V 1^0(^MS^ v SEP ?.0 1921 k ^OiKkl SW^ >>ecuo COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH COMMENTART '^ SEP 20 1921 PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH. JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDEK, D.D., PRINCETON. WUW AND REVISED EDITION. EDITED BY JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D., PKOFESSOn OF BIBLICAL LITEEATUBE TO THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. VOL. 1. NEW YORK: SCEIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO., 654 BROADWAY. 187i. EDITOR'S PREFACE. Dr Joseph Addison Alexander, the able and learned author of this Com- mentary, the great work of his life, died at Princeton, New Jersey, on the 20th January 1860, having been born at Philadelphia in April 1809. The unexpected death of one so eminent and useful, produced a profound sen- sation throughout the American States. " Devout men carried him to his burial, and made great lamentation over him." As the son of an accom- plished father, the Rev, Dr Archibald Alexander, Joseph Addison enjoyed the best of intellectual and spiritual training. His scholarship was pre- cociously developed, for, at fourteen years of age, he had read through the Koran in the original Arabic. The other oriental tongues he mastered at a very early period ; and he also acquired, in the course of his Academic curriculum, a profound acquaintance with the classical languages, and an intimate familiarity with most of the modem tongues of Europe. On the very day before his death, he enjoyed his usual portion of Scripture in the six languages in which it had been his daily habit to read it. He was, in 1835, chosen by the General Assembly Associate Professor of Oriental and Biblical Literature in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, and he had already been, for some years, Assistant Professor of Ancient Languages in the College of New Jersey. In 1851, he was transferred to the chair of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History, and in 1859 his Professorate received the title of the chair of Hellenistic and New Testament literature. "We need not say that Dr Alexander nobly and successfully discharged the duties of his office — infecting the students with his own enthusiasm, and setting before them, in his prelections, a model of clear and manly statement, and of industrious and learned research. He was a preacher, too, of no com- mon stamp, and his sermons published since his death give proof of his clearness, eloquence, and power, in applying as well as in expounding evangelical truth. His expositions of the Psalms, Mark, Acts, and a portion of Matthew (this last labour being interrupted by his death), are specimens of lucid, sound, and popular commentary. His colleague Dr Hodge, in an address to the General Assembly in 1860, justly said of him, " I regard Dr Joseph Addison Alexander as incomparably the greatest man I ever knew, — as incomparably the greatest man our church has ever produced." But his crowning labour, his imperishable monument, is his Commentary on vi EDITORS PREFACE. Isaiah. He had made some progress in revisal for a second edition, and some scores of corrections and improvements made by himself on his own copy have been collected by a scholarly friend and transmitted to us. These have been incorporated in this present edition, which may there- fore be said to contain its eminent author's latest emendations. The republication of this Commentary in the present form will, it is hoped, prove an acceptable present to the Bibhcal students of this country, for it occupies an independent place among the numerous expositions of the evangelical Prophet, which have appeared in earlier or more recent times in Holland, Germany, England, and America. The two ponderous folios of Vitrinoa bear upon them the evidence of severe study, prodigious in- dustry, vast learning, and unflinching orthodoxy. Yet they are essentially Dutch in their structure— solid, cumbrous, and prolix ; stiff in their ar- rangement, tedious in their details, and copious to satiety in the miscellane- ous references and disquisitions with which they are loaded. The views advanced in them are more bulky than tasteful, the arguments offered more numerous than strong, and while at times there is a spii'ited appreciation of a splendid s}Tnbol or a glowing parallelism, the author was too phlegmatic to be thrilled from sympathy with the prince of Hebrew bai'ds ; too much enca»ed in polemical disquisitions and recondite senses to waste time in expressing his slow and unwieldy emotions. The Commentarj- of Gesenius occupies a place of no mean dignity. Its faithful adherence to the Maso- retic text, its sound grammatical notations, its clear and shrewd analysis of syntactic difficulties, its happy surmises in cases of acknowledged dubiety, and its fulness of ai'chajological lore, have conferred upon it a European celebrity. But these literary virtues are more than counterbalanced by its obtrusive neology, its occasional levity, its low and perverted notions of the theocracy, its melancholy denial of prophetic inspiration and foresight, and its virulent hostility to the leading doctrine of a Messiah. The merits of this masterly Treatise are also lessened by its restless employment of the "higher criticism," for the purpose of impugning the integrity of Isaiah, and of so dismembering the book of his oracles, that the larger portion of them are branded as the anonymous productions of a later age, which sought in vain to disguise its intellectual poverty by a patriotic imitation of the fresher writings of an earlier period. It would be a woful day for Christen- dom, if tho question, as to what are and what are not the genuine remains of the son of Amoz, were to bo left for final decision to the morbid subjec- tivity and capricious mania of German unbelief. The refined taste and classical acquirements of Bishop Lowth are seen in the many beautiful references and apposite illustrations which adorn to pro- fusion his popular work. But the reckless treatment which he applied to the text in his repeated and superfluous alterations and suggestions with- out evidence or necessity, mars the utility of the scanty exegesis which is contained in his Commentary. The volume of the late Dr Henderson of Highbury is of groat merit and ripe scholarship, and commends itself to us 08 tho result of skilful and sanctified erudition. It often suggests the way EDITOR S PREFA CE. vii to discover the truth, if in any case it fail to reveal it. Yet, with all its perspicuity, its brevity or curtness is a marked defect. On many points, in connection with which acute and sagacious decisions are given, we long for a fuller statement of those philological principles by which the critic has been guided, and a more minute enumeration of those objec- tions to his own views which are often dismissed with a simple allusion to their existence, or are set aside with the bare mention of their age, author- ship, and valueless character. Mr Barnes of Philadelphia has compiled three excellent volumes of Notes on Isaiah with no little dexterity and success. But these annotations, from their very nature, do not come into competition with the Commentary of Professor Alexander. We have classed together only the more prominent Works on Isaiah for the sake of a brief compari- son, and we deem it unnecessary to place on such a list the productions of Hitzig or Hendewerk, Knobel or Ewald, Drechsler or Umbreit, Jenour or Stock, Noyes or MaccuUoch. We do not, however, mean to make this republished Exposition the theme of unqualified or indiscriminate eulogy. No one, indeed, saw its defects more readily than did its author himself, and no one could be more prompt to acknowledge or correct them, for with all his gifts and greatness he had the simplicity and candour of a child. Yet we reckon it among the best Commentaries on Isaiah of any age or in any language. It embodies in it the fruits of many years of continuous toil and research, and its size gives it the advantage of a gratifying fulness. Professor Alexander possessed consummate scholarship. He discovers intimate acquaintance with the nicer peculiarities of Hebrew philology, in its tenses, particles, and more delicate combinations ; and at the same time possesses no little relish for the aesthetic element — the buds and blossoms of oriental poetry. His unfailing stores of auxiliary erudition are ever at disciplined command, and are applied with eminent judgment. The value of his publication is also enhanced by the excellent synoptical accounts of the labours and opinions of former and contemporary authors, which are to be found under almost every verse. The Work is pervaded also by a sound exegetical spirit ; the spirit of one who had been " baptized into Christ." For his daily study of the Bible was never to him a mere professional occupation. Interesting views of the nature of prophecy in itself, and in its relations as well to the Jewish Commonwealth as to the Church of the Redeemer, abound in the following pages. The reveries of Teutonic criticism are unsparingly held up to scorn, and the " old paths" are proved to be still the safest and best. The Exposition is free from extraneous matter. It has no digressions ; no learned lumber obstructs the reader's way with its conceited and multifarious cuiiosities. The principles which the author has laid down for his own guidance in the extreme literalness of his ver- sion, are sometimes followed, however, with such rigidness and system as might afford facetious remarkings to any satirical reviewer. This pecu- liarity, however, some may consider no blemish, but may rather hail it as an improvement. In one word, this Transatlantic Commentary is cautious viii EDITOR'S PREFACE. and reverent in its textual criticism, — in its habitual demeanour towai'ds those '• words which the Holy Ghost teacheth." It is no less expert, ac- curate, and felicitous in its philology, basing it on the acknowledged laws of mind and principles of language. Its hermeneutical canons are always sagacious and in general correct, while the exegesis is distinguished by its harmony and -s-igour, and relieved by its exalted and luminous concep- tions. Nevertheless we are not so sanguine as to anticipate for the author whom we have been honoured to introduce, that his readers will assent to all his hypotheses, or will be converted to his marked and favourite interpretations of those paragraphs and sections, the precise meaning and fulfilment of which are in the present day topics of keen and protracted controversy. This edition has been printed with great care. The editor has read all the sheets with attention as they passed through the press, and has corrected very many errors, both in the Hebrew and English text of the American original. Alexander's Isaiah has already taken its own place in the front rank of biblical works ; and our belief is that a " Contribution " so dis- tinguished by its learning and piety will be cordially welcomed and speedily naturalised among us. May the inspired classics always* engage that admiration which they so justly merit for their originality and truthfulness, their simplicity and pathos, their magnificent imagery and varied music. But, above all, may they attract the li\'ing faith of every admirer to those blessed truths and promises which they have been so wisely and graciously employed to reveal to a fallen and dying world, for the old prophetic harp was tuned to the utterance of the noblest thoughts and mysteries, the majesty, unity, and spirituality of Jehovah, the holiness of his law, the in- finitude of his love, and the might, triumphs, and wonders of that covenant by which our apostate race is to be reclaimed and glorified. JOHN EADIE. Glasgow, 18 Lansdowne Crescent, January 1865. PREFACE TO THE EARLIER PROPHECIES. To prevent misappreliension, and facilitate the use of the following work, some explanation may- be needed with respect to its design and execution. The specific end at which it aims is that of making the results of philo- logical and critical research available for purposes of practical utility. In attempting to accomplish this important purpose, it was soon found indis- pensable to fix upon some definite portion of the reading public, whose capacities, acquirements, and wants might be consulted in determining the form and method of the exposition. Some learned and ingenious works in this department have been rendered to a great extent practically useless, by the want of a determinate fitness for any considerable class of readers, being at once too pedantic for the ignorant, and too elementary for the instructed. In the present case there seemed to be some latitude of choice, and yet but one course on the whole advisable. Works exclusively adapted to the use of profound orientalists and biblical scholars are almost prohibited among ourselves at present, by the paucity of competent writers and congenial readers. Works designed for the immediate use of the unlearned must of necessity be superficial and imperfect, and are proved by experience to be not the most effective means of influencing even those for whom they are expressly written. The obscurer parts of Scripture, or at least of the Old Testament, can be most efiectually brought to bear upon the popular mind by employing the intermediate agency of an intelligent and educated ministry. The people may be best taught in such cases through their teachers, by furnishing a solid scientific basis for their popular instructions. Under the influence of these considerations an attempt has here been made to concentrate and economise the labours of the ministry in this field, by affording them a partial succedaneum for many costly books, and enabling them to profit by the latest philological improvements and discoveries, without the inconveniences and even dangers which attend a direct resort to the original authorities. What has now been said will explain a feature of the plan, which might at first sight seem to be at variance with the ultimate design of the whole work, to wit, the exclusion of the practical element, or rather of its formal exhibition in the shape of homiletical and doctrinal reflections. A work X PREFACE. upon Isaiah so constructed as to constitute a series of lectures or expository sermons, instead of doing for the clergy what they need and what they wish, would be attempting to do for them that which they can do far better for themselves, by presenting one of the many forms in which the substance of the book may be employed for the instruction and improvement of their people. The effect of this consideration is enhanced by an impression, which the author's recent labours have distinctly made upon his mind, that much of the fanciful and allegorical interpretation heretofore current has arisen from a failure to discriminate sufficiently between the province of the critical interpreter, and that of the expository lecturer or preacher ; the effect of which has been to foist into the Scriptures, as a part of their original and proper sense, a host of applications and accommodations, which have no right there, however admissible and even useful in their proper place. Let the professional interpreter content himself with furnishing the raw material in a sound and merchaotable state, without attempting to prescribe the texture, colour, shape, or quantity of the indefinitely varied fabrics into which it is the business of the preacher to transform it. From these considerations it will be perceived that the omission now in question has arisen, not merely from a want of room, and not at all from any dis- regard to practical utility, but on the contrary, from a desire to promote it in the most effectual manner. Another point, which may be here explained, is the relation of the fol- lowing commentary to the authorised English Version of Isaiah. It was at first proposed to make the latter the immediate basis of the exposition, simply calling in the aid of the original to rectify the errors, or clear up the obscurities of the translation. The primary reason for abandoning this method was its tendency to generate an indirect and circuitous method of interpretation. A still higher motive for the change was afforded by its probable effect in promoting thorough biblical learning, and discouraging the sluggish disposition to regard the common version as the ultimate authority, and even to insist upon its errors or fortuitous peculiarities as parts of a divine revelation. The contrary disposition to depreciate the merits of the English Bible, by gratuitous departures from its form or sub- stance, is comparatively rare, and where it does exist is to be corrected, not by wilful ignorance, but by profound and discriminating knowledge of the version and original. The practical conclusion in the present case, has been to make the Hebrew text exclusively the subject of direct interpretation, but at the same time to give the common version all the prominence to which it is entitled by its intrinsic excellence, and by its pecuhar interest and value to the English reader. It may bo thought that the shortest and (•asicHt method of accomplishing this object would have been that adopted by Maurer, Knobel, and some other writers, who, without giving any continu- ous version of the text, confine their comments to its difficult expressions. It was found upon experiment, however, that much circumlocution might bo spared in many cases by a simple version, or at most by an explanatory paraphrase. A literal translation of the whole text has therefore been PREFACE. XI incorporated in the present Work, not as a mere appendage or accompani- ment, much less as a substitute or rival of the common version, which is too completely in possession of the public ear and memory to be easily displaced even if it were desirable, but simply as a necessary and integral part of the interpretation. The grounds of this arrangement will be stated more fully in the Introduction, of which it may as well be said in this place as in any other, that it makes no pretensions to the character of an ex- haustive compilation, but is simply, as its name imports, a preparation for what follows, consisting partly in preliminary statements, partly in general summaries, the particulars of which are scattered through the exposition. Another question, which presented itself early in the progress of the Work was the question whether it should be a record of the author's indi- vidual conclusions merely, or to some extent a history of the interpretation. The only argument in favour of the first plan was the opportunity which it afforded of including all Isaiah in a single volume. As to economy of time and labour, it was soon found that as much of these must be expended on a simple statement of the true sense as would furnish the materials for a synopsis of the different opinions. The latter method was adopted, there- fore, not merely for this negative reason, but also for the sake of the addi- tional interest imparted to the Work by this enlargement of the plan, and the valuable antidote to exegetical extravagance and crudity, afforded by a knowledge of earlier opinions and even of exploded errors. These advantages were reckoned of sufficient value to be purchased even by a sacrifice of space, and it was therefore determined to confine the pre- sent publication to the Earlier Prophecies (Chaps. I.-XXXIX.), the rest being reserved to form the subject of another volume. The separation was the more convenient, as the Later Prophecies (Chaps. XL.-LXVI.) are now universally regarded as a continuous and homogeneous composition, requir- ing in relation to its authenticity a special critical investigation.* But although it was determined that the Work should be historical as well as exegetical, it was of course impossible to compass the whole range of writers on Isaiah, some of whom were inaccessible, and others wholly destitute of anything original, and therefore without influence upon the progress of opinion. This distinction was particularly made in reference to the older writers, while a more complete exhibition was attempted of the later literature. Some recent writers were at first overlooked through accident or inadvertence, and the omission afterwards continued for the sake of uniformity, or as a simple matter of convenience. Some of these blanks it is proposed to fill in any further prosecution of the author's plan. The citation of authorities becomes less frequent and abundant, for the most part, as the Work advances, and the reader is supposed to have become familiar with the individual peculiarities of different interpreters, as well as * [The original American edition thus described, and published at different times, formed two volumes of unequal size, and that division of volumes, the result of necessity, has therefore not been followed in the present reprint.] xii PREFA CE. with the way in which thev usually group themselves in schools and parties, after which it will be generally found sufficient to refer to acknowledged leaders, or the authors of particular interpretations. The prominence given to the modern German writers has arisen not from choice but from neces- sity, because their labours have been so abundant, because their influence is so extensive, and because one prominent design of the whole Work is to combine the valuable processes and products of the new philology with sounder principles of exegesis. Hence too the constant effort to expound the book with scrupulous adherence to the principles and usages of Hebrew syntax as established by the latest and best writers. The reference to par- ticular grammars was gradually discontinued and exchanged for explanations in my own words, partly for want of a conventional standard alike familiar to my readers and myself, partly because the latter method was soon found upon experiment to be the most effectual and satisfactory in reference to the object which I had in view. The appearance of the Work has been delayed by various causes, but above all, by a growing sense of its difficulty and of incapacity to do it justice, together with a natural reluctance to confess how little after all has been accomplished. To some it will probably be no commendation of the work to say that its author has considered it his duty to record the failure as well as the success of exegetical attempts, and to avoid the presumption of knowing everything as well as the disgrace of knowing nothing. His deliberate conclusion fi'om the facts with which he has become acquainted in the prosecution of his present task, is that quite as much error has arisen from the eflbrt to know more than is revealed, as from the failure to apply the means of illustration which are really at our disposal. As ad- vantages arising from delay in this case may be mentioned, some additional maturity of judgment, and the frequent opportunity of re- consideration with the aid of contemporary wTiters on Isaiah, of whom seven have appeared since this book was projected, besides several auxiliary works of great impor- tance, such as Fiirst's Concordance, Nordheimer's Grammar, Havemick's In- troduction, llobiuson's Palestine, the later numbers of Gesenius's Thesaurus, and the last edition of his Manual Lexicon. It is proper to add, that although the plan was formed, and the collection of materials begun more than ten years ago, the Work has been wholly, and some parts of it re- peatedly, reduced to writing as it passed through the press. The advan- tages thus secured of being able to record the last impressions, and to make use of the latest helps, has this accompanying inconvenience, that changes insensibly took place in the details of the execution, tending to impair its uniformity without affecting its essential character. To such external blemishes it is of course unnecessary to invite attention by any more par- ticular description or apology. Since the printing of the volume was completed, the typographical errors have be<'u found to be more numerous than was expected, although for the most part letis injurious to the work than discreditable to the author who is justly accountable for this defect, on account of the very imperfect state PREFACE. xiii in which the manuscript was furnished to the printer. Instead of resorting to the usual apologies of distance from the press, and inexperience in the business, or appealing to the fact that the sheets could be subjected only once to his revision, he prefers to throw himself upon the candour and in- dulgence of his readers, and especially of those who have experienced the same mortification. ****** [The lacuna indicated by these asterisks is merely a brief Ust of Errata, which have of course been con'ected in the present reprint.] The want of uniformity too in the insertion or omission of the Hebrew points is certainly a blemish, but will not, it is hoped, occasion any serious inconvenience, even to the inexperienced reader. It arose from the acci- dental combination of two different methods, each of which has its advan- tages, the one as being more convenient for beginners, the other as favouring the useful habit of deciphering the unpointed text, and rendering typogra- phical correctness more attainable. Princeton, Aj)nl 20. 1846. PREFACE TO THE LATER PROPHECIES. This Volume * is a sequel to the one which appeared about a year ago, under the title of The Earher Prophecies, the two together forming a con- tinuous Commentary on Isaiah. While the same plan has been here retained without alteration, I have aimed at greater uniformity of execution, as well as a more critical selection of materials. The reasons for a separate investigation of these later chapters have been stated in the introduction to the other volume. In addition to the authors there eimmerated, I have carefully compared the English Version and remarks of Noyes (second edition, Boston, 1843), and die Cyro-jesaianischen W eissagungen of Beck (Leipzig, 1844) ; the first of which, though elegant and scholar-like, is too closely modelled on Gesenius to aflford much new matter, and the other is remarkable chiefly for the boldness of its ultra-rationalistic doctrines, and the juvenile flippancy with which they are expressed. Of both these works occasional citations will be met with in the present volume. In the exposition of the last seven chapters, too polemical an attitude, perhaps, has been assumed with respect to a distinguished living writer! Dr Henderson, to whose abilities and learning I have elswewhere endea- voured to do justice. The prominence here given to his book has arisen from his happening to be not only the best but the sole representative of certain views among the professed expounders of Isaiah. As to the ques- tion in dispute, the ground which I have taken and endeavoured to main- tain is the negative position that the truth of these " exceeding gi-eat and precious promises " is not suspended on the future restoration of "the Jews to Palestine, without denying such a restoration to be possible or pro- mised elsewhere. In this, as well as in the other Volume, I may possibly have pushed the rule of rigorous translation to an extreme ; but if so, it is an extreme from which recession is much easier and safer than recovery from that of laxity and vagueness. By the course thus taken, I am not without hope that [» This ifl tho Preface prefixed by the Author to his second vohimo, which ho designated The Later I'rophecies of Isaiali.— Ed.] PREFACE. XV some light may be* thrown upon the darker parts of Hebrew Grammar, and especially the doctrine of the tenses, which can never be completely solved except by a laborious induction of particulars. While I deem it proper to observe that I have read only two sheets of the volume during its progress through the press, I am happy to add, that it has passed through the hands of Mr W. W. Turner, to whom so many other works in this department are indebted for the accuracy of their execution. I have still kept steadily in view, as my immediate readers, to whose wants the work must be adapted, clergymen and students of theology con- sidered as the actual or future teachers of the church. Through them I may perhaps indulge the hope of doing something to promote correct opinions and a taste for exegetical pursuits, as means of intellectual and spiritual culture, even though this should prove to be my last as well as first contribution to the stores of sacred learning. Princeton, March 20. 1847. INTRODUCTIOK I. THE EARLIER PROPHECIES, CHAPS. I.-XXXIX. The English words 'prophet, jorophesy, and prophecy, have long been appro- priated, by established usage, to the prediction of future events. To pro- phesy, according to the universal acceptation of the term, is to foretell, and a prophet is one who does or can foretell things yet to come. This re- stricted application of the terms in question has materially influenced the interpretation of the prophetic scriptures by modern and especiall}' by Eng- hsh writers. It is necessary, therefore, to compare the common use of these expressions with the corresponding terms in Greek and Hebrew. The Greek ■^rgopjjrj^s (from 'rroocpriiMi) is used in the classics not only to denote specifically a foreteller, but more generally an authoritative speaker in the name of God, in which sense it is applied to the official expounders of the oracles, and to poets as the prophets of the muses, i. e. as speaking in their name, at their suggestion, or by their inspiration. This latitude of meaning, in the classical usage of the term, agrees exactly with its appli- cation in the Greek of the New Testament, not only to those gifted with the knowledge of futurity, but in a wider sense to inspired teachers or expounders of the will of God in the primitive church. It is evident, therefore, that our 2^rophet, jvophesy, and prophecy, are much more restricted in their im- port than the Greek words from which they are derived, as employed both by the classical and sacred writers. It may be said, however, that in this restricted usage we adhere to the primary and proper import of the terms, as the -n-^o in T^opr^/z./ and crgop'/jT?;;, no less than the pra' in j)^'(Edico, must have originally signified before, i. e. beforehand. Even this might be plausibly disputed, as the primary sense of rroo would seem to be not temporal but local, the idea of priority in time being given by the best lexicographers as secondary to that of antece- dence or priority in place, in which case the particle in composition may have originally signified, not so much the futurity of the things declared, as the authority of the person who declared them. (Compare v^oiSrug, v^o'/GTa/jjSvoc, ayitistes, jjrcEtor, inafectus, foreman.) But even gi'anting that the obvious and common supposition is correct, viz., that the Tgd in '7r^6iration under which the books were written, the highest being that of Moses, and the lowest that of the Hagiographa or Scriptures. This last opinion is not only destitute of evidence or scriptural foundation, but at variance with the tenor of the sacred writings, and of dangerous tendency. The most satisfactory solution of the fact in question is the one which anj)pose8 the law to have been placed first as the foundation of the whole, and the remaining books to have been divided, not with respect to their contents or the degree of inspiration in their writers, but with respect to their official character, the second great division being appropriated to the INTRODUCTION. 9 writings of men who were not onl}' inspired but prophets by profession, who possessed not only the prophetic gift but the prophetic office, while the third place was reserved for those who, although equally inspired, held no such station. Thus the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, having been composed, according to the ancient tradition, by D''^?^?? or official prophets, are prefixed to the prophecies properly so called, while the writings of David and Daniel, who were not such, are included in the third division. The principal difficulty in the way of this hypothesis arises from the fact, that different writings of the same man, viz. Jeremiah, are found both in the second and third division. This single exception to the general rule has been accounted for by some, upon the ground, that the book of Lamentations, although written by a Prophet in the strict sense, is more an expression of personal feeling than the other prophecies ; by others, upon the ground of its liturgical character, which naturally led to its insertion in the same part of the Canon with the Psalms. Another objection to this whole explanation of the threefold division has been drawn from the absence of entire uniformity in the application of the name ^''^^ to the official or professional prophet, and of n.t'n (seer) to an inspired person, simply as such. The difficulty here referred to does not lie in the promiscuous use of c^o^jjrjjs in the New Testa- ment, where David, for example, is expressly called a Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the want of any Greek equivalent to seer. But the same solution is not applicable to the use of both words seer and^jro^j/te^ in the Old Testament itself, with reference to one and the same person. {E. g. Gad the seer,'l Chron. xxi. 9 ; Gad the prophet, 2 Sam. xxiv. 11.) How far this rare departure from the usage, ought to weigh against the theory in general, or how far it may be accounted for by special circumstances in the case of Gad, are questions which may be considered doubtful. All that need be affirmed is that this hypothesis respecting the division of the Hebrew Canon, although not susceptible of demonstration, is more satisfactory and probable than any other which has been proposed. The application of the name D''?-"iri?, ay/oygapa or Scriptures, to the third division only, has been variously explained ; but the simplest and most natural solution is, that the first two divisions having been distinguished by appropriate names, the third was left in possession of that which, if there had been no division, would have been appropriate to the whole. Thus un- derstood, the three parts of the Canon are the Law, the Proj^hets, and the {other) Scriptures. In the second of these gi-eat divisions, that of the Prophets properly so called, a prominent place, and for the most part the first place, has been always held, so far as we can trace its history, by a book bearing the name of Isaiah. A Talmudical tradition represents it as having formerly been preceded by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Some of the modern German writers take advantage of this statement, as a ground for the presumption that the book in its present form was not completed until after those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This supposition, the design of which is to facilitate the critical rejection of the later prophecies, is not only an unauthorised inference from a fact extremely dubious at best, but at variance with the simultaneous close of the whole canon, which we have seen to be the only well- sustained hypo- thesis. The Talmudists themselves explain the fact which they allege, upon the ground that Jeremiah and Ezekiel are for the most part minatory pro- phets, and that the more consolatory writings of Isaiah were subjoined as a relief and antidote. A far more probable solution is, that the arrangement 10 INTRODUCTION. in question, if it ever prevailed, arose from tlie intimate connection of the second book of Kings with Jeremiah, and perhaps from a traditional ascrip- tion of it to that prophet as its author. The necessity of any explanation seems, however, to be superseded by the doubt which overhangs the fact itself, especially when taken in connection with the vmiform position of Isaiah bt-forc the other two in the most ancient manuscripts now extant, both of the Hebrew text and of the ancient versions. The name Isaiah is a compound word denoting the Salcalion of Jehovah, to whichsome imagine that the Prophet himself alludes in chap. viii. 18. The abbreviated form (H^W^) is never applied in Scripture to the Prophet, though the Kabbius employ it in titles and inscriptions. Both fonns of the name are applied in the Old Testament to other persons, in all which cases the English Version employs a diflercnt orthography, viz. Jeshaiah or Jesaiah. In the New Testament oiu- Version writes the same Esaiaa, after the exam- ple of the Vulgate, varj'ing slightly from the Greek 'VLmtac, used both in the Septuagint and the New Testament. To the name of the Prophet we find several times added that of his fother Amoz (P'^^?), which several of the Greek Fathers have confounded with the name of the prophet Amos (D1!3;y), though they difler both in the first and last letter. This mistake, occasioned by the Septuagint version, which writes both names alike (' A^aws), may be considered the more venial, as two of the latest writers on Isaiah in the English language have, in the very act of setting Cyril and Eusebius right, tlaemselves committed a like error by misspelling the name Amos (DIDX). The more ancient mistake may have been facilitated by a know- ledge of the Jewish maxim, now recorded in the Talmud, that whenever a prophet's fiithcr is named, the father was himself a prophet. The Jews themselves, in this case, are contented with observing the affinity between the names Amoz (I'l'^^), and Amaziah (-in^yP^?), upon which they gravely found a positive assertion that these men were brothers, and that Isaiah was therefore of the blood-royal, being cousin-gcrman to the -first king mentioned in the opening of his prophecies. This tradition has had gi-eat vogue among Jews and Christians, some of whom account for the urbanity and polish of Isaiah's manner as a natural effect of his nobility. It is un- fortunately true, however, that the Jewish doctors sometimes invent facts for the purpose of filling up the chasms of history, and this is especially to be suspected where the statement seems to rest on an etymological conceit or any other fanciful analogy. At all events, we have no satisfactory as- surance of the truth of this tradition, any more than of that which makes the prophet to have been the father-in-law of king Manasseh. The most probable statement is that made by one of the most learned and judicious of the Rabbins (David Kimchi), that the family and tribe to which Isaiah belonged are now entirely unknown. Of his domestic circumstances we know merely, that his wife and two of his sons are mentioned by himself (chap. vii. 3 ; viii. 3, 4), to which some add a third, as we shall sec below. The only liistorical account of this Prophet is contained in the book which bears his name, and in the pai'allel passages of Second Kings, which exhibit unequivocal signs of being from the hand of the same writer. The first sentence of Isaiah's own book, which is now commonly admitted to be genuine, assigns as the period of his ministry the four successive reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, one of the most eventful periods in the history of Judah. The two first reigns hero mentioned were exceed- ingly prosponnis, although a change for the worse appears to have com- menced before the death of Jotham, and continued through the reign of INTRODUCTION. 11 Ahaz, bringing the state to the Tsry verge of ruin, from which it was not restored to a prosperons condition until long after the accession of Hezekiah. During this period the kingdom of the ten tribes, which had flourished greatly under Jeroboam II., for many years contemporary with Uzziah, passed through the hands of a succession of usurpers, and was at length overthrown by the Assyrians, in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign over Judah. Among the neighbouring powers, with whom Israel v>^as more or less en- gaged in conthct during these four reigns, the most important were Dama- scene Syria, Moab, Edom, and the PhiHstines, who, although resident within the allotted bounds of Judah, still endeavoured to maintain their position as an independent and a hostile nation. But the foreign powers which chiefly influenced the condition of south-western Asia during this period, were the two great empires of Assyria in the east, and Egypt in the south-west. By a rapid succession of important conquests, the former bad suddenly acquired a magnitude and strength which it had not possessed for ages, if at all. Egypt had been subdued, at least in part, by Ethiopia ; but this very event, by combining the forces of two great nations, had given unexampled strength to the Ethiopian dynasty in Upper Egypt. The mutual jealousy and emu- lation between this state and Assyria, naturally tended to make Palestine, which lay between them, a theatre of war, at least at intervals, for many years. It also led the kings of Israel and Judah to take part in the con- tentions of these tv:o great powers, and to secure themselves by uniting, sometimes with Egypt against Assyria, sometimes with Assyria against Egypt. It was this inconstant policy that hastened the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and exposed that of Judah to imminent peril. Against this policy the prophets, and especially Isaiah, were commissioned to remonstrate, not only as unworthy in itself, but as implying a distrust of God's protection, and indifference to the fundamental law of the theocracy. The Babj'lonian monarchy, as Haveruick has clearly proved, began to gather strength before the end of this period, but Avas less conspicuous, because not yet permanently independent of Assyria, The two raost remarkable conjunctures in the history of Judah during Isaiah's ministry, are, the invasion by the combined force of Syi'ia and Israel, in the re"ign of Ahaz, followed by the destruction of the Idngdoni of the ten tribes, and the Assyrian invasion in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, ending in the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib's army, and his own ignoniinious flight. The historical interest of this important period is further heightened by the fact that two of the most noted eras in chronology fall within it, viz. the era of Nabonassar, and that computed from the build- ing of Eome. The length of Isaiah's pubHc ministry is doubtful. The aggi-egate dura- tion of the four reigns mentioned in the title is above one hundred and twelve years ; but it is not said that he prophesied throughout the whole reign, either of Uzziah or Hezekiah. Some, it is true, have inferred that his ministry was co-extensive with the whole reign of Uzziah, because he is said to have written the history of that prince (2 Chron. xxvi. 22), _ which he surely might have done without being strictly his contemporary, just as he may "have written that of Hezekiah to a certain date (2 Chron. xxxii. 32), and jk have died before him. Neither of these incidental statements can be understood as throwing any light upon the question of chronology. Most writers, both among the Jews and Christians, understand the first verse of the sixth chapter as determining the year of King Uzziah's death 12 IXTRODUCTIOX. to be the first of Isaiah's public ministry. Some of the Jewish \vTiters who adopt this supposition, at the same time understand Uzziah's death to mean his civil death, occasioned by the leprosy mth which he was smitten in the twenty-fifth year of his reign, for his sacrilegious invasion of the house of God, so that he dwelt in a separate house until his death. There seems to be no sufficient ground for this explanation of the language, or for the alleged coincidence of the event with the twenty-fifth year of Uzziah's reign, any more than for the notion of the oriental Christians, that Isaiah was deprived of the prophetic office, for his sin in not withstanding Uzziah, and after twenty-eight years of silence was restored in the year of that king's death, — a fanciful interpretation of the facts recorded in chap. vi. The modem writers are agreed in understanding the expression literally, and in connecting the last year of Uzziah's life with the first year of Isaiah's ministry. It is by no means certain, as we shall see below, that the sixth chapter is descriptive of Isaiah's inauguration into office, still less that it was written before any of the others. But it cannot be denied that the chronological hA^Dothesis just stated is strongly recommended by the fact of its removing all objections to the truth of the inscription (chap. i. 1), founded on the extreme longevity which it would otherwise ascribe to the prophet, by enabling us at once to deduct half a century. If we reckon from the last year of Uzziah to the fourteenth of Hezckiah, the last in which we find any certain historical traces of Isaiah, we obtain, as the minimum of his prophetic ministry, a pci'iod of forty-seven years, and this, supposing that ho entered on it even at the age of thirty, would lca\'e him at his death less than eighty years old. And even if it be assumed that he survived Hezckiah, and continued some years under his successor, the length of his life will after all be far less than that of Jeboiada the High Priest, who died in the rciga of Joash at the age of 130 3-ears. (2 Chron. xxiv. 15.) The Jews have a positive tradition that he did die in the reign of Manas- seh, and as a victim of the bloody persecutions b}' which that king is said to have filled Jerusalem with innocent blood from one end to the other (2 Kings xxi. IG). Some accounts go so fiir as to give the pretext upon which the mm-der was committed, namely, that of discrepance between Isaiah's teaching and the law of Moses, as well as the precise form of his martyrdom, by being sawn asunder, some say in the body of a tree, which had opened to receive him. The substantial part of this tradition is re- ceived as true by several of the Fathers, who suppose it to be clearly alluded to in Heb. xi. 87. It has also found favour among many modern writers, on the ground of its intrinsic credibility, and the antiquity of the tradition. Hengstenberg assents to it moreover on the ground tliat it enables us more easily to account for the peculiar features of the later prophecies (chap, xl-xlvi.), by supposing them to have been written in the days of Manasseh, in the old age of the prophet, and after his retirement from active Hfe. Havernick, on the other hand, rejects the tradition, first, on the general ground that fabulous accounts are especially abundant in the Jewish martyrolog^', and then on the special ground, that this assumption leaves us unable to account for the omission of Manasseh's name in the inscription of the book, without admitting that the title may have been prefixed to a partial collection of Isaiah's prophecies, or by the hand of a later wTiter, which ho holds to be unauthorised and dangerous concessions. To the suggestion that ]\ranasseh may have been omitted because under him Isaiah had ceased to appear in public as a prophet and employed himself in writing, it is answered that if Uzziah is distinctly mentioned simply because Isaiah was INT ROD UCTION. 1 8 inducted into office at the close of his long reign, lie could scarcely have omitted Manasseh, under whom so large a proportion of his prophecies \Yere written, if not publicly delivered. In weighing the arguments of Hiivernick, it must not be overlooked that his hypothesis compels him to regard chap, xxxvii. 38 as later than the times of Isaiah, simply because the event there recorded must have taken place in the reign of Manasseh. This fact, to- gether with the insufficiency of his objections to the contrary hypothesis, may at least dispose us to abstain from such a positive decision of the question as would cut us off from the assumption of a longer term of public service, however probable on other grounds, and however necessary to the full solution of questions which may afterwards present themselves during the process of interpretation. With this proviso, we may safely leave the precise chronological question, as the Bible leaves it, undetermined. From the references, which have been already quoted, to the historical writings of Isaiah, some have inferred that he was an official historiographer, in which capacity the older prophets seem to have acted, as appears from the canonical insertion of such books as those of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, among the Prophets. We have no reason to suppose, hovv'ever, that Isaiah held any secular office of the kind, distinct from his prophetic ministry. Nor is it clear in what sense the citation of Isaiah by the Chro- nicles as a historical authority should be understood. The reference may be simply to the historical portions of his book, or to the corresponding passages of Second Kings, of which, in strict discharge of his official functions, he may well have been the author. That the books referred to were more copious histories or annals, of which only summaries or fragments are now extant, is a supposition which, however credible or even plausible it may be in itself, is not susceptible of demonstration The question as to the identity and fete of these historical writings is of no importance to the exe- gesis of the book before us. The books still extant under the name of the Vision and Asccn&ion of Isaiah, are universally admitted to be spurious and apocryphal. Our attention will therefore be exclusively confined to the canonical Isaiah. This book not only forms a part of the Old Testament Canon as far as we can trace it back, but has held its place there without any change of form, size, or contents, of which the least external evidence can be adduced. The allusions to this Prophet, and the imitations of him, in the later books of the Old Testament, are not confined to any one part of the book or any single class of passages. The apocryphal writers who make mention of it, use no expressions which imply that it was not already long complete in its present form and size. The same thing seems to be impHed in the nume- rous citations of this book in the New Testament. Without going here into minute details, a correct idea of the general fact may be conveyed by simply stating, that of the sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, as divided in our modern , Bibles, forty- seven are commonly supposed to be directly quoted or distinctly alluded to, and some of them repeatedly. The same thing may be illustrated clearly on a smaller scale by stating, that in the twenty-one cases where Isaiah is expressly named in the New Testament, the quotations are drawn from the first, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twenty-ninth, fortieth, furty-second, fifty -third, sixty-first, and sixty-fifth chapters of the book before us. These facts, together with the absence of all countervailing evidence, shew clearly that the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Luke iv. 17), loiown and quoted by our Lord and his apostles, was, as a whole, identical with that which w^e have under the same name. We find accordingly a long unbroken 14 INTRODUCTION. series of intcri^reters, Jewish and Christian, through a course of ages, not only acquiescing in this general statement, but regarding all the passages and parts of ^Yhieh the book consists, as clearly and unquestionably genuine. This appears for the most part, it is true, not as the 'result of any positive reasouin" or investigation, but as a negative assumption, resting on the want of anv proof or even gi-ound of suspicion to the contrary. Hence it is that in the older writers on Isaiah, even down to the middle of the eighteenth century, the place now occupied hj crilicism, in the modern sense, is wholly blank. "^ No one of course thought it necessary to defend what had never been attacked, or to demonstrate what had never been disputed. This neglect of critical investigation and discussion, although easily ac- counted for, as we have seen, led to a violent reaction towards the opposite extreme, as soon as the first impulse had been given to that kind of learned speculation. The critical processes employed, with paradoxical assurance, on the Greek and Roman classics, by the school of Bentley, were transferred to Scripture, and applied not only to particular expressions, but to whole passages and even books. That this new method would be early canied to excess', was not only to be apprehended as a possible contingency, but con- fidently looked for as a natural and even unavoidable result. The causes which facilitate inventions and discoveries tend also to exaggerate their value. Of this general truth we have abundant illustration without going beyond the field of biblical learning. The supposed discovery that Buxtorf and the Eabbins had attached too much importance to the masoretic pointing, led Cappellus, Houbigant, and Lowth, to reject it altogethei' — not only its authority but its assistance — and to make the Hebrew test a nose of wax between'the fingers of an arbitrary and capricious criticism. The discovery that sufficient use had never yet been made of the analogy of Arabic iu He- brow lexicocn-aphy, led Schultcns and his school to an extreme which seemed to threaten a transfusion of the spirit of one language into the exhausted vessels of another. In like manner, the idea that the Hebrew text had been too »»c/77/crt/?// handled, seems at first to have been wholly unaccompanied by any apprehension that the process of con-ection could be either misapplied or pushed so far as to defeat itself. In all such cases the first movements must bo tentative. The primary object is to ascertain what can be done. In settling this point, it is necessary to assume provisionally more than is expected to abide the test of final and decisive experiment. The writers who originally undertook to separate the genuine and spurious portions of Isaiah, acted of course on the presumption, that any part might prove un- sound, and therefore set no bounds to their avidity for textual reforms and innovations. The natural r(!sult was a gi'otesque disguise and mutilation of the book by means of numberless erasures, transpositions, combina- tions, and gratuitous assumptions of imaginaiy authors, two or more of whom were often thought to be identified within the bounds of one con- nected passage. Particular examples of this critical mania, as displayed by Koppe, Eich- horn, Bertholdt, and others, will be given hereafter in the exposition. What has been hero said in the general will suffice to explain the fact that these extravagant results, and the confusion into which they threw the whole sub- ject of interpretation, soon produced a new reaction. Rosenmiiller, Do Wette, and especially Gesenius, who may be regarded as the representatives of a more moderate and later school, have no hesitation in expressing their contempt for the empirical and slashing criticism of their predecessors, and, as a proof of their sincerity, assert the integrity and unity of many passages INTRODUCTION. IS" which Eichhorn and his fellows had most wantonly dismembered. This is undoubtedly a retrograde movement in the right direction, and as fiir as it goes has had a salutary influence, by making the criticism of the Hebrew text something more than idle guess-work or fantastic child's play. At the same time, it is not to be dissembled that the ground assumed by these distinguished writers is itself, to use a favourite expression of their own, unkiitisch and unuisseascliaftlich, i.e. neither critical nor scientific. The ground of this charge is that their own mode of critical procedure differs from that which they repudiate and laugh at, only in a degree, i. e. in the extent to which it is applied. They expunge, transpose, and imagine less ; but still they do all three, and on precisely the same principles. They mark out no new method, they establish no new standard, but are simply the moderate party of the same school which they represent as antiquirt and exploded. The consciousness of this defect betrays itself occasionally in the naivete with which Gesenius and De Wette appeal to their critical feeling as the ultimate ground of their decisions. The real principle of these decisions is identical with that assumed by Eichhorn and his school, to wit, that where there is a colourable pretext or the faintest probability in favour of a change, it is entitled to the preference, always provided that it does not shock the critical Gefahl of the performer, a proviso which experience has proved to be sufficient to prevent all inconveniences that might arise from a too rigor- ous construction of the rule. If, for example, after three-fourths of a sen- tence or a passage have been sacrificed because they may by possibility be spurious, it is found convenient to retain the fourth, for any exegetical pur- pose or to prove another point, it is efiected without scruple or delay by a response of the Gcfiihl in its favour. In this convenient process, the v^xrov ■^iZhg of the radical reformers, as the earlier critics may be justty called, if not avowed in theory, is still held fast in practice, viz. the doctrins that the general presumption is against the truth and authenticity of everything traditional or ancient, and in favour of whatever can by any means be sub- stituted for it. The difi'erence between this and the old-fashioned criticism seems to be the same as that between the principle of English jurisprudence, that a person accused is to be reckoned innocent until he is proved guilty, and the rule adopted in the criminal proceedings of some other nations, that he ought to be held guilty till he proves his innocence. A fundamental maxim of this whole school of criticism, upper and lower, first and last, extreme and moderate, is this, that v/hat is possible is probable and may be held as certain, if it suits the convenience of the critic ; in other words, " things must be as they may." Another proof that this whole system is uncritical, or destitute of any settled principle, distinct from that of the exploded method which it super- sedes, is furnished by the absence of consistency and unity in its results. In one important point, these writers, it is true, display a singular agreement. This is their unanimous rejection of the twenty-seven chapters at the end of the collection, as the product of a later age ; a unanimity arising neither from the clearness of the case nor from any real unity of principle among the critics who exhibit it, but simply from the fact, now universally admitted, that these chapters form a continuous unbroken composition, so that in order to be rid of any one part it is requisite to sacrifice the whole. The parti- cular grounds of this rejection are stated and examined in the second part of the Introduction. The comparison about to be made here will be restricted to the remainder of the book, with the exception of the four IG INTRODUCTION. historical chapters which connect the two divisions (chaps, xxx\'i.-xxxix.), and which have usually shared the same fate with the twenty-seven. The earliest chapters are precisely those respecting which these critics are the least divided. It is commonly agreed among them that the six first are genuine productions of Isaiah, to which it can hardly be considered an ex- ception, that chap, ii, 2-4 is supposed by many to be still more ancient. The only observable dissent from this general judgment seems to be the paradoxi- cal opinion of the Dutch writer Roorda, that chap, ii, 2-4 is the only portion written by Isaiah, and that all the rest of the first five chapters is the work of Micah ! Chap. vii. 1-16 is regarded by Gesenius as probably not the com- position of Isaiah, who is mentioned in the third person. This opinion is refuted by Hitzig and repudiated by the later wa-iters. Koppe's idea that the twelfth chapter is a hymn of later date, after being rejected by Gesenius, and revived by Ewald, has again been set aside by Umbreit, The genuineness of chap, xiii. and chap, xiv. 1-23 is more unanimously called in question, on account of its resemblance to chaps, xl.-lxvi. which this whole class of critics set aside as spurious. Chaps, xv. and xvi. are ascribed by Koppe and Bertholdt to Jeremiah ; by Ewald and Umbreit to an unknown prophet older than Isaiah ; by Hitzig, Maurer, and Ivnobel to Jonah ; b}^ Hendewerk to Isaiah himself. Eichhorn rejects the nineteenth chapter ; Gesenius calls in question the genu- ineness of vers. 18-20; Koppe denies that of vers, 18-25; Hitzig regards vers. lG-2o as a fabrication of the Jewish priest Onias ; while Rosenmiiller, Hendewerk, Ewald, and Umbreit, vindicate the whole as a genuine production of Isaiah, The first ten verses of the twenty-first chapter are rejected on the ground of their resemblance to the thirteenth and fourteenth. Ewald ascribes both to a single author ; Hitzig denies that they can be from the same hand. Ewald makes the prophecy in chap, xxi. the earlier ; Hitzig proves it to be later. Koppe, Paulus, Eichhorn, and Rosenmiiller, look upon it as a valicinium ex eventu ; Gesenius, Ewald, and the other later writers as a real prophecy. The twenty-third chapter is ascribed by Movers to Jeremiah ; by Eichhorn and Rosenmiiller to an unknown writer later than Isaiah ; by Gesenius and De Wette to Isaiah himself; by Ewald to a younger contemporary and disciple of the prophet. The continuous prophecy con- tained in chaps, xxiv,-xxvii. Knobel shews to have been written in Palestine about the l)eginning of the Babylonish exile ; Gesenius in Babylon towards the end of the captivity and by the author of chaps, xl,-lxvi, ; Umbreit, at the same time, but by a difl'erent author ; Gramberg, after the return from exile ; Ewald, just before the invasion of Egypt by Cambyses ; Vatke, in the period of the Maccabees ; Hitzig, in Assyria just before the fiill of Nineveh ; while Rosenmiiller, in the last editions of his Scholia, ascribes it to Isaiah himself. Chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii. are supposed by Koi")pe to contain many distinct prophecies of diil'erent authors, and by Hitzig several succes- sive compositions of one and the same author ; while most other writers consider them as forming a continuous whole. This is regarded by Gesenius and Hitzig, notwithstanding the objections of preceding critics, as a genuine production of Isaiah ; but Ewald doubts whether it may not be the work of a disciple. Most of the writers of this school join chaps, xxxiv. and xxxv. together, as an unbroken context ; but Hitzig no less confidently puts them asunder, Rosenmiiller, Do Wette, and others, set these chapters down as ovidontly written by the author of chaps, xl.-lxvi,, while Ewald oii the other band maintains that this identity is disproved by a difieronce of style and diction. No attempt has hero been made to detail the grounds of these coullicting INTRODUCTION. 17 judgments, much less to decide between them. This will be done, so far as it seems necessary, in the exposition, and particularly in the introductions to the several chapters. The object aimed at in the foregoing statements is to shew that no additional security ^or certainty has been imparted in the criti- cism of the text by these empirical conjectures, and to confirm the previous assertion that they rest on no determinate intelligible principle or standard of comparison. A further confirmation of the same position is afforded by the tests of genuineness and antiquity, explicitly asserted and applied by the writers of this school. A more correct expression would perhaps be tests of spuriousness and later origin ; for, as we have already seen, the use of a criterion, in the hands of these critics, is seldom to establish or con- firm, but almost always to discredit, what has commonly been looked upon as genuine. One of the surest proofs of spuriousness, according to the theory and practice of this school, is the occurrence of idioms and words belonging to a period of Hebrew composition later than the days of Isaiah. This method of disci'imination, however unobjectionable in itself, is nevertheless often so employed as to be altogether violent and arbitrary in its application. This is effected, first, by exaggerating, in the general, the real difterence between the older and the later writings, and the practical facility of recognising the peculiar style of either. Conclusions which have properly been drawn, in one case, from a variety of premises, including the assumption of the date as a fact already known, are most unreasonably drawn in others, from a single element or item of the same proof in default of all the rest. This kind of sophistr}' is more delusive in the case of Hebrew than of Greek or Latin criticism, partly because we have fewer data upon which to form a judgment, partly because peculiar causes kept the written Hebrew more un- changed than other languages within a given period, and tended to obliterate in some degree the usual distinctive marks of earlier or later date. This is particularly true if we assume, as thei'e are some strong grounds for doing, that the whole ancient literature of the Hebrews was contained in the canon of their scriptures, so that later writings were continually formed upon a few exclusive models. But whether this be so or not, the influence exerted by the books of Moses on the style and language of succeeding writers was immeasurably greater than in any other case at all analogous. Besides this general and theoretical exaggeration of the difference be- tween the older and the later Hebrew, there is also chargeable upon these critics an habitual proneness to lose sight of the distinction between what is really peculiar to the later books, or to the times in which they were composed, and that which after all, on any supposition, must be common to the different periods. That there must be a common stock of this kind is self-evident ; and that it must be very great in comparison with that which is peculiar and distinctive, is as fully established by the facts of this case and the analogy of others like it, as any maxim of comparative philo- logy. And yet some German critics of the modern school, although they do not venture to avow the principle, proceed in practice just as if they held the use of an expression by a later writer to be in itself exclusive of its use by one of a preceding age. And even when they do profess to make the distinction just insisted on, they often make it in an arbitrary manner, or prevent its having any practical effect, by confounding archaisms with neologisms, i. e. mistaking for corruptions of a later age forms of expression which have been transmitted from the earliest period in the dialect of com- VOL. I. B 18 INTRODUCTION. mon life, but are only occasionally nsoil in writing, and especially in poetiy, until the lanfniage ceases to be spoken, and the diflereuce of learned and colloquial stxle is thereby lost. The profoundcr study of comparative philology in verv' recent times has shewn the fallacy of many such objec- tions to the antiquity of certain passages, and at the same time shaken the authority of similar criticisms in other cases, not admitting of direct refutation. The bad effect of these fallacious principles of criticism is often aggra- vated bv a want of consistency and fairness in their application. This is espcciallv apparent in the younger German writers of this school, who often push to a practical extreme the theoretical assumptions of their more dis- creet or more enlightened teachers. Even where this is unintentionally done, it artmes an eagerness to prove a point, or to sustain a foregone con- clusion, not very likely to be found connected with a high degi-ee of candour and impartiality. A signal illustration of this critical unfairness is the practice of evading the most certain indications of antiquity by noting them as imitations of a later AVTiter. Where the recent date of the composition is already certain, the existence of such imitations may be certain also ; but to assume them in the very process of determining the date, is little short of an absurdity. By setting down whatever can be found in other later books as proof of recent origin, and everything which cannot, as a studied imitation of antiquity, the oldest WTitings extant may be proved to be a hundred or a thousand years younger than themselves. Indeed, it may be stated as a fatal vice of this whole system, that it either proves too little or too much, that it is either pushed too far or that it ought to be pushed further, that the limit of its application is determined by no prin- ciple or rule but the convenience or caprice of the interpreter. Stat j^w rationc vnluutas. The critical process is too generally this, that where the admission of a passage as genuine would lead to consequences undesirable in any point of view, the critic fastens upon every singularity of thought or language as a ground of suspicion, and the most unmeaning trifles by accumulation are converted into arguments ; whereas in other cases alto- gether parallel, except that there is no urgent motive for discrediting the passage, indications equally abundant and conclusive are entirely overlooked. Sometimes the evidence of later date is found exclusively in one part of a long unbroken context, all admitted to bo written by the same hand, though the critic fails to see that this admission is destructive of his argument so far as it is founded on diversity of language* as a test of age. For if a later writer can be so unlike himself, why not an older writer also ? This remark, however, is applicable rather to the question of identity than that of age. For a favourite process of the modern critics, and espe- cially of some below the highest rank, is that of proving a negative, by shewing that a passage or a book is not the work of its reputed author, without attempting to shew whose it is. Some of the means employed for the attainment of this end might seem incredible, as serious attempts at argument, but for the formal gravity with which they are employed. Sometimes the demonstration is ctlected by enumerating forms of expres- sion, which occur nowhere else in the undisputed works of the reputed author, and infemng that he therefore could not have employed them in the case under consideration. The first absurdity of this ratiocinatioij lies in Ihe vcr}* principle assumed, which is, in fact, if not in form, that what- ever any writer has said once, he must, as a general rule, have sa'd ngain, if not npeatedly. Now what can be more certain or notorious than the INTRODUCTION. 19 fact that what the greatest writers say most frequently, is that which is least characteristic, while the thoughts and expressions which are most admired, quoted, and remembered, are for the most part a-ra^ Xsyo/^sva, things which could only be said once, which would not bear to be repeated, by themselves or others ? What would be thought of an attempt to prove the Ai's Poetiea spurious, on the ground that the words exlex, sesquipedalia, cotis, litura, quincunce, and the phrases purpiireus pannus, ah ovo, lucidus onto, callida juncfura, norma loquendi, in medias res, incredidus odi, sagax rerum, ad unguem, vivas voces, ore rotiindo, decies repetita, laudator' temporis acti, the simile of the mountain and the mouse, and the proverbial saying, occupet extremum scabies occur nowhere else in the writings of Horace ? But this case, 'strong as it is, affords a very insufficient illustration of the theory and practice of the German critics now in question. Not content with the assumption of a false and arbitrary test of identity, they make the application of it more unreasonable still, by rejecting every proof adduced in opposition to their doctrine, as itself suspicious, or unquestionably spm'ious. A parallel case would be that of a critic who, on being reminded that the phrase ab ovo is used in the same sense in the third satire, and ad ungxiem in the first, should set the argument aside by referring both these compositions to the times of Juvenal or Persius. With equal justice the tenth eclogue of Virgil might be taken from him, by first rejecting the Georgics and the last ten books of the ^neid as unquestionably spurious, and then enumerating all the single words, gi'ammatical constructions, and peculiar idioms, to which no perfect counterparts are found in the remain- der of his poems. But besides this linguistical method of discrediting a large part of Isaiah as unquestionably not his composition, there is another process used for the same purpose, which may be entitled the rhetorical argument, consisting in the arbitrary affirmation that the style of certain passages is too prosaic, the metaphors too much confused, the rh3'thm too harsh, the allusions too obscure, the illustrations too familiar, the expression too inelegant, to be imputed to so great a writer. This mode of criticism is pregnant with absurdities peculiar to itself. In the first place may be stated the unrea- sonable weight which it attaches to rhetorical distinctions in general, not to mention the peculiar stress laid on the technicalities of scholastic rhetoric in particular. This error is connected with a false hj^pothesis, to be con- sidered afterwards, as to the light in which the prophets viewed themselves and were regarded by their readers. If they aspired to be nothing more than orators and poets, then rhetorical considerations would of course be paramount ; but if they believed themselves, and were believed by others, to be inspired revealers of the will of God, it is absurd to imagine that they would or could allow the clear and strong expression of that will to be con- trolled by mere rhetorical punctilios. Another flaw in this critical process is its puerile assumption that the prophets, even as mere orators and poets, must be always doing their best; that if ever striking, they must strike at all times ; that if ever tender, they must always melt ; that if they ever soar, they must be always in the clouds ; whereas analogy demonstrates that the greatest writers, both in prose and verse, go up by the mountains and down by the valleys, or in other words, exert their highest faculties at intervals, with long and frequent seasons of repose, while poetasters and declaimers provje the hollowness of their claims by a painful uniformity of tension and a wearisome monotony of failure. 20 INTEODUCTION. A third defect is one which might with equal justice have been charged against some arguments before recited, namely, the vague and indeterminate character of this criterion, as evinced by. the diversity of its results. Not only does one critic censure what another critic of the same school leaves nnnoticed ; but the same thing is positively represented by the two as a beauty and a deformity, nay more, as fatal to the genuineness of a passage and as a certain demonstration of it. It may seem invidious and perhaps presumptuous to add, that this unsafe and two-edged instrument could scarcely be entrusted to worse hands than those of some late German critics, who, with all their erudition, ingenuity, and show of philosophical aesthetics, are peculiarly deficient in that delicate refinement and acute sensibiUty of taste, which a less profound but far more classical and liberal training has im- parted even to inferior scholars of some other nations, and especially of England. To this unfavourable estimate of German taste and literary judgment there are eminent exceptions, even in the ranks of theological and biblical learning ; but among these it w^ould be impossible to class the writers who are most remarkable for an unhesitating reckless use of the rhetorical criterion now in question. On the contrary, it may be stated as a curious and instructive fact, that the imputation of inelegance, awkward- ness, obscurity, and coarseness, has been lavished on Isaiah with pecuHar prodigality by those interpreters who seem to be most open to the charge themselves, and who, in the very act of passing judgment on the Prophet or his wTitings as devoid of taste and genius, often shew most painfully and clearly that their circumscribed professional pursuits, however thorough and successful, have been insufficient to compensate for the want of a more en- larged and humanizing culture. The revulsion of feeling, necessarily occasioned in the great majority of uncultivated minds, by these rhetorical attacks upon some portions of Isaiah, with a view to prove them spurious, must be greatly aggravated by another argument employed for the same purpose, which may be distinguished from the lexicographical, grammatical, and rhetorical tests already mentioned, as the ethical or moral test. This consists simply in accusing certain passages of being animated by a narrow, selfish, mean, and sometimes even by a fierce, malignant, cruel, \indictive, bloodthirsty spirit wholly foreign from Isaiah's character, and from the temper of the age in which he lived. Without insist- ing on the arbitrary difterence assumed in this objection to exist between certain periods of the sacred history, in point of moral elevation and en- largement, let it be observed how perfectly factitious and imaginary this peculiar tone of the disputed passages must be, when it has failed to strike the most enlightened readers of the Prophet for a course of ages. This is a question wholly different from that of philological or even rhetorical dis- tinctions, which might easily escape the view of any but professional and critical readers, and be first discovered by the searching processes of modern scrutiny. But when the critic passes from the field of orthography and etymology to that of morals, he is stepping out of darkness into sunshine, from the bench to the bar, from the position of a judge to that of an advocate, who, far from being able to decide the controversy by a dictum, has to plead his cause at the tribunal of a multitude of trained minds, and enlightened consciences. The want of fiimiliar and devotional acquaintance with the Scriptures, on the part of many learned German critics, must disable them from estimating the advantage thus enjoyed by Christian readers, whose opinions have been formed upon the Gospel, and who certainly would be the first to mark any real inconsistency between it and the spirit of the INTRODUCTION. 21 ancient prophets. To such spectators, and in such a light, there is something almost ludicrous in the solemnity with which some unbelievers in the inspiration of the Bible utter sanctimonious complaints of an im- moral and unhallowed temper in those parts of the Old Testament which they, for reasons afterwards to be considered, are unwilling to acknowledge as authentic, while they pass by, with discreet indulgence, indications far more plausible in other places. If it be said, that these immoral tenden- cies escape the ordinary reader on account of his foregone conclusion that the whole proceeds from God, and therefore must be right ; the answer is, that a hypothesis, which thus brings all the parts of an extensive varied whole into agreement, bears upon its face the clearest marks of truth, and that the fact alleged aflbrds an incidental proof that the position of the ad- verse party, which compels him to see everything distorted and at variance with itself, must be a false one. This last suggestion opens a new view of the whole subject. Thus far the question has been stated and discussed as one of criticism merely, not of hermeneutics or of doctrinal belief, with a view to shew that even on histo- rical and literary grounds, the modem German mode of dealing with the text of Isaiah, and of setthng the antiquity and genuineness of its several parts, is wholly untenable, because capricious, arbitrary, inconsistent with itself, and at variance with analogy, good taste, and common sense. The reader must, however, have observed that in exposing the caprices of these critics, I have frequently described them as resorting to these methods only where they had strong reasons for desiring to discredit a particular portion of the book, at least so far as to dispute its antiquity. It v/ill now be proper to explain how such a motive can be supposed to exist, the rather as the neological interpreters of Germany are often praised by their admirers, on the ground that, although they are sceptical, their very scepticism renders them impartial, and gives their testimony greater .weight in every case except where the question of inspiration is directly and for- mally at issue. The practical effect of this superficial estimate has been the practice of adhering servilely to these neologists until they openly deny some fundamental doctrine of religion, then protesting against that specific error, and again walking closely in their footsteps, till another opportunity or palpable necessity for protestation or dissent occurs. Besides the want of harmony and unity in any course of criticism or exegesis thus conducted, it is evident that such a mode of deahng with a system, which is known and acknowledged to be unsound in principle, must lead the writer and the reader into many other dangers than the fev/ which are upon the sm-face. Incedis jier ignes suppositos cineri doloso. To avoid these hidden and insi- dious dangers, it is necessary to compare the different theories of criticism and interpretation, not in their formal differences merely, but in their inti- mate connection with diversities of fundamental principles and doctrinal behef. In order to effect this, it will be expedient to consider briefly the historical progress of opinion with respect to the principles of exegesis, as we have already traced the change of theory and practice in the treatment of the text. These two important parts of the same great subject will be found to illustrate and complete each other. Isaiah himself, even leaving out of view the large part of his book which a capricious criticism has called in question, may be said to express every- where his own belief that he was writing under an extraordinary influence, not merely human but divine. This is at least the prima facie view which any unsophisticated reader would derive from a simple perusal of his undis- 22 ISTRODUCTIOy. puted wi'itings. However mistaken he might think the prophet, in asserting or assuming his own inspiration, such a reader could scarcely hesitate to grant that he believed it and expected it to be believed by others. In one of the oldest and best of the Jewish Apocijpha (Sirach xxiv. 25), Isaiah is called the great and faithful prophet who foresaw what was to happen till the end of time. Joscphus and Philo incidentally bear witness to his uni- versal recognition by their countrymen as one inspired of God. . We have seen already that oui- Lord and his apcfstles cite the whole book of Isaiah with more frequency than any other part of the Old Testament. It now becomes a question of historical interest at least, in what capacity and character Isaiah is thus quoted, and with what authority he seems to be invested in the New Testament. The simple fact that he is there so often quoted, when connected with another undisputed fact, to wit, that his writings, even at that early date, held a conspicuous place among the Sa- cred Scriptures [is^a ypo./j./j.ara, "/^a^ai ayiai) of the Jews, would of itself create a strong presumption that our Lord and his apostles recognised his inspiration and divine authority. We are not left, however, to infer this incidentally ; for it is proved directly by the frequent combination of the title Prophet with the name Isaiah [Mat. iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17 ; Luke iii. 4, iv. 17; John i. 28, xiii. 28; Acts viii. 28-80, xxviii. 25); by the repeated statement that he prophesied or spoke by inspiration (Mark vii. 6 ; Kom. ix. 29) ; by the express declaration that some of his predic- tions were fulfilled in the history of Chi'ist and his contemporaries (Mat. iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17 ; Acts xxiii. 25) ; and by the still more remarkable statement that Isaiah saw Christ and spake of his gloiy (John xii. 41). These expressions place it bej-ond all possibility of doubt that the New Tes- tament describes Isaiah as a Prophet in the strictest and the highest sense inspired of God. This is alleged here, not as a reason for our own belief, but simply as a well- attested fact in the history of the interpretation. Coming down a little lower, we find all the Christian Fathers taking for granted the divine authority and inspiration of the Prophet, and regulating their interpretation of his book accordingly. But not content with thus acknowledging his right to a place among the sacred books of the Old Tes- tament, they ascribe to him a certain pre-eminence as belonging rather to the new dispensation. Eusebius describes him as the great and wonderful prophet, and even as the greatest of prophets. According to Cyril, he is at once a prophet and apostle ; according to Jerome, not so much a prophet as an evangelist. The latter elsewhere represents him as nan solum pro- phetam scd evmnjelhtam et apostohnn, and his book as non prophet iam sed evanfjeJium: As the old Jewish doctrine upon this point is maintained by the rabbinical expounders of the Middle Ages, it may be affirmed that both the Old and New Testaments, according to the Jewish and the Christian tradition, represent Isaiah as inspired. From the Fathers this doctrine passed without change into the Reformed Church, and from the Talmudists and Kabbins to the modern Jews, so far as they continue to adhere to their religion. Much as the Protestant Church has been divided since the Reformation, as to doctrine in general, as to the interpretation of Scripture in particular, and even with respect to the right method of interpreting Isaiah, all schools and parties, until after the mid- dle of the eighteenth century, held fast to the inspiration of the Prophet as a fundamental principle, to which all theories and all exegetical results must be accommodated. Even the lax Arminian school of Grotius and Le Clerc, however much disposed to soften down the sharp points and asperities of INTRODUCTION. 23 ortliodox opinion, upon this as well as other subjects, did not venture to dis- turb the old foundation. The very faults and errors, with which the stricter theologians charged their exegesis, were occasioned in a great degree by their attempt to reconcile more liberal and superficial views of the Prophet's meaning with the indisputable axiom of his inspiration. That a secret sceptical misgiving often gave complexion to their exegesis, is extremely probable ; but it is still true, that they did not venture to depart from the traditional opinion of the whole church in all ages, as to the canonical authority and inspiration of the book before us. They sought by various means to belittle and explain away the natural results of this great prin- ciple ; but with the principle itself the}^ either did not wish or did not dare to meddle. After the middle of the eighteenth century, a memorable change took place in Germany, as to the method of interpreting Isaiah. This change was closely connected with the one already mentioned, in relation to the criticism of the text. As the sceptical criticism of the classics was the model upon which that of the Hebrew text was formed, so a like imitation of the classical methods of interpretation became generally current. The favourite idea now was, that the Hebrew books were to be treated simply and solety as remains of ancient Jewish literature, and placed, if not upon a level with the Greek and Eoman books, below them, as the products of a ruder period and a less gifted race. This affectation was soon carried out in its details ad nauseam. Instead of prophecies, and psalms, and history, the talk was now of poems, odes, orations, and mythology. The ecclesias- tical and popular estimate of the books as sacred v/ent for nothing, or was laughed at, as a relic of an antiquated system. This change, although apparently confined to technicalities, could never have been wrought without a deep defection from the ancient faith, as to the inspiration of the Scrip- tures. Under the pretext of exchanging barbarism for refinement, and of putting biblical and classical pursuits upon a footing of equality, the essen- tial distinction between literature and Scripture was in fact abolished, . without any visible or overt violence, by simply teaching men to treat them and to talk of them without discrimination. This momentous change was undesignedly promoted by Lowth's inge- nious and successful eifort to direct attention to Isaiah's character and value as a poet. Believing justly that the exposition of the prophet's writings had been hindered and perplexed by a failure to appreciate the figurative dress in which his thoughts were clothed, the learned and accom- pUshed prelate undertook to remedy the evil by presenting, in the strongest light and in extreme relief, this single aspect of Isaiah's writings. In attempting this, he was unconsciously led to overcolour and exaggerate the real points of diii'erence between the ordinary prose of history or legislation and the lively elevated prose of prophecy, applying to the latter all the dis- tinctive terms which immemorial usage had appropriated to the strictly metrical productions of the Greek and Roman poets. This error led to several unfortunate results, some of which will be considered in another place. The only one that need be mentioned here is the apparent counte- nance alTorded by Lowth's theories and phraseology to the contemporary efibrts of the earlier neologists in Germany to blot out the distinction between poetry and prophecy, between the ideal inspiration of the Muses and the real inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This was the more to be re- gi-etted, as there does not seem to be the slightest reason for suspecting that the Bishop had departed in the least from the established doctiine of 24 ISTRODUCTIOX. his own cLurch and of every other, with respect to the divine authority and origin of this or of the other sacred books. That Lowth, by his un- warrantable changes of the text, and his exclusive disproportioned protrusion of the mere poetical elements in Scripture, gave an impulse to a spirit of more daring innovation in succeeding wi'iters, is not more certain than the fact, that this abuse of his hypotheses, or rather this legitimate deduction of their more remote but unavoidable results, was altogether unforeseen. In ably and honestly attempting to correct a real error, and to make good an injurious defect, in the theory and practice of intei'pretation, he unwittingly aflbrded a new instance of the maxim, that the remedy may possibly be worse than the disease. By the German writers, these new notions were soon pushed to an extreme. Besides the total change of phraseology already mentioned, some went so fai" as to set down the most express predictions as mere poetical descrip- tions of events already past. From this extreme position, occupied by Eichhorn and some others, De Wette and Gcsenius receded, as they did from the critical extragavance of multiplying authors and reducing the ancient prophecies to fragments. They admitted, not only that many por- tions of Isaiah had reference to events still future when he wrote, but also that he was inspii-ed, reserving to themselves the right of putting a conve- nient sense on that equivocal expression. Among the later German '^Titers on Isaiah, there is a marked variety of tone, as to the light in which the Prophet is to be regarded. While all, in general terms, acknowledge his genius and the hterary merit of his writings, some, in expoimding them, appear to vacillate between condescension and contempt. Of this class Hitzig is perhaps the lowest ; ICnobel and Hendewerk exhibit the same peculiarities wth less uniformity and in a less degree. Gesenius treats his subject with Ihe mingled interest and iudifl'erenee of an antiquary handling a curious and valuable relic of the olden time. Ewald rises higher in his apparent estimation of his subject, and habitually speaks of Isaiah in tenns of admiration and respect. Umbreit goes still further in the same direction, and employs expressions which would seem to identify him fully with the orthodox believing school of criticism, but for his marked agi'eemeut with neology in one particular, about to be stated. The successive writers of this modern school, however they may difler as to minor points among themselves, prove their identity of principle by hold- ing that there cannot he distinct jirophetic forcsifjht of the distant future. This doctrine is avowed more explicitly by some (as by Hitzig and Knobel) than by others (as Gesenius and Ewald ;) but it is really the rrp-hrov •^iZhoi of the whole school, and the only bond of unity between them. There is also a difference in the application of the general rule to specitic cases. ^ Where the obvious exposition of a passage would convert it into a distinct prediction, Gesenius and Hitzig usually try to shew that the words really relate to something near at hand, and within the reach of a sagacious human foresight, while Ewald and Umbreit in the same case choose rather to convert it into a vague anticipation. ]5ut they all agree in this, that where the prophecy can be explained away in cither of tliese methods, it must be regarded as a certain proof of later date. This is the real ground, on which chaps, xl.-xlvi. are referred to the period of the exile, when the conquests of Cyrus and the fall of Babylon might bo foreseen without a special revelation. This is the fundamental doctrine of the modern neological interpreters, ihe Jhrerfone conclusion, to which all exege- tical results must yield or be accommodated, and in support of which the INTRODUCTION. 25 arbitrary processes before described must be employed for the discovery of arguments, philological, historical, rhetorical, and moral, against the genu- ineness of the passage, which might, just as easily be used in other cases, where they are dispensed with, simply because they are not needed for the purpose of destroying an explicit proof of inspiration. From this description of the neological interpretation there are two im- portant practical deductions. The lirst and clearest is, that all conclusions founded, or necessarily depending, on this false assumption, must of course go for nothing with those who do not hold it, and especially with those who are convinced that it is false. Whoever is persuaded, independently of these disputed questions, that there may be such a thing as a projihetic inspira- tion, including the gift of prescience and prediction, must of course be unaffected by objections to its exercise in certain cases, resting on the general negation of that which he knows to be true. The other inference, less obvious but for that very reason more important, is that the false as- sumption now in question must exert and does exert an influence extending far beyond the conclusions directly and avowedly di'awn from it. He who rejects a given passage of Isaiah, because it contains definite predictions of a future too remote from the times in which he Uved, to be the object of ordinary human foresight, will of course be led to justify this condemnation by specific proofs drawn from the diction, style, or idiom of the passage, its historical or archaeological allusions, its rhetorical character, its moral tone, or its religious spirit. On the discovery and presentation of such proofs, the previous assumption, which they are intended to sustain, cannot fail to have a warping influence. The writer cannot but be tempted to give pro- minence to trifles, to extenuate difficulties, and to violate consistency by making that a proof in one case which he overlooks in others, or positively sets aside as inadmissible or inconclusive. This course of things is not only natural but real ; it may not only be expected a priori, but established ex eveutu, as will be apparent from a multitude of cases in the coui'se of the ensuing exposition. All that need here be added is the general conclu- sion, that the indirect effects of such a principle are more to be suspected than its immediate and avowed results, and that there cannot be a graver practi- cal error than the one already mentioned of obsequiously following these writers as authoritative guides, except when they explicitly apply their 'rr^oj-ov -^ivdoc, as a test of truth. The only safe and wise course is to treat them, not as judges, but as witnesses, or advocates, and even special pleaders ; to weigh their dicta carefully, and always with a due regard to what is known to be the unsound basis of their criticism and exegesis. That this discre- tion may be vigilantly exercised, without foregoing the advantages arising from the modern philological improvements, is attested by the actual ex- ample of such men as Hengstenberg and Havernick and others, trained in the modern German school of philology, and fully able to avail themselves of its advantages, while at the same time they repudiate its arbitrary prin- ciples in favour of those held by older writers, which may now be considered as more sure than ever, because founded on a broader scientific basis, and because their strength has been attested by resistance to assaults as subtle and as violent as they can ever be expected to encounter. Some of the critical and hermeneutical principles thus established may be here exhibited, as furnishing the basis upon which the following exposition of Isaiah is constructed. In the first place, it may be propounded, as a settled principle of critical investigation, that the bai'e suggestion of a way in which the text may have 28 INTRODUCTION. been altered in a given case, and the ipsissima verba of the author, either by fraud or accident, confounded ■with the language of a later writer, only creates a feeble probabihtj in favour of the emendation recommended, so as at the utmost to entitle it to be compared with the received opinion. Even the clearest case of critical conjecture, far fi'om determining the question in dispute, only aliords us an additional alternative, and multiplies the objects among which we are to choose. Our hypothesis may possibly be right, but it may possibly be wrong, and between these possibilities mere novelty is surely not sufficient to decide. The last conjecture is not on that account entitled to the preference. There are, no doubt, degrees of probabilit}', susceptible of measurement; but in a vast majority of cases, the conjectural results of the modern criticism are precisely such as no one would think of entertaining unless previously determined to abandon the traditional or prevalent belief. If the common text, or the common opinion of its genuineness, be untenable, these critical conjectures may afibrd the most satisfactoiy substitute ; but they do not of themselves decide the pre- yious question, upon which their own utility depends. If the last chapters of Isaiah cannot be the work of their reputed author, then it is highly pro- bable that they^were written towards the close of the Babylonish exile ; but it cannot be inferred fi'om this conditional admission, that they are not genuine, any more than we can argue that a statement is untrue, because if not true it is false. The characteristic error of the modern criticism is its habitual rejection of a reading or interpretation, not because another is intrinsically better, but simply because there is another to supply its place. In other words, it is assumed that, in a doubtful case, whatever is estab- lished and received is likely to be spurious, and whatever is suggested for the fh-st time likely to be genuine, and therefore entitled not only to be put upon a footing of equality with that to which it is opposed, but to take pre- cedence of it, so that every doubt must be allowed to operate against the old opinion and in favour of the new one. But in the second place, so far is this from being the true principle, that the direct reverse is true. Not only are the chances, or the general pre- sumption, not in favour of a change or innovation, as such ; they are against it, and in favour of that which has long been established and received. The verj' fact of such reception is presumptive proof of genuineness, because it shews how many minds have so received it without scruple or objection, or in spite of both. Such a presumption may indeed be overcome by countervailing evidence ; but still the presumption does exist, and is adverse to innovations, simply viewed as such. If it were merely on the ground, that the mind, when perplexed by nearly balanced probabilities, seeks something to destroy the equilibrium, and finds it in the previous existence of the one belief and its reception by a multitude of minds, we might allege the higher claims of that which is estabHshed and received, if not as being certainly correct, as having been so thought by others. In this the human mind is naturally prone to rest, until enabled by 2)reponde- rating evidence to make its own decision, so that even in the most doubtful cases, it is safer and easier to abide by what has long been known and held as true, than to adopt a new suggestion, simply because it cannot be proved false. Here again the fashionable modern criticism diflers from that which is beginning even in Germany to supersede it, inasmuch as the former allows all the benefit of doubt to innovation, while the latter gives it to received opinions. The general principle just stated is pecuUarly important and appropriate INTRODUCTION. 27 in the criticism of the Hebrew text, because so far as we can trace its history, it has been marked by a degree of uniformity, arising from a kind of supervision, to which no other ancient writings, even the most sacred, seem to have been subjected, not excepting the books of the New Testa- ment. To call this Jewish scrupulosity and superstition does not in the least impair the strong presumption which it raises in favour of the text as it has been transmitted to us, and against the emendations of conjectural criticism. The wonderful resemblance of the Hebrew manuscripts now extant is admitted upon all hands, and explained as an effect of the maso- retic labours in the sixth or seventh century, by means of which one Hebrew text acquired universal circulation. But this explanation needs itself to be explained. The possibility of thus reducing many texts to one has nothing to support it in the analogy of other languages or other writings. The variations of the text of the New Testament aftbrd a memorable instance of the contrary. It is in vain to say that no such means were used to har- monise and reconcile the manuscripts ; in other words, that no Greek masora existed. How can its absence be accounted for, except upon the gi'ound, that the Hebrew critics followed ancient usage, and recorded a tradition which had been in existence for a course of ages ? These con- siderations do not go to prove the absolute perfection of the masoretic text ; but they unquestionably do create a very strong presumption — stronger by far than in any other like case — against innovation and in favour of tradition. The validity of this conclusion is in fact conceded by the signal unanimity with which the recent German critics, of all classes, set aside the fantastic mode of criticism practised by Cappellus, Houbigant, and Lowth, and assume the correctness of the masoretic text in every case except where they are driven from it by the stress of exegetical necessity. That the principle thus universally adopted in relation to the criticism of letters, words, and phrases, is not extended by these critics to the criticism of larger passages, argues no defect or error in the principle itself, but only a want of consistent uniformity in its application. If it be true, as all now grant, that in relation to the elements of speech, to letters, words, and single phrases, we may safely presume thr,t the existing text is right till it is shewn to be wrong, how can it be, that in relation to whole sentences or larger contexts, the presumption is against the very same tradition until positively proved to be correct ? That this is a real inconsistency is not only plain upon the face of it, but rendered more unquestionable by the very natural and easj^ explanation of which it is susceptible. The criticism of words and letters, though identical in principle with that of entire pas- sages, is not so closely connected with the evidence of inspiration and prophetic foresight, and is therefore less subject to the operation of the fundamental error of the rationahstic system. This is the more remarkable because in certain cases, where the main question happens to turn upon a single word or letter, there we find the same capricious licence exercised, without regard to probability or evidence, as in the ordinary processes of criticism on a larger scale. From these theoretical concessions and these practical self-contradictions of the modern critics, we may safely infer the indisputable truth of the critical principles which they are forced to grant, and from which they depart in practice only when adherence to them would involve the necessity of granting that, the absolute negation of which is the fundamental doctrine of their system. All this would be true and relevant, if the book in question were an •ancient classic, handed down to us in the manner just described. But 28 IXTllUDUCTIOX. Isaiah constitutes a part of a collection claiming to be a divine revelation. It is itself expressly recognised as such in the sacred books of the Christian religion. The authenticity and inspiration of the parts are complicated together, and involved in the general question of the inspiration of the whole. Whatever evidence goes to establish that of the New Testament, adds so much to the weight of Isaiah's authority. Whatever strength the claims of the New Testament derive from miracles, from moral eflects, from intrinsic qualities, is shared in some measure by the book before us. The same thing is true of the external and internal evidence that the Old Testament proceeds from God. The internal character of this one book, its agreement with the other parts pf Scripture, and with our highest conceptions of God, the place which it has held in the estimation of intelligent and good men thi'ough a course of ages, its moral and spiritual influence on those who have received it as the Word of God, so far as this can be determined separately from that of the whole Bible or of the entire Old Testament ; all this invests the book with an authority and dignity which shield it fi-om the petty caprices of a trivial criticism. Those who believe, on these grounds, that the book, as a whole, is inspired of God, not only may, but must be unwilling to give ear to every sceptical or frivolous suggestion as to the genuineness of its parts. Even if there were more ground for misgiving than there is, and fewer positive proofs of authenticit}', he whose faith is founded, not ou detached expressions or minute agreements, but on the paramount claims of the whole as such to his belief and reverence, would rather take for granted, in a dubious case, that God had pro^ddentially pre- served the text intact, than lift the anchor of his faith and go adrift upon the ocean of conjecture, merely because he could not answer every fool according to his folly. The result of these considerations is, that as the neological interpreters assume the impossibility of inspiration and prophetic foresight, as a principle immoveable by any indications to the contrary ..however clear and numerous, so those who hold the inspiration of the Scrijjtures as a certain truth, should suffer this their general belief to influence their judgment on par- ticular questions, both of criticism, and interpretation. The eflect should not be that of closing the mind against conviction, where the reasons are sufficient to produce it, but simply that of hindering all concessions to an arbitrary and capricious licence of conjecture, and all gratuitous sacrifices of received opinion to the mere possibility of some new notion. It is certainly not to be expected that believers in the inspiration of the Bible as a whole, should be content to give up any of its parts as readily as if it were an old song, or even a more valuable relic of some heathen writer. In conformity with what has just bctu stated as the only valid principle of criticism, in the technical or strict sense, the laws of interpretation may be well defined to be those of common sense, controlled by a regard to the divine authority and inspiration of the book, considered as a fact already established or received as true. The design of biblical interpretation is not to prove, although it may illustrate, the canonical authority of that which is interpreted. This is a question to be previously settled, by a view of the whole book, or of the whole collection which includes it, in connection with the various gi-ounds on which its claims to such authority are rested. Every conipotent expounder of Isaiah, whether infidel or Christian, comes before the public with his opinion upon this point formed, and with a fixed deter- mination to i-cgulate his treatment of particulars accordingly. The writer who bhould feign to be neutral or indillerent in this respect, would find it INTRODUCTION. 29 hard to gain the public ear, and harder still to control the public judgment. While the rationalist therefore avowedly proceeds upon the supposition, that the book before him is and can be nothing more than a human composition, it is not only the right but the duty of the Christian interpreter to treat it as the work both of God and man, a divine revelation and a human compo- sition, the contents of which are never to be dealt with in a manner incon- sistent either with the supposition of its inspiration or with that of its real human origin. The latter hypothesis is so essential, that there cannot be a sound interpretation, where there is not a consistent and a constant appli- cation of the same rules which control the exposition of all other writings, qualified only by a constant recollection of the well-attested claims of the book expounded to the character of a divine revelation. One important practical result of this assumption is, that seeming contradictions and dis- crepancies are neither to be passed by, as they might be in an ordinary composition, nor regarded as so many refutations of the doctrine that the writing which contains them is inspired of God, but rather interpreted with due regard to the analogy of Scripture, and with a constant preference, where other things are equal, of those explanations which are most in agree- ment with the general fact of inspiration upon which the exposition rests. The attempt to explain every passage or expression by itself, and to assume the prima facie meaning as in every case the true one, without any reference to other parts of the same book, or to other books of the same collection, is absurd in theorj' and directly contradicted by the universal usage of mankind in determining the sense of other writings, while it practically tends to put the Christian interpreter in a situation of extreme disadvantage with respect to the neologist, who does not hesitate to press into the service of his own interpretation every argument afforded by analogy. The evil efiect of this mistaken notion on the part of Christian ^Titers is not merely that they^ often fail to vindicate the truth, but that they directly contribute to the triumph of its enemies. With respect to the prophetic parts of Scripture, and to the writings of Isaiah in particular, a few exegetical maxims may be added to the general principles already stated. These, for the most part, will be negative in form, as being intended to preclude certain fallacies and practical errors, which have greatly hindered the correct interpretation of the book before us. The generic formulas here used will be abundantly exemplified hereafter by specific instances arising in the course of the interpretation. All prophecies are not predictions, i. e. all the writings of the Prophets, and of this one in particular, are not to be regarded as descriptive of future events. The contrary error, which has arisen chiefly from the modern and restricted usage of the word prophet and its cognate terms, has generated some of the most crude extravagances of prophetic exegesis. It has been shewn already, by a historical and philological induction, that the scriptural idea of prophecy is far more extensive, that the prophets were inspired to reveal the truth and will of God, in reference to the past and present, no less than the future. In Isaiah, for example, we find many statements of a general nature, and particularly exhibitions of the general principles which govern the divine administration, especially in reference to the chosen people and their enemies or persecutors. All predictions, or prophecies in the restricted sense, are not specific and exclusive, i. e. limited to one occasion or emergency, but many are de- scriptive of a sequence of events which has been often realized. The vagueness and indefiniteness which might seem to attach to such predic- 30 INTRODUCTION. tions, and (by nialiing their fulfilment more uncertain) to detract from their impressivencss and value, are precluded by the fact that, vfhile the whole prediction frequently admits of this extensive appliisation, it includes allu- sions to particular events, which can hardly be mistaken. Thus in some parts of Isaiah, there arc prophetic pictures of the sieges of Jerusalem, which cannot be exclusively applied to any one event of that kind, but the tenns and images of which are bon-owed partly from one and partly from another through a course of ages. This kind of prophecy, so far from being vafnie and unimpressive, is the clearest proof of real inspiration, because more than any other beyond the reach of ordinary human foresight. Thus the threatening against Babylon, contained in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Isaiah, if explained as a specific and exclusive prophecy of the Medo-Persian conquest, seems to represent the downi^ill of the city as more sudden and complete than it appears in history, and on the other hand affords a pretext, though a very insufficient one, for the assertion that it may have been composed so near the time of the events foretold as to bring the'm within the reach of uninspired but sagacious foresight. No such hA-pothesis, however, will account for the extraordinaiy truth of the predic- tion when regarded as a panorama of the fall of Babylon, not in its first in- ception merely, but through all its stages till its consummation. All the predictions of Isaiah, whether general or specific, are not to be literally understood. The ground of this position is the fact, universally admitted, that the prophecies abound in metaphorical expressions. To assert that this figurative character is limited to words and clauses, or at most to single sentences, is wholly arbitrary, and at variance with the acknowledged use of parables, both in the Old and New Testament, in which important doctrines and events are presented under a tropical cos- tame, throughout a passage sometimes of considerable length. These fiicts are sufficient to sustain the negative position, that the prophecies are not invariably clothed in literal expressions, or in other words are not to be always literally understood. The prophecies of this hook are not to be always understood in a figura- tive or spiritual sense. The contrary assumption has engendered a vast motley multitude of mystical and anagogical interpretations, sometimes superadded to the obvious sense, and sometimes substituted for it, but in either case obscuring the true import and defeating the design of the pre- diction. The same application of the laws of common sense and of general analog}', which shews tliat some predictions must be metaphorical, shews that others must be literal. To assert, without express authoiity, that prophecy must always and exclusively be one or the other, is as foolish as it would be to assert the same thing of the whole conversation of an indi- vidual throughout his lifetime, or of human speech in general. No valid reason can be given for applying this exclusive canon of interpretation to the prophecies, which would not justify its application to the Iliad, the ^neid, the Divina Comniedia, or the Paradise Lost, an application fruitl'ul only in absurdities. Isaiah's prophecies are therefore not to be expounded on the general principle, that either a literal or figurative sense nuist he assumed wherever it is i)bssible. We have already seen the fallacies re- sulting from the assumption, that whatever is possible is probable or cer- tain. To set aside the obvious and strict sense, wherever it can he done without al surdity, is forbidden by the very nature of the diflerence between literal and fi^^urative language. That which is regular and normal must at times assert its rights or it becomes anomalous. On the other hand, to INTRODUCTION. 31 claim precedence for the strict and proper sense, in every case, is incon- sistent with tlie fact that symbols, emblems, images, and tropes, are charac- teristic of prophetic language. In a word, the question between literal and tropical interpretation is not to be determined by the application of invari- able formulas. The same remark may be applied to the vexed question with respect to t^ypes and double senses. The old extreme of constantly assum- ing these wherever it is possible, and the later extreme of denying their existence, may be both considex-ed as exploded errors. That words may be naturally used with a primary and secondary reference, is clear from all analog}\ That some things in the old dispensation were intended to be types of corresponding objects in the new, is clear from the New Testament. A fantastic ii^Motijpia is not more likely to engender error than a morbid typophohia, except that the first is not merely negative in its effects, and may be exercised ad libitum, whei'eas the other prides itself on never adding to the revelation, but is satisfied with taking from it. Both may exist, and both must be avoided, not by the use of nostrums and universal rules, but by the exercise of sound discretion in specific cases, guided by the obvious canon, founded on experience and analogy, that types and double senses do not constitute the staple even of prophetic language, and are therefore not to be wantonly assumed, in cases where a simpler and more obvious ex- position is abundantly sufiicient to meet all the requisitions of the text and context. The question, under which of these descriptions any prophecy must be arranged, i.e. the question whether it is strictly a prediction, and if so, whether it is general or particular, literal or figurative, can only be deter- mined by a thorough independent scrutiny of each case by itself, in refer- ence to form and substance, text and context, without regard to arbitrary and exclusive theories, but with a due regard to analogy of Scripture in general, and of other prophecies in particular, especially of such as belong to the same writer, or at least to the same period, and apparently relate to the same subject. This is far from being so attractive or so easy as the sweeping application of a comprehensive canon to all cases, like and un- like ; but it seems to be the only process likely to afford a satisfactory result, and one main purpose of the following exposition is to prove its eflO,- cacy by a laborious and fair experiment. In executing this design, it is essential that regard should be paid to the exterior form as well as to the substance of a passage, that rhetorical embel- lishments should be distinguished from didactic propositions, that prosaic and poetical peculiarities should be distinctly and correctly estimated at their real value. Experience has clearly shewn, that such discrimination does not always accompany the habit of perpetually praising the sublimity and beauty of the author's style, a practice perfectly compatible with vei-y indistinct and even false conceptions of rhetorical propriety. The characteristics of Isaiah, as a wi'iter, appear by some to be regarded as consisting merely in the fre- quent occurrence of peculiar forms of speech, for which they are continually on the watch, and ever ready to imagine if they cannot find them. The favourite phenomenon of this kind with the latest WTiters is jmronoynasia, an intentional resemblance in the form or sound of words which are nearly re- lated to each other in a sentence. The frequent occurrence of this figure in Isaiah is beyond a doubt ; but the number of the instances has been extra- vagantly multiplied ; in some cases, it would almost seem, for the purpose of detracting from the author's merits ; sometimes with an honest but mis- . taken disposition to enhance it. It is an important observation of Ewald's, 32 INTRODUCTION. that a mere assonance of words is probabl}' fortuitous, except where a similar relation can be traced between the thoughts M-hich they express. The truth in reference to this and many other kindred topics, can be ascer- tained only in the way proposed above, /. e. by a due regard to the matter and the manner of each passage in itself considered. This discriminating process necessarily involves a scrupulous avoidance of two opposite extremes, which have, at different periods, and in some cases simultaneously, done much to pervert and hinder the interpretation of the book before us. The first extreme, particularly prevalent in earlier times, is that of understand- in" the most highly wrought descriptions, the most vivid imagery, the boldest personifications, as mere prose. This is especially exemplified in the irra- tional and tasteless manner of expounding apologues and parables by many of the older writers, who insist on giving a specific sense to circumstances which are significant only as parts of one harmonious whole. The other extreme, of which we have already traced the origin, is that of turning elevated prose diversified by bursts of poetry, into a regular poem or series of poems, technically so considered, and subjecting them as such to all the tests and rules of classical poetry, and even to the canons of its versification. To expound Isaiah without any reference to the perpetual recurrence of antitheses and other parallel constructions, would be now a proof of utter incapacity. Far more indulgence would be probabl}' extended to the no less extravagant but much less antiquated error of seeking perfect parallels in every sentence, torturing the plain sense into forced conformity with this imaginary standard, altering the text to suit it, and in short converting a natural and unstudied form, in v.'hich the Hebrew mind expressed itself without regard to rules or systems, into a rigorous scholastic scheme of prosody. The recurrence of a certain theme, refrain, or burden at nearly equal intervals — a structure natural and common in the elevated prose of various nations, for example in the sermons of the great French preachers — may be very properly compared to the strophical arrangements of the Greek dramatic style. But when, instead of an illustrative comparison, the pas- sages thus marked are gravely classed as real strophes and antistrophes, and formally distributed among imaginary choruses of Prophets, Jews, and so forth, this pedantic affectation of confounding Hebrew prophecies with Greek plays, becomes chargeable with u-astejul and ridiculous excess. It can only be regarded as a natural and necessary consequence of this overstrained analogy between things which occasionally coincide in form, that some of the most recent German critics do not hesitate to strike whole verses from the text of Isaiah, on the ground that they cannot be genuine because they make the strophes unequal, and that one of them winds up a comparison between prophetic and dramatic poetry with several pages of imagery, far- fetched or fortuitous coincidences, both of thoughts and words, between the wTitings of Isaiah and the Eumenides of iEschylus. The golden mean between these hurtful and iiTational extremes appears to lie in the assiduous observ'ance of the true poetical ingredients of Isaiah's style, both in them- selves and in their various combinations, with a rigid abstinence from all scholastic and pedantic theories of Hebrew poetry, and all peculiar forms and methods which have sprung from them or tend to their promotion. Under this last description may be properly included the fimtastic and injurious mode of printing most translations of Isaiah since the days of Lowth, in lines analogous to those of classical and modern verse. This arrangement, into which the good taste of the Bishop was betrayed by a na- tural but overweening zeal for his supposed discovery of rhythm or measure INTRODUCTION. 88 in the Hebrew prophets, and which the bad taste of succeeding writers bids fair to perpetuate, is open to a number of objections. In the first place, it proceeds upon a false or at least exaggerated supposition, that Isaiah wrote in what we are accustomed to call verse. If the predominance of parallel constructions is a sufficient reason for this mode of printing, then it might be adopted with propriety in many works which all the world regard as prose, in various parts at least of Seneca, Augustine, Larochefoucauld, Pascal, Johnson, and even Macaulay*. The extent to which it might be carried is exemphfied by Bishop Jebb's ingenious effort to extend Lowth's system to the Greek of the New Testament, in doing which he actually prints long extracts from the Gospels in the form of Lowth's Isaiah. Another proof of the un- soundness of the theory, when carried thus far, is the want of unity among the various practitioners, in Germany and England, with respect to the divi- sion and arrangement of the clauses, the regard due to the masoretic accents, and the rhythmical principle on which the whole must after all depend. Be- tween some specimens of this mode of typography there seems to be scarcely any thing in common but the uneven termination of the lines. A third objection to this mode of printing is the fact, which any correct eye and ear may bring to an experimental test, that so far from enhancing the effect of the peculiar construction of Isaiah's sentences, it greatly mars it, and converts a numerous prose into the blankest of all blank verse, by exciting expecta- tions which of course cannot be realized, suggesting the idea of a poetical metre in the strict sense, and then thwarting it by consecutions wholly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of prosody, however sonorous or euphonic in themselves. In England and America, this modern fashion seems to be already an established usage, and is even pushed so far as to require quotations from certain parts of Scripture to be printed hke poetical extracts in a small type and in lines by themselves, a usage which we may expect to see extended to the rest of the Bible on the principles of Jebb. In Germany, the younger and inferior writers appear still enamoured of this wonderful discovery ; but some of their more eminent interpreters, above the common average in taste, exhibit symptoms of reaction. Ewald con- tents himself with marking the divisions of the sentences and clauses after the manner of bars in music, while De Wette, in his excellent translation of the Bible, prints the whole like prose. This is the more significant because DeWette, in his introduction to the Psalms, had carried out Lowth's system of parallelisms in detail, with greater minuteness and precision than any pre- ceding writer. In the preface to his Bible, he speaks of the arrangement of the Hebrew distichs in distinct lines, as of value only to the Hebrew scholar, while Ewald says expressly that the modern custom violates the ancient usage, and mistakes for poetry the mixed or intermediate prophetic style. Partly for these and other reasons of a kindred nature, founded on what I believe to be the true characteristics of Isaiah's style, partly in order to save room for more important matters than the marking of divisions, which the simplest reader even of a version can distinguish for himself so far as they have any real value, the translation of Isaiah will be found in this work printed as prose, and in the closest union with the exposition. This is the method which has been successfully pursued by several judicious German writers of the present day, especially by Hengstenberg, as well in his Christ- ology as in his Commentary on the Psalms, perhaps as a matter of conveni- ence merely, but it may be also with regard to some of the considerations which have just been stated. With respect to the translation in the present 34 INTRODUCTION. volume, tliis arrangement is moreover rendered necessary by tlie relation which it is intended to sustain to the exegetical matter which accompanies it. No attempt has here been made to give a new translation of the book, complete in itself, and suited for continuous perusal. The translation is part and parcel of the commentary, closely incorporated with it, and in some degree inseparable from it. After the study of a passage with the aid here furnished, it may no doubt be again read with advantage in this version, for the sake of which it has been not only printed in a different tj'pe, but generally placed at the beginning of the paragraph. This explanation seems to be requii'ed, as the whole form and manner of the version have been modified by this design. If meant for separate continuous perusal, it must of course have been so constructed as to be easily intelligible by itself; whereas a version introduced as a text or basis of immediate exposition, admitted of a closer approximation to the idiomatic fonn of the original, with all its occasional obscurity and harshness, than would probably have been endm-ed by readers of refined taste in an independent version. To this account of the precise relation which the version of Isaiah in this volume bears to the accompanying exposition, may be added a brief statement of the twofold object which the whole work is intended to accom- plish, namely, a correct interpretation and a condensed historical sjmopsis of opinions with respect to it. The arduous task here undertaken is to aid the reader in determining the sense, not only by my own suggestions, but by those of others. This historical element has been introduced both as a means of exegetical improvement, and for its own sake, as an interesting chapter of the history of opinion on a highly important sub- ject. In order to appreciate the particular results of this historical analy- sis, it will be proper to give some account of the materials employed. A brief and general sketch of the progress of opinion and of gradual changes in the method of interpretation having been previously given in a difi"erent connection, it will only be necessary here to add a chronological enume- ration of the works which have exerted the most lasting and extensive influence on the interpretation of Isaiah. The first place in this enumeration is of course due to the Ancient Versions, and among these to the Greek translation commonly called the Septuagint, from the old tradition of its having been produced by seventy-two Jews at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. The additional circumstances, such as the translation of the whole law by each man separately, and their entire agreement afterwards, are not found in the oldest authorities, jjiud are now rejected as mere fables. It is even a matter of dispute among the learned, whether the whole of this translation was executed at once or by degrees, by few or many writers, for the use of the synagogues in Egypt, or as a mere literary enterprise. Against the unity of the translation is the different character of the version in different parts. The Pentateuch is commonly regarded as the best, and Daniel as the worst. The version of Isaiah is intermediate be- ween these. It is important as the record of an ancient exegetical tradition, and on account of the use made of it in the New Testament. The writer shews a special acquaintance with the usages and products of Egypt, but is grammatically very inexact, and governed in translation by no settled principle. Hence he abounds in needless paraphrases and additions, euphemistic variations, and allusions to opinions and events of later times, although the number of these has been exaggerated by some critics. The Hebrew text used by this ti-anslator seems to have been the INTRODUCTION. 35 one now extant, but without the masoretic points. The seeming variations used by Houbigant and Lowth as means of textual correction, are most probably the mere result o:^ ignorance or inadvertence. The extreme opinions formerly maintained in reference to this version have been gradu- ally exchanged for a more moderate and discriminating estimate, acknow- ledging its use in many cases of difficult interpretation, but denying its paramount authority in any. Besides the frequent citation of the Septua- gint, occasional reference will be made to the other old Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, fragments of which have been pre- served by early wTiterp. Of these interpreters, Aquila is commonly sup- posed to have been distinguished by his slavish adherence to the letter of the Hebrew, Symmachus by freedom and a greater regard to the Greek idiom, while Theodotion stood in these respects between them. Next to these versions stands the Chaldee Paraphrase or Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the date of which is much disputed, but assigned by a majority of modern critics to the time of Christ, or that immediately preceding. It derives its value partly from its high repute and influence among the Jews, partly fi'om its intrinsic character, as being on the whole a skilful and correct translation into a cognate dialect, although disfigured like the Septuagint by many arbitrary explanations, by additions to the text, and by allusions to the usages and doctrines of the later Jews. Its critical as well as exegetical adherence to the masoretic text is much more close than that of the oldest Greek translator. The ancient Syriac version, commonly called the Peshito, on account of its simplicity and fidelity, is one of the most valuable extant. Its precise date is unlmown, but it appears to have been looked upon as ancient, and occasionally needing explanation, even in the days of Ephrem Syrus. It has been ascribed by diiferent critics to a Jewish and a Christian writer, but the latter supposition is the best sustained, both by external and inter- nal evidence. The opinion of some writers, as to the use made by this translator of the Targum and Septuagint, appears to be regarded now as groundless, or at least exaggerated. This version as a whole, is charac- terised by great exactness and a close adherence to the original expression, rendered easy by the near affinity of Syriac and Hebrew. The Yulgate or common Latin version of Isaiah, regarded as authentic in the Church of Rome, was executed by Jerome about the end of the fourth century, and afterwards substituted for the old Latin version, commonly caUed Itala, in use before, of which only fragments are now extant. This version, notwithstanding many errors and absurd interpre- tations, is on the whole a valuable record of ancient exegetical tradition, and of the fruit of Jerome's oriental studies. Its influence on modern exegesis, more especially within the Church of Rome, has of course been very extensive. In these four versions we possess what may be called the exegetical tra- dition of the Jewish Synagogue, the Latin Church, the Greek Church, and the Syrian Church in all its branches. This, in addition to their mere an- tiquity, entitles them to a consideration which cannot be claimed by other versions, even though intrinsically more correct. At the same time let it be observed, that in addition to the original defects of these translations, their text is no doubt greatly corrupted, having never been subjected to any such conservative process as the Masora or critical tradition of the Jews. This fact alone shews the folly of attempting to ascribe to either of these versions a traditional authority superior to that of the Hebrew text. From 86 INTRODUCTION. these direct and primary versions, many mediate or secondary ones were formed in early times, the exegetical authority of which is naturally far inferior, although they are occasionally useful in determining the text of their originals, and even in explaining them, while still more rarely they exhihit independent and remarkable interpretations of the Hebrew text. To some of these mediate versions, there will be found occasional refer- ences in the present work, especially to the Arabic version of the Septua- gint, made at Alexandria, and printed in the third volume of the London Polyglot. A still more frequent mention will be made of an immediate Arabic version by the celebrated Jewish teacher and gi-ammarian of the tenth century, Saadias Gaon, whose translation of the Pentateuch is found in the same Poh'glot, although his verison of Isaiah was not brought to light till near the end of the last century. Both in its merits and defects, it resembles the more ancient versions, but approaches still more closety to the exegesis of the rabbins. The occasional citations of this version are derived from other writers, and particularly from Gesenius. Next to the Ancient Versions may be named the Greek and Latin Fathers who have MTitten on Isaiah. Besides Origen and others, whose interpreta- tions have been wholly or in a great measure lost, there are still extant those of Eusebius, C^tII of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Pro- copius, on the whole or part of the Septuagint version of Isaiah. These are valuable, not so much from any direct aid which they aiibrd in the in- terpretation of the Hebrew text, as for the light which they throw upon the prevalent theories of interpretation at a remote period, and especially upon the allegorical and mystical method of expounding the Old Testament, of ■which Origen, if not the inventor, was the most successful champion and practitioner. Jerome, the only Latin Father who has written on Isaiah, while he has some defects and faults in common with the Greek expound- ers, has the great advantage of direct acquaintance with the Hebrew text, and with the Jewish method of explaining it. The good effects of this superior knowledge, and of his untiring diligence, are greatly neutralised by haste and inadvertence, by a want of consistency and settled principles, and by a general defect of judgment. The only Fathers, of whose expositions a direct use will be made in the present work, are Chrysostom and Jerome, and of these only in the earlier chapters. All further references of the same kind are derived from other commentaries. Of the Rabbins, several are carefully compared and often quoted. These are Solomon Jarchi, noted for his close adherence to the Targum, and the Jewish tradition ; Aben Ezra, for his independent rationalistic views and philological acuteness ; David Kimchi, for his learning and good sense, and for his frequent reference to older writers. He often cites, among others, his brother Moses, and his fother, Joseph Kimchi. The Michlal Jophi of Solomon Ben Melech, with the additional notes of Jacob Abendana, is chiefly a selection of the best rabbinical interpretations, particularly those of David Kimchi. The opinions of Abarbenel and other rabbins arc occa- sionally cited on the authority of other writers. Of the Reformers, the two greatest are kept constantly in view through- out the exposition. Luther's translation will be alwaj'S valued, not only for its author's sake, but for its own. Though often inexact and paraphras- tical, it almost always gives the tnie sense, and often gives it with a vigour and felicity of phrase never attained in like degree by the more accurate and learned versions of the present day. Calvin still towers above all in- terpreters, in large commanding views of revelation in its whole connection, INTRODUCTION. 37 with extraordinary insight into the logical relations of a passage, even where its individual expressions were not fully understood. These quali- ties, together with his fixed belief of fundamental doctrines, his eminent soundness of judgment, and his freedom from all tendency to paradox, pedantic affectation, or fanciful conceit, place him more completely on a level with the very best interpreters of our day, than almost any intervening writer. Of the other Reformers, only occasional citations will be met with, such as Zwingli, (Ecolampadius, and Fagius. As a representative of the old school of orthodox interpreters, we may take the annotated version of Junius and Tremellius, distinguished by learning, ingenuity, and exegetical acumen, but disfigured by unnatural and forced constructions, in which the Hebrew idiom is often sacrificed to some paradoxical novelty. Less frequent reference will be made to other writers of the same school and period, who were not accessible directly, or whose influence on later writers has been less considerable. The honours due to the original and independent founder of a school may be justly claimed by John Cocceius, whose opinions gave occasion to protracted controversies in the Church of Holland. The description usually given of him, that he finds Christ everywhere in the Old Testament, is hardly expressive of his peculiar character, as set forth in his work upon Isaiah. A more exact description would be, that he finds the Church and the events of Church history throughout the prophecies, not as a mystical or secondary meaning, but as the proper and direct one. Of this system many striking specimens will be presented in the exposition. The description of Cocceius, which has been already quoted, is commonly accompanied by one of Grotius, as his exegetical opposite, who finds Christ nowhere. Here again the portrait is by no means an exact one, at least as he appears in his brief notes on Isaiah. He probably professes to find Christ predicted there as often as Cocceius does, but with this difference, that Grotius finds him always hidden under types, the lower or immediate sense of which is to be sought as near as may be to the date of the predic- tion, A comparison between these two eminent writers is enough to shew the incorrectness of the common notion, that the hypothesis of types and double senses is peculiar to the stricter theologians of the old school, and the rejection of them characteristic of the more liberal interpreters. Coc- ceius seldom resorts to the assumption of a double sense, while Grotius seldom recognises Christ as a subject of prophecy, except where he can in- stitute a typical relation. The grand objection to the exegesis of the latter, as exemplified in this book, is its superficial character and the sceptical ten- dencies which it betrays. Its shining merits are ingenious combinations, happy conjecture, and abundant illustration from the Greek and Roman classics. The nearest approach to him, in all these qualities, without the least appearance of dependence, imitation, or collusion, is found in John Le Clerc, more commonly called Clericus. The likeness is the more exact, because neither he nor Grotius has done justice to his own. capacity and reputation in interpreting Isaiah. The first complete exposition of Isaiah is the great work of Campegius Vitringa, Professor at Franeker, originally published in 1714. Of the pre- ceding commentaries, every one perhaps may be described as holding up some one side of the subject, while the others are neglected. But in this work are collected all the materials which at that time were accessible, not in an undigested state, but thoroughly incorporated and arranged with a degree of judgment, skill, and taste, not easily surpassed. It is besides 88 INTRODUCTION. distinguished by a candour, dignity, and zeal for truth, without the least admixture of acrimonious bigotry, which have secured for it and for its author the esteem of all succeeding writers vrho have read it, of whatever school or party. So complete is Vitringa's exposition even now, that nothing more would be required to supply the public wants but the addi- tional results of more profound and extensive philological investigation during the last century, were it not for two defects which the woik, with all its varied and transcendent merit, does exhibit. The first is a want of condensation, a prolixity, which, although not without advantages to read- ers who have leisure to secure them, is entirely unsuited to the tastes and habits of the present age. The other is too strong a leaning to the mystical and allegorical interpretation of the plainest prophecies, arising from a mis- taken deference for the old exegetical canon, that the prophecies must he made to mean as much as possible. To this must be added the erroneous hypothesis, not yet exploded, that every prophecy must be specific, and must have its fulfilment in a certain period of histoiy, to determine which recourse must frequently be had to fanciful or forced intei-pretation. Nearly contemporary with Vitringa was the learned German Pietist, John Heniy Michaelis, Professor at Halle, who, in conjunction with his brother, published there in 1720 a Hebrew Bible with marginal annotations. Those on the first part of Isaiah are by no means equal to the notes of C. B. Michaelis on the Minor Prophets in the same volume. The former are more meagre, and contain less independent exposition, leaning chiefly upon some preceding wi-iters, and especially Sebastian Schmidt. These notes, however, have considerable value on account of their references to parallel passages, less numerous than those of many other writers, but selected with great care, and with a constant view to the elucidation of the text. Occa- sionally also an original interpretation here presents itself. The whole work is characterised by orthodox belief and a devout spirit. Independently of both these works, though some years later, appeared the Exposition of Isaiah by John Gill, a Baptist minister in London. Though designed for the doctrinal and practical improvement of the English reader, it is still distinguished from other books of that class by its erudi- tion in a single province, that of talniudic and rabbinic literature. In this department Gill draws directly from his own resources, which are here extensive, while in other matters he contents himself with gathering and combining, often whimsically, the opinions of preceding writers, and espe- cially of those contained in the Crilici Sacri and in Pool's Synopsis. His original suggestions are but few and generally founded on his own peculiar views of the Apocalypse, not as an independent prophecy, but as a key to those of the Old Testament. Before either of the works last mentioned, and nearly contemporary with Vitringa, appeared a Commentary on Isaiah by I)r William Lowth, prebendary of Winchester, which is usually printed with his other exposi- tions of the Prophets, as a part of Bishop Patrick's Commentary on the Bible. The work on Isaiah has exerted little influence on later writers, the less perhaps because eclipsed by the brilliant success of the Translation, published, more than half a century afterwards, by the authot's son, llobcrt Lowth, successively Bishop of Limerick, St David's, Oxford, and London, universally aclinowledgcd to be one of the most accomplisb.ed scholars and elegant writers of his age or nation. The influence of Lowth's Isaiah has already been described, so far as it can be regarded as injurious to the cause of sound interpretation or enhghtened criticism. Its good efl'ect has been INTRODUCTION. 39 to raise the estimation of Isaiah as a writer of extraordinary genius, and to introduce a method of expounding him, more in accordance with the princi- ples of taste, than some adopted by preceding Avriters. Besides this work upon Isaiah, he contributed to this end by his lectures, as Professor of Poetry at Oxford, de Sacra Poesi Hehrcnorum, which have been frequently repub- lished on the Continent, and still exert a salutary influence on the German critics. In his criticism of the Hebrew text, he follows the exploded system of Cappellus, Houbigant, and others, who assumed the masoretic text to be as faulty as it could be without losing its identity, and seem to make it the great object of their criticism to change it as extensively as pos- sible. Many of Lowth's favourite interpretations, being founded upon critical conjecture, are now worthless. The style of his English version, which ex- cited universal admiration when it first appeared, has, in the course of nearly seventy years, become less pleasing to the cultivated ear, partly because a taste has been revived for that antique simplicity which Lowth's contempo- raries looked upon as barbarous, and of which a far superior specimen is furnished in the common version. Among Lowth's greatest merits, in the exposition and illustration of Isaiah, must be mentioned his familiarity with classical models, often suggesting admirable parallels, and his just views, arising from a highly cultivated taste, in reference to the structure of the projDhecies, and the true import of prophetic imagery. Almost simultaneous with the first appearance of Lowth's Isaiah was the publication of a German version, with Notes for the Unlearned, by John David Michaelis (a nephew of John Henry before mentioned) Professor at Gottingen, and for many years the acknowledged leader of the German Orientalists, His interpretations in this work are often novel and ingenious, but as often paradoxical and fanciful. His version, although frequently felicitous, is marred by a perpetual affectation of colloquial and modern phraseology, for which he sometimes apologises on the ground that the original expression would not have sounded well in German. He agrees with Lowth in his contempt for the masoretic text, which he is constantly attempting to correct ; but is far below him in refinement of taste and in a just appreciation of the literary merits of his author. With respect to moi*e important matters, he may be said to occupy the turning-point between the old and new school of interpreters. While on the one hand, he retains the customary foiTQS of speech and, at least negatively, recognises the divine authority and inspiration of the Prophet, he carries his afiectation of inde- pendence and free-thinking, in the details of his interpretation, so far, that the transition appears natural and easy to the avowed unbelief of his pupils and successors. Besides the one already mentioned, occasional reference is made to other works of the same author. The German edition of Lowth's Isaiah, with additional notes by Koppe, a colleague of Michaelis at Gottingen, deserves attention, as the work in which the extravagant doctrines of the modern criticism with respect to the unity, integrity, and genuineness of the prophecies, were fii'st propounded and applied to the writings of Isaiah. The opposite doctrines were maintained, in all their strictness, by a contemporary Swiss Professor, Koeher, a disciple and adherent of the orthodox Dutch school, in a book expressly written against Lowth. Passing over the comparatively unimportant works of Vogel, Cube, Hensler, and the annotated Latin versions of Dathe and Doederlein, occa- sionally cited in the present volume, we may mention as the next important link in the catena of interpretation, the famous Scholia of the younger 40 INTRODUCTION. Eosenmiiller, for many years Oriental Professor at Leipzig. The part re- lating to Isaiah appeared first in 1791 ; but the publication and repubUca- tion of the several parts extend through a period of more than forty years. As a whole, the work is distinguished by a critical acquaintance both with Hebrew and the cognate dialects, and an industrious use of the ancient versions, the rabbinical interpreters, and the later writers, particularly Grotius and Yitringa, whole paragraphs from whom are often copied almost verbatim and without express acknowledgment. From its comprehensive plan and the resources of the writer, this work may be considered as an adap- tation of Yitringa to the circumstances of a later period, including, however, an entire change of exegetical and doctrinal opinions. Without any of the eager zeal and party-spirit, which occasioned the excesses of Koppe and Eichhorn, RosenmiUler equally repudiates the doctrine of prophetic inspira- tion in the strict sense, and rejects whatever would imply or involve it. The unsoundness of his principles in this respect has given less ofience and alarm to readers of a different school, because accompanied by so much calnoness and apparent candour, sometimes amounting to a neutral apathy, no more conducive to correct results than the opposite extreme of partiality and prejudice. This very spirit of indifference, together with the plan of compilation upon which the Scholia are constructed, added perhaps to an originaFinfirmity of judgment, make the author's own opinions and conclu- sions the least valuable part of this extensive and laborious work. In the abridged edition, which appeared not long before his death (1835), many opinions of Gesenius are adopted, some of which Gesenius in the mean time had himself abandoned. The acknowledgment of Messianic prophecies, which Rosenmiiller, in his later writings, seems to make, does not extend to prophecies of Christ, but merely to vague and for the most part gi'ouudless expectations of a Messiah by the ancient prophets. An epoch in the history of the interpretation of Isaiah is commonly sup- posed to be marked by the appearance of the Philological, Critical, and Histo- rical Commentary of Gesenius (Leipzig, 1821). This distinction is not founded upon any new^ principle or even method of interpretation which the author introduced, but on his great celebrity, authority, and influence, as a gram- marian and lexicographer. Nothing is more characteristic of the work than the extreme predilection of the writer for the purely philological and archae- ological portions of his task, and the disproportionate amount of space and labour lavished on them. The evidence of learning and acuteness thus afforded cannot be questioned, but it is often furnished at the cost of other more important qualities. The ablest portions of the work have sometimes the appearance of excursus or detached disquisitions upon certain questions of antiquities or lexicography. Even in this chosen field, successful as Gesenius has been, later writers have detected some infirmities and fiiilures. Of these the most important is the needless multiplication of distinct senses and the gi-atuitous attenuation of the meaning in some words of common occurrence. The merit of Gesenius consists much more in diligent investi- gation and perspicuous arrangement than in a masterly application of the principles established and exemplified in the best Greek lexicons. His proneness to mistake distinct applications of a word and accessory ideas suggested by the context, for different meanings of the word itself, is recog- nised in the occasional correction of the fault by his American translator (see for example Heb. Lex. p. 148), to whom the public would have been in- debted for a much more frequent use of the same method. If any apology is needed for the frequent deviations, in the following exposition, from INTRODUCTION. 41 Gesenius's decisions, it is afforded by the rule whicli he professes to have followed in his own use of the cognate dialects : ultra lexica sopere, (Preface to Isaiah, p. vi.) With respect to candour and impartiality, Gesenius occupies the same ground with. Rosenmiiller, that is to say, he is above suspicion as to any question not connected, more or less directly, with his fundamental error, that there can be no prophetic foresight. Another point of similarity between them is their seeming hesitancy and instability of judgment, as exhibited in frequent changes of opinion upon minor points, without a statement of sufficient reasons. The many variations which may be traced in the writings of Gesenius, from his early Lexicons and Commen- tary on Isaiah to his gi-eat Thesaurus, are no doubt proofs of intellectual progi-ess and untiring diligence ; but it is still true, that in many cases oppo- site conclusions seem to have been drawn from precisely the same premises. The Commentary on Isaiah never reappeared, but the accompanying version was reprinted with a few notes, in 1629. This translation is a spirited and faithful reproduction of the sense of the original, and for the most part of its characteristic form, but not without unnecessary paraphrases and gra- tuitous departures from the Hebrew idiom. In these respects, and in sim- plicity of diction, it has been much improved by De Wette, whose translation of Isaiah (contained in his version of the Bible, Heidelberg, 1839) is avowedly founded upon that of Gesenius. The same relation to the Com- mentaiy is sustained by Maurer's notes for students (in the first volume of his Commentarius Criticus in Vet. Test. Leipzig, 1835), which exhibits in a clear and compact form the substance of Gesenius, with occasional speci- mens of independent and ingenious exposition. A very diflerent position is assumed by Hitzig, whose work upon Isaiah (Heidelberg, 1833) seems intended to refute that of Gesenius wherever a dissent was possible, always excepting the sacred fundamental principle of unbelief in which they are united. This polemical design of Hitzig' s work has led to many strained and paradoxical interpretations, but at the same time to a remarkable display of exegetical invention and philological acute- ness, both in the application of the principles of Ewald's Grammar where it varies from Gesenius, and in original solutions of grammatical and other problems. In some points Hitzig may be said to have receded to the gi'ound of Eichhom, as for instance in the wildness of his critical conjec- tures, not so much in reference to words or letters as to larger passages, and also in his leaning to the old idea of predictions ex eventu, or historical allusions clothed in a prophetical costume. The metaphysical obscurity of Hitzig' s style, in certain cases, may be either the result of individual pecu- liarity, or symptomatic of the general progress in the German mind from common-sense rationalism or deism to the more transcendental forms of unbelief. Another characteristic of this writer is his undisguised contempt, if not for Isaiah in particular, for Judaism and its faith in general. In point of taste, he is remarkable at once for high pretensions and for gross defects. Hendewerk's commentary on Isaiah, (Kcinigsberg, vol. i. 1838, vol. ii. 1843) though indicative of scholarship and talent, has a less marked and independent character than that of Hitzig, and exhibits in a great degree the faults and merits of a juvenile performance. The author's reading seems to have been limited to modern wTiters, and the controversial attitude which he is constantly assuming with respect to Hengstenberg or Hitzig, while it makes his exposition less intelligible, unless compared with that of his opponents, also impairs the reader's confidence in his impartiality and candour. His original suggestions are in many cases striking and 42 INTRODUCTION. in some truly valuable, as will appear from the examples cited in the exposition, A place is due, in this part of the chronological succession, to two works on Isaiah in the English language. The first is by the Rev. Albert Barnes of Philadelphia (3 vols. 8vo, Boston, 1840), well known by previous pub- lications on the Gospels and Epistles, and by a later work on Job. His exposition of Isaiah comprehends a large part of the valuable substance of Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and Gesenius, with occasional reference to the older writers, as contained in Pool's Synopsis and the Critici Sacri. The great fiiult of the work is not its want of matter, but of matter well digested and condensed. Particular and even disproportionate attention has been paid to archaeological illustration, especially as furnished by the modern travellers. Practical observations are admitted, but without sufficient uniformity or any settled method. The author's views of inspiration in general, and of the inspiration of Isaiah in particular, are sound, but not entirely consistent with the deference occasionally paid to neological interpreters, in cases where their judgments are, in fact though not in form, determined by a false as- sumption, which no one more decidedly rejects than Mr Barnes. The New Translation which accompanies the Commentary, seems to be wholly inde- pendent of it, and can hardly be considered an improvement, either on the common version, or on that of Lowth. Some of the same remarks are applicable to the w^ork of Dr Henderson (London, 1840), in which there are appearances of gi-eater haste and less laborious effort, but at the same time of a more extended reading, and a more independent exegetical judgment. The English author, though fami- liar with the latest German writers who preceded him, is not deterred by their example or authority from the avowal of his doctrinal belief, or from a proper use of analogy in the interpretation of the prophet. Further descrip- tion of these two works is rendered unnecessary by the frequency with which they are quoted or referred to in the Commentary. Ewald's exposition of Isaiah, contained in his collective work upon. the Hebrew Prophets (Stuttgart, 1841), derives great authority from his acknow- ledged eminence in Germany, as a profound philosophical grammarian. His attention has been given almost exclusively to the chronological arrangement of the parts and the translation of the text. The latter has gi-eat value, not only as containing the results of Ewald's philological researches, but also on account of its intrinsic qualities, and more especially its faithful exhibition of the form of the original in its simplicity. In this respect it is a great advance on all preceding versions. The Commentary is extremely meagre, and remarkable, like most of Ewald's writings, for the absence of all reference to other modern writers or opinions. The liberties taken with the text, though not very numerous, are sometimes very violent and arbi- trary. The sweeping criticism, on which his chronological arrangement rests, will be considered in another place. From the rationalistic school of Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, Ewald differs in regai'ding Isaiah as inspired, which admission really extends, however, only to a kind of vague, poetical, anticipation, wholly exclusive of distinct prophetic foresight of the distant future, in rejecting which, as a thing impossible or not susceptible of proof, ho coincides with the preceding writers. Umbreit's practical Commentary on Isaiah (Hamburg, 1842), is little more than a declamatory paraphrase, composed in what an English reader would regard as very questionable taste. The real value of the work con- eists in a translation of Isaiah, and occasional notes on difl'crent questions INTRODUCTION. 43 of philology and criticism. On such points the author coincides for the most part with Gesenius, while in his general views of prophecy he seems to approach nearer to Ewald, with whom he frequently concurs in making that a vague anticipation which the other writers take as a specific pro- phecy. At the same time, he differs from this whole class of interpreters, in frequently alluding to the Saviour and the new dispensation as the sub- jects of prediction, but in what sense it is hard to ascertain, the rather as he practically holds the modern doctrine, that distinct prediction of the distant future is sufficient to disprove the genuineness of a passage. Knobel's Isaiah (Leipzig, 1843), is exceedingly convenient as a condensed synopsis of the principal interpretations. In the expression of his own views, the author shews his strict adherence to the modern school of criticism and exegesis. His critical decisions, with respect to some portions of the book, are very arbitrarj^ and the detailed proofs, by which he sustains them, in a high degree extravagant. In rejecting the hypothesis of inspiration, and in asserting the mere human character and origin of the prophecies, he is un- commonly exj)licit and decided, both in this work and in one which he had previously published upon prophecy in general. On the whole, with the exception of a few good exegetical suggestions, he may be looked upon as having retrograded to the ground of the old neologists from that assumed by Ewald and Umbreit. It is gratifying to be able to conclude the list of German writers with a few names, belonging to a very different school, and connected with a powerful reaction in favour of old principles, as being perfectly consistent with the valuable fruits of late improvements and discoveries. The way of this important movement, so far as Isaiah is concerned, was opened, not by regular interpreters of this book, but by Hengstenberg in his Christo- logy (1829) followed by Kleinert in his volume on the genuineness of Isaiah's prophecy (1829), and still more recently by Havernick in his Introduction to the Old Testament (1844). An application of the same essential principles to the direct interpretation of Isaiah has been made by Drechsler, Professor at Erlangen, the first volume of whose Commentary (Erlangen, 1845) reached me too late to allow the present use of any part of it except the Introduction, to which reference is made below. Besides the exegetical works already mentioned, occasional references will be foimd to others, illustrative of certain passages or certain topics. As most of these are too well known to need description, it will be sufficient here to name, as authorities in natural history and geography, the Hierozoicon of Bochart and the Biblical Eesearches of Robinson and Smith. It remains now to speak of the arrangement and divisions of the book. The detailed examination of particular questions under this head will be found in the course of the exposition, and for the most part in the special introduction to the several chapters. All that is here intended is a general statement of the case, preparatory to these more minute discussions. The progress of opinion upon this part of the subject has been closely connected with the succession of exegetical and critical hypotheses already mentioned. The same extremes, reactions, compro- mises, may be traced substantially in both. The older writers commonly assumed that the book was arranged in chronological order by the author himself. Thus Jerome says expressly, that the prophecies belonging to the four reigns follow one another regularly, without mixture or confusion. J. H. Michaelis regards the first verse of the first, sixth, and seventh chapters, and the twenty-eighth verse of the fourteenth chapter, as the U INTRODUCTION. dividing marks of the four reigns. This supposition of a strict chrono- logical arrangement, although rather taken for granted than determined by investigation, is by no means so absurd as some have represented it. It rests on immemorial tradition, and the analogy of the other books, the few exceptions tending rather to confirm the rule. The principal objections to it are, that the first chapter is evidently later than the second ; that the sixth, containing the account of Isaiah's ordination to his office, must be the first in point of date ; and that the seventeenth chapter relates to the fii-st years of the reign of Ahaz, whereas chap. xiv. 28 is assigned to tho year in which he died. These objections, though by no means insurmountable, as will be seen hereafter, led Vitringa to relinquish the hypothesis of strict chronological arrangement by the author himself, for that of arrangement by another hand (perhaps by the men of Hezekiali mentioned Prov. xxv. 1), in the order of subjects, those discourses being placed together whose contents are most alike. He accordingly divides Isaiah into five books, after the manner of the Pentateuch and Psalter, the first (chaps, i.-xii.) containing prophecies du'ected against Judah and Israel, the second (chaps, xiii.-xxiii.) against certain foreign powers, the third (chaps, xxiv.-xxxv.) against the enemies and unworthy members of the church, the fourth (chaps, xl.-xlviii.) relating chiefly to the Babylonish exile and deliverance from it, the fifth (chaps, xlix.-lxvi.) to the person and reign of the Messiah, while chaps, xxxvi.- xxxix. are distinguished from the rest as being purely historical. The titles in chap. i. 1, ii. 1, vii. 1, xiii. 1, xiv 28, kc, he regards as genuine, except that the names of the four kings were added to the first by the com- piler, in order to convert what was at first the title of the first chapter only into a general description of the whole book. This ingenious hypothesis still leaves it unexplained why certain series were separated from each other, for example why chaps, xiii.-xxiii. are in- terposed between chaps, i.-xii. and chaps, xxiv.-xxxv. This led Koppe, whom Gesenius describes as the pioneer of the modern criticism, to reject that part of Vitringa's theory which supposes the book to have received its present form in the reign of Hezeldah, while he carries out to an absurd extreme the general hypothesis of ctjmpilation and re-arrangement by a later hand. According to Koppe and Augusti, the book, as we now have it, is in perfect confusion, and its actual aiTangement wholly without autho- rity. To confirm and explain this, Eichhorn and Bertholdt assume the existence of several distinct collections of Isaiah's writings to each of which additions were gradually made, until the whole assumed its present form. The same general A-iew is taken of the matter by Hitzig and Ewald, but with this distinction, that the former thinks the framework or sub-stratum of the original collections still remains, and needs only to be freed from subsequent interpolations, while the latter sticks more closely to the earlier idea, that the whole is in confusion, partly as he supposes from the loss of many prophecies no longer extant, and can be even partially restored to its original condition, only by critically reconstructing it under the guidance of internal evidence. Ewald accordingly abandons the traditional arrange- ment altogether, and exhibits the disjecta membra in an order of his own. The critical value of tho diagnosis, which controls this process, may bo estimated from a single principle, assumed if not avowed throughout it, namely, that passages which treat of the same subject, or resemble one another strongly in expression, must bo placed together as component parts of one continuous composition. The absurdity of this assumption might INTRODUCTION. 45 be rendered palpaLle by simply applying it to any classical or modern author, who has practised a variety of styles, but with a frequent recur- rence of the same ideas, for example, Horace, Goethe, Moore, or Byron. The practical value of the method may be best shewn by a comparative statement of its actual results in the hands of two contemporar}- ^mters, Ewald and Hendewerk, both of whom have followed this eccentric method in the printing of their Commentaries, to the great annoyance of the reader, even when assisted by an index. Without attending to the larger divisions or cycles introduced by either, a simple exhibition of the order in which the first chapters are arranged by these two writers, will be amply sufficient for our present purpose. Hendewerk's arrangement is as follows : — Chap. vi. ; chaps, i.-v. ; chap, vii. (vers. 1-9) ; chap. xvii. (vers. 1-14) ; chap. vii. (vers 10-25) ; chaps, viii. ix. ; chap. x. (vers. 1-27) ; chap. xiv. (vers. 24-27) ; chap. x. (vers. 28-34) ; chaps, xi. xii ; chap. xiv. (vers. 28-32) ; chaps, xv. xvi. ; chaps, xviii. xix. ; chap. xxi. (vers. 11-17); chap, xxiii. ; chaps, xxviii. xxix. ; chap. XX. ; chaps, xxxi. xxxii. ; chap. xxii. ; chap, xxxiii. ; chaps, xxxvi.- xxxix ; chaps, xxiv.-xxvii. ; chaps, xxxiv. xxxv. ; chap. xiii. ; chap. xiv. (vers. 1-28) ; chap. xxi. (vers. 1-10) ; chaps, xl.-lxvi. Ewald's aiTangement is as follows : — Chap. vi. ; chaps, ii.-iv. ; chap. V. (vers. 1-25) ; chap. ix. (vers. 7-20) ; chap. x. (vers. 1-4) ; chap. v. (vers. 26-30) ; chap. xvii. (vers. 1-11) ; chaps, vii. viii. ; chap. ix. (vers. 1-6) ; chap. xiv. (vers. 25-32) ; chaps, xv. xvi. ; chap. xxi. (vers. 11-17) ; chap, xxiii. ; chap. i. ; chap. xxii. ; chaps, xxviii. -xxxii. ; chap. xx. ; chap. X. (vers. 5-34) ; chap. xi. ; chap. xvii. (vers. 12-18) ; chap, xviii. ; chap, xiv. (vers. 24-27) ; chap, xxxiii. ; chap, xxxvii. (vers. 22-35) ; chap. xix. ; chap. xxi. (vers. 1-10) ; chap. xiii. ; chap. xiv. (vers. 1-23) ; chaps. xL- Ix-sa. ; chaps, xxxiv. xxxv. ; chap. xxiv. ; chap. xxv. (vers. 6-11) ; chap. XXV. (vers. 1-5) ; chap. xxv. (ver. 12) ; chaps, xxvi. xxvii. ; chap. xii. is rejected as of later origin, but without determining its date. These ar- rangements, and particularly that of Ewald, may be reckoned not only the latest but the last achievement of the higher criticism. " The force of nature can no further go." We need look for no invention beyond this, unless it be that of reading the book backwards, or shuffling the chapters like a pack of cards. Long before this, Gesenius had recoiled from the extremes to which the higher criticism tended, and attempted to occupy a middle ground, by blending the hj^Dothesis of J. H. Michaelis and Vitringa, or in other words assuming a regard both to chronological order and to the affinity of sub- jects, at the same time holding fast to the favourite idea of successive ad- ditions and distinct compilations. He accordingly assumes four parts or books. The first (chap, i.-xii.) consists of prophecies belonging to the earliest period of Isaiah's ministry, with the exception of a few interpola- tions. The sixth chapter should stand first, according to the Jewish tradition as recorded by Jarchi and Aben Ezra. The first chapter is somewhat later than the second, third, and foui'th. The seventh, though authentic, was probably not written by Isaiah. The eleventh and twelfth may also be spurious, but were early added to the tenth. This book he regards as the original collection, and the first verse as its original title or inscription. The second book (chap, xiii.-xxiii.) consists of prophecies against foreign nations, excepting chap, xxii., which he supposes to have found its way here from having been early joined with chap xxi, A charac- teristic feature of this book is the use of burden, as a title or inscription, 4G INTRODUCTION. whicli he thinks may be certainly ascribed to the compiler. The third book (chap, xxiv.-xxxv.) contains a series of genuine prophecies belonging to the rcifm of Hezekiah (chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii.), with two other series of later date, placed by the hand of a compiler at the beginning (chaps, xxiv.- xxvii.) and the end (chaps xxxiv. xxxv.) of this collection, while it was further augmented by a historical appendix (chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix.), in which Isaiah makes a prominent figure. The fourth and last book (chaps. xL- xlvi.), as Gescnius thinks, was added to the others long after the captivity. Here, as in other cases previously mentioned, Gesenius differs from his predecessors in the hir/her criticism, only in degi-ee, refusing to go with them in the application^of their principles, but holding fast the principles themselves. If, on the'one hand, he is right in assuming, upon mere con- jecture, several different collections of the writings of Isaiah formed succes- sively, and in rejecting, upon mere internal evidence, the parts which do not suit his purpose or his theory, then it is utterly impossible to give any definite reason for refusing our assent to the more thorough application of the same process by the bolder hand of Ewald. If, on the other hand, Gesenius is correct in drawing back from the legitimate results of such a theory, then it is utterly impossible to find a safe or definite position, without receding further and relinquishing the theory itself. This addi- tional reaction has not failed to take place in the progi'ess of the contro- versy. It is most distinctly marked and ably justified in Havernick's Introduction to Isaiah, where the author lays it down, not as a makeshift or a desperate return to old opinions without ground or reason, but as the natural result of philological and critical induction, that the WTitings of Isaiah, as now extant, form a compact, homogeneous, and well-ordered whole, proceeding, in the main, if not in all its parts, from the hand of the original author. Whoever has been called to work his way through the extravagant and endless theories of the 'higher criticism,' without those early prepossessions in its favour which grow with the growth of almost every German scholar, far from finding this new doctrine strange or arbi- trary, must experience a feeling of relief at thus landing from the ocean of conjecture on the terra firma of historical tradition, analogical reasoning, and common sense. The advantages of such a ground can be appreciated far more justly after such experience than before it, because then there mioht be a misgiving lest some one of the many possibiUties proposed as "^substitutes for immemorial tradition might prove true ; but now the reader, having found by actual experiment, not only that these ways do not lead him right, but that they lead him nowhere, fiills back with strong assurance, not by any means upon all the minor articles of the ancient creed, which he is still bound and determined to subject to critical investi- gation, but on the general presumption which exists in all such cases, that the truth of what is obvious to common sense and has been held from the beginning, instead of being the exception is the rule, to which the flaws, that may be really discovered by a microscopic criticism, are mere exceptions. That Havernick especially has not been governed by a love of novelty or opposition, is apparent from the fact of his retaining in its substance Gescnius's division and arrangement of the book, while he rejects the gratuitous assumptions held by that eminent interpreter in common with his predecessors. According to Havernick the whole book consists of five connected but distinguishable f/roups, or series of prophecies. The first group (chaps, i.-xii.) contains Isaiah's earliest prophecies, arranged in two INTRODUCTION. 47 series, easily distinguished by internal marks. The first six chapters have a general character, without certain reference to any particular historical occasion, which accounts for the endless diiference of opinion as to the precise date of their composition. The remaining six have reference to particular occasions, which are not left to conjecture but distinctly stated. They embrace the principal events under Ahaz, and illustrate the relation of the prophet to them. The sixth chapter, though descriptive of the prophet's ordination, holds its proper place, as an addendum to the fore- going prophecies, designed to justify their dominant tone of threatening and reproof. The second group (chaps, xiii.-xxiii.) contains a series of prophecies against certain foreign powers, shewing the relation of the heathen world to the theocracy, and followed by a sort of appendix (chaps, xxiv.-xxvii.), summing up the foregoing prophecies and shewing the results of their fulfilment to the end of lime. He maintains the genuineness of all the prophecies in this division and the correctness of their actual posi- tion. The apparent exception in chap. xxii. he accounts for, by supposing that Judah is there represented as reduced by gross iniquity to the condi- tion of a heathen state. Another explanation, no less natural, and more complete, because it accounts for the remarkable prophecy against an in- dividual in the last part of the chapter, is aiforded by the supposition, that Judah is there considered as subject to a foreign and probably a heathen influence, viz. that of Shebna. (See the details under chap, xxii.) Haver- nick's third group (chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii.) contains prophecies relating to a particular period of Hezekiah's reign, with a more general prospective sequel (chaps, xxxiv. xxxv.), as in the second. Here again he examines and rejects the various arguments adduced by modern critics to disprove the genuineness of certain parts. The fpurth group (chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix.) describes in historical form the influence exerted by the Prophet at a later period of the reign of Hezekiah. Kegarding this and the parallel part of Second Kings as collateral derivatives from a historical writing of Isaiah, Havernick is led by the mention in chap, xxxvii. 38, of an event which happened after the suppossd death of Isaiah, to ascribe that verse and the insertion of these chapters to a somewhat later hand. He maintains, how- ever, that so far from being inappropriate, they constitute a necessary link between the third group and the fifth (chap, xl.-lxvi.), in which the whole result of his prophetic ministrations to the end of time is vividly depicted. The critical and philological arguments of Havernick, in this part of his work, are eminently learned and ingenious, highly original and yet conservative of ancient and invaluable truth. A reference to them is the more important here because they came into my hands too late to influence the expositions of the present volume, the coincidence between them as to principle, if not in all particular conclusions, being only the more satisfac- tory and striking upon that account. The same remark applies, in some degree to Drechsler's Introduction, which may be considered as a further movement in the same direction, not occasioned by the other, but the fruit of independent labour in the same field and under the same influence. It is certainly an interesting and instructive fixct, that in two such cases, the conviction of the unity, integrity, and uncorrupted genuineness of the book before us, even as to its arrangement and the nexus of the parts, should have been reached without collusion, by a thorough sifting of the very arguments alleged against it by the ablest critics of the past and present generation. Drechsler's idea of Isaiah as a whole differs from Havemick's, in going further from the modern theory, retaining less of its substratum, 48 INTRODUCTION. the hypothesis of different collections, and ascribing to the book, as we possess it, a more absolute and perfect unity. Drechsler dismisses the whole question with respect to the precise date of particular passages, as equally insoluble and unimportant ; directs attention to the fact that through- out the book the only editor, compiler, or arranger, of whom any trace cau be discerned, is one who exercised the rights of an author; draws from this and other marks of an internal kind, a confirmation of the old opinion, that the form and the contents of the collection are, so far as we can hope to ascertain, from one and the same hand ; and thenceforth assumes it as a principle or maxim, that whatever may have been the date of any passage as originally uttered, we have no need or authority to trace it further back than its reduction to its present shape by the original author. With respect to the divisions of the book, his theory may seem at first sit^ht artificial, but is really distinguished by simplicity as well as ingenuity. He sets out by assuming two great crises or conjunctures in Isaiah's minis- try, about which all his prophecies may be arranged. The first is the invasion in the reign of Ahaz, the second the invasion in the reign of Hezekiah. These he regards as the centre of two great prophetic schemes or systems, forming one harmonious whole, but between themselves dis- tincjuished by the prevalence of threatening and reproof in one, of promise and consolation in the other. To each of these great critical events in the history corresponds a central point or focus in the prophecy, from which in both directions we may trace a regular connection in the book, stretching back into the past and forward into the future, in the way of preparation on the one hand and completion on the other. The focus of the fii'st great prophetic scheme he fixes in the seventh chapter, that of the other in the thirty-sixth and thirty- seventh. The sixth is a direct preparation for the seventh ; the fifth for the sixth ; the second, third, and fourth, for the fifth ; the first is a general introduction to the whole. Then on the other Bide, the promises and threatenings of the seventh chapter are repeated, amplified, and varied, first with respect to Judah and Israel in chaps, viii.-xii., then with respect to foreign powers in chaps, xiii.-xxiii., and lastly in a general summing up and application to all times and places in chaps, xxiv.-xxvii., which closes the fii'st system. The other central prophecy, in chaps, xxxvi. and xxxvii., is likewise introduced by a preparatory- series (chaps, xxviii.-xxxv.), all relating to Sennacherib's invasion, and on the other hand carried out, first historically (chaps, xxxvii. xxxix.), then prophetically (chaps, xl.-xlvi.) to the end of time. However fanciful or German this hypothesis may seem, it cannot be attentively considered without giving rise to this reflection, that a book affording the materials and conditions even for a fimciful device, of which unity and symmetry are essential elements, cannot well be a farrago of dis- cordant parts produced at random and combined by chance. The opposite hypothesis, if once assumed, can be applied with ease to any case, however clear the signs of unity may be, for the details of proof are all involved in the primary assumption ; but it is not quite so easy to maintain the hypo- thesis of harmony where harmony does not exist. It requires little inge- nuity or learning to discover and exaggerate appearances of discord even where there is agreement ; but to create the appearance of agreement in tlic midst of discord is beyond the reach of any sophistry or eloquence except the most consummate. The truth, however, seems to be, that Drechsler's theory, however fanciful it may appear, especially as stated l)y himself, is but another exhibition of the truth maintained by Havcruick, to INTRODUCTION. 49 wit, that the book before ns is, in form as well as substance, the original and genuine production of Isaiah. The view which has now been taken of the progress of opinion, with respect to the arrangement and division of the book before us, first its downward progress from a firm traditional belief to the extreme of a lawless and irrational scepticism, and then its upward course by dint of argument to an enlightened and confii-med historical assurance, makes it almost im- possible to close without a glance at the ulterior stages which may yet remain of this restorative process. Considering the principle on which it has been thus far carried on, the proved unsoundness of the contrary hypo- thesis, and the analogy of all like cases, it might plausibly be stated, as the probable result of this return to experience and common sense, that men whose eyes have thus been opened will eventually throw to the moles and to the bats the cherished figment, upon which a large part of their errors has been built, to wit, the groundless assumption, that the sacred writings of the Jews were passed from hand to hand by private circulation and transcription, like the Greek and Eoman classics, accidentally collected into volumes, mixed together, mutilated, magnified by forgery or ignorant interpolation, and at last sent down to us, to be the subject of empirical deci- sions without number or agreement. Or if this be gone already, it may be the next step to discard the notion, not monopolized by any class or school of critics, that the several parts of such a book as that before us were, and must have been, delivered as set speeches or occasional discourses, then reduced to writing one by one, and put together by degrees, or even by a later hand and in a distant age. On this gratuitous assumption rests a large part of the most perplexing difficulties which attend the critical inter- pretation of Isaiah, and which all would disappear if we could see sufficient reason to conclude, that the book is a continuous production of a single mind, at one great eff'ort, long protracted, it may be, but not entirely sus- pended, or renewed from time to time upon occasion. The mention of dis- tinct events and dates no more establishes the fact here questioned, than the sweep of Paul's chronology, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, proves that it was written piecemeal from the time of his conversion. All analogy, both scriptural and general, without some countervailing reason for believing otherwise, would favour the conclusion that a book like that before us was produced by a continuous eff'ort. But besides this negative presumption, we have one distinct example of the very thing proposed, or rather two, for it is matter of record that the prophet Jeremiah twice re- duced to writing, by divine command, the prophecies of many years (see Jer. xxxvi. 2, 4, 28, 32), or rather of his whole preceding ministry. If this be possible in one case, it is possible in others. If we have no diffi- culty in supposing that Jeremiah's constant inspiration was sufficient to ensure the truth of such a record, or that he was specially inspired for the very purpose, we need have none in supposing that Isaiah, in the last years of his ministry, recorded the whole series of his prophecies, and left them upon everlasting record, as we have them now. To us it matters little whether he recalled exactly the precise words uttered upon each occasion, or received by a new revelation such a summary as God was pleased to substitute instead of it. Our concern is not with prophecies now lost, whether written or oral, but with those now extant and recorded /or our learning. It is these, and only these, that we interpret, it is only these that can command our faith. The supposition now suggested, while it VOL. I. D 50 INTR OB JJCTION. would preclude a thousand petty questions gendered bj' the neological hypothesis, would also, when combined with the traditional devotion of the Jews to the preservation of their scriptures, furnish a solid ground for the belief, that what Isaiah •«Tote three thousand years ago we read to-day, without resorting to the needless supposition of a miracle, or shutting out the possibility of minor deviatioas from the autograph in every extant manuscript. All that we needed we should have, to wit, a rational assur- ance that the book, as a book, without descending to enumerate its letters, is precisely what it was, in form and substance, when originally written. If this supposition were assumed as the basis of our exposition, it would materially modify its foi-m, in some respects, by putting an end to the accustomed method of division into prophecies with separate dates, and in- troducing the same method which is practised with respect to Paul's epistles, or the undivided prophecies, like that of Hosca. The conventional division into verses and chapters (the latter wholly modem and in several instances absurd) might be retained as a convenient mode of reference ; but the exegetical division of the first part of Isaiah would no longer be historical or critical, but merely analytical and logical, as in the present universal mode of dealing with the last twenty-seven chapters of the book. In the exposi- tion of the prophecies from chaps, i. to xL, the usual distinctive plnn has been adopted, partly in deference to established custom and the authority of other writers, partly because the ideas just expressed were not assumed a jrrion, as an arbitrary basis of interpretation, but deduced from it a posteriori, as its actual result. In the mean time, it will be observed that various opportunities have been eml^raced, to check and counteract the tendency to needless or excessive subdivision. The prophecies expounded in the first part of the volume may be con- sidered introductory, in various respects, to the remainder of the book, not only because earher in date, nnd relating for the most part to a nearer futurity, but also as affording the only satisfactory data, upon which the exposition of the rest can be founded. II. THE LATER PROPHECIES, CHAPS. XL.-LXYI. One of the most important functions of the prophct'c office was the ex- position of the Law, that is to say, of the Mosaic institutions, the pecnliar form in which the Church was organized until the advent of Messiah. This inspired exposition was of absolute necessity, in order to prevent or to correct mistakes which were constantly arising, not only from the blindness and perversenoss of the people, but from the very nature of the system under which they lived. That system, being temporary and symbolical, was necessarily material, ceremonial, and restrictive in its forms ; as nothing purely spiritual could be symbolical or typical of other spiritual things, nor could a catholic or free constitution have secured the necessary segregation of the people from all others for a temporary purpose. The evils incident to such a state of things were the same that have occurred in many other like cases, and may all be derived from the superior influence of sensible objects on the mass of men, and from the consequent propensity to lose sight of the end in the use of the means, and to conlbund the sign with the thing signified. The precise form and degree of this perversion no doubt varied with the change of times and circumstances, and INTROBUCTION. 51 a corresponding difference must have existed in the action of the Prophets ■who were called to exert a corrective influence on these abuses. In the days of Hezekiah, the national corruption had already passed through several phases, each of which might still be traced in its effects, and none of which had wholly vanished. Sometimes the prevailing tendency had been to make the ceremonial form of the Mosaic worship, and its consequent coincidence in certain points with the religions of surrounding nations, an occasion or a pretext for adopting heathen rites and usages, at first as a mere extension and enlargement of the ritual itself, then more boldly as an arbitrary mixture of heterogeneous elements, and lastly as an open and entire substitution of the false for the true, and of Baal, Ashtoreth, or Moloch, for Jehovah. At other times the same corruption had assumed a less revolting form, and been contented with perverting the Mosaic institutions while externally and zealously adhering to them. The two points from which this insidious process of perversion set out were the nature and design of the ceremonial law, and the relation of the chosen people to the rest of men. As to the first, it soon became a current and at last a fixed opinion with the mass of irreligious Jews, that the ritual acts of the Mosaic service had an intrinsic efficacy, or a kind of magical effect upon the moral and spiritual state of the ■worshipper. Against this error the Law itself had partially provided by occasional violations and suspensions of its own most rigorous demands, plainly implying that the rites were not intrinsically efficacious, but significant of something else. As a single instance of this general fact it may be mentioned, that although the sacrifice of life is everywhere throughout the ceremonial law presented as the symbol of atonement, yet in certain cases, where the circumstances of the offerer forbade an animal oblation, he was suffered to present one of a vegetable nature, even where the service was directly and exclusively expiatory ; a substitution wholly inconsistent -with the doctrine of an intrinsic virtue or a magical effect, but perfectly in harmony Avith that of a symbolical and typical design, in which the uni- formity of the external symbol, although rigidly maintained in general, might be dispensed with in a rare and special case without absurdity or inconvenience. It might easily be shewn that the same corrective was provided by the Law itself in its occasional departure from its own requisitions as to time and place, and the officiating person ; so that no analogy whatever really exists between the Levitical economy, even as expounded by itself, and the ritual systems which in later times have been so confidently built upon it. But the single instance which has been alreadj^ cited will suffice to illustrate the extent of the perversion which at an early period had taken root among the Jews as to the real nature and design of their ceremonial services. The natural effect of such an error on the spirit and the morals is too obvious in itself, and too explicitly recorded in the sacred history, to require either proof or illustration. On the other great point, the relation of the Jews to the surrounding nations, their opinions seem to have become at an early period equally erroneous. In this as in the other case, they went wrong by a superficial judgment founded on appearances, by looking simply at the means before them, and neither forwards to their end, nor backwards to their origin. From the indisputable facts of Israel's divine election as the people of Jehovah, their extraordinary preservation as such, and their undisturbed ex- clusive possession of the -written word and the accompanying rites, they had 52 INTRODUCTION. drawn the natural but false conclusion, that this national pre-eminence was founded on intrinsic causes, or at least on some original and perpetual distinction in their favour. This led them to repudiate or forget the funda- mental truth of their whole history, to wit, that they were set apart and kept apart, not for the ruin and disgrace, but for the ultimate benefit and honour of the whole world, or rather of the whole Church which was to be gathered from all nations, and of which the ancient Israel was designed to be the symbol and the representative. As it had pleased God to elect a certain portion of mankind to everlasting life through Christ, so it pleased him that until Christ came, this body of elect ones, scattered through all climes and ages, should be represented by a single nation, and that this representative body should be the sole depository of divine truth and a divinely instituted worship ; while the ultimate design of this arrangement was kept constantly in view by the free access which in all ages was afforded to the Gentiles who consented to embrace the true religion. It is difficult indeed to understand how the Jews could reconcile the immemorial reception of proselytes from other nations, with the dogma of national superiority and exclusive hereditary right to the divine favour. The only solution of this singular phenomenon is furnished by continual recur- rence to the great representative principle on which the Jewish Church was organized, and which was carried out not only in the separation of the body as a whole from other men, but in the internal constitution of the body itself, and more especially in the separation of a whole tribe from the rest of Israel, and of a single family in that tribe from the other Levites, and of a single person in that famil}^ in whom was finally concentrated the whole representation of the Body on the one hand, while on the other he was a constituted t^'pe of the Head. If the Jews could have been made to understand or to remember that their national pre-eminence was representative, not original ; symbolical, not real ; provisional, not perpetual ; it could never have betrayed them into hatred or contempt of other nations, but would rather have cherished an enlarged and catholic spirit, as it did in the most enlightened ; an effect which may be clearly traced in the writings of Moses, David, and Isaiah. That view of the Mosaic dispensation which regards this Jewish bigotry as its genuine spirit is demonstrably a false one. The true spirit of the old economy was not indeed a latitudinarian indifierence to its institutions, or a premature anticipation of a state of things still future. It was scrupulously faithful even to the temporary institutions of the ancient Church ; but while it looked upon them as obligatory, it did not look upon them as perpetual. It obeyed the present requisitions of Jehovah, but still looked forward to something better. Hence the failure to account, on any other supposition, for the seeming contradictions of the Old Testament, in reference to the ceremonies of the Law. If worthless, why were they so conscientiously observed bj' the best and wisest men ? If intrinsically valuable, why are they disparaged and almost repudiated by the same men ? Simply because they were neither worthless nor intrinsically valuable, but appointed tempo- rary signs of something to be otherwise revealed thereafter ; so that it was equally impious and foolish to reject them altogether with the sceptic, and to rest in them for ever with the formalist. It is no less true, and for exactly the same reason, that the genuine spirit of the old economy Avas equally adverse to all religious mixture with the heathen or renunciation of the Jewish privileges on one hand, and to all contracted national conceit and hatred of the Gentiles on the other. Yet INTRODUCTION. 53 both these forms of error had become fixed in the Jewish creed and character long before the days of Hezekiah. That they were not universal even then, we have abundant proof in the Old Testament. Even in the worst of times, there is reason to believe that a portion of the people held fast to the true doctrine and the true spirit of the extraordinary system under which they lived. How large this more enlightened party was at any time, and to how small a remnant it was ever reduced, we have not the means of ascertaining ; but we know that it was always in existence, and that it con- stituted the true Israel, the real Church of the Old Testament. To this class the corruption of the general body must have been a cause not only of sorrow but of apprehension ; and if express prophetic threaten- ings had been wanting, they could scarcely fail to anticipate the punishment and even the rejection of their nation. But in this anticipation they were themselves liable to error. Their associations were so intimately blended with the institjitions under which they lived, that they must have found it hard to separate the idea of Israel as a chm'ch from that of Israel as a nation ; a difficulty similar in kind, however diflferent in degree, f'-om that which we experience in forming a conception of the continued existence of" the soul without the body. And as all men, in the latter case, however- fully they may be persuaded of the separate existence of the spirit and of' its future disembodied state, habitually speak of it in terms strictly appli- cable only to its present state, so the ancient saints, however strong their - faith, were under the necessity of framing their conceptions, as to future things, upon the model of those present ; and the imperceptible extension of this process beyond the limits of necessity, would natm-ally tend to gene- rate errors not of form merely but of substance. Among these we may readily suppose to have had place the idea, that as Israel had been unfaith- ful to its trust, and was to be rejected, the Church or People of God must as a body share the same fate ; or in other words, that if the national Israel perished, the spiritual Israel must perish with it, at least so far as to be disorganized and resolved into its elements. The same confusion of ideas still exists among the uninstructed classes, and to some extent among the more enlightened also, in those countries where the Church has for ages been a national establishment, and scarcely known in any other form ; as, for instance, in Sweden and Norway among Pro- testants, or Spain and Portugal among the Papists. To the most devout in such communities the downfall of the hierarchical establishment seems per- fectly identical with the extinction of the Church ; and nothing but a long course of instruction, and perhaps experience, could enable them to form the idea of a disembodied, unestablished Christian Church. If such mis- takes are possible and real even now, we have little reason either to dispute their existence or to wonder at it, under the complicated forms and in the imperfect light of the Mosaic dispensation. It is not only credible but altogether natural, that even true believers, unassisted by a special revela- tion, should have shunned the extreme of looking upon Israel's pre-eminence among the nations as original and perpetual, only by verging towards the opposite error of supposing that the downfall of the nation would involve the abolition of the Chm-ch, and human unbelief defeat the purposes and make void the promises of God. Here then are several distinct but cognate forms of error, which appear to have gained currency among the Jews before the time of Hezekiah, in relation to the two great distinctive features of their national condition, the ceremonial law and their seclusion from the Gentiles. Upon each of these 54 INTRODUCTION. points there were two slifidcs of opinion entertained by very diflferent classes. The Mosaic ceremonies were with some a pretext for idolatrous observances ; •while others rested in them, not as types or symbols, but as efficacious means of expiation. The pre-eminence of Israel was by some regarded as perpetual ; while others apprehended in its termination the extinction of the Church itself. These various forms of error might be variously com- bined and modified in different cases, and their general result must of course have contributed largely to determine the character of the Church and nation. It was not, perhaps, until these errors had begun to take a definite and settled form among the people, that the Prophets, who had hitherto con- fined themselves to oral instruction or historical composition, were dii-ected to utter and record for constant use discourses meant to he corrective or condemnatory of these dangerous perversions. This may at least be re- garded as a plausible solution of the fact that prophetic writing in the strict sense became so much more abundant in the later days. of the Old Testa- ment histoi-y. Of these prophetic writings, still preserved in our canon, there is scarcely any part which has not a perceptible and direct bearing on the state of feeling and opinion which has been described. This is empha- tically true of Isaiah's Earlier Prophecies, which, though so various in form, are all adapted to correct the errors in question, or to establish the antago- nistic truths. This general design of these predictions might be so used as to throw new light upon their exposition, by connecting it more closely with the prevalent errors of the ancient Church than has been attempted in our Commentaiy on that portion of the book. Guided even by this vague suggestion, an attentive reader will be able for the most part to determine with respect to each successive section whether it was speedily intended to rebuke idolatry, to rectify the errors of the formalist in reference to the ceremonial system, to bring down the aiTogance of a mistaken nationality, or to console the true believer by assuring him that though the carnal Israel should perish, the true Israel must endure for ever. But although this purpose may be traced, to some extent, in all the pro- phecies, it is natural to suppose that some part of the canon would be occupied with a direct, extensive, and continuous exhibition of the truth upon a subject so momentous ; and the date of such a prophecy could scarcely be assigned to any other period so naturally as to that which has been specified — the reign of Hezekiah, when all the various forms of error and corruption which had successively prevailed were coexistent, when idolatry, although suppressed by law, was still openly or secretly practised, and in many cases superseded only by a hypocritical formality and ritual religion, attended by an overweening sense of the national pre-eminence of Israel, from which even the most godly seem to have found refuge in despondent fears and sceptical misgivings. At such a time, — when the theocracy had long si.nce reached and passed its zenith, and a series of providential shocks, with intervals of brief repose, had already begun to loosen the foundations of the old economy in preparation for its ultimate removal,— such a discourse as that supposed must have been eminently seasonable, if not absolutely needed, to rebuke sin, correct error, and sus- tain the hopes of true believers. It was equally important, nay, essential to the great end of the temporary system, that the way for its final abroga- tion should be gradually prepared, and that in the mean time it should bo maintained in constant operation. If the circumstances of the times which have been stated are enough to INTR OB UCTION. 55 make it probable that such a revelation would be given, tbey will also aid us in determiniug beforehand, not in detail, but in the general, its form and character. The historical occasion and the end proposed would naturally lead us to expect in such a book the simultaneous or alternate presentation of a few great leading truths, perhaps with accompanying refutation of the adverse errors, and with such reproofs, remonstrances, and exhortations, promises and threateniugs, as the condition of the people springing from these errors might require, not only at the date of the prediction, but in later times. In executing this design, the prophet might have been expected to pursue a method more rhetorical than logical, and to enforce his doc- trine, not so much by dry didactic statements as by animated argument, combined with earnest exhortation, passionate appeals, poetical apostrophes, impressive repetitions, and illustrations drawn both from the ancient and the later history of Israel. In fine, from what has been already said it follows that the doctrines which would naturally constitute the staple of the prophecy in such a case, are those relating to the true design of Israel's vocation and seclusion from the Gentiles, and of the ceremonial institu- tions under which he was in honourable bondage. The sins and errors which find their condemnation in the statement of these truths are those of actual idolatry, a ritual formality, a blinded nationahty, and a despondent apprehension of the failure of Jehovah's promise. Such might even a priori be regarded as the probable structure and complexion of a prophecy or series of prophecies intended to secure the end in question. K the per- son called to this important service had already been the organ of divine communications upon other subjects, or with more direct reference to other objects, it would be reasonable to expect a marked diversity between these former prophecies and that uttered under a new impulse. Besides the very great and striking difference which must always be perceptible between a series of detached compositions, varying, and possibly remote from one another as to date, and a continuous discourse on one great theme, there would be other unavoidable distinctions springing directly from the new and wide scope of prophetic vision, and from the concentration in one vision of the elements difi'used through many others. This diversity would be enhanced, of course, by any striking difference of outward circumstances, such as the advanced age of the writer, his matured experience, his seclusion from the world and from active life, or any other changes which might have the same effect ; but even in the absence of these outward causes, the diver- sity would still be very great and unavoidable. From these probabilities let us now turn to realities. Precisely such a book as that described is extant, having formed a part of the collection of Isaiah's Prophecies as far back as the history of the canon can be traced, without the slightest vestige of a different tradition among Jews or Chris- tians as to the author. The tone and spirit of these chapters are precisely such as might have been expected from the circumstances under which they are alleged to have been written, and their variations from the earlier chap- ters such as must havfe been expected from the change in the circumstances themselves. A cursory inspection of these Later Prophecies is enough to satisfy the reader that he has before him neither a concatenated argument nor a mass of fragments, but a continuous discourse, in which the same great topics are continually following each other, somewhat modified in form and com- bination, but essentially the same from the beginning to the end. If re- quired to designate a single theme as that of the whole series, we might 56 INTRODUCTION. safely give the preference to Israel, the Peculiar People, the Church of the Old Testament, its origin, vocation, mission, sins and sufferings, former ex- perience, and final destiny. The doctrine inculcated as to this great suh- ject, may be summarily stated thus. The race of Israel was chosen from among the other nations, and maintained in the possession of peculiar pri- vileges, not for the sake of any original or acquti-ed merit, but by a sovereign act of the divine will ; not for their own exclusive benefit and aggrandisement, but for the ultimate salvation of the world. The cere- monies of the Law were of no intrinsic efficacy, and when so regarded and relied on, became hateful in the sight of God. Still more absurd and impious was the practice of analogous ceremonies, not in obedience to Jehovah's will, but in the worship of imaginary deities or idols. The Levitical rites, besides immediate uses of a lower kind, were symbols of God's holiness and man's corruption, the necessity of expiation in general, and of expiation by vicarious sufiering in particular. Among them there were also types, prophetic symbols, of the very form in which the gi-eat work of atonement was to be accomplished, and of Him by whom it was to be performed. Until this work was finished, and this Saviour come, the promise of both was exclusively entrusted to the chosen people, who were bound to preserve it both in its ^mtten and its ritual form. To this mo- mentous trust a large portion of the nation had been unfaithful, some avowedly forsaking it as open idolaters, some practically betraying it as formal hypocrites. For these and other consequent ofiences, Israel as a nation was to be rejected and deprived of its pre-eminence. But in so doing God would not cast off his people. The promises to Israel, con- sidered as the people of Jehovah, should endure to the body of believers, the remnant accordinrf to the election of fjntce. These were in fact from the beginning the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham, the Jews who were Jews inicardhj. In these the continued existence of the Church should be secured and perpetuated, first within the limits of the outward Israel, and then by the accession of believing Gentiles to the spiritual Israel. When the fulness of time should come for the removal of the temporary and re- strictive institutions of the old economy, that change should be so ordered as not only to effect the emancipation of the Church from ceremonial bond- age, but at the same time to attest the divine disapprobation of the sins committed by the carnal Israel throughout their history. While these had everj'thing to fear from the approaching change, the spiritual Israel had everything to hope, — not only the continued existence of the Church, but its existence under a more spiritual, free, and glorious dispensation, to be ushered in by the appearance of that Great DeHverer towards whom the ceremonies of the Law all pointed. From this succinct statement of the Prophet's doctrine, it is easy to account for some peculiarities of form and phraseology ; particularly for the constant alternation of encouragement and threatening, and for the twofold sense or rather application of the national name, Israel. This latter usage is explained by Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans (chap. ii. 17-29 ; ix. 6-9 ; xi. 1-7), where the very same doctrine is propounded in relation to the ancient Church that we have just obtained by a fair induction from Isaiah's later Prophecies. There is in fact no part of the Old Testament to which the New affords a moro decisive key in the shape of an authoritative and inspired interpretation. Another peculiarity of form highly important in the exposition of these Prophecies, is the frequent introduction of allusions to particular events in ; INTRODUCTION. 57 the history of Israel, as examples of the general truths so constantly re- peated. The events thus cited are not numerous, but of the greatest mag- nitude, such as the calling of Abraham, the exodus from Eg}^pt, the destruc- tion of Babylon, the return from exile, and the advent of Messiah. These events have sometimes been confounded by interpreters, and even so far misconceived as to put a new and false face on the whole prediction, as we shall have occasion more explicitly to state below. At present, let it be observed that the prophetical discourse is continually varied and relieved by these historical allusions. The fairest and the most decisive test by which the foregoing views of the design and subject of these Later Prophecies can be tried, is one within the reach of any reader who will take the trouble to apply it, by a careful perusal of the prophecies themselves, even without any other comment than the general suggestions which have been already made. If this should still prove insufficient to estabHsh the correctness of the esegetical hypothesis proposed, that end may still be answered by comparing this hypothesis with others which have more or less prevailed among interpreters. Let us first compare with the hypothesis just stated, the one assumed wholly or in part by Cocceius and others, who appear disposed to recog- nise in these Later Prophecies specific periods and events in the history of the Christian Church. Of this abundant illustration will be given in the Commentary on the Prophecies themselves. Meantime, it may be stated in the general, that besides the arbitrary character of such interpretation, and the infinite diversity which it exhibits in the hands of difl'erent writers, it creates the necessity of putting the most forced interpretations on the plainest terms, and of denying that Babylon, Israel, &c., were intended to mean Babylon, Israel, &c., in any sense warranted by Hebrew usage. And even in those parts of the Prophecy v/hich do refer to later times and to the new dispensation, these interpreters are under the necessity of violating one of the most strongly marked peculiarities of this whole book, viz., the general view which it exhibits of the new dispensation as a whole, from its inception to its consummation, as contrasted with the more specific mention of particular events before the change, even when future to the Prophet's own times. This mode of exposition, at least in its extreme forms, has received its most efiective refutation from the lapse of time. When we find such writers as Cocceius, and less frequently Vitringa, seeking the fulfil- ment of grand prophecies in petty squabbles of the Dutch Church or Republic, which have long since lost their place in general history,^ the practical lesson thus imported is of more force than the most ingenious arguments, to shew that such interpretation rests upon a false hypothesis. A very difierent fate has been experienced by the ancient and still current doctrine, that the main subject of these Prophecies throughout, is the resto- ration from the Babylonish exile. While this hypothesis has been assumed as undeniable by many Christian writers, it aflbrds the whole foundation of the modern neological criticism and exegesis. It is worth while, therefore, to examine somewhat closely the pretensions of this theory to general reception. In the first place, let it be observed how seldom, after all, the book men- tions Babylon, the Exile, or the Restoration. This remark is made in reference to those cases only where these subjects are expressly mentioned, i.e. either named totidem verbis, or described in terms which will apply to nothing else. An exact enumeration of such cases, made for the first time, might surprise one whose previous impressions had been all derived fi-om the sweeping declarations of interpreters and critics. It is true the cases 58 INTR OB UCTION. may be vastly multiplied by taking into account all tlio indirect allusions which these writers are accustomed to assume, i.e. by applying to the Exile all the places and particular expressions which admit by possibility of such an application. Having first inferred from the explicit prophecies respecting Babylon, that this is the great subject of the book, it is perfectly easy to apply to this same subject hundreds of phrases in themselves inde- finite and wholly dependent for specific meaning upon some hypothesis like that in question. The necessary tendency of such a method to excess, is illustrated by the gradual advances of the later German writers in the specific explanation of these chapters. Where Rosenmiiller and Gesenius were contented to find general poetical descriptions of the Exile and the Restoration, Hitzig detects precise chronological allusions to particular campaigns and battles in the progress of C}tus ; and this again is pushed so far by Heudewerk and Knobel, that they sometimes find more striking and minute coincidences between this Hebrew writer and Herodotus or Xenophon, than any of the old-fashioned orthodox writers ever dreamed of finding between him and the New Testament. To hear these wi-iters talk of the battle of Pasargada, the defeat of Neriglassar, the first and second attack on Babylonia, the taking of Sardis, &c., &c., we might fancy ourselves listening to Eusebius or Cocceius, with a simple substitution of profane for sacred histor}'. The fallacy of this mode of interpretation Ues in the fact that the inde- finite expressions thus applied to one event or series of events, might just as naturally be applied to others, if these others were first fixed upon as being the main subject of the whole composition. Thus, all admit that there are frequent allusions in these later chapters to the exodus from Egypt. Now if any interpreter should be intrepid and absurd enough to argue that they must have been composed by Moses, and that the great deliverance then wrought must be the subject of the whole book, whatever difficulties, and however insurmountable, this doctrine might encounter in a different direction, it could find none in adapting what is said of crossing seas and rivers, opening fountains, journeys through the desert, subjuga- tion of enemies, rest in the promised land, &c. &c., to the original exodus, with far less violence than to the restoration from captivity. It is equallj' true, but in a less degree, that Grotius, who refers some portions of this book to the period of the Maccabees, is perfectly successful, .after having once assumed this as the subject, in accommodating to it many of the very same expressions which another class of writers no less confidently claim as clear allusions to the Babylonian exile. The fallacy of such cxcgetical reasoning may be further exposed by applying the same process to a distinct but analogous case. Tn the Epistle to the Romans, Paul is now almost universally regarded as foretelling tho restoration of the Jews to the fixvour of God. Assuming this to be the theme not only of those passages in which it is expressly mentioned, but of the whole Epistle, an interpreter of no great ingenuity might go completely through it, putting upon every general expression a specific sense, in strict agreement with his foregone conclusion. All that relates to justification might be limited to the Jews of some future day ; the glorious truth that there is no condemnation to believers in Christ Jesus, made a specific and exclusive promise to converted Jews ; and the precious promise that all things shall work together for good to them that love God, made to mean that all events shall be so ordered as to bring about the future restoration of tho Jews. The very absurdity of such conclusions makes them better INTRODUCTION. 59 illustrations of the erroneous principles involved in similar interpretations of tlie more obscure and less familiar parts of Scripture. Setting aside the cases which admit of one application as well as another, or of this application only because of a foregone conclusion, the truth of which cannot be determined by expressions deriving their specific meaning from itself, let the reader now enumerate the instances in which the refer- ence to Babylon, the Exile, and the Kestoration, is not only possible but necessary. He must not be surprised if he discovers as the fruit of his researches, that the Prophet speaks of Babylon less frequently than Egypt; that the ruins, desolations and oppressions, which he mentions in a multi- tude of places are no more Babylonian than Egyptian or Roman in the text itself, and only made so by the interest or fancy of some wi'iters, the authority of others, and the easy faith of the remainder. In opposition to these strained conclusions, we have only to propound the obvious supposition that the downfall of Babylon is repeatedly men- tioned, like the exodus from Egypt, as a great event in the history of Israel ; but that the subject of the prophecy is neither the Egyptian nor the Babylonian bondage, nor deliverance from either, but the whole condition, character, and destiny of Israel as the chosen people and the Church of the Old Testament. All the hypotheses which have been mentioned are agreed^in assuming the unity of these predictions as the product not only of a single age, but of a single writer. This unity, however, was by no means recognised by those who first applied the principles and methods of the Higher Criticism to Isaiah. The earliest hint of any new discovery is commonly ascribed to Koppe, who, in a note upon his German edition of Bishop Lowth's work, suggests that the fiftieth chapter may have been written by Ezekiel or some other Jew in exile. A similar opinion was expressed about the same time by Doderlein and Eichhorn with respect to the entire latter part of Isaiah. The same liypothesis was then carried out in detail by Justi, and adopted by Bauer, Paulus, Bertholdt, and Augusti ; so that not long after the begin- ning of this century, it was established as the current doctrine of the Ger- man schools. This revolution of opinion, though ostensibly the pure result of critical analysis, was closely connected with the growing unbelief in inspiration, and the consequent necessity of explaining away whatever appeared either to demonstrate or involve it. It must also be noted as a circumstance of great importance in the history of this controversy, that the young theolo- gians of Germany for fifty years were almost as uniformly taught and as constantly accustomed to assume the certainty of this first principle, as their fathers had been to assume the contrary. This fact will enable us to estimate at something like their real value the pretensions to superior can- dour and impartiality advanced by the neological interpreters, and more espe- cially by some of recent date, who are in truth as strongly biassed by the prejudice of education as their immediate predecessors by the love of novelty and passion for discovery. The defenders of the unity of this part of Isaiah were in process of time relieved from much of the irksome task which they had undertaken by the concessions of the adverse party, that the Higher Criticism had been pushed too far, and made to prove too much ; in consequence of which a retroces- sion became necessary, and in fact took place under the guidance of new leaders, not without an earnest opposition on the part of the original dis* . covei-ers. > 60 IXTB GL ZrCTION. This retreat was effected with great skill and conduct, but with no small sacrifice of logical consistency, by Gesenius in the Introduction to his second volume. Without any appeal to general principles or any attempt to distinguish clearly between what he abandons as " extreme" and what he adopts as rational conclusions, he proceeds, by his favourite method of accumulation and arrangement of particulars, to prove that these twenty- seven chapters are the work of the same author, and that in the main they are still in the same order as at first, the only material exception being a Burmise that the last chapters may possibly be older than the first ; which seems to have been prompted by a natural reluctance to acknowledge that an ancient composition could remain so long unchanged, not without a misgiving with respect to the influence which this concession might exert hereafter on the criticism of the earlier chapters. Although Gesenlus's argument in favour of the unity of these predictions is entirely successful, a large proportion of his detailed proofs are quito superfluous. It is an eiTor of this German school, and of its imitators elsewhere, that identity of authorship must be established by minute resem- blances of diction, phraseology, and sjTitax, which are therefore raked together and displayed with a profusion far more confounding than con- vincing to the reader. To the great mass of cultivated minds, conviction in such cases is produced by data not susceptible of exhibition in the form of schedules, catalogues, or tables, but resulting from a general impression of continuity and oneness, which might be just as strong if not a single phrase or combination occurred more than once, and the want of which could never be supplied by any number or servility of verbal repetitions. It is thus that the modern imitators of the classics may be almost infal- libly detected, though their diction be but a cento of quotations from their favourite author, renewed and multiplied usque ad nauseam; while the original is known wherever he appears, however innocent of copying himself. This error of the higher or lower criticism, even when enlisted on the right side of a question, it is important to expose ; because many of its boasted triumphs in behalf of error have been gained by the very pelilesse of its expedients. The readers of Isaiah, in particular, have often been bewildered and unfairly prepossessed against the truth, by the interminable catalogues of Hebrew words and phrases which are crowded into prefaces and introductions as preliminary proofs of a position that can only be estab- lished, if at all, by the cumulative weight of a detailed interpretation ; the eflect of which is often to expose the absolute futility of arguments, considered one by one and in their proper place, which seem to gain reality and force by insulation from the context, and by being thrown together in crude masses, or forced into unnatural protrusion by the forms of a sys- tematic catalogue. The minute details which constitute this portion of Gcsenius's argument against the fragmentary theory, must be sought in his own work, or in those which have transcribed it. Much more important and conclusive is that part of his argument derived from the unquestionable fact, that certain threads may be traced running through the entire texture of these Later Prophecies, sometimes dropjied but never broken, crossing each other, and at times appearing to bo hopelessly entangled, but all distinguished, and yet all united in the denouement. The perpetual recurrence and succession of these topics is correctly' represented by Gesenius as the strongest proof of unity. In opposition to Augusti, who alleges that some topics are more INTRODUCTION. 61 prominent at first than afterwards, and vice versa, Gesenlus replies that progress and variety are perfectly consistent with the strictest unity ; that the author's ideal situation is the same throughout ; and that all the topics which become more prominent as he proceeds, had at least been lightly touched before, to which he adds another list of verbal parallels between the parts described as most dissimilar. (See Gesen. Comm., vol. ii. p. 15.) This reasoning is worthy of particular attention, on account of its remarkable affinity with that by which the defenders of the old opinions have maintained the genuineness of disputed places in the Earlier Pro- phecies, against objections of Gesenius himself, precisely analogous to those of Augusti which he here refutes. It would greatly contribute to the correct decision of these questions, among men who are accustomed to the weighing of evidence on other subjects, if their attention could be drawn to the facility with which the same degree and kind of proof are admitted or excluded by the Hif:;her Critics, according to the end at which they happen to be aiming. Perhaps one of our most valuable safeguards against German innovations is afforded by our civil institutions, and the lifelong familiarity of our people, either through the press or by personal participa- tion, with the public administration of justice and the practical discrimina- tion between truth and falsehood ; an advantage which never can be replaced by any method or amount of mental cultivation. If then these twenty-seven chapters are confessedly the work of one man, and indeed a continuous discourse on one great subject, and if a perfectly uniform tradition has attached them to the writings of Isaiah, it remains to be considered whether we have any reason to deny or even to dispute the fact so solemnly attested. All the presumptions are in favour of its truth. For two thousand years, at least, the book was universally regarded as Isaiah's, and no other name has ever been connected with it even by mistake or accident. It is just such a book as the necessities of that age might have been expected to call forth. Its genuineness, there- fore, as a writing of Isaiah, is not a fact requiring demonstration by detailed and special proof, but one attested both by its external history and its in- ternal structure, unless positive reasons can be given for rejecting a con- clusion which appears not only obvious but unavoidable. Among the objections to Isaiah as the author of these later chapters, there are two upon which the whole weight of the argument depends, and to which all others may be reckoned supplementary. The fijrst of these has reference to the matter of the prophecies, the second to their form. The latter is entirely posterior in date, and has been growing more and more prominent, as the necessity of something to sustain the first and main objection has been forced upon its advocates by the resistance which it has encountered. This chronological relation of the two main objections is here stated not only as a curious fact of literary history, but also as directly bearing on the issue of the whole dispute, for reasons which will be explained below. The first and main objection to the doctrine that Isaiah wTote these chapters, although variously stated by the writers who have urged it, is in substance this : that the prophet everywhere alludes to the circum- stances and events of the Babylonish exile as those by which he was him- self surrounded, and with which he was familiar, from which his conceptions and his images are borrowed, out of which he looks both at the future and the past, and in the midst of which he must as a necessary consequence have lived and written. 62 INTRODUCTION. This objection involves two assumptions, both which must be true, or it is wholly without force. One of these, viz., that the Babylonish exile is the subject of the whole book, has already been disproved ; and there is strictly, therefore, no need of considering the other. But in order that the whole strength of our cause may be disclosed, it will be best to shew that even if the supposition just recited were correct, the other, which is equally essential to the truth of the conclusion, is entirely unfounded. This is the assumption that the local and historical allusions of a prophet must be always those of his own times. Some of the later German writers try to rest this upon general grounds, by alleging that such is the invariable practice of the Hebrew prophets. But as the book in question, i. e. the latter portion of Isaiah, is admitted by these very critics to deserve the highest rank among prophetic writings, and to have exercised a more extensive influence on later writers and opinions than any other, it is unreasonable to appeal to a usage of which the book itself may be considered as a normal standard. It is in fact a begging of the question to deny that such was the prophetic usage, "when that denial really involves an allegation that it is not so in the case before us. Another answer to this argument from usage may be drawn from the analogy of other kinds of composition, in which all grant that a writer may assume a " Standpunkt " different from his own, and personate those earlier and later than himself. The classical historians do this -when they put their own words into the mouths of ancient heroes and statesmen ; the dramatic poets when they carry out this personation in detail ; and still more imaginative writers, when they throw themselves into the future, and surroimd themselves by circumstances not yet in existence. If it be natu- ral for poets thus to speak of an ideal future, why may not prophets of a real one ? The only answer is, because they cannot know it ; and to this point all the tortuous evasions of the more reserved neologists as surely tend as the positive averments of their bolder brethren. In every form, this argument against the genuineness of the book before us is at bottom a denial of prophetic inspiration as impossible. For if the prophet could foresee the future, his allusions only prove that he did foresee it ; and the positive assertion that the prophets never do so, unless it be founded upon this hypothesis, is just as foolish as it would be to assert that historians and poets never do the like. Unless we are prepared to go the same length, we cannot consistently reject these prophecies as spurious, on the ground that they allude to events long posterior to the writer's times, even if these allusions were as numerous and explicit as we have seen them to be few when clear, and in all other cases vague and doubtful. It has indeed been said, in confirmation of this main objection, that a real foresight would extend to more remote as well as proximate events, whereas in this case what relates to the period of the Exile is minutely accurate, while all beyond is either blank or totally erroneous ; in proof of ■which we are rcfeiTcd to the extravagant descriptions of the times which should succeed the Restoration. Both parts of this reasoning rest upon a false assumption as to the space which is occupied in this book by the Babylonish Exile. If, as we have seen or shall see, the alleged minute descriptions of that period are ima- ginary', and if the alleged extravagant descriptions of its close relate to events altogether different, then this auxiliary argument must shiU'e the fate of that which it is brought in to sustain. To this same categoiy INTR OB UCTION. 63 appertains the special objection founded on the mention of Cyrus by name. That it may readily be solved by an application of the same principle will be shewn in the exposition of the passage where the prophecy occurs. (See below, chap, xlv.) Another erroneous supposition, which has tended to confirm this first objection to the genuineness of the Later Prophecies is, that they must have been intended solely for the contemporaries of the writer. This hypothesis is closely connected with the denial of divine inspiration. The idea that Isaiah wi-ote for after ages is of course a "■ niclitxge Annalime'' to an infidel. The Prophet's work, according to this theory, is more confined than that of the orator or poet. These may be said to labour for posterity; but his views must be limited to those about him. Ewald alone of those who deny a real inspiration (unless Umbreit may be likewise so described) admits a far-reaching purpose in the ancient prophecies. The rest appear to be agreed that nothing could be more absurd than consolation under sorrows which were not to be experienced for ages. Here again may be seen the working of a double error, that of making the exile the great subject of the book, and that of denying that it could have been foreseen so long before- hand. Of all the evils afterwards matured, the germ, if nothing more existed in Isaiah's time. And even if it did not, their appearance at a later date might well have been predicted. If the book, as we have reason to believe, was intended to secure a succession of the highest ends : the warn- ing and instruction of the Prophet's own contemporaries, the encourage- ment and consolation of the pious exiles, the reproof and conviction of their unbelieving brethren, the engagement of the Persians and especially of Cyrus in the service of Jehovah, the vindication of God's dealings with the Jews both in wrath and mercy, and a due preparation of the minds of true believers for the advent of Messiah : then such objections as the one last cited must be either unmeaning and impertinent, or simply equivalent to a denial of prophetic inspiration. To the same head may be referred those objections which have been derived from the alleged appearance of opinions in these chapters which are known to have arisen at a later period. Besides the palpable petitio jjrincipii involved in such an argument, so far as it assumes that to be late which these prophecies if genuine demonstrate to be ancient, there is here again a confident assumption of a fact as certain which at best is doubtful, and in my opinion utterly unfounded, namely, that the strict obsen^ance of the Sabbath and a particular regard to the Levitical priesthood and the sanctu- ary, all belong to a species of Judaism later than the times of the genuine Isaiah. It is by thus assuming their own paradoxical conclusions as un- questionable facts, that the Higher Critics of the German school have been enabled to construct some of their most successful arguments. All that need be added in relation to the arguments against the genuine- ness of these chapters drawn from their matter or contents, is the general observation that their soundness may be brought to the test by inquiring whether they do not either take for granted something as belonging to the prophecy which is not found there by a simple and natural interpretation, or proceed upon some general false principle, such as the denial of prophetic inspiration as impossible. If either of these flaws is fatal to the argument afiected by it, how much more must it be vitiated by the coexistence of the two, Nvhich is the case in many minor arguments of this class, and empha-. tically true of that main argument to which they are auxiliary, namely, that Isaiah cannot be the writer of these chapters on account of their minute 64 INTROBUCTION. and constant reference to the Babylonian Exile. The alleged fact and the inference are equally unfounded. The other main objection to the genuineness of these prophecies is founded not upon their matter but their manner, or in other words, their diction, phraseolo7'5? in the sense of bringing up, but ^I^POII in that oi exalting to peculiar privileges, which disturbs the metaphor, and violates the usage of the two verbs, which are elsewhere joined as simple synonymes. (See chap, xxiii. 7 ; Ezek. xxxi. 4.) Both terms are so chosen as to be applicable, in a lower sense, to children, and in a higher sense, to nations. — The English Bible and many other versions read Jehovah has spjoken, which seems to refer to a previous revelation, or to indicate a mere repetition of his words, whereas he is himself introduced as speaking. The preterite may be here used to express the present, for the purpose of suggesting that he did not thus speak for the first time. Compare Heb. i. 1. 3. Having tacitly compared the insensible Jews with the inanimate creation, he now explicitly compares them with the brutes, selecting for that purpose two which were especially famihar as domesticated animals, sub- jected to man's power and dependent on him for subsistence, and at the same time as proverbially stupid, inferiority to which must therefore be peculiarly disgraceful. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib or feeding-place. Israel, the chosen people, as a whole, without re- gard to those who had seceded from it, doth not know, mg 2^<^ople doth not consider, pay attention or take notice. Like the ox and the ass, Israel VOL. I. F 82 ISAIAH I [Vee. 4, 5. had a master, upon -whom be was dependent, and to whom he owed obedi- ence ; but, unlike tbem, be did not recognise and woukl not serve bis rightful sovereign and the author of bis mercies. — The Scptuagint supplies vie after know and consider (/is oux 'iyvu . . . . /zs od auvrixsv). Tbe Vul- gate, followed by Micbaelis, Lowth, and others, supplies me after tbe fii'st verb, but leaves tbe other indefinite. Gesenius, De Wette, and Hendewerk supply him, referring to oniier and master. Clcricus, Ewald, and Umbreit take the verbs in the absolute and general sense of having knowledge and being considerate, which is justified by usage, but gives less point and pre- cision to the sentence. 4. As tbe foregoing verses render prominent the false position of Israel with respect to God, considered first as a father and then as a master (comp. Mai. i. 6), so this brings into view their moral state in general, resulting from that alienation, and still represented as inseparable from it. The Prophet speaks again in his own person, and expresses wonder, pity, and indignation at the state to which his people had reduced themselves. Ah, sinful nation, literally nation sinning, i. e. habitually, which is the force here of the active participle, people heavy ivith iniquity, weighed down by guilt as an oppressive burden, a seed of evil-doers, i.e. the oflspring of wicked parents, sons corrupting themselves, i. e. doing worse than their fathers, in which sense tbe same verb is used. Judges ii. 19. (Calvin : filii degeneres.) The evil-doers are of course not the Patriarchs or Fathers of the nation, but the intervening wicked generations. As the first clause tells us what they were, so tbe second tells us what they did, by what acts they had merited the character just given. They have forsaken Jehovah, a phrase descriptive of iniquity in general, but peculiarly expressive of tbe breach of covenant obligations. They have treated ivith contempt the Holy One of Israel, a title almost peculiar to Isaiah, and expressing a twofold aggrava- tion of their sin: first, that he was infinitely excellent; and then, that be was theirs, their own peculiar God. They are alienated back again. Tbe verb denotes estrangement from God, the adverb retrocession or backsliding into a former state. — By a seed of evil-doers most writers understand a race or generation of evil-doers, and by children corrupting (their ways or them- selves, as Abcn Ezra explains it) nothing more than wicked men. Gesenius and Henderson render D"'ri"'np'?p corrupt, Barnes corrupting others. The sense of mischievous, destructive, is given by Luther, and the vague one of wicked by the Vulgate. Tbe other explanation, which supposes an allusion to tbe parents, takes Vlt and CJS iu their proper meaning, makes the paral- lelism of the clauses more complete, and converts a tautology into a climax. — The sense of Uasphoning given to |*?<3 by the Vulgate and Luther, and that of provoking to anger by the Septuagint, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and others, are rejected by the modern lexicographers for that of despising or treating with contempt. Tbe last two are combined by Junius (contcmtim irritave- run) and the old French Version (ils out irrite par mepris). — Tbe Niphal form •1"1T3 is by most writers treated as simply equivalent in meaning to the Kal — ' they have departed;' but the usage of the participles active and passive (Ps. Ixix. 9) in the sense of strange and estranged, is in favour of the inter- pretation given by Aquila and Theodotion, d'7rriX'>.orPiu)i)7]aav iig tu oitisu. 5. To tbe description of their moral state, beginnning and ending with apostasy from God, the Prophet now adds a description of the consequences, Ters. 5-9. This be introduces by an expostulation on their mad perseverance in transgression, notwithstanding the extremities to which it had reduced them. W'hcrcujwn, i.e. on what part of the body, can ye be stricken, Tee. C] > ISAIAH I 83 smitten, punished, any more, that ye add revolt, departure or apostasy from God, i. e. revolt more and more ? Alread}' the ivhole head is sick and the whole heart faint. — The same sense is attained, but in a less striking form, by reading, with Hitzig, ichy, to what purpose, ivill ye be smitten any more ? ivhy continue to revolt? If their object was to make themselves miserable, it was alread}^ accomplished. — Calvin, followed by the English \'ersion and others, gives a different turn to the interrogation : Why should ye he smitten any more? of what use is it? ye will revolt more and more. But the reason thus assigned for their ceasing to be smitten is wholly different from that given in the last clause and amplified in the following verse, viz. that they were already faint and covered with wounds. The Vulgate version (super quo percutiemini ?) is retained by Luther, Lowth, Gesenius, and others. The very same metaphor occurs more than once in classical poetry. Lowth quotes examples from Euripides and Ovid (vix habet in nobis jam nova plaga locum). — Hendewerk supposes the people to be asked where they can be smitten with effect, i. e. what kind of punishment will do them good ; but this is forced, and does not suit the context. Ewald repeats ivhereupon before the second verb : ' upon what untried transgression build- ing, will ye still revolt ? which is needless and unnatural. — Instead of the ivhole head, the whole heart, Winer and Hitzig render every head and every heart, because the nouns have not the article. But see chap. ix. 11; Ps. cxi. 1 ; the omission of the article is one of the most familiar licences of poetry. The context too requires that the words should be applied to the head and heart of the body mentioned in ver. 6, viz. the body politic. — The head and heart do not denote different ranks (Hendewerk), or the inward and outward state of the community (Umbreit), but are mentioned as well-known and important parts of the body, to which the church or nation had been likened. — Gesenius explains vn? to mean in sickness, Ewald (inclined to sickness, Knobel (belonging) to sickness, Clericus (given up) to sickness, RosenmiiUer (abiit) in morhum. The general sense is plain from the parallel term "'H, faint or languid from disease. 6. The idea suggested at the beginning of ver. 5, that there was no more room for fui'ther strokes, is now carried out with great particularity. From the sole of the foot and {i. e. even) to the head (a common scriptural expression for the body in its whole extent) there is not in it (the people, or in him, i. e. Judah, considered as a body) a sound x>lace ; {it is) ivoiind and bruise QmujXu-^, vibex, the tumour produced by stripes) and fresh stroke. The wounds are then described as not only grievous, but neglected. They have not been pressed, and they have not been bound or bandaged, and it has not been mollified with ointment, all familiar processes of ancient surgery. — Calvin argues that the figures in this verse and the one preceding cannot refer to moral corruption, since the Prophet himself afterwards explains them as descriptive of external sufferings. But he seems to have intended to keep up before his readers the connection between suffering and sin, and therefore to have chosen terms suited to excite associations both of pain and corruption. — The last verb, which is singular and feminine, is supposed by Junius and J. H. Michaelis to agree with the nouns distributively, as the others do collectively; "none of them is mollified with ointment." Ewald and Umbreit connect it with the last noun exclusively. All the verbs are rendered in the singular by Cocceius and Lowth, all in the plural by Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis. The most probable solution is that pro- posed by Ivnobel, who takes Hp?"! indefinitely, " it has not been softened,"^ i.e. no one has softened, like the Latm ventum est for " some one came." 84 ISAIAH I [Yer. 7, 8. This construction, although foreign from our idiom, is not uncommon in Hebrew. — n*np n3D is not a ninniiuj or ptitirfyiufi sore (Eng, Yers. Barnes), but a recently inflicted stroke. — The singular nouns may be regarded as collectives, or -with better effect, as denoting that the bod}' was one wound, &c. — The suffix in 13 cannot refer to ri*1^ understood (Henderson), which would require i^3. — Dnp may be an abstract meaning soundness (LXX. oho-/.'Kr,Dia), but is more probably a noun of place from Ofori. 7. Thus far the sutierings of the people have been represented by strong figures, giving no intimation of their actual form, or of the outward causes which produced them. But now the .Prophet brings distinctly into view foreign invasion as the instrument of vengeance, and describes the country as already desolated by it. The absence of verbs in the first clause gives great rapidity and life to the description. Your land (including town and countiy, which are afterwards distinctly mentioned) a irastc ! Your toirns (including cities and ^^llages of every size) burnt with fire! Your rj round (including its produce), i. e. as to your gi-ound, before you (in your pre- sence, but beyond your reach {strangers [are) devouring it, and a irasie (it is a waste) like the overthrow of strangers, i. e. as foreign foes are wont to waste a country in which they have no interest, and for which they have no pity. (Yulg. sicut in vastitate hostili.) — As D''"}T often includes the idea of strangers to God and the true religion, and as nDQHD in every other in- stance means the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Hitzig and Ewald adopt Kimchi's explanation of this clause, as containing an allusion to that event, which is the great historical t}'pe of total destruction on account of sin, often referred to elsewhere, and in this verj' context, two verses below. This exposition, though ingenious, is unnecessar}', and against it Ues almost the whole weight of exegetical authority. — Sadias explains Q^"?) not as a pliu'al but a singular noun derived from DIJ to fiow or overfiow, in which he is followed by Dciderlin and Lowth (" as if destroj'ed by an in- undation"). But no such noun occurs elsewhere, and it is most impro- bable that two nouns, wholly ditferent in meaning yet coincident in form, would be used in this one sentence. 8. The extent of the desolation is expressed by comparing the church or nation to a watch-shed in a field or vineyard, far from other habitations, and forsaken after the ingathering. And the daughter of Zion, i. e. the people of Zion or Jerusalem, considered as the capital of Judah, and therefore representing the whole nation, is left, not forsaken, but left over or behind as a survivor, like a booth, a temporary covert of leaves and branches, in a vineyard, like a lodge in a melon-field, like a watched city, i. e. watched by friends and foes, besieged and ganisoned, and therefore insulated, cut off from all communication with the country. — Interpreters, almost without exception, explain daughter of Zion to mean the city of Jerusalem, and suppose the extent of desolation to be indicated by the metropolis alone remaining unsubdued. But on this supposition they are forced to explain how a besieged city could be like a besieged city, either by saying that Jerusalem only sufiered as if she were besieged (Ewald) ; or by taking the 3 as a caph reritatis expressing not resemblance but iden- tity, " like a besieged city as she is " (Gesen. ad loc. Henderson) ; or by reading " so is the besieged city " (Gesen. Lex. Man.) : or by gratuitously taking nn-IV? TJ? in the sense of " turris custodiae " or watch-tower (Ting- stad. Hitzig. Gesen. Thes.). If, as is commonly supposed, daughter of Zion primarily signifies the people of Zion or Jerusalem, and the city only by a transfer of -the figure, it is better to retain the former meaning in a Yee. 9, lO.j ISAIAH L 85 case where departure from it is not only needless but creates a difficulty in the exposition. According to Hengstenberg (Comm. on Psalm ix. 15), dauglUer of Z ion means the daughter Zion, as city of Rome means the city Rome. But even granting this, the church or nation may at least as natu- rally be called a daughter, i. e. virgin or young woman, as a city. That Jerusalem is not called the daughter of Zion from its local situation on the mountain, is clear from the analogous phrases, daughter of Tyre, daughter of Babylon, where no such explanation is admissible. — The meaning saved, preserved, which is put upon nn-li'^ by Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Gesenius in bis Commentary, seems inappropriate in a description of ex- treme desolation, but does not materially atfect the interpretation of the passage. 9. The idea of a desolation almost total is expressed in other words, and with an intimation that the narrow escape was owing to God's favour for the remnant according to the election of grace, who still existed in the Jewish church. Except Jehovah of hosts had left unto its (or caused to remain over, to survive, for us) a very small remnant, ue should have been like Sodom, we should have resembled Gomorrah, i. e. we should have been totally and justly destroyed. — By the very small remnant Rnobel under- stands the city of Jerusalem, compared with the whole land and all its cities ; Clericus the small number of surviving Jews. But that the verse has reference to quality as well as quantity, is evident from Rom. ix. 29, where Paul makes use of it, not as an illustration, but as an argument to shew that mere connection with the church could not save men from the wrath of God. The citation would have been irrelevant if this phrase denoted merely a small number of survivors, and not a minority of true believers in the midst of the prevailing unbelief. — Clericus explains Jeho- vah of Hosts to mean the God of Battles ; but it rather means the Sove- reign Ruler of " heaven and earth and all the host of them," i. e, all their inhabitants (Gen. ii. 1). — Lowth and Barnes translate t^yp? soon, as in Ps. Ixxxi. 15 ; but the usual translation agrees better with the context and with Paul's quotation. 10. Having assigned the conaiption of the people as the cause of their calamities, the Prophet now guards against the error of supposing that the sin thus visited was that of neglecting the external duties of religion, which were in fact punctiliously performed, but unavailing because joined with the practice of iniquity, vers. 10-15. This part of the chapter is connected with what goes before by repeating the allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah. Having just said that God's sparing mercy had alone prevented their re- sembling Sodom and Gomorrah in condition, he now reminds them that they do resemble Sodom and Gomorrah in iniquity. The reference is not to particular vices, but to general character, as Jerusalem, when reproached for her iniquities, "is spiritually called Sodom" (Rev. xi. 8). The com- parison is here made by the form of address. Hear the word of Jehovah, ye judges (or rulers) of Sodom ; give ear to the laiv of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. Word and law both denote the revelation of God's will as a rule of faith and duty. The particular exhibition of it meant, is that which follows, and to which this verse invites attention Uke that frequent exhorta- tion of our Saviour, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. — Junius, J. D. Michaelis, and the later Germans, take nniR iu the general sense of doctrine or instruction, which, though favoured by its etymology, is not sustained by usage. Knobel, with more probabiUty, supposes an allusion to the ritual or sacrificial law ; but there is no need either of enlarging or restrict- 86 ISAIAH I. [Yer. 11, 12. in2 the meaninf; of the term. — The collocation of the word is not intended to suggest that the rulers and the people were as much alike as Sodom and Gomorrah (Calvin), but to produce a rhythmical efiect. The sense is that the rulers and people of Judah were as guilty as those of Sodom and Gomorrah. 11. Resuming the fonn of interrogation and expostulation, he teaches them that God had no need of sacrifices on his own account, and that even those sacrifices which he had required might become offensive to him. For uhat (for what purpose, to what end, of what use) is the muhitvtlc of your sncrijices to me (/. e. ofiered to me, or of what use to me) ■ saith Jehovah. I inn fall [i.e. sated, I have had enough, I desire no more) of hurnt-ojf'er- i)uis of rams and the fat of fed leasts (fattened for the altar), a)id the blood of bullocks and lambs and he-gnats I desire not (or delight not in). Male animals arc mentioned, as the only ones admitted in the nVy or burnt-offer- ing ; the fat and blood, as the parts in which the sacrifice essentially con- sisted, the one being always burnt upon the altar, and the other sprinkled or poured around it. Hendewerk and Henderson suppose an allusion to the excessive multiplication of sacrifices ; but this, if alluded to at all, is not the prominent idea, as the context relates wholly to the spirit and con- duct of the ofierers themselves. — Some German interpreters affect to see an inconsistency between such passages as this and the law requiring sacri- fices. But these expressions must of course be interpreted by what follows, and especially by the last clause of ver. 13. — Bochart explains Q''^?''"]P as denoting a species of wild ox ; but wild beasts were not received in sacrifice, and this word simply suggests the idea of careful preparation and assiduous compliance with the ritual. Aben Ezra restricts it to the larger cattle, Jarchi to the smaller ; but it means fed or fattened beasts of either kind. 12. What had just been said of the ofierings themselves, is now said of attendance at the temple to present them. When you come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my courts, not merely to fi'equent them, but to trample on them, as a gesture of contempt ? The courts here meant are the enclosures around Solomon's temple, for the priests, worshippers, and victims. The interrogative form implies negation. Such appearance, such attendance, God had not required, although it was their duty to frequent his courts. — Cocccius takes ""S in its ordinary sense, without a. material change of meaning : ' that ye come, &c., who hath re- quired this at your hands ? ' Junius makes the first clause a distinct inter- rogation (quod advenitis, an ut appareatis in conspectu meo '?), Ewald sees in the expression at your hand, an allusion to the sense of pou-er, in which \* is sometimes used ; but the expression, in its proper sense, is natural and common after verbs of giving or demanding. — Hitzig supposes the tram- pling mentioned to be that of the victims, as if he had said. Who hath re- quired you to profane my courts by the feet of cattle ? But the word appears to be applied to the worshippers themselves in a twofold sense, which cannot be expressed by any single woi-d in English. They were bound to tread his courts, but not to trample them. Yitringa lays the emphasis on your : Who hath required it at ?/o»j- hands, at the hands of such as you ? Umbreit strangely thinks the passive verb emphatic : when you come to be seen and not to see. The emphasis is really on this. Who hath required this, this sort of attendance, at your hands'? One manu- script agrees with the Peshito in reading ri1S"^7 lo see ; but tlic common reading is no doul)t the true one, *JS being used adverbially for the full form '7^ or *J3 n^, which is elsewhere construed with the same passive verb (Exod. xxiii. 17 ; xxxiv. 23, 24). Yee. 13, U.\ ISAIAH I 87 13. What lie said before of animal sacrifices and of attendance at the temple to present them, is now extended to bloodless ofi'erings, such as incense and the nn^p or meal-oflering, as well as to the observance of sacred times, and followed by a brief intimation of the sense in which they were all unacceptable to God, viz. when combined with the practice of iniquity. The interrogative form is here exchanged for that of direct pro- hibition.. Ye shall not add (/. e. continue) to hrinrj a vain offering (that is, a useless one, because hypocritical and impious). Incense is an abomina- tion to me: (so are) new moon and sabbath, tlie calling of the convocation (at those times, or at the annual feasts, which are then distinctly mentioned with the weekly and monthly ones) : / cannot bear iniquitg and hohj day (abstinence from labour, religious obsen'ance), meaning of course, I cannot bear them together. This last clause is a key to the preceding verses. It was not religious observance in itself, but its combination with iniquity, that God abhorred. Aben Ezra : '^1)))) DU pfJ b)2t>b i'i'!-' ''<':• J. H. Michaelis: ferre non possum pravitatem et ferias, qufe vos conjungitis. So Cocceius, J. D. Michaehs, Gesenius, Ewald, Hendei'son, &c. Other constructions inconsistent with the Masoretic accents, but substantially aftbrding the same sense, as those of Rosenmiiller (" as for new moon, sabbath, &c., I cannot bear iniquity," &c.) and Umbreit (" new moon and sabbath, iniquity and holy day, I cannot bear"). Another, varying the sense asv\^ell as the con- struction, is that of Calvin (solennes indictiones non potero — vana res est — nee cdnventum) copied by Vitringa, and, with some modification, by the English Version, Clericus and Barnes ("it is iniquity — even the solemn closing meeting "), which violates both syntax and accentuation. Clericus and Gesenius give to vain oblation the specific sense oi false ox hypocritical; J. D. Michaehs, Hitzig, and Ewald, that of sinful ; Cocceius that of 2we- sumptuous (temerarium) ; but all these seem to be included or implied in the old and common version rain or worthlf^ss. (LXX. ij^araiov. Vulg. frustra. Luther, vergeblich.) Cocceius and Ewald construe the second member of the sentence thus : " it (the meal-oflering) is abominable incense to me ;" which is very harsh. The modern lexicographers (Gesenius, Winer, Fiirst) make convocation or assembly the primary idea of "Tiyy ; but all agi-ee that it is used in applications to time of religious observ- ance. 14. The very rites ordained by God himself, and once acceptable to him, had, through the sin of those who used them, become irksome and disgust- ing. Your new moons (an emphatic repetition, as if he had said. Yes, your new moons) and your convocations (sabbaths and yearly feasts) my soul hateth (not a mere periphrasis for / hate, but an emphatic phrase denoting cordial hatred, q. d. odi ex animo), they have become a burden on me (im- plying that they were not so at fu'st), / am weary of bearing (or have wearied myself bearing them). — Lowth's version months is too indefinite to repre- sent D''Ei'nn, which denotes the beginnings of the lunar months, observed as sacred times under the law of Moses (Num. xxviii. 11 ; x. 10). Kocher supposes they are mentioned here again because they had been peculiarly abused ; but Henderson explains the repetition better as a rhetorical epana- lepsis, resuming and continuing the enumeration in another form. Heng- stenberg has shewn (Christol. vol. iii. p. 87) that DnyiD is appHed in Scrip- ture only to the Sabbath, passover, pentecost, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles. The common version of the second clause {they are a trouble unto me) is too vague. The noun should have its specific sense of burden, land, the preposition its proper local sense of on, and the verb with ? its 88 ISAIAH I [Ver. 15, IG. usual force, as signifj-ing not mere existence but a change of state, in which sense it is thrice used in this very chapter (vers. 21, 22, 31). The last particular is well expressed by the Septuagint {iyiwri&rir'i ixoi) and Vulgate (facta sunt mihi), and the other two by Calvin (superfuerunt mihi loco oneris), Vitringa (incumbunt mihi instar oneris), Lowth (they are a burden upon me), and Gesenius (sie sind mil- zur Last) ; but neither of these ver- sions gives the full force of the clause in all its parts. The Septuagint, the Chaldec Paraphrase, and Symmachus take KL"3 in the sense of foniivinfj, which it has in some connections ; but the common meaning agrees better wath the parallel expression, load or burden. 15. Not only ceremonial observahces but even prayer was rendered useless by the sins of those who offered it. And in your spreading (when you spread) ijour hands (or stretch them out towai-ds heaven as a gesture of entreaty) 2 trill hide mine eyes from you (avert my face, refuse to see or hear, not only in ordinary but) also when ye multijdy prayer (by fervent importunity in time of danger) 1 am not hearing (or about to hear, the par- ticiple bringing the act nearer to the present than the future would do). Your hands are full of blood (literally bloods, the foi-m commonly used when the reference is to bloodshed or the guilt of murder). Thus the Prophet comes back to the point from which he set out, the iniquity of Israel as the cause of his calamities, but with this difference, that at first he viewed sin in its higher aspect, as committed against God, whereas in this place its injurious effects on men are rendered prominent. — By multiplying prayer Henderson understands the jSaTTokoyia or vain repetition condemned by Christ as a customaiy error of his times ; but this would make the threat- ening less impressive. The force of D5 as here used {not only this but, or nay more) may be considered as included in the old English, yea, of the common version, for which Lovrth and Henderson have substituted even. The latter also takes ''3 in the sense of though, without effect upon the meaning of the sentence, and suggests that the preterite at the end of the verse de- notes habitual action ; but it simply denotes previous action, or that their hands were already full of blood. Under blood or murder Calvin supposes all sins of violence and gross injustice to be comprehended; but although the mention of the highest crime against the person may suggest the others, they can hardly be included in the meaning of the' word. — Junius and piericus translate Q"'P^ murders (cajdibus plenaj) ; but the literal translation is at once more exact and more expressive. It is a strange opinion men- tioned by Fabricius (Diss. Phil. Theol. p. 329) that the blood here meant is the blood of the victims hvpocritically offered. — For the form D3^''"iS see Nordheimcr, §§ 101, 2, a. '470. 16. Having shewn the insufficiency of ceremonial rites and even of more spiritual duties to avert or cure the evils which ihe people had brought upon themselves by their iniquities, he exhorts them to abandon these and urges reformation, not as the causa ijua but as a causa sine qua imn of deliverance and restoration to God's favour. ]Vash you (-l^'DT a word appropriated to ablution of the body as distinguished from all other washings), iiurify your- selves (in a moral or figurative sense, as appears from what follows). Re- viore the evil of your doings from before mine eyes (out of my sight, which could only be done by putting an end to them, an idea literally expressed in the last clause), cease to do evil. — Luther, Gesenius, and most of the late writers render y"> as an adjective, ijour evil doings ; but it is better tn retain the abstract form of the original, with Ewald, Lowth, Vitringa, and the ancient versions, — In some of the older versions whhv^ is loosely and Vkk. 17, 18.] ISAIAH I 89 variously rendered. Tlius the LXX. have souls, the Vulgate thowjhts, Cal- vin desires, Luther your evil nature. The meaning of the term may now be looked upon as settled. — Some have understood //o??* before mine eyes as an exhortation to reform not only in the sight of man but in the sight of God ; and others as implying that their sins had been committed to God's face, that is to say, with presumptuous boldness. But the true meaning seems to be the obvious and simple one expressed above. ICnobel imagines that the idea of sin as a pollution had its origin in the ablutions of the law ; but it is perfectly familiar and intelligible wherever conscience is at all en- lightened.— Aben Ezra explains -ISM as the Hithpael of '"IDT, to which Hitzig and Henderson object that this species is wanting in all other verbs beginning with that letter, and that according to analogy it would be -IS^til. They explain it therefore as the Niphal of "^5^ 5 l^^t Gesenius (in his Lexi- con) objects that this would have the accent on the penult. Compare Nordheimer § 77, 1. c. 17. The negative exhortation is now followed by a positive one. Ceasing to do evil was not enough, or rather was not possible, without beginning to do good. Learn to do good, implying that they never yet had known what it was. This general expression is explained by several specifications, shewing how they were to do good. Seek judgment, i. e. justice ; not in the abstract, but in act ; not for yourselves, but for others ; be not content with abstinence from wrong, but seek opportunities of doing justice, espe- cially to those who cannot right themselves. Redress ivrong, judge the father- less, i. e. act as a judge for his benefit, or more specifically, do him justice ; befriend ike ividow, take her part, espouse her cause. Orphans and widows are continually spoken of in Scripture as special objects of divine compas- sion, and as representing the whole class of helpless innocents. — By learn- ing to do good, Musculus and Hitzig understand forming the habit or accustoming one's self; but the phrase appears to have a more emphatic meaning. — Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, and Knobel, take fiJ^n in the active sense of an oppressor, or a proud and wicked man, and understand the Prophet as exhorting his readers to conduct or guide such, /. e. to re- claim them from theii- evil courses. The Septuagint, the Yulgate, and the Kabbins, make fil^n a passive participle, and the exhortation one to rescue the oppressed [ovoaak ddiKQu/x-ivov, subvenite oppresso), in which they are followed by Luther, Calvin, Cocceius, Rosenmiiller, Henderson, and Um- breit. Vitringa adopts Bochart's derivation of the word from f^^ to ferment (emendate quod corri:ptum est) ; but Maurer comes the nearest to the truth in his translation (aBquum facite iniquum). The form of the word seems to identify it as the infinitive of Y^^, i. q. DOn,to be violent, to do violence, to injure. Thus understood, the phrase forms a Imk between the general expression seek justice and the more specific one do justice to the orphan. The common version of the last clanse {plead for the loidoiv) seems to apply too exclusively to advocates, as distinguished from judges. 18. Having shewn that the cause of their ill-success in seeking God was in themselves, and pointed out the only means by which the evil could be remedied, he now invites them to determine by experiment on which side the fault of their destruction lay, promising pardon and deliverance to the penitent, and threatening total ruin to the disobedient, vers. 18-20. — -This verse contains an invitation to discuss the question whether God was willing or unwilling to shew mercy, imptying that reason as well as justice was on his side, and asserting his power and his willingness to pardon the most aggravated sins. Come now (a common formula of exhortation) and let us 90 ISAIAH I. Ver. 19-21. reason (argue, or discuss the case) tor/ether (the form of the verb denoting a reciprocal action), sciith Jehovah, Thour/h your sins he as scarlet, they shall he ivhite as snoir ; tlioii[/h they he red as crimson, they shall he as icool, i.e. clean white wool. Guilt being regarded as a stain, its removal denotes restoration to purity. The implied conclusion of the reasoniny is that God's willingness to pardon threw the blame of their destruction on them- selves.— Gesenius understands this verse as a threatening that God would contend with them in the way of vengeance, and blot out their sins by con- dign punishment ; but this is ioconsistent with the reciprocal meaning of the verb. Umbreit regarJs the last clause as a threatening that theii' sins, however deeply coloured or disguised, should be discoloured, i.e. brought to light ; an explanation inconsistent with the natural and scriptural usage of ivliite and red to signify innocence and guilt, especially that of murder. J. D. Michaelis and Augusti make the verbs in the last clause interrogative: ** Shall they be white as snow '? " /, e. can I so regard them ? implying that God would estimate them rightly and reward them justly. This, in the absence of the interrogative particle, is gratuitous and arbitrary. Clericus understands the first clause as a proposition to submit to punish- ment (turn agite, nos castigari patiamur, ait cnim Jehova) ; but although the verb might be a simple passive, this construction arbitrai-ily supposes two speakers in the verse, and supplies for after the first verb, besides making the two clauses inconsistent ; for if they were pardoned, why sub- mit to punishment ? According to Kimchi, the word translated crimson is a sti-onger one than that translated scarlet; but the two are commonly combined to denote one colour, and are here separated only as poetical equivalents. 19. The unconditional promise is now qualified and yet enlarged. If obedient, they should not only escape punishment but be highly favoured. If ye consent to my terms, and hear my commands, implying obedience, the good of the land, its choicest products, ye shall eat, instead of seeing them devoured by strangers. — Luther and others understand consent and hear as a hendiadys for consent to hear (wollt ihr mir gehorchen); but this is forbidden by the parallel expression in the next verse, where refuse and rebel cannot mean refuse to rebel, but each verb has its independent mean- ing. LXX. Buv '^;}.ri7i xa) s/Vaxoiiffjjrj fiov. Yulg. si volueritis et audieritis. So Gesenius, Ewald, &c. 20. This is the converse of the nineteenth verse, a threat corresponding to the promise. And if ye refuse to comply with my conditions, and rehel, continue to resist my authority, hy tiw sword of the enemy shall ye he eaten. This is no human menace, but a sure prediction, /oc the mouth of Jehovali speaks, not man's. Or the sense may be, the mouth of Jehovah has spoken or ordained it. (Targ. Jon. p "ITJ "'H {<1Q''0, the word of Jehovah has so decreed.) — According lo Gesenius, -"IP^SJil literally means ye shall he caused to he devoured hy the sword, i. c. I cause the sword to devour yon. But, as Hitzig observes, the passive causative, according to analogy, would mean ye shall he caused to devour, and so he renders it (so miisset ihr das Schwerdt verzehren). But in every other case, where such a metaphor occurs, the sword is not said to be eaten, but to eat. (See Deut. xxxii. 42; Isa. xxxiv. G; 2 Sam. ii. 20.) The truth is that ?3»^ is nowhere else a causative at all, but a simple passive, or at most an intensive passive of 7?« (see Exod. iii. 2 ; Neh. ii. 3, IB). 21. Here the Prophet seems to pause for a reply, and on receiving no response to the promises and invitations of the foregoing context, bursts Ver. 22-24.] ISAIAH I 91 forlli into a sudden exclamation at the change which Israel has undergone, which he then describes both in figurative and literal expressions, vers. 21-23. In the verse before us he contrasts her former state, as the chaste bride of Jehovah, with her present pollution, the ancient home of justice with the present haunt of cruelty and violence. How has site become an harlot (faithless to her covenant with Jehovah), the faithful city {'^l'}\? ct.od not by the conversion of the wicked rulers, but by tilling their places with better men. Jnd I will restore, bring back, cause to return, thy judges, rulers, as at first, in the earliest and best days of the commonwealth, and thy counsellors, ministers of state, as in the beginning, after irhich it shall he called to thee, a Hebrew idiom for thou shah be called, i.e. deservedly, with truth, City of Ilighteous- Ver. 27, 28.] ISAIAH I 93 nen!^, a faithful State. There is here a twofold allusion to ver. 21. She who from being a faithful wife had become an adulteress or harlot, should again be what she was ; and justice which once dwelt in her should return to its old home. — It is an ingenious but superfluous conjecture of Vitringa, that Jerusalem was anciently called p^V as well as o7l^ (Gen. xiv. 18), since the same king bore the name of pHV"'??^ (king of righteousness) and D!?£^' V.''P (king of peace), and a later king (Josh. x. 1) was called P'l^'"*y'lK (lord of righteousness). The meaning of the last clause would then be that the city should again deserve its ancient name, which is substantially its meaning now, even without supposing an allusion so refined and far-fetched. 27. Thus far the promise to God's faithful people and the threatening to his enemies among them had been intermingled, or so expressed as to involve each other. Thus the promise of purification to the silver involved a threatening of destruction to the dross. But now the two elements of the prediction are exhibited distinctlj^ and first the promise to the church. Zion, the chosen people, as a whole, here considered as consisting of be- lievers only, shall be redeemed, delivered from destruction, in judgment, i.e. in the exercise of justice upon God's part, and her converts, those of her who return to God by true repentance, in righteousness, here used as an equivalent to justice. — Gesenius and the other modern Germans adopt the explanation given in the Targum, which assumes in judgment and in right- eousness to mean by the practice of righteousness on the part of the people. Calvin regards the same words as expressive of God's rectitude, which would not suffer the innocent to perish with the guilty. But neither of these interpretations is so natural in this connection as that which understands the verse to mean that the very same events, by which the divine justice was to manifest itself in the destruction of the wicked, should be the occa- sion and the means of a deliverance to Zion or the true people of God. — The Soptuagint, Peshito, and Luther, understand by n''3C' her captivity or captives (as if from n^tJ^), Calvin and others her returning captives (qui re- ducentur ad eam) ; but the great majority of writers, old and new, take the word in a spiritual sense, which it frequently has elsewhere. See for example chap. vi. 10. 28. The other element is now brought out, viz. the destruction of the wicked, which was to be simultaneous and coincident with the deliverance promised to God's people in the verse preceding. And the breaking, crush- ing, utter ruin, of apostates, revolters, deserters from Jehovah, and sinners, is or shall be together i.e. at the same time with Zion's redemption, and the forsakers of Jehovah, an equivalent expression to «^j>os/ates in the first clause, shall cease, come to an end, be totally destroj^ed. The terms of this verse are appropriate to all kinds of sin, but seem to be peculiarly descriptive of idolatry, as defection or desertion from the true God to idols, and thus pre- pare the way for the remainder of the chapter, in which that class of trans- gressors are made prominent. — Umbreit supplies no verb in the first clause, but reads it as an exclamation ; " Ruin to apostates and sinners all together ! " which is extremely harsh without a preposition before the nouns. Ewald, more grammatically, " Ruin of the evil-doers and sinners altogether ! " But the only natm'al construction is the common one. — Some writers under- stand together as expressing the simultaneous destruction of the two classes mentioned here, apostates and sinners, or of these considered as one class and the forsakers of Jehovah as another. But the expression is far more emphatic, and agrees far better with the context, if we understand it as con- necting this destruction with the deliverance in ver. 27, and as being a 94 ISAIAH I. [Ver. 29, 30. final repetition of the tmtli stated in so many forms, that the same judg- ments which destroyed the wicked should redeem the righteous, or in other •words, that the purification of the church could be effected only by the excision of her wicked members. — Junius differs from all others in sup- posing the metaphor of ver. 25 to be here resumed. " And the fragments ("13L*') of apostates and of sinners likewise, and of those who forsake Jehovah, shall fail or be utterly destroyed." 29. From the final destruction of idolaters the Prophet now reverts to their present security and confidence in idols, which he tells them shall be put to shame and disappointed. For they shall he ashamed of the oaks or terebinths uhich ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the rjardens which ye have chosen as places of idolatrous worship. Paulus and Hitzig think that nothing more is here predicted than the loss of the fine pleasure- grounds in which the wealthy Jews delighted. But why should this part of their property be specified in threatening them with total destruction ? And whv should they be ashamed of these favourite possessions and con- founded on account of them ? As these are tei-ms constantly employed to express the frustration of religious trust, and as groves and gardens are continually spoken of as chosen scenes of idol- worship (see for example chaps. Ixv. 3; Ixvi. 17; Ezek. vi. 13; Hos. iv. 13), there can belittle doubt that the common opinion is the true one, namely, that both this verse and the one preceding have particular allusion to idolatry — Vitringa understands the first clause thus : they (the Jews of a future generation) shall be ashamed of the oaks ivhich ye (tlae contemporaries of the Prophet) have desired. It is much more natural however to regard it as an instance of enallaye j^ersomc (Gesen. § 13-1, 3), or to construe the first verb inde- finitely, they, i.e. men in general, people, or the like, shall be asha)ncd, &c., ■which construction is adopted by all the recent German writers (Gesenius : zu Schanden wii'd man, u. s. w.) — Knobel renders ''3 at the beginning so that, which is wholly unnecessary, as the verse gives a reason for the way in which the Prophet had spoken of persons now secure and flourishing, and the proper meaning of the particle is therefore perfectly appropriate. — Lowth renders Dv^X ile.res, Gesenius and the other Germans Terchinthen, ■which is no doubt botanically accurate ; but in English oak may be retained as more poetical, and as the tree which, together ^\-ith the terebinth, com- poses almost all the groves of Palestine. — The proposition before oaks and gardens may imply removal /ro»! them, but is more probably a mere con- nective of the verb with the object or occasion of the action, like the of and for in English. 30. The mention of trees and gardens, as places of idolatrous worship, suggests a beautiful comparison, under which the destruction of the idolaters is again set forth. They who chose trees and gardens, in preference to God's appointed place of worship, shall themselves be like trees and gar- dens, but in the most alarming sense. For, in answer to the tacit question why they should be ashamed and confounded for their oaks and gardens, ye yom-selves shall he like an oak or terebinth, fadiny, decaying, in its leaf or as to its leaf, and like a garden ivhich has no water, a lively emblem, to an oriental reader, of entire desolation. — Some writers understand the prophet to allude to the terebinth when dead, on the ground that it never sheds its leaves when living ; but according to Robinson and Smith (Bib. Res. vol. iii, p. 15), the terebinth or " hiilin is not an evcrgi'cen, as is often represented ; its small feathered lancet-shaped leaves fall in the autunni and arc renewed in the spring." — Both here and in the foregoing verso, Ver. 31.] ISAIAH II.-IV. 95 Kiiobel supposes tliere is special allusion to the gardens in tlie valley of Hinnom, where Ahaz sacrificed to Moloch (2 Chron. xxviii. 3 ; Isa. xxx. 83, compared with chap. xxii. 7), and a prediction of their being wasted by the enemy ; but this, to say the least, is not a necessary exposition of the Prophet's general expressions. — For the construction of Q^^ ^^AX see Gesenius, § 116, 3. 31. This verse contains a closing threat of sudden, total, instantaneous destruction to the Jewish idolaters, to be occasioned by the very things which they preferred to God, and in which they confided. And the strong, the mighty man, alluding no doubt to the unjust rulers of the previous con- text, shall become tow, an exceedingly inflammable substance, and his work, his idols, often spoken of in Scripture as the work of men's hands, shall become a siHirh, the means and occasion of destruction to their worshippers, and they shall hum both of them together, and there shall be no one quenching or to quench them. — All the ancient versions treat jDn as an abstract, meaning strength, which agrees well with its form, resembling that of an infinitive or verbal noun. But even in that case the abstract must be used for a concrete, i. e. strength for strong, which last is the sense given to the word itself by all the modern writers. Calvin and others understand by the strong one the idol viewed as a protector or a tutelary god, and by i^y'S his maker and worshipper, an interpretation which agrees in sense with the one given above, but inverts the terms, making the idol to be burnt by the idolater, and not vice versa. But why should the worshipper burn himself with his idol ? A far more coherent and impressive sense is yielded by the other exposition. — Gesenius, Hitzig, and Hendewerk suppose the icork (pV'B as in Jer. xxli. 13), by which the strong man is consumed, to be his con- duct in general, Junius his effort to resist God, Vitrioga his contrivances and means of safety. But the frequent mention of idols as the work of men's hands, and the prominence given to idolatry in the immediately pre- ceding context, seem to justify Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, in attributing to ?ys that specific meaning here, and in understanding the whole verse as a prediction that the very gods, in whom the strong men of Jerusalem now trusted, should involve their worshippers and makers with themselves in total, instantaneous, irrecoverable ruin. CHAPTERS II. III. IV. These chapters constitute the second prophecy, the two grand themes of which are the reign of the Messiah and intervening judgments on the Jews for their iniquities. The first and greatest of these subjects occupies the smallest space, but stands both at the opening and the close of the whole prophecy. Considered in relation to its subject, it may therefore be conve- niently divided into three unequal parts. In the first, the Prophet foretells the future exaltation of the church and the accession of the Gentiles, chap, ii. 1—4. In the second, he sets forth the actual condition of the church and its inevitable consequences, chap. ii. 5-iv. 1. In the thu'd, he reverts to its pure, safe, and glorious condition under the Messiah, chap. iv. 2-6. The division of the chapters is peculiarly unfortunate, the last verse of the second and the first of the fourth being both dissevered from their proper context. The notion that these chapters contain a series of detached predictions (Koppe, Eichhorn, Bertholdt) is now universally rejected even by the Ger- mans, who consider the three chapters, if not the fifth (Hitzig), as forming 96 ISAIAH II. one broken prophecy. As the state of things which it describes could scarcely have existed in the prosperous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, or in the pious reign of Hezekiah, it is referred with much probability to the reign of Ahaz (Geseuius, Ewakl, Henderson, &c.), when Judah was dependent on a foreign power and corrupted by its intercourse with heathenism. The particular grounds of this conclusion will appear in the course of the inter- pretation. CHAPTEE II. This chapter contains an introductory prediction of the reign of the Mes- siah, and the first part of a threatening against Judah. After a title similar to that in chap. i. 1, the Prophet sees the church, at some distant period, exalted and conspicuous, and the nations resorting to it for instruction in the true religion, as a consequence of which he sees war cease and universal peace prevail, vers. 2-4. These verses are found, with very little variation, in the fourth chapter of Micah (vers. 1-3), to explain which some suppose, that a motto or quota- tion has been accidentally transferred from the margin to the text of Isaiah (Justi, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Credner) ; others, that both Prophets quote from Joel (Vogel, Hitzig, Ewald) ; others, that both quote from an older writer now unknown (Koppe, Kosenmiiller, Maurer, De Wette, Knobel) ; others that Micah quotes from Isaiah (Vitringa, Lowth, Beckhaus, Um- breit) ; others, that Isaiah quotes from Micah (J. D. Michaehs, Gesenius, Hendewerk, Henderson). This diversity of judgment may at least suffice to shew how vain conjecture is in such a case. The close connection of the passage with the context, as it stands in Micah, somewhat favours the conclusion that Isaiah took the text or theme of his prediction from the younger though contemporary prophet. The verbal variations may be best explained, however, by supposing that they both adopted a traditional pre- diction current among the people in their day, or that both received the words directly from the Holy Spirit. So long as we have reason to regard both places as authentic and inspired, it matters little what is the literaiy history of either. At the close of this prediction, whether borrowed or original, the Prophet suddenly reverts to the condition of the church in his 0A\-n times, so diflerent from that which had been just foretold, and begins a description of the pre- sent guilt and future punishment of Judah, which extends not only through this chapter but the next, including the first verse of the fourth. The part contained in the remainder of this chapter may be subdivided into two un- equal portions, one containing a description of the sin, the other a prediction of the punishment. The first begins with an exhortation to the Jews themselves to walk in that light which the Gentiles were so eagerly to seek hereafter, ver. 5. The Prophet then explains tliis exhortation by describing three great evils which the foreign alliances of Judah had engendered, namely, superstitious prac- tices and occult arts : unbelieving dependence upon foreign wealth and power ; and idolatiy itself, vers. 0-8. The rest of the chapter has respect to the punishment of these gi-oat sins. This is first described generally as humiliation, such as they deserved who humbled themselves to idols, and such as tended to the exclusive exaltation of Jehovah, both by contrast and by the display of his natural and moral Ver. 1, 2.] ISAIAH 11. 97 attributes, vers. 9-11. This general threatening is then amplified in a de- tailed enumeration of exalted objects which would be brought low, ending again with a prediction of Jehovah's exaltation in the same words as before, so as to foiTH a kind of choral or strophical arrangement, vers. 12-17. The destruction or rather the rejection of idols, as contemptible and useless, is then explicitly foretold, as an accompanying circumstance of men's flight from the avenging presence of Jehovah, vers. 18-21. Here again the strophical arrangement reappears in the precisely similar conclusions of the nineteenth and twenty-first verses, so that the twenty-second is as clearly unconnected with this chapter in form, as it is closely connected with the next in sense. 1. This is the title of the second prophecy, chaps, ii.-iv. The word, revelation or divine communication, icliich Isaiah the son of Amoz saw, perceived, received by inspiration, concerning Judah and Jerusalem. As word is here a synonyme of vision in chap. i. 1, there is no need of render- ing "13'^ \vhat, thing, or things (Luth. Cler. Henders.), or Htn j)rophesied or icas revealed (Targ. Lowth, Ges.), in order to avoid the supposed incon- gi'uity of seeing a word. For the technical use of word and vision in the sense of prophecy, see 1 Sam. iii. 1, Jer. xviii. 18. — The Septuagint, which renders ?y against in chap. i. 1, renders it here concerning, and on this distinction, which is wholly arbitrary, Cyril gravely comments. — Hende- werk's assertion that the titles, in which ntn and |1Tn occur, are by a later hand, is perfectly gratuitous. 2. The prophecy begins with an abrupt prediction of the exaltation of the church, the confluence of nations to it, and a general pacification as the consequence, vers. 2-4. In this verse the Prophet sees the church per- manently placed in a conspicuous position, so as to be a source of attraction to surrounding nations. To express this idea, he makes use of terms which are strictly applicable only to the local habitation of the chui'ch under the old economy. Instead of saying, in modern phraseology, that the church, as a society, shall become conspicuous and attract all nations, he represents the mountain upon which the temple stood as being raised and fixed above the other mountains, so as to be visible in all directions. And it shall be (happen, come to pass, a prefatory formula of constant use in prophecy) in the end (or latter part) of the days {i. e. hereafter) the mountain of Jehovah's house (i. e. mount Zion, in the widest sense, including mount Moriah, where the temple stood) shall he established (permanently fixed) in the head of the mountains (i. e. above them), and exalted from (away from and by implica- tion more than or higher than) the hills (a poetical equivalent to mountains), and all the nations shall flow unto it. — The use of the present tense in render- ing this verse (Ges. Hitz. Hdwk.) is inconsistent with the phrase ri''in.X? Q^DM, which requires the future proper (Ew. Hend.). That phrase, accord- ing to the Rabbins, always means the days of the Messiah ; according to Lightfoot, the end of the old dispensation. In itself it is indefinite. — The sense of jisp here is not prepared (Vulg.) but fixed, established, rendered permanently visible (LXX. Urai s/ji,(pavsg). — It was not to be established on the top of the mountains (Vulg. Vitr. De W. Umbr.) but either at the head (Hitz. Ew.) or simply high among the mountains, which idea is expressed by other words in the parallel clause, and by the same words in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 12. That mount Zion should be taken up and carried by the other hills (J. D. Mich.) is neither the literal nor figurative meaning of the Pro- phet's words. — The verb in the last clause is always used to signify a con- fluence of nations. VOL. I. G 98 ISAIAH 11. [Yer. 3, 4. 3. This confluence of nations is described more fully, and its motive stated in their own -worcis, namely, a desire to be instructed in the true religion, of which Jerusalem or Zion, imder the old dispensation, Avas the sole depository. Ami many nations shall r/o (set out, put themselves in motion) and shall say (to one another). Go ye (as a formula of exhoitation, where the English idiom requires come), and ive ivill ascend (or let us ascend, for which the Hebrew has no other form) to the mountain of Jehovah (where his house is, where he dwells), to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach US of his nays (the ways in which he requires us to walk), and ue will go in his paths (a synonymous expression). For out of Zion shall yo forth laiv (the true rehgion, as a rule of duty), and the uord of Jehovah (the true religion, as a revelation) /rc/«?. Jerusalem. These last words may be either the words of the Gentiles, teUing why they looked to Zion as a source of saving knowledge, or the words of the Prophet, telling why the truth may be thus diffused, namely, because it had been given to the church for this very purpose. Cyril's idea that the clause relates to the taking away of God's word from the Jewish church (■/.a-a7.s}.oi'ZB rriv 2/wi') is wholly incon- sistent with the context. — Compare John iv. 22 ; Luke xxiv. 47. — The common version many people conveys to a modern ear the wrong sense of many persons, and was only used for want of such a plural form as peoples, which, though employed by Lowth and others, has never become current, and was certainly not so when the Bible was translated, as appears from the circumlocution used instead of it in Gen. xxv. 23. The plural form is here essential to the meaning. — Go is not here used as the opposite of covte, but as denoting active motion (Vitrin. movebunt se ; J. D. Mich, werden sich aufmachen). — The word ascend is not used in reference to an alleged Jewish notion that the Holy Land was physically higher than all other countries, nor simply to the natural site of Jerusalem, nor even to its moral elevation as the scat of the true rehgion, but to the new elevation and con- spicuous position just ascribed to it. — The subjunctive construction that he may teach (Luth. Yitr. Ges. Ew. &c.) is rather paraphrastical andexegetical than simply expressive of the sense of the original, which implies hope as well as purpose. — The preposition of before wnys is not to be omitted as a mere connective, " teach us his ways" (Ges. Hend. Um.) ; nor taken in a local sense, " out of his ways" (Knobel) ; but either partitively, " seme of his ways" (Yitr.), or as denoting the subject of instruction, " concerning his ways," which is the usual explanation. — The substitution oi doctrine or instruction for law (J. D. Mich. Hitz. Hendew. De W. Ew.) is contrary to usage, and weakens the expression. 4. He who appeared in the preceding verses as the lawgiver and teacher of the nations, is now represented as an arbiter or umpire, ending their dis- putes by a pacitic intervention, as a necessary consequence of which war ceases, the very knowledge of the art is lost, and its implements applied to other uses. This prediction was not fulfilled in the general peace under Augustus, which was only temporary ; nor is it now fulfilled. The event is suspended on a previous condition, viz., the confluence of the nations to the church, which has not yet taken place ; a strong inducement to diffuse the gospel, which, in the mean time, is peaceful in its spirit, tendency, and actual effect, wherever and so far as it exerts its influence without obstruc- tion. And he shall judye (or arbitrate) hetueen the )iatioiis, and decide for (or respecting) many peoples. A nd they shall heat their sivords into plouyh- shares, and their spears into pruniny-hooks. Nation shall not lift vp siiorU against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. To the figure in tho \ Yee. 5, 6.] ISAIAH II. 99 last clause Lowth quotes a beautiful parallel in Martial's epigram entitled Falx ex ense : Pax me certa ducis placidos curavit in usiis ; Agricolae uunc sura, militis ante fui. The image here represented is reversed by Joel (iii. 10), and by Virgil and Ovid (.En. vii. 635, Georg. i. 506, Ov. Fast. i. 697).— The question whether D''j!1X means ploughshares (Vulg. Lu. Low.), coulters (Rosen. Hn. Kn.) spades (Dutch Vs.), hoes or mattocks (Ges. Hitz. Ew. Um.), is of no exegetical importance, as the whole idea meant to be expressed is the con- version of martial weapons into implements of husbandry. Hook in old English, is a crooked knife, such as a sickle, which is not however here meant (LXX. Vulg. Lu.), but knife for pruning vines. — Not learning war is something more than not continuing to practise it (Calv.), and signifies their ceasing to know how to practise it. To judge is here not to rule (Calv. Vitr.), which is too vague, nor to /5»7?is/t (Cocc), which is too specific, but to arbitrate or act as vimpire (Cler. Ges. &c.), as appears from the efi'ect described, and also from the use of the preposition ]''5 meaning not merely among, with reference to the sphere of jurisdiction, but between, with refer- ence to contending parties. The parallel verb does not here mean to rebuke (Jan. Eng. Vs.) nor to convince of the truth in general (Calv. Cocc. Vitr.) or of the evil of war in particular (Hendew.), but is used as a poetical equi- valent to t3S^, which is used in this sense with the same preposition, Exek. xxxiv. 17. — On the use of the present tense in rendering this verse (Ges. De W. Ew.) vide supra ad v. 2. 5. From this distant prospect of the calling of the Gentiles, the Prophet now reverts to his own times and countrymen, and calls upon them not to be behind the nations in the use of their distinguished advantages. If even the heathen were one day to be enlightened, surely they who were already in possession of the light ought to make use of it. O home of Jacob (family of Israel, the church or chosen people) come ye (literally, go ye, as in ver. 3), and we will go (or Ut us ivalk, including himself in the exhortation) in the light of Jehovah (in the path of truth and duty upon which the light of revelation shines). To regard these as the words of the Jews themselves (Targ. " they of the house of Jacob shall say," &c.), or of the Gentiles to the Jews (Jarchi), or to another (Sanctius), is forced and arbitrary in a high degree. The light is mentioned, not in allusion to the illumination of the court of the women at the feast of tabernacles (Deyling. Obs. Sacr. ii. p. 221), but as a common designation of the Scriptures and of Christ himself. Prov. vi. 23 ; Ps. cxix. 105 ; Isa. li. 4 ; Acts xxvi. 23 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4. 6. The exhortation in ver. 5 implied that the Jews were not actually walking in God's light, but were alienated from him, a fact which is now explicitly asserted and the reason of it given, viz., ilhcit intercourse with foreign nations, as evinced by the adoption of their superstitious practices, reliance on their martial and pecuniary aid, and last but worst of all, the worship of their idols. In this verse, the first of these eflPects is ascribed to intercourse with those eastern countries, which are always represented by the ancients as the cradle of the occult arts and sciences. As if he had said, I thus exhort, 0 Lord, thy chosen people, because thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they are replenished from the east and (full of) soothsayers like the Philistines, and ivith the children of strangers they abound. — The various renderings of ^3 by therefore (Eng. Vs.) verily (Low.), surely (Renders.), hut (Hendew. Ew.), &c., all arise from miscon- 100 ISAIAH II. [Ver. 7. ception or neglect of the connection, wliich requires the common meaning for, because (Sept. Vulg. Ges. Hitz. Umb. Barnes). Abarbenel supposes the words to be addressed to the ten tribes, " Thou, 0 house of Jacob, hast forsaken thy people," Judah. Others suppose them to be addi-essed to Judah, but in this sense, " Thou, 0 house of Jacob, hast forsaken thy nation," i. e. thy national honour, religion, and allegiance (Saad. J. D. Mich. Hitz.). The last is a forced construction, and the other is at vari- ance with the context, while both are inconsistent with the usage of the verb, which is constantly used to denote God's alienation from his people and especially his giving them up to their enemies (Judges vi. 13 ; 2 Kings xxi. 14; Jer. vii. 29; xxiii. 33). — Filled cannot mean ?«5/)/m/ as in Micah iii. 8 (Vitr.), for even there the idea is suggested by the context. — J. D. MichaeUs thinks DTIi^ here synonymous with C'li' the east wind, " full of the east wind," i.e. of delusion ^_Job xv. 2), which is wholly arbitrary. All the ancient versions supply as before this word, and two of them explain the phrase to mean as of old (Sept. wc rh air a^yji'-, Vulg. sicut olim). But all modern writers give it the local sense of east, applied some- what indefinitely to the countries east of Palestine, especially those watered by the Tigris and Euphrates. Some read they are full of the east, i.e. of its people or its superstitions (Calv. Ges. Rosen. Hitz. De W. Hn. Um.) ; others more than the east (Luth. Dutch Vs.) ; but the true sense is no doubt /ro?M the east (Cler. ex oriente ; Ewald, vom Morgenlande her), denoting not mere influence or imitation, but an actual influx of diviners from that quarter. — Whether the root of D^J^y be TV an eye (Vitr.), ]}V a cloud (Rosen.), or pj; to cover (Ges.), it clearly denotes the practitioners of occult arts. Henderson treats it as a finite verb (they practise magic) ; the English Version supplies are ; but the construction which connects it with the verb of the preceding clause, so that the first says ivhence they are filled, and then tvhcrcivith, agrees best with the mention of repletion or abundance both before and after. The Philistines are here mentioned rather by way of comparison than as an actual source of the corruption. That the Jews were famiUar with their superstitions may be learned from 1 Sam. vi. 2 ; 2 Kings i. 2. — The last verb does not mean they clap their hands in applause, derision, or joy (Calv. Vitr. Eng. Vs. — they please them- selves), nor they strike hands in agreement or alliance (Ges. Ros. De W. Hg. Haver. Hn. Um.), but they abound, as in Syriac, and in 1 Kings xx. 10 (J. H. Mich. Cler. Eng. Vers. marg. Ewald). The causative sense mul- tiply (Lowth) does not suit the parallelism so exactly. The Septuagint and Targum apply the cause to alliance by marriage with the heathen. — By children of strangers we are not to understand the fruits, i.e. doctrines and practices of strangers (Vitr.), nor is it merely an expression of con- tempt, as Lowth and Gesenius seem to intimate by rendering it stianye or spurious lirood. It rather means strangers themselves, not strange gods or then- children, i.e. worshippers (J. D. Mich.), but foreigners considered as descendants of a strange stock, and therefore as aliens from the com- monwealth of Israel. — The conjectural emendations of the text by reading DDp for nip (Brent.), nn for nh'2 (Hitz.), and n^ ni:v^ for nn^^'uil (Houbi- gant), are wholly unnecessary. — For the form nri^^OJ, see Ges. Heb. Gr. § 4-1, 2, 2. ' ' 7. The second proof of undue intercourse with heathen nations, which the Prophet mentions, is the influx of foreign money, and of foreign troops, with which he represents the land as filled. And his land (referring to the BUigular noun people in ver. G) is lilled uith silver and yold, and there is no Vek. 8, 9.J ISAIAH II. 101 end to his treasures ; and his land is filled with horses, and ther^ is no end to his chariots. — The common interpretatien makes this verse descriptive of domestic wealth and luxury. But these would hardly have been placed between the superstitions and the idols, with which Judah had been flooded from abroad. Besides, this interpretation fails to account for gold and silver being here combined with horses and chariots. Hitzig supposes the latter to be mentioned only as articles of luxury ; but as such they are never mentioned elsewhere, not even in the case of Absalom and Naaman to which he appeals, both of whom were military chiefs as well as nobles. Even the chariots of the peaceful Solomon were probably designed for mar- tial show. The horses and chariots of the Old Testament are horses and chariots of war. The common riding adimals were mules and asses, the latter of which, as contrasted with the horse, are emblematic of peace (Zech. ix. 9 ; Math. xxi. 7). But on the supposition that the verse has reference to undue dependence upon foreign powers, the money and the armies of the latter would be naturally named together. Thus understood, this verse affords no proof that the prophecy belongs to the prosperous reign of Uzziah or Jotham, since it merely represents the land as flooded with foreign gold and foreign troops, a description rather applicable to the reign of Ahaz. The form of expression, too, suggests the idea of a recent acquisition, as the strict sense of the verb is not it is full (E. V. Ges. Hn.), nor even it is filled, but it was or has been filled (LXX. Vulg. Hg. Ew. Kn.). — There is no need of explaining the words no end as expressing an in- satiable desire (Calv.), or as the boastful language of the people (Vitr.), since the natural hyperbole employed by the Prophet is one by which no reader can be puzzled or deceived. The intimate connection of this verse with that before it is disturbed by omitting and at the beginning (Ges. Hg. Um.), nor is there any need of rendering it also (E. V.), yea (Hi.), or so that (Hk. Ew.), either here or in the middle of the sentence. 8. The thii'd and greatest evil flomng from this intercourse with foreign nations was idolatry itself, which was usually introduced under the cloak of mere political alliances (see e.rj. 2 Kings xvi. 10). Here as elsewhere the terms used to describe it are contemptuous in a high degree. And his land is filled with idols (properly nonentities, ' gods which jei are no gods,' Jer. ii. 11 ; 'for we know that an idol is nothing in the world,' 1 Cor. viii. 4), to the work of their hands they how down, to that which their fingers have made, one of the great absurdities charged by the prophets on idola- ters, " as if that could be a god to them which was not only a creature but their own creature" (Matthew Henry). — For idols the Septuagiut has abo- minations {iSdsXuy/iidruv), but the true sense of the Hebrew term is that expressed by Clericus, cliis nihili. — For their hands, their fingers, the Hebrew has his hands, his fingers, an enallage which does not obscure the sense, and is retained in the last clause by Cocceius and Clericus (digiti ipsius). Vitringa has digiti cuj'usque. J. D. Michaelis makes the verb singular (jedet betet). Barnes has his hands, but their fingers. 9. Here the Prophet passes from the sin to its punishment, or rather simultaneously alludes to both, the verb in the first clause being naturally applicable as well to voluntary humiliation in sin as to compulsory humilia- tion in punishment, while the verb in the last clause would suggest of course to a Jewish reader the twofold idea of pardoning and lifting up. They who bowed themselves to idols should be bowed down by the mighty hand of God, instead of being raised up from their wilful self-abasement by the par- don of their sins. The relative features denote not only succession in time 102 ISAIAH II. [Yer. 10, 11. but the relation of cause and effect. And so (by this meaus, for this reason) the mean man (not in the modem but the old sense of inferior, low in rank) is honed dorvn, and lite ijreat man is hromiht low, and do not thou (0 Lord) forgive them. This ^irayer, for such it is, may be understood as expressing, not so much the Prophet's own desire, as the certainty of the event, arising from the righteousness of God. There is no need therefore of departing from the unifonn usage of the future with ^i^ as a negative imperative, by rendering it thou dost not (Ges. Hg.), icilt not (Lu. Vitr. Low. Hn.), canst not (J. D. Mich. De W. Hk.) or mayest not forgive (Um. Kn.) The strict translation is as old as the Vulgnte (ne demittas) and as late as Ewald (vergib ihnen nicht). — Whether t^^^5 and D7^> fis is commonly supposed, denote a difference in rank or estimation, like the Greek a^^g and u\ii}soizoc, the Latin rir and homo, and the German Mann and MenscJc, when in anti- thesis, is a question of no moment, because even if they are synonymous, denoting simply man and man, this man and that man, one man and another (Hg. Hk. Kn.), their combination here must be intended to describe men of all sorts, or men in general. — On the relative futures, see Ges. Heb. Gr. § 152, 4, c. On the constrnction with p^, Nordhcimer, §§ 99(5, 10G5. 10. Instead of simply predicting that their sinful course should be inter- rupted by a terrible manifestation of God's presence, the Prophet views him as already come or near at hand, and addressing the people as an indivi- dual, or singling out one of their number, exhorts him to take refuge under ground or in the rocks, an advice peculiarly significant in Palestine, a country full of caves, often used, if not originally made, for this very pur- pose (1 Sam. xiii. 6, xiv. 11 ; Judges vi. 2.) Go into the rock and hide thee in the dust, from before the terror of Jehovah and from the ffionj of his majesty. The nouns in the last clause differ, according to their derivation, very much as sxdilimity and hcanty do in English, and express in combina- tion the idea of sublime beauty or beautiful subhmity. The tone of this address is not sarcastic (Glassius) but terrific. By the terror of Jehovah seems to be intended, not the feeling of fear which he inspires (E. V. for fear of the Lord), but some terrible manifestation of his presence. The preposition, therefore, should not be taken in the vague sense of for, on account of (Jun. Cocc. E. V. Vitr.), but in its proper local sense of from (Lowth, Hn.), before (J. D. Mich. Ges. Hk. Ew. Um.), or from before.— The force and beauty of the passage are impaired by converting tbe im- perative into a future (Targ.), or the singular imperative into a plural (Sept. Pesh. Hg.). — Lowth, on the authority of the Septuagint, Arabic, and a single manuscript, supplies the words uhen he risetJi to strike the earth with terror, from the last clause of the nineteenth and twenty-first verses. 11. As the Prophet, in the preceding verse, views the terror of Jehovah as approaching, so here he views it as already past, and describes the effect ■which it has wrought. The eyes of the loftiness of man (/. e. his haughty looks) are cast doirn, and the hciyht (or pride) of men is brouyht low, and Jehovah alone is exalted in that day, not only in fact, but in the estimation of his creatures, as the passive form here used may intimate. — Ma)i and men, the same words that occur in ver. 9, are variously rendered here by repeating the same noun (Sept. Pesh. Lu. Calv. Vitr. Hn.) by using two equivalents (Lowth, men and mortals ; Ewald, men and people) or by an antithesis (Vulg. hominis, virorum). — The verb in tbe first clause agrees in form with the nearest antecedent, or the M'hole pbraso may be regarded as the subject (Ges. Heb. Gr. § 145, 1), as in Ewald's version of it by a triple compound (Hochmuthsaugcn). Yee. 12-14.J ISAIAH II. 103 12. The general threatening of humihation is now applied specifically to a variety of lofty objects in which the people might be supposed to delight and trust, vers. 12-16. This enumeration is connected with what goes before, by an explanation of the phrases used at the close of the eleventh verse. I say that day, for there is a day to Jehovah of Hosts {i. e. an appointed time for the manifestation of his power) iipon (or against) every tiling high and lofty, and upon every thing exalted, and it comes (or shall come) down. — The common construction, for the day of Jehovah is or shall he (Sept. Valg. Calv. E. V. Vitr. Lowth, Bar.), does not account for the use of the conjunction or the preposition, the former of which refers to the last words of the verse preceding, and the latter denotes the relation of possession : there is a day to Jehovah, i. e. he has a day (Ewald), has it appointed (Cocc. Jun. J. D. Mich.), has it in reserve, or less exactly, holds a day (Hitzig) or holds a judgment-day (Gesenius). — The specific sense of ?y against' {fi\m. Cler. Vitr. Low. Bar. Hen.), may be considered as included in the wider one of o». — The version every one (Sept. Jun. E. "V.) restricts the phrase too much to persons, which is only a part of the idea conveyed by the expression every thing (Lu, Cocc. Vitr. J. D. Mich. Ges. &c.) To refer one clause to persons and the other to things (Calv. Barn.) is wholly arbitrary. — The same objection may be made to the common version of nxa by proud, instead of its primary and comprehensive sense of high (Ewald. Gesen. in Lex.). — The translation oi%^ as an adjective, implpng that the day of Jehovah was against high and low (Calv. in Comm. Cocc. J. D. Mich.), is inconsistent with the usage of the word, and not so well suited to the parallel clause, in which lofty things alone are threatened with humiliation. 13. To convey the idea of lofty and imposing objects, the Prophet makes use, not of symbols, but of specimens, selected from among the things of this class most familiar to his readers, beginning with the two noblest species of forest trees. And on all the cedars of Lebanon (or the White Mountain, the chain dividing Palestine from Syria), that are high and lofty, and on all the oaks of Bashan (now called El Bethenyeh, a mountainous district, east of Jordan, famous of old for its pastures and oak-forests). — Cedars and oaks are supposed by some to be here named, as emblems of great inen in general (Targ. Jerome, Vitr. Low. Ges.), or of the great men of Syria and Israel distinctively (Grotius) ; but this is not in keeping with the subse- quent context, in which some things are mentioned, which cannot be under- stood as emblems, but only as samples of their several classes. The appli- cation of the terms to the "oak and cedar wood used in the buildings erected by Uzziah and Jotham, (Kjuobel) is equally at variance with the context and good taste. That they do not refer to the actual prostration of the forests of Palestine or the neighbouring countries by a tempest (Ros. Ew.), may be inferred from the impossibility of so explaining all the analogous expressions which follow. — On the trees and places mentioned in this verse, see Ptobinson's Palestine, vol. iii. p. 440, and Appendix, p. 158. 14. The mention of Lebanon and Bashan in ver. 13 now leads to that of mountains in general, as lofty objects in themselves, and therefore help- ing to complete the general conception of high things, which the Prophet threatens with humiliation. And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the elevated hills. — For reasons given under the preceding verse, this cannot be regarded as a threatening against states and governments (Lowth), or against the mountaineers of Palestine (GEcolampadius, Musculus), or against the fortresses erected by Jotham in the highlands of Judah (Kno- 104 ISAIAH II. [Yer. 15-16. bel), or against the fastnesses to which they had recourse in times of danger (Barnes), but must be explained as an additional specification of the general statement in ver. 12, that cveri/ hhjli thimj should be humbled. 15. To trees and hills he now adds walls and towers, as a third class of objects with which the ideas of loftiness and strength are commonly associated. And upon every high tower and upon evenj fenced uall, htcrally cut off, i. e. rendered inaccessible by being fortified. — Lowth and others suppose these to be named as symbols of military strength, while Knobel supposes an allusion to the fortifications built by Joiham and Uzziah, and Hitzig assumes a transition just at this point from em- blematical to literal expressions ; all which is more or less at variance with the context. 16. The Prophet now concludes his catalogue of lofty and conspicuous objects by adding, first, as a specific item, maritime vessels of the largest class, and then a general expression, summing up the whole in one de- scriptive phrase, as things attractive and imposing to the eye. And upon all shijjs of Tarshiah (such as were built to navigate the whole length of the Mediterranean sea), and upon all inuvjes (i. e. visible objects) of desire, or rather admiration and delight. — It is a very old opinion that Tarshish means the sea, and ships of Tarshish seafaring vessels (Sept. ui this indefinite diversity of explanation, as well as the general form of the expression, makes it pro- bable that this clause, notwithstanding the parallelism, was intended as a general expression for such lofty and imposing objects as had just been enumerated, — ' cedars, oaks, mountains, hills, towers, walls, ships, and in short, all attractive and majestic objects ' (Vulg. omne quod visu pulchrum est. Ges. ad loc. Do W. Ilk. Um. Bar.). Even Lowth's translation, mrif lovely work of art, is, on this hypothesis, too much restricted. The inttr- pretation which has now been given is confirmed by the use of the analo,4t)ns prosaic phrase iT^PD V?, to close and sum up an enumeration of particulars. Knobel, to whom y^ are indebted for this illustration, cites as examples Ver. 17-19.] ISAIAH II. 105 2 Chron. xxxii. 27, xxxvi. 10, Nah. ii. 10. — For an argument in favour of regarding Tarshish as the name of Carthage, see Murray's Encyclopasdia of Geograph}^ Book I, chap. i. § iv. According to Abulfeda, the Arabic geographer, Tunis was anciently called Tarsis. 17, This verse, by repeating the terms of ver. 11, brings us back from details to the general proposition which they were designed to illustrate and enforce, and at the same time has the effect of a strophical arrangement, in which the same burden or chorus recm-s at stated intervals. And (thus, by this means, or in this way) shall the loftiness of man he cast down, and the ■pride of men he hroiujht low, and Jehovah alone exalted in that day. Or, retaining the form of the first two verbs, which are not passive but neuter, and exchanging the future for the present, the sentence may be thus translated. So sinks the loftiness of man and hows the pride of men, and Jehovah alone is exalted in that day. For the sjmtax of the first clause, vide supra ad ver. 11. Cf. Ewald's Heb. Gr. § 567. Gesenius, § 144. 18. To the humiliation of all lofty things the Prophet now adds the entire disappearance of their idols. And the idols (as for the idols) the whole shall pass away. The construction he shall utterly abolish or cause to disappear (Calv. E. V. Bar.) is at variance with the usage of the verb as an intransitive. To make it agree with the plural noun, the idols shall utterly j)ass away (E. V. marg. Low. Be W. Hk. Hn.), or the verb itself impersonal, it is past, gone, or all over with the idols (Aug. Ges. Um.), are unusual and harsh constructions. It is best to take ^Y? not as an adverb but a noun meaning the whole, and agreeing regularly with the verb (Ros. Maur. Hg. Ew.). The omission of the article or suffix (^vSn or D^70\i^ with what precedes, but in different ways. Vitringa' s construction is that a man shall lay hold of his brother, in uhose jKtternal house there is raiment, saying, come on (agedum), &c. Lowth's, that a man shall lay hold of his brother hy^the garment, saying, come, Sec. All other writers seem to be agreed that i^y^ is an unusual mode of wTiting 'n'? (see Ges. Heb. Gr. § 35). — The *? at the beginning has been variously rendered, for, hecause (Sept. Targ. Vulg. Pesh.), therefore (Lo^\ih), if (Junius), then if (Ros.), then (Lu. Ges. Bar. Kn.). Henderson uses the periphrasis should any one, &c. Hitzig and Ewald agree with Calnn, Vitringa, Clericus, and the English Bible in rendering it nhen, and regard- ing the two verses as one continuous sentence. — The word saying, in the first clause, is inserted by two manuscripts, and supplied by most versions ancient and modern. — Thirty-five manuscripts and two editions read T''1J in the plural. 7. This verse contains the refusal of the invitation given in the one preceding. In that day he shall lift up (his voice in reply) saying, I will not be a healer, and in my house there is no bread, and there is no cloth- ing ; ye shall not make me a ruler of the people. In that day may cither mean at once, without deliberation, or continue the narrative without special emphasis. Some supply hand after lift up, as a gesture of sweaiiug, or Yer. 8.] ISAIAH III. 113 the name of God as in tlie third commandment, and understand the phrase to mean that he shall swear (Saad. Lu. Calv. E. V., J. D. Mich.). But the great majority of writers supply voice, some in the specific sense of answer- ing (Sept. Vulg. Targ. Pesh. Cler.) or in the simple sense of xittering (Coco. Ges. De W. Ew.), but others with more probability in that of speaking with a loud voice (Yitr. Ros.), or distinctly and with emphasis, he shall j)rotest (Hn.) or openly declare (Low.). The Yulgate, Luther, and Gesenius, have I am not a healer, but if that were the sense, the verb would probably be suppressed. The meaning of the words seem to be either / cannot, as a confession of unfitness (Targ. Ros. De. W. Hk. Um.), or I will not, as an expression of invincible aversion (Caly. Cocc. Cler. E. Y. Low. Hn. Kn.). — The Septuagint and Clericus take ^"^^ in the sense of prince or jwjfect. Cocceius translates it literally hinclin//, Ewald binder. Saadias makes it mean one who binds his head with a diadem ; Montanus an executioner like the Latin lictor. The true sense of healer is given by the Yulgate (medi- cus), Calvin (curator), Luther (Artzt), and most of the later versions. There is no need of reading /or in my honse (Calv. Cler. Hn. Ew. Kn.), as the words do not directly give a reason for refusing, but simply deny the fact alleged in the request. Clericus, Lowth, and Henderson carry out their interpretation of the previous verse by supposing the excuse here given to be that he was not rich enough to clothe and feast the people as oriental chiefs are expected to do. But the whole connection seems to shew that it is a profession of great poverty, which, if true, shews more clearly the condition of the people, and if false, the general aversion to office. The last clause does not simply mean do not make me, but you must not, or you shall not make me a ruler. Gesenius and all the later Germans except Ewald sub- stitute the descriptive present for the future in this verse. 8. The Prophet here explains his use of the word ruin in reference to the commonwealth of Israel, by declaring that it had in fact destroyed itself by the ofience which its iniquities had given to the holiness of God, here compared to the sensitiveness of the human eye. Do not wonder at its being caWedi 2i, rum, for Jerusalem totters and Judah falls (or Jerusalem is tottering and Judah falling), because their tongue and their doings (words and deeds being put for the whole conduct) are against Jehovah (strictly to or towards, but in this connection necessarily implying opposition and hostility), to resist [i. e. so as to resist, implying both the purpose and eff'ect) his glori- ous eyes (and thereby to offend them). The Peshito seems to take these as the words of the man refusing to govern ; but they are really those of the Prophet explaining his refusal, or rather one of the expressions used in mak- ing the offer, as ^f ^| clearly involves an allusion to ^{"^'^'Q one of its deriva- tives. The ^3 is therefore not to be taken in the sense of yea (Um.) or surely (Calv.), but in its proper sense oi for, because (Sept. Yulg, &c.). Here as in chap. i. 16, D''?^^'? is variously rendered ad inventiones (Yulg.), stu- dia (Calv.), conata (Mont.j, but the only meaning justified by etymology is that of actions. Cocceius, who refers the whole prophecy to the times of the New Testament, understands by their resisting God's glorious eyes, the opposition of the Jews to the Son of God when personally present. Totter and fall are supposed by some to be in antithesis, contrasting the calamities of Jerusalem with the worse calamities of Judah (Knobel), or the partial downfall of the kingdom under Ahaz, with its total downfall under Zedekiah (Yitringa) ; but they are more probably poetical equivalents, asserting the same fact, that Jerusalem and Judah, though pecuHarly the Lord's, were VOL. I. H lU ISAIAH III. [Ver. 9, 10. nevertheless to fall and be destroyed for their iniquities. — The present form is adopted here, not only by the modern writers, but by the Septuagint, Vulgate and Luther. The emendation of the text by changing ''^V to PV (Low.) or ^?V (J- ^- Mich.), is needless and -without authority. — For the orthography of ''^V., see Ewald's Heb. Gr. § 30. 9. As they make no secret of their depravity, and as sin and suffering are inseparably connected, they must bear the blame of their own destruc- tion. The exjjression of their countenances testifies against them, and their s^in, like Sodom, they disclose, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul, for they Jiave done evil to themselves. — The first clause is applied to respect of 2'>ersons or judicial partiality, by the Targum (X:n3), Clericus (habita hominum ratio), Hitzig (ihr Ansehn der Person), and Gesenius in his Thesaurus. This construction is favoured by the usage of the phrase D"'J3 ")^3n (Deut. i. 17, xvi. 19 ; Prov. xxiv. 28, xxviii. 21) ; but the context seems to shew that the Prophet has reference to general character and not to a specific sin, while the parallel expressions in this verse make it almost certain that the phrase relates to the expression of the countenance. Some explain it accordingly of a particular expression, such as shame (Sept.), impudence (Vulg.), obduracy (Jun.), stedfastness (Lowth), confusion (Ges.), insensi- bility (Ew.). But the various and even contradictory senses thus put upon the word may serve to shew that it is more correctly understood, as de- noting the expression of the countenance generally, by Calvin (probatio), Cocceius (adspectus), Gussetius (quod dant cognoscendum), the English Version (shew), De Wette (Ausdruck), and other recent writers. The sense is not that their looks betray them, but that they make no efi'ort at concealment, as appears from the reference to Sodom. Quod unum habebant in peccatis bonum perdunt, peccandi verecundiam (Seneca). — The expression of the same idea first in a positive and then in a negative form is not uncommon in Scripture, and is a natural if not an English idiom. Madame d'Arblay, in her Memoirs of Dr Burney, speaks of Omiah, the Tahitiau brought home by Captain Cook, as " uttering first affirmatively and then negatively all the little sentences that he attempted to pronounce." For examples involving this same verb ^D?, see Josh. vii. 19 ; 1 Sam. iii. 17, 18. The explanation of •l^'P,^ as meaning recompence, reward (Vulg. Cler. E. V. Um.), is rejected by most of the modern WTiters, who m^ke it correspond very nearly to the English treat, in the sense of doing either good or evil. " They have treated themselves ill, or done evil to themselves" (Cocc. sibimet ipsis male faciunt. Ewald : sie thaten sich boses). Hengstenberg maintains (Comm. on Psalm vii. 5) that the verb means properly to do good, and is used in a bad sense only by a kind of irony. The phrase to their soul may be understood strictly (Calv. E. V. Hg. De W.) or as meaning to their life (Cler. Ges.) ; but the singular form of the noun seems to imply that it is used as a periphrasis for the reflexive pronoun to themselves. David Kimchi says that his father derived H'lSri from "i?n to be hard, making the H radical ; but the derivation fi'om ">?? is now universally adopted. 10. The righteous are encouraged by the assurance that the judgments of God shall not be indiscriminate. Say ye of the righteous that it shall be well, for the fruits of their doings they shall eat. The object of address seems to be not the prophets or ministers of God, but the people at largo or men indefinitely. The concise and elliptical first clause may be variously construed — " Say, it is right (or righteous) that (they should eat) good, that they should eat the fruit of their doings." — " Say, it is right (or God Vek. 11-13.] ISAIAH III. 115 is righteous), for it is good tliat they should eat," &c. — " Say (what is) right," i.e. pronounce just judgment. The verb is made to govern P''?V directly by Vitrioga (justum pifedicate beatum), Lowth (pronounce ye a blessing on the righteous), Gesenius (preiset den Gerechten). The pre- position to is supplied by the Targum, Peshito, Vulgate (dicite justo), English Version, Barnes, and Henderson. The construction most agree- able to usage is that given by Luther, J. D. Michaelis, De Wette, Hende- werk, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel — " Say ye of the righteous (or concerning him) that," &c. One manuscript reads 7?N'' in the singular, but the plural form agrees with P'''^V as a collective. 11. This is the converse of the foregoing proposition, a threatening corresponding to the promise. Woe nnto the wicked, (it shall be) ill (with him), /or the thinq done by his hands shall be done to him. — Calvin and Ewald separate J'^'^? from ''IX and connect it with V? " woe (or alas ! ) to the wicked it is (or shall be) ill," a construction favoured by the Masoretic accents. I{imchi makes V agree with yi^l in the sense of an evil ivicked man, i.e. one who is wicked both towards God and man. (See Gill ad loc.) This interpretation is adopted by Luther, Cocceius, Vitringa, Clericus, and J. H. Michaelis. De Wette, Hendewerk, and Knobel give the same con- struction, but take y in the sense of wretched, " woe to the wicked, the unhappy." But yi seems evidently parallel to 31li in ver. 10, and cannot therefore be a mere epithet. Umbreit follows the Vulgate, Clericus, &c., in giving to ^l^J the sense of recompence. Luther and Henderson explain it to mean merit or desert ; Calvin, Lowth, and Gesenius, more correctly tjcork. 12. The Prophet now recurs to the evil of unworthy and incapable rulers, and expresses, by an exclamation, wonder and concern at the result. My peojjle ! their oppressors are childish, and icomen rule over tliem. My 2}eople ! thy leaders are seducers, and the xvay of thy jmths (the way where thy path lies) they su-allow up (cause to disappear, destroy). — "^^ is usually construed in the fii'st clause as an absolute nominative ; but by making it (as Umbreit does) an exclamation, the parallelism becomes more exact. — Gesenius and Hitzig explain V^^J as a pluralis majestaticus referring to Ahaz, which is needless and arbitrary. ?!?yp is in the singular because it is used adjectively, the predicate being often in the singular when the subject is plural. (Ges. Heb. Gr. § 144, 6, c.) Instead of thy yuides, Luther reads thy comforters; others, those icho call thee happy, which is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, and was perhaps designed to be suggested here, but not directly as the primary idea. The paronomasia introduced into the last clause by Cocceius (qui ducunt te seducunt te), the Dutch version (die u ley den verleyden u), and Gesenius (deine Fiihrer verfiihren dich), is not found in the original. 13. Though human governments might be overthrown, God still re- mained a sovereign and a judge, and is here represented as appearing, coming forward, or assuming his position, not only as a judge but as an advocate, or rather an accuser, in both which characters he acts at once, implying that he who brings this charge against his people has at the same time power to condemn. Jehovah standeth up to p>l^(i^d, and is standing to judge the nations. The first verb properly denotes a reflexive act, viz. that of placing or presenting himself. The participle is used to represent the scene as actually passing. The meaning of ^''T is to plead or conduct a cause for another or one's self. — Some understand the last clause to mean that the judge is still standing, that he has not yet taken his place upon the 116 ISAIAH III. [Ver. 14-17. judgment-seat. Accordiug to Clericus, it represents the case as so clear that the judge decides it standing, -without sitting down to hear argument or evidence. But these arc needless and unnatural refinements. — Yitringa makes 2^ and I^"^ synonymous, ^which is contraiy to usage. Nations here, as often elsewhere, means the tribes of Israel. See Gen. xlix. 10 ; Deut. xxxii. 8 ; xxxiii. 3, 19 ; 1 Kings xxii. 28 ; Mich. i. 2. There is no need therefore of reading i'^y for ^''^V, as Lowth does. 14. This verse describes the parties more distinctly, and begins the accusation. Jehovah ivill enter into judgment (engage in litigation, both as a party and a judge) uith the elders of his 2}eople (the heads of houses, families and tribes) and the chiefs thereof (the hereditary chiefs of Israel, here and elsewhere treated as responsible representatives of the people). And ye (even ye) have consmned the vineyard (of Jehovah, his church or chosen people), the sjjoil of the poor (that which is taken from him by vio- lence) is in your houses. — Hendewerk regards the last clause as the lan- guage of the Prophet, giving a reason why God would enter into judgment with them ; but it is commonly regarded as the commencement of the judge's own address, which is continued through the following verse. — The particle •with which the second clause begins is not equivalent to for (Vulg. Lu.) or but (Cocc), but connects what follows with an antecedent thought not ex- pressed. It may here be rendered even, and so, or so then (Ges.). Lowth has as for you, and the pronoun is certainly emphatic, you from whom it could least have been expected, you who ought to have prevented it. — Hen- derson thinks that vineyard is here used collectively for vineyards, and that literal spoliation of the poor is the particular ofience denounced, or one here chosen to represent the rest. But the common opinion is more probable, viz. that the Prophet here uses the same metaphor which forms the basis of his parable in chap v. — The proper meaning of ""iyn is the afflicted from whatever cause ; but it is commonly applied to the poor. Ewald translates rigidly the sufferer s spoil (des Duld^s liaub.) 15. The Lord's address to the elders of Israel is continued in a tone of indignant expostulation. What mean ye (literally what is to you, equivalent in English to what have you, i. e. what right, what reason, what motive, what advantage) that ye crush my people (a common figure for severe oppression. Job v. 4, Prov. xxii. 22), and y rind the faces of the i)oor (upon the ground, by trampling on their bodies, another strong figure for contemp- tuous and oppressive violence), saith the Lord Jehovah of Hosts (which is added to remind the accused of the sovereign authority, omniscience, and omnipotence of Him by whom the charge is brought against them). — The first verb does not mean merely to weaken (Cocc), bruise (Calv.), or break (Vitr.), but to break in pieces, to break utterly, to crush (Lowth). — By the faces of the poor some understand their persons, or the poor themselves, and by grindiny tiiem, reducing, attenuating, by exaction and oppression (Ges. Hg. Hk. Hn.) Others refer the phrase to literal injuries of the face by blows or wounds (Ew. Um.) But the simplest and most natural interpreta- tion is that which applies it to the act of grinding the face upon the ground by trampling on the body, thus giving both the noun and verb their proper meaning, and making the parallelism more exact. — The phrase at the begin- ning of the verse cannot constitute an independent clause, ivhat mean ye ? (Barnes), but merely serves to introduce the question. IG, 17. The Prophet here resumes the thread which had been dropped or broken at the close of ver. 12, and recurs to the undue predominance of female inllucnce, but particularly to_ the prevalent excess of female luxury, Yer. 18.j IS J I AH III. 117 not only as sinful in itself, but as a chief cause of the violence and social disorder previously mentioned, and therefore to be punished by disease, widowhood, and shameful exposure. These two verses, like the sixth and seventh, form one continued sentence, the and at the beginning of ver. 17 introducing the apodosis, for which reason, and also on account of its rela- tion to because in ver. 16, its full force cannot be expressed by a literal translation. And Jehovah said (in addition to what goes before, as if begin- ning a new section of the prophecy), because the daughters of Zion (the women of Jerusalem, with special reference to those connected with the leading men) are lofty (in their mien and carriage) and loalk with out- stretched neck (literally, stretched of neck, so as to seem taller), and gazing (ogling, leering, looking wantonly) with their eyes, and loith a tripinng walk they walk, and tvith their feet they make a tinkling (i. e. with the metallic * rings or bands worn around their ankles), therefore the Lord xvill make bald the crown of the daughters of Zion, and their nakedness Jehovah loill uncover (i. e. he will reduce them to a state the very opposite of their present pride and finery). — Jerome speaks of men who understood the daughters of Zion here to mean the souls of men. Eichhorn takes it in the geographical sense of smaller towns dependent on Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 45, 47, 2 Chron, xviii. 18). But the obvious meaning is preferred by almost all interpreters. — They are described as stretching oixt the neck, not by bending forwards, nor by tossing the head backwards (Hn.), but by holding it high (Sept. b-\/r,K^ with a permutation of one labial for another. This explanation is adopted by Winer, Ewald, and Knobel. According to Henderson, the word means tasselled tresses, i. e. locks of hair braided and hanging to the feet. 19. The pendants (literally drops, {. e. ear-rings) and the bracelets (for the arm, or according to Ewald, collars for the neck, Halsbande) and the veils (the word here used denoting the peculiar oriental veil, composed of two pieces hooked together below the eyes, one of which pieces is thrown back over the head, while the other hides the face). The first word in the verse is rendered by the English Version, chains, and in the margin, sa-ect- balh, but more correctly by the Septuagint, ■/AOiiJ.a or pendant. 20. Tlie caps (or other ornamental head-dresses) and the ankle-chains (connecting the ankle-bands, so as to regulate the strength of the step) and the fflrdh's, and the houses (^. e. places or receptacles) of breadth, (meaning probably the perfume-boxes or smelling-bottles worn by the oriental women at their girdles) and the amulets (the same word used above in ver. 3, in the sense of incantatiom, but which seems like the 'LviXm fascinum to have also signified the antidote). The first word of this verse is now commonly ex- plained to mean turbans, but as these are distinctly mentioned afterwards, this term may denote an ornamental cap, or perhaps a diadem or circlet of gold or silver. (Ewald, Kronen, Eng. Vs. bonnets.) The next word is explained to mean bracelets by the Septuagint {■>\>i'>0.ici) and Ewald {Arm- spanr/en), but by the English Version more correctly, though perhaps too vaguely, ornaments of the ler/. For r/irdles, sincUinn-bottlcs, and amulets, the English Version has head-bands, tablets (but in the margin, houses of the soul), and car-rinr/s, perhaps on account of the superstitious use which was sometimes made of these (Gen. xxxv. 4). 21. The rinffs, strictly signet- rings, but here put for finger-rings, or rings m general, and the nose-jnvels, a common and very ancient ornament in eastern countries, so that the version, jewels of the face, is unnecessary, as ■well as inconsistent with the derivation from D!?, to perforate. Ver. 22-24.] ISAIAH III. 119 22. The holiday dresses, and the mantles and the robes and the purses. The first word is from V^C to pull off, and is almost universally explained to mean clothes that are taken oif and laid aside, i. e. the best suit, holiday or gala dresses, although this general expression seems misplaced in an enumeration of minute details. The EngUsh version, changeable suits of apparel, though ambiguous, seems intended to express the same idea. The next two words, according to their etymology, denote wide and flowing upper garments. The English version of the last word, crisping-jnns, supposes it to relate to the dressing of the hair. The same idea seems to be expressed by Calvin (acus) and Cocceius (acus discriminales.) The word is now commonly explained, from the Arabic analogy, to signify bags or purses probably of metal. 23. The mirrors and the tunics (inner garments made of linen), and the turbans (the common oriental head-dress, from ^l^V to wrap) and the veils, — The first word is explained to mean their thin transparent dresses, by the Septuagint (diaipavij Xay.'jjvizd), Kimchi, Schroeder, Rosenmliller and Ewald (der feinen Zeuge) ; but most writers understand it to denote the small metalic mirrors carried about by oriental women. Instead of turbans (Eng. Vs. hoods) Henderson supposes ri'lD'*3V to denote ribands used for binding the hair or fastening the tiara. The same writer explains the veil here spoken of to be the large veil covering all the other garments, and therein differing from the small veil mentioned in ver. 19. The same ex- planation is given by Knobel (Ueberwiirfe) ; but other writers make an opposite distinction. 24. The threatening is still continued, but with a change of form, the things to be taken away being now contrasted with those which should suc- ceed them. And it shall be or happen (equivalent in force to then, after all this) that instead of perfume (aromatic odour or the spices which afford it) there shall be stench, and instead of a girdle a rope, and instead of braided uvrk baldness (or loss of hair by disease or shaving, as a sign of captivity or mourning), and instead of a full rope a girding of sackcloth, burning in- stead of beauty. The inversion of the terms in this last clause, and its brevity, add greatly to the strength of the expression. — Several of the ancient versions render pO by dust (Sept. Arab. Syr.), but it strictly denotes disso- lution, putrefaction, and is here used as the opposite of ^^3, viz., stench, not specifically that of corpses, wounds, or the disease supposed to be re- ferred to in ver. 17 (Ros. Ges. Hg. Hk. Ew.), but stench in general, or per- haps with particular allusion to the squalor of captivity or mourning. — i"lSp3 is explained to mean a rent, rent garment, rag or rags, as signs of poverty or grief, by Calvin (laceratio), Cocceius (lacerum), Lowth (rags), and Kjiobel (ein Fetzen). But the meaning cord or rope, given in the Septuagint [u-^oivlu) ^wffyy) and Vulgate (pro zono funiculus), is adopted by Clericus (funis), Gesenius (einen Strick), and most modern writers. — The Septuagint ex- plains nt^pp to mean a golden ornament of the head ; Vitringa a solid orna- ment of gold, perhaps from i^^'?, hard. It is now explained, from an Arabic meaning of the same root, to denote turned ivnrk, or a shape produced by turning. (See Gesen. s. v.) The cognate H^pp is applied to ornamental work in wood or metal, but this, perhaps, in derision, to the laborious braid- ing of the hair, as appears from its being in antithesis to baldness. — Ewald reads ^^ Tl? as two words meaning the fulness or widenesi (from npS, to open) of an ample robe (from ^''^ to revolve or flow around), contrasted with a tight girding of sackcloth. Gesenius makes the sense the same, but re- gards ?''J.''ns as a compound word denoting the full robe itself. The Eng- 120 ISAIAH III. [Yer. 25, 26. lish version (stomacher) supposes it to be a particular ornamental part of dress. — The ancient versions take '•S as a conjunction, and connect the last clause with the next verse, " for instead of beauty, thy men," &c. (Sept. Vulg.), or make it an independent clause, by treating nnn as a verb (Targ. Pesh.) ; but all the modern writers are agreed in making ^3 a noun, from n^3, to bum, like '^ ''V, from HIN njj;. The burniur/ mentioned is supposed to be that of the skin from long exposure, by the French version (au lieu du beau teint le hale), Clericus (adusta fades), and Lowth (a sun-burnt skin). But most inter^u-eters understand by it a brmui, here mentioned either as a stigma of captivity, or as a self-inflicted sign of mourning. Hitzig gives the noun the geueral sense of ivoiind or mark ; but this is un- authorized, and weakens the expression. Sackcloth is mentioned as the coarsest kind of cloth, and also as that usually worn by mourners. The two nouns n^yp and n'J'pp are in opposition, the first denoting artificial adjust- ment, the second its precise form. 25. The prophet now assigns as a reason for the grief predicted in ver. 24, a general slaughter of the male population, the effect of which is again described in ver. 26, and its extent in chap. iv. 1, which belongs more directly to this chapter than the next. In the verse before us, he first ad- dresses Zion or Jerusalem directly, but again, as it were, turns away, and in the next verse speaks of her in the third person. Thy men by the sicord shall fait, and thy strenyth in ivar. — "^^DP does not mean //;// common jieople, as opposed to warriors or soldiers of distinction (Luther : dein Piibel) ; nor does it simply mean thy people or inhabitants (Cocc. homines tui ; Fr. Vs. tes gens ; Lowth, thy people) ; but thy men, i. e. thy males (Vulg. viri tui. Ges. deine Manner). — The present form used by Gesenius greatly detracts from the minatory force of the future, which is retained by Hitzig, De Wette, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit. The abstract strenyth is resolved into a concrete by the Septuagint {Jnypovnt;), Vulgate, Luther, Lowth, and Gesenius ; but it is better to retain the original expression, not in the military sense of forces (Hg. Hn.), but as denoting that which constitutes the strenyth of a community, its male population (Calv. robur tuum ; Fr. Vs. ta force; Ewald, deine Mannschaft). 26. The effect of this slaughter on the community is hero described, first by representing the places of chief concourse as vocal with distress, and then by personifying the state or nation as a desolate widow seated on the ground, a sign both of mourning and of degradation. And her gates (those of Zion or Jerusalem) shall lament and mourn, and briny emptied (or exhausted) she shall sit upon the yround. The gates are said to mourn, by a rhetorical substitution of the place of action for the agent (Hendewerk), or because a place filled with cries seems itself to utter them (Knobel). The meaning of nn[9J (which may be cither the preterite or participle passive of nj^J is taken in its proper sense of emptied or exhausted by Jimius (cxpurgata), Vitringa (evacuatu), and Ewald (ausgeleert). This is ex- plained to mean emptied of her strength, /. e. weakened by Hendewerk (entkriiftet), emptied of her people, i.e. solitary, desolate, by the Vulgate (desolata), the EngHsh version (desolate), Gesenius (veriidetj, Jlitzig (ein- 8am), &c. The reference of this word to her former condition seems pecu- liar to Clericus (quaj munda erat). She is described not as lyiny (Calv. Cler.), but sittiny on the ground, as on one of Vespasian's coins a woman is represented, in a sitting posture, leaning against a palm-tree, with the legend, Judtm Capta. Chap. iv. ver. 1. The paucity of males in the community, resultiug Ver. l.J ISAIAH IV. 121 from this general slanghter, is now expressed by a lively figure represent- ing seven women as earnestly soliciting one man in marriage, and that on the most disadvantageous terms, renouncing the support to which they were by law entitled. And in that (/fl?/;(then, after the judgments just pre- dicted) seven women {i. e. several, this number being often used indefinitely) shall lay hold on one man (earnestly accost him), saying, Weicilleat our own bread, and ivear our own apparel ; only let thy name he called upon us (an idiomatic phrase meaning let us be called by thy name, let us be recog- nised as thine), take thou away our reproach, the " reproach of widowhood " (Isa. liv. 4), or ceUbacy, or rather that of childlessness, which they imply, and which was regarded with particular aversion by the Jews before the time of Christ. — This verse appears to have been severed from its natural connection in accordance with an ancieut notion that the one man was Christ, and the seven tvomen souls believing on him. This view of the passage may indeed have been either the cause or the effect of the usual division and arrangement of the text. Some writers think that the Prophet intended to present an accumulation of strange things, in order to shew the changed condition of the people ; women forsaking their natural modesty, soHciting marriage, with violent importunity, in undue proportion, and on the most disadvantageous terms. But the more probable opinion is the common one, that he simply meant to set forth by a lively figure, the dis- proportion between the sexes introduced by a destructive war. Instead of our own bread, our own clothes, Cocceius would simply read our bread, our clothes, and understand the clause as a promise of domestic diligence. The common interpretation agrees better with the other_ circumstances and ex- pressions of the verse and context. Luther gives ^D.^ a subjunctive form, that our reproach may he taken from us. The English version and Hender- son make it an infinitive, to take away ; Barnes a participle, taking away ; but the imperative construction, which is given in the margin of the English Bible, and preferred by almost all translators, ancient and modern, agi-ees best with the absence of a preposition, and adds to the vivacity of the address. To this verse Calvin cites a beautiful parallel from Lucan, which is copied by Grotius, and credited to him by later writers — Da tantum nomen inane Connubii ; liceat tumulo scripsisse Catonis Makcia. CHAPTEE IV. Besides the first verse, which has been explained already, this chapter contains a prophecy of Christ and of the future condition of the Church The Prophet here recurs to the theme with which the prophecy opened (chap. ii. 1-4), bnt with this distinction, that instead of dwelUng on the in- fluence exerted by the church upon the world, he here exhibits its internal condition under the reign of the Messiah. He fu-st presents to view the person by whose agency the church is to be brought into a glorious and happy state, and who is here described as a partaker both of the divine and human nature, ver. 2. He then describes the character of those who are predestined to share in the promised exalta- tion, ver. 3. He then shews the necessity, implied in these promises, of previous purgation from the defilement described in the foregoing chapters, ver. 4. When this purgation is effected, God will manifest his presence 122 ISAIAH IV. [Ver. 2. gloriously throughout his church, ver. 5. To these promises of purity and honour he now adds one of protection and security, with which the prophecy concludes, ver. 6. It is commonly agreed that this prediction has been only partially ful- filled, and that its complete fulfilment is to be expected, not in the literal mount Zion or Jerusalem, but in those various assemblies or societies of true believers, which now possess in common the privileges once exclusively enjoyed by the Holy City and the chosen race of which it w^as the centre and metropolis. 2. At this point the Prophet passes from the tone of threatening to that of promise. Having foretold a general destruction, he now intimates that some should escape it, and be rendered glorious and happy by the presence and favour of the Son of God, who is at the same time "^the Son of man. In that day (after this destruction) shall the Branch (or Offspringl of Jehovah he for honour and for fflory, and the fruit of the earth for suhiiuiii!/ and beauty, to the escaped of Israel, literally the escape or deliverance of Israel, the abstract being used for the collective concrete, meaning those who should survive these judgments. — ? HTl^ may be taken cither in the sense of heinrifor, serviiir/ as, or in that oihecominy, as in chap. i. 14, 21, 22, 31. — As npv, in its physical and jiroper sense, means groivth, vegetation, or that which grows and vegetates (Gen. xix. 25; Ps. Ixv. 11; Hosea viii. 7; Ezek. xvi. 7), it is here explained by Hitzig, Maurer, and Ewald, as synonymous \y\ih fruit of the earth, but in its lowest sense, that of vegetable products or abundant harvests. To this interpretation, which is adopted by Gesenius in his Thesaurus, it may be obiectedj first, that such a subject is wholly incongruous with the predicates applied to it, honourable, glori- ous, sublime, and beautiful ; sjQ&ondly, that this cxplnnation of no>* is pre- cluded by the addition of the name Jehovah, a dithculty aggravated by the parallelism, which requires the relation between branch i\m\ Jehovah to bo the same as that heiyreen fruit and earth, and as the last phrase means the offspring of the earth, so the first must mean the offspring of Jehovah, an expression which can only be applied to persons. This last objection applies also to the explanation of the phrase as meaning spiritual ylfts in opposition to temporal or earthly gifts (Calv. Jun. Schleusner). It docs not lie against that proposed by Grotius, and adopted by J. D. Michaelis, Koppe, and Eichhoin, by Gesenius in his Commentary, and more recently by Knobcl, which ap])lies the phrase to the better race of Israelites who were to spring up after the return from exile. But although the sense thus put upon the word is personal, it is not individtial, as in every other case where no^ is used figuratively elsewhere, but collective. Another objection to it is, that this better race of Israelites arc the very persons here called the escaped of Israel, who would then be described as a beauty and a glory to them- selves. Knobel evades this objection by denying that the last words of the verse have any connection with the fir.-t clause ; but his evasion is an arbi- trary one, suggested by the difficulty which attends his doctrine.— The first of these objections applies also to Hendewerk's interpretation of the phrase as meaning the government or administration (das regierendo Personale des Staalcs). — The usage of the Hebrew word in application to an indivi- dual will be clear from the following examples. " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper " (Jer. xxiii. 5). " In those days and at that time will I cause the branch of righteousness to grow np unto David, and ho shall execute judgment " (Jer. xxxiii. 15). "Behold I will bring forth my Ver. 3, 4.] ISAIAH IV. 123 servant the Branch " (Zecb. iii. 8). "Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH " (Zech. vi. 12).-j The Branch is here represented as a man, a king, a righteous judge, a servant of God. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the same person, whom Jeremiah calls the branch (or son) of David, is called by Isaiah in the verse before us the branch (or son) of Jehovah. This view of the passage is strongly recommended by the following considera- tions, i It is free from the difficulties which attend all others^ j It is the ancient Jewish interpretation found in the Chaldee Paraphrase, which ex- plains the Branch of Jehovah as meaning his Messiah, C''"! xrT'Ei'Q.), ?)The parallel passages already quoted are referred to the Messiah even by Gese- nius, who only hesitates to make the same admission here, because he thinks the parallel phrase, fruit of the earth, cannot be so applied. But no expression could in fact be more appropriate, whether it be translated /rwit of the land and referred to his Jewish extraction (Hengstenberg), or fruit o/" f/te crtft/i. and referred to his human nature (Vitr. Hn.).(^/)On the latter supposition, which appears more probable, the parallel terms correspond exactly to the two parts of Paul's description (Rom. i. 8, 4), and the two titles used in the New Testament in reference to Christ's two natures. Son OF God and Son of Man. 3, Having foretold the happiness and honour which the Son of God should one day confer upon his people, the Prophet now explains to whom the promise was intended to apply. In the preceding verse they were described by their condition as survivors of God's desolating judgments. In this they are described by their moral character, and by their eternal destination to this character and that which follows it. And it shall be, hap- pen, come to pass, that the left in Zion and tlie spared in Jerusalem, singular forms with a collective application, shall be called holy, literally hohj shall he said to him, i. e. this name shall be used in addressing him, or rather may be used with truth, implying that the persons so called should be what they seem to be every one icritten, enrolled, ordained, to life in Jerusalem. — The omission of H^^H) (Lu. Ges. De W. Ew. Hn.) is a needless departure from the idiomatic form of the original. The expression may be paraphrased, and this shall he the consequence, or this shall follow, preparing the mind for an event of moment. As D^*n may be either a plural adjective or abstract noun, some understand the phrase to mean enroUccl among the living (Lu. Calv. Cler. E. V. Low. Bar.), others enrolled to life (Jun. Cocc. Vitr. J. H. Mich. J. D. Mich. Ges. Hg. De W. Ew. Urn. Hn.).° In either case the figure denotes not simply actual life, but destination to it. For the origin and usage of the figure itself, see Exod. xxx. 12 ; Num. i. 18 ; Ezek. xiii. 9 : Phil. iv. 3 ; Rev. iii. 5. 4. This verse contains a previous condition of the promise in ver. 3, which could not be fulfilled until the church was purged from the pollution brought upon it by the sins of those luxurious women and of the people generally, a work which could be effected only by the convincing and avenging influences of the Holy Spirit. The construction is continued from the verse preceding. All this shall come to pass, if (provided that, on this condition, which idea may be here expressed by vihen) the Lord shall have ivashed auriij (the Hebrew word denoting specially the washing of the body, and suggesting the idea of the legal ablutions) the filth (a very strong term, transferred from physical to moral defilement) of the daughters of Zion (the women before mentioned), and the blood (literally bloods, i. e. bloodshed or blood-guiltiness) of Jerusalem (i. e. of the people in general) shall purge from its midst bg a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning, i. e. by the judgment 124 IS AT AH IV. [Ver 5. and burning of the Holy Spirit, with a twofold allusion to the purifying and destroying energy of fire, or rather to its purifying by destroying, purging the whole by the destruction of a part, and thereby manifesting the divine justice as an active principle. The daiir/hters of Zioii are by some uuder- stood to be the other towns of Judah (Rosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, Um- breit), the objection to which is not its unpoetical character (Gesenius), but its disagreement both with the immediate connection and with the use of the same terms in chap. iii. 16. Others understand by daughters the in- habitants in general (Sept. sons and daughters), or the female inhabitants regarded as mothers and as forming the character of their children (Hende- werk). But it is natm-al that in closing his prediction the Prophet should recur to those luxurious women, to whose intluence much of the disorder and oppression which prevailed may have been owing. He then makes a transition from particular to general expressions. The idea does not seem to be, the uncleanness of the women and the blood- guiltiness of the men (Hk. Hn.), or the uncleanness and blood-guiltiness both of men and women (Kji.), but the uncleanness of the women and the blood-guiltiness of the people generally. — D^T does not mean to remove (Cler. Low. Bs.), nor to drive out (Lu. Um.), nor to extirpate (Ges. Hg. Hk. Ew.), nor to expiate (Calv.), but simply to wash or purge out (Sept. Yulg. Cocc. E. V. Hn.), the verb being specially applied to the washing of the altar and sacrifices (2 Chron. iv. 6 ; Ezek. xl. 38). Two of these senses are combined by J. H. Michaelis (lavando ejecerit. — The word spirit cannot be regarded as pleon- astic or simply emphatic (Hn.) without affording licence to a like interpre- tation in all other cases. It is variously explained here as meaning breath (Hg. Um.), word (Targ. Jon. fT K")0''02), and power or injiucnce (Ges. Hengstenberg, Bs., &c.). But since this is the term used in the New Testa- ment to designate that person of the Godhead, whom the Scriptures uniformly represent as the executor of the divine purposes, and since this sense is perfectly appropriate here, the safest and most satisfactory interpretation is that which understands by it a personal spirit, or as Luther expresses it, the Spirit who shall judge and burn. Even Ewald adopts the same inter- pretation upon gfounds, as it would seem, entirely philological. Calvin supposes spirit of hurninf) of judgment to be equivalent in meaning to the hurni)ig and judgment of the Spirit. He also gives the preposition its pri- mary meaning, as do the Seventy (jv 'Trvsu/Man), in {i. e. in the person of) the Spirit. The common explanation is by (/. e. by means of) or through {i. e. the intervention of) the Spirit. — The translation of "i^? by consumption or extermination (Cocc. Ges. Hg. De W. Hk. Um.) is neither so precise nor 80 poetical as that by burning (Sept. Pesh. Vulg. Lu. Calv. E. V. Low. Bs. Ew.). — J. D. Michaelis translates this clause, by the righteous zeal of the tribunals and by a destructive zvind ! 5. The church is not only to be purified by God's judgments, but glori- fied by his manifested presence, and in that state of glory kept secure by his protection. The presence of God is here denoted by the ancient symbol of a fiery cloud, and is promised to the church in its whole extent and to its several assemblies, as distinguished from the one indivisible congregation, and its one exclusive place of meeting, under the old economy. And Je- hovah joill create (implying the exercise of almighty power and the produc- tion of a new effect) over the whole extent (literally, p/ace or space) of mount Zion (in its widest and most spiritual sense, a.s appears from what fol- lows), and over her assemblies, a cloud by day and smoke {i. e. a cloud of smoke), and the in-igh'.ncss o/ a flaming fire by night ; for over all the glory Ver. 6.] ISAIAH IV. 125 (previously promised, there shall be) a covering (or shelter). — Most of the modern versions make this the apodosis of a sentence beginning with ver. 4, " When the Lord shall have washed, &c., then will Jehovah create," &c. (Cler. Low. Ges. Bs. Hn .Um. Kn.). But although this is grammatical, and leaves the general sense unchanged, the absence of the 1 at the begin- ning of ver. 4, and its insertion here, seems to shew that ver. 4 is itself the apodosis of a sentence beginning with ver. 3, and that a new one begins here (Calv. Cocc. Vitr. J. D. Mich. E. V. Hg. De W. Hk. Ew.). The present tense (Ges. De W. Ew. Um.) is not so well suited to the context as the future (Hg, Hk. &c.). The older writers give P^P the sense of dwelling- place ; but the modern lexicographers explain it to mean place in general. pDD ?3 may be rendered either wliole place or every place without a change of sense (vide supra chap. i. 5, iii. 1), The two appearances described in this verse are those presented by a fire at difierent times, a smoke by day and a flame by night. There is no need therefore of explaining t^J? to mean vapour (Knobel), or of connecting it with what follows (Sep. Vitr. Cler. Hitzig. Hengstenberg) in violation of the Masoretic accents. — The meaning of the promise is the same whether H'^^^PP be explained to mean her assemUies (Low. Hengst. Ew. Um. Kn.) or her jAaces of assembly (Lu. J. D. Mich. Ges. Hn.) ; but the former is the sense most agreeable to usage. — Lowth omits ?3 before |13^ on the authority of eight manuscripts, and inserts it before nN"lpO on the authority of one manuscript and the Septuagint. More than forty manuscripts and nearly fifty editions read rriXlpO, and almost all interpreters explain it as a plural. — In the last clause ''3 has its usual meaning and not that of yea (Low.), which (Hn.), or so that (Kn.). — Clericus, J. T>. Michaelis, and Lee (Heb. Lex. s. v. nSH) make Ti33 the subject of the last clause, "over all, glory shall be a de- fence," which is wholly inconsistent with the Masoretic pointing. Instead of over Kocher reads above, i. e. superior to all former glory, a construction which is given in the Chaldee Paraphrase, IP 1''J!l! (more than). Some regard this as the statement of a general fact, " over everything glorious there is protection," i.e. men are accustomed to protect what they value highly (Vitr. Ros. Hengst. Ew.) ; but the great majority of writers under- stand it as a prophecy or promise. — nsn ife construed as a passive verb, it is or shall be covered, by the Septuagint {Gx.s'!racd-^gsTai) Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel. But as this is a harsh construction, and as the Pual of HDn does not occur elsewhere, it is better, with Ewald, Umbreit, Hengstenberg, and the older writers, to explain it as a noun derived from ^?n, and agreeing with the verb is or shall be understood, or as Hitzig and Hendewerk sup- pose, with the same verb in the first clause of the next verse, "For over all the glory a covering and shelter there shall be." The sense is not affected by this last construction, but such a change in the division of the text can be justified only by necessity. 6. The promise of refuge and protection is repeated or continued under the figure of a shelter from heat and rain, natural emblems for distress and danger. And there shall be a shelter (properly a booth or covert of leaves and branches, to serve) /or a shadow by day (as a protection) /row heat, and for a covert and for a hiding-place from storm and from rain. — Instead of making nsp the subject of the sentence (E. V. De W. Hn. Um.), some regard it as the predicate referring to a subject understood. He, i.e. God, shall be a shelter, &c. (Ges. Bs.). It, the cloud or the protection, shall be a shelter, &c. (Low. Hg.). — That ri|D means the tabernacle or temple, which it never does elsewhere, is a notion peculiar to Clericus. — 12G ISAIAH V. Dlt is not a -whirlwind (Vulg.) or a hail-storm (J. D. Mich.) but an inun- dation (Jim. Cler. J. H. Mich.) i. e. a flood of rain, a pouring, driving rain (Luther, Wetter, Gesenius, Ungewitter). CHAPTER V. This chapter contains a description of the prevalent iniquities of Judah, and of the judgments which, in consequence of these, had been or were to be inflicted on the people. The form of the prophecy is peculiar, consist- ing of a parable and a commentary on it. The prophet first delivers his whole message in a parabolic form, vers. 1-7. He then explains and ampHfies it at great length, vers. 8-30, The parable sets forth the peculiar privileges, obligations, guilt, and doom of Israel, under the figure of a highly favoured vineyard which, in- stead of good fruit, brings forth only wild grapes, and is therefore given up to desolation, vers. 1-6. The appUcation is expressly made by the Pro- phet himself, ver. 7. In the remainder of the chapter, he enumerates the sins which were included in the general expressions of ver. 7, and describes their punish^ ment. In doing this, he first gives a catalogue of sins with their appropi'iate punishments annexed, vers. 8-24. He then describes the means used to inflict them, and the final issue, vers. 25-30. The catalogue of sins and judgments comprehends two series of woes or denunciations. In the first, each sin is followed by its punishment, vers. 8—17. In the second the sins follow one another in uninterrupted succes- sion, and the punishment is reserved until the close, vers. 18-24. In the former series, the first woe is uttered against avaricious and am- bitious grasping after lands and houses, to be punished by sterility and desolation, vers. 8-10. The second woe is uttered against drunkenness, untimely mirth, and disregard of providential warnings, appropriately punished by captivity, hunger, thirst, and general mortality, vers. 11-14. To these two woes are added a general declaration of their purpose and effect, to humble man and exalt God, and a repeated thi*eatening of general desolation as a punishment of both the sins just mentioned, vers. 15—17. The sins denounced in the second series of woes are presumptuous and incredulous defiance of God's judgments, the deliberate confounding of moral distinctions, undue reliance upon human wisdom, and drunkenness considered as a vice of judges, and as causing the perversion of justice, vers. 18-23. To these he adds a general threatening of destruction as a necessary consequence of their forsaking God, ver. 24, In declaring the means used to effect this condign retribution, the Prophet sets before us two distinct stages or degrees of punishment. The first, which is briefly and figuratively represented as a violent and destruc- tive stroke of God's hand, is described as ineflectual, ver. 25. To com- plete the work, another is provided in the shape of an invading enemy, before whom, after a brief fluctuation, Israel disappears in total darkness, vers. 2G-30. In its general design and subject, this prophecy resembles those which go before it ; but it differs remarkably from both in holding up to view ex- clusively the dark side of the picture, the guilt and doom of the ungodly Jews, without the cheering contrast of purgation and deliverance to be ex- perienced from the same events by the ti'ue Israel, the Church of God. Ver. l.J ISAIAH V. 127 This omission, which of course must be supplied from other prophecies, is by Hitzig incorrectly represented as a reason for regarding this as the con- clusion of the one preceding, to confirm which supposition he appeals to certain verbal coincidences, particularly that between ver. 15 and chap. ii. 9, 17. But these and the more general resemblance of the chapters, can only prove at most what must be true on any hypothesis, to wit, that the prophecies relate to the same subject and belong to the same period. A similar coincidence between ver. 25 and chap. ix. 11, 16, 20, x. 4, has led Ewald to interpolate the whole of that passage (from chap. ix. 5, to chap. X, 4), between the twenty-fifth and the twenty-sixth verses of this chapter ; as if the same form of expression could not be employed by the same author upon difierent occasions, and as if such a treatment of the text did not open the door to boimdless licence of conjecture. With still less sem- blance of a reason, Hendewerk connects this chapter with the first nine verses of the seventh and the whole of the seventeenth, as making up one prophecy. The old opinion, still retained by Gesenius, Henderson, Um- briet, and Knobel, is that this chapter, if not an independent prophecy, is at least a distinct appendix to the one preceding, with which it is connected, not only in the way already mentioned, but also by the seeming allusion in the first verse to chap. iii. 14, where the Church of God is called his vine- yard, a comparison which reappears in other parts of Scripture, and is carried out in several of our Saviour's parables. This chapter, like the first, is applicable not to one event exclusively, but to a sequence of events which was repeated more than once, although its terms were never fully realised until the closing period of the Jewish history, after the true Messiah was rejected, when one ray of hope was quenched after another, until all grew dark for ever in the skies of Israel, i 1. The parable is given in vers. 1-6, and applied in ver. 7. It is intro- duced in such a manner as to secure a favourable hearing from those whose conduct it condemns, and in some measure to conceal its drift until the application. The Prophet proposes to sing a song, i. e. to utter a rhythmical and figurative narrative, relating to a friend of his, his friend's own song indeed about his vineyard. In the last clause he describes the situation of the vineyard, its favourable exposure and productive soil. / will sinrj, if you please (or let me sing I pray you), of viy friend (i. e. concerning him), my frieiuV s sonrj of Im vineyard {i. e. concerning it). My friend had a vine- yard in a hill of great fertility (literally in a horn, a son of fatness, ac- cording to the oriental idiom, which applies the terms of human kindred to relations of every kind). — The common version, now ivill I siny, seems to take ^<3 as an adverb of time, whereas it is a particle of entreaty, used to soften the expression of a purpose, and to give a tone of mildness and cour- tesy to the address. Siny and sony are used, as with us, in reference to poetry, without employing actual musical performance. — Calvin's translation (for my beloved, i. e. in his name, his person, his behalf) is at variance with the usage of the particle. Grotius (to my beloved) is inappropriate, as the friend is not addressed, and this is not a song of praise. Maurer's {of m.y beloved, i. e. belonging to him, hke JTl.^?, a Psalm of David), is a form only used in titles or inscriptions. The ? has doubtless the same sense before this word as before his vineyard. Knobel supposes song of my friend also to denote a song respecting him, because he is not introduced as speaking till ver. 3, But for that very reason it is first called a song concerning him, and then his own song. The cognate words ''^y. and ''"in are referred by some to different subjects ; but their identity is plain from the possession of 128 ISAIAH V. [Ver. 2, 8. the vineyard being ascribed to both. — The Vulgate and Luther give to IH its usual sense of uncle, and Cocceius applies it to the Holy Spirit, which is altogether arbitrary. It seems to be joined with *!'•'!'* to vary the expression of the same idea, that oi friend, the unusual terms being used not mystically but poetically. The Prophet must be understood as speaking of a human friend until he explains himself. — Umbreit makes HI^ govern the next phrase; on the projection [Vorsprun(j)ofafatplace; but the latter is in that case too indefinite. — Clericus supposes an allusion to a horn of oil, Yitringa to the curved shape of the Holy Land ; but most interpreters agi'ee that horn is here used, as in various other languages, for the shaq? peak of a motmtain {e.ri. Schreckhorn and Wetterhom in Switzerland), or as in Arabic, for a detached hill. The preposition does not properly mean on but in, implying that the -s-ineyard only occupied a part, and that -this was not the summit, but the acclivity exposed to the sun, which is the best situation for a vineyard. (Apertos Bacchus amat colles. Virg. Georg. 2, 112.) 2. Not only was the vineyard favourably situated, but assiduously tilled, protected from intrusion, and provided with everything that seemed to be needed to secure an abundant vintage. And he digged it up, and gathered Old the stones thereof, and planted it with SoreJc, mentioned elsewhere (Jer. ii. 21) as the choicest kind of vine, which either gave or owed its name to the valley of Sorek (Judges xvi. 4), and built a totcer in the midst of it, partly for protection from men and beasts, and partly for the pleasure and convenience of the owner, and also a wine-vat, to r(Jceive the juice from the wine-press immediately above ; he hewed in it, i.e. in a rock (or hewed may be simply used for excavated in the ground, a common situation in hot countries for the lacus, reservoir or wine-vat), and he waited for it, i. e. he allowed it time, to make, produce, bear, bring forth, grapes, and it produced wild grapes. — Instead of he waited for it, Umbreit reads, he hoped, Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson, he expected, and the authorised version, he looked, in the old Enghsh sense. But the fijrst translation, which is that of the Septuagint (jfiuve), is entitled to the preference, because it conveys the full sense of the Hebrew word without creating any difiiculty in the subsequent application of the figure. — J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, and Rosenmiiller take D^C'{<^ in the sense of aconite or nightshade, a plant which does not grow in Palestine. Most modern writers approve the version of Jerome, lahrusca, the lahrusca vitis of Pliny, and lalrusca uva of Columella, an acrid and unwholesome grape, contrasted with the good grape by Sedulius (1, 29) precisely as the two are here contrasted by Isaiah : Labruscam placidis quid adhuc prsiponitis uvis ? For he digged it up and gathered out the stones thereof, the Septuagint has he hedged it and tvalled it, both which senses may be reconciled with ety- molog}', although rejected by the modern lexicographers. The question is .of no exegetical importance, as the words in either case denote appropriate and necessary acts for the culture or protection of the vineyard. 8. Having described the advantageous situation, soil, and culture of the vineyard, and its failure to produce good fruit, he submits the case to the decision of his hearers. And now, not merely in a temporal but a logical sense, " this being the case," 0 inhcdntant of Jerusalem and man of Judah, the singular form adding greatly to the individuality and life of the expn s- sion, judge I j>ray you, pray decide or act as arbiters, helwccn me and my vineyard. — To suppose, with Calvin and others, that the people are hero Ver. 4.] ISAIAE V. 129 called upon directly to condemn themselves because their guilt was so appa- rent, is to mar the beauty of the parable by a premature application of its figures. They are rather called upon to judge between a stranger and his vineyard, simply as such, unaware that they are thereby passing judgment on themselves. The meaning and design of the appeal are perfectly illus- trated by that which Christ makes (Mat. xxi. 40) in a parable analagous to this and founded on it. There as here the audience are called upon to judge in a case which they regard as foreign to their own, if not fictitious, and it is only after their decision that they are made to see its bearing on them- selves. So too in Nathan's parable to David (2 Sam xii. 1), it was not till " David's anger was greatly kindled against the man," i.e. the stranger of whom he understood the prophet to be speaking, that " Nathan said to David, Thou art the man." A disregard of these analogies impairs both the moral force and the poetical unity and beauty of the apologue. The same thing may be said of the attempt made by the Chaldee Paraphrast, Cocceius, A^itriuga, and most recently by Umbreit, to put a specific figurative sense on each part of the parable, the wall, the tower, the hedge, &c., which is not more reasonable here than it would be in explaining ^ sop's fables. The parable, as a whole, corresponds to its subject as a whole, but all the particulars included in the one are not separately intended to denote particulars included in the other. A lion may be a striking emblem of a hero ; but it does not follow that the mane, claws, &c., of the beast must all be significant of something in the man. Nay, they cannot even be supposed to be so, without sensibly detracting from the force and beauty of the image as a whole. 4. This verse shows that the parable is not yet complete, and that its application would be premature. Having called upon the Jews to act as umpires, he now submits a specific question for their arbitration. Wliat to do more {i. e. what more is there to be done) to my vineyard and I have not (or in the English idiom, that I have not) done in it (not only to or for but in it, with reference to the place as well as the object of the action) ? Why did I ivait for it to bear grapes and it bore wild grapes ? — Calvin and Gesenius supply tvas instead of is, in the first clause, what ivas there to do more, i. e. what more was there to be done, or was I bound to do ? But though grammatically exceptionable, does not agree so well with the con- nection between this verse and the next as a question and answer. Still less exact in the English Version (followed by Lowth, Barnes, and Hender- son), what more could have been done f The question whether God had done all that he could for the Jews, when the Scriptures were still incom- plete, and Christ had not yet come, however easy of solution, is a question here irrelevant, because it has relation, not to something in the text, but to something supphed by the interpreter, and that not only without necessity, but in violation of the context ; for the next verse is not an answer to the question what God could have done, but what he shall or will do. The most simple, exact, and satisfactory translation of this first clause is that given by Cocceius (quid faciendum amplius vin* mese) and Ewald (was ist noch meinem Weinberge zu thun ?) — In the last clause Calvin understands the owner of the vineyard to express surprise at his own unreasonable expecta- tions. Why did T expect it {i. e. how could I expect it) to bear grapes f This construction not only raises a new difficulty in the application of the words to God, but is inconsistent with the context, the whole drift of which is to- shew that the expectation was a reasonable one. The interrogation really belongs to the second number only, the first being merely introductory, or VOL. I. I 130 ISAIAH r. ^Ver. 5, 6. rather to the whole clause as a complex sentence. " Why, when I waited for it to bear gi'apes, did it bear wild grapes '?" As other exaniples of the same construction, Knobel refers to chap. xii. 1, 1., 2; and to Job ii. 10, iv. 2, iii. 11. 5. He now proceeds to answer his own question, in a tone of pungent irony, almost amounting to a sarcasm. The reply which might naturally have been looked for was a statement of some new care, some neglected precaution, some untried mode of culture ; but instead of this he threatens to destroy the vineyard, as the only expedient remaining. The rhetorical effect of this sudden turn in the discourse is heightened by the very form of the last clause, in which the simple future, as the natural expression of a purpose, is exchanged for the infinitive, denoting the bare action without specification of person, time, or number. And now (since you cannot tell) / xnll let you knoir if you please (or let me tell you) u-hat I am doing to my vineyard, i. e. according to the idiomatic use of the participle, uhat I am about to do, suggesting the idea of a proximate futurity), remove its hedge and it sliall become a pasture (literall}'', a consuming, but with special refe- rence to cattle), break doivn its wall, and it shall become a trampling -place (/. e. it shall be overrun and trampled do'v^Ti).^ — Remove and break are not imperatives but infinitives, equivalent in meaning to I ivill remove and break, but more concise and rapid in expression. Cocceius and Vitringa suppose an elhpsis of the finite verb after the infinitive, " removing I will remove," " breaking down I will break down." This construction, in its full foi-m, is extremely common ; but against the supposition of its ever being ellipti- cally used, there is this objection, that the repetition is designed to be emphatic, an efiect which is entirely destroyed by the omission. Ivnobel supposes that the thom hedge and stone wall, which are separately men- tioned elsewhere, are here put together to denote a more than ordinaiy care bestowed on the ideal vineyard. The more common opinion is that both were actually used in the same case with a view to diflerent kinds of depredation. — DD~ip is a noun of place formed in the usual manner (Gesen. Heb. Gramm. § 83, 14) from the verb DO^, which occurs in chap. i. 12. — On the sense become (instead of be for) vide supra, ch. i. 14, 21, 22, 31. 6. To the threatening of exposure he now adds that of desolation arising from neglect of culture, while the last clause contains a beautiful though almost imperceptible transition from the apologue to the reality. By adding to the other threats, which any human vine-dresser might have reasonably uttered, one which only God could execute, the parable at one stroke is brought to a conclusion, and the mind prepared for the ensuing application. And I place it (render it) a desolation. It shall not he pruned and it shall not be dressed, and there shall come up thorns and briers. And I will lay my commands upon the clouds from raining rain xqwn it, i. e. that they rain no rain upon it. The addition of the noun rain is emphatic and equi- valent to any rain at all. — The English version lay loaste is perhaps too strong for the original expression, which rather signifies the letting it run to waste by mere exposure and neglect. — The older versions take T)'!^\ in the sense oi digging (Sept. Vulgate, Luther, Calvin), but the latest writers prefer that of dressing, an'anging, putting in order. — Gesenius and Ewald follow Cocceius in referring n?3^ to thevinej-ard as its subject; it shall come up thorns and briers, as the eye is said to run doivn water (Lam. iii. 48), and a land to Jlow milk and honey (Exod. iii. 8). The construction, though undoubtedly good Hebrew, is not so obvious as the old and common one. To command from or away from is to deter from any act by a command, Vee. 7-9.] ISAIAH V. 131 in other words to forhid or to command not to do the thing in question. In this sense only can the preposition from be said to have a negative meaning. 7. The startling menace at the close of the sixth verse would naturally prompt the question, Who is this that assumes power over clouds and rain, and what is the vineyard which he thus denounces ? To this tacit ques- tion we have here the answer. As if he had said, do not wonder that the owner of the vineyard should thus speak, for the vineyard of Jehovah of Hosts is the House of Israel, the church, considered as a whole, a^id the man of Judah is the plant of his pleasures, or his favourite plant. And he ivaited for judgment, practical justice, as in ch. i. 17, and behold hloodshed, for righteoicsness and behold a cry, either outcry and disturbance, or more spe- cifically the cry of the oppressed, which last is more agreeable to usage, and at the same time more poetical and graphic. — The ''? at the beginning has been variously rendered but (Luther, Gesen. Hendw. Umbr.), to tvit (Hitzig), certainly (Calvin), &c. But the true connection of the verse with that before it not only admits but requires the strict sense, for, because, as given in the ancient versions, and retained by Cocceius, Ewald, and I^iobel. — J. D. Michaelis and all the later Germans follow Pagninus and Montanus in translating Vl?^ plantation. But the word is unambiguously used in that sense nowhere else, and it does not agree well with the singular term man. It is true that plant and man may be put for a collection of plants and men, but this should not aflect the strict translation of the sentence. — The paronomasia or designed correspondence in the form and sound of the piarallel expressions in the last clause has been copied by Augusti, Gese- nius, Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel. But as Hendewerk has well observed, such imitations can even approximate to the form of the original, only by departing more or less from the strict sense of particular expressions, a loss which can hardly be considered as made good by the mere assonance of such combinations as Gerechtigheit and Schlechtigkeit, Begluckung and Bedruckung , Milde and Unbilde. 8. Here begins a detailed specification of the sins included in the general expressions of ver. 7. We have first two woes pronounced against as many sins, each followed by a threatening of appropriate punishment, and a general threatening which applies to both, vers. 8-17. The first sin thus denounced is that of ambitious and avaricious grasping after property, not merely in opposition to the peculiar institutions of the law, but to the fun- damental principles of morals, connected as it always is with a neglect of charitable duties and a wilUngness to sacrifice the good of others. The Verse before us may be understood, however, as descriptive rather of the tendency and aim of this ambitious grasping, than of its actual effects. Woe to the joiners of house with house, or those making house touch house, field to field they bring together, literally, cause them to approach, even to a failure (or defect) of place, i. e. until there is no room left, and ye, by a sudden apostrophe addressing those of whom he had been spealdng, are made (or left) to dwell by yourselves in the midst of the land, owning all from the centre to the circumference, or simply within its bounds, within it. The translation earth is equally agreeable to usage, and expresses still more strongly the extent of their desires ; but land is more natural and preferred by almost all interpreters. Ewald regards ''1'"I as a simple excla- mation (0 die Haus reihen an Haus !) But this translation is inadequate, as an expression of denunciation is required by the context. 9. The inordinate desire of lands and houses shall be punished with the 132 ISAIAH V. Yee. 10, 11. loss of thetn, vers. 9, 10. And first, he threatens that the yaluahle houses ■which they coveted, and gained by fraud or violence, shall one day be left empty, an event implying the death, captivity, or degi'adation of their owners. In my ears Jehovah of Hosts is saying, as if his voice were still ringing in the Prophet's ears, of a truth (literally, if not, being part of an old formula of swearing, " may it be so and so if," &c, ; so that the nega- tive form conveys the strongest affirmation, surely, certainly) many houses shall become a desolation, great and good for leant of an inhahilant. — The Septuagint and Vulgate, followed by Luther, Calvin, and J. D. Michaelis, make in my ears the words of God himself, as if he had said, " these things are in my ears," or "it (the cry, ver. 7) is in my ears, saith Jehovah of Hosts." But most modern writers follow the Targum and Peshito in con- struing this clause according to the analogy of chap. xxii. 14 ("in my ears it was revealed by Jehovah of Hosts," or "Jehovah of Hosts revealed him- self.")— The common version, shall be desolate, does not convey the whole idea, which is that of hecomimj, being charged into {vide supra, ver. 6), and is so rendered in most versions. — The sense usually given to D-3it3 is the specific one of fair or heaidiful (Henderson, fine ; Barnes, splendid.) But Cocceius and Yitringa take it more correctly in the general sense of good, including the ideas of profit and convenience, as well as that of elegance or beauty. — By most interpreters P^p in the last clause is regarded as a synonjTue or at most as an intensive form of T^ " wholly without inhabitant." But the causative meaning, " for the want of," " from the absence of," P^^ being properly a noim, afibrds a better sense here, as ex- plaining how or why the houses should be desolate, and may be justified by the analogy of Jer. xix. 11 ; (J. D. MichaeHs, "because there will be no one to inhabit them. Clericus, Vitringa, and Hendewerk explain it to mean so that there shall not he, but without authority' from usage. — Henderson's version of the foi'egoing words, the numerous houses, the large and fine ones, and that of Gesenius, from which it is derived, seem to lay too much stress upon the adjectives. — On the form if not, compare chap, xiv. 24 ; Deut. i. 35 ; Ps. cxxxi. 2. 10. As the sin related both to lands and houses, so both are mentioned in denouncing punishment. The desolation of the houses was in fiict to arise fit'om the unproductiveness of the lands. Ruinous failure of crops, and a near approach to absolute sterility are threatened as a condign pun- ishment of those who added field to field and house to house. The meaning of this verse depends not on the absolute value of the measures mentioned, but on their proportions. The last clause threatens that the seed sown, instead of being multiphed, should be reduced nine-tenths ; and a similar idea is no doubt expressed by the analogous terms of the preceding clause. For ten acres (literally yokes, like the Latin jugerum from jugum) of vine- yard shall make (produce) one bath, a liquid measure here put for a veiy small quantity of wine to be yielded by so large a quantity of laud, and the seed of a homer, i. e. seed to the amount of a homer, or in our idiom, a homer of seed, shall jnvduce an ephah, a dry measure equal to the liquid halh, and constituting one-tenth of a homer, as wo learn from E/.ek. xlv. 11-14. The English Version, followed by Lowth, translates *3 yea, while Clericus and Gesenius omit it altogether. But the particle is necessary, in its usual sense, to connect this verse with the prediction in ver. 9, of which it gives the gi'ound or reason. 11. The second woe is uttered against drunkenness and heartless dis- sipation, with its usual accompaniment of inattention to God's providential Vee. 12.] I8AIAE r. 133 dealings, and is connected with captivity, hunger, thirst, general mortality, as its appropriate punishment, vers. 11-14. The description of the sin is contained in vers. 11, 12, and first that of drunkenness, considered not as an occasional excess, but as a daily business, diligently prosecuted with a devotion, such as would ensure success in any laudable or lawful occupation. Woe to those rising early in the morning to jjursue strong drink (literally, strong drink they pursue), delaying i^i the tivilight (until) wijie inflames them. — That ^??'.^ does not here mean the morning twilight, but as usual the dusk of evening (Prov. vii. 9), is plain from the preposition in prefixed. The idea of contimiing till night (Vulg. Calv. Eng. Vs.) is rather implied than expressed. The allusion is not so much to the disgracefulness of drinking in the morning (Knobel, Henderson), as to their spending day and night in drinking, rising early and sitting up late. Before wine in the last clause the older writers supply aiid (Peshito, J. D. Michaelis), ivhile (Calvin, Yitringa), or so that (Vulgate, Luther, Cocceius, Lowth, Rosen.) Gesenius avoids this by a paraphrase (" sit late at night by wine in- flamed"), and Ewald treats the participles in both clauses as adverbial ex- pressions used to qualify the finite verb (" they who early in the morning run after strong drink, late in the evening are inflamed by wine"). The precise construction of the Hebrew may be thus retained — " those who, rising early in the morning, pursue strong drink ; those whom, delaying in the evening, wine inflames." The same application of D'''!in^P occurs in the parallel passage, Prov. xxiii. 29-32. Strong drink diflers from wine only by including all intoxicating liquors, and is here used simply as a parallel expression.- — The waste of time here censured is professed and gloried in by the convivial poets of heathen antiquity. Thus Horace says of himself, Est qui nee veteris pocula Massici, Nee partem solido demere de die, Spernit. The nocturnal part of the prophetic picture is still more exactly copied by Propertius, Sic noctem patera, sic ducam carmine, donee Injiciat radios in mea vina dies. Illustrative parallels from modern poetry are needless though abundant. 12. This verse completes the picture begun in ver. 11, by adding riotous mirth to drunkenness. To express this idea, mnsic is joined with wine as the source of their social enjojTuent, but the last clause shews that it is not mere gaiety, nor even the excess of it, that is here intended to be promi- nently set forth, but the folly and wickedness of merriment at certain times, and under certain circumstances, especially amidst impending judgments. The general idea of music is expressed by naming several instruments belonging to the three great classes of stringed, wind, and pulsatile. The precise form and use of each cannot be ascertained, and is of no importance to the meaning of the sentence. And the harp and the viol, the tahret (tam- bourine or small drum), and the pipe (or flute), and. loijie (compose) their feasts : and the work of Jehovah they tuill not look at (or regard), and the operation of his hands they have not seen, and do not see. — The Targum supplies a preposition before the first nouns, and makes /eas ^s. xxii. 30 (compare 2p\3^^P, Ps. Ixxviii. 31). — The phrase i^^?'?? has been variously explained to mean as it was said to them (Targ.), juxta ductum suum, i.e. ivitkout restraint (J. H. Mich. Lowth), according to their order, i.e. their usual order (Vulg.), as tliey are driven (Aben Ezra, J. D. Mich.). But the modern interpreters take "1?"1 here and Micah ii. 12 in the sense of pasture. — The conjectural emendation of the text by changing Dn: into D'''>3 (Capellus, Bauer) or DHJ (Durell, Seeker, Lowth, Ewald), is of course superfluous. 18. The series of woes is now resumed and continued without any inter- ruption, vers. 18-23. Even the description of the punishment, instead of being added directly to that of the sin, as in vers. 9 and 13, is postponed until the catalogue of sins is closed, and then subjoined in a general form, ver. 24. This verse contains the third woe, having reference to presump- tuous sinners who defy God's judgments. They are here represented not as drawn away by sin (James i. 14), but as laboriously drawing it to them by soliciting temptation, drawing it out by obstinate persistency in evil and contempt of divine threatenings. Woe to the draivers of iniquity (those drawing, those who draw it) ivith cords of vanity and sin (a parallel expres- sion to iniquity) as (or as ivith) a cart-rope, i.e. a strong rope, implying difliculty and exertion. — The interpretation which supposes iniquity and sin to mean calamity and punishment (Menochius, Gesenius, Ewald, Hendewerk, Henderson), although it seems to make the sentence clearer, impairs its strength, and takes the words in an unusual and doubtful sense. Knobel objects that men cannot be said to draw sin with cords of sin. But even this figure is perfectly consistent both with reason and experience. Or vanity may be taken in the sense of falsehood or sophistical reasoning by which men persuade themselves to sin (Calv. Vitr. Cler.). The Targum, followed by Jarchi, supposes an antithesis between the beginnings of sin and its later stages, slight cords and cart-ropes. But this confounds the sin itself with the instrument by which they draw it ; and the same objec- tion lies against the Syriac and Vulgate versions, which make drawing out, or protracting, the primary idea, and also against Houbigant's and Lowth's interpretation, which supposes an allusion to the process of rope-making, Luther's idea, that the verse relates to combination among wicked men, " who bind themselves together" to do mischief, is at variance with the usage of the Hebrew verb. — The true interpretation of the verse, which supposes the act described to be that of laboriously drawing sin to one's 138 ISAIAH V. [Ver. 19-21. self, perhaps with the accessorv idea of drawing it out by perseverance, is substantially given by Kimchi, Yitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Maurer, and Umbreit. — The various readings, nuyn for ri13J?3 (Bib. Soncin., 14 MSS.), *^3n3 for ^"Pnnn (l MS., Sept. Aq. Sym. Theod.), and rhw for n'?ay (Olshausen, Observ. Crit., p. 8, Henderson ad loc), are all unnecessary, and inferior to the common text. 19. The degi-ee of their presumption and depravity is now evinced by a citation of their language with respect to God's threatened judgments, an ironical expression of impatience to behold them, and an imj)lied refusal to believe without experience. The sentence is continued from the verse preceding, and further describes the sinners there denounced, as the ones sayinrj (those who say), let him qiced, let him hasten his tcoik (his providen- tial work, as in ver. 12), that we may see, and let the counsel (providential plan or purpose) of the Holy One of Israel (which, in the mouth of these blasphemers, seems to be a taunting irony) draw niyh a)td come, and ice uill knoiv (/. e. according to the Hebrew idiom and the parallel expression) that ire may know what it is, or that it is a real purpose, and that he is able to accomplish it. Compare Jer. xvii. 15 ; Amos v. 18, vi. 13 ; Isa. XXX. 10, 11, xxviii. 15 ; 2 Peter iii. 4. — The intransitive construction of the first clause, " let him speed, let his work make haste " (Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit), may be justified by usage, and makes the clauses more exactly parallel ; but the other is preferred, by almost all interpreters, ancient and modern. — Henderson explains this verse as "the only construction which could be put upon the conduct of the wicked Jews ; " but the reference seems to be to actual expression of the wish in words, and not ^in action merely. — For the form HNinri, see Gesenius, Heb. Gr. § 48, 3. 20. The fourth woe is against those who subvert moral distinctions and confound good and evil, an idea expressed first in literal terms and then by two obvious and intelligible figures. Woe tinto the (persons) saying (those who say) to evil good and to good evil, (who address them by these titles or call them so), jndting darkness for light and light for darkness, jmtting hitter for sired and siceet for hitter. These are here combined, not merely as natural opposites, but also as common figures for truth and falsehood, right and wrong. See chap. ii. 5; Prov. ii. 13; Eccles. ii. 13; James iii. 11. A kindred figure is employed by Juvenal (qui nigrum in Candida vertunt, Sat. iii. 3). Gesenius and Hitzig apply this verse par- ticularly to unrighteous judges, who arc mentioned in ver. 23; but a more general sense is here required by the context. 21. Here, as in the foregoing verse, one sin follows another without any intervening description of punishment. This arrangement may imply a very intimate connection between the sins thus brought into juxtaposi- tion. As presumptuous sin, such as vers. 18, 19 describe, implies a per- version of the moral sense, such as ver. 20 describes, so the latter may be said to presuppose an undue reliance upon human reason, which is else- where contrasted with the fear of God (Prov. iii. 7), and is indeed incom- patible with it. Woe Jtnto the wise in their eyes [i. e. their own eyes, which cannot be otherwise expressed in the Hebrew) and hefore their own faces (in their own sight or estimation) /)rt»/f?/<, intelligent, a synonyme of ?me. The sin reproved, as Calvin well observes, is not mere frivolous self- conceit, but that delusive estimate of human wisdom (fallax sapientiaj spectrum) which may coexist with modesty of manners and a high degree of real intellectual merit, but which must be abjured, not only on account of its cflects, but also as involving the worst form of pride. Vek. 22, 24.] ISAIAH V. 139 22. The sixth woe, hke the second, is directed against drunkards, but with special reference to drunken judges, vers. 22, 23. The tone of this verse is sarcastic, from its using terms which commonly express not only strength but corn-age and heroic spirit, in application to exploits of drunk- enness. There may indeed be a particular allusion to a species of fool- hardiness and brutal ambition not uncommon in our own times, leading men to shew the vigour of their frames by mad excess, and to seek emi- nence in this way no less eagerly than superior spirits seek true glory. Of such it may indeed be said, their god is their belly and they glory in their shame. Woe to the mighty men or heroes^ (who are heroes only) to drink iv'me, and men of strength to mingle strong drinJc, i. e. according to the usual interpretation, to mix wine with spices, thereby making it more stimulating and exciting, a practice spoken of by Pliny and other ancient -na-iters. (See also Sol. Song viii. 2.) Hitzig (with whom Hendewerk agrees on this point) denies that this was an oriental usage, and under- stands the Prophet as referring to the mixture of wine with water. But see Gesenius's Thesaurus, p. 808. In either case the mixing is here mentioned only as a customary act in the offering or drinking of liquors, just as making tea might be mentioned as a common act of modern hospi- tality, whatever part of the preparatory process the phrase may properly denote. 23. The absence of the interjection shews that this is a continuation of the woe begun in the preceding verse, and thus explains the Prophet's recurrence to a sin which he had denounced already (vers. 11, 12) as pro- ductive of general inconsideration, but which he now describes as leading to injustice, and therefore as a vice pecuharly disgraceful in a magistrate. The effect here ascribed to drunkenness is not merely that of incapacitating judges for the discharge of their official functions, but that of tempting them to make a trade of justice, wuth a view to the indulgence of this appetite. Justifying {%. e. acquitting, clearing, a forensic term) the guilty (not simpl_y the wicked in a general sense, but the wrong-doer in a judicial sense) for the sake (literally as the result) of a bribe, and the righteousness of the righteous (i. e. the 7-ight of the innocent or injured party, or his charac- ter as such they will take from him (i. e. they do and will do so still). The transition from the plural to the singular in this clause, and from the par- ticiple to the future, are familiar idioms of Hebrew syntax. The pronoun at the end may be understood either collectively or distributivelj^, fro7n each of them. (See Ges. Heb. Gr. § 143, 4.) 24. To the series of sins enumerated in the six preceding verses there is now added a general description of their punishment. In the first clause, the Prophet represents the divine visitation, with its sudden, rapid, irre- sistible effect, by the familiar figure of chaff and dry grass sinking in the flames. In the second clause he passes from simile to metaphor, and speaks of the people as a tree whose root is rotten and its growth above ground pulverised. In the third, he drops both figures, and in literal ex- pressions summarily states the cause of their destruction. Therefore (be- cause of the abounding of these sins) as a tongue of fire (/. e. a flame, so called from its shape and motion. Acts ii. 3 ; 1 Engs xviii. 38) devours chaff (or stubble), and as ignited grass falls aivay, their root shall he as rottenness, and their blossom as fine dust shall go up {i. e. be taken up and scattered by the wind). For they have rejected the laiu of Jehovah of Hosts, and the uord (the revealed will) of the Holy One of Israel they have treated with contempt. — Montanus explains ^^y. as a transitive verb (glumam UO ISAIAH r. [Yee. 25. debilitat), and the English Version (followed by Lowth and August!) goes still further by giving it the sense of consuming, which it never has. Cal- vin, followed by Vitringa, makes it passive, and renders i^^Oo ^s an abla- tive (a flamma dissolvitur). Gesenius, in his version, gives the verb its usual intransitive or neuter sense, but supplies a preposition before the noun, or takes it as a noun of place (in der Flamme zusammensinkt). In his Lexicon, however, he adopts the construction first proposed by Cocceius, which supposes the two words to be in regimen, and to mean literall)'' (irass of flame, i. c. flaming or ignited grass. — J. D. Michaelis endeavours to identify the figures of the first and second clause by reading ashes instead of rottenness ; but such transitions are too common to excite surprise. — The Scptuagint renders nn? u\i^og, the Vulgate (jermcn, and others variously bud, blossom, flower, &c. It seems to be inteuded to express whatever could here be put in antithesis to root, as in the proverbial phrase root and branch, denoting the whole tree, above ground and below. — For the true sense of the last verb in this verse, see chap. i. 4. Its use in this connec- tion is a strong proof that it cannot mean provoke, although the Seventy so translate it even here. — The collocation of the subject and the object in the first clause is unusual. SeeEwald's Heb. Gr. § 555. For the syntax of the infinitive and future in the same clause, see Gesen. § 129, Kem. 2. 25. Having declared in the foregoing verse what should be, he recalls to mind what has already been. As if he had said, God will visit you for these things ; nay, he has done so already, but without reclaiming you or satisfj-ing his own justice, for which purpose further strokes are still re- quired. The previous inflictions here referred to are described as a stroke from Jehovah's outstretched hand, so violent as to shake the mountains, and so destructive as to fill the streets with corpses. — Therefore (referring to the last clause of ver. 24) the anger of Jehorah has burned against his jieople (literally //( them, i.e. in the very midst of them as a consuming fire), and he stretched forth his hand against them (literally hiin, referring to the singular nonn people), and smote them, and the mountains trembled, and their carcass (put collectively for corpses) teas like sireeping (refuse, filth) in the midst of the streets. In all this {i.e. even after all this, or notwithstanding all this) his anger has not turned back (abandoned its object, or regarded it as already gained), and still his hand is stretched out (to inflict new judg- ments).— The future form given to the verb by Clericus is altogether arbi- trary. Most of the later writers follow Luther in translating them as presents. But if this verse is not descriplive of the past, as distinguished from the present and the future, the Hebrew language is incapable of making any such distinction. This natural meaning of the language (which no modern version except Ewald's fully expresses) is confirmed by the last clause, which evidently introduces something posterior to what is here described. It is not necessary to suppose, although it is most i:irobable, that what is here described had actually taken place before the Prophet wrote. In this, as in some other cases, he may be supposed to take his stnnd between a nearer and a more remote futurity, the former being then of course described as past. — The trembling of the mountains is referred by Hcndewerk to the earthquake mentioned Amos i. 1, Zoch. xiv. 5. Jarchi explains it of the fall of kings and princes. Junius makes the Pro- phet say that if such strokes had fallen upon mountains the;/ nould have treinhled. — J. T). Michaelis supposes what is said of the dead bodies to bo applicable only to a pestilence. It is most probable, however, that these strong expressions were intended simply to convey the idea of violent com- Yer. 26, 27.J ISAIAH V. Ill motion and a general mortality. There is no need of referring what is said excliisively of evils suffered in the days of Joash and Amaziah (Junius) or in those of Ahaz (Vitringa), since the Prophet evidently means to say that all ineced'uui judgments had been insufficient and that more were still required. — The act expressed by ^C^' is not so much that of tumhu/ away as that of turnhui hack or ceasing to pursue. (See Hengstenberg on Ps. is. 4, 18). Saadias and Kimchi derive nmD3 from rtD3 to cut or tear, in which they are followed by Calvin (mutilum), Junius (succisum), and the English version (torn). But all the ancient versions and most modern ones make 3 a preposition, and the best lexicographers derive the noun from HID to sweep. — In the midst of the streets may be taken strictly to de- note in the middle (Calvin : in medio viarum), or more indefinitely in, ivithin. Vide supra, ver. 8. 26. The former stroke having been insufficient, a more effectual one is now impending, in predicting which the prophet does not confine himself to figurative language, but presents the approaching judgment in its proper form, as the invasion and ultimate subjection of the country by a formidable enemy, vers. 26-30. In this verse he describes the approach of these invaders as invited by Jehovah, to express which idea he employs two figures not uncommon in prophecy, that of a signal-pole or flag, and that of a hiss or whistle, in obedience to which the last clause represents the enemy as rapidly advancing. And he raises a signal to the nations from afar, and hisses (or whistles) /or him from the ends of the earth ; and behold in haste, siuift he sJiall come.— Here as in ver. 25, the older writers under- stand the verbs as futures, but the later ones as presents. The verbs in the last clause have Yav prefixed, but its conversive power commonly de- pends upon a future verb preceding, which is wanting here. These verbs appear to form a link between the past timeiof ver. 25 and the unambiguous future at the end of this. First, he smote them, but without effect. Then, he raises a signal and whistles. Lasth', the enemy thus summoned ivill come swiftly. — The singular suffix in 1? has been variously explained as re- ferring to the king whose subjects had been previously mentioned (Targ. Jon.), or to the army as a whole, which had been just described as Gen- tiles, heathen (Knob. Hitzig), or to the ruling power under whose banners the other nations fought (Yitr. Hendewerk), or simply to one of the nations previously mentioned (Gesen. Umbr.) — The nation meant has been also variously explained to be the Romans (Theodoret : roug 'PM/j.a!ovc 5iri rov-uv ^'v;|s), the Bab3-lonians (Clericus), and the Assyrians (Gesen. Ewald, &c.). But this very disagreement, or rather the indefinite expressions which occa- sion it, shew that the terms of the description were designed to be more comprehensive. The essential idea is that the previous lighter judgments should be followed by another more severe and efficacious, by invasion and subjection. The terms are most emphatically applicable to the Romans. — The hissing or whistling, Hitzig supposes to have reference to some mode of alluring birds (Hos. xi. 11; Zech. x. 8); but the common and more probable opinion is that it alludes to the ancient mode of swarming bees, described at length by Cyril. (See his words as given by Bochart, Hieroz. p. 506). — In the last clause a substantive meaning haste, and an adjective meaning light, are both used adverbially in the sense oi su-ifthj. 27. The enemy, whose approach was just foretold, is now described as not onty prompt and rapid, but complete in his equipments, firm and ■vigorous, ever wakeful, impeded neither by the accidents of the way nor by defective preparation. There is no one faint (or exhausted) and there is no 142 ISAIAH r. [Ver. 28, 29. one sl.umUing (or faiiltering) among them (literally in Mm). He (the enemy, considered as an individual) deeps not, and he slumbers not, and the girdle of his loins is not opened (ox loosedi), and the latchet (string or band of his shoes (or sandals) is not broken. — The English Version follows Calvin in translating all the verbs as futures. The Vulgate supplies the present in the first clause, and makes the others future. But as the whole is evidently one' description, the translation should be uniform ; and as the pre- terite and future forms are intermingled, both seem to be here used for the present, which is given by Luther and most of the late writers. — The last clause is understood by Henderson and others as denoting that they do not disarm or undress themselves for sleep. But as the last verb ahvay de- notes violent separation, it is most probable that this whole clause relates to accidental interruptions of the march. The question raised by Hende- werk and Henderson as to the kind of girdle here referred to, is of no exe- getical importance, as it is only joined with shoes to represent the dress in general. — In him may be either put collectively for in them, or as J. D. Michaelis supposes, may refer to the army ; and Hendewerk accordingly has it slumbers not, &c. — The distinction made by some between Ci-13^ and W"! (Cocceius : non dormitat, multo minus dormit) is unnecessary here, where the verbs seem to be used as mere poetical equivalents. 28. The description is continued, but with special reference to their w'ea- pons and their means of conveyance. For the former, bows and arrows are here put ; and for the latter, horses and chariots (see ch. ii. 7). Whose arroics are sharpened and all his boirs bent (literally trod upon) ; the hoofs of his horses like flint (or adamant) are reckoned, and his wheels like a trhirl- ivind, in rapidity and violence of motion. — Gesenius, Henderson, and others, omit the relative at the beginning, and Junius renders it as a conjunction (quia). But it serves to make the connection with the verse preceding much more close and sensible. — As D''3-1Jt^*, like the Latin acutae, is a par- ticiple, the common version (sharp) does not fully express its meaning. Indeed, from what is said of the bow-s immediately afterwards, the pro- minent idea would seem to be not that the arrows were sharp, but that they were already sharpened, implying present readiness for use. — The bows be- ing trod upon has reference to the ancient mode of stringing, or rather of shooting, the bow being large, and made of metal or hard wood. AiTian says expressly, in describing the use of the bow by the Lidian infantry " placing it on the ground, and stepping on it with the left foot, so they shoot {o'j-ug r/.ro^ivouGi), drawing the string back to a great distance." (See the original passage in Henderson.) — The passive verb -l^^'ri.? cannot be accurately ren- dered, they resemble (Gesen. Hitzig), nor even they are to be counted (Augusti, DeWette), but means they are counted (Cocceius, Ewald), the preterite form implying that they had been tried and proved so. — The future form given to this whole verse by Calvin and Junius, and to the last clause by Lowth and Barnes, greatly impairs its unity and force as a description. 29. By a sudden transition, the enemy are here represented as lions, roar- ing, growling, seizing their pray, and carrying it off without resistance ; a lively picture, especially to an oriental reader, of the boldness, fierceness, quickness, and success of the attack here threatened. He has a roar like the lioness, and he shall roar like the young lions, and shall groivl, and seize the prey, and secure it, none delivering (/. e. and none can rescue it). — Coc- ceius, Vitringa, and the modern writers, use the present tense, as' in the foregoing verses, to preserve the unity of the description. But there the preterite and future forms are mingled, whereas here the future is alone used, Vek. 30.] ISAIAR r. 143 unless the textual reading J^^t^'l be retainecl, and even then the Vav may be regarded as conversive. Besides, this seems to be the turning-point between description and prediction. Having told what the enemy is, he now tells what he will do. It seems best, therefore, to adopt the future form used by the ancient versions, by Calvin, and by Luther, who is fond of the pre- sent, and employs it in the two foregoing verses. — Most of the modern wi'iters follow Bochart in explaining i^"'^'? to denote the lioness, which is the more natural in this case from the mention of the young lions immediately afterwards. The image, as Henderson suggests, may be that of a lioness attended by her whelps, or rather by her young ones which are old enough to roar and seek their prey (see Ezck. xix. 2, 3, and Gesenius, s. v.). — The meaning of t3''"?3.! is not "he shall embrace" (Vulgate amplexabitur), nor "he shall gather spoil" (Calvin spolia corradet), nor " he shall let it go" in sport before devouring it (Luzatto) ; but he shall carry it off safe, place it in safety, or secure it (Ewald : tobt und nimmt den Raub und sichert ihn ohne Better). 30. The roaring of the lion suggests the roaring of the sea, and thus a beautiful transition is effected from the one figure to the other, in describing the catastrophe of all these judgments. Israel is threatened by a raging sea, and looking landward, sees it growing dark there, until, after a brief fluctua- tion, the darkness becomes total. And he (the enemy) shall roar against him (Israel) in that day like the roaring of a sea. And he shall look to the land, and behold darhness ! Anguish and light ! It is d'lrk in the clouds thereof {i. e. of the^land, the skies above it). — The Vulgate, Peshito, and a great majority of modern writers, disregard the Masoretic accents, and con- nect "^^'H with IV, and "il^' with "^^^'H. Knobel appears to be the first who observed that this arrangement involves the necessity of vowel-changes also, as we must then read "!>' ^i' "^^ ^"^^ "'^'^? for IIJ^I. Those who adopt this interpretation, either read darhness of anguish (Vulgate, Hitzig, Knobel) or darkness and aiiguish (Eng. Vs.), or darkness, anguish (Hendewerk). Vit- ringa still construes "l^X separatelj^, " as for the light," but the others con- nect it with '^^*n directly, " and the light is dark," &c. The only objection to the Masoretic interpretation (which, although retained by Cocceius, Ro- senmiiller, Gesenius, and Maurer, is not the common one, as Hitzig repre- sents), is the alleged incongruity of making light and anguish alternate, instead of light and darkness, a rhetorical nicety unworthy of attention where there is at best but a choice of difficulties. Henderson says, indeed, that it is " quite at variance with the spirit of the text, which requires a state of profound darkness, without any relieving glimpses of light." But it is just as easy to affirm that " the spirit of the text" requires the other con- struction, which is, moreover, recommended by its antiquity, traditional authorit}^, simplicity, poetical beauty, and descriptive truth. — On the autho- rity of the Aldine and Complutensian text of the Septuagint, Lowth supposes an omission in the Hebrew, which he thus supplies, " and these shall look to the heaven upward and down to the earth." But, as Barnes has well observed, "there is no need of supposing the expression defective. The Prophet speaks of the vast multitude that was coming up, as a sea. On that side there was no safety. It was natural to speak of the other direction as the land or shore, and to say that the people would look there for safetj*. But, says he, there would be no safety there ; all would be darkness." Hitzig supplies the supposed effect by putting "IIN in antithesis to Y"}^, ' one looks to the earth, and behold the darkness of distress, and to the light {i. e. the sun or sky) &c.' But the introduction of the preposition is entirely arbitrary 144 ISAIAH VL and extremely forced. — Kimchi and Junius explained n^D^y to mean its ruins, deriving it from fl^V to destroy (Hos. x. 2). Clericus, following an Arabic analogy, translates it in conclavihiis, ■which seems absurd. The common derivation is from ^"^V to distill (Dent, xxxii. 2 ; xsxiii. 28), according to which it means the clouds, either strictly, or as a description of the heavens generally. Lowth, and several of the later Germans, give the particle a causal sense, through or hi/ reason of its clouds ; but the proper local sense of in its clouds or skies is retained by Gesenius, Ewald, and all the early writers. The second verb is taken indefinitely by all the modern Germans except Ewald, who translates it he looks, but, as if by way of compensation, gives an indefinite meaning to the suffix in V"?;^ which he renders over or t<2JOWone (liber einem). The use of the present tense, in rendering the first clause by Cocceius and the later Germans, is hardly consistent with the phrase in that day, and destroys the fine antithesis between the future On:?* and the preterite ^^'0 describing the expected obscuration as already past. — Clericus appears to be alone in referring tD33 to the enemy (solo adspectu terram Israeliticam terrebit !). The sense of the last clause, according to the Masoretic interpretation, is well expressed by Gesenius, " (bald) Angst, (bald) Licht," and more paraphrastically by an old French version, " il re- gardera vers la terre, mais voici il y aura des tenebres, il y aura affliction avec la lumiere, il y aura des tenebres au ciel audessus d'elle." CHAPTEE VI. This chapter contains a vision and prophecy of awful import. At an early period of his ministry, the Prophet seas the Lord enthronad_in the temple and adored by the Seraphim, -iit ..whose voica the house. is^shaken, and the Prophet, smitten with a sense of his own corruption and unwortlii;^ ness to speak for God or praise him, is relieved by the application -of.fii:a- from the altar to his lips, and an assurance of forgiveness, after •n^hicli^ in answer to the voice of God inquiring for a messenger, he offers himself and is accepted, but with an assurance that his labom-s will tend only to aggra- vate the guilt and condemnation of the people who are threatened with judicial blindness, and, as its necessary consequence, removal from the desolated country ; and the propliecy closes with a promise and a threaten- ing both in one, to wit, that the remnant which survives the threatened judgments shall experience a repetition of the stroke, but that a remnant after all shall continue to exist and to experience God's mercy. The chapter naturally falls into two parts, the vision, vers. 1-8, and the message or prediction, vers. 9-13. The precise relation between these two parts has been a subject of dispute. The question is, whether the vision is an introduction to the message, or the message an appendage to the vision. / Those who take the former view suppose that in order to prepare the Prophet for a discouraging and painful revelation, he was favoured with a new view of the divine majesty and of his own unworthiness, relieved by an assurance of forgiveness, and encouraged by a special designation to the self-denying work which was before him.> Those who assume the other ground proceed upon the supposition, that the chapter contains an account of the Prophet's original induction into office, and that the message at Iho close was added to prepare him for its disappointments, or perhaps to try his faith. Either of these two views may be maintained without absurdity ai;d Vee. 1.] ISAIAH VI. Ir) without materially affecting the details of the interpretation. The second is not only held by Jewish writers, but by the majority of Christian inter- preters in modern times. The objection to it, founded on the place which the chapter holds in the i!ollection, is met by some with the assertion, that the prophecies are placed without regard to chronological order. But as this is a gi-atuitous assumption, and as the order is at least prima facie endence of date, some of the latest writers (Ewald for example) hold that the date of the composition was long posterior to that of the event, and one writer (Hitzig) goes so far as to assume,- that this is the latest of Isaiah's writings, and was intended to exhibit, in the form of an ex post facto prophecy, the actual result of his official experience. This extravagant hypothesis needs no refutation, and neither that of Ewald, nor the common one, which makes this the first of Isaiah's writings, should be assumed without necessity, that is, without something in the chapter itself for- bidding us to refer it to any other date than the beginning of Isaiah's ministry. But the chapter contains nothing which would not have been appropriate at any period of that ministry, and some of its expressions seem to favour, if they do not require, the hypothesis of pre\aous experi- ence in the office. The idea of so solemn an inauguration is affecting and impressive, but seems hardly sufficient to outweigh the presumption arising from the order of the prophecies in favour of the other supposition, which requires no facts to be assumed without authority, and although less strik- ing, is at least as safe. '/'.■3^/' ■ 1. In the year that king Uzziah died ('B.C. 758^, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and his skirts (the train of his royal robe) filling the palace, or taking the last word in its more specific sense, the temple, so called as being the palace of the great King. " No man hath seen God at any time " (John i. 18), and God himjself hath said, " There shall no man see me and lijve^(Exod,_xxxiv...2II).. Yet we read not only that " the pure in heart shall see^God"^_(Mat._v. 8), but that Jacob said, " I have seen God face to face " (Gen. xxxii. 30). It is therefore plain that the^^rase "To^ee "God ""is^eihploj'-'ed In different senses, and that al- though his essence is and must be invisible, he may be seen in the manifestation of his glory or in human forrOii: . The first of these senses is given here by the Targum and Grotius, the last, by Clericus, with more probability, as the act of sitting on a tl^roae implies a human form, and Ezekiel likewise in prophetic vision saw, " upon the likeness_of a throne, an appearance as the likeness of a man above upon it " (Ezek. i. 26). It has 1)eeira'general opinion in all ages of t'xe Church, that in every such mani- festation it was God the Son who thrs revealed himself. In John xii. 41, it is said to have been Christ's glo^j thftt Isaiah saw and spoke of, while Paul cites vers. 9 and 10 (Acts x'.viii. 25, 26) as the language of the Holy Ghost. It seems needless to 'ucjuire whether the Prophet saw this sight i with his bodily eyes, or in a ('ream, or in an ecstasy, since the effect upon' his own mind must have beea the same in either case. It is also a ques- tion of no moment whether he beheld the throne erected in the holy place, or in the Holy of Holies, or in heaven, or as Jarchi imagines, reaching from earth to heaven. The scene of the vision is evidently taken from^, the temple at Jenis'detii^, but not confined to its exact dimensions and! arrangements. It has been disputed whether what is here recorded took place before (jr r.'ter the death of Uzziah. < Those who regard this as the first of Isa'ah'i prophecies are forced to assume that it belongs to the VOL. T. ■ K 144 ISAIAH VI. [Yek. 2. reign of Uzziah. It is also urged in favour of this opinion, that the time after his death would have been described asihe first year of Jotham. The design, however, may have been to fix, not the reign in which he saw the vision, but the nearest remarkable event. Besides, the first year of Jotham would have been ambiguous, because his reign is reckoned from two different epochs, the natural death of his father, and his civil death, when smitten with the leprosy, after which he resided in a separate house, and the government was administered by Jotham as prince-regent, who was therefore virtually king before he was such formally, and is accordingly described in the very same context as having reigned sixteen and twenty years (2 Kings xv. 30, 33). It does not follow, however, that by Uzziah's death the Prophet here intends his leprosy, as the Targum and some of the rabbins suppose, but merely that the mention of Uzziah is no proof that the vision Mas seen before he died. — Abavbenel and Rosenmuller refer the epithets hi(jh and lofty to the Lord, as in chap. Ivii. 15, and Calvin understands by the train the edging of the cloth which covered the throne. But the common ex- planation is in either case more natural. The conjunction before '"l?S"P?> is not to be connected with n^T understood (Hendewerk), or rendered aho (English version), but explained as an example of a common Hebrew idiom which prefixes this particle to the apodosis of a sentence, especially when the first clause contains a specification of time. It is here substantially equivalent to then, and is so rendered by Junius and Tremellius, Gesenius, Henderson, and others. 2. He sees the Lord not only enthroned but attended by his ministers. Seraphim, burning spirits, standing above it, the throne, or, above him that sat upon it. Sij: ivinffs, six icings, to one, i. e. to each. With iuo he covers his Jace, as a sign of reverence towards God, and ivith tiro he covers his feet, for the same purpose, or to conceal himself from mortal view, and with ttvo he flies, to execute God's will. The Hebrew word seraphim, is retained by the Septuagint, Peshito, and Vulgate, but by the Targum para- phrased as holy vii)tisters. It is rightly explained by Kimchi and Abulwalid as meaning angels of fire, from ^i^ to bum, the name being descriptive either of their essence, or, as Clericus supposes, of their ardent love, or ac- cording to Grotius, of God's wrath which they execute. Lightfoot supposes a particular allusion to the burning of the temple, which is needless and un- natural. This reference to hea*^^ as well as light, to something terrible as well as splendid, does away with Gesenius's objection that the root means to burn, not to shine, and also with h's own derivation of the noun from the Ai-abic j_jj A noble, because angels 'are the nobility of heaven, and Michael is called one of the chief princes (Dan. x. 18). Still less attention is due to the notion that the word is connectedi in its (nigiu with Serapis (Hitzig) and signifies serpents (Umbreit), sjMina-es ^.KboI cl), mixed forms like the cherubim (Ewald), or the cherubim themselves (Iltndewcrk). The word occurs elsewhere only as the name of the fiery seijints of the wilderness (Num. xxi. G, 8; Deut. viii. 15), desciil od by Isaiah (xiv. 29; xxx. 6) as flying serjienls. The transfer of the nan c to bc'ngs fo dissimilar rests on their possession of two common attributes. Both are described as iringrd, and loth as Innning. Umbreit considers standing as synomnious with serv- ing, because servants are often said in the Old Test..'nent to stand before their masters. — But it is better to retain the \^o\ ex meaning, not as imply- ing necessarily that they rested on the earth or any other sMid surface. 1 n( that they were elaticnnry, even in the air. This vill rcmo^.^ all (lijictidii Ver. 3.] ISAIAH ri. lo to the version above him, whicli may also be explained as describing the rela- tive position of persons in a standing and sitting posture. There is no need therefore of the rendering above it, which is given in our Bible, nor of taking the compound preposition in the unusual sense oinear (Grotius, Henderson), or near above (Junius), around (Sept. Gesen. Ewald), or around above (Targ. Cocceius, Arg. Umbr.) The repetition of the phrase six icings sup- plies the place of a distributive pronoun (Gesen. § 118, 5.) The version six pairs of wings rests on an entire misconception of the Hebrew dual, which is never a periphrasis of the number two, but is simply a peculiar plural form belonging to nouns which denote things that naturally exist in pairs. Hence the numeral prefixed always denotes the number, not of pairs, but of individual objects. (See Ewald's Heb. Gr. § 365). The future form of the verbs denotes continued and habitual action. According to Origen, there were only two seraphs, and these were the Son and Holy Spirit, who are here described as covering, not their own face and feet, but the face and feet of the Father, to imply that although they are hij revealers, they con- ceal the beginning and the end of his eternity. Jerome denounces this in- genious whim as impious, but retains the same construction (faciem ejus, pedes ejus). The Chaldee paraphrase is, "with two he covered his face, lest he should see ; with two he covered his body, lest he should be seen ; and with two he served.'' The covering of the feet may, however, according to oriental usage, be regarded as a reverential act, equivalent in import to the hiding of the face. 3. He now describes the seraphim as praising God in an alternate or responsive doxology. And this cried to this, i. e. to one another, and said, Holy, Hohj, Holy, (is) Jehovah of hosts, the fulness of the whole earth, that which fills the whole earth, is his glory ! It was commonly agreed among the Fathers, that only two seraphim are mentioned here, and this opinion is maintained by Hendewerk. It cannot be proved, however, from the words this to this, which are elsewhere used in reference to a greater number. (See Exod. xiv. 20 ; xxxvi. 10 ; Jer. xlvi. 16.) Clericus explains this to this as relating not to the cry but the position of those cr^dng, alter ad cdterxnn conversus. Rosenmliller understands the triune repetition as im- plying that the words were uttered first by one choir, then by another, and lastly by the two together, which is a very artificial hypothesis. The allu- sion to the Trinity in this roisdyiov is the mcfre probable jbecause different parts of the chapter are referred in the New Testament to the three persons of the Godhead. Calvin and Cocceius admit that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved from this expression, and that a like repetition is used else- where simply for the sake of emphasis. See for example Jer. vii. 4, xxii. 9 ; Ezek. xxi. 27. Eut according to J. H. Michaelis, even there the idea of trinity in unity was meant to be suggested (cum unitate conjuncta tripli- citas). Holy is here understood by most interpreters as simply denoting moral purity, which is certainly the prominent idea. Most probably, however, it denotes the whole divine perfection, that which separates or distinguishes between God and his creatui'es. " I am God and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee," Hos. xi. 9. On the etymology and usage of this word, see Hengstenberg on Ps. xxii. 4, and xxix. 9. Grotius strangely restricts its import by referring it in this case to God's righteousness in dealing with the king and people. Umbreit supposes the idea of a separate or personal God, as opposed to the pantheistic notion, to be included in the meaning of the term. Grotius and Junius understand by fll^^H"?? all the land; Luther and Hendewerk, all lands ; the last of which, although inaccurate in form, is ^ ±8 ISAIAH VI. [Ver. 4, 5. really synonymous with all the earth, and the former is forbidden by the strength of the expressions in the text and context. Clericus makes fjlonj not the subject but the predicate : the fulness of the earth, all that the earth contains, is thy f/lnnj, or promotes it. But the common construction is sus- tained by the analogy of chap. viii. 8, yvherefuliirss of the earth is the predi- cate, and that of the prayer and prediction in Ps. Ixxii. 19 (let the whole earth be filled with his glory), and Num. xiv. 21 (all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Jehovah). The words may have reference not only to the present but the future, implying that the judgments about to be denounced against the Jews, should be connected with the general diftusion of God's glory. There may also be allusion to the cloud which filled the temple, as if he had said, the presence of God shall no longer be restricted to one place, but the whole earth shall be full of it. By the fflonj of God J. H. Michaelis understands his essence (Wesen) or God himself. But the idea of special manifestation seems to be not only expressed but prominent. The same writer renders 01X3^' nin'', here and elsewhere, God of fjods. Clericus as usual makes it mean God of armies or battles. The Hebrew word is retained by the Septuagint, Luther, Augusti, and Umbreit. The use of the preterite at the beginning of the verse is probably euphonic. The Vav has no conversive influence, because not preceded by a future verb (Nordh. § 219). 4. The effect of this doxology, and of the whole supernatural appearance, is described. Then stirred, or shook, the bases of the thresholds at the voice that cried, or at the voice of the one crying, and the house is filled with smoke. The words CSpn r\)t2^ are explained to mean the lintel or upper part of the door-frame, by the Septuagint, Luthor, and J. D. Michaelis. The Vulgate gives the second word the sense of hinges (superliminaria cardinum). It is now commonly admitted to mean thresholds, and the other word foundations. The common version, posts, is also given by Clericus and Vitringa. The door may be particularly spoken of, because the prophet was looking through it from the court without into the interior. The participle crying may agree with voice directly, voce clamante (Junius and Tremellius), or with seraph understood. Clericus makes it a collective, at the voice of those crying, in which he is followed by Gesenius and others ; but Hendewerk supposes the singular form to intimate that only one cried at a time. Cocceius and J. H. Michaelis understand it to mean every one that cried. By smoke Knobel and others understand a cloud or vapour shewing the presence of Jehovah. Most interpreters, however, understand it in its proper sense of smoke, as the natural attendant of the fire which blazed about the throne of God, or of that which burned upon the altar, as in Lev. xvi. 13, the mercy-seat is said to be covered with a " cloud of incense." In either case it was intended to produce a solemn awe in the beholder. The reflexive sense, it fdled itself, given to the last verb by Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, and Umbreit, is not so natural 'as the simple passive, it vms fdled or it became fidl. 5. The Prophet now describes himself as filled with awe, jiot.i}nly_bj the presence of Jehovah, but also by a deep impression of his own sinfulness, especially considered as unfitting him to praise God, orio be his messenger, and therefore represented as residing in the organs of speech. AndYlaid, when I saw and heard these things, then I said. Woe is me, woe to me, or alas for me, a phrase expressing lamentation and alarm, _/br I am undone, or destroyed, /or a man of impru-e lips, as to the lips, a7n I, and in the midst of a people impure of lijjs, of impure lips, 7 a7n dwelling, and am Ver. 6.J ISAIAH VI. 149 therefore undone, ybr the King, Jehovah of hods, my eyes have seen. The allusion is not merely to the ancient and prevalent belief that no one could see God and live (Gen. xxxii. 30 ; Judges vi. 22-24, xiii. 22 ; Exod. iv. 10, 12 ; xxxiii. 20 ; 1 Sam. vi. 19), but to the aggravation of the danger arising from the moral contrast between God and the beholder. — According to an old interpretation, Tl''^'?^ is a statement of the reason why he was alarmed, to wit, because he had kept silence, quia tacui (Vulgate), either when he heard the praises of the seraphim, or when it was his duty to have spoken in God's name. The last sense is preferred by Grotius, the first by Lowth (I am struck dumb), and with some modification by J. D. Michaelis (that I must be dumb). This sense is also given to the verb by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Peshito, and in some copies of the Septuagint, the common text of which has KaravswyiJ^ai, I am smitten with compunction. Most other writers, ancient and modern, understand the word as meaning / am ruined or destroyed. It is possible, however, as suggested by Vitringa, that an allusion was intended to the meaning of the verb in its ground-form, in order to suggest that his guilty silence or unfitness to speak was the cause of the destruction which he felt to be impending. Above sixty manuscripts and several editions read TlDlJ, which, as Henderson observes, is probably a mere orthographical variation, not afiecting the sense. The lips are men- tioned as the seat of his depravity, because its particular efi'ect, then present to his mind, was in capacity to speak for God or in his praise. That it does not refer to ofiicial unfaithfulness in his prophetic oftice, is apparent from the application of the same words to the people. The preterite form of the verb implies that the deed was already done and the efi'ect already certain. The substitution of the present, by Luther and many of the late writers, weakens the expression. 6. He now proceeds to describe the way in which he was relieved from this distress by a symbolical assurance of forgiveness. And there flew (or then flew) to me one of the seraphim, and in his hand a live coal (or a hot stone) ; with tongs he took it from off [or from upon) the altar ; of incense, ac- cording to Hendewerk and others, but according to Grotius, that of burnt- oftering, which stood without the temple in the court where the Prophet is supposed to have been stationed. Both these interpretations take for granted the necessity of adhering to the precise situation and dimensions of the earthly temple, whereas this seems merely to have furnished the scenery of the majestic vision. I^obel understands by the altar the golden altar seen by John in heaven, Eev. viii. 3, ix. 18. All that is necessary to the under- standing of the vision is, that the scene presented was a temple, and included an altar. The precise position of the altar or of the Prophet is not only unimportant, but forms no part of the picture as here set before us. As nSVT elsewhere means a pavement, and its verbal root to pave, and »s the Arabs call by the same name the heated stones which they employ in cook* ing, most modem writers have adopted Jerome's explanation of the word, as meaning a hot stone taken from the altar, which was only a consecrated hearth or fire-place. The old interpretation coal is retained by Hendewerk, who denies that stones were ever used upon the altar. In the last clause either personal or the relative pronoun may be supplied, he took it, or %chich he took; but the former (which is given by Hendewerk, De Wette, and Umbreit) seems to agree better with the order of the words in Hebrew. The word translated tongs is elsewhere used to signify the snuffers of the golden candlestick, and tongs are not named among the furniture of the altars ; but such an implement seems to be indispensable, and the Hebrew 150 ISAIAH VI. [Vee. 7, 8. word may be applied to anytliing in the nature of a forceps. — Hitzig and others, who regard the seraphim as serpents, sphinxes, or mixed forms, are under the necessity of explaini^ig hand to vaean forefoot or the like. No- thing in the whole passage implies any variation from the human form, except in the addition of wings, which are expressly mentioned. 7. And he caused it to touch (i. e. laid it on) my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniqici'y is gone, and thy sin shall he atoned for (or forgiven). In the Chaldee Paraphrase the coal from off the altar is transformed into a xuord from the shechinah, which is put into the Prophet's mouth, denoting his prophetic inspii*ation. So Jeremiah says : " The Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth ; and the Lord said unto me. Behold, I Lave put my words in thy mouth" (Jer. i. 9). And Daniel : " One like the similitude oY the sons of men touched my lips, then I opened my mouth and spake" (Dan. x. 16). Hence the Eabbins and Grotius understand the act of the seraph in the case before us as a symbol of prophetic inspiration. But this leaves unexplained the additional cir- cumstance, not mentioned in the case of Jeremiah or Daniel, that the Pro- phet's lips were not only touched, but touched with fire. This is explained by Jerome as an emblem of the Holy Spirit, and by others as a symbol of purification in general. But the mention of the altar and the assurance of foi-giveness, or rather of atonement, makes it far more natural to take the application of fire as a symbol of expiation by sacrifice, although it is not necessary to suppose, with J. D. Michaelis, that the Prophet actually saw a A-ictim burning on the altar. The fire is applied to the lips for a twofold reason : first, to shew that the particular impediment of which the Prophet had complained was done away ; and secondly, to shew that the gift of inspiration is included, though it does not constitute the sole or chief mean- ing of the symbol. The gift of prophecy could scarcely be described as having taken away sin, although it might naturally accompany the work of expiation. The preterite and future forms are here combined, perhaps to intimate, first, that the pardon was already granted, and then that it should still continue. This, at least, seems better than arbitrarily to confound the two as presents. 8. The assurance of forgiveness produces its usual effect of readiness to do God's will, yind I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send, and loho xvill go for us f And I said. Here am I (literally, behold me, or lo I am), send me. The form of expression in the first clause may imply that the speaker was now invisible, perhaps concealed by the smoke which filled the house. According to Jerome, tlie question here recorded was not addressed to Isaiah himself, because it was intended to elicit a spontane- ous ofier upon his part. " Non dicit Dominus qnem ire prsecipiat, sed proponit audientibas oplionem, ut voluntas pra^mium consequatur." The same idea is suggested by J. H. Michaelis and Umbreit. For us is re- garded by Vitringa as emphatic, " Who will go for us, and not for himself, or any other object ?" But the phrase is probably equivalent to saying, " Who will be. our messenger ?" This is the version actually given by Luther, J. D. MichacHs, and Gesenius. Most of the other German writers follow the Vulgate version, quis nobis ibitf The plural form us, instead of me, is explained by Gesenius, Barnes, and Knobel, as a mere pluralis majata- ticus, such as kings and princes use at this day. Hitzig denies the exist- ence of that idiom among the orientals, either ancient or modern, and undertakes to give a metaphysical solution, by saying that the speaker looks upon himself as both the subject and object of address. Kimchi and Ver. 9.J ISAIAH VI. 151 Grotius represent the Lord as speaking, not in bis own name merely, but in that of bis angelic council (tanquam de sententia concilii angelorum), and the same view is taken by Clericus and Rosenmiiller. The Pesbito omits for ics wbile tbe Septuagint supplies instead of it tbe words to this jpeople, and tbe Targum, to teach — " Whom shall I send to prophesy, and who will go to teach ?" Jerome's explanation of the plural, as implying a plurality of persons in tbe speaker, is approved by Calvin, who was doubt- ful with respe* to the r^isdyiov in ver. 3. This explanation is tbe only one that accounts for the difference of number in the verb and pronoun — " Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?" Jerome compares it with tbe words of Christ, " Ego et Pater unum sumus ; unum ad naturam re- ferimus, sumus ad personarum diversitatem." The phrase ''^fH is tbe usual idiomatic Hebrew answer to a call by name, and commonly implies a readi- ness for service. J. D. Michaelis translates it / ayn ready. A beautiful commentary upon this effect of pardoned sin is afforded in David's peniten- tial prayer, Ps. li. 12-15. 9. Tbe Prophet now receives his commission, together with a solemn de- claration that bis labours will be fruitless. This prediction is clothed ia the form of an exhortation or command addressed to tbe people themselves, for tbe purpose of bringing it more palpably before them, and of aggravat- ing their insanity and wickedness in ruining themselves after such a warn- ing. And he said, Go and say to thin people. Hear indeed, or bear on, hut understand not ; and see indeed, or continue to see, hut know not. In most predictions some obscurity of language is required to secure their full accomplishment. But here where tbe blindness and infatuation of the people are foretold, they are allowed an abundant opportunity of hindering its ful- filment if they will. Not only is their insensibility described in the strong- est terms, implying extreme folly as well as extreme guilt, but, as if to provoke them to an opposite course, they are exhorted, with a sort of solemn irony, to do the very thing which would inevitably ruin them, but with an explicit intimation of that issue in the verse ensuing. This form of speech is by no means foreign from tbe dialect of common life. As J. D. Michaelis well observes, it is as if one man should say to another in whose good resolutions and engagements he bad no faith, " Go now and do the very opposite of all that you have said. A similar expression is employed by Christ himself when he says to tbe Jews (Mat. xxiii. 32), Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Tbe Septuagint version renders the im- peratives as futures, and this version is twice quoted in the New Testament (Mat. xiii. 14,"Acts xxviii. 26), as giving correctly the essential meaning of the sentence as a propliecy, though stripped of its peculiar form as an ironical command. J. H. Michaelis and Gesenius make even tbe original expression a strict prophecy, by rendering the future forms as futures pro- per (nee tamen intelligetis) on the ground that TJX is sometimes simply equivalent to '^^, or that tbe second of two imperatives sometimes expresses the result dependent on the act denoted by tbe first. But even admitting these assertions, both of which may be disputed, the predominant usage is so clear as to forbid any departure from the proper sense of the imperatives without a strong necessity, which, as we have seen, does not exist. An- other mode of softening tJae apparent harshness of the language is adopted by tbe Targum, which converts tbe sentence into a description of the people, " who hear indeed, but understand not, and see indeed but know not." Ewald and some older writers understand this people as a phrase expressive of displeasure and contempt intentionally substituted for the 152 ISAIAH VI. :Ykr. 10. phrase mjj people, not only here but in several other places. See for example Exocl. xxxii. 9 ; Isa. ix. IG, xxix. 13 ; Jer. vii. 16. The idiomatic repetition of the verbs hear and see is disregarded in translation by Luther, Clericus, and De Wette, and copied more or less exactly, by the Septuagint [axof dxouasTi, /SXjctoi/ts; (S'as'^sts), the Vulgate (auditc audientes, ^■idete visionem), Calvin, Coccoius, and Vitringa. Neither of these methods con- veys the true force of the original expression, which is clearly emphatic, and suggests the idea of distinctness, clearness (J. D. ]\j1bhaelis), or of mere external sight and hearing (Augusti), or of abundant sight and hear- ing (J. H. Michaelis, sufficientissime), or of continued sight and hearing (Junius, i tides inentcr),Yivoh&\Aj the last which is adopted by Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendwerk, Henderson, and Ewald. Maurer makes the prominent idea that of repetition (iterum iterumque). The idea of hearing and seeing ^Yithout perceiving may have been proverbial among the Jews, as it seems to have been among the Greeks, from the examples given by Wetstein in his note on Mat. xiii. 13. Demosthenes expressly cites it as a proverb (■Tagoz/x/a) bim- rag f^ri b^av xai axovovrag UjTi dx.o{jiiv, and the Prometheus of ^schvlus employs a like expression, in describing the primitive condition of mankind on which one of the Greek schohasts observes, dion vouv xal (p^ovrtaiv ovy, sly^ov. 10. As the foregoing verse contains a prediction of the people's insensi- bihty, but under the form of a command or exhortation to themselves, so this predicts the same event, as the result of Isaiah's labours, under the form of a command to him. Make fat, gross, callous, the heart of this people, i. e. their affections or their minds in general, and its ears make heavy, dull or hard of hearing, ajid its eyes smear, close or blind, lest it see with its eyes, and with its ears hear, and its heart understand, perceive or feel, and it turn to me, i. e. repent and be converted, and he healed, or literally and one heal it, the indefinite construction being equivalent in meaning to a passive. The thing predicted is judicial blindness, as the natural result and righteous re- tribution of the national depravity. This end would be promoted by the very preaching of the truth, and therefore a command to preach:v\^as in effect a command to blind and harden^ them. The act required of the Prophet is here joiiiecl with its ultimate effect, while the intcr^'ening circum- stances, namely, the people's sin and the withholding of God's grace, are passed by in silence. But although not expressed, they are implied, in this command to preach the peoptle callous, blind, and deaf, as J. D. Michaelis phrases it. The essential idea is their insensibility, considered as the fruit of their own depravity, as the execution of God's righteous judgment, and as the only visible result of Isaiah's labours. *' Deus sic proDcipit judiciali- ter, populus agit criminaliter, propheta autem ministerialiter ' (J. H. Michaelis). In giving Isaiah his commission, it was natural to make the last of these ideas prominent, and hence the form of exhortation or com- mand in which the prophecy is here presented, ]\Ial«) them insensible, not by an immediate act of power, nor by any direct influence whatever, but by doing your duty, which their wickedness and God's righteous judgments will allow to have no other effect. In this sense the prophet might be said to preach them callous. In other cases, where his personal agcnc}" no longer needed to be set forth or alluded to, the verse is quoted, not as a command, but a description of the people, or as a declaration of God's agency in mak- ing them insensible. Thus in Mat. xiii. 15, and in Acts xxviii. 20, the Septuagint version is retained, in which the people's own guilt is the pro- minent idea — " for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears aro dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest," &c. In John Ver. ll.J ISAIAH VI. 1.^3 xii. 40, on the other hand, the sentence takes a new form, in order to bring out distinctly the idea of judicial bhndness — " he hath blinded their oyas and hardened their heart, lest," &c. Both these ideas are in fact included in the meaning of the passage, though its forms are different, in order to suit the occasion upon which it was originally uttered. There is no need, therefore, of supposing, with Cocceius, that the verbs in the first clause are infinitives with preterites understood (impinguaudo impinguavit — aggra- vando aggravavit — oblinendo oblivit), to which there is besides a philological objection {vide supra, chap. v. 5). The paraphrase in John no more proves that the verse must be directly descriptive of God's agency, than that in Acts and Matthew proves that it must be descriptive of the people's own agency, which sense is actually put upon Cocceius's construction by Abar- benel, who fii'st proposed it, and who thinks that the verbs must either be reflexive — " the heart of this people has made itself fat, their ears have made themselves heavy, their eyes have shut themselves," — or must all agree with 12? — " the heart of this people has made itself fat, it has made their ears heavy, it has closed their ej'es." That a divine agency is really implied, though not expressed as Cocceius supposes, is clear from the paraphrase in John xii. 40, and creates no difliculty here that is not com- mon to a multitude of passages, so that nothing would be gained by explain- ing it away in this one instance. " Absque hoc testimonio," says Jerome, '• manet eadem qusestio in ecclesiis, et aut cum ista solventur et cetera, aut cum ceteris et haec indissolubilis erit."— The same considerations which have been presented render it unnecessary to suppose, with Henderson and others, that the command to blind and harden is merely a command to pre- dict that the people will be bhnd and hard ; a mode of explanation which may be justified in certain cases by the context or by exegetical necessity, but which is here gratuitous and therefere inadmissible. — Gesenius, Augusti, and De Wette, understand by heart the seat of the affections, and accord- ingly translate P^J hjfeel; but the constant usage of the latter in the sense of understanding or perceiving seems to require that the former should be taken to denote the whole mind or rational soul. The ancient versions take 133? as an ablative of instrament, in which they are followed by Luther, the English Version (with their heart), Junius, Yitringa, J. D, Michaelis, Lowth, Augusti, and Henderson. Calvin makes it the subject of the verb (cor ejus inteliigat), in which he is followed by Gesenius, Hitzig, De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit. The last construction is more simple in itself, but breaks the uniformity of the sentence, as the other verbs of this clause all agree with. 2Jeo2)le as their subject. — Clericus takes ^^'} as a noun and reads lest there be healing, and the same sense is put upon it as a verb by Junius and Yitringa. The Septuagint and Yulgate substitute the first for the third person, and I heal them. Cocceius refers the verb to God directly, lest he heal them, in accordance with his explanation of the first clause. Most of the modem v/riters assume an impersonal or indefinite construction, which may either be resolved into a passive (Gesenius. De Wette, Henderson), or retained in the translation (Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, Ewald). Kimchi explains the healing mention to be pardon following repentance. The re- presentation of sin as a spiritual malady is frequent in the Scriptures. Thus David prays (Ps. xii. 4), " Heal my soul, for I have sinned again>^t thee." Instead of heal, in the case before us, the Targum and Peshito h.a,\e forgive, which is substituted likewise in the quotation or rather the allusion to this verse in Mark iv. 12. 11. And I said. How long. Lord ? And he said, Until that cities are 154 , ISAIAH VI. [Ver. 12, 13. desolate for want of an inliahitant, and houses for luant of men, and the la,nd shall he desolated, a ivastc, or utterly desolate. The spiritual death of the people should be followed by external desolation. Hitzig understands the Prophet to ask how long he must be the bearer of this thankless mes- sage ; but the common explanation is no doubt the true one, that he asks how long the blindness of the peeple shall continue, and is told until it ruins them and drives them from their country. Grotius supposes a par- ticular allusion to Sennacherib's invasion, Clericus to that of Nebuchad- nezzar ; but as the foregoing description is repeatedly applied in the New Testament to the Jews who were contemporary with our Saviour, the threatening must be equally extensive, and equivalent to saying that land should be completely wasted, not at one time but repeatedly. Kimchi, who also understands the verse as referring to the Babylonian con- quest, finds a climax in the language, which is much more appropriate however wdien applied to successive periods and events. — The acumulation of particles DN TL^'^^ "ty is supposed by Henderson to indicate a long lapse of time ; but it seems to difier from the simple form only as until differs from until that or until ivlien. On the meaning of T^'Q vide supra, chap. V. 9. 12. This verse continues the answer to the Prophet's question in the verse preceding. And (until) Jehovah shall have put far o^ (removed to a distance) the men (or people of the country), and great (much or abundant) shall he that which is left (of unoccupied forsaken ground) in the midst of the land. This is little more than a repetition, in other words, of the de- claration in the verse preceding. The Septuagint and Vulgate make the last clause not a threatening but a promise that those left in the land shall be multiplied. Clericus and Lowth understand it to mean " there shall be many a deserted woman in the land." Gesenius, " many ruins." Ewald, " a great vacancy or void (Lecre)." Most other writers take n3-1Ty as an abstract, meaning desolation or desertion. But the simplest construction seems to be that of Henderson and Knobel, w^ho make it agree with the land itself, and miderstand the clause as thi*eatening that there shall be a great extent of unoccupied forsaken land. The terms of this verse may be applied to all the successive desolations of the country, not excepting that most extreme and remarkable of all which exists at the present moment. 13. The chapter closes with a repetition and extension of the threatening, but in such a form as to involve a promise of the highest import. While it is threatened that the stroke shall be repeated on the remnant that survives its first inflction, it is promised that there shall be such a remnnnt after every repetition to the last. And yet — even after the entire desolation which had first been mentioned — in it — the desolated land — (there shall remain) a tenth or tithe — here put indefinitely for a small proportion— «??(? (even this tenth) shall return and he for a consuming — i. e. shall again be consumed — but still not utter]}', for — like the terehinth and like the oak — the two most common forest trees of Palestine — which in falling — in their fallen state, or when felled — have srdistajice or Nltality in them — so a hohj seed shall be, or is the suhstance — vital principle — of it — the tenth or remnant which appeared to be destroyed. However frequently the people may seem to be destroyed, there shall still be a surviving remnant, and however frequently that very remnant may appear to perish, there shall still be a remnant <9( the remnant left, and this indestructible residuum shall be the holy seed, the true Church, the XiTfM/xa x.ar ixXoyr,v yaoiroi (Rom. xi. 5). This prediction was fidfilled, not once for all, but again and again ; not only in the vinc-drcssers and husband- ISAIAH VII. 155 men left by Nebuchadnezzar and afterwards destroyed in Egypt ; not only in the remnant that survived the destruction of the city by the Romans, and increased until again destroyed by Adrian ; but in the present existence of the Jews as a peculiar people, notwithstanding the temptations to amalgamate with others, notwithstanding persecutions and apparent extirpa- tions ; a fact which can only be explained by the prediction that " all Israel shall be saved " (Rom. xi. 26). As in many former instances, throughout the history of the chosen people, under both dispensations, " even so, at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace." The reference of holy seed to Christ (as in Gal. iii. 16) restricts the verse to the times before the advent, and is here forbidden by the application of the Hebrew phrase to Israel in general (Ezra ix. 2, Comp. Isaiah iv. 3, Ixv. 9), a meaning which is here not changed but only limited, upon the principle that " they are not all Israel which are of Israel " (Rom. ix. 6). As thus explained, the threatening of the verse involves a promise. There is no need therefore of attempting to convert it into a mere promise, by giving to "iJ^S the active sense of consuming or destroying enemies (De Dieu), or by making nriti' signify 7-eturn fi'om exile (Calvin), and connecting "i^^p with what follows — "be destroyed like the terebinth and oak," i.e. only destroyed like them. The passive sense of "^V.i? i^C-C is fixed by the analogy of Nuni. xxiv. 22, and Isaiah xliv. 15. The idiomatic use of the verb return to qualify another verb by denoting repetition is of constant occurrence, and ig assumed here by almost all interpreters, ancient and modern. Besides, the tenth left in the land could hardly be described as returning to it. That "1^^ denotes purification is a msre rabbinical conceit. J^^V*? has been vari- ously explained to mean the sap (Targum), root (De Wette), trank (G-ese- nius), germ (Hitzig), &c. But the sense which seem? to agree best with the connection and the etymology is that of substance or subsistence, under- standing thereby the vitality or that which is essential to the life and repro- duction of the tree. n??;^ occurs elsewhere only in 1 Chron. xxvi. 16, where it seems to be the name of one of the temple gates. Hence Aben Ezra supposes the Prophet to allude to two particular and well-known trees at or near this gate, while other Jewish writers understand him as referring to the timber of the gate or of the causeway leading to it (1 Kings x. 5). The same interpretation is adopted by Junius, and Cocceius explains the word in either case as an appellative meaning causeioiy. But with these exceptions, all interpreters appear to be agreed in making the word descrip- tive of something in the condition of the trees, the spreading of their branches (Vulgate), the casting of their leaves (Targum) or of their fruit (Septuagint), or the casting down or felling of the tree itself, which last is •commonly adopted. Instead of Q^, referring to the trees, more than a hundred manuscripts read HI, referring to the tenth or to the land. The suffix in the last word of the verse is referred to the land or people by Ewald and Maurer, but with more probability by others to the tenth, which is tjie nearest antecedent and affords a better sense. CHAPTEE VII. Here begins a series of connected prophecies (chaps, vii.-xii.), belonging to the reign of Ahaz, and relating in general to the same great subjects, the deliverance of Judah from Syria and Israel, its subsequent subjection to Assyria and other foreign powers, the final destruction of its enemies, the 156 ISAIAH VII. [Ver. 1. advent of Messiah, and the nature of his kingdom. The series admits of different divisions, but it is commonly agreed that one distinct portion is con- tained in the seventh chapter. Hendewerk and Henderson suppose it to inckide two independent prophecies (vers. 1-9 and 10-25), and Ev\-ald separates the same two parts as distinct portions of the same prophecy. The common division is more natural, however, which supposes vers. 1-16 to contain a promise of deliverance from Syria and Israel, and vers. 17-25 a threatening of worse evils to be brought upon Judah by the Assyi'ians in whom they trusted. The chapter begins with a brief historical statement of the invasion of Judah by Eczin and Pekah, and of the fear which it excited, to relieve which Isaiah is commissioned to meet Ahaz in a public place, and to assure him that there is nothing more to fear from the invading powers, that their evil design cannot be accomplished, that one of them is soon to perish, and that in the mean time both are to remain without enlargement, vers. 1-9. Seeing the king to be incredulous, the prophet invites him to assure himself by chosing any sign or pledge of the event, which he refuses to do, under the pretext of confidence in God, but is charged with unbehef by the Prophet, who nevertheless renews the promise of deliverance in a symbolical form, and in connection with a prophecy of the miraculous conception and nativity of Christ, both as a pledge of the event, and as a measure of the time in which it is to take place, vers. 10-16. To this assurance of immediate deliverance, he adds a thi-eatening of ulterior evils, to arise from the Assyrian protection which the king preferred to that of God, to wit, the loss of independence, the successive domination of foreign powders, the harassing and predatory occupation of the land by strangers, the removal of its people, the neglect of tillage, and the transfor- mation of its choicest \ineyards, fields, and gardens, into wastes or pastures, vers. 17-25. 1. Rezin, the king of Damascene Syria, or Aram, from whom Uzziah had taken Elath, a port on the Red Sea, and restored it to Judah (2 Kings xiv. 22), appears to have formed an alliance with Pekah, the murderer and successor of Pekahiah, king of Israel (2 Ivings xv. 27), during the reign of Jotham (ib. ver. 37), but to have deferred the actual invasion of Judah until that king's death, and the accession of his feeble son, in the first year of whose reign it probably took place, with most encouraging success, as the army of Ahaz was entirel}^ destroyed, and 200,000 persons taken captive, who were afterwards sent back at the instance of the prophet Oded (2 Chron. xxviii. 5-15). But notwithstanding this success, they were unable to effect their main design, the conquest of Jerusalem, whether repelled by the natural strength and artificial defences of the place itself, or interrupted in the siego by the actual or dreaded invasion of their own dominions by the king of Assyria (2 Kings xvi. 7-9). It seems to be at a point of time between their first successes and their final retreat, that the Prophet's narrative liegins. And it was — happened, came to pass — in the daya of Ahaz, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin king of Aram — or Syria — and I'ekah, son ofltcmaUah, king of Israel, came up to — or against — Jerusalem to %uar against it; and he was not able to war against it. As war is both a verb and a nonn in English, it may be used to represent the Ilela-ew verb and noun in this sentence. Some give a dif- ferent meaning to the two, making one mean to fight and the other to con- quer (Vulgate) or take (Henderson) ; but this distinction is imphcd, not expressed, and the simple meaning of the words is that he (put by a com- Vee. 2.] ISAIAH VII. 157 mon licence for they, or meaning each of them, or referring to Rezin as the principal confederate) could not do what he attempted. There is no need of taking ?3^ in the absolute sense of prevailing (Vitringa), which would require a diiferent construction. It is sufficient to supply the idea of suc- cess in either case ; they wished of course to war successfully against it, which they could not do. Gesenius sets the first part of this chapter down as the production of another hand, because it speaks of Isaiah in the third person, and because the first verse nearly coincides with 2 Kings xvi. 5. But as that may just as well have been derived from this — a supposition favoured by the change of 73^^ into -vSJ — and as the use of the third person is common among ancient writers, sacred and profane, Isaiah himself not excepted (chap. xx. 37, 38), there is no need even of sxipposing with Vitringa, that the last clause was added at a later period, by the sacred scribes, or with Hengstenberg and Ewald, that the verse contains a general summary, in which the issue of the war is stated by anticipation. It is not improbable, indeed, that this whole prophecy was written some time after it was first delivered ; but even this supposition is not neecessary for the removal of the alleged difficulty, which arises wholly from assuming that this verse and the next relate to the beginning of the enterprise, when Rezin and Pekah first invaded Judah, whereas they relate to the attack upon Jerusalem, after the country had been ravaged, and the disappoint- ment with which they are threatened below is the disappointment of their grand design upon the royal city, which was the more alarming in conse- quence of what they had already effected. This view of the matter brings the two accounts in Kings and Chronicles into perfect harmony, without supposing what is here described to be either the first (Grotius, Usher), or second (Jerome, Theodoret, Jarchi, Vitringa, Rosenmiiller), of two difi'erent invasions, or that although they relate to the same event (Lightfoot), the account in Chronicles is chargeable with ignorant exaggeration (Gesenius). Another view of the matter, which also makes the two accounts refer to one event, is that of Hengstenberg, who supposes the victory of Pekah described in Chronicles to have been the consequence of the unbelief of Ahaz, and his refusal to accept the divine promise. But the promise, instead of being retracted, is renewed, and the other supposition that Pekah's victory pre- ceded what is here recorded, seems to agree better with the terror of Ahaz, and with the comparison in ver. 3. Either hypothesis, however, may be entertained, without materially affecting the details of the interpretation. The invaders are said to have come up to Jerusalem, not merely as a military phrase (Vitringa), nor with exclusive reference to its natural position (Knobel), its political pre-eminence (Henderson), or its moral elevation (C. B. Michaelis), but with allusion, more or less distinct, to all the senses in which the holy city was above all others. On the construction of Jeru- salem directly with the verb of motion, see Gesenius, § 116, 1. 2. And it was told the house of David — the court, the royal family, of Judah — saying, Syria resteth — or is resting — upon Ephraim : and his hecm^t — i. e. the king's, as the chief and representative of the house of David — and the heart of his people shook, like the shaking of the trees of a wood hefore a wind. This is commonly applied to the efiect produced by the fii'st news of the coalition between Rezin and Pekah or the junction of then- forces. The oldest wi-iters understand the news- to be that Syria is confederate or joined tvith Ephraim (Septuagint, Targum, Peshito, Vulgate, Calvin, English Version, &c.). Some, however, read in violation of the accents nm, and translate thus — Syria is marching ox leading his forces to 158 ISAIAH ril. [Ver. 3. wards EpTiraim (J. D. Michaelis), or xoith Ephraim (Henderson). Others, Syria relies vpon — or is supported ly — Ephraim (Lowth, Barne.s). Others, Syria influences or controls Ephraim (Vitringa). But most interpreters, espe- cially the latest, Syria is encamped ttpon (the territory of) Ephraim, or, as Steudel understands it, near (the city of) Ephraim. It is equally natural, and moi'e consistent with the history, to understand the words as ha\ing reference to a later date, i. e. either the time of the advance upon Jeru- salem, or that of the retreat of the invaders, laden with the spoil of Judah, and with two hundred thousand captives. In the one case, Syria, i. e. the Syrian army, maj' he said to rest xtpon (the army of) Ephraim, in the modern military sense, with reference to their relative position on the field of hattlc ; in the other, Syria may be described as literally resting or reposing in the territory of Ephraim, on its homeward march, and as thereby filling Ahaz with the apprehension of a fresh attack. Although neither of these explanations may seem altogether natural, they are really as much so as any of the others which have been proposed, and in a case ■where we have at best a choice of difficulties, these may claim the prefer- ence as tending to harmonize the prophecy with history as given both in Kings and Chronicles. We read in 2 Kings xix. 7-9, that Ahaz applied to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, to help him against Syria and Israel, "which he did. At what precise period of the war this alliance was formed, it is not easy to determine ; but there seems to be no doubt that Ahaz, at the time here mentioned, was relying upon some human aid in preference to God. — The construction of the feminine verb nnj vrith the masculine D"i5< is to be explained, not by supplying n"l37D (Jarchi) or T)l]} (Rosen- miiller) before the latter, but by the idiomatic usage which connects the names of countries, where they stand for the inhabitants, with verbs of this form, as in Job. i. 15, 1 Sam. xvii. 21, and 2 Sam. viii. 6, where this very name is so construed. 3. From this alarm Isaiah is sent to free the king. And Jehovah said to Isaiah son of Amoz, Go out to meet Ahaz, thou and Shearjashuh tliy son, to the end of the conduit of the upper pool, to the higJncay of the ful- ler s field. The mention of these now obscure localities, although it detracts nothing from the general clearness of the passage, is an incidental proof of authenticity, which no later writer would or could have forged. The Upper Pool, which has been placed by different writers upon almost every side of Jerusalem, is identified by Robinson and Smith with a large tank at the head of the Valley of Hiunom, about seven hundred yards west north-west from the Jaffa gate. It is full in the rainy season, and its waters are then conducted by a small rude aqueduct to the vicinity of the gate just men- tioned, and so to the Pool of Hezekiah within the walls. This aqueduct is probably the conduit mentioned in the text, and the eml of this conduit the point where it enters the city, as appears from the fact, that when Rabsha- keh afterwards conferred with the ministers of Hezekiah at this same spot, he was heard by the people on the city wall (chap, xxxvi. 2, 12.) From the same passage it may be inferred that this was a frequented spot, which some suppose to be the reason that Isaiah was directed to it, while others understand the direction as implying that Ahaz was about to fortify tho city, or rather to cut ofl" a supply of water from the invaders, as Hezekiah afterwards did when besieged by Sennacherib (2 Chron. xxxii. 4) ; an ex- ample often followed afterwards, particularly in the sieges of Jerusalem by Pompcy, Titus, and Godfrey of Bouillon. The Prophet is therefore com- manded to (JO out, not mergly from his house, but frcm the city, to imct Veb. 4.] ISAIAH VII. 159 Ahaz, wliicli does not imply that the king was seeking him, or coming to him, but merely specifies the object which ho was to seek himself. For the various opinions with respect to the position of the Upper Pool — so called in relation to the Lower Pool, mentioned in chap. xxii. 9, and situ- ated lower down in the same yalley, south of the Jaffa gate — see Rosen- miiUer, Gesenius, and Hitzig on this passage, Winer's Eealworterbuch s. V. Teiche, and Robinson's Palestine, vol. i. pp. 352, 483. The Fuller's Field was of course without the city, and the highway or causeway men- tioned may have led either to it or along it, so as to divide it from the aqueduct. The command to take his son with him might be regarded merely as an incidental circumstance, but for the fact that the name Shear- jashiib is significant, and as we may suppose it to have been already known, and the people were familiar with the practice of conveying instruction in this form, the very sight of the child would perhaps suggest a prophecy, or recall one previously uttered, or at least prepare the mind for one to come ; and accordingly we find in chap. x. 21 this very phrase employed, not as a name, but in its proper sense, a remnant shall return. Cocceius assigns two other reasons for the presence of the child — that he might early learn the duties of a prophet — and that the sight of him might prove to all who heard the ensuing prophecy, that the mother mentioned in ver. 14 could not be the Prophet's wife. But this precaution would have answered little purpose against modern licence of conjecture ; for Gesenius does not scruple to assume a second marriage. 4. The assurance, by which Ahaz is encouraged, is that the danger is over, that the fire is nearly quenched, that the enemies, who lately seemed like flaming firebrands of war, are now mere smoking ends of firebrands ; he is therefore exhorted to be quiet and confide in the divine protection. And thou shall say to him, Be cautiotts and he quiet — or take care to be quiet — fear not, nor let thy heart be soft, before — or on account of — these two smoking tails of firebrands, in the heat of the anger of Eezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah. The comparison of Rezin and Pekah to the tails or ends of firebrands, instead of firebrands themselves, is not a mere expres- sion of contempt, as most interpreters suppose, nor a mere intimation of their approaching fate, as Barnes and Henderson explain it, but a distinct allusion to the evil which they had already done, and which should never I be repeated. If the emphasis were only in the use of the word tails, the tail of anything else would have been equally appropriate. The smoking remnant of a fii-ebrand implies a previous flame, if not a conflagration. This confirms the conclusion before drawn, that Judah had abeady been ravaged, and that the narrative in Kings and Chronicles are perfectly con- sistent and relate to the same subject. The older versions construe the demonstrative with firebrands — " the tails of these two smoking firebrands;" the moderns more correctly with tails — " these two tails or ends of smoking firebrands." — The last clause of the verse is not to be construed with D"'^t?'y — " smoking in the anger of Rezin," &c., but with the verbs preceding — " fear not, nor let thy heart be faint in the anger," &c. The reason implied in the connection is that the hot fire of their anger was now tm^ned to smoke and almost quenched. — The distinct mention of Rezin and Syria, while Pekah is simply termed the son of Remaliah, is supposed by some to be intended to express contempt for the latter, though the diflerenco may after all be accidental, or have only a rhythmical design. The patronymic, like our English surname, can be used contemptuously only when it indicates ignoble origin, in which sense it may be applied to Pekah, who was a IGO ISAIAH VII. [Ver. 5, 6. usurper, as the enemies of Napoleon always chose to call him Buonaparte, because the name betrayed an origin both foreign and obscure. f). Because Sijria has devised, meditated, purposed, evil a;iainst thee, also Kphraim and RemaliaKs son, sayinrj. Hendcwcrk, and most of the early ■writers, connect this with what goes before, as a further explanation of the kind's teiTor — " fear not, nor let thy heart be faint, because Syria," &c. But Geseuius, Hitzig, Henderson, Ewald and Umbreit, make it the begin- ning of a sentence, the apodosis of which is contained in ver. 7 — " because (or although) SjTia has devised, &c., therefore (or nevertheless) thus saith the Lord," &c. The constructions may be blended by regarding this verse .and the next as a link or connecting clause between the exhorta- tion in ver. 4, and the promise in ver. 7. " Fear not because Syria and Israel thus threaten, for on that very account the Lord declares," &c. Here again Syria appears as the prime agent and controlling power, although Ephraim is added in the second clause. The suppression of Pekah's proper name in this clause, and of Kezin's altogether in the first, has given rise to various far-fetched explanations, though it seems in fact to shew, that the use of names in the whole passage is rather euphonic or rhythmical than significant. 0. The invaders themselves are now introduced as holding counsel or addi-essing one another, not at the present moment, but at the time when their plan was first concerted. We trill (jo up, or let us go up, into Judah, or ar/ainst it, although this is rather imphed than expressed, and vex [i.e. harass or distress) it, and make a breach in it, (thereby subduing it) to ourselves, and let vs make a kinrj in the midst of it, to icit, the son of Tabeal or Taheel, as the name is 'OTitten out of pause, Ezra iv. 7. The feminine suffixes probably refer, not to Judah (Hen- derson) but to Jerusalem (Gesenius, Rosenmiiller), although the same terms are appHed to the whole country elsewhere (2 Chron. xxi. 17). The reference to Jerusalem is required by this history, according to which they did succeed in their attack upon the kingdom, but were foiled in their main design of conquering the royal city. The entrance into Judah was proposed only as a means to this end, and it is the failure of this end that is predicted in the next verse. The reference to the city is also recommended by the special reference to the capital cities of Sji-ia and Ephraim in vers. 8, 9. ^}V\>^_ is explained to mean let us arouse her by the Yulgate (suscitemus earn), Luther (auf- wecken), Calvin and others, which supposes the verb to be derived from VPU {Y?.T) to awaken. Others, deriving it from fWr to cut off, explain it to mean let xis tlismemher or divide it (Vitringa, Augusti), or subvert, destroy it (Peshito, J. D. Michaelis, Schroeder, Henderson). The simplest etymo- logy, and that most commonly adopted, derives it from f-tp to be distressed ox terrified, and in the Hiphil to alarm (Hitzig), or to distress, mth special reference to the hardships of a siege (Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Cocceius, Rosen- miiller, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.). Oppress (Barnes) is too indefinite. The other verb has also been variously explained, as meaning let us level it (from n^p3, a plain), let us tear it away (Vulgate : avellamus ad nos), let us divide or rend it (Luther, Cocceius, Alting, J. W. Michaelis, Vitringa, Barnes). It is now commonly agreed, however, that it means to make a breach or opening (Calvin : faire bresche ou ouvcrture, Hcndewerk, Hen- derson), and thereby take or conquer (Ewald, Knobel). The creation of tributary kings by conquerors is mentioned elsewhere in the sacred history {e.(i. 2 kings^xxiii. 34, xxiv. 17). 6'on of Tuhcal like Son of liemaliah, is Ver. 7-9.] IS-AIAH VII. 161 commonly explained as a contemptuous expression, implying obscurity or mean extraction. But sucli an expression would hardly have been put into the mouths of his patrons, unless we suppose that they selected him ex- pressly on account of his ignoble origin or insignificance, which is a very improbable assumption. They would be far more likely to bestow the crown on some prince, either of Ephraim or Syria, which some suppose to be implied in the Syriac form of the name, equivalent to the Hebrew Tobijah (Neh. ii. 15), and analogous to Tahrimmon, from whom Benhadad king of Syria was descended (1 Kings xv. 18). So in Ezra iv. 7. Tabeel is named as one of those who wrote to the king in the Syrian (Aramean) tongue. This whole speculation, though ingenious, and illustrated by Gesenius with a profusion of etymological learning (Comm. vol. i. p. 281, note), is probably fanciful, and certainly of no exegetical importance, which last is also true of Calvin's suggestion that the So7i of Taheal may have been a disaffected Jew. There is something curious in the Jewish expla- nation of the name by that form of the caobala called Albam (because it puts a for I, b, for m, and so forth, as identical with X?D"l (/. q. nvCil). A more important observation is, that this familiar reference en passant to the names of persons eow forgotten, as if familiar to contemporary readers, is a strong incidental proof of authenticity. 7. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, it shall not stand — or it shall not arise ■ — and it shall not be, or come to pass. This, as was said before, is taken by Gesenius and others as the conclusion of a sentence beginning in ver. 5, but may just as naturally be explained as the commencement of a new one. The feminine verbs may be referred to counsel ('"'VJ?) understood or taken indefinitely, which is a common Hebrew construction. ( Vide supra, chap. i. 6.) As D-1p means both to rise and stand, the idea here expressed may be either that the thing proposed shall not even come into existence (Hit- zig), or that it shall not continue or be permanent (Gesenius, Hengsten- berg, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit). The general sense is clear, viz., that their design should be defeated. The name mn\ being here preceded by *^'"I^ takes the vowels of O^n?^. The accumulation of divine names is, as usual, emphatic, and seems here intended to afford a pledge of the event, derived from the supremacy and power of the Being who predicts it. 8, 9. The plans of the enemy cannot be accomplished, because God has decreed that while the kingdoms of Sj'ria and Israel continue to exist, they shall remain without enlargement, or at least without the addition of Jeru- salem or Judah to their territories. It shall not stand or come to pass, because the head (or capital) of Aram is Damascus (and shall be so still), and the head (chief or sovereign) of Damascus is Rezin (and shall be so still — and as for the other power there is as little cause of fear) for in yet sixty and five years (in sixty-five years more) shall Ephraim be broken from a people {i.e. from being a people, so as not to be a people — and even in the mean time, it shall not be enlarged by the addition of Judah) for the head (or capital) of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head (chief or sovereign) of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If you ivill not believe (it is) because you are not to be established. Here again Syria is the prominent object, and Ephraim subjoined, as if by an afterthought. The order of ideas is that Syria shall remain as it is, and as for Ephraim it is soon to be destroyed, but while it does last, it shall remain as it is likewise ; Pekah shall never reign in any other capital, nor Samaria be the capital of any other king- dom. To this natural expression of the thought corresponds the rhythmical VOL. I. L 1G2 ISAIAH M[I. [Ver. 8, 9. arrangement of the sentences, the first clause of the eighth verse answering exactly to the first clause of the ninth, while the two last clauses, though dissimilar, complete the measure. For the head of Syria is Damascus — And the head of Damascus Rezin — And in sixty-five years more, &c. And the liead of Ephraim is Samaria — And the head of Samaria Remaliah's son — If ye will not believe, &c. "Whether this be poetry or not, its structure is as regular as that of any other period of equal length in the writings of Isaiah, As to the substance of these verses, the similar clauses have already been explained, as a pre- diction that the two invading powers should remain without enlargement. The first of the uneven clauses, /. e. the last of ver. 8, adds to this predic- tion, that Ephraim, or the kingdom of the ten tribes, shall cease to exist within a prescribed period, which period is so defined as to include the three successive strokes by which that power was annihilated — first, the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, two or three years after the date of this predic- tion (2 Kings XV. 29 ; xvi. 9) — then, the conquest of j^ Samaria, and the deportation of the ten tribes, by Shalmaueser, about the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kings xvii. 6) — and finally, the introduction of another race by Esar-haddon in the reign of Manasseh (2 lungs xvii. 24 ; Ezra iv. 2 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11). Within sixty-five years all these events were to occur, and Ephraim, in all these senses, was to cease to be a people. It seems then that the language of this clause has been carefully selected, so as to include the three events which might be represented us destructive of Ephraim, while in form it balances the last clause of the next verse, and is therefore essential to the rhythmical completeness of the passage. And 3^et this very clause has been rejected as a gloss, not onW by Honbigant, and others of that school, but by Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer, and Ivnobcl, expressly on the gi'ound that it violates the truth of history and tho parallelism of the sentence. In urging the latter reason none of these critics seem to have observed that the omission of the clause would leave the verses unequal ; while the puerile suggestion that the similar clauses ought to come together, would apply to any case in Greek, Latin, or modern poetry, where two balanced verses are divided by a line of different length or termination, as in the Stahat Mater or Cowper's Ode to Friendship. Such an objection to the clause is especially surprising on the part of those who insist upon subjecting even Hebrew prose to the principles, if not the rules, of Greek and Latin prosody. — As to the more serious historical ob- jection, it is applicable only to the theory of Usher, Lowth, Hcngstenberg, and Henderson, that the conquest of Israel by Tiglath-pileser and Shal- maueser are excluded from the prophecy, and that it has relation solely to what took place under Esar-haddon ; whereas all three are included. If a historian should say that in one and twenty years from the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Emperor Napoleon had ceased to be, ho could not be charged with the error of reckoning to the time of his death, instead of his first or second abdication, because all these would be really included, and the larger term chosen only for the purpose of embracing every sense in which the Emperor ceased to be. So in the case before us, the invasion by Tiglath-pileser, and the deportation by Shalmaueser are included, but tho term of sixty-five years is assigned, because with it expired every possible pretension of the ton tribes to be reckoned as a state or nation, though tho Ver. 8, 9.] ISAIAH VII. 1G3 real downfall of the govemmeut had happened many years before. Nor is it improbable that if the shorter periods of three or twenty years had been named, the same class of critics would have made the exclusion of the \^'ind- ing up under Esar-haddon a ground of similar objection to the clause. The propriety of including this event is clear from the repeated mention of Israel as a people still subsisting until it took place (2 Kings xxiii. 19, 20; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6, 7 ; xxxv. 18), and from the fact that Esar-haddon placed his colonists in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel (2 Icings xxvii. 21), thereby completing their destruction as a people. The same considerations furnish an answer to the objection that the time fixed for the overthrow of Ephraim is too remote to allay the fears of Ahaz ; not to men- tion that this was only one design of the prediction, and that the encourage- ment was meant to be afibrded by what follows, and which seems to have been added for the very purpose, as if he had said, " Ephraim is to last but sixty-five years at most, and even while it does last the head," &c. That the order of the numerals, sixty and five instead oifive and sixty is no proof of later origin (Gesenius), may be inferred from the occurrence of the same collocation at least three times in Genesis (iv. 24, xviii. 28, xlvi. 15). The alleged inconsistency between this clause and ver. 16 rests on a gi-atuitous assumption that the desolation threatened there and the destruction here are perfectly identical. To allege that "IIJ?? is elsewhere used to denote the precise time of an event (Gen. xl. 13, 19; Josh. i. 11, iii. 2; Jer. xxviii. 3, 11), is only to allege that a general expression admits of a specific appli- cation. The Hebrew phrase corresponds exactly to the English phrase in sixty-five years more, and like it may be either applied to something happen- ing at the end of that period, or to something happening at any time within it, or to both, which is really its application here. To the objection that the precise date of the immigration under Esar-haddon is a matter of con- jecture, the answer is, that since this event and the sixty-fifth year from the date of the prediction both fall within the reign of Manasseh, the sup- position that they coincide is less improbable than the supposition that they do not. To reject the clause on such a ground is to assume that whatever is not proved (or rather twice proved) must be false, however probable. Enough has now been said, not only to vindicate the clause as genuine, but to preclude the necessity of computing the sixty-five years from any other period than the date of the prediction, as for instance from the death of Jeroboam II. , with Cocceius, or from the leprosy of Uzziah with the Rabbins, both which hypotheses, if necessary, might be plausibly defended. It also supersedes the necessity of emendation in the text. Grotius and Cappellus drop the plural termination of ^''^^ and thus convert it into six. But even if Isaiah could have written six and five instead of eleven, the latter number would be too small, as Capellus in his computation overlooks an interregnum which the best chronologers assume between Pekah and Hoshea. See Gesenius in loc. Vitringa supposes K^'Om Qi^iy to have arisen out of "''^^ t;^'D^1 (a common abbreviation in Hebrew manuscripts, and this out of '^ ^^ ti'Oni, six, ten, and five, the exact number of years between the prophecy and Shalmaneser's conquest, viz. sixteen of Ahaz and five of Hezekiah, which he therefore supposes to be separately stated. But even if letters were used for ciphers in Isaiah's time, which is highly improbable, it is still more im- probable that both modes of notation would have been mixed up in a single number. Gesenius sneers at Vitringa's thanking God for the discovery of this emendation ; but it is more than matched by two of later date and Ger- man origin. Steudel proposes to read HJ^ (for HT^) in the sense of repeatedly, 1G4 ISAIAH VJI. [Veb. 10, 11. and to supply days after sixty -five! Hendewerk more boldly reads D^b'ty liya nJK* ti'pn) uliUe the robbers and the murderer are a sleep {i. e. asleep)! This he thinks so schun und herrlich, and the light which it sheds so yanz wunder- har, that he even prefers it to Hensler's proposition to read .s/.r or five, ({. q. five or six.) i. e. a few. Luzzato give this latter sense to the common text, which he explains as a round number, or rather as two round numbers, sixty being used in the Talmud indefinitely for a large number, and //re even in Scripture for a small one. Ewald seems willing to admit that sixty five itself is here put as a period somewhat shorter than the term of human life, but rejects the clause as a quotation fi-om an older prophecy, transferred from the margin to the text of Isaiah. Besides these emendatioDS of the text, the view which has been taken of the prophecy enables us to dispense with various forced constructions of the first clause — such as Aben Ezra's — " it shall not come to pass (with respect to you) but (with respect to) the head of Syria (which is) Damascus, &c." Or this — " Though the head of Syria is Damascus (a great city), and the head of Damascus is Rezin (a gi'eat prince), yet in sixty-five years, &c." Hitzig reverses this, and makes it an expression of contempt — " for the head of S}Tia is (only) Damascus, and the head of Damascus (only) Rezin (a smoking fire-brand)." — The last clause of the verse has also been various!}- construed. J. D. Michaelis supposes a threatening or indignant pause in the midst of it — " If ye will not believe — for (I see that) ye will not believe." Grotius makes it interro- gative— "will ye not believe, unless ye are confirmed" or assm'ed by a sign ? The construction now most commonly adopted makes ^3 a particle of asseveration (Rosenmiiller, Henderson) or even of swearing (Maurer), or supposes it to introduce the apodosis and to be equivalent to then (Gesenius). Luther's version of the clause, thus understood, has been much admired, as a successful imitation of the paronomasia in Hebrew : Gldubet ihr nicht, so bleibet ihr nicht. This explanation of the clause is strongly favoured by the analog}' of 2 Chron. xx. 20 ; but another equally natural is the one already given in translation — "if ye do not believe (it is) because ye are not to be established." For other constructions and conjectural emenda- tions of the several clauses, see Gesenius and Rosenmiiller on the passage. 10. And Jehovah added to speak unto Ahaz, saying, — which, according to usage, may either mean that he spoke again, on a different occasion, or that he spoke further, on the same occasion, which last is the meanii)g here. This verse, it is true, is supposed to commence a new division of the pro- phecy by Ewald, and an entirely distinct prediction by Hendewerk, who connects it with the close of the fifth chapter, and by Henderson, who re- gards all that follows as having reference to the invasion of Judah by Assyria. A sufficient refutation of the two last hypothesis is involved in the admission made by both these writers, that the ofi'er of a sign has reference to nothing in the context, but to something not recorded ; whereas it was naturally called , forth by the incredulity whicli some suppose to have been betrayed by the king's silence (Hengstcnberg) or his looks (Rosenmiiller), and which is certainly referred to in the last clause of vcr. 9. 11. Ask for thee {i. e. for thy own satisfaction) a sign from Jehovah thy God (literally from with him, i. c. from his presence and his power) — ash deep or liiglt above — or make deep thy rcqnest or make it high — i. e. ask it either above or below. A sign is not necessarily a miracle, nor necessarily a prophecy, but a sensible pledge of the ti'uth of some- thing else, whether jircsent, past, or future ; sometimes consisting in a miracle (Isa. xxxviii. 8; Judges vi. xxxvii. ; Exod. iv. 8), but sometimes Ver. 12, 13.] ISAIAH VII. 165 in a mere prediction (Exod. iii. 12 ; 1 Sam. ii. xxxiv. ; 2 Kings xix. 29), and sometimes only in a symbol, especially a symbolical name or action (Isa. xxxviii. 18, xx. 3 ; Ezek. iv. 8). The sign here oifered is a proof of Isaiah's divine legation, which Ahaz seemed to doubt. He is allowed to choose, not only the place of its exhibition (PlUschke), but the sign itself. The offer is a general one, including all the kinds of signs which have been mentioned, though the only one which would have answered the purpose of accrediting the Prophet, was a present miracle, as in the case of Moses (Exod. iv. 30). Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, seem to have read n?'S^ to the grave or lower world [l^diuvov iic, adrjv), which is adopted by Jerome, Michaelis, Lowth, and also by Ewald but without a change of text, as he supposes "^^^^ to be simply a euphonic variation for n^'X^ in- tended to assimilate it to ^in5 would have been employed ; but even that word is not invariably used in its strict sense (see Deut. xxii. 19 ; Joel i. 8), so that there would still have been room for the same cavils, and perhaps for the assertion that the idea of a virgin could not be expressed except by a peri- phrasis. It is enough for us to know that a virgin or unmarried woman is designated here as distinctly as she could be by a single word. But why should this description be connected with a fact which seems to render it inapplicable, that of parturition ? That the word means simply a young xioman, whether married or unmarried, a virgin or a mother, is a subter- fuge invented by the later Greek translators who, as Justin Mart\T tells us, read viotvic, instead of the old version 'ttupOivoc, which had its rise before the prophecy became a subject of dispute between the Jews and Christians. That the word denotes one who is a virgin or unmarried now, without im- plying that she is to remain so, is certainly conceivable ; but, as we said before, its use in this connection, especially when added to the other reasons previously mentioned, makes it, to say the least, extremely probable that the event foretold is something more than a birth in the ordinary course of nature. So too, the name Immanuel, although it might be used to signify God's providential presence merely (Ps. xlvi. 8, 12, Ixxxix. 25 ; Joshua i. 5 ; Jer. i. 8 ; Isa. xliii. 2), has a latitude and pregnancy of meaning which can scarcely be fortuitous, and which, combined with all the rest, makes the conclusion almost unavoidable, that it was here intended to express a personal as well as a proridoitial presence. If to this we add the early promise of salvation through the seed of the woman (Gen. iii. 15), rendered more definite by later revelations, and that remarkable expression of Isaiah's contemporary prophet Micah (ver. 2), until the time that she which travailelh hath brought forth, immediately following the promise of a niler, to be born in Bethlehem, but n-hose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting — the balance of probabilities, as furnished by the Old Tes- tament exclusively, preponderates decidedly in favour of the supposition, that Isaiah's words had reference to a miraculous conception and nativity. When we read, therefore, in the gospel of Matthew, that Jesus Christ was actually born of a virgin, and that all the circumstances of his birth camo to pass that this very prophecy might be fulfilled, it has less the appearance of an unexpected application, than of a conclusion rendered neccssaiy, by a series of antecedent facts and reasons, — the last link in a long chain of intima- tions more or less explicit. The same considerations seem to shew that the prophecy is not merely transferred or accommodated to another subject by the evangelist, which is, moreover, clear from the emphatic form of the cita- tion (touto oXoi/ ysyoviv ha 'rr}.rjoajdfi ■/.■ t. ?..), making it impossible to prove the existence of any quotation, in the proper sense, if this be not one, and from the want of any similarity between the two events, viz., a natural and miraculous conception, upon which a mere illustrative accommodation of the Ver. 14.J ISAIAH VII. 169 words could have been founded. The idea, insidiously suggested by J. D. Michaelis, that the first two chapters of Matthew may be spurious, is so far from deriving any countenance from this application of the prophecy, that, on the contrary, its wonderful agreement with the scattered but harmonious intimations of the Old Testament, too numerous and too detached to be for- tuitous, aifords a strong though incidental proof that these very chapters are genuine and authentic. The rejection of Matthew's authority in toto, as an interpreter of the prediction, is not only inconsistent with the proofs of his inspiration drawn from other quarters, but leaves unexplained the remark- able coincidence between his interpretation and the original form of expres- sion, the context, and the parallel passages. That these should all conspire " to recommend an ignorant or random explanation of the prophecy, is more incredible than that the explanation should be true, and the words of Isaiuli a prediction of something more than the birth of a real or ideal child in tb ■■ ordinary course of nature, and in the days of the Prophet himself. The question, however, still arises, how the birth of Christ, if here predict.<;d, is to be connected with the promise made to Ahaz, as a sign of the e'^ ont, or as a measure of the time of its fulfilment ? II. The second hypothesis removes this difficulty, by supposing that the prophecy relates to two distinct births and two different childroi. Of this general theory there are two important modifications. 1. The. first supposes one child to be mentioned in ver. 14, and another in ver. 16. As to ver. 15, some connect it with the one before and some with the on'3 after it. Thus Junius understands ver. 14 to refer to Christ, but vers. 15, 1(3 to Shear- jashub ; Usher applies vers. 14, 15 to Christ, and ^er. /1() to Shoarjashub ; Calvin, vers. 14, 15 to Christ, but ver. 10 to a cliild., i.e. any child inde- finitely. They all agree that the prophecy contains 'two promises. First, that Christ should be born of a virgin, and Ih •' th'at Judah should be de- livered before Shearjashub (or before any civ . her .. within a certain time) could distinguish good from evil. To suci .uterpretations as refer ver. 15 to the infancy of Christ, it may I . ,, .. that they put a sense upon that verse which its expressions will not \' - ar, and which is inconsis- tent with the use of the same terms in ver. 22^. it will be seen below that the eating of curds and honey is predicted I'as a sign of general desola- tion, or at least of interrupted tillage. Artothor objection which applies to all the forms of this interpretation is /the sudden change of subject, in the fifteenth or sixteenth verse, from Ijtnmanuel to Sheaijashub, or to any child indefinitely. Nothing but extif'cme exegetical necessity could justify the reference of vers. 15, 16 to amy person not referred to in ver. 14. 2. This difiiculty is avoided in tlie £|;econd modification of the general hypothesis that the passage, as a wlioler refers to two distinct births and to different children, by assuming that, bo4h are mentioned in the fourteenth verse itself. This is the supposition oif a double sense, though some refuse to recognise it by that name. Tl^do essence of the theory is this, that while ver. 14, in its obvious and p)rimary sense, relates to the birth of a child in the ordinary course of nature, its terms are so selected as to be descriptive, in a higher sense, oft .he miraculous nativity of Christ. This theory is mentioned by Jerome as '.►lie 'pinion of a certain Judaizing Christian, whom he does not name (quicjai: de nostris juda'izans), and by Calvin as a compromise between the ortl!ni.Icx and Jewish expositions, but it has since had many eminent and able r dvocates. The minor variations of this general hypothesis have rot" lenc ■, chiefly to the particular child intended by the prophecy in its lov ■ sei. -v, whether a son of Isaiah him- 170 ISAIAH VII. [Ver. 14. self, as Grotius, Clericus, and Bra-ues suppose, or any child born within a certain time, as Lowth, with more probability, assumes. The advantage of these interpretations is, that they seem to account for the remarkable expressions ^Yhich the prophet uses, as if to intimate a deeper meaning than the primary and obvious one, and at the same time answer the con- ditions both of the context in Isaiah and of the application in Matthew, presenting a sign analogous to others given before and after by this very pro- phet (chap. vii. 3, viii. 2), and at the same time furnishing believers with a striking prophecy of the Messiah. The objections to it are its com- plexity, and what seems to be the arbitrary natui-e of the assumption upon ^vhich it rests. It seems to be a feeling common to learned and unlearned aders, that although a double sense is not impossible, and must in certain cases be assumed, it is unreasonable to assume it when any other explanation is admissible. The improbability in this case is increased by thb want of similarity between the two events, supposed to be predicted in th,3 very same words, the one miraculous, the other not only natural, but coinmon, and of everyday occurrence. That two such occurrences should bo described in the same words, simply because they were both sic)ns or pledges of a promise, though not impossible, can only be made probable by strong corroborating proofs, especially if any simpler mode of exposition be at all admissible. Another objection, which lies equally against this hj^pothesis and the one first mentioned is, that in its primary and lower sense it, does not afford such a sign as the context and the parallel passages would lej.^d us to expect, unless we suppose that the higher secon- dary sense was fullj- understood at the time of the prediction, and in that case, though the birtxh of the Messiah from a virgin would be doubtless a sufficient sign, it wouXd, for that veiy reason, seem to make the lower one superfluous. Dathe's dourageous supposition, that the primary reference is to a mimculoiis conception and birth in the days of Isaiah, only aggra- vates the difiiculty which \it would diminish, though it certainly escapes the force of some of the objec^tions to the supposition of a double sense, to wit, those founded on the iiijadequacy of the sign and the dissimilarity of the events. None of these yreasons seem, however, to be decisive against the supposition of a double sense, as commonly understood, unless there be some other way in which its? complexity and arbitrary character may be avoided, and at the same time t,he connection between the birth of the Mes- siah and the deliverance of Juda ;h satisfactorily explained. III. The third general hypoth.esis proposes to effect this by applying all three verses directly and exclusivi jly to the Messiah, as the only child whose birth is there in-edicted, and his gn'owth made the measure of the subsequent events. The minor variations of '.this general hjq^othesis relate to the time when these events were to occur, ai;id to the.sense in which the growth of the Messiah is adopted us the mcasurej of them. 1. The simplest form in which this theory has been applied, is tha t exhibited by J. H. Michaelis and others, who suppose the prediction to relajte to the real time of Christ's appearance, and the thing foretold to be the d/esolation which should take place before the Saviour reached a certain agel To this it is an obvious objection that it makes the event predicted tooaiemotc to answer the conditions of the con- text, or the purpose of the prophpl'y itself. A similar objection has, indeed, been urged by the Eabbins and Johers, to a prophecy of Christ's birth as a sign of the promise made to Ahaa;. But the cases are entin-ly dissimilar. The promise of immediate delivci/ance might be confirmed by an appeal to an event long posterior, if the onef necessarily imphed the other, as iucluded Vek. 14.] ISAIAE VIL 171 in it, or as a necessary previous condition. Thus the promise that Israel should worship God at Sinai, was a sign to Moses, that they should first be delivered frora Eg}-pt (Exod. iii. 12), and the promise that the tillage inter- rupted by Sennacherib's invasion should be resumed, was a sign to Eezekiah, that the invasion was itself to cease (Isa. xxxvii. 30). In like manner, the assurance that Christ was to be born in Judah, of its royal family, might be a sigu to Ahaz, that the kingdom should not perish in his day ; and so far was the remoteness of the sign in this case from making it absurd or inap- propriate, that the further off it was, the stronger the promise of continuance to Judah, which it guaranteed. Especially is this the case, if we suppose it to have been a familiar doctrine of the ancient Church, that the Messiah was to come, and that for his sake, Israel existed as a nation. But, according to the theory now in question, not only is the sign remote, but also the thing signified ; not only the pledge of the event, but the event itself. The Pro- phet's contemporaries might have been encouraged to expect deliverance from present danger by the promise of Christ's coming ; but a promise of deliverance before the end of seven hundred years could afford no encour- agement at all. That this objection to the theory in question has been felt by some of its most able advocates, may be inferred from several facts. One is, that J. H. Michaelis is obliged to insert the words long since (dudum deserta erit), and yet to leave the promise wholly indefinite. Another is, that Henderson departs from the ancient and almost universal explanation of the passage as a promise, and converts it into a threatening, not only against Israel, but against Judah ; both of which kingdoms were to lose their kings before the twelfth year of our Saviour, when Archelaus was banished from Judea. A third is, that Cocceius, though one of the most accurate philologists of his own or any other age, and only too decided in his exegetical judgments, hesitates between the interpretation now in ques- tion and the ungrammatical and arbitrary reference of ver. 16 to a different child. At all events, it may be safely assumed, that the application of these three verses to the time of Christ's actual appearance has no claim to be received, if there is an}' other form of the same general hypothesis, by which the connection of the promise with the context can be made more natural. 2. This end Vitringa has attempted to secure, by supposing the language to be hypothetical, or that the Prophet, while he views the birth of Christ as a remote event, makes it the measm-e of the events at hand — q. d. before the Messiah, if he ivere born noic, could know how to distinguish good from evil, &c. The only objection to this ingenious explanation is, that the condi- tional expression on which all depends, if he ivere horn now, is precisely that which is omitted, and of which the text contains no intimation. And that the Prophet, without such intimation, would make this use of an event which he distinctly saw to be remote, though not incredible, ought surely not to be assumed without necessity. 3. Another modification of the hypo- thesis which refers the three verses all to the Messiah, is that proposed by Eosenmliller, in the second and subsequent editions of his Scholia, and sub- stantially renewed by Ewald, viz., that Isaiah really expected the Messiah to be born at once, and therefore naturally made the progress of his infancy the measure of a proximate futurity. Neither of these writers supposes any reference to Christ, both regarding the prediction as a visionary anticipation. But Hengstenberg has clearly she^\Ti that such a positive belief and expec- tation, on Isaiah's part, is not only inconsistent with other prophecies, but with the sequel of this, in which a series of calamitous events is described as intervening betv.-een the approaching deliverance and the nati\-ity of the 172 ISAIAH VII. • Yer. 14. Messiah. To the merely negative assumption that the time of the advent formed no part of this particular revelation, he thinks there is not the same objection. 4. Accordingly, his own interpretation of the passage is, that the birth of the Messiah being presented to the Prophet in connection with the proximate deliverance of which it was the sign or pledge, without regard to chronological relations, and seen by him in prophetic ecstacy as actually present, he naturally makes the one the measure of the other. As if he had said, I see the virgin bringing forth a son, and calling his name Immannel ; I see him living in the midst of desolation till a certain age ; but before that time amves, I see the land of our invaders lying desolate. The only objec- tion to this ingenious improvement on Vitringa's ingenious exposition, is that it restsnipon a certain theory as to the nature of prophetic inspiration, or of the mental state in which the prophets received and uttered their communi- cations, which, however probable, is not at present generally current with believers in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, nor perhaps maintained by Hengstenberg himself. In expounding this difficult and interesting passage, it has been considered more important to present a tolerably full view of the diiierent opinions, arranged according to the principles on which they rest, than to assert the exclusive truth of any one interpretation as to all its parts. In summing up the whole, however, it may be confidently stated, that the first hypothesis is false ; that the tii-st modifications of the second and tliird are untenable ; and that the choice lies between the supposition of a double sense and that of a reference to Christ exclusively, but in connection with the promise of immediate deliverance to Ahaz. The two particular iutorpi-etations which appear to be most plausible and least beset with difficulties, are those of Lowth and Vitringa, with which last Hengstcnberg's is essentially identical. Either the Prophet, while he foretells the birth of Christ, foretells that of another child, during whose infancy the promised deliverance shall be ex- perienced ; or else he makes the infancy of Christ himself, whether foreseen as still remote or not, the sign and measure of that same deliverance. While some diversity of judgment ought to be expected and allowed, in re- lation to this secondary question, there is no ground, grammatical, historical, or logical, for doubt as to the main point, that the Church in all ages has been right in regarding this passage as a signal and explicit prediction of the miraculous conception and nativity of Jesus Christ. As to the form of the expression, it will only be necessary further to re- mark that 'Tin is not a verb or participle (Vilringa, Rosenm tiller), but a feminine adjective, signifying pre(jna7it, and here connected with an active participle, to denote that the object is described as present to the Prophet's view. Behold, the vinjin, loregnant and hringinr; forth a so7i, and she calls his name Immanuel. The future form adopted by the Septuagint (£^£/, Xr,-^iTai, Ti^irai) is retained in the New Testament, because the words are there considered simply as a prophecy ; but in order to exhibit the full force which they have in their original connection, the present form must be restored. The form of the sentence is evidently copied from the angel's address to Hagar (Gen. xvi. 11), and so closely that the verb nx^i'^ remains unchanged ; not, however, as the second person feminine (though all the other Greek versions have xaXjffs/;, and Junius likewise, who supplies o viryo to remove the ambiguity), but as the third person feminine, analogous to nby (Lev. XXV. 21), nah^} (Ps. cxviii. 2B), nxan (Gen. xxxiii. 11). The form niOi? itself occurs (Deut. xxxi. 29 ; Jer. xUv. 2o), but in another sense (See Nordheimer, § 422). Calvin, with a strange lapse of memory, alleges VfiK. 15.] ISAIAH VII. 173 that in Scripture mothers never name their children, andthat a departure from the constant usage here is a prophetic intimation that the child would have no human father. The error of fact is easily corrected by referring to the exercise of this prerogative by Eve, Leah, Rachel, Hannah, and others (Gen. iv. 1-25 ; xix. 37 ; xxix". 32-85 ; xxx. 6-24 ; 1 Sam. i. 20 ; 1 Chron. iv. 9 ; vii. 16). That the same act is frequently ascribed to the father, needs of course no proof. In the case before us, it is so far from being an important question, who was to impose the name, that it matters very little whether it was ever imposed at all ; or rather, it is certain that the name is merely descriptive or symbolical, and that its actual use in real life was no more necessary to the fulfilment of the prophecy, than that the Messiah should be commonly known by the titles of Wonderful, Counsellor, the Prince of Peace (Tsa. ix. 6), or the Lord our Eighteousness (Jer. xxiii. 6). Hence in Mat. i. 28, the singular J^^^i^ is changed into the plural xaksGovGi, they shall call, i. e. they indefinitely, as in our familiar phrase they say, corresponding to the French on dit and the Geman man sagt, which last con- struction is adopted by Augusti in his version of this sentence (man wird nennen seinen Namen). With equal adherence to the spirit, and equal de- parture from the letter of the prophecy, the Peshito and Vulgate give the verb a passive form, his name shall be called. As to the meaning of the name itself, its higher sense is evident from Matthew's application, not- Avithstanding Hitzig's paradoxical denial, and its lower sense from the usage of analogous expressions in Ps. xlvi. 8, 12, Ixxxix. 25 ; Josh. i. 5, Jer. i. 8, Isa. xliii. 2. 15. This verse and the next have already been translated in connection "with the fourteenth, upon which connection their interpretation must de- pend. It will here be necessary only to explain one or two points more distinctly. Butter (or curds) and honey shall he eat, until he knows [hoio) to reject the evil and to choose the good. The simple sense of the prediction is that the desolation of JuJah, caused by the invasion of Rezin and Pekah, should be only temporary. This idea is symbolically expressed by making the new-born child subsist during his infancy on curds and honey, instead of the ordinary food of an agricultural population. This is clearly the meaning of the same expression inver. 22, as we shall see below ; it cannot therefore here denote the real humanity of the person mentioned (Calvin, Vitringa, Henderson, &c.), which is besides sufficiently implied in his being born of a human mother, and could not be asserted here without interrupt- ing the connection between the fourteenth and sixteenth verses. It cannot denote his poverty or low condition (Calovius), or that of the family of David (Alting), because no such idea is suggested by the words. It cannot, on the other hand, denote abundance or prosperity in general (Grotius, Cocceius, Junius, &c.), because such a diet is no proof of that condition, and because, according to ver. 22, the words are descriptive only of such abundance as arises from a sparse population and neglected tillage. That this desolation should be temporary, is expressed by representing it as co- extensive with the early childhood of the person mentioned. iPlVf? is ex- plained by Jai'chi, Lowth, Hitzig, Henderson, and Ewald, to mean ivhen he knoiDs ; by most other writers, till or before he knows (LXX. 'zglv rj yvumi). The Vulgate, Luther, Junius, and Clericus refer it, not to time at all, but to the design or effect of his eating curds and honey, that he may know. It is clear, however, from the next verse, that this one must contain a speci- fication of time, however vague. The difi'erence between the versions ivhen and till, and also in relation to the age described — which J. D. Michaelis 17i ISAIAH VII. [Ver. 16. puts as high as hvcnh'-one, Ewald from ten to twenty, Henderson at twelve, but Kimchi and most others at about three years — is not so important as might at first sight seem, because the description was probably intended to be somewhat indefinite. The essential idea is that the desolation should not last until a child then born could reach maturity, and probably not longer than his first few years. Clericus supposes good and evil to mean pleasant and unpleasant food, as in 1 Sam. xix. 35 ; but the same words elsewhere constantly relate to moral distinctions and the power to perceive them (Gen. iii. 5 ; Deut. i. 39 ; 1 Ivings iii. 9 ; Jonah iv. 2), Nothing short of the strongest exegetical necessity could justify the reference of this verse to Shcarjashub (Junius, Usher), or to any other subject than the one referred to in the verse preceding, namely, Immanucl, the child whose birth the Prophet there describes as just at hand, and whose infancy he here describes as passed in the midst of surrounding desolation. To the explanation of this verse as having reference to Isaiah's own son or a son of Ahaz on the one hand, or to the time of our Saviour's actual appearance on the other, sufficient objections have already been adduced in the interpretation of the fourteenth verse. 10. The desolation shall be temporary — -for before the child shall knoio (hoiv) to reject the evil and to choose the good, the land, of tohoF.e two Icings thou art afraid (or hj whose tivo Jcings thou art distressed) shall he forsaken, i. e. left by its inhabitants and given up ta desolation, in which sense the same verb is used elsewhere by Isaiah (chap. xvii. 2, xsvdL 10, Ixii. 12. Comp. vd. 12). Instead of taking ^TJ/'ri thus absolutely, most of the older writers, and a few of later date, connect it with ''.•PPP, and I'i? with "l*^'^?. The land tihich thou abhorrest {or for xvhich thou fearcst) shall be forsaken by both its Icings — i. c. Judah shall be forsaken by Rszin and Pekah, whom Steudel supposes to be called its kings de facto — or Syria and Israel shall be deprived of Piezin and Pekah — or Canaan (including Israel and Judah) shall lose both its kings. This last is the interpretation given by Hender- son, who also reads the land lohich thou destroyest. Clericus takes 3.tyJ!* absolutely, in the sense of being desolate, but translates the rest, lohich thou abhorrest on account of its two Icings. To some of these constructions it may be objected that they make the land and not the kings the object of abhorrence, and to all, that they construe X^ directly with '^■^ which is con- traiy to usage, and disjoin it from ^.^?P, by which it is followed in at least two other places (Ex. iii. 12, Num. xxii. 3) ; to which may bo added that according to the Hebrew idiom, this construction is the only one that could be used to signify before (or on account of) ivhose tivo Jcings thou art in terror. This construction, which is given by Castalio and De Dieu, is adopted by Cocceius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmiillcr, Gesenius, Ewald, and most other modern writers, who are also agreed that the land here meant isSyria_and_ Israel, spoken of as one because confederate against Juiiah. The waiting 'oF these kingdoms and the deportation of their people by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xv. 29, xvi. 9), is here predicted, which of course implies the previous deUveranco of Judah and the brief duration of its own calamity, so that this verso assigns a reason for the representation in the one preceding. There is no need, therefore, of imposing upon *3 at the beginning of the verse, the sense of nag (Piscator), indeed (Calvin), although (Alting), or but (Umbreit), or any other than its usual and proper one of for, because. Nor is it necessary to regard the fifteenth verse as a paren- thesis, with Cocceius and Rosenmiillcr ; much less to reject it as a gloss, with Hitzig, and as breaking the connoction between the name Immanuel Ver. 17.] ISAIAH VII. 175 in ver. 14, and the explanation of it in ver. 16. The true connection of the verses has heen well explained by Maurer and Knobel to be this, that Judah shall lie waste for a short time, and only for a short time, for before that short time is expired, its invaders shall themselves be invaded and destroyed. This view of the connection is sufficient to evince, that the reference of this verse to Shearjashub (Lowth) or to any child indefinitely (Calvin), is as unnecessary as it is ungrammatical. A child is born — he learns to distinguish good and evil — but before the child is able to distin- guish good and evil, something happens. If these three clauses, thus succeeding one another, do not speak of the same child, it is impossible for language to be so employed as to identify the subject without actually saying that it is the same. 17. Again addressing Ahaz, he assures him that although he shall escape the present danger, God will inflict worse evils on himself and his succes- sors, by means of those very alhes whose assistance he is now seeking. Jehovah will bring npon thee — not merely as an individual, but as a king^ — and on thy people — and on thy fathers house — or family — the royal line of Judah — days lohich have not come since the departure of Ephraim from Judah, to wit, the hing of Assyria. It is possible to construe the sentence so as to make it refer to the retreat of the invaders — Jehovah loill bring upon thee days xvhich have not come (never come before), from the day that Ephraim departs from Judah, i. e. as soon as this invasion ceases, worse times shall begin. This construction, which is permitted, if not favoured, by the Masoretic accents, has the advantage of giving to ^VJP its strict sense, as implying the removal of a burden or infliction (see Exod. x. 28, and Gesen-us s. v.) rather than a mere revolt or schism, and also that of making the expression stronger {days which have not come at all, or never come), and at the same time less indefinite by specifying when the days were to begin. But as the absolute use of the phrase which have not come is rather harsh and unusual, and as the compound forms D1*P? and ''^''Q? are elsewhere used only in relation to the past (Judges xix. 30 ; 2 Sam. vii. 6 ; 2 ICings xix. 25 ; Mai. iii. 7), although the simple forms D1*P and "•l?**?? sometimes denote the future (Exod. xii. 15 ; Lev. xxii. 27 ; Ezek. . xxxviii. 8), it is safer to adhere to the unanimous decision of all versions and interpreters, so far as I can trace it, and understand the verse as declaring the days threatened to be worse than any which had come upon Judah since the' revolt of the ten tribes, here called Ephraim, from the largest and most powerful tribe, that to which -Jeroboam belonged, and within which the chief towns of the kingdom were situated. This de- claration seems at first sight inconsistent with the fact, demonstrable from sacred history, that the injuries sustained by Judah, during the interval here specified, from other foreign powers, as for example from the Eg}"ptians in the reign of Rehoboam (2Chron. xii, 2-9), from the Philis- tines and Arabians in the reign of Jehoram (2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17), from the Syrians in the reign of Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 23, 24), not to mention the less successful attacks of the Ethiopians in the reign of Asa (2 Chron. xiv. 8-15, and of Moab and Ammon in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. XX. 1-30), or the frequent incursions of the ten tribes, must have greatly overbalanced the invasion of Sennacherib, by far the most alarming visita- tion of Judah by the armies of Assyria. This apparent discrepancy is not to be explained by regarding the prophecy before us, with Gesenius, as a mere threat (blosses Drohwort), nor by alleging that the days here threat- ened are not described as worse than any former days, but only as different 17G ISAIAH ril. [Yer. 17. from them. Even granting that the prophecy implies not merely change of condition, but a change for the worse, it may be justified in either of two ■ways. According to Cocceius, Yitringa, Henderson, and others, the hivrj of Assyria maj- here include the kings of Babylon, to whom the title is applied in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, if not in Neh. ix. 32, as it is to the kings of Persia in Ezra vi. 22, considered as successors to the Assyrian power, in accordance with which usage, Herodotus calls Babylon a city of Assj'ria. But even this sup- position, although highly probable, is not here necessar}'. Let it be observed that the days here threatened were to be worse, not simply with respect to individual suffering or temporary difficulties of the state itself, but to the loss of its independence, its transition to a servile state, from which it was never permanently freed, the domination of Assyria being soon succeeded by that of Egypt, and this by that of Babylon, Persia, Syria, and Rome, the last ending only in the do^vnfall of the state, and that general disper- sion of the people which continues to this day. The revolt of Hezekiah and even longer intervals of liberty in later times, are mere interruptions of the customary and prevailing bondage. Of this critical change it su^rely might be said, even though it were to cost not a single drop of blood, nor the personal freedom of a single captive, that the Lord was about to bring upon Judah days which had not been witnessed from the time of Ephraim's apostasy, or according to the other construction of the text, at any time whatever ; since none of the evils suffered, from Solomon to Ahaz, had destroj'ed the independence of Judah, not even the Egyptian domination in the reign of Rehoboam, which only lasted long enough to teach the Jews the difference between God's service and the service of the Idngdoms of the countries (2 Chron. xii. 8). This view of the matter is abundantly suffi- cient to reconcile the prophecy with history, whether Assyria be understood to mean the kingdom properly so called, or to include the empires which succeeded it ; and whether the threatening be referred exclusively to Ahaz and his times, as Gesenius and RosenmUller say it must be, or to him and his successors jointly, which appears to be the true sense of thy people and thy father s house as distinguished from himself and his own house ; but even on the other supposition, as the change of times, i. e. the transition from an independent to a servile state, took place before the death of Ahaz, the expressions used are perfectly consistent with the facts. It is implied, of course, in this interpretation, that Sennacherib's invasion was not the Icginning of the days here threatened, which is rather to be sought in tbe alliance between Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser, tvho came unto him and distressed him and strengthened himnot (2 Chron. xxviii. 19, 20), but exacted repeated contribution from him as a vassal ; which degrading and oppressive inter- course continued till his death, as appears from the statement (2 Ivings xviii. 7), that Hezekiah rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not, clearly implying that he did ^t first, as he oflered to do afterwards, on Sennacherib's approach, with confession of his fault, renewal of his tribute, and a repetition of his father's sacrilege (2 Kings xviii. 13-1 G). That during the whole term of this foreign ascendancy, Judah was infested by Assyrian intruders, and by frequent visitations for the purpose of extorting their un- willing tribute, till at last the revolt of Hezekiah, no longer able to endure the burden, led to a formal occupation of the countiy, is not only pro- bable in itself, but seems to be implied in the subsequent context (verses 18-20). The abrupt commencement of this verse, without a connecting particle, led Alting to regard it as the apodosis of the sentence beginning with ver. IG — " before the child shall know, &c., and btfore the land t^hall Ver. 18.] ISAIAH VII. Ill be forsaken, Jehovah will bring upon thee," &c. But besides the unusual length and involution of the sentence, and the arbitrary repetition of before with and, it cannot be explained, on this hypothesis, to what desolation ver. 16 alludes, as the overthrow of Israel preceded the invasion of Judah by AssjTia. The abrupt commencement of the sentence is regarded by Maurer as a proof that the remainder of the chapter is of later date ; by Hitzig as marking the commencement of the prophecy itself, what precedes being introductory to it. Vitringa supposes that the Prophet paused, as if unwilling to proceed ; Houbigant, as usual, amends the text by inserting vav; while Lowth and others follow the Septuagint by supplying hut. According to Hendewerk, however, the adversative particle is out of place, as he denies that what now follows is a threatening appended to a previous promise, and regards it as an amplification of the threatening in ver. 15 ; but that relates to the Syrian invasion, this to the Assyrian domination. Alting's translation of 'IyV by against thee, though it does not change the general sense, destroys its figurative dress, in which there is an obvious allusion to the bringing of water or the like upon a person, so as to destroy him. Compare Joshua xxiii. 15 and xxiv. 7. — The last words of this verse ("lIK'X "1?D nx) bave been rejected as a gloss by Houbigant, Seeker, Lowth, Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, Umbreit, and Knobel, on the ground that they contain an inelegant anticipation of what follows, and an explanation of what goes before, at once superfluous and incorrect, since Egypt as well as Assyria is mentioned afterwards. That Assyria might be naturally named alone, as first in time and in importance, is ad- mitted by Eichhorn, who rejects the clause on other grounds ; and Maurer, who does the same, speaks mth contempt of the objection founded on the days being explained to mean the Icinrj (id nihil est). As for the rhetorical objection that the words are too prosaic, it is founded on the modern notion that the prophets were mere poets. The objections to the explanation which the clause contains, as superfluous and incorrect, may cancel one another, as both cannot well be true. Gesenius thinks the supposition of a gloss the more probable because he has detected several others in this prophecy ; while Ewald, on the other hand, retains the words as genuine, because they recur below in ver. 20 and in chap. viii. 7. The external evidence is all in favour of the clause. There is no need of making riN a preposition meaning by, though, or from, as Jerome, Luther, Grotius, and Clericus do ; nor is it necessary to regard the words as in apposition to Q^P^, since they are rather a second object to the verb 5<"'3^, which may be considered as repeated before ^l^ does not necessarily mean every man, implying that the poorest of the people should have so much cattle (Gesenius), or that the richest should have no more (Calvin), but simply one indefinitely (Hitzig, Ewald). The piel of n^^n nowhere else signifies to "keep, own, feed" (Barnes), nor to hold, possess (Gesenius, Ewald, &c.). Its primary meaning is to give life originally (Job xxxiii. 4), or to restore it after death (1 Sam. ii. 6) ; whence by a natural transition it is used to denote the ^^reservation of one's life in danger (Ps. xxx. 4) ; so that unless we depart from its proper meaning here, it must denote not merely the keeping or raising of the cow and sheep, but their being saved from a greater number, and preserved with difficulty, not for want of pasture, which was more than ever plentiful, but from the presence of invaders and enemies. Thus understood, the word throws light upon the state of the country, as described in the context. Hendewerk thinks it not improbable that by a cow and two sheep we are to understand a herd of cows and two Jlocks of sheep, because so small a number would not yield abundance of milk. But the abundance is of course to be rela- tively understood, with respect to the small number of persons to be fed, and is therefore an additional and necessary stroke in the prophetic picture — few cattle left, and yet those few sufficient to affi)rd milk in abundance to the few inhabitants. This abundance is expressed still more strongly by describing them as eating, not the milk itself, but that which is produced from it, and which of course must bear a small proportion to the whole ; and as this is the essential idea meant to be conveyed by mentioning the nxpri, it matters little whether it be understood to mean butter (Septua- gint, &c.), cheese (Hendewerk), cream (Hitzig, De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel), or curds (Gesenius, &c.), though the last seems to agree best M'ilh what we know of oriental usages. It is here mentioned neither as a delicacy nor as plain and ordinary food, but as a kind of diet independent of the cultivation of the earth, and therefore implying a neglect of tillage Ver. 23.] ISAIAH VII. 181 and a pastoral mode of life, as well as an unusual extent of pasturage, which may have reference, as Barnes suggests, not onl}' to the milk, but to the honey. The rabbinical interpretation of these verses, as a promise of abun- dance in the reign of Hezekiah after Sennacherib's retreat (2 Chron. xxii. 27-29), and the adaptation of the same exposition to the time of Christ (Grotius, Cocceius, &c.), appear to have arisen from confounding what is here said of butter and honey with a frequent description of the promised land as floicing uith milk and honey. But not to insist upon the circum- stance, that this is a literal and that a metaphorical description, and that even in the latter the idea of abundance is conveyed by the flowbuf of the land with milk and honey, which is not here mentioned ; let it be observed that even the abundance thus asserted of the promised land is not fertility, but the abundance of spontaneous products, not dependent upon tillage ; and that after Israel was possessed of Canaan, and had become an agricul- tural people, the natural emblem of abundance would no longer be milk and honey, but corn and wine, or flesh and fruits, so that the prospect of subsisting on the first two, if it did not suggest the idea of personal priva- tion, would suggest that of general desolation, or at least that of interrupted or suspended cultivation. Thus Boswell, in the Journal of his tour with Dr Johnson to the Hebrides, observes of the inhabitants of one of the poor islands, that " they lived all the spring without meal, upon milk and curds and whey alone." This verse, then, is descriptive of abundance only as connected with a paucity of people and a general neglect of tillage. It was designed, indeed, to be directly expressive neither of abundance nor of poverty (Barnes), but of a change in the condition of the country and of the remaining people, which is further described in the ensuing context. The older interpreters were probably misled by the peculiar mode in which a threatening is here uttered in the tone of a promise, or as Knobel expresses it, the words sound promising (klingen verheissend), but contain a threat. The same thing had been observed before by Henderson, and most of the recent writers are agreed in giving to the 22d verse its true sense as a pro- phecy of desolation. This of course determines that of the fiiteenth, to which Hendewerk supposes Isaiah to refer directly, as if he had said, " This is what I meant by saying that the child should eat curds and honey, for curds and honey shall every one eat that is left in the midst of the land." 23. Having described the desolation of the country indirectly, by saying what the food of the inhabitants should be, the Prophet now describes it more directly, by predicting the growth of thorns and briers even in spots which had been sedulously cultivated, for example the most valuable vine- yards. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day [that) every place where there shall be a thousand vines at (or for) a thousand silverlinys (pieces or shekels of silver), shall be for (or become) thorns and briers, or shall be (given up) to the thorn and to the brier. Kimchi reverses the prediction, so as to make it mean that every place now full of thorns and briers shall hereafter abound in valuable vines, which is of course an impossible con- struction. Calvin supposes the thousand silverlinys or shekels to be men- tioned as a very low price, and understands the verse to mean that every place planted with a thousand vines should, in these days of desolation, be sold for only so much, on account o/the thorns and briers which had over- run them. All other writers seem to confine the threatening to the thorns and briers, and to regard ^IP? H"?.^? as a part of the description of a valuable vineyard, though they differ on the question whether this was the price for which the vineyard might be sold, or its annual rent, as in Sol. Song viii. 182 ISAIAH VII [Ver. 24, 25. 11, where, however, it is said to be the price of the fruit, and the number of vines is not mentioned. The vines of the Johannisberg are valued at a ducat each, according to J. D. MichaeHs, who thinks, however, that, allow- ance being made for the change in the value of money, the price mentioned in the text was probably a high one even for a valuable vineyard. Hen- derson computes that it was nearly one-half more than the price at which the vineyards of Mount Lebanon were sold in 1811, according to Burck- hardt, namely, a piastre for each vine. — The substantive verb with 7 may signify either "to belong to" (Hitzig, Ewald), "to be given up to" (Umbreit), " or to become" (De Wette, Knobel), which last is its most usual meaning. The irregular repetition of the verb is occasioned by the length of the parenthetical clause. The construction of the sentence is entirely changed in Henderson's version — in every place, d-j., there shall be briers and thorns. 24. So complete shall be the desolation of these once favoured spots, that men shall pass through them armed, as they would through a wil- derness. With arroivs and with bow shall one (or shall a man) f/o thither, because thorns and briers shall the whole land be. The essential idea, as the last clause shews, is that of general desolation ; there is no need, therefore, of supposing that the bows and arrows have exclusive reference to protec- tion against enemies (Kimchi), or beasts (Jarchi), or robbers (Clericus), or to hunting (Calvin), as neither is particularly mentioned, and as it would be natural to carry weapons into such a region both for protection and the chase (Lowth, Gesenius). It is no objection to the mention of the latter, that the people had just been represented as subsisting upon milk and honey, since these tw5 methods of subsistence often co-exist, as be- longing to the same state of society, and both imply a general neglect of tillage. The exact sense of the last clause is not that the land shall become thorns and briers (English version), as in ver. 24, but that it shall actually be thorns and briers. 25. Not only the fields, not only the vineyards, shall be overrun with thorns and briers, but the very hills, now laboriously cultivated with the hand, shall be given up to like desolation. And all the Jtills (i.e. even all the hills) which are digged with the hoe (because inaccessible to the plough) — thou shalt not go (even) there, for fear of briers and thorns, and (being thus uncultivated) they shallbefor a sending -jilace of cattle and a trampling- place of sheep [i.e. a place where cattle may be sent to pasture, and which may be trodden down by sheep). The reference is probably to the hills of Judea, anciently cultivated to the very top, by means of terraces that still exist, for an account of which by eye-witnesses, see Keith's Land of Israel, chapter xii., and Kobinson's Palestine, vol. ii. p. 187. Thus understood, the verse merely strengthens the foregoing description, by declaring that even the most carefully-cultivated portions of the land should not escape the threatened desolation. It is not necessary, therefore, to give X')'^^ in ver. 24 the arbitrary sense oi lowlands, as distinguished from the mountains mentioned here (Henderson) ; much less to understand Q'''?n itself as mean- ing mounds or hillocks formed by the hoe (Forerius). It is equally gra- tuitous, and therefore inadmissible, to take thorns and briers in a ditferent sense from that which they have in the preceding verses, e.g. in that of a thorn hedge, implying that the vineyard should no longer be enclosed (Grotius, Coccoius, Vitringa), an arbitrary change which cannot bo justified by Matthew Henry's epigrammatic observation, that the thorns, instead of growing where they would be useful, should spring up in abundance where they were not wanted. With this explanation of thorns and briers is con- Yer. 1.] ISAIAR VIIL 183 nectsd an erroneous constrnction of ii'\2^ as a verb in the third person, agreeing with riSl^ as its subject — " the fear of thorns and briers shall not come thither" — i.e. there shall be no hindrance to their growth (Ewald), or no regard to them (Junius), or no thorn hedges (Grrotius). Kimchi and Abarbenel conne^it this same construction with the natural and proper sense of thorns and brier's, and thus convert the verse into a promise that in the mountains there should be no fear of desolation ; while Cyril and Calvin make it a threatening in the form of a promise (like ver. 22), by explaining it to mean that even if the hills where the remaining inhabitants take refuge should be tilled, and thus escape the fear of thorns and briers, it would only be because the rest of the country should be desolate. The simplest and most satisfa-^tory construction is the one now commonly adopted, which takes fr^l^n as the second person used indefinitely (tJiou for any one), and T\'^y. as a noun used adverbially to denote /ur/eftr of, which is more agree- able to Hebrew usage than to suppose an ellipsis of the preposition IP (Ro- senmiiller). Thus understood, the verse continues and completes the des- cription of the general desolation, as manifested first by the people's living upon milk and honey, then by the growth of thorns and briers in the choicest vineyards and the terraced hills, and by the conversion of these carefully- tilled spots into dangerous solitudes, hunting-grounds, and pastures. CHAPTER VIII. The prediction of the overthrow of S}Tia and Israel is now renewed in the form of a symbolical name, to be inscribed on a tablet and attested by two witnesses, and afterwards applied to the Prophet's new-born son, whose progress as an infant is made the measure of the event, vers. 1-4. It is then foretold that the judgment denounced upon Syria and Israel should extend to Judah, as a punishment for distrust of God and reliance upon human aid, in consequence of which the kingdom should be imminently threatened with destruction, yet delivered for the sake of Immanuel, by whom the strength and wisdom of all enemies should be alike defeated, vers. 5-10. The Messiah himself is then introduced as speaking, warning the Prophet and the true believers neither to share in the appi*fehensions nor to fear the reproaches of the people, but to let Jehovah be an object of exclusive fear and reverence to them, as he would be an occasion of destruction to the unbelievers, from whom the true sense of this revelation was to be concealed, and restricted to his followers, who, together with the Prophet and the Son of God himself, should be for signs and wonders to the multitude, while waiting for the manifestation of his presence, and refusing to consult any other oracle except the word of God, an authority despised by none but those doomed to the darkness of despair, which is described as settUng down upon them ; with a sudden intimation, at the close, of a change for the better, especially in reference to that part of the country which had been most afflicted and despised, vers. 1 1-23. The Hebrew and English text differ here in the division of the chapters. A better arrangement than either would have been to continue the eighth without interruption to the close of what is now the sixth (or seventh) verse of the ninth chapter, where a new division of the prophecy begins. 1. The prediction of the overthrow of Syria and Israel, contained in chap. vii. 8, 9, is here repeated, and as before in a symbolical form. In order to excite immediate attention, and at the same time to verify the pro- 184 ISAIAH VIII. [Yer. 2. phecy, Isaiah is required to inscribe an enigmatical name on a large tablet in a legible character, with a view to present exhibition and to subsequent preservation. The name itself includes a prophecy of speedy spoliation. And Jehovah said to me, take thee [or for thyself) a great tablet, i. e. great in proportion to the length of the inscription), and write upon it with a mans pen (or stylus, i. e. in an ordinary and familiar hand), To Maher-shalal- hash-bciz (i. e. Haste-spoil-quick-prey). The name may also be read as a sentence — Hasten spoil ! Frcy hastens. (So Cocceius : propera spolium, festinavit direptio.) Others take "inD, as an infinitive (either used as such or instead of a preterite), on account of the ? prefixed, which, however, has no more connection with this than with the other words, being joined to it merely as the fii'st v.ord in the sentence, just as the English to might be prefixed to an inscription. Here as in ver. 3, Muher-shalal-hash-haz is a name, and the exhibition of the tablet, in the temple (Barnes), or the market- place (Ewald), or the Prophet's house (Knobel), was intended to suggest the question, who is meant ? It is therefore less correct to say that the inscription is afterwards transferred to the child, than that the name of the child is anticipated here. These four words are not merely the heading or title of the wTiting (Barnes), but the writing itself. The modern lexico- graphers explain P v3 not as a derivative of ^7.^, to roll, and a synonyme of n?3p, a volume, but as a derivative of npj, to polish, and as meaning a tablet of metal, or as Ivnobel supposes, of wood covered with wax. tipH the stylus used in WTiting on such tablets. Human is here explained by Hendewerk as meaning common or ordinary in opposition to divine, but by others more probably in opposition to a mode of writing only known to some, and not to men in general ; whether the allusion be to a sacred character (Hender- son), or simply to the letters used in books as distinguished from those used in common life (Ewald). Both the kind of writing and the size of the tablet (admitting larger characters), have reference to its being legible, so that lie may run that readeth it. (Hab. ii. 2.) 2. In order to preclude all suspicion of its having been uttered after the event, the prophecy is not only recorded, but attested by two ^^•itnesses. And I (Jehovah) loill take to witness for me credible witnesses, to ivit, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah. These were not to be wit- nesses of the Prophet's marriage (Luther, Grotius), but of his having written and exhibited the prophecy long before the event. Uriah is pro- bably the same who connived at the king's profanation of the temple (2 I^ngs xvi. 10-1 G). The word a*30XJ does not relate to their true cha- racter or standing in the sight of God, but to their credit with the people, especially perhaps with the king, in which view, as well as on account of his official rank, Uriah was a very suitable witness. The same considera- tion makes it not improbable that the Zechariah mentioned here was the father-in-law of Ahaz (2 Kings xviii. 2 ; 2 Chron. xxix. 1), perhaps the same that is mentioned as a Levite of the family of Asaph (2 Chron. xxix. 13). The Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chron. xxvi. 5, seems to have died before Uzziah. Zechariah the son of Jchoiada was put to death between the porch and the altar (Mat. xxiii. 35) long before this, in the reign of Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21). Zechariah the Prophet was the son of lierechiah, but ho lived after the Babylonish exile. The Rabbins and Light- foot give to D^"7y the emphatic sense of martyrs {ij,usrv^ic,), witnesses for the truth, and suppose Uriah to bo the person who prophesied against Judah, and was put to death by Jchoiakim, about 180 years after the date Yer. 3, 4.J ISAIAH VIIL 185 of tills prediction. But such an attesttition would have been wholly irre- levant and useless. The Vulgate takes the verb as a preterite (et adhibui mihi testes) and Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel read accordingly "^T^^J "^^'i^^ ^ '■'^ coiiversive. The Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito make it imperative {[LOisruodi /j.oi 'TToiriaov), and Hitzig accordingly reads n"l''Vn. Gesenius for- merly preferred an indirect or subjunctive construction, which is still re- tained by Henderson, and that I aJiould take as witnesses. The true con- struction is no doubt the obvious one, aiid I will cite as witnesses (Hende- werk, Ewald, Umbreit) — God being still the speaker, and the matter being one in which the Prophet was concerned only as his representative, so that the ascription of the act to God himself is not only admissible but necessary. This construction also accounts best for the paragogic form of the verb, as expressing strong determination or fixed purpose. 3. The significant name, before inscribed upon the tablet, is now applied to the Prophet's new-born son, that the child, as well as the inscription, might remind all who saw them of the prophecy. The execution of the previous command is here, as in many other cases, tacitly included in the record of the command itself. ( Vide supra, chap. vii. 4). And 1 ap- proached unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son, and Jehovali said to me, Call his name Maher-shcdal-hash-laz. Cahdn's supposition that this passed in vision is entirely gratuitous. This name, like Immannel, may be understood as simply descriptive or symbolical, but its actual im- position is inferred by most interpreters from ver. 18, where the Prophet speaks of himself and his children as signs and wonders in Israel, with reference, as they suppose, to the names Shear-jashid) and Maher-shalal- hash-haz. The four ancient versions all translate the name, and all, except the Targum, with some variations from the rendering in ver. 1. Most of the later German writers adopt Luther's version, Raubehahl Eileleute, but instead of the first word Ewald has Schnellraub. The pluperfect construc- tion, I had apioroached, &c., given by Junius, Gesenius, and others, is not only needless but, according to Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig, ungrammatical. The strange opinion of Tertulhan, Basil, Cyril, and Jerome, that the Pro- phetess is the Virgin Mary, and that this verse is the language of the Holy Spirit, though adopted by fficolampadius and others, is rejected even by Thomas Aquinas. The Propjhetess is probably so called, not because she was inspired (Grotius), or because she was to give the name Immanuel (Hendewerk), or because she bore a part in this prophetical transaction (Calvin), but because she was a prophet's wife, as queen usually means a royal consort, not a queen suo jure. A remarkable series of prophetic names, imposed upon three children, is recorded in the fu-st chapter of Hosea. 4. It is not merely by its name that the child is connected with the pro- phecy. The date of the event is determined by a reference to the infant's growth, as in the case of Immanuel. For before the child shall knoio (hoiv) to cry my father and my mother, one (or they indefinitely) shall take aiimy the ivealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria, i. e. into his presence, to deliver it to him (Gesenius), or in triumphal pro- cession (Calvin), or before him, i. e. before he marches homeward himself (Hendewerk), or simply in his presence, that is by his command and under his direction. The construction of i<'^*? is indefinite, so that there is no need of supplying nin.'' as the subject. The time fixed is that of the child's capacity not to recognise its parents, or to talk, but to utter the simple labial sounds bj- which in Hebrew, as in many other languages, /ai/ier and mother are expressed. The time denoted has been fixed by Vitringa and 18G ISAIAH VIII. [Vee. 5, 6. RoscnmuI]er at tlirce years, by Junius aud most later \vriters at one. But this very cliflcrence of judgment seems to show that the description was in- tended to be somewhat indefinite, equivaleat perhaps to ourfamihar phrase a year or two, within which time we have reason to bcheve that the event occurred. Gesenius alleges that the prophecy in reference to Israel was not fulfilled for eighteen years (2 Kings xvii. G), to which Hongstenberg re- plies that Samaria is here put for the kingdom and not for the capital city. But even if the name be strictly understood, there is no reason to doubt that Samaria was plundered by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xv. 29) although not destroyed, which idea is in fact not conve\'ed by the terms of the des- cription. T'jn properly means strength, but is specifically applied to military strength and to wealth, which last is the meaning here. The carrying away of its wealth does not necessarily imply anything more than such a spoiling of the capital as might be expec'cd in the course of a brief but successful invasion. Barnes's construction of the second clause — " Damascus shall be borne away as regards its riches " — is inconsibtent with the form of the original. 5. And Jehovah added to spealc to me again {ov further) saying. Here, as in chap. vii. 10, an interval of time may be assumed. Hendewerk sup- poses that in the mean time the Assyrians had approached and the in- vaders been compelled to withdraw from Judah. 6. The Assj'rian invasion is now represented as a punishment of Judah for distrusting the divine protection and seeking that of the Assryians them- selves. The immediate relief thus secured was to be followed by a worse calamity produced by those in whom they now confided. Because this jJcople (Judah, so called in token of divine displeasure) hath forsaken (or re- jected with contempt) the loaters of Shiloah (or Siloam, the only perennial fountain of Jerusalem, here used as a symbol of the divine protection) that go sofhj (or flow gently, unaccompanied by noise or dau'^er), and (because there is) joy toith respect to Rezin and the son of Ramaliah {i. e. because the Jews are exulting in the retreat of their invaders, caused by the approach of the Assyrians), therefore, &c., the apodosis of the sentence being given in the next verse. Steudel supposes the invasion itself to be represented by the waters of Siloam, and contrasted with a \Yorsc inva- sion yet to come. Because they despised the gentle fountain, God would bring upon them a mighty river. But to this there are several objections. 1. The fountain of Siloam would hardly have been used as the emblem of a foreign invasion merely because weak and unsuccessful. 2. The verb DXO does not mean simply to despise, but to reject with contempt something once esteemed or entitled to esteem, and is thprefore inapplicable to an in- vasion. 3. God himself had taught them to despise it (chap. vii. 4), and would not therefore have assigned their doing so as a reason for the punish- ment to be inflicted. Calvin understands by the waters of Siloam the mild and peaceful government of God, compared with the powerful military sway of foreign monarchs. Because the Jews despised their own advantages, and admired the conquests of Pekah and Ilezin, therefore God would cause them to experience the hardships of Assyrian domination. But the only feelings which the Jews can be supposed to have experienced with respect to their invaders, are fear at their approach, and joy at thoir departure. That they rejoiced at their success, is a gratuitous assumption contradicted by the his- tory. The same objection lies, with almost equal force, against the suppo- sition of Gesenius, Maurer, Ewald, and Knobel, that this sympathy with the invaders is not asserted of the whole nation, but of a disaHectcd party Ver. 7.J ISAIAH VIII. 187 who rejected the authority of the family of David (the waters of Siloam), and rejoiced in the success of the enemy. However plausible such a supposition may appear, it is not to be assumed without necessity, or in preference to an explanation which involves no such imaginary facts. Hen- derson and others understand by this people, the kingdom of the ten tribes, whose apostasy from the true religion, and their rejection of the theocracy, are here assigned as reasons for the evils threatened. A Jewish prophet, speaking or writing to the Jews, would of course be understood to mean by this people those whom he addressed. It may be said indeed that this has reference to the mention of Ephraim in the foregoing context (ver. 4). But this would prove too much, by requiring Syria to be included in the charge of rejecting the waters of Siloam (Umbreit), in which case we must either suppose the words to be used in a twofold sense, or take Di^p in that of simply despising, which is inadmissible. The same objection lies, in a less degree, against the opinion of Barnes and others, that by this people we are to understand Israel and Judah as a race. This is favoured by the fact that both these kingdoms are included in the threatenings of the subsequent con- text. Bat the exclusion of Syria is still more unnatural if Ephraim is in- cluded. _ The true sense seems to be that given by Hitzig, except that he regards i^lb'P as an incorrect orthography for DIDp, the infinitive of D?p to melt, to be dissolved with fear. "Because this people has rejected the waters of Siloam, gently flowing, and is afraid of Rezin and the son of RemaUah," &c. This explanation is unnecessary, as the same people who were terri- fied by the approach of the invaders would of course rejoice in their departure. The particle Hi;? simply denotes the direct occasion of the joy. The more definite idea of rejoicing over is suggested by the context. For a full description of the fountain of Siloam, and the localities connected with it, see Robinson's Palestine, vol. i. pp. 501-505. 7. Therefore (because the people had thus ceased to trust in the divine protection, and rejoiced in the success of their application to Assyria), he- liold (as if the event were actually present), the Lord (is) bringing up upon them the toaters of the river (i. e. the Euphrates, as an emblem of the As- syrian power), its strong and many waters) here contrasted with the gently flowing waters of Siloam), to wit, the king of Assyria and all his glory (with particular reference to military strength and display), and it (the river) shall come up over all its channels and go over all its banks, which may either mean, that it shall transcend its usual limits, or that, after submerging Israel, it shall overflow into Judah also. In favour of this last interpretation is the language of the next verse, and the fact that otherwise the punish- ment of Ephraim or the ten tribes is not expressly mentioned. — The copu- lative conjunction is used by a common Hebrew idiom to introduce the apodosis of the sentence. The figure of an overflowing river is peculiarly appropriate, not only as affording a striking antithesis to the fountain men- tioned in the sixth verse, but because "^^P^ is often used absolutely to denote the Euphrates, the great river of the Assyi'ian and Babylonian empires. Clericus supposes that it here denotes the Tigris, as a river of Assyria Proper. But, according to the usage of the Greek and Roman writers, Assyria extended to the bank of the Euphrates, which Arrian describes as rising above its banks and overflowing rriv y/iv ' A(S(ru^:av. The beauty of the metaphor is rendered still more striking by the frequent allusions, both in ancient and modern writers, to the actual inundations of this river. Here, as in chap. vii. 17, 18, the figures are explained in literal expressions by the Prophet himself. Here, too, the explanation has been questioned as a gloss^ 188 ISAIAR VIII. [Yer. 8, 9. on grounds exclusively rhetorical. But every repetition, as Evrald well observes, makes the hypothesis of an interpolation more and more impro- bable. Its alleged incongruity, if it did not exclude it in the first place, must have struck the most uncritical reader on its second or third recurrence. Some suppose an allusion in nu? to the pomp of the oriental kings in their marches. But this is not known to have been an Assyrian usage, and the supposition is at least unneccssaiy. — Some understand by its channels and its banks the channel and banks of Judah ; but this construction agrees neither with the proper meaning of the words nor with the metaphor of which they form a part. According to Junius, the overflowing of the banks were designed to represent the king of Asspia's violation of his own en- gagements in oppressing those for whose relief he had come forth. 8. And it (the river) shall j^ass over (from Syria and Israel) into Judah, overflow and pass through (so as nearly to submerge it), to the neck shall it reach (but not above the head), and the spreadings of its wings shall he the filling of the breadth of thy land, 0 Immanuel ! The English Version dis- turbs the metaphor by using the person pronoun he so as to refer this verso directly io the king, and not to the river which represented him. It also makes HcH mean to jmss through, which is really expressed by "I?V> while the former verb denotes a change of direction, and subjoins a threatening against Judah to the threatening against Israel. By the neck, the Targum understands Jerusalem, in which it is followed by Calvin, Junius, Piscator, Vitringa, Henderson and Barnes, the last of whom supposes a distinct allu- sion to the elevated site of the Holy City. Most probably, however, the expression w^as intended to denote nothing more than the imminency of the danger by figures borrowed from a case of drowning, the head alone being left above the water. Most writers suppose the figure of a stream to be exchanged in the last clause for that of a bird, or for the description of an army ; but Umbreit and Knobel understand ivings to be used here, as often elsewhere, in the sense of sides or lateral extremities, and applied to the river itself. Some of the Jewish writers make ^i^-I^^V a proposition, God (is) with us, in favour of which is the analogy of ver. 9 below, and the fact that the words are separately written in most manuscripts. In favour of making it a proper name is the analogy of chap. vii. 16, and the pronoun of the second person joined to the preceding word, thy land, Immanuel ! Some of the Rabbins make the Prophet the object of address, " thy land (0 Isaiah)." But this is arbitrary, and renders the connection of the clauses very harsh. If this had been the meaning, the Prophet would prol)ably have said, '* but God is with us." Those who regard Immanuel as the name of a contemporary child, understand by thy land thy native land (as in Gen. xii. 1 ; John i. 8), and to the question why this child should be specially addressed, reply because he was a sign to the people, and his name pro- phetic. But as we have seen that Immanuel is the Messiah, thy land must mean tlie land belonging to thee, thy dominion ; or rather both ideas are included. Thus understood, this brief apostrophe involves a prayer and promise of deliverance, acsi dixissef, terra nihilominus erit tua o Immanuel ! (Calvin). 9. He now turns to Ihc enemies of Judah, and assures them of the failure of their hostile plans. The prediction, as in chap. vi. 9, is clothed in the form of an ironical command or exhortation. Be tvicked [i. e. indulge your malice, do your worst) and be broken (disappointed and confounded), and (that not only Syria aod Israel, but) give ear all remote pwrls of the earth (whoever may attack the chosen people), gird yourselves {i. c. arm and Ver. 10- 12. J ISAIAH VIII. 189 equip yourselves for action), and he broken, gird yourselves and he hroken (the repetition implying the certainty of the event). The first verb (-lyi) has been variously derived from ^V"), V-l"), and V^"^, and explained to mean associate yourselves (TaYgu.m,Yu\gate, Sec), hrealc and he broken (AbenEzra, Ivimchi, &c.), make a noise or rage (Henderson). This last is given by Gesenius in the second edition of his German version ; in the first, and in his latest Lexicons, he gives the verb its usual sense of being evil or malig- nant, which is also expressed by Luther (seyd bose ihr Volker !). It is here equivalent to do your worst. Seeker and Lowth, on the authoritj' of the Sejituagint, read 1]^T know ye, corresponding to 1J''TXri, hear ye. Hendewerk and Knobel suppose Assyria and Israel to be exclusively addressed ; but this is directly contradicted by the second clause. The failure or disap- pointment threatened is of course that of their ultimate design to overthrow the kingdom of Judah, and does not exclude the possibility of partial and temporary successes. 10. Not only their strength but their sagacity should be confounded. Devise a plan, and it shall be defeated (nullified or brought to nought) ; speak a icord (whether a proposition or an order), and it shall not stand (or be carried into execution) : for [Imnumnel) God [is) with us. Junius and Tremellius make the last word a proper name, as in ver. 8 — " Loquimini verbum et non existet, nam Himmanuelis (existet verbum)." This con- struction is too forced to be even called ingenious. The truth is, that even as a name Immanuel contains a proposition, and that here this proposition is distinctly announced, but with a designed allusion to the person whom the name describes. As if he had said, " The assm-ance of your safety is the great truth expressed by the name of your dehverer, to wit, that God is with us." The mere retention of the Hebrew word could not convey its sense in this connection to the English reader. 11. The triumphant apostrophe in ver. 10 is now justified by an appeal to the divine authority. I have reason to address our enemies in this tone, for thus said Jehovah to me in strength of hand {i.e. when his hand was strong upon me, when I was under the influence of inspiration), and in- structed me away from ivalking in the ivay of this people (/ . e. warned me not to follow the example of the unbelieving Jews). When oce is spoken of in Scripture as inspired, it is said not only that the spirit was upon him (Ezek. xi. 5), but also that the hand of Jehovah was upon him (Ezek. i. 3; iii. 22; xxxiii. 32 ; xxxvii. 1), and in one ease at least that it was strong upon him (Ezek. iii. 14). Hence strength of hand may have the sense of inspiration, and the whole phrase here employed be equivalent in meaning to the New Testament expressions iv -Trviv^u.ocTr/ (Rev. i. 10), Iv v/iSTaan (Acts xi. 5), h huvafLit xai 'rrvrjiMart ayiuj (1 Thes. i. 5). Henderson is right in saying that the translation taking me by the hand cannot be justified, but wrong in representing it as " the rendering of our common version," the text of which has with a strong hand, and the margin in strength of hand, the literal translation. ''T)'^) is explained by Gesenius as a future Kal of unusual form, by Ewald as a preterite Piel with an unusual union-vowel. Gesenius con- nects it with a phrase before it (" when his hand was strong upon me, and he warned me." &c.). Others more probably with "IPN* HB ("thus spake Jehovah and warned me," &c.). The author of this communication is sup- posed by some interpreters to be the Son of God, for reasons which will be explained below. 12. The words of God himself are now recorded. Saying, ye shall not call conspiracy (or treason) every thing which this people calleth conspiracy 190 ISAIAH VIII. [Ver. 13, 14. {or treason), and its fear ye shall not fear nor be afraid. "^^V., according to etjTQology and usage, is a treasonable combination or conspiracy. It is elsewhere constantly applied to such a combination on the part of subjects against their rulers (2 Kings xi. 14, xii. 21, xiv. 19, xv. 30). It is not strictly applicable, therefore, to the confederacy of Syria and Israel against Judah (Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Henderson, &c.), nor to that of Ahaz •with the king of Assyria (Barnes, &c.). It would be more appropriate to factious combinations among the Jews themselves (Aben Ezra, Ivimchi), if there w-ere any trace of these in history. The correct view of the pas- sage seems to be this. The unbelieving fears of the people led them to seek foreign aid. From this they were dissuaded by the Prophet and his followers, who regarded it as a violation of their duty to Jehovah. This opposition, like the conduct of Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege, was regarded by the king and his adherents as a treasonable combination to betray them to their enemies. But God himself commands the Prophet and the true believers not to be aflfected by this false reproach, not to regard the cry of treason or conspiracy, nor share in the real or pretended terrors of the unbelievers. 13. Jehovah of hosts, him shall ye sanctify (?. e. regard and treat as a Hoh' God, and as the Holy One of Israel) ; and he shall be your fear, and he your dread, i. e. the object of these feelings. If they felt as they ought towards God, as supreme and almighty, nnd as their own peculiar God, with whom they were united in a national covenant, they could not so distrust him as to be alarmed at the approach of any earthly danger. Y^^^ may either be an active participle (that which terrifies you) or a verlal noun resembling ^^"^1^ in its mode of derivation. The collocation of the words makes the sentence more emphatic. Him shidl ye fear is substantially equivalent to Him alone shall ye fear. Thus explained, the passage is at once a condemnation of the terror inspired by the approach of the two kings, and of the application, which it had occasioned, to Assyria for aid against them. 14. And he (Jehovah) shall he for (or become) a holy thing (an object to be sanctified) and for a stone of siumhliitg and for a roclc of offence {i. e. a stone to strike against and stumble over) to the tuo hotises of Israel (Ephraim and Judah); for a gin (or trap) and Jor a snare to the inhabitants of Jeru- salem. £^'!?i?P is by many understood to mean a sanctuary, in the specific sense, or with the accessory idea, of a refuge or asylum (Paulus, Gesenius, Eoscnmiiller, Winer, Maurer, Hendewerk, Barnes, Ewald, Umlreit, Hen- derson). But although the temples of the gods were so regarded ly the Greeks and Romans, no such usage teems to have prevailed among the Christians till the time of Constantino (Bingham's Orig. Eccles. viii. 11, 1). As to the Jew^s, the only case which has been cited to cstabhsh such a practice seems to prove the contrary. So far was the altar from protecting Joab, that he was not even dragged away but killed upon the spot (2 Kings ii. 28). J. D. Michaelis snppos-es an allusion to the stone which Jacob called Bethel or the residence of God (Gen. xxviii. 19), the same object being here described as a sanctuary and as a stone of stuiulling. But although this idea may be included, the word has prol ally a wider mean- ing, and was meant to bear the fame relation to "lt^'^pn (in ver. 13) that N110 bears to INITI and )'^"1JJJ3 to li'^liTl. God was the only proper object to be dreaded, feared, and sanctified, i.e. regarded as a holy leing in tho widest and most emphatic sense. Thus explained, the Hebrew C"|ipp cor- responds almost exactly to the Greek to ayiuv, the term applied to Christ by Vee. 15, 16.] ISAIAH VIII. 191 the angel who announced his birth (Luke i. 35). In 1 Peter ii. 7, where this very passao'e is applied to Christ, ti nij^ri seems to be employed as an equivalent to t^'■^PP as here used. To others he is a stone of stumbling, but to you who believe he is ^ 'riij.Ti, something precious, something honoured, something looked upon as holy. The same application of the words is made by Paul in Rom. ix. 33. These quotations seem to shew that the Prophet's words have an extensive import, and are not to be restricted either to his own times or the time of Christ. The doctrine of the text is, that even the most glorious exhibitions of God's holiness, i. e. of his infinite per- fection, may occasion the destruction of the unbeliever. The most signal illustration of this general truth was that afforded in the advent of the Saviour. It Avas frequently exemplified, however, in the interval, and one of these exemplifications was afforded by the conduct of the unbelieving Jews in the reign of Ahaz, to whom the only power that could save them was converted by their own unbelief into a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. The same idea is then expressed by another simple and familiar figure, that of a snare or trap. Both figures naturally suggest the idea of inadvertence and unforeseen ruin. The two houses of Israel are not the two schools of Hillel and Shammai, or the kingdom of Israel and the faction that favoured it in Judah, both which are rabbinical conceits, but the two rival kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim, here put together to describe the whole race or nation of Israel. The sense is not that Jehovah would be sanctified by Judah, and become a stumbling-block to Israel ; but that to some in either house or family these opposite events would happen. The inhabitnnts of Jerusalem are distinctly mentioned as the most conspicuous and influential members of the nation, just as Jerusalem itself is sometimes mentioned in connection with Judah, which really included it {vide siq^ra, chap. i. 1). 15. This verse completes the threatening by an explicit declaration that Jehovah would not only be a stumbling-block and snare to the houses of Israel, but that many should actually fall and be ensnared and broken. And wcmy shall stumble over them (the stone and snare) — or amour/ them (the children of Israel) — aud. fall and be broken and be snared, and be taken. Gesenius and most of the later writers refer D3 to the stone, rock, &c. ; but Ewald and most of the older writers to the people. The first construction points out more distinctly the occasion of the threatened ruin, the last the persons whom it should befall ; the general sense remains the same in either case. 16. Bind up the testimomj, seal the law, in my disciples. These are not the words of the Prophet speiking in his oyai person, but a command addressed to him by God, or as some suppose by the Messiah, the t^'^ij'P mentioned in the foregoing verse. Vitringa explains "1^ as the imperative of ">-1^ to form, delineate, inscribe. The command will then be to inscribe the revelation in the hearts of the disciples. It is commonly agreed, how- ever, that the root is "i!?^ to bind, and that the Prophet is commanded to tie up a roll or volume, and to seal it, thereby closing it. By law and testimony here we may either understand the prophetic inscription in ver. 1, or the whole preceding context, considered as included in the general sense oi revelation, as God's testimony to the truth and as a law or declara- tion of his will. The disciples, or those taught of God, are supposed by some to be Uriah and Zechariah, the two witnesses named in ver. 2 ; by others, tlie sons of th« prophets or literal disciples of Isaiah ; but it probably means the better portion of the people, those truly enlightened because 192 ISAIAR VIII. [Ykr. 17, 18. taught of God (chap. Hv. 13), to whom the knowledge of this revelation, or at least of its ti'ue meaning, was to be restricted. It is probaMe, therefore, that the preposition before '^I'^P. does not mean to ox for or ivilh or through ; but either among or in, i. e. in their minds or hearts. The act described is not that of literally binding and sealing up a material record, but that of spiritually closing and depositing the revelation of God's will in the hearts of those who were able and willing to receive it, with allusion at the same time to its concealment from all others. Kimchi regards these as the words of the Prophet — nothing now remains but to bind and seal the testimony. This, however, even if we make 1^* an infinitive, is a very harsh construction. 17. And 1 (the Messiah) ivill irait for Jehovah, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and will expect him. Most 'svTiters make these the words of the Prophet ; but since he is addressed in the verse preceding, without any intimation of a change of speaker here, and since the next verse is quoted in Heb. ii. 13, as the words of the Messiah, it seems better to assume with Cocceius and Henderson, that throughout this passage the Messiah is the speaker. The phrase to wait upon has changed its meaning since the date of the English version, the prominent idea being now that of seiTice and attendance, not as of old, that of expectation, which is the meaning of the Hebrew verb. God's hiding his face from the house of Jacob implies not only outward troubles but the withholding of divine illumi- nation, indirectly threatened in the verse preceding. The house of Jacob is the whole race of Israel, perhaps with special reference to Judah, The thing to be expected is the fulness of time when the Messiah, no longer re- vealed merely to a few, should openly appear. For a time the import of God's promises shall be concealed from the majority, and during that inter- val Messiah shall wait patiently until the set time has arrived. 18. Behold, I and the children lohich Jehovah hath given me (are) /or signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, the [One) dtcelling in mount Zion. Luther supplies a verb in the first clause — "Behold, here am I and the children," &c. August! repeats a verb from the preced- ing verse — " I and my children trust in the Lord." Most wTiters supply are after given me — " I and my children are for signs," &c. From Jeho- vah, i. e. sent and appointed by him. Of the whole verse there are two distinct interpretations. 1. According to Kimchi, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Ewald, Barnes, and others, Isaiah is the speaker, and the children meant are his two sons. Shear- Jashuh and Maher-shalal-hash-baz to which some add Imma)iuel. As all these names, and that of the Prophet himself, are significant, it is supposed that for this reason he and his children are said to be signs and luonders, personified prophecies to Israel, from Jehovah, who had caused the names to be imposed. 2. According to Henderson and many older writers, these are the words of the Messiah, and the children are his spiritual seed (Isa. liii. 10), whom the Father had given him (John vi. 37, 39, X. 29, xvii. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12.) The great argument in favour of this last interpretation is the application of the verse to Christ by Paul (Heb. ii. 13j, not as an illustration but an argument, a proof, that Christ partook of the same nature with the persons called his children and his brethren. It is true that many who regard Isaiah as the speaker, suppose him to have been a tvpe of Christ in this transaction. But a double sense ought not to be assumed where a single one is perfectly consistent with the context, and sufficient to explain all apparent contradictions, as in this case, where, ad- mitting that the Messiah is the speaker, we have no ellipsis to supply, and no occasion to resort to the hypothesis either of a type or an accommoda- Vee. 19, 20.] ISAIAH VIII. 193 tion. It is not necessary, however, to restrict the terms, with Henderson, to the period of the advent, and to our Saviour's personal followers. Even -before he came in the flesh, he and his disciples, i. e. all who looked for his appearing, were signs and wonders, objects of contemptuous astonish- ment, and at the same time pledges of the promise. 19. And ivlien they (indefinitely any one, or definitely the unbelievers) sliall say to you (the disciples and children of Messiah, who is still speaking), Seek unto {i. e. consult as an oracle) the spirits (or the spirit- masters, those who have subject or familiar spirits at command) and to the xcizards (wise or knowing ones), tlie chirpers and the mutterers (alluding to the way in which the heathen necromancers invoked their spirits, or uttered their responses) : should not a people seek to (or consult) its God, for the Uviny (i. e. in behalf of the living should it resort) to the dead ? Gro- tius explains the last clause as a continuation of the speech of the idolaters — " Consult familiar spirits ; ought not a people to consult its gods ?" But since Jehovah was the God of Israel, such an argument would defeat itself. It is better to regard this clause as the reply of the believing Jews to those who tempted them. Ewald and others give "ly? the meaning of instead — " Should a people consult the dead instead of the living God?" It is more consistent with the usage of the language to take the preposition in the sense of /or, i. e. for the benefit or in behalf of. " When you, my disciples, are invited by superstitious sinners to consult pretended wizards, consider (or reply) that as the heathen seek responses from their gods, so you ought to consult Jehovah, and not be guilty of the folly of consulting senseless idols or dead men for the instruction of the living." Henderson supposes the Prophet to be speaking in his own person ; but if the Messiah is the speaker in ver. 18, it is gratuitous and therefore arbitrary to suppose another speaker to be introduced without any intimation of the change. 20. Instead of resorting to these unprofitable and forbidden sources, the disciples of Jehovah are instructed to resort to the law and to the testimony {i.e. to divine revelation, considered as a system of belief and as a rule of duty) — if they speak {i.e. if any speak) not according to this uord (another name for the revealed will of God), it is he to whom there is no dawn or morning (t. e. no relief from the dark night of calamity). — The first clause is elliptical. Cocceius alone connects it immediately with what precedes, and understands ? as meaning besides — " in addition to the law and the tes- timony which we have already." Others supply a new verb return, adhere, come, go, &c. It is best, however, to repeat '^'^T} from the preceding verse, especially as this verb is elsewhere followed by ? in the same sense. (See 2 Chron. xvii. 3, 4. Comp. Job x. 6). — Piscator violates the accents by separating i^h DX from 1"iOK\ " If not (t. e. if they will not come to the law and the testimony), let them say," &c. Junius takes is? DS as ec^uiva- lent to NTTI, which it never is, unless another interrogation precedes. Knobel refers to the iOn in ver. 19 ; but this is too remote, and is more- over separated from N*? DX by the first clause of ver. 20. Kimchi, Abar- benel, Cocceius, Hitzig, Maurer, make N? QX the common elliptical formula of swearing — " if they will not say," i. e. they surely will say. Ewald adopts the same construction, and explains the verse to mean that when they are reduced to extremity (as those who have no dawn) they will begin too late to sjjeak according to this word, i.e. join in the appeal to the law VOL. I. N 194 ISAIAH nil. [Veh. 21. and to the testimony, which they now despise. Umbreit modifies this inter- pretation by giving D^< its strict conditional meaning, and continuing the sentence through the next verse — " If they do not thus speak, to whom there is no morning, then they must pass through the land," &c. — "IK'K, ■which is properly the relative pronoun, is omitted by the Yulgate, and ex- plained in the English Version and by Barnes as a causal particle. De Dieu, Yitringa, and some others make it a particle of asseveration, certainly; surely ; Gesenius the sign of the apodosis, then there is no daicn to them; J. H. Michaelis, a substitute for ''3, but in the sense of that, " know ye that." So the Dutch Version, " it shall come to pass that." All these are needless and therefore inadmissible departures from the ordinary' usage. Of those who give the word its proper meaning as a relative pronoun, some refer it to the noun immediately preceding — this u-ord ichich (Lowth) — others to the people or to some individual among them — they xiiio have or he who has no morning (Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit). But the best construc- tion seems to be that of Hendewerk, who supplies the substantive verb before the relative, " they are as one who has no morning," or better still, *' it is he who has (or they who have) no morning." None can speak incon- sistently with God's word — or, none can refuse to utter this word, viz. to the law and to the testimony — but one whom God has abandoned — " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost " (2 Cor. iv. 3). Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat. Lowth renders "iHi?' obscurity, from the analogy of "inK^, black, and liHt?', blackness. J. H. Michaelis, Dathe, and Augusti, make it equivalent to the Arabic ^g^, meaning magic — " His word in which^there is no magic," i. e. no deception. But the Hebrew word is never used in this sense. Calvin, the English Version, Barnes and others, give it the general sense of light — "it is because there is no light {i.e. knowledge or sound judgment) in them." But according to usage, the word means specifically morning-light, the dawn of day succeeding night, and is so rendered by the Vulgate (matutina lux), Luther (Morgen- rothe), and most modern writers. By this Vitringa understands the morn- ing of the rcsm'rcction, and J. H. Michaelis the epiphany of Christ. Bat as night is a common figure for calamity, the dawn will natm-ally signify its termination, the return of better times. (See chap. Iviii. 8, xlvii. 11; Job xi. 17.) They may be said to have no daxvn, for whom there is nothing better in reserve. 21. And they (the people) shall pass through it (the land) hardly bestead (i. e. distressed) ajid hungry : and it shall be (or come to pass) that uhen they are hungry they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and shall look u/nvard. Those interpreters who make the whole of the pre- ceding verse conditional, explain the 1 at the beginning of this as the sign of the apodosis — " If they speak not, kc, then shall they pass," &c. So J. D. Michaelis, Dathe, and Augusti. The latter supplies people as the sub- ject of ">5JJ; Lowth and the Dutch Version, every one of them ; but this is unnecessary. The verbs, though singular in form, like ? in the preceding verse, refer to the subject of the plural -lipi^^. Jerome repeats inC' as the subject of 1?V (lux pertransibit), light shall pass through the land, but not continue in it. — Through it, not the condition just described (Schroeder), nor the law (either in the sense of searching or in that of transgressing it), nor the earth or the gentile part of it (as some of the Jews explain it), nor Zio7i mentioned in ver. 18 (Cocceius), but the haul of Judah, which, though not expressly mentioned till the next verse, is tacitly referred to by a com- Vee. 22.] ISAIAH VIII. 195 mon Hebrew idiom. (See Ps. Ixviii. 16; Ixxxvii. 1). Grotius repeats his favourite suggestion, that the Prophet pointed to the ground when he said n2, so that the gesture and the word together meant this land — i^^'i?? is not hardened in a moral sense, but hardhj treated or distressed, as appears from the addition of 3yT. This last is not expressive of bodily hunger (Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer), nor of spiritual famine (Cocceius) ; nor is it a mere figure for the absence of all comfort and tranquillity of mind (Vitringa), but a term implying destitution both of temporal and spiritual good (J. H. Michaelis). Calvin, Lowth, and Barnes, understand ^Vi^rin as expressing self-reproach or anger with themselves ; but this is not consistent with the subsequent description of their desperate impenitence. The reflexive form, which occurs nowhere else, more probably denotes to excite one's self to anger. His king is not his earthly sovereign, the king of Judah (Grotius), of Judah or Israel as the case might be (Hitzig), or his idol, particularly Moloch or Milcom, names derived from "^^.^ (Targum, Calvin, Junius), but Jehovah considered as the king of Israel. So too '^'''p^. is not his false god, his idol, but the God whom he was bound to serve, his God, who at the same time was his king (Henderson), As the verb to curse does not elsewhere take the preposition 3 as a connective, Cocceius proposes to trans- late the phrase he shall curse by his king and by his God, by which he seems to understand the conduct of the Jews, who at one time cursed Caesar in Jehovah's name, and at another time rejected Christ saying. We have no king but Caesar ! Thus they alternately cursed their king in God's name, and cursed God in their king's. The art of looking up is by some regarded as a sign of penitence or of conversion from idols to the true God ; but this is inconsistent with the terms of the next verse. Junius, Piscator, and the Dutch annotators, connect it with the cursing as an accompanying gesture — "they shall curse their king and their God, looking up." ]3ut this clause is really in close connection with the first of the next verse, and both together must be understood as indicating utter perplexity and absolute despair of help from God or man, from heaven or earth, from above or below. 22. And to the earth he shall look ; and behold distress and darkness, dim- ness of anguish, and into darkness (he shall he) driven — or, the dimness of anguish and of darkness is dispelled. Heaven and earth are here opposed to one another, as sea and land are in chap. v. 30. Distress and darkness are here identified, as distress and light are there contrasted. Junius and Henderson explain ^-lyp as a participle, corresponding to fT^jp in the last clause (darkened with distress, driven into gloom) ; but there is no such participal form. Cocceius explains it as a noun denoting the dizziness and dimness of sight produced by great distress (vertigo arctationis), which may also be the meaning of the Septuagint version (axoTog 'Igti iir\ /3>Jffs/v). The true sense of the Hebrew word is outward and inward gloom, distress of circumstances and despair of mind. It is separated from what follows by Calvin (caligo, augustia) and Barnes (gloom, oppression), but is really a construct form governing n|>1^\ As the latter originally sig- nifies pressure or compression, Gesenius explains the phrase to mean dark- ness of compression, i.e. ^e'Vi^e or compact darkness. But ni^-l^* is here (as in Isa. xxx. 6 ; Prov. i. 27) a synonyme of H^y, both denoting straitened circumstances and a corresponding state of mind. — The Peshito translates rriJP as an active verb, and the Vulgate as an active participle (caligo per- sequens). The Targum, Cocceius, and Vitringa, suppose the passive par- ticiple to be here used as an abstract noun (caligo, impulsio). Saadias, Munster, Barnes, and others, make IT^jp an epithet of nbsi^^ (" obscuritas 19G ISAIAH VIII. |Vkr. 23. impulsa," " deepened darkness"), but the latter word is feminine. Lowth as usual cuts the knot by proposing to read either ?2J< or nm^D, and Kocher by taking the latter as a neuter noun in apposition with the former. Jarchi, Kimchi, Calvin, Junius, Kosenmiiller, Gesonius, Ewald, and others refer H'^pp to the people or the person who is the subject of the verb t^'3*, and either supply a preposition before 'yP^, or explain it as an accusative after a verb of motion. The meaning will then be thnist or driven into darkness. The objections to this construction are, tirst, the necessity of supplying both a verb and preposition ; and secondly, the unusual colloca- tion of the words mJD n'pDN for n'?2N "pX mjO. On the other hand, it is strongly recommended by the analog}' of Jer. xxiii. 12, where the same idea is expressed by the union of the same verb and noun. Another construction is the one proposed by J. D. Michaelis, who connects T\iyt2 with *1U'J3, and puts the latter in construction not only with Hpl^f but also with n?2S, " the dimness of anguish and of gloom is dissipated." This consti'uction is re- commended by its freedom from grammatical anomalies, and by its rendering the use of ^? at the beginning of the next verse altogether natural. The objectior.s to it are, that it violates the accents ; that it makes the Prophet speak of the darkness of darkness (but see Exod. x. 22) ; and that the transition from the threatening to the promise is, on this supposition, too abrupt. Either of the two constructions last proposed may be preferred ■without materially afiecting the interpretation of the passage. Hitzig modifies that of Michaelis by taking the last w^ord separately — it is dis- pelled ! 23. This darkness is to be dispelled, /or (there shall) not (be) ilarhiess ('for everj to her uho is noiv distressed (literally, to whom there is distress). The present calamity, or that just predicted, is not to be perpetual. The future state of things shall exhibit a strange contrast with the former. As the former time degraded the land of Zeholon and the land of NaplUali, so the latter glorifies the way of the sea, the hanh of the Jordan, Galilee of the Gendlis. The same region is described in both clauses, namely, the nor- thern extremity of the land of Israel. This is designated, fu'st, by the tribes which occupied it, then, by its relative position with respect to the Jordan and the sea of Tiberias. This part of the country, from being the most degraded and afflicted, should receive peculiar honour. Its debase- ment and distress both arose from its remote and frontier situation, proxi- mity to the heathen, intercourse and mixture with them, and constant ex- posure to the first attacks of enemies, who usually entered Canaan from the north. To the former of these reasons may be traced the expressions of contempt for Galilee recorded in the books of the New Testament (John i. 4G, vii. 52 ; Mat. xxvi. G9 ; Acts i. 11, ii. 7). How this disgrace was to be exchanged for honour, is explained in the next verse. Besides this, which seems to be the most satisfactory interpretation, there are several others, more or less at variance with it. The EngUsh version supposes a contrast not merely between ^i^n and "l^spn, but between these two and the subsequent deliverance. This requires /i^n to be t.aken in the sense of licjhthj afflicting, as distinguished from T'??'^, to afflict more grirvoiisly. But this distinction is unauthorised by usage. The Vulgate renders ^i?n al- leviata est. Some of the Jewish writers make it mean to lighten the coun- try by removing its inhabitants ; but then 1^??n must mean to bring them back again. Koppe makes Judah the subject of the pron)ise. As Galileo was first afflicted, then delivered, so should Judah be ; but this is wholly ISAIAH IX. 197 arbitrary. Cocceius converts the promise into a threat by reading there teas not (or has never been) such darkness. Gesenius, RosenmuUer, Ewald, and others, give to \3 the sense of but, because what immediately precedes is understood by them not as a promise but a threatening. Vitringa and Junius retain the proper meaning /or, but connect it with ver. 16 or ver. 18. The necessity of either supposition is removed by explaining the last clause of ver. 22, with J. D. Michaelis and Hitzig, as the beginning of the promise. The Vulgate connects ^IJ^-IO iO with ver. 22 and translates it non poterit avolare, as if from f]"iy, to fly ; but it is obviously a cognate form to P]-iyp in the preceding verse. Hitzig explains ^V-l^ ^'' as a compound, mean- ing the negative or opposite of darkness, i. e. light, as 'r*y ^? (chap. x. 15) means that which is not wood. Some regard 3 as a temporal pariicle, at or ill the former tine. Junius, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and others make it a conjunction, as the former time debased, &c. The original construction seems to be like the former time (which) debased, &c. Of those who regard 'i^n and T'Spn as descriptive of different degrees of affliction, some suppose the invasion of Tiglath-pileser to*be compared with that of Shalmaneser ; or the invasion of Israel with that of Judah ; or the Assyrian with the Baby- lonian conquest ; or the Babylonian with the Roman, The sea mentioned in the last clause is not the Mediterranean but the sea of Galilee, as appears from Mat. iv. 15, 16. "i^V. is here used in the sense of side or part adjacent. The region spoken of was that along the Jordan (on one or both^sides), near the sea of Galilee. According to Junius, Galilee of the Gentiles means Galilaea populosa. Gesenius admits that Isaiah has reference to the times of the Slessiah in this promise of deliverance and exultation to the Galileans. CHAPTER IX. The change for the better, which was promised at the close of the eighth chapter, is described in the ninth as consisting in the rise of the great light upon the darkness, in the increase of the nation and their joy, excited by deliverance from bondage and the universal prevalence of peace, arising from the advent of a divine successor to David, who should restore, estab- Ush, and enlarge his kingdom without any limitation, vers. 1- 6. From the times of the Messiah, the Prophet suddenly reverts to his own, and again predicts the punishment of Ephraim by repeated strokes. The people had been warned both by messages from God and by experi- ence, but had continued to indulge their proud self-confidence, in conse- quence of which God allow-ed the AssjTians, after overthrowing Rezin, to attack them also, while at the same time they were harassed by perpetual assaults from their hostile neighbours, vers. 7-11. Still they did not repent and return to God, who therefore cut off sud- denly many of all classes, but especially the rulers of the nation and the false prophets, the flattering seducers of the wretched people, from whom he must now withhold even the ordinary proofs of his compassion, vers. 12-lG. All this was the natural effect of sin, like a fire in a thicket, which at last consumes the forest, and involves the land in smoke and flame. Yet amidst these strokes of the divine displeasure, they were still indulging mutual animosities and jealousies, insomuch that Israel was like a fam- 198 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 1. ished man devouring his own flesh. Manasseh thus devoured Ephraim and Ephraim Manasseh, while the two together tried to devom- Judah, versw 17-20. The recurrence of the same clause at the end of vers. 11, 16, 20, and the fourth verse of the next chapter, has led the modern Germans to regard this as a case of regular strophical an-angement ; and as the same foi-m occurs above in chap. v. 25, Ewald interpolates that verse between the sixth and seventh of this chapter, as a part of the same context. The ob- jection to these critical hypotheses will be stated in the exposition. It has been observed already that the division of the chapters is in this part of the book peculiarly unfortunate ; the first part of the ninth (vers. 1-6) containing the conclusion of the eighth, and the fii-st part of the tenth (vers. 1—4) the conclusion of the ninth. The numbers of the verses in this chapter differ in the Hebrew and English Bibles ; what is the last verse of the eighth in the former is the first of the ninth in the latter. The references in the commentary are all to the divisions of the Hebrew text. 1. The people (just described, t. e. the people of GalileeJ, iliose walhing in the dark (expressive both of spiritual blindness and extreme distress), have seen a great light (the change being presented to the Prophet's view as already past) : the dwellers in the land of the shadow of death {i. e. of intense darkness), light has beamed upon them. These words, in a gene- ral sense, may be descriptive of any great and sudden change in the con- dition of the people, especially of one from ignorance and miser}' to illumi- nation and enjo}Tnent. The}' are still more appropriate to Christ as the light of the loorld (John viii. 12), a light to the nations (Isa. xlii. 6, xlix. 6), and the Sun of righteousness (Mai. iv. 2), which rose upon the world when he manifested forth his glory by his teachings and his miracles in Galilee (John ii. 11), It was in this benighted and degraded region that he first appeared as a messenger from God ; and in that appearance we are expressly taught that this prediction was fulfilled (Mat. iv. 12-17). Cocceius needlessly supposes these to be the words of a new speaker. There is nothing to intimate a change of subject, and this verse is really a mere specification in positive form of the negative prediction in the fii'st clause of the verse preceding. By tlie pe^jjle we are not to understand all Israel (Maurer), nor the Jews as distinguished from the ten tribes (Kimchi, Calvin), nor the people of Jerusalem (Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Grotius), nor the people of God, the spiritual Israel (Cocceius), but the GaHleaus who had just been mentioned (Junius, J. H. Michaelis, Vitringa, Hendewerk). By darkness Piscator understands sorrow ; Gesenius, calamity in general ; the Targum, Israel's suiierings in Egypt ; Jarchi, Kimchi, and Grotius, those of Judah during Sennacherib's invasion ; Calvin, those of the Jews ; and Hendewerk those of the ten tribes, in exile. But it rather expresses the complex idea of a state of sin and misery (Ps. cvii. 10, 11), including out- ward and inward darkness, the darkness of ignorance and the darkness of distress. De Dieu and Fiirst make ri10?V a simple derivative of D?V with a feminine termination, like rilDTO from 1^^. The more common and pro- bable opinion is that it is a compound of ?^* and niD. It is not the proper name of a particular valley (Hitzig), but a poetical designation of the most profound obscurity — as dark as death — deadly darkness — with a special allusion here to the spiritual death, under whose shade the Galileans sat. Instead of have seen, Luther, J. H. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others, have Vee. 2. J ISAIAH IX. 19'9 the present see, as if the Prophet while speaking beheld a sudden flash. Light is not merely an emblem of joy (Piscator), or deliverance (Gesenius), but of outward, and inward illumination, Knobel understands by the people the exile of the ten tribes, and by the land of the shadow of death Assyria as the place of their captivity. 2. The Prophet now, by a sudden apostrophe, addresses God himself, who, by bestowing on the Galileans this great light, would not only honour them, but afford occasion of great joy to all the true Israel, including those who should be gathered from the gentiles. Thou hast enlarged the nation (i. e. Israel in general), thou hast increased its joy (literally, to it thou hast increased the joy) : they rejoice lefore thee like the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. Luther and Umbreit explain — ''15 to mean the Gentiles, and regard this not as a description of deliverance but of oppression. Hitzig supposes '13 to mean the returning exiles. All other writers seem to be agreed that it means the Israelites in general. The increase of the nation has been variously explained to mean the gathering of a gi'eat army by the king of Assyria, to whom the verse is then addressed (Grotius) — or the crowding of the Jews into Jerusalem during Sennacherib's invasion (Aben Ezra) — or an increase in the num- ber of the Israelites while in captivity (Hitzig) — or the general ditiusion of the Jewish race after the exUe (Vitringa). It really means the increase of the people in their own land, not a mere growth of population (Gesenius),^ but an increase of the true Israel by the calling of the Gentiles (Hengsten- berg, Christol. vol. i., part 2, p. 110). Symmachus separates npnJH from what follows {k^XrjOvvixg to i^vog o ohx ki^iyaX-jvac), in which he is followed by J. D. Michaelis and Maurer. But this requires a change in the punc- tuation and division of the words to render it grammatical. De Dieu takes N? as equivalent to t^/H — " hast thou not increased the joy ? " — which is forced and arbitrary. Another construction is, thou hast increased the nation of the Jews, but thou, hast not increased the joy of their enemies (Jarchi), or of the Gentiles (Luther). But this assumes two different sub- jects in the two successive clauses. Hitzig and Hengstenberg thus construe it — thou dost increase the nation whose joy thou hast not heretofore in- creased. But this requires a relative to be supplied, and arbitrarily refers the verbs to different times. If the textual reading (^) be retained, as it is by Hengstenberg, Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, Umbreit, and the older writers, the best construction is that given by Calvin and Cocceius — thou hast increased the nation but thou hast not increased the joy as thou art now about to do. It is best, however, to read 1? instead of 5^?, with the Masora, several ancient versions, Gesenius, De Wette, and Knobel, or to regard the latter as a mere orthographical variation for the former (Ewald ad loc. and Heb. Gr. § 555). The same emendation is required by the context ia several other places {e.g. chap. xlix. 5, Ixiii. 9). Junius and Tremellius sup- pose the former joy or prosperity of Israel, acquired by toil and bloodshed, as in a harvest or a battle, to be here contrasted with the joy which the Messiah would- impart, Ivnobel supplies a relative before inDEJ', gives IlJ'ND the sense of when, and supposes the joy of actual victory to be com- pared with that of harvest — thou hast increased the joy wherewith they rejoice before thee, like the joy of harvest, when they rejoice in their dividing the spoil. But this makes the structure of the sentence artificial and com- plex. Rejoicing before God Calvin explains to mean rejoicing with a real or a reasonable joy ; Piscator with a secret spiritual joy, not before man 200 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 3. but God ; Cocceius, Vitringa, Hitzig, Hengstenberg, and Ewald, more cor- rectly, as an act of religious worship, either simply in allusion to the rejoicing of the people before God at the tabernacle or temple under the law of Moses (Deut. xii. 7, xiv. 26), or in reference to an actual perform- ance of that duty. The Targum explains harvest as a metaphor for war or battle, which destroys the Prophet's beautiful comparison of the joy of victory, or joy in general, to that which accompanies the har^-est in all countries, and especially in the East (Ps. iv. 8, cxxvi. 6). — Kimchi makes the Assyrians the subject of 'h''i\ Knobel the Israelites themselves, but it is better to take it indefinitely or to supply men as in the English Version. TVpa is not a false reading for 1"'^*P or '^'''^P^, which we find in a few manu- scripts (Lowth), but another instance of the idiomatic use of the construct form before a preposition, as in the preceding verse (P^'^ ^2t^'*), See Gesenius, § 114, 1 ; Ewald, § 510. To the promise here given there is probably allusion in the language of the angel who announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds (Luke ii. 10) : Behold, I hrivg you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all the jjeople {rravri ruj ?.ao7), i.e. to the whole nation, all the Israel of God. 3. This verse assigns the reason or occasion of the promised joy. They shall rejoice before thee, that (or because) the yoke of his burden (his bur- densome yoke), arid the rod of his shoulder (or back), and the staff of the one driving him (his task-master, slave-driver) thou hast broken like the day (as in the day) of Midian, as Gideon routed Midian, i. e. suddenly, totally, and by special aid from heaven. This promise was not fulfilled in the de- liverance of the Jews from Babylon (Calvin), which bore no resemblance to the victory of Gideon ; nor in the destruction of Sennacherib's army (Grotius), the benefits of which events were only temporary ; nor in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (J. D. Michaolis), to which there is no allusion in the context ; but in the glorious deliverance of the Galileans (the first converts to Christianity), and of all who with them made up the true Israel, from the heavy burden of the covenant of works, the galling yoke of the Mosaic law, the service of the devil, and the bondage of cor- ruption. Outward deliverance is only promised, so far as it accompanied spiritual change or was included in it. Cocceius refines too much when he distinguishes between the rod and staff", as denoting the civil and the cere- monial law. The moaning, on the other hand, is lowered by restricting the prophetic figures to Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem (Grotius), or the tri- bute paid to Assyria by Hezekiah (Jarchi) or Ahaz (Gesenius), or to mere dependence on a foreign power (Hitzig). The application of the terms by J. D. Michaelis to the persecution of the Galileans or first Christians by the Jews, seems altogether fanciful. Barnes refers the pronoun in his bur- den to the oppressor (ivhich he made yoicbear), and Forerius in like manner explains the rod of his shoulder to mean the rod carried on the t3-rant's shoulder. But the suffix in both cases relates not to the oppressor but to the oppressed, and ^"^^ includes not merely the shoulders but the space between them, the upper part of the back. Forerius also refers U to the oppressor — " thou hast broken the rod of the oppressor with himself." Munster refers it to the rod — " with which he oppressed them." Maurer refers it correctly to the suficrer, but gives the preposition the distinct sense of against or upon, because the tyrant presses or riisbes upon his victim. It is no doubt, as Gesenius and Ewald hold, a mere connective, taken bore by ^33 as it is elsewhere by 12]} (Exod. i. 14, Lev. xxv. 89). The day of any one in Hebrew often means the day in which something memor- Vee. 4.] ISAIAH IX. 201 able happens to him, or is done by him {vide supra, chap. ii. 12), and in Arabic is absolutely used for a day of battle. The rout of the Midianites, recorded in the seventh chapter of Judges, is here referred to, not because it took place in a single night, like the destruction of Sennacherib's army (Jarchi)— nor because the foes of Israel, like those of the Church, destroyed each other (Cocceius) — nor because the truth, which overcomes the world, is in earthen vessels, like the lamps of Gideon (Vitringa) — nor because the preaching of the Gospel may be likened to the blowing of trumpets (Dutch annotations)— but because it was a wonderful display of divine power, with- out the use of any adequate human means ; and also, as suggested by Herder (Heb. Poes. vol. ii. p. 496), because it took place in the same part of the country which this prophecy refers to. Jezreel, where the battle was fought (Judges vi. 33), was in the territory of Manasseh, to which tribe Gideon himself belonged (Judges vi, 15) ; but he was aided by the neighbouring tribes of Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali (Judges vi. 35). — Junius, in order to sustain his interpretation of the second verse, continues the construction into this, and gives to ''3 the sense of vhen — "they re- joiced before thee, &c., when (whenever) thou didst break their yoke," &c. — t. e. in every case of former deliverance. (See also the margin of the English Version.) The Septuagint and Targum supply a verb in the first clause {ap^erjrai, nnyS), which is unnecessary, as the nouns in that clause ♦are governed by the verb in the last part of the sentence. That verb does not mean to scatter (Septuagint), or to conquer (Vulgate), or to frighten (Cocceius), but to break, to break off, or to break in pieces. Vitringa takes n;?p as a synonyme of '"1^^ a yoke ; but it no doubt denotes here, as in every other case, a staff or rod. Gesenins, in his Commentary, supposes an elHpsis of the proposition before 01"' ; but, in the last edition of his grammar, he agrees with Maurer in supposing the noun itself to be used adverbially or absolutely in answer to the question tvhen ? The absolute form of i'?2D is written by Gesenius ^^p, by Ewald "^'^P. The Daghesh is euphonic, and the Sheva anomalous. 4. The destruction of the oppressing power shall be followed by profound and universal peace. To express this idea, the Prophet describes the equipments of the soldier as consumed with fire. For all the armour of the armed man (or the man-at-arms, who mingles) in the tumult (of battle), and the garment rolled in blood, shall be for burning (and ior) food (or fuel), of fire. In other words, the usual accompaniments of battle shall be utterly destroyed, and by implication, war itself shall cease. There is no need of supposing, with Vitringa, Lowth, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Hender- son, an allusion to the ancient custom of burning the armour and equip- ments of the slain upon the field of battle as an act of triumph. It is not the weapons of the enemy alone, but all weapons of war, that are to be consumed ; not merely because they have been used for a bad purpose, but because they are hereafter to be useless. It is not so much a pro- phecy of conquest as of peace ; a peace, however, which is not to be ex- pected till the enemies of God are overcome; and therefore the prediction may be said to include both events, the final overthrow of all opposing powers and the subsequent prevalence of universal peace. This last is uniformly spoken of in Scriptm-e as characteristic of Messiah's reign, both internal and external, in society at large and in the hearts of his people. With respect to the latter, the prediction has been verified with more or less distinctness, in every case of true conversion. With respect to the former, its , fulfilment is •ichoate, but will one day be complete, when the 202 ISAIAH IX. [Vek. 4. lion and the Iamb shall lie down together, and He who is the Prince of peace shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. An allusion to this promise and its final consummation may be found in the words of the heavenly host who celebrated the Saviour's birth (Luke ii. 14), Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, r/ood ifill to men. According to Jarchi, Ivimchi, Calvin, and Grotius, this verse contains two distinct propositions, one relating to the daij of Midian or to wars in general, and the other to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army or the deliverance of the Jews li-om exile. The sense would then be that while other battles are accompanied with noise and bloodshed, this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. But this construction, besides assuming a change of subject, of which there is no intimation in the text, departs from the natui-al and ordinary meaning of the words. The fire mentioned in the last clause has been variously explained as a poetical description of the Assyrian slaughter (Jarchi, Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Grotius), or of the angel by whom it was effected (Abarbenel) — of the destruction of Jerusa- lem (Vatablus, J. D. Michaelis), or. of the world (Diodati) — or as an emblem of the Holy Ghost (Forerius) — or of our Saviour's zeal for maii's salvation (Gill). It is mentioned simply as a powerful consuming agent, to express the abolition of the implements of war, and, as a necessary con- sequence, of war itself. The verse, then, is not a mere description of Gideon's victory (Junius) — nor a comparison between that or any other battle and the slaughter of Sennacherib's army (Grotius) — nor a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem in spite of an obstinate and bloody defence (J. D. Michaelis) — but a prophecy of changes to take place when the fjreat light and dehverer of the nation should appear. The *? at the beginning is translated iihen by Junius and Tremellius and in the margin of the English Bible ; but it really means for, and assigns a second reason for the joy predicted in ver. 2. 1^>P, which occurs nowhere else, is taken in the sense of war or battle, by David Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, and Grotius ; in that of a mihtary greave or sandal, boot or shoe, by Joseph Kimchi, Rosen- miiller, Gesenius, Maurer, Hengstenberg, Hendewerk, Henderson, and Ewald; and in that of armour or equipment in genei'al, by Hitzig, De Wette, Umbreit, and Knobel. ]^0 is a participle formed from this noun, and signifies a person thus equipped. The whole phrase therefore means the armour of the armed man, the equipment of the soldier. The obscurity of these terms to the old translators is sufficiently apparent from the ctoXyiv (Tncmriy/Mi^yjv of the Septuagint, the violenta prcedatio of the Vulgate, and the unintelligible version of the whole sentence given in the Targum. Hoheisel and Rosenmiiller understand by ^)n the noise or clatter of the military shoe or sandal armed wdth nails ; but it rather means noise in general, or more specifically, the shock and tumult of battle, the melee. The phrase ^'V.'}^ qualifies ]^0 — the armour of him who mingles aimed in the tumult of battle, and whose H^pti' or upper garment is described as rolled in blood, not merely dyed of a red colour (Hitzig), but literally stained with the blood of conflict. J. D. Michaelis makes the first clause, by a harsh and ungrammatical construction, mean that he who arms himself arms himself only to tremble or to make to tremble. There is no need of supplying a verb in the first clause, with Calvin (fit) and Grotius (soletcsse), much less two with Barnes. The nouns in this clause are the subjects of the verb at the beginning of the second, which agrees grammatically with the second, but logically with both. The Vav is convorsive, and at the same time introduces the apodosis of the senteri^ (Gesenius, § 152, 1, a). Ver. 5.] ISAIAH IX. 203 There is no need therefore of adopting J. D. Micliaelis's construction of the last clause, that whatever is destined for the fire (t^X nPDSO) ivill cer- tainly he burned (nSIC'^ nn^H). 5. This verse gives a further reason for the joy of the people, by bring- ing into view the person who was to eliect the great deUverance. . For a child is born to us [or for us, i. e. for our benej&t) — a son is rjiven to us (i. e. by Jehovah, an expression* frequently applied in the New Testament to Christ's incarnation), and the government is upon his shoulder (as a burden or a robe of office) — and his name is called Wonderful (literally Wonder) — Counsellor — Mighty God — Everlasting Father — Prince of Peace. The figure of a robe or dress is preferred by Grotius and Hengstenberg, that of a burden by Gesenius, Hitzig, and Knobel, who cites analo- gous expressions from Cicero (rempublicam universam vestris humeris sustinetis), and the younger Pliny (bene humeris tuis sedet imperium). When it is said that his name should be called, it does not mean that he should actually bear these names in real life, but merely that he should deserve them, and that they would be descriptive of his character. The verb Sip'' may agree with niH'', or be construed indefinitely — he {i. e. any one) shaft call his name — which is equivalent to saying they shall call his name, or in a passive form, his name shall be called. The child here pre- dicted or described is explained to be Hezekiah, by Jarchi, Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Grotius, Heusler, Paulus, Gesenius, Hendewerk. This explanation is rejected, not only by the older writers, but among the modern Germans, by Bauer, Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel. ^ The A"av conversive renders the futures^HJill and" ^51p)1 perfectly equivalent, in point of time, to the preterites 1^.^ and \'^\; so that if the latter refer to an event already past, the former must refer to past time too, and vice versa. The verse then either represents Hezekiah as unborn, or as already invested with the regal office, at the date of the prediction, neither of which can be historically true. The attempt to escape from this dilemma, by referring the two first verbs to something past, and the two next to something future, is a direct violation of the laws of Hebrew syntax. Besides, the terms of the description are extravagant and false, if applied to Hezekiah. In what sense was he wonderful, a mighty God, an everlast- ing Father, a Prince of peace .^ TThe modern Jews, in order to sustain their antichristian exegesis, have devised a new construction of the sentence, which applies all these epithets, except the last, to God himself, as the subject of the verb i<"ip\ And (he who is) Wonderful, the Counsellor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, calls his {i.e. Hezekiah) name the Prince of i^eace. This construction, which is given by Jarchi and Kimchi, is supposed by some to have been suggested by the Chaldee Paraphrase, while others cite the latter as a witness in favour of applying all the names to the Messiah. (See the opposite statements in Yitringa and Henderson.) But how could even the last of these distinctive titles be applied to Heze- kiah ? Neither actively nor passively could he be called, at least with any emphasis, a Prince of peace. He waged war against others, and was himself invaded and subjected to a foreign power, from which he afterwards revolted. To this it is replied by Gesenius and Maurer, that the Prophet may have entertained a groundless expectation. But even this bold con- jecture is of no avail against a second objection of a diflerent kind, viz. that a long enumeration of titles belonging to God himself is utterly irrele- vant in speaking of a name which should be borne by Hezekiah. And this objection lies, with still tf/fre force, against Abarbenei's construction, which 204 ISAIAH IX. IVer. 5 includes even Prince cf peace among Jehovah's titles, and takes l^t^* ^""P* absolutely in the sense of giving a name or making famous. The hypo- thesis first mentioned is exposed moreover to the fatal grammatical objec- tion, urged by Calvin and Cocceius, that, according to invariable usagB, yo^^' must have stood between the names of God and the name of Hezekiah. These constructions are accordingly abandoned now, even by some who still identify the child with Hezekiah. These assume the gi-ound, main- tained of old by Aben Ezra, that there is nothing in the epithets which might not be appHed to Hezekiah. In order to maintain ihis ground, the meaning of the epithets themselves is changed. ^^ is either made to mean nothing more than reynarhaUc, distinguished (Grotius, Gesenius, Knobel), or is ungrammatically joined with )*yi^ in the sense of a wonderful connseJ/or (Ewald), or wonderfidhj ivise (Heudewerk). Y^V itself is joined with "1123 PK, as meaning a conmlter of the vii(ihty God, a con- struction Avhich is equally at variance with the Masoretic interpunction and the usage of the word fW, which never means one who (J.sAs, but always one who [lii-es advice, and more especially a pul)lic counsellor or minister of state. {Vide supra, chap. i. 26, iii. 3). But some who admit this explain the next title, "113 J 7N, to mean a mifihtij hero or a (jodlihe hero (Gesenius, De Wette, Maurer), although they grant that in another part of this same prophecy it means the mir/liti/ God. ( Vide infra, chap. X. 21 ; cf. Deut. x. 17, Jer. xxxii. 18). "iy ^3N is explained to mean a father of spoil, a plunderer, a victor (Abarbenel, Hitzig, Ivnobel) — or a per-' petual father, i. e. benefactor of the people (Hensler, Doederlein, Gesenius, Maurer, Hendewerk, Ewald) — or at most, the founder of a new or everlast- huj arje (Lowth), or the father of a numerous offsprimj (Grotius). All this to discredit or evade the obvious meaning of the phrase, which either sig- nifies a father (or possessor) of eternitt/, i. e. an eternal being — or an author and bestower of eternal life. Possibly both maybe included. The ne- cessity of such explanations is sufficient to condemn the exegetical hypo- thesis involving it, and shews that this hypothesis has only been adopted to avoid the natural and striking apphcation of the words to Jesus Christ, as the promised child, emphatically horn for vs and (liven to us, as the Son of God and the Son of man, as being ironderful in his person, works, and sufferings — a counsellor, prophet, or authoritative teacher of the truth, a_ wise administrator of the church, and confidential adviser of the indi- vidual believer — a real man, and yet the mir/hty God — eternal in his own existence, and the giver of eternal life to others — the great peace-maker between God and man, between Jew and Gentile, the umpire between nations, the abolisher of war, and the giver of internal peace to all who being justified by faith have peace icilh God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Horn. V. 1). The doctrine that this prophecy relates to the Messiah, was not disputed even by the Jews, until the virulence of antichristian con- troversy drove them from the ground which their own progenitors had stedfastly maintained. In this departure from the truth they have been followed by some learned writers who arc Christians only in the name, and to whom may be applied, with little alteration, what one of them (Gesenius) has said with respect to the ancient versions of this very text, viz. that the general meaning put upon it may be viewed as the criterion of a Christian and an antichristian writer. It has been already mentioned that some writers even of this class hiive been compelled to abandon the application of this text to Hezekiah, and that one of the latest and most eminent interpreters by whom it is maintained, ^mits that there may bo Vee. 6.] ISAIAH IX. 205 some allusion to the nascent doctrine of a personal Messiah. These con- cessions, partial and reluctant as they are, serve to strengthen the most ancient and most natural interpretation of this signal prophecy. 6. The reign of this king shall be progi'essive and perpetual, because founded in justice and secured by the distinguishing favour of Jehovah. To the increase of the government (or power) and to the peace (or pro- sperity of this reign) there shall he no end, ujjon the throne of David and upon his Icingdom, to estahlish it and to confirm it, in justice and in righteousness from henceforth and for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts shall do this. According to Luther, Cocceius, Castalio, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, De Wette, Ewald, the proposition at the beginning of the verse con- nects it with what goes before. He is bom, or called by these names, for the increase of jjoicer and for prosperity toilhout end. To this it may be objected, first, that the means and the end thus stated are incongruous, and then that ^^5, according to usage, is not a mere particle of negation, but in- cludes the substantive verb. Rosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, Umbreit, and I{j3obel, retain the old and common construction, which supposes a new sentence to begin here and connects the preposition with vrhat follows. The government or power thus to be enlarged is of course that of the child, who is described as born and given in the foregoing verse. A striking parallel is furnished by the prophecy in Micah v. 3. There, as here, a king is promised who should be the son of David, and should reign over all the earth in peace and righteousness for ever. It is there expressed, and here implied, that this king should re-unite the divided house of Israel, although this is but a small part of the increase promised, which includes the calling of the gentiles also. Peace, though included in Q"l?k^, is not a full equiva- lent. The Hebrew word denotes not only peace as opposed to war, intestine strife, or turbulence, but welfare and prosperity in general as opposed to want and sorrow. The reign here predicted was to be not only peaceful but in every respect prosperous. And this prosperity, like the reign of which it is predicted, is to have no limit, either temporal or local. It is to be both universal and eternal. There is nothing to preclude the very widest explanation of the terms employed. Ewald explains ^V as meaning for the sake of, on account of ; but there is no need of departing from the sense of on, which is its proper one, and that which it always has in other cases when prefixed to the noun NDD. A verb is introduced before ^D3 7V by the Vulgate (sedebit) and Gesenius (komme), but without necessity. The construction is what the grammarians call a pregnant one. The endless increase of power and prosperity on the throne of David means of course that the Prince, whose reign was to be thus powerful and prosperous, would be a descendant of David. This is indeed a repetition and explanation of a promise given to David (2 Sam. vii. 11-16 ; 1 Kings viii. 25), and re- peatedly referred to by him (2 Sam. xxiii. 1-5 ; Ps. ii., xlv., Ixxii., Ixxxix., cxxxii.). Hence the Messiah is not only called the Branch or Son of David (2 Sam. vii. 12, 13; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15), but David himself (Jer. XXX. 9 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24 ; xsxvii. 24 ; Hosea iii. 5). The two reigns are identified, not merely on account of an external resemblance or a typical relation, but because the one was really a restoration or continuation of the other. Both kings were heads of the same body, the one a temporal head, the other spiritual, the one temporary-, the other eternal. The Jewish nation, as a spiritual body, is really continued in the Christian Church. The sub- ject of the prophecy is the reign of the Messiah ; the effect predicted, its 206 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 6. stability and increase ; the means to be employed, judgment and justice ; the efficient cause, the zeal of Jehovah. Grotius distinguishes between judgment andj'wsi/ce, as denoting righteous government on one hand, and ritrhteous subjection to it on the other. The justice spoken of is that of the Messiah and his subjects. All the acts of his administration will be right- eous, and the effect of this upon his people will be righteousness on their part and this prevalence of righteousness will naturally generate the increase and stability here promised. The preposition 3 docs not merely mean idth justice, as an accompanjang circumstance, but hy it, as a necessary means. The phrase ^riyp cannot mean/ro??i that time, as explained by Junius and Tremellius (ab isto tempore), but must have its ordinary sense, /ro??i- this time. It is possible, however, that the Prophet, as in many other cases, takes his stand upon a point of future time, and speaks of it as actually present. Having spoken of the promised child in ver. 5 as already horn and qivenyhe may now look forward from its birth into the future, and in tliis sense use the phrase /?-o)// henceforth. Cocceius understands the w^ords more strictly as meaning " from the date of the prediction," and re- ferring to the whole series of events, from that time onwards, which are mentioned in this prophecy — the deliverance of Judah — the destruction of Ephraim and the overthrow of Syria — the deportation of the ten tribes — Sennacherib's invasion — Nebuchadnezzar's conquest — the Babylonish exile — the return — the subsequent vicissitudes — the rising of the great light upon Ga^lilee — the increase of the church by the accession of the Gentiles — the breaking of the yoke and staff of spiritual bondage — the destruction of the implements of war — the establishment and gradual enlargement of the Messiah's kingdom. These form a chain of great events succeeding one another without any interruption from the date of the prediction to the end of time. Whatever be the termimts a quo intended by the Prophet, it is clear that he describes the reign of the Messiah as an endless one. The word D"?iy, though properly denoting mere indefinite duration, and therefore frequently applied to terms and periods of time, such as the length of human life, is always to be taken in its largest meaning, unless limited by some- thing in the' context or the nature of the case ; much more in such an in- stance as the one before us, where the context really precludes all limitation by the strength of its expressions. To explain /o/- ever here, with Jarchi and Grotius, as meaning till the end of Hezekiah's life, is simply ludicrous, unless the other phrases, both in this verse and the fifth, are mere extrava- gant hyperboles. The Masoretic interpunction requires this phrase to be connected with what follows — " from henceforth and for ever the zeal of Jehovah of hosts will do this." It is so read by Junius, Cocceius, and Gill ; but most interpreters suppose it to qualify what goes before, and take the remaining words as a short independent proposition. The difference is little more than one of punctuation. Both constructions make the reign of the Messiah an eternal one. The word HNJp expresses the complex idea of strong affection, comprehending or att^endcd by a jealous preference of one above another. It is used in the Old Testament to signify not only God's intense love for his people but his jealousy in their behalf, that is to say, his disposition to protect and favour them at the expense of others. Sometimes, moreover, it includes the idea of a jealous care of his own honour, or a readiness to take offence at anything opposed to it, and a determination to avenge it when insulted. There is nothing in this idea of the divine jealousy incongruous or unworthy, as Umbreit supposes. The expressions are derived from the dialect of human passion, but describe Yee. 6.] ISAIAH IX. 207 something absolutely right on God's part for the very reasons which demonstrate its absurdity and wickedness on man's. These two ideas of God's jealous partiality for his own people, and his jealous sensibiUty re- specting his own honour, are promiscuously blended in the usage of the word, and are perhaps both included in-the case before us. Both for his own sake and his people's, he would bring these events to pass. Or rather the two motives are identical, that is to say, the one includes the other. The wel- fare of the church is only to be sought so far as it promotes God's glory, and a zeal which makes the glory of the church an object to be aimed at for its own sake, cannot be a zeal for God, or is at best a zeal for God, hut not according to knoidedrje. The mention of God's jealousy or zeal as the procuring cause of this result affords a sure foundation for the hopes of all believers. His zeal is not a passion, but a principle of powerful and certain operation. The astonishing effects produced by feeble means in the promotion, preservation, and extension of Christ's kingdom, can only be explained upon the principle that the zeal of the Lord of hosts effected it. The reign here described cannot be that of Hezekiah, which was confined to Judah, and was neither peaceful, nor pro- gressive, nor perpetual. It cannot be the joint reign of himself and his successors ; for the line was broken at the Babylonish exile. It cannot be the reign of the Maccabees or Hasmonean princes, for these were not the sons of David but of Levi. The prediction, if fulfilled at all, could only be fulfilled in a reign which, after it began, was never interrupted, and has ever since been growing in extent and power. Is not this the reign of Christ ? Does it not answer all the requisite conditions ? The evangelists take pains to prove by formal genealogies his lineal descent from David, and his reign, unlike all others, still continues and is constantly enlarging. Hendewerk and other modern German writers have objected that this pro- phecy is not applied to Christ in the New Testament. But we have seen already, that the first verse of the chapter and the one before it are inter- preted by Matthew as a prophecy of Christ's appearing as a public teacher first in Galilee ; and no one has denied that this is part of the same context. Nor is this all. The expressions of the verse before us were applied to Christ, before his birth, by Gabriel, when he said to Mary (Luke i. 32-34), He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The historical allusions in these words shew clearly that the person spoken of was one expected, or' in other words a subject of prophecy ; and though the terms are not precisely those used by Isaiah, they agree with them more closely than with any other passage. Indeed, the variations may be perfectly accounted for, upon the supposition that the angel's message was intended to describe the birth of Christ as a fulfilment, not of this predic- tion only, but of several others also which are parallel with this, and that the language was so framed as to suggest them all, but none of them so prominently as the one before us and the earlier promise upon which it was founded. (Compare 2 Sam. vii. 11, 12 ; Dan. vii. 14, 27; Micah iv. 7, &c.). The objection that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and that the mention of the throne of David shews that a temporal monarchy was meant, proceeds upon the supposition that there is no such thing as figura- tive language, or at least that it is never used in prophecy. The objection of the Jews, that wars have not ceased since Christ came, lies with still greater force against theirapplication of the text to Hezekiah. It is founded 208 ISAIAH IX. [Yer. G. moreover on a misconception of the promise, which was not made to the world hut to the church, and not even to that, as something to be realized at once, but by a gradual process of pacification. The reference to Christ is not a mere typical and secondary one, but primary and positive. Some who refer this whole prediction, in its proper sense, to Hezekiah, at the same time grant that it has a higher reference to Christ. Why then assume a lower sense without necessity or wan-ant ? The violence thus done to the expressions of the text will be sufficiently evinced by stating that ac- cording to this view of the matter, as exhibited by Grotius, the increase here promised means continuance for nine and twenty years [muUipUcahilur ejus imperium, id est, durabit per annos XXIX.) — -from henceforth arA for ever is from Hezeldah's birth until his death (o modo et usque iv sempilernum, ah initio ad finem ■sdtae) — and when the Prophet says the zeal of God shall do this, what he means is that his zeal will lead him to bestow upon his people such a prince as Hezekiah {zelus Domini exercitiium faciei hoc, id est, ardens amor Dei erga pios, qui insunt populo, dabit nobis ac servabit tam bonum principem). This forced attenuation of the Prophet's meaning might be natural enough in the rabbinical expositors, whose only aim was to avoid the application of the prophecy to Christ ; but it was utterly un- worthy of a man like Grotius, who had nothing to gain by it, and who after all admits the very thing which he appears to be denying, but admits it in the questionable shape of a twofold fulfilment and a double sense, by which proceeding he gratuitously multiplies the very difficulties which interpreta- tion is intended to remove. Upon the whole, it may be said with truth that there is no alleged prophecy of Christ, for which it seems so difficult with any plausibility to find another subject ; and until that is done which all the Rabbins and a Grotius could not do, we may repose upon the old evangeli- cal interpretation as undoubtedly the true one. — In nearly all editions and manuscripts, the first letter of the word nniD presents the final form D, an orthographical anomaly mentioned in the Talmud, and perhaps very ancient, but not to be regarded as a relic of Isaiah's autograph, and therefore involv- ing some mysterious meaning. By difierent Jewish writers it has been explained as an allusion to the recession of the shadow on the dial — to the enclosing of Jerusalem with walls again after the capti^-ily — to the cnptivity itself, as an enclosure — to the stability of Messiah's kingdom, as the open ^ is said to have the opposite meaning in Neh. ii. 13. Some Christian writers have followed this rabbinical example by suggesting what may pos- sibly have been intended by the unusual orthography, supposing it to bo both ancient and intentional — c. //. the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews from the kingdom of Christ — the secret inward progress of that kingdom among men — the perpetual virginity of Mary — the concealment of the time w^hen the prediction should be verified — the spread of the gospel to the four corners of the world — the birth of Christ six hundred years (of which D is the cipher) after the prediction — the opening to the Gentiles of the church which had been previously shut up and restricted to the Jews — the perfec- tion of Christ's kiiigdom, as denoted by the perfect or square form — and its mystical nature — as denoted by the unusual foim of the letter. It is sug- gested by Cocccius, that the unusual mode of writing may have been in- tended to attract attention to this signal prophecy. But why should it have been resorted to in this one ])assuge, and in this particular part of it '? Hengstenberg, Hitzig, Hcndcwerk, and Henderson regard it as an acciden- tal anomaly, occasioned by mistake and preserved by superstition ; the only objection to which is the extreme care of the Jews as to all points of ortho- Ver. 7.] ISAIAH IX. 209 graphy, and the improbability of such an error, if it could occur, becoming general. Some have accordingly supposed the singularity to be connected, in its origin, with the criticism of the Hebrew text. Hiller (de Arcano Chethib et Keri) conjectures that the final mem was meant to shew that the first two letters of n31D7, according to some ancient reading, ought to be omitted, and the word read simply n3"). Gesenius, Maurer, and Knobel adopt the supposition of Elias Levita, that it indicates a different division of the words, which is also noticed in the Masora, viz., mJi'Dn nm D? — to them the dominion shall be f/reat or multiplied. There is, however, no ex- ample of the abbreviation o7 for ^D^, corresponding to the common one of D2 for DD3. 7. Having repeatedly interchanged the three great subjects of this pro- phecy— the deliverance of Judah from the power of Syria and Israel — its subsequent punishment by means of the Assyrians — and the reign of the Messiah, for whose sake the kingdom was to be^ preserved — the Prophet passes here abruptly from the last to the first, and again predicts the pun- ishment of Ephraim. He reverts to this event, which had already been repeatedly foretold, for the purpose of declaring that the blows would be repeated as often and as long as might be needed for the absolute fulfiment of God's threatenings. He begins by shewing that Israel had already been sufficiently forewarned. The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it came down into Israel. Calvin supposes an antitheses between the clauses, and ex- plains the verse to mean that what had been predicted as to Israel should he fulfilled in Israel ; but there is no such usage of %}. Grotius adopts the same construction, with the additional error of applying Jacob to the whole race, and Israel to the ten tribes, which is altogether arbitrary. Equally groundless is the supposition that Jacob and Israel denote the rival king- doms. The two names of the patriarch are here used as equivalents, denot- ing his descendants, and especially the larger part, the kingdom of the ten tribes, to which the national name Israel is wont to be distinctively applied. Another false antithesis is that between the verbs, referring one to past time and the other to the future. This is adopted even by Ewald ; but accord- ing to the usage of the language, Vav is conversive of the preterite only when preceded by a future, expressed or implied. (See Nordheimer, § 219, 1.) The LXX. seem to have read ">?? a pcstilence,'instead of "I3T a word. Castalio gives it here the sense of thing (rem mittet), Vitringa that of threatening, which is not expressed by this word, but suggested by the context. The true sense is that of a dictum or authoritative declaration, not that which follows, nor that which goes before, but the whole series of threatenings and warnings which God has sent by all the j^rophets and by all the seers (2 Kings xvii. 13), perhaps with special reference to that respecting Pekah in the seventh chapter. The sending of the word here mentioned had either actually taken place, or was regarded by the Prophet in his vision as already past. The preposition does not mean against, or simply to, but into, as usual, after verbs of motion. The Septuagint renders ?Si came, the Targum ivas heard. In Josh. xxi. 45, and 1 Kings viii. 56, this same verb is used with "i?"? word in the sense of failing, or not coming to pass. Adopting this sense here, the meaning of "the verse would be, that God had sent a word of warning, but that it had not yet been fulfilled. But in both the places cited, the idea expressed is not that of mere delay, but of entire failure, implying the falsity of the prediction. To give it the contrary sense of coming to pass VOL. I. O 210 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 8. or taking effect, as Jarchi and Calvin do, is altogether arbitrary. The great majority of writers take it in its usual and proper sense of falling or de- scending. There is no need, however, of supposing an allusion to the fall- ing of an arrow, or of seed into the earth, or of rain upon it. A more obvious and natural association would be that of a thunderbolt, suggested by Gill and J. D. Michaelis, in reference to the threatening nature of the revelation ; especially as 3 7S3 is elsewhere used in the sense oifaJJiurj upon, i.e. attack- ing (Joshua xi. 7). The essential import of the phrase is to describe the word as coming down from God in heaven (compare Daniel iv. 28), or, as Hende- "werk supposes, from Jerusalem, his earthly residence, motion fi'om which is always spoken of as downward in the Hebrew idiom. The word which God had uttered against Israel had reached them as a message from him, as a revelation, so that there could be no doubt as to its authority and genuineness. Gesenius and Hitzig render the verbs in the present tense, and regard this verse as a title or inscription of the following prophecy, be- cause it makes the strophe and antistrophe unequal. But if tins proves any thing, it is that the strophical arrangement is itself a fanciful misapplication of the principles of Greek and Latin prosody to the measured prose of the Hebrew prophets. The solemn repetition of the last clause of ver. 3 would be just as natural in an oration as in an ode or a dramatic chorus. The injurious effects of this exaggerated theory of Hebrew versification on the criticism and interpretation of the sacred text have been already stated in the general introduction, pp. 32, 33. 8. The word which God had sent had reached the people; they had heard and understood it, but continued to indulge their pride and self- security. And they know [\h.e divine threatenmg), the people, all of them, (literally all of it ; the noun being singular but used collective!}'), Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria (a limitation of the general tenns precluding, so as to prevent their application to Judah), in pride and in greatness of heart (an equivalent expression), saying (the words recorded in the next Terse.) The apparent inversion in the last clause is well explained by Hendewerk, as arising from the fact that "l^N'? always stands immediately before the words spoken. Most WTiters understand the verbs as futures ; but this is a question of no moment, as the past time which the Prophet has in view upon the other supposition, was actually future at the date of the prediction. Lowth arbitrarily translates the rav at the beginning of this verse because, and that at the beginning of ver. 10 therefore, making one long sentence. Luther, Hendewerk, and Ewald, render it by that, and make the construction a subjunctive one — " that they may know or feel it " — which is at least unnecessary. Umbreit not only gives the same construction, but takes Wl^ in the absolute sense of having or obtaining knowledge (das zu Erkentniss komme), which is less consistent both with usage and the con- text than the common opinion that the "1^*1 of ver. 7 is the object of the "verb. Vitringa, Gesenius, and many others, understand the clause to mean that they should know the truth of these predictions b}' experience. It rather means that they had known and understood God's warning message. By the people we are not to understand the whole race (Junius), but the ten tribes, or perhaps the whole race and especially the ten tribes (J. H. Michaelis). The suffix in w2, is referred by Gill to "i^l — the people shall know all of it, i. e. all the word — " they shall find that the whole of it will be accomplished, every punctilio in it." Gesenius, Hendewerk, and Um- breit render it his (sein ganzes Volk), as if referring to the names in ver. 7. Its real antecedent is Oyn, as the construction is the common Hebrew ono Vee. 9.] ISAIAH IX. 211 in all such cases — the people, all of it, i. e. all the people. The Septuagint makes people govern Ephraim (^ra; 6 Xahg rov 'E(p§a.iij,) ; but in Hebrew this construction is forbidden by the article. The inhabitant of Samaria is distinct!}- mentioned, as the inhabitants of Jerusalem are in chap. viii. 14. Schultens (in his Animadv. Philol. ad Jer. 1. 11) gives to 3 the sense of for, because of, and connects it with what goes before. It really means in or tvitJt., and connects the noun with what follows. ^"3^ is inaccurately rendered as an adjective, agreeing with 3?*?, by the Septuagint {v-^riXfJi xaobiof) and Hendewerk (stolzem Herzen). Greatness of heart in Hebrew does not mean magnanimity, but pride and arrogance. [Vide infra, chap. X. 12). The feeling hei*e described is not " a desire of splendour, power, and magnificence, a purpose to be distinguished" (Barnes), but a misplaced confidence in the stability of their condition. . ''\'0H7, although an infinitive in form, is not incorrectly rendered as a gerund (dicendo) by Pagninus, Montanus, and Cocceius. A relative construction is preferred by Luther (die da sagen), Calvin (qui dicunt), J. H. Michaelis (dum dicunt), and many others. The participial form of the EngHsh Version is given also by the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Dutch Versions, by Vitringa, and by Lowth. There is no necessity or ground for the interrogative construction given by De Dieu (an in superbia dicendum fuit?). Forerius strangely understands the Prophet as sarcasticahy saying that the people shall be taught to say, in their pride and arrogance, what follows. Hitzig, without the irony — the people shall be made conscious of their own pride and arrogance in saying, &c. But this construction seems to overlook the preposition. "lOX is not to be taken in the sense of purposing or thinking, which it sometimes ob- tains from an ellipsis of l^*? ^i^, in his heart, or to himself (Gen. xxvii. 41), but in its proper sense of speaking, as the usual expression of intention and desire. The conjectural emendation of the text by changing lyT" to 1V"l^ (Houbigant), "1"13T (Seeker), or innr (Lowth), is perfectly gratuitous. 9. The very words of the self-confident Ephraimites are now recorded. Instead of being warned and instructed by what they had already suffered, they presumptuously look for greater prosperity than ever. Bricks are fallen, and heivn stone uill we build; sycamores are felled, and cedars will we substitute. The oriental bricks are unburnt, so that most of their brick structures are as little durable as mud walls. The sycamore is durable, but too hght and spongy to be used in soHd building. The latter is accord- ingly contrasted with the cedar, and the former with hewn stone, the two most highly valued building materials. By some interpreters these words are literally understood. According to J. H. Michaelis, they refer to the cities of the ten tribes which the Syrians destroyed ; according to Gill, to the houses outside of the cities and peculiarly exposed to the invaders. So Knobel understands the sense to be, that instead of the mean houses which the Assyrians had destroyed, the people of the ten tribes were determined to build better. Hitzig and De Wette suppose that sycamores and cedars are here mentioned, not as timber, but as living trees, and give ^IvriJ the specific sense of planting anew. Thus Calvin understands the people to be here represented as regarding the devastations of the enemy only as occa- sions for increasing the beauty of their houses and plantations. But as this implies a protracted process, we must either suppose it to be put into the mouth of the presumptuous Israehtes as a foolish boast, or understand it figuratively. So indeed the whole verse is explained by many, of whom some regard the brick, stone, and trees as figures for gi'eat men in general (Targum), or for the kings of Israel in particular (Jarchi), or for the State 212 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 10. considered as a building or a tree (Hendewerk), while others more correctly understand both clauses as a metaphorical description of a change from worse to better, by a substitution of the precious for the vile, without spe- cific reference to the literal rebuilding of towns or houses. Bricks and sycamores are then mere proverbial expressions for that which is inferior, and cedars and hewn stones for that which is superior. An illustrative parallel is found in chap. Ix. 17, where the same general idea is expressed by the exchange of stones for iron, iron for silver, wood for brass, brass for gold, of course without allusion to a literal exchange or mutual substitution. Jerome refers this verse to the low condition of Judah under Ahaz, and the boastful determination of the ten tribes to subdue and then restore it to its former splendour ; but it really relates to what the ten tribes had themselves endured, and expresses their belief tbat these reverses would be followed by a better state of things than they had ever known. Cocceius understands the sense to be that the prosperity enjoyed already would be fol- lowed by still greater ; but even an inferior degree of prosperity would hardly have been represented by the metaphor of fallen bricks and prostrate trees. 10. Here begins a second stage in the progress of God's judgments. He had sent a warning prophecy before (ver. 7), and they had been taught its meaning by experience (ver. 8), but without effect upon their proud self- confidence. And (now) Jehovah raises vp above him (i.e. Ephraim) the (victorious) enemies of Rezin (his late ally), and (besides these) he xvili insti- gate his own (accustomed) enemies (to wit, those mentioned in the next verse). The sufiix in V?y, refers, not to Rezin, but to Jacob, Israel, Ephraim, the inhabitant of Samaria, mentioned in vers. 8, 9. They who were to conquer Israel are called the enemies of Rezin, to remind the Israel- ites of their alliance with him, and to intimate that they who had so lately conquered Syria were soon to conquer Israel. There is no need therefore of the emendation ^"1^, princes, which is found in many manuscripts, and approved by Houbigant and Ewald, but which seems to be a mere attempt to escape the supposed difficulties of the common reading ^1V, which has here no doubt its usual sense of enemies, with a particular allusion to its etymology as meaning those who press, oppress, and overcome, so that in this connection it would really suggest the idea of Rezin's conquerors, which is expressed by Hitzig. Still less is it necessary to exchange P^l for JW or jVV "in, as J. D. Michaelis is disposed to do, on the authority of the Septuagint [s-ttI o^og liuiv). — 1 vV may be properly translated, as it usually is, against him, which idea is undoubtedly included ; but connected as it is with the verb 33Ii''', the preposition may be taken in its original and proper sense oi over or above. " Then he exalted Rezzin's enemies above him." By V3''N we are to understand his own foes, those to whose attacks he was accustomed, in addition to the enemies of Ilczin, the Assyrians. "IDDD* is rendered by the Septuagint scatter {biaG-Aibdau), and by the Vulgate con- found (in tumultum vertet), misprinted in the London Polyglot in tumnlum. It is taken in the sense of mixing or combining by Calvin (conturbabit), Grotius (conglomeravit), Munster, Castalio, and others. J. H. Michaelis, who adopts this version, explains HN as a preposition meaning with (cosque cnm hostibus Israelis commiscebit). Others suppose an allusion to the mixture of nations in the Assyrian armj'' (Calvin), or to the mixture of Assyrians with the Syrian population (Vatabulus). Gesenius, in his Com- mentary, and in the earlier editions of his Lexicon, follows Schultens and J. I). Michaelis in attaching to this word the sense of arming, which is adopted by Rosenmiiller in the abridgment_of his Scholia, aud by Hitzig, Ver. 11-13.] ISAIAH IX. 213 Maurer, Hendewerk and De Wette. But Gesenius himself, in his Thesau- rus, now explains the word as meaning to excite, raise up, or instigate, an explanation given in the Targum ("■'"J''') and by Saadias, Abulwalid, and Cocceius (instigat). 11. This verse contains a more particular description of Ephraim's own enemies who were to be stirred up against him, with a declaration that this was not to be the end of the infliction. Aram (or Syria in the widest sense) before, and Philistia (or the Philistines) behind, and they devour Israel icith open mouth, {i.e. ravenously). For all this (or notwithstanding all this) his wrath does not turn back (from the pursuit or the attack), and still his hand is stretched out. On the meaning of this clause, vide supra, chap. v. 25. The Syrians and Philistines are supposed by some to be referred to, as forming part of the Assyrian army. The reference may, however, be to separate attacks from these two powers. Before and behind may simply mean on opposite sides, or more specifically to the east and west, which are often thus described in Hebrew. "12 ?D2 does not mean in everyplace (Tar- gum) or on all sides (Lowth) — nor does it mean with all their mouths (Peshito), i.e. the mouths of all their enemies — but with the whole mouth, with the mouth wide open, as expressed by Luther (mit voUem Maul), Cal- vin (a pleine bouche), and most modern writers. J. H. Michaelis makes riNT 732 meanou accowit or in consequence of all this. It is clear, however, from the fii'st clause and the whole connection, that the reference is not to the people's sin but to their punishment. 12. These continued and repeated strokes are still without eflfect] in bringing the people to repentance. And the people has not turned to him that smote them., and Jehovah of hosts they have not sought. Sin is described in Scripture as departing from God. Repentance, therefore, is return- ing to him. To seek God, in the idiom of Scripture, is to pray to him (Isa. Iv. 6), to consult him (Isa. viii. 19), to resort to him for help (Isa. xxxi. 1), to hold communion with him (Amos v. 4, 5). Hence it is sometimes de- scriptive of a godly life in general (Ps. xiv. 2). So here it includes repen- tance, conversion, and new obedience. Calvin, followed by the English version, makes the vav at the beginning mean because ox for. This verse, however, does not assign the reason of the fact recorded in the one preced- ing, but continues the description. God went on punishing, and the people went on sinning. The strict sense of the particle may therefore be retained. The first verb agrees with QV in form as a singular ; the second agrees with it in sense as a collective. The preposition "iV, which strictly means until, as far as, is regarded by Cocceius as emphatic, and as signify- ing that the people, if they turned at all, did not tm-n far enough. But as this preposition often follows 2!^ when used in the sense of returning to God by repentance, it may be regarded merely as an idiomatic substitute for ?{^. A single manuscript reads ?y for IV. The unusual combina- tion of the article and sufiix in inSJOn is regarded by Gesenius (Lehrg. p. 658) as a simple anomaly, and by Nordheimer (vol. ii. p. 13) as an em- phatic form ; but Ewald (§ 516, 3) explains it by supposing in to be not a possessive but an objective sufiix, governed by the participle. The difi'er- ence of construction is the same as in the English phrases his smiter and the (one) smiting him. God is thus described, as Aben Ezra has observed, in order to intimate that he was the inflicter of their punishment — the Assyrian being merel}' tlie rod of his anger (chap. x. 5) — and also that his stroke sought to lead them to repentance, 13. The next- stroke mentioned is a sudden destruction among all rankd 214 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 14. of the people, the extremes being designated by two figures drawn from the animal and vegetable world. And Jehovah has cut off' from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. HBB does not mean a root (Aben Ezra), nor a branch in general (Kimchi), but a branch of the palm-tree (Gesenius in Comm.), or the tree itself (Gesenius iu Thes.). This tree, though now rare in the Holy Land, abounded there of old, especially in the southern part, where several places were named after it (Deut. xxxiv. 3 ; 2 Chron. XX. 2). Hence it appears on Roman coins as the symbol of Judea. It is highly esteemed in the East, both for beauty and utility. Its branches grow near the top of its lofty trunk and bend towards the ground, as its leaves do also, with a gentle curvature, resembling that of a hand partly closed, from which pecuUarity the Hebrew name nD3 and the Latin jiahna seem to be derived. It is here contrasted with the POJX, not a smaller branch or twig (Jarchi), but a rush or reed, so called from DJN, a marsh, because it is in such ground that it chiefly grows. The Targum seems to treat the figure as synonymous, not opposite in meaning, perhaps with some allusion to the Greek word ^^ys.awv. Palm and rush are explained to mean the strong and weak by Kimchi and Cocceius, who refer them speci- fically to the young men and warriors, as contrasted with the widows and orphans in ver. 16. It is best, however to understand them as denoting more generally that which is superior and inferior, including every class in the community. The figures are correctly resolved by the Septuagint {fjAyat xa/ iMi^dv), and strangely rendered by the Vulgate (incurvantem et refrasnan- tem), perhaps with some allusion to the derivation of the Hebrew words. It is a singular conceit of Gill's that the use of the terms /iearZand tail was intended to imply that the people had become beasts, which no more fol- lows than it does from the use of the terms branch and rush that they had become plants. 14. To the descriptive figures of the preceding verse, the Prophet now adds a specific application of the first. Jehovah had cut off from Israel, not only in a general sense, the upper and lower classes of society, but in a more restricted sense, the wicked rulers, who were the corrupt head of the body politic, and the false prophets who, as their abject adherents, and on account of their hypocrisy and false pretensions to divine authority, might be regarded as its tail, because contemptible and odious, even in comparison with other wicked men, who laid no claim to a religious charac- ter. The elder and the favoxirite (or honourable person), he is the head, and the prophet teachi^xg falsehood, he is the tail. On the meaning of iPT and C'JS NIJ^J, vide supra, chap. iii. 2, 3. That the head is not explained to mean the Icing, may be, as Hendewerk suggests, because the prophecy relates to the time which immediately succeeded the death of Pekah. Hen- derson transposes the conjunction in the last clause — the prophet and the teacher of lies — but ni1?D is properly a participle, and is needed to qualify ii''2^. It is not the prophet, as such, but the prophet teaching falsehood, who is called the tail. The teaching of falsehood does not mean the teaching of traditions (J. H. Michaelis), or of vice (Septuagint), but teaching in the name of God what he has not revealed. The Targum makes N*33 de- note a scribe ("l^D) or doctor of the law ; but it must have its sense of prophet, as denoting one who claims to be inspired. The false prophets are called the tail, not because they were weak (Targum), or of low extrac- tion (Gill), or of a mean spirit, like a dog which wags its tail upon its master (Musculas), nor because their false doctrine was like the poison in the stings of scorpions (Mcnochius), nor because the civil rulers and religious teachers Yer. 15.J ISAIAH IX. 215 were the U\o extremes between which the mass of the people was included (Vitringa) ; but because the false prophets were morally the basest of the people, and because they were the servile adherents and supporters of the wicked rulers. With respect both to the head which they followed and the body of which they were the vilest part, they might be justly be called the tail. This verse has been rejected, as a gloss or interpolation, by Houbi- gant, Koppe, Cube, Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, and I^iobel, on the ground that it interrupts the natural consecution of the passage ; that it is too prosaic for a poetical context ; that it contains a superfluous ex- planation of a common proverbial expression ; that it explains it in a man- ner inconsistent with the context, as the figures in ver. 13 obviously mean the high and the low generally ; that it explains only one of the two figures in that verse ; that it has the very form of an explanatory gloss ; that it breaks the strophical arrangement by giving to this strophe a supernumerary verse. To this it may be answered, that correctly understood it does not interrupt the train of thought, but sensibly advances it ; that it is not too prosaic for the context, and that if it were, Isaiah was a prophet, not a poet by profession, and was always wise enough to sacrifice rhetoric and rhythm to common sense and inspiration ; that if the verse contained an explanation not suggested by the context, it could not be superfluous ; that it is not an explanation of the figures in ver. 13, but a more specific application of the first of them ; that the Prophet did not make a like use of the second, because it was not equally suited to his purpose of expressing his con- tempt for the false prophets ; that the same form is used in cases where no interpolation is suspected ; and lastly, that the strophical arrangement is itself a modern figment, founded on a kind of repetition which is not un- usual in animated prose. {Vide supra ad ver. 7.) Another answer to the last objection is given in Hendewerk's commentary on the passage, which, with this exception, is an admirable refutation of the adverse argument as stated by Gesenius. The interpolation of these words is ascribed by Gesenius to some very ancient Jewish polemic. But if so old, why may it not be a little older, and the work of Isaiah himself, who was certainly no friend of the false prophets ? The rhetorical objections to this obvious conclusion are not only insufficient because they are rhetorical, but because the rhetoric itself is bad. 15. This verse gives a reason, not why all classes were to be destroyed, but why the rulers and false prophets had been specially mentioned. It arises, therefore, naturally out of the fourteenth, and thus incidentally proves it to be genuine. The truth expressed and implied is that the leaders of the people had destroj'ed them, and should perish with them. The leaders of this people have heen seducers, and the led of them (are) sioallowed up (or ruined). On the double meaning of ''Iti'jiD, and the paronomasia erroneously introduced by some translators, vide sxipra, chap. iii. 12, where the verb V^^ occurs in the same connection. On Ewald's supposition, that the fourteenth verse was interpolated from that chapter, the verse before us ought to be re- jected also. Luther explains VltJ'XD as meaning those who sufier themselves to be led (die sich leiten lassen) ; Hendewerk, those who were to be, or ought to have been rendered happy (seine zu begliickenden). But even sup- posing that the Hebrew word was intended to suggest both ideas, it cannot be correct to express one in the first clause, and the other in the second, as the original expressions correspond exactly, and the primary sense must be the same in both. The suffix in VltJ'NO, is omitted as superfluous by the Vulgate and Gesenius. Henderson refers it to ''"iti^XO as its antecedent {Jed 216 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 1G, 17. by them) ; but the true antecedent is CVH (siach of the people as are thus misled), and is correctly pointed out as such by Calvin (in eo), Vatablus (ex hoc populo), and others. According to J. D. Michaelis, they are said to be sivallowed up in sloughs and pitfalls ; according to Jarchi, in ways from ■which there is no exit. It is more probably, however, a strong figure for losing the way (Luther), or for destruction in general (Calvin). 16. Therefore (because the people are thus incorrigibly impenitent) tlie Lord nill not rejoice over their young vien (literally chosen ones, i. e. for militar}' service, the word being used in the general sense of youths, but seldom without reference to war), and on their orphans and their widoits (elsewhere represented as peculiarly the objects of God's care) he will not have mercy (expressing in the strongest form the extent and severity of the threatened judgments), /or every one of tltem (literally of it, referring to the singular noun feoijle) is profane (or impious) and an evil doer, and every mouth (is) speaking folly (in the strong Hebrew sense of wickedness). For all this his ivrath is not turned hack, and still is his hand outstretched. The VulgAte, Abcn Ezra, Calvin, Vitringa, Lowth, and Fiirst give to ^^n the sense of hypocrite or hypocritical. Gesenius, Ewald, and the other modern writers give it the general sense of impious or wicked, as expressed by the Septuagint (avo/io;). This explanation is supported by etymological analogy, the other by rabbinical tradition. Lee, from the analogy of Syriac, explains it to mean heathenish, idolatrous (Hebrew Lexicon, s. v.). The ^ in ^"lO is taken as a preposition [ff evil, made up or consisting of evil) by Hitzig (vom Argen), Ewald (vom Bosen), De Wette and I^Jiobel. Gesenius, Umbrcit, and the older writers treat it as a participle from VV^. Calvin explains n?2J "lin as implying that they uttered their own wickedness, betrayed them- selves ; but it probably means nothing more than that they were wicked in speech as well as act. For '•^7^ Lowth reads ^^"^* on the authority of eighteen manuscripts. 17. This verse assigns a reason why God's hand is still stretched out I'or the destruction of his people, by describing that destruction as the natural effect of their own wickedness, here likened to a fire beginning near the ground among the thorns and briers, then extending to the undergrowth or brushwood of the forest, which, as it consumes away, ascends in a volume of smoke. For wickedness burncth as the fre, thorns and briers it con- sumes, then kindles in the thickets of the forest, and they roll themselves upwards, a column (literally, an ascent) of smoke. Most of the older writers translate all the verbs as i'utures, thus converting the whole verse into a threatening. But the interchange of preterite and future forms, as well as the connection, seems to shew that they should be explained as presents, and as expressing the natural effects of wickedness, in the form of a description or a general proposition. The Vav conversive before nVD shews it to be dependent on the foregoing verbs and posterior in point of time, a relation which may be expressed in English by exchanging and for then. Hender- son gives nyCJ'") the specific meaning of idolatry (See Zech. v. 8-11), but Luther more correctly that of wickedness in general, of heart and life (das gottlose Wescn). Thorns and briers are often used as emblems of the wicked (Micah vii. 4, Neb. i. 10, 2 Sam. xxiii. 6), and their burning as a figure for the punishment of sinners (Isa. xxxiii. 12, Ps. cxviii. 12, 2 Sam. xxiii. 7), especially by means of foreign enemies (Isa. x. 17, xxxii. IH). Most of the recent German versions render the last Vav so that, in order to shew that what precedes is related to what follows as tlie cause to its effi'ct. The verb 133Xn*, which occurs nowhere else, has been viu-iously derived luid Veb. 18.J ISAIAH IX. 217 explained as meaning to be pulverized (Cocceius, Junius), to move proudly (Castellus, J. D. Michaelis), to ascend (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Calvin). This last sense is combined with that of spreading out by J. Michaelis (ut ex- pandant et elevent se). Gesenius, Ewald, and other modern Germans, adopt the sense of rolling or being rolled together, which is given in the Vulgate and Peshito, and by Saadias, Abulwalid, Jarchi, and Rabbi Par- chon. The Vulgate makes the verb agree with rilSJ (convolvetur superbia fumi), Eichhorn with D^n ; but it really agrees with the thickets of the forest • — and tlLcy (the burning thickets) are rolled (or roll themselves) together. The meaning of rilNJ is not jj/u/e (Vulgate), but elevation or accent, and in this connection an ascending body, column, cloud, or volume. It may either be governed by the preposition in understood, or construed as the object of the verb, or put in apposition with its subject. Theij roll upuanls [in or as) a volume of smoke. 18. The figure of a general conflagration is continued in this verse,- and then exchanged for a literal description of the miseries produced by civil war. In the ivraih of Jehovah of hosts, the land is darkened with the smoke — or heated by the flame — and the j^eople is like food (or fuel) of fire — one another (literally, man his brother) they do not spare. Most writers understand the 3 at the beginning in the sense of hy or throtnjh, as denoting the cause or the means by which the eifect is produced. Thus Hendewerk observes that the displeasure of Jehovah is described as the second source of misery ; and Henderson says that " instead of being further represented as resulting from wickedness, the conflagi'ation is re- solved into the anger of God as the avenger of sin." But this is not neces- sarily the meaning of the particle, and in chap. xiii. 13, where the same phrase occurs — in the ivralh of Jehovah of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger — the 3 in one clause seems to mean the same thing as DV^ in the other. It is probable, therefore, that in this case also it denotes not the cause but the time of the event, and should not be rendered hy or through, but simply in, i.e. in the time or during. There is then no departure from the import of the figure in ver. 17. That the sufferings of Israel were produced by the divine wrath, is abundantly implied, though not expressed. — DHyj, which occurs only here, has been variously derived, and explained as meaning to tremble (Peshito), to be disturbed (Vulgate), to be smitten (Saadias), to be wasted (Gesenius in Lex. Man.), &c. Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, the English version, Vitringa, Lowth, J, D. Michaehs, Barnes, and Umbreit, make it mean to be darkened, which agrees well with the figures of the foregoing verse. But Gesenius (in Thes.), Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, Knobel, follow the Septuagint and Targum and the Arabic analogy in giving the sense of being burnt or burnt up. The agreement of p^ with a masculine verb, here and in a few other cases {e. g. Gen. xiii. 6 ; Ps. cv. 30), may be resolved into the rule of Hebrew syntax, that the verb, when it stands before its subject, often takes the simplest form, without regard to the distinction of genders. — DP^ND, a derivative of ?3i<, to devour, is pecu- liar not only to this book, but to this chapter. It denotes not the act of burning or consuming (Lee, Heb. Lex.), but the thing consumed. The particle before it is omitted by Gesenius and De Wette, but is really impor- tant, as denoting that the language of the verse is metaphorical. The grammatical subject of IPJ^n'' is not ^''^, but the people understood. The original construction is retained in the versions of Cocceius, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, Barnes, and Ewald. The v/ord brother may have merely its idiomatic meaning of another person, or be treated as emphatic, and as meaning that 218 ISAIAH IX. [Ver. 19, 20. the nearest tics of blood were disregarded (Calvin). Kimchi supposes that although the figure of a conflagration seems to be dropped in the last clause, there is really a tacit allusion to the mutual ignition of one tree or piece of wood by another. 19. The horrors of civil war are now presented under the fearful imago of insatiable hunger, leading men to devour their own flesh. And he tears on the right hand, and is hungry still, and devours on the left, and still thexj are not satisfied ; each the flesh of his own arm they devour. Ewald refers the first clause to the past, and the second to the present ; Umbreit the fii-st to the present, and the second to the future. But the very inter- mingling of the past and future forms shews that the whole was meant to be descriptive. The first verb has been variously rendered to turn aside (Septuagint, Vulgate), to withdraw one's self (Pagniuus, Montanus), to dis- tribute (Schmidius), to pkmder (Targnm, Jarchi, Kimchi, Luther), to snatch (Calvin, Grotius, English version, Lowth) ; but the true sense seems to be to cut or tear (Junius, Cocceius, Henderson), particularly with the teeth (De Dieu), and thence to devour (Gesenius, De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit, Ivno- bel). The English version seems to make this verb agree with ^''i^ in ver. 18 (he shall snatch); Calvin, Cocceius, and Vitringa, with a distributive pronoun understood (rapiet quisque) ; J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans better still with an indefinite subject {one devours, or they devour). The Prophet sees one assailing the other on the right, and the other in turn attacking him upon the left, and this double subject, corresponding to a tnan and his brother in verse 18, may have given occasion to the plural forms lyai;/' and "l?3X^j corresponding to y>^^\ the plural verbs referring to the people collectively, the singular nouns to the component individuals. The Targum explains riglit and left as meaning south and north ; but they simply denote that the devouring should be mutual, and extend in all directions. ThQ flesh of his own arm is explained to mean the wealth of his kindred b}' the Targum (n^3''"lp ''D33), and Grotius (res cognatorum); but the figures cvidentlv have a stronger meaning. Eating and fighting arc cognate ideas in the Hebrew etymolog}' (compare Cjn? and ^D^?) ; but in this case the additional idea, that the fighting is between near kinsmen, is expressed by the strong figure of devouring one's own flesh, while the special mention of the arm may imply (as Hitzig and Hendewerk suggest) that the mutual destroyers ought to have been mutual protectors. Knobel, indeed, objects to this as a far-fetched explanation, and supposes simply an allusion to the fact, that starving men do actually gnaw their arms, as the most convenient and accessible portion of the body. Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, and Maurer give to arm itself the sense o^ neighbour, which is hardly justified by Jer. xix. 9. Still less ground is there for an emendation of the text by reading lyi for iy~>T, as proposed by Seeker, and approved by Lowth, on the authority of the Chaldee paraphrase (JT'^^lp) and the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint (tov ddi7^(pou auTou), which varies from the common reading [rou ^gayiovog aCiToD). 20. The application of the figures in ver. 19 is now made plain by the Prophet himself, who has been drawing no imaginary scene. It is Israel, the chosen race, that feeds on its own flesh. They devour each the flesh of his own arm — Manasseh (devours) Kphraim, and Kphraim ISlanasseh — and together they (are) against Judah. For all tliis his wrath is not turned hacli, and still his hand (is) stretched out. The tribes here specified are chosen for two reasons : first, because Judah and Joseph were the most im- portant branches of the stock of Israel, as well before as after the disrup- Ver. 20.] ISAIAH IX. 219 tion ; and secondly, because the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseb were more nearly related to each other than to any of the rest, and therefore their hostility afforded the most striking illustration of the mutual rancour which the Prophet has described as prevalent. The Targum, followed by Jarchi, greatly weakens the effect of the first clause by explaining HX to be the pre- position icith, implpng merely the conjunction of these two tribes against Judah, without any intimation of their mutual hostility. The repetition of the names in that case would be perfectly unmeaning. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Umbreit also explain HX as a preposition, but in the sense of against, which it seldom has, and which is in this case very far from bemg obvious. Ewald, De Wette, and Knobel, correctly adhere to the old construction given in the Septuagint, which takes T)i< as the sign of the objective or ac- cusative, and repeats the verb devour between the two proper names. Vit- ringa goes still further, and makes all the names accusatives (Ephraimum Manassen, Manassen Ephraimum), which leaves the verb without a subject in the sentence, and wholly overlooks the objective particle. In the next clause various verbs have been supplied — they shall besiege (Septuagint), they shall unite (Targum), they make an attack (Augusti) — but the simplest method is to supply the verb of existence are or shall be. Hitzig denies that any joint action against Judah is ascribed to Manasseh and Ephraim. But nn'' seldom if ever means alike or equally ; the cases cited by Gesenius (Thes., torn. ii. p. 589) may all be resolved into examples of the ixsual and proper sense at once, together, implying unity of time, place, and action. Eichhorn's proposal to reject this clause as a gloss, upon the ground that it interrupts the sense, and is at variance with the context (Hebr. Proph. ii. p. 219), although not more unreasonable than the other propositions of the same kind which have been already stated, is nevertheless sufficiently ab- surd. Not only is it common for intestine wars to give occasion and give place to foreign ones, as Gesenius most truly says, but this clause really con- tinues the description, and adds greatly to its force, by suggesting the idea that the mutual enmity of these two kindred tribes could only be exceeded by their common hatred to their common relative, the tribe of Judah. — • Grotius and Junius would refer this verse to the time of Sennacherib's inva- sion ; but the kingdom of the ten tribes was then no longer in existence, and there seems to be no ground for. Junius's assertion or conjecture, that the conquered Israelites were forced to serve in the Assyrian army against Judah. The allusions of the verse are not to one exclusive period, but to a protracted series of events. The intestine strifes of Ephraim and Manasseh, although not recorded in detail, may be inferred from various incidental statements. Of their ancient rivalry we have examples in the history of Gideon (Judges viii. 1-3) and Jephthah (Judges xii. 1-6) ; and as to later times, it is observed by Vitringa, that of all who succeeded Jeroboam the Second on the throne of Israel, Pekahiah alone appears to have attained it without treachery or bloodshed. That Manasseh and Ephraim were both against Judah, may refer either to their constant enmity or to particular attacks. No sooner did one party gain the upper hand in the kingdom of the ten tribes, than it seems to have addressed itself to the favourite work of harassing or conquering Judah, as in the case of Pekah, who invaded it almost as soon as he had waded to the throne through the blood of Pekahiah. — The repetition in the last clause intimates that even these extreme evils should be followed by still worse ; that these were but the beginning of sorrows ; that the end was not yet. 220 ISAIAH X. Jkh. 1. CHAPTEE X. The Prophet first completes his description of the prevalent iniquity, with special reference to injustice and oppression, as a punishment of which he threutens death and deportation by the hands of the Assyrians, vers. 1—1. He then turns to the Assyrians themselves, God's chosen instruments, whom he had commissioned against Israel to punish and degrade it, but whose own views were directed to universal conquest, to illustrate which, the Assyrian himself is introduced as boasting of his tributary princes and his rapid con- quests, which had met with no resistance from the people or their gods, and threatening Judah with a like fate, unaware of the destruction which awaits himself, imputing his success to his own strength and wisdom, and glory- ing, though a mere created instrument, over his maker and his mover, vers. 5-15. His approaching doom is then described under the figure of a forest suddenly, and almost totally consumed by fire, vers. lG-19. This succession of events is to have the effect of curing the propensity to trust in man rather than God, at least among the elect remnant who survive ; for though the ancient promises of great increase shall certainly be verified, only a remnant shall escape God's righteous judgments, vers. 20-23. To these the Prophet now addresses words of strong encouragement, with a re- newed prediction of a judgment on Assyria, similar to that on Midian at Oreb, and on Egv'pt at the Red Sea, which is then described, in the most vivid manner, by an exhibition of the enemy's approach, from post to post, until he stands before Jerusalem, and then, with a resumption of the meta- phor before used, his destruction is described as the prostration of a forest — trees and thickets — by a mighty axe, vers. 24-34. It is commonly agreed that the close of the chapter relates chiefly, if not wholly, to the destruction of Sennacherib's army, recorded in chap, xxxvii, 3G. The exceptions to this statement, and the arguments on both sides, will be given in the exposition of ver. 28. For the best illustration of the geographical details in vers. 28-32, a general reference may here be given to Robinson's Palestine (vol. ii. pp. 104-151). 1. In these four verses, as in the diflerent divisions of the ninth chap- ter, there is an accusation followed by a threatening of punishment. The sin denounced in the first two verses is that of oppression and injustice. The punishment threatened is desolation by a foreign foe, and its effect, captivity and death. Woe unto than that decree decrees of injustice, and that urite oppression tvhich they have ]jrcscribcd. Many interpreters suppose two- difl'erent kinds of public functionaries to be here described, viz., judges or magistrates, and their clerks or scribes (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Abarbonel, Grotius, Junius), or evil counsellors and sovereigns, or their secretaries (Clericus), or civil rulers and proi^hets (Hendewerk). The Piel fonn -"1303 is explained as a causative by Pagninus, Montanus, Yatablus, and IMunster (jubcnt scribere). Others suppose the distinction to be simply that between enacting and recording. But the more common and probable opinion is, that the parallel verbs are here substantially synonymous, as Ppn originally means to engrave, or inscribe by incision, which was probably the oldest mode of writing. Thus the Septuagint renders both y^upvai. The meta- phor of ti-ritinfi, is used elsewhere to describe the decrees and providential purposes of God (Isa. Ixv. G, Job xiii. 2G). Here the terms may include both legislative and judicial functions, which are not so nicely distinguished Vee. 2, 3.J ISAIAH X. 221 in ancient as in modern theories of government. The divine displeasure is expressed against all abuse of power. The primary sense of |15< seems to be inanity or nonentity ; then more specifically, the absence of truth and moral goodness ; and still more positively falsehood, injustice, wickedness in general. The primary import of p^V is toil or painful labour ; then (Hke the Greek and Latin 'zovog, labour) suffering, vexation. It is related to 1"IX as the effect to the cause, as the oppression of the subject to the injustice of the ruler. The proper sense of both words is retained by Cocceius in his version (statuta vanitatis, lahorem scribentihus). The Masoretic accents require /•'^V to be governed by D''3ri30 and separated from 1303. This makes it necessary to supply a relative before the last verb. Otherwise, it would be more natural to understand C^nSD as a title of office, and to supply the relative before ?^y. This is pointed out by Aben Ezra as the true con- struction, and Luther accordingly has Schnftrjelehrte as the subject of both clauses. Cocceius makes the whole refer to the elders of the people or hereditary magistrates, and the scribes or doctors of the law, by whom all public matters were controlled in our Saviour's time. By the px ^ppn he understands the traditions of the elders, and by 7l2i]3 the j-oke which they imposed upon the conscience. It is evident, however, that the Prophet is still describing the evils which existed in his own day, although not peculiar to it. The Piel form of the last verb, if it has any distinctive meaning, is a frequentative, and indicates repeated and habitual action. 2. As the first verse describes the sinners and their sin, so the second sets forth its efiect upon the people. To turn aside (or exclude) from jucltj- ment the weak, and to take au-ay (by violence) the right of the poor (or afflicted) of my people, that widows may be (or so that widows are) their spoil, and the fatherless they plunder. The infinitive indicates the tendency and actual effect of their conduct. The Septuagint omits the preposition and governs judgment by the verb directly (exxX/voirsg xoiaiv 'uruy^on). This form of ex- pression frequently occurs in the sense of perverting justice or doing injustice (Dent, xxvii. 19 ; Lam. iii. 25 ; Exod. xxiii. 6 ; Deut. xxvi. 19, xxiv. 17 ; 1 Sam. viii. 3). Nearly allied to these, in form and meaning, is the phrase to turn one aside in judgment (Prov. xviii. 5) or in the gate, as the place where courts were held in eastern towns (Amos v. 12), or with an ellipsis of the second noun to turn the person aside, i. e., to deprive him of his right by false judgment (Mai. iii. 5 ; Isa. xxix. 21), or with an ellipsis of both nouns (Exod. xxiii. 2). But the phrase here used is to turn one aside from the judgment, and seems intended to express not so much the idea oi judging wrongfully as that of refusing to judge at all. " Verus sensus est ut arceant pauperes a judicio, vel efficiant ut cadant causa" (Calvin). The same charge is brought against the rulers of Judah in chap. i. 23. The expression of my people intimates, not only that the sufferers were Israelites, but that they sustained a peculiar relation to Jehovah, who is frequently described in Scripture as the protector of the helpless, and especially of widows and orphans (Ps. Ixviii. 5). The second verb (^tJ) means to take away by violence, and may here be understood either strictly, or figuratively in the sense of violating justice, as the Vulgate expresses it (ut vim facerent causae humilium). 3. The wicked rulers are themselves addressed, and warned of an approaching crisis, when they must be deprived of all that they now glory in. And (though you are now powerful and rich) what will yori do in the day of visitation, and in the ruin (which) shall come from far (though all 222 ISAIAH X. [Ver. 4. may appear safe at home) ? To ichom will rjou flee for help, and where will you leave your ijlory (for safe keeping) ? The questions imply negation, as if he had said, You can do nothing to protect yourselves, there is no place of concealment for your glory. Junius and Tremellius make the con- struction hypothetical — what would you do ? — to whom would you fly ? — where could you leave ? But as this implies that the contmgency alluded to might not occur, it ^drtually changes a threat into a promise, which would here be out of place, between the woe at the beginning of ver. 1, and the menace at the end of ver. 4. By the day of visitation Vitriuga under- stands a day of inspection and examination ; but this is a modern or a technical meaning of the term. Cocceius understands by the phrase, here and elsewhere, even in Ps. viii. 5, the time when God should be incarnate, and literally visit his people as a man. According to the usage of the Old Testament, the day of visitation is a time when God manifests his presence specially, whether in mercy or in wrath, but most frequently the latter. nSIJJ' originally signifies a noise or tumult, and is therefore peculiarly appropriate to the ruin caused by foreign invasions, such as those of the Assyrians and Babylonians, which appear to be alluded to, NUn pn")?20 is properly an independent clause — frotn afar it shall come — but in order to conform the expression to our idiom, a relative may be supplied as in the English version. The "^V Kimchi observes, is in this connection simply equivalent to ^^<. The idea of fleeing for help is expressed by the same verb and noun in chap. xx. 6. By 1)22 we are not simply to understand nobility (Musculus, Forerius, Henderson) — or wealth (Clericus, Lowth, Eosenmiiller) — much less the gains of oppression and injustice (Jarchi) — least of all their idols (Hendewerk) but whatever they now boasted of and trusted in. 4. It (your glory) does not bow beneath the jmsoners, and (yet) they shall fcdl beneath the slain — i. e. if they do not bow under the captives they shall fall under the slain — or, such of them as do not bow, &c. Beneath may either be strictly understood as meaning under their feet, or simply among them. Junius and Piscator understand it to mean lower than the captives and the slain. Be Bieu and Eosenmiiller make it an adverb meaning down. Ewald explains it to mean instead of, in the place or quality of, equivalent to as — as captives and as slain. Cocceius and Umbreit make the first clause interrogative — does he not bow among the captives ? Kimchi, Be Bieu, Gesenius, and Be Wette, render "^173 without me, i. e. having forsaken me, or being forsaken by me (Junius) — without my inter- position. Some make it mean unless, referring to what goes before — they can do nothing but bow, &c. (Ewald) — or what follows — unless one bow, &c. they shall fall, &c. The Septuagint and Vulgate, Castalio and Clericus, take ''T02 in the sense of lest or that not, and continue the construction from the preceding verse — where will ye leave your glory, that ye boM- not, &c. Luther adopts the same construction, but connects V"13 with Tl^D in ver. 3. Where will you leave your glory, that it bow not ? &c. This agrees well with Henderson's explanation of *T133 as meaning nobility or chief men, which would account also for the change to the plural form in 1"?S\ De Bieu makes "l"'DX and D^31")n ihc subjects of the verbs — taking nnn as an adverb meaning down or beneath — *' besides that the captive sinks, they shall fall down slain." Knolel suggests, as a possible con- struction, that y"i3 may mean to loio down to tlie slaughter as in chap. Ixv. 12, in which case both verbs would express the idea of a violent death. Ver. 5.] ISAIAH X. 223 On the whole, the most natural interpretation of this difficult and much disputed verse is that which explains it as a solemn declaration that their gloiy and especially their noble chiefs must either go into captivity or fall in battle. The concluding formula — -for all this his ivrath is not turned hack and still his hand is stretched out — again suggests the fearful thought that all these accumulated judgments would be insufficient to arrest the progress of the sinner or appease the wrath of G-od. 5. The Assyrian is now distinctly brought into view, as the instrument which God would use in punishing his people. But instead of simply exe- cuting this task, the Assyrians would seek their own ends and exceed their commission, and for this thej must themselves be punished. The Prophet begins therefore with a woe against them. Woe unto Asshur (the Assyrian or Assyria itself), the rod of my anger, and the staff in their (the Assyrians') hand is my indiynation, i. e. its instrument. According to Kimchi, '•in is merely a HNnp \X^1>, or particle of calling, by which God summons the Assyrian to punish Israel. So Munster : O Assur (veni ut sis) virga, &c. It is also rendered 0 by Pagninus, Montanus, Forerius, Vatablus, and Calvin, who suggests, however, that it may be taken as an expression of grief [alas!) on God's part, at the necessity of punishing his people. Lowth translates it Ho ! De Wette Ha ! But the analogy of ver. 1 and the subsequent threatenings are decisive in favour of the common version. A pronoun of the second person is supplied after Mn by Clericus (vae vobis, Assyrii), and J. D. Michaelis (wehe dir, Assj^ien), while De Dieu supplies the substantive verb after "IIE^'X (Heus ! Assyria est virga, &c.). But it is simpler to connect the particle as usual directly with the noun, as in the Septuagint {ohai ' Aacv^ioig) and most other versions. Junius, Piscator, and the margin of the English Bible give to the second vav the sense of for or though, which is needless and unauthorized. The Vulgate, Aben Ezra, Luther, Calvin, De Dieu, Vatablus, and Clericus, take Nin as a demonstra- tive equivalent to hie, ille, ipse, or the like. Pagninus, Cocceius, Schmi- dius, Vitringa, Rosenmliller, treat it as a relative {the rod which), and Gesenius gives the same sense, by supposing an ellipsis of y^^, and making NIH the substitute or index of the verb to be. For 01*2 Seeker reads DV3 [in the day of my ivrath), a mere conjecture. The preposition is omitted by Luther and Clericus (est manus eorum). The words NIH DT'a are rejected by Hitzig and Ewald as a gloss, on the ground that they render the two clauses inconsistent, one describing Assyria as itself the rod, the other putting a rod into Assyria's own hand, whereas in ver. 14 Assyria is still represented as the rod and not as the rod-bearer. Hende- werk, De Wette, and Knobel, avoid the conclusion by connecting ''SK t33K^ with the verb to he supplied in the second clause — " the rod of my anger and the staff of my indignation, it is in their hand." But in ver. 24 (cf. chap. ix. 3) Assyria reappears as a rod-bearer, and the chief point and beauty of the verse before us lie in the alleged inconsistency of representing the Assyrian, by whose rod the Israelites were smitten, as himself a mere rod in the hand of God. Such emendations are as puerile in taste as they are inconsistent with the favourite German canon, that the harder reading is presumptively the true one. Any school-boy can expound the hardest passage in the classics by omitting what he pleases on the score of incon- cinnity. The disputed words are retained by Gesenius, Maurer, Hende- ■werk, De "Wette, Umbreit, Knobel. According to Junius, Hendewerk, and De Wette, ''^Vt is governed by HDD (the staff is in their hand of my indig- nation), and Schmidius, Clericus, Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, give the 224 ISAIAH X. [Vkr. 6-9. same sense by repeating nuo before ''^V^ [q. d. tbe staff in their hand is the staff of my indignation). The Septuagint connects the last word of this verse with the next {r7,v hsyr,]/ ,aou u'TrosriXu. G. Upo7i (or against) an impious nation [i. e. Israel, including Ephraim and Judah) will I send Jiim (the Assyrians), and ar/ainst the people of my uratk (i. e. the people that provokes it, and deserves it, and is to experi- ence it) / uill commission him (or give him his orders), to take spoil and to seize prey (literally to spoil spoil and io prey j}rey), and to place (or render) it (the people) a trampling (a thing to be trodden under foot, a common fifTure for extreme degradation), like the mire of streets. See the same comparison in chap. v. 25, and Ps. xviii. 43. According to Cocceius, the use of the word ''1J in application to Israel implies that they had now become gentiles or heathen. But the word seems to be simply used as a poetical equivalent to DJ?. On the meaning of ^l^n, vide supra chap, ix 16. Aben Ezra, Lowth, Gesenius, and others, explain people of my tirath as meaning simply the people at whom I am angry ; but a stronger meaning seems to be re- quired by the form of the expression and the context. Cocceius, with per- verse ingenuity, refers the suffix in "Tn^y to OV, which could not take it in construction, and translates the phrase pojndum excandescentia; meum, im- plying that they were (or had been) his people, but were now the objects of his wTath. The Septuagint changes the sense by omitting Tnsy (to5 s/ju-p Xa'Z). The true sense is not ill expressed in the paraphrase of Forerius, populuyn quem duriter tractare decrevi. Piscator understands by ^^H ^13 the Jews exclusively, in which he is followed by Henderson, who argnes from vers. 9-11, that the kingdom of the ten tribes is regarded in this passage as destroyed already. But, as Vitringa had before observed, the Assyrians did not reduce Judah to an extreme of desolation, and in Sennacherib's in- vasion, Jerusalem, though pre-eminently guilty, was unharmed. Besides, the connection between this and the next chapter forbids the exclusive re- ference to Judah. / 7. The Assyrian is now described as an unconscious instrument in God's hand, and as entertaining in his own mind nothing but ambitious plans of universal conquest. And he (Asspia personified, or the king of Assyria) not so icill think (will not imagine for what purpose he was raised up, or will not intend to execute my will), and his heart not so ivill think (or purpose) ; for (on the contrary) to destroy (is) in his heart, and to cut off nations not a few, i. e. by a litotes common in Hebrew, very many na- tions. According to Cocceius, nDI" p X7 (from H^on, to resemble) means he nill not (or does not) think as I do. But the sense of imagining or pur- posing appears to be fully justified by usage. 8. This verse introduces the proof and illustration of his selfishness and pride. For he nill say (or giving it a descriptive form, he says) are not my princes altogether kings, or at the sayne time kings, mere princes with respect to me, but kings as to all the world besides ? By exalting his tri- butary princes or the nobles of his court, he magnifies himself the more. The oriental monarchs, both in ancient and modern times, have affected the title of Great King (Isa. xxxvi. 4 ; Hos. viii. 10), and King of kings (Ezek. xxvi. 7; Dan, ii. 37), corresponding to the Greek /^iyay.oi (SaeiXug, (SaaiXfTg iSasiXiojv, and the Persian ilAJoLi This is the more offensive because such titles properly belong to God alone (Ps. xcv. 3 ; Dan. ii. 47, viii. 25 ; Mat. V, 35). 9, Havinf boasted of his princes, he now boasts of his achievements. Vee. lO.J ISAIAH X. 225 Is not Calno like Carchemish ? Have they not been equally subdued by me ? Or is not Hammaih like Arpad ? Or is not Samaria like Damascus 1 Similar boastings were uttered by Rabshakeh (chap, xxxvi. 19, 20, xxxvii. 12, 13). These conquests were the more remarkable because so speedily achieved, and because the Assyrians had before confined themselves within their own limits. All the towns named were farther north than Jerusalem and pro- bably commanded the navigation of the two great rivers, Tigris and Eu- phrates. Carchemish was a fortified town on an island in the Euphrates, at the mouth of the Chaboras, called by the Greeks KiPxrisiov, and in Latin CercKsium. It had its own king (Isa. xxxvii. 13) and its own gods (Isa. xxxvi. 19), and was taken by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xv. 29). C'ahio was the Ctesiphon of the Greeks, on the east bank ■oFt'Ee Tigris opposite Se- leucia. It is identified by Kimchi with the Calneh of Gen. x. 10, and by Bochart with the Canneh of Ezek. xxvii. 23. Hamath was a city of Syria, on the Orontes, the mouth of which river, according to Keith (Land of Is- rael, chap. ii. § 3), is the enterin/j into Hamath, sometimes mentioned as the northern boundary of Canaan in its widest extent (Num. xxxiv. 8 ; Jos. xiii. 5). It was called by the Greeks Epiphania. Abulfeda, the Ai'abian his- torian, reigned there about the beginning of the fourteenth century. It is now one of the largest towns in Asiatic Turkey, having about 100,000 in- habitants. Arpad, another town of Syria, near Hamath, with which it is several times named. Junius and Paulus regard it as the name of a region. Grotius, Doderlein, and others, confound it with Arvad in Phenicia (Gen. X. 8) ; but none of the ancient versions do so, and 1 is not interchangeable with Q. It is mentioned last in Jer. xlix. 23, and is probably no longer in existence. According to Jerome, there were two Hamaths, one the same with Epiphania, the other with Antioch, the Hamath Eabba of Amos vi. 2. Vitringa supposes the Hamath here mentioned to be, not the Epiphania, but the Emesa (or Emissa) of the Greek and Roman writers. The latest au- thorities are all in favour of the other explanation. According to Jarchi, the Assyrian in this verse is still boasting of his tributaries — " as the sons of Carchemish are princes and rulers, so are those of Calno " — which is alto- gether arbitrary. The Targum, followed by Aben Ezra, Calvin, and Gill, refers the questions of this verse to the future. Shall not Calno be as Carchemish ? i. e. as I have subdued Carchemish, shall I not in like manner subdue Calno ? But the great majority of writers understand the passage as explained above, although they differ in the form of their translations. Some adhere strictly to the form of the original without supplying anything (Vulgate, Calvin, Cocceius, Vitringa). Some supply the present of the verb to he (Luther, Piscator, Clericus, Lowth, Barnes, Henderson, Ewald, Knobel). Some introduce another verb — shall it not perish (Aben Ezra) — did it not happen (ging's nicht ? Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Umbreit). J. D. Michaelis omits the interrogation, and the Peshito substitutes behold ! — N? DN, as usual, continues the interrogative introduced by vbT] (Nordhei- mer, § 1090, 4, a). It is most exactly rendered or not (oder nicht), by Hendewerk, Ewald, and Umbreit — less exactly, as a simple interrogative without negation, by Luther, Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson — as a negative interrogation, but without expressing DN, by Hitzig and Vitringa — as a mere disjunctive (oder) by Gesenius. 10. As my hand hath found {i. e. reached and seized) the idol-kingdoms (worshippers of idols) — and their images (Anglice, whose images were more) than (those of) Jerusalem and Samaria — the apodosis of the sentence VOL. I. P 226 ISAIAH X. [Vek. 11. follows in the next verse. Barnes explains found as meaning found them helpless; and J. H. Michaelis, /owntZ strenr/th to stthdiie them; both which are forced and arbitrary. Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, suppose it to mean struck, as an arrovfjiiids the mark; but this idea is rather implied than ex- pressed, both here and in Ps. xxi. 9, 1 Sam, xxiii. 17. The ideas natur- ally suggested are those of detecting and reaching. The original import of 7vX is retained in translation by Cocceius and Vitringa (regna nihili), both of whom however understand it to mean idols. The singular fonn is re- tained by Theodotion (roD ilduiXou), the Vulgate (regna idoli), and Umbreit (des Gutzen). Ewald renders the whole phrase Gotzen- Lander. Cocceius supposes that in using this expression, the king of Assyria is made to speak rather in the person of a Jew than in his o\^^l (pro eo quod rcquirebat rh "rgscof personae, substituitur quod requirit Veritas rei). Grotius under- stands him to express contempt of these foreign gods as in their nature inferior to his own; but the reference is rather to their having proved unable to protect their votaries. The heathen nations of antiquity do not seem to have denied the real existence and divinity of one another's gods, but merely to have claimed superior honours for their own. — Instead of the comparative sense <7mn, the Vulgate gives to P its local sense of /rom (de), which seems to mean that the idols of the kingdoms were derived from Israel, a fact which Jarchi does not scruple to assert, though not only un- supported but directly contradicted by all history. Vatablus gives the same construction but refers the words, with less improbability, to the inferior and dependent towns of Israel, as having learned idolatry from the royal cities. On the whole, however, though the sentence is at best obscure, the most satisfactory constniction, both in a gi-ammatical and historical point of view, is that adopted by the great majority of writers, not excepting the most learned of the Kabbins, David Ivimchi, and which takes P as a par- ticle of comparison. Kimchi and Cahdn govern Saviaria and Jerusalem directly by the preposition ; most other writers repeat images before them. The point of the comparison is not expressed in the original ; those versions are too definite which render it more numerous, more precious, or more powerful, as all these particulars may be included. The second clause is parenthetical, and disturbs the structure of the sentence by leaving the comparison, with which it opens, incomplete, although the remainder is sufficiently implied in the parenthesis itself. As my hand hath found the idol- kingdoms [so shall it find Samaria and Jerusalem]. This, which would seem to be the natural apodosis, is formerly excluded but substantially supplied by the last clause of the sentence as it stands. As if he had said, " Since my hand has found the idol-kingdoms whose images exceeded those of Jerusalem and Samaria, much more shall it find Jerusalem and Samaria themselves." But instead of protasis without an apodosis, Gesenius and Maurer describe the sentence as a double protasis with one apodosis. "As my hand has found the idol-kingdoms (whose images exceeded those of Jerusalem and Samaria), and as I have done to Samaria itself, shall I not, &c." This supposes Samaria to be regarded, even in ver. 10, as already conquered. 11. Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria and to her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her gods? The interrogative participle, which properly belongs to the second verb, is placed at the beginning of the sentence, in order to give prominence to its interrogative form, which involves an affir- mation of the strongest kind. This effect is wholly neutralized by rendering t1{

(LXX. ^);?.wffa;, Clericus), but of nji^. It does not mean merely to possess (Yulgate), but to acquire (Ijuther), espe- cially by piirchase, and so to redeem from bondage and oppression (Yitringa), as ■>?'? is to subject them to it (Gesenius), although the true opposite of the latter verb seems to be HTS (Hendewerk). Tlie remnant of his people — not the survivors of the original captives (Aben Ezra, Hendewerk) — but those living at the time of the deliverance, or still more restrictedly, the remnant according to the election of grace (Calvin). — From Assyria, &c., to be construed, not with ni3p? (Abarbenel), but with '^^^'\, as appears from ver. 16. The countries mentioned are put for all in which the Jews should be scattered. — There is no importance to be attached to the order in which they are enumerated (Cocceius), nor is the precise extent of each material. Assyria and Egypt are named first and together, as the two great foreign powers, with which the Jews were best acquainted. Pathros is not Parthia (Calvin), nor Arabia Petra^a (Forerius), nor Pharusis in Ethiopia (Grotius), nor Patures in the Delta of the Nile (Brocard, Adrichomius), Ver. 12.] ISAIAE XL 257 but Thebais or Upper Egypt, as appears not only from a comparison of Scriptures (Bochart), but also fi-om the Egyptian et^onology of the name (Jablonsky), as denoting the region of the south (Gesenius). It is distin- guished from Eg}'pt by the classical writers also. — D.''^VP is a dual form, properly denoting either upper and lower or middle and lower Egypt. — Cush is not mei'ely Ethiopia proper (Gesenius), or the land of Midian (Bochart), or Babylonia (Septuagint), or India (Targum), but Ethiopia, perhaps including part of Arabia, from which it appears to have been settled (Calvin, J. D. Michaelis). — Shinar is properly the plain in which Babylon was built, thence put for Babylonia. Elam is not the rising of the sun (Septuagint), but Elymais, a province of Persia, contiguous to Media, sometimes put for the whole country. Hamath is not Arabia (Septuagint), but a city of Syria on the Orontes {vide supra, chap. x. 9). Islands of the sea, not regions (Henderson), which is too vague, nor coasts in general (J. D. Michaelis), nor islands in the strict sense (Clericus), but the shores of the Mediten-anean, whether insular or continental, and sub- stantially equivalent to Europe (Cocceius), meaning the part of it then known, and here put last, according to Cocceius, as being the most im- portant.— This prophecy does not relate to the Gentiles or the Christian Church (Cocceius), but to the Jews (Jerome). The dispersions spoken of are not merely such as had already taken place at the date of the prediction (Gesenius), but others then still future (Hengstenberg), including not only the Babylonish exile, but the present dispersion. The prophecy was not fulfilled in the return of the refugees after Sennacherib's discomfiture (Gro- tius), nor in the return from Babylon (Sanctius), and but partially in the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews. The complete fulfilment is to be expected when all Israel shall be saved. The prediction must be figura- tively understood, because the nations mentioned in this verse have long ceased to exist. The event prefigured is, according to Keith and others, the return of the Jews to Palestine ; but according to Calvin, Vitringa, and Hengstenberg, their admission to Christ's kingdom on repentance and reception of the Christain faith. 12. And he (Jehovah) shall set up a signal to the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel, and the dispersed of Judah shall he bring together from the four nings of the earth, — D3 is not necessarily a banner (Luther), but a sign or signal (LXX. cnfMsTov, Vulg. signum), displayed for the purpose of assembling troops or others at some one point. — To the nations, not among them (Luther), nor for them (English Version), which though essentially correct, is not so simple and exact as to the nations, i. e. in their sight. The nations thus addressed are not the Jews but the Gentiles, and, as most in- terpi'eters suppose, those Gentiles among whom the Jews were scattered, and who are summoned by the signal here displayed to set the captives free, or to assist them in returning, or, according to the rabbins, actually to bring them as an offering to Jehovah, a figm'e elsewhere used in the same book (chap. Ixvi. 19, 20). Hitzig, indeed, with double assurance pronounces that passage to be not only written by another hand, but founded upon a misapprehension of the one before us. But the very same idea is expressed in chap. xiv. 2, xlix. 22. There is, however, another view of the passage, which supposes the nations or Gentiles to be here mentioned as distinct from the Jews, and unconnected with them. The verse then contains two successive predictions, first, that the Gentiles shall be called, and then that the Jews shall be restored, which agrees exactly with Paul's account of the VOL. I. R 258 ISAIAH XI. [Ver. 13. connection between these events. Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles he come in (Rom. xi. 25, 26). On this hypothesis, the signal is displayed to the Gentiles, not that they may send or bring the Jews back, but that they may come themselves, and then the gathering of Israel and Judah is added, as a distinct, if not a subsequent event. This last interpretation is favoured by the analog}- of a New Testa- ment prophecy, the first by an analogous prophecy of Isaiah himself. — Israel and Judah are put together to denote the race in general. Outcasts and disjierscd are of different genders. The latter, which is feminine in form, is supposed by the older writers to agree with some word understood — such as souls (Pagninus), members (Junius), sheep (Piscator), families (Clericus), -women (Gataker) — imph-ing that no sex or rank would be passed by. According to Gesenius, the construction is an idiomatic one, both predicates belonging to both subjects, the exiled men of Israel, and the scattered women of Judah, meaning the exiled men and scattered women both of Israel and Judah. (For other 'examples of this merismus or parallage elliptica, see chap, xviii. 6 ; Zech. ix. 17 ; Prov. x. 1). At the same time he regards it as an example of another idiom which combines the genders to express totalit}^ (r/c/e supra, chap. iii. 1). But these two explanations are hardly compatible, and Henderson, with more consist- ency, alleges that there is no distinct allusion to the sex of the wanderers, and that the' feminine form is added simply to express universality. Ewald, on the contrary, makes the distinction of the sexes prominent by adding to the participles 7nan and wife, P|33 is properly the wing of a bird, then the skirt or edge of a garment, then the extremity of the earth, in which sense it is used both in the singular and plural. The same idea is expressed by the four loinds, with which, in the New Testament, are mentioned \hefour corners, and this last expression is used even here by Clericus and in the old French Version. The reference of course is to the cardinal points of the compass, as determined by the rising and setting of the Sim. — If this verse be understood as predicting the agency of the Gentiles in restoring the Jews, it may be said to have been partially fulfilled in the return from Babylon under the auspices of C}tus, and again in all efforts made by Gentile Christians to convert the Jews ; but its full accom- plishment is still prospective, and God may even now be lifting up a signal to the Gentiles for this very purpose. — Hendewerk's notion that this pro- phecy was fulfilled when many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezehiah, king of Judah, so that he was lifted up (5israi) — by Herodotus himself {vo/mi^ov-b; lavToiig shai a)id^uj-uv /xaxpw ra 'Ttdv-a d»i(!ro-jg) — by ^Eschylus (u-spxo/xco/ dya\i) — and by Ammianus Marcel- linus (abundantes inanibus verbis insanumque loquentes et ferum, magnidici et gi-aves ac tetri, minaces juxta in adversis rebus ac prosperis, callidi, su- perbi). The same idea is expressed by the Septuagint version {yjxioovn; 4. The Prophet, in his own person, now describes the enemies of Baby- lon, who had just been summoned, as actually on their way. He hears a confused noise, which he soon finds to be that of confederated nations forming the army of Jehovah against Babylon. The voice (or sound) of a multitude in the mountains ! the lihen:ss of much people ! the sound of a tumult of Idnrjdoms of nations gathered (or gathering themselves) ! Jehovah of hosts mustering {i.e. inspecting and numbering) a host of battle {i. e. a military host) ! The absence of verbs adds greatly to the vividness of the description. The sentence really consists of a series of exclamations, describing the impressions made successively upon the senses of an eye and ear witness. The expression is weakened by supplying is heard (Junius), or there is (Cocceius). Gesenius and Ewald insert hark ! at the beginning of the sentence, which is better, though unnecessary. By the mountains some suppose Media to be meant, to which Henderson adds Armenia and the other hilly countries from which Cyrus drew his fi)rces. This supposes the movement here described to be that of the levy or con- scription. But it seems more natural to understand it, as most writers do, of the actual advance of the invaders. The mountains then will be those dividing Babylonia from Media or Persia. — The symbolical interpretation of mountains as denoting states and kingdoms (Musculus), is entirely out of place here. TWOI is commonly explained here as equivalent to as or like; Ter. 5.] ISAIAH XIII. 271 but J. D. Michaelis and Eosenmiiller seem to take it in its pi-oper sense of likeness or similar appearance, and refer to the indistinct view of a great multitude approaching from a distance. The reference to sound before and afterwards, makes the reference of this clause to the sense of sight improbable. — The rendering of X\^^ ?1p tiimultuotos noise, is not only a gratuitous departure from the form of the original, but a weakening of the description. The object presented is not a tumultuous noise merely, but the noise of an actual tumult. — Calvin, Gesenius, and others, separate kingdoms from nations, as distinct particulars. The construction kingdoms of nations, which is retained by Ewald, is the one required by the Maso- retic accents, and affords a better sense. — The Niphal participle may be taken in a reflexive sense, in which case the description would refer to the original assembling of the troops. There is no necessity however for de- parting from the ordinary usage, according to vfhichit describes the nations as already assembled. — It is commonly agreed that there is here a direct reference to the mixture of nations in the army of Cyrus. Besides the Persians and the Medes, Xenophon speaks of the Armenians, and Jere- miah adds the names of other nations (Jer. 1. 9, li. 27). Most interpreters suppose the event here predicted to be subsequent in date to the over- throw of Croesus, while Knobel refers it to the first attack of Cyrus upon Babylonia, recorded in the third book of the Cyropedia. But these dis- tinctions seem to rest upon a false view of the passage as a description of particular marches, battles, &c., rather than a generic picture of the whole series of events which ended in the downfall of Babylon. For a just view of the principles on which such prophecies should be explained, with par- ticular reference to that before us, see Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. ii. p. 143. The title Jehovah, of hosts, may here seem to be used unequivo- cally in the s#nse of God of battles, on account of the obvious allusion to the word host following. But as this explanation of the title is not justified by scriptural usage {vide supra, chap.'i. 9), it is better to understand the ■words as meaning that the Lord of the hosts of heaven is now mustering a host on earth. Lowth, on the authority of a single manuscript, reads T]J2rhl2)? for the battle or for battle. But the last word appears to be added simply for the purpose of limiting and qualifying that before it. This was the more necessary as the same word had been just used in another sense. He who controls the hosts of heaven is now engaged in mustering a host of war, i. e. an army. The Septuagint and Vulgate construe these last words with the following verse — the Lord of hosts has commanded an armed nation to come, &c. — which is a forced and ungrammatical construction. — The substitution of the present for the participle in the English Version (onustereth) and most others, greatly impairs the force and uniformity of •the expression by converting a lively exclamation into a dispassionate assertion. Hendewerk carelessly omits the last clause altogether. 5. Coming from a distant land (literally, a land of distance), from the (visible or apparent) end of the heavens — Jehovah and the instruments (or weapons) of his lorath — to lay tvaste (or destroy the whole land (of Baby- lonia).— Junius and most of the later writers construe Q''^*'^ as a present {they come, &c.). It is better to make it agree with ^^^^ as a collective, and to continue the construction from the foregoing verse, as above. — The end of heaven is of course regarded by Gesenius as a proof of ignorance in the writer. Others more reasonably understand it as a strong but natural hyperbole. The best explanation is that given by J. D. MichaeUs and Barnes, who suppose the Prophet to refer to the horizon or bounding line 272 ISAIAH XIII. [Ver. 6, of vision. He is not deliberately stating from what region they set out, but from what point he sees them actually coming, viz. from the remotest point in sight. This view of the expression, not as a geographical descrip- tion, but as a vivid representation of appearances, removes the necessity of explaining how Media or Persia could be called a distant land or the ex- tremity of heaven. Schmidius evades this imaginary difficulty by applj'ing the terms to the distant nations from which Cyrus drew his forces ; Cleri- cus by referring disUmt not to Babylonia but Judea, and supposing the Prophet to be governed in his use of language by the habitual associations of his Jewish readers. Cocceius, partly for this very reason, understands the whole passage as a threatening against Judah. — Jehovah and the weapons of his wrath. According to the Michlol Jophi, and is here put for with, and some translators actually make the substitution, which is wholly unnecessary. The host which Jehovah was before said to be mustering is now represented as consisting of himself and the weapons of his wrath. This intimation of his presence, his co-operation, and even his incorpora- tion, with the invading host, adds greatly to the force of the threatening. The Hebrew word DvD corresponds to our imjjlements in its widest sense, as including instruments and vessels. It has here the active sense of weapons, while in Rom. ix. 22, Paul employs a corresponding Greek phrase in the passive sense of vessels. Weapons of ivrath are the weapons which execute it, vessels nf wrath the vessels which contain it. — The am- biguous phrase flNH 73 is explained by the Septuagint as meaning the whole world (vraffai/ rrtv olKou/Msvriv), and this interpretation is approved by Umbreit, on the ground that Babylon was a type or symbol of human opposition to divine authority. In its primary import it no doubt denotes the land of Babj'lonia or Chaldea. Cocceius alone understands the land of Israel or Judah to be meant, in accordance with his singular hypothesis already mentioned. 6. Huiol (ye Babylonians, with distress and {e^x),forthe day of Jehovah (his appointed time of judgment) is near. Like might (z. e. a mighty stroke or desolation) /rom the Almighty it shall come. — Calvin points out a lusus vcrhorum in the combination of ""3^' almighty, and It:* desolation or destruc- tion, both derived from "l^J^. As if he had said, you shall know with what good reason God is called '''i'^. This is described by Calvin as a concinna ullusio ad etymologiam, by Barnes as a "paronomasia or pun, a figure of speech quite common in the Scriptures." Paronomasia and pun are not synonymous, and the application of the latter term in this case, if not irreve- rent, is inexact. Gesenius denies that it is even a paronomasia in the proper sense. He also takes 3 as a caph veritatis — "like a destruction from the Almighty (as it is)." But Hendewerk takes it in its proper sense — a destruc- tion as complete and overwhelming as if'ii were an act of reckless violence. Kimchi explains the clause to mean, as a destruction (not from man, but) from a mighty one who cannot be resisted or avoided. Vitringa labours to explain and justify the derivation of a divine name from a root of evil import like "nti' to plunder or destroy. But this etymological difficulty is re- moved by the latter lexicographers, who give the root the general sense of beinf strong or mighty, as in Arabic. The specific sense of tempest or de- structive storm, which Gesenius puts upon "^^ here and in Joel i. 15, is perfectly gratuitous. Jehovah's days are well defined by Cocceius : In genere dies Domini dicuntur divinilus constilutae ojiporluniiates qiiibus judicium suum exercet. {Vide snpra, chap. ii. 12). This day is said to be near, not absolutely with respect to the date of the prediction, but rela- Vee. 7, 8.] ISAIAH XIII. 273 tively, either with respect to the perceptions of the Prophet, or with respect to what had gone before. For ages Babylon might be secure ; but after the premonitory signs just mentioned should be seen, there would be no delay. The words of the verse are supposed to be uttered in the midst of the tumult and alarm of the invasion. 7. Therefore (because of this sudden and irresistible attack) all hands shall sink (fall down, be slackened or relaxed), and every heart of man shall melt. Clericus supposes an allusion to the etymology of t^*13X as denoting frailty and infirmity (omne aegrorum mortalium cor) ; but most interpreters explain the phrase as simply meaning everij mortal heart, or the heart of every mortal. Cocceius understands by the sinking of the hands the loss of active power, and by the melting of the heart, the fear of coming evil. Junius supposes an antithesis between the hands or body, and the heart or mind. But both the clauses, in their strict sense, are descriptive of bodily effects, and both indicative of mental states. Each of the figures is repeat- edly used elsewhere. (See Josh, vii. 5, Ps. xxii. 13, Jer. 1. 43, Job, iv. 3.) Ivnobel quotes from Ovid the analogous expression, cecldere illis animique manusque. 8. And they (the Babylonians) shall he confounded — pangs and throes shall seize (them) — like the travailing (woman) they shall writhe — each at his neighbour, they shall wonder — faces of flames (shall be) their faces. — The Vulgate, Peshito, and Lowth, connect the first word with the verse preceding, which is, to say the least, unnecessary. — The translation /ear or trcmhle, is too weak for 1?n33, which includes the ideas of violent agitation and extreme perplexity. The Septuagint strangely gives to D"'")''^ here the sense of ambassadors or messengers (vide infra, chap, xviii. 2, Ivii. 9), /- which is precluded by the whole connection, and especially by the combina- tion with CT'nn. Solomon ben Melech explains 1 in tl^'^N'' as an anomalous suffix used instead of D. Lowth as usual corrects the text by reading Duns*, on the alleged authority of the Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito, which supply the suffix. Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, adopt a construction mentioned by Kimchi, which makes pangs and throes the object not the subject of the verb — they shall take pangs and throes — as we speak of a house taking fire or a person taking a disease, and as Livy says capere metum. This form of expression occurs, not only in Arabic, but in Job xviii, 20, xxi, 6. The construction is also recommended by its rendering the suffix unnecessary, and by its giving to jltriX'' the same subject with the verbs before and after it. The objection to it, strongly urged by Hendewerk, is that the construction, even in Job, is Arabic, not Hebrew, the idiom of the latter being clear from other cases where the same verb and nouns are combined (Isa. xxi. 3, Jer. xiii. 21), or the same nouns with other verbs (1 Sam. iv. 19, Isa, Ixvi, 7, Jer. xxii. 23, Dan. x. 16, Hos. xiii. 13), or other nouns and verbs of kindred meaning (Exod. xv. 14, Isa. xxxv. 10, Dent, xxviii. 2), but in all without exception the noun is the subject, not the object, of the verb. The construction thus proved to be the common one, may at least be safely retained here, the rather as the collocation of the words is evidently in its favour. The sense of trembling given to IvTl'' by several of the recent writers is too weak. The best translation seems to be that of Henderson — they shall writhe — i. e. with pain. The expression wonder at each other occurs once in historical prose (Gen. xliii. 33). It seems here to denote not simply consternation and dismay, but stupefaction at each other's aspect and condition' — q. d. each man at his fiend shall VOL, I. s \ 274 ISAIAU XIII. [Ver. 9. stand aghast. — The last clause is referred by J. H. Mfchaelis to the Medes and Persians, and explained as a description of their violence and fierceness, in which sense the same figui'cs are employed in Isaiah Ixvi. 15, and Rev. ix. 17. It is commonly and much more naturally understood as a continued description of the terror and distress of the Chaldeans. Aben Ezra men- tions an interpretation of Q''3n? as the proper name of an African race dc- Bcended from JMizraim the son of Ham (Gen. x. 13, 1 Chron. i. 11), and probably the same with the Luhim (2 Chron. xvi. 8) or Libyans. " Their faces shall be (like) the faces of Africans," i.e. black with horror and despaii". This explanation is approved by Gataker ; but all other writers seem to take C^n? as the plural of ^n? a flame. The point of comparison, according to Kimchi, is redness, here referred to as a natural symptom of confusion and shame. But as this seems inappropriate in the case before us, Hitzig and I^obel understand the aspect indicated to be one of paleness, as produced by fear. Calvin, Gesenius, and many others, understand the yloio or fush produced by anguish and despair to be intended. For the classical usage of fire and flame as denoting a red colour, see Gesenius' s Thesaurus, tom. ii. p. 743. In the last edition of his Lexicon by Robinson, the phrase before us is explained to mean " ruddy and bm-ning with eager- ness," an expression applicable only to the conquerors. Instead of eager- ness, the Thesaurus has internum animi cestum. — Cocceius refers this, as well as the preceding verses, to the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of the Holy Land. He also makes the verbs descriptive presents, in which he is followed by J. T>. Michaelis and the later Germans. There is, how- ever, no need of departing from the strict sense of the future. 9. All this must happen and at a set time — for behold the day of Jehovah cometh — terrible — and nraih and heat of anger — to place (or make) the land a waste — and its. sinners he (or it, the day) vill destroy from it (or out of it). According to Cocceius, the mention of Jehovah throughout this passage, sometimes in the fu-st person, sometimes in the third, has reference to the pkxrality of persons in the Godhead. — He also renders *"IT3X as an abstract noun (immanitas), in which he is followed by Yitringa, while Ewald gives it an adverbial sense (grausamer Ai-t), but most intei-preters regard it as an adjective sjTionymous with 1T3S<. The applica- tion of this term to God, or to his judgments, seems to have perplexed in- terpreters. Crudelem diem vocat (saj's Jerome) non merito sui scd jwjmli. Non est enim crudelis qui crudeles jugulat, sed quod crudelis patientibus esse videatur. Nam et latro suspeyisus patibtdo crudelem j\idicem putat. *' The word (says Barnes) stands opposed here to mercy, and means that God would not spare them." It is dubious, however, whether the word in any case exactly corresponds to the crudelis of the Vulgate or the English cruel. The essential idea is rather that of vehemence, destructiveness, &c. It is rendered accordingly in various forms, without any implication of a moral kind, by the Beptuagint (avlaroc), Lowth (inexorable), Gesenius (furchtbar), and others. — The following words, as well as '•1T3X, are construed by Coc- ceius as in apposition with nin* DV- — the day itself being described as cruelty, ■wrath, &c. Gesenius, in his Commentary, repeats DV fearful, and (a day of) wrath, &c. In his translation he supplies another yfovd—full of anger, &c. Ewald and others supply a preposition — with wrath, &c. — Another possible construction would be to suppose a change of subject — " The day of Jehovah is coming and (so is) his wrath," &c. In that case, Hin* is of course the subject of n^Dk^\ Upon the other supposition it may agree with OVj but without a change of meaning. The most vigorous though not the Teb. 10.] ISAIAH XIIL 275 most exact translation of these epithets is Luther's (grausam, grimmig, zornig). Most interpreters, from Jarchi downwards, understand |*"l>^n to be Babjdonia ; but the Septuagint makes it mean the earth or world (olxou . fis,7iv) as in ver. 5, This explanation is revived by the three latest "WTiters ■whom I have consulted, Ewald, Umbreit, and I^iobel, the last of whom understands the term as an allusion to the universal sway of the Babylonian empire. — The moral causes of the ruin threatened are significantly intimated by the Prophet's calling the people of the earth or land its sinners. As the national ofiences here referred to, Vitringa enumerates pride (v. xi. 14, 11 ; xlvii. 7, 8), idolatry (Jer. 1. 38), tyranny in general (xiv. 12, 17), and op- pression of God's people in particular (xlvii. 6). — In the laying of the land waste, Junius supposes a particular allusion to the submerging of the Baby- lonian plains, by the diversion of the waters of Euphrates. 10. The day of Jehovah is now described as one of preternatural and awful darkness, in which the very som'ces of light shall be obscured. This natural and striking figure for sudden and disastrous change is of frequent occurrence in Scripture (see Isa. xxiv. 23, xxxiv. 4 ; Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8 ; Joel ii. 10, iii. 15 ; Amos viii. 9; Mat. xxiv. 29). Well may it be called a day of wrath and terror — -for the stars of the heavens and their signs (or constellations) shall not shed their light — the sun is darkened in his going forth — and the moon shall not cause its light to shine. — It can only be from misapprehension of the connection between this verse and the ninth, that Lowth translates ''? yea ! — According to Hitzig and Knobel, the darkening of the stars is mentioned first, because the Hebrews reckoned the day from sunset. — Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis understand the image here presented to be that of a terrific storm, veiling the heavens, and concealing its lumi- naries. But grand as this conception is, it falls short of the Prophet's vivid description, which is not that of transient obscuration but of sudden and total extinction. — The abrupt change from the future to the preterite and back again, has been retained in the translation, although most modern ver- sions render all the verbs as presents. From simply foretelling the extinc- tion of the stars, the Prophet suddenly describes that of the sun as if he saw it, and then adds that of the moon as a necessary consequence. — ClericuS' explains D'''?''DD as a synonyme of 7D3 in the sense of hope or confidence, and refers the sufiix to the Babylonians, who were notoriously addicted to astrology and even to astrolatry. The stars of heaven which are (literally and or even) their confidence, &c. This ingenious exposition seems to have commended itself to no other writer, though Malvenda does likewise sup- pose a special allusion to the astrological belief and practice of the Baby- lonians. Theodotion and Aquila retain the Hebrew word (^saiXs'sfju). Jerome gives the vague sense splendour, the Peshito that of strength or host. Calvin and others render it by sidera. Vitringa makes it mean the planets, Junius the constellations, as distinguished from the stars. Rabbinical and other writers make ^""DD the name of a particular star, but difier as to its identity. The latest writers have gone back to the version of the Septua- gint (6 'no/coi/) and Luther (sein Orion), except that they restore the plural form of the original. — The proofs of the identity of Nimrod and Orion, as hunters transferred to the heavens, in the oriental and classical mythology, have been arrayed, with a minuteness of detail and a profusion of learning out of all proportion to the exegetical importance of the subject, by J. D. Michaehs, in his Supplement ad lexx. Hebr. p. 1319 seq. — Gesenius on the passage now before us — and Lee on Job. ix. 9. It is commonly agreed that the word which occurs elsewhere only in the singular (Job ix. 9, xxxviii. 31 ; 27G ISAIAE XIII. [Ver. 11, 12. Amos V. 8), is here used in the plural to give it a generic sense — Orions, i. e. Orion and other brilliant constellations. To express this idea most of the recent versions exchange the proper name for an appellative. The word BUder, used by the latest German wTiters, seems to have reference to the sigiis of the Zodiac. Ewald alone retains the primary meaning (seine oVionen). In this, as in many other cases, the spirit of the passage is no- where more felicitously given than in Luther's energetic paraphrase. Die Sterne am Ilhnmel und seine Orion scheinen nicht helle ; die Sonne gehel Jinster auf, und der Mond scheinet dunkel. 11. The Prophet, according to his custom [vide supra, chap. i. 22, v. 7, xi. 9), now resolves his figures into literal expressions, she^ving that the natural convulsions just predicted are to be understood as metaphorical de- scriptions of the divine judgments. And I will visit upon the world (its) ivickcdness {i. e. manifest my presence for the purpose of punishing it)— and vpon the nicked their iniquity — a)id I icill cause to cease the arrogance of presumptuous sinners — and the pride of tyrants (or oppressors) / iiill humble. The primary meaning of ?3^ is retained in the versions of Junius (orbis habitabihs) and Cocceius (frugiferam terram), who regards the use of this word as a proof that the prophecy relates to Israel (populus per verbum Dei cultus). It is no doubt a poetical equivalent to V?^.. and is here ap- plied to the Babylonian empire, as embracing most of the known world. Thus the Roman empire, as Lowth shews, was called iiniversus orbis Roma- nus, and Minos, in Ovid, speaks of Crete as mens orbis. Hitzig makes ??r) nj/7 mean the evil world, but the parallel expression which immediately fol- lows, and the analogy of Jer. xxiii. 2, Exod. xx. 5, are decisive in favour of the usual construction. — The Septuagint makes D^V''iy synonymous with D'lT (WEPjjpavw!'), and the Vulgate makes it simply mean the powerful (fortium). But active violence is an essential part of the meaning. The English Version and some others adopt the sense of terrible (from yyii to terrify) ; but the latest interpreters prefer the meaning given by Calvin, Clericus, and others (tyrannorum). 12. To the general description in the foregoing verse he now adds a more specific threatening of extensive slaughter, and a consequent diminution of the population, expressed by a strong comparison. / ivill make man more scarce (or rare) than pure gold, and a human being than the ore of Ophir. — tJ'lJX and DIK cannot here denote a difierence of rank, as ^"'^ and ms sometimes do, because neither of them is elsewhere used in the distinctive sense of vir or dvri^. They are really poetical equivalents, like man and mortal or human being, which last expression is employed by Henderson. TB is regarded as a proper name by Bochart, who applies it to the Coro- mandel coast, and by Huet, who supposes it to be a contraction of tS-IN, and this a variation of T'QIi^. Gill spciaks of some as identifying tQ with Fez and "T'Q''X with Peru. TD and Dri3 are either poetical synonymcs of 3nT, or emphatic expressions for the purest, finest, and most solid gold. The Septuagint version of the last words is 6 XiOoi b \v Souf /'^, instead of which the Arabic translation founded on it has the stone tvhich {comes) from India. The disputed question as to the locality of Ophir, although not without historical and archaiological importance, can have no ollect upon the meanin" of this passage. Whether the place meant be Ceylon, or some part of continental India, or of Arabia, or of Africa, it is here named simply as an Eldorado, as a place where gold abounded, either as a native product or an article of commerce, from which it was brought, and with which it was associ- ated in the mind of every Hebrew reader. For the various opinions and the Ver. 13, ll.j ISAIAH XIII. 277 arguments by which they are supported, seethe geographical Works of Bochart and Kosenmuller, Winer's Realworterbuch, Gesenius's Thesaurus, and Hen- derson's note upon the verse before us. — Instead of making rare or scarce, the meaning put upon "i''p1X by Jerome and by most modern writers, some retain the original and strict sense of making dear or costly, with allusion to the impossibility of ransoming the Babylonians from the Medes and Per- sians. This interpretation, which Henderson ascribes to Grotius, was given long before by Calvin, and is indeed as old as Kimchi. Barnes, and some older writers understand the words as expressive of the difficulty with which defenders could be found for the city. Henderson speaks of some as having applied the verse, in an individual sense, to Cyrus and to the Messiah. The latter application is of Jewish origin, and found in the book Zohar. Jarchi explains the verse as having reference to the honour put upon the prophet Daniel as the decipherer of the writing on the wall. The Targum makes it a promise of protection to the godly and believing Jews in Babylon. Cocceius, while he gives the words the sense now usually put upon them, as denoting paucity of men in consequence of slaughter, still refers them to the small number of Jews who were carried into exile. — From the similar forms "^p^^ and I'^S'lN at the beginning and the end of the sen- tence, Gesenius infers that a paronomasia was intended by the writer, which, as usual, he imitates, with very indifferent success, by beginning his translation with seltener and ending it with seltene Schdtze. Henderson, with great probability, denies that the writer intended any assonance at all. On the modern theory of perfect parallelisms, it would be easy to construct an argument in favour of understanding "I''S1N as a verb, and thereby ren- dering the clauses uniform. Such a conclusion, like many drawn from similar premises in other cases, would of com'se be worthless. 13. The figurative form of speech is here resumed, and what was before expressed by the obscuration of the heavenly bodies is now denoted by a general commotion of the frame of nature. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth shall shake (or be shaken) out of its place in the ivrath of Jehovah of hosts and in the day of the heat (or fierceness) of his anger. Henderson translates 15"'?^ because, which is not only inconsistent with the usage of the words, but wholly unnecessary. Therefore may either mean because of the wickedness mentioned in ver. 11, or for the purpose of producing the effect described in ver. 12. In the last clause some give ^ the sense of by or on accoiuit of in both members. Others explain the first 3 thus, but take the other in its proper sense of in. It is highly improb- able, however, that the particle is here used in two different senses, and the best construction, therefore, is the one which lets the second 3 determine the meaning of the first — in the wrath, i. e. during (or in the time of) the wrath. 14. And it shall be (or come to pass, that) like a roe (or antelope) chased (or driven by the hunters) and like sheep v)ith none to gather them (literally, like sheep, and there is no one gathering) — each to his peojAe, they shall turn — and each to his country they shall flee. — The English Version seems to make the earth the subject of ^\<^, with which, however, it does not agree in gender. Gesenius and Hitzig make the verb indefinite, one shall be. Aben Ezra and Jarchi supply Babylon or the Babylonians. The best con- struction is that given by De Wette, Umbreit, and Knobel, who take H^T in its common idiomatic sense of coming to pass, happening. Kimchi refers the verse to the foreign residents in Babylon (ic/i '*7^JD DP?? 33J3) — what Jeremiah calls the mingled people (1. 37), and iiEschylus the_'ffa/i/A/xro» . 278 ISAIAR XIII. [Ver. 15, 16. oy>.ov of Babj-lon. Calvin supposes an allusion, not to foreign residents, but mercenary troops or allies, Clericus applies the last clause to these strangers, and the first to the Babylonians themselves, which is needless and arbitrary. The ''^V, according to Bochart and Gesenius, is a generic term including all varieties of roes and antelopes. The points of com- parison are their timidity and fieetness. The figure of scattered sheep, without a gatherer or shepherd, is a common one in Scripture. Junius connects this verse with the twelfth, and throws the thirteenth into a paren- thesis, a construction complex in itself, and so^little in accordance with the usage of the language, that nothing short of exegetical necessity can warrant its adoption. 15. The flight of the strangers from Babylon is not without reason, for ever]) one found (there) shall he stabbed {or thrust through), and every one joined (or joining himself to the Babylonians) shaU fall by the sword. All interpreters agree that a general massacre is here descxibed, although they difier as to the precise sense and connection of the clauses. Some suppose a climax. Thus Junius explains the verse to mean that not only the robust but the decrepit (i^?P? from nsp to consume) should be slain, and the same intei-pretation is mentioned by Ivimchi. Hitzig takes the sense to be that ever}'- one, even he who joins himself (/. e. goes over to the enemy), shall perish ; they will give no quarter. Others suppose an antithesis, though not a climax. Gesenius, in the earlier editions of his Lexicon, ex- plains the verse as meaning that he who is found in the street, and he who withdraws himself into the house, shall perish alike. Lowth makes the antithesis between one found alone and one joined with others. Umbreit supposes an antithesis not only between ^5^'^3and nSDJ, but also between "'P^* and 3"in3 'PID"' — the one clause referring to the first attack with spears, the other to the closer fight with swords hand to hand. J. D. Michaelis changes the points, so as to make the contrast between him who remains and him who flees, and Henderson extracts the same sense from the common text, avowedly upon the ground that r!DD3 must denote the opposite of ^^^'^J. But even the most strenuous adherent of the theory of perfect parallelisms must admit that they are frequently s^oionymous, and not invariably antithetical. In this case there is no more need of making the participles opposite in meaning than the nouns and verbs. And as all except Umbreit (and per- haps Kjiobel) seem agreed that to be thrust through, and to fall by the sword, are one and the same thing, there is every probability that both the clauses have respect to the same class of persons. Upon this most natural and simple supposition, we may either suppose NV03 and nQD3 to denote the person found and the person caught, as Ewald and Gesenius do, or retain the old interpretations found in Kimchi, which connects the verse directly with the one before it, and applies both clauses to the foreigners in Babylon, every one of whom still found there, and still joined with the besieged, should be surely put to death. IG. The horrors of the conquest shall extend not only to the men, but to their wives and children. And their children shall be dashed to 'pieces before their eyes, their houses shall be plundered and their wives ravished. The same thing is threatened against Babylon in Ps. cxxxvii. 9, in retaliation for the barbarities practised in Jerusalem (2 Chron. xxxvi. 17, Lam. v. 11). The horror of the threatening is enhanced by the addition of before their eyes. (Compare chap. i. 7, and Dent, xxviii. 81, 32.) Hitzig coolly alleges that the last clause of this verse is copied from Zcch. xiv. 2, to which Knobel adds, that the spoiling of the houses is here out of place. — For the Ver. 17, 18.] ISAIAH XIII. 279 textual reading n373L''n the Keri, here and elsewhere, substitutes n233*kJ>n as a euphemistic emendation. 17. The Prophet now, for the first time, names the chosen instruments of Bab3'lon's destruction. Behold I [am) stirring up against them Madai (Media or the Medes) loho will not regard silver and {as for) gold, they will not take pleasure in it (or desire it). Here, as in Jer. li. 11, 28, the Medes alone are mentioned, as the more numerous and hitherto more powerful nation, to which the Persians had long been subject, and were still auxiliary. Or the name may be understood as comprehending both, which Vitringa has clearly shewn to be the usage of the classical historians, by citations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch. Indeed, all the names of the great oriental powers are used, with more or less latitude and licence, by the ancient writers, sacred and profane. As the Medes did not become an independent monarchy till after the date of this prediction, it affords a striking instance of prophetic foresight, as J. D. Michaehs, Keith, Barnes, and Henderson, have clearly shewn. It is chiefly to evade such proofs of inspiration that the modern Germans assign these chapters to a later date. — ''1^ is properly the name of the third son of Japhet from whom the nation was. descended. At the date of this prediction, they formed a part of the Assyi-ian empire, but revolted at the time of the Assyrian invasion of Syria and Israel. Their first king Dejoces was elected about 700 3'ears before the birth of Christ. His son Phraortes conquered Persia, and the united Medes and Persians, with the aid of the Babylonians, subdued Assyria under the conduct of Cyaxares I. The conquest of Babylon was effected in the reign of Cyaxares II. by the Median aimy, with an auxiliary force of thirty thousand Persians, under the command of Cyrus, the king's nephew. In the last clause of the verse, Hitzig and Ivnobel understand the Medes to be described as so uncivilised as not to know the value of money. Others suppose contempt of money to be mentioned as an honourable trait in the national character, and Vitringa has pointed out a very striking coincidence between this clause and the speech which Xenophon ascribes to Cyrus. "Avb^sg Mrjdoi, x.ai 'irdvTsg o/ «rapovrfs, eyu iz/xaj oida Ga^Sjg, on ovrs ^^rj/xdruv dsofLsvoi avv s/moi l^rjAkn %. r. X. The most natural interpretation is, however, that the thirst of blood would supersede the thirst of gold in the conquerors of Babylon, so that no one would be able to secure his life by ransom. Even Cocceius admits that this verse relates to the conquest of Babylon, but only, as he thinks, by a sudden change of subject, or at least a transition from God's dealings with his people to his dealings with their enemies. , 18. And bows shall dash boys in pieces, and the fruit of the icomb they shall not pity ; on children their eye shall not have mercy. — Augusti need- lessly continues the construction from the foregoing verse — " they shall not delight in gold, but in bows which," &c. The Septuagint has the bows of the young men {ro^roiiiaTci vsavlsKuv) which is inconsistent with the form of the original. The Vulgate, Luther, and Calvin, " with their bows they shall dash in pieces." But the feminine form HJ^U)"!]^ must agree with nin^p, as Aben Ezra has observed. Clericus and Knobel think that bows are here put for bowmen, which is a forced construction and unnecessary. Hendewerk supposes the bow to be mentioned, as in many other cases, as one of the most common and important weapons. Other interpreters appear to be agreed that there is special allusion to the large bows and skilful archery of the ancient Persians, as described by Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ammianus Marcelhnus. Kimchi's extravagant idea that the Medes are here 280 ISAIAH XIIL [Ver. 19. described as shooting children from their bows instead of arrows, is strangely copied by some later \vriters. There is more probability in the opinion, that they are represented as employing their large massive bows instead of clubs. There is no serious objection, however, to the common supposition, that the effect described is that of arrows, or of bows used in the ordinary manner. The strong term dash in pieces is employed instead of one more strictly appropriate, with evident allusion to its use in ver. 16. There is no need of giving D^yj the sense of young men. It rather denotes children of both sexes, as Q^33 does when absolutely used. Hendewerk and some older writers understand by the fruit of the toomh the unborn child (see Hosea xiv. 1; Amos i. 13; 2 Kings viii. 12, 15, IG). Gesenius and others make it simply equivalent to children, as in Gen. xxx. 2 ; Deut vii. 13; Lam. ii. 20. The craelty of the Medes seems to have been proverbial, in the ancient world. Diodorus Siculus makes one of his characters ask, " "What destroyed the empire of the Medes ? ' Their cruelty to those beneath them.' " Compassion is ascribed to the eye, says Knobel, because it is expressed in the looks. Kimchi observes that this is the only case in which the future of D-in has u instead of o. 19. From the very height of splendour and reno\vn, Babylon shall be reduced not only to subjection but to annihilation. And Babylon, the beauty (or glory) of kingdoms, the ornament, the pride of the Chaldecs, shall be like God's overthrowing Sodom and Gomorrah — i. e. shall be totally destroyed in execution of a special divine judgment. According to Kimchi, ''3^* means delight {Y^^}, and niDPD^O ^3V that in which the nations delighted. It is now agreed, however, that its meaning, as determined both by etymology and usage, is beauty. The same Hebrew word is applied as a distinctive name to a class of animals, remarkable for grace of form and motion. {Vide supra ver. 14). The beauty of kingdoms is by most writei*s understood comparatively as denoting the most beautiful of kingdoms, either in the proper sense, or in that of royal cities (see 1 Sam. xxvii. 5). But Knobel understands the words more strictly as denoting the ornament of an empire which included various tributary kingdoms. This agrees well with the next clause, which describes the city as the ornament and pride of the Chaldees. The origin of this name, and of the people whom it designates, is doubtful and disputed. But whether the Chaldees were of Semitic origin or not, and whether they were the indigenous inhabitants of Babylonia or a foreign race imported from Armenia and the neighbouring countries, it is plain that the word here denotes the nation of which Babylon was the capital. For a statement of the archaeological question, see Gesenius's Thesaurus, tom. ii. p. 719 — Winer's Bealwurterbuch, vol. i. p. 2-53 — and Henderson's note on Isaiah xxiii. 13. By most interpreters |1^53 mXDn ai'e construed together as denoting ornament of pride, i. e. proud ornament. The same sense, with a slight modification, is expressed in the Vulgate (inclyta superbia), and by Luther (herrliche Pracht). Equally simple, and perhaps more consistent with the Masorctic intcrpunction, is the separate construction of the words by Junius and Tremellius (ornatus excellentiaque)', still better expressed, without supphing and, by the Dutch Version (de heerlickheyt, de hoovaerdigheyt) — and in English by Barnes (the ornament, the pride). — In the last clause, the verbal noun riD2niD is construed with the subject in the genitive and the object in the accusative (Gesen. Lehrg. p. G88). It^ has been variously paraphrased — as n-hen God overthrow Sodom and Gomorrah — like Sodom and Gomorrah nhich God overthrew — like the overthrow uith which God overthreic Sodom and Gomorrah — like Ver. 20.] ISAIAH XIII. 281 the overthrow of God with which he overthrew Sodom and Gomon'ah — but the exact sense of the Hebrew words is that already given — like God's over- throwing Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a common formula in Scripture for complete destruction, viewed as a special punishment of sin. {Vide supra, chap. i. 7, 9). The allegation of the Seder 01am, as cited both by Jarchi and Kimchi, that Babylon was suddenly destroyed by fire from heaven in the second year of Darius, is a Jewish figment designed to recon- cile the prophecy with history. It is certain, however, that the destruction of the city was by slow degrees, successively promoted by the conquests of Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, Alexander the Great, Antigouus, Demetrius, the Parthians, and the founding of the cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. Strabo calls Babylon fMydXriv l^rifj^iav. Pausanias says that in his day oubh 'in ^v it fMTj TsT^og. In Jerome's time this wall only served as the enclosure of a park or hunting ground. From this apparent disagreement of the prophecy with history, Cocceius seems disposed to infer that it relates not to the literal but spiritual Babylon. The true conclusion is that di'awn by Calvin, that the prophecy does not relate to any one invasion or attack exclusively, but to the whole process of subjection and decay, so completely carried out through a course of ages, that the very site of ancient Babylon is now dis- puted. This h^'pothesis accounts for many traits in the description which appear inconsistent only in consequence of being all applied to one point ■ of time, and one catastrophe exclusivel3^ 20. It shall not he inhabited for ever {i. e. it shall never again, or no more, be inhabited) and it shall not he dwelt in from generation to generation (literall}' to generation and generation) — neither shall the Arab pitch tent there — neither shall shepherds cause (their flocks) to lie there. The conver- sion of a populous and fertile district into a vast pasture-ground, however rich and well frequented, implies extensive ruin, but not such rmn as is here denounced. Babylon was not even to be visited by shepherds, nor to serve as the encamping gi'ound of wandering Arabs. The completeness of the threatened desolation will be seen by comparing these expressions with chap. V. 5, 17, vii. 21, xvii. 2, where it is predicted that the place in question should be for flocks to lie down, with none to make them afraid. So fully has this prophecy been verified that the Bedouins, according to the latest travellers, are even superstitiously afraid of passing a single night upon the site of Babylon. The simplest version of the first clause would be, she shall not divellfor ever, she shall not abide, &c. And this construction is actually given by Calvin and Ewald. But the gi'eat majority of writers follow the Septuagint and Vulgate in ascribing to the active verbs a passive or intran- sitive sense. Kimchi explains this usage on the ground that the city is made to represent its inhabitants — she dwells for her people dwell. This in- transitive usage of the verbs is utterly denied by Hengstenberg on Zechariah xii. 6 (Christol. ii. 286), but maintained against him by Gesenius in his Thesaurus (ii. 635). The result appears to be, that in a number of cases, the intransitive version is required by the context. The only objection to it in the case before us, is that it does not here seem absolutely necessary. The choice therefore lies between the general usage of 3D''* and pt^ as active verbs, and their special usage in connection with prophecies of desolation. The sense of sitting on a throne, ascribed to 35^''' here by Gataker, and else- where by Hengstenberg, does not agree so well with that of the other verb and with the general import of the threatening. On the whole, the passive or neuter construction, though not absolutely necessai*y, is the most satis- factory and natural. — ?D! is explained by the rabbinical interpreters as a 282 ISAIAH XIII. [Ver. 21. contraction of "^D^?, the Kal of which is used in the sense of pitching a tent or encamping, Gen. xiii, 12, 18. (See Gesenius § 67, Rem. 2). This ex- planation is adopted by most modern vsriters. Ptosenmiiller and Ewald, however, make the form a Hiphil one for ^''HJ^!. Hitzig takes it hkewise as a Hiphil, but from ^n? to lead (flocks) to toater, which is also found con- nected with the Hiphil of |^5p in Ps. xxiii. 2. Hendewerk objects that although this verb is repeatedly used by Isaiah, it is always in the Piel form (chap. xl. 11, xlix. 10, li. 18). The Hiphil occurs nowhere else, and the contraction assumed by Hitzig rarely if at all. The derivation from ^nx is assumed in the Chaldee Paraphrase and Vulgate Version. — Barnes applies this clause to the encampment of caravans, and supposes it to mean that wayfarers will not lodge there even for a night. But the mention of shep- herds immediately afterwai'ds renders it more probable that the allusion is to the nomadic haijits of the Bedouins, who are still what Strabo repre- sents them, half shepherds and half robbers [oKrivirai Xrj(rrp-/.oi rmg y.al i^Toiiiivixoi), passing from one place to another when their plunder or theu* pasture fails. Gesenius suggests that "'^"ly may here be used generically to denote this class of persons or their mode of life. There can be no doubt, however, that Ai'abians, properly so called, do actually overrun the region around Babylon with their flocks and herds, although, as we have seen, they refuse to take up their abode upon the doomed site of the vanished city. 21. Having excluded men and the domesticated animals from Babylon, the Prophet now tells how it shall be occupied, viz. by creatures which are only found in deserts, and the presence of which therefore is a sign of desolation. In the first clause these solitary creatures are referred to in the general ; the other clause specifies two kinds out of the many which are else- where spoken of as dwelling in the wilderness. But there (instead of flocks) sludl lie doion desert creatures — and their houses (those of the Babylonians) sJiall he filled icith hotols or yells — and there shall dwell the daughters of the ostrich — and shaggy beasts (or wild goats) shall gamhol there. The contrast is heightened by the obvious allusion in 1V31 and 1331>* to the pt^'n and IVnT" of ver. 20. As if he had said, flocks shall not lie dowii there, but wild beasts shall ; ^man shall not dwell there, but the ostrich shall. The meaning evidently is, that the populous and splendid city should become the Lome of animals found only in the wildest solitudes. To express this idea, other species might have been selected with the same eflect. The endless discussions therefore as to the identity of those here named, however laud- able as tending to promote exact lexicography and natural history, have little or no bearing on the interpretation of the passage. The fullest state- ment of the questions in detail may be found in Bochart's Hierozoicon and in Gesenius's Thesaurus, under the several words and phrases. Nothing more will be here attempted than to settle one or two points of comparative importance. Many interpreters regard the whole verse as an enumeration of particular animals. Thus D*''^' has been rendered toild-cats, monkeys, vamj^yres ; CnX o?t7s, iveascls, dragons, &c., &c. This has arisen from the assumption of a perfect parallelism in the clauses. It is altogether natural, however to suppose that the writer would first make use of general expressions land afterwards descend to particulars. This supposition is con- firmed by the ct}Tnology and usage of D^^V, both which determine it to mean those belonging to or dwelling in the desert. In this sense, it is sometimes applied to men (Ps. Ixxii. 9, Ixxiv. 14), but as these are hero Ver. 21.] ISAIAH XIIL 283 excluded by tlie preceding verse, nothing more was needed to restrict it to wild animals, to whicli it is also applied in chap, xxxiv. 14, and Jer. 1. 39. This is now commonlj' agreed to be the meaning, even by those who give to D''niS a specific sense. The same writers admit that DTlN properly denotes the howls or cries of certain animals, and only make it mean the animals themselves, because such are mentioned in the other clauses. But if Q^''^ has the generic sense which all now give it, the very parallelism of the clauses favours the explanation of DTlK in its original and proper sense of lioids or yells, viz. those uttered by the C]''''^, The common version {doleful creatures) is too indefinite on one of these hypotheses, and too specific on the other. The daughter of the ostrich is an oriental idiom for ostriches in general, or for the female ostrich in particular. The old trans- lation owls seem to be now universally abandoned. The most interesting point in the interpretation of this verse has reference to the word D''"l"'yvi'. The history of its interpretation is so curious as to justify more fulness of detail than usual. It has never been disputed that its original and proper sense is hairy, and its usual specific sense he-goats. In two places (Lev. xvii. 7 ; 2 Chron. xi. 15), it is used to denote objects of idolatrous worship, probably images of goats, which according to Herodotus were worshipped in Egypt. In Chronicles especially this supposition is the natural one, because the word is joined with DvJJ? calves. Both there and in Leviticus, the Septuagint renders it [Xjarci'iotg, vain things, i. e. false gods, idols. But the Targum on Le\'iticus explains it to mean demons (1''"'^), and the same interpretation is given in the case before us by the Septuagint {daifj.6via), Targum (in::> ), andPeshito (ijV*)- The Vulgate in Leviticus translates the word daemonihus, but here j)ilosi. The interpretation given by the other three versions is adopted also by the Rabbins, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, &c. It appears likewise in the Talmud and early Jewish books. From this traditional interpretation of D"'"i''ykJ', here and in chap, xxxiv. 14, appears to have arisen, at an early period, a popular belief among the Jews, that demons or evil spirits were accustomed to haunt desert places in the shape of goats or other animals. And this belief is said to be actually cherished by the natives near the site of Babylon at the present day. Let us now compare this Jewish exposition of the passage with its treatment among Christians. To Jerome, the combination of the two meanings, goats and demons, seems to have suggested the Pans, Fauns, and Satyrs of the classi- cal mythology, imaginary beings represented as a mixture of the human form with that of goats, and supposed to frequent forests and other lonely places. This idea is carried out by Calvin, who adopts the word satyri in his version, and explains the passage as relating to actual appearances of Satan under such disguises. Luther, in like manner, renders it Feldgeister. Yitringa takes another step, and understands the language as a mere con- cession or allusion to the popular belief, equivalent to saying, the solitude of Babylon shall be as awful as if occupied by Fauns and Satyrs — there if anywhere, such beings may be looked for. In explaining how D^T'Vti' came to be thus used, he rejects the supposition of actual apparitions of the evil spirit, and ascribes the usage to the fact of men's mistaking certain shaggy apes (or other animals approaching to the human form), for incarnations of the devil. Forerius and J. D. Michaehs understand the animals themselves to be here meant. The latter uses in his version the word Waldteufel (wood-devils, forest-demons), but is careful to apprise the reader in a note that it is the German name for a species of ape or monkey, and that the 2Si ISAIAH XIII. [Yer. 21. Hebrew contiins no allusion to the devil. The same word is used by Gcsenius and others in its proper sense. Saadias, Cocceius, Clericus, and Heudersjn, return to the original meaning of the Hebrew word, to wit, wild goals. But the great majority of modern writers tenaciously adhere to the old tradition. This is done, not only by the German nco- logists, who lose no opportunity of finding a mythology in Scripture, but by Lowth, Bax'nes, and Stuart, in his exposition of Rev. xi. 2, and his Ex- cursus on the Angelology of Scripture (Apocal. ii. 403). The arguments in favour of this exposition are : (1) the exegetical tradition of the Jews ; (2) their popular belief, and that of the modern orientals, in such appari- tions ; (3) oui" Saviour's allusion (Mat. xii. 43) to the unclean spirit, as walking through dry places, seeking rest and finding none ; (4) the descrip- tion of Babylon in Rev. xviii. 2, as the abode of demons, and the hold (or prison house) of every foul spirit and of every unclean and hateful bird, with evident allusion to the passage now before us. Upon this state of the case it may be remarked : (1) That even on the supposition of a reference to evil spirits, there is no need of assuming any concession or accommodation to the current superstitions. If D"'1''yt^ denotes demons, this text is a proof, not of a popular belief, but of a fact, of a real apparition of such spirits under certain forms. (2) The Jewish tradition warrants the application of the Hebrew term to demons, but not to i\\e fauns or satyrs of the Greek and Roman fiibulists. (3) The fauns and satyrs of the classical mythology were represented as grotesque and frolicsome, spiteful, and mischievous, but not as awful and terrific beings, such as might naturally people horrid soli- tudes. (4) The popular belief of the Jews and other orientals may be traced to the traditional interpretation of this passage (see Stuart uhi supra), and this to the Septuagint Version. But we do not find that any of the modern writers adopt the Septuagint Version of njy^ niJ3 (^asiprivic) or of D^^N in the next verse [dvoxsvTavpoi). If these are mere blunders or con- ceits, so may the other be, however great its influence on subsequent opini- ons. (5) There is probably no allusion in Mat. xii, 43 to this passage, and the one in Rev. xviii. 2, is evidently founded on the Septuagint Version, which was abundantly sufficient for the purpose of a symbolical accommoda- tion. What the Greek translators incorrectly gave as the meaning of this passage might be said with truth of the spiritual Babylon. (6) The men- tion of demons in a list of beasts and birds is at variance not only with the favourite canon of parallelism, but with the natural and ordinary usage of lan- guage. Such a combination and arrangement as the one supposed — ostriches — demons — wolves — jackals — would of itself be a reason for suspecting that the second term must really denote some kind of animal, even if no such usage existed. (7) The usage of D''"l^y!:i', as the name of an animal, is perfectly well defined and certain. Even in Lev. xvii. 7, and 2 Chron. xi. 15, this, as we have seen, is the only natural interpretation. The result appears to be that if the question is determined by tradition and authority, D^I^V*^' de- notes demons ; if by the context and the usage of the word, it signifies wild r/oiita, or more generically liniri/, xhaijfin ii'iiiiui^ls. According to the prin- ciples of modern exegesis, the latter is clearly entitled to the preference ; but even if the former be adopted, the language of the text should be rogardoJ, not as " a touch from the popular pneumatology " (as Rev. xviii. 2, is de- scribed by Stuart//) loc), but as the prediction of a real iact, which, though it should not be assumed without necessity, is altogether possible, and there- fore if alleged in Scripture, altogether credible. The argument in favour of the strict interpretation, and against the traditional and current one, is Ver. 22.J ISAIAE XIV. 285 prcseuted briefly, but with great strength and clearness, in Henderson's note upon the passage. 22. And wolves shall hoiol in his (the king of Babylon's) j^^l^ces, and jackals in the temples of pleasure. And near to come is her (Babylon's) time, and her days shall not be prolonr/ed. — The names Q'''''^ and ^''^0 have been as variously explained as those in ver. 21. The latest writers seem to be agreed that they are different appellations of the jackal, but in order to retain the original variety of expression, substitute another animal in one of the clauses, such as wolves (Gesenius), ivild-cats (Ewald), &c. As Q"'^X, according to its etymology, denotes an animal remarkable for its cry, it might be rendered hyenas, thereby avoiding the improbable assumption that precisely the same animal is mentioned in both clauses. But what- ever be the species here intended, the essential idea is the same as in the foregoing verse, viz. that Babylon should one day be ii)habited exclusively by animals peculiar to the wilderness, implying that it should become a wilderness itself. The contrast is heightened here by the particular men- tion of palaces and abodes of pleasure, as about to be converted into dens and haunts of solitary animals. This fine poetical conception is adopted by Milton in his sublime description of the flood — And in their palaces Where luxury late reigned, sea-monsters whelped And stabled. Tlie meaning of ni3D7X, in every other case where it occurs, is widows, in which sense some rabbinical and other wi-iters understand it here. But as it differs only in a single letter from m^DIK pcdaces, and as 7 and "I are sometimes interchanged, it is now commonly regarded as a mere orthocTa- phical variation, if not an error of transcription. It is possible, however, that the two forms were designedly confounded by the writer, in order to suggest both ideas, that of palaces and that of widowhood or desolation. This explanation is adopted in the English Version, which has palaces in the margin, but in the text desolate houses, Henderson avoids the repeti- tion oi palaces, by rendering the second phrase temples of pleasure, which aflbrds a good sense, and is justified by usage. The older writers explain nJJ? as denoting a responsive cry ; but the latest lexicogi'aphers make answer a secondary meaning of the verb, which they explain as properly denotincr to sing, or to utter any inarticulate sound, according to the nature of the subject. Hence it is translated howl. — The last clause of the verse may be strictlj'- understood, but in application to the Jewish captives in the Baby- lonian exile, for whose consolation the prophecy was partly intended. Or we may understand it as denoting proximity in reference to the events which had been passing in the Prophet's view. He sees the signals erected —he hears a noise in the mountains — and regarding these as actually pre- sent, he exclaims, her time is near to come ! It may, however, mean, as similar expressions do in other cases, that when the appointed time should come, the event would certainly take place, there could be no postponement or delay. CHAPTEE XIV. The destruction of Babylon is again foretold, and more explicitly con- nected with the deliverance of Israel from bondage. After a general assur- 286 ISAIAH XIV. [Ver. 1. ance of God's favour to liis people, and of an exchange of conditions between them and their oppressors, they are represented as joining in a song of triumph over their fallen enemy. In this song, which is universally ad- mitted to possess the highest literary merit, they describe the earth as again reposing from its agitation and affliction, and then breaking forth into a shout of exultation, in which the very trees of the forest join, vers. 1-8. By a still bolder figure, the unseen world is represented as perturbed at the approach of the fallen tyrant, who is met, as he enters, by the kings already there, amazed to find him sunk as low as themselves, and from a still greater heiffht of actual elevation and of impious pretensions, which are strongly contrasted with his present condition, as deprived not only of regal honours but of decent burial, vers. 9-20. The threatening is then extended to the whole race, and the prophecy closes as before with a prediction of the total desolation of Babylon, vers. 21-23. Vers. 24-27 are regarded by the latest writers as a distinct prophecy, unconnected with what goes before, and misplaced in the arrangement of the book. The reasons for believing that it is rather an appendix or con- clusion, added by the Prophet himself, will be fully stated in the exposition. Vers. 28-32 are regarded by a still greater number of writers as a dis- tinct prophecy against Philistia. The traditional arrangement of the text, however, creates a strong presumption that this passage stands in some close connection with what goes before. The true state of the case may be, that the Prophet, having reverted from the downfall of Babylon to that of Assyria, now closes with a warning apostrophe to the Philistines who had also suf- fered from the latter power, and were disposed to exult unduly in its over- throw. If the latter application of the name Philistia to the whole land of Canaan could be justified by Scriptural usage, these verses might be under- stood as a warning to the Jews themselves not to exult too much in their escape from Assyrian oppression, since they were yet to be subjected to the heavier yoke of Babylonian bondage. Either of these suppositions is more reasonable than that this passage is an independent prophecy subjoined to the foregoing one by caprice or accident. 1. This verse declares God's purpose in destroying the Babylonian power. For Jehovah will pity (or have mercy upon) Jacob, and will again (or still) choose Israel and cause ihevi to rest on their (own) land— and the stranger shall be joined to them— and they (the strangers) shall le attached to the house of Jacob. Jacob and Israel are here used for the whole race. The plural pronoun them does not refer to Jacob and Israel as the names of dif- ferent persons, but to each of them as a collective. For the same reason -in^ipj is plural, though agi-ecing with "lilD. By God's still choosing Israel we arc to understand his continuing to treat them as his chosen people. Or we may render IIV again, in which case the idea will bo, that having for a time or in appearance cast them ofi' and given them up to other lords, he would now take them to himself again. Gesenius gives two specimens in this verse of his disposition to attenuate the force of the Hebrew words by needlessly de- parting from their primary import. Because "in3 is occasionally used where ■we should simply speak of loving or preferring, and because the Hiphil of n-13 to rest, is sometimes used to signify the act of laying doioi or placing, he adopts these two jejune and secondary senses here. — In this he is closely followed by De Wette. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Umbreit, have the good taste to give "in3 its distinctive sense, but Ewald alone among the later Germans has done full justice to the meaning of both words, by translating the first choose and the other give them rest. The Vulgate takes the 3 after Vek. 2.] ISAIAR XIV. 287 "ina as a partitive (eliget de Israel), whereas it is the usual connective particle between this verb and its object. It is allowable, but not necessary, to give the Niphals in the second clause a reflexive meaning, as some wTiters do. il)?? is followed by ?y as in Numbers, xviii. 2. Knobel understands by "l^.n the sui'vi\4ng Canaanites, some of them who went into captivity with Israel (Ezek. xiv. 7, xlvii. 22), and othei's remained in possession of the land (Ezra ix. 1, seq.). But there seems to be no reason for restricting the meaning of the word, especially as a general accession of the Grentiles is so often promised elsewhere. According to Cocceius and Gill, the maxim of the Talmud, that j^roselytes are like a scab, is founded on the affinity of the verb nSDJ with the noun nnSD. — Umbreit correctly understands this not as a mere promise of temporal deliverance and increase to Israel as a nation, but as an assurance that the preservation of the chosen people was a neces- sary means for the fulfilment of God's purposes of mercy to mankind in general. — The literal fulfilment of the last clause, in its primary sense, is clear from such statements as the one in Esther viii. 17. 2. And nations shall take them and bring them to their place — and the house of Israel shall take possession of them on Jehovah's land for male and female servants — and (thus) they (the Israelites) shall be the captors of their captors, and rule over their ojypressors. The first clause is rendered some- what obscure by the reference of the pronoun them- to diflerent subjects, first the Jews and then the Gentiles. Umbreit renders C^y tribes (Stamme), and seems to refer it to the Jews themselves, and the fii-st suffix to the Gentiles, thereby making the construction uniform. The sense will then be, not that the Gentiles shall bring the Jews home, but that the Jews shall bring the Gentiles with them. Most interpreters, however, are agreed that the first clause relates to the part taken by the Gentiles in the restoration of the Jews. — To a Hebrew reader the word •l^'D^riD would convey the idea, not of bare possession merely, but of permanent possession, rendered per- petual by hereditary succession. The word is used in this sense, and with special reference to slaves or servants, in Lev. xxv. 46. — It is curious to observe the meanings put upon this promise by the difi'erent schools and classes of interpreters. Thus Grotius understands it of an influx of foreign- ers after Sennacherib's invasion in the reign of Hezekiah, an interpretation equally at variance with the context and with history. Cocceius, as the other pole or opposite extreme, applies it to the final deliverance of the Christian Church from persecution in the Roman empire, and its protection by Constantius and establishment by Constantine. Clericus and others find the whole fulfilment in the number of foreign servants whom the Jews brought back from exile (Ezra ii. 65). Calvin and others make the change predicted altogether moral, a spiritual conquest of the true religion over those who were once its physical oppressors. It is scarcely possible to compare these last interpretations without feeling the necessity of some exegetical hypothesis by which they may be reconciled. Some of the worst errors of intei-pretation have arisen from the mutual exclusion of h}-potheses ^ as incompatible, which really agree, and indeed are necessary to complete z' each other. The simple meaning of this promise seems to be that the Church, or chosen people, and the other nations should change places, the oppressed becoming the oppressor, and the slave the master. This of course admits both an external and internal fulfilment. In a lower sense, and on a smaller scale, it was accomplished in the restoration of the Jews from exile; but its full accomplishment is yet to come, not with respect to the Jews as a people, for their pre-eminence has ceased for ever, but with respect to the 288 ISAIAU XIV. [Yer. 3, 4. Chnrch, including Jews and Gentiles, which has succeeded to the rights and privileges, promises and actual possessions, of God's ancient people. The ti'ue principle of exposition is adopted even by the Kabbins. Jarchi refers the promise to the future (TTiy?), to the period of complete redemption. Kimchi more explicitly declares that its fulfilment is to be sought partly in the restoration from Babylon, and partly in the days of the Messiah. 3. And it shall be (or come to pass) i)i the day of Jehovah's causiiif/ thee to rest from thy toil (or SHferiny), and from thy commotion (or disquietude), and from the hard service which was wrouyht by thee (or imposed upon thee). The precise construction of the last words seem to be, in which (or with respect to which) it icas wrought with thee, i.e. they (indefinitely) wrought with thee, or thou wast made to work. The nominative of 13V is not i^'^'2'!J_ nor the relative referring to it, but an indefinite subject understood. This impersonal construction makes it unnecessary to account for the masculine form of the verb as irregular. Aben Ezra refers 3Vy and TJI to pain of body and pain of mind, and Cocceius to outward persecutions and internal divisions of the Church. But they are much more probably equiva- lent expressions for pain and suflTering in general. In this verse and the following context, the Prophet, in order to reduce the general promise of the foregoing verse to a more graphic and impressive form, recurs to the down- fall of Babylon, as the beginning of the series of deliverances which he had predicted, and describes the effect upon those most concerned, by putting into the mouth of Israel a song of triumph over their oppressor. This is imiversally admitted to be one of the finest specimens of Hebrew, and indeed of ancient, composition. 4. That thou shall raise this song over the king of Babylon and say, How hath the ojijiressor ceased, the golden (city) ceased ! The Vav at the beginning continues the construction from H^^Hl in ver. 3, and can only be expressed in our idiom by that — 5<^*3 is not merely to begin or to vtter, but to raise, as this word is employed by us in a musical sense, including the ideas of commencement, utterance, and loudness. — ^^ is not so called from X*J? to rule, but from /??'9 to resemble or compare. Its most general sense seems to be that of tropical or figurative language. The more specific senses which have been ascribed to it are for the most part suggested by the context. Here it may have a special reference to the bold poetical fiction following. If so, it may warn us not to draw inferences from the passage with respect to the unseen world or the state of departed spirits. Calvin's description of the opening sentence as sarcastic, has led others to describe the whole passage as a satire, which is scarcely consistent with its peculiar merit as a song of triumph. — '^"'^ is an cxclnmation of surprise, but at the same time has its proper force as an interrogative adverb, as appears from the answer in the following verse. — t'Jil is properly a task-master, slave- driver, or tax-gatherer. nSil'lD is derived by the Rabbins and many modern writers from 3n'!', the Chaldee form of ^HT gohl, in which Junius sees a sarcasm on the Babylonians, and Gescnius an indication that the writer lived in Babylonia ! According to this etymology, the word has been explained by Vitringa as meaning a golden sceptre — by others the golden cit}'— the place or repository of gold — the exactress of gold, taking the word as a participial noun — the exaction of gold, taking it as an abstract — or gold itself, considered as a tribute. From dubious Arabic analogies, Schultens and others have explained it to mean the destroyer or tho plunderer. J. D. Michaolis and the later Germans are disposed to read Ver. 5, 6.] ISAIAH XIV. 289 namJD oj)prcssion, which is found in one edition, appears to be the basis of the ancient versions, and agrees well with the use of ^53 and •l^ni^ in chap. iii. 5. Ewald gives it the strong sense of tyrannical rage. — ■ The meaning of the first clause is of course that Israel would have occasion to express such feelings. There is consequently no need of disputing when or where the song was to be sung. Equally useless is the question whether by the king of Babylon we are to understand Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmero- dach, or Belshazzar. The king here introduced is an ideal personage, whose downfall represents that of the Babylonian monarchy. 5. This verse contains the answer to the question in the one before it. Jehovah hath broken the staff of the wicked, the rod of the rulers. The meaning tyrants, given to the last word by Gesenius and the later Germans, is imphed, but not exj^ressed. The rod and stafi" are common figures for dominion, and their being broken for its destruction. There is no need of supposing a specific reference either to the rod of a task-master, with Gese- nius, or to the sceptre of a king, with Ewald and the older writers. 6. Smiting nations in anger by a stroke loithout cessation — ruling nations in nrath by a rule without restraint — literally, which Ae (or orie indefinitely) did not restrain. — The participles may agree grammatically either with the rod or with the king who wields it. Junius and Tremellius suppose the punishment of the Babylonians to be mentioned in both clauses. " As for him who smote the nations in wrath, his stroke shall not be removed — he that ruled the nations in anger is persecuted, and cannot hinder it." The English Version, Lowth, Barnes, and others, apply the last clause only to the punishment ; but the great majority both of the oldest and the latest writers make the whole descriptive of the Babylonian tj-ranny. Kimchi, Cahdn, and Vatablus read the last clause thus — (if any one was) perse- cuted, he did not hinder it. Dathe reads ^"'"''^ as an active participle (^?}!]P), and this reading seems to be likewise supposed in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Latin versions. Some make ^?"PP a verbal noun, meaning persecution, though the passive form is singular, and scarcely accounted for by Henderson's suggestion, that it means persecution as experienced rather than as practised. All the recent German writers have adopted Doederlein's proposal to amend the text, by changing ^iTlO into miO, a construct fonn like nnOj and dei'ived, like it, from the immediately preceding verb. Striking a stroke without cessation, swaying a sway without restraint, will then cor- respond exactly, as also the remaining phrases, peoples and nations, wrath and anger. Of all the emendations founded on the principle of parallelism, there is none more natural or plausible than this, the rather as the letters interchanged are much alike, especially in some kinds of Hebrew writing, and as the sense is very little afiected by a change of persecution into domi- nation. Henderson, however, though he admits the plausibility, denies the necessity of this emendation. It may also be observed that a general application of this principle of criticism would make extensive changes in the text. For although there may be no case quite so strong as this, there are doubtless many where a slight change would produce entire uniformity. And yet the point in which the parallelism fails may sometimes be the veiy one designed to be the salient or emphatic point of the whole sentence. Such emendations should be therefore viewed with caution and suspicion, unless founded on external e\'idence, or but slightly affecting the meaning of the passage, as in the case before us. Umbreit, who adopts Doederlein's suggestion, gives to nil and mnD what is supposed to be VOL. I. T 290 ISAIAH XIV. [Ver. 7, 8. their primary sense, that of treading or trampling under foot. — Cocceius, who applies this to the tyranny of Antichrist, explains n^D ''m^ as a com- pound noun (like "V"**^, ehap. x. 15), meaning non-apostasy, and having reference to the persecution of true Christians on the false pretence of heresy, schism, or apostasy. By the side of this may be placed Abarbenel's interpretation of the whole verse as relating to God himself. 7. At rest, quiet, is the wJioIe earth. They burst forth into sivging (or a shout of joy). Jarchi seems to make the first clause the words of the song or shout mentioned in the second. There is no inconsistency between the clauses, as the first is not descriptive of silence, but of tranquiUity and rest. Tlie land had rest is a phrase employed in the book of Judges (e. g. chap. V. 31) to describe the condition of the country after a gi'eat national deliverance. — There is no need of supposing an ellipsis of "^^^5^''' to agi'ee with the plural -iny,?, as Henderson does, since it may just as well be con- strued with Xy^^ as a collective, or indefinitely, they {i.e. men in general) break forth into singing. Ewald, who gives the whole of this 7^''? in a species of blank verse, is particularly happy in his version of this sentence. i^Nun ruht, nun rastet die ganze Erde, man hriclit in Juhel aus.) The verb to hurst is peculiarly descriptive of an ebullition of joy long suppressed or suddenly succeeding grief. Rosenmliller quotes a fine parallel from Terence. Jamne erumpere hoc licet mihi gaudium ? The Hebrew phrase is beauti- fully rendered by the Septuagint, /3oa /isr' i\j^Doo{jvr,c. It is a curious illus- tration of the worth of certain arguments, that while Gesenius makes the use of this phrase a proof that this prediction was not \mtten b}- Isaiah, Henderson with equal right adduces it to prove that he was the author of the later chapters, in which the same expression frequently occurs. 8. Not only the earth and its inhabitants take part in this triumphant song or shout, but the trees of the forest. Also (or even) the cypresses rejoice with respect to thee — the cedars of Lebanon (saying) now that thou art fallen (literally lain doum), the feller (or woodman, literally the cutter) shall not come up against us. Now that we are safe from thee, we fear no other enemy. The C^"1"12 has been variously explained to be the fii', the ash, and the pine ; but the latest authorities decide that it denotes a species of cypress. According to J. D. MichaeHs, Antilibanus is clothed with fh-s, as Libanus or Lebanon proper is with cedars, and both are here introduced as joining in the general triumph. Vitringa makes -IJ vjy a noun with a suffix, meaning our leaves or our tops (cacumina nostra). Among other reasons, he alleges that ri^3 is not construed with ^V. elsewhere. But the accents might have taught him that •13'''?J^ is dependent on >^^T., and that n^bn is to ha construed as a noun. Forerius reads on us, and supposes an allusion to the climbing of the tree by the woodman, in order to cut off the upper branches. Knobel refers the words in the same sense to the falling of the stroke upon the trees. It is much more natural, however, to regard the words as meaning simply to us, or more emphatically against us. The preposition in '^?, here as elsewhere, strictly denotes general relation, as to, tvith respect to. The specific sense of over or against, in all the cases which Gesenius cites, is gathered from the context. Instead of liest, Paguinus has sleepest, which might be metaphorically applied to death, but is not really the meaning of the word, which denotes a sleeping posture, but not sleep itself. As to the meaning of the figures in this verse, there are three distinct opinions. The first is, that the trees arc emblems of kings and other great men. This is the explanation given in the Targum, and by Cocceius, Vek. 9.] IS.IIAH XIV. 291 Vitringa, and other interpreters of that school. The second opinion is, that the trees, as such, are introduced rejoicing that they shall no more be cut down to open roads, or to supply materials for barricades or forts, or for luxurious buildings. This prosaic exposition, proposed by Aben Ezra, and approved by Grotius, is a favourite with some of the writers at the present day who clamour loudest about Hebrew poetry, and insist most rigorously on the application of the so-called laws of versification. The third opinion, and the only one that seems consistent with a pure taste, is the one pro- posed by Calvin, who supposes this to be merelj'^ a part of one great picture, representing universal nature as rejoicing. The symbolical and mechanical interpretations are as much out of place here as they would be in a thousand splendid passages of classical and modern poetry, where no one yet has ever dreamed of applying them. Both here and elsewhere in the sacred books inanimate nature is personified, and speaks herself, instead of being merely spoken of. Ipsi lastitia voces ad sidera jactant Intonsi montes ; ipsae jam carmina rupes, Ipsa sonant arbusta. The Septuagint version of n^V! as a preterite {avs^ri), which is followed by all the early writers, is not only arbitrary and in violation of the usus loqiiendi, but also objectionable on the ground that it implies too long an interval between the utterance of the words and the catastrophe which called them forth. The trees are not to be considered as historically stating what has happened or not happened since a certain time, but as expressing, at the very moment of the tyrant's downfall, or at least soon after it, a confi- dent assurance of their future safety. In such a connection tXD corresponds exactly to the English now that. The present form given to both verbs (now that thou liest, no one comes, &c.) by Luther and most of the later Germans, approaches nearer to the true construction, but is neither so exact nor so poetical as the literal translation of the future given by Rosen- mliller and Ewald, and before them by the Vulgate (non ascendet qui succidat nos). It is characteristic of Cocceius and his whole scheme, that he makes the firs and cedars mean not only great men in general, but ecclesiastical rulers in particular, and, in his exposition of the verse, refers expressly to the English bishops who became reformers, and to the case of the Venetians when subjected to a papal interdict in 1606. Such ex- positions have been well described by Stuart (Apocal. ii. p. 147) aa attempts to convert prophecy into a syllabus of civil and church history. 9. The bold personification is now extended from the earth and its forests to the invisible or lower world, the inhabitants of which are represented as aroused at the approach of the new victim and as coming forth to meet him. Hell from beneath is moved (or in commotion) for thee (*. e. on account of thee) to meet thee [at) thj coming ; it rouses for thee the giants (the gigantic shades or spectres), all the chief ones (literally, he-goats) of the earth ; it raises from their thrones all the hings of the nations. — ?"1 NE?* has already been explained (vide supra, chap. v. 14) as meaning first a grave or individual sepulchre, and then the grave as a general receptacle, in- discriminately occupied by all the dead ^vithout respect to character, as when we say, the rich and the poor, the evil and the good, lie together in iJie grave, not in a single tomb, which would be false, but imder ground and in a common state of death and bm-ial. The English word hell, though now appropriated to the condition or the place of future torments, corres- ponds, in etymology and early usage, to the Hebrew word in question. 292 ISAIAH XIV. |Ver. 9. Gcscuius derives it, with the German HuUe, from Hohle hollow, but the English etymologists from the Aiiglo-Saxon helan, to cover, which amounts to the same thing, the ideas of a hoJloiu and a covered place being equally appropriate. The modern English versions have discarded the word liell as an equivocal expression, requiring explanation in order to be rightly understood. But as the Hebrew word Sheol, retained by Henderson, and the Greek word Hade^, introduced by Lowth and Barnes, require explanation also, the strong and homely Saxon form will be preferred by every unsophis- ticated taste, not only to these Greek and Hebrew names, but also to the periphrases of Gesenius (Schattenreich), and Hendewerk (Todtenreich), and even to the simpler and more poetical expression (Unterwelt), employed by Hitzig and De AVette. Ewald and Umbreit have the good taste to restore the old word IlijUe in their versions. — Two expressions have been faithfully transcribed by interpreters from one another, in relation to this passage, with a very equivocal effect upon its exposition. The one is that it is full of biting sarcasm, an unfortunate suggestion of Calvin's, which puts the reader on the scent for irony and even wit, instead of opening his mind to impressions of sublimity and tragic grandeur. The other, for which Calvin is in no degree responsible, is that we have before us not a mere prosopo- poeia or poetical creation of the highest order, but a chapter from the popular belief of the Jews, as to the locality, contents, and transactions of the unseen world. Thus Gesenius, in his lexicon and commentary, gives a minute topographical description of Sheol, as the Hebrews believed it to exist. With equal truth a diligent compiler might construct a map of hell, as conceived of by the English Puritans, from the descriptive portions of the Paradise Lost. The infidel inteq^reters of Germany regard the Scriptural and classical mythology precisely in the same light. But when Chiistian writers copy their expressions or ideas, they should take pains to explain whether the popular belief, of which they speak, was true or false, and if false, how it could be countenanced and sanctioned by inspired writers. This kind of exposition is moreover chargeable with a rhetorical incongruity in lauding the creative genius of the poet, and yet making all his gi-and creations commonplace articles of popular belief. The true view of the matter, as determined both by piety and taste, appears to be, that the passage now before us comprehends two elements, and only two, religious verities or certain facts, and poetical embellishments. It may not be easy to distinguish clearly between these ; but it is only between these that we are able or have any occasion to distinguish. The admission of a tertium quid, in the shape of superstitious fables, is as folse in rhetoric as in theologj-. — Gesenius, iu the earlier editions of his lexicon, and in his commentary on Isaiah, derives D^5, as expressed by Cocceius (frugiferam) and Junius (orbem habitalem). The version inhabited land, given by J. D. Michaehs and Augusti, would be still better but for the constant usage of ^3Jil as an equivalent to Y"}^ in its widest sense. Hitzig observes that ^?3 must be taken as a masculine noun, in order to account for the suffix in Vl^, which cannot be referred to the king like that in 1''^P^. If so, it is better to refer the latter also to the same antecedent for the sake of uni- formity, as Knobel does, since they may just as well be said to belong to the world as the cities. But the same end may be gained, and the anomaly of gender done away, by referring both the pronouns to the king himself, who might just as well be said to have destroyed his own cities as his own land and his own people (ver. 20), the rather as his sway is supposed to have been universal. The construction of the last clause is somewhat difficult. The general meaning evidently is that he did not release his prisoners, and this is expressed in a general way by the Septuagint and Peshito. The Targum reads, tvho did not open the door to his captives ; the Vulgate more exactly, the prison (carcerem). This construction supplies a preposition before captives, and regards the termination of T\T\'^2 as merely paragogic. Junius and Tremellius understand it as the local or directive H, and make the word mean home or homeivards (non solvebat reversui'OS domum). This construction is adopted by Henderson and others, who suppose the 800 ISAIAH XIV. [Veb. 18, 19. same ellipsis of the verb return or send before the last word. But the other recent versions follow De Dieu in connecting nns directly with nn*3, with- out supplying anything, and giving to the verb itself the sense of releasing or dismissing. This construction is also given in the margin of the English Bible {did not let his prisoners loose homeiuitrds), while the text coincides with the Vulgate {opened not the house of his prisoners). 18. ^4// kings of nations, all of them, lie in state (or glory), each in his house. There is here a special reference to the peculiar oriental feeling with respect to burial. Diodorus says that the Eg^i^tians paid far more attention to the dwelhngs of the dead than of the living. Some of the greatest national works have been intended for this purpose, such as the pATamids, the temple of Belus, and the cemeteiy at PersepoHs. The en- virons of Jerusalem are full of ancient sepulchres. The want of burial is spoken of in Scripture as disgraceful even to a private person (1 Kings xiii. 22), much more to a sovereign (2 Chron. xxi. 20, xxxiv. 24). The ancient oriental practice of burying above ground and in solid structures, often reared by those who were to occupy them {vide infra, chap. xxii. 10) will account for the use of house here in the sense of sepidchre, without sup- posing any reference to the burial of kings within their palaces. 0^3 is not used elsewhere absolutely in the same sense, but the grave is called n^3 Q^iy (Eccles. xii. 5) and 'rh':h nj?10 n*2 (Job xxx. 23), the first of which phrases is copied in the Chaldee Paraphrase of that before us (iT'Oby n^22). Henderson's version, lie in state, may seem appropriate to burial, but is in fact happily descriptive of the oriental method of sepulture. Lowth's ver- sion, lie doun, gives too active a meaning to the verb, which is intended to describe the actual condition of the dead. The words of this verse might possibly be understood to describe the generality of kings as dying in their beds and at home — the;/ have lain dou-n, {i.e.) died each in his own house. But there is no need of dissenting from the unanimous judgment of inter- preters, that the verse relates to burial. Knobel supposes a specific allusion to the kings whom the deceased had conquered or oppressed ; but nothing more is necessarily expressed by the words than the general practice with respect to royal bodies. 19. With the customary burial of kings he now contrasts the treatment of the Babylonian's body. And thou art cast out from thy ijiave — like a despised branch, the rai)ncnt of the slain, j^i^f'ced icitli the sword, r/oing down to the stones of the pit, (even) like a trampled carcass (as thou art). Gesenius and the other modern writers understand the Prophet as con- trasting the neglect or exposure of the royal body with the honourable burial of the other slain, those who are (soon) to go down to the stones of the grave, i. e. to be buried in hewn sepulchres. Hitzig understands by the stones of the pit, the stones which closed the mouths of the sepulchres, — Henderson, stone coffins or sarcophagi — Knobel, the ordinary stone tombs of the cast resembling altars. All these interpreters follow Coceeius in explaining t^'3^ as a passive participle, clothed {i. e. covered) with (he slain, which may also be the meaning of the Vulgate version, obi'olutus cum his qui interfecti sunt gladio. But this form of expression, covered with the slain ivho are buried in stone sepulchres, is rather descriptive of a common burial than of any invidious distinction. It is much more natural to under- stand "113 ^J?N ?^ n"^i* as a description of the indiscriminate interment of a multitude of slain in a common grave, such as a pit containing stones or filled with stones to cover the bodies. The reference assumed by the Dutch Ver. 20.] ISAIAH XIV. 301 Annotators and Doederlein, to the covering of the slain with stones upon the surface of the earth, is forbidden by the terms ifoinr/ down and pit. The explanation just proposed would be consistent either with Cocceius's inter- pretation of £^3? or with the older one which makes it as usual a noun meaning raiment, and supplies the particle of comparison before it. In the latter case, the direct comparison is not with the bodies of the common dead, but with their blood-stained garments, as disgusting and abhorrent objects. As typ occui's elsewhere only in Gen. xlv. 17, where it means to lond, Cocceius here translates it omistis f/ladio, and Junius oniistonnn [crehris ictihus) ijladii. The latter writer adopts the Rabbinical derivation of the word from a cognate root in Arabic, which means to pie)-ce or perforate. The kind of death is supposed by some to be particularly mentioned, in order to account for the stainiug of the garments. By ^J^riJ "l^i! Lowth un- derstands a tree on which a malefactor had been hung, and which was therefore looked upon as cursed (Deut. xxi. 23 ; Gal. iii. 13), and according to Maimonides v^^as buried with him. This ingenious combination accounts for the use of the strong word 21^ ^1^, which is scarcely applicable to the use- less or even troublesome and noxious branches that are thrown aside and left to rot. To remove the same difficulty, J. D. Michaelis gives 15??. the supposititious sense of ulcer, here put for a leprous body. Some suppose 1VA to be here used, as in chap. xi. 1, with a genealogical allusion, the de- spised branch or scion of a royal stock. T??i'^^ is explained by G-esenius and Maurer to mean simply ivilhoiit a grave, by Hitzig and Knobel awaij from tluj grave, on the ground that he had not been in it. This prosaic objection has not hindered Ewald from using the expressive phrase out of thy grave, which is no more incorrect or unintelligible than it is to speak of an heir as being deprived of his estate, or a king's son of his crown, before they are in actual possession. Henderson even goes so far as to denj' that |D depends upon the verb at all, a statement equally at variance with usage and the Masoretic accents. In order to reconcile this verse with the history of Nebuchadnezzar, to whom they exclusively apply it, the Jews have an old tradition, given not only in the Seder 01am but by Jerome in almost the same words, that when Nebuchadnezzar recovered his reason, he found Evilmerodach his son upon the throne, and threw him into prison. When the father died, the son refused to become king again, lest his predecessor should again return ; and in order to convince him of the old man's death, the body was disinterred and exposed to public view. That the terms of the prediction were literally fulfilled in the last king of Babylon, Nabonned or Belshazzar, is admitted by Gesenius to be highly probable, from the hatred with which this avosiog (SaaiXi-j^ (as Xenophon calls him) was re- garded by the people. Such a supposition is not precluded by the same historian's statement that Cyrus gave a general permission to bury the dead ; for, as Henderson observes, his silence in relation to the king rather favours the conclusion that he was made an exception, either by the people or the conqueror. There is no need, however, as we have already seen, of seeking historical details in this passage, which is rather a pre- diction of the downfall of the empire than of the fate of any individual monarch. 20. Thou shall not he joined with them (the other kings of the nations) in burial, because thy land thou hast destroyed, thy people thou hast slain. Let the seed of evil-doers be named no more for ever. Gesenius and other recent writers think the reference to the kings in ver. 18 too remote, and this is one principal reason for interpreting ver. 19 in the way ah-eady 302 ISAIAH XIV. [Vee. 21. mentioned, as exhibiting a contrast between those who receive burial and those who do not. The sense of this verse then will be, thou shalt not be joined with them, i. e. with those who go down to the stones of the grave. But the remoteness of the antecedent in ver. 18, ceases to occasion any difficulty when the whole of the nineteenth verse is a description of the king's unburicd and exposed condition. On this hypothesis, ver. 18 de- scribes the state of other deceased kings; ver. 19, the very different state of this one, and ver. 20 draws the natural inference, that the latter cannot be joined in burial with the former. Instead of thy land and thy people, the Septuagint has my land and ony people, making the clause refer directly to the Babylonian conquest and oppression of Judea. Jerome suggests that the same sense may be put upon the common text by making thy land and thy people mean the land and people subjected to thy power in execution of God's righteous judgments. But the only natural interpretation of the words is that which applies them to the Babylonian tyranny as generally exercised. The charge here brought against the king implies that his power was given him for a ver}- different purpose. The older writers read the last clause as a simple prediction. Thus the English Version is, the seed of evil-doers shall never be renowned. But the later writers seem to make it more emphatic by giving the future the force of an imperative or optative. For the sense of CVTIP O vide supra, chap. i. 4. Hitzig and Henderson take V}}. even here in the sense of a race or generation, and sup- pose N^i^J to refer to monumental inscriptions. Some of the older writers understand the clause to mean that the names of the wicked shall not be perpetuated by transmission in the line of their descendants. Others ex- plain the verb as meaning to be called, /. c. proclaimed or celebrated. It is now pretty generally understood to mean, or to express a wish, that the posterity of such should not be spoken of at all, impljdng both extinction and oblivion. 21. That the dovrnfall of the Babylonian power shall be perpetual, is now expressed by a command to slaughter the children of the king. Pre- ])are for his S071S a nlauffhter, for the iniquity of their fathers. Let them not arise and possess the earth, and Jill the face of the u-orld with cities. This verse is regarded by Gesenius, RoscnmuUer, Mam-er, and Umbi'eit, as the close of the triumphal song beginning in ver. 4. Hitzig and Hendewcrk suppose it to have closed in the preceding verse, as the address is no longer to the king of Babylon. Ewald extends it through ver. 23. But these distinctions rest upon a false assumption of exact and artificial structure. The dramatic form of the prediction is repeatedly shifted, so that the words of the triumphant Jews, of the dead, of the Prophet, and of God himself, succeed each other, as it were, insensibly, and without any attempt to make the points of the transition prominent. The command in the first clause is not addressed specifically to the Medes and Persians, but more indefi- nitely to the executioners of God's decree against Babylon, or, as Calvin calls them, his lictores ant carnijiccs. The reference is not to the children of Nebuchadnezzar or Belshazzar, as the Rabbins and others have assumed, but to the progeny of the ideal being who here represents the Babylonian monarch. Hitzig, Umbreit, and Ilendewerk, make n3tpp mean a place of slaughter (Schlachtbank), after the analogy of the cognate form natP. Gesenius and Ewald give it the general sense of massacre (Blutbad). There are three cqnstructions of the last clause authorised by usage. ^^79 ^^^.Y agree either with C'^J^, or with ^32, or with VJ3. The last is entitled to the preference, because it is the subject of the two preceding verbs. Cocccius, Vee. 22, 23.J ISAIAH XIV. 303 Hendewerk, Umbreit, and others make this last clause the expression of a hope or a promise — and (then) the world will (again) be full of cities — or, that the world may (again) be full of cities. Gesenius, who ascribes this construction to Von Colin, objects that it gives to 7? one half of its mean- ing (that), and rejects the other half {not). But the subjunctive construc- tion of the clause is a mere assimilation to the forms of occidental syntax. The Hebrew construction is, they shall not arise (or let them not arise), and the negative may either be confined to the first two verbs or extended to the third. The last, however, is more natural on account of the exact resemblance in the form of the two members, V>^ -^"^Ht and ^?n-^3? •Ix'^O.— The Targum, followed by the Kabbins, gives to DIlV the sense of enemies, as in 1 Sam. xxviii. 16, Ps. cxxxix. 20, and fill the face of the world with enemies or enemies fill the face of the world. This meaning of the word is adopted by Vitringa, Gesenius, RosenmilUer, and others. Hitzig reads C^y, ruins; Ewald,D"'Vny, tyrants; Knobel, C)''!?"!, wicked ones. Thebestsense, on the whole, is afibrded by the old interpretation given by the Vulgate and Saadias, and retained by Umbreit and Hendewerk, which takes Cmy in its usual sense as the plural of T'V, and understands the clause to mean, lest they overspread and colonise the earth. The objection that the Babylonians had been just before described as wasters and destroyers, cannot weigh against the constant usage of the word. 22. This verse contains an intimation that the destruction just predicted is to be the work not of man merely but of God, and is to comprehend not only the royal family but the whole population. And I (myself) will rise up against them (or upon tliem),saith Jehovah of hosts, and mil cut oj^ from Babylon (literally, ivith respect to Babylon) name, and remnant, and progeny, and offspring, saith Jehovah. The last four noims are put to- gether to express posterity in the most general and universal manner. i"'3 and 123 occur together in Gen. xxi. 31, Job xviii. 19. The specific mean- ing son and nephew {i.e. nepos, grandson), given in the Enghsh version and most of the early writers, and retained by Umbreit, is derived from the Chaldee paraphrase ("»3 "121 12). Aben Ezra makes the language still more definite by explaining ^^ to be a man himself, "^^^ a father, V^ a son, and 133 a grandson. This supposes "i57Q, is applied by Joscphus and other ancient writers to the whole land of Israel, from which comes our Palestine, employed in the same manner. The expression "=|?.3 is explained b}' Lowth to mean uilh one consent, while Henderson connects it with the negative in this sense, let not any part of thee. Most WTiters make it simply mean the whole of thee, perhaps with reference to Philistia as a union of several principalities. All in- terpreters agree that the Philistines are here spoken of as having recently escaped from the ascendancy of some superior power, but at the same Veb. 30.] ISAIAH XIV. 309 time threatened with a more complete subjection. The first of these ideas is expressed by the figure of a broken rod or staff", for the mean- ing of which vide siqyra ad. v. 5. The other is expressed by the very different figure of an ordinary serpent producing or succeeded by other varieties more venomous and deadly. On the natural history of the pas- sage, see the Hebrew Lexicons, Bochart's Hierozoicon, and RosenmUller's Alterthumskunde. Whatever be the particular species intended, the essen- tial idea is the same, and has never been disputed. Some, indeed, suppose a gi-aduation or climax in the third term also, the fiery flying serpent being supposed to be more deadly than the basilisk, as this is more so than the ordinary serpent. But most writers refer the suffix in VIS to tJTtJ, and regard the other two names as correlative or parallel. The transi- tion in the last clause from the figure of an animal to that of a plant may serve the double purpose of reminding us that what we read is figurative, and of shewing how unsafe it is to tamper with the text on the ground of mere rhetorical punctilios. As to the application of the figures, there are several different opinions. Jerome, and a long line of interpreters, including Hendewerk, suppose the broken staff to be the death of Ahaz. But he, so far from having smitten the Philistines, had been smitten by them. Kimchi, Abarbenel, Vitringa, and others, understand the first clause as referring to the death of Uzziah. But this had taken place more than thirty years before. Vitringa endeavours to remove this difficulty by supposing an ellipsis ; rejoice not in the death of him who smote you, and in the pros- perity which you have since enjoyed for many years. But this is wholly arbitrary. Others suppose Tiglath-pileser to be meant by the rod which smote them ; but for this there is no sufficient gi'ound in history. Gesenius applies the figures not to an individual, but to the Jewish power, which had been broken and reduced during the reign of Ahaz. The still more formidable domination threatened in the last clause he explains, not with the older writers to be that of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 18), but the re- covered strength of Judah. Hitzig and Ewald make the last clause a pre- diction of Assyrian invasion. Knobel adopts the same interpretation, but with this addition, that he understands the figure of the basilisk coming forth from the serpent as referring to the agency of Judah in procuring the Assyrian invasion of Philistia. Rosenmiiller refers this clause to the Messiah, in which he follows the Chaldee Paraphrase. " From among the sons of the sons of Jesse, the Messiah shall come forth, and his works shall be among you as fiery serpents." Some of the old writers suppose t^HJ to contain an allusion to one of the names of Jesse (2 Sam. xvii. 25). 30. And the first-born of the poor shall feed, and the needy in security lie down, and I will kill thy root with famine, and thy remnant it shall slay. The future condition of the Jews is here contrasted with that of the PhiHstines. The figures in the first clause are borrowed from a flock, in the second from a tree, but with obvious allusion to a human subject. The first-born of the poor is explained by the Targum and the Rabbins to mean the nobles of Judah, now despised by the PhiUstines. Calvin makes it a superlative ex- pression for the poorest and most wretched (quasi suis miseriis insignes), and this sense is approved by most of the later writers, some of whom refer to Job xviii. 13, for an analogous expression. Gesenius, however, is dis- posed to admit an allusion to the next generation, which would make the promise too remote, and leaves the expression of first-horn unexplained. Some writers needlessly amend the text. Thus J. D. MichaeUs makes the 3 in naa a preposition, and reads in my pastures, a conjecture recently re- 310 ISAIAH XIV. L^'ee. 31. newed by Ewald, who would point the word ''TI23 and make 12 a synonyme of "13. But an exposition which involves a change of text and the invention of a word to suit the place, and both without necessity, seems to have a twofold claim to be rejected. Equally gi-atuitous is Lowth's reading '''!!32, my choke first-fmits. Gesenius and De Wette supply nD37 in the first clause from the second, shall feed quietly. But the threat of famine in the other clause seems to shew that the prominent idea is abundance, as ex- pressed by the older wTiters. There is no need of taking root in the sense of stock or race. The figm-ative part of the last clause is bon-owed fi-om a tree, here divided into two parts, the root and the rest or remainder. Gesenius distinguishes between n"'nn and 3"in as terms which usage has appropriated to the act of God and man respectively. Hitzig makes the one mean lull in general, and the other more specifically kill with the sword (Jer. XV. 3). The third person JIH'' is by some regarded as a mere enallage personte, and referred like TlOn to God himself. Others refer it to the enemy mentioned in ver. 31, or the fiery serpent in ver. 30. Others prefer an indefinite construction, which is very common, and would here be entitled to the preference, were there not another still more simple. This makes Syi the subject of the last verb, so that what is first mentioned as an in- strument in God's hand, reappears in the last member of the sentence as an agent. 31. Howl, 0 f^nte! cry, 0 city! dissolved, O Philistia, is the whole of thee ; for out of the north a smoke comes, and there is no strarjyler in his forces. The Philistines are not only forbidden to rejoice, but exhorted to lament. The object of address is a single city representing all the rest. There is no ground for the opinion that Ashdod is particularly meant. It is rather a case of poetical individuahsation. Gate is not here put for the judges or nobles who were wont to sit there — nor is it even mentioned as the chief place of concourse — but rather with allusion to the defences of the city, as a parallel expression to city itself. The insertion of a preposition by the Targum and Kinichi — honi for the gate, cry for the city — is entirely un- authorised, and changes the whole meaning. The masculine form 3103 seems to have greatly perplexed interpreters. Some of the older writers supply £J'''K, others DV, and even Ewald says that we must be content to make it an infinitive. Knobel regards it as a mere anomaly or idiomatic licence of construction. Hitzig supposes a sudden transition from the third to the second person — it is dissolved, 0 whole Philistia. The true solution is that 3103 agrees regularly with i'S in "^?.3. This explanation, which Hen- dewerk admits to be as old as Maurer, is distincth' given by Cocceius (lique- factum est, PaLnestina, universum tui), and copied by Vitiiuga and J. H. Michaelis. Another idea ascribed to Maurer by Knobel — viz. that the smoke here meant is that of conflagrations kindled by the enemy— is at least as old as Clcricus. Some of the older writers understood it simply as an emblem for wrath or trouble. Lowth cites WrgiV s fuvwntes pid vcre campos, and supposes an allusion to the clouds of dust raised by an army on the march. This is adopted by Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Hendewcrk, and others ; but Hitzig and Knobel object to this interpretation of IV'V as unauthorised by Hebrew usage. Hitzig refers it to the practice of literally carrying fire in front of caravans to mark the course ; but this is objected to by others as peculiar to the desert and to straggling or divided bodies. It may be doubted, notwithstanding the allusion in the last clause, whether \^V was intended to refer to an army at all. If not, we may suppose with Calvin that smoke is mentioned merely as a sign of distant and approaching Yer. 32.] ISAIAH XIV. 311 fii-e, a natural and common metaphor for any powerful destroying agent. — *ini2 has been conjecturallj' explained in various ways, but is agreed by all the modern writers to mean properly alone or separated, and to be descrip- tive of the enemy with which Philistia is here threatened. Some give to VnyiQ the sense of the cognate 0^^113, yiz. appointed times, and understand it as referring to the orders under which the invading army acts. Most writers now, however, give it another sense of DnyVO, viz. assemblies, here applied specifically to an army. Thus understood the clause is descriptive of a compact, disciplined, and energetic host. A similar description we have had already in chap. v. 26-29, from which resemblance some infer that this passage muM relate to the Assyrians. Aben Ezra refers it to the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, Kimchi to the Jews under Hezekiah, and Cocceius to the Romans as the final conquerors of ichole Palestina, by which he understands the whole of what we now call Palestine, or at least Judea. Vitringa, who usually quotes the strangest notions of Cocceius wdth indulgent deference, appears to lose his patience at this point, and exclaims, " Hanc ego interpretationem totam suo relinquam loco, nee ejus amplius meminero ; est enim plane paradoxa et a communi sensu aliena." The diversity of judgments as to the particular enemy here meant, and the slightness of the grounds on which they severally rest, may sufiice to shew that the prophecy is really generic, not specific, and includes all the agencies and means by which the Philistines were punished for their constant and inveterate enmity to the chosen people, as well as for idolatry and other crimes. 32. And what shall one answer (what answer shall be given to) the ambassadors of a nationf That Jehovah has founded Z ion, and in it the afflicted of his people shall seek refuge. The meaning of the last clause is too clear to be disputed, viz., that God is the protector of his people. This is evidently stated as the result and sum of the whole prophecy, and as such is sufiiciently intelligible. It is also given, however, as an answer to ambas- sadors or messengers, and this has given rise to a great diversity of explana- tions. Instead of ambassadors (^^^7q the Septuagint seems to have read ^^^H, which it renders ^ hs(phc,. This read- ing and translation, which is also favoured by the Peshito, is adopted by Lowth: the very loins of Moab cry out. Other interpreters agree that it is the passive participle of nn, used as a noun in the sense of warriors or heroes, whether so called because drawn out for militaiy service, or as being strong, or girded and equipped, or disencumbered of unnecessaiy clothing. Aquila has e^w/xo/, with the arms or shoulders bare. There is peculiar sig- nificance in thus ascribing an unmanly terror to the very defenders of the country. Vitringa supposes an additional emphasis in the use of the verb •ly?'^, which may either mean a joyful or a mournful ciy, and by itself might here denote a battle-cry or war-shout. As if he had said, the warriors of Moab raise a cry, not of battle or defiance, but of grief and terror. The same natural expression of distress is ascribed by Homer to his heroes. [Vide infra, chap, xxxiii. 7). Cocceius is singular in making this an exhortatiori : let them raise the war-cry (vociferentur, classicum canant, barritum faciant, clamorem toUant, ut in praelioj. For ni?T the Septuagint reads nyi* (yvw- csrai), probably a mere inadvertence. The English Version and Lowth take tJ'QJ in the sense of life, other interpreters in that of soul. Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and Ewald, give to ^iV^ the sense of tremhling, from a kindred root in Arabic ; others with more probability that of being evil, i. e. ill at ease or suffering, in which the future corresponding to this preterite is frequently used elsewhere. Gesenius indeed refers that future to another root, but one of kindred origin, in which the essential idea is probably the same. The paronomasia in lyi'' and HJ?"!'' is copied in Gesenius's translation by combin- ing the words Uagen and verzaget. The similar terms are confounded by the Vulgate (ululabit sibi), and by Calvin, who understands the sense to be, that every one will be so occupied with his own grief as to disregard that of his neighbours. 5. 3Iy heart for Moah cries out— her fugitives (are fled) as far as Zoar — an heifer of three years old— for he that goes up Luhith with weeping goes up hy it — for in the umy of Roronaim a cry of destruction they lift up. Every part of this obscure verse has given rise to some diversity of exposition. It has been made a question whose words it contains. Junius connects it with the close of the preceding verse and understands it to contain the words of the warriors there mentioned, endeavouring to rally and recall the fugitives. Others suppose the Moabites in general, or some indi\idual among them, to be here the speaker. Cocceius doubts whether these are not the words of God himself. Calvin supposes the Prophet to be speak- ing in the person and expressing the feelings of a Moabite. All these hypotheses appear to have arisen from an idea that the Prophet cannot be supposed to express sympathy with these sinners of the Gentiles. But such expressions are not only common elsewhere, but particularly frequent in this part of Isaiah. {Vide infra chaps, xvi. 11, xxi. 3, 4, xxii. 5). Hitzig suggests, as a possible but not as a probable construction of the first words, My heart (is) towards Moah (who) is crying, &c., as in Judges ver. 9. Sorue older writers understand the words to mean my heart cries to Moab, as m 1 Chron. ver. 20. Gesenius gratuitously cites other cases in which ? has the sense of /or, on account of, given to it here by Aben Ezra (^^^10 "lUy^). The particle is here used in its proper sense as indicating general relation, ■as to, with respect to, and simply points out Moab as the subject or occa- 31G • ISAIAH XV. iYer. 5. sion of the cry, Ewald and others make pW mean — to complain or lament, which is neither so exact nor so expressive as the literal translation. Instead oi m\j heart some read his heart, others simply /ie«>Y. Thus Lo\\-th ; the heart of Moab crieth in her, after the Septuagint (sv oclrfj). The Peshito seems to have read ini"l3 iu his spirit. The common text itself is variously explained. According to the usual analogj', it means her hars, and the Vulgate accordingly has vectes ejus. By this some understand the cities of Moab, others its barriers or frontier posts, others its guardians or protectors. Most of the modern wTiters follow Saadias and Kimchi, who explain the word to mean her fugitives. The only objection to this explanation is the absence of the long vowel under the first letter. Zoar, one of the cities of the plain, preserved by Lot's intercession, is now ascertained to have been situated on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, near its south- em extremity, and at the foot of the mountains. (Robinson's Palestine, ii. 480, 648). It is here mentioned as an extreme southern point, but not without allusion, as Vitringa with great probability suggests, to Lot's escape from the destruction of Sodom. The next phrase (n"'t^'?t^ npjy) is famous as the subject of discordant explanations. These may however be reduced to tM-o classes, those which regard the words as proper names, and those which regard them as appellatives. J. D. Michaelis supposes two places to be mentioned, Ecjlath and Shelishiyyah ; but of the latter there is no trace in geography or history. Doederlein conjectures that the city Eglath con- sisted of three towns, and that the Hebrew n'P*?*^ is the same as the Greek rgmoXig or tiifle city. But the former no where else means threefold, but always third. According to Lightfoot, the phrase means Eglah, or Eylath the Third^ so called to distinguish it from Ecjlaim or En-eglaim, a place in the same region, mentioned in Ezek. xlvii. 10, " where Eglaim is plainly of the dual number and seems to intimate that there were tw'o Egels, with rela- tion to which our Eglah may be called Eglah the Third." (Lightfoot's Cho- rographical Inquiry, chap. iii. § 8). "With this may be compared Bamathaim which is also dual (1 Sam. i. 2), and Upper and Nether Beth-horon (Josh, xvi, 3, 5). Lightfoot compares this Eglah the Third with the NsxXa of Ptolemy, and the " AyaXXa of Josephus, both mentioned in connection with Zoar, (Zwaca) and the latter with Horonaim {'n^mai). The Ejlun vcl^i'^/ ^^ Abulfeda, meaning calves or heifers, may be another name for the same place, which must then have been situated beyond the northern boundary of Moab, and be mentioned here in order to convey the idea that the fugitives had fled iu opposite dh-ections. Of the late translators, De Wette, Henderson, and Ewald retain the Hebrew words as a proper name, Eglath- Shelishiyah. On the other hand, all the ancient versions, and the gi'eat majority of modern writers, regard the words in question as appellatives, and all agi-ee in rendering the first of the two heifer. The other is explained by Jarchi to mean the third in the order of birth, with reference to some supposed superiority in that class. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Umbreit, under- stand it to mean third-rale, of the third order, /. e. inferior (compare Dan. v. 29; 1 Sam. xv. 9), and as here applied to a heifer, lean, ill-favoured, a figure borrowed from the pastoral habits of the people in that region to express the smallness of the city Zoar, which was so called because it was a little one (Gen. xix. 20, 22). It is plain however that third can have this meaning only in case of a direct comparison with something of the first and second rank. Besides, what has the si/.e of Zoar to do with this pathetic description of the flight of Moab ? The great majority of voices Ver. 5.] ISAIAH XV. 317 is in favour of the meaning three years old, or retaining the form of the original more closely, a heifer of the third (year). A cognate participle {fW7"\^^) is used in this sense and in connection with this very noun (Gen. XV. 9). By a heifer three years old, Gesenius understands one that has never yet been tamed or broken, according to Pliny's maximum, domilura bourn in trimatu, postea sera, antea prcematura. Now as personal afflic- tions are sometimes likened to the taming of animals (Jer. xxxi. 18; Hosea X. 11), and as communities and governments are often represented by the figure of a heifer (Jer. xlvi. 20, 1. 11 ; Hosea iv. 16), the expressions thus in- terpreted would not be inappropriate to the state of Moab, hitherto flourish- ing and uncontrolled, but now three years old and subjected to the yoke. Some of the older interpreters suppose this statement of the age to have refe- rence to the voice of the animal, which is said by Bochart to be deepest at that age, and according to Aristotle, stronger in the female than the male. There is still a doubt, however, with respect to the application of the simile, as last explained. Bochart refers it to the Prophet himself. " My heart cries for Moab (for her fugitives to Zoar), as a heifer three years old." Vitringa refers it to the fugitives of Moab, who escape to Zoar, crying like a heifer three years old. — ilpyo is commonly a noun denoting an ascent or rising ground. It is translated hill in the English version of 1 Sam. ix. 11, and ascent in that of Num. xxxiv. 4, and 2 Sam. xv. 30, which last place is strikingly analogous to this. The construction commonly adopted makes n?yo an absolute nominative : " The ascent of Luhith (or as to the ascent of Luhith) with weeping one ascends it." It is possible, however, to make n?yD a participle or a participial noun — "the ascender of Luhith (i. e. he who ascends it) with weeping ascends by it." The parallel passage (Jer. xlviii. 5) instead of 13 repeats ''??. This is regarded by the latest writers as an error in transcription of ^22 for ^2 13. The Septuagint has 'jrfog si dva(3r](rovrai, which implies still another reading (13), It is a curious and instruc- tive fact that J. D. Michaelis corrects the text of Isaiah by comparison with Jeremiah, while Lowth, with equal confidence, inverts the process and declares the text in Jeremiah to be unmeaning. Luhith is mentioned only here and in Jer. xlviii. 5. Eusebius describes it as a village still called Aovs'i^, between Areopolis and Zoar, which Jerome repeats but calls it Luitha. The article before fT'llI? is explained by Gesenius as having reference to the meaning of the name as an appellative, the hoarded (town), but by Henderson with more probability as properly belonging to H^yD. (See Gesenius, § 109, 1). Horonaim is mentioned only here and in Jer. xlviii. 3, 5, 34. The name originally means two caverns, and is near akin to Beth-horon, locus civitatis (Gesenius, Thes. I. 195, 459). As Jeremiah instead of "^yj} way, has T^l^ descent, it is not improbable that Luhith and Horonaim were on opposite faces of the same hill, so that the fugitives on their way to Zoar, after going up the ascent of Luhith, are seen going down the descent of Horonaim. A cry of breakiuy is explained by some of the rabbinical interpreters as meaning the explosive sound produced by clapping the hands or smiting the thigh. Others understand it to mean a cry of contrition, i. e. a penitent and humble cry. Gill suggests that it may mean a broken cry, i. e. one interrupted by sighs and sobs. Gesenius makes it mean a cry as of destruction, t. e. a loud and bitter cry ; Kiiobel, a cry (on account) of destruction. It is possible, however, that 1?^ may be men- tioned as the very word uttered, like DOn in other cases. The very unusual form nyy is by some regarded as a transposition for lyyT* from VV^. But 318 ISAIAH Xr. [Ver. 6. the rabbins and the latest writers are agreed that it is a derivative of 1iy. The former suppose an anomalous reduplication of the first radical. The latter regard it as a Pilpel for 1"iyiy\ either by error of transcription or euphonic change. (See Ewald, § 237, 1.) There is no absurdity in the conjecture of Cocceius that this strange form was employed here in allusion to the names "iV ^^^ '^V.'V,, Moabitish cities. Junius supposes, still more boldly, that the Prophet wishing to say cry, instead of using any ordinary word, invented the cacophonous one now in question, as in keeping with the context and the feelings it expresses. 6. jPor the waters of Nimrivi (are and) shall he desolations ; for withered is the grass, gone is the herbage, verdure there is none. According to Vit- ringa, this verse gives a reason for the grief described in ver. 5 as prevail- ing in the south of Moab. Maurer makes it an explanation of the flight in that direction. Hendewerk supposes the description to be here at an end, and a statement of the causes to begin. It seems more natural, however, to suppose, w'ith Ewald and some older writers, that the description is itself continued, the desolation of the country being added to the cap- ture of the cities and the flight of the inhabitants. Auri^dllius, in his dis- sertation on this passage, explains D^IDJ as an appellative, meaning as in Ai-abic clear, limpid waters. But all other writers understand it as a proper name. Grotius takes ''^ in the sense of pastures, which it never has. Lightfoot suggests that the waters meant may be the hot springs of this region, mentioned by Josephus, and perhaps the same with those of ^hich Moses speaks in Gen. xxxvi. 24, according to the best interpretation of that passage. It is more probably explained by Junius as the name of streams which met there (rivorum confiuentium), and by others still more generally as denoting both the springs and running streams of that locality. Junius supplies a preposition before waters (ad aquas Nimrimorum desola- tiones erunt), but the tine construction makes it the subject of the verb. The same writer understands the plural form as here used to denote the waters meeting at Nimrah or Beth-nimrah. But it is now agreed that Nimrim is another name for the town itself, which is mentioned in Num. xxxii. 3, 3G, and Josh. xiii. 27 as a town of Gad. Vitringa's assumption of another town in the south of Moab rests on his misconception of the nexus between this verse and the fifth. Bochart derives the name from "ipj a panther, but the true etymology is no doubt that already mentioned. Forerius explains HIDti'D as denoting an object of astonishment and horror, but the common sense of desolations is no doubt the true one. Most writers since Vitringa understand the Prophet as alluding to the practice of stopping fountains and wasting fields in war. (Compare 2 Kings iii. 19, 25.) But Ewald and others suppose an allusion to the efiects of drought. This is a question which the Prophet's own words leave undecided. The second ^3 is translated so that by Luther, and by the Septuagint, hecause by the Vulgate, yea by Augusti, while Calvin omits both. The translation of the fii'st verb as a future and the others as preterites seems to make the deso- lation of the waters not the cause but the etlect of the decay of vegetation. It is better, therefore, to adopt the present or descriptive form throughout the verse, as all the latest writers do. "l^^n is not hay, as Luther and the English version give it, but mature grass, t^ti'T the springing herbage, p"l* greenness or verdure in general. Ewald and Henderson neglect the distinc- tion between the last two words. The whole is given with great precision in the Vulgate : herba, germen, virur. The Septuagint also has x'^f^-^ Ver. 7, 8.] ISAIAH XV. 319 7. Therefore (because the country can no longer be inhabited) the re- mainder of ivhat (each), one has made (i.e. acquired), and their hoard [ov store), over the brook of the willoics they carry them away. Not one of the ancient versions has given a coherent or intelligent rendering of this obscure sentence. Jerome suggests three different interpretations of C^'iy 713 ; first, the brook of the Ai-abiaus or of the Ravens (D^^'^y) who fed Elijah ; then, the brook of the willows in the proper sense ; and lastly, Babylon, the plains of which were full of willows (Ps. cxxxvii. 2). The first of these is adopted by J. D. Michaelis, who translates it liahenbach (Ravenbrook) ; the last by Bochart, Vitringa, and others ; the second by most interpreters. A new interpretation is proposed by Hitzig, viz. brook or valley of the deserts, supposed to be the same with the brook or valley of the plain men- tioned, Amos vi. 14. It is now commonly agreed that whatever be the meaning of the name, it denotes the Wady el Ahsa of Burckhardt (the Wady el Ahsy of Robinson and Smith), running into the Dead Sea near its southern extremity, and forming the boundary between Kerek and Gebal, corresponding to the ancient Moab and Edom. — mn'' may either mean what is left by the enemy, or the sm'plus of their ordinary gains. The D in DIKE^^ is regarded by Henderson as the old termination of the verb. All other writers seem to look upon it as the suffix referring to Hin'' and nnpS, which are then to be construed as nominatives absolute. The older writers make the enemy the subject of the verb ; the moderns the Moabites them- selves. On the whole, the most probable meaning of the verse is that the Moabites shall carry what they can save of their possessions into the adja- cent land of Edom. — Kimchi points out an ellipsis of the relative before ntJ*y, precisely similar to that in our colloquial English. Clericus coolly inserts not and enemies in the first clause, both which he says are necessary to the sense. 8. The lamentation is not confined to any one part of the countiy. For the cry goes round the border of Moab ( i. e. entirely surrounds it) ; even to Eglaim (is) its holding (heard), and to Beer Elim its hoivUng. The mean- ing, as Hendewerk observes, is not that the land is externally surrounded by lamentation, but that lamentation fills it. Vatablus understands the cry here spoken of to be the shout of battle, contrary to usage and the context. Piscator makes ^pJ^ mean the confluence of the Arnon or the streams that form it, called P^l^^ Dvll^n in Num. xxi. 14, and connected there with Beer. All others understand it as the name of a town. Rosen- miiller and Gesenius identify it with the ' AyaXXst/jb of Eusebius, eight miles south of Areopolis , and not far from the southern boundary of Moab. Josephus also mentions "AyaXXa in connection with Zoar. As these, however, must have been within the Moabitish territory, Hitzig and the later German writers make E'/y/^am the same with En-eglaim (Ezek. xlvii. 10). The dif- ferent orthography of the two names is noticed by none of these intei^pre- ters ; and Henderson, who adopts the same opinion, merely says that " the change of ^ and V is too frequent to occasion any difficulty." — £cer Elim, the well of the mighty ones or heroes, the same that "the princes and nobles of the people digged with their staves " (Numb. xxi. 18). This explanation, suggested by Junius, is adopted by Vitringa and the later writers, as the situation in Numbers agrees well with the context here. The word ''"?i<2 (substantially equivalent to ^'''^ and D^SHJ, the words used in Numbers) may have been specially applied to the chiefs of Moab, as the phrase ^^51'2 V.^ occurs in the song of Miriam, Exod. xv. 15. The map- 320 ISAIAH XV. [Ver. 9. pik in the final letter of nn77* is wanting in some manuscripts and editions. Aurivillius regards it as a paragogic termination (compare Ps. iii. 3, cxxv. 3), but other interpreters follow the ancient versions in making it a suffix re- feiTing to ]\Ioab. Henderson needlessly departs in two points from the form of the original, by introducing a masculine pronoun (his wailing), and by varj-ing the last noun (wailing, lamentation) on the ground that the repeti- tion would have a bad effect in English. The suffix in nn??* may possibly refer to npyt and mean the howling sound of it {i. e. the cry). 9. The expressions grow still stronger. Not only is the land full of tumult and disorder, fear and flight ; it is also stained with carnage and threatened with new" evils. For the ivaters of Dimon are full of blood ; for I rvill hrinrf upon Dimon additions (i. e. additional evils), on the escaj)ed (literally, the escape) of Moab a lion ; and on the remnant of the land (those left in it, or remaining of its population). It is an ingenious con- jecture of Junius that the Dimon is the stream mentioned 2 Kings iii. 20, 22, in which case the meaning of the clause would be, this stream shall not be merely red as it then was, but really full of blood. Jerome says, however, that the town Dihon, mentioned in ver. 2, was also called Dimon in his day, by a common permutation of the labials. The latter form may have been preferred, in allusion to the word D"^ following. According to this view, the Prophet here returns to the place first named, and ends where he began. By the waters of Dimon or Dibon, most wTiters under- stand the Arnon, near the north bank of which the town was built, as the river Kishon is called the ivaters of Megiddo (Judges v. 19). Hitzig thinks it more probable that there was a pool or reservoir at Dibon, as there was at Heshbon according to Cant. vii. 5, and according to modern travellers at Mab and Medeba likewise. Those who take Dimon as the name of a river give to mDD13 the specific meaning of more blood. Grotius explains it, I will give a new reason for its being called Dimon (i.e. bloody). Gesenius also admits the probability of such an allusion, on the ground that the verb HPJ, from which riiSDIJ is derived, often includes the meaning of some pre- ceding word (Job XX. 9, xxxiv. 32). Grotius and Bochart understand the last clause literally as a threat that God would send lions (or according to Piscator, wild beasts in general) to destroy the people, a judgment else- where threatened (Lev. xxvi. 22 ; Jer. xv. 8) and inflicted (2 lungs xvii. 25, 26). But the later writers seem agi'eed that this is a strong figurative expression for the further evils to be suffered at the hand of human enemies. Hitzig supposes Judah to be called a lion in allusion to the prophecy in Gen. xlix. 9. Cocceius and Vitringa understand it to mean Nebuchad- nezzar, whose conquest of the Moabites, though not historically recorded, may be gathered from such passages as Jer. iv. 7, xlix. 28, xxv. 11-21, xxvii. 3, G. In itself the figure is applicable to any conqueror, and may be indefinitely understood, not in reference however to the same inflictions just described, as Rosenmiiller and Gesenius think, but with respect to new inflictions not specifically mentioned though distinctly intimated in the word niSDIJ. The Septuagint makes •T'lN and HDIN both proper names, Ariel and Admah. According to Jerome and Theodoret, Ar or Arcopohs was sometimes called Ariel, while Moab as descended from Lot might be described as the remnant or survivor of Admah, one of the cities of the plain. Both these interpretations are adopted by Lowth, and the last by Cocceius and J. D. Michaelis. Vee. l.j ISAIAH XVI. 321 CHAPTEE XVI. This chapter opens with an exhortation to the Moabites to seek protec- tion from their enemies by renewing their allegiance to the house of David, accompanied by an intimation that this prospect of deliverance would not in fact be realised, vers. 1-6. From this transient gleam of hope, the pro- phecy reverts to a description of the general desolation and distress, in form almost identical with that in the foregoing chapter, vers. 7-12. The pro- phecy then closes with a specification of the time at which it was to be ful- filled, vers. 18, 14. The needless division of the prophecy at this point seems to have some connection with an old opinion that the lamb mentioned in ver. 1 is Christ. A similar cause appears to have afi'ected the division of the second, third, and fourth chapters. 1. In their extremity, the Moabites exhort one another to return to their allegiance to the family of David, by whom they were subdued and ren- dered tributary (2 Sam. viii. 2). When the kingdom was divided, they continued in subjection to the ten tribes till the death of Ahab, paying yearly, or perhaps at the accession of every new king, a tribute of a hun- dred thousand lambs and as many rams with the wool (2 Kings iii. 4, 5). After the kingdom of the ten tribes was destroyed, their allegiance could be paid only to Judah, who had indeed been all along entitled to it. Send ye the lamb {i.e. the customary tribute) to the ruler of the land (your rightful sovereign) from Sela (or Petra) to the wilderness, to the mountain of the daughter of Zion. Hitzig and Maurer regard these as the words of the Edomites, with whom they suppose the Moabites to have taken refuge. Petra, it is true, was an Idumean city (2 Kings xiv. 7) ; but it may at this time have been subject to the Moabites, by one of the fluctuations con- stantly taking place among these minor powers, or it may be mentioned as a frontier town, for the sake of geographical specification. The older writers understand these as the words of the Prophet himself; but Knobel objects that both the Prophet and the Edomites must have known that the course here recommended would be fruitless. It is best to understand them, therefore, as the mutual exhortations of the Moabites themselves in their confusion and alarm. This is also recommended by its agreement with what goes before and after. The verse then really continues the description of the foregoing chapter. The Septuagint and Peshito render the verb in the first person singular, I will send. The latter also instead of "13 reads "13. This reading is approved by Lowth and J. D. Michaelis, who understand the verse as meaning that even if the son of the ruler of the land (i. e. of the king of Moab) should go upon an embassy of peace to Jerusalem, he would not obtain it. Others suppose the flight of the king's son to be mentioned as an additional trait in the prophetic picture. But this departure from the common text is wholly unnecessary. Forerius and Malvenda suppose 13 to mean a battering-ram, or take it as a figura- tive term for soldiery or military force. Calvin understands by it a sacri- ficial lamb to be offered to Jehovah as the ruler of the earth, in token of repentance and submission. Most other writers understand the tribute of lambs paid by Moab to the kings of Israel, and Barnes combines this sense with that before it, by supposing that the Jews exacted lambs from tribu- tary powers, in order to supply the altar with victims. Jerome puts ^K'D VOL. I. X- 322 ISAIAH Xri. [Ver. 2. in apposition with "I3, and understands the verse as a prayer or a predic- tion, that God would send forth Christ, the lamb, the ruler of the land (or earth). Others take "P'^O as a vocative, used collectively for D"'7i;^D ; send, O ye rulers of the land. Most modem writers make it either a genitive (the lainh of the ruler), i. e. due, belonging to him, or a dative {to or for the ruler of the land), a common construction after verbs expressing or imply- ing motion. Clericus supposes the ruler of the land to be Nebuchadnezzar as the conqueror of Judah. Sela, which properly denotes a rock, is now commonly agreed to be here used as the name of the city Fetra, the ancient capital of Idumea, so called because siu-rounded by impassable rocks, and to a gi'eat extent hewn in the rock itself. It is described by Strabo, Diodorus, and Joscphus as a place of extensive trade. The Greek form nsr^a is supposed to have given name to Arabia Peticea in the old geography. If so, the explanation of that name as meaning stony, and as descriptive of the soil of the whole country, must be incorrect. Petra was conquered by Trajan, and rebuilt by Hadrian, on whose coins its name is still extant. It was afterwards a bishop's see, but had ceased to be in- habited before the time of the crusades. It was then entirely lost sight of, until Burckhardt, in 1812, verified a conjecture of Seetzen's, that the site of Petra was to be sought in the valley called the Wady Musa, one or two days' journey south-east of the Dead Sea. It was afterwards explored by Irby and Mangles, and has since been often ^^sited and described. See in particular Kobinson's Palestine, ii. 573-580. Grotius supposes Petra to be mentioned as an extreme point, from Petra to the wilderness, i. e. throughout the whole extent of Moab. Ewald understands it to be named as the most convenient place for the purchase of the lambs required. Vitringa supposes that the Moabites fed their flocks in the wilderness by which Petra was surrounded. Luther's translation, from the xinlderness, is wholly inconsistent with the form of the original. The construction given by some of the old writers, Sela of the wilderness, disregards the local or directive H, That of Gesenius and other recent writers, through or along the wilderness, is also a departure from the foi'm of the original, which can only mean from Petra to the wilderness (and thence) to mount Zion (or Jerusalem.) Jerome explains the whole verse as a prediction of Christ's descent from Euth the Moabitess, the lamb, the rider of the land, sent forth from the rock of the wilderness ! The Targum paraphrases ruler of the land by the Messiah (or anointed) of Israel, which may possibly mean nothing more than king. 2. This verse assigns the ground or reason of the exhortation in the one before it. And it shall be (or come to pass) like a bird wandering, (like) a nest cast out, shall be the daughters of Moab, the fords of Arnon. The construction cast out from the nest is inconsistent with the form of the original. Ne>it may be understood as a poetical term for its contents. The nidi edaces of Virgil arc analogous. There are three interpretations of 3X10 ni33, 1. The first gives the words the geographical sense of villages or dependent towns. {Vide supra, chap. iii. IG, iv. 4.) To this it has been objected that HI has this sense only when it stands in connection with the metropolis or mother city. Ewald and Hitzig modify this inter- pretation by making daughters mean the several communities or neigh- bourhoods of which the nation was composed. 2. The second explanation makes it mean the people generally, hero called daughters, as the whole population is elsewhere called daughter. 3. The third gives the words their strict sense as denoting the female inhabitants of Moab, whose flight Ver. 3.] ISAIAE XVI. 323 and sufferings are a sufficient index to the state of things. In the absence of any conclusive reason for dissenting from this strict and proper sense of the expi-essions, it is entitled to the preference. n"i"l2yo is not a participle agreeing with HIJl, passing (or when they pass) the Anion ; nor does it mean the two sides of the river, but its fords or passes. Ewald supposes it to be put for the dwellers near the river, which is arbitrary. Some sup- pose it to be governed by a preposition understood, or to be used absolutely as a noun of place, while others put it in apposition with ri1J3, "the daughters of Moab, the fords of Arnon." The ? in the last word denotes possession — the fords which belong to Arnon. This is mentioned as the principal stream of Moab. Whether at this time it ran through the coun- try, or was its northern boundary, is doubtful. 3. Most of the older writers, from Jerome downwards, understand this verse as a continuation of the advice to the Moabites, in which they are urged to act with prudence as well as justice, to take counsel {i. e. provide for their own safety) as well as execute judgment (*. e. act right towards others). In other words, they are exhorted to prepare for the day of their own calamity, by exercising mercy towards the Jews in theirs. Calvin adopts this general -^dew of the meaning of the verse, but interprets it ironically as he does the first, and understands the Prophet as intending to reproach the Moabites sarcastically for their cruel treatment of the Jewish fugitives in former times. This forced interpretation, which is certainly unworthy of its author, seems to have found favour with no other. It is not the first case in which Calvin has allowed his exposition to be marred by the gratuitous assumption of a sarcastic and ironical design. Gesenius and most of the later writers follow Saadias in regarding this verse as the lan- guage of the Moabitish suppliants or messengers, addressed to Judah. 1X''3n n^y they explain to mean bring counsel, i.e. counsel us, and execute justice^ i. e. treat us justly. Hitzig takes n"?vQ in the sense of intervention (inter- pose between the parties), Maurer in that of intercession, Hendewerk in that of decision. Accordhig to Aben Ezra, HVy 1N''2n means apply or exercise your understanding (Ps. xc. 12) ; according to Vitringa, apply prudence to your conduct, i. e. regulate it prudently. The explanation of the verse as the words of the Moabites addressed to the Jews, is favoured by the foregoing context, which relates throughout to the sufferings of Moab, whereas on the other supposition, the Prophet suddenly exhorts the sufferers to harbour the fugitives of that very nation, with whom they had themselves been exhorted to seek refuge. This interpretation also relieves us from the necessity of determining historically what particular affliction of the Israelites or Jews is here referred to, a question which has occasioned much perplexity, and which can be solved only by conjecture. According to Vitringa, the passage refers to the invasion of Reuben, Gad, and Manas- seh, by Tiglath-Pileser in the fourth year of Ahaz (2 Kings xv. 29), and also to the invasion of Judah by the Edomites about the same time (2 Chron. xxviii. 17). Others refers the passage to Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, and others to that of Nebuchadnezzar. Knobel supposes the object of address to be the Edomites. As noonday heat is a common oriental figure to denote distress (Isa, iv. 6, xxv. 4, xxxii. 2), so a shadow is relief from it. Possibly, however, the allusion here is to the light of noonday, and the shadow dark as night denotes concealment. If so, the clause is equivalent in meaning to the one which follows. Some of those who adopt the other sense suppose a climax in the sentence. Relieve, refresh the sufferers — or at least conceal them — or if that is too much to ask, at least do not betray them. 324 ISAIAH XYI. [Ver. 4, 5. 4. Let my outcdds, Muuh, sojourn uith thee ; be thou a covert (refuge or hiding-place) to them from the face (or presence) of the spoiler (or oppressor) : for the extortioner is at an end, oppression has ceased, consumed are the tramplers out of the land. Here, as in the preceding verse, the sen^e de- pends upon the object of address. If it he Moab, as the older writers held, the outcasts referred to are the outcasts of Israel. If the address be to Israel, the outcasts are those of Moab. l^he latter interpretation seems to be irreconcileable with the phrase ^^51D '•n'^J. Gesenius disregards the accent and supposes an ellipsis before Moab : my outcasts, even those of Moab. So also HosenmiiUer and Hendewerk. The other recent German writers follow Lowth in reading SNIJD "•H'it? oidcasts oflloab, a construction found in all the ancient versions. Maui'er, without a change of vowels, explains ^n"!? as an old form of the plural construct. Calvin gives the verbs in the last clause a past or present sense, and supposes the first clause to be ironical. As if he had said, " Yes, give them shelter and protection now, now when their oppressor is destroyed, and they have no need of assistance. Ewald also takes the preterite strictly, but understands the second clause to mean tbat the Moabites were encouraged thus to ask aid of Judah, be- cause the former oppressive government had ceased there, and a better reign begun, more fully described in the next verse. But most interpreters, ancient and modern, give the verbs in this last clause a future sense. As if he had said, " Give the fugitives a shelter ; they will not need it long, for the extortioner will soon cease," &c. This gives an appropriate sense, whether the words be addressed to Israel or Moab. Some who adopt the same construction supply the ellipsis in another way. " Fear not to shelter them, for the oppressor will soon cease," &c. Knobel explains the clause as an assurance, on the part of the Moabites, that they would no longer vex or oppress Edom, to whom he imagines that the words are ad- dressed. The collective construction of DO") with Wri is not uncommon in the case of participles. (Ewald, § 599.) 5. This verse contains a promise, that if the Jews afforded shelter to the fugitives of Moab, their own government should be strengthened by this exercise of mercy, and their national prosperity promoted by the appearance of a king in the family of David, who should possess the highest qualifica- tions of a moral kind for the regal office. And a throne shall be established in mercy ; and one shall sit upon it in truth in the tent of David, judying and scekiny justice, and prompt in equity. Knobel supposes the throne here meant to be that of the Jewish viceroy in Edom, called a t^DL", to distinguish him from the ?t;'D or lord paramount. Clericus fancies an allusion to Geda- liah, who was appointed viceroy of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Barnes, who follows the old writers in making Moab the object of address, under- stands this as a promise that the Jewish government would hereafter exercise kindness towards the Moabites. Grotius understands this verse as a pro- mise to the Moabites that their throne should be established (if they har- boured the Jewish refugees) /// the tabernacle of Varid, i. e. under the shadow or protection of his family. But the tabernacle of David has no doubt the same meaning here as the analogous expression in Amos ix. 11. Barnes's translation, citadel of ] Javid, is entirely gratuitous. Most Nvriters understand it as a promise of stability to Judah itself. Some suppose a reference to Hezekiah ; but the analogy of other cases makes it probable that the words were intended to include a reh'rence to all the good kings of the house of David, not excepting the last king of that race, to whom God was to give the throne of his father David, who was to reign over the house Ver. 6, 7.] ISAIAH XVI. 325 of Jacob for ever, and of whose kingdom there should be no end" (Luke i. 82, 33). Hence the indefinite expression one sliall sit, i. e. there shall always be one to sit on David's throne. It is true that J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans make y^\ agree with tSS'C' as a noun — there shall sit thereon a judge, &c. But this construction is forbidden by the position of the latter word, and by its close connection with ^''h, which can only be construed as a participle. 6. We have heard the pride of Moah, the vertj i^roud, his haughtiness, and his pride, and his wrath, the falsehood of his pretensions. Those writers who suppose Moab to be addressed in the preceding verses, understand this as a reason for believing that he will not follow the advice just given. As if he had said, " It is vain to recommend this merciful and just course, for we have heard," &c. But the modern writers who regard what immediately precedes as the language addressed by the Moabitish fugitives to Judah, explain this as a reason for rejecting their petition. In the second clause the English Version supplies the substantive verb, he is very proud. A simpler constniction is adopted by most writers, which connects it imme- diately with what precedes. Knobel makes it agree with |15npD is eiToneously ascribed by Barnes to Ivimchi. Solomon Ben Melcch makes it mean the palace of the king, and Jarehi applies HDZn "Py nX73 to the weari- ness of the defenders with fighting from the towers. According to the true interpretation of the verse, the last clause may either represent the wor- shipper as passing from the open high place to the shrine or temple where his god resided, in continuation of the same I'eligious service, or it may re- present him as abandoning the ordinarj^ altars, and resorting to some noted temple, or to the shrine of some chief idol, such as Chemosh (1 Kmgs xi. 17). The Septuagint refers /'^V to the idol (he shall not be able to deliver him), but as this had not been previously mentioned, the construction is a harsh one. As applied to Moab, it does not mean that he should not be able to re pride, in order to obtain a parallel expression to *Tl33. The glory of Israel is not Samaria, nor does it denote wealth or population exclusively, but all (that constitutes the gi-eatuess of a people. {Vide supra, chap. v. 14). Jerome and others regard glory as an irouical and sarcastic expression ; but it seems to mean simply what is left of their former glory. 4. And it shall he (or come to pass) in that day, the glory of Jacoh shall he hroughl low (or made weak), and the fatness of his flesh shall be made lean. This is not a mere transition from Syria to Ephraim, nor a mere extension of the previous threatenings to the latter, but an explanation of the comparison in the verse preceding. The remnant of Ephraim was to be like the gloiy of Israel ; but how was that ? This verse contains the answer. Glory, as before, includes all that constitutes the strength of a people, and is here contrasted with a state of weakness. The same idea is expressed in the last claitse by the figure of emaciation. The image, as Gill saj'S, is that of " a man in a consumption, that is become a mere skele- ton, and reduced to skin and bones." Jacob does not mean Judah (Eich- horn) but the ten tribes. Hendewerk refers the suffix iu the last clause to 1"I33, and infers that the latter must denote a human subject. Junius re- gards the sentence as unfinished: " in the day when the glory, &c., then shall it be (ver, 5), &c." Cocceius makes this the beginning of a promise of deliverance to Judah : ** in that day, it is true (quidem), the glory of Jacob shall be reduced," &c., but (ver. 5) &c. Both these constructions supply something not expressed, and gratuitously suppose a sentence of un- usual length, 5. And it shall he like the gathering (or as one gathers) the harvest, the standing corn, and his arm reaps the ears. And it shall he like one collect- ing ears in the valley of Rephaim. The first verb is not to be rendered he shall he {i. e. Israel, or the king of Assp*ia), but to be construed imperson- ally, it shall he or co7ne to pass. Some suppose the first clause to describe the act of reaping, and the second that of gleaning. Others regard both as descriptive of the same act, a particular place being mentioned in the last clause to give life to the description. The valley of Rephaim or the Giants j extends from Jerusalem to the south-west in the direction of Bethlehertu/ There is a difference of opinion as to the purpose for which it is here men- tioned. Aben Ezra and Ewald suppose it to be named as a barren spot, producing scanty harvests, and gleanings in proportion. Most writers, on the contrary, assume it to have been remarkably fertile. Vitringa imagines at the same time an allusion to the level surface, as admitting of a more complete and thorough clearing by the reaper than uneven grounds. If we consider the passage without reference to imaginary fiicts, the most natural conclusion is that the valley of Rephaim was mentioned as a spot near to Jerusalem, and well known to the people, for the purpose of giving a specific character to the general description or allusion of the first clause. There Ter. 6.j ISAIJH XVII. 335 is no proof that it was remarkable either for fertility or barrenness. Some of the "commentators represent it as now waste ; but Robinson speaks of it en passant, as " the cultivated valley or plain of Rephaim." (Palestine, i. 323). Some refer ^DS to the act of gathering the stalks in one hand, in order to cut them with the other ; but this is a needless refinement. The Hebrew verb probably denotes the whole act of reaping. There are several different ways of construing ^^p. Some make HDp agree with it as a femi- nine noun {the standing harvest), which is contrary to usage. Umbreit ex- plains it as an adverb of time {in harvest), which is very forced. Gesenius adopts Aben Ezra's explanation of the word as equivalent in meaning to "l)?P or "fVi^ ^''^. Some make "l''^'P itself a verbal noun analogous in form and sense to tSvD T'"»ti', &c. Ewald makes the season of harvest (Erntezeit) the subject of the verb; as when the harvest-season gathers, &c. !< Perhaps i the simplest supposition is that npi? is in apposition with "l'*Vi^, not as a mere synonjTue, but as a more specific term, the crop, the standing corn.\ The suffix in "iVnt then refers to the indefinite subject of the first clause. According to Cocceius, the point of the comparison is the care and' skill with which the grain is gathered to be stored away ; in like manner God would cause his people to be gathered for their preservation. All other writers understand the figures as denoting the completeness of the judgment threatened against Israel. 6. And gleanings shall be left therein like the heating (or shaking) of an olive tree, two {or) three berries in the top of a high bough, four {or) five in the branches of the fruit-tree, saitJi Jehovah, God of Israel. There is here an allusion to the custom of beating the unripe olives from the tree for the purpose of making oil. Those described as left may either be the few left to ripen for eating, or the few overlooked by the gatherer or beyond his reach. The common version of Ti'mV {gleaning grapes) is too re- stricted, and presents the incongruity of grapes upon an olive-tree. The transi- tion from the figure of a harvest to that of an olive -gathering may be intended simply to vary and multiply the images, or, as Hitzig supposes, to complete the illustration which would otherwise have been defective, because the reaper is followed by the gleaner who completes the ingathering at once, whereas the olive-gatherer leaves some of course. The verb 1N5J'3 is mas- culine and singular, as in many other cases where the subject follows. The suffix in n refers of course to Jacob or Israel, i. e. the ten tribes. Two, three, four, and five, are used, as in other languages, for an indefinite small number or afeiv. All interpreters agree that the idea of height is essen- tially included in 'T'0^<. Aben Ezra connects it with the Arabic ^^\ (Emir) from which, says Gill, " the word amiral or admiral comes." Most writers give the Hebrew the specific sense of high or highest branch ; Henderson that of lofty tree ; Gesenius the more general sense of top or summit, in order to accommodate his explanation of the same word in ver. 9. The combination head of the top would then be emphatic, though unusual and scarcely natural. The suffix in iT'Syo is treated by Gesenius as superfluous, and by others as belonging proleptically to the next word. Some of the older writers make nna agree with it {in its fruitful branches), but the words difier both in gender and number. The latest writers seem to be agreed that the expression literally means in the branches of it, the fruit-tree, the it being unnecessary in any other idiom. The irregularity is wholly but arbitrarily removed by Hitzig' s division of the words rin3n ""SyD. This verse is regarded by Cocceius as a promise to the people, by others 336 ISAIAH XVII. [Yer. 7, 8. as a promise to the pions Jews and especiallj- to Hezekiah, but by most interpreters as describing the extent to which the threatened judgment would be carried. The gleanings, then, are not the pious remnant, but the ignoble refuse who siirvived the deportation of the ten tribes by the Assyrians. 7. In that day man shall ttn)i to his Maker, and his eyes to the Holy One of Israel shall look. Grotius and Junius make this an advice or exhorta- tion— let him look — but there is no ground for departing from the strict sense of the words as a prediction. ?!? nyc* occurs again below (chap. xxxi. 1) in the sense of looking to any one for help, which implies trust or confidence. The Septuagint accordingly has here teto/^w;. Jarchi ex- plains the phrase as equivalent to 7N njD\ The article before CX gives it a generic, not a specific, sense. It does not therefore mean erery man or the people in general (Barnes), but man indefinitely. It is commonly agreed that Maker is here used in a pregnant sense .to describe God, not merely as the natural creator of mankind, but as the maker of Israel, the author of their privileges, and their covenant God. (Compare Deut. xxxii. G.) The same idea is expressed by the parallel phrase, Holy One of Israel, for the import of which vide supra, chap. i. 4. Some refer this verse partially or wholly to the times of the New Testament, others more cor-; rectly to the eflect of the preceding judgments on the ten tribes of IsraeL It is matter of history, that after the Ass3'rian conquest and the general deportation of the people, many accepted Hezekiah's invitation and retiu*ned lo the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem (2 Chron. xxx. 11); and this refor- mation is alluded to as still continued in the times of Josiah (2 Chi-on, xxxiv. 9). At the same time the words may be intended to suggest, that a similar effect might be expected to result from similar causes in later times. 8. And he shall not turn (or look) to the altars, the uvrk of his own hands, and that uhich his own fingers have made shall he not regard, and the r/roves (or images of Ashtoreth) and the pillars (or images) of the sun. The positive declaration of the preceding verse is negatively expressed in this, with a par- ticular mention of the objects which had usurped the place of God. Kimchi's superficial observation, that even God's altar was the work of men's hands, and that this phrase must therefore denote idols, is adopted by Clericus (aras erectas opcri manuum) and by Lowth, who observes that " all the ancient versions and most of the modern have mistaken it," and then goes on to say that nK'VD is not in apposition with nin^TDn, but governed by it ; a construction precluded by the definite article before the latter word. The true explanation is that given by Calvin, and adopted by most later writers, •viz. that idol-altars are described as the work of men's hands, because erected by their sole authority, whereas the altar at Jerusalem was, in the highest sense, the work of God himself. Vitringa arbitrarily explains the next clause {what their fingers hare made) as synonymous neither with what goes before nor with what follows, but as denoting the household gods of the idolaters. The old writers take CX'N always in the sense of graces, i. e. such as were used for idol- worship. It has been shewn, however, by Selden, Spencer, Gesenius, and others, that in some places this sense is inadmissible, as when the nX"N is said to have stood upon an altar, or under a tree, or to have been brought out of a temple (1 Kings xiv. 23, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4). The modern writers, therefore, understand it as ' denoting the goddess of fortune or happiness (from "it'N, to be prosperous), otherwise called Ashtaroth, the Phenician Venus, extensively worshipped in' Ver. 9, 10.] ISAIAH XVII. 337 conjunction with Bcaal. But according to Movers, the Hebrew word denote? a straight or upright pillar. Ewald adheres to the old interpretation (Gotzenhainer). D''DJOn is a derivative of n?3n, which properly means solar heat, but is poetically used to denote the sun itself. This ob-\'ious etymolog}% and the modem discovery of Punic cippi inscribed to pn ?y3, Baal the Sun (or Solar), lead to the conclusion that the word before us signifies images of Baal, worshipped as the representative of the sun. From the same etymolog}-, Montanus derives the meaning, loca ajnica, and Junius that of statuas subdiales. The explanation of the word, as meaning suns or solar images, is as old as Kimchi. 9. In that day shall his fortified cities be like what is left in the thicket and the lofty branch, (namely the cities) lohich they leave (as they retire) from before the children of Israel, and (the land) shall be a ivaste. It is universally agreed that the desolation of the ten tribes is here de- scribed by a comparison, but ^as to the precise form and meaning of the sentence there is great diversity of judgment. Some suppose the strongest towns to be here represented as no better defended than an open forest. Others on the contraiy understand the strong towns alone to be left, the others being utterly destroyed. riSUJ? is variously understood to mean uhat is left of and ichat is left iti. Hitzig and Hendewerk make Horesh and Amir proper names, the former identical with Harosheth-goim (Judges iv. 2, 13, 16), the latter with the ' A//.j^gLit)a of Josephus or the ' Av'i^d of Eusebius. Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion all retained the word T'DX, and Theodotion ^"in also. The Septnagint renders the words o'l ' A/zoi'^aht xa! o'l EvaToi. For the first the Peshito has Heirs. The last two versions Vitringa connects by a reference to the statement (Judges i. 35) that the Amorites would dwell in Mount Heres. Ewald explains the Septuagint ver- sion on the ground that the old Canaanites divided themselves into the two great classes of Amorites (mountaineers), and Hittites (lowlanders) or Hivites (-villagers). Jerome translates the words aratra et seyetes. Capellus also has arationis. Most writers give 1''0X the sense it has in ver. 6, and SJ'in that of a thick forest, or more specifically its underwood or thickets. Here as before, Henderson understands by 1''DX a high tree, and Gesenius the summit of a hill. From the combination of these various verbal ex- planations have arisen two principal interpretations of the whole verse, or at least of the comparison which it contains. The first supposes the for- ^ saken cities of Ephraim to be here compared with those which the Canaan- ites forsook when they fled before the Israelites under Joshua, or with the forests which the Israelites left unoccupied after the conquest of the country. The same essential meaning is retained by others who suppose the Prophet to allude to the overthrow of Sisera by Deborah and Barak. The other interpretation supposes no historical allusion, but a comparison of the ap- proaching desolation with the neglected branches of a tree or forest that is felled, or a resumption of the figure of the olive tree in ver. 6. This last -^ is strongly recommended by its great simplicity, by its superseding all gra- tuitous assumptions beyond what is expressed, and by its taking "'"'ON in the same sense which it has above. Another disputed point is the construc- tion of IkJ'J* which some refer to the immediate antecedent, others less simply but more correctly to ITIVD '•"ly, 10. Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and the rock of thy strength hast not remembered, therefore thou wilt jilant 'plants of pleasant- ness (or pleasant plantations), and with a strange slip set it. Some render ^3 at the beginning /or, and understand the first clause as giving a reason for VOL. I. Y 338 ISAIAH XVII. [Yer. 10. vliat goes before ; but tbe empbatic |3 ^V in tbc second clause seems to require tbut ^3 should have tbe meaning of because, and introduce the reason for what follows. Tbe sense, then, is not merely that because they forgot God they were desolate, but that because they forgot God they fell into idolatiy, and on that account were given up to desolation. Some regard the second clause of this Averse and the whole of the next as a description of their punishment. Because ihcj forgot God, they should sow and plant, but only for others ; tbe fruit should be gathered not by themselves, but by their enemies [Jlarbanis Juts scrjctis et culta voralia Juihehil). Others suppose the description of the s*n to be continued thiough this verse and the first clause of the next. Because they forgot God, they planted to please themselves, and introduced strange plants into their vineyard. On the latter hypothesis, tbe planting is a metaphor for the culture and propa- gation of corrupt opinions and practices, especially idolatry and illicit iiiter- course with heathen nations. According to the other view, the planting is to be literally understood, and the evil described is the literal fulfilment of tbe threatening in Deut. xxviii. 89. The latter sense is given by most of the early writers. Cocceius, who seems first to have proposed the other, thought it necessary to translate ''V^T) as a preterite (plantabas), which is ungrammatical and arl)itrary. The same general sense may be attained "without departing from the future form, by making the last clause of ver. 10 a prediction of what they would hereafter do, without excluding the idea that they had done so already, and were actually doing it. It is not even neces- sary to read with Grotius qnamvis plantaveris, or with Henderson thou muyei.t plant, or with Umbreit lass mir wachsen, although these translations really convey the true sense of the clause. It is urged as an objection to the older and more literal interpretation, that the evil threattned is too insignificant for such a context. This objection might be abated by sup- posing the fruitless cultivation to be not strictly literal, but a figure lor disappointment, or labour in vain generally. On the whole, however, it seems best to acquiesce in the opinion now vciy commonly adopted, that the planting here descril)ed is the sin of the people, not their punishment. Jerome confounds D^JDyj with D^it:SJ, Jideles, i. e. not disappointing ex- pectation. The Septuagint strangely gives an opposite meaning (<^jri-j(j.a a':TiGTov), which is regarded by some as a mere blunder, by others as an arbitrary change, and by others as an error in the text. The older writers make the Hebrew word an adjective agreeing with vines, fruits, or some other noun understood. It is now conmonly explained as an abstract, meaning pleasantness, and the whole phrase as equivalent to pleasant or favourite plants. A similar cc nstructiou occurs in the last clause, where slip or shoot of a stranger is equivalent to a strange slip or shoot. Those who think a literal planting to be meant, understand strange to signify exotic, foreign, and by implication valuable, costly ; but upon the si^pposi- tion that a moral or spiritual planting is intended, "it has its frequent emphatic sense of alien from God, i.e. uichxd, or more specifically idola- trous. Cocceius takes Vltn as the third person, which is foibiddm by the preceding second pertou 'i't^Jl. The suiHx in the last word may be most natuiaily referred to viiieijard, f/urdiii, or a like word understood. J. D. Micbaelis and others suppose an allusion in this last clause to the process of grafting, with a view to the improvement of the slock. 'Ihe foreign giowth introduced is understood by some to be idolatry, by others foreit^n alliance ; but these two things, as we have seen befoic, were inseparably blended in the history and policy of ImucI [vide svjira, chap. ii. G-8). Vek. 11, 12.] ISAIAR XriL 339 11. In the day of thy planting thou ivilt heJf/e it in, and in the morning thou wilt make thy seed to blossom, (but) aicay Jiies the crop in a day of grief and desperate sorrow. The older writers derive ''Jti'JE^'n from 3^2^, and explain it to mean cause^ to grow. The modern lexicographers assume a root 5-1C^ equivalent to "^-It^, to enclose with a hedge. Either sense is appropriate ag • describing a part of the process of culture. In the morning is commonly explained as an idiomatic phrase for early, which some refer to the rapidity of growth, and others to the assiduity of the cultivator, neither of whicla senses is exclusive of the other. "1.^ is elsewhere a noun meauing a heap, and is so explained here by the older waiters : the harvest (shall be) a heap,\ i.e. a small or insufficient one. Yitringa derives 1^ from "1-13, to lament,! and translates it comploratio. Others give it the sense of shaking, agitation.) Gesenius and the later writers make it the preterite of 1-1 J, to flee (in forni like no). n^nJ as pointed in the common text, is a noun meaning inherit- \ ance, possession, and most of the older WTiters understand HTTIJ DV2 to mean in the day of expected possession. The latest writers for the most part, read n?^^ which is properly the passive participle of n?n, but is used as a noun in the sense of deadly wound or disease, here employed as a figure for extreme distress. Even Jarchi explains it by the phrase D"l^ m^'. The same idea is expressed by C'-IJN* 3X?, which the Seventy seem to have read t^'lJK 3N?, Uke the father 'P and renders it out of ov from the viidst of it. The original and proper sense of D''uJ< ECtms to be miuvims or mutterivgs, here applied to the niutttrers them- selves, in allusion to the nncient mode of incantaticn, as to which, and the meaning of riin'lN and 2''^y?^ ride supra, chap. viii. 19. ^t^^^ is variously rendered by the early writers, trcnhled, decayed, destroijed, &c., but the etymology is decisive in favour of the sense now commonly adapted. Augusti expresses the contemptuous import of D'''?Vt< by translating it their urclched f/uds. 4. And I uill shiit uj) Egypt in the hands of a hard master, and a strong Jiiiig shall rule over them, saith the Lord Jthovah of hosts. As "1?D means to shut up wherever it occurs, the intensive form here used cannot have the weaker sense of giving up, delivering, in which seme take it, r?^!'i^ and ty do not mean cruel or fierce, but stern or rigorous. The first of these Hebrew words is singular in foim but construed with a plural noun. The Septuagint renders both phrases in the plural. Junius makes the first plural and refers it to the dcdecarchy which intervened between the reigns of Sethos and Psi.mmetichus. Coceeius makes '^"\> agree with something miderstood {doviinorum graris dcminationis), and refers to examples of a similar constructien in Exed.xxviii. 17, Judg.v. 13, 1 Kings yii. 42, 2 Kings iii. 4. Most of the later writers are agreed in explaining D''3nN. as a jiluralis inajestaticus, elsewhere applied to individual men (2 Kings xlii. 30, 33, 2 Kings ii. 3, 5, IG). The king here mentioned is identified, according to their various hypotheses, by J. D. Michaelis with Sethos, by Grotius, Gese- nius, and others with Psammetichus, by the Rabbins with Sennacherib, by Hitzig and Hendewerk with Sargon, by Clericus with Nebuchadnezzar, by Yitringa with Cambyses or Ochus, by Coceeius with Charlemagne. The very multipHcity of these explanations shews how fanciful they are, and naturally leads us to conclude, not with Ewald that the Prophet is express- ing mere conjectures or indefinite anticipations (reine Ahnung), but with Cahin that he is describing in a general way the political vicissitudes of Egypt, one of which would be subjection to an arbritary power, whether foreign or domestic, or to both at ditlerent periods of its history. 5. Jnd the waters sJiull le dried up fn in the seo, and the rivtr shall fail and Le dried up. Three distinct verbs are here used in the sense of drying up, for which our language does not furnksh equivalents. As the Nile has in all ages been called a sea by the Egyptians (Robinson's Palestine, i. 542), most interpreters suppose it be here referred to, in both clauses. Gesenius and others understand the passage as foreteUing a literal failure of the irrigation ujjon which the fertility of Epypt depends. Viliinga, Knobel, and others, explain it as a figurative threatening of disorder and calamity. Grotius supposes an allusion to the decay of the Egyptian cemmerce as conducted ou the Nile and the adjaccLt 6tus ; Cuhin lo the lobS of the ^'ee. G, 7.J ISAIAH XIX. 351 defence and military strength afforded by these waters. According to the exegetical hypothesis laid down in the introduction to the chapter, this is a prediction of Egypt's national decline and fall, clothed in figures drawn from the characteristic features of its actual condition. As the desolation of om* own western territory might be poetically represented as the drying up of the Mississippi and its branches, so a like event in the histoiy of^Egj^pt would be still more naturally described as a desiccation of the Nile, because that river is still more essential to the prosperity of the country which it waters. _In_ favour of this figurative exposition is the difficulty of applying the description to particular historical events, and also the whole tenor of the_context, as will be more clearly seen hereafter. The Septuagint treats •IJlf J as an active form of nn^', to drink, the Egyptians shall drink water from the sea. Aquila makes it a passive from the same root, shall be drunk up or absorbed. Hitzig derives it from r\n^, in the sense of settling, sub- sidmg, and so failing. Gesenius and most other writers make it a deriva- tive of rit?0. Junius understands this verse as relating to the diversion of the waters of the Nile to fomi the lake Moeris, and Luzzatto proposes to take a: as the name of the lake itself. By the drying up of the seas and rivers, Coccems understands the irruption of the Saracens and Turks into Europe. 6. And the rivers shall stink, (or become putrid), the streams of Egypt are emptied and dried up, reed and rush sicken (pine or wither). The streams meant are the natural and artifical branches of the Nile. IS.'' is an Egyptian word meanmg river, and is specially appropriated to the Nile itself. The older writers take 11 VO in its usual meaning of defence or forti- fication, and understand the whole phrase as denoting either the moats and ditches of fortified places, or walled reservoirs. The modern writers regard ^IVO as the singular of Dnyp, denoting either Lower Egvpt or the v>^oIg country indiscriminately. Ewald translates it Aiu/stland, in allusion to the supposed root 1-1V or inv, to press. -in^Jr^n is explained by the older wi-iters as meaning to depart or to be turned away, but is now commonly under- stood to denote the stench or putrescence produced by the failure of the Nile to fill its branches or canals. Gesenius explains it as a mixed form compounded of the Chaldee and Hebrew Hiphil ; Ewald, Maurer, Hitzig, and Knobel, as a verb, derived from an adjective nJT^, and meaning fetfd or putrescent.^ The reed and rush are mentioned as a common growth in marshy situations. The Septuagint makes ^-ID mean the papyrus, Vitringa and Lowth the lotus. K 7. The meadows by the river, hj the mouth of the river, and all the sown ground of the river, shall wither, being driven away, and it is not (or shall be no more). The Septuagint for nn:^ has uyj, which it elsewhere gives as the equivalent of -ins, an Egyptian word meaning, according to Jerome, eveiwthiug green that grows in the marshes of the Nile. Luther, Calvin, and others, explain it to mean grass. Gesenius derives it from nn^ to be naked, and explains it to mean bare or open places, i. e. meadows, as^distin- guished from woodland. The English and some other Versions treat it as the name of the papyrus, but without authority. The English version also takes 1i^^ as a collective [brooks), and Barnes errroneously observes that the Hebrew word is here in the plural number. It is the word already mentioned as the common name in Scripture for the Nile, nor is there anyneed of departing from this sense in the case before us by translating it canals, as Lowth does. Calvin explains mouth to mean source or fountain, which is wholly arbitrary. J. H. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others regard it as synonymous with lip, used elsewhere (Gen. xh. 3, Exod. ii. 3) to denote 352 ISAIAH XIX. [Yer. 8-10. the brink or margin of the Nile. Knobel gives the same sense to the Hebrew word in Prov. viii. 29. Hendewerk and some of the older wi'iters give the word its geographical sense, as denoting the place where the waters of a stream ai'e discharged into another, or the sea. VTitP is not produce (Hen- derson), but a local noun meaning the place nf seed or sowing, i. e. culti- vated grounds here distinguished from the meadows or uncultivated pastures. ^?3 is commonly supposed to refer to the driving away of the withered and pulverized herbage by the wind. The Vulgate seems to take ni"i]^ as a verb, and the fii'st clause as describing the disclosure of the bed of the river by the sinking of the water (nudabitur alveus rivi a fonte suo). The decay of vegetation here predicted, Cocceius explains to be the dying out of Christianity in those parts of Europe conquered by the Saracens and Turks. 8. And the Jishennen shall mourn, and they shall lament, all the throwers of a hook into the river (Nile), and the spreaders of a net upon the surface of the icater, lanr/uish. Having described the effect of the drought on vegetation, he now describes its effect upon those classes of the people who • were otherwise dependent on the river for subsistence. The multitude of fishes in the Nile, and of people engaged in catching them, is attested both by ancient and modern writers. The use of fish in ancient Egv^pt was promoted by the popular superstitions with respect to other animals. The net is said to be not now used in the fisheries of Egypt. It is remarkable, however, that the implement itself appears on some of the old monuments. This verse is not to be applied to an actual distress among the fishermen at any one time, but to be viewed as a characteristic trait in the pro- phetic picture. When he speaks of a wine-growing country, as Calvin well obsen'es, the Prophet renders vineyards and vine-dressers prominent objects. So here, when he speaks of a country abounding in fisheries and fishermen, he describes their condition as an index or symbol of the state of the countr}'. In like manner, a general distress in our southern States might be described as a distress among the sugar, cotton, or tobacco planters. By the fishermen of this verse, Cocceius understands the bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs, whose sees became subjected to the Moslem domination, with sarcastic allusion to the seal of the Fishermen by which the Pope authenticates his briefs. 9. And ashamed (disappointed or confounded) ai-e the workers of comJecZ (or hatchelled) flax, and the weavers of ivhite {stnSs). The older writers suppose the class of persons here described to be the manufacturers of nets for fishing, and took ''lin in the sense of perforated open-work, or net-work. The moderns understand the verse as having reference to the working of flax and manufacture of linen. Knobel supposes "'"'"in to mean cotton, as being white by nature and before it is wrought. Some of the older writers identified nipnc with scricum, the Latin word for silk. Calvin supposes an allusion in the last clause to the diaphanous garments of luxu- rious women. Cocceius applies the verse to those who would force all men into one church or commonwealth, like fish collected in a net. 10. And her pillars (or foundations) are broken down, all labourers for hire are grieved at heart. Many of the older writers suppose the allusion to the fisheries to be still continued, and arbitrarily make HiriL*' mean nets, and t^'Q^ fish. Others take nint' in the sense of looms or tveavers, and "pP ^t^y in that oibreiccrs or makers of strong drink, which last inter- pretation is as old as the Scptuagint version (&/ <;rcioivTsg rlv ^vtloc). The simplest exposition of the verse is that proposed by Gesenius and adopted Ver. 11, 12.] ISAIAH XIX. 353 by most succeeding writers, which regards this as a general description of distress extending to the two great classes of society, the pillars or chief men, and the labourers or commonality. Hendewerk less naturally understands by the ninti' or foundations, the agricultural class as distinguished from manufacturers and traders. All the late writers explain ''0^.^<, not as the plural of D3^<, a pool, but of an adjective signifying sorrowful, from one of the senses of the same root in Chaldee. This explanation of ''9^^ removes all necessity and ground for taking t^??., in any other than its usual sense. 11. Only foolish (i. e. entirely foolish) are the princes of Zoan, the sarjes of the counsellors of Pharaoh, (their) counsel is become brutish (or irrational). How can ye say to Pharaoh, I am the son of wise (fathers), / am the son of kings of old ? The reference is not merely to perplexity in actual distress, but also to an unwise policy as one of the causes of the distress itself. The meaning of "^f* is not for or surely, but only, nothing else, exclusively. Zoan, the Tanis of the Greeks, was one of the most ancient cities of Lower Egypt (Num. xiii. 22), and a royal residence. The name is of Egyptian origin, and signifies a low situation. Pharaoh was a common title of the Egyptian kings. It is originally an Egyptian noun with the article prefixed. ""P^n cannot agree directly as an adjective with ^Vy!^ {wise counsellors) — but must either be in apposition with it (the wise men, counsellors of Pharaoh, 2 Kings x. 6) — or be understood as a super- lative [the wisest of the counsellors of Pharaoh). The statesmen and cour- tiers of ancient Egypt belonged to the sacerdotal caste, from which many of the kings were also taken. The ivisdom of Eyypt seems to have been proverbial in the ancient world (1 Kings iv. 30 ; Acts vii. 22). The last clause is addressed to the counsellors themselves. The interrogation im- plies the absm-dity of their pretensions. The question is not, how can you say this of Pharaoh (Luther), or how can you dictate this to Pharaoh, i. e. put these words into his mouth (Junius), but how can you say it, each one for himself ? Hence the use of the singular number. ''??'? does not mean sayes or counsellors (Vitringa), but kings as elsewhere. Cocceius applies the last clause to the popish claim of apostolical succession. His com- ment on the first clause may be quoted as a characteristic specimen of his exegesis. " Concilium certe stultum fuit in Belgio novos episcopatus instituere, quod factum A. 1562. Eodem anno primum bellum civile reli- gionis causa motum est in Gallia, duce inde Francisco Guisio, hinc Ludo- vico Condaeo. Exitus fuit ut regina religionis reformatae exercitium permitteret sequenti anno 19 Martii. An principes Galliae per principes Tsoan intelligi possint, fortasse magis patebit ex ver. 13." 12. Where (are) they? Where (are) thy toise men? Pray let them tell thee, and (if that is too much) let them (at least) know, ivhat Jehovah of Hosts hath purposed against (or concerning) Egypt. It was a proof of their false pretensions that so far from being able to avert the evil, they could not even foresee it. Knobel thinks there may be an allusion to the belief of the Egyptians, as recorded by Herodotus, that supernatural foresight of the future is impossible, an article of faith which they could not more devoutly hold than Knobel himself appears to do. K^ is not an adverb of time equivalent to nunc (Vulgate), or jam (Junius), but a particle of exhor- tation or entreaty not unlike the Latin age (Cocceius). •IVT is not synony- mous with •n''ii;[ (Sept. "Vulg. Luther, Clericus, Augusti, Barnes) ; nor does it mean inquire or investigate (Hitzig) ; nor is the true text •ly'^i'' (Seeker) ; VOL. I. Z 354 ISAIAH XIX. [Ver. 13, 14. but the word is to be taken in its usual sense with emphasis, or let them even know, as well expressed by Calvin (aut etiam sciant), and by Maurer (quin sciant). The repetition of the interrogative uhere is highly emphatic, through neglect of which the expression is materially weakened in the ancient versions, and by Luther, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Henderson, De Wette, Ewald, Umbrcit. The construction is assumed to be subjunctive by Calvin (ut annuncient), relative by Junius (qui indicent), conditional by J. H. Michaelis (wenn sie wissen), and indefinite by Gesenius (dass man's erfahre) ; but the simple imperative, retained by Ewald, is at once more exact and more expressive. The sense of ^V is not iq}on but either concern- ing or against. 13. Infatuated are the chiefs of Zion, deceived are the chiefs of Xoph, and they have misled Egypt, the corner (or corner-stone) of her tribes. There is no need of supplying but at the beginning of the sentence (Luther). The first verb does not mean to fail (Septuagint), or to act lightly (Cocceius), or to act foolishly (Junius, Vitringa, Rosenmiiller), but to be rendered or be- come foolish (Vulgate), to be infatuated (Cahdn). The translation they are fools (De Wette) is correct, but inadequate. Noph is the Memphis of the Greek geographers, called Moj^h, Hosea ix. 6. It was one of the chief cities of ancient Egypt, the royal seat of Psammetichus. After Alexandria was built it declined. Ai^abian wi-iters in the twelfth and thu'teenth cen- turies speak of its extensive and magnificent ruins, which have now almost wholly disappeared. "l^^'J is explained as if from N^*3 to lift up, by the Septuagint (i/4/to9?3(rav), the Peshito and Cocceius (elati sunt). _The Vulgate renders it emarcuerunt. _ All others make it the passive of ^^'), to deceive. ri3S is not to be read ri3S (Grotius), nor is it the object of the preceding verb (Vulgate, J. H. MichaeHs, Luther), nor governed by a preposition understood (Cocceius quoad angnlwn, Clericus in angido), but construed collectively with ^HT^T} (Calvin, Vitringa, Gesenius, &c.). It is a figure not for the nomes (Clericus, Vitringa, Piosenmilller), nor for the noble families (Luther), nor for the wise men (Calvin), or the king (J. H. Michaelis), but for the chief men of the diflerent castes (Hitzig, Ewald). Knobel conjec- tm-es that the military caste may have been predominant at Memphis, as the sacerdotal was at Tanis. The view which Cocceius takes may be gathered from a single observation. "Gallia et Belgium extremae orae spirituaUs Aegj'pti sunt." 14. Jehovah hath mingled in the midst of her a spirit of confusion, and they have misled Egypt in all its ivork, like the misleading of a drunkard in his vomit. This verse describes the folly before mentioned as the eflect not of natural causes or of accident, but of a judicial infliction. "^PO may be either a preterite or a present, but not a future. It does not strictly mean to pour out, but in usage is nearly equivalent, from its frequent application to the mixing or preparation of strong drinks. {Vide sujna, chap. v. 22.) There is no need of reading D2"ip with Seeker, on the authority of the an- cient versions, which evidently treat the singular suffix as a collective. The antecedent of the suflax is not n32 (Hitzig), but f)^ (Knobel). The trans- lation breast or bosom is too specific. Spirit here means a supernatural in- fluence. Cyiy is not error or perversencss, but subversion, turning upside down, and thence pei-plexity, confusion. It is strongly expressed by the Vulgate (spiritum vertiginis), and by Luther (Schwindelgeist). The plural •iyj?n may possibly agi'ce with D^VW, but it may be more naturally construed with the Egyptians understood, or taken indefinitely, as equivalent to a passive form, they have misled them, i.e. they have been 7nisled. By ivork Ver. 15-17.] ISAIAH XIX. 355 we are here to understand affairs and interests. The masculine form of the suffix here returns, with the usual reference to the national ancestor, niypin does not directly denote staggering, much less rolling or wallowing, but the act of wandering from the straight course ; or retaining the passive form, that of being made to wander from it; or, assuming the reflexive sense of Niphal, that of making one's self to wander, leading one's self astray. The same verb is elsewhere used in reference to the unsteady motions of a drunken man (Job xii. 25 ; Isa. xxviii. 7). 15. And there shall not be to Egypt a ivork which head and tail, branch and rush, may do. ? is neither /or nor in, but to, as usual denoting posses- sion, Egypt shall not have. The translation shall not succeed or be completed is not a version, but a paraphrase of the original. ^^V^ is not merely a deed (Gresenius), much less a great deed (Hendewerk), nor does it refer exclusively to the acts or occupations before mentioned ; but it means any- thing done or to be done, including private business and public affairs. The figures of head and tail, branch and rush, are used, as in chap. ix. 13, to denote all classes of society, or rather the extremes between which the others are included. The Septuagint translates the last two beginning and end. The Targum makes them all mean chiefs and rulers. The Peshito, by a strange repetition and inversion, has head and tail, tail and head. Cocceius thinks it easy to trace the fulfilment of this prophecy in the his- tory of Europe from 1590 to 1608. 16. In that day shall Egypt be like women, and shall fear and tremble from, before the shaking of the hand of Jehovah of hosts, which he [is] shak- ing over it. The comparison in the first clause is a common one for terror and the loss of courage. ''3?P may be rendered on account of, which idea is certainly included, but the true force of the original expression is best retained by a literal translation. T" HSI^n is not the act of beckoning for the enemy, but that of threatening or preparing to strike. The reference is not to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, but more generally to the indications of divine displeasure. At this verse Hitzig supposes the forgery of Onias to begin, but admits that it cannot be proved from the use of the masculine suffix in reference to Egypt, which occurs several times in what he assumes to be the genuine part of this very chapter, nor does it follow from the repetition of the phrase in that day at the beginning of vers. 15, 18, 23, 24, as this formula occurs with equal frequency in the seventh chapter. Knobel observes, moreover, that this verse and the next bear the same relation to ver. 4 that vers. 11-15 do to 1-8, and are therefore neces- sary to complete the context. 17. And the land ofJudah shall be for a terror (or become a terror) unto Egypt, every person to tvhom one mentions it (or every one who recalls it to his own mind) shall fear before the purpose of Jehovah of Hosts, which he is purposing against it. This verse relates, not to the destruction of Senna- cherib's army in Judah, nor to the approach of the Assyrians from that quarter, nor to an attack upon Egypt by Judah itself, but to the new feel- ings which would be entertained by the Egyptians towards the God of the Jews and the true religion. Judah, in a political and military sense, might still appear contemptible ; but in another aspect, and for other reasons, it would be an object of respect and even fear to the Egyptians. A different sense is put upon the verse by Schultens, J. D. MichaeHs, and Dathe, who take i<5n in the sense of refuge, deduced from an Arabic analogy. V"?!? ig referred by some interpreters to Judah, but the change of gender renders it more probable that it relates to Egypt. The sense will then be that the 356 ISAIAH XIX. [Yek. 18. knowledge of God's purpose against Egj-pt will dispose its itiliabitanfs to look with awe upon the chosen people. There is no need of taking '"i^^^ ■with Hendewerk in the strict sense of soil or ground, as distinguished from the people. y>^ is not to be construed with "inp;' but with "i^ST*. This last verb Ewald takes in the strict sense of causing to remember, or recall- ing to mind ; most other writers in the secondary but more usual sense of mentioning. According to Cocceius, the Judah of this verse is the northern part of Europe, in which the Reformation was successfully established, and which holds the same relative position with respect to the unreformed regions, that Judea occupied in reference to Egypt. 18. In that day there shall he Jive cities in the land of Egijpt sj)eakinf^ the lip (/. e. language) of Canaan, and suearini/ to Jehovah of liusts. The citij of destruction shall be said to one (i.e. shall one be called). In that day, according to prophetic usage, is a somewhat indefinite expression, and may either menu during or after the distresses just described. Canaan is here put for the land of Canaan (as in Exod. xv. 15), and the lanrjuaye of Canaan for the Hebrew language, not because it was the language of the old Canaan- ites, but because it was spoken in the land which they once occupied. Some of the later writers understand what is here said, strictly as denoting an actual prevalence of the Hebrew language, while others take it as a strong expression for such intimate union, social, commercial, and political, as would seem to imply a community of language. The older writers very generally apply the tenns to religious union and communion. Calvin ex- plains lip or laiir/uaye as a figure for confession or profession, and the speak- ing of the language of Canaan for a public profession of the true religion. Vitringa gains the same end by a reference to the phrase sjiealdng the same thintjs, used in the New Testament to signify conformity of feeling and opinion. (See 1 Cor. i. 10.) He also admits the possibility of ahusion to the dialect of saints or believers, as distinguished from that of the world, and to the study of the literal Hebrew as promoted by the spread of the time religion. Cocceius and some others understand directly by the use of the language of Canaan, the study of the Bible, or rather the reception and promulgation of its doctrines. (^ The simplest interpretation of the phrase is, that in itself it denotes intimate intercourse and union generally, but that the idea of religious unity is here suggested by the context, and espe- cially by the following clause.') Many interpreters appear to regard the phrases stveariny by and sueariny to as perfectly synonymous. The former act does certainly imply the recognition of the deity by whom one swears, especially if oaths be regarded as they are in Scripture as solemn acts of religious worship. But the phrase sweariny to conveys the additional idea of doing homage, and acknowledging a sovereign by swearing fealty or allegiance to him. This is the only meaning that the words can bear in 2 Chron. xv. 14, and in Isa. xlv. 23 the two phrases seem to be very clearly distinguished. The distinction intended in Zeph, i. 5, is not so clear. The act of thus professing the true faith and submitting to the true God is ascribed in the verse before us to Jive towns or cities. Of this phrase there are three distinct inter])retations. Gesenius, Ewald, Ivnobel, and others, understand five as a round or indefinite number, meaning few or mam-, and derived either from Egyptian usage (Gen. xliii. 34 ; xlv. 22 ; xlvii. 2), or from the practice of counting on the fingers. Thus understood, the sense is simply that a number of cities shall do so and so. Another class of ■wTiters understand the words strictly as denoting five, and neither more nor less. The five cities meant are supposed by Vitringa to be Heliopolis, Ver. 18.] ISAIAH JilX. 357 Memphis, Sais, Bubastis, Alexandria ; by Clericus, Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis, HehopoHs, and one in Pathi'os, probably No-ammon or Diospolis ; by Hitzig the same, except the last, for which he substitutes Leontopolis ; by Hendewerk, the five cities of the Philistines, which he supposes to be here considered as belonging to Egypt. Among the five cities perhaps referred to, Barnes includes Falhros or Thebais, which was not a city at all. A third interpretation understands the words as expressive not of absolute number but proportion ; five out of the twenty thousand cities which Herodotus says Egypt contained ; or out of the one thousand which Calvin thinks a more reasonable estimate ; or five out of ten, i. e. one half ; or five out of six, which is Calvin's own interpretation. The objection to the first or indefinite construction is the want of any clear example of this number being used in that way without something in the context to afford a standard of comparison. (See Lev. xxvi. 8, 1 Cor. xiv. 19.) The objec- tion to the second or absolute construction is the impossibility of fixing certainly what five are meant, or of tracing the fulfilment of so definite a prophecy, or even of ascertaining from the context any reason why just five should be distinguished in this manner. Of the third class or relative con- structions, that of Calvin is to be preferred, because the othei's arbitrarily assume a standard of comparison (twent}- thousand, ten thousand, ten, &c.), whereas this hypothesis finds it in the verse itself. Jive professing the true religion to one rejecting it. Most of the other interpretations understand the one to be included in the five, as if he had said one of them. As J^O?'? admits either of these senses, or rather apphcations, the question must de- pend upon the meaning given to the rest of the clause. Even on Calvin's hypothesis, however, the proportion indicated need not be taken with mathe- matical precision. l^What appears to be meant is that five- sixths, i. e. a very large proportion, shall profess the true religion, while the remaining sixth persists in unbelief. ^ It shall be said to one, i. e. one shall be addressed as follows, or called by the following name. This periphrasis is common in Isaiah, but is never applied, as Gesenius observes, to the actual appella- tion, but always to a description or symbolical title (See Isa. iv. 3, Ixi. 6, Ixii. 4.) This may be m'ged as an argument against the explanation of Ciliin as a proper name. The Hebrew form is retained in the Complutensiau text of the Septuagint {^' A^s^sg) by Theodotion and Aquila ('A^lc), by the Peshito (»CD5ai), and by Luther (Irheres). Sixteeen manuscripts and several edi- tions read D"inn, and this is adopted as the true text by most of the modem writers. It is also supposed to be confirmed by the Greek form ' Ayj^l; above quoted. Jerome compares it with ^*^DD, a potsherd, and refers to the town which the Greeks called. ' Offr^uTCivr} (i.e. earthen). Others suppose an allusion to Tahpanhes, the biick-kilns of which are mentioned, Jer. xliii. 9. Gesenius, in his Commentary, derives the meaning of the name from the Arabic ij^j^- and renders it deliverance (Errettung). Ewald, with reference to the same root, renders it fortune or happiness (Gliickstadt). But most of those who adopt this reading give to Dir} the sense of sun, which it has in several places (Judges viii. 13, xiv. 18 ; Job ix. 7), and regard the whole phrase as equivalent to the Hebrew BetJishemesh (dwelling of the sun), and the Greek Heliopolis (city of the sun), the name of a famous town of Lower Egj'pt, in the Heliopolitan Nome, so called from it. In this nome, Onias, a fugitive priest from Palestine, about 150 years before Christ, prevailed upon Ptolemy Philometor to erect a temple for the Jews of Eg}^pt, an event which some suppose to be predicted here. The exact site of this temple, 858 ISAIAH XIX. [A'er. 18. although in the nome just mentioned, v/as at Lcoittopolis (or city of the lion), and this name also has been found by some interpreters in the i^re- dictiou. J. D. Michaclis and Dathe, following a suggestion made by Ikon, identify the common reading Din with the Arabic ;j^jj^. But this has been shewn by later writers to be merely a poetical epithet of the Hon, denoting its voracity. Eosenmuller, in his larger Scholia, agi'ees with Hezel in explaining D"in from the Syriac analogy as signifying safety or salvation. But Gesenius has shewn that there is no such Sp-iac word, and that the Syriac writers quoted merely give conjectural explanations of the Hebrew word before us. Rosenmiiller, therefore, in the Compendium of his Scholia, adopts Gesenius' s interpretation given above, while Gesenius himself, in his Thesaurus, adopts that of Vitringa and the Vulgate (civitas solis). This is also given by Hitzig, who identifies D^n the sun with D^D, a scab (Deut. xxviii. 27), the disk of the former being so called on account of its scratched, scraped, or smooth appearance, an etymological deduction of which Umbreit gravely signifies his approbation. All the intei-pretations which have now been mentioned either depart from the common text, or explain it by some forced or foreign analogy. If, however, we proceed upon the only safe principle of adhering to the common text and to Hebrew usage, without the strongest reasons for abandoning either or both, no explanation of the name can be so satisfactory as that given by Calvin (civitas desolationis) and the English Version (city of destruction). It is very remarkable that both the readings (Din and Dirij appear to be combined in the Chaldee Paraphrase: " the city of Bethshemesh (/. e. Heliopolis), which is to be destroyed." This w^ould seem to imply that the text or the meaning of the word was already doubtful and disputed at the date of that old Version. It has been objected to the common reading and the sense just put upon it, that a threatening of destruction would here be out of place. But on Calvin's hypothesis, there is a promise of salvation to five-sixths. It is also a favourite idea with some writers, that the text was corrupted by the Jews of Palestine, in order to convert what seemed at least to be an explicit prediction of the temple of Onias into a threatening of its destruction. To the same source some ascribe the reading Dinn which is found in a few manuscripts. On the other hand, the common text of the Septuagiut Version has daibr/. (pivn), which is supposed to have been introduced (from chap. i. 20) by the Egyptian Jews in order to put honour on their temple. Even this, how- ever, is pressed into the service of other hypotheses by Iken, w'ho identifies aasdr/. with an Arabic word used by the poets in describing the appearance of a lion, and by Le Moyue, who argues from Mai. iii. 20, that P1^* and T]pl)i were applied to the sun. Thus the same blunder of the Seventy is made to prove that the Hebrew word means Heliopolis and Leontopolis. Hitzig, as we have seen already, looks upon this whole passage from the sixteenth verse as a fobrication of Onias, intended to fiicilitate the rearing of his temple. But in that case he would surely have made it more explicit, or at least have prevented its conversion into an anathema against himself. It is not even true that he interpreted this clause as pointing out the place for the erection, as alleged by Lowth and others after him. Josephus merely says that he appealed to the prediction of an altar to Jehovah in the land of Egypt, which would hardly have contented l^m if he had understood the verse before us as expressly naming either Heliopolis or Leontopolis. These facts, when taken in connection with the usage of 7 ipt^.'. already stated, make it altogether probable that Dirin y]} is not a proper name, but Ver. 19.] ISAIAH XIX. 359 a descriptive and prophetic title, meaning (in accordance with the constant usage of the verb Din) the city of destruction. Kimchi, who puts this sense upon the words, but is puzzled by the threatening against one of the five towns, as he supposes it to be, absurdly makes the words to mean that the five cities would be so devoted to the true religion that if either of them should apostatise the others would destroy it. Scarcely more natural is the explanation of the words by Junius and Tremellius, as meaning a city almost destroyed, or saved from destruction. Schmidius more ingeniously evades the difficulty by taking D!}D in an active sense, a city of destruction, i.e. to its enemies or those of the true religion. Both the hypotheses last men- tioned give to rin^ the distributive sense of each or every one, which it sometimes derives from repetition or context. (See Ezek. i. 6). Hende- werk, who supposes the five towns of the Philistines to be meant, under- stands this as a prophecy that one of them (Ashdod) should be destroyed, but afterwards rebuilt, with an allusion to the derivation of the name from ^11^', to destroy. (.But of all the explanations of the common text, the simplest is the one proposed by Calvin, which supposes the whole verse to mean that for one town which shall perish in its unbelief, five shall profess the true faith and swear fealty to Jehovah. .-' The simplicity of this inter- pretation, and its strict agreement with a general tenor of the passage as a prophetic picture of great changes in the State of Egypt, serve at the same time to commend the common reading as the true one. By the five cities Cocceius understands the five States in which the Reformation was per- manently established (Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, and northern Germany), and by desolation or destr-uction what they subsequently suffered by war and otherwise from the popish powers. 19. In that day there shcdl he an altar to Jehovah in the midst of tlie land of Egypt, and a pillar at (or near) its border to Jehovah. It has been dis- puted whether we are here to understand an altar for sacrifice, or an altar to serve as a memorial (Josh. xxii. 26, 27). It has also been disputed whether the prohibition of altars and consecrated pillars (Lev. xxvi. 1 ; Deut. xii. 5, xvi. 22) was applicable only to the Jews or to Palestine, leav- ing foreign Jews or proselytes at hberty to rear these sacred structures as the Patriarchs did of old (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 14). \The necessity of answering these questions is removed by a just view of the passage, as pre- dicting the prevalence of the true religion and the practice of its rites, in language borrowed from the Mosaic or rather fi'om the patriarchal institu- tions. \ As we might now speak of a missionary pitching his tent at Hebron or at Shechem, without intending to describe the precise form of his habita- tion, so the Prophet represents the converts to be the true faith as erecting an altar and a pillar to the Lord in Egypt, as Abraham and Jacob did of old in Canaan. A still more exact illustration is afforded by the frequent use among ourselves of the word altar to denote the practice of devotion, especially in families. There is a double propriety and beauty in the use of the word i^?'>'^?, because while it instantly recalls to mind the patriarchal practice, it is at the same time finely descriptive of the obelisk, an object so characteristic of Egypt that it may be regarded as its emblem. Both the obelisk and the patriarchal pillar, being never in the human form, are to be carefully distinguished from statues or images, although the latter word is sometimes used to represent the Hebrew one in the English Version (see 2 Kings iii. 2, x. 26 ; Micah v. 13). Those explanations of the verse which suppose the altar and the pillar, or the centre and the border of the land, to be contrasted, are equally at variance with good taste and the usage 360 ISAIAH XIX. [Ver, 20. of the langnage, which continually separates in parallel clauses, words and things which the reader is expected to combine. See an example of this usage in the sixth verse of the preceding chapter. As the wintering of the beasts and the summering of the birds are there intended to denote the presence of both beasts and birds throughout the year, so here the altar in the midst of the land, and the pillar at its border, denote altars and pillars through its whole extent. This is much more natural than Ewald's suppo- sition that the words are expressive of a gradual progress or extension of the truth. 20. And it shall he for a sign and for a testimony to Jehovah of hosts in the land of Egypt, that they shall cry to Jehovah from the presence of oppres- sors, and he will send them a deliverer and a mighty one, and save them. The older writers for the most part construe ^\i}) with what goes before : " and it (or they) shall be," &c. In that case we must either suppose an enallage of gender (so as to make n3->*D the subject of the verb), or an enallage of number (so as to construe it with both the nouns), or else refer it to the remoter antecedent n3jp. Any of these constructions would. be admissible if absolutely necessary ; but in the case before us they are all superseded by a simpler one now commonly adopted. This refers ^^'^5 not at all to what precedes but to what follows, taking ""S in its proper sense of 071, that. " This shall be a sign and a witness to {i.e. with respect to, in behalf of) Jehovah in the land of Egypt, viz. that when they cry," &c. He will afford a providential testimony in behalf of his own being, pre- sence, and supremacy, by saving those who cry to him. Those who refer njn) to what goes before, either take the other verbs in the past tense (a sign and a testimony that they cried), which is entirely arbitrary, or give to ^3 its usual sense oi for, hecause (for they shall cry), in which case the connection is not obvious between their crying and the altar's being a sign and witness for Jehovah. Even then, however, we may understand the Prophet to mean that when they cry at the altar of Jehovah, he will answer and deliver them, and thus the altar will bear witness to him. But as nothing is said of crying at the altar, the other construction is to be preferred, which makes the hearing of their prayers, and their deliverance from suffering, the sign and witness in behalf of Jehovah. 3^ may be either an adjective meaning great, or the participle of 3'''1, to strive, espe- cially at law, and then to plead the cause or take the part of any one, the participle of which might well be used to signify an advocate, patron, or defender. Calvin and others, adopting the former explanation of the word (salvatorem et principem), apply it to Christ. Vitringa, laying stress upon the word as meaning great, regai'ds it as a proof that the deliverer here mentioned was Alexander the Great, or his Egyptian successor Ptolemy, also called the Great, and, by a singular coincidence, Soter or the Saviour. The whole force of this ingenious combination lies in the explanation of 3T as an adjective. It cannot, therefore, be consistently maintained by those who adopt the other supposition, as Henderson does. Barnes also weakens the argument in favour of Vitringa's exposition by exchanging great for powerfid. The other explanation of 3T as a participle is found in all the ancient versions, and is adopted by most modem writers. It is also favoured by the fact that the adjective is usually written 3!i when not in pause, although some cases of i\w other pointing do occur (e. g. Gen. xxxvi. 7 ; Joshua xi. 4), and Hitzig thinks the form here sufficiently accounted for by the accompanying accent. As to the application of the term in cither case, besides that adopted by Vitringa and others, may be mentioned the Ver. 21.] ISAIAH XIX. 361 rabbinical opinion that it treans the angel who destroyed Sennacherib's army, and the opinion of some modern writers that it denotes Psammetichus. A name, which admits of being plausibly applied to things so far apart and unlike, may safely be regarded as generic in its import. Even if the lan- guage of this verse by itself might seem to point to a particular deliverer, the comprehensive language of the context would forbid its reference to any such exclusively. If, as we have seen reason to believe, the chapter is a prophecy, not of a single event, but of a great progressive change to be wrought in the condition of Egypt by the introduction of the true religion, the promise of the verse before us must be, that when they cried God would send them a deliverer, a promise verified not once but often, not by Ptolemy or Alexander only, but by others, and in the highest sense by Christ him- self. The assertion, that the meaning of the prophecy was exhausted by events before the advent, is as easily contradicted as advanced. It is ad- mitted that the rise of Alexander's power was contemporaneous with a great increase of Jewish population and Jewish influence in Egypt, and also with a great improvement in the social and political condition of the people. This was still more remarkably the case when Christianity was introduced, and who shall say what is yet to be witnessed and experienced in Egypt under the influence of the same Gospel? In the language of this verse there is an obvious allusion to the frequent statement in the book of Judges, that the people cried to God, and he raised them up deliverers who saved them from their oppressors (Judges ii. 16, iii. 9, &c.). Cocceius applies these terms to the various deliverers who were raised up to free the Reformed Church from its enemies. 21. And Jehovah shall he known to Egypt, and Egypt (or the Egyptians) shall know Jehovah in that day, and shall serve [with) sacrifice and offering, and shall voio a vow to Jehovah, and perform it. This is not the predic- tion of a new event, but a repetition in another form of the preceding promise. The first clause may be understood as containing an emphatic repetition, or V!liJ may be taken in a reflexive sense as meaning he shall make himself known, in which case each of the parties is the subject of an active verb. The second clause is still but another variation of the same idea. "What is first described as the knowledge of the true God, is after- wards represented as his serviee, the expressions being borrowed from the ancient ritual. If the last clause be literally understood, we must either regard it as an unfounded expectation of the Prophet which was never ful- filled, or suppose that it relates to an express violation of the law of Moses, or assume that the ancient rites and forms are hereafter to be re-established. On the other hand, the figurative explanation is in perfect agreement with the usage of both testaments, and with the tenor of the prophecy itself. Bloody and unbloody sacrifice is here combined with vows, in order to express the totality' of ritual services as a figure for those of a more spiri- tual nature. The express mention of the Egyptians themselves as wors?hip- ping Jehovah, shews that they are also meant in the preceding verse, and not, as Hitzig imagines, the Jews resident in Egj'pt, whose example and experience of God's favour were to be the means of bringing those around them to the knowledge and reception of the truth. Gesenius explains •^13|J to be a synonyme of -I^JJ, and makes it govern the noun directly in the sense of performing or offering sacrifice, &c. Hitzig adopts the same construction, and moreover makes this use of 1?V symptomatic of a later writer. Hendewerk justly condemns this reasoning as exceedingly unfair, when the common acceptation of the term gives a perfectly good sense, and 862 ISAIAH XIX. [Ver. 22, 28. the absolute use of I^V i" ^^e sense of serving God occurs elsewhere (Job xxxvi. 11), and the same ellipsis in this "very chapter (ver. 23). 22. And Jehovah sliall smite Eyypt {or the Ermptiann), smiting and healing, and thei/ shall return unto Jehovah, and he shall he entreated of them, and shall heal them. Here again the second clause contains no advance upon the first, and the whole verse no advance upon the foregoing context, but an iteration of the same idea in another form. This verse may indeed be regarded as a recapitulation of the whole preceding prophecy, consisting as it does of an extended threatening (vers. 1-17), followed by au ample promise (vers, 18-21). As if he had said, Thus will God smite Egvi)t and then heal it. That great heathen power, with respect to which the Jews so often sinned both by undue confidence and undue dread, was to be broken and reduced : but in exchange for tbis political decline, and partly as a consequence of it, the Eg}iDtians should experience benefits lar greater than they ever before knew. Thus would Jehovah smite and heal, or smite but so as afterwards to heal, which seems to be the force of the redupUcated verb. (See Ewald, § 540.) The meaning is not simply that the stroke should be followed by healing, nor is it simply that the stroke should itself possess a healing virtue ; but both ideas seem to be included. Retm-mng to Jehovah is a common figure for repentance and conversion, even in refer- ence to the heathen. (See Psalm xxii. 28.) _ 23. In that day there shall be a highicay from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria shall come into Egypt and Egtjpt into Assyria, and Egtjpt (or the Egyptians) thall serve loith Assyria. No translation will convey the precise form of the original, in which the ancestral names d::^VP and n-1£i'J« are put not only for theu- descendants, but for the countries which they occupied. Thus in one clause we read of coming into cnyj?, ^yhile m the next the same name is construed wnth a plural verb. No one, it is probable, has ever yet maintained that a road was literally opened between Egjpt and Assyria, or that Isaiah expected it. All classes of interpreters agi-ee that the opening of the highway is a figure for easy, free, and intimate com- munication. This unaniiuous admission of a metaphor in this place not only shews that the same mode of interpretation is admissible in the other parts of the same prophecy, but makes it highly probable that what is said of altars and sacrifices is tu be likewise so understood. The Chaldee Paraphrast alone seems to have understood the second clause as having reference to hostile communication. Some understand it as relating only to commercial inter- course ; others confine it to religious union. But the same thing is true here and in ver. 18, that while the language itself denotes intimate connection and free intercourse in general, the context renders the idea of spiritual union prominent. The last clause admits of two constructions, one of which \ recrards ns iis theobiective particle, and understands the clause to mean that th° Egyptians shall serve the Assyrians: the other makes n« a preposition, and explains the clause to mean that the Egyptians shall serve {God) mth the Assyrians. In favour of the first is the constant usage of 13y with ns (Gen. xiv. 4, xxvii. 40, xxxi. G; Exod. xiv. 12, clc), and the unanimous agreement of the ancient versions. But the sense thus yielded is at vari- ance with the context, what precedes and follows being clearly expressive of a union so complete and equal as to exclude the idea ot subjection or i superiority. Some have attempted to evade this difficulty by attaching to 1 nay the sense of serving by benevolence (Gal. v. 13), or of simply treating i with respect or reverence. But even if tliis explanation of the word were ^ justified by usage, why should this diflerence be confined to one party <, Vek. 24, 25.] ISAIAH XIX. £G3 instead of being mutual, especially when what precedes and follows so em- phaticallj' expresses the idea of reciprocity ? In favour of the other con- struction is the constant use of ^^y to denote the service of Jehovah, and the omission of the divine name after it, not only in Job xxxvi. 11, but in ver. 21 of this very chapter. For although the latter place admits, as we have seen, of two interpretations, the very fact that the elliptical construction is appropriate in both, and that no other sense bi;t that of serving God is equally appropriate to both, would seem to be decisive in favour of this sense and this construction as the true one. Some understand the clause to mean that the Egyptians should serve with the Assyrians in the same army, under the same leader, viz., Alexander the great or his successors. But 'l^y is nowhere absolutely used, if at all, in this modern military sense, which is moreover wbolly inadmissible in ver. 21. The sense of serving God together is adopted by Luther and all the later German \n'iters except Hitzig M'ho agrees with Cocceius and the ancient versions. Some remove the ambiguity bysupplj-ing the ellipsis, others by giving a specific meaning to the verb, as Lowth (worship), and Ewald (huldigen). 24. Ill that day shall Israel be a third icith respect to Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth. The meaning obviously is that Israel should be one of three, or a party to a triple union. n^P'v^ there- fore does not agi-ee with ^^'?V'^ considered as a feminine noun, because in- tended to denote not the country but the nation. This explanation, the one suggested by Gesenius, is directly contrary to usage, which makes countries feminine, and nations masculine, as stated by Gesenius himself in his com- ment on the next verse. Nor is it necessary to suppose a reference to i^'^V. or any other noun understood. " As the fractional numerals are all abstract nouns, the feminine form of the ordinals is employed exclusively for their representation." (Nordheimer, § 627. Compare Gesenius, § 96.) The word therefore means a third part, or one equal part out of three. The idea meant to be conveyed, however, is not, as Cocceius supposes, merely that of equality in magnitude or power, but also that of intimate conjunction, as in the preceding verse. Blessing is here used in a comprehensive sense, as denoting at the same time a source of blessing, a means of blessing, and an object to be blessed. Luther supplies a preposition before it and a relative after it (though the blessing which is in the midst of the earth). Knobel simply supplies the verb of existence (blessing shall be in the midst, &c.). The simplest construction is to put it in apposition with bn.l^'' or i'\''^w^, a blessing in the midst of the earth, which is equivalent to saying, as a blessing, or (as Ewald has it) for a blessing in the midst of the earth. The restricted sense of kmd, whether understood to mean the land of Israel or the land of the three united powers, now reckoned as one, is not only arbi- trary, i. e. assumed without necessity, but greatly impairs the strength of the expressions. 25. Which Jehovah of hosts has blessed (or with which Jehovah of hosts has blessed it) saying, Blessed he my people Egypt, and the loork of my hands Assyria , and my heritage (or pecuhar people) Israel. The perfect union of the three great powers in the service of God and the enjoyment of his favour is now expressed by a solemn benediction on the three, in which language commonly applied to Israel exclusively is extended to Egypt and Assyria. The force of the expressions would be much enhanced by the habitual associations of a Jewish reader. It arises very much from the surprise excited by the unexpected termination of the clauses. Instead of 3G4 JSAIAH XIX. Ver. 25. Blessed he mij people Israel, the formula is blessed he my people Eip/pt. That the work of )in/ hands does not merely mean )ni/ creature, or a creature perfectly at my disposal, but my creature in a special and a spiritual sense, the same iu which God is said to be the maker or founder of Israel (Deut. xxxii. G ; Isa xliii. 6, 7), is evident from this consideration, that the clause would otherwise say nothing peculiar or distinctive of Assyria, as those before and after it do of Egypt and Israel. Some writers understand the last clause as still making a distinction in fevour of Israel, as if he had said, Egypt is indeed my people and Assyria my handiwork, but Israel after all and alone is my inheritance. The objections to this interpretation are, first, that it is wholly arbitrary; that is, it assumes a peculiar emphasis in the word inheritance which neither usage nor the context warrants ; and secondly, that it contradicts or makes unmeaning the varied and reiterated forms of speech by which the Prophet had before expressed the ideas of equahty and union. Where his very object seems to be to represent the three united powers as absolutely one in privilege, it cannot be supposed that he would wind up by saying that they are not absolutely equal afier all. Much less is such a meaning to be put upon his words when there is nothing in the words themselves to require or even authorize it. The correct view of the verse seems to be this : In order to express once more and in the most emphatic manuer the admission of Egypt and Assyria to the privileges of the chosen people, he selects three titles commonly bestowed upon the latter exclusively, to wit, G<>d's people, the woi-k cf his hands, and his inheritance, and these three he distributes to the three united po.vers •without discrimination or invidious distinction. If this view of the matter be correct, the meaning of the v^hole will be distorted by attaching an}' undue emphasis to the concluding words. As to the application of the propliecy, there arc three distinct opinions. / One is that the Prophet hero anticipates a state of peace and international communion between Egypt, Israel, and Assyria in his own times, which may or may not have been actually realized.-" Another is that he predicts what actual!}' did take place under the reign of Alexander and the two great powers that succeeded him, viz. the Graeco-Syrian and Egyptian monarchies, by which the true reli- gion was protected and diffused, and the way prepared for the preaching of the gospel. 3 A third is that Egypt and Assyria are here named as the tvi"0 great heathen powers known to the Jews, whose country lay between them, and was often the scene, if not the subject, of their contests, so that for ages they were commonly in league with the one against the other. To describe these two great belligerent powers as at peace with Israel and one another, was not only to foretell a most surprising revolution in the state of the world, but to intimate at least a future change in the relation of the Jews and Gentiles. When he goes still further and describes these representatives of heathenism as received into the covenant, and sharing with the church of God its most distinctive titles, we have one of the clearest and most striking predictions of the calling of the Gentiles that the word of God contains. One advantage of this exposition is, that while it thus extends and elevates the scope of the prediction, it ret lins unaltered whatever there may be of more specific prophecy or of coincidence with history. If Alex- ander is referred to, and the spread of Judaism under him and his succes- sors, with the general pacification of the world and progress of refinement, these are so many masterly strokes added to the great prophetic picture ; but thcj' cannot be extracted from it and made to constitute a picture b}' themselves. As to the construction of the first clause, it may be observed Yeb. 1.] ISAIAII XX. 3G5 that most writers refer the relative pronoun to ^"1^0) or give "ip*?!? the sense oi for, because, bnt Ewald and Knobel make i^?^? the antecedent, the bless- ing wherewith God has blessed it, as in Deut. xii. 7, xv. 14. In either case, the suffix 13^3 refers not to Xl^y} as a masculine, because denoting people, but to Egypt, Ass}Tia, and Israel, considered as a single nation. The preterite foiTQ of the verb has reference to the benediction as preced- ing and occasioning the union just before described. When Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are thus united, it will be because God has aJ ready blessed them, saying, &c. There is therefore no necessity or ground for an arbitrary change of the preterite into a future, nor even for evading an exact transla- tion by the substitution of the present form. How far the early Jews were below the genuine spirit of the Prophecies, may be gathered from the fact that both the Septuagint and Targum make this a promise to Israel exclusively, Assyria and Egypt being mentioned merely as the places where they had experienced affliction. CHAPTEE XX. About the time of the Assyrian attack on Ashdod, the Prophet is directed to walk naked and barefoot, as a sign of the defeat and captivity of the Egyp- tians and Ethiopians who were at war with Assp-ia. The first verse fixes the date of this symbolical transaction ; the second contains the divine com- mand and the record of its execution ; the third and fourth explain the meaning of the symbol ; the fifth and sixth predict its efifect, or rather that of the event which it prefigured. The questions which have been raised, as to the date of the composition and the fulfilment of the prophecy, will be most conveniently considered in the course of the detailed interpretation. It may be added here, however, that Cocceius, with all other interpreters, applies this chapter to the literal Egypt, but instead of admitting any in- consistency between this hypothesis and that which supposes chap. xix. to relate to the mystical Egv'pt, he ingeniously converts the juxtaposition into an argument for his own opinion, by alleging that the chapter now before us was added for the very purpose of shewing that the foregoing promises and threatenings did not belong to the literal Egypt. 1. In the year of Tartan's coming to Ashdod, in Sargon king of Assyria's sending him [i. e. when Sargon, king of Assyria, sent him), and he fought with Ashdod (i. e. besieged it) and took it. Ashdod was one of the five cities of the Philistines (Josh. xi. 22, xv. 46; 1 Sam. v. 1), considered on account of its strong fortifications (from which its name is supposed to be derived) the key of Egypt, and therefore frequently attacked in the wars between Egypt and Assyria. According to Herodotus, Psammetichus besieged it twenty-nine years. This, if not an exaggeration, is the longest siege in history, and probably took place after what is here recorded, in order to recover Ashdod from Assyria. Its site is marked by a village still called Esdud (Robinson's Palestine, ii. 368.) The name of Sargon nowhere else occurs. Tartan appears again as a general under Sennacherib (2 Kings xviii. 17). From this Usher, Grotius, Lowth, and Doederlein infer that Sargon and Sennacherib are one and the same person. According to Jerome, this king had seven names ; according to Kimchi and the Talmud, eight. This looks very much like a Jewish figment designed to render the alleged identity more probable. Marsham and J. D. Michaelis identify Sargon with Esarhaddon; Sanctius, Vitringa, andEichhorn, with Shalmaneser. All these B66 ISAIAH XX. [Ver. 2. suppositions are less probable than the obvious one, that Sargon was a ' king of Assyria mentioned only here, because his reign was very short, and this was the only occurrence that brought him into contact with the Jews. That he was not the immediate successor of Sennacherib, is clear from chap, xsxvii. 38, and from the fact which seems to be implied in 2 Chron. xxxii. 21, that Tartan perished in the great catastrophe. The most plausible hypothesis, and that now commonly adopted, is, that he reigned three or foui- years between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib (according to Ivnobel's computation, from 718 to 715 b.c). It is said indeed in one of the Apocrj'phal books (Tob. i. 15) that Sennacherib was the son of Ene- messar {i. e. Shalmaneser) ; but even allowing more weight to this authority than it deserves, Sargon may have been an elder brother. In the Vatican text of the Septuagint this name is wi'itten ' Aova, in the Complutensian Na^ra, by Aquila and Theodotion 'Sa^ayuv, The immediate succession of these two kings readily accounts for Tartan's being named as an officer of both, as Vitringa observes that Abner served under Saul and Ishbosheth, and Benaiah under David and Solomon. So the Duke of Wellington, in our day, has served under four successive sovereigns. Nothing, therefore, can be proved in this way as to the identity of Sargon and Sennacherib. Hendewerk even questions the propriety of inferring that they reigned in immediate succession, on the ground that Tartan, like Pmhsliakeh and Bab- saris (2 Kings xviii. 17), was not a proper name but an official title. Hendewerk himself, however, acquiesces in the common chronological hypothesis, although he questions this mode of proving it. The name Tartan is written in the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint "Nadav, in the Vatican Tavddav. Here, as in chap. vi. 1, it is disputed whether in the year of Tartan s coming means before or after that occurrence. The truth is, it means neither, but leaves that question undetermined, or at most to be determined by the context. Those who refer the last two verses of the chapter to the Philistines, and suppose the prophecy to have been in- tended to forewarn them of the issue of the siege of Ashdod, and of the folly of relpng on Egyptian or Ethiopian aid against Assp-ia, must of course assume that this symbolical transaction took place before the arrival of Tartan, or at least before the end of the siege. Those, on the other hand, who suppose it to refer to the Jews themselves, find it more natural to assume that the prophecy was uttered after the fall of Ashdod. In this case, the recording of the prophecy may have been contemporaneous -s^-ith its publication. In the other case, we must suppose it to have been re- duced to writing after the event. Here, as in chap. vii. 1-16, Gesenius infers from the use of the third person, that the chapter was not written by Isaiah himself, but by a scribe or amanuensis. Here too, as in chap, vii. 1, Ewald regards the last clause as a parenthetical anticipation, and the next verse as continuing the narrative directly. As if he had said, " In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod (which he besieged and finally took), at that time," kc. But this supposition is at least unnecessary. On the change of construction from the infinitive to the futm-e, and the collocation of the subject and the object in the first clause, vide supra, chap. V. 24. 2. At that time spake Jehovah hij the liand of Lmiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go, and thou shall open {i.e. loose) the sackcloth from, upon thy Joins, and thy shoe thou shall pull <[{ffrom. upon thy foot. And he did so, qoing naked and barefoot. Maimonides, Kimchi, Staudlin, and Hende- werk, suppose this to have been done merely in vision. This supposition Vek. 3.] ISAIAE XX. 367 is not altogether arbitrary, i. e. witliout any intimation in the text, but is rendered more improbable by the expression that he did so, as well as by the statement in the next verse, that the act required was to be a sign or symbol to the spectators, which certainly implies that it was really exhi- bited. This supposition of an ideal exposure seems to have been resorted to, in order to avoid the conclusion that the Prophet really appeared before the people in a state of nudity. It is commonly agreed, however, that this was not the case. The word naked is used to express partial denuda- tion in all languages. The examples quoted by Vitringa from Seneca, Suetonius, and Aurelius Victor, have been copied or referred to by most later writers. As biblical examples, may be cited 1 Sam. six. 24, 2 Sam. vi. 20, Amos ii. 16, John xxi. 7. In the case before us we may either suppose that the PP' was an upper garment which he threw entirely off, or an inner garment which opened by ungirding it, or a girdle itself which he loosened and perhaps removed. Sackcloth was a common mourning dress, and some suppose that Isaiah was now wearing it in token of his grief for the exile of the ten tribes (Kimchi, Lightfoot). Others understand it as an official or ascetic dress worn by the prophets (Zech. xiii. 4), as for in- stance by Elijah (2 Kings i. 8), and by John the Baptist (Matt. iii. 4). Others again suppose that it is mentioned as a cheap coarse dress worn by the Prophet in common with the humbler class of the people. The name P'^ appears to have reference merely to the coarseness of the texture ; but the cloth would seem to have been usualty made of hair, and, in later times at least, of a black colour (Rev. vi. 12). The expression by the hand denotes ministerial agency or intervention, and is often used in reference to communications made to the people through the prophets. (Exod. iv. 13; 1 Sam. xvi. 20 ; Jer. xxxvii. 2.) So in this case the divine communica- tion was realty addressed to the people, though the words immediately ensuing are addressed to the Prophet himself. There is no ground, there- fore, for suspecting, with Hendewerk, that the words "l!?, &c., were inter- polated afterwards as an explanatory gloss, or for assuming, with Gesenius, that 1!? is here used like a corresponding phrase in Arabic to mean before or in the presence of, as some suppose it does in 1 Sam. xxi. 14, and Job XV. 27. It is not even necessary to suppose that the phrase has exclusive reference to the symbolical action. Gill : " He spoke bij him by the sign he used according to his order, and he spoke to him to use the sign." The simplest and most natural solution is, that what was said to the Prophet was obviously said through him to the people. Above thirty manuscripts and several editions read Hvil in the plural, but of course vrithout a change of meaning. 3. And Jehovah said, As my servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years a sign and symbol concerning Egypt and concerning Ethiopia. Here begins the divine explanation of the symbolical act before commanded. Although the design of this transaction was to draw attention by exciting surprise, ri210 does not merely mean a wonder, but a ■portent or extraordi- nary premonition. ^V might here be taken in the more specific sense of against, but the more general meaning is sufficient, and agi-ees well with the context. Cush has been variously explained to mean a part of Ai'abia on the coast of the Red Sea (Bochart), or this part of Arabia^ -with the oppo- site part of Africa (Vitringa) ; biit the latest authorities confirm the ancient explanation of the word as meaning Ethiopia. In the prophecies belonging to the reign of Hezekiah, Egypt and Ethiopia are frequently combined, either because they were in close alliance, or because an Ethiopian dynasty 868 ISAIAH XX. [Ver. 4. tlien reigned in Upper Egypt. It has been a question with interpreters whether the words three years are to be connected with what follows or what goes before. The Septuagint gives both solutions by repeating r^ia iTT}. The Masoretic interpunction throws the words into the second clause, three years a sujn, &c. This construction is adopted by some modern writers for the purpose of avoiding the conclusion that Isaiah walked naked and bare- foot for the space of three years, which is certainly the obvious and prima facie meaning of the words. Those who adhere to the Masoretic accents, understand the second clause to mean a tJiree years' si(/n ami wonder, i. e. either a sign of something to occur in three years, or to continue three years, or a sign for three years of a subsequent event. Those who connect three years with what precedes, either understand the language strictly as denoting that the Prophet continued to go naked and barefoot for that space of time, or palliate the harshness of this supposition by assuming that he only appeared thus when he went abroad, or at certain set times, or occasionally. The most improbable hypothesis of all is that of a transposition in the text, niN Wl'^ U^\t> for D''Jt;' U^^ niS (Gesenius), unless the preference be due to that of Lowth, that the original reading was three days, or to that of Vitringa, that three days was meant to be supplied by the reader. On the whole, the simplest and most satisfactory solution is that proposed by Hitzig, who sup- poses the Prophet to have exposed himself but once in the way described, after which he coutinued to be a sign and wonder for three years, /. e. till the fulfilment of the prophecy. This explanation avoids the difficulty as to the three years' exposure, and at the same time adheres to the Masoretic interpunction. The three years have been variously understood, — as the duration of the siege of Ashdod, as the duration of the exile threatened in the next verse, and as the interval which should elapse between the pro- phecy and its fulfilment. Of these three hypotheses the second is the least probable, while the first and third may be combined. 4. So shall the kiny of Assyria lead the captivity (i. e. the captives) of Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, ivith their buttocks imcovered, the nakedness (or disgrace) of Egypt. This verse completes the comparison begun in that before it. Jn^ is commonly applied to flocks and herds, and, like the Latin ago, corresponds both to lead and drive in English. Our language does not furnish two equivalents to "*3C^ and ri-1?| as abstract nouns, exile being never used as a collective for exiles. The sense of the original is expressed, with a change of form, in the English Version [the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captire:f). and by Luther {das gefangcne Egyptcn und vertriebene Mohrenland). The phrase C^i^t'l Q''"?!^? is not meant to exclude men in the prime of life because already slain in battle (Musculus), but comprehends all ages. It is clear from this verse that Isaiah's exposure did not prefigure the spoliation of the Egyptians (Barnes), but their personal captivity. It is also clear, from a comparison of the type and antitype, that the nakedness of ver. 2 was a par- tial one, since captives were not commonly reduced to a state of absolute nudity. This is confinned by the addition of the word barefoot in both cases, which would be superfluous if naked had its strictest sense. The last clause is separately construed by Ewald: they who are thus uncovered are the shame of Egypt. Other interpreters continue the construction from the pre\ious clause. ^^"^V. is not to be taken in its strict sense, as in appo- sition with the plirase before it, but in its secondaiy sense of shame or igno- miny, with or without a preposition understood. The omission of Ethiopia in this last clause is no ground for supposing it to be interpolated in the other Ver. 5, 6.] ISAIAH XX. 369 (Hitzig), nor is there an allusion to the greater sensitiveness of the Egj^p- tians (Vitringa). The omission is, so to speak, an accidental one, i. e. without design or meaning. Even Hendewerk exclaims against the tasteless and unmeaning maxim, that a writer who repeats his own expressions must do it with servile exactness, or be suspected of some deep design in the omission. Connected as Egypt and Ethiopia were in fact and in the fore- going context, either name includes the other. The huui of Assyria here meant is neither Nebuchadnezzar (Cocceius), nor Esarhaddon, nor Shalma- neser, but either Sennacherib or Sargon himself. The modern German wTiters suppose this prediction to have been fulfilled in the conquest of No- Ammon {i.e. Diospolis or Thebes), mentioned in Nahum iii. 8 as a recent event. How long beforehand the prediction was uttered is a question of small moment, and one which cannot be decided. There is no ground, however, for the supposition that the interval was so short as to convert the prophecy into a mere conjecture or an act of sagacious forecast. Equally vain are the attempts to determine whether the king of Assyria remained at home during the siege of Ashdod, or was then engaged in his attack upon Egypt. The chronological h}T)otheses of Usher, Marsham, and Vitringa, airassume that Sargra was identical either with Shalmaneser, Esarhaddon, or Sennacherib, '•S-lb'q is explained by Jarchi as a singular with a super- numerary syllable, by Kimchi and Gesenius as an old form of the plural absolute', by Ewald as an old form of the plural construct. On the con- struction with the following noun, ride siqyra, chap, i. 4, iii. 16. 5. And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and .of Egypt their boast. This is the effect to be produced by the catas- trophe just threatened. Both the Hebrew verbs take IP after them, as afraid and ashamed take of in English ; but the full sense of -I^H is, that they shall be confounded, filled with consternation, at the fate of those in whom they trusted for deliverance, t^SP is that to which they look for help. It is used in the same sense Zech, ix. 5, According to Hitzig, t33p properly belongs to D'^DVP, but was taken from it to be joined with the interpolated ti'-IS, its place being supplied by the inappropriate word nnj^pn, Knobel, on the contrary, sees a pecuHar beauty in the distinction between Ethiopia, to which they merely looked for help, and Egypt, from which they had formerly received it, and in which they therefore gloried. The verbs in this verse are indefinite. Some refer them to the Philistines, others to the Jews, and a thii-d class to an Egyptian faction in Jerusalem. These are mere conjectures, nor can anything more be ascertained from the intentionally vague terms of the text. That the words refer to the Phihstines, is inferred from the mention of the siege of Ashdod in the first verse. But this is by no means a necessary inference, since Ashdod was attacked and taken, not as a town of the Philistines, but as a frontier post of gi-eat importance to both parties in the war. So far, then, as the Jews were interested in the war at all, they were interested in the fate of Ashdod, and the mention of this siege as one of the principal events of the campaign is altogether natural. In favour of the reference to Judah may be also urged the want of any clear example in Isaiah of a prophecy exclusively intended for the warning or instruction of a foreign power. In either case, the meaning of the verse is, that they who had relied on Egj^pt and its ally Ethiopia for aid against Assyi-ia, whether Jews or Philistines, or both, should be confounded at beholding Egypt and Ethiopia themselves subdued. 6. And the inhabitant of this isle (or coast) shall say in that day, Be- voT.. T. A a 370 ISAIAH XXI. [Ver. 6. hohl, thus (or such) is our expectation, uhither ue Jicd for help, to he delivered from the presence of the king of Assyria. And hoic shall ue (ourselves) escaped The disappointment described in the foregoing verse is now expressed by those who felt it. The argument is one a fortiori. If the protectors were subdued, what must become of the protected ? The jjronoun in the last clause is emphatic, as it usuallj' is when not essential to the sense. The Hebrew ''5:> has no exact equivalent in English. Three dis- tinct shades or gi-adations of meaning seem to be clearly marked in usage. The tu-st is that of laiul, as opposed to water ; the second that of coast, as opposed to inland ; the third that of island, as opposed to mainland. The last, although commonly expressed in most translatiocs, is perhaps the least frequent of the three. The word here denotes, not Lower Egypt, or the Delta of the Nile (Clericus), but the south-eastern shore of the Mediterranean, here called this coast, as Hendewerk observes, in order to distinguish it from that coast, viz. Ethiopia and Egypt, which had just before been mentioned. As to the extent of country meant to be included, nothing of course can be determined from the word itself, which is de- signedly indefinite. Hitzig, in accordance with his view of the whole pro- phecy, restricts the application to the land of the Philistines, as the maritime tract in the south-west of Palestine, adjacent to Egypt. Others with more probability regard it as denoting Palestine itself, in the large modern sense, but with particular reference to Judah. — Thus or such is our expectation, i. e. this is the end of it, you see what has become of it, you see the fate of that to which we looked for help C^PSO) ; how then can we ourselves (•l^nj^.) be delivered or escape ? See a similar expression, 2 Kin"s X. 4. CHAPTEE XXL As three of the verses of this chapter begin with the word i<\}V (vers. 1, 11, 13), it is now commonly supposed to consist of three distinct pro- phecies. It is also agreed that the first of these (vers. 1-10) relates to the conquest of Babylon by the Medes and Persians ; the second (vers. 11, 12) either to Edom, or the Arabian tribe Dumali ; and the third (vers. 13-17) to another Arabian tribe, or to Arabia in general. The second and third of these divisions are admitted by the recent German writers to be genuine, that is to say, composed by Isaiah himself, while the first is with almost equal unanimity declared to the product of a later age. This critical judgment as in other cases, is founded parth^ on alleged diver- sities of phraseolog}', but chiefly on the wonderful coincidences with his- tory, both sacred and profane, which could not be ascribed to Isaiah or to any contcmporarj- writer, without conceding the reality of prophetic inspira- tion. The principle involved in this decision is consistently carried out by Paulus, Eichhorn, and Rosenmiiller, who regard Ihe passage as an ex post facto prophecy, while Gcscnius, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, and Ivnobel, arbitrarily reject this supposition, and maintain that it was written just before the event, when Isaiah, as a politician or a poet, could foresee what was to happen. Upon this we may observe, first, that all such reasoning proceeds, not upon the want of satisfactorj- evidence, but upon the impossibility of inspiration or prophetic foresight, so that even suppos- ing it to have existed, no proof could establish it. There is nothing, therefore, in the reasoning of such writers to fchake the faith of any who Vek. 1.] ISAIAH XXI. 371 do not hold their fundamental principle of unbelief. In the next place, this hypothesis entirely fails to account for the minute agreement of the prophecy with history in circumstantials, which must therefore be ex- plained away by forced "constructions and interpretations. Taking the language in its obvious meaning, and excluding all gratuitous assumptions, we shall be constrained to look upon this passage as one of the most striking instances of strict agreement between prophecy and history. As to the remainder of the chapter, while it cannot be denied that the connection of the parts, and the meaning of each in itself, are exceed- ingly obscure, it may be doubted whether there is sufficient ground for their entire separation as distinct and independent prophecies. The ex- treme brevity, especially of the second part (vers. 11, 12), makes this very dubious, and the doubt is strengthened by the recurrence of the figure of a watchman in ver. 11. The conclusion drawn from the use of the word iib'D rests upon the dubious assumption that it is to be regarded as a for- mal title or inscription. It is worthy of remark, that some of the same writers who reject these titles as no part of the text, appeal to theii* authority in settling the division and arrangement of the chapter. The truth is, that this formula, in many cases, seems to indicate at most the subdivisions of an unbroken context. In the case before us, as in chap. xiv. 20, it is safer to assume the unity of the composition than rashly to dismember it. However difficult it may be, therefore, to deter- mine the connection of these parts, they may safely be regarded as composing one obscure but continuous prediction. This is the less im- probable, because they can all be brought into connection, if not unity, by simply supposing that the tribes or races, to which vers. 11-17 relate, were sharers with the Jews in the Babylonian tyranny, and therefore in- terested in its . downfall. This hypothesis, it is true, is not susceptible of demonstration ; but it is strongly recommended by the very fact that it explains the juxtaposition of these prophecies, or rather entitles them to be considered one. The first part of the prophecy opens with an emphatic intimation of its alarming character, vers. 1-4. We have then a gi-aphic representation of the march of the Modes and Persians upon Babylon, vers. 5-9. This is followed by a hint of the effect which this event would have upon the people of Jehovah, ver. 10. The remainder of the chapter represents the neighbouring nations as in- volved in the same sufferings mth the Jews, but without any consolatory promise of deliverance, vers. 11-17. 1. TJte burden of the desert of the sea. Like whirlwinds in the south, as to rushing {ox driving) from the ivilderness it comes, from a terrible land. By the desert of the sea, Grotius understands the country of the Edomites, extending to the Red Sea, as it did in the days of Solomon (1 Kings ix. 26). Other interpreters are agreed that the phrase is an enigmatical de- scription of Babylonia as a great plain (Gen. xi. 1 ; Isa. xsiii. 13), watered by a great river, which, like the Nile (chap. xix. 5), is sometimes called a sea (chap, xxvii. 1). This designation was the more appropriate because the plain of Babylon, according to Herodotus, was often overflowed before Semiramis took measures to prevent it, and Abydenus says expressly that it then had the appearance of a sea. The threatened danger is compared to the approach of a tempest from the south, i.e. from the great Arabian desert, in which quarter the most violent winds are elsewhere represented as prevailing. 7 before ^Ivn denotes relatitn in general, and indicates the 372 ISAIAH XXI. [Ver. 2-4. point of the comparison. N2 is indefinite, and may either be referred to the enemy or made to agree with something, or the hke understood. As "ISI^P cannot be referred to the countries through which Cyrus passed, Knobel disregards the accents and connects it with what goes before. " Like south-winds sweeping from the wilderness, one comes (or they come) from a terrible land." This, however, is unnecessary, as the phrase IS'jiDp may be figurative, and refer to the foregoing comparison, as if he had said, thej' come as storms come from the desert. 2. A hard vision^ it is revealed to me ; the deceiver deceiving and the spoiler spoiling. Go tip, 0 Elam ; besiege, 0 Media : all sighing (or all its sighing) have I made to cease. The first phrase of course means a vision of severe and awful judgments. The feminine form of the noun is connected with a masculine verb, as Henderson imagines, to intimate the dreadful nature of the judgment threatened. It is hard to see how this end is attained by an irregularity of syntax. Others regard it as a mere enallage, which is the less probable, however, as the noun precedes the verb. Per- haps the simplest explanation is that *l|n is indefinite, and governs the preceding words; as if he had said, A revelation has been made to me (con- sisting of) a grievous vision. The older writers understand the next clause as a description of the Babylonian tyranny, and give 1.^13 its usual meaning of a treacherous dealer. The late writers apply the clause to the conquerors of Babylon, and make "'JIS nearly synonymous with ^!li^'. But this sense of the word cannot be justified by usage. Nor is it necessary, even if the clause be applied to Cjtus, since one of the terms may describe the strata- gems of war, as the other does its \dolence. This is the more natural, as Babylon was actually taken by stratagem. Go np, i. e. against Babylon, either in reference to its lofty defences (chap. xxvi. 5), or according to a more general military usage of the phrase. {}'ide supra, chap, vii, 1.) The Modes and Persian were united under Cyrus, but the latter are here named first, as Knobel thinks, because they were now in the ascendant. The final letter of "^OC?^ is commonly regarded as a suffix, though without mappik, all its sighing, sc. Babylon's, /. e. all the sighing it has caused by its oppres- sion, or all the sighing of it, sc. the ri-l?!, or captivity. Some, however, make the letter paragogic, and read all sighing, which amounts to the same thing, the limitation which is expressed in one case being understood in the other. Elam, a province of the Persian empire, is here put for the whole. Knobel sees a designed paronomasia in the similar forms o?'']} "y Hero- Itus and Z^nophon, and in full detail by Daniel. That the two first how- ever, did not derive their information from the prophet, may be inferred from their not mentioning the writing on the wall,-a prodigy which would have seemed incredible to neither of them. _ ■ , .j , 5 Set the table, spread the cloth, eat, drink : arise, ye chiefs, anoint the shield' The Hebrew verbs are not imperatives but infinitives, here usea in the fii-st clause for the historical tense in order to give brevity, rapidity, and hfe to the description. For the same purpose the English imperative may be employed, as the simplest form of the verb, and unencumbered with the personal pronouns. The sense, however, is, that while the table is set, &c., the alarm is given. Luzzatto makes the whole verse antithetical : they set the table, they had better set a watch ; they eat and drink, they had better arise and anoint the shield. n^SVn HD^ is commonly_ explained o mean watching the vatch, i.e. setting a guard to prevent surprise. But he context impHes that they were surprised. Ewald refers it to the watching of the stars, which agi'ees well with the Babylonian usages but, Ijke the first explanation seems misplaced between the setting of the table and the sittmg at it. Hitzig and Knobel give nsv the usual sense of ns>, to overspread or cover, and n^?V (which occurs only here) that of the thmg ^P^ead whe- ther it be the cloth or skin which serves the orientals for a table,_or the carpet upon which they sit at meals. The anointing of the shield is sup- posed by some to be a means of preserving it or of repelling missiles from its surface, by others simply a means of cleansmg and perhaps adornrng it Both agree that it is here poetically used to express the idea of arming or preparing for battle. There are two interpretations of the last clause One makes^t an address by Jehovah or the Prophet to the Medes and Persians, as in the last clause of ver. 2 ; the other a sudden alarm to the Babylonians at their feast. Both explanations but especially the ast, seem to present a further allusion to the surprise of the king and court by Cjius. This coincidence with histor.^ can be explained away only by givmg to the verse a vague and general meaning, which is wholly at variance with the gi-aphic vividness of its expressions. , jn ,? ,.i 6 For thus saith the Lord to me: Go set (or cause to stand) the watch- man (or sentinel) ; that which he sees let him, tell. Instead of simply predic - ing or describing the approach of the enemy, the P^^^^^f ^«f ^^.^ ^2f t wftchman, as announcing what he actually sees. According to Knobel, he is himself the watchman (Hab. i. 8), which is hardly consistent with the lanc^uace of this verse. The last clause may be also construed thus-«;Ao may see {and) tell; but the first construction seems more natural. 7. And should he see cavalrrj-a pan- (or pairs of horsemen)-a.s-nders- camel-riders—then shall he hearken with hearkening a great hearkening [t. e Sn Attentively). This is Ewald's construction of the sen ence,^h^ sunnoses the divine instructions to be still continued. A 1 other writeis Srstand the Prophet as resuming his own narrative ; and he saw o^ h^ sees^ &c Against this construction, and m favour of the fiist, is the torm of tli; verbs, which are all in the P-terite with «.m-..., because fo^ lowin<. the futures of the foregoing verse (Nordheimer, § 219). /^sides it he usual construction be adopted, ver. 9 is a mere repetition of ver. 7, and 374 ISAIAH XXI. [Yek. 8. ver. 8 IS obviously misplaced between Ihem. But on the other supposition this verse contains the order, and the ninth its execution, while the ei.Thth,' as a preface to the latter, is exactly in its proper place, nov is propedy a yoke of oxen, then a i^nir in general. It is here collective, and means »a//-s of horsemen, i. e. horsemen in pairs, or marching two and two. The sense of steeds or riding-horses (as opposed to D^p-ID, chariot-horses), "iven to DT"?? by Gesenius, is extremely rare and doubtful, and ought not to be assumed without necessity. 33^ in a very great majority of cases means a chariot. But as this would seem to make the Prophet speak of chariots drawTi by asses and camels, most of the late writers either take the word in the sense of rows or troops, which seems entirely arbitrary, or in that of mounted troops or cavalry, which seems to be easily deducible from 33T to ride, and may be justified by the analogy of 1 Sam.'viii. 4, x. 18, where'the word must mean cither riders, or the beasts on which they rode, although the English translators, in order to retain the usual sense of chariot, supply horses m one place and men in the other. On the first of these hypotheses, the camels and asses would be mentioned only as beasts of burden • but we know from Herodotus and Xenophon that the Persians also used th^m in their armies for riding, partly or wholly for the purpose of fi-ightenin^ the horses of the enemy. It is a slight but obvious coincidence of prophecy and history, that Xenophon represents the Persians advancin'^ two by two {ih dvo). ° "^ 8. And he cries— a Hon— on the watch-toicer, Lord, T am standing always Jnj day, and on. my xvard {ov place of observation) I am- stationed all the yiight {i. e. all night, or every night, or both). That the settinc» of this watch is an ideal process, seems to be intimated by the word 'JIN one of the divine names (not ^n^>^ my lord_ or sir), and also by the unremitted vigilance to which he here lays claim. From the first of these particulars, Knobel infers that the Prophet is himself the watchman stationed by Jeho- vah. But see ver. 7, and the comment on it. Another view of the passacre maybe suggested as possibly the true one, ^az., that the Prophet, on receiv- ing the order to set a watch, replies that he is himself engaged in the per- foi-mance of that duty. According to the usual interpretation, these are the words of the delegated watchman, announcing that he is at his post, and will remain there, and announce whatever he may see. There are two explana- tions of n.^.-iN NnpM.. ^ The first makes n;."px the beginning of the watchman's speech— Ae cries, a lion ! i. e. I see a lion coming, meaning the invader. The objection to this is not, as Henderson alleges, that the usage of the lan<:'uage does not authorize such an application of the figure of a lion ; but rathe? that this abrupt and general announcement of the enemy would hardly have been followed by a prefatory declaration of the watchman's diligence. This, it is clear, must come before, not after, the announcement of"the enemy, and accordingly we find that announcement in the next verse, corresponding ex- actly to the terms of the instructions in the seventh. These considerations seem decisive in favour of the other hypothesis, now commonly adopted, viz that n'-.-lN forms no part of the sentinel's report, but is rather a description of the way in which he makes it. The true sense of the words is given in a paraphrase in Rev. x. 8, he cried with a loud voice as tcheti a lion roareth. As to the syntax, we may either supply 3 before nnx, of which ellipsis there are some examples, or still more simply road the lion cries, thus converting the simile into a metaphor. The first construction agrees best, however, with the Masoretic accents. Luzzatto explains r\':'\^ as the usual cry of shepherds when they saw wild beasts approaching. Ver. 9-ll.J ISAIAH XXI. 375 9. And behold, this comes (or tliis is what is coming), mounted men, pairs of horsemen. And he ansioers {i. e. speaks again) and says, Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all the images of her gods he has broken (or crushed) to the earth. The last verb is indefinitely construed, but obviously refers to the enemy as the instrument of Babylon's destruction rather than to God, as the efficient cause. The omission of the asses and camels in this verse is explained by Knobel on the ground that the enemy is now to be conceived as having reached the city, his beasts of burden being left behind him. But the true explanation seems to be that the description given m ver. 7 is abbreviated here, because so much was to be added. Still the corres- pondence is sufficiently exact, ^'i^ ^5^ is supposed by some to mean chariots containing men ; but according to the analogy of ver. 7, it rather means mounted men. As the phrases caniel-riders, ass-riders, there used, from the nature of the case can only mean riders upon camels and asses, so here man-riders, from the nature of the case, can only mean men who are riders themselves. The structure of the passage is highly dramatic. In the sixth verse, the Prophet is commanded to set a watch. In the seventh, the sentinel is ordered to look out for an army of men, mounted on horses, camels, and asses. In the eighth, he reports himself as being at his post. In the ninth, he sees the very army which had been described approaching. An- su-er is used, both in Greek and Hebrew, for the resumption of discourse by the same speaker, especially after an interval. It is here equivalent to spoke again. During the interval implied, the city is supposed to have been taken, so that when the watchman speaks again, it is to say that Babylon is fallen. The omission of all the intermediate details, for the purpose of bringing the extremes together, is a masterly stroke of poetical description, which would never have occurred to an inferior writer. The allusion to idols in the last clause is not intended merely to remind us that the conquest was a triumph of the true God over false ones, but to bring into view the well known aversion of the Persians to all images. Herodotus says they not only thought it unlawful to use images, but imputed folly to those who did it. Here is another incidental but remarkable coincidence of prophecy even with profane history. 10. 0 my threshing, and the son rf my threshing-floor! What I have heard from Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, I have told you. This part of the prophecy closes with an apostrophe, showing at once by whose power and for whose sake the downfall of Babylon was to be brought about. TJireshing here means that which is threshed, and is synonymous with the following phrase, son of the threshing-floor, i. e. (according to the_ oriental idiom which uses son to signify almost any relation) threshed gram. The comparison of severe oppression or afaiction to threshing is a common one, and though the terms here used are scarcely intelligible when literally ren- dered into English, it is clear that they mean, oh my oppressed and qffhcted people, and must therefore be addressed not to the Babylonians but the Jews, to whom the fall of Babylon would bring deliverance, and for whose consola- tion this prediction was originally uttered. The last clause assures them that their own God had sent this message to them. 11. The burden of Dumah. To me {one is) calling from beir. Watch- man, what of the night f Watchman, what of the night? It has been al- ready stated that most interpreters regard this and the next verse as an independent prophecy ; but that the use of the word ^^O is an insufficient reason, while the extreme brevity of the passage, and the recurrence of the fif^ure of a sentinel or watchman, seem to indicate that it is a continuation ot 376 ISAIAH XXL [Ver. 12. what goes before, althouf,'li a new subject is here introtluceJ. Oi Dumah there are two interpretations. J. D. MichaeHs, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, understand it as the name of an Arabian tribe descended from Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 14 ; 1 Chron. i. 30), or of a place belonging to that tribe, perhaps the same now called Dumali EJjandil on the confines of Arabia and Syria. In that case, Seir, which lay between Judah and the desert of Arabia, is mentioned merely to denote the quarter whence the sound pro- ceeded. But as Seir was itself the residence of the Edomites or children of Esau, Vitringa, Piosenmiillor, and Knobel, follow the Septuagint and Jar- chi, in explaining HO-n as a variation of the name Qil^., intended at the same time to suggest the idea of silence, solitude, and desolation. This enigmati- cal name, as well as that in ver. 1, is ascribed by Knobel to the copyist or compiler who added the inscriptions. In favour of the first interpretation is the mention of Arabia and of certain Arabian tribes in the following verses. But even Edom might be said to form a part of Arabia. Jerome also mentions Dumah as a district in the south of Edom. The greater import- ance of Edom, and the frequency with which it is mentioned in the prophets, especially as an object of divine displeasure, also recommend this exegetical hypothesis. Ivnobel adds that the Edomites were subject to Judah till the year b.c. 743, and would therefore naturally take part in its sufierings from Babylonian tyrann}-. . Clericus understands the question to be, what has happened since last night ? The English Version seems to mean, what have you to say of the night ? Interpreters are commonly agi^eed, however, that the IP is partitive, and that the question is, what part of the night is it, equivalent to our question, vrhat o'clock ? This may have been a custom- an,- method of interrogating watchmen. N!)p is indefinite, or may agree with ?"lp understood. {Vide infra, chap. xl. 3). Night is a common meta- phor to represent calamity, as daybreak does relief from it. Some regard this as a taunting inquiry addressed to Judah by his heathen neighbours. It is much more natural, however, to explain it as an expression of anxiety arising from a personal concern in the result. 12. The toatchman says. Morning comes and also nig] it ; if ye will in- quire, inquire ; return, come. Grotius understands this to mean that though the natural morning might return, the moral or spiritual night would still continue. Gesenius explains it as descriptive of vicissitude : morning comes, but night comes after it. Most writers understand it as relating to diflerent subjects : morning comes (to one) and night (to another) ; which would seem to mean that while the Jewish night was about to be dispelled, that of Edom or Arabia should still continue. Those who regard these verses as genuine, but deny the inspiration of the writer, are under the ne- cessitj' of referring them to something which took place in the days of Isaiah. Ivnobel, for example, understands him here as threatening Edom with a visit from the Assyrians on their return from Egypt. But connected as the words are with the foregoing prophecy, it is far more natural to under- stand them as referring to the Babylonian conquest of Judea and the neigh- bouring countries. The last clause intimates that the event was still un- certain. Henderson and others give to -I^C^* the spiritual sense of repentance and conversion ; but there seems to be no need of departing from the literal import of the word. The true sense of the clause is that given by Luther. If you wish to know you must inquire again ; you are come too soon ; the time of your deliverance is not at hand ; return or come again. On any hypothesis, however, these two verses still continue enigmatical and doubt- ful in their meaning'. Ver. 13-15.] ISAIAH XXI. 377 13. The burden of Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, oh ye caravans of Dedunim. The genuineness of this verse and of those which follow is questioned by Eichhorn, Paulus, Baur, and Rosenmiiller, hut de- fended by Knobel on the ground that "11^3 IX^^, and "i''?^ \^^ are expressions belonging to Isaiah's dialect. Hitzig and Hendewerk, with the older writers, regard these verses, and vers. 11, 12, as forming one prophecy. But Knobel maintains that vers. 11, 12 are of a later date, for the singular reason that they speak with uncertainty of that which is confidently foretold in the others. He also alleges that the title or inscription was taken from the word ^"^V^ in the next clause, even the preposition being retained. But 2 is often interposed between words most closely connected, and this very combination occurs in Zech. ix. 1, where no such explanation can be given. The Prophet here passes from Edom to Arabia, or from one Arabian tribe or district to another. The answer in ver. 12, that the dawn was approach- ing for the Jews but not for them, is here explained. The country was to be in such a state that the caravans which usually travelled undisturbed would be obliged to leave the public road, and pass the night among the bushes or thickets, which seems to be here (and perhaps originally) the meaning of IJ?!. Forests properly so called do not exist in the Arabian desert. Gesenius explains nilTjlN as the participle of n"]!St, used as a noun in the sense of travelling companies or caravans. The Dedanim are men- tioned elsewhere in connection with Edom and Teman (Jer. xlix. 8 ; Ezek. XXV. 13), to whom they were probably contiguous. Their precise situation is the less important as they are not the subjects of the prophecy, but spoken of as strangers passing through, the interruption of whose journey is mentioned as a proof of the condition of the country. For 3^y3 the an- cient versions seems to read '^'}V^, in which they are followed by Lowth, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel, the last of whom defends the emendation on the twofold ground, that 3^y is a name found only in the later Hebrew writers, and that the addition of this name would be superfluous, as the caravans of Dedanim must pass of course through the desert of Arabia. The first of these arguments admits the easy answer that this place is itself a proof of earlier usage. To the second it may be replied, that Arabia is not half so superfluous as evening in connexion with •IJyri which strictly means to spend the night. How easy it would be to retort upon such criticism by demanding whether they could pass the night in the day-time. 14. To meet the thirsty they bring loater, the inhabitants of the land of Tema ; ivith his bread they prevent (i. e. meet or anticipate) the fugitive. The men of Tema, another Arabian tribe, also engaged in trade (Jer. xxv. 23 ; Job vi. 19), are described as bringing food and drink, not to the De- danim mentioned in ver. 13, but to the people of the wasted country. His bread is rendered in the English Version as a collective {their bread) refer- ing to the men of Tema ; but the suffix relates rather to the fugitive him- self, and the whole phrase means his portion of food, the food necessary for him, his daily bread. The ancient versions make the verbs imperative and understand the sentence as an exhortation to the people of Tema. This construction, which is adopted by Henderson, requires a change in the pointing of the text, for w^hich there is no suflicient authority, much less a necessity. On the contrary, the context makes it far more natural to under- stand the Prophet as describing an act than as exhorting to it. 15. Because (or when) from the presence of swords they fled , from the pre- sence of a drawn sioord and from the presence of a bended bow, and from the presence of a weight of war. This verse describes them as not only plun- 378 ISAIAH XXII. [Yeb. 16, 17. dered but pursued by a blood-thirsty enemy. nL^'ID^, according to usage, seems to mean not only clraiun or thrust forth, but given up, abandoned to itself, and as it were allowed to do its worst. "I^^ is properly weight, pres- sure, burden, or oppression. The corresponding verb is connected with the same noun in 1 Sam. xxxi. 3. 16. For thus saith the Lord to me, In yet a year (or in a year hnger) Ulce the years of a hireling {i. e. strictly computed) shall fail (or cease) all the glory of Kedar. This verse seems to fix a time for the fulfilment of the foregoing prophecy. Here, as in chap. xvii. 3, glory comprehends all that constitutes the dignity or strength of a people. On the meaning of the phrase 'T'?^ ''i?kf?, vide supra, chap. xvi. 14. Kedar was the second son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 13). The name is here put either for an Arab tribe or for Arabia in general (Isa. xlii. 11, Ix. 7 ; Ezek. xxvii. 21). The Rabbins call the Arabic the language of Kedar. The chronological specification in this ^■erse makes it necessary, either to assume a later writer than Isaiah, as some do in chap. xvi. 14, or a terminus a quo posterior to his time, as if he had said, within a year after something else before pridictcd ; or an abrupt recurrence from the days of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus to those of Hezekiah. The last would be wholly in accordance with the usage of the prophets ; but the best solution seems to be afforded by the second hypothesis. The sense will then be that the Arabians who sufiered with the Jews, so far from sharing their deliverance, should, within a year after the event, be entirely destroyed. At the same time, due allowance should be made for diversity of judgment in a case so doubtful. 17. And the remnant of the number of bows (or archers), the mighty men (or heroes), of the children of Kedar, shall he feiv {or become fcic), for Jehovah God of Israel hath spoken it. riK'p is here collective and may either be in regimen or apposition with the words which follow. The latter construction is favoured by the accents. We read elsewhere of the archery of Ishmael (Gen xxi. 20) and Kedar (Ps. cxx. 4). Another construction, which refers the first clause to the remnant left by the bows of the enemy, is possible, but should not be assumed without necessity. The last clause intimates that God, as the God of Israel, has a quarrel with Kedar, and at the same time that his power and omniscience will secure the fulfilment of the threatening. It is not impossible that future discoveries may yet throw light upon these brief and obscure prophecies. CHAPTER XXII. This chapter naturally falls into two parts. The first decribes the conduct of the people of Jerusalem during a siege, vers. 1-14. The second predicts the removal of Shebna from his post as treasurer or steward of the royal household, vers. 15-25. The modern critics are of course inclined to treat these parts as independent prophecies, although they admit that both are by Isaiah, and that both were written probably about the same time. Against this supposition, and in favour of regarding them as one connected composition, we may argue, first, from the want of any title to the second part. This, it is true, is not conclusive, but creates a presumption which can only be rebutted by strong direct evidence. Another reason is that the second part of this chapter is the only example in Isaiah of a prophecy against an. individual. This again is not conclusive, since there might bo one such prophecy, if no more. But the presumption is against it, as Vek. 1.] ISAIAn XXII. 379 analogy and usage give the preference to any exegetical hypothesis which woukl connect this personal prediction with one of a more general nature. A third reason is that in the second part the ground or occasion of the threatening is not expressed, and it is certainly less probable that the design was meant to be conjectured or inferred from the prophecy itself, than that it is explained in the passage which immediately precedes it. The result appears to be, that by considering the parts as independent prophecies we leave the second incomplete and sui generis, whereas by combining them, we make the one explain the other; and as no philological or critical objec- tion has been urged against this supposition, it is probably the true one. The whole may then be described as a prophecy against the people of Jeru- salem in general, and against Shebna in particular, considered as their leader and example. It has been disputed whether the description in the first part of this chapter was intended to apply to the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, or by Esarhaddon in the reign of Manasseh, or by Nebuchadnezzar, or by Titus. An obvious objection to the last two is that they leave the predic- tion against Shebna unconnected with the one before it. Cocceius ingeni- ously suggests that Eliakim and his family were to retain their official rank and influence until the city was destroyed, and the kingdom of Judah at an end ; but this, though possible, will scarcely be preferred to any more natural and simple supposition. The objection to Sennacherib's invasion is that no such extremities were then experienced as the Prophet here describes. The objection to Nebuchadnezzar's is, that vers. 9-11 contain an exact de- scription of the measures taken by Hezekiah, as recorded in 2 Chron. xxxii. 3-5. Moved by this consideration, some have assumed a reference to both events, the siege by Sennacherib, and that by Nebuchadnezzar. According to Vitringa, the Prophet first describes the later event (vers. 1-5), and then recurs to one nearer at hand (vers. 6-14), this being placed last partly for the purpose of bringing it into juxtaposition with the threatening against Shebna. According to Calvin, vers. 1-5 predict the siege by Nebuchad- nezzar, while vers. 6-11 describe that by Sennacherib as ah'eady past. These suppositions, though admissible in ease of necessity, can be justified by nothing short of it. As the measures described in vers. 9-11 were tem- porar}' ones which may have been frequently repeated, it is not absolutely necessary to apply that passage to the times of Hezekiah. If the whole must be applied to one specific point of time, it is probabi}' the taking of Jerusalem by the king of Assyria in the days of Manasseh, when the latter was himself carried captive with his chief men, and Shebna possibly among the rest. The choice seems to lie between this hypothesis and that of a generic prediction, a prophetic picture of the conduct of the Jews in a cer- tain conjuncture of affairs which happened more than once, particular strokes of the description being drawn from different memorable sieges, and especially from those of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar. 1. The burden of the VaUeij of Vision. What {is) to thee (what hast thou? or what aileth thee?) that thou art loholly (literally, the lohole of thee) gone up on the house tops ? The first clause is not an inscription of later date, erroneously copied from ver. 5 (Hitzig, &c.), but the original com- mencement of the prophecy, or of this part of it. The modern Germans pronounce all the titles in this form spurious, and then make the use of the word ^^^ in each particular case a proof of later date. It is just as easy and far more reasonable to assert that the use of this word in such connec- tions is a characteristic of Isaiah's manner. The enigmatical form is intea- 380 ISAIAH XXIL ;Ver. 2, 3. tional. By the valley of vision we are not to understand Babylon, nor Judea (Calvin, Lightfoot), but Jerusalem, as being surrounded by hills with valleys between them. There is no allusion to the degi-adation which awaited Jerusalem (Kimchi), nor to the name Moriah (J. D. Miehaelis), nor to the school of the prophets in the valley at its foot (Vitringa), nor to the spectacle which was soon to be there exhibited (J. H. Miehaelis), but to Jerusalem as the seat of revelation, the abode of the prophets, and the place where God's presence was manifested. "^l^'ID as usual expresses both surprise and disapprobation. [Vide supra, chap. iii. 15). The oriental roofs are flat and used for various purposes. The ascent here mentioned has been variously explained, as being designed to gratify curiosity by gaz- ing at the approaching enemy or the crowds of people seeking refuge in Jeru- salem, or to assail the invaders, or take measures for resisting them, or to indulge in grief, or to engage in idolatrous worship, or to celebrate a feast. The truth probably is, that the expression is here used as a lively descrip- tion of an oriental city in commotion, without any intention to intimate as yet the cause or the occasion, just as we might say that the streets of our own cities were full of people, whether the concourse was occasioned by grief, joy, fear, or any other cause. Some suppose the Prophet to inquire as a stranger what is the matter ; but he seems rather to express disappro- bation of the stir which he describes. 2. Full of slh's, a noisy town, a joyous city, thy slain are not slain with the sword nor dead in battle. The first clause is commonly explained by the older writers as a descriptive of the commotion and alarm occasioned by the enemy's approach. But- this makes it necessary either to give HTvy a sense not justified by usage, or to refer to a past time, while the other epithets are applied to the present. Thus Junius makes the Prophet ask, how is it that the city is now full of confusion and alarm w^hich was once so joyous ? But this distinction of times is altogether arbitrary. The same remark applies, but in a less degree, to another construction which refers the whole clause to past time. The latest writers are agreed in making it descriptive of the present, not in reference however to alarm and agitation, but to the opposite condition of joyous excitement, frivolous gaiety, and reckless indifierence, described in ver. 13. Kennicott and Tingstad make Hv/n mean thy xrarriorn, but it is now universally taken in its usual sense. The expression thy slain are not slain loith the sivord cannot mean that none were slain, but necessarily implies mortality of another kind. The allusion is supposed by some to be to pestilence, by others to famine, such as prevailed in the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and also that b}^ the Romans. As neither is specified, the words may be more generally understood as describing all kinds of mortality incident to sieges, excepting that of actual warfare. 3. All thy chiefs fled together — fromthehow — they were lotmd — all that were found of thee were bound together — from afar they fled. This verse describes the people, not as crowding from the country into Jerusalem, nor as fleeing from the public places in Jerusalem to hide themselves, but as flying from the enemy, and being nevertheless taken. l'*Vp is neither a civil nor a military chief exclusively, but may bo applied to either. T13 is not to toander, but to flee. The IMasoretic accents connect riL*'pO with TlDX, according to which construction we may either read they are hound (i.e. made prisoners) by the how {i.e. the iirchers, as light-armed troops), or tvilhout the bow (i. e. not in battle, as the slain were not slain with the Veb. 4-6.] ISAIAH XXII. 381 sword) ; or it may mean xciihout resistance, without drawing a bow. Some understand it to mean, they are restrained (by fear)//-o»/ (using) the bow. Ewald and some older writers disregard the accent, and connect nti'pD with nnj, they fled from the bow, but are nevertheless taken prisoners together. All that were found of thee may be in antithesis to thy chiefs ; as if he had said, not only thy chiefs, but all the rest. Some understand this as describing the voluntary confinement of the people in Jerusalem during a siege ; others apply it to their vain endeavours to escape from its privations and dangers. It is best to give the verse its largest meaning as descrip- tive of the hardships and concomitant evils, not of one siege merely, but of sieges in general. 4. Therefore I said (or say), Look away from me ; let me he hitter in iceepiiifi (or iceej] bitterly) ; try not to cohifort me for the desolation of the dauyhter of my jjeojde. These are not the words of Jerusalem in answer to the question in ver. 1 (Junius), but those of the Prophet expressing his sympathy with suflerings which he foresees and foretells, as in chaps, xvi. 11, xxi. 3. •1^''i0 has been variously explained as a participle and a noun, and as expressing the ideas of breaking down, shouting, and placing chariots or waggons in arra}'. V^^ is not simply a cry but a ciy for help. To the mountain are not the words of the cry but its direction. The moun- tain is not Jerusalem or Zion as the residence of God, but the mountains round about Jerusalem (Ps. cxxv. 1). The meaning is not that the people are heard crying on their way to the mountain, but rather that their cries are reverberated from it. The whole verse is a vivid poetical descrip- tion of the confusion of a siege. 6. And E lam bare a quiver, with chariots, men (i.e. infantry), horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield. Elam was a province of Persia, often put for the whole countiy. Its people were celebrated archers. Some read chariots of men, i.e. occupied by men, which would seem to be a super- fluous description. Others read cavalry or riding of men, i. e. mounted men as in chap. xxi. 5, but in that case D'^K^IS would be superfluous. Others give 3D"), here and m chap. xxi. the sense of row, fine, troop, or column, which is not sufficiently sustained by usage. Others give 3 its usual sense of in, which cannot however be applied to horsemen. The sense of horses, doubtful at best, is entirely unnecessaiy here. On the whole, the simplest and most natural construction seems to be that which supposes three kinds of troops to be here enumerated : cavalry, infantr}', and men in chariots. Kir is now agreed to be identical with Kv^og, the name of a river rising in the Caucasus, and emptying into the Caspian sea, from which Georgia 382 ISAIAE XXII. [Yer. 7, 8. (Girgistan) is supposed to derive its name. Kir was subject to Assyria in the time of Isaiah, as appears from the fact that it was one of the regions to which the exiles of the ten tribes were transported. It may here be put for Media, as Elam is for Persia. The uncovering of the shield has refer- ence to the involncra chjpeorinn and the tegmenta scutis detrahoida, of which Cicero and Caesar speak, leathern cases used to protect the shield or keep it bright. The removal of these denotes preparation for battle. The an- cient versions and some modern ^mters make "'''P an appellative and trans- late the clause, the shield leaves the urdl bare by being taken down fi"om the place where it hung, or the enemy deprives the wall of its shield, t. <'. its defenders. Some even suppose an allusion to the festiido or covered way of shields, under which the Koman soldiers used to advance to the walls of a besieged town. All the latest writers are agreed in making "i''P a pro- per name. The verbs are in the past tense, which proves nothing however as to the date of the events described. 7. And it came to pass (that) the choice of thy valleys (thy choicest val- leys) xcerefuU of chariots, and the horsemen dreio up (or took up a position) tmcards the gate. The most obvious construction of the fii-st clause, and the one indicated by the accents, is, the choice of thy valleys teas, or it xcas the choice of thy valleys ; but as this seems forbidden by the follomng words, most writers either omit '''"'^l as a pleonasm, or give it the usual idiomatic meaning when it introduces or continues a narrative. It seems here to mark the progress of events. The Prophet sees something which he did not see before. He had seen the chariots and horsemen coming ; but now he sees the valleys around full of thim. The futm-e form adopted by some versions is entirely unauthorised. "Whatever be the real date of the events described, the Prophet evidently meant to speak of them as past or present, and we have neither right nor reason to depart from his chosen form of expression. The address is to Jerusalem. The valleys are men- tioned as the only places where the cavalry or chariots could be useful, or could act at all. As the only level approach to Jerusalem is on the north, that quarter may be specially intended, and the gate may be a gate on that side of the city. Otherwise it would be better to take n~ij,^C' indefinitely as denoting the direction of the movement. HL" may either be explained as an emphatic infinitive, in which case the verb will be reflexive or govern something understood, or as a verbal noun equivalent in this connection to our 'pcst or station. Another admissible construction is to make D''t;nsn the object of the verb, and the verb itself indefinite, " They station the horse- naen opposite the gate." 8. And he removed the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest. The first verb, which some connect with the enemy and others with Jehovah understood, is really indefinite and may bo resolved into an English passive, the covering uas removed. This expression has been variously explained to mean the disclosure of long hidden treasures — the taking of the fortified towns of Judah by Sennacherib — the disclosure of the weak points of the country to the enemy — the open- ing of the eyes of the Jews themselves to their own condition — the ignomini- ous treatment of the people, represented by the oriental figure of an unveiled virgin. The analogous expression of taking away the veil from the heart (2 Cor. iii. 15, IG), and the immediate mention of the measures used for the defence of the city, arc perhaps decisive in favour of explaining the words to mean that the Jcavs' own eyes were opened. As t3?J!l cannot well agree niin^, which as the name of the people must be masculine, it is best Yer. 9-11.] ISAIAH XXII. 383 to understand it as the second person, and to suppose an abrupt apostrophe to Judah, a figure of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah. "iVH ri''! is not a proper name, but the designation of a house built by Solomon, and else- where called the house of the forest of Lebanon, because erected on that mountain, as some writers think, but according to the common opinion, be- cause built of cedar-wood from Lebanon. This house is commonly sup- posed to haA'e been either intended for an arsenal by Solomon himself, or converted into one by some of his successors, and to be spoken of in Neh. iii. 19 under the name of P^**J. There is no need of supposing that the house contained only the golden shields of Solomon and Rehoboam. The fact that these were there deposited might naturally lead to a more extensive use of the building for the purpose mentioned. Lookhir/ to this arsenal implies dependence on its stores as the best means of defence against the enemy, unless we understand the words to signif}^ inspection, which agrees well with what follows, but is not sufiicientty sustained by the usage of the verb and preposition. In that day seems to mean at length, i. e. when made aware of their danger. 9. And the breaches of the city of David ye savj, that they were many, and ye gathered the icaters of the lower 2^001. The breaches meant are not those made by the enemy in the siege here described, but those caused by previ- ous neglect and decay. The city of David may be either taken as a poetical name for Jerusalem at large, or in its strict sense as denoting the upper town upon mount Zion, which was suri'ounded by a wall of its own, and called the city of David because he took it from the Jebusites and afterwards resided there. Ye sa^c may either mean, ye saw them for the first time, at length became aware of them, or, ye looked at them, examined them, with a view to their repair. The last is more probably implied than expressed. ■•S may with equal propriety be rendered /o/-, implying that thej could no longer overlook or fail to see them, because they were so many. The last clause describes a measure of defence peculiarly important at Jerusalem where there are very few perennial springs. This precaution (as well as the one previously hinted at) was actually taken by Hezekiah in the prospect of Sennacherib's approach (2 Chron. xxxii. 4), and has perhaps been repeated in every siege of any length which Jerusalem has since experienced. The lower p>ool is probably the tank or reservoir still in existence in the valley of Hinnom opposite the western side of mount Zion. This name, which occurs only here, has reference to the upper piool higher up in the same valley near the Jafia gate {vide siqjva, chap. vii. 3. Compare Robinson's Palestine, I, 483-487). 10. And the houses of Jerusalem ye numbered, and ye pidled down the houses to repair (rebuild or fortify) the wall. The numbering of the houses probably has reference, not to the levying of men or of a tax, but to the measure mentioned in the last clause, for the purpose of determining what houses could be spared, and perhaps of estimating the expense. The houses are destroyed, not merely to make room for new erections, but to furnish materials. Ancient Jerusalem, like that of our day, was built of stone. 11. And a reservoir ye made between the tivo wcdis (or tJie double wall) for the waters of the old pool, and ye did not look to the maker of it, and the former of it ye did not see. n)pp according to its etymology is a place of gathering, and according to usage a place where waters are collected. As the Hebrew dual is not a mere periphrasis for tioo {vide supra, chap. vi. 2), D.^nbn cannot simply mean two walls, but must denote a double wall in 384 ISAIAH XXII. [Ver. 12, 13. some situation -where but one had been before, or might have been expected. The reference is probably to a wall built out from that of the citj' and re- turning to it, so as to enclose the tank or reservoir here mentioned. As this was a temporary measure, perhaps often repeated, there is no need of tracin<7 it in other parts of history or in the present condition of Jerusalem. It is altogether probable, however, that the old pool here mentioned is the same with the upper pool of chap. vii. 3. Some have identified it with the lower pool of the ninth verse, but this would hardly have been introduced so soon by another name. The last clause shews that the fixult, with which the people of Jerusalem were chargeable, was not that of guarding them- selves against attack, but that of relying upon human defences, without regard to God. The verbs look and -tee are evidently used in allusion to the last clause of ver. 8 and the first of ver. 9. They looked to the arsenal but not to God. This seems to put the clause before us in antithesis to the whole foregoing context from ver. 8. If so, the suffixes in n^t^'J? and mv^ cannot refer merely to the pool or reservoir, but must have respect either to the city or to the calamity now coming on it. In the latter case, the feminine pronoun may be indefinitely understood as a neuter in Greek or Latin, it, i. e. this crisis or catastrophe, or the whole series of events which led to it. Maker and former are not distinctive terms referring to God's purpose or decree on one hand, and the execution of it on the other, but are poetical equivalents both denoting the efficient cause. 12. And the Lord Jehovah of host. t called in that day to ireepinrj, a)id to mourning, and to haldnexs, and to girding mckdoth. The meaning is not that he called or summoned grief to come, but that he called on men to mourn, not only by his providence, but by his word through the prophets. By baldness we may either understand the tearing of the hair, or the shaving of the head, or both, as customary signs of grief. The last phrase, rendered in the English V>ih\Q girding rrith sackcloth, docs not mean girding up the other garments with a sackcloth girdle, but girding the body with a sack- cloth dress, or girding on, i.e. wearing sackcloth. The providential call to mourning here referred to must be the siege before described. 13. And behold mirth and jollity, slaying of oxen and killing of sherp, eating of flesh and drinking of wine; eat and drink, for to-morrow tve die. This verse presents the contrast of their actual behaviour, with that to -which God called them by his providence. The construction in the com- mon version is aml)iguous, as slaying, &c., seem to be participles agreeing with joy and gladness, whereas the Hebrew verbs are all infinitives. Some suppose the words of the revellers to begin with Jin (let us kill, &c.), orthers with "^^X (let us eat flesh. Sec.) ; but the common division of the sentence is most natural, because there is then no repetition or tautologv-. In the one case, the people themselves, say, let as eat flesh and drink wine, let tis cat and drink. In the other it is said that they do eat flesh and diink wine, and they are then introduced as saying, let ns eat and drink. On the same "round, the common interpretation is to be preferred to Hende- Averk's idea, that the whole verse contains the words of the Prophet, and that those of the people are not introduced at all. " Slaying of oxen, killing of sheep, eating of flesh, drinking of wine, eating, drinking, though to-mon-ow we die ! " Another objection to this construction is, that it supposes the event to be still future, even to the Prophet's view ; whereas the whole foregoing context r( presents it as nlready past, if not in fact, at least in his perceptions. The common version, let ns cat and drink, is perfectly correct as to sense, but needlessly departs from the peculiar and Ver. 11, 15.J ISAlAIi XXJI. 385 expressive form of the original. I have substituted eat and drink, not as imperatives, but as the simplest forms of the English verbs. {Vide supra, chap. xxi. 5.) To eat and to drink might be considered more exact, but would not exhibit the compression and breviloquence of the original. It has been disputed whether these last words are expressive of contemptuous incredulity or of a desperate determination to spend the residue of life in pleasure. It is by no means clear that these two last feelings are exclusive of each other, since the same man might express his disbelief of the threat- ening, and his resolution, if it should prove true, to die in the enjoyment of his favourite indulgences. At all events, there can be no need of restricting the full import of the language, as adapted to express both states of mind, in different persons, if not in the same. 14. And Jehovah of hosts revealed himself to my ears (^. e. made a reve- lation to me, saying) If this iniquity shall he forgiven you (i. e. it certainly shall not be forgiven you) until you die. Some take n?^J as a simple passive, and supply a preposition before ^in^, it was revealed in my ears by Jehovah of hosts. This is no doubt the true sense ; but the construc- tion of the verb as a reflexive with nin^ for its subject, is full}' justified by the analogy of 1 Sam. ii. 27, iii. 21. It is wholly unnecessary, therefore, to read \JT^?, "in the ears of Jehovah of hosts," or to supply 1??i<, "in my ears, saith Jehovah of hosts.'' {Vide supra, chap. v. 9.) The 1 before n?^J is not conversive, as it does not connect it with the future ^1-1123, which is merely a quotation, but with the infinitives in the first clause of ver. 13, which represent historical or descriptive tenses. (Nordheimer, § 219.) The conditional form of expression, so far from expressing doubt or con- tingency, adds to the following declaration the solemnity of an oath. What is said is also sworn, so that " by two immutable things in which it is im- possible for God to lie," the truth of the threatening may be confirmed. On the elliptical formula of swearing, vide supra, chap. v. 9. This ini- quity of course means the presumptuous contempt of God's messages and providential warnings, with which the people had been charged in the pre- ceding verse. This offence is here treated as the sin against the Holy Ghost is in the New Testament, and is indeed very much of the same nature, 133? strictly means shall he atoned for or expiated. Until you die is equivalent to ever, the impossibility of expiation afterwards being assumed. This use of until is common in all languages. Some of the Jewish writers understand the words to mean at death hut not he/ore, and draw the infer- ence that death does or may atone for sin. But the Targum has the second death (N^jn NfllD), a phrase found also in the Greek of the New Testa- ment (6 diuri^og ^duaroi), and constantly employed in modern religious phraseology to signify eternal perdition. In this case, however, there is no gi'ound for departing from the simple and ordinary meaning of the words. " As long as you live you shall not be forgiven," is equivalent to saj'ing, "you shall never be forgiven." 15. Thus said the Lord Jehovah of hosti^, Go, go into this treasurer (or steward, or chamberlain), to Shehna who {is) over the house. From the people in general the threatening now passes to an individual, no doubt because he was particularly guilty of the crime alleged, and by his influ- ence the means of leading others astray likewise. The word |?b has been variously derived and explained to mean a Sochenite (from Sochen in Eg^'pt), a sojourner or dweller {i. q. p'^) in the sanctuary, a steward or provider, a treasurer, and an amicus regis or king's friend, i. e. his confidant and VOL. I. B b 38G ISAIAH XXII. [Yer. 16. counsellor. Some understand tbe last words of the verse as simply ex- planatory of this title ; while others ai*gue that the Prophet would hardly have described the man by two titles meaning the same thing. A third class deny that pD is here applied to Shcbna at all, and understand the words to mean this steward of Shebna's, or this {person) labouring for Shebna, i. e. making his monument. But Shebna himself is undoubtedly the ol)ject of address in the remainder of the chapter. Whatever |5D may denote, it must be something compatible with the description in the last clause of the verse. Whatever Shebna may have been as pb, he was cer- tainly over the house. Some of the ancient versions give to house here tlie sense of temple or the house of God, and infer that Shelma, if not High Priest or a Priest at all, was at least the treasurer of the temple. But the phrase here used is nowhere else employed in reference to the temple, whereas it repeatedly occurs as the description of an officer of state or of the roj'al household, a major-domo, chamberlain, or steward. As the modem distinction between State and household officers is not an ancient or an oriental one, it is not unlikely that the functionary thus described, like the medineval maires du palais, was in fact prime minister. This would account for the influence tacitly ascribed to Shebna in this chapter, as well as for his being made the subject of a prophecy. The phrase this treiisurer may either be expressive of disapprobation or contempt, or simply desig- nate the man as well known to the Prophet and his readers. These fami- liar allusions to things and persons now forgotten, while they add to the obscurity of the passage, furnish an incidental proof of its antiquity and genuineness. The double imperative N^"^?. admits of different explana- tions. The second may perhaps mean rjo, and the first be a particle of exhortation like the Latin acje. It might then be rendered coiue go, al- though this would be really an inversion of the Hebrew phrase, which strictly means go come. On the whole, however, it is better to give % the sense of go, and 5^3 that of enter or go in, meaning into Shebna's house, or into the sepulchre which he was preparing, and in which some suppose him to have been accosted by the Prophet. The use of ?y for ?^ betbre ^?3^ is supposed by some to imply tbe unfavourable nature of the message; but the interchange of the particles is not so unusual as to make this explana- tion necessary. Some manuscripts and versions add and say to hivi, which any reader can supply for himself without an emendation of ihe text. 16. What hast thou here, and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewn thee here a sepulchre? Hewing on high his sepidchre, gravinq in the rock a habitation for himself ! The negation implied in the interroga- tion is not that he had none to protect and aid him, or that none of his kin- dred should be buried there because they should be banished with him, but rather that ho had none buried there before him ; it was not his birth-place, or the home of his fathers. What interest, what part or lot, what personal or hereditary claim hast thou in Judah ? Here then refers not to the sepulchre, but to Jerusalem. The foreign form of the name Shebna, which occurs only in the history of Hezekiah, and for which no satisfactory Hebrew etymology has been proposed, seems to confirm tliis explanation of the tirst clause as representing him to be a foreigner, ^perhaps a lieathen. Another confirmation is aiforded by the otherwise unimportant circumstance, that the name of Shebna's father is nowhere added to his own, as in the case of Eliakim and Joah (ver. 20, chap, xxxvi. 3). These seem to he suffi- cient reasons for concluding that the Prophet is directed to upbraid him, not Vee. 17.] ISAIAH XXII. 387 with seeking to be buried in the royal sepulchres although of mean extraction, but with making provision for himself and his posterity in a land to which he was an alien, and from which he was so soon to be expelled. The third person in the last clause is not to be gratuitously changed into the second {thy sepulchre, a habitation for thyself), nor is the syntax to be solved by introducing a comparison (as he that heweth), but rather by supposing that the Prophet, after putting to him the prescribed question, was to express his own contemptuous surprise at what he saw, or as Maurer says, to let his eyes pass from the man to the sepulchre which he was hewing. It is not necessarily implied, however, in this explanation, that the conversation was to take place at the sepulchre. Dlip is properly a noun, and means a high place, but is here and elsewhere used adverbially. The labour and expense bestowed on ancient sepulchres (of far later date however than Isaiah's time) is still attested by the tombs remaining at Jerusalem, Petra, and Persepolis, where some are excavated near the tops of lofty rocks in order to be less accessible, to which practice there may be allusion in the Di"ip of the verse before us, as well as in the words of 2 Chron. xxxii. 33, as explained by most interpreters, viz. that Hezekiah was buried in the highest of the tombs of the sons of David. (See Robinson's Palestine, I. 516-539, II. 525.) The ]y^ is supposed b}' some to have allusion to the oriental practice of making tombs in shape (and frequently in size) like houses, by others more poetically to the idea of the grave, as a long home, (D/IV ^''5), the very name applied to it by Solomon (Eccles. xii. 5). In this case, as in many others, the ideal and material allusion may have both been present to the writer's mind. What {is) to thee and who is to thee are the usual unavoidable periphrases for luhat and whom hast thou, the verb to have being wholly wanting in this family of languages. 17. Behold, Jehovah is casting thee a cast, 0 man ! and covering thee a covering. The addition of the infinitive or verbal noun as usual adds emphasis to the expression, while the participle denotes a present act or a proximate futurity. The idea that he is certainly about to cast and cover thee, or to do it completely and with violence. ?tD?t3?D is by some rendered casting out, by others casting doicn. The latter agrees best with the ety- mology and with the rest of the description. Those who give the other sense are under the necessity of assuming, that the Prophet, after saying that the Lord would cast him oiF, goes back to the preliminary acts of seizing him and rolling him. The other explanation gives the natural order. First he is thrown upon the ground, then rolled into a ball, and then violently thrown away. Some of the latest writers give HOy the sense of seizing, grasping, founded on an Arabic analogy, and justified, as they suppose, by the usage of the Hebrew word in 1 Sam. xiv. 32, xv. 19, xxv. 14. But except in these few doubtful cases the word uniformly signifies to veil or cover. As this is the term used in the law which requires the leper to cover his upper lip (Lev. xiii. 45), Grotius, with perverse ingenuity, infers that Shebna was to be smitten with leprosy, excluded from the city on that account, and afterwards restored, but not reinstated in his former ofl&ce. Gesenius gives ntDJ? the sense of wrapping up, and makes it thus synonymous with ^iV, As both the terms have reference to the figure of a ball, the dis- tinction seems to be that the first denotes the imposition of a covering or wrapper, and the second the formation of the whole into a regular and compact shape. There are several different ways of construing "^3^ with the words before it. Some suppose it to be governed by n?D?LD — with the 868 ISAIAH XXII. [Ver. 18. cant of a man, L e. a manly, vigorous, or powerful cast. In this case we must either suppose iTpobtS to be an absolute form put for the construct — ■ or n^L3^D to .be understood after it — or 132 to be in apposition with it, or in agreement with it as an adjective — all which are gratuitous and forced assumptions. A better method of obtaining the same sense is by trans- lating "13J — like a man, i. e. a mighty man. (Compare Job xxxviii. 3.) According to Hendewerk, n?t2?t3 is a verbal noun construed as an infinitive, and governing "I3J as HVT does HIH'' in chap. xi. 9. The sense is then with the casting of a man, i. e. as a man is cast or thrown. But the throwing of a man is the very thing here likened to the throwing of a ball. The simplest construction is the one given by Ewald and by many older writers, which takes ~i3J as a vocative. J. D. Michaelis reads "1^5, and translates itoA robber! But this is not the meaning even of that word. Others take "1?.| in its pro- per sense of mighty man, others in the simple sense of man as distinguished from God, of which use there are several unequivocal examples. (Job xxii. 2, X. 5 ; Prov. xx. 4.) 18. Rolling he will roll thee in a roll, like a hall (thrown) into a spacious ground — there shalt thou die — and there the cJiariots of thy glory — shame of thy master's house. The ejection of Shebna from the country is com- pared to the rolling of a ball into an open space where there is nothing to obstruct its progress. The ideas suggested are those of violence, rapidity, and distance. Maurer supposes s^J^* to denote a rolling motion ; but most intei'preters apply it to the act of rolling up into a ball, which agrees better both with usage and the context. The ellipsis of throiun or cast before '?i* is altogether natural and easily, supplied. Instead of sjj^c/ows the original has D^T' ri2n"l, u-ide on both hands or sides, i. e. extended and open in every direction. All the interpreters appear to apply this directly to Shebna, and are thence led to raise the question, what land is meant ? Some say Assyria, some Mesopotamia, Ewald the wilderness, Grotius the open fields out of Jerusalem where lepers were obliged to dwell. It seems to me, however, that the phrase in question, has relation, not to Shebna as a man, but to the ball with which he is compared, and that pi< should be taken in the sense of ground. To the three derivatives of ^JV in the first clause Henderson cites as illustrative parallels chaps, xxvii. 7, x. IG, xxis. 14 ; Micah ii. 4 ; and from the classics, the vovoc tok*; c^c^ov fi^n of Sophocles and the hoaiv xaxav xaxwv xaxoTc, of .35schylus. There arc several diflerent constructions of the last clause. The oldest versions make ri13310 the sub- ject, and \\>\> the predicate of the same proposition : " the chariots of thy gloiT (shall be) the shame of thy lord's house." This can only mean that the king would be disgraced by having honoured such a man, chariots being then put as an outward sign of dignity and wealth. Most writers make |1?P, and what follows, a description of Shebna addressed to himself (" thou shame of thy master's house"), nnd construe 013310 either with niCin (" and there shall thy splendid chariots perish"), or with the verb of existence understood ("there shall thy splendid chariots be"). As HOt' properly means thither, it may be so taken here, the construction with mon being then a pregnant one: thither shalt thou die {i.e. thither shalt thou go to die), and thither shall thy splendid chariots {conrey thee). The allusion will then be simply to Shebna's return to his own country (whether Syria, Ph(nicia, Mesopotamia, or Assyria), and not to captivitj' in war or to suHering in exile, of which there is no intimation in the text. All that the Prophet clearly threatens Shebna with, is the loss of rank and influence Vek. 19-22.] ISAIAH XXII. 389 in Juclah, and a return to his own country. An analogous incident in mo- dern histor}' (so far as these circumstances are concerned) is Necker's retreat from France to Switzerland at the beginning of the French Revo- lution. 19. And it shall come to pans in that ilaij that I icill call/or my servant, for Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, i. e. will personally designate him. Elia- kim appears again in chap, xxxvi. 3, and there, as here, in connection with Shebna. There is probably no ground for the rabbinical tradition that Eliakim is identical ■ftith Azeriah, mentioned, 2 Chron. xxxi. 13, as the ruler of the house of God. The epithet m// servant seems to be intended to describe him as a faithful follower of Jehovah, and, as such, to contrast him with Shebna, who may have been a heathen. The employment of such a man by such a king as Hezekiah is explained by some upon the supposition that he had been promoted by Ahaz, and then sutiered to remain by his successor. It is just as easy to suppose, however, that he had raised himself by his abilities for public business. 20. And I ivill thrust thee from thy jjost, and from thy station shall he pull thee down. The verb in the last clause is indefinite, and really equivalent to a passive (thou shalt be pulled down). It should not therefore be translated in the first person as a mere enallage, nor made to agree vrith Jehovah understood, which would be a very harsh construction, and though not without example, should be assumed only in case of necessity. 21. And I will clothe him uith thy dress, and with thy girdle will I strengthen him, and thy power will I give into his hand, and he shall he for a father (or become a father) to the dweller in Jerusalem, aud to the house of Judah. We may either suppose a reference to an ofticial dress, or a metaphor analogous to that of filling another's shoes in colloquial Eng- lish, The Piel of pfH may simply mean to bind fast, but the strict sense of strengthening agrees well with the oriental use of the girdle to confine the flowing gaiments, and to fit the wearer for active exertion. Father is not a mere oriental synonyme of ruler, but an emphatic designation of a wise and benevolent ruler. It seems, therefore, to imply that Shebna's administration was of an opposite character. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family of Judah comprehend the whole nation. 22. And I will put the key of the hotise of David on his shoidder; he shall open, and there shall be no one shutting, he shall shut, and there shall be no one opening. In other words, he shall have unlimited control over the royal house and household, which, according to oriental usages, implies a high political authority. Some suppose a reference to the actual bearing of the key by the royal steward or chamberlain, and explains its being carried on the shoulder by the fact, that large wooden locks and keys of corresponding size are still used in some countries, the latter being some- times curved like a sickle, so as to be hung around the neck. Against this explanation it may be objected, that the phrase house of David seems to imply a metaphorical, rather than a literal palace, and that Q^^^ does not mean the shoulder merely, but includes the upper part of the back, as the place for bearing bm-dens. {Vide supra, chaps, ix. 3, x. 27.) There is still less to be said in favour of supposing an allusion to the figure of a key em- broidered on the dress. The best interpreters appear to be agreed that the government of administration is here represented by the figure of a burden, not merely in the general, as in chap. ix. 5, but the specific burden of a key, chosen in order to express the idea of control over the royal house, which was the title of the office in question. The application of the same terms 390 ISAIAH XXII. [Vee. 23-25. to Peter (Mat. xvi. 19), and to Christ himself (Rev, iii. 7), does not prove that they here refer to either, or that Eliakim -svas a type of Christ, but merely that the same words admit of different applications. 23. And I irill fasten him a nail in a sive place, and lie shall be for a throne of ijlory to his father s house. The figure in the first clause naturally conveys the idea of security and permanence. The reference is not to the stakes or centre-post of a tent, but to the large pegs, pins, or nails often built into the walls of oriental houses for the purpose of suspending clothes or vessels. The last clause is obscure. Some suppose the figure of a pin or peg to be still continued, and that it is here represented as so large that men may sit upon it. Others suppose the nail to be here described as fastened in a throne ; it shall be (attached) to the glorious throne of his father's house. This would seem to warrant Calvin's supposition that Eliakim was of the blood royal. But such a construction, if not wholly ungrammatical, is very forced, and t

'j:3 while Hendewerk extols it as a masterpiece of eloquence. There could not be a stronger illustration of the fact, ah-eady e-sident, that the boasted diagnosis of this school of critics is always dependent on a foregone con- clusion. Had there been no siege of Tyre in the days of Isaiah, Gesenius would easily have found abundant proofs that the chapter was of later date. But this not being necessary for his purpose here, he treats as in- conclusive even stronger proofs than those which he himself employs in other cases. To the reference of this prophecy to Shalmaneser there are two main objections. The first is the express mention of the Chaldees in ver. 13. Ewald easily disposes of this difficulty by reading D''jy3D instead of Cl^''^. Gesenius and the rest maintain^that the Chaldees are mentioned only as tributaries or auxiliaries of Assyria. As this, though arbitrarily assumed, is not impossible, the first objection cannot be regarded as decisive. The second is that Shalmaneser' s attempt upon Tyre was perfectly abortive. This argument of course has no effect upon Gesenius and others who deny the inspiration of the Prophet. Even such, however, must admit that if the descriptions of the prophecy were actually realised in another case, it is more likely to have been the one intended. They allege, however, that the very same objection lies against the supposition of a reference to Nebuchad- nezzar, on the ground that no historian, sacred or profane, records the fact of his having taken Tyre. To account for this omission, and to show by various incidental proofs that the event did nevertheless happen, is the main design of Hengstenberg's tract already mentioned, in which he has performed his task with a rare combination of minute learning, ingenuity, and good sense, although not to the satisfaction of contemporary German writers. His argument from the nature of the case turns in a great measure on minute details, and sometimes on intricate calculations in chronology. It will be sufficient therefore to record the result, which is that the actual conquest of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, even leaving out of view the prophecy before us, and the more explicit one in Ezekiel, chap, xxvi., is much more probable than the contrary hypothesis. But there is still another difficulty in the way of applying the propliecy to Nebuchadnezzar's siege and con- quest. Isaiah intimates and Ezekiel explicitly foretells an entire desolation of Tyre, which did not take place till the Middle Ages. Hengstenberg's solution of this difficulty is, that the prophets constantly connect the imme- diate consequences of the events wdiich they predict with their remoter and more gradual results. On the same general principal of interpretation, but with a difference of form, it may be said that the prophecy before us is generic, not specific, a panoramic pictui-e of the downfall of Tyre, from the beginning to the end of the destroying process, with particular allusion to particular sieges, as for instance to that of the Chaldees in ver. 13, and perhaps to that of Alexander in ver. 6. Antiquarian research and discovery may yet bring to light coincidences still more striking. While the great majority of writers understand the passage as referring to the literal Tyre, a few prefer to take it in a mystical sense. Some of the older Jewish writers say that whenever the literal Tyre is meant, the name is fully written (""l^'), but that when it is defectively written, as it is here, (1^') it signifies Rome. Abarbenel refutes this dictum by shewing that both forms occur in the same context, ^,but himself makes Tyre here mean Venice. But these hypotheses are modest in comparison with that of Cocceius, who understands by Tyre the Church of Rome, by Egypt Ger- many, by Chittim Spain, by Tarshish France, by Ass}Tia Tm-key, by the 394 ISAIAH XXIII, [Yer. 1, 2. land of the Chaldees Hungary, and by the whole passage a chapter from the history of the Reformation. Of such interpretations it may surely be said without undue severity: " Hariolationes hje sunt; sequamur ceita; incerta a^quo aiiimo iguonmus ; neque etium banc prophetiam cum quibus- dam veterum allegorice interpretabimm-, nam si Scriptura non indicet debere nos in re una cernere imagiuem alterius, etiamsi res diversse a Scriptura explicatai «imihludinem et conformitatem aliquam habeant, non possumus tamen asserere hoc illius typum et figuram esse, nisi quatenus ilia confor- mitas ex Scripturarum comparatione demonstratur,' These are the words of Cocceius himself, reproving Grotius for his groundless hypothesis of Shebna's leprosy in chap, xxii., and declaring his ovro. dissent from the old interpretations of that chapter. 1. The burden of Tyre. Iloul, ships of Tarshish ; for it is laid icaste, no house, no entrance ; from the land of Chittim it is revealed to tJiein. Here, as in chap. xiii. 1, xv. 1, xvii. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 1, xi. 13, xxii. 1, there is not the slightest reason for rejecting the first words as the addition of a copyist or compiler. The command or exhortation to howl implies that those to whom it is addressed have peculiar cause for grief. By ships of Tarshish we are not to understand merchant ships in general, but strictly those which carried on the trade between Phenicia, and its Spanish colony Tartessus. For the other meanings which have been attached to ^''^1^, vide supra, chap. ii. 15. Eosenmliller condemns the generic explanation of the phrase as unpoetical, but does not scruple to make ships mean sailors, which is wholly unnecessary. The masculine form Tilt^ may either be re- ferred to "1^ by a common licence, or indefinitely taken to mean desolation has been wrought, or something has been desolated, without saying what. Ewald resolves it into an indefinite active verb (zerstort hat man) without a change of meaning. The preposition in ni^P and ^<"I3P has a privative effect. The meaning strictly is, awag from house, away from entrance. It may be le^s concisively rendered, so that there is no house, &c. Some make the two expressions strictly parallel and correlative, so that there is neither house nor entrance, in which case the latter may have reference to the entering of ships into the harbour. Others make the second dependent on the first, so that there is no house left to enter. This may refer particu- larly to the mariners returning from their long voyage and finding their homes destroyed. Chittim is neither Macedonia (Clericus), Italy (Yitriuga), Susiana (Bochart), Cilicia (Junius), nor a region in Arabia (Hensler), but the island of Cyprus (Josephus), in which there was a city Citium, which Cicero explicitly refers to as a Phenician settlement. The wider explanation of the name, as denoting other islands or the Mediterranean coasts in gene- ral, though not without authority from usage, is uncertain and in this case needless. These words are connected with what goes before by Calvin (ut non sit commeatus c terra Cittim) and others ; but most interpreters adhere to the Masoretic interpunction. It is revealed (/. e. the event announced in the preceding clause) tu them (the Tyrian mariners on their way home from Tai'shish). The meaning seems to be, that the news of the fall of Tyre has reached the Phenician settlements in Cyprus, and through them the Tyrian mariners that touch there. 2. JJe silent, O inhabitants of the isle (or coast), the merchants of Sldon crossing the sea filled thee. This may cither be addressed to the coast and islands of the Mediterranean which had long been frequented by the Pheni- cian traders, or to Phenicia itself, which foreign commerce had enriclied. The last explanation is commonly preferred ; but the first is recommended Ver. 3-5.] ISAIAH XXIII. 395 by the fact that it assigns a reason for the mention of the foreign trade of Sidon, as accounting for the interest which other nations are supposed to feel in the fall of Tyre. On either supposition, Sidon, the other great city of Phenicia, is put for the whole country. The plural verb in the last clause agrees with "ino as a collective, 3. And in great boaters (was) the seed of the Nile; the harvest of the river {loas) her revenue ; and she was a mart cf nations. "IHC' and "ll^? are the Hebrew and Egyptian names of the Nile. The first, accordhig to its ety- mology, means Mack, and corresponds to MsXag and Melo, Greek and Latin names of the same river, all derived from the colour of the water or the mud v/hich it deposits. The use of the word "iH'i^ is one of the proofs, adduced by Eichhorn and Rosenmiiller, that the chapter is of later date. It is true the name occurs in Joshua xiii. 13 ; but that is also classed among the later books. Gesenius observes, however, that an inference can hardly be drawn from one or two examples. Of the whole verse there are three interpretations. The first supposes an allusion to the fact that the grain of Egypt was exported in Phenician vessels on the great waters, i. e. over the sea. The objection that Phenicia is desci'ibed by Ezekiel as trading not with Egypt but with Palestine in grain, though entitled to some weight, is not conclusive. A stronger objection may be drawn from the apparent incongruity of naming this one branch of commerce as a proof that Tyre was a mart of nations. A second interpretation understands what is said of Egypt figuratively, or as a comparison ; as if he had said that the wealth which Egypt derived from the Nile, Phenicia derived from the great waters, i.e. by her maritime trade. The third differs from this only by supposing a distinct allusion to the insular situation of Tyre, which, though planted on a rock and girt by many waters, I'eaped as rich a harvest as the fertile land of Egypt. This last interpretation, which is that of J. D. Michaelis and Hengstenberg, is much more poetical than either of the others, and at least in that respect entitled to the preference. 4. Be ashamed (or confounded), Zidon ; for the sea saith, the strength of the sea, saying, I hare not travailed, and I have not borne, and I have not reared young men (or) brought up virgins. One of the great cities of Phenicia is here called upon to be confounded at the desolation of the other ; or Zidon may be put for the whole country, as in the preceding verse. The Targum gives to Q^ its geogi'aphical sense of west (S2"iyD). Some writers understand the sea itself as the ideal speaker, and explain VlJ?D as an allusion to the turret-like appearance of the waves when in com- motion. The correct view of the case seems to be this : the Prophet hears a voice from the sea, which he then describes more exactly as coming from the stronghold or fortress of the sea, i. e. insular Tyre as viewed from the mainland. The rest of the verse is intended to express the idea that the city thus personified was childless, was as if she had never borne children. Here, as in chap. i. 2, Hendewerk takes ""RP^II in the sense of exalting, making great, which is at once a violation of usage and of the Prophet's metaphor. Interpreters are commonly agreed that the negative force of the last ^<'? extends to both of the following verbs. Cocceius alone seems to to make the last clause affirmative [nan educavi juvenes ; extuli virgines) as if she were complaining that she had not borne sons, but daughters. But the whole metaphor is clearly intended to express the idea of depopu- lation. 5. When the report {comes) to Egypt, they are pained at the report of Tyre. There are three distinct interpretations of this verse. The first 396 ISAIAH XXIII. [Yek. 0, 7. refers l/'^n* to the Sidonians or Pbeuicians generally, and understands the verse to mean that they would be as much gi'ieved to hear of the fall of Tyre as if they should hear of that of Egypt. The second makes the verb indefinite, or understands it of the nations generally, who are then said to be as much astounded at the fall of T\Te, as they once were at the judgments of Jehovah upon Egypt. The third, which is the one now commonly adopted, makes Egj-pt itself or the Egyptians the subject of the verb, and explains 3 and "iK'ND as particles of time, not of comparison. The first of these senses is expressed by Yitriuga {iitfama de E(jypto com- moveret animos, sic dolehunt ad famam Tyri), the second by Luther (gleichivie man erschrak da man von Egypten horeie, also ivird man erschreckcn wenn man von Tyrus liijren wird), the third by the Yulgate (cu7n uuditum fuerit in Eyypto, dolebunt cum uudient de Tyro). This last supposes the Egyptians to lament for the loss of their gi-eat mart and commercial ally. The idea expressed by the second construction is a 'much more elevated one, and it seems more agreeable to usage to take 3 before a noun as a particle of comparison. {Vide supra, chap, xviii. 4.) X'ND equally admits of either explanation. Either of these interpretations appears preferable to the first, which yields an unnatural and inappropriate sense. 6. Pass over to Tarshish ; howl, ye inliahitants of tlie isle {or coast). The mother country is exhorted to take refuge in her distant colonies. J. D. Michaelis compares the resolution of the Dutch ^merchants in 1672 to remove to Batavia if the mother country could not be delivered. Accord- ing to Diodorus, Curtius, and Justin, the Tyrians when besieged by Alex- ander, sent their old men, women, and children, to Carthage. Aben Ezra gratuitously makes ""N a collective, and supposes the address to be to all the islands whex'e the Tyrians traded. 7- Is Uiis your joyous city (literally, is this to you a joyous one): from the days of old is her antiquity ; her feet shall carry her afar off' to sojourn. Some adopt a relative construction, and continue the interrogation through the verse ; vjJiosefeet, &,c. Of those who read the sentence thus, some un- derstand the last clause as descriptive of the colonial and commercial activity of Tyre. But this requires -I^^SV to be arbitrarily explained as a preterite. Most writers understand the clause as applying, either to the flight of the Tyrians to their colonies, or to their being carried into exile. To the first, Gesenius objects that they could not cross the sea on foot. Umbreit replies that they must have feet to go on board the ships. Kiiobel rejoins that in that case it would not bo their feet that carried them far otf. It does not seem to have occurred to either, that a city can no more cross the sea in ships than dry-shod ; that the verse contains a bold per- sonification ; and that having once converted Tyre into a woman, the writer may naturally represent her as going anywhere on foot, without respect to the actual method of conveyance used by individual emigrants. Grotius avoids the difticulty mentioned by Gesenius, b}' making feet mean sails and oars. The epithet nppy has reference to tbc bustle of commercial enterprise, and also to the luxury and pride of Tyre. Hendewerk refers to the use of this word in chap. xxii. 2, as an incidental proof that Isaiah wrote both chapters. The resemblance between i^^lp. and DT!i^ is imitated by Gesenius in bis version {Ursjiruny and Urzeil). These expressions may be referred either to the real aniiquily of Tyie, or to the exaggerated boastings of the Tyrians, of which wu have examples in Herodotus and other profane writers. Vek. 8-11.] ISAIAH XXIII. 397 8. TT7io hath purposed this against Tyre the crowning [cilif), irhusc mer- chants (are) princes, her traffickers the honoured of the earth / The Vulgate gives H'T'tDyo a passive sense {quondam coronatam), which Sanctius applies to the pinnacles and turrets of the city. Hitzig makes it mean the crown - ■wearer. Most writers seem to be agreed that it denotes the croinier or crown-giver, in allusion to the fact that crowned heads were among the tri- butaries of Phenicia, according to the testimony of the Greek historians. Gesenius refers to the oriental crowns dispensed by the East India Com- pany, and to the crown of Corsica once subject to the Genoese Republic. He also illustrates the use of the name Canaan to denote a trader, by the analogous usage of Chaldean for astrologer, and that of Swiss, Savoyard, Jew, in modern parlance, to denote certain caUings or professions. The question in this verse implies that no ordinary power could have done it. The sense of rich which Gesenius gives to n333 in this place is entirely arbitrary. That of land, which some writers put instead of earth, though it does not change the sense of the expression, weakens it. 9. Jehovah of hosts hath purposed it, to profane the elevation of all beauty, to degrade all the honoured of the earth. This is the answer to the question in ver. 8. The suffix in HVy refers to riNT. The supposition of a chorus, or of choruses responding to each other, is gratuitous and artificial, and better suited to a Greek play than a Hebrew prophecj^ Not onl}' in poetry, but in animated prose, the writers of all languages ask questions to be answered by themselves. ^^^ includes all that was splendid and beautiful in Tyre. The exclusive reference of the word to the people can be justified by nothing but the parallelism, and even that will admit of an antithesis between an abstract and a concrete term. ??n means strictly to profane or desecrate that which is reckoned holy, but is here used to express the mak- ing common of that which was distinguished by magnificence or beauty. The force of the antithesis between ?p^ and D"'*7233 cannot be fully ex- pressed in a translation, as the roots respectively mean light and heavy. They are also contrasted, but in a difi'erent application and connection, in chap. viii. 23. 10. Pass through thy land like the river [Nile) ; Daughter of Tarshish, there is no girdle [any) longer. Some read, pass over to thy land, and make the verse an exhortation to the strangers from Tartessus to go home. Others understand "l^^^^ to mean as {one ivould cross) the Nile or any other stream, i. e. naked or without a girdle, as in the other clause. It is commonly agreed, however, that the phrase means, as the Nile passes, i. e. quickly or without restraint. Some suppose the figure to be still continued in the last clause, and take HTD in the sense of a dam, mound, or embankment. Others, giv- ing it its proper sense of girdle, apply it to the fortifications of Tyre which were now dismantled. The daughter of Tarshish is not Tyre, nor Phenicia now considered as dependent on her colonies ; nor the population of Tar- shish ; but Tarshish itself. There is no more girdle may be taken in op- posite senses, as denoting the failure of strength and general dissolution, or the absence of restraint and freedom from oppression. The former is pre- ferred by Hengstenberg ; but it does not seem appropriate to Tarshish, though it might be so if addressed to the mother country. 11. His hand he stretched out over the sea ; he made kingdoms tremhle ; Jehovah commanded respecting Canaan to destroy her strongholds. The sub- ject of the verbs in the first clause is the same as in the last. The stretching out of God's hand, followed by the trembling of the earth or its inhabitants, is urged by Hendewerk as a favourite expression of Isaiah (see particularly 398 ISAIAH XXIII. [Ver. 12, 13. chap. V. 25). Eicliliorn and Roscnmiiller, on the other hand, nir.ke n^^T^D a Chaldaism and a proof of later origin. Gesenius denies that there is any- thing analogous in Chaldee or Syriac usage, and regards it as either an anomalous case of epenthesis or an orthographical error. The feminine suflSx at the end refers to Canaan as the name of a countiy. 12. And he said, Tliou shall vol add longer [or continue) to triumph, op- pressed {or violated) virgin daughter of Zidon ; to Chittim arise, pass over ; there also there shall he no rest to thee. The address is not to Cbittim (or the Macedonians); nor to, Tyre as a daughter of the older city ; hut to Zidon itself. The fact that ri'P-ina is in apposition with ri2l (as to sense), makes it altogether probable that r\2 sustains the same relation to pT'V. The reading 11''^' ^2, though found in sixteen manuscripts and several ancient versions, is probably a mere mistake, arising from the frequent occurrence of the combination elsewhere. Zidon is here put for Phcnicia in general. n-13J is impersonal. This exhortation corresponds exactly to the one in ver. 6, Tarshish and Chittim being both Phenician colonies. The last clause im- plies, either that the colonists would not receive them, or that the enemy would still pursue them, probably the latter. The figure of a -siolated virgin, for a conquered city or country, is alleged by Eichliorn as a proof of later origin ; but it is used by the contemporary prophet Nahum (iii. 5), and as Knobel observes, occurs nowhere else in Isaiah because he nowhere has occasion to employ it. 13. Behold the land of the Chaldees ; this jjeople was not ; Assyria founded it for dwellers in the tvilderness ; they have set up his toicers ; Viey have roused up her palaces ; he has put it for (or rendered it) a ruin. This difficult verse has been variously understood. Some apply it exclusively to the destruction of Tyre by the Assyrians ; but this can only be effected by an arbitrary change of text. Thus J. Olshausen (in his emendations of the text of the Old Testament) omits the words from p^< to llti'N as a gloss, changes D^"*^' into D"'''!', and explains the rest to mean that Assyria con- verted Tyre into a heap of ruins. The origin of the gloss he supposes to be this, that some one wrote upon the margin by way of correction, V""^ D^IEJ'D, meaning that it was not Assyria but Babylonia that destroyed Tyre, and then added more exphcitly, n\"I iO Oyn nt, all which afterwards found its way into the text. This piece of criticism is too extravagant even for the Germans, who accordingly reject it with contempt. Ewald, however, also tampers with the text by reading D''jy3D for DHt^S. His version of the whole is : " behold the land of the Canaanites (/. e. Phenicia) ; this nation is no more ; Assyria has converted it into a wilderness ; they (the Pheni- cians) set up their towers (and) build their palaces ; he (the Assyrian) has turned it to ruin." Besides the arbitrary change of text, this explanation gives to C''^' and 1"i"iiy senses which cannot be sustained by usage. The great majority, both of the older and the later writei's, leave the text un- altered, and suppose that the Prophet here brings the Chaldees into view as the instruments of Tyre's destruction. The words from HT to D''''V7 will then be a parenthesis, containing an allusion to a historical fact not ex- pressly mentioned elsewhere, but agreeing well with other facts of history, viz. that the Chaldees were not the aboriginal inhabitants of Babylonia, but were brought thither from the mountains of Armenia or Kurdistan by the Assyrians in the days of their supremacy. This accounts for the fact, that Xenophon speaks of the Chaldees as northern mountaineers, wliile in the sacred history we find them in po'^sossion of the great plain of Shinar. The former statement has respect, no doubt, to that portion of the people Ver. 13.J ISAIAH XXIII. 899 who were left behind in their original territory. This incidental statement, it may also be observed, is in strict accordance with the Assyrian policy of peopling their own provinces with conquered nations. The construction commonly adopted, by interpreters who thus explain the sentence, is as follows : " Behold the land of the Chaldees ; this people (the people now inhabiting it) was not (/. e. had no existence until lately) ; Assyria founded (or established) it (the country) for dwellers in the wilderness (/. e. for the Chaldees who before had led a wild nomadic life)." To this construction Knobel, though he acquiesces in the exposition as a whole, makes two objections : first, that while it explains pX as denoting the people, it refers the sufiix in mO'' to the country ; secondly, that D''''i* is really descriptive of the Chaldees, not before but after their transportation to the plains of Babylonia. Knobel himself refers both |*"IX and the suffix to the people considered as possessors of the land, and takes ^ "'p'' in the sense of ap- pointing, constituting, as in Hab. i. 12. " Behold the nation of the Chaldees ; this people was not (/. e. was unknown) till Assyria changed them into inhabitants of the wilderness (or plain)." — But why should this history of the Chaldees be referred to here ? The answer usually given to this question is, because the recent origin and present insignificance of the chosen instruments made the conquest more humiliating to the Tyrians. A kindred feeling would have been excited in the ancient Romans by a prediction of their subjugation and destruction by the Goths. If the reason assigned for the incidental mention of the Chaldee migration be the true one, it has evidently far more force upon the supposition that the prophecy relates to the Babylonian conquest under Nebuchadnezzar, than upon the supposition that it relates to the attack of Shalmaneser. Indeed, the whole assumption, that the Chaldees are here mentioned as auxiliaries only, is so perfectly arbitrary, that it would never have occurred to any writer, who had not determined upon other grounds, that the event pre- dicted took place under the Assyrian domination. Even Umbreit, who assents to this hypothesis, admits that it is only probable, not certain ; and that this verse taken by itself would rather prove the contrary, by mentioning the Chaldees as the principal assailants, and Assyria only in a parenthesis containing a historical allusion. According to the usual interpretation which has now been given, the towers mentioned are those used in ancient sieges ; the masculine sufiix refers to D^; the feminine suffix to Tyre ; and "Tf^V may be taken either in the sense of raising (fi'om "T^il), or in that of rousing (from "l-iy), that is, filling with confusion and alarm. Besides the interpretations which have now been given, there is another that deserves at least to be recorded. Schley er, a recent German writer on this prophecy and that against Babylon in chaps, xiii. xiv., gives the same sense to the words from HT to "IIkJ^N that is put upon them by Olshausen, but instead of rejecting them as a mar- ginal correction, retains them as a necessary part of the text. " Behold, the nation of the Chaldees; this people (it was not Assja-ia) has assigned it {i. e. T,yre) to the dwellers in the wilderness {i. e. made it desolate). Um- breit, without dwelling on the violation of the Masoretic accents, objects to this interpretation, that it fails to account for the use of the word f"l5< before DHEi'D, but especially that no reason can be given for the negative assertion that it was not Assyria that desolated Tyre. If the interpretation, however, were otherwise tenable, this, so far from being an objection, would in fact recommend it. When Isaiah wrote, Assyria was the ruling power of the world ; whatever changes were expected, were expected from that quarter. 400 ISAIAH XX III. [Vek. 14, 15. But here the conquest of Phenicia is ascribed to a people then but little known, if known at all. It was perfectly natural therefore to say negatively, that it was not to be efi'ected by Assyria, as well as positively, that it was to be effected by Chaldea. In like manner if the fall of the Ptoman State had been foretold during the period of the Punic wars, how naturally would the pro- phet have said that it should fall, not before the Carthaginians, but before the Goths. The sense therefore yielded by Schleyer's construction is a good sense in itself, and appropriate to the context. It cannot, however, be affirmed that there is any sufficient reason for departing from the Masoretic tradition as to the interpunction of the sentence. But let it be observed, that on either of these suppositions, the reference of the verse to the siege of Tj-re by Nebuchadnezzar is far more natm-al than any other. 14. Hoivl, ships of Tarshish, for destroyed is your stronghold. The first part of the prophecy here closes very much as it began. The descrip- tion of Tyre is the same as in ver. 4, except that it was there called the fortress of the sea, and here the fortress of the Tyrian ships. 15. And it shall come to pass in that day that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, as the days of one king; from the end of seventy years shall be (or happen) to Tyre like the harlot's song. The remainder of the chapter predicts the restoration of Tyre, not to its former dignity, but to its wealth and commercial activity, the fruits of which should thenceforth be consecrated to Jehovah. There is no difference of opinion with respect to the meaning of the words or the grammatical construction of the sen- tence ; but the utmost diversity of judgment in relation to the general sense and application of the whole, and especially of the words, seventy years as the days of one king. Vitringa and others take the seventy years strictly. Gesenius and the later Geiman writers make it a round number, as in Gen. 1. 3, Exod. xv. 27, xxiv. 1. The following words are rejected by Umbreit as a gloss. J. D. Michaelis and Paulus read *inx (another) for "in^ (one). Grotius reads sere)i for seventy, forgetting that the fol- lowing noun must then be in the plural, and assuming that Shalmaneser reigned seven years, or was seven years at Tyre. Jarchi understands by the one king, David, who died at the age of threescore and ten, though he cannot explain why it should be here referred to. Kimchi suggests that it may be in allusion to the treaty between David and Hiram, the breach of which was the occasion of this judgment. Kimchi prefers, however, to explain the words as a description of the ordinary length of human life, in which he is followed by Gesenius and Maurer, who account for the mention oi one king rather than one man, upon the ground that kings and kingdoms are the subject of the prophecy. The same interpretation is suggested by the double version of the Scptuagint (ug %o&vos ^ccaiXsu;, ug ypo'vog dv^gc/OTou), which is found in all the manuscripts, though some modern critics reckon only part of it as genuine, Gesenius considering the first phrase as an emendation of the second, llosenmiiller the second as a later explanation of the first. Hltzig pretends that this form of expression was borrowed from Jeremiah's expectation that Zedekiah was to be restored at the end of seventy years. ]\Iovers supposes that the things compared are not two periods of time, but two cases of oblivion, and understands the clause as meaning that Tyre should be forgotten as completely as Jehoahaz and his three months' reign. Henderson, more generally, makes the sense to be that Tyre should bo forgotten as completely as a king when he is dead, in illustration of which general fact he strangely cites the case of Napoleon. Knobel understands the verse to mean that the oblivion of Tyre Ver. 1G.] ISAIAH XXIII. 401 for a time should be as fixed and unalterable as tlie decrees of an oriental monarch during his own reign. Eichhorn and Ewald understand the phrase as opposite in meaning to the one employed in chap. xvi. 14, xxi. 16. As the years of a hireling mean j'ears computed strictly, so the days of a king may mean daj's computed freely. Hengstenberg, without attempting to explain the phrase (quomodcunque ilia explicentur), understands it to imply that seventy years is here to be indefinitely understood, and carefully distinguished from the seventy years of Jeremiah and from the other speci- fications of time cantained in the writings of Isaiah himself. Those, on the other hand, who give the words their strict sense, for the most part follow Aben Ezra and Vitringa in supposing that the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors are here computed as one. It is no suflicient answer to say that '=1?9 never means a dynasty. That idea may of course be implied even if it is not expressed. The chronological hypothesis of this interpreta- tion has, however, been denied by J. D. Michaehs, who puts the end of the prescribed term thirty-three or four years later than the fall of Babylon. That Tyre was a flourishing city in the time of Alexander the Great, is mat- ter of history. When it again became so, is not. But since the fact is certain and the prophecy explicit, the most rational conclusion is that they chronologically coincide, or in other words, that Tyre did begin to recover from the eliects of the Babylonian conquest about seventy years after the catastrophe itself. This of course supposes that the words are to be defi- nitely understood. If, on the other hand, they are indefinite, there can be still less difficulty in supposing their fulfilment. In either case, the words ins "|7D ^0''D remain so enigmatical, and all the explanations of them so unsatisfactory, that some may be tempted to refer them to the future, and to look for their development hereafter. Hengstenberg' s view of the connection between this prediction of Isaiah and the parallel prophecies of Ezekiel (chtips. xxvi. and xxvii.) and Zechariah (chap ix.) is this, that the last should be regarded as a supplement or sequel to the other two. When Zechariah wrote, the Babylonian conquest predicted by Isaiah and Ezekiel had already taken place. The change for the better, predicted by Isaiah alone, was then already visible. The prophecies of both respecting the total destruction of the city are renewed by Zechariah, and referred to a period still future, with particular reference, as Hengstenberg supposes, to the time of Alexander, but it may be with a scope still more extensive. — The last clause foretells the restoration of Tyre in a very peculiar and significant form. Instead of a queen reinstated on the throne, she now appears as a forgotten harlot, suing once more for admiration and reward. Although this metaphor, as we shall see below, does not necessarily imply moral turpitude, it does neces- sarily impart a contemptuous tone to the prediction. The best explanation of this change of tone is not, as Eichhorn imagined, that these verses are a later addition, but that the restoration here predicted was to be a restora- tion to commercial prosperity and wealth, but not to regal dignity or national importance. The song of a harlot (or the harlot) is now commonly agreed to mean a particular song vv^ell known to the contemporaries of the Prophet. It shall he to her like this song can only mean that what the song presents as an ideal situation should be realised in the experience of Tyre. The Hebrew words will scarcely bear the meaning put upon them in the text of the English Version. 16. Take a harp, go about the city, 0 forgotten harlot ; play well, sing much, that thou mayest he remembered. These are now commonly explained as the words of the song itself, describing the only way in which the harlot VOL. I. c c 402 ISAIAH XXIV. [Ver. 17, 18. could recover her lost place iii the memory of men, viz., by soliciting their notice and their favour. The application of the song to Tyre implies not only that she had lost her former position in the sight of the nations, but that exertion would be needed to recover it. The literal meaning of the words translated /»?ay xvell, siny much, is make good jflaying, multqjly song. See Gesenius, § 189, 1. 17. And it shall be (or come to pass), from (or at) the end of seventy years, Jehovah will visit Tyre, and she shall return to her hire (or gain), and shall play the harlot vith all the kingdoms cf the earth upon the face of the ground. As God is said to visit men both in wrath and mercy, and as the figure here employed is at first sight a revolting one, some of the older writers understand this verse as describing the continued wickedness of Tyre requiring fiu'ther judgments. But this makes it necessary to explain the next verse as referring to a still remoter future, which is done by in- serting tandem or the like at the beginning. It is evident, however, from the repetition of the word n:3nK in the next verse, that the prediction there has reference to the very course of conduct here described. From this again the inference is plain, that notwithstanding the apparent import of the figure, the conduct is not in itself unlawful. The figure indeed is now commonly agreed to denote nothing more than commercial intercourse without neces- sarily implying guilt. In ancient times, when international commerce was a strange thing and nearly monopohzed by a single nation, and especially among the Jews, whose law discom-aged it for wise but temporary purposes, there were probably ideas attached to such promiscuous intercourse entirely difi'erent from our o^\Tl. Certain it is that the Scriptures more than once compare the mutual solicitations of commercial enterprise to iUicit love. That the comparison does not necessarily involve the idea of unlawful or dishonest trade, is sufiiciently apparent from the following verse. 18. And her gain and her hire shall he holiness (or holy, i. e. consecrated) to Jehovah; it shall not he stored and it shall not he hoarded; for her gain shall he for those who sit (or dwell) before Jehovah, to eat to satiety, and for substantial clothing. By those who dwell before Jehovah we are probably to understand his worshippers in general and his official servants in particular. Henderson's objection, that the priests were not allowed to sit in the temple, is applicable only to the primaiy meaning of the verb. There may be an allusion to the chambers around the temple which were occupied by priests and Levites when in actual service. PTiy, according to the Arabic analogy, means ancient as an epithet of praise, and is accord- ingly resolved by the modern writers into fine or splendid. The older interpreters deduced perhaps from the same original idea that of durable, substantial, wearing long and well. The latter agrees better with the appli- cation of the words to private dress, the former to official robes, in which magnificence was more important than solidity, and which might be trans- ferred from one incumbent to the next, and so be represented even in the stricter sense as old or ancient. The general sense of the prediction evidently is, that the commercial gains of Tyre should redound to the advantage of the servants of Jehovah. CHAPTER XXIV. Here begins'a scries of prophecies (chaps, xxiv.-xxxv.), ha%nng reference chiefly to Judah. It is not divided into parts by any titles or express intimations of a change of subject. The style is also homogeneous and ISAIAH XX ir. 403 nniform. The attempts which have been made to subdivide this portion of the book, are for the most part arbitrary. The conventional division into chapters may be retained as a matter of convenience. The first four chapters (xxiv.— xxvii.) are now universally regarded as forming one continuous composition. What is said of chap. xxiv. is therefore in some degree applicable to the whole. This chapter contains a description of a country filled with confusion and distress, by a visitation from Jehovah in consequence of its iniquities, vers. 1-12. It then speaks of a remnant scattered among the nations and glorifj-ing God in distant lands, vers. 13-16. The Prophet then resumes his description of the judgments coming on the same land or another, winding up with a prophecy of Jehovah's exaltation in Jerusalem, vers. 16-23. Eusebius and Jerome explained this chapter as a prediction of the end of the world, in which they have been followed by fficolampadius and some later writers. Cyril referred it to the same event, but understood it in its primary meaning, as a summary of the foregoing prophecies against foreign nations. The older Jews (as we learn from Jarchi and Aben Ezra) applied the first part of the chapter to the Assyrian invasions of the Holy Land, and the last to the wars of Gog and Magog in the days of the Messiah. But Moses Haccohen referred the whole to the former period, Kimchi and Abarbenel the whole to the latter. Luther applied it to the desolation of Judea by the Romans. Calvin agreed with Cyril in regarding it as a summary of the preceding prophecies both against Israel and foreign nations, but denied any reference to the day of judgment. Grotius adhered to Moses Haccohen, in applying the whole to the AssjTian invasions. He refen-ed the first part to the wasting of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser, and the second to Sennacherib's invasion of Judah. Cocceiug is as usual in the opposite extreme, applying the chapter to the German and Bohemian war, Gustavus Adophus, Wallenstein, the taking of Ratisbon, the battle of NorUngen, and the conflicts between Charles I. of England and the Parliament. Clericus understood the chapter as a prophecy of the Babylonian conquest of Judea, the captivity, and the restoration of the Jewish commonwealth. Vitringa explained it as relating, in its primary sense, to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors, and their deliverance by the Maccabees, but in its mystical or secondary sense to certain changes which await the Christian Church in future times. Lowth difi'ered little in reahty from Calvin, except that he confined the prediction more exclusively to Judah and its sufierings at the hands of the Assyi'ians, Babylonians, and Romans. None of the writers who have now been men- tioned entertained the least doubt as to the genuineness of the prophecy. The turning-point "between the old and new school of criticism is occupied by J. D. Mlchaelis, who, without suggesting any doubt as to the age or author, pronounces the passage the most difficult in the book, and is altogether doubtful whether it has ever been fulfilled. Koppe divides the chapter into two indepandent prophecies. Eichhom approves of this division, and infers from the style and phraseology, that the chapter was written after the destruction of Babylon. Bertholdt determines in the same way, that it was composed immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, Rosenmiiller, in the first edition of his Scholia, agi'ees with Eichhom, but iu the second, he maintains that Isaiah was the author, and that he here ex- presses a general anticipation of approaching changes. Gesenius pronounces the style far inferior to that of Isaiah, and ascribes the passage to a writer in the Babylonian exile just before the fall of Babylon. Hitzig on the other hand ascribes it to an Ephraimite captive in Assyria, and supposes the 404- ISAIAH XXIV. IYek. 1. destruction of Nineveh to be foretold. Ewakl thinks the prophecy was written in Pulestiue after the restoration of the Jews, and in anticipation of Cambyses' attack on Egypt. Umbreit agi^ecs substantially with Gesenius, and Knobel with Bertholdt. We have here another illustration of the value of the boasted modern criticism. Geseniusisconfidentthatthepropheeywas written in Babylon ; Ewald and Knobel are equally contident that it was written in the Holy Land. Gesenius disparages the style as cold and artiticial ; Hitzig speaks of it with contempt as awkward, feeble, and inelegant; Ewald treats it with respect as poetical and skilful, although not original ; while Umbreit lauds it as a noble specimen of Hebrew poetry. In this case, as in others, each writer first determines upon general grounds the age of the production, and then confirms it by internal proofs. The points of resemblance to the undisputed writings of Isaiah are set down as plagiarisms or imitations. Ewald even goes so far as to mark certain passages as borrowed Irom older writers no longer extant. The paronomasias and other verbal peculiarities of the passage, instead of proving it the work of Isaiah, in whose acknowledged writings they are also found, prove the contrary because they are so numerous. In this way all proof of the genuineness of a disputed passage is rendered impossible. If it has not the usual characteristics of the author, it is therefore spurious ; if it has, it is evidently an imitation. It is true, distinctions are made as to the number, good taste, and connection ; but they are always made at will, and so as to confirm the previous conclusion. Setting aside this empirical criticism as unworthy of attention, we may obsei-ve that the endless diversity of judgment, both among the older and later writers, shews that the prediction is generic. Henderson observes indeed on Lowth's suggestion that the prophecy refers to more than one invasion of the Holy Land, that " this hypothesis, though supplying an easy mode of intei-prcting all its parts, is to be rejected, having been obviously Iramed for the purpose of getting rid of the difficulties; " as if hypotheses were ever framed for any other purpose, and as if there could be a stronger proof that a hypothesis is true, than the fact of its getting rid of the difficulties and supplying an easy mode of interpreting all the parts. In this case, as in many others, the exclusive restriction of the prophecy to one event is wholly arbitrary. What the Prophet has left indefinite we have no right to make specific. Particubir allusions there may be ; but this, as we have seen in other cases, does not limit the application of the whole. 1. Behold Jehovah (/s) potiritu/ out the hind and enijiti/lnff it, and he trill turn doun its face, and he will scatter its inhabitants. The figure is that of a bottle or other vessel drained of its contents by being turned upside down. The face is not the soil or ground (Hendewerk). but the upper part or mouth of the vessel. The last clause resolves the figure into literal expressions, ypi} is not to cause to flow, as in Arabic, but to scatter, according to the uniform Hebrew usage. The allusion may be both to flight and deportation. Gesenius admits that >^}i\^ with the participle commonly indicates present or future time ; but nevertheless applies this verse to the Babyhmian conquest of Judea. which was long past at the time when he sujiposes the chapter to have bi . ;i written. Ewald and Hitzig, who refer it to events still future at the date of the prediction, insist upon the future form. The simple truth is, that Isaiah here speaks of the Babylonian conquest as still distant, but at the same time as infallibly certain. To avoid this conclusion, Gesenius denies that Isaiah was the author, and violates the usage of the language by translating this whole passage iu the past tense. Ver. 2-5.J ■ ISAIAH XXIV. 405 2. And it shall be, as the people so the priest, as the servant so Ms master, as the maid so her mistress, as the buyer so tlie seller, as the lender so the borroiver, as the creditor so the debtor. That is, all ranks and classes shall fare alike. The double 3 to express the idea as-so is like the use of e^t-et m Latin, where we say both-and, or aut-aut where we say eithcr-or. Kimchi says that each term'includes a double comparison, (the people) like thepnest (and the priest) like the people, (the servant) like the master (and the master) like the servant. - On the form XtTJ see Gesenius, § 74, 20. _ The mention of the priest is no more a proof of later date in this case than in Hosea iv. 9. Saadias makes pa mean a prince or ruler, which is also given in the margin of the English Bible. 3. The land shall be utterly emptied and idterly spoiled, for Jehovah speaks (or hath spoken) this word. Gesenius arbitrarily translates the verbs as preterites, in w^hich he is followed by Hendewerk. Ewald explains them as descriptive presents. De Wette as usual disregards the reduplication of the Hebrew verbs. It is no doubt emphatic, however, and may be ex- pressed by a simple repetition, emptied emptied (Ewald), or by combining a verb and adjective, empty and emptied (Hitzig), or by introducing an in- tensive adverb, utterly, ivhoUy, as in the English Version and most others. According to Knobel, pi^ri is put for the more usual form P3n in order to assimilate it to the infinitive. The full orthography with 1 is mentioned by Gesenius as a sign of later date, although he does not deny that it also occurs in the older books. The land here mentioned is supposed by Hitzig to be AssjTia ; by all other interpreters Palestine. In order to Justify his reference of this part of the chapter to past time, Gesenius explains the last clause as relating to the divine purpose or decree (for so Jehovah had com- manded), whereas it elsewhere denotes the certainty of the event because predicted liy Jehovah. The necessity of this departure from the usage of the phrase is a strong objection to his interpretation of the chapter, as written during the Babj'lonian exile by a captive Jew. _ .M 4. The earth mourneth,fadeth; the world languisheth, fadeth : the highest of the people of the earth languish. pi 9. With the song they shall not drink wine ; bitter shall strong drink be to them that drink it. Hitzig understands this to mean that they shall not drink wine at all ; Knobel, that it shall not be accompanied with music. 13K' is neither beer (J. D. Michaelis) nor palm- wine (Lowth) specifically, but intoxicating drinks in general. The last clause means of course that they should lose the appetite for such enjoyments. 10. Broken doxon is the city of confusion (emptiness or desolation), shut up is every house from entering, {i. e. so that it is not or cannot be entered). The city meant is neither Nineveh (Hitzig), nor cities in general (Rosen- miiller), but Jerusalem. Hitzig and Knobel prefer the construction, it is broken down into (^. e. so as to be) a city of desolation, but the common construction is more natural which makes inn Wlp the subject of the verb. The last clause might be understood to refer to the closing of the houses by the inhabitants against the enemy, or to their being left unoccupied ; but the first clause seems to shew that it rather relates to the obstruction of the entrance by the ruins. Rosenmiiller's explanation of inn n''~lp, as denoting city of idols, or idolatrous city, is very unnatural. Hitzig and others make the P before n''2 simply equivalent to without. Compare the similar expression in chap, xxiii. 1. 11. A cry for ivine in the streets — darkened is all joy — departed is the gladness of the earth. To the critical acumen of Gesenius this verse stands confessed as a plagiarism from Joel i. 15. To the exquisite taste of Hitzig it is not only an unda redundans, but completely lame and flat {yollends lahm und matt). One ground of objection to it is that a calling for wine, though perfectly appropriate in Joel, is entirely out of place in this descrip- tion of a conquered and dismantled town. The later writers have had taste enough to see that the cry meant is not that of drunkai'ds for more liquor, but of the perishing inhabitants for necessary refreshment (Hendewerk), perhaps Avith special reference to the sick and wounded (Henderson) or to children (Hitzig). Knobel gives the words the still more general sense of lamentation for the blasted vintage. Hendewerk points out that wine alone is mentioned here, as bread is in Lam. iv. 4, while in Lam. ii. 12 both are combined. There is no need of taking HH''^' in the sense of a call to the wine sellers from their customers (Kimchi), much less of supplying a nega- tive, so as to make it mean that there is no call for wine in the streets (Clericus). Houbigant and Lowth for HilJ? read m^V (has passed away). Rosenmiiller gives the same or nearly the same sense to the common text. But all the latest writers acquiesce in Buxtorf's definition of the word as meaning to grow dark, with special reference to the setting of the sun or the coming on of twilhght. This beautiful figure is itself an answer to the festhetical sneers of certain critics. n?3J may either have the general sense oi gone, departed (Henderson), or the more specific one of banished (Gese- nius), expatriated (J. D. Michaelis), carried captive (Umbreit). The first clause is rendered more expressive in the versions of De Wette, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, by the omission of the verb. The last-mentioned wi'iter understands by the joy of the land, the population of Jerusalem. Nine manuscripts have ?3 before )*~isn, and the Septuagint supplies it before 12. What is left in the city is desolation, and into o'uins is the gate beaten down. The first clause is in apposition to the last of ver. 11. Joy is gone and desolation is left behind. All the modern writers take iT'NCi' as an ad- 408 ISAIAH XXIV. ^Yer. 13-15. verbial accusative qualifying T\y by describing the effect or result of the action. The gate is here named as the most important part of the city ; but it does not directly mean the city itself. On the form n?,'> see Gese- nius, § 66. Rem. 8. 13. For so shall it be in the midst of the earth among the nations, like the beating of an olive-tree, like gleanings tvhen the gathering is done. There is uo need of rendering ^3 but (Rosenmiiller) or yet (Henderson), as the Prophet is stating more distinctly the extent of the desolation which he had before described. The fact that some survive is indeed referred to, but only indirectly and by implication, so that the verse is not properly an antithesis to that before it. Instead of saying that Isaiah here repeats his beautiful comparison in chap. xvii. 5, 6, Gesenius and his followers set this down as the plagiarism of a later writer. The Prophet is thus reduced to a dilemma ; if he does not repeat his owti expressions, he is a stranger to himself and his own WTitings ; if he does, he is an imitator of a later age. Rosenmiiller supposes an allusion not only to paucity but to inferiority of quality. In the midst of the nations is explained by Hitzig as contrasting the condition of the country with that of its neighbours. Others undex-- stand it of actual dispersion among foreign nations. 14. They shall raise their voice, they shall sing (or shout), for the majesty of Jehovah they cry aloud from the sea. The pronoun at the beginning is emphatic. They, not the nations (Schelling) or the Jews left in the land (Barnes), but the few dispersed survivors of these judgments. The ^ before |1NJ is not a particle of time (Rosenmiiller), but points out the subject (Maurer) or the occasion of the praise (Gesenius). Ewald supposes the words of the song itself to be begun in the last clause of this verse and con- tinued through the next. But this compels him to change the pointing of 1?nv, and make it an imperative. The Septuagint and Theodotion have the waters of the sea, as if instead of D*P they read D^O or D^ ''P. Dathe gives the IP its comparative sense : more (i. e. louder) than the sea. Jarchi had before given the same construction but a different sense : mo7-e than [at] the sea, i. e. more than they rejoiced at the deliverance from Egj'pt. Many render the phrase f-ojn the west, which is rather implied than expressed. Hitzig denies that there is here a transition to another subject, as admitted by almost all interpreters. 15. Therefore in the fires glorify Jehovah, in the islands of the sea the name of Jehovah God of Israel. Ewald supposes the words of the song or shout to be continued. Hendewerk and Barnes understand the Prophet as hero turning from the remnant of Israel in Palestine to the scattered exiles. But it seems to be really an address to the persons who had already been described as praising God, exhorting them to do so still. CI?;' has been variously explained as meaning valleys, caverns, doctrines, fires of afflic- tion, exile, Urim (and Thummim), Ur (of the Chaldees), &c. Clericus makes D^"iX3 the passive participle of "1^*3. It is now commonly agreed to be a local designation. Doederlcin deduces from an Arabic analogy the meaning in tlie north. Barnes suggests that Q^1J< may denote the northern lights or aurora borealis. Henderson thinks the Prophet means the region of volcanic fires, viz. the Mediterranean coasts and islands. But the weight of cxegetical authority preponderates in favour of the meaning in the east (as the region of sunrise, or of dawning light) in opposition to the sea or west. Various attempts have been made to mend the text by reading D''^N3 (Lowth), D^JDK3 or 3^0"3 (Houbigant), D^ina or DnN^ (Calmet). Hensler reads DnS2 as a contraction for Cl^^??, like O^l'^l', Amos. viii. 8. Ver. 16-18.] ISAIAH XXIV. 409 16. From the wing (sJcirt or edge) of the earth we have heard songs, praise to the righteous ; and I said, Woe to me, woe to me, alas for me ! The deceivers deceive, xoith deceit the deceivers deceive. We hear promises and praise to the righteous, but our actual experience is that of misery, pnv is not an epithet of God (Henderson) or Cyrus (Hendewerk), but of righteous men in general. Gesenius infers from the second clause that the writer was involved in the miseries of Babylon ; but the same use might be made of every ideal situation which the book presents. Several of the ancient versions and of the rabbinical interpreters take "'H in the sense of secret : my secret is to me, and I must keep it, i. e. I cannot utter what I know. Aben Ezra and Kimchi, followed by Vitringa, gave it the specific sense of leanness. But the latest writers understand it as denoting ruin, misery, or woe, and the whole exclamation as substantially equivalent to that which follows. Here, as in chap. xxi. 2, the latest writers make '^y^ express, not fraud, but violence, which is contrary to usage and entirely unnecessary. Ewald takes "1^3 iu its usual sense of garment, and explains the clause to mean, that robbers strip off" the very clothes. ''^^ P''"!^^ is commonly regarded as the very language of the song referred to ; but it may as well be a description of it, (a song of) praise or honour to the righteous. 17. Fear and pit and snare ttpon thee, 0 inhabitant of the land ! This may be either a warning (are tipon thee) or the expression of a wish {be upon thee). It is a probable though not a necessary supposition, that the terms here used are;.borrowed from the ancient art of hunting. "inD would then denote some device by which wild beasts were frightened into snares and pitfalls. It is at least a remarkable coincidence that the Romans gave the name formido to an apparatus used for this purpose. Henderson explains the Hebrew word to mean a scarecroio. The paronomasia is copied by Gesenius, Ewald, Umbreit, and Hitzig, in as many diff"erent forms. It is of course regarded as a proof of recent origin, though no one undertakes to say at what precise period the paronomasia became a favourite with the Hebrew writers. 18. And it shall be (that) the (one) flying from the voice of the far nhall fall into the pit, and the (one) coming up from the midst of the pit shall he taken in the snare ; for windoivs from on high are opened, and the founda- tions of the earth are shaken. The first clause carries out the figures of the foregoing verse ; and the second introduces those of a deluge and an earth- quake. One manuscript instead of ^'\?^ reads ^^3^, and some interpreters regard ?1p as a mere idiomatic pleonasm. But it much more probably de- notes the voice of the hunter or the noise made by the instrument called ins. The allusion to the flood is acknowledged by all writers except Knobel, who objects that the Hebrews did not believe that there coald be a second deluge ; as if this belief could prevent their understanding or em- ploying such a figure of speech. There are thousands now who have the same belief, but who do not for that reason feel debarred fi-om representing overwhelming evils as a deluge of misfortune or of wrath. Akin to this is the assertion of the same writer, and of Gesenius before him, that the early Hebrews actually thought that there were windows in the soUd vault of heaven. In the same way it might be proved that Milton held the stars and planets to be burning lamps, and that Gesenius himself, when he speaks of a column of smoke, means a solid piece of masonry. It seems^ to be a canon with some critics, that all the prosaic language of the Bible is to be interpreted as poetry, and all its poetry as prose, especially M^hen any colour 410 ISAIAH XXIV. [Vee. 19-21. is afforded for the charge of ignorant credulity. Kimchi imagines that windows are here mentioned as the apertures through which God looks upon the earth ; Knobel, as those through which he sends down thunder- bolts and lightijing. But the allusion to the flood is rendered certain by the resemblance of the language to that used in Gen. vii. 11. 19. Broken, broken is the earili ; shattered, shattered is the earth; shaken, shaken is the earth. This striking verse is pronounced by Gesenius and Hitzig, in accordance with some mystical canon of criticism, very in- elegant and in bad taste. They both assign the reason that the word tarth is repeated. Hitzig adds that the verse, contains an anticlimax, which is not the case, as no natiu-al phenomenon can be more impressive than an earthquake. The reduplication of the Hebrew verbs is as variously ex- pressed by the different translators as in ver. 3. 20. The earth reels, reels like a drunken man, and is shaken like a ham- mcck. And heavy upon her is her guilt, and she shall fall and rise no more. The ideas earth and land, both which are expressed by the Hebrew f"i5<, run into one another and are interchanged in a manner not to be expressed in a translation. The old translation of the second clause {removed like a cottar/e) is now commonly abandoned. n31?^3 is properly a temporary lodging-place. In chap. i. 8, it was applied to a watch-shed in a melon- field. Here it seems to siguif}^ something more moveable and something suspended in the air. The latest writers are accordingly agreed in retain- ing the interpretation put upon the word by the Targum, the Peshito, and Saadias, which makes it mean a cloth or mat suspended between trees or boughs of trees for the use of nocturnal watchers. Such are described by Niebuhr as common in Arabia, and are known throughout the East by a name essentially identical with those used in the versions above cited. The readers of this verse would never have discovered, without Hitzig'said, that its figures are extravagant and overstrained. 21. And it shall he in that day that Jehovah shall visit (for the purpose of inflicting punishment) upon the host oj the high place in the high place, and vpjon the kings of the earth upon iJie earth. Interpreters have com- monly assumed that the host cf the high place is the same with the host of heaven, and must therefore mean either stars (Jerome), or angels (Aben Ezra), or both (Gesenius). Grotius understands by it the images of the heavenly bodies worshipped in Assyria. Gesenius finds here an allusion to the punishment of fallen angels, and then makes this a proof of recent origin, because the Jewish demonology was later than the time of Isaiah. It may be doubted whether there is any reference to the host of heaven at all. Dno is a relative expression, and although applied to heaven in ver. 18, is applied to earth, or to human society in ver. 4. The former sense may seem to bo here required by the antithesis of HDIN ; but it is not clear that any antithesis was intended, which is the less probable because ilQIN is not the customary opposite of heaven. The sense may simply be that God will judge the high or lofty host, viz. the kings of the land upon the land. But even if there be an antithesis, and even if the host of heaven in the usual sense of the expression be alluded to, the analog}' of this whole context would seem to indicate that this is merely a strong figure for difl'e- rent ranks or degrees of dignity on earth. It is not indeed probable that the Jewish hierarchy is specifically meant, as Barnes supposes ; but it is altogether natural to understand the words more generally as denoting kings and potentates. And even on the supposition that the contrast hero intended is between the hosts of heaven and earth, the obvious meaning is Vek. 22, 23.] ISAIAH XXIV. 411 that God will judge the principalities and po\^"ei'S of both worlds, in order to accomplish his declared designs. To pronounce the passage spurious because it seems to speak of evil spirits and their doom, is to assume that nothing is ever mentioned for the first time, but that all allusion to a doc- trine must be simultaneous. Even in the later books of Scripture, how few and incidental and obscure are the allusions to this subject ! In the same taste and spirit, and of equal value, are Gesenius's attempts to connect this verse with the doctrines of Zoroaster. It is not unworthy of remark that Hitzig, who delights in all such demonstrations of a later date and lower standard of opinion in the sacred books, foregoes that pleasure here, and flatly denies that there is any reference to demons in the text, because he had assumed the ground that it was written in Assyria before the fall of Nineveh. 22. And they shall he gathered with a gathering as 2>'>''soners in a pit, and shall he shut up in a dungeon, and after many days they shcdl he visited. Whether HSDJ^ be construed with "l''E'i< [the gathering of a prisoner), or explained as an emphatic reduplication, the sense of the first clause evidently is that they shall be imprisoned. The persons meant are of course the principalities and powers of the verse preceding. The aflinity between II^D and "iJDO cannot well be expressed in English, as it is in the German version of Gesenius (verschlossen ins Verschloss). There are two interpre- tations of the verb npD\ According to one, it means they shall be punished, or at least brought forth to judgment. This is the sense put upon it by Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, and Hendewerk. The other is, they shall he visited in mercy. This explanation is as old as Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, if not as the Peshito. Calvin seems to favour it, and it is adopted by Hitzig, Henderson, andEwald. Barnes, who refers these verses to the Jewish priests, gives the verb the specific meaning, shall he mustered, with a view to their return from exile. 23. And the moon shall he confounded, and the sun ashamed, for Jehovah of hosts is king in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his elders there is glory. Before the splendour of Jehovah's reign all lesser principalities and powers shall fade awaj'. There is no need of supposing an allusion to the worship of the sun and moon. Some give to ''? the sense of when, which is admissible, but needless and indeed inadequate It was not merely when Jehovah reigned, but because he reigned, that all inferior luminaries were to be eclipsed. The elders are the rulers of Israel as the church. Henderson sees a distinct allusion to the form of government by elders, as that which shall prevail in the last and best days of the church. The simple meaning of the verse appears to be that Jehovah's reign over his people shi.ll be more august than that of any created sovereign. This is true of the church in various periods of history, but more especially in those when the presence and power of God are peculiarly manifested. The aflinity between this verse and the last of the preceding chapter seems to shew that their juxtaposition is by no means fortuitous. The Septuagint renders the first clause thus, the brick shall moulder and the wall shall fall. They evidently read Hjn^ and HDh, although Grotius imagines that the deviation from the true sense was intentional, in order to avoid oflending the Pla- tonists of Egypt by disparaging the sun and moon. If such a motive could have influenced the authors of the version, its effects would not have been confined to one or a few comparatively unimportant passages. 412 ISAIAH XXV. [Ver. 1. CHAPTEK XXV. This chapter consists of three distinguishable parts. The first is a thanksgiving to God for the destruction of Babylon and the deliverance of the Jews, vers, 1-5. The second is a promise of favour to the Gentiles and the people of God, when united on mount Zion, vers. G-9. The third is a threatening of disgraceful ruin to Moab, vers. 10-12. It may be mentioned as a specimen of Ewald's bold and arbitrary criti- cism, that he connects vers. 0-11 directly with chap, xxiv., puts the first four verses together as a strophe, and the fifth, twelfth, and first fom* verses of the next chapter, as another strophe. It is worthy of remark that, though the modern German writers all regard this chapter as the work of the same period, and indeed of the same author as the one before it, they find here none of those strong proofs of deteriorated taste and diction which are so abundant in the other case. To be consistent, they should either ascribe the passages to diSerent authors, or admit that the twenty-fifth was written at a time and by a man not incapable of pure and lofty composition. It ought to be observed, however, that the admirable figure in ver. 10 strikes the delicate taste of Gesenius as low (unedel), and of Ewald as dirty {schmutzuj). Cocccius, in his exposition of this chapter, still enjoys his old hallucina- tion that it is a chapter of church history, referring the first part to the great rebellion in England, and the last to the destruction of the Turks, &c. 1. Jehovah my God {art) thou ; I will, exalt thee ; I Kill praise thy name ; for thou hast done a wonder, counsels from afar off, truth, certaintij. The song of praise opens in the usual lyric style. (See Exodus xv. 2, 11 ; Ps. cxviii. 28, cxlv. 1.) Cocccius, Viiringa, and some others, read 0 thou my God, without supplying the substantive verb ; but the latter construction is more agreeable to usage. iT;i1N strictly means I will achnow- ledye or confess. The whole phrase may either mean, I will acknowledge thy goodness towards me, or I will confess thee to be what thy name imports, I will acknowledge thy acts to be consistent with the previous revelations of thine attributes. Some render ^7^ simply as a plural. Ros- enmiiller explains it as a collective implying that many particular wonders were included. Vitringa more naturally makes it an indefinite expression, somethiny ironderful (mirabile quid). What wonder is especially referred to, the next verse explains. The last clause admits of several difierent con- structions. Ewald, with many of the older writers, makes it an independent proposition, of which ni^fy is the subject and HJIJOS the predicate. Thus the English Version: thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth. Barnes supplies another verb : ttiou hast shown to he faithful and true. Gesenius makes Hivy as well as X?3 the object of the verb r)'':^]}, and supplies a pre- position before HJICX, or regards it as an adverbial accusative : thoii hast executed ancient pAans {with) faithfulness and tridJt. Hitzig simplifies the same construction still more by making all the nouns in the last clause objects of the verb in the first : thou hast brought to pass a wonder, ancient counsels, faithfulness, and truth. From afar o^ seems to imply, not only that the plans were formed of old, but that they were long ago revealed. Even long before the event they are certain. Hitzig, who applies the whole prophecy to Nineveh, is disposed to understand this clause as referring to the earlier prophecies of its destruction by Nahum and Zephaniah. The Septuagint, followed by J. D. Michaelis, reads 1^5$ Av^en {ymiro), which Ver. 2, 3.] ISAIAH XXV. 413 would here be out of place, ps and HJItDK are cognate forms, both denoting truth or certainty, and here combined, according to a very common Hebrew idiom, for emphasis. 2. lor thou lirifit tinned (it) from a city to a heap, a fortified tuirn to a ruin, a palace of st ran r/ers from (beinfi) a city ; for ever it shall not he built. According to Rosenmiiller, citij is here put for cities in general, and the verse contains a promise or prophetic description of the golden age when fortifications should no longer be needed, as Virgil says of the same ideal period, that there shall then no more be opioida muris cincta. Most inter- preters, however, are agreed that it refers to a particular city; Grotius says Samaria; Cappellus, Jerusalem; Hitzig, Nineveh; the others, Babylon. Cocceius applies the first clause to the overthrow of episcopacy in England, and especially to the exclusion of the bishops from the House of Lords. (^Seiisus hie est: ex ecclesia episcopali fecisti acervum, hoc est eaiii totani dirnisti.) The other clause he applies to the subsequent change of the republic into a tyranny (from a city to a palace of strangers). J?P'^' means strictly thou hast j^Jnced, but is often used with 7 to denote the conversion of a thing into something else. Here it is separated from 7p_ by "'''VP, an unusual collocation, which led Houbigant to read ^il or "I^J/H, in which he is followed by Lowth, Dbderkin, Dathe, Gesenius, and Knobel. J. D. Michaelis reads DOp^ 1"'^, which, instead of easing the construction, makes it still more harsh. The difficulty is entirely' removed, without a change of text, by supposing the object of the verb to be "I''J/ or H^^^i? understood. Thou hast cJtanr/ed (a city) /Vow a city to a heap. So Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and others. Gesenius doubts whether such an ellipsis is admissible ; but it is surely more so than an arbitrar}^ change of text. Another solution of the syntax is proposed by Hitzig, " thou hast turned from a city to a heap, a fortified town to a ruin," in which case 'IPSpp is an unmeaning repetition of ^p., without even parallelism or rhythm to sanction it. The same con- struction had substantially been given long before byDeDieu. Hendewerk goes still further and connects nbSD? with Q*"iT }10"lX : " thou changest the fortified town from a city to a heap, the palaces of strangers from a city to ruins." Gesenius gives JTl-l^if^l here its primary and proper sense of inaccessible. Most of the modern writers understand by a palace of strangers the royal city mentioned in the first clause, called a palace on account of its splendour, or as being a collection oi jmlaces, or because the palace vras the most important part of it. "'''VP must then be taken in a privative sense (so as not to be a city). But as the same phrase in the first clause means fioni heiny a city, some give it that sense here, and understand the clause to mean that God had changed it from a city to a palace (or royal residence) of strangers. But if it ceased to be a city, how could it become a palace ? There is in fact no inconsistency between the senses put upon "T'yp by the usual interpretation. Even in the first clause it means strictly /Vo//i or away from, a city, which can be clearly expressed in our idiom only by using a negative expression. For CIT, Houbigant proposes to read DHt, wholly without reason or authority. C^it has the same sense as in chap. i. 7. For the use of stranger in the sense of enemy, Gesenius cites the authority of Ossian. Grotius explains it to mean strange gods, or their worship- pers, and applies the whole phrase to the idolatrous temple of Samaria. The Targum in like manner makes it mean an idol-temple in Jerusalem itself. 3. Therefore a potcerful people shall honour thee, a city of terrible nations 414 ISAIAH XXV. [Ver. 4. shall fear thee. The destruction of Babylon, and the fulfilment of prophecy thereby, shall lead even the boldest and wildest of the heathen to acknow- ledge Jehovah as the true God. It is usual to apply the terms of this verse specifically to the Medes and Persians as the conquerors of Babylon. Hit- zig refers them to the Medes and Babylonians as the conquerors of Nineveh. To this it may be objected, that the epithets, according to usage, imply censure, rather than praise, and that D^V^^JJ is applied in the next verse to the conquered Babylonians themselves as having once been tyrants or oppressors. There seems to be no need of applying the verse to a cordial voluntary recognition of Jehovah. It may just as well denote a compul- sory extorted homage, /car being taken in its proper sense. The verse will then be an apt description of the etiect produced by Jehovah's overthrow of Babylon on the Babylonians themselves. There is still another explanation, namely that which understands the verse more indefinitely as descriptive of an eftect produced upon the nations generalh'. This, however, does not agree so well with the use of the terms people and citi/ in the singular num- ber, for although they may be taken as collectives, such a construction should not be assumed without necessity. But even on the other supposi- tion, there is something unusual in the expression city of nations. It must either be explained as implying a plurality of subject nations, or D!'"l3 must be taken in its secondary sense of [/entiles, heathen, as applied to individuals or to one community. 4. For thou hast been a strcnr/th (or stronghold) to the iceaJc, a strength (or stronghold) to the poor, in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, ivhen the blast of the terrible (or of the tyrants) was like a storm against a wall. The nations shall reverence Jehovah, not merely as the destroyer of Babylon, but as the deliverer of his people, for whose sake that catastrophe was brought about. TiyO is not merely strength in the abstract, but a strong place or fortress. ?"^ and IV?^ are epithets often applied to Israel considered as a sufferer. The two figures of extreme heat and a storm of rain are combined to express the idea of persecution or afflic- tion. ''3 may also be taken in its usual sense oi for, as pointing out the reason why protection was required, nn does not directly denote wrath, but breath, and here a violent breathing, as indicative of anger. It is thus explained by Gesenius (Zornhauch), while Ewald gratuitously lowers the tone of the descriptions by translating the word snorting (Schnauben). Jarchi explains 'T'P Q"'? (wall- storm), as denoting a storm which overthrows or destroys a wall. The same idea is expressed in the Tiirgum, Peshito, and Vulgate, and approved by most of the recent writers. Kuobel objects that the phrase does not naturally suggest the idea of subversion or destruc- tion, and on that account adopts the reading "ip-l proposed by Cappellus, and approved by Vitringa, Lowth, and Dathe. The phrase would then mean a cold or 'winter storm. There is no need, however, of a change in the text, although Knobel's objection to the common explanation is well founded. The Hebrew phrase naturally signifies precisely what the English Version has expressed, to wit, a storm against a wall, denoting the direction and the object of the violence, but not its issue. As a storm of rain beats upon a wall, so the Babylonian persecution beat upon the captive Jews. The simple but striking and impressive imagery of this verse is veiy far from indicating an inferior writer or a recent date of composition. It is not strange, however, that this fine passage should be deemed unworthy of Isaiah or his times by those who look upon Macpherson's Ossian as a relic of antiquity. Ver. 5-7.] ISAIAH XXV. 415 5. As heat in a drought (or m a dry place), the noise of strangers wilt thou bring doion; {as) heat hij the shadow of a cloud, {so) shall the song of the tyrants be brought low. The suflerings of Israel under oppression shall be mitigated and relieved as easily and quietly as the intense heat of the sun by an intervening cloud. The noise mentioned in the first clause is probably the tumult of battle and conquest, and the song in the last clause the triumphal song of the victorious enemy. The meaning branch is mors agreeable to usage, but not so appropriate in this connection. De Dic'as [I'ciaslation of the last words, the pruning (or excision) of the tyrants shall bidr toitness, is extremely forced. Still worse is that of Junius and Tremellius : it (the heat) ansioered (or favoured) the branch of the oppressors. The same idea is expressed in both the clauses, though the first is elliptical, and the idea of a shadowy cloud must be supplied from the second. Gese- nius makes '"Ijy^ intransitive ; the later Germans take it as a Hiphil form {he shall bring loio), corresponding to VJ^n in the other clause. Barnes removes the enallage by rendering njy in the second person. Koppe and Bauer most gratuitously read it as a passive, "^.^J^.l. As P"'V is properly an abstract, it may be applied either to time or place, a dry season or a desert, without affecting the sense. The Seventy appear to have read P^V Zion, which would change the sense entirely. 6. And Jehovah of hosts vj ill make, for all nations, in this mountain, a feast of fat things, a feast of ivines on the lees, of fat things, full of mar- row, of wines on the lees veil refined. Jerusalem, hitherto despised and oppressed, shall yet be a source of attraction, nourishment and exhilara- tion to mankind. This verse resumes the thread of the discourse, which was interrupted at the end of the last chapter, for the purpose of inserting the triumphal song (vers. 1-5). Having there said that Jehovah and his elders should appear in glory on mount Zion, he now shews what is there to be bestowed upon the nations. D''JOiJ' properly vae^n?, fatnesses, here put for rich and dainty food. Clericus strangely supplies sheep, as if D'^JOti' were an adjective. D''"ll3ki' means the lees of wine, as being the keepers (from "yoV, to keep), or preservers of the colour and flavour. It is here put for wine kept long upon the lees, and therefore old and of superior quality. D''pptO probably means strained or filtered. D''npp from nn?p ig put for the more usual form CHIOP, in order to assimilate it to the other word. This verse contains a general statement of the relation which Jerusalem or Zion should sustain to the whole world, as a source of moral influence. There is nothing to indicate the time when the promise should be fulfilled, nor indeed to restrict it to one time exclusively. As the ancient seat of the true religion, and as the cradle of the church which has since overspread the nations, it has always more or less fulfilled the office here ascribed to it, 7. And he will swallow up {i. e. destroy) in this mountain the face of the veil, the veil upon all peoples, and the web, the {one) tcoven over all the nations. The influence to go forth from this centre shall dispel the dark- ness both of ignorance and sorrow which now broods over the world. The subject of the verb is of course Jehovah. By the face of the veil, some understand the veil itself. Others suppose a metathesis for the veil of the face. Lowth adopts the reading in one manuscript, which sets ^JS before D'^ayn 73. Gesenius, with more probability, infers from the analogous expression in Job xli. 5, that the veil or covering is here described as being the surface, or upper side of the object covered. Most interpreters suppose an allusion to the practice of veiling the face as a sign of mourning, which agrees well with the next verse, and is no doubt included, but the words 41G ISAIAH XXr. [Yee. 8. seem also to express the idea of a veil upon the understaudiug. [Vide supra, chap. xxii. 8.) Some have explained the words as relating to the covering of the faces of condemned criminals ; but this is neither justified by usage nor appropriate in this connection. Gesenius makes the second CI"? an active participle of unusual form, chosen in order to assimilate it to the foregoing noun {tlie cover covirinr/). But as the language contains traces of the usual form u?, and as the forms here used are not only similar, but identical, it seems more natural to suppose an emphatic repetition of the noun itself, especially as such repetitions are so frequent in the foregoing chapter. Some of the ancient versions, deriving n3D0 from a verbal root meaning to anoint, explain the cause as threatening the fall of a tyrannical power. Thus the Targum has "the face of the chief who rules over all peoples, and the face of the king who rules over all kingdoms." Henderson deduces from the Arabic analogy the specific and appropriate sense of Wi-b or wear in fj. 8. He has swallowed up death for ever, and the Lord Jehovah wipes away tears from ojf all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take awaij from off all the earth, for Jehovah hath spoken (it). The people of God, who seemed to be extinct, shall be restored to life, their grief exchanged for joy, and their disgrace for honour in the presence of the world, a result for which he pledges both his power and foreknowledge. The preterite form y?3 may either be explained as a descriptive present, or as indicating some- thing previous in point of time to what is mentioned afterwards. Hen- derson objects to the rendering of the Piel by the English swallow up; but the sense of destroijinff, which he prefers, is evidently secondary and derivative. Barnes, on the other hand, supposes a specific allusion to a maelstrom, which is erring in the opposite extreme. Rosenmiiller under- stands the first clause as a promise, that in the golden iige which Isaiah anticipated wars and mutual violence should cease ; Gesenius as a promise of immortality, like that which man enjoyed before the fall. Hendewerk applies it to the death and immortality of Israel as a nation. The true sense seems to be, that all misery and suflering, comprehended under the generic name of death, should be completely done away. It is, then, a description of the ultimate efi"ects of the influence before described as flowing from mount Zion, or the church of God. In its higher sense this may never be realised by any individual till after death. Paul says accordingly (1 Cor. XV. 54), that when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, xan'TroDri o ^Sdnarog iic. v?Kog. As this is not an explanation of the text before us, nor even a citation of it in the way of argu- ment, but merely a sublime description, all that it was necessary to express was the final, perpetual, triumphant abolition of death. The phrase slg vniog, therefore (which is also found in Theodotion's Version), although not a strict translation of nV?.<, is no departure from its essential meaning. In its primary import, the clause is a promise to God's people, corresponding to the foregoing promise to the nations. While, on the one hand, he would lift the veil from the latter, and admit them to a feast upon Zion, on the other, he would abolish death, and wipe tears from the faces of his people. The restriction of these last expressions to the pains of death, or to the sorrow of bereavement, detracts from the exquisite beauty of the passage, which the poet Burns (as Barnes informs us) could not read without weep- ing, a sufficient proof that he was not aware of the German discovery, that Yer. 9, 10.] ISAIAH XXV. 417 this prediction is an exceedingly lame and flat composition, quite unworthy of the Prophet to whom it has from time immemorial been erroneously ascribed. 9. And 07ie shall say (or they shall say) in that clay, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he ivill save us; this is Jehovah; we have ivaited for him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation. When these gi'acious promises shall be fulfilled, those who have trusted in them shall no longer be ashamed of their strong confidence, because it will be justified by the event, and they will have nothing left but to rejoice in the fulfilment of their hopes. This is our God, this is Jehovah; as if they had said. This is the God of whom we have spoken, and for trusting in whom we have so often been derided. We have waited long, but he has come at last, to vindicate his truth and our reliance on him. The augmented futures at the close may either denote fixed determination (ive ivill rejoice, we ivill he glad), or a proposition [let its then rejoice), for which the language has no other distinct form. 10. For the hand of Jehovah shall rest upon this mountain, and Moab shall he trodden down under him (or in his place) as straw is trodden in the water of the dunghill. While Israel shall thus enjoy the permanent pro- tection of Jehovah, his inveterate enemies shall experience ignominious destruction. God's hand is the symbol of his power. Its resting on an object is the continued exercise of that power, whether for good or evil. This is determined by the nature of the object, as this mountain cannot well mean anything but what is meant in vers. 6, 7, to wit, mount Zion, or the Chui'ch of God, and the promise of the foregoing context must of course be continued here. Moab and Edom were the two hereditary and inveterate enemies of Israel, their hatred being rendered more annoying and conspicu- ous by their afiiifity and neighbouring situation. Hence they are repeatedly mentioned, separately or together, as the representatives of obstinate and maligant enemies in general. Henderson insists upon the word's being taken in its literal import ; but this is not excluded in the usual interpreta- tion. As the name British, in our own revolutionary war, became equiva- lent to hostile, without losing its specific sense, so might the Prophets threaten Moab with God's vengeance, without meaning to exclude from the denunciation other like-minded enemies. This wide interpretation, both of Moab and Edom, is confirmed by the fact that one of them is often men- tioned where both would seem to be equally included. The figure in the last clause is strongly expressive, both of degradation and destruction. Moab is likened not only to straw, but to straw left to rot for the dunghill. The idea of subjection and ruin is expressed by the figure of treading down or trampling under foot. ^-H is commonly translated thresh ; but as the oriental threshing was performed for the most part by the feet of cattle, this sense and that of treading down are really coincident. In reference to the same usage, the Septuagint, Peshito, and Vulgate, introduce the word waggons, meaning the heavy carts or threshing machines of the East. Lowth conjectures that they read nnsID for HJOnD ; but the former word denotes a chariot, especially a chariot of war, and the versions in question do not necessarily imply a difference of text. According to some writers, nJOID is the name of a city, Madmenah, which may at one time have be- longed to Moab, and be mentioned here on account of some local peculiarity. Henderson thinks there can be no allusion to this place ; but it is perfectly accordant with the usage of the sacred writers to suppose that the word was VOT.. I. D d 418 ISAIAH XXV. [Yer. 11, 12. here intended to convey a contemptuous allusion to the primaiy meaning of the name in question. As an appellative, it is a noun of place derived from P^, and denoting either a manured field or a dunghill. The keri, or Masoretic reading in the margin, has IJ^^, a poetical equivalent of 3, the preposition //(. The kethib, or textual reading, which is probably more ancient, is ^O^, in the iiatcr. This, with the next word, may denote a pool in which the straw was left to putrefy. In Job ix. 30 we have an opposite correction, V22, in the text, and ''02 in the margin. Under him may either mean under Jehovah or under himself, that is, in his own place, in the country of Moab, or wherever he is found. 11. And he shall sjnead forth his hands in the midst of it, as the sirimmer spreadeth forth his hands to siiim ; and he shall hnmhle his pride, together u-ith the spoils (or devices) of Jiis hands. From this ignominious doom Moab\ shall in vain try to save himself; his pride shall be humbled, and his struggles only serve to precipitate his ruin. Having compared the fall of Moab to the treading down of straw in a filthy pool, the Prophet carries out his figure here, but with a change so slight and at the same time so natural, as almost to escape obsen-atiou, while it greatly adds to the life of the des- cription. The down-troddcu straw now becomes a living person, who struggles in the filth}' pool to save himself fi'om dro^\^ling, but in vain. The older writers for the most part make Jehovah the subject of the verb at the beginning of the sentence. But the image then becomes incongruous, not only as applied to God, but as failing to express any appropriate action upon his part. It is, indeed, explained to mean that God will strike him here and there, or in ever}' part, as a swimmer strikes tho waves in all directions ; but this idea might have been expressed more clearly by a hundred other images. So too 12"lp3 is explained to mean that God would strike, not merely on the surface or extremities of Moab, hnt in the very midst of him, or to his very centime, which is still more forced and arbitrary. The only idea naturally suggested by the images employed, is that of a drowning man struggling in the water. The latest writers therefore follow Grotius in referring ti^"i3 to 3X10, and the suffix in mp3 to the pool or dung- hill, nms has been variously explained as meaning strength, sjwils, arms, armpits, joints, &c. The sense by the strength of his hands {i.e. God's) is precluded by the preposition DV, which does not indicate the instrument or means, but signifies together with. Rosenmiiller and Ewald prefer the mean- ing joints, founded on an Ai-abic analogy. Gesenius adheres to Hebrew usage and explains the word to mean devices, plots [insidiis which Robin- son translates ambuscades, a word of less extensive import than the Latin one). The mention of the hands is explained by Gesenius from the -fact that 31N primarily means to knit, spin, or weave. It is hard, however, to resist the impression, that these last words have respect to the image in the first clause, and describe tho movements of the swimmer's hands in endea- vouring to save himself. Eichhoni, Umbi'eit, and Knobel carry the figure through the verse, explaining iniNJ to mean his back or his rising, and the last words either his ar)ns or the motions of his hands. But most inter- preters suppose the figure to be dropped in this clause, and the humbling of Moab to be here foretold in literal terms. Lowth's proposition to read ilT]^ for ni^t^' (Jie that sinks for he that sivims) is not only needless, but in- jmious to the force of the expression, puts an unusual sense upon the word supposed, and does away with an example of a very common Hebrew idiom, that of combining verbs with their particles and derivative nouns. 12, And the fortress of the high fort of thy ivuUs he hath cast dorvn. Ver. 1.] ISAIAH XXVL 419 humbled, brought to the ground, to the very dust (or even to the dust). Many interpreters suppose that the Prophet here reverts from Moab to the city mentioned in the second verse. Others more naturally understand this as the close of the prediction against Moab ; first, because abrupt transitions should not be assumed without necessity ; and secondly, because the verse appears to be an amplification of the phrase irilN: '?''DEi^n in that before it. "IVnJD and 23K^D are equivalent in usage, though distinct in etymology. Both are local nouns, and mean a place of safety ; but the prominent idea in the first is that of fortification, in the second that of loftiness. Some manu- scripts read "^^DJ^h in the feminine, in which case the city or country is the object of address, in the other the nation, or Moab represented as a ma,n. The specific fulfilment of this prophecy cannot be distinctly traced in his- tory. It was certainly verified, however, in the downfall of the Moabitish nation, whenever it took place. CHAPTEK XXVL This chapter contains a song of praise and thanksgiving, to be sung by Israel after his deliverance, vers. 1-19. To this is added a postscript, intimating that the time for such rejoicing was not yet at hand, vers. 20, 21. The song opens with an acknowledgment of God's protection and an ex- hortation to confide therein, vers. 1-1. This is founded on the exhibition of his righteousness and power in the destruction of his foes and the oppres- sors of his people, vers. 5-11. The Church abjures the service of all other sovereigns, and vows perpetual devotion to him by whom it has been de- livered and restored, vers. 12-15. Her utter incapacity to save_ herself is then contrasted with God's power to restore his people to new life, with a joyful anticipation of which the song concludes, vers. 17-19. The addi- tional sentences contain a beautiful and tender intimation of the trials, which must be endured before these glorious events take place, with _a solemn assurance that Jehovah is about to visit both his people and their enemies with chastisement, vers. 20, 21. 1. In that day shall this song he sung in the land of Judah : We have a strong city ; salvation luill he place {as) walls and hreasttvorJc. The condi- tion and feehngs of the people after their return from exile are expressed by putting an ideal song into their mouths. Though the first clause does not necessarily mean that this should actually be sung, but merely that it might be sung, or that it would be appropriate to the times and to the feeUngs of the people, it is not at all improbable that it was actually used for this purpose, which could more readily be done as it is wi'itten in the form and manner of the Psalms, with which it exhibits many points of resemblance. The day meant is the day of deliverance which had just been promised. Lowth connects in the land of Judah with what follows, in violation of the accents and without the least necessity. Nor can it be supposed that the song itself would have begun with such a formula, unless the singers are assumed to be the Jews still in exile, which is hardly consistent with the following verse. Knobel, on the other hand, asserts that the singers are no doubt the Jews left by the Babylonians in the land of Judah. This is necessarily involved in his hypothesis, that chaps, xxiv.-xxvii. were written im- mediately after Nebuchadnezzar's conquest. (See the introduction to chap, xxiv.) Another inference from this supposition is, that the verse before us describes Jerusalem in its dismantled state, as still protected by the divine 420 ISAIAH XXri. [Xrv.. 2, 3. favour, whereas it is rather a description of the divine help and favour, as the city's best defence, or as that without which all others would be useless. Ewald, however, makes it mean that walls and bulwarks give salvation {Heil gehen Mauern unci Grahcn), which, besides the harsh construction, yields a sense directly opposite to that intended. The obvious and natural construction of IT'EJ'* is with ninYunderstood. The future form implies that the description is prospective. 7n is the outer and lower wall protecting the trench or moat of a fortification. The whole phrase is rendered by the Septuagint nTy^o; xal ■■zioinr/oi. Junius adds to his translation of this verse the word d'ueitdu so as to make the next the words of God himself. 2. Open ye the r/otes, and let the rigliteous nation enter, hecpinrj truth (or faith). The supposition of responsive chorases gives a needless complexit}' to the structure of the passage. The speakers are the same as in the first verse, and the words are addressed to those who kept the doors. Ivnobel understands this as the language of the remaining Jews, exhorting them- selves or one another to receive the returning exiles. These are described as rufhteous and as keeping faith, probably in reference to the cessation of idolatry among the Jews during the exile. Lowth connects "1^'^ 0''JC^. with the first clause of the next verse. J. D. Michaelis makes it an independent proposition [he preserves the faithful). Knobel says that the use of ^,^<^^ in application to the Jews is a later usage, which asser- tion is undoubtedly true if every place where it occurs is assumed to be of recent date. 3. The mind stayed {on thee) thou wilt preserve in peace {in), peace (i. e. in perfect peace), because in thee (it is) confident (literally confided). This is a general truth deduced from the experience of those who are supposed to be the speakers. Lowth adds the last words of the foregoing verse constant in the truth, stayed in mind, by which nothing is gained, and the Masoretic interpunction needlessly violated. Calvin makes the first two words an in- dependent clause {coyitatio fixa), and Ewald seems to adopt the same con- struction {die Einbilduny steht fest), jDrobably meaning that what follows is a just thought or a certain truth. Luther seems to refer it to God's promise (nach gewisser Zusage). But the best construction is the common one, which connects 1"iDD "li"' with the following words. 1V^ is the inven- tion, (or perhaps the constitution) of the mind, put for the mind itself. The elliptical construction in the English Bible {him whose mind is stayed on thee) is not very natural ; still less so that of Knobel, who refers T'^C) to the person understood, and makes "li"" a qualifying noun (stayed as to mind), citing as examples of a similar inversion chap. xxii. 2 ; Nahum iii. 1. Barnes omits 1>*.'! altogether in his version (hitn that is stayed on thee). Hender- son gives the true construction, making l^'W govern 1V.^ directly, though he renders '^'^^0 Jirm, which .is hardly an adequate translation, as the word necessarily includes the idea of reliance, i. e. upon God. Ewald derives "i^'H from 1V* instead of "IVJ, translates it thou wilt form (or create) peace. For this no reason can be given, except that it evolves a new paronomasia, both in sense and sound, between the noun and verb. The mere assonance exists of course, however the words may be explained; and though Gese- nius was so unhappy as to overlook it, ICnobel has copied it by the com- bination Festen fediyest. The idiomatic iteration, peace, peace, to express a superlative, is perfectly in kce])iug with the frequent reduplica- tions of the twenty-fourth chapter, and may serve to shew, that the accumulation of such idioms there arises from ditfercnce of subject or of sentiments to be expressed, and not from want of genius or corruption of Ver. 4, 5.J ISAIAH XXVI. 421 taste. There is no need of explaining H-IDl as a passive substituted for an active participle. The word corresponds both in form and meaning to assured in English. 4. Trust ye in Jehovah for ever (literally, 6fen to eternity), for in J ah Jehovah is a rock of ages (or an everlasting rock). To the general truth stated in ver. 3, a general exhortation is now added, not addi'essed by one chorus to another, but by the same ideal speakers to all who hear them or are willing to receive the admonition. This is one of the few places in which the name Jehovah is retained by the common English version. On the origin and usage of the name ^\ vide supra, chap. xii. 2. The occurrence of the combination here confii'ms its genuineness there. In this place it is at least as old as Aquila, who has h rui xi/^/w x-jpioc. Knobel, however, chooses to reject nin^ as a mere explanation or correction of i^J, added by a later hand. Cocceius, in accordance with his own etymology of i^], trans- lates it in decentia Jehovce, which is very much like nonsense. Yitringa makes these names the subject of the proposition [Jah Jehovah est rupes sceculorum), according to De Dieu's observation, that the preposition 2 is often pleonastic. The same construction is adopted by Gesenius, on the ground that 3 is frequently a beth essentice, corresponding to the French en in the phrase en roi, i.e. in (the character or person of) a king. The existence of this idiom in Hebrew is denied, both by Winer in his Lexicon, and Ewald in his grammar, but maintained against them by Gesenius in his Thesam'us. It is evident, however, that in all cases where it is as- sumed, this conclusion can only be defended on the ground of exegetical necessity, and that such analogies cannot require, or even authorize, the preference of this obscure and harsh construction where the obvious and simple one is perfectly admissible. In the case before us, Gesenius is obliged to create a necessity for his construction, by gratuitously making ^1 the subject, and nin^ the predicate, of the proposition. This he chooses to translate Jehovah is God, but it ought to have been Jah is Jehovah, and as one of these names is explained by himself to be a mere abbreviation of the other, the clause becomes an identical proposition, meaning nothing more than that Jehovah is himself. All that is gained by the supposition of a heth essentice may be secured, without departing from the ordinary meaning of the preposition, by supplying an active verb, as in Augusti's Version, in him {ye have) an everlasting rock. But the simplest and most accurate of all constructions is the common one, retained by Ewald, who ' omits neither Jah nor the particle before it, but translates the clause, for in Jah Jahve, is an everlasting rock. This figurative name, as applied to God, includes the two ideas of a hiding-place and a foundation, or the one complex idea of a permanent asylum,. Barnes translates the whole phrase, everlasting refuge. Lowth's never-failing protection is correct in sense, but in form a diluted paraphrase. 5. For he hath brought doivn the inhabitants of the high place, the exalted city ; he will lay it low, he will lay it low, to the very ground ; he will bring it to the very dust. He has proved himself able to protect his people, and consequently worthy to be trusted by them, in his signal overthrow of that great power by which they were oppressed. n^Jti'J means lofty in the sense of being inaccessible, and is especially applied to fortresses, as we have seen with respect to the derivative noun 3JtJ'0, chap. xxv. 12. Hit- zig explains '''^^'^ to mean those enthroned ; but its connection with DllO requires it to be taken in the sense of inhabitants. The alternation of the tenses here is somewhat remarkable. Henderson translates them all as 422 ISAIAH XXVI. Yer. 6-8. preterites ; Barnes uses first the present, then the preterite ; both which constructions are entirely arbitrary. The English Version more correctly treats them all as presents, which is often allowable where the forms are intermingled, and is also adopted by the latest German writers. But in this case, a reason can be given for the use of the two tenses, even if strictly understood. The Prophet looks at the events from two distinct points of observation, his own and that of the ideal speakers. With respect to the latter, the fall of Babylon was past ; with respect to the former it was still futui'e. He might therefore naturally say, even in the same sentence, he has hrowjht it low and he shall bring it to the dust. Cocceius, as usual, reproduces the precise form of the Hebrew sentence. No two things can well be more unlike than the looseness of this writer's exegesis and the critical precision of his mere translation. Henderson thinks the Masoretic inter- punction wrong, and throws ni?''Dii'^ into the first clause, to which arrange- ment there are three objections : first, that it is arbitrary and against the textual tradition ; second, that it makes the suflix in the verb superfluous, the object having been expressed before ; and third, that it renders less efiective, if it does not quite destroy, the idiomatic iteration of the verb, which is characteristic of this whole prediction. IV strictly means as far as, and may be expressed in English, either by the phrase even to, or by the use of the intensive very, as above in the translation. 6. llie foot shall trample on it, the feet of the afflicted, the steps of the weak. The ruins of the fallen city shall be trodden under foot, not only by its conquerors, but by those whom it oppressed. Neither ''^V nor ?T strictly signifies poor. The prominent idea in the first is that of svjf'tring, in the second that of weakness. They are here used, like /I and JV3K in chap. XXV. 4, as epithets of Israel while subjected to the Babylonian tyranny. ''OyD, which Luther translates heels (Ferse), and Jwmw^ footdeps (vestigia), is here a poetical equivalent io feet. Henderson here translates the verbs in the present, Barnes more exactly in the future. 7. The way for the righteous is straight (or level); thou most ujjright tvilt level (or rectify) the path of the righteous. A man's way is a common Scriptural figure for his course of life. A straight or level way is a pros- perous life. It is here declared that the course of the righteous is a prosperous one, because God makes it so. Dnti^JD strictly denotes straight- ness, the plural being used as an abstract. The moral sense of uprightness does not suit the connection. '^K'"' may either be construed as a vocative, or with the name of God understood [as a righteous God). Ivnobel makes it an adverbial accusative, thou dost rectify the path of the righteous straight, i. e. so as to make it straight. The primary idea of D?3 is to render even ; it is therefore applied both to balances and paths ; but the two applications are not to be confounded ; paths may be made even, but they cannot be weighed. 8. Also in the way of thy judgments, 0 Jehovah, xoe have ivailed for thee; to thy r.ame and thy remcmhrance [was our) soid's desire. For this manifestation of thj righteousness and goodness we have long been waiting in the way (f thy judgments, i. e. to see thee come forth as a judge, for the vindication of thy people and the destruction of their enemies. Name and remembrance or memorial denote the manifestation of God's attributes in his works. Ewald translates the second fame or glory (Ruhm). J. D. Michaelis connects the first words with the seventh verse, " thou dost regulate the path of the righteous, but also the way of thy judgments." Ver. 9, 10. J ISAIAH XXVI. 423 Lowth takes T'JSSEJ'D in the sense of laws and 1i''1p in that of trusting. It is more probable, however, that the same idea is expressed here as in chap. XXV. 9. 9. {With) my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea [with) my spirit within me icill I seek thee early .- for when thy judgments (come) to the earth, the inhabitants of the ivorld learn righteousness. The desire here expressed is not a general desire for the knowledge and favour of God, but a special desire that he would manifest his righteousness by appearing as a judge. This explanation is required by the connection with what goes before and with what follows in this very verse. Gesenius takes my soul as a periphrasis for /. Maurer supposes this to be in apposition with the pronoun. Ewald and Knobel retain the old construction, which supplies a preposition before '•t^'SJ, or regtards it as an adverbial accusative or qua- lifying noun, corresponding to the ablative or instrument of cause in Latin. The night is mentioned, not as a figure for calamity or ignorance, nor as a time peculiarly appropriate to meditation, but for the purpose of expressing the idea, that he feels this wish at all times, by night and by day. This shews that the recent lexicogi'aphers are wrong in excluding from the Piel of inJi' the sense of seeking in the morning, seeking early, to which exclu- sion it may also be objected, that the soundest principles of lexicography tend to the union and not to the multiplication of roots. The question "whether these are the words of the Prophet, or of each of the people, or of a chou' or chorus representing them, proceeds upon the supposition of an artificial structure and a strict adherence to rhetorical propriety, which have no real existence in the writings of the Prophet. The sentiments, which it was his purpose and his duty to express, are sometimes uttered in his own person, sometimes in that of another, and these different forms of speech are interchanged, without regard to the figments of an artificial rhetoric. Some give to Tki'ND its strict sense as a particle of comparison, and understand the clause to mean that men learn how to practise right- eousness by imitating God's example. By judgments, here as in the fore- going context, we can only understand judicial providences. The doctrine of the verse is, that a view of God's severity is necessary to convince men of his justice. The Septuagint has iMakn in the imperative, which gives a good sense, but is forbidden by the obvious addi-ess to God himself throughout the verse. 10. Let the luicked he favoured, he does not learn righteousness ; in the land of right he xuill do wrong, arid ^oill not see the exaltation of Jehovah. The reasoning of the preceding verse is here continued. As it was there said that God's judgments were necessary to teach men righteousness, so it is here said that continued prosperity is insufficient for that purpose. The wicked man will go on to do wickedly, even in the very place where right conduct is peculiarly incumbent. Though the verse is in the form of a general proposition, and as such admits of various applications, there is obvious reference to the Babylonians, who were not only emboldened by impunity to do wrong in the general, but to do it even in the land of right or rectitude, the holy land, Jehovah's land, where such transgressions were peculiarly offensive. There are other two explanations of ninb? p^ which deserve attention. The first understands the phrase to mean, in the midst of a righteous population, surrounded by examples of good conduct. The other supposes an allusion, not to moral but to physical rectitude or straightness, as a figure for prosperity. This last would make the clause a repetition of the sentiment expressed before it, viz., that favour and in- 424 ISAIAH XXri. [Vee. 11, 12. dulgence do not teach men righteousness. But neither of these latter ex- planations agrees so well with the last words of the verse as the one first given, according to which they represent the wrong-doer as not knowing or believing or considering that the land in which he practises his wickedness, belongs to the most High God. J. D. Michaehs explains the closing words to mean that God is too exalted to be seen bv them [den zu erhabeiien Gott). 11. Jehovah, thy hand is high, they will not see ; (yes) they will see {and he ashamed) thy zeal for thi/ people ; yea, the fire of thine enemies shall devour them. The tenses in this verse have been very variously and arbitrarily explained. Some make them all past, others all future, and a few all pre- sent. Even the double future (IVTH"' and ITrT") is referred to different tenses, past and future, past and present, present and future. They have not seen, but they shall see ; they do not see, but they shall see ; they did not sec, bat they do see. Some make ITIT' an optative ; hut may they see ! All these consti'uctions are gi-ammatical, but the ver}^ fact that so many are possible, makes it advisable to adhere somewhat rigorously to the proper meaning of the forms. As to '"I0"i, it matters little whether it be rendered as a preterite or present, as the one implies the other ; but as to I^Tri'' and 1Tn\ the safest course is to translate them both alike as simple features. The seeming contradiction instantly explains itself, as being a kind of after-thought. They will not see, (but yes) they will see. There are two ways of connect- ing Dy nXJp with what precedes. The ob^sdous construction found in most of the old versions, makes it the object of the verb immediately before it : " they shall be ashamed of their zeal against (or en\j of) the people." This of course supposes Dy HXJp to denote the envy of the heathen against Israel, or which is much less probable, the jealousy of Israel with respect to the accession of the Gentiles. But as usage is decidedly in favour of interpret- ing the phrase to mean the jealousy or zeal of God himself in behalf of his own people, Gesenius and several later writers construe it with "itn^ and throw 12J'a''1 into a parenthesis, "they shall see (and be ashamed) the zeal &c.," which is equivalent to saying, " they shall see with shame, &c." Another construction, given independently by Henderson and Knobel, con- strues the phrase in question, not as the object of a verb preceding, but as the subject of the verb that follows, " zeal for thy people, yea, fire against thine enemies, shall devour them (or may it devour them)." In favour of this construction is the strict agi-eement of the sense which it afi"ords with many other passages, in which the same divine acts are described as acts of mercy to the righteous, and of wrath to the wicked. (See for example chap. i. 27, and the commentary on it.) It is also recommended by the strong emphatic meaning which it gives to ^l^^. I{jiobel, moreover, makes "1^1^* the object of the verb ?3Nn, and regards the sutfix to the latter as an idio- matic pleonasm, which is not only arbitrary and extremely harsh (and there- fore not required by a few examples where no other solution of the s}-ntax is admissible), but destructive of a beautiful antithesis between God's zeal for his people nnd fire for his enemies. Of the two constructions, therefore, Henderson's is much to be preferred. Fire does not simply denote wai- (Gesenius) or sudden death (J. P. Michaelis), but the vrraih of God, as a sudden, rapid, irresistible, and utterly destroying agent. 12. Jehovah, thou irilt i/ire us peace, for even all our uorks thou hasf. wrouyhtfor us. This is an expression of strong confidence and hope, found- ed on what has already been experienced. God certainly would favour them in future, for he had done so ah-eady. The translation of the first Ver. 13.] ISAIAH XXVL 425 verb as a preterite or present, though admissible if necessary, cannot be justified in such a case as this, where the strict translation gives a perfectly good sense. 13? nsc^n literally means tJwii irilt place to iis, which some understand to mean appoint or ordain for us; but Gesenius more correctly explains it as the converse of the idiomatic usage of PJ to give in the sense of placing. Peace is, as often elsewhere, to be taken in the wide sense of prosperity or welfare. 23, though omitted in translation by Gesenius and others, is emphatic, and should be connected, not with the pronoun or the verb, as in the English Version, but as in Hebrew with the phrase all our ivorks, as if he had said, even all our icorks, i. e., all without exception. It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that oar icorks here means not the works done by us but the icorks done for us, i. e. what we have experienced, or as Calvin expresses it in French, nos affaires. The version of the last clause in the text of the English Bible (thou hast wrought all our works in us) is connected with an old interpretation of the verse, as directly teaching the doctrine of human dependence and efficacious grace. This translation, however, is equally at variance with the usage of the Hebrew preposition (13?) and with the connection here. The context, both before and after, has respect, not to spiritual exercises, but to providential dispensations. It is not a little curious that while Cocceius, in his Calvinistic zeal, uses this verse as an argument against the Arminian doctrine of free-will, Calvin himself had long before declared that the words cannot be so applied. " Qui hoc testimonio usi sunt ad evertendum liberum arbitrium, Prophette mentem assecuti non sunt. Verum quidem est Deum solum bene agere in nobis, et quicquid recte instituunt homines esse ex illius Spiritu ; sed hie simpliciter docet Propheta omnia bona quibus fruimur ex Dei manu adeptos esse : unde coUigit nullum fore beneticentife finem donee plena felicitas accedat." This brief extract is at once an ihustration of the great Reformer's sound and independent judgment, and of the skill with which he can present the exact and full sense of a passage in a few words. 13. Jehovah, our God, (other) lords beside thee have ruled us; {^but hence- forth) thee, thy name, only will we celebrate. In this verse again there is great diversity as to the explanation of the tenses. Clericus renders both the verbs as preterites, and understands the verse as saying, that even when the Jews were under foreign oppression, they maintained their allegiance to Jehovah. Ewald gives the same sense, but in reference to the present fidelity of Israel under present oppression. Gesenius, more correctly, dis- tinguishes between the verbs as preterite and present. There is no good ground, however, for departing from the strict sense of the forms as pre- terite and future, which are faithfully expressed in all the English versions. The usual construction of the last clause understands 1^ as meaning through thee, i. e. through thy favour, by thy help, we are enabled now to praise thy name. But Ewald, Barnes, and Henderson regard the pronoun as in apposition with thy name, and the whole clause as describing only the object of their worship, not the means by which they were enabled to render it. The construction of H^ is in that case somewhat singular, but may have been the only one by which the double object of the verb could be distinctly expressed without the repetition of the verb itself. As to the lords who are mentioned in the first clause, there are two opinions. One is, that they are the Chaldees or Babylonians, under whom the Jews had been in bondage. This is now the current explanation. The other is, that they are the false gods or idols, whom the Jews had served before the exile. Against the for- mer, and in favour of the latter supposition it may be suggested, first, that 426 ISAIAH XXVI. [Ver. 14. the Babylonian bondage did not hinder the Jews from mentioning Jehovah's name or praising him ; secondly, that the whole verse looks like a confession of their own fault and a promise of amendment, rather than a reminiscence of their sufleriugs; and, thirdly, that there seems to be an obvious compari- son between the worship of Jehovah as our God, with some other worship and some other deity. At the same time let it be observed, that the ideas of religious and political allegiance and apostasy, or of heathen rulers, and of idol gods, were not so carefully distinguished by the ancient Jews as by ourselves, and it is therefore not impossible that both the kinds of servitude referred to may be here included, yet in such a manner that the spiritual one must be considered as the prominent idea, and the only one, if either must be fixed upon to the conclusion of the other. An additional argument, in favom* of the reference of this verse to spiritual rulers, is its exact corres- pondence with the singular fact in Jewish history, that since the Babylonish exile they have never even been suspected of idolatry. That such a circum- stance should be adverted to in this commemorative poem, is so natural that its omission would be almost unaccountable. 14. Dead, they shall not live : ghosts, they shall not rise : therefore thou ?iast visited and destroyed them, and made all memory to perish tviih respect to them. Those whom we lately served are now no more ; thou hast de- stroyed them and consigned them to oblivion, for the very purpose of securing our freedom and devotion to thy service. Most of the recent ■\vi-iters follow Clericus in referring this verse to the Bab3'lonians exclusively. Hitzig, Ewald, and Umbreit apply it to the forefathers of the supposed speakers, who had perished on account of their idolatry. It seems best, however, to refer it to the strange lords of the foregoing verse, i. e. the idols themselves, but with some allusion, as in that case, to the idolatrous op- pressors of the Jews. The reason for preferring this interpretation to that of Hitzig is, that the latter introduces a new subject which had not been previously mentioned. The first clause may indeed be rendered as a general proposition, the dead live not, &c. ; but this still leaves the transition an abrupt one, and the allusion to the departed Israelites obscure. The dis- junctive accents which accompany DTID und D''NS"l also show that, accord- ing to the Masoretic tradition, these words are not the direct subject of the verb, but in apposition with it. The sense is correctly given in the English Version, they arc dead, they sJiall not live ; they are deceased, they shall nut rise. An attempt, however, has been made above to imitate more closely the concise and compact form of the original. For the meaning of D''NS1, vide supra, chap. xiv. 9. It is here a poetical equivalent to D^OD, and may be variously rendered, shades, shadows, spirits, or the like. The common version [deceased) leaves too entirely out of view the figurative character of the expression. Giants, on the contrary, is too strong, and could only be employed in this connection in the sense of gigantic shades or shadows. The Targum strangely makes these terms denote the ivorshippers of dead men and giants, i. e. probably of heroes. The Septuagint gives a curious turn to the sentence by reading CND") physicians (jar^oi ov ari amer^aovai). Gesenius needlessly attaches to 15< the rare and dubious sense because, which Ewald regards as a fictitious one, deduced from a superficial view of certain passages, in which the meaning therefore seems at fii'st sight inappro- priate. The other sense is certainly not to be assumed without necessity. In this case the apparent necessity is done away by simply observing, that therefore may be used to introduce, not only the cause, but the design of an action. Though the words cannot mean, thou hast destroyed them he- Vee. 15, IC] ISAIAH XXVI. 427 cause they are dead and powerless, they may naturally mean, thou hast destroyed them that they might he dead and powerless. The same two meaning ai'e attached to the English phrase_/?>/- this reason, which may either denote cause or purpose. The meaning of the verse, as connected with the one before it is, that the strange lords who had ruled them should not only cease to do so, but, so far as they were concerned, should cease to exist or be remembered. 15. Thou hast added to the vation, 0 Jehovah, thou hast added to the nation ; thou hast glorified thyself ; thou hast put far off all the ends of the land. By this deliverance of thy people from the service both of idols and idolaters, thou hast added a great number to the remnant who were left in the Holy Land, so that larger territories will be needed for their occu- pation ; and in doing all this, thou hast made an exhibition of thy power, justice, truth, and goodness. Thus understood, the whole verse is a grate- ful acknowledgement of what God had done for his suffering people. Some, on the contrary, haA^e understood it as relating wholly to his previous judg- ments. Thus De Dieu, with his usual ingenuit}^ and love of paradox, con- founds the idea of adding to the nation with that of gathering a person to his people or his fathers, a common idiomatic periphrasis for death. This is founded on the etymological affinity of H^'' and ^D«^. To match this in the other clause, he makes Y"^^ ''"'^'P mean the extremities of the land, i. e. its highest extremities or chief men, whom Nebuchadnezzar carried into exile. A more common explanation of the verse is that which supposes the last clause to describe the exile, and the first the restoration. To remove the 'xjdTi^ov v^oTi^ov which thus arises, it becomes necessary to make npm a pluperfect, as in the English Version, which moreover supplies a pronoun as the object of the verb, and a preposition before ends. A much simpler con- struction of the last clause is the one now commonly adopted, which supposes no ellipsis, makes f"i>^ ''1^'P itself the object of the verb, and identical in meaning with the Latin /?nes terra in the sense of boundaries, the removing of which farther off denotes of course territorial enlargement. Junius supplies life after added in the first clause ; J. D. Michaelis and others supply gifts or favours ; but the obvious meaning seems to be that God had added to the number of the people, not by an aggregate increase of the whole nation, but by the reunion of its separated parts, in the restora- tion of the exiles from Babylon. The word ''1J, as Kuobel well observes, may here denote the remnant left in Judah, to which the analogous term DP is repeatedly applied by Jeremiah. The enlargement of the boundaries may either be explained as a poetical description of the actual increase and ex- pected growth of the nation (chap. xlix. 19), or literally understood as referring to the fact, that after the return from exile the Jews were no longer restricted to their own proper territory, but extended themselves more or less over the whole country. Knobel gives 1^7^?^ ^1^^ siDecific meaning, thou hast made thyself great, i. e. the king of a great nation ; but the wider and more usual sense is much to be preferred. The translation of the verb as a reflexive, rather than a simple passive, greatly adds to the strength of the expression. 16. Jehovah, in distress they visited thee; they uttered a whisper; thy chastisement was on them. It was not merely after their deliverance that they turned from idols unto God. Their deliverance itself was owing to their humble pi'ayers. Visit here used in the unusual but natural sense of seeking God in supplication. Hitzig and Hendewerk prefer the second- ary sense of t^TI?, incantation (Beschworung) ; but the primary meaning is not only admissible, but beautifully expressive of submissive humble prayer, 428 • ISAIAH XXVI. [Vee. 17. like that of Hannah ^Yhen she spake in her heart and ordy her lips moved, hut her voice uas nut heard, although, as she said herself, she poured out her soul before God, which is the exact sense of ]'^p'^ in this place. A like expression is applied to prayer in the title of Psalm cii. Barnes explains {J*n7 here to mean a sighing, a calling for help, as if the two things were identical, whereas the idea of a call or cry is at variance with the figurative import of the language. This is one of the few cases in Mhich the plural of the preterite takes a paragogic nun. Whether it was meant to be intensive, as Henderson supposes, or to affect the sense in any way, may be doubted. Ivnobel supphes a preposition before TDID, and says that the Prophet would have written D")D10, but for the necessity of adding the suffix of the second person, which required that of the third to be separately written with a preposition. It is simpler, however, to supply the substantive verb and take the words as a short independent clause. It is implied, though not expressed, that their prayer was humble and submissive became they felt that what they sufiered was a chastisement from God. Ewald, who usually makes an advance upon his predecessors, in the way of simple and exact translation, is here misled by his fondness for critical emendation, and proposes to read EJ'n? as a verb, and iV^ as a noun derived from P-1V to press. {In) distress it iras lisped {or whispered) hij them (1^7) Thij chastisement ! The construction thus obtained is as harsh and infeli- citous as the correction of the text is arbitrary. 17. As when a pregna7it {woman) draws near to the birth, she ivrithes, she cries out in her jmngs, so have we been, from thy piresence, 0 Jehovah ! Before we thus cast om-selves upon thy mercy in submissive prayer, we tried to deliver ourselves, but only to the aggravation of our sufierings. The comparison here used is not intended simply to denote extreme pain, as in many other cases, but as the next verse clearly shews, the pain arising from ineffectual efforts to relieve themselves. 1^3, like the corres- ponding English as, is properly a particle of comparison, but constantly apphed to time, as a synonyme of tvhen. The full force of the term may be best expressed in this case by combining the two English words. The future is here used to denote a general fact which not only does, but will occur. Hendewerk translates the last verb as a present ; but it seems clear that the Prophet is reverting to the state of things before the deliver- ance which had just been acknowledged. Knobel, in accordance with his general hj^othesis as to the date and subject of the prophecy, applies this verse to the condition of the Jews who were left behind in Palestine, but the great majority of writers, much more probably, to that of the exiles. There are three explanations of the phrase T}.^^. Clericus and Hitzig take it in its strictest sense as meaning fy-om thy presence, i. e. cast out or removed far from it. Knobel, on the contrary, excludes the proper local sense of the expression and translates it on account of thee, i. e. because of thine anger. Gcsenius and Ewald give the intermediate sense before thee, in thy presence. Even in the cases cited by Knobel, the evils experienced arc; described as coming from the presence of Jehovah. Some of the older writers even give C^D itself the sense of anger, which is wholly unnecessary ni:d unauthorised. The only way in which the question can be settled is by the application of the general principle, that where a choice of meaning is presented, that is entitled to the preference which adheres most closely to the strict sense of the terms. On this gi-ound the translation from thy presence is to be preferred ; but whether with the accessory idea of Ver. 18.] ISAIAH XXVI. 429 removal, alienation, or with that of infliction, is a question not determined by the phrase itself, but either left uncertain or to be decided by the context. 18. We ivere in travail, we were in pain, as it icere ice brought forth wind. Deliverancefi we could not make the land, nor would the inhabitants of the u'orld fall. The figure introduced^ in the preceding verse is here carried out and applied. Ewald makes ''il^^ mean as if, but neither this nor as it were is fully justified by usage. Gesenius renders it when as in ver. 17, but this requires a verb to be supphed, when we brought forth (it was) wind. The general sense is evident. The next clause admits of several difierent constructions. The simplest supplies a preposition before p{<, in ovfjr the land. The one now commonly adopted is, we could not make the laud safety, i. e. could not make it safe or save it. The same writers generally make HE^^yj the passive participle, in which case it must agree, either with pX which is usually feminine, or with myiCi''' which is both feminine and plural. The possibility of such constructions does not warrant them, much less require them, when as here the obvious one is perfectly appropriate and in strict agreement with the parallel v2\ The objection urged to making T\^''')i'^ a future is that the people could not save the country, which is the very thing the future was intended to assert. The future form of the verb has respect to the period described. As the people then might have said, we shall not save the land, so the same expression is here put into their mouths retrospectively. The best equivalent in English is the potential or subjunctive form, zve could not. Gesenius and the other recent German writers understand this as a description of the Holy Land after the return from exile. We cannot save the country, and the inhabi- tants of the land will not be born, (1^2*) i. e. it is still very thinly peopled. This is far from being an obvious or natural interpretation. The foregoing context, as we have seen, relates to the period of captivity itself. The meaning given to ^^J, though sustained by analogies in other languages, derives no countenance from Hebrew usage. Nor is it probable that the figure of parturition would be here resumed, after it had been dropped in the preceding member of the sentence. The way in which the metaphors of this verse have been treated by some commentators furnishes an instance of the perversion and abuse of archfeological illustration. J, D. Michaelis imagined that he had discovered an allusion to a certain medical pheno- menon of very rare occurrence. This suggestion is eagerly adopted by Gesenius, who, not content with naming it in his text, pursues the subject with great zest in a note, and appears to have called in the assistance of his colleague, the celebrated medical professor Spreugel. From one or the other of these sources the details are copied by several later writers, one of whom, lest the reader's curiosity should not be sated, says that the whole may be seen fully described in the books on obstetrics. It is a curious fact that some, who are often reluctant to recognise New Testament doctrines in the prophecies, can find there ahusions to the most extraordi- nary medical phenomena. The best comment upon this obstetrical eluci- dation is contained in Hitzig's caustic observation, that hj parity of reasoning the allusion in chap, xxxiii. 11 is to an actual bringing forth of straw (eine wirkliche Strohgeburt). Knobel has also pointed out, what any reader might discover for himself, that wind is here used, as in chap, xli. 29 ; Hosea xii. 2, as a common metaphor for failure, disappointment. ^?Pl is variously explained according to the sense put upon the whole verse. Those who refer it to the period after the return from exile 430 ISAIAH XXVI. [Yer. 19. regard ^3n as equivalent to *pN, Those who suppose the exile itself to be the time in question, understand by 720 the Babylonian empire as in chap. xiii. 11. 19. Thi/ dead shall live, my corj^ses shall arise ; {auahe and sing ye that dwell in the dust !) for the dew of herbs is thy dew, and (oh) the earth (on) the dead, thou wilt cause it to fall. This verse is in the strongest contrast with the one before it. To the ineftectual efforts of the people to save themselves, he now opposes their actual deliverance by God. They shall rise because they are thy dead, i. c. thy dead people. The construc- tion of Tl?33 with |101p^ is not a mere grammatical anomaly. The noun and suffix are singular, because the words are those of Israel as a body. The verb is plural, because the corpse of Israel included in reality a multi- tude of corpses. The explanation of the suffix as a parogogic syllable is contrary to iisage, which restricts paragoge to the construct form. Ivimchi supplies a preposition {ivith my dead body) which construction is adopted in the English version and in several others, but is now commonly aban- doned as incongruous and wholly arbitrary. Neither the Prophet, nor the house of Israel, in whose name he is speaking, could refer to their own body as distinct from the bodies of Jehovah's dead ones. Aiuake, &c. is a joyful apostrophe to the dead, after which the address to Jehovah is resumed. There are two interpretations of niiX, both ancient, and sup- ported by high modern authorities. The first gives the word the usual sense of "Ili< light ; the other that of plants, which it has in 2 Kings. iv. 39. The first is found in the Targum, Vulgate, and Peshito, and is approved by Grotius, Ewald, Umbreit, and Gesenius in his Commentary. The other is given by Kimchi, Clericus, Yitringa, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Hitzig, and Gesenius in his Lexicon. To the former it may be objected, that it leaves the plural form unexplained, that it arbitrarily mnVe's, light mean life, and that it departs from the acknowledged meaning of ril'lN in the only other place where it occurs. The second interpretation, on the other hand, assumes but one sense of the word, allows the plm-al form its proper force, and supposes an obvious and natural allusion to the in- fluence of dew upon the growth of plants. In either case the reference to the dew is intended to illustrate the vivifying power of God. Gese- nius and Ewald both explain the verbs as optatives and the verse as ex- pressive of a wish that God would raise the dead and thus repeople the now empty country. This construction, though admissible in case of neces- sity, has nothing to entitle it to preference, when the strict interpretation yields a perfectly good sense. The obvious meaning of the words is an expression of strong confidence and hope, or rather of prophetic foresight, that God will raise the dead, that his life-giving influence will be exerted. The use of /''SJ? here is certainly obscure. Gesenius, Ewald, and the other late interpreters, suppose it to denote the act of bearing, bringing forth, as the Kal in ver. 18 means, according to the same writers, to be bom. But if it there seems unnatural to suppose a resumption of that figure, it is much more so here, where another figure, that of vegetation, goes before. The mere rhetorical objection to mixed metaphors, as we have seen in other cases, ought to weigh but little where the sense is clear ; but in determining a doubtful sense, we are rather to presume that a figure once begun is continued, than that it is suddenly changed for another. An ad- ditional objection to this exposition is the incongruity of making the earth bring forth the dead, and thus putting the two extremes of life into juxta- Vee. 19.J ISATAH XXVI. 431 position. To avoid this incongruity, Gesenius and Ewald are obliged to give ?33, both here and in ver. v. 18, not only the precarious sense of bearing and of being born, but the arbitrary and specific one of bearing again and being born again. Some of the older writers make ?''2ri the second person (which agrees well with the previous address to God) and understand the words to mean thox wilt cause the giants to fall to the earth. But the combination of D'^NSI with D"'no in ver. 14, and the repetition of the latter here, decides the meaning of the former, as denoting the deceased, the dead. Retaining the construction of ?''Sn as a second person, and sup- posing the allusion to the influence of dew upon the growth of plants to be continued, we may render the words thus : (upon) the earth, [upon) the dead thoii wilt cause it to fall. As if he had said, thou hast a life-giving influence and thou wilt exert it ; as thy dew makes plants to grow, so shall it make these dead to live. That the ellipsis of the preposition before pN and D\S*Dn, although not without analogy, is somewhat harsh, must be admitted, and the only ^dew with which this construction is pro- posed is, that its difliculties and advantages may be compared with those of the translation given by Gesenius and Ewald, the earth brings forth the dead. All these interpretations coincide in applying the verse to aresurrec- tion of the dead, and the question now arises, what resurrection is referred to ? All ^ the answers to this question may be readily reduced to three. The first is, that the Prophet means the general resurrection of the dead, or according to an old rabbinical tradition, the exclusive resurrection of the righteous at the last day. The second is, that he refers to a resurrec- tion of the Jews already dead, not as an actual or possible event, but as a passionate expression of desire that the depopulated land might be replen- ished with inhabitants. The third is, that he represents the restoration of the exiles and of the theocracy under the figure of a resurrection, as Paul says the restoration of Israel to God's favour will be life from the dead. The obvious objection to the first of these opinions is, that" a prediction of the final resurrection is as much out of place in this connection as the same expectation seemed to Martha as a source of comfort for the loss of Lazarus. But as our Saviour, when he said to her, thy brother shall rise again, de- signed to console her by the promise of an earlier and special resurrection, so in this case what was needed for the comfort of God's people was some- thing more than the prospect of rising at the day of judgment. The choice therefore lies between the other two hypotheses, that of a mere wish that the dead might literally rise at once, and that of a prediction that they should rise soon but in a figure {iv -Traoa^oXfi) as Paul says of Isaac's resur- rection from the dead (Heb. xi. 19). The objection to the first of these interpretations is, that the optative construction of the verbs, as we have seen already, is not^ the obvious and natural construction, and ought not to be assumed unless it yields a better sense and one more appropriate in this connection. But so far is this from being the case, that the mere expres- sion_ of a wish which could not be fulfilled would be a most unnatural con- clusion of this national address to God, whereas it could not be more suitably wound up, or in a manner more in keeping with the usage of the prophecies, than by a strong expression of belief, that God would raise his people from the dust of degradation and oppression, where they had lon^ seemed dead though only sleeping. On these grounds the figurative ex*^ position seems decidedly entitled to the preference. Upon this allusion to a resurrection Gesenius fastens as a proof that the prophecy could not have 432 ISAIAE XXVI. [Yek. 20. been written until after the doetrino of the resurrection had been borrowed by the Jews from Zoroaster. To this it may be answered, first, that the alleged derivation of the doctrine is a figment, which no authoritative writer on the history of opinion would now ventm'e to maintain ; secondly, that the mention of a figurative resurrection, or the expression of a wish that a literal one would take place, has no more to do with the doctrinal belief of the writer, than any other lively figure or expression of strong feeling ; thirdly, that if a knowledge and belief of the doctrine of a general resurrec- tion is implied in these expressions, the text, instead of being klassiach as a proof of later Jewish opinions, is Jdassisch as a proof that the doctrine was known to Isaiah, if not to his contemporaries. If Gesenius, believing this prediction to belong to the period of the exile, is entitled to adduce it as a proof of what opinions were then current, those who believe it to be genuine are equally entitled to adduce it as a proof of what was cuiTeut in the days of Isaiah. It is easy to affirm that the prophecy is known on other gi'ounds to be of later date ; but it is just as easy to affirm that the alleged grounds are sophistical and inconclusive. Holding this to be the truth, we may safely conclude that the text either proves nothing as to a general resurrection of the dead, or that it proves the belief of such a resur- rection to be at least as old as the prophet Isaiah. 20. Go, ivy people, enter into thy chambers, anJ, shut thy doors after thee, hide thyself Jor a little moment, till the wrath he past. Having wound up the expectations of the people to a full belief of future restoration from their state of civil and religious death, the Prophet by an exquisite transition intimates, that this event is not yet immediately at hand, that this relief from the effects of God's displeasure with his people must be preceded by the experience of the displeasure itself, that it is still a time of indignation, and that till this is elapsed the promise cannot be fulfilled. This painful postponement of the promised resurrection could not be more tenderly or beautifully intimated than in this fine apostrophe. The inferences drawn by certain German writers, as to the date of the composition, can have no effect on those who believe that Isaiah was a prophet, not in the sense of a quidnunc or a ballad-singer, but in that of an inspu'ed revealer of futurity. The similar conclusion drawn by Knobel from the foi-m ''^n is equally frivolous, it being commonly agreed at present that what are called Aramaean forms may just as well be archaisms as neologisms, since they may have arisen, not from later intercourse with neighbouring nations, but from an original identity of language. Gesenius and others understand this verse as an exhortation to the Jews in Babylon to keep oat of harm's way during the storming of the city. A more prosaic close of a poetical context could not be imagined. Those who refer ver. 19 to the general resurrection un- derstand the verse before us as an intimation that they must rest in the grave until the time is come. Such an allusion is of course admissible on the supposition of a figurative resurrection. It is more natural, however, to suppose that the people of God are here addressed as such, and warned to hide themselves until God's indignation against them is past. On this specific usage of the word D^T, vide supra, chap. x. 5. On the idiomatic usage of the verbs "^7. and i<3, vide supra, chap. xxii. 15. The textual variation y^7l and "iri?T is of no exegetical importance. 11^3 strictly means without thee or outside of thee, implying that the person is ,s7(/// //(. It first occurs in Gen. vii. 10, where it is said that God shut Noah in the ark. Knobel explains VJI LDVD!) as meaning like the sniaUiiess of a moiiieiil. The 3 is a particle of time, equivalent, or nearly so, to our about. The Veb. 21.] ISAIAH XXVII. 433 English Version [as it were) is therefore incorrect. The period of suffering is described as very small in comparison with what had gone before and •what should follow it, as Paul says (Rom. viii. 18), that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to he compared ivith the glory which shall be revealed in its. 21. For behold, Jehovah (is) coming out of his place, to visit the iniquity of the inhabitant of the earth upon him, and the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This is a reason both for expecting ultimate deliverance and for patiently awaiting it. The reason is that God has a work of chastisement to finish, first upon his own people, and then upon their enemies. During the former process, let the faithful hide them- selves until the wrath be past. When the other begins, let them lift up their heads, for their redemption draweth nigh. This large interpretation of the verse is altogether natural and more satisfactory than those which restrict it either to the judgments upon Israel or to those upon Babylon. On the latter, the eye of the Prophet of course chiefly rests, especially at last, so that the closing words may be applied almost exclusively to the retribution which awaited the Chaldean for the slaughter of God's people. On the idiomatic usage of the plural D"'^'' where the reference is to murder, vide supra, chap. i. 15. Rosenmiiller and Hitzig understand the last clause as a prediction that the dead should actually come out of the graves, Knobel as a poetical anticipation of the same event. But it seems far more natural to understand the clause, with Geseniusand Umbreit, as a simple variation of the one before it. The blood, which the earth had long since drunk in, should as it were be vomited up, and the bodies of the murdered, which had long been bm-ied should be now disclosed to view. It agrees best with the wider meaning put upon this verse, and is at the same time more poetical to give }*"l^< in both clauses its generic sense of earth, rather than the specific one of land. Instead of the simple version slain, Gesenius employs with good eflect the strong expression murdered (die Gemordeten), as one of the French versions had done long before (ses massacres). With- out laying undue stress on the mere rhetorical aspect of the sacred writings, it may safely be afiirmed that at the bar of the most elevated criticism, the concluding verses of the chapter now before us would at once be adjudged to possess intrinsic qualities of beauty and sublimity (apart from the accident of rhythm and parallelism, in which some writers find the essence of all poetry) sufficient to brand with the stigma of absurdity the judgment that can set the passage down as the work of a deteriorated age or an inferior writer. CHAP*TEE XXVII. This chapter is an amplification of the last verse of the one preceding, and contains a fuller statement both of Israel's chastisements and of Jehovah's judgments on his enemies. The destruction of the latter is fore- told as the slaughter of a huge sea-monster, and contrasted with God's care of his own people even when afflicting them, vers. 1-5. Hereafter Israel shall flourish, and even in the meantime his sufferings are far less than those of his oppressors, vers. 6, 7. The former is visited in moderation, for a time, and with the happiest eff'ect, vers. 8, 9. The latter is finally and totally destroyed, vers. 10, 11. This shall be followed by the restoration of the scattered Jews, vers. 12, 18. VOL. I. E e 434 ISAIAH XXV J I. [Yer. 1. 1. In that day shall Jehovah visit, with his sword, the hard, the great, the strong (sivord), upon Leviathan the sivift (or flying) serpent, and upon Leviathan the coiled (or crooked) serpent, and sJiall slay the dragon tvhich {is) in the sea. It is universally agreed that this is a prediction of the downfall of some gi-eat oppressive power, but whether that of a single nation or of several, has been much disputed. Clericus supposes two, Yitringa and many others three, to be distincth' mentioned. In favour of suppos- ing a plurality of subjects may be urged the distinct enumeration and de- scription of the monsters to be slain. But the same form of expression occurs in many other places where there can be no doubt that a single sub- ject is intended. To the hypothesis of three distinct powers it may be objected, that two of them would scarcely have been called leviathan. To the general hypothesis of more than one, it may be objected that by parity of reasoning three swords are meant, viz., a hard one, a great one, and a strong one. But even if three powers be intended, it is wholly impossible to identify them, as may be inferred from the endless variety of combina- tions, which have been suggested : Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia ; Egypt, Bab3'lonia, and Tyre ; Assyria, Babylonia, and Rome ; Babylonia, Media, Persia, &c., &c. Gill thinks the three meant are the devil, the beast, and the false prophet ; Cocceius, the emperor, the pope, and the devil. What is common to all the hypotheses is, that the verse describes a power or powers hostile and oppressive to the people of God. The most probable opinion, therefore, is, that this was what the woi'ds were intended to con- vey. Or if a more specific reference must be assumed, it is worthy of remark that nearly all the h^-potheses, which apply the words to two or more of the great powers of the ancient world, make Babylonia one of them. From this induction we may safely conclude, that the leviathan and dragon of this verse are descriptive of a gi'eat oppressive power, with particular allusion to the Babylonian empire, a conclusion perfectly consistent with the previous allusions to the fall of Babylon and the restoration of the Jews from exile. Assuming this to be the general meaning of the verse, that of its mere details becomes either easy or comparatively unimportant. The word leviathan, which, from its etymology, appears to mean contorted, coiled, is sometimes used to denote particular species {e.g. the crocodile), and some- times as a generic term for huge aquatic animals, or the larger kinds of serpents, in which sense the corresponding term P3F1 is also used. They both appear to be employed in this case to express the indefinite idea of a formidable monster, which is in fact the sense now commonl}' attached to the word dragon. The second epithet \^Tv>\>V means tortuous, either with respect to the motion of the serpent, or ,to its appearance when at rest. Bochart regarded the 'Ey/.sXadog of the Greek mythology as a corruption of this Hebrew word. The other epithet Dl^ has been variously explained. Some of the ancients confound it with n''7l5, « bar, and supposes the serpent to be so described either in reference to its length, or stillness, or straight- ness, or strength, or its penetrating power, or the configuration of its head. J. D. Michaelis gives it the sense of northern, and supposes the three objocts here described to be the three constellations which exiiibit the appearance and bear the name of serpents or dragons. This explanation, founded on Job xxiii. 16, does not materially change the meaning of the verse, since the constellations are supposed to be referred to, as connected in some way with the fortunes of great states and empires. The allusion, however, is sa far-fetched and pedantic, that, although it suits the taste of Michaelis and Hitzig, who delight in recondite interpretations, it will scarcely satisfy the Ver. 2.] ISAIAH XXVII. 435 mind of any ordinary reader. The onlj' explanation of n^3 whicli is fully justified by Hebrew usage is that olfwiitice or fleeing, which may either be a poetical equivalent io fleet, or descriptive of the monster as o. flying serpent. Hitzig objects to the supposition of a single monster, on the ground that these two epithets, y?//J»/7 and coiled, are incompatible, as if the same serpent could not be described both in motion and at rest, not to mention that the second term, as Umbreit suggests, may itself be descriptive of motion. The omission of auy descriptive epithet with Pjiri makes it probable at least that it is not a new item in the catalogue. There is no need of explaining ^1 to mean Babylonia, as in chap. xxi. 1 since the expression relates to the type, not to the antitype, and must be joined with TlJil to express the complex idea of a sea-serpent. For the meaning of the phrase to visit upon, vide supra, chap. xiii. 11. The sword is a common emblem for the instruments of the divine vengeance. The explanation of HK'i^ as meaning heavy is not justified by usage : severe or dreadful does not suit the context, as the other two epithets denote physical quahties of a literal sword. The word no doubt means hard-edged, or, as Lowth expresses it, well-tempered. 2. On the explanation of this verse depends that of a large part of the chapter. The two points upon which all turns, are the meaning of -isy and the reference of the suffix in H?. The modern writers solve the latter by sup- posing 0^3 to be feminine in this one place, and when expressions afterwards occur which ai'e inapplicable to a vineyard, regard them as inaccuracies or perhaps as proofs of an uncultivated taste, whereas they only prove that the assumed construction is a false one. The only supposition which will meet the difficulties, both of the syntax and the exegesis, is the one adopted by most of the older writers, to wit, that i^< refers, not directly to ^"y^, but to Jerusalem or the daughter of Zion, i. e. to the Church or people of God considered as his spouse (chap. i. 21). This reference to a subject not expressly mentioned might be looked upon as arbitrary, but for the fact that the assumption of it is attended with fewer difficulties than the con- struction which it supersedes, as will be seen below. As to the other word, tradition and authority are almost unanimous in giving it the sense of sing. Assuming that the primary meaning of the verb is to answer, and that the derivative strictly denotes responsive singing, Lowth, Dathe, Schnurrer, and others, have converted the whole context to the end of ver. 5, into a dialogue between Jehovah and his vineyard. This fantastic aiTangement of the text has been rejected by most later writers as artificial, complex, and at variance with the genius and usage of Hebrew composition, Lowth's eloquent plea to the contrary notwithstanding. But the same interpreters, who have reUeved the passage from this factitious burden and embarrassment, continue for the most part to regard what follows as a song though not a dramatic dialogue, because the people are commanded in ver. 2 to sing, and the song of course must follow. To this exposition, w^hich is really a relic of the old dramatic one, there are several objections. In the first place, no one has been able to determine with precision where the sovg concludes, some choosing one place for its termination, some another. This would of course prove nothing in a clear case, but in a case like this it raises a presumption at least that a song, of which the end cannot be found, has no beginning. But in the next place, it is easy to see why the end cannot be easily defined, to wit, because there is nothing in the next three, four, or five verses to dis- tinguish them as being any more a song than what precedes and follows, whether with respect to imagery, rhythm, or diction. In the third place, the presumption thus created and confirmed is corroborated further by the 436 ISAIAH XXril. [Veb. 2. obvious incongruity of making the song, which the people are supposed to sing, begin with / Jehovah keep it, &c. It is in vain that Grotius, with his usual ingenuity, explains -l^y as meaning " sing in the name or person of Jehovah," and that other writers actually introduce thus snith the Lord at the beginning of the song. This is only admitting indirectly that the supposition of a song is wholly arbitrary in a case so doubtful, whatever it might be if the mention of the song were more explicit. For in the fourth place, there is this striking difference between the case before us and those which are supposed to be analogous (e. is the fruit-harvest, and especially the ingathering of figs. The modern critics are agreed that the final syllable of mi^^, although written in most manu- scripts with tnappik, is not a suffix, but a feminine termination. This name of the early fig is still retained, not only in Arabic, but in Spanish, into which it was transplanted by the Moors. Lowth's decision, that HST' nxin is a miserable tautology, is worth about as much as his decision, that Houbigant's emendation (illN'' for ilNl^) is a happy conjecture. The tauto- logy, at all events, is no more miserable hei'e than in chaps, xvi. 10, or xxviii. 24, not to mention 2 Sam. xvii. 9, or Ezek. xxxiii. 4. The liberties which critics of this school took with the text, and the language which they used in self-justification, must be considered as having contributed in some degree to the subsequent revolution of opinion with respect to points of more intrinsic moment. U8 ISAIAH XXVIII. [Ver. 5-7. 5. In that day shall Jehovah of Hosts be for (or become) a cronn of beauty and a diadem of ylory to the remnant of his people. By the remnant of the people Jarchi understands those of the ten trilies who should survive the destruction of Samaria ; Knobel the remnant of Judah itself, which should escape Shalmaneser's invasion expected by the Prophet ; Hendewerk the remnant of Israel, again considered as one body after the fall of the apos- tate kingdom ; Kimchi the kingdom of the two tribes, as the remnant of the whole race. This last approaches nearest to the true sense, which appears to be, that after Samaria, the pride of the apostate tribes, had fallen, they who still remained as members of the church, or chosen people, should gloiy and delight in the presence of Jehovah as their choicest privilege and highest honour. The expressions are borrowed from the first verse, but presented in a new combination. As our idiom admits in this case of a close imitation of the Hebrew, the common version, which is strictl}' literal, is much to be preferred to Lowi;h's [a bemiteous croicn and a (jlorious diadem). Of the versions which exchange the nouns for adjec- tives, the most felicitous is Luther's {eine liebliche Krone imd herrlicher Kranz). Instead of Jehovah of Hosts, the Targum has the Messiah of Jehovah. 6, And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judr/ment, and for strcnyth to them that turn the battle to the gate. This, which is the common English Version, coincides with that of the latest and best writers. ^V, USJ^'KDn may either be explained as meaning on the judgment-seat, with Calvin (super tribunal), ov in judgment, i.e. for the purpose of judging, wdtli Clericus (juris dicundi causa) and most other writers. In illustration of the fii'st sense may be cited Ps. ix. 5, tJiou sittest on the throne judging right; in illustration of the other, 1 Sam. xx. 24, xxx. 24, where ?J? 3P*J indicates the purpose for which, or the object with respect to which, one sits. The last words of the verse are applied to those who return home safe from war by Symmachus, the Targum, and the Vulgate (revertentibus dc bello ad portam) ; to those who repel the battle from the gate by the Peshito, Clericus, and Augusti ; but by all the later writers to those who drive the war back to the enemy's owai gates, or, as it were, carry it into his own country. J. D. Michaelis gives to gate the specific sense of bound- ary, or frontier, which is wholly unnecessary, as it is usual to mention towns, if not their gates, in such connections. (See, for example, 2 Sam. xi. 23 ; 2 Kings xviii. 8.) The war meant is thex'efore wholly defensive. The two great requisites of civil government are here described as coming from Jehovah. Even Gesenius adverts to the fact, that the Spirit of this verse is not a mere influence, but God himself. 7. And (yet) these also (or even these) through trine have erred, and through strong drink have gone astray. Priest and prophet have erred through strong drink, have been swallowed up of wine, have been led astray by strong drink, have erred in vision, have tcavered in judgment. Having predicted in the foregoing verse that when Ephraim fell Judah should con- tinue to enjoy the protection of Jehovah, the Prophet now describes even this favoured remnant as addicted to the same sins w^iich had hastened the destniction of the ten tribes, viz., sensual indulgence, and the spiritual evils which it generates. The drunkenness here mentioned is taken in a moral and spiritual sense even by Calvin and others, who understand ver. 1 as relating to literal intoxication ; but this mode of exposition seems entirely arbitrary. All that is necessary is to suppose the moral or spiritual efiects of drunkenness to be included. Many iutei-preters suppose the Prophet to Ver. 8.] ISAIAH XXVIII. 449 revert at this point to the state of Judah in his own day. Of such transi- tions there are numerous examples ; but the supposition is unnecessary here, where the obvious construction of the passage, as continuous in point of time, yields a good and appropriate sense. The meaning then is, that the Jews, although distinguished from the ten tribes by God's sparing mercy, should nevertheless imitate them in their sins. There is great pro- bability in Henderson's suggestion, that the prophecy refers to the national deterioration in the reign of Manasseh. The D4 at the beginning is em- phatic, not only Ephraim, but also these, or even these. Ewald arbitrarily translates n?N here, and makes the verbs indefinite (taumelt 7nan). The priest and prophet are named as the leaders of the people, and as those who were peculiarly bound to set a better example. The reference io judg- ment in the last clause may be explained either on the ground that the priest and prophet represent the rulers of the people in general, or because the priests themselves exercised judicial functions in certain prescribed cases (Deut. xvii. 9, xix. 17). Junius and others needlessly take |n3 in the general sense of ruler. Another not improbable solution is, that nv''?3 does not mean judgment in the technical sense, but more generally the declaration of the will of God. There seems to be no sufficient gi-ound for Gesenius's explanation of the word as meaning jmlginent-seat. Maurer gives the same sense, and explains the whole phrase, theij stagger (or reel) into the judgment-seat. Most of the late interpreters, instead of the more general sense of erring, ivandering, explain HJ^' and n;yri as specifically meaning to reel or stagger, which adds to the \'ividness of the description, but_ does not seem to be entirely justified by usage. Hendewerk takes "l?kr^ as an abstract, meaning intoxication. J. D. Michaelis translates it beer. Hitzig explains T''^ as meaning in the act of drinking wine; but most other writers, with more probability, regard both P and 3 as here denoting the means or cause of the intoxication. Henderson's version of iy?33 (over- powered), leaves out of view the obvious allusion to literal deglutition; for, as Gill suggests, they swallowed the wine down, and it swallowed them up. Here again Barnes sees his favourite image of a maelstrom. Maurer suggests, as a possible construction, that the last words may cohere with the first of the next verse, and IpS have the meaning of the Chaldee and Syriac p2J : they go out of the judgment-seat because all the tables, &c. But in"?*^ is a dining-table, not a writing-desk. Nor is there any such im- provement in the sense as would seem to justify such a departure from the traditional arrangement of the text. The use of strong drinks was expressly forbidden to the priests in the discharge of their official functions (Lev. x. 9 ; Ezek. xliv. 21). nx"l is commonly explained as a participle used for an abstract noun, seeing or seer for sight, an explanation which is certainly favoured by the analogous use of njh in ver. 18. It is possible, however, that '"I^"l3 may mean in the office, character, or functions of a seer, as Junius explains it (in functione videntis). 8. For all tables are full of vomit, of filth, without a place {i. e. a clean place). Grotius understands by tables the tribunals, and by filth and vomit the injustice practised there, which he says was likewise called sordes ^ by the Latins. How arbitrary such expositions must be, will appear from the fact, that Vitringa makes the tables mean the schools or places of public instruction, and the vomit the false doctrine there taught and again repro- duced to the injury of others. The only natural interpretation is that VOL. I. F f 450 ISAIAH XXVIII. [Ver. 9. which supposes tahlcs to denote the places where men eat and drink, and the other terms the natural thoiigh revolting consequences of excess. Cocceius, who takes tables in its proper sense, explains the filth to mean con'upt or unprofitable conversation ; but this is a most unreasonable mixture of literal and figurative exposition. AMiether the intoxication thus described is wholly spiritual, depends of course upon the meaning given to the preceding verse. Most writers suppose nX!** to be governed by ^''[>, and resolve the phrase into an adjective construction by translating it JiWiij vomit. Augusti makes the first word the qualifying term, and renders it vomited filth. As the words, however, are distinct in origin, the best construction is that which makes them both dependent on the verb : full of vomit, full of filth. There is no more need of supplying a preposition before HN^ than before N^p. The introduction of the copulative and is needless, and impahs the force of the expression. '''?2 is properly a noun meaning /rtiVttre or defect, but is constantly used as a negative adverb or pre- position. The sense of this clause is correctly though diflusely given in the English Version {so that there is no place clean). Luther gives the sense, but with a change of form, by rendering it in all places. So too one of the French Versions (tellement que tout en est plein). It is some- what remarkable that the Septuagint translation of this verse does not exhibit any trace of the original. 9. Whom iiill he teach knowledge ? And whom ivill he make to under- stand doctrine ? Those weaned from the milk and removed from the breasts. The Targum makes this a description of Israel as the favoured people to whom the law was exclusively given. In like manner some of the older Christian writers understand it as descriptive of the persons whom Jehovah, or the Prophet acting in his name, would choose as proper subjects of instruction, viz., simple and child-like disciples, who as new-born babes desire the sincere milk of the word (1 Pet. ii. 2). But the children here described are weanlings, not sucklings, and on this h\'pothesis the weaning, which is so particularly mentioned, would have no significancj'. Besides, this explanation of the words would not suit the context, either before or after. It is therefore commonly agreed, that the last clause must be taken in a contemptuous or unfavourable sense, as denoting children not in malice merely but in understanding (1 Cor. xiv. 20). On this assumption some have explained the verse as meaning, that the priest and the prophet, mentioned in ver. 7, were utterly unfit to teach the people, being them- selves mere childi-en in knowledge and in understanding. This explanation supposes the singular verbs of the first clause, and the plural adjectives of the second, to refer to the same persons. Another interpretation makes the words descriptive not of the teachers but the taught, as being no more fit to receive instruction than a child just weaned. J. D. Michaelis applies the last clause not to their incapacity but to their unwillingness to be in- structed, as being long since weaned and now too old to return to the breast. This ingenious explanation has the advantage of taking P^J^^ in its usual sense oiold, whereas all others give it one derived from pHJ^ to re- move. But the comparative meaning, which it puts upon the preposition following, is excluded by its ob^nous use in the foregoing phrase in its proper local sense of from. A new turn was given to the exposition of the verse by Lowth, who, adopting an obscure suggestion of Jerome, explains it as the language not of the Prophet but of the wicked men before de- scribed, expressing their indignation and contempt at the Prophet's under- taking to instruct them as if they were mere children. Whom does ho Yee. 10.] ISAIAE XXV III. 451 undertake to teach ? and whom would he make to understand his doctrine ? Children weaned from the milk and removed from the hreast ? This inter- pretation has in substance been adopted by all later writers, as aifording a good sense and one admirably suited both to the foregoing and the follow- ing context. It seems to be liable to only two objections : fii'st, that it gratuitously gives the passage a dramatic form by supposing a new speaker to be introduced without any intimation in the text ; and then, that it arbitrarily continues the interrogation through the sentence. The last objection may be obviated by adopting Henderson's modiiied construction, which supposes them to ask not whom he would but whom he ourjlit to teach, and then to answer, little children just weaned from the breast, not men of mature age and equal to himself. The other objection, being wholly negative, must yield of course to the positive arguments in favour of an exposition which is otherwise coherent, satisfactory, and suited to the context. Rosenmiiller seems indeed to think that the space between this verse and that before it in the Hebrew manuscripts denotes a change of subject ; but these mechanical arrangements of the text can have no authoritative influence upon its exposition. The verbs in the first clause may either be indefinitely construed or refen-ed to the Prophet, without a material change of meaning. nyi?3t^ properly denotes something heard, and here means that which the Prophet heard from God and the people from the Prophet ; in other words, divine revelation, whether general or special. There are few examples of a more exact translation than the Vulgate version of this verse, in which the very form of the original is happily retained, not excepting the etymological import of the word T\)W^. So rigid is the version, that Montanus has retained it in his own unchanged. Quern docebit scientiam f et quem intelligere faciei auditum ? ablactatos a lacte, avtdsos ah uherihus. 10. For (it is) rule upon ride, rule upon rule, line upon line, line upon line, a little here, a little there. The interpretation of this verse varies of com-se with that of the one before it. Those who understand ver. 9 as descriptive of God's favour to the Jews, explain this in like manner as relating to the abundance of the revelations made to them, including rules and coimsels suited to every emergency of life. Henderson's remark, that the words are often preposterously quoted in application to the abun- dant possession of religious privileges, rests of course on the assumption that his owTi interpretation of ver. 9 is certainly the true one. But this is far from being so clear as to justify the branding of an opposite opinion with absurdity. Those who apply ver. 9 to the incapacity of the ;jeo/»Ze for high attainments in spiritual knowledge, regard ver. 10 as a description of the elementary methods which were necessary for them. Those who apply ver. 9 to the incapacity of the religious teachers of the Jews, explain ver. 10 as a description of their puerile method of instruction. The words are thus understood by Vitringa and apphed to the Scribes and Pharisees m the time of Christ. But as all the latest writers make ver. 9 the language of the Jews themselves, complaining of the Prophet's per- petual reproofs and teachmgs, they are equally agreed in making ver. 10 a dii-ect continuation of the same complaint. Aben Ezra explains l^*? 1^ as meaning rule after rule or rule [joined) to rule. Equally good is the construction va. the English Version {precept upon precept) except that the word precept is too long to represent the chosen monosyllables of the original. The same objection may be made to Gesenius's imitation of the paronomasia (Gebot auf Gebot, Verbot auf Verbot), which is much 452 ISAIAH XXVIII. [Yer. 11, 12. inferior to that of Ewalcl (Satz zu Satz, Schnur zu Schnur). Paulus, Gese- nius, Maurer, Hitzig, and Ewald, understand this peculiar clause as the people's scoffing imitation of the Prophet's manner ; Koppe, Eichhom, Umbreit, and Knobel, as the Prophet's own derisive imitation of their drunken talk. Koppe even goes so far as to imagine that IV and 1p are here intentionally given as half-formed words, if not as inarticulate un- meaninf sounds. But 1p is in common use, and IV occurs in the -sense of rule or precept in Hos. v. 11. The Peshito and J. D. MichaeHs treat these words as cognate forms and synonvmes of nSIV and S"*!? in ver. 8, and tran- slate accordingly, vomit upon vomit, Jilth ujion filth. Michaelis, moreover, gives ^VX the sense of spot or stain. Both Dt^' and "'''J?^ are refeiTed by some to time, and by others to quantity or space ; but the simplest and best ex- planation seems to be the one given in the English Version [here a little, there a little), as expressive of minuteness and perpetual repetition. Gese- nius understands this verse as having reference to the constant additions to the law of Moses in Isaiah's time, the design of which interpretation is to fortify the doctrine that the Pentateuch, as we now have it, is long pos- terior to the days of Moses. Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Knobel, all admit that the allusion is not to the written law, but to the oral admonitions of the Prophets. The Targum contains a diffuse paraphrase of this verse, in which the principal words are retained, but so combined with others as to make the whole relate to the captivity of Israel, as the consequence of his despising the appointed place of worship and practising idolatry. 11. For with stammerivfj lips and ivith another tongue will he speak unto this people. As nsti' '•jy'? may denote either foreign or scoffing speech (the former being usually described in the Old Testament as stammering), some suppose a double allusion here, to wit, that as they had mocked at the di^ine instiiictions by their stammering speech, so he would speak to ihem in turn by the stammering lips of foreigners in another language than their own. This, though by no means an obvious construction in itself, is pre- ferred by the latest writers and countenanced by several analogous expres- sions in the subsequent context. Ewald understands by the stammering speech of this verse the inarticulate language of the thunder, which is verj' unnatural. Of the older writers some explain this verse as descriptive of God's tcndeniess and condescension in accommodating his instructions to the people's capacity as nurses deal with children. Othei's understand it to mean that through their own perverseness those instructions had been rendered unintelligible and of course unprofitable, so that their divine teacher had become as it were a barbarian to them. 12. Who said to them, This is rest, give rest to the weary, and this is quiet, hut they would not hear. The judgments threatened in the foregoing verse were the more evident, just because he who threatened them had warned the people, and pointed out to them the only way to happiness. 1ti'^^ should not be taken in the rare and doubtful sense hecause, but in its proper sense as a relative pronoun. This constrnction, far from being intolerably harsh (Henderson), is the only natural and simple one, as well as the only one entirely justified by usage. The pronoun may either be connected with QD'?.^. in the sense of to whom (for which there is no other Hebrew expression), or refeiTcd to Jehovah as the subject of the following verb. Who was it that should speak to them with another tongue ? He who had so often said to them, &c. Although admissible, it is not neces- sary to take nnijp in the local sense of resting-place (Ewald). The sense is not, that the true way to rest is to give rest to the weary ; the latter ex- Vee. 13-15.J ISAIAH XXVIII. 453 pression is a kind of parenthesis, as if he had said, This is the true rest, let the weary enjoy it. By this we are therefore to understand, not com- passion and kindness to the sujffering, but obedience to the will of God in general. This is the true rest which I alone can give, and the way to which I have clearly marked out. Best is not quiet submission to the yoke of the Assyrians (Hitzig), but peace, tranquillity. To give rest to the wear}/ does not mean to cease from warlike preparations, or to relieve the people from excessive burdens, whether of a civil or religious kind, but simply to reduce to practice the lesson which God had taught them. This is the way to peace, let those who wish it walk therein. In the last clause, tvould is not a mere auxiliary, but an independent and emphatic verb, they were not ivilling. The form NUN (from the root i^??), though resembling the Arabic analogy, is not a proof of recent date, but rather of the fact, that some forms, which are prevalent in the cognate dialects, were known, if not common, in the early periods of Hebrew composition. 13. And the U)ord of Jehovah was to them rule upon rule, rule npon rule ; line upon line, line upon line ; a little here, a little there ; that they might go, and fall backwards, and he broken, and he snared, and he taken. The law was given that sin might abound. The only effect of the minute instruc- tions, which they found so irksome, was to aggravate their guilt and con- demnation. The terms of the first clause are repeated from ver. 10, and have of course the same meaning in both places. The Var at the beginning of the verse is not conversive, as the verbs of the preceding verse relate to past time. There is neither necessity nor reason for translating the par- ticle hut, so that, or anything but and, as it introduces a direct continua- tion of the foregoing description. •137''. does not simply qualify the following verbs (go on, or continue to fall backwards), but expresses a distinct act. •17^3 includes the two ideas of stumbling and falling. Some give to -llSf ?! the more specific sense, and break their limbs, jj?^? according to its etymo- logy denotes design {in order that), but may here be used simply to express an actual result {so that), unless we refer it, in its strict sense, to the righteous purpose or design of God's judicial providence. 14. Therefore (because your advantages have only made you more rebellious) hear the word of Jehovah, ije scornful men (hterally men of scorn, i. e. despisers of the truth), the rulers of this people which is in Jerusalem (or ye rulers of this people who are in Jerusalem). The "i^^? may refer grammatically either to Dyn or to ''^^p. This people, here as elsewhere, may be an expression of displeasure and contempt. Jerusalem is mentioned as the seat of government and source of influence. The whole verse imdtes attention to the solemn warning which follows. 15. Because ye have said (in thought or deed, if not in word) we have made a covenant with death, and ivith hell (the grave, or the unseen world) have formed a league ; the overflowing scourge, when it passes through, shall not come upon us, for we have made falsehood our refuge, and^ in fraud we have hid ourselves. The meaning evidently is, that if their actions were translated into words, this would be their import. There is no need, therefore, of throwing the words 3T3 and 'W into a parenthesis (J. D. Michaehs) as the Prophet's comment on the scofi'er's boast. ?1X1^ is here nothing more than a poetical equivalent to niD. The textual read- ing n>k^ is probably an,old cognate form and synonyme of ^'\^, which is given in the margin. The mixed metaphor of an overflowing scourge combines two natural and common figures for severe calamity. Some interpreters 454 ISAIAH XXriII. [Ver. 16. apologise for the rhetorical defect of the expression on the gi-ound that Hebrew ears were not as delicate as ours. Barnes throws the blame upon the English version, and explains the Hebrew word to mean caJamity, but in ver. 18 gives the meaning scourge, and says that three metaphors are there combined, which makes it less incredible that two are blended here, n.tn is properly a participle {seehty) often used as a noun to denote a seer or prophet. Here the connection seems distinctly to require the sense of league or covenant. That there is no error in the text, may be inferred from the substitution of the cognate form nitn in ver. 18. Hitzig accounts for the transfer of meanings by the supposition that in making ''treaties it was usual to consult the seer or prophet. Ewald supposes an allusion to the practice of necromantic art or divination as a safeguard against death, and translates the word oralcel. The more common explanation of the usage traces it to the idea of an interview or meeting and the act of looking one another in the face, from which the transition is by no means difficult to that of mutual understanding or agreement. (Calvin: visionis nomine significat id quod vulgo diciraus avoir intelligence.) The marginal reading 13^ was probably intended to assimilate the phrase to that employed in ver. 18, but without necessity, since either tense might be used in this connection to express contingency. As the other variations ip'^^ and tSIJJ', nrn and riT'kn) shew that the two verses were not meant to be identical in form, the reading in the text (13^) is probably the true one. Nil, when construed directly with the noun, means to come upon, in the sense of attacking or invading. The falsehood mentioned in the last clause is not a false profession of idolatry in order to conciliate the enemy (Grotius), nor idols, nor false prophets, but falsehood or unfaithfulness to God, i.e. wicked- ness in general, perhaps with 'an allusion to the falsity or treacherous nature of the hopes built upon it. The translation under falsehood, which is given in the English Bible and in some other versions, "is neither justi- fied by usage nor required by the connection. On the other hand, the reflexive version, ive have hid ourselves, is much more expressive than the simple passive. 16. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold I lay in Zion a stone, a stone of proof , a cornerstone of value, of a firm foundation ; the believer icill not he in haste. To the words of the scoffers arc now opposed the words of God himself. Because you say thus and thus, therefore the Lord says m reply what follows. You trust for safety in your own delusions ; on the contrary, I lay a sure foundation, and no other can be laid. This foun- dation is neither the temple (Ewald), nor the law (Umbreit), nor Zion itself (Hitzig), norHezekiah (Gesenius), but the Messiah, to whom it is repeatedly and explicitly applied in the New Testament (Rom. ix. 33, x. 11 ; 1 Peter ii. 6). The same application of the text is made by Jarchi, and according to Kaymund Martini (in his Pugio Fidei) by the Targum of Jonathan, al- though the word Messiah is now wanting in the Chaldee text. The objection, that the stone here mentioned was already laid, has no weight, as the whole theocracy existed with a view to the coming of Messiah. The reference of the words to Hezekiah is an old one, as Thcodoret pronounces it an instance of extreme folly {dvolag Icy^drni). Hitzig and Knobel, in order to make Zion itself the sure foundation, make the particle a be(h essentiir, as if he had said, You have in Zion (i. e. Zion is to you) a sm-e foundation. All other writers seem to give the 3 its proper local sense. The phrase literally rendered stone of proof admits of two interpretations. Calvin understands by it a stone which was to be the test or standard of comparison for others ; Ver. 17, 18.] ISAIAH XXVIIl. 455 but the common explanation is more natural, which makes it mean a stoiie that has itself been proved or tried and found suificient. A kindred idea is expressed by the phrase nsw TD10, a cognate noun and participle, literally meaning ?i. founded foundation, i. e. one entirely firm and safe. The pecu- liar form of the original, arising from the repetition of the construct state, has been retained in the translation above given. There is no need of sup- posing, with Emchi and others, that rnp'' is an absolute form in apposition with what follows. The writer's purpose seems to have been to unite the members of the sentence in construction by a very intimate and close arti- culation. POSID may either be referred specifically to the corner-stone or taken in the general sense of trusting or believing, sc, God. The objec- tion to the former that the prophets never exhort men to trust in men or mere localities, is valid as an argument against the reference to Hezekiah, or the temple, or mount Zion, but not against the reference to the Messiah, who is constantly presented as an object of faith, and a ground of trust. Will not le in haste, i. e. will not be impatient, but will trust the promise, even though its execution be delayed. This suits the connection better than the sense preferred by the modern German writers, tuill not flee, or have occasion to flee, in alarm or despair. The Septuagint version adopted in the New Testament [shall not he ashamed), agrees essentially with that first given, though it makes more prominent the fact that the believer's hopes shall not be disappointed. If it be true, as Gesenius thinks probable, that the Hebrew verb, like a kindred one in Arabic, not only meant to hasten but to be ashamed, the Septuagint version is fully justified, and the authority of the New Testament should be regarded as decisive in favour of that meaning hero. But as it cannot be traced in Hebrew usage, it is better to regard the Greek as paraphrasing rather than translating the original expression. At all events, there is no need of reading ^^'•3'' with Grotius, Houbigant, and Lowth. The force of the figures in this verse is much enhanced by the statements of modern travellers in relation to the immense stones still remaining at the foundation of ancient walls. (See particularly Robinson's Palestine, i. 343, 351, 422. 17. And I will place judgment for a line and justice for a plummet, and hail shall sioeep away the refuge of falsehood, and the hiding-place waters shall overfloio. , Themeaning of the first clause is, that God would deal with them in strict justice ; he would make justice the rule of his proceedings, as the builder regulates his work by the line and plummet. The English Version seems to make judgment or justice not the measure but the thing to be measured. The verb D-l'tJ' with the preposition ?. means to place a thing in a certain situation, or to apply it to a certain use. (See chap. xiv. 23.) Hail and rain are here used, as in ver. 2 above, to denote the divine visitations. The refuge and the hiding-place are those of which the scornful men had boasted in ver. 15. To their confident assurance of safety God opposes, first, the only sure foundation which himself had laid, and then the utter destruction which was coming on their own chosen objects of reliance. Hitzig thinks that 1p*^ must have dropped out after "ino, as if there were no examples of even greater variation in the repetitions of the prophets. The truth is, that slavish iteration of precisely the same words is rather the exception than the rule. 18. And your covenant with death shall he annulled, and your league with hell shall not stand, and the overfloicing scourge— for it shall j^ciss thmugh, and ye shall be for it to trample on. 123 seems to be here used in its primary sense of covering, or perhaps more specifically smearing over, 456 ISAIAH XXVIII. [Ver. 19-21. 60 as to conceal if not to obliterate, applied in this case to a writing, the image in the mind of the Prophet being probably that of a waxen tablet, in which the writing is erased by spreading out and smoothing the wax with the stylus. In the last clause, the construction seems to be interrupted. This supposition at least enables us to take both the *2 and the 1 in their natural and proper sense. Supposing the construction of the clause to be complete, it may be explained as in the English Version, which makes both the words in question particles of time meaning when and then. D)0"lD ig properly a place or object to be trodden down or trampled on. (See chap. V. 5.) The construction above given is the one proposed by Henderson, except that he has him instead of it, in order to avoid the application of the words to the scourge. There can be no doubt that the idea of a human invader was before the Prophet's mind ; but the mere rhetorical incongruity is not at all at variance with the Prophet's manner, and is the less to be dissembled or denied, because the scourge will still be described as overflow- ing. The attempt to reconcile the language with the artificial rules of composition is in this case rendered hopeless by the combination of expres- sions which cannot be strictly applied to the same subject. An army might trample, but it couldnotliterally overflow ; a stream might overflow, but it could not literally trample down. The time perhaps is coming when, even as a matter of taste, the strength and vividness of such mixed metaphors will be considered as outweighing their inaccuracy in relation to an arbitrary standard of correctness or propriety. 19. As soon (or as often) as it 2)(isses through, it shall take you (or carry you aivay) ; for in the morning, in the morning, {i.e. every morning), it shall 2iass through, in the day and in the night, and only vexation (or dis- tress) shall he the understanding of the thing heard. The primary meaning of the noun ^T is sufficiency ; but the phrase """ID is used in reference to time, both in the sense of as soon and as often as. The meaning may be that the threatened visitation shall come soon and be frequently repeated. There are three interpretations of the last clause, one of which supposes it to mean, that the mere report of the approaching scourge should fill them with distress ; another, that the efiiect of the report should be unmixed distress ; a third, that nothing but a painful experience would enable them to understand the lesson which the Prophet was commissioned to teach them. nyiDJi' meaning simply what is heard, may of course denote either rumour or revelation. The latter seems to be the meaning in ver. 9, where the noun stands connected with the same verb as here. Whether this verb means simply to perceive or hear, may be considered doubtful ; if not, the preference is due to the third interpretation above given, viz., that nothing but distress or sufl'ering could make them understand or even attend to the message from Jehovah. 20. For the bed is too short to stretch one's self, and the covering too narrow to wrap one's self. This is probably a proverbial description of a perplexed and comfortless condition. Jerome absurdly makes the verse a description of idolatry considered as a spiritual adultery. The 3 before the last infinitive may be a particle of time, meaning ichen one would wrap himself in it, which is the explanation given by Cocceius. The connection with the foregoing verse is this : you cannot fully understand the lessons •which I teach you now until your bed becomes too short, &c. 21. For Wee mount Icrazim shall Jehovah rise up, like the valley in Gibeon shall he rage, to do his work, his strange tvork, and to perform his task, his strange task. Into such a condition as that just described they Ver. 22, 23.] ISAIAE XXVIII. 457 shall be brought, for some of the most fearful scenes of ancient histoiy are yet to be repeated. Interpreters are not agreed as to the precise events refen-ed to in the first clause. The common opinion is, that it alludes to the slaughter of the Philistines, described in 2 Sam. v. 18-25, and 1 Chron. xiv. 9-16, in the latter of which places Giheon is substituted for Geba. The valley meant will then be the valley of Rephaim. Ewald, on the contraiy, applies the clause to the slaughter of the Canaanites by Joshua, when the sun stood still on Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon (Joshua X. 7-15). Still another hypothesis is that of Hendewerk, who applies the first part of the clause to the breach of Uzzah (H-Ty f^S) described in 2 Sam. vi. 6-8, and the last to the slaughter of Israel in the valley of Achor (Joshua vii. 1-26). The only argument in favour of this forced inter- pretation is, that these were cases in which God took vengeance, not of strangers merely, but of his own people. But as there is no mention of a mountain in the case of Uzzah, nor of Gibeon in that of Achan, nor of Perez or Perazim in that of Joshua, neither Hendewerk's hypothesis nor Ewald's is so probable as that of Gesenius and most other writers, which refers the whole clause to the double slaughter of the Philistines by David. That these were foreigners and heathen, only adds to the force of the threatening, by making it to mean that as God had dwelt with these in former times, he was now about to deal with the unbelieving and unfaithful sons of Israel. It is indeed not only implied but expressed, that he intended to depart from his usual mode of treating them, in which sense the judgments here denounced are called stnou/e works, i. e. foreign from the ordinary course of divine providence. The English word strange is here the only satisfactory equivalent to the two Hebrew adjectives IT and n*"l53. The idea that pun- ishment is God's strange work because at variance with his goodness, is not only less appropriate in this connection, but inconsistent with the tenor of Scripture, which describes his vindicatory justice as an essential attribute of his nature. The unusual collocation of the words "iT and i^*"??? has led some to explain them as the predicates of short parenthetical propositions {strange will he his work, &c.). But most interpreters, with greater probabiHty, suppose the adjectives to be prefixed for the sake of emphasis. Like mount Ferazim is a common idiomatic abbreviation of the phrase as in (or at) mount Perazim. . 22. And now scoff not, lest your hands he strong ; for a consumption and decree (or even a decreed consumption) I have heard from the Lord Jehovah of hosts, against (or upon) the whole earth. Some versions retain the reflexive form of the first verb ; others make it a frequentative ; but it seems to be simply intensive or emphatic. Bands, i. e. bonds or chains, is a common figure for afflictions and especially for penal sufferings. To strengthen these bands is to aggravate the suffering. The last clause represents the threatened judgments as inevitable, because determined and revealed by God himself. The form of expression is partly borrowed from chap. X. 23. 23. Give ear and hear my voice ; hearken and hear my speech. This formula invites attention to what follows as a new view of the subject. The remainder of the chapter contains an extended illustration drawn from the processes of agriculture. Interpreters, although agi'eed as to the import of the figui'es, are divided with respect to their design and application. Some regard the passage as intended to illustrate, in a general way, the wisdom of the divine dispensations. Others refer it most specifically to the delay of judgment on the sinner, and conceive the doctrine of the passage to 458 ISAIAH XXVIII. [Vek. 24, 25. be this, that althongli God is not always punishing, any more than the husbandman is always ploughing or always threshing, he will punish at last. A third interpretation makes the prominent idea to be this, that although God chastises his own people, his ultimate design is not to destroy but to purify and save them. To these must be added, as a new hypothesis, the one maintained by Hitzig and Ewald, who reject entirely the application of the passage to God's providential dealings, and apply it to the conduct of men, assuming that the Prophet's purpose was to hold up the proceedings of the husbandman as an example to the scoffers whom he is addressing. As the farmer does not always plough or always thresh, nor thresh all grains alike, but has a time for either process and a method for each case, so should you cease now from scoffing and receive instruc- tion. To this explanation it may be objected, first, that the comparison contained in the passage does not really illustrate the expediency of the course proposed ; and secondly, that even if it did, the illustration would be too extended and minute for a doctrine so familiar and intelligible. The objection to the third interpretation is, that the obvious design for which the comparison is introduced is not to comfort but alarm and warn. The first interpretation is too vague and unconnected with the context. The preference is therefore, on the whole, due to the second, which sup- poses the Prophet to explain by this comparison the long forbearance of Jehovah, and to shew that this forbearance was no reason for believing that his threatenings would never be fulfilled. As the husbandman ploughs and harrows, sows and plants, before he reaps and threshes, and in thresh- ing employs difierent modes and dift'erent implements, according to the nature of the gi'ain, so God allows the actual infliction of his wrath to be preceded by what seems to be a period of inaction but is really one of pre- paration, and conforms the strokes themselves to the capacity and guilt of the ti'ansgressor. 24. Does the ploughman plough every clay to sow? Does he open and level his ground ? The common version all day, though it seems to be a literal translation, does not convey the sense of the original expression, which is used both here and elsewhere to mean all the time or ahvays. (Gill : he may plough a whole day together when he is at it, but he does not plough every day in the 3'car ; he has other work to do besides plough- ing.) The interrogation may be confined to the first clause, and the second construed as an exhortation : (no) let hi:n open and level his ground.''. But as there is a difficulty then in explaining what is meant by opening the ground, as distinct from opening the furrows with the plough, most inter- preters suppose the interrogation to extend through the verse, and make the second clause a repetition of the first, with an additional reference to haiTowing. As if he laad said, Is the ploughman always ploughing ? is he always ploughing and harrowing ? Kimchi explains the last clause thus, as an answer to the question in the first : [no) he will loose (his oxen) and harrow his ground. 25. Does he not, when he has levelled the surface of it, cast abroad dill, and scatter cummin, and set wheat in roivs, aud barley (in the place) marked out, and spelt in his border ? That is to say, he attends to all these pro- cesses of husbandry successively, with due regard to time and place, and to the various crops to be produced. The words mit^ aud |0D3 are by some explained as epithets of the grain ; principal wheat, appointed or scaled barley. Ewald makes them descriptive of the soil ; wheat in the best ground, barley in the rough ground. But the explanation best sustained Ver. 26-28.] ISAIAE XXVIII. 459 by usage and analogy is that of Gesenius, who takes ]0D3 in the sense of appointed, designated, and rniEy iu that of a row or series. This agrees well with the verb D^ as denoting, not an indiscriminate sowing, but a careful planting, which is said to be still practised in the oriental culture of wheat, and is thought by Gesenius and others to have been one of the causes of the wonderful fertility of Palestine in ancient times. The suffix in iri73J probably relates to the farmer, and the noun to the edge of the field in which the other grains are sown or planted. The reference of the suffix to pD3j or to the several preceding nouns, is very forced. Gesenius, in order to retain the supposed paronomasia of niys^'l VTW, gives his version of this clause the form of doggerel — (Waizen in Reihen und Gerste hinein.) 26. So teaches him aright his God instructs him. This is the form of the Hebrew sentence, in which his God is the grammatical subject of both the verbs between which it stands. The English idiom requires the noun to be prefixed, as in the common version, and by Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson. tSDt^O? means according to what is right, i.e. correctly. The verse refers even agricultural skill to divine instruction. As parallels the commentators quote, from the Wisdom of Solomon, (vii. 16) yiuoyiav h'^h v-^laTo-j sxTifffisvYiv, and from the Georgics, (i. 157), Prima Ceres ferro mortales vertere terram instituit. Joseph Kimchi thus explains the verse : so he (the husbandman) chastises it (the ground, as) his God teaches him. 27. For not xvith tJie sledge must dill he threshed, or the cart-ivheel turned upon cummin; for with the stick must dill he heaten, and cummin with the rod. Having drawn an illustration from the husbandman's regard to times and seasons, he now derives another from his different modes of threshing out the difierent kinds of grain. The semina infirmiora, as Jerome calls them, are not to be separated by the use of the ponderous sledge or waggon, both of which are common in the East, but by that of the flail or switch, as better suited to their nature. The minute description of the oriental threshing-machines belongs more properly to books of archaeology, especially as nothing more is necessary here to the correct understanding of the verse than a just view of the contrast intended be- tween heavy and light threshing. The '*? at the beginning of the verse might be translated that, and understood as introducing an explicit state- ment as to what it is that God thus teaches him. His God instructs him that, &c. This arrangement of the sentences, though certainly not neces- sary, makes them clearer, and is favoured by the otherwise extraordinary brevity of ver. 26, as well as by its seeming interruption of the intimate connection between vers. 25 and 27. An objection to it, clrawn from the analogy of ver. 29, will be stated in the exposition of that verse. 28. Bread-corn must he crushed, for he xuill not he always threshing it ; so he drives the tvheel of his cart [upon it), hut with his horsemen {ox horses) he does not crush it. The sense of this verse is obscured by an apparent inconsistency between the opening and the closing words. Ewald cuts the knot by reading k^"1-V in the former place. Umbreit takes ^\}2 in its proper sense of hread, and understands the clause to mean that bread is broken by the teeth ! Others make the first clause interrogative, and thus con- form it to the express negation in the last clause. The translation above given supposes a climax beginning in ver. 27 and completed here. Dill and cummin must be threshed out with the flail ; wheat and barley may be more severely dealt with ; they will bear the wheel, but not the hoofs of horses. The first words and the last are then in strict agreement ; bread- 460 ISAIAH XXIX. [Ver. 29. corn must be bruised, but not with horses' hoofs. This is merely sug- gested as an additional attempt to elucidate a passage in detail, the general sense of which is clear enough. The reading VD"lD his hoofs (i. e. the hoofs of his cattle) is unnecessary, as the use of t^12 in the sense of horse appears to be admitted by the best philological authorities. The historical objec- tion, that the horse was not in common use for agricultural purposes, seems to be likewise regarded by interpreters as inconclusive. 29. Uven this [or this also) from Jehovah of hosts comes forth ; he is wonderful in counsel, great in wisdom,. The literal translation of the last clause is, he makes counsel loonderful, he makes wisdom great. The Hiphils may, however, be supposed to signify the exhibition of the qualities denoted by the nouns, or taken as intransitives. The antithesis which some sup- pose the last clause to contain between plan and execution (toondcrful in counsel and excellent in luorlcing) is justified neither by the derivation nor the usage of n*!^W. As to the meaning of the whole verse, some suppose that the preceding illustration is here applied to the divine dispensations ; others, that this is the conclusion of the illustration itself. On the latter hypothesis, the meaning of the verso is, that the husbandman's treatment of the crop, no less than his preparation of the soil, is a dictate of experience under divine teaching. In the other case, the sense is, that the same mode of proceeding, which had just been described as that of a wise husbandman, is also practised by the Most High in the execution of his purposes. Against this, and in favour of the other explanation, it may be suggested, first, that coming forth from God is a phrase not so naturally suited to express his own way of acting as the influence which he exerts on others ; secondly, that this verse seems to correspond, in form and sense, to ver. 27, and to bear the same relation to the difierent modes of threshing that ver. 27 does to the preparation of the ground and the sowing of the seed. Having there said of the latter, that the husbandman is taught of God, he now says of the former, that it also comes forth from the same celestial source. This analogy may also serve to shew that ver. 27 is not a part of ver 28, and thereby to make it probable that '•? at the beginning of the latter is to be translated for, because. According to the view which has now been taken of ver. 29, the general application of the parable to God's dispensations is not formally expressed, but left to the reflection of the reader. CHAPTER XXIX. This chapter consists of two parts, parallel to one another, /. e. each containing the same series of promises and threatenings, but in dilTerent forms. The prophetic substance or material of both is that Zion should be threatened and assailed, yet not destroyed, but on the contrary strengthened and enlarged. These ideas are expressed in the second part much more fully and explicitly than in the first, which must therefore be interpreted according to what follows. In the first part, the threatening is that Zion shall bo assailed by enemies and brought very low, vers. 1-4. The promise is that the assailants shall be scattered like dust and chalf, vanish Uke a dream, and be wholly disappointed in their hostile purpose, vers. 5-8. In the second part, the " Prophet brings distinctly into view, as causes of the threatened judgments, the spiritual intoxication and stupor of the people, their blindness" to revealed truth, their hypocritical formahty, and their Ver. 1.] ISAIAH XXIX. 461 presumptuous contempt of God, vers. 9-16. The judgment itself is de- scribed as a confounding of their fancied wisdom, ver. 14. The added promise is that of an entire revolution, including the destruction of the wicked, and especially of wicked rulers, the restoration of spiritual sight, joy to the meek and poor in spirit, and the final recovery^ of Israel from a state of alienation and disgi'ace, to the semce of Jehovah and to the saving knowledge of the truth, vers. 17-24. The attempts to explain the first part of the chapter as relating to the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, or Titus, have been unsuccessful, partly because the de- scription is not strictly appropriate to either of these events, and partly because the connection with what follows is, on either of these suppositions, wholly obscure. Those who deny the inspii'ation of the writer regard the last part as a visionary anticipation which was never fully verified. Those who admit it are obliged to assume an abrupt transition from the siege of Jerusalem to the calling of the Gentiles. The only key to the consistent exposition of the chapter as a whole is furnished by the hj^othesis already stated, and that the two parts are parallel, not merely successive, and that the second must explain the first. That the second part describes not physical but spiritual evils, is admitted on all hands, and indeed asserted by the Prophet himself. This description is directly and repeatedly applied in the New Testament to the Jews contemporary with our Saviour. It does not follow from this, that it is a specific and exclusive prophecy re- specting them ; but it does follow that it must be so interpreted as to include them, which can only be eflected by regarding this last part of the chapter as descriptive of the Jews, not at one time merely, but throughout the period of the old dispensation, — an assumption fully confirmed by history. The judgment threatened will then be the loss of their peculiar privileges, and an exchange of state w^ith others who had been less favoured, involving an extension of the church beyond its ancient bounds, the destruction of the old abuses, and the final restoration of the Jews themselves. If this be the meaning of the second part, it seems to determine that of the first as a figurative expression of the truth, that the church should suffer but not perish, the imageiy used for this purpose being borrowed from the actual sieges of Jerusalem. Thus understood, the chapter is prophetic of two great events, the seeming destruction of the ancient church, and its repro- duction in a new and far more glorious form, so as not only to include the Gentiles in its bounds, but also the converted remnant of God's ancient people. 1. Woe to Ariel (or alas for Ariel), Ariel, the city David encamped! Add year to year ; let thefeaf^ts revolve. All interpreters agree that Ariel is here a name for Zion or Jerusalem, although they greatly differ in the explanation of the name itself. Besides the explanation which resolves the form into ?^""'l1 (mountain of God), there are two between which in- terpreters are chiefly divided. One of these makes it mean lion of God, i. e. a lion-like champion or hero (2 Sam. xxiii. 20, Isa. xxxiii. 7), here applied to Jerusalem as a city of heroes which should never be subdued. This ex- planation is retained not only by Gesenius, but by Ewald, who, to make the application more, appropriate, translates it lioness of God. The other hypothesis explains it, from an Arabic analogy, to mean the hearth or fire- place of God, in which sense it seems to be applied to the altar byEzekiel, (xliii. 15, 16), and the extension of the name to the whole city is the more natural because Isaiah himself says of Jehovah that his fire is in Zion and his furnace in Jerusalem (chap. xxxi. 9). Hitzig supposes the name to be 462 ISAIAR XXIX. [Ver. 2-4. here used in the first sense, but with an allusion to the other in the following verse. This double usage is the less improbable, because the name is evi- dently meant to be enigmatical. The Rabbins combine the two explanations of the Hebrew word by supposing that the altar was itself called the lion of God, because it devoured the victims like a lion, or because the fire on it had the appearance of a lion, or because the altar (or the temple) was in shape like a lion, that is, narrow behind and broad in front ! The city David encamped is an elliptical expression, not unlike the Hebrew one, in which the relative must be supplied, or ^T}\? supposed to govern the whole pln-ase in n3n as a noun. Here again there seems to be a twofold allusion to David's siege and conquest of Zion (2 Sam. v. 7), and to his afterwards encamping, ?'. e. dwelling there (2 Sam. v. 9). Add year to year is under- stood by Grotius to mean that the prophecy should be fulfilled in two years, or in other words, that it was uttered just two years before Sennacherib's invasion. Upon this clause Hitzig founds an ingenious but complex and artificial theory as to the chronology of this whole passage (chaps, xxviii.— xxxi.). Most interpreters explain the words as simply meaning, let the years roll on with the accustomed routine of ceremonial services. Many of the older writers take the last words of the verse in this sense, let them kill (or more specifically, cut off the heads of) the sacrijiciai victims ; but it is more in accordance both with the usage of the words and with the context, to give D^jin its usual sense oi feasts or festivals, and P|P.3 that of moving in a circle or revolving, which it has in Hiphil. The phrase then corresponds exactly to the one preceding, add year to year. 2. And I ivill distress Ariel, and there shall be sadness and sorroir, and it shall be to me as Ariel. Let the years revolve and the usual routine con- tinue, but the time is coming when it shall be interrupted. The words translated sadness and sorrow are collateral derivatives from one root. The best imitation of the form of the original is that given by Vitringa [moeror ac moestitia). The last clause may be either a continuation of the threaten- ing or an added promise. If the former, the meaning probably is, it shall he indeed a furnace or aii altar, i. e. when the fire of affliction or divine wrath shall be kindled on it. If the latter, it shall still he a city of heroes, and as such withstand its enemies. Or, combining both the senses of the enigmatical name, it shall burn like a furnace, but resist like a lion. 3. And I xcill camp ayainst thee round about (literally, as a ring or circle), and push against thee (or press upon thee with) a post (or body of troops), and raise against thee ra)nparts (or entrenchments). The siege of Ariel is now represented as the work of God himself, which although it admits of explanation as referring merely to his providential oversight and control, seems here to be significant, as intimating that the siege described is not a literal one. The dubious phrase ^^''^ yb]} Til^'l is understood byEwald aa meaning, / enclose thee with a wall, or literally, close a wall around thee. To the supposition that these words relate to Sennacherib's attack upon Jerusalem, it has been objected that the history contains no record of an actual siege. Henderson, indeed, says that there cannot be a doubt that they occupied themselves with hostile demonstrations while the negotiations were going forward ; but, in spite of this assurance, there is still room for suspicion that this verse does not, after all, relate to the Assyrian incursion. 4. And thou shult be brought down, out of the ground shall thou speak, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be like {the voice of) a spirit, out of the ground, and out of the dust shall thy speech mutter. Grotius understands tliis of the people's hiding themselves in subterranean Ver. 5, 6.] ISAIAH XXIX. 463 retreats during Sennaclierib's invasion, while Vitringa shews from Josephus that such measures were actually adopted during the Koman siege of Jeru- salem. But the simple meaning naturally suggested by the words is, that the person here addressed, to wit, the city or its populatioij, should be weakened and humbled. Some suppose the voice to be compared with that of a dying man or a departing spirit ; others, with that of a necromancer who pretended to evoke the dead. To this last the terms of the comparison would be the more appropriate if, as the modern writers commonly suppose, the ancient necromancers used ventriloquism as a means of practising upon the credulous. The last verb properly denotes any feeble inarticulate sound, and is applied in chap. x. 14, and xxxviii. 14, to the chirping or twittering of birds. 5. Then shall he Uke fine dust the multitude of thy stranr/ers, and like passing chaff the multitude of the terrible ones, and it shall be in a moment suddenly. Calvin understands by strangers foreign allies or mercenary troops, which he supposes to be here described as powerless and as enduring but a moment. Others among the older writers take strangers more cor- rectly in the sense of enemies, but understand the simile as merely descrip- tive of their numbers and velocity. It is now very commonly agreed, however, that the verse describes their sudden and complete dispersion. The absence of hut at the beginning, or some other indication that the writer is about to pass from threats to promises, although it renders the connection more obsciire, increases the effect of the description. Ewald, instead of multitude has tumidt, which is the primary meaning of the word ; but the former is clearly established by usage, and is here much more appropriate, since it is not the noise of a great crowd, but the crowd itself, that can be likened to fine dust ovfiitting chaff, as Lowth poetically renders it. The terms of this verse readily suggest the sudden fall of the Assyrian host, nor is there any reason for denying that the Prophet had a view to it in choosing his expressions. But that this is an explicit and specific pro- phecy of that event is much less probable, as well because the terms are in themselves appropriate to any case of sudden and complete dispersion, as because the context contains language wholly inappropriate to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army. To the Babylonian and Roman sieges, which were both successful, the verse before us is entirely inapplicable. These con- siderations, although negative and inconclusive in themselves, tend strongly to confirm the supposition founded on the last part of the chapter, that the first contains a strong metaphorical description of the evils which Jerusalem should suffer at the hands of enemies, but without exclusive reference to any one siege, or to sieges in the literal sense at all. That the evils which the last part of the chapter brings to light are of a spiritual nature, and not confined to any single period, is a fact which seems to warrant the conclusion, or at least to raise a strong presumption, that the Ariel of this passage is Zion or Jerusalem considered only as the local habitation of the church. 6. From with (i. e. from the presence of) Jehovah of hosts shall it be visited with thunder, and earthquake, and great noise, tempest and storm, and flame of devouring fire. Vitringa refers this to the singular phenomena which are said to have preceded and accompanied the taking of Jerusalem by Titus. This application may be admitted, in the same sense and on the same ground with the allusion to Sennacherib's host in the foregoing verse. But that the prophecy is not a prophecy of either catastrophe, may be in- ferred from the fact that neither is described in the context. Indeed, the direct application of this verse to the fall of Jerusalem is wholly inadmis- 464 ISAIAH XXIX. [Yer. 7, 8. sible, since the preceding verse describes the assailants as dispersed, and this appears to continue the description. As "IpSJ!^ can be either the third person feminine or the second masculine, the verse may be considered as addressed directly to the enemy ; or the verb may agi-ee with pon as a feminine noun, in which way it is construed elsewhere (Job xxxi. 34), although evidently masculine in ver. 8 below. The city cannot be addressed, because the verb must then be feminine, and the preceding verse forbids the one before us to be taken as a threatening against Ariel. 7. Tlien shall be as a dream, a vh.ion of the night, the multitude of all the nations fighting against Ariel, even all that fight against her and her munition, and distress her. Calvin understands this to mean that the enemy shall take her unawares, as one awakes from a dream. The modern writers generally imderstand both this verse and the next as meaning that the enemy himself should be wholly disappointed, and his vain hopes vanish as a dream. But the true sense appears to bo the one proposed by Grotius and others, who regard the comparisons in these two verses as distinct though similar, the enemy being first compared to a dream and then to a dreamer. He w'ho threatens your destruction shall vanish like a dream, par levihus ventis volucrique simillima somno. He who threatens your destruction shall awake as from a dream, and find himself cheated of his expectations, for, as Grotius beautifully says, spes sunt vigilaniium somnia. These seem to be the two comparisons intended, both of which are perfectly appropriate, and one of which might readily suggest the other. The feminine pronouns may refer to Ariel as itself a feminine, or to the city which it represents. 8. And it shall be as lohen the hungry dreams, and lo he eats, and he awales, and his sotd is empty ; and as tvhen the thirsty dreams, and lo he drinks, and he awakes, and lo he is faint and his frccep>ts of men : but a simpler construction, and one favoured by the accents, is to take mOTO as a neuter adjective without a substantive in apposition with niVO. This clause might be simply understood to mean, that they served God merely in obedience to human authority. It would then of course imply no censure on the persons thus commanding, but only on the motives of those by whom they were obeyed. In our Saviour's application of the passage to the hyprocrites of his day (Mat. xv. 7-9), he explains their teachings as human corruptions of the truth, by which the commandment of God was made of none effect. The expressions of the Prophet may have been so chosen as to be applicable either to the reign of Hezekiah, when the worship of Jehovah was enforced by human authority, or to the time of Christ, when the rulers of the people had corrupted and made void the law by their additions. It is unnecessary to suppose, with Henderson, that this corruption had already reached a great height when Isaiah wrote. The apparent reference, in this description, to the Jews, not at one time only but throughout their history, tends to confirm the supposition, that the sub- ject of the prophecy is not any one specific juncture, and that the first part of the chapter is not a prediction of any one siege of Jerusalem exclusively. 14. Therefore, behold, luill add (or continue) to treat thisjicojjle strangely, very strangely, and uith strangeness, and the wisdom (fits wise ones shall he lost (or perish), and the prxidence of its prudent ones shall hide itsvlf, i. e. for shame, or simply disappear. This is the conclusion of the sentence which begins with the preceding verso. Because they draw near, &c., Vee. 15-17.] ISAIAH XXIX. 467 therefore I will add, &c. fl''Pi'' is explained by some as an unusual form of the' participle for ^pi* ; but the latest interpreters make it as usual the third person of the future, and regard the construction as elliptical. Behold, I [am he who) will add, &c. See a similar construction of the preterite in chap, xxviii. 16. Kv?n is strictly to inahe wonderful, but when applied to persons, to treat luonderfid, i. e. in a strange or extra- ordinary manner. The idiomatic repetition of the verb with its cognate noun (^^^?J ^<'.?1l') cannot be fully reproduced in English. The literal translation [to make wonderful and wonder) would be quite unmeaning to an English reader. The nature of the judgment here denounced seems to shew that the corruption of the people was closely connected with undue reliance upon human wisdom. (Compare chap. v. 21.) 15. Woe unto those (or alas for those) goinrj deep from Jehovah to hide counsel (/. e. laying their plans deep in the hope of hiding them from God), and their works (are) in the dark, and they say, Who sees us, and who knoivs us f This is a further description of the people or their leaders, as not only wise in their own conceit, but as impiously hoping to deceive God, or elude his notice. The absurdity of such an expectation is exposed in the following verse. In the last clause of this, the interrogative form implies negation. 16. Your j)erversion ! Is the potter to be reckoned as the clay (and nothing more), that the thing made should say of its maker. He made me not, and the thing formed say of its former, He does not understand? The attempt to hide anything from God implies that he has not a perfect knowledge of his creatures, which is practically to reduce the maker and the thing made to a level. With this inversion or perversion of the natural relation between God and man, the Prophet charges them in one word (D??i?in). The old construction of this word as nominative to the verb {your turning of things upside down shall he esteemed, &c.) appears to be forbidden by the accents and by the position of the D5<. That of Barnes {your perverseness is as if the potter, &c.) arbitrarily supplies not only an additional verb but a particle of comparison. Most of the recent writers are agreed in construing the first word as an exclamation, oh your perverseness I i. e. how perverse you are ! in which sense it had long before been paraphrased by Luther [wie seyd ihr so verkehrt ■). Both the derivation of the word, however, and the context here seem to demand the sense perversion rather than perverseness. The verse seems intended not so much to rebuke their perverse disposition, as to shew that by their conduct they subverted the distinction between creature and Creator, or placed them in a preposterous relation to each other. Thus understood, the word may be thus paraphrased : (this is) your {own) perversion {of the truth, or of the true relation between God and man). The English Version puts the following nouns in regimen (like the jMtters clay), but the other construction {the jitter like the clay) is so plainly required by the context, that Gesenius and others disregard the accents by which it seems to be forbidden. Hitzig, however, denies that the actual accentuation is at all at variance with the new construction. The preposition ? is here used in its proper sense as signifying general relation, tuilh respect to, as to. By translating ^? for, the connection of the clauses becomes more obscure. 17. Is it not yet a very Utile while, and Lebanon shall turn (or be turned) to the fruitful field, and the fruitful field be reckoned to the forest (i. e. reckoned as belonging it, or as being itself a forest) ? The negative inter- rogation is one of the strongest forms of affirmation. That ?^"??n is not 468 ISAIAH XXIX. [Ver. 18-20. the proper name of the mountain, may be inferred from the article, which is not prefixed to Lebanon. The mention of the latter no doubt suggested that of the ambiguous term Canticl, which is both a proper name and an appellative. For its sense and derivation see the commentary on chap. X. 18. The metaphors of this verse evidently signify a great revolution. Some suppose it to be meant that the lofty (Lebanon) shall be humbled, and the lowly (Carmel) exalted. Bat the comparison is evidently not between the high and the low, but between the cultivated and the wild, the field and the forest. Some make both clauses of the verse a promise, by explaining the last to mean that what is now esteemed a fi-uitful field shall then appear to be a forest in comparison. But the only natural inter- pretation of the verse is that which regards it as prophetic of a mutual change of condition, the first becoming last and the last first. If, as we have seen sufficient reason to believe, the previous context has respect to the Jews under the old dispensation, nothing can be more appropriate or natural than to understand the verse before, as foretelling the excision of the unbelieving Jews, and the admission of the Gentiles to the church. 18. And in that day shall the deaf ear hear the words of the hook (or writing), ajid out of ohscurity and darkness shall the eyes of the blind see. This is a further description of the change just predicted under otuor figures. As the forest was to be transformed into a fruitful field, so the blind should be made to see, and the deaf to hear. There is an obvious allusion to the figm-e of the sealed book or wTiting in vers. 13, 14. The Jews could only plead obscurity or ignorance as an excuse for not understanding the revealed vnH. of God. The Gentiles, in their utter destitution, might be rather likened to the blind who cannot read, however clear the light or plain the WTiting, and the deaf who cannot even hear what is read by others. But the time was coming when they, who would not break the seal or learn the letters of the written word, should be abandoned to their chosen state of ignorance, while on the other hand, the blind and deaf, whose case before seemed hopeless, should begin to see and hear the revelation once entirely inaccessible. The perfect adaptation of this figurative language to express the new relation of the Jews and Gentiles after the end of the old economy, aff'ords a new proof that the prophecy relates to that event. 19. And the humble shall add joy {i. e. shall rejoice more and more) in Jehovah, and the poor among men in the Holy One of Israel shall rejoice. As the preceding verse describes the happy effect of the promised change upon the intellectual views of those who should experience it, so this de- scribes its influence in the promotion of their happiness. Not only should the ignorant be taught of God, but the wretched should be rendered happy in the enjoyment of his favour. The poor of men, i. e. the poor among them. 20. For the violent is at an end, and the scoffer ceaseth, and all the natchers for injustice are cut off. Amain cause of the happiness foretold will be the weakening or destruction of all evil influences, here reduced to the three great classes of violent wrong-doing, impious contempt of truth and goodness, and malignant treachery or fraud, which watches for the oppor- tunity of doing evil, with as constant vigilance as ought to be employed in watching for occasions of redressing wrong and doing justice. This is a change which, to some extent, has always attended the diflusion of the true religion. Gcsenius connects this verse with the foregoing as a statement of the cause for which the humble would rejoice, viz. that the oppressor is no more, &c. But this construction is precluded by the fact, that wherever men are said to rejoice in Uod, he is himself the subject of their joy. It is, Ver. 21-23.J ISAIAH XXIX. 469 however, a mere question of grammatical arrangement, not affecting the general import of the passage. 21, Makiny a man a sinner for a word, and for him disputing in the gate they laid a snare, and turned aside the righteous through deceit. An amphfi- cation of the last phrase in the foregoing verse. Some understand the first clause to mean, seducing people into sin by their words. It is much more common to explain 1^"? as meaning a judicial cause or matter, which use of the word occurs in Exodus xviii. 16. The whole phrase may then mean unjustly condemning a man in his cause, which agrees well with the obvious allusion to forensic process in the remainder of the verse. Ewald, however, takes "^^^^ in the same sense with the English and many other early versions, which explain the clause to mean accusing or condemning men for a mere error of the tongue or lips. The general sense is plain, viz. that they embrace all opportunities and use all arts to wrong the guiltless. Another old interpretation, now revived by Ewald, is that of H'^Dio as meaning one that reproves others. Most of the modem writers take it in the sense of arguing, disputing, pleading, in the gate, i. e. the court, often held in the gates of oriental cities. The other explanation supposes the gate to be mentioned only as a place of public concourse. Ewald translates it in the market- place. By the turning aside of the righteous (i. e. of the party who is in the_right), we are here to understand the depriving him of that which is his due. For the meaning and usage of the figure, see the commentary on chap. x. 2. -inh? has been variously understood to mean through falsehood (with particular reference to false testimony), or by means of a judgment which is null and void, or for nothing, i. e. without just cause. In either case the phrase describes the perversion or abuse of justice by dishonest means, and thus agrees with the expressions used in the foregoing clauses. 22. Therefore thus saith Jehovah to the house of Jacob, he loho redeemed Abraham, Not now shall Jacob be ashamed, and not noio shall his face turn p)ale. The Hebrew phrase not now does not imply that it shall be so here- after, but on the contrary, that it shall be so no more. Gesenius and others render ??? of or concerning, because Jacob is immediately afterwards men- tioned in the third person ; but this might be the case consistently with usage, even in a promise made directly to himself. That "lE^'N refers to the remoter antecedent, must be obvious to every reader ; if it did not, Jacob would be described as the redeemer of Abraham. There is consequently not the slightest ground for Lowth's connection of the text by reading ?^ instead of ?^ {the God of the house of Jacob). There is no need of referring the redemption of Abraham to bis remos'al from a land of idolatry. The phrase may be naturally understood, either as signifying deliverance from danger and the di^dne protection generally, or in a higher sense as signifying Abraham's conversion and salvation. Seeker and Lowth read lisn'' for mn\ because paleness is not a natural indication of confusion. Other interpreters affirm that it is ; but the true explanation seems to be that shame and fear are here combined as strong and painful emotions from which Jacob should be henceforth free. Calvin and others understand by Jacob here the patriarch himself, poetically represented as beholding and sympa- thizing with the fortunes of his own descendants. Most interpreters suppose the name to be employed like Israel in direct application to the race itself. The reasons for these contrary opinions will be more clear from the following verse. 23. For in his seeing (i.e. when he sees) his children, the ivork of my hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and saiictify (or yes, they shall sanctify) the Holy One of Jacob, and the God of Israel they shall 470 ISAIAH XXIX. [Yer. 24. Jear. The verse thus translated, according to its simplest and most ob- vious sense, has much perplexed interpreters. The difficulties chiefly urged are, first, that Jacob should be said to see his children in the midst of him- self' (13">i?2) ; secondly, that his thus seeing them should be the occasion of their giorify'mg God. The last incongruity is only partially removed by making the verb indefinite, as Ewald does (wird man heiligen) ; for it may still be asked why Jacob is not himself represented as the agent. To remove both difliculties, some explain the verse to mean, when he (that is) his children see the icork of my hands (\iz., my providential judgments), they shall sanctify, &c. It is evident, however, that in this construction the men- tion of the children is entirely superfluous, and throws the figures of the text into confusion. Ewald accordingly omits Vl?'' as a gloss, which is merely giving up the attempt at explanation in despair. Gesenius, on the other hand, in his translation, cuts the knot by omitting the singular pro- noun, and making his children the sole subject of the verb. What follows is suggested as a possible solution of this exegetical enigma. We have seen reason, wholly independent of this verse, to believe that the immediately preceding context has respect to the excision of the Jews and the vocation of the Gentiles. Now the latter are described in the New Testament as Abraham's (and consequently Jacob's) spiritual progeny, as such, distin- guished from his natural descendants. May not these adventitious or adopted children of the patriarch, constituted such by the electing grace of God, be here intended by the phrase, the icork of my hands ^ If so, the ■whole may thus be paraphrased : when he (the patriarch, supposed to be again alive, and gazing at his oflspring) shall behold his children (not by nature, butj, created such by me, in the midst of him [i.e. in the midst, or in the place, of his natural descendants), they {i.e. he and his descendants jointly) shall unite in glorifying God as the autlior of this great revolution. This explanation of the verse is the more natural, because such would no doubt be the actual feelings of the patriarch and his descendants, if he should really be raised from the dead, and permitted to behold what God has wrought, with respect both to his natural and spiritual oftspi'ing. To the passage thus explained a striking parallel is found in chap. xlix. 18-21, where the same situation and emotions here ascribed to the patriarch are predicated of the church personified, to whom the Prophet says, " Lift up thine eyes round about and behold, all these gather themselves together, they come to thee. The children which thou shalt have after thou hast lost the others shall say, &c. Then shalt thou say in thine heart. Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a cap- tive, and removing to and fro ? And who hath brought up these '? Behold, I alone was left; these, where were they?" For the use of the word sanctify, in reference to God as its object, see the note on chap. viii. 13. The Holy One of Jacob is of course identical in meaning with the Holy One of Israel, which last phrase is explained in the note on chap. i. 4. The emphatic mention of the Holy One of Jacob and the God of Israel as the object to be sanctified, implies a relation still existing between all be- lievers and their spiritual anccstrj-, as well as a relation of identity between the Jewish and the Christian church. 24. Tlien shall the erriny in spirit knoic irisdom, and the murmurers (or rebels) shall receive instruction. These words would be perfectly appropriate as a general description of the reclaiming and converting influence to bo exerted upon men in general. But under tliis more vague and compre- hensive sense, the context, and especially the verse immediately preceding, Ver. 24.] ISAIAH XXX. 471 seems to shew that there is one more specific and significant included. If the foregoing verse predicts the reception of the Gentiles into the family of Israel, and if this reception, as we learn from the New Testament, was connected with the disinheriting of most of the natural descendants, who are, nevertheless, to be restored hereafter, then the promise of this final restoration is a stroke still wanting to complete the fine prophetic picture now before us. That finishing stroke is given in this closing verse, which adds to the promise that the Gentiles shall become the heirs of Israel, another that the heirs of Israel according to the flesh shall themselves be restored to their long-lost heritage, not by excluding their successors in their turn, but by peaceful and brotherly participation with them. This application of the last part of the chapter to the calling of the Gentiles and the restoration of the Jews has been founded, as the reader will observe, not on any forced accommodation of particular expressions, but on various detached points, all combining to confirm this exegetical hj'pothesis as the only one which furnishes a key to the consistent exposition of the chapter as a concatenated prophecy, without abrupt transitions or a mixture of incongruous materials. CHAPTER XXX. This chapter contains an exposure of the sin and folly of ancient Israel in seeking foreign aid against their enemies, to the neglect of God, their rightful sovereign and their only strong protector. The costume of the prophecy is borrowed from the circumstances and events of Isaiah's own times. Thus Egypt is mentioned in the first part of the chapter as the chosen ally of the people, and Assyria in the last part as the dreaded enemy. There is no need, however, of restricting what is said to that period exclusively. The presumption, as in all such cases, is, that the description was designed to be more general, although it may contain allu- sions to particular emergencies. Keliance upon human aid, involving a distrust of the divine promises, was a crying sin of the ancient church, not at one time only, but throughout her history. To denounce such sins, and threaten them with condign punishment, was no small part of the prophetic office. The chi'onological hypotheses assumed by different writers with respect to this chapter are erroneous, only because too specific and exclu- sive. Thus Jerome refers it to the conduct of the Jews in the days of Jeremiah, Ivimchi to their conduct in the reign of Ahaz, Jarchi to the con- duct of the ten tribes in the reign of Hoshea. Vitringa takes a step in the right direction, by combining Israel and Judah as included in the censure. Some of the later writers assume the existence of an Egyptian party in the reign of Hezekiah, who negotiated with that power against the will or without the knowledge of the king. But even if this fact can be infeiTed from Rabshakeh's hypothetical reproach in chap, xxxvi. 6, it does not follow that this was the sole subject or occasion of the prophecy. It was clearly intended to reprove the sin of seeking foreign aid without divine permission ; but there is nothing in the terms of the reproof confining it to any single case of the offence. This chapter may be divided into three parts. In the fii'st, the Prophet shews the sin and folly of relying upon Egypt, no doubt for protection against Assyria, as these were the two great powers between which Israel was continually oscillating, almost constantly at war with one and in alliance with the other, vers. 1-7. In the last part, he describes the Assyrian power as broken by an immediate divine inter- 472 ISAIAU XXX. lVei;. 1-i. position, precluding the necessit}- of any human aid, vers. 27-83. In the larger intervening part, he shews the connection of this distrust of God and reliance on the creature with the general character and spiritual state of the people, as mnvilling to receive instruction, as dishonest and oppressive, making severe judgments necessary, as a prelude to the glorious change which God would eventually bring to pass, vers. 8-26. 1. Wuc to the dhohedievt children, saith Jehovah, (so disobedient as) to form (or execute) a plan and )iotfrom me, and to weave a web, but not (of) my Spirit, for the sal;e of addimj Mn to sin. Here, as in chap. i. 2, Israel's filial relation to Jehovah is particularly mentioned as an agravation of his ingratitude and disobedience. The infinitives express the respect in which, or the result u-ith which, they had rebelled against Jehovah. The relative construction of the English Version does not materially change the sense. The phrase HDDp "T]b^? has been variously explained. The Peshito makes it mean to pour out libations, probably with reference to some ancient mode of ratifying covenants, and the Septuagint accordingly translates it s'Koiriea.rt cvvdrixag. Cocceius applies it to the casting of molten images (adfunden- dum fusile), De Dieu to the moulding of designs or plots. Kimchi and Calvin derive the words fi-om the root to cover, and suppose the idea here expressed to be that of concealment. Ewald follows J. D. Michaelis in making the phrase mean to weave a xoeh, which agrees well with the context, and is favoared by the similar use of the same verb and noun in chap. xxv. 7. Knobel's objection, that this figui-e is suited only to a case of treachery, has no force, as the act of seeking foreign aid was treasonable under the theocracy, and the design appears to have been formed and executed secretly. (Compare chap. xxix. 15, where the reference may be to the same transaction.) Vitringa, who refers the first part of the chapter to the kingdom of the ten tribes, supposes the sin of seeking foreign aid to be here described as added to the previous sin of worshipping the golden calf. Hitzig supposes the fii-st sin to be that of forsaking Jehovah, the second that of seeking human aid. The simple meaning seems, however, to be that of multiplying or accumulating guilt. DmiD is strongly rendered by the Sep- tuagint apostates, and by the Vulgate deserters, both which ideas may be considered as involved in the translation rebels or rebellious, disobedient or refractory. 2. Those walking to go down to Egypt, and my mouth they have not con- sulted (literally asked), to take refuge in the strength of Pharaoh^ and to trust in the shadow of Egypt. Motion towards Egypt is commonly spoken of in Scripture as downward. U'^'jPT] is commonly explained to mean setting out or setting forxoard ; but De Wette and Ewald omit it altogether, or con- sider it as joined with the other verb to express the simple idea of descent. Hendewerk takes mouth as a specific designation of the Prophet, which is wholly unnecessary. To ask the moulh, or at the mouth, of the Lord, is a phrase used elsewhere in the sense of seeking a divine decision or response. 3. And the strength of Egypt shall be to you for shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt for confusion. 7 i^^C ™^y hare be taken in its frequent sense of becoming or being converted into. The common version of the first ^ by therefore changes the idiomatic form of the original without necessity. 4. For his chiefs are in Zoan, and his ambassadors arrive at Hancs. For the site and political importance of Zoan or Tanis, see the commentary on chap. xix. 11. For lyj' D3n, the Seventy seem to have read 1^2** D3ri, they shall labour in vain. This reading is also found in a few manuscripts Ver. 5, G.] ISAIAH XXX. 473 and approved by Lowth and J. D. Micliaelis. The latter thinks it possible, however, that D:n may denote the Pyramids. The Targum changes Banes into Tahpanhes, and Grotius regards the former as a mere contraction of the latter, which is also the conjecture of ChampoUion. Yitringa identities the D3n of Isaiah with the "Ancigoi Herodotus. This combination is approved by Gesenius and the later writers, who, moreover, identify the Greek aud Hebrew forms with the Egyptian Hnts and the Arabic Ehni's. The city so called was in Middle Egj^pt, south of Memphis. The older writers almost unanimously understand this verse as relating to the envoys of Israel and Judah. Clericus indeed refers the suffixes to Egypt or to Pharaoh, but without a change of meaning, as he supposes the Egyptian envoys to bo such as were sent to meet the others, or to convey the answer to their ap- plications. But some of the late interpreters adopt the same construction with a total change of meaning. Hitzig regards the verse as a contemptu- ous description of the naiTow boundaries and insignificance of Egypt. His (Pharaoh's) ijriiices are in Zoan (the capital), and his heralds (the bearers of his royal mandates) only reach to Hanes (a town of Middle Egypt.) The unnatural and arbitrary character of this interpretation will appear from the curious fact that Ewald, who adopts the same construction of the pro- nouns, makes the whole verse a concession of the magnitude and strength of the Egyptian monarchy. Although his jvinces are at Zoan (in Lower Egypt) and his heralds reach to Hanes (much further south), Ivnobel ob- jects to these constructions, that the phrase. Jus princes are at Zoan, is unmeaning and superfluous. He therefore resuscitates the Septuagint read- ing lyj'''' DJn, and makes the whole mean, that the chiefs of Pharaoh are still at Zoan {i.e. remain inactive there), and that his messengers or commis- saries labour in vain to raise the necessary forces. From these ingenious extravagances it is satisfactory to fall back on the old interpretation, which is also that of Gesenius, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, with this modification in the case of the latter, that he supposes Zoan and Hanes to be mentioned as the royal seats of Sevechus and Tirhakah, to both of whom the applica- tion may have been addressed. 5. All are ashamed of a people who cannot profit them {a people) not for help and not for profit, hut for shame, and also for disgrace. Lowth inserts D^< after ''3, on the authority of four manuscripts. But the ''3 is itself here equivalent to an adversative particle in English, although it really retains its usual meaning, for, hccause. The Hebrew construction is, they are not a profit or a help, for (on the contraiy) they are a disgrace and a reproach. Gesenius regards CJ'''N3"n as an incorrect orthography for t^''inn ; but Maurer and Knobel read it Ci'''5'\'i'\ mv ps cannot mean a land of oppression, in allusion either to the bondage of the Hebrews or to that of the natives (Vitringa), nor a land compressed and narrow in shape (Clericus), but must denote a land of sufl'ering, danger, and privation, such as the gi-eat Arabian desert is to travellers. Those who make pX to mean Egypt explain DHD as referring rather to the people than the country; but if the land referred to is the desert, it must be explained, with the latest German writers, as cither a poetical licence or a grammatical anomaly. The general meaning of the phrase, as all agree, is whence. It is also agreed that two designations of the lion are here used ; but how they mutually diiier is disputed. Calvin has Ico et Ico major; Cocceius, leo animosus et annosus. Luther makes the distinction one of sex {lions and lionesses), which is now regarded as the true distinction, though the first of the two Hebrew words, since Bochart, has been commonly explained to mean the lioness. So Clericus, leccna et leo violentus, and all the recent writers except Hitzig, who makes both the words generic {Leu und Lowe). nySX may be translated adder, viper, asp, or by any other term denoting a venom- Vek. 7, 8.] ISAIAH XXX, 475 ous and deadly serpent. For the meaning of fjSiy?^ ^^ ■, see the note on cliap. xiv. 29. The lions and vipers of this verse are not symbohcal descrip- tions of the Egyptians (Junius), but a poetical description of the desert. Clericus makes even niDilD (Behemoth), an emblem of Egypt, and tran- slates the clause (as an inscription), oratio pronunciata de meridiano hippopotamo ! D'''Tiy or D''"l''y, which Lowth translates too vaguely young cattle, denotes more specifically young asses, or it may be used as a poetical designation of asses in general. That ri'^^^T signifies the hump or bunch of the camel, as explained in the Vulgate (super gibbum cameli), the Peshito, and the Targum, is clear from the context, but not from etymology, as to which interpreters are much divided. The old Jews traced the word to ^^^, honey (because sometimes applied for medicinal purposes), while Henderson explains it by an Arabic analog}^ as meaning the natural furniture of the animal. The ?VL before D^ does not seem to be a mere eiiuivalent to ?^, but rather, as in ver. 5, to mean on account of, for the sake of. 7. Aud Egypt (or the Egyptians) in vain and to no purpose shall they help. Therefore I cry concerning this, their strength is to sit still. This, which is the common English Version of the last clause, is substantially the same with Calvin's. Later writers have rejected it, however, on the ground, that 3l!!1, according to etjonology and usage, does not mean strength but indo- lence. On this supposition, the Vulgate version would be more correct (superbia tantum est, quiesce), T)2li> being then explained as the imperative of T\2^ to cease, to rest. This construction is exactly in accordance with the Masoretic accents, which connect QH with 2m and disjoin it from HSiJ'. But the last word, as now pointed, must be either a noun or an infinitive. Since ^ni occurs elsewhere as a name of Eg}^Dt, most of the modern writers take "iriXlp in the sense of naming, which is fully justified by usage, and understand the clause as contrasting the pretensions of Egypt with its actual performances ; the two antagonist ideas being those of arrogance, or insolence and quiescence, or inaction. Thus Gesenius translates it Gross- maul das still sitzt, and Barnes, the blusterer that sitteth still. Besides the obscurity of the descriptive epithets, the construction is perplexed by the use, first of the feminine singular (nXT), and then of the masculine plural (QH), both in reference to one subject. The common solution is that the former has respect to the country, and the latter to the people. The general meaning of the clause may be considered as determined by the one before it. ?3n and P''1 are nouns used adverbially. Ewald introduces in the last clause a paronomasia which is not in the original {Trotzige das ist Frostige). 8. And now go, torite it with them on a tablet and inscribe it in a book, and let it he for a future day, for ever, to eternity. This, like the similar pre- caution in chap. viii. 1, was intended to verify the fact of the prediction after the event. 2^>5 seems to include the ideas of before them and among them. Knobel infers from this command, that the Prophet's house must have been upon the street or square, in which the prediction was orally delivered. Most interpreters suppose two distinct inscriptions to be here required, one on a solid tablet for public exhibition, and the other on parch- ment or the like for preservation. But Gesenius more naturally under- stands the words n"!*? and 1£!D as equivalents, which is the less improbable, because if a distinction were intended, Ppn would no doubt have been con- nected, not with "^SD but with ni7. Some of the ancient versions exchange "ly for "ly (a testimony for ever), v/hich is adopted by several interpreters on the authority of Deut. xxxi. 19, 21, 26, where the same combination occurs. 476 ISAIAU XXX. [Ver. 9-12. Ewald adds that the idea of testimony is essential, and Knobel that the con- currence of "^V. "13^ would be cacophonus. 9. For a people of rebellion (a rebellious people) is it, lying (or denyim]) children, children (who) are not icillinrj to learn the laio of JehovaJt. By denying children Kimchi understands such as deny their father, Gill, such as falsely pretend to be his children. Hitzig gives the phrase a more specific meaning, as denoting that they would deny the fact of the prediction without some such attestation as the one required in the preceding verse. The English Version makes this verse state the substance of the inscription, that this is a rehellious jyeojjle, &c. 10. Who say to the seers, Ye shall not see, and to the viewers, ye shall not view for xis right thinrjs ; speak unto us smooth things, vieio deceits. There is gi'eat difficulty in translating this verse literally, as the two Hebrew verbs, meaning to see, have no equivalents in English, which of them- selves suggest the idea of prophetic revelation. The common version (see- not, prophesy not), although it conveys the true sense substantially, leaves out of view the near relation of the two verbs to each other in the ori- ginal. In the translation above given, viexo is introduced merely as a SA'nonyme of see, both being here used to express supernatural or prophetic vision. With this use of the verbal noun (seer) we are all familiar through the English Bible. Clericus translates both verbs in the present {nan videtis), which would make the verse a simple denial of the inspiration of the prophets, or of the truth of their communications. Most interpreters prefer the imperative foim, which is certainly implied ; but the safest because the most exact construction is Luther's, which adheres to the strict sense of the future [ye shall not sec). This is of course not given as the actual language of the people, but as the tendency and spirit of their acts. It is an ingenious but extravagant idea of Cocceius, that the first clause of this verse condemns the prohibition of the Scriptures by anti- christian teachers, icho say to those seeing ye shall not see, &c. Even if the lirst clause could be naturally thus explained, the same sense could not pos- sibly be put upon the others. Smooth things or tvords is a common figura- tive tenn for flatteries. Luther's expressive version is preach soft to us. 11. Depart from the tvay, swerve from the ]iath, cause to cease from before ns the Holy One of Israel. The request is not (as Gill suggests) that they would get out of the people's way, so as no longer to prevent their going on in sin, but that they would get out of their own way, i. e. wander from, it or forsake it. This way is explained by Gesenius to be the way of piety and virtue, but by Hitzig more correctly as the way which the}' had hitherto pursued in the discharge of their prophetic functions. Cause to cease from before us, i. e. remove from our sight. It was a common opinion with the older writers, that this clause alludes to Isaiah's frequent repetition of the name Holy One of Israel, and contains a request that they might hear it no more, liut the modern interpreters ajipear to be agreed that the allu- sion is not to the name but the person. Cocceius understands the clause as relating to the antichristian exclusion of Christ from the church as its sanctifier. The form of the preposition (''.3P) is peculiar to this place. 12. Therefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because of your rejecting (or despising) this word, and (because) ye have trusted in oppression and pcrverseness, and have relied thereon. On the hypothesis already stated, that the people had expressed a particular dislike to the title Ifolg One of Isnict, Piscator supposes that the Prophet here intentionally uses it, as if in defiance of their impious belief. Gill even thinks that this word may Ver, 13, 14.J ISAIAE XXX. 477 mean this name. But all this seems to limit the meaning of the terms too much. The ivonl here mentioned is no doubt the law of ver. 9, both being common epithets of revelation generally, and of particular divine communi- cations. (See the note on chap. ii. 3), J, D. MichaeUs ingeniously con- verts the last clause into a description of Eg^-pt, as itself oppressed and therefore unfit to be the protector of Israel. But in order to extract this meaning from the words, he is forced into an arbitrary change of the point- ing. Houbigant and Lowth, instead of \>'^V read ^\>V, thus making it synony- mous with T1?3. The latter word seems to denote perverseness or moral obliquity in general. It is rendered in a strong idiomatic form by Hitzig (Verschmitztheit) and Ewald (Querwege). 13) Therefore shall this iniquity be to you like a breach falliny (or ready to fall) swelling out in a hiyh wall, whose breakiny may come suddenli/, at (any) instant. J. D. Michaelis, by another arbitrary change of text, reads this help instead of this iniquity. The image is that of a wall which is rent or cracked, and, as Gill says, bellies out and bulges. The verse is explained with great unanimity by the interpreters until we come to Hitzig, who puts an entirely new face upon the simile. He objects with some truth to the old interpretation that it assumes without authority a future meaning of the participle /^J, and that it makes the breach or chasm swell and fall, instead of the wall itself. He then infers, from the use of }^p3 in 2 Sam. V. 20, and of ny^n in Isaiah Ixiv. 1, that the former here denotes a tor- rent (Waldstrom), falliny upon (i. e. attacking, as in Josh. xi. 7), and swell- ing ayainst a high wall. The weakest point in this ingenious combination is the necessity of construing ???j with ?, from which it is separated by ny^p. To remove this difficulty, Hendewerk, adopting the same general construction, takes the whole phrase ^^'^ |*.^? in the sense of waterfall. The later German writers, Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, have returned to the old interpretation. Ewald, however, to remove the first of Hitzig's objec- tions, applies ''Si not to the falling of the wall, but to the sinking or ex- tension downwards of the breach itself [ein sinkender Riss) ; while Ivnobel gains the same end by explaining |*^? to be not the aperture or chasm, but the portion of the wall afiected by it. This last explanation had been pre- viously and independently proposed by Henderson, who says that the word here means properly the piece forming one side of the breach or rent. But this is really a mere concession that the strict and usual sense is inappro- priate. With respect to the main point, that the figures were intended to express the idea of sudden destruction, there is and can be no diversity of judgment. In favour of the old interpretation, as compared with Hitzig's, it may be suggested, that the former conveys the idea of a gradual yet sudden catastrophe, which is admirably suited to the context. It is also true, as Umbreit well observes, that the idea of a downfall springing from internal causes is more appropriate in this connection, than that of mere external violence, however overwhelming. 14. And it (the wall) is broken like the breaking of a potter s vessel (any utensil of earthenwhere), broken unsparinyly (or ivithout mercy), so that there is not found in its fracture (or amony its frayments) a sherd to take up fire from a hearth, and to skim (or dip up) water from a jwol. The first words strictly mean, he breaks it, not the enemy, as Ivnobel supposes, which would imply an allusion to the breach made in a siege, but he indefinitely, {. e. some one (Cocceius : aliquis franget), which may be resolved into a passive form as in the Vulgate (comminuetur). It is wholly gratuitous to read 478 ISAIAH XXX. [Ver. 15-17. n^3L*'1. The phrase "^^H!" ^ T\'\T\'2 exhibits a construction wholly foreign from our idiom, and therefore not susceptible of literal translation. The nearest approach to it is, hrealcing he spareth not (or will not spare). Sherd is an old English word, now seldom used, meaning a broken piece of pot- tery or earthenware, and found more frequently in the compound form of potsherd. A potter's vessel, literally, vessel of the potters, npn, except in a sinde instance, is always applied to the taking up of fire. ^t;'n is strictly to remove the surface of a liquid, but may here have gi-eater latitude of meaninc. For ri3|. the English version has pit, Lowth cistern, and most other writers ivell ; but in Ezek. xlvii. 11 it denotes a marsh or pool. Ewald supposes a particular allusion to the breaking of a poor man's earthen pitcher, an idea which had been suggested long before by Gill ; as poor people are icont to do, to take Ji re from the hearth, and ivater out of a well in a piece of broken pitcher. 15. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in returning (or conversion) and rest shall ye he saved, in remaining quiet and in confi- dence shcdl he your strength ; and ye xoould not (or were not tuilling). This overwhelming judgment would be strictly just because they had been fully admonished of the way of safety. Here again Gill supposes a peculiar significance in the repetition of the Holy One of Israel. The rabbinical explanation of na-'m' as a derivative from 3L"^ is gratuitous and certainly not iustified by Num. x. 36. Grotius understands by returning retrocession from the unlawful measures and negotiations. The Targum gives it the more general sense of returning to the law, which agrees in substance with the common explanation of the term as meaning a return to God by repent- ance and conversion. (For the spiritual usage of the verb, see the note on chap. i. 27.) Ihis sense Gesenius mentions as admissible although he prefers to assume a hendiadys, hy returning to re2)ose, which is needless and unnatiual. Hitzig's idea that the word denotes returning to one's self may be considered as included in the other. 16. And ye said, No, for ue will flee upon horses ; therefore shall ye fee ; and upon the swift ivill ice ride ; therefore shall your purs^iers he swift. Calvin points out a double sense of D-13 in this verse, and the modern interpreters express it in their versions, the most successful being that of Ewald, who employs the kindred forms Jliegen and fiehen. This can be per- fectly copied in English by the use of fy and fee ; but it may be doubted whether this is not a mere refinement, as the Hebrew verb in every other case means to fee, and the hope here ascribed to the people is not simply that of going swiftly, but of escaping from the dangers threatened. In ?)? and '?"?.i^, the primary sense of lightness is very often merged into that of rapid motion. Knobel discovers an additional paronomasia in D''p-1D, which he makes perceptible in German by employing the three words, y/iVr/e», Hiehen, flilchtiqen. Many of the older writers use a comparative expression in the 'last clause after the example of the Vulgate {velociores). Grotius ^-ID-liR the specific sense of c.rsulahitis. 17. One thousand from before the rebuke (or menace) of one, from before the rehuJce of five shall ye flee, until ye are left like a mast (or pole) on the top of the mountain, and like the signal on the hill. From the use of the definite article in the last clause, Junius and Tremollius needlessly infer that the meaning is this mountain, this hill, meaning Zion. The pleonastic form one thousand is not urged by any of the German writers as a proof of later date. To supply n particle of comparison {as one) is of Vek. 18.] ISAIAE XXX. 479 course entirely unnecessary. To complete the parallelism, and to conform the expression to Lev. xxvi. 8, Deut. xxxii. 31, Lowth supposses ^??"l (a myriad) to have dropped out of the text, and finds a trace of this oi'iginal reading in the Septuagint version rroXXo'i. Instead of a definite expres- sion, Clericus and others supply omnes. The former emendation, although not adopted, is favoured by Gesenius ; but the later wi'iters reject both, not only as unnecessary, but because, as Hitzig -well observes, such a change would disturb the connection with what follows, the sense being plainly this, that they should flee until they were left, &c. \^'Pi is taken as the name of a tree by Augnsti (Tannenbaum) and Kosenmiiller (pinus), by Gesenius and Ewald as a signal or a signal-pole. In the only two cases where it occurs elsewhere, it has the specific meaning of a mast. The allusion may be simply to the similar appearance of a lofty and solitary tree, or the common idea may be that of a flag-staff, which might be found in either situation. The word beacon, here employed by Gataker and Barnes, is consistent neither with the Hebrew nor the English usage. The idea of the last clause, as expressed by Hitzig, is that no two of them should remain together. (Compare 1 Sam. xi. 11.) 18. And therefore icill Jehovah icait to have mercy upon yon, and therefore ivill he rise up (or he exalted) to pity yon, for a God of judyment is Jehovah ; blessed are all that wait for him. The apparent incongruity of this promise with the threatening which immediately precedes, has led to various constructions of the first clause. The most violent and least satis- factorj' is that which takes 15< in the rare and doubtful sense of but or never i.lieless. This is adopted among recent writers by Gesenius, Barnes, Henderson. Another solution, given by Vitringa, leaves 15< to be under- stood as usiTJil, but converts the seeming promise into a threatening, by explaining HSn^ uUl delay (to be gracious), and D-11J will remain afar off (Jarchi : 'p'p'y^^)- But this is certainly not the obvious and natural meaning of the Prophet's words, nan elsewhere means to wait with earnest expecta- tion and desire, and the Kal is so used in the last clause of this very verse. This objection also lies against Maurer's explanation of the clause as referring to delay of punishment. Hitzig supposes the connection to be this : therefore (because the issue of your present course must be so fatal) he will wait or allow you time for repentance. Knobel applies the whole to God's intended dealings with them after the threatened judgments should have been endured. On the whole, the simplest and most probable conclusion seems to be that P"? has its usual meaning, but refers, as in many other cases, to a remoter antecedent than the words immediately before it. As if the Prophet paused at this point and reviewing his denunciations said, Since this is so, since you must perish if now dealt with strictly, God will allow you space for repentanc-e, he will wait to be gracious, he will exalt himself by shewing mercy. J. H. Michaelis, with much the same effect, refers !?<; to the condition mentioned in ver. 15. Therefore (if j'ou will be quiet and believe) Jehovah will wait, &c. Another difficulty of the same kind has arisen from the next clause, where the justice of God seems to be given as a reason for shewing mercy. Gill removes the difficulty by trans- lating ""S althoxujh ; Henderson by taking tiSC'D in the sense of rectitude, including as a prominent idea faithfulness or truth in the fulfilment of his promises. Another expedient suggested by Gill is to give tiDEi'O the sense oi discretion. That the clause does not relate to righteousness or justice in the strict sense, appears plain from the added benediction upon those who 480 ISAIAH XXX. [Ver. 19, 20. trust Jehovah. One point is universally admitted, namely, that somewhere in this verse is the transition from the tone of threatening to that of promise. The question where it shall be fixed, though interesting, does not affect the general connection or the import of the passage as a whole. E wald strangely adop'.s, as absolutely necessary, Houbicjant's emendation of the text, by readin" 21"'^ for Dn\ and explains the former to mean, does not suffer him- self to be moved (riihrt sich nicht), an explanation scarcely less arbitrary than the criticism on which it is founded. 19. For the people in Zinn shall dwell in Jerusalem ; thou shall weep no more ; he ivill be very (jracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry ; as he hears it he ivill ansicer thee. The position of the first verb in this Eni'lish sentence leaves it doubtful whether it is to be construed with what follows or what goes before. Precisely the same ambiguity exists in the ori>nnal, which may either mean that the people who are now in Zion shall dwell in Jerusalem, or that the people shall dwell in Zion, in Jerusalem. This last is the most natural construction, and the one indicated by the accents. It is adopted in the English Version, but with a needless variation of the particle, in Zion at Jerusalem. According to Henderson, the 3 expresses more strongly the relation of the Jews to Zion as tbeir native home. But this assertion is hardly borne out by the places which he cites (chap. xxi. 13, 1 Kings xvi. 24, 2 Kings v. 23). In the translation above given the Hebrew order is restored. According to these constructions, divell must be taken in the strong sense of remaining or continuing to dwell (Hendewerk), in allusion to the deportation of the rest of Judah (Grotius), or of the ten tribes (Clericus). But a very different construction of the first clause is proposed by Doderlein, and approved by Gesenius and Ewald. These interpreters regard the whole clause as a vocative, or in other words as a description of the object of address. For 0 people in Zion, dueHiny in Jerusalem, thou shalt u-rep no more. To obtain this sense, we must either read y^}'' as a participle, or supply the relative before it, and suppose a sudden change of person, as in chap, xxviii. IG, and xxix. 14. This necessity, together with the collocation of the ^3 renders the vocative construction less natural and probable than that which makes the first clause a distinct pro- position or promise. Besides, it is not easy to account for so extended a description of the people, as a mere introduction to the words that follow. These words are made emphatic by the combination of the infinitive and finite verb. De Wettc, according to his wont, regards it as an idiomatic pleonasm. Grotius translates the first phrase, non diu Jlebis ; the English Version, thou shalt urep no more. (For the usage of this combination to express continued action, see the note on chap. \i. 9.) Ewald adheres more closely to the form of the original by simple repetition of the verb (weineu weinen sollst du nicht, begnadigen begnadigen wurd er dich). Coccoius retains the strict sense of the preterite ^^^ as an appeal to their experience (cum audivit respondit tibi). Tbis yields a good sense, but the other agrees better with the context. The particle of comparison has its usual sense before the infinitive, and is best represented by the English <7.s. Lowth, on the authority of the Septuagint, inserts ^"\'^? and changes Nv to iS, reading the whole clause thus : ivhen a holy people shall divell in Zion, u-hen in Jerusalem thou shalt implore him with urepin;/. For the form V^l see Gen. xliii. 29. 20. And the lord vill yire you bread of affliction and water of oppression, and no more shall thy teachers hide themselves, and thine eyes shal' see thy teachers. The first clause is conditionally construed by Calvin (ubi dederit), Vek. 21.] ISAIAH XXX. 481 Vitringa (siquidem), and Ewald (gibt euch). Clericus refers it to the past (dedit). But both usage and the context requu-e that 1 should be regarded as conversive, and the condition, though implied, is not expressed. The Vulgate renders IV and fn7 as adjectives (panem arctum, aquam brevem). De Dieu supposes them to be in apposition with the noun preceding, afflic- tion (as) bread, and oppression (as) water. This is favoured by the absolute form of DIP ; but the same words are construed in the same way, 1 Kings xxii. 27, where the reference can only be to literal meat and drink. For other examples of the absolute instead of the construct, see the Hebrew grammai'S. Gesenius supphes in before affliction and oppression, implying that even in the midst of their distress God would feed them. Jarchi regards this as a description of the temperate diet of the righteous, and Junius likewise renders it modice cibaheris. The true connection seems to be, that God would afflict them outwardly, but would not deprive them of their spiritual privileges ; or, as Cocceius says, there should be a famine of bread, but not of the word of the Lord (Amos \dii. 11). From the use of ^^3 in the sense of wing and corner, the reflexive verb has been variously explained as meaning to fly away (Montanus), and to be removed into a corner (English Version), or shut up in one (Junius). It is now commonly agreed, however, that the primary sense is that of covering, and that the Niphal means to hide one's self. The Vulgate renders 1\7i^ as a singular (doctorem tuum), in which it is followed by Ewald, who explains the Hebrew word as a singular form peculiar to the roots with final H. (See the note on chap. v. 12.) Thus understood, the word must of course be applied to God himself, as the great teacher of his people. Kimchi's explanation of the word as meaning the early rain (which sense it has in Joel ii. 23, and perhaps in Ps. Ixxxiv. 7) has been retained only by Calvin and Lowth. The great majority of writers adhere, not only to the sense of teacher, but to the plm'al import of the form, and understand the word as a designation or description of the prophets, with particular reference, as some suppose, to their reappearance after a period of severe persecution or oppression. (See Ezek. xxxiii. 22.) 21. And thine ears shctll hear a word from behind thee, saying. This is the way, ivalk ye in it, when ye turn to the right and when ye turn to the left. The Septuagint makes this the voice of seducers (jw 'it'kavriednuv) ; but it is evidently that of a faithful guide and monitor ; according to the Rabbins, the Bath Kol or mysterious echo which conducts and warns the righteous. Word is an idiomatic expression used where we should say one speaking. The direction of the voice from behind is commonly ex- plained by saying, that the image is borrowed from the practice of shepherds going behind their flocks, or nurses behind children, to observe their motions. A much more natural solution is the one proposed by Henderson, to wit, that their guides were to be before them, but that when they declined from the right way their backs would be turned to them, consequently the warning voice would be heard behind them. The meaning of the call is, this is the way which you have left, come back to it. Lowth follows the Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito, in making ""S a negative {turn not aside), wholly without necessity or warrant. Interpreters are commonly agi-eed that the particle is either conditional {if ye turn) or temporal {ivhen ye turn) : but the simplest construction seems to be that proposed by Hendewerk {for ye turn or will turn to the right and to the left). As if he had said, this warning will be necessary, for you will certainly depart at times from the VOL. I. H h 482 ISAIAH XXX. [Ver. 22-24. path of safety. This idea may, however, be considered as included or im- plied in the usual translation when. Calvin is singular in applying this clause, not to deviations from the right path, but to the emergencies of life in general : wherever you go, whichever way you turn, you shall hear this warning and directing voice. The verbs in the last clause are derived fi-om nouns meaning the right and left hand. The peculiar form of the original is closely and even barbarously copied by Montanus (cum dextra- veritis et cum sinistraveritis). IJ'DNn may be either an inaccurate ortho- gi'aphy for 13'*0'n, or derived from a synonymous root PX. 22. And he shall defile (i. e. treat as unclean) the covering of thy idols of silver and the case of thy image of gold, thou shalt scatter them (or ahhor them) as an ahominahle thing. Away ! shult thou say to it. The remark- able alteration of the singular and plui'al, both in the nouns and verbs of this sentence, is retained in the translation. The sense of DJDiTia, considered as a countiy. But Ewald takes it to mean there, or lit 3rally in it, i. e. in the Holy Land. This, if we make the verb im- personal, is natural enough, except that it assumes an antecedent not ex- pressly mentioned in the context. Be this as it may, the general sense is plain, to wit, that God would violently overthi-ow Assyria. 33. For arrawjed since yesterday is Tophet ; even it for the kitig is pre- pared ; he has deepened, he has widened (it) ; its pile fire and wood in plenty ; the breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it. It is universally agreed that the destruction of the Assyrian king is here described as a burning of his body at a stake, or on a funeral-pile. But whether the king mentioned be an individual king or an ideal representative of all, and whether this is a mere figurative representation of his temporal destruction or a premonition of his doom hereafter, are disputed questions. Tophet is well known to have been the name of a place in the valley of Hinnom where children were sacrificed to Moloch, and on that account afterwards defiled by the deposit of the filth of the city, to consume which, constant fires were maintained. Hence, by a natural association, Tophet, as well as the more general name. Valley of Hinnom, was applied by the later Jews to the place of future torment. The Chaldee paraphrase of this verse renders i^oPP^ by DJnj. The name Tophet has been commonly derived from ^■1^, to spit upon, as an expression of abhorrence ; but Gesenius derives it from the Persian ^oilj" to bum, with which he also connects ^d'Trrstv, as originally meaning to burn and secondarily to bury. If this be the correct etymology of ^^^, it denotes a place of burning in the general, and was only applied to the spot before mentioned by way of eminence, in allusion either to the sacrificial or the purgatorial fires there maintained, or both. On this liypothesis, it would be altogether natural to understand the word here in an indefinite or generic sense, as meaning a place of burning, such as a stake or a funeral pile, and it is so explained accordingly by Gesenius (Brand- statte), Ewald (Scheiterhaufen), and other late interpreters. The question whether it is here used to describe the place of future torments, or as a mere poetical description of the temporal destruction of the king of Assyria, is the less important, as the language must in either case be figurative, and can teach us nothing therefore as to the real circumstances either of the first or second death. Considering, however, the appalling grandeur of the images presented, and our Saviour's use of similar expressions to describe the place of everlasting punishment, and also the certainty deducible from other scrip- tures, that a wicked king destroyed in the act of fighting against God must be punished in the other world as well as this, we need not hesitate to understand the passage as at least including a denunciation of eternal misery, although the general idea which the figures were intended to express is that of sudden, terrible destruction. As the phrase /•lori^p has been variously explained to mean long ago, and just now or a little while ago, it is best to retain the original expression with Calvin (ab hcsterno) and Umbreit (von gestern her). The old Jews have a curious tradition that hell was made on the second day of the creation, or the first that had a vesterday, for which reason God pronounced no blessing on it. The verbs p''^V^ and smn must Vee. 1.] ISAIAH XXXI. 489 be either construed with Jehovah or indefinitely. "T^l^P means the whole circumference and area of the place of hurning. Gesenius connects it with the foregoing verbs to make the structure of the sentence more symmetrical (deep and wide is its pile — fire and wood in plenty) ; but Hitzig vindicates the Masoretic interpunction on the ground that the foregoing verbs cannot be applied to the pile, and that the following proposition would in that case have no predicate. For a similar expression he refers to Jer. xxiv. 2. Lowth connects "^P^lip with t/'X and renders it a fieri/ pyre, which Barnes has altered to a jnjre for the flame, both overlooldng the pronominal suffix. Augusti takes the final H as a suffix [his Tophet) ; but it is commonly re- garded as a paragogic letter or a mere euphonic variation of the usual form ri|iri. J, D. Michaelis, however, thinks that if the present reading is the true one, it must be a verb meaning thou shall he deceived, another allusion to the false report about the Ethiopians, De Wette renders ''? at the begin- ning yea ; but it has really its proper sense offer, because, connecting this verse, either with the one immediatel}'- before it, or with the remoter context. Knobel supposes that the images of this verse were selected because the burning of the dead was foreign from the Jewish customs and abhorrent to their feelings. According to Clericus, the Tuphet of this verse was a place of burning really prepared by Hezekiah for the bodies of the slain Assyrians, but entirely distinct from the Tophet near Jerusalem. Luther by rendering it pit (die Grube), and J. D. Michaelis chirchyard (Kirchhof), destroy its connection with the real Tophet, and with the ideas of fire and bm'uing. CHAPTEK XXXI. Eeliance upon Egypt is distrust of God, who will avenge himself by destroying both the helper and the helped, vers. 1-3. His determination and ability to save those who confide in his protection are expressed by two comparisons, vers. 4, 5. The people are therefore invited to return to him, from every false dependence, human or idolatrous, as they will be constrained to do with shame, when they shall witness the destruction of their enemies by the resistless fire of his wrath, vers. 6-9. Hitzig assumes an interval, though not a very long one, between this and the preceding chapter. To most interpreters and readers, it seems to be a direct continuation, or at most a repetition, of the threatenings and reproofs which had just been uttered. 1. Woe to those going down to Egypt for help, and on horses they lean (or rely) and trust in cavalry, because it is numerous, and in horse- men, because they are very strong, and they looh not to the Holy One of Israel, and Jehovah they seek not. The abundance of horses in Egypt is attested, not only in other parts of Scripture, but by profane writers. Homer describes Thebes as having a hundred gates, out of each of which two hundred warriors went forth with chariots and horses. Diodorus speaks of the whole countiy between Thebes and Memphis as filled with royal stables. The horses of Solomon are expressly said to have been brought out of Egypt. This kind of military force was more highly valued, in com- parison with infantry, by the ancients than the moderns, and especially by those who, like the Hebrews, were almost entirely deprived of it themselves. Hence their reliance upon foreign aid is frequently identified with confidence in horses, and contrasted with simple trust in God (Ps. xx. 8). Most interpreters give 35v ^^ere its usual sense of chariot, put collectively for chariots ; but as such a use of the singular between two plurals would be 490 ISAIAH XXXI. [Ver. 2-4. somewhat unnatural, it may be taken in the sense which we have seen it to have in chap. xxi. 7. To seek Jehovah is not merely to consult him, but to seek his aid, resort to him, implying the strongest confidence. For the meaning of the phrase look to, see the note on chap. xvii. 8. 2. And (yet) he too is irise, and brings evil, and his rcords he removes not, and he rises 7ip ayainst the house of evil-doers, and ar/ainst the help of the workers of iuiquitij. The adversative yet is required by our idiom in this connection, but is not expressed by D^, which has its usual sense of too or also, implying a comparison with the Egyptians, upou whose wisdom, as well as strength, the Jews may have relied, or with the Jews themselves, who no doubt reckoned it a masterpiece of wisdom to secure such power- ful assistance. The comparison may be explained as comprehending both. God was as wise as the Egyptians, and ought therefore to have been con- sulted : he was as wise as the Jews, and could therefore thwart their boasted policy. There is not only a meiosis in this sentence, but an obvious irony. There is no need of supposing, with Vitringa, that the wisdom, either of Eg}-pt or of Israel, is here denied, excepting in comparison with that of God. The translation of the verbs as futures is arbitrary. Ewald refers i^^J to previous threatenings, which is hardly justified by usage. "'''PD, in this connection, seems to have the sense of withdrawing or revoking; as in Josh. xi. 15, it denotes a practical revocation by neglecting to fulfil. The house of evil-doers is their family or race (chap. i. 4), here applied to the unbelieving Jews. The Egj^Dtians are called their help, and both are threatened with destruction. To rise up is to shew one's self, address one's self to action, and implies a state of previous forbearance or neglect. 3. And Egypt {is) man and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit; and Jehovah shall stretch out his haud, and the helper shall stumble, and the helped fall, and tor/ether all of them, shall cease (or be destroyed). This verse repeats the contrast between human and di^dne aid, and the threat- ening that the unbelievers and their foreign helpers should be involved in the same destruction. The antithesis of flesh and spirit, like that of God and man, is not metaphysical but rhetorical, and is intended simply to express extreme dissimilitude or inequality. Reliance upon Eg\^t is again sarcastically represented as reliance upon horses, and as such opposed to confidence in God. As Egypt here means the Egj-ptians, it is after- wards referred to as a plural. Stumble and fall are here poetical equivalents. 4. For thus said Jehovah unto me. As a lion grotvls, and a young lion, over his prey, against whom a multitude of shepherds is called forth, at their voice he is not frightened, and at their noise he is not humbled, so loill Jehovah of hosts come down, to fight upon mount Zion and upon her hill. This is still another form of the same contrast. The comparison is a favourite one with Homer, and occurs in the eighteenth book of the Iliad, in terms almost identical. Growl is to be preferred to roar, not only for the reason given by Bochart, that the lion roars before, not after it has seized its prey, but because nJH more properly denotes a suppressed or feeble sound, ^<''P is literally /'/(///^'ss, and is rendered by Montanus plenitndine. Other loss natural constructions of the second clause are : when a nmltitude is called; ivho {luhen) a multitude is called, &c. Some read '^^P', and translate it either cries or meets. Most interpreters have, for mount Zion, in which sense ?y is used with DD^J elsewhere. But as fc<3V itself, with this same preposition, means to fight against in chap. xxix. 7, Hit/ig and Hendewerk regard this as a threatening that God will take part with the Assyrians against Jerusalem, the promise of deliverance beginning with the Ver. 5-7.] ISAIAH XXXI. 491 next verse. Ewald supposes i<3y to be used in allusion to the name niN2V (the Lord of hosts will be present in the Jiost) and gives ^V the sense of over or upon (iiber), wliich may either indicate the place or the subject of the contest. By supposing the particle to mean concerning, we can explain its use both in a hostile and a favourable sense. The ''? at the beginning of this verse introduces the ground or reason of the declaration that the seeking of foreign aid was both unlawful and unnecessary. The hill is by some supposed to be Moriah, as an appendage of mount Zion ; but it may just as well be simply parallel to mountain, the mountain of Zion and the hill thereof. The feminine suffix refers not to "in but to ji'V. 5. As birds flying (over or around their nests), so will Jehovah cover over (or protect) Jerusalem, cover and rescue, jjass over and save. Accord- ing to Hitzig, it is not Jehovah but Jerusalem that is here compared to fluttering birds. But, as Hendewerk properly objects, riisj; means flying, and is inapplicable to young birds in the nest. The feminine riisj; also indicates a reference to the care of mothers for their young. Gesenius follows Kimchi in explaining ?"'Vn and ^ypn as unusual forms of the in- finitive ; but Ewald and Hitzig regard this as an instance of the idiomatic combination of infinitive and finite foiTus. np3 is the verb used to denote the passing over of the houses in Egypt by the destroying angel (hence np?, passover), to which there may be an allusion here. There is at least no ground for making the verb, in either case, mean to cover (Vitrincra) or to leap fiirward (Lowth). To pass over, inthe sense of sparing, is appro- priate in both. 6. Since you need no protection but Jehovah's, therefore, return unto him from whom (or with respect to ivhotn) the children of Israel have deeply revolted (literally, have deepened revolt). The last words may also be read, from whom they (/. e. men indefinitely) have deeply revolted, 0 ye children of Israel. The substitution of the second person for the third, in the. ancient versions, and by Barnes {ye have revolted), is wholly arbitrary. Some explain '^^^. to mean according as or in propjoriion as, which seems to be a forced construction. The syntax may be solved, either by suppos- ing to him to be understood and giving "i^'^S^ the sense of with respect to whom, or by assuming that, as both these ideas could be expressed by this one phrase, it was put but once in order to avoid the tautolog}^ Deep may be here used to convey the specific idea of debasement, or the more general one of distance, or still more generally, as a mere intensive, like our common phrases deeply grieved or deep)ly injured. The analogy of chap. xxix. 15, however, would suggest the idea of deep contrivance or design, which is equally appropriate. 7. This acknowledgment you will be constrained to make sooner or later. For in that day (of miraculous deliverance) they shall reject (cast away with contempt), a man {i.e. each) his idols of silver and his idols of gold, tvhich your sinful hands have made for you, or, which your own hands have made for you as sin, i.e. as an occasion and a means of sin. In like manner the golden calves are called the sin of Israel (Deut. ix. 21 ; Amos viii. 14). The construction which makes sin a qualifying epithet oi hands, is preferred by Hendewerk and some older writers, but is not so natural as that which makes the former denote the object or efiect of the action. For the true construction of his silver and his gold, see the note on chap. ii. 20. For the same enallage of person, in a similar connection, see chap, i. 29. Trust in idols and reliance upon human helpers are here, and often 492 ISAIAH XXXI. [Ver. 8, 9. elsewhere, put together, as identical in principle, and closely connected in the experience of ancient Israel. (See the notes on chap. ii. 8, 22.) 8. This future abandonment of all false confidences is described as springing from the demonstration of Jehovah's willingness and power to save. And Assyria shall fall hi/ no mans sioord, and no mortals sword shall devour him, and he shall flee from before thesuord, and his young men (or chosen warriors) shall become tributary (literally, tribute). C'^X'X? and DIN'N? are commonly explained as emphatic compounds, like |*y."^5/ in chap. X. 15, implying not mere negation but contrariety, something in- finitely more than man. In such a comparison, the antithesis of mighty man and mean man seems so entirely out of place, that it is best to explain ^'"'ii and D^?<, according to the ordinary principle of parallelism, as equi- valents. In either case, the tenns are universal and exclusive. For l^', a few manuscripts and one of the earliest editions read i<^, not from the sword, i. e. he shall flee when no man pursueth (Prov, xxviii. 1). But the pleonastic dative after verbs of motion is a common Hebrew idiom. Vitringa and others derive DD fi-om DDO to melt, and explain the whole phrase to mean, shall be melted, i.e. either dispersed or overcome with fear. But in every other case the expression means to become tributary, with a special reference to the rendering of service to a superior. The objection that the prophecy, as thus explained, was not fulfilled, proceeds upon the false assumption that it refers exclusively to the overthrow of Sennacherib's host, whereas it describes the decline and fall of the Assyrian power after that catastrophe. 9. And his rock {i. e. his strength) from fear shall pass away, and his chiefs shall be afraid of a standard (or signal, as denoting the presence of the enemy), saith Jehovah, to lohom there is afire in Zion and a furnace in Jerusalem. Besides the version above given of the first clause, which is that of Jerome (fortitude transibit), there are two constructions, also ancient, between which modern writers are divided. Kimchi explains the words to mean, that in his flight he should pass by the strongholds on his own frontier, where he might have taken refuge. Grotius quotes in illustration the Latin -pTOxerh, fugit ultra casam. Hendewerk modifies this explanation by supposing caverns in the hills to be referred to, as customary places of concealment. The other construction is proposed by Aben Ezra : he shall pass (not by but) to his stronghold, i. e. as Calvin understands it, Nineveh. Neither of these explanations seems so obvious and simple as the one just given. Lowth arbitrarily translates iD3p at his flight. Zwingle applied this clause to the cowardly desertion of the standards. The last clause, accord- in" to Piscator, means, tuhose hearth is in Jerusalem, or as Gill expresses it, who keeps house there, and therefore will defend it. But this use of fire and /wrnate is not only foreign from the usage of the Scriptures, but from the habits of the orientals, who have no such association of ideas between hearth and home. The true explanation of the clause seems to be that which supposes an allusion both to the sacred fire on the altar, and to the consuming fire of God's presence, whoso altar flames in Zion and whose wrath shall thence flame to destroy his enemies. Compare the explanation of the mystical name Ariel in the note on chap. xxix. 1. END OF VOL. I. ^ Date Due ]^[^^}^^^ A IV) "^ iiiit^tm/^ -*^ \ — ■■■\ ife o i^iSBSriliiiiiiiiiN^ ^D 4 *4(^ii^K^ fy " *pl9^^ ' ^W|"jnjH| B r'y ^ ^ '4y! - c:. 7^ :v - - *43 4 OC ^ ^- '50 1 JE5 '5? -1-^ C\P. /b'D^ 1 1 j 1 :- -^ BS1515.A376 1874V.1 Commentary on the prophecies of Isaiah Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00085 6874 ^ 1 '•■i'i'^'y->