THE influx of the gentiles into Zion having been described in the preceding verses, the destruction of her enemies is now sublimely represented as a sanguinary triumph of Jehovah or the Messiah, vs. 1—6. The Prophet then supposes the catastrophe already past, and takes a retrospective view of God’s compassions towards his people, and of their unfaithfulness during the old economy, vs. 7-14. He then assumes the tone of earnest supplication, such as might have been offered by the believing Jews when all seemed lost in the destruction of their commonwealth and temple, vs. 15-19.
1. Who (is) this coming from Edom, bright (as to his) garments from Bozrah, this one adorned in his apparel, bending in the abundance of his strength? I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save. The hypothesis that this is a detached prophecy, unconnected with what goes before or follows, is now commonly abandoned as a mere evasion of the difficulty. Hitzig indeed adheres to it in order to sustain his theory as to the gradual composition of the book. The dramatic form of the description is recognised by modern writers, without the awkward supposition of a chorus, adopted by Vitringa and Lowth. It is not necessary even to introduce the people as a party to the dialogue. The questions may be naturally put into the mouth of the Prophet himself. Interpreters are much divided as to the Edom of this passage. That it is not merely a play upon the meaning of the name (viz. red), is clear from the mention of the chief town, Bozrah. The reference to Rome, whether the Roman Empire or the Romish Church, is purely fanciful. J. D. Michaelis consistently applies the passage, like the foregoing context, to a future event; but Henderson unexpectedly pronounces it unjustifiable “to apply it to any future judgments to be inflicted on the country formerly occupied by the Edomites.” His own opinion is that “ the object of the Prophet is to deduce an argument from God’s dealings with his ancient people in favour of his graciously regarding them in their then distantly future dispersion.5’ He does not explain why this is any less “ unjustifiable “ than the reference of the passage to a <•’distantly future” event. While J. D. Michaelis thus makes both the threatening and the promise alike future, and Henderson makes one distantly future and the other distantly past, Knobel makes both past, and supposes Jehovah to be here described merely as coming through the land of Edom from the slaughter of the nations confederate with Croesus, who had just been overthrown by Cyrus in a battle near Sardis. With these exceptions, most interpreters, even of the modern German school, suppose Edom to be here, as in ch. 34, the representative of Israel’s most inveterate enemies. For this use of the name, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 560. The connexion with what goes before, as Rosenmuller states it, is that the restored Jews might apprehend the enmity of certain neighbouring nations, who had rejoiced in their calamity; and that the prophecy before us was intended to allay this apprehension. “pisn strictly means fermented, then acetous, sharp, but is here applied to vivid colour, like the Greek u£i> ^ow^a. “fiin properly means swollen, inflated, but is here metaphorically used in the sense of adorned, or, as Vitringa thinks, terrible, inspiring awe. For the sense of the word nrs, see above, on ch. 51: 14. Vitringa understands it to mean here the restless motion of one not yet recovered from the excitement of a conflict; Gesenius, the tossing or throwing back of the head as a gesture indicative of pride; Hitzig, the leaning of the head to one side with a similar effect. The Vulgate version (gradient) conveys too little. Speaking in righteousness is understood by most of the modern writers in the sense of speaking about it or concerning it, in which case righteousness must have the sense of deliverance, or at least be regarded as its cause. It is much more natural, however, to explain the phrase as meaning, I that speak in truth, I who promise and am able to perform.— The terms of this description are applied in Rev. 19: 13 to the victorious Word of God, a name which has apparently some reference to <~^v.
2. Why (is there) redness to thy raiment, and (why are) thy garments like (those of) one treading in a wine-press 1 The adjective trtK is here used substantively, just as we speak of a deep red in English. Or the word here employed may be explained as the infinitive of 0*1 x to be red. There is no need, in any case, of making the b pleonastic or a sign of the nominative case, with Rosenmuller and some older writers, or of reading -jiD’abB with Lowth. Twenty-one manuscripts and one edition give the noun a plural form, but of course without effect upon the meaning. The allusion is of course to the natural red wine of the east, that of some vine yards on Mount Lebanon, according to J. D. Michaelis, being almost black. The na is the wine-press properly so called, as distinguished from the njr> or reservoir. It is a slight but effective stroke in this fine picture, that the first verse seems to speak of the stranger as still at a distance, whereas in the second he has come so near as to be addressed directly.
3. The press 1 have trodden by myself, and of the nations there was not a man with me; and I will tread them in my anger and trample them in 416 OH AP TER LXIII.
my fury’, and their juice shall spirt upon my garments, and all my vesture I have stained. The word here used for press is different from that in the foregoing verse, and occurs elsewhere only in Hagg. 2: 16. According to its seeming derivation, it denotes the place where grapes are crushed or broken, as na does the place where they are pressed or trodden. The comparison suggested in the question (v. 2) is here carried out in detail. Being asked why he looks like the treader of a wine-press, he replies that he has been treading one, and that alone, which Rosenmuller understands to mean without the aid of labourers or servants. The meaning of the figure is then expressed in literal terms. l *Of the nations there was not a man with me.’ This expression and the otherwise inexplicable alternation of the tenses make it probable that two distinct treadings are here mentioned, one in which he might have expected aid from the nations, and another in which the nations should themselves be trodden down as a punishment of this neglect. Or the futures may denote merely a relative futurity, i. e. in reference to the act first mentioned. The more general opinion is, however, that but one act of treading is here mentioned, and that the nations are themselves represented as the grapes. In order to make this appear more natural, Jarchi and Tremellius explain *with me as meaning against me, or to contend with me, which is not justified by usage. The most satisfactory solution seems to be that these words are added to convey the idea that all the nations were on the adverse side, none on that of the conqueror. The sense will then be not that they refused to join in trampling others, but simply that they were among the trampled. As if he had said, I trod the press alone, and all the nations, without exception, were trodden in it. By all the nations we are of course to understand all but God’s people. The principle of this limitation is recognised by Knobel, though he makes an absurd application of it by supposing the exception to be Cyrus and the Persians, who derived no aid from other nations in the overthrow of Croesus. Henderson understands it as implying that the punishment here mentioned was inflicted upon Edom without the intervening aid of any foreign power, which he thinks was verified in their subjection by a native Jewish conqueror, Hyrcanus. The meaning given to nsa is justified by the use of the verb in Arabic as meaning to sprinkle, Tbattx is a mixed form, considered by the modern Germans as a proof of later date; but such anomalies are usually introduced by slow degrees, and may for the most part be traced back to certain singularities of diction in the older books. The treading of the wine-press alone is an expression often applied in sermons and in religious books and conversation to our Saviour’s sufferings. This application is described as customary in his own time by Vitringa, who considers it as having led to the forced exposition of the whole passage by the Fathers and Cocceius as a description of Christ’s passion. While “the impossibility of such a sense in the original passage cannot be too strongly stated, there is no need of denying that the figure may be happily accommodated in the way suggested: as many expressions of the Old Testament may be applied to different objects with good effect, provided we are careful to avoid con founding such accommodations with the strict and primary import of the passage.
4. For the day of vengeance (is) in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. For the sense of day and year in this connexion, see above, on ch. 61:2. In my heart, i. e. my mind or purpose. Some writers needlessly and arbitrarily change my redeemed to my redemption. It is not even necessary to explain the participle in a future sense (to be redeemed), since their redemption was as firmly settled in the divine pur pose as the day of vengeance.
5. And Hook, and there is none keeping; and I stand aghast, and there is none sustaining; and my own arm saves for me, and my fury it sustains me. These expressions have already been explained in ch. 59: 16. Hitzig’s idea that this is the original, and that a quotation from memory, and his inference that this is the older composition, are alike unfounded. With equal if not greater plausibility it might be argued from the greater regularity and finish of the sentence here, that it is an improvement on the other. Fury here takes the place of righteousness in ch. 59: 16, not as a synonyme but as an equivalent. God’s wrath is but the executioner and agent of his justice. Upon either he might therefore be described as exclusively relying. The present form is used in the translation, on account of the uncertainty in which the use of the tenses is involved, and which may arise in part from an intentional confusion of the past and future in the mind of one who had begun a great work, and was yet to finish it.
6. A.nd I tread the nations in my anger, and I make them drunk in my wrath, and I bring down to the earth their juice. The use of the word tread leads to the resumption of the figure of a wine-press, which is employed besides this passage in Lam. 1:15. Joel 4: 13. Rev. 14: 19, 20. For D^SUJK I make them drunk, most of the modern writers since Cappellus read c^am I crush them; which is not only confirmed by many manuscripts and some editions, as well as by the Targum, but recommended by its suiting the connexion better. This very circumstance, however, throws suspicion on the emendation, as a device to get rid of a difficulty. In order to connect the common reading with the context, we have only to assume a mixture of metaphors, such as we continually meet with in Isaiah. There 27 is no need of going with Vitringa to the extravagant and revolting length of supposing that the nations are described as rolling in their own blood till it gets into their mouths and down their throats. There is simply a sudden change of figure, which is not only common, but characteristic of Isaiah, notwithstanding Gesenius’s paradoxical denial.
7. The mercies of Jehovah I will cause to be remembered, the praises of Jehovah according to all that Jehovah hath done for us, and the great goodness to the house of Israel which he hath done for them, according to his compassions and according to the multitude of his mercies. The sudden change of tone in this verse has of course led to many suppositions as to its connexion with what goes before and follows. The easiest expedient is the one which Lowth adopts, by denying all immediate connexion with what goes before; but it is also the least satisfactory. Ewald begins the closing section of the book here, and thinks it quite indubitable that events had made considerable progress between the dates of the sixth and seventh verses. The prevalent opinion among Christian interpreters is that we have here the beginning of a prophecy relating to the future restoration of Israel. Even Vitringa, who shows little partiality to this hypothesis in the foregoing chapters, acquiesces in it here. His arguments, however, only go to show that this interpretation is better than the one which applies the passage to the Babylonish exile. Lowth simply says that it is so, without assigning any reason. On the general principle assumed throughout our exposition as to the design and subject of these prophecies, a more general application is entitled to the preference, and the passage must be understood as relating to the favours experienced and the sins committed by the chosen people throughout the period of the old dispensation. There is no need of assuming any speaker but the Prophet himself. The plural form mercies, may be intended to denote abundance. I will cause to be remembered, may have reference to men; in which case the phrase is equivalent to celebrate, record, or praise. But as these acknowledgments are merely preparatory to a prayer that God would renew his ancient favours to them, it is better to understand it as meaning, I will cause God himself to remember, or remind him, in which application the verb is often used, e. g. in the titles of Ps. 38 and 70. (See Hengstenberg on the Psalms, vol. II. p. 293.) There is no need of giving to mbnn the factitious sense of praiseworthy acts or virtues, as the Septuagint does (w^ra’s). The proper sense of Crowes is appropriate and sufficient. For the sense of ^?3 and £ES, see above on ch. 59: 18. We have here another illustration of the ease with which the parallelism may be urged on different sides of the same question. It had been made a question whether aio m is governed by •vsta or by bss. The former is maintained by Maurer, the latter by Hitzig, on precisely the same ground: ita postulante parallelismo, says the one—diess verlangt der Parallelismus, says the other.
8. And he said, Only they are my people, (my) children shall not lie (or deceive), and he became a saviour for them. To the general acknow ledgment of God’s goodness to his people, there is now added a specification of his favours, beginning with the great distinguishing favour by which they became what they were. This verse is commonly explained as an expression of unfounded confidence and hope on God’s part, surely they are my people, children that will not lie. This must then be accounted for as anthropopathy; but although the occurrence of this figure in the Scriptures is indisputable, it is comparatively rare, and not to be assumed without necessity. Besides, the explanation just referred to rests almost entirely on the sense attached to “x as a mere particle of asseveration. Now, in every other case where Isaiah uses it, the restrictive sense of only is not admissible merely, but necessary to the full force of the sentence. It is surely not the true mode of interpretation, to assume a doubtful definition for the sake of obtaining an unsatisfactory and offensive sense. Another advantage of the strict translation is, that it makes the Prophet go back to the beginning of their course, and instead of setting out from the hopes which God expressed after the choice of Israel, records the choice itself. Thus understood, the first clause is a solemn declaration of his having chosen Israel, to the exclusion of all other nations. Only they (and no others) are my people. The objection which may seem to arise from the collocation of T^ with rnsn rather than “^, applies only to the occidental idiom; since in Hebrew a qualifying particle is often attached to the first word of the clause, even when it is more closely related to some other. But even if the force of this objection were allowed, it could not prove that T\x must here be taken in a sense which does not properly belong to it, but only that it must be made to qualify ^. The sense will then be, they are only my people, i. e. nothing else; which, although less satisfactory than the other sense, is still far better than the one which makes Jehovah here express a groundless expectation.—The second clause may possibly mean, (their) sons shall not deal falsely, i. e. degenerate from their fathers’ faith. In either case, the future is the future of command, as in the decalogue, not that of mere prediction. Gesenius explains Tipur as an elliptical expression, to be supplied by the analogy of Ps. 44: 18 and 89: 34: but it is simpler to understand it absolutely, as in I Sam. 15: 29.—The English Version, so he was their saviour, is a needless departure from the simplicity of the original, and aggravates the misinterpretation of the first clause, by suggesting that he was their saviour because he believed they would be faithful. The verse in Hebrew simply states two facts, without intimating any causal relation between them. He chose them and he saved them.
9. In all their enmity he was not an enemy, and the angel of his face (or presence) saved them, in his love and in his sparing mercy he redeemed them, and he took them up and carried them all the days of old. The first clause is famous as the subject of discordant and even contradictory interpretations. These have been multiplied by the existence of a doubt as to the text. The Masora notes this as one of fifteen places in which & not is written by mistake for ft to him or it. Another instance of the same alleged error in the text of Isaiah occurs in ch. 9: 2. (See the Earlier Prophecies, p. J56.) Rabbi Jonah, according to Solomon Ben Melek, understands the amended text to mean that in all their distress they still had a rock or refuge, making ^ synonymous with iix, which is wholly unsustained by usage. A far better sense is that of Aben Ezra, that in all their distress there was distress to him, or as the English Version renders it, in all their affliction he was afflicted. This explanation, with the text on which it is founded, and which is exhibited by a number of manuscripts and editions, is approved by Luther, Vitringa. Clericus, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Hendewerk, and Knobel. It is favoured, not only by the strong and affecting sense which it yields, but by the analogy of Judges 10: 16. 1 I: 7, in one of which places the same phrase is used to denote human suffering, and in the other God is represented as sympathizing with it. The objections to it are, that it gratuitously renders necessary another anthropopathic explanation; that the natural collocation of the words, if this were the meaning, would be ft ^, as in 2 Sam. 1: 26; that the negative is expressed by all the ancient versions; and that the critical presumption is in favour of the Kethib, or textual reading, as the more ancient, which the Masorites merely corrected in the margin, without venturing to change it, and which ought not to be now abandoned, if a coherent sense can be put upon it, as it can in this case. Jerome, in his version, makes the clause assert the very opposite of that sense which is usually put upon the marginal reading, or Keri, in omni tribulations eornm non est tribulatus. The Septuagint makes it contradict the next clause, as it is usually understood, by rendering it ov TTQwfivg ovds ayytvLo? a/LX’ avro? sawtitv avioi^. This is followed by Lowth even so far as to connect the first words of the clause with the preceding verse: and he became their saviour in all their distress. It was not an envoy nor an angel of his presence that saved them, etc. Not to mention other difficulties in the way of this interpretation, its making ist synonymous with *nx is wholly arbitrary. Another forced construction, given by Cocceius, and approved by Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and almost by Gesenius, explains there was not an adversary, and he saved them,, to mean, there scarcely was (or no sooner was there) an adversary, when he saved them. The only example of this harsh and obscure syntax which is cited, namely 2 Kings 20: 4, is nothing to the purpose, because there it is expressly said, and no doubt meant, that Isaiah had not gone out into the court; whereas here it cannot possibly be meant that Israel had no adversaries. A much more natural construction is the one proposed by Jerome in his commentary, ‘in all their affliction he did not afflict (them);’ which, however, is scarcely reconcilable with history. This difficulty is avoided by Henderson’s modification of the same construction, in all their affliction he was not an adversary, i. e. although he afflicted them, he did not hate them. This agrees well with what immediately follows, but is still liable to the objection that it takes ^£ and irnx in entirely different senses, which can only be admissible in case of necessity. Others accordingly regard them as synonymous expressions, and in order to remove the appearance of a contradiction, supply some qualification of the second word. Thus Jarchi understands the clause to mean that in all their affliction there was no such affliction as their sins had merited. Aurivillius supposes the masculine form to express the same thing with the feminine essentially, but in a higher degree, ’ in all their affliction there was no extreme or fatal affliction.’ Gesenius rejects this explanation of the forms as too artificial, but adopts a similar interpretation of the clause, which he explains to mean that in all their distress there was no real or serious dis tress, none that deserved the name; which could hardly be alleged with truth. It is also hard to account in this case for the use of the different forms is and mx to express the same idea, after rejecting Aurivillius’s solution. This circumstance appears to point to an interpretation which shall give the words essentially the same sense, yet so far modified as to explain the difference of form. Such an interpretation is the one suggested by De Wette’s version of the clause, which takes -is and mx as correlative derivatives from one sense of the same root, but distinguished from each other as an abstract and a concrete, enemy and enmity. A real difficulty in the way of this interpretation, is the want of any usage to sustain the latter definition, which, however, is so easily deducible from the primary meaning, and so clearly indicated by the parallel expression, that it may perhaps be properly assumed in a case where the only choice is one of difficulties. Thus under stood, the clause simply throws the blame of all their conflicts with Jehovah on themselves: in all their enmity (to him) he was not an enemy (to them). The proof of this assertion is that he saved them, not from Egypt merely, but from all their early troubles, with particular reference perhaps to the period of the Judges, in the history of which this verb very frequently occurs. (See Judges 2: 16, 18. 3: 15. *6: 14. etc.) This salvation is ascribed, however, not directly to Jehovah, but to the angel of Ms face or presence. Kimchi explains this to mean the agency of second causes, which he says are called in Scripture angels or messengers of God. Abarbenel gives it a personal sense, but applies it to the angels collectively. Jarchi makes it not only a personal but an individual description, and explains it to mean Michael, as the tutelary angel of Israel (Dan. 12: 1). Aben Ezra, with sagacity and judgment superior to all his brethren, understands it of the angel whom Jehovah promised to send with Israel (Ex. 23: 20-23), and whom he did send (Ex. 14: 19. Num. 20: 16), and who is identified with the presence of Jehovah (Ex. 33: 14, 15) and with Jehovah himself (Ex. 33: 12). The combination of these passages determines the sense of the angel of his presence, as denoting the angel whose presence was the presence of Jehovah, or in whom Jehovah was personally present, and precludes the explanation given by Clericus and many later writers, who sup pose it to mean merely an angel who habitually stands in the presence of Jehovah (I Kings 22: 19), just as human courtiers or officers of state are said to see the king’s face (Jer. 52: 25). Even Hitzig admits the identity of the angel of Jehovah’s presence with Jehovah himself, but explains it away by making angel an abstract term, not denoting in any case a person, but the manifestation of Jehovah’s presence at a certain time and place. Hendewerk, on the other hand, alleges that the angel is always represented as a personality distinct from Jehovah himself. By blending these concessions from two writers of the same great school, we obtain a striking testimony, if not to the absolute truth, to the scriptural correctness of the old Christian doctrine, as expounded with consummate force and clearness by Vitringa in his comment on this passage, viz. the doctrine that the Angel of God’s presence, who is mentioned in the passages already cited, and from time to time in other books of the Old Testament (Gen. 28: 13. 31: 11. 48: 16. Ex. 3: 2. Josh. 5: 14. Judges 13: 6. Hos. 12: 5. Zech. 3:1. Mai. 3:1. Ps. 34: 8), was that divine person who is represented in the New as the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person (Heb. I: 3), the image of God (2 Cor. 4: 4. Col. 1: 15), in whose face the glory of God shines (2 Cor. 4: 6), and in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily (Col. 2: 9). Lowth’s unfortunate adoption of the Septuagint version or perversion of the text, led him to argue ingeniously, but most unfairly, that although the Angel of Jehovah’s presence is sometimes identified with Jehovah himself, yet in other places he is explicitly distinguished from him, and must therefore be considered as a creature; so that in the case before us, which is one of those last mentioned, the honour of Israel’s deliverance is denied to this angel and exclusively ascribed to God himself. All this not only rests upon a fanciful and false translation, but is contradicted by the unanimous consent of Jews and Infidels as well as Christians, that the salvation of God’s people is directly ascribed to the Angel of Jehovah’s presence.—Vitringa insists, per haps with too much pertinacity, upon applying what immediately follows to the Angel and not to Jehovah: first, because the question is in fact a doubtful one, and both constructions are grammatical; and secondly, because it is a question of no moment, after the essential identity of the Angel and Jehovah has been ascertained from other quarters.—The Hebrew ft^n, from ^n to spare, has no exact equivalent in English, and can only be expressed by a periphrasis. The same affections towards Israel are ascribed to Jehovah in the Pentateuch. (Deut. 32: 9-11. Ps. 77: 15.)—For the true sense of what follows, as to taking up and carrying them, see above, on ch. 46: 3. —obis, which Vitringa regards as identical with the Latin olim, is like it applied as well to the past as to the future. It originally signifies unknown or indefinite duration, and in such a case as this, remote antiquity; the whole phrase being used precisely in the same sense as by Amos (9: 11) and Micah (7: 14).—The verb redeem is not only one of frequent occurrence in these prophecies (ch. 43: 1. 44: 22, 23. 48: 20. 49: 7. etc.), but is expressly applied elsewhere to the redemption of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 6: 5. Ps. 74: 2. 77: 16), and is therefore applicable to all other analogous deliverances. O
10. And they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit (or spirit of holiness), and he was turned for them into an enemy, he himself fought against them. The pronoun at the beginning is emphatic: they on their part, as opposed to God’s forbearance and long-suffering. There seems to be an allusion in this clause to the injunction given to the people at the exodus, in reference to the Angel who was to conduct them: Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him (Ex. 23: 21). From this analogy Vitringa argues that the verse before us has specific reference to the disobedience or resistance offered by the people to the Angel of God’s presence. As the next clause may have reference to Jehovah, it cannot be demonstrated from it that the spirit here mentioned is a personal spirit, and not a mere disposition or affection. But the former supposition, which is equally consistent with the language here used, in itself considered, becomes far more probable when taken in connexion with the preceding verse, where a personal angel is joined with Jehovah precisely as the Spirit is joined with him here. Assuming that the following words relate to this Spirit, he is then described as endued with personal susceptibilities and performing personal acts, and we have in these two verses a distinct enumeration of the three divine per sons. That the Spirit of this verse, like the Angel of the ninth, is repreted as divine, is evident not only from a comparison of Ps. 78: 17, 40, seni 4Q4 CHAPTER LX III.
where the same thing is said of God himself, but also from the fact that those interpreters who will not recognise a personal spirit in this passage, unanimously understand the spirit either as denoting an attribute of God or God himself. Henderson thinks it necessary to explain away a seeming contradiction between this verse and the first clause of v. 9, by making “ft a stronger expression than a^ix. The true solution is, that the passage is in some sort historical, and shows the progress of the alienation between God and Israel. Having shown in the preceding verse that it began upon the part of Israel, and was long resisted and deferred by Jehovah, he now shows how at length his patience was exhausted, and he really became what he was not before. This is the true sense of the verb r|?.rjtl, to which many of the moderns give a reflexive form, he changed himself. The disputes among interpreters whether this verse has reference to the conduct of the people in the wilderness, or under the judges, or before the Babylonish exile, or before the final destruction of Jerusalem, are only useful as a demonstration that the passage is a general description, which was often verified.—From this verse Paul has borrowed a remarkable expression in Eph. 4: 30. (Compare Matt. 12:31. Acts 7: 51. Heb. 10: 29.)
11. And he remembered the days of old, Moses (and) his people. Where is he that brought them up from the sea, the shepherd of his flock 1 Where is he that put within him his Holy Spirit? Grotius and others make Jehovah the subject of the first verb, and suppose him to be here described as relenting. This construction has the advantage of avoiding an abrupt change of person without any intimation in the text. But as the following can be naturally understood only as the language of the people, especially when compared with Jer. 2: 6, most writers are agreed in refer ring this clause to the people also. Cyril and Jerome, it is true, combine both suppositions, by referring he remembered to Jehovah, and explaining what follows as the language of the people. But a transition so abrupt is not to be assumed without necessity. The Targum gives a singular turn to the sentence by supplying Itst they say before the second clause, which then becomes the language of the enemies of Israel, exulting in the failure of Jehovah’s promises. This explanation may appear to derive some support from the analogy of Deut. 32: 17, which no doubt suggested it; but a fatal objection is the one made by Vitringa, that the essential idea is one not expressed but arbitrarily supplied. Another singular interpretation is the one contained in the Dutch Bible, which makes God the subject of the first verb but includes it in the language of the people, complaining that he dealt with them no longer as he once did: Once he remembered the days of old etc. but now where is he etc. But here again but now, on which the whole depends, must be supplied without authority. The modern writers, since Vitringa, are agreed that the first clause describes the repentance of the people, and that the second gives their very words, contrasting their actual condition with their former privileges and enjoyments. There is still a difference of opinion, however, with respect to the grammatical construction of the first clause. Rosenmuller and most of the later writers follow Jarchi in making ias the subject of the verb: and his people remembered the days of old etc. As such a collocation falls in with the German idiom, the writers in that language have easily been led to regard it as entirely natural, though really as foreign from Hebrew as from English usage. The solitary case which Hitzig cites (Ps. 34: 22) would prove nothing by itself, even if it were exactly similar and unambiguous, neither of which is really the case. But another difficulty still remains, viz. that of construing the words IES rvro, which seem to stand detached from the remainder of the sentence. Lowth resorts to his favourite but desperate method of reading vn? his servant, on the authority of the Peshito and a few manuscripts. Gesenius, on the other hand, is half inclined to strike out rr:p as a marginal gloss still wanting in the Septuagint. These emendations, even if they rested upon surer grounds, would only lessen not remove the difficulty as to the construction of niss or 1535 with what goes before. Gesenius makes days of old a complex noun governing Moses: the ancient days of Moses. This construction, harsh and unusual as it is, has been adopted by the later German writers except Maurer, who, after denying the existence of the difficulty, brings out as if it were a new discovery, the old construction, given in the English Bible and maintained at length by Vitringa, which makes Moses and his people correlatives, as objects of the verb remembered: He remembered the ancient days, viz. those of Moses and his people. So Gesenius, in the notes to the second edition of his German version, calls attention to the explanation of nui as a noun or participle meaning the deliverer of his people, as having been recently proposed by Horst, whereas it is at least as old as Aben Ezra, who recites without adopting it.—Henderson is disposed to omit the pronoun in csbsan, on the authority of two old manuscripts, apparently confirmed by that of two old versions, or to gain the same end by regarding the construction as an Aramaic one, in which the pronoun is prefixed in pleonastic anticipation of the noun which follows. In either case the rx will be not a preposition meaning with, but the objective particle, < he that brought up from the sea the shepherds of his flock.’ The objection to making rx a preposition is that it seems to separate the case of Moses from that of the people. The Targum seems to make it a particle of likeness or comparison, as a shepherd does his flock, which Gesenius thinks a far better sense; but Hitzig thinks it false, because shepherds do not bring their flocks up from the sea. ° The simplest construction is to repeat rtson before n*-i: Where is he that brought them up from the sea, (that brought up) the shepherd of his flock? All these constructions suppose the shepherd to be Moses; but Knobel understands it to be God himself, as in Ps. 78: 52, and repeats the verb remembered, ‘ it (the people) remembered the shepherd of his flock,’ which makes an equally good sense. But nearly sixty manuscripts and forty editions read w in the plural, which may then be understood as including Aaron (Ps. 77: 21), and as Vitringa thinks Miriam (Micah 6: 4), or perhaps the seventy elders who are probably referred to in the last clause as under a special divine influence. (See Num. 11: 17. Compare Ex. 31:3. 35: 31.) The suffix in ia-ipja refers to t#. The noun itself is used as in 1 Kings 17: 22. The clause implies, if it does not express directly, the idea of a personal spirit, as in the preceding verse.
12. Leading them by the right hand of Moses (and) his glorious arm, cleaving the waters from before them, to make for him an everlasting name 1 The sentence and the interrogation are continued from the forego ing verse. The participle with the article there defines or designates the subject as the one bringing up; the participle here without the article sim ply continues the description. Vitringa and the later writers follow Jarchi in giving a very different construction to the first clause, making his glorious arm the object of the verb. The meaning of the whole then is as follows: causing his glorious arm to march at the right hand of Moses, i. e. as Jarchi explains it, causing his almighty power, of which the arm is the established symbol (ch. 40: 10. 59: 16. 63: 5), to be near or present with the Prophet when he needed its interposition. This is a good sense, but it seems more natural to give Spbl’o the same object as in the next verse, the pronoun which is there expressed being here understood. The ^, which the writers above mentioned understand as in Ps. 16:8, may agreeably to usage denote general relation, the specific sense of by being not expressed but suggested by the context. The right hand may be mentioned in allusion to the wield ing of the rod by Moses, and the glorious arm may be either his or that of God himself, which last sense is expressed in the English version by a change of preposition (by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm). The same ambiguity exists in the last clause, where the everlasting name may be the honour put upon Moses or the glory which redounded to Jehovah himself, as in ch. 55: 13. Knobel is singular and somewhat paradoxical in understanding D?a yfcia as descriptive of the smiting of the rock to supply the people’s thirst, simply because the passive of the same verb is applied in ch. 35: 6 to the bursting forth of water in the desert; whereas it is repeatedly employed, both in the active and the passive form, in reference to the cleaving of the waters of the Red Sea (Ex. 14: 21. Ps. 78: 13. Neh. 9: 11), and is so understood here by all other writers whom I have consulted. It also agrees better with the expression from before them, which implies the removal of a previous obstruction.
13. Making them walk in the depths, like the horse in the desert they shall not stumble. The description of the exodus is still continued, and its perfect security illustrated by comparisons. There is no need of giving to m’Enfi with the modern writers the distinct sense of waves in this and other places, as the proper meaning depths is more appropriate and striking in a poetical description. The desert is commonly supposed to be referred to as a vast plain free from inequalities. But J. D. Michaelis, after twice announcing that he never rode on horseback through a desert in his life, makes the point of comparison to lie in the fine gravel or coarse sand with which the desert of Arabia is covered, and which makes an admirable foot ing for horses. In the same note and in the same spirit he discards the word stumbling (straucheln), which he says would be employed by one who never sat upon a horse, and substitutes another (anstossen) as the technical term of the manege, although requiring explanation to the common reader. The last verb would seem most naturally to refer to the horse; but its plural form forbids this construction, while its future form creates a difficulty in referring it to Israel. Most versions get around this difficulty by periphrasis, without stumbling, so as not to stumble, or the like. The true solution is afforded by the writer’s frequent habit of assuming his position in the midst of the events which he describes, and speaking of them as he would have spoken if he had been really so situated. The comparison in the first clause brings up to his view the people actually passing through the wilderness; and in his confident assurance of their safe and easy progress he exclaims, ‘they will not stumble!’ The same explanation is admissible in many cases where it is customary to confound the tenses, or regard their use as perfectly capricious. As Knobel in the foregoing verse supposes an allusion to the smiting of the rock, so here he refers the description to the passage of the Jordan, as if unwilling to acknowledge any reference to the Red Sea or the actual exodus from Egypt.
14. As the herd into the valley will go down, the Spirit of Jehovah will make him rest. So didst thou lead thy people, to make for thyself a name of glory.—Frana is probably here used in its collective sense of cattle, rather than in that of an individual animal or beast. This version is not only more exact than the common one, but removes the ambiguity in the construction, by precluding the reference of him, in make him rest, to the preceding noun, which is natural enough in the English Version, though forbidden in Hebrew by the difference of gender.—The him really refers to Israel or people. J. D. Michaelis and Lowth follow the ancient versions, which they understand as reading isnan will guide him. But the idea of guidance is sufficiently implied in the common reading, which may be understood as meaning l *will bring him to a place of rest,’ a form of expression often used in reference to the promised land. (Deut. 12: 9, 10. Ps. 95: 11. etc.) A similar agency is elsewhere ascribed to the Spirit of God. (Ps. 143: 10. Hagg. 2: 5. Neh. 9: 20.)—The use of the futures in this clause is precisely the same as in the foregoing verse. In the last clause the Prophet ceases to regard the scene as actually present and resumes the tone of historical retrospection, at the same time summing up the whole in one comprehensive proposition, *thus didst thou had thy people.—With the last words of the verse compare ch. 60: 21. 61: 3.
15. Look (down) from heaven and see from thy dwelling-place of holiness and beauty! Where is thy ze.al and thy might (or mighty deeds)? The sounding of thy bowels and thy mercies towards me have withdrawn themselves. The foregoing description of God’s ancient favours is now made the ground of an importunate appeal for new ones. The unusual word for dwelling-place is borrowed from the prayer of Solomon. (I Kings 8: 13.) For a similar description of heaven, see above, ch. 57: 15. God is here represented as withdrawn into heaven and no longer active upon earth. For the meaning of his zeal, see above, on ch. 59: 17. Jarchi adds Wtfsnn i. e. thy former zeal. Eighteen manuscripts, two editions, and the ancient versions, read 1^-* in the singular. The plural probably denotes mighty deeds or feats of strength, as in 1 K. 15: 23. 16: 27. 22: 46. “p^n is not to be taken in its secondary sense of multitude, as it is by the Septuagint (ntf&oi) and the Vulgate (multitude), but in its primary sense of commotion, noise. The verbal root is applied in like manner to the movements of compassion, ch. 16: 11. Jer. 31: 20. 48: 36, in the last of which places it is connected with the verbal root of n^m the parallel expression in the case before us. Although we are obliged to render one of these nouns by a literal and the other by a figurative term, both of them properly denote the viscera, on the figurative use of which to signify strong feeling, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 322.—The last verb in the verse denotes a violent suppression or restraint of strong emotion (Gen. 43: 30. 45: 1), and is sometimes applied directly to God himself. (See above, ch. 42: 14, and below, ch. 64: 11.) The last clause may be variously divided without a material change of meaning. The English Version makes the last verb a distinct interrogation, are they restrained? Henderson makes the second question the larger of the two, are the sounding of thy bowels etc.? The objection to both is that the second question is not natural, and that they arbitrarily assume an interrogative construction without any thing CHAPTER Lxiii. 439 to indicate it, as the where cannot be repeated. Vitringa and Hitzig make the whole one question and supply the relative before the last verb, where is thy zeal etc. which are restrained ] But the simplest construction is that which makes the last clause a simple affirmation (Gesenius), or an impassioned exclamation (Ewald). There is something peculiarly expressive in Luther’s paraphrase of this last clause: deine grosse herzliche Barmherzigkeit halt sich hart gegen mich.
16. For thou (art) our father; for Abraham hath not known us, and Israel will not recognise us, thou Jehovah (art) our father, our redeemer of old (or from everlasting) is thy name. The common version needlessly obscures the sense and violates the usage of the language by rendering the first ^3 doubtless, and the second though. Rosenmiiller gives the first the sense of but, simply observing that the particle is here not causal but adversative. This wanton variation from the ordinary sense of terms, whenever there appears to be the least obscurity in the connexion, is one of the errors of the old school of interpreters, retained by Rosenmiiller, who is a kind of link between them and the moderns. The later German writers are more rigidly exact, and Maurer in particular observes in this case that the ^ has its proper causal sense in reference to the first clause of v. 15. Why do we ask thee to look down from heaven and to hear our prayer? Because thou art our father. This does not merely mean our natural creator, but our founder, our national progenitor, as in Deut. 32: 6. Here, however, it appears to be employed in an emphatic and exclusive sense, as if he had said, thou and thou alone art our father;’ for he immediately adds, as if to explain and justify this strange assertion, c for Abraham has not known us, and Israel will not recognise or acknowledge us.’ The assimilation of these tenses, as if both past or future, is entirely arbitrary; and their explanation as both present, a gratuitous evasion. As in many other cases, past and future are here joined to make the proposition universal. Dropping the peculiar parallel construction, the sense is that neither Abraham nor Israel have known or will know any thing about us, have recognised or will here after recognise us as their children. The meaning, therefore, cannot be that Abraham and Israel are ashamed of us as unworthy and degenerate descend ants, as Piscator understands it; or that Abraham and Israel cannot save us by their merits, as Cocceius understands it; or that Abraham and Israel did not deliver us from Egypt, as the Targum understands it; or that Abraham and Israel, being now dead, can do nothing for us, as Vitringa and the later writers understand it. All these interpretations, and a number of unnatural constructions and false versions, some of which have been already mentioned, owe their origin to the insuperable difficulty of applying these words, in their strict and unperverted sense, to the Jews as the natural descendants of the patriarchs in question. Henderson’s mode of reconciling what is here said with his general application of the prophecy is curious enough. After justly observing that “ the hereditary descent of the Jews from Abraham, and their dependence upon his merits and those of Isaac and Jacob, form the proudest grounds of boasting among them at the present day, as they did in the time of our Lord,” he adds that “when converted, they shall be ashamed of all such confidence, and glory in Jehovah alone.” Such an effect of individual conversion and regeneration may be certainly expected; but a general restoration of the Jews as a people, not only to the favour of God but to the land of their fathers, and not only to the land of their fathers, but to pre-eminence among the nations, so that their temple shall again be universally frequented, and the whole world reduced to the alternative of perishing or serving them, is so far from naturally tending to correct the evil which has been described, that nothing but a miracle would seem sufficient to prevent its being aggravated vastly by the very means which Henderson expects to work a final cure. The true sense of the verse, as it appears to me, is that the church or chosen people, although once, for temporary reasons, coextensive and coincident with a single race, is not essentially a national organization, but a spiritual body. Its father is not Abraham or Israel, but Jehovah, who is and always has been its redeemer, who has borne that name from everlasting-: or as Hitzio- under- O ’ *O stands the last clause, he is our redeemer, whose name is from everlasting. Most interpreters, however, are agreed in understanding this specific name of *our redeemer to be here described as everlasting or eternal. According to the explanation which has now been given, this verse explicitly asserts what is implied and indirectly taught throughout these prophecies, in reference to the true design and mission of the Church, and its relation to Jehovah, to the world, and to the single race with which of old it seemed to be identified. This confirmation of our previous conclusions is the more satisfactory, because no use has hitherto been made of it, by anticipation, in determining the sense of many more obscure expressions, to which it may now be considered as affording a decisive key. It only remains to add, as a preventive of misapprehension, that the strong terms of this verse are of course to be comparatively understood, not as implying that the church will ever have occasion to repudiate its historical relation to the patriarchs, or cease to include among its members many of their natural descendants, but simply as denying all continued or perpetual pre-eminence to Israel as a race, and exalting the common relation of believers to their great Head as paramount to all connexion with particular progenitors—the very doctrine so repeatedly and emphatically taught in the New Testament. 431
17. Why wilt thou make us wander, oh Jehovah, from thy ways; (why) wilt thou harden our heart from thy fear? Return, for the sake of thy servants, the tribes of thy inheritance. The earnestness of the prayer is evinced by an increasing boldness of expostulation. Rosenmuller shows, by a reference to Deut. 2: 28 and I Sam. 14: 36, that the Hiphil often signifies permission rather than direct causation. But although this usage is indisputable, it is here forbidden by the parallel expression, which can hardly mean to suffer to grow hard, and rendered unnecessary by the frequency and clearness with which such an agency is ascribed to God him self elsewhere. As to the sense of such expressions, see the Earlier Prophecies, p. 96. Equally shallow and malignant are the comments of the German writers on this subject; as a specimen of which may be given Hitzig’s statement that « Jehovah makes men sinners for the sake of punishing them afterwards; to the question why he does so, the East [by which he means the Bible] makes no answer. Compare Rom. 9: 17-22.” The future verbs are not to be arbitrarily explained as preterites, or (with Hitzig) as implying that the action still continues, but as asking why he will continue so to do. The second verb occurs only here and in Job 39: 16, where it is applied to the ostrich’s hard treatment of her young. It is obviously near akin to nd£, and Vitringa thinks the substitution of the stronger guttural has an intensive effect upon the meaning. The particle in from thy fear is commonly supposed to have a privative or negative meaning, so as not to fear thee; but there is rather an allusion to the wandering just before mentioned, as if he had said, < and why wilt thou make us to wander, by hardening our heart, from thy fear?’ This last expression, as in many other cases, includes all the duties and affections of true piety.—For the sense of God’s returning to his people, see above, on ch. 52: 8. The tribes of thine inheritance is an equivalent expression to thy people; which originated in the fact that Israel, like other ancient oriental races, was divided into tribes. The argument drawn from this expression in favour of applying the whole passage to the Jews, proves too much; for the distinction into tribes is as much lost now among the Jews as among the gentiles. The Jews, indeed, are properly but one tribe, that of Judah, in which the remnants of the others were absorbed after the exile.
18. For a little thy holy people possessed, our enemies trod down thy sanctuary. The sense of this verse is extremely dubious. I5sa is else where used in reference to magnitude (Gen. 19: 20) and number (2 Chr. 24: 24), not to time. J. D. Michaelis connects it with the foregoing verse, and reads, f the tribes of thy inheritance have become a little thing,’ i. e. an object of contempt. So the Vulgate, quasi nihilum. The Septuagint also joins the first clause with v. 17, and omits the second, c that we may inherit a little of thy holy mountain,’ reading in for M which is approved by Lowth. Cocceius takes *“-5Sa^ in the sense of almost, like i3?£3 (Gen. 26: 10. Ps. 73: 2). Lowth, Kocher, and Rosenmiiller make it equivalent to the Latin parvum. But Vitringa and the later writers understand it as an adverb of time, cognate and equivalent to 127? (ch. 10: 25. 29: 17). Another question is whether thy holy people is the subject or object of the verb possessed. Thus Grotius understands the clause to mean that the enemy for a little while possessed thy holy people; and Cocceius, that they almost possessed thy holy people; Kocher and Rosenmiiller, it was not enough that they possessed thy holy people, they also trampled on thy sanctuary; Lowth, it was little that they did both, if God had not besides rejected them. The subject is then to be supplied from the other clause, or brought into this, by a removal of the accent and a consequent change of interpunction. The modern writers are agreed, however, in making holy people the subject of the verb, and supplying the object from the other clause, thy sanctuary, which is understood by Hitzig as denoting the entire holy land (Zech. 2: 16), as the cities of Judah are, he thinks, called holy cities in ch. 64: 9. Maurer suggests another method of providing both a subject and an object to the verb by omitting the niakkeph and reading ^”JFJ es smjv;, the people possessed thy holy (thing or place). According to the usual construction of the sentence, it assigns as a reason for Jehovah’s interference, the short time during which the chosen people had possessed the land of promise. But it may be objected that •csa? would naturally seem to qualify both clauses, which can only be prevented by supplying arbitrarily between them and then or now. This consideration may be said to favour Grotius’s construction; which is further recommended by its grammatical simplicity, in giving to both verbs one and the same subject. What is common to both explanations is the supposition that the verse describes a subjection to enemies. The question upon which they disagree is whether this subjection is itself described as temporary, or the peaceable possession which preceded it. In no case can an argument be drawn from it to prove that this whole passage has respect to the Jews in their present dispersion: first, because the sufferings of the church in after ages are frequently presented under figures drawn from the peculiar institutions of the old economy; and secondly, because the early history of Israel is as much the early history of the Christian church as of the Jewish nation, so that we have as much right as the Jews to lament the profanation of the Holy Land, and more cause to pray for its recovery by Christendom, than they for its restoration to themselves. Gesenius’s translation of tobiaas meaning plundered, although copied by Umbreit, is most probably an inadvertence; as no such meaning of the verb is given or referred to in any of his Hebrew lexicons. The error was observed and corrected even by De Wette and Noyes, the two most faithful followers of Gesenius in his version of Isaiah.
19. We are of old, thou hast not ruled over them, thy name has not been called upon them. Oh that thou wouldst rend the heavens (and) come down, (that) from before thee the mountains might quake (or flow down). Most of the modern writers have adopted a construction of the first clause suggested by the paraphrastic versions of the Septuagint and Vulgate. This supposes the description of the people’s alienation from God to be continued: We have long been those (or like those) over whom thou didst not rule, and who were not called by thy name; that is to say, thou hast long regarded and treated us as aliens rather than thy chosen people. The fcbisa is then referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar or by Titus, according to the general exegetical hypothesis of each interpreter. The ellipsis of the relative involved in ibis construction can create no difficulty, as it is one of perpetual occurrence; but the sense which it puts upon the clause is very far from being obvious, or one which a Hebrew writer would be likely to express in this way. Another old and well known construction of the clause is founded on the Chaldee Paraphrase, which understands this not as a description of their misery but an assertion of their claim to relief, in the form of a comparison between themselves and their oppressors. This is the sense given in the English Version: We are thine, thou never barest rule over them etc. To this form of the interpretation it has been objected, not without reason, that it puts upon the verb we are or have been a sense not justified by usage, or in other words, that it arbitrarily supplies the essential idea upon which the whole turns, namely, thine or thy people. But this objection may be easily removed by connecting the verb with tabtea, we are of old. The point of comparison is then their relative antiquity, the enemy being represented as a new race come into possession of the rights belonging to the old. There is then no need of supplying thine, the relation of the people to Jehovah being not particularly hinted here, although suggested by the whole connexion. With this modification the construction of the Targum and the English Bible seems entitled to the preference—Thou didst not rule over them. This has no reference, of course, to God’s providential government, but only to the peculiar theocratical relation which he bears to his own people. The same idea is expressed by the following words, as to the sense of which see above on ch. 48: 1. The inconvenience of strongly marked divisions in a book like this, is exemplified by the disputes among interpreters, whether the remaining words of this verse as it stands in the masoretic text should or should not be separated from it and connected with the following chapter. Gesenius and the later 28 writers choose the latter course, while Rosenmiiller steadfastly adheres to the masoretic interpunction. The simple truth is that there ought to be no pause at all in this place, the transition from complaint to the expression of an ardent wish being not only intentional but highly effective. It is true that this clause ought not to be separated from what follows; but it does not follow that it ought to be severed from what goes before,—a gross non sequitur, with which the reasoning of some learned writers is too often justly chargeable. Ewald reckons the remainder of this sentence as the first verse of the sixty-fourth chapter, on the authority of the ancient versions, but obviates the inconvenience commonly attending it, by throwing the whole context from v. 18 to v. 5 of the next chapter, both inclusive, into one unbroken paragraph. Our own exposition will proceed upon the principle heretofore applied, that this is a continuous composition, that the usual divisions are mere matters of convenience or inconvenience as the case may be, and that more harm is likely to result from too much than from too little separation of the parts. The passionate apostrophe in this clause, far from being injured or obscured, is rendered more expressive by its close connexion with the previous complaints and lamentations. The idea now suggested is, that weary of complaint the people or the prophet speaking for them suddenly appeals to God directly with an ardent wish that he would deal with them as in days of old. For the construction of the optative particle xib, see above, on ch. 48: 18. The Targum and Luzzatto make it negative, as if written ate or fc&, a variation which does not materially affect the sense, but merely changes the expression of a wish that something might be done, to a complaint that it is not done: ‘ thou hast not rent the heavens,’ etc. The remaining words are a poetical description of Jehovah’s interposition or the manifestation of his presence, under figures drawn perhaps from the account of his epiphany on Sinai. Gesenius explains to to denote commotion; Ewald adheres to the old etymology and sense of melting.
