HAVING repeatedly and fully shown that the national pre-eminence of Israel was not to be perpetual, that the loss of it was the natural consequence and righteous retribution of iniquity, and that their loss did not involve the destruction of the true church or spiritual Israel, the Prophet now proceeds to show that to the latter the approaching change would be a glorious and blessed one. He accordingly describes it as a new and divine light rising upon Zion, v. 1. He contrasts it with the darkness of surround ing nations, v. 2. Yet these are not excluded from participation in the light. v. 3. The elect in every nation are the children of the church, and shall be gathered to her, vs. 4, 5. On one side he sees the oriental caravans and flocks approaching, vs. 6, 7. On the other, the commercial fleets of western nations, vs. 8, 9. What seemed to be rejection is in fact the highest favour, v. 10. The glory of the true church is her freedom from local and national restrictions, v. 11. None are excluded from her pale but those who exclude themselves and thereby perish, v. 12. External nature shall contribute to her splendour, v. 13. Her very enemies shall do her homage, v. 14. Instead of being cast off, she is glorified for ever, v. 15. Instead of being identified with one nation, she shall derive support from all, v. 16. All that is changed in her condition shall be changed for the better, v. 17. The evils of her former state are done away, v. 18. Even some of its advantages are now superfluous, v. 19. What remains shall no longer be precarious, v. 20. The splendour of this new dispensation is a moral and a spiritual splendour, but attended by external safety and protection, vs. 21, 22. All this shah certainly and promptly come to pass at the appointed time, v. 22^ 24
Here as elsewhere the new dispensation is’contrasted, as a whole, with that before it. We are not therefore to seek the fulfilment of the prophecy in any one period of history exclusively, nor to consider actual corruptions and afflictions as inconsistent with the splendid vision of the New Jerusalem presented to the Prophet, not in its successive stages, but at one grand panoramic view.
1. Arise, be light; for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah has risen upon thee. These are the words, not of a prophetic chorus, as Vitringa imagines, but of Isaiah, speaking in the name of God to Zion or Jerusalem, not merely as a city, nor even as a capital, but as the centre, representative, and symbol of the church or chosen people. A precisely analogous example is afforded by the use of the name Rome in modern religious controversy, not to denote the city or the civil government as such, but the Roman Catholic Church, with all its parts, dependencies, and interests. The one usage is as natural and intelligible as the other; and if no one hesitates to say that Newman has apostatized to Rome, or that his influence has added greatly to the strength of Rome in England, no one can justly treat it as a wresting of the Prophet’s language to explain it in precisely the same manner. And the arguments employed to prove that the Israel and Jerusalem of these predictions are the natural Israel and the literal Jerusalem, would equally avail to prove, in future ages, that the hopes and fears expressed at this day in relation to the growing or decreasing power of Rome have reference to the increase of the city, or the fall of the temporal monarchy established there.—The object of address is here so plain that several of the ancient versions actually introduce the name Jerusalem. The Septuagint renders both the verbs at the beginning by <pomtoi;, which is probably to be regarded not as a difference of text but as a mere inadvertence. The common version shine is defective only in not showing the affinity between the verb and noun which is so marked in the original. The English risen is.also less expressive, because more ambiguous and vague, than the Hebrew rnt, which means not to rise in general, but to rise above the horizon, to appear. The glory of Jehovah is his manifested presence, with allusion to the cloudy pillar and the Shechinah. Upon thee represents Jerusalem as exposed and subjected to the full blaze of this rising light. Rosenmiiller’s notion that be light, means be cheerful, as the eyes are elsewhere said to be enlightened (1 Sam. 14: 27, 29), is inconsistent with the figure of a rising sun. The explanation of the words by others as an exhortation to come to the light, supposes the object of address to be a person, which is not the case. Light, and especially the light imparted by the divine presence, is a common figure for prosperity, both temporal and spiritual. Hitzig gravely.represents it as certain from this verse, taken in connexion with ch. 62: 11, that between the completion of the foregoing chapter and the beginning of this, Cyrus issued his decree for the return of the captivity to Palestine. To an unbiassed reader it must be evident that this is a direct continuation of the foregoing context, and that what follows is distinguished from what goes before only by the increasing prominence with which the normal and ideal perfection of the church is set forth, as the prophecy draws near to a conclusion.
2. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and a gloom the nations, and upon thee shall Jehovah rise, and his glory upon thee shall be seen. The general description in the first verse is now amplified and carried out into detail. Of this specification the verse before us contains only the beginning. To regard it as the whole would be to make the Prophet say the very opposite of what he does say. The perfection of the glory promised to the church is not to arise from its contrast with the darkness of the world around it, but from the diffusion of its light until that darkness disappears. The Prophet here reverts for a moment to the previous condition of the world, in order to describe with more effect the glorious change to be produced. He is not therefore to be understood as saying that Zion ‘shall be glorious because while the nations are in darkness she is to enjoy exclusive light, but because the light imparted to her first shall draw the nations to her.—^EH? is essentially equivalent toTjttin,but stronger and more poetical. Lo\ th translates it vapour, which would be an anti-climax, and has no etymological exactness to recommend it. Gesenius translates it night, but in his lexicon explains it as a compound or mixed form, meaning a dark cloud. Jehovah and his glory, which are jointly said to rise in the preceding verse, are here divided between two parallel members, and the rising predicated of the first alone. Lowth’s version of the last word, shall be conspicuous, is vastly inferior both in vigour and exactness to the common version. Instead of upon thee noyes has over thee, which gives a good sense in itself, but not an adequate one, besides gratuitously varying the translation of the particle in one short sentence.
3. And nations shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising, i. e. thy rising brightness, or the bright light which shall rise upon thee. The common version, to thy light, may seem at first sight more exact than the one here given, but is really less so. The Hebrew preposition b does not correspond to our to as a particle of motion or direction, but expresses relation in the widest and most general manner. It is often therefore interchanged with other particles, and to, among the rest, but is not to be so translated here or in any other case without necessity. In this case it seems to mean that they shall walk with reference to the light in question, which in English may be best expressed by in, but not as a literal translation. The sense thus yielded is in some respects better than the other, as suggesting the idea not of mere attraction but of general diffusion. By light we are then to understand the radiation from the luminous centre and not merely the centre itself. This explanation of the verse is given by the best of the modern interpreters. Some of these, however, arbitrarily apply it to the restoration of the Jews from exile, who were to be accompanied by heathen kings as their guides and protectors. As a prophecy this never was fulfilled. As a visionary anticipation it could never have been entertained by a contemporary writer, such as these interpreters suppose the author of the book to be. Those who with J. D. Michaelis and Henderson apply this passage exclusively to the future restoration of the Jews, are of course cut off from aH historical illustration of its meaning, which the first of these writers therefore properly dispenses with. The allegation of the other that his own position is the only one “ that can be maintained consistently with a strict adherence to definite principles of interpretation/7 may be denied as boldly as it is affirmed. His charge of “ a perpetual vacillancy between the literal and the spiritual, the Jews and the Gentiles, tbepast and the future,” lies only against those interpretations which regard the book as a succession of specific and detached predictions. If our hypothesis be true, that it is one indivisible exhibition of the Church, under its two successive phases, and in its essential relations to its Head and to the world, the objection is not only inconclusive but absurd. How far it can be alleged with truth, and without bringing the Old and New Testament into collision, that the future glory of the Jewish people as a people is the great theme of these prophecies, and that the Gentiles are brought forward chiefly for the purpose of “ gracing the triumphs “ of the Jews, will be seen hereafter, if not evident already. In the meantime, nothing has been yet alleged to justify the arbitrary supposition of a sudden leap from one subject to another, scarcely more “ satisfactory” than a “ perpetual vacillancy” between the two.
4. Lift up thine eyes round about (i. e. in all directions) and sec; all of them are gathered, they come to thee, thy sons from afar shall come, and thy daughters at the side shall be borne. See ch. 43: 5—7 and 49: 18—23. The English Version seems to suppose an antithesis between pirnn and TO-^S 5 which last it accordingly translates at thy side, i, e. near thee, Lowth and Henderson suppose an allusion to the oriental practice, described by Chardin, of carrying young children astride upon the hip. The latest writers simply give to is the sense of arm, because the arm is at the side! The primary sense of V?N seems to be that of carrying, with special reference to children. Jerome understands it to mean nursing, in the sense of giving suck, and translates the phrase before us lac sugent, which has been corrupted in the Vulgate text to ex latere surgent. Grotius needlessly infers that Jerome read its instead of is. Those who confine these prophecies to the Babylonish exile, understand this as describing the agency of heathen states and sovereigns in the restoration. But in this, as in the parallel passages, there is, by a strange coincidence, no word or phrase implying restoration or return, but the image evidently is that of enlarge ment and accession; the children thus brought to Zion being not those whom she had lost, but such as she had never before known, as is evident from ch. 49:21. The event predicted is therefore neither the former restoration of the Jews, as Henderson alleges in the other cases, nor their future restoration, as lie no less confidently alleges here. The two interpretations are both groundless and destructive of each other. This perpetual insertion of ideas not expressed in the original, is quite as unreasonable as Vitringa’s being always haunted by his phantom of a chorus, which he here sees taking Zion by the hand, consoling her, etc. He is also of opinion that by daughters we are here to understand weak Christians who require peculiar tenderness from ministers. There is more probability in Knobel’s suggestion, that the Prophet made his picture true to nature by describing the sons as walking, and the daughters as being carried.
5. Then shah thou see (or fear) and brighten up (or overflow), and thy heart shall throb and swell; because (or WHEN) the abundance of the sea shall be turned upon thee, the strength of nations shall come unto thee. This translation exhibits the points of agreement as well as of difference among interpreters in reference to this verse. All agree that it describes a great and joyful change to be produced by the accession of the gentiles to the church or chosen people, and the effect of this enlargement on the latter. Aben Ezra, Lowth, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Doderlein, Justi, Gesenius, and Umbreit, derive “finn from fit7^ to fear, and apply it to the painful sensation which often attends sudden joy, and which is certainly described in the next clause. Nearly all the later writers repeat Lowth’s fine parallel quotation from Lucretius: His iibi me rebus quaedam divina voluptas Percipit atque horror—. Above sixty manuscripts and one of the oldest editions (Bib. Soncin.) require this explanation, by reading either ^fin^n, ^pn, or wn, none of which can regularly come from nsn to see. Yet the latter derivation is not only sanctioned by all the ancient versions, and preferred by Kimchi, but approved by Luther, Clericus, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, Ewald, and Knobel. It is curious to see how the parallelism is urged on either side of this dispute, and that with equal plausibility. Thus Vitringa thinks that thou shctlt see would he a vain repetition of the lift up thine eyes and see in v. 4, while Knobel describes the double reference to fear in this verse as a “ lastige Tautologie.” As to -ria the difficulty is in choosing between its two admitted senses of flowing (ch. 2: 2) and of shining (Ps. 34:6). The former is preferred by Jerome, who translates it afflues; by Junius and Tremellius, who have confines; and by the English and Dutch Versions, the latter of which refers it to the confluence of crowds produced by any strange occurrence. Vitringa makes it mean to flow out, and Lowth to overflow with joy. But all the latest writers of authority give the word the same sense as in Ps. 34: 6, which is well expressed by Henderson in strong though homely English, thou shall look and brighten up. His ver sion of the next clause, thy heart shall throb and dilate, may be improved by changing the last word, which he took from Lowth, to the equivalent but plainer swell.—ina, which Lowth renders ruffled, is admitted by most writers to be here used in its primary sense of trembling, which in reference to the heart may be best expressed by beating or throbbing. But the usual though secondary sense of fearing is retained by Luzzatto, who regards it’as descriptive of her terror at the sight of supposed enemies approaching; and by Hendewerk, who applies it to her apprehension that she would not have sufficient room for the accommodation of the strangers. The usual and proper sense of ^3 (for, because) is perfectly appropriate; the only reason for preferring that of when, as Vitringa, Gesenius, and others do, is its apparent relation to the TX at the beginning of the sentence, as if he had said, when the abundance of the sea, etc. then shalt thou see, etc. According to the other explanation of this particle, the TX refers to the foregoing context. Another doubt arises from the ambiguity of the nouns -pESi and b^n, both of which may be applied either to things or persons.—the first denoting sometimes a multitude (ch. 17: 12), sometimes abundance (Ps. 37: 16); the other signifying sometimes a military force (Ex. 14: 28), sometimes wealth (Gen. 34: 29.) As in either case the different meanings are only modifications of one radical idea—a multitude of persons and a multitude of things, a military force and pecuniary force,—as both the meanings of each word are here appropriate,—and as interpreters, whichever meaning they prefer, contrive to join the other with it,—we may safely infer that it was also the intention of the writer to convey the whole idea, that the gentiles should devote themselves and their possessions to the service of Jehovah. (Compare Zech. 14: 14.)—For of the sea J. D. Michaelis has from the west; and other writers who retain the strict translation, suppose a designed antithesis between the west in this verse and the eastern nations mentioned in the next. The conversion here predicted has the same sense as in English, viz. the conversion of the property of one to the use of another. Upon can hardly be a simple substitute for to, but is rather intended to suggest the same idea as when we speak of gifts or favours being showered or lavished on a person. This force of the particle is well expressed in Lowth’s translation, when the riches of the sea shall be poured in upon thee, but with too little regard to the proper meaning of the Hebrew verb. The next clause is a repetition of the same thought, but without a figure. If this had reference to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon, it was an extravagant anticipation utterly falsified by the event. But this, although it may commend the hypothesis to those who deny the inspiration of the prophet, is itself a refutation of it to the minds of those who occupy a contrary position. The most natural interpretation of the verse is that which makes it a promise of indefinite enlargement, comprehending both the persons and the riches of the nations. There is something amusing at the present day in Vitringa’s suggesting as a difficulty to be cleared away from the interpretation of the passage, that as Christianity is a spiritual religion it can have no great occasion for gold or silver. Even literally understood, the promise is intelligible and most welcome to the philanthropic Christian, as affording means for the diffusion of the truth and the conversion of the world.
6. A stream of camels shall cover thee, young camels (or dromedaries) of Midian and Ephah, all of them from Sheba shall come, gold and incense shall they bear, and the praises of Jehovah as good news. This last form of expression is adopted in order to convey the full force of the Hebrew verb, which does not mean simply to announce or even to announce with joy, but to announce glad tidings. (See above, on ch. 40: 9.) Re taining this sense here, the word would seem to signify not the direct praise of God, but the announcement of the fact that others praised him, and the messengers would be described as bringing to Jerusalem the news of the conversion of their people. It is possible, however, that the primary mean ing of lisa may be simply to announce, as in ch. 52:7. 1 Kings 1: 42. 1 Sam. 4: 17. 2 Sam. 18: 20, 26, and that the derivation given by Gesenius is fictitious. But in no case is it necessary, with Vitringa, to exchange the settled meaning of n-fenn for the doubtful one of praiseworthy acts.— Ewald has greatly improved upon the usual translation of n?Bti by exchanging multitude for stream or flood, the version given by Jerome (inundatio), and not only more expressive than the other, but in perfect accordance with the etymology, and with the usage of the noun itself in Job. 22: 11. 38: 34. When applied in prose to a drove of horses (Ez. 20: 10) or a troop of horsemen (2 Kings 9: 17), it requires of course a different version. This explanation of nssiz? throws light upon the phrase shall cover thee, a term> elsewhere applied to water (e. g. ch. 11:9), and suggesting here the poetical idea of a city not merely thronged but flooded with Arabian caravans. This is at least more natural than Vitringa’s notion that the camels are said to cover that which they approach, because they are so tall that they over top and overshadow it. The camel has been always so peculiarly associated with the Arabs that they are described by Strabo as axtjniai y.a^ln^o^oi. They are here, according to Isaiah’s practice, represented by a group of ancestral names. Ephah was the eldest son of Midian (Gen. 25: 4), who was himself the son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25: 2) and the brother of Jokshan the father of Shebn. (Gen. 25: 1-4.) The first two represent northern and central Arabia, the third Arabia Felix, so called by the old geographers because of the rich products which it furnished to the northern traders, either from its own resources or as an entrepot of Indian commerce. The queen of this country, by whom Solomon was visited, brought with her gold, gems, and spices in abundance (I Kings 10: 2), and we read else where of its frankincense (Jer. 6: 20), its Phenician commerce (Ezek. 27: 29), and its caravans (Job 6: 19), while those of Midian are mentioned even in the patriarchal history (Gen. 37: 28). Bochart supposes the Midian of this passage to be the Madiene of Josephus and the Modion of Ptolemy, and identifies Ephah with the “innog of the Greek geographers. It is more accordant with usage, however, to explain them as the names of the national progenitors, representing their descendants.—It matters little whether dromedaries or young camels be the true translation. (For the arguments on both sides see Bochart’s Hierozoicon, Vol. I. p. 15, with Rosenmuller’s Note.) The former is preferable only because it gives us a distinct name, as in the original, which is perhaps the reason that Gesenius retains it in his Version but rejects it in his Commentary. Aben Ezra and Saadias make 2 a preposition and “^ the plural of “3, which in Gen. 31: 34 denotes a litter or woman’s saddle used in riding upon camels.—The verb nxn^ does not agree with the preceding nouns, as the camels of Midian and Ephah could not come from Sheba, but with all of them, which may either be indefinite, ‘they (i.e. men) shall come all of them,’ or more specifically signify the merchants of Sheba. Most interpreters agree with the Targum in referring the last verb (‘ntes’?) to the men who come with the camels and the gifts; but as wto? properly denotes the act of the animals themselves, it is not without a show of reason that Vitringa construes the other verb in the same manner, and supposes the camels by their very burdens to praise God or rather to announce the disposition of these tribes to praise him. This is rendered still more probable by the analogy of the next verse, where kindred acts appear to be ascribed to other animals.—It is a common opinion of interpreters that this verse represents the east as joining in the acts of homage and of tribute which the one before it had ascribed to the west; O but it may well be doubted whether this distinctive meaning can be put upon the terms sea and nations there employed, and the antithesis would hardly be in keeping with another which appears to be designed between these two verses and the eighth, as will be explained below.
7. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered for thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to thee, they shall ascend with good-will (or accept ably) my altar, and my house of beauty I will beautify. To the traders of Arabia with their caravans and precious wares he now adds her shepherds with their countless flocks. While Kimchi explains all as meaning many, and Knobel all kinds, Vitringa insists upon the strict sense as an essential feature of the prophecy. Kedar, the second son of Ishmael (Gen. 25: 13), who represents Arabia in ch. 21: 16 and 42: 11, is here joined for the same purpose with his elder brother Nebaioth, obviously identical with the Nabataei, the name given to the people of Arabia Petraea by Strabo and Diodorus Siculus, who represent them as possessed of no wealth except flocks and herds, in which they were extremely rich. Ezekiel also speaks of Tyre as trading with Arabia and all the chiefs of Kedar in lambs and rams and goats. (Ezek. 27: 21.) These are here described as gathered in one vast flock to Jerusalem, or rather for her, i. e. for her use or service, which agrees best with what follows, and with the usage of the Hebrew preposition. They are then, by a bold and striking figure, represented as offer ing themselves, which is first expressed by the general term serve or minister, and then more unequivocally by declaring that they shall themselves ascend the altar. Kimchi endeavours to get rid of this bold metaphor by introducing with before the rams of Nebaioth and referring both verbs to the people themselves: (With) the rams of Nebaioth shall they serve thee, and cause (them) to ascend, etc. But the common judgment of interpreters is in favour of explaining the words strictly, and retaining the unusual figure unimpaired. They are not disposed however to go all lengths with Vitringa, who supposes the rams to be personified as priests offering themselves upon the altar.—The ascent of the victim on the altar is repeatedly connected elsewhere with the phrase Tisnb, to acceptance or acceptably. (See above, ch. 56: 7 and Jer. 6: 20.) But in this one place we have the phrase Visn-V?, as if the last noun had usurped the place of altar, which immediately follows. Of this unusual construction there are several distinct explanations. Kimchi regards it as a case of ysv or metathesis, which may be thus resolved: TGIB te -px-ib ibsi. Gesenius obtains precisely the same meaning by explaining hnata as an accusative after a verb of motion, and making V’s^-bs a simple variation of the common phrase “p’s^b. Hitzig and Henderson adopt the same construction, but suppose the two phrases to be different in sense as well as form, •jix’nb meaning to (divine) acceptance, •j-i^n-b? with good will or complacency. The phrase then only serves to strengthen the description of the victims as spontaneously offering themselves, an idea which Lowth finely, hut perhaps too artificially, illustrates by citations from Suetonius and Tacitus, showing that the ancients viewed reluctance in the victims as an evil omen, and hy parity of reasoning the appearance of spontaneous self-devotion as a good one.—In the last clause the meaning of the phrase ^SEP) n>1? is determined by the parallel expressions in ch. 64: 10, where the suffix necessarily belongs to the governing word, or rather to the whole complex phrase, and the whole means, not the house of our holiness and our beauty, but our house of holiness and beauty, or resolved into the occidental idiom, our holy and our beautiful house, which is the common English version. The LXX have here my house of prayer, as in ch. 56: 7; and Hitzig regards this as the genuine reading, though he does not adopt it in his German version. His reason for this critical decision is a very insufficient one, viz. that God is nowhere else said to glory in the temple, which is not the meaning of the common, text, rnxBn being here used in its primary and ordinary sense of beauty, as appears from its con junction with the verb *ixa, which, in this connexion, even upon Hitzig’s own hypothesis, must mean to beautify.—Grotius supposes this prediction to have been literally verified in Herod’s temple. Gesenius and the other Germans easily dispose of it as a fanatical anticipation. It is much more embarrassing to those who make the passage a prediction of the future restoration of the Jews and the future splendour of the literal Jerusalem. Some of the most intrepid writers of this class consistently apply their fundamental principle of literal interpretation, and believe that the Mosaic ritual or something like it is to be restored. But such interpreters as J. D. Michaelis and Henderson, who cannot go to this length, are obliged to own that spiritual services are here represented under forms and titles borrowed from the old dispensation. “ Whatever the descendants of those oriental tribes may possess shall be cheerfully placed at the disposal of the restored Jews There shall be no want of any thing that is required for the full restoration of divine worship, when the mosque of Omar shall give place to a new temple to be erected for the celebration of the services of that ministration which exceedeth in glory. 2 Cor. 3: 8-11.” This is the < literal interpretation ‘ of a school which will not allow Israel to mean the church or chosen people as such considered, but insists upon its meaning the nation of the Jews! The picture which this interpretation makes the Prophet draw may well be called a mixed one, consisting of a literal Jerusalem, literal caravans and camels, but a figurative altar, figurative victims, and a material temple to be built upon the site of the old one for a spiritual worship exclusive of the very rites which it is here predicted shall be solemnly performed there. Of such a figment upon such a subject we may say, with more than ordinary emphasis, and even with a double sense, Credat Judaeus apella! On the other hand, the prophecy explains itself to those who believe that the ancient Israel is still in existence and that the Jews as a nation form no part of it. The charge of mystical or allegorical interpretation does not lie against this view of the matter, but against Vitringa’s needless and fantastic addition to his real exegesis of a set of riddles or enigmas, in which he puz zles both his readers and himself by attempting to determine whether camels mean laborious and patient Christians, rams strong ones, sheep those fat tened by the word and clothed in the white wool of holiness, etc. To any but Vitringa himself it must be difficult to see in what respect all this is any better than the notion for which he reproves Eusebius, Jerome, and Procopius, that camels here mean rich men, as in Matth. 19: 24. And yet after saying in regard to these erring Fathers, vitanda utique sunt in applicationibus mysticis AMoyevij, he adds with great complacency, nostrae rationeshic sunt liquidae! If any proof were needed of the risk attending the admis sion of a false exegetical principle, however harmless in appearance, it would be afforded by these melancholy triflings on the part of one of the most able, learned, orthodox, devout, accomplished, and with this exception sensible interpreters of Scripture, that the world has ever seen or can expect to see again.
8. Who are these that fly as a cloud and as doves to their windows? It is a fine conception of Vitringa, that the ships expressly mentioned in the next verse are here described in their first appearance at a distance resembling with their outspread sails and rapid course a fleecy cloud driven by the wind, and a flight of doves returning to their young. Both comparisons are elsewhere used as here to indicate rapidity of motion. (Job 30: 15. Ps. 55: 7. Hos. 11: 11. Jer. 4: 13.) Much less felicitous is Vitringa’s idea that the image here presented is that of a prophetic chorus standing with the church on the roof of the city, and asked by her, or asking, what it is they see approaching. Houbigant’s emendation of the text by reading cmrmst, though approved by Lowth and even improved by the change of bx to }>y on the authority of more than forty manuscripts, so as to admit of the translation like doves upon the wing, is justly characterized by Gesenius as an “elende Conjectur.” The common text means lattices or latticed win dows, either of which is better than Henderson’s translation holes, though even this is preferable to the vague and weak term habitations used by Noyes.
9. Because for me the isles are waiting (or must wail), and the ships of Tarshish in the first place, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, for the name of Jehovah thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel, because he has glorified thee. This verse contains a virtual though not a formal answer to the question in the one before it. As if he had said, Wonder not that these are seen approaching, for the whole world is only awaiting my command to bring thy sons, etc. This view of the connexion makes it wholly unnecessary to give ns the sense of surely, yes, or any other than its usual and proper one of Jar, because. For the” true sense of iij^, see above on ch. 42: 4, and for ships of Tarshish, the Earlier Prophecies, p. 405. Luzzatto here gratuitously reads sn^ let them be gathered, which is applied to a confluence of nations in Jer. 3:17. The Septuagint, which elsewhere explains Tarshish to mean the sea, here retains the name; but the Vulgate even here has naves maris. J. D. Michaelis, the ships of Spain. Jarchi and Kimchi supply 3 before n:cx”i2, and explain it to mean 05 atjlrst, or as of old, referring to the days of Solomon and Hiram. This reading is actually found in twentyfive manuscripts, and sanctioned by the Peshito; but even Lowth retains the common text. The Hebrew phrase is generally understood to mean in the first rank either as to time or place. (Compare Num. 10: 13, 14.) Both may be included, as they really imply one another. The pronoun their may have for its antecedent either sons or islands; but the former, as the nearer, is more natural. The last clause is repeated from ch. 55: 5, where -,r^b takes the place of the first b and determines it to mean not to but for. There is no need therefore of explaining name to mean the place where the divine name was recorded. J. D. Michaelis still declines to say in what precise form this prediction is to be fulfilled; but Henderson, less cautious or more confident, affirms that the property of the Jews as well as themselves shall be conveyed free of charge to Palestine, adding that many of them resident in distant parts can only conveniently return by sea. The principle involved in this interpretation is, that we have no right to make the Zion here addressed any other than the literal Jerusalem, or the ships, the silver, and the gold, any other than literal silver, gold, and ships. This rule to be of any practical avail must apply to all parts of the passage, and especially to all parts of the verse alike, without which uniformity interpretation becomes wholly arbitrary or mere guess-work. It is an interesting question, therefore, what we are to understand in this connexion by the ships of Tarshish, to which such extraordinary prominence is given in the work of restoration. As to this point, Henderson refers us to his note on ch. 23: 10, where we read as follows: “ By Tarshish there can no longer be any reasonable doubt we are to understand Tartessus, the ancient and celebrated emporium of the Phenicians, situated between the two mouths of the river Baetis (now Guadalquiver) on the south-western coast of Spain.” Are we to understand then that the vessels of this part of Spain are to be foremost in the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, just as the descendants of the ancient Kedar, Ephah, and Sheba, are to place their possessions at the disposal of the restored Jews? If so, this meaning should have been distinctly stated, as it partly is by Michaelis in translating Tarshish Spain. If not, and if as we suspect the ships of Tarshish are secretly identified with the commercial navy of Great Britain and perhaps America, we then have another medley like that in v. 7, but in this case consisting of a literal return to the literal Jerusalem in literal ships but belonging to a figurative Tarshish. In these repeated instances of mixed interpretation there is something like a vacillancy between the literal and the spiritual, which is any thing but satisfactory. To the assumption that commercial intercourse and navigation are here represented under forms and names derived from the Old Testament history, I am so far from objecting, that I wish to apply it to the whole prediction, and to use precisely the same liberty in under standing what is said of Zion and her sons, as in understanding what is said of Tarshish and her ships. Let it also be added to the cumulative proofs already urged in favour of our own hypothesis, that here, as in so many former instances, the writer does not even accidentally use any term explicitly denoting restoration or return, but only such as are appropriate to mere accession and increase ab extra. It cannot therefore be absurd, even if it is erroneous, to apply what is here said, with Vitringa, to the growth of the true Israel or chosen people by the calling of the gentiles, with particular allusion to the wealth of the commercial nations, from among whom the elect of God, the sons of Zion, when they come to the embraces of their unknown mother, shall come bringing their silver and gold with them.
10. And strangers shall build thy walls, and their kings shall serve thee; for in my wrath I smote thee, and in my favour I have had mercy on thee. For the true sense of the phrase “03”v:a, see above, on ch. 56: 3; and with the last clause compare ch. 54: 7, 8. The *3 relates to the whole of that clause taken together, not to the first member by itself. It was not because God had been angry, but because he had been angry and relented, that they were to be thus favoured. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. 238.) There is no need, however, of substituting an involved occidental syntax for the simple Hebrew construction, as Vitringa and Rosenmuller do, by reading, ’ for although in my wrath I may have smitten thee, etc.’ The English ver sion of the last verb in the sentence is correct. Lowth’s emendation of it, in which he is followed by Henderson and Noyes, is wholly ungrammatical since the preceding verb is not a future but a preterite. The change is also needless, since the mercy is described as past, not in reference to the date of the prediction, but of its fulfilment. There is something at once inexact and mawkish in Lowth’s paraphrase of this verb, I will embrace thee with the most tender affection. If any departure from the usual trans lation were required or admissible, the preference would be due to Ewald’s version (heb ich dich wiedcr).—Eicbhorn supposed the expectation here expressed to have been excited by the benefactions of the Persian kings to the restored Jews (Ezra 1:8. 6: 8, 9); but even Gesenius regards the date thus assigned to the prediction as too late. Knobel applies the text to the neighbouring heathen, called ^=:~ta:2 by Nehemiah (ch. 9: 2. comp. Ps. 18: 45. 144: 7, 11), who were to be driven from the lands upon which they had intruded during the captivity, and reduced to bondage by the restored Jews. Henderson’s explanation of the verse as meaning that foreigners shall count it an honour to be employed in rebuilding Jerusalem and “ in any way contributing to the recovery of the lost happiness of Israel, and that even monarchs shall regard it as a privilege to aid in the work by employing whatever legitimate influence they may possess in advancing it,” is hardly a fair specimen of strictly literal interpretation, but rather an insensible approximation to the old opinion, as expressed by Vitringa, that the Prophet here foretells the agency of strangers or new con verts in promoting the safety and prosperity of Israel, under figures borrowed from the old economy, and implying a vicissitude or alternation of distress and joy, such as Isaiah frequently exhibits. The building of the walls here mentioned is the same as that in Ps. 51: 20 and 147: 2, where it is no more to be literally understood than the captivity of Zion in Ps. 14: 7 or that of Job in ch. 42: 10. (See Hengstenberg on the Psalms, Vol. I. p. 291.)
11. And thy gates shall be open continually, day and night they shall not be shut, to bring into thee the strength of nations and their kings led (captive or in triumph). According to Hitzig there is here a resumption of the figures in v. 6, and the gates are represented as kept open day and night by the perpetual influx of Arabian caravans. But without going back to the peculiar imagery of that verse, we may understand the one before us as relating to the influx of strangers and new converts gene rally. The two ideas expressed are those of unobstructed access and undisturbed tranquillity. The use of *innB is the same as in ch. 48: 8, nearly but not entirely coincident with that of the corresponding verb in English, when we speak of a door’s opening instead of being opened. The difference is simply that between the description of a momentary act and of a permanent condition. The intransitive construction is in either case the same. Upon this verse, perhaps combined with Zech. 14: 7, is founded that beautiful and grand description, the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there (Rev. 21: 25), of which Vitringa speaks as an inspired exposition of the verse before us, while Henderson says more correctly that the Apostle “ borrows the language in his description of the New Jerusalem.”—VTI has the same ambiguity or latitude of meaning as in v. 5, above. The sense of wealth or treasure is preferred by most of the late writers, but Rosenmiiller has exercilus. Better than either, because comprehending both, is Vitringa’s version copia, to which we have no exact equivalent in English.—Vitringa and Rosenmiiller follow Kimchi in explaining CWID to mean escorted, led in procession, or, as Lowth has it, pompously attended, which they take to be the meaning of the verb in Nab. 2: 8. But as that place is itself obscure and doubtful, and as the verb is clearly employed elsewhere to express the act of leading captive (ch. 20: 4. 1 Sam. 30: 2), several of the later writers have reverted to this explanation, which is also given in the Targuin (rirpT) and by A ben Ezra, and agrees well with ch. 45: 14 (compare Ps. 149: 8). Gesenius in his Commentary charges Koppe with omitting to observe that this sense is at variance with the idea of voluntary adhesion expressed throughout the context; but in his Thesaurus he adopts this very explanation, without attempting to refute his own objection. Hitzig’s solution of it is that the nations are described as coming to Jerusalem en masse, and bringing their reluctant kings in chains along with them. Knobel proposes an entirely new explanation, in which &-WI3 is to have an active meaning (like nip? and tins), and to be trans lated leaders; but if ever the invention of a new sense was without the faint est colour of necessity, it is so here. The general meaning no doubt is that earthly sovereigns must unite in this adhesion to the true religion, either willingly or by compulsion. The different impressions made by such a passage on intelligent interpreters, according to their several hypotheses or previous conclusions, may be shown by comparing the remarks of Henderson and Umbreit upon this verse. While the latter confidently asks who can here fail to read the daily progress of God’s kingdom by accretion from the gentiles, in which sense the doors of Zion. are still open, kings and nations streaming in by day and night, the other gravely observes that “ modern travellers greatly complain of the inconvenience to which they are put, when they do not reach Jerusalem before the gales are closed.” This is either nothing to the purpose or implies that the blessing promised in the text is a more convenient regulation of the gate-police after the restoration of the Jews.
12. For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve thee shall perish, and the nations shall be desolated, desolated. Similar threatenings are found in Zechariah 10: 1, 12: 1, and 14: 17, in the last of which places there is a specific threat of drought, as the appointed punishment. This has led Hitzig and some later writers to explain the last verb here as meaning to be utterly dried up or parched. But in ch. 37: 18, above, it is applied to nations in the general sense of desolation. The for at the beginning of the verse is commonly explained as introducing a reason for the confluence of strangers just before predicted, namely, the desire of escaping this destruction; but it may as well be understood to give a reason for the promise of increase in general. The gates of Zion shall be crowded, because all shall enter into them but those who are to perish. The nations in the last clause may mean the nations just described, or, as the common version expresses it, those nations. But it may also mean, perhaps more naturally, those who still continue to be gentiles, heathen, by refusing to unite themselves with Israel.—The threatening in this verse is a very serious one, however understood; but it is also very strange and unaccountable if understood as meaning that all nations shall be utterly destroyed which will not serve the Jews when restored to their own country. Even if we give to serve the mitigated sense of showing favour and assisting, there is still something almost revolting in the penalty annexed to the omission; how much more if we understand it as denoting actual subjection and hard bondage. It is no wonder that a writer so acute as Henderson is forced by the pressure of this difficulty on his theory to seek for a “meiosis” in the sentence, and to understand the threatening as directed only against those who are chargeable with “ positive hostility,” a forced assumption not to be supported by a reference to Judges 5: 23. The whole is rendered clear by the assumption, not got up for the occasion, but resulting from an extensive exegetical induction, that the threatening was intended to apply, in its most obvious and strongest sense, to all those nations which refuse to be connected with the church or Israel of God.
13. The glory of Lebanon to thcc shall come, cypress, plane, and box together, to adorn the place of my sanctuary, and the place of my feet 1 will honour. The glory of Lebanon is its cedars. For the other trees here mentioned, see above, on ch. 41: 19, where, as here, they are merely representatives of ornamental forest-trees in general. The place of my sanctuary has been generally understood to mean the sanctuary itself; but several of the latest writers understand by it Jerusalem, as being the place where the temple was erected. The same sense is put by Maurer and others on the place of my feet, that is, the place where I habitually stand or walk. (Ezek. 43: 7.) Vitringa and the older writers generally seem to understand by it the ark of the covenant, considered as the footstool of Jehovah (I Chron. 28: 2. Ps. 99: 5. 132: 1) when enthroned between the cherubim (ch. 37: 16. Ps. 80: 2). In favour of the wider sense is the analogy of ch. 66: 2, where the same description is applied to the whole earth, but in reference to heaven as the throne of God.—Another topic upon which interpreters have been divided, is the question whether the adorning mentioned here is that of cultivated grounds by living trees, or that of buildings by the use of the choicest kinds of timber. The latter 385 opinion has most commonly prevailed; but Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, are decidedly in favour of the other, which is far more pleasing in itself and more in keeping with the poetical tone of the whole context. In either case the meaning of the figure is that the earthly residence of God shall be invested with the most attractive forms of beauty. Even Grotius, as Vitringa has observed, was ashamed to rest in the material sense of this description, and has made it so far tropical as to denote the conquest of many parts of Syria by the Jews. But Henderson goes back to ground which even Grotius could not occupy, and understands the verse not only of material trees but of material timber. “ A literal temple or house of worship being intended, the language MUST BE literally understood.” But why are literal trees more indispensable in this case than literal sheep and rams and a literal altar in v. 7, or than literal ships of Tarshish in v. 9? This perpetual vacillancy between the literal and the spiritual is any thing but satisfactory. “ From all that appears to be the state of Palestine in regard to wood, sup plies from Lebanon will be as necessary as they were when the ancient temple was constructed.” With this may be worthily compared the use of the same text to justify the ‘dressing of churches’ at the festival of Christmas,
14. Then shall come to thee bending the sons of thy oppressors, then shall bow down to the soles of thy feet all thy despisers, and shall call thee the City of Jehovah, Zion the holy place of Israel (or the Zion of the Holy One of Israel). For the same ideas and expressions, see above, ch. 45: 14 and 49: 23. The y$ bef >re ni&3 is not simply equivalent to at, but expresses downward motion, and may be translated down to. The act described is the oriental prostration as a sign of the profoundest reverence. The Vulgate makes he sense still stronger, and indeed too strong, by attaching to the verb a religious meaning, and regarding niB§ as its object (adorabunf vestigia pedum tuoruni). The sons are mentioned either for the purpose of contrasting the successive generations more emphatically, or as a mere oriental idiom without distinctive meaning. In favour of the latter supposition is the circumstance that it is wanting in the other clause, where the despisers are themselves represented as doing the same thing with the sons of the oppressors. -pta means not only to despise in heart but to treat with contempt. These humbled enemies are represented as acknowledging the claim of Zion to be recognised as the holy place and dwelling of Jehovah. The old construction of the last words, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel, supposes Zion as a proper name to govern the next word, contrary to the general rule, but after the analogy of such combinations as Bethlehem of Judah and Jehovah of Hosts. Hitzig prefers to make “p”*. an appellative synonymous with -j^a;, the pillar of the Holy One of Israel Maurer more plausibly suggests that ttStipj here means not a holy person but 25 a holy or consecrated place, as in ch. 57: 15. Ps. 46: 5. 65: 5. On any of these suppositions, the sense of the acknowledgment remains the same. That sense is determined by the parallel passage ch. 45: 14, where a part of the confession is in these words, only in thee is God. (See above, p. 118.) The same sense must here be attached to the acknow ledgment of Zion as the City of Jehovah, in order to explain or justify the strength of the expressions put into the mouth of her repentant enemies. The old Jerusalem was not merely a holy place, a city of Jehovah, but the holy place, the city of Jehovah. Its exclusive possession of this character was perfectly essential, and is always so described in Scripture. Are we to understand, then, that Jerusalem, when rebuilt and enlarged hereafter, is again to be invested with its old monopoly of spiritual privileges? If it is, how can such a restoration of the old economy be reconciled with the New Testament doctrines? If it is not, why are these repentant enemies described as rendering precisely the same homage to the New Jerusalem, which properly belonged to the old? If this is a mere figure for deep reverence and so forth, what becomes of the principle of literal interpretation? Whether these questions are of any exegetical importance, and if so, whether they are satisfactorily solved by Henderson’s interpretation of the verse as meaning that “ the descendants of her oppressors will acknowledge the wrongs that have been done to her, and humbly crave a share in her privileges,” is left to the decision of the reader. On the supposition hitherto assumed as the basis of the exposition, this verse simply means that the enemies of the Church shall recognise her in her true relation to her divine Head.
15. Instead of thy being forsaken and hated and with none passing ((through thee), and I will place thee for a boast of perpetuity, a joy ofage and age. The nnn may express either simply a change of condition •(whereas), or the reason of the change (because), or the further idea of equitable compensation. Hitzig supposes an allusion in nwato to the use of the same word in the law with respect to a less beloved wife (Gen. 29: 31. Deut. 21: 15). But in the phrase ^ste “px the personification seems entirely merged in the idea of a city. The i at the beginning of the second ^clause is commonly regarded as the sign of the apodosis, and as such can not be expressed in English. It may however have its usual copulative meaning if the first clause be connected with the foregoing verse as a part •of the same sentence. In either case the 1 must at the same time be conversive and connect the verb with those of the preceding verse, or else it must be taken as a praeter like ^rn in v. 10. In order probably to make the application of the verse to the material Jerusalem more natural, Henderson •observes that cbis is here used, as in many other places, for a period of long and unknown duration. As this is certainly the primitive meaning of the word, it is often so applied, and yet it may be noted that according to the true interpretation of the prophecy, this expression may be taken in its utmost strength and latitude of meaning.
16. And thou shall suck the milk of nations, and the breast of kings shalt thou suck, and thou shalt know that I, Jehovah, am thy saviour, and (that) thy redeemer (is) the Mighty One of Jacob. All interpreters agree with the Targum in applying this verse to the influx of wealth and power and whatever else the kings and nations of the earth can contribute to the progress of the true religion. The figure is derived from Deut. 33: 19, they shall suck the abundance of the seas. *ito cannot here mean desolation, as above in ch. 59: 7 and below in v. 18, but must be a variation of the usual form ia5 as in Job 24: 9. The catachresis in the second clause is not a mere rhetorical blunder, but as Hitzig well says, an example of the sense overmastering the style, a license the occasional use of which is characteristic of a bold and energetic writer. It also serves the useful purpose of showing how purely tropical the language is. Lowth and Noyes gratuitously try to mitigate the harshness of the metaphor by changing the second suck into fostered at and nursed from the breast of kings. Vitringa speaks of some as attempting to remove the solecism altogether by making kings mean queens or the daughters of kings, or by appealing to extraordinary cases in which males have given suck! The construction of the last clause is the one expressed by Noyes. Each member of that clause contains a subject and a predicate, and therefore a complete proposition. The sense is not merely that Jehovah is the Mighty One of Jacob, but that the Mighty God of Jacob is Israel’s redeemer, and the self-existent everlasting God his saviour. Here, as in ch. 1: 24, Henderson translates “i^ax protector; but see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 18.
17. Instead of brass (or copper) I will bring gold, and instead of iron 1 will bring silver, and instead of wood brass, and instead of stones iron, and I will place (or make) thy government peace and thy rulers righteous ness. Grotius follows the Targum in explaining the first clause as a promise of ample compensation for preceding losses. As if he had said, cfor the brass which thy enemies have taken from thee I will bring thee gold,’ etc. Knobel, on the contrary, understands the clause as meaning that the value of the precious metals shall be lowered by their great abundance. Hender son likewise understands it as a promise that “ the temporal prosperity of the restored Israelites shall resemble that of their ancestors in the days of Solomon.” (See 1 Kings 10: 27. 2 Chr. 9: 20, 27.) But the thought which is naturally suggested by the words is that expressed by Vitringa, namely, that all things shall be changed for the better. The change described is not a change in kind, 5. e. from bad to good, but in degree, i. e» from good to better; because the same things which appear to be rejected in the first clause are expressly promised in the second. The arrangement of the items Vitringa endeavours to explain as having reference to the out ward appearance of the substances, those being put together which are most alike. See a similar gradation in ch. 30: 26. Zech, 14: 20. 1 Cor. 3: 12, 15 i 41.—The last clause resolves the figures into literal expressions, and thus shows that the promise has respect not to money but to moral advantages. rvrj^B properly means office, magistracy, government, here put for those who exercise it, like nobility, ministry, and other terms in English, (Compare Ezek. 9: 1. 2 Kings 11: 18.) srfejab, which has commonly a bad sense, is here used for magistrates or rulers in general, for the purpose of suggesting that instead of tyrants or exactors they should now be under equitable government. The two parallel expressions Henderson decides to signify the temporal and spiritual chiefs of the restored Jewish community, without assigning any ground for the alleged distinction. There is much more force in his remark that the similarity of structure between this verse and ch. 3: 24 corroborates the genuineness of these later prophecies. Koppe’s explanation of the last clause as meaning, {I will change thy punishment into peace and thy afflictions into blessing,’ is justly represented by Gesenius as arbitrary.
18. There shall no more be heard violence in thy land, desolation and ruin in thy borders (or within thy bounds); and thou shalt call salvation thy walls, and thy gates praise. According to Vitringa t>£H was the cry for help usually uttered in case of personal violence. (See Job 19:7. Jer. 20: 8.) But there is no need of departing from the strict sense of violence itself, which shall never more be heard of. He also distinguishes *i&5 and -QtiJ as relating severally to lands and houses. The most natural explanation of the last clause is that which makes it mean that the walls shall afford safety (ch. 26: 1) and the gates occasion of praise. Henderson’s explanation, that the gates shall resound with praise, does not agree well with the parallel. Some understand by praise the praise of God for her continued safety; others the praise or fame of her defences, considered either as arising from victorious resistance to assault, or as preventing it. For Jifertn the Septuagint has ylv^a sculpture, and for rang the Vulgate occupabit. Thou shall call, as in many other cases, means, thou shalt have a right and reason, so to call them. With this verse compare ch. 65: 19-25.
19. No more shall be to thee the sun for a light by day, and for brightness the moon shall not shine to thee, and Jehovah shall become thy OH APTE R LX. 389
everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. The b before fiib is neglected by the ancient versions, and Hitzig in like manner makes it a sign of the nominative absolute, as for the brightness of the moon, etc. (See above, ch. 32: 1, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 534.) But the masoretic accents require fiabb to be construed separately as meaning with its light (Gesenius), or for light (English Version). Some regard this merely as a figurative promise of prosperity, of which light is a natural and common emblem. Others understand it as a promise of God’s residence among his people, clothed in such transcendent brightness as to make the light of the sun and the moon useless. The true sense of the figures seems to be that all natural sources of illumination shall be swallowed up in the clear manifestation of the presence, power, and will of God. According to Henderson, this verse and the next depict the superlative degree of happiness which shall be enjoyed by the new and holy Jerusalem church, expressed in language of the most sublime imagery. Why we are thus more at liberty to treat the sun and moon of this passage as mere “imagery,” while the trees of v. 13 “must be literally explained “ as meaning timber, we are not informed.—With this verse compare Rev. 21: 23. 22: 5.—Lowth and J. D. Michaelis need lessly insert by night, on the authority of the ancient versions, which prove nothing, however, as to a difference of text. The occasional violation of the exact parallelism is not so much a biemish as a beauty.
20. Thy sun shall set no more, and thy moon shall not be withdrawn; for Jehovah shall be unto thee for an eternal light, and completed the days •of thy mourning. There is no need of supposing any want of consistency between this verse and that before it, nor even that the Prophet gives a new turn to his metaphor. Thy sun shall set no more, is evidently tantamount to saying, thou shall no more have a sun that sets or a moon that withdraws herself, because, etc. The active verb M&X is used in the same way by Joel, where he says that the stars withdraw THEIR brightness, i. e. cease to shine. The expression is generic, and may comprehend all failure or decrease of light, whether by setting, waning, or eclipse, or by the temporary intervention of a cloud. The last words of this verse are correctly said by Henderson to furnish a key to the whole description, by identifying joy with light, and grief with darkness.—Compare with this verse ch. 25: 8. Zech. 14: 7. Rev. 7: 16. 21: 4; and for the phrase, days of mourning, Gen. 27: 41.
21. And thy people, all of them righteous, for ever shall inherit the earth, the branch (or shoot) of my planting, the work of my hands, to glorify myself (or to be glorified).—Compare ch. 4: 3. 33: -24. 35: 8. 52: 1.
Rev. 21: 7, 27. The first clause may also be read as two distinct propositions, thy people all of them are (or shall be) righteous, for ever they shall inherit the earth. According to the literal interpretation, so called, this is a promise that the Jews shall possess the Holy Land for ever. But even granting land to be a more literal and exact translation, which it is not, still the usage of the Scriptures has attached to this prophetic formula a much higher meaning, the possession of the land being just such a type or symbol of the highest future blessings as the exodus from Egypt is of ultimate deliverance, or the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah of sudden, condign, irretrievable destruction. But in favour of the wider version, earth., is the analogy of ch. 49: 8, where Israel is represented as occupying and restoring the desolate heritages of the whole earth.—The Septuagint renders istji by yvldaucw, as if written “ttb. For the meaning of the word, see above, ch. il: 1. 14: 19, and the Earlier Prophecies, pp. 218, 286. According to Hendewerk, it here denotes the population of the new Jerusalem, and is identical with the plant and root of ch. 53: 2; from which he gravely infers that the a^^s of this verse and the p-*s of ch. 53: 11 must also be identical. The dependence of God’s people on himself for the origin and sustentation of their spiritual life is forcibly expressed by the figure of a plant which he has planted (Ps. 92: 14. Matt. 15: 13. John 15: 1, 2), and by that of a work which he has wrought (ch. 29: 23. 43: 7): in reference to the last of which the Apostle says (Eph. 2: 10), we are his workman ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them; and in reference to the first, our Lord himself (John 15: 8), herein is my Father glorified that ye bear much fruit, so shall ye be my disciples; and again, with an entire change of figure (Matt. 5: 16), let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven. The same ultimate design is set forth in the words of the verse before us.—The textual reading WBO is regarded by Gesenius and most other writers as an error of transcription for ^soa, as given in the margin. But Rosenmuller seems to think that the pronoun of the third person may refer to y^x, which is sometimes masculine; De Dieu refers it to the people; and Maurer thinks it possible to connect it with Jehovah, by a sudden enallage so common in the prophets; which last is approved by Hitzig, but avoided as too harsh in his translation. As to his notion that “ixarn describes God as being proud of Israel, see above, on v. 13.—To the question whether all the restored Jews are to be righteous, Henderson says nothing; but Michaelis maintains that this expression does not necessarily imply regeneration or denote true piety, but simply signifies the prevalence of social virtue, such as may exist even among the heathen, much more among those who are in possession of the true religion. —According to my own view of the Prophet’s meaning, he here predicts the elevation of the church to its normal or ideal state, a change of which we may already see the rudiments, however far we may be yet from its final consummation.
22. The little one shall become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation; I, Jehovah, in its time will hasten it. The superlative sense given to the adjectives little and small by Gesenius and Ewald is a needless departure from the idiomatic form of the original. The substantive verb with b may also be rendered shall be for, i. e. shall be so reckoned, which amounts to the same thing. Kimchi, and Rosenmuller after him, very unnecessarily observe that small and little here relate to number, not to size. Gesenius and several of the later writers understand them as denoting one without a family, or with a small one; in which case the t]^.K might be taken in its genealogical sense of household, family, or other subdivision of a tribe. (Judges 6: 15. 1 Sam. 10: 12. 23: 23. Micah 5:1.) But this whole interpretation is less natural than that of Vitringa, who applies the epithets to Israel itself, falsely, according to Gesenius, whose ipse dixit loses much of its authority in consequence of his own frequent changes of opinion upon insufficient grounds, or none at all. The verse, on the face of it, is simply a description of increase, like that in ch. 26: 15. 49: 19, 20. etc.—The pronouns in the last clause are correctly explained by Knobel as neuters, referring to the whole preceding series of prophecies. (Compare ch. 43: 13. 46: 11.) The his in the common version is equivalent to its in modern English, a possessive form apparently unknown to the translators of the Bible.—/ will hasten it, has reference to the time ordained for the event, or may denote the suddenness of its occurrence, without regard to its remote ness or the length of the intervening period, which seems to be the sense conveyed by the Vulgate version, subito faciam. (See above, ch. 13: 22, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 266.)—The reference of these promises to the literal Jerusalem is ascribed by Jerome to the Jews-and half-Jews (semijudaei) of his own day, and opposed by Vitringa on a very insufficient ground, viz. the impossibility of ascertaining the precise site of the ancient Jerusalem, an impossibility which may be considered as already realized. (See Robinson’s Palestine, I. p. 414.) The true ground of objection is the violation of analogy involved in this interpretation. The idea of Eusebius and Procopius, that the prophecy is literal, but conditional, and now rescinded by the unbelief of those to whom it was addressed, opens the door to endless license and makes exegesis either useless or impossible. It is a curious fact that Gregory VII. applied this passage to the church of Rome, in the palmy state to which she was exalted by himself. The hypothesis of Grotius, that it has exclusive reference to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon, is now the current one among the Germans, who of course are unaffected by Vitringa’s objection that the prophecy in this sense never was fulfilled. The real argument against it, is the absence of explicit reference to the supposed subject, and the ease with which an indefinite number of analogous restrictions or specific applications might be devised and carried out on grounds of equal plausibility. The only hypothesis which seems to shun the opposite extremes of vagueness and minuteness, and to take the language in its obvious sense, without forced constructions or imaginary facts, is the one pro posed in the introduction, and on which the exposition of the chapter has been founded. It is not the doctrine of some early writers, that the Jerusalem or Zion of this passage is the primitive or apostolic church, to which the description is in many points inapplicable; whereas it is perfectly appropriate to the New Jerusalem, the Christian Church, not as it was, or is, or will be at any period of its history exclusively, but viewed in reference to the whole course of that history, and in contrast with the many disadvantages and hardships of the old economy.
