AFTER describing the new condition of the Church, he again introduces the great personage by whom the change is to be brought about. His mission and its object are described by himself in vs. 1—3. Its grand result shall be the restoration of a ruined world, v. 4. The church, as a mediator between God and the revolted nations, shall enjoy their service and support, vs. 5, 6. The shame of God’s people shall be changed to honour, v. 7. His righteousness is pledged to this effect, v. 8. The church, once restricted to a single nation, shall be recognised and honoured among all, v. 9. He triumphs in the prospect of the universal spread of truth and righteousness. vs. 10, 11.
1. The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah (is) upon me, because Jehovah hath anointed me to bring good news to the humble, he hath sent me to bind up the broken in heart, to proclaim to captives freedom, and to the bound open opening (of the eyes or of the prison-doors.) Unction in the Old Testament is not a mere sign of consecration to office, whether that of a Prophet, Priest, or King (1 Kings 19: 16. Lev. 8:12. 1 Kings 1: 31), but the symbol of spiritual influences, by which the recipient was both qualified and designated for his work (See 1 Sam. 10: 1, 6. 16: 13.) Hence Kimchi’s definition of the rite, as a sign of the divine choice (fo»t>i>f> t)p»’53t) Pif>)’ although not erroneous, is inadequate. The office here described approaches nearest to the prophetic. The specific functions mentioned have all occurred and been explained before. (See above, on ch. 42: 1-7. 48: 16. 49: 1-9. 50: 4. 51: 16.) The proclamation of liberty has reference to the year of jubilee under the Mosaic law (Lev. 25: 10, 13. 27: 24. Jer. 34: 8-10), which is expressly called the year of liberty or liberation by Ezekiel (46: 17).—rhp-n^a is explained by Kimchi and Jarchi to mean opening of the prison, the second word being regarded as a derivative of n^ to take. De Dieu obtains the same sense by appealing to the Ethiopic usage. Gesenius and the other modern writers are disposed to follow Aben Ezra in treating it as one word (nipnjsB,), not a compound but an intensive or reduplicated form, intended to express the idea of complete or thorough opening. (See above, ch. 2: 20, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 36.) This Gesenius understands to mean the open ing of the prison, but in opposition to the settled usage which restricts nps and its derivatives to the opening of the eyes and ears, and which cannot be set aside by alleging that the corresponding verb in Arabic is used more widely. Ewald adheres to the only authorized sense, but explains it as a figurative description of deliverance from prison, which may be poetically represented as a state of darkness, and deliverance from it as a restoration of the sight. But for reasons which have been already given, the only natural sense which can be put upon the words is that of spiritual blindness and illumination. (See above, on ch. 42: 7. 50: 10.) With this question is connected another as to the person here introduced as speaking. According to Gesenius, this is the last of the Prophet’s self-defences (Selbstapologie); and he even goes so far as to assert that all interpreters are forced (nothgedrungeii) to regard Isaiah as himself the speaker. Umbreit supposes him to be the speaker, but only as the type and representative of a greater Prophet. Vitringa and other orthodox interpreters regard the question as decided by our Lord himself in the synagogue at Nazareth, when, after reading this verse and a portion of the next from the book of the Prophet Isaiah, he began to say unto them, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4: 16-22.) The brevity of this discourse, compared with the statement which immediately follows, that the people bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, and connected with the singular expression that he began thus to say unto them, makes it probable that we have only the beginning or a summary of what the Saviour said on that occasion. That the whole is not recorded may however be regarded as a proof that his discourse contained no interpretation of the place before us which may not be gathered from the few words left on record, or from the text and context of the prophecy itself. Now it must be admitted that the words of Christ just quoted do not necessarily import that he is the direct and only subject of the prophecy; for even if the subject were Isaiah, or the Prophets as a class, or Israel, yet if at the same time the effects foretold were coming then to pass, our Lord might say, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Upon this ground J. D. Michaelis adopts the application to Isaiah, without disowning the authority of Christ as an interpreter of prophecy. But this restriction of the passage is at variance with what we have already seen to be the true sense of the parallel places (ch. 42: 1-7 and ch. 49: 1-9), where the form of expression is the same, and where all agree that the same speaker is brought forward. If it has been concluded on sufficient grounds that the ideal person there presented is the Messiah, the same conclusion cannot, without arbitrary violence, be avoided here, and thus the prophecy itself interprets our Lord’s words instead of being interpreted by them. This in the present case is more satisfactory, because it cuts off all objection drawn from the indefinite character of his expressions. At the same time, and by parity of reasoning, a subordinate and secondary reference to Israel as a representative of the Messiah, and to the Prophets as in some sense the representatives of Israel as well as of Messiah in their prophetic character, must be admitted; and thus we are brought again to Christ as the last and the ideal Prophet, and to the ground assumed by the profound and far-seeing Calvin, for which he has been severely censured even by Calvinistic writers, and which Vitringa, while professing to defend him, calls a concession to the Jews (hie aliquid indulgendum censuit Judaeis), instead of a concession to candour, faith, good taste, and common sense. Henderson’s exposition of this passage differs from that of other orthodox interpreters only in connecting the Messiah’s office, here described specifically, with the future restoration of the Jews. It might have been supposed that some obstruction would have been presented to a literal interpreter in this case by the very strong expression of our Lord, this day is this prophecy fulfilled in your ears. But the pro cess of literal interpretation is in practice very simple and convenient. While the personal reference of the words to Christ, which is not affirmed by himself at all, is represented as “ the highest possible authority” for so explaining them, the actual fulfilment of the prophecy at that time, which is affirmed as strongly as it could be, goes for nothing. The two parts of this singular process cannot be presented in more striking contrast than by direct quotation. “No principle of accommodation, or of secondary application, can at all satisfy the claims of the announcement, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. It must, however, be observed, that this completion merely lay in our Lord’s entering upon the public discharge of his prophetic office among the Jews. Far from being confined to the instructions of that particular day, it was to be exercised in perpetuity, during the continuance of the church upon earth, AND PRE-EMINENTLY AS IT RESPECTS THE JEWS, at the future period here referred to.” This principle of gradual or continued fulfilment, not at a single point of time, but through a course of ages, is not only sound and often absolutely necessary to a correct interpretation of the prophets, but the very principle which in a hundred other instances is sacrificed without a scruple to the chimera of a purely “literal “ interpretation. Another remarkable comment of the same able writer upon this verse is as follows: “The terms captives and prison ers are to be taken metaphorically, and have no reference to external restraint.” It is only Jerusalem and Zion, and the temple and the trees required in building it, that “ must be literally explained.” See above on ch. 60: 13.
2. To proclaim a year of favour for Jehovah and a day of vengeance for our God, to comfort all mourners. Gesenius and Rosenmiiller explain ^ as the idiomatic sign of the genitive when separated from its governing noun, l *Jehovah’s year of grace, God’s day of vengeance.’ It is equally agreeable to usage, and more natural in this case, to give the particle its wider sense as denoting relation in general, a year of favour as to or con cerning God, which may here be expressed by the English *for. Vitringa quotes Clement of Alexandria as inferring from the use of the word year in this verse that our Lord’s public ministry was only one year in duration, a conclusion paradoxically maintained by Gerard John Vossius, but wholly irreconcilable with the gospel history. The expression is correctly explained by Vitringa as a poetical equivalent to day, suggested by the previous allusion to the year of jubilee; and Hitzig adds that there is probably a reference to God’s vengeance as a transitory act, and to his mercy as a lasting one. The same two words occur as parallels in ch. 34: 8. 63: 4, while in ch. 49: 8 we have the general expression time of favour. For the meaning of the last words of the verse, see above, on ch. 49: 13 and 57: 18. They may either be descriptive of sufferers, as the persons needing consolation, or of penitents, as those who shall alone receive it.
3. To put upon Zion’s mourners—to give them a crown instead of ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, a garment of praise for a faint spirit; and it shall be called to them (or they shall be called) the oaks of righteous ness, the planting of Jehovah (i. e. planted by Jehovah) to glorify himself. The construction seems to be interrupted and resumed, a practice not unfrequent with Isaiah. There is no need, therefore, of supplying joy after the first verb, as Houbigant and Lowth do. Of the many senses which might here be attached to the verb wto, the most appropriate is that of putting on, as applied to dress, though with another particle, in Gen. 37: 34. 41: 42, and often elsewhere. The English Version has appoint, and Gesenius give; both of which are justified by usage, but less suitable in this case than the one above proposed. By the repetition of the word mourners, this verse is wrought into the foregoing context in a mode of which we have had several examples. (See above, on ch. 60: 15.) Zion’s mourners may be simply those who mourn in Zion, or those who mourn for her (ch. 66: 10); but as these ideas are not incompatible, both may be included. (Compare ch. 57: 18. 60: 20.) Gesenius speaks of the paronomasia between *INB and “>$ as something entirely distinct from the antithesis in sense between an ornamental head-dress and the ashes strewn upon the head by mourners. But this relation of ideas may be looked upon as really essential to a true paronomasia. Augusti’s ridiculous travesty of this phrase (Putzfur Schmutz) has been actually revived by De Wette. Ewald with purer taste neglects the verbal assonance, and reproduces Jerome’s fine translation (coronam pro cinere.) That ointment was not used by mourners but rejoicers, may be learned from a comparison of 2 Sam. 14: 2 with Ps. 23: 5. Hitzig derives nfentn from the Kal of ^rj and explains it to mean brightness as the parallel term «”i!i3 is applied to a pale colour (Lev. 13: 21); but a sufficient contrast is afforded by the usual sense praise, the whole phrase meaning garments which excite admiration. For the meaning and translation of fc^K, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 21. By oaks of righteousness Gesenius understands such as enjoy the divine favour or blessing; Lowth, such as prove by their flourishing condition that they were planted by him; Henderson, such as bear the fruit of righteousness; Luzzatto, terebinths of long duration, as in ch. 1: 26; instead of city of righteousness and faithful city, he reads city of permanence, enduring city. The mixture not only of metaphors but also of literal and figurative language in this verse, shows clearly that it has respect to spiritual not external changes. (Compare ch. 44: 4. 60: 21.)
4. And they shall build up the ruins of antiquity, the desolations of the ancients they shall raise, and shall renew the cities of ruin (i. e. ruined cities), the desolations of age and age. Both the thought and language of this verse have been explained already. (See above, on ch. 49: 8. 54: 3. 58: 12.) Lowth, not contented with the difficulty of explaining “]vv in ch. 58: 12, would insert it here, on the authority of four manuscripts and David Kimchi; but Kocher understands the latter as distinctly pointing out the difference between the places.—The older writers take D^feian as an adjective agreeing with fvia»fej, but this is feminine; Gesenius and Ewald, as an absolute adjective or noun corresponding to majores, ancestors or ancients; Umbreit, as a noun meaning ancient times.—Hendewerk agrees with Gesenius, but applies the term specifically to the Jews who were alive at the destruction of the temple. The verb renew is applied as in 2 Chr. 15:8. 24: 4.—According to Henderson, this verse and the next “ admit of no consistent interpretation except on the principle that the Jews are to be restored to the land of their fathers. The ruins and desolations are those of cities that had once been inhabited, and cannot, without the utmost violence, be applied to the heathen world.” But why may they not be explained as “imagery,” like ch. 60: 19, 20, or be “ taken metaphorically” and without reference to external desolation, like the captives and prisoners of v. 1? If this be what is meant by “ consistent interpretation,” it is very dearly pur chased by assuming as a “ principle” a fact not mentioned in the text or context, and supposing this to be literally alluded to wherever the hypo thesis is possible, while all the accompanying circumstances are explained away as figures.
5. Then shall stand strangers and feed your flocks, and the children of outland (shall be) your ploughmen and your vinedressers. For the sense of 125-133, see above, on ch. 60: 10. Kimchi explains stand to mean, they shall rise and come for the purpose. Some suppose it to be an idiomatic pleonasm, others a periphrasis for service; but the first is a mere evasion, and the second sense belongs to the verb only when standing in the presence of another is expressed or implied. (Deut. 1: 38. 1 Kings 1: 28. Jer. 52: 12.) The conjunction of these verbs here and in Mic. 5: 3 may justify the supposition that the primary reference in either case is to a practice of the oriental shepherds. As to the meaning of the prophecy, interpreters are much divided. Some seem to take it in the strictest sense as a promise that the heathen should be slaves to the Jews. (See above, ch. 14: 2, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 268.) Gesenius understands it as meaning that the Jews should confine themselves to spiritual services, and leave mere secular pursuits to the gentiles. Nearly allied to this is Hitzig’s explanation, that the Jews and gentiles are described as sustaining the relation of priests and laymen to each other. Ewald qualifies it still more by describing the relation to be that of the Levites to the other tribes, and even this restricted by the promise in ch. 66: 21. But that verse shows conclusively that no exclusive promise of Levitical or sacerdotal rank to the Jews, as distinguished from the gentiles, can be here intended. This is confirmed by the language of Peter, who applies the promise of the next verse to the Christian church (1 Pet. 2:5). The only way in which all these seeming discrepancies can be reconciled, is by supposing, as we have done hitherto, that even in Ex. 19: 6 the promise is addressed to Israel not as a nation but a church; so that when the Jewish people ceased to bear this character, they lost all claim to the fulfilment of the promise, which is still in force and still enures to the benefit of those to whom it was originally given, namely, the Israel of God, that is to say, his church or chosen people. This view of the matter sets aside not only the interpretations which have been already mentioned as confining the promise to the natural descendants of Israel, but also that of Jerome and Procopius, who, although they cor rectly recognise the church as the object of address, make this a threatening that the Jews shall be supplanted by the gentiles as the pastors or ministers of the flock of God. That the holders of this office might in strict accordance with the usage of Scripture and of this book be described as shepherds, husbandmen, and vinedressers, may be seen by a comparison of ch. 3:14. 5:1. 11:6. 27: 2. 30: 23, 24. 40:11 with Acts 20: 28. 1 Cor. 3: 9. 9: 7, and with the imagery of our Saviour’s parables. It does not follow necessarily, however, that the office here assigned to strangers and foreigners is that of spiritual guides, much less that they are doomed to a degrading servitude. The simplest explanation of the verse is that which understands it as descriptive not of subjugation but of intimate conjunction, as if he had said, those who are now strangers and foreigners shall yet be sharers in your daily occupations and intrusted with your dearest interests. By strangers we are then to understand not gentiles as opposed to Jews, but all who have been aliens from the covenant of mercy and the church of God.—The only comment made by Henderson on this verse is included in the observation already quoted that these two verses (4 and 5) “ admit of no consistent interpretation, except on the principle that the Jews are to be restored to the land of their fathers.” How the author would apply this in detail to the fifth verse we can only argue analogically from his exposition of the fourth; and as he there insists upon a literal rebuilding of the cities once inhabited by Jews as the only sense of which the prophecy admits “ without the utmost violence,” so here he may be understood as tacitly believing in a future subjection of the gentiles to the restored Jews, as their husbandmen and shepherds. If, on the other hand, he understands the service here exacted to be metaphorical or spiritual, we have only to repeat what we have said before as to the worth of that “ consistent interpretation “ which results from the application of this novel “ principle.”
6. And ye (or more emphatically, as for you), the priests of Jehovah shall ye be called, the ministers of our God shall be said to you (or of you), the strength of nations shall ye eat, and in their glory shall ye substitute yourselves (or into their glory shall ye enter by exchange). Most of the earlier writers, down to Gesenius in his Commentary, agree substantially with Jerome in his version of the last word (superbietis), which they regard as a cognate form or an orthographical variation of ‘nsxn’i in Ps. 94:4, where it seems to denote talking of one’s self, and, by a natural transition, glorying or boasting. Albert Schultens tried to found upon an Arabic analogy the sense of < providing for one’s self,’ and Scheid that of’ floating or swimming in abundance.’ But all the latest writers, not excepting Gesenius in his Thesaurus, have gone back to Jarchi’s explanation of the word as denoting 1 *mutual exchange or substitution.’ This supposes it to be derived from ““9?, a cognate form and synonyme of ito, to change or exchange, occur ring only in the Hiphil, Jer. 2: 11. This word is important as determining the sense not only of the whole verse, but of that before it, by requiring both to be considered as descriptive not of exaltation and subjection, but of mutual exchange, implying intimate association. Some, it is true, attempt to carry out the first idea even here, by making this last word denote an absolute exclusive substitution, i. e. the dispossession of the gentiles by the Jews. But the context, etymology, and usage, all combine to recommend the idea of reciprocal exchange or mutual substitution. Interpreters in seek ing a factitious antithesis between the verses, have entirely overlooked the natural antithesis between the clauses of this one verse. They have sup posed the contrast intended to be that between servitude and priesthood: ‘they shall be your servants, and ye shall be their priests.’ But we have seen already that the fifth verse cannot, in consistency with ch. 66: 10, denote any thing but intimate conjunction and participation. The true antithesis is: ‘ye shall be their priests, and they shall be your purveyors; you shall supply their spiritual wants, and they shall supply your temporal wants.’ This explanation of the verse, to which we have been naturally led by philological induction and the context, coincides, in a manner too remarkaable to be considered accidental, with the words of Paul in writing to the Romans of the contribution made by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for the poor saints at Jerusalem: *If hath pleased them verily, and their debtors they are (i. e. they have chosen to do it, and indeed were bound to do it); for if the gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. (Rom. 15: 27.) This may seem, however, to determine the object of address to be the Jews; but no such inference can fairly be deduced from the words of the Apostle, who is only making one specific application of the general truth taught by the Prophet. What was true of the gentile converts then, in relation to the Jewish Christians as their mother-church, is no less true of the heathen now, or even of converted Jews, in reference to the Christians who impart the gospel to them. The essential idea in both places is, that the church, the chosen people, or the Israel of God, is.charged with the duty of communicating spiritual things to those without, and entitled in return to an increase of outward strength from those who thus become incorporated with it.—But it is not merely in this lower sense that the people of God are in the law (Ex. 19: 20) and the gospel (I Pet. 1: 3), as well as in the prophets, represented as the ministers and priests of God. Not only as instructors and reclaimers of the unbelieving world do they enjoy this sacred dignity, but also as the only representatives of their Great High Priest, in him and through him possessing free access to the fountain of salvation and the throne of grace. (Heb. 4: 14-16.) In this respect, as in every other which concerns the method of salvation and access to God, there is no distinction of Jew and gentile, any more than of Greek and barbarian, male and female, bond and free; but all are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s, and all alike are priests and ministers of God.—It only remains to add, that on the principle of limiting this prophecy to the future restoration of the Jews, it might have been supposed that this verse would be literally understood as promising both temporal and spiritual superiority to other nations; but according to the able representative of that opinion, who has been so often quoted, it “ implies holiness, spirituality, and devotedness to the service of God; so abundant shall be the supplies, that there shall be no absorption of time by the cares and distraction of business.” This, it seems, is the literal interpretation of the promise that the Jews shall be the priests and ministers of God, and as such shall consume the wealth of the nations and have their riches at command; for such is the meaning put upon JnE^nn by Henderson, who traces it to “inx, in the sense of commanding. Why there is any less “ violence “ in this interpretation of the verse before us than in the reference of v. 4 to the universal spread of the gospel, does not appear.
7. Instead of your shame (ye shall have) double, and (instead of their) confusion, they shall celebrate their portion; therefore in their land shall they inherit double, everlasting joy shall be to them. Vitringa and Rosenmiiller understand the therefore at the beginning of the second clause as deciding that the recompense must be described exclusively in that clause, while the first is wholly occupied with the account of their previous suffer ings: ’ Instead of your double shame, and instead of your lamenting (or their exulting), that confusion was their portion.’ etc. From this and other similar unnatural constructions, Gesenius and all the later writers have gone back to the one given in the Targum and by Jarchi, which makes double refer not to shame but recompense, and gives to’-n the same subject with the other verbs. It is still considered necessary, however, to assume an enallage of person, so that your shame and their portion may relate to the same subject. It is not impossible, however, that the Prophet has in view the same two classes who are distinctly mentioned in the preceding verses,—a construction which would not only do away with the enallage, but go far to confirm the explanation which has been already given of those verses as descriptive of mutual participation.—There is no need of explaining tjjsbn with Gesenius as an accusative of place, or supplying in before it, with the older writers; since the verb may govern it directly, as in Ps. 51: 16. 59: 17.—Lowth complains of the confusion in the Hebrew text, and applies an extraordinary remedy, by substituting the Peshito version, after first amending it.—Accord ing to Henderson, this verse means that the honour conferred by God upon the restored Jews, and the estimation in which they shall be held by believing gentiles, will far overbalance the contempt to which they have been subject. The limitation of the passage to the “ restored Jews” is as groundless and arbitrary here as elsewhere.—Double is used indefinitely to denote a large proportion. Compare ch. 40: 2.
8. For I am Jehovah, loving justice, hating (that which is) taken away unjustly, and f will give their hire truly, and an everlasting covenant I strike for them. The Vulgate and the rabbins give n^is» its usual sense of a burnt-offering, and explain the clause to mean that God hates unjust violence, especially (or even) in religious offerings. The modern writers generally follow the Septuagint in making it synonymous with ftbw (which is actually found in a few manuscripts), an explanation countenanced by the undoubted use of the corresponding plural and paragogic forms in that sense. (Job 5: 16. Ps. 58: 3. 64: 7.) Jerome’s objection that all robbery is unjust, would apply to a multitude of other places where there seems to be a redundance of expression, and proceeds upon the false assumption that M necessarily expresses the complex idea robbery, whereas it may be here used in its primary and strict sense of violent seizure or privation, the idea of injustice, which is commonly implied, being here expressed.— For the usage of!”&9B, see above, on ch. 40: 11, and for that of rv^a rV3S, on ch. 28: 15. 55: 3.—This verse is commonly applied to the violence practised upon Israel by the Babylonians. (Compare ch. 42: 24.) It is rather an enunciation of the general truth, that the divine justice renders absolutely necessary the destruction of his obstinate enemies, and the deliverance of his people from oppression. (Compare 2 Thess. 1: 6-8.)
9. Then shall be known among the nations their seed, and their issue in the midst of the peoples. All seeing them shall acknowledge them that they are a seed Jehovah has blessed. Vitringa, Gesenius, and some later writers, give to S”iia the emphatic sense of being famous or illustrious, as in Ps. 76: 2, where the parallel expression is I’BIZJ biia. But in the case before us, the parallelism, far from requiring this peculiar sense, requires the usual one of being known, as corresponding better to the phrase they shall recognise them. Thus understood, the first clause means that they shall be known among the nations in their true character as a seed or race highly favoured of Jehovah. Issue means progeny or offspring, as in ch. 48: 19^ 26 In order to apply this to the restored Jews, we must depart from the literal and obvious import of among and in the midst, and understand them as denoting merely that they shall be heard of; for how can they be said to be among and in the midst of the nations at the very time when they are gathered from them to their own land. And yet the whole connexion seems to favour the first meaning, and to show that they are here described as being scattered through the nations, and there recognised by clear distinctive marks as being God’s peculiar people, just as the Jews took knowledge of Peter and John that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4: 13.) It may be on account of this apparent inconsistency between the obvious sense of this verse and his own adopted “ principle,” that Henderson has no remark upon it, save that “o in trr3^ is pleonastic.” Some of the older writers, to avoid this assumption, render ”> because,—’ all that see. them shall acknow ledge them, because they are a seed which Jehovah has blessed.’ But, as Vitringa well observes, the verb requires a more specific statement of its object. Gesenius and the later writers liken the construction to that in <Gen. 1: 4, God saw the light that it was good; not simply saw that the light was good, but saw the light itself, and in so doing saw that it was good. So here the meaning is not merely that all seeing them shall acknow ledge that they are a seed, etc., but that all seeing them shall recognise them by recognising the effects and evidences of the divine blessing.—The ellipsis of the relative is the same in Hebrew and colloquial English.—The true application of the verse is to the Israel of God in its diffusion among all the nations of the earth, who shall be constrained by what they see of their spirit, character, and conduct, to acknowledge that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed. The glorious fulfilment of this promise in its original and proper sense, may be seen already in the influence exerted by the eloquent example of the missionary on the most ignorant and corrupted heathen, without waiting for the future restoration of the Jews to the land of their fathers.
10. (I will) joy, I will joy in Jehovah, let my soul exult in my God; for he hath clothed me with garments of salvation, a mantle of righteous ness has he put on me, as the bridegroom adjusts his priestly crown, and as the bride arrays her jewels. Vitringa here leads his chorus off the stage, where he has kept it since the beginning of v. 4, and lets the church come on, but whether as a male or female he considers a doubtful and perplexing question. To a reader unencumbered with this clumsy theatrical machinery, it must be evident that these are the words of the same speaker who appears at the beginning of this chapter and the next. J. D. Michaelis supposes an allusion to the oriental practice of bestowing the caftan or honorary dress upon distinguished culprits who have been acquitted. Luzzatto, in order CH AFTER LXI. 403
to avoid the assumption of a root B§; in this one case, reads ^-jsn from na$; but this, besides being arbitrary, throws the syntax of the tenses into a con fusion which, although it may be elsewhere unavoidable, is not to be assumed in any case without necessity.—rns is to put on or wear, but always used in reference to ornaments. ta^s may signify not merely gems, but orna mental dress in general. (See Deut. 22: 5.)— Gesenius in his Commentary gives ins the general sense of beautifying or adorning; but in his Thesaurus he agrees with the modern writers in acknowledging the derivation from k,rj3 a priest, for which no satisfactory etymology has yet been proposed. ‘As the bridegroom priests his turban.’ So Aquila me rvpqttov ieQarevopevw vreqavy. The reference is no doubt to the sacerdotal mitre, which was probably regarded as a model of ornamental head-dress, and to which IXB is explicitly applied (Ex. 39: 28. Ez. 44: 18).—Salvation and righteousness are here combined, as often elsewhere, to denote the cause and the effect, the justice of God as displayed in the salvation of his people. (See v. 8, above.) Or righteousness may be referred to the people, as denoting the practical justification afforded by their signal deliverance from suffering.
11. For as the earth puts forth its growth, and as the garden makes its plants to grow, so shall the Lord Jehovah make to grow righteousness and praise before all the nations. Compare ch. 45: 8 and Ps. 85: 11, 12. The exact construction of the first clause may be, like the earth (which) puts forth; or the idiom may resemble that in vulgar English which employs like as a conjunction no less than a preposition, like the earth puts forth. (See above, ch. 8: 23, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 153.) The studied assonance of ttmas, rrssp), and rrr^, is retained in the latest versions, after the example of the Vulgate, which has germen, germinat, and germinabit. By praise we are to understand the manifestation of excellence in general, by righteousness that of moral excellence in particular. The confusion of these terms by Vitringa and some later writers, as all denoting salvation, is as bad in its effect as it is groundless in its principle.—Knobel thinks it probable that the writer had by this time heard the news of Cyrus’s conquests in the west, by which his somewhat languid hopes had been revived. But there is nothing either in the text or context to restrict this verse to the former restoration of the Jews from the Babylonian exile, any more than to their future restoration to the Holy Land. The glory of the promise is its universality, in which the fulfilment will no doubt be coextensive with the prophecy itself.
