THIS chapter, like the one before it, from which it is in fact inseparable, has respect to the critical or turning point between the old and new dispensations, and presents it just as it might naturally have appeared to the believing Jews, i. e. the first Christian converts, at that juncture. The strongest confidence is expressed in the divine power, founded upon former experience, vs. 1-3. The two great facts of Israel’s rejection as a nation, and the continued existence of the church, are brought together in v. 4. The unworthiness of Israel is acknowledged still more fully, vs. 5, 6. The sovereign authority of God is humbly recognised, v. 7. His’favour is earnestly implored, v. 8. The external prerogatives of Israel are lost, v. 9. But will God for that cause cast off the true Israel, his own church or people? v. 10.
1. As fire kindles brush, fire boils water—to make known thy name to thine enemies, from before thee nations shall tremble. The last clause coheres directly with the preceding verse, while the first is a parenthetical comparison; for which cause some of the latest writers throw the last words of ch. 63 into this sentence. This, for reasons which have been already given, is unnecessary; it is sufficient to observe the connexion upon which the proposed arrangement rests. As rrij? is both transitive and intransitive, either of two constructions may be here adopted—as a fire of brushwood burns, or, as fire kindles brush—the last of which is preferred by most interpreters, as simpler in itself, and because fire is the subject of the verb in the next clause also. The various explanations of o^n by the older writers are detailed by Vitringa and Rosenmiiller. The ancient versions and several of the rabbins derive it from &&E to melt, but in violation of etymological analogy. The first hint of the true sense was given by Rabbi Jonah, who pronounces it to mean dry stubble (M» Cp), and the definition has been since completed by the Arabic analogy. Schultens’ construction of the next words, aquae effervescunt igne, involves a twofold irregularity, viz. in gender and in number, which is not to be assumed without necessity. The point of comparison in both these clauses is the rapidity and ease with which the effect is produced. Hitzig supposes a specific allusion in the second to the bouleversement or complete transposition of the particles of boiling water, as an emblem of the general confusion which the presence of Jehovah would produce; but this is more ingenious and refined than natural. The literal effect is described in the next words, to make known thy name, i. e. to manifest thy being and thine attributes to thine enemies. In both parts of the sentence the construction passes as it were insensibly from the infinitive to the future, a transition not unfrequent in Hebrew syntax. The last future is supposed by the latest writers to be still dependent on the optative particle in ch. 63: 19, < oh that the nations at thy presence might tremble.’ But as the infinitive immediately precedes, and as K& is there construed with the praeter, it is better to regard itini simply as a statement of what would be the effect of God’s appearance. 436 CH AFTER LXIV.
2. In thy doing fearful things (which) we expect not, (oh that) thou wouldst come down, (that) the mountains from before thee might flow down. There are two very different constructions of this verse. Gesenius agrees with the English Version in making it a direct historical statement of a past event: When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou earnest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence. This seems to be the simplest possible construction; but it is attended by a serious grammatical difficulty, viz. the necessity of referring the future rijjM to past time, without any thing in the connexion to facilitate or justify the version. On the other hand, this word appears to be decisive of the future bearing of the whole verse, and in favour of the syntax adopted by Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, which supposes the influence of the optative particle to be still continued through this verse, as well as that before it: (Oh that) in doing terrible things, such as we expect not, thou wouldst come down, etc. There is then no need of resorting to forced explanations of the sense in which the Prophet could speak as if he had been present at Mount Sinai. The construction of the praeterite with »*.b is the same as in ch. 63: 19.
3. And from eternity they have not heard, they have not perceived by the ear, the eye hath not seen, a God beside thee (who) will do for (one) waiting for him. This verse assigns a reason why such fearful things should be expected from Jehovah, namely, because he alone had proved himself able to perform them. Kimchi supplies rviaix nations, as the subject of the plural verbs; but they are really indefinite, and mean that men in general have not heard, or, as we should say, that no one has heard, or in a passive form, it has not been heard. Do may be either taken absolutely, or as governing them, i. e. the fearful things mentioned in v. 2. Waiting for God implies faith, hope, and patient acquiescence. (See above, on ch. 40: 31.) The construction here given is the one now commonly adopted, and is also given in the margin of the English Bible, and by Grotius and Cocceius; while the text of that version, with Vitringa and others, makes B^« a vocative, and ascribes to God not only the doing but the knowledge of the fearful things in question. This construction is preferred by Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and many others, and agrees better with Paul’s quotation (2 Cor. 2:9) of the words as descriptive of the gospel as a mystery or something hidden till revealed by the Spirit. (Compare Rom. 15: 26, and Matth. 13: 17.) But in this, as in many other cases, the apostle, by deliberately varying the form of the expression, shows that it was not his purpose to interpret the original passage, but simply to make use of its terms in expressing his own thoughts on a kindred subject. Least of all can any emendation of the text be founded upon this quotation, such as the change of *ona to ^ana from ann, which, as Vitringa well observes, although applied to the divine love for man, is inappropriate to human love for God, not to mention the unusual construction with b.
4. Thou hast met with one rejoicing and executing righteousness; in thy ways shall they remember thee; behold, thou hast been wroth, and we have sinned; in them is perpetuity, and we shall be saved. There is perhaps no sentence in Isaiah, or indeed in the Old Testament, which has more divided and perplexed interpreters, or on which the ingenuity and learning of the modern writers have thrown less light. To enumerate the various interpretations, would be endless and of no avail. Gesenius pro fesses to recite them, but gives only a selection. A more full detail is furnished by Vitringa and Rosenmiiller, and in Poole’s Synopsis. Nothing more will here be attempted than to give the reader some idea of the various senses which have been attached to the particular expressions, as a means of showing that we have at best but a choice of difficulties, and of procuring for our own exposition a more favourable hearing than it might be thought entitled to in other circumstances. The first verb has been variously taken in the sense of meeting as an enemy and meeting as a friend, making a covenant, removing out of life, interceding, and accepting intercession. It has been construed as a simple affirmation, both in the past and present form; as a conditional expression (si incidas); and as the expression of a wish (utinam offenderes). The next verb has been also treated both as a direct and as a relative expression, they will remember thee, and those who remember thee. Thy ways has been explained to mean the way of God’s commandments and of his providential dispensations. In them has been referred to ways, to sins, to sufferings, to the older race of Israelites, t&is has been treated as a noun and as an adverb; as meaning perpetuity, eternity, a long time, and for ever, sura has been changed to 5ii’Ba, and the common reading has been construed interrogatively (shall or could we be saved?), optatively (may we be saved), and indicatively, present, past, and future (we have been, are, or shall be saved). Of the various combinations of these elements on record, the most important in relation to the first clause are the following: Thou hast taken away those who rejoiced to do righteousness and remembered thee in thy ways (Kimchi). Thou didst accept the intercession of those who rejoiced etc. (Aben Ezra). Thou didst encounter or resist as if they had been enemies those who rejoiced etc. (Cocceius). Thou meetest as a friend him rejoicing etc. (Jerome). If thou meet with or light upon one rejoicing etc. they will remember thee in thy ways (Vitringa). Oh that thou mightest meet with one rejoicing etc. (Ros).—Of the second clause, the following constructions may be noted: In them (i. e. our sins) we have been always, and yet we shall be saved (Jerome). We have sinned against them (i. e. thy ways) always, and yet have been delivered. In them (i. e. thy ways of mercy) there is continuance, and we are saved (Piscator). Thou wast angry after we had sinned against them (i. e. our fathers), and yet we are safe (Vitringa). J. D. Michaelis: we sinned an eternity (i. e. for ages) among them (the heathen) and apostatized (sirssi). Lowth: thou art angry, for we have sinned; because of our deeds (^bten^for we have been rebellious (susii). Rosenmuller: we have sinned in them (thy ways) of old, and can we be saved? Kocher: in them (our miseries) there is long continuance; oh may we be saved! Maurer: in them (the ways of duty) let us ever go, and we shall be saved. Hitzig: thou wast angry, and we sinned on that account (&ns) continually, and can we be saved? Grotius: had we been always in them (thy ways), we should have been saved. Gesenius substantially agrees with Kocher; De Wette and Umbreit with Rosenmuller; Henderson with Piscator; Ewald with Hitzig; Hendewerk with Grotius; Knobel, partly with Jerome, partly with Lowth, and partly with Kocher. It is curious enough that Vitringa, whose construction has probably never been adopted by another writer on the passage, says of it himself, sensus facillimus et optimus ut quisque viderit. Yet in his exposition of the very next verse he says, aegre aspicio homines, ne videantur nihil scribere, ea in certis consignare, quae ipsi facile praevideant neminem recepturum esse. As if to show that exegetical invention is not yet exhausted, the ingenious modern rabbin, Samuel Luzzatto, closes his curious notes on Isaiah, prefixed to the abridgment of Rosenmuller’s Scholia, with still another exposition of this verse, and of the whole connexion, which deserves to be stated, were it only for its novelty. He understands the people as denying at the close of the preceding chapter (v. 19) that Jehovah had attested his divinity by suitable exertion of his power in their behalf. At the beginning of this chapter they correct themselves, and own that he has proved himself able to secure his ends as easily as fire kindles chaff or causes water to boil (v. 1); but as he does not do it, this neglect is to be regarded as the cause or the occasion of their sins. They then assure him that they know his ancient deeds, even when they were not looked for (v. 2), and can compare them not only with the impotence of idols (v. 3), but with his present inaction: l *Thou hast to do with those who remember thee as joyfully exercising righteousness in thy ways (or dispensations); oh that thou wouldst persevere in them (those ways) forever, that we might be saved.’—I shall not attempt to define what is correct and what erroneous in these various constructions, but simply to justify the one assumed in my own version. The general meaning of the sentence may be thus expressed in paraphrase: *’ Although thou hast cast off Israel as a nation, thou hast nevertheless met or favourably answered every one rejoicing to do righteousness, and in thy ways or future dispensations such shall still remember and acknowledge thee; thou hast been angry, and with cause, for we have sinned; but in them, thy purposed dispensations, there is perpetuity, and we shall be saved.’ The abrogation of the old economy, though fatal to the national pre-eminence of Israel, was so far from destroying the true church or the hopes of true believers, that it revealed the way of life more clearly than ever, and substituted for an insufficient, temporary system, a complete and everlasting one. In this construction of the sentence, the verb 3ss and the noun tto are taken in their usual sense, and the pronoun in tofts refers to its natural antecedent
5. And we were like the unclean all of us, and like a filthy garment all our righteousnesses (virtues or good works), and we faded like the (fading) leaf all of us, and our iniquities like the wind will take us up (or carry us away). Having shown what they are or hope to be through the mercy of God and the righteousness of Christ, they state more fully what they are in themselves, and what they must expect to be if left to themselves. This twofold reference to their past experience and their future destiny accounts for the transition from the praeter to the future, without arbitrarily confound ing them together. — Vitringa makes fc^rjft descriptive of a leper, which is wholly arbitrary; the adjective appears to be used absolutely for the unclean, or that which is unclean, perhaps with a superlative emphasis, like Ttojsri, in ch. 60: 22. Vitringa and Gesenius dwell with great zest and fulness on the strict sense of tw nss. Some understand the comparison with with ered leaves as a part of the description of their sin, while others apply it to their punishment. The first hypothesis is favoured by the difference of the tenses, which has been already noticed; the last by the parallelism of the clauses. It is probable, however, that here as in ch. 1: 4 the two things ran together in the writer’s mind, and that no refined distinction as to this point was intended. (With the figures of the last clause compare ch. 57: 13. Ps. 1: 1. Job 27: 21.) Hitzig and Hendewerk apply this last expression to the actual deportation of the Jews to Babylon. Vitringa, having satisfied himself that this whole context has respect to the present exile and dispersion of the Jews, takes pleasure in applying the particular expressions to the circumstances of that great affliction. It is very remarkable, however, that in this, as in other cases heretofore considered, there is no expression which admits of this application exclusively, and none which admit of it at all but for their generality and vagueness, which would equally admit an application to any other period of distress which had been previously set down as the specific subject of the prophecy.
6. And there is no one calling on thy name, rousing himself to lay hold on thee; for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast melted us because of (or by means of) our iniquities. The German writers make the whole historical and retrospective, so as to throw what is here described far enough back to be the antecedent and procuring cause of the Babylonish exile. But although there is evident allusion to the past implied in the very form of the expression, the description reaches to the present also, and describes not only what the speakers were, but what they are when considered in themselves, as well as the effects of their own weakness and corruption, which they have already experienced.—Calling on the name of God is here used in its proper sense of praying to him and invoking his assistance and protection; which idea is expressed still more strongly by the next phrase, rousing himself (which implies a just view of the evil and a strenuous exertion to correct it) to lay hold upon thee, a strong figure for attachment to a person and reliance on him.—Lowth’s version of the next words, ’ therefore thou hast hidden,’ is wholly unauthorized and wholly unnecessary, since the withdrawal of divine grace is constantly spoken of in Scripture both as the cause and the effect of men’s continued alienation from God. Grotius, Cappellus, Houbigant, Lowth, and Ewald, read issjmn from “po, ‘thou hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities.’ (See Gen. 14: 20. Prov. 4: 9.) This sense is also expressed by several of the ancient versions, but has pro bably arisen not from a difference of text, but from a wish to assimilate the verb to the following expression, in the hand. Gesenius and most of the late writers, suppose aia in this one place to have the transitive sense of causing to dissolve, in which twofold usage it resembles the corresponding English verb to melt. Hitzig notes this among the indications of a later writer, notwithstanding the analogous use of sitti by Amos (9: 14). In the hand may either mean by means of, in the midst of, or because of; or we may suppose with Rosenmiiller that the phrase strictly means, thou dost melt us into the hand of our iniquities, i. e. subject us to them, make us unable to resist them, and passively submissive to their power.
7. And now, Jehovah, our father (art) thou, we the day and thou our potter, and the work of thy hands (are) we all. Instead of relying upon any supposed merits of their own, they appeal to their very dependence upon God as a reason why he should have mercy on them. Lowth follows two editions and five manuscripts in reading ftns twice, which repetition has great force, he thinks, whereas the other word may well be spared. In other cases where a word is repeated in the common text, he substitutes a different one, because the repetition is inelegant. The Bishop’s judgment upon such points was continually warped by his predominant desire to change the text. He overlooked in this case the obvious use of now, not merely as a particle of time, but as a formula of logical resumption, which could not be omitted without obscuring the relation of this verse to the preceding context, as a summing up of its appeals and arguments. Vitringa regards finx as the origin of the Homeric aria, ifora; but the Hebrew word is not expressive of endearment, it is absolutely necessary to the sense. The Prophet here resumes the thought of ch. 63: 16, where, as here, the paternity ascribed to God is not that of natural creation in the case of individuals, but the creation of the church or chosen people, and of Israel as a spiritual and ideal person. The figure of the potter and the clay, implying absolute authority and power, is used twice before (ch. 29: 6. 45: 9), and is one of the connecting links between this book and the acknowledged Isaiah.—There is more dignity in the original expression than in the English phrase our potter, as the Hebrew word properly denotes one forming or imparting shape to any thing, though specially applied in usage to a workman in clay, when that material is mentioned. Lowth retains the general meaning, but in order to avoid the ambiguity attending the word former, treats it as a finite verb, thou hast formed us, which is clear enough, but inexact and drawling. The use of the word all in this verse, and its emphatic repetition in the next, exclude the application of the passage to an idolatrous party in the Babylonish exile, even if that limitation would be otherwise admissible. The same plea, derived from the relation of the creature to the maker, is used in Ps. 138: 8, forsake not the work of thy hands. (Compare Ps. 76: 1. 79: 1.) In either case there is a tacit appeal to the covenant and promise in Gen. 17: 7. Lev. 26: 42-45. Deut. 7: 6. 26: 17, 18.
8. Be not angry, oh Jehovah, to extremity, and do not to eternity remember guilt; lo, look, we pray thee, thy people (are) we all. This is the application of the argument presented in the foregoing verse, the actual prayer founded on the fact there stated. The common version of “JXE”!? (very sore) fails to reproduce the form of the original expression, as consist ing of a preposition and a noun. This is faithfully conveyed in Lowth’s version (to the uttermost), and still more in Henderson’s (to excess); although the latter is objectionable as suggesting the idea of injustice or moral wrong, which is avoided in the version above given. The first defect is also charge able upon the common version of *i?b, for ever; which, although a fair equivalent, and perfectly sufficient in all ordinary cases, is neither so exact nor so expressive as the literal translation in the case before us, where there seems to be an intentional regard to the peculiar form and sound as well as to the meaning of the sentence. The common version is besides defective, or at least ambiguous, in seeming to make “j^ a verb and NJ a particle of time; whereas the former is an interjection, and the latter the peculiar Hebrew formula of courteous or importunate entreaty.
9. Thy holy cities are a desert, Zion is a desert Jerusalem a waste.
By holy cities, Grotius understands the towns of Judah; Vitringa, Jerusalem alone, considered as consisting of two towns, the upper and the lower, here called Zion and Jerusalem, though each of these names sometimes comprehends the whole, and the latter is dual in its very form. Gesenius cites Ps. 78: 54 to show that even the frontier of the land was reckoned holy, and that its cities might be naturally so described likewise. But the question is not one of possibility or propriety, but of actual usage; not what they might be called, but what they are called. The passage in the Psalms, moreover, is itself too doubtful to throw light upon the one before us. A better argument is that of Hitzig, in his note on ch. 63: 18, drawn from the use of the phrase ianp nans by Zechariah (2: 16) in application to the whole. Even this, however, is not conclusive; since the writer, if he had intended to employ the terms in this wide sense, would hardly have confined his specifications in the other clause to Zion and Jerusalem. In any case, these must be regarded as the chief if not the only subjects of his proposition.—There is something worthy of attention in the use here made of the substantive verb rnn. To express mere present existence, Hebrew usage employs no verb at all, though the pronoun which would be its subject is occasionally introduced. The preterite form of the verb as here used must either have the sense of was, in reference to a definite time past, or has been, implying a continuation of the same state till the present. The former meaning is excluded and the latter rendered necessary by the •obvious allusions in the context to the evils mentioned as being still experienced. To express the idea has become, which is given in some versions, usage would require the verb to be connected with the noun by the preposition b. On the whole, the true sense of the verse, expressed or implied, appears to be that Zion has long been a desolation and Jerusalem a waste.
10. Our house of holiness and beauty (in) which our fathers praised thee has been burned up with fire, and all our delights (or desirable places) have become a desolation. The elliptical use of the relative in reference to place is the same as in Gen. 39: 20. Burned up, literally, become a burning of fire, as in ch. 9: 6. The reference in this verse is of course to the destruction of the temple, but to which destruction is disputed. The modern Germans all refer it to the Babylonian conquest, when the temple, as we are expressly told, was burnt (Jer. 52: 13 ); Grotius to its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes, at which time, however, it was not consumed by fire; Vitringa and many later writers, with the Jews themselves, to its destruction by the Romans, since which the city and the land have lain desolate. To the first and last of these events the words are equally appropriate. Either hypothesis being once assumed, the particular expressions admit of being easily adapted to it. With our own hypothesis the passage may be reconciled in several different ways. There is nothing, however, in the terms themselves, or in the analogy of prophetic language, to forbid our understanding this as a description of the desolations of the church itself expressed by figures borrowed from the old economy and from the ancient history of Israel. If literally understood, the destruction of the temple and the holy city may be here lamented as a loss not merely to the Jewish nation, but to the church of God to which they rightfully belong and by which they ought yet to be recovered, a sense of which obligation blended with some superstitious errors gave occasion to the fanatical attempt of the crusades. (See above, on ch. 63: 18.)
12. Wilt thou for these (things) restrain thyself, oh Jehovah, wilt thou keep silence and afflict us to extremity? This is simply another application of the argument by way of an importunate appeal to the divine compassions. Self-restraint and silence, as applied to God, are common figures for inaction and apparent indifference to the interests and especially the sufferings of his people. (See above, on ch. 42: 14 and 63: 15.) The question is not whether God will remain silent in spite of what his people suffered, but whether the loss of their external advantages will induce him to forsake them. The question as in many other cases implies a negation of the strongest kind. The destruction of the old theocracy was God’s own act and was designed to bring the church under a new and far more glorious dispensation. How the loss of a national organization and pre-eminence was to be made good is fully stated in the following chapter.
