Isaiah 62

THE words of the great deliverer are continued from the foregoing chapter. He will not rest until the glorious change in the condition of his people is accomplished, v. 1. They shall he recognised by kings and nations as the people of Jehovah, vs. 2, 3. She who seemed to be forsaken is still his spouse, vs. 4, 5. The Church is required to watch and pray for the fulfilment of the promise, vs. 6, 7. God has sworn to protect her and supply her wants, vs. 8, 9. Instead of a single nation, all the nations of the earth shall flow unto her, v. 10. The good news of salvation shall no longer be confined, but universally diffused, v. 11. The glory of the church is the redemption of the world, v. 12.

1. For Zion’s sake I will not he still, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until her righteousness go forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp (that) burneth. Hitzig argues from the absence of the copulative particle, that this is the beginning of a new discourse, and that if the Prophet be the speaker here, he cannot be the speaker in the two preceding verses. Both these conclusions are unfounded; since the particle is frequently omitted where the same subject is still treated, and in the same.manner. On the other hand, the Prophet constantly assumes the person and expresses the feelings of different characters in this great drama, without any express intimation of the change in the text itself. Kimchi follows the Targum in explaining this verse as the language of Jehovah, who, as J. D. Michaelis thinks, is here replying to the thanksgiving of the church in the foregoing verses. The rest and silence must be then understood to denote inaction and indifference, as in ch. 42: 14. In like manner Grotius makes it a specific promise of Jehovah that he will not rest until Cyrus is victorious. Cocceius supposes the Messiah to be speaking, and assuring his people of his intercession. Henderson also, on the ground of the frequency with which the Redeemer is thus abruptly introduced by our Prophet, sup poses the Messiah to be here represented as interesting himself for the prosperity of Zion, and assuring her that through his mediatorial intercession the Jews shall be restored to their standing in the church of God. Vitringa thinks it clear from the analogy of v. 6, that the silence here prohibited is that of Zion’s watchmen or the rulers of the church, of whom he accordingly makes up a chorus in accordance with his favourite theatrical hypo thesis. A simpler and more obvious sense is the one now commonly adopted, that the Prophet himself declares his resolution not to cease from the prediction of Zion’s future glory, as Forerius supposes, but according to the general opinion, from prayer to God on her behalf. Eichhorn absurdly ascribed the passage to a Jew in Palestine who wrote it on hearing of the edict by Cyrus for the restoration of the exiles. Perhaps the most satisfactory conclusion is, that if the Prophet here speaks of himself, he also speaks by implication of his associates and successors in the office, not excluding Christ as the last and greatest of the series; so that several of the exegetical hypo theses already mentioned may in this way be combined and reconciled. If an exclusive subject must be chosen, it is no doubt the same as in the first verse of the foregoing chapter. The sense of righteousness and salvation is the same as in ch. 61: 10 and elsewhere. By a singular change of the abstract to the concrete, the Vulgate has Justus ejus et salvator ejus.—The going forth here mentioned is the same as in Ps. 19: 6, 7; and brightness, or as Lowth translates it, strong light, may specifically signify the dawn of day or the rising of the sun as in Prov. 4: 18. Lowth’s version of the parallel expression (blazing torch) is stronger than the common version, but adheres less closely to the form of the original.

2. And nations shall see thy righteousness, and all Icings thy glory; and there shall be called to thee a new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall utter (or pronounce distinctly). Here again the Vulgate applies the abstract terms to Christ, by rendering them justum tuurn, inclytum tuum. Grotius retains this inaccurate translation, but applies the epithets to Cyrus, as the illustrious patron of the Jews, and at the same time a type of Christ. The substitution of glory for salvation does not seem to be regarded by any of the modern writers as a proof that salvation means glory, although quite as clear as that righteousness means salvation. The mention of kings is intended to imply the submission even of the highest ranks to this new power. (Compare ch. 49: 7, 23. 52: 15.) Vitringa’s explanation of wo as meaning to experience or to know in a spiritual sense, at once perverts the Prophet’s meaning, and enfeebles his expression. The idea evidently is that they shall witness it and stand astonished.—The new name may be that which is afterwards stated in v. 4, or the expression may be understood more generally as denoting change of condition for the better. (See above, ch. 1: 26. 60: 14, and compare Jer. 3: 16. 33: 16. Ezek. 48: 35. Rev. 2: 17. 3: 12.) Some one quoted by Vitringa supposes an allusion to the change in the name of the chosen people from Jew to Christian; but the former name is still applied to the spiritual Israel, in Rom. 2: 9 and Rev. 2: 9. (See below, on ch. 65: 15.) J. D. Michaelis supposes an allusion to the oriental practice of imposing new names upon towns which have been ruined and rebuilt. The translation of the last verb by Lowth (shall fix upon thee) and by Noyes (shall give, thee) does not convey its exact sense, which, according to the lexicons is that of pronouncing or uttering distinctly, though the common version (shall name) is justified by usage. (Compare Num. 1:17. 1 Chron. 12:31. Amos 6: 1.) Henderson finds no difficulty in admitting that this clause is not to be understood of a mere name, but has special reference to state and character, according to the common idiom by which any thing is said to be called what it really is. Is it absolutely certain then that Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion, are in all cases strictly national and local designations, and that they never have respect to state and character rather than to natural descent or geographical position?

3. And thou shalt be a crown of beauty in Jehovah’s hand, and a diadem of royalty in the palm of thy God. The only difficulty in this verse has respect to the crown’s being twice emphatically placed in the hand and not upon the head. Aben Ezra refers to the practice of wearing wreaths and circlets on the arms; but the text speaks expressly of the hand and of the palm, and both the ornaments described are such as were worn upon the head. Some of the older writers quote Suetonius’s account of the athletae as wearing the Olympic crown upon the head and carrying the Pythian in the hand; but this, as Rosenmiiller well says, was a mere act of necessity, and what is here said has respect to royal not athletic crowns. Ewald agrees with Brentius in supposing that Jehovah is here represented as holding the crown in his hand to admire it; Cocceius and Ewald, for the purpose of exhibiting it toothers; Piscator, for the purpose of crowning himself. J. D. Michaelis takes in the hand of God to mean at his disposal, or bestowed by him. This is a good sense in itself; but upon whom could Zion or Jerusalem be thus bestowed? Hitzig and Henderson think it perfectly obvious that it would be incongruous to place the crown upon Jehovah’s head; and as it could not be placed upon the ground, as in ch. 28: 1, the only place remaining was the hand! Gesenius understands the hand of God to mean his power or protection, which approaches nearly to Vitringa’s explanation of the phrase as meaning he shall hold it fast or keep it safe. (Compare Rev. 3: 11.) Maurer gives the same sense to the phrase, but connects it with the subject of the verse, and not with the figure of a crown; as if it had been said, under his protection thou shalt be a crown of beauty and a diadem of royalty.—Lowth’s version of the last phrase in the grasp of thy God is vigorous but inexact. The true sense is the one expressed by Henderson (the palm). The original combination of two nouns is more expressive than the adjective construction into which it is resolved by most translators. The beautiful crown of Lowth and the magnificent crown of Noyes, are much inferior to the literal translation, crown of beauty or of glory, and not required by the parallelism, since the cor responding phrase strictly means a diadtm of royalty. According to Gataker the last word is added to distinguish the Spas here mentioned from the sacer dotal turban or mitre.

4. No more shall it be called to thee (shall thou be called) Azubah (Forsaken), and thy land shall no more be called Shemamah (Desolate); but thou shalt be called Hephzibah (my delight is in her), and thy land Beulah (Married), for Jehovah delights in thee, and thy land shall be married. The joyful change of condition is further expressed in the Prophet’s favourite manner, by significant names. The common version not only mars the beauty of the passage, but renders it in some degree unintelligible to the English reader, by translating the first two names and retaining the others in their Hebrew dress. It is obvious that all four should be treated alike, i. e. that all the Hebrew forms should be retained, or none. Henderson prefers the latter method on the ground that “ the names are merely symbolical and will never be employed as proper names/’ It is probable, however, that they were all familiar to the Jews as female names in real life. This we know to have been the case with two of them: the mother of Jehoshaphat was named Azubah (1 Kings 22: 42), and the mother of Manasseh Hephzibah (2 Kings 21: I). It is better therefore to retain the Hebrew forms, in order to give them an air of reality as proper names, and at the same lime to render them intelligible by translation. In the last clause there is reference to the primary meaning of the verb, viz. that of owning or possessing; and as the inhabitants of towns are sometimes called in Hebrew their possessors, fi^bsii a noun derived from this very verb (Josh. 24: 11. Judg. 9: 2. 2 Sam. 21: 12 compared with 2 Sam. 2: 4), its use here would suggest, as at least one meaning of the promise, thy land shall be inhabited, and so it is translated in the Targum.

Vs. 6, 7. On thy watts, oh Jerusalem, I have set watchmen; all the day and all the night long they shall not be silent. Ye that remind Jehovah, let there be no rest to you, and give no rest to him, until he establish and until he place Jerusalem a praise in the earth. According to Vitringa, the prophetic chorus is here relieved by an ecclesiastical o-ne; and as the first words do not well suit this imaginary speaker, he removes all difficulty by sup plying thus saith Jehovah. To the more obvious supposition that Jehovah is himself the speaker he makes a very singular objection, viz. that the Prophet would hardly have introduced God as speaking for so short a time. According to the Targum and the Rabbins, he is here represented as appointing angels to keep watch over the ruined walls of Zion. Ewald adopts a similar interpretation, and refers to Zech. 1: 12-17, upon which the Jewish exposition may be founded. Gesenius understands these as the words of the Prophet himself, and by watchmen, devout Jews among the ruins of Jerusalem awaiting the return of the exiles, and praying to God for it. For this limitation of the passage to Jerusalem in ruins and to the period of the exile there is not the least foundation in the text. The promise is a general one, or rather the command that those who are constituted guardians of the church should be importunate in prayer to God on her behalf. G”n’^75srt admits of three interpretations, all consistent with Isaiah’s usage. In ch. 36: 3, 22 it seems to mean an official recorder or historiographer. In ch. 66: 3 it means one burning incense as a memorial oblation. Hence iTjstx the name used in the law of Moses to denote such an offering. (See Lev. 2: 2. 5: 12. 24: 7. Num. 5: 26.) In ch. 43: 26 the verb means to remind God of something which he seems to have for gotten; and as this is an appropriate description of importunate intercession, it is here entitled to the preference. Gesenius speaks of a belief in the effect of such entreaties as peculiar to the ancient Orientals; but our Lord himself expressly teaches it (Luke 18: 1), and Tertullian finely says of it, haec vis Deo grata est.

8. Sworn hath Jehovah by his right hand and l)\j his arm of strength, If I give (i. e. I will not give) thy corn any more, as food to thine enemies, and if the sons of the outland shall drink thy new wine which thou hast laboured in (I am not God). On the elliptical formula of swearing, see above, on ch. 22: 14, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 69. The declaration though conditional in form is in fact an absolute negation. In swearing by his hand and arm, the usual symbols of strength, he pledges his omnipotence for the fulfilment of the promise: ‘As sure as I am almighty, thou shalt suffer this no more.’—For the true sense of “125-^2; see above, on ch. 56: 3.

9. For those gathering it shall eat it and shall praise Jehovah, and those collecting it shall drink it in my holy courts (or in the courts of my sanctuary). The ^3 is not directly equivalent to but, as some explain it, but retains its proper meaning, in relation to an intermediate thought not expressed. As if he had said, it shall not be so, or, it shall be far other wise, because those gathering, etc. Lowth has they that reap the harvest and they that gather the vintage, which, although correct in sense, is not a version but a paraphrase. The indefinite it takes the place both of corn and wine, but all ambiguity is removed by the use of the verbs eat and drink. Gesenius and Rosenmiiller agree with Grotius and the other early writers in supposing an allusion to the sacrificial feasts of the Mosaic law. (See Lev. 19:23-25. Deut. 12: 17, 18. 14:23.) But Hitzig and Knobel refer what is here said simply to the sacerdotal standing to be occupied by Israel in reference to the gentiles. (See above on ch. 61: 6.) To the former supposition Knobel objects that the Levitical feasts had exclusive reference to the tithes and first-fruits, whereas the promise here is universal. This appears to be a needless refinement, and is wholly insufficient to explain away the obvious allusion in the terms of the promise to the ancient institutions of the law. That these, however, are but types and emblems of abundance, and security, and liberty of worship, is acknowledged even by that school of interpreters supposed to be most strenuous in favour of attaching to these promises their strictest sense. Thus Henderson, instead of urging, as consistency might seem to require, that the language of this passage, like that of ch. 60, “must be literally explained,” interprets it as meaning that “ the enemies of Israel having all been swept away by the powerful judg ments of God, the most perfect tranquillity shall reign throughout the land, and those who may go up to worship at Jerusalem shall enjoy unmolested the fruit of their labour.” Here again we may perceive, although unable to reduce to rule, the exercise of a large discretion in determining what shall and what shall not be strictly understood. The literal Jerusalem, with its temple and its courts, and literal corn and wine, appear to be intended; but for aught that appears, the eating and drinking in the courts of that temple is a mere figure for exemption from annoyance and loss while present there for worship.

10. Pass, pass through the gates, clear the way of the people, raise high, raise high the highway, free (it) from stones, raise a banner (or a signal) over the nations. Vitringa puts these words into the mouth of his prophetic chorus; Maurer thinks they may be uttered by the watchmen of v. 6; but most interpreters appear to be contented with the obvious hypo thesis that Isaiah is here speaking in the name of God. As to the object of address, Eichhorn supposes it to be the Jews still lingering among the ruins of the Holy City; Maurer, the remaining population of that city, which he seems to think, considerable; Gesenius, the exiled Jews in Babylon and other lands; Henderson, “the inhabitants of the cities that may lie in the way of the returning Israelites.” The readiness with which these interpreters accommodate the terms of the text to their several hypotheses may show how little ground there is for any definite conclusion, and thus serve to recommend the hypothesis of Hitzig, that the order is supposed to be given to those whose duty it is to execute it. Another subject of dispute is the direction of the march required. According to Rosenmuller, Maurer, and Henderson, ’ pass through the gates ‘ means, go out of them; according to Gesenius and others, go into them. It means neither one nor the other, but go through them, leaving the direction to be gathered from the context, which, combined with the analogy of ch. 57: 14, makes it probable that what is here described is the entrance of the nations into Zion or the church, an event so frequently and fully set forth in the preceding chapters. The use of the term B-xas in the last clause is so favourable to this exposition, or at least so adverse to the supposition that the restoration of the Jews from Babylon is here intended, that Gesenius, in order to evade this difficulty, has recourse to an expedient which he would have laughed to scorn if used in vindication of the truth of prophecy. This is the explanation of D^BS as meaning tribes, or more specifically those of Israel, on the authority as he alleges of Deut. 32: 8. 33: 3, 19. Nothing but extreme exegetical necessity could warrant this interpretation of the word here, if it were true that Moses so employed it. But this very fact is still more doubtful than the one which it is called in to confirm, or rather it is still more certain that? in Deuteronomy denotes the gentiles than it is in this case. On the 411

other hand, the singular form W is used repeatedly in these very prophecies to signify the gentiles or mankind at large. (See above, ch. 42: 5. 49: 8.) It may therefore be alleged in opposition to the views which have been quoted, with as much plausibility at least, that this is not a prediction of the former restoration of the Jews from Babylon, or of their future restoration from the ends of the earth, but of the increase of the church or chosen people by the accession of the gentiles. The gates are then the gates of the ideal Zion or Jerusalem, the passage is an inward not an outward passage, and the exhortation of the text is one to all concerned, or all who have the opportunity to take away obstructions and facilitate their entrance. The argument in favour of the reference to Babylon, derived from the analogy of ch. 57: 19, lies equally against the hypothesis of Henderson, who cannot consistently repel it, as we do, by appealing to our uniform assertion that the Babylonish exile is referred to only as a signal example of deliverance. What is said in one place, therefore, with acknowledged reference to Babylon proves nothing where the same generic terms are used without any trace of local allusion. The verb ibpo, which is ambiguous (compare ch. 5: 2 and 2 Sam. 16: 6), is here determined by the addition of the phrase “jasTa, in which the noun is used as a collective. In the last clause, some explain ^>s with the Septuagint and Vulgate as simply meaning to, others with J.D. Michaelis/br. Knobel not only makes it perfectly synonymous with bx;, but then notes this imaginary fact as one proof of a later age. The most exact and at the same time most poetical idea is Luther’s, ‘ raise the banner high above the nations;’ to which Hitzig theoretically acquiesces, but trans lates the preposition for, like others.

11. Behold, Jehovah has caused it to be heard to the end of the earth, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, behold, thy salvation cometh, behold, his reward is with him and his hire before him. There is some doubt as to the connexion of the clauses. It may be questioned whether the verse contains the words uttered by Jehovah to the end of the earth, and if so, whether these continue to the end of the verse, or only to the third behold. Hitzig supposes ^asjn to be absolutely used, and to denote that God has made a proclamation, but without saying what; after which the Prophet goes on to address the messengers mentioned in ch. 40: 9 and 52: 7. But as the verb?^£Jn seems to require an object after it, and as the words immediately succeeding are precisely such as might thus be uttered, it is certainly most natural to understand what follows as the words or substance of the proclamation. It has also been made a question whether the pronoun his refers to Jehovah or to the nearest antecedent, salvation; and if the latter, whether that word is to be translated saviour, as it is by Lowth and in the ancient versions. This last is a question of mere form, and the other of but little exegetical importance, since the saviour or salvation meant is clearly represented elsewhere as identical with God himself. The last clause is a repetition of ch. 40: 10, and if ever the identity of thought, expression, and connexion, served to indicate identity of subject, it is so in this case. The reader therefore may imagine the inducement which could lead even Henderson to speak of the two places as “ strictly parallel in language, though the advents in the two passages are different.” If this be so, then nothing can ever be inferred from similarity of language, and an unlimited discretion is allowed to the interpreter to parry all attacks upon his theory by stoutly maintaining a diversity of subject in the very places where the opposite appears to be most manifest. Another arbitrary state ment rendered necessary in a dozen lines by the determination to apply the passage to the future restoration of the Jews to Palestine, is that “ the daughter of Zion means here the rightful inhabitants of Jerusalem scattered over the face of the earth,” a sense which even this interpreter attaches to the words in this place only, out of the many in which Isaiah uses them. But while these violent expedients are required to bring the passage even into seeming application to the future restoration of the Jews, it is, if possible, still more inapplicable to their former restoration from the Babylonish exile. In the first place, why should the ends of the earth be summoned to announce this event to Zion? Hitzig replies, as we have seen already, that the two clauses are entirely unconnected; Knobel more boldly explains end of the earth to mean “the end of the oriental world, whose west end touched the Mediterranean sea, i. e. Palestine “! Whether a theory requiring such contrivances can well be sound, is left to the decision of the reader. But another difficulty in the way of this interpretation is presented by the last clause. Even supposing that the old opinion as to this clause is the true one, and that his reward means that which he bestows, in what sense can the restoration of the Jews from Babylon be represented as the coming of salvation (or a saviour) to the daughter of Zion, bringing a reward? The daughter of Zion is throughout these prophecies the suffering person, and the object of encouraging address. Even where it primarily means the city, it is only as the centre, representative, and symbol of the church or chosen people. How then could the saviour be described as coming to his people, bringing themselves with him as a recompense for what they had endured. But if, for reasons given in expounding ch. 40: 10, we under stand his reward as meaning that which he receives, what constitutes this recompense in the case supposed? The image then presented is that of Jehovah coming back to his people, and bringing his people with him as his recompense. The incongruity of this verse with the Babylonian theory was either overlooked by its ablest modern champions, or occasioned such laconic comments as that of Rosenmiiller, who contents himself with saying that the last clause has already been explained in the note upon ch. 40: 10; while Gesenius still more briefly says, “ dieselben Worte 40: 10;” and Maurer, “ eadem verba legimus 40: 10.” This is the entire exposition of the whole verse by these three distinguished writers, while those of later date, who have been less reserved, have found themselves driven to the forced constructions which have been already mentioned. On the other hand, the plain sense of the words, the context here, and the analogy of ch. 40: 10, are all completely satisfied by the hypothesis that the Messiah (or Jehovah) is here described as coming to his people, bringing with him a vast multitude of strangers, or new converts, the reward of his own labours, and at the same time the occasion of a vast enlargement to his church. At the same time, let it be observed that this hypothesis is not one framed for the occasion, without reference; or even in opposition to the previous explanation of passages in every point resembling this, but one suggested at the outset of the book, and found upon comparison, at every step of the interpretation, to be more satisfactory than any other.

12. And they shall call them the Holy People, the redeemed of Jehovah, and thou shall be called Derushah (sought for), Ir-lo-neezabah (City not forsaken). The first verb is indefinite, they (i. e. men) shall call; hence the parallel expression has the passive form. On the construction and the idiomatic use of call, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 18. The distinction here so clearly made by the use of the second and third persons, is supposed by the modern Germans to be that between the city and her returning citizens; but this, as we have seen repeatedly before, involves a constant vacillation between different senses of Jerusalem and Zion in the foregoing context. The only supposition which can be consistently maintained, is that it always means the city, but the city considered merely as a representative or sign of the whole system and economy of which it was the visible centre. The true distinction is between the church or chosen people as it is, and the vast accessions yet to be received from the world around it. Even the latter shall be honoured with the name of Holy People, while the church itself, becoming coextensive with the world, shall cease to be an object of contempt or disregard to God or man. The sense of sought for seems to be determined by the parallel description in Jer. 30: 14, as expressing the opposite of the complaint in ch. 49: 14.—According to Henderson, the meaning of the verse is that “ the Jews shall now,” i. e. after their restoration to their own land, “ be a holy people, redeemed from all iniquity, and thronging their ancient capital for religious purposes.” The only prospect opened to the gentiles in the whole prediction, thus expounded, is that of becoming ploughmen, shepherds, and purveyors to the favoured nation.