—’ for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hear ing, and their eyes they have closed, lest,’ etc. In John 12: 40, on the other hand, the sentence takes a new form, in order to bring out distinctly the idea of judicial blindness—’ he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest,’ etc. Both these ideas are in fact included in the meaning of the passage, though its form is different, in order to suit the occasion upon which it was originally uttered. There is no need, therefore, of supposing, with Cocceius, that the verbs in the first clause are infinitives with preterites understood (impinguando impinguavit—aggravando aggravavit—oblinendo oblivit), to which there is besides a philological objection (vide supra, ch. 5: 5). The paraphrase in John no more proves that the verse must be directly descriptive of God’s agency, than that in Acts and Matthew proves that it must be descriptive of the people’s own agency, which sense is actually put upon Cocceius’s construction by Abarbenel, who first proposed it, and who thinks that the verbs must either be reflexive—c the heart of this people has made itself fat, their ears have made themselves heavy, their eyes have shut themselves/—or must all agree with 1’ab—< the heart of this people has made itself fat, it has made their ears heavy, it has closed theidibyes.’ That a divine agency is really implied, though not expressed as Cocceius supposes, is clear from the paraphrase in John 12:40, and creates no difficulty here that is not common to a multitude of passages, so that nothing would be gained by explaining it away in this one instance. ‘ Absque hoc testimonio,’ says Jerome, ’ manet eadem quaestio in ecclesiis, et aut cum ista solventur et ceterae, aut cum ceteris et haec indissolubilis erit.’—The same considerations which have been presented render it unnecessary to suppose, with Henderson and others, that the command to blind and-harden is merely a command to predict that the people will be blind and hard; a mode of explanation which may be justified in certain cases by the context or by exegetical necessity, but which is here gratuitous and therefore inadmissible.—Gesenius, Augusti, and De Wette, understand by heart the seat of the affections, and accordingly translate “pr? by/ee?; but the constant usage of the latter in the sense of understanding or perceiving seems to require that the former should be taken to denote the whole mind or rational soul. The ancient versions take 1’as^ as an ablative of instrument, in which they are followed by Luther, the English Version (with their heart), Junius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Lowth, Augusti, and Henderson. Calvin makes it the subject of the verb (cor ejus intelligat), in which he is followed by Gesenius, Hitzig, De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit. The last construction is more simple in itself, but breaks the uniformity of the sentence, as the other verbs of this clause all agree with people as their subject.—Clericus takes KB1! as a noun and reads lest there be healing, and the same sense is put upon it as a verb by Junius and Vitringa. The Septuagint and Vulgate substitute the first for the third person, and I heal them. Cocceius refers the verb to God directly, lest he heal them, in accordance with his explanation of the first clause. Most of the modern writers assume an impersonal or indefinite construction, which may either be resolved into a passive (Gesenius, De Wette, Henderson), or retained in the translation (Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, Ewald). Kimchi explains the healing mentioned to be pardon following repentance. The representation of sin as a spiritual malady is.frequent in the Scriptures. Thus David prays (Ps. 41: 4), ‘Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee.’ Instead of heal, in the case before us, the Targum and Peshito have forgive, which is substituted likewise in the quotation or rather the allusion to this verse in Mark 4:12.
11. And I said, How long, Lord? And he said. Until that cities are desolate for want of an inhabitant, and houses for want of men, and the land shall be desolated, a waste, or utterly desolate. The spiritual death of the people should be followed by external desolation. Hitzig understands the Prophet to ask how long he must be the bearer of this thank- 7 less message; blithe common explanation is no doubt the true one, that he asks how long the blindness of the people shall continue, and is told until it ruins them and drives them from their country. Grotius supposes a particular allusion to Sennacherib’s invasion, Clericus to that of Nebuchadnezzar; but as the foregoing description is repeatedly applied in the New Testa ment to the Jews who were contemporary with our Saviour, the threatening must be equally extensive, and equivalent to saying that the land should be completely wasted, not at one time but repeatedly. Kimchi, who also understands the verse as referring to the Babylonian conquest, finds a climax in the language, -which is much more appropriate however when applied to successive periods and events. — The accumulation of particles tit “Y^K 1? is supposed by Henderson to indicate a long lapse of time; but it seems to differ from the simple form only as until differs from until that or until when. On the meaning of “para, vide supra, ch. 5: 9.
12. This verse continues the answer to the prophet’s question in the verse preceding. And (until) Jehovah shall have put far off, (removed to a distance) the men (or people of the country) and great (much or abundant) shall be that which is left (of unoccupied forsaken ground) in the midst of the land. This is little more than a repetition, in other words, of the declaration in the verse preceding. -The Septuagint and Vulgate make the last clause not a threatening but a promise that those left in the land shall be multiplied. Clericus and Lowth understand it to mean ‘there shall be many a deserted woman in the land. ‘ Gesenius, c many ruins.’ Ewald, *( *a great vacancy or void (Leere).’ Most other writers take rnifsj as an abstract, meaning desolation or desertion. But the simplest construction seems to be that of Henderson and Knobel, who make it agree with the land itself, and understand the clause as threatening that there shall be a great extent of unoccupied forsaken land. The terms of this verse may be applied to all the successive desolations of the country, not excepting that most extreme and remarkable of all which exists at the present moment..
13. The chapter closes with a jg^siiliffl. and gxjgflgian, of the threat-* ening, but in such a form as to involve a promise of the highest import. While it is threatened that the stroke shall be repeated on the remnant that survives its first infliction, it is promised that there shall be such a remnant after every repetition to the last. And yet— even after the entire desolation which had first been mentioned — in it — the desolated land — (there shall re main) a tenth or tithe — here put indefinitely for a small proportion — and (even this tenth) shall return and be for a consuming — i. e. shall again be consumed — but still not utterly, for — like the terebinth and like the oak — the two most common forest trees of Palestine — which m falling — in their fallen state, when felled—have substance or vitality in them—so a holy seed shall be or is the substance—vital principle—of it—the tenth or remnant which appeared to be destroyed. However frequently the people may seem to be destroyed, there shall still be a surviving remnant, and however frequently that very remnant may appear to perish, there shall still be a remnant of the remnant left, and this indestructible residuum shall be the holy seed, the true church, the faifipa xav3 zxlopiv %aQiTo$ (Rom. 11: 5). This prediction was fulfilled, ftot once for all, but again and again; not only in the vine-dressers and husbandmen left by Nebuchadnezzar and afterwards destroyed in Egypt; not only in the remnant that survived the destruction of the city by the Ro mans, and increased until again destroyed by Adrian; but in the present existence of the Jews as a peculiar people, notwithstanding the temptations to amalgamate with others, notwithstanding persecutions and apparent extirpa tions; a fact which can only be explained’by the prediction that “ all Israel shall be saved.” (Rom. 11: 26.) As in many former instances, throughout the history of the chosen people, under both dispensations, “ even so, at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” The reference of holy seed to Christ (as in Gal. 3: 16) restricts the verse to the times before the advent, and is here forbidden by the application of the He brew phrase to Israel in general (Ezra 9: 2. Comp. Isaiah 4: 3. 65: 9), a meaning which is here not changed but only limited, upon the principle that “ they are not all Israel which are of Israel (Rom. 9: 6).” As thus explained, the threatening of the verse involves a promise. There is no need therefore of attempting to convert it into a mere promise, by giving to “i^a the active sense of consuming or destroying enemies (De Dieu),or by making n±aj signify return from exile (Calvin) and connecting *>S2b with what follows—’ be destroyed like the terebinth and oak’ i. e. only destroyed like them. The passive sense of 15^3 nrv;h is fixed by the analogy of Num. 24: 22 and Isaiah 44: 15. The idiomatic use of the verb return to qualify another verb by denoting repetition is of constant occurrence and is assumed here by almost all interpreters ancient and modern. Besides, the tenth left in the land could hardly be described as returning to it. That is a denotes purification is a mere rabbinical conceit, waa has been variously explained to mean the sap (Targum), root (De Wette), trunk (Gesenius,) germ (Hitzig), etc. But the sense which seems to agree best with the connexion and the etymology is that of substance or subsistence, understanding thereby the vitality or that which is essential to the life and reproduction of the tree. r\M occurs elsewhere only in 1 Chron. 26: 16, where it seems to be the name of one of the temple-gates. Hence Aben Ezra supposes the prophet to allude to two particular and well known trees at or near this gate, while other Jewish writers understand him as referring to the timber of the gate or of the causeway leading to-it (1 Kings 10: 5.) The same interpretation is adopted by Junius, and Cocceius explains the word in either case as an appellative meaning causeway. But with these exceptions, all interpreters ap pear to be agreed in making the word descriptive of something in the condition of the trees, the spreading of their branches (Vulgate), the casting of their leaves (Targum) or of their fruit (Septuagint), or the casting down or felling of the tree itself, which last is commonly adopted. Instead of da, referring to the trees, more than a hundred manuscripts read na, referring to the tenth or to the land. The suffix in the last word of the verse i^referred to the land or people by Ewald and Maurer, but with more probability by others to the tenth, which is the nearest antecedent and affords a better sense..
