COMMENTARY

ON THE

PRINCETON.

EDITED BY

PROFPSSOR OK BIBLICAL LITERATURE TO 1HB UMTKD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

EDINBURGH:

ANDREW ELLIOT, 15 PRINCE'S STREET; JAMES THIN, 55 SOUTH BRIDGE.

MDCCCLXV.

EDINBURGH :

COMMENTARY.

CHAPTER XXXII.

THIS chapter consists of two distinguishable parts. The first continues the promises of the foregoing context, vers. 1-8. The second predicts in tervening judgments both to Israel and his enemies, vers. 9-20.

The first blessing promised in the former part is that of merciful and righteous government, vers. 1, 2. The next is that of spiritual illumina tion, vers. 3, 4. As the consequence of this, moral distinctions shall no longer be confounded, men shall be estimated at their real value; a general prediction, which is here applied to two specific cases, vers. 5-8.

The threatenings of the second part are specially addressed to the women of Judah, ver. 9. They include the desolation of the country and the downfall of Jerusalem, vers. 10-14. The evils are to last until a total change is wrought by an effusion of the Holy Spirit, vers. 15—18. But fearful changes are to intervene, for which believers must prepare them selves by diligence in present duty, vers. 19, 20.

1. Behold, for righteousness shall reign a king, and rulers for justice shall rule. The usual translation is injustice and in righteousness, as descriptive epithets of the reign foretold. But as this idea is commonly expressed by the preposition 2, the use of ? here may have been intended to suggest, that he would reign not only justly, but for the very purpose of doing justice. The Hebrew particle denotes relation in its widest sense, but is most fre quently equivalent to our to and for. The cognate noun and verb (rule and rulers) are combined as in the original. The 7 before DHB> is commonly agreed to mean as to, as for. It is a question among interpreters whether the king here predicted is Hezekiah or the Messiah. The truth appears to be that the promise is a general one, as if he had said, The day is coming •when power shall be exercised and government administered, not as at pre sent (in the reign of Ahaz), but with a view to the faithful execution of the laws. Of such an improvement Hezekiah's reign was at least a beginning and a foretaste. The reference of W& to the apostles appears very forced, and is certainly not justified, much less required, by the promise in Mat. six. 28.

2. And a man shall be as a hiding-place from the wind, and a covert from the rain (or storm], as channels of water in a dry place (or in drought), as the shadow of a heavy rock in a weary land. Most of the late interpreters give t^N the sense of a distributive pronoun, each (i. e. each of the chiefs

2 ISAIAH XXXII. [VER. 3-5or princes mentioned in ver. 1) shall be, &c. But the word is seldom if ever so used except when connected with a plural verb, as in chaps, ix. 19, 20- xiii 8 14; xiv. 18; six. 2; xxxi. 7. The meaning rather is, that there shall be 'a man 'upon the throne, or at the head of the government, who, instead of oppressing, will protect the helpless. This may either be inde finitely understood, or applied, in an individual and emphatic sense, to the Messiah. The figures for protection and relief are the same used above in chap. iv. 6, and xxv. 4. The phrases heavy rock, and weary land, are idiomatic, but require no explanation.

3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. According to analogy, nyjTCtfl is the future of ny&, a verb used repeatedly by Isaiah in the sense of looking either at or away from any object. (See, for example, chap. xvii. 7, 8; xxii. 4, xxxi. 1.) In this case, however, a contrary meaning seems to be so clearly required, both by the context and the parallelism, that most interpreters, ancient and modern, concur in deriving it from WV, or in supposing WV to have been sometimes used in the sense of blinding, which the former verb has in chap. vi. 10, and xxix. 9. Some understand D'SP as meaning seers or prophets, and Dyi?fe> their hearers; but most interpreters apply both words to the people generally, as those who had eyes but saw not, and had ears but heard not. Compare the threatening in chap. vi. 9, and the promise m

And the heart (or mind) of the rash (heedless or reckless) thaU understand to know (or understand knowledge), and the tongue of stammerers shall hasten to speak dear things (i. e. shall speak readily and plainly). Some inter preters suppose that this last metaphor relates to scoffers at religion, who are elsewhere represented as stammering in derision of the Prophet's admoni tions (chap, xxviii. 11). But it seems more natural to understand the bodily defects here mentioned as denoting others of an intellectual and spiritual nature, neglect and ignorance of spiritual matters. The minds of men shall begin to be directed to religious truth, and delivered from igno rance and error in relation to it.

5. When men's eyes are thus opened, they will no longer confound the essential distinctions of moral character, because they will no longer be deceived by mere appearances. Things will then be called by their right names. The fool (in the emphatic Scriptural sense, the wicked man) will no longer be called noble (men will no longer attach ideas of dignity and greatness to the name or person of presumptuous sinners), and the churl (or niggard) mil no more be spoken of (or to) as liberal. The sense here given to ^3 rests wholly on the Jewish tradition, as the word occurs nowhere else in Scripture. Gesenius derives it by apharesis from 39J, and explains it to mean cunning. The sense will then be, that a crafty policy shall no longer gain for him who practises it the reputation of magnanimous liberality. ffitrig derives the word from n"?3, to consume, and explains the clause as meaning that the -waster (prodigal or spendthrift) shall no longer be called generous. This last agrees best with the parallel clause, in which the out ward show of a good quality is distinguished from its actual possession. But both these versions rest upon dubious etymologies. On either supposi tion, it is clear that this clause, like the other, contains a specific illustra tion of the general truth that men shall be estimated at their real value. Ewald translates ^3 and ^? Taugenichts (good-for-nothing) and Windbeutel (bag-of-wind).

G. The Prophet now defines his own expressions, or describes the cha racters which they denote. The fool (is one who] will speak folly (in the strongest and worse sense), and his heart will do iniquity, to do wickedness anil to speak error unto (or against) Jehovah (while at the same time he is merciless and cruel towards his fellow-men), to starve (or leave empty) the soul of the hungry, and the drink of the thirsty he will suffer to fail. The futures in this verse express the idea of habitual action, he does, and will do so. The infinitives convey the same idea in a different form, by making prominent the design and effect of their unlawful course. The common version, work and practise, needlessly departs from the form of the original, in which the same verb is repeated. To give it first the sense of devising, and then that of executing, is still more arbitrary. ^H, according to the older writers, means hypocrisy; according to the moderns, wickedness in general, but in a high degree.

7. Such is the fool : and as for the churl, although his making money be not sinful in itself, his arms or instruments, the means which he employs, are ecil. He that hastens to be rich can scarcely avoid the practice of dishonest arts and of unkinduess to the poor. He deviseth plots to destroy the op pressed (or afflicted) with words of falsehood, and (i.e. even) in the poor (man's) speaking right (i. e. even when the poor man's claim is just, or in a more general sense, when the poor man pleads his cause). The variation in

the form of the word v"1? (^3) is, with great probability, supposed by

Gesenius to have been intended to assimilate the form to 1v3.

8. As the wicked man's true character is betrayed by his habitual acts, so the noble or generous man (and according to the Scriptures none is such but the truly good man) reveals his dispositions by his conduct — devises noble (or generous) things, and in noble (or generous) things he perseveres (literally , on them he stands).

9. Here, as in many other cases, the Prophet reverts to the prospect of approaching danger, which was to arouse the careless Jews from their security. As in chap. iii. 16, he addresses himself to the women of Jeru salem, because to them an invasion would be peculiarly disastrous, and also perhaps because their luxurious habits contributed, more or less directly, to existing evils. Careless women, arise, hear my voice ; confiding daughters, give ear unto my speech. Women and daughters are equivalent expressions. Careless and confiding (or secure), i. e. indifferent, because not apprehensive of the coming danger.

10. Having called their attention in ver. 9, he now proceeds with the prediction which concerned them. In a year and more (literally, days above a year), ye shall tremble, ye confiding ones, for the vintage fails, the gathering shall not come. The English Version makes the time denoted to be that of the duration of the threatened evil, niP 7J? D^PJ is by some ex plained to mean, during the remainder of the year ; but the version above given agrees best with the form of the original.

11. He now speaks as if the event had already taken place, and calls upon them to express their sorrow and alarm by the usual signs of mourn ing. Tremble, ye careless (women) ; quake, ye confiding (ones) ; strip you and make you bare, and gird (sackcloth) on your loins. A remarkable anomaly in this verse is the masculine form of the first imperative and the singular form of the others. Ewald explains the latter as contractions for njniq, HJ?^, but admits that there are no analogous forms elsewhere. Enobel thinks it possible that the forms are infinitives with local or directive n (to

trembling, stripping, girding /) but this is equally without example. Geseninp, Hitzig, and others, make them paragogic forms, in which case both the gender and number are anomalous.

12. Mourning for the breasts (or beating on the breasts as a sign of mourn ing), for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine. The older writers explained breasts as a figure for productive grounds, or sources of supply. Lowth connects it with ver. 11 (on your loins, on your breasts]. Gesenius in his Commentary reads Wi& fields ; but in his Lexicon, he follows Paulus and the ancient versions in giving D^Jpb its primary sense of striking, especially upon the breast in sign of mourning. The same act is described in Nahuni ii. 8, but by a different verb. This explanation is also given by Maurer, Henderson, Ewald, Umbreit, and Rnobel. It is favoured by the striking analogy of XOTT-W and plango (the words used by the Septuagint and Vulgate here), both which have precisely the same primary and secondary meaning. The other explanation, which is still retained by Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Barnes, is recommended by the usage of "1?D, and by the fact that *?JJ is twice used afterwards in this same sentence, to denote the subject or occasion of the sorrow. The argument founded on the masculine form DH?D has less weight on account of the anomalies in ver. 11, and the remoteness of the feminine antecedent.

13. Upon the land of my people thorn (and) thistle shall come up, for (they shall even come up) upon all (thy) houses of pleasure, 0 joyous city ! or, upon all houses of pleasure (iu) the joyous city. The true sense of the ^ seems to be that expressed above in the translation. Most inter preters, however, employ yea as an equivalent. According to Hendewerk, this predicts only a partial and temporary desolation, and Knobel applies it to the pleasure-grounds and houses without the walls, which is a mere gratuitous assumption.

14. For the palace is forsaken, the crowd of the city (or the crowded city) left, hill and watch- tower (are) for caves (or dens) for ever, a joy (or favourite resort) of wild asses, a pasture of flocks. The use of the word palace, and that in the singular number, clearly shews that the destruction of Jerusalem itself is here predicted, although Knobel still maintains that palace means country-houses. The next clause likewise contains a refuta tion of his hypothesis. s$V originally means a hill, but is applied as a proper name (Ophel) to the southern extremity of mount Moriah, overhang ing the spot where the valleys of Jehoshaphat and Hinnom meet. " The top of the ridge is flat, descending rapidly towards the south, sometimes by offsets of rock ; the ground is tilled and planted with olive and other fruittrees " (Robinson's Palestine, i. p. 394). Most writers seem to make *lj?? here mean instead of, which is at best a rare and doubtful sense. In the last edition of Robinson's Gesenius, this explanation is relinquished and a local meaning given to the word, amid caverns, i. e. surrounded ly them. But this reverses the true meaning of the preposition, about, round about. If strictly understood, it would rather seem to mean that the hill and tower should enclose caves or dens within their limits. Hendewerk, in order to avoid the conclusion that an actual destruction of the city is foretold, explains the verse as meaning that the people should shut themselves and their cattle up within the walls, so that the interior of the city, for a time, would be changed into a pasture-ground.

15. The desolation having been described in ver. 14 as of indefinite duration, this verse states more explicitly how long it is to last. Until the Spirit is poured out upon us from on hiyh, and the wilderness becomes a

fruitful field, and the fruitful field is reckoned to the forest. The general meaning evidently is, until by a special divine influence a total revolution shall take place in the character, and as a necessary consequence in the condition, of the people. The attempt to restrict it to the return from exile, or the day of Pentecost, or some great effusion of the Spirit on the Jews still future, perverts the passage by making that its whole meaning which at most is but a part. For the meaning of the figures, see the ex position of chap. xxix. 17. In this connection they would seem to denote nothing more than total change, whereas in the other case the idea of an interchange appears to be made prominent.

16. And justice shall abide in the wilderness, and righteousness in the fruitful field shall dwell. This may either mean, that what is now a wilder ness and what is now a fruitful field, shall alike be the abode of right eousness, i. e. of righteous men ; or that both in the cultivation of the desert and in the desolation of the field, the righteousness of God shall be displayed. In favour of the former is the use of the word dwell, which implies a permanent condition, rather than a transient or occasional mani festation. It also agrees better with the relation of this verse to that before it, as a part of the same sentence. If this be the meaning of the sixteenth verse, it seems to follow clearly, that the whole of the last clause of the fifteenth is a promise, since the same inhabitation of righteousness is here foretold in reference to the forest and the fruitful field. It is pos sible indeed that these may be put for the whole land, as being the two parts into which he had just before divided it.

17. As the foregoing verse describes the effect of the effusion of the Spirit to be universal righteousness, so this describes the natural and neces sary consequence of righteousness itself. 3 And the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness rest and assurance (or security)

for ever. Both nE?yo and rn3JJ strictly denote work, or rather that which is wrought, the product of labour. The translation of the former by fruit introduces a figure not in the original, as HtJ'yD is never so employed, although the verbal root is used to denote the generation of plants. The phrase D/ljny, not being limited in this case as it is in vers. 14, 15, must be taken in its widest sense.

18. And my people shall abide in a home of peace, in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting-places. There is something tranquillizing in the very sound of this delightful promise, which, as usual, is limited to God's own people, implying either that all should have become such, or that those who had not should be still perturbed and restless.

19. And it shall hail in the dovmfall of the forest (i. e,. so as to overthrow it), and the city shall be low in a low place (or humbled with humiliation), i.e. utterly brought down. If this be read as a direct continuation of the pro mise in verse 18, it must be explained as a description of the downfall of some hostile power, and accordingly it has been referred by most interpre ters to Nineveh, by Knobel to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, and by Henderson to the destruction of the Jewish polity at the beginning of the Christian dispensation. Others, thinking it more natural to assume one subject here and in ver. 13, regard this as another instance of prophetic recurrence from remoter promises to nearer threats ; as if he had said, Before these things can come to pass, the city must be brought low. This construction is entirely in keeping with the Prophet's manner, as exempli fied already in this very chapter. (See note on ver. 9 above). Most interpreters, however, seem to fall into the usual error of regarding as

G ISAIAH XXX III. [VEB. 1.

specific and exclusive what the Prophet himself has left unlimited and undefined. However natural and probable certain applications of the pas sage may appear, the only sense which can with certainty be put upon it, is that some existing power must be humbled, either as a means or as a consequence of the moral revolution which had been predicted. Knobel applies the first clause to the slaughter of Sennacherib's army, and the second to the spiritual humiliation of the Jews, which is very unnatural. The recent writers find a paronomasia in the phrase rn~Q TU, which Ewald imitates by combining the words hagcln and verhagelt.

20. Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters, that send forth the foot of the ox and the ass. The allusion in this verse is supposed by some to be to pasturage, by others to tillage. Lowth follows Chardin in applying the words to the practice of treading the ground by the feet of cattle before planting rice ; Henderson to the act of setting them at liberty from the rope with which they were tied by the foot. There is still more diversity of judgment with respect to the application of the metaphor. Of the latest writers who have been consulted, Knobel understands the verse as con trasting the condition of those who lived at liberty on the sea-side or by rivers, with theirs who were pent iip and besieged in cities. Hitzig sup poses a particular allusion to the case of those who had escaped with their possessions from Jerusalem. Hendewerk applies the verse to the happy external condition of the people in the days of the Messiah. Henderson says it beautifully exhibits the free and unrestrained exertions of the apostles and other missionaries in sowing the seed of the kingdom in every part of the world. Ewald explains it exclusively of moral cultivation, as implying that none can expect to reap good without diligently sowing it. Of all these explanations the last may be considered as approaching nearest to the truth, because it requires least to be supplied by the imagination. Taking the whole connection into view, the meaning of this last verse seems to be, that as great revolutions are to be expected, arising wholly or in part from moral causes, they alone are safe, for the present and the future, who with patient assiduity perform what is required ; and provide, by the discharge of actual duty for contingencies which can neither be escaped, nor provided for in any other manner.

CHAPTEE XXXIII.

THIS chapter contains a general threatening of retribution to the enemies of God's people, with particular reference to Sennacherib or the Assyrian power. The spoiler shall himself be spoiled in due time, through the divine interposition, and for the exaltation of Jehovah, vers. 1-6. The state of desolation and alarm is followed by sudden deliverance, vers. 7-13. The same vicissitudes are again described, but in another form, vers. 14-19. The peace and security of Zion are set forth under the figures of a stationary tent, and of a spot surrounded by broad rivers, yet impassable to hostile vessels, vers. 20-22. By a beautiful transition, the enemy is described as such a vessel, but dismantled and abandoned to its enemies, ver. 23. The chapter closes with a general promise of deliverance from suffering, as a consequence of pardoned sin, ver. 24.

1. Woe Jo thee spoiling and thou wast not spoiled, deceiving and they did not deceive thee ! When thou shalt cease to spoil thou shah be spoiled, and whtn thou art done deceiving they shall deceive thee. The plural verbs in

both clauses arc indefinitely construed as equivalents to the passive parti ciples. The two ideas meant to be expressed are those of violence and treachery, as the crying sins of arbitrary powers. The latest German writers suppose both the verbs to be expressive of robbery or spoliation, but without authority from usage. (See the note on chap. xxi. 2.) The person addressed has been supposed by different writers to be Nebuchad nezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes (Yitringa), Ferdinand II. (Cocceius), Anti christ (Gill), and Satan (Jerome). Most interpreters suppose it to be Sen nacherib, either as an individual or as a representative of the Assyrian power. In themselves, the words are applicable to any oppressive and deceitful enemy, and may be naturally so explained at the beginning of the prophecy. This verse describes the enemy as acting without provocation, and also as having never yet experienced reverses.

2. Jehovah, favour us; for thee ice wait; be their arm in the mornings, also our salvation in time of trouble. Instead of their arm, Lowth follows several of the ancient versions in reading our arm. The common text has been variously explained as a prayer of the present for the absent (Vitringa), of the Jewish for the Christian church (De Dieu), of the Reformed Church for its defenders (Cocceius), &c., &c. The truth seems to be, as Barnes well says, that Isaiah here interposes his own feelings, and offers his own prayer that God would be the strength of the nation, and then, with an immediate change of form, presents the prayer of the people. Ann is a common Hebrew metaphor for strength or support. (See chap. ix. 19.) As to the mornings is an indefinite expression, understood by sonic to mean early or quickly, by others every morniitff (Kimchi : ~lp21 ~lp2 ?33), with allusion to the daily attacks of the enemy (Henderson), or to the daily morn ing sacrifice (Piscator). Calvin explains the whole clause thus, Be thou, who wast their arm (i.e. that of our fathers) in the morning (i.e. of old), also our salvation in time of trouble. But this is rather a Latin than a Hebrew construction.

3. At a noise of tumult (or tumultuous noise) the peoples flee; at thy rising the nations are scattered. The modern notion, that the voice of Jehovah always means thunder, seems entirely arbitrary. The voice and the rising up are parts of the same figure, and the one has no more refer ence to actual phenomena in nature than the other. Aben Ezra and Lowth suppose these words to be addressed to Sennacherib, all other writers to Jehovah himself. Jerome refers the first clause to the voice of the destroy ing angel, Piscator to the tumult in the camp of the Assyrians. Lowth reads thy terrible voice, in which, as he says, he follows the Septuagint and Peshito. The same combination occurs in Dan. x. G. (Compare Rev. i. 10, 15.) The risiny meant is not the ascent of the judge to the judgmentseat (Piscator), nor the exaltation of the Assyrian power (Aben Ezra), but the act of rising from a state of seeming inaction, or as when one rouses himself to strike (Barnes). These words are commonly applied to the divine interposition in the case of Sennacherib's attack upon Jerusalem ; but Ewald understands them more generally as denoting that such had ever been the effect of Jehovah's presence, and must be so still. Some arbitrarily translate the verse as a direct prediction (fngient), or a prayer (fuffittnt).

4. And your spoil shall be gathered (like) the gathering of the devourer ; like the running of locusts running on it. By another apostrophe, the Prophet here addresses the enemy collectively. /*DT1 is a name of the locust, so called from its devouring. (See the verb in Deut. xxviii. 38.)

Henderson translates the parallel terms, devouring locust and caterpillarlocusts. The older writers understand this clause to mean as locusts are gathered, for the purpose of destroying them, even by children (Calvin), or by labourers in pits (Jerome), a custom still existing in Africa and Spain (Forerius). Junius explains it to mean that which locusts have gathered. But all the modern writers understand the words to mean as locusts gather, i.e. greedily and thoroughly, not leaving a tree or a field till they have stripped it (Bochart). As *)DK is the verb used to denote the gathering of fruits in harvest (chap. xvii. 5), Gesenius supposes a specific allusion to that usage here, like the harvesting of locusts, &c. The construction of the last clause is: like the running of locusts (shall one be) running on it (i. e. on the spoil). The verb PP^ denotes specifically the act of running eagerly, or with a view to satisfy the appetite. It is sometimes used to denote desire itself, which Umbreit assumes to be the meaning here (nach Heuschrecken-Gier giert man darnacli). Vitringa finds the fulfilment of this threatening in 1 Maccab. iv. 23, vi. 6. There is an old rabbinical tradition, which so explains this verse as to justify the seizure of the spoils of the ten tribes by the Jews, when found in the possession of the Assyrians.

5. Exalted is Jehovah because dwelling on high (or inhabiting a high place); he Jills (or has filled} Zion with judgment and righteousness. The first word being a passive participle, seems to denote not merely a con dition, but a change. He has been exalted by the subjection of his enemies (Knobel), or by his mighty deeds in general. The future form adopted in the French Version (va etre magnifie) is needless and arbitrary. There is no need of making ^ a relative (Vitringa), or rendering it yea (Barnes), as it introduces an explanation of the statement in the first clause. High place is not put specifically for heaven (Gesenius), but for a lofty and command ing position. The last clause probably denotes not the moral effects pro duced upon the people (Ewald), but the manifestation of Jehovah's attri butes. According to Hendewerk, this second clause is the beginning of the Messianic part of the first of the three prophecies contained in the chapter. Lowth introduces here his favourite idea of a chorus or choir of Jews representing the whole people.

6. And he shall be the security of thy times, strength of salvations, wisdom and knowledge, the fear of Jehovah, that is his treasure. Most interpreters connect nT! either with H31ON or pn as its subject : there shall be security in thy times ; or the security of thy times shall be ; or strength of salva tions, &c., shall be the security of thy times. But the simplest construction is the one proposed by Henderson, which supplies the subject from the foregoing verse, he (i.e. Jehovah, or it, i.e. his righteousness) shall be, &c. The object of address is supposed by some to be Hezekiah, by others the Messiah, but is most probably the people or the believer as an individual. His treasure may refer by an enallage personae to the same, or mean the treasure of Jehovah, that which he bestows. Hitzig supposes an allusion in the last clause to Hezekiah's treasury, emptied by the tribute to Sen nacherib, as if he had said, Henceforth the fear of the Lord shall be his treasure. Umbreit makes the first clause, by a forced construction, mean that the evil times should produce or foster faith, and that this should be a treasure to the people. |Dn, according to its etymology, means strength, but in usage is applied exclusively to that arising from wealth. The original construction is perfectly intelligible, and much more expressive than such paraphrastic versions as posscssio salutaris (Clericus). According to Hende werk, this verse proves that the only Messiah of whom Isaiah ever prophesies is Hezekiah ! Knobel thinks that it must be addressed to the people, because Hezekiah was a pious man before.

7. Behold, their valiant ones cry without ; the ambassadors of peace weep Utterly. The Targum and some other ancient version seem to treat 2?-?")^ as a contraction of D? !"1^?? or a? H5OK. Thus Aquila has oa.6r,<sa^ot.i a.'j-ruT';, Symmachus opdJittoftoti, the Vulgata videntes. But there is no example of the form 0? for 0^6. (S'je the note on chap. ix. 6.) Ewald reads C viSIX, and explains it as an adjective derived from /Kl, synonymous with the Arabic J^ to fear. They fearful cry aloud. This coincides in mean ing with the Septuagint Version (sv r>Z ip6j3u U-JTUV). Most of the other modern writers identity the word substantially with Ariel in chap. xxix. 1, by reading D?.K"IX in the plural, or D7$nS| with a suffix. The latest investi gations, although still unsatisfactory, tend strongly to confirm the version given in the English Bible. (See Gesenius's Thesaurus s. v.) Some, however, here as in chap. xxix. 1, give Ariel the sense of altar. Thus Grotius translates thj words, behold tlmr altar, and regards it as a derisive exclamation of the enemy, while Jarchi makes it a sorrowful ejaculation 01" the Jews themselves. Abeu Ezra and Kimchi give it the sense of mes sengers, which is plainly a conjectural inference from the parallel expression. J. D. Michaelis characteristically makes it the name of a species of bird, and renders it RohrdommeL The messengers mentioned in the other clause are not those sent by Hezekiah to Isaiah (2 Kings xix. 2), nor the Maccabees, as being both priests and heroes (Vitringa), nor the ministers of the gospel, nor the two apocalyptic witnesses (Gill), but probably the three men sent by Hezekiah to Rabshakeh (2 Kings xviii. 18), or perhaps the bearers of the tribute, weeping on account of Sennacherib's refusal to fulfil his promise. Hendewerk Supposes them to be called valiant, because they ventured into the enemy's camp ; others because they were probably military chiefs. Their weeping is agreed by all interpreters to be in strict accordance with the ancient usage, as described, for example by Homer. According to Cocceius, the first clause is an exclamation at the death of Gustavus Adolphus.

8. The highways are wasted, the wayfarer ceascth ; he breaks the covenant, despises cities, values no man. Those are not the words of the ambassadors reporting the condition of the country (Grotius), but of the Prophet him self describing it. The scene presented is not that of Protestant cities seized by Antichrist, and a stop put to a religious course and conversation (Gill), but the actual condition of Judea during the Assyrian invasion. (Compare Judges v. 6.) The verbs of the last clause are not to be indefi nitely construed (Cocceius), nor do they agree with wayfarer, but with Sennacherib or the Assyrian. They are not to be rendered as pluperfects (Junius), but as preterites or descriptive presents. The meaning is not that he rejected the cities offered him by Hezekiah (Lowth), nor that he bar barously disregarded the condition of theconquered country (J. P. Michaelis), but that he despised its defences as unable to resist him. The last words may either mean that he has no regard to any man's interest or wishes, or that he does not value human life. Some have strangely understood this as an impious reproach on God himself as having broken his engagements.

9. Tlie land mourneth, languisheth ; Lebanon is ashamed, it pines away; Sharon is like a 'wilderness, and Bash an and Carmel cast (their leaves). The most fertile and flourishing parts of the country are described as dcsolate. That the language is figurative, may be inferred from the fact that none of the places mentioned were in Judah. Hitzig and Hendewerk suppose the date of the prediction to be fixed by the allusion to the falling of the leaf. But would this periodical change be represented as a sign of desolation ? According to Umbreit, Lebanon (the white mountain) is here described as blushing, but according to Ewald as turning pale. Barnes thinks the reference is to the places through which the Assyrians had passed. J. D. Michaelis follows up his favourite mode of exposition by asserting that 1^3 denotes the buzzing of the gadfly, but is here used in the sense of swarming, and applied to the hostile armies. Cocceius takes the same word in the sense of roaring. According to Grotins, the Sharon here meant is the one in Bashan (1 Chron. v. 16). According to Clericus, Lebanon is put for mount Niphates, and the other places for places in Assyria.

10. Now will I arise, saith Jehovah, now loill I Le lifted up, now will I exalt myself. The emphasis is not upon the pronoun (Barnes), which in that case would have been expressed in Hebrew', but upon the adverb now, which is twice repeated to imply that the time for the divine interpo sition is arrived, and that there shall be no more delay. According to Gesenius, DpniJ is for DnflS, but others read Dr*f.

11. Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble ; your brealh (as) fire shall devour you. The first clause contains a common Scriptural figure for failure and frustration. (See chap. xxvi. 18.) Chaff and stubble are not named as being dry and innutritions food (Yitringa), which would be wholly out of place in this connection, but as worthless and perishable substances. Lowth follows Seeker and the Targum in reading Tin 1EO for DSirn (my spirit like fire sJtall consume you.] Grotius takes nn in the sense of anger, Clericus in that of pride. Calvin understands the clause to mean that their own breath should kindle the fire that destroyed them. As specimens of opposite extremes in exposition, it may be mentioned, that J. D. Michaelis applies this last clause to the infection of the plague as com municated by the breath, Cocceius to the evils arising from the abuse of religious liberty in Germany and Holland, and especially from efforts to reunite the Protestant and Romish Churches.

12. And nations shall be lime-kilns (or burnings of lime) ; thorns cut up, in the fire they shall burn. B}r nations we are not to understand the different, races mingled in Sennacherib's army, but all nations that incur the w.rath of God. The same word burnings is applied to the aromatic fumigations used at ancient burials (Jer. xxxiv. 5), to which there may be some allusion here. The Hebrew word according to analogy may be a noun of place (Hendewerk), but is commonly supposed to denote burnings. Clericus connects the clauses by supposing that the thorns are described as being burnt in lime-kilns. The ideas expressed are those of quickness and intensity. The thorns are perhaps described as cut up, to suggest that they are dry, and therefore more combustible. On this same verse J. D. Michaelis observes, that the Jews at that time burnt the bodies of the dead ; Knobel, that they regarded the custom with abhorrence. The former adds that when they burnt the Assyrians they might be said to burn a nation. Gill of course refers the verse to the future destruction of antichristian Koine. (Rev. xvii. 16, xviii. 8.)

13. Hear, ye far, what I have done, and know, ye near, r/nj mi//ht. By/a/' and near the Targum understands confirmed saints and repentant sinners ; Junius, the Jews and Gentiles ; Hendewerk, the ten tribes and the

VKK. 14.] ISAIAH XXXIJI. H

Jews; but Barnes, more naturally, all without exception. According to Hitzig, the near aro commanded to know, because they can see for them selves. Henderson retains the common version, acknowledge. According to Ilemk'werk, this is the beginning of a third distinct prediction. It is really an apostrophe, expressing the magnitude of the event predicted in the foregoing context.

14. Afraid in Zion are the sinners ; not at or near Zion, meaning the Assyrians (Sanctius), but in Zion, i. e. in Jerusalem, referring to the im pious Jews themselves ; trembling lias seized the impious, a parallel expres sion to sinners. The meaning hypocrites is rejected by the modern lexico graphers for that of impure or gross sinners. So Calvin, in the margin ot his version, has sceleratos. The persons so described are the wicked and unbelieving portion of the Jews. Gill applies the terms directly to formal professors in the reformed churches ; Grotius, to such of the Jews as had apostatized to heathenism in order to conciliate Sennacherib. On this far fetched hypothesis Vitringa well remarks, that such expedients were un known in ancient warfare, and that Sennacherib probably cared nothing as to the religion of those whom he attacked. What follows might be under stood as the language of the Prophet himself, giving a reason for the terror of the wicked. Interpreters appear to be unanimous, however, in making it the language of the wicked Jews themselves. At the same time, they differ greatly as to the time at which these words must be supposed to have been spoken. Some refer them to the past, and understand the verse to mean that they are now in terror who once said thus and thus. On this hypothesis, the words themselves might be explained as the language of Who of us is afraid (1W) of the devouring fire ? Who of us is afraid of everlasting burninf/s ? Or with Yitringa, as the language of complaint, Who of us can dwell with (this) devouring Jire? Who of us can dwell with (these) perpetual burnings ? i. e. with a God of such severity ? But the great mass of interpreters, both old and new, suppose this to be given not as the former but the present language of the wicked Jews, when actually seized with terror. Not those who once said, but who now say, &c. On this supposi tion, it can be expressive neither of defiance nor complaint, but only of alarm and desperation. Ewald, adopting this interpretation in the general, gives "IW the sense of protecting, derived from its primary import of sojourning as a guest and a friend ; but this is a gratuitous departure from the usage of the language. Those who adhere to it are still divided as to the application of the figures. Grotius understands by the fire the Assyrian host that menaced them. Who can abide this devouring fire ? Piscator, the fire of God's wrath, as executed by the Assyrians. Aben Ezra, the wrath of God as exercised against the Assyrians themselves. This is the interpretation commonly adopted. It supposes the words to be expressive of the feelings excited by the slaughter of Sennacherib's host. If this be a specimen of God's vindicatory justice, what may we expect? Who of us can dwell u-ith (this) devouring fire ? Who of us can dwell with these per petual burnings • Many make the language still more emphatic, by sup posing that the Prophet argues from the less to the greater. If these are God's temporal judgments, what must his eternal wrath be ? If the mo mentary strokes of his hand are thus resistless, who of us can dwell with the devouring fire, who of us can dwell with everlasting burnings ? The last words may then be taken in their strongest and most unrestricted sense. Hender son thinks they have no meaning if they do not refer to eternal punish ment, u? does not here mean for us or with us, but is used in its widest

sense, as expressive of relation in general, to qualify the pronoun — Who with respect to tis, i. e. who of us, as opposed to men in general. Gesenius describes it as an emphatic formula, and yet omits it in the translation. Hitzig and Hendewerk take fire and burning as a poetical description of the plague, by which they suppose the Assyrians to have perished. Clericus, more suo, understands it of the burning of the villages of Judah by the invaders. Knobel says the burning was called everlasting, because it was everlasting in its consequences, i. e. it destroyed what it consumed for ever. But who could or would speak, in any language, of a man's being hung with an everlasting rope, or killed by an everlasting stroke of lightning? De Dieu's construction of the last clause, as containing se veral distinct propositions (quis commorabitur nostrum? ignis devorat, &c.), is ingenious, but unnatural and wholly unnecessary.

15. This verse contains a description of the righteous man, not unlike that in the fifteenth and twenty-fourth Psalms. Walking righteousnesses i. e. leading a righteous life. Walk is a common Scriptural expression for the course of conduct. The plural form of the other word may either be used to mark it as an abstract term, or as an emphatic expression for ful ness or completeness of rectitude. In order to retain the figure of walk ing, the preposition in may be supplied before the noun ; but in Hebrew it seems to be governed directly by the verb, or to qualify it as an adverb. And S2ieaking right things, or (taking the plural merely as an abstract) recti tude or righteousness . The idea is not merely that of speaking truth as opposed to falsehood, but that of rectitude in speech as distinguished from rectitude of action. Rejecting or despising (or, combining both ideas, re jecting ivith contempt') the gain of oppressions or extortions. Shaking his hands from talcing hold of the bribe, an expressive gesture of indignant refusal, which Forerius compares to Pilate's washing his hands, and Gataker to Paul's shaking off the viper. Malvenda imagines that the terms are so selected as to suggest the idea of a weighty gift. Gesenius and others greatly weaken the expression, and indeed destroy its graphic form, by rendering the phrase, ivhose hand refuses to receive a bribe. The true sense is forcibly conveyed in J. D. Michaelis's version, shakes his hands that no bribe may stick to them, and in Gill's homely paraphrase, that won't receive any, but when they are put into his hands shakes them out. The Chaldee Paraphrase of this first clause contains the expression mammon of falsehood, which may be compared with the mammon of unrighteousness in Luke xvi. 9. Stopping his ears from hearing bloods, i. e. plans of murder, or as Lowth expresses it, the proposal of bloodshed. For the usage of the plural form D'OI, see the note on chap. i. 15. Shutting his eyes from look ing at evil, i. e. from conniving at it, or even beholding it as an indifferent spectator. The 2 is then a mere connective, like the English at or on ; but the combination of this verb and particle appears in many cases to denote the act of gazing at a thing with pleasure, which idea would be perfectly appropriate here. Lowth has against the appearance of evil, which does not convey the exact sense of the original. According to the natural connection of the passage, this verse would seem to contain the answer to the question in ver. 14, and is so understood by those who make the question mean, Who can stand before this terrible Jehovah ? But on the supposition of an allusion to eternal punishment, the answer is absurd, for it implies that the righteous man can or will endure it. This may either be regarded as a proof that there is no such allusion to eternal punishment in vcr. 14, or as a proof that this is not an answer to the question there recorded. The former conclusion is adopted by the latest German writers, who understand this verse as meaning that God is a con suming fire only to the wicked, and that the righteous man, as here described, is perfectly secure. On the other hand, Henderson separates this verse from the preceding context by a larger space than usual, making this the beginning, as it were, of a new paragraph. To this construction there is the less objection, as the sentence is evidently incomplete in this verse, the apodosis being added in the next.

16. He (the character described in ver. 15) high places sliall inhabit. This does not denote exalted station in society, but safety from enemies, in being above their reach, as appears from the other clause. Fastnesses (or strongholds) of rocks (shall be) his loft;/ place, i.e. his refuge or his place of safety, as in chap. xxv. 12. To the idea of security is added that of sus tenance, without which the first would be of no avail. /A's bread is given, including the ideas of allotment or appointment and of actual supply. His water sure, or, retaining the strict sense of the participle, secured. At the same time there is evident allusion to the moral usage of the word as signifying faithful, true, the opposite of that which fails, deceives, or dis appoints the expectation, in which sense the same word, with a negative, is applied by Jeremiah (xv. 18) to ivaters that fail. Clericus explains the first clause of this verse as a promise that those living in the plain should be as safe as if they lived in the mountains. Grotius explains the second as a promise of literal deliverance from famine. Kuobel arbitrarily applies the whole to protection and supply in a time of siege, and then infers that the passage must have been composed before Sennacherib approached Jeru salem, because the Prophet afterwards was well aware that no siege had taken place at all. This charge of false prediction is exploded by the simple observation, that the verse is an assurance, clothed in figurative language, of general protection and support to the righteous. Vitringa's reference of the words in their lower sense to the support of the Levitical priesthood, and in their higher sense to the happiness of heaven, goes as much to an extreme, though in an opposite direction.

17. A king in his beauty shall thine eyes behold. Kimchi, bv an arbitrary svntax, takes the future as a past tense, and refers it to the king of Assyria, whom their eyes had seen but should see no more. Besides the grammatical objection to this version, it is inconsistent with the other clause, and unless that al?o be referred to the same subject by supplying king before a distant land. Of those who take the futures in their proper meaning, some suppose Jehovah to be meant (Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis), others the Messiah (Abarbenel), but most writers Hezekiah, either exclu sively (Gesenius), or as a type of Christ (Calvin). For this departure from his customary mode of exposition, Calvin thinks it necessary to apologise by saying, ne quis me hie allegorias sequi putet a quibus sum alienus. To eee the king in his beauty does not mean in his moral excellence (Hende- •werk), but in his royal state, with tacit reference to his previous state of mourning and dejection (chap, xxxvii. 1). They (i.e. thine eyes) shall behold a land of distances or distant places. The most natural explanation of this phrase would be a distant land, in which sense it is used by Jere miah (viii. 19), and a part of it by Zechariah (x. 9), and by both in refer ence to exile or captivity. The verse before us, taken by itself, might be understood as a threatening that the Jews should see the king of Babylon in his royal state, and in a distant land. Interpreters seem to be agreed, however, that in this connection it can be taken only as a promise. Grotius

accordingly explains it to mean that after the fall of the Assyrian host, the Jews should he free to go abroad without restraint, and especially to visit the scene of the catastrophe. This explanation he illustrates by a parallel from Virgil. Panduntur portce, juvat ire ct Dorica castra desertosque v id ere locos litusque relictum. Hitzig confines it to their literally seeiny far and wide from the walls of Jerusalem, their view being no longer obstructed by entrenchments or the presence of the enemy. Luther and others, on the contrary, suppose the land itself to be here described as actually widened by an accession of conquered territority. To all these explanations it may be objected that the Prophet does not speak of distant boundaries or fron tiers, as in chap. xxvi. 15, but of a distant land. The only explanation of the verse as a promise, against which this objection does not lie, is that of Henderson, who translates the clause, they shall see distant lands, and ex plains it to mean that instead of being cooped up within the walls of Jeru salem by the Assyrians, the inhabitants should not only freely traverse their own land, but visit distant nations. Whether the liberty of foreign travel is in this connection an appropriate promise, may be made a question. Piscator understands the clause to mean that their eyes should see ambassadors from a far country, viz. those of Berodach-baladan (2 Kings xx. 12). But in this case the most important word of the sentence is supplied by mere conjecture. Vitringa applies the whole verse, in its lower sense, to the conquest of the Maccabees and their enlargement of the Jewish territory, but in a higher sense to the glorious reign of the Messiah.

18. Thy heart shall meditate terror. This does not mean, it shall con ceive or experience present terror, but reflect on that which is already past. What follows is explained by some as the language of the Jews in their terror calling for the officers on whom they depended for protection. But the officers here named are not those to whom they would pro bably have looked in this emergency. Others more naturally understand it therefore as the triumphant exclamation of the people when they found themselves so suddenly delivered from their enemies. Wlicre is he that counted ? irhere is he that u-eir/hed ? where is he that counted the towers ? As a noun, "ISO means a scribe, and is commonly so rendered here. Some even give it the New Testament sense of yga/z/zarsuc, a learned man or doctor of the law. So the Septuagint (^a/A/xar/xo/), the Vulgate (literatus), Luther (Schriftgelehrteii), Vitringa (doctus). This leads of course to an analogous interpretation of the other terms, as meaning legis verba )>rmderans, doctor parvulorum, dialecticu.<i subtilis, &c., &c. Others, adhering to the Hebrew usage of the noun "ISO, understand by it a secretary, finan cial or military, perhaps a secretary of state, or of war, or an inspectorgeneral (Barnes). The clause is still more modernized by J. D. Michaelis : where is the general ? where is the engineer f But as the second ")SD is evidently construed as a participle, and in the primary sense of counting it is much more natural to understand the first ISO and /P&J> in like man ner, as denoting him who counted, him who weighed. This is Ewald's con struction (wer ztihlte, wer wog), and Lowth gives the same sense to the words as nouns (the accomptant, the weigher of tribute}. Thus explained, they may be applied either to the instruments of the Assyrian domination in Judea, or to certain necessary officers attached to the besieging army. The counting and weighing may be either that of tribute, or of military wages The second 1BD denotes the same act as the first, but is applied expressly to another object. The towers are of course the fortifications of Jerusalem.

By counting them, some understand surveying them, either \vith a view to garrisoning or dismantling; others, the act of reconnoitring them from with out, which some ascribe particularly to llahshakeh or Sennacherib himself. The general meaning of the verse is plain, as an expression of surprise and joy, that the oppressor or besieger hail now vanished. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. i. 20, has a sentence so much like this, in the threefold repetition of the question where, and in the use of the word scribe, that it cannot bo regarded as a mere fortuitous coincidence. Of the mutual relation of the passages, two views have been taken by interpreters. Junius and Cocceiug regard that in Corinthians as a quotation of the one before us, and Vitringa makes the former determine the whole meaning of the latter. He accord ingly explains the Hebrew words as all denoting some form of worldly wis dom and sagacity, or its possessors, and the whole verse as implying that the great deliverance had not been wrought by any such means but by God alone. The violence done by this interpretation to the language of the Prophet is enough of itself to make the hypothesis on which it rests a doubt ful one. Calvin, on the other hand, denies that Paul has any reference to this place, which is going too far, since it is probable, as Henderson ob serves, that the structure of the one passage may have suggested the other. The expression it is written, in the preceding verse of the epistle, introduces a quotation from chap. xxix. 14, but does not necessarily extend to the next verse, which may therefore be regarded as a mere imitation, as to form and diction, of the one before us.

19. The fierce (or determined) people thou shall not see. Thou shalt see no more the Assyrians, whose disappearance was implied in the questions of the foregoing verse. The essential idea of UH3 seems to be that of firm ness and decision, perhaps with the accessory idea of agressive boldness. It is taken in the stronger sense of impudent by several of the ancient ver sions. De Dieu and Capellus (the two Ludovici, as Vitringa calls them) would read tyi? so as to secure a parallel to 3V/3 in the other clause. (Com pare Ps. cxiv. 1.) A people deep of lip from hearing, i. e. too obscure for thee to understand. Deep is referred to the sound of the voice, the mode of utterance, by the Septuagint (fSad-jfuvov) Clericus (e prof undo gutture loquentem), and Vitringa, who illustrates the expression by the difference between the utterance of the Swiss and the Saxons on the one hand, and the French and English on the other. But the later writers more correctly understand deep as denoting obscure or unintelligible. The preposition be fore hearing, though not directly negative, is virtually so, as it denotes away from, which is really equivalent to so as not to hear, or be heard. (See the note on chap. v. 6.) Barbarous tongue (or of a barbarous tongue), without meaning (literally, there is no meaning). The verb 3J/?, in its other forms, means to mock or scoff, an idea closelv connected, in the Hebrew usage,

with that of foreign language, either because the latter seems ridiculous to those who do not understand it, or because unmeaning jargon is often used in mockery. Jerome's translation of the last phrase, in quo nulla est sapientia, changes the meaning of the clause entirely. Some of the latest Ger man writers understand it to signify not only unintelligible but unmeaning, and regard the description as an illustration of Jewish narrowness and pre judice. The parallelism might have taught them that no more was meant to be conveyed than the actual want of meaning to the hearers. The wholo is a mere paraphrastic description of a people altogether strange and foreign. Henderson supposes the expressions to refer to the Medo-Persian mercen aries in the Assyrian army, but most interpreters apply them directly to the

1G ISAIAH XXXIII. [VEB. 20, 21.

Assyrians themselves. According to Gill, the language here meant is the Latin; but the people he explains to be both Turks and Papists.

20. Behold Zion, ihe city of our festivals. Instead of the presence of

foreign enemies, see Jerusalem once more the scene of stated solemnities.

Houbigant and Lowth, on the alleged authority of the Targum, read thou

shall see, which is not only unnecessary, but less expressive than the direct

command to see the object as already present. The address is to the people

as an individual, and not to Zion itself, as Luther and the Targum have it.

Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet home, a tent (that) shall not be removed

(or taken doirn). The whole of this description is drawn from the usages

of the nomadic life. Its stakes shall not be pulled up for ever, and all its cords

shall not be broken, or in our idiom, none of its cords shall be broken. Ac

cording to Kimchi, n¥37 means for a long time (31 |T) ; according to Hen

derson, until the end of the old dispensation. The peculiar beauty of the

imagery lies in ascribing permanence to a tent, which, from its very nature,

must be moveable. This may either imply a previous state of agitation and

instability, or that the church, though weak in herself, should be strength

ened and established by the power of God. Gill understands the verse as

describing what he calls the Philadelphia* church state. Conrad Pellican

applies it to the rest and peace of heaven ; Vitringa, to the state of the

Jews under the Maccabees, considered as a type of the Christian Church.

He also robs the passage of its beautiful simplicity, by making it the lan

guage of a choir of teachers, or of the Prophet speaking in their name, and

by giving to each part of the tent a specific spiritual sense, the stakes being

the promises, and the ropes the hope and faith of true believers. On this

mode of expounding the prophetic figures, see the exposition of chap. v. 8.

21. But there shall Jehovah be mighty for us (or in our behalf). Some

take the particles EN ^ separately, as meaning because certainly. There is

no need, however, of departing from the ordinary sense of but, which the

phrase has elsewhere after a negation. The connection of the verses is,

that Zion shall never be weakened or removed, but on the contrary Jehovah,

&c. The construction of "VHN as a mere epithet of nin11 is forbidden by the

collocation of the words. The sense seems to be that he will there display

his power for our protection and advantage. A place of rivers, streams,

broad (on) both hands (or sides), i. e. completely surrounding her. Cocceius

connects this clause with the verb of the preceding verse, (thine eyes shall

see a place, &c.), and throws the immediately foregoing words into a par

enthesis. J. D. Michaelis supplies we have. But most interpreters con

used like the Latin loco meaning in the place, instead. The promise then

is, that Jehovah will supply the place of streams and rivers. Others more

that Jehovah will himself be a place of streams and rivers to the people.

Clericus supposes the allusion to nomadic life to be still continued, and the

people to be described as encamping on the banks of noble streams, but

without incurring the dangers usually incident to such a situation. Accord

ing to Gill, the ideas meant to be conveyed are those of abundance, freedom,

pleasant situation and security. Many interpreters suppose the situation

of Jerusalem to be here compared with that of Nineveh, Memphis, and other

cities situated on great rivers, the want of which advantage was abundantly

compensated by the divine protection. But the latest German writers

understand the clause as meaning that God himself would be to Zion what

moats and trenches are to fortified cities. This idea is neither natural in

itself nor naturally suggested by the words streams an<l rivers, the plurals of the terms which are commonly applied to the Nile and the Euphrates. The most obvious explanation seems to be that this clause is an amplification of the adverb D^. Jehovah will be mighty for us there. What place is meant?. A place of rivers and streams broad on both sides, i. e. spreading in every direction. There is the less occasion, therefore, to read D^ with Lowth or D2> with Koppe. The situation described is one which has all the advantages of mighty streams without their dangers. There shall not go in it an oared vessel (literally, a ship of oar), and a gallant ship shall not pass through it. The parallel expressions both refer, no doubt, to ships of war, which, in ancient times, were propelled by oars. The antithesis which some assume between trading ships and vessels of war would here be out of place. The fine old English phrase gallant ship is ill exchanged by some translators for mighty or magnificent vessel.

22. For Jehocah our Judge, Jehovah our Lawgiver, Jehovah our King, he will save us. This is a repetition of the same idea, but without the figures of the preceding verse. Ewald agrees with the older writers in making Jehovah the subject and the other nouns the predicates of a series of short sentences (Jehovah is our Judge, &c.). Gesenius makes them all the complex subject of the verb at the end. The general meaning is the same in either case.

23. Thy ropes are cast loose ; the;/ do not hold upright their mast ; they do not spread the sail ; then is shared plunder of booty in plenty ; the lame spoil the spoil. Cocceius refers the first clause to the tent (thy cords are lengthened) and the rest to a ship. Clericus makes the whole relate to a tent, and supposes pn to denote the central pole or post. Interpreters are agreed, however, that there is, at the beginning of this verse, a sudden apostrophe to the enemy considered as a ship. This figure would be natu rally suggested by those of ver. 21. It was there said that no vessel should approach the holy city. But now the Prophet seems to remember that one had done so, the proud ship of Assyria. But what was its fate ? He sees it dismantled and abandoned to its enemies. The first phrase is rendered in Robinson's Gesenius, thy tacklinys are broken in pieces, an expression which could hardly be applied to ropes. The Rabbins understand it to mean, thy ropes are abandoned by the sailors. The Vulgate version is laxati sunt. The last two explanations may be combined by supposing the words to mean that they cast the ropes loose and abandon them. Kimchi explains P as an adverb meaning well or rightly ; Cocceius as a noun, meaning the base or socket of the mast. This last is adopted by most of the late writers ; but an equally natural construction is to make P an adjec tive meaning upright, which is justified by usage and peculiarly appropriate in this connection. Some take D3 in its more usual sense of flag or banner, without materially changing that of the whole sentence. TS marks the transition from abandonment to plunder, whether past or future. ?7J? "IJJ appears to be an emphatic pleonasm or reduplication. The eagerness of the pillage is expressed by making the lame join in it.

24. And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick (or have been sick). This may either mean that none shall be sick, or that those who have been so shall be recovered. Some interpreters suppose an allusion to the plague. The people dwelling in it (is) forgiven (its) iniquity. Some suppose this to be an explanation of the sickness mentioned in the first clause, as a spiritual malady. Others understand it as explaining bodily disease to be the cousequence and punishment of sin. The words may be taken in a wider sense than either of these, namely, that suffering shall cease with sin which is its cause. Thus understood, the words are strictly applicable only to a state of things still future, either upon earth or in heaven. The last clause shews the absurdity of making the first mean merely that no one shall ex cuse himself from joining in the pillage on the plea of sickness.

CHAPTEE XXXIV.

THIS chapter and the next appear to constitute one prophecy, the first part of which (chap, xxxiv.) is filled with threatenings against the enemies of the church, the latter part (chap, xxxv.) with promises to the church itself. The threatenings of chap, xxxiv. are directed, first against the nations in general, vers. 1-4, and then against Edom in particular, vers. 5-15, with a closing affirmation of the truth and certainty of the predic tion, vers. 16, 17. The destruction of the enemies of Zion and the desola tion of their lands are represented by the figures of a great sacrifice or slaughter, the falling of the heavenly bodies, the conversion of the soil into brimstone and the waters into pitch, and the inhabitation of animals peculiar to the desert.

Rabbi Moses Haccohen applies all this to the desolation of Edom in the days of Isaiah. Grotius, who adopts the same hypothesis, supposes these judgments to have been provoked by the aid which the Edomites afforded to the Assyrians in their invasion of Judea, and to have been executed by the Ethiopians. Schmidius also applies the chapter to the literal desola tion of Edom in the days of Isaiah. Eusebius applies it to the day of judgment and the end of the world. Cyril makes the same application of vers. 1-4, but applies the rest to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish commonwealth mystically represented here by Edom. Theodoret extends this explanation to the whole, in which he is followed by Cocceius. The rabbinical interpreters, with one exception which has been already mentioned, explain Edom as a mystical or figurative name for Rome, or rather Christendom, of which Rome was once the representative, and understand the chapter as predicting the future downfall of the Christian powers in the days of the Messiah. On this same rabbinical hypothesis Vitringa rears a Christian exposition, by making Edom the emblem not of Christian but of antichristian (i. e. papal) Rome. So J. H. Michaelis, Gill, and others, most of whom, however, give the prophecy a greater lati tude of meaning, as a general threatening of destruction to the enemies of Zion, but especially to antichrist here typified as Edom. J. D. Michaelis regards the prophecy as yet to be fulfilled, and thinks it possible that the ancient Idnmea may hereafter be possessed by an antichristian power whose destruction is here foretold. Rosenmiiller and the other recent German writers regard the whole as an extravagant expression of revengeful malice by a writer long posterior to Isaiah. This gratuitous assumption is sus tained by the usual empirical criticism, which, as we have seen before, may be employed on either side of any question. Hitzig, while complaining of the writer's diffuseness and verbosity, heaps up tautological expressions of contempt in his own peculiar style. It is worthy of remark, too, that the spirit of this chapter is extremely shocking to these pious unbelievers. Leaving these prejudiced interpretations out of view, the reference of the prophecy to antichrist may be objected to, upon the ground that the sense

VER. 1-3.] /N.i/J// AA'A'/r. 19

which it gives to Edom is a forced one, not sustained by any usage or authority, except certain parts of the book of Revelation, which the older writers used as a key to the ancient prophecies, whereas these alone afford the key to it. The simplest and most satisfactory view of the whole passage is the one proposed by Calvin, who regards it as a general threatening of destruction to the enemies of Zion, Edom being particularly mentioned, as an enemy of ancient Israel, peculiarly inveterate and malignant, and thence used to represent the whole class of such enemies. Thus understood, the prophecy extends both to the past and future, and includes many particular events to which interpreters have erroneously endeavoured to restrict it, not excepting the destruction of antichrist, as the greatest event of this kind which is foretold in prophecy. Compare the note on chap. xi. 4.

1. Come near, ye nations, to hear; and ye peoples, hearken. Lowth adds to me, on the authority of a single manuscript. Let the earth hear and its fulness (that which fills it, all that it contains), the world and all its issues

(or productions, all that comes forth from it). This may either be explained with Calvin as an appeal to inanimate nature, like the one at the beginning of the book (chap. i. 2), or as an appeal to men, poetically represented as the fruit of the earth, which is the sense given in the ancient versions and adopted by Yitringa. Knobel supposes a climax or anticlimax, the Prophet first invoking men (nations and peoples), then brutes (ike fulness of the earth"), and then plants (its production*). But the sense thus put upon the fulness of the earth is altogether arbitrary. This verse announces, as about to be delivered, a prediction of great moment and deserving the attention of the whole world. Cocceius understands by nations the heathen, and by peoples the tribes of Israel, a distinction which he makes even in the first verse of the second Psalm. All other writers take the words as poetical equivalents.

2. This verse assigns the reason for the invocation in the one before it. For (there is) anger to Jehovah. The English Version has, the indignation of the Lord is, an idea which would be otherwise expressed in Hebrew. The construction is the same as in chap. ii. 12. Jehovah has anaer (or is anfjry) against all the nations. The common version is upon, which is the primary meaning of tht particle, and is appropriate in this case as suggest ing the idea of infliction. That of hostility is of course implied, even if not expressed. Yitringa needlessly and arbitrarily distinguishes between the nations mentioned in the first verse and in this, upon the ground that those who were to be destroyed would not be summoned to hear of their destruc tion. But why not ? It is exactly like the case of an individual convict hearing his sentence before its execution. Vitringa also makes Q^J mean nations in general, and D*Un these nations, i. e. the ones to be destroyed. But DM3H 73 is the strongest expression possible in Hebrew for all nations. And wrath (is to Jehovah) against all their host. Not their armies in par ticular, as Clericus suggests, but their whole multitude, all that belong to .them. (Compare the same expression in Gen. ii. 1.) He has doomed them,

or devoted them irrevocably to destruction. For the peculiar usage of the Helirew verb, see the note on chap. xi. 15. He has given, (i. e. appointed and abandoned) them to the slaughter. The past tense is not a mere prceteritum propheticum, implying the certainty of the event although still future, but describes the divine determination or decree as really and lite rally past.

3. And their slain shall be cast out. The Hebrew word strictly means tleir wounded, and is so translated in the Septuagint and some other ver sions. But usage gives it the specific sense of uoundtd mortally, and for

the most part in battle. Cast out, i. e. nnburied. This suggests the several ideas of contemptuous neglect, of a multitude too vast to be interred, and perhaps of survivors too few to perform the duty, (Compare chap. xiv. 1&-20.) They shall not lie unburied merely for a time, but until they rot upon the ground. And their corpses (or carcase), their stench shall go up. The first noun is construed as an absolute nominative, as to their carcases, their stench, &c., which is equivalent in our idiom to the stench of their car cases shall go up. With reference to the same revolting circumstance, Lucan calls a battle-field olentes agros. (Compare Amos iv. 10, Joel ii. 20.) And mountains shall be melted with (or by) their blood, as they are sometimes washed away by rains or torrents. This cannot mean merely that blood shall run down from the hills (Clericus), but must be taken as a strong poetical hyperbole descriptive of excessive carnage.

4. And all the host of heaven (or heavenly bodies) shall consume away. This verb is commonly applied to the pining or consumption occasioned by disease. In Ps. xxxviii. 6 it means to run as a sore, from which analogy Gesenius deduces here the sense of melting, and adopts Vitringa's notion that the stars are poetically likened to wax candles. Maurer, with a better taste, supposes the obscuration of the heavenly bodies to be represented as a pining away. The ideas of sickly lights and dying lights are not unknown to modern poetry. And the heavens shall be rolled up (or together) like a scroll, i. e. like an ancient volume (volumen from volvo), or a modern map. Grotius explains this as meaning that nothing should be seen in the heavens any more than a book rolled up or closed. This idea Umbreit carries out by talking of the sky as God's great book, in which he has written his eternal name with countless stars. J. D. Michaelis more naturally under stands the Prophet as alluding to the phenomena of storms, in which the sky is first overcast and then covered with clouds, the motion of which gives it the appearance of being rolled together. The best explanation seems, how ever, to be that proposed by Pfeiffer in his Dubia Vexata, to wit, that as God is elsewhere described as having stretched out the heavens like a cur tain, their destruction or any total change in their appearance would be naturally represented as a rolling up of the expanse. In like manner Horace says, horrida tempestas contraxit cozlum. The Targum strangely makes 12D3 mean according to the book, i. e. the Scriptures. Montanus no less strangely makes it govern D^OBTl (siciit liber coelorum), a construc tion utterly precluded by the article. (See a similar mistake of Lowth in chap. xvii. 8.) And all their host (referring to the heavens) shall fade (or fall away) like the fading of a leaf from a vine. This beautiful comparison with the decay of plants makes it the more probable that the preceding clause alludes to that of animal life and not to the melting of wax or tallow. And like a fading (leaf) or a withered (fig) from a Jig-tree. Knobel ex plains H723 as a feminine collective put for the plural masculine, an idiom of which there are few if any unambiguous examples. As n?JJ is masculine, the feminine adjective may be referred to a noun understood. J. D. Michaelis imagines that this clause describes the seeming motion of the stars occasioned by a nocturnal earthquake. Grotius supposes the descrip tion of the carnage to be still continued, and the exhalations of the putrid corpses to be here described as veiling the heavens and producing those meteoric appearances called shooting stars. This extravagant conceit is justly condemned by Gesenius as a most infelicitous conception of a poetic image, and it is certainly worse than his own prosaic supposition of wax candles. Such exhibitions may enable us to estimate correctly the aesthetic contempt

with which some writers speak of this magnificent passage as plainly be longing to a later age. A similar remark may be applied to Knobel's repe tition of Vitringa's indiscreet suggestion as to the popular belief of the Hebrews respecting the heavens and the heavenly bodies. It would be no less rational to argue from the foregoing verse, that they believed in streams of blood so vast as to dissolve whole mountains. If the terms of that verse are poetical hyperboles, on what ground is this to be explained as a lesson in natural philosophy? Another notion of Yitringa's, equally unfounded, although not adopted by the modern Germans, is that the terms of this verse plainly shew that the prediction has respect to some great body politic or organised society, the sun being the emblem of the civil power, the moon of the ecclesiastical, and the stars of distinguished men in Church and State. The context clearly shews that the terms used are not symbolical but poeti cal, and that here, as in chap. xiii. 10, the idea which they are all intended to convey is that of revolution, of sudden, total, and appalling change. The imagery of the passage has been partially adopted in Matt. xxiv. 29, and Rev. vi. 13, neither of which, however, is to be regarded either as a repeti tion or an explanation of the one before us.

5. There is no need of giving ^ the sense of yea (Augusti), or of explain ing it as^a mere connective particle (Knobel), since it may be construed, in its proper sense, either with ver. 3 (Hitzig), or with the whole of the pre ceding description. All this shall certainly take place, for my sword (the speaker being God himself) is steeped (saturated, soaked) in heaven. Most versions, ancient and modern, take the verb here in the same sense of being drunk or intoxicated, either with wrath or with the blood of enemies. It is very improbable, however, that t<,vo different figures were intended here and in ver. 7, where all agree that the earth is described as being soaked or saturated with blood. Koppe proposes to read HtDIlD sharpened, after the analogy of Ezek. xxi. 33. The same sense had long before been put upon the common text by Clericus, who supposes an allusion to the wetting of the grindstone or the blade in grinding. The Targum has revealed, on the authority of which loose paraphrase Lowth reads made bare, adding with great naivete in his note, whatever reading, different I presume from the present, he might find in his copy, I follow the sense which he has given of it. This implies that it is not even necessary to know what a reading is before it is allowed to supersede the common text. The phrase in heaven has been variously explained. Some of the older writers understand it as express ing the certainty of the event (as firm or sure as the heavens) ; others as de scriptive of the great men who were to be destroyed. Gill says it may denote the whole Roman papal jurisdiction, and Henderson, who rejects all allusion to Rome, explains it to mean the Idumean heaven or the ruling power in Edom. Gesenius supposes the sword to be here described as drunk with wrath in heaven before it is drunk with blood on earth ; Ewald, as dropping blood in heaven as if by anticipation (wie zum roraus). The best explana tion is that of Calvin, who refers the expression to the divine deterniiuation and foreknowledge. In the sight of God the sword, although not yet actually used, was already dripping blood. The sword is mentioned, neither because commonly employed in executions (Barnes), nor in the sense of a butcher's knife (Yitringa), but as a natural and common though poetical expression for any instrument of vengeance. Knobel is singular in understanding this clause as referring to the slaughter of the Babylonians, already past, and now to be succeeded by that of the Edomites. Behold, upon Edom it shall come doicn. Some translate the future as a present, but there is no sufficient

reason for departing from the proper sense. The Jewish tradition is that Edom in the prophecies means Rome. For this opinion Abarbenel endea vours to secure a historical foundation, by making the Romans actual descendants of Esau. Vitringa justly denounces this as egregious trifling, but adopts the same hypothesis, only applying the name to Pagan and Papal Rome. At the same time, he appears unwilling to abandon altogether its application to the Jews themselves. Now the only thing common to these three distinct subjects is their malignant hatred of God's people. This may serve, therefore, to confirm Calvin's doctrine, that the name is here applied to the inveterate enemies of the church at large, and not to any one of them exclusively. Henderson, in avoiding Vitringa's error, goes to the opposite extreme of confining the prediction to the literal and ancient Edom. Even the German critics grant that Edom is here mentioned as a representative. The same thing is clear from the whole complexion of this prophecy and from the analogy of others like it. The strength of the ex pressions cannot be explained by the gratuitous assertion that it was merely adequate to meet the expectations of a patriotic Jew in reference to the, in fliction of divine judgment on those ivho had been the ancient and most in veterate enemies of his country. On the other hand, they are sufficiently accounted for, by the supposition that the passage is a prediction of the downfall not of Edom only, but of others like him. The fulfilment of these threateniDgs cannot be traced in the history of ancient Edom. They ceased to be a people, not by extirpation, but by incorporation with the Jews. The name Idumea-, as employed by Josephus, includes a large part of Judea. The Herods, the last royal family of Judah, were of Idumean origin. And upon the people of my curse or doom, i. e. the people whom I have doomed to destruction (see ver. 2). This is not an extension of the threatening against Edom to other nations (Junius), but a repetition of it in a different form. DBKw is not an adverbial phrase meaning justly, but a declaration of the end for which the sword was to come down, viz. /or judgment, i. e. to execute justice upon Edom.

6. A sword (is) to Jehovah (or Jehovah has a sicord] ; it is full of blood. The genitive construction (the sicord of Jehovah), although not ungrammatical, is not to be assumed without necessity. It is smeared u-ith fat. The allusion is not to the fatty part of the blood or to the fat combined with it (Gesenius), but to fat and blood as the animal substances offered in sacrifice. With the blood of lambs and goats, mentioned as well-known sacrificial animals, with the fat of the kidneys (or the kidney fat) of nuns, mentioned either as remarkable for fatness or as a parallel expression to the foregoing clause. For there is to Jehovah (or Jehovah has) a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom. i~QT is otherwise ex plained to mean a victim (Vulgate), or the preparation for a feast (Cocceius). Bozrah was an ancient city of Edom. Gesenius in his Commentary identifies it with Bostra in Auranitis ; but in his Thesaurus he agrees with Raumer and Hitzig in making it the same with the modern Bnsaireh, a village and castle in Arabia Petraea, south-east of the Dead Sea (see Robin son's Palestine, ii. p. 570). Cocceius thinks Jerusalem is here called Boerah as being a stronghold of thieves and robbers. Vitringa applies it to Rome, which he derives from HD1, high. Hitzig applies this verse to the literal slaughter of the Edomitish flocks and herds, which seems inconsis tent with the next verse.

7. And unicorns shall come down unth them, and bullocks with bulls. And their land shall be soaked (or drenched) with blood, and their dust with,

fat shall be fattened. The ancient versions, with great unanimity and uni formity, explain DS1 as meaning the unicorn. This animal has been commonly regarded as fabulous in modern times; but of late some traces of it have been found in Thibet and other parts of Asia. But even supposing it to be a real animal, we have no reason to believe that it was ever common in the Holy Land, as the DN~> would seem to have been from the frequency with which it is mentioned. The explanation of the Hebrew word by Aquila and Saadias, as meaning the rhinoceros, may be considered as ex ploded by Bochart. The modern writers are divided between a certain species of gazelle or antelope, and the wild buffalo of Palestine and Egypt. The name may here be used either as a poetical description of the ox, or to suggest that wild as well as tame beasts should be included in the threatened slaughter. Some understand the term as denoting potent and malignant enemies. Grotius gives a distinctive meaning also to the species mentioned in the foregoing verse, the lambs being the common people, the goats the priests, and the fat rains the men of wealth. This mode of ex position is at variance with the very nature of figurative language. For D^X") in this verse some of the old Jews read D^DII, Romans. Dust here denotes dry soil, which is said to be enriched by the bodies of the slain. So Virgil says that Roman blood had twice enriched the soil of Macedonia. Thejield of Waterloo (says Barnes) lias thus been celebrated, since the great battle there, for producing rank and luxuriant harvests. To come down in the first clause is by some explained as meaning to come down to the slaughter (Jer. 1. 27, li. 40) ; by others to fall or sink under the fatal stroke (Zech. xi. 2).

8. For (there is) a day of renijeance to Jehovah, a year of recompenses for the cause of Zion, i. e. to maintain her cause. Some have taken this in an unfavourable sense as meaning to contend with Zion. Cocceius and Umbreit regard day and year as a climax, but most writers as equivalent indefinite expressions. This verse connects the judgments threatened against Edom with the cause of Zion or the church of God, On the construction and the meaning of the first words of the sentence, compare chap. ii. 12.

9. And her streams (those of Idumea or the land of Edom) shall be turned to pitch, and her dust to brimstone, and her land shall become burning pitch. This verse, as Calvin well observes, announces nothing new, but repeats the same prediction under other figures, borrowed from the over throw of Sodom and Gomorrah, which throughout the Bible are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 7). To the fire and brimstone there mentioned, pitch or bitumen is added, as Hendewerk and Knobcl suppose, because the soil of Idumea, lying adjacent to the Dead Sea, is bituminous, and abounds in veins or springs of naphtha. According to Sanctius, pitch is mentioned as a substance easily kindled and burning long. HvfU neither means her valleys (Septuagint) nor her torrents (Lowth), but her streams in general, as distinguished from her dust or dry ground, both being included in the general term land which occurs in the last clause (Hitzig). According to Knobel, the suffix in i"li"1X still refers to Idumea, and the noun means surface. Grotius applies this description to the burning of the Idurnean cities. Clericus explains the first clause as meaning that their streams should be as turbid as if turned to pitch. Barnes correctly understands it as expressing in the strongest terms the idea of utter and permanent destruction, as complete and terrible as {/'the streams were turned to pitch. The old editions of the Chaldeo Paraphrase read here the streams of Rome, &c. According to the Talmud,

Rome was founded on the day that Jeroboam set up the golden calf, and is to be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah. Upon this tradition (which is given at length in Buxtorf s Talmudical Lexicon under the word NO1"1) Gill seizes with avidity, so far as it is suited to his purpose, and applies it to the future destruction of Rome by fire, as predicted in Rev. xvii. 16, xviii. 8. Vitringa also thinks it not impossible that even this verse may be literally verified in the sulphureous soil of Latium and Campania. He seems indeed to have regarded it as an event likely to happen in his own day, and cites with great solemnity the similar anticipations of Jerome Savonarola, as recorded by Philip de Comines, and the prophecy found, according to Matthew of Paris, in the bed-room of Gregory IX. So little does the failure of these earlier forebodings appear to have taught him their groundless and unprofitable nature! At the same time he appears to allow ample space for the fulfilment by referring to the great fire under Nero as a prelude to the final conflagration.

10. Day and night it shall not le quenched ; for ever shall its smoke go UP > from generation to generation shall it lie u-aste; for ever and ever there shall be no one passing through it. The remarkable gradation and accumu lation of terms denoting perpetuity can scarcely be expressed in a trans lation. This is especially the case with the last and highest of the series, which Lowth renders to everlasting ages, and Henderson to all perpetuity, neither of which is stronger than the common version for ever and erer. or approaches much nearer to the strict sense of the Hebrew phrase, to perpetuity of perpetuities. The original form of expression, though not the exact sense of the words, is retained by Theodotion, its iex,arasa^druv. Grotius's characteristic explanation is in these words : id est, diu. Lowth's disposition to improve the common version by substituting Latin for Saxon words is exemplified in this verse, where he changes waste and quenched into desert and extinguished. Grotius supposes an allusion to the long-continued smoking of burnt cities, and quotes parallels from Virgil and Seneca. A much more striking parallel is found in the state ment (Gen. xix. 28), that when Abraham looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. These sublime and fearful images are copied in the book of Revelation (xiv. 10, 11), but it does not follow that the copy, though inspired and prophetic, was intended to determine the sense of the original. Rosenmiiller and Knobel understand the last words as meaning that no one shall go to it or pass into it, but Gesenius and Ewald with the older writers, that no one shall pass through or over it, implying that it shall not be a tho roughfare for caravans or single travellers. Keith, in his Evidence of Prophecy, has collected some remarkable illustrations of this passage from the incidental statements of modern travellers, with respect to what was once the land of Edom. Thus Volney speaks of thirty deserted towns within three days' journey ; Seetzen, of a wide tract utterly without a place of habitation, and of his own route through it as one never before attempted ; Burckhardt, of the passage as declared by the people of the nearest inha bited districts to be impossible, in accordance with which notion he was unable to procure guides at any price. These are striking coincidences, and as illustrations of the prophecy important, but are not to be insisted on as constituting its direct fulfilment, for in that case the passage of these very travellers through the country would falsify the prediction which they are cited to confirm. The truth of the prophecy in this clause is really no more suspended on such facts, than that of the first clause and

of the preceding verse upon the actual existence of bituminous streams and a sulphureous soil throughout the ancient Idurnea. The whole is a magni ficent prophetic picture, the fidelity of which, so far as it relates to ancient Edorn, is notoriously attested by its desolation for a course of ages. In this verse Hitzig represents the writer as attaining his highest point of bitterness against the Edomites; and Knobel, in a kindred spirit, says that the repeated threatening of perpetual desolation, while it makes the predic tion more impressive, shews great spite (yerrilth arossen Hass), an expres sion far more applicable to the comment than the text, which is as little open to the charge of malice as the sentence which a judge pronounces on a convict.

11. Then shall possess it (as a heritage) the pelican and porcupine, the crane and crow shall dwell in it. And he (or one) shall stretch upon it the line of confusion and the stones of emptiness. Having declared that man should no longer pass through it, he now explains who shall be its inhabi tants. The first verb is rendered by Cocceius shall inherit ; by Junius still more fully, shall possess by hereditary right ; but by Geseuius and most later writers, shall possess, which, though correct, is scarcely adequate, as the original word could not fail to suggest to a Hebrew reader the idea of succession. These animals should not only occupy the laud, but occupy it as the successors and to the exclusion of mankind. The fiKp is no doubt the pelican, as the etymology of the name (from Kip, to vomit) agrees with the habits of that bird, and the ancient versions to explain it. In this place, it is true, the Septuagint has not crXgxav, as Henderson quotes it, but the general term Isvta, and the Vulgate not pellicanus but onocrolalus. The next word has been translated owl (Calvin), and bittern (English Version), but is now agreed to mean the porcupine or hedgehog, as explained in the Septuagint (e^/xw). The next word is now understood to denote, not an owl (Bochart), but a heron or crane ; according to the Septuagint, the ibis or Egyptian heron. The essential idea, as Culvin observes, is that of wild and solitary animals. (Compare chap. xiii. 21, 22; xiv. 23, Rev. xviii. 2.) Here again a remarkable coincidence is furnished by the statements of travellers with respect to the number of wild birds in Edom. Mangles, while at Petra, describes the screaming of the eagles, hawks, and owls, seemingly annoyed at any one approaching their lonely habitation. Burckhardt speaks of Tafyle as frequented by an immense number of crows, and of the birds called kutta, which fly in such large flocks that the boys often kill two or three at a time merely by throwing a stick among them. In this last case the coincidence is verbal also, as the httta bears a strong resemblance to the riNp. The apparent inconsistency between this clause and the description of the country in the verse before it only shews that neither can be strictly taken, but that both are metaphorical predictions of entire desolation. In the next clause the same idea is expressed by an entire change of figure. The verb may be construed either with Jehovah understood (Kimchi), or indefinitely, as by Junius (quisquis conal>itur), and August! (manzieht), which is really equivalent to the passive form adopted in the Vulgate (extendetur). In the use of the words inn and 1^3, there may be a distinct allusion to Gen. i. 2, as there is in Jer. iv. 23. The line meant is a measuring line, mentioned elsewhere not only in con nection with building (Zech. i. 16), but also with destroying (2 Kings xxi. 13). The stones meant are not the black flints with which the soil of ancient Edom is profusely covered (Burckhardt), but stones used for u-eifjhts (Deut. xxv. 13, Prov. xvi. 11), and here for plumb-line or plummet. This sense, which is given in the Vulgate (perpendiculum), is re quired by the parallelism, and assumed by all interpreters. The same figure is employed by (Amos vii. 7—9) to denote a moral test or standard, but in this case as a symbol xof destruction. The plummet is here men tioned, not because actually used in the taking down of buildings (Hen derson), but as a parallel to line (Hitzig), both together expressing the idea of exact and careful measurement. The, sense of the whole metaphor may then be either that God has laid this work out for himself and will perform it (Barnes), or that in destroying Edom he will act with equity and justice (Gill), or that even in destroying he will proceed deliberately and by rule (Knobel), which last sense is well expressed in Rosenmiiller's paraphrase (ad mensuram vastabitur, ad reyidam depopuJabitur). Ewald seems to understand the clause as meaning that the land should be meted out to new inhabitants, but that these should be only Waste and Chaos. Calvin and others make it mean that all attempts at restoration should be vain ; the line and plummet of the builder should only serve as mea sures of desolation. According to Clericns, the sense is that there should be nothing to prevent one from measuring the ruins. The Septuagint curiously assimilates the clauses by translating this : Ass-centaurs shall inhabit it.

12. Her cares and there is no one there (i. e. her uninhabited or empty caves) they will (still) call a kingdom, and all her cliiefs will be cessation (i. e. cease to be). Lowth reads iT"ni"Q or PPVin ?y, connects it with the preceding verse (for which division of the text he cites the authority of the Peshito), and translates the last words of that verse as follows : — • And the plummet of emptiness over her scorched plains. Such a sense is dearly purchased by an arbitrary change of text, and the introduction of a word of rare occurrence, not to say of doubtful meaning. Not content with this, however, he reads D&? for DB>, gives N?£ the sense which he says it has in Prov. xx. 6, and translates the first clause, No more shall they boast the renown of the kingdom ! Most other writers take n<l}'ri in the sense given to it by the Septuagint (a^o!<rjj), and Vulgate (nobiles). Montanus renders it heroes. Gesenius retains the common meaning, but derives it (on the strength of an Arabic analogy) from the primary idea of free-lorn. It is also commonly agreed since Vitriuga, that this first word should be construed as a nominative absolute (as to her nobles), and the first verb as indefinite. That verb has been variously explained here as meaning to smj (Augusti), to cry (French Version), to lament (Castalio), to propose (De Dieu), to name (Forerius), to recall (Grotius), to proclaim (Cocceius), and to call in the sense of nominating or appointing (Vatablus). No less various are the senses put upon the whole clause, among which, however, three may be particularly mentioned. According to the first, it means that there shall be none to proclaim the kingdom (Ewald), or to call a king (Munster). According to the second, it means that there shall be no kingdom. This idea is variously expressed and combined, so as to mean that their princes will be princes without land (LutLer), or that they will lament for the destruction of the kingdom (Castalio), or will cry that it is at an end (French Version), or will call for its restoration (De Dieu); to which may be added Augusti's explanation, that men will say of her princes, They have no kingdom ! and Grotius's, that they will call to mind (mcmoria recolent) their ancient royal race now extinct, in favour of which he appeals to the Targum, which is here of very doubtful meaning. A third sense, preferred by most of the late writers, is that there shall be no one

whom they can call to the kingdom. The same elliptical construction is supposed to occur in Deut. xxxiii. 19. This great variety of explanations, and the harshness of construction with which most of them are chargeable, may serve as an excuse for the suggestion of a new one, not as certainly correct, but as possibly entitled to consideration. All the interpretations which have been cited coincide in giving to DHH the sense of nobles, which it certainly has in several places. (See 1 Kings xxi. 8, 11 ; Neh. ii. 16, iv. 13.) But in several others, it no less certainly means holes or caves. (See 1 Sam. xiv. 11, Job xxx. G, Nahum ii. 13.) Now it is matter of his tory not only that Edom was full of caverns, but that these were inha bited, and that the aboriginal inhabitants, expelled by Esau, were ex pressly called Horites (D^lh), as being troglodytes or inhabitants of caverns (Gen. xiv. 6, xxxvi. 20, Deut. ii. 12, 22). This being the case, the entire depopulation of the country, and especially the destruction of its princes, might be naturally and poetically expressed by saying that the kingdom of Edom should be thenceforth a kingdom of deserted caverns. How appropriate such a description would be to the actual condition of the country, and particularly to its ancient capital, may be seen from Robinson's account of Petra (Palestine, ii. pp. 514-537). The supposed parallelism between JVin and rV"l55>, which Henderson urges against Lowth's absurd emendation of the text, can have little weight in a case where the construc tion is at best so difficult. It is proper to add that this interpretation was suggested by the allusion to the Horites which Hendewerk assumes, although he gives ^">n the sense of nobles with the great mass of interpreters. Gesenius infers from his own interpretation of this clause, that the kingdom of Edom was elective, and Hitzig adds that they sometimes called a king from foreign parts, of which he finds an instance in Gen. xxxv. 37 ; but Hendewerk objects that, on the same grounds, Isaiah iii. G, 7, would provo Judah to have been an elective monarchy. Gill of course applies this verse to the kingdom of the beast (Rev. xvi. 10), and i"P"V.2> to the cardinals.

13. And her palaces (or in her palaces') shall come up thorns, net/les, and brambles in her fortresses. The natural consequence of her depopula tion. Here, as in chap. v. G, Cocceius and Ewald construe the verb with the noun of place (increscent spinis} ; but G-esenius, who adopts the same construction in the other case, rejects it here, where it is much more natural, as it precludes the necessity of supplying a preposition. In the next clause, Ewald supplies are ; but the preposition beforeybr^resses makes the other construction the more probable. Grotius quotes a beautiful parallel from Virgil. Carduus et spinis sure/it paliurus acutis. The word paliurus is itself used in the Vulgate version of this sentence. In iT"l¥3D3 Gill supposes an allusion to the name Bozrah. Grotius explains the phrase to mean within the limits of her ancient walls. The situation here described would of course be the resort of wild and solitary animals. And she shall be a home of loolves. The Septuagint has sirens and the Vulgate dragons, which is retained in most of the old versions. Gill, who refers it all to Rome directly, understands this to mean that as she had been the abode of figurative dragons, i. e. of the old dragon, the devil and the beast, with their creatures, popes and cardinals, so now she shall be occupied by literal dragons, i. e. monsters of the wilderness. Gesenius and Ewald render D*3fl jackals, but Henderson's version, wolves, is more. expressive, and the exact species meant is both dubious and unimportant. A court (or grass-plot) for ostriches. Gesenius explains "VV1? as an orthographical variation for a court or enclosure. Hitzig takes it in its usual sense of grass. In

like manner it had been explained as meaning grass or pasture long before by Luther (Weide) and Cocceius (gramen). The general sense, in either case, is that of an enclosed and appropriated spot, a play-ground or a dwell ing-place. The last place is rendered by Augusti, daughters of howling. It is now understood to mean, not owls, but female ostriches. (See the note on chap. xiii. 21.)

14. And wild (or desert} creatures shall (there) meet wiJi howling crea tures. The verb sometimes means to meet or encounter in the sense of attacking (Exodus iv. 24 ; Hosea xiii. 8) ; but here it seems to have the general sense of falling in with. These lonely creatures, as they traverse Idurnea, shall encounter none but creatures like themselves. Gesenius and Ewald follow Bochart in explaining D^S to mean wild cats. Lowth has jackals. Most other writers, with greater probability, take it in the general sense of those inhabiting the wilderness. (Compare the note on chap. xiii. 21.) In like manner, D"N may be understood, according to its etymology, as signifying howlers, i. e. howling animals. This is less arbitrary, and at the same time better suited to the context, than the explanation of the words as names of particular species. The principal specific meanings put upon D"N are those of vultures (Luther), thoes * (Bochart), mountain cats (Lowth), wild cats (Grotius), wild dogs (Gesenius), and wolves (Ewald). Hendewerk prefers the more general meaning, leasts of prey (Raubthiere), for which there seems to be no sufficient ground in etymology. Augusti retains both Hebrew words (Zihim and //mi.) Castalio has Sylvani and Faunis. Next to the explanation first proposed, the most probable is that given by Cocceius and the English Version, wild beasts of the desert and wild leasts of the island. The antithesis might then be, that between the animals inhabiting dry places and those frequenting marshes or the banks of streams (according to the wide sense of the Hebrew 'N, explained in the note on chap. xx. 6), implying either the existence of such spots in Idumea, or that the whole description is to be tropically understood. By the wild beasts of the desert, Cocceius understands the Saracens and Turks, and by the wild beasts of the island the Crusaders. In the words D"¥ and D"K there is a paronomasia but not & pun (Barnes). A pun is the use of one word in two senses. A paronomasia is the likeness of two different words in form or sound. And the shaggy monster shall call to his fellow. Hitzig and Ewald give fcnp' the sense of meeting, as a parallel to W&, and sup pose the Kal to be here construed as the Niphal is in Exodus iii. 18. But as the Kal itself never means to meet, excepting in a figurative application, and as the other explanation gives a perfectly good sense, and adds variety to the description, it is better to explain it as most writers have done since the Septuagint Version (/3ojj<rovra/). For the true sense of ">W, see the extended comment on the plural form as it occurs in chap. xiii. 21. Ewald,. who has satyrs, there, has he-goat in the case before us ; and Hen derson, who has wild goats there, has here the shaggy he-goat. Other writers still give the word, as in the former case, the sense of a hirciform spectre (Bochart), field-spirit (Augusti), field-devil (Luther), wood-devil (J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius), and the Dutch Version makes it flatly mean de duyvel. Amidst these various and fanciful interpretations, the most con sistent with itself and with the etymology is still that of the Vulgate (pilosus]. This is preferable even to that given by Henderson and Ewald; on the ground that it corresponds better with the general descriptive meaning, which, as we have seen above, most probably belongs to -the words D"¥ and

* Or Jackals.

O"N in the preceding clause. If that clause speaks of wild and howling beasts, and not of any one class exclusively, it is nore natural that this should speak of shaggy monsters generally than of goats. Hendewerk's conjecture that the Prophet here alludes to mount Seir pW) is not so felicitous as that respecting the allusion to the Horites in ver. 12. Only there reposes the night- monster, and finds for herself a resting-place. 1^, which the older writers render qninimo (Vitringa), certe (Cocceius), &c., properly a particle of limitation meaning only. The latest writers connect it with D!^ as meaning only time (Gesenius), or with the verb as meaning only rest (De Wette), or with J"lvv as meaning non'ii-^i spectra nocturna (Manrer). The word n vv, which occurs only here, has experienced very much the same fate with "Vyt?. In itself it means nothing more nor less than noctur nal, and would seem to be applicable either to an animal or to any other object peculiarly belonging to the night. The Vulgate renders it by lamia, a word used very much like the English ivitch, but derived from the name of a Libyan queen, who, having lost her child, was said to prey upon the children of others. With this may be connected another Roman supersti tion, that of the strix or varnpyre, which sucked the blood of children in the cradle. These superstitions were adopted by the later Jews, and con nected with the world before us, as denoting a nocturnal spectre (or shedemon as Gill calls it), preying upon new-born children, against which the German Jews are said to use traditional precautions. This gratuituous in terpretation of the Hebrew word was unfortunately sanctioned by Bochart and Vitringa, and adopted with eagerness by the modern Germans, who re joice in every opportunity of charging a mistake in physics or a vulgar superstition on the Scriptures. This disposition is the more apparent here, because the writers of this school usually pique themselves upon the critical discernment with which they separate the exegetical inventions of the Rabbins from the genuine meaning of the Hebrew text. Gesenius, for example, will not even grant that the doctrine of a personal Messiah is so much as mentioned in the writings of Isaiah, although no opinion has been more universally maintained by the Jews, from the date of their oldest uncanonical books extant. In this case, their unanimous and uninterrupted testimony goes for nothing, because it would establish an unwelcome identity between the Messiah of the Old and New Testament. But when the object is to fasten on the Scriptures a contemptible and odious superstition, the utmost deference is paid, not only to the silly legends of the Jews, but to those of the Greeks, Romans, Zabians, and Russians, which are collated and paraded with a prodigal expenditure of trifling erudition, to prove what never was disputed, that these superstitions have existed and do still exist; as if it followed of course that they were current in the days of Isaiah, and if not believed, are distinctly mentioned by him. But this con clusion would be wholly unauthorized, even if the words of the Prophet at first-sight seemed to bear that meaning; how much more when it can only be attached to them by violence? J. D. Michaelis, who stands among the writers on Isaiah at the turning-point between belief and unbelief, acquits the Prophet of behoving in such spectres, but regards it as a case of accommodation to popular 'errors or illusions, the same principle on which the demoniacal possessions of the gospel are explained away, and as the ultimate result of the same process, the historical existence of Christ himself resolved into a mythus. That a similar mode of exposition was adopted by such men as Bochart and Vitringa, only proves that they lived before its dangerous tendency had been developed. It should also be considered that

nocturnal spectres bad iiot then been so decisively referred to tbe category of ideal beings as tbey are at present. Tbese remarks are intended merely to prevent an inconsiderate adoption of the views in question, on the authority either of the older writers or the modern Germans. Against the views themselves there are substantive objections of the most conclusive kind. Besides the fact already mentioned, that fivv strictly means nocturnal and that its application to a spectre is entirely gratuitous, we may argue here, as in chap. xiii. 25, that ghosts as well as demons would be wholly out of place in a list of wild and solitarj' animals. That such animals are mentioned in the first clause of this verse and of the next, is allowed by all interpreters, however widely they may differ as to the specific meaning of the terms employed. Taking Gesenius's interpretation, the first item in the catalogue is u'ild cuts, the second wild dor/s, the third demons, the fourth holf/oblins, and the fifth arrow -snakes. Is this a natural succession of ideas? Is it one that ought to be assumed without necessity? The only necessity that can exist in such a case is that of meeting the conditions of the context. The third and fourth particulars in this list must of course be something doleful or terrific; but they need not be more so than the other objects in the same connection. It is enough if they belong to the same class, in this respect, with wild cats, jackals, wolves, and arrow-snakes. This is sufficiently secured by making flvv mean a nocturnal bird (Aben Ezra), or more specifically, an owl (Cocceius), or screech-owl (Lowth). But the word admits of a still more satisfactory interpretation, in exact agreement with the exposition which has been already given of the preceding terms as general descriptions rather than specific names. If these terms represent the animals occupying Idumea, first as belonging to the wilder ness (E"V), then as distinguished by their fierce or melancholy cries (E^K), and then as shaggy in appearance p^^'), nothing can be more natural than that the fourth epithet should also be expressive of their habits as a class, and no such epithet could well be more appropriate than that of nocturnal or belonging to the night. Another objection to the meaning spectre is, that the poetry and legends of all nations have associated with such beings the idea of inquietude. When Hamlet says, Rest, rest, perturbed spirit! he virtually tells the ghost to cease to be one. But here, according to the fashionable exegesis, the spectre is described, not as flitting or gliding through the land or among its ruins, but as taking up its lodgings and reposing. Of all the figures that could be employed, that of resting seems to be the least appropriate in the description of a spectre, and especially of such as Gesenius describes to us from Eastern story books and rabbinical traditions. Of this incongruity he seems to have had at least a vague apprehension, as he strangely says that the terms here used imply a rest less wandering state, whereas they seem to imply the very contrary, and no less strangely cites Mat. xii. 48, where the evil spirit is expressly said to pass through dry places seeking rest and finding none. On these grounds, therefore, that the Hebrew word, according to its derivation, simply means nocturnal; that in this sense it suits perfectly the parallelism and the con text, as containing names of animals or rather descriptions of their habits; that the action described is peculiarly unsuited to a ghost or a spectre; that the Scriptures contain no intimations of the real existence of such beings; that the supposition of a mere accommodation to the popular belief is dangerous, unworthy, and gratuitous; and that the existence of the popular belief itself so early is exceedingly improbable; we may safely set aside the spectral interpretation as untenable on philological and historical grounds,

and as certainly not worth being taken for granted. The same considera tions make it unneccessary to retain the Hebrew word (lllith), as August! and Henderson have done, as if in obedience to the flippant direction of John David Michaelis, that whoever will not tolerate a ghost here must retain the Hebrew word and imagine it to mean what he pleases (was ihm beliebt). The alternatives in such a case are seldom so few as they are sometimes represented by this learned and ingenious, but conceited and dogmatical interpreter. It only remains to observe that the Septuagint Version, the authority of which has done so much to introduce demons into chap. xiii. 23, makes use of the word daipovia, in this verse too, but as the translation of D11^, while its favourite term ocoxsurauso/ is employed to repre sent both D"X and JV}^. This absurd interpretation is so far consistent with itself, that it makes the whole verse a catalogue of nondescript hob goblins, demons, and ass-centaurs, and if not a refutation of the current ex position of fivv, is at least a severe satire on it.

15. Several manuscripts and one of the oldest editions read 112P as in ver. 11 above, and the Septuagint has J^/Vo; in both places. Jarchi and Kimchi explain the common reading (TIDp) as a synonyme. It is supposed to denote different kinds of birds by Calvin (nlula], Junius (niernla), Cocceius (anataria), &c. Bochart objects that if a bird were meant, its winas would have been mentioned in the other clause, and not merely its shadow. Most of the modern writers follow Bochart in explaining it to mean the sevens jacnlus or arrow- snake, so called from its darting or springing motion. The same learned writer shews that the use of the • word nest in reference to serpents is common in Arabic as well as Greek and Latin. There is no need, therefore, of giving H33p a wider meaning as Jerome does (habuitfovewn). The next verb is rendered by the Yulgate, enutrivlt catnlos • by Castalio, as an adverbial expression meaning safely, with impunity; but by the great mass of interpreters, as meaning to lay eg(/s, a sense analogous to that of the cognate form applied in chap. Ixvi. 7 to human parturition. Jerome ti'anslates the next verb circumfodit, but most other writers hatch, the primary sense being that of cleaving. (Compare chap, lix. 5.) This meaning Luther seems to give to mJ"l, perhaps by an inad vertent transposition. Others explain it to mean (father (Junius), hide (Augusti), take refuge (Rosenmuller), but the latest writers brood or cherish, after the Yulgate (fovet). It is here applied to the young when hatched, as it is in Jer. xvii. 11 to the eggs of the partridge. Calvin seems to refer the suffix in n?V2 not to the animal but to some other object. Grotius's paraphrase is sub minis. All the modern writers understand it to mean, undtr her own shadow. H'? is either the black vulture (Bochart), or the kite (Gesenins). Lowth's translation, every one her mate, may con vey an incorrect idea, as both the Hebrew words are feminine. Cocceius disregards the gender and translates the phrase, unus cum altero. As to the particular species of animals referred to in this whole passage, there is no need, as Calvin well observes, of troubling ourselves much about them. (Non est cur in Us magnopere torqueamur.) The general sense evidently is, that a human population should be succeeded by wild nnd lonely animals, who should not only live but breed there, implying total and continued desolation. So Horace says of Troy : Priami Paridisque busto insultat armentum, et catulos ferae celant inulfcc.

16. Seek ye out of the book of Jehovah and read. Knobel connects VJHT with the preceding verse (each one her mate they seek}, and then changes

the remainder of this clause so as to read thus: Nip1" nirp "1DDE }J?, Jy num ber will Jehovah call (them). This bears a strong resemblance to Lowth's treatment of the first clause of ver. 12, but is still more extravagant. The book of Jehovah has been variously explained to mean the book of his decrees (Aben Ezra), his annals or record of events (Forerius), the Scrip tures generally, or more particularly the book of Genesis, or that part which relates to clean and unclean animals (Jarchi), the Mosaic law relating to that subject (Joseph Kimchi), the law in general (Calvin), the book of Revelation (Gill), the book of Prophecy in general (Junius), the Prophecies against Edom in particular (xUting), and finally this very pro phecy (David Kimchi). The most natural interpretation seems to be that which makes this an exhortation to compare the prophecy with the event, and which is strongly recommended by the fact that all the verbs are in the past tense, implying that the Prophet here takes his stand at a point of time posterior to the event. The book may then be this particular pro phecy, or the whole prophetic volume, or the entire Scripture, without material change of sense. The persons addressed are the future witnesses

of the event. ?VO does not mean/rom top to bottom, as Vitringa imagines, but simply from upon, as we speak of reading a sentence off a, book or paper. This expression seems to have been used in anticipation of the verb!K"lp, which has here the sense of publishing by reading aloud. One of them has not failed. A very few writers understand this as relating to the evils threatened; but the great majority more naturally apply it to the animals mentioned in the preceding verses, as signs of desolation. As if he had said, I predicted that Edom should be occupied by such and such creatures, • and behold they are all here, not one of them is wanting. This is a lively and impressive mode of saying, the prediction is fulfilled. One another they miss not. The verb has here the sense of mustering or review ing to discover who is absent, as in 1 Sam xx. 6, xxv. 15. The reference is not to the pairing of animals (Barnes), because both HtJ'X and nnijn are feminine, and because the context requires an allusion to the meeting of different species, not of the individuals of one kind. For my mouth, it has commanded; and his spirit it has gathered them, i.e. the animals aforesaid. The last phrase is a more specific explanation of the general expression has commanded. To add a suffix to the latter, therefore, would complete the parallelism but disturb the sense. The sudden change of person from my month to his spirit has led to various explanations. Houbigant reads VD and Knobel liTD, his mouth, which is actually found in a few manu scripts. Lowth reads!"lin' for Kin, the month of Jehovah, which is not only arbitrary but in violation of his favourite principle of parallelism. The same objection lies against the explanation of Kin, by Glassius and Simonis, as a divine name, and by Rosenmuller and Dathe, as a substitute for it. Such an explanation of the second Nin is precluded by the fore going suffix. A much more plausible solution is the one proposed by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who refer the suffix in inn to ^ (my mouth and its breath), and thus makes God the speaker in both clauses. But on the whole, the simplest course is either to suppose with Vitringa that Jehovah speaks in one clause and the Prophet in the next, an enallage too frequent to be inadmissible, or that the Prophet really refers the command to his own mouth instrumentally, but then immediately names the Divine Spirit as the efficient agent. This is the less improbable because the first clause of the verse, as we have seen, contains an appeal to his own written pre diction. The Spirit of God is not merely his power but himself, with

special reference to the Holy Ghost, as being both the author and fulfiller of the prophecies.

17. He too has cast the lot for them, and his hand has divided it to them by line. An evident allusion to the division of the land of Canaan, both by lot and measuring-line. (See Num. xxvi. 55, 56 ; Josh, xviii. 4—6.) As Canaan was allotted to Israel, so Edom is allotted to these doleful creatures. Having referred to the allotment as already past, he now de scribes the occupation as future and perpetual. For ever shall they hold it as a heritage, to all generations shall they dwsll therein. Cocceius, who applies the whole prediction to the unbelieving Jews, thus explains this last clause: nunquam restituetur respublica Judicorum in ilia terra.

CHAPTER XXXV.

A GREAT and glorious change is here described under the figure of a desert clothed with luxuriant vegetation, vers. 1, 2. The people are encouraged with the prospect of this change, and with the promise of avenging judgments on their enemies, vers. 8, 4. The same change is then expressed, by a change of figure, as a healing of corporeal infirmities, vers. 5, 6. The former figure is again resumed, and the wilderness de scribed as free from all its wonted inconveniences, particularly those of barrenness and thirst, disappointment and illusion, pathlessness and beasts of prey, vers. 7-9. The whole prediction winds up with a promise of redemption, restoration, and endless blessedness, ver. 10.

This chapter is regarded by Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Rosenmiiller, as entirely distinct from that before it; by Hitzig as a separate composition of the same writer; but by most interpreters as a direct continuation of it. According to llosenrnuller, it was written by the author of chaps, xi., xii. ; according to Umbreit, by the author of chaps, xl.-lxvi., accordingto Ewald, by another in imitation of that writer; according to Gesenius, by the author of chaps. xiii.,xiv., which the passage before us resembles, he says, in its literary merit and its moral defects, especially its spirit of revenge and blood thirsty hatred. All these writers agree that it cannot be the work of Isaiah. As a sample of the proofs on which their judgment rests, it may be stated that Hitzig makes the use of the form "V¥n, and of the phrase 27 ^"iriDJ, a proof of later date. He authoritatively sets it down as belonging to the period immediately before the termination of the exile. By such assertions and pretended proofs, its genuineness is of course unshaken.

With respect to the subject of the chapter there is no less diversity of judgment. It has been explained with equal confidence as a description of the state of Judah under Hezekiah (Grotius), of the return from exile (Clericus), of the state of Judah after that event (Rosenmiiller), of that state and the times of the New Testament together (J. H. Michaelis), of the calling of the Gentiles (Cocceius), of the Christian dispensation (Luther, Calvin), of the state of the church after the fall of antichrist (Yitringa), of the state of Palestine at some future period (J. D. Michaelis), and of a future state of blessedness (Gill). These arbitrary hypotheses refute each other. The best description of the chapter is that given by Augusti in the title to his version of it, where he represents it as the description of a happy condition of the church after a period of suffering. This is no doubt its true import, and when thus explained it may be considered as including

various particulars, none of which can be regarded as its specific or exclusive subject. Gesenius says this prophecy was of course never fulfilled; but so far is this from being true, that it has rather been fulfilled again and again. Without any change of its essential meaning, it may be applied to the resto ration of the Jews from Babylon, to the vocation of the Gentiles, to the whole Christian dispensation, to the course of every individual believer, and to the blessedness of heaven. The ground of this manifold application is not that the language of the passage is unmeaning or indefinite, but that there is a real and designed analogy between the various changes men tioned which brings them all within the natural scope of the same inspired description.

1. Desert and waste shall rejoice (for) them. The verb is translated as an imperative of the second or third person by the Septuagint, Cocceius, and others ; and as a descriptive present by Gesenius and some later writers ; but there is no sufficient reason for departing from the strict sense of the future. The desert has been variously explained to mean Idumea, Judea, the Jewish Church, the Christian Church, the Gentile world, and the wilderness separating Palestine from Babylonia. The true sense seems to be that given by Gesenius, who supposes the blooming of the desert to be used here, as in many other cases, to express an entire revolution, the subject of the change being not determined by the figure itself but by the whole con nection. The final D has been variously explained, as a suffix, eqivalent to Di"Q, Di"!?, or E£>y ; as a paragogic letter, used instead of j, on account of the £ following ; and as a mere orthographical mistake, arising from the same cause. Those who make it a suffix, refer it either to the animals described in the close of the preceding chapter, or to the judgments there threatened against Edom, or to the Jewish exiles returning from captivity. The suffix is not expressed in any of the ancient versions. Kennicott supposes the D to have been added merely to complete the line ; but why should such a form have been perpetuated ? The idea of the first clause is repeated in the second. And the wilderness shall rejoice and llossom as the rose. This explanation of the last word is given by several of the Kabbins, and retained by Junius, Cocceius, Lowth, and Augusti. The later writers ob ject that the word, according to its etymology, must denote a bulbous plant. The ancient versions, with Luther and Calvin, make it mean the lily, which is retained by Ewald ; but for this flower the language has a different name. Saadias and Abulwalid explain it as the narcissus, which is approved by Gese nius in his Commentary, and after him by most of the later German writers. But in his Thesaurus he makes it mean the colchicum autumnale or meadowsaffron. Amidst this diversity and doubt, it is best with Barnes to retain the English word rose, as more familiar and as conveying a more striking image of beauty. The poetry, if not the botany, of this translation is supe rior to Henderson's (and blossom as the crocus).

2. The same idea of complete and joyful change is again expressed by the same figure, but with greater fulness, the desert being here described as putting on and wearing the appearance of the spots most noted for luxu riant vegetation. (It shall) blo&som, it shall blossom and rejoice; yea, (with) joy and shouting ; or, yea, joy and shouting (there shall be). The glory of Lebanon is given unto it (the desert), the beauty of Carmel and of tiharon. They (who witness this great change) shall see the glory of Jehovah, the beauty of our God. The figures here employed are so familiar, and in their obvious meaning so expressive, that we only weaken their effect by treating them as symbols or an allegory. Thus Jarchi understands by the

VER. 3.] ISAIAir XXXV. 35

glory of Lebanon the temple; Gill, choice and excellent Christians, &c. As a change hi the relative condition of the Jews and Gentiles is no doubt incluled in the prophecy, there is not the same objection to the opinion of Forerius, that the second clause of the verse denotes the transfer of God's spiritual presence, and the glory connected with it, from the Jewish to the Christian Church. According to (Ecolampadius, Lebanon, Cannel, and Sha ron are here mentioned, as natural boundaries or landmarks of the country. Schmidius supposes that a mountain, a cultivated field, and an extensive plain, are given as samples of the whole, to intimate that nothing should be wanting to the perfection of the state here promised and described. But Lebanon and Cannel are both mountains, unless we give the latter its generic sense of fruitful field, as Junius and Tremellius do, in obvious violation of the context, since the preceding and the following word are evidently proper names. The glory or beauty of the places named, is not fertility, as Grotius thinks, but rather its effect as seen in their luxuriant vegetation. The reduplication of the first verb in the sentence is regarded by almost all interpreters as emphatic, though they differ greatly as to its precise force. Calvin and Junius make it expressive of abundant and progressive growth, as if he had said, it shall blossom more and more. Hitzig applies it to the rankness of the growth (hoch sprosst sie auf), Knobel to its universality (ganz sprosset sie). August! repeats the verb as in Hebrew (bluhenja bliihen) and the Vulgate copies the precise form still more closely (germinans germinabit) The future translation of }P)? by Calvin and the English Version is gratuitous and arbitrary. The preterite form points out the true re lation of the cause to its effect. It shall rejoice because the glory of Lebanon has been given to it. The pronoun they is referred by Vitringa to the desert, Lebanon, &c. But as these are the immediate antecedents, the pronoun would hardly have been introduced, except for the purpose of directing attention to some other nominative than the nearest, as in Ps. xxii. 18. The true sense is probably that given in the Septuagint (my people) and the Targum (the house of Israel), and in a more general form by Clericus (qui aderunt). Instead of pit, the Seventy seem to have read PT (rn izr,ij,a, <rvJ 'loedavov), and this reading with a corresponding change of the preceding word, is adopted by Houbigant (P"1'1'"1 ^^)> Keunicott (p"VH rinj), and Lowth (the well watered plain of Jordan). The words, as they stand in the common text, may be construed either with a preposi tion or the substantive verb understood. Eleven manuscripts read K (to thee) for n1? (to it), which merely converts the description into an apostrophe.

3. With the prospect of this glorious change the people are commanded to encourage themselves and one another. Strengthen hands (now) sink ing, and knees (now) tottering make firm. The hands and knees are here combined, as Vitringa observes, to express the powers of action and en durance. The participial forms represent the hands as actually hanging down, relaxed, or weakened, and the knees as actually giving way. The passage explained is far more expressive than if we make the participles adjectives, denoting a permanent quality or habitual condition. In itself the language of this verse is applicable either to self-encouragement or to the consolation of others. It is understood to mean renew your own strength, by Cocceius and Clericus (reparate vires vestras). Most of the older writers, and some moderns, make the other the prominent idea, and suppose the command to be addressed to those in office (Barnes), or to

ministers (Calvin), or to the prophets (Knobel), or to these and other good men (Grotius), or to the people generally (Junius). Neither of these interpretations is erroneous except in being too exclusive. There is no reason why the words should not be taken in their widest sense, as meaning, let despondency be exchanged for hope. That self-encourage ment is not excluded, may be learned from Paul's use of the words in that sense (Heb. xii. 12). That mutual encouragement is not excluded, is sufficiently apparent from the following verse. Thus understood the words may be considered as including, but not as specifically signifying spiritual weakness or inability to do God's will (Targum), and the duty of encouraging the Gentiles with the prospect of admission to his favour (Menochius). The specific application of the passage to the Roman per secutions (Gurtlerus) is gratuitous. Equally so is the idea that the Jews are here encouraged under the depressing recollection of sufferings already past (Grotius), or under the alarm excited by the foregoing threats (Calvin). The same objection lies against the exclusive reference of the words to the exiles in Babylon who distrusted the promises (Hendewerk), or believed themselves to be forsaken by Jehovah (Knobel). As a general exhortation, they are applicable to these and to many other situations, none of which can be regarded as the exclusive subject of the promise. The figures here used are the same with those employed in chap. xiii. 7, and in Job iv. 3, 4. The image presented is that of persons who can scarcely lift up their hands or stand upon their legs (Gill). The Septuagint supposes the command to be addressed to the hands themselves (h^uaari %£/££?). Hitzig gratuitously changes hands to arms, as in chaps, x. 10, 13, xiv. 27, six. 16, xxv. 10, xxvi. 11, &c.

4. This verse shews how the command in the one before it is to be obeyed, by suggesting, as topics of mutual encouragement, the vindicatory justice of God, and his certain interposition in behalf of his people. Say ye to the hasty of heart (i. e. the impatient, those who cannot wait for the fulfil ment of God's promise), Be firm, fear not ; behold your God (as if already present or in sight) ; vengeance is coming, the retribution of God ; he (him self) is coming, and u'ill save you. The connecting link between his vengeance and their safety is the destruction of their enemies. (Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, 2 Thes. i. 6.) "IHD3, as a passive participle, corresponds, in form and sense, to the English hurried. It has been variously explained as meaning inconsiderate (Junius), precipitate (Cocceius), inconstant (Vatablus), faint-hearted (Lowth), palpitating (Rosenmiiller), ready to flee (Geseuius), hasty in drawing black conclusions upon themselves and their state (Gill). But the true sense seems to be the one expressed by Clericus, to wit, impatient of delay in the execution of God's promises (qui nullas moras aquo animo ferre possunt.) This includes the ideas of despondency and unbelieving fear, while at the same time it adheres to the strict sense of the Hebrew word. Compare the analogous expression in chap, xxviii. 16, he that leliereth trill not make haste or be impatient. The construction of the second clause is greatly perplexed by making DTrDK the subject of NIT. Thus the English version, which is founded upon Calvin's, supplies two prepositions and assumes an unusual inversion of the terms. Your God will come (with) vengeance, even God (with) a recompence. This construction also involves an anticlimax, as the simple name of God is of course less emphatic than the full phrase your God. Luther has to vengeance and God who recompenses. Jerome makes the construction still more complex by

translating N12' as a causative (ultionem adducet retnbutionis). The true construction, as given by Junius, Cocceius, Vitringa, and most later writers, makes behold your God an exclamation, and vengeance the subject of the verb. Yitringa observes that N1^ is here used to express both the present and the future, an idea which may be conveyed in English by the idiomatic phrase, is coming or about to come. The Kin might be grammatically con strued with /MM (it will come), but as the act of saving is immediately after wards ascribed to the same subject, it is better to explain the pronoun as an emphatic designation of Jehovah. Not only his vengeance but himself is coming. Grotius, true to his principle of seeking the fulfilment of all prophecies in the days of the Prophet himself, explains he will save you as meaning he icillnot let the Ethiopians reach you. The exclusive application of the threatening here implied to the Babylonians, the Jews, Antichrist, or the Devil, is untenable for reasons which have been already given in the exposition of the foregoing verse. While Barnes denies that the phrase your God refers to the Messiah, Calovius alleges that the name of Jesus is expressly mentioned, being included in the verb V^"1. 'The words are really a promise of deliverance to God's people, and include, as the most important part of their contents, the unspeakable gift of Christ and his salvation.

5, 6. The change in the condition of the people is now represented by another figure, the removal of corporeal infirmities. Then (when God has thus come) shall the' eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame leap (or bound) as an hart, and the tniif/iie of the dumb shall shout (for joy), becauKe waters hare burst forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The reason assigned in this last clause for the joy to be expressed, shews clearly that the miraculous removal of disease and the miraculous irrigation of the desert are intended to ex press one and the same thing. The essential idea in both cases is that of sudden and extraordinary change. This precludes Grotius's interpretation of the fifth verse, as meaning that the most obtuse and prejudiced shall see and acknowledge what God has wrought. It also precludes Jonathan's symbolical exposition of the words as predicting the removal of spiritual disabilities, and the opposite hypothesis, maintained by many of the older writers, that Isaiah here explicitly foretells the miracles of Christ. Calo vius asserts that Christ himself has so interpreted the passage in Matt. xi. 5 ; Luke vii. 22. But, as Henderson justly says, there is no proof what ever that Christ refers John the Baptist to this prophecy ; he employs none of the formulas which he uniformly uses when directing attention to the Old Testament (e.g. in Matt. ix. 16, xi. 10, xii. 17, xiii. 14), but simply appeals to his miracles in proof of his Messiahship : the language is similar, but the subjects different. Another argument is urged by J. D. Michaelis, namely, that the last clause of the sixth verse cannot be applied to the miracles of Christ, and yet it obviously forms a part of the same prophetic picture. The evasion of this difficulty, by assuming, as Yitringa seems inclined to do, a mixture of literal and figurative language in the parallel clauses of the very same description, is one of those arbitrary exegetical expedients, which can only be affirmed on one side and rejected on the other. To the question, whether this prediction is in no sense applicable to our Saviour's miracles, we may reply with Calvin, that although they are not directly mentioned, they were really an emblem and example of the great change which is here described. So, too, the spiritual cures effected by the'gospel, although not specifically signified by these words, are included

in the glorious revolution which they do denote. The simple meaning of the passage is, that the divine interposition which had just been promised should produce as wonderful a change on the condition of mankind, as if the blind were to receive their sight, the dumb to speak, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk, and deserts to be fertilised and blossom as the rose. In the process of this mighty transmutation miracles were really performed both of a bodily and spiritual nature, but the great change which includes these includes vastly more. Gesenius and others understand the sixth verse as describing the joy of the returning exiles, which might be compared to that of men miraculously healed; but it is far more natural to understand the healing as descriptive of the change itself, which must therefore be much more extensive than the restoration of the Jews from Babylon, although this may be one of the particulars included. To the explanation of WP^i as a future, there is the same objection as to that of ]TV in ver. 2. The ori ginal form of expression is not that they shall rejoice for waters shall burst forth, but that they shall rejoice because waters have burst forth already; the last event being spoken of as relatively past, i.e. as previous to the act of rejoicing which the future verb expresses. The version ivhen they shall have burst forth (Cocceius) yields an equally good sense, and indeed the same in substance, but departs, without necessity, from the usual and strict sense of the particle. The suggestion, which Barnes quotes from Camp bell's travels in South Africa, that lameness and dumbness (i.e. indisposi tion or inability to speak) are here alluded to as painful incidents to travel in the desert, is striking and ingenious, but a little far-fetched and at variance with the context, which requires changes more extraordinary than the mere relief of taciturnity and footsore weariness. Here, as in chap, xxxiv. 14, J. D. Michaelis first suggests a fanciful interpretation (making lameness denote ill success in war), and then prescribes, as the only alternative, a reference to the paths of virtue and religion, in which those who are deficient may be said to halt or limp. Clericus, who usitally follows Grotius in preferring the lowest and the most material sense of which the language is susceptible, applies these words to spiritual changes, but thinks it necessary to apologise for this departure from his usual mode of exegesis, which he does by adding to his note upon the sixth verse, e.r quibus intelligere licebit, quamquam propriam verbontm potestatcm sectemur qtiotiescnmque licet, nos ubi necesse est ad tralatitiwn adeoque allegoricum (ut vocatur} sensum devenire. The only wonder is, that he was able to overcome his scruples in a case where there is no necessity whatever for the so-called allegorical interpretation, but a simple instance of poetical metaphor. The verb P"i, to which the older writers gave the sense of singing, is explained by the modern lexicographers as properly denoting the expression of joyous feelings by inarticulate cries or shouts.

7. The idea of complete and joyful change is still expressed by the trans formation of a desert, and the consequent removal of its inconveniences, among which the Prophet here particularly mentions the tantalising illusions to which travellers in the wilderness are subject. And the mirage shall become a pool (or the sand like a water lake, the seeming lake a real one), and the thirsty land springs of water, (even) in the haunt of wolves, their lair, a court (OT field") for reed and rush. Instead of the general meaning put upon 2"itJ> by the older writers following the Septuagint (awfyos) and the Vulgate (qua; erat arida), it is now agreed that the word denotes the illusive appearance caused by unequal refraction in the lower strata of the atmosphere, and often witnessed both at sea and land, called in English

looming, in Italian fata morgana, and in French mirage. J. D. Michaelis thanks God that the German language has no need of such a term; but E \vuld and Umbreit use Kimmung as an equivalent. Other equivalents are employed by Hitzig (\Vasserschein), De Wette (Sandmeer), Hendewerk (Sandnchimmer) , and Henderson (capoury illusion). In the deserts of Arabia and Africa, the appearance presented is precisely that of an exten sive sheet of water, tending not only to mislead the traveller, but to aggra vate his thirst by disappointment. The phenomenon is well described by Quintius Curtius in his Life of Alexander the Great. (Arenas vapor astivi

soils accendit Camporwn non alia quain vasti et profundi trqitoris

species est.) It is thus referred to in the Koran (xxiv. 39) : And as for those who disbelieve, their deeds are like the mirage (L_ >\ .) in the desert;

the thirsty reckons it for water, till when he comes he finds it nothing. More deceitful than the mirage (or serah) is an Arabian proverb. Gesenius follows Hyde in deriving the Hebrew word from a Persian phrase meaning a surface of water. Hitzig explains it as an Arabic derivative denoting an abundant flow or stream. Its introduction here adds a beautiful stroke to the description, not only by its local propriety, but by its strict agreement with the context. The etymology of Jfl^O suggests the idea of a gushing fountain, which is expi-essed in some translations, particularly those of Lowth {bubbling springs) and Augusti (Sprudelquellen). Gesenius and the other recent German writers render D'Jn jackals, as in chap. xiii. 21, and xxxiv. 13 ; but Henderson's translation (wolves) has a better effect in English. The essential idea is that of wild and solitary animals. H13 and "V¥n are com bined as in chap, xxxiv. 13. The latter word is explained by some as meaning grass, and the whole clause as predicting, that hay and reeds and rushes (Luther), or grass with reeds and rushes (Junius), shall grow in what was once the haunt of wild beasts; or that grass shall grow instead of reeds aud rushes (Augusti) ; or that grass shall be converted into reeds and rushes (Cocceius). Most writers now, however, give "^Pl the sense of court, enclosure, or the more general one of place, and understand the clause to mean, that what was once the haunt of wild beasts should become a place for the growth of reeds and rushes, which require a great degree of moisture, aud therefore imply an entire change in the condition of the desert. The same sense is given by Calvin (locus erit arundini et junco) and Vitringa (late excrescet calamus etjuncus). Knobel, instead of HWl, reads I"IOV on the alleged authority of the Peshito and the Vulgate (arietur). In the haunt oj jackals springs up grass to (the height of) reeds and rushes, a luxuriance of vegetation which of course implies excessive moisture. Even if this construction of the particle were natural and justified by usage, the change in the text would still be inadmissible because unnecessary. All these interpretations understand the last clause as a distinct proposition or description of a change to be wrought in the haunts and lairs of desert animals. But Ewald regards the whole as a mere description of the desert and continues the construction into the next verse. In the haunt of jackals, (in) their lair, (in) the place for reeds and rushes, even there shall be a way, &c. As this removes the difficulty of explaining the growth of reeds and rushes as a promise, it would seem to be entitled to the preference, but for the length of the sentence which it assumes and the conjunction of the beginning of ver. 8. These objections may be obviated, and the advantages of the construction still secured, by connecting this, as a descriptive clause, not with what follows but with what precedes: fountains shall burst forth in

the haunt of wolves, (in) their lair (or resting place), (in) the court (or grow ing-place) of reeds and rushes. We may then suppose either that these marshy spots are represented as the favourite resort of certain animals, or that two distinct descriptions of the wilderness are given, first by describ ing it as the resort of solitary animals and then as susceptible alike of culture and inhabitation. The description, even if inapplicable strictly to the same spot, might correctly be applied to different parts of the same wilder ness. The suffix in n¥3") refers not to pK understood (De Dieu), but to D^n as a plural is inhumanus (Gesenius), or to each of the D^n distributively (Junius: cubili cujusque) as an individual of the feminine gender (Lam. iv. 31). There is consequently no need of reading D'VITl (Kennicott), V~I3 (Houbigant), Hi'13 or "'VIB (Lowth). Gesenius supplies a relative be fore n^'2") (which was its lair or where its lair was) ; but a much more natural construction is proposed by Maurer and Hitzig, who explain it as in simple apposition with D^n!"I13. The explanation which has now been given of the verse, as a poetical description of complete and joyful change, excludes of course the allegorical interpretation of the pools as meaning schools, and the fountains teachers (Vitringa), the dragon's den the heathen world (Schmidius), the dragons themselves persecutors, patron emperors and papal powers (Gill), the reeds and rushes persons eminent in spiritual knowledge, authority, and influence (Cocceius). All these particulars may be included in the change described, but none of them can be regarded as specifically much less as exclusively intended.

8. The desert shall cease not only to be barren but also to be pathless or impassable by reason of sand. And there shall be there a highway and a way ; and there shall not pass through (or over) it an unclean (thing or person) ; and it shall be for them (alone). Job (xii. 24) speaks of a inn

"JVT N? (a wilderness in which there is no way), and Jeremiah (xviii. 15), of a n?V?D N? "|~n (a way not cast up), to both which descriptions we have here a contrast. The comparison suggested is between a faint track in the sand and a solid artificial causeway. (Rosenmliller: via aggerata. Hen derson: a raised road. Vatablus: exaltata lapidibus. Clericus: munita semita.) Eighteen manuscripts and several ancient versions omit TH1, which may be explained, however (with Junius and Tremellius), as a hendiadys, highway and way for high way. The way meant is explained by Forerius to be Christ, faith, and the sacraments; by Gill, a way cast up by sovereign grace, which is raised above (lie mire and dirt of sin, and carries over it and from it. Grotius, as usual, goes to the opposite extreme of making it denote the way to the temple. Gataker seems to apply it to the improve ment of the roads in Judea. Musculus understands it as ensuring to the exiled Jews a free return to their own country. But even this return seems to be only one of many particulars included in the promise of a general change and restoration, which is really the thing denoted by this whole series of prophetic figures. On the form and import of the phrase it shall be, called, see chap. i. 26. (J. H. Michaelis: vocabitur quia erit.) For the way of holiness, Clericus substitutes the classical expression, via sacra. The next clause is paraphrased by Grotius as meaning that no Syrian, Assyrian, Ethiopian, or Egyptian, shall be seen there. Hitzig explains it as an exclusion of the heathen generally, and pronounces it a trace of later Judaism. Knobel goes further, and describes it as an effusion of national hatred. The obvious meaning of the words is that the people of Jehovah shall themselves be holy. (Compare chap. i. 25, iv. 3.) This is in fact

the meaning even of those Scriptures which exclude from Zion (or the sanctuary-) the Canaanite (Zech. xiv. 21), the uncircumcised (Ezek. xliv. 9), and the stranger (Joel iv. 17). The N1H may be grammatically construed either with 717DO or with TH, which is sometimes masculine. It shall le for is rendered by Hitzig it belongs to, without a material change of mean ing. The pronoun them, which has no expressed antecedent in the sentence, has been variously applied to the blind whose eyes were opened (Junius), to the saints (Gataker), to Israel (Kimchi), to the exiles (Hitzig), to those recovered from idolatry (Henderson), and to those truly reformed by suffer ing (Knobel). Barnes and Henderson refer it, by prolepsis, to DvlSO in the next verse. This is no doubt substantially correct; but the precise import of the original expression seems to be, that the highway shall belong exclusively to them for whose sake it was made, for whose use it was in tended. A very different sense is put upon this phrase by Calvin, who connects it with what follows, and translates, et erit illis ambulans in rict, referring Nin to God himself, and explaining the whole as a promise that he would go before them in the way thus prepared, as he went before Israel of old in the pillar of cloud and of fire. The same construction is adopted by De Dieu (et erit ipse illis ambulator n>), and Clericus (erit qiti prior illis riam ingredtetur), who applies it expressly to Christ as the dtu- sahttis nostra. Lowth says that the old English versions gave the same sense, but that our last translators were misled by the absurd division of the verse in the Masoretic text, destroying the construction and the sense. His own version is, but He himself shall be irith them, u-alkiny in the iray, which he explains to mean, that God should dwell among them, and set 'them an example that they should follow his steps. Among the later writers this construction is approved by Dathe and Ewald (nnd da cr den Wey ihnen ffeht). The objections to it, stated by Gesenius, are, the sense which it puts upon the particle in 1O7, and the needless violation of the Masoretic accents. He, and most of the other modern writers, give precisely the construction found in Junius and Tremellius (viator ne stulti quidem potenmt deerrare), taking TH "pPI as equivalent to m -QJJ (chap, xxxiii. 8), and though singular in form, collective in meaning and construction. The 1 before Dv*W is not expletive (Henderson), but exegetical and emphatic. The meaning strictly is, tJie travellers and the foo/s, i. e. the travellers, not excepting such as are ignorant or foolish. Dv'IN is translated by the Septuagint dnaxaspivoi, and by Cocceius leves. Gataker explains it as denoting simple-minded Christians, while Henderson understands the whole clause as a promise, that the Jewish exiles, however defective some of them might be in intellectual energy, should not fail of reaching Zion. Hendewerk comes nearer to the full sense of the words, which he explains to mean that only moral impurity, not ignorance or weakness, should exclude men from this highway. But the words, in their primary and strict sense, are de scriptive, not of the travellers, but of the way itself, which should not be a faint or dubious tack through shifting sands, but a highway so distinctly marked that even the most ignorant and inexperienced could not miss it. The straightness or directness of the path, which Grotius and Rosenmiiller make a prominent idea, may be implied, but is not expressed.

9. The wilderness, though no longer barren or pathless, might still be the resort of beasts of prey. The promised highway might itself be exposed to their incursions. But immunity from this inconvenience is here promised. There shall not be there a lion, and a ravenous beast shall not ascend it, nor

be found there; and (there) shall walk redeemed (ones). For a similar promise, in a still more figurative dress, see Hosea ii. 18, and for a descrip tion of the desert as the home of deadly animals, Isaiah xxx. 6. Hendewerk refers there and it to the desert, Hitzig and others to the way. Both are consistent with the context, which describes all the inconveniences and dangers of the desert as removed; but in this place the primary allusion is no doubt to the highway described in the foregoing verse. Hence the phrase ascend it, i. e. from the level of the sands, through which the road is supposed to be cast up. This precludes the necessity of referring, with Gesenius, to the use of this verb by Ezra and Neheniiah in reference to the journey from Babylon, or by Job in reference to the wilderness itself as higher than the cultivated country (Job vi. 18). Lowth seems to take f'lQ niTI as a poetical description of the lion (th? tyrant of the beasts). But the first word is an adjective denoting violent, rapacious, ravenous, destructive, deadly. It is translated as a simple case of concord b}7 the Yulgate (mala bestia), Luther (reissendes Thier), Tremellius (violenta /era), the English Bible (ravenous beast), and Henderson (destructive beast). The original construction is retained by Cocceius (violenta ferarum), while Knobel sup plies a preposition (ein zerreissendes unter ihnen), and Ewald makes it a direct superlative (das gewaltsamste der Thiere). These terms are applied by the Targum to persecuting kings and rulers, by Jarchi to Nebuchadnezzar in particular, by Junius to the enemies of the church, and by August! to the avenger of blood. But they are rather intended to complete the great prophetic picture of a total change in the condition of the desert, under which general idea we may then include a great variety of suitable particu lars, without, however, making any one of them the exclusive subject of the prophecy. The feminine verb NSE>n is well explained by Knobel, as agree ing in form with HIT), and in sense with )"">S. There is no need, there fore, of reading N¥O1> with Lowth on the authority of four Hebrew manuscripts. Knobel gives DvlSO its original and proper sense of bought back, i. e. out of the bondage into which they had been sold. Most other writers give it the more general meaning freed or delivered. Junius: vindicati. Cocceius: asserti. Barnes understands it in a double sense, as expressive both of temporal and spiritual redemption. Augusti refers it to the avenger of blood, whom he supposes to be mentioned in the other clause (con Him gesichert wandelt man hin). Calvin construes 13/H1 as a subjunctive (ut redempti ambulent.) Vitringa makes the last clause a dis tinct proposition, or rather the beginning of the next verse (et Hunt asserti, et redempti, &c.). Ewald adopts a construction somewhat similar (so gchen sie erlost, uiid Jahves losgekavfle u. s. w.). There is no need, however, of departing from the simpler and more usual construction, which connects it closely with what goes before, supplying there as in the English Bible (the redeemed shall walk there), and only as in the version of Gesenius (nur Erloste gehen dort).

10. The whole series of promises is here summed up in that of restoration and complete redemption. And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return and come to Zion with shouting, and everlasting joy upon their head; gladness and joy shall overtake (them), and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. The first phrase, which is no doubt equivalent in meaning to DvlXJ in ver. 9, is paraphrased as follows in one of the French versions : ceux-la desquels VEternel aura paye la ranqon. The connection with the preceding context is needlessly though not erroneously expressed in some versions by trans lating the initial particle yea (Lowth), so (J. H. Michaelis), or therefore

(Calvin). Zion is mentioned as the journey's end ; they shall not only move towards it but attain it. The words everlasting joy may either be governed by the preposition (with shouting and everlasting joy upon their head), or construed with the substantive verb understood (everlasting joy shall be upon their head). The latter construction seems to agree best with the Masoretic accents. Jarchi understands by D71V nnct? ancient joy, or the joy of old ; but more seems to be promised. The Chaldee Paraphrase supposes the image here presented to be that of a cloud of glory ei> compas sing the head, or floating over it. Gataker and Lowth suppose an allusion to a crown or wreath, and Umbreit to a sacerdotal crown particularly. Yitringa, Gill, and Rosenrnuller understand the Prophet as alluding to the festal use of unguents (see Ps. xlv. 8 ; Eccles. ix. 8 ; Luke vii. 46). Paulus combines the figure of a crown with that of unction. Gesenius, Maurer, and Knobel explain joy upon the head as meaning its expression in the countenance. According to Sanctius, head is put for person, or the whole body, which seems altogether arbitrary. Clericns explains the clause to mean that joy shall be at the head, i. e. march before them. It deserves to be recorded, as a monsirnm interpretations, that Forerius supposes an allusion to the washerwomen's practice of carrying clothes upon their heads. In the last clause, joy and gladness may be either the subject or the object of the verb. The later construction is given in the English Bible (they shall obtain joy and gladness) after the example of the Targuni, Peshito, and Vulgate. In favour of the other, which is given in the Septuagint (xara/Jj^/sra/ airoi;), may he urged the analogy of Deut. xxviii. 2 (all these blessings shall come on thee and overtake thee), and of the last clause of the verse, where sorrow and sighing are allowed to be the subjects of the verb by all except Cocceius, who consistently translates it, shall escape sorrow and sighing. The figures of this verse are applied to the return from exile by the Targum (from the midst of their captivity), Henderson thinks that deliverance not too trivial to be thus described, and Juuius applies it in a wider sense to the reception of converts into the church. Calvin extends it to the whole course of life and to its close. The Talmud applies it to the world to come, and Gill says that " the highway before described not only leads to Zion, the church below, but to the Zion above, to the heavenly glory ; and all the redeemed, all that walk in this way, shall come thither ; at death their souls return to God that gave them, and in the resurrection their bodies shall return from their dusty beds and appear before God in Zion." The allusions to the Babylonian exile are correctly explained by Barnes upon the principle that minor and temporal deliver ances were not only emblems of the great salvation, but preparatory to it. The devout Yitringa closes his exposition of the cheering promise, with which Isaiah winds up the first great division of his prophecies, by exclaim ing to his reader, Ora mecum Dominum supplex, ut earn suo tern pore propitins impleat ; interim credens nonfestinabit.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE next four chapters contain a historical appendix to the first part of Isaiah's prophecies, relating chiefly to Sennacherib's invasion and the slaughter of his host, to Hezekiah's sickness and miraculous recovery, and to the friendly intercourse between him and the king of Babylon. The same narrative is found substantially in the second book of Kings (chaps.

xviii.— xx.), and a different account of the same matter in the second book of Chronicles (chap, xxxii.). The close resemblance of the former passage to the one before us has afforded full scope to the German appetite for critical conjecture and ingenious combination. Paulus and Hendewerk adhere to the old opinion of Grotius and "Vitringa, that the narrative in Kings is a varied transcript of the one in Isaiah; but Eichhorn, Gesenius, Maurer, and De Wette regard the latter as an addition, by the hand of a compiler, to the collection of Isaiah's prophecies, abridged and otherwise altered from the book of Kings; while Koppe, Rosenmuller, Hitzig, Umbreit and Knobel consider the two narratives as parallel or collateral abridgments, made by different \vriters, from the same original, viz., a more extended history, no longer in existence. This List hypothesis is founded on the diffi culty of maintaining either of the others, a difficulty springing from the fact that neither of the passages sustains, in all respects, the character of an original or an abridgment. Each contains matter which is not found iu the other, and although Gesenius and Knobel have endeavoured to demon strate that the diction, phraseology, grammatical structure, and even the orthography of the passage before us, are symptomatic of a later origin, neither the principle which they assume, nor its specific application here, is so unquestionable as to satisfy the mind of any ordinary reader, in default of more conclusive evidence. The particular points included in this general statement will be noticed in the exposition. From the strong resemblance of the passages, and the impossibility of fixing upon either as the more ancient and authentic of the two, the natural inference would seem to be, that they are different draughts or copies of the same composition, or at least that they are both the work of the same writer, and that this writer is Isaiah. That the prophets often acted as historiographers, and that Isaiah in particular discharged this office, are recorded facts. Nothing can be more natural, therefore, than the supposition that he inserted the same narrative in one book as a part of the chronicle of Judah, and in the other as an illustrative appendix to his earlier prophecies. To what extent this would make him the author of the books of Kings is here a question of but little moment. Whether these are to be regarded as complete compositions of particular authors, or as continuous official records, formed by successive entries, or as abstracts of such records made for permanent preservation, the supposition that he wrote both passages is equally admissible. As to the variations of the two from one another, they are precisely such as might have been expected in the case supposed, that is to say, in the case of the same writer twice recording the same facts, especially if we assume an interval between the acts, and a more specific purpose in the one case than the other. It must also be considered that on this hypothesis, the writer expected both accounts to be within the reach of the same readers, and might therefore leave them to illustrate and complete each other. That there is nothing in these variations to forbid the supposition of their being from the same pen, is evinced by the circumstance that each of the parallels has been declared, for similar reasons, and with equal confidence, to be a transcript of the other. Against the supposition that Is dab. is the author of both or either, even German ingendity and learning have been able to adduce no better arguments than one or two flimsy philological cavils, such as the use of Jewish in chap, xxxvi. 11, and some others which will be particularly mentioned in the exposition, together with the usual objections founded on the assumed impossibility of miracles and inspi ration. Thus the recession of the shadow, the destruction of Sennacherib's

army, the prediction of his own death, and of the length of Hezekiah's life, are all alleged with great ndicctc hy the infidel interpreters as proofs that these chapters are of later date, whereas they only prove that their writer e a prophet sent from God. The simple common- sense view of the matter is, that since the traditional position of these chapters among the writings of Isaiah corresponds exactly to the known fact of his having written a part of the history of Judah, the presumption in favour of his having written both the passages in question cannot he shaken by the mere possibility, or even the intrinsic probability of other hypotheses, for which there is not the least external evidence. The specific end, for which the narrative is here appended to the foregoing prophecies, appears to be that of shewing the fulfilment of certain prophecies which had relation to a proximate futurity, and thereby gaining credence and authority for those which had a wider scope and a remoter combination.

- 1. And it teas (or came to pass) in the fourteenth year of the k'nt/j llezekiah, Sennacherib kiny of Assyria came up against fill the fenced (or forti fied} cities of Judah, and took them. The parallel passage in Kings is immediately preceded by a summary account of the earlier events of Heze kiah's reign, with particular mention of his religious reformations and his extirpation of idolatry, to which is added an account of the deportation of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser (2 Kings xviii. 1-12). This visitation is referred to the apostasy of Israel as its meritorious cause, and contrasted with the favour of the Lord to Hezekiah as a faithful servant. While Ephraim was carried away never to return, Judah was only subjected to a temporary chastisement, the record of which follows. The verse which directly corresponds to that before us (2 Kings xviii. 13) differs from it only in the omission of the idiomatic formula Hi"n. The statement in Chronicles (xxxii. 1) is, that he entered into Judah and encamped against the fortified cities and proposed pOSM) to subdue them to himself. The same restricted sense is put by some interpreters upon the stronger phrase (and took them) which Isaiah uses. Others, with the same view, limit the meaning of the word all before cities. Gesenius understands the cities here meant to be those which Rehoboam fortified (2 Chron. xi. 5-12). Sen nacherib is mentioned, under nearly the same name, by Herodotus, who calls him the king of Assyria and Arabia. This may either be accounted for, as an example of the loose geographical distinctions of the ancient writers, or as implying that the Assyrian conquests really included certain portions of Arabia. Between this verse and the next, as they stand in Isaiah, the narrative in Kings inserts three others, which relate what immediately followed the invasion of the country, and preceded the attack upon Jeru salem. The substance of this statement is that Hezekiah sent to Sennacherib at Lachish, saying, I have offended (i. e. in renouncing his allegiance to Assyria), return from me, that which thou puttest on me I will bear ; that Sennacherib accordingly imposed a tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty of gold, to pay which Hezekiah gave him all the treasures of the palace and the temple, not excepting the metallic decorations of the doors and pillars (2 Kings xviii. 14-16). This last act seems to be entirely in consistent with the view which Calvin takes of Hezekiah's conduct in this whole transaction as entirely innocent and laudable, evincing a pacific dis position and a willingness to purchase peace at any price. He seems indeed to have been disposed to buy it far too dearly when he stripped the house of God to pay for it, an act which certainly implies distrust of the divine pro tection. There is nothing, either in the case before us, or in the general

analogy of Scripture, to forbid the supposition, that the narrative was intended to exhibit the weakness no less than the strength of Hezekiah's faith, in which case there is no need of laboriously vindicating all his acts as perfectly consistent with a strong and lively faith, although his general sincerity and godliness cannot be questioned. Another addition to the narrative is found in the second book of Chronicles (xxxii. 1—8), where we read that Hezekiah, when he saw that Sennacherib was come, and that his face was towards Jerusalem for war, took measures to strengthen the defences of the city, and to cut off the supply of water from the enemy, while at the same time he encouraged the people to rely upon Jehovah, and not to be afraid of the Assyrian host. All this is spoken of as having taken place before what is recorded in the next verse of the chapter now before us. If we suppose it to have followed Hezekiah's message to Sennacherib and payment of the tribute, the inference would seem to be that the invader, having received the money, still appeared disposed to march upon the Holy City, whereupon the king abandoned all hope of conciliation, and threw himself without reserve on the divine protection.

2. And the king of Assyria sent Sabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem, to king Hezekiah, with a strong force, and he stood by the conduit (or aque duct] of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller's field. Besides Rabshakeh, the narrative in Kings mentions Tartan and Rabsaris ; that in Chronicles uses the general expression his servants. Rabshakeh may be named alone here as the chief speaker, or as the commander of the expedi tion. The Jews have a tradition that he was a renegado or apostate Jew, and one absurd story makes him out to have been a son of Isaiah. Others account for his knowledge of Hebrew by supposing him to have acquired it by intercourse with captives of the ten tribes. Lachish was a town of Judah, south-west of Jerusalem on the way to Egypt. This place Sen nacherib was now besieging (2 Chron. xxxii. 9), and being probably detained longer than he had expected, he detached a part of his forces to attack Jerusalem, or rather to summon Hezekiah to surrender. That the main body of the army afterwards advanced against Jerusalem is nowhere expli citly recorded, although some infer from chap. x. 28-32 that they did so, making a circuit to the north for the purpose of surprising the city. It is said in Chronicles that Sennacherib was now before Lachish, in the military sense, i. e. besieging it, with all his force, which some explain to meantotift a large part of it, others with his court, and the usual accompaniments of an Eastern camp, in order to remove a supposed inconsistency with what is here said. But the phrase in Chronicles relates to the Assyrian force at Lachish before Rabshakeh was detached, and is inserted merely to explain the statement that he came from Lachish, because Sennacherib had halted there with all his army. The verb 1W may also be referred to the halt of Rabshakeh's detachment, or to the position which they took up on arriving ; but it is simpler to refer it to the spot on which Rabshakeh himself stood during the interview about to be described. The spot was doubtless one of great resort. For the localities here mentioned, see the notes on chap. A'ii. 3, and xxii. 9—11. The verse in Kings, which corresponds to this, is more redundant in expression, from which Gesenius infers as a matter of course, that it is the original and this the copy, as if amplification were not as easy as abridgment.

3. Then came forth unto him Eliakim, HilkiaKs son, who was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder. The parallel narrative (2 Kings xviii. 18) prefixes to this verse a statement that

he called to (or for) the king, in answer to which summons these three ministers came out. Eliakim here appears as Shebna's successor, according to the prophecy in chap. xxii. 20, and Shebna himself as an inferior office bearer. Interpreters have amused themselves with trying to discover equiva lents in modern parlance for these three official titles, such as chamberlain, steward, major-domo, secretary, master of requests, master of the rolls, historiographer, &c. It is enough to know that the}7 probably denote three principal officers of state, or of the royal household, which in oriental governments is very much the same thing. Clericus, in his version of this sentence, omits the name of Joah, and then notes it as an error of the Hebrew text, to be corrected by a comparison with 2 Kings xviii. 18.

4. And Ilabshakch said to them: Say now (or if you please} to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What in this confidence which tliou confidcst in? He expresses his contempt by withholding the name of king from Hezekiah and calling his own master the great king, a common title of the Persian and other oriental mouarchs, corresponding to Grand Seignior, Grand filonarque, and Emperor as a distinctive royal title. The interrogation in the last clause implies surprise and scorn at a reliance so unfounded. Confide and confidence sustain the same etymological relation to each other as the Hebrew noun and verb.

5. I say (or have said], only word of lips, counsel and strength for the war; now on whom hast thou confided, that thou hast rebelled against me? The parallel passage in Kings has thou hast said, which Lowth assumes to be the true text here, while others treat the common reading as an error of the writer or abridger. It is much easier, however, to account for fi")^ as having arisen from FP9^ a defective orthography for ^7^?> than to deduce the latter from the former. The truth no doubt is that both the readings are original, since both may be so explained as to express the same idea. Many interpreters regard what follows as a parenthesis (it is only word of lips, i. e. mere talk). Others make it interrogative (is mere talk counsel and strength for the ioar?}. Others suppose an ellipisis in each number (/ say you have only word of lips, but there is need of counsel and strength for the war}. The simplest construction is : I say, mere word of lij>s is (your} counsel and strength for the war, i. e. your pretended strength and wisdom are mere talk, false pretension. The allusion is not so much to Hezekiah's prayers (Kimchi) as to his addresses to the people, recorded in 2 Chron. xxxii. 6—8. The sense of the other passage (2 Kings xviii. 20) seems to be, thou hast said (to thyself, or thought, that) mere talk is counsel and strength for the war. The contemptuous import of DTI3S> "QT is apparent from Prov. xiv. 23. The rebellion mentioned in the last clause is Hezekiah's casting off the Assyrian yoke (2 Kings xviii. 7).

6. Behold, thou hast trusted in the staff (or support} of this broken reed, in Egypt, which, (if} a man lean upon it, will go into his hand and pierce it ; so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all those trusting in him. He answers his own question. The charge of relying upon Egypt may be either regarded as a true one, or as a malicious fabrication, or as a mere infer ence from the analogy of other cases and the habitual relation of the parties. Egypt may be called a broken reed, either as being always weak, or in allusion to what it had already suffered from Assyria. Broken of course does not mean entirely divided, but so bruised or shattered as to yield no firm support but rather to do injury. (See chap. xlii. 8, below.) Neither Gesenius nor any other critic seems to consider DH¥O ?y as a gloss, a strong proof that such explanatory clauses are not quite so unnatural as they are elsewhere represented. (See the notes on chaps, vii. 17, viii. 7.)

7. And if thou say to me, We trust in Jehovah our God, is it not he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Before this altar shall ye worship. The parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 22) has ye say in the plural, which Geseuius regards as the original and proper form, because Hezekiah is afterwards mentioned in the third person. But what then becomes of the favourite critical canon, that the more difficult reading is commonly the true one, or of the allega tion that the author of the text before us is proved to be a copyist by his disposition to remove irregularities and make the form of expression uni form ? Rabshakeh's question evidently refers to Hezekiah' s reformation of religious worship (2 Kings xviii. 4), which he erroneously regarded as a change of the national religion. The parallel passage adds, at the end of the 'sentence, in Jerusalem, which is just as likely to have been added in the one cop}", as to have been omitted in the other.

8. And now, engage, I pray thee, with my lord the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. A contemptuous comparison between the Jews, who were almost destitute of cavalry, and the Assyrians, who were strong in that species of force (chap. v. 28). 2"iynn is not to wager, or to give pledges, but simply to engage with; whether in fight or in negotiation, must be deter mined by the context.

9. And how wilt thou turn away the face of one governor (or satrap} of the least of my master's servants ? So thou hast reposed thyself on Egypt, with respect to chariots and horses. As a man is said to turn his face to wards an object of attack, so the latter may be said to turn back (or away) the face of his assailant when he repels him. The last clause is an infer ence from the first, as the first is from the foregoing verse. If Hezekiah could not command two thousand horsemen, he was unprepared to resist even a detachment of the Assyrian force, and if thus helpless, he must be trusting, not in his own resources, but in foreign aid.

10. And now (is it} without Jehovah I have come up against this land to destroy it ? Jehovah said to me, Go up to (or against] this land and destroy it. Some interpreters suppose that the Assyrians had heard of prophecies, in which they were described as instruments by which Jehovah meant to punish his own people. It is much more natural, however, to regard this as a bold attempt to terrify the Jews by pleading the authority of their own tutelary deity for this invasion. The parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 25) has place instead of the first land, a clear case, as Knobel ima gines, of assimilation on the part of the transcriber. But no such infer ence was drawn from the opposite appearance in ver. 7, nor is any attempt made to explain why the ^V and were not assimilated also.

11. Then said Eliakim, and Shelna, and Joah, unto Ralshakeh, Pray speak unto thy servants in Aramean, for we understand (it}, and speak not to us in Jewish, in the ears of the people who (are} on the wall. This request implies an apprehension of the bad effect of his address upon the multitude. Aramean corresponds very nearly to Syrian in latitude of meaning ; but the language meant is not what we call Syriac, but an older form, which was probably current, as the French is now, at the courts and among the educated classes of an extensive region. Jewish is Hebrew, so called by the Jews, as the language of the whole British empire is called English, or as German is sometimes called Saxon. The use of this term

here is urged by some as a proof of later date than the time of Isaiah, on the ground that the distinctive name Jewish could not have been common till long after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which left Judah the only representative of Israel. But how long after this event may we assume that such a usage became common? The ten tribes were carried into exile by Sennacherib's father, if not by his grandfather. It is altogether probable that from the time of the great schism between Ephraim and Judah, the latter began to call the national language by its own distinctive name. At the period in question, such a designation was certainly more natural in the mouths of Jews, than Israeli tish or even Hebrew. We understand, literally, we (are) hearing, i. e. hearing distinctly and intelligently.

12. And Rabshakeh said : Is it to thy master and to thec, that my master hath sent me to speak these words ? Is it not to the men sitting on the wall to eat their own dung and to drink their own water with you ? The last clause might seem to mean, is it. not appointed to them, necessary for them, or are they not doomed ? &c. But since ^V is used in the parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 27) after rw as a simple equivalent to ?N, it is better to repeat the verb of the first clause at the beginning of the second : has he not sent me / The last clause is obviously descriptive of the horrors of famine in their most revolting form. The same idea is conveyed still more distinctly in Chronicles : " Whereon do ye trust that ye abide in the fortress of Jerusalem ? doth not Hezekiah persuade you to give over your selves to die by famine and by thirst, saying, the Lord our God shall deliver us out of the hand of the king of Assyria? " (2 Chron. xxxii. 10, 11). Ho here the people are described as sitting on the wall, i. e. holding out against Sennacherib, only that they may experience these horrors. The Masoretic readings in the margin of the Hebrew Bible are mere euphemistic variations. "p"W might seem to mean thy masters, as the singular my master is expressed in the same sentence by its proper form. But the fact is that the singular |HS is never joined with any suffixes but those of the first person. The only form, therefore, in which thy master could have been expressed, is that here used. The ambiguity is removed by the con nection, which requires the phrase to be applied to Hezekiah.

18. And Piabshakeh stood and called with a loud voice in Jewish (i. e. Hebrew), and said, Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria. In so doing he not only testified his contempt for the king's messengers by insolently disregarding their request, but made a political appeal to the hopes and fears of the multitude. That he stood and called, is explained by some to mean that he assumed a higher position, or came nearer to the wall ; but the simplest and most natural explanation is, that he remained where he was before and merely raised his voice.

14. Thus saith the king : let not Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you. The repeated mention of the king reminds them, that he is not speaking in his own name, but in that of a great monarch. The parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 29) adds, out of his hand.

15. And let not Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah, saying, Jehovah will certainly save us, this city shall not be given up into the hand of the king of Assyria. The only difference between this and the parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 30) is that the latter inserts flX before this city, a construc tion of the passive verb which, according to Knobel, was considered incorrect by the transcriber. The idea of certain deliverance is expressed by the idiomatic combination of the future and infinitive.

16. Hearken not to Hezekiah, for thus saith the king of Assyria, make with me a blessing, and come out unto me, and eat ye {every} man his own vine and (every') man his own Jiff-tree, and drink ye (every] man the waters of his own cistern. H313 usually means a blessing, but in a few instances a gift or present, as a token of good will. Hence some explain the phrase here used, make me a present, or make an agreement icith me by a present. Others give the Hebrew word, in this one case, the sense of peace, which of course suits the connection, because it is in fact a mere conjecture from the con text. If an unusual meaning of the word must be assumed, it might have that of kneeling, as a gesture of submission or an act of homage, from "^3 to kneel. It is possible, however, to adhere more closely to the usage of the term, by taking blessing in the sense of friendly salutation, which in the East is commonly an invocation of the divine blessing. Thus the verb to bless is often used to express the act of greeting or of taking leave. To make a blessing with one then might mean to enter into amicable inter course. To come out is in Hebrew the common military phrase for the surrender of a besieged town. The inducements offered in the last clause are in obvious antithesis to the revolting threat or warning in the last clause of ver. 12. To eat the vine and fig-tree (meaning to eat their fruit) is an elliptical form of speech, which has its analogies in every language.

17. Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards. The parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 32), adds, a land of oil-olive and honey, that ye may live and not die, which has quite as much the aspect of an amplified copy as of a redundant original. This reference to the deportation of the people as a future event has led some interpreters to the conclusion, that Sennacherib was now on his way to Egypt, and deferred the measure until his return. It has been disputed what particular land is here meant, some saying Meso potamia, to which others object that it was not a wine-growing country. But, as Knobel observes, there is no need of supposing that the Assyrian's description was exactly true. He may indeed have intended merely to promise them in general a country as abundant as their own.

18. Let not (or beware lest] Hezekiah seduce you, saying, Jehovah will deliver us. Have the gods of the nations delivered every one his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria f *Q is commonly equivalent to Jest, and dependent on a foregoing verb, but sometimes (like the Latin ne) stands at the beginning of a sentence. Here we may either supply take heed, or regard JS as equivalent to ^K, which is actually used in the parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 32) with a repetition of the verb 1J?Ot?n (hearken not to Hezekiah when he incites, or, for he shall incite you, saying]. Had this been the form of expression in Isaiah, we should have seen it noted as an instance of assimilation characteristic of a later writer; but as it un luckily occurs in the other place, it is discreetly overlooked by the inter preters. The Assyrian here, with characteristic recklessness, forsakes his previous position, that he was but acting as Jehovah's instrument, and sets himself in disdainful opposition to Jehovah himself.

19. Where (are) the gods of Hamath and Arpad? where the gods of Sepharvaim ? and (when or where was it) that they delivered Samaria out of my hand? In the rapidity of his triumphant interrogation, he expresses himself darkly and imperfectly. The last clause must of course refer to the gods of Samaria, though not expressly mentioned. *3 is not an inter rogative pronoun (who have delivered ?) nor an interrogative particle (have they delivered f), but a connective particle, dependent upon something not

expressed. For the situation of Hamath and Arpad, see the note on chap, x. 9. Sepharvaim is probably the Sipphara of Ptolemy, a town and pro vince in the south of Mesopotamia, already subject to Assyria in the days of Shalmaneser. The parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 34) adds Hena and Ii'vah, which are also named with Sepharvaim in 2 Kings xix. 13, and Isa. xxxvii. 13. The question (where are they f] seems to imply not only that they had not saved their worshippers, but that they had ceased to be.

20. Who (are they] among all the gods of these lands, that have delivered their land out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand? The parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 35) omits these before lands ; another exception to the general statement, that the narrative before us is an abridgment of the other. In this argumentative interrogation, he puts Jehovah on a level with the gods of the surrounding nations. This is still more frequently and pointedly expressed in the parallel passage in Chronicles : " Know ye not what I and my fathers have done unto all the nations of the countries ? Were the gods of the nations of the countries able to de liver their country out of my hand ? Who was there among all the gods of these nations, which my fathers utterly destroyed, that was able to deliver his people out of my hand, that your God should be able to deliver you out of my hand ? And now, let not Hezekiah deceive you, and let him not seduce you, neither believe him ; for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people out of my hand, and out of the hand of my fathers ; how much less shall your God deliver you out of my hand ?" (2 Chron. xxxii. 13-15). From the same authority we learn that over and above what is recorded, Sennacherib's servants " spake still more against the God Jehovah and against Hezekiah his servant" (ver. 16), and that " they cried with a loud voice in the Jewish language, to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to affright them, and to trouble them, that they might take the city ; and they spake against the God of Jerusalem as against the gods of the nations of the earth, the work of men's hands " (vers. 18, 19).

2 1 . A.nd they held their peace, and did not answer him a word, for such was the commandment of the king, saying, Ye shall not answer him. Some interpreters refer the first clause to Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah ; but the parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 36) says expressly that the people held their peace, which Knobel says is more correct, as if the two were inconsistent, and gravely adds, that our narrator was thinking of the messengers. The notion of some of the old writers, that they did confer with him, notwith standing what is here said, is gratuitous and arbitrary in a high degree.

22. Then came Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, who (iras) over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah Axaph's son, the recorder, unto Hezekiah, with their clothes rent (literally, rent of clothes), and told him the words of liabshakeh. Some of the older writers understand the rending of their gar ments as a mere sign of their horror at Rabshakeh's blasphemies ; some of the moderns as a mere sign of despondency and alarm at the impending dangers ; whereas both may naturally be included.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

THIS chapter is a direct continuation of the one before it. It describes the effect of Rabshakeh's blasphemies and threats on Hezekiah, his humi liation; his message to Isaiah, and the answer; the retreat of Rabshakeh, Sennacherib's letter, Hezekiah's prayer, Isaiah's prophecy, and its fulfilment in the slaughter of Sennacherib's army and his own flight and murder.

1. And it was (or came to pass) when king Hezekiah heard (the report of his messengers), that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sack cloth, and went into the house of Jehovah. Gill's suggestion, that he rent his clothes because of the Assyrian's blasphemy and put on sackcloth because of his threats, appears to be a fanciful distinction. Both acts were customary signs of mourning, and appropriate to any case of deep dis tress. He resorted to the temple, not only as a public" place, but with reference to the promise made to Solomon (1 Kings viii. 29), that God would hear the prayers of his people from that place when they were in distress. Under the old dispensation there were reasons for resorting to the temple, even to offer private supplications, which cannot possibly apply to any church or other place at present. This arose partly from the fact that prayer was connected with sacrifice, and this was rigidly confined to one spot.

2. And he sent Eliakim who was over the household, and Shelna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet. While he himself resorted to the temple, he sent to ask the counsel and the intercessions of the Prophet. Calvin's supposition, that Isaiah was directed to remain at home, amidst the general alarm and lamentation, as a test of Hezekiah's faith, seems at least unnecessary. Eliakim and Shebna are again employed in this case, as being qualified to make an exact report of what had happened, and in order to put honour on the Prophet by an embassy of distinguished men. In the place of Joah, he sends the elders of the priests, i.e. the heads of the sacerdotal families. The reference of elders to personal age by Luther (den dltesten Priestern) and Barnes (the old men of the priests), is less consistent with the context, which describes the other messengers by their official titles only, and with the usage of E^pT, as denoting the hereditary chiefs of Levi no less than the other tribes. The king applies to the Prophet as the authorized ex pounder of the will of God. Similar applications are recorded elsewhere with sufficient frequency to shew that they were customary, and that the prophets were regarded in this light. Thus Josiah sent to Huldah (2 Kings xxii. 14), Zedekiah to Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvii. 3), &c. The impious Ahab required Micaiah to come to him, and that only at the earnest request of king Jehoshaphat (1 Kings xxii. 9). From the mention of the Prophet's father two very different but equally gratuitous conclusions are drawn ; one by Vitringa, who infers that Isaiah was of noble rank ; the other by Hendewerk, who infers that he cannot be the author of this narrative, as he never would have called himself the son of Amoz. In the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 2) the patronymic follows the official title, whereas here it precedes it. As this last is the usual collocation, Gesenius appears to think that it was substituted for the other by the later writer, while Hitzig, for the very same reason, declares this to be the original reading. The plural DV^ seems to shew that \>W is not here the name of the material but of the garment (covered with sacks, or sackcloth dresses). Of the king's prompt appeal to God in his extremity, Gill quaintly says : Hezekiah does not sit down to consider Itahshakeh1 s speech, to take it in pieces and give an answer to it, hut he applies unto God.

3. And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, a day of anguish aud rebuke and contempt (is) this day, for the children are come to the hirth (or

to the places of birth), and there is not strength to bring forth. The indirect construction of the first words (that they may say to him), adopted by some writers, is not only unnecessary but foreign from the Hebrew idiom which, especially in narrative, prefers the most simple and direct forms of expres sion. That Hezekiah told them thus to speak, is not only implied in their doing so, but expressly asserted by themselves, and need not therefore be recorded. As the execution of a command is often left to be inferred from the command itself (chaps, vii. 3, viii. 1, &c.), so here the details of the command are to be gathered from the record of its execution. The com mon version of m¥ (trouble) seems too weak for the occasion and for the figure in the other clause. It is well explained by Yitringa, as denoting, not external danger merely, but the complicated distress, both of a temporal and spiritual nature, in which Hezekiah was involved by the threats and blasphemies of the Assyrian. Rebuke is applied by the Septuagint (ovudiityioD) and some interpreters to the reproaches of Rabshakeh; but it is more agreeable to usage to explain it as signifying the divine rebuke or chastise ment, as in Ps. Ixxiii. 4, cxlix. 7. It is characteristic of the Scriptures and the ancient saints to represent even the malignity of human enemies as a rebuke from God. The very same phrase (day of rebuke) is used in the same sense by Hosea (v. 9). The verb from which HVfcO is derived means to treat with contempt, or more specifically, to reject with scorn. It is some times used to denote God's rejection of his people (Deut. xxxii. 19 ; Jer. xiv. 21 ; Lam. ii. 6), and Hitzig accordingly translates the noun rejection or reprobation (Verwerfuny). But as the verb more frequently expresses man's contempt of God (e. g. chap. i. 4), interpreters are commonly agreed in making the noun here mean blasphemy. The terms employed by Lowth (contumely) and Henderson (calumny) are too weak, if the reference be to God, as the usage of the verb seems to require. The oral expression of contempt for God is blasphemy. The metaphor in the last clause ex presses, in the most affecting manner, the ideas of extreme pain, imminent danger, critical emergency, utter weakness, and entire dependence on the aid of others. (Compare the similar expressions of chap. xxvi. 18.) The reference of the passage to the interrupted reformation of religion, or to the abortive effort to shake off the Assyrian yoke, is equally illogical and tasteless, while the question, whether Judah is here represented as the mother or the child, betrays a total incapacity to appreciate the strength and beauty of the Prophet's metaphor. There is no more need of mooting such points than if he had simply said, the present distress is like the pains of childbirth.

4. If peradventure Jehovah thy God will hear the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach tlie living God, and will rebuke the words which Jehovah thy God hath heard, then shall thou lift up a prayer for the remnant (that is still) found (here). ^>1N may generally be expressed by our perhaps, and this translation is adopted here by most interpreters, who then take 1 at the beginning of the last clause in the sense of therefore. But by retaining what appears to be the primary and proper force of vIX, as a contingent and conditional expression, and making 1 the usual sign of the apodosis, we may throw the whole into one sentence, and make more obvious the connection of the clauses. It was because Hezekiah thought Jehovah might hear, that he asked Isaiah's prayers in his behalf. The meaning given to vIN in this construction is expressed in the English version of Isa. xlvii. 12, and Jer. xxi. 2, and might

be substituted for perhaps in all the cases where the latter is employed to represent this particle, in some with great advantage to the clearness or the force of the expression. Lowth's explanation of vW as an optative par ticle (0 that Jehovah thy God would hear) is not justified by usage. The doubt expressed in the first clause, whether God will hear, is viewed by some interpreters as inconsistent with the statement in the last clause, that he has heard. To remove this imaginary discrepancy, some deny that the first clause really expresses doubt or implies contingency; others allege that hear is used in two distinct senses, that of simply hearing, and that of regarding or attending to, and acting accordingly. The true solution seems to be, that the preterite VVV denotes a past time only in relation to the contingency expressed by VP\ Perhaps he will hear, and then punish what he has heard. Both verbs may then be understood in one and the same sense, either that of simply hearing, or in that of acting as if one heard. The reproach and blasphemy of the Assyrian consisted mainly in his confounding Jehovah with the gods of the surrounding nations (2 Chron. xxxii. 19), in antithesis to whom, as being impotent and lifeless, he is here and elsewhere called the living God. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and most interpreters, ancient and modern, make rV3in an infinitive, connected by the ^ with fpn, and descriptive of Rabshakeh's blasphemies (and to rebuke me in the words, &c.). But reprove or rebuke is a description wholly inap propriate to such a speech, and the Hebrew word nowhere means to rail at or revile. Usage, moreover, would require the particle to be repeated before this infinitive, and Gesenius (in his Commentary) accordingly assumes that ITDini is put for fTCWHTI. The grammatical and lexicographical objections mav be both avoided by taking rV2in as a preterite with the 1 conversive, as in the English Version (and will reprove). The 2 may then be either a mere connective of the verb with its object (rebuke the words), or denote the occasion and the ground (rebuke him for the words, &c.). Maurer, who successfully defends this construction (in his note on 2 Kings xix. 4), in order to shew that he is not alone in his opinion, says, conscntientem habeo Fdsium. He might have gone a little further back, not only to Junius and Tremellius, but to Jonathan, who paraphrases the expression thus, and will take vengeance for the words, &c. The same construction is adopted by Gesenius in his Thesaurus. It is also retained in the modern English ver sions, among which that of Lowth puts a peculiar sense upon the clause, by making it express a wish that God would refute Rabshakeh's words, mean ing no doubt by the actual exertion of the power which he called in question. But this specific meaning of ITOin cannot be sustained by usage. To lift up a prayer is not simply to utter one, but has allusion to two common idiomatic phrases, that of lifting up the voice in the sense of speaking loud or beginning to speak, and that of lifting up the heart or soul in the sense of earnestly desiring. The passive participle/owncZ is often used in Hebrew to denote what is present in a certain place, or more generally what is extant in existence, or forthcoming. The meaning left, which is expressed in the English and some other versions, is suggested wholly by the noun with which the participle here agrees. As to the application of the whole phrase, it may either be a general description of the straits or low condition to which the chosen people were reduced (as the church at Sardis is exhorted to strengthen the things which remain, Rev. iii. 2), or be more specifically understood in reference to Judah as surviving the destruction of the ten tribes (compare^ chap, xxviii. 5), or to Jerusalem as spared amidst the general desolation of Judah (compare chap. i. 8). In either case, the king

requests the Prophet to pray for their deliverance from entire destruction. This application was made to Isaiah, not as a private person, however eminent in piety, but as one who was recognized as standing in an intimate relation to Jehovah, and as a constituted medium of communication with him. In like manner God himself said to Abimelech of Abraham, he is a prophet, and shall pray for thee, and thou sttalt live (Gen. xx. 7). In recognition of the same relation, Hezekiah twice says thy God, i.e. thine in a peculiar and distinctive sense. This phrase is therefore not to bo regarded as an expression of despondency, or even of humility, on Hezekiah's part, but as a kind of indirect explanation of his reason for resorting to the Prophet at this juncture.

o. And the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah. This is a natural and simple resumption of the narrative, common in all inartificial history. It affords no ground for assuming a transposition in the text, nor for ex plaining 119H*1 in ver. 3 as a subjunctive.

6. And Isaiah said to them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith Jehovah, lie not afraid of (literally from before or from the face of) the words which thou hast heard, (icith) which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. The last verb means to rail at or revile, and when applied to God, must be translated by a still stronger term. The word translated servants is not the same with that in the preceding verse, but strictly means young men or boys, and is so translated in the Targum and Vulgate. Many interpreters regard it as a contemptuous description, and it is so translated by Hitzig (Knappen), Umbreit (JBuben), Henderson (striplings), and in other modern versions.

7. Behold I am putting (or about to put) a spirit in him, and he shall hear a noise, and shall return to his oicn land, and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own. land. Calvin translates the first clause ecce opponam illi ventum, and explains it to mean that God would carry him away as with a wind (compare chap. xvii. 13). The English Version renders it, behold I will send a blast upon him, meaning either a pestilential blast or a destruc tive tempest. Others understand by Tl the destroying angel, or an evil spirit by whom he should be haunted and possessed. But most inter preters refer the phrase to an effect to be produced upon the mind of the Assyrian. Thus some explain ni"l to mean terror, others courage, others a desire to return home, others simply a change of mind. The most probable conclusion is, that it does not denote a specific change, but divine influence as governing his movements. nyiOl? strictly means anything heard, and Luther accordingly translates the phrase, he shall hear something. Most writers understand this as referring to the news mentioned in ver. 9 below. But Henderson observes that this news, far from driving Sennacherib home, led to a fresh defiance of Jerusalem. He therefore ingeniously sug gests, that this expression has reference to the news of the destruction of his host before Jerusalem while he himself was absent. But in the next verse Rabshakeh is said to have rejoined his master, nor is there any further mention of an army at Jerusalem. It is possible, indeed, though not re corded, that Rabshakeh left the troops behind him when he went to Libnah. under the command of Tartan or Rabsaris (2 Kings xviii. 17), and this is still more probable if, as some suppose, Rabshakeh was a mere ambassador or herald, and Tartan the real military chief. If it can be assumed, on any ground, that the great catastrophe took place in the absence of Sennacherib, which would account for his personal escape, then Henderson's explanation of nyiO'J> is more satisfactory than any other. The modern Germans are

perplexed by this Terse. They would gladly explain the prediction in the last clause as a prophecy ex eventu; but in that case, how could the slaughter of the host have been omitted? The only escape from this dilemma is by the arbitrary allegation that the prophecy was falsely ascribed to Isaiah by a later writer. If this be so, we may as well reject the whole; for what assurance have we that a writer, who fabricates miracles and prophecies, is faithful in his history of other matters? The inconveniences of this attempt to save a part while really discrediting the whole, are curiously apparent from Gesenius's endeavour to explain the first clause of this verse as a sagacious political conjecture, and the other as a subsequent interpolation.

8. And Rabshakeh returned, and found the Icing of Assyria fighting against (i. e. Reneging] Libnah, for he heard that he had decamped from Lacltish. Both these towns were in the plain or lowlands of Judea, south west of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 39, 42), originally seats of Canaanitish kings or chiefs, conquered by Joshua (Josh. xii. 11, 15). Lachish was one of the fifteen places fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 9), and one of the last towns taken by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxxiv. 7). It was still in existence after the exile (Neh. xi. 30). Libnah was a city of the Levites and of refuge (Josh. xxi. 13), and appears to have been nearer to Jerusalem. Henderson infers that Sennacherib had conquered Lachish, most other writers that he failed in the attempt. Some of the older writers make Libnah an Egyptian city, either because'one of the stations of the Israelites in the wilderness bore this name (Num. xxxiii. 20), or because Josephus, in order to reconcile Isaiah's narrative with that of Herodotus, represent's Sen nacherib as leaving Lachish to besiege Pelusium. The last verb in this verse properly denotes the removal of a tent or an encampment, an idea happily expressed in Lowth's translation by the military term decamped. The sense of this verb can be here expressed in our idiom only by the use of the plu perfect, which form is given by most versions to the verb before it likewise, and Hendewerk extends it even to the verbs of the first clause, which is wholly gratuitous.

9. And he (Sennacherib) heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, lie is come forth to make war with thee ; and he heard (it\ and sent (or when he heard it he sent} messengers to Hezekiah, saying (what follows in the next verse). On the meaning of the Hebrew name t?W, see the notes on chap. xviii. 1, and xx. 3. Tirhakah was one of the most famous conquerors of ancient times. Megasthencs, as quoted by Strabo, puts him between Sesostris and Nebuchadnezzar. He is also named by Manetho as one of the Ethiopian dynasty in Egypt. He was at this time either in close ahance with that country, or more probably in actual possession of Thebais or Upper Egypt. The fact that an Ethiopian dynasty did reign there is attested by the ancient writers, and confirmed by still existing monuments. The Greek forms of the name (Tc^axo?, Ta^oj/TEgxwv) vary but little from the Hebrew. Barnes and some of the older writers suppose that Sennacherib had already been driven out of Egypt by this king, and was now afraid of

>emg followed into Palestine; but this conclusion is hardly warranted by the facts of the history, sncred or profane. It is unnecessary to suppose, with. Michaehs, that Tirhakah had crossed the desert to invade Assyria, or even with Ilosenmuller, that he was already on the frontier of Judah. The bare fact of his having left his own dominions, with the purpose of attacking Sennacherib, would be sufficient to alarm the latter, especially as his operations in the Holy Land had been so unsuccessful. He was naturally anxious, therefore, to induce Hezekiah to capitulate before the

Ethiopians should arrive, perhaps before the Jews should hear of their approach. That he did not march upon Jerusalem himself is very probably accounted for by Yitringa, on the ground that his strength lay chiefly in cavalry, which could not be employed in the highlands, and that the poliorcetic part of warfare, or the conduct of sieges, was little known to any ancient nation but the Romans, as Tacitus asserts. A peculiar difficulty arose also from the scarcity of water in the environs of Jerusalem, which has been an obstacle to all the armies that have ever besieged it (see the notes on chap. xxii. 9-11). Gesenius supposes that symptoms of the plague had begun to shew themselves in Palestine. Instead of /]) before Tirhakah, the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 9) has?X, which is the more remarkable be cause the latter particle is represented by some critics as a favourite of the copyist or later writer, to whom they ascribe this portion of Isaiah. In stead of the second heard, the parallel passage has lie returned, which, according to a common Hebrew idiom, may qualify the next verb (sent), by giving it the sense of sent attain. This, which certainly yields an appro priate meaning, is restored by Lowth in this place as the true text, while Gesenius and the later German writers, who are usually bold enough in critical conjecture, choose in this case to regard the reading in Isaiah as a tautology of the later writer. Yet the variation is precisely such as one writer would be apt to make in recording the same matter twice.

10. Thus shall ye say to JlezekiaJi, king of Judah, Let not thy God deceive thee, in whom thou trmtest, saying, Jerusalem shall not he given into the hand of the king of Assyria. This recognition of Hezekiah's royal dignity, of which Rabshakeh seemed to take no notice, if significant at all, as some interpreters imagine, may be accounted for upon the ground that in this message the design of the Assyrians was not to destroy the people's con fidence in Hezekiah, but the king's own confidence in God. For the samereason, Sennacherib's blasphemy is much more open and direct than that of Rabshakeh. The word saying may be referred either to Hezekiah or to God. This English Version makes the last construction necessary, by changing the collocation of the words ; but Luther, Gesenius, and many others understand the sense to be, in ichom thou trustest, saying. This is in fact entitled to the preference, on the ground that nt212 is the nearest antecedent. On the whole, it is best, in a case so doubtful, to retain the Hebrew collocation with all its ambiguity. The word surrendered, used by Henderson in this verse, is not only less simple than the common version given, but confines the clause too strictly to the act of the besieged, instead of making it at least include the act of God himself, as the protector of Jerusalem.

11. liehold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria hare done to all the lands, by utterly destroying them, and thou shaft be delivered ! The interjection behold appeals to these events as something perfectly no torious ; as if he had said, See what has happened to others, and then judge whether thou art likely to escape. The pronoun thou, in the first clause, not being necessary to the sense, is, according to analogy, distinc tive and emphatic, and may be explained to mean, thou at least hast heard, if not the common people. In the last clause, the same pronoun stands in opposition to the other kings or kingdoms who had been destroyed. This clause is, in most versions, rendered as an interrogation, but is properly an exclamation of contemptuous incredulity. All the lands may either be an elliptical expression for all the lands subdued by them, or, which is more in keeping with the character of the discourse, a hyperbolical expression of

the speaker's arrogance. D^nnn1? strictly means to doom them, or devote them irrevocably to destruction, but in usage commonly includes the idea of execution as well as of design. (Compare the note on chap. xi. 15). From the mention of the kings of Assyria in the plural, some writers take occasion to accuse Rabshakeh of intending to arrogate the glory of these conquests to Sennacherib exclusively, whereas the latter did not dare to do so in addressing Hezukiah. But others, with more probability, infer that the singular form, employed by Rabshakeh, is itself to be understood col lectively, like Icing of Babylon in the fourteenth chapter.

12. Did the gods of the nations deliver them, which my fathers destroyed, (to wit,} Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which is (or who were) in Telassar? Here again the collocation of the words makes the construction doubtful, though the general sense is clear. DH1N may either be referred to lands in the preceding verse (the masculine form being then a licence, or perhaps a sign that by the lands we are to understand

the people who inhabited them), or to WK, or to D^M, or it may be con nected with "VJ'K in the sense of those whom, which appears to be preferred by Hitzig. The construction then is, Did the gods of the nations deliver those whom my fathers destroyed? With respect to the places mentioned in the second clause, all that is absolutely necessary to the just understanding of the sentence is, that they were well known, both to speaker and hearer, as Assyrian conquests. The difficulty of identifying some of them affords an incidental argument in favour of the antiquity and genuineness of the passage. Gozan is probably the modern Kaushan, the Gauzanitis of Ptolemy, a region of Mesopotamia, situated on the Chaboras, to which a portion of the ten tribes were transferred by Shalmaneser. Haran was a city of Mesopotamia, where Abraham's father died, the Carrae of the Romans, and famous for the great defeat of Crassus. Rezeph, a common name in oriental geography, here denotes probably the Ressapha of Ptolemy, a town and province in Palmyrene Syria. Eden means pleasure or delight, and seems to have been given as a name to various places. Having been thus applied to a district in the region of mount Lebanon, the native Christians have been led to regard that as the site of the terrestial para dise. Equally groundless are the conclusions of some learned critics as to the identity of the place here mentioned with the garden of Eden. In Isa. li. 3, the reference is not to a country well known and distinguish*! for its fertility (Barnes), but to the garden of Eden as a matter of history. Such allusions prove no more, as to the site of the garden, than the similar allusions of modern orators and poets to any delightful region as an Eden or a Paradise. Even the continued application of the name in prose, as a geographical term, proves no more than the use of such a name as Mount Pleamnt in American geography. The inference, in this place, is especially untenable, because the word sons or children, prefixed to Eden, leaves it doubtful whether the latter is the name of a place at all, and not rather that of a person, whose descendants were among the races conquered by Assyria. The relative pronoun may agree grammatically either with sons or Eden, and the form of the verb to be supplied must be varied accord ingly. Tel-assar, which Gesenius thinks may be identical with the Ellasar of Gen. xiv. 1, where it is substituted for the latter by the Targum of Jerusalem, appears to be analogous in form to the Babylonian names, Telabib, Tel-melah, Tel-hasha, in all of which tel means hill, and corresponds to the English mount in names of places. . 13. Where is the king of Ilamath, and the king of Arpad, and the Icing of

the cili/ Sepharvaim, Henah and Irvah? The question implies that they were nowhere, or had ceased to be. The first three names occur in the same order in Rabshakeh's speech (chap, xxxvi. 19), and the remaining two also in the parallel passage (2 Kings xviii. 34). As the love of uni formity and assimilation here betrayed is on the part of the pretended older writer, the German critics have discreetly overlooked it. Of Hena, nothing whatever is known, and of Ivvah only that it may be identical with the Avva of 2 Kings xvii. 24, from which Assyrian colonists were transferred to Sammaria. The absence of all further trace of these tsvo places, and the peculiar form of the names, led J. D. Michaelis to follow Symniachus and Jonathan in making both words verbs or verbal nouns, implying that the kings just mentioned had been utterly subverted and de stroyed. But this interpretation, although highly plausible in this one case, is much less natural, if not wholly inadmissible, in 2 Kings xviii. 34. It would be easy to affirm, no doubt, that the writer of the latter passage misunderstood the one before us; but from this suggestion even Gesenius and his followers are precluded by their foregone conclusion that the text in Kings is the more ancient of the two. Another explanation of these words is that suggested by Luzzatto, who regards them as the names of the deities worshipped at Hamath, Arpa<l, and Sepharvaim, and takes "pO in the sense of idol or tutelary god, which last idea is as old as Clericus. This ingenious hypothesis Lu/.zatto endeavours to sustain by the analogy of Adrammelech and Anammelecli, the gods of Seplwrvairn (2 Kings xvii. 31), the second of which names he regards as essentially identical with Ifena. In favour of this exposition, besides the fact already mentioned that the names, as names of places, occur nowhere else, it may be urged that it agrees not only with the context in this place, but also with 2 Kings xviii. 84, in which the explanations of the words as verbs or nouns is inad missible. This explanation, and the grounds on which it rests, are at least entitled to a fair comparison with that first given, as the one ap proved by most interpreters. Musculus understands the dual form of Sepharvaim as denoting that it consisted of two towns, perhaps on diffe rent sides of the Euphrates, and that Hena and Ivvah were the distinc tive names of these. The particular mention of the city Sepharvaim, and the construction of that word with?, are peculiarities not easily ac counted for. The substitution of H'X for 1"X (2 Kings, xix. 13) is of course ascribed by Gesenius and Knobel to the later writer's fondness for exact uniformity, his own violations of it to the contrary notwith standing.

14. And Hezekiah took the letters from the hand of the messengers, and read it, and loent up (to} the house of Jehovah, and Jfezekiah spread it before Jehovah. As nothing had been previously said respecting letters, we must either suppose that the preceding address was made not orally but in writing, or that both modes of communication were adopted. The latter is most pro bable in itself, and agrees best with the statement in 2 Chron. xxxii. 17, that besides the speeches which his servants spake against the Lord God, and against his servant Hezekiah, Sennacherib wrote letters to rail on the Lord God of Israel and to speak against him. The singular pronoun (it) referring to the plural antecedent (letters), is explained by David Kimchi distributively, as meaning every one of them; by the Targum, as meaning simply one of them, i. e. according to Joseph Kimchi, the one that contained the blasphemy. Luzzatto supposes that it was customary to send duplicate of the same letter, as the modern Samaritans did in their correspondences

with Job Ludolf, and that Hezekiah, though he took both or all, had no occasion to read more than one of them. This is certainly ingenious and plausible; but perhaps the most satisfactory explanation is, that DnQD, like the Latin literte, had come to signify a single letter, and might be therefore treated indiscriminately either as a singular or a plural form. This is the more probable, because it can hardly be supposed that Sennacherib would write more than one letter to Hezekiah on this one occasion, unless in the way suggested by Luzzato, which is not to be assumed without necessity or evidence. That he wrote at the same time to the chief men or the people, is an arbitrary and improbable assumption, and even supposing that he did, why should Hezekiah be described as receiving all the letters? Some ver sions wholl}' disregard the difference of number. Thus the Septuagint and Luther make both noun and pronoun singular, while Calvin and the Vulgate make both plural. The parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 14) removes all appearance of irregularity by reading them instead of it. This is so glaring an exception to the sweeping allegation of a constant disposition, in the text before us, to remove anomalies and seeming incongruities, that Gesenius is und^r the necessity of finding some expedient for the vindication of his darling theory. This he plausibly accomplishes by saying, that as both texts have the singular form spread it in the other clause, the later writer chose to assimilate the phrase in question to this, and not to the preceding plural noun. It does not seem to have occurred to the ingenious special pleader, that the last it needs as much to be explained as the first, and that such a copyist as he supposes, instead of saying read it, because he was going to say spread it afterwards, would naturally first say read them, and then say spread them for the sake of uniformity. Such explanations appear almost puerile compared with the obvious and simple supposition of two draughts or copies by the selfsame writer. Another characteristic observa tion of Gesenius on this verse is, that Hezekiah must have spread the letter in the temple in order to let Jehovah read it from the Holy of Holies, and that accordingly in ver. 10, he is called upon to open his eyes, which he says reminds him of the praying machines of Thibet. This specimen of exegetical wit is eagerly caught up and repeated by later and inferior writers. The spreading of the letter before God is supposed by Clericus to have been designed to excite the feelings and the prayers of the people, by Calvin to affect the feelings of the king himself. It seems, however, to have been no studied, calculated movement, but a natural expression of anxiety and trust in God, as a protector and a confidential friend; a state of mind which to an infidel must needs appear ridiculous. As any man would carry an open letter, which troubled or perplexed him, to a friend for sympathy and counsel, so the pious king spreads this blasphemous epistle before God, as the occasion and subject of his prayers. Josephus says he left it afterwards rolled up in the temple, of which there is no record in the narrative before us. He also says that Hezekiah lay pros trate, in the Jewish manner, in the presence of Jehovah, from which it might seem that he took intTlB' in the sense of stretched himself, which would be ungrammaticul and contrary to usage. But Yitringa is no doubt correct in his opinion, that Josephus had no reference to this word, but to the signs of mourning mentioned in the first and second verses, with which he would naturally associate prostration as their usual accompaniment. (See for example 1 Chron. xxi. 16.)

15. And Hezekiah prayed to Jehovah, saying (what follows in the next verse). Hendewerk observes that this mode of proceeding was characteristic of a person more like David in devotion than in energy and enter prise. With a far superior appreciation of the good king's character, Gill quaintly says that, instead of answering the letter himself, he prays the Lord to answer it. Instead of to, the parallel passage (2 Kings xix 15) has before Jehovah,

16. Jehovah of hosts, God of Israel, dwelling between (or sitting ujwn) the cherubim, thou art he, the God (i. e. the only true God), thou atone, to all the kingdoms of the earth ; thou hast made the heavens and the earth. The parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 15) omits 01N3V, upon which Gesenius remarks that the combination here used is very common in the prophecies, while it scarcely occurs at all in the historical books. What can be more natural, therefore, than that Isaiah should employ it in the case before us, and the simple prose form in the book of Kings ? This is surely a more obvious conclusion than the one which Gesenius draws, viz., that the later copyists and compilers of the books of the Old Testament altered the text at will, to make it suit the customary form of expression in their own day. The cherubim were visible representations of spiritual beings, or, as Bahr and Hengstenberg suppose, of the perfection of the creature in its highest form. The name is most probably derived from 3~O, as a synonyme of Tp, to approach, or as a transposition of 3D~i, to ride, in allusion to the angels as the bearers of God's chariots. This last verb is connected with the noun in Ps. xviii. 11. Eichhorn's attempt to identify the word with the ywxe; or griffins of Eastern mythology has been repeated by some later writers, but with small success. Some suppose an allusion, in the case before us, to Jehovah's riding on the cherubim (Ps. xviii. 11), or angels through the air; others to his being enthroned above the material cherubs in the temple. This sense is given by Luther and the ancient versions, but Calvin and many later writers understand him to be here described as dwelling between the cherubim. (Compare Exod. xxv. 22.) In either case there is allusion to his manifested presence over the mercy-seat, called by the later Jews shechinah, which word is itself used in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the verse before us. Forerius translates the Hebrew phrase without a preposition, inhabitant of the cherubim, which would seem, however, to describe God as dwelling in the images, not over them or under the shadow of their wings. The pronoun N1H is understood by some as an emphatic or intensive addi tion, like the Latin ipse : thou thyself (art) the God, &c. Others regard it as an idiomatic substitute for the copula or verb of existence, used with all the persons, thou art the God, &c. But on the general principle of adher ing to the strict sense of words where it is possible, it is best to trans late it thou (art) he, and to regard what follows as explanatory of this pregnant and concise expression. The God of all the kingdoms of the earth is not an exact translation of the Hebrew words, in which the God stands by itself as an emphatic phrase, meaning the only God, the true God, and what follows is intended to suggest a contrast with the false gods of the nations. 72? is not simply of all, in all, for all, or over all, but with respect to all. Thou art the one true God, not only with respect to us, but with respect to all the nations of the earth. The reason follows : be cause thou hast made them all, and not the earth only, but the heavens also. All this is indirectly a reply to the Assyrian blasphemies, which questioned the almighty power of Jehovah, and put him on a level with the idols of the heathen. The same antithesis betwen the impotence of idols and the power of God as shewn in the creation of the world, occurs in Ps. xcvi. 5, and Jer. x. 11.

17. Bow thine ear, 0 Jehovah, and hear ; open thine eyes, 0 Jehovah, and see ; and hear all the icords of Sennacherib, which he hath sent (or who hath sent) to reproach the living God. These expressions are entirely analogous to those in many other places, where God is entreated to see and hear, i. e. to act as if he saw and heard. The attempt of Gesenius and his followers to restrict them to the reading of the letter or the hearing it read, neither requires nor deserves refutation. Gesenius also takes ^JJ as a singular, substituted for the plural Y.?^ of the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 16), through the transcriber's ignorance of the Hebrew idiom, which always speaks of turning one ear, but of opening both eyes. If this distinction is as natural and obvious as he represents, it is strange that even a transcriber, to whom the Hebrew was vernacular, should not have been aware of it. Supposing, however, that Isaiah wrote both narratives, there would be nothing more surprising in his saying eyes in one and eye in the other, than there is in the coexistence of such forms as word of God and words of God, his mercy and his mercies, where the predominance of one form does not preclude the occasional occurrence of the other. Gesenius, moreover, did not think it necessary to inform his readers of the fact, which Hender son has brought to light, that more than fifty manuscripts, and nearly twenty editions, have the usual plural form T^V, an amount of evidence ten times as great as that which Gesenius, in other cases, thinks enough to justify the boldest changes in the text. Still less did he consider himself called upon to mention, that the common reading 13MJ itself may be a plural form, according to analogy, as stated expressly by himself in his Lehrgebandc (p. 215) and his smaller Grammar (§ 35, Remark 8). Least of all did he see cause to state, that this explanation of the form is rendered almost neces sary here by the parallelism, because if "*$"$ were written instead of l^tf merely because of a pause in the sentence, then ^P!N, which occupies the very same position in the other member, would be written ^?N, and as this is not the case, the obvious conclusion is, that the teghol in ^V. is the union-vowel of a plural noun before the suffix, with the * omitted as in Exod. xxxiii. 13, and other cases cited by Gesenius in his grammars. The fact that "P^y has a stronger disjunctive accent than "pTN, instead of weaken ing confirms the argument, because if the former were in pause, the structure of the sentence would require the latter to be so too. What Gesenius says in'reference to the use of the word Hosts in the preceding verse, viz., that it throws light upon other critical phenomena, may be applied with justice to his own style of criticism in the case before us. Instead of assuming, as he often does without a tithe of the same evidence, that Y3^ is the true text, or reflecting that "P'J? itself may be a plural according to his own shewing elsewhere, and must be a plural according to the favourite rule of parallelism, he first takes for granted that it is a singular, and then makes use of it not only as a deviation from the older copy, but as characteristic of an ignorant and therefore a later writer. For by some strange process it has been discovered, that the later Hebrew writers were not only inferior in composition, but in knowledge of the idioms of the language, whereas in Greece and Rome the decline of original composition coincided with the rise and progress of grammatical science. The only end for which these inconsistencies are pointed out, is that the reader may correctly estimate authoritative dicta of the same kind elsewhere. The simplest version of fW X'X is, who has sent. To express the idea, which he has sent, usage would seem to require a suffix with the verb, and accordingly we read in 2 Kings xix. 16, irw ~\VK} i, e. which he has sent, referring irregularly to-

VER. 18, 19.] ISAIAH XXXVII. 6S

the plural words, or who has sent him, meaning Rabshakeh, which is the construction given in the English version of that passage.

18. It is true, 0 Jehovah, the kings of Assyria hare wasted all the lands and their land. The first word in the original is a particle of concession, admitting the truth of what Sennacherib had said, so far as it related merely to his conquest of the nations and destruction of their idols. The repeti tion, lands and land, has much perplexed interpreters. Vitringa supplies nations or peoples before lands, as in 2 Chron. xxxii. 18. Others suppose filVIN itself to be here used in the sense of nations, as the singular seems sometimes to denote the inhabitants of the earth or land. This supposition would account at the same time for the masculine suffix in DV1N. Gesenius follows J. D. Michaelis and Augusti in giving this suffix a reflexive sense, or referring to the Assyrians themselves (their ov:n land"). The meaning then is that they had destroyed not only other countries but their own, which agrees exactly with the charge against the king of Babylon in chap, xiv. 20, thou shall not be joined with them in burial, because thon hast de stroyed thy land and slain thy people. As this sense, however, is not so appropriate here, where Hezekiah is confirming what Sennacherib himself had said, it is better to adopt one of the other constructions, which brings the sentence into strict agreement, not as to form but as to sense, with the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 17), where we have the unambiguous term nations. This is justly described by Rosenmiiller as the easier construction of the two, which would militate against the foregone conclusion of the later Germans, as to the relative antiquity and characteristic features of the two texts. Gesenius, therefore, while 'he grants that the form of expression in the case before us is harsher and more difficult, alleges, with perverse in genuity, that this arose from the attempt to remove another incongruity, to wit, the application of the verb 3in to persons, in avoiding which the copyist committed the solecism, lands and their land. But this hypothesis, besides its fanciful and arbitrary character as a mere makeshift, and its gratuitous assumption of the grossest stupidity and ignorance as well as inattention in the writer, is sufficiently refuted by the emphatic combina tion of the same verb and noun in chap. lx. 12. Even if that were a com position of a later writer than Isaiah, it would prove that such a writer could not have been so shocked at the expression as to make nonsense of a sentence merely for the purpose of avoiding it. The reader will do weH to observe, moreover, that the same imaginary copyist is supposed, in different emergencies, to have been wholly unacquainted with the idioms of his mother tongue, and yet extremely sensitive to any supposed violation of usage. Such scruples and such ignorance are not often found in combination. A transcriber unable to distinguish sense from nonsense would not be apt to take offence at mere irregularities or eccentricities in the phraseology or diction of his author.

19. And given (or put] their gods into the Jirc — for they (tvere) no gods, lut wood and stone, the work of men's hands — and destroyed them. Most interpreters separate the clauses and translate Dn2fcW therefore (or so) they hare destroyed them. But the true construction seems to be the one pro posed by Henderson, who connects this verb directly with the first clause, and throws the intervening member into a parenthesis. Instead of the peculiar idiomatic use of the infinite (i™), the parallel passage (2 Kings xvii. 18) has the preterite ('1^,5) a substitution of an easy for a difficult con struction so undeniable that Gesenius can escape from it only by asserting that the form here used belongs to the later Hebrew, an assertion which

not one of his followers has ventured to repeat, while Hendewerk flatly contradicts it. Knobel strangely imagines that Hezekiah here accuses the Assyrian of impiety towards those whom he acknowledged to be gods, whereas throughout this verse, and that before it, he is simply acknowledg ing that Sennacherib had destroyed the idols of the nations, and assigning a reason for it, viz. that they were no gods, but material idols. The ap plication of the word gods to the mere external image is common in profane as well as sacred writings, and arises from the fact that all idolaters, whatever they may theoretically hold as to the nature of their deities, identify them practically with the stocks and stones to which they pay their adorations.

20. And now, 0 Jehovah our God, save us from Jti's hand, and all the king doms of the earth shall know, that thou Jehovah art alone (or that thou alone art Jehovah) The adverb now is here used both in a temporal and logical sense, as equivalent, not only to at length, or before it is too late, but also to therefore, or since these things are so. The fact that Sennacherib had destroyed other nations, is urged as a reason why the Lord should inter pose to rescue his own people from a like destruction ; and the fact that he had really triumphed over other gods, as a reason why he should be taught to know the difference between them and Jehovah. The argument or motive here presented, although sneered at by the infidel interpreters, is not only common in the Scriptures, but involved in the very idea of a God. The considerations which make such a motive unbecoming in the case of creatures are entirely inapplicable to the Supreme Being. The requisition of a sentimental modesty on his part only shows that he who makes it has no higher conception of a God than as a vague sublimation of humanity. The construction of iy*V as an optative (let all the kingdoms of the earth know), or a subjunctive (that all the kingdoms of the earth may know), although admissible, ought not to be preferred to the future proper, where the latter yields a sense so good in itself and so well suited to the context. The last words of the verse may either mean, that thou Jehovah art the only one (i.e. as appears from the connection, the only true God), or, that thou alone art Jehovah, with particular allusion to the proper import of that name as signifying absolute, eternal, independent existence. The last construc tion is preferred by Hitzig ; but the first, which is adopted by Gesenius, is also recommended by its more exact agreement with the Masoretic accents. It need scarcely be added that these questions of construction do not affect the general sense, which is, that the deliverance of his people from Senna cherib would prove Jehovah to be infinitely more than the gods of the nations whom he gloried in destroying.

21. And Isaiah, the son of Amoz, Kent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith Jehorah, the God of Israel, (as to) what thou hast prayed to me (with respect} to Sennacherib king of Assyria, (the apodosis follows in the next verse). Vitringa's supposition that the communication was in writing, is favoured by the analogy of ver. 14, and by the length and metrical form of the message itself. Knobel suggests that the messenger was probably a younger prophet. Why Isaiah corresponded thus with Hezekiah, instead of speaking with him face to face, as he did in other cases, both before and after this, none of the interpreters have been able to explain, except by resolving it into a positive command of God. J. D. Michaelis connects ~^N with vN in the sense of / to whom ; but this use of the first person in immediate combina tion with the third, although not unexampled, is too rare to be assumed without necessity. The same objection lies against the explanation of ")£'K

as a conjunction meaning as, whereas, forasmuch, or the like. The same essential meaning is obtained by making it as usual a relative pronoun, construed adverbially, a form of speech which cannot be transferred to our idiom without the introduction of a proposition. Gesenius regards it as an idiomatic pleonasm, and accordingly omits it in his version, which is simply, than hast prayed, &c. Lowth follows several of the ancient versions in making it the object of the verb T\yw (/ have heard], which he inserts in the text on the authority of the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 20). This emendation would be highly probable but for the fact that the sacred writers often intentionally varied their expressions in repeating the same matter, for the proof and illustration of which usage see Hengstenberg's exposition of the fourteenth and eighteenth Psalms (Commentary, vol. i. pp. 269, 872). Be this as it may, no stretch of ingenuity can make the construction in Isaiah easier or more obvious than the one in Kings. Gesenius therefore contents himself with saying that the later writer omitted *nyDE> for the sake of brevity, and yet he makes him use "itl'N in a sense wholly different from that in which he must have used it if ^nyoiy were inserted. Another difference between the two texts is the use of 7K here in the place of?P. This agrees well enough with the hypothesis that?K is a favourite of the later writer, but not at all with the assumption that his changes were in tended to remove irregularities and make the construction easy. ?K may

either be regarded as equivalent to?V (ar/ainst) in this connection, or be taken in the wider sense of as to or concerning.

22. Tins is the word which Jehovah hath spoken concerning (or against} him. The -virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee, she hath laughed thee to scorn, the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head after thee. There is no need of giving word the sense of decree, or even prophecy. The simple meaning is that what follows is a revelation from God in answer to the vaunting of Sennacherib and the prayers of Hezekiah. The two explanations of the preposition 7V, between which interpreters appear to be divided, differ only in extent and definiteness. For the meaning of the phrase }V¥ H3, see the note on -chap. i. 8 ; for the construction of Hpiro, that on chap, xxiii. 12. As all interpreters agree that this last word is in apposition (as to sense) with rQ, so Hengstenberg supposes the latter to sustain the same relation to JW, on which supposition the meaning of the whole phrase is, the virgin daughter of Zion, i. e. Zion considered as a daughter and a virgin. It may be a personification either of the whole church and nation, or of the city of Jerusalem, which last seems more appropriate in this connection. J. D. Michaelis and Hitzig understand the figure of virginity as meaning that the city was still unconquered. Calvin and Clericus, with strange inattention to the form of the original, take virgin daughter of Zion as a vocative, and refer the verb to the Assyrian (he hath despised thee, O virgin, &c.), a construction utterly prohibited, not only by the masculine form of the pronoun thee, which might be differently pointed, but by the femi nine termination of the verbs, which is a necessary part of the text. The sense of "V"inx is not merely at thee, but after thee as thou fleest. Hen derson bus behind thee, which is only defective in not suggesting the idea of his flight. Luzzatto endeavours, but without success, to explain the shaking of the head as a gesture of compassion or condolence, even where it is combined with other tokens of contempt. His argument rests wholly on a supposititious meaning of the cognate 113. Maurer and Knobel understand by shaking a derisive nodding or vertical motion of the head accom panied by laughter. Gesenius supposes that a wagging or lateral motion of the head, although not used by us for such a purpose, may have been common as a gesture of derision in the East, the rather as such signs are to a great extent conventional, and as other derisive gestures mentioned in the Scriptures, such as clapping the hands, are equally foreign from our habits and associations. Hitzig supposes that the shaking of the head, with the Hebrews as with us, was a. gesture of negation, and that the ex pression of scorn consisted in a tacit denial that Sennacherib had been able to effect his purpose. Thus understood, the action is equivalent to saying in words, no, no ! i.e. he could not do it ! A similar explanation of this gesture is given by Hengsteuberg in his Commentary on Psalm xxii. 8. The meaning of the whole verse, divested of its figurative dress, is that the people of God might regard the threats of the Assyrian with contempt.

23. Whom hast thou reproached and reviled, and against whom hast thou raised (thy} voice, and lifted thine eyes (on} high towards (or against) the Holy One of Israel / This is equivalent to sa}ring, Dost thou know who it is that thou revilest ? To raise the voice may simply mean to speak, or more emphatically to speak boldly, perhaps with an allusion to the literal loudness of Rabshakeh's address to the people on the wall (chap, xxxvi. 13). The construction loftiness of eyes (meaning pride) is inconsistent both with the pointing and accentuation. DllQ is a noun of place, here construed aa an adverb, and in sense equivalent to heavenwards or towards heaven. The act described is that of looking up to heaven as he uttered his blasphemies. The English and many other versions make the last words of the second clause an answer to the foregoing question. (Against whom? &c. Against the Holy One of Israel). This construction is retained by Gesenius, but Ewald carries the interrogation through the verse, and renders 1, at the beginning of the last clause, that or so that, while Hitzig makes the whole of that clause an exclamation. This construction is more natural than that which makes the answer begin in the middle of the last clause, instead of the beginning of the next verse, where he is expressly charged with blasphemy against Jehovah.

24. By the hand of thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord and said, With the multitude of my chariots (or cavalry] I have ascended the height of mountains, the sides of Lebanon, and I will cut down the loftiness of its cedars and the choice of its Jirs (or cypresses], and I will reach its extreme height (literally, the height of its extremity], its garden-forest (literally, the garden of its forest). This may be regarded either as the substance of another message actually sent by Sennacherib, or as a translation of his feelings and his conduct into words. By the hand may then mean simply through (as in chap. xx. 1), or refer particularly to the letters mentioned in ver. 14. The parallel passage has T*5H?P, thy messengers, a variation just as likely to be made by the original writer as by a later copyist. The textual reading in that passage has 33"Q instead of 2"O, which is given in the margin. Gesenius points the former 2???, and translates the whole phrase uith my chariot of chariots (2?? being often used collectively) /. e. my innumerable chariots (compare Nahum iii. 17). Ewald points it 3b~a, by the driving of my chariots. The reading in the text before us, and in the margin of the other, is of course regarded as an attempt to simplify and clear up an obscure expression, a tendency diligently noted when it shews itself on the right or rather the convenient side. Vitringa gives to A.? 2, here as in chap. xxi. 7, the] sense of cavalry; but other interpreters

YEB. 25.] ISAIAH XXXVII. G7

appear to be agreed, that there is no sufficient reason, in this case, for departing from the usual and proper sense, especially as little would be gained by it, lofty and rugged mountains being scarcely more accessible to horses than to chariots. Some understand the sides of Lebanon strictly as denoting its acclivities; others with more probability give it the peculiar idiomatic sense of extremities, whether of length, depth, or height, the latter being here required by the connection. (See the note on chap, xiv. 13.) VT1N noip is explained by Clericus to mean its standing cedars, but by other interpreters its lofty cedars, as the parallel expressions mean its choice firs or cypresses. (Compare the note on chap. xiv. 8.) The ex planation of Carmii as a proper name can only be admitted on the suppo sition that the pronouns in this clause refer to Hezekiah or to Judah. If on the contrary they refer to Lebanon, which seems the only natural con struction, ?E"O must be taken in its priinaiy and proper sense of fruitful field, vineyard, garden, orchard, or the like. It is here combined with forest, either for the purpose of describing the cedar groves of Lebanon as similar to pai'ks and orchards, or of designating the spot where the culti vated slope of the mountain is gradually changed into a forest. It was long supposed that the only cedar grove of Lebanon was the one usually •visited near the highest summit of the range; but, in 1805, Seetzen dis covered two others of greater extent, and the American missionaries have since found many trees in different parts of the mountain. (Robinson's Palestine, iii. 440.) Instead of 'VSp D'np the parallel passage has P^P n^i? (Jtts extreme abode), a variation both in sense and form, which Gesenius and his followers think decidedly more poetical and difficult than that before us, and of course more ancient, as the inference happens in this case to favour the foregone conclusion. Such asser tions are best answered by a counter assertion, in itself at least as plausible, that the diversity is just such as might have been expected in the case of one and the same writer. The reference to Lebanon in this verse is by many interpreters literally understood; but why should the Assyrian attempt or even threaten so absurd a passage with his mounted troops, when a shorter and easier one lay open to him? Others regard Lebanon as a poetical description of the kingdom of the ten tribes, or of Judah, or of Israel in general, with special mention of Jerusalem, of the temple, or the tower of Lebanon, as its extreme height or abode. But if we take into consideration the whole context, and the strongly hyperbolical expressions of the other messages and speeches of Sennacherib, it will be found most natural to understand this verse as a poetical assertion of the speaker's power to overcome all obstacles.

25. I hare digged and drunk water, and I will dry up icith the sole of my feet (literally, steps') all the streams of Egypt. As in the preceding verse, he begins with the past tense and then changes to the future, to denote that he had begun his enterprise successfully and expected to conclude it triumphantly. The confusion of the tenses, as all futures or all pre terites, is entirely arbitrary, and the translation of them all as presents is at least unnecessary, when a stricter version not only yields a good sense, but adds to the significance and force of the expressions. According to Luzzato, "lip means to spring up or gush forth as a fountain, and the verse is a poetical description of the conqueror under the figure of a stream which drinks in its tributary waters and exhausts all other rivers in its course. This last expression the ingenious rabbin wisely disguises in a paraphrase, as he could scarcely have found any reader, Jew or Gentile, who would

G8 ISAIAH XXXVII. [

tolerate the figure of one stream drying up others with the soles of its feet. Another original interpretation of the verse is that proposed by Barnes, who gives the usual explanation of the first word, but applies that clause to the supply of the Assyrian cities with water. The obvious objections to this exposition are, that it does not follow, because digging of wells is a public benefit in desert countries and among nomadic tribes, that the supply of a great kingdom like Assyria would be so described; but secondly and chiefly, that the parallelism and indeed the whole connection of the clauses is de stroyed by this interpretation of the first. "What coherence is there between the assertions that he had supplied his own kingdom with water, and that his army was numerous enough to exhaust the streams of Egypt? Vitringa understands the first clause as meaning that he had sated his desire of con quest, he had sought and found, he had dug for water and slaked his thirst. The objection to this interpretation is, not that it makes the first clause figurative, which agrees exactly with the style of the whole passage, but that it makes it too indefinite to match the other clause precisely. If the latter, as all except Luzzatto seem to grant, describes the march of a great army, there is a natural presumption that the other has respect to the same subject. The best interpretation, therefore, on the whole, is that which understands the verse to mean that no difficulties or privations could retard his march, that where there was no water he had dug for it and found it, and that where there was he would exhaust it, both assertions implying a vast multitude of soldiers. The drying up of the rivers with the soles of the feet is understood by Vitriuga as an allusion to the Egyptian mode of drawing water with a tread-wheel (Deut. xi. 10). Others suppose it to mean that they would cross the streams dry-shod, which does not seem to be a natural explanation of the words. Bochart understands the sense to be that the dust raised by their march would choke and dry up rivers. In favour of supposing an allusion to the drawing out of water, is the obvious reference to digging and drinking in the other clause. This appears to preclude the explanation of the language as a boast that the elements themselves were subject to him, not unlike that which Claudian puts into the mouth of Alavic. Subsidere nostris sub pedibus monies, arescere vidimus amncs. Even there, however, the literal and figurative meanings seem to run into each other, as the poet adds a few lines lower, fregi Alpes, galeis Padum victricilus hausi. That such hyperboles were wont to be applied to the oriental armies, we may learn from Juvenal. Credimus altos defecisse amnes, epotaque flumina Medo. The old interpretation of "V¥D H1N*, as meaning the waters of Jerusalem while in a state of siege, or the moats of fortified places in general, is now universally abandoned for the meaning which the same words have in chap. xvi. 6. (See above, p. 82G.)

26. Hast thou not heard ? From afar I have done it, from the days of old, and formed it. Noiv I hare caused it to come, and it shall be (or come to pass}, to lay waste, (as or into} desolate heaps, fortified cities. Clericus makes this a continuation of the speech ascribed to Sennacherib, who is here boasting that he (/. e. Assyria) had created Egypt, meaning that Egypt was peopled from Assyria, which was now about to lay it waste. This interpretation is refuted at great length by Vitringa, whose main objection to it is, that Assyria was no more the founder of Egypt than of any other ancient State. Yitringa supposes this interpretation to have sprung from. an unwillingness to recognise the doctrine of divine decrees. But such a motive cannot be imputed to Calvin, who, although he agrees with most interpreters in making these the words of God himself, refers them not to

Lis eternal purpose, but to his having made Jerusalem or Zion what she was, and to his fixed determination to preserve her. In order to sustain this explanation of the first clause, he is obliged to read the second inter rogatively, which is altogether arbitrary. Most writers, ancient and modern, are agreed in applying the first clause, either to express predictions, or to the purpose and decree of God. The sense is then substantially the same with that of chap. x. 5, 15, to wit, that the Assyrian had wrought these conquests only as an instrument in the hand of God, who had formed and declared his purpose long before, and was now bringing it to pass. Hast thou not heard? may either be a reference to history and prophecy, or a more gene ral expression of surprise that he could be ignorant of what was so notorious.

Gesenius directs attention to the form '£'£>/> in the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 25) as less usual; but the inference, which he evidently wishes to be drawn from this variation, is precluded by the use of the same combination

here in the phrase pimD?. A writer who, through ignorance or want of taste, took offence at the double preposition in the one word, could not have retained it in the other. Instead of ^lp-1, Luzzato reads 'DEI5, which is unnecessary, as the future is entirely appropriate. Most writers take this as the second person of the verb, and thou shall be, or that thou shouldcst be. Ewald more simply makes it the third person, agreeing with the noun to which the pronoun it must be referred, namety, the series of events in which Sennacherib had gloried. The parallel passage has the contracted form nwn?, which, as being unusual and irregular, is supposed by Gese nius to have been amended in the later copy. For 2^3 Lowth reads E^J, and translates the whole phrase, warlike nations. Most other writers are agreed in making it mean ruined or desolated heaps. The construction is that of a double accusative, without an ellipsis of the particle, which may, however, be supplied in English.

27. And iheir inhabitants are short of hand ; they are broken and con founded ; they are grass of the field and green herbage, grass of the house-tops and a field before the stalk (or standing corn], i. e. before the grain has grown up. This may be regarded either as a description of the weak ness of those whom the Assyrian had subdued, or as a description of the terror with which they were inspired at his approach. In the former case this verse extenuates the glory of his conquest, in the latter it enhances it. A short hand or arm implies inability to reach the object, but does not ne cessarily suggest the idea of mutilation. In a negative sense, it is applied to God, Num. xi. 23 ; Isa. 1. 2, lix. 1. Here, as in many other cases, the particle of comparison is not expressed. Green herbage, literally, the (jreen of herbage. Barnes supposes an allusion to the ease with which grass is trodden down by an army ; but how does this cohere with the mention of grass upon the house-tops ? In this last expression there is reference at once to the flat surface, the earthy material, and the various uses of the oriental house-top, in consequence of which seeds would frequently spring up there, but without depth of root, and therefore short-lived. The com parison of human frailty and infirmity to grass is very common in the Scriptures. Instead of nm^, the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 26) has nDIt?, blasting or blasted corn, which has led some to regard HtDIC' either as an error of transcription or as an orthographical variation of the other word. If this be so, the text before us cannot be charged with always giving the preference to regular and familiar forms. But as the plural rnoifc? is else where used in the sense of fields, this may be here retained, the idea of blast-

70 ISAIAH XXXVII. [Van. 28-30.

ing being either supplied by the connection, or omitted altogether. In the latter case, the comparison is simply with the weakness and fragility of im mature grain, field being put by a common figure for its contents or pro ducts. The general meaning of the whole verse evidently is that they were unable to resist him.

28. And thy sitting down, and thy going out, and thy coming in, I have known, and thy raging (or provoking of thyself) against me. The Targum explains sitting to mean sitting in council, going out — going to war, and coming in — the invasion of Judah. II is commonly agreed, however^ that these phrases are combined to signify all the actions of his life, like sitting down and rising up in Ps. cxxxix. 2, going out and coming in, Deut. xxviii. 6, 1 Kings iii. 7, and elsewhere, the latter especially in reference to military movements (1 Sam. xviii. 16, 2 Sam. v. 2).

29. because of thy raging against me, and (because) thy arrogance has come up into my ears, I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I ivill cause thee to return by the way by which thou earnest. The sense of tumult, given by the English and other versions to pNE>, is founded on the etymology proposed by Rabbi Jonah, who derives it, through JWB', from nNB>. The more obvious derivation is from the verb PNK> and its root |KB>, meaning to rest or be quiet, from which we may readily deduce the ideas of security, indifference, nonchalance, superciliousness, and arro gance. However dubious the etymology may be, the whole connection makes it certain that the word is expressive of something in the conduct of Sennacherib offensive to Jehovah. In the first clause there is an abrupt change of construction from the infinitive to the finite verb, which is not uncommon in Hebrew, and which in this case does not at all obscure the sense. Another solution of the syntax is to take IV as an elliptical expres sion for "KJ>N \y or 3 |JP, as in Num. xx. 12, and 1 Kings xx. 42, and make n?y agree with both the verbal nouns preceding. This is the con struction given in the English Version. The figures in the last clause are drawn from the customary method of controlling horses, and from a less, familiar mode of treating buffaloes and other wild animals, still practised in the East, and in menageries. (Compare Ezek. xix. 4, xxix. 4, xxxviii. 4, Job xli. 1.) The figure may be taken in a general sense as signifying failure and defeat, or more specifically as referring to Sennacherib's hasty flight.

30. And this to thee (0 Hezekiah, shall be) the sign (of the fulfilment of the promise) : eat, the (present) year, that which grorveth of itself, and the second year that winch springeth of the same, an'l in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof. The preced ing verse closes the address to the Assyrians, begun in ver. 22, and the Prophet now continues his message to Hezekiah. It is commonly agreed that fPBD denotes voluntary growth or products, such as spring from the seed dropped before or during harvest. Most writers give a similar meaning to DTIB> (2 Kings xix. 29, B"nD), the etymology of which is very doubtful. Hitzig applies it, in a wider sense, to spontaneous products generally, such as milk, honey, &c. Aquila and Theodotion render the two words a-jT^ara, and airopuJj. Symmachus and Jerome make the second mean apples. As to the general meaning of the verse, there are two opinions. Rosenmiiller, Augusti, and Gesenius understand the infinitive 7DK as referring to the past. The sense will then be that although the cultivation of the land had been interrupted for the last two years, yet now in this third year they might safely resume it. To this interpretation it may be objected, that it

arbitrarily makes tlie year mean the year before the last, and no less arbi trarily assumes that the infinitive is here used for preterite. The later German writers seem to have gone back to the old and obvious interpretation, which refers the whole verse to the future. This is grammatically more exact, because it takes the year in a sense analogous to that of the day, the com mon Hebrew phrase for this day, and assimilates the infinitives to the im peratives which follow. Thus understood, the verse is a prediction that for two years the people should subsist upon the secondary fruits of what was sosvn two years before, but that in the third year they should till the ground, as usual, implying that Sennacherib's invasion should before that time be at an end. But why should this event be represented as so dis tant, when the context seams to speak of Sennacherib's discomfiture and flight as something which immediately ensued'? Of this two explanations have been given. The one is, that the year in which these words were utttered was a sabbatical year, and the next the year of Jubilee, during neither of which the Jews were allowed to cultivate the ground, so that the resumption of the tillage was of course postponed to the third. It is no conclusive objection to this theory, that the chronological hypothesis which it involves cannot be possibly proved. The difficulty in all such cases arises from the very absence of positive proof, and the necessity of choosing between different possibilities. A more serious objection is, that the mode of subsistence for the two first years seems to be mentioned, not as a mere preparation for what follows, but as a substantive prediction. Even this, however, would be of no weight in opposition to an hypothesis which accounts for the known facts and explains the language of the passage. The other solution of the difficulty is, that Sennacherib was now on his way to Egypt, and that the Prophet expected his return within a year, by which the Jews would be again deterred from making the usual provision for their own sub sistence, and thus the crops of two years would be lost. But such an ex pectation of the Prophet would have been falsified by the Assyrian's imme diate retreat to his own country, and however this may recommend the supposition to those who refuse to admit his inspiration, it can have no weight with those who regard him as a Prophet. The proofs of his divine legation and foreknowledge are so many and various, that when two hypo theses present themselves, the one which clashes with his inspiration is of course to be rejected. The only remaining question is, wherein the sign consisted, or in what sense the word sign is to be understood. Some take it in its strongest sense of miracle, and refer it, either to the usual divine interposition for the subsistence of the people during the sabbatical years, or to the miraculous provision promised in this particular case. Others understand it here as simply meaning an event inseparable from another, either as an antecedent or a consequent, so that the promise of the one is really a pledge of the other. Thus the promise that the children of Israel would worship at mount Sinai was a sign to Moses that they should first leave Egypt, and the promised birth of the Messiah was a sign that the Jewish nation should continue till he came. (See above, vol. i. p. 170.)

31. And the escaped (literally the escape} of the house of Jtidah, that is lefty shall again take root downward and bear fruit upward. This verse foretells by a familiar figure, the returning prosperity of Judah. *!?? usually means to add, and is taken here by Hendewerk in the sense of enlarging or increasing. Gesenius seems to make it simply equivalent to the English take or strike in a similar connection. Ewald and the older writers under stand it as implying repetition, an idea which may be expressed in trans-

32. For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and an escape from mount Zion; the zeal of Jehovah of hosts shall do this. For the meaning of the last clause, see the commentary on chap. ix. 8. The first clause is an ex planation of the use of the words HDvD and mK&'J in the foregoing verse. Grotius (on 2 Kings, xix. 31) understands the going forth literally of the people being pent up in Jerusalem, but now set at large by the retreat of the invaders, and again quotes from Virgil, Panduntur portce ; jurat ire et Dorica castra desertosque ride re locos. (See above, on chap, xxxiii. 17). But it is much more natural to understand it figuratively like the preced ing verse, and as denoting simply that some in Jerusalem or Zion shall be saved.

33. Therefore (because Jehovah has determined to fulfil these promises), thus saith Jehovah (with respect} to the king of Assyria, lie shall not come to this city, and shall not shoot an arrow there, and shall not come before it with a shield (or a shield shall not come before it], and shall not cast up a mound against it. Some understand this as meaning simply that he should not take the city, others that he should not even attack it. po has its ordi nary sense of shield, and not that of ewaaTtapos or testudo. In favour of the usual construction of PlJOTj'V is the fact that all the other verbs have

Jehovah for their subject. Some translate 7X into, which is favoured neither by the usage of the particle nor by the context, which relates to

movements of the enemy without the walls. Calvin understands by HTvD the balista, or ancient engine for projecting stones and other missiles, a gratuitous expedient to evade an imaginary difficulty, as to the use of the verb ~\%W, which usually means to pour, but may also be applied to excava tion and the heaping up of earth. This verse seems to shew that Jeru salem was not actually besieged by the Assyrians, or at least not by the main body of the army under Sennacherib himself, unless we assume that he had already done so and retreated, and regard this as a promise that the attempt should not be repeated.

34. By the way that he came shall he return, and to this city shall he not come, saith Jehovah. The first clause may simply mean that he shall go back whence he came, or more specifically, that he shall retreat without turning aside to attack Jerusalem, either for the first or second time. The construction given in the English Bible (by the same shall he return) makes n.3 emphatic and connects it with the following verb. This is also the Masoretic interpunction ; but according to analogy and usage, it belongs to what precedes and must be joined with ItfK, as the usual Hebrew expres sion for in which.

35. And I will cover over (or protect] this city, (so as] to save it, for my own take, and for the sake of David my servant. This does not mean that the faith or piety of David, as an individual, should be rewarded in his descendants, but that the promise made to him respecting his succes sors, and especially the last and greatest of them, should be faithfully per formed. (See 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13). It is equally arbitrary, therefore, to make David here the name of the Messiah, and to infer, as Hitzig does, from this mention of David, that vers. 32-35 are by a later writer. Knobel, on the contrary, notes it as characteristic of Isaiah, and refers to chap. ix. 6, xi. 1, 10; xxix. 1, as parallel examples. Umbreit says the genuineness of these verses can be called in question only by- a perfectly

uncritical scepticism (Ziceifehucht}. The terms of the promise in the first clause may be compared with those of chap, xxxiii. 5.

36. And the angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of A Kxyria an hundred and eighty and five thousand, and they (the survivors or the Jews) roue early in the morning, and behold all of them (that were smitten) were dead corpses. Various attempts have heen made to extenuate this miracle, by reading ^pK for *)?$, (chiefs instead of thousands], or by supposing that the vast number mentioned were in danger of death from the plague or otherwise. Others, unable to explain it away, and yet unwilling to admit the fact recorded, resort to the cheap and trite expedient of calling it a myth or a traditional exaggeration. Such assertions admit of no refuta tion, because there is nothing to refute. Receiving, as these very authors do, the other statements of the context as historical, they have no right to single this out as a fabrication. If it is one, then the rest may be so too, for we know that fictitious writers do not confine themselves to prodigies and wonders, but often imitate the actual occurrences of real life. In the fact itself, there is nothing incredible. Those who reject it themselves refer to the enormous ravages of the plague. If the population of whole cities may be buried in a night by a flow of lava, or in an instant by an earthquake, what is there to shock the understanding in the statement of the text, especially on the supposition, favoured by these same interpreters, that the amjel of Jehorah is a Hebraism for the plague, or some other phy sical cause or means of destruction. But even if we give the phrase its usual sense, " there is," to use the words of Barnes, " no more improba bility in the existence of a good angel than there is in the existence of a good man, or in the existence of an evil spirit than there is in the existence of a bad man ; there is no more improbability in the supposition that God employs invisible and heavenly messengers to accomplish his purposes than there is that he employs men." There is consequently no need of depart ing from the strict sense of the words, or of disputing whether by the angel of the Lord we are to understand a storm, a hot wind, or a pestilential fever. As little necessity or reason is there for attempting to make the verse descriptive of a gradual or protracted mortality, so that every morn ing when they rose there was nothing to be seen but corpses. The terms used can naturally signify nothing but a single instantaneous stroke of divine vengeance, and the parallel passage (2 Kings xix. 35) says expressly that the angel smote this number in that night. Sceptical critics would be glad to have it in their power to plead the silence of profane tradition as an objection to the narrative before us. But although such an inference would be wholly inconclusive, even if the fact were so, it happens in this case that the fact is not so. The account which Herodotus received from the Egyptian priests, as to Sennacherib's retreat from Pelusium, occasioned by an irruption of field-mice, which Vulcan sent to rescue Sethos, who was priest to that divinity as well as king of Egypt, is admitted by the latest German writers, notwithstanding the denial of Gesenius, to be an evident variation of this history, not more corrupt than in many other cases where the identity of origin has never been disputed. The transfer of the scene of the event to Egypt, and the substitution of Sethos and Vulcan for Hezekiah and Jehovah, are in strict accordance with the common practice of the ancient nations, to connect the most remarkable events, by their tra ditions, with their own early history. Even the figment of the mice may be regarded as a change of no unusual character or magnitude, unless we choose to assume, with J. D. Michaelis, that it was founded on a

misconception of the mouse as the hieroglyphical emblem of destruc tion. The ancient date of the tradition was attested, in the days of Herodotus himself, by a statue of Sethos in the temple of Vulcan, holding a mouse in his hand, with the inscription Ig eps rr, ogiuv i\><K$rt<; tcru. °The parallel narrative in 2 Chron. xxxii. 21, instead of number ing the slain, says that all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders, and the captains in the camp of the Assyrian were cut off. Where this terrific overthrow took place, whether before Jerusalem, or at Libnah, or at some intervening point, has been disputed, and can never be deter mined, in the absence of all data, monumental or historical. Through out the sacred narrative, it seems to be intentionally left uncertain whe ther Jerusalem was besieged at all, whether Sennacherib in person ever came before it, whether his army was divided or united when the stroke befell them, and also what proportion of the host escaped. It is enough to know that one hundred and eighty-five thousand men perished in a single night.

37. Then decamped, and departed, and returned, Sennacherib king of Assyria, and dwelt (or remained) in Nineveh, The form of expression in the first clause is thought by some writers to resemble Cicero's famous de scription of Catiline's escape (abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit), the rapid succession of the verbs suggesting the idea of confused and sudden flight. His dwelling in Nineveh is supposed by some interpreters to be mentioned as implying that he went forth no more to war, at least not against the Jews. An old tradition says that he lived only fifty days after his return ; but according to other chronological hypothesis, he reigned eighteen years longer, and during that interval waged war successfully against the Greeks, and founded Tarsus in Cilicia.

88. And he was worshipping (in) the house of Sisroch his god, and Adramtnelech and Sharezer his sons smote him icith the sword, and they escaped (literally, saved themselves) into the land of Ararat, and Esarhaddon his son reiyned in his stead. The Jews have a tradition that Sennacherib intended to sacrifice his sons, and that they slew him in self defence. Another tradition is, that he had fled into the temple of his god as an asylum. A simpler supposition is, that the time of his devotions was chosen by his murderers, as one when he would be least guarded or suspicious. Hendewerk cites, as parallel instances of monarchs murdered while at prayer, the cases of the Caliph Omar, and the emperor Leo V. For the various derivations of the name Nisroch which have been proposed, see Gesenius's Thesaurus, torn. ii. p. 892. The name Adrammelech occurs in 2 Kings xvii. 31, as that of a Mcsopotaniian or Assyrian idol. Berosus has Ardionusanus, and Abydenus Adramelus, which are obvious corruptions of the Hebrew or Aramean name. In like manner Esarhaddon is called Asordan'ms by Berosus, and Axerdis by Abydenus, who moreover has Nergilus instead of Sharezer, a discrepancy which seems to be explained by the combination Neryal-sharezer (Jer. xxxix. 3, 13). Supposing this to have been the full name of Sennacherib's son, one half would seem to have been preserved by Abydemis, and the other by Isaiah. Ararat, both here and in Gen. viii. 4, is the name of a region, corresponding more or less exactly to Armenia, or to that part of it in which the ark rested. The Armenians still call their country by this name. From the expression mountains of Ararat (Gen. viii. 4), has sprung the modern practice of apply ing this name to the particular eminence where Noah landed. The country of Ararat is described by Smith and Dwight, in their Researches in

Armenia, vol. ii. p. 73, &c. The original name is retained in the Vulgate, while the Septuagint renders it ' Aoptvta.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

THIS chapter contains an account of Hezekiah's illness and miraculous recovery, together with a Psalm which he composed in commemoration of his sufferings and deliverance. The parallel passage (2 Kings xx. 1-11) varies more from that before us than in the preceding chapter. So far as they are parallel, the narrative in Kings is more minute and circumstantial, and at the same time more exactly chronological in its arrangement. On the other hand, the Psalm is wholly wanting in that passage. All these cir cumstances favour the conclusion that the text before us is the first draught, and the other a repetition by the hand of the same writer.

1. In those days Hezekiah was sick unto death, and Isaiah the son of Ainoz, the Prophet, came to him, and said to him, Thus saith Jehovah, Order thy home, fur thou (art] dying, and art not to life. As Hezekiah survived this sickness fifteen years (ver. 5), and reigned in all twenty-nine (2 Kings xviii. 2), those day* must be restricted to the fourteenth year, which was that of the Assyrian invasion. Whether this sickness was before the great catastrophe, as Usher, Lightfoot, and Prideaux suppose, or after it, as Calvin, Vitringa, and Gesenius think, is not a question of much exegetical importance. The first opinion is sustained by the authority of the Seder Olam, the last by that of Josephus. In favour of the first is the promise in ver. G, according to its simplest and most obvious meaning, though it certainly admits of a wider application. It is also favoured by the absence of allusions to the slaughter of Sennacherib's host in the song of Hezekiah. But on the other hand, his prayer is only for recovery from sickness, without any reference to siege or invasion. Vitringa objects to this hypothesis, that the king of Babylon, who was tributary to Assyria, would not have dared to send a message of congratulation to Hezekiah before the destruction of the host. But even granting this, which might be questioned, and admitting the assumed fact as to the dependence of the king of Babylon, why may we not suppose that the catastrophe occurred in the interval between Hezekiah's sickness and the embassy from Merodach-baladan ? Calvin objects to the hypothesis which makes the sickness previous in date to the destruction of the host, that it would not have been omitted in its proper place. It is altogether natural, however, that the Prophet, after carrying the history of Sennacherib to its conclusion, should go back to complete that of Hezekiah also. JTlo? strictly means to die, i.e. so as to bo ready to die, or at the point of death. An analogous Greek phrase (aadivsia vgr>$ Sdvarov) is used in John xi..4, to denote a sickness actually fatal. Here it expresses merely tendency or danger, the natural and necessary course of things without a special intervention. Order thy house is ambigu ous, both in Hebrew and in English. The ? may express relation in general, or indicate the object of address. In the former case the sense will be, give orders with respect to thy house. (LXX. rd^ai <xeei rot o'l'xou ffou). In the latter, order or command thy household, i.e. make known to them thy last will. Grotius quotes from Plutarch the analogous expression, foriXXftflfaj ro/5 o/V.j/o/;. In either case, the general idea is that of a final settling of his affairs, in the prospect of death. (Compare 2 Sam. xvii. 23). There is no need of departing from the strict sense of D£ as an active participle. The modern waiters infer from the treatment described in ver. 21, and said to be still practised in the East, that Hezekiah had the plague, which would make it less improbable that this was the instrument employed in the destruction of Sennacherib's army. Of those who make the sickness subsequent to this great deliverance, some suppose the former to have been intended, like the thorn in Paul's flesh, to preserve Hezekiah from being exalted above measure. That he was not wholly free from the necessity of such a check, may be inferred from his subsequent conduct to the Baby lonian envoys.

2. And Hezekiah turned Ji in face to the icall, and prayed to Jehovah. Jerome understands by the u-aU that of his heart, Vatablus the side of his bed, Jonathan the wall of the temple, towards which Daniel prayed (Dan. vi. 11). But this last was a practice which arose during the exile, and even the promise in 1 Kings viii. 25 has reference to that condition. The obvious meaning is the wall of the room, towards which he turned, not merely to collect his thoughts, or to conceal his tears, but as a natural expression of strong feeling. As Ahab turned his face toward the wall in anger (1 Kings xx. 2), so Hezekiah does the same in grief. There is no need of supposing with Lowth, that the bed was in the corner of the room, so that he could not turn either way without looking towards the wall. Calvin regards the conduct of Hezekiah in this, and all other parts of the narrative, as an eminent example of pious resignation. Vitringa seems to admit that the eifect here described was connected in some degree with Hezekiah's undue attachment to the things of this life. Grotius ascribes it to the indistinct views then enjoyed of a future state. Josephus thinks he was the more distressed because he had as yet no heir, since Manasseh was not born till three years afterwards (2 Kings xxi. 1).

3. And he said, Ah Jehorah, remember, I beseech thee, how I hare walked before thee in truth and with a whole heart, and that which is good in thine eyes I have done; and Hezekiah wept a great weeping. The figure of walking before God includes the ideas of communion with him and subjection to him, and is therefore more comprehensive than the kindred phrase of walking with him. By truth we are here to understand sincerity and constancy. The explanation of E/t? by Gesenius as meaning devoted (like the Arabic A^c Moslim) is justified neither by Hebrew etymology nor usage, which

require it to be taken in the sense of whole or perfect, as opposed to any essential defect. The reference of this and the following phrase to freedom from idolatry and zeal for the worship of Jehovah, is too limited. This verse is not an angry expostulation, nor an ostentatious self-praise, but an appeal to the only satisfactory evidence of his sincerity. Calvin supposes Hezekiah to be here resisting a temptation to despondency arising from the sudden intimation of approaching death. H3X is a strong expression of entreaty. It is more regularly written elsewhere N2K. Hitzig supposes it to be a contraction of NJ~?N (Gen. xix. 7) ; but as it is also used where there is no negation, it is better to derive it with Gesenius from BN and K3. 4. And the irord of Jehovah was (or came) to Isaiah, smjlng (what follows in the next verse). Calvin supposes a considerable time to have elapsed before this second message was sent; but he seems to have overlooked the more particular statement in the parallel passage (2 Kings xx. 4), that the word of the Lord came to him before he had gone out of the middle court (according to the ken), or the middle city (according to the kethib). The former reading is found in the ancient versions, but the latter as usual is

supposed to be more ancient by the latest critics. The middle city mny either mean the middle of the city (media urbs), or a particular part of Jerusalem so called, perhaps that in which the temple stood, or more generally that which lay between the upper city on mount Zion and the lower city on mount Akra. The communication may have been through the middle f/ate mentioned by Jeremiah (xxxix. 3). In either case, the in terval could not have been a long one, though sufficient to try the faith of Hezekiah. The omission of these words in the text before us is ascribed by Knobel to ignorance of the localities on the part of a writer, living after the exile. It might have been supposed that even such a writer, living on the spot and with the older Scriptures in his hands, would have enjoyed as good opportunities of understanding such a point as Kuobel himself.

5. Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears (or weep inn] ; behold, I am adding (or about to add] unto thy day a fifteen years. The parallel passage (2 Kings xx. 5) has: return and say to Hezekiah, the chief (or leader) of my people, Thus saitli Jehouah, &c. After tears it adds: lehold, (I am) healing (or about to hi-al) thee , on the third day thou shalt <jo up to the house of Jehovah. David is particularly mentioned as the person to whom the promise of perpetual succession had been given (2 Sam. vii. 12). The construction of ^pi* ^?n is the same as in chap. xxix. 14. Gesenius and the rest of that school set this down of course as undoubtedly a pro phecy ex eventu, because (says Knobel with great naivete) Isaiah could not know how long Hezekiah was to live. Hendewerk adds that Jehovah is here represented as changing his mind, and directly contradicting himself. To this no further answer is necessary than what Calvin had said long be fore, to wit, that the threatening in ver. 1 was conditional, and that the second message was designed from the beginning no less than the first. The design of the whole proceeding is well explained by Yitringa to have been to let Hezekiah feel his obligation to a special divine interposition for a recovery which might otherwise have seemed the unavoidable effect of ordinary causes.

6. And out of the hand of the king of Assyria I will save thee and this city, and I will cover over (or protect) this city. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel, with some of the older writers, infer from this verse that the army of Sennacherib was still in Judah. Gesenius and Rosemniiller follow Calvin and Yitringa in referring it to subsequent attacks or apprehensions. This is really more natural, because it accounts for the addition of this promise to that of a prolonged life. The connection, as explained by Calvin, is, that he should not only live fifteen years longer, but should be free from the Assyrians during that time. The parallel passage (2 Kings xx. 6) adds, for my own sake and for the sake of David my servant, as in chap, xxxvii.

35. Had this addition been made in the text before us, it would of course have been anin stance of repetition and assimilation symptomatic of a later writer.

7. And this (shall be) to thee the sign from Jehovah, that Jehovah will perform thii word which he hath spoken. The English Version has a sign • but the article is emphatic, the (appointed) sign (proceeding] from Jehovah (not merely from the Prophet). The translation this thiny, although justi fied by usage, is here inadmissible because unnecessary. The parallel narrative in Kings is much more circumstantial. What occurs below, as the last two verses of this chapter, there stands in its regular chronological order, between the promise of recovery and the announcement of the sign,

so that the latter appears to have been given in compliance with Hezekiah's own request and choice. " And Isaiah said, This (shall be) to thee the sign from Jehovah, that Jehovah will perform the thing which he hath spoken; shall the shadow advance ten degrees, or shall it recede ten de grees? And Hezekiah said, It is a light thing for the shadow to decline ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees " (2 Kings xx. 9, 10). As to the transposition of vers. 21, 22, see below.

8. Hehold, I (am] causing the shadow to go lack, the degrees which it has gone down (or which have gone down} on the degrees of Ahaz with the sun, ten degrees backwtrd; and the sun returned ten degrees on the degrees which it had gone down. As to the nature of the phenomenon here described, there are three opinions. The first is, that the Prophet took advantage of a transient obscuration, or of some unusual refraction, to confirm the king's belief of what he promised. The second is, that the whole is a myth or legend of a later date. The third is, that Isaiah did actually exhibit a supernatural attestation of the truth of his prediction. This is supposed by some to have consisted merely in the foresight of a natural phenomenon, while others regard the phenomenon itself as miraculous. Of these last, some again suppose a mere miraculous appearance, others an actual disturbance of the ordinary course of nature. This last is not a question of much exegetical or practical importance, since it neither can nor need be ascertained whether the course of the sun (or of the earth around it) was miraculously changed, or the shadow miraculously rendered independent of the sun which caused it. The former hypothesis is favoured by the statement that the sun went back, if taken in its strictest and most obvious sense, although it may be understood as a metonymy of the cause for the effect. At any rate, little would appear to be gained by paring down a miracle to certain dimensions, when, even on the lowest supposition, it can only be ascribed to the almighty power of God, with whom all things are not only possible, but equally easy. The choice is not between a greater and lesser miracle, but between a miracle, a myth, and a trick. The last two suppositions are so perfectly gratuitous, as well as impious, that no believer in the possibility of either miracle or inspiration can enter tain them for a moment. And if thus shut up to the assumption of a miracle, it matters little whether it be great or small. It is enough that God alone could do it or infallibly predict it. As to the disproportion of the miracle to the occasion, it remains substantially the same on any sup position which involves a real miracle at all. If this be admitted, and the historical truth of the narrative assumed, the safest course is to expound it in its simplest and most obvious sense. Another question in relation to this verse, of far less moment in itself, has given rise to a vast amount of learned and ingenious controversy. This is the question, whether the de grees here mentioned were the graduated scale of a dial or the steps of a staircase. In this dispute, besides the exegetical writers on Isaiah and the second book of Kings, we meet with the great names of Usher, Petavius, Salmasius, Scaliger, and others of eminent repute but later date. It is important to observe that there is no word in the text necessarily denoting such an instrument. By comparing the text and margin of the common English Version, it would seem that the translators were disposed to put this sense upon the words WW1 tnx JTDJ?, which they render, the sun-dial of Ahaz, but which literally mean, the decrees of Aha % in (or by) the sun. So, too, the Targum has hour-stone (NW pN), and the Vulgate Iwroloyium. The only word corresponding to all this in the original is JTWO, which, like

the Latin gradus, first menus steps, and then degrees. The nearest approach to the description of a dial is in the words degrees of Alias. This circum stance may shew that the reference to a dial, properly so called, is not so ohvious or necessary in the Hehrew text as in the English Version. It was further alleged by Scaliger, and other early writers on the subject, that the use of dials was unknown in the days of Hczekiah. Later investigations have destroyed the force of this objection, and made it probable that solar chronometers of some sort were in use among the Babylonians at a very early period, and that Ahaz may have borrowed the invention from them, as he borrowed other things from the Assyrians (2 Kings xvi. 10). There is therefore no historical necessity for assuming, with Scaliger, that the shadow here meant was the shadow cast upon the steps of the palace, called the stairs of Ahaz, because he had built them or the house itself. The only question is, whether this is not the simplest and most obvious explanation of the words, and one which entirely exhausts their meaning. If so, we may easily suppose the shadow to have been visible from Hezekiah's chamber, and the offered sign to have been suggested to the Prophet by the sight of it. This hypothesis relieves us from the necessity of accounting for tho division into ten or rather twenty degrees, as Hezekiah was allowed to choose between a precession and a retrocession of the same extent (2 Kings xx. 9). These two opinions are by no means so irreconcilable as they may at first sight seem. Even supposing the degrees of Ahaz to have been an instrument constructed for the purpose of measuring time, it does not follow that it must have been a dial of modern or of any very artificial structure. A Jewish writer, quoted by Grotius, describes it as a globe within a concave hemisphere, casting its shadow on the concave sm-face. But besides the arbitrary character of this supposition, it does not account for the description of the shadow as descending with the sun, since the shadow on such an instrument would ascend as the sun descended. Knobel imagines that there may have been an artificial eminence or mound, with steps or terraces surrounding it, on which the shadow cast by an obelisk or gnomon at the summit would grow longer as the day declined, or, in other words, descend with the descending sun. But a still more simple supposi tion is, that the gnomon was erected on a staircase of suitable exposure, or that a column at the top cast a shadow which was found available for a rude measurement of time. The minor questions, whether the gnomon was designed to be such, or was erected for some other purpose, and whether fll'pyo means ordinary steps or astronomical degrees, do not affect the essen tial fact, that the recession of the shadow was perceptible in such a situation and on such a scale as to be altogether incontestable. JTWOn may either be connected with what goes before (the shadow of the degrees), or construed as an accusative of measure (the degrees which it has gone dou-n).

9. A writing of Hezekiah, king of Judah, wJien he was sick, and lived (i.e. recovered) from his sickness. This is the title or inscription of the following Psalm (vers. 10-20), not inserted by a copyist or compiler, but prefixed, according to the ancient oriental usage, by the author himself, and therefore forming an integral part of the text. The title DFPP, prefixed to several of the Psalms, is regarded by Gesenius as an orthographical variation of the word (2PI3P) here used. Others derive the former from a different root, but suppose its form to be copied from the one before us. (See Hengstenberg on Psalm xvi. 1.) The specific senses put upon this word by the Septuagint (prayer), the Targum (confession), and Gesenius (song], are inferred from the contents of the passage itself, and do not belong to the

Hebrew word, which simply means a writing. The particle prefixed is strictly equivalent neither to ft// nor of, but means belonging to, as in the frequent formulas "111? and I"I¥3D? in the titles of the Psalms, belonging to David (as the author), belonging to the chief musician (as the performer). The con jecture of Grotius, that Isaiah dictated the psalm, or put it into Hezekiah's mouth, is perfectly gratuitous. That Hezekiah should compose a psalm, is not moi'e strange than that he should make a collection of Proverbs (Prov. xxv. 1). It would have been far more strange if one so much like David in character and spirit had not followed his example in the practice of devotional composition. The inspiration and canonical authority of this production are clear from its having been incorporated by Isaiah in his prophecies, although omitted in the second book of Kings. The questions raised by some interpreters, as to its antiquity and genuineness, are founded on the mere possibility, that the passage may be of later date and by another writer. So far as we have evidence, either external or internal, there is not the slightest ground for critical misgiving. The 3 at the beginning of the last clause does not mean concerning his sickness, indicating the subject of the composition, but, as usual before an infinitive, denotes the time of the action. This is by most writers understood to be, after he had been sick and had recovered, as explained in the Vulgate (cum ajgrotasset et convaluisset). The words, in themselves considered, would more naturally seem to mean, during his sickness and recovery, and are accordingly explained by Hitzig. There is nothing in the Psalm itself at all inconsistent with the supposition, that it was conceived and perhaps composed, if not reduced to writing, before the complete fulfilment of the promise in the king's recovery. The contrary hypothesis has tended to embarrass and perplex the interpre tation, as will be more distinctly seen below. The idiomatic phrase to live from sickness, in the sense of convalescence or recovery, occurs repeatedly elsewhere, either fully or in an abbreviated form. (See for example 1 Kings i. 2 ; Gen. xx. 7.)

10. I said in the pause of my days I shall go into the gates of the grave, I am deprived of the rest of my years. The pronoun of the first person does not seem to be emphatic or distinctive, as it usually is when separately written, but appears to be expressed for the sake of a euphonic or rhythmi cal effect. The words ^ ^^2 may naturally qualify either the foregoing or the following verb, / said in the pause of my days, or, in tJie pause of my days I shall go ; but the latter construction is favoured by the accents, and by the analogy of the following verse, where ^mON is immediately suc ceeded by the words which he uttered. The explanation of <l^'1 *O1, as meaning the blood of my days, is unnatural in itself, and requires an arbit rary change of pointing. Kimchi gives 1OH the sense of cutting off (nTVID), derived from niDIJ. (See above, the note on chap. vi. 5.) Most interpreters regard it as synonymous with W silence, stillness, though they differ as to the application of the figures. Schmidius supposes it to mean the standing still of the sun, or its apparent pause at noonday, and then noon itself, or what the Greeks call i] [iieripficia. rov j3iov, and ourselves, the meridian of life. This may also be the meaning of the Septuagint version (iv r& u-^ei ruv tifjufiv /iou), in the height (or zenith) of my days, although Clericus and others confidentially allege that the Seventy for ''O'i read *Kn, of which there is no example elsewhere. Umbreit understands by the stillness of his dnys the period of life when the passions cease to govern and the character becomes more calm. Gesenius applies it to the reign of Hezekiah, and supposes him to mean that he was about to be cut off when he had every

prospect of a peaceful reign. Even Kimchi's sense of cutting off is recon cilable with this explanation of *D*l as meaning silence, then cessation. The general idea is correctly given in the Vulgate (dimidio), which Gesenius gratuitously thinks may be a mere conjecture from the Latin demi, but which is much more likely to have been suggested by the analogous expression in Ps. cii. 25, I said, 0 my God, take me not away in the midst of my days (^ ^PI3). There is not the slightest ground, however, for supposing this last to be the true text here. The preposition before gates may mean either to, through, or into; but the last is its usual sense after verbs of motion. As parallel expressions, maybe mentioned the gates of death (Ps. ix. 14), and the gates of Ml (Mat. xvi. 18). The verb nj5a means to visit, and especially to visit for the purpose either of inspection or punishment. From the former of these applications springs the secondary sense of missing or finding wanting. This is adopted here by Gesenius, so as to make the last clause mean, I shall be missed (by my acquaintances and friends) during the rest of my years. But nature and the context shew that Hezekiah's thoughts were running upon what he was to miss himself. Besides, the future meaning given to the preterite is, in this case, gratuitous, and therefore ungrammatical. A much better use of the same general sense is made by those who take the Pual as a causative passive, / am made to miss or lose the rest of my years, or, as the English Version has it, 1 am deprived of them. It is better still, however, because more in accordance with the tone and spirit of the whole composition, to understand the verb as expressing not mere loss or privation, but penal infliction. It was because Hezekiah regarded the threatened abbreviation of his life as a token of God's wrath, that he so importunately deprecated it. Instead of the remainder, Cube and Dathe read the best part of my days, but without an adequate authority from usage.

11. I said, I shall not see Jah, Jah in the land of the living ; 1 shall not behold man again (or longer] with the inhabitants of the world. ^ ^ is not an error of the text for nirp (Houbigant), but an intensive repetition similar to those in vers. 17-19. Or the second may be added to explain and qualify the first. He did expect to see God, but not in the land of the living. This is better than to make the second W the subject of a distinct proposition, as Luzzatto does, I shall not see Jah, (for] Jah (is only to be seen] in the land of the living. The same writer regards this as the appro priate name of God considered as a gracious being. He supposes it to have been originally an exclamation of delight or joy, corresponding to ft} (wot,), vae), as an exclamation of distress or fear, from the combination of which arose the name nin\ denoting an object both of love and fear. For other explanations of the name nj, see above, on chap. xii. 1, and xxvi. 4. The land of the living is not the Holy Land (Hendewerk), but the present life. The preposition Cy may connect what follows either with the subject or the object of the verb ; I with the inhabitants, or, man with tie inhabitants. '"in, which strictly means cessation, is regarded by the older writers as a description of this transitory life or fleeting world. Vitringa objects, that he would not have regretted leaving such a world, and therefore applies ^in to the state of death. I, with (or among) the inhabitants of (the land o/) stillness, shall no more see man. This is adopted by Gesenius and the other modern writers. It may be objected, however, that it needlessly violates the parallelism, on which so much stress is elsewhere laid, and which plainly indicates in this case, that the last words of the verse bear the same relation to I shall not see man, that the words in the land of the living bear to 7 shall not see Jah. If the latter designate the place in which he was no more to see God, then the former would naturally seem to designate the place in which he was no more to see man. Another reason for preferring the old interpretation is afforded hy the obvious affinity between the expres sion here and that in Ps. xlix. 2. Hear this, all the nations ; gire ear, all the inhabitants of the world ("Wl <I3^). That the text in one of these cases is to be corrected by the other, or that one of them arose from misapprehen sion of the other, are superficial and uncritical assumptions. That the one was suggested by the other, but with an intentional change of form, so as to furnish two descriptions of the present life, alike in sound but not identical is sense, is not only probable in itself, but perfectly in keeping with the genius of the language and the usage of the sacred writers. (See above, chap, xxxvii. 24.) As to the objection, that Hezekiah would not have been loath to leave a world so transient and unsatisfying, it is not only contra dicted by experience, but admits of this solution, that its transitory nature was the very thing for which he grieved.

12. My dwelling is plucked up and uncovered ly me (or away from me) like a shepherd's tent. I hare rolled up, like the weaver, my life ; from the thrum he will cut me off - from day to night thou wilt finish me. The same thing is here represented by two figures. The first is that of a tent, the stakes of which are pulled up, and the covering removed, with a view to departure. The usual sense of "VH (generation] seems inappropriate here. For that of age or life there is no authority in usage. That of dwelling is founded on the Arabic analogy, and yields a good sense, not only here but

in Ps. xlix. 20. Most interpreters explain!"6};j as meaning removed or de parted, a sense which it has not elsewhere. Its usual sense, uncovered, is entirely appropriate, and exactly descriptive of a part of the process of strik ing a tent. The ^?P may then be understood, either as referring the act described to the speaker, or as making him the object from which the re moval was to take place. On the latter hypothesis, some of the German writers enter into profound discussions whether Hezekiah meant to identify the Ich or personal principle with his body or his soul, or with both, or with neither. The second figure is that of a web completed and removed by the weaver from the loom. The old interpretation of ViOSi? makes it mean cut off; the modern one rolled up; the allusion in either case being to a weaver's mode of finishing his work. To make this verb passive or reflexive, is entirely arbitrary. Still more so is a change of person from the first to the second, since the same succession of the first, second, and third persons reappears in the next verse. It is not even necessary to make the verb causative (7 have caused him to cut out or roll up my life). The true solution is proposed by Calvin, viz. that he first thinks of himself as the guilty cause of his own death, and then of God as the efficient agent. Umbreit imagines that he here describes himself as dying by a voluntaryact, as Schleiermacher is said by one of his biographers to have done, in stead of dying like other men, because he could not help it. This is not only unnatural and irrational in itself, but inconsistent with the context, where the king is represented as anything rather than a voluntary sufferer. According to the latest writers, H^O does not mean with pining sickness, nor from a state of exaltation, but /row the thrum (as in the margin of the English Bible), i. e. the ends of the threads by which the web is fastened to the beam. Lowth gives the same sense by employing the more general

(term loom From day to night is commonly explained to mean before tomorrow w,thm the space of one day. The verb in the last clause mi^ht, without violence to etymology or usage, be explained to mean than wilt (or to thou} make m, whole. But interpreters appear to be agreed in giving it the oppose sense of thou wilt make an end of me. Some suppose, morethe figure of a weaver and his web is still continued, and that the idea expressed m the last clause is that of finishing a piece of work. Jf // A 1 f°™™} til1 the mornin9 ('• e- a11 ™ght) a* a lion (say- £ S° !St £ , my boncs; from day to nfffht thou toilt make an end ,e Either these last words are repeated in a different sense, or else the repetition shews that they have no special reference, in the foregoing verse, the process of weaving. Gesenius seems to treat with contempt the n of an inadvertent repetition on the part of some transcriber, tho i he has no difficulty in adopting it when it can serve a useful purpose, writers disregard the Masoretic interpunction, and connect like a lion with the second clause. They are then obliged to take >JTO in the sense eckoned (. e. counted the hours, or reckoned that as a lion, &c.), or gl endured, or / composed myself, neither of which has any suffi cient ground in the usage of the language, and the last of which requires ; be arbitrarily applied. Jarchi adheres to the Masoretic accents, and explains the first clause, / likened myself to (or made myself like} a lion (i. e. •ared) untd the morning. To this it has been objected, not without reason, that as the crushing of the bones involves an obvious allusion to the lion Compare Ps. vii 3), we then have the same figure used to represent both the sufferer and the author of his sufferings, which is forced and unnatural, asoretic interpunction may, however, be retained without this inconce, by explaining W in accordance with its usage in Ps. xvi. 8, and ax. 80. In the former case, the Psalmist says, / hare set Jehovah before icays i.e. I continually recognise his presence, or regard him as >resent. In the other case, the same idea seems to be expressed by the verb alone, with an ellipsis of the qualifying phrase. Thy fragments have J placed (. e. before me). Supposing a similar ellipsis here, the sense will t before me, i.e. viewed him as present, imagined or conceived ol him as a lion and expected him to act as such, saving, so (i. e. as a lion) U crush all my bones. If this be the true construction, it removes all ground for making fear, or pain, or the disease, the nominative of the verb reak, and leaves it to agree with Jehovah, as the natural subject of ie se tence I his construction is further recommended by its riving ifonmty of meaning to the clauses, as descriptive of the sufferer's apprehensions.

14. Like a swallow (or) a crane (or like a twittering swallow}, so I chirp;

moan like the dove; my eyes are weak (with looking) upward (or on high};

U Jehovah, I am oppressed, undertake for me (or be my surety}. In the

it clause the meanings of the sufferer are compared, as in many other

ses, to the voice of certain animals. The dove is often spoken of in such

mnections, and the mention of it here makes it probable that the parallel

ssions are also descriptive of a bird or birds. DID is the common

fjeorew word for hone, and is so explained even here by Aquila, who retains

£Jm '°Ui! translation. Theodotion retains both, but writes the first a?;

u o), which Jerome thinks is probably the true text. This same reading

ears as a Ken in the Masoretic text of Jer. viii. 7, the only other place

the word seems to signify a bird. The old rabbinical interpretation

gives to DID the sense of crane, and to "Way that of swallow. Bochart reverses them, and undertakes to shew that "V13^ is the Hehrew word for crane. This word affords a curious instance of the way in which Gesenius some times leaves his followers and transcribers in the lurch. In his Com mentary, while he speaks of "VI 3^ as a word of doubtful import, he gives Bochart's explanation as upon the whole the most probable. Some of his copyists go further, and allege that it certainly means crane. In the mean time, Gesenius, in his Manual Lexicon, rejects Bochart's proofs as invalid, and explains T^V as a description of the gyratory motion of the swallow. In the Thesaurus, this is abandoned in its turn, and the word explained to mean chirping or twittering. Maurer objects to the explanation of "i^V as a mere descriptive epithet, that in Jer. viii. 7 we have "Wl DID as two independent substantives. To this Gesenius replies, that the epithet is there used as a poetical substitute for the noun, or perhaps the name of a particular species. On any supposition, the comparison before us is evidently meant to be de scriptive of inarticulate moans or murmurs. The reference of the verbs in the first clause to past time (/ chirped, I moaned], though assumed by most interpreters, is perfectly gratuitous, when the future proper yields so good a sense. This violation of the syntax has arisen from assuming that the clause must be a retrospective description of something already past, and not an expression of present feeling such as he might have uttered at the moment. That this last is no unnatural hypothesis, is certain from the fact that all interpreters adopt it in the other clause. But if that may be the language of the sufferer at the time of his distress, it is equally natural, or rather more so, to explain the first clause in the same way. Clericus understands -I?1? as meaning lifted up, which he admits to be a mere con jecture having no foundation in usage, but rendered necessary by the addi tion of D11O?. Most interpreters regard it as an instance of constmctio pra'gnans, and retain the proper meaning of the verb. Hitzig makes HpEV

an imperative, and identifies it with the Arabic JH^ to love tenderly or

ardently. Incline thy heart to me. There is, however, no necessity or warrant for departing from the Hebrew usage of P^V to do violence or op press. The older writers supply a definite subject, such as death, my disease, or the like. Ewald makes it impersonal, it is oppressed to me, i. e. I am oppressed. Gesenius treats it as a noun (there is) oppression to me, and explains the Metheg as a mere sign of the secondary accent. Junius and Tremellius render ^3?V weave me through (pertexe me), i. e. do not cut out the unfinished web. But this return to the metaphor of ver. 12, after alluding in the mean time to a lion, to a swallow, to a crane, and to a dove, would be exceedingly unnatural, and although not impossible can only be assumed in case of extreme exegetical necessity, which certainly has no existence here. The same word is used in Ps. cxix. 122, in the sense of undertake for me or be my surety, i. e. interpose between me and my enemies. The reference is rather to protection than to justification. Gill carries out the metaphor to an extreme by saying that Hezekiah here represents his disease as a bailiff that had arrested him, and was carrying him to the prison of the grave, and therefore prays that the Lord would bail him or rescue htm out of his hands.

15. What shall I say ! He hath loth spoken to me, and himself hath done (it}; I Khali go softly all my years for the bitterness of my soul. This, which is substantially the common version, is the one adopted by most modern writers, who regard the verse as an expression of surprise and joy at the deliverance experienced. What shall J say ! i. e. how shall I express my

gratitude and wonder! He hath said and done it, he has promised and performed, perhaps with an implication that the promise was no sooner given than fulfilled. The recollection of this signal mercy he is resolved to cherish all his years, i. e. throughout his life, by going softly, solemnly, or slowly, on account of the bitterness of his soul, i. e. in recollection of his suf ferings. Some, however, understand these last words to mean^'n the bitter ness of my soul, i. e. in perpetual contrition and humility. But the preposition 7J? is properly expressive, not of the manner of his going, but of its occasion. The verb ^^ occurs only here and in Ps. xliii. 5, where it is commonly agreed to signify the solemn march of the people in proces sion to mount Zion. It would here seem to be equivalent to the phrase BN ~pn applied to Ahab in 1 Kings xxi. 27. Another interpretation of the verse, which might, at first sight, seem more natural, regards it as the lan guage of Hezekiah during his sickness, and as expressive, not of joy and wonder, but of submission. What shall I say, in the way of complaint? He hath both said and done it, i. e. threatened and performed it. But this view of the first clause cannot be reconciled with any natural interpretation of the second, where the phrase all my years is consistent with the supposi tion that he expected to die forthwith.

16. Lord, upon them they live, and as to everything in them is the life of my spirit, and thou wilt recover me and make me lire. This exceedingly obscure verse is now most generally understood to mean, that life in general, and the life of Hezekiah in particular, was dependent on the power and promise of God. Upon them, the promise and performance implied in the verbs said and did of the preceding verse, they live, i. e. men indefinitely live. The sense of 7V, when construed thus with fvn, is clear from such examples as Gen. xx. 27, Deut. viii. 6. Some suppose 73 to govern "H, notwithstanding the intervening word |n2, and the prefix 7, which must then be pleonastic. All the life of my spirit (is) in them. A similar construc tion is to make 737 an adverbial phrase meaning as to (or u-itlt respect to) every thing. The other attempts which have been made to explain

DHvV as referring to the bones of Hezekiah, or his years, or his subjects, or those over it-horn (God is) Lord, are so forced, that the one first given, not withstanding its obscurity and harshness, seems entitled to the preference. The explanation of the future and imperative in the last clause as referring to past time (thou hast recovered me and made me live] is not only arbitrary but gratuitous, as it assumes without necessity that such a prayer or expec tation could not have been uttered after Hezekiah's recovery, whereas it is a natural expression of desire that what had been begun might be continued and completed. '3Mnn is not an infinitive, which would here take the con struct form, but an imperative. In either case, its meaning is determined by the foregoing future, so that both verbs may take the future form in translation. The original form of expression may, however, be retained in English, by omitting the auxiliary in the second future.

17. Behold to peace (is turned"} my bitter bitterness, and thou hast loved my soul from the pit of destruction, because thou hast cast behind thy back all my sins. The idea of change or conversion must either be supplied, or supposed to be expressed by "lO, which is then the preterite of "WO, not elsewhere used in Kal, although the Hiphil is of frequent occurrence. Most of the late writers understand ">O *7 ID as an emphatic or intensive repetition, of which there are several examples in this passage (vers. 11, 19),

and suppose the verb to be suppressed, or suggested by tbe preposition?. The English Bible, and some other versions, put an opposite meaning on the clause, as a description, not of his restoration but of his affliction, tor peace I had great bitterness, or, on my peace (came] rjreat bitterness. The other interpretation agrees better with the usage of the preposition, and makes the parallelism more excct. We have here another instance of preg nant construction, to love from, /. e. so to love as to deliver from. This sense is expressed in the English Bible by a circumlocution. V? means properly nonentity, annihilation, here put for perdition or " destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power" (2 Thess. i. 9). The last clause shews that Hezekiah regarded the threatened destruction as a punishment of sin. To cast behind one, or behind one's back, in Hebrew and Arabic, is to forget, lose sight of or exclude from view. The opposite idea is expressed by the figure of setting or keeping before one's eyes. (See Ps. xc. 8, cix. 14, 15, Jer. xvi. 17, Hosea vii. 2.)

18. For the grave shall not confess thee (nor} death praise thee ; they that go down to the pit shall not hope for thy truth. Here, as often in the Psalms, the loss of the opportunity of praising God is urged as a reason, not only why he should be loath to die, but why God should preserve him. (See Ps. vi. 6, Ixxxviii. 11, 12.) It does not follow from these words either that Hezekiah had no expectation of a future state, or that the soul remains unconscious till the resurrection. The true explanation of the word is given by Calvin, viz. that the language is that of extreme agitation and distress, in which the prospect of the future is absorbed in contemplation of the present, and also that so far as he does think of futurity, it is upon the supposition of God's wrath. Regarding death, in this case, as a proof of the divine displeasure, he cannot but look upon it as the termination of his solemn praises. The truth mentioned in the last clause is the truth of God's promises, to hope for which is to expect the promised blessing, "pin &O strictly means, shall not acknowledge thee, with special reference to the acknowledgment of favours, or thanksgiving. The influence of the negative extends to the second clause, as in chap, xxiii. 4. (See above p. 870.)

19. The living, the living, he shall thank thee, like me (or as Ida] to-day ; father to sons shall make known with respect to thy truth, i. e. the truth of

thy promises, as in the verse preceding. Only the living could praise God in that way to which the writer was accustomed, and on which his eye is here fixed, with special reference, no doubt, to the external service of the temple. The last clause must be taken in a general sense, as Hezekiah was himself still childless.

^ 20. Jehovah to save me f And my songs we will play, all the days of our life, at the house of Jehovah. The obvious ellipsis in the first clause may be variously filled with came, hastened, commanded, was ready, be pleased, or with the verb is, as an idiomatic periphrasis of the future, is to save for will save. The reference to the future and the past is equally admissible, since God, in one sense, had already saved him, and in another was to save mm still. WJ3 is properly the music of stringed instruments, or a song intended to be so accompanied. The word may here be used in the more general sense of song or music; but there seems to be no need of exclud ing the original and proper meaning. The singular form, my song, refers to Hezekiah as the author of this composition; the plurals, we will sing and our lives, to the multitude who might be expected to join in his public thanksgiving, not only at first, but in after ages. The use of?V is explained

by some as an allusion to the elevated site of the temple; but it seems to be rather a licence of construction, similar to our promiscuous use of at and in, with names of towns. It is a possible but not a necessary supposition, that this particle may here denote upward motion, as in a procession from the lower city to the temple. We will siiift or play my songs, all the days of our lives, up to the home of the Lord. The general sense in either case is that of public and perpetual praise, the promise of which closes this re markable production.

21. And Isaiah said, Let him take a lump (or cake] of jigs, and rub them (or lay them softened] on the boil (or inflammation], and he shall lire (or let him live) i. e. recover. The indirect construction, preferred by most of the moJern writers, that they should take, and that he might recover, is entirely unnecessary, since the words may naturally be regarded as the very words spoken by the Prophet himself. HID seems properly to have the sense of rubbing, either in reference to the application, or to the preparing of the figs by trituration. The latter explanation is now commonly preferred. Grotius follows some of the rabbinical interpreters in the assumption that the natural effect of such an application would have been injurious. But although this may seem to magnify the miracle, it is a gratuitous assump tion, and directly contradicted by the modem oriental practice of applying figs to pestilential pustules, for the purpose of maturing their discharge. Such a pustule is commonly supposed to be denoted by rnC', both here and elsewhere, although some choose to adhere to what they think the primary sense of inflammation. Hitzig makes this noun the subject of the very TV (that it might be healed) on the authority of Lev. xiii. 10, 14, 15 ; but the analogy of the first verse of the chapter now before us seems to be decisive in favour of the usual construction, which makes the verb refer to Hezekiah.

22. And Hezekiah said, What sign that I shall go up (to] the house of Jehovah / The ellipsis is easily supplied by reading, it: hat sif/n dost thou give, or irhat sif/n is there, or more simply still, what is the sign i The con struction of '"ID as an exclamation of surprise (what a miracle !] is neither natural in itself, nor justified by usage, in a case where the usual interroga tive sense is perfectly appropriate. The question is more fully given in 2 Kings xx. 8 as follows. And Hezekinh said to Isaiah, What sign that Jehovah is about to heal me, and that I shall go up, on the third day, to the house of Jehovah ? The reference is to the promise as recorded in ver. 5 of the same chapter. Return and say to Hezekiah, the chief of my people, Thus said Jehovah, the Crod of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears ; behold, I am about to heal thee ; on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of Jehovah. The last two verses of this chapter in Isaiah are evidently out of their chronological order, and the question has been raised, whether this transposition is to be ascribed to the original writer, and if so, how it is to be accounted for. The hypothesis which have been proposed may be reduced to three. The first is, that the transposi tion is an error of transcription, arising from the mere inadvertence of some ancient copyist. Besides the difficulty common to all such suppositions, that errors of the kind supposed, although they might take place, could scarcely become universal, it is here precluded by the fact, that these two verses cannot be inserted in the text above without breaking its continuity, and cannot therefore have dropped out of it, unless we take for granted also, that the text was altered after the omission, which is only adding arbi trarily another to the gratuitous assumptions made before. Some avoid this difficulty by supposing that the verses do not properly belong to this text,

but were added by a later hand, in order to complete the narrative as given in the second boo'k of Kings. Apart from the natural presumption against all such imaginary facts, except where the assuming of them cannot be avoided, it can scarcely be doubted that a copyist or critic, who would use such freedom with the text, would have used more, and inserted this state ment in its proper place. It is only necessary to compare these fanciful hypotheses with the obvious and simple supposition that the passage before us is the first draught or original form of Isaiah's narrative, in which the facts recorded in these two last verses were added by a kind of after-thought, and that in re-writing the account, as a part of the national history, he naturally placed them in their chronological order. It would probably be easy to produce many parallel cases from the correspondence of voluminous letter-writers, or from other cases of repeated composition on the same subject by the same writer. However this may be, it seems clear that the explanation now proposed is simpler in itself, and requires less to be ima gined or supposed, than any other, and is therefore, even on the strictest principles of criticism, entitled to the preference.

CHAPTEK XXXIX.

THIS chapter contains an account of the Babylonian embassy to' Hezekiah, and of his indiscreet and ostentatious conduct, which became the occasion of a threatening message by the hands of Isaiah, predicting the Babylonian conquest and captivit_y, but with a tacit promise of exemption to the king himself, and to the country, while he lived, which he received with humble acquiescence and thankful acknowledgment.

The chapter is evidently a direct continuation of the narrative before it, nor is there any real grouud, internal or external, for suspecting its authen ticity, antiquity, or genuineness.

1. In that time, Merodach Baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a gift to Hezekiah, and he heard that he ivas sick and was recovered. The first phrase is used with great latitude of meaning, and may either describe one event as contemporaneous with another, or as following it, at once or more remotely. Knobel supposes it to mean here simply in the days of Hezekiah. Most other writers take it for granted that this mes sage of congratulation must have been sent soon after the recovery of Heze kiah. These understand POf^J as equivalent in meaning to VO^ *? 2 Kings, xx. 12, and explain all the/verbs of the last clause as pluperfects (for he had heard, &c.). Knobel, on the contrary, gives 1 its usual sense, and understands the clause to mean, that the king of Babylon heard of Hezekiah's sickness from his ambassadors on their return. But this is inconsistent with the paral lel statement, assumes a needless prolepsis or anticipation, and encumbers the narrative with a fact entirely superfluous. What the ambassadors reported to the king on their return, is of no importance to the history. Merodach occurs in Jer. 1. 2, as the name of a Babylonian idol. Grotius supposes that a man of that name had been defiled ; others, that it was common to name men after gods. Hitzig identifies the name with the Persian dimi nutive cJt^o little man (as a term of endearment), Gesenius with the Mam of classical mythology. In 2 Kings xx. 11, it is written Berodach, which Hiller explains as a contraction of Bar Merodach, the son of Mero dach, while Knobel regards it as a mere mistake, and Gesenius as a custo mary variation, b and m being often interchanged. Two manuscripts read

lierodach in the case before us, and a few have the transposed form Medorach. Baladan, according to Von Bohlen, is a Persian word meaning praised; according to Gesenius, an Aramean compound meaning Bel (is his) lord. Hitzig explains bed as a connective syllable, like pol in Nabopolassar, pul in Sardanapalus, &c. Most of the modern writers agree with Yitringa in identifying this king with the Mardokempad of Berosus, as preserved in the Armenian version of Eusebius; but Knobel understands him as naming Merodach Baladan distinctly. The same authority describes these Baby lonian princes, not as sovereigns, but as viceroys or tributaries subject to Assyria. In that case, it is not improbable that Merodach Baladan was meditating a revolt, and sent this embassy to gain Hezukiah's co-operation. The congratulation on his recover}- may have been a secondary object, or perhaps a mere pretext. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 31, a further design is men tioned, namely, to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, whether this be understood to mean the destruction of Sennacherib's army, or the miraculous recession of the shadow. There is no incompatibility between these different designs. Perhaps an embassy is seldom sent to such a dis tance with a single undivided errand.

2. And Hezekiah was glad of them, and shewed them his house of rarities, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the good oil (or ointment), and all his house of arms, and all that was found in his treasures ; there was not a thing which Hezekiah did not shew them, in his house and in all his dominion. The parallel passage (2 Kings xx. 13) has DHvy VW1, which Knobel understands to mean that he heard of them, but which seems to be more correctly rendered in the English Bible, and he hearkened unto them. There is no need of regarding either as an error of transcription, or as the correction of a later writer. Nothing could be more natural than such a variation on the part of the original writer, describing Hezekiah's feelings in the one case and his conduct in the other. He hearkened to them cour teously because he was glad of their arrival. Henderson says, he was de lighted with them ; but the context seems to shew that it was not so much the company or manners of the men that he was pleased with, as the hon our done him by the king of Babylon in sending them. The practice of ex hibiting the curiosities and riches of a palace to distinguished visitors, Vitringa illustrates by the parallel case of Croesus and Solon, as recorded by Herodotus. J"I33 has been commonly regarded as identical with the rnN23 of Gen. xxxvii. 4.3, and the whole phrase interpreted accordingly, as meaning properly a house of spices, and then by a natural extension of its import, a depository of rare and precious things in general. The former meaning is retained by Aquila (rbv o/V.cv TMV a^ufi&rcav) and the Vulgate (cellum aromatum). The other is given in the Targum and Peshito, and by most modern writers. The Septuagint retains the Hebrew word (vi^cada). Abulwalid derives it from n?3, to bite, and applies it to provisions ; Lorsbach, from a Persian verb meaning to deposit ; Hitzig, from a Hebrew root of simi lar import. Dv3 JV3 is not a house of jewels or vessels, but of arms, i. e. an arsenal, most probably the same that is mentioned in chap. xxii. 8. Luther has all his arsenals, but this would be expressed in Hebrew by the plural. Lowth more correctly has whole arsenal, which is also the meaning of the common version, all the house of his armour. The goodly or precious oil is supposed by Barnes to have been that used in the unction of kings and priests, or perhaps applied to more ordinary purposes in the royal house hold. Knobel explains in?ti'DD as meaning in his power or possession. So

the LXX. (efyvaia). It is more commonly explained, however, as a local noun denoting realm or dominions. Hitzig gives m^K the specific sense of store-rooms or treasure-chambers, which is unnecessary. Even on the usual hypothesis, the 2 need not be translated among; but may have its usual and proper sense of in.

3. Then came Isaiah (he prophet to the king Hezekiah, and said to him, What said these men, and whence came they unto thee ? And Hezekiah said, From a far country came they unto me, from Babylon. The Prophet was not sent for by the king, as in chap, xxsvii. 2 ; but he was no doubt sent by God, and came in his official character. The older writers seem to regard as the occasion of his visit the vainglory which the king had displayed in his entertainment of the strangers. The moderns lay the chief stress on the political negotiations which had passed between them, and which could not be regarded by the Prophet, but with strong disapproba tion. The statement in Chronicles is that God left him to try him, to know all in his heart (2 Chron. xxxii. 31). This may include the sins of vain ostentation and of distrust in God, shewing itself in a longing after foreign alliances. There is no sufficient ground for Hendewerk's assumption, that a treaty had actually been concluded. Gesenius observes that Hezekiah answers only the second of the Prophet's questions, as if he shrunk from answering the first. But this mode of replying to the last interrogation, when there is more than one, is natural and common in cases where there can be no motive for concealment. It is unnecessary, therefore, to suppose with Clericus, that a part of Hezekiah's answer is omitted in the narrative. In the last clause, Calvin understands the king as boasting of the distance from which the embassy had come, as implying the extent of his own fame and political importance. Vitringa supposes the distance to be mentioned as an excuse for his hospitable attentions. Knobel thinks it was intended to disarm Isaiah's suspicion of a league, as if he had said, too distant to admit of any intimate communion or alliance. All these interpretations seem to strain the words beyond their natural obvious import, according to which a far country is nothing more than a familiar designation of Baby lon or Babylonia.

4. And he said, What have they seen in thy house ? And Hezekiah said, All tiiat is in my house have they seen ; there is not a thing that I have not shelved them in my treasures. Some of the later Germans say that Hezekiah, finding evasion and concealment impossible, now frankly tells the truth. But the frankness of the answer here recorded rather shews that there was no attempt at concealment from the first. It was not as Calvin well observes, until the Prophet questioned him, that Hezekiah became aware of the error which he had committed. Knobel gratuitously asserts that the Prophet here shifts his ground from finding fault with what had passed in words to blaming what had passed in act, between the king and the ambassadors.

5. And Isaiah said to Hezekiah, Hear the word of Jehovah of hosts. This form of expression gives to what follows the solemnity and authority of a divine decree. The parallel passage (2 Kings xx. 16) omits IT1N2X, which Vitringa regards as emphatic here, implying a signal exercise of divine pro vidence and power.

6. Behold days (fire] coming, ivhen all that (is) in thy house, and that which thy fathers have hoarded until this day, shall ~be carried to Babylon; there shall not be left a thing (literally a word), saith Jehovah. Jarchi directs attention to the exact correspondence of the punishment with the

offence. As the Babylonians had s?en all, they should one day take all; as nothing had been withheld from them now, so nothing should be with held from them hereafter. The German interpreters are at a loss, whether to make this explicit prophecy a proof of later date, or to explain it as a sagacious conjecture, founded on the previous fate of the ten tribes, and on the actual relations of the Babylonian monarchy to Judah and Assyria. The scale preponderates in favour of the latter supposition, notwithstand ing its absurd assumption of a mere political conjecture as to events which did not happen for a hundred years. To those who are under no unhappy necessity of explaining away the clearest proofs of inspiration and prophetic foresight, this passage affords a striking instance of the gradual develop ment of prophecy. The general threatening of expatriation had been uttered seven hundred years before by Moses (Lev. xxvi. 33 ; Deut. xxviii. 64—67, xxx. 3). Five hundred years later, Ahijah had declared that Israel should be rooted up and scattered beyond the river (1 Kings xiv. 15). Within a hundred years, they had been threatened by Amos with captivity beyond Damascus (Amos v. 27). Isaiah himself had obscurely intimated a future connection between the fortunes of Israel and Babylon (chap. xiv. 1, xxi. 10). But here, for the first time, the Babylonish exile is explicitly foretold, unless the similar prediction of the contemporary prophet Micah (iv. 10) be considered earlier. The fulfilment of the pro phecy began in the deportation of Manasseh (2 Chron. xxxiii. 11), but was described as something still prospective by Jeremiah (xx. 5), in whose days, and in the reign of Zedekiah, it was at length fully accomplished (2 Chron. xxxvi. 18). To the objection, that a national calamity of this description bears no proportion to the fault of Hezekiah, there is no need of an}' other answer than the cue already given by Vitringa, to wit, that Hezekiah's fault was not the cause but the occasion of the punishment which fell upon the people, or rather of its being so explicitly predicted in the case before us. For, as Calvin says, the punishment of Hezekiah's individual fault was included in the punishment of Israel for national offences.

7. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, irhich thoit shalt beget, shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. The future form of the expression in the first clause has respect to the fact that Hezekiah had as yet no children. (See above on chap.xxxviii. 2). Hendewerk regards the terms used as inapplicable to any but immediate descendants, in which case the prophecy must be restricted to Manasseh (2 Chron. xxxiii. 11). But Hitzig and Knobel justify the wider applica tion of the terms by the analogy of chap. li. 2, and by the constant use of father and son in reference to remote descendants or progenitors. The P at the beginning of the verse is universally admitted to be partitive. They shiitl take may either be an indefinite construction, or agree with the Baby lonians understood. Q*D*"1D is strictly understood by the Septuagint (s-aand the Vulgate (eunuchi), but explained by the Targum to mean nobles (I^ISI absurdly rendered in the London Polyglot, nulriti), i. e. cour tiers or household-officers, an extension of the meaning which agrees well with the usages of oriental courts. The latter explanation is approved by Gesenius in his Commentary for a specified reason. In his earlier Lexi cons he leaves it doubtful ; but in the Thesaurus he contends for the strict sense, even in Gen. xxxvii. 36, as well as in the case before us, with respect to which he answers his own argument upon the other side, by a counter argument of equal strength. Instead of inp1", the parallel passage (2 Kings

xx. 17) has the singular np\ which is equally correct and regular, in a case of indefinite construction. The fulfilment of this prophecy is recorded in 2 Kings xxiv. 12-16 and Dan. i. 1-7, and that so clearly, that the neologists are driven to their usual supposition of an interpolation, or of such an alteration as to make the terms of the prediction more determinate.

8. And Heyehiah said to Isaiah, Good is the word of Jehovah which thou hast spoken. And he said, For there shall be peace and truth in my days. The word good is here used, neither in the sense of gracious nor in that of just exclusively, but in that of right, as comprehending both. While the king acquiesces in the threatening prophecy as righteous and deserved, he gratefully acknowledges the mercy with which it is tempered. That he looked upon the woes denounced against his children as a personal mis fortune of his own, is clear from his regarding the postponement of the execution as a mitigation of the sentence on himself. The expression of thankfulness at this exemption shews how true the narrative is to nature and experience. Umbreit has the good sense and feeling to describe it as a natural and child-like acknowledgment. The purer taste and loftier morality of other German writers can regard it only as naiv-egoistisch (Gesenius), or as an expression of true oriental egoismus (Hitzig). Accord ing to these philosophical interpreters, Hezekiah, instead of being thankful for the mercy which was mingled with God's judgments, ought to have rejected the promise of peace and truth in his own days, unless extended to his children also. This sentimental magnanimity may answer well enough in plays and novels, but is equally at variance with human nature and the word of God. It was not more clearly Hezekiah's duty to submit without a murmur to God's threatening, than it was to accept with grati tude the exemption promised to himself. " Quamvis enim haec poena aliud seculum maneret, tamen prasentem gratiam amplecti debuit ; et certe nostro potissimum seculo servire debemus, ejusque pra3cipue ratio habenda est; futurum non est negligendum, sed quod prsesens est atque instat magis omcium nostrum requirit." (Calvin.) Nothing, therefore, as the same great writer well says, can be further from the spirit of this answer, than that of the Greek sentence, l^oD Savoirog ya/a fn^S^ru wei, or the Latin, mihi mortuo omnes mortui sunt. Calvin is also of opinion that the phrase, which thou hast spoken, is emphatic, and intended to recognise Isaiah as an authoritative messenger from God. There is no need of sup posing that the second "ICWI means, he said in his heart (Hitzig), or after Isaiah was gone (Knobel), much less that it simply means he thought (Hendewerk). The obvious sense of the expression is, that these words were added to explain his previous acquiescence in the divine determina tion. The repetition of the verb he said, implies a pause or interval, however short. The various explanations of the particle 'O, as meaning icell, yes, provided, only, yet, 0 that, &c., are mere substitutions of what the interpreters think Hezekiah ought to have said for what he did say, which is simply this, (/ call it good) because there is to be, &c. This exact sense of the words is retained in the Targum and the English Version. The optative meaning is expressed in the Septuagint (ysveadu dq), and the Vulgate (fiat tantum). The Peshito simplifies the syntax by omitting and lie said, and connecting the two clauses directly: good is the word of the Lord which thou hart spoken, that there shall be peace and truth in my days. But this, besides its arbitrary mutilation of the text, impairs the force of Hezekiah's language, by restricting it wholly to the promise. Peace may be here taken in the wide sense of prosperity, but with special reference to

its proper import, as denoting exemption from war. Truth is understood by Henderson and Barnes in its modern religious sense of true religion. Cocceius even restricts it to the preaching of the truth. Hendewerk gives it the sense of goodness, as the Septuagint does that of righteousness. Hitzig supposes it to mean the mutual fidelity of men in their relations to each other. But the best interpretation seems to be the one approved by Calvin, Vitringa, and Gesenius, who take the word in its primary etymo logical sense of permanence, stability, in which the ideas of fidelity and truth may be included, as effects necessarily imply their cause.

From the foregoing exposition of chapters xxxvi.-xxxix. it may safely be inferred, as a legitimate, if not an unavoidable deduction, that they form a continuous unbroken narrative by one and the same writer; that this writer may as well have been Isaiah as any other person, (if we regard internal evidence,) and can have been no other, if we regard the imme morial tradition of the Hebrew Canon; and that these four chapters, far from having been inserted here at random or through ignorance, are in their proper place, as a connecting link between the Earlier and Later Prophecies, the threatening in chap, xxxix. 6 being really the theme or text of the long prophetic discourse, with which the remainder of the book is occupied.

CHAPTER XL.

A GLORIOUS change awaits the Church, consisting in a new and gracious manifestation of Jehovah's presence, for which his people are exhorted to prepare, vers. 1-5. Though one generation perish after another, this promise shall eventually be fulfilled, because it rests not upon human but divine authority, vers. 6—8. Zion may even now see him approaching as the conqueror of his enemies, and at the same time as the shepherd of his people, vers. 9-11. The fulfilment of these pledges is insured by his infinite wisdom, his almighty power, and his independence both of individuals and nations, vers. 12-17. How much more is he superior to material images, by which men represent him or supply his place, vers. 18-25. The same power which supports the heavens is pledged for the support of Israel, vers. 26-31.

The specific application of this chapter to the return from Babylon has no foundation in the text itself, but is supposed by some to be implied in the relation of this chapter to the one before it which contains a pre diction of the exile; and this prediction is regarded by Hengstenberg and others as the text or theme of the prophecies that follow. But the promise in itself considered is a general one of consolation, protection, and change for the better, to be wrought by the power and wisdom of Jehovah, which are contrasted, first, with those of mien, of nations, and of rulers, then with the utter impotence of idols. That the ultimate fulfilment of the promise was still distant is implied in the exhortation to faith and patience. The reference to idolatry proves nothing with respect to the date of the predic tion, although more appropriate in the writings of Isaiah than of a prophet in the Babylonish exile. It is evidently meant, however, to condemn idolatry in general, and more particularly all the idolatrous defections of the Israelites under the old economy.

1. Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. This command is not addressed specifically to the priests or prophets, much less to the

messengers from Babylon announcing the restoration of the Jews, but to any who might be supposed to hear the order, as in chap. xiii. 2, or to the people themselves, who are then required to encourage one another, as in chap. xxxv. 3, 4. The Vulgate even goes so far as to put my people in the vocative (popule meus). The imperative form of the expression is poetical. Instead of declaring his own purpose, God summons men to execute it. Instead of saying, I will comfort, he says, comfort ye. The same idea might have been conveyed by saying, in the third person, let them comfort her, or in the passive voice, let her be comforted. The possessive pronouns are emphatic, and suggest that, notwithstanding what they suffered, they were still Jehovah's people, he was still their God. There is also meaning in the repetition of the verb at the beginning. Such repetitions are not unfrequent in the earlier prophecies. (See chaps, xxiv. 16, xxvi. 3, xxix. 1, xxxviii. 11, 17, 19.) The use of the future TON* for the preterite ">K (saith) is peculiar to Isaiah. Gesenius cites as instances in the other books, Jer. xlii. 20, Zech. xiii. 9, and Hosea ii. 28. But in the first and second cases, the future has its proper sense, and not that of the present; while in the third, the Hebrew word is not "ION1" but DK3. At the same time, he omits the only real instance not in Isaiah, viz. Ps. xii. 6. Calvin insists upon the strict translation of the future (dicct), as implying that the order to console the people was not to be actually given till a later period, and is only mentioned here by anticipation. But even if it be explained as at present, it is worthy of remark that this form of expression is not only peculiar to Isaiah, but common to both parts of the book. (See chap. i. 11, 18, xxxiii. 10.) The prefatory exhortation in this verse affords a key to the whole prophecy, as being consolatory in its tone and pur pose. There is evident allusion to the threatening in chap, xxxix. 7. (See previous page.) Having there predicted the captivity in Babylon, as one of the successive strokes, by which the fall of Israel as a nation, and the total loss of its peculiar privileges, should be brought about, the Prophet is now sent to assure the spiritual Israel, the true people of Jehovah, that although the Jewish nation should soon cease to be externally identified with the Church, the Church itself should not only continue to exist, but in a far more glorious state than ever. This is the " people " here meant, and this the " comfort " wherewith they were to be comforted.

2. Speak to (or according to) the heart of Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she hath received from the hand of Jehovah double for all her sins. By speaking tothe heart, we are to understand speaking so as to affect the heart or feel ings, and also in accordance with the heart or wishes, i. e. what the person addressed desires or needs to hear. Jerusalem is here put for the Church or chosen people, whose metropolis it was, and for whose sake the place itself was precious in the sight of God. Those who refer the passage to the Babylonish exile are under the necessity of assuming (with Kosenmiiller) that the consolation was addressed to those left behind in Judah, or (with Gesenius) that Jerusalem means its inhabitants in exile. War fare includes the two ideas of appointed time and hard service, in which sense the verb and noun are both applied to the routine of sacerdotal func tions (Num. iv. 23, viii. 24, 25), but here still more expressly to the old dispensation, as a period of restriction and constraint. The next phrase strictly means, her iniquity is accepted, i.e. an atonement for it, or the punishment already suffered is accepted as sufficient, not in strict justice,

but in reference to God's gracious purpose. The.same idea is supposed by some to be expressed in the last clause, where D^?3 (double) is not used mathematically to denote proporti9n, but poetically to denote abundance, like the equivalent expresssion H^p in chap. Ixi. 7, Job xlii. 10, Zech. ix. 12. The sense will then be that she has been punished abundantly, not more than she deserved, yet enough to answer the design of punishment. But as giving or receiving double, in all the other cases cited, has respect, not to punishment, but to favour after suffering, so this clause may be un derstood to mean, that she has now received (or is receiving) double favours, notwithstanding all her sins. The 3 has then the same sense as in chaps. v. 25, ix. 11, 16, 20, x. 4. Either of these explanations makes it unneces sary to give sin the rare and doubtful sense of punishment. The verbs are prceterita prophetica, but for that very reason should not be exchanged for futures, as we have no right to depart without necessity from the descrip tive form in which it pleased the Holy Ghost to clothe this prophecy. The continuance of the ceremonial system, and the hardships of the old dispen sation, are here and elsewhere represented as chastisements due to the de fections of the chosen people, notwithstanding which they should continue to exist, and in a far more glorious character, not as a national Church, but as a spiritual Church, set free from ritual and local fetters.

3. A voice crying — in the wilderness — dear the way of Jehovah — make straight (or level) in the desert a higlnvay for our God. The Septuagint version, retained in the New Testament, is tfuvr^ (Sow™;, which amounts to the same thing. Both in the Hebrew and the Greek, the words in the wilderness may be connected either with what follows or with what pre cedes ; but the usual division is more natural, and the other has been insisted upon chiefly for the purpose of rendering the verse inapplicable to John the Baptist, who came preaching in a wilderness, and to whom the words are applied expressly in Mat. iii. 3 ; Mark i. 3 ; Luke iii. 4, as the herald of the new dispensation. Those who deny the inspiration of the Prophet are compelled to reject this as a mere accommodation, and apply the verse exclusively to the return from Babylon, of which there is no men tion in the text or context. It is said indeed that God is here represented as inarching at the head of his returning people. But in all the cases which Lowth cites as parallel, there is express allusion to the exodus from Egypt. Here, on the contrary, the only image presented is that of God returning to Jerusalem, revisiting his people, as he did in every signal manifestation of his presence, but above all at the advent of Messiah, and the opening of the new dispensation. The verb rendered prepare denotes a particular kind of preparation, viz. the removal of obstructions, as appears from Gen. rxiv. 31 ; Lev. xiv. 36, and may therefore be expressed by clear in English. The parallel verb means rectify or make straight, either in reference to obliquity of course or to unevenness of surface, most probably the latter, in which case it may be expressed by level. To a general term meaning way or path is added a specific one, denoting an artificial causeway, raised above the surface of the earth. There is no need of supposing (with Lowth) that the Prophet here alludes to any particular usage of the oriental sove reigns, or (with Grotius) that the order of the first and second verses is continued (let there be a voice crying). The Prophet is describing what he actually hears — a voice crying I — or as Ewald boldly paraphrases the ex pression — Hark ! one cries. "

4. Every valley shall be raised, and every mountain and hill brought low, and the uneven shall become level, and the ridges a plain. This may be considered an an explanation of the manner in which the way of the Lord was to be prepared. Grotius supposes the command at the beginning of the chapter to be still continued (let every valley, &c.), and the latest German writers give the same construction of this verse, although they make a new command begin in the one preceding. The form of the following verb (i"^ni), though not incompatible with this explanation, rather favours the sti-ict interpretation of the future, which is of course, on general principles, to be preferred. The common version (exalted) seems to imply that the valleys and mountains were to exchange places ; but this would not facili tate the passing, which requires that both should be reduced to a common ]evel. — The translation crooked is retained and defended by some modern writers, on the ground that the parallel expression requires it ; but as "Wtfa) may denote not only lineal but superficial rectitude, so 3pJ>, as its opposite, may naturally signify unevenness of surface, which is more appropriate in this connection than obliquity or irregularity of course. ^P??' according to its etymology, denotes gorges or ravines, or rather difficult passes ; but in this case it seems to be the opposite of flat or level ground, and may therefore be expressed by ridges. The application of these several terms to different moral or spiritual objects, such as various classes in society or nations of the earth, rests upon the false assumption that the features of a portrait or the figures in a landscape are to be considered one by one, and not in their mutual relations, as composing a whole picture. (Compare the comment on chap. v. 3, vol. i. p. 129). The whole impression^here intended to be made is that of a way opened through a wilderness by levelling the ground and the removal of obstructions, as a natural image for the removal of the hindrances to God's revisiting his people.

5. And the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see (it) together, for the mouth of Jehovah speaks (or hath spoken). The subjunct ive construction of the first clause by Junius and Tremellius (ut reveletur) is adopted by Hitzig and Ewald, but without necessity. The idea seems to be that as soon as the way is opened, the Lord will shew himself. ^D! may express either coincidence of time (nt once), or totality altogether), more probably the latter. Ewald needlessly reads 'ty^!1, which he supposes to be implied in the Septuagint version (TO ffurqgiov ToDSsoD), retained by Luke (iii. 6). But this only shews that salvation was included in the glory which should be revealed. Gesenius follows Luther in making the last clause express the thing to be seen (shall see that the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken) ; but this construction is precluded by the fact that this is the only case in which the sense thus put upon the formula is even possible ; in all others the meaning of the clause not only may but must be, for (because) the month of the Lord hath spoken, as a reason why the declaration should be credited. (See chap. i. 2, 20, xxii. 25, Iviii. 14 ; Jer. xiii. 15 ; Joel iv. 8 ; Obad. i. 18.) To this, the only tenable construction, all the later German writers have returned. To see God's glory, is a common expres sion for recognising his presence and agency in any event. (See Exod. xvi. 7; Isa. xxxv. 2, Ixvi. 18). The specific reference of this verse to the restoration of the Jews from exile is not only gratuitous but inconsistent with the strength and comprehensiveness of its expressions. The simple meaning is, that when the way should be prepared, the glory of God would be universally displayed ; a promise too extensive to be fully verified in that event or period of history.

0. A voice saying, Cry ! And he said (or says), What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all its favour like a flower of the field ! Here, as in

ver. 3, the participle is construed in the genitive by the Septuagint (puv^ Xsyovro;), and the Vulgate (vox dicentis) ; but the simplest construction makes it agree with voice as an adjective. That two distinct speakers are here introduced, seems to be granted by all interpreters, excepting Junius and Tremellius, who refer ">ON and 1OX to the same subject, and exclude the interrogation altogether. A voice says, Cry, and it also says (or tells me) what I shall cry. Cocceius supplies is heard at the beginning. Ewald adopts the same form of expression in ver. 3. Hark! one says, Cry. The force and beauty of the verse are much impaired by any version which does not represent the writer as actually hearing what he thus describes. The Septuagint and Vulgate have and I said, either because they read 1OXJ, which is found in one or two manuscripts, or because they understood the form used in the common text as certainly referring to the Prophet himself. Augusti supplies the herald says, which is unnecessary. There is a pleasing mystery, as Hitzig well observes, in the dialogue of these anonymous voices, which is dispelled by undertaking to determine too precisely who the speakers are. All that the words necessarily convey is, that one voice speaks and another voice answers. Interpreters are universally agreed that the last clause contains the words which the second speaker is required to utter. It is possible, however, to connect these words immediately with what precedes, and understand them as presenting an objection to the required proclamation. What shall (or can) I cry, (since) all flesh is grass, &c. The advantages of this construction are, that it assumes no change of speaker where none is intimated in the text, and that it does away with an alleged tautology, as will be seen below. According to the usual construction, °we are to supply before the last clause, and the first voice said again (or answered), Cry as follows: All flesh, &c. The last phrase is here used, not in its widest sense, as comprehending the whole animal world (Gen. vi. 7, 13, 17), but in its more restricted application to mankind, of which some examples may be found in the New Testament (John xvii. 2 ; Rom. iii. 20). The comparison of human frailty to grass is common in the Scriptures. (See chaps, xxxvii. 27, li. 12; Ps. ciii. 15, 16; James i. 10, 11.) J. D. Michaelis supposes an allusion, in the last clause, to the sudden blasting of oriental flowers by the burning east wind. The Septuagint and Vulgate give npn the sense of glory, which is retained by Peter (1 Pet, i. 24, 25). From this Grotius, Houbigant, and others infer that the original reading was Vlin. Gesenius rejects this as altogether arbitrary, but with as little ground assumes that TpD, in this one place, is synonymous with ID, when used (like the English grace said favour) in the sense of beauty. Hendewerk even goes so far as to say that ^agi;, in Luke ii. 40, has an aesthetic sense. To assume a new sense of IPD in this one case is a viola tion of the soundest principles of lexicography, and instead of letting the writer express his own ideas, forces upon him what the commentator thinks he might have said or should have said. There may be cases where a word must be supposed to have a peculiar sense in some one place; but such assumptions can be justified by nothing but extreme necessity, and that no such necessity exists in this case is apparent from the fact that the isual explanation gives a perfectly good sense. The contrast is then letween the short-lived and precarious favour of man, and the infallible promise of God. The quotation in Peter confirms the supposition, here suggested by the context, that the words have reference to the preaching of the gospel, or the introduction of the new dispensation. VOL. u.

7. Dried is the grass, faded the flower ; for the breath of Jehovah has blown upon it. Surely the people is grass. The present form usually given to the verbs conveys the sense correctly as a general proposition, but not in its original shape as a description of what has actually happened, and may be expected to occur again. — The translation when (instead of /or), preferred by Gesenius and some older writers, is only admissible because it is a needless deviation from the usual meaning of the particle, which yields a perfectly good sense in this connection. — If n-1"l does not here denote a divine agent, which is hardly consistent with the figurative form of the whole sentence, it should b taken in its primary sense of breath, not in the intermediate one of u nd ; although this, as Gesenius suggests, may be what the figure was inte ded to express, the figure itself is that of a person breathing on the grass an flower, and causing them to wither. It is strange that Lowth should have overlooked this natural and striking image, to adopt the unpoetical and frigid notion, that " a wind of Jehovah is a Hebraism, meaning no more than a strong wind." — p^, which properly means surely, verily, is here equivalent to an affirmative particle, yea or yes, and is so explained by Luther. — The treatment which this last clause has experienced affords an instructive illustration of the real value of the "higher criticism." Koppe, the father of this modern art or science, rejects the clause as spurious, because it violates the parallelism. He is fol lowed, with some hesitation, by Gesenius, who assigns, as additional reasons, that the sense is watery and incoherent, and that the clause is wanting in the Septuagint, although he does not hesitate to retain the first clause, which is also omitted in that ancient Version. Hitzig grants that this omission may have been a mere mistake or inadvertence, but still rejects the clause, upon the ground, that it contains a false explanation of what goes before, because BJft, when absolutely used, must mean the Jews, whereas the reference in this whole context is to the Gentiles; as if the latter allegation did not utterly subvert the other, bjr determining in what sense OJJH must here be taken. Instead of arguing that, because the Gentiles are referred to in the context, therefore they must be meant here likewise, he assumes that they are not meant here, and then pronounces the clause inconsistent with the context. The clause is retained as genuine by all the German writers since Hitzig. Another curious instance of the confidence with which the higher critics can affirm contradictory propositions, is the fact that while Hitzig says that DJ^ must mean Israel, Gesenius quietly assumes that it must mean the Babylonians.

8. Dried is the grass, faded the flower, and the word of our God shall stand for ever. The comparatively rare use of adversative particles in Hebrew is apparent from this verse, in which the relation of the clauses can be fully expressed in English only by means of the word but. — Kimchi explains word to mean the word of prophecy, while others give it the specific sense of promise, and others understand it as denoting the gospel, on the authority of 1 Peter i. 25. All these explanations can be reconciled by suffering the Prophet to express his own ideas, without any adventitious limitation, and admitting, as the only sure conclusion, that by word he means neither promise, nor prophecy, nor gospel merely, but every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Deut. viii. 3 ; Mat. iv. 4). There is a tacit antithesis between the word of God and man ; what man says is uncertain and precarious, what God says cannot fail. Thus understood, it includes prediction, precept, promise, and the offer of salvation; and although the latter is not meant exclusively, the apostle makes a perfectly

correct and most important application of the verse when, after quoting it, he adds, and this in the word which is preached (tfovyyt\i90i\ unto you, that is to say, this prophetic declaration is emphatically true of the gospel of Christ. To stand for ever is a common Hebrew phrase for perpetuity, security, and sure fulfilment. The expression our God contains, as usual, a reference to the covenant relation between God and his people. Even according to the usual arrangement and construction of these verses, the emphatic repetition in vers. 7 and 8 can only be thought watery by critics of extreme refinement. It is possible, however, to avoid the appearance of tautology by means of an arrangement which has been already hinted at as possible, although it does not seem to have occurred to any of the inter preters. The proposition is to give the passage a dramatic form, by mak ing the last clause of ver. G and the whole of ver. 7 a continuation of the words of the second voice, and then regarding ver. 8 as a rejoinder by the first voice. The whole may then be paraphrased as follows. A voice says, "Cry!" And (another voice) says, "What shall I cry?" (/'. e. to what purpose can I cry, or utter promises like those recorded in vcrs. 1—5), siuce all flesh is grass, &c. ; the grass withereth, &c. ; surely the people is grass (and cannot be expected to witness the fulfilment of these promises). But the first voice says again: " The grass does wither, and the flower does fade; but these events depend not on the life of man, but on the word of God, and the word of God shall stand for ever." There are no doubt some objections to this exegetical hypothesis, especially its somewhat artificial character; and therefore it has not been introduced into the text, but is simply thrown out here, as a possible alternative, to those who are not satisfied with the more obvious and usual construction of the passage.

9. Upon a high mountain get thee up, bringer of good news, Zion ! Raise with strength thtj voice, bringer of good neics, Jerusalem ' Raise (it), fear not, say to the towns of J mi ah, Lo, your God! The reflexive form get thee up, though not a literal translation, is an idiomatic equivalent to the Hebrew phrase (ascend for thee or for thyself). Some suppose an allusion to the practice of addressing large assemblies from the summit or acclivity of hills. (See Judges ix. 7 ; Deut. xxvii. 12; Mat. v. 1.) J. D. Michaelis compares the ancient practice of transmitting news by shouting from one hill- top to another, as described by Caesar (Bell. Gall. vii. 3). Celeriter ad omncs Gallic civitates fama perfertur • nam ubi major atque illustrior incidit res, clamore per agros regionesque significant; huncaliideinceps excipumt et proxiwis tradunt. The essential idea is that of local elevation as extending the diffusion of the sound. — There are two constructions of P'V J"0£*?P and the parallel expression. The first supposes the words to be in regimen, the other in apposition. According to the former, which is given in the Septuagint, Targum, and Vulgate, and retained by Grotius, Lowth, Gesenius, and others, the person addressed is the bearer of good tidings to Zion and Jerusalem (compare chap. lii. 7 ; Nah. ii. 1). The feminine form is explained by Grotius as an enallage for the masculine, like n^flp, Preacher, an idiom, as Dathe thinks, peculiar to official titles. Gesenius regards it as an instance of the idiomatic use of the feminine singular as a collective, like r\yp for D'3g (Micah i. 11, 12), and agrees with the Targum in mak ing the prophets the object of address. But this whole theory of collective feminines is so unnatural, and so imperfectly sustained by the cases which Gesenius cites (Lehrg. p. 477 ; Heb. Gr. § 105, 2 c.), that if the construc tion now in question be adopted, it is better to revert to the hypothesis of

Lowth and J. D. Michaelis, that the Prophet alludes to the practice of celebrating victories by the songs of women. (See Exod. xv. 20, 21 ; Judges xi. 34:1 Sam. xviii. 6, 7.) But although this explanation is decidedly more natural than that of Grotius and Gesenius, it is perhaps less so than the ancient one contained in the Peshito and the three Greek version? of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, according to which Zion saliva b-i£S£1f is represented as the bearer of good tidings to the

towns of Judah. This constitution is further recommended by the beautiful personification which it introduces^! the Holy City as the seat of the true religion and the centre of the church."X^e office here ascribed to it is the same that is recognised in chap. ii. 3 : U^ law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem"" Not only in the restoration from captivity, or in the personal advent of '& Saviour, but in every instance of the Lord's return to his forsaken people,. ^ 1S tne duty oi the church to communicate as well as to receive the joyiu^ fadings. explanation of Jerusalem and Zion as meaning their inhabu.ants among tne captivity is still more arbitrary here than in ver. 2, because?° reason can be given why the exiles from the Holy City should be called upon to.act as heralds to the others, whereas there is a beautiful poetical pJ^P^v 1] giving that office to the Holy City itself. Let the reader careful?? observe how many exegetical embarrassments arise from the attempt to con'™6 ^e application of the passage to the period of the exile, or to any other no' particularly indicated. The exhortation, fear not, does not imply" "V* there was danger in making the announcement, but that there mighlt " doubt and hesitation as to its fulfilment. Barnes thinks it necessar? *° prevent abuse of this text by affirming that it " will not justify boisteroui preaching, or a loud and unnatural tone of voice, alike offensive to gc°°c taste, injurious to health, and destructive of the life of the preacher." r*j also infers from it that " the glad tidings of salvation should be deliver. in an animated and ardent manner; the future punishment of the wicked* m a tone serious, solemn, subdued, awful."

10. Lo, the Lord Jehovah will come (or is coming) in (the person of ) a strong one, and his arm (is) ruling for him. Lo, his hire is with him an* his wages before him. The double n.3.n represents the object as already1' appearing or in sight. Of the phrase P)H? there are several interpretations]1 All the ancient versions make it mean with strength ; but this abstract senf^e of the adjective is not sustained by usage, and the same objection lies, wi™ still greater force, against Ewald's version, in victory. Aben Ezra a n Kimchi supply 1* (with a strong hand); but wherever the entire plm>tjs£ occurs, the noun is construed as a feminine. Jarchi makes it mean agaii™ the stron/i one, which Vitringa adopts and applies the phrase to Satan. P. usage requires that N13, when it has this sense, should be construed w' j~ its object, either directly, or by means of the prepositions ?V, ?N, o,r • De Dieu regards the 3 as pleonastic or a beth essentia, corresponding to j. , e French construction en roi, in (the character or person of) a king. •" existence of this idiom in Hebrew is questioned by some eminent graiv£" marians, and is at best so unusual that it should not be assumed withoir* necessity. (See the comment on chap. xxvi. 4, vol. i. p. 421.) The chc^ice' however, seems to lie between this and the construction which explains. ^ ie words to mean that he will come with a strong one ; as in chap. xxviii.i "*' the Lord is said to have a strong and mighty one, who should cast the croA 'vn of Ephraim to the ground with his hand. What God is said to do hims< in one case, he is represented in the other as accomplishing by means of^j

powerful instrument or agent, which, however, is defined no further. The essential meaning, common to the two constructions, is, that Jehovah was about to make a special exhibition of his power. — The participle ruling, in the next clause, is expressive of continuous action. The >> cannot refer to arm, which Gesenius suggests as a possible construction, because Vi">T, although sometimes masculine, is here expressly construed as a feminine. The antecedent of the pronoun must be either Jehovah, or the Strong One, according to the sense in which PJH2 is taken, as descriptive of God himself, or of his instrument. Those who understand that phrase to mean against the strong one, give the next the sense of ruling over him. But although? strictly denotes relation in general (as to, uith respect to), and admits of various equivalents in English, it is never elsewhere used in this sense after ^9, t° rule, which, with scarcely an exception, is followed by the preposition?. The true sense of V? is probably the obvious one for him, and the clause is a poetical description of the arm as acting independently of its possessor, and as it were in his behalf. — Here, as in Lev. xix. 13, Ps. cix. 20, Isa. xlix. 4, ""l^y.9, work, is put for its effect, reward, or product. There is no need of assuming with Kimchi, an ellipsis of "Dip before it. The word itself, as Aben Ezra well explains it, is equivalent in meaning to /V.isn "O^. — J. D. Michaelis considers it as doubtful whether the person here referred to is described as dispensing or receiving a reward, since in either case it would be /i/v. The former explanation is preferred by most interpreters, some of whom supposes a specific allusion to the customary distribution of prizes by commanders after victory. Upon this general supposition, Lowth explains the phrase before him, as referring to the act of stretching forth the hand, or holding out the thing to be bestowed. Those who restrict the passage to the Babylonish exiles, for the most part understand this clause as promising a recompence to such of the captives as had patiently endured God's will and believed his promises. Knobel, however, understands it as referring to the redeemed people as being themselves the recompence of their deliverer; and Henderson adopts the same construction, but applies it to the recom pence earned by the Messiah. This explanation is favoured by what follows in the next verse, where Jehovah or his Strong One is described as a shep herd. The two verses may be readily connected, without any change of figure, by supposing that the lost sheep which he has recovered are the recompence referred to in the verse before us. Thus understood, the passage may have furnished the occasion and the basis of our Saviour's beautiful description of himself as the true shepherd, who lays down his life for the sheep, as well as of the figure drawn from the recovery of a lost sheep to illustrate the rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner. But a still more decisive argument in favour of this interpretation is the fact, that in

every case without exception where "Ob* and!"l?J?? have the same sense as here, the hire or wages of a person is the hire or wages paid to him, aod not that paid by him. To give it the latter meaning in this one case, there fore, would be to violate a usage, not merely general, but uniform; and such a violation could be justified only by a kind and degree of exegetical neces sity which no one can imagine to exist in this case. Upon these grounds it is probable, not only that Jehovah is here represented as receiving a re ward, but that there is special reference to the recompence of the Messiah's sufferings and obedience by the redemption of his people. According to the view which has been taken of the nexus between these two verses, before him may possibly contain an allusion to the shepherd's following his flock; but it admits of a more obvious and simple explanation, as denoting that his recompence is not only sure, but actually realised, being already in his sight or presence, and with him, i. e. in immediate possession.

11. Like a shepherd his flock will he feed, with his arm will he gather the Jambs, and in his bosom carry (thetn) : the nurting (ewes) he u'ill (gently] lead. Although the meaning of this verse is plain, it is not easily translated, on account of the peculiar fitness and significancy of the terms employed. The word correctly rendered feed denotes the whole care of a shepherd for his flock, and has therefore no exact equivalent in English. To gather ivith the arm coincides very nearly, although not precisely, with our phrase to take up in the arms. A very similar idea is expressed by bearing in the bosom. The last clause has been more misunderstood than any other. Most interpreters appear to have regarded riv^ as denoting pregnant, where as it is the active participle of the verb JW, to suckle or give suck, and is evidently used in that sense in 1 Samuel vi. 7, 10. The former explanation might appear to have arisen from a misapprehension of the Vulgate version, foetas, which, as Bochart has shewn by quotations from the classics, is sometime applied to animals after delivery, but while still giving suck. But the erroneous explanation is much older, being unambiguously given

in the Septuagint (sv yaorg/ ej/ovaag). Aben Ezra also explains rn?V as synonymous with nVin, whereas Solomon ben Melek gives the correct inter pretation (rttpo'po JilPW). The essential meaning of 703' is admitted to be that of leading by all interpreters excepting Hengstenberg, who under takes to show that it always has reference to sustenance. (Commentary on the Psalms, under Ps. xxiii. 2.) His strongest argument is that derived from Gen. xlvii. 17 ; but he seems to have overlooked 2 Chron. xxviii. 15 ; and even Exod. xv. 13, which he owns to be against him, cannot be satis factorily explained on his hypothesis. In that case, both the parallelism and the construction in the second clause are decidedly in favour of the old opinion, from which there seems, upon the whole, to be no sufficient reason for departing. From the primary and simple sense of leading may be readily deduced that of carefully leading or conducting, which as readily suggests the accessory idea of benignant and affectionate protection. Hen derson's statement, that this verse and the one before it exhibit certain attributes of the character and work of Christ, is correct, but too restricted, since the passage is descriptive of the whole relation which Jehovah sus tains to his people, as their shepherd, and of which inferior but real exhibi tions were afforded long before the advent of the Saviour; for example, in the restoration of the Jews from exile, which is no more to be excluded from the scope of this prophetic picture than to be regarded as its only subject.

12. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended in a measure the dust of the earth, and weiyhed in a balance the mountains, and the hilly in scales? There are two directly opposite opinions as to the general idea here ex pressed. Gesenius and others understand the question as an indirect nega tion of the possibility of doing what is here described. The implied answer upon this hypothesis, is, No one, and the verse is equivalent to the excla mation, How immense are the works of God ! The other and more usual interpretation understands the question thus : Who (but God) has measured or can measure, &c. ? Thus understood, the verse, so far from affirming

the immensity of God's works, represents them as little in comparison with him, who measures and distributes them with perfect ease. The first ex planation derives some countenance from the analogy of the next verse, where the question certainly involves an absolute negation, and is tantamount to saying, that no one does, or can do, what is there described. But this consideration is not sufficient to outweigh the argument in favour of the other explanation, arising from its greater simplicity and obviousness in this connection. It is also well observed by Hit/dg, that in order to convey the idea of immensity, the largest measures, not the smallest, would have been employed. An object might be too large to be weighed in scales, or held in the hollow of a man's hand, and yet very far from being immense or even vast in its dimensions. On the other hand, the smallness of the measure is entirely appropriate, as shewing the immensity of God himself, who can deal with the whole universe as man deals with the most minute and trivial objects. — ?y^' is properly a handful (1 Kings xx. 10, Ezek. liii. 19), but is here put for the receptacle or measure of that quantity. — By loafers we are not to understand specifically either the ocean (Grotius) or the waters above the firmament (Bosenmiiller), but water as a constituent element or portion of the globe. — The primary meaning of I?n is supposed by Gesenius to be that of weighing, here transferred to the measure of ex tension. Maurer, with more probability, regards it as a generic term for measurement, including that of weight, capacity, and extension. — The span is mentioned as a natural and universal measure of length, to which we must likewise apply Jerome's translation (tribus diyitis), and not, as Gill imagines, to the quantity of dust which " a mm can hold between his thumb and two fingers." — In every other place where 73 occurs, it is the construct or abbreviated form of?3, the nearest equivalent to our all, but uniformly construed as a noun, meaning properly the whole of any thing. The Septuagint translates it so in this case likewise (xaaav T^V yjjy), and Gesenius, in his Lehrgebaude (p. 675), gives it as one of the cases in which the governing and governed noun are separated by an inter vening word. In quoting the Hebrew, he inadvertently inserts a makkeph (C'vtt'ITPD)), thus conforming the orthography to the usual analogy. But having afterwards observed that the Hebrew text has 73 with a conjunctive accent, he corrected the error in his Lexicon and Commentary, and referred the word to the root 7-13, which does not occur elsewhere in Kal, but the essential idea of which, as appears from the Chaldee and Arabic analogy, as well as from its own derivatives in Hebrew, is that of measuring, or rather that of holding and containing, which agrees exactly with the common English Version (comprehended). It is a curious and characteristic cir cumstance that Hitzig, in his note upon this passage, revives the explana tion which Gesenius had given by mistake, and afterwards abandoned, appealing to Ps. xxxv. 10 as an example of the use of 73 (all) with a con junctive accent, and to Isaiah xxxviii. 16 as an instance of its separation from the dependent noun. To this unexpected defence of his own inad vertent errror Gesenius replies, in his Thesaurus (ii. 665), that clear ex pressions are not to be elucidated by the analogy of dark ones, and that a verb is needed here to balance the verbs measure, mete, and weigh in the other clauses. — The terms used in the English Bible, scales and balance, are retained above, but transposed, in order to adhere more closely to the form of the original, in which the first word is a singular (denoting properly an apparatus like the steelyard), while the other is a dual, strictly denoting

a pair of scales. This is in fact the etymological import of balance, accord ing to the usual explanation of the Latin bilan.r, as denoting a double dish or plate; but be this as it may, the English balance does not, like the plural scales, at once suggest the form of the instrument intended. — The dust of the earth seems to be here put for the earth itself, and is therefore not erroneously, though freely, rendered in the Vulgate molem terra;. £"?£> is properly a third, i. e. the third of another measure, probably the ephah, which is often rendered in the Septuagint rg/a /urga, while the seah is translated USTOOV. The name is analogous to quart (meaning fourth), and exactly coincident with tierce, which Skinner defines to be "a measure so called because the third part (triena) of another measure called a pipe," but which is also used in old English writers for the third part of other measures. (See Richardson's Dictionary, p. 1910.) The ephah, accord ing to the best computation, was equivalent to one Italian modius and a half. J. D. Michaelis is probably singular in thinking it necessary to ex press the value of the measure in translation, by making the Prophet ask, who measures the dust of the earth with the third part of a bushel. This is not only in bad taste, but hurtful to the sense; because the literal com prehension of the earth in this specific measure is impossible, and all that the words were intended to suggest is a comparison between the customary measurement of common things by man, and the analogous control which is exercised by God over all his works. For this end, the general sense of measure, which the word has in Ps. Ixxx. 6, and which is given to it here by the Targum (N?V3O), is entirely sufficient. The exact size of the Wtyy is of no more importance to the exposition than that of the balance or the scales. — The idea of accurate exact adjustment, which by some in terpreters is thought to be included in the meaning of this verse, if expressed at all, is certainly not prominent, the main design of the description being simply to exhibit, not the power or the wisdom of God as distinguishable attributes, but rather the supreme control in which they are both exer cised. — Ewald connects this verse with the argument that follows, by suggesting, as the answer to the question, that certainly no man, and much less the image of a man, could do what is here described. — Umbreit con nects it with what goes before, by supposing the Prophet to affirm that the gracious Shepherd, just before described, is at the same time all-wise and omnipotent, and therefore able to make good the promise of protection to his people.

13. Who hath measured the spirit of Jehovah, and (who, as) the man of his counsel, will teach him (or cause him to know) ? According to J. D. Michaelis, the connection between this verse and the one before it is, that he who can do the one can do the other ; if any one can weigh the hills, &c., he can also measure the divine intelligence. But the natural con nection seems to be, that he who weighs the hills, &c., must himself be independent, boundless, and unsearchable. — The various explanations of l?fi, as meaning known, instructed, prepared, directed, searched, &c., are mere substitutions of what ought to have been said (in the interpreter's opinion) for what is said. Although not impossible, it is highly improbable that the word should have a different meaning here from that which it evidently has in the foregoing verse, where the sense is determined by the mention of the span. What seems to be denied, is the possibility of either limiting or estimating the divine intelligence. — According to Calvin, we are not to understand by in-Tl here the Holy Spirit as a person of the Godhead,

but the mind or intellect of God. The Targnm arbitrarily explains it as denoting the Holy Spirit (i.e. inspiration) in the mouth of all the prophets. — The last clause is not an answer to the first, but a continuation of the question. Most interpreters suppose the u-ho to he repeated. Luther and Rosenm tiller make it agree directly with the following phrase. (What counsellor, &c.) The latest writers make the construction relative as well as interrogative. Who icas (or is) the counsellor that taught him? A simpler construction is that given in our Bible, which supplies neither in terrogative nor relative: and (being) his counsellor, or (as) his counsellor, hath taught him. The translation of the last verb as a preterite is entirely arbitrary. Both tenses seem to have been used, as in many other cases, for the purpose of making the implied negation more exclusive. Who has, and who trill or can? — Ewald, rejecting the usual combination of man with counsel in the sense of counsellor, makes one the subject, and the other the object of the verb, " and^eveals — though a man — his counsel to him." The same construction seems to be at least as old as Arias Montanus, who translates the clause vir consilinm ejns scire faciet eum. In favour of the usual interpretation is its greater simplicity, and the occurrence of the plural form, the men of my counsel, in the obvious sense of counsellors, in Ps. cxix. 24. — Lowth's translation (one of his council) gives a sense to fVy not sustained by usage, and Barnes's modification of it (one of his counsel) introduces an idea wholly modern and irrelevant. — Calvin supposes that the Prophet, having spoken of the goodness of God in ver. 11, and of his power in ver. 12, here proceeds to magnify his wisdom. But both these verses are designed alike to set forth his supremacy and independence, by describing him as measuring and regulating all things, while himself incapable either of measurement or regulation.

14. Whom did he consult (or with u-hoin took he counsel) and he made him understand, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and the way of understanding (u7io) in'// make him know ? The consecution of the tenses is the same as in the foregoing verse. The indirect construction of the second and following verbs, by Lowth and the later German writers (that he should instruct him, &c.), is not only forced, but inconsistent with the use of the conversive future, and a gratuitous sub stitution of an occidental idiom for the somewhat harsh but simple Hebrew syntax, in which the object of the first verb is the subject of the second. What man did he (the Lord) consult, and he (the man) made him (the Lord) to understand, &c. The sense is given, but with little change of form, in the English Version, by repeating the interrogative pronoun. With whom took he counsel, and (who) instructed him or made him understand'? — The preposition before path is understood by Hitx.ig, Ewald, and Urnbreit, as denoting the subject of instruction : taught him respecting or concerning (iiber) the path of judgment. Gesenius and Hcndewerk regard it as a mere connective of the verb with its object : taught him the path, &c. But the most satisfactory explanation is the one proposed by Knobel, who attaches to the verb the sense of guiding, and retains the proper meaning of the par ticle. This is confirmed by the analogy of the synonymous verb Hlin, which originally means to guide, and is also construed with the same preposition (Ps. xxxii. 8, Prov. iv. 11). — Hj judgment we must either understand dis cretion, in which case the whole phrase will be synonymous with way of understanding in the parallel clause; or rectitude, in which case the whole phrase will mean the right way, not in a moral sense, but in that of a way conducting to the end desired, the right way to attain that end. As these

are only different expressions of the same essential idea, the question is of little exegetical importance. — The plural rnj-UJjl, literally understandings, is not an Arabism, as Knobel elsewhere affirms of this whole class of words, but a genuine Hebrew idiom, denoting fulness or an eminent degree of the quality in question, just as JTlO?n is used in the book of Proverbs to denote the highest wisdom, the sapientia hi/postatica. [See Hengstenberg on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 258, and on Psalm xlix. 3 (4).J — Jarchi, with characteristic nationality, regards this as a contrast, not between God and man, but between Israel and other nations: " With which of the Gentiles did he take counsel as he did with the prophets, as it is said of Abraham, The Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" — Junius and Tremellius make the first verb reciprocal, and all the rest re flexive (Cum quo eommunicavit consilium, ut imtruerit se, &c. ?), which is wholly gratuitous and forced. — The first clause of this verse is quoted in Rom. xi. 34, with the following words added, or u-ho hath first atien to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? As this addition is also found in the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, J. D. Michaelis infers that it has dropped out of the Hebrew. It is more probable, however, that the words were introduced into the Septuagint from the text in Romans, where they are really no part of the quotation from Isaiah, but the apostle's own paraphrase of it, or addition to it, the form of which may have been sug gested by the first clause of Job xli. 3 (in the English Bible, xli. 11). Such allusive imitations occur elsewhere in Paul's writings. (See the remarks on 1 Cor. i. 20, and its connection with Isaiah xxxiii. 18, p. 14). In the present case, the addition agrees fully with the spirit of the passage quoted; since the aid in question, if it had been afforded, would be fairly entitled to a recompence.

15. Lo, nations as a drop from a bucket, and as dust on scales are reckoned; lo, islands as an atom he will take up. He is independent, not only of nature and of individual men, but of nations. The Septuagint gives }H the Chaldee sense of if, leaving the sentence incomplete notwithstanding the attempts of the modern editors to carry the construction through several verses. By supplying are in the first clause, the English Version impairs the compact strength of the expression. Both members of the clause are to be con strued with the verb at the end. This verb De Wette and Hendewerk explain as meaning are to be reckoned (sind zu achten) ; but although this future sense is common in the Niphal participle, it is not to be assumed in the preterite without necessity. The sense is rather that they are already so considered. Luther gives ^"?P ID the sense of a drop remaining in a bucket when the water is poured out, corresponding to the parallel expres sion of an atom which remains in the balance after anything is weighed. Hitzig also translates the last word in the bucket (irn Eimer]. Maurer gives the strict translation from a bucket, and supposes hanging to be understood (de situla pendens). But as this is not an obvious ellipsis, it is better to explain the JP as simply expressing the proportion of the drop to the con tents of the bucket, a drop out of a whole bucket. Next to this, the simplest explanation is the one suggested in the English Version, which seems to take the phrase as an indirect expression for a drop of water. But as the mention of the bucket would in that case be superfluous, the other explana tion is entitled to the preference. Dust of the scales or balance, i. e. dust resting on it, but without sensibly affecting its equilibrium. The Vulgate version (momentum statertu) seems directly to reverse the meaning of the phrase, in which the dust is obviously spoken of as having no appreciable

weight. The exegetical tradition is decisive in favour of explaining pn£> to mean fine dust, while the uniform usage of the word in other cases would require the sense of cloud. It is possible indeed that the image which the Prophet intended to suggest was that of a cloud in the balance, the idea of extreme levity being then conveyed by comparison with the weight of what is commonly regarded as imponderable. The weight of authority is all in favour of the other sense, which may be readily connected with the common one, by supposing pnr~' to mean first a cloud in general, then a cloud of dust in particular, and then dust in general, or more specifically fine minute dust. P?, from PP.;!, to crush or pulverize, denotes any minute portion of a solid substance, and in this connection may be well expressed by atom. The Seventy seem to have mistaken it for P~l, saliva, spittle, and trans lates it ffiiXog. Gesenius gives D*?K the general sense of lands, and then notes this usage of the word as a sign of later date. But why may not islands, in the strict sense, be intended here as much as hills and moun tains in ver. 12? The only objection is founded on the parallelism; but this is imperfect, even if we give O^N its widest sense. J. D. Michaelis goes to the opposite extreme, by making it mean Europe and Asia Minor. Rabbi Jonah explains 7113? as the Niphal of?-1D to throw or cast, and this explanation is retained by Knobel. In like manner, Aquila has \t7rrlv Btt\\6ft,ivov. But most interpreters agree in making it the future Kal of?t??, which in Syriac and Chaldee means to raise or lift up. On the former supposition, it must either agree irregularly with the plural islands, or with a relative to be supplied (like an atom which is cast away). This last con struction is consistent also with the other derivation of the verb. Thus Rosenmiiller has, quern tollit (aliens; and Maurer, which it (the wind) car ries off. But the simplest construction is the one which makes 0*?K the direct object of the verb, as in the English Version. Ewald gives the verb itself the sense of poising, weighing, which is too specific.

16. And Lebanon is not enough fur burning, and its beasts are not enough for a sacrifice. The supremacy and majesty of God are now pre sented in a more religious aspect, by expressions borrowed from the Mosaic ritual. He is not only independent of the power, but also of the good will of his creatures. This general allusion to oblation, as an act of homage or of friendship, suits the connection better than a specific reference to expia tion. The insufficiency of these offerings is set forth, not in a formal pro position, but by means of a striking individualisation. For general terms he substitutes one striking instance, and asserts of that what might be asserted of the rest. If Lebanon could not suffice, what could ? The imagery here used is justly described by Urnbreit as magnificent : Nature the temple ; Lebanon the altar ; its lordly woods the pile ; its countless beasts the sacrifice. There is a strong idiomatic peculiarity of form in this verse. J*N and ^ are properly both nouns in the construct state, the first meaning non-existence and the other sufficiency. The nearest ap proach in English to the form of the original is nothing of sufficiency of burning ; but p**, as usual, includes or indicates the verb of existence, and ^ is followed by a noun expressive of the end for which a thing is said to be or not to be sufficient. Clericus and Rosenmiiller give "H?3 the sense of kindling, which it sometimes has (e. g. Exod. xxxv. 8, Lev. vi. 5) ; but as this differs from burning only in being limited to the in ception of the process, and as it seems more natural to speak of wood enough to burn than of wood enough to kindle, there is no cause of de parting from the usual interpretation. The collective njn (animal for

animals), having no equivalent in English, although common in Hebrew, can be represented only b}7 a plural. — i"l?ij? is the technical name appro priated in the law of Moses to the ordinary sacrifice for general expia tion. It seems to denote strictly an ascension or ascent, being so called, either from the mounting of the vapour, or from the ascent of the whole victim on the altar. As the phrase by which it is commonly translated in the English Bible (burnt-offering] is not an exact etymological equiva lent, and as no stress seems to be laid here upon the species of obla tion, the general term offering or sacrifice would seem to,be sufficiently specific. (Compare with this verse chap. Ixvi. 1, 1 Kings viii. 27, 2 Chron. vi. 18, Ps. 1. 8-13.*)

17. All the nations as nothing before him, less than, nothing and vanity are counted to him. The proposition of ver. 15 is repeated, but in still more absolute and universal terms. Instead of nations, he says all the nations • instead of likening them to grains of sand or drops of water, he denies their very being. Before him does not simp!}- mean in his view or esti mation, but in comparison with him, the primary import of *U? being such as to suggest the idea of two objects brought together or confronted for the purpose of comparison. So, too, the parallel expression v does not mean by him (which is seldom, if ever, so expressed in Hebrew), but with respect to him, or simply to him in the same sense as when we say that one thing or person is nothing to another, i. e. not to be compared with it. The same use of to, even without a negative, is clear from such expressions as " Hyperion to a Satyr." That God is the arbiter who thus decides between himself and his creatures, is still implied in both the phrases, although not the sole or even prominent idea meant to be expressed by either. — The structure of the sentence is exactly like that of the first clause of ver. 15, and the same remark is applicable, as to the insertion of the substantive verb in the English Version. — The particle as may either be a mere connective, reckoned as nothing, i. e. reckoned for or reckoned to be nothing, which is rather an English than a Hebrew idiom, or it may serve to soften the expression by suggesting that it is not to be literally understood, in which case it is nearly equivalent to as it were. So the Vulgate : Quasi non sint, sic sunt coram eo. — The etymological distinction between J^ and D?X is that the latter means annihilation or the end of being, the former absolute nonentity. In this case, the weaker term is assimilated to the stronger by the addition of another word, denoting desolation or emptiness, and here used as a formula of intense negation. The preposition before Dp^ is explained by some as connective of the verb with its object, reckoned for nothing ; which construction seems to be as old as the Septuagint (sic oMev el.oy/a- Qriaav), but is not sufficiently sustained by the usage of the Hebrew par ticle. Others make it an expression of resemblance, like the Vulgate, (quasi nihilwn) ; which seems to be a mere conjecture from the parallelism, and is equally at variance with usage. Calvin (followed by the English Version, Clcricus, Vitringa, Umbreit, and Ewald in the first edition of his Grammar) makes the IP comparative, and understands the phrase as meaning less than nothing. To this it is objected by Gesenius, that it does not suit the parallelism (a virtual assertion that a climax is impossible in Hebrew composition), and that the idea is too far-fetched (zn gesucht) ; to which Hitzig adds that there is no word to mean less, and that if the iP were really comparative, the phrase would necessarily mean more than nothing. These objections are renewed by Knob el, without any notice of

Umbreit's answer to the last, viz. that the idea of minority is suggested by the context; that less than nothing could not well be otherwise expressed; and that even if it meant more than nothing, it would still be an equivalent expression, meaning more of nothing than nothing itself. Gesenius, in his Commentary, makes the |P an expletive or pleonastic particle, of common use in Arabic, so that the phrase means simply nothing. But in his Lexi cons he agrees with Hitzig and Maurer in giving it a partitive sense, of nothing, i. e. a part of nothing, which, as Hitzig says, is here conceived of as a great concrete or aggregate, of which the thing in question is a portion. But as the whole must be greater than the part, this explanation is essen tially identical with Calvin's (less than nothing], which Gesenius admits, but still objects to the latter as being less poetical than mathematical. The reader may determine for himself whether it is any more gesucht than that preferred to it, or than that proposed by Hendewerk, who seems to under stand the IP as indicating the material or source, as if he had said, (made or produced] out of nothing and vanity. The common ground assumed by all these explanations is, that the verse contains the strongest possible ex pression of insignificance and even non-existence, as predicable even of whole nations, in comparison with God, and in his presence.

18. And (noif] to it- horn will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye com pare to him? The inevitable logical conclusion from the previous considera tions is that God is One and that there is no other. From this, the Prophet now proceeds to argue, that it is folly to compare God even with the most exalted creature, how much more with lifeless matter. The logical relation of this verse to what precedes, although not indicated in the text, may be rendered clearer by the introduction of an illative particle (then, therefore, &c.), or more simply by inserting now, which is often used in such connections. (See for example Ps. ii. 10, and Hengstenberg's Com mentary, vol. i. p. 44.) The last clause admits of two constructions, both amounting to the same thing in the end. What likeness or resem blance (i. e. what similar object) will ye compare to him ? Or, what com parison will ye institute respecting him '? The last agrees best with the usage of the verb, as meaning to arrange, prepare, or set in order (to com pare, only indirectly and by implication) ; while at the same time it avoids the unusual combination of comparing a likeness to a thing or person, instead of comparing the two objects for the purpose of discovering their likeness. — The use of the divine name ?N (expressive of omnipotence) is here emphatic and significant, as a preparation for the subsequent exposure of the impotence of idols. The force of the original expression is retained in Vitringa's version (Deum fortern).

19. The image a carver has wrought, and a gilder with gold shall overlay it, and chains of silver (he ?.s) casting. The ambiguous construction of the first clause is the same in the original, where we may either supply a rela tive, or make it a distinct proposition. In favour of the first, which is a frequent ellipsis both in Hebrew and English, is the fact, that the verse then contains a direct answer to the question in the one before it. What have you to set over against such a God ? The image which an ordinary workman manufactures. It enables us also to account for the position of the image at the beginning of the sentence, and for its having the definite article, while the following nouns have none, both which forms of expres sion seem to be significant, the image which a workman (i.e. any workman) can produce. — The consecution of the tenses seems to shew, that the writer takes his stand between the commencement and the end of the process, and

describes it as actually going on. The carver has already wrought the image, and the gilder is about to overlay it. — There is a seeming incon gruity between the strict etymological senses of the nouns and verb in this clause: ^70 is properly a carver, and?P5 a carved or graven image; whereas ^CO, as descriptive of a process of art, can only mean to melt, cast, or found. This can only be accounted for upon the supposition, that the verb, or the nouns, or both, have acquired in usage a more extensive or indefinite meaning. In the translation above given, the discrepancy has been removed by giving to the verb the general sense of wrought, and to the first noun that of image, which it evidently has in other places, where a contrast is exhibited between God and idols, of course without regard to the mode of their formation. (See for example chap. xlii. 8, and the note on chap. xxx. 22, vol. i. p. 482.) — *p¥ is properly a melter, and is elsewhere applied both to the smelter or finer of metals (Prov. xxv. 4), and to the founder or caster of images (Judges xvii. 4). The word gilder, although not an exact translation, has been used above, as more appropriate in this connection than the common version goldsmith.— VJ2}, which elsewhere means to beat out metal into thin plates, here denotes the application of such plates as an ornamental covering. Henderson repeats this verb, in its original sense of beating out, before chains of silver. Hitzig and Ewald continue the construction of the first clause through the second, and take „ '' as a noun, repeated for the sake of a sarcastic effect. (And with silver chains the goldsmith.) A similar construction had before been given by Cocceius, who supplies the substantive verb (et sunt catena argentecc aurifabri). But the different mode of writing the word in the two clauses (*D°¥ and *blX seems to favour the opinion of Gesenius and most other writers, that the latter is a verbal form. Lowth reads D..? in the preterite, on the authority of twenty- seven manuscripts and three editions. Maurer ex plains it as the Prseter Poel, of which, however, there is no example else where. Gesenius regards it as a participle used for the present tense. It is really equivalent to our continuous or compound present, denoting what is actually now in progress. — The silver chains may be considered either simply ornamental, or as intended to suspend the image and prevent its falling.

20. (As for) the (man) impoverished (by) offering, a tree (that) will not rot he chooses, a wise carver he seeks for it, to set up an image (that) shall not be moved. While the rich waste their gold and silver upon idols, the poor are equally extravagant in wood. None of the usual meanings of J?D is here appropriate. From the noun nii?PP (treasures, stores), Kabbi Jonah derives the sense of rich, while all the modern writers are agreed in giving it the opposite meaning, although doubtful and divided as to the etymology. As the form is evidently that of a participle passive, the best translation seems to be impoverished, and the best construction that pro posed by Gesenius in his Lehrgebaude (p. 821), impoverished by oblation or religious gifts. It is true, that in his Commentary and Lexicons he abandons this construction, on the ground of an objection made by one of his reviewers, that it does not suit the context, and adopts the one which most succeeding writers have repeated, viz., poor as to offering, that is, too poor to make a costly one, or, as Cocceius slightly modifies the sense, frugalior oblationis. To this there is a strong philological objection, that nO-IIJjl, though a very common word, is nowhere else applied to an image, and that an image could not be naturally called an offering. On the other hand, the objection from the context, so submissively allowed by

Gesenius, is not only vague but founded on a superficial view of the con nection. To say that the poor man uses wood instead of gold and silver, is coherent and appropriate, but far less significant and striking than to say, that the man who has already reduced himself to want by lavish gifts to his idol, still continues his devotions, and as he no longer can afford an image of the precious metals is resolved at least to have a durable wooden one. Thus understood, the verse adds to the general description a particular trait highly expressive of the folly of idolaters. The desertion by Gesenius of his first opinion differs from that mentioned in the exposi tion of ver. 12 in this respect, that while he there relinquishes his former ground as having been assumed through inadvertance and mistake, he here continues to assert that what he first proposed is still the most grammati cal construction (as evinced by the analogy of chap. i. 20, 1 Kings xxii. 10, Ex. xxviii. 11, &c.), but abandons it in deference to an unmeaning and gratuitous objection. The obscurity of this phrase, even to the ancient writers, is apparent from its omission in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and from Jerome's explanation of ammchan as a kind of wood. — In the next clause, the Vulgate makes Q3P1 tiHPI the subject of the verb (artifex sapiens querit quomodo, &c. ; but the common construction is more natural, be cause it makes the conduct of the devotee still the subject of description. Wise is here used in what appears to be its primary meaning of artistically skilful. (See the note on chap. iii. 3, p. 1 10.) V? may either be reflexive (for himself), as some consider it in ver. 11, and as all admit ">[? to be in ver. 9, or it may be refered to ¥%• Having secured the stuff, he seeks for it a skilful workman. As ¥% is an obvious antecedent, and as the reflexive use of the pronouns is comparatively rare, this last construction seems entitled to the preference. — Although to prepare is a very common meaning of P?n, its primary sense of setting upright or erecting is entitled to the preference, not only upon etymological grounds, but because it agrees bettor with the

following expression, 1318* SO, which stands in antithesis, not to the pre paration of the image, but to its erection or establishment, in which the previous preparation is of course implied. — As kinds of wood regarded by the ancients as perfectly durable, Grotius enumerates the cypress, grape vine, juniper, and mulberry; Rosenmuller the olive, cedar, fir, and oak; to which Gesenius adds the lotus and the fig-tree. There is no need, how ever, of supposing a specific reference to any one or more of these varieties. 21. Will you not know? it-ill you not hear? has it not been told you from the first? hare you not understood the foundations (or from the foundations) of the earth? The tenses of the verbs in the first clause have been variously and arbitrarily explained by different interpreters. The English Version and some others exchange both the futures for praeters (have ye not known? have ye not heard?) without any satisfactory reason or authority. So far is such a reason from being afforded by the addition of the preterite "1J H in this place, or the use of the praeters fiJHJ and fiVftW in ver. 28, that it rather proves the contrary, and makes it necessary to retain the strict sense of the futures. Still more capricious is the explanation of the first verb as a present, and the second as a praeter, by the Vulgate and some modern, writers (do you not know? have you not heard f). With as much or as little reason Cocceius combines the present and the future (do you not know? will you not hear?). There is less objection to the rendering of both verbs in the present tense by Luther (know you not? hear you not?). But the most satisfactory, because the safest and most regular construction, is the

strict one given in the Septuagint (oi yvuHKafa; oux axwasadt;), revived by Lowth (will you not know? icill you not hear?}, and approved by Ewald (0 icollt ihr nicht erkennen? o wollt ihr nicht horenf). The clause is then not a mere expression of surprise at their not knowing, but of concern or indignation at their being unwilling to know. There is no inconsistency between this explanation of the first two questions and the obvious meaning of the third, because the proof of their unwillingness to hear and know was the fact of their having been informed from the beginning. — t^N"lp is not a mere indefinite expression meaning long ago, of old, or the like, but must refer to some specific terminus a quo, which Aben Ezra takes to be the beginning of life. This would be more appropriate if an individual were the object of address. Others understand it to mean, from the beginning of your national existence, which supposes too exclusive a reference to the Jews in exile. Neither of these objections lies against the reference of the words to the beginning of the human race, or of the world itself, which is, moreover, favoured by the subsequent appeal to the creation. Kirnchi explains £'K~IE> as an allusion to the cabbalah or Jewish tradition, and Hitzig likewise thinks there is a twofold appeal to nature and tradition, or, as Calvin more scripturally states it, to the word and works of God. But although this affords a good sense, it may perhaps be too great a refinement on the plain import of the words, which would seem to refer simply to the testimony of external nature, and to mean that they who question the exist ence or supremacy of one God are ivithout excuse, as Paul says, because the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, to wit, his eternal power and God head. (Rom. i. 20. Compare Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 24.) — In the last clause Gesenius and most of the later writers connect the verb directly with the noun, as meaning, hare you not considered (or have you not understood) the foundations of the earth? Others, adhering to the Masoretic accents, which forbid the immediate grammatical conjunction of the verb and noun, prefix a preposition to the latter. Have you not understood (from) the founda tions of the earth? The particle thus supplied may either be a particle of time, as explained by Junius and Ewald (since the creation), or indicate the source of knowledge (from the creation), as explained by Calvin. The latter is more obvious and simple in itself, but the other is favoured by the parallelism, as B>'&O!0 is universally allowed to have a temporal meaning. Lowth's emendation of the text, by the actual insertion of the preposition, is superfluous, and therefore inadmissible. — By the foundations of the earth we are not to understand a literal description of its structure, nor an allusion to the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, upon which Kimchi here inserts a dissertation, but as a substitution of the concrete for the abstract, the foundations of the earth being put, by a natural and common figure, for its being founded, i.e. its creation.

22. The (one) sitting on (or over) the circle of the earth, and its inha bitants (are) as grasshoppers (or locusts) ; the one spreading like a -veil (or aiming) the heavens, and he stretches them out like the tent to dwell in. The relative construction, he that sitteth, is substantially correct, but it is better to retain, as far as possible, the form of the original, as given above. The words may then be construed with the verb of existence understood, as in the English Version (it is he that sitteth), or with the last verb in the pre ceding verse (have ye not considered the one sitting? &c.). — The circle of the earth may either mean the earth itself, or the heavens by which it is sur mounted and encompassed. (Solomon Ben Melek, pfiq jsic? 5jl)J.) This

expression has been urged with equal propriety by Gill as a proof that the Prophet was acquainted with the true shape of the earth, and by Knobel as a proof that he had a false idea of ths heavens. On the absurdity of such conclusions, see p. 20. As a parallel to this may be mentioned the remark of Hendewerk, that God is here described as bearing just the same proportion to mankind that the latter bear to insects! The same comparison occurs in Num. xiii. 33. 23H is now commonly explained to mean a species of locust, which of course has no effect upon the point of the comparison, the essential idea being that of bestiola- (Calvin) or minuta animantia (Grotius). — p5*! is properly a fine cloth, here applied, as Lowth supposes, to the awning spread over the open courts of oriental houses. It has been disputed whether the last words of the verse mean for himself to dwell in, or for man to dwell in. But they really form part, not of the direct description, but of the comparison, like a tent pitched for dwelling in, an idea distinctly expressed in the translation both by Henderson (a dwellingtent) and Ewald (das Wohnzelt). — With this verse compare chaps, xlii. 5, xliv. 24 ; Job ix. 8 ; Ps. civ. 2.

23. The (one) bringing (literally giving or putting) princes to nothing, the judges (or rulers) of the earth like emptiness (or desolation') he has made. Not only nature but man, not only individuals but nations, not only na tions but their rulers, are completely subject to the power of God. The Septuagint understands J'N? as meaning so as to rule over nothing (wg ovBzv ci^nv), implying the loss of their authority. The Vulgate strangely renders Q^fn secretorum scrutatores, a version probably suggested by the Chaldee n, a secret.

24. Not even planted were they, not even soicn, not even rooted in the ground their stock, and he just breathed (or blew) upon them, and they withered, and a whirlwind like the chaff' shall take them up (or away). The Targum gives ?? ?)X the sense of though (v'BX), Aben Ezra and Kimchi that of as if O'^S), which last is adopted by Luther and Calvin. Gesenius and the later German writers all agree that the compound phrase has here the sense of scarcely. N by itself denotes accession, and may sometimes be expressed by yea or yes, sometimes by also or even. It is not impossible that in the present case the *!*? in one clause, and the correspond ing D3 in the other, were intended to connect the statements of this verse with the one before it. As if he had said, not only can God ultimately bring them to destruction, but also when they are not yet planted, &c. ; not only by slower and more potent means, but also by breathing on them. Another possible solution is that yes and no are here combined to express the idea of uncertainty, as if he had said, they are and are not sown, planted, &c., i.e. when they are scarcely sown, or when it is still doubtful whether they are sown. But perhaps the simplest and most natural con struction is the one assumed above in the translation, where the phrase is taken as substantially equivalent to our not even, yielding the same sense in the end with the usual modern version scarcely. The future form which some give to the verbs is wholly arbitrary. He is describing the destruc tion of the great ones of the earth as already effected ; and even if the practers be prater ita prophetica, there is no more need of giving them the future form in English than in Hebrew. The transition to the future in the last clause is analogous to that in ver 19, and has the same effect of shewing that the point of observation is an intermediate one between the beginning and the end of the destroying process. The essential meaning

of the whole verse is, that God can extirpate them, not only in the end, but in a moment; not only in the height of their prosperity, but long before they have attained it. J. D. Michaelis supposes a particular allu sion to the frequency with which the highest families became extinct, so that there is not now on earth a royal house which is the lineal representa tive of any race that reigned in ancient times. It is possible, however, that the words may have reference to the national existence of Israel as a nation, the end of which, with the continued and more glorious existence of the church, independent of all national restrictions, may be said to con stitute the great theme of these prophecies.

25. And now to (whom] loill ye liken me, and (toivhom) shall I be equal ? saith the Holy One. He winds up his argument by coming back to the triumphant challenge of ver. 18. This repetition does not seem to have struck any one as indicating a strophical arrangement, although such a conclusion would be quite as valid as in many other cases. The indirect construction of the second verb as a subjunctive (that I may or should be equal), although preferred by Luther, Calvin, and most modern writers, is much less simple in itself, and less consistent with the genius and usage of the language, than its strict translation as a future, continuing directly the interrogation of the other clause. — The epithet Holy is in this connection well explained by J. D. Michaelis as including all that distinguishes be tween God and his creatures, so that the antithesis is perfect. (Compare chap. vi. 3, vol. i. page 147.) £

26. Lift tip on high your eyes and see — who hath created these ? — (and who is] the (one) bringing out by number their host ? — to all of them by name will he call— from abundance of might and (because) strong in power — not onefaileth (literally a man is not mused or found wanting). The same exhortation to lift up the eyes occurs elsewhere in Isaiah (chap, xxxvii. 23, xlix. 18, Ix. 4. — The construction is not, see (him) who created these, or, see who created these, but, as the accents indicate, tee, belold, the heavens and the heavenly bodies, and then as a distinct interrogation, u-hocreated these ? There is more doult as to the question whether the following words continue the interrogation or contain the answer to it. In the former case, the sense is, Who created these ? (who in) the (one) bringing out, &c. ? In the latter case, Who created these ? The (one) bringing out, &c. This last is favoured by the analogy of chap. xli. 4, 26, xlii. 24, and other places, where a similar question is immediately succeeded 1 y the answer. But in this case such an answer would be almost unmeaning, since it would merely say that he who rules the heavenly bodies made them. It is much me>re natural to understand the last clause as completing the description. — To bring out is a military term, as appears from chap, xliii. 17, and 2 Sarn. v. 2. It is applied as here to the host of heaven in Job. xxxviii. 32. — Instead of by number, Zwingle and Henderson under stand the phrase to mean in number, i. e. in great numbers, just as n means with might or mightily. But the common explanation of the phrase as denoting order and arrangement is favoured not only by the military form of the whole description, but by the parallel expression 'by name, \\hich is not used to qualify the noun but the verb, and to shew in what way the commander of this mighty host exerts his power, in what way he brings out and calls his soldiers, viz., by number and byname. The reference of these clauses to the rising of the htavenly bodies makes them too specific, and confounds direct dese-riptien with comparison. The sense is thiit the fitars are like an army which its leader brings out and enumerate?, the

particular points of the resemblance being left to the imagination. The explanation of fOX by Gesenius and others as an abstract meaning strength is neither justified by usage nor required by the context, since the word may be applied as a descriptive epithet to God, who is the subject of the sentence. It is an old and singular opinion that the strength here spoken of is that residing in the stars themselves. 1;!$?. N? may also be regarded as a military phrase. The feminine form of the same ex pression occurs in a different application, chap, xxxiv. 16. (See p. 81.)

27. Why wilt thou say, 0 Jacob, and ivhy (thus] speak, 0 Israel ? Hid den is my way from Jehovah, and from my God my cause will pass (or is about to pass) away. The future verbs in this verse have been rendered as variously as those in ver. 21. The precise question asked by the Pro phet is not why hast thou said, why dost thou say, or why shouldest thou say, but why wilt thou still go on to say, implying that it has been said, was still said, and would be said again. — The two names of the patriarch are here combined, as in many other cases, to describe his offspring. — Hidden may either mean unknown, or neglected, or forgotten, in which last sense it is used below in chap. Ixv. 16. The same verb is applied in Gen. xxxi. 49, to persons who are absent from each other, and of course out of sight. — Way is a common figure for the course of life, experience, or what the world calls fortune, destiny or fate. — The figure in the last clause is forensic, the idea being that of a cause or suit dismissed, lost sight of, or neglected by the judge. The expression is analogous to that in chap. i. 23, where it is said of the unjust judges, that the cause of the widow does not come unto them or before them. (See p. 91.) The state of mind described is a sceptical despondency as to the fulfilment of God's promises. Since this form of unbelief is more or less familiar to the personal experience of believers in all ages, and the terms of the expostulation here are not restricted to any siugle period in the history of Israel, the grave conclusions drawn by Gesenius and Knobel with respect to the prevalence of an epicurean scepticism at the period of the Babylonish exile, have an air of solemn trifling, and the proofs of later date which they afford are " like unto them."

28. Hast thou not known ? haul thou not heard ? The God of eternity (or everlasting God), Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, will not faint, and will not tire ; there is no search (with respect) to his understanding. Most of the modern writers prefer Lowth's construction, that Jehovah (is) the everlasting God ; but this, by making several distinct propositions, im pairs the simplicity of the construction. The translation of the futures in the present or potential form (does not or cannot faint], though not erroneous, is inadequate, since both these senses are included in the pro miscuous form or future proper. That he will not faint or tire, implies sufficiently in this case that he neither does nor can, while it expresses his unwillingness to do so. The ends of the earth is a common Hebrew phrase for its limits and all that they include. The Septuagint makes the Pro phet say that Jehovah will not hunger (w Ktivdau). — This verse contains an answer to the unbelieving fears expressed in that before it, which ascribed to God an imperfection or infirmity with which he is not chargeable. The last clause may either be a general assertion that he cannot leave his people unprotected through a want of understanding and of knowledge, or, as Hitzig supposes, a suggestion that his methods of proceeding, though inscrutable, are infinitely wise, and that the seeming inconsistency between his words and deeds, far from arguing unfaithfulness or weakness upon his part, does but prove our incapacity to understand or fathom his pror

found designs. Even supposing that the former is the strict sense of the words, the latter is implicitly contained in them.

29. Giving to the faint (or weary) strength, and to the powerless might icill he increase. He is not only strong in himself, but the giver of strength to others, or, to state it as an argument a fortiori, he who is the only source of strength to others must be strong himself, and able to fulfil his promises. — The construction is similar to that in vers. 22, 23, not excepting the transition from the participle to the finite verb. \T$ is not strictly a peri phrasis for the present tense, as rendered in the English Version, but agrees with Jehovah as the subject of the preceding verse. The position of this word at the beginning and of the corresponding verb at the end of the verse is emphatic and climactic, the first meaning simply to give, the other to give more, or abundantly. — The Septuagint has, giving to the hungry strength, and to those that grieve not sorrow.

30. And (yet) weary shall youths be and faint, and chosen (youths) shall be weakened, be weakened. There is here an obvious allusion to the terms of ver. 28. What is there denied of God is here affirmed, not only of men in general, but of the stoutest and most vigorous, aptly represented by the young men chosen for military service, which appears to be a better ex planation of D^T-in? than the one given by Gesenius, viz. choice, or chosen, in reference to personal beauty. (Compare chap. ix. 16, vol. i. p. 216.) Fvirst, with still less probability, supposes the essential meaning to be that of growth or adolescence. That the prominent idea here conveyed is that of manly strength and vigour, is not questioned. — For the evidence that ?£'?3 strictly means to grow weak or be weakened, see 1 Sam. ii. 4, Zech. xii. 8, and Gesenius's Thesaurus, torn. ii. p. 720. — 'The intensive repeti tion of the verb may either be expressed by the addition of an adverb, as in the English Version (utterly fall), or retained in the translation as above.

31. And (on the other hand) those waiting for Jehovah shall gain new strength; they shall raise the pinion like the eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint. The marked antithesis between this verse and that before it, justifies the use of but in English, although not in the original. HJi? is to wait for or expect, implying faith and patience. This is also the old English meaning of the phrase to wait upon, as applied to servants who await their master's orders ; but in modern usage the idea of personal service or attendance has become predominant, so that the English phrase no longer represents the Hebrew one. Jehovah's waiters, which is Ewald's bold and faithful version (J alive s Harrer), would convey, if not a false, an inadequate idea to the English reader. The class of persons meant to be described are those who shew their confidence in God's ability and willingness to execute his promises, by patiently awaiting their fulfilment. The restriction of these words to the exiles in Babylon is entirely gratuitous. Although applicable, as a general proposition, to that case among others, they admit of a more direct and striking application to the case of those who under the old dispensation kept its end in view, and still " waited for the consolation of Israel," and "looked for redemption in Jerusalem " (Luke i. 25, 38). — The phrase translated they shall gain new strength properly means they shall exchange strength; but the usage of the verb determines its specific meaning to be that of changing for the better or improving. The sense is therefore correctly given in the English Ver sion (they shall renew their strength). — Of the next phrase there are three distinct interpretations. 1. The English Bible follows Luther in explain ing- VPP'. as"the future Kal, and 138 as a qualifying noun, equivalent to the

ablative of instrument in Latin (they shall mount up with wings). This construction is also adopted by Junius, Cocceius, Vitringa, Augusti, Hen derson, and Barnes. 2. Tbe second opinion is expressed in Lowtb's trans lation: they shall put, forth fresh feathers like the moulting eagle. The reference is then to the ancient belief of the eagle's great longevity, and of its frequently renewing its youth (Ps. ciii. 5). The rabbinical tradition, as recorded by Saadias, is, that the eagle, at the end of every tenth year, soars so near the sun as to be scorched and cast into the sea, from which it then emerges with fresh plumage, till at the end of the tenth decade, or a century complete, it sinks to rise no more. This explanation of the phrase before us is given not only by the Septuagint (xnycxpuriaovtriv'), and the Vulgate (assimient pennas), but by the Targum and Peshito, although more obscurely. In later times it is approved by Grotius, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and De Wette. The principal objections to it are, that -l?!^. has nowhere else the sense of putting forth (although the root does sometimes mean to sprout or grow), and that "i?K does not denote feathers in general, but a wing-feather or a pinion in particular. 3. A third construction, simpler than the first, and more agreeable to usage than the second, gives the verb its ordinary sense of causing to ascend or raising, and the noun its proper sense of pinion, and connects the two directly as a transitive verb and its object, they shall raise the pinion (or the winy] like the eagles. This construction is adopted by Calvin, Hensler, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, Umbreit, Hendewerk, and Knobel; and, though charged by Beck with enormous flatness, is even more poetical than that which supposes an allusion, not to the soaring, but the moulting of the eagle. In the last clause the verbs WJ and *$£ are introduced together for the third time in a beautiful antithesis. In ver. 28 they are applied to Jehovah, in ver. 30 to the strongest and most vigorous of men, as they are in themselves, and here to the waiters for Jehovah, the believers in his pro mises, who glory in infirmity that his strength may be made perfect in their weakness (2 Cor. xii. 9). — Knobel's comment on this promise is charac teristic of his age and school. After condescendingly shewing that the thought is a correct one (der Gedanke ist richtig), he explains himself by saying, that trust in divine help does increase the natural powers, and that this effect is viewed by the pious writer ({. e. Isaiah) as a direct gift of God in requital of the confidence reposed in him. All this, though absolutely true, is relatively false, so far as it implies superiority in point of elevation and enlargement, on the part of the expounder as imagining himself to be more than a prophet (Luke xi. 9).

CHAPTER XLI.

UNTIL the ends of Israel's national existence are accomplished, that existence must continue [in spite of hostile nations and their gods, who shall all perish sooner than the chosen people, vers. 1-16. However feeble Israel may be in himself, Jehovah will protect him, and raise up the necessary instruments for his deliverance and triumph, vers. 17-29.

1. Be silent to me, 0 islands, and the nations shall gain new strength ; they shall approach, then shall they speak, together to the jadgment-seat will we draw near. Having proved the impotence of idols in a direct address to Israel, Jehovah now summons the idolaters themselves to enter into controversy with him. The restriction of islands here to certain parts of Europe and Asia seems preposterous. The challenge is a general one

directed to the whole heathen world, and islands is a poetical variation for lands or at the most for maritime lands or sea-coasts. Silence in this con nection implies attention or the fact of listening, which is expressed in Job xxxiii. 31. The imperative form at the beginning gives an imperative sense likewise to the future, which might therefore be translated let them approach, &c. There is an obvious allusion in the first clause to the promise in chap, xl. 31. As if he had said: they that hope in Jehovah shall renew their strength; let those who refuse, renew theirs as they can. — The particle then makes the passage more graphic by bringing distinctly into view the successive steps of the process. This seems to recommend the explanation of D3£'P as a local rather than an abstract noun. The same judicial or forensic figure is applied to contention between God and man by Job (ix. 19, xx. 32). Lowth's paraphrase of this verse is more than usually languid and diluted: e. g. let the distant nations repair to me with new force of

mind let us enter into solemn debate. The same writer reads

It^inn on the authority of the Septuagint (fyxaaitpafa), and says that the same mistake occurs in Zeph. iii. 17. But the Hiphil of KHH does not occur elsewhere, and the common text is confirmed by Aquila (xtfytbaari) and Symmachus (ai^aari), as well as by the other ancient versions.

2. Who hath raised up (or awakened) from the east? Righteousness shall call him to its foot ; it shall give nations before him, and cause him to tread upon kings ; it shall give (them) as dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow. The simplest construction of the first clause is that which assumes an abrupt transition from the form of interrogation to that of prediction. The speaker, as it were, interrupts his own question before it is complete in order to supply what must otherwise be presupposed. Instead of going on to ask who brought the event to pass, he pauses to describe the event itself. The same sense is obtained, but with a change of form, by supplying a relative and continuing the interrogation. Who raised up from the east (him whom) righteousness, &c. The old construction, which makes righteousness the object of the verb, and regards it as an ab stract used for a concrete (righteousness for righteous one), is wholly arbitrary and at variance with the Masoretic accents. Gesenius and the later Ger man writers understand the clause to mean whom victory meets at every step. This new sense of P}¥ is entirely gratuitous, and violates the fundamental laws of lexicography, by multiplying senses without any necessity and con founding the definition of a term with its application. Here and elsewhere PHV means the righteousness of God as manifested in his providence, his dealings with his people and their enemies. (See chap. i. 27, vol. i. p. 93.) Because it suggests, in such connections, the idea of its consequences or effects, it no more follows that this is the proper meaning of the word, than that wrath means suffering, because the wrath of God causes the suf ferings of the guilty. Another objection to this version of the clause is its giving K}P. the less usual sense of meet, and l^p1? that of at every step, which is certainly not justified by the obscure and dubious analogy of Gen. xxx. 30, especially when taken in connection with the usage of the same phrase elsewhere to mean in the footsteps, train, suite, or retinue of any one. (See 1 Sam. xxv. 42 ; Job xviii. 11 ; Hab. iii. 5.) In his lexicons, Gesenius admits the idea to be that of following, and actually introduces that verb into the clause, a virtual concession that his own translation of

?i?. is at variance not only with usage but the context. To call to one's foot is a Hebrew idiom for calling to one's service, or summoning to take a place among one's followers. This act is here ascribed to the divine righteousness as a personified attribute. The other verbs may agree with the same subject or directly with Jehovah. — In the last clause Gesenius and the later Germans make the suffixes collective, and by his sword, his bow, understand the sword and bow of the nations or their kings. As the modern writers are so much accustomed to reject the old interpretations with con tempt, it may not be amiss to mention here, that this construction is as old as Kmichi, and that it is set aside by Vitringa as an e.rpositio violenta qua nikit sani prtrfert. The enallage of number is in fact too violent to be assumed without necessity. Vitringa himself supposes the sword and bow to be those of the conqueror, and to be described as like dust or chaff in rapidity of motion. But the image, which is that of dust or chaff driven by the wind, is always used elsewhere in a passive and unfavourable sense, never as expressive of activity or energy. On the whole, there seems to be no construction more free from objection than the old one of the Eng lish Version, the Targum and the Vulgate, which gives \W. the same sense, the same subject, and the same object as in the preceding clause. The difficulty which arises from supposing an ellipsis of the preposition before sword and bow, may be removed by taking these words as adverbial or quali fying nouns, a Hebrew idiom of constant occurrence. This construction becomes still more natural if we understand the clause to mean that he makes the enemy like dust or chaff with or by means of his sword and bow. In that case, the verb may be construed either with nirv p^iy or the con queror himself. The construction may be rendered clearer by restoring the Hebrew collocation. Kings he shall, subdue (and) shall make like dust {with) his sword and like driven chaff" (with) his bow. — The explanation of the futures as preterites is wholly arbitrary, and even the descriptive present appears inadmissible when the strict sense is so perfectly appropriate. — The question, whose appearance is predicted in this verse, has been always a subject of dispute. Eusebius, Theodoret, and Procopius understand it as describing the triumphs of the true religion, or the gospel, here called righteousness. Cyril and Jerome apply it to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, as the Righteous One, or the Lord our Righteousness. Cocceius stands Alone in his application of the verse to the apostle Paul. The Jews make Abraham the subject of the passage, excepting Aben Ezra, who, with Vit ringa and all the latest writers, understands it as a prophecy of Cyrus. The inappropriateness of the terms employed to our Saviour or the gospel, to Abraham or Paul, is almost self-evident, and equally clear is its appropriate ness to the case of Cyrus. The argument in favour of the latter applica tion, drawn from the analogy of chaps, xlv. 1, xlvi. 11, is less conclusive, because he is there expressly named. The truth appears to be that this is a more general intimation of a great eventful movement from the East, which is afterwards repeated with specific reference to Cyrus and his con quests. It might even be supppsed without absurdity that there is here an Allusion to the general progress of the human race, of conquest, civilization, and religion, from the East to the West. Umbreit supposes a specific reference to the course of the sun, from which the name of Cyrus was de rived, as we shall see.

3. He shall pursue them ; he shall pats (in) peace (or safety) ; a path with his feel he shall not go. There is the same objection here as in the preced ing verse to the explanation of the verbs as preterites ; but most interpre ters, not content with this, make the future in the last clause a pluperfect (thi1 way that he had not gone with his feet). This method of translation involves the whole subject in uncertainty. If the past and the future

senses may be interchanged at pleasure and without necessity, the interpre ter may make the author say what he pleases. In the case before us, J. D. Michaelis adheres to"the proper future sense, and explains the clause to mean that he shall not have occasion to retrace his steps. But as this, like the common explanation before mentioned, leaves the phrase with his feet pleonastic and unmeaning, the preference is due to Ewald's supposition that the clause describes the swiftness of his motions, as flying rather than walking on foot. This, which would be natural and striking, even in itself considered, is confirmed by the analogy of Daniel viii. 5, where we read that an he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground.

4. Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the begin ning ? I Jehorah, the first and with the last, I (am) he. Another con struction of the verse, preferred by the latest writers, includes the last part of the first clause in answer to the question. Who hath wrought and done it f He that calleth the generations, &c. But besides the unequal distribu tion of the verse which thus arises, this construction makes the answer speak of God both in the first and second person, and gives to the indefi nite Nip the sense of the emphatic N^pn, neither of which departures from the usus loquendi, though admissible in case of necessity, ought to be assumed without it. — Calling the generations may either mean calling them into existence or proclaiming them, i. e. predicting ' them ; probably the latter, since the event itself, although it proved a superhuman agency, did not prove it to be that of Jehovah, which could only be established by the fulfilment of predictions uttered in his name. With the last, does not simply mean the last, which is the form employed in chap. xli. 21—25, xlvi. 8-10, but coexistent with the last, a mode of expression which would seem to imply that although Jehovah existed before all other beings, he will not outlast them all. K-in *3£ is explained by some of the older writers as meaning / am God ; by the latest, / am the same (i. e. unchangeable) ; but the simplest construction is the common one, I am he. i.e. the being to whom the interrogation has respect, / am he who he has icrought and done it.

5. The isles have seen it and are afraid, the ends of the earth tremble; they have approached and come. Some regard this as a description of the effect produced by the foregoing argument, but others as a part of the argument itself, drawn from the effect of the appearance of the person mentioned in ver. 2. As an instance of the length to which specific historical interpreta tion can be carried by the new as well as by the old school of interpreters, it may be mentioned that Hendewerk, with the first book of Herodotus before him, explains islands here to mean the Greek states in the west of Asia Minor, — their approach, — the message which they sent to Cyrus after the defeat of Croesus, — the mutual encouragement described in the next verse, — the deliberations of the Panionion! All this, however, he supposes to be here described, not by a prophet in the proper sense, but by a con temporary writer.

6. A man his neighbour (i.e. one another) they will help, and to his brother (one) irill say, Be strong ! This general description is then filled up, or carried out into detail in the next verse, both containing a sarcastic description of the vain appeal of the idolaters to the protection of their tutelary deities.

7. And the carver has strengthened the gilder, the smoother with the ham mer, the smiter on the anvil; he says (or is saying) of the solder, It is good; and he has strengthened it with nails; it shall not be moved. The

sarcasm consists in making the idolaters dependent upon idols, which are themselves dependent upon common workmen and the most trivial mecha nical operations for their form and their stability. Hence the particular enumeration of the different artificers employed in the manufacture of these

deities. J. D. Michaelis explains DV? D?.n to mean the treader on the bellows, i.e. the bellows-blower. — The text of the English Version has, it is ready for the soldering; but the other construction is now universally adopted. The last clause implies that the strength of the idol is not in itself, but in the nails that keep it in its place, or hold its parts together.

8. And thou Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. The prominent idea is still that of the contrast be tween Israel as the people of God, and the heathen as his enemies. The insertion of the substantive verb in the first clause, thou art Israel my servant (Vitringa), or thon Israel art my servant (English Version), is un necessary. This whole verse with the next may be understood as a description of the object of address, or of the person to whom the exhorta tion in ver. 10 is directed. The two names of Jacob are again combined in application to his progeny. The race is described as God's servant and his elect, or, combining the two characters, his chosen servant, chosen to be his servant. . Vitringa understands this last term as including the idea of a worshipper or votary ; and Hitzig compares it with Aidant art us, a servant of Astarte, and the favourite Arabic name Abdullah or a wor shipper of Allah. — The people are here described not only as the sons of Jacob, but of Abraham. I|?L]'^ cannot of itself denote an object of divine love, as it is explained in the Septuagint (ov jjyacnjira), nor can it be both active and passive, amans and amatus, as Vitringa supposes. The latter idea is implied but not expressed. The same honourable title is be stowed on Abraham in 2 Chron. xx. 7 : James ii. 23, and in the common parlance of the Arabs, by whom he is usually styled <jjjl Jj^*- the friend of God, or absolutely, JjJ^l the Friend.

9. Thou whom I have grasped from, the ends of the earth, and from its joints (or sides) have called thee, and said to thee, My servant (art) thou I have chosen thee and not rejected thee. The description of the object of address is still continued. The essential idea here expressed is that of election and separation from the rest of men, a bringing near of those who •were afar off. Interpreters have needlessly disputed whether the vocation of Israel in Abraham, or at the exodus, is here particularly meant ; since both are really included in a general description of the calling and election of the people. The objection that Israel distinguished from Abraham in ver. 8, is of no weight except against the supposition (if maintained by any) that Abraham himself is here the object of address. The application of analogous expressions to the exodus from Egypt, in Deut. xxxix. 10 ; Ezek. xx. 5, only proves that this was one of the great crises or junctures in the progress of the people, at which their election or vocation was de clared, and as it were renewed. The question in what sense Egypt could be called the ends of the earth, is as trilling as the answer which some give it, that it was remote from Babylon. The phrase in question is a common idiomatic expression for remoteness, often used without reference to parti cular localities (see chap. v. 26, xiii. 2). The idea meant to be conveyed is identical with that expressed by Paul when he says (Eph. ii. 13), IpsT; oi voTt (>'<TZ^ fj.ax.yuv iyy-jy lyev^Tjrg. The translation / have taken is inade quate, the Hebrew verb meaning to hold/ast, and the idea of removal being

rather implied than expressed. The parallel expression (Hv^V^) is ex plained by Gesenius from the analogy of?)?&?, side, by Maurer from that of

7vyN, a joint, which seems to be also presupposed in the version of Symmachus (ayy.w';i<). The rabbinical interpretation, chief men, is founded on the analogy of Exod. xxiv. 11. Some of the Jewish writers understand IP as meaning in spite of, others in preference to, but both without authority. — Lowth's translation of T^?^? as a future is entirely arbitrary, and over looks the peculiar Hebrew idiom of saying the same thing positively and negatively. (See chap. iii. 9, vol. i. p. 114.)

: 10. Fear thou not, for I (am] loith thee; look not around, for I (am] thy God; I have strengthened thee, yea I have helped thce, yea I have upheld thee with my right hand of righteousness. This may be regarded as the conclusion of the sentence beginning in ver. 8, as the address to which the two preceding verses are an introduction. — Vitringa derives Pfl^n from V.W. Ewald makes it an orthographical variation of nt*Flt^fl (Gen. xxiv% 21). Gesenius and most other modern writers make it the Hithpael of HJJ^, and explain it to mean, do not look around fearfully as if for help. Hitzig compares it with the Homeric verb craTra/i/w. — The *]$, which might be rendered nay more, seems to give the last clause the form of a climax, although such a progression cannot easily be traced in the thoughts. The English Version, which adheres to the strict translation of the preterites in ver. 9, here gratuitously employs the future form, which wholly changes the complexion of the sentence. It is not a simple promise, but a reference to what God had already done and might therefore be expected to do again. The present form employed by Bosenmiiller (corroboro te) is less objection able than the future, but in no respect preferable to the strict translation. — Equally arbitrary is the introduction by the later Germans of their favourite idea that P}V in these prophecies means prosperity or success, whereas it does not even suggest that notion, except so far as it flows from the righteoiisncss of God as an effect from its cause. Hitzig's translation gracious arm is at once a departure from the old and the new interpretation. It is not even necessary to assume with Lowth that P}>' here denotes the faith fulness of God, and to translate accordingly my faithful right hand. The true sense is the strict one of righteousness or justice, the appeal to which in such connections has already been explained. (See above, on ver. 2.) The right hand of my righteousness supposes the attribute to be personified; a supposition which may be avoided by referring the suffix to the whole complex phrase, my right hand of righteousness or just right hand. — As specimens of ultra-specific exposition, without any foundation in the text, it may be mentioned that Knobel understands this as an exhortation to the Jewish exiles not to be afraid of Cyrus.

11. Lo, ashamed and confounded shall l)e all those incensed (or inflamed) against thee; they shall be as nothing (or as though they were not), and destroyed shall be thy men of strife (or they that strive with thce). Not only shall Israel himself escape, but his enemies shall perish. To be ashamed and confounded, here as usual, includes the frustration of their plans and disappointment of their hopes. On the meaning of as nothing, see above, p. 108. The construction of the phrase thy men of strife, is the same as that of my right hand of righteousness in ver. 10.

12. Thou shalt seek them and not find them, thy men of quarrel; they shall be as nothing and as nought, thy men of war, (i. e. they who quarrelled and made war with thee). The first clause contains a common Hebrew

figure for complete disappearance and destruction. (See Ps. xxxvii. 36 ; Jer. 1. 20 ; Amos viii. 12 ; Hos. v. (5). HK and D?N strictly denote nonexistence and annihilation. (See above, on chap. xl. 17).

13. For I, Jehovih thy God, (am] holding fast thy right hand; the (one] saying to thee, Fear not, I have helped thce, i. c. I, who command thee not to fear, have already helped thee, or secured thy safety. J. D. Michaelis gives PVnp the causative sense of strengthening ; but this sense is rare, except iu a few of the later books, and the other is recommended here, not only by the general agreement of interpreters, but by the analogy of ver. 9.

14. Fear not, tltou worm Jaco]> and ye men of Israel ; I have helped thee, sait!t, Jehovah, and thy Redeemer, the. Holy One of Israel, The same en couragement is here repeated, but with a direct contrast between Israel's weakness and the strength of God. — The feminine form of the verb has reference to that of the noun riyTifl. This epithet expresses not merely the contempt of others, as in Ps. xxii. 7, much less the Babylonian oppression of the Jews, as J. H. Michaelis and others think, but the real meanness and umvorthiness of man, as in Job xxv. 0. As the parallelism seems to require an analogous expression of contempt in the next clause, some either read *np (dead mtn) with Aquila (rsdviZirs;), Theodotion (vsxaoi), and Jerome (qui mortal estis ex Israel), or regard T"? as a modification of that word denoting mortals. Vitringa and Hit/ig gain the same end by explaining it as an ellipsis for 13?P ^DP, men of number, i. e. few men, Ps. cv. 12. So the Septuagint has oXiyoarog, but omits ivorm altogether. Ewald completes the parallelism in a very summary manner, by reading ?^'f ^^"1> and translating it gekrummtes Israel. Maurer, on the other hand, discovers that the parallelism is ^not always perfect, and advises the reader to translate it boldly (redde intrepide) raeu of Israel, •which seems to be the simplest and most obvious course, leaving the acces sory idea of fewness or weakness to suggest itself. — The word ?^; redeemer, would suggest to a Hebrew reader the kleas of a near kinsman (Lev. xxv. 24, 25) and of deliverance from bondage by the payment of a ransom. Its highest application occurs here and in Job xix. 25. The reference to the Son of God, although it might not be perceptible of old, is now rendered necessary by the knowledge that this act, even under the old dispensation, is always referred to the same person of the Trinity. The substitution of the future for the preterite by the English and some other Versions has already been seen to be gratuitous and arbitrary.

15. Behold I have placed thee for (i. e. appointed thee to be, or changed thee into) a threshing-sledge, sharp, new, possessed of teeth (or edges) ; thou shall thresh mountains and beat (them) small, and hills like the chaff shalt thou place (or make). The erroneous idea that he simply promises to fur nish Israel with the means of threshing mountains, has arisen from the equivocal language of the English Version, I will make thee, which may either mean, I will m>ike for thee, or will make thee to become, whereas the last sense only can by any possibility be put upon the Hebrew, as literally translated above. The oriental threshing machine is sometimes a sledge of thick planks armed with iron or sharp stones, sometimes a system of rough rollers joined together like a sledge or dray. Both kinds are dragged over the grain by oxen. (See Robinson's Palestine, iii. p. 143.) — PiT? is pro perly to crush, pound fine, or pulverize ; ni'3'3 strictly denotes mouths ; but like the primitive noun from which it is derived, it is sometimes applied to the edge of a sharp instrument, perhaps in allusion to the figure of

devouring. Here it signifies the edges, blades, or teeth, with which the threshing- wain is armed. The reduplicated form is supposed to denote the number of such parts by Ewald (viclspitzig) and Knobel (vielschneidig}. The literal sense of?J?2 is possessor, owner. There seems to be no ground for the common assumption that Mils and mountains are specific emblems here for States or governments. The image presented is the strange but strong one of a down- trodden worm reducing hills to powder, the essential idea being that of a weak and helpless object overcoming the most dispro portionate obstacles, by strength derived from another.

10. Thou shall fan (or winnow) them, and a wind Khali take them up, and a whirlwind shall scatter them, and thou shalt joy in Jehovah, in the Holy One of Israel shalt, thou boast (or glory}. The figure of the preced ing verse is here carried out and completed. The mountains, having been completely threshed, are winnowed, in the usual oriental mode, by being thrown to the wind. Israel, on the other hand, is safe, not through his own strength but in that of his protector, in whom, i. e. in his relation to whom, he finds his highest happiness and honour. The writer's main de sign is evidently still to exhibit the contrast between God and his people on the one hand, and the idols and their people on the other.

17. The suffering and the pocr (are) seeking water, and it is not (there is none) ; their tongue with thirst is parched. I Jehovah will hear (or answer) them, (I) the God of Israel will not forsake them. The first clause describes the need of a divine interposition, the last the interposition itself. The images are so unlike those of the foregoing verse that they might seem to be unconnected, but for the fact that the whole passage is entirely meta phorical. Thirst is a natural and common metaphor for suffering. Those who restrict the verse to the Babylonish exile are divided on the question whether it literally describes the hardships of the journey through the wilder ness, or metaphorically those of the captivity itself. Both suppositions are entirely arbitrary, since there is nothing in the text or context to deprive the passage of its genuine and full sense as a general promise, tantamount to saying, When my people feel their need, I will be present to supply it. Such a promise those in exile could not fail to find appropriate in their case ; but it is equally appropriate in others, and especially to the glorious deliver ance of the church from the fetters of the old economy. ^ is not to hear in general, but to hear prayer in a favourable sense, to answer it. The conditional turn given to the sentence in our version (when the poor and needy seek, &c.) is substantially correct, but a needless departure from the form of the original.

18. I will open upon bare hills streams, and in the midst of valleys foun tains; 1 u ill place the desert for (i.e. convert it into) a pool of water, and a dry land for (or into) sprhiys of water. The same figure for entire and joyful change occurs in chap. xxx. 25, and chap. xxxv. 7, and with its op posite or converse in Ps. cvii. 83, 35. It is now commonly admitted that l"Ep includes the idea of barrenness or nakedness. Compare H^:) from the same root (chap. xiii. 2).

11). / will gire in the wilderness cedar, acacia, and myrtle, and oil-tree ; I will place in the desert fir, pine, and box together. The main idea, com mon to all explanation of this verse, is that of trees growing where they never grew before. It is comparatively unimportant therefore to identify the species, although J. D. Micbaelis supposes them to have been selected because such as do not naturally grow together. With respect to the cedar and the myrtle there is no doubt. Vitringa regards HBB> (which has

no and before it) as an epithet of D^, and translates it cedrus prastantissima. Since Lowth, however, it has been commonly regarded as the Hebrew name of the acacia, a thorny tree growing in Arabia and Egypt. (See Robinson's Palestine, vol. ii. p. 319). — By the oil-tree is meant the oleaster or wild olive, as distinguished from the JVt or cultivated tree of the same species. For the different explanations of ^*i~i2, see vol. i. p. 290. Ac cording to the latest authorities, "1C17^1 ls neither the pine, the elm, nor the plane-tree, but the ilex, holrn, or hard oak, so called from "in;? to endure or last. By the same writers "VISJ'tf Jjl is understood to be a species of the cedar of Lebanon, so called from its erectness and loftiness.

20. That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of Jehovah hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it. The verbs in the first clause may refer to men in general, or to those immediately concerned as subjects or spectators of the change de scribed. -10^, they may place, seems to be an elliptical expression for

37 WJ'* may place their heart, i. f. apply their mind, or give attention.

There is no need of introducing 3? into the text, as Lowth does, since the very same ellipsis has been pointed out by Kocher in Judges xix. 20. Still less ground is there to amend the text with Houbigaut by reading -l^b^ (ma if be astonished}. — There is a climax in the last clause: he has not only done it but created it, i. c. produced a new effect by the exertion of almighty power.

21. Present your cause (literally briny it neir or amse it to approach, i. e. into the presence of the judge), saith Jehovah ; briny forward your defences (or strong reasons), saith the king of Jacob. The Septnagint changes the whole meaning of the sentence, by making it a simple affirmation (your judgment draiucth near). — Jerome applies the last clause to their idols : acccdant idola vestra quce put a tin esse fortissimo. But most interpreters refer it to the arguments by which they were to maintain their cause. The metaphor is commonly supposed to be that of bulwarks or entrenchments ; but this, as Knobel has observed, is hardly consistent with the call to bring them forward. It is better therefore to give the word its wider sense of strength or strong thing.

22. They nhall bring forward (or let them brin<i forward) and shew Jorth to tis the (things) which are to happen; the former things, what they were, shew forth, and we will set our heart (apply our mind, or pay attention to them), and knoiv their issue ; or (else) the coming (events) make us to hear. The prescience of future events is here appealed to as a test of divinity. (Compare Deut. xviii. 22, Jer. xxviii. 9, and chap, xliii. 12, below). Vitringa, Lowth, and others, understand by former things a proximate futurity ; but the antithesis between this and coming things shews that the former must mean prophecies already fulfilled, or at least already published. They are required to demonstrate their foreknowledge, either by shewing that they had predicted something, or by doing it now. Knobel's question whether we and us mean God alone or God and the Prophet together, is not in the best taste or particularly reasonable, since the whole idea which the text conveys is that of two contending parties at a judgment-seat. They means the party of the false gods and their worshippers, we that of Jehovah and his people.

23. Sliew forth the (things) to come hereafter, and we will know that ye are nods ; yes, ye shall do good or evil, and we will look about and see toge ther. The subjunctive construction, that ive may know, gives the sense of

12G ISAIAH XLI. [VEB. 24, 25.

the original, but with a needless change of form. The same remark applies to the imperative translation of the futures in the next clause (do good, do evil"). The use of the disjunctive, on the other hand, is rendered almost unavoidable by an entire difference of idiom, the Hebrews constantly em ploying and where or in English seems essential to the sense. The verbs in this clause are strictly and distinctly understood by Vitringa, as relating to the reward of worshippers and the punishment of enemies. Henderson explains the clause as challenging the false gods to perform a miracle. But most interpreters retain the idiomatic meaning of the same expressions else where, namely, that of doing anything whatever, good or bad. (See Jer. x. 5, Zeph. i. 12.) Lowth and Henderson understand nj/fi£>3 as denoting terror, and change the pointing so as to derive the following verb from NT to fear. Gesenius makes the former verb synonymous with n^fl? (2 Kings, xiv. 8), let us look one another in the face, i. e. confront one another in dispute or battle. It is much more probable, however, that the word has the same sense as in ver. 10 above, where it seems to express the act of looking round or about upon those present, in that case with the secondary notion of alarm (as looking round for help), but in this case with that of inspec tion or consideration (we will look about us). Hitzig refers the word toge ther to the two acts which the verbs express; but it is much more natural to understand it as denoting that the two contending parties unite in the same act.

24. Lo, ye are of nothing (or less than nothing) and your work of nought (or less than nought) ; an alomination (is he that) chooscth (or trill choose) you. This is the conclusion drawn from their failure or refusal to accept the challenge, and to furnish the required proof of their deity. For the meaning of H^P, see above, on chap. xl. 17. The parallel teim i'??? is re garded by some of the Rabbins as synonymous with ""$.?$• (worse than a viper) ; but the context requires an expression not of quality but of non entity. Solomon Ben Melek makes it a synonyme of &£$, Vitringa an orthographical variation of the same; either of which is better than the sup position now most commonly adopted of an error in the text, the retention of which, even supposing its occurrence, it would not be very easy to account for. Augusti and Hitzig understand the phrase to mean of nothing or belonging to nothing, which Knobel explains as tantamount to saying that they had no work, or in other words, that they could do nothing. — nSJIIPl is a strong expression often used to describe an object of religious abhor rence. On the choosing of gods, compare Judges v. 8.

25. I have raised up (one) from the north, and he has come ; from the rising of the sun shall he call ujwn my name ; and he shall come upon princes as uron mortar, and as a potter treadeth clay. This is correctly understood by Knobel as a specific application of the general conclusion in ver. 24. If ijae gods of the heathen could do absolutely nothing, it was impossible that they should be the authors of any one remarkable event, and especially of that on which the Prophet has his eye. The expressions are remarkably similar to those in ver. 2, so that the Prophet may be here said to resume the train of thought which had been interrupted at the end of ver. 4. Having taken occasion to describe the effect of the event foretold upon the worshippers of idols, and from that to shew the impotence of the gods themselves, he returns to the event which he had been describing, and con tinues his description. As before, he takes his stand at an intermediate point between the beginning and the end of tbe \\hole process, as appears from the successive introduction of the preterite and future. This peculiar

feature of the passage is obscured if not effaced by rendering them all alike, or by arbitrarily distinguishing between the tense of 'nwyn and HNM. With the single substitution of he lias come for he shall come, the common version is entirely correct. The mention of the north and east together has been variously explained. Jerome and Luther understand the clause to mean, that he was called from the north, but came from the east. Eusebius, Cyril, and Jerome refer the first clause to the nations, and the last to Christ, which is entirely gratuitous. Calvin refers the first to the Chaldees and the last to Cyrus, which is better, but still arbitrary. J. D. Michaelis supposes the two subjects of the clause to be Darius or Cyaxares the Mede and Cyrus the Persian, whose respective countries lay to the north and east of Babylonia. The later writers modify this explanation by referring all to Cyrus, here considered at the same time as a Persian and a Mede. A still more satisfactory hypothesis, perhaps, is that the subject of this passage is not a determinate individual, but the conqueror indefinitely, who is not identified till afterwards. The use of the word QV-IP, which is the appropriate description of the Babylonian nobles, contains a covert intimation of the particular events in view. Instead of shewing that the passage is of later date, as some imagine, it affords a remarkable example of prophetic foresight. The act of calling on the name of Jehovah is com monly regarded as an allusion to the profession of the true religion, or at least the recognition of Jehovah as the true God, on the part of Cyrus (Ezra i. 2). — Compare the figures of the last clause with chaps, x. 6, xxv. 10.

26. Who declared from the beginning? (Say) and ice trill know; and beforehand, and we irill say, Right (or True}. Xay, there was none that told; nay, there was none that uttered; nay, there was none that heard your words. Because the adverbs of time do not necessarily express remote antiquity, Knobel infers that they here mean since the first appearance of Cyrus. But such an appeal to the prediction of what one man could foresee as well as another would be simply ridiculous. The sense of p^V is determined by that of n!?£* in chap, xliii. 9. The meaning of the whole verse is that the events in question had been foretold by Jehovah and no other.

27. First to Zion, Behold, behold them ! and to Jerusalem a bringer of gof'd neim will I give. This very peculiar idiomatic sentence may be para phrased as follows : 1 am the first to say to Zion, Behold, behold them ! and to give Jerusalem a brinrjer of good news. The simplest construction is to make the verb at the end govern both clauses ; but in English the sense may be expressed more clearly by supplying the verb say. The com mon version of the last clause is correct, but that of the first appears to have no meaning. The sense is not the first shall say, but / first, i. e. before any other god or prophet.

28. And I will look, but (here is no man ; and of these, but there is no one adiisiny (or informing) ; and I will ask them, and they will return a word (or answer). He allows them as it were another opportunity of proving their divinity. In the first two clauses, the expectation and the disappointment are described together ; in the third, the expectation only is expressed, the result being given in the following verse. First he looks, but finds not what he seeks. Then again, but with the same result. Once more be interrogates them and awaits an answer, but (as the next verse adds) discovers them to be impostors. There is something singularly beau tiful in this peculiar structure of the sentence, which is wholly marred by the indirect constructions that are commonly adopted, that when Tasked them

128 ISAIAH XLI1. [VER. lthey could answer a word, or, that I should question them and they return an answer. The verse is full of laconic and elliptical expressions, which, however, may be easily completed, as will appear from the following brief paraphrase. / will look (once more to see whether any of these idols or their prophet can predict the future), but there is no one (who attempts it). From among (all) these (I seek for a resp'onse, but there is none). Yet once more I will ask them, and (perhaps) they will return an answer. The same application of the verb fJJJ to the prediction of the future occurs below in chap. xliv. 26. The form here used is to be strictly construed as a participle.

29. Lo, they (are] all nought, nothing their works, wind and emptiness their molten images. This is, at once, the termination of the sentence beguii in the last clause of the verse preceding, and the summary conclu sion of the whole preceding controversy as to the divinity of any gods except Jehovah. To the usual expressions of nonentity the Prophet adds two other strong descriptive terms, viz. wind and emptiness.

CHAPTEE XLII.

THIS chapter exhibits to our view the Servant of Jehovah, i. e. the Messiah and his people, as a complex person, and as the messenger or representative of God among the nations. His mode of operation is de scribed as being not violent but peaceful, vers. 1—5. The effects of his influence are represented as not natural but spiritual, vers. 6—9. The power of God is pledged for his success, notwithstanding all appearances of inaction or indifference on his part, vers. 10-17. In the latter portion of the chapter, the Church or Body of Christ, as distinguished from its Head, and representing him until he came, is charged with unfaithfulness to its great trust, and this unfaithfulness declared to be the cause of what it suffered, vers. 18-25. Several important exegetical questions with respect to the Servant of Jehovah will be fully canvassed in the exposition of the chapter.

1. Behold my servant! I will hold him fast ; my chosen One (in ivhom) my soul delights ; I have given (or put] my Spirit upon him • judgment to the nations shall he cause to go forth. There is no need of assuming (with the English Version) an ellipsis of the relative twice in the same clause. The separate construction of the first two words, as an introduction to the following description, makes them far more impressive, like the ecce homo ('tit o eivdtU'TTos) of John xix. 5. — The first verb, construed as it is here, signifies to hold fast, for the most part with the accessory idea of holding upr sustaining, or supporting. Elect or chosen does not mean choice or excellent, except by implication ; directly and strictly it denotes one actually chosen, set apart, for a definite purpose. — ny^l is the verb applied in the Law of Moses to the acceptance of a sacrifice, from which some have in ferred that there is here an allusion to expiatory merit ; but this, although admissible, is not an obvious or necessary supposition. — By Spirit, as in all such cases, we are to understand, not only divine influence, but the divine person who exerts it. (See vol. i. pp. 123, 249.) — The use of the phrase on him, where in him might have seemed more natural, is probably in tended to suggest the idea of descent, or of an influence from heaven. — The last clause is understood by Grotius as denoting that the person here described should denounce the penal judgments of Jehovah on the Medes

and Babylonians. But besides the unreasonable limitation of the words to tbese two nations, this explanation is at variance with the usage of the singular ^2P'P and with the context, which describes the servant of Jeho vah as a source of blessing to the Gentiles. The same objection does not lie against an explanation of tDSy'D by Clericus as meaning justice or just government; but this is too restricted, as appears from the subsequent context. The most satisfactory interpretation is the common one, which understands this word as a description of the true religion, and the whole clause as predicting its diffusion. The office thus ascribed to the servant of Jehovah, both here and in the following context, as a teacher of the truth, makes the description wholly inappropriate to Cyrus, who is nevertheless regarded as the subject of the prophecy, not only by Saadias among the Jews, but by Hensler, Koppe, and even Ewald, though the last combines this application with another which will be explained below. Aben Ezra, Grotius, and some later writers, understand the passage as descriptive of Isaiah himself; and this hypothesis is modified by De Wette, and Gesenius in his Commentary, so as to embrace all the prophets as a class. Besides the objection to the first of tbese opinions, somewhat flippantly alleged by J. D. Michaelis, that if Isaiah had thus spoken of himself, he would have proved himself a madman rather than a prophet, it may be objected to the whole hypothesis, that the prophets of the old dispensation are invariably represented as the messengers of God to the Jews and not the Gentiles. And the same thing is still more emphatically true of the Levitical priesthood. Of some, but much less weight is the objection to the later form of the same theory, that the collective sense which it puts upon the phrase is neither natural nor countenanced by any satisfactory analogy. There is, indeed, as all admit, such a collective use of the phrase, servant of Jehovah, in application not to any rank or office or profession, but to Israel, the chosen people, as such considered. Of this usage we have already had an example in chap. xli, 8, and shall meet with many more hereafter. The distinction between this application of the title and the one which De Wette proposes, is, that in the former case the national pro genitor is put by a natural metonymy for his descendants, whereas there is no such individual prophet (not even Moses) in whom the whole succes sion is concentrated, either by natural association or by established usage. A third objection to this theory may be drawn from the analogy of other places, where the same great servant of Jehovah is described, not only as a sufferer, but as an atoning sacrifice. Even admitting the gratuitous assumption, that the prophets, as a class, were habitually subject to malignant persecution, the representation of these sufferings as vicarious and expiatory would be forced and arbitrary in itself, as well as contraicted by the tenor of Scripture. This last objection also lies against the xclusive application of the title to Israel as a people, or to the pious and >elieving portion of them, which has been maintained by various writers rom Solomon Jarchi down to Knobel, who supposes that the servant of 'ehovah sometimes means the whole body of the Jews in exile who exernally adhered to the worship of Jehovah, sometimes the real spiriual Israel included in this number. But the representation of the lewish nation as atoning for the sins of the Gentiles, or of the pious Tews as atoning for the sins of the whole nation, is without analogy in my other part of the Old Testament. The objections which have now jeen stated to these various hypotheses may negatively serve to recommend the one adopted in the Targum and by Kimchi and Abarbenel, who represents the champions of the others as struck with judicial blindness. This ancient doctrine of the Jewish Church, and of the great majority of Christian writers, is that the servant of the Lord is the Messiah. The lengths of paradoxical extravagance to which the unbelieving critics are prepared to go rather than admit this supposition, may be learned from Knobel's positive assertion, that the Old Testament Messiah is no where represented either as a teacher or a sufferer, and that the later chapters of Isaiah contain no allusion to a Messiah at all. In favour of the Messianic exposition may be urged not only the tradition of the Jewish Church already cited, and the perfect facility with which this hypothesis at once accommodates itself to all the requisitions of the passages to which it is applied, but also the explicit and repeated application of these passages to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. These applications will be noticed seriatim as the texts successively present themselves. To this first verse there are several allusions more or less distinct and unequivocal. Besides the express citation of it, with the next three verses in Mat. xii. 19-21, there is an obvious allusion to its terms, or rather a direct application of thtm made by God himself, in the descent of the Holy Spirit on our Saviour at his baptism, and in the words pronounced from heaven then and at the time of his transfiguration: This is my beloved Son in whom I am irell pleased (Mat. ii. 17, xvii. 5). The connecting link between the Sen-ant of Isaiah and the Son of Matthew, is afforded by the TOC/S of the Septuagint, which includes both ideas. According to the explanation which has] just been given, wbs is neither a translation of 13V, nor a perversion of itsj meaning, but a clearer designation of the subject of the prophecy. That Christ was sent to the Jews and not the Gentiles, is only true of his personal ministry and not of his whole work as continued by his followers, who were expressly commissioned to go into all the world, to make dis ciples of all nations, the only restriction imposed being that of beyinniny at Jerusalem. It only remains to be considered, whether this application o\ the title and the description to our Saviour is exclusive of all others, as itsj advocates commonly maintain. This inquiry is suggested by the factJ which all interpreters admit, that Israel, the chosen people, is not onW called by this same name, but described as having some of the samei attributes, not only elsewhere, but in this very context, and especially in vers. 19, 20, of this chapter, where any other explanation of the terms as we shall see, is altogether inadmissable. Assuming, then, that th( Messiah is the servant of Jehovah introduced. at the beginning of th< chapter, there are only two ways of accounting for the subsequent use o the same language with respect to Israel. The first way is by alleging a total difference of subject in the different places; which in fact thongl not in form is to decline all explanation of the fact in question, as beinj either needless or impossible. That such a twofold application of equi valent expressions to entirely different subjects is conceivable, and rnus in certain cases be assumed, there is no need of denying. But unles: we abandon all attempt to interpret language upon any settled principle we cannot but admit that nothing short of exegetical necessity can justif; the reference of the same descriptive terms to different subjects in one an the same context. If then there is an exegetical hypothesis by whic these applications can be reconciled, without doing violence to usage o analogy, it seems to be clearly entitled to the preference. Such a hypo thesis, it seems to me, is one obscurely stated by some older writers, bu

which may be more satisfactorily propounded thus, that by the servant of Jehovah in these Later Prophecies of Isaiah, we are to understand the church with its Head, or rather the Messiah with the church which is hig body, sent by Jehovah to reclaim the world from its apostacy and ruin. This agrees exactly with the mission both of the Redeemer and his people as described in Scripture, and accounts for all the variations which em barrass the interpretation of the passages in question upon any more exclusive exegetical hypothesis. It is also favoured by the analogy of Deut. xviii. where the promised Prophet, according to the best interpretation, is not Christ exclusively, but Christ as the Head of the prophetic body who possessed his spirit. Another analogy is furnished by the use of the phrase Abraham's seed, both individually and collectively. He whom Paul describes as the seed of Abraham, and Moses as a prophet like unto him self, in a personal but not an exclusive sense, is described by Isaiah as the servant of Jehovah, in his own person, but not to the exclusion of his people, so far as they can be considered bis co-workers or his representa tives. Objections founded on the want of agreement between some of these descriptions and the recorded character of Israel, are connected with a superficial view of Israel, considered simply as a nation and like other nations, except so far as it was brought into external and fortuitous con nection with the true religion. An essential feature in the theory proposed is that this race was set apart and organised for a specific purpose, and that its national character is constantly subordinate to its ecclesiastical relation. There is precisely the same variation in the language used respecting it as in the use and application of the term l-/.7.\rtata, in the New Testament. Israel is sometimes described as he was meant to be, and as tie should have been; sometimes as he actually was. The name is some times given to the whole race and sometimes to the faithful portion of it; or, which amounts to the same thing, it is sometimes used to denote the real, sometimes the nominal Israel. The apparent violence of applying the same description to an individual person and a body, will be lessened by considering, that the former, i. e. Christ was in the highest and truest sense the servant of Jehovah and his messenger to man, but that his body, church, or people, was, and is, a sharer in the same vocation, under the zospel as an instrument or fellow-worker, under the law as a type or repre sentative of the one who had not yet become visible. Hence the same things might be predicated to a great extent of both. As the Messiah was the servant anl messenger of God to the nations, so was Israel. It was his mission also to diffuse the true religion and reclaim the nations. From the very first it was intended that the law should go forth from Zion and.the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Chap. ii. 3.) The national restric tions of the old economy were not intended to exclude the Gentiles from the church, but to preserve the church from assimilation to the Gentiles. All the world m'ght have come in if thoy would, by complying with the terms prescribed; an 1 nothing is more clear from the Old Testament than the Eact that the privileges of the chosen people were not meant to be restricted ven then to the natural descendants of Israel, for this would have excluded proselytes entirely. Multitudes did embrace the true religion before Christ came; and that more did not, was partly their own fault, partly the fault of the chosen people, who neglected or mistook their high vocation as the Messiah's representative and as Jehovah's messenger. If it be asked, how the different applications of this honourable title are to be distinguished so as to avoid confusion or capricious inconsistency, the answer is as follows:

Where the terms are in their nature applicable both to Christ as the Head and to his church as the Body, there is no need of distinguishing at all between them. Where sinful imperfection is implied in what is said, it must of course be applied to the body only. Where a freedom from such imperfection is implied, the language can have a direct and literal reference only to the Head, but may be considered as descriptive of the body, in so fur as its idea or design is concerned, though not in reference to its actual condition. Lastly, when anything is said implying deity or infinite merit, the application to the Head becomes not only predominant but exclusive. It may further be observed that as the church, according to this view of the matter, represents its Head, so it is represented by its leaders, whether prophets, priests, or kings; and as all these functions were to meet in Christ, so all of them may sometimes be particularly prominent in prophecy. With this explanation, the hypothesis proposed may be considered as ap proaching very nearly to the one maintained by Umbreit in his work upon the Servant of God (Kneclit Gottes, Hamburg, 1840), as well as in his Commentary on Isaiah. A similar theory is broached by Ewald, but with this essential difference, that he excludes all reference to Christ, and iden tifies the Messiah of these prophecies with Cyrus. A correct view of the manifold and variable usage of the title ninj "l?y is given by Gesenius in his Thesaurus and the later editions of his Lexicon. How far the theory here stated with respect to the nirp 13JJ is either necessary to explain the prophecies or really consistent with their terms can only be determined by a specific application of the principle to the successive parts of the descrip tion. If applied to this first verse, it would determine its interpretation, as describing Israel, the ancient church, to be in a peculiar sense the servant of Jehovah, protected and sustained by Him, enlightened by a special reve lation, not for his own exclusive use, but as a source of saving light to the surrounding nations. At the same time it would shew him to possess this character, not in his right, but in that of another, as the representative and instrument of one who, though he was with God and was God, took upon him the form of a servant, and received the Spirit without measure, that he might be a light to lighten the Gentiles as well as the glory of his people, Israel. (Luke ii. 82.) The reference to Christ is here so evident, however, that there is no need of supposing any distinct reference to his people at all, nor any advantage in so doing, except that of rendering the subsequent verses still' more significant, as descriptive, not only of his personal ministry, but of the spirit and conduct of his people, both before and after his appearance.

2. He shall not cry (or call aloud), and he shall not raise (his voice), and he shall not let his voice be heard in the street (or abroad, without). The Vulgate strangely supplies 0^2 after N&'? (nun accipiet personani), and so obtains the customary technical expression for respect of persons or judicial partiality. This construction, which yeas probably suggested by the sup posed analogy of chap. xi. 3, 4, is precluded by its want of agreement with what goes before and follows. The same objection lies, though in a less degree, against Cocceius's construction of the verb as a reflexive (se efferet), which is, moreover, not grammatically tenable. It is not even necessary to assume an ellipsis of the noun voice in the first clause, although this may be required to make the sense clear in a version. The Hebrew con struction is continued through both clauses, i. e. both verbs govern the same nonn. He shall not raise nor suffer to be Itcard in the street his voice. The simple meaning of the verse is, he shall not be noisy, but quiet. Grotius supposes an allusion to the fact, that angry persons often speak so loud

at home as to be heard in the street. Clericus justly denies any special reference to anger, but perhaps goes too far when he translates JTP'f'!, dabit operam uL audiatur. The idea seems rather to be that of suffering the voice to be heard in public places. As applied both to Christ and to the church, this verse describes a silent, unostentatious method of proceeding. The quotation in Mat. xii. 18 is commonly explained as referring to our Saviour's mild and modest demeanour; but it rather has respect to the nature of his kingdom, and to the means by which it was to be established. His for bidding the announcement of the miracle is not recorded simply as a trait of personal character, but rather as implying that a public recognition of his claims was not included in his present purpose.

3. A bruised (or crushed) reed he will not break, and a dim wick he will not quench ; by the truth will he bring forth judgment. The verbs of the first clause have no exact equivalents in English. The first appears to mean broken but not broken off, which last is denoted by the other. Cleri cus supposes an allusion to the growing plant, which may be broken and yet live, but if entirely broken off must die. — The common version, smok ing /lax, is that of the Septuagint and Vulgate. The Hebrew noun really denotes ilax (Exod. ix. 31), but the adjective means faint or dim ; so that in order to convey the meaning in translation, the former must be taken in the specific sense of wick, which it also has in chap, xliii. 17. The appli cation of these figures to the sparing of enemies, or the indulgence of weak friends, or the sustentation of sincere but feeble faith, is too specific and exclusive. The verse continues the description of the mode in which the Messiah and his people were to bring forth judgment to the nations, or in other words, to spread the true religion. It was not to be by clamour or by violence. The first of these ideas is expressed in the preceding verse, the last in this. That such is the true import of the words is clear from the addition of the last clause, which would be unmeaning if the verse re lated merely to a compassionate and sympathetic temper. That this verse is included in Matthew's quotation (chap. xii. 19), shews that he did not quote the one before it as descriptive of a modest and retiring disposition. For although such a temper might be proved by Christ's prohibiting the publication of his miracles, this prohibition could not hiive been cited as an evidence of tenderness and mildness. The only way in which the whole quotation can be made appropriate to the case in hand, is by supposing that it was meant to be descriptive, not of our Saviour's human virtues, but of the nature of his kingdom and of the means by which it was to be estab lished. That he was both lowly and compassionate is true, but it is not the truth which he established by his conduct upon this occasion, nor the truth which the evangelist intended to illustrate by the citation of these words. As well in their original connection as in Matthew's application of them, they describe that kingdom which was not of this world ; which came "not with observation" (Luke xvii. 20) ; which was "neither meat nor drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. xiv. 17); which was founded and promoted, not by might nor by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord ; and of which its Founder said (John xviii. 36), If my kingdom icere of this world, then loould my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jem, but now is my kingdom not from hence. And again (John xviii. 27), when Pilate said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest (rightly) that I am a king ; to this end was I born, and for this fvm.sr came I into the uorld, that I should bear witness to the truth • every one that is of the truth hcareth my voice. How perfectly does this august description tally with the great prophetic picture of the Servant of Jehovah who •was to brin" forth judgment to the nations, and in doing so was not to cry, or raise his voice, or let men hear it in the streets, not by brutal force to break the crushed reed or quench the dim wick, but to conquer by healing and imparting strength. This passage also throws light on the true sense of the somewhat obscure phrase ^p.^, by showing that it means with re spect to the truth, which is here equivalent to saying by the truth. This con struction, by presenting an antithesis between the true and false way of bringing forth judgment to the Gentiles, is much to be preferred to those constructions which explain the phrase as simply meaning in truth, (i. e. truly), or in permanence, (i. e. surely), or unto truth, (i. e. so as to establish and secure it). All these may be suggested as accessory ideas ; but the main idea seems to be the one first stated, namely, that the end in question is to be accomplished not by clamour, not by violence, but by the truth.

4. He shall not be dim, and he shall not be crushed, until lie shall set judgment in the earth, and for his law the isles shall icait. He shall neither conquer nor be conquered by violence. This verse is a new proof that the one before it does not describe mere tenderness and pity for the weak. The antithesis would then be, he shall neither be unkind to the infirm nor infirm himself. On the other hand, the sense is clear and per tinent, if ver. 3 means that he shall not use violence towards those who are weaker than himself, and ver. 4 that he shall not suffer it from those who are more powerful ; or rather that he shall not subdue others, nor himself be subdued by force. Some interpreters have been misled, by not observing the exact correspondence of the verbs n£!?? and V-1T with the adjectives nn? and p¥l. The same oversight has led Cocceius and Vitringa to derive P'X fr°m I*1"1, to run, and to understand the clause as meaning that he shall neither be remiss nor precipitate. This construction, it is true, makes the clause itself more antithetical and pointed, but only by the sacrifice of an obvious and beautiful antithesis between it and the first clause of ver. 8. — • To set or place judgment in the earth is to establish and confirm the true religion. — By his law we are to understand his word or revelation, con sidered as a rule of duty.— Here again the islands is a poetical expression for the nations, or more specifically for the transmarine and distant nations. The restriction of the term to Europe and Asia Minor (J. D. Michaelis) is as false in geography as it is in taste. — On the ground that the heathen could not wait or hope for that of which they were entirely ignorant, some understand the last verb as meaning they shall trust (i.e. after they have heard, they shall believe it). Besides the preference thus given to a second ary over a primary and proper sense, the general meaning of the clause, and its connection with what goes before, appear to be misapprehended. The hope meant is not so much subjective as objective. The thing de scribed is not the feeling of the Gentiles towards the truth, but their de pendence on it for salvation, and on Christ for the knowledge of the truth itself. For his law the isles are waiting (or must u-ait), and till it comes, they must remain in darkness.

5. Thus saith the mighty (God), Jehovah, creating the heavens and stretching them out, spreading the earth and its issues, giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it. Ewald refers thus saith to the preceding verses, which he supposes to be here described as the words of God himself. But as the following verses also contain the words of God, there is no need of departing from the ordinary usage of the Scriptures, according to which the name of the speaker is prefixed to the report of what

he says. We may indeed assume an equal connection with what goes before and follows, as if he had said, Thus hath Jehovah spoken, and he speaks still further. — The appeal is so directly to the power of Jehovah, that the name 7^, which is expressive of that attribute, ought not to be resolved into the general term God. (See chap. v. 16, vol. i. p. 13G.) — The substitution of the preterite for the participle in the English Version (he that created the heavens, and stretched them out) is not only a gratuitous departure from the form of the original, but hides from the English reader the allusion to the creative power of God, as constantly exercised in the continued existence of his works. The same figure is exhibited more fully in chap. xl. 22, and the places there referred to. (See above, p. 112, 113.) — This clause is not a scientific, but a poetical description. To the eye, the heavens have the appearance of a canopy or curtain, and the verdant surface of the earth that of a carpet. There is no need, therefore, of supplying a distinct verb to govern its issues. y\>~), though originally used to signify the beating out of metal into thin plates, has acquired in usage the more general sense of spreading or expanding, and is equally applicable to the earth as an appa rently flat surface, and to its vegetation as the tapestry which covers it. The Prophet's picture is completely marred by making ViT1 mean consoli dating, which is wholly inappropriate to!T^y$?V, and has no et}'mological foundation. Even JTi?? in the first chapter of Genesis means an expanse; the idea of a firmament comes not from the Hebrew, but the ancient ver sions. No single English word is so appropriate as issues to express both the meaning and the derivation of the corresponding one in Hebrew, which denotes the things that come out of the earth, its produce, growth, or vege tation, with particular allusion here to grass. — Here, as in chap. xl. 7, the word people is evidently used in application to the whole human race, a fact of some importance in the exposition of what follows. Cocceins alone supposes an antithesis between the people (i. e. Israel) and the rest of men. If this had been intended, the word spirit would no doubt have been con nected with the former. By the side of this may be placed Kimchi's notion, that a contrast was intended between men and brutes, on the ground that rvp'^'jl is limited in usage to the former. QD^'13 in the first clause of this verse is explained by some as &pluralis majestaticus, by others as a singular form peculiar to the -^ verbs and their derivatives. (See vol. i. p. 184.) — The enumeration of Jehovah's attributes in this verse is intended to accredit the assurances contained in the context.

G. / Jehovah have called thee in righteousness, and icill lay hold of thy hand (or hold it fast), and v:ill keep thee, and will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. — The act of calling here implies selection, designation, and providential introduction to God's service. — In righteousness, i.e. in the exercise of righteousness on God's part, including the fulfilment of his promises as well as of his threatenings. — Unto righteous ness, i. e. to be righteous, is an idea foreign from the context, and one which would not have been thus expressed in Hebrew. Lowth's translation (for a righteous purpose), although too paraphrastical, may be considered as substantially identical with that first stated. Those of Gesenius (to salva tion) and Hitzig (in grace) are equally gratuitous, and contrary to usage. — / will hold thee fast, and thereby hold thee up, sustain thee. (See above, ver. 1.) — Lowth and Barnes esteem it an improvement of the common Eng lish Version, to change keep into preserve. — I will give thee for, i.e. create, appoint, or constitute thee. — Hitzig understands by ^V n^? a covenantpeople (Bundesvolk), Ewald a mediatorial people (Mittelsvolk), both

denoting a people called or sent to act as a mediator or a bond of union between God aud the nations. But this, although it yields a good sense, is a German and English rather than a Hebrew construction, the instances in which a prefixed noun qualifies the other being very rare and dubious. This objection is sufficient, without adding that the phrase as thus explained would be inapplicable to an individual, whereas the other epithets employed are equally appropriate to persons and communities. Most other writers are agreed in adhering to the obvious construction and in understanding by a covenant of the people a negotiator between God and the people. This use of covenant, although unusual, is in itself not more unnatural or forced than that of light in the next phrase. As light of the nations must mean a source or dispenser of light to them, so covenant of people, in the very same sen tence, may naturally mean the dispenser or mediator of a covenant with them. The only reason why the one appears less natural and simple than the other, is that light is habitually used in various languages both for the element of light and for its source or a luminous body, whereas no such twofold usage of the other word exists, although analogies might easily be traced in the usage of such words as justice for judge, counsel for counsellor, in both which cases the functionary takes the name of that which he dis penses or administers. — But supposing this to be the true construction of the phrase, the question still arises, who are the contracting parties, or in other words, what are we to understand by people? The great majority of writers make it mean the Jews, the chosen people of Jehovah, and the cove nant the mediator or negotiator of a new covenant between them and Jeho vah, according to the representation in Jer. xxxi. 31-33. To this it may be objected that EJJ has not the article as usual when employed in that sense, and that even with the article it is applied in the preceding verse to mankind in general. To this it may be added that the word nations in the next clause may as well be exegetical of people as in contrast with it. The first supposition is indeed much more natural, because the words are in such close connection, and because there is no antithesis between the correlative expressions, light and covenant. To this it is replied, that the reference to Israel in this case is determined by the clear unambiguous analogy of chap, xlix. 8, where the phrase recurs and in a similar connection. This conclu sion not only rests upon a false assumption as to the meaning of the context there, but is directly contradicted by the language of ver. 6, where it is ex pressly said that it was not enough for Christ to be the restorer of Israel, he must also be a light to the Gentiles; and in direct continuation of this pro mise it is added in ver. 8, without the show of a distinction or antithesis, that he should be a covenant of the people, (i. e. of the nations), to restore or re-establish the earth (not the land, which is a perfectly gratuitous restric tion), to cause to be inherited the desolate heritages, (i. e. the ruins of an apos tate world), and to say to the prisoners, Go forth, the arbitrary reference of which words to the Babylonish exile is in fact the only ground for the opi nion now disputed. So far is this passage, then, from disproving the wide explanation of the word DJJ in the place before us, that it really affords a very strong analogical reason in its favour, and we need no longer hesitate to understand the clause as a description of the servant of Jehovah in the character, not only of a light (or an enlightener) to the nations, but of a mediator or negotiator between God and the people, i. e. men in general. These are epithets applying in their highest sense to Christ alone; to whom they are in fact applied by Simeon (Luke ii. 32), and Paul (Acts xiii. 47). That neither of these quotes the phrase a covenant of the people, does not

prove that it has no relation to the Gentiles, but only that it docs not relate to them exclusively, but to the whole human race; whereas the other phrase, as applying specifically to the Gentiles, and as being less ambiguous, was exactly suited to Paul's purpose. — At the same time let it be observed that this description is entirely appropriate, not only to the Head but to the Body also in subordination to him. Not only the Messiah but the Israel of God was sent to be a mediator or connecting link between Jehovah and the nations. The meaning put upon C^ IV)? by Hitzig and Ewald, although not philologically accurate, is perfectly consistent with the teachings of the Old Testament respecting the mission and vocation of Israel, the ancient Church, as a covenant-race or middle-people between God and the apostate nations.

7. To open blind eyes, to bring out from prison the bondman, from the house of confinement the dwellers in darlmesf. This was the end to be ac complished by the Servant of Jehovah in the character or office just ascribed to him. The spiritual evils to be remedied are represented under the figures of imprisonment and darkness, the removal of the latter having obvious allusion to the lit/ht of the nations in ver. G. The fashionable explanation of these words, which refers them to the restoration of the Jews from exile, is encumbered with various and complex difficulties. What is said of bon dage must be either strictly understood or metaphorically. If the former be preferred, how is it that the Prophet did not use expressions more exactly descriptive of the state of Israel in Babylon ? A whole nation car ried captive by its enemies could h-irdly be described as prisoners in dark dungeons. Knobel, with readiness almost rabbinical, supplies the neces sary fact by saying that a part of the Jews were imprisoned. But even granting that they were in prison, were they also blind ? If it be said that this is a figurative representation of confinement in the dark, the principle of strict interpretation is abandoned, and the imprisonment itself may be a metaphor for other evils. There is then left no specific reason for apply ing this description to the exile any more than to a hundred other seasons of calamity. Another and more positive objection to this limitation is that it connects this verse with only part of the previous description, and that the part to which it bears the least resemblance. Even supposing what has been disproved, that covenant of the people has respect to Israel alone, how is it that the other attribute, a H/jht to the Gentiles, must be excluded in interpreting what follows ? It was surely not in this capacity that the Ser vant of Jehovah was to set the Jewish exiles free. If it be said that this verse has respect to only one of these two characters, this supposition is not only arbitrary, but doubly objectionable ; first, because it passes over the nearest antecedent (D^S iitf) to connect the verse exclusively with one more distant (OJJ ^^?), and then, because it passes by the very one to which the figures of this verse have most analogy. The opening of the eyes and the deliverance of those that sit in darkness are correlative expres sions to the lif/ht of the Gentiles, which on this account, and as the nearest antecedent, must decide the sense of this verse, if that sense depend on either of these attributes exclusively. / trill mafie thee a lif/ht to the Gen tiles, to open the blind eyes, &c., cannot mean, I will make thee an instruc tor of the heathen to restore the Jews from captivity in Babylon. Whether the verse before us therefore be strictly or figuratively understood, it cannot be applied to the captivity without doing violence at once to the text and context. The very same reasoning applies to the analogous expressions used in chap. xlix. 9, and thus corroborates our previous conclusion, that

the context in neither of these places favours, much less requires, the re striction of Dl? JTH? to the Jews. The only natural interpretation of the verse before us is that which makes it figurative like the one preceding it, and the only natural interpretation of its figures is the one which under stands them as descriptive of spiritual blindness and spiritual bondage, both which are metaphors of constant application to the natural condition of mankind in the Old as well as the New Testament. The removal of these evils is the work of Christ, as the revealer of the Father who " has brought life and immortality to light;" but in subordination to him, and as his representative, his church may also be correctly represented as a covenant of the people and a light of the nations; since the law, though a divine revelation, was to go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

8. / am Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory to another will I not give, and my praise to graven images. The name Jehovah is here used with emphasis in reference to its etymological import as descriptive of a self-existent, independent, and eternal being. There is no sufficient ground for the opinion that the pronoun N-in is ever used as a divine name, cog nate and equivalent to Jehovah. In this case, the obvious and usual con struction is entirely satisfactory. Graven images are here put, as in many oth( r cases, for idols in general, without regard to the mode of their for mation. The connection of this verse with what precedes may seem obscure, but admits of an easy explanation. From the assertion of Jehovah's power and perfection as a ground for his people's confidence, the Prophet now proceeds, by a natural transition, to exhibit it in contrast with the impo tence of those gods in whom the Gentiles trusted. These are represented not only as inferior to God, but as his enemies and rivals, any act of wor ship paid to whom was so much taken from what he claimed as his own, and as his own exclusively. The general doctrine of the verse is that true and false religion cannot co-exist ; because, however tolerant idolatry may be, it is essential to the worship of Jehovah to be perfectly exclusive of all other gods. This is included in the very name Jehovah, and accounts for its solemn proclamation here.

9. The first (or former) things — lo, they have come, and new things I (am) telling; lefore they spring forth (sprout or germinate) I will make (or let) you hear (them). This is an appeal to former prophecies already verified, as grounds of confidence in those yet unfulfilled. The attempts which have been made to give specific meanings to former things and new things, as denoting certain classes of prophecies, are unsuccessful, because perfectly gratuitous. The most plausible hypothesis of this kind is Yitringa's, which applies the one term to the prophecies respecting Cyrus and the Babylonish exile, the other to the prophecies respecting the Messiah and the new dis pensation. But the simple meaning of the words appears to be, that as former prophecies (not of Isaiah but of older prophets) had come to pass, BO those now uttered should be likewise verified. The strong and beauti ful expression in the last clause can only mean that the events about to be predicted were beyond the reach of human foresight, and is therefore de structive of the modern notion, that these prophecies were written after Cyrus had appeared, and at a time when the further events of his history could be foreseen by an observer of unusual sagacity. Such a prognosticator, unless he was also a deliberate deceiver, a charge which no one brings against this writer, could not have said of what he thus foresaw, that he announced it before it had begun to germinate, i. e. while the seed

was in the earth, and before any outward indications of the plant could be perceived. As this embraces all the writer's prophecies, it throws the date of composition back to a period before the rise of Cyrus, and thereby helps to invalidate the arguments in favour of regarding it as contemporaneous with the Babylonish exile.

10. Sing to Jehovah a new song, his praise from the end of the earth, (ye~) going down to the sea and its fulness, isles and their inhabitants I To sing a new song, according to Old Testament usage, is to praise God for some new manifestation of his power and goodness. It implies, therefore, not only fresh praise, but a fresh occasion for it. Reduced to ordinary prose style, it is a prediction that changes are to take place joyfully affect ing the condition of the whole world. That this is a hyperbole, relating to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon is too gratuitous and forced a supposition to be imposed upon any reader of the prophecy against his will. Let those who can, receive and make the most of it. The great majority of readers will be apt to reject an assumption which has no foun dation in the text, and which reduces a sublime prediction to an extrava ganza. — Gesenius, for some reason not explained, chooses to read at instead of from the end. The obvious meaning of the phrase is, that the sound of praise should be heard coming from the remotest quarters. Its fulness may either be connected with tJie sea, and both dependent on //o down (to the sea and its fulness), or regarded as a distinct object of address. In the latter case, the marine animals would seem to be intended ; in the former, the whole mass of water with its contents ; the last is more poetical and natural. The antithesis is then between the sea with its frequenters on the one hand, and the isles with their inhabitants on the other.

11. The desert and -ils towns shall raise (the voice], the (ndsurcs (or en campments, in which) Kedar dwells ; the dwellers in the Rock shall shout, from the top of mountains shall they cry aloud. This is a direct continua tion of the previous description, in which the whole world is represented as exulting in the promised change. The reference of this verse to the course of the returning exiles through the intervening desert is forbidden by the mention of the sea and its fulness, the isles, and the ends of the earth, in the preceding and following verses. If these are not all p:irts of the same great picture, it is impossible to frame one. If they are, it is absurd to take the first and last parts in their widest sense as an extravagant hyperbole, and that which is between them in its strictest sense as a literal descrip tion. The only consistent supposition is, that sea, islands, deserts, moun tains, towns, and camps, are put together as poetical ingredients of the general conception, that the earth in all its parts shall have occasion to re joice. — The mention of cities as existing in the wilderness appears less strange in the original than in a modern version, because both the leading words p^HP and *VJ?) have a greater latitude of meaning than their usual equivalents ; the first denoting properly a pasture-ground, and being applic able, therefore, to any uncultivated region, whether uninhabited or not, the other answering to town in its widest English sense, inclusive of both villages and cities. There is no need, therefore, of supposing a particular allusion to oases in the arid desert, or of assuming, as Gesenius docs in his Thesau rus, that "l*V sometimes means nothing more than a military station, post, or watch-tower (See chap. i. 8.) — The translation of D^VD by villages is too restricted, since the Hebrew word is applicable also to collections of tents or nomadic encampments, which appears to be the prominent idea here. Kedar

HO ISAIAH XLII. [VER. 12, 13.

was the second son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 13). Here, as in chap. xxi. 16, the name is put for his descendants, or by a natural metonymy for the Arabians in general. The rabbinical name for the Arabic language is the tongue of Kedar. The Septuagint takes it as the name of the country (and those in habiting Kedar). The Vulgate makes this clause a promise (Kedar shall dwell in houses], and the preceding verb a passive (let the desert and its tou-ns be exalted]. Cocceius has the same construction, but gives both the verbs an imperative meaning, and follows the Septuagint in explaining Kedar (efferat se desertum et oppida ejus; per pagos habitetur Kedarena). Most writers, ancient and modern, have regarded a relative construction as more natural (which Kedar doth inhabit.} The use of Kedar as a feminine is contrary to general usage, which distinguishes between the name of the country as feminine and that of the nation possessing it as masculine. The rabbins explain it by supposing an ellipsis of rny before it. More probably, however, it is an irregularity or licence of construction, such as we have seen already in chap. xxi. 2, and elsewhere. — Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, and some later writers, explain J^D as the proper name of Petra; but the whole connection renders it more natural to take it in its general sense of rock, and as corresponding, not so much to Kedar as to the appellatives, desert, towns, encampments, mountains.

12. They shall place (or give) to Jehovah honour, and his praise in the islands they shall shew forth (or declare). Still another mode of saying, the whole world shall praise him. The islands are again mentioned, either as one out of several particulars before referred to, or with emphasis, as if he had said, even in the islands, beyond sea, and by implication in the furthest regions. — As the verb to give, in Hebrew usage, has the secondary sense of placing, so the verb to place is occasionally used as an equivalent to that of giving. (See vol. i. p. 425.) The translation of the verbs in this verse as imperatives (let them give glory and declare), although substantially correct, is a needless departure from the form of the original, in which the idea of command or exhortation in sufficiently implied, though not expressed. The verbs do not agree with the series of nouns in the foregoing verse (desert, towns, &c.), for these could not celebrate Jehovah in the islands. The construction is indefinite, they, i. e. men in general, a form of speech of far more frequent occurrence in Hebrew than would be suspected by a reader of the English Bible.

13. Jehovah, like a strong one, will go forth ; like a warrior (literally a man of battle) he will rouse (his) zeal ; he will shout, yea, he will cry ; against his foes will make (or shew) himself strong. From the effect he now reverts to the efficient cause. The universal joy before described is to arise from Jehovah's triumph over his enemies. The martial figures of the verse are intelligible in themselves, and all familiar to the usage of the Scriptures. Lowth and Barnes amend the common version of the first clause by read ing, he shall march forth like a hero. The modern Germans also use the word Held (hero). Luther and Calvin prefer giant. It may be doubted whether any English word is more appropriate or striking than the strict translation strong or mighty. To go forth is the common Hebrew phrase for going out to war or battle. (See above, on chap. xl. 26.) Junius and Tremellius understand the plural battles as a superlative expression, and translate the phrase vir belli cos issimus cvigilans zdo. The versions of Clericus (vir militaris), and Vitringa (peritus bellator) greatly weaken the expression, ntop may either have its general sense of ardour, strong and violent affection of whatever kind, or its more specific sense of jealousy, or

sensitive regard for his own honour and for the welfare of his people. (See vol. i. p. 206.) The idea is that of an ancient warrior exciting his own courage by a shout or war-cry. The last clause may be under stood to mean, he shall prevail over his enemies; but although this idea is undoubtedly included, it is best to retain the reflexive form and import of the verb, as far as may be, in translation.

14. I have long been still, (saying) I will hold my peace, I will restrain myelf. (But now), like the travailing (woman) I will shriek, 1 will pant and gasp at once. The consecution of the tenses in the first clause has occasioned the most opposite constructions. Of these the most violent and ungraminatical is that of Augusti, who translates all the verbs of the verse as preterites. "With this exception, it appears to be agreed on all hands that the verbs of the last clause are either futures proper, or descriptive presents, and the only question is in reference to those of the first. Ac cording to Luther, these are all presents ; while the Yulgate, followed by most modern writers, makes them all refer to past time. That such assimi lations do occur, is certain ; but a general maxim of interpretation makes it highly desirable to regard the distinction of the tenses, where we can, as intentional and significant. Lowth and Ewald accordingly follow the Septuagint in retaining the future form of the second and third verbs, but read them interrogatively (I have long been silent ; shall I hold my peace and restrain myself for ever ?) This involves the necessity of reading D^y?n (for ever?) and connecting it against the accents with what follows. It is true that interrogative sentences, without the interrogative particle ex pressed, are not unknown to Hebrew usage ; but their occurrence is com paratively rare, and ought not to be assumed without necessit}', which of course has no existence if the clause can be affirmatively read without abandoning the strict sense of the future. This can be done, as may be seen in the translation above given, by regarding the second and third verbs as the expression of his o\vn determination or intention while the silence lasted. The omission of the verb to say before such repetitions or citations is not only frequent in general usage, but the more natural in this case from the fact that this whole verse is universally regarded as the words of God himself, although he is not expressly introduced as the speaker. The necessity of supplying (at least in thought) the words but now before the last clause, is not peculiar to this view of the passage, but common to it with all others, except Augusti's paradoxical construction. The word nj?2X is twice used elsewhere by Isaiah (xxx. 6, lix. 5) as a noun meaning a viper or some other venomous serpent, in which sense it is also used by Job (xx. 1C). The general principles of analogical interpretation would require this sense to be retained here ; but the only writers who have ventured so to do are Junius and Tremellius, who translate the clause, ut partnrientem viperam dexalalo. Even the Kabbius give the word the sense of crying, which is plainly a conjecture from the context. Bochart attempts a compromise between the two opinions, by supposing that the word originally means to hiss like a serpent; and Gesenius connects it with HXQ to blow. The only objection to the common version, shriek or scream, is that it seems too strong both for the etymology and the analogy of the verbs which follow, and which seem to denote a suppressed sound rather than a loud one, I will pant and gasp at once. There is indeed another very ancient explanation of these two verbs, given in the Yulgate and by Calvin, Grotius, Hitzig, and Hende- •werk, as well as in the English Version, / icill destroy and devour at once. This rei'ers CK'^ to the root QP^ to lay waste (and more generally to destroy),

and gives *1X^ the sense of swallowing, and then (like S^?2) that of destroy ing. But ^Nt^ means elsewhere to pant or gasp; and BCJ'NI may be readily regarded as a synonyme, if derived from D^J to breathe, of which it would be the natural future. It is true that this verb does not occur elsewhere, but its derivative n^^ breath is of perpetual occurrence; and the very same writers who reject the derivation from DE>3 on this ground, assume that of n£D^ from HJ?S, not only in the absence of any other instance, but in opposi tion to the usage which determines it to be a noun. The authority of Gesenius may be cited upon both sides of this question, not only from his earlier and later works, but from the last edition of his Lexicon, in which the two explanations of this clause are separately given as correct, the one under ^E?, which is explained as meaning to breathe hard, to pant, to blow, " e. g. of an angry person, Isa. xlii. 14," the other under B>?^, where the two verbs are translated, " I will desti'oy and gulp down together." The para phrase added in the latter case, " my wrath, long restrained, I will now let break forth," is no doubt the true sense of the verse on either supposition.

15. I will lay waste mountains and hills, and all their herbage will I dry up ; and I ivill turn (literally place) streams to islands, and pools (or lakes) will I dry np. Having described the effect and the cause of the great future change, he now describes the change itself, under the common form of a complete revolution in the face of nature, sometimes with special re ference to the heavens (chap. xiii. 10), sometimes (as here and in chap. xxxv. 6, 7) to the earth. It is strange that, with these analogies in view, and after such descriptions as those previously given, any should still sup pose that by mountains and hills we are here to understand States and governments, and by their herbs the citizens or subjects. There is more probability in the opinion that the verse contains an allusion to the ancient cultivation of the hills of Palestine, by means of terraces, many of which are still in existence. (See vol. i. p. 182.) Houbigant and Lowth read QVV (dry deserts), which is not only needless but contrary to usage, as D\'V nowhere signifies deserts themselves, but always their in habitants. Gesenius and the other modern writers suppose D'?K to be here used in the sense of dry land as opposed to water. The necessity of this explanation may, however, be avoided by adopting the ingenious suggestion of Clericus, that what is here described is the actual appearance of islands in the channels of the streams on the subsiding of the water. — The drying of the bed of the Euphrates by Cyrus can at the utmost only be the subject of an indirect allusion. A literal prophecy of that event would be entirely misplaced in a series of bold metaphorical descriptions. Roscnm ill ler goes to an extravagant length in attempting to connect this verse with the pre ceding context by explaining it to mean that the excited warrior will dry up vegetation with his burning breath.

16. And I will make the blind walk in a way they knew not, in paths they kneio not I will make them tread; I will set (or turn) darkness before them to light, and obliquities to straightness. These are the words ; I hare made them (or done them) and have not left them. The particle before the first verb is conversive, i.e. gives a future meaning to the preterite, because preceded by the future proper. (See Nordheimer, § 219.) The ellipsis of the relative, which twice occurs in this clause, is precisely the same both ir Hebrew and in English. — B^i^O may be translated crooked or unevei places, as opposed to what is level, or to superficial rectitude. (See above, on chap. xl. 4, p. 95.) The combination of these two antitheses (light and dark, crooked and straight) shews clearly that they are both metaphorical

expressions for the same thing that is represented under other figures in the verse preceding, viz., total change; in what respect and by what means, the metaphors themselves do not determine. And yet some writers under stand the first clause as specifically meaning that the exiles in Babylon should be delivered at a time and in a manner which they had not expected; while another class apply the words exclusively to spiritual exercise or reli gious experience. To both these objects the description admits of an easy application; but neither of them is to be considered its specific subject. It is impossible, without the utmost violence, to separate this one link from the chain of which it forms a part, that is to say, from the series of strong and varied metaphors, by which the Prophet is expressing the idea of abrupt and total change. The same thing that is meant by the wasting of cultivated hills, the withering of herbage, and the drying up of streams and lakes, is also meant by the leading of blind men in a new path, i. e. causing them to witness things of which they had had no previous experience. — The usual construction of the last clause supplies a relative before the leading verb and takes it suffix as a dative — " these are the words or things which I have done for them and have not left them." Another construction separates the members as distinct propositions — " these are the words (or the things which I have promised to the people) ; I have made them and have not forsaken them." The simplest and most regular construction is that given by Jerome and Cocceius, which refers the pronouns not to a noun understood, but to the expressed antecedent: These are the ivords (i.e. my promises), I have performed them and have not abandoned them, that is to say, I have not relinquished my design until it was accomplished. (Compare the last clause of Ezekiel, xvii. 24.) The translation of these verbs as futures has arisen merely from a feeling on the part of the inter preter that the words ought to contain a promise; whereas the promise is implied, or rather superseded by the declaration that the work is done already, or at least that the effect is already secured. The usual con struction, which makes one a preterite and one a future, is doubly arbitrary and capricious.

17. They are turned back, they shall be ashamed with shame (i. e. utterly ashamed), those trusting in the graven image, those saying to the mol ten image, Ye arc our gods. This verse describes the effect to be produced by the expected changes on the enemies of God and the worshippers of idols. They are turned back, utterly defeated, foiled in their malignant opposition. Nor is this all ; for they are yet to be utterly ashamed, con founded, disappointed, and disgraced. In the last clause it is plain that the graven and molten image are separated only by the parallelism, because the address at the end is in the plural form, not thou art, but ye are our fiodx. On the usage of these two nouns, see vol. i. p. 482.

18. Ye deaf, hear! and, ye blind, look to see I From the connection, this would seem to be a call upon the worshippers of idols, to open their eyes and ears, and become conscious of their own delusions. — The infinitive at the end of the sentence does not express the manner but the purpose of the act required. Vitringa's version therefore (vidcndo intnemini) is less correct than that of Jerome (intuemini ad vitlendum).

19. Who (is) blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger (whom) I will send ? Who (w) blind like the devoted one and blind like the servant of Jehovah ? Why should he call the heathen blind and deaf, when Israel himself, with all his honours and advantages, refused to see or hear ? The very people whose mission and vocation it was to make the Gentiles see

and hear, seemed to emulate their insensibility. The most difficult ex pression in this verse is E?'^'p, which the Seventy seem to have read Ev!pE> and understood as meaning those that have dominion over them. The various explanations of the common text may all be reduced to two dis tinct senses of the verbal root, viz., that of being at peace and that of being perfect or complete. The latter meaning is assumed by Luther, Calvin, Cocceius, and Vitringa; while Clericus modifies it so as to mean a man of consummate wisdom, and Lowth one perfectly instructed. On the other hypothesis, Junius renders it donatus pace; G-esenius, the friend of God; Hitzig, Ewald, and Umbreit, the devoted or the God-devoted. This last is

favoured bv the analogy of. \ ....... -c in Arabic, the name by which the

Mohammedans describe themselves, and which denotes one who gives him self to God. From the use of the Piel in the sense of completing, making good, repaying, are derived the Vulgate version (venundatus) and that of Rosenmiiller (redemptus). As to the application of the term here, Clericus supposes that it means the High Priest or some eminent person of the sacerdotal order. But the great majority of writers understand it as de scriptive of Israel, the chosen people. The objections arising from the use of similar expressions at the beginning of the chapter with respect to the Messiah is usually set aside by arbitrarily assuming entire diversity of sub ject. Henderson alone has the intrepidity to understand this verse of the Messiah likewise, accounting for the application of such epithets to such a subject by assuming that it expresses the opinion of the unbelieving Jews respecting Christ. The obvious objection to this mode of exposition is, that it opens the door to endless licence of interpretation, by admitting that a passage may be referred at will to the subject which it is least adapted to describe, by simply making it express the mind not of the writer, as it seems to do, but of another party not expressly mentioned. A purely arbitrary supposition cannot be justified by the assumption of another like it. The true solution of the difficulty seems to be the one already given in explaining the first verse, viz., that the Servant of Jehovah is a title applying not only to the Head but to the Body also. Here, where the language implies censure and reproach, the terms must be referred ex clusively to Israel, the messenger whom God had sent to open the eyes of the other nations, but who had himself become wilfully blind. The future

H?^'^ implies that the mission was not yet fulfilled. Jerome's construction, unto whom I sent my messengers, is wholly ungrammatical, and a mere expedient to avoid a seeming difficulty. It is scarcely credible that Clericus

seems half inclined to take '???>? as the proper name of Malachi.

20. Thou hast seen many thinys and wilt not observe. (Sent) to open ears! and lie will not hear. In the first clause he turns to Israel and addresses him directly ; in the last he turns away from him again, and, a it were, expresses his surprise and indignation to the by-standers. Tfe'e sense of the whole, leaving out of view this difference of form, is the satrV * as in the foregoing verse, namely, that Israel had eyes but saw not, and , ' instead of opening the ears of others was himself incapable of hearing. TheJ' .' sentence may be said to exhibit a climax. In the first clause the contrast / is between the blindness of the people and the light which they enjoyed ; in the last it is between their deafness and their high vocation to open the ears of others. Hence the abrupt and impassioned form of expression in the latter case. The marginal reading nitfp, though susceptible of explanation

as an infinitive, is an unnecessary emendation of the textual 0^^- The infinitive HpB might be considered as deriving a preterite sense from the preceding verb; but a better explanation is afforded by the analogy of ver. 7, where the same infinitive describes the end for which the Servant of Jehovah was sent.

21. Jehovah (/) willing for his righteousness* sake; he icill magnify the law and make it honourable. The people, being thus unfaithful to their trust, had no claim to be treated any longer as an object of Jehovah's favour ; and yet he continues propitious, not on their account, but out of regard to his own engagements, and for the execution of his righteous pur poses. For these reasons he will still put honour on the chosen people and the system under which they lived. Gesenius and Hitzig arbitrarily construe fEn with ?*??!, is pleased to magnify, of which construction there is no example elsewhere, and then make this an idiom of the later Hebrew. Still less grammatical is the construction of the ancient versions, " it pleased God to justify or sanctify him," whether this be understood to imply the reading Ip^V, or taken as a paraphrase of the common text. The applica tion of the words to the righteousness of Christ is inconsistent with the terms of censure and disapprobation which precede and follow.

22. And (ye£) it (is] a people spoiled and robbed, ensnared in holes all of them, and in houses of confinement they are hidden. They have become a spoil; and there is none delivering ; a prey, and there is none saying, Restore. Hero another contrast is brought into view. As the conduct of the people did not answer to their high vocation, so their treatment does not answer to the preceding declaration of God's purpose. If he still designed to honour them, though not for their own sake, how was this to be reconciled with what they suffered at the hands of their enemies ? The terms are no doubt metaphorical, and therefore not exclusively descriptive of literal cap tivity. At the same time it may be admitted that the sufferings of Israel in exile furnished one of the most memorable instances of what is here de scribed in general. — D'>irQ is explained in the ancient versions, and by many modern writers, to mean youths or chosen men, as it does above in chap. xl. 30. But why should this class be described as in captivity ? Cocceius and Yitringa change the meaning of the clause by making HSn the infinitive of H-1S, to blow or puff, and explaining the whole phrase, " they are all the puffing of the young men," /. e. objects of derision and contempt. But this construction violates the parallelism for the sake of an extremely

forced and far-fetched meaning. Most of the modern writers follow Luther in explaining D^IPQ to mean in holes or pi/falls, corresponding to '£>3 | V*?? in the other member.

i23. Who among you will give ear to this, will heat ken and hear for the le to come • By this we are not to understand merely the fact recorded -. i- >.e foregoing verse, but the doctrine of the whole preceding context as a i. > vocation and mission of Israel, and as to his actual condition. God 6<5. appointed him to be a source, or at least a medium, of light and bless- /• to the nations; but instead of acting up to this high character, he not ou'y left the nations without light, but was wilfully blinded and insensible himself. Yet God would still be true to his engagements, and put honour on the special revelation which he had already given. Why, then, it might be asked, was Israel suffered to fall before his enemies? The answer to this question is introduced by an indirect caution to consider it and bea*r it in mind. The interrogative form implies the possibility of their neglecting

or refusing to obey it. — The last phrase is explained to mean behind or backwards by Yitringa (a tergo) and Ewald (zuruchtarts), who seem to understand it as denoting reflection on the past, or the act of meditating upon what they heard. — Most other writers understand it as relating either to the time of hearing (henceforth or hereafter") on the subject of the declara tions to be heard (concerning the future).

24. Who has given Jacob for a prey, and Israel to spoilers? Has not Jehovah, against whom we have sinned, and they were not willing in his ways to walk, and did not hearken to his laic ? This was what they were to bear in mind, viz., that what they suffered was ordained of God and on account of their iniquities. The errors of which this verse is the negation are those of supposing that they suffered without fault, and that they suf fered, as it were, in spite of God's protection, or because he was unable to prevent it. The interrogation makes the statement more emphatic : Who else can be imagined to have done it, or for what other cause except our sins ? The change of person in the last clause is a common Hebrew idiom, and does not seem to be significant. (See vol. i. p. 94.) If the Prophet identifies himself with the people in the first phrase, he cannot be supposed to exclude himself in that which follows. — Hitzig's translation of the last word (his instruction) is too weak, as it fails to sug gest the idea of obligation. It is also at variance with usage, which requires rnin to be taken not in its etymological sense merely, but in that of law. — This verse is strictly applicable to the sufferings of the Jews in Babylon, and it was no doubt so applied by them ; but in itself it is a general decla ration of a fact which has been often verified and was especially exemplified in ancient Israel, viz., that the sufferings even of God's people are the consequence of sin.

25. And he (Jehovah] poured upon him (Israel) fury (even) his wrath and the strength (or violence) of war: and it set him on fire round about, and he kneu- (it) not ; and it burned him, and he u'ill not lay it to heart. This continues and concludes the description of God's judgments and of Israel's insensi bility. Most writers explain HDn as an absolute form used for the construct (fury of his anger). Junius and Vitringa make it an adverbial expression qualifying 1SK (e.rcandescentid or cum excandescentid irarn). The simplest construction is to put the nouns in apposition, either as mere equivalents (my anger as fury), or as exegetical the one of the other (fury, to wit, my. anger). — He knew not does not here mean unawares, without his knowledge, but, as the parallel clause shews, implies extreme insensibility. Thi translation of the last verb as a preterite is ungrarnmatical, and the assimi-! lation of the two as presents, an evasion. That a preterite precedei instead of shewing that the future must refer to past time, shews the coi trary, by leaving us unable to account for the difference of form if none meaning was intended. However necessary such assimilations may bo elsewhere, they are inadmissible in cases like the present, where the ch

of tense admits of an easy explanation, to wit, that the writer intended to describe the people'not only as having been insensible before but as likely to continue so in time to come. — On the usage of the phrase to put or fog •upon the heart, see above, p. 125.

CHAPTER XLIII.

THE main subject of this chapter is the true relation of Israel to Jeho vah, and its application in the way both of warning and encouragementj

The doctrine taught is that their segregation from the rest of men, as a peculiar people, was an act of sovereignty, independent of all merit in themselves, and not even intended for their benefit exclusively, but for the accomplishment of God's gracious purposes respecting men in general. The inferences drawn from this fact are, that Israel would certainly escape the dangers which environed him, however imminent, and on the other hand that he must suffer for his unfaithfulness to God. In illustration of these truths, the Prophet introduces several historical allusions and specific pro phecies, the most striking of the former having respect to the exodus from Egypt, and of the hitter to the fall of Babylon. It is important to the just interpretation of the chapter that these parts of it should be seen in their true light and proportion, as incidental illustrations, not as the main subject of the prophecy, which, as already stated, is the general relation between God and his ancient people, and his mode of dealing with them, not at one time but at all times.

Israel is the peculiar people of Jehovah, cherished and favoured at the expense of other nations, vers. 1-4. But these are one day to become partakers of the same advantages, vers. 5-9. The proofs of the divine protection are afforded by the history of Israel, vers. 10-13. One of the most remarkable, yet future, is the downfall of Babylon and the liberation of the exiles, vers. 14, 15. An analogous example in more ancient times •was the deliverance from Egypt, vers. 1C, 17. But both these instances shall be forgotten in comparison with the great change which awaits the church hereafter, vers. 18-21. Of all these distinguishing favours none •was owing to the merit of the people, but all to the sovereign grace of God, vers. 22-25. The people were not only destitute of merit, but deserving of punishment, which they had experienced and must experience again, vers. 2G-28.

1. And now, thus saith Jehovah, thy Creator, 0 Jacob, and thy Former, 0 Israel, Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, I have called thec by thy name, thou art mine (literally to me art thou). The juxtaposition of this promise •with the very different language at the close of the preceding chapter has led to various false assumptions as to the connection of the passages. Some give and now the sense of yet or nevertheless, while others understand it as referring to a period following that just mentioned ; as if he had said, After these things have been suffered, fear no longer. But this interpreta tion is forbidden by the reasons here suggested for not fearing, viz., that Jehovah was already their Creator and Redeemer, and had already called them and made them his peculiar people. It will also be observed that in chap. xlii. as well as here, there is the same alternation and apparent confusion of the encouraging and minatory tone, which cannot therefore be explained by referring any one part of the context to a particular period of history. Another solution of the difficulty is that the Prophet has in view a twofold Israel, the false and true, the carnal and spiritual. This is correct BO far as what he says relates to internal character ; but it is evident that he has reference likewise to the outward fortunes of God's people as an organised body. The simplest and most satisfactory hypothesis is that, in this whole context, he is accounting for the sufferings of Israel and his I preservation from destruction on the same ground, namely, that Jehovah llhad chosen them and therefore would preserve them, but that they were 1 unfaithful and must therefore suffer. The intermingling of the promises and I threatenings is not to be explained by supposing a reference to different Itperiods or different subjects ; nor is it to be set down as capricious and

unmeaning, but as necessary to the Prophet's purpose. The now will then have a logical rather than a temporal meaning, as introductory to an expla nation of the strange fact that the bush was burned but not consumed. — Create and form have reference not merely to the natural creation, nor to the spiritual renovation of individuals, but to the creation or constitution of the church. God was the maker of Israel in a peculiar sense. He existed as a nation for a special purpose. — Fear not, i. e. fear not that thou canst be utterly destroyed. It is not an assurance of immunity from suffering, the experience of which is implied and indeed expressly threatened in what follows. — / have redeemed thee. There is here an allusion to the redemption of the first-born under the Mosaic law, as appears from the metaphor of substitution used in vers. 3 and 4. Thus understood, the meaning of this clause is, thou art not like the other nations of the earth, for I have pur chased or redeemed thee to myself as a peculiar people. — To call by name includes the ideas of specific designation, public announcement, and solemn consecration to a certain work. This and the other clauses of the verse can be applied to the election and vocation of individuals only by accommo dation, and only so far as the case of the individual members is included in that of the whole body. It is a curious idea of Menochius, that nPlN"? is the name assigned, as if he had said, I have called thee by thy name Li-attah (Thou-art-mine). The true sense is, thou art mine because I have ex pressly called thee so to be. — Rosenmiiller discovers here another obstetrical allusion in the phrase T?V- (See vol. i. p. 429.)

2. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee ; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkcst through the fire, thou shall not be scorched, and the flame shall not burn thee. Fire and water are common figures for calamity and danger. (See Ps. Ixvi. 12.) To ex plain one as meaning civil and the other religious persecutions, as Vitringa does, is wholly arbitrary, and might be reversed with just as much or rather just as little reason. — Although when conveys the true sense here, and is given in the Lexicons as a distinct meaning of the Hebrew *?, the latter really retains its proper meaning, for, because. It is the genius of the language to delight in short independent clauses, where we use more involved and complicated periods. "For thou shalt pass through the waters, I will be with thee," is the idiomatic Hebrew mode of saying, If or when thou passest, &c. — The last clause might be rendered, when thou icallcest in the fire, the preposition through being used even in the first clause only because the English idiom requires it after pass. — Hitzig gives njSFl a re flexive meaning (burn thyself), which is unnecessary, although it agrees well | both with Hebrew usage and the English idiom. Augusti takes the same i verb in the more specific sense of being branded, i. e. marked by the fire. I (Compare the derivative noun ^3, chap. iii. 24.) But this does not suit the | more indefinite expressions in the parallel clauses. — The common version] of the last words, shall not kindle upon thee, is of doubtful authority, and] seems to introduce a needless anticlimax, as burning is much more than! kindling. — The application of this promise to individual believers is an ac commodation, but one justified by the natural relation between the bodj and its several members.

3. For I, Jehovah, thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour, havt given (as) thy ransom Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba, instead of thee. This iii an amplification of the phrase / have redeemed thee in ver. 1. As the Israelite under the Mosaic law was obliged to redeem his first-born by th( j payment of a price, or by the substitution of some other object, so Jehovalj

secured Israel as his own by giving up the other nations, here represented by a single group, just as the forest trees are represented in chap. xli. 19 by a few well-known species. The group here selected is composed of three contiguous and cognate nations. Cush, which was placed by the older writers either wholly or partly in Arabia, is admitted by the moderns to be coincident with the Ethiopia of the Greek geographers. Seba is now commonly supposed, on the authority of Josephus, to be Meroe, a part of Ethiopia surrounded by the branches of the Nile, and celebrated by the ancient writers for its wealth and commerce. The connection of the coun tries was not only geographical but genealogical. According to Gen. x. 6, 7, Cush was the brother of Mizraim and the father of Seba. According to this exegetical hypothesis, the same essential meaning might have been con veyed by the mention of any other group of nations. At the same time it may be admitted, that the mention of Egypt was probably suggested by its intimate connection with the history of Israel, and by its actual sacrifice, in some sort, to the safety of the latter at the period of the exodus. Many interpreters go further, and suppose that the words would have been appli cable to no other nations than those specifically mentioned, and that the Prophet here alludes to the real or anticipated conquest of these countries by Cyrus, as a sort of compensation for the loss of Israel. But the neces sity of this prosaic explanation is precluded by the prophetic usage of specifying individuals as representatives of classes, while the sense thus put upon ransom or atonement is extremely forced and far-fetched. That the terms, although specific, were designed to have a wider application, may be safely inferred from the generic expressions substituted for them in the next verse. — The essential idea of ">?3, here and elsewhere, is that of vicari ous compensation. — The insertion of the substantive verb in the first clause, BO as to make it a distinct proposition (/ am Jehovah), greatly weakens the whole sentence. The description of the speaker in the first clause is in tended to conciliate regard to what he says in the other. It was in the character, not only of an absolute and sovereign God, but in that of Israel's God, his Holy One, his Saviour, that Jehovah had thus chosen him to the exclusion of all other nations.

4. Since thou wast precious in my eyes, thou hast been honoured, and I have loved thee, and will give man instead of thee, and nations instead of thy soul (or) life. There is precisely the same ambiguity in since as in the Hebrew %"$£. Both expressions may be taken either in a temporal or causal sense. Because thou ivast precious, or, from the time that thou wast precious. The former sense is really included in the latter. If Israel had been honoured ever since Jehovah called him, it is plainly implied that this vocation was the cause of his distinction. — The first cause, as the whole context clearly shews, does not refer to intrinsic qualities, but to an arbitrary sovereign choice. Since I began to treat thee as a thing of value, thou hast been distinguished among the nations. The verse, so far from ascribing any merit to the people, refers all to God. Some continue the construction through the whole verse, making the apodosis begin with the second clause, since thou art precious in my siyht, and art honoured, ami I love thee, I will give, &c. This yields a good sense, but is grammatically inadmissible, because it supplies a conjunction in the first clause, and omits one in the second. Either of these assumptions might be justified by usage and analogy ; but the coincidence appears unnatural, and makes the whole con struction harsh. At the same time, this construction weakens the sentence by making it a mere repetition of what goes before, whereas it is a repetition with a pointed affirmation that the nation owed its eminence entirely to God. — The future (/ will give) shews that the substitution mentioned in ver. 3 did not relate merely to the past, but to the future also. — Man is here used collectively or indefinitely for other men or the rest of men, as in Judg. xvi. 7 ; Ps. Ixxiii. 5 ; Job. xxxi. 33 ; Jer. xxxii. 20. Thy soul, life, or person, seems to be an allusion to the usage of the same Hebrew word in the Law, with respect to enumeration or redemption. (See Exod. xii. 4 ; Lev. xxvii. 4.) The general terms of this clause make it wholly improbable that ver. 3 has specific and exclusive reference to the nations named there.

5. Fear not, for I (am] witli thee ; from the east will I make (or let] thy seed come, and from the west will I gather thee. The reference of this verse to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon is not only arbitrary and without foundation, but forbidden by the mention of the west as well as the east. That it refers to any restoration is the more improbable, be cause the Prophet does not say bring back but simply bring. — The only interpretation which entirely suits the text and context, without supplying or assuming anything beyond what is expressed, is that which makes the verse a promise to the church that she should be completed, that all her scattered members should be ultimately brought together. (Compare John xi. 52 ; Rom. iii. 29 ; 1 John ii. 2.) — Thy seed has reference to Israel or Jacob as the ideal object of address.

6. / will say to the north, Give, and to the south, Withhold not, let my sons come from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth. This is a poetical amplification of the promise in the foregoing verse. As it was there declared that God would bring and gather the whole seed of Israel, so here he represents himself as calling on the north and the south to execute his purpose. The feminine form of the verbs is explained by the rabbins on the ground that the address is to the north and south wind, as in Cant. iv. 16. Gesenius makes the words themselves of common gender. Perhaps the case falls under the same general principle with names of countries, provinces, &c., which are uniformly feminine. Hitzig's sugges tion that Win does not here mean bring but suffer to come, is favoured by the juxtaposition of withhold not.

7. Every one called by my name, and for mj/ glory I have created him ; I have formed him, yea, I have made him. The construction is continued from the foregoing verse. My sons and my daughters, even every one called by my name. Augusti's construction, Every one of them is called by my name, is forbidden by the article. — The reflexive sense, that calls him self, implying profession rather than divine vocation, is wholly unnecessary, and less agreeable to general usage. — And I have created him is a com mon Hebrew idiom, equivalent to whom I have created. — The distinctions drawn by some between created, formed, and made, are more ingenious than well-founded. Thus Vitringa runs a parallel between the creation of matter out of nothing, its configuration, and the completion of its parts ; the regeneration of the soul, its conformation to God's image, and its ultimate perfection. It seems to be rather an exhaustive accumulation of synony mous expressions. — For my glory is emphatic. God had not only made them what they were, but he had done it for his own sake, not for theirs. So likewise he now speaks of their being called by his name, as he did before of his calling them by their name, the latter denoting special designa tion, the former special authority and right.

8. Lie hath brought out the blind people, and there are eyes (to them] ;

and the deaf, and (there are) ears to them. The two clauses are so con structed as to supply one another's ellipsis. Most writers make wyin im perative (bring forth) after the example of the Vulgate (educ). But as this form in thirty-five places is the praeter, and in thirty the infinitive, while the imperative without an augment always elsewhere takes the form Ni'in, such an assumption is in the highest degree unsafe and precarious. Some more correctly make it the infinitive (to bring forth), which yields a good sense, and is justified by the analogy of HJ53 in xlii. 20. The pre terite construction, however, is not only simpler in itself, but agrees better with the ^?. which follows, and which is usually found in affirmative pro positions. The first verb may then be construed either with Jehovah, or with the subject of the preceding sentence, i. e. the chosen people or the individuals composing it, whose work or office is declared to be that of turning the heathen " from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" (Acts xxvi. 18). A veiy different sense is put upon the verse by those interpreters who take D?^J? ^ as descriptive of the blind people (that have eyes), and apply it to the Jews, who, in spite of their advantages, were blind to spiritual objects. This agrees well with chap. xlii. 19, 20, as explained above. But it then becomes difficult to understand in what sense they are said to be brought out. On this hypothesis the best ex planation is that they are summoned to behold the demonstration of Jeho vah's prescience, either as adverse parties or spectators. This would require the imperative construction of ^yin, the grammatical objections to which have been already stated. On the whole, the most satisfactory interpretation of the verse is that which understands it as descriptive of the change wrought or to be wrought in the condition of mankind by Jeho vah, through the agency of his people, whether the latter be expressly mentioned here or not. He (i. e. God, or Israel as his messenger) hath brow/hi out a people (once) blind, and (now) they hare eyes, and (once) deaf, and (now) they hare ears, i. e. of course, seeing eyes and hearing ears. This agrees perfectly with all that goes before and follows, with respect to the mission and vocation of God's people.

9. All the nations are gathered together, and the j)enples are to be as sembled. Who among them will declare this, and let us hear the first things? Let them give (or produce) their witnesses and be justified; and (if they can not do this) let them heat (my witnesses), and say, (It is) the truth. The translation of the first verb, by Rosenmuller and others, as a future or imperative, is wholly unauthorized by usage, the cases cited to establish it being themselves of very doubtful import. At all events, it is incompar ably safer 'and more satisfactory to retain the proper meaning when it yields a tolerable sense, than to proceed upon the strange assumption, that when a writer deliberately uses two distinct forms, he intended them to be received as one. Here the sense would seem to be, that the nations have been gathered, but that the process is not yet completed. This gathering of the nations has been commonly explained as a judicial metaphor like that in chap. xli. 1. In that case the verse describes the heathen as as sembled at the judgment-seat to plead their cause against Jehovah. This agrees well with the forensic terms employed in the subsequent context. It is possible, however, that this first clause may have been intended to describe not the process but the subject of adjudication. The gathering of the nations will then denote their accession to the church, as predicted in vers. 5-7 ; and this, in the next clause, will refer to the same event. Who among them (i. e. the nations) could have foretold their own change of

condition? On the other supposition, this must either be indefinite, or mean the restoration of the Jews from exile, of which, as we have seen, there is no specific mention in the foregoing context. In either case, the usual alternative is offered, viz. that of pointing out some previous instance of foreknowledge and prediction. — The last clause admits of two construc tions. It may either he read, let them be just (or candid) and hear and say it is the truth; or, let them be justified (by the witnessess whom they produce), and (if not) let them hear (my witnesses) and say, it is the truth. The latter seems more natural, because the other connects -Ip^V? not with its own part of the clause but with what follows. n£? is here equivalent to P'?V in chap. xli. 26.

10. Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may knoir and believe me, and may understand that I am He; before me u~as not formed a god, and after me there shall not be. Some regard the heathen as the object of address in the first clause, and under stand my servant as denoting Israel. But there is no consistent sense in which the former could be cited as witnesses against themselves ; and this application is besides forbidden by the obvious analog}1 of ver. 12, where the same words are explicitly applied to Israel. Of those who correctly understand them so, in this case likewise, the greater number refer my servant to a different subject, either Isaiah, or the prophets as a class, or the Messiah. Ye (the Jews) are my witnesses, and (so is this) my servant. But the simplest and most natural construction of the sentence is to make my servant not a subject, but a predicate. Ye are my witnesses and (ye are) my servant whom 1 have chosen (for this very purpose). The combination of the plural witnesses with the singular servant, although strange in itself, is in perfect agreement with the previous representations of Israel both as a person and a body politic. On the other hypothesis, the relative clause, that ye may know, &c., depends upon witnesses, and the words whom 1 have chosen form a pleonastic adjunct to the phrase my servant. But according to the explanation just proposed, that ye may know depends upon the words immediately preceding, whom I have chosen, and the clause declares the purpose not only of the testimony here adduced, but of the election and vocation of his servant. The witness to whom God appeals is Israel, his servant, constituted such for the very end that he might know, and under stand, and believe that of which all other nations were entirely ignorant, viz., that Jehovah was he, i.e. the being in question, the only wise God, the only infallible foreteller of futurity. — Various attempts have been made to explain away the singular expression, there was no god formed before me, as a solecism, or at least an inaccuracy of expression ; whereas nothing else could have conveyed the writer's meaning in a form at once sarcastic, argu mentative, and graphic. Instead of saying, in a bald prosaic form, all other gods are the work of men's hands, but I am uncreated, and exist from all eternity, he condenses all into the pregnant declaration, there was no god manufactured before me, i. e. all other gods were made, but none of them was made before I had a being. There is not even such an incongruity of form as some suppose, — a notion resting on the false assumption that before me must in this connection mean before I was formed, whereas it only means before I existed, just as the parallel phrase after me does not mean after I am formed, but after 1 shall cease to exist. The sarcasm is rendered still more pungent by the use of the divine name 7tf, thus bringing into the most revolting contrast the pretended divinity of idols and their impotence; as if he had said, None of these almighty gods were made before I had a

being. — BW is probably a passive participle used as a noun, like the Latin dictum, and exclusively applied to divine communications.

11. /, /, Jehovah, and besides me (or apart from me) there is no Saviour. In the first clause we may simply supply am, as in the English and most other versions, or am lie from the preceding verse, and in the sense there explained. The exclusive honour here claimed is not merely that of infal lible foreknowledge, but of infinite power. Jehovah was able not only to foretell the salvation of his people, but to save them. These terms are not to be restricted, if applied at all directly, to the final salvation of individual believers. There is evident allusion to the deliverance of Israel as a people from external sufferings or dangers, of which one signal instance is referred to in ver. 14, and another in ver. 16. At the same time, the doctrine here propounded, or the character ascribed to God, affords a sure foundation for the personal trust of all who have really a place among his people.

12. / have told and have saved and have declared (or let you hear before hand), and there is not amont/ you (any) stranrjer ; and ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I (am) (Jod. Having laid claim successively to divine prescience and power, he here combines the two, and represents himself both as the foreteller and the giver of salvation. The expression of the first idea twice, before and after the expression of the other, does not seem to have any special meaning, as some interpreters imagine, except so far as it gives special prominence to the divine omniscience and the proof of it afforded in prediction, as the evidence of deity which he had particularly urged before, and which he is about to urge again. — The emphatic insertion of the pronoun I at the beginning of the verse can only be expressed in English by a circumlocution, it is I that hare told, &c. — Yitringa and Roscnniiiller omit the substantive verb in the last member of the first clause as superfluous, and construe the words thus, / have declared and no stranne (god) among you, i.e. no strange god declared it. But in that case Hebrew usage would require N? instead of j'N, which is not an adverb of negation, but an idiomatic equivalent to the negative verb of existence, and can only mean there is not or there was not. Most of the modern writers refer it to past time, and explain the clause as an assertion that the prophecies in question were uttered at a time when idolatry did not prevail in Israel. It is more agreeable, however, both to usage and the context, to translate it in the present, as a declaration that Jehovah was the only God whom they had reason to acknowledge, from their own experience and observation. — "IJ, which is a common term for stranaer, used in reference to men, maybe here considered an ellipsis for the full phrase "It /N, which is not uncommon elsewhere.

lo. Also (or even) from the day I am Jit; and there is no one freeing from my hand; I iv ill do, and who u-ill undo itY The assonance in the last clause is not in the original, which literally means, / will act ( or make), and who will cause it to return, i.e. reverse or nullify it? The interrogative form implies negation. A similar expression of the same idea is found in chap. xiv. 27. What is said specifically in the first clause of delivering from Jehovah's power, is extended in the last to all counteraction or reversal of his acts. The DJI at the beginning indicates a climax not only now, or on any occasion, but DI'O. This last is understood by some as referring to a specific terminus a quo, such as the origin of Israel as a nation, the exodus, &c. Others make it indefinite, of old or long since. But the best interpreters explain it as meaning since the first day, or since tiniu began. The words are then universal, both in the extent of power claimed,

and in relation to the time of its execution. Over every object, and in every age, the power of Jehovah had been clearly proved to be supreme and absolute.

14. Thus saith Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holt/ One of Israel: For your sake 1 have sent to Babylon, and have brought down (or made to descend] fugitives all of them; and the Chaldeans, in the ships their shout (or song']. This is a particular instance of the general protection vouchsafed by Je hovah to his people, and more especially of that providential substitution or redemption of which we read above in vers. 3, 4. The inference before drawn from the general terms of ver. 4, that the nations mentioned in ver. 3 are only representatives or samples, is confirmed by this explicit mention of the fall of Babylon as an example of the same great truth. — The titles added to Jehovah's name are not mere expletives or words of course, but intimate that he would bring this great event to pass in his dis tinctive character as the Redeemer and the Holy One of Israel. — From the past tense of the verb (/ have sent), some infer that this verse was written after the event, while others endeavour to avoid this conclusion by translating it as future (/ will send]. One of these inferences is just as groundless as the other. The event, although still future to the writer, is described as past, in reference not only to the purposes of God, but also the perceptions of the Prophet. As presented to his view by the prophetic inspiration, the destruction of Babylon was just as truly a historical event as that of Pharaoh and his host. This is what is meant by the praeteritum propheticum, to render which as future is a wanton violation of the form of the original, and a gratuitous confounding of the text and comment. — The Targum strangely understands this clause as referring not to the downfall of the Babylonians, but to the deportation of the Jews. Behold, on account of your sins I sent (you) to Babylon. But this agrees neither with the usage of D3?yo<, nor with the meaning of the other clause. Interpreters are com monly agreed that the object of the verb is Cyrus, or the Medes and Per sians. — From the earliest times B'TIQ has received a twofold explanation, viz., that of fugitives, as in the Septuagint, and that of bars, as in the Vulgate. The same question arises in the exposition of chap. xv. 5. (See vol. i. p. 315.) But there the pointing favours the last sense, whereas here it seems to recommend the other. Of those who prefer the mean ing bars even here, some suppose a literal allusion to the gates of Babylon, others a figurative one to its protectors. The other sense of fugitives is applicable either to the Babylonians themselves, or to the foreigners resident among them. (See chap. xiii. 14, and vol. i. p. 277). D"1^? is the proper name of the foreign race by which Baby lonia had been occupied before Isaiah wrote. (See chap, xxiii. 13, and vol. i. p. 898). It is an interesting fact, that recent etymological research has identified the D^'p? of the Hebrew ethnography, not only with the XaXdatot of the Greeks, but with the Kurds of modern Asia. Here, however, they are mentioned simply as the inhabitants of Babylonia. —The last two words are variously construed and explained. Some con nect them only with what goes before, as a description of the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships, implying their devotion to nautical pursuits ; or, whose shout (or song) was in the ships, implying their habitual use of ships or boats for pleasure. The same idea is otherwise expressed by those who read in the ships of their joyful cry (i. e. their pleasure-ships). On this, which is Gesenius's interpretation, Hitzig observes, with a play upon words which cannot be retained in a translation, that the pleasureships are air-ships (die Luftschijfe sind Lustachiffe) i. e. imaginary or ficti tious. The same thing has been said of the naval or maritime activity of Babylon ; but Lowth has made it probable at least, that it really existed in very early times. — Another construction of these closing words connects them with ^Tnin, " and brought down the Chaldees into the ships of their triumph or delight." Hitzig makes OV3S the plural of nT'J5$ (chap. xxix. 2), and understands the clause to mean that God had brought down the rejoicing of the Chaldeans into lamentations. But this requires a different pointing of nrJN from the one attested by the critical tradition of the Jews, and a very harsh construction of DHtJ>3. Hitzig's construc tion is adopted by Ewald, who moreover changes Q?D DTVO into L^nnya B}33 (their harp or music into groans), on the authority (as he affirms) of Zeph. i. 14, and Job xxx. 31. Either of the old interpretations, whether that which makes the clause descriptive of the Chaldees or of their destruc tion, yields a better sense, without the arbitrary violence of these pretended emendations.

15. I Jehovah, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King. This verse may possibly have been intended merely to identify the subject of the one before it. I sent to Babylon, £c., even T, Jehovah, your Holy One, &c. It is simpler, however, and more in accordance with the usage of the lan guage, to make this a distinct proposition by supplying the verb of existence. I am Jehovah, or, / Jehovah am your Holy One, &c., or I Jehovah, your Holy One, am the Creator of Israel, your Kiiuj. Even in this case, the event predicted in ver. 14 is referred to, as the proof of his being what he here asserts.

16. Thus ftaith Jehovah, the (one] giving in the sea a icay, and in mighty waters a path. As the participle is very commonly employed in Hebrew to denote continued and habitual action, this verse might be regarded as a general description of God's usual control of the elements and conquest of all difficulties. But the terms of the next verse, and the subsequent con trast between old and new deliverances, have led most interpreters to understand this likewise as an allusion to the passage of the Red Sea. — Some, however, follow Aben Ezra in applying the words to the passage of the Euphrates by Cyrus, a gratuitous departure from the strict and custo mary sense of sen. — 2v?y, besides its etymological meaning, strong or mighty, suggests the idea of impetuous, violent, and fierce.

17. The (one] bringing out chariot and horse, force and strong ; together they shall lie, they shall not rise; they are extinct, like tow (or like a wick) they are quenched. WJJ is properly an adjective, and may be understood as

qualifying??H a force and (i. e. even) a strong one. Some, however, regard it as indefinite or abstract (strong for strength), and an equivalent or parallel

to??n. Some suppose a new sentence to begin with this verse, and make fcOyibn collective: those bringing out the chariot and the horse shall Ho together, they shall not rise, &c. But most interpreters continue the con struction from the foregoing verse, and make the first word agree directly with JeJwvah. Of these, however, some understand the verse as having reference to a naval victory of Cyrus over the Chaldeans, others as relating to the destruction of Pharaoh and his host. It is no objection to the latter that -13?^ is future, as this verb denotes not merely the act of lying down, but the state of lying still, and is therefore a poetical equivalent and parallel to shall not rise. That something long past is intended, may be gathered from the exhortation of the next verse.

15G ISAIAH XLIII. [YEK. 18-20.

18. Remember not former things, and old things consider not. As if he had said, Why should I refer to ancient instances of God's almighty inter vention in behalf of his people, when others equally remarkable are yet to come ? Some refer this to the advent of Christ, but most to the fall of Babylon, and restoration of the Jews from exile. The necessity of this specific application by no means follows from the express mention of that event in ver. 14 ; because, as we have seen, it is there introduced as a single illustration or example of a general truth, which had before been stated, and which may possibly be here repeated. This supposition is at least sufficient to meet all the requisitions of the text arid context.

19. Behold I (am] doing (something'] new, it is now (or yet] to sprout (or germinate) ; do you not know it ? Yes, I will place in the wilderness a ivay, in the desert streams. The now does not necessarily denote a proximate futurity, but only that the thing is yet to happen, or in other words, that it is something new, as distinguished from all former instances. As if he had said, it is still future. The figure of germination implies that as yet there was no appearance of the final issue. (See the same expression in chap. xlii. 9). Do you not know it, i. e. know what it is ? Or, will you not know it., i. e. are you not willing to be convinced ? Or, shall you not know it, i. e. is not the event to be attested by your own experience ? — The *|N may be regarded as equivalent to yea, yes, or as indicating something more than had as yet been experienced. Not content with having made a way through the sea, he would make one through the desert. Now, as this is really a less extraordinary act of power than the other, it would seem to favour the opinion, that ver. 16 and the one before us do not relate indefi nitely to the exhibition of Jehovah's omnipotence, but specifically to the exodus from Egypt and the restoration of the Jews from exile. Even on this hypothesis, however, the terms of this verse must be understood not as a description of the literal return, but as a figurative representation of deliverance and relief, whereas ver. 16 describes a literal deliverance. On the whole, therefore, it is best to take both verses as strong metaphorical descriptions of deliverance from suffering and danger by a direct divine in terposition. Even supposing an allusion to the literal journey through the desert, what is said of rivers must be figurative, which makes it probable that the whole sentence is of the same description. Thus understood, the Prophet's language means that God could change the face of nature and control the angry elements in favour of his people ; that he had so done in times past, and would again do so in time to come.

20. The living creature of the field shall honour me, jackals (or wolves) and ostriches; because I have given in the wilderness waters, and streams in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen. The change is further described by representing the irrational inmates of the desert as rejoicing in its irrigation. This bold conception makes it still more evident that what precedes does not relate to the literal journey of a people through a literal desert. As the first phrase seems to be a general one, including the two species afterwards mentioned, the translation's/ is too restricted,' and should give way to that which is etymologicaUy most exact, viz., tuov animal, or living creature. The form is singular, the sense collective. The two species represent the whole class of animals inhabiting the wilder ness. (Compare chap. xiii. 21, 22.) The common version of the last words of this verse is the correct one. My chosen people would be other wise expressed. To the simple designation of my people, he adds, by a kind of after thought, my chosen or elect.

21. The people (or this people) I have formed for myself ; my praise shall they recount (or they are to recount my praise'). Another declaration of the end for which Israel existed as a nation. This brings us back to the main proposition of the chapter, namely, that Jehovah had not only made them what they were, but had made them for the purpose of promoting his own glory, so that any claim of merit upon their part, and any apprehension of entire destruction, must be equally unfounded.

22. And not me hast thou called, 0 Jacob ; for thou hast been weary of me, O Israel. Interpreters, almost without exception, give fiN?i? here the sense of called upon, invoked, or worshipped. There is much, however, to be said in favour of the sense attached to it by J. H. Michaelis, namely, thou hast not called me, I have called thee ; as our Saviour says to his disciples, ye hare not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John xv. 1C). Having thus far represented the vocation of Israel as a sovereign act on God's part, he now presents the converse of the same proposition. This construction is further recommended by its accounting for the unusual posi tion of the words at the beginning of the verse, without resorting to the arbitrary supposition that it is characteristic of a later age thau that of Isaiah : q. d. it is nut I that have lecn called by you. — According to the usual construction of the first clause, the second may be rendered either when or because thou wast weary of me. The common version of the '? as but, and Gesenius's unnatural construction thou hast not called upon me so as to be troubled u-ith me, although very different, are equally gratuitous. — It is not easy to determine whether labour or fatigue is the primary mean ing of V3*. Sometimes the one idea is more prominent, sometimes the other. In this case both would naturally be suggested, as in the following paraphrase : It is not I that have been called by thee ; for so far from manifesting such a preference, thou hast been wearied and disgusted with the labour which attends my service. The indirect construction, that thou shouldst be weary of me, is only admissible iii case of extreme exegetical necessity.

23. Thou hast not brought to me the sheep of thy burnt-offering, and (with] thy sacrifices thou hast not honoured me. I hare not made thee serve icith, oblation, and I hare not made thee labour (or wearied thee} with incense. The whole Mosaic ritual is here represented by an enumeration of some of the principal offerings : the olah, or general expiation ; the zebahim, or animal sacrifices in general; the minhah, or meal- offering; and the lebonah, or aromatic fumigation. — n^' includes the goat as well as the sheep, and is therefore correctly rendered in the English Version by the phrase small cattle. — Of the whole verse there are several distinct interpretations or rather applications. Some place the emphasis upon the pronouns. It is not to me that thou hast offered all this, but to idols. This, though a pos sible construction, is not the one most readily suggested by the words. Nor is it easy, upon this supposition, to account for the total want of any distinct reference to idols in the context. Another class of writers understand the passage strictly as charging the Jews with culpable neglect of the cere monial law. But of this they were not generally guilty; and the restriction of the charge to the reign of Ahaz or to any other limited period is gra tuitous, and hardly consistent with the general expressions of the context. A third hypothesis applies the passage to the unavoidable suspension of the ceremonial service during the captivity in Babylon, which it supposes to be here urged as a proof that the deliverance of Israel from exile was an act of mercy, not of righteous retribution for their national obedience and

fidelity. This explanation, although much more plausible than either of the others, is open to the same charge of gratuitous restriction, without anything to indicate it in the text or context. It may also be objected, that the error thus supposed to be refuted by the Prophet, is one which could not possibly be entertained; for how could the exiled Jews imagine that their liberty was bought by services which not only had not been, but could not have been rendered? If it be said that this is merely a specific illustration of the general truth that they were not saved by any merit of their own, it still remains incredible that this truth should have been exemplified by reference not to a real case, but to one wholly imaginary and impossible. How much more natural and satisfactory to give the words the general and unrestricted meaning which they naturally bear as a descrip tion of the people's conduct, not at one time or at one place, but throughout their history. The last clause is by some understood to mean, that the system imposed upon the people was not burdensome. But this is con sistent neither with the circumstances of the case, nor with the statements of the New Testament respecting them (Acts xv. 10, Gal. v. 1), nor with the parallel clause, in which it is simply said that Israel bad not offered what was due. The most satisfactory interpretation of the verse, and that which best agrees with the whole context, is, that it has reference not merely to the outward or material act, but to its moral value and effect. You have not so performed your ceremonial duties as to la}* me under any obligation to protect you. You have not really given me your cattle, you have not truly honoured me with sacrifices. The best explanation of the last clause is, I have not succeeded in inducing you to serve me, I have not prevailed upon you to exert yourselves, much less wearied or exhausted you in ceremonial services.

24. Thou hast not bought for me sweet cane with money, and (tvith) the fat of thy sacrifices thou hast not drenched me ; thou hast only made me serve with thy sins, and made me toil (or wearied me) with thine iniquities. According to Jarchi, the sweet or aromatic cane is mentioned as a common product of the Holy Land, which they were consequently not obliged to purchase in order to the preparation of the holy ointment (Exod. xxx. 23). But Kimchi and most other writers proceed upon the contrary assumption, that this cane was an exotic, which could only be procured with trouble and expense. This particular is mentioned, like the others with which it stands connected, as a specimen or sample of the whole con geries of ceremonial services. The antithesis between the clauses seems to shew that the idea meant to be conveyed in this whole context is, that their external services were nullified by sin. So far from being satisfied or pleased with what they offered, God was only vexed with their transgressions and neglects.

25. I, I am he Hotting out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and thy sins I will not remember. This is the conclusion to which all that goes before was meant to lead, to wit, that God's goodness to his people is gratuitous. If they, instead of choosing God and his service, were averse to both, — if, instead of pleasing him by their attentions, they had grieved him by their sins, it follows of course that he could still shew them favour only by gratuitously blotting out their sins from his remembrance, or, in other words, freely forgiving them.

26. Remind me; let us plead together (or judge one another}; state (thy case) that thou mayest be justified. After asserting, in the foregoing verse, the total want of merit in the people, and their dependence upon God's

gratuitous compassion, he now, as it were, allows them to disprove his allegation, by reminding him of some forgotten merit on their part. The badness of their case could not have been more strongly or sarcasti cally stated than in this ironical invitation to plead their own cause and establish their own rights if they could, with a tacit condition, not expressed but implied, that if the}- could not justify themselves in this way, they should submit to the righteousness of God and consent to be justified by grace.

27. Thy frst father sinned, and thy interpreters rebelled against me. Gesenius and some others give the first words a collective sense, as signify ing either the succession of priests or ancestors in general. The older writers, for the most part, give the singular its strict sense, and apply it either to Ahaz or Manasseh, as kings, and therefore bound to be the fathers of their people, or to Abraham as the progenitor of Israel, or to Adam as the father of the human race. Vitringa even makes it mean Uriah, the unfaithful high priest in the reign of Ahaz. This and the first interpreta tion mentioned are entirely arbitrary. That which understands the phrase of Abraham is supposed by some to be at variance with the uniform men tion of that patriarch in terms of commendation. But these terms are perfectly consistent with the proposition that he was a sinner, which may here be the exact sense of Ntpn. To the application of the phrase to Adam it has been objected, that he was not peculiarly the father of the Jews. To this it may be answered, that if the guilt of the national progenitor would, prove the point in question, much more would it be established by the fact of their belonging to a guilty race. At the same time it may be considered as implied, that all their fathers who had since lived shared in the original depravity, and thus the same sense is obtained that would have been expressed by the collective explanation of first father, while the latter is still taken in its strict and full sense as denoting the progenitor of all mankind. — Interpreters, or organs of communication, is a title given elsewhere to ambassadors (2 Chron. xxxii. 31) and to an interceding angel (Job xxxiii. 23). It here denotes all those who, under the theocracy, acted as organs of communication between God and the people, whether prophets, priests, or rulers. The idea, therefore, is the same so often ex pressed elsewhere, that the people, and especially their leaders, were un faithful and rebellious.

28. And I will profane the holy chiefs, and will give up Jacob to the curse and Israel to reproaches. The character just given of the people in all ages is urged not only as n proof that God's compassion must be per fectly gratuitous, but also as a reason for the strokes which they experi enced. The rav before the first verb is not conversive but conjunctive, so that the reference is entirely to the future, or to the universal present, as explained by Kimchi, who observes that rav has pattah because it docs not express past time ; but the sense is, that in all ages God profanes the holy chiefs. This last phrase is descriptive of the same persons called interpreters in ver. 27, namely, all the official representatives and leaders of the holy (i. e. consecrated and peculiar) people. Its specific application to the priests in 1 Chron. xxiv. 5 no more proves that this is its whole meaning, than it proves that E'nb always means religious officers. The name includes the priests, no doubt, but it includes much more.

CHAPTEK XLIV.

THIS chapter opens, like the fortieth and forty-third, with cheering pro mises to Israel, followed by reasons for confiding in them, drawn from the wisdom, power, and goodness of Jehovah.

The specific promise, which constitutes the theme or basis of the pro phecy, is that of abundant spiritual influences and their fruits, not only internal prosperity, but large accessions from without, vers. 1-5. — The pledge for the fulfilment of this promise is afforded by the proofs of God's omniscience, as contrasted with all other gods, vers. 6-9. — The folly of image -worship is then established by two arguments. The first is that idols are themselves the creatures of mere men, vers. 10—14. The other is that they are not only made, and made by man, but made of the very same materials applied to the most trivial domestic uses, vers. 15-20. — From this demonstration of the power of Jehovah to perform his promise we are now brought back to the promise itself, vers. 21-24. This is again confirmed by an appeal to God's creative power, and illustrated by the raising up of Cyrus as a deliverer to Israel, vers. 25-28.

Here again it is important to the just interpretation of the passage that we keep in view the true relation which the main theme (the safety and prosperity of Israel) bears to the arguments and illustrations drawn from God's foreknowledge as established by prediction, from the impotence of idols, and the raising up of Cyrus. Through all these varied forms of promise and of reasoning there runs a thread uniting them, and this thread is the doctrine of the church, its origin, its design, and its relation to its Head and to the wcrld around it.

1. And now hear, Jacob my servant, and Israel I have chosen him (•?'. e. whom I have chosen). The transition here is the same as at the opening of the foregoing chapter, and the noiv, as there, has rather a logical than a temporal meaning. For reasons which have been already given, there is no need of supposing that a different Israel is here addressed (Cocceius), viz. the penitent believing Jews in exile (Grotius) ; or a different period referred to, namely, that succeeding the calamities before described ; nor fven that the and is here equivalent to notwithstanding, as explained by Kimchi. It is simply a resumption and continuation of the Prophet's argument, intended to exhibit the true relation between God and his people. The election here affirmed, which Calvin understands directly of a personal election from eternity, is better explained by J. H. Michaelis as the choice and separation of the church, or God's peculiar people, from the rest of men.

2. Thus saith Jehovah, thy mal;cr and thy former from the womb irill help thee ; fear not, my servant Jacob, and Jeshnrun ir/iom I hare chosen. It has been a subject of dispute among interpreters, whether |P?P ought to be connected with 7I7V (as ^ is in the Septuagint and by the rabbins), or with X}ty! (as in the Targum and the Vulgate). The Masoretic accents are in favour of the first construction ; but Gesenius rejects it as not yield ing a good sense, and reads, who helped thee from the womb. But this translation of the future as a praeter is entirely gratuitous, and therefore ungrammatical. The simplest construction is to make the words of Jehovah begin with thy maker, the transition from the third to the first person being altogether natural and one of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah. Thy maker will help thee is equivalent to I, who am thy maker, will help

thee. But even on the common supposition, that the words of God begin with the second clause, it is better to take he will help thee as a short inde pendent clause, parenthetically thrown in to complete the description or to connect it with what follows. 77ms saith thy maker and thy former from the womb — he will help thee — Fear not, &c. As to the combination maker from the womb, it can seem incongruous only to a hypercritical grammarian, go that there is no need even of adopting J. H. Michaelis's suggestion, that P means ex quo in utero esse coepisti. The use of these expressions in addressing Israel, only shews that the conception present to the writer's mind is that of an individual man. Although the specific explanation of the figures here used has been sometimes pushed too far, there can be no doubt that the maturing of Israel as a nation in Egypt is often represented as a period of gestation, and the exodus as a birth; but whether there is any such allusion here may be considered doubtful. — Jeshurun occurs only here and in Deut. xxxii. 15, xxxiii. 5, 26. Some of the old attempts to ascertain its etymology were ludicrous enough. Thus Vitringa quotes Forster as deriving it from "!!£', an ox, and Cocceius from -"H-l^ the;/ shall see, i. e. the people who should see Christ in the flesh, quod nemo dixerit non esse hyperbolicum et remotum (Yitringa). Grotius's derivation of the

word from?%$?! is a philological impossibility; but his explanation of it as a diminutive or term of endearment is now commonly adopted, but with reference to the root ">£'*, upright, as an epithet of Israel, not " in consider ation of their entire abandonment of idolatry," as Henderson supposes, but in reference to their normal or ideal character, the end for which they were created, and the aspect which they ought to have exhibited. Hengstenberg gives the same sense to the word as a proper name, but not as a diminutive or term of endearment, which he rejects as unsustaiued by etymological analogy and wholly inappropriate in the places where it is originally used. (See his History and Prophecies of Balaam, pp. 98-101.) The word is rendered, as a general expression of endearment, by the Septuagint (rr/a^r^'moc), and with closer adherence to the etymology by the other Greek versions (svdjz, g00uraro;). The diminutive form is imitated in Latin by Gesenius (rectulus, jusluhis), and in German by Hitzig and Ewald (Frommchen). Rosenmiiller's version (fortunate) is supported only by the false analogy of iTJV as denoting good luck or prosperity.

3. For I icill pour waters on the thirsty and flowing (waters) on the dry (land); I will pour my Spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring. This is the grand reason why God's people should not despair. The two clauses explain each other, the water of the first being clearly identical with the spirit of the second. This is a common figure for influences from above. (See chap, xxxii. 15, Ezek. xxxiv. 26, Mai. iii. 10.) Knobel indeed understands the two clauses strictly and distinctly, taking the first as a promise to the land, and the second as a promise to the people. But

-V most probably refers to persons, as it is not feminine like i"1^?!. Grotius understands this as a promise to send prophets to the Jews in exile, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi ! Gesenius also seems to think the promise here made strictly coincident with that in Joel iii. 1, 2. But it is more extensive, and includes all the influences of the Holy Spirit. — The offspring of the people, as distinguished from itself, is supposed by Knobel to denote the individuals of whom the | aooreoa*<e body was composed. Jarchi and Vitringa apply it to the strangers I or proselytes who were to be added by conversion to the natural Israel.

ISAIAH XLIV. [VEB. 4, 5.

The simplest and most obvious interpretation is, that the ideal object of address is Jacob as the national progenitor, and that the Jews themselves are here described as his descendants. Even this, however, does not necessarily exclude the spiritual offspring of the patriarch, who are explicitly referred to in the context.

4. And they shall spring up in the midst of the grass, like willows on (or by] the water -courses. This verse describes the effect of the irrigation and effusion promised in the one before it. There is no need, however, of making the construction a subjunctive one (,vo that they shall spring up), as Luther and some later writers do. — The subject of the verb is not the Spirit and blessing of Jehovah, as Aben Ezra strangely imagines, but the offspring or descendants of Israel, by whom the blessing was to be ex perienced. — Lowth and Ewald read "VVC1 E?P Pi??, like grass amidst the water, on the authority of the Septuagint version (uz atap'scov '-jdarog ^ofroi), which seems, however, to be simply a paraphrase or free trans lation. Gesenius retains the comparative form of expression (as amon;/), but without a change of text, by making the particle itself comparative, an idiom of which there is no clear example elsewhere. All these expedients are intended to remove the imaginary solecism in between. But the true explanation has been long since given by Vitringa, namely, that T? has here its primitive and proper use, as a noun corresponding to the English midst. So far is the common text from being incorrect or irregular, that it is really the only form in which the idea could have been expressed, since P3 as a preposition always means between or among, and is followed by the plural noun. When, on the contrary, a singular noun is to be used, as here, the Hebrew idiom prefixes not the preposition but a noun meaning midst (P^ or "llfl) with a particle before it. — The grass and the willows are separated only by the rhythmical arrangement of the sentence. The simple meaning of the whole verse is, that they shall grow as willows grow among the grass, i. e. in the moist or marshy spot. The question, who are meant by the grass as distinguished from the willows, is absurd. It might as ' well be asked, when an object is compared to the rose of Sharon, what is-J meant by Sharon as distinguished from the rose. Lowth seems to look [ upon aqueducts as more poetical and better English than the common ver-j sion, water-courses.

5. This shall say, To Jehorah I (belong} ; and this shall call on (or by~)\ tlie name of Jacob ; and this shall inscribe his hand (ox with his hand}, To\ Jehovah, and with the name of Israel shall entitle. The repetition of the! pronoun this implies, according to Kimchi's explanation, persons of variousj classes or from different quarters. It is commonly agreed that this versej predicts the accession of the Gentiles, whom it represents as publicly pro- 1 fessing their allegiance to Jehovah and attachment to his people. The act] of calling one by name, and that of calling on his name (invoking him), arej intimately blended in the Hebrew usage. Most interpreters understand it! here as meaning to praise or celebrate. Some of the older writers followl Symmachus in giving it a passive sense (this shall be called), either reading! *Oj5? for N?P?, or supplying the reflexive pronoun after it. The same diverv sity exists in reference to the last verb in the sentence, n|?J, which somd understand to mean he shall surname himself (or be surnamed), others hej shall name the name of Jacob in a flattering or respectful manner. — Of th<| intermediate clause there are two ancient explanations, one of which make*] it mean he shall write (with) his hand in allusion to the signing of contracts! (Jer. xxxii. 10, Neb. ix. 88) ; the other, he shall write iq)on (inscribe) hi.

hand, in allusion to the ancient custom, mentioned by Procopius, of mark ing soldiers, slaves, and other dependents, with the name of their superior, to which there seems to he a reference in Exod. xiii. 9, and Rev. xiii. 16. This last sense is supposed to be expressed in the Septuagint version tiriyid-^ti ~/ti%i-

G. Ihus saith Jehovnh, kinf/ of Israel, and his redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I (am) first, and I (am) last, and ivitliout me there is no God. This is a description of the God whom the nations, in the preceding verse, are repre sented as acknowledging. The attributes ascribed to him afford, at the same time, a sufficient reason for confiding in his promises. In like mannear Zeus, the supreme god of the Greeks, is described by Orpheus as being v.vyjf\ vdvruv vowruv n T&trq, and in another place, Z:i>c KPMTO$ symro Zes); 'i/araro;. Henderson points out the appropriation of the terms here used to the Lord Jesus Christ in Rev. i. 18, ii. 8, xxii. 13. — There is no need of giving to HJTOE), in this and the parallel places, the restricted sense besides, which is really included in the usual and strict sense of without, i. e. without my knowledge and permission, or without subjection to niy sovereign authority. The meaning is not simplv, that there is no other true God in existence, but that even the Xsyii/j,svoi 3so/ (1 Cor. viii. 5) exist only by his sufferance, and cannot therefore be his equals or competitors.

7. And ivho, like me, will call, and tell it, and state it to me, since I placed the ancient jieople ; and coming tilings and things which are to come will tell to them (or for themselves) f There is no reason why the interrogation should not be considered as extending through the verse, the rather as a different construction splits up the sentence, and arbitrarily explains some of the futures as imperatives. Still more objectionable is the construction of N^i?? as a preterite, which is given by all the later writers except Ewald. The question who has called like me is in no respect more pertinent than the question, who will (or can) call as I have clone, which leaves the refe rence to past time equally explicit, without doing any grammatical violence to the form of expression. The usual construction of the next words is, let him tell it, &c. ; but this imperative meaning is sufficiently implied in the strict translation of the words as interrogative futures, who will tell 4t ? &c. NlfJ is to call aloud or publicly announce. It differs from the next verb, if at all, by denoting an authoritative call, and suggesting the idea not only of prediction but of creation. — "JpJJ is correctly explained by Gesenius as a forensic term meaning to state a case. The sense of comparing, preferred by Ewald, is less frequent elsewhere and less appro priate here. The words since I placed, &c., are to be connected with

D3, who can call, as I have done, ever since I placed, &c. To place is here to constitute, create, or give existence. Of the phrase D7IJTDJJ there are three interpretations. The first is that of the rabbins, who explain it to mean ancient people; this is retained in the English and some other versions. The second makes it mean eternal people, but refers it simply to the divine purpose or decree of election. The third gives it the sense of everlasting people, i. e. a people who shall last for ever. In all these senses the description is appropriate to Israel, not simply as a nation but a church, the existence and prerogatives of which are still continued in the body of Christ. Ecclesia corpus Christi est, quo nihil antiquius nut majus esse potest (Calvin). It may be doubted, however, whether any thing more was here intended than a reference to the origin of the human race. (See above, on chap. xiii. 5, 6.) — According to Kimchi, Grotius, and Yitringa, the last clause contains a distinct reference both to a proximate and remote futurity. This distinction is rejected by Gesenius, without any other reason than the groundless one, that synonymes are characteristic of this writer, i. e. the writer of these later prophecies, as distinguished from the genuine Isaiah. But this is, to some extent, charac teristic not of one but of all the Hebrew writers, and abundant illustration might be drawn from the earlier and even from the undisputed passages. The truth, however, is that the distinction made by Kimchi is so natural and simple, and agrees so well with the context and analogy, that it would be entitled to consideration, even if the two forms of expression in them selves appeared to be entirely synonymous. Much more, when such a dif ference is indicated by the very form. Not only are two different verbs used, (which might be otherwise explained, and by itself can have no weight), but one is in the participial form, the clearest mode in Hebrew of express ing present action or a proximate futurity, the other in the future proper. Wherever there is a difference of form, there is presumptively a difference of meaning; and if any such difference is here intended, it can only be the difference between things actually coming to pass now, and those which are to come to pass hereafter.

8. Quake not and fear not ; have 1 not since then let thee hear and told (thec], and are ye not my witnesses? Is there a God ivithout me? And there is no rock, I know not (any). The alternation of the singular and plural form in reference to Israel, is peculiarly appropriate to an ideal or collec tive person, and in strict agreement with the usage of the Pentateuch, especially with that of Deuteronomy, in which the same apparent confu sion of numbers is not a mere occasional phenomenon, but one of per petual occurrence. — The verb •lit'lFl, which occurs only here, is derived by Hitxig from nrn, by Gesenius from IT1J, and explained by Ewald as an error of the text for W7"ri. It is more probably to be derived from the synonymous and cognate HT. — TND is usually taken in the vague sense of long ago ; but it may here be strictly understood as meaning since that time, which Jarchi refers to the giving of the law on Sinai, Knobel to the first appearance of Cyrus, and Maurer, with more probability than either, to the event mentioned in the preceding verse, viz. the constitution of the D^IJT — And ye are my witnesses is usually construed as an independent clause ; but a possible construction is to include it in the question as above.- Vitringa's explanation of P^ as an interrogative particle is anything but justified by the analogy of 1 Sam. xxii. 8, to which he appeals. — Here, as in many other cases, God is called a Rock, as being the refuge of his people, and the firm foundation of their hopes.

9. The image-carvers all of them are vanity, and their desired (or beloved) ones are icorthless ; and their witnesses themselves will not see and ivill not know, that tliey may be ashamed. Having fortified his promise by a solemn affirmation of his own supremacy, in contrast with the ignorance and impo tence of idols, he now carries out this contrast in detail. The literal meaning of the first phrase is the formers of a graven image, here put for; idols in general. — Vanity is here to be taken as a negative expression of] the strongest kind, denoting the absence of all life, intelligence, and power, i and corresponding to the parallel expression they cannot profit, i. e. they are ) worthless. The desired or favourite things of the idolaters are the idols i themselves, upon which they lavish time, expense, and misplaced confi-, dence. The next phrase is commonly explained to mean their rrilncssesi are themselves, i. e. they are their own witnesses, which may either represent the idols as witnessing against their worshippers, or the worshippers against j

the idols, or either of these classes against themselves. Cocceius connects these words with the following verbs (testcs illomm ipsi non vident), which construction is substantially renewed by Ewald, and approved by Umbreit. The meaning then is, that the idolaters who bear witness to the divinity of their idols are themselves blind and ignorant. The puncta extraordinaria over nsn were designed, says Henderson, to fix the attention of the reader on the dumb idols being constituted witnesses against the stupidity of their worshippers. But why in this particular case? A much more probable explanation is that the Masoretic critics considered the word doubtful, per haps because it appeared pleonastic, whereas it is in fact emphatic. There is no need of giving know the vague and doubtful sense of having know ledge; the meaning rather is, they will not see or know it, i. e. what has just been said, as to the impotence of idols. The last clause is explained by Gesenius as meaning that they are given up to blindness, that they may be ashamed or confounded. Umbreit, on the other hand, supposes it to mean that they have not knowledge or sense enough to be ashamed; an aggravation of the previous description.

10. Who formed the god and cast t/te image to no use (or profit) f Most interpreters regard this as an exclamation of contemptuous surprise, im plying that no one in his senses would do so. (Grotius : quit nisi demens?} But the true sense is the one proposed by Gesenius, who explains what follows as the answer to this question Having affirmed the worthlessness of idols in general, he now proceeds to prove it from their origin. — So far from being makers, they are made themselves, and who made them? This is the precise force of the verse before us. Here as elsewhere there is pungent sarcasm in the application of the name 7K (mighty God) to idols.

11. Lo all his fellows shall be ashamed, and the workmen themselves are of men; they shall assemble all of them, they shall stand, they shall tremble, they shall be ashamed together. Jarchi, followed by Lowth, Eichhorn, Ge senius, Maurer, and Ewald, refers the suffix in VTJH to the maker of the image, and understands by his fellows his fellow-workmen or fellow-wor shippers. But why should the workman's fellows be ashamed and not himself? A much more natural construction is the one given in the Targum, and approved by Vitringa, Roscnrnuller, Hitzig, and Knobel, who refer the suffix to the idol itself, and by his fellows understand all who have anything to do with it, either as manufacturers or worshippers. (Compare Num. xxv. 3; Deut. xi. 22, xxx. 20; Isa. Ivi. 3, 6; Hosea iv. 17; 1 Cor. x. 20.) — Lowth affirms that the common text of the next clause yields no tolerable sense, and is unworthy of the Prophet ; for which reason he pro poses to read D1SD as a passive participle meaning reddened, and translates accordingly, even the workmen themselves shall blush, adding that if any one should think the singular irregular, he may read D^INO; and the one asassuinption is undoubtedly as reasonable as the other. It is worthy of remark not only that this emendation has commended itself to no later writer, but also that the common text is universally regarded as affording a perfectly appropriate sense and one essential to the Prophet's argument, viz. that the makers of the idol are themselves mere men, and cannpt there fore produce anything divine. Vitringa's explanation of E~!N as meaning " common people " (plebs) is destructive of the argument, as well as con trary to usage. The comparative sense put by some upon the phrase, as meaning that they are less than men (Cocceius), or that they shall be ashamed more than other men (Junius), is too unnatural to need refutation. The meaning of the verse is that the senseless idol and its human makers shall

be witnesses against each other, and shall be involved in the same condem nation and confusion.

12. He lias carved iron (with) a graver, and has wrought (it) in the coals, and with the hammers he will shape it, and then work it with his arm of strength. Besides (or moreover), he is hungry and has no strength, he has not drunk water and is faint. The construction of ^H as a verb, which is given in the Targum, is much the simplest and most obvious; though most interpreters regard it as the construct form of the derivative noun KHn a workman (as in Exodus xxviii. 11), with 7.H? added to restrict its applica tion to a worker in iron, i. e. a smith ; as D^VJ! ^H in the next verse is supposed to signify a worker in wood, i. e. a carpenter. (Compare the plural D^Vy *&*$?, 2 Sam. v. 11.) Those who agree in this explanation of the first two words differ as to their construction with what follows. Apart from Lovvth's gratuitous emendation of the Masoretic pointing by proposing to read "1VJ7D as a participle of *TV^, to cut, and the suggestion of Cappellua that it is synonymous with yi")T, the English and some other Versions take it in the sense of tongs, a mere conjecture from the context; but most of the modern writers make it mean an axe, as in Jer. x. 3, or more generically any sharp or pointed instrument. The noun thus explained is construed with what goes before in three different ways. The older writers generally understand it as a noun of instrument. Thus the English Version has the smith with the tongs, &c. Vitringa, Gesenius, and others make the noun the object of a verb to be supplied (the smith makes an axe], and understand the verse as describing the formation, not of the idol itself, but of the tools to be emplo}*ed in making it. Ewald and Knobel explain ^V^P as a second term used to qualify tJOH, or in other words as qualifying the complex phrase before it. To the whole expression Ewald gives the sense of an iron and file worker, i. e. one who works with iron and the file ; Knobel that of a tool-smith or a maker of edged tools. Both make this complex name the

subject of the verb 7^3, and the 1 before it an idiomatic pleonasm. But as both these grammatical assumptions are without satisfactory authority from usage, they are only admissible in case of exegetical necessity. Hitzig like wise makes the first two words the subject of the verb, but takes the third as its object, and understands the clause to mean that the smith converts an axe into an idol, as in chap. ii. 4 the sword becomes a ploughshare and the spear a priming-hook. Knobel's objection that the idol would be too small is of no great moment, if it can be assumed that images were ever made of iron; but in that case the most satisfactory construction is the one first given, - which makes the verse describe the proceedings not of the professional smith, but of the laborious worshipper himself. The common version, strength of his arms, is a needless and enfeebling transposition. The true sense of the words is his arm of strength. Vitringa directs attention to the beautiful' parallel in Virgil (Geo. IV. 170-175), and especially to this line: illi inter1 sese magna vi brachia tollunt. The description in the last clause seems intended to convey these several ideas; that the man who undertakes to make a god, is himself a mortal, subject to ordinary human infirmities; that his god is utterly unable to relieve him or supply his wants; and that neither these considerations nor the toil which he must undergo in order to attain his end, are sufficient to deter him from his self-tormenting efforts.

13. He has carved wood, he has stretched a line, he will mark it with the awl (or graver], he will form it with the chisels, and with the compass (oft circle] he will mark it, and then make it (or now he has made it] like the structure (i. e. after the model) of a man, like the beauty of mankind, to •

dwell in a house. — In this translation ttHH is taken as a verb and referred to the same subject as in ver. 12, i. e. the idol-mannfacturer, who goes through all these laborious processes himself, in order to produce a god. • But the great majority of writers here resume a transition from the maker of metallic idols to the maker of wooden ones, or from the smith who makes the carpenter's tools to the carpenter himself, D^Vy ^hn, the worker in wood. — In this verse, as in that before it, the alternation of the preterite and future introduces us into the very midst of the process, and describes it as already begun but not yet finished. This distinctive feature of the passage is destroyed by making all the verbs indiscriminately present. The conversive future at the opening of the second clause may either denote simply that the act described is subsequent to that just mentioned, or it may re present what was just now future as already done, thereby rendering the view of a progressive operation still more vivid. The two markings or delineations mentioned are commonly supposed to have respect to the general dimensions of the figure, and then to its precise form and pro portions. Henderson arbitrarily translates the same verb first he sketched its figure, and then he marked it off; which, even if it gave the sense, would not convey the form of the original. — According to the rabbins, iy& means a " red or other coloured string " used by workmen in their measurements (Montanus: fdo tincto]. It is applied to the colouring substance by Luther (Rothelsteiii) and Lowth (red ochre'.}. Gesenius and the other modern writers draw from the Talmudical and Arabic analogy the sense of a sharp tool or graving instrument. — Q^N and E^K seem to have their strict sense here, as a generic and specific term, the beauty of man, the structure of a man. The Targum seems to find a reference to both sexes; in support of which some of the old Jewish writers refer to Num. xxxi. 35, where 0"]^ is applied to women alone. Jarchi gains the same end in a different way, by saying that the woman is the glory of her husband (?^J2 P^5p JVOG rD^ofi'C). — Jerome and Rosenmiiller seem to understand the last words of the verse as meaning that the idol has to stay at home because it cannot move. Gesenius gives J"P3 the specific sense of temple. Gill supposes a particular reference to household gods. But the meaning seems to be that the idol, being like a man in form, is, like a man, to dwell in a house.

14. To hew him down cedars; and (now] he has taken a cypress and an oak — and has strengthened (i. e. raised it) for himself among the trees of the forest — he has planted a pine, and tJie rain shall increase (it, i. e. make it grow). To shew more clearly the absurdity of ascribing deity to material images, he here goes back, not only to their human origin and their base material, but to the very generation of the trees by which the wood is fur nished. The particulars are stated in an inverse order. He begins with the felling of trees, but interrupts himself in order to go still further back to their very cultivation. The essential idea is that man, instead of being the creature, is in some sort the creator of the wood he worships, since it does or may owe its existence to his agency. The supposition just sug gested of an interruption in the syntax seems more natural than that of a grammatical ellipsis. Few interpreters, indeed, would go so far as Clericus, who introduces at the beginning of the sentence these words, mitt it ad Libanum homines, and adds, with characteristic coolness, htfcfuerunt neces- *ario mpplmda; although in the very next sentence he observes of the Septuagint and Vulgate Versions, comtmcliones quamnon inveniebant de suo concinnanint. Ewald, in his larger Grammar (p. 622) enumerates this

among the examples of an infinitive denoting necessity or obligation, just as we might say familiarly in English, he has to cut, &c. But in his exposition of the passage, he agrees with Gesenius and others in making it equivalent to a finite verb, with the additional suggestion that it may be an ortho graphical mistake for J"l~9\ — The modern writers seem to be agreed that the nnn is a species of oak, so called from its hardness, like the Latin robin: To avoid tautology and pedantry, however, the common version cypress may be retained, as it yields an appropriate sense, and as botanical precision is in this case of no exegetical importance, since the meaning of the verse would be the same whatever species had been mentioned. — Most writers give }*BS the sense of choosing, designating, here and in Ps. Ixxx. 16, which they suppose to be easily deducible from that of strengthening, confining, fixing. Ewald even goes so far as to take J"H3 in the sense of choosing, on the alleged authority of Jer. x. 8. This is purely arbitrary; and as f*SN, in every other case where it occurs, admits of the translation strengthened, it cannot be consistently abandoned here without necessity; and this necessity cannot exist, because the strict sense of making strong is not only relevant in this connection, but corresponds exactly to that of making great expressed by oA', both meaning here " to cause to grow." Thus understood, the word helps to bring out with more strength and clearness the main idea of the verse, viz. that the idolater not only chooses suitable trees, but plants and raises them for the purpose. It is not necessary to suppose that this is a description of a usual or frequent custom. It is rather an ideal exhibition of the idol- manufacture carried out to its extreme. If so, the active subject of the whole description is the self- deluded devotee; which furnishes another reason for believing that the smith and the car penter are not distinctly mentioned in the two preceding verses. It also removes the seeming incongruity of making the carpenter raise his own timber, whereas the same thing, when alleged of the idolater, is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the description. — The object of the verb Y®W may be either the trees previously mentioned, or more indefinitely, trees in general. Lowth arbitrarily translates this clause, and layeth in good store of the trees of the forest. Clericus, still more boldly and extravagantly, makes it mean that he furnishes his workshop with the trees of the forest. Less absurd, and yet untenable, because not justified by usage, is Henderson's translation, and what he deemethfirm among the trees of the forest. Umbreit's suggestion, that the last clause was designed to intimate the man's depend ence after all upon the rain of heaven for the very material of which he makes his god, is not entirely natural. The clause is rather added to com plete the picture of the natural origin and growth of that which the idolater adores as superhuman and divine. In this as well as the foregoing verses the confusion of the tenses in most versions greatly mars the force and beauty of the Prophet's language. — What is gained by the violent and ungrammatical construction, he has planted and the rain has nourished, or the vague and evasive one, he plants and the rain nourishes; when the exact translation, he has planted and the rain will nourish, is not only just as clear, coherent, and appropriate, but far more graphic and expressive, as it hurries us at once in medias res, and exhibits the work described as partly past, partly future? At the same time it implies the patient perseverance of the devotee, who first does his part and then waits for natural causes to do theirs, and all for the production of an idol!

15. And it shall be to men for burning (i.e. for fuel), and he has taken of them and warmed himself; yes, he mil kindle and bake bread ; yes, he uill

form a god and fall prostrate; he has made it a graven imaae and bowed (luirn to them. The future meaning of the first verb is determined by its intimate connection with the last word of the foregoing verse. (See Nordheirner, § 219.) 0}^ vei'J seldom means an individual man, and seems here to be used indefinitely for man or men in general. The singular verb HJ5? does not refer to this noun, but to the worshipper or devotee who is still the subject of description. The plural form DHO is referred by Hitzig to the trees of the forest mentioned in ver. 14, by Kuobel to the D^VJ? or sticks of wood into which the tree must be divided. The same explanation

may be given of ID?, although Ewald and Hitzig maintain that this suffix is employed as a singular by later writers (e.y. chap. liii. 8; Ps. xi. 7). But even admitting the existence of this usage, which Gesenius utterly denies, the strict and usual meaning is to be retained where possible, and therefore here, where the Prophet seems designedly to interchange the singular and plural forms, in order to identify with more effect the idol worshipped and the sticks consumed. He takes of them (the sticks), kindles a fire, warms himself, bakes bread, then makes a god, and worships, yts, bows down before them (the sticks of wood). The argument of this and the succeeding verses is intended to exhibit the absurdity of worshipping the same material that is constantly applied to the most trivial domestic uses. All the inter preters since Calvin quote the striking parallel from Horace (Sat. i. 8).

Olim tnmcus cram ficulnus, inutile lignum; Quum fjibcr, inccrtus scanmum facerctue Priapum, Maluit esse Deum.

16. Half of it he hath burned in the /ire, on half of it he will eat flt'slt, lie ic ill roast roast and be filled ; yea, he irill warm himself and sat/, Aha, I am u-ann, I have secnjire. Both etymology and usage give ^VD the sense of half, i.e. one of two parts into which a given whole may be divided, whether equal or unequal. The indefinite translation part, given in all the English versions except that of Xoyes, is intended to avoid the incongruity of making two halves and a remainder. But this incongruity, although justly chargeable on Umbreit's version, which distinctly mentions the one half, the other half, and the remainder, has no existence in the original ; because, as all the other modern writers are agreed, the first and second ^VH of ver. 16 are one and the same half, and the other is not introduced until the next verse. Henderson indeed refers the second to the wooden dish or platter upon which the meat was literally eaten. But this disturbs the parallel between the two main uses of the wood, as fuel and a god, which is so distinctly carried out in the preceding and the following context. It is better, therefore, to explain the phrase, on half of it he eats flesh, as a pregnant or concise expression of the idea, that over or by means of the tire made with half of it he cooks flesh for his eating. The obscurity of this clause is immediately removed by the addition of the unambiguous words, he roasts a roast and satisfies himself. The force of *)&?, both here and in the foregoing verse, appears to be equivalent to that of our expression nay more, not only this, but also, or moreover. — Gesenius and others give ^Os^? in the last clause the generic sense of perceiving by the senses; Hitzig the more specific one of feelina, in support of which he quotes the obser vation of Schelling, that the skin is the eye for warmth, whereupon Hendewerk no less characteristically says that the Prophet may with more probability be supposed to have ascribed these words to the idolater in the

sense of an ancient fire-worshipper than in that of a modern pantheist. The truth is, that the Hebrew verb not only may, but must have here its proper meaning I hare seen, because the noun which follows does not de note the heat of fire, but its light, and there could not be a more natural expression of the feeling meant to be conveyed than by referring to the cheerful blaze of a large wood fire. To the indiscriminate translation of the verbs both in this verse and the next as descriptive presents, the same objections may be made as in the foregoing context.

17. And the rest of it (i.e. the other half) he has made into a god, into his graven image; he will bow down to it, and will worship, and will pray to it, and say, Deliver me, for thou (art) my god. The consecution of the tenses is the same as in the preceding verse, and has the same effect of fixing the point of observation in the midst of the process. He has kindled his fire, and will use it to prepare his food. He has made his idol, and will fall down and pray to it. The pronoun at the end may be regarded as empha tic, and as meaning thou and thou alone.

18. They have not known, and they will not understand, for he hath smeared their eyes from seeing, their hearts from doing wisely. The combina tion of the preterite and future makes the description more complete and comprehensive. Some give *"? the sense of that, and make it indicate the object of their ignorance and inconsideration. Junius and Tremellius, who adopt this construction, refer fit? to the idol ; they do not know that it has blinded them. The Septuagint explains the verb as a passive plural, and Gesenius has the same form in his version (their eyes are smeared), which he resolves, however, into an indefinite construction (one has smeared their eyes). But the analogy of chaps, vi. 10, xxix. 10, Job xvii. 4, confirms Aben Ezra's statement, that Jehovah is the agent or subject (DC? fro 5i^r>)- As the smearing of the eyes is merely a figure for spiritual blindness, it is here extended to the heart, of which it is not literally predicable. As the use of the Hiphil form in any but an active sense is called in ques tion by some eminent grammarians, ?'I?^LI may here, as in some other cases, have the sense of acting wisely.

19. And he will not bring it home to himself (or to his heart), and (there is) not knowledge, and (there is) not understanding to say, Half of it 1 hare burned in the fire, and have also baked bread on its coals, I wilt roast flesh and eat, and the rest of it I will make to (be) an abomination, to a log of wood (or the trunk of a tree) I irill cast myself down. The essential meaning is, that they have not sense enough to describe their conduct to themselves in its true colours ; if they did, they would stand amazed at its impiety and folly. In the form of expression the writer passes from the plural to the singular, i.e. from idolaters in general to the individual idolater. — The first phrase does not correspond exactly to the English lay to heart, but com prehends reflection and emotion. The construction of the last clause as an explanation or an interrogation has arisen from a wish to avoid the incon gruity of making the man call himself a fool, or express his resolution to perform a foolish act. But this very incongruity is absolutely necessary to the writer's purpose, which is simply to tell what the infatuated devotee would say of his own conduct if he saw it in its true light. Instead of saying, I will worship my god, he would then say, I will worship a stick of wood, a part of the very log which I have just burned, upon which I have just baked ray bread, and on which I am just about to cook my dinner. The more revolting and absurd this language, the more completely does it suit and carry out the writer's purpose. Hence, too, the use of the term

abomination, i.e. object of abhorrence, not in the worshipper's actual belief, but as it would be if his eyes were opened.

20. Feeding on asJies, (his] heart is deceived, it has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself (or his soul], and he icill not sat/, Is there not a lie in my fight hand ? Another statement of the reason why he cannot see his conduct in its just light, or describe it in correct terms, viz., because his very mind or heart is deceived, and this because it feeds on ashes. This last expression is strangely understood by some interpreters, following the Targuru, to describe the idol as a piece of half-burnt wood ; and even Umbreit seems to recognise such an allusion in the sentence. But the great majority of writers, far more naturally, make it a figure for the love and prosecution of unsatisfying objects, analogous io feeding on wind, Hos. xii. 2. Gesenius in his Commentary says, that the translation feedeth OH ashes is in no case appropriate (in keinem Falle passend). He accordingly trans lates it there sectatur cinerem ; but in his Thesaurus he abandons this gratuitous multiplication of senses, and explains it as a figurative application of the common meaning, " pasci aliqua re, metaph. i. q. delectari re." The word, however, denotes something more than simply to take pleasure in an object, and suggests the idea of choosing it and resting in it as a portion. — The usual construction of the next words, a deceived heart has seduced him, is commonly explained by assuming an ellipsis of the relative, (his) heart (which) is deceived has seduced him. But the simplest and most natural construction is the one proposed by Knobel, who makes two short indepen dent clauses, the heart is deceived, it leads him astray. The futures of the last clause have in part, if not exclusively, a potential meaning. It is best, perhaps, to combine the ideas of unwillingness and inability. — The conclud ing question is equivalent in import to the long speech put into the mouth of the idolater in ver. 19. By a lie we are to understand that which pro fesses to be what it is not, and thereby deceives the hopes of those who trust in it. (See Jer. x. 14 ; Ps. xxxiii. 17.) This description some apply to the idol itself, as if he had said, Is not this which I carry in my right hand a deception '? But as this makes a part of the interrogation literal and a part metaphorical, most writers give it uniformity by understanding all the terms as figurative : Is not this, about which I am busied, and upon which I am spending strength and labour, a deception? To any one rational enough to ask the question, the reply would be affirmative of course.

21. Remember these (things), Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant ; I have formed thee, a servant unto me art thou; Israel, thou shall not be

forgotten by me. Having completed his detailed exposure of the folly of idolatry, or rather of the impotence of i'lols, as contrasted with the power of God, he now resumes the tone of promise and encouragement with which the chapter opens, and assures the chosen people, here personified as Israel or Jacob, that having been constituted such by Jehovah for a special pur pose, they could not cease to be the objects of his watchful care. — These things may possibly refer to the immediately succeeding statements, which may then be rendered that thou art my servant, etc. To most interpreters, however, it has seemed more natural to understand by these things the whole foregoing series of arguments against the divinity of idols and in favour of Jehovah's sole supremacy. — Ewald connects Y""1?^ with the pre ceding verb, so as to mean, I have formed thee as a servant for myself. The only difficulty in the way of this construction is the HRS, which cannot be the object of the verb, but must agree with one expressed or understood. This objection might be done away by disregarding the Masoretic interpnnction, and transferring the disjunctive accent to the preceding word; in which case the latter member of the clause would read, thou Israel, &c., with an emphasis upon the pronoun. This construction has the advantage of removing the apparent tautology arising from the repetition of thou art my serrant, which is more observable in most translations than in the ori ginal, where two different forms of expression are employed. — The last word in the verse is explained in the ancient versions, and by some modern writers, as a deponent verb, thou shalt not forget me. But Gesenius and Ewald, with greater probability, make it a proper passive, and explain the suffix as equivalent to a dative or an ablative in Latin thou shalt not be for gotten (by] me; which is much more appropriate, in this connection, than an exhortation not to forget God. This construction is as old as Aben Ezra, who paraphrases the expression thus: "[13/ft '3f?l '3721 '3T)T? ?u}P fy.

22. 1 have blotted out, like a cloud, thy transgressions, and like a vapour, thy sins ; return to me, for I have redeemed thee.t As the previous assur ances were suited to dispel any doubt or hesitation as to the power of Jehovah, so the one in this verse meets another difficulty, namely, that arising from a sense of guilt. The assurance given is that of entire and gratuitous forgiveness. The analogy of Exod. xxxii. 32, 33, would seem to favour an allusion to the blotting out of an inscription or an entry in a book of accounts. The cloud may then be a distinct figure to denote what is transient or evanescent. (See Hos. vi. 4, xiii. 3 ; Job. vii. 9, xxx. 15.) This is Hitzig's explanation of the verse ; but most interpreters suppose the blotting and the cloud to be parts of one and the same metaphor, although they differ in their method of connecting them. Junius strangely under stands the clause to mean, as a cloud (when condensed into rain) purges away filth. The great majority of writers are agreed, however, that the cloud itself is here described as being blotted out. Gill supposes an allu sion to the height and distance of the clouds as being far beyond man's reach, implying that forgiveness is a divine prerogative. Hendewerk sees a forced allusion to the cloud which went before the people in the wilderness. A more usual and natural interpretation is that the clouds in general are here considered as intervening between heaven and earth, as sin is expressly said in chap. lix. 2, to separate between God and his people. This explanation of the metaphor, however, does not exclude the supposition of a reference to the fleeting nature of the cloudy vapour, and the ease and suddenness with which it is dispelled by sun or wind. — 3JJ and 1JJJ are poetical equiva lents. So far as they can be distinguished, either in etymology or usage, the correct distinction is the one expressed in the English Version (thick cloud and cloud), which Henderson reverses. — Return unto me is a phrase descriptive of all the restorations of God's people from their spiritual wanderings and estrangements. The restriction of this phrase, and the one which follows it to the restoration of the Jews from exile, is as forced and arbitrary as the future form given to the verb in many versions.

23. Sing, 0 heavens, for Jehorah hath done (it}; shout, ye lower parts of the earth; break forth, ye mountains, into song, the forest and every tree in it: for Jehovah hath redeemed Jacob, and in Israel he will glorify himself. The prediction of glorious and joyful changes, as in many other cases, is clothed in the form of an exhortation to all nature to rejoice. It is essen tial to the writer's purpose that the universe itself should be addressed, which precludes the explanation of the verse by Grotius, as addressed to angels, kings, and common men ; or by Vitringa, as addressed to the apostles and prophets (from a misplaced comparison of Rev. xviii. 20).

Equally inconsistent with his purpose and at variance with good taste is the explanation of mountains as meaning kingdoms, forests, cities, &c. — The thing done is what is mentioned in the last clause, i. e. the redemption of Israel, including the deliverance from exile in Babylon, but not confined to it. — The arbitrary version of the two verbs in the last clause as a pre terite and present, or a present and a future, is in no respect to be preferred to the exact translation as a preterite and a future, expressive of what God had done and would yet do for the chosen people.

24. Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and thy Former from the tcomb, I, Jehovah, making all, stretching the heavens alone, spreading the earth by my self (or, who was with me ?). Some refer thus saith to the preceding promises, and take all that follows till the end of the chapter as a descrip tion of the being who uttered them. Others refer thus saith to what follows, supply the verb am before Jehovah, and regard the last clause of the verse as the divine declaration. A third conceivable construction would restrict it to the closing question, if/to (is] with me? i.e. who can claim equality or likeness with me ? — There is no need of giving to the phrase thy Former a moral sense, as signifying the formation of character or manners, as the words from the tcomb are not necessarily exclusive of the period before birth. For the meaning of the figure itself, see above on ver. 2 ; for that of y\T\ on chap. xlii. 5. — The textual reading of the last word makes it an interrogation, *flX *P, who (is or was] with me ? implying strong negation, and equivalent in meaning to the affirmation, there was no one ivith me. The marginal reading yields the same sense in another way, \71SP, from, by, or of myself. (Compare ^P, Hosea viii. 4, and acr' i/zayroy, John v. 30.) The objection that the textual reading interrupts the construction is valid only on the supposition that the sentence is con tinued through the following verses. If, as most interpreters assume, the last clause of this verse contains a proposition, interrogative or affirmative, this reading affords an appropriate conclusion to the sentence, and a striking parallel to the phrase *??? in the other clause.

25. Ureaking the signs of babblers, and diviners he will madden ; turning sages back, and their knowledge he will stultify. The whole verse is de scriptive of Jehovah as convicting all prophets, except his own, of folly and imposture, by falsifying their prognostications. E11?? is commonly translated either lies or liars; but it is rather an expression of contempt, denoting praters, vain or idle talkers, and by implication utterers of false hood. Siyns are properly the pledges and accompaniments of predictions, but may here be regarded as equivalent to prophecy itself. These are said to be broken in the same sense that breaking may be predicated of a pro mise or a covenant. The effect of course would be to make such prophets seem like fools or madmen. (See 2 Sam. xv. SI ; Hos. ix. 7.) The restriction of these terms to the false prophets of the Babylonish exile is not only arbitrary, but at variance with the context, which repeatedly con trasts the omnipotence and omniscience of Jehovah with the impotence of idols and the ignorance of heathen prophets. — Because turning back and being put to shame are often joined together elsewhere, Gesenius, accord ing to his favourite method, makes them simply synonymous ; whereas the first expression strictly signifies defeat, disappointment, failure, with which shame is naturally connected, but surely not identical. — The alternation of the future and participle seems to have a rhythmical design. The distinc tion may however be, that while the latter signifies habitual or customary action, the former expresses certain futurity and fixed determination.

26. Confirming the word of his sen-ant, and the counsel of his messengers he will fulfil; tht (owe) saying to (or as to~] Jerusalem, She shall be inhabited, and to (or as to] the cities of Judah, They shall be built, and her ruins 1 will raise. With the frustration of the heathen prophecies is here contrasted the fulfilment of Jehovah's, who is himself represented as securing their accomplishment. &$() has here the same sense as in Jer. xxix. 10, xxxiii. 14, viz. that of bringing a promise or prophecy to pass. — By his servant Jarchi understands Moses, Hitzig Jeremiah, Geseuius the prophets as a class, Knobel the genuine believing Israel whose hopes were embodied in these prophecies. Simpler and more satisfactory than either of these explanations is that which supposes his servant to be primarily and directly the writer himself, but considered as one of a class who are then distinctly mentioned in the other member as his messengers. The specific application of the title of God's servant to the prophets is apparent from 2 Kings xxiv. 2 ; Jer. xxix. 19, xxxv. 15, xliv. 4. — Gill's question, why his sen-ant may not denote Paul as Cocceius supposes, is unanswerable. — Counsel, according to Henderson, here means the counsel or purpose of God, as declared by his servants. Gesenius and most other writers make it a description of prophecy, considered as involving or suggesting counsel and advice with respect to the future. (Compare the similar application of the verb in chap. xli. 28.) — The last clause, beginning with the word "VPSn, might be considered as a more specific designation or description of his servant, viz. the (servant) saying, &c. But this interpretation is precluded by the double repetition of "IP^O in the two succeeding verses, and in evi dent application to Jehovah himself. — The construction of 3K>-1fl as a verb of the second person (thou shalt be inhabited) is forbidden by its masculine form, which could be connected with the name Jerusalem only in cases where the latter is put for its inhabitants. For the sake of uniformity the parallel expression is to be translated in like manner. Gesenius arbitrarily translates the first of these verbs as an imperative, the second as a future, and the third as a present. To raise up the ruins of a city is of course to rebuild it.

27. The (one] saying to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy foods (or

streams]. The Targum, followed by Kimchi and others, explains riTIV as a metaphorical description of Babylon, so called on account of its wealth, its population, or its site. Vitringa, Lowth, and some of the latest

writers, understand by n^W the Euphrates, and apply the whole verse to the stratagem by which Cyrus gained access to Babylon, as related in the first book of Herodotus, and the seventh of Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Henderson thinks there may be also an allusion to his division of the river Gyndes. (See vol. i. p. 262.) Ewald and others understand the verse as a description of God's power over nature and the elements, with or \\ithout an allusion to the passage of the Bed Sea at the exodus. This exposition is strongly recommended by the analogy of chap. xlii. 15, xliii. 16, 1. 2, li. 10. That of Jer. 1. 88, li. 36, does not prove that Isaiah's description was designed to have exclusive reference to the con quest of Babylon by Cyrus, but only that this was included in it as a signal instance of God's power to overcome all obstacles, and that the later prophet made a specific application of the words accordingly. There is no need of giving rT?-1¥ any other than its widest sense as a description of the ocean. The word streams or floods is applied in the same way to the sea by David (Ps. xxiv. 2) and Jonah (ii. 4), in the

last of which cases it is connected with the cognate form n^-IVtp. (Com pare Zech. x. 11, and Isa. xix. 5.) — The strict translation of the last verb by Ewald as a future (/ will dry up) is not only more exact, but more expressive than the present form preferred by Gesenius and others.

28. The (one] saying to (or as to) Cyrus, 31y shepherd, anil all my plea sure he will fu[fil, and saying to Jerusalem, Thou shall be built, and (to) the temple, Thou shah be founded. It is now universally admitted that this verse has reference to Cyrus the Elder or the Great, the son of Cambyses king of Persia, and the grandson of Astyagcs the Mede, the hero of the Cyropfedia and of the first book of Herodotus, the same who appears in sacred history (2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, Ezra i. 1) as the actual restorer of the Jews from exile. He is here called Jehovah's shepherd, which may either be the usual poetical designation of a king, so common in the oldest classics, or (as Umbreit suggests) a special description of his mission and vocation to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is characteristic of John David Michaelis, and of the notions prevalent in his day as to fidelity and freedom of translation, that instead of my shepherd he has the king appointed by me ; for which variation he apologises on the ground that the former title, if applied to so great a king, might sound indecorous (imanstdndig klingen), because shepherds are now low and vulgar people. — With *JT> we may either supply thou art or he is, or regard it as a simple exclamation. A curious illustration of the ancient mode of writing Hebrew is afforded by Jerome's remark on this word : " Ycrbum Hebraicum Hoi, si per resh literam legamus, intelligitur pastor meus ; si per daleth, sciens vel intelligent ; quarurn similitude parvo apice distinguitur." — All my pleasure, i. e. with respect to the deliverance of the Jews from exile. — The construction of

"lbfcO.1 is obscure and difficult. Luther refers it to an indefinite subject, so that one may say (dass man sage). Knobel makes it dependent on "ttr'xn in the sense of commanding to say. Ewald regards it as an idiomatic use of the infinitive instead of the finite verb, and refers it to Jehovah. Gesenius refers it to Cyrus, and understands it as explaining how he was to fulfil Jehovah's pleasure, namely, by saying, &c. This, on the whole, is the most natural construction, although, like the others, it leaves unexplained the introduction of the copulative particle before the verb, which must either be rendered as in the English Version (even saying), or disregarded as an idiomatic pleonasm. — The same ambiguity respecting the person of the verbs exists in the last clause of this verse as in ver 20. Some take both in the second person, which requires a preposition to be introduced before

^?*n. Others make both in the third person, which requires ^"\) to be construed as a feminine in this one place exclusively. This last is the construction finally adopted by Gesenius. In his Commentary he had assumed an abrupt transition from the third to the second person. — There are two points in this verse upon which the higher criticism of modern times has fastened, as proofs that the passage is of later origin than that •which tradition has assigned to it. The first of these is the use of }'?D iu the sense of business or affair, repealed instances of which are cited from the later books or what are so considered. But even in the cases thus alleged, the change of usage is extremely doubtful, while in that before us it is purely imaginary or fictitious. The word has here its strict, original, and usual sense of inclination, will, or pleasure, that which one delights in, chooses, or desires; and the substitution of affair or business would be not only arbitrary but ridiculous. — The other supposititious proof of later date is

17G ISAIAH XLIV. [VEB. 28.

the distinctness with which Cyrus is foretold by name, and which is said to be at variance with the general analogy and usage of the prophecies. Moller's attempt to set aside this difficulty by explaining £JO'l3 as a descrip tive name of Israel itself, has found no adherents among later writers, and instead of mitigating, aggravates the evil. Without disturbing the unani mous consent among interpreters that Cyrus is the subject of this prophecy, the objection admits of satisfactory solution. In the first place, let it be observed, that it proceeds upon a false assumption, namely, that no form of expression or prediction can occur but once. Why may not this be a single exception to the general rule, analogous to that presented by the occasional introduction of precise dates, notwithstanding the usual vague ness of prediction? The want of analogy might render it a priori more improbable, and make the necessity of clear proof more imperative, but could not, in the face of such proof, make the fact itself incredible. But in the next place, the precision of this prophecy is not so totally without analogy as the objectors commonly assume. One clearly defined instance of the same kind is sufficient to relieve the case before us from the charge of being wholly unparalleled, and such an instance is afforded by the pro phecy respecting Josiah in 1 Kings xiii. 2. The assertion that the name of Josiah was interpolated by a later hand, is not only perfectly gratuitous, but equally available in this case, where a similar assumption would at once remove all evidence of later date. If that is an interpolation, so may this be. If that is not one, this is not without analogy. But in the third place, the alleged violation of analogy is much less real than apparent; since in both the cases there is reference to the meaning of the name as a generic or descriptive title, and not merely to its application as an indi vidual denomination. That Josiah was intended to be thus significant, as well as in 2 Kings xiii. 2, as in Zech. vi. 10, has been proved by Hengstenberg in his exposition of the latter passage. (Christologie, ii. p. 71.) That ^!Tl3 was likewise a descriptive title of the Persian kings, is rendered probable by several distinct considerations. The Hebrew name has been identified, by some of the most eminent comparative philologists, with a Persian word which means the sun. The use of such a title would agree well not only with the ancient religion of that people, but with a well known oriental usage of describing certain royal races as descendants of the sun, whether this be regarded as a superstitious myth or a poetical hyperbole. It is expressly asserted by Herodotus that Cyrus originally bore another name. This name is said by Strabo to have been Ayratlates, which Hitzig reckons as a mere mistake, occasioned by confounding the river Ki/pof with the monarch of the same name, whereas Pott, Von Lengerke, and others, trace it to the same root with B'J'S, and the same primary sense of sun. To this etymology there seems to be an allusion in chap. xli. 2, 25, where Cyrus is so emphatically said to have risen in the east and pursued his course westwards. This explanation of the name is strongly favoured by the numerous analogies in this and other languages, the Egyptian Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the Philistian Abimelechs, the Amalekitish Agags, the Roman Ca3sars. The result of these considerations is, that the prophecy before us, although still relating to the individual Cyrus, is not so variant in form from the usual analogy of prophecy, as to afford any ground for the suspicion that the passage is on that account of later date. For the most satisfactory discussion of this point, see Hengstenberg's Christologie, i. p. 192, and Havernick's Einleitung, ii. p. 163.

CHAPTER XLV.

THIS chapter contains the same essential elements with those before it, but in new combinations and a varied form. The great theme of the pro phecy is still the relation of Israel to God as his chosen people, and to the nations as a source or medium of saving knowledge. This last idea is brought out with great distinctness at the close of the chapter. The proofs and illustrations of the doctrine taught are still drawn from the power of Jehovah, as displayed in the creation of the world, and as contrasted with the impotence of idols. The evidence of prescience afforded by the pro phecy is also here repeated and enlarged upon. As a particular prospective exhibition both of power and foreknowledge, we have still before us the conquests of Cyrus, which are specifically foretold and explicitly connected with the favour of Jehovah as their procuring cause, and with the liberation of his people and the demonstration of his deity, as their designed effect.

As to the order and arrangement of the parts, the chapter opens, in direct continuation of the forty-fourth, with a further prophecy of Cyrus and of his successes, vers. 1-3. These are then referred to the power of God and his design of mercy towards his people, so that all misgivings or distrust must be irrational and impious, vers. 4-13. Then leaving Cyrus out of view, the Prophet turns his eyes to the nations, and declares that they must be subdued, but only in order to be blessed and saved, which is declared to have been the divine purpose, and revealed as such from the beginning, vers. 14-25.

1. Thus saith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held fast, to tread doicn before him nations, and the loins of kings I will loose; to open before him double doors, and gates shall not be shut. The words of Jehovah seem to begin regularly with the next verse ; but even in this, which is strictly introductory, they are mingled with the Prophet's descrip tion of Cyrus, a mode of composition very common in Hebrew, and among the oldest writers, who thought more of the idea than of the form in which it was expressed. The accumulation of descriptive epithets, which Gesenius represents as characteristic of these Later Prophecies, arises from the fact that one main object which the writer had in view was to impress upon the reader's mind the attributes of God and of his chosen instruments. — Cyrus is here called the Lord's anointed, a designation elsewhere limited, as Calvin says, to the sacerdotal monarchy of Judah, which prefigured Christ in both his offices of priest and king. — Most writers understand it here as a synonyme of king, derived from Jewish usages, and not intended to indi cate anything peculiar in the royalty of Cyrus, except that he was raised up by Jehovah for a special purpose. Calvin thinks it still more pregnant and emphatic, and descriptive of Cyrus as a representative of Christ in this one thing, that he was instrumentality the saviour or deliverer of Israel from bondage. — The treading down of nations is a trait peculiarly appropriate in this case, as the Greek historians give long catalogues of distinct nations subjugated by Cyrus, such as the Medes, Hyrcanians, Assyrians, Arabians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Lj'dians, Carians, Babylonians, &c. — To loose the loins of kings is explained by Calvin as meaning to weaken them, because the strength is in the loins ; and Rosenmiiller cites, in illustration of this usage, the Latin verb and adjective, delumbo and elumbis. Luther. Clericus, and J. D. Michaelis suppose an allusion to the removal of the sword-belt, as the ancient method of disarming or dismissing from active

service. Either of these explanations is better than Jerome's, which sup poses an allusion simply to the royal cincture as a badge of office. But most of the modern writers are agreed that the words at least include a reference to the ordinary use of the girdle as a part of oriental dress, on which the activity of the wearer and his exercise of strength are in a great degree dependent, as it gathers up and tightens the flowing garments which would otherwise impede his movements. The exclusive reference of this clause to the kings of Lydia and Babylon is arbitrary, and detracts from the greatness of the promise and description. — The dual Bl'fJ?';' is the proper Hebrew term for valves, folding-doors, or two-leaved gates. All interpreters admit that while this clause, in its most general sense, is perfectly appro priate to all the fortified places which were attacked by Cyrus, it is specifi cally and remarkably appropriate to the taking of Babylon. It can scarcely be considered a fortuitous coincidence, that Herodotus speaks of the gates which led to the river as having been left open on the night of the attack; and Xenophon says the doors of the palace itself having been unguardedly opened, the invaders took possession of it almost without resistance. These apparent allusions to particular circumstances and events, couched under general predictions, are far more striking and conclusive proofs of inspira tion than the most explicit and detailed prediction of the particular event alone could be.

2. I will go before thee, and uneven places I will level, doors of brass I will break, and bars of iron I will cut. The first clause describes the removal of difficulties under the figures used for the same purpose in chap, xl. 4. The other clause would seem at first sight to contain an analogous figure ; but it really includes one of those minute coincidences with history, of which we have already had an example in the preceding verse. Herodo tus and Abydenus say expressly that the gates of Babylon were all of brass. (Compare Ps. cvii. 16.)

3. And I will give the treasures of darkness and hidden riches of secret places, in order that thou mayest know that I Jehovah, the (one] calling thee by name, am the God of Israel. It is thought by some eminent writers that no conquests have ever been attended with such acquisitions of wealth as those of Cyrus. Pliny's account of what he obtained from Crcesus makes it, according to Brerewood's computation, more than 126,000,000 pounds sterling. The last clause gives a reason why this circumstance is men tioned, namely, in order that Cyrus might be able to identify the Being who brought it to pass with the Being who foretold it. The same con sideration will account for the mention of the name of Cyrus ; so that even if it were a bolder violation of analogy and usage than it is, there would still be a sufficient explanation of it furnished by the divine purpose to exert a direct influence through this prediction upon Cyrus himself. That such an influence was really exerted by the writings of Isaiah is expressly asserted by Josephus, and would seem to be implied in the monarch's solemn recognition of Jehovah as the true God, and the author of his suc cesses (Ezra i. 2).

4. For the sake of my servant Jacob and Israel my chosen, therefore will I call thee by thy name, I will give thee a title and thou hast not known me. Not only for God's glory in the general, but with a view to the promotion of his gracious purposes towards Israel. The 1 before N?i?tf introduces the apodosis, and may be taken as equivalent to therefore. — The sense of speakiny kindly, which the modern writers give to ^11? $, is here much less appro priate than that of giving a title of honour, with apparent reference to the

epithets of shepherd and anointed, bestowed on Cyrus alone among the • heathen princes. Thou hast not known me may either mean that he was not a follower of the true religion, or that the name was given long before he did or could know anything of Him who gave it. The verb expresses past time not in reference to the date of the prediction, but to that of the fulfilment.

5. / am Jehovah (i. e. the eternal, self-existent God) and there is no other ; except me tliere is no God ; I will gird thee and thou hast not known me. What is said before of naming him is here said of girding him, /. e. investing him with royal dignity or personally strengthening him ; both may be included.

6. That they may blow, from the rising of the sun to tlie west (or to his going down), that there is none tvithout me; lam Jehovah, and there is no other. What was said before of Cyrus in particular is now said of men in general, viz., that they must be convinced in this way that the God of Israel is the one true God. Some of the Jewish critics regard the final letter of !"Q~lJ?E) as a suffix referring to the feminine noun ^'P^', notwith standing the absence of niappik. The noun to which it is annexed would then have its primary sense (occasus, setting) ; otherwise it is a feminine designation of the west.

7. Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil, I (am} Jehovah doing all these (things]. Saadias, followed by Vitringa, Lowth, J. 1). Michaelis, Henderson, and Umbreit, supposes an allusion to the dualism or doctrine of two co-eternal principles as held by the ancient Persians. Gesenius objects that the terms are too indefinite, and their general sense too obvious, to admit of this specific application. But this whole passage is characterized by the recurrence of expressions, the generic sense of which seems clear, but which, at the same time, seem to bear and even to require a more specific explanation, unless we choose rather to assume an extraordinary series of fortuitous coincidences. The open doors, the gates of brass, the hidden treasures, are examples of this double sense, if such it may be called, within the compass of three verses. This analogy makes it rather probable than otherwise that in the case before us, while the Prophet's language may be naturally taken as a general description of God's universal power, an allusion was intended to the great distinctive doctrine of the faith in which Cyrus had most probably been educated. For although it cannot be distinctly proved, it can as little be disproved, and is intrinsically altogether credible, that the doctrine of the Zendavesta is as old as C}Trus.

8. Drop (or distil], ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds pour out righteousness ; let the earth open, and let salvation and righteousness grow, let her bring (them] forth togetJier. I Jehovah have created it. There is a singular equivoque in the common version of the first clause, Drop down, ye heavens, from above, which might seem to be a call upon the skies to fall, if the sense were not determined by the parallel expression. The predic tion of events in the form of a command is peculiarly frequent in Isaiah's later prophecies. The modern explanation of P})f and ""^V as meaning victor}-, prosperity, &c., is entirely arbitrary, as we have already seen in other cases. The manifestation of God's righteousness, including his fide lity to his engagements, is constantly recognised in Scripture as one chief end of his dispensations. — In the second clause there is a difficulty of con struction, arising from the use of the plural form -"n??, to explain which some make }")N a collective, others, WP!. . (Compare chap. xvi. 4, and Ps.

cxix. 103.) After all attempts, however, to resolve the syntax, the most satisfactory construction, although not the most consistent with the Masoretic accents, is the one proposed by Kimchi, who connects the plural verb with the next two nouns, and repeats }"3$ as the subject of ITDy}?. Next to this is the one given by Luzzatto, who makes -11?? mean briny forth (as in Deut. xxix. 17) and agree with D!P^. — J. D. Michaelis explains this whole verse as relating to prophecy and its fulfilment.

9. Woe to (or alas for} him striving with his Maker — a potsherd with pot sherds of earth. Shall clay say to its former, What art thou doing? and thy work, He has no hands ? The translation of ^H as a simple exclamation by Hitzig (Ha!} and Ewald (0!) does not meet the requisitions either of general usage or the context, which require it to be taken as an expression of displeasure, or sympathy, or both.— Striving with God is not merely active resistance, but opposition of judgment and affection. — The word 1~iy\ used twice in this verse, is peculiarly expressive ; because it derives from etymology the general sense of former, fashioner, and from usage the specific sense of potter, which is in strict agreement with the figurative language of both clauses. — The second member of the first clause has been very variously construed. The analogy of what precedes would seem to make it mean, ii'oe to the potsherds (striving] vith the potsherds of the earth. But this is universally agreed to be inadmissible, a pi'oof that the principle of parallelism has its limitations. Mariana ingeniously but needlessly pro poses to readJS^n : let the potsherd strive with the workmen (i. e. potters) of the earth. Yitringa applies the same construction to the common text : let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth, but not with God. The Peshito renders it, a potsherd of (or from] the potslierds of the earth, thus making the whole phrase a description of the weakness and insignifi cance of man. This construction is adopted by the modern writers, almost without exception ; most of whom, however, give to HX its proper sense of with, which they suppose to imply likeness and relationship, like CV in Eccles. ii. 16. — It seems to be a just observation of Hitzig, that earth is not mentioned as the dwelling of the potsherd, but as its material, which is indeed the predominant usage of nplX as distinguished from f'pK. The verb at the beginning of the last clause might be rendered either does, will, can, or should say; but all that is necessary to the writer's purpose may be considered as implied or included in the simple future. (Compare chap. x. 15, and vol. i. p. 230.) The same thing is sub stantially true of the verb '"!£'#£); but in this case, the exact force of the Hebrew word may be best expressed by our compound present, what art thou doing or about to do? This is the common Hebrew formula for calling to account, or questioning the propriety of what one does. (See Job. ix. 12, Eccles. viii. 4, Dan. iv. 32.) — The last words of the verse have also been the subject of many discordant explanations. Some of the older writers make them a continuation of the same speech : What art thou doing ? and (as for) thy work, it has no hands, i. e. it is unfinished. But most interpreters agree that thy work introduces a new speaker. And (shall) thy work (say of ihce) he has no hands ? The unexpected introduction of the second person (thy work] led Houligant and Lowth to suppose a transposition of the pronouns, and to read his ivorlt and thou hast no hands, which may be safely set aside as a violent and worthless emendation. Maurer accounts for the second person by supposing it to be employed indefinitely, thy u'ork i. e. the work of any one to whom the words may be addressed. Hitzig

still better makes the Prophet pass abruptly from the sign to the thing signified, from the supposed case to the real one, from the potter to Jehovah. There are no hands to him, i. e. he has no power. The absurdity consists in the thing made denying the existence of the hands by which it was itself produced. The essential idea is the same as in chap. x. 15, but the ex pression here much stronger, since the instrument is not merely charged with exalting itself above the efficient agent, but the creature with denying the power or skill of its Creator. — The restriction of this verse, and of those which follow, to the Babylonians, or the Jews in exile, is entirely arbitrary and at variance with the context, which refers to the conquests of Cyrus and their consequences, not as the main subject of the prophecy, but as illustrations of a general truth. — The form of speech used by Paul in Kom. ix. 20, (tthy hast thuu made me thus?) is not a version but a paraphrase of '"l£'yfl~i"lE|, in which however it is really included.

10. Woe to (l(iin~) saying to a father, What wilt tliou beget, and to a woman, What wilt than bring forth? The same idea is again expressed, but in a form still more emphatic and revolting. The incongruities which have perplexed interpreters in this verse are intentional aggravations of the impious absurdity which it describes. The arbitrary change of the future to the present (what begettest fthou?} or the past (what hast thou Irouyht

forth.?) is not only incorrect in point of grammar, but subversive of the writer's main design, which is to represent the doubt and discontent of men in reference to God's future dealings with them as no less monstrous than the supposition of a child's objection to its own birth. Such an objection, it is true, cannot be offered in the case supposed; but in the real case it ought to be held equally impossible. This view of the Prophet's meaning, if correct, of course precludes the explanation of the words as a complaint of weakness or deformity, or an expression of disgust with life like that in Job iii. 20, and Jeremiah xx. 14.

11. Thus saiih Jehovali, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker, Ask me (of) the things to come, concerning my sons and concerning the work of my hands ye may command me. The Septuagint divides the sentence differ ently, and reads 6 crc/^craj ra hfs^utva. This, which seems to be a mere inadvertence or mistake, is regarded by Lowth as a sufficient reason for a change of text, and he translates accordingly he that formeth the things which are to come. All other writers seem to follow the Masoretic interpunction, which connects the participle with the second clause. Verbs of asking, as in Latin, govern two accusatives. (See Ps. cxxxvii. 3). — Vitringa takes WKi? as a preterite, and makes the last clause an interrogation, They ask me, and will ye command me ? But we have then an abrupt transition, not only from affirmation to interrogation, but frum the third to the second person. Hitzig removes one of these anomalies by aggravating the other, reading both the verbs interrogatively, do they ask ? and will ye command '/ By far the simplest syntax is the common one, which makes the

as the preterite would be ^-1?^', as in Ps. cxxxvii. 8. (Compare ^P^, Gen. xxxii. 18). Some who adopt this explanation of the first verb give the other an imperative form also, a needless and dubious assimilation. There is also a diversity of judgment as to the relation of these verbs, and of the sentences in which they stand to one another. Most of the late inter preters suppose an antithetical relation, and explain the cause as meaning, you may ask me about things to come, but leave the disposal of my children to myself. This not only requires an adversative particle to be inserted,

which is often the force of the Hebrew copulative, but involves a distinction without a difference; since the fortunes of God's children were themselves things to come, and the very things to come respecting which the people would be probably most anxious to inquire. It is better therefore to regard the parallelism as synonymous, not antithetical, and to understand both verbs as conceding an indulgence to those who are addressed. You may ask me concerning things to come, for I am able to inform you; you may trust my children to my care, for I am abundantly able to protect them. — "?J? ""!;!¥ is a common expression for giving one authority over any thing or person, or in other words committing it to him, and leaving it at his dis posal. — For the meaning of work of my hands as an equivalent to my children or my people, see vol. i. p. 8G4.

12. I made the earth, and man upon it I created; I, my hands, spread the heavens, and all their host commanded. This is a justification of the claim in the last clause of the foregoing verse, or a statement of the reason why he could be trusted to protect his people, namely, because he was almighty, and had proved himself to be so in creation. — The personal pronoun is emphatic in both clauses, as if he had said, It is I irho made, or / (and no other') made, &c. The construction of the second of these pronouns with my hands has been variously explained. Some regard the latter as equiva lent to an ablative of instrument in Latin : / u-ith my hands hare spread, &c. Others consider it an instance of the idiom which adds the personal pronoun to the suffix for the sake of emphasis : /, my hands spread, i. e. my own hands spread. In such constructions the personal pronoun com monly stands last. A third supposition is that the pronoun is in apposition with the noun itself, and is not so much emphatic as explanatory, / (that is to say, my hands) have spread. (Compare Ps. iii. 5, xvii. 13, 14, xliv. 3, Ix. 7.) — The last words of the verse admit of two explanations. We may understand the figure as a military one, and give the verb the military sense of commanding. Or we may take host as a common expression for contents or inhabitants, and understand the verb as meaning called into existence. (Compare Ps. xxxiii. 9.) In itself, the former explanation seems entitled to the preference ; but it requires the verb to be construed as an indefinite practer or a present, whereas all the other verbs, though similar in form, relate to a determinate past time, viz. the time of the creation.

13. /(and no other) raised him up in righteousness, and all hisiraysivill I make straight (or level]; (it is] he (that] shall luild my city, and my cap tivity (or exiles] he will send (home], not for reward, and not for hire, saith Jehovah of hosts. From the general proof of divine power afforded by creation, he descends to the particular exercise of his omnipotence and wisdom in the raising up of Cyrus, who is thus referred to without the ex press mention of his name, because he had been previously made the subject of a similiar appeal, and the Prophet simply takes up the thread which he had dropped at the close of the fifth verse, or perhaps of the seventh. From the sense of raising up in righteousness, see above on chaps, xli. 2, 25, xlii. 6. In this, as well as in the other places, Vitringa supposes an allusion to the personal character of Cyrus, which he defends with great warmth against Buruet's remark in his History of the Reforma tion, that God sometimes uses bad men as his instruments, such as the cruel Cyrus. The statements of Herodotus to this effect Vitringa treats as fabulous, and claims full credit for the glowing pictures of the Cyropaedia. This distinction is not only strange iu itself, but completely at war with the conclusions of the ablest modern critics and historians. Nor is there the

least need of insisting thus upon the moral excellence of Cyrus, who hi either case was just as really a consecrated instrument of the divine righteousness, as the Medes and Persians generally, who are so described in chap. xiii. 8. (See vol. i. p. 269.) At the same time allowance must be made for the difference between what Cyrus was before and after he became acquainted with the true religion. (See above, on ver. 3.) The figure of straight or level paths has the same sense as in chap. xl. 3. — My city, i. e. the holy city, Jerusalem, of which Cyrus was indirectly the rebuilder. — The form of the verb send here used is not unfrequently applied to the setting free of prisoners or slaves. — The last clause seems decisive of the question whether chap, xliii. 3, 4, should be understood as a general declaration of God's distinguishing affection for his people, disposing him to favour them at the expense of other nations, or as a specific promise that Cyrus should conquer Ethiopia and Egypt, as a compensation for releasing Israel, in which case he could not be said, in an}' appropriate sense, to have set them free without reward or hire.

14. Thus saith Jehovah, The toil of Egypt, and the gain of Gush, and the Sebaim men of measure unto thee shall pass, and to thee shall they belong, after thee shall they go, in chains shall they pass over (or along] ; and unto thee shall they bow themselves, to thee shall they pray (saying], Only in thee (is) God, and there is none besides, no (other) God. The first clause specifies labour and traffic as the two great sources of wealth, here put for wealth itself, or for the people who possessed it. D'KZlp is construed by some writers as a genitive dependent on ">np the trade of Ethiopia and of the Sabcans ; by others, as the nominative to the next verb, the Sabeans shall pass over to thee ; a grammatical distinction not affecting the sense. For the true sense of the geographical or national names here mentioned, see above on chap, xliii. 3. In both places they are named, as Hitzig well ob serves, by way of sample (beispielswetse) for the heathen world. To the reasons before given for this interpretation, we may here add the general reference to idolaters in ver. 16. — The Targum seems to explain rno here as meaning trade (tOinD); and others give it that of tribute, which has in Chaldee (Ezra iv. 20, and in Neh. v. 4). But the meaning men of mea sure, i. e. of extraordinary stature, is determined by the analogy of Num. xiii. 32, 1 Chron. xi. 23, xx. 6, and confirmed by the description of the Ethiopians in ancient history, Herodotus speaking of them as [tt-yiarot avdguvuv, and Solinus more specifically as duodecim pedes lonyi. According to Knobel, their stature is here mentioned, in order to shew that they were able-bodied, and would be profitable servants to the Jews ; but most inter preters correctly understand it as a circumstance intended to enhance the glory and importance of the conquest. — "=] vJ? might be understood to mean against thee; but this sense is precluded by the next phrase, they shall be (or belong) to thee, as well as by the epexegetical addition, they sh>dl pass in chains. Whether these are here considered as imposed by their conquerors, or by themselves in token of a voluntary submission, is a question which the words themselves leave undecided. The same thing may be said of the prostration mentioned afterwards, which in itself might be considered as denoting the customary oriental act of obeisance or civil adoration, although usually found in such connections as require it to be taken in a religious sense, which is here further indicated by the addition of the verb to pray. The seeming incongruity of thus ascribing dhine honours to a creature, may be avoided by taking ^vK in a local sense, as meaning to wards thee, but not to thee, as the object of the adoration. But a simpler

solution of the difficulty is, that these strong expressions were employed because the explanation was to follow. Instead of saying, they shall worship God who dwells in tJiee, the Prophet makes his language more expressive by saying, they shall worship thee; and then immediately explains his own language by adding their acknowledgment, only in thce is God, or to give the Hebrew word its full force, an almigiity God, implying that the gods of other nations were but gods in name. This exclusive recognition of the God of Israel is then repeated in a way which may to some seem tauto logical, but which is really emphatic in a high degree. — The application of the suffixes in this verse to Cyrus is inconsistent with the Masoretic point ing, which makes them feminine. This is regarded by Yitringa and Gesenius as an oversight of Grotius, occasioned by his looking at the Latin text and not the Hebrew. But the same construction seems to be approved by Aben Ezra and Ewald, who must therefore be considered as departing from the common punctuation. The feminine pronouns of the common text may be referred either to HI1?]! (captivity) in ver. 13, or to 'TV (my city) in the same verse, or to 7$^ rnj? (the congregation of Israel), in all which cases the real object of address is still substantially the same, viz., the ancient church or chosen people. — The question now presents itself, in what sense the subjection of the nations is here promised. That a literal conquest of Ethiopia and Egypt by the Jews themselves is here predicted, none can maintain but those who wish to fasten on Isaiah the charge of ignorance or gross imposture. An ingenious Jewish writer of our own day, Luzzatto, supposes the Prophet to foretell a literal subjection of these countries, not by Israel, but by Cyrus; and explains the whole verse as describing the conduct of the captives when they should pass by the land of Israel in chains on their way to Persia, and acknowledge the supremacy of Jehovah by worshipping towards his earthly residence. In order to sustain this in genious and original interpretation, its author is under the necessity of tak ing V_^ and nnp as elliptical expressions for W: *&$ and inpO g3, men of labour, men of traffic, i. e. labourers and traders. He is also forced to explain away some of the most significant expressions, such as they shall be thine, they shall go after thee, as merely indicating disposition or desire. The violence thus done to the obvious meaning of the Prophet's language is sufficient to condemn the exposition which involves it. The same inter pretation is substantially proposed by Ewald, but more briefly and obscurely, and with his usual omission of all reference to other writers, which leaves it doubtful whether he derived it from Luzzatto, or arrived at it by an in dependent process. Enough has now been said to shew that the most natural interpretation of the passage is the common one which makes it a prophecy of moral and spiritual conquests, to be wrought by the church over the nations, and, as one illustrious example, by the Jews' religion over the heathenism of many countries, not excepting the literal Ethiopia, as we learn from Acts viii. 27.

15. Verily thou art a God hiding thyself, 0 God of Israel, the Saviour! The abrupt transition here has much perplexed interpreters. Yitringa effects nothing by his favourite and far-fetched supposition of a responsive choir or chorus. Ewald and Luzzatto suppose the words of the Egyptian cap tives to be still continued. It is far more natural to take the verse as an apostrophe, expressive of the Prophet's own strong feelings in contrasting what God had done and would yet do, the darkness of the present with the brightness of the future. If these things are to be hereafter, then, 0 thou Saviour of thy people, thou art indeed a God that hides himself, that is to

say, conceals his purposes of mercy under the darkness of his present dis pensations. Let it be observed, however, that the same words, which furnish a vehicle of personal emotion to the Prophet, are in fact a formula of wider import, and contain the statement of a general truth. Ewald assumes two distinct propositions, reading the last clause thus, the God of Israel is a Saviour; which is perfectly grammatical and agreeable to usage, but unnecessary here and undesirable, because it detracts from the simplicity and unity of the construction.

16. They are ashamed and also confounded all of them together, they are gone into confusion (or away in confusion] — the carvers of images. Unless we assume, without necessity or warrant, an abrupt and perfectly capricious change of subject, this verse must contain the conclusion of the process described in the foregoing context. We might, therefore, expect to find Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba introduced again by name ; but, instead of these, the sentence closes with a general expression, which has already been referred to as a proof that the war in question is a spiritual war, and that the enemies to be subdued are not certain nations in themselves consi dered, but the heathen world, the vast mixed multitude who worship idols. These are described as the carvers or artificers of images, which strengthens the conclusion before drawn, that the smith and carpenter, and cook and baker, and cultivator of chap. xliv. 12-1G, are one and the same person, viz. the idolatrous devotee himself.

17. Israel is saved in Jehovah (with] an everlasting salvation (literally, salvation of ages or eternities] ; ye shall not be ashamed, and ye shall not be confounded for ever (literally, until the ages of eternity], or as the English Version has it, world without end. This is the counterpart and contrast to the threatening in the verse preceding, upon which it throws some light by shewing that the shame and confusion which awaits the idolater is not mere wounded pride or sense of disappointment, but the loss and opposite of that salvation which is promised to God's people, or in other words, eternal perdition. Israel is saved already, i. e. his salvation is secured, not merely through the Lord but in him, i. e. by virtue of an intimate and vital union with him, as genuine and living members of his body. The general form of this solemn declaration, and the eternity again and again predicated of the salvation promised, seem to shew that the Israel of this text and of others like it, is not the Jewish people, considered simply as an ancient nation, but the Jewish people considered as the church of God, a body which has never ceased and never will cease to exist and claim the promises.

18. For thus saith Jehovah, the creator of the heavens — he is God — the former of tlw earth and its maker — he established it — not in vain (or not to

be empty] did he create it — to dwell in (or to be inhabited} he formed it — / am Jehovah, and there is none lesi'les. This verse assigns a reason for believing in the threatening and the promise of the two preceding verses, viz. that he who uttered them not only made the heavens and the earth, but made them for a certain purpose which must be accomplished. The only difficulty of construction is the question where Jehovah's words begin, and this admits of several different answers. We may read, Thus saith Jehovah: The creator of the heavens is God; in which case the divine address begins with a formal statement of the argument derived from the creation. Again, we may read, Thus saith Jehovah, The creator of the heavens is the God who formed the earth. This is Vitringa's explanation of the verse, which he regards as a denial of the doctrine that the heavens

and the earth derive their origin from different creators. But most inter preters suppose the beginning of Jehovah's own words to be marked by the introduction of the pronoun of the first person, I am Jehovah, and there is no other. All that precedes is then to be regarded as a description of the speaker, including two parenthetical propositions, each beginning with the pronoun &Wn: the creator of the heavens (he is God), the former of the earth and its maker (he established it). — Some understand fi^lS to mean prepared (or fitted) it, i. e. for man to dwell in. But the other sense is favoured by the predominant usage of the verb, and by the analogy of Ps. cxix. 90. The common version of the next clause, he created it not in vain, is admissible, but less expressive than the more specific rendering, he created it not (to be) a waste (or empty]. Grotius understands by H^H, the Holy Land, and by the whole clause that God would not let it remain uninhabited. But the antithesis with heavens makes the wider sense more natural, in which the more restricted one, as Hitzig has suggested, may be comprehended. The earth, and the Holy Land, as part of it, was made to be inhabited, not empty. — Vitringa's distinctions between making, forming, and creating, though ingenious, are no more natural or necessary here than in chap, xliii. 7. (See above, p. 150.) In the last clause Jehovah is employed as a descriptive title, and is really equivalent to?£, which the Prophet uses in a similar connection in ver. 22 below.

19. Not in secret hare I spoken, in a dark place of the earth (or in a place, to wit, a land of darkness}. I have not said to the seed of Jacob, In vainseek ye me. I (am) Jehovah, speaking truth, declaring rectitude (or right things). The doctrine of the preceding verse is no new revelation, but one long ago and universally made known. Vitringa, Lowth, Ewald, and Umbreit suppose an allusion to the mysterious and doubtful responses of the heathen oracles. The objections of Gesenius are of no more weight than in vers. 1, 2, 3, the analogy of which places makes it not improbable that such an allusion to the oracles is couched under the general terms of the verse before us. — Of the next clause there are several distinct interpretations. The oldest and most common makes it mean that God had not required the people to consult him in relation to futurity without obtaining satisfactory responses. According to Hitzig, he had not required them to seek him (i. e. serve or worship him) for nothing, or without reward. J. D. Michaelis and Luzzatto give a local sense to -inn, in the wilderness, which Hendewerk explains as equivalent to land of darkness, both denoting the heathen world, in which Jehovah had not taught his people to seek him or expect responses from him. — Lowth gives D^^P the specific sense of direct answers, as opposed to the equivocal responses of the oracles ; but this is hardly justified by usage, which requires both this word and the parallel expression to be here taken in the sense of truth.

20. _ Gather yourselves and come, draw near together, ye escaped of the nations. They know not, those carrying the wood, their graven image-, and praying to a God (who) cannot save. In the first clause the idolaters are addressed directly ; in the second they are spoken of again in the third person." The challenge or summons at the beginning is precisely similar to that in chap. xli. 21 and xliii. 9. Escaped of (he nations has been vari ously explained to mean the Jews who had escaped from the oppression of the Gentiles, and the Gentiles who had escaped from the dominion of idolatry. But these last would scarcely have been summoned to a contest. On the whole, it seems most natural to understand the nations who sur vived the judgments sent by God upon them. The Hebrew phrase is in

itself ambiguous, the noun added to *Pv? sometimes denoting the whole body, out of which a remnant has escaped, sometimes the power from which they are delivered. (Compare Judges xii. 4, Ezra vi. 9, vii. 16, Obad. xi., with Jer. xlv. 28, Ezek. vi. 8.) The predominant usage and the context here decide in favour of the first interpretation. Gesenius and Luzzato both apply the phrase to the conquests of Cyrus, but in contrary senses. The first re gards it as describing those whom he should spare, the other those whom he should conquer, and who are exhibited as fleeing with their idols on their shoulders. But the explanation which agrees best with the whole connec tion is the one that supposes the idolaters still left (i. e. neither converted nor destroyed) to be the object of address. If there are any still absurd enough to carry about a wooden god, and pray to one who cannot save, let them assemble and draw near. — They do not know is commonly explained to mean they have no knowledge; but it is more accordant with the usage of the language to supply a specific object. They do not know it, or, they do not know what they are doing, they are not conscious of their own impiety and folly. — The verse contains two indirect reflections on the idols: first, that they are wooden; then, that they are lifeless and dependent on their worshippers for locomotion.

21. Bring forward and briny near! Yea, let them consult together. Who has caused this to be heard of old, since then declared it? Have not I Je hovah! and there in no other God besides me; a righteous and a saving God, there is none besides me. The object of the verbs in the first clause, accord ing to Vitringa, is your cause or your arguments, as in chap. xli. 21. This, which Geseuius is pleased to regard as an ignorant blunder of his great predecessor, has nevertheless commended itself to the judgment of most later writers. Geseuius himself explains the first- clause as meaning -pro claim it, and bring them near (i.e. the heathen), without explaining what is to be proclaimed, or by whom. According to Yitringa's exposition, the idolaters are called upon to state their case, and to defend it. — The change of person in the next clause implies that they are unable or unwilling to accept the challenge, or at least in doubt and hesitation with respect to it. They are therefore invited to deliberate together, or, as some understand it, to take counsel of those wiser than themselves. Instead of waiting longer for their plea, however, he presents his own, in the common form of an Interrogation, asking who, except himself, had given evidence of prescience by explicitly foretelling events still far distant, and of saving power by delivering his people from calamity and bondage. — TN£>, although it strictly has relation to a determinate past time, seems here to be employed inde finitely, as an equivalent to Q'IPP. — Have nut 1 Jehovah, and there is no other God besides me? is a Hebrew idiom equivalent to the English question, Have not I, besides whom there is no other God?

22. Turn unto me and be saved, all ye ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is none besides. From the preceding declarations, it might seem to follow that the Gentile world had nothing to expect but the perdition threatened in ver. 15. But now the Prophet brings to view a gracious alternative, inviting them to choose between destruction and submission, and shewing that the drift of the foregoing argument was not to drive the heathen to despair, but to shut them up to the necessity of seeking safetj' in the favour of the one true God, whose exclusive deity is expressly made the ground of the exhortation. — -13? does not correspond exactly to the English look, but denotes the act of turning round in order to look in a different direction. The text therefore bears a strong analogy to those in

which the heathen, when enlightened, are described as turning from their | idols unto God. (See 1 Thess. i. 9; Acts xiv. 15, xv. 19.) — The ends of\ the earth is a phrase inclusive of all nations, and is frequently employed in I reference to the conversion of the Gentiles. (See Ps. xxii. 28, Ixxii. 8 ; Zech. ix. 10.) De Wette's version, let yourselves be saved, appears to be a needless refinement on the simple meaning of the passive. — The question, whether Christ is to be regarded as the speaker in this passage, is of little exegetical importance. To us, who know that it is only through him that the Father saves, this supposition appears altogether natural; but it does not follow that any such impression would be made, or was intended to be made, upon an ancient reader.

23. JJy myself I hare sworn; the word is gone out of a mouth of righteous ness, and shall not return, that unto me shall bow every knee, shall sivear every tonyite. The form of the divine oath elsewhere used is by my life, or as I lice. (Num. xiv. 21, 28; Deut. xxxii. 40.) Hence Paul, in his quotation of this text (Rom. xiv. 11), uses the formula, Zi syu, which may be regarded as an accurate paraphrase, though not as a rigorous translation. — The construction of the words "^^ '"'R^V has perplexed interpreters. Jerome arbitrarily transposes them, and translates the phrase as if it were '"Ii?7y "^"i1 word of righteousness. Rosenmuller gains the same end by sup posing an unusual combination, riyhteousness-word, like PHV'^^V in Ps. xiv. 5. Most of the modern writers make ni?7¥ the subject of the verb Ky*, notwithstanding the diversity of gender, and regard &6) as equivalent to N? "!£'&?. Truth has gone out of my mouth, a word wliich shall not return. The simplest construction, although none of the later writers seem to have adopted it, is that proposed by J. D. Michaelis, who regards "'S as the con struct form of n§ without a suffix, and >"li?7V as a genitive dependent on it, the mouth of righteousness or truth (am dem untriigKchen Munde). — A word, i.e. a promise or a prophecy, is said in Hebrew to return when it is cancelled or recalled. (See Isaiah Iv. 11.) The kneeling and swearing in the last clause are acts of homage, fealty, or allegiance, which usually went together (1 Kings xix. 18), and involved a solemn recognition of the sovereignty of him to whom they were tendered. This verse affords a clear illustration of the difference between the act of swearing to and swearing by another. (Compare chap. xix. 18, vol. i. p. 856. —This text is twice applied by Paul to Christ (Rom. xiv. 11 ; Phil. ii. 10), in proof of his regal and judicial sovereignty. It does not necessarily pre dict that all shall be converted to him, since the terms are such as to in clude both a voluntary and a compulsory submission, and in one of these ways all, without exception, shall yet recognize him as their rightful sovereign.

24. Only in Jehovah have I, says he, righteousness and strength; unto him shall he come, and all that were incensed (or inflamed} at him shall be ashamed. Joseph Kimchi takes the first words as an oath, Yes, by Je hovah ! David Kimchi gives the ^N its proper meaning, and connects the clause with the last words of the foregoing verse. — Every tonyue shall swear (but) only by Jehovah. Most interpreters suppose a sentence to begin with this verse, and nirV2 to mean in Jehovah. They differ very much among themselves, however, as to the meaning of the words IPX v. Vitringa, Ewald, and some others, render the phrase said to me, but without satis factorily shewing its relation to the context. The most usual construction is, one says of me, which is grammatical, but seems to make the clause

unmeaning, or at least superfluous. Perhaps the best construction is Do Dieu's, who insulates T?N, and understands it to mean says one or says he, while he connects the following words with v, as meaning are to me, the only Hebrew phrase corresponding to I hare. In either case the general meaning evidently is, that God alone can justify or give protection. Yitringa's explanation of TV as meaning grace, is as groundless as the similar construction of '"I[5Ty by the modern Germans.- — The Masoretic interpunctiou refers the singular verb NUJ and the plural -1t?T to the same subject, namely, that which follows. But the difference of number seems designed to indicate a difference of subject, corresponding to the kinds of submission hinted at in vcr. 28. The singular N13J may naturally have a common subject with the singular I^X, viz., the "every one" who should eventually bow the knee and swear allegiance to Jehovah, while the plural K?T may be regularly construed with the plural B^p}.. Jarchi explains the whole of the last clause as describing the repentance of Jehovah's enemies; but this is really the meaning only of NU'T V137, while the rest describes the final and desperate confusion of incorrigible sinners, as in ver. 16. On the phrase NIT V1J? compare chap. xix. 22, and on 12 D'"in: chap. xli. 22, and Cant. i. G.

25. In Jehovah shall be justified and boast themselves (OT glory] all the seed of Israel. This closing promise is restricted by Jarchi, in the genuine spirit of Rabbinism, to the literal or natural descendants of Jacob; but this is less surprising when we know that he actually violates the syntax of the preceding verse in order to bring "^ and *"? together in the sense of only to me, the speaker being Israel ! So for is this from being the correct inter pretation of the verse, that it is really intended to wind up the previous addresses to the Gentiles with a solemn declaration of their true relation to the chosen people, as composed of those who really believed and feared God, whether Jews or Gentiles. This principle was recognised in every admission of a proselyte to the communion of the ancient church, and at the change of dispensations it is clearly and repeatedly asserted as a funda mental law of Christ's kingdom under every variety of form. (See Horn. x. 12; Gal. iii. 28, 29; Col. iii. 11.)

CHAPTEE XLVI.

INTERPRETERS are strangely divided in opinion as to the connection of this chapter with the context. The arbitrary and precarious nature of their judgments may be gathered from the fact, that Ewald separates the first two verses from the body of the chapter and connects them with the one before it, while Hcndewerk, on the other hand, commences a new " cycle" with the first verse of this chapter, and Knobel dogmatically represents it as an isolated composition, unconnected either with what goes before or follows. Even the older writers, who maintain the continuity of the discourse, appear to look upon the order of its parts as being not so much an organic articulation as a mere mechanical juxtaposition. They are therefore obliged to assume abrupt transitions, which, instead of explaining anything else, need to be explained themselves.

All this confusion is the fruit of the erroneous exegetical hypothesis, that the main subject and occasion of these later prophecies is the Babylonish exile and the liberation from it, and that with these the other topics must be violently brought into connection by assuming a sufficiency of types and

double senses, or by charging the whole discourse with incoherence. Equally false, but far less extensive in its influence, is the assumption that the whole relates to Christ and to the new dispensation, so that even what is said of Babylon and Cyrus must be metaphorically understood. Common to both hvpotheses is the arbitrary and exclusive application of the most compre hensive language to a part of what it really expresses, and a distorted view of the Prophet's themes considered in their mutual relations and connections. The whole becomes perspicuous, continuous, and orderly, as soon as we admit what has been already proved to be the true hypothesis, viz. that the great theme of these prophecies is God's designs and dealings with the church and with the world, and that the specific predictions which are intro duced are introduced as parts or as illustrations of this one great argument. By thus reversing the preposterous relation of the principal elements of the discourse, and restoring each to its legitimate position, the connection be comes clear and the arrangement easy.

In confirmation of the general threats and promises with which chap. xlv. is wound up, the Prophet now exhibits the particular case of the Babylonian idols, as a single instance chosen from the whole range of past and future history. They are described as fallen and gone into captivity, wholly unable to protect their worshippers or save themselves, vers. 1, 2. With these he then contrasts Jehovah's constant care of Israel in time past and in time to come, vers. 3, 4. The contrast is carried out by another description of the origin and impotence of idols, vers. 5—7, and another assertion of Jehovah's sole divinity, as proved by his knowledge and control of the future, and by the raising up of Cyrus in particular, vers. 8-11. This brings him back to the same solemn warning of approaching judgments, and the same alternative of life or death, with which the foregoing chapter closes, vers. 12, 13.

1. Bel is lowed down, Nelo stooping; their images are (consigned'} to the leasts and to the cattle. Your burdens are packed up (as] a load to the weary (beast). The connection with what goes before may be indicated thus : see for example the fate of the Babylonian idols. Of these two are men tioned, either as arbitrary samples, or as chief divinities. To these names, or rather to the subject of Babylonian mythology, Gesenius devotes an ex cursus or appendix of thirty pages, the results of which are given in his Thesaurus and Lexicon. He connects Bel etymologically with the Hebrew 7V3, and Nelo with N23 (^23), the two corresponding to the Zeus and Hermes of the Greek mythology, or rather to the planets Jupiter and Mer cury. The dignity of these two imaginary deities among the Babylonians may be learned from the extent to which these names enter into the com position of the names of men, both in sacred and profane history. Such are Belshazzar, Belteshazzar, Belesys, Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, Nabopolassar, Nabonned, &c. Beyond this nothing more is needed for the right interpretation of the passage, where the names are simply used to represent the Babylonian gods collectively. — The verb D|p occurs only here. The Septuagint renders the two, fallen and broken ; the Vulgate gives the latter sense to both. But JTQ is the common term for stooping, bowing, especially in death (Judges v. 27; 2 Kings ix. 24; Ps. xx. 9); and that the other is substantially synonymous, may be inferred not only from the parallelism, but from the analogy of the derivative noun D^5, a hook, a tache, as being carved or bent. Although not essential to the general meaning, it is best to give the praeter and the participle their dis tinctive sense, as meaning strictly that the one has fallen and the other is nowfalling, in strict accordance with Isaiah's practice, in descriptive passages,

of hurrying the reader in medias res, of which \ve have already had repeated instances. — The pronoun in their images might be supposed to refer to the Babylonians, though not expressly mentioned; but as these are immediately addressed in the second person, it is best to understand the pronoun as refering to Bel and Nebo, who, as heavenly bodies or imaginary deities, are then distinguished from the images which represented them in the vulgar worship. The suggestion of J. D. Michaelis, that there may be an allusion to some actual decay of the metallic idols in the shrines of Babylon, is incon sistent with what follows in relation to their going into exile. — The Septuagint, the Targum, and Jerome, seem to understand the next clause as meaning that their images become beasts, which is scarcely intelligible. Most writers follow Kimchi and De Dieu in supplying K^'D from the other clause, they are (a burden) to the beauts, &c. But this assumes a very harsh ellipsis and is wholly unnecessary, since usage allows? Vn to be taken in the sense of they are to, i. e. they now belong to, or are abandoned and consigned to. The common version, on the beasts, is too paraphrastical. Kimchi supposes H*n and Hlpn? to be used in their distinctive sense of wild beasts and domesticated cattle, understanding by the latter, common beasts of burden, by the former camels, elephants, &c. J. D. Michaelis imagines that there may be an allusion to the mythological use of wild beasts, such as the lions of Cybele, &c. Most interpreters re gard the words as simple equivalents, or at the most as merely distin guishing oxen, asses, mules, &c., from camels, dromedaries, and perhaps horses. — HS'C'3 is properly a passive participle used as a noun and meaning your carried things (in old English, carriages), the things which you have been accustomed to carry in processions or from place to place, but which are now to be carried in a very different manner, on the backs of animals, as spoil or captives. niD-IDJ? properly means lifted up in order to be car ried, but may here be rendered packed or loaded, though this last word is ambiguous. — Nt^O does not necessarily denote a heavy load, but simply that they are a load, i. e. something to be carried. The idea of weight is suggested by the following word, which the Vulgate renders as an abstract meaning weariness (usque ad lassiturlinem), but which is properly a feminine adjective agreeing with H*H or HJpn? understood.

2. They ttooj), they bow together; they cannot save the load; themselves are gone into capticiiy. The first clause may mean that they are now both fallen ; or together may have reference to the other gods of Babylon, so as to mean that not only Bel and Nebo, but all the rest are fallen. — The last member of the first clause has been variously explained. Gesenius is disposed to make X^O an abstract meaning the carrying, a sense not worth obtaining by so harsh a supposition. The Vulgate arbitrarily re verses the meaning, and instead of the thing borne understands the bearer (non potuerunt salvare portantem). Of those who adhere to the strict sense, load or burden, some understand by it the Babylonian state or empire, which ought to have been borne or sustained by its tutelary gods. But the most satisfactory interpretation is the one which gives the word the same sense as in ver. 1, and applies it to the images with which the beasts were charged or laden. These are then to be considered as distinguished by the writer from the gods which they represented. Bel and Nebo are unable to rescue their own images. This agrees well with the remainder of the sen tence, themselves are gone (or literally their self is gone) into captivity. This is the only way in which the reflexive pronoun could be made em phatic here without an awkward circumlocution. There is DO need, therefore, of explaining BK'pa to mean their soul, i. e. the animating principle or spirit by which the image was supposed to be inhabited ; much less their desire, i. e. the darling idols of the heathen, like DHH-IDn in chap. xliv. 9. The antithesis is really between the material images of Bel and Nebo and and themselves, so far as they had any real existence. The whole god, soul and bod}r, all that there was of him, was gone into captivity. The idea of the conquest and captivity of tutelary gods was common in the ancient East, and is alluded to, besides this place, in Jer. xlviii. 7, xlix. 3 ; Hosea x. 5, 6 ; Dan. xi. 8, lo which may be added 1 Sam. v. 1. — Whether the Prophet here refers to an actual event or an ideal one, and how the former supposition may be reconciled with the statement of Herodotus and Diodorus, that the great image of Bel at Babylon was not destroyed until the time of Xerxes, are questions growing out of the erroneous supposition that the passage has exclusive reference to the conquest by Cyrus ; whereas it may include the whole series of events which resulted in the final down fall of the Babylonian idol worship. (See vol. i. p. 266.)

3. Hearken unto me, 0 house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, those borne from the belly, those carried from the womb. By the rem nant of the house of Israel Kimchi understands the remains of the ten tribes •who were in exile ; but this is a gratuitous restriction of the meaning. The participles rendered borne and carried are the masculine forms of those used in ver. 1. This repetition analogous to that in chap. xlii. 2, 3, is intended to suggest a contrast between the failure of the idols to protect their wor shippers and God's incessant care of his own people. The gods of the heathen had to be borne by them ; but Jehovah was himself the bearer of his followers. And this was no new thing, but coeval with their na tional existence. The specific reference to Egypt or the exodus is no more necessary here than in chaps, xliv. 2, 24, xlviii. 8. The carrying meant is that of children by the nurse or parent. The same comparison is frequent elsewhere. (See Num. xi. 12, Deut. i. 31, Exod. xix. 4, Isa. Ixiii. 9, and compare Deut. xxxii. 11, 12, Hosea xi. 3, Isa. xl. 11.) — For Idly and womb Noyes, by way of euphemistic variation, substitutes birth and earliest breath. — ]93 '3D is identical with |£2D chap. xliv. 24. The same form of the particle occurs in Job. xx. 4, and Ps. xl. 19.

4. The figure of an infant and its nurse was not sufficient to express the whole extent of God's fidelit}7 and tenderness to Israel. The first of these relations is necessarily restricted to the earliest period of life, but God's protection is continued without limit. And to old age I am He (i. e. the same), and to gray hair I will bear (you] ; I have done it and I will earn/ and I will bear and save (yon). Hitzig supposes this to mean that Israel was already old, as in chap, xlvii. 6 ; but others much more probably refer it to the future, and regard the expressions as indefinite. As I have done in time past, so I will do hereafter. The general analogy between the life of individuals and that of nations is sufficiently obvious, and is finely expressed by Florus in his division of the Roman History into the periods of childhood, youth, manhood, and old age. But Vitringa mars the beautiful analogy when he undertakes to measure oft' the periods in the history of Israel from his birth in Egypt, through his infancy in the desert, his youth under the Judges, his manhood until Jotham, his old age until Alexander, and his gray hairs, or extreme old age, beyond that period. — The reference of these terms to God himself as the Ancient of Days (Dan. vii. 9), is too absurd to need refutation or admit of it.

5. To whom will ye liken me and equal and compare me, that we may be (literally and u-e shall be} like ? This is an indirect conclusion from the contrast in the foregoing context. If such be the power of idols, and such that of Jehovah, to whom will ye compare him '? The form of ex pression is like that in chap. xl. 18, 25.

6. The prodigals (o*r lavish ones] will weigh gold from the bag, and silver with the rod; they will hire a gilder, and he will make it a god; they will bow down, yea, they icill fall prostrate. D vt is commonly explained as a participle in the sense of pouring out or lavishing ; but thus understood it is of difficult construction. Vitringa resolves it into Ovt DH • but this is contrary" to usage. If we make it agree with the subject of the verbs in ver. 5 (ye icho pour out, &c.), we must suppose an abrupt change of person in the next clause. The first construction above given is the one proposed by Schmidius, who makes Qyjn the subject of the verb -1/P^.\ We may then explain D^3O either as meaning taken out of the purse, or in reference to the bag of weights, in which sense it is used in Deut xxv. 18 ; Micah vi. 11. ~9i? is properly a reed, then any rod or bar, such as the shaft of a candlestick (Exod. xxv. 31), and here the beam of a balance, or the gra duated rod of a steelyard. — The verse has reference to the wealthier class of idol-worshippers.

7. They will lift him on the shoulder, they will carry him, they will set him in his place, and he will stand (there), from his place he ivill not move ; yes, one will cry to him, and he will not answer ; from his distress he will (or can] not save him. The idol is not only the work of man's hands, but entirely dependent on him for the slightest motion. No wonder, therefore,

,hat he cannot hear the prayers of his worshippers, much less grant them,he deliverance and protection which they need.

8. Remember this and shew yourselves men ; briny it home, ye apostates, to your] mind or (heart). — By this Jarchi understands what follows; but it

rather means what goes before, viz., the proof just given of the impotence of idols, the worshippers of which, whether Jews or Gentiles, are addressed n this verse as apostates or rebels against God. The restriction of the;erm to apostate Jews is perfectly gratuitous. — The verb -I^X^in is a CCTTCC^

opsvov, and admits of several different explanations. Joseph Kimchi derived it from N, fire, and explained it to mean, "be inflamed or red dened," i.e. blush. So the Vulgate, confundamini. The Targum and Jarchi understand it to mean " fortify or strengthen yourselves," and con nect it with &&*&$, foundations (chap. xvi. 7). Bochart derives it from

, o man, and identifies it with the avfofyaQt of 1 Cor. xvi. 13. Vitringa objects that the apostates would not be exhorted to fortify themselves in unbelief. Hit/ig replies that the clauses are addressed to different parties, which is wholly arbitrary. Gesenius removes the objection by giving to the verb the sense of acting rationally, not like children (1 Cor. xiv. 20), or as Kimchi says, like beasts which have neither judgment nor considera tion. Vitringa objects, moreover, that the form would be •ISJ'JJ'^Jin • Hitzig more plausibly, that it would be •It^XJ^n from the acknowledged root ^3^ ; but there is no absurdity in supposing that the verbal form was derived from the contracted C"X which is in common use. — As an exegetical mon strosity it may be stated here that Paulus explains the Hebrew word by the

^s Arabic one \ meaning to drive camels by the use of the syllable is! is I

9, 10. Remember former things of old (or from eternity], for I am the Mighty and there is no other, God and there is none like me, declaring from the first the last, and from ancient time the things which are not (yet] done (or made], saying, My counsel shall stand and all my pleasure I will do. He calls upon them to consider the proofs of his exclusive deity, afforded not only by the nullity of all conflicting claims, but by ttte fact of his infallible foreknowledge, as attested by the actual prediction of events long before their occurrence. — Instead of for some read that, on the ground that .the thing to be believed was his divinity ; the former things being cited merely as the proofs of it. — Declaring the last for the first, or the end from the beginning, means declaring the whole series of events included between these extremes. JT^Dj!? does not strictly mean the end as opposed to the beginning, but the latter part of anything as opposed to the preceding part, whatever the ex tent of either of their relative proportions. Hence it often means futurity, both absolute and relative, without necessarily defining the terminus a quo from which it is to be computed. — My counsel shall stand, i. e. my purpose shall be executed. (See chap. vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 24, xliv. 26.) All the modern writers seem to be agreed in giving ^?.D the sense of my will or pleasure, although not at all more natural or necessary here than in chap. xliv. 28, where it is made a proof of later date, and of a diction different from that of Isaiah. — All the expressions of the ninth verse have occurred before in different combinations. (See chap. xlii. 14, xliii. 18, xlv. 21, &c.) According to Maurer, former things here means former events, as in chap, xliii. 18, xlviii. 3, not former predictions, as in chap. xlii. 9, xliii. 9.

11. Calling from the east a lird of prey, from a land of distance the man of his counsel ; I have loth said and will also hring it to pass, I have formed (the plan) and will also do it. From the general assertion of his provi dence and power, he now passes to that specific proof of it which has so frequently been urged before, "viz., the raising up of Cyrus ; but without the mention of his name in this case, and with an indefiniteness of expression which is perfectly well suited to the general analogy of prophecy, as well as to the views already taken in the exposition of chap. xliv. 28. (See above, p. 175). — Calling includes prediction and efficiency, not only announcing but calling into being. Most of the modern writers give to ^ here the specific sense of eagle, some on account of a supposed affinity between the Hebrew name and the Greek airo:, others because of the frequent similar allusions to the eagle elsewhere (see Jer. xlix. 22 ; Ezek. xvii. 2, 3, 12 ; comp. Isaiah xl. 31), others supposing a reference to the Persian ensign. But the very vagueness of the usual sense entitles it to the preference for reasons just suggested. — The point of comparison is not mere swiftness or rapidity of conquest (Hosea viii. 1, Hab. i. 8, Jer. xlviii. 80), but rapacity and fierceness. Knobel arbitrarily assumes that Media and Persia are distinctly and specifically meant by the east and the far country, whereas the language is designedly indefinite. — Man of his counsel does not mean his counsellor, as it does in chap. xl. 13, but either the executor of hi purpose, or the agent himself purposed, i. e. foreordained by God. The marginal reading (my counsel) probably arose from the seeming harshness of the enallage persona' ; but this is a figure much too frequent in Isaiah to require elimination by a change of text. It is as if he had said, / am h* that calls the man of his counsel, after which the construction is continued regularly in the first person. — ^N denotes accession, and is sometimes equivalent to also, sometimes to nay more. It has here the force of not

only this but also that, or both this and also that. — 1VJ is not here synony mous with iTJ'j; as in chap. xliv. 2, but opposed to it, meaning to conceive or form the plan of anything, as in chap. xxii. 11, xxxviii. 26, Jer. xviii. 11, Ps. xciv. 20, Isa. xxxvii. 26. The antithesis expressed is that between design and execution. The feminine suffix corresponds to our neuter pro noun it, referring to the feminine noun nyjj, {, e. purpose or counsel.

12. Hearken to me, ye stout of heart, those far from righteousness. By an easy and natural association, he subjoins to these proofs of his own divinity, both past and future, a warning to those who were unwilling to receive them. Strength of heart implies, though it does not directly signify, stubbornness or obstinacy, and a settled opposition to the will of God. Because "V2K is sometimes absolutely used in the sense of a bull (Ps. xxii. 13, 1. 13), Hitzig says that it here strictly means bulls in intellect (Stiere an Vemunft). — The same persons are here described as far from righteous ness, which some understand as meaning far from rectitude or truth, i. e. deceitful, insincere. Others explain it to mean those who regard the exhi bition of God's righteousness as still far distant. But the only natural inter pretation is the one which gives the words their obvious and usual sense, as signifying those who are not righteous before God, in other words the wicked, the words far from expressing the degree of their depravity.

13. I hare brought near my righteousness, it shall not be far off; and my salvation, it shall not tarry; and I will give (or place] in Zion my salvation, to Israel my glory. Because righteousness and salvation frequently occur as parallel expressions, most of the modern German writers treat them as synonymous, whereas one denotes the cause and the other the effect, one relates to God, and the other to man. The sense in which salvation can be referred to the righteousness of God is clear from chap. i. 27. (See vol. i. p. 93.) The exhibition of God's righteousness consists in the salvation of his people and the simultaneous destruction of his enemies. To these two classes it was therefore at the same time an object of desire and dread. The stout-hearted mentioned in ver. 12 were not prepared for it, and, unless they were changed, must perish when God's righteousness came near. — The last words admit of two constructions, one of which repeats the verb and makes it govern the last noun (I will give my glory unto Israel) ; the other makes the clause a supplement to what precedes, I will give salvation in Zion unto Israel (who is) my glory. In illustration of the latter, see chaps, xliv. 23, Ixii. 3 ; Jer. xxxiii. 9. The other construction has more of the parallel or balanced form which is com monly considered characteristic of Hebrew composition. In sense they ultimately coincide, since Israel could become Jehovah's glory only by Jehovah's glory being bestowed upon him.

CHAPTER XLVII.

HEBE again we meet with the most discordant and unfounded assump tions, as to the connection of this chapter with the context, and arising from the same misapprehension of the general design of the whole prophecy. Hitzig, because he cannot make it fit into an artificial system of his own, involving the hypothesis of several successive compositions, corresponding to the progress of events under Cyrus, arbitrarily describes it as an insu lated prophecy, older than those which now precede it, and afterwards

wrought into its present place. In support of this violent and desperate assumption he appeals to the close connection between the last verse of chap, xlvi., and the first of chap, xlviii; an argument which might be used, with equal plausibility, to throw out any portion of the book, because throughout these later prophecies certain apostrophes and other formulas are constantly recurring at irregular intervals. Hendewerk, on the other hand, so far from seeing any want of continuity between this chapter and the two before and after it, represents the three as constituting a " cycle " or divi sion of a cycle. But even those who hold a middle course between these violent extremes commit the usual error of inverting the legitimate relation of the topics to each other, by making the prediction of the downfall of Babylon the Prophet's main theme, and not a specific illustration of it. The difficulties which this false assumption has occasioned with respect to the arrangement of the chapter will be seen below from the interpretation of the fourth verse. Another undesirable effect of the same error is the neces sity imposed upon some eminent interpreters, Vitringa for example, of superadding to their exposition of the chapter an account of what they call its mystical sense, that is to say, the application of its terms in the New Testament to Rome, both Pagan and Apostate (Rev. xviii.). Such a pro ceeding may be looked upon as necessary on the supposition that the Babylon here threatened is the great theme of the prophecy; but if it is merely introduced as a remarkable example of God's dealings with his enemies and those of his people, it is difficult to see why its images and terms may not be used in other prophecies directed against other objects, without compelling us to comprehend those objects in the proper scope of the original prediction. Cowper has paraphrased the song of Israel over the fallen king of Babylon in chap, xiv., and put it in the mouth of the Peruvian Incas upbraiding their Spanish tyrants. If it could now be proved that Cowper was inspired when he wrote this poem, would it follow that the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah had reference either literal or mystical to Pizarro or Peru? If this would not be a legitimate conclusion in the supposed case, then all the facts of the real case may be sufficiently accounted for, by simply assuming that the costume of this prophecy was reproduced by inspiration in another, on a subject similar but not identical; that this new prophecy is not a repetition or an explanation but at most an imitation of the old one; and finally, that what Vitringa calls the mystical sense of the chapter now before us is really the strict sense of another passage, and belongs therefore not to the interpretation of Isaiah, but to that of the Apocalypse. The following seems to be the true analysis.

Having exemplified his general doctrine, as to God's ability and purpose to do justice both to friends and foes, by exhibiting the downfall of the Babylonian idols, he now attains the same end by predicting the downfall of Babylon itself, and of the State to which it gave its name. Under the figure of a royal virgin, she is threatened with extreme degradation and ex posure, vers. 1-3. Connecting this event with Israel and Israel's God, as the great themes which it was intended to illustrate, ver. 4, he predicts the fall of the empire more distinctly, ver. 5, and assigns as a reason the oppression of God's people, ver. 6, pride and self-confidence, vers. 7-9, especially reliance upon human wisdom and upon superstitious arts, all which would prove entirely insufficient to prevent the great catastrophe, vers. 10-15.

1. Come down! By a beautiful apostrophe, the mighty power to be humbled is addressed directly, and the prediction of her humiliation clothed

in the form of a command to exhibit the external signs of it. — Sit on the dust! This, which is the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, may be conformed to our idiom either by substituting in for on, or by understanding 12JJ to denote, as it sometimes does, the solid ground. (See chap. ii. 19, vol. i. p. 105.) The act of sitting on the ground is elsewhere mentioned as a customary sign of grief. (See chap. hi. 26; Lam. ii. 10; Job ii. 13.) But here it is designed, chiefly if not exclusively, to suggest the idea of dethronement which is afterwards ex pressed distinctly. — The next phrase is commonly explained to mean virgin daughter of Babel (i. e. Babylon), which, according to Gesenius, is a collec tive personification of the inhabitants. But as rp-in?, notwithstanding its construct form, is really in apposition with J"I2 (virgin daughter), so fl? may

be in apposition with??2 (daughter Babel), and denote not the daughter of Babylon, but Babylon itself, personified as a virgin and a daughter, in which case the latter word may have the wide sense of the French fille, and be really synonymous with virgin. (See chap, xxxvii. 22, p. 65.) Bnt whatever may be the primary import of the phrase, it is admitted upon all hands to be descriptive either of the city of Babylon, or of the Babylonian State and nation. Whether that power is described as a virgin because hitherto unconquered, is much more doubtful, as this explanation seems to mar the simplicity of the description by confounding the sign with the thing signified. — Sit to the earth! i. e. ' close to it, or simply on it, as Ps. ix. 5, where the vague sense of the particle is determined by the verb and noun with which it stands con nected. To sit as to a throne can only mean to sit upon it. TJiere is no throne. Some connect this with what goes before, in this way: sit on the earth without a throne. But there is no need of departing from the idiomatic form of the original, in which these words are a complete pro position, which may be connected with what goes before by supplying a causal particle: " sit on the earth, for you have now no throne." — Daughter of Chasdim I This last is the common Hebrew name for the Chaldees or Chaldeans, the race introduced by the Assyrians, at an early period, into Babylonia. (See chap, xxiii. 13, vol. i. pp. 898-9. Compare also what is said above, on chap, xliii. 14.) If taken here in this sense, it may be understood to signify the government, or the collective members of this race. Rosenmiiller applies it to the city, and supposes it to be so called because built by the Chaldeans. But this is equally at variance with history and with the analogy of other cases where a like explanation would be inadmissible. Daughter of Chas dim must of course be an analogous expression to the parallel phrase daughter of Dalel, which certainly cannot mean a city built by Babylon. Besides the strict use of Q^'3 as a plural, it is unequivocally used now and then as the name of the country, analogous to D?!VP which is a dual. See for example Jer. Ii. 24, 35, where we read of the inhabitants of Chasdim, and Ezek. xvi. 29, where it takes the local or directive H. If the word be so explained in this case, it will make the correspond ence of the clauses still more exact. — For thou shall not add (or continue) to be called, would be the natural and usual conclusion of the phrase; instead of which we have here they shall not call thee, which is common enough as an indefinite expression equivalent to a passive, and only remarkable for its combination with the preceding words, although the sense of the whole clause is quite obvious. Thou shalt not continue

to be called (or they shall no longer call thee) tender and delicate, i. e. they shall no longer have occasion so to call thee, because thou shalt no longer be so. The same two epithets are found in combination, Deut. xxviii. 54, from which place it is clear that they are not so much de scriptive of voluptuous and vicious habits as of a delicate and easy mode of life, such as that of a princess compared with that of a female slave. The testimonies of the ancient writers as to the prevalent iniquities of Babylon belong rather to a subsequent part of the description. All that is here meant is that the royal virgin must descend from the throne to the dust, and relinquish the luxuries and comforts of her former mode of life.

2. Take mill-stones and grind meal! Even among the Romans this was considered one of the most servile occupations. In the East it was espe cially work of female slaves. Exod. xi. 5, Matt. xxiv. 41. — Uncover (i.e. lift up or remove) thy veil ! One of the Arabian poets speaks of certain ladies as appearing unveiled so that they resembled slaves, which is exactly the idea here expressed. Vitringa and others render "^riDV thy hair or thy braided locks, which rests on an Arabic analogy, as the sense of veil, now commonly adopted, does on Chaldee usage. The parallel word ??'^ is also understood by some as meaning hair, by others the foot, or the sleeve ; but most interpreters are now agreed in giving it the sense of skirt, and to the whole phrase that of lift up (literally strip) thy skirt (or train), corre sponding to the lifting of the veil in the preceding clause. — Uncover the leg, cross streams ! The only question as to this clause is, whether it refers, as Gesenius and Ewald think, to the fording of rivers by female captives as they go into exile, or to the habitual exposure of the person, by which •women of the lowest class are especially distinguished in the East. The latter explanation, which is that of Vitringa, is entitled to the preference, not only because we read of no deportation of the Babylonians by Cyrus, but because the other terms of the description are confessedly intended to contrast to conditions of life or classes of society.

3. The same idea of exposure is now carried out to a revolting extreme. Let thy nakedness he uncovered, likewise let thy shame he seen. This conveys no new idea, but is simply the climax of the previous description. — / will take vengeance. The metaphor is here exchanged for literal expressions by so easy a transition that it scarcely attracts notice. The destruction of Babylon is frequently set forth as a righteous retribution for the wrongs of Israel. (See. Jer. 1. 15, 28.) — I will not (or I shall not) meet a man. Of the various and discordant explanations of this clause, it will suffice to mention one or two of the most current or most plausible. Some give J^B the sense which it has elsewhere when followed by the preposition 2, viz. that of interceding. Thus Jarchi understands the words to mean, I will not intercede with (or solicit) any man to avenge me, but avenge myself. Grotius gives the verb the sense of admitting intercession ; and Lowth, for the same purpose, reads JPJSN in the Hiphil form (neither will I suffer man to intercede with me). Gesenius, in his Commentary, traces an affinity between PJS and "IpB to visit, and explains the clause to mean J will spare no man. In his Thesaurus he connects it with JJJ3, rjyi/6w, and paciscor, and agrees with Maurer in translating, / will strike (or ratify) a league with no man. But the explanation most agreeable to usage, and at the same time simplest as to syntax, is, T shall (or will) meet no man This is not to be understood, however, with Vitringa. as meaning that he would find no one to avenge him, or that if he did not, he would still avenge himself. The true sense is that expressed by Rosenmliller, I shall encounter no man,

•

t. e. no man will be able to resist me. This simple explanation is at the same time one of the most ancient, as we find it distinctly expressed by Symmachus (O-JK avriorqeirai pot avdsu'og) and in the Vulgate (non resistet mihi homo). — Independetly of these minuter questions, it is clear that the whole clause is a laconic explanation of the figures which precede, and which are summed up in the simple but terrific notion of resistless and inexorable vengeance.

4. Our Redeemer (or as for our Redeemer], Jehorah of hosts (is] his name, the Holy One of Israel. The downfall of Babylon was but a proof that the Deliverer of Israel was a sovereign and eternal Being, and yet bound to his own people in the strongest and tenderest covenant relation. Thus understood, the verse does not even interrupt the sense, but makes it clearer, by recalling to the reader's mind the great end for which the event took place and for which it is here predicted. Compare with this Lowth's pedantic supposition of a chorus, which is scarcely more natural than that of a committee or of a jury, and Eichhorn's deplorable suggestion that the verse is a devout reflection of some Jewish reader, accidentally transplanted from the margin to the text. This is justly represented by Gesenius as a makeshift (Nothbdielf), a description equally appropriate to many of his own erasures elsewhere, if not to his extravagant assumption here, that the words thus saith have been left out at the beginning of the sentence. Maurer improves upon the strange exegetical device by making the verse merely introductory to that which follows, Thus saith our Redeemer, whose name is Jehovah of hosts, the Holy One of Israel, Sit in silence, &c. In this way everything may easily be made to denote anything. The only tenable conclusion is the obvious and simple one, that this is a distinct link in the chain of the prophetic argument, by which the fall of Babylon is brought into connection and subordination to the proof of God's supremacy as shewn in the protection and salvation of his people. That the Prophet speaks here in his own person, is but a single instance of a general usage, characteristic of the whole composition, in which God is spoken of, spoken to, or introduced as speaking, in constant alternation ; yet without con fusion, or the slightest obscuration of the general meaning.

5. Sit silent (or in silence], and go into darkness (or a dark place], daugh ter of Chasdim ! The allusion is to natural and usual expressions of sorrow and despondency. (See Lam. ii. 10, iii. 2, 28.) The explanation of dark ness as a metaphor for prison does not suit the context, and is no more natural or necessary here than in chap. xlii. 7. — For thou shalt not con tinue to le called (or they shall not continue to call thee] mistress of king doms. This is an allusion to the Babylonian empire, as distinguished from Babylonia Proper, and including many tributary States which Xenophon enumerates. In like manner the Assyrian king is made to ask (chap. x. 8), Are not my princes altogether kings ?

6. I was ivroth against my people; 1 profaned my heritage, i. e. I suffered my chosen and consecrated people to be treated as something common and unclean. In the same sense God is said before (chap, xliii. 28) to have profaned the holy princes. Israel is called Jehovah's heritage, as being his perpetual possession, continued from one generation to another. This general import of the figure is obvious enough, although there is an essen tial difference between this case and that of literal inheritance, because in the latter, the change and succession affect the proprietor, whereas in the former they affect the thing possessed, and the possessor is unchangeable. — And I gave them into thy hand, as my instruments of chastisement.

*

Thou didst not show them mercy, literally place (give or appoint) it to them. God's providential purpose was not even known to his instruments, and could not therefore be the rule of their conduct or the measure of their responsibility. Though unconsciously promoting his designs, their own ends and motives were entirely corrupt. In the precisely analogous case of the Assyrian, it is said (chap. x. 7), he will not think so, and his heart not so ivill purpose, because to destroy (is) in his heart and to cut off nations not a few. — The general charge is strengthened by a specific aggravation. On the aged thou didst aggravate thy yoke (or make it heavy) exceedingly. Koppe, Gesenius, Maurer, and Hitzig, understand this of the whole people, whom they suppose to be described as old, i. e. as having reached the period of natural decrepitude. Umbreit agrees with Grotius and Vitringa in preferring the strict sense of the words, viz. that they are cruelly oppressive even to the aged captives, under which Vitringa is disposed to include elders in office and rank, as well as in age. The particular form of inhumanity is charged upon the Babylonians by Jeremiah twice (Lam. iv. 16, v. 12), and in both cases he connects D'OpT with a parallel term denoting rank or office, viz., priests and princes. Between the two interpretations of the clause which have been stated, Knobel undertakes to steer a middle course, by explaining JP.T to mean aged in the strict sense, but supposing at the same time that this single act of tyranny is put for inhumanity in general. (Com pare Deut. xxviii. 50.) The essential meaning of the clause, as a descrip tion of inordinate severity to those least capable of retaliation or resistance, still remains the same in either case.

7. And thou saidst, For ever I shall be a mistress, i. e. a mistress of Idngdoms, the complete phrase which occurs above in ver. 5. The sense of queen is therefore wholly inadequate, unless we understand it to mean queen of queens or queen oj kings. The ellipsis suggested may perhaps account for the use of what might seem to be a construct form, instead of the syno nymous ""IT^ (1 Kings xi. 19). Hitzig, however, goes too far when he makes this a ground for disregarding the accentuation and connecting the two words 1J? J"IT!3fl in the sense of a mistress of eternity, i. e. a perpetual mistress. (Compare Gen. xlix. 26, Hab. iii. 6, Isa. ix. 5.) As examples of the segholate termination of the absolute form, Maurer cites ritp^ (Ezek. xvi. 80) and FO?N (Ezek. xvii. 8). Hitzig also objects to the Masoretic interpunction, that it requires "1JJ to be taken in the sense of so that, contrary to usage. But this, though assumed by Gesenius and most of the other modern writers, is entirely gratuitous. The conjunction has its proper sense of until, as in Job. xiv. 6 ; 1 Sam. xx. 41, and the meaning of the clause is, that she had persisted in this evil course until at last it had its natural effect of blinding the mind and hardening the heart. Thou saidst, For ever 1 shall be a mistress, till (at last) thou didst not lay these (things) to thy heart. The idea of causal dependence (so that) is implied but not expressed. Laying to heart, including an exercise of intellect and feeling, occurs, with slight variations as to form, in chap. xlii. 25, xliv. 19, xlvi. 8. — Thou didst not remember the end (or latter part, or issue) of it, i. e. of the course pursued, the feminine pronoun being put for a neuter as in chap. xlvi. 11, and often elsewhere. The apparent solecism of remembering the future may be solved by observing that the thing forgotten was the knowledge of the future once possessed, just as in common parlance we use hope in reference to the past, because we hope to find it so, or hope that something questionable now will prove hereafter to be thus and thus.

8. And now, a common form of logical resumption and conclusion, very

nearly corresponding to our phrases, this being so, or, such being the case. — Hear this, i. e. what I have just said, or am just about to say, or both. Oh voluptuous one! The common version, thou that art given to pleasures, is substantially correct, but in form too paraphr.xstical. The translation delicate, which some give, is inadequate at least upon the common supposi tion that this term is not intended, like the kindred ones in ver. 1, to con trast the two conditions of prosperity and downfall, but to bring against the Babylonians the specific charge of gross licentiousness, in proof and illus tration of which "Vitringa quotes the words of Quintus Curtius; nihil urbis ejiis corruptius moribus, nee ad irntandas illiciendasque immodicas voluptates instructius, to which, after certain gross details, the historian adds, Babylottii majcimein vimim et qua; ebrietatem sequuntur effusi sunt. This corrup tion of morals, as in other like cases, is supposed to have been aggravated by the wealth of Babylon, its teeming population, and the vast concourse of foreign visitors and residents. After all, however, as this charge is not repeated or insisted on, it may be doubted whether the epithet in question was intended to express more than the fact of her abundant prosperity about to be exchanged for desolation and disgrace. — The (one) sitting in security. The common version, dicellest, is as much too vague as that of Ewald, which explains it to mean sitting on a throne, is too specific. Sit ting seems rather to be mentioned as a posture of security and ease. — The (one) saying in her heart (or to herself), / (am) and none betides, i. e. none like or equal to me. There has been much dispute respecting the precise sense of ^P?fc? ; but the question is only of grammatical importance, as all admit that the whole phrase "riV *P?SI is equivalent in import to the common one "NV J'N (chap. xlv. 5, 6, 18, &c.) The only doubt is whether *P?K is simply negative like J*K, or exceptive (besides me), or at the same time negative and exceptive (none besides me). This double explanation is given by Noldius and Vitringa, but is justly regarded by the later writers as untenable. Cocceius makes it mean besides me, and assumes an inter rogation, which is altogether arbitrary. De Dieu adopts the same con struction, but suggests that ^P?K may mean only I, as D?5< certainly means only in Num. xii. 35, xxiii. 13. This is adopted by Gesenius in his Com mentary. Hitzig objects that "liy is then superfluous, and that analogy would require ^ DSJ^. He therefore makes it simply exceptive (besides me\ and supposes an ellipsis of the negative. Rosenmiiller, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel, and Gesenius in the notes to the second edition of his version, follow J. H. Michaelis in making it a paragogic form and simply negative (there is no other, or none besides). Maurer goes further, and explains "JW as a substantive, dependent on the construct form before it; literally, nothing of more. The sentiment expressed is that of Martial with respect to Rome, cui par est nihil et nihil secundum. (Compare the words of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. iv. 80.) There is even an assumption of divine supremac}- in these words, when compared with the frequent use of the pronoun /, in the solemn declarations of Jehovah (chap. xlv. 6, 12, xliii. 11, &c.) — I shall not sit (as) a ividow. The figure of a virgin is nowexchanged for that of a wife, a strong proof that the sign was, in the writer's view, of less importance than the thing signified. It is needless to inquire, with Yitringa, whether the husband, whose loss is here implied, be the king or the chief men collectively. It is not the city or the State of which widowhood is directly predicated, but the royal personage that represents it. The same comparison is used by Jeremiah of Jerusalem (Lam. i. 1). (Compare Isa. li. 18-20, liv. 1. 4, 5; Rev. xiv. 7.) According to J. D. Michaelis, the State is the mother, the soldiers or citizens her sons, and the king her husband, which he illustrates by the use of the title Dei/ and other terms of relationship to designate the State, the govern ment, &c., in Algiers and other parts of Barbary. To sit as a widow is is considered by Gesenius as suggesting the idea of a mourner; yet in his German version he omits the word entirely, and translates, " I shall never be a widow," in which he is closely followed by De "Wette. All the inter preters, from Grotius to Ewald, seem to understand widowhood as a specific figure for the loss of a king; but Rnobel boldly questions it, and applies the whole clause to the loss of allies, or of all friendly intercourse with foreign nations. — And I shall not know (by experience) the loss of children. This paraphrastical expression is the nearest approach that we can make in English to the pregnant Hebrew word?i2K>. Bereavement and childless ness may seem at first sight more exact, but the first is not exclusively appropriate to the loss of children, and the last does not suggest the idea/ of loss at all. This last clause is paraphrased by Noyes, nor see. myself childless; better by Henderson, nor knoiv what it is to be childless.

9. And they shall come to thee. The form of expression seems to hav>

some reference to the phrase / shall not know in the preceding verse, fi

if he had said, they shall no longer be unknown or at a distance, they shi*

come near to thee. These two, or both these (things], from which?e

thought herself secure for ever. — Suddenly. V^") is a noun, and origin JJ

means the twinkling of an eye, and then a moment, but is often mil

adverbially in the sense of suddenly. That it has the derivative

here may be inferred from the addition of the words in one day, Tich

would be a striking anticlimax if W^l strictly meant a moment oihe

twinkling of an eye. This objection is but partially removed by Loii's

change of the interpunction (these tiro things in a moment, in one day s of

children and widoirhoodl), because the first expression is still mmthe

strongest, unless we understand in one day to express not mere rapid or

suddenness, but the concurrence of the two privations. — Loss of cll

and widowhood, as in the verse preceding, are explained by most inter'

ters as figures for the loss of king and people. — In their perfection, liter

according to it, i. e. in the fullest measure possible, implying total loss '

destitution. — They have come upon thee. The English version make?'

future like the verb in the preceding clause ; but this is wholly arbit/

There is less objection to the present form adopted by the modern GOT

writers ; but according to the principle already stated and exemplifif*

often, it is best to give the word its proper meaning, and to understa''

not as a mere repetition of what goes before, but as an addition to it, '

least a variation in the mode of exhibition. What he at first saw cor

he now sees actually come, and describes it accordingly. — Of the? i^

next clause there are three interpretations. Ewald agrees with the Ei?

Version and the Vulgate in explaining it to mean propter, on accou

and supposing it to bring a new specific charge against the Babyloniaj

assigning a new cause for their destruction, viz. their cultivation '

occult arts. Gesenius and the other recent writers follow Calvin ar^

ringa in making it mean notwithstanding, as in chap. v. 25, and Nur

11. There is then no new charge or reason assigned, but a simple!6

ration of the insufficiency of superstitious arts to save them. But? '

course than either is to give the particle its proper sense of in oi

midst of, which suggests both the other ideas, but expresses mor

that they should perish in the very act of using these unlawful and ui^

able means of preservation. — In the multitude of thy enchantments, in the abundance of thy spells (or charms). The parallel terms, though applied to the^same objects, are of different origin, the first denoting primarily prayers or acts of worship, and then superstitious rites; the other specifically mean ing bans or spells (from ">?n to bind), with reference, as Geseuius supposes, to the outward act of tying magical knots, but as the older writers think, to the restraining or constraining influence supposed to be exerted on the •victim, or even on the gods themselves. — The construction of IXP here is unusual. Gesenius regards it as immediately dependent upon """?V^ although separated from it by an intervening word, the multitude of strength, i.e. the strong multitude of thy enchantments. Maurer says that "^P is construed as an adjective; while Hitzig makes it as usual an adverb, quali fying ""IpVVj which is here equivalent to an infinitive. In either ca<e the sense is essentially the same, viz., that of very powerful, or very numerous, or very powerful and numerous enchantments. The prevalence of these arts in ancient Babylon is explicitly affirmed by Diodorus Siculus, and assumed as a notorious fact by other ancient writers.

10. And (yet) thouart (or wast) secure in thy wickedness. Yitringa and most of the later writers have than trustedst in thy wickedness, but differ as to tho precise sense of the last word, some referring it, with Jerome, to the occult arts of the preceding verse, others making it denote specifically tyranny or fraud, or both combined as in chap, xxxiii. 1. But even in the places which are cited in proof of this specific explanation (such as chap. xiii. 11, Neh. iii. 9, &c.), the restriction is either suggested by the context or entirely gratuitous. There is therefore no sufficient reason for departing from the wide sense of the word as descriptive of the whole congeries of crimes with which tho Babylonians were chargeable. But neither in the wide nor the restricted sense could their wickedness itself be an object of trust. It is better, there fore, to give the verb the absolute meaning which it frequently has else where, and to explain the whole phrase as denoting that they went on in their wickedness without a fear of change or punishment. In this way, t ^eover, we avoid the necessity of multiplying the specific charges against bn/ylon, by giving to the Prophet's words a technical and formal meaning meia they will not naturally bear. Thus Yitringa introduces this verse as restatement of a fourth crime or impulsive cause of Babylon's destruction, supply, her wickedness (iiuilitia) ; and as this of course includes all tho Knche is under the necessity of explaining it to mean specifically cunning folk-eliance on it. The construction which has been proposed above may (the.Q one assumed in the Yulgate (fiduciam habnisti in malitia tita) ; but as i^ly modern version where I find it expressed is that of Augusti (du noth sicher bei deiner Bosheit), which De "Wette, in his improved version, has lo lioned for the old one. The idea of security in wickedness agrees prc- Nebi with what follows. — Thou hast said, there is no one seeing me, a form supri^ech frequently ascribed to presumptuous sinners and unbelievers in promctrine of providential retribution. (See Psa. x. 11, xciv. 7 ; Ezek. xliii- 2, ix. 9 ; Job. xxii. 14.) This, on the other hand, is not a natural exchasion of specific trust in any form of wickedness. He who relies upon writexver or his cunning as a complete protection will be not so apt to say to 1HQ) seeth rue," as to feel indifferent whether he is seen or not. — Thy be th atid thy knowledge, it has seduced thee. The insertion of the pro of wbon) admits of a twofold explanation. It may mean thy very ivisdom, represhich thou hast so long relied for guidance, has itself misled thee. (Lap, the same time it may serve to shew that wisdom and knowledge are

the verb to mean standfast, be firm and courageous. But the modern writers generally follow Lowth in understanding it to mean persist or persevere, which of course requires the preposition to be taken in its usual proper sense of in. — Persist now in thy spells and in the abundance of thy charms, the same nouns that are joined above in ver. 9. In which thou hast laboured. Gesenius in his Grammar (§ 121, 2) mentions this as one of the only two cases in which the Hebrew relative is governed directly by a preposition, in which instead of which in them, the usual idiomatic combination. But Hitzig and Ewald do away with this exception, by supposing the particle to be dependent on the verb at the beginning, and the relative directly on the verb that follows: persist in that which (or in that respecting which) thou hast laboured (or wearied thyself; see above, on chap, xliii. 22) from thy youth. This may either mean of old, or more specifically, since the earliest period of thy national existence. The antiquity of occult arts, and above all of astrology, in Babylon, is attested by various profane writers. Diodorus Siculus indeed derives them from Egypt, and describes the Chaldees, or astrologers of Babylon, as Egyptian colonists. But as this last is cer tainly erroneous (see above on ver. 1), the other assertion can have no authority. The Babylonians are reported by the same and other writers to have carried back their own antiquity, as proved by recorded scientific observations, to an extravagant and foolish length, to which some think there is allusion here in the expression from thy youth. — Perhaps thou wilt be able to succeed, or keep thyself, the verb commonly translated profit. (See above, chap. xliv. 10.) vIN originally means if not or whether not, but in usage corresponds more nearly to perhaps than it does to the con ditional compound, if so be, which is the common English Version here. This faint suggestion of a possibility is more expressive than a positive denial. — Perhaps thou wilt grow strong, or prevail, as the ancient versions render it; or resist as Eosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Ewald explain it from an Arabic analogy; or terrify (thine adversary), as Gesenius explains it from the analogy of chap. ii. 19, 21. (Compare Ps. x. 18, and Job. xiii. 25). In either case the word is a specification of the more general term succeed or profit.

13. Thou art weaned in the multitude of thy counsel, not merely weary of it, but exhausted by it, and in the very act of using it. "^riyy seems to be a singular noun with a plural suffix, a combination which may be supposed to have arisen, either from the want of any construct plural form in this case, or from a designed assimilation with the plurals in ver. 12. As 31 may denote either numerical multitude or aggregate abundance, it is often con strued with a singular, for instance in Ps. v. 8, Hi. 9, Isa. xxxvii. 24. By counsel we are not to understand the computations or conferences of the astronomers, but all the devices of the government for self-defence. The German writers have introduced an idiom of their own into the first clause wholly foreign from the usage of the Hebrew language, by making it con ditional, which Noyes has copied by giving it the form of an interrogation : art thou weary ? &c. The original form is that of a short independent proposition. — Let now (or pray let] them stand and save thee. We may take stand either in the same sense which it has above in ver. 12, or in that of appearing, coming forward, presenting themselves. The use of *T?J| in the sense of rising, is erroneously alleged as a peculiar feature in the diction of these Later Prophecies. — The subject of the verbs is then defined. The dividers of the heavens, i. e. the astrologers, so called because they divided the heavens into houses with a view to their prognostications. Henderson's reference to the twelve signs of the Zodiac is too restricted.

The chethibb, or textual reading P">3i"l), is regarded by some as an old form of tbe plural construct, but by otbers as the third person plural of the preterite, agreeing with the relative pronoun understood (who divide). •Kimchi regards division as a figure for decision or determination, which is wholly unnecessary. Some read ^?h, and suppose an allusion to the de rivative noun in rer. 1 2 ; while others trace it to the Arabic root i^_ and suppose the phrase to mean those who know the heavens. All admit, however, that the general sense is correctly given by the Septuagint (affTgo'- Xo'yo/ TO? ougavoS) and the Vulgate (augurcs coeli). The same class of per sons is then spoken of as star-gazers, an English phrase which well expresses the peculiar force of tnh followed by the preposition?. Some, however, give the former word its frequent sense of seer* or prophets, and regard what follows as a limiting or qualifying term, the whole corresponding to the English phrase star-prophets, i. e. such as prophesy by means of°the stars. The next phrase does not mean making known the new moons, for these returned at stated intervals and needed no prognosticator to reveal them. The sense is either at the new moons, or ly means of the new moons, i. e. the changes of the moons, of which the former is the simpler explana tion. — Interpreters are much divided as to the w.iy in which the remaining words of this verse are to be connected with what 'goes before. Aben Ezra and Yitringa make the clause dependent on the verb save: " Let them save them from (the things) which are about to come upon thee." The only objections to this construction are the distance of the words thus connected from each other, and the absolute sense which it puts upon D^nio by removing its object. The modern writers, with a very few exceptions, con nect this participle with what follows, making known at the new moons what shall come upon thee. The IP may then be partitive (some of the thing*, &c.), or indicate the subject of the revelation (of, i. e. concerning what shall come, &c.) To the former Vitringa objects, that the astrologers would undertake of course to reveal not only some but all things still future. But Jarchi sug gests, that the new moon could afford only partial information; and J. D. Michaelis, that this limited pretension would afford the astrologers a pretext and apology for frequent failures. But the other construction3 is now com monly preferred, except that Ewald gives to T-'iSp the meaning whence, i. e. from what source or quarter these things are to come upon thee.

14. Behold they are like stubble, fire has burned them (the Babylonian astrologers). The construction given by Gesenius (stubble which the fire consumes} is inconsistent with the plural suffix. Behold brings their destruc tion into view as something present. It is on this account more natural, as well as more exact, to give the verbs a past or present form, as Ewald does, than to translate them in the future. He not only prophesies that they shall be burnt, but sees them burning. The comparison with stubble seems intended to suggest that they are worthless and combustible, whose end is to be burned (Heb. vi. 8). At the same time a contrast is designed, as Kimchi well observes, between the burning of stubble and the burning of wood, the former being more complete and rapid than the latter. — They cannot deliver themselves from the hand (i.e. the power) of the flame. Gese- " nius and most of the later writers translate D£;?3 their life; Hitzig and Ewald still more rigidly, their soul. But the reflexive sense themselves is not only favoured by the analogy of chap. xlvi. 2, but required by the con text. There is at least much less significance and point in saying that they cannot save their lives, than in saying that they cannot even save them-

208 ISAIAH XLVI1. [Van. 15.

selves, much less their votaries and dependents. — The last clause contains a negative description of the fire mentioned in the first. Of this description there are two interpretations. Grotius, Clericus, Vitringa, Lowth, Geseuius, and Maurer, understand it to mean that the destruction of the fuel will be so complete, that nothing will be left at which a man can sit and warm himself. But as this gratuitously gives to PS the sense there is -not left, without the least authority from usage, Ewald and Knobel agree with J. D. Michaelis and others in explaining it to mean, (this fire) is not a coal (fit. which} to warm one's self, ajire to sit before, but a devouring and consuming conflagration. The only difficulty in the way of this interpretation is a slight one, namely, that it takes fi^DI hi the sense of a coal-fire, and not a single coal. With either of these expositions of the whole clause may be reconciled a different interpretation of the word E^D? proposed by Saadias, and independently of him by Cocceius. These writers give the word the sense which it invariably has in every other place where it occurs, viz. their bread. (See Job xxx. 4, Prov. xxx. 25, Ezek. iv. 18, xii. 19, Hos. ix. 4.) The whole expression then means, that it is not a common fire for baking bread, or, on the other supposition, that there are not coals enough left for that purpose. The phrase Efpn? ri?.03 (coal of their bread) presents a harsh and unusual combination, rendered less so, however, by the use of both words in chap. xliv. 19. This construction is approved by Rosenmiiller; but the other modern writers seem to be agreed in making EJpD? the infini tive of B>?n (chap. xliv. 15, 1C) with a preposition, analogous in form to D5??n from J3H (chap. xxx. 18). One manuscript has BJprr?, which is nearer to the usual analogy of this class of verbs, but embarrasses the syntax with a pleonastic suffix. — The general sense of sudden, rapid, and complete de struction is not affected by these minor questions of grammatical analysis. 15. Thus are they to thee, i.e. such is their fate, you see what has be come of them. The "=]? is not superfluous, as Gesenius asserts, although foreign from our idiom. It suggests the additional idea, that the person addressed was interested in them, and a witness of their ruin. — With respect to whom thoit hast laboured. This may either mean with whom or for whom; or both may be included in the general idea that these had been the object and occasion of her labours. — Thy dealers (or traders) from thy youth. This is commonly regarded as explanatory of the foregoing clause. Thus the English Version, they with whom tlwu hast laboured, even thy merchants, &c. It then becomes a question whether these are called traders in the literal and ordinary sense, or at least in that of national allies and negotiators; or whether the epithet is given in contempt to the astrologers and wise men of the foregoing context, as trafficking or dealing in imposture. J. D. Michaelis supposes them to be described as travelling dealers, i.e. pedlars and hawkers, who removed from place to place, lest their frauds should be discovered. He even compares them with the gipsy fortune tellers of our own day, but admits that the astrologers of Babylonia held a very different position in society. Against any application of the last clause to this order, it may be objected that the preceding verse, of which this is a direct continuation, represents them as already utterly consumed. The true solution of the difficulty seems to be afforded by the Masoretic interpunction of the sentence, which connects "^DD not with what precedes, but with what follows. According to this arrangement, we are not to read and so are thy dealers, or even thy dealers, but thy dealers from thy youth wander each his own way. We have then two classes introduced, and two distinct

events predicted. As if he had said, Thy astrologers, &c., are utterly destroyed, and as for thy dealers, they wander home, &c., widely different in fate, but both alike in this, that they leave thee defenceless in the hour of extremity. Thy traders may then be taken either in its strict sense, as denoting foreign merchants, or in its wider sense, as comprehending all, whether states or individuals, with whom she had intercourse, commercial or political. Ewald revives Houbigant's interpretation of the word as meaning sorcerers, in order to sustain which by the Arabic analogy, he seems 'inclined to read <5P^Dt-', without the least necessity or warrant. — These are described as thinking only of providing for their own security. (Compare chap. xiii. 14, xliii. 14.) Each to his own quarter, side, direc tion; substantially synonymous with V33 "QJT?*? (E/ek. i. 9, 12), and other phrases, all meaning strait/Jit before him, without turning to the right hand or the left, — (they wander or hare wandered], a term implying not only flight, but confusion. The plural form agrees with the subject understood, and not with the distributive expression EJ*N by which that subject, is defined and qualified. — There is no one helping thee, or, still more strongly, saving thee, thou hast no saviour; with particular reference to those just men tioned, who, instead of thinking upon her, or bringing her assistance, would wholly engrossed by a sense of their own danger and the effort to escape t. There is no need of supposing, with Hitzig, that the image of a great conflagration is still present to the writer's mind, and that no one helps (or saves) thee means specifically no one quenches thee. The figurative dress would rather seem to have been laid aside, in order to express the naked truth more plainly.

CHAPTER XLVIIL

FROM his digression with respect to the causes and effects of the catasrophe of Babylon, the Prophet now returns to his more general themes, and winds up the first great division of the Later Prophecies by a reiteration of the same truths and arguments which run through the previous portion of it, with some variations and additions which will be noticed in the proper )lace. The disproportionate prominence given to the Babylonish exile and,he liberation from it, in most modern expositions of the passage, has pro duced the same confusion and the same necessity of assuming arbitrary jombinations and transitions, as in other cases which have been already stated. The length to which this false hypothesis has influenced the pracice of interpreters may be inferred from the fact, that one of the most recent English writers describes this chapter as "renewed assurances of restoraion from Babylon." This is less surprising in the present case, however; because the Prophet, in the close as in the opening of this first book, does accommodate his language to the feelings and condition of the Jews in exile, though the truths which he inculcates are still of a general and comprehensive nature.

Although Israel is God's chosen and peculiar people, he is in himself unworthy of the honour and unfaithful to the trust, vers. 1, 2. Former predictions had been uttered expressly to prevent his ascribing the event to other gods, vers. 3-5. For the same reason new predictions will be uttered QOW, of events which have never been distinctly foretold, vers. 6—8. God's continued favour to his people has no reference to merit upon their part, but

is the fruit of his own sovereign mercy, and intended to promote his own designs, vers. 9-11. He again asserts his own exclusive deity, as proved by the creation of the world, by the prediction of events still future, and espe cially by the raising up of Cyrus, as a promised instrument to execute his purpose, vers. 12-16. The sufferings of Israel are the fruit of his own sin, but his prosperity and glory, of God's sovereign grace, vers. 17—19. The book closes as it opened with a promise of deliverance from exile, accompanied in this case, by a solemn limitation of the promise to its proper objects vers. 20-22.

It is evident that these are the same elements which enter into all the Later Prophecies, so far as we have yet examined them, and that these elements are here combined in very much the usual proportions, although not in precisely the same shape and order. The most novel feature of this chapter is the fulness with which one principal design of prophecy, and the connection between Israel's sufferings and his sins, are stated.

The confidence with which the most dissimilar hypotheses may be main tained when resting upon no determinate or valid principle, is forcibly exem plified in this case by the fact, that Vitringa and Schmidius both divide the chapter into two parts relating to two different periods of history; but the former applies vers. 1-11 to the Jews of Isaiah's time, and vers. 12-22 to those of the captivity; while the latter applies vers. 1-15 to the Jews of the captivity, and vers. 16-22 to those contemporary with our Saviour. This divergency, both as to the place of the dividing line, and as to the chrono logical relation of the parts, is a sufficient proof that the hypothesis, com mon to both, of a reference to two successive periods, is altogether arbitrary and with equal reason might be varied indefinitely by supposing that the first part treats of the the Apostolic age, and the second of the period o the Reformation; or the first of the Middle Ages, and the last of the Mil lennium; or the first of the French Revolution, and the last of the Day o; Judgment. The only safe assumption is, that the chapter contains genera truths with special illustrations and examples.

1. If ear this, not exclusively what follows or what goes before, but this whole series of arguments and exhortations. This is a formula by which Isaiah frequently resumes and continues his discourse. Because the verb occurs at the beginning of chap. xlvi. 12, Hitzig infers that these two chapters originally came together, and that the forty-seventh was afterwards introduced between them, which seems frivolous. — 0 house of Jacob the (men] called by the name of Israel, a periphrasis for Israelites or members of the ancient church. — And from the wafers of Judah they have come out. By art easy transition, of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah, the construction is concontinued in the third person ; as if the Prophet, after addressing them directly, had proceeded to describe them to the bystanders. The people, by a natural figure, are described as streams from the fountain of Judah. (Compare chap.li. 1, and Ps. Ixviii. 27.) Gesenius and other Germ an writers fasten on this mention of Judah as a national progenitor, as betraying a later date of composition than the days of Isaiah. But this kind of reasoning proceeds upon the shallow and erroneous supposition that the application of this name to the whole people was the result of accidental causes at a com paratively recent period, whereas it forms part of a change designed from the beginning, and developed by a gradual process, through the whole course of their history. Even in patriarchal times the pre-eminence of Judah was determined. From him the Messiah was expected to descend (Gen. xlix. 10). To him the first rank was assigned in the exodus, the journey through the

desert, and the occupation of the promised land. In his line the royal power was first permanently established. To him, though deserted by fivesixths of the tribes, the honours and privileges of the theocracy were still continued; so that long before the Babylonish exile or the downfall of the kingdom of the ten tribes, the names of Israel and Judah were convertible, not as political distinctions, but as designations of the chosen people, the theocracy, the ancient church. In this sense Israelite and Jew were as really synonymous when Isaiah wrote, as they are now in common par lance. — Those swearing by the name of Jehovah, i. e, swearing by him a& their God, and thereby not only acknowledging his deity, but solemnly avouching their relation to him. (See above, on chap. xlv. 23.) — And of the God of Israel make mention, not in conversation merely, but as a religious act, implying public recognition of his being and authority, in which sense the same Hebrew phrase with unimportant variations in its form is frequently •used elsewhere. (For examples of the very form which here occurs, see Josh, xxiii. 7 ; Ps. xx. 8, xlv. 18.) — Not in truth and not in righteousness, up rightness, sincerity. It is not necessary to infer from these words, that the Prophet's language is addressed to a distinct class of the Jews, or to the Jews of any one exclusive period, his own, or that of the captivity, or that of Christ. The clause is an indirect reiteration of the doctrine so con tinually taught throughout these prophecies, and afterwards repeated in this very chapter, that God's choice of Israel and preservation of him was no proof of merit upon his part, nor even an act of mere compassion upon God's part, but the necessary means to an appointed end. The reference therefore here is not so much to individual hypocrisy or unbelief, as to the general defect of worthiness or merit in the bddy. Some, supposing the •whole emphasis to rest upon this last clause, understand what goes before as descriptive of outward profession and pretension, and for that reason give to the passive participle D^i?} the reflexive sense of calling them- •selves; which is unnecessary and without analogy in the other terms of description. They were really called by the name of Israel, and that not only by themselves and one another, but by God. Almost equally erroneous, •on the other hand, is Hitzig's supposition, that this last clause is an obiter dictum not essential to the sense. Both parts are equally essential, the description of the Jews as the chosen people of Jehovah, and the denial of their merit: for the error into which they were continually falling was the error of sacrificing one of these great doctrines to the other, or imagining that they were incompatible. It was necessary to the Prophet's purpose that the people should never forget either, but believe them both. From all this may be readily inferred the shallowness and blindness of the "higher criticism," which talks of the accumulation of descriptive epithets in this place as a rhetorical peculiarity symptomatic of a later age; whereas it is a distinct enumeration of the theocratical prerogatives of Israel, and one essential to the writer's purpose.

2. Fur from the Holy City they are called. The same name is given to Jerusalem below (chap. li. 1), and also in the later books (Dan. ix. 24, Keh. xii. 1) and the New Testament (Matt. iv. 5, xxvii. 53). It is so called as the seat of the true religion, the earthly residence of God, and the centre of the church. That the reference is not to mere locality is .plain from the application of the name to the whole people. The '? at the beginning of this verse has somewhat perplexed interpreters. Cocceius makes it introduce the proof or reason of the words immediately preceding: " not in truth and not in righteousness, because they call themselves after

the Holy City," instead of calling themselves by the name of God. This description would certainly be appropriate to ritualists and all who let the Church usurp the place of its great Head. But this interpretation is pre cluded, as Vitringa has observed, by what immediately follows, and upon the God of Israel rely, which certainly would not have been adduced as a proof of insincerity or even imperfection. Some connect the clauses in a different manner, by giving ^3 the sense of although: " not in truth and not in righteousness, although they are called after the Holy City," But the sense thus obtained is dearly purchased by assuming so unusual and dubious a meaning of the particle. The safest, because the simplest course, is to take it in its ordinary sense of for, because, and to regard it as con tinuing the previous description, or rather as assuming it after a momentarj' interruption, for which reasons/or is used instead of and. The connection may be thus rendered clear by a paraphrase: "I speak to those who bear the name of Israel and worship Israel's God, however insincerely and im perfectly; for they are still the chosen people, and as such entitled to rely upon Jehovah." This last is then descriptive not of a mere professed nor of a real yet presumptuous reliance, but of the prerogative of Israel, con sidered as the church or chosen people, a prerogative not forfeited by their unfaithfulness, so long as its continuance was necessary to the end for which it was originally granted. The false interpretations of the passage have arisen from applying it directly to the faith or unbelief of individuals, in which case there appears to be an incongruity between the parts of the description; but as soon as we apply it to the body, this apparent incon gruity is done away, it being not only consistent with Isaiah's purpose, but a necessary part of it, to hold up the prerogatives of Israel as wholly inde pendent of all merit upon their part. — Jehovah of hosts (is) his name. These words are added to identify the object of reliance more completely, as the Being who was called the God of Israel and Jehovah of hosts. At the same time they suggest the attributes implied in both parts of the name. As if he had said, they rely upon the God of Israel, whom they acknowledge as an independent and eternal Being, and the Sovereign of the universe.

3. The first (or former things') since then I have declared. That is, I pro phesied of old the events which have already taken place. For the sense of the particular expressions, see above on chap. xlv. 21, xlvi. 10. There is no abrupt transition here, as some interpreters asume. This verse asserts God's prescience, not absolutely as in other cases, but for the purpose of explaining why he had so carefully predicted certain future events. It can be fully understood, therefore, only in connection with what goes before and follows. — And out of my mouth they went forth. Some regard this as a proof that HIJK'NT means former prophecies and not events ; but even the latter might be figuratively said to have gone out of his mouth, as having been predicted by him. — And I cause them to be heard, a synonymous ex pression. — Suddenly I do (them) and they come to pass. — All this is intro ductory to what follows respecting the design of prophecy. The sense is not simply, I foretell things to come, but I foretell things to come for a par ticular purpose, which is now to be explained.

4. From my knowing. This may either mean because I knew or since I knew, or the last may be included in the first, as in chap, xliii. 4. — That thou art hard. This is commonly considered an ellipsis for 27T!£'P (Ezek. iii. 7), or *pjrn$jp (Deut. ix. 6), hard-hearted or stiff-necked ; more probubly the latter, as the sense required b}r the context is not so much that of insensibility as that of obstinate perverseness. The same idea is expressed still more strongly by the following words, and an iron sinew (is) thy neck. The substitution of bar for sinew, which is elsewhere the invari able sense of "V3, is not only gratuitous, but inexact and enfeebling. — And thy forehead brass. The hardening of the face or forehead, which is sometimes used in a good sense (e.g. chap. 1. 7), here denotes shameless persistency in opposition to the truth. The allusion is not, as Yitringa supposes, to the colour of brass, but to its hardness, with some reference, as Ivnobel thinks, to the habits of animals which push or butt with the forehead.

5. Therefore I told thee long ago. This is often the force of the conjunc tion and after a conditional clause or sentence. Because I knew thee to be such, and I told thee, i.e. therefore I told thee. — Before it comes I have let thee hear (it}, lest thou say, My idol did them, i.e. did the things before re ferred to collectively in the singular. The Hebrew word for idol, from the double meaning of its root, suggests the two ideas of an image and a tor ment or vexation. — My graven image and my molten image ordered them, i. e. called them into being. — Gousset takes *?P? in the sense of my libation or drink -offer ing.

6. Thou hast heard (the prediction), see all of it (accomplished). And ye (idolaters or idols), will not ye declare, the same word used above for the prediction of events, and therefore no doubt meaning here, will not ye predict something '? This is Hitzig's explanation of the words ; but most interpreters suppose the sense to be, will you not acknowledge (or bear wit ness) that these things were predicted by Jehovah ? In favour of the first is its taking T3H in the sense which it has in the preceding verse, and also the analogy of chap. xli. 22, 23, where the very same challenge is given in nearly the same form ; to which may be added the sudden change to the plural form, and the emphatic introduction of the pronoun, implying a new object of adress, and not a mere enallage, because he immediately resumes the address to the people in the singular. — I have made thee to hear new things. He appeals not only to the past but to the future, and thus does what he vainly challenged them to do. There is no need of inquiring what particular predictions are referred to. AH that seems to be intended is the general distinction between past and future, between earlier and later pro phecies. — From now, henceforth, after the present time. It is a curious fact that Hitzig, who regards the old interpretation of D?5$p (less than nothing) in chap. xl. 17, as absurd, makes nnyp iu the case before us a comparative expression, and translates the whole phrase newer than now, which he says is a circumlocution for the future. — And (things') kept (in reserve), and thou hast not knoiim them, or, in our idiom, which thou^hast not known. Beck, by some unintelligible process, reaches the conclusion that this verse contains a perfectly indisputable case of vaticinium post eventum.

7. Now they are created (i. e. brought into existence for the first time), and not of old, or never before. The literal meaning of the next words is, and before the day and thou hast not heard them. J. D. Michaelis and some others seem to understand this as meaning, one day ago thou hadst not heard them ; but this is a German or a Latin idiom, wholly foreign from the Hebrew usage. Others, with more probability, explain it to mean, before this day (or before to-day) thou hast never heard them, DV being put by poetical licence for Dl'n with the article. Gesenius understands by day the time of the fulfilment ; which is not so obvious nor so appropriate, because the prophecy must be made known before it can be verified by the event.

In all these constructions, the 1 before tf? is supposed to be the idiomatic sign of the apodosis, very frequent after specifications of time. (See Gen. xxii. 4.) The same reason is assigned as before: Lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them. In the last word the feminine suffix takes the place of the masculine in the verse preceding, equivalent in import to the Greek or Latin neuter.

8. Nay, thou didst not hear • nay, thou didst not know. The idiomatic form of this sentence is not easily expressed in a translation, which, if too exact, will fail to show the true connection. Having given the perverseness of the people as a reason why they knew so much by previous revela tion, he now assigns it as a reason why they knew so little. These, although at first sight inconsistent statements, are bnt varied aspects of the same thing. God had told them so much beforehand, lest they should ascribe the event to other causes. He had told them no more, because he knew that they would wickedly abuse his favour. In a certain sense, and to a certain extent, it was true that they had heard and known these things beforehand. In another sense, and beyond that extent, it was equally true that they had neither heard nor known them. This seems to be the true force' of the D|. It was true that they had heard, but it was also true that they had not heard. The strict sense of the clause is, likewise thou hadst not heard, likewise thou hadst not known ; but as this form of expression is quite foreign from our idiom, nay, may be substituted, not as a synonyme, but an equivalent. The yea of the common version fails to indicate the true connection, by suggesting the idea of a climax rather than that of an antithesis, of something more rather than of something different. — Likewise of okl (or beforehand) thine ear was not open, literally, did not open, the Hebrew usage coinciding with the English in giving to this verb both a transitive and intransitive sense. (For another clear example of the latter, see below, chap. Ix. 11.) Vitringa understands the whole of this first clause as meaning that they would not hear or know, but stopped their ears and minds against the revelation which was offered to them. For this sup position he assigns a reason that is really conclusive on the other side, viz. that the last clause describes them as treacherous and disloyal, which he says would be unjust if they had no revelation to abuse. But this argument proceeds upon a false view as to the connection of the clauses. It supposes the first to give a reason for the last, whereas the last gives a reason for the first. The sense is not, that because they would not hear or know what was revealed, God denounced them as traitors and apostates ; but that because they were traitors and apostates, he would not allow them to hear or know the things in question. This construction is required by the '? (because] at the beginning of the second clause ; by the words / knew, which, on the other supposition, are unmeaning ; and by the form "liipfl, which cannot, without arbitrary violence, have any other sense here but the strict one of the future, or of some tense involving the idea of futurity. — I know thou icilt, (or / knew thou u-ouldest] act very treacherously. Lowth sup poses the emphatic repetition of the verb to express certainty rather than intensity, and both may be included, i. e. both would perhaps be unavoid ably suggested by this form of expression to a Hebrew reader. Beck's trium phant charge against the writer of the " naivest self-contradiction," proceeds upon the false assumption that the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus is the chief, or rather the sole subject of the prophecy, an error which has been already more than once exposed. — And apostate (rebel, or deserter) from the womb was called to thee, i. e. this name was used in calling thee, or thou

wast called. Besides the idiom in the syntax, there is here another in stance of the use of the verb call or name to express the real character. They were so called i. e. they might have been so, they deserved to be so. (See above, chap. i. 26, vol. i, p. 92.) — Here, as in chap. xlii. 2, 24, most interpreters explain the womb as meaning Egypt; and Jerome carries this idea so far as to paraphrase the words thus, quando de JEgypto lileratus, quasi meo venire conceptus es. In all the cases, it seems far more natural to understand this trait of the description as belonging rather to the sign than the thing signified, as representing no specific circumstance of time or place in the history of Israel, but simply the infancy or birth of the ideal person substituted for him.

9. For my name's sake. Aben Ezra understands this to mean, for the sake of my name by which ye are called ; but most interpreters explain it as an equivalent but stronger expression ilianfor my own sake, for the sake of the revelation which I have already made of my own attributes. This explanation agrees well with the language of ver. 11 below. — I will defer my anger. Literally, prolong it ; but this would be equivocal in English. To avoid the equivoque, Vitringa adopts the absurd translation, 1 will lengthen (or prolong) my nose, which he explains my saying that a long face is a sign of clemency or mildness, and a short or contracted face of anger ; an opinion which appears to have as little foundation in physiognomy as in etymology. It seems most probable that ^ anger, and Q^.SN the nostrils are at most collateral derivatives from *p_X to breathe. The common version, / will defer my anger, is approved by the latest writers, and confirmed not only by oar familiar use of long and slow, in certain applications, as con vertible terms, but also by the unequivocal analogy of the Greek f^ax^ciO^og and the Latin lonyanimis — And (for) my j)raise 1 will restrain (it) towards thee. Praise is here the parallel to name, and may be governed by i^?? repeated from the other clause. The more obvious construction, which would make it dependent on the following verb, is forbidden by the accents, and yields no coherent sense. Gesenius makes DL2nx reflexive, or at least supplies the reflexive pronoun after it (/ refrain myself ) ; but it is simpler to assume the same object (my wrath) in both clauses. — The last words of the verse express the effect to be produced, so as not to cut thee off, or de stroy thee.

10. Behold I have melted thee. This is the original meaning of the word ; but it is commonly applied to the smelting of metals, and may there fore be translated proved or tried thee. — And not with silver. Some read *|PP? (as silver), and others take the 2 itself as a particle of comparison, or bring out substantially the same sense by rendering it with (i. e. in company with) silver, or by means of the same process. This is explained by Hitzig strictly as denoting that he had not literally melted them like silver, but only metaphorically in the furnace of affliction, an assurance no more needed here than in any other case of figurative language. Apart from these inter pretations, which assume the sense like silver, the opinions of interpreters have been divided chiefly between two. The first of these explains the Prophet's words to mean, not for silver (or money), but gratuitously. This is certainly the meaning of *1P3? in a number of places ; but it seems to be entirely inappropriate when speaking of affliction, which is rather aggravated than relieved by the idea of its being gratuitous, i. e. for nothing. The other explanation, and the one now commonly adopted, takes the sense to be, not with silver (i. e. pure metal) as the result of the process. This agrees well with the context, which makes the want of merit on the part of

Israel continually prominent. It also corresponds exactly to the other clause, / have chosen tkee (not in wealth, or power, or honour, but) in the furnace of affliction. The explanation of ^113 as sj'nonymous with ^?H3 is entirely gratuitous. There is no word the sense of which is more determinately fixed by usage. The reason given by Gesenius for making prove or try the primary meaning of this verb, without a single instance to establish it, is the extraordinary one that trial must precede choice, which assumes the very question in dispute, viz., that "1H3 means to try at all, a fact which cannot be sustained by Aramean analogies, in the teeth of an invariable Hebrew usage. But even if the method of arriving at this sense were less objectionable than it is, the sense itself would still be less appropriate and expressive than the common one. I have proved thee in the furnace of affliction, means I have afflicted thee; but this is saying even less than the first clause, whatever sense may there be put upon ^IP??. It is not very likely that the Prophet simply meant to say, / have afflicted thee in vain, I have afflicted thee. It is certainly more probable, and more in keeping with the context and his whole design, to understand him as saying, I have found no merit in thee, and have chosen thee in the extreme of degradation and affliction. If the furnace of affliction was designed to have a distinct his torical meaning, it probably refers not to Babylon, but Egypt, whijph is repeatedly called an iron furnace. This would agree exactly with the re presentations elsewhere made respecting the election of Israel in Egypt.

11. For my own sake, for my own sake, I will do — what is to be done. This is commonly restricted to the restoration of the Jews from exile ; but this specific application of the promise is not made till afterwards. The terms are comprehensive, and contain a statement of the general doctrine, as the sum of the whole argument, that what Jehovah does for his own people, is in truth done not for any merit upon their part, but to protect his own divine honour. — For hoiv will it be profaned? This may either mean, How greatly would it be profaned ! or, How can I suffer it to be profaned ? Gesenius anticipates honour from the other clause ; but most interpreters make name the subject of the verb, a combination which occurs in several other places. (See Lev. xviii. 21, xix. 22, Ezek. xxxvi. 20. — And iny glory (or honour) to another mil I not (jive, as he must do if his enemies eventually triumph over his own people. The same words, with the same sense, occur above in chap. xlii. 8.

12. Hearken unto me, 0 Jacob, and Israel my called; I am He, I am the First, also I the Last. A renewed assurance of his ability and willing ness to execute his promises, the latter being implied in the phrase my called, i.e. specially elected by me to extraordinary privileges. The threefold repetition of the pronoun I is supposed by some of the older writers to contain an allusion to the Trinity, of which interpretation Vitringa wisely says, quam meditalionem hoc loco non uryco neque refello. I am He is under stood by the later writers to mean, I am the Being in question, or it is, I that am the First and the Last. The older writers give the K-in a more emphatic sense, as meaning, He that really exists. — Lowth supplies my servant after Jacob, on the authority of one manuscript and two old edi tions. On like authority he changes *)K into the simple conjunctive 1, which he says is more proper. — Compare with this verse chap. xli. 4, xliii. 10, xliv. G.

3 3. Also my hand founded the earth, and my right hand spanned the heavens. The force of the *|K seems to be this, Not only am I an Eternal Being, but the Creator of the heavens. Hand and riyht hand is merely a

poetical or rhetorical variation. — The Septuagint renders!"in?p iaTtiiuin, by assimilation to the parallel term founded. The Vulgate has mensa est. which is approved by Kirnchi. The Chaldee suspended, which may be taken either strictly, or iu the sense of balanced, icelnhed. Aben Ezra, followed by most modern writers, makes it mean expanded; which explana tion is confirmed by the Syriac analogy, and by the parallel passage chap, li. 13, where the founding of the earth is connected with the spreading of the skies, and the latter expressed by the unambiguous word Ht?13. Luzzatto points out a like combination of the derivative nouns in 1 Kings vii. 9. — Yitringa construes ^ &OP like an ablative absolute in Latin (me rocante), and the same sense is given, with a difference of form, in the English Ver sion (when I call). But in Hebrew usage, the pronoun and participle thus combined are employed to express present and continuous action, 7 (') callini/, i.e. I habitually call. The words are not therefore naturally applicable to the original creation (/ called), as Cocceius, Gesenius, and others explain them, but must either be referred, with Kimchi, to the constant exertion of creative power in the conservation of the universe, or, with Vitringa and most later writers, to the authority of the Creator over his creatures as his instruments and servants. I call to them (summon them), and they will stand up together (/. e. all, without exception). This agrees well with the usage of the phrase to stand before, as expressing the attendance of the servant on his master. (See, for example, 1 Kings xvii. 1.) The same two ideas of creation and service are connected in Ps. cxix. 90, 91. The exclusive reference of the whole verse to creation, on the other hand, is favoured by the analogy of Rom. iv. 17, and Col. i. 17. — For the different expressions here used see above, chap. xl. 22, xlii. 5, xliv. 24, xlv. 12.

14. Assemble yourselves, all of you, and hear ! The object of address is Israel, according to the common supposition, but more probably the heathen. Who amony tliein, i.e. the false gods or their prophets, hath declared (pre dicted) these tliintjs, the whole series of events which had been cited to de monstrate the divine foreknowledge. Jehovah loves him, i.e. Israel, and to shew his love, he uill do his pleasure (execute his purpose) in ttabylon, and his (Jehovah's) arm (shall be upon) the Chaldees. This explanation, which is given by J. H. Michaelis, seems to answer all the conditions of the text and context. Most interpreters, however, make the clause refer to Cyrus, and translate it thus, "He whom Jehovah loves shall do his pleasure in Babylon, and his arm (i.e. exercise his power, or execute his vengeance) on the Chaldees." Another construction of the last words makes them mean that "he (Cyrus) shall be his arm (i.e. the arm of Jehovah) against the Chaldees." But for this use of arm there is no satis factory analogy. Kocher supposes it to mean that " the Chaldees (shall be) his arm," in allusion to the aid which Cyrus received from Gobryas and Gadates, as related in the fourth book of the Cyropaedia. Vitringa is inclined to assume an aposiopesis, and to read, " his arm (shall conqueror destroy) the Chaldees." Aben Ezra refers both the suffixes to Cyrus, who is then said to do his own pleasure upon Babylon. — Others refer both to God (his pleasure and his arm) ; but most interpreters take a middle course, referring otie to each.

15. /, I, have spoken (i.e. predicted); I have also called him (effectually by my providence) ; 1 have Irouyht him (into existence, or into public view) ; and he prospered his way. The reference of the last verb to Jehovah as its subject involves a harsh euallage persona), which Vitringa and others avoid

by making the verb neuter or intransitive, his ivay prospers. But ^11 is feminine, not only in general usage, but in combination with this very verb (Judges xviii. 5). The safe rule is, moreover, to give Hiphil an active sense wherever it is possible. The true solution is to make Cyrus or Israel the subject, and to understand the phrase as meaning, lie makes his own way prosperous, i. e. prospers in it. (Compare Ps. i. 3, and Hengstenberg's Commentary on the Psalms, vol. i. p. 17.)

1C. Draw near unto me ! As Jehovah is confessedly the speaker in the foregoing and the following context, and as similar language is expressly ascribed to him in chap. xlv. 19, Calvin and Gesenius regard it as most natural to make these his words likewise, assuming a transition in the last clause from Jehovah to the Prophet, who there describes himself as sent by Jehovah. Instead of this distinction between the clauses, Jarchi and Rosenrnuller suppose the person of the Prophet and of God to be confused in both. Hitzig and Knobel follow some of the other Jewish writers in making the whole verse the words of Isaiah. Vitringa and Henderson agree with Athanasius, Augustin, and other Fathers, who reconcile the clauses by making Christ the speaker. Those who believe that he is elsewhere intro duced in this same book, can have no difficulty in admitting a hypothesis, which reconciles the divine and human attributes referred to in the sentence, as'^belonging to one person. — Hear this; not from the lee/inning in secret have I spoken. See above, on chap. xlv. 19. — From the time of its being. (Ecolampadius refers this to the eternal counsel of Jehovah ; but Vitringa well observes that usage has appropriated '"PH to express the execution, not the formation of the divine purpose. Brentius supposes an allusion to the exodus from Egypt and a comparison between it and the deliverance from Babylon ; but this is wholly fanciful and arbitrary. The rabbins, with as little reason, make it mean, since the beginning of my ministry, since I assumed the prophetic office. But most interpreters refer the suffix (it) to the raising up of Cyrus and the whole series of events connected with it, which formed the subject of the prophecies in question. (See above, chap, xlvi. 11.) — Since these events began to take place, I icas there. Lowth proposes to read D^ and to translate the phrase, / had decreed it. But the obvious analogy of Prov. viii. 27 is of itself sufficient to establish the Masoretic reading. Those who regard these as the words of Isaiah, understand them to mean that he had predicted them, or as Knobel expresses it, that he was present as a public speaker. Those who refer the words to the Son of God specifically, make the verse substantially identical in meaning with the one in Proverbs just referred to, which the church in every age has been very much of one mind in applying to the second person of the Godhead as the hypostatical wisdom of the Father. Those who take the words more generally as the language of Jehovah, understand him to declare that these events had not occurred without his knowledge or his agency ; that he was present, cognizant, and active, in the whole affair. Thus far this last hypothesis must be allowed to be the simplest and most natural. The difficulties which attend it arise wholly from what follows. — And now. This seems to be in evident antithesis to t^NIO or to fin'T'n J1JJD, the latter being the most obvious because it is the nearest antecedent. — The Lord Jehovah hath sent me. Those who regard Isaiah as the speaker in the whole verse, understand this clause to mean, that as he had spoken before by divine authority and inspiration, he did so still. Those who refer the first clause simply to Jehovah, without reference to personal distinctions, are under the necessity of here assuming a transition to the language of the Prophet

himself. The third hypothesis, which makes the Son of God the speaker, understands both clauses in their strict sense as denoting his eternity on one hand, and his mission on the other. The sending of the Son by the Father is a standing forai of speech in Scripture. (Exod. xxiii. 20, Isa. Ixi. 1, Mai. iii. 1, John iii. 34, xvii. 3, Heb. iii. 1.) — And his Spirit. It has long been a subject of dispute whether these words belong to the subject or the object of the verb hath sent. The English Version removes all ambiguity by changing the collocation of the words (the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me). The same sense is given in the Vulgate (et spiritus ejus) ; while the coincidence of the nominative and accusative (TO -jrveD^a) makes the Septuagint no less ambiguous than the original. With the Latin and English agree Calvin, llosenmiiller, Umbreit, and Hendewerk. Vitringa, Henderson, and Knobel, adopt Origen's interpretation (a//,po'rssa d-=<rr£/Xv 6 •rarjjp, TW au-rrsa, y.a! TO ayiov TvsD/za). Gesenius and the other modern Germans change the form of expression by inserting the preposition with, which, however, is intended to represent the Spirit not as the sender but as one of the things sent. — The exegetical question is not one of much im portance; because both the senses yielded are consistent with the usage of the Scriptures, and the ambiguity may be intended to let both suggest themselves. As a grammatical question, it is hard to be decided from analog}T; because, on either supposition, in-Ill cannot be considered as holding its regular position in the sentence, but must be regarded as an afterthought. The main proposition is, the Lord God hath sent me. The supplementary expression and his Spirit may be introduced, without absurdity or any violation of the rules of syntax, cither before the verb or after it. Mere usage therefore leaves the question undecided. — As little can it be deter mined by the context or the parallelisms. The argument, which some urge, that the Spirit is never said to send the Son, takes for granted that the latter is the speaker, an assumption which precludes any inference from the lan guage of this clause in proof of that position. Those, on the other hand, who consider these the words of Isaiah, argue in favour of the other con struction, that the Spirit is said to send the prophets. — On the whole this may be fairly represented as one of the most doubtful questions of construction in the book, and the safest course is either to admit that both ideas were meant to be suggested, although probably in different degrees, or else to fall back upon the general rule, though liable to numberless exceptions, that the preference is due to the nearest antecedent or to that construction which adheres most closely to the actual collocation of the words. The applica tion of this principle in this case would decide the doubt in favour of the prevailing modern doctrine, that Jehovah had sent the person speaking and endued him with his Spirit, as a necessary preparation for the work to which he was appointed. Beck's ridiculous assertion, that the writer is here guilty of the folly of appealing to his present prediction of events already past as a proof of his divine legation, only shews the falsehood of the current notion that the object of address is the Jewish people at the period of the exile, and its subject the victories of Cyrus.

17. Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel (see the same prefatory formulas above, chap. xli. 14, xliii. 14), Jaw Jehovah thy God (or / Jehovah am thy God], teaching thce to pro/it (or /, Jehovah, thy God, am teaching thee to profit). Henderson's version, 1 teach, does not convey the precise force of the original, which is expressive of continued and habitual instruction, and the same remark applies to the participle in the other clause. To profit, i. e. to be profitable to thyself, to provide for

thy own safety and prosperity, or as Cocceius phrases it, tibi consnlere. There seems to be a reference, as Vitringa suggests, to the unprofitableness so often charged upon false gods and their worship. (See chap. xliv. 10, xlv. 19, Jer. ii. 11.) — Leading thee (literally, making tliee to tread) in the way thou shatt go. The ellipsis of the relative is just the same as in fami liar English. The future includes the ideas of obligation and necessity, without expressing them directly; the precise sense of the words is, the way thou wilt go if thou desirest to profit. Augusti and Ewald make it present (goest) ; but this is at the same time less exact and less expressive. — J. H. Michaelis understands these as the words of Christ, the teaching mentioned as the teaching of the gospel, the way, the way of salvation, &c. To all this the words are legitimately applicable, but it does not follow that they were specifically meant to convey this idea to the reader.

18. J. D. Michaelis suggests the possibility of reading Nii>, a form in which the negative N? occurs, according to the Masora, thirty-five times inthe Old Testament. The first clause would then contain a direct negation, thou hast not attended. In his version, however, he adheres to the Masoretic pointing, and translates the word as a conditional particle (wenn du doch), which is also recognised by Winer as the primary meaning of the word, although Gesenius and Ewald reverse the order of deduction, making if a secondary sense of the optative particle 0 that ! The former supposi tion may be illustrated by our own colloquial expression, if it were only so and so, implying a desire that it were so. The verb which follows is com monly taken in the wide sense of attending, that of listening being looked upon as a specific application of it. Vitringa here translates" it, animum advertises ; J. H. Michaelis, with more regard to usage, aures et animum. It may be questioned, however, whether there is any clear case of its being used without explicit reference to hearing. If not, this must be regarded as the proper meaning, and the wider sense considered as implied but not expressed. Rosenrniiller, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel, understand this verb as referring to the future ; 0 that thou woiddst hearken to my com mandments ! But the only instance which they cite of this use of the preterite (Isa. Ixiii. 19), even if it did not admit (as it evidently does) of the other explanation, could not be set off against the settled usage of the language, which refers -v with the preterite to past time. (See Ewald's Grammar, § 605, and Nordheimer, § 1078.) Accordingly Maurer, De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit, and Gesenius (though less explicitly), agree with the older writers in explaining it to mean, 0 that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments ! The objection, that this does not suit the context, is entirely unfounded. Nothing could well be more appropriate at the close of this division of the prophecies, than such an affecting statement of the truth, so frequently propounded in didactic form already, that Israel, although the chosen people of Jehovah, and as such secure from total ruin, was and was to be a sufferer, not from any want of faithfulness or care on God's part, but as the necessary fruit of his own imperfections and corruptions. —The Vav conversive introduces the apodosis, and is equivalent to then, as used in English for a similar purpose. Those who refer the first clause to the present or the future, give the second the form of the imperfect sub junctive, then would thy peace be like a river; the others more correctly that of the pluperfect, then had thy peace been (or then would thy peace have been) as a river. The strict sense of the Hebrew, is the river, which "N itringa and others understand to mean the Euphrates in particular, with

whose inundations, as well as with its ordinary flow, the Prophet's original readers were familiar. It seems to be more natural, however, to regard the article as pointing out a definite class of objects rather than an indivi dual, and none the less because the parallel expression is the sea, which some, with wanton violence, apply to the Euphrates also. — Peace is here nsed in its wide sense of prosperity: or rather peace, in the restricted sense, is used to represent all kindred and attendant blessings. The parallel term righteousness adds moral good to natural, and supplies the indispensable condition without which the other cannot be enjoyed. After the various affectations of the modern German writers in distorting this and similar expressions, it is refreshing to find Ewald, and even Hendewerk, returning to the old and simple version, Peace and RiijJiteousness. The ideas suggested by the figure of a river, are abundance, perpetuity, and freshness, to which the waves of the sea add those of vastness, depth, and continual succession.

19. Then should have been like the sand thy seed, a common Scriptural expression for great multitude, with special reference, in this case, to the promise made to Abraham and Jacob (Gen. xxii. 17, xxxii. 12), the partial accomplishment of which (2 Sam. xvii. 11) is not inconsistent with the thought here expressed, that, in the case supposed, it would have been far more ample and conspicuous. Here, as in chap. xliv. 3, Knobel under stands by seed or offspring, the individual members of the nation as dis tinguished from the aggregate body. But the image is rather that of a parent (here the patriarch Jacob) and his personal descendants. — And the •issues (or offspring) of thy bowels (an equivalent expression to thy seed). — Of the next word, fliyo, there are two interpretations. The Targum, the Vulgate, and tb?c rabbins, give it the sense of stones, pebbles, gravel, and make it a poetical equivalent to sand. J. D. Michaelis and most of the later Germans make it an equivalent to Q'V.P, with a feminine termination, because figuratively used. The antithesis is then between thy bowels and its bowels, viz. those of the sea ; and the whole clause, supplying the ellipsis, will read thus, the offspring of thy bowels like (the offspring of) its bowels, in allusion to the vast increase of fishes, which J. 1). Michaelis illustrates by saying that the whale leaves enough of its natural food, the herring, to supply all Europe with it daily. Ewald has returned to the old interpretation, which he defends from the charge of being purely conjectural, by tracing both D^VP and riij?D to the radical idea of softness, the one being applied to the soft inward parts of the body, the other to the soft fine particles of sand or gravel. We may then refer the suffix, not to the remoter antecedent DJ, but to the nearer ?in. — His name. We must either suppose an abrupt transition from the second to the third person, or make seed the antecedent of the pronoun, which is harsh in itself, and rendered more so by the intervening plural forms. Lowth as usual restores uniformity by reading thy name on the authority of the Septuagint version. Vitringa supposes a particular allusion to genea logical tables and the custom of erasing names from them under certain circumstances. But all the requisitions of the text are answered by the common understanding of name, in such connections, as equivalent to memory. The excision or destruction of the name from before God is expressive of entire extermination. — The precise sense of the futures in this clause is somewhat dubious, Most interpreters assimilate them to the futures of the foregoing clause, as in the English Version (should not hare been cut off nor drstsoyed). Those who understand the first clause as

expressing a wish in relation to the present or the future, make this last a promise, either absolute (his name shall not be cut off] or conditional (his name should not be cut off}. Nor is this direct construction of the last clause inconsistent with the old interpretation of the first; as we may sup pose that the writer, after wishing that the people had escaped the strokes provoked by their iniquities, declares that even now they shall not be entirely destroyed. This is precisely the sense given to the clause in the Septuagint (ovSs v\Jv airCte'iTa.i), and is recommended by two considerations: first, the absence of the Vav conversive, which in the other clause may indicate an indirect construction; and secondly, its perfect agreement with the whole drift of the passage, and the analogy of others like it, where the explanation of the sufferings of the people as the fruit of their own sin is combined with a promise of exemption from complete destruction.

20. Go forth from Balel ! This is a prediction of the deliverance from Babylon, clothed in the form of an exhortation to escape from it. We have no right to assume a capricious change of subject, or a want of all coherence with what goes before. The connection may be thus stated. After the general reproof and promise of the nineteenth verse, he recurs to the great example of deliverance so often introduced before. As if he had said, Israel, notwithstanding his unworthiness, shall be preserved ; even in extremity his God will not forsake him ; even from Babylon he shall be delivered : — and then turning in prophetic vision to the future exiles, he invites them to come forth. — Flee from the Chasdim (or Chafdces) ! Vitringa, Gesenius, and most other writers, supply Y1$ before E^'?, or regard the latter as itself the name of the country. (See above, on chap, xlvii. 1.) But Maurer well says that he sees no reason why we may not here retain the proper meaning of the plural, and translate, flee ye from the Chaldeans, which is precisely the common English version of the clause. — With a voice of joy. The last word properly denotes a joyful shout, and not articulate song. The whole phrase means, with the sound or noise of such a shout. It has been made a question whether these words are to be connected with what goes before or with what follows. Gesenius and Hendewerk prefer the former, most interpreters the latter ; but Vitringa thinks the Masoretic accents were intended to connect it equall}- with both parts of the context, as in chap. xl. 8. — Tell this, cause it to be heard. The Hebrew collocation (tell, cause to be heard, this) cannot be retained in English. Utter it (cause it to go forth) even to the end of the earth. Com pare chap. xlii. 10, xliii. 6. Say ye, Jehovah hath redeemed his servant Jacob. The present form, adopted by J. D. Michaelis and Augusti, is not only unnecessary but injurious to the effect. These are words to be uttered after the event ; and the preterite must therefore be strictly understood, as it is by most interpreters. The deliverance from Babylon is here referred to, only as one great example of the general truth that God saves his people.

21. And they thirsted not in the desert (through which) he made them go. The translation of the verbs as futures, by J. H. Michaelis and Hitzig, is entirely ungrammatical and inconsistent with the obvious intention of the writer to present these as the words of an annunciation after the event. The present form, adopted by J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans, although less erroneous, is a needless and enfeebling evasion of the true tense, which is purely descriptive. Water from a rock he made to flow for them ; and he clave the rock and waters gushed out. There is evident reference here to the miraculous supply of water in the journey through the wilderness. (Exod. xvii. 6, Num. xx. 11, Ps. Ixxviii. 15.) It might even

seem as if the writer meant to state these facts historically. Such at least would be the simpler exposition of his words, which would then contain a reference to the exodus from Egypt, as the great historical example of deliverance. As if he had said, Relate how God of old redeemed his ser vant Jacob out of Egypt, and led him through the wilderness, and slaked his thirst with water from the solid rock. Most interpreters, however, are agreed in applying the words to the deliverance from Babylon. Kimchi understands the language strictly, and expresses his surprise that no account of this great miracle was left on record by Ezra or any other inspired historian. Gesenius sneers at the Kabbin's naivete, but thinks it matched by the simplicity of some Christian writers who know not what to make of ideal anticipations which were never realised. Perhaps, however, the absurdity is not altogether on the side where he imagines it to lie. Karachi was right in assuming, that if the flight and the march through the wilderness were literal (a supposition common to Gesenius and himself), then the accompanying circumstances must receive a literal interpretation likewise, unless there be something in the text itself to indicate the con trary. Unless we are prepared to assume an irrational confusion of language, setting all interpretation at defiance, our only alternative is to conclude, on the one hand, that Isaiah meant to foretell a miraculous supply of water during the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, or that the whole description is a figurative one, meaning simply that the wonders of the exodus should be renewed. Against the former is the silence of history, alleged by Kimchi; against the latter, nothing but the foregone conclusion that this and other like passages must relate exclusively to Babylon and the return from exile.

22. There is no peace, saith Jehovah, to the wicked. The meaning of this sentence, in itself considered, is too clear to be disputed. There is more doubt as to its connection with what goes before. That it is a mere aphorism, added to this long discourse, like a moral to an ancient fable, can only satisfy the minds of those who look upon the whole book as a series of detached and incoherent sentences. Vastly more rational is the opinion, now the current one among interpreters, that this verse was intended to restrict the operation of the foregoing promises to true believers, or the genuine Israel ; as if he had said, All this will God accomplish for his people, but not for the wicked among them. The grand conclusion to which all tends is, that God is all and man nothing ; that even the chosen people must be sufferers, because they are sinners ; that peculiar favour confers no immunity to sin or exemption from responsibility, but that even in the Israel of God and the enjoyment of the most extraordinary privi leges, it still remains for ever true that " there is no peace to the wicked."

CHAPTER XLIX.

THIS chapter, like the whole division which it introduces, has for its great theme the relation of the church to the world, or of Israel to the Gentiles. The relation of the former to Jehovah is of course still kept in view, but with less exclusive prominence than in the First Part (chap, xl.-xlviii). The doctrine there established and illustrated, as to the mutual relation of the body and the head, is here assumed as the basis of more explicit teachings •with respect to their joint relation to the world and the great design of their

vocation. There is not so mnch a change of topics as a change in their relative position and proportions.

The chapter opens with an exhibition of the Messiah and his people, under one ideal person, as the great appointed Teacher, Apostle, and Restorer of the apostate nations, vers. 1-9. This is followed by a promise of divine protection and of glorious enlargement, attended by a joyous revolution in the state of the whole world, vers. 10-13. The doubts and apprehensions of the church herself are twice recited under different forms, vers. 14 and 24, and as often met and silenced, first by repeated and still stronger pro mises of God's unchanging love to his people and of their glorious enlarge ment and success, vers. 15—23 ; then by an awful threatening of destruc tion to their enemies and his, vers. 25, 26.

1. Hearken ye islands unto me, and attend ye nations from afar. Here, as in chap. xli. 1, he turns to the Gentiles and addresses them directly. There is the same diversity in this case as the explanation of E^N. Some give it the vague sense of nations, others that of distant nations, while J. D. Michaelis again goes to the opposite extreme by making it mean Europe and Asia Minor. Intermediate between these is the meaning coasts, ap proved by Ewald and others. But there seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the sense of islands, which may be considered as a poetical representative of foreign and especially of distant nations, although not as directly expressing that idea. — From afar is not merely at a distance (although this explanation might, in case of necessity, be justified by usage), but suggests the idea of attention being drawn to a central point from other points around it. — Jehovah from the womb hath called me, from the bowels of my mother he hath mentioned my name (or literally, caused it to be re membered). This does not necessarily denote the literal prediction of an individual by name before his birth, although, as Hengstenberg suggests, there may be an intentional allusion to that circumstance, involved in the wider meaning of the words, viz. that of personal election and designation to office. Vitringa's explanation of |P|P as meaning before birth, is not only unauthorized, but as gratuitous as Noyes's euphemistic paraphrase, in my very childhood. The expression from the icomb may be either in clusive of the period before birth, or restricted to the actual vocation of the speaker to his providential work. — The speaker in this and the following verses is not Isaiah, either as an individual or as a representative of the prophets generally, on either of which suppositions the terms used are in appropriate and extravagant. Neither the prophets as a class, nor Isaiah as a single prophet, had been entrusted with a message to the Gentiles. In favour of supposing that the speaker is Israel, the chosen people, there are various considerations, but especially the aid which this hypothesis affords in the interpretation of the third verse. At the same time there are clear indications that the words are the words of the Messiah. These two most plausible interpretations may be reconciled and blended, by assuming that in this case, as in chap. xlii. 1, the ideal speaker is the Messiah considered as the head of his people and as forming with them one complex person, according to the canon of Tichonins already quoted, de Christo et Corpore ejus Kcclesia tanqnam de ittia persona in Scrijitttra scrpius mentionem fieri, cni quondam tribuuntnr qua; tantam in Caput, qu<rdam qiue tantum in Corpus competunt, qutrdam vero in utrumquc. The objections to this assumption here are for the most part negative and superficial. That of Hengstenberg, that if this were the true interpretation here, it would admit of being carried out elsewhere, is really a strong proof of its truth ; as we have seen conelusive reasons, independently of this case, to explain the parallel passage in chap. xlii. 1 on precisely the same principle. The whole question as to the subjects and connections of these Later Prophecies has made a very sensible advance towards satisfactory solution since the date of the Christology, as may be learned by comparing the general analysis and special expositions of the latter with the corresponding passages of Havernick and Drechsler. If, as we have seen cause to believe, the grand theme of this whole book is the church, in its relation to its Head and to the World, the anterior presumption is no longer against but decidedly in favour of the reference of this verse to the Head and the Body as one person, a reference confirmed, as we shall see, by clear New Testament authority.

2. And he hath placed (i. e. rendered or made) my mouth like a sharp sii'ord. By mouth we are of course to understand speech, discourse. The comparison is repeated and explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews (iv. 12) : " The word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." In both cases these qualities are predicated, not of literal speech merely, but of the instruction of which it is the natural and common instru ment. As tropical parallels, Lowth refers to Pindar's frequent description of his verses as darts, but especially to the famous panegyric of Eupolis on Pericles, that he alone of the orators left a sting in those who heard him (povog T£>V Pjjrdgwv TO x'iVTPov syxaTiXitTTi TO?; ax.poco/isvo/;). — In the shadow of his hand he hid me. It has been made a question whether in the shadow of his hand means in his hand or under it; and if the latter, whether there is re ference to the usual position of the sword-belt, or to the concealment of the drawn sword or dagger under the arm or in the sleeve. Most interpreters, however, prefer the obvious sense, in the protection of his hand, or rather in its darkness, since the reference is not so much to safely as to conceal ment. Thus understood, the figure is appropriate not only to the personal Messiah, but to the ancient church, as his precursor and representative, in which high character it was not known for ages to the nations. — And he placed me for (that is, rendered me, or, used me as) a polished arrow. This is the parallel expression to the first member of the other clause. What is there called a sword is here an arrow. The essential idea is of course the same, viz. that of penetrating power, but perhaps with an ad ditional allusion to the directness of its aim and the swiftness of its flight. The common version shaft is not entirely accurate, the Hebrew word denot ing strictly the metallic head of the arrow. The Septuagint gives "W12 the sense of chosen or elect, which is retained by Vitringa ; but most inter preters prefer the sense of polished, which is near akin to that of sharpened, sharp. — In his quiver he has hid me. This is the corresponding image to the hiding in the shadow of God's hand. It is still more obvious in this case that the main idea meant to be conveyed is not protection but conceal ment. The archer keeps the arrow in his quiver not merely that it may be safe, but that it may be ready for use and unobserved until it is used.

8. And he (Jehovah) said to me, Thou art my servant, i. e. my instru ment or agent constituted such for a specific and important purpose. In this same character both Israel and the Messiah have before been introduced. There is therefore the less reason for giving any other than the strict sense to the words which follow, Israel in whom I ivill be glorified or glorify myself. The version I will glory seems inadequate, and not sufficiently

sustained by usage. Gesenius, unable to reconcile this form of address with the hypothesis that the speaker is Isaiah or the Prophets as a class, proposes in his commentary what had been before proposed by J. D. Michaelis, to expunge the word?K^* as spurious; a desperate device which he abandons in the second edition of his version, and adopts the opinion of Umbreit, that the Israel of this passage is the chosen people as a whole, or with respect to its better portion. The other devices, which have been adopted for the purpose of evading this difficulty, although not BO violent, are equally unfounded. E. a. " It is Israel in whom I will be glorified by thee." " Thou art an Israelite indeed, or a genuine descendant of Israel." Another gratuitous hypothesis is that of a sudden apostrophe to Israel after addressing the Messiah or the Prophet. The only supposi tion which adheres to the natural and obvious meaning of the sentence, and yet agrees with the context, is the first above mentioned, viz. that of com plex subject including the Messiah and his people, or the body with its head.

4. And I said, in opposition or reply to what Jehovah said. The pro noun in Hebrew, being not essential to the sense, is emphatic. In vain (or for a vain tiling, i. e. an unattainable object) hare I toiled. The Hebrew word suggests the idea of exhaustion and weariness. — For empti ness and vanity my strength have I consumed. But my right is u'ith Jehovah and my work tvith my God. ^?V? is no doubt here used in the same sense as in chap. xl. 10, viz. that of recompence, work being put for its result or its equivalent. If so, it is altogether probable that ''PS^P here means that to which I have a right or am entitled, that is to say in this connection, my reward or recompence. This explanation of the term is certainly more natural than that which makes it mean my cause, my suit, as this needlessly introduces a new figure, viz. that of litigation over and above that of labour or service for hire. This clause is universally explained as an expression of strong confidence that God would make good what was wanting, by bestowing the reward which had not yet been realised. With therefore means in his possession, and at his disposal. The next verse shews that the failure here complained of is a failure to accomplish the great work before described, viz. that of converting the world.

5. And now, saith Jehovah, my maker (or u-ho formed me) from the womb, for a servant to himself, i. e. to be his servant in the sense before explained.

The now may be here taken either in its temporal or logical sense. — To convert (or bring back] Jacob to him. This cannot mean to restore from exile; for how could this work be ascribed directly cither to the Prophet or the Prophets, or to the Messiah, or to Israel himself? It might indeed apply to C}Trus, but the whole context is at war with such an explanation. All that is left, then, is to give the verb the sense of bringing back to a state of allegiance from one of alienation and revolt. But how could Jacob or Israel be said to bring himself back? This is the grand objection to the assumption that the servant of Jehovah was Israel himself. In order to evade it, Rosenmiiller and Hitzig deny that 221£>7 is dependent on the words immediately preceding, and refer it to Jehovah himself, that he might bring back Jacob to himself. But this construction, not an obvious or natural one in itself, if here assumed, must be repeated again and again in the following verses, where it is still more strained and inappropriate. Nor is it necessary even here, to justify the reference of the passage to Israel, which may be effected by assuming a coincident reference to the Messiah, as^the head of the body, and as such conspicuously active in restoring

Israel itself to God. — This is one of the cases where the idea of the head predominates above that of the body, because they are related to each other as the subject and object of one and the same action. The vocation of Israel was to reclaim the nations; that of the Messiah was first to reclaim Israel himself and then the nations. — In the next clause there is an ancient variation of the text, preserved in the Kethib and Keri of the Masora. The marginal emendation is i? to him, which many modern interpreters prefer, and make it for the most part a dependent clause, to restore Jacob to him, and that Israel may lie gathered to him. In the sentence construed thus, it might seem strange that different propositions should be used in the two parallel members, and that V? should stand before the verb instead of closing the phrase as V7X does. But these might be considered trivial points, were it not that the marginal reading is so easily accounted for, as an attempt to remove the difficulties of the older text, in which the K? has its natural and necessary place before the verb. Luther, adhering to the textual reading, gives the verb an unfavourable sense, that Israel may not be snatched away or carried off. But most of those who retain the old reading give the verb the favourable sense of gathering that which is dispersed. Some then read the clause as an interrogation, shall not Israel be gathered? Others as a concession, although Israel be not gathered. Others as a simple affirmation in the present tense, and (yet) Israel is not gathered. All that is needed to give this last the preference is the substitution of the future for the pre sent, after which the whole verse may be paraphrased as follows: Thus saith Jehovah, who formed me from the womb as a servant for himself, to restore Jacob to him, and (yet) Israel will not be gathered — and (yet) I shall be honoured in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God has (already) been my strength. The first yet introduced to shew the true connection is equivalent to saying, though I was called and raised up for this purpose; the other is equivalent to saying, although Israel will not be gathered. This last phrase may be taken as a simple prediction that they should not be gathered, or a declaration that they would not (consent to) be gathered. This last, if not expressed, is implied. — The translation of VV as meaning my praise is entirely gratuitous and hurtful to the sense, which is, that God has sus tained him notwithstanding the apparent failure of his mission. The general meaning of the verse is that Messiah and his people should be honoured in the sight of God, although the proximate design of their mis sion, the salvation of the literal Israel, might seem to fail.

G. And he said. This does not introduce anew discourse or declaration, but resumes the construction which had been interrupted by the parenthetic clauses of the foregoing verse. It is in fact a repetition of the nin* "VOX at the beginning of that verse. And now saith Jehovah (who formed me from the womb to be a servant to himself, 1° r6store Jacob to him, and yet Israel will not be gathered, and yet / shall be honoured in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God has been my strength) — he said or says as follows. It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant. The original form of expression is so purely idiomatic, that it cannot be retained in Eng lish. According to the usual analogy, the Hebrew words would seem to mean it is lighter than thy being my servant; but this can be resolved into it is too light for thee to be my servant, with at least as much ease as a hundred other formulas, the sense of which is obvious, however difficult it may be to account for the expression. Hitzig's assertion, therefore, that it is at variance with the laws of thought and language, though adopted by

Gesenius in his Thesaurus, is not only arbitrary but absurd, as it assumes the possibility of ascertaining and determining these laws independently of actual usage. The most that can be said with truth is that the form of expression is anomalous and rare, though not unparalleled, as may be seen by a comparison of this verse with Ezek. viii. 17. The sense, if it were doubtful in itself, would be clear from the context, which requires this to be taken as a declaration that it was not enough for the Messiah (and the people as his representative) to labour for the natural descendants of Abra ham, but he and they must have a wider field. — Thy being to me a servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and the preserved of Israel to restore. This form of expression shews very clearly that in this and the parallel passages sen-ant is not used indefinitely but in the specific sense of an appointed instrument or agent to perform a certain work. That work is here the raising up of Jacob, a phrase which derives light from the parallel expres sion, to restore the preserved of Israel, i. e. to raise them from a state of degradation, and to restore them from a state of estrangement. A specific reference to restoration from the Babylonish exile would be gratuitous; much more the restriction of the words to that event, which is merely included as a signal instance of deliverance and restoration in the general. The textual reading 'TV? appears to be a verbal adjective occurring no where else, and therefore exchanged by the Masoretic critics for the passive participle '!>1S|>. J. D. Michaelis, more ingeniously than wisely, makes TV? synonymous with T£) (chap. xi. 1) a shoot or sprout, and gives to B3$ the corresponding sense of a twig or branch — the shoots of Jacob and the twigs of Israel. All other writers seems to take the latter in its usual sense of tribe, and the other in that of preserved — meaning the elect or "^'such as should be saved." — And I hare given thee for a light of the Gentiles (as in chap. xlii. 6), to be my salvation even to the end of the earth. This, according to the English idiom, would seem to mean that thou mayest be my salvation, &c. ; but Hebrew usage equally admits of the inter pretation, that my salvation may be (i. e. extend) to the end of the earth, which is in fact preferred by most interpreters. The meaning of this verse is not, as some suppose, that the heathen should be given to him in ex change and compensation for the unbelieving Jews, but that his mission to the latter was, from the beginning, but a small part of his high vocation. The application of this verse by Paul and Barnabas, in their address to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 47) is very important, as a confirma tion of the hypothesis assumed above, that the person here described is not the Messiah exclusively, but that his people are included in the subject of the description. — " It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. FOR so HATH THE LORD COMMANDED us (saying), I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." Although this, as Hengstenberg observes, is not irreconcilable with the exclusive Messianic explanation of the verse before us, its agreement with the wider explanation is too striking to be deemed fortuitous.

7. Thus saith Jehovah, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to the heartily despised, to the nation exciting abhorrence. The two epithets in this clause are exceedingly obscure and difficult. ""IT? has been variously explained as an infinitive, a passive participle, and an adjective in the con struct state, which last is adopted by Gesenius and most later writers ; &$}. is commonly explained as meaning men, chiefly because the parallel expression

in Ps. xxii. 7 is &V V1T3- Another explanation takes it in its proper sense of

svrd, and understands it to qualify nt|, as meaning despised from the soul,

ex amimo. (Compare ^? '3$, Ps.'xvii. 9.) The meaning wen belongs

to the word only in certain cases, chiefly those in which we use the same

expression, not a soul, forty souls, poor soul, &c. No one, from this

English usage, would infer that hated by souls meant hated by persons.—

The other epithet is still more difficult, as it is necessary to determine

whether 2J>np has its usual sense, and whether M3 is its subject or its

object. Whom the nation abhorreth, who abhorreth the nation, who excites

the abhorrence of the nation, the nation which excites abhorrence, — all these

are possible translations of the Hebrew words, among which interpreters

choose.according to their different views respecting the whole passage. In

any case it is descriptive of deep abasement and general contempt, to be

exchanged hereafter for an opposite condition. — To a servant of rulers, one

who has hitherto been subject to them but is now to receive their homage.

—Kinys shall see (not him or them, but it, viz. that which is to happen) and

rise up (as a token of respect), princes (shall see) and bow themselves. ' It is

an ingenious thought of Hitzig, though perhaps too refined, that kings,

being usually seated in the presence of others, are described as rising from

their thrones ; while princes and nobles, who usually stand in the presence

of their sovereigns, are described as falling prostrate. — For the sake of

Jehovah who is faithful, (to his promises), the Hohj One of Israel, and he

hath chosen thee, or in our idiom, icho hath chosen thee. This last clause not

only ascribes the promised change to the power of God, but represents it

as intended solely to promote his glory.

8. Thus saith Jehovah, In a time of favour have I heard (or answered) thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee. The common version, an acceptable time, does not convey the sense of the original, which signifies a suitable or appointed time for shewing grace or favour. The object of address is still the Messiah and his people, whose great mission is again described. And I will keep thee, and will give thee for a covenant of the people, i. e. of men in general (see above, chap. xlii. 7), to raise up the earth or world from its present state of ruin, and to cause to inherit the desolate heritages, the moral wastes of heathenism. There is allusion to the divi sion of the land by Joshua. Here again we have clear apostolical authority for applying this description to the church, or people of God, as the Body of which Christ is the Head. Paul says to the Corinthians, " We then as workers together (with him) beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee." What follows is no pail of the quotation but Paul's comment on it. " Behold, now is the accepted time ; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2 Cor. vi. 2.) This, taken in connection with the citation of ver. 6 in Acts xiii. 47, precludes the sup position of an accidental or unmeaning application of this passage to the people or ministers of Christ as well as to himself.

9. To say to those bound, Come forth ; to (those) who (are) in darkness, Be revealed (or shew yourselves), "ibs1? might here be taken in its usual sense after verbs of speaking, viz. that of saying; but it seems more natural to make it a correlative of the infinitives D'pn1? and ^t^n1? to raise up — tn cause to inherit— to say. Gesenius paraphrases rather than trans lates -1?|n, come to the liijht '; which is carefully copied by his later imita tors as a faithful version.— On the u-ays (or roads) they shall feed, and in

is any valid reason for departing from the ancient and customary supposition that the four points of the compass, or at least four quarters or directions, are distinctly mentioned. This leads me, in the third place, to observe that the objection which the missionary makes to this hypothesis, apart from the question of accentuation, is an insufficient one. He objects to Vitringa's explanation of the phrase from afar as meaning from the east (and the same objection would, by parity of reasoning, apply to the explanation of it as denoting from the south), that afar does not mean the east, and is not elsewhere used to denote it. But what Vitringa means to say is, not that afar means the east, but simply that it here supplies its place. If any one, in numbering the points of the compass, should, instead of a complete enu meration, say the north, south, east, and so on, his obvious meaning could not well be rendered doubtful by denying that and so on ever means the west. It is not the words themselves, but the place which they occupy, and their relation to the rest of the sentence, that suggests rather than expresses the idea. So here the north, the west, the land of Sinim, and afar, may denote the four points of the compass, although not so explicitly as in the case supposed, because in that before us we have not merely one doubtful point, but two, if not three; and also because the one most dubious (from afar] is not at the end like and so on, but at the beginning. Still it seems most natural, when four distinct local designations are given, one of which is certainly, another almost certainly, and a third most probably indicative of particular quarters or directions, to conclude that the fourth is so used likewise, however vague it may be in itself, and however situated in the sentence. The presumption thus created is confirmed by the fact, that the hypothesis of only three divisions admits that the whole earth was meant to be included; and it thus becomes a question, which is most agreeable to general usage, and to that of Scripture in particular, a threefold or a fourfold distribution of the earth in such connexions? If the latter, then analogy is strongly in favour of the common supposition that the first clause is not co-extensive with the other, but contains the first of four particulars enume rated. Over and above this argument, derived from the usual distinction of four points or quarters, there is another furnished by the usage of the pronoun these, when repeated so as to express a distributive idea. In all such cases, these and these means some and others; nor is there probably a single instance in which the first these comprehends the whole, while the others divide it into parts. This would be just as foreign from the Hebrew idiom as it is from ours to say, " Some live in Europe, some in France, some in Holland," when we mean that some live in Holland, some in France, and all in Europe. The proposed construction would be altogether natural, if fi?N were omitted in the first clause; but its presence cannot be accounted for, if that clause is inclusive of the other. That the distributive use of the demonstrative is not confined to two such pronouns only, may be seen from chap. xliv. 5, where the singular HT is twice repeated, just as the plural n?N is here, and in a connection which admits of no doubt as to the distributive import of all three. — From all this, it seems to follow that the verse most probably contains the customary distribution of the earth or heavens into four great quarters, and that one of these is designated by the phrase from afar. Which one is so described, can only be determined by determining the true sense of the other three. The missionary in China is therefore perfectly correct in setting aside all arguments against his own opinion, founded on the supposition that/row afar must mean the south or the east. The expression is so vague, that it must be determined by the others, and

cannot therefore be employed to determine them, without reasoning in a vicious circle. This serves to shew that the question, after all, is of no great exegetical importance, since in either case the same conclusion may be reached. It is always best, however, to adhere to the more obvious and usual construction of a passage, in the absence of decisive reasons for depart ing from it. Assuming, then, that four points are mentioned, and that the first (from afar) can only be determined by determining the others, let us now attempt to do so. One of these (the nortty is undisputed; for although interpreters may differ as to its precise bounds and extent, its relative posi tion is unquestionably fixed by the usage of the Hebrew word. Another term, which most interpreters, and among the rest the missionary in China, seem to look upon as equally settled and beyond dispute, is more ambiguous than they imagine, and has recently received a very difl'erent explanation. This is D', which strictly means the sea, but is often used for urxt, because on that side Palestine is naturally bounded by the Mediterranean. Hitzig, however, very confidently says that here, and in Ps. ciii. 7, where it is put in opposition to the north, D* means the south sea, and as a term of geo graphy, the south. This is not mentioned as having any probability, of which it is entirely destitute, because the geographical import of the term is not to be decided by the parallelism or the context in any given case, but by the predominant usage, which determines it to mean the west, and so it is explained both by the oldest and the latest writers. Having two points thus determined, we are sure that the two which remain must be the east and south; and as we have already seen that /row afar, from its vagueness, must receive but cannot give light, we have now to ascertain, if possible, in which of these directions lay the land of Siin'm. The discrepancy of the versions as to these concluding words is remarkable, and shews the doubt in which the subject was involved at a very early period. The missionary in China makes an observation on this difference which is less just than inge nious, viz. that no one of the authors of these versions seems to have regarded his own country as the Land of Sinim; " for it can scarcely be supposed," says he, " that the authors of a version living in the very country referred to, should so utterly fail of perceiving it, as to give the preference to other lands." It is not easy to perceive, however, why the same causes that have made the prophecy obscure to others, should not make it equally obscure to the people of the country meant, especially if the name used was intended to be enigmatical, as some interpreters suppose. Indeed, by parity of reasoning, it would seem to follow that if the author of the Septuagint Version had supposed it to be Egypt, this would have decided the question. But although this observation does not seem entitled to any in fluence upon the exegesis, the difference between the ancient versions, as well as the commentators of all ages, is still very remarkable. Without attempt ing to enumerate all the explanations, it will not be amiss to give some samples of the different classes. Some would seem to be mere conjectural inferences from the context. Thus the Targum and Vulgate make it mean the land of the south, or southern land, assuming, no doubt, that from afar must mean the east, and that the south alone remained to be supplied. Proceeding on the contrary hypothesis, that from afar must mean the south, the Septuagint puts the Land of Sinim in the east, but gives it the specific sense of Persia, which appears to be entirely arbitrary. The same thing may be said of Matthew Henry's notion, that the Land of Sinim was a Babylonian province. As a specimen of fanciful interpretation, may be given Adam Clarke's suggestion, that as TP means a bush, D^'p may

mean bushes, woods, or a woody country, and be bere used to denote tbe region occupied by tbe descendants of tbe ten tribes, perbaps in West Africa or North America! Dismissing these gratuitous conjectures, we may now confine ourselves to those interpretations which have some foun dation or appearance of it either in philology or history. Among these may be mentioned, first, the supposition that the land of Sinim is the country of the Sinites spoken of in Gen. x. 17, and 1 Chron. i. 15. But why should a Canaanitish tribe of no importance, and which nowhere reappears in history, be here made to represent the four quarters of tbe globe? This question becomes still more difficult to answer when it is added that the Sinites must have been immediately adjacent to the land of Israel, and on the north side which is separately mentioned. Grotius indeed transfers them to the south side, but by sheer mistake, and for the purpose of connecting them with tbe wilderness of Sin and Mount Sinai, which are wholly distinct from it. Jerome and Jarchi also understand tbe Land of Sinini to be the wilderness of Sin or the peninsula of Sinai, but without identifying these with the country of the Canaanitish Sinites, as Grotius does. To their opinion the decisive objection is not the one which the missionary in China draws from the difference of name and from the plural form Sinim. That " there were not two deserts of Sin," proves no more than in this case than the assertion that there were not two Hernions proves against the application of the plural Hcrmonim to that mountain in Ps. xlii. 7. If a mountain might be so called, why not a desert? And if Hermouim means Hermonites, why may not Sinim mean Sinites. This question is especially appropriate, because the author gives no explanation of tbe plural form, upon his own hypothesis. But although the objection is invalid, the other which the author urges is conclusive, that Sinai and tbe wilderness of Sin were too near and too limited to be employed in this connection. Another explanation founded on analogy of names is that of Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Bochart, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, and Ewald, that the land of Sinim is the land of Egypt, so called from Sijene, as Michaelis supposes, or from Sin, i. e. Pelusium, mentioned under that name by Ezekiel (xxx. 15, 16) as maintained by Bochart, Vitringa, and Ewald. Here again it seems unfair to argue, with the missionary in China from the plural form of the Hebrew name; for if, as he observes, it is merely fanci ful to refer it to the old geographical distinction of Upper and Lower Egypt, is it not more than fanciful to refer it to China where there is no such distinction to account for it at all! If it be said, that Sinim means the Chinese, it may just as easily be said that it means the Egyptians. There is no force therefore in the argument from this peculiarity in form, any more than in the argument which the missionary in China himself admits to be here inapplicable, that Egypt was not sufficiently important to be made the representative of one great quarter. As little weight attaches to his argument that this interpretation of the name would make the distribu tion too unequal; for as he adjusts the limits of the north and even of the land of Sinim at discretion, there is no sufficient reason why the same thing might not be done with Sinim if it did mean Egypt. The really decisive ground, assumed by the same writer, is that Egypt, notwithstanding its extent and historical importance, was too near at hand to suit the context, which requires a remote land to be here meant, whetheryro??i afar be taken as a general description or as a distinct specification. Another strong objection is that no cause can be shewn, from analogy or otherwise, for the designation of this well-known country, in this one place only, by a name

derived from one of its cities, and that not of the first rank. The only remaining explanation, which will be referred to, is that the land of Siuim is China, as maintained by Manasseh Ben Israel, Montanus, Calmet, Gesenius, Winer, Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, Umbreit, Heudewerk, Knobel, and Beck. An objection to this interpretation is suggested to some minds by its resemblance to an etymological conceit founded merely on an assonance of names. It was probably this prejudice which caused it to be spoken of with such contempt by Grotius, Clericus, and Vitringa. But in modern times, the current has completely changed, and this despised notion has been warmly espoused not only by the most distinguished writers on Isaiah (Rosenmiiller and Ewald being almost the only exceptions in the German School), but by the most eminent comparative philologists, such as Laugles, Lassen, and others, who have investigated the question as one of historical and literary interest. The only plausible objections which are still urged against it may be reduced to two. The first is that China was unknown to the Jews at the date of the prophecy. To this it may be answered, first, that no one who believes in the inspiration of the prophets, can refuse to admit the possibility of such a prediction, even if the fact wrere so; arid secondly, that in all probability China was known to the Jews at a very early period, The rashness of asserting a negative in such cases has been clearly proved by the modern discovery of porcelain vessels with Chinese inscriptions in the monuments of Thebes. But it is still objected, that the name Xinim is not that used by the Chinese themselves, nor by other nations until long after the date of this prophecy, it having been derived from a family which did not ascend the throne until about 246 years before the birth of Christ. It is remarkable how readily this date in Chinese history is taken for granted as undoubtedly correct by those who wish to use it for an argument, although it rests upon a dark and dubious tradition of a distant unknown country; although the very text before" us makes it doubtful; although the universal prevalence of the name Sin, Chin or Jin, throughout western and southern Asia from time immemorial presupposes an antiquity still more remote; and although Chinese historians themselves record that the family from which the name derives its origin, for ages before it ruled the empire ruled a province or kingdom on the western frontier, whence the name might easily have been extended to the western nations. There arc in fact few cases of a name being more extensively or longer prevalent than that of China, the very form which it exhibits in the Sanscrit, the mother language of southern Asia. That the Chinese them selves have never used it, although acquainted with it, is nothing to the purpose. A Hebrew writer would of course use the name familiar in the west of Asia. This universal name is allowed to be essentially identical with I'D by the highest philological authorities. There is therefore no conclusive force in either of the arguments advanced against this explana tion of the name. As positive reasons on the other side, besides the main one drawn from the coincidence of name, may be mentioned the agreement of so many different and independent writers, and the appropriateness of the explanation to the context. Under the first head may be classed precisely those philologists whose peculiar studies best entitle them to speak with authority on such a point, and those German commentators on Isaiah, who are most accustomed to differ among themselves and with the older writers, especially where anything is likely to be added by a proposed interpretation to the strength of revelation or rather to the clear ness of its evidences. Prejudice and interest would certainly have led this

class of writers to oppose rather than favour a hypothesis which tends to identify the subject of this prophecy with China, the great object of mis sionary effort at the present day. — The other confirmation is afforded by the suitableness of the sense thus evolved to the connection. If the land of Sinim meant the wilderness of Sin or even Egypt, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give a satisfactory solution of its singular position here as one of the great quarters or divisions of the world. But if it mean China, that extreme limit of the eastern world, that hive of nations, supposed to comprehend a third part of the human race, the enigma explains itself. Even to us there would be nothing unintelligible or absurd, however strange or novel, in the combination, north, west, south, and China. On the whole, then, a hypothesis which solves all difficulties, satisfies the claims of philology and history, unites the suffrages of the most independent schools and parties, fully meets the requisitions of the text and context, and opens a glorious field of expectation and of effort to the church, inny be safely regarded as the true one. For an interesting view of the extent to which the promise has already been fulfilled, and of the encouragements to hope and pray for its entire consummation, the reader is referred to the little book of which we have so frequently made mention, although our citations have been necessarily confined to the first or expository chapter, the remaining four being occupied with the fulfilment of the prophecy.

13. Shout, 0 heavens, and rejoice, 0 earth, let tlie mountains burst into a shout ; because Jehovah has comforted his people, and on his sufferers he will have mercy. This is a very common method with Isaiah of foretelling any joyful change by summoning all nature to exult in it as already realised. See especially chap. xliv. 23, where instead of the future -iny?? we have the imperative -inys, in imitation of which the Keri here reads •'inys-l, and Lowth simply -iny? on the authority of two or three manuscripts and the ancient versions. There is of course no sufficient reason for departing from the ancient reading still preserved in the text. — Jehovah's consolation of his people, as Gesenius observes, is administered by deed as well as by word. (Compare chaps, li. 3, 12, Hi. 9, Ixvi. 13, Luke ii. 25, 38.) The consolation here meant is the joyous assemblage of his people from all parts of the earth, predicted in the foregoing verse. The modern writers render both the preterite and future in the last clause by the present (comforts, has mercy) ; which is not only arbitrary but injurious to the force of the expres sion, which describes the consolation as both past and future, that is to say, as already begun and still to be continued ; unless the change of tense be designed to intimate, that what is vividly described in the preceding words as past, is really still future. — "^V, which is commonly translated in the English Bible poor, is here rendered more correctly afflicted. The expres sion his afflicted, intimates at once their previous condition and their inti mate relation to the Lord as their protector.

14. And (yet) Zion said, Jehovah hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me. So far was this glorious change from having been procured

by confidence in God, that Zion thought herself forsaken and forgotten. Those who restrict these prophecies to the Babylonish exile, are compelled to understand this either of the captive inhabitants of Zion, as distinguished from the other exiles, or of Jerusalem itself, complaining of its desolation. But the former distinction is as arbitrary here as in chap. xl. 9, and the long argumentative expostulation which ensues would be absurd if addressed to the bare walls of an empty town. The only satisfactory conclusion is, that Zion or Jerusalem is mentioned as the capital of Israel, the centre of the

true religion, the earthly residence of God himself, aiid therefore an appropviuU' and natural emblem of his chosen people or the ancient church, just as we speak of the corruptions or spiritual tyranny of Home, meaning not the city, but the great ecclesiastical society or corporation which it repre sents, and of which it is the centre. — The translation Zion says, although not uugrammatical, is less appropriate here, because it represents the church as still complaining; whereas the original describes her previous unbelief, before the event, or before the truth of the promise had been guaranteed. It is worthy of remark that the same translators who make the first verb present give the other two their proper past sense, a diversity admissible in case of necessity, but not without it.

15. Will a woman forget her suckling , from having mercy, (i. e. so as not to have mercy) on the son of her womb? Ako (or even) these will fori/at, and I will not forget thee. The constancy of God's affection for his people is expressed by the strongest possible comparison derived from human in stincts. There is a climax in the thought, if not in the expression. What is indirectly mentioned as impossible in one clause, is declared to be real in the other. He first declares that he can no more forget them than a woman can forget her child, he then rises higher and declares that he is still more mindful of them than a mother. The future verb at the begin ning implies, without expressing a potential sense, If she will, she can ; if she cannot, then of course she will not. For the negative use of the pre position IP, see above, on chap. xliv. 18. — ]P3 might seem to have the general sense of body, as we find it applied to males in Job xix. 17, Alicah vi. 7. — The precise force of the 23 is this : not only strangers but also mothers ; it may therefore be correctly expressed by even. Most inter preters make the first part of the last clause conditional, and Gcsenius even understands 2J as an ellipsis for '? 23 although. (See chap. i. 15.) But this is not so much a version as a paraphrase, a substitution of equi valent expressions. There is no need of departing from the obvious meaning of the Prophet's language, which is not hypothetical but cate gorical. He does not say that if or though a woman could forget her child he would not follow her example, but asserts directly that she can and will, and puts this fact in contrast with his own unwavering constancy. The plural in the last clause, like the singular in the first, denotes the whole class. He does not say that all mothers thus forget their children, nor that mothers generally do so, but that such oblivion is not unknown to the experience of mothers as a class, or of woman as an ideal individual. The primitive simplicity with which the Hebrew idiom employs the simple copulative and, where we feel the strongest adversative expression to be necessary, really adds to the force of the expression, when it is once under stood and familiar. The and may be retained, and yet the antithesis expressed in English by supplying yet : and (yet) I will not forget thee.

16. Behold, on (my) palms I have graven thee ; thy walls (are) before me continually. Paulus understands the first clause as meaning, upon (thi/) hands I have graven (i. e. branded, marked) thee, as belonging to me. Gesenius seems to object to this construction of the suffix with the verb, although precisely similar to that of i"V 2fi?? in chap. xliv. 5, as explained by himself. His other objection is a better one, viz. that such an explana tion of the first clause makes the second almost unmeaning. Doderlein explains it to mean, with (my) hands I have sketched (or drawn) thee, in allu sion to a builder's draught or plan before he enter on the work of construc tion. (Compare Exod. xxv. 40, 1 Chrou. xxviii. 11, 19.) But this use of

the preposition 7JJ has no authority in usage, and the palms of the hands would not be mentioned as the instruments in such a process. Vitringa avoids both these objections by supposing the plan or picture to be drawn upon Jehovah's hands, because there would be something incongruous in representing him as using paper or a table. The Dutch taste of this excellent interpreter lets him go the length of adding that the divine hands are to be conceived of as large, and allowing ample room for such a delineation as the one supposed. The true sense of the Prophet's figure seems to be the one expressed by Gesenius and other modern writers, who suppose him to allude, not to a picture or a plan of Zion, but her name imprinted on his hands for a memo rial, as the ancient slave and soldier wore his master's name, but for a differ ent purpose. (See above, on chap. xliv. 5.) The use of the word palms implies a double inscription and in an unusual position, chosen with a view to its being constantly in sight. The idea of a picture was suggested by the other clause, considered as a parallel expression of the same thing as the first. Thy walls, i. c. the image of thy walls upon my hands. But this is not necessarily or certainly the true relation of the clauses, which may be con sidered, not as parts of the same image, but as two distinct images of one and the same thing. The essential idea, I will not forget thee, may be first expressed by saying, I will write thy name upon my hands, and then by saying, I will keep thy walls constantly before me, i. e. in my sight and memory. (See Psa. xvi. 8, Isa. xxxviii. 13, and p. 83.) — The mention of the walls is no proof that Zion is mentioned merely as a city, since the image of a city is the proximate object here presented, even if the object which symbolizes be the church or chosen people.

' 17. Thy sons hasten (to thee) ; thy destroyers and thy wasters shall go out from thee. This is the proof that God had not forsaken her. Rosenmiiller follows the older writers in translating the first verb as a future, which is. wholly arbitrary. Gesenius and others render both the first and last verb in the present tense. The true construction, as in many other cases, seems to be that which represent the process as begun but not complete. Already had her sons begun to hasten to her, and ere long her enemies should be entirely departed. The Septuagint, Targum, and Vulgate, seem to read, instead of thy sons (U^S), thy builders (r\^, which differs from it only in a single vowel, and agrees well with the parallel expression, destroyers, lite rally pullers down. Lowth amends the text accordingly; but Vitringa, Gesenius, and the later writers, adhere to the Masoretic pointing, on account of its agreement with the thoughts and words of vers. 20-22. — By wasters and destroyers Vitringa understands internal enemies; Gesenius, foreign oppressors; Knobel, the strangers who had taken possession of Jerusalem and the rest of the country, which, as he acknowledges, it here represents. The natural interpretation of the words is that which understands them as containing simply an emphatic contrast between friends and foes, the latter taking their departure, and the former coming into possession.

18. Lift up thine eyes round about and see, all of them are gathered to gether, they are come to thee. (As) Hive, saith Jehovah, (I swear} that all of them as an ornament thou shalt put on, and bind (or gird} them like the bride. The sons, described in ver. 17 as rapidly approaching, are now in sight, and their mother is invited to survey them, by lifting up her eyes round about, i. e. in all directions, with allusion to their coming from the four points of the compass, as predicted in ver. 12. The common version of D?3, all these, seems to introduce a new subject. The strict translation, all of them, refers to what precedes, and means all the sons who are described in the first clause of ver. 17 as hastening to her. They are now already gathered, i. e. met together at the point to which they tended from BO many distinct quarters. They come to tliee is an inadequate translation. The true sense is that they arc actually come, i. e. arrived. — In the second clause, the '? may correspond to the Greek or/ after verbs of speaking, or retain its ordinary sense with an ellipsis of / sirear before it. The formula of swearing here used strictly means, / (am) alive (or living), and is itself equivalent to I swear in English. — The sons are then compared to orna ments of dress, which the mother girds or binds upon her person. At the end Lowth inserts HY? in the text from chap. Ixi. 10. But this is wholly unnecessary, as the same idea is suggested by the more concise expressions of the common text, which Lowth is utterly mistaken in supposing to describe the bride as binding children round her ; for, as Doderleiu correctly says, the point of comparison between the type and antitype is not children but decoration. As a bride puts on her ornaments, so thou shalt be adorned with thy children.

19. For thy ruins, and thy wastes, and thy land of desolation (i. e. thy desolated land) for now thou shalt be too narrow for the inhabitant, and far off shall be thy devourcrs (those who swallow thee up). The general mean ing of this verse is evident, although the construction is obscure. Most writers take the nouns at the beginning as absolute nominatives, i.e. agree ing with no verb expressed. As for thy ivastex, &c. thou shalt le too narrow. But this still leaves the double *? to be accounted for, which Rosenmiiller supposes to depend upon the verb / swear, as in ver. 18, and to signify that. Maurer regards the second as a pleonastic or emphatic repetition not belonging to the regular construction. Others give it the supposititious sense of certainly or surely. Beck makes the first clause mean, ' thy ruins and thy wastes, and thy desolations, shall exist no longer ; but this requires another verb to be supplied or understood. Perhaps the best solution is the one proposed by Hitzig, who supposes the construction to be interrupted and resumed : For thy wastes, and thy ruins, and thy land of desolation — (then beginning anew, without completing the first sentence) — for thou shalt be too narrow, &c. This mode of composition, not unlike what appears in the first draft of any piece of writing till obliterated by correction, is com paratively frequent in the ancient writers, not excepting some of the highest classical models, though proscribed as inelegant and incorrect by the fasti dious rules of modern rhetoric. This explanation of the double *? makes it unnecessary to assume an absolute nominative in the first clause. Knobel carries Hitzig's hypothesis too far when he assumes an actual ellipsis of the same verb in the first clause — ^VP (derived by Ewald from "ny, by Gesenius from the cognate and synonymous "IVJ) can only be second person feminine. The common version, therefore, which refers it to the land, although it gives substantially the true sense, is grammatically incorrect. — For the inhabitant is literally from the inhabitant, the Hebrew preposition being here used as 1 Kings xix. 7. — Knobel supposes the connection of the clauses to be this, that there would not be room even for the rightful pos sessors, much less for strangers and enemies. For the application of the verb J??2 to enemies, see Lam. ii. 2, 5. — The devourers of this verse are of course the destroyers of ver. 17.

20. Again (or still) shall they say in thine ears, the sons of thy childless ness, (Too) narrow for me is the place ; come near for me, and I will dwell (or that 1 may dwell). The 1W may simply indicate that something more is to be said than had been said before, in which case it is nearly equivalent to over and above this or moreover. Or it may have its true sense as a particle of time, and intimate that these words shall be uttered more than once, again and again, or still, i. e. continually, as the necessity becomes more urgent. The relative position of the verb and its subject is retained in the translation, as it causes no obscurity, and exhibits more exactly the characteristic form of the original. Jarchi explains the sons of tliy childlessness to mean the sons of whom thou wast bereaved, referring to the exiled Jews. The later writers more correctly make it mean the sons of tliee a childless one, or, thy sons, 0 childless one. The apparent contra diction is intentional, as appears from what follows. She who was deemed by others, and who deemed herself, a childless mother, hears the voices of her children complaining that they have not a sufficient space to dwell in. — In thy ears means in thy hearing, although not addressed to thee. (Compare 2 Sam. xviii. 12.) Even in chap. v. 9, the idea seems to be not merely that of hearing, but of overhearing. That the same thing is intended in the case before us, may be gathered from the masculine HDO, which shews that they shall say does not mean they shall say to thee, but they shall say to one another. Bosenmiiller explains IV as an adjective ; but usage and authority determine it to be a verb, the contracted form of T!¥> here used in precisely the same sense as the future of the same verb or a cognate root in the preceding verse. The idea of excess (nimis, too] is not expressed as in that case, but implied, the strict translation being simply this, the place is narrow for me. — All interpreters agree that vTI'^a. means make room for me, as rendered in the Septuagint (iroiqaov /AOI rc/Voi/) and the Vulgate (fac mihi spatium) ; but they differ in explaining how this sense may be extracted from the Hebrew words. Gesenius, as in many other cases, resorts to the easy supposition of a word inaccurately used to express directly opposite ideas, and explains the verb, both here and in Gen. xix. 9, as meaning to recede or move away from any one. But even if the general usage which he alleges to exist with respect to verbs of motion were more certain than it is, a serious difficulty in the way of its assumption here would be presented by the fact, that in every other case excepting these two (which may be regarded as identical) the verb means to come near or approach. Rosenmiiller adheres to the only sense authorised by usage, and explains the phrase to mean, Come near to me, that there may be more room. Maurer defends this explanation of the word (both here and in Gen. xix. 9) against the objections of Gesenius, but without replying to the main one, namely, that the sense thus given to the words is inappropriate, because the person speaking demands room not for others, but for himself, which he could not possibly secure by calling on his neighbour to come close to him. The whole difficulty seems to have arisen from assuming that Y means to me, and denotes the direction of the motion, in opposition to the fact that ? is never so used after t?J3, but always indicates the pur pose or design, not only when prefixed to the infinitive (as in Lev. xxi. 21, 2 Kings iv. 27), but also when prefixed to niprpP, the only noun with which it is connected after this verb, and with which it signifies not to the battle, but for battle, or to fiyht, being equivalent to an infinitive construction. The only cases, therefore, where the ? is thus used (Judges xx. 23, 2 Sam. x. 18, 1 Chron. xix. 14, Jer. xlvi. 3), are not even exceptions to the rule, but strong corroborations of the statement that this particle, when added to the verb, denotes the object for which, not the place to which, one approaches. This induction fully justifies the explanation of the phrase before us given by Jarchi, '• approach to one side for me or on my account"

p^ 75^ 3^y)t>) leaving the precise direction of the motion undeter mined, to express which the dominant usage of the language would require the preposition?^. The sense just given to */. (for me) is the more pro bable, because it is precisely that which it has in the first clause of this verse and the first clause of the next. — J. D. Michaelis and Ewald take i"l2ti'K in its primitive sense of sitting, rather than its secondary one of dwelling, which is preferred by most interpreters. The former version makes the passage still more graphic, by presenting the image of children contending for a seat, and calling on each other, in the presence of their mother, to make room. But even if we grant that there is nothing un worthy or incongruous in this conception, the hypothesis that it was here intended is precluded by the use of the participle 3|?V in the verse preced ing, where the sense of inhabitant is rendered necessary, by its close con nection with the nouns hind, wastes, and ruins.

21. And than shah say in thine heart, i.e. to thyself, in strict agreement with the preceding verse, as a dialogue not between the mother and her children, but between the children in their mother's hearing. This is con sequently not an answer to what goes before, but an observation uttered, as it were, aside by an eye and ear witness of the struggle and the clamour for more room. With them the question is, where they shall dwell ; with her it is, whence they came. — Who hath produced these for me? Interpreters have vexed themselves with the inquiry whether 1/J here means to bear or to beget, or, in other words, whether she is asking for the father or the mother of the children whom she sees around her. Vitriuga, Lowth, Gcsenius, Ewald, and Umbreit, who prefer the former sense, suppose an allusion to the conjugal relation of Jehovah to his people, and to the repudiation spoken of below in chap. 1. 1. But such allusion seems, in this connection, far fetched and unnatural. Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Knobel, choose the other sense, which is really the strict and common one, and here recommended by the fact, that the combination ? ~O\ is often applied elsewhere to the mother, but never to the father. This might be esteemed conclusive, but for two material points of difference between the cases cited and the one before us. The first is, that in these cases ? is followed by the name of the father, whereas here the speaker is supposed to be a woman. The other is, that in all those cases the verb itself is feminine, whereas here it is masculine. But these diversities, although they leave some room for doubt and difference of opinion, do not necessarily preclude the explanation of the phrase as refer ring to the mother. The masculine form of the verb in this case is easily accounted for; because its nominative is not, as in all the other cases, a female name or other feminine noun, but the interrogative pronoun, which is invariable, and naturally followed by the verb in its original or simplest form, not because that form includes both genders, but because both verb and pro noun are used vaguely, without any distinct reference to sex at all. So, too,

the use of v "6* by a female speaker, although a violation of analogy, is one very easily explained, because intentional and even necessary in the extraor dinary case supposed. As in other cases the mother is said to bear a child to the father, so in this case one mother may, without absurdity, be said to bear a child to another, because in either case the essential idea is that of one person being provided with a child by another, whether it be a husband by his wife, or a childless woman by a woman who has children. — The truth is, however, that the force and beauty of the passage are exceedingly

impaired by cutting its bold figures to the quick, and insisting on a rigorous conformity to artificial rules, instead of resting in the general conception, so clearly and affectingly presented, of a childless mother finding herself suddenly surrounded by the clamour of a multitude of children, and asking in amazement whence they came and who they are. The distinction be tween father and mother is one which would never occur to the speaker in such a case, and may therefore be safely overlooked by the interpreter. — The cause of her astonishment is then assigned. And I was bereaved and barren. These almost incompatible expressions for a childless one are joined for the purpose of expressing that idea in the strongest manner, and with more regard to the idea itself than to the rules of rhetorical propriety. — An exile and a banished one. The last word strictly means removed, i. e. from home and from society. — And these who brought up? literally made great, as in chap. i. 2. The general sense put upon "17J *P is confirmed by the analogy of this phrase, which has no specific reference to either parent, and is masculine in form simply because there was no reason why it should be feminine. — Behold I was left alone (or by myself) ; these, where were they? The pronoun at the end is emphatic: where were they? She asks how it is that she was so long desolate and childless, when she sees so many children round her now. Rosenmiiller changes the whole figure by supposing that long absent children are described as returning to their mother with a numer ous offspring. It is essential to the writer's purpose that the children should be all regarded as the speaker's own; for this alone could afford any adequate ground for the astonishment expressed. Some of the modern writers find it very hard to reconcile the language of this verse with their hypothesis that the Zion of this passage is the forsaken city of Jerusalem as such considered. The inconveniences of such a supposition may be gathered from the fact that Knobel represents the Prophet as departing from his own chosen image in the words an exile and a banished one, which are of course inapplicable to the town itself, and then returning to it in the words 1 u~as left alone, which readily admit of such an application. If such abrupt transitions may be assumed at pleasure, how can anything be proved to be the sense intended by the author? The very fact that they are necessary on a given supposition, is a strong proof that it is a false one, and ought to be exchanged for one which is equally consistent with all the parts of the description. Such is the hypothesis assumed as the basis of our exposition, viz. that the Zion of! this context is the ancient Church or chosen people, represented both in fiction and in fact by the Sanctuary and the Holy City, as its local centre and appointed Symbol. Of this ideal subject, desolation, childlessness, captivity, exile, and the other varying conditions here described, may all be predicated with the same propriety. If this, however, be the true exegetical hypothesis, and no other seems to answer all the requisitions of the case, then the Babylonish exile, and the state of the church at that period of her history, has no claim to be recognised as anything more than a particular exemplification of the general promise, that the church, after passing through extreme depression and attenuation, should be raised up and replenished like a childless mother who suddenly finds herself surrounded by a large and joyous family of children.

22. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold I will lift up to the nations my hand, and I will set t<p to the peoples my standard (or signal] : and they will bring thy sons in the bosom (or arms) and thy daughters on the shoulders shall be carried. The idea expressed by the figures of the first clause is that of summoning the nations to perform their part in this great work. The

figures themselves are the same as in chap. xiii. 2, viz. the shaking or waving of the hand and the erection of a banner, pole, or other signal, with distinct reference perhaps to persons at a distance and at hand. The figurative promise would be verified by any divine influence securing the co-operation of the heathen in accomplishing Jehovah's purpose, whatever might be the external circumstances either of the call or their compliance with it. The effect of that compliance is described in the last clause, as the bringing home of Zion's sons and daughters, with all the tender care which is wont to be lavished upon infants by their parents or their nurses. The same image is again presented in chap Ix. 4, Ixvi. 12. Peculiar to this case is the use of the word |V'n, which seems most probably to signify either the bosom or the arm, when spoken of in reference to carrying, and especially the carrying of children. Strictly perhaps the word expresses an idea inter mediate between arm and bosom, or including both, viz. the space enclosed by them in the act of grasping or embracing. This likewise seems to be the sense of the cognate l^'H which occurs in Ps. cxxix. 7. The only other instance of the form |V'n is Neh. v. 13, where it is rendered lap, and evi dently signifies some part of the dress, perhaps the wide sleeve of an oriental garment, which would connect it with the meaning arm, but more probably the bosom of the same. According to Rosenmiiller it denotes any curvature or fold of the body or the dress, like the Latin sinus. That the sense of bosom is at least included here, may be inferred from the analogy of Num. xi. 12, and Ruth iv. 16, where the same act is described by the use of the un ambiguous term P^H. Gesenius's translation, arm, is therefore too restricted. It is somewhat curious that Hitzig, while he renders this word bosom, uses arm as an equivalent to ^3, which is an arbitrary explanation of the common word for shoulder, and one so often mentioned in connection with the act of bearing burdens. (See above, chap. xxx. G, xlvi. 7 ; Ezek. xii. 0 ; Num. vii. 9.) Arm, however, is a favourite word with Hitzig, who substitutes it frequently for hand, without the least necessity or reason. Those who restrict the promise to the exiled Jews in Babylon are under the necessity of making this a restoration, which is not only perfectly gratuitous but inconsistent with the verse preceding, where these same children are described as appearing for the first time, and thereby exciting the surprise of the forsaken mother. 23. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers; face to the ground shall they low to thee, and the dust of thy feet shall they lick: and thou thall knoiv that I am Jehovah, whose waiters (or hopers, i. e. those who trust in him) shall not be ashamed (or disappointed). The same promise is repeated in substance with a change of form. Instead of the nations, we have now their kings and queens; and instead of Zion's sons and daughters, Zion herself. This last variation, while it either per plexes or annoys the rhetorical precision, aids the rational interpreter by shewing that the figures of the preceding verse, however natural and just, are not to be rigidly explained. In other words, it shews that between the Zion of this passage and her children there is no essential difference, and that what is promised to the one is promised to the other. This identity is clear from the apparent solecism of representing the bereaved and childless mother as herself an infant in the arms and at the breast, because really as much in need of sustenance and care as those before called her sons and daughters, or rather because she is but another figure for the same thing. This confusion of imagery all tends to confirm the supposition that the Zion of these prophecies is not a city, which could scarcely be thus confounded •with its citizens, but a society or corporation between which as an ideal

person and its individual members, or any given portion of them, there is no such well denned and palpable distinction. — Jt?N, to which the English Version and some others give the sense of nourishers, is now explained to mean a carrier or bearer, which last name is applied by the English in Hindostan to the male nurses of their children. Some regard it as equivalent to cra/dayw/o? (Gal. iii. 24), and as referring to a later period of childhood than np.^D, which is properly a suckler or wet-nurse. But as there is nothing in the text to* suggest the idea of succession in time, they may be regarded as poetical equivalents. Hitzig's notion, that the kings and queens are merely represented as the servile attendants of Zion, is forbidden by the specific offices ascribed to them. As little can it be supposed with Knobel, that she is here to be conceived of as a queen upon her throne, who could scarcely be supposed to need the tender attentions of a bearer and a wet-nurse. The image is still that of a tender infant, with an almost imperceptible substitution of the mother for her children. — ny~)X D?£X is a kind of compound adverb like our English phrases sword-in-hand, arm-in arm, but still more concise. The addition of these words determines the meaning of the preceding verb as denoting actual prostration, which is also clear from the next clause, where the licking of the dust cannot be naturally understood as a strong expression for the kissing of the feet or of the earth in token of homage, but is rather like the biting of the dust in Homer, a poetical description of complete and compulsory prostration, not merely that of subjects to their sovereign, but of vanquished enemies before their conquerors. (Compare Micah vii. 17, Ps. Ixxii. 9.) In the last clause ">^ is not a conjunction, meaning that or for, but as usual a relative, to be connected with ^JP in construction, who my hopers, i. e. whose hopers, those who hope in me.

24. Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, and shall the captivity of the righteous be delivered? This verse suggests a difficulty in the way of the fulfilment of the promise. nip?O and *5^ are combined likewise else where to describe whatever can be taken in war, including prisoners and booty. (Num. xxxi. 11, 12, 27, 32.) *O^, though properly an abstract, is continually used as a collective term for captives. Its combination here with P^V has perplexed interpreters. Houbigant, Lowth, Ewald, and Knobel read P"}JJ ^?^, as in the next verse, which is a mere subterfuge. Rosenmiiller follows Albert Schultens in giving to P*?V the sense of rigid, stern, severe ; which is not in the least justified by Hebrew usage. Beck follows J. D. Michaelis in explaining it to mean victorious according to the sense of victory now commonly put upon p}>', notwithstanding the objection of Gesenius that there is no authority in usage for the application of this term to the successes of the wicked, without regard to its original import. Symmachus, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Hitzig, understand the phrase to mean the righteous captives, i. e. the exiled Jews. Gesenius, Maurer, and Umbreit, the prey or plunder of the righteous, i. e. taken from the righteous. But this explanation of ^?^ is harsh, and the parallelism, as well as the analogy of ver. 25, requires that P^V should be referred to the subject, not the 9bject of the action. The English Version makes it agree directly with *5lp, in the sense of lawful captives, i.e. one who has been lawfully enslaved, or one who deserves to be a captive. The simplest and most obvious construction of the words is that which makes them mean the captives of a righteous conqueror. The argument may then be stated thus : Shall the captives even of a righteous conqueror be freed in such a case ? How much more the captives of an unjust oppressor !

25. For thus saith Jehovah, also (or even) the captivity (or captives) of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered, and with thy strivers will I strive, and thy sons will I save. There is no need of giving to the *? at the beginning the factitious sense of yes, no, nay, more, verily, or the like. Its proper meaning may he retained by supply ing in thought an affirmative answer to the foregoing question. Shall the captives of the righteous be delivered ? Yes, and more ; for thus saith Jehovah, not only this but also the captives of the tyrant or oppressor. There is a very material difference between supplying what is not expressed and changing the meaning of what is. The latter expedient is never admissible ; the former is often necessary. The logical connection between this verse and the one before it has been already stated. Its general sense is clear, as a solemn declaration that the power of the captor can oppose no real obstacle to the fulfilment of the promise of deliverance. The same idea is expressed in the last clause in more general and literal terms.

26. And I will make thy oppressors eat their (own) flesh, and as with new wine, with their blood shall they be drunken ; and all flesh shall know, that I Jehovah am thy Saviour, and (that) thy Redeemer is the Mighty One of Jacob. The first clause is commonly explained as a strong metaphorical description of intestine wars and mutual destruction, similar to that in Zech. xi. 9. In this case, however, as in chap. ix. 19, the image is perhaps rather that of a person devouring his own flesh in impotent and desperate rage. The Targum gratuitously changes the sense by interpreting the first clause to mean, " I will give their flesh for food to the birds of heaven," or, as Jarchi has it, " to the beasts of the field." The last clause winds up this part of the prophecy by the usual return to the great theme of the whole book, the relation of Jehovah to his people, as their Saviour, Redeemer, and Protector, self-existent, eternal, and almighty in himself, yet conde scending to be called the Mighty One of Jacob. The last words may be construed as a single proposition, " That I am Jehovah thy Saviour and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob." This will be found upon comparison, however, to express much less than the construction above given, which asserts not only that the speaker is Jehovah, &c., but that the Being who possesses these attributes is the peculiar covenanted God of Israel or Jacob, For the different epithets of this clause, see above, chaps, i. 2-1, xli. 14. xliii. 3. For a similar statement of the purpose of God's providential dealings with his people, see chap. xlv. 3, and ver. 23 of this same chapter.

CHAPTER L.

THIS chapter contains no entirely new element, but a fresh view of several which have already been repeatedly exhibited. The first of these is the great truth, that the sufferings of God's people are the necessary fruit of their own sins, ver. 1. The second is the power of Jehovah to accom plish their deliverance, vers, 2, 3, The third is the Servant of Jehovah, his mission, his qualifications for it, his endurance of reproach and opposi tion on account of it, vers. 4-9. The fourth is the way of salvation and the certain doom of those who neglect it, vers. 10, 11.

This perpetual recurrence of the same great themes in various combina tions makes the mere division of the chapters a comparatively unimportant matter, although some writers seem to attach great importance to the separation of the first three verses from what follows, and their intimate

connection with what goes before. It should be ever borne in mind that these divisions are conventional and modern, and that in this part of Isaiah, more especially, they might have been omitted altogether, without any serious inconvenience to the reader or interpreter. A much greater evil than the want of these divisions is the habit of ascribing to them undue authority and suffering the exposition to be governed by them, as if each were a separate prediction or discourse, instead of being arbitrary though convenient breaks in a continued composition, not materially differing from the paragraphs now used in every modern book. The re-arrrangemcnt of the chapters in the present case would answer no good purpose, since the first three verses are not more closely connected with the end of the pre ceding chapter than what follows is with its beginning. The true course is to make use of the common divisions as convenient pauses, but to read and expound the text as one continuous discourse.

1. Thus saith Jehorah. This prefatory formula has no doubt had some influence on the division of the chapters. It does not, however, always indicate the introduction of a new subject, as may be seen by a comparison of chap, xlviii. 17 with chap. xlix. 1. — Where is or what is? 'N by itself is the interrogative adverb where? When joined with !"l.t, it seems to be equivalent to our interrogative what or which, but always with reference to place, and for the most part with a noun of place following. The most frequent combination is, which way? This leaves it doubtful whether it is used in the general sense of ivhat, as explained by Ewald, or in the more specific one of what place, i. e. where, preferred by Gesenius and most other writers. This is a question of but little moment as to the general meaning of the sentence; since the question "where is it?" as we shall see below, is here substantially equivalent to "what is it?" — The bill of divorcement, literally, writing of excision or repudiation, translated in the Septuagint (3tj3xiov TVJ a-oaraalo-j, which form is retained in the New Testament (Matt. xix. 7, Mark x. 4), though sometimes abridged (Matt. v. 31). The Hebrew phrase denotes the legal instrument by which the Mosaic law allowed a husband to repudiate his wife (Deut. xxiv. 1—3). — Of your mother. The persons addressed are the individual members of the church or nation ; their mother is the church or nation itself. These are of course distinguished from each other only by a poetical figure. — Whom I have sent (or put) away. These words admit of a twofold construction. According to the common Hebrew idiom, the relative pronoun when the object of a verb, is followed by the personal pronoun which it represents. According to this idiom, whom I hare sent her means nothing more than irhom I hare sent, except that it more distinctly indicates the gender of the object. This con struction is recommended here, not only by its strict conformity to general usage, but by its recurrence in the very next clause, where 'v D5f)^ *n~OD "i^$ is agreed on all hands to mean to whom I sold you. But as the verb to send governs two accusatives in Hebrew, the relative may take the place of one of them, denoting the end for which, or the means by which, as it actually does in chap. Iv. 11, 2 Sam. xi. 22, 1 Kings xiv. 6, and in the case before us, according to the judgment of most modern writers, who explain the words to mean wheremtk I have sent her away. — The use of the disjunc tive or in Hebrew is comparatively rare, and consequently more significant when it does occur, as in this case, where it seems designed to intimate that the two figures of the clause are to be taken separately, not together, that is to say, that the punishment of the people is not compared to the repudiation of a wife and the sale of her children in the same ideal case, but represented

by the two distinct emblems of a wife divorced and children sold. Or which of my creditors (is it) to whom I have sold you? We have here an allusion to another provision of the Mosaic law, which allows debtors to be sold in payment of their debts (Matt, xviii. 25), and even children by their parents (Exod. xxi. 7). The answer follows in the other clause.^ — Behold, for your iniquities ye have been sold. The reflexive meaning, ye have sold yourselves, is frequently expressed by thife form of the verb, but not inva riably nor even commonly; it is not, therefore, necessary here, nor even favoured by the parallelism, as the corresponding term is a simple passive of a different form, and one which cannot, from the nature of the case, denote a reflexive or reciprocal action. — And for your transgressions. Vitringa's suggestion, that one of the parallel terms may signify civil, and the other religious offences, is entirely gratuitous. Your mother has been sent (or put) away. The repetition of your, where her transgressions might have been expected, only serves to shew more clearly the real identity of those who are formally distinguished as the mother and the children. — The interroga tion in the first clause of this verse has been variously understood. Jerome and the Rabbins explain it as an indirect but absolute negation, implying that she had not been divorced at all, but had wilfully forsaken her husband, and, as Abarbenel says, gone out from his house of herself, or of her own accord (p'js ] ffo' $&!>}> 6'3). This, though a good sense in itself, is not an obvious one, or that which the words would readily suggest. If this had been the writer's meaning, and he had chosen to express it in the form of an interrogation, he would more probably have said, Have I given your mother a bill of divorcement? Have I sold you to my creditors? Besides, the explanation of this clause as an absolute negation is at variance with the positive statement in the last clause, that she had been put away, as well as with the parallel assertion, that they had been sold, which last, indeed, may be explained away by adopting the reflexive sense, but no such explanation is admissible in the other case. In order to avoid this objection, some explain the cause not as an absolute negation, but a qualified one. Thus 'Vitringa understands it to mean that she had been put away, and they sold, not by him, i.e. not by the husband and the father, but by judicial process, which he undertakes to reconcile with ancient Jewish usage by the authority of Buxtorf and Selden. It is evident; however, that the qualification which is needed to reconcile the clauses is in this interpretation wholly supplied by the imagination of the reader or interpreter, without the least foundation in the text or context. The same remai'k applies, though in a less de gree, to the modification of this negative hypothesis by Grotius, who supposes it to be denied that she had been divorced without sufficient reason, and by Gesenius, who explains it as denying that she had received a bill or writing of the ordinary kind. The difficulty common to all these hypotheses is, that the qualification assumed is altogether arbitrary, and dependent on the fancy or discretion of the reader. — This is equally true of some interpretations which assume that she had been put away, for example that of Hitzig, who ingeniously supposes that the bill of divorce ment is called for that it may be cancelled, and the creditor that he may be paid. The most emphatic and significant portion of the sentence is in thia case not expressed at all, and never would occur to any reader but the one whose ingenuity invented it. — The simplest and most obvious interpretation of the first clause is the one suggested by the second, which evidently stands related to it as an answer to the question which occasions it. In the present case, the answer is wholly unambiguous, viz. that they were sold for their

sins, and that she was put away for their transgressions. The question naturally corresponding to this answer is the question, why the mother was divorced, and why the sons were sold? Supposing this to be the substance of the first clause, its form is very easily accounted for. Where is your mother's bill of divorcement f produce it, that we may see the cause of her repudiation. Where is the creditor to whom I sold you? let him appear, and tell us what was the occasion of your being sold. Gesenius's objection, that the Jewish bills of divorcement did not state the cause, is trivial, even if the fact alleged be admitted to be true, for which there is no sufficient reason. The objection, that God could not have a creditor, from which some have argued that the first clause must be negatively understood, has no more force than the objection that he could not be a husband or a writer, both involving an egregious misconception or an utter disregard of the figurative nature of the passage. If Jehovah's casting off his people might be likened to a Jewish husband's repudiation of his wife, then the same thing might be likened to a Jewish debtor's sale of himself or his children to his creditors, without any greater incongruity or contradiction in the one case than the other. The general idea of rejection is twice clothed in a figurative dress, first by emblems borrowed from the law and custom of divorce, and then by emblems borrowed from the law and custom of imprisonment for debt. — The restriction of this passage to the Baby lonish exile is entirely arbitrary. If it admits of any special application, it is rather to the repudiation of the Jewish people at the advent.

2. Why did I come, and there is no man? (why] did I call, and there was no one ansicering ? The idiom of occidental languages would here admit, if not require, a more involved and hypothetical construction. " Why, when I came, was there no one (to receive me), and, when I called, no one to answer me ? ' (See above, chap. v. 4, vol. i. p. 129.) The Targum explains this of God's coming and calling by the prophets, and the modern Germans adopt the same interpretation. Vitringa and many other writers understand it of Christ's coming in the flesh. Both explanations are erroneous if exclusive, both correct as specific applica tions of a general expression. In themselves, the words imply nothing more than that God had come near to the people, by his word and provi dence, but without any suitable response on their part. The clause is explanatory of their being sold and put away, as represented in the fore going verse. The general truth which it teaches is, that God has never, and will never put away his people even for a time, without preceding dis obedience and alienation upon their part. Particular examples of this general truth are furnished by the Babylonish exile, and by every season of distress and persecution. — The other clause precludes the vindication of their unbelief and disobedience on the ground that they had not sufficient reason to obey his commands, and rely upon his promises. Such doubts are rendered impious and foolish by the proofs of his almighty power. This power is first asserted indirectly by a question implying the strongest negation : Is my hand shortened, shortened, from redemption ? and is there with me no power (i. e. have I no power) to deliver ? Shortness of hand or arm is a common oriental figure for defect of power, especially in reference to some particular effect, which is thus represented as beyond the reach. (See chap. lix. 1 ; Num. xi. 23 ; cf. chap, xxxvii. 17.) According to Gesenius, Artaxerxes Longimanus was so called, not in reference to any corporeal peculiarity, but as being possessed of extraordinary power. The emphatic repetition of the Hebrew verb may, as usual, be variously expressed in translatiou by the introduction of intensive phrases, such as altogether or at all, or by a simple repetition of the verb in English. From redemption, i. e. so as not to redeem or deliver from distress. (See above, on chap. xlix. 15.) — Behold, by my rebuke (a term often used to express God's control over the elements) 1 will dry up the sea. I can make a complete change iu the face of nature. Most of the modern writers use the present form, 1 dry up the sea. But this, as expressing an habitual act, fails to give the sense of the original, which is not a description of what he usually does, but a declaration of what he can do, and what he will do in the present instance if it should be necessary. Hence the best translation of the verb is the exact one which adheres to the strict sense of the future. As in many other cases, this general expression may involve a particular allusion, namely, to the crossing of the Red Sea at the exodus from Egypt. But to make this the direct and main sense of the words, is equally at variance with good taste and the context. It is only upon this erroneous supposition that Vitringa could imagine himself bound to apply what follows (/ ir ill make streams a wilderness) to the passage of the Jordan, and to justify the plural designation of that river by appealing to its magnitude, historical importance, &c. It is really a poetical reiteration of what goes before, extending what was there said of the sea to streams and other waters. The remaining words of this verse are intended merely to complete the picture, by subjoining to the cause its natural effect. — Let their fish stink for ivant of water and die of thirst. The abbreviated form nbfi seems to shew that the writer here passes from the tone of prediction or general description to that of actual command. It may, however, be a poetic variation of the ordinary future form, in which case the sense will be, their Jish shall die, &c. ; or the abbreviated form may indicate an indirect or oblique construction, so that their fish shall stink, &c., which last explanation is the one preferred by the latest writers. The pronoun their refers to sea and rivers, or to the last alone, which is masculine, though feminine in form. — For t'&On Lowth reads t?Tn (their fish is dried •up), on the authority of one manuscript confirmed by the Septuagint version (ijjjsav^ffowa/). The collective use of the word fish is the same in Hebrew and in English. For the true sense of P^P, see above, chap. v. 9, vol. i. p. 131-2.

3. The description of Jehovah's power, as displayed in his control of the elements, is still continued. I will clothe the heavens in blackness. The Hebrew noun, according to its etymology, denotes not merely a black colour, but such a colour used as a sign of mourning. Thus understood, it corresponds exactly to the following words, where the customary mourn ing dress of ancient times is mentioned. A nd sackcloth I will place (or make) tlieir covering. The reference of this verse to the plague of dark ness in the land of Egypt is admissible only iu the sense explained above with respect to the passage of the Red Sea, namely, as a particular allusion comprehended in a general description. J. D. Michaelis and some later writers understand it as referring to the usual phenomena of storms, or even to the obscuration of the sky by clouds ; but it is inconceivable that such an everyday occurrence should be coupled with the drying up of seas and rivers, as a proof of God's power over nature and the elements. The sense required by the connection is that of an extraordinary darkness (such as that of an eclipse), or even an extinction of the heavenly bodies, as hi chap. xiii. 10. (See vol. i. p. 275.)

4. The Lord Jehovah liath given to me. As Jehovah is the speaker in

the foregoing verse, Cocceius, Vitringa, and many others, regard this clause as a proof that these are the words of the Messiah, who, in virtue of his twofold nature, might speak in the person of Jehovah, and yet say, Jeho vah hath given to me. The Rabbins and the Germans explain them as the words of Isaiah himself, speaking either in his own name or in that of the prophets as a class. But some of the things which follow are inapplicable to such a subject, an objection not relieved by assuming with Grotius that Isaiah is here a type of Christ. The true hypothesis is still the same which we have found ourselves constrained to assume in all like cases throughout the foregoing chapters, namely, that the servant of Jehovah, as he calls himself in ver. 10 below, is the Messiah and his people, as a com plex person, or the church in indissoluble union with its Head, asserting his divine commission and authority to act as the great teacher and enlightener of the world. For this end God had given him a ready tongue or speech.

Most interpreters adopt a different version of DH-1S7 in the first and last clause, giving it at first the sense of learned, and afterwards that of learners. These two ideas, it is true, are near akin, and may be blended in the Hebrew word as they are in the English scholar, wbich is used both for a learner and a learned person. It is best, however, for that very reason, to retain the same word in translation, as is done by Hitzig, who translates it disciples, Ewald, apostles, and Henderson, those who are taught. Grotius agrees with the Septuagint in making DH-lo? an abstract noun meaning instructive — yXSffffav xatot'ia:, an instructive tongue. Gesenius considers it equivalent to taught or practised tongue. In every other case the word is a concrete, meaning persons taught, disciples. (See above, chap. viii. 16, and below, chap. liv. 13.) From this expression Hitzig and Knobel strangely infer that Isaiah was an uneducated prophet like Amos (vii. 14), which would be a very forced conclusion, even if Isaiah were the subject of the passage. As applied to Christ, it is descriptive of that power of conviction and per suasion which is frequently ascribed in the New Testament to his oral teachings. As his representative and instrument, the church has always had a measure of the same gift enabling her to execute her high vocation. — To know (that I might know) to help or succour the iceary (witli) a word. This explanation of the verb riW, which occurs only here, is that given by Aquila (&ro0njg/<ra/), Jerome (sustentare), Gesenius (stdrken), and several of the later writers. Near akin to this, and founded on another Arabic analogy, is the sense of refreshing, which is expressed by Riickert, Ewald, and Umbreit. J. D. Michaelis explains it to mean change, and applies it to the endless variety of our Saviour's instructions. Paulus and Hitzig make the? radical, and identify the word with the Arabic \j^ to speak;

but this, according to Knobel, would be applicable only to frivolous, un meaning speech. Most of the older writers understand riiy as a denomina tive verb from 1"$, time, meaning to speak seasonably. This explanation seems to be implied in the Septuagint paraphrase (ro\J yvuvai r,vixa d;T tixt'i'v A&yov). But according to the probable etymology of J~iy, the verb derived from it would assume another form, and the construction with two objects, as Gesenius observes, would be harsh; whereas it is not uncommon with verbs of supporting or sustaining. (See Gen. xlvii. 13 ; 1 Kings xviii. 4.) The Chaldee paraphrase, ' That I might know how to teach wisdom to the righteous panting for the words of the law,' or, as Jarchi and Kinichi have it, ' thirsting for the words of God,' appears to be conjectural. — He will waken, in the morning, in the morning, he will waken for me the ear, i. e.

ho will waken my ear, rouse my attention, and open my mind to the recep tion of the truth. (See chap, xlviii. 8 ; 1 Sam. ix. 15, xx. 2 ; Ps. xli. 7.) The present tense (he ivakeneth) asserts a claim to constant inspiration; the future expresses a confident belief that God will assist and inspire him. — The accents require in the morning in t/ie morning to be read together, as in chap, xxviii. 19, where it is an intensive repetition, meaning every morning. It might otherwise be thought more natural to read the sentence thus, he icill icaken in the morning, in the morning he irill waken, a twofold expression of the same idea, viz. that he will do so early. In either case the object of both verbs is the same; the introduction of the pronoun me after the first in the English Version being needless and hurtful to the sentence. The last words of the verse declare the end or purpose of this wakening, to hear (i. e. that I may hear) like the disciples or the taught, i. e. that I may give attention as a learner listens to his teacher. Luzzatto understands this verse as an assertion of the pious and believing Jews, that God enables them to hear and speak as if they were all prophets, which, if correctly understood and duly limited, appears to be the true sense as ex plained above.

5. The Lord Jehovah opened for me the ear, and I resisted not. The common version, / was not rebellious, seems to convert the description of an act into that of a habit. — / did not draw lack, or refuse the office, on account of the hardships by which I foresaw that it would be accompanied. There may be an allusion to the conduct of Moses (iv. 13) in declining the dangerous but honourable work to which the Lord had called him. (Com pare Jer. i. 0, xvii. 1G.) Henderson's reflection on this sentence is, ' How different the conduct of the Messiah from that of Jonah !'

6. My hack I gave to (those) smiting. We may understand by gave either yielded unresistingly or offered voluntarily. (Compare Mat. v. 39.) The punishment of scourging was a common one, and is particularly mentioned in the history of our Lord's maltreatment. — And my cheeks to those plucking (the beard or hair). It is well observed by Hitzig, that the context here requires something more than the playful or even the contemptuous pulling of the beard, the vellere barbam of Horace and Persius, to which preceding writers had referred. A better parallel is Xeh. xiii. 25, where the Tirshatha is said to have contended with the Jews, and cursed them, and smote them, and p'ucked off their hair. (Compai'e Ezra ix. 3.) This particular species of abuse is not recorded in the history of our Saviour's sufferings, but some suppose it to be comprehended in the general term buffeting. — My face 1 did not hide from shame and spitting. The plural form rris,?? may be either an intensive or emphatic expression for extreme shame or abundant shame, or a term comprehending various shameful acts, such as smiting on the face, spitting in it, and the like. In the phrase I did not hi demy face there may be an allusion to the common figure of confusion covering the face {Jer. li. 51), in reference no doubt to the natural expression of this feeling by a blush, or in extreme cases by a livid paleness overspreading the features. Some have imagined that by spitting nothing more is meant than spitting on the ground in one's presence, which, according to the oriental usages and feelings, is a strong expression of abhorrence and contempt. But, as Lowfh well says, if spitting in a person's presence was such an in dignity, how much more spitting in his face ; and the whole connection shews that the reference is not to any mitigated form of insult but to its extreme. That this part of the description was fulfilled in the experience of our Saviour, is expressly recorded, Mat. xxvi. 67, xxvii. 30. That it

was literally verified in that of Isaiah, is not only without proof hut in the last degree improbable, much more the supposition that it was a common or habitual treatment of the prophets as a class. As to Isaiah himself, it is worthy of remark that a learned and ingenious Rabbin of our own day (Samuel Luzzatto) argues against this application of the Prophet's language, first, because he was not a prophet of evil, and could not therefore be an object of the popular hatred; secondly, because his predictions were not addressed to his contemporaries but to future ages; thirdly, because even on the supposition that he lived at the time of the Babylonish exile, he must have written in the name and person of an older prophet, and could not therefore have exposed himself to any public insult. From this impos sibility of proving any literal -coincidence between the prophetic description and the personal experience of the Prophet himself, when taken in connec tion \\iih the palpable coincidences which have been already pointed out in the experience of Jesus Christ, many interpreters infer that it was meant to be a literal prediction of his sufferings. But even Yitringa has observed that if it were so, its fulfilment, or the record of it, would be imperfect, since the points of agreement are not fully commensurate with those of the description. (See for example what has been already said with respect to the plucking of the beard or hair.) The most satisfactory solution of the difficulty is the one suggested by Vitringa himself, who regards the pro phecy as metaphorical, and as denoting cruel and contemptuous treatment in general, and supposes the literal coincidences, as in many other cases. to have been providentially secured, not merely to convict the Jews, as Grotius says, but also to identify to others the great subject of the pro phecy. But if the prophecy itself be metaphorical, it may apply to other subjects, less completely and remarkably but no less really, not to Isaiah, it is true, from whom its terms, even figuratively understood, are foreign, but to the church or people of God, the body of Christ, which, like its head, has ever been an object of contempt with those who did not under stand its character or recognise its claims. What is literally true of the Head, is metaphorically true of the Body — " I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to the pluckers, my face I did not hide from shame and spitting."

7. And the Lord Jehovah will help me, or afford help to me. The ad versative particle, which most translators have found necessary here to shew the true connection, is not required by the Hebrew idiom. (See above, on chap. xl. 8.) — Therefore I am not confounded by the persecution and contempt described in the foregoing verses. The common version, 7 shall not be confounded, is not only arbitrary but injurious to the sense, which is not that God's protection will save him from future shame, but that the hope of it saves him even now. The words strictly mean, I have not been confounded, which implies, of course, that he is not so now. — Therefore I ha ce set my face as a flint. This is a common description of firmness and determination as expressed in the countenance. It is equally applicable to a wicked impudence (Jer. v. 3, Zech. vii. 12), and a hoby resolution (Ezek. iii. 8, 9). The same thing is expressed by Jeremiah under different but kindred figures. (Jer. i. 17, 18, xv. 20.) It is pro bable, as J. II. Michaelis suggests, that Luke alludes to these passages, when he says that our Lord atedfastly set his face (TO Kgoauxov aiiTov far^i^s) to go to Jerusalem. (Luke ix. 51.) The strong and expressive English phrase, set my face, is in all respects better than those which later vendons have substituted for it, such as place (Barnes), present (Noyes),

Ac. — And I know that, I shall not be ashamed. The substitution of because for and is an unnecessary deviation from the Hebrew idiom.

8. Near (is) my justifier (or the one justifying me). P^VH is strictly a forensic term meaning to acquit or pronounce innocent, in case of accusa tion, and to right or do justice to, in case of civil controversy. The use of this word, and of several correlative expressions, may be clearly learned from Deut. xxv. 1. The justifier is of course Jehovah. His being near is not intended to denote the proximity of an event still future, but to describe his intervention as constantly within reach and available. It is not the justification which is said to be near to the time of speaking, but the justifier, who is said to be near the speaker himself. The justification of his servant is the full vindication of his claims to divine authority and inspiration. At the same time there is a designed coincidence between the terms of predic tion, and the issue of our Saviour's trial ; but the prophecy is not to be restricted to this object. The general meaning of the word is, all this reproach is undeserved, as will be seen hereafter. Since God himself has undertaken his defence, the accuser's case is hopeless. He therefore asks triumphantly, Who will contend ivith me ? The Hebrew verb denotes specifically litigation, or forensic strife. Rom. viii. 33, 34, is an obvious imitation of this passage as to form. But even Vitringa, and the wannest advocates for letting the New Testament explain the Old, are forced to acknowledge that in this case Paul merely borrows his expressions from the Prophet, and applies them to a different object. In any other case this class of writers would no doubt have insisted that the justifier must be Christ, and the justified his people ; but from this they are precluded by their own assumption, that the Messiah is the speaker. Both hypotheses, so far as they have any just foundation, must be reconciled by the supposi tion that the ideal speaker is the Body and the Head in union. In the sense here intended, Christ is justified by the Father, and at the snme time justifies his people. — We will stand (or let us stand) together, at the bar, before the judgment-seat, a frequent application of the Hebrew verb. (See Num. xxvii. 2, Deut. xix. 17, 1 Kings iii. 16.) This is an indirect defiance or ironical challenge ; as if he had said, If any will still venture to accuse me, let us stand up together. — The same thing is then expressed in other words, the form of interrogation and proposal being still retained. Who is my adversary ? This is more literally rendered in the margin of the English Bible, who is the mister of my cause? But even this fails to convey the precise sense of the original, and may be even said to reverse it, for the master of my cause seems to imply ascendancy or better right, and is not therefore applicable to a vanquished adversary whose case was just before described as hopeless. The truth is, that the pronoun my belongs not to

the last word merely, but to the whole complex phrase, and?>?? simply means "possessor," i.e. one to whom a given thing belongs. Thus a

cause-master (elsewhere called D^?? 'J?? (Exod. xxiv. 14), means one who has a cause or law-suit, a party-litigant, and my cause-master means one who has a controversy with me, my opponent or adversary; so that the common version really conveys the meaning better than what seems to be the more exact translation of the margin. In sense, the question is pre cisely parallel and tantamount to the one before it, wlio w'M contend with me? — Let him draw near to me, confront me, or engage in conflict with me. — The forensic figures of this verse and some of its expressions, have

repeatedly occurred in the course of the preceding chapters. (See chaps, xli. 1, 21 ; xliii. 9, 26; xlv. 20; xlvii. 14, 16.)

9. Behold, the Lord Jehovah will help me ; ivho (is) he (that) will con demn me ? The help specifically meant is that afforded by an advocate or judge to an injured party. W~)i} is the technical antithesis to P^VH, used in ver. 8. Both verbs, v>"ith their cognate adjectives, occur in Deut. xxv. 1. — The potential meaning (can condemn) is included in the future (will condemn), though not directly, much less exclusively, expressed by it. — The last clause adds to the assurance of his own safety that of the destruc tion of his enemies. All they (or all of them, his adversaries, not expressly mentioned but referred to in the questions which precede) like the garment shall groic old (or be worn out), i.e. like the garment which is worn out or decays. The moth shall, devour them. Gesenius condemns the relative con struction, which the moth devours (referring to *l-!3n as a collective), because inadmissible in the parallel passage, chap. li. 8. He nevertheless adopts it in his own German Version (u'ie ein Gewand das die Motte verzehrt). The real objection to it is, that it is needless, and rests upon a frivolous rhetorical punctilio. By a perfectly natural and common transition, the writer passes from comparison to metaphor, and having first transformed them into garments, says directly that the moth shall devour them, not as men, in which light he no longer views them, but as old clothes. This is a favourite comparison in Scripture to express a gradual but sure decay. (Compare chap. li. 8, and Hosea v. 12.) In Job xiii. 28, Ps. xxxix. 12, it seems to denote the effect of pining sickness. Not contented with this obvious and natural interpretation of the figure, Vitringa supposes an allusion to the official dresses of their chief men, which is not a whit more reasonable than the notion of Cocceius which he sets aside as far-fetched, that the prophets, priests, and rulers of the old economy were but a gar ment, under which the Messiah was concealed until his advent, and of which he stripped himself (aKt-/.duaa{jt,tvoc, Col. ii. 15) at death. The necessity of thus explaining why the enemies of Christ and his people are compared to garments is precluded by the obvious consideration, that the main point of the simile is the slow consuming process of the moth, and that the clothes are added simply as the substances in which it is most frequently observed.

10. Who among you is a fearer of Jehovah, hearkening to the voice of his servant, who walketh in darkness and there is wo light to him ? Let him trust in the name of Jehovah, and lean upon his God. The same sense may be attained by closing the interrogation at his servant, and reading the remainder of the sentence thus : ivhoso walketh in darkness and hath no light, let him trust, &c. This construction, which is given by De Wette, has the advantage of adhering more closely to the Masoretic interpunction. A different turn is given to the sentence by J. D. Michaelis, who terminates the question at Jehovah, and makes all the rest an answer to it. "Who among you is a fearer of Jehovah ? He that hearkeneth to the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness where he has no dawn, yet trusts in Jehovah and relies upon his God." To this ingenious and original con struction it may be objected, first, that it divides the sentence into two very unequal parts, directly contrary to Hebrew usage ; and in the next place, that it makes the participles, present and future, all precisely synonymous and equally descriptive of the pious man's habitual conduct. All the con structions which have now been mentioned give the ''P its usual and proper sense, as an interrogative pronoun corresponding to the English who '? But

Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and Maurer, choose to give it an inde finite sense, whoso or whoever, and exclude the interrogation altogether; the same superficial lexicography which confounds N?L! with n.3n, because the Hebrew employed one form of expression, where we should more naturally use the other. Because whoever might be used, and would be used more readily by us in such a case than who, it does not follow that the former is the true sense of the Hebrew word in that case. All the instances alleged by Gesenins in his Lexicon as proofs that ^P is some times an indefinite, admit, with one exception, of the usual interrogative translation, not only without damage to the sense, but with a more exact adherence to the genius of the language, which delights in short detached propositions, where an occidental writer would prefer a series of dependent members forming one complex period. Thus in Judges vii. 3, the occi dental idiom would be, wliosever is fearful and afraid, let him return; but the genuine Hebrew form is, Who is fearful and afraid? let him return. The same thing is true of Exod. xxiv. 14, Prov. ix. 4, Eccles. v. 9, Isa. liv. 15, in all which cases there is nothing whatever to forbid the application of the general rule, that the usual and proper sense must be retained unless there be some reason for departing from it; and such a reason cannot be afforded by the bare possibility of a different construction. The single exception above mentioned, and the only case of the indefinite use of ""P alleged by Ewald in his Grammar, is 2 Sam. xviii. 12, which is too anoma lous and doubtful to prove anything, and which may be as properly alleged on one side as the other. The occasional combination of *& -with ~i£'K instead of favouring the views here combated, affords an argument against them, as the obvious meaning of the words, both in Exod. xxxii. 33, and 2 Sain. xx. 11, is, who (in] lie that? All that need be added upon this point is, that the latest German writers have returned to the old and true translation, who? — Obedience to the word is implied in hearing it, but not expressed. — Lowth, on the authority of two ancient versions, reads VPS?* for $£&, let him hearken, which is copied by Gesenius, perhaps through inadvertence, as he says nothing of a change of text, and no such sense can possibly be put upon the participle. This mistake or oversight, if such it be, although corrected by the later Germans, has been carefully retained by Noyes (let him hearken to the voice of his servant). Henderson, on the other hand, retains the common interrogative translation, but explains the 'P, in his note, as "a substitute for the relative "•??&?, he who," which is scarcely intelligible. — Darkness is here used as a natural and common figure for distress. (See above, chap. viii. 20, ix. 1.) J. D. Michaelis gives to H33 the specific sense of dawn, break of day, or morning light, like inc> in chap. viii. 20, and xlvii. 11. Vitringa understands it to mean splendour or a great degree of light, and thus avoids the absolute negation of all spiritual light, which would not suit his exegetical hypothesis. The great majority of writers, late and early, are agreed in making it a poetical equivalent or synonyme of "flK. — The futures in the last clause may, with equal propriety, if not still greater, be translated, he will trust and lean; the exhortation being then implied but not expressed. — The preterite ^n maybe intended to suggest that the darkness spoken of is not a transient state, but one which has already long continued. Trusting in the name of Jehovah is not simply trusting in himself, or in the independent self-existence which that name implies, but in his manifested attributes, attested by experience, which seems to be the full sense of the word name, as applied to God in The Old Testatment.— Two exegetical questions, in relation to this verse,

have much divided and perplexed interpreters. The first has respect to the person speaking and the objects of address; the other to the servant of Jehovah. These questions, from their close connection and their mutual dependence, may be most conveniently discussed together. There would be no absurdity, nor even inconsistency, in supposing that his servant means the Prophet, or the prophets indefinitely, as the organs of the divine communications. This may be granted even by those who give the title a very different meaning elsewhere, as it cannot reasonably be supposed that so indefinite a name, and one of such perpetual occurrence, is invariably used in its most pregnant and emphatic sense. It is certain, on the con trary, that it is frequently applied to the prophets and to other public functionaries of the old economy. There is therefore no absurdity in Calvin's explanation of the phrase as here descriptive of God's ministers or messengers in general, to whom those that fear him are required to submit. The verse may then be connected immediately with what precedes, as the words of the same speaker. But while all this is unquestionably true, it cannot be denied that the frequency and prominence with which the Servant of Jehovah is exhibited in these Later Prophecies, as one distin guished from the ordinary ministry, makes it more natural to make that application of the words in this case, if it be admissible. The only diffi culty lies in the mention of the Servant of Jehovah in the third person, while the preceding context is to be considered as his own words. (See above, on chap. xlix. 1.) This objection may be easily removed, if we assume, as Ewald does, that the words of the Servant of Jehovah are concluded in the preceding verse, and that in the one before us the Prophet goes on to speak in his own person. This assumption, although not demonstrably correct, agrees well with the dramatic form of the context both before and after, and the frequent changes of person, without any explicit intimation, which even the most rigorous interpreters are under the necessity of grant ing. On this hypothesis, which seems to be approved by the latest as well as by the older writers, the Servant of Jehovah here referred to is the same ideal person who appears at the beginning of the forty-ninth and forty-second chapters, namely, the Messiah and his People as his type and representative, to whose instructions in the name of God the world must hearken if it would be saved. The question, which part of the com plex person here predominates, must be determined by observing what is said of him. If the exhortation of the verse were naturally applicable to the world at large, as distinguished from the chosen people, then the latter might be readily supposed to be included under the description of the Ser vant of Jehovah. But as the terms employed appear to be descriptive of the people of Jehovah, or of some considerable class among them, the most probable conclusion seems to be, that by the Servant of Jehovah we are here to understand the Head as distinguished from the Body, with a secondary reference, perhaps, to his official representatives, so far as he employs them in communicating even with the Body itself. There is no need of pointing out the arbitrary nature of Vitringa's theory, that this verse relates to a period extending from the advent to the reign of Trajan or Hadrian; a chronological hypothesis in which the terminus a quo is only less gratuitous and groundless than the terminus ad quern.

11. Lo, all of you kindling fife, girding sparks (on: fiery darts) , go in tlie II < fill of your fire, and in the sparks ye have kindled. From my hand is this to you ; in puin (or at the place of torment) shall ye lie down. The con struction of the first clause is ambiguous, as kindling and girding, with

their adjuncts, may be either the predicates or subjects of the proposition. J. D. Micha>elis, Hitzig, and Hendewerk, prefer the latter supposition, and explain the clause to mean, all of you are kindling fire, &c. This being inconsistent with the character described in the preceding verse, Hitzig supposes that the speaker here acknowledges his error, or admits that the fearers of Jehovah, whose existence he had hypothetically stated, were in fact not to he found. As if he had said, " But you are not such, all of you are kindling," &c. The harshness of this interpretation, or perhaps other reasons, have induced the great majority of writers to adopt the other syntax, and explain the participles as the subject of the proposition, or a description of the object of address, all of you kindling, i. e. all of you who kindle. Thus understood, the clause implies that the speaker is here turn ing from one class of hearers to another, from the Gentiles to the Jews, or from the unbelieving portion of the latter to the pious, or still more gene rally from the corresponding classes of mankind at large, without either national or local limitation. The wider sense agrees best with the com prehensive terms of the passage, whatever specific applications may be vir tually comprehended in it or legitimately inferable from it. This is of course too vague an hypothesis to satisfy the judgment or the feelings of the excellent Vitringa, by whom it is repeatedly affirmed that all who admit the application of the prophecy to Christ, must grant that this verse is ad dressed to the Pharisaic party of the Jews; a consequence, the logical necessity of which is very far from being evident. — There is also a difference of opinion with respect to the import of the figures. That of kindling fire is explained by Junius and Tremellius as denoting the invention of doctrines not revealed in Scripture, while the sparks represent the Phari saical traditions. The rabbinical interpreters suppose the fire to denote the wrath of God, in proof of which they are able to allege not only the general usage of the emblem in that sense, but the specific combina tion of this very noun and verb in Deut. xxxii. 22, Jer. xv. 14, xvii. 4. In all these cases the meaning of the figure is determined by the addi tion of the words in my anger, or as some choose absurdly to render it, in my nose. (See above, on chap, xlviii. 9.) This is certainly a strong analogical argument in favour of the rabbinical interpretation, and Vitringa's method of evading it is not a little curious. He rests his proof 1 on the omission of this very phrase ("'SN?), in default of which he says, |rk?wo hie necessario coyitat de ira Dei. The same rule, if applied with equal rigour to his own interpretations, would exclude a very large pro- I portion of his favourite conclusions. Even in this case, he has no oiaxginxov, [as he calls it, to compel the adoption of his own idea, that the fire kindled is the fire of sedition and intestine strife, still less to prove that the parti- [cular sedition and intestine conflict meant is that which raged among the IJews before the final downfall of Jerusalem. Lowth seems unwilling to lreject this.explanation, though his better taste inclines him to prefer the Iwider sense of human devices and worldly policy, exclusive of faith and [trust in God. This is substantially the explanation of the words now com- Imonly adopted, though particular interpreters diverge from one another in [ietails, according to the sense which they attach to the parallel metaphor, 'T '>?NP. The rabbinical tradition gives the noun the sense of sparks, Ivhich is retained in many versions. But others follow Albert Schultens in ex plaining it to mean small bundles of combustibles, employed like matches, |>r as missiles in ancient warfare. This is generalized by Lowth into fuel,

'To 1 sTubtful is the meaning of the verb in this connection translates the whole phrase, who heap the fuel round about, and ^^L^i.^akzo, Gesenius retains ^e usual senseof

and supposes them to be described as wearing the nip at § Most interpreters incline to the generic sense •""^*"

mmVlv compatible with several different interpretations of the following noun lnyPof these interpretations is better than the desperate > device of emen'cHtion7 wh ch is here resorted to by Cappellus and Sec^ the last of SSSi W? ; Hitzig proposes ^P, which seems to be approved h7Ewald -Common to all the explanations is the radical idea of a

and of course includes, although it may not specifically signify a Stoe state of misery.-It may here be mentioned, as a specimen of misbaracteristie of this writer and his age, that although rather

many.

CHAPTER LI.

towards her , The possibility of her increase, as prenonriy promised, u

evinced by the example of Abraham, from whom all Israel descended, vers. -3. In like manner many shall be added from the Gentiles, vers. 4-6. Their enemies shall not only fail to destroy them, but shall be themselves destroyed, vers. 7, 8. This is confirmed by another historical example, that of Egypt, vers. 9, 10. The same assurances are then repeated, with a clearer promise of the new dispensation, vers. 11-10. The chapter closes with a lirect address to Zion, who, though helpless in herself and destitute of human aid, is sure of God's protection and of the destruction of her enemies and his, vers. 17-23.

1. Hearken unto me ! A common formula, when the writer or speaker turns away from one object of address to another. It is here used be cause he is about to address himself to the faithful servants of Jehovah, the true Israel, who are described as following (or pursuing] after righteous ness, i . e. making it the end of all their efforts to be righteous, or couformed to the will of God. The sense of justifying righteousness or justification is as much out of place here as that of truth, which is given by the Targum ; except so far as all these terms are employed in Scripture usage, to express the general idea of moral goodness, piety, or a character acceptable in God's The original application of the phrase here used is by Moses (Deut. xvi. 20) ; from whom it is copied twice by Solomon (Prov. xv. 9- xxi 21) and twice by Paul (1 Tim. vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22). The same apostle'uses! the same sense, the more general expression, follow after good (1 Thess. v. 15) ; which is also used by David (Ps. xxxviii. 21, comp. Ps. xxxiv. 15). The same class of persons is then described as seeking (or seekers of} Jehovah, i.e. seeking his presence, praying to him, worshipping him, consulting him.' The first description is more abstract, the second expresses a personal re lation to Jehovah ; both together are descriptive of the righteous as dis tinguished from the wicked. Now as these have ever been comparatively few, not only in relation to the heathen world, but in relation to the spuri ous members of the church itself, a promise of vast increase (like that in chap. xlix. 18-21) might well appear incredible. In order to remove this doubt, the Prophet here appeals, not, as in many other cases, to the mere, omnipotence of God, but to a historical example of precisely the same kind, viz. that of Abraham, from whom the race of Israel had already sprung, in &tnct fulfilment of a divine promise.— Look unto the rock ye have been hewn. The earlier grammarians assume an ellipsis of the relative and preposition, the rock from which ye have been hewn; the later, and particularly Ewald, reject this as an occidental idiom, and suppose the Hebrew phrase to be complete, but give the same sense as the others. The same remark applies to the parallel clause, and to the hole of the pit (from which] ye have been digged. The reference of these figures to our Lord Jesus Christ, as the rock of ages and the source of spiritual life, is held by some of the Fathers, one of whom (Eusebius) supposes a collateral allusion to the rock in which our Saviour was entombed ; but this interpretation is too mystical even for Vitnnga, who admits that the figures of this verse are explained in the next by the Prophet himself. His Dutch taste again gets the better of his judg ment and his reverent regard for the word of God, and allows him to put a revolting sense upon the figures here employed, in which Knobel follows •with still greater coarseness. The truth, as recognised by almost all interpre ters, is that the rock and pit (or quarry) are two kindred metaphors for one and the same thing, both expressing the general idea of extraction or descent (compare chap, xlviii. 2), without particular reference to the individual parents, although both are mentioned in the next verse, for the sake of a

ISAIAH LI. [VER. 2.

parallel construction, upon which it is almost puerile to found such a con clusion as the one in question. In the same category may be safely placed the old dispute, whether Abraham is called a rock because he was strong faith (Rom. iv. 20), or because he was as good as dead (Heb. xi. 155J WIM he received the promise. He is no more represented as a rock than as a pit or quarry, neither of which figures is applied to him distinctively, but both together signify extraction or origin in a gepealogical sense.

2 Look unto Abraham your father and unto Sarah (that) bare you. That Sarah is mentioned chiefly for rhythmical effect, may be inferred irom the writer's now confiding what he says to Abraham alone. Instead speaking further of both parents, he now says, For 1 have called him one ; which does not mean, I have declared him to be such, or so described him ; but, I have called (t. e. chosen, designated) him, when he was only one, i e. a solitary individual, although the destined father of a great nation (Gen. xii 2) This sense of the word one is clear from Ezek. xxxin. 24, where, with obvious allusion to this verse, it is put in opposition to many : Abra ham was ONE, and he inherited the land ; and we are MANY, (much more then) w the land given to us for an inheritance. The same antithesis is far more obvious and appropriate in this place, than that between Abraham, as sole heir of the promise, and the rest of men, who were excluded irom it ' The design of the Prophet is not so much to magnify the honour put upon Abraham by choosing him out of the whole race to be the lather ot the faithful, as it is to shew the power and faithfulness of crod in making this one man a nation like the stars of heaven for multitude, according to the promise (Gen. xv. 5). Noyes's version, a single man, is rendered by the modern usage of that phrase almost ludicrously equivocal, and neces sarilv su^ests an idea directly at variance with the facts of the case; unless he really infers from the exclusive mention of Abraham in this clause, that he was called before his marriage, which can hardly be reconciled with the sacred narrative (compare Gen. xi. 29, and xii. 1, 5), and, even if it were true, would scarcely have been solemnly affirmed in this connection, since the promise, whatever its precise date, presupposed his marriage as the necessary means of its fulfilment.— Interpreters, with almost perfect unani mity explain the two verbs at the end of this verse as expressing past time (and I blessed him and caused him to increase], although the rnv prefixed to neither has the pointing of the vav conversive, in default of which the pre terite translation is entirely gratuitous and therefore un grammatical. I Masoretic pointing, it is true, is not of absolute authority, but it is ot 1 highest value as the record of an ancient critical tradition ; and the very fact that it departs in this case from the sense which all interpreters have felt to be most obvious and natural, creates a strong presumption that it rests upon some high authority or some profound view of the Prophet s meaning. And we find accordingly that by adhering to the strict sense o, the future, we not only act in accordance with a most important general principle of exegesis, but obtain a sense which, though less obvious than the common one, is really better in itself and better suited to the context. According to the usual interpretation, this verse simply asserts the ii ment of the promise to Abraham, leaving the reader to connect it with what follows as he can. But by a strict translation of the futures, they are made to furnish an easy and natural transition from the one case to the other, from the great historical example cited, to the subject which it was intended to illustrate. The concise phrase, one I called him, really includes a cits tion of the promise made to Abraham, and suggests the fact of its fulfilment,

so far as this had yet taken place. The Prophet, speaking in Jehovah's name, then adds a declaration that the promise should be still more glori ously verified. As if he had said, I promised to bless him and increase him, and I did so, and I ivill lkss him and increase him (still). But how? By shewing mercy to his seed, as I have determined and begun to do. This last idea is expressed in the first clause of the next verse, which is then no longer incoherent or abrupt, but in the closest and most natural connection with what goes before. This consideration might have less force if the illustration had been drawn from the experience of another race, for instance from the history of Egypt or Assyria, or even from the increase of the sons of Lot or Ishmael; but when the promise which he wished to render credible is really a repetition or continuation of the one which he cites as an illustrative example, the intimate connection thus established or revealed between them is a strong proof that the explanation which involves it is the true one.

8. For Jehovah hath comforted Zion. The arbitrary character of the usual construction of these sentences may be learned from the fact that Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, not content with making both the futures at the close of the second verse preterites, explain both the preterites in this clause as futures ; a double violation of analogy and usage, which seems to leave the meaning of the writer wholly at the mercy of the reader or ex pounder. From the same erroneous understanding of the closing words of ver. 2 springs the forced interpretation of the '? at the beginning of this, as meaning so (Gesenius), thus therefore (Lowth), and the still more un natural construction of the whole clause by Hitzig, as the apodosis of a comparative sentence beginning in the first verse : " As I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him, so does Jehovah pity Zion," &c. As soon as the strict sense of the futures in ver. 2 has been reinstated, the connection becomes obvious, and *? retains its usual and proper sense — " I have blessed and increased him, and I will bless and increase him; for Jehovah has begun to comfort Zion." The strong assurance thus afforded by the strict translation of the preterite 2H3 conspires with analogy and usage to give it the preference over the vague evasive present form, em ployed by Hitzig, Ewald, and De Wette. This view of the connection also supersedes the necessity of laying an unusual stress on the name Jehovah, as J. H. Michaelis does, as if he had said, it is God, not man, that com forts Zion. — Gesenius translates DH3, in this case, " will have mercy or compassion " (wird sich erlarmen), in which he is followed by De Wette and Henderson. But even his own Lexicon gives no such definition of the Piel, and the Niphal though coincident in this tense as to form, would, according to usage, take a preposition after it. Besides, the proper sense of comforting, retained by Ewald and the other Germans, is more appropri ate, because it expresses not mere feeling but its active exhibition, and be cause the same verb is employed at the very outset of these prophecies (chap. xl. 1) in the same application, but in a connection where the sense of pitying or having mercy is wholly inadequate, if not inadmissible. The •comparison of that place also shews what we are here to understand by Zion, viz. Jehovah's people, of which it was the capital, the sanctuary, and tho symbol. What is there commanded is here, in a certain sort, per formed, or its performance more distinctly and positively promised. — He hath comforted all our wastes (or ruins), i.e. restored cheerfulness to what was wholly desolate. This phrase proves nothing as to the Prophet's view ing Zion merely as a ruinous city, since in any case this is the substratum

of his metaphor. The question is not whether he has reference to Zion or Jerusalem as a town, hut whether this town is considered merely as a town, and mentioned for its own sake, or in the sense before explained, as the established representative and emblem of the church or chosen people (see above, on chap. xlix. 21). — And hath placed (or made) her inlderncss like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord. This beautiful comparison is the strongest possible expression of a joyful change from total barrenness and desolation to the highest pitch of fertility and beauty. It is closely copied in Ezekiel xxxi. 9, but the same comparison, in more concise terms, is employed by Moses (Gen. xiii. 10). Even there, notwithstanding what is added about Egypt, but still more unequivocally here, the reference is[not to a garden, or to pleasure-grounds in general, as Luther and several of the later Germans have assumed, with no small damage to the force and beauty of their versions, but Eden as a proper name, the garden of Jehovah, the Paradise, as the Septuagint renders it, both here and in Gen. ii. 8, the grand historical and yet ideal designation of the most consummate terrene excel lence, analogous, if not still more nearly related, to the Grecian pictures of Arcadia and of Tempe. — Joy and gladness shall be found in her, i. e. in Zion, thus transformed into a paradise. The plural form, in them, employed by Barnes, is not only inexact, but hurtful to the sense, by withdrawing the attention from the central figure of this glowing landscape. Shall be found, does not simply mean shall le, as J. D. Michaelis paraphrases it, but also that they shall be there accessible, not only present in their abstract essence, as it were, but in the actual experience of those who dwell there. — Thanksgiving and the voice of melody. The music of the common version of this last clause, is at once too familiar and too sacred to be superseded, simply for the purpose of expressing more distinctly the exact sense of the last word, which originally signifies the sound of an instrument or instru mental music, but is afterwards used to denote song in general, or rather as a vehicle of praise to God.

4. Attend (or hearken) unto me, my people; and my nation, unto me give ear. This may seem to be a violation of the usage which has been already stated as employing this form of speech to indicate a change in the object of address. But such a change, although a slight one, takes place even here ; for he seems no longer to address those seeking righteousness exclusively, but the whole body of the people as such. Some interpreters suppose a change still greater, namely, a transition from the Jews to the Gentiles. In order to admit of this, the text must be amended, or its obvious sense explained away. Lowth, of course, prefers the former method, and reads 0*£JJ on the authority of two manuscripts, and D'SK? on the authority of nine. Gesenius gains the same end by explaining ^ and 'S-1N1? as unusual plural forms, the first of which he also finds in three other places (2 Sam. xxii. 44, Ps. cxliv. 2, Lam. iii. 14). Ewald denies the existence of such a termination, against which he argues with much force, that in these four places, however inappropriate the sense my people may appear to the interpreter, no one pretends to say that it is absurd or impossible, while in every other case the very meaning of the noun is so obscure that it can throw no light upon the question of form. The discussion of the question by these eminent grammarians (in the Lehrgebaude, § 124, and the Kritische Grammatik, § 164) has left the existence of the plural form in question at the least very doubtful (see Nordheimer, § 553) ; and' even if it be conceded, it is confessedly so rare that it is not to be assumed without necessity in such a case as this, simply because it may conceivably

be true, when the sense which the word has in nearly two hundred places is perfectly appropriate here. The only argument in favour of it, drawn from the connection, is without force, because the dependence of the Gen tiles upon Israel for saving knowledge might be just as well asserted in addressing the latter as the former, as appears from the analogy of chap, ii. 3. The same reasons which have now been stated will suffice to set aside Maurer's gratuitous interpretation of the words as singular collectives, which might be assumed in a case of extreme exegetical necessity, but in no other. The next clause explains what it is that they are thus called upon to hear, viz. that law from me shall go forth, i. e. revelation or the true religion, as an expression of God's will, and consequently man's rule of duty. In like manner Paul describes the gospel as the law of faith (Rom. iii. 27), not binding upon one race or nation merely, but by the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations, for the obedience of faith (Rom. xvi. 26). J. D. Michaelis, followed by Rosenmiiller and De Wette, dilutes it into a doctrine (erne Lehre), which, although correct in point of etymology, is justified neither by the context nor by usage. Ewald gives the same translation of the word, but makes it less indefinite by adding the possessive pronoun (meine Lehre). The meaning of the clause is that the nations can expect illumination only from one quarter. — The same thing is then said in another form. And my judgment (CS'^p an equivalent to '"0^, and combined with it like lex and jus in Latin) for a light of the nations (as in chap. xlii. 6, xlix. 6) will I cause to rest, i. e. fix, establish. Jarchi explains it by the synonyrne D^N, which is frequently employed in this sense (e. ff. chap. xlvi. 7 ; 2 Kings xvii. 29). The meanings given to the word by Calvin (patefaciam), Cocceius (promovebo), Lowth (cause to break forth), and others, are either wholly con jectural or founded on a false etymology. Aben Ezra speaks of some as having made it a denominative from V^, meaning " I will do it in a moment." Kimchi strangely says that D^i? "I1X? may mean in the presence of the Gentiles; a suggestion which savours of rabbinical reluctance to believe in the conversion of the world to God. As specimens of exegesis on the most contracted scale, it may be mentioned that Piscator under stands by law, in this verse, Cyrus's decree for the restoration of the Jew ish exiles, and by linht the knowledge of this great event among the nations; whereas Grotius explains judgment to mean penal inflictions on the Baby lonians, and light the evidence thereby afforded that Jehovah was the true Grod. The groundless and injurious protrusion of the Babylonish exile as the great theme of the prophecy is here abandoned even by Kimchi and Abarbenel, although they refer the promise to the advent of Messiah as still future. The simple proposition that the world can be converted only by a revelation, admits no more of being thus restricted than any of the spiri tual promises and prophecies contained in the New Testament.

5. Near (is) my righteousness, i. e. the exhibition of it in the changes previously promised and threatened. Near, as often elsewhere in the pro phecies, is an indefinite expression which describes it simply as approach ing, and as actually near to the perceptions of the Prophet, or to any one who occupies the same point of vision. — Gone forth is my salvation. Not only is the purpose formed, and the decree gone forth, but the event itself, in the sense just explained, may be described as past or actually passing. Hitzig, however, understands ^XJ to mean " it goes forth from my mouth," as in chap, xlviii. 3, Iv. 11. Umbreit agrees with Vitringa in supposing an allusion to the rising of the sun (Ps. six. 6, 7), or, as Gesenius suggests, to the dawning of the day (chap, xlvii. 11) ; while Ewald and Knobel understand it as referring to the springing or incipient germination of plants, which is properly expressed by HOV (chap. xlii. 9), the two verbs being elsewhere used as parallels in this sense (Job v. 6). But none of these ingenious explanations is so natural as that which gives N^ the same sense as in the preceding verse, viz. that of issuing or going forth from God (conceived as resident in heaven or in Zion) to the heathen world. — And my arms shall judge the nations. As the foregoing clause contains a promise, some interpreters suppose it to be necessary to give judge the favourable sense of vindicating, righting (as in chap. i. 17, 23), or at least the generic one of ruling (as in 1 Sam. viii. 5). But nothing can be more in keeping with the usage of the Scriptures, and of this book in particular, than the simultaneous exhibition of God's justice in his treatment both of friends and foes. (Compare chap. i. 27.) There is no objection, therefore, to Jarchi's explanation of the verb as meaning here to punish; this at least may be included as a part of the idea which it was intended to express. — J. D. Michaelis, supposing the construction of JJ11T (which is feminine) with a masculine verb to be ungrammatical, proposes, by a change of punctuation, to connect the one with what precedes, and then to read, the nations shall be judged. This hypercriticism provokes Gesenius to convict its author of deficiency in Hebrew grammar, which he does by shewing that in Gen. xlix. 24 and Dan. xi. 31 this form of the plural is construed as a masculine, to which he adds a like use of the singular itself in Isa. xvii. 5. For me shall the islands wait, i. e. for me they must wait, until I reveal myself they must remain in darkness. (See above, on chap, xlii. 4.) Here again, as in chaps, xli. 1, xlii. 4, &c., B^N is explained to mean lands, distant lands, coasts, distant coasts, western lands, Europe, Northern Asia, and Asia Minor. As in all the former instances, however, the usual sense of islands is entirely appropriate, as a poetical or repre sentative expression for countries in general, with more particular reference to those across the sea. — And in my arm they shall hojie, i. e. in the exer cise of my almighty power. As in chap. xlii. 6, the sense is not so much that they shall exercise a feeling of trust, but that this will be their only hope or dependence. To be enlightened, they must wait for my revela tion ; to be saved, for the exertion of my power. It is not descriptive, therefore, of the feelings of the nations after the way of salvation is made known to them, but of their helpless and desperate condition until they hear it. True to their favourite hypotheses, Piscator understands by islands the Israelitish captives in Assyria, Grotius the Persians residing on the sea- coast who were not idolaters ! Knobel, with equal confidence and equal reason, makes the verse refer to the downfall of Croesus and the conquests of Cyrus.

6. Raise to the heavens your eyes, and look unto the earth beneath. A similar form of address occurs above, in chap. xl. 26. (Compare Gen. xv. 5.) Heaven and earth are here put, as in many other places, for the whole frame of nature. The next clause explains why they are called upon to look. For the heavens like smoke are dissolved or driven away. The verb in this form occurs nowhere else, and the interpreters have tried in vain to derive its meaning here from other cognate forms of the same root, which all have reference to salting (from the primitive noun H???, salt]. So Symmachus in this place, a>./<rou<r/. But this, according to analogy, would rather imply perpetuity than its opposite. The link between them may consist in the idea of reducing to powder or minute dust by trituration,

which is equally appropriate to salt, and to the dissolution of any solid sub stance. Most writers give this verb a future sense (or a present one as an evasive substitute), because the real future follows; but for this very reason it may be presumed that the writer used distinct forms to express distinct ideas, and that he first gives a vivid description of the dissolution as already past, and then foretells its consummation as still future. — And the earth like the narmcnt (which grows old) shall fjnnc old (or wear out). The same comparison occurs above in chap. 1. 9, and serves to identify the passages as parts of one continued composition. And its inhabitant shall die, !?~1O?. This is a difficult expression. Cocccius alone proposes three dis tinct interpretations, all peculiar to himself. In his version he translates the phrase lit quirts, which appears to mean " like anybody else." But in his commentary he suggests that it may possibly mean quemadmodumprolnts, making I? an adjective, and supposing an allusion to the death of the righteous, as described in chap. Ivii. 1, 2. His third supposition is that this is a case of aposiopesis, or interrupted construction, and that the writer first says they shall die like — but before the comparison is finished ends by saying so — as if he pointed to the spectacle before him. — Samuel Luzzatto makes the phrase mean in an instant, strictly in the time required to say I?, which he compares to the German phrase, in einem Nu. Apart from these ingenious notions, there are only two interpretations of the phrase which are entitled to notice. The first takes both words in their ordinary sense, and understands the whole as an intensive expression just so or exactly so. This seems to be the sense intended by the- Septuagint (WCTTS* raDj-a) and Vulgate (sicut here'), although they adhere less closely to the form of the original than Schmidius (xicitt sic] and Riickert (so icie so). The only other recent versions which retain this sense are those of Barnes and Henderson. Noyes and the modem Germans all adopt the opinion of De Dieu, Gussetius, and Vitringa, that 1? is the singular of B'33, the word translated lice in the history of the plagues of Egypt (Exod. viii. 12, 13), but explained by the later lexicographers to mean a kind of stinging gnat. Supposing the essential idea to be that of a contemptible animalcule, Vitringa renders it instar vermiculi, Lowth still more freely like the vilest insect. Noyes simply says like flies, which scarcely expresses the compari son supposed by these writers to have been intended. It is not impossible that this ingenious but fanciful translation will yet be abandoned in its turn by most interpreters for that recommended by analogy and usage, as well as by the testimony of the ancient versions. The inhabitants sJtall die like a gnat, is a meaning which, in order to be purchased at so dear a rate, ought to possess some marked superiority above the old one, they shall like wise perish, to which there may possibly be an allusion in our Saviour's words recorded in Luke xiii. 3, 5. — The contrast to this general destruction is contained in the last clause. — And wy salvation to eternity shall be, and my riffhteousness shall not be broken, i. e. shall not cease from being what it is, in which sense the same verb is evidently used by Isaiah elsewhere (chap. vii. 8). In this, as in many other cases, salvation and righteousness are not synonymous, but merely correlative as cause and effect. (See above, on chap. xlii. 6.) The only question as to this clause is whether it is a hypothetical or absolute proposition. If the former, then the sense is that until (or even if) the frame of nature be dissolved, the justice and salvation of Jehovah shall remain unshaken. This explanation is preferred by Jcsoph Kimchi, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and Maurer. The other inter pretation understands the first clause as a positive and independent declaration that the heavens and earth shall be dissolved, which Yitringa understands to mean that the old economy shall cease, while others give these words their literal meaning. All these hypotheses are reconcileable by making the first clause mean, as similar expressions do mean elsewhere, that the most extraordinary changes shall be witnessed, moral and physical; but that amidst them all this one thing shall remain unchangeable, the righteousness of God as displayed in the salvation of his people. (See chaps, xl. 8, Ixv. 17 ; Mat. v. 18 ; 1 John ii. 17.) Knobel thinks that the ancient prophets actually looked for a complete revolution in the face of nature, coetaneous and coincident with the moral and spiritual changes which they foretold.

7. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, people (with) my law in their heart ; fear not the reproach of men, and ly their scoffs be not broken (in spirit, i. e. terrified). The distinction here implied is still that between the righteous and the wicked as the two great classes of mankind. Those who are described in ver. 1 as seeking after righteoiisness are here said to know it, i. e. know it by experience. Yitringa and Gesenius explain the Hebrew verb as meaning love ; but this is an arbitrary substitution of what maj7- be considered as implied for what is really expressed. The presence of the law in the heart denotes not mere affection for it, but a correct appre hension of it, as the heart in Hebrew is put for the whole mind or soul ; it is therefore a just parallel to knowing in the other member of the clause. — The opposite class, or those who know not what is right, and who have not God's law in their heart, are comprehended under the generic title man, with particular reference to the derivation of the Hebrew word from a root meaning to be weak or sickly, so that its application here suggests the idea of their frailty and mortality, as a sufficient reason why God's people should not be afraid of them.

8. For like the (moth-eaten) garment shall the moth devour them, and like the (worm-eaten) wool shall the u'orm devour them; and my righteousness to eternity shall be, and my salvation to an age of ages. The same contrast between God's immutability, and the brief duration of his enemies, is pre sented in chap. 1. 9, and in ver. 6 above.

9. Aivake, aicake, put on strength, arm of Jehovah ; awake, as (in the] days of old, the ages of eternities ; art not thou the same that hewed Rahab in, pieces, that wounded the serpent or dragon ? The Septuagint makes Jerusalem the object of address, in which it is followed by some modern writers, who sup pose the arm of Jehovah to be mentioned as a synonyme, or figurative para phrase of the strength with which she is exhorted to invest herself. This addition would, however, be at once so harsh and so gratuitous, that most interpreters appear to acquiesce in the more obvious explanation of the words as addressed directly to the arm of Jehovah as the symbol of his power. Gesenius's idea, that Jehovah thus calls upon his own arm to wake, is as unnatural as Yitringa's supposition of a chorus of saints or doctors. The only probable hypothesis is that which puts the words into the mouth of the people, or of the prophet as their representative. The verse is then a highly figurative, but by no means an obscure, appeal to the former exer tion of that power, as a reason for its renewed exertion in the present case. The particular example cited seems to be the overthrow of Egypt, here de scribed by the enigmatical name Rahab, for the origin and sense of which see vol. i. p. 475. The same thing is probably intended by the parallel term P-lfi, whether this be understood to mean an aquatic monster in the general, or more specifically the crocodile, the natural and immemorial emblem of Egypt.

10. Art not thou the same that dried the sea, the waters of the great deep, that placed the depths of the sea (as) a way for the passage of redeemed ones Y The allusion to the overthrow of Egypt is carried out and completed by a distinct mention of the miraculous passage of the Red Sea. The interro gative form of the sentence is equivalent to a direct affirmation that it is the same arm, or in other words, that the same power which destro}-ed the Egyptians for the sake of Israel still exists, and may again be exerted for a similar purpose. The confidence that this will be done is expressed some what abruptly in the next verse.

11. And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return and come to Zion with shout ing, and everlasting joy upon their head; gladness and joy shall overtake (them), sorrow and sighing have Jled away. The same words occur in chap. xxxv. 10, except that -I^P'! is there written in its usual form, without the final 1, and that -1DJ is preceded by the Vav conrersive. Some manuscripts exhibit the same reading here, and the difference might be considered accidental, but for the fact that such variations are often made intentionally. See p. 42.

12. /, / am he that comforteth you ; who art thou, that thou shouldxt be afraid of man (who) in to die, and of the son of man who (as) grass is to be given? The important truth is here reiterated, that Jehovah is not only the deliverer, but the sole deliverer of his people, and as the necessary con sequence, that they have not only no need but no right to be afraid, which seems to be the force of the interrogation, Who art thou that thou shouldst le afraid ? or still more literally, Who art thou and thou hast been afraid ? i. e. consider who is thy protector, and then recollect that thou hast been afraid. The etymological import of ty'u.N is rendered still more prominent in this case by the addition of the word n-IOJ, before which a relative may be supplied in order to conform it to our idiom, although the original con struction is rather that of a complete but parenthetical proposition. " Afraid of man (he shall die), and of the son of man (as grass he shall be given)." This last verb is commonly explained as if simply equivalent to he shall be or shall become, which is hardly consistent with its usage elsewhere. Some adhere more closely to the strict sense by supposing it to mean he shall le given np, abandoned to destruction. There is no need of supposing a grammatical ellipsis of the preposition |, since the relation of resemblance is in many cases suggested by a simple apposition, as in the English phrase, he reijns a sovereign. On the comparison itself, see above, chap. xl. 0.

13. And hast forgotten Jehovah thy Maker, spreading the heavens and founding the earth, and hast trembled continually all the day, from before the wrath of the oppressor as he made ready to destroy? And where is (now) the wrath of the oppressor' The form of expression in the first clause makes it still more clear, that the statement in ver. 12 is not merely hypothetical but historical, implying that they had actually feared man and forgotten God. The epithets added to God's name arc not merely ornamental, much less superfluous, but strictly appropriate, because suggestive of almighty power, which ensured the performance of his promise and the effectual protection of his people. — Continually all the day is an emphatic pleonasm, such as is occasionally used in every language. — From before is a common Hebrew idiom for because of, on account of, but may here be taken in its strict sense as expressive of alarm and flight before an enemy. (Sec chap, ii. 19.) — Some render 1^3 as if, to which there are two objections : first, the want of any satisfactory authority from usage ; and secondly, the fact that the words then imply that no such attempt has really been made. As if he could destroy would be appropriate enough, because it is merely an

2G8 ISAIAH LI. [YER. 14, 15.

indirect denial of his power to do so; but it cannot be intended to deny that he had aimed at it. — 1.313 is particularly used in reference to the pre paration of the how for shooting by the adjustment of the arrow on the string; some suppose that it specifically signifies the act of taking aim. (Ps. vii. 13, xi. 2, xxi. 13.) — The question at the close implies that the wrath is at an end, and the oppressor himself vanished. We have no au thority for limiting this reference to any particular historical event. It is as if he had said, How often have you trembled when your oppressors threatened to destroy you, and where are they now? Beck absurdly ima gines that the writer here betrays himself as writing after the event which he affects to foretell. — Ewald seems to make rvntyn a denominative from fiQ^, meaning to send to hell (in die Hdlle zu senden) ; but this, although it strengthens the expression, seems to do it at the co^t of philological exactness.

14. Jfe hastens bowing to be loosed, and he shall not die in the pit, and his bread shall not fail. The essential idea is that of liberation, but with some obscurity in the expression. Some give to H^V hero and in chap. Ixiii. 1 the sense of marching, which would here be appropriate, but could not be so easily reconciled with the other cases where the word occurs. The mo dern lexicographers appear to be agreed that the radical meaning of the verb is that of bending, either backward (as in chap. Ixiii. 1) or downward (as in Jer. xlviii. 12, and here). The latest versions accordingly explain it as a poetical description of the prisoner bowed down under chains. With still more exactness it may be translated as a participle qualifying the in definite subject of the verb at the beginning. There is, however, no objec tion to the usual construction of the word as a noun ; the sense remains the same in either case. — The next clause is sometimes taken as an indirect subjunctive proposition, that he should not die ; but it is best to make it a direct affirmation that lie shall not. Ewald gives J"in£> a sense correspond ing to that of the verb in the preceding verse, and renders the entire phrase

for hell, i. e. so as to descend into it. If the noun be taken in this sense, or in the kindred one of grave, the preposition cannot mean in, a sense, moreover, not agreeable to usage. Those who give it that sense here are under the necessity of making nn*^ mean the dungeon, which is a frequent sense of the analogous term ">13. But whether the phrase in question mean for hell, or for the grave, or in the pit, or to destruction, the general sense is still that the captive shall not perish in captivity. This general promise is then rendered more specific by the assurance that he shall not starve to death, which seems to be the only sense that can be put upon the last clause.

15. And I (am) Jehovah thy God, rousing the sea, and then its u-aves roar; Jehovah of hosts (is) his name. Another appeal to the power of God as a pledge for the performance of his promise. J^l has been under stood in two directly opposite senses, that of stilling and that of agitating. The first is strongly recommended by the not unfrequent use of the deri vative conjugations in the sense of quieting or being quiet. The other rests upon an Arabic analogy, confirmed, however, by the context, as •l^n'l must indicate a consequence (and then or so that), and not an ante cedent (when they roar], as explained by the writers who take y?~l in the sense of stilling, and even by Gesenius, who gives that verb the sense of frightening. Some of the older writers seem to have regarded W as a transposition for 1JJ3, rebuking, a word often used to express the divine control over nature, and especially the sea. (See above, chap. xvii. 13.)

1(5. And I have put my words in thy mouth, and in the shadow of my hand I hare hid thee, to plant the hi-avens, and to found the earth, and to say to Zion, Thou art my people. That these words are not addressed to Ziou or the church is evident, because in the last clause she is spoken of in the third person, and addressed in the next verse with a sudden change to the feminine form from the masculine, which is here used. That it is not the Prophet, may be readily inferred from the nature of the work described in the second clause. The only remaining supposition is, that the Messiah is the object of address, and that his work or mission is here described, viz. to plant the heavens, /. c. to establish them, perhaps with allusion to the erection of a tent by the insertion of its stakes in the ground. There is no

need of reading rflQf?, as Lowth does, since the usage of the Scriptures is rather in favour of variation than of scrupulous transcription. The whole clause is equivalent to creating a new world, which must here be taken in a figurative sense; because the literal creation, as a thing already past, would here be inappropriate, especially when followed by the words, to say to Zion, Thou art my people. Nothing is gained by referring the infinitives to God himself, as Rosenmiiller does; because the person here addressed is still described as the instrument, if not as the efficient agent. The new creation thus announced can only mean the reproduction of the church in a new form, by what \ve usually call the change of dispensations. The outward economy should all be new, and yet the identity of the chosen people should remain unbroken. For he whom God had called to phnt new heavens and to found a new earth, was likewise commissioned to say to Zion, Thou art still my people.

17. This may be considered a continuation of the address begun at the end of the preceding verse. The same voice which there said, Thou art my people, may be here supposed to say, Rouse thyself! ruitsc thyself! Arise, Jerusalem! (thoit} who haxt drunk at the hand of Jehovah the cup of his wrath; the boirl of the cup of reeling Uiou hast drunk, thou lutst irntug (or sucked] out, i.e. drunk its very dregs. Some of the rabbins give the sense of dregs to J"iy2|5 itself. The ancient versions either overlook it, or explain it to mean a certain kind of en p. The modern writers are disposed to regard it as a pleonastic expression, similar to goblet-cup. According to its probable etymology, as traceable in Hebrew and Arabic, the word denotes the convex surface of a cup or bowl, while D13 is properly the a^ea or space within. The cup is of course put for its contents, a natural figure for anything administered or proffered by a higher power. (Compare Jer. xxv. 15, 1C, xlix, 12, li. 7, Lam. iv. 21, Obad. 1G, Ezek. xxiii. 34, Rev. xiv. 10.)

18. There is no guide to her (or no one leading her] of all the sons she has brought forth, and no one grasping her hand of all the sons she has brought up. From addressing Zion in the second person, he now proceeds to speak of her in the third. This verse is not so much descriptive of unnatural abandonment as it is of weakness. The sense is not that no one will, but that no one can protect or guide her. Some interpreters suppose the figure of a drunken person to be still continued. J. D. Michaelis even goes so far as to translate the first words of the verse, Xo one brings her a drink of water. This is no doubt founded on the usual application of this verb to the watering of flocks, from which is deduced the secondary sense of guidance in general. Hengstenberg gives to it, wherever it occurs, the sense of fostering or nourishing. (See above, on chap. xl. 11.) Tho

mother and the sons, /. e. the people, collectively and individually, are dis tinguished only by a figure of speech.

19. £oth those things are befalling (or about to befall} thee: who icill mourn for thee? Wasting and ruin, famine and sword: who (but] I will comfort thee? A difficulty here is the mention of two things in the first clause, followed by an enumeration of four in the second. Some suppose the two things to refer to what precedes, others to wasting and ruin only. Grotius thinks that wasting and famine, ruin and sword, are to be com bined as synonymes. The modern writers understand the second phrase as an explanation or specification of the first. As if he had said, wasting and ruin (such as are produced by) famine and the sword. The last words of the verse, strictly translated, mean, who I will comfort thee. The Targum limits the interrogation to the first word, and supposes the others to contain the answer. The same construction is given by Henderson, Who? I myself will comfort thee, A much greater number of interpreters include the whole in the interrogation, and either give the verb a subjunctive form, who am I that I should comfort thee? or take *P as an adverb, how shall I comfort thee? Hitzig, by whom (i.e. by what example of similar or greater suffering) shall I comfort thee? Still a different construction, although yielding substantially the same sense, is adopted above, in the translation of the verse. The general meaning evidently is, that her grief was beyond the reach of any human comforter.

20. Thy sons were faint (or helpless]. This explains why they did not come to her assistance. — They lie at the head of all the streets. A conspi cuous place is evidently meant, but whether the corners or the higher part of an uneven street, is a question of small moment. — Like a wild bull in a net, i. e. utterly unable to exert their strength. The Hebrew word N1P) is no doubt identical with the INJp of Deut. xiv. 5, and therefore must denote an animal. The ancient versions favour its identity with the oryx, a species of antelope or wild goat. Gesenius gives this explanation in his Lexicon, but here translates it stag (Hirsch). The common version (wild butt) is de rived from the Targum, and is sufficient to convey the writer's meaning by suggesting the idea of a wild animal rendered entirely powerless. The extraordinary version given in the Septuagint, GwrXiov r^ktpdov, ahalf-coolced leet, owes its origin, no doubt, to some coincidence of form or sound between the obscure Hebrew word and an Egyptian one, with which the translator was familiar. The cognate form in Deuteronomy is rendered, in the same version, but no doubt by a different hand, ogwya,. The precise sense of the Hebrew phrase appears to be, like an oryx of net, or a net oryx, i. e. an ensnared one ; but the sense may be best expressed in English by supply ing the local preposition (in a net). Knobel supposes a particular allusion to the faintness produced by hunger, and refers to several passages in Jeremiah, especially to Lam. ii. 19, which is no doubt imitated from the one before us. — The true cause of their lying thus is given in the last clause. Filled (i. e. drunk, as Ewald explains it) with the wrath of Jehovah, the rebuke of thy God. In Hebrew usage rnya approaches to the strong sense curse, and is so translated by Gesenius. The expression thy God is emphatic, and suggests that her sufferings proceeded from the alienation of her own divine protector. This verse is incorrectly applied by Vitringa to the siege of the ancient Jerusalem, whereas it is a figurative representation of the helplessness of Zion or the Church, when partially forsaken for a time by her offended Head.

21. Therefore pray hear this, thou suffering one, and drunken, lut not

with wine. The antithesis in the last clause is to be completed from the context. Not with wine, but with the wrath of God, which had already been described as a cup of reeling or intoxication. The same negative expression is employed in chap. xxix. 9. The Targum supplies from distress. Kiinchi inserts the icrath of God. Jarchi supposes an ellipsis of something else pflX "Q1), and thus accounts for the construct form of the participle. But the Michlal Jophi explains it more correctly as an instance of the idiomatic use of the construct for the absolute, in cases where a very intimate relation is to be expressed. Vitringa carries out his favourite method of interpretation, by explaining this verse as addressed specifically to the ancient church, when recovering from the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes: a limitation which might just as well be made in reference to any of the general encouragements of true believers which the word of God contains.

22. Thus saith thy Lord, Jehovah, ttnd thy God— he will defend (or avenge} Iris people — Uehold, I have taken f rum thy hand the cup of reeling (or intoxication} the boicl of the cup of my fury ; thou shalt not add (continue or repeat] to drink it any more (or again}. Even Knobel is compelled to admit that the writer has reference less to the place than to the people of Jerusalem, and even to this only as the representative of the entire nation ; a concession which goes far to confirm the explanation of the " Zion " of these prophecies which has been already given. — It is usual to explain lEp H"n* as a relative clause (u-ho pleads the cause of his people); but it is simpler, and at the same time more in accordance with the genius of the language, to regard it as a brief but complete parenthetical proposition. The same character is often ascribed elsewhere to Jehovah. See chaps. i. 17, xxxiv. 8, xli. 11, xlix. 25.) — As the cup was the cup of God's wrath, not of man's, so God himself is represented as withdrawing it from the sufferer's lips, when its purpose is accomplished.

23. And put it into the hand of those that afflicted thee, that said to thy soul, Boio down and ice will (or that we may] pass over ; and thou didst lay thy back as the ground, and as the street for the passengers. Ewald and Umbreit agree with Seeker and Lowth in reading "=1*310 thy oppressors, as in chap. xlix. 26, on the alleged authority of the ancient versions, which would be wholly insufficient if the fact were so, and Kocher has clearly shewn that it is not. The common reading is confirmed, moreover, by the use of HJin in Lam. i. 12. — To thy soul is explained by Gesenius and others as a mere periphrasis for to thee. Vitringa supposes the expression to be used because the body could not be bowed down in the manner here described without a previous bowing of the mind. But the true explanation is no doubt that given by Hengstenberg in his exposition of Ps. iii. 3 ; viz., that this form of speech always implies a strong and commonly a painful affection of the mind in the object of address. Who said to thy soul is then equivalent to saying, u-ho distressed thy soul by saying. The last clause is commonly explained as a proverbial, or at least a metaphorical description of extreme humiliation, although history affords instances of literal humiliation in this form. Such is the treatment of Valerian by Sapor, as described by Lactantius and Aurelius Victor ; with which may be compared the conduct of Sesostris to his royal captives, as described by Diodorus, and that of Pope Alexander III. to the Emperor Frederic, as recorded by the Italian historians. For Scriptural parallels, see Joshua x. 24, and Judges i. 7. — If we had any right or reason to restrict this prediction to a single period or event, the most

obvious would be the humiliation of the Chaldees, who are threatened with the cup of God's wrath in Jer. xxv. 26. Yet Vitringa sets this application aside upon the ground that Israel drank of the same cup afterwards, and understands the verse of the deliverance of the Jews from their Macedonian oppressors by the valour of the Maccabees. To the obvious objection that even this was not a final deliverance, he ingeniously replies that all the promises to Israel extend only to the end of the old dispensation; an assumption which confounds the Jewish nation with the Israel of God, the church or chosen people, which continued to exist under every change of dispensation and economy, and, notwithstanding all its fluctuations and vicissitudes, shall ultimately be for ever rescued by the same hand which destroys its enemies. This is the simple substance of the promise in the verse before us, which includes without specifically signifying all that has been thus represented as its meaning.

CHAPTEB LIL

HOWEVER low the natural Israel may sink, the true church shall become more glorious than ever, being freed from the impurities connected with her former state, ver. 1. This is described as a captivity, from which she is exhorted to escape, ver. 2. Her emancipation is the fruit of God's gratuitous compassion, ver. 3. As a nation she has suffered long enough, vers. 4, 5. The day is coming when the Israel of God shall know in whom they have believed, ver. 6. The herald of the new dispensation is described as already visible upon the mountains, ver. 7. The watchmen of Zion hail' their coming Lord, ver. 8. The very ruins of Jerusalem are sum moned to rejoice, ver. 9. The glorious change is witnessed by the whole world, ver. 10. The true church, or Israel of God, is exhorted to come out of Jewry, ver. 11. This exodus is likened to the one from Egypt, but described as even more auspicious, ver. 12. Its great leader the Messiah, as the Servant of Jehovah, must be and is to be exalted, ver. 13. And this exaltation shall bear due proportion to the humiliation which preceded it, vers. 14, 15.

1. Att-ake, awake, put on thy strength, 0 Zion! Put on thy garments - of leauty, 0 Jerusalem, the Holy City .' For no more shall there add (or continue] to come into thee an uncircumcised and unclean (person}. The encouraging assurances of the foregoing context are now followed by a sum mons similar to that in chap. li. 17, but in form approaching nearer to the apostrophe in chap. li. 9. — Vitringa objects to the version awake, on the ground that it was not a state of sleep from which she was to rouse herself. This is true so far as literal slumber is concerned ; but sleep is one of the most natural and common figures for a despondent lethargy. The essential idea is, no doubt, that of rousing or arising, which Gesenius and the later Germans express by an interjection meaning up (auf! auf!]. The same writers give to t'y, in this as in many other cases, the factitious sense of beauty, glory, simply on account of the parallelism. This is a gratuitous weakening of the sense ; for beauty and beauty is certainly much less than beauty and strength. To put on strength is a perfectly intelligible figure for resuming 'strength or taking courage, and is therefore entirely appro priate in this connection ; while the other meaning is not only less agreeable to usage, but excluded by the clear analogy of chap. li. 9, where the sense of strenyth is universally admitted. It might be objected that the sense is

there determined by the use of the word arm, if the meaning strength were a rare and doubtful one; but since it is confessedly the usual and proper one, the case referred to merely confirms the strict interpretation, which is here retained by Ewald (Macht). — That the city is here addressed only as a symbol of the nation, is certain from the next verse; so that Hitzig is compelled to assume two different objects of address, in utter violation of analogy and taste. — Beautiful garments is by most interpreters regarded as a general expression meaning fine clothes or holiday dresses; but some suppose a special allusion to a widow's weeds (2 Sam. xiv. 2), or to prisongarments (2 Kings xxv. 29). It is a bold but not unnatural idea of Knobel, that the Prophet here resumes the metaphor of chap. xlix. 18, where Zion's children are compared to bridal ornaments. — The Holy City, literally city of holiness, an epithet before applied to Zion (chap, xlviii. 2), and denoting her peculiar consecration and that of her people, to the service of Jehovah. (Compare Dan. viii. 24.) Henceforth the name is to be more appropriate than ever, for the reason given in the last clause. The meaning of *PPP, when followed by the future, is precisely equivalent to the more usual con struction with the infinitive, of which we have an instance in chap. li. 22. — Uncircumcised is an expression borrowed from the ritual law, and signifying unclean. That it is not here used in its strict sense, is intimated by the addition of the general term NOtp. The restriction of these epithets to the Babylonians is purely arbitrary, and intended to meet the objection that Jerusalem was not free from heathen intrusion after the exile. The same motive leads Vitringa to explain the promise as addressed to the Jewish Church, after its deliverance from the insults and oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Jews refer it to a future period, and the Germans easily dispose of it as a visionary expectation which was never realised. Thus Beck explains it as a prophecy that all mankind should be converted to Judaism, which is a virtual concession of the truth of the interpretation above given. The question is not materially varied by substituting come against for come into. The true solution is the one above suggested, namely, that the words contain a general promise of exemption from the contaminating presence of the impure and unworthy, as a part of the blessedness and glory promised to God's people, as the end and solace of their various trials.

2. Shake thyself from the dust, arise, sit, 0 Jerusalem ! loose the lands of thy neck, 0 captive daughter Zion (or of Zion] ! The dust from which she is to free herself by shaking it off, is either that in which she had been sit ting as a mourner (chap. iii. 26, xlvii. 1 ; Job ii. 13), or that which, in token of her grief, she had sprinkled on her head (Job ii. 12). — Koppe and Hitzig make *?^ a noun, meaning captivity or captives collectively, like the ' corresponding feminine H*3i^ in the other clause. Rosenmiiller's objection, that *?& would in that case have a conjunctive accent, is declared by Hitzig to be groundless, and is certainly inconclusive. A more serious objection is the one made by Gesenius, that *?& is always masculine, and would not therefore agree with the feminine verb 'P-lp. Hitzig's reply, that , as a collective, may be here used as a feminine, is not only wholly gratuitous but utterly precluded by the existence of a distinct feminine form and its occurrence in this very sentence. Because feminines have sometimes a collective sense, it does not follow that a masculine, when used collectively, becomes a feminine, least of all when a feminine form exists already. Among the writers who explain it as a verb, there is a difference

of judgment with respect to the meaning of the exhortation, sit! The com mon English version, sit down, till explained, suggests an idea directly opposite to that intended. Gesenius, on the contrary, makes it mean sit up, in opposition to a previous recumbent posture. To this it may be objected, that the verb is elsewhere absolutely used in the sense of sitting down, especially in reference to sitting on the ground as a sign of grief; and also, that the other verb does not merely qualify this, but expresses a distinct idea, not merely that of rising, but that of standing up, which is in consistent with an exhortation to sit up, immediately ensuing. Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, therefore agree with Vitringa and Lowth in adopting the interpretation of the Targum, sit upon thy throne, from which she is supposed to have been previously cast down. — The textual reading -inJjlBfln may be either a preterite or an imperative. In the former case, the Hithpael must have a passive sense, the bands of thy neck are loosed, or have loosed themselves. In the other case, the words may be considered as addressed to the bands themselves (be loosed], which is hardly compatible, howrever, with the use of the second person in thy neck; or the object of address may be the captives, which is equally at variance with the following singular, captive daughter of Zion. The marginal reading '•njpsrin preserves both the parallelism and the syntax, and is therefore regarded as the true text by Ewald and Knobel with the older writers. The latter, followed by Bosenmiiller, suppose an ellipsis of the preposition from. Thus the Eng lish Version: loose thyself from the lands of thy neck. Gesenius and Ewald make bands the object of the verb, which they explain, not as a strict re flexive, but a modification of it, corresponding to the middle voice in Greek. Loose for thyself the bands of thy neck. — On the different constructions of the phrase pVS see under chap. i. 8. — As a whole, the verse is a poetical description of the liberation of a female captive from degrading servitude, designed to represent the complete emancipation of the church from tyranny and persecution.

3. For thus saith Jehovah, Ye were sold for nought, and not for money shall ye be redeemed. These words are apparently designed to remove two difficulties in the way of Israel's deliverance, a physical and a moral one. The essential meaning is, that it might be effected rightly and easily. As Jehovah had received no price for them, he was under no obligations to renounce his right to them ; and as nothing had been gained by their re jection, so nothing would be lost by their recovery. The only obscurity arises from the singular nature of the figure under which the truth is here presented, by the transfer of expressions borrowed from the commercial intercourse of men to the free action of the divine sovereignty. The verse, as explained above, agrees exactly with the terms of Ps. xliv. 13, notwith standing Hengstenberg's denial (Commentary, in loc.). The reference to the blood of Christ as infinitely more precious than silver and gold, would here be wholly out of place, where the thing asserted is that they shall be redeemed as they were sold, viz., without any price at all, not merely without silver and gold. This misconception has arisen from the use of analogous expressions in the New Testament in application to a far more important subject, the redemption of mankind from everlasting ruin. The reflexive meaning given to DEn?*?? i11 the English Version (ye have sold yourselves), is not sustained by usage, nor required by the context, either here or in Lev. xxv. 39, 47, where Gesenius admits it. (See above, on chap. 1. 1.)

4. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Into Egypt went down my people at

the first to sojourn there, and Assyria oppressed them for nothing. The interpretation of this verse and the next has heen not a little influenced by the assumption of one or more strongly marked antitheses. Thus some writers take it for granted that the Prophet here intended to contrast the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage. They accordingly explain the verse as meaning that the first introduction of Israel into Egypt was without any evil design upon the part of the Egyptians, who did not begin to oppress them until there arose a king who knew not Joseph (Exod. i. 8), whereas the Assyrian deportation of Israel was from the beginning a high-handed act of tyranny. Another antitheses, maintained by some in connection with the one already mentioned, and by others in the place of it, is that between!"OK'N"13 at the first, and DQ$? at the last. A third hypothesis sup poses Egypt and Assyria together to be here contrasted with the Babylonian tyranny described in the next verse. But even here there is a question, whether the comparison has reference merely to time, and the Prophet means to say that what Jehovah had done he would do again; or whether there is also a designed antitheses between the former oppressions as less aggravated, and the present one as more so. Knobel appears to exclude the supposition of a contrast altogether, and to understand the passage as a chronological enumeration of events, designed to shew how much had been endured already as a reason why they should endure no more. (Com pare chap. xl. 2.) In ancient times they were oppressed by the Egyptians, at a later period by Assyria, and later still by Babylonia, whose oppressions are supposed to be described in ver. 5, either as already suffered, or as an object of prophetic foresight. This is the simplest and most natural inter pretation, and is very strongly recommended by the difficulty of defining the antithesis intended on the other supposition. Of the phrase D?fc<3 there are three interpretations. Saadias, Lowth, and Henderson explain it as a particle of time, the opposite of n3t'N12. The objection to this is the want of any other case in which the noun is thus applied to time, together with its frequent use to describe nonentity or nothing. It is no doubt true, as Havernick alleges, that the word may as well denote extremity of time as of place; but even the latter application is confined to the plural in the frequent formula VN ^D2S. The argument derived from the parallelism is of no avail; because, as we have seen, one of the points at issue is the question whether HJK'NIi stands opposed to D3N2 or to nny in the next verse. Most writers, therefore, understand it as meaning for nothing or without cause, i. e. unjustly, or as Kimchi expresses it, yiCJ) f)i J. Knobel, however, makes it strictly synonymous with 23H in ver. 8, and understands the clause to mean that the Assyrians had enslaved Israel gratuitously, i. e. without paying any price for him, and therefore had no right to him, when God chose to reclaim him; which is precisely the idea expressed in the foregoing verse. — The explanation of Assyria as meaning or including Babylonia, though not without authority from usage, is as unnecessary here as in various other places where it has been proposed. (See vol. i. p. 17G.) — The unsatisfactory nature of excgetical conclusions drawn from doubtful premises is strongly illustrated by the fact, that while Gesenius argues from this verse that the writer must have lived long after the Assyrian bondage, since he couples it with that of Egypt as a thing of ancient date, Havernick (Einleitung, ii. 2, p. 187) insists that it must have been written in the days of Isaiah, because it contrasts the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage as the first and the last which Israel as a nation had ex perienced. ___ The chief use of such reasonings is to cancel one another.

Though we may not venture to rest the genuineness of these prophecies on such a basis, we may cheerfully accept the assurance thus afforded that the arguments against it are of no validity.

5. And now what is there to me here (what have I here), saith Jehovah, that my people is taken away for nothing, its rulers hold, saith Jehovah, and continually, all the day, my name is blasphemed ? Some understand now strictly as meaning at the present time, in opposition to the ancient times when Israel suffered at the hands of Egypt and Assyria. The same anti thesis may be obtained by giving now a modified sense so as to mean in the present case, as distinguished from the two already mentioned. It would even be admissible to give the flow its logical sense as substantially meaning since these things are so, although such a departure from the proper import of the word is by no means necessary. — The other adverb, here, admits of no less various explanations. Hitzig and some older writers understand it to mean heaven, as the customary residence of God. (1 Kings viii. 30.) Some suppose it to mean Babylon, while others, with a bolder departure from the strict sense, understand it as equivalent to in the present case, viz., that of the Babylonian exile ; which, however, even if correct in sub stance, is rather a paraphrase than a translation. — With the meaning put upon this adverb varies the interpretation of the whole phrase, what have I here ? If here mean in Balylon, the sense would seem to be, what else have I to do here but to free my people ? If it mean in heaven, then the question is, what is there to detain me here from going to the rescue of my people ? If it mean in the present case, whether this be referred to the Babylonish exile or more generally understood, the best explanation of the question is the one proposed by Knobel, What have I gained in this case, any more than in the others, since my people are still taken from me with out any compensation ? But Beck supposes it to mean, how much more cause have I to interfere in this case than in any of the others. The con clusion implied, though not expressed, is that in this, as in the other instances referred to, a regard to his own honour, metaphorically represented as his interest, requires that he should interpose for the deliverance of his people. — The next clause likewise has been very variously explained. The most extraordinary exposition is^ the one preferred by Aben Ezra, which gives

Dv^'O the same sense as in Num. xxi. 27, and explains the whole clause thus: their poets howl, i. e. their songs, instead of being joyous have become mere lamentations. This ingenious notion is revived by Luzzatto, who refers in illustration to the prophecy of Amos (viii. 3), that the songs of the temple shall in that day howl, or, as the English Version phrases it, be howlings. Among the vast majority of writers who retain the common meaning

of the word as a derivative from?£*£>, to rule, the question chiefly in dispute is whether it denotes the native rulers of the Jews themselves, as in chap, xxviii. 14, or their foreign oppressors, as in chap. xlix. 7. Yitringa and Hitzig, who prefer the former supposition, understand the clause as meaning that the chiefs, who represent the people, howl or wail in their distress. (Compare Exod. v. 15, 21.) Knobel objects to this interpretation, that the context requires a description not of their distress but of its cause, and also that the Jews had no chiefs but the Babylonians while in exile; which is at once historically false, because the internal organization of the people seems to have continued almost without change through all their revolutions and vicissitudes, and wholly irrelevant if true, because the limitation of the pas sage to the exile is gratuitous and therefore inadmissible. Most interpreters,

however, seem disposed to understand V71J>D as meaning bis foreign oppres sors, notwithstanding the difficulty then attending the interpretation of the

verb lW?*OJ. More contempt than it really deserves has been expressed by later writers for Jerome's straightforward explanation, they shall howl when punished for their tyranny hereafter. This is, to say the least, far better

than to derive it from <vH, or to read •l/yin.1' with the Targum and Jarchi, Houbigant and Lowth, Michaelis and Doderlein, Dathe and Eichhorn. The causative sense, expressed by Kimchi and the English Version (make them to howl], is wholly unsustained by Hebrew usage. The favourite interpretation with the latest writers is essentially the same proposed by Kocher, who explains the Hebrew verb as expressive of the violent and angry domination of the rulers; upon which the moderns have improved by making it expressive of a joyful shout, as oX&Xi^w is employed by JEschylus, and as Lucan, speaking of the shout of victory, uses the words, laetis ululare triumphis. This explanation is adopted by Gesenius in his Lexicon, although explicitly rejected in his Commentary, as not sufficiently sustained by usage, — The only difficulty in the last clause has relation to the form of the word PJSP, which Jarchi explains as a Hithpael passive, and Kimchi as a mix ture of the Hithpael and Pual. — The form of expression in this last clause is copied by Ezekiel (xxxvi. 20, 28), but applied to a different subject; and from that place, rather than the one before us, the Apostle quotes in Romans ii. 24.

G. Therefore (because my name is thus blasphemed) my people shall know my name; therefore in that day (shall they know) that I am he that said, Behold me! The exact sense of the last words according to this construction is, "I am he that spake (or promised) a Behold me! " This is the sense given by Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, who understand the clause as meaning that in that day (when the promise is fulfilled) it shall be known that he who promised to be with them, and deliver them, was God himself. Gesenius gives a somewhat different construction, " they shall know that I who spoke to them am present," or in other words "that I who promised to be present have fulfilled my promise." But this paraphrastical interpretation of V3n is by no means so natural as that which understands it as the very language of the promise itself. To know the name of God, is to know his nature so far as it has been revealed; and in this case more specifically it is to know that the name blasphemed among the wicked was deserving of the highest honour. The second therefore is admitted by all the modern writers to be pregnant and emphatic; although Lowth esteemed it so unmeaning and superfluous, that he expunged it from the text on the authority of several ancient versions, which were much more likely to omit it inadvertently than all the manuscripts to introduce it without reason or authority. It is also commonly agreed that '? means that, and that the verb shall know must be repeated with a different object. It might, however, be considered simpler and more natural to repent the object with the verb, and let the last clause give a reason for the first: " therefore in that day shall they know it (*. e. know my name), because I am he that said, Behold me (or, Lo here I am) ! " The English Version differs from all the constructions which have now been stated, in explaining ^).3n as a mere reiteration of what goes before: " they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak; behold it is I." But according to usage, ^SH, especially when standing at the end of a clause or sentence, does not merely reiterate the subject of a foregoing verb, but con stitutes a new proposition; it does not mean lo I, or lo I am, but lo 1 am

here, and is therefore the common idiomatic Hebrew answer to a call by name.

7. How timely on the mountains are the feet of one bringing glad tidings, publishing peace, bringing glad tidings of good, publishing salvation, saying to Zion, Thy God reigneth. The verb -liw means to be suitable, becoming, opportune, and though not applied to time in either of the two cases where it occurs elsewhere, evidently admits of such an application, especially when there is no general usage to forbid it. It is here recommended by the con text ; which is much more coherent if we understand this verse as intimat ing that the help appears at the very juncture when it is most needed, than if we take it as a mere expression of delight. It is also favoured by the analogy of Nah. ii. 1, where a similar connection is expressed by the word H3n. It is favoured lastly by the use of the Greek word usaToi in Paul's translation of the verse (Rom. x. 15), of which Joa in our copies of the Septuagint is probably a corruption. This Greek word, both from ety mology and usage, most explicitly means timely or seasonable, although sometimes empWed in the secondary sense of beautiful (Matt, xxiii. 27 ; Acts iii. 2), like the Hebrew -11&M (Cant. i. 10), decorus in Latin, and be coming in English. The mountains meant may be the mountains round Jerusalem, or the word may be more indefinitely understood as adding a trait to the prophetic picture. — Hitzig gratuitously changes the form of the expression, by substituting foot and messengers for feet and messenger. The word "IJP3P has no equivalent in English, and must therefore be expressed by a periphrasis, in order to include the two ideas of annunciation, and the joyful character of that which is announced. The sense is perfectly ex pressed by the Greek guofyyX}£d/MWg : but our derivatives, evangelising and evangelist, are technical, not popular expressions, and would not convey the meaning to an ordinary reader. The joyous nature of the tidings brought is still more definitely intimated in the next clause by the addition of the word good, which is not explanatory but intensive. The peculiar form of the original is marred in some translations, by rendering the first "l?P?P as a noun and the second as a verb ; whereas in Hebrew there are two participles, both repeated. The explanation of "ft?'?*? as a collective referring to the prophets,- or the messengers from Babylonia to Jerusalem, is perfectly gratuitous. The primary application of the term is to the Messiah, but in itself it is indefinite ; and Paul is therefore chargeable with no misapplication of the words when he applies them to the preachers of the gospel. The contents of the message are the manifestation of the reign of God, the very news which Christ and his forerunner published when they cried saying, The kingdom of God is at hand.

8. The voice of thy watchmen ! Thetj raise the voice, together ivill they shout ; for eye to eye shall they see in Jehovah's returning to Zion. Lowth complains that none of the ancient versions or modern interpreters have cleared up the construction of the first clause to his satisfaction, or supplied the ellipsis in any way that seems to him easy and natural. He therefore proposes to read ?3 for />")? (all thy watchmen lift up their voice), which he says perfectly rectifies the sense and the construction. It is hard to reconcile with Lowth's reputation for refined taste the preference of this prosaic reading (the only external evidence for which is that P stands on an erasure in one manuscript) to the obvious assumption of a poetical apos trophe or exclamation, which has commended itself to all later writers, and had been before proposed by Vitringa. There is no need even of supplying is heard with Knobel, sounds with Gesenius in his Commentary, or hark

with the same writer in his German version. The exact translation is not only admissible, but more expressive than any other. Gesenius and De Wette, by connecting "HO! with the word before it (erheben die Stimme aUzumal), not only violate the accents, but are under the necessity of sup plying and before the next verb. — This is one of the cases where it seems most allowable to look upon the preterite and future as equivalent to our present; but according to the general rule hitherto adopted, it is best to retain the original difference of form, whenever, as in this case, we can do so without injuring the sense. Thus understood, the clause would seem to intimate that they should have still further cause to shout hereafter; they have already raised the voice, and ere long they shall all shout together. Because the prophets are elsewhere represented as watchmen on the walls of Zion (chap. Ivi. 10 ; Jer. vi. 17 ; Ezek. iii. 17, xxxiii. 2, 7), most in terpreters attach that meaning to the figure here; but the restriction is un necessary, since the application of a metaphor to one object does not preclude its application to another, and objectionable, as it mars the unity and beauty of the scene presented, which is simply that of a messenger of good news drawing near to a walled town, whose watchmen take up and repeat his tidings to the people within. — Ewald strangely takes the last clause as the words to be uttered by the watchmen, and explains them to mean, " How will they see eye to eye! " &c. This is far less natural than the usual construction, which regards the last clause as the Prophet's explanation of the joy described in the first. — The phrase eye to eye, or, as Hitzig and De Wette have it, eye in eye, occurs only here and in Num. xiv. 14. The sense put upon it in the Targum and adopted by Gesenius (with their eyes), though not erroneous, is inadequate. According to Vitringa, it denotes with both eyes, i. c. not imperfectly or dimly, but dis tinctly; and the same idea is expressed by Symmachus (bpdaXfiopavuf). The same essential meaning is attached to the expression by Ewald, but with a distinct intimation of local proximity, the phrase being properly de scriptive of two persons so near as to look into each other's eyes. The phrases face to face (Exod. xxxiii. 11) and mouth to mouth (Num. xii. 8) are kindred and analogous, but not identical with that before us. — The verb -IN'T may be construed either with "^SX or with an indefinite subject, they (i. e. the people of Jerusalem or men in general) shall see. — Rosenmiiller explains? before 3-1^' as the connective which the verb HiO takes after it when it means to see with pleasure, or to gaze at with delight. The same construction seems to be implied in Ewald's paraphrase of -INT (sich weiden); but it seems much simpler to construe the verb absolutely or without an object expressed (they shall see, i. e. look), and to make the 3 a particle of time, as it usually is when prefixed to the infinitive. — The transitive meaning ascribed to ^-It? in this and many other places has been clearly shewn by Hengstenberg (Pentateuch, i. pp. 104-106) to have no foundation either in etymology or usage, and to be probably inadmissible even in the frequent combination J"to3LJ' 2-VJ', much more in cases like the present, where the proper sense is not only appropriate but required by the context, and the analog}' of other places, in which the reconciliation between God and his people is represented as a return after a long absence. (See above, on chap. xl. 11.) — The direct construction of the verb of motion wfth the noun of place is a Hebrew idiom of constant occurrence; so that it is not necessary even to suppose an ellipsis of the preposition.

9. Burst forth, shout together, ruins of Jerusalem ! For Jehovah hath comforted his people, hath redeemed Jerusalem. The phrase ™? nys, to

burst forth into shouting, is a favourite expression with Isaiah (see above, chap. xiv. 7, xliv. 23, xlix. 13, and below, chap. liv. 1, Iv. 12) ; but in this case the qualifying noun is changed for its verbal root; a combination which occurs elsewhere only in Ps. xcviii. 4. As nyQ is never used in any other connection, and therefore denotes only this one kind of bursting, it may be considered as involving the idea of the whole phrase, and is so translated in the English Version (break forth into joy), while Gesenius gives the same sense to the two words, and translates the phrase exactly like the usual one, Din nys. — Together may either mean all of you, or at the same time with the watchmen, mentioned in ver. 8. Hitzig even goes so far as to say that the ruins are here called upon to imitate the watch men. Knobel adds that the ruins had particular occasion to rejoice, be cause they were to be transformed into a splendid city (chap. xliv. 26). Such appeals to inanimate objects are of frequent occurrence in Isaiah (see above, chaps, xliv. 23, xlix. 13, and below, chap. Iv. 12). — The translation of the verbs in the last clause as presents is unnecessary and enfeebling, as it takes away the strong assurance always conveyed by the prieteritum propheticum. See above, on chap. xlix. 13.

10. Jehovah hath bared his holy arm to the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. The allusion in the first clause is to the ancient military practice of going into battle with the right arm and shoulder bare. Thus Porus is described by Arrian as o'-fyov w,tt6f 'iyyav yv/twv IK rfi ,.a^j ; Diana by Silius Italicus, exscitos avide pugna nudata lacertos ; Tydeus by Statius, exscitare humeros nudamque lacessere puynam. The same Hebrew verb is used in the same application by Ezekiel (iv. 7). The baring of the arm may either be mentioned as a preparation for the conflict, or the act of stretching it forth may be included, as Rosenmiiller and Gesenius suppose. The bare arm is here in contrast either with the long sleeves of the female dress, or with the indolent inser tion of the hand in the bosom (Ps. Ixxiv. 11). The exertion of God's power is elsewhere expressed by the kindred figure of a great hand (Exod. xiv. 30), a strong hand (Ezek. xx. 34), or a hand stretched out (Isa. ix. 11). The act here described is the same that is described in chap. li. 9. The comparison of Jehovah to a warrior occurs above, in chap. xlii. 1 3. Jeho vah's arm is here described as holy, because, as Knobel thinks, his holiness or justice is exercised in punishing the wicked ; but the word is rather to be taken in its wide sense, as denoting the divine perfection, or whatever distinguishes between God and man, perhaps with special reference to his power, as that by which his deity is most frequently and clearly manifested to his creatures. The sense of sanctifying, i. e. glorifying arm, which Rosenmiiller suggests as possible, is much less natural and scarcely recon cilable with the expression. In this clause Ewald has retained the stric£ translation of the preterite instead; of the enfeebling present form preferred by most of the late writers. In the last clause he adopts the subjunctive form, so that all nations see, which is substantially correct, as -IN?) intro duces the effect or consequence of the action described in the foregoing clause. Compare this clause with chaps, xviii. 3, xxxiii. 13, and Ps. xcviii. 3, where it is repeated word for word. Another coincidence between tins passage of Isaiah and that Psalm, has been already pointed out in ex pounding the foregoing verse.

11. Away', away ! go out from thence! the unclean touch not! come out from the midst of her! be clean (or cleanse yourselves) ye armour-bearers of Jehovah ! The first word in Hebrew is a verb, and literally means depart ;

but there is something peculiarly expressive in Gesenius's translation of it by an adverb. The analogy of chap, xlviii. 20 seems to shew that the Prophet had the departure from Babylon in view; but the omission of the name here, and of any allusion to that subject in the context, forbids the restriction of the words any further than the author has himself restricted them. The idea that this high-wrought and impassioned composition has reference merely to ' he literal migration of the captive Jews, says but little for the taste of those who entertain it. The whole analogy of language and especially of poetical composition shews that Babylon is no more the exclu sive object of the writer's contemplation than the local Zion and the literal Jerusalem in many of the places where those names are mentioned. Like other great historical events, particularly such as may be looked upon as critical conjunctures, the deliverance becomes a type, not only to the pro phet but to the poet and historian, not by any arbitrary process, but by a spontaneous association of ideas. As some names, even in our own day, have acquired a generic meaning, and become descriptive of a whole class of events, so in the earliest authentic history, the Flood, the Fall of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, the Babylonish Exile, are continually used as symbols of divine interposition both in wrath and mercy. There is no inconsistency whatever, therefore, in admitting that the Prophet has tho exodus from Babylon in view, and yet maintaining that his language has a far more extensive scope. The error of those Christian writers who adopt this confined hypothesis is not so obvious in their own interpretations as it is in those which have been raised upon the same base by the German neologists, who, not content with this limitation of the meaning, sneer at the contracted Jewish spirit which the writer here betrays, by insisting on the old Levitical distinctions and denouncing all communion with the Gentiles as pollution. In order to maintain this unworthy view of the writer's mean ing, they explain the exhortation in the last clause as requiring ceremonial ablutions, and ndopt Jarchi's groundless and absurd interpretation of K£p as referring exclusively to persons, with allusion to the PpNn'V.iS nXyQ of Ezra, vi. 21. This restriction of the terms is so unreasonable and unfair, that Ewald and Knobel, though belonging to the same school, both explain NOD as a neuter (Unreines), that which is unclean. It would indeed be impossible to frame a more general dehortation or dissuasion from religious and moral impurity, and thousands of intelligent readers have so understood the words, without detecting in them those " angstliche pedantische Grundsa'tze," since brought to light by a mode of criticism which, even in a mere aesthetic point of view, deserves to be characterised as eminently iinystlich and pedant isch. The same spirit shews itself in the exposition of the closing words of this verse by the same class of writers. Not content with identify ing the nin; ^ with the B^'p 'fea of Num. iv. 15, 1 Chron. ix. 29, an assumption not entirely devoid of probability, they make this an address to the Priests and Levites, the official bearers of these vessels, and explain it as implying a hope that the sacred utensils taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the temple (2 Kings xxv. 14, 15 ; Dan. v. 1), would be restored by Cyrus, as they afterwaads were. (Ezra i. 7-11.) And this anticipated restitution is the great theme of the grand yet brilliant passage now before us, in tho eyes of those very critics who have gone to an extreme in holding up Isaiah's baldest prose as unmixed poetry! They reject of course the sense which Rosenrniiller, following some older writers, puts upon the closing words as meaning the armour-bearers of Jehovah. This would not be Jewish and Levitical enough to serve their purpose of really degrading what they affect

to magnify " with faint praise." Yet this sense is not onty in the highest degree suitable to the idea of a solemn march, but strongly recommended by

the fact that Qv? Nti'J in historical prose is the appropriated title of an armour-bearer. (See 1 Sam. xiv. 1,6, 7 ; xvi. 21.) At the same time the mention of the sacred vessels would scarcely be omitted in the description of this new exodus. Both explanations may be blended without any viola tion of usage, and with great advantage to the beauty of the passage, by supposing an allusion to the mixture of the martial and the sacerdotal in the whole organisation of the host of Israel during the journey through the wilderness. Not even in the Crusades were the priest and the soldier brought so near together, and so mingled, not to say identified, as in the long march of the chosen people from the Ked Sea to the Jordan. By applying this key to the case before us, we obtain the grand though blended image of a march and a procession, an army and a church, a " sacramental host" bearing the sacred vessels, not as Priests and Levites merely, but as the armour-bearers of Jehovah, the weapons of whose warfare, though not carnal, are mighty to the pulling down.of strong holds (2 Cor. x. 4). With this comprehensive exposition of the clause, agrees the clear and settled

usage of the word Dv? in the wide sense of implements, including weapons on the one hand, and vessels on the other. (See vol. i. p. 272.) — The application of the terms of this verse by John to the spiritual Babylon (Rev. xviii. 4), so far from standing in the way of the enlarged interpreta tion above given, really confirms it by shewing that the language of the prophecy is suited to express far more than the literal exodus of Israel from Babylon.

12. For not in haste shall ye go out, and inflight ye shall not depart ; for going before you (is) Jehovah, and bringing up your rear the God of Israel. This verse is crowded with allusions to the earlier history of Israel, some of which consist in the adaptation of expressions with which the Hebrew reader was familiar, but which must of course be lost in a translation. Thus the hasty departure out of Egypt is not only recorded as a fact in the Mosaic history (Exod. xi. 1 ; xii. 33, 39), but designated by the very term here used pTSn (Exocl. xii. 11 ; Deut. xvi. 3), meaning terrified

and sudden flight. So also ^.'n and *|DNP are military terms familiar to the readers of the ancient books. (See Num. x. 25 ; Josh. vi. 9, 13.) There is likewise an obvious allusion to the cloudy pillar going sometimes before, and sometimes behind the host (Exod. xiv. 19, 20), and possibly to Moses' poetical description of Jehovah as encompassing Israel with his protection (Deut. xxxii. 10). These minute resemblances are rendered still more strik ing by the distinction which the Prophet makes between the two events. The former exodus was hurried and disorderly; the one here promised shall be solemn and deliberate. How far the exquisite poetical beauty of the passage is appreciated by some modern critics, may be gathered from the fact that Rosenrnuller quotes without dissent the ridiculous remark of Schuster, that the verse has reference to the dangers of the desert between Babylonia and Judea (Ezra viii. 22, 31), and the still more curious fact that Knobel understands it as assigning a reason why they need not neglect their Levitical ablutions before setting out; while Hitzig infers from this last verse that the purification enjoined in the one before it was " etwas Zeitraubendes," or something that required time for its performance. Such aesthetics, if applied to any of the master-works of classical genius, would be laughed to scorn; but even the transcendent merit of the passage

now before us, simply considered as a piece of composition, cannot wash out the offensive stain of Judaismus, or enable certain critics to forget or even to forgive its being Scripture. The true connection of the verse with that before it must be obvious to every unsophisticated reader. The for, as in many other cases, has relation to an intermediate thought which may be easily supplied though not expressed. Or rather, it has reference to the promise implied in the preceding exhortation, of protection and security. To many thousands both of learned and unlearned readers, this connection has been obvious for ages; whereas not more than two or three, we may venture to believe, ever dreamed that this magnificent description of Jehovah's presence with his people was intended to assure the Jewish exiles that before leaving Babylon they would have time enough to wash themselves at leisure! — From this verse, taken in connection with the one before it, we may derive a confirmation of our previous conclusions, first, that the image there presented is a military no less than a priestly one; and secondly, that this whole passage has a wider scope and higher theme than the deliverance from Babylon, because the latter is no more vividly exhibited to view than the deliverance from Egypt; and if this is a mere emblem, so may that be, nay it must be, when we add to the considera tion just presented, the result of the inductive process hitherto pursued in the interpretation of these prophecies, viz. that the deliverance of Israel from exile does not constitute the theme of the predictions, but is simply one remarkable historico-prophetical example which the Prophet cites in illustration of his general teachings as to the principle and mode of the divine administration, and his special predictions of a great and glorious change to be connected with the abrogation of the old economy.

13. Behold, my servant shall do wisely (and as a necessary consequence) shall rise and be exalted and high exceedingly. The parenthesis introduced to shew the true relation of the clauses, serves at the same time to pre clude the necessity of giving ?'?£? the doubtful and secondary sense of prospering, as most modern writers do. The objection to this interpreta tion is the same as in the case of PTV and '"l^V, which it is the fashion now to render victory, salvation, or the like. The parallel expressions in the present case are not synonymous but simply correlative, the mutual relation being that of cause and effect. He shall be exalted, because he shall act wisely in the highest sense, /. c. shall use the best means for the attainment of the highest end. This kind of wisdom involves prosperity, not merely as a possible result, but as a necessary consequence. We have no right, however, to substitute the one for the other, or to merge the primary idea in its derivative. Hengstenberg undertakes to blend both senses by translating the verb he shall rule well, i. e. both wisely and suc cessfully. But to this there are two objections : first, that it introduces an idea (that of ruling) which is not expressed at all in the original ; and then, that it confounds two things which in the original are kept distinct, the antecedent and the consequent, wisdom and prosperity. The latter has the less claim to be forced into the first clause, because in the last it is so fully and strongly expressed, by combining, as Hengstenberg himself well says, all the Hebrew verbs that denote exaltation, and then adding the inten sive adverb. The version of the Septuagint (au^ssi), and the Vulgate (intelliget), is only defective because it makes the verb denote the possession of intel ligence, and not its active exercise, which is required by the Hiphil form and by the connection, as well here as in the parallel passage, Jer. xxiii. 5. (Compare 1 Kings ii. 3.) — Connected with this verse there are two exegetical

questions which are famous as the subject of dispute among interpreters. The first and least important has respect to the division and arrangement of the text, viz., whether this verse is to he connected with what goes before, or separated from it and regarded as the introduction of a new subject. The former method is adopted in the older versions and in the Masoretic Hebrew text. The latter, according to Procopius and others, was pursued in the ancient distribution of the book, with which the Fathers were familiar, and has been adopted in our own day by most writers on Isaiah. A particular exegetical motive may be easily detected in some cases for preferring the one or other of these methods. Thus Abarbenel is naturally led to sever these three verses (13-15) from what follows, by a wish to establish his peculiar hypothesis that the Messiah is the subject of these verses, but not of the next chapter. On the other hand, those writers who restrict the foregoing context to the restoration of the Jews from exile have a strong inducement to make this the beginning of a new discourse upon another subject, as the best means of disguising the un natural and violent transition which their hypothesis compels them to assume. But to this statement there are certainly exceptions. Thus the usual division is retained by Hitzig, notwithstanding his adherence to the Babylonian theory; while Ewald, who adopts the other method, admits that the fifty- third chapter begins in an entirely new tone. The ease with which arbitrary arrangements of the text may be multiplied derives some illustration from Hendewerk's assertion that chaps, lii. 7 to liv. 17 is a distinct prophecy, consisting of three parallel parts, chap. lii. 7-15, chap, liii. 1--12, chap. liv. 1-17, so that the favourite modern separation of chap. lii. 13 to liii. 12 from the context as a separate discourse is not only arbitrary but a "mutilation of the oracle." Common to all these arrange ments is the radical error of supposing that the book is susceptible of dis tribution into detached and independent parts; a notion which, as we have seen already, is not only theoretically groundless, but practically hurtful in a high degree to the sound interpretation of these prophecies. What seems to be gained, in such cases, by combining things which ought to go to gether, is more than outweighed by the disadvantage of separating others which are no less closely connected. The only satisfactory method, as we have already seen, is to regard the whole as a continuous composition, and to recognise the usual division into chapters, simply because it is familiar and on the whole convenient, although sometimes very injudicious and erroneous. According to this view of the matter, the precise distri bution of the chapters is of no more importance than that of the para graphs in any modern book, which may sometimes facilitate and sometimes hinder its convenient perusal, but can never be regarded as authoritative in determining the sense. In the case immediately before us, it is proper to resist the violent division of the chapter; because when read in its natural connection, it shews how easy the transition was from the foregoing promise of deliverance to the description of the Servant of Jehovah us the leader of the grand march just described, and confirms our previous conclusions as to the exalted meaning of the promises in question, and against a forced restriction of them to the Babylonish exile. At the same time it is equally important that the intimate connection of these verses with the following chapter should be fully recognised, in order that the Servant of the Lord, whose humiliation and exaltation are here mentioned, may be identified with that mysterious Person, whose expiatory sufferings and spiritual triumphs form the great theme of the subsequent context. To the general

agreement among Jews and Christians as to this identity, the forced hypo thesis already quoted from Abarbenel may be regarded as the sole excep tion. It follows, therefore, that the meaning of the whole passage, to the end of the fifty-third chapter, turns upon the question, Who is meant by ^y (my sen-ant] in the verse before us? An individual, or a collective body? If the latter, is it Israel as a whole, or its better portion, or the Prophets, or the Priesthood? If the former, is it Moses, Abraham, Uzziah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Cyrus, an anonymous prophet, the author him self, or the Messiah? This is the other exegetical question which has been referred to, as connected with this verse, and materially affecting the interpretation of the whole passage. The answer to this question, which at once suggests itself as the result of all our previous inquiries, is, that the Servant of Jehovah here, as in chap. xlii. 1-6, and chap. xlix. 1-9, is the Messiah, but presented rather in his own personality than in conjunclion with his people. According to the rule already stated (see above, chap, xlii. 1), the idea of the Body here recedes, and that of the Head becomes exclusively conspicuous; because, as we shall see below, the Servant of Jehovah is exhibited, not merely as a teacher or a ruler, but as an expia tory sacrifice. That this application of the verse and the whole passage to the Messiah was held by the oldest school of Jewish interpreters, ap pears from the Targum of Jonathan, who here has iinj Servant the Messiah, and is admitted by Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Abarbenel, and other Jews, who have themselves abandoned this opinion, because it would constrain them to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah of their Scriptures. Detailed proofs from the ancient Jewish books themselves are given by Hengstenberg in his Christology (vol. i. pp. 292-294). Gesenius, too, explicitly admits that the later Jews were no doubt led to give up the old interpretation of the passage by polemic opposition to Christians. (Commentary, ii. p. 161.) The same interpretation was maintained, almost without exception, in the Christian Church, till near the end of the eighteenth century, when it was abandoned by the German theologians along with the doctrines of atone ment and prophetic inspiration. Even in Germany, however, it has always had its zealous adherents, and in our own day some of its most able, learned, and successful advocates. In its favour may be urged, besides the tradition of the synagogue and church, the analogy of the other places where the Servant of Jehovah is mentioned, the wonderful agreement of the terms of the prediction with the character and history of Jesus Christ, and the ex press application of the passage to him by himself and his inspired apostles, who appear to have assumed it as the basis of their doctrine with respect to the atonement, and to have quoted it comparatively seldom only because they had it constantly in view, as appears from their numerous allusions to it, and the perfect agreement of their teachings with it; so that even Gese nius, while in one place he argues from their silence that they did not find the doctrine of atonement in the passage, says expressly in another, with a strange but gratifying inconsistency, that most Hebrew readers, being already familiar with the notions of sacrifice and substitution, must of necessity have so explained the place, and that undoubtedly the apostolic doctrine as to Christ's expiatory death rests in a great measure upon this foundation. (Comm. ii. p. 191.) The detailed proofs of the Messianic exposition will be given in the course of the interpretation, and compared with the other hypotheses maintained by Jews and Christians, which will therefore only be enumerated here in order that the reader may recall them for the purpose of comparison. The individual subjects which have been

assumed besides the Messiah, are Josiah by Abarbenel, Jeremiah by Grotius, Uzziah by Augusti, Hezekiah by Bahrdt, Isaiah by Staudlin, and (according to some) Moses and the Rabbi Akiba by a tradition quoted in the Talmud, although Hengstenberg supposes that these are mentioned only as examples or representatives of a whole class. An anonymous German writer understands by the Servant of this verse, an unknown prophet who suffered martyrdom during the exile! Another anonymous writer of the same country applies the name as a collective to the Maccabees; another to the nobles carried off by Nebuchadnezzar, or to their descendants who returned; Bolton applies it in like manner to the house or family of David. Another nameless German understands by the Servant of Jehovah, the priesthood as a class or body. This is near akin to Rosenm tiller's early doctrine that it means the propheis, which was afterwards abandoned by its author, but renewed by Gesenius in his Commentary, and by De Wette and Winer, while Umbreit attempts to blend it with the Messianic exposition by supposing the Messiah to be set forth as the greatest of the prophets, or as their ideal. Instead of this hypothesis, Roseumiiller afterwards adopted that of the rabbins who reject the Messianic doctrine (such as Jarchi, Kimchi, and Aben Ezra), viz. that the Servant of Jehovah is the Jewish people; and the same opinion is maintained by Eichhorn and Hitzig, but with this im portant difference between the soi-disant Christian and the Jewish writers, that the latter apply the passage to the present dispersion of their people, and the former to tbe Babylonish exile. As modifications of this general hypothesis may be mentioned Eckermann's extravagant idea, that the people as such, or considered in the abstract, is here distinguished from its individual members, whose words he supposes to be given in the follow ing chapter. Another modification of the same opinion is the ground assumed by Paulus, Maurer, Gesenius in his Lexicon, and in a still more qualified manner by Ewald and Knobel, viz. that the Servant of Jehovah is the spiritual Israel, the better portion of the Jewish people, as distinguished either from their ungodly brethren, or from the heathen, or from both. Some of these explanations are so perfectly groundless and extravagant that they can no more be refuted than established. This is especially the case with those which make the Servant of Jehovah any individual except the Messiah, of which it has been well said that they might be multiplied ad libitum, there being no more show of reason for the names suggested, than for a multitude of others which have never been proposed. This re mark may be extended to the theories which identify the Servant of Jehovah with the Maccabees, the House of David, the Noble Exiles, and the Priest hood, leaving as the only plausible hypotheses besides the Messianic one, those which severally understand the title as denoting the order of Prophets or the Jewish people, either as a whole, or in relation to its better part. To these the attention of the reader will be therefore directed in comparison with that which is assumed as the basis of the exposition, leaving others to refute themselves. Of those which have been mentioned as entitled to comparative consideration, that which approaches nearest to the truth is the hypothesis of Beck and Ewald, that by the Servant of Jehovah we are to understand the ideal Israel, or rather it denotes the Israel of God, not con sidered as a nation or a race, but as the church or chosen people, who in some sense represented the Messiah till he came, and is therefore often blended with him in the prophetic picture as a complex person, sometimes more and sometimes less conspicuous, but here, as we have seen already, totally eclipsed by the image of the Head himself. And yet even in this case there

are visible such striking points of similarity between the Body and the Head, that although this passage can directly refer only to the latter, it confirms the previous conclusion that in other cases the reverse is true. The general views which have been now expressed on this and other points will be reduced to a more specific form in the progress of the exposition, during the course of which respect will be had, not only to the commentaries usually quoted in this work, but to one or two special monographs, or special expositions of this passage, the most important of which are Mar tini's Commentatio Philologico-critica- (Rostock, 1791), to which most later writers have been largely indebted, and Hengstenberg's excellent interpre tation contained in the second part of his Christologie, the valuable sub stance of which it is proposed to reproduce in the ensuing pages, with some changes both of form and substance, and many additions from more recent sources. — In the verse immediately before us all that need be added is, that the extraordinary exaltation promised in the last clause is such as could never have been looked for by the Prophet, for himself or for his order, especially upon the modern supposition, that he lived in the time of the exile, when the grounds for such an expectation were far less than at any former period. It may also be observed that the personification of the prophets as an ideal individual is foreign from the usage of the Scriptures; the parallelism of sen-ant and messengers, in the first clause of chap. xliv. 26, no more proves the first to be collective, than the like relation of Jerusalem and cities of Jadak in the last clause prove the same thing of Jerusalem. The objcclion, that the title servant is not applied elsewhere to Messiah, would have little force if true, because the title in itself is a general one, and may be applied to any chosen instrument; it is not true, however, as the single case of Zech. iii. 8 will suffice to shew, without appealing to the fact, that the same application of the title, either partial or exclusive, has been found admissible above in chaps, xlii. 1, xlix. 3, and 1. 10.

14, 15. As many were shocked at thee — so marred from man his look, and his form from the sons of man — so shall he sprinkle many nations ; concerning him shall kings stop their mouth, became ichat icas not recounted to them they hare seen, and wliat the;/ had not heard they have perceived. His exaltation shall bear due proportion to his humiliation ; the contempt of men shall be exchanged for wonder and respect. According to the common agreement of interpreters, ver. 14 is the protasis and ver. 15 the apodosis of the same sentence, the correlative clauses being introduced, as usual in cases of com parison, by "Kt'^3 and |3. The construction is somewhat embarrassed by the intervening 1? at the beginning of the last clause of ver. 14, which most interpreters, however, treat as a parenthesis, explanatory of the first clause : "as many were shocked at thee (because his countenance was all marred, &c.), so shall he sprinkle many nations," &c. A simpler construc tion, though it does not yield so clear a sense, would be to assume a double apodosis : " as many were shocked at thee, so was his countenance marred, &c., so also shall he sprinkle," &c. As thus explained, the sense would be, their abhorrence of him was not without reason, and it shall not be without requital. ^P£' expresses a mixture of surprise, contempt, and aversion ; it is frequently applied to extraordinary instances of suffering when viewed as divine judgments. (Lev. xxvi. 32, Ezek. xxvii. 35, Jer. xviii. 16, xix. 8.) It is followed by the preposition ?y as usual when employed in this sense. Many does not mean all, nor is nations to be anticipated from the other clause ; there seems rather to be an antithesis between many individuals and many nations. As a single people had despised him, so the whole

world should admire him. nn^'p is a verbal noun, equivalent in this con nection to an infinitive or passive participle. It strictly means corruptions, but is here put for disfiguration or deformity. De Dieu's derivation of this word from n^?, "to anoint," has found no adherents among later writers. Henderson construes it with -in^D (the disfiguration of his appearance), notwithstanding the interposition of ^NO. The other recent writers make it the predicate, and •inN'pp the subject of the same proposition. By look and/orm we are neither to understand a mean condition nor the personal appearance, but, as an intermediate idea, the visible effects of suffering. The preposition from, away from, may be taken simply as expressive of comparison (more than), or more emphatically of negation (so as not to be human), which are only different gradations of the same essential meaning. Jahn supposes a climax in the use of t^N and D1K — his appearance should be far below that even of the lowest men; but this is looked upon by Hengstenberg as weakening the expression, and is certainly unnecessary, as well as founded on a dubious usage. — H-J* is the technical term of the Mosaic law for sprinkling water, oil, or blood, as a purifying rite. Jerome supposes a specific reference to the blood of Christ and the water of baptism. Heng stenberg gives the verb the secondary sense of cleansing, but still with reference to the effects of the atonement. The explanation of this word by the majority of modern writers as denoting that he shall cause them to leap for joy (Paulus, Winer, Gesenius in Comrn.), or rise from their seats with reverence (Ewald, Gesenius in Thes.), or start with astonishment (Eichhorn, Hitzig), or be struck with cordial admiration (Clericus, RosenmUller, Maurer, Umbreit, Knobel), is in direct opposition to a perfectly uniform Hebrew usage, and without any real ground even in Arabic analogy. The ostensible reasons for this gross violation of the clearest principles of lexi cography are: first, the chimera of a perfect parallelism, which is never urged except in cases of great necessity; and secondly, the fact that in every other case the verb is followed by the substance sprinkled, and con nected with the object upon which it is sprinkled by a preposition. But since both the constructions of the verb " to sprinkle " are employed in other languages (as we may either speak of sprinkling a person, or of sprinkling water on him), the transition must be natural, and no one can pretend to say that two or more examples of it in a book of this size are required to demonstrate its existence. The real motive of the strange unanimity with which the true sense has been set aside, is the desire to obliterate this clear description, at the very outset, of the Servant of Jehovah as an expiatory purifier, one who must be innocent himself in order to cleanse others, — an office and a character alike inapplicable either to the prophets as a class, or to Israel as a nation, or even to the better class of Jews, much more to any single individual except to One who claimed to be the Purifier of the guilty, and to whom many nations do at this day ascribe whatever purity of heart or life they either have or hope for. Another objection to the modern explanation of the word is, that it then anticipates the declaration of the next clause, instead of forming a connect ing link between it and the first. This clause is understood by some to mean that they shall be reverently silent before him, by others that they shall be dumb with wonder on account of him, by others that they shall be silent respecting him, i. e. no longer utter expressions of aversion or con tempt. Gesenius asks whether kings ever bowed personally to Christ, as intimated here and in chap. xlix. 7 ; to which Hengstenberg replies, that the only word which creates the difficulty (personally) is supplied by the

jjector; that multitudes of kings have bowed to Christ in one sense, 'nereas none in any sense, have ever thus acknowledged their sub jection to the prophets, or to Israel, or even to the pious Jews, or could have been expected so to do. — The reason of this voluntary humiliation is expressed in the last clause, viz., because they see things of which they had never had experience, or even knowledge by report. This expression shows that many nations must be taken in its natural and proper sense, as denoting the Gentiles. It is accordingly applied by Paul (Rom. xv. 21) to the preaching of the Gospel among those who had never before heard it. Interpreters have needlessly refined in interpreting the verb see as signify ing mental, no less than bodily perception. The truth is that the language is not scientific, but poetical; the writer does not put sight for experience, but on the contrary describes experience as simple vision. — For the stop ping of the mouth, as an expression of astonishment or reverence, see Job ixix. 9, xl. 4, Ps. cvii. 42, Ezek. xvi. G3, Micah vii. 1G.

CHAPTEE LIII.

NOTWITHSTANDING these and other prophecies of the Messiah, he is not recognised when he appears, ver. 1. He is not the object of desire and trust, for whom the great mass of the people have been waiting, ver. 2. Nay, his low condition, and especially his sufferings, make him rather an object of contempt, ver. 3. But this humiliation and these sufferings are vicarious, not accidental or incurred by his own fault, vers. 4-6. Hence, though personally innocent, he is perfectly unresisting, ver. 7. Even they for whom he suffers may mistake his person and his office, ver. 8. His case presents the two extremes of righteous punishment, and perfect inno cence, ver. 9. But the glorious fruit of these very sufferings will correct all errors, ver. 10. He becomes a Saviour only by becoming a substitute, ver. 11. Even after the work of expiation is completed, and his glorious reward secured, the work of intercession will be still continued, ver. 12.

1. Who hath believed our report? and the arm of Jehovah, to whom (or upon whom) has it been revealed ? While most modern writers, as we have already seen, detach the three preceding verses and prefix them to this chap ter, Hitzig goes to the opposite extreme of saying that the writer here begins afresh, without any visible connection with the previous context. Ewald more reasonably makes this a direct continuation, but observes a change of tone, from that of joyous confidence to that of penitent confession, on the part of the believing Jews, in reference to their former incredulity. Mar tini, Jahn, and Rosenmiiller put these words into the mouth of the heathen, acknowledging their error with respect to the sufferings of Israel. But this hypothesis, besides being arbitrary in itself, and unsustained by any parallel case in which the heathen are thus introduced as speaking, requires a forced interpretation to be put upon the language of the verse. Thus Rosenmiiller understands the first clause as meaning " who of us would have believed thig, had we merely heard instead of seeing it?" And the last clause in ike manner, "unto whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed as unto us ?" Gesenius and the later writers much more naturally understand the Prophet as speaking in his own name or in that of the prophets generally, act his predecessors or contemporaries merely, as Jerome and Van Der Palm issurne without necessity. They also, for the most part, retain the strict sense of the preterite, which Hengstenberg and Hendewerk exchange for

290 ISAIAH LIII. [VER.l5the present form, lelieves and is revealed. — n^UDtp is properly the passir" participle of the verb to hear, the feminine being used like the neuter to denote what is heard, and may therefore be applied to rumour, to instruc tion, or to speech in general. (See chap, xxiii. 9, 19, Jer. xlix. 14, and compare the Greek azoq, Rom. x. 1G, Gal. iii. 2, 1 Thess. ii. 18.) Hitzig supposes that the word was here suggested by the WP^ of the preceding verse. The restricted applications of the tesm, by Gesenius and Maurer to the news of the deliverance from Baby Ion, land by Hendewerk to the pre ceding strophe (chap. iii. 7-15), are alike gratuitous. Martini, Jahn, and Rosenmuller, in accordance with their notion that the heathen are here speaking, understand the whole phrase passively, as meaning "that which we have heard ;" and the same sense, on a wholly different hypothesis, is also given by Umbreit and Knobel, the last of whom applies the term to that which the prophet is described as having heard in chap. 1. 4, 5. Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others understand it actively, as meaning that which we have published in the hearing of others ; which agrees well with the context and with Paul's quotation (Rom. x. 10), and is perfectly con sistent with the strict sense of the Hebrew words, though not sustained by any definite usage, as Henderson alleges. That the words might have either of these senses in different connections, may be gathered from the fact, that in 2 Sam. iv. 4, the qualifying noun denotes neither the author nor the recipient of the declaration, but its subject, so that in itself the phrase is quite indefinite. Some understand the interrogation in this c*lause as implying an absolute negation, which, according to Hendewerk, includes the very Servant of Jehovah himself, who is described as blind and deaf in chap. xlii. 19. But there, as we have seen, the prominent idea in the Ser vant of Jehovah is the Body, whereas here it is the Head. According to Hengstenberg the implied negation is not absolute, but simply expressive of wonder at the paucity of true believers in the word at large, but more especially among the Jews, to whom, with Van Der Palm, he understands the passage as specifically referring, because it had already been predicted, in the foregoing verse, that the heathen would believe. There is no in- i consistency, however, even if we take the words before us in their widest sense ; because, as Calvin has observed, the prophet interrupts his predic tion of success and triumph to bewail the discouragements and disappoint ments which should intervene. The same thing had already been predicted indirectly in chap. xlii. 24, and similar objections to his own assurances occur in chap. xlix. 14, 24. The last clause is understood by Knobel as assigning a reason for the unbelief described in the first : they did not be lieve what they heard, because they did not see the arm of Jehovah visibly revealed. But most interpreters regard the two as parallel expressions of the same idea : to believe what God said, and to see his arm revealed, be ing really identical. The advent of Christ, his miracles, his resurrection, his ascension, are among the clearest proofs of the divine omnipotence and of its real exercise, a sceptical misgiving as to which is involved in a refusal • to believe. The arm as the seat of active strength is often put for strength itself (2 Chron. xxxii. 8, Job xxii. 8, Jer. xvii. 5), and especially for the power of Jehovah (chap. li. x. 16, Deut. iv. 84, v. 15, xxvi. 8). In this sense it is commonly regarded as convertible with hand ; but Hendewerk maintains that the latter only is applied to a gracious exercise of power (chaps, xli. 20, xlv. 11, 12, xlviii. 13, xlix. 2, 22, lix. 1), while the former always has respect to war (chaps, xl. 10, Iii. 10, Ixiii. 5, lix. 16). He therefore gives the clause exclusive reference to what God had already done

for Gyms, and designed to do for Israel, by making them victorious over all their enemies. But this distinction, though ingenious, is fallacious; because it confounds the usual application of a figure with its essential meaning, and entirely overlooks the many cases in which hand has reference to the divine vengeance (e. g. chap. ix. 11, 20, x. 4, six. 16, xxv. 10, li. 17), while in some of the cases where the arm is mentioned (chap. xl. 12, and li. 5) it is hard to discover any reference to war. But the true solution of the difficulty is, that the manifestation of God's justice is commonly described by Isaiah as including at the same time the deliverance of his friends, and the destruction of his enemies. (Sco above, chap. li. 5.) — The

use of?V in the last clause is explained by some as a mere variation of the

usual construction with 7N or 7 ; but Hengstenberg regards it as implying that the revelation comes from above, and Hitzig supposes an allusion to the elevation of the arm itself.

2. And he came up like the tender plant before him, and like the root from

a dry (/round; he had no form nor comeliness, and ice shall sec him, and no

sight that ice should desire it. There is something almost ludicrous to

modern readers in Vitringa's pedantic notion that the Prophet puts these

words into the mouth of a chorus of converted Jews. There is also some

thing too artificial in Van Der Palm's dramatic distribution of the passage,

according to which the Prophet's censure of the unbalief of the Jews (ver.

1) is followed by their justification of it (vers. 2, 3), while the first clause

of the fourth verse contains the Prophet's answer, and the last the rejoinder

of the Jews, after which the Prophet speaks again without any further in

terruption. Most of the modem writers agree with Gesenius in making

all that follows the first verse the language of the people, acknowledging

their own incredulity with respect to the Messiah, and assigning as its cause

their carnal expectations of a temporal prince, and their ignorance of the

very end for which he came. The hypothesis of Rosenmiiller and others,

who regard this as the language of the heathen, acknowledging their error

with respect to Israel, has been already mentioned. (See above, on chap,

lii. 13.) A novel and ingenious, but untenable hypothesis, has been more

recently proposed by Hendewerk, viz. that the speakers are the elder race

of exiles in Babylon, by whose transgressions that infliction was occasioned,

and that the sufferer here described is the younger race, for whose sake it

was terminated, just as in the case of the fathers and children who came

out of Egypt. — The 1 at the beginning of this verse is not causative, but

narrative, determining the past tense of the future form, and connecting

the sentence either with chap. lii. 14 or 15, or, which is the simplest and

most natural construction, with the verse immediately preceding, which,

although interrogative in form, involves an affirmation, namely, that the

people were incredulous, which general statement is here amplified. — The

common version of?V?1 as a future proper (he shall grow up) is utterly

precluded by the Vav conversive, and gratuitously violates the uniformity of

the description, which presents the humiliation of Messiah as already past. —

P.3V is properly a suckling, but is here used precisely like the cognate

English word sucker, by which Lowth translates it. On the meaning of

Wjy, see vol. i. p. 255-G. — Out of a dry ground implies a feeble, sickly

growth, and, as its consequence, a mean appearance. The dry ground,

according to Alexander Morus, is Bethlehem, which he describes, on the

authority of Strabo, as a barren spot. Along with this may be recorded

the opinion of Eusebius and other fathers, that the dry ground was the

Virgin Mary; of which Calvin might well say, extra rem loquuniur. Out of a dry ground and the parallel expression (before him) may be con sidered as qualifying both the nouns, and separated only for the sake of the rhythmical arrangement of the sentence. Before him is translated by Henderson before them, and by Lowth in their sight, in accordance with the explanation of J. H. Michaelis, -who regards it as descriptive of the popular misapprehension and contempt of Christ. Most writers take it strictly as a singular, refei'ring to Jehovah, and analogous in meaning to those words of Peter, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and pre cious (1 Pet. ii. 4). It is well observed by Henderson, however, that it was not in the sight of God that the Messiah was a root out of a dry ground, but in that of the people. — He had not, literally, there was not to him, the only form in which that idea can be expressed in Hebrew. — Form is here put for beau tiful or handsome form, as in 1 Sam. xvi. 18 David is called a man of form, i.e. a comely person. The two nouns here used are combined in literal description elsewhere (e.g. Gen. xxix. 17, 1 Sam. xxv. 31), and in this very passage (see above, chap. lii. 13). They denote in this case, not mere personal appearance, but the whole state of humiliation, and, as Calvin says, are to be understood de toto regno cvjus nuUa in oculis hominum forma, nulliis decor, nulla magnijicentiafuit. — The modern writers generally dis regard theMasoretic interpunction of this sentence, and connect •TnN'pJJ with the first clause, as a parallel to •1i"npO?.1.. The meaning then is, no form or beauty that we should look at him, no appearance that we should desire him. This is precisely the construction adopted by Symmachus, iva t'sduptt, 1\a fvi&\jy.rit)uiiJ.!v. But as this relation of the clauses is too obvious to have escaped the Masoretic critics, it is reasonable to conclude that they were influenced in setting it aside by high traditional authority. There is, be sides, a difficulty, if it be retained, in explaining the use of the verb niO} which means to view with pleasure only when followed by the preposition 3, and the sense that we should look at him does not seem entirely adequate. If we adhere to the Masoretic iuterpunction, there is no need of paraphras ing -inx^3) with the English Version (when we shall see him); it is better to give it its direct and proper sense (and we shall see him). But as both these versions suppose a transition from the form of narrative to that of prophecy, there is the same objection to them as to the common version of

?yM. On the whole, therefore, leaving out of view the authority of the Masorah, the usual construction is the most satisfactory. — In what sense the prophets thus grew up like suckers from a dry soil, or the Jewish nation while in exile, or the pious portion of them, or the younger race, it is as drfficult to understand or even to conceive, as it is easy to recognise this trait of the prophetic picture in the humiliation of our Saviour, and the general contempt to which it exposed him.

3. Despised and forsaken of men (or ceasing from among men), a man of sorrows and acquainted u-ith sickness, and like one hiding the face from him (or us), despised, and we esteemed him not. From the general description of his humiliation, the Prophet now passes to a more particular account of

his sufferings. — 7TH, from THH to cease, is by some taken in a passive and by others in an active sense. On the former supposition, the whole phrase may mean rejected of men (English Version), forsaken by men, i.e. by his friends, as in Job xix. 14 (Gesenius), or avoided by men, as an. object of abhorrence (Hitzig, Ewald, Hendcwerk). On the other sup position, it is explained by Hengstenberg as meaning one who ceases from.

among men, i.e. ceases to be a man, or to be so considered. This is pro- 1 :'bly the sense intended by the Septuagint version, and is certainly the one expressed by Aben Ezra (D'C)fr Di?33p^i57p). The version of Symrnach'us (iXdyjOTos ci'^suv), with which the Vulgate and Peshito substantially agree, seems to rest upon the same construction of 77H that is proposed by Martini, who regards both this word and HJ?3 as adjectives, deriving a super lative import from the plural following, the most despised and forsaken of men. (Compare Ps. xxii. 7, Prov. xv. 20.) But for this sense there is no authority in usage. — The phrase man of sorrows seems to mean one whose afflictions are his chief characteristic, perhaps with an allusion to their number in the plural form. (Compare Prov. xxix. 1.) Symruachus translates the phrase yvwuro; voVw, which is generally understood to mean, known or distinguished by disease; and this sense is retained by J. D. Michaelis, Paulus, Jahn, Rosenmiiller, Geseuius in his Commentary, Maurer, and Umbreit. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshito, give the first word the sense of knoiuing (ildug, sciens), from which Lowth infers that they read J?!P\ But Hengstenberg and others have shewn that the passive participle is itself employed like acquainted in English, so that there is no need of supposing any difference of text, or even that the passive form was used in an active sense. (Compare Song Sol. iii. 8 ; Ps. cxii. 7, ciii. 14.) Gesenius in his Commentary characterizes this interpretation of the word as " false," but quietly adopts it in the second edition of his Ger man Version. — In the next phrase IflpO is by some regarded as a participle, and by others as a noun. On the former supposition, the entire phrase is explained by the Septuagint, Vulgate, Targum, Aquila, Jarchi, Lowth, Koppe, De Wette, and others, as meaning, he was like one hiding his face from us, with allusion to the veiling of the face by lepers (Lev. xiii. 45) or by mourners (2 Sam. xv. 30; Ez. xiv. 17), or as an expression of shame (Micah iii. 7). To this Gesenius objects in his Commentary, that the whole description has respect, not to the conduct of the sufferer, but to his appearance in the sight of others. In the Thesaurus, he adopts this very explanation, without noticing his own objection, though he still avows a pre ference for his former construction, notwithstanding the harshness with which it may be charged, viz. like one from whom one hides the face. J. H. Michaelis and Rosenmiiller give the Hiphil, as usual, a causative sense, like one making (others) hide the face from him. But in every other case "Vflpn simply means to hide, and occurs repeatedly in that sense with this very noun D*?3. It may also be objected to the explanation of the word as a participle, that analogy and usage would require the form "VFIpp, which is actually found in four manuscripts, but no doubt as a conjectural emenda tion. Kimchi, Martini, and Hengstenberg, take 13P9 as an abstract noun, meaning properly concealment, and explain the whole phrase, like conceal ment of the face from it, e. e. like that which causes men to hide the face from it. But although the hiding of the face is elsewhere mentioned as a natural expression of displeasure, shame, and sorrow, it does not occur as an expression of contemptuous astonishment, and seems to be a forced and exaggerated method of expressing such a feeling. It may therefore be better on the whole to combine the explanation of "iripO as a noun with that of -13OD as a pronoun of the first person, and to understand the whole phrase as meaning, like a hiding of the face from us, /. e. as if he hid his face from us in shame and sorrow; notwithstanding the objection of Gese nius, that the subject of description is not the demeanour of the sufferer, which has not only been abandoned by himself (although renewed by Hengstenberg), but is in itself unreasonable, since the writer's purpose was not to observe the unities of rhetoric, but to make a strong impression of the voluntary humiliation of the Messiah, which could not be. more effectually secured by any single stroke than by the one before us, thus explained. — Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and Umbreit follow the Peshito in making n.J3? the first person plural (we despised him] ; and Martini supplies the want of a suffix by reading N? 1HT23 instead of N?1 HT33. But the anomalous use of the future creates a difficulty not to be gratuitously introduced; and the analogy of nt33 in the first clause makes it much more natural to take this as a participle likewise, with the other ancient versions, and with Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel. — Here again the reader is invited to compare the forced application of this verse to the Prophets, to all Israel, to the pious Jews, or to the younger race of exiles, with the old interpretation of it as a prophecy of Christ's humiliation.

4. Surely our sicknesses he lore, and our griefs lie carried ; and we thought him stricken, smitten, of God, and afflicted. pK is determined, both by its etymology and usage, to be a particle of affirmation. The sense of but, assumed by most interpreters, is rather what they think the writer should have said, than what he has said. The comparatively rare use of adversative particles in Hebrew has already been mentioned as a striking idiomatic peculiarity. The metaphor is that of a burden, and the meaning of the whole verse is, that they had misunderstood the very end for which Messiah was to come. Sickness, as in the verse preceding, is a representative ex pression for all suffering. Our griefs, those which we must otherwise have suffered, and that justly. The plural UvTl is defectively written for W^TTI, which last appears, however, in eleven manuscripts and eighteen editions ; while on the other hand twenty manuscripts and two editions have the defective form -"UJl&pp, which cannot be singular, because the pronoun which refers to it is plural. Henderson makes his English version more expres sive of the writer's main drift by employing the idiomatic form, it icas our griefs he bare, it was our sorrows he carried. — The explanation of Nt'3 as meaning merely took away, is contradicted by the context, and especially by

the parallel phrase E?2p} which can only mean he bofe or carried them. It is alleged, indeed, that one is never said to bear the sins of another, and some go so far as to explain these words as meaning that he bore with them patiently, while others understand the sense to be that he shared in the sufferings of others. But the terms are evidently drawn from the Mosaic law of sacrifice, a prominent feature in which is the substitution of the victim for the actual offender, so that the former bears the sins of the latter, and the latter, in default of such an expiation, is said to bear his own sin. (See Lev. v. 1, 17, xvii. 16, xxiv. 15 ; Num. ix. 13, xiv. 83 ; Exod. xxiii.

38 ; Lev. x. 17, xvi. 22.) For the use of ??D in the same vicarious sense, see Lam. v. 7. (Compare Ez. xviii. 19.) The Septuagint in the case before us has pegtt, Symmachus ateXupt. The application of these words by Matthew (viii. 17) to the removal of bodily diseases cannot involve a denial of the doctrine of vicarious atonement, which is clearly recognised in Mat. xx. 28 ; nor is it an exposition of the passage quoted in its full sense, but, as Calvin well explains it, an intimation that the prediction had begun to be fulfilled, because already its effects were visible, the Scriptures always representing sorrow as the fruit of sin. — Stricken, as in some other cases, has the pregnant sense of stricken from above, as Noyes expresses it, or smitten of God, as it is fully expressed in the next clause. (See Gen.

xii. 17 ; 2 Kings xv. 5 ; 1 Sam. vi. 9.) There is no need, therefore, of supposing an ellipsis. The other verb H33 was particularly applied to the infliction of disease (Num. xiv. 12 ; Deut. xxviii. 22), especially the leprosy; which led Jerome to give JM33 the specific sense leprous. Hence the old Jewish notion that the Messiah was to be a leper. Theodoret more correctly uses the generic term /j,s/j.aaTr/c>jlutM$, equivalent to the K\rr/tis SeoD pdarr/t of ^Eschylus. — Instead of the construct form i"!3!p, some manu scripts exhibit the absolute n.?p; which is preferred by Bellarmine and some others, who explain the whole phrase as meaning a stricken God, and use it as a proof of the divinity of Christ. — By stricken, smitten, and afflicted we are of course not to understand stricken, smitten, and afflicted for his own sins, or merely stricken, smitten, and afflicted, without any deeper cause or higher purpose than in other cases of severe suffering. It is scarcely necessary to suppose a reference to the notion that great suffering was a proof of great iniquity. (Compare Luke xiii. 1 ; John ix. 2.) — In order to reconcile this verse with their hypotheses, Knobel and Hendewerk are under the necessity of proving that the pious Jews or younger race of exiles suffered more in the captivity than any others, which they do with great ease by applying thus all the descriptions of maltreatment which occur throughout the Later Prophecies.

5. And he was pierced (or wounded) for our trnnsf/r ess ions, bruised (or crushed) for our iniquities ; the chastisement (or punishment] of our peace (was) upon him, and by his stripes we icerc healed. The translation of the particle at the beginning by whereas, ya, or- the like, is a departure from the Hebrew idiom wholly unnecessary to the clearness of the passage, which is continued in the simple narrative or descriptive form. Aben Ezra's ap plication of the verse to the sufferings of the Jews in their present exile and dispersion, is worthy of a place by the side of Hendewerk's assertion that the Prophet here speaks as one of the older race of captives in Babylon, acknowledging the error of himself and his contemporaries with respect to the younger and better generation. — '?inP is derived by Cocceius from ^•in to writhe with pain, and translated e.rcritciatHs cut ; but the true dcrivaii

tion is no doubt the common one from?<n to perforate, transfix, or pierce, with special reference to mortal wounds; so that the derivative 7'_n, though strictly meaning pierced or wounded, is constantly applied to persons slain by violence, and especially in battle. Hence the Peshito version of "TnP (kilk'l), although apparently inaccurate, is really in strict accordance with the Hebrew usage. Vitringa and Henderson suppose a particular allusion to the crucifixion. Hengsteuberg explains the word more generally as a metaphorical expression for extreme suffering. This agrees well with the parallel expression crushed or bruised, to which there is nothing literally corresponding in our Saviour's passion; and if this must be taken as a figure for distress of mind, or suffering in general, the other can be naturally understood only in the same way. It is very possible, however, that there may be a secondary and implicit reference to the crucifixion, such as we have met with repeatedly before in cases where the direct and proper mean ing of the words was more extensive. — As "lp-1tD is often applied elsewhere to correction by words, some explain it to mean here instruction, as to the means of obtaining peace with God. But the stronger sense of chastisement or punishment not only suits the context better, but is really the most con sistent with the usage of the verbal root, and of the noun itself, in such cases as Job v. 17, Prov. xxii. 15, xxiii. 13, as well as with the subsequent expression on him, which is hardly reconcilable with the supposition of mere precept or example. Whether the word was intended at the same time, as Hengstenberg supposes, to suggest the idea of a warning to others, may be made a question. The chastisement of peace is not only that which tends to peace, but that by which peace is procured directly. It is not, to use the words of an extreme and zealous rationalist, a chastisement morally salutary for us, nor one which merely contributes to our safety, but, accord ing to the parallelism, one which has accomplished our salvation, and in this way, that it was inflicted not on us but on him, so that we came oft' safe and uninjured. (Hitzig.) The application of the phrase to Christ, without express quotation, is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament. (See Eph. ii. 14-17, Col. i. 20, 21, Heb. xiii. 20, and compare Isa. ix. 6, Micah vi. 5, Zech. i. 13.) — n7?^ ig properly a singular, denoting the tumour raised by scourging, here put collectively for stripes, and that for suffering in general, but probably with secondary reference to the literal infliction of this punishment upon the Saviour. — KS'pJ is not a noun, as Henderson explains it, but a passive verb, here used impersonally, it was

healed to us, the W limiting the action to a specific object. It was healed is a general proposition; with respect to us is the specific limitation. The use of the / may be otherwise explained by supposing that the verb has

here the modified sense of healing was imparted, as in ver. 11 ? p^VH means to impart righteousness or justification. Healing is a natural and common figure for relief from, suffering considered as a wound or malady. (Compare chaps, vi. 10, xix. 22, xxx. 26, Jer. viii. 22, xxx. 17, 2 Chron. vii. 14.) The preterite is not used merely to signify the certainty of the event, but because this effect is considered as inseparable from the procur ing cause which had been just before described in the historical or narra tive form as an event already past: when he was smitten, we were thereby healed. It is, therefore, injurious to the strength as well as to the beauty of the sentence, to translate with Henderson, that by his stripes we might be healed. The mere contingency thus stated is immeasurably less than the positive assertion that lj his stripes we were healed. The same objection, in a less degree, applies to the common version, we are healed, which makes the statement too indefinite, and robs it of its peculiar historical form. —

Above thirty manuscripts and as many editions have WBv£> in the plural; a form which does not occur elsewhere. — The hypothesis that this passage has exclusive reference to the Babylonish exile, becomes absolutely ludi crous when it requires us to understand the Prophet as here saying that the people were healed (/. e. restored to their own land) by the stripes of the prophets, or by those of true believers, or that the old and wicked race were healed by the stripes of their more devout successors. This last hypothesis of Hendewerk's, besides the weak points which it has in common with the others, involves two very improbable assumptions: first, that the distinction of good and bad was coincident with that of young and old among the exiles; and secondly, that this younger race was not only better than the older, but endured more suffering.

6. All we like sheep had gone astray, each to his own way we had turned, and Jehovah laid on him the iniquity of us all. This verse describes the occasion, or rather the necessity of the sufferings mentioned in those before it. It was because men were wholly estranged from God, and an atone ment was required for their reconciliation. All ice does not mean all the Jews or all the heathen, but all men without exception. The common

version, lave gone astray, have turned, does not express the historical form of the original sufficiently, but rather means we have done so up to the pre sent time, whereas the prominent idea in the Prophet's mind is that we had done so before Messiah suffered. Noyes's version we ivere going axtray is ambiguous, because it may imply nothing more than an incipient estrange ment. — The figure of wandering, or lost sheep is common in Scripture to denote alienation from God and the misery which is its necessary conse quence (see Ezek. xxxiv. 5, Mat. ix. 30). The entire comparison is prob ably that of sheep without a shepherd (1 Kings xxii. 17, Zech. x. 2). The second clause is understood by Augusti as denoting selfishness, and a detect of public spirit, or benevolence; and this interpretation is admitted by Hengstenberg as correct if "taken in a deeper sense," viz. that union among men can only spring from their common union with God. But this idea, however just it may be in itself, is wholly out of place in a comparison with scattered sheep, whose running off in different directions does not spring from selfishness, but from confusion, ignorance, and incapacity to choose the right path. A much better exposition of the figure, although still too limited, is that of Theodoret, who understands it to denote the vast variety of false religions, as exemplified by the different idols worshipped in Egypt, Phenicia, Scythia, and Greece, alike in nothing but the common error of departure from the true God. E/ y.a.\ didpogoi rr^ r/.an;; oi reoxoi, vdvrtz opoius fbv ovrct §sov x.araXsXo/ToVsj. — The original expression is like the sheep (or collectively the flock) i. e. not sheep in general, but the sheep that wander, or that have no shepherd. — The idea of a shepherd, although not expressed, appears to have been present to the writer's mind, not only in the first clause but the last, where the image meant to be presented is no doubt that of a shepherd laying down his life for the sheep. This may be fairly inferred not merely from the want of connection which would otherwise exist between the clauses, and which can only be supplied in this way, nor even from the striking analogy of Zech. xiii. 7, where the figure is again used, but chiefly from the application of the metaphor, with obvious, though tacit, reference to this part of Isaiah, in the New Testament to Christ's laying down his life for his people. (See John x. 11-18, and 1 Peter ii. 24, 25.) — The reading of one manuscript, J^n for JJj??n, is pro bably an accidental variation. The meaning given to this verb in the margin of the English Bible (made to meet) is not sustained by etymology or usage, as the primitive verb 1^2 does not mean simply to come toge ther, but always denotes some degree of violent collision, either physical, as when one body lights or strikes upon another, or moral, as when one person falls upon, i. e. attacks another. The secondary senses of the verb are doubtful and of rare occurrence. (See above, on chap, xlvii. 3, and below, on chap. Ixiv. 4.) Kimchi supposes the punishment of sin to be here represented as an enemy whom God permitted or impelled to fall upon, or assail the sufferer. Vitringa and Henderson, with much more questionable taste, suppose the image to be that of a wild beast by which the flock is threatened, and from which it is delivered only by the inter position and vicarious exposure of the shepherd to its fury. Most in terpreters appear to be agreed in giving it a more generic sense. The common version (laid upon him) is objectionable only because it is too weak, and suggests the idea of a mild and inoffensive gesture, whereas that conveyed by the Hebrew word is necessarily a violent one, viz. that of causing to strike or fall, which is faithfully expressed by Umbreit (Hess /alien), still more closely by Ewald and De Wette (Hess tre/en), and correctly but less definitely by Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others (warf). Among the ancient versions Symmachus has -/.aravrqaai ix-o/qasv, and Jerome posuit in eo, which last, although it scarcely gives the full sense of the verb, retains that of the preposition, as denoting strictly in him, < i. e. not merely on his head or on his body, but in his soul, or rather in his person, as expressive of the whole man. The word }1JJ does n°t of itself mean punishment, but sin; which, however, is said to have been laid upon the Messiah, only in reference to its effects. If vicarious suf fering can be described in words, it is so described in these two verses; so that the attempts to explain them as denoting mere forbearance or participation in the punishment of others, may be fairly regarded as des perate expedients to make the passage applicable to the imaginary per secutions of the Prophets, or the pious Jews, or the younger race during the Babylonish exile. The amount of ingenuity expended on these sophisms only shews how artificial and devoid of solid basis the hypothesis must be which require to be thus supported. — With this and the foregoing verse compare Rom. iv. 25, 2 Cor. v. 21, 1 Peter ii. 22-25.

7. He was oppressed and he humbled himself, and he will not open his mouth — as a lamb to the slaughter is brought, and as a sheep before its shearers is diimb — and he will not open his mouth. Having explained the occasion of Messiah's sufferings, the Prophet now describes his patient en durance of them. As '^1? is sometimes applied to the rigorous exaction of debts, De Dieu translates it here exactus est, Tremellius exigebatur pcena,. Lowth has the same sense, but makes the verb impersonal, it was exacted and he was made answerable ; but HJJ? is not used like the Latin respondeo as a technical forensic term. Van Der Palm explains the first verb, he ivas demanded, i. e. by the people, to be crucified ; but K'l? does not mean to demand in general, its primary meaning is to urge or press. (See chap. iii. 5, vol. i. p. 111.) The general voice of the interpreters is strongly in favour of the old translation, he was oppressed or persecuted. — The next phrase has been usually understood as a simple repetition of the same idea in other words. Thus the English Version renders it, he was oppressed, and he icas afflicted. Besides the tautology of this transla tion (which would prove nothing by itself), it fails to represent the form of the original, in which the pronoun N-in is introduced before the second verb, and according to usage must be regarded as emphatic. Martini's proposition to transpose the particle, so as to read n.jyij] N-1H C;JI3, is merely an ingenious expedient to evade a difficulty of construction. Gesenius gives S-ini. the sense of although, and explains the whole as meaning that he was oppressed although before afflicted, and the same interpretation is adopted by Urnbreit, Hendewerk, and Knobel. There does not seem to be much force in Hengstenberg' s objection, that n3JJ as well as K'lJ is applied to severe suffering. Gesenius's interpretation would be no less admissiblo on the supposition that the verbs are perfectly synonymous, the distinction lying not in the verbs themselves, but in the ohnehin which he supplies. The true objection is that he does supply.it, arbitrarily referring the t\vo verbs to different points of time, and also that the meaning which he gives K-in1! is forced and foreign from Hebrew usage. The same objection lies against Hitzig's construction of the clause, he was oppressed, and although persecuted, opened not his mouth, which, moreover, omits in translation not only the first Vav but the second. Ewald explains it thus : he iras perse cuted although he humbled himself. The same reflexive , meaning had been given to HpW by Koppe, Jahn, and others, and appears to be implied in

the paraphrastic versions of Symmachus (xai auro? u*^xoti<re) and Jerome (quia ipse voluit). Supposing this sense of the verb to be admissible, byfar the simplest and most natural construction is to give K-IH} its ordinary sense as a conjunction and emphatic pronoun, he was oppressed and he himself submitted to affliction, or allowed himself to be afflicted. There is then no tautology nor any arbitrary difference of tense assumed between the two verbs, while the whole sense is good in itself and in perfect agree ment with the context. The same sense, substantially, is put upon the clause by Beck's explanation of £*!} as the first person plural (wir erwiesen vns tyrannisch) ; which is favoured by the obvious opposition of the first and third person in tbe preceding verse, and by the use of N-IH in this. All other writers seem agreed, however, that L"j3 is the third )erson singular of Niphal. All interpreters, perhaps without excepion, render Hfl?? as a prater or a present, which is no doubt substanially correct, as the whole passage is descriptive. It seems desirable, lowever, to retain, as far as possible, the characteristic form of the original, especially as it is very hard to account for the repeated use of the future icre, if nothing more was intended than might have been expressed by the )ra?ter. At all events, the strict sense of the form should be retained, if it can be done without injury to the sense, which is certainly the case here, as we have only to suppose that the writer suddenly but naturally changes lis position from that of historical retrospection, to that of actual participa tion in the passing scene, and, as if he saw the victim led to the slaughter, says, " he will not open his mouth." There is no need, therefore of sup posing with Hitzig that the 1, though separated from the verb, exerts a conversive influence upon it. The repetition of the same words at the end, so far from being even a rhetorical defect, is highly graphic and impressive. [n the intermediate clause, we may either suppose an ellipsis of the relative, equally common in Hebrew and in English (like a lamb which is led), or suppose the preposition to be used as a conjunction (as a lamb is led), without effect upon the meaning of the sentence. The 1 before the last clause is not the sign of the apodosis, nor need it be translated so, the form adopted in the Septuagint version (ourwj O\JK avor/n TO arfiij,a), for the purpose of shewing that the words refer to the subject of the first clause, and not to the sheep or lamb, as Luther and Gesenius assume, in violation of the syntax (?HT being feminine) and the poetical structure of the sentence which depends materially on the repetition of the same words in the same sense and application as before. Besides those places where Christ is called the Lamb of God (e. <j. John i. 29 ; 1 Peter i. 18, 19 ; Acts viii. 32, 35), there seems to be reference to this description of his meek endurance in 1 Peter ii. 23. — It might seem almost incredible, if it were not merely one out of a thousand such examples, that Vitringa formally propounds the question, quando tonsus sit Christus Dominus? and gravely answers when be was shorn of his prerogatives and rights by the Jewish Sanhedrim. As if there were no difference (or as if such a man as Yitringa could not see it), between saying he was silent and submissive like a sheep before its shearers, and saying he was silent and submissive before his shearers like a sheep.

8. from distress and from judgment he was taken; and in his generation who ivill think, that he was cut off from the land of the living, for the trans gression of my people, (as) a curse for them ? Every clause of this verse has been made the subject of dispute among interpreters. The first question is, whether the particle at the beginning denotes the occasion or the cause,

as all agree that it does before S^? in the last clause, or whether it is to be taken in its ordinary sense of from. This is connected with another question, viz. whether taken means delivered, or taken up, or taken away to execu tion, or taken out of life. It is also disputed whether 1VV means imprison ment, or oppression and distress in general, nnd also whether OS^P means judicial process, sentence, or punishment. From the combination of these various explanations, have resulted several distinct interpretations of the whole clause. Thus the text of the English Version has, he was taken from prison and from judgment; the margin of the same, he was taken away by distress and judgment; Hengstenberg and others, he was taken (to execution) by an oppressive judgment. Most of the older writers un derstand these words as descriptive of his exaltation — from distress and judgment he was freed, or taken up to heaven. So Jerome and J. H. Michaelis. Gesenius, Riickert, and Umbreit also, understand it to mean that he was freed from his sufferings by death. To this interpretation Hengstenberg objects, that the account of the Messiah's exaltation begins in ver. 10, while the intervening verse still relates to the circumstances oi his death; and also that the reference of HJ5? to a violent death is here de termined by the parallel expression, " he was cut off from the land of the living." He might have added that even in Gen. v. 24, and 2 Kings ii. 9, 10, the word is used in reference to a singular departure from the ordinary course of nature. Luzzatto and Henderson give IP the privative sense of without, and understand the clause to mean that he was taken off without restraint or authority. The same construction seems to have been anticipated by Zwingle, who pharaphrases the expression thus, indicia causa citraquc judicium. — In the next clause, the interpretation turns upon the question whether nl means life, dwelling, posterity, or contemporaries, , and the verb to think or speak. Luther, Calvin, and Vitringa understand! the clause to mean, who can declare the length of his life hereafter? Kimchi and Hengstenberg explain it to mean, who can declare his posterity or spiritual seed? To this it is objected that the verb requires a connective 1 particle before its object, and that Christ is not called the father, but the I brother of his people, and that "OT has this sense only in the plural. Cleri- i cus supposes it to mean, who can worthily describe his course of life? But this sense of ">n is not sustained by usage. Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, | and others follow Storr in making IIITD^ an absolute nominative — as to his generation (i. e. his contemporaries), who considered it, or cared for it? To this construction Hengstenberg objects that J"ltS! seldom if ever denotes j the subject of the verb, and also that nnitJ". is th m left without an object. | Neither of these objections lies against Ewald's modification of this sumei exposition, which makes J~IN a preposition, and continues the interrogation \ through the sentence — in (or among) his generation (i. e. his contempo- j raries), who considered that he was cut off from the land of the living? etc. Hoffmann's extravagant interpretation of the clause as meaning, who care for his dwelling, i. e. where he is? deserves no refutation. — "iff?, according to some writers, is employed in Ps. Ixxxviii. G, and Lam. iii. 54, in refer ence to a natural and quiet death; but Hengstenberg maintains that ever there a violent departure is implied. — Paulus infers from the singular for ^PJJ, that Jehovah here begins to speak again; but Hengstenberg explains it as equivalent to us, and a similar use of the singular form by a pluralitj of speakers is exemplified in 1 Sam. v. 10, Zech. viii. 21. — Of the last words 1"? W5 there are several interpretations. Aben Ezra and Abarbenel, followed by Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, apply them to the sufferer here

described as meaning, he was smitten, and infer from the use of the plural suffix that the subject of the chapter is collective. Others adopt the same sense and application of the words, but deny the inference, upon the ground that ID, though properly a plural suffix, is not unfrequently used for a singular, as the very same form is in Ethiopia. This ground is also main tained by Ewald in his Grammar. Hengstenberg admits that the pronoun is here plural, but refers it to the people, and supplies a relative — for the transgression of my people who were smitten, literally to whom there was a stroke or punishment, i. c. due or appointed. Ewald, without supposing an ellipsis, renders it, a stroke for them, i. e. smitten in their place and for their benefit. Cocceius gives the same sense to the words, but applies them very differently as a description of the people, plaga ipsis adhaeret, i.e. impuri sitnt. (See the use of V33 in Exod. xi. 1.) — According to Hendewerk, the land of the living is the Holy Land, and the verse is de scriptive of the Babylonish exile. " By a divine judgment was the people taken away, and yet who can declare its future increase? It was cut off from its osvn land, for the transgression of the fathers were the children smitten." It is not surprising that the writer who invented this interpreta tion should sneer at the Messianic exposition as extravagant and groundless. The reading filD?, which appears to be implied in the Septuagint Version, and is adopted by Houbigant and Lowth, is wholly without critical authority, or intrinsic worth to recommend it.

9. And he gave with wicked (men) his grave, and with a rich (man) in his death ; because (or althoui/h) he had done no violence, and no deceit (was) in his mouth. The second member of the first clause is thus translated by Martini : tumuhnn sepulchralem cum violentis ; which suppposes Vri1D3 to be the plural of flp2, a height or high place, here put for a monumental mound or hillock. The same interpretation is approved by Kenuicott and Jubb. But as the plural niD3 retains its first vowel when followed by a suffix or another noun (Deut. xxxii. 29, Micah iii. 12), Ewald adopts the pointing VJTID2, which is found in three manuscripts; but it still remains impossible to prove from usage any such meaning of HO3. Theuius goes further, and reads VrTni2. And all this for the sake of a more perfect parallelism, although the common text affords a perfectly good sense, viz. in his death, i. e. after it, as in Lev. xi. 81, 1 Kings xii. 31, Esther ii. 7, and the only difficulty is the one presented by the plural form, which is surely not so serious as to require its removal by an arbitrary change of text. It is not even Eecessary to explain it with Jarchi as denoting all kinds of death, or with Abarbenel as implying a collective, not an indivi dual subject. It is much more natural to assume, with Hitzig, that the suffix is assimilated to the apparent plural termination fll, or that it is simply a case of poetic variation, as in Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10. — Rosenmiiller's version is, he gave himself up to the wicked to be buried, or he left his burial to the wicked. But besides the forced construction here assumed, this explanation leaves vn'lO2 unexplained, and does not agree with what is afterwards asserted, that he did no wrong, &c. — Rabbi Jonah, as quoted in the Michlal Jophi, explains "VK'V t° mean a wicked man ; and this ex planation is adopted by Luther, Calvin, and Gesenius, who regard the word as suggesting the accessory idea of one who sets his heart upon his wealth, or puts his trust in it, or makes an unlawful use of it. This is so arbitrary, that Martini and some later writers abandon the Hebrew usage altogether, and derive the sense of wicked from the Arabic root JLe.

But this is doubly untenable; first, because tlie Hebrew usage cannot be postponed to tbe Arabic analogy without extreme necessity, which does not, here exist; and secondly, because the best.authorities exhibit no such meaning of the Arabic word itself. Ewald, awrare of this, and yet deter mined to obtain the same sense^ effects his purpose with his usual bold ness, by changing "VKTIJ into P^'V — a convenient word invented for the purpose. Beck, writh scarcely less violence, explains it as an orthographi cal variation of Y^ (chap. xlix. 25). It may appear surprising that this forced imposition of a new and foreign meaning on a word so familiar should be thus insisted on. Luther and Calvin no doubt simply followed the rabbinical tradition; but the later writers have a deeper motive for pursuing a course which in other circumstances they would boldty charge upon the great Reformers' ignorance of Hebrew. That motive is the wish to do away with the remarkable coincidence between the circumstances of our Saviour's burial and the language of this verse, as it has commonly been understood since Cappellus. This interpretation, as expressed by Hengstenberg, makes the verse mean that they appointed him his grave with the wicked, but that in his death he really reposed with a rich man, viz. Joseph of Arimathea, who is expressly so called, Mat. xxvii. 57. The j indefinite construction of the verb, and the sense thus put upon it, are in perfect accordance with usage. (See e. g. Ps. Ixxii. 15, Eccles. ii. 21, Gen. xv. 18, Isa. Iv. 4, Jer. i. 4.) Even Aben Ezra explains f/are by •; adding, i. e. in intention. It is also possible to make ^JJ the subject of the verb, but wholly unnecessary. Some refer it to Jehovah, and suppose the sense to be that he appeared to assign him his grave with the wicked. Malefactors were either left unburied, or disgraced by a promiscuous inter ment in an unclean place; a usage explicitly asserted by Josephus and \ Maimonides. As the Messiah was to die like a criminal, he might have expected to be buried like one; and his exemption from this posthumous dishonour was occasioned by a special providential interference. To the different interpretations which have now been given of this first clause, may be added two as curiosities. The first is that of Jerome, who makes HN the sign of the accusative, and thus translates the whole: dabit impios pro sepultura et divitem pro morte sito. The other, that of Hoffmann, * they (my people) treated him (my servant) like a wealthy tyrant. — /]) (for "!£>&•? 7JJ) is properly a causative particle, equivalent to for that, or because; •'- but most interpreters regard it as equivalent to although, which is more agreeable to our idiom in this connection. Knobel observes, with great naivete, that the reference of this verse to the burial of Christ has found its way into the exposition of the passage in connection with its general application to that subject; to which we may add, that it can only find its way out in connection with a wish to get rid of that unwelcome applica tion. At the same time it must be observed, that even if "Vt?V be taken in the sense of wicked, although we lose the striking allusion to the burial of Christ in the sepulchre of Joseph, the verse is still applicable to his burial, as the last clause then means, like the first, that they appointed him his grave with malefactors. Clericus and Kennicott propose to transpose 1"Qp and ITrtOS, because there seems to be an incongruity in saying that he made his grave with the wicked, and was with the rich in his death, when, accord ing to the history, he died with the wicked, and was buried with the rich. But this apparent difficulty rests upon a false interpretation both of |P? and VniD?. There is no need of following in detail the laborious attempt to reconcile this verse, even after some of its expressions have been wrested

for the purpose, with the supposition that the subject of the prophecy is Israel in exile, and that the burial here spoken of is merely political and civil, as in chap. xxv. 8, xxvi. 19.

10. And Jehovah was pleased to crush (or bruise) him, he put him to (jrief (or made him sick), if (or when) his sou! shall make an offering for sin, he shall see (his) seed, lie shall prolong (his) days, and the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand shall prosper. Here begins the account of the Mes siah's exaltation. All the previous sufferings were to have an end in the erection of God's kingdom upon earth. As the first clause is in contrast with the last of ver. 9, it may be read, and (i/et) Jehovah was pleased, i. e. notwithstanding the Messiah's perfect innocence. The sense is not, as Barnes expresses it, that Jehovah ivas pleased ivith his being crushed, which might imply that he was crushed by another, but that Jehovah was pleased himself to crush or bruise him, since the verb is not a passive but an active one. Luzzatto makes IN?1!! an adjective used as a noun, his crushed or afflicted one, contritus suits. Hitzig makes yDH. a noun with the article, it pleased Jehovah that disease should crush him. But most interpreters appear to be agreed that the first is the Piel infinitive of N3;!, and the last the Hiphil preterite of n?n, strictly meaning he made sick, but here used, like the cognate noun in vers. 3, 4, to denote distress or suffering in general. Martini and Gesenius make IK?1? the object of ^.Djl, it pleased Jehovah to make his tcoiiml sick, i.e. to aggravate his wounds, or wound him sorely. This construction, although somewhat favoured by the analogy of Micah vi. 13 (compare Nahum iii. 19), does violence to both words, and is incon sistent with their collocation in the sentence. Jahn accounts for the future form of 0^'fl by supplying "T?^, and regarding what follows as the words of Jehovah, who is afterwards spoken of, however, in the third person. But this is not unusual even in cases where Jehovah is undoubtedly the speaker. Hitzig and _ Hendewerk agree with De Dieu and other early writers in explaining D^'FI as the second person, which is also given in the text of the English Version (when thou shall make, &c.) ; but as Jehovah is nowhere else directly addressed in this whole context, the construction in the margin (when his soul shall make) is the one not commonly adopted. Hengsteuberg, in his Christology, explains 1^'?? as a mere periphrasis for N-in ; but he may be considered as retracting this opinion in his Commen tary on Ps. iii. 3, where he denies that the expression is ever so employed. Vitr'nga understands it here to signify that the oblation was a voluntary one. It seems more natural, however, to explain it as referring the obla tion to the life itself which was really the thing offered ; just as the blood of Christ is said to cleanse from all sin (1 John i. 7), meaning that Christ cleanses by his blood, i.e. his expiatory death. — D^X primarily signifies a trespass or offence, and secondarily a trespass-offering. In the law of Moses it is technically used to designate a cert.iin kind of sacrifice, nearly allied to the HXtpn or sin-offering, and yet very carefully distinguished from it, although archaeologists have never yet been able to determine the precise distinction, and a learned modern rabbi, Samuel Luzzatto, expresses his conviction that they differed only in the mode of offering the blood. The word is here used not with specific reference to this kind of oblation, but as a generic term for expiatory sacrifice. The use of analogous expressions in the New Testament will be clear from a comparison of Rom. iii. 25, viii. 3, 2 Cor. v. 21, 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10, Heb. ix. 14. In the case last quoted, as in that before us, Christ is represented as offering himself to God. —

As the terms used to describe the atonement are borrowed from the cere monial institutions of the old economy, so those employed in describing the reward of the Messiah's sufferings are also drawn from theocratical associa tions. Hence the promise of long life and a numerous offspring, which, of course, are applicable only in a figurative spiritual sense. The Septuagint and Vulgate, followed by Lowth, connect the two successive members of the clause as forming only one promise (he shall see a seed which shall pro long their days}. The separate construction is not only simpler, but requisite in order to express the full sense of the promise, which was literally given and fulfilled to Job in both its parts (Job xlii. 16), and in its spiritual sense is frequently applied to Christ (e.g. Heb. vii. 16, 25, Rev. i. 18). The seed here mentioned is correctly identified by Hengstenberg and others with the mighty, whom he is described as sprinkling in chap. lii. 15, and as spoiling in ver. 13 below, whom he is depicted in ver. 11 as justifying, in ver. 5 as representing, in ver. 12 as interceding for. They are called his seed, as they are elsewhere called the sons of God (Gen. vi. 2), as the disciples of the prophets were called their sous (1 Kings ii. 25), and as Christians are to this day in the East called the offspring or family of the Messiah. — rpy.1* does not refer to past time, as Martini explains it (felicissime executus est}, but to the future, into which the glorious reward of the Messiah is and must be considered as extending.

11. From the labour of his soul (or life] he shall see, he shall be satisfied ; by his knowledge shall my servant, (as} a righteous one, give righteousness to many, and their iniquities he will bear. In this verse Jehovah is again directly introduced as speaking. The |P at the beginning is explained by Gesenius, Hitzig, and Maurer, as a particle of lime, after the labour of his soul, like the Latin ab itinere. Others explain it from, implying freedom or deliverance. Knobel makes it mean ivithout, which yields the same sense. Most interpreters follow the Vulgate in making it denote the efficient or procuring cause : Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus. The Eng lish Version makes it partitive ; but this detracts from the force of the expression, and implies that he should only see a portion of the fruit of his labours. The allusion to the pains of parturition, which some English writers find here, has no foundation in the Hebrew text, but only in the ambiguity of the common version, which here employs the old word tra vail, not in its specific but its general sense of toil or labour. The Hebrew word includes the ideas of exertion and of suffering as its conse quence. J. D. Michaelis understands the clause as meaning, " from his labour he shall joyfully look up ; " but there is no sufficient authority for this interpretation of the verb, which simply means to see, and must be construed with an object either expressed or understood. This object is supposed by Kimchi to be good in general (12 VaC"1! 21D HNT1) ; by Jerome, seed, as in the foregoing verse ; by Hengstenberg, the whole blessing there promised. Abarbenel supposes the two parts of that promise to be specially referred to, "he shall see his seed, he shall be satisfied with days," a common Scriptural expression. (Gen. xxv. 8, xxxv. 29.) — V5^ means to be satisfied not in the sense of being contented, but in that of being filled or abundantly supplied. It is applied to spiritual, no less than to temporal enjoyments. (Ps. xvii. 15, cxxiii. 3, Jer. xxxi. 14.) Clericus and Hengstenberg suppose an allusion to the processes of agriculture, and the abundant produce of the earth. Some interpreters regard this as a case of hendiadys, in which the one word simply qualifies the other ; he

shall see he shall be satisfied, i.e. he shall abundantly see, or see to his heart's content. Maurer adopts this construction, and moreover connects 1fllp2 with what goes before, and gives '1XT the sense of seeing with delight: mirifice l&talntur sapicntid slid. Martini has the same construc tion, but explains inyT to mean the knowledge of God, i.e. piety or true religion. But as Jehovah is himself the speaker, Jahn refers the suffix to Messiah, and gives the phrase a passive sense, "he shall be satiated with the knowledge of himself," i.e. abundantly enjoy the happiness of being recognised by others as their highest benefactor. But this is neither a natural construction nor consistent with' the accents. The explanation of fijn, as meaning doctrine, is entirely without foundation in usage. The only satisfactory construction is the passive one, which makes the phrase mean, by the knowledge of him upon the part of others; and this is deter mined by the whole connection to mean practical experimental knowledge, involving faith and a self-appropriation of the Messiah's righteousness, the effect of which is then expressed in the following words. — Gesenius gives p^yfi the sense of converting to the true religion, or turning to righteous ness, as in Dan. xii. 3. But that justification in the strict forensic sense is meant, may be argued from the entire context, in which the Messiah appears not as a Prophet or a Teacher, but a Priest and a Sacrifice, and also from the parallel expression in this very verse, and their iniquities he u-ill bear. The construction with 7, Cocceius, Hengstenberg, and Maurer explain, by giving to the verb the sense of bestowing or imparting right eousness, in which way other active verbs are construed elsewhere. (See for example, chap. xiv. 3, Gen. xlv. 7, 2 Sam. iii. 30.) Another solution of the syntax is afforded by taking? in its strict sense as denoting general relation, and the verb as meaning to perform the act of justification, not in the general, but in reference to certain objects — he shall be a justifier with respect to many. In the next clause Lowth omits P^V because it stands before the substantive, which he pronounces an absurd solecism. Gesenius supposes the adjective to be prefixed, because it is peculiarly emphatic. Hengstenberg goes further and supposes it to be used as a noun, the right eous one, my servant. But as this would seem to require the article, it is perhaps better to explain P^V with Ewald, as a righteous person (als Gerechter) which idea Maurer thus expresses paraphrastically, for my ser vant it righteous. Martini's explanation of the clause as meaning, the Saviour my servant shall save many, has met with little favour, even among those who adopt an analogous explanation of P^V and n[3Ty elsewhere. According to Beck the sense of the whole clause is, " by his knowledge of God he shall justify himself, or shew himself righteous; righteous is my servant for many, /. e. for their benefit." — All mistake and doubt as to the nature of the justification here intended, or of the healing mentioned in Jver. 6, or of the cleansing mentioned in chap. Iii. 15, is precluded by the addition of the words, and he shall bear their iniquities. The introduction of the pronoun makes a virtual antithesis, suggesting the idea of exchange or mutual substitution. They shall receive his righteousness, and he shall bear their burdens. One part of the doctrine taught is well expressed by Jerome: et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit, quas illi portare lion poterant, tt quorum pomlere opprimebantur. The whole is admirably paraphrased by Calvin: L'hrislus jmtificat homines dando ipsis justitiam suam, et vicissim in se suscipit peccata ipsorum, ut ea expiet. — The preterite sense given to 2p' by Martini and others is entirely arbitrary and rejected by the later

Germans as forbidden by the futures which precede and follow, all referring to the state of exaltation. Gesenius, however, though he makes the ex pression future, extenuates it by explaining it to mean that he shall make their burden lighter by his doctrine, and by promoting their moral improve ment. But this is at once inconsistent with the context, and with his own.interpretation of the fourth verse, where he understands the similar expres sions as referring to vicarious atonement, while Hitzig is guilty of the same inconsistency, but in a reversed order, making this verse teach the doctrine and the other not. — In order to do justice to the theories which represent this passage as a prophecy of the return from exile, it should here be mentioned that Maurer understands this verse as meaning that the pious Jews should not refuse to share the punishment incurred by their ungodly brethren, and Luzzatto that they should endure with patience the maltreatment and misconduct of the world around them. As for Hendewerk, he boldly denies that P^V? is used in a forensic sense, or that 731?? means to bear in any other sense than that of the Latin phrase tollere morbum or dolores. Knobel sums up his exposition of the verse by saying that the many are without doubt the heathen who should be converted, and to whom the Jews sustained the same relation as a prophet or a priest to laymen.

12. Therefore will I divide to him among the many, and with the strong shall he divide the spoil, in lieu of this that he tared unto death his soul, and with the transgressors was numbered, and he (himself) bare the sin of many, and for the transgressors he shall make intercession. The Septuagint and Vulgate make the many and the strong the very spoil to be divided (x7.r,fow^rfiu TToXAou;, dispertiam ei plurimos). The same construction is retained by Lowth, Martini, Rosenmuller, Hengstenberg, and others. It woulc scarcely be natural, however, even if both adjectives were preceded by the ambiguous particle J"l?$, much less when the first has ? before it, whicl occurs nowhere else as a connective of this verb with its object. It is better, therefore, to adopt the usual construction, sanctioned by Calvin Gesenius, and Ewald, which supposes him to be described as equal to the greatest conquerors. If this is not enough, or if the sense is frigid, aft Martini alleges, it is not the fault of the interpreter, who has no right to strengthen the expressions of his author by means of forced constructions. The simple meaning of the first clause is that he shall be triumphant, no that others shall be sharers in his victory, but that he shall be as gloriously successful in his enterprise as other victors ever were in theirs. Indeed the same sense may be thus obtained, for which the writers above men tioned have departed from the obvious construction, if, instead of making 3 and HX denote comparison, sve understand them to denote locality, and to describe him as obtaining spoil not with but among the many and the strong, and thus securing as the fruits of victory not only their possessions, but themselves. — Hengstenberg gives O^D the sense of mighty, simply because that idea is expressed by the parallel term ; which rather proves the contrary, as a synonymous parallelism would in this case be enfeebling, and the very same word is admitted to mean many by Hengstenberg him self in the last clause. — Abarbenel's objection that Christ never waged war or divided spoil, has been eagerly caught up and repeated by the rational istic school of critics. But Hengstenberg has clearly shewn that spiritual triumphs must be here intended, because no others could be represented as the fruit of voluntary humiliation and vicarious suffering, and because the same thing is described in the context as a spriukling of the nations, as a

bearing of their guilt, and as their justification. The many and the strong of this verse are the nations and the kings of chap. lii. 15, the spiritual seed of vers. 8 and 10 above. (Compare chap. xi. 10, and Ps. ii. 8.) — The last clause recapitulates the claims of the Messiah to this glorious reward. "VVv/ is commonly explained to mean poured out, with an allusion to the shedding of blood considered as the vehicle of life. (Gen. ix. 4, Lev. xvii. 11.) Beck even goes so far as to say that the writer looks upon the soul itself as a material fluid running in the blood. Not only is this inference a forced one, but the premises from which it is deduced are doubtful; for it seems more accordant with the usage of the verb, and at the same time to afford a better sense, if we explain it to mean made bare or exposed to death. The assertion that niO? would then be superfluous is refuted by the analogy of Judges v. 18. — The reflexive sense which Hengstenberg and others give to H3PJ (numbered himself, or suffered himself to be numbered), though not absolutely necessary, is strongly recommended by the context, and the obvious consideration that his being numbered passively among them was not such a claim to subsequent reward, as a voluntary acquies cence in their estimation. — The application of this clause to our Saviour's crucifixion between thieves (Mark xv. 28) is justly said by Hengstenberg not to exhaust the whole sense of the prophecy. — It rather points out one of those remarkable coincidences which were brought about by Pro vidence, between the prophecies and the circumstances of our Saviour's passion. — JT3?* does not mean he fell among sinners, i. e. he was reckoned one of them (Maurer), but, as in Jer. xxxvi. 25, denotes intercession, not in the restricted sense of prayer for others, but in the wider one of meri torious and prevailing intervention, which is ascribed to Cbrist in the New Testament, not as a work already finished, like that of atonement, but as one still going on (Rom. viii. 84, Heb. ix. 24, 1 John ii. 1), for which cause the Prophet here employs the future form. There is no ground, therefore, for explaining it as a descriptive present, or perverting it into a preterite, nor even for transforming N^3 to a future likewise, for the sake of uniformity. Because the Prophet speaks of the atonement as already past, and of the work of intercession as still future, it follows, not as some imagine, that he meant to represent both as past or both as future, but on the contrary that he has said precisely what he meant to say, provided that we give his words their simple, obvious, and unforced meaning. The N-1H1 does not mean and yet, whereas, or although, but is either designed to make the pronoun emphatic (he himself or he on his part), or, as Hengstenberg suggests, to shew that the last two members of the clause are not depend ent on the "^'^ rinri. This last phrase does not simply mean because, but expresses more distinctly the idea of reward or compensation. The most specious objection to the old interpretation of this verse, as teaching the doctrine of vicarious atonement, is the one made by Luzzatto, who asserts that Ny'3, when directly followed by a noun denoting sin, invariably means to forgive or pardon it, except in Lev. x. 17, where it means to atone for it, but never to bear the sins of others, which can only be expressed by 3 S^'J) as in Ezek. xviii. 19, 20. In proof of his general assertion, he appeals to Gen. i. 17, Exod. x. 17, xxxii. 32, xxxiv. 7, Ps. xxxii. 5, kxxv. 3, Job vii. 21, in all which cases it must be admitted that the sense hich he alleges is the true one. It is no sufficient answer to this argu- Iment to say that the parallel expression (D^yiy 73D') determines the meanting of the phrase in question; since all parallelisms are not synonymous, and no parallelism can prove anything in opposition to a settled usage. But

although the parallel phrase cannot change or even ascertain the sense of this, it does itself undoubtedly express the idea which the objector seeks to banish from the text; since no one can pretend to say that??p means to pardon, and it matters not on which side of the parallel the disputed doctrine is expressed, if it only be expressed at all. Little or nothing would be therefore gained by proving that NBH KE'J only means to pardon. But this is very far from being proved by the induction which Luzzatto has ex hibited, and by which he has unintentionally put a weapon into the hands of his opponents while attempting to disarm them. How can this learned and ingenious Jew account for the fact, which he himself asserts, that the idea of forgiveness is expressed in Hebrew by the verb NE^ ? The most plausible account which he could probably give is that N5JO means to take away, and that to pardon is to take away sin. But let it be observed, in the first place, that the two ideas are by no means identical, and that to many, perhaps most minds, the phrase to take away sin suggests the idea, not of pardon properly so called, but of something preparatory to it; and what is this something but atonement? In the next place, the primary and proper meaning of NE>3 is not to take away, but to take up, or to take upon one's self; its most frequent secondary meaning is to take about or carry, and even in the cases where it means to take an-ay, it means to take away by taking up and bearing: so that even if KEH KE>J means to take away sin, it would necessarily suggest the idea of its being, in some sense, taken up and borne, as the means of its removal. In the third place, the only satisfactory solution of the question above stated is, that the usage, to which it relates, presupposes the doctrine, that the only way in which a holy God can take away sin is by bearing it: in other words, he can forgive it only by providing an atonement for it. This alone enables him to be supremely just, and yet a justifier, npt of the innocent, but of the guilty. ; Thus the usage, which Luzzatto so triumphantly adduces to disprove the doctrine of atonement, is found, on deeper and more thorough scrutiny, itself to presuppose that very doctrine. t But lastly, let it be observed thai Luzzatto is compelled to grant that N5W may mean to bear the guilt of others as a substitute, but modestly asks us to believe that it has this sense only in one place (Ezek. xviii. 20), and even there only because followed by a 3 ; as if that construction, which is perpetually interchanged with the direct one, could have more effect in that case, than the context and paral lelism in the one before us. The only other aberration which it will be necessary here to notice, is the strange opinion, broached by Ewald, with his characteristic confidence and abstinence from proof, that this whole passage, from the thirteenth verse of the preceding chapter, is the work of an older writer than the Great Unknown to whom he ascribes the other chapters, and whom he supposes to have thrust it into the midst of his own composition, without any reason why it should stand any where, and still less why it should stand just in this place; since, according to Ewald's own account, it has no direct connection either with what goes before or follows. The arguments by which he undertakes to justify this wild hypothesis are such as we have long since learned to rate at their true value, such as the use and repetition of expressions and ideas which occur nowhere else, together with the vague metaphorical assertion, that the atmosphere of this piece is entirely different from that of the other chapters, always excepting chap. Ivi. 9 to Ivii. 11, which (we may almost say, of course) is likewise an interpolation. It is strange that such an intellect as Ewald's should have failed to perceive that all this is an ill-disguised confession of his own incapacity to trace the true connection in a difficult por tion of an ancient writing, and proceeds upon the principle, which even he would hardly venture to propound in terms, that it is better to expunge a passage from the text than to acknowledge its obscurity or leave it unex plained. If it be true, as he asserts, that this is the only way in which the existing controversy as to the fifty-third chapter can be settled, it had better not be settled at all. It is worthy of remark that neither Ewald's reason ing nor his authority appear to have made any converts to this neoteric doctrine. With respect to the frequent repetitions which he charges on the passage, it may be added in conclusion, that so far from being rhetorical defects or indications of another author, they are used with an obvious design, viz. that of making it impossible for any ingenuity or learning to eliminate the doctrine of vicarious atonement from this passage, by pre senting it so often and in forms so varied and yei still the same, that he who succeeds in expelling it from one place is compelled to meet it in an other, as we have alread}r seen to be the case in the comparison of vers. 4 and 11, as interpreted by Hitzig and Gesenius. Whether the dreaded in convenience is more barely met or more effectually remedied by making this incorrigible prophecy still older than the rest with which it stands connected, is a question which we leave to the decision of the reader.

CHAPTER LIV.

INSTEAD of suffering from the loss of her national prerogatives, the church shall be more glorious and productive than before, ver. 1 . Instead of being limited to a single nation, she shall be so extended as to take in all the nations of the earth, vers. 2, 3. What seemed at first to be her forlorn and desolate condition, shall be followed by a glorious change, ver. 4. He who seemed once to be the God of the Jews only, shall now be seen to be the God of the Gentiles also, ver. 5. The abrogation of the old economy was like the repudiation of a wife, but its etfects will shew it to be rather a renewal of the conjugal relation, ver. 6. The momentary rejection shall be followed by an everlasting reconciliation, vers. 7, 8. The old economy, like Noah's flood, can never be repeated, ver. 9. That was a temporary institution; this shall outlast the earth itself, ver. 10. The old Jerusalem shall be forgotten in the splendour of the new, vers. 11, 12. But this shall be a spiritual splendour, springing from a constant divine influence, ver. 13. Hence it shall also be a holy and a safe state, ver. 14. All the enemies of the church shall either be destroyed or received into her bosom, ver. 15. The warrior and his weapons are like God's creatures and at his disposal, ver. 16. In every contest, both of hand and tongue, the church shall bo triumphant, not in her own right or her own strength, but in that of him who justifies, protects, and saves her, ver. 17.

1. tihout, 0 barren, that did not bear ; break forth into a shout and cry aloud, she that did not writhe (in childbirth) : for more (arc] the children of the desolate than the children of the married (troman), saith Jehovah. Ac cording to Grotius and some later writers, the object of address is the city of Jerusalem, in which no citizens were born during the exile, but which was afterwards to be more populous than the other cities of Judah which had not been reduced to such a state of desolation. Besides other difficulties which attend this explanation, it will be sufficient to observe that those who apply the first verse to the city of Jerusalem are under the necessity of afterwards

assuming that this object is exchanged for another, viz the people; a conclusive reason for regarding this as the original object of address, espe cially as we have had abundant proof already that the Zion or Jerusalem of these Later Prophecies is the city only as a symbol of the Church or nation. Our idiom in the first clause would require didst not bear and didst not writhe; but Hebrew usage admits of the third person. Another Hebrew idiom is the expression of the same idea, first in a positive and then in a negative form, barren that did not bear. This very combination occurs more than once elsewhere. (Judges xiii. 2; Job xxiv. 21.)— For the sense of nin Tiys, see above, on chap. lii. 9 ; and for that of nopit? as opposed to n>iy?, compare 2 Sam. xiii. 20. The same antithesis here used occurs in 1 Sam. ii. 5.

2. Widen the place of thy tent, and the curtains of thy dwellings let them stretch out; spare not (or hinder it not); lengthen thy cords and strengthen (or make fast) thy stakes. As in the parallel passage (chap. xlix. 20, 21), the promise of increase is now expressed by the figure of enlarged accom modations. The place may either be the area within the tent or the spot on which it is erected. The curtains are the tent-cloths stretched upon the poles to form the dwelling. l|tfP, though strictly a generic term, is often used in reference to tents, and particularly to the tabernacle. Some take -IE! as a neuter or reflexive verb, let them stretch out or extend them selves ; but Kimchi construes it with those who stretch, and Ewald with an indefinite subject, let them stretch. That this verb was habitually used in this connection, may be learned from 2 Sam. xvi. 22. The stakes are the tent-pins, to which the tent-cloths are attached by cords. The last verb may either mean take stronger pins, or fix them more firmly in the ground; both implying an enlargement of the tent, and a consequently greater stress upon the cords and stakes.

3. For right and left shall- thou break forth (or spread), and thy seed shall possess (or dispossess or inherit) nations, and repeople ruined (or forsaken) cities. Kimchi understands right and left as geographical terms equivalent to north and south, the east and west being represented by nations and cities. Knobel gives the same explanation of the first two, but accounts for the omission of the other two by saying that the sea was on the west, and on the east a wilderness. A far more natural interpretation of the words is that which take right and left as indefinite expressions meaning on both sides or in all directions. The verb fD? was peculiarly appropriate, because associated with the promise in Gen. xxviii. 14, in which case all the cardinal points of the compass are distinctly mentioned. KHJ is not simply to possess but to inherit, i. e. to possess by succession, which in this case implies the dispossession of the previous inhabitants, so that the version drive out, given by Gesenius and others, although not a literal translation, really expresses no idea not expressed in the original. The figurative meaning of the terms, as in many other cases, is evinced by an immediate change of figure, without any regard to mere rhetorical consistency. The same thing which is first represented as the violent expulsion of an enemy from his dominions, is immediately afterwards described as the restoration of deserted pfeces, unless rnOkW be supposed to mean forsaken by those just before expelled, which is hardly consistent with its usage as applied to desolations of long standing. — The whole verse is a beautiful description of the won derful extension of the church, and her spiritual conquest of the nations.

4. Fear not, for thou shalt not fa ashamed; and be not abashed, for thou shalt not Uush ; for the shame of thy youth thou shalt forget, and the reproach

of thy widowhood thou shalt not remember' any more. Here, as in many other cases, shame includes the disappointment of the hopes, but with specific reference to previous misconduct. (See Job vi. 20.) The first clause declares that she has no cause for despondency, the second disposes of the causes which might seem to be suggested by her history. The essen tial meaning is, thy former experience of my displeasure. The figurative form of the expression is accommodated to the chosen metaphor of a wife forsaken and restored to her husband. The specific reference of youth to the Egyptian bondage, and of widowhood to the Babylonian exile, is extremely artificial, and forbidden by the context.

5. for thy husband (is) thy Maker, Jehovah of hosts (is) his name ; and thy Redeemer (is) the Hoty One of Israel, the God of all the earth shall he be cal/el. This verse is marked by a peculiar regularity of structure, the two members of the first clause corresponding exactly to the similar mem bers of the other. In each clause the first member points out the relation of Jehovah to his people, while the second proclaims one of his descriptive names. He is related to the church as her Husband and Redeemer ; he is known or shall be known to all mankind as the Lord of hosts and as the God of the whole earth, which are not to be regarded as equivalent expres sions. As the Gael of the Jewish institutions, the redeemer of a forfeited inheritance, was necessarily the next of kin, it is appropriately placed in opposition to the endearing name of husband ; and as the title Lord of hosts imports a universal sovereignty, it is no less exactly matched with the God of the whole earth. But this last phrase expresses the idea of universal recognition. — There is no grammatical objection to the usual in terpretation of the last word in the verse, as meaning he is called, corre sponding to his name is in the other clause, and signifying, in the Hebrew idiom, he is, with emphasis. But since no reason can in that case be assigned for the use of &Of£ instead of N^i?3, and since the strict translation of the future strengthens the expression by transforming a description into a prophecy, it seems best to retain the English Version, the God of the ivhole earth shall he be called, i. e. he shall be recognised hereafter in the character which even now belongs to him. (Compare chap. xlv. 23, and Rom. xiv. 11.) The Targum and the Vulgate, Aben Ezra and Kimchi, take ^v^.2 in its primitive sense of thy lords or rulers ; but this, though etymologically right, is less agreeable to usage, to the parallelism, the immediate context, and the analogy of other places where the conjugal relation is undoubtedly re ferred to. (See especially chap. Ixii. 4, 5.) The form of this word and y&y is regarded by Gesenius as an instance of the plurnlis majestaticus, •while Maurer makes the last a singular form peculiar to the ffo derivatives, and supposes the other to be merely assimilated to it by a species of paro nomasia.

6. For as a wife forsaken and grieved in tyirit has Jehorah called thee, and (as) a wife of youth, for she shall be rejected, said thy God. Reduced to a prosaic form and order, this verse seems to mean, that Jehovah had espoused her in her youth, then cast her oft' for her iniquities, and now at last recalled her from her solitude and grief to be his wife again. (Compare Hosea, ii. 4, 7, 14, 1C, 19.) — A wife of youth, not merely a young wife, but one married early. (See Proverbs v. 18, and Malachi ii. 14.) A£ this description belongs not to the main subject, but to the thing with which it is compared, there is no propriety in making youth mean a specific period in the history of Israel. The sense is not that she had been wedded to Jehovah in her youth and now recalled, but that he now recalled her as a

husband might recall the long rejected wife of his youth. — The common version of the last clause, when thou least refused, is ungrammatical, unless we take DNEfl as a licence for ""P^Efl like rrpri in chap. Ivii. 8, and such anomalies are not to be assumed much less to be multiplied without neces sity. Most of the modern writers make it the third person, but retain the same construction: who has been (or when she has been) rejected. But this, besides being forced, would seem to require the praeter, not the future, which Hitzig sets down as an inaccuracy of the writer. Still more un natural and arbitrary is Luzzatto's interrogative construction, " Can the wife of one's youth le thus abhorred? Surely not." Ewald gains the same sense by making it an ironical exclamation: and the wife of ones youth — (as if it were possible) that she could be treated with contempt! All these expedients are precluded by the fact that we obtain a good sense by adher ing to the proper meaning of the '? and of the future, simply making these the words of Jehovah at the time of her rejection, and referring "i£N to the same time and to this clause alone, instead of making it include the whole verse, which is the less natural, because the first clause speaks of Jehovah in the first person. Thus understood, the last clause is an explanation of the first, in which she is said to have been recalled as a forsaken wife, and as a wife of youth, because her God had said to her at that time, thou shalt be rejected. This explanation, while it simplifies the syntax, leaves the meaning of the verse unaltered. — Henderson calls upon the reader to " mark the paronomasia in rn-ITJJ and rQ-1¥#." Gesenius goes further and attempts to copy it (ein vertriebnes Weib betriibten Herzens] ; while Hitzig, it may be for that very reason, doubts whether any paronomasia was de signed at all.

7. In a little moment I forsook thee, and in great mercies I will gather thee. The metaphor is here carried out in the form of an affectionate assurance that the love now restored shall experience no further interruption. The use of the preterite and future implies an intermediate point of view between the opposite treatments here described. I did forsake thee, and now I am about to gather thee. Hitzig explains this last expression by the analogy of Judges xix. 15, where a cognate verb means to receive into one's house. So Lowth translates it, I will receive thee again, and Ewald in like manner. Umbreit still more expressly, / draw thee to myself. Knobel applies the term directly to the people, whose scattered members were to be collected. (See chap, xxvii. 12, xliii. 5.) According to Umbreit, the time of anger is called little in comparison with the provocation offered ; according to Knobel, in comparison with the favour that should follow, which agrees far better with the parallelism and the context. Hitzig, however, says that it is not the period of alienation which is here described as short, but the anger which occasioned it. A similar antithesis is used by David, Ps. xxx. 6. (Compare Isaiah xxvi. 20.) Instead of great mercies, Henderson has with the greatest tenderness. — If any specific application of the words be made, it must be to the momentary casting off of Israel which seemed to accom pany the change of dispensations. The confusion of the metaphors in this whole passage springs from the complexity of the relations which they re present. As a nation, Israel was in fact cast off; but as a church, it never coulii be.

8. In a gush of wrath I hid my face a moment from thee, and in everlast ing kindness I have had mercy on thee, saith thy Redeemer, Jehovah. The idea of the preceding verse is again expressed more fully. The word *$& occurs only here. The older writers conjectured from the context that it

signified a short time or a little quantity. Rabbi Menahem is quoted by Jarchi as explaining it to mean heat or fury, which is no doubt also merely conjectural. Schulteus explains it from an Arabic analogy as meaning hardness or severity. Rosenmiiller and Gesenius identify it with ^r'j a flood or inundation, which is elsewhere used in reference to anger (Prov. vii. 24.) So in chap. xlii. 25, the wrath of God is said to have been poured out upon Israel. According to Gesenius, it is here written HW only for the sake of the resemblance to *!>?£. This paronomasia is copied by Gesenius (in der Fluth der Zorngluth), by Hitzig (in derber Herbe), and by Ewald (ah der Groll war voll.) We do not find that any of these writers make the rapid recurrence of this figure in so short a space an argument to prove that the passage was written by a different author. Ewald gives *nprn the sense which it has in Kal, and renders it, I love thee. This is undoubtedly implied, but the sense of shewing mercy is required not only by usage but by the context, which describes the relenting of one previously offended. — This verse, like the one before it, is a general description of the everlasting favour which shall drown the very memory of former alienations between God and his people. The modern German school of course restrict it to the Babylonish exile. Cocceius extends it to the whole of the Old Testa ment economy, which although long to man was but a day in the divine sight (Ps. xc. 4). Vitringa, not content with these gratuitous appropria tions of a general promise, or with this prosaic disfiguration of an exquisite poetical conception, undertakes to give a different application to the two verses, applying the little moment of ver. 7 to the Babylonish exile, and the angry moment of ver. 8 to the Syrian persecution. With equal reason they might be pronounced descriptive of the Egyptian and Assyrian bondage, or of the Assyrian and the Babylonian, or of the Syrian and the Roman. If, because it is appropriate to one of these events, it has no reference to any other, then they all may be successively excluded, and with equal ease all proved to be the subject of the prophecy. The only specific application which is equally consistent with the form of the expression and the context, is the one suggested in the note upon the foregoing verse.

9. For the waters of Xoah is this to me; what I s ware from the waters of Noah passing again over the earth (i. e. against their passing, or, that they should not pass), so I have sworn from being angry (that I will not be angry) against thee, and from rebuking (that I will not rebuke) thee. The assurance of the preceding verse is now repeated in another form. There can no more be another such effusion of my wrath than there can be another deluge, here called the waters of Noah, just as we familiarly say " Noah's flood." The security in this case, as in that, is a divine oath or solemn covenant, like that recorded Gen. viii. 21, and ix. 11. Yitringa, as usual, converts a simile into a symbol, and endeavours to enumerate the points of similarity between the world and the deluge, the church and the ark. It is only upon this erroneous supposition that such passages as Ps. cxxiv. 4, 5, can be re garded as illustrative parallels. Such minute coincidences any reader is at liberty to search out for himself; but the text mentions only one point of comparison between the two events, namely, that neither can occur again. The Prophet does not say that God's displeasure with the church is a flood which shall never be repeated, but that it shall never be repeated any more than the flood. When our Lord says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into heaven, no one thinks of running a comparison between the rich man and the camel, or inquiring what the hump or the double stomach signifies ; because the text suggests not a

general analog}' between the rich man and the camel, but a specific one con fined to one particular. In the case before us, that particular, as we have seen already, is the certainty that neither of the things compared can ever be repeated. This certainly does not arise, as Ewald seems to think, from any natural necessity, or universal law forbidding such expurgatory revolu tions to occur more than once, but, as the text expressly tells us, from the oath and covenant of God. — Instead of "•?? ^, one or two manuscripts have ^P"1? all in one word, meaning as the days of Noah, and Kimchi speaks of this division as existing in some ancient codices of his day. This reading likewise appears in all the ancient versions but the Septuagint, and is pre ferred by Lowth (as in the days of Noah~). It is also a remarkable coinci dence that this expression occurs twice in the New Testament (Mat. xxiv. 37, 1 Pet. iii. 20), but not in reference to this place or to the comparison here instituted. All the latest writers seem to be in favour of adhering to the common text, which is probably the only safe conclusion, although some of the reasons which have been assigned are not of much weight. Henderson, for instance, says that " the conjunction *? could not have been omitted," yet supposes two ellipses of the preposition? in this one sentence, and in this one clause of it. Another argument which some urge, namely, that the words nJ~*P are repeated afterwards, may be employed as well on one side as the other. For it might be said, with some plausibility at least, that such a repetition, not for the sake of parallelism, but in the same part of the sentence, is unusual, and also that the presence of these two words afterwards may easily have led to an error of transcription. The true ground for adhering to the common text is the traditional authority of almost every codex in existence, confirmed by that of the oldest version, and by its yielding a perfectly good sense. — There is no need of supplying any preposition before waters, as Gesenius does (wie bey den Wassern Noah's) ; since the meaning is that this is the same thing as the flood, or just such another case, in what respect is afterwards explained. The closest copy of the original is Ewald's Noah's Wasser ist mir dies. The plural waters is connected with the pronoun in the singular, simply because it is used only in the plural. The pronoun this is explained by Jarchi to mean this oath, by Kimchi this captivity, by Knobel this effusion of my wrath, &c. The best construction is to take it in the widest sense, asmeaning this case, this a fair, or the like. Hendewerk appears to be alone in supplying the future tense of the verb (this shall be) instead of the pre sent (this is). On the privative use of the preposition |P, see chap. v. G, viii. 11, where it has respect to negative commands or prohibitions. To me does not simply mean in my view or opinion, but expresses similarity of obligation; the oath %yas as binding in the one case as the other. — Vitringa and Lowth make ^ a particle of time, when I sware. Gesenius and the other modern writers take it as a particle of comparison, corresponding to 1? just as the full expression "|^,? does in chap. xiv. 24, and as ~M?$ itself does in Jer. xxxiii. 22. Hendewerk understands it strictly as a rela tive, of which I sware; in which |3 is not a parallel expression, but simply continues the discourse. The same construction of "l£'K might be retained without entirely destroying the antithesis, by rendering the former what. As if he had said, " wind I sware then, that I swear now," but the exact corre spondence of the terms is impaired by changing that to so. It is a matter of indifference whether the second verb be rendered / have sworn or / swear; since even in the former case it means I have now sivorn, as dis tinguished from the former swearing which he had just mentioned. — Eebuke

must here be taken in the strong and pregnant sense which it has in chaps. xvii. 13, 1. 2, li. 20, and very generally throughout the Old Testament, as signifying not a merely verbal but a practical rebuke. There is no need, however, of departing from the literal translation with Geseuius, who tran slates it curse, and Hitzig, who translates it punish. Urnbreit has threaten, which is nearer to the strict sense, but excludes the actual infliction, which is a necessary part of the idea. — That this is not a general promise of security, is plain from the fact that the church has always been subjected to vicissitudes and fluctuations. Nor is there any period in her history to which it can be properly applied in a specific sense, except the change of dispensations, which was made once for all, and can never be repeated. That the church shall never be again brought under the restrictive institu tions of the ceremonial law, is neither a matter of course nor a matter of indifference, but a glorious promise altogether worthy of the solemn oath by which it is attested here.

10. For the mountains shall more and the hills shall shake; but my favour from thee shall not more, and my covenant of peace shall not shake, saith thy pitier, Jehovah. Yitriuga's observation, that the futures in the first clause must not be so translated, because this would imply that hills and moun tains might be moved, whereas they are here represented as irnmovoable, affords a curious illustration of the tendency among interpreters to substi tute what they would have said, for what the writer has said. If the first clause does not literally mean that the mountains and the hills shall move, that idea cannot bo expressed in Hebrew. This is indeed the customary method of expressing such comparisons. (See above, on chap. xl. 8, and xlix. 15.) The meaning is not that God's promise is as stable as the mountains, but that it is more so; the}' shall be removed, but it shall stand for ever. There is no need, therefore, of translating the verb let them shake or they may shake, as some of the latest writers do. Still more gratuitous is the present form given to the verbs by Gesenius, as if they expressed a thing of constant occurrence. Even Vitringa is compelled to admit that the mountains and hills in th!s place are not symbols of states and empires, but natural emblems of stability. (See Deut. xxxiii. 15; Ps. Ixv. 7, cxxv. 1, 2.) — Gesenius supposes an allusion in covenant of peace to the covenant with Xoah (Gen. ix. 8, 11). The phrase denotes a covenant, /. e. a divine promise or engagement, securing the enjoyment of peace, both in the strict sense, and in the wide one of prosperity or happiness. (Compare v. 13, chap. liii. 5; Ezek. xxxiv. 25, xxxvii. 2G.) The suffix, as in many other cases, qualifies the whole phrase, not the last word merely. The covenant of my peace does not give the sense so fully as my covenant of peace, i. e. my peace-giving covenant, or as Roseumiiller phrases it, menm pacificum fcedm. — The participle in ^H^ is construed as a noun, and the whole phrase means Ihy pitier. The force of the expression is impaired by the circumlocution of the common version, the Lord that hath mercy on thee, still more by Lowth's diluted paraphrase, Jehovah irho leareth toward thee the most tender affection.

11. Wretched, stonn-tossed, comfortless! Behold I am laying (or about to lay) thy stones in antimony, and I will found thee upon sapphires. The past afflictions of God's people are contrasted with the glory which awaits them, and which is here represented by the image of a city built of precious stones, and cemented with the substance used by oriental women in the staining of their eyelids. (2 Kings ix. 30, Jer, iv. 80.) This eye-paint, made of stibium or antimony, may be joined with sapphires as a costly

substance, commonly applied to a more delicate use; or there may be allusion, as Hitzig thinks, to the likeness between stones thus set and painted eyes; either of which suppositions is more probable than that of Henderson, viz. that the idea meant to be conveyed is simply that of beauty in general, for which a thousand more appropriate expressions might have been employed. The stones meant are not corner or foundation-stones, but all those used in building. There is something singular, though not per haps significant, in the application to these stones of a verb elsewhere used only in reference to animals. Knobel gravely observes that this verse can hardly be considered as expressing a real expectation of the Prophet; as if it were a literal description of a city built with gems instead of hewn stones, and stibium instead of mortar. Kimchi indeed thinks it possible that all this may be verified hereafter in the literal Jerusalem. Abarbenel more reasonably looks for its fulfilment in a figurative or spiritual sense. Those writers who insist upon applying the first verse of this chapter to the city as a city, although not particularly named there, are compelled to understand the one before us of the people, notwithstanding the minuteness and pre cision of the references to a city. If the city, as such, is not meant when stones and cement, gates and walls, are mentioned, how much less when none of these particulars appear, but everything suggests a different sub ject. — ^S3 is rendered by Jerome per ordinem, and in the Septuagint avSgaxa, as if it were a kind of precious stone, as it appears to be in 1 Chron. xxix. 2. But the modern lexicographers identify it with the Greek tpwog and the Latin fucns, i.e. face or eye-paint; and even in Chronicles it may mean nothing more than ornamental stones. Ludolf supposes the clause to mean that the stones should be powdered with antimony. Luzzatto like wise assumes a hypallage, and explains " I will lay thy stones in stibium" to mean I will lay it on them. Henderson's version of ""ny.D (tossed) is insufficient, as both etymology and usage require a reference to storm or tempest. Kimchi and Saadias apply it specifically to the exile, Jarchi to the storms of sorrow in general. Rosenmu'Her explains it as a passive par ticiple put for rnypp, Gesenius as the usual Kal participle of tyo. It is agreed that nsrti is the contracted Pual participle for npn:ip, like HOPPl in Hos. i. vi. 8. — Maurer notes this as an example of the peculiar sense in which this writer used the verb DI~D. (Compare chaps, xlix. 18, li. 3, 12, lii. 9.) Knobel restricts the first clause to the siege of Jerusalem, espe cially by Nebuchadnezzar! Ewald, very unnecessarily, proposes to amend the text by reading in the last clause T^^, thy foundations. If this be the specific sense intended, which is doubtful, it is sufficiently conveyed already by the common reading.

12. And I ic ill make thy battlements (or pinnacles) ruby, and thy gates ta (be) sparkling gems, and all thy border to (be) stones of pleasure (or delight). The splendid image of the preceding verse is here continued and completed. The precise kinds of gems here meant are not of much importance. The essential idea, as appears from the etymology of the names, is that of sparkling brilliancy. The exact meaning of "137? was unknown even in Jerome's time. Aquila and Theodotion retain the Hebrew word, in which they are followed by Cocceius. T\Wty& is explained by Aben Ezra and Kimchi to mean windows, or other apertures admitting the light of the sun. But the modern writers generally make it a poetical description of the battlements and spires of a city. — The Septuagint and Vulgate explain rnp!£ \33ISI as denoting carved or sculptured stones ; but its obvious con nection with the verb rnj3 favours the modern explanation, sparkling gems.

— The last phrase is a more generic term, including all the others, and equivalent to our expression, precious stones. So, too, >13| may be collec tive, and denote the whole congeries of buildings or their parts; although interpreters are more inclined to make it mean the outer wall of a fortified city, which is described as built of the same costly materials. But Gesenius thinks it possible that there may be allusion to 1 Kings x. 27, and that the clause may represent the ground within the limits of the city as strewn with precious stones instead of pebbles. — The same interpreter regards the? in the last clause as a sign of the accusative, but Kirnchi explains? '?'???' as meaning, " I will change into or render." Hitzig thinks it would have been "bequemer," and Knobel " passender," if the writer, instead of saying that their gates should be turned into precious stoues, had said they should be made of them. — Yitringa of course puts a specific sense on every part of the description, understanding by the ^-13 of the preceding verse the doctrine of Christ's blood, by the gates the synods of the church, by the battlements its advocates and champions, &c. Lowth, with better taste and judgment, says that " these seem to be general images to express beauty, magnificence, purity, strength, and solidity, agreeably to the ideas of the Eastern nations, and to have never been intended to be strictly scrutinised or minutely and particularly explained, as if they had each of them some precise moral or spiritual meaning."

13. And all thy children disciples of Jehovah, and great (or plentiful') the peace of thy children. Ewald makes the sentence simply descriptive, by supplying are in the present tense. Most other writers supply shall be, and thus make it a prediction or a promise. B^3, when used as a distinctive term, means sons; but it is constantly employed where we say children. — The common version, tawjht of God, which Lowth changes into tctHf/ht lj God, though not erroneous, is inadequate; since "T-1^. is not a participle, but a noun, used elsewhere to denote a pupil, follower, or dis ciple. (See chap. viii. 16.) The promise is not one of occasional instruction, but of permanent connection with Jehovah as his followers, and partakers of his constant teaching. That the words are applicable to the highest teaching of which any rational being is susceptible, to wit, that of the Holy Spirit making known the Father and the Son, we have our Saviour's own authority for stating. (See John vi. 44, and compare Matt, xxiii. 8, Heb. viii. 11, 1 John ii. 27.) Paul, too, describes believers as Siodldaxru in relation to the duties of their calling (1 Thess. iv. 9). Similar promises under the Old Testament are given in Jer. xxxi. 34 and elsewhere. Gesenius restricts the words to the promise of prophetic inspiration, the want of which is lamented in Lam. ii. 9, Ps. Ixxiv. 9, and the renewal of it promised in Joel iii. 1. But this restriction is regarded as unauthorized even by Maurer. As in chap, xliii. 9, all the gifts of the Spirit are included. The conse quence of this blessed privilege is peace, no doubt in the widest sense of spiritual welfare and prosperity. (John xiv. 27 ; Philip, iv. 7.) Knobel restricts the promise to the people of Jerusalem, and Hendewerk declares that it was broken in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. To prevent the tautological recurrence of ^3, Koppe reads "^3 in the first clause, and Doderlein in the second, while J. D. Michaelis, for a different reason, makes the change in both. Kocher and Rosenmiiller cite examples of such repetition from chaps, xvi. 7, Iv. 4, and Iv. 10, together with Virgil's famous line, Awbo florentes irtatibux, Arcades ambo. Such precedents were surely not required to justify a bold but beautiful expression from the charges brought against it by pedantic rhetoricians. — Umbreit supposes that this

verse contains an explanation of the striking figures in the one before it. Hitzig compares the first clause with the corresponding part of chap. Ix. 21, and thy people all of them are righteous, which idea is expressed here in the next verse.

14. In righteousness shalt thou be established: le far from oppression, for thou shall not fear, and from destruction , for it shall not come near to thee. An additional promise of complete security, made more emphatic by its repetition in a variety of forms. By righteousness, J. H. Michaelis under stands the righteousness or faithfulness of God, securing the performance of his promises ; Yitringa, the justice of the government itself; Rosenmiiller and the other modern writers, the practice of righteousness among the people. The first, however, comprehends the other as its necessary consequences, public and private virtue being always represented in Scrip ture as the fruit of divine influence. (Compare chaps, i. 27, ix. G, xi. 5, xvi. 5.) — The modern grammarians acquiesce in Aben Ezra's explanation of }312ri as a Hithpael form like VN3P, chap. lii. 5. — Of the next clause there are several interpretations. The Septuagint, Peshito, and Yulgate, understand it as a warning or dissuasion from the practice of oppression. But this does not agree with the context, which is evidently meant to be consolatory and encouraging. Still more unnatural is the opinion of Cocceius, that pvfV here means spiritual robbery, such as robbing God of his glory, the soul of its salvation, &c. &c. Jerome arbitrarily renders it cahimniam. The explanation which has been most generally acquiesced in, is the one proposed by Kimchi, who takes p£'V in a passive sense, i. e. as meaning the experience of oppression, and supposes the imperative to re present the future, or a promise to be clothed in the form of a command : " Be far from oppression, *'. e. thou shalt be far from it." Examples of this idiom are supposed to occur in Gen. xlii. 18 ; Deut. xxxii. 50 ; Prov. xx. 13. But as this makes it necessary to give *3 the sense of yea with Lowth, or of therefore with Vitringa, Gesenius and the later writers choose to adhere to the strict sense of the imperative, and give Pfe'V in this one place the meaning of anxiety, distress, which they suppose to be the sense of i"li?^V in chap, xxxviii. 14. The ground of this gratuitous assumption is the parallel expression HJjinp, consternation, fear, which seems to require in this place an analogous affection of the rnind. It will be found, however, on investigation, that there are several instances in which HPinp cannot pos sibly mean fear (e. g. Ps. Ixxxix. 41 ; Prov. x. 14, xiii. 3, xviii. 7) ; while in every place where it occurs, perhaps excepting Jer. xlviii. 39, the other sense destruction is entinely appropriate. On the soundest principles of lexicography, this meaning is entitled to the preference, and, if adopted here, forms an accurate parallelsim to pi^y in the sense which it uniformly has elsewhere (e. g. in chaps, xxx. 12, and lix. 13), viz. oppression or violent injustice. That the other term is stronger, only adds to the expres sion the advantage of a climax. There is no need, however, of explaining the imperative as a future, like the older writers, or of taking ^ in any but its usual and proper sense. Be far from oppression is not a promise of exemption from it, for that follows in the next clause, which the modern interpreters correctly understand as meaning, thou hast no cause to fear. The other words are w7ell explained by Knobel as relating to the feelings of the person here addressed. Be far from oppression, i. e. far from appre hending it. The whole may then be paraphrased as follows : " When once established by the exercise of righteousness on my part and your own, you may put far off all dread of oppression, for you have no cause to fear it, and

of destruction, for it shall not come nigh you. With the promise of this clause, compare chaps, xxxii. 1C, and Ixii. 12. — Knobel and Hendewerk are actually able to persuade themselves that this verse contains a specific pro mise that Jerusalem should never be successfully besieged again. The truth of the promise, in its true sense, is vindicated by the fact that it relates to the course of the new dispensation as a whole, with special reference to its final consummation.

15. Lo, they shall gather, they shall gather, not at my sign (or signal"). Who has gathered against theef He shall fall airay to tkee. The promise of the preceding verse is here so modified as to provide for every possible contingency. If enemies should be assembled, it will not be by divine com mand (compare chap. x. 5, xlvii. 6), and they shall end by coming over to the side of those whom they assail. This, on the whole, appears to be the meaning, although every expression has received a different explanation. Gesenius gives JD the sense of //', as in Chaldee, and notes it as a proof of later date : to which it may be answered, first, that his own examples include some in the oldest books, e. g. Exod. viii. 22 ; then, that the as sumption of this meaning in the present case is wholly gratuitous ; and lastly, that it is a dubious question whether any such usage of the word exists at all. Cocceius follows Jarchi in giving "VI 3 the sense of fear, which it sometimes has, e. g. in Dent. i. 17, and Ps. xxii. 24. The Septuagint and Targum give it the still more frequent sense of " sojourning, dwelling as a stranger,'' and apply the clause to proselytes. In like manner Gousset, followed by Rosenmiiller, understands the words to mean, that no one who sojourns with Israel shall remain a stranger to the true religion. Tremelh'us makes it mean " contend," and Ewald, " stir up bitterness," both apparently resorting to the cognate !~n| as a source of illustration. Most interpreters agree with Kimchi in giving "VI 3 the same sense here as in Ps. Ivi. 7, lix. 4 ; on which places see Hengstenberg's Commentary. — There is also a difference as to the construction. Luther makes the whole verse one interrogation. Gesenius, as we have already seen, makes the first clause conditional. Others translate it as a concession, " let them gather." But the simplest and most natural construction is to translate "VW as a future proper. They shall indeed (or no doubt) gather. The promise is not that they should never be assailed, but that they should never be conquered. — The Targum explains D2{< to mean in the end, but most interpreters understand it as a simple negative. (See above on chap, lii. 4.) *r>i**O is regarded by Gesenius as another proof of later date, the preposition HX being confounded with the objective particle. But here, again, examples of the same analogy are found as early as Lev. xv. 18, 24, and Josh, xxiii. 15. It is not the occasional occur rence of this form, but its habitual use, that marks the later writers, as is well observed by Havernick, who explains the case before us as an effect of the pause accent, while in the one below (chap. lix. 21) he maintains that n'lK is the noun meaning sign (Einleitung, i. pp. 198, 222) ; which last explanation is still more applicable here, not ly my sign or signal being not only perfectly in keeping with the usage of the same figure elsewhere, but yielding substantially the same sense which the word has according to the common explanation, namely, not by my authority, or, not at my command. (Compare ^PP, Hosea vii. 14.) Hitzig throws these words ('nisp D?^) into a parenthesis, " which is not from me," and Ewald gives them the force of a proviso, " only not from me," i.e. no attack shall be successful, provided it is made without my authority. The same writer

takes 'P in its usual sense as an interrogative pronoun, while Gesenius and others make it mean whoever. (See above on chap. 1. 10.) Vitringa and the English Version separate "=1!^ from the following verb, and take the latter absolutely, " he shall fall," i. e. perish. Knobel obtains the same sense without a violation of the accents, by supposing?J? ??3 to be synony mous with ^.P? 7B3, " he shall fall before thee.' But the former phrase is determined by a settled usage to denote the act of falling away, or deserting to an enemy. (See 1 Chron. xii. 19, 20 ; 2 Chron. xv. 9 ; Jer. xxi. 9.) In one case (1 Sam. xxix. 3), the same idea seems to be expressed by the verb when absolutely used. This explanation of the last words is as old as the Septuagint (sirl al xarapiv^ovrai) and Vulgate (adjungctur till).

16. Zo, I have created the smith, Wowing into the fire of coal, and bringing out a iveapon for his work ; and I hare created the waster to destroy. The general meaning evidently is, that God can certainly redeem his pledge, because all instruments and agents are alike at his disposal and under his control. He is not only the maker of the weapons of war, but the maker of their maker, as well as of the warrior who wields them. — The pronoun in both clauses is emphatic. It is I (and not another) who created them. — The common version of the second mtmber, that bloweth the coals in the fire, is inconsistent with the Masoretic pointing and accentuation, which require BH55 fc^K to be construed in regimine, as meaning a coal fire, in opposition to an ordinary fire of wood. The same preposition is elsewhere used as a connective between this verb and the object blown upon or at (Ezek. xxxvii. 9), and in one other place at least in reference to the same act of blowing into fire (Ezek. xxii. 21), an exact description of the process even at the present day. A similar glimpse into the ancient forge or smithy has already been afforded in the scornful attack upon the worshippers of idols, chap. xli. 6. — Bringing out does not mean bringing out of his work shop or his hands, as Knobel explains it, but bringing into shape or into being, precisely as we say bringing forth, producing, although commonly in reference to animal or vegetable life. Perhaps, however, it would be still better to explain it as meaning out of the fire, in which case there would be a fine antithesis between blowing into it, and bringing the wrought iron

out of it. — v? may denote any instrument, but here derives from the con nection the specific sense of iveapon. (See above, on chap. Hi. 11.) The next phrase has been variously understood. Interpreters are much divided as to the antecedent of the suffix pronoun. Some of the older writers un derstand it as applying to the instrument itself, bringing forth a weapon for its work, i. e. fitted for the work of destruction. Others suppose it to refer by prolepsis to the warrior or destroyer who is mentioned in the last clause, bringing forth a weapon for his work or use. A still greater number under stand it as referring to the smith or armourer himself. Besides the modern English versions, which are either unmeaning or inaccurate, — according to his ivork (Lowth), by his labour (Noyes), as the result of his work (Barnes), — this class includes the ingenious construction of the words by Ewald, bringing forth a weapon as his own work, whereas I made the deadly iveapon for destruction. According to this interpretation, fVny'p the destroyer is a poetical description of the weapon before mentioned; whereas most inter preters apply it to the warrior who wields it, as if he had said, I make the weapon of destruction, and I also make the waster to destroy with it. Both these hypotheses agree in making the destruction mentioned to be that of enemies in battle, one ascribing it directly to the weapon, and the other to

the combatant. But Gescnius follows Jarchi and Kimchi in supposing the destruction here meant to be that of the instruments themselves, as Ff he had said, I create the weapons of war, and I also create the destroyer to destroy them. Gesenius seems to think that this construction is required by the repetition of *?$$, as clearly indicating an antithesis; but this is equally secured by Ewald's version, and even in the common and more natural construction, the repeated pronoun has its proper emphasis. " It is I that create the smith who makes the instruments, and it is also I that create the destroyer who employs them."

17. Every weapon (that) shall be formed against thee shall not prosper, and

every tongue (that] shall rise with thee in judgment thou shah condemn. This

is the heritage of the sen-ants of Jehovah, and their righteousness from me, saith

Jehovah. The common version of the first clause expresses the same thought

in the English idiom, no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, a form

of speech which does not exist in Hebrew, and can only be supplied by com

bining negative and universal terms. The expression, though ambiguous, is

determined by the context. It cannot mean that only some of tho weapons

formed should take effect, — which might be the meaning of the phrase in

English,— because in the affirmative clause which follows, and which must

be co-extensive in its meaning, there is no such ambiguity, it being said

expressly that every tongue shall be condemned. Another difference of

idiom here exemplified has reference to the ellipsis of the relative pronoun,

which in English is familiarly omitted when it is the object of the verb, but

never when its subject. Every weapon they form would be perfectly intel

ligible ; but evenj weapon is formed (for which is formed) would convey a

wrong idea.— Shall not prosper, i. e. shall not take effect or accomplish its

design. Vitringa needlessly supposes a litotes or meiosis, as if the words

meant that the weapon should itself be destroyed ; but this is not expressed,

even if it is implied, which may.be questioned. — To rise or stand in judg

ment, literally for or M-///I respect to judgment, is to appear before a judgmentseat, to involve the decision of a judge. With thee may either denote

simply simultaneous action, that of standing up together, or it may have

;he stronger sense against thee, as it seems to have above in ver. 15, and as

t has in our expressions io fight with or to go to law with. The tongue is

acre personified, or used to represent the party litigant, whose only weapon

s his speech. Lowth translates *JHP^5 thou shalt obtain thy cause, which

s the true sense, but requires the insertion of against before every tongue,

vhich in Hebrew is governed directly by the 'verb. For the judicial

•r forensic usage of this verb, see above, on chap. 1. 9.— Hitzig explains

Aftt is here said of litigation as a mere figure for war, which is

iterally described in the foregoing clause ; and Knobel cites a case

. Sam. xiv. 47) in which the verb Wflfl is applied to conquest. It is

Iso easy to deduce the one sense from the other, by assuming as the

itermediate link the idea, not confined to ancient nations, that success in

rms is a criterion of right and wrong, the very principle on which the wager

f battle, and the ordeal of the duel rested. But in this case it is far more

itisfactory and natural, instead of making one clause figurative and the other

teral, to understand both either literally or figuratively as a comprehenve description of all controversy or contention. Kimchi supposes these

O clauses to reduce all opposition and hostility to that of word and that

' deed ; but there may also be allusion to the obvious distinction between

arfare in its military and its civil forms, or between what is properly

* VOL. ii.

called war and litigation. In all these varied forms of strife it is predicted that the church shall be victorious. (Compare Bom. viii. 37, and 2 Cor. ii. 14.) And this security is represented as her heritage or lawful posses sion and as her right, i. e. what is due to her from God, as the judge of the whole earth who must do right. Lowth and Ewald understand it to mean justification: " this security shall prove that God acquits or justifies me from the charges brought against me by my enemies." Yitringa gives the Hebrew word the simple sense jus, or that to which the party is entitled. The diluted sense of llcssing or prosperity, which some of the later writers prefer even here, no longer needs a refutation. The English Version makes this last an independent clause, their righteousness is of me; but this is wholly unnecessary, and affords a less appropriate sense than the construction above given, which is the one now commonly adopted. — , According to Ewald, this verse is an explanation of the promise at the close of chap. liii. Hendewerk goes further, and identifies the heritage of this verse with the division of the spoil in that, and the collective servants here named with the individual servant mentioned there. Knobel is still more explicit, and asserts that the Prophet, having been disappointed in hia hope that all Israel would return from exile, now discards the use of the word servant, and confines himself to that of the plural. The only colour for this singular assertion is the fact, no doubt remarkable, that we read, no more of the " Servant of Jehovah" who has been so often introduced before, but often of his " servants." It may no doubt be said in explana tion of this fact, that the Prophet has completed his description of that august person under his various characters and aspects, but has still much to say of his followers or servants. But a full explanation is afforded only by the hypothesis assumed throughout this exposition, that the Servant of Jehovah is a name applied both to the Body and the Head, sometimes toboth in union, and sometimes, as in chap. liii. to one exclusively; from whichj it naturally follows that as soon as he has reached the final exaltation of Messiah, and withdrawn him from our view, the Prophet thenceforth ceases to personify his members, and applies to them the ordinary plural designation of " Jehovah's servants."

CHAPTEE LV.

BY the removal of the old restrictions, the church is, for the first time, open to the whole world, as a source or medium of the richest spiritua blessings, ver. 1. It is only here that real nourishment can be obtaineJ ver. 2. Life is made sure by an oath and covenant, ver. 3. The Messiah is a witness of the truth and a commander of the nations, ver. 4. As such he will be recognised by many nations who before knew nothing of the true religion, ver. 5. These are now addressed directly, and exhorted to embrace the offered opportunity, ver. 6. To this there is every encour agement afforded in the divine mercy, ver. 7. The infinite disparity between God and man should have the same effect, instead of hindering it, vers. 8, 9. The commands and promises of God must be fulfilled, vers. 10, 11. Nothing, therefore, can prevent a glorious change in the condition of the world under the dispensation of the Spirit, ver. 12. This blessed renovation, being directly promotive of God's glory, shall endure for ever, ver. 18.

1. Ho, every thirsty one, come ye to the waters ; and he to whom there is

io money, come ye, buy ( fuocl) and eat; and come, buy, without money and without price, wine and milk. The promises contained in the preceding chapters to the church, are now followed by a general invitation to par take of the blessings thus secured. Water, milk, and wine, are here com bined to express the ideas of refreshment, nourishment, and exhilaration. Under these figures are included, as Calvin well observes, all things essen tial to the spiritual life. The Targuni restricts the terms to intellectual supplies: " whoever will learn, let him come and learn." The same appli cation is made by Aben Ezra and Kimchi, and Vitringa admits that the language is highly appropriate to the Gentiles who were seeking after wis dom (1 Cor. i. 22). But the benefits here offered must of course bear some proportion to the means by which they were secured, viz. the atoning death of the Messiah and the influences of his Spirit. Among the earlier writers, Grotius alone restricts the passage to the period of the Babylonish exile. Even the Rabbins understand it as relating to their present disper sion. Grotius' s further limitation of the passage to the teachings of Jeremiah, as a rich supply offered to the heathen, is of course rejected by the modern Germans, not so much because of its absurdity as on accouut of its recognising Isaiah as the author. They adhere, however, to his Babylonian theory, and task their powers of invention to explain the gene ral terms of this gracious invitation in accordance with it. Thus Hendewerk regards the chapter as an intimation to the exiles that they should be freed as soon as they were brought into a proper state of mind, together with a promise that when once restored they should obtain for nothing in their own land what they could not even buy for money in the land of their oppressors. In like manner Knobel understands the Prophet as.declaring the conditions upon which the exile was to cease, and promising to those who should return the enjoyment of unparalleled abundance in the Holy Land. It is easy to perceive that this specific explanation of a passage in itself unlimited is far more easy than the unauthorized exten sion of one really specific, because in the former case there is nothing in the passage itself which can be urged against a limitation which is only false because it is gratuitous. The best refutation is afforded by the ease with which a thousand other limitations, once assumed, might be brought into seeming agreement with the terms of the prediction. If, for example, some new critic, still more intrepid than his predecessors, should maintain that this book is of later date than the Babylonian exile, having been, written at the period of the Maccabees, or even in the days of Josephus, whatever difficulties might arise from definite allusions to anterior events in other places, it would require but little ingenuity to reconcile the fore gone conclusion with the general terms of such a prophecy as that before us. The hypothesis once granted, the details would all seem to follow of course. The impartial interpreter is therefore bound to resist all such unauthorised restrictions, and to give the Prophet's words their full scope, as relating to the benefits which God proposed from the beginning to bestow upon the nations through the medium of his church. The mixed or half-way theory of Henderson, that this passage relates to the Babylon ish exile and also to the reign of the Messiah, has all the inconveniences of both the others without the advantages of either. — Most of the modern writers follow Jarchi in explaining ^n as a mere particle of invitation, which is variously expressed by Luther (icohlan!), Gesenius (a/), De Wette (ha!), &c. Maurer insists, however, on the usual and strict sense of the particle as expressing pity for the exiles (lieu, alas!), not only here

but in Zech. ii. 10, 11. — N??¥ is not properly a participle (thirtting), but a verbal adjective (athirst or thirsty]. Yitringa strangely makes it neuter (omnc siticHff), although the very nature of the invitation points out persons as the object of address, and although this is the only form in which an address to persons could have been expressed; whereas, if a distinction were de signed, the neuter would, according to the Hebrew idiom, be represented by the feminine. The combination of the singular (every one) with the plural verb (come ye) may be either an idiomatic licence, or intended to extend the call to every individual. — The reference to the water of baptism, which some of the Fathers found in this verse, is excluded by the fact that the water here meant is not water for washing, but water to be drunk. — And he, after the universal expression every one, does not add a new idea, but explains the one expressed already, and is therefore equivalent to even he in English. The same remark applies to the and before the second come, which is not incorrectly rendered yea come in the common version. — To u'hom there is not money is the ouly equivalent in Hebrew to our phrase who has no money. Instead of this generic term, Lowth retains the original meaning of the Hebrew word, silver, in which he is followed by Ewald and Umbreit. — "UG? is not to buy in general, but to buy food, or still more specifically to buy grain or bread stuffs. It is here absolutely used, as in Gen. xli. 57, xlii. 2, 5. Henderson's paraphrase (procure) is too indefinite, and not at all needed to remove the seeming incongruity of buying without money or any other price. This apparent contradiction was intended by the writer to express in the strongest manner the gratuitous nature of the purchase. Wine and milk are combined, either as necessities or luxuries, by Jacob in Gen. xlix. 12. — The images of this verse are essentially the same with those in chaps, xii. 8, xxv. 6, Ixii. 8, 9, Ixv. 18 ; John iv. 14, vii. 87 ; Rev. xxii. 17. — Sauctius, in order to connect this chapter with the one before it, supposes the idea to be that of a feast provided in the habita tion which is there described as having been enlarged. Yitringa thinks it better to call up the image of a market and a public fountain. Neither of these conceptions would spontaneously occur to any ordinary reader.

2. Why will ye weigh money for (that which is) not Ircad, and your labour for (that which, is) not to satiety? Hearken, hearken unto me, and eat (that which is) good, and your soul shall enjoy itself in fatness. The gratuitous blessings offered by Messiah are contrasted with the costly and unprofit able labours of mankind to gain the same end in another way. It was not that they refused food, nor even that they were unwilling to buy it ; but they mistook for it that which was not nourishing. In the first clause, there is reference to the primitive custom of weighing instead of counting money, from which have arisen several of the most familiar denominations, such as the Hebrew shekel, the Greek talent, the French livrc, and the English pound. The essential idea here is that of paying. Bread, as the staff of life, is here and in many other cases put for food in general. — Labour, as in chap. xlv. 14, means the product or result of labour. It is well expressed by Umbreit (euer Ermithetes). Ewald's translation (cuer Erspartes) rather • suggests the idea of that which is saved or hoarded, whereas the writer seems to have in view the immediate expenditure of what is earned. — The emphatic repetition of the verb to hear may be variously expressed in Eng lish as denoting to hear diligently, attentively, by all means, or to purpose ; but the best translation, because it may be considered as including all the rest, is that which copies most exactly the peculiar form of the original. The old mode of doing this by joining the participle with the finite verb

(hearkening ye shall hearken) is at once less exact and less expressive than the simple repetition used by Ewald elsewhere, although here he introduces the word rather (viehnehr hdrt]. — The mention of the soul admits of two explanations. We may give the Hebrew word its frequent sense of appetite, exactly as the appetite is said in common parlance to be gratified, indulged, pampered, mortified, &c. This is a good sense in itself, but less in keep ing with the rest of the description than another which may be obtained by supposing that the soul is mentioned for the puq^ose of shewing that the hunger and the food referred to are not bodily but spiritual. Most of the

there is no need of departing from the strict construction which makes -v?X a command. The promise is not that if they hearkened they should eat, but that if they hearkened and ate they should be happy. — Good is emphatic, meaning that which is truly good, in opposition to the no-bread of the first clause, which Vitringa and the later writers take as a peculiar compound

phrase like VJH& (chap. x. 15), ^Tt6 and niVfi6 (chap. xxxi. 3). Fat, by a figure common in all languages, is put for richness both of food and soil (See chap. v. 1 ; Ps. xxxvi. 9, Ixiii. 6 ; Job xxxvi. 1C.) There is some thing almost laughable in Rosenmuller's saying that the orientals are ex tremely fond of gross food, when the fact is notoriously otherwise, and such a charge has often been alleged against the Germans, either truly or falsely. Luther degrades the text itself by rendering it shall <j row fat. As a sample of the opposite extreme of false refinement, we may give Lowth's paraphrase, your soul shall feast itself with the richest delicacies. — The application of the figures is self-evident upon the general hypothesis before assumed. Aben Ezra and Kimchi, who suppose the blessing offered to be purely intellectual, apply the first clause to foreign or exotic wisdom (>in33 r<Wp). But the hardest task devolves on those who understand the passage as relating ex clusively to the deliverance of Israel from Babylon. In what sense could the exiles there be said to spend their money for what was not bread, and their labour for what did not satisfy? Koppe was brave enough to make it refer literally to the bad bread which the Jews were compelled to eat in Babylonia. Hitzig only ventures to make this a part of the calamity described, which he explains, with Gesenius, as consisting in the slavery to which they were subjected, not as tributaries merely, but as labourers without reward. (Compare Josh. ix. 27 ; 1 Kings ix. 21.) Maurer refers the clause to the expensive worship of idols, from whom no favours were obtained in recompence. (See chap. xlvi. 6, 7.) Knobel sees merely a strong contrast between Babylon, where the Jews spent much without en joyment or advantage, and the Holy Land, where they should enjoy much and spend nothing. The last he might consistently regard as a mere visionary expectation; but the only proof which he adduces of the fact first mentioned is the reference to Israel's oppression in chap. xiv. 8, xlvii. 6, li. 14. A comparison of these interpretations with the true one will shew how much is gained by the assumption of the Babylonian theory, and how strong the motive must be which induces men of ingenuity and learning to adopt it in spite of the embarrassments with which it is encumbered.

8. Iiidine your ear and come unto me, hear and your soul shall live (or let it lire, and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, the sure mercies of David. This is obviously a repetition of the same offer in another form ; which shews that the two preceding verses cannot have respect to

literal food or bodily subsistence. Here again, the use of the word soul necessarily suggests the thought of spiritual life, and this sense is admitted here by Kimchi and Abarbenel. Neither of the animal life, nor of the ap petite, could it be said that it should live. The abbreviated form TlJ^l may either give the future an imperative sense, or be taken as a poetical substitute for the full form of the future proper. The regular construction of nn? rns is with DJJ. That with?, according to Vitringa, simply means a promise; according to Gesenius, an engagement on the part of a superior. (See chap. Ixi. 8, Josh. ix. 15, xxiv. 25.) There is no need of assuming a zeugma in the last clause, with Gesenius, or supposing rn3 to include the idea of bestowing, with Knobel; since the mercies of David are not directly governed by that verb, but simply added as an explanation of the everlasting covenant. As if he had said, I will make with you an everlasting covenant, which shall be the same with the mercies of David. Of this phrase, which is also used by Solomon (2 Chron. vi. 42), there are three interpretations. The rabbins and Grotius understand it to mean favours, like those which were enjoyed by David. Cocceius regards David as a name of the Mes siah, as in Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, to which he adds Hos. iii. 5 ; but this may be understood, with Hitzig, as merely meaning David's house or family. The third explanation, and the one most commonly adopted, is, that the mercies of David means the mercies promised to him, with parti cular reference to 2 Sam. vii. 8-16. (Compare 1 Chron. xvii. 11, 12, and Ps. Ixxxix. 3, 4.) As the main theme of this promise was a perpetual succession on the throne of David, it was fulfilled in Christ, to whom it is applied in Acts xiii. 34. (Compare Isa. ix. 6, and Luke i. 32, 33.) The Greek word Scia there used is borrowed from the Septuagint Version, and is so far correct, as it conveys the idea of a sacred and inviolable engage ment. That the promise to David was distinct from that respecting Solo mon (1 Chron. xxii. 8—13), and had not reference to any immediate des cendant, Henderson has shewn from 1 Chron. xvii. 12-14. Thus under stood, the text contains a solemn assurance that the promise made to David should be faithfully performed in its original import and intent. Hence the mercies of David are called sure, i.e. sure to be accomplished; or it might be rendered faithful, credible, or trusted, without any material effect upon the meaning. With this interpretation of the verse may be compared that of Knobel, who explains it as a promise that the theocratic covenant should be restored (as if it had been abrogated), or of Rosenmiiller, who sup poses it to have been given to console the exiles under the despondency arising from the ruin of the House of David during the captivity, and the apparent > violation of the promise which had long before been given to himself. So far as there is any truth in this interpretation, it is but a small part of the full sense of the passage as relating to the everlasting reign of the Messiah. 4. Lo, (as~) a witness of nations I have given him, a chief and commander of nations. The emphasis appears to be on nations, which is therefore repeated without change of form. The essential meaning is the same as that of chap. xlix. 6, viz., that the Messiah was sent to be the Saviour not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. His relation to the latter is expressed by three terms. First he is a witness, i. e. a witness to the truth (John xviii. 37), and a witness against sinners (Mai. iii. 5). The same office is ascribed to Christ in Rev. i. 5, iii. 14. (Compare 1 Tim. vi. 13.) The application of this verse to the Messiah, therefore, is entirely natural if taken by itself. But an objection is presented by the fact that the Messiah is not named in the foregoing context. It is hardly

an adequate solution to affirm with Vitringa that the verse must be con nected with the fifty-third chapter, and the fifty-fourth considered paren thetical. Cocceius refers the suffixes to David in ver. 3, which he explains there as a name of the Messiah. The same resort is not accessible to Henderson, who arbitrarily makes David in the third verse mean the ancient king, and in the fourth the Messiah; an expedient which may be employed to conquer any difficulty. All the modern Germans except Umbreit under stand the verse before us as describing the honours actually put upon king David. Lo, / gave him as a witness of the nations, a leader and commander of the nations. This is certainly the simplest and most natural construction of the sentence, but not one without its difficulties. According to general analogy, the interjection JH has reference not to a past event, but to one either present or future. This argument from usage is confirmed by the fact that IH at the beginning of the next verse does undoubtedly relate to the future, and that the connection of the verses is obscure and abrupt if that before us be referred to David. Another difficulty is, that. David could not with truth be so emphatically styled the chief or leader of the nations. For although he did subdue some foreign tribes, they did not constitute the main part of his kingdom, and the character in which the Scriptures always represent him is that of a theocratic king of Israel. Another difficulty in relation to the use of the term witness is evaded by supposing "$, in this one place to mean a ruler (Gesenius) or a legislator (Maurer). Ewald's translation of the word by law seems to be an inad vertence. This violation of a perfectly defined and settled usage would be treated by these writers in an adversary as a proof of ignorance or mala fide*. The only shadow of evidence which they adduce from usage or analogy, is the assertion, equally unfounded, that the verbal root sometimes means to enjoin, and the collateral derivatives ri-HJ? and nny. mean laws or precepts. The utmost that can be established by a philological induction is, that in some cases the alleged sense would be relevant, whereas the proper one of testimony is in every case admissible. If in the face of these facts we may still invent a new sense for a word which has enough already to account for every instance in the Hebrew Bible, there are no such things as principles or laws of lexicography, and every critic has a full discretion to confound the application of a term with its essential meaning when he pleases. As to its being here combined with other words expressive of authority, let it be noted that words thus connected cannot alway be syno nymous, and in the next place that the usual meaning of the term, as applied to the Messiah or to God, implies as much authority as either of the others, for it means an authoritative witness of the truth, and this is substantially equivalent to Prophet, or Divine Teacher: an office with which David never was invested in relation to the Gentiles. The more restricted sense of monitor ("VntD) which Kimchi puts upon the word is no less arbitrary than the vague one (3*1) given in the Targum. — "VJ3 is properly the one in front, the foremost, and is therefore naturally used to signify a chief or leader. This title is expressly applied to the Messiah by Daniel (ix. 25), and the corresponding titles v^'/jw and a.t^rr/6i to Christ in the New Testament (Acts iii. 15, Heb. ii. 10, liev. i. 5), considered both as an example and a leader. — The third name ('"VIVP), being properly the participle of a verb which means to command, might be considered as equivalent either to preceptor or commander, both derivatives from verbs of the same meaning, Now as one of these definitions agrees well with the explanation which has been adopted of the first title (witness], and the other

with the obvious meaning of the second (leader), and as the offices of pre ceptor and commander are by no means incompatible, and actually meet in Christ, there seems to be no sufficient reason for excluding either in the case before us. At the same time, let it be observed that as njy sometimes means to command in a military sense, but never perhaps to teach or give instruction, the idea of commander must predominate in any case, and is entitled to the preference, if either must be chosen to the entire exclusion of the other. — Of the objections which the modern writers urge against the application of this verse to the Messiah, that which they appear to consider the most cogent and conclusive is precisely that which we have seen, from the beginning of the book, to be the weakest and most groundless, namely, that these Later Prophecies know nothing of a personal Messiah; which is established in the usual manner by denying all the cases seriatim, and refusing to let one of them be cited in defence or illustration of another. It is proper to observe in this connection, that both Umbreit and Hendewerk retain the usual sense of "$, and that the latter understands the verse as a description of the office which the Jewish people should discharge, in reference to the other nations after their return from exile. This is a near approach to the correct interpretation, and may be blended with it by recurring to the exegetical hypothesis, of which we have so often spoken, that the Body and the Head are often introduced as one ideal person. This, though at variance with Knobel's notion that the Prophet has now ceased to speak of Israel as one individual servant of Jehovah (see above, on chap. liv. 17), is in perfect accordance with the general tenor of the Scriptures as to the vocation and the mission both of Christ and of the church.

5. Lo, a nation (that) thou Icnowest not thou shall call, and a nation (that) have not known thee shall run unto theefor the sake of Jehovah thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel, for he hath glorified thee. The question which has chiefly divided interpreters, in reference to this verse, is, whether the object of address is the Messiah or the church. The former opinion is maintained by Calvin, Sanctius, and others ; the latter by Grotius and Vitringa. The masculine forms prove nothing either way ; because the church is sometimes presented in the person of Israel, and sometimes per sonified as a woman. The most natural supposition is, that after speaking of the Messiah, he now turns to him and addresses him directly. If this be so, the verse affords an argument against the application of ver. 4 to David, who could not be the subject of such a promise ages after his decease. At the same time, the facility with which the words can be applied to either subject, may be considered as confirming the hypothesis that although the Messiah is the main subject of the verse, the church is not entirely excluded. The construction of the second ^ with two plural verbs shews it to be collective. Lowth's version, the nation, is unnecessary here, although the article is frequently omitted both in poetry and elevated prose. — Their running indicates the eagerness with which they shall attach themselves to him and engage in his service. According to Jarchi, thou shalt call means thou shalt call into thy service. (See Job xix. 16.) — For he hath glorified thee. This expression is repeatedly used in the New Testa ment with reference to Christ. (See John xvii. 1, 5, Acts iii. 13.) Henderson gives *? what is supposed by some to be its primary sense, viz., that of a relative pronoun (who hath glorified thee]; which is wholly unne cessary here, and rests upon a very dubious etymological assumption. — The form of expression in a part of this verse seems to be borrowed from

2 Sam. xxii. 44, but the resemblance neither proves that the Messiah is the subject of that passage, nor that David is the subject of this. — The nation means of course the Gentiles. What is said of the Messiah's not knowing them is thus explained by Schmidius. '* Messias non novcrat Gentiles ut eccleshe sua? membra actu, et Gentiles ipsum non noverant, saltern fide, plerique etiam de ipso quicquam non audiverant."

G. Seek ye Jehovah while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near. The 2, as usual when joined with the infinitive, is a particle of time. The literal translation would be, in his beinr/ found, in his being near. By a sudden apostrophe he turns from the Messiah to those whom he had come to save, and exhorts them to embrace this great salvation, to be reconciled with God. A similar exhortation, implying like the present that the day of grace is limited, occurs in Zeph. ii. 2. There are two limitations of the text before us, which have no foundation but the will of the interpreters. The first restricts it to the Jews in general, either making •it a general advice to them to seize the opportunity of restoration (llosenmiiller), or a special warning to those hardened sinners who refused to do so (Knobel), and particularly such as were addicted to idolatry. These expositions are doubly arbitrary, first in restricting the passage to that period of Jewish history, and then in assuming the imaginary fact that a portion of the exiles were unwilling to return; the passages appealed to in support of which are wholly inconclusive. An equally unfounded but less violent assumption is, that this passage has respect to the Jews not at that time merely, but in general, as distinguished from the Gentiles. Like many other similar hypotheses, when this is once assumed, it is easy to accommodate the general expressions of the passage to it; but it would be difficult to find in the whole chapter any adequate reason for applying its commands and exhortations either to Gentiles or to Jews exclusively. In either case there were peculiar reasons for obeying the injunction, but it seems to be addressed to both alike. The Jew had great cause to beware lest the Gentile should outstrip him, and the Gentile might be reasonably urged to partake of those advantages which hitherto had been restricted to the Jew; but both are called to the same duty, namely, that of seeking and calling upon God: expressions elsewhere used both severally and together to express the whole work of repentance, faith, and new obedience. — Lowth seems to find the common version of tlie last word (near] too simple, and enlarges it accordingly to near at hand.

7. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the man of iniquity his thoughts, and Jet him return unto Jehovah, and he will have mercy on him, and to nur God, for he will abundantly pardon (literally, multiply to pardon}. This is a continuation of the foregoing call, and at the same time an explanation of the way in which it was to be obeyed. We are here taught that the seeking of Jehovah, and the calling upon him just enjoined, involve an abandonment of sin, and a return to righteousness of life. The imperative version of the futures is warranted, if not required, by the abbreviated form 2^.. Even the future form, however, won Id convey the same essential meaning both in Hebrew and in English. The wicked shall forsake, &c., is in fact the strongest form of a command. Way is a common figure for the course of life. What is here meant is the evil way, os Jeremiah calls it (Ivi. 1), i. e. a habitually sinful course. — \$ is a negative expression, strictly meaning non-existence or nonentity, and then, in a secondary moral sense, the destitution of all goodness, which is put, by a common Hebrew idiom, for the existence of the very opposite. The common version (the unriyhteons man) grves the sense but not the whole force of the original construc tion, which is here retained byHendewerk (der Mann der Missethat). The same writer speaks of these two verses as an interruption, by the Prophet, of the divine discourse. This criticism is founded on the mention of Jehovah in the third person, which is a form of speech constantly occurring, even where he is himself the speaker, not to mention the futility of the assump tion that the passage is dramatic, or a formal dialogue. It mattered little to the writer's purpose whether he seemed to be himself the speaker or a mere reporter of the words of God, to whom in either case they must be finally ascribed. Hence the constant alternation of the first, second, and third persons, in a style which sets all rules of unity and rigid laws of composi tion at defiance. — The word translated thoughts is commonly employed, not to denote opinions, but designs or purposes, in which sense it is joined with way, in order to express the whole drift of the character and life. To return to God in both these respects is a complete description of repentance, implying an entire change of heart, as well as life. — The indirect construc tion of •inprp'1), which is given in most modern versions (that he may have mercy on him), is not only a gratuitous intrusion of the occidental idiom, but | injurious to the sense, by making that contingent which is positively pro- J mised. The encouragement to seek God is not merely that he may, but J that he will have mercy. Lowth's decoction of the same words (uill receive him with compassion) is enfeebling in another way, and inexact ; because the act of receiving is implied, not expressed, and the verb denotes not mere compassion, but gratuitous and sovereign mercy. There is further encouragement contained in the expression our God. To the Jew it would suggest motives drawn from the covenant relation of Jehovah to his people ; while the Gentile would regard it as an indirect assurance, that even he was not excluded from God's mercy. Another weakening of this sentence is effected by the modern version of the last clause as a mere description ^ (Lowth, for he aboundeth in forgiveness), and not as an explicit promise ; that he will abundantly forgive, which is not only the natural and obvious import of the terms, but imperatively required by the favourite law of parallelism.

8. For my thoughts (arc) not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith Jehovah. Clear and simple as these words are in themselves, they have occasioned much dispute among interpreters, in reference to their nexus with what goes before. The earliest commentators, Jews and Christians, seem to have understood them as intended to meet an objection to the pro mise, arising from its vastness and its freeness, by assuring us that such forgiveness, however foreign from the feelings and the practices of men, is not beyond the reach of the divine compassion. As if he had said "to you such forgiveness may appear impossible ; but my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways." This is the sense put upon the words by Cyril, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, (Ecolampadius, Piscator, and Henderson, Thus understood, the text may be compared with Matt. xix. 26. Another explanation, that of Vitringa, rests upon the false assumption that the words have reference to the Jews, and were intended to correct their prejudice against the calling of the Gentiles, as at variance with the promises of God to themselves. As if he had said, "You may think the extension of my grace to them a departure from my settled ways and purposes ; but my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways." This specific application of the words could scarcely be suggested to any ordinary reader, either by the text or context, and at most can only be considered as included in its

general import. Jerome and Rosenmiiller, while they seem to acquiesce in the principle of the interpretation first proposed, so far modify it as to make the faithfulness and truth of the divine assurance a prominent idea. This sense is also put upon the words by Gesenius and several of the later writers, who suppose the meaning of this verse to be determined by the analogy of vers. 10, 11, aud accordingly explain it as denoting the irrevocable nature of God's purposes and promises. In this sense, it may be considered parallel to Num. xxiii. 19, and 1 Sam. xv. 29, Isa. xxxi. 2, xlv. 23. But this is neither the natural meaning of the words, nor one which stands in any obvious rela tion to what goes before; in consequence of which some who hold it are under the necessity of denying that the '? at the beginning of the verse has its proper causal meaning. It is indeed hard to see any coherence in this sequence of ideas, "let the wicked man repent, for my promise is irrevocable." This objection does not lie against another very ancient explanation of the passage, that proposed by Jarchi, but maintained by scarcely any later writer besides Sanctius. This hypothesis is founded on the obvious correspondence of the terms employed in this verse and in that before it, and especially the parallel expressions ways aud thoughts, there applied to man, and here to God. According to this last interpretation, we have here a reason given why the sinner must forsake his ways and thoughts, viz. because they are incurably at variance with those of God himself: " Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways." -Yitringa's objection to this exposi tion, that the fact asserted is too obvious and familiar to be emphatically stated, is an arbitrary allegation, as to which the tastes of men may natu rally differ. There is more weight in the objection that the moral dis similitude between God and man would hardly be expressed by a reference to the height of the heavens above the earth. But the difference in question is in fact a difference of elevation, on the most important scale, that of morals, and might therefore be naturally so expressed. At all events, this interpretation has so greatly the advantage of the others, in facility and beauty of connection with what goes before, that it must be considered as at least affording the formal basis of the true interpretation, but without excluding wholly the ideas which, according to the other theories, these words express. They may all be reconciled indeed by making the disparity asserted have respect, not merely to moral purity, but also to constancy, benevolence, and wisdom. As if he had said, "You must forsake your evil ways and thoughts, and by so doing, you infallibly secure my favour; for as high as the heavens are above the earth, so far am I superior to you in mercy, not only in the rigour and extent of my requirements, but also in compassion for the guilty, in benevolent consideration even for the Gentiles, and in the constancy and firmness of my purposes when formed." — In his comment upon this verse, Vitringa gives his definition of the ways of God, which has so frequently been cited, or repeated without citation: " Via? Dei sunt vel quibus ipse incedet, vel quibus homines incedere vult." For the meaning of his thoughts, see Ps. xxxiii. 11, and Jer. li. 29. If the sense which has been put upon the sentence be correct, it means far more than that which Hitzig quotes from Homer a?.X' ahi rs A/o; xgti'aauv vooc rfeitto fafcw. Knobel can of course see nothing here but an allusion to Cyrus and Croesus.

9. For (as) the heavens are hie/her than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. This is an illustra tion by comparison of the negative assertion in the verse preceding. The

as in the protasis of the comparison is left out, as in Hosea xi. 2, P.--. xlviii. G, Job vii. 9, Jer. iii. 20. There can be no ground therefore for sup posing, with Seeker, Houbigant, and Lowth, that it has dropped out of the text in this place. The full expression may be seen in chap. x. 11. — The IP might here be taken in its proper sense of from, away from, as the reference is in fact to an interval of space; but our idiom would hardly bear the strict translation, and comparison is certainly implied, if not expressed. The same comparison, and in a similar application, occurs Ps. ciii. 11.

10, 11. For as the rain cometh down, and llie snow from heaven, and thither relurnet/t not, but when it has watered the earth and made it bear and jmt forth, and has given seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be, which rjoeth out of my mouth ; it shall not return unto me void (or without effect), but when it has done that which I desired, and success fully done that for which I sent it. This is a new comparison, suggested by the mention of the heavens and the earth in the preceding verse. The tenth and eleventh form a single sentence of unusual length in Hebrew composition. The one contains the comparison, properly so called, the other makes the application. The futures 111 and 2-1t^ strictly mean will come down, will return, implying that the same series of events might be expected to recur ; but as a still more general recurrence is implied, the true sense is conveyed by the English present. — The construction of DN ^ is precisely the same as in Gen. xxxii. 27, Lev. xxii. 6, Ruthii. 16, iii. 18, Amos iii. 7 ; in all which cases it indicates the sine qua non, the condition without which the event expressed by the future cannot take place. Hitzig asserts, however, that the Hebrews knew nothing of the rain going back to heaven by evaporation, and on this ground will not let the words have their obvious and necessary meaning. The impossibility of proving any thing from such expressions, either as to the ignorance or knowledge of the laws of nature which the ancients possessed, has been repeatedly pointed out. But it is certainly too much to violate analogy and sj'ntax for the purpose of involving the writer in a real or apparent blunder. — The word of ver. 11 is not merely prophecy or promise, much less the command of God to Cyrus respecting Israel (Henderson), least of all the Prophet him self as an incarnation of Jehovah's word (Hendewerk), but everything that God utters either in the way of prediction or command. — The construction of Vnr6B> TB> is essentially the same as in 2 Sam. xi. 22. That n!?e> governs two accusatives is evident from such places as 1 Kings xiv. 6. — The English Version refers }H3 to the earth ; but this construction is pre cluded by the difference of gender. The effect is metaphorically repre sented 'as produced directly by the rain and snow. — Hvy^ does not mean prosper in, but make to prosper, or do prosperously, the active sense being inseparable from the Hiphil form. The general design of these two verses is to generate and foster confidence in what Jehovah has engaged to do.

12. For with joy shall ye go forth, and in peace shall ye be led; the mountains and the /tills shall break out before you into a shout, and all the trees of the field shall clap the hand. Here, as in many other places, the idea of jovful change is expressed by representing all nature as rejoicing. (See chaps, xxxv. 1, 2; xliv. 23; xlix. 13; Iii. 9; Ps. xcviii. 8.) The expression go forth is eagerly seized upon by some interpreters as justify ing the restriction of the passage to the restoration from the Babylonish exile. But the real allusion in such cases is to the deliverance from Egypt, which is constantly referred to as a type of deliverance in general, so that every signal restoration or deliverance is represented as a spiritual exodus.

Vitringa, with much more probability, applies the words to the joy of the first heathen converts when they heard the gospel (Acts xiii. 48; 1 Thes. i. 6). The rabbins, upon their part, understand the passage as a prophecy of Israel's deliverance from the present exile and dispersion. All the interpreters since Lowth repeat his fine quotation from Virgil, ipsi Icdiliu mottles, &c.

13. Instead of the thorn shall come up the ci/press, and instead of the nettle shall come up the myrtle, and it shall be to Jehovah for a name, for an everlas'.iny sign that shall not be cut off. The same change which had just been represented by the shouting of the hills, and the applause of the forests, is now described as the substitution of the noblest trees for the most unprofitable and offensive plants. (Compare chap. xli. 19.) An analogous but different figure for the same tiling is the opening of rivers in the desert. (See above, chap. xxxv. 6, 7 ; xliii. 19, 20.) For the meaning of pxj and ^"1?, see vol. i. pp. 178, 290. The name IBTip occurs only here. Simonis and Ewald understand it as denoting a species of mustard plant. Jerome- describes it as a worthless and offensive weed. The Seventy have zon/a. The modern writers are disposed to acquiesce in the Vulgate version, urtica or nettle. All that is essential to the writer's purpose is, that it be understood to signify a mean and useless plant, and thus to form a contrast with the myrtle, as the thorn does with the cypress. — Instead of it shall be, the modern Germans as usual prefer the indirect construction, that it may be, which is neither so exact nor so expressive as the strict translation. Knobel makes the trees the subject of this last clause also ; but it seems more natural to understand it as referring to the change itself, described in this and the preceding verse. Dropping the metaphor, the Prophet then says, in direct terms, that the glorious change predicted shall redound to the glory of its author. It shall be for a name, i. e. it shall serve as a memorial, which is then described in other words as a s'tnn of perpetuity or everlasting token, with allusion, as Vitringa thinks, to those commemorative obelisks or pillars mentioned elsewhere (e. n. chap. six. 19). This memorial is called perpetual, because it shall not be cut oft, pass away, or be abolished. — It will here be sufficient simply to state the fact, that Knobel understands this as a promise that the homeward journey of the exiles should be comfortable and pleasant (bequem und angenehm).

CHAPTER LVI.

WHILE the church, with its essential institutions, is to continue unim paired, the old distinctions, national and personal, are to be done away, and the Jewish people robbed of that pre-eminence of which its rulers proved themselves unworthy.

The day is coming when the righteousness of God is to bo fully revealed, without the veils and shackles which had hitherto confined it, ver. 1. For this great change the best preparation is fidelity to the spirit of the old economy, ver. 2. No personal or national distinctions will be any longer recognised, ver. 3. Connection with the church will no longer be a matter of hereditary right, vers. 4, 5. The church shall be henceforth co-exten sive with the world, vers. (5-8. But first, the carnal Israel must be aban doned to its enemies, ver. 9. Its rulers are neither able nor worthy to deliver the people or themselves, vers. 10—12.

1. Thus saith Jehovah, Keep ye judgment (or justice) and do righteousness ; for near (is) my salvation .to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. The Jews refer this passage to their present dispersion, and understand it as declaring the conditions of their restoration. Vitringa applies it to the beginning of the new dispensation ; Piscator to the new dispensation generally ; the modern Germans to the end of the Babylonish exile. These different classes of interpreters of course expound particulars in accordance with their general hypothesis, but none of them without undue restriction of that which in itself requires, or at least admits a wider application. On the principle heretofore assumed as the basis of cur ex position, we can only regard it as a statement of the general laws which govern the divine dispensation towards the chosen people, and the world at large. The reference is not merely to the ancient Israel, much less to the Jews of the captivity, still less to the Christian Church distinctively consi dered, least of all to the Christian Church of any one period. The doctrine of the passage is simply this, that they who enjoy extraordinary privileges, or expect extraordinary favours, are under corresponding obligations to do the will of God ; and moreover, that the nearer the manifestation of God's mercy, whether in time or in eternity, the louder the call to righteousness of life. These truths are of no restricted application, but may be applied wherever the relation of a church or chosen people can be recognised. Without attempting to refute the various opinions founded on the false hypothesis of a local or temporal limitation, it will be sufficient to point \ out the absurdities attending that which in our day has the greatest vogue, - viz. the notion that the passage relates merely to the Babylonish exile. Thus Maurer understands the Prophet as advising his contemporaries to act in a manner worthy of their approaching liberation, and Gesenius sup poses him to take this opportunity of combating the Jewish prejudice against the calling of the Gentiles. Why this error needed to be controverted at this precise juncture, he omits to explain. But this is not the worst thing in Gesenius's interpretation of the place before us. After saying that a proselytising spirit is inseparable from the belief in one exclusive way of salvation, and particularly pardonable in the Jewish exiles, surrounded as they were by idolaters, he goes on to represent the liberal spirit of this passage as directly at variance with the law of Moses, particularly as con tained in Deut. xxiii. 2-8, which he says is virtually here repealed. This shallow and erroneous view of the relation which subsists between the Law and the Prophets, will correct itself as we proceed with the detailed interpretation. DQ^p seems here to be equivalent to ^^, with which it is connected as a parallel in chap. xlii. 4, li. 4.

2. Happy the man (that) shall do this, and the son of man that shall hold it fast, keeping the Sabbath from prof aning it, and keeping his hand from do ing all evil. The pronoun this seems to refer to what follows, as in Ps. vii. 4, and Deut. xxxii. 29. Son of man is simply an equivalent expression to the man of the other clause. The last clause is remarkable, and has occasioned much dispute among interpreters, on account of its combining a positive and negative description of the character required, the last of which is very general, and the first no less specific. A great variety of reasons have been given for the special mention of the Sabbath here. It has especially perplexed those writers who regard the Sabbath as a tem porary ceremonial institution. Some of these endeavour to evade the difficulty, by supposing that the Sabbath here meant is a mystical or spiritual Sabbatism, a repose from suffering, sin, or ceremonial impositions. But how could such a Sabbath be observed, or how could they be called

upon to keep it, as a condition of the divine favour? Some suppose the Sabbath to be here put for the whole Mosaic system of religious services, as being the most ancient, and, in some sort, the foundation of the rest. According to Gesenius, it is specified because it was the only part of the Mosaic institutions which could be perpetuated through the exile, that which was merely ceremonial and restricted to the temple being necessarily suspended. Rosenmiiller thinks that it is here referred to, as a public national profession of the worship of one God. The true explanation is afforded by a reference to the primary and secondary ends of the Sabbatical institution, and the belief involved in its observance. In the first place, it implied a recognition of Jehovah as the omnipotent Creator of the uni verse (Exod. xx. 11, xxxi. 17) ; in the next place, as the sanctifier of his people, not in the technical or theological sense, but as denoting him by whom they had been set apart as a peculiar people (Exod. xxxi. 13 ; Ezek. xx. 12) ; in the next place, as the Saviour of this chosen people from the bondage of Egypt (Deut. v. 15). Of these great truths the Sabbath was a weekly remembrancer, and its observance by the people a perpetual re cognition and profession, besides the practical advantages accruing to the maintenance of a religious spirit by the weekly recurrence of a day of rest; advantages which no one more distinctly acknowledges, or states more strongly, than Gesenius. Holding fast is a common idiomatic ex pression for consistent perseverance in a certain course. It occurs not unfrequently in the New Testament. (Heb. iv. 4, vi. 18 ; Rev. ii. 25, iii. 11). The suffix in ^1 refers to HNT, and like it has respect to the whole course of conduct afterwards described. Gesenius refers to chap. i. 13 as a rejection of the Sabbath, and in this detects a want of agreement be tween the genuine and spurious Isaiah: a conclusion resting wholly on a false view of that passage, for the true sense of which see under chap, i. 11-15, vol. i. p. 86, &c.

3. And let not the foreigner say, who has joined himself unto Jehovah, saying, Jehovah will separate me wholly from his people ; and let not the eunuch say, Lo, I am a dry tree. The essential meaning of this verse is, that all external disabilities shall be abolished, whether personal or national. To express the latter he makes use of the phrase "GSrrja, which strictly means not the son of the stranger, as the common version has it, but the son of strangeness, or of a strange country ; "133 corresponding to the German Fremde, which has no equivalent in English. The whole class of personal disqualifications is represented by the case of the eunuch, in reference to Deut. xxiii. 1, and as Calvin thinks to the promise in Gen. xv. 5, and xxii. 17, from which that class of persons was excluded. Hensler's idea that D'np here means an officer or courtier, is precluded by the addition of the words, / am a dry tree, a proverbial description of child lessness said to be still current in the East. It is possible, however, that the eunuch may be mentioned, simply because it stands at the beginning of the list of prohibitions in the law. In either case, the expression is generic, or representative of more particulars than it expresses. Knobel's restriction of the first clause to the Canaanites, who mingled with the Jews in their captivity, or occupied their places in their absence, is entirely gratuitous. The meaning is, that all restrictions, even such as still' affected proselytes, should be abolished.

4, 5. For thus saith Jehovah to (or, as to) the eunuchs who shall keep my Sabbaths, and shall choose what 1 delight in, and take fast hold of my covenant, I will give to them in my house and within my walls a place and

83G ISAIAH LVI. [\TEB. G, 7.

name better than nous and than daughters; an everlasting name will 1 yive to him, which shall not be cut off. According to Joseph Kimchi, the plural Sabbaths is intended to include the Sabbatical year, and that of jubilee. If any distinction was intended, it was probably that between the wider and narrower meaning of the term Sabbaths, i.e. the Sabbath properly so called, and the other institutions of religion with which it is connected. — What it is that God delights in, may be learned from chap. Ixvi. 4, Jer. ix. 24, Hos. vi. 6. By holding fast my covenant is meant adhering to his compact with me, which includes obedience to the precepts and faith in the pro mises. The 1 at the beginning of ver. 5 introduces the apodosis, and gives the verb a future meaning. — By my walls we are not to understand, with Jerome, those of Jerusalem, nor, with the modern writers, those of the temple, but in a more ideal sense, the walls of God's house or dwelling, which had just been mentioned. The promise is not merely one of free access to the material sanctuary, but of a home in the household or farnily of God, an image of perpetual occurrence in the Psalms of David. (See especially Psalms xv. xxiii. and xxiv. as expounded by Hengstenberg.) — The use of the word T in this connection is obscure, although the essential meaning is determined by the context. Umbreit follows Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, in adhering to the usual sense hand, which he seems to think is mentioned as the natural instrument of seizure, and metaphori cally applicable to the thing seized, for example, to a share or portion. Gesenius recognises this use of the plural in a few places, but appears to derive it from the primary idea of a handful. In the case before us he ex plains the word as meaning a memorial or monument, which sense it seems to have in 2 Sam. xviii. 18, perhaps with reference, as Gesenius supposes, to the uplifted hand and arm found on many ancient cippi or sepulchral columns. But as the antiquity and universality of this practice are uncer tain, and as the meaning place is admissible in 2 Sam. xviii. 18, as in many other cases, it appears to be entitled to the preference. — Setter than sons and daughters may either mean better than the comfort immediately derived from children (as in Euth iv. 15), or better than the perpetuation of the name by hereditary succession. Most interpreters prefer the latter sense, but both may be included. A beautiful coincidence and partial fulfilment of the promise is pointed out \)y J. D. Michaelis, in the case of the Ethi opian eunuch, whose conversion is recorded in the eighth of Acts, and whose memory is far more honoured in the church than it could have been by a long line of illustrious descendants.

6, 7. And (as to] the foreigners joining themselves to Jehorah to serve him and to love the name of Jehorah, to be to him for servants, every one keeping the Sabbath from profaning it, and holding fast my covenant, I will bring them to my mount of holiness, and make them joyful in my house of prayer, their offerings and their sacrifices (shall be] to acceptance on my altar ; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. Aben Ezra points out as a rhetorical peculiarity in the structure of this passage, that the writer, after mentioning the foreigners and eunuchs in ver. 3, afterwards recurs to them in an inverted order. As an analogous example, he refers to Josh. xxiv. 31. — The verb rnt£>, although strictly a generic term, is specially appropriated to the official service of the priests and Levites. Some interpreters accordingly suppose it to be here said that the heathen shall partake of the sacerdotal honours elsewhere promised to the church. (See chap. Ixi. 6, Exod. xix. 6, 1 Peter ii. 5, 9, Rev. i. 6.)— To love the name of Jehovah, is to love his attributes as manifested in his word and

works. (Compare chaps, h. 9, Ixvi. 5.) — T\?^ 1"P3 does not mean the house of my prayer, i.e. the house where prayer is made to me, but my louse of prayer, as ^7£ ">n means my hill of holiness, or holy hill. Knobel supposes an allusion to the residence of the Nethinim on Ophel. (Xeh. lii. 26, xi. 21.) — Shall be called, as in many other cases, implies that it shall be so. Our Saviour quotes a part of the last clause, not in reference f> its main sense, but to what is incidentally mentioned, viz., its being called a house of prayer. This part of the sentence was applicable to the material temple while it lasted; but the whole prediction could be verified )nly after its destruction, when the house of God even upon earth ceased,o be a limited locality, and became coextensive with the church in its enargement and diffusion. The form of expression is derived, however, from ihe ceremonies of the old economy, and worship is described by names amiliar to the writer and his original readers. (Compare Hos. xiv. 3, leb. xiii. 13, John iv. 21-23.) The general promise is the same as that n Mai. i. 11 . and is so far from being inconsistent with the principles on which the old economy was founded, that it simply carries out its original,esign as settled and announced from the beginning.

8. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, the gatherer of the outcasts of Israel, Still more] will I gather upon him in addition to his gathered. This may either

mean, I will go on to gather still more of his outcasts, or, besides his outasts I will gather others. There is less difference between the two inter-

>retations than at first sight there might seem to be. In either case, the

words are applicable to the calling of the Gentiles. On the second sup-

)osition, which is commonly adopted, even by the Jewish writers, this is be direct and proper meaning of the words. But even on the other, they mount to the same thing, if we only give to Israel its true sense, as denot

ing not the Jewish nation as such, but the chosen people or the church of rod, to which the elect heathen as really belong as the elect Jews, and are berefore just as much entitled to be called outcasts of Israel '. It is true bat our Saviour uses a similar expression (lost sheep of the House of Israel)

n a restricted application to the Israelites properly so called ; but it is in

connection which brings the Jews and Gentiles into evident antithesis,

nd therefore leaves no doubt as to the sense in which the name Israel is

plying vast accumulation.

9. All ye beasts of the fold, come to devour, all ye beasts in the forest ! The structure of this verse is somewhat unusual, consisting of two parallel members, with a third, equally related to both, interposed between them.

t is an invitation to the enemies of Israel to destroy it. The people being epresented in the following verses as a flock, their destroyers are natually represented here as wild beasts. Hitzig and Knobel understand the nvitation as ironical, or as a mere poetical description of the defenceless tate in which Israel was left through the neglect of its natural protectors. t is more natural, however, to explain it as an indirect prediction of an ctual event, clothed in Isaiah's favourite form of an apostrophe. Vitringa's imitation of the prophecy to the subversion of the Roman empire by the mrbarians, is as arbitrary as its application in the Targum and by Kimchi, o Gog and Magog. We have here simply one of those alternations and ransitions which are not only frequent in this book, but one of its characsristics, and indeed essential to the writer's purpose of exhibiting God's.ealing with his church, both in wrath and mercy. From the foregoing

promises of growth, he now reverts to intervening judgments, and their causes. There is no ground, therefore, for Luzzatto's assertion, that the next seventeen verses are entirely unconnected with what goes before, and must therefore be considered an interpolation. Ewald, on the other hand, alleges that from this verse to the middle of chap. Ivii. 11 is an extract from an older writer, inserted here in order to have something against idolatry, and because the author of the book could not hope to produce anything better! As a further illustration of the value of such critical decisions, I? may add that Hendewerk separates chaps. lv., hi., and Ivii. from the fore going and following context, as a distinct prophecy! Besides the usual and natural interpretation of the verse before us as a threatening, may be men tioned that of Cyril and Jerome, who regard it as an invitation to all sorts of men to partake of the Lord's supper; while Clericus explains it as a like invitation to the Gentiles to frequent the temple and partake of the sacri ficial feasts. The same sense was put upon the words by RosemnUller in his first edition; but he afterwards adopted a different grammatical con struction of the sentence, being the one proposed by Aben Ezra, who explains the beasts of the forest as the object of the verb devour, and under stands the sentence as an invitation to the heathen to destroy the wicked Jews. The same construction is received by Jarchi and Abarbenel, but with a very different result, as they suppose the invitation to be given t<* the proselytes to destroy the enemies of Israel. On the same grammatical foundation Cocceius erects his explanation of the verse as a call to the bar-> barians to destroy the corrupt Christians, while Schmidius regards it as an exhortation to the church to swallow up the Gentiles by receiving them into her bosom! All the modern writers seem to be agreed that the last clause as well as the first is a description of the object of address, and that the thing to be devoured must be supplied from the following verses. With the metaphors of this verse compare Exod. xxiii. 29 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 5-8 ; Jer. xii. 9, vii. 33, 1. 17. Beasts of the field and of the forest, are paralL expressions. Some interpreters make the one a stronger expression th the other; but in deciding which it is, they directly contradict each other, Vitringa's notion that the one may mean the Saracens, the other the Huns Turks, and Tartars, is to use his own words with respect to Cyril's exposi tion of the verse, " non commendabilis hac aBtate ecclesias."

10. His watchmen (are] Hind all of them, they have not known (or do not know], all of them (are) dumb dogs, they cannot bark, dreaming, lying downr loving to slumber. The pronoun his refers to Israel, as in ver. 8, and thus proves clearly that no new discourse begins either with ver. 9 or with that before us, where the large 2f of the Masoretic text, and the space before the verse in most manuscripts, seem to indicate a change of subject. But, as Gesenius correctly says, the writer merely pauses to take breath, and then resumes the thread of his discourse. Many give do not know the absolute sense of knowing nothing or being without knowledge ; but in all such cases it seems better to connect it with an object understood. We may here supply their duty, or the state of the flock, or the danger to which it is exposed. The difference between the past and present form is immaterial here ; because both are really included, the condition described being one of ancient date, but still continued. The dogs particularly meant are shepherds' dogs (Job xxx. 1), whose task it was to watch the flock, and by their barking give notice of approaching danger. But these are dumb doge which cannot even bark, and therefore wholly useless. They are alsc negligent and lazy. Far from averting peril or announcing it, they do noi

VEB. 11, 12.] ISAIAH LV1.

see it. "What is before expressed by tbe figure of a blind watchman, is here expressed by that of a shepherd's dog asleep. D'j'n is confounded by the Vulgate, Symmachus, and Saadias. with D*?n which might either be a participle (seeing) or a noun (seers), corresponding to watchmen in the first clause. The common text is now very generally regarded as correct, and explained by the Arabic analog}' to signify dreaming, or talking in sleep, or raving either from disease or sleep. Some suppose a particular allusion to the murmuring or growling of a dog in its dreams. Some writers make the •watchmen of this verse denote the prophets, as in chap. Hi. 8; Jer. vi. 17; Ezek. iii. 17, xxxiii. 7. But Gesenius more correctly understands it as a figure for the rulers of the people generally, not excluding even the false prophets. The figurative title is expressive of that watchfulness so frequently described in the New Testament as an essential attribute of spiritual guides. (Compare also Mat. xv. 4.)

1 1 . And the dogs are greedy, they know not satiety, and they, the shep herds (or the shepherds themselves], know not how to distinguish (or act wisely} ; all of them to their own way are turned, (every} man to his own gain from his own quarter (or without exception). A new turn is now given to the figures of the preceding verse. The dogs, though indolent, are greedy. Several of the ancient versions confound t'?.? MJJ with D^S *$_, hard- faced, and translate it impudent. The true sense of the former phrase is strong of appetite, i. e. voracious. — The pronoun n?pn is emphatic, and may cither mean that these same dogs are at the same time shepherds, thus affording a transition to a different though kindred image, or it may be intended to distinguish between two kinds of rulers ; as if he had said, while the dogs are thus indolent and greedy, they (the shepherds) are incompetent ; or, •while the shepherds' dogs are such, the shepherds themselves know not how to distinguish. The latter is probably the true construction ; for although the same class of persons may be successively compared to shepherds' dogs and shepherds, it cannot even by a figure of speech be naturally said that the dogs themselves are shepherds. There is no need, however, of dis tinguishing between the dogs and shepherds as denoting civil and religious rulers, since both comparisons are equally appropriate to rulers in general. Etyrnologically, P?n may be understood to signify the act of discernment or discrimination. Usage would seem to require that of being wise or prudent ; but its Hiphil form, and its being preceded by the verb to Jcnoic, are in favour of explaining it to mean wise conduct, with particular refer ence in this case to official obligation. Their being all turned to their own way is expressive of diversity, and also of selfishness in each individual. The latter sense is then expressed more fully by the addition of WV??, to or for his own gain or profit. That voluptuous as well as avaricious indul gences are here referred to, is apparent from what follows in the next verse. — The last word literally means from his end or his extremity, to which the older writers gave the sense of his quarter or direction, corresponding to his own way ; and Henderson says that it expresses the extreme lengths to which they went in their efforts to accumulate gain. Most of the modern writers have adopted the opinion of De Dieu, that -inV^D means ad unum \.omnes, all without exception, i.e. all within a given space or number, from its very end or remotest limit. (Compare Gen. xix. 4 ; Jer. li. 31 ; Ezek. |xxv. 9.)

12. Come ye, I will fetch wine, and we will intoxicate ourselves with strong drink, and like to-day shall be to-morrow, great, abundantly, exceedingly. The description of the revellers is verified by quoting their own words, as

in chap. xxii. 13. The language is that of'one inviting others to join in a debauch; hence the alternation of the singular and plural. N2D is not merely to drink, nor even to be filled, but to be drunk. The futures might be rendered let me fetch and let us drink, without either injuring or better ing the sense. The last clause professes or expresses a determination to prolong the revel till the morrow. The accents connect DV with "inD in the sense of dies crastinus. Another possible construction is to make the pronoun HJ agree with DV although preceding it; a combination less incredible in this case, because?n| in the following member is supposed by some to agree with "ID* as a noun, in which case the whole phrase would mean exceeding great abundance. Most interpreters, however, make "1ft! and 1M3 both adverbs, although both originally nouns, and construe great with day, a great day being naturally applicable to a day remarkable for anything, as in the case before us for its revelry; just as we say in colloquial English, a high time, or a rare time, for a time of great enjoy ment.

CHAPTEE LVII.

THE righteous who died during the old economy were taken away from the evil to come, vers. 1, 2. The wicked who despised them were them selves proper objects of contempt, vers. 3, 4. Their idolatry is first de scribed in literal terms, vers. 5, 6. It is then represented as a spiritual adultery, vers. 7-9. Their obstinate persistency in sin is represented as the cause of their hopeless and remediless destruction, vers. 10-13. A way is prepared for spiritual Israel to come out from among them, ver. 14. The hopes of true believers shall not be deferred for ever, vers. 15, 16. Even these must be chastened for their sins, ver. 17. But there is favour in reserve for all true penitents, without regard to national distinctions, vers. 18, 19. To the incorrigible sinner, on the other hand, peace is im possible, vers. 20, 21.

1. The righteous perishcth, and there is no man laying (it) to heart, and men of mercy are taken away, with none considering (or perceiving) that from the presence of evil the righteous is taken away, Henderson says that whether Hezekiah or Josiah be meant by the righteous, cannot be deter mined, nor indeed whether any particular individual be intended. This doubt may not appear so utterly insoluble when we consider that there is no further reference to either of the persons mentioned, nor anything like an individual description in the text or context ; that P^V? is used generically for a whole class elsewhere (e. g. Eccles. iii. 17, Ezek. xviii. 20, Ps. xxxvii. 12) ; and that the parallel expression here is plural. This last consideration, it is true, would have no weight against Tertullian and Cyprian, who explain the righteous to be Christ, and men of mercy his apostles ; but even Vitringa describes this hypothesis as nulla specie probabilem, and therefore needing no refutation. The terms of this verse are specifically applicable neither to violent nor natural death as such consi dered, but are appropriate to either. Even Kimchi points out that the righteous is not here said to perish, either in the sense of ceasing to exist, or in that of ceasing to be happy, but in that of being lost to the world and to society. Laying to heart is not merely feeling or appreciating, but observing and perceiving. — Men of mercy is another description of the righteous, so called as the objects of God's mercy, and as being merciful

themselves. (See Mat. v. 7.) — The verb ^P^ is doubly appropriate, first in its general though secondary sense of taking away, and then in its primary specific sense of gathering, i. e. gathering to one's fathers or one's people; an expression frequently applied in the Old Testament to death, and especially to that of godly men. (See Gen. xlix. 29, Judges ii. 10.) The verb is used absolutely iu this sense by Moses (Num. xx. 26). — ftf? means strictly in default or in the absence of (Prov. viii. 24, xxvi. 20). — Most interproters give *? the sense of t/tat, and understand the last clause as stating what it is that no one lays to heart or understands, viz. the fact that the righteous is taken away, &c. Some, however, translate *? for, and make the last clause a mere reiteration of the fact twice stated in the first. Upon this point Hitzig's version and his comment are directly con tradictory, the former having for (denn} and the latter saying expressly, " *? here means not for (denn}, but that (dass} ; their death is observed, but not its cause." There is also a difference of opinion as to \3?P, which some suppose to mean because of, others before (in reference to time), and others from the face or presence of. So too the evil is by some under stood in a physical sense, viz. that of misery or suffering, by others in a moral sense, viz. that of guilt or sin. Those who adopt the latter under stand the clause to mean, that the death of the righteous is occasioned by the sins of the people. But why may not this be asserted of the death of the sinner likewise? On the other hypothesis, the sense is either that the righteous is destroyed by his calamities, or that he is removed before they come upon the people. To the latter it is objected by Maurer, that the subsequent context represents great prosperity as in reserve for the people. But this objection presupposes an erroneous limitation of the passage to the period of the exile.

2. He shall go in peace (or enter into peace] ; they shall rest upon their beds — walking straight before him. — The alternation of the singular and plural shews that the subject of the sentence is a collective person. Kimchi makes Dl7£> the subject of the first and last members, and regards the inter mediate one as a parenthesis : Peace shall go walking straight before him or straight forwards, i. e. shall conduct him or escort him out of this life to a place of rest. Aben Ezra refers the pronoun in inb} to Jehovah, walking before him, i.e. in his presence. (Compare Judges xviii. 0.) But the explanation commonly approved is that of Jarchi, who makes this phrase an additional description of the righteous, as one walking in his uprighteousness, or, as Cocceius expresses it, straight before him (qui rccte ante se incedit}. It seems to be added as a kind of afterthought, to limit what immediately precedes, and preclude its application to all the dead without distinction. The peace and rest here meant are those of the body in the grave, and of the soul in heaven ; the former being frequently re ferred to as a kind of pledge and adumbration of the latter. Vitringa understands this verse as stating the alleviations which attend the lament able loss of good men. Ewald regards it as a kind of pious wish analogous to requieacat in pace ! Gesenius supposes an antithesis between this and the next verse : " The righteous is at rest (or let him rest), but as for you," &c. This suggestion is of value so far as it removes the appearance of abrupt transition, and shews the continuity of the discourse.

3. And ye (or as fur you), draw near hither, i/f so/is of the iritch, seed of the adulterer and the harlot. According to Jarchi, these words are addressed to the survivors of the judgments by which the righteous are described as having been removed. They are summoned, according to the same Rabbin,

to receive their punishment, but as Kimchi thinks, simply to appear before the judgment-seat. (Compare chap. xli. 1.) The description which follows was of course designed to be extremely opprobrious; but interpreters differ as to the precise sense of the terms employed. Gesenius supposes that instead of simply charging them with certain crimes, he brings the charge against their parents; a species of reproach peculiarly offensive to the orientals. Hendewerk supposes this form of contumely to have been selected for the purpose of identifying those who were immediately ad dressed with their progenitors. In this way he ingeniously accounts for the subsequent description of idolatry, which Ewald and man}' others look upon as applicable only to the times of Isaiah himself. Vitringa and the older writers generally give a more specific meaning to the Prophet's meta phors, understanding by the adulterer the idol, by the harlot the apostate church, and by the children the corrupted offspring of this shameful apostasy. — Instead of sorceress or witch, the Septuagint and Targum have iniquity. Grotius supposes that they read H3iy, Rosenmiiller rVPIV. The Peshito seems to make it a participle of H3JJ (afflicted). Jerome quotes Theodotion as retaining the original word onena, which is the common text. For the meaning of the word, see vol. i. p. 100. The occult arts are mentioned as inseparable adjuncts of idolatry. — A grammatical difficulty is presented by the verb n^Fil, where the n-oun H31T might have been expected. None of the modern writers seem to have assumed a noun of that form, although not without analogy. The current explanation is the one adopted by Gesenius, which supposes an ellipsis of the relative (she who committed whoredom), and a change of construction from the participle to the finite verb. Luzzatto objects that in all such cases the participle and the finite verb have one and the same subject. He accord ingly agrees with Abarbenel and Gousset in explaining n3|ri as the second person, the seed of an adulterer, and (therefore) thou hast thyself committed whoredom. Essentially the same interpretation is proposed by Piscator and Cocceius. — Whoredom and sorcery are again combined in Mai. iii. 5, and elsewhere.

4. At whom do you amuse yourselves ? At whom do you enlarge the mouth, prolong the tongue ? Are you not children of rebellion (or apostasy] a seed- of falsehood ? This retorts the impious contempt of the apostates on them selves. There is no need, however, of supposing that they had cast these very same reproaches on the godly. The meaning is not necessarily that they were what they falsely charged their brethren with being. All that is certainly implied is, that they were unworthy to treat them with contempt. Jarchi gives "?V_ J.SJirin the sense of delighting in, which it has in chap. Iviii. 11 ; Job xxii. 26, xxvii. 10 ; Ps. xxxvii. 4 ; but most interpreters suppose the next clause to determine that the words express derision. The opening or stretching of the mouth in mockery is mentioned, Ps. xxii. 8, 14, xxxv. 21 ; Lam. ii. 16, and in chap. Iviii. 9, below. The lolling of the tongue as a derisive gesture is referred to by Persius in poetry, and Livy in prose. According to Hitzig there are not two different gestures here de scribed, but one, the mouth being opened for the purpose of exhibiting the tongue. The form of expostulation is similar to that in chap, xxxvii. 23. — Jarchi supposes the prophets to be specially intended as the objects of this wicked mockery. (See 2 Chron xxxvi. 16.) — Here as in the preceding verse, some regard seed and children as mere idiomatic pleonasms, or at most, as rhetorical embellishments. Of those who understand them strictly, some suppose the qualities of falsehood and apostasy to be predicated of

YEE. 5.] ISAIAH LVIL 3-48

the parents, others of the children. Both are probably included; they were worthy of their parentage, and dilligently filled up the measure of their father's iniquity. (See chap. i. 4.) By " a seed of falsehood" we may understand a spurious brood, and at the same time one itself perfidious and addicted to a false religion.

5. Inflamed (or inflaming yourselves) among the oaks (or terebinths), under every green tree, slaughtering the children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks. Their idolatrous practices are now described in detail. The first word of this verse properly denotes libidinous excitement, and is here used with reference to the previous representation of idolatry as spiritual whoredom or adultery. The reflexive version of the Niphal strengthens the expression, but is not required by usage or the context. — D vX3 is commonly translated with idols, in accordance with the ancient versions. The objec tions are that 3 is not a natural connective of the foregoing verb with its object, and that ?K is constantly employed by this writer with direct allusion to its proper sense (almighty), and in reference to false gods only where they are sarcastically placed in opposition to the true. Maurer, Ewald, and Knobel, have revived the old interpretation given by Jarchi and Kimchi, which gives Dv8* the sense of oaks or terebinths, as in chap. i. 29. The objection usually made, viz. that the next words are descriptive of the place, only shews how easily the parallelism may be made to sustain either side of any question. The interpreter has only to allege that the words in question must or must not mean the same thing with the next words, as the case may be, and his purpose is accomplished. This objection is, moreover, inconclusive, because it proves too much ; for it equally applies to the consecutive expressions in the last clause, both of which are univer sally regarded as descriptive of localities. Hitzig renders the objection somewhat more plausible, by saying that the terebinth is necessarily in cluded under every ijreen tree ; but if the genius of the language would admit of two consecutive expressions being perfectly synonymous, how much more of such as really involve a climax — " among the terebinths, and not only so but under every green tree." Sacrificial infanticide is often mentioned in the Scriptures as a rite of heathen worship, and especially of that paid to Moloch, in which it seems to have been usual to burn the children ; but we find the word slaughter frequently applied to it (See Ezek. xvi. 21, xxiii. 39), either in the wide sense of slaying (Gesenius), or because the children were first slaughtered and then burnt (Hitzig), or because both modes of sacrifice were practised. Hitzig adds very coolly to his observa tions on this subject, " compare Gen. xxii.," a reference which obviously implies much more than the opinion entertained by some older writers, that human sacrifices owed their origin to a misapprehension of the history of Isaac. The Hebrew ?n3 is applied both to a valley and a stream flowing through it. Jerome has here torrentibus, by which ho may have meant their beds or channels. According to Yitringa, there is special reference to the great valley of Lebanon, between the chains of Libanus and Antilibanus, a region infamous for its idolatry. A much more natural interpre tation is the one which supposes an allusion to the valleys round Jerusalem, in one of which, the valley of the son of Hinnom, we know that Moloch was adored with human victims. The clefts of the rocks, or clefts project ing in consequence of excavations, is a circumstance perfectly in keeping with the topography of that spot. The minute description of idolatry given in this passage is exceedingly perplexing to those writers who fix the date

of composition at the period of the exile. Hendewerk, as we have seen, intrepidly maintains that the children are here charged with the sins of their fathers; but along with this extravagant assertion he makes one con cession really valuable, namely, that the efforts of Gesenius and Hitzig to reconcile the terms of the description with the state of things during the captivity are wholly abortive. A perfect solution of the difficulty is afforded by our own hypothesis, that the Prophet, from the whole field of vision spread before him, singles out the most revolting traits and images by which he could present in its true aspect the guilt and madness of apostasy from God.

6. Among the smooth (stones) of the valley (or the brook*) is thy portion ; they, they, are thy lot ; also to them hast thou poured out a drink-offering, thou hast brought up a meal-offering. Shall £ for these things bs consoled (i.e. satisfied without revenge)? Thy portion, i.e. the objects of thy choice and thy affection (Jer. x. 16). The word stones is correctly supplied in the English Version. (See 1 Sam. xvii. 40.) Others supply places, and suppose the phrase to mean open cleared spots in the midst of wooded valleys, places cleared for the performance of religious rites. In favour of this meaning, is the not unfrequent use of the Hebrew word to signify not hairy, and in figurative application to the earth, not wooded, free from trees. According to this interpretation, which is that of Paulus, De Wette, Hitzig, Biickert, and Umbreit, the first clause merely describes the place where the idols were worshipped. According to the other, which is given in the Targum, and approved by Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Grotius, Clericus, Lowth, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Knobel, it is a description of the idols them selves. Smooth stones may mean either polished or anointed stones, such as were set up by the patriarchs as memorials (Gen. xxviii. 18, xxxv. 12), and by the heathen as objects of worship. Thus Arnobius says, that before his conversion to Christianit}7 he never saw an oiled stone (lubricatum lapidem et ex olivi unguine sordidatum) without addressing it and praying to it. This explanation of the first clause agrees best with what follows, and with the emphatic repetition, they, they, are thy portion, which is more natural in reference to the objects than to the mere place of worship.

Most writers find here a play upon the double sense of p?n (smooth and portion) ; but Ewald gives to both the sense of stone (an des Tholes Steinchen ist deln Stein), and makes them the plural of P/.Q, a synonyme of P?n (1 Sam. xvii. 40). Beck, on the other hand, makes both mean part or portion. Libations and vegetable offerings are here put for offerings in general, as being the simplest kinds of sacrifice. There seems to be another lusus verborum in the use of the word En3^, which may either mean to remain satisfied without vengeance, or to satisfy one's self by taking it. (See chap. i. 24.)

7. On a high and elevated mountain thou hast placed thy led ; also there (or even thither') hast thou gone up to offer sacrifice. The figure of adul terous attachment is resumed. (Compare Ezek. xvi. 24, xxv. 81.) That the mountain is not used as mere figure for an elevated spot, is clear from the obvious antithesis between it and the valleys before mentioned. Still less, ground is there for supposing any reference to the worship of moun tains themselves. By the bed here, Spencer understands the couch on which the ancients reclined at their artificial feasts. All other writers seem to give it the same sense as in Prov. vii. 17, and Ezek. xxiii. 17. In the last clause the figure is resolved, and making the bed explained to mean

offering sacrifice. Knobel supposes a particular allusion to the labour of ascending mountains us a proof of self-denying zeal in the worshipper.

8. And behind the door and the door-post thou hast placed thy memorial, far away from me thou hast uncovered (thyself or thy bed), and hunt fjone up, thou hast enlarged thy led and hast covenanted from them, llion hast loved their led, thou hast provided room. Interpreters are much divided as to the particular expressions of this very obscure verse, although agreed hi understanding it as a description of the grossest idolatry. Gesenius and Maurer explain PIDT as meaning memory, by which the former understands posthumous fame or notoriety, the latter something cherished or remem bered with affection, meaning here the idol as a beloved object. The same sense is obtained iu another way by those who make the word mean a memorial, or that which brings to mind an absent object. In this sense the image of a false god may be reckoned its memorial. Grotius and Hitzig suppose an allusion to Deut. vi. 9, the former supposing that the idolaters are here described as doing just the opposite of what is there required, the latter that the Prophet represents them as putting the re quired memorial of Jehovah's sole divinity out of sight, by going to an inner apartment. A still more natural application of the same sense would be to suppose that they are here described as thrusting the memorial of Jehovah into a corner, to make room for that of the beloved idol. Some suppose a special reference to the worship of Penates, Lares, or household gods. The rest of the verse describes idolatry as adulterous intercourse. DH2 n"On has been variously explained to mean, thou hast covenanted with them ; thou hast bargained for a reward from them ; thou hast made a covenant with some of them. The masculine form H"On is used for the feminine, as in chap. xv. 5. Hitzig supposes this to have been usual for Vav conversive. (Compare Ewald's H. G. p. 643, S. G. § 234.) The most probable interpretation of the last words in the verse is that which gives to T the same sense as in chap. Ivi. 5. This is strongly favoured by the parallel expression "pSS^Q ri2mn. Others understand it to mean, wherever thou hast seen (their) memorial or monument ; others, wherever thou seest a hand (beckoning or inviting thee). The sense gratuitously put upon the phrase by Dtiderleiu, and the praises given him for the discovery, are characteristic of neological aesthetics.

9. And tltou hast gone to the king in oil, and hast multiplied thine unguents, and hast sent thine ambassadors even to a far-off (land), and hast gone (or sent) down even to hell. The first verb has been variously ex plained as meaning to see, to look around, to appear to be adorned, to sing, to carry gifts, which last is founded on the analogy of the noun npJB'Jjl a gift or present (1 Sam. ix. 7). Gesenius derives the noun from this verb in the sense of going with or carrying, and the modern writers generally acquiesce in this interpretation founded on Arabic analog}'. By the king some understand the king of Babylon or Egypt, and refer the clause to the eagerness with which the Prophet's contemporaries sought out foreign alliances. Most writers understand it as a name for idols generally, or for Moloch in particular. IPiP? is commonly explained to mean with oil or ointment (as a gift) ; but Hitzig understands it to mean in oil, i. e. anointed, beautified, adorned. Upon the explanation of this phrase of course depends that of the next, where the unguents are said to be multiplied, either in the way of gifts to others, or as means of self-adornment. Gesenius and the later writers make fyspn qualify Tfy?$ understood as a kind of auxiliary, thou ha&t sent down deep to hell, i. e. to the lower world, as opposed to

heaven, of which Moloch was esteemed the king. (See the same construc tion of the verb in Jer. xiii. 18.) It is much more natural, however, to give it an independent meaning as expressive of extreme indignation and abhorrence. There is no need of ascribing a reflexive meaning to the Hiphil, as the same end may be gained by supplying way, or some other noun denoting conduct. Maurer wonders that any interpreter should fail to see that the simplest explanation of this clause is that which makes it signify extreme remoteness. But nothing could in fact be more unusual or unnatural than the expression of this idea by the phrase, humbling even to fcheol.

10. In the greatness of thy IK ay (or the abundance of thy travel) thou hast labour ; (but) tliou fiast not said, There is no hope. Thou hast found the life of thy hand ; therefore thou art not weak. Whether way be under stood as a figure for the whole course of life, or as involving a specific allusion to the journeys mentioned in ver. 9, the general sense is still the same, viz. that no exertion in the service of her false gods could weary or discourage her. This is so obviously the meaning of the whole, that the common version of flJ?JJ (thou art wearied] seems to be precluded, the rather as the verb may be used to denote the cause as well as the effect, i. e. exertion no less than fatigue. Lowth reverses the declaration of the text by omitting the negative (thou hast said) on the authority of a single manuscript, in which the text, as Kocher well observes, was no doubt conjecturally changed in order to conform it to Jer. ii. 25, xviii. 12. In both these places, the verb &?N13 is employed as it is here impersonally, desperatuin est, a form of speech to which we have no exact equivalent in English. — Saadias and Koppe give JVH the sense of animal or beast, in reference to idols of that form. All other writers seem agreed that the essential idea which the whole phrase conveys is that of strength. Some accordingly attach this specific sense to JVH,, others to "1J ; but it rather belongs to the two in combination. In translation, this essential sense may be conveyed under several different forms : Thou hast found thy hand still alive, or still able to sustain life, &c. n?n does not merely mean to be sick or to be grieved, but to be weak or weakened, as in Judges xvi. 7, xi. 17. — • According to Luzzato, way means specifically wicked way, as in Prov. xxxi. 3.

11. And whom had thou feared and been afraid of, that thou shouldest lie f and me thou hast not remembered, thou hast not called to mind (or laid to heart). Is it not (because) I hold my peace, and that of old, that thou wilt not fear me f De Dieu, Cocceius, and Vitringa, understand this as ironical, and as meaning that the fear which they affected as a ground for their forsaking God had no foundation. Gesenius and others understand it as a serious and consolatory declaration that they had no cause to fear. Hitzig supposes an allusion to the mixture of idolatrous worship with the forms of the true religion in the exile. With the exception of the last gratuitous restriction, this agrees well with the form of expression, and may be applied to all hypocritical professors of the truth. They have no real fear of God ; why then should they affect to serve him ? His forbearance only served to harden and embolden them. " Have I not long kept silence ? It cannot be that you fear me." There is no need, therefore, of making the last clause interrogative, as Ewald does, wilt thou not fear me ? Still more gratuitous and violent is De Wette's construction, " Thou needest not have feared me." This is certainly no better than Luther's interrogative construction of the last clause, " Do you think that I will always hold my

peace?" Luzzatto renders <I?:T?^ ""? that thou miyhiest fail, arid refers to chap. Iviii. 1 1 . But waters are there said to deceive the expectation by their failure, an expression which is utterly inapplicable to the failure of the strength. Instead of D7iyD-1 Lowth reads D^M, and hide (my eyes), with the noun omitted as in Ps. x. 1. Henderson also thinks the common reading justly suspected, because the Coinplutension and other editions,

with a number of manuscripts, read D7yoi. But this is merely the defective orthography of the common text, and precisely the kind of variation which most frequently occurs in Hebrew manuscripts. Kocher, moreover, has shewn to the satisfaction of most later writers, that the 1 before D^iy^1 is equivalent to ct quidem in Latin, or and that too in English. — The use of fit'C1 is the same as in chap. Ixiv. 1 1 , Ixv. G. — The image is identical with that presented in chap. xlii. 14. Kuobel contrives to limit the passage to the Babylonish exile, by explaining this verse as a declaration that the Jews had no need of the Babylonian idols to protect.them, and alleging that a portion of the captives had renounced the worship of Jehovah be cause they thought his power insufficient to deliver them. In the same taste and spirit he explains otiy® to mean since the beginning of the exile. —Compare with this verse chap. xl. 27, and li. 12, 13.

12. / will declare thy righteousness and thy works, and they shall not profit (or avail thee). Lowth reads my righteousness, on the authority of the Peshito and a few manuscripts. Ileudewerk understands ^i^X to mean thy desert, thy righteous doom ,- Ewald, thy justification ; Uinbreit, thy righteousness, which I will give thee notwithstanding thy unworthiness. Gesenius and Knobel still adhere to their imaginary sense of happi ness, salvation, which is not only arbitrary in itself, but incoherent with the next clause, which they are obliged to understand as meaning, as for thy own works they can profit thee nothing. Knobel, however, follows Hitzig in making thy ivorks mean thy idols, elsewhere called the work of men's fingers. De Dieu makes the last clause an answer to the first. Shall I declare thy righteousness and works ? They will profit thee no thing. But this, in the absence of the form of interrogation, is entirely arbitrary. The earlier writers who retain the sense of ^i^X f°r the most part follow Jerome and Zwingle in making the first clause ironical. But this is unnecessary, as the simplest and most obvious construction is in all respects the most satisfactory. / will declare thy righteousness, i. e. I will shew clearly whether thou art righteous, and in order to do this I must declare thy works ; and if this is done, they cannot profit thee, because, instead of justifying, they will condemn thee. There is no need, there fore, of supposing 1 at the beginning of the last clause to mean which, for, that, or anything but and. One of the latest writers on the passage, Thenius, agrees with one of the oldest, Jarchi, in explaining the first clause to mean, I will shew you how you may be or ought to be righteous ; but this is sufficiently refuted by a simple statement of the true sense, which has been already given.

13. In thy crying (i. e. when thou criest for help), let thy gatherings save thee I And (yet) all of them the wind shall take up, and a breath shall take aicay, and the (one) trusting in me shall inherit the land and possess my holy mountain. This is merely a strong contrast between the impo tence of idols and the power of Jehovah to protect their followers respec tively. Hitzig, without a change of sense, makes T^Vl an ironical exclamation, they shall save thee ! This is much better than De Wette's

interrogative construction, mil they save ihee? which is altogether arbitrary. Most of the modem writers follow Jarchi in explaining "^V^i? to mean, thy gatherings of gods, thy whole pantheon, as Gesenius expresses it; so called, as Maurer thinks, because collected from all nations. (Compare Jer. ii. 28.) Knobel denies that there was any such collection, or that gods could be described as blown away, and therefore goes back to Yitringa's explanation of the word as meaning armies, i. e. as he thinks those of Babylon, in which the idolatrous Jews trusted to deliver them from Cyrus, and which might therefore be correctly called their gatherings! Jt may be questioned whether any of these explanations is entitled to the preference above that of Aben Ezra, who appears to understand the word genetically, as denoting all that they could scrape together for their own security, including idols, armies, and all other objects of reliance. This exposition is the more entitled to re gard, because the limitation of the passage to the exile is entirely gratuitous, and it is evidently levelled against all unbelieving dependence upon any thing but God. — In the consecution of?3D and D-ll there is a climax: even a wind is not required for the purpose; a mere breath would be sufficient. This fine stroke is effaced by J. D. Michaelis's interpretation of the second word as meaning vapour, and the whole clause as descriptive of evaporation. The pro mise of the last clause is identical with that in chaps, xlix. 8, Ix. 21, Ixv. 9 ; Ps. xxxvii. 11 ; Ixix. 37, 38; Mat. v. 5 ; Rev. v. 10. — Those who restrict the passage to the Babylonish exile must of course explain the promise as relating merely to the restoration; but the context and the usage of the Scriptures is in favour of a wider explanation, in which the possession of the land is an appointed symbol of the highest blessings which are in reserve for true believers, here and hereafter.

14. And he shall say, Cast up, cast up, clear the way, take up the stum bling-block from the way of my people ! Lowth and J. D. Michaelis read IP"? (then will 1 say), the correctness of which change Lowth alleges to be plain from the pronoun my in the last clause, a demonstration which appears to have had small effect upon succeeding writers. — Gesenius and Ewald make "ION impersonal, they say, one says, or it in said. Yitringa in like manner long before had paraphrased it thus, exit vox ; and Aben Ezra earlier still had proposed substantially the same thing, by supplying fcHpn as the subject of ")2K. Maurer agrees with the English Yersion in con necting this verb with the foregoing sentence, and making it agree with ""Ipinn, the one trusting. The sense will then be that the man whose faith is thus rewarded will express his joy when he beholds the promise verified. Hitzig thinks it equally evident, however, that Jehovah is the speaker ; and Umbreit further recommends this hypothesis by ingeniously combining it with what is said of the divine forbearance in ver. 11. He who had long been silent speaks at last, and that lo announce the restoration of his people. The image here presented, and the form of the expression, are the same as in chaps, xxxv. 8, xl. 3, xlix. 11, Ixii. 10. — Knobel is not ashamed to make the verse mean that the way of the returning captives home from Babylon shall be convenient and agreeable. There is certainly not much to choose, in point of taste and exegetical discretion, between this hypothesis and that of Yitringa, who labours to find references to the Reformation, and the subsequent efforts made by ministers and magistrates to take away all scandals, both of doctrine and discipline, with special allusion, as he seems to think, to the hundred grievances presented to Pope Adrian by the German princes in 1523. Such interpreters have no right to despise each other : for the only error with which either can be

charged, is that of fixing upon one specific instance of the thir.g foretold, and making that the whole theme and the sole theme of a prophecy, which, in design, as well as fact, is perfectly unlimited to any one event or period, yet perfectly defined ss a description of God's mode of dealing with his church, nnd \vith those who although in it are not of it.

15. I' or thus saith the High ami Exalted One, inhabiting eternity, and Holy is his name : On high and holy will I dv:ell. (<wd wltli the broken and humble of spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the broken (or contrite ones}. This verse assigns a reason why the fore going promise might be trusted, notwithstanding the infinite disparity between the giver and the objects of his favour. Notwithstanding the intimate connection of the verses, there is no need of referring thtis saith to what goes before, as if be had said, these assurances are uttered by the High and Exalted One. Analogy and usage necessarily connect them with what follows, the relation of the verse to that before it being clearly indi cated by the for at the beginning. You need not hesitate to trust the promise which is involved in this command, for the High and Holy One has made the following solemn declaration. — The only reason for trans lating N£'3 exalted rather than lofty, is that the former retains the participial form of the original. The same two epithets are joined in chap. vi. 1, which is regarded by the modern critics as the oldest extant composition of the genuine Isaiah. J. I). Michaelis disregards the Masoretic accents, and explains the next words as meaning that his name is the inhabitant of eternity and the sanctuary, which last he regards as a hondiadys for the ever lasting sanctuary, i. e. heaven as distinguished from material and temporary structures. Luzzatto gives the same construction of the clause, but sup poses the noun "1JJ (like the cognate preposition) to be applicable to space as well as time, and in this case to denote infinite height, which sense he likewise attaches to D?iy when predicated of the hills, &c. All other modern writers follow the accentuation, making holy the predicate and name the subject of a distinct proposition. On this hypothesis, L"nj5 may either be an adjective qualifying DE?, his name is holy, i. e. divine, or in finitely above every other name ; or it may be absolutely used, and qualify Jehovah understood, his name is Holy or the Holy One. The ambiguity in English is exactly copied from the Hebrew. — As DilD is not an adjec tive, but a substantive, denoting a high place, the following ^>!n^ must either be referred to D1p£ understood, or construed with DilD itself, a height, and that a holy one, will I inhabit. — Ewald takes J"I5<) at the be ginning of the last clause as a sign of the nominative absolute, and the infinitives as expressive of necessity or obligation : And as for the broken and contrite of spirit, (it is necessary) to rerive, &c. Henderson and Knobel regard J"IN as the objective particle, shewing what follows to be governed directly by the verb p2£'^ : "I inhabit (or dwell in) the broken and humble of spirit." This would be more natural if the other objects of the same verb were preceded by the particle ; but as this is not the case, the most satis factory construction is the common one, which takes J"l{$ as a preposition meaning with. — The future meaning given to p'2l£'S by Lowth is strictly accurate, and more expressive than the present, as it ii'timates that not withstanding God's condescension he will still maintain his dignity. The idea of habitual or perpetual residence is still implied. — The reviving of the spirit and the heart is a common Hebrew phrase for consolation and encouragement. — Hitzig denies that contrition and humility are here pro pounded as conditions or prerequisites, and understands the clause as a

description of the actual distress and degradation of the exiles. — Vitringa finds here a specific reference to the early sufferers in the cause of reforma tion, such as the Waldenses and Bohemian Brethi'en. — Compare with this verse chaps, xxxiii. 5, Ixiii. 15, Ixvi. 1, 2; Ps. xxii. 4, cxiii, 5, 6, cxxxviii. 6. 1C. For not to eternity will I contend, and not to perpetuity will I be ivrotli; for the spirit from before me will faint, and the souls (which') I have made. A reason for exercising mercy is here drawn from the frailty of the creature. (Compare chap. xlii. 3, Ps. Ixxviii. 38, 39, ciii. 9, 14.) Suffering being always represented in Scripture as the consequence of sin, its infliction is often metaphorically spoken of as a divine quarrel or controversy with the sufferer. (See vol. i. p. 440.) — The verb t]1pj£ has been variously explained, as meaning to go forth (Septuagint and Vulgate), return (I)e Dieu), have mercy (Cappellus), &c. ; but the only sense sustained by etymology and usage is that of covering. The Targum seems to make the clause descriptive of a resurrection similar to that in Ezekiel's vision, the life-giving Spirit covering the bones with flesh, and breathing into the nostrils the breath of life. Cocceius understands it of the Spirit by his influences covering the earth as the waters cover the sea (chap. xi. 9). Clericus makes it descriptive of the origin of man, in which the spirit covers or clothes itself with matter. The modern writers are agreed in making it intransitive and elliptical, the full expres sion being that of covering with darkness, metaphorically applied to extreme depression, faintness, and stupor. Maurer translates it even here, calir/ine olwh'itur. The figurative use is clear from the analogy of Ps. Ixi. 3, cii. 1, compared with that of the reflexive^ form in Ps. cvii. 5, cxliii. 4, Jonah ii. 8. Rosenmuller follows Jarchi in giving *? the sense of when, and takes the last clause as a promise: when the spirit from before me faints, I grant a breathing time (respiraliones concedo). The credit of this last interpreta tion is perhaps due to Grotius, who translates the clause, et ventulum faciam. But HO^ is evidently used as an equivalent to £'£} in Prov. xx. 27, and is here the parallel expression to H-11. Lowth's translation, living souls, multiplies words without expressing the exact sense of the Hebrew, which is brcatJis. The ellipsis of the relative is the one so often mentioned heretofore as common both in Hebrew and English. From before me is connected by the accents with the verb to faint, and indicates God's pre sence as the cause of the depression. A more perfect parallelism would, however, be obtained by understanding from before me as referring to the origin of human life and as corresponding to the words which I hare made in the other member. Umbreit's explanation of the verse, as meaning that God cannot be for ever at enmity with any of his creatures, is as old as Kimchi, but without foundation in the text and inconsistent with the uniform teaching of the Scriptures.

17. For his covetous iniquity f am wroth and will smite him, (I will") hide me and will be wrotli ; for he has gone on turning away (i. e. persever ing in apostasy) in the way of his heart (or of his own inclination). The futures in the first clause shew that both the punishment and mercy are still future. The interpreters have generally overlooked the fact that the 1 before these futures is not Vav conversive, and there is nothing in the text or context to require or justify either an arbitrary change of pointing, or an arbitrary disregard of the difference between the tenses. — The first phrase in the verse (WV3 PJ?) has been very variously understood. Lowth says the usual meaning of the second noun would here be " quite beside the purpose," and accordingly emits the suffix and takes J^'? as an adverb

meaning for a short time; of which it can only be said that the criticism and lexicography are worthy of each other. Koppe adopts another desperate expedient by calling in the Arabic analogy to prove that the true sense of VV3 is scortatio. J. D. Michaelis and Henderson make one noun simply qualify the other, and explain the whole as meaning his accumulated guilt or his exorbitant iniquity. Vitringa and Gesenius suppose covetousness to be here used in a wide sense for all selfish desires or undue attachment to the things of time and sense, a usage which they think may be distinctly traced both in the Old and New Testament. (See Ps. cxix. 36, Ezek. xxxiii. 31, 1 Tim. vi. 10, Eph. v. 5.) Perhaps the safest and most satis factory hypothesis is that of Maurer, who adheres to the strict sense of the word, but supposes covetousness to be here considered as a temptation, and incentive to other forms of sin. — The singular pronouns his and him refer to the collective noun people, or rather to Israel as an ideal person. — "tPlpn is an adverbial form, rendered equivalent in this case by its collocation the futures which precede and follow. In the last clause the writer sud denly reverts from the future to the past, in order to assign the cause of the infliction threatened in the first. This connection can be rendered clear in English only by the use of the word _/?,>•, although the literal transla tion would be and he ivent. Jarchi's assumption of a transposition is entirely unnecessary. Hendewerk's translation, but he went on, rests upon the false assumption that the first clause is historical. Luther seems to understand the last clause as describing the effect of the divine stroke (da gingen sic Inn und her). "With the closing words of this clause compare chaps, xlii. 24, liii. 6, Ivi. 11, Ixv. 12.- — The best refutation of Vitringa's notion, that this verse has special reference to the period from the death of Charles the Bald to the beginning of the Reformation, is suggested by his own apology for not going into the details of the fulfilment: " Narrandi nullus hie finis est si iuceperis."

18. His ways I hare seen, and 1 will heal him, and will guide him, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners. The healing here meant is forgiveness and conversion, as correctly explained by Kimchi, with a refer ence to chap. vi. 10, and Ps. xli. 5. This obvious meaning of the figure creates a difficulty in explaining the foregoing words so as to make the connection appear natural. Gcsenius supposes an antithesis, and makes the particle adversative. " I have seen his (evil) ways, but I will (never theless) heal him." There is then a promise of gratuitous forgiveness similar to that in chap, xliii. 25, and xlviii. 9. The Targum puts a favour able sense on u-ays, as meaning his repentance and conversion. So Jarchi, I have seen his humiliation; and Ewald, I have seen his patient endurance of trial. Hitzig strangely understands the words to mean that God saw punishment to be without effect and therefore pardoned him, and cites in illus tration Gen. viii. 21, where the incorrigible wickedness of men is assigned as a reason for not again destroying them. But even if this sense were correct and natural, considered in itself, it could hardly be extracted from the words here used. Knobel supposes u'ays to mean neither good nor evil works but sufferings, the length of which, without regard to guilt or innocence, induced Jehovah to deliver them. — 7 will guide him is sup posed by Hitzig to mean I will guide him as a shepherd guides his flock through the wilderness. (See chaps, xlviii. 21, xlix. 10.) But as this does not agree with the mention of consolation and of mourners in the other clause, it is better to rest in the general sense of gracious and pro vidential guidance. (Compare Ps. kxiii. 24.) Clericus renders it fed

'juicscere, in reference to the rest of the exiles in their own land. This interpretation, which is mentioned although not approved by Jarchi, sup poses an arbitrary change at least of vowels, so as to derive the word from n-13. — The promise to restore consolation implies not only that it had been once enjoyed, but also that it should compensate for the intervening sorrows, as the Hebrew word means properly to make good, or indemnify. — The addition of the words and to his mourners has led to a dispute among inter preters, whether the writer had in mind tv.'o distinct classes of sufferers, or only one. Cocceius adopts the former supposition, and assumes a distinc tion in the church itself. Others understand b}^ hi* mourners those who mourned for him, and Henderson applies it specifically to the heathen proselytes who sympathised with Israel in exile. Hitz ig and Knobel under stand the 1 as meaning and specially,' because those who suffered most

were most in need of consolation. Perhaps it would be still more satisx.

factory to make these words explanatory of the v, to him, i. e. to his mourners. Whether these were but a part, or coextensive with the whole, the form of expression then leaves undecided. Luzzatto gets rid of the difficulty by connecting these words with the next verse, " and for bis mourners I create," &c. Koppe throws not only this verse and the next, but also the one following, into one sentence, making this the expression of a wish, and the next a continuation of it. " I saw his ways, and would have healed him, guided him, consoled him and his mourners, creating, <tc. ; but the wicked are like the troubled sea," &c. This is ingenious, but too artificial and refined to be good Hebrew. Yitringa sees a special con nection between this verse and the supplication of the Austrian nobles to the Emperor Ferdinand in 1541.

19. Creating the fruit of the tips, Peace, peace to the far off and to the near, saith Jehovah, and I heal him. Luzzatto adds to this verse the con cluding words of ver. 18, " and for his mourners I create," &c. This, besides the arbitrary change in the traditional arrangement of the text, requires the participle K"?12 to be taken as an independent verb, which, although a possible construction, is not to be assumed without necessity. The usual construction connects &O12 with Jehovah as the subject of the foregoing verse. — The fruit or product of the lips is speech, and creating, as usual, implies almighty power and a new effect. Rosenm uller under stands the clause to mean that nothing shall be uttered by the following proclamation, "Peace, peace," &c. Gesenius understands by the fruit of the lips praise or thanksgiving, as in Heb. xiii. 15, and Hosea xiv. 8. Hitzig supposes it to mean the promise which Jehovah had given, and would certainly fulfil. — By the far and near Henderson understands the Jews and Gentiles. (Compare Acts x. 36, Eph. ii. 17.) Jarchi and Knobel explain it to mean all the Jews wherever scattered (chap, xliii. 5-7, xlix. 12). The Targum makes the distinction an internal one, — the just who have kept the law, and sinners who have returned to it by sincere re pentance. Kimchi in like manner understands the words as abolishing all difference between the earlier and later converts, an idea similar to that embodied in our Saviour's parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Hitzig directs attention to the way in which the writer here comes back to the beginning of ver. 18, as an observable rhetorical beauty. — The present form is used above in the translation of the last verb, because it is doubtful whether the Vav has a conversive influence when separated so far from the futures of the foregoing verse.

20. And the wicked (are) like the troubled sea, for rest it cannot, and its

waters cast up mire and dirt. Koppe's unnatural construction of this verse as the apodosis of a sentence beginning in ver. 18 has already been refuted. Interpreters are commonly agreed in making it a necessary limitation of the foregoing promise to its proper objects. Hitzig regards it as a mere intro duction to the next verse. There is a force in the original which cannot be retained in a translation, arising from the etymological affinity between the words translated nicked, troubled, and cast up. Among the various epithets applied to sinners, the one here used is that which originally signifies their turbulence or restlessness. (See Hengsteuberg on Ps. ii. 1.) Henderson's strange version of the first clause (as for the wicked they are each tossed about like the sea ichich cannot rest) seems to be founded upon 'some mistaken view of the construction, and is certainly not worth pur chasing by a violation of the accents. — Hendewerk's version of the clause is peculiar only in the use of the indefinite expression a sea. Gesenius in his Lexicon makes this one of the cases in which '"S retains its original meaning as a relative pronoun, like the troubled sea ichich cannot rest. The English Version and some others take it as a particle of time (when it can not rest). All the latest German writers follow Lowth in giving it its usual sense of/or because. The only objection to this version, that it appears to make the sea itself the subject of comparison, Knobel ingeniously removes by adding, " any more than you can." The future form ^p-111 implies that such will be the case hereafter as it has been heretofore, which is sufficiently expressed by the reference to futurity in our verb can. The Vav conversive prefixed to the last verb merely shews its dependence on the one before it, as an effect upon its cause, or a consequent upon its antecedent. Its waters cannot rest, and (so or therefore) they cast up mire and mud. Lowth's version of this last clause is more than usually plain and vigorous: hts u-aters work up mire and filth. The verb means strictly to expel or jdrive out, and is therefore happily descriptive of the natural process here referred to. There seems to be allusion to this verse in the xufiara ayaia asr,; of Jude 13. Most of the later writers have repeated the fine tarallel which Clericus quotes from Ovid:

Cumque sit bibernis agitatum fluctibus sequor, Pectora sunt ipso turbidiora mari.

21. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked, Gesenius h&sfor he ivicked, i. e. in reserve for them. Ewald follows Luther in exchanging ,e oriental for an occidental idiom, the wickedhave no peace, which, although n-fectly correct in sense, is an enfeebling deviation from the Hebrew eol ation and construction. That peace is here to be taken in its strict nse, and not in that of welfare or prosperity, is clear from the comparison the preceding verse. Twenty-two manuscripts assimilate this verse to hap. xlviii. 22 by reading njn* for TP8. The Alexandrian text of the eptuagint combines both readings, XJPIO; 6 Sj&'g. So too Jerome has Doinus Deus, which Grotius thinks ought to be read Dominus meus, not bserviug that the form of expression would still be different from that of e original. It is somewhat surprising that the " higher criticism " has ot detected in this repetition a marginal gloss, or the assimilating hand of ime redactor. But even Hitzig zealously contends, without an adversary, at the verse is genuine both here and in chap, xlviii. 22, and that its ;udied repetition proves the unity and chronological arrangement of the hole book. The only wonder is that in a hundred cases more or less VOL. n. z

analogous, the same kind of reasoning is rejected as beneath refutation. This verse, according to the theory of Riickert, Hitzig, and Havernick, closes the second great division of the Later Prophecies. For the true sense of the words themselves, see above, on chap, xlviii. 22.

CHAPTEE LVIII.

THE rejection of Israel as a nation is the just reward of their unfaithful ness, ver. 1. Their religious services are hypocritical, ver. 2. Their mortifications and austerities are nullified by accompanying wickedness, vers. 3-5. They should have been connected with the opposite virtues, vers. 6, 7. In that case they would have continued to enjoy the divine favour, vers. 8, 9. They are still invited to make trial of this course, with an ample promise of prosperity and blessing to encourage them, vers. 10-14.

1. Cry with the throat, spare not, like the trumpet raise thy voice, and tell to my people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins. Although this may be conveniently assigned as the beginning of the third part, according to the theory propounded in the Introduction, it is really, as Knobel well observes, a direct continuation of the previous discourse. Ewald's suggestion that the latter may have produced some effect upon the people before this was uttered, rests on a supposition which has probably no foundation in fact. The utmost that can be conceded is that the Prophet, after a brief pause, recommences his discourse precisely at the point where he suspended it. — The object of address is the Prophet him self, as expressed in the Targurn, and by Saadias (he said to me). That he is here viewed as the representative of prophets or ministers in general, is not a natural or necessary inference. Crying with the throat or from the lungs is here opposed to a simple motion of the lips and tongue. (See 1 Sam. i. 13.) The common version (cry aloud) is therefore substantially

vcorrect, though somewhat vague. The Septuagint in like manner para phrases it sv la-/Jj'i. The Vulgate omits it altogether. J. D. Michaelis reads, as loud as thou canst. The positive command is enforced by the negative one, spare not, as in chap. liv. 2. The comparison with a trumpet is of frequent occurrence in the Book of Revelations. (See e.g. i. 10, iv. 1.) The loudness of the call is intended to suggest the importance ol the subject, and perhaps the insensibility of those to be convinced. The Prophet here seems to turn away from avowed apostates to hypocritical professors of the truth. The restriction of the verse to Isaiah's contem poraries by the rabbins, Grotius, and Piscator, and to the Jews of the Babylonish exile by Sanctius and the modern writers, is as perfectly gratu itous as its restriction by Eusebius and Jerome to the Pharisees of Christ's time, and by Vitringa to the Protestant Churches at the decline of the Reformation. The points of similarity with all or any of these periods arise from its being a description of what often has occurred and will occur again. It was important that a phase of human history so real and impor tant should form a part of this prophetic picture, and accordingly it has not been forgotten.

2. And me day (by) day they will seek, and the knowledge of my ways they will deliyht in (or desire), like a nation ichich has done right and the judgment of its God has not forsaken ; they will aik of me righteous judg ments, the approach to God (or of God) they will delight in (or desire). The older writers take this to be a description of hypocrisy, as practised in a formal seeking (i. e. worshipping) of God, and a professed desire to know

his ways (i. e. the doctrines and duties of the true religion), the external appearance of a just and godly people, who delight in nothing more than in drawing near to God (i.e. in worship and communion with him). Cocceius and Vitringa, while they differ on some minor questions, e. g. whether seek ing denotes consultation or worship, or includes them both, agree as to the main points of the exposition which has just been given. But Gescnius and all the later German writers put a very different sense upon the pas sage. They apply it not to hypocritical formality, but to a discontented and incredulous impatience of delay in the fulfilment of God's promises. According to this view of the matter, seeking God daily, means importunate solicitation; delight in the knowledge of his ways, is eager curiosity to know his providential plans and purposes; the judgments of righteous ness which they demand are either saving judgments for themselves, or destroying judgments for their enemies; the approach which they desire is not their own approach to God, but his approach to them for their deli verance; and the words like a nation, &c., are descriptive not of a simulated piety, but of a self-righteous belief that by their outward services they had acquired a meritorious claim to the divine interposition in their favour. It & somewhat remarkable that a sentence of such length should, without vio lence, admit of two interpretations so entirely different, and the wonder is 3nhanced by the fact that both the senses may be reconciled with the ensuing context. The only arguments which seem to be decisive in favour of the first, arc its superior simplicity and the greater readiness with which it is suggested to most readers by the language of the text itself, together with he fact that it precludes the necessity of limiting the word to the Babyonish exile, for which limitation there is no ground either in the text or ontext. The objection to the modern explanation, founded on the sense ehich it attaches to the verb V?n, is met by the analogous use of the verb we in Ps. xl. 17, Ixx. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 8. — Luther understands the last lause as accusing them of wishing to contend with God, and venturing to harge him with injustice.

3. Why have we fasted and thou hnst not seen (it], afflicted our soul (or urselvex) and thou wilt not know (it)/ Jjehold, in the day of your fast ye ill find pleasure, and all your labours ye will exact. The two interpretaons which have been propounded of the foregoing verse agree in making is a particular exemplification of the people's self-righteous confidence in .e meritorious efficacy of their outward services. The first clause contains eir complaint, and the last the Prophet's answer. This relation of the ,uscs Saadias points out by prefixing to one the words "they say," and to the other "Prophet, answer them." Cocceius and Yitriuga suppose g to be here used in a wide sense for the whole routine of ceremonial irvices. The same end is attained by adhering to the strict sense, but ipposing what it said of this one instance to be applicable to the others. e structure of the first clause is like that in chaps, v. 4, 1. 2. In our iom the idea would be naturally thus expressed, Why dost thou not see .en we fast, or recognise our merit when we mortify ourselves before ? The word ^p.3 here may either mean the appetite, or the soul as inguished from the body, or it may supply the place of the reflexive noun self, which is entitled to the preference, because the context shews their mortifications were not of a spiritual but of a corporeal nature, combination of the preterite (hast not seen) and the future (wilt not ) includes all time. The clause describes Jehovah as indifferent and ntive to their laboured austerities. The reason given is analogous to

that for the rejection of their sacrifices in chap. i. 11-18, viz. the combina tion of their formal service with unhallowed practice. The precise nature of the alleged abuse depends upon the sense of the word fSH. Gesenius and most later writers understand it to mean business, as in chap. xliv. 28, liii. 10, and explain the whole clause as a declaration, that on days set apart for fasting they were accustomed to pursue their usual employments. or as Henderson expresses it, to "attend to business." But this explana tion of the word, as we have seen before, is perfectly gratuitous. If we take it in its usual and proper sense, the meaning of the clause is that they made their pretended self-denial a means or an occasion of sinful gratifica tion. J. D. Michaelis supposes the specific pleasure meant to be that afforded by the admiration of their superior goodness by the people. But this is a needless limitation of the language, which may naturally be applied to all kinds of enjoyment, inconsistent with the mortifying humiliation which is inseparable from right fasting. — The remaining member of the sentence has been still more variously explained. According to the Septuagint and Vulgate, it charges them with specially oppressing their dependents (wroxfigiwf and kuljectos) at such times. Luther agrees with Synimachus in supposing a particular allusion to the treatment of debtors. Gesenius in his Commentary, Umbreit, and De Wette, prefer the specific sense of labourers or workmen forced to toil on fast-days as at others times. Maurer, Hitzig, and Gesenius in his Thesaurus, coincide with the English Version in the sense, ye exact all your labours, i.e. all the labour due to you from your dependents. As these substitute labours for labourers, so the Rabbins debts for debtors. Aben Ezra uses the expression mammon, which may mean your gains or profits; but 2Vy, as Maurer well observes, does not signify emolument in general, but hard-earned wages, as appears both from etymology and usage. (See Prov. v. 10, x. 22; Ps. cxxvii. 2.) J. D. Michaelis ingeniously explains the clause as meaning that they de manded of God himself a reward for their meritorious services. — On the stated fasts of the Old Testament, see Jer. xxxvi. 9, Zech. vii. 3, viii. 19. According to Luzzatto, D-1V originally signifies the convocation of the people for prayer and preaching; so that when Jezebel required a fast to be pro claimed, Naboth was set on high among the people, i.e. preached against idolatry, on which pretext he was afterwards accused of having blasphemed God and the king. (1 Kings xxi. 9-13.)

4. Behold, for strife and contention ye will fast, and to smite with the fisi of wickedness; ye shall not (or ye will nof) fast to-day (so as) to make your voice heard on high. Some understand this as a further reason why their fasts were not acceptable to God; others suppose the same to be continued, and refer wrhat is here said to the maltreatment of the labourers or debtor mentioned in the verse preceding. Gesenius understands the 7 in the first clause as expressive merely of an accompanying circumstance, ye fast ic strife and quarrel. But Maurer and the later writers, more consistently with usage, understand it as denoting the effect, either simply so consi dered, or as the end deliberately aimed at. J. D. Michaelis tells a story o: a lady who was never known to scold her servants so severely as on fasl days, which he says agrees well with physiological principles and facts Vitringa applies this clause to the doctrinal divisions among Protestants and more particularly to the controversies in the Church of Holland on thf subject of grace and predestination. To smite with the fist of wickedness is a periphrasis for fighting, no doubt borrowed from the provision of the law in Exod. xxi. 18. — Luther and other earlv writers understand the last

clause as a prohibition of noisy quarrels, to make the voice heard on high, being taken as equivalent to letting it be heard in the street (chap. xlii. 8). Yitringa and the later writers give it a meaning altogether different, by taking Di~tD in the sense of heaven (chap. Ivii. 15), and the whole clause as a declaration that such fasting would not have the desired effect of gain ing audience and acceptance for their prayers. (See Joel i. 14, ii. 12). All the modern writers make D1'3 synonymous with Cl'n to-day, as in 1 Kings i. 31. Jarchi's explanation, as the day, (ought to be kept) involves a harsh ellipsis and is contrary to usage. — Instead of N? VBn, Lowth reads v HD?y W\, and translates " to smite with the fist the poor; wherefore fast ye unto me in this manner?" The only authority for this pretended emendation is the rctxtnbv ivctri pot of the Septuagint Version, and the strange idea that it " gives a much better sense than the present reading of the Hebrew."

5. Shall it be like this, the fast that I will choose, the day of man's hum bling himself'!' Is it to hany his head like a bulrush and make sackcloth and ashes his bed'/ Wilt thou call this a fast, and a day of acceptance (an accept able day) to Jehovah/ The general meaning of this verse is clear, although its structure and particular expressions are marked with a strong idiomatic peculiarity which makes exact translation very difficult. The interrogative form, as in many other cases, implies strong negation mingled with sur prise. Nothing is gained, but something lost, by dropping the future forms of the first clause. The preterite translation of "'D?^ (/ have chosen) is in fact quite ungrammatical. No less gratuitous is the explanation of this verb as meaning love by Gesenius, and approve by Henderson ; neither of which ideas is expressed, although both are really implied in the exact translation, choose. The second member of the first clause is not part of the contemptuous description of a mere external fast, but belongs to the definition of a true one, as a time for men to practise self-humiliation. He does not ask whether the fast which he chooses is a day for a man to afflict himself implying that it is not, which would be destructive of the very essence of a fast ; but he asks whether the fast which he has chosen as a time for men to humble and afflict themselves is such as this, i. e. a mere external self-abasement. — VV* means to spread anything under one for him to lie upon. (See above, chap. xiv. 11.) The effect of fasting, as an outward means and token of sincere humiliation, may be learned from the case of Ahab (1 Kings xxi. 27-29) and the Ninevites (Jonah iii. 5-9.) The use of sackcloth and ashes in connection with fasting is recorded in Esther ix. 8. Even Gesenius regards this general description as particularly ap plicable to the abuse of fasting in the Romish and the Oriental Churches. The sense attached to SV by Luther (des Tayes) and Lowth (for a day) changes the meaning of the clause by an arbitrary violation of the syntax.

6. Is not this tlie fast that I will cJtoose, to loosen bands of wickedness, to undo the fastenings of tlie yoke, and to send aicay the crushed (or broken) free, j and every yoke ye shall break ? Most interpreters suppose a particular allu sion to the detention of Hebrew servants after the seventh year, contrary to the express provisions of the law (Exod. xxi. 2, Lev. xxv. 39, Deut. xv. 12). Grotius applies the terms in a figurative sense to judicial oppression ; Cocj ceius to impositions on the conscience (Mat. xxiii. 4, Acts xv. 28, Gal. v. 1) ; Vitringa, still more generally, to human domination in the church (1 Cor. ivii. 23), with special reference to the arbitrary impositions of formulas and creeds. It is evident, however, that the terms were so selected as to be I descriptive of oppression universally ; to make which still more evident, the Prophet adds a general command or exhortation, Ye shall break every

yoke. The Targum explains ntplD to mean unjust decrees (^DD p and the Septuagint applies it to fraudulent contracts, an idea which Gesenius thinks was probably suggested to the translator by his knowledge of the habits of the Alexandrian Jews. Hitzig agrees with Jarchi in deriving the first HtpIO from Htp3 and making it synonymous with nt^Q ^Ezek. ix. 9), the perversion of justice. (For this application of the verb, see above, chaps, xxix. 21, xxx. 11). But although this affords a more perfect paral lelism with y£H, it is dearly purchf4sed by assuming that the same form npis is here used in two entirely different senses. For the use of f Vp in reference to oppression, see 1 Sam. xii. 3, 4, and compare Isa. xlii. 3. Gesenius here repeats his unwarrantable mistranslation of N?D as synony mous with H3n. In this he is followed by Hitzig; but the later writers have the good taste to prefer the strict translation. The change of con struction in the last clause from the infinitive to the future, is so common as to be entitled to consideration, not as a solecism but as a Hebresv idiom. There is no need therefore of adopting the indirect and foreign construc tion, that ye break every yoke. — In reply to the question, how the acts here mentioned could be described as fasting, J. D. Michaelis says that they are all to be considered as involving acts of conscientious self-denial, which he illustrates b}" the case of an American slaveholder brought by stress of con science to emancipate his slaves. The principle is stated still more clearly and more generally by Augustine, in a passage which Gesenius quotes in illustration of the verse before us. " Jejunium magnum et generale est abstinere ab iniquitatibus et illicitis voluptatibus seculi, quod est perfectu jejunium." Hendewcrk understands this passage of Isaiah as expressly con demning and prohii iiing all fasts, but the other Germans still maintain th< old opinion that it merely shews the spirit which is necessary to a true fast 7. Is it not to break unto the hungry thy bread, and the afflicted, the J/oni less, thou shalt bring home; for thou shalt see one naked and shalt clothe hi\ and from thine own JJenh thou shalt not hide thyself. The change of con/ struction to the future in the first clause is precisely the same as in preceding verse. — Grotius explains the phrase to break bread (meaning to distribute) from the oriental practice of baking bread in thin flat cakes.—* Lowth's version of the next phrase (the ivandering poor] is now commonly regarded as substantially correct. (Compare Job xv. 23.) D'H-'np is pro perly an abstract, meaning wandering (from "J-VT), here used for the concrete expression wanderers. There is no need of explaining it with Henderson as an ellipsis for DH-np ^N men of wanderings. The essential idea is ex pressed in the Septuagint version (dareyoiji), which Ewald copies (Dachlose), and still more exactly in the Vulgate (vayos). Jarchi explains it to mean mourning, by metathesis for E'1'!'?'"-1) ft passive participle from "0*. Hitzig derives it from *vyo, to rebel, but gives it the specific sense of fugitive. rebels. Thcu shalt bring home, i. c. as Knobel understands it, for the pur pose of feeding them; but this is a gratuitous restriction.— The construc tion of the second clause is similar to that in ver. 2. It is best to retain the form of the original, not only upon general grounds, but because thou shalt see the naked seems to be a substantive command, corresponding to thou shalt not hide thyself. — For the use of flesh to signify near kindred, see Gen. xxix. 14, xxxvii. 27, 2 Sam. v. 1. The Septuagint paraphrase is, avl ru\i c<x.s!'jjv 7-&C a^i^arof: cov. — With the general precepts of the verse compare chap, xxxii. 6, Job xxxi. 16-22, Exod. xviii. 7, Prov. xxii. 9, Ps. cxii. 9, Matt. xxv. 36, Bom. xii. 11, Heb. xiii. 2, James ii. 15, 16, and with the last clause, Matt. xv. 5, 6.

8. Then shall break forth as the dawn thy light, and thy healing speedily shall spring up ; then shall go before thee thy righteousness, and the glory of Jehovah shall be thy rereivard (or bring up thy rear). Kimchi connects this with the foregoing context by supplying as an intermediate thought, thou shalt no longer need to fast or lie in sackcloth and ashes. It is evi dent, however, that the writer has entirely lost sight of the particular example upon which he had been dwelling so minutely, and is now entirely occupied with the effects which would arise from a conformity to God's will, not in reference to fasting merely, but to every other part of duty. Then, i. c. when this cordial compliance shall have taken place. The future form is preferable here to the conditional (ivould break forth), not only as more obvious and exact, but as implying that it will be so in point of fact, that the effect will certainly take place, because the previous condition will be certainly complied with. The verb, to break forth (literally, to be cleft), elsewhere applied to the hatching of eggs (chap. lix. 5), and the gushing of water (chap. xxxv. G), is here used in reference to the dawn or break of day, a common figure for relief succeeding deep affliction. (See chap. viii. 22, xlvii. 11, Ix. 1.) — HD-II^ is properly a bandage, but has here the sense of healing, as in Jer. viii. 22, xxx. 17, xxxiii. 6. By a mixture of metaphors, which does not in the least obscure the sense, this healing is here said to sprout or germinate, a figure employed elsewhere to denote the sudden, rapid, and spontaneous growth or rise of anything. (See above, on chaps, xlii. 9, and xliii. 19.) In the last clause a third distinct figure is employed to express the same idea, viz. that of a march like the journey through the wilderness, with the pillar of cloud, as the symbol of God's presence, going before and after. (See above, on chap. Hi. 12, and compare Exod. xiii. 21, xiv. 19.) — Tliy righteousness shall go before thee cannot mean that righteous ness shall be exacted as a previous condition, which is wholly out of keep ing with the figurative character of the description. Luther has also marred it by translating the last verb, shall take thee to himself, overlooking its peculiar military sense, for which see above, on chap. Hi. 12. Knobel im proves upon Gesenius's gratuituous assumption that P"1V means salvation, by explaining it in this case as an abstract used for the concrete, and ac cordingly translating it thy Saviour. All the advantages of this interpreta tion are secured without the slightest violence to usage, by supposing that Jehovah here assumes the conduct of his people, as their righteousness or justifier. (See Jer. xxiii. G, xxxiii. 16, and compare Isaiah liv. 17.) The parallel term glory may then be understood as denoting the manifested glory of Jehovah, or Jehovah himself in glorious epiphany ; just as his presence with his people in the wilderness was manifested by the pillar of cloud and of tire, which sometimes went before them, and at other times brought up up their rear. (See above, on chap. Hi. 12.) This grand reiteration of a glorious promise is gratuitously weakened and belittled by restricting it to the return of the exiled Jews from Babylon ; which, although one remark able example of the thing described, has no more claim to be regarded as the whole of it, than the deliverance of Paul or Peter from imprisonment exhausted Christ's engagement to be with his servants alway.-, oven to the end of the world.

9. Then shalt thou call and Jehovah will answer, thou shalt cry and he will say, Behold me (here I am), if thou wilt put away from the midst of thee the yoke, the pointing of the finger, and the speaking of vanity. The tS may either be connected with what goes before or correspond to OX iu the other clause, like then, ivlien, in English. That 2K may thus be used as a particle

of time, will be seen by comparing chaps, iv. 4, xxiv. 13. The conditional form of the promise implies that it was not so with them now, of which, indeed, they are themselves represented as complaining in ver. 3. The idea of this verse might be expressed in the occidental idiom by saying, when thou callest, Jehovah will ansiver; when thou criest, he will say, Behold me. (See above, on chap. 1. 2.) — The yoke is again mentioned as the symbol of oppression. (See ver. 6.) De Wette needlessly resolves it into subjugation (Unterjochung], Hendewerk, still more boldly, into slavery. — The pointing of the finger is a gesture of derision. Hence the middle finger is called by Persius digiius infamis; Martial says, rideto multum, and in the same connection, digitum porrigito medium; Plautus, in reference to an object of derision, intende digitum in hunc. The Arabs have a verb de rived from finger, and denoting scornful ridicule. The object of contempt in this case is supposed by Grotius to be the pious; by Hitzig, the Prophet or Jehovah himself; by Knobel, the unfortunate, who are afterwards described as objects of sympathy. — Words of vanity, in Zech. x. 2, mean falsehood, which is here retained by J. D. Michaelis, while Dathe gives it the specific sense of slander, and Paulus that of secret and malignant machination. Vitringa understands it as relating to censorious and un necessary fault-finding; Kimchi, Ewald, and Gesenius, to strife and bicker ings. All these may be included in the general sense of evil speech or wicked words. The Targum has words of oppression, or, as Geseuius ex plains it, violence.

10. And (if} thou icilt let out thy soul to the hungry, and the afflicted soul wilt satisfy, then shall thy light arise in the darkness, and thy gloom as the (double, light or) noon. For If? £ Lowth reads l^n? thy bread, in which he is supported by eight manuscripts. The Septuagint version he considers as combining the two readings. But Vitringa understands IK -^v^g as. denoting the cordiality of a cheerful giver (2 Cor. ix. 7, Bom. xii. 8.) \ Luzzatto, by means of a curious etymological analogy, makes p^fl synony mous with the N'yon of Lev. ix. 12, 13, 18, and translates the whole phrase "if thou wilt present thy person." Gesenius takes 5^??. in the sense of appetite or hunger, here put for the thing desired or enjoyed (deinen Bissen.} Hitzig and Ewald, with the same view of the writer's meaning, retain the more exact sense of desire in their translations. Hendewerk's explanation, " if thou wilt turn thy heart to the hungry," is near akin to Luther's, " if thou wilt let the hungry find thy heart," which seems to rest upon the same interpretation of the verb that has been quoted from Luzzatto. By a distressed soul, Hitzig here understands one suffering from want, and craving sustenance. (See chap. xxix. 8.) The figure in the last clause is a common one for happiness succeeding sorrow. (See Judges v. 31, Ps. cxii. 4, Job xi. 17.) Vitringa asserts roundly (aio rotunde] that this pro phecy was not fulfilled until after the Reformation, when so many German, French, Italian, and Hungarian Protestants were forced to seek refuge in other countries. The true sense of the passage he has given without know ing it, in these words : " Post tot beneficia et stricturas lucis ecclesiae inductas, restat meridies quern expectat."

11. And Jehovah ic 'ill guide thee ever, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and thy bones shall he invigorate, and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters shall not fail. The promise of guidance had already been given in chap. Ivii. 18. (Compare Ps. Ixxiii. 24, Ixxviii. 14.) Jerome's translation (requiem tibi dabit} derives the verb from 013, not nn3. Driessen and some others make nin¥nX2 mean with clear or

bright waters; but the sense of glistening or dazzling which belongs to the Arabic root, is equally applicable to the burning sands of a desert. Ewald translates it fever-heat. The common version, drouyht, which Lowth changes to severest dronyht, in order to express the intensive meaning of the plural form, agrees well with the verb to satisfy, referring to thirst, as ver. 10 does to hunger. The common version of the next clause (and make fat thy bones) is sanctioned by the Septuagint and Kimchi, who appeals to the analogy of Prov. xv. 30. The Vulgate version (ossa liberauit) seems both arbitrary and unmeaning. The Peshito and Saadias translate the verb will strenyt/ten, which is adopted by most modern writers. Seeker's emendation (Tci!)- IPPVSJ), which Lowth adopts (renew thy strength), de rives some countenance, not only from the Targum, but from the analogy of chaps, xl. 31, and xli. 1, and is only inadmissible because it is gratuitous. Similar allusions to the bones as the seat of strength occur in Ps. li. 10, and Job xxi. 24. The figure in the last clause is the converse of that in chap. i. 30. There is here a climax. Not content with the image of a well- watered garden, he substitutes that of the stream, or rather of the spring itself. The general idea is a favourite with Isaiah. (See above, chaps, xxx. 25, xxxiii. 21, xxxv. o, 7, xli. 17, xliii. 20, xliv. 4, xlviii. 21, xlix. 10.) On the deceiving of the waters, see Jer. xv. 18, and com pare the analogous expressions of Hosea with respect to wine, and of Habbakkuk with respect to oil. (Hosea v. 2, Hab. iii. 17.) Hitzig and Knobel understand what is here said of heat and drought in literal appli cation to the journey of the exiles through the wilderness, while all the analogous expressions in the context are regarded as strong figures. The truth is, that the exodus from Egypt had already made these images familiar and appropriate to any great deliverance.

12. And they shall build from thec the ruins of antiquity (or perpetuity), foundations and of aye and age (i. e. of ayes) shalt thou raise up ; and it shall be called to thee (or thou shalt be called] Repairer of the breach, Restorer of paths for diveUiny. Ewald reads -133, they shall be built by thee ; but this passive form does not occur elsewhere, and is here sustained by no exter nal evidence. Kimchi understands -133 as referring, not to persons, but effects (opera), which is very unnatural. Hitzig retains the old interpreta tion of the clause as referring to children or descendants ; and the latter writer gives it a specific application to the younger race of exiles, whom he supposes to be the Servant of Jehovah in these Later Prophecies. Gesenius denies the reference to children, and explains ^PfP as meaning those belonging to thee, or, as he paraphrases it, thy people. The simplest supposition is that of some rabbinical writers, who supply as the subject of the verb its correlative noun, builders. But as ^P properly means from thee, it denotes something more than mere connection, and. unless forbidden by seinething in the context, must bo taken to signify a going forth from Israel into other lands. Thus understood, the clause agrees exactly with the work assigned to Israel in chaps, xliii. 14, and Ivii. 11, viz. that of reclaiming the apostate nations, and building the wastes of a desolated world. As D<iy obviously refers to past time, this is the only natural interpretation of the corresponding phrase, inj "lil ; although Luther and others understand the latter as referring to foundations which shall last for ever. Gesenius understands by foundations, buildings razed to their foundations (Ps. cxxxvii. 7) ; and Hitzig supposes it to have the secondary sense of ruins, like D'tWN in chap. xvi. 7. The sense will then be, if referred to past time, foundations which have lain br.re,

3G2 ISAIAH LI III. [VEB. 18.

or buildings whose foundations have been bare, for ages. For the meta phor, compare Amos ix. 11 ; for that of a highwaj7, chaps, xix. 23, xxxv. 8 ; and for that of the breach, Ezek. xiii. 5, xxii. 30. The addition of the last phrase, J"1?^?, has perplexed interpreters. Cocceius understands it to mean that the paths themselves shall be inhabited. Geseuius arbi trarily translates it, in the inhabited land. Knobel no less gratuitously gives to paths the sense of beaten or frequented regions. Jerome and Grotius make the word a derivative from fl?^, and translate it in quiet em, or ad quiesccndum. The most satisfactory hypotheses are those of Hitzig and Maurer, the former of whom makes the phrase mean ad habitandum sc. terrain, that the land may be inhabited. The latter understands the paths to be described as leading, not to ruins and to deserts as be fore, but to inhabited regions. Of these, the former seems entitled to the preference. It will be sufficient to record the fact, that Vitringa finds in this verse an allusion to fundamental doctrines, canons, formulas, &c., &c.

13. If thou wilt turn away thy foot from the Sabbath to do thy plea sure on my holy day, and wilt call the Sabbath a delight, (and] the holy (day} of Jehovah honourable, and wilt honour it by not doing thy oicn ivays, by not finding thy pleasure and talking talk. Thq version of Henderson and others, turn away thy foot on the Sabbath, is inconsistent with the form of the original as well as with the figure, which is that of something trodden down and trampled, or at least encroached upon. Most inter preters agree with Kimchi in supplying IP before niL"i^, a combination which is actually found in one manuscript. Hitzig supposes that the gram matical effect of the first |P extends to this infinitive. Maurer supplies nothing, and translates ut agas. The modern version of f?D (business) is much less natural, even in this connection, than the old one, thy pleasure, especially as paraphrased by Luther, what thou wilt (was dir gefatlt). Hit zig observes a climax in the requisitions of this clause, not unlike that in Prov. ii. 2-4. The mere outward observance was of no avail, unless the institution were regarded with reverence, as of God ; nay more with compla cency, as in itself delightful. To call it a delight, is to acknowledge it as such.

The ' before BTl^ appears to interrupt the construction, which has led some interpreters to disregard it altogether, and others to take S^np as a verb, or an adjective agreeing Avith Jehovah; honoured in order to sanctify (or glorify) Jehovah — honoured by the santification of Jehovah — honoured for the sake of the Hory One, Jehovah. But the simplest explanation is the one proposed by De Dieu and adopted by Vitringa, which treats the? before J~Qfc?, and that before £"l"lp, as correlatives, alike connecting the verb Nip with its object. As the construction of the verb is foreign from our idiom, it may be best explained by a paraphrase: " If thou wilt give to the Sab bath (nae6) the name of a delight, and to the holy (fc'lip1?) day or ordi nance of Jehovah that of honourable." But mere acknowledgment is not enough; it must not only be admitted to deserve honour, but in fact receive it. Hence he adds, and if thou wilt honour it thyself, by not doing, literally, away from doing, so as not to do. (On this use of JP, see chaps, v. G, xlix. 15). Here again, to find one's pleasure on the Sabbath is more natural than to find one's business. Doing thy own ways, although not a usual combination, is rendered intelligible by the constant use of way $ Hebrew to denote a course of conduct. Speaking speech or talking talk is by some regarded as equivalent to speaking vanity, in ver. 9. The Septuagint adds sv ogyt;. The modern writers, for the most part, are in favour of the explanation, speaking mere words, idle talk. (Compare Mat. xii. 36.) The classical parallels adduced by Clericus, Gesenius, and others, are very little to the purpose. As to the importance here attached to the Sabbath, see above, on chap. Ivi. 2.

14. Then shalt than be happy in Jehorah, and I icill make thee ride upon the height* of the earth, and I will make thee eat the heritage of Jacob thy father, fur Jehovalis mouth hath spoken it. The verb WVrin is combined with the divine name elsewhere to express both a duty and a privilege. (Compare Ps. xxxvii. 4, with Job xxii. 20, xxvii. 10. — ''fl??*^ does not mean I will raise thee above (Jerome), or I will cause thee to sit (Cocceius), but I will cause thee to ride. The whole phrase is descriptive, not of a mere return to Palestine the highest of all lands (Kimchi), nore of mere security from enemies by being placed beyond their reach (Yitringa), but of conquest and triumphant possession, as in Deut. xxxii. 13, from which the expres sion is derived by all the later writers who employ it. There is no suffi cient ground for Knobel's supposition that J"liE>2 in this phrase means the fortresses erected upon hills and mountains. To eat the heritage is to enjoy it and derive subsistence from. it. Kimchi correctly says that it is called the heritage of Jacob as distinct from that of Ishmael and Esau, although equally descended from the Father of the Faithful. — The last clause is added to ensure the certainty of the event, as resting not on human but divine authority. See chap. i. 2.

CHAPTER LIX.

THE fault of Israel's rejection is not in the Lord, but in themselves, vers. 1, 2. They are charged with sius of violence and injustice, vers. 3, 4. The ruinous effects of these corruptions are described, vers. 5, G. Their violence and injustice are as fatal to themselves as to others, vers. 7, 8. The moral condition of the people is described as one of darkness and hope less degradation, vers. 9-15. In this extremity Jehovah interposes to deliver the true Israel, vers. 16, 17. This can only be effected by the de struction of the carnal Israel, ver. 18. The divine presence shall no longer be subjected to local restrictions, ver. 19. A redeemer shall appear in Zion to save the true Israel, ver. 20. The old temporary dispensation shall give place to the dispensation of the Word and Spirit, which shall last for ever, ver. 21.

1. Behold, not shortened is Jehovah's hand from saving, and not benumbed is his ear from hearing, i. c. so as not to save, and not to hear, or too short to save, too dull to hear. On this use of the preposition, see above on chap. Iviii. 13, and the references there made. The Prophet merely pauses, as it were, for a moment, to exonerate his Master from all blame, before continuing his accusation of the people. The beginning of a chapter here is simply a matter of convenience, as the following context has precisely the same character with that before it ; unless we assume with Lowth that the Prophet now ascends from particulars to generals, or with J. D. Michaelis, that he here descends to a lower depth of wickedness. The only explana tion of the passage which allows it to speak for itself, without gratuitous additions or embellishments, is that which likens it to chap. xlii. 18-25, xliii. 22—28, and 1. 1, 2, as a solemn exhibition of the truth that the rejec tion of God's ancient people was the fruit of their own sin, and not to be imputed either to unfaithfulness on his part, or to want of strength or

wisdom to protect them. For the true sense of Ihe metaphor here used, see above, on chap. 1. 2. Hendewerk is under the necessity of granting that the Israel of this passage is a moral, i. e. an ideal person, correspond ing not to any definite portion of the people at any one time, but to such of them at various times as possessed a certain character. Whatever may be thought of the necessity or grounds of this assumption in the case before us, he has no right to deny the possibility of others like it, even where he does not think them requisite himself. Hanc veniam petimusque damusque vici&sim.

2. But your iniquities have been separatin;/ between you and your God, and

your sins have hid (his) face from you, fo as not to hear. DK *3 is the usual

adversative after a negation, corresponding to the German sondern, which

has no distinct equivalent in English. Ewald's version, rather (vielmehr),

seems to weaken the expression ; and Umbreit's combination of the two

(sondern riehnehr) is entirely gratuitous. — The present form given to the

verb (they separate) by Luther, and retained even by De Wette, is entirely

inadequate. The original expression is intended to convey, in the strongest

manner, the idea both of past time and of continuance or custom. Ewald

expresses this by introducing the word bidang, but Umbreit better by re

taining the exact form of the original (iraren scheidend). Hitzig points out

an allusion to the ^>>>^?^ *n? of Gen. i. G, which is the more remarkable

because it may be likewise traced in the construction of the preposition |*3,

both the modes of employing it which there occur being here combined. —

The general idea of this verse is otherwise expressed in Jer. v. 25, while

in Lam. iii. 44, the same Prophet reproduces both the thought and the ex

pression, with a distinct mention of the intervening object as a cloud, which

may possibly have been suggested by the language of Isaiah himself in

chap. xliv. 22. — Henderson adopts the explanation of ^"Vrilpn by Kimchi

and Aben Ezra as a causative (have made him hide) ; but this is contrary to

usage. — Seeker proposes to read *JS my (face), and Lowth V3S (his face),

for which he cites the authority of the ancient versions ; but in these, as in

the modern ones, the pronoun is supplied by the translator, in order to

remove an ellipsis which is certainly unusual, though not without example,

as appears from Job xxxiv. 29, where the noun without a suffix is combined

with this very verb. For an instance of the same kind, though not per

fectly identical, see above, chap. liii. 3. The omission of the pronoun is

so far from being wholly anomalous that Luther simply has the face, in

which he is followed both by Ewald and Umbreit. — The force of the

participle before the last verb is the same as in chaps, xliv. 18, and xlix. 15.

It does not mean specifically that he will not, much less that he cannot

hem-, but, as Lowth translates it, that he doth not hear. It is still better,

however, to retain the infinitive form of the original by rendering it, so as

not to hear.

3. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers uith iniquity ; your lips have spoken falsehood, your tongue trill utter wickedness. The Prophet now, according to a common usage of the Scriptures, classifies the prevalent iniquities as sins of the hands, the mouth, the feet, as if to intimate that every member of the social body was affected. On the staining of the hands with blood, see chap. i. 15. Here again we have a marked and apparently unstudied similarity of thought and language to the genuine Isaiah. The form /&), which occurs only here and in Lam. iv. 14, is explained by Kimchi as a mixture of the Niphal and Pual, by Gesenius as a kind of double passive. The use of this form, instead of

VEH. 4.] ISAIAH LIX. 3G5

the Pual, which is found only in the latest books, is rather symptomatic of an earlier writer. The sense here put upon /$}, and in a few other places, seems so wholly unconnected with its usual and proper meaning, as to give some countenance to Henderson's idea, which might otherwise seem fanci ful, that it is a denominative from?XJ, the avenger of blood. — Vitringa infers from ver. 7, that the blood here meant is specifically that of the innocent, or those unjustly put to death. According to Grotius, the iniquity which stained their lingers was that of robbery and theft. It is far more natural, however, to consider hands and fingers as equivalent ex pressions, or at the utmost as expressing different degrees of the same thing. Thus Umbreit represents it as characteristic of the Old Testament severity in reprehending sin, that the Prophet, not content with staining the hands, extends his description to the very fingers. This is certainly ingenious, but perhaps too artificial to have been intended by the writer. — The re striction of the falsehood here charged to judicial fraud or misrepresentation is unnecessary. — The preterite and future forms describe the evil as habitual, and ought to be retained in the translation, were it only for the purpose of exhibiting the characteristic form of the original. — The last verb is explained by Yitringa as expressive of deliberate promulgation (meditate profcrt), and by Luther of invention (dichtet). J. I). Michaelis attenuates its sense to that of simple speech, while Hitzig coincides with the English Version (muttered). As the word, though applied to vocal utterance, is not con fined to articulate speech, the nearest equivalent perhaps is utter, as con veying neither more nor less than the original. — Yitringa applies this verse likewise to the scandals of the Reformed Church, and especially to those arising from its coalescence with the State, observing that the interpreter is not bound to verify the truth of the description, as we know not what is yet to happen. This would be rational enough where the prophecy itself contained explicit indications of a specific subject; but where this is to be made out by comparison with history, a reference to future possibilities is laughable. — The wider meaning of the whole description is evident from Paul's combining parts of it with phrases drawn from several Psalms re markably resembling it, in proof of the depravity of human nature (Rom. iii. 15-17).

4. There is none calling with justice, and there is none contending with truth ; tlinj trust in ranity and speak falsehood, conceive mischief and briny forth iniquity. The phrase P!7V? X^p has been variously understood. The Septuagint makes it mean simply speaking just things (oldiif Xal.iT br/.^ia.) which would hardly have been so expressed in Hebrew. The Chaldee paraphrase, prayiny in truth (i.e. sincerely), seems to be founded on the frequent description of worship, as calling on the name of God. Jerome's version, qui invocet justitiam, is followed in the English Bible, cdlldh for justice, i.e. as Clericus explains it, there is no one who is willing to commit his cause to such unrighteous judges. Hensler and Doderlein apply it to judicial decrees and decisions, which is wholly at variance with the usage of the verb. Kimchi understands it of one person calling to another for the purpose of reproving him ; but then the essential idea is the very one which happens not to be expressed. Gesenius and Maurer follow Rosenmuller in attaching to &*~ip the forensic sense of xaXsu tii biK^v and voco in jus : "No one summons another, i.e. sues him, justly." In proof of such a Hebrew usage Knobel cites Job v. 1, xiii. 22, which are at best very doubtful. The same sense seems to be designed by Lowth (prefer ret h his suit). It would be still more difficult to justify the

sense of -speaking for or advocating, here assumed by J. D. Michaelis and Henderson. In this uncertainty, some of the latest writers have gone hack to Luther's sense of preaching, which is easily deducible from that of call ing publicly, proclaiming. According to Hitzig, this is the proper Hebrew term for public speaking, such as that in the synagogues, which was free to all. (See Luke iv. 16, Acts xiii. 15.) Luther makes righteousness the subject of the preaching, Ewald and Umbreit a description of its quality (ariyht or ju^thj). The only argument against this explanation, and in favour of a more forensic or judicial one, is that afforded by the parallel ex pression, nj-lO&G BSPO. Kimchi makes the verb a simple passive, meaning to be tried or judged — " no one is fairly tried." Luther and J. D. Michaelis reverse this explanation, and apply the clause to unjust judges. Most writers make the verb reciprocal (as in chap, xliii. 26, Prov. xxix. 9, Ezek. xvii. 20), and apply it either to forensic litigation, or to controversy and contention for the truth. In either case i^-IE^ must mean bona fides, and not truth as the subject or occasion of dispute, which is not the meaning of the Hebrew word. (See Hengstenberg on Ps. xxxiii. 4.) The infinitive construction of the next clause cannot be retained in English. The nearest equivalent is that adopted in the common version. Lowth's substitution of the participle (trusting, speaking, &c.) is no better as to form, and really obscures the sense, or at least the true grammatical relation of the clauses. The construction is the same as in chap. v. 5, xxi. 9. Vitringa supposes an ellipsis of the preterite, which is inadmissible, for reasons given in vol. i. p. 130.— -inh is vigorously rendered by J. D. Michaelis nothing (auf ein Nichts). The falsehood mentioned in this clause is understood by some in the specific sense of false or unfair reasoning. — With the figure of the last clause compare Job xv. 35, and Ps. vii. 15. It might here be understood to denote mere disappointment or failure, as in ver. 13 below; but the analogy of chap, xxxiii. 11 seems to shew that the prominent idea is that of mischievous and spiteful machination. With the first of these interpre tations seems to be connected the sense which J. D. Michaelis here attaches to |).N, namely, that of pain or suffering.

5. E<jgs of the basilisk they have hatched, and webs of the spider they will spin (or weave) ; the (one) eating of their eggs shall die, and the crushed (egg) shall hatch out a viper. The figure of the serpent is sub stantially the same as in chap. xiv. 29. (Compare Deut. xxxii. 33). The precise varieties intended are of little exegetical importance. The modern writers generally follow Bochart in explaining tfjJfV to mean the basilisk, a serpent small in size but of a deadly venom. For the use of the verb in such connections, see above, chap, xxxiv. 15. The figure of the spider's web is added to express the idea both of hurtfulness and futility. (See Job viii. 14.)— n>1T for rrw (like nb for n:1? Zech. v. 4) is the passive participle of "W to press, applied in chap. i. 4 to the curative compression of a wound. That it does not here denote incubation, as explained by Aquila (SaXipdiv), Jerome (confotum), and Jarchi, may be inferred from Job xxxix. 15, where the same verb is applied to the crushing of the eggs of the ostrich by the foot. — Luther, Lowth, J. D. Michaelis, and Gesenius make rn-Vtn a nominative absolute, " if one is crushed there creeps out a viper." Maurer and the later writers construe it directly with the verb, as in the English Bible. — To the objection that the viper is viviparous, Vitringa answers, that the Prophet intentionally uses a mixed metaphor ; Gesenius, that we cannot look for accurate details of natural history in such a writer. Neither seems to have observed that the exact correspondence of the Hebrew word to viper is extremely problematical, although Gesenius himself defines it in his Lexicon "viper, adder, any poisonous serpent," and J. D. Michaelis accordingly translates it by the general term schlange. The same writer looks upon the whole verse as peculiarly appro priate to the character and condition of the Jews, immediately before their destruction by the Romans.

6. Their webs shall not become (or be for] clothing, and they shall not cover themselves with t/teir works ; their ivorks are works of mischief (or iniquity'), and the doing rf violence is in their hands. The first clause does not seem to form a part of what the writer meant at first to say, but is a kind of afterthought, by which he gives a new turn to the sentence, and expresses an additional idea without a change of metaphor. Having intro duced the spider's web, in connection with the serpent's egg, as an emblem of malignant and treacherous designs, he here repeats the first but for another purpose, namely, to suggest the idea of futility and worthlessuess. This application may have been suggested by the frequent reference to webs and weaving as conducive to the comfort and emolument of men ; but spiders' webs can answer no such purpose. The idea that it is not fit or cannot be applied to this end, although not exclusively expressed, is really included in the general declaration that they shall not be so used. — Gesenius and Ewald make the second verb indefinite, they shall not (i. e. no one shall) employ them for this purpose. But the sentence is more pointed if we understand it as including a specific menace that the authors of these devices shall derive no advantage from them. Works in the first clause simply means what they have made ; but in the second, where the metaphor is dropped, this version would be inadmissible. The common version of ^ys (act), and Lowth's emendation of it (deed), are both defective in not suggesting the idea of continued and habitual practice.

7. Their feet to evil if ill run, and they will hasten to shed innocent blood ; their thoughts are thoughts of mischief (or iniquity] ; wasting and ruin are in their paths. The first clause expresses not a mere disposition, but an eager proclivity to wrong. The word translated thoughts, has here and elsewhere the specific sense of purposes, contrivances, devices, which last Lowth employs as an equivalent. Luther gives p.X here as well as in the foregoing verse the sense of trouble (Miihe), in reference no doubt to the oppressors themselves. In like manner J. I). Michaelis explains ruin in their paths as meaning that it awaits themselves ; but most interpreters take both expres sions in an active sense, as meaning what they do to others, not what they experience themselves. Their paths are then the paths in which their feet run to evil and make haste to shed innocent blood. — The two nouns com bined in the last clause strictly denote desolation and crushing, /. e. utter ruin. Destruction and calamity (Lowth) are as much too vague as destruc tion and u'ounds (J. D. Michaelis), or force and ruins (Ewald), are too specific. Knobel supposes the idea to be that of a country wasted by invading enemies. (See chap. i. 4.) With this verse compare Prov. i. 16, and the evil way, of chap. Iv. 7 above. Knobel of course applies it to the quarrelsome exiles, and gravely adds that nothing more can be determined with respect to them than this, that they sometimes did not hesitate to rob and murder ! The reference which he adds to this extraordinary' statement are chaps. Ivii. 20, 1. 11, and vers. 3 and 15 of this chapter.

8. The way of peace they have not known, and there is no justice in theii paths ; their courses they have rendered crooked for them • every one walking in them knows not peace. J. D. Michaelis and Umbreit go to opposite

extremes in their interpretation of the first clause. The former makes the way of peace denote the way to happiness; the latter understands the clause to mean that they refuse all overtures of reconciliation. The obvious and simple meaning is, that their lives are not pacific but contentious. In order to vary the expression, Lowth translates Drp.'V??? in their trades, which is retained by Henderson. With still more exact adherence to the primary meaning of the verb, they might have written in their ruts. B>pJ? is twice used in the book of Proverbs as the opposite of upright or sincere. (Prov. x. 9, xxviii. 18.) Hitzig gives the verb the specific sense of choosing crooked paths, which is not so simple or exact as the common English Version (they have made them crool;ed paths). fiS is a neuter or indefinite expression. There is no need therefore of reading either DrOTU with a single manuscript, or D2 with the ancient versions, between which emenda tions Lowth appears to hesitate. Knobel's inference from this verse, that some of the less corrupted Jews were led astray by wicked leaders, is as groundless as Vitringa's specific application of the passage to the excesses of victorious parties in religious controversy, not without evident allusion to the ecclesiastical disputes of the Reformed Dutch Church, to which he very naturally, but by no means very reasonably, yields an extravagantly disproportion ed space, in determining the scope of this prophetic vision. The erroneous principle involved in both interpretations is refuted by the comprehensive sense which the apostle puts upon the words iu the passage which has been already cited. (Rom. iii. 15-17.)

9. TJierefore is judgment far from us, and righteousness will not overtake us ; we wait for light and lehold darkness ; for splendours, (and} in obscu rities we walk. The future form of all the verbs in this verse intimates that they expect this state of things to continue. Knobel explains judgment as meaning the practical decision between them and their enemies, which God would make when he delivered them. Why, then, may not the parallel expression, righteousness, be applied in the same way, without losing its original and proper sense in that of salvation? According to Hendewerk, it here denotes the righteous compensation which the Jews were to receive for their excessive sufferings. (See above, on chap. xl. 2.) J. D. Michaelis explains the expression overtake strictly, as denoting that they fled from it. (Compare chap. xxxv. 10, and li. 11.) Vitringa applies this verse to the threatened extinction of religion in his own day ; Knobel to the delay in the deliverance from Babylon, occasioned by Cyrus's attack on Croesus !

10. We grope like the Hind for the wall, like the eyeless ice grope; we stumble at noonday as in twilight, in thick darkness like the dead. Lowth is so offended with the " poverty and inelegance " of repeating nEt^, \vhich he thinks " extremely unworthy of the Prophet, and unlike his manner," that he reads in the second place with Houbigant, HJitJOj we wander, can didly adding that the mistake, although very easy and obvious, " is of long standing, being prior to all the ancient versions." Whatever else may be said of " this ingenious correction," it cannot be described as of long stand ing ; for no writer since Lowth appears to have adopted it. To an unso phisticated taste the repetition is_ a beauty, when used sparingly and in the proper place. The phrase D*!l?tpN3 has been variously rendered. Jerome, Luther, J. D. Michaelis, and Riickert, make the noun mean darkness or dark places (in caliginosis) ; the Targum, Saadias, Kimchi, and Grotius, in the tomb; which sense the elder Kimchi derives from D^?, to be desolate. Lowth, Koppe, Do'clerlein, and Bauer, in the midst of fatness, abundance,

or fertility; Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer, and Hendewerk, in fat or fertile fields; Aben Ezra, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and Umbreit, in the midst of the fat or healthy, with or without allusion to the prosperous heathen among whom they were scattered, or by whom they were oppressed. Knobel has gone back to the meaning darkness, as best suited to the context, and easily deducible from the sense of fatness, just as we speak of gross or thick darkness. Yitringa dissents from the application of this verse by Cocceius to the deposition of Ferdinand king of Bohemia, and the election of Frederick the Count Palatine! With this verse compare Deut. xxviii. 29, and Zeph. i. 17.

11. We growl like the bears, all of us, and like the doves we moan (we") noan; tee wait for justice and there is none, for saltation (and] it is far from The Latin poets also speak of the voice of bears and doves as a <ie>nitus or groaning. (See above, chap, xxxviii. 14, and Ezek. vii. 16.) Umbreit supposes the two here to represent the extremes of violent and gentle grief. The same effect which is produced in the first clause, by the use of the )hrase all of us, is produced in the other by the idiomatic repetition of the verb. Here, as in ver. 9, we may understand by judgment or justice that which God docs by his providential dispensations both to his people and lis enemies.

12.' For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and our iniquities — we know hem. The Prophet here begins a general confession in the name of God's jeople. For the form of expression, compare Ps. li. 5. The construction of the verb nO^ with a plural noun is explained by Tremellius and Vitringa as implying an ellipsis (quodque). Cocceius in like manner supplies id 'psum. The modem grammarians, who in general are averse to the gra- .uitous assumption of ellipses, seem disposed to regard it as an idiomatic icence of construction. Lowth translates -l^riK, cleave fust unto us ; but nttjrpreters generally prefer the sense expressed in the English Version they are with us, i. e. in our sight or present to our memory).

l.'J. To transgress and lie against Jehovah, and to turn lack from behind mr God, to speak ^oppression and departure, to conceive and utter from the icart words of falsehood. The specifications of the general charge are now expressed by an unusual succession of infinitives, not as Hitzig says because persons were already known (which would require the adoption of the same form in a multitude of places where it is not found at present), but Because the writer wished to concentrate and condense his accusation. This rhetorical effect is materially injured by the substitution of the finite verb. Although by no means equal in conciseness to the Hebrew, our nfinitive may be employed as the most exact translation. Gesenius makes

3 a future form, but Maurer an infinitive from JW. Departure means departure from the right course or the law (Deut. xix. 16), i. e. transgres sion or iniquity. Knobel applies the term specifically to idolatry, and under stands p£*y as implying that the exiles in Babylon oppressed each other !

14. And judgment is thrust (or driven] back, and righteousness afar off stands; for truth has fallen in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. The description is now continued in the ordinary form by the finite verb. — The word translated street properly means an open place or square, especially the space about the gate of an oriental town where courts were held and other public business transacted. (See Job xxix. 7, Neh. viii. 1.) The present form, which seems to be required by our idiom, is much less expressive than the preterite and futures of the original. Those interpreters who commonly apply whatever is said of tyranny to the oppression of the Jews in exile are compelled in this case, where the sin is charged upon the Jews themselves, to resort to the imaginary fact of gross misgovernment among the exiles, for the purpose of avoiding the conclusion that the passage has respect to a condition of society like that described in the first chapter.

15. Then truth was missed (i.e. found wanting), and ivhoso departed from evil made himself a prey (or was plundered*). Then Jehovah saw and it was evil in his eyes that there was no judgment (or practical justice). The Vav convershe in both clauses indicates a sequence of events, and may be best expressed by then in English. The passive participle is here used with the substantive verb, as the active is in ver. 2, to denote anterior habitual action. Hitzig understands the first clause to mean that honesty (i. e. the honest people) was betrayed, in direct opposition to the usage both of the noun and verb in Hebrew. For the sense of "nW, see above, on chap, xxxiv. 16, xl. 26. Lowth's version, utterly lost, is substantially correct, though perhaps too strong. Jarchi, Cocceius, and J. D. Michaelis

understand 7?1fi^P as meaning was accounted mad, which is also given in the margin of the English Bible, but has no foundation either in etymology or usage. It is now commonly agreed that this verbal form is near akin to the noun??^, spoil or plunder, and has here the same sense as in Ps. Ixxvi. 6. This explanation is sustained by the authority of the Targum and Jerome. Kirnchi understands it to describe the godly man as snatched away, perhaps in allusion to chap. Ivii. 1. Ewald derives from what he thinks the true sense of the root the meaning, he became rare (imrde selten).

16. And he saw that there was no man, and he stood aghast that there wa no one interposing ; and his oicn arm saved for him, and his own righteousness, it upheld him. The repetition of the words and he saw connects this verse in the closest manner with the one before it. Rosenmiiller, Umbreit, and others, follow Jarchi in supposing fcf'X to be emphatic and to signify a man of the right sort, a man equal to the occasion. This explanation derives some colour from the analogy of Jer. v. 1 ; but even there, and still more here, the strength of the expression is increased rather than diminished by taking this phrase in the simple sense of nobody. What was wanting was not merely a qualified man, but any man whatever, to maintain the cause of Israel and Jehovah. A like absolute expression is employed in 2 Kings xiv. 26, where it is said that Jehovah saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter, and that there was no helper for Israel, not merely no sufficient one, but none at all. The desperate nature of the case is then described in terms still stronger, and only applicable to Jehovah by the boldest figure. The common version (wondered], though substantially cor rect, is too weak to express the full force of the Hebrew word, which strictly means to-be desolate, and is used in reference to persons for the purpose of expressing an extreme degree of horror and astonishment. (See Ps. cxliii. 4, and compare the colloquial use of desolc in French.) As applied to God, the term may be considered simply anthropopathic, or as intended to imply a certain sympathetic union with humanity, arising from the mode in which this great intervention was to be accomplished. — JT$?O strictly denotes caus ing to meet or come together, bringing into contact. Hence it is applied to intercessory prayer, and this sense is expressed here by the Chaldee para phrase. But the context, etymology, and usage, all combine to recommend the wider sense of intervention, interposition, both in word and deed. (See

above, on chap. liii. 12.) This sense is well expressed by Lowtb (there was • none to interpose), except that he gratuitously substitutes the infinite for the active participle, which is more expressive, as suggesting that the danger was imminent and unavoidable without the aid of some one actually inter posing to avert it. The full force of the last clause ca:i be given in English only by the use of the emphatic form his own, which is implied, but cannot be distinctly expressed in the original except by a periphrasis. To do any thing with one's own hand or arm, is an expression frequently used else where to denote entire independence of all foreign aid. (See Judges vii. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 9, xxv. 26; Ps. xliv. 4, xcviii. 1.) — The meaning of this clause has been much obscured by making V? the object of the verb. The obvious incongruity of representing God as saving or delivering himself has led to different evasions. Some interpreters attenuate the meaning of the verb from save to help, which is the favourite expedient of the modern writers; while the older ones content themselves with making it intransitive and absolute, brought salvation (English Version), wrought salvation (Lowth). The only simple and exact translation is, his arm saved for him, leaving the object to be gathered from the context, namely, Israel or his people. The i? means nothing more than that his own arm did it for him, without reliance upon any other. This same idea is expressed in the last words of the verse, where his righteousness sustained him means that he relied or depended upon it exclusively. By righteousness in this case we are not to understand a simple consciousness of doing right, nor the possession of a righteous cause, nor a right to do what he did, all which are modifications of the same essential meaning, nor a zealous love of justice, which Vitringa deduces from the use of the word fury (i.e. ardent zeal) in the parallel pas sage, chap. Ixiii. 5. It is far more satisfactory to give the word its strict and proper sense, as denoting an attribute of God, here joined with his power, to shew that what are commonly distinguished as his moral or his natural perfections are alike pledged to this great work, and constitute his only reli ance for its execution. — The extraordinary character of this description, and the very violence which it seems to offer to our ordinary notions of the divine nature, unavoidably prepare the mind for something higher than the restora tion of the Jews from exile, or the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The embarrassment occasioned by this passage to the champions of the Babylonian theory may be inferred from their complex and unnatural hypo thesis, that because the magistrates and elders of the captivity did not repress and punish the offences just described, God would himself do it, not by continuing the exile as a punishment, but by destroying Babylon, and with it the ungodly Jews, while the better portion should escape and be restored to their own country! It is a strange and peculiar idea of Ewald's, that the Prophet here reproaches Israel that no Messiah had arisen from among themselves according to the ancient promise, so that God had as it were been under the necessity of raising up a foreign instrument for their deliver ance, namely, Cyrus. If all things else were as much in favour of this wild invention as they are against it, a sufficient refutation would be still afforded by the obvious unsuitableness of the language to express the alleged mean ing. A reluctant use of foreign agents by Jehovah might be described as anything rather than his own arm doing the work for him. If arm means power, it was no more exerted in the one case than it would have been exerted in the other; if it means instrumentality, the one employed was not BO truly or emphatically his own arm as it would have been if raised up from among his own people.

17. .4??^ /je clothed himself with righteousness as a coat of mail and a helmet of salvation on his head, and he clothed himself with garments of vengeance (for) clothing, and put on, as the cloak (or tunic), jealousy. Here again the verse is closely connected with the one before it by the repeti tion of ni?7y. Its relation to the other verse is not, however, that of an explanation, as implied in Hendewerk's translation of the particle by for. The writer simply carries out in detail his general declaration that Jehovah undertook the cause of Israel himself, under figures borrowed from the usages of war. The older writers have in vain perplexed themselves with efforts to determine why righteousness is called a breastplate, or salvation a helmet, and to reconcile the variations in Paul's copies of this picture (Eph. vi. 4-17, 1 Thess. v. 8) with the original. The true principle of exegesis in such cases is the one laid down by Clericus, who may speak with authority whenever the question in dispute is a question not of doctrine or experience, but of taste. Justice, says this accomplished rhetorician, might just as well have been a sword, salvation a shield, vengeance a javelin or spear, and zeal or jealousy a torch with which to fire the hostile camp. Eatio habcnda est scopi, non singularum vocum. The correctness of this principle is clear from the general analogy of figurative language, and from the endless licence of invention which would follow from the adoption of the other method, so that in aiming at precision and fulness we should unavoidably involve the sense of Scripture in incurable uncertainty. That the figures in this case were intended to convey the general idea of martial equipment, may be gathered from a fact which even Vitringa has observed, that there is no reference whatever to offensive weapons, an omission wholly unac countable upon his own hypothesis. There is no ground for Rosemniiller's explanation of Hi^y as denoting the desire of vengeance, unless this be a periphrasis for retributive or vindicatory justice. Equally groundless is the explanation of HJJ-ltJ". by Gesenius and the later writers in the sense of vic tory. However appropriate and striking this idea may be in so martial a description, it is not the one expressed by the writer, who looks far beyond mere victory to the salvation of God's people as the great end to be answered by it. There is much more plausibility in Knobel's suggestion, that the first two nouns have reference to Israel, and the last two to his enemies; the same catastrophe which was to secure justice and salvation to the former, would bring the zeal and vengeance of Jehovah on the latter. This dis tinction is no doubt correct so far as the terms vengeance and salvation are concerned ; but it cannot be so well sustained as to the others, since nf>7y signifies the righteousness of God, as the cause of the catastrophe in ques tion, and i"l^?i? not merely his zeal against his enemies, but his jealous regard for his own honour and the welfare of his people. (See the usage of this word fully stated in vol. i. p. 206). The particular expressions of the verse need little explanation. The first piece of armour specified is not the breast-plate, as the older writers generally render it, perhaps in reference to Eph. vi. 14, but the habergeon or coat of mail. The first and third terms denote parts of armour properly so called, the second and fourth the dress as distinguished from the armour. The ?*#O is either the tunic or the military cloak, often mentioned in the classics as being of a purple colour. The same noun is construed with the same verb in 1 Sam. xxviii. 14. The meaning of the whole verse is, that God equipped himself for battle, and arrayed his power, justice, and distinguishing attachment to his people, against their persecutors and oppressors. — Jubb proposes to omit n^^Fl as superfluous, inelegant, and probably a gloss from the margin. But even

Lowth, although he quotes the proposition, leaves the text unchanged, and Henderson is betrayed into the opposite extreme of pronouncing the word " singularly beautiful."

18. According to (their) deeds, accordingly will he repay, wrath to his enemies, (their) desert to his foes, to the isles (their) desert will he repay. The essential meaning of this verse is evident and undisputed : but the form of expression in the first clause is singular, if not anomalous. Some of the latest writers, such as Maurer, Henderson, and Umbreit, get rid of the difficulty simply by denying its existence, which is easy enough after every method of solution has been suggested by preceding writers. That there is a grammatical difficulty in the clause is evident not only from the paraphrastic forms adopted by the ancient versions, but also from the at tention given to the question by such scholars as De Dieu, Cocceius, and Gesenius. Ewald, it is true, passes it by in silence, as he usually does when he has nothing to suggest but what has been already said by his predecessors. Another proof of the existence of a difficulty is, that even those who deny it paraphrase the text instead of rigidly translating it, and thus go safely round the hard place rather than triumphantly through it. The difficulty is not exegetical, but purely grammatical, arising from the unexampled use of the preposition ?X without an object : According to their deeds — according to — will he repay. Cocceius and Vitringa give to 7JJ its original value as a noun, which very rarely occurs elsewhere (Hosea xi. 7, vii. 16), and understand it here to mean the height or highest degree : " According to the height of their deserts, 'according to the height, will I repay." Lowth, after quoting Yitringa's opinion, that Cocceius and him self had together made out the true sense, adds with some humour, " I do not expect that any third person will ever be of that opinion." He little imagined that his own would never even be seconded. His proposition is

to read 7V2 for?J?? in either case, on the authority of the Chaldee para phrase of this place compared with that of chap. xxxv. 4, and Prov. xxii. 24, in all which cases the Chaldee has '">O corresponding to the Hebrew 7J?3, lord or master. The text thus amended Lowth translates, He is mighty to recompense, he that is miyhty to recompense will requite, of which Henderson observes that it is drawling and paraphrastical at best, and incorrectly rendered; as it ought to have been, lie is the Itetributor, the Itetributor will requite. But even granting Lowth the right to fix the meaning of a text manufactured by himself, it is evident that such an emendation must be critically worthless. De Dieu and Rosenmiiller explain ^ when used in the sense of propter as equivalent to a noun meaning caiise or reason; as if he had said, " on account of their deeds on (that) account, will I repay." But besides the artificial character of this solution, it overlooks the fact that although?JJ by itself might simply indicate the cause or ground, the? prefixed denotes proportion, as in other cases where it follows verbs of recompence. (E.g. Ps. xviii. 21, Ixii. 13, Jer. 1. 39.) The latest writers seem to have come back to the simple and obvious supposition of the oldest writers, such as Jerome and the Rabbins, lhat it is a case of anomalous ellipsis, the object of the preposition being not expressed, but mentally repeated from the foregoing clause: Accord in;/ to their deeds, ac cording to them, he will repay. In the mere repetition there is nothing singular, but rather something characteristic of the Prophet. (See above, chap. Hi. 6.) Maurer and several later writers choose, however, to regard it not as a mere repetition of the same words in the same sense, but as an

instance of the idiomatic use of? — ?, as equivalent to our as — so. The sense will then be, " as according to their deeds, so according to (their deeds) will he repay." But this construction would create a difficulty, even if these writers were correct in denying its existence there already. All that need be added is, that the English Version happily approaches to a perfect reproduction of the Hebrew expression by employing the cognate terms according and accordingly, which has the advantage of retaining essentially the same term, and yet varying it so as to avoid a grammatical anomaly by which it might have been rendered unintelligible. — >1£^, ac cording to the modern lexicographers, is not directly recompense, but conduct, either good or bad, and as such worthy of reward or punishment. For Hengstenberg's peculiar explanation of the verb and its derivatives, see his Commentary on the Psalms, i. p. 147, and vol. i. p. 114. The feminine plural here used in the first clause, corresponds to the singular in 2 Sam. xix. 37. — The last clause, relating to the islands, J. D. Michaelis, in his usual ostentatious manner, declares himself incompetent to understand, and, as he says himself of Kennicott elsewhere, seems disposed to wonder that anybody else should be so bold as to understand it better than himself. On the whole he is inclined to regard it as a promise that the true religion should be spread throughout Europe. The modern writers who restrict the passage to the Babylonian exile, are again embarrassed by the writer's losing sight of the wicked Jews whom he had been describing, and as J. D. Michaelis says, threatening to visit their offences on the Gentiles. Knobel easily gets over this obstruction by observing that, although the wicked Jews were to be implicated in the ruin of the Babylonians, yet as these were the direct object of attack to Cyrus, they alone are men tioned. How far this will make it appear natural to say, " because ye are wicked, I will punish the Gentiles," let the reader judge. There is also something very artificial in Henderson's distinction between the enemies and adversaries of this verse, as meaning the wicked Jews de stroyed or scattered by the Romans, and the isles, as meaning the llomans themselves, who were to be overthrown by the barbarians. The objec tion to such exegetical refinements is not that they are in themselves absurd or incredible, but simply that a thousand others might be in vented not an atom more so. The only satisfactory solution is the one afforded by the hypothesis that the salvation here intended is salvation in the highest sense from sin and all its consequences, and that by Israel and the isles (or Gentiles) we are to understand the church or people of God, and the world considered as its enemies and his.

19. And they shall fear from the west the name of Jehovah, and from the rising of the sun his glory ; for it shall come like a straitened stream, the spirit of Jehovah raising a banner in it. Luther and Ewald mark the dependence of this verse upon the one before it by translating the 1 so that; but there seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the simplicity of the original construction. The name and glory of Jehovah are here not only parallels but synonymes, as we learn from other places where the two terms are jointly or severally used to signify the manifested excellence or glorious presence of Jehovah. (See above, chaps, xxx. 27, xxxv. 2, xl. 5, xlii. 11.) As in these and other places (e.g. chap. viii. 9, xviii. 3, xxxiii. 13), the remotest nations or ends of the earth, here represented by the east and west (chaps, xliii. 5, xlv. 6), are said to see his name or glory, Knobel accordingly translates the first verb they shall see. But although this affords a good sense and is justified by usage, it effects no such improvement in the moaning of the passage as would compensate for the violation of tho Masoretic pointing, confirmed by the authority of all the ancient versions. Let it also be observed that the seeing is implied or pre supposed in the fearing, and that the mention of this last effect agrees best with the meaning of the last clause, which on any exegetical hypothesis suggests the thoughts of conflict and coercion. Gesenius gratuitously changes from to in, as if the apparent necessity of that sense in a few doubtful cases could justify its substitution for the proper one in cases like the present, where it not only yields an intelligible sense but suggests an idea which must otherwise be lost, viz., that of convergence from these distant points as to a common centre. There is the same objection to the sense which Lowth and Henderson attach to 1*?, viz. that of belonging to (they from the west, those of the icest), besides the dubious grammatical correctness of regarding as the subject of the verb what appears to be dependent on it as a qualifying phrase. There is something pleasing, if no more, in the sug gestion of Yitringa, that the usual order of the east and west (chap, xliii. 5, Mai. i. 11) is here reversed, as if to intimate that the diffusion of the truth shall one day take a now direction, an idea which Henderson applies specically to the Christian missions of Great Britain and America, not only to new countries but to Asia, the cradle of the gospel, of the law, and of the human race. The last clause of this verse has been a famous subject of dispute among interpreters, who differ more or less in reference to every word, as well as to the general meaning of the whole. The least important question has respect to the *? at the beginning of the clause ; for whether this be rendered ichen or for, the sense remains essentially the same, because the one implies the other. The only weighty reasons for preferring the latter, are first its natural priority as being the usual and proper sense, and then the simplicity of structure which results from it as being more accordant with the genius and usage of the language. As to the next word (N3*) the only question is in relation to its subject or nominative, some connecting it with name or glory in the other clause, some with Jehovah, some with ">•? considered us a noun. Of those who thus explain ">V> some suppose it to mean anguish or distress as in chap. Ixiii. 8, others an enemy as in ver. 18 above. Of those who consider it an adjective, one understands it to mean hostile, l>ut the great majority narrow or compressed. The questions as to H-n are whether it means breath or spirit, and whether it is a poetical description of tho wind, or a personal designation of the Holy Ghost. The only doubt in reference to nin': is whether it is idiomatically used to qualify the word before it (as a strong wind), or employed more strictly as a divine name. But the great theme of contro versy is in the next word ^003, which some derive from D-13, and some from Dpi ; some regard as a participle and others as a preterite ; some understand as meaning to set up ti banner and others to put to flight, to drive along, or scatter. Lastly 13 is by some construed directly with the verb as its object (drive it, scatter it, &c.), while by others it is separately understood as meaning either in it or ayaiitst it. From the combination of these various senses have resulted several distinct interpretations of the whole clause, two of which deserve to be particularly mentioned, as the two between which most writers have been and are still divided. The first of these is the interpretation found, as to its essence, in several of the ancient versions, and especially the Yulgate, cum renerit quasi jiuvius violentus quern Spirit us Domini cogit. This is substantially retained by Luther and by Lowth (when he shall come like a river straitened in his course, which a

strong wind driveth along). It is also given by most of the recent German writers, with trivial variations, Gesenius reading when, Ewald/or, and the like. According to this view of the matter, nin* nil is either a Hebrew idiom for a strong wind, or a poetical description of the wind in general as the breath of God. The former explanation, although Lowth prefers it, is aesthetically far below the other, which the later writers commonly adopt. It will also be observed that this interpretation makes nppi the causative of D-13, to fly, and takes "i¥ as an adjective, and in its primary etymological sense of narrow compressed (Num. xxii. 26), the idea being that of a stream confined in a narrow channel and flowing violently through it. The other principal interpretation of the clause gives *? the sense of when, "l-f that of enemy, construes the latter with the verb to come, derives ^pP? from D3, a banner, and explains the whole to mean that when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard ayainst him. This is the version of the English and Dutch Bibles, of Vitringa, Alting, Henderson, and others. Between these two main interpretations there are others too numerous to be recited, which agree essentially with one but in some minor points coincide with the other or dissent from both. Thus Jarchi gives to nppi the sense of consuming, which he thinks it has in chap. x. 18, and J. D. Michaelis that of drying up, which he founds upon an Arabic analogy. Aben Ezra and Hitzig, though they construe ">V with the preceding verb, make it a substantive signifying pressure or distress. Maurer agrees with the second exposition of the clause in all points, except that he explains HDpi in the sense of dispelling, and applies it to the stream itself. The objections to the first (and now prevailing) exposition, as stated by Rosenmiiller and Maurer, are, its needless violation of the Masoretic accents, which forbid the intimate conjunction of "1H3 and ">V as a noun and adjective; the incongruity of likening Jehovah to a river which his own breath drives along: and the improbability that "i¥ is here used in a diffe rent sense from that which all attach to the plural in ver. 18. To this may be added the unnatural image of a stream rendered rapid by the wind, and (against Maurer's own interpretation) the gratuitous assumption that the Polel of D-13 is used in this one place, and as a causative, when that idea is expressed so often elsewhere by the Hiphil of the same verb. On the other hand, Gesenius himself derives D3 from a root DD3, to raise, which might therefore be poetically used without the noun to express the whole idea; or the form before us might without absurdity be looked upon as an amalgam of the words D3 Nbj, which are combined in chaps, v. 26, xiii. 2, &c. (Compare the compound forms n3?n and D^fcOpn, as explained by Hengstenberg in his Commentary on the Psalms, vol. i. p. 218.) The common version of this vexed clause, therefore, is entirely defensible, and clearly preferable to the one which has so nearly superseded it. Considering, however, the objections to which both are open, it may be possible to come still nearer to the true sense by combining what is least objectionable in the other expositions; and in this view, no interpreter perhaps has been more suc cessful than Cocceius, who translates the clause, quia vcniet tanquam fluvius liostis in quo Spiritus Domini sir/num prcefert. Besides giving every word its strictest or most probable interpretation, this ingenious version, as if by anticipation, shuns the last objection to Vitringa's, namely, that of Knobel, that the context does not lead us to expect an allusion to the coming of God's enemies against him, but rather to his coming against them, as the preceding clause declares that all the ends of the earth shall fear his name and his glory. The objection of Vitringa, that the instruments of the divine

purpose would riot here be called an enemy, is without weight; since enemy is a relative expression, and Jehovah is continually represented as sustain ing this relation to the wicked world. Another merit of Cocceius's inter pretation is that instead of giving 13 the rare and doubtful sense of ayainst him, or the still more doubtful office of a mere connective of the verb and object, he explains it strictly as denoting in it, and at the same time intro duces a new and striking image, that of the triumphant flag or signal erected in the stream itself arid floating on its waves as it approaches. — On the whole, then, the meaning of the verse appears to be, that the ends of the earth shall see and fear the name and glory of Jehovah; because when he approaches as their enemy, it will be like an overflowing stream (chaps. viii. 7, 8, xxviii. 15), in which his Spirit bears aloft the banner or the signal of victory. The specific explanation of 1^3? in the Targum as denoting the Euphrates is a very insufficient ground for Vitringa's application of the passage to the Saracens and Tartars.

20. Then shall come fur Zion a Redeemer, and fur the converts of apostasy in Jacob, saith Jehovah. The English then is here used to convey the full force of the Yay conversive, which cannot be expressed in our idiom by the simple copulative and. The original construction necessarily suggests

the idea of succession and dependence. ? is not the proper particle of motion or direction, though it often supplies its place as well as that of other prepositions. This arises from the fact repeatedly stated heretofore, that? properly denotes relation in the widest sense, and is most commonly equivalent to as to, with respect to, the precise relation being left to be

determined by the context. So in this place P'V? strictly means nothing more than that the advent of the great deliverer promised has respect to Zion or the chosen people, without deciding what particular respect, whether local, temporal, or of another nature altogether. Hence the Septuagiut version, sfuxsv 2/wy, though it may be too specific, is not contradictory to the original; and even Paul's translation, \y. 2/wv, although it seems com pletely to reverse the sense, is not so wholly inconsistent with it as has sometimes been pretended. For although the Hebrew words do not mean from Zion, they mean that which may include from Zion, in its scope; because it might be by going out of Zion that he was to act as her deliverer, and the apostle might intend by his translation to suggest the idea that Ziou's redeemer was to be also the redeemer of the Gentiles. In no case, therefore, is there any ground for charging the apostle with perversion, or the Hebrew text with corruption, as Lowth and J. 1). Michaelis do by their assimilation of it to the words of Paul. It seems to me, however, that the valuation in the latter not only from the Hebrew but the Septuagint, together with the use which the apostle makes of this citation, warrant the conclusion that he is not there interpreting Isaiah, but employing the familiar language of an ancient prophecy as the vehicle of a new one. Other examples of this practice have occurred before, nor is there anything unworthy or unrea sonable in it, when the context in both casos clearly shews the author's drift, as in the case before us, where it seems no less clear that Paul em ploys the language to predict the future restoration of the Jews, than that Isaiah uses it to foretell the deliverance of God's people from their enemies in case of their repentance, without any reference to local, temporal, or national distinctions. This hypothesis in reference to Paul's quotation has the advantage of accounting for his change of the original expression, which may then be regarded as a kind of caution against that very error into

which interpreters have generally fallen. As to Knobel's figment of Zion representing the captivity in Babylon, it seems to call for no additional dis cussion. (See above, on chap. xl. 2.) The expression converts of trans gression or apostasy is perfectly intelligible, though unusual, and perhaps without example; since according to analogy the phrase would seem to mean those relapsing into apostasy, the impossibility of which sense conspires with the context to determine as the true sense that which every reader spontaneously attaches to it.

21. And I (or as for me]— this (is] my covenant until them, saith Jehovah. My Spirit which is on thee, and my words which I hare placed in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor oul of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith Jehovah, from henceforth and for ever (or from now and to eternity}. The absolute pronoun at the beginning is not merely emphatic, but intended to intimate a change of person, God himself reappearing as the speaker. There may also be allusion to the use of the pronoun in the promise to Noah (Gen. ix. 9), which was ever present to the mind of Jewish readers as the great standing type and model of God's cove nants and promises. rp?2 denotes the stipulation which Jehovah con descends to make in return for the repentance and conversion implictly required in the verse preceding. This view of the connection may serve still further to explain the introduction of the pronoun, as denoting upon my part, and referring to the previous requisition of something upon theirs. The only natural antecedent of the pronoun them is the converts of apostasy in Jacob, to whom the promise in ver. 20 is limited. These are then sud denly addressed, or rather the discourse is turned to Israel himself as the progenitor or as the ideal representative of his descendants, not considered merely as a nation but as a church, and therefore including proselytes as well as natives, Gentiles as well as Jews, nay, believing Gentiles to the ex clusion of the unbelieving Jews. This idea of the Israel of God and of the Prophecies is too clearly stated in the Epistle to the Komans to be misap prehended or denied by any who admit the authority of the apostle. This interpretation is moreover not a mere incidental application of Old Testa ment expressions to another subject, but a protracted and repeated exposi tion of the mutual relations of the old and new economy, and of the natural and spiritual Israel. To this great body, considered as the Israel of God, the promise now before us is addressed, a promise of continued spiritual influence exerted through the word and giving it effect. The phrase, upon thee, here as elsewhere, implies influence from above, and has respect to the figure of the Spirit's descending and abiding on the object. The particular mention of the mouth cannot be explained as having reference merely to the reception of the word, in which case the ear would have been more appropriate. The true explanation seems to be that Israel is here, as in many other parts of this great prophecy, regarded not merely as a receiver but as a dispenser of the truth; an office with which, as we have seen, the Body is invested in connection with the Head, and in perpetual subordina tion to him. Israel, as well as the Messiah, and in due dependence on him, was to be the light of the Gentiles, the reclaimer of apostate nations ; and in this high mission and vocation was to be sustained and prospered by the never-failing presence of the Holy Spirit, as the author and the finisher of all revelation. (See above, chaps, xlii. 1—7, xliv. 3, xlix. 1-9, li. 1G, liv. 3, Ivi. 6-8, Iviii. 12. And compare Jer. xxxi. 31 ; Joel ii. 28; Ezek. xxxvi. 27, xxxix. 29.)

CHAPTEE LX.

HAVING repeatedly and fully shewn that the national pre-eminence of Israel was not to be perpetual, that the loss of it was the natural conse quence and righteous retribution of iniquity, and that this loss did not involve the destruction of the true church or spiritual Israel, the Prophet now proceeds to shew that to the latter the approaching change would be a glorious and blessed one. He accordingly describes it as a new and divine light rising upon Zion, ver. 1. He contrasts it with the darkness of sur rounding nations, ver. 2. Yet these are not excluded from participation in the light, ver. 3. The elect in every nation are the children of the church, and shall be gathered to her, vers. 4, 5. On one side he sees the oriental caravans and flocks approaching, vers. 0, 7. On the other, the commer cial fleets of western nations, vers. 8, 9. What seemed to be rejection is in fact the highest favour, ver. 10. The glory of the true church is her freedom from local and national restrictions, ver. 11. None are excluded from her pale but those who exclude themselves and thereby perish, ver. 12. External nature shall contribute to her splendour, ver. 13. Her very ene mies shall do her homage, ver. 14. Instead of being cast off, she is glori fied for ever, ver. 15. Instead of being identified with one nation, she shall derive support from all, ver. 10. All that is changed in her condition shall be changed for the better, ver. 17. The evils of her former state are done away, ver. 18. Even some of its advantages are now superfluous, ver. 19. What remains shall no longer be precarious, ver. 20. The splen dour of this new dispensation is a moral and spiritual splendour, but attended by external safety and protection, vers. 21, 22. All this shall certainly and promptly come to pass at the appointed time, ver. 22.

Here, as elsewhere, the new dispensation is contrasted, as a whole, with that before it. We are not therefore to seek the fulfilment of the prophecy in any one period of history exclusively, nor to consider actual corruptions and afflictions as inconsistent with the splendid vision of the New Jerusalem presented to the Prophet, nor in its successive stages, but at one grand panoramic view.

1. Arise, be Uyht ; for thy Uyht is come, and the (jhnj of Jehovah has risen upon thee. These are the words, not of a prophetic chorus, as Vitringa imagines, but of Isaiah, speaking in the name of God to Zion or Jerusalem, not merely as a city, nor even as a capital, but as the centre, representative, and symbol of the church or chosen people. A precisely analogous example is ailbrded by the use of the name Home in modern religious controversy, not to denote the city or the civil government as such, but the Roman Catholic Church, with, all its parts, dependencies, and interests. The one usage is as natural and intelligible as the other ; and if no one hesitates to say that Newman has apostati/ed to Home, or that his influence has added greatly to the strength of Rome in England, no one can justly treat it as a wresting of the Prophet's language to explain it in precisely the same manner. And the arguments employed to prove that the Israel and Jerusalem of these predictions are the natural Israel and the literal Jerusalem, would equally avail to prove, in future ages, that the hopes and fears expressed at this day in relation to the growing or de creasing power of Rome have reference to the increase of the city, or the fall of the temporal monarchy established there. — The object of address i8 here so plain that several of the ancient versions actually introduce the

name Jerusalem. The Septnagint renders bo!h the verbs at the beginning by <pari?w, which is probably to be regarded, not as a difference of text, but as a mere inadvertence. The common version shine is defective only in not shewing the affinity between the verb and noun, which is so marked in the original. The English risen is also less expressive, because more ambiguous and vague, than the Hebrew rnj, which means not to rise in general, but to rise above the horizon, to appear. The glory of Jehovah is his manifested presence, with allusion to the cloudy pillar and the Shechinah. Upon thee represents Jerusalem as exposed and subjected to the full blaze of this rising light. Roseumiiller's notion that be light, means be cheerful, as the eyes are elsewhere said to be enlightened (1 Sam. xiv. 27, 29), is inconsistent with the figure of a rising sun. The explana tion of the words by others as an exhortation to come to the light, supposes the object of address to be a person, which is not the case. Light, and especially the light imparted by the divine presence, is a common figure for prosperit}7, both temporal and spiritual. Hitzig gravely represents it as certain from this verse, taken in connection with chap. Ixii. 11, that be tween the completion of the foregoing chapter and the beginning of this, Cyrus issued his decree for the return of the captivity to Palestine. To an unbiassed reader it must be evident that this is a direct continuation of the foregoing context, and that what follows is distinguished from what goes before only by the increasing prominence with which the normal and ideal perfection of the church is set forth, as the prophecy draws near to a con clusion.

2. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and a gloom the nations, and upon thee shall Jehovah rise, and his glory upon thee shall be seen. The general description in the first verse is now amplified and carried out into detail. Of this specification the verse before us contains only the begin ning. To regard it as the whole would be to make the Prophet say the very opposite of what he does say. The perfection of the glory promised to the church is not to arise from its contrast with the darkness of the world around it, but from the diffusion of its light until that darkness dis appears. The Prophet here reverts for a moment to the previous condition of the world, in order to describe with more effect the glorious changes to be produced. He is not therefore to be understood as saying that Zion shall be glorious because while the nations are in darkness she is to enjoy exclusive light, but because the light imparted to her first shall draw the nations to her. — ???^ is essentially equivalent to "^'H, but stronger and more poetical. — Lowth translates it vapour, which would be an anti-climax, and has no etymological exactness to recommend it. Gesenius translates it night, but in his Lexicon explains it as a compound or mixed form, meaning a dark cloud. Jehovah and his glory, which are jointly said to rise in the preceding verse, are here divided between two parallel members, and the rising predicated of the first alone. Lowth's version of the last word, shall be conspicuous, is vastly inferior, both in vigour and exactness, to the common version. Instead of upon thee, Noyes has over thee, which gives a good sense in itself, but not an adequate one, besides gratuitously varying the translation of the particle in one short sentence.

3. And nations shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising, i. e. thy rising brightness, or the bright light which shall rise upon thee. The common version, to thy light, may seem at first sight more exact than the one here given, but is really less so. The Hebrew preposi tion ? does not correspond to our to as a particle of motion or direction,

but expresses relation in the widest and most general manner. It is often therefore interchanged with other particles, and to among the rest, but is not to be so translated here or in any other case without necessity. In this case it seems to mean that they shall walk with reference to the light in question, which in English may be best expressed by in, but not as a literal translation. The sense thus yielded is in some respects better than the other, as suggesting the idea, not of mere attraction, but of general diffu sion. By light we are then to understand the radiation from the luminous centre, and not merely the centre itself. This explanation of the verse is given by the best of the modem interpreters. Some of these, however, arbitrarily apply it to the restoration of the Jews from exile, who were to be accompanied by heathen kings as their guides and protectors. As a prophecy this never was fulfilled. As a visionary anticipation it could never have been entertained by a contemporary writer, such as these inter preters suppose the author of the book to be. Those who with J. D. Michaelis and Henderson apply this passage exclusively to the future restoration of the Jews, are of course cut off from all historical illustration of its meaning, which the first of these writers therefore properly dispenses with. The allegation of the other that his own position is the only one '' that can be maintained consistently with a strict adherence to definite principles of interpretation," may be denied as boldly as it is affirmed. His charge of " a perpetual vacillancy between the literal and the spiritual, the Jews and the Gentiles, the past and the future," lies only against those interpretations which regard the book as a succession of specific and detached predictions. If our hypothesis be true, that it is one indivisible exhibition of the church, under its two successive phases, and in its essen tial relations to its Head and to the world, the objection is not only inconclusive but absurd. How far it can be alleged with truth, and with out bringing the Old and New Testament into collision, that the future glory of the Jewish people as a people is the great theme of these pro phecies, and that the Gentiles are brought forward chiefly for the purpose of "gracing the triumphs" of the Jews, will be seen hereafter, if not evident already. In the mean time nothing has been alleged to justify the arbitrary supposition of a sudden leap from one subject to another, scarcely more " satisfactory " than a "perpetual vacillancy" between the two.

4. Lift up thine eyes round alout (/. e. in all directions) and see ; all of them are yatfiered, they come to thee, thy sons from afar shall come, and thy daughters at thf side shall be borne. See chap, xliii. 5-7, and xlix. 18-23. The English Version seems to suppose an antithesis between pirn)? and TV"^y, which last it accordingly translates at thy side, i. e. near thee. Lowth and Henderson suppose an allusion to the oriental practice, described by Chardin, of carrying young children astride upon the hip. The latest writers simply give to IV the sense of arm, because the arm is at the side! The primary sense of |ON seems to be that of carrying, with special refer ence to children. Jerome understands it to mean nursing, in the sense of giving suck, and translates the phrase before us lac sugcnt, which has been corrupted in the Vulgate text to ex latere surgent. Grotius needlessly infers that Jerome read "IE* instead of IX. Those who confine these prophecies to the Babylonish exile, understand this as describing the agency of heathen states and sovereigns in the restoration. But in this, as in the parallel passages, there is, by a strange coincidence, no word or phrase implying restoration or return, but the image evidently is that of enlargement and accession ; the children thus brought to Zion being not

those whom she had lost, but such as she had never before known, as is evident from chap. xlix. 21. The event predicted is therefore neither the former restoration of the Jews, as Henderson alleges in the other cases, nor their future restoration, as he no less confidently alleges here. The two interpretations are both groundless and destructive of each other. This perpetual insertion of ideas not expressed in the original, is quite as un reasonable as Vitringa's being always haunted by his phantom of a chorus, which he here sees taking Zion by the hand, consoling her, &c. He is also of opinion that by daughters we are here to understand weak Christians who require peculiar tenderness from ministers. There is more probability in Rachel's suggestion, that the Prophet made his picture true to nature by describing the sons as walking, and the daughters as being carried.

5. Then shalt thou see (or fear], and brighten up (or overflow), and thy heart shall throb and sicell; because (or WHEN) the abundance of the sea shall be turned upon thee, the strength of nations shall come unto thee. This transla tion exhibits the points of agreement as well as of difference among inter preters in reference to this verse. All agree that it describes a great and joyful change to be produced by the accession of the Gentiles to the church or chosen people, and the effect of this enlargement on the latter. Aben Ezra, Lowth, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Doderleinj Justi, Gesenius, and Umbreit, derive ^Pi from N!?J, to fear, and apply it to the painful sensation which often attends sudden joy, and which is certainly described in the next clause. Nearly all the later writers repeat Lowth's fine parallel quo tation from Lucretius :

His tibi me rebus qusedam divina voluptas Percipit atque horror.

Above sixty manuscripts, and one of the oldest editions (Bib. Soncin), require this explanation, by reading either *NT$> ^"V), or ^fl, none of which can regularly come from H5O to see. Yet the latter derivation is not only sanctioned by all the ancient versions, and preferred by Kirnchi, but approved by Luther, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, Ewald, and Knobel. It is curious to see how the parallelism is urged on either side of this dispute, and that with equal plausibility. Thus Vitringa thinks that thou shalt see would be a vain repetition of the lift up thine eyes and see in ver. 4, while Knobel describes the double reference to fear in this verse as a "lastige Tautologie." As to "IH3, the difficulty is in choosing between its two admitted senses of flowing (chap. ii. 2), and of shining (Ps. xxxiv. 6). The former is preferred by Jerome, who translates it afflncs; by Junius and Tremellius, who have confluet; and by the English and Dutch Versions, the latter of which refers it to the confluence of crowds produced by any strange occurrence. Vitringa makes it mean to flow out, and Lowth to overflow with joy. But all the latest writers of authority give the word the same sense as in Ps. xxxiv. 6, which is well expressed by Henderson in strong though homely English, thou slialt look and brighten up. His ver- < sion of the next clause, thy heart ahall throb and dilate, may be improved by changing the last word, which he took from Lowth, to the equivalent but plainer swell. — ^Df, which Lowlh renders ruffled, is admitted by most writers to be here used in its primary sense of trembling, which in reference to the heart may be best expressed by beating or throbbing. But the usual though secondary sense of fearing is retained by Luzzatto, who regards it as descriptive of her terror at the sight of supposed enemies approaching; and by Hendewerk, who applies it to her apprehension that she would not

have sufficient room for the accommodation of the strangers. The usual and proper sense of *? (for, because) is perfectly appropriate; the only reason for preferring that of irhen, as Yitringa, Gesenius, and others do, is its apparent relation to the TX at the beginning of the sentence, as if he had said, when the abundance of the sea, &c., then shalt thou see, &c. Accord ing to the other explanation of this paiticle, the TN refers to the foregoing context. Another doubt arises from the ambiguity of the nouns J1EH and??n, both of which may be applied either to things or persons, — the first denoting sometimes a multitude (chap. xvii. 12), sometimes abundance (Ps. xxxvii. 16) ; the other signifying sometimes a military force (Exod. xiv. 28), sometimes wealth (Gen. xxxiv. 29). As in either case the dif ferent meanings are only modifications of one radical idea (a multitude of persons and a multitude of things, a military force and pecuniary force) ; as both the meanings of each word are here appropriate, and as interpre ters, whichever meaning they prefer, contrive to join the other with it, — we may safely infer that it was also the intention of the writer to convey the •whole idea, that the Gentiles should devote themselves and their possessions to the service of Jehovah. (Compare Zech. xiv. 14.) — For of the sea J. D. Michaelis has/?-om the west; and other writers who retain the strict trans lation, suppose a designed antithesis between the west in this verse and the eastern nations mentioned in the next. The conversion here predicted has the same sense as in English, vi/., the conversion of the property of one to the use of another. Upon can hardly be a simple substitute for to, but is rather intended to suggest the same idea as when we speak of gifts or favours being showered or lavished on a person. This force of the particle is well expressed in Lowth's translation, when the riches of the sea shall be poured in upon thee, but with too little regard to the proper meaning of the Hebrew verb. The next clause is a repetition of the same thought, but without a figure. If this had reference to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon, it was an extravagant anticipation utterly falsified by the event. But this, although it may commend the hypothesis to those who deny the inspiration of the Prophet, is itself a refutation of it to the minds of those who occupy a contrary position. The most natural interpretation of the verse is that which makes it a promise of indefinite enlargement, compre hending both the persons and the riches of the nations. There is something amusing at the present day in Yitringa's suggesting as a difficulty to be cleared away from the interpretation of the passage, that as Christianity is a spiritual religion it can have no great occasion for gold or silver. Even literally understood, the promise is intelligible and most welcome to the philanthropic Christian, as affording means 1'or the diffusion of the truth and the conversion of the world.

G. A stream of camels shall cover thee, yount/ camels (or dromedaries) of Midian and Ephah, all of them from Sheba shall come, (/old and incense shall they bear, and the praises of Jehovah as (jood news. This last form of ex pression is adopted in order to convey the full force of the Hebrew verb, which does not mean simply to announce or even to announce with joy, but to announce glad tidings. (See above, on chap. xl. 9.) Retaining this sense here, the word would seem to signify not the direct praise of God, but the announcement of the fact that others praised him, and the messengers would be described as bringing to Jerusalem the news of the conversion of their people. It is possible, however, that the primary meaning of ~>?T2 may be simply to announce, as in chap. Hi. 7, 1 Kings i. 42, 1 Sam. iv. 17, 2 Sam. xviii. 20, 26, and that the derivation given by Gesenius is fictitious.

But in no case is it necessary, with Vitringa, to exchange the settled mean ing of rf?nJ|l for the doubtful one of praiseworthy acts. — Ewald has greatly improved upon the usual translation of nj^t? by exchanging multitude for stream or food, the version given by Jerome (inundatio), and not only more expressive than the other, but in perfect accordance with the etymology, and with the usage of the noun itself in Job xxii. 11, xxxviii. 34. When applied in prose to a drove of horses (Ezek. xx. 10) or a troop of horsemen (2 Kings ix. 17), it requires of course a different version. This explanation of njJS£* throws light upon the phrase shall cover thee, a term elsewhere applied to water (e. g. chap. xi. 9), and suggesting here the poetical idea of a city not merely thronged but flooded with Arabian caravans. This is at least more natural than Vitringa' s notion that the camels are said to cover that which they approach, because they are so tall that they overtop and overshadow it. The camel has been always so peculiarly associated with the Arabs that they are described by Strabo as ffxjjv/Va/ xa/u>*}Xoj3offxo/. They are here, according to Isaiah's practice, represented by a group of ancestral names. Ephah was the eldest son of Midian (Gen. xxv. 4), who was himself the son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2), and the brother of Jokshan the father of Sheba (Gen. xxv. 1-4). The first two represent northern and central Arabia, the third Arabia Felix, so called by the old geographers because of the rich products which is furnished to the northern traders, either from its own resources or as an entrepot of Indian commerce. The queen of this country, by whom Solomon was visited, brought with her gold, gems, and spices in abundance (1 Kings x. 2), and we read elsewhere of its frankincense (Jer. vi. 20), its Phenician commerce (Ezek. xxvii. 29), and its caravans (Job vi. 19), while those of Midian are mentioned even in the patriarchal history (Gen. xxxvii. 28). Bochart supposes the Midian of this passage to be the Madiene of Josephus and the Modion of Ptolemy, and identifies Ephah with the "lxvo$ of the Greek geographers. It is more accordant with usage, however, to explain them as the names of the national progenitors, representing their descend ants. — It matters little whether dromedaries or j/oung camels be the true translation. (For the arguments on both sides see Bochart's Hierozoicon, vol. i. p. 15, with Rosenmiiller's Note.) The former is preferable only because it gives us a distinct name, as in the original, which is perhaps the reason that Gesenius retains it in his Version but rejects it in his Com mentary. Aben Ezra and Saadias make 2 a preposition and H3 the plural of "O, which in Gen. xxxi. 34 denotes a litter or a woman's saddle used in riding upon camels. — The verb -1&OJ does not agree with the preceding noun, as the camels of Midian and Ephah could not come from Sheba, but with all of them, which may either be indefinite, " they (i. e. men) shall come all of them," or more specifically signify the merchants of Sheba. Most interpreters ngree with the Targum in referring the last verb (•'nb?*) to the men who come with the camels and the gifts; but as -IN^1! properly denotes the act of the animals themselves, it is not without a show of reason that Vitringa construes the other verb in the same manner, and supposes the camels by their very burdens to praise God or rather to announce the disposition of these tribes to praise him. This is rendered still more probable by the analogy of the next verse, where kindred acts appear to be ascribed to other animals. — It is a common opinion of interpreters that this verse represents the east as joining in the acts of homage and of tribute which the one before it had ascribed to the west; but it may well be doubted whether this distinctive meaning can be put upon the terms sea and nations

there employed, and the antithesis would hardly be in keeping with another which appears to be designed between these two verses and the eighth, as will be explained below.

7. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered for thee, the rams ofNebaioth shall minister to thee, they shall ascend with good-will (or acceptably] my altar, and my house of beauty 1 will beautify ^ To the traders of Arabia with their caravans and precious wares he now adds her shepherds with their countless flocks. While Kimchi explains all as meaning many, and Knobel all kinds, Vitringa insists upon the strict sense as an essential fea ture of the prophec}'. Eedar, the second son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 13), who represents Arabia in chap. xxi. 16, and xlii. 11, is here joined for the same purpose with his elder brother Nebaioth, obviously identical with the Nabataei, the name given to the people of Arabia Petraea by Strabo and Diodorus Siculus, who represent them as possessed of no wealth except flocks and herds, in which they were extremely rich. Ezekiel also speaks of Tyre as trading with Arabia and all the chiefs of Kedar in lambs and rams and goats.^ (Ezek. xxvii. 21.) These are here described as gathered in one vast flock to Jerusalem, or rather for her, i. e. for her use or service, which agrees best with what follows, and with the usage of the Hebrew pre position. They are then, by a bold and striking figure, represented as offering themselves, which is first expressed by the general term serve or minister, and then more unequivocally by declaring that they shall them selves ascend the altar. Kimchi endeavours to get rid of this bold meta phor by introducing with before the rams of Nebaioth, and referring both verbs to the people themselves : (With) the rams of Nebaioth shall they serve thee, and cause (them) to ascend, &c. But the common judgment of inter preters is in favour of explaining the words strictly, and retaining the un usual figure unimpaired. They are not disposed, however, to go all lengths with Yitringa, who supposes the rams to be personified as priests offering themselves upon the altar. — The ascent of the victim on the altar is repeat edly connected elsewhere with the phrase Pv?, to acceptance or acceptably. (See above, chap. Ivi. 7, and Jer. vi. 20.) But in this one place we have

the phrase p¥V/>y, as if the last noun had usurped the place of altar, which immediately follows. Of this unusual construction there are several dis tinct explanations. Kimchi regards it as a case of "]<57 or metathesis, which may be thus resolved: TOTO 7$ J1XT> 1?y\ Gesenius obtains pre cisely the same meaning by explaining Tl^tP as an accusative after a verb of motion, and making P^?"'^ a simple variation of the common phrase ]Wp.. Hitzig and Henderson adopt the same construction, but suppose the two phrases to be different in sense as well as form, PV? meaning to (divine) acceptance, P^T"^? with flood-will or complacency. The phrase then only serves to strengthen the description of the victims as spontaneously offer ing themselves, an idea which Lowth finally, but perhaps too artificially, illustrates by citations from Suetonius and Tacitus, shewing that the ancients viewed reluctance in the victims as an evil omen, and by parity of reason ing the appearance of spontaneous self-devotion as a good one. — In the last clause, the meaning of the phrase ^"1^?^ J"1'3 is determined by the parallel expressions in chap. Ixiv. 10, where the suffix necessarily belongs to the governing word, or rather to the whole complex phrase, and the whole 1 means, not the house of our holiness and our beauty, but our hmtsp. of holiness \and beauty, or resolved into the occidental idiom, our holy and our beautiful

house, which is the common English version. The LXX have here my' house of prayer, as in chap. Ivi. 7 ; and Hitzig regards this as the genuine reading, though he does not adopt it in his German version. His reason for this critical decision is a very insufficient one, viz. that God is nowhere else said to glory in the temple, which is not the meaning of the common text, rON5?ri being here used in its primary and ordinary sense of beauty, as appears from its conjunction with the verb INS, which, in this connec tion, even upon Hitzig's own hypothesis, must mean to beautify. — Grotius supposes this prediction to have been literally verified in Herod's temple. Gesenius and the other Germans easily dispose of it as a fanatical antici pation. It is much more embarrassing to those who make the passage aJ prediction of the future restoration of the Jews, and the future splendour of the literal Jerusalem. Some of the most intrepid writers of this class consistently apply their fundamental principle of literal interpretation, and believe that the Mosaic ritual or something like it is to be restored. But such interpreters as J. D. Michaelis and Henderson, who cannot go to this length, are obliged to own that spiiitual services are here represented under forms and titles borrowed from the old dispensation. "Whatever the descendants of those oriental tribes may possess shall be cheerfully placed

at the disposal of the restored Jews There shall be no want of

anything that is required for the full restoration of divine worship, when the mosque of Omar shall give place to a new temple to be erected for the celebration of the services of that ministration which exceedeth in glory. 2 Cor. iii. 8-11." This is the "literal interpretation" of a school which will not allow Israel to mean the church or chosen people as such con sidered, but insists upon its meaning the nation of the Jews! The picture which this interpretation makes the Prophet draw may well be called a mixed one, consisting of a literal Jerusalem, literal caravans and camels, but a figurative altar, figurative victims, and a material temple to be built upon the site of the old one for a spiritual worship exclusive of the very rites which it is here predicted shall be solemnly performed there. Of such a figment upon such a subject we may say, with more than ordinary em phasis, and even with a double sense, Credat Judceus! On the other hand, the prophecy explains itself to those who believe that the ancient Israel is still in existence, and that the Jews as a nation form no part of it. The charge of mystical or allegorical interpretation does not lie against this view of the matter, but against Vitringa's needless and fantastic addition to his real exegesis of a set of riddles or enigmas, in which he puzzles both his readers and himself by attempting to determine whether camels mean laborious and patient Christians, rams strong ones, sheep those fattened by the word and clothed in the white wool of holiness, &c. To any but Vitringa himself it must be difficult to see in what respect all this is any better than the notion for which he reproves Eusebius, Jerome, find Procopius, that camels here mean rich men, as in Mat. xix. 24. And yet after saying in regard to these erring Fathers, vilanda utigue sunt in ariplicationilus mysticis aXXc^TJ, he adds with great complacency, nostrarationeshm simt liquid <r! If any proof were needed of the risk attending the admis sion of a false exegetical principle, however harmless in appearance, it would be afforded by these melancholy triflings on the part of one of the most able, learned, orthodox, devout, accomplished, and, with this excep tion, sensible interpreters of Scripture, that the world has ever seen or can expect to see again.

8. Who are these that fly as a cloud and as doves to their windows ? It is

a fine conception of Vitringa, that the ships expressly mentioned in the next verse are here described in their first appearance at a distance resem bling with their outspread sails and rapid course a fleecy cloud driven by the wind, and a flight of doves returning to their young. Both compari sons are elsewhere used as here to indicate rapidity of motion. (Job xxx. 15, Ps. Iv. 7, Hos. xi. 11, Jer. iv. 13.) Much less felicitous is Vitringa's idea that the image here presented is that of a prophetic chorus standing with the church on the roof of the city, and asked by her, or asking, what it is they see approaching. Houbigant's emendation of the text by reading prvrrax, though approved by Lowth and even improved by the change of 7^ to 7JJ on the authority of more than forty manuscripts, so as to admit of the translation like doves upon the wing, is justly characterized by Gesenius' .•as an " elende Conjectnr." The common text means lattices or latticed windows, either of which is better than Henderson's translation holes, though?even this is preferable to the vague and weak term habitations used by Noyes.

9. Because for me the isles are waiting (or must wait], and the ships of .Tarxhish in the first place, to briny thy sons from far, their silver and tlmr gold with them for the name of Jehovah thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel, because he has glorified thee. This verse contains a virtual though not a formal answer to the question in the one before it. As if he had .said, Wonder not that these are seen approaching, for the whole world is only awaiting my command to bring thy sons, &c. This view of the con nection makes it wholly unnecessary to give ^ the sense of surely, yes, or any other than its usual and proper one of for, because. For the true sense of Mi?', see above on chap. xlii. 4, and for ships of Tarshish, vol. i. p. 394. Luzzatto here gratuitous!}' reads -ll^ let them be gathered, which is applied to a confluence of nations in Jer. iii. 17. The Septuagint, which elsewhere explains Tarshish to mean the sea, here retains the name ; but I the Vulgate even here has naves wm's. J. D. Michaeli?, the ships of Spain. Jarchi and Kimchi supply 3 before njt^S'O, and explain it to mean as at first, or as of old, referring to the days of Solomon and Hiram. I This reading is actually found in twenty-five manuscripts, and sanctioned j by the Peshito ; but even Lowth retains the common text. The Hebrew phrase is generally understood to mean in the first rank either as to time or place. (Compare Num. x. 13, 14.) Both may be included, as they really imply one another. The pronoun their may have for its antecedent either sons or islands; but the former, as the nearer, is more natural. The last clause is repeated from chap. Iv. 5, where iyo< takes the place of the first ? and determines it to mean not to but for. There is no need therefore of explaining name to mean the place where the divine name was recorded. J. D. Michaelis still declines to say in what precise form this prediction is to be fulfilled ; but Henderson, less cautious or more con fident, affirms that the property of the Jews as well as themselves shall bo conveyed free of charge to Palestine, adding that many of them resident in [distant parts can only conveniently return by sea. The principle involved [in this interpretation is, that we have no right to make the Zion here ad- Idressecl any other than the literal Jerusalem, or the ships, the silver, and jthe gold, any other than literal silver, gold, and ships. This rule, to be of lany practical avail, must apply to all parts of the passage, and especially to jail parts of the verse alike, without which uniformity interpretation be- Dmes wholly arbitrary or mere guess-work. It is an interesting question, erefore, what we are to understand in this connection by the s/iips of

Tarshish, to which such extraordinary prominence is given in the work of restoration. As to this point, Henderson refers us to his note on chap, xxiii. 10, where we read as follows: " By Tarshish there can no longer he any reasonable doubt we are to understand Tartessus, the ancient and cele brated emporium of the Phenicians, situated between the two mouths of the river Baetis (now Guadalquiver) on the south-western coast of Spain." Are we to understand then that the vessels of this part of Spain are to be foremost in the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, just as the descendants of the ancient Kedar, Ephah, and Sheba, are to place their possessions at the disposal of the restored Jews? If so, this meaning should have been distinctly stated, as it partly is by Michaelis in translating Tarshish Spain. If not, and if as we suspect the ships of Tarshish are secretly identified with the commercial navy of Great Britain and perhaps America, we then have another medley like that in ver. 7, but in this case consisting of a literal return to the literal Jerusalem in literal ships but belonging to a figurative Tarshish. In these repeated instances of mixed interpretation there is something like a vacillancy between the literal and the spiritual, which is any thing but satisfactory. To the assumption that commercial intercourse and navigation are here represented under forms and names derived from the Old Testament history, I am so far from objecting, that I wish to apply it to the whole prediction, and to use precisely the same liberty in understanding what is said of Zion and her sons, as in under standing what is said of Tarshish and her ships. Let it also be added to the cumulative proofs already urged in favour of our own hypothesis, that here, as in so many former instances, the writer does not even accidentally use any term explicitly denoting restoration or return, but only such as are appropriate to mere accession and increase ab extra. It cannot therefore be absurd, even if it is erroneous to apply what is here said, with Vitringa, to the growth of the true Israel or chosen people by the calling of the Gentiles, with particular allusion to the wealth of the commercial nations, from among whom the elect of God, the sons of Zion, when they come to the embraces of their unknown mother, shall come bringing their silver and gold with them.

10. And strangers shall build thy walls, and their Icings shall serve thee for in my wrath I smote thee, and in my favour I have had mercy on tJiee. For the true sense of the phrase "13}"^.?, see above on chap. Ivi. 3 ; and with the last clause compare chap. liv. 7, 8. The *? relates to the whole of that clause taken together, not to the first member by itself. It was not because God had been angry, but because he had been angry and relented, that they were to be thus favoured. (See vol. i. p. 263.) There is no need, however, of substituting an involved occidental syntax for the simple Hebrew construction, as Vitringa and Roscnmiiller do, by reading, " for although in my wrath I may have smitten thee," &c. The English version of the last verb in the sentence is correct. Lowth's emendation of it, in which he is followed by Henderson and Noyes, is wholly ungrammatical, since the preceding verb is not a future but a preterite. The change is also need less, since the mercy is described as past, not in reference to the date of the prediction, but of its fulfillment. There is something at once inexact and mawkish in Lowth's paraphrase of this verb, / will embrace thee with the most tender affection. If any departure from the usual translation were required or admissible, the preference would be due to Ewald's version (lieb ich dich wieder). — Eichhorn supposed the expectation here expressed to have been excited by the benefactions of the Persian kings to the restored Jews (Ezra i. 8, vi. 8, 9) ; but even Gesenius regards the date thus assigned to the prediction as too late. Knobel applies the text to the neighbouring heathen, called "9IP.33 by Nehemiah (chap. ix. 2 ; comp. Ps. xviii. 45, cxliv. 7, 11), who were to be driven from the lands upon which they had intruded during the captivity, and reduced to bondage by the re stored Jews. Henderson's explanation of the verse as meaning that foreigners shall count it an honour to be employed in rebuilding Jerusalem and " in any way contributing to the recovery of the lost happiness of Is rael, and that even monarchs shall regard it as a privilege to aid in the work by employing whatever legitimate influence they may possess in ad vancing it," is hardly a fair specimen of strictly literal interpretation, but rather an insensible approximation to the old opinion, as expressed by Vitringa, that the Prophet here foretells the agency of strangers or new con verts in promoting the safety and prosperity of Israel, under figures borrowed from the old economy, and implying a vicissitude or alternation of distress and joy, such as Isaiah frequently exhibits. The building of the walls here mentioned is the same as that in Ps. li. 20, and cxlvii. 2, where it is no more to be literally understood than the captivity of Zion in Ps. xiv. 7, or that of Job in chap, xlii. 10. (See Hengstenberg on the Psalms, vol. i. p. 291.)

11. And thy gates shall be open continually, day and night they shall not be shut, to bring into thee the strength of nations and their kings led (captive or in triumph}. According to Hitzig there is here a resumption of the figures in ver. 6, and the gates are represented as kept open day and night by the perpetual influx of Arabian caravans. But without going back to the peculiar imagery of that verse, we may understand the one before us as relating to the influx of strangers and new converts generally. The two ideas expressed are those of unobstructed access and undisturbed tranquillit}*. The use of -in^S is the same as in chap, xlviii. 8, nearly but not entirely coincident with that of the corresponding verb in English, when we speak of a door's opening instead of being opened. The difference is simply that between the description of a momentary act, and of a permanent condition. The intransitive construction is in either case the same. Upon this verse, perhaps combined with Zech. xiv. 7, is founded that beautiful and grand description, the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there (Rev. xxi. 25), of which Yitringa speaks as an inspired ex position of the verse before us, while Henderson says more correctly that the apostle " borrows the language in his description of the New Jerusa lem." — ^n has the same ambiguity or latitude of meaning as in ver. 5, above. The sense of wealth or treasure is preferred by most of the late writers, but Rosenmiiller has exercitus. Better than either, because com prehending both, is Vitringa's version copia, to which we have no exact equivalent in English. — Vitringa and Rosenmiiller follow Kimchi in ex plaining D^-in} to mean escorted, led in procession, or, as Lowth has it, pompously attended, which they take to be the meaning of the verb in Nah. ii. 8. But as that place is itself obscure and doubtful, and as the verb is clearly employed elsewhere to express the act of leading captive (chap. xx. 4 ; 1 Sam. xxx. 2), several of the later writers have reverted to this explanation, which is also given in the Targum (n?'i?T) and by Aben Ezra, and agrees with chap. xlv. 14 (compare Ps. cxlix. 8). Gesenius in his Commentary charges Koppe with omitting to observe that this sense is at variance with the idea of voluntary adhesion expressed throughout the context ; but in his Thesaurus he adopts this very explanation, without

attempting to refute his own objection. Hitzig's solution of it is that the nations are described as coming to Jerusalem en masse, and bringing their reluctant kings in chains along with them. Knobel proposes an entirely new explanation, in which D'O-in? is to have an active meaning (like K'-lpJ and NfK), and to be translated leaders; but if ever the invention of a new; sense was without the faintest colour of necessity, it is so here. The • general meaning no doubt is that earthly sovereigns must unite in this: adhesion to the true religion, either willingly or by compulsion. The dif ferent impressions made by such a passage on intelligent interpreters/ according to their several hypotheses or previous conclusions, may be^ shewn by comparing the remarks of Henderson and Umbreit upon this verse. While the latter confidently asks who can here fail to read the' daily progress of God's kingdom by accretion from the Gentiles, in which' sense the doors of Zion are still open, kings and nations streaming in by' day and night, the other gravely observes that " modern travellers greatly1 complain of the inconvenience to which they are put, when they do not' reach Jerusalem before the gates are closed." This is either nothing to the purpose or implies that the blessing promised in the text is a more'- convenient regulation of the gate-police after the restoration of the Jews!

12. For the nation and the kingdom ichich will not serve thee shall perish, and the nations shall be desolated, desolated. Similar threatenings are found in Zech. x. 1, xii. 1, and xiv. 17, in the last of which places there is a' specific threat of drought, as the appointed punishment. This has led Hitzig and some later writers to explain the last verb here as meaning to be utterly dried up or parched. But in chap, xxxvii. 18, above, it is applied to nations in the general sense of desolation. The for at the be ginning of the verse is commonly explained as introducing a reason for theconfluence of strangers just before predicted, namely, the desire of escaping this destruction ; but it may as well be understood to give a reason for the promise of increase in general. The gates of Zion shall be crowded, brcause all shall enter into them but those who are to perish. The nations in the last clause may mean the nations just described, or, as the common version expresses it, those nations. But it may also mean, perhaps more naturally, those who still continue to be Gentiles, heathen, by refusing to unite them selves with Israel. — The threatening in this verse is a very serious one, however understood ; but it is also very strange and unaccountable if un derstood as meaning that all nations shall be utterly destroyed which will not serve the Jews when restored to their own country. Even if we give to serve the mitigated sense of shewing favour and assisting, there is stillsomething almost revolting in the penalty annexed to the omission ; howmuch more if we understand it as denoting actual subjection and hard bondage. It is no wonder that a writer so acute as Henderson is forced by the pressure of this difficulty on his theory to seek for a " meiosis" in the sentence, and to understand the threatening as directed only against those who are chargeable with " positive hostility," a forced assumption; not to be supported by a reference to Judges v. 23. The whole is rendered clear by the assumption, not got up for the occasion, but resulting from an extensive exegetical induction, that the threatening was intended to apply, in its most obvious and strongest sense, to all those nations which refuse to be connected with the church or Israel of God.

13. The glory of Lebanon to thee shall come, cypress, plane, and, box to gether, to adorn the place of my sanctuary, and the place of my feet I will honour. The glory of Lebanon is its cedars. For the other trees here.

mentioned, see above, on chap. xli. 19, where, as here, they are merely representatives of ornamental forest-trees in general. The place of my sanctuary has been generally understood to mean the sanctuary itself; but several of the latest writers understand by it Jerusalem, as being the place where the temple was erected. The same sense is put by Manrer and others on (he jtlace of myfeft, that is, the place where I habitually stand or walk. (Ezek. xliii. 7.) Vitringa and the older writers generally seem to understand by it the ark of the covenant, considered as the footstool of Jehovah (1 Chron. xxviii. 2 ; Ps. xcix. 5, cxxxii. 7), when enthroned between the cherubim (chap, xxxvii. 16; Ps. Ixxx. 2.) In favour of the wider sense is the analogy of chap. Ixvi. 2, where the same description is applied to the whole earth, but in reference to heaven as the throne of God. — Another topic upon which interpreters have been divided, is the question whether the adorning mentioned here is that of cultivated grounds by living trees, or that of buildings by the use of the choicest kinds of timber. The latter opinion has most commonly prevailed; but Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, are decidedly in favour of the other, which is far more pleasing in itself and more in keeping with the poetical tone of the whole context. In either case the meaning of the figure is that the earthly residence of God shall be invested with the most attractive forms of beauty. Even Grotius, as Vitringa has observed, was ashamed to rest in the material sense of this description, and has made it so far tropical as to denote the conquest of many parts of Syria by the Jews. But Henderson goes back to ground which even Grotins could not occupy, and understands the verse not only of material trees but of material timber. " A literal temple or house of worship being intended, (lie language MUST BE literally understood." But why are lite ral trees more indispensable in this case than literal sheep and rams and a literal altar inver. 7, or than literal ships of Tarshish in ver. 9 ? This perpetual vacillancy between the literal and the spiritual is anything but satisfactory. "From all that appears to be the state of Palestine in regard to wood, sup plies from Lebanon will be as necessary as they were when the ancient temple was constructed." With this may.be worthily compared the use of the same text to justify the "dressing of churches" at the festival of Christmas. 14. Then sh'ill come to thee bending the sons of thy oppressors, then shall bow duion to the soles of thy feet all thy dcspisers, and shall call thee the City of Jehovah, Zion the holy place of Israel (or the Zion of the Holy One of Israel). For the same ideas and expressions, see above, chap. xlv. 14, and xlix. 23. The?JJ before HIQ? is not simply equivalent to at, but expresses downward motion, and may be translated down to. The act described is the oriental prostration as a sign of the profoundest reverence. The Vul gate makes the sense still stronger, and indeed too strong, by attaching to the verb a religious meaning, and regarding JTI33 as its object (adorabunt vesliyia pcdum tuorum). The sons are mentioned either for the purpose of contrasting the successive generations more emphatically, or as a mere oriental idiom without distinctive meaning. In favour of the latter sup position is the circumstance that it is wanting in the other clause, where the despisers are themselves represented as doing the same thing with the sons of the oppressors, pu means not only to despise in heart but to treat with contempt. These humbled enemies are represented as acknowledging the claim of Zion to be recognised as the holy place and dwelling of Jeho vah. The old construction of the last words, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel, supposes Zion as a proper name to govern the next word, contrary to the general rule, but after the analogy of such combinations as Bethlehem of Judah and Jehovah of hosts. Hitzig prefers to make P'V an appellative synonymous with {-I'V, the pillar of the Holy One of Israel. Maurer more plausibly suggests that K'np here means not a holy person but a holy or consecrated place, as in chap. Ivii. 15, Ps. xlvi. 5, Ixv. 5. On any of these suppositions, the sense of the acknowledgment remains the same. That sense is determined by the parallel passage chap. xlv. 14, where a part of the confession is in these words, only in thee is God. (See above, p. 183.) The same sense must here be attached to the acknow ledgment of Zion as the City of Jehovah, in order to explain or justify the strength of the expressions put into the mouth of her repentant enemies. The old Jerusalem was not merely a holy place, a city of Jehovah, but the holy place, the city of Jehovah. Its exclusive possession of this character was perfectly essential, and is always so described in Scripture. Are we to understand, then, that Jerusalem, when rebuilt and enlarged hereafter, is again to be invested with its old monopoly of spiritual privileges? If it is, how can such a restoration of the old economy be reconciled with the New Testament doctrines? If it is not, why are these repentant enemies described as rendering precisely the same homage to the New Jerusalem, which properly belonged to the old? If this is a mere figure for deep reverence and so forth, what becomes of the principle of literal interpretation '? Whether these questions are of any exegetical importance, and if so, whether they are satisfactorily solved by Henderson's interpretation of the verse as meaning that "the descendants of her oppressors will acknowledge the wrongs that have been done to her, and humbly crave a share in her privi leges," is left to the decision of the reader. On the supposition hitherto assumed as the basis of the exposition, this verse simply means that the enemies of the church shall recognise her in her true relation to her divine Head.

15. Instead of thy being forsaken and hated and with none passing (through thee), and I will place thee for a boast of pei~petnity, a joy of age and age. The nnn may express either simply a change of condition (whereas), or the reason of the change (because), or the further idea of equitable compensa tion. Hitzig supposes an allusion in nN-13^ to* the use of the same word in the law with respect to a less beloved wife (Gen. xxix. 31 ; Deut. xxi. 15). But in the phrase "151V T^ the personification seems entirely merged in the idea of a city. The 1 at the beginning of the second clause is commonly regarded as the sign of the apodosis, and as such cannot be expressed in English. It may, however, have its usual copulative meaning if the first clause be connected with the foregoing verse as a part of the same sentence. In either case the 1 must at the same time be conversive and connect the verb with those of the preceding verse, or else it must be taken as a prseter like ''flpni in ver. 10. In order probably to make the application of the verse to the material Jerusalem more natural, Henderson observes that 0?"$ is here used, as in many other places, for a period of long and unknown duration. As this is certainly the primitive meaning of the word, it is often so applied, and yet it may be noted that according to the true interpretation of the prophecy, this expression may be taken in its utmost strength and latitude of meaning.

16. And thou shall suck the milk of nations, and the breast of kings shall thou suck, and thou shall knoiv that I, Jehovah, am thy saviour, and (that) thy redeemer (is) the Mighty One of Jacob. All interpreters agree with the Targum in applying this verse to the influx of wealth and power and what ever else the kings and nations of the earth can contribute to the progress

of the true religion. The figure is derived foom Deut. xxxiii. 19, they shall tuck the abundance of the seas. "It? cannot here mean desolation, as above in chap. lix. 7, and below in ver. 18, but must be a variation of the usual form "it? as in Job xxiv. 9. The catachresis in the second clause is not a mere rhetorical blunder, but, as Hitzig well says, an example of the sense overmastering the style, a licence the occasional use of which is character istic of a bold and energetic writer. It also serves the useful purpose of shewing how purely tropical the language is. Lowth and Noyes gratui tously try to mitigate the harshness of the metaphor by changing the second suck into fostered at and nursed from the breast of kings. Yitringa speaks of some as attempting to remove the solecism altogether by makings kings mean queens or the daughters of kings, or by appealing to extraordinary cases in which males have given suck! The construction of the last clause is the one expressed by Noyes. Each member of that clause contains a subject and a predicate, and therefore a complete proposition. The sense is not merely that Jehovah is the Mighty One of Jacob, but that the Mighty God of Jacob is Israel's redeemer, and the self-existent everlasting God his saviour. Here, as in chap. i. 24, Henderson translates ^1$ protector; but see vol. i. p. 91-92.

17. Instead of brass (or copper) I will bring gold, and instead of iron I will bring silver, and instead of wood brass, and instead of stones iron, and I will place (or make] thy government peace and thy rulers righteousness. Grotius follows the Targuni in explaining the first clause as a promise of ample compensation for preceding losses. As if he had said, " For the brass which thy enemies have taken from thee I will bring thee gold," etc. Knobel, on the contrary, understands the clause as meaning that the value of the pre cious metals shall be lowered by their great abundance. Henderson like wise understands it as a promise that " the temporal prosperity of the restored Israelites shall resemble that of their ancestors in the days of Solomon." (See 1 Kings x. 27, 2 Chron. ix. 20, 27). "But the thought which is naturally suggested by the words is that expressed by Yitriuga, namely, that all things shall be changed for the better. The change de scribed is not a change in kind, i. e. from bad to good, but in degree, i. e. from good to better ; because the same things which appear to be rejected in the first clause are expressly promised in the second. The arrangement of the items Yitringa endeavours to explain as having reference to the out ward appearance of the substances, those being put together which are most alike. (See a similar gradation in chap. xxx. 26, Zech. xiv. 20, 1 Cor. iii. 12, xv. 41.) The last clause resolves the figures into literal ex pressions, and thus shews that the promise has respect not to money but to moral advantages, i"l?P9 properly means office, magistracy, government, here put for those who exercise it, like nobility, ministry, and other terms in English. (Compare Ezek. ix. 1, 2 Kings, xi. 18.) Q^J, which has commonly a bad sense, is here used for magistrates or rulers in general, for the purpose of suggesting that instead of tyrants or exactors they should now be under equitable government. The two parallel expressions Hender son decides to signify the temporal and spiritual chiefs of the restored Jewish community, without assigning any ground for the alleged distinction. There is much more force in his remark that the similarity of structure be tween this verse and chap. iii. 24 corroborates the genuineness of these later prophecies. Koppe's explanation of the last clause as meaning, " I will change thy punishment into peace and thy afflictions into blessing," is justly represented by Gesenius as arbitrary.

18. There shall no more be heard violence in thy land, desolation and ruin in thy borders (or within thy bounds}; and thou shalt call salvation thy u:lh, and thy gates praise. According to Vitringa D)pn was the cry for help usually uttered in case of personal violence. (See Job. xix. 7, Jer. xx. 8). But there, is no need of departing from the strict sense of violence itself, which shall never more be heard of. He also distinguishes W and ">?'^ as relating severally to lands and houses. The most natural explanation of the last clause is that which makes it mean that the walls shall afford safety (chap. xxvi. 1), and the gates occasion of praise. Henderson's explanation, that the gates shall resound with praise does not agree well with the parallel. Some understand by praise the praise of God for her continued safety ; others the praise or fame of her defences, considered either as arising from victorious resistance to assault, or as preventing it. For npnJjl the Septnagint has yXD/A/Aa, sculpture, and for J"lXnj? the Vulgate occupaUi. Thou shalt call, as in many other cases, means, thou shalt have a right and reason so to call them, With this verse compare chap. Ixv. 19-25.'

19. No more shall be to thee the sun for a light ly day, and far brightness the moon shall not shine to thee, and Jehovah shall become thy everlasting light, and thy God thy glonj. The s before MJ is neglected by the ancient ver sions, and Hitzig in like manner makes it a sign of the nominative abso lute, as for the brightness of the moon, &c. (See above, chap, xxxii. 1, and above, p. 1). But the Masoretic accents require ^3? to be construed separately as meaning with its light (Gesenius), or for Hald (English Ver sion). Some regard this merely as a figurative promise of prosperity, of which light is a natural and common emblem. Others understand it as a promise of God's residence among his people, clothed in such transcendent brightness as to make the light of the sun and the moon useless. The true sense of the figures seems to be that all natural sources of illumination shall be swallowed up in the clear manifestation of the presence, power, and will of God. According to Henderson, this verse and the next depict the super lative degree of happiness which shall be enjoyed by the new and holy Jeru salem church, expressed in language of the most sublime imagery. Why we are thus more at liberty to treat the sun and moon of this passage as mere " imagery," while the trees of ver. 13 " must be literally explained" as meaning timber, we are not informed. — With this verse compare Rev. xxi. 23, xxii. 5. — Lowth and J. D. Michaelis needlessly insert by night, on the authority of the ancient versions, which prove nothing, however, as to a difference of text. The occasional violation of the exact parallelism is not so much a blemish as a beauty.

20. Thy sun shall set no more, and thy moon shall not be withdrawn ; for Jehovah shall be unto thee for an eternal light, and completed the days of thy mowniny. There is no need of supposing any want of consistency between this verse and that before it, nor even that the Prophet gives a new turn to his metaphor. Thy sun shall set no more, is evidently tantamount to saying, thou shalt no more have a sun that sets or a moon that withdraws herself, because, &c. The active verb *|PN is used in the same way by Joel, where he says that the stars withdraw THEIR brightness, i. e. cease to shine. The expression is generic, and may comprehend all failure or decrease of light, whether by setting, waning, or eclipse, or by the temporary intervention of a cloud. The last words of this verse are correctly said by Henderson to furnish a key to the whole description, by identifying joy with light, and grief with darkness. — Compare with this verse chap. xxv. 8, Zech. xiv. 7, Rev. vii. 16, xxi. 4 ; and for the phrase, days of mourning, Gen. xxvii. 41.

21. And thy people, all of them righteous, for ever shall inherit the earth, the branch (or shoot] of my planting, the work of my hands, to glorify myself -^or to be t/lori/ied). — Compare chaps, iv. 3, xxxiii. 24, xxxv. 8, lii. I ; Rev. xxi. 7, 27. The first clause may also be read as two distinct propositions, thy people all of them are (or shall be) righteous, for ever they shall inherit the earth. According to the literal interpretation, so called, this is a promise that the Jews shall possess the Holy Land for ever. But even granting land to be a more literal and exact translation, which it is not, still the usage of the Scriptures has attached to this prophetic formula a much higher meaning, the possession of the land being just such a type or symbol of the highest future blessings as the exodus from Egypt is of ultimate deliverance, or the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah of sudden, condign, irretrievable destruction. But in favour of the wider version, earth, is the analogy of chap. xlix. 8, where Israel is represented as occupying and re storing the desolate heritages of the whole eirth. — The Septuagint renders "^V?. by paXaffffwv, as if written 1*). For the meaning of the word, see above, chap. xi. 1, xiv. 19, vol. i. pp. 248, 300, 301. According to Hendewerk, it here denotes the population of the new Jerusalem, and is identical with the plant and root of chap. liii. 2 ; from which he gravely infers that the D^p^V of this verse and the P*?V of chap. liii. 11, must also be identical. The dependence of God's people on himself for the origin and sustentation of their spiritual life is forcibly expressed by the figure of a plant which he has planted (Ps. xcii. 14, Matt. xv. 13, John xv. 1, 2), and by that of a work which he has wrought (chap. xxix. 23, xliii. 7) : in reference to the last of which the apostle says (Eph. ii. 10), we are his icorkmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before or dained that we should walk in them ; and in reference to the first, our Lord himself (John xv. 8), herein is my Father glorified that ye bear much fruit, so shall ye be my disciples ; and again, with an entire change of figure (Matt. v. 16), let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father wliich is in heotven. The same ultimate design is set forth in the words of the verse before us. — The textual reading WOD is regarded by Gesenius and most other writers as an error of transcription for 'yOO, as given in the margin. But Rosenmiiller seems to think that the pronoun of the third person may refer to }"!)$, which is sometimes mas culine ; De Dieu refers it to the people ; and Maurer thinks it possible to connect it with Jehovah, by a sudden enallage so common in the prophets ; which last is approved by Hitzig, but avoided as too harsh in his translation. As to his notion that "!N2J"in describes God as being proud of Israel, see above, on ver. 13. — To the question whether all the restored Jews are to be righteous, Henderson says nothing; but Michaelis maintains that this expres sion does not necessarily imply regeneration or denote true piety, but simply signifies the prevalence of social virtue, such as may exist even among the heathen, much more among those who are in possession of the true religion. — According to my own view of the Prophet's meaning, he here predicts the elevation of the church to its normal or ideal state, a change of which we may already see the rudiments, however far we may be yet from its final consummation.

22. The little one shall become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation ; I, Jehovah, in its time will hasten it. The superlative sense given to the adjectives little and small by Gesenius and Ewald is a needless departure from the idiomatic form of the original. The substantive verb with / may also be rendered shall be fur, i. e. shall be so reckoned, which

896 ISAIAH LX. [Visa. 22.

amounts to the same thing. Kimchi, and Rosenmliller after him, very unnecessarily observe that small and little here relate to number, not to size. Gesenius and several of the later writers understand them as denoting one without a family, or with a small one; in which case the |2^ might be taken in its genealogical sense of household, family, or other subdivision of a tribe. (Judges vi. 15, 1 Sam. x. 12, xxiii. 23, Micah v. 1.) But this whole interpretation is less natural than that of Yitringa, who applies the epithets to Israel itself, falsely, according to Gesenius, whose ipse dixit loses much of its authority in consequence of his own frequent changes of opinion upon insufficient grounds, or none at all. The verse, on the face of it, is simply a description of increase, like that in chap. xxvi. 15, xlix. 19, 20, &c. — The pronouns in the last clause are correctly explained by Knobel as neuters, referring to the whole preceding series of prophecies. (Compare chap, xliii. 13, xlvi. 11). The his in the common version is equivalent to its in modern English, a possessive form apparently unknown to the translators of the Bible. — 7 will hasten it, has reference to the time ordained for the event, or may denote the suddenness of its occurrence, without regard to its remoteness or the length of the intervening period, which seems to be the sense conveyed by the Vulgate version, sulitofaciam. (See above, chap. xiii. 22, vol. i. p. 285. — The reference of these pro mises to the literal Jerusalem is ascribed by Jerome to the Jews and half Jews (semi-judaei) of his own day, and opposed by Vitringa on a very insufficient ground, viz., the impossibility of ascertaining the pre cise site of the ancient Jerusalem, an impossibility which may be considered as already realized. (See Robinson's Palestine, i. p. 414.) The true ground of objection is the violation of analogy involved in this interpreta tion. The idea of Eusebius and Procopius, that the prophecy is literal, but conditional, and now rescinded by the unbelief of those to whom it was addressed, opens the door "to endless licence, and makes exegesis either useless or impossible. It is a curious fact that Gregory VII. applied this passage to the Church of Rome, in the palmy state to which she was exalted by himself. The hypothesis of Grotius, that it has exclusive reference to the restoration of the Jews from Babylon, is now the current one among the Germans, who of course are unaffected by Vitringa's objection that the prophecy in this sense never was fulfilled. The real argument against it, is the absence of explicit reference to the supposed subject, and the ease with which an indefinite number of analogous restrictions or specific appli cations might be devised and carried out on grounds of equal plausibility. The only hypothesis which seems to shun the opposite extremes of vague ness and minuteness, and to take the language in its obvious sense, without forced constructions or imaginary facts, is the one proposed in the intro duction, and on which the exposition of the chapter has been founded. It is the doctrine of some early writers, that the Jerusalem or Zion of this passage is the primitive or apostolic church, to which the description is in many points inapplicable; whereas it is perfectly appropriate to the New Jerusalem, the Christian Church, not as it was, or is, or will be at any period of its history exclusively, but viewed in reference to the whole course of that history, and in contrast with the many disadvantages and hardships of the old economy.

CHAPTER LXI.

AFTER describing the new condition of the church, he again introduces the great Personage by whom the change is to be brought about. His mission and its object are described by himself in vers. 1-3. Its grand result shall be the restoration of a ruined world, ver. 4. The church, as a mediator between God and the revolted nations, shall enjoy their service and support, vers. 5, 6. The shame of God's people shall be changed to honour, ver. 7. His righteousness is pledged to this effect, ver. 8. The church, once re stricted to a single nation, shall be recognised and honoured among all, ver. 9. He triumphs in the prospect of the universal spread of truth and righteousness, vers. 10, 11.

1. The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah (is] upon me, because Jehovah hath

anointed me to briny good news to the humble, he hath se.nt me to bind up the

broken in heart, to proclaim to captives freedom, and to the bound open opening

(of the eyes or of the prison-doors). Unction in the Old Testament is not

a mere sign of consecration to office, whether that of Prophet, Priest, or

King (1 Kings xix. 16, Lev. viii. 12, 1 Kings i. 31), but the symbol of

spiritual influences, by which the recipient was both qualified and desig

nated for his work. (See 1 Sam. x. 1, 6, xvi. 13.) Hence Kimchi's defini

tion of the rite, as a sign of the divine choice (fa'^f) 0 p'73\J Dlft), although

not erroneous, is inadequate. The office here described approaches nearest

to the prophetic. The specific functions mentioned have all occurred and

been explained before. (See above, on chaps, xlii. 1-7, xlviii. 16, xlix. 1-9,

1. 4, li. 16.) The proclamation of liberty has reference to the year of jubilee

under the Mosaic law (Lev. xxv. 30-13, xxvii. 24, Jer. xxxiv. 8-10), which

is expressly called the year of liberty or liberation by Ezekiel (xlvi. 17). —

nip'np_3 is explained by Kimchi and Jarchi to mean opening of the prison,

obtains the same sense by appealing to the Ethiopic usage. Gesenius and

the other modern writers are disposed to follow Aben Ezra in treating it as

one word (niprip?), not a compound but an intensive or reduplicated form,

intended to express the idea of complete or thorough opening. (See above,

chap. ii. 20, and vol. i. p. 106.) This Gesenius understands to mean the

opening of the prison, but in opposition to the settled usage which restricts

Hp.B and its derivatives to the opening of the eyes and ears, and which can

not be set aside by alleging that the corresponding verb in Arabic is used

more widely. Ewald adheres to the only authorised sense, but explains it

as a figurative description of deliverance from prison, which may be poeti

cally represented as a state of darkness, and deliverance from it as a resto

ration of the sight. But for reasons which have been already given, the

only natural sense which can be put upon the words is that of spiritual

blindness and illumination. (See above, on chap. xlii. 7, 1. 10.) "With

this question is connected another as to the person here introduced as

speaking. According to Gesenius, this is the last of the Prophet's selfdefences (Selbstapologie) ; and he even goes so far as to assert that all in

terpreters are forced (nothgedrungcn) to regard Isaiah as himself the speaker.

Umbreit supposes him to be the speaker, but only as the type and repre

sentative of a greater Prophet. Vitringa and other orthodox interpreters

regard the question as decided by our Lord himself in the synagogue at

Xa/areth, when, after reading this verse and a portion of the next from the

ture fulfilled in your ears (Luke iv. 1 6-22). The brevity of this dis course, compared with the statement which immediately follows, that the people bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, and connected with the singular expression that he bet/an thus to say unto them, makes it probable that we have only the beginning or a summary of what the Saviour said on that occasion. That the whole is not recorded may, however, be regarded as a proof that his discourse con tained no interpretation of the place before us which may not be gathered from the few words left on record, or from the text and context of the prophecy itself. Now it must be admitted that the words of Christ just quoted do not necessarily import that he is the direct and only subject of the prophecy; for even if the subjectwere Isaiah, or the Prophets as a class, or Israel, yet if at the same time the effects foretold were coming then to pass, our Lord might say, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Upon this ground J. D. Michaelis adopts the application to Isaiah, without disowning the authority of Christ as an interpreter of prophec}r. But this restriction of the passage is at variance with what we have already seen to be the true sense of the parallel places (chap. xlii. 1-7, and chap. xlix. 1-9), where the form of expression is the same, and where all agree that the same speaker is brought forward. It' it has been concluded on sufficient grounds that the ideal person there presented is the Messiah, the same conclusion cannot, without arbitrary violence, be avoided here, and thus the prophecy itself interprets our Lord's words, instead of being interpreted by them. This in the present case is more satisfactory, because it cuts off all objec tion drawn from the indefinite character of his expressions. At the same time, and by parity of reasoning, a subordinate and secondary reference to Israel as a representative of the Messiah, and to the Prophets as in some sense the representatives of Israel, as well as of Messiah in their prophetic character, must be admitted; and thus we are brought again to Christ as the last and the ideal Prophet, and to the ground assumed by the profound and far-seeing Calvin, for which he has been severely censured even by Calvinistic writers, and which Vitringa, while professing to defend him, calls a concession to the Jews (hie aliquid indulgendum censuit Jtidceis), instead of a concession to candour, faith, good taste, and common sense. Hender son's exposition of this passage differs from that of other orthodox inter preters only in connecting the Messiah's office, here described specifically, with the future restoration of the Jews. It might have been supposed that some obstruction would have been presented to a literal interpreter in this case by the very strong expression of our Lord, this day is this prophecy fulfilled in your ears. But the process of literal interpretation is in practice very simple and convenient. While the personal reference of the words to Christ, which is not affirmed by himself at all, is represented as " the highest possible authority " for so explaining them, the actual fulfil ment of the prophecy at that time, which is affirmed as strongly as it could be, goes for nothing. The two parts of this singular process cannot be presented in more striking contrast than by direct quotation. "No principle of accommodation, or of secondary application, can at all satisfy the claims of the announcement, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. It must, however, be observed, that this completion merely lay in our Lord's entering upon the public discharge of his prophetic office among the Jews. Far from being confined to the instructions of that particular day, it was to be exercised in perpetuit}', during the continuance of the church upon

earth, AND PRE-EMINENTLY AS IT RESPECTS THE JEWS, at the future

here referred to." This principle of gradual or continued fulfilment, not at a single point of time, but through a course of ages, is not only sound and often absolutely necessary to a correct interpretation of the prophets, but the very principle which in a hundred other instances is sacrificed with out a scruple to the chimera of a purely " literal " interpretation. Another remarkable comment of the same able writer upon this verse is as follows: " The terms captives and prisoners are to be taken metaphorically, and have no reference to external restraint." It is only Jerusalem and Zion, and the temple and the trees required in building it, " that must be literally explained." See above, on chap. Ix. 18.

2. To proclaim a year of favour fur Jehovah, and a day of renyenncc for our God, to comfort all mourners. Gesenius and Rosenmiiller explain ? as the idiomatic sign of the genitive when separated from its governing noun, " Jehovah's year of grace, God's day of vengeance." It is equally agree able to usage, and more natural in this case, to give the particle its wider sense as denoting relation in general, a year of favour as to or concerning God, which may here be expressed by the English for. Vitringu quotes Clement of Alexandria as inferring from the use of the word year in this verse that our Lord's public ministry was only one year in duration, a conclusion paradoxically maintained by Gerard John Vossius, but wholly irreconcileable with the gospel history. The expression is correctly explained by Vitringa as a poetical equivalent to day suggested by the previous allusion to the year of jubilee ; and Hit/ig adds that there is probably a reference to God's vengeance as a transitory act, and to his mercy as a lasting one. The same two words occur as parallels in chaps, xxxiv. 8,

' bail. 4 ; while in chap. xlix. 8, we have the general expression time of favour. For the meaning of the last words of the verse, see above, on chaps, xlix. 13, and Ivii. 18. They may either be descriptive of sufferers, as the persons needing consolation, or of penitents, as those who shall alono receive it.

3. To put upon Zion's mourners — to (jive them a crown instead of ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, a garment of praise for a faint spirit ; and it shall lie called to them (or they shall be called) the oaks of righteousness, the planting of Jehovah (i. e. planted by Jehovah) to glorify himself. The construction seems to be interrupted and resumed, a practice not (infrequent with Isaiah. There is no need, therefore, of supplying joy after the first verb, as Houbigant and Lowth do. Of the many senses which might here be attached to the verb D-IE?, the most appropriate is that of putting on, as applied to dress, though with another particle, in Gen. xxxvii. 34, xli. 42, and often elsewhere. The English Version has appoint, and Geseuius give ; both of which are justified by usage, but less suitable in this case than the one above proposed. By the repetition of the word mourners, this verse is wrought into the foregoing context in a mode of which we have had several examples. (See above, on chap. Ix. 15.) Zions mourners may be simply those \\ho mourn in Zion, or those who mourn for her (chap. Ixvi. 10), but as these ideas are not incompatible, both may be included. (Compare chaps. Ivii. 18, Ix. 20.) Gesenius speaks of the paronomasia between IX? and "i?&? as something entirely distinct from the antithesis in sense between an ornamental head-dress and the ashes strewn upon the head by mourners. But this relation of ideas may be looked upon as really essential to a true paronomasia. Augusti's ridiculous travesty of this phrase (Puts fur Schmutz) has been actually revived by De Wette. Ewald, with purer taste, neglects the verbal assonance, and reproduces

Jerome's fine translation (coronam pro cinere). That ointment was not used by mourners but rejoicers, may be learned from a comparison of 2 Sam. xiv. 2, with Ps. xxiii. 5. Hitzig derives nTHI;! from the Kal of /vH, and explains it to mean brightness as the parallel term!"in3 is applied to a pale colour (Lev. xiii. 21); but a sufficient contrast is afforded by the usual sense praise, the whole phrase meaning garments which excite admiration. For the meaning and translation of Dx*8, see vol. i. p. 94. By oaks of righteousness, Gesenius understands such as enjoy the divine favour or blessing; Lowth, such as prove by their flourishing condiiion that they were planted by him; Henderson, such as bear the fruit of righteousness; Luzzatto, terebinths of long duration, as in chap. i. 26 ; instead of city of righteousness and faithful city, he reads city of perma nence, enduring city. The mixture not only of metaphors but also of literal and figurative language in this verse shews clearly that it has respect to spiritual not external changes. (Compare chap. xliv. 4, lx. 21.)

4. And they shall build up the ruins of antiquity, the desolations of the ancients they shall raise, and shall renew the cities of ruin (i. e. ruined cities), the desolations of age and aye. Both the thought and language of this verse have been explained already. See above, on chaps, xlix. 8, liv. 3, Iviii. 12.) Lowth, not contented with the difficulty of explaining "P in chap. Iviii. 12, would insert it here, on the authority of four manu scripts, and David Kimchi ; but Kocher understands the latter as distinctly pointing out the difference between the places. — The older writers take D*3B>&O as an adjective agreeing with J"riD$?, but this is feminine ; Gesenius and Ewald, as an absolute adjective or noun corresponding to majores,, ancestors or ancients ; Umbreit, as a noun meaning ancient times. — Hendewerk agrees with Gesenius, but applies the term specifically to the Jews who were alive at the destruction of the temple. The verb renew is applied as in 2 Chron. xv. 8, xxiv. 4. — According to Henderson, this verse and the next "admit of no consistent interpretation, except on the principle that the Jews are to be restored to the land of their fathers. The ruins and desolations are those of cities that had once been inhabited, and cannot, without the utmost violence, be applied to the heathen world." But why may they not be explained as " imagery," like chap. lx. 19, 20, or be " taken metaphorically," and without reference to external desolation, like the captives and prisoners of ver. 1 ? If this be what is meant by " con sistent interpretation," it is very dearly purchased by assuming as a "principle" a fact not mentioned in the text or context, and supposing this to be literally alluded to wherever the hypothesis is possible, while all the accompanying circumstances are explained away as figures.

5. Then shall stand strangers and feed your flocks, and the children of outland (shall be) your ploughmen and your vinedressers. For the sense of "I33'\33, see above, on chap. lx. 10. Kimchi explains stand to mean, they shall rise and come for the purpose. Some suppose it to be an idiomatic pleonasm, others a periphrasis for service ; but the first is a mere evasion, and the second sense belongs to the verb only when standing in the presence of another is expressed or implied. (Deut. i. 38, 1 Kings i. 28, Jer. Hi. 12.) The conjunction of these verbs here and in Micah v. 3, may justify the supposition that the primary reference in either case is to a practice of the oriental shepherds. As to the meaning of the prophecy, interpreters are much divided. • Some seem to take it in the strictest sense as a promise that the heathen should be slaves to the Jews. (See above, chap. xiv. 2, vol. i. p. 287.) Gesenius understands it as meaning that

the Jews should confine themselves to spiritual services, and leave mere secular pursuits to the Gentiles. Nearly allied to this is Hitzig's explana tion that the Jews and Gentiles are described as sustaining the relation of priests and laymen to each other. Ewald qualifies it still more by describ ing the relation to be that of the Levites to the other tribes, and even this restricted by the promise in chap. Ixvi. 21. But that verse shews con clusively that no exclusive promise of Levitical or sacerdotal rank to the Jews, as distinguished from the Gentiles can be here intended. This is confirmed by the language of Peter, who applies the promise of the next verse to the Christian Church (1 Peter ii. 5). The only way in which all these seeming discrepancies can be reconciled, is by supposing, as we have done hitherto, that even in Exod. xix. 6, the promise is addressed to Israel not as a nation but a church; so that when the Jewish people ceased to bear this character, they lost all claim to the fulfilment of the promise, •which is still in force, and still endures to the benefit of those to whom it was originally given, namely, the Israel of God, that is to say, his church or chosen people. This view of the matter sets aside not only the inter pretations which have been already mentioned as confining the promise to the natural descendants of Israel, but also that of Jerome and Procopius, who, although they correctly recognise the church as the object of address, make this a threatening that the Jews shall be supplanted by the Gentiles as the pastors or ministers of the flock of God. That the holders of this office, might, in strict accordance with the usage of Scripture and of this book, be described as shepherds, husbandmen, and vinedressers, may be seen by a comparison of chaps, iii. 14, v. 1, xi. 6, xxvii. 2, xxx. 23, 24, il. 11, with Acts xx. 28, 1 Cor. iii. 9, ix. 7; and with the imagery of our Saviour's parables. It does not follow necessarily, however, that the office here assigned to strangers and foreigners is that of spiritual guides, much less that they are doomed to a degrading servitude. The simplest explana tion of the verse is that which understands it as descriptive not of subjuga tion but of intimate conjunction, as if he had said, those who are now strangers and foreigners shall yet be sharers in your daily occupations, and entrusted with your dearest interests. By strangers we are then to under stand not Gentiles as opposed to Jews, but all who have been aliens from the covenant of mercy and the church of God. — The only comment made by Hen derson on this verse is included in the observation already quoted, that these two verses (4 and 5) " admit of no consistent interpretation, except on the 'principle that the Jews are to be restored to the land of their fathers." How the author would apply this in detail to the fifth verse, we can only argue analogically from his exposition of the fourth; and as he there insists.pon a literal rebuilding of the cities once inhabited by Jews as the only use of which the prophecy admits " without the utmost violence," so ere he may be understood as tacitly believing in a future subjection of the Gentiles to the restored Jews, as their husbandmen and shepherds. If, on other hand, he understands the service here exacted to be metaphorical r spiritual, we have only to repeat what we have said before as to the orth of that " consistent interpretation " which results from the applicaion of this novel " principle."

6. And ye (or more emphatically, as for you), the priests of Jehovah shall /e fa called, the ministers of our God shall be said to you (or of you), the \renrjth of nations shall ye eat, and in their glory shall ye substitute your- ~*ves (or into their glory shall ye enter by exchange). Most of the earlier

writers, down (o Gesenius in his Commentary, agree substantially with Jerome in his version of the last word (superlietis) ; which they regard as a cognate form or an orthographical variation of -"nipNp? in Ps. xciv. 4, where it seems to denote talking of one's self, and, by a natural transition, glory ing or boasting. Albert Schultens tried to found upon an Arabic analogy the sense of " providing for one's self," and Scheid that of " floating or swimming in abundance." But all the latest writers, not excepting Gesenius in his Thesaurus, have gone back to Jarchi's explanation of the word as denoting " mutual exchange or substitution." This supposes it to be derived from 1DJ, a cognate form and synonyme of "VIC, to change or ex change, occurring only in the Hiphil, Jer. ii. 11. This word is important as determining the sense not only of the whole verse, but of that before it, by requiring both to be considered as descriptive, not of exaltation and sub jection, but of mutual exchange, implying intimate association. Some, it is true, attempt to carry out the first idea even here, by making this last word denote an absolute exclusive substitution, i. e. the dispossession of the Gentiles by the Jews. But the context, etymology, and usage, all combine to recommend the idea of reciprocal exchange or mutual substitution. Interpreters, in seeking a factitious antithesis between the verses, have entirely overlooked the natural antithesis between the clauses of this one verse. They have supposed the contrast intended to be that between ser vitude and priesthood: " they shall be your servants, and ye shall be their, priests." But we have seen already that the fifth verse cannot, in consist ency with chap. Ixvi. 10, denote anything but intimate conjunction and participation. The true antithesis is: " ye shall be their priests, and they shall be your purveyors; you shall supply their spiritual wants, and they, shall supply your temporal wants." This explanation of the verse, to which we have been naturally led by philological induction and the context, coincides in a manner too remarkable to be considered accidental, with the1, words of Paul, in writing to the Romans of the contribution made by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for the poor saints at Jerusalem: It hath1 pleased them verily, and their deltors they are (i. e. they have chosen to do it, and indeed were bound to do it) ; for if the Gentiles have been made par takers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. (Rom. xv. 27.) This may seem, however, to determine the object of address to be the Jews; but no such inference can fairly be deduced from the words of the apostle, who is only making one specific application of the general truth taught by the Prophet. What was true of the Gentile converts then, in relation to the Jewish Christians as their mother- church, is no less true of the heathen now, or even of converted Jews, in reference to the Christians who impart the gospel to them. The essential idea in both places is, that the church, the chosen people, or the Israel of God, is charged with the duty of communicating spiritual things to those without, and entitled in return to an increase of outward strength from those who thus become incorporated with it. — But it is not merely in this lower sense that the people of God are in the law (Exod. xix. 20) and the gospel (1 Peter i. 3), as well as in the prophets, represented as the minis ters and priests of God. Not only as instructors and reclaimers of the unbelieving world do they enjoy this sacred dignity, but also as the only representatives of their Great High Priest, in him and through him pos sessing free access to the fountain of salvation and the throne of grace. (Heb. iv. 14-16.) In this respect, as in every other which concerns the method of salvation and access to God, there is no distinction of Jew and

Gentile, any more than of Greek and barbarian, male and female, bond and free; but all " are Christ's, and Christ is God's," and all alike are priests and ministers of God. — It only remains to add, that on the principle of limiting this prophecy to the future restoration of the Jews, it might have been sup posed that this verse would be literally understood as promising both temporal and spiritual superiority to other nations; but, according to the able representative of that opinion, who has been so often quoted, it " im plies holiness, spirituality, and devotedness to the service of God; so abundant shall be the supplies, that there shall be no absorption of time by the cares and distraction of business." This, it seems, is the literal inter pretation of the promise that the Jews shall be the priests and ministers of God, and as such shall consume the wealth of the nations and have their riches at command; for such is the meaning put upon -"n'^rifi by Hender son, who traces it to ">?N, in the sense of commanding. Why there is any less " violence" in this interpretation of the verse before us than in the refer ence of ver. 4 to the universal spread of the gospel, does not appear.

7. Instead of your shame (ye shall have) double, and (instead of their) confusion, they shall celebrate their portion ; therefore in their land shall they in /<<•/• ft double, everlasting joy shall be to them. Vitringa and Rosenuiiiller understand the therefore at the beginning of the second clause as deciding that the recompence must be described exclusively in that clause, while the first is wholly occupied with the account of their previous sufferings : " Instead of your double shame, and instead of your lamenting (or their exulting), that confusion was their portion," &c. From this and other similar unnatural constructions, Geseuius and all the later writers have gone back to the one given in the Targum and by Jarchi, which makes double refer not to shame but recompense, and gives -13T the same subject with the other verbs. It is still considered necessary, however, to assume an enallage of person, so that your shame and their portion may relate to the same subject. It is not impossible, however, that the Prophet has in view the same two classes who are distinctly mentioned in the preced ing verses; a construction which would not do away with the enallage, but go far to confirm the explanation which has been already given of those verses as descriptive of mutual participation. — There is no need of explain ing 0|??D with Gesenius as an accusative of place, or supplying in before it, the older writers ; since the verb may govern it directly, as in Ps. li. 16, lix. 17. — Lowth complains of the confusion in the Hebrew text, and applies an extraordinary remedy, by substituting the Peshito version, after first amending it. — According to Henderson, this verse means that the .onour conferred by God upon the restored Jews, and the estimation in 'hich they shall be held by believing Gentiles, will far overbalance the conpt to which they have been subject. The limitation of the passage to the "restored Jews" is as groundless and arbitrary here as elsewhere. — Double is used indefinitely to denote a large proportion. (Compare chap. xl. 2.)

8. For I am Jehovah, loving justice, hating (that which is) taken away njustty, and I will give their hire truly, and an everlasting covenant I trike'for them. The Vulgate and the rabbins give HTiy its usual sense of burnt-offering, and explain the clause to mean that God hates unjust iolence, especially (or even) in religious offerings. The modern writers ;enerally follow the Septuagint in making it synonymous with n?^y (which actually found in a few manuscripts), an explanation countenanced by the .doubted use of the corresponding plural and paragogic forms in that (Job v. 16, Ps. Iviii. 3, Ixiv. 7.) Jerome's objection that all

robbery is unjust, would apply to a multitude of other places where there seems to be a redundance of expression, and proceeds upon the false assumption that 7.t5 necessarily expresses the complex idea robbery, whereas it may be here used in its primary and strict sense of violent seizure or privation, the idea of injustice, which is commonly implied, being here expressed. — For the usage of nbj)1?, see above, on chap. xl. 11, and for that of nn? rns, on chaps, xxviii. 15, Iv. 8. — This verse is commonly applied to the violence practised upon Israel by the Babylonians. (Compare chap, xlii. 24.) It is rather an enunciation of the general truth, that the divine justice renders absolutely necessary the destruction of his obstinate enemies, and the deliverance of his people from oppression. (Compare 2 Thess. i. 6-8.)

9. Then shall be bioicn among the nations their seed, and their issue in the midst of the peoples. All seeing them shall acknowledge them that they are a seed Jehovah has blessed. Yitringa, Gesenius, and some later writers, give to jn'U the emphatic sense of being famous or illustrious, as in Ps. Ixxvi. 2, where the parallel expression is iOE> >n|. But in the case before i us, the parallelism, far from requiring this peculiar sense, requires the usual one of being known, as corresponding better to the phrase they shall recoijnise them. Thus understood, the first clause means that they shall be known among the nations in their true character as a seed or race highly j favoured of Jehovah. Issue means progeny or olispring, as in chap, xlviii. 19. In order to apply this to the restored Jews, we must depart from the literal and obvious import of ainonr/ and in the midst, and under stand them as denoting merely that they shall be heard of ; for how can they be said to be among and in the midst of the nations at the very time when they are gathered from them to their own land. And yet the whole connection seems to favour the first meaning, and to shew that they are here described as being scattered through the nations, and there recognised by clear distinctive marks as being God's peculiar people, just as the Jews took knowledge of Peter and John that they had been with Jesus. (Acts iv. 13.) It may be on account of this apparent inconsistency between the obvious sense of this verse and his own adopted "principle," that Hender son has no remark upon it, save that " E in D-TV3!! is pleonastic." Some of the older writers, to avoid this assumption, render '? because, " all that see them shall acknowledge them, because they are a seed which Jehovah has blessed." But, as Vitringa well observes, the verb requires a more specific statement of its object. Gesenius and the later writers liken the construction to that in Gen. i. 4, God saw the light that it was good ; not simply saw that the light was good, but saw the light itself, and in so doing saw that it was good. So here the meaning is not merely that all seeing them shall acknowledge that they are a seed, &c., but that all seeing them shall recognise them by recognising the effects and evidences of the divine blessing. — The ellipsis of the relative is the same in Hebrew and colloquial English. — The true application of the verse is to the Israel of God in its diffusion among all the nations of the earth, who shall be constrained by what they see of their spirit, character, and conduct, to acknowledge that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed. The glorious fulfilment of this promise in its original and proper sense, may be seen already in the influence exerted by the eloquent example of the missionary on the most ignorant and corrupted heathen, without waiting for the future restoration of the Jews to the land of their fathers.

10. (I will} joy, I iv ill joy in Jehorah, let my sotd exult in my God; for

he hath clothed me with garments of salvation, a mantle of righteousness has he put on me, as the bridegroom adjusts his priestly crown, and as the bride arrays her jewels. Vitringa here leads his chorus off the stage, where he has kept it since the beginning of ver. 4, and lets the Church come on, but whether as a male or female he considers a doubtful and perplexing question. To a reader unencumbered with this clumsy theatrical machinery, it must be evident that these are the words of the same speaker who appears at the beginning of this chapter and the next. J. D. Michaelis supposes an allusion to the oriental practice of bestowing the caftan or honorary dress upon distinguished culprits who have been acquitted. Luzzatto, in order to avoid the assumption of a root ^V' in this one case, reads ^PjJ! from npy; but this, besides being arbitrary, throws the syntax of the tenses into a con fusion which, although it may be elsewhere unavoidable, is not to be assumed in any case without necessity.— '"ny is to put on or wear, but always used in reference to ornaments. D v? may signify not merely gems, but orna mental dress in general. (See Deut. xxii. 5.) — Gesenius in his Commen tary gives |H? the general sense of beautifying or adorning; but in his Thesaurus he agrees with the modern writers in acknowledging the deriva tion from in'3 a priest, for which no satisfactory etymology has yet been proposed. " As the bridegroom priests his turban." So Aquila ug vjfj,- piov isgariviiftivov ffrtpdvy. The reference is no doubt to the sacerdotal mitre, which was probably regarded as a model of ornamental head-dress, and to which IN? is explicitly applied (Exod. xxxix. 28, Ezek. xliv. 18). Salvation and righteousness are here combined, as often elsewhere, to denote the cause and the effect, the justice of God as displayed in the sal vation of his people. (See under ver. 8.) Or righteousness may be referred to the people, as denoting the practical justification afforded by their signal deliverance from suffering.

11. .For as the earth puts forth its growth, and as the garden makes its

plants to grow, so shall the Lord Jehovah make to grow righteousness and

praise before all the nations. Compare chap. xlv. 8, and Ps. Ixxxv. 11,

12. The exact construction of the first clause may be, like the earth

(which} puts forth ; or the idiom may resemble that in vulgar English

which employs like as a conjunction no less than a preposition, like the

earth puts forth. (See above chap. viii. 23, and vol. i. p. 196.) The

studied assonance of i^PV, tf'PVn and TPV!, is retained in the latest ver

sions after the example of the Vulgate, which has germen, germi::at, and

germinabit. By praise we are to understand the manifestation of excel

lence in general, by righteousness that of moral excellence in particular.

The confusion of these terms by Vitringa and some later writers, as all

denoting salvation, is as bad in its effect as it is groundless hi its principle.

Knobel thinks it probable that the writer had by this time heard the news

of Cyrus's conquests in the west, by which his somewhat languid hopes had

been revived. But there is nothing either in the text or context to restrict

this verse to the former restoration of the Jews from the Babylonian exile,

any more than to their future restoration to the Holy Land. The glory of

the promise is its universality, in which the fulfilment will no doubt be co

extensive with the prophecy itself.

CHAPTER LXII.

THE words of the great Deliverer are continued from the foregoing chapter. He will not rest until the glorious change in the condition of his

people is accomplished, ver. 1. They shall be recognised by kings and nations as the people of Jehovah, vers. 2, 8. She who seemed to be for saken is still his spouse, vers. 4, 5. The church is required to watch and pray for the fulfilment of the promise, vers. 6, 7. God has sworn to protect her and supply her wants, vers. 8, 9. Instead of a single nation, all the nations of the earth shall flow unto her, ver. 10. The good news of sal vation shall no longer be confined, but universally diffused, ver. 11. The.glory of the church is the redemption of the world, ver. 12.

1. For Zion's sake I will not be still, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest until her righteousness go forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp (that) burneth. Hitzig argues from the absence of the copulative par ticle, that this is the beginning of a new discourse, and that if the Pro phet be the speaker here, he cannot be the speaker in the two preceding verses. Both these conclusions are unfounded ; since the particle is frequently omitted where the same subject is still treated, and in the same manner. On the other hand, the Prophet constantly assumes the person and expresses the feelings of different characters in this great drama, with out any express intimation of the change in the text itself. Kimchi fol lows the Targum in explaining this verse as the language of Jehovah, who, as J. D. Michaelis thinks, is here replying to the thanksgiving of the church in the foregoing verses. The rest and silence must be then under stood to denote inaction and indifference, as in chap. xlii. 14. In like manner Grotius makes it a specific promise of Jehovah that he will not rest until Cyrus is victorious. Cocceius supposes the Messiah to be speak ing, and assuring his people of his intercession. Henderson also, on the ground of the frequency with which the Redeemer is thus abruptly intro duced by our Prophet, supposes the Messiah to be here represented as interesting himself for the prosperity of Zion, and assuring her that through his mediatorial intercession the Jews shall be restored to their standing in the church of God. Vitringa thinks it clear from the analogy of ver. 6, that the silence here prohibited is that of Zion's watchmen or the rulers of the church, of whom he accordingly makes up a chorus in accord ance with his favourite theatrical hypothesis. A simpler and more ob vious sense is the one now commonly adopted, that the Prophet himself declares his resolution not to cease from the prediction of Zion's future glory, as Forerius supposes, but according to the general opinion, from prayer to God on her behalf. Eichhorn absurdly ascribed the passsage to a Jew in Palestine who wrote it on hearing of the edict by Cyrus for the restoration of the exiles. Perhaps the most satisfactory conclusion is, that if the Prophet here speaks of himself, he also speaks by impli cation of his associates and successors in the office, not excluding Christ as the last and greatest of the series ; so that several of the exegetical hypotheses already mentioned may in this way be combined and reconciled. If an exclusive subject must be chosen, it is no doubt the same as in the first verse of the foregoing chapter. The sense of righteousness and salva tion is the same as in chap. Ixi. 10, and elsewhere. By a singular change of the abstract to the concrete, the Vulgate has Justus ejus et salvator ejus. —The going forth here mentioned is the same as in Ps. xix. 6, 7 ; and brightness, or as Lowth translates it, strong light may specifically signify the dawn of day or the rising of the sun as in Prov. iv. 18. Lowth's version of the parallel expression (blazing torch) is stronger than the com mon version, but adheres less closely to the form of the original.

2. And nations shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory ; and

there shall be called tn f lire a new name, which the mouth of Jehorah shall utter (or pronounce distinctly). Here again the Vulgate applies the abstract terms to Christ, by rendering them justum tuum, inclytum tuum. Grotius retains this inaccurate translation, but applies the epithets to Cyrus, as the illustrious patron of the Jews, and at the same time a type of Christ. The substitution of glory for salvation does not seem to be regarded by any of the modern writers as a proof that salvation means glory, although quite as clear as that righteousness means salvation. The mention of kings is intended to imply the submission even of the highest ranks to this new power. (Compare chaps, xlix. 7, 23, lii. 15.) Vitringa's explanation of *NT as meaning to experience or to know in a spiritual sense, at once per verts the Prophet's meaning, and enfeebles his expression. The idea evidently is that they shall witness it and stand astonished. — The new name may be that which is afterwards stated in ver. 4, or the expression may be understood more generally as denoting change of condition for the better. (See above, chaps, i. 26, Ix. 14, and compare Jer. iii. 16, xxxiii. 16, Ezek. xlviii. 35, Rev. ii. 17, iii. 12.) Some one quoted by Vitringa supposes an allusion to the change in the name of the chosen people from Jew to Christian; but the former name is still applied to the spiritual Israel, in Rom. ii. 9, and Rev. ii. 9. (See below, on chap. Ixv. 15.) J. D. Michaelis supposes an allusion to the oriental practice of imposing new names upon towns which have been ruined and rebuilt. The translation of the last verb by Lowth (shall fix upon thee), and by Noyes (shall give thee), does not convey its exact sense, which, ac cording to the lexicons, is that of pronouncing or uttering distinctly, though the common version (shall name) is justified by usage. (Compare Num. i. 17, 1 Chron. xii. 81, Arnos vi. 1.) Henderson finds no difficulty in admitting that this clause is not to be understood of a mere name, but has special reference to the state and character, according to the common idiom by which anything is said to be called what it really is. Is it absolutely cer tain, then, that Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion, are in all cases strictly national and local designations, and that they never have respect to state and cha racter, rather than to natural descent or geographical position?

3. And thou shalt be a crown of beauty in Jehovah's hand, and a diadem of royalty in the palm f thy God. The only difficulty in this verse has respect to the crown's being twice emphatically placed in the hand and not upon the head. Aben Ezra refers to the practice of wearing wreaths and circlets on the arms ; but the text speaks expressly of the hand and of the palm, and both the ornaments described are such as were worn upon the head. Some of the older writers quote Suetonius's account of the athletas as wear ing the Olympic crown upon the head and carrying the Pythian in the hand ; but this, as Rosenmiiller well says, was a mere act of necessity, and what is here said has respect to royal, not athletic crowns. Ewald agrees with Brentius in supposing thiit Jehovah is here represented as holding the crown in his hand to admire it ; Cocceius and Ewald, for the purpose of exhibiting it to others ; Piscator, for the purpose of crowning himself. J. D. Michaelis takes in the hand of God to mean at his disposal, or bestowed by him. This is a good sense in itself ; but upon whom could Zion or Jerusalem be thus bestowed ? Hitzig and Henderson think it perfectly obvious that it would be incongruous to place the crown upon Jehovah's head ; and as it could not be placed upon the ground, as in chap, xxviii. 1, the only place remaining was the hand ! Gesenius understands the hand of God to mean his power or protection, which approaches nearly to Vit ringa's explanation of the phrase as meaning he shall hold it fast, or keep

it safe. (Compare Rev. iii. 11.) Maurer gives the same sense to the phrase, but connects it with the subject of the verse, and not with the figure of a crown; as if it had been said, under his protection thou shalt be a crown of beauty and a diadem of royalty. — Lawth's version of the last phrase, in the grasp of thy God, is vigorous but inexact. The true sense is the one expressed by Henderson (the palm}. The original combination of two nouns is more expressive than the adjective construction into which it is resolved by most translators. The beautiful crown of Lowth, and the magnificent crown of Noyes, are much inferior to the literal translation, crown of beauty or of glory, and not required by the parallelism, since the corresponding phrase strictly means a diadem of royalty. According to Gataker, the last word is added to distinguish the ^M here mentioned from the sacerdotal turban or mitre.

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

5. Far (as] a young man marrieth a virgin, (so] shall thy sons marry thee, and (with] the joy of a bridegroom over a bride shall thy God rejoice over thee. The particles of comparison are omitted as in Jer. xvii. 21. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the comparison is only an implied one, and that the strict translation is, "a young man marrieth a.virgin, thy sons shall marry thee," leaving the copula and so to be suggested by the context. So in the other clause there is no absolute need of assuming an ellipsis, since the Hebrew idiom admits of such expressions as joying the joy of a bridegroom, just as we may say in English a man lives the life of a saint, or dies the death of the righteous, both which combinations occur in our translation of the Bible. (Gal. ii. 20, Num. xxiii. 10.) In order to avoid the seeming incongruity of a mother's being married to her sons, Lowth reads ^.^, thy Builder or Founder ; an emendation which J. D. Michaelis rejects in his notes upon Lowth's Lectures, but adopts in his translation of Isaiah. To Gesenius's objection, that the pluralis majestaticus is construed with a verb in the singular, Henderson conclusively replies by citing Gen.

xx. 18, xxxv. 7, 2 Sam. vii. 23. The true objection to the change is that it is not necessary. The solution of the difficulty in the common text is

afforded bv the explanation already- given of the strict sense of?J?3 and the

usage of the derivative noun /y?. As 'Wn in ver. 4 really means thou

shalt be inhabited, so WV?' here conveys the same idea as well as that of marriage, and thy sons has reference, not to the latter, but the former sense. Vitringa gives substantially the same explanation, when he says that the Prophet mixes two distinct metaphors in one expression.

6, 7. On thy walls, 0 Jerusalem, 1 have set watchmen ; all the day and all the night long they shall not be silerit. Ye that remind Jehovah, let there be no rest to you, and give no rest to him, until he establish and until he place Jerusalem a praise in the earth. According to Vitringa, the prophetic chorus is here relieved by an ecclesiastical one ; and as the first words do not well suit this imaginary speaker, he removes all difficulty by sup plying thus saith Jelwvah. To the more obvious supposition that Jehovah is himself the speaker, he makes a very singular objection, viz. that the Prophet would hardly have introduced God as speaking for so short a time. According to the Targum and the Rabbins, he is here represented as appointing angels to keep watch over the ruined walls of Zion. Ewald adopts a similar interpretation, and refers to Zech. i. 12-17, upon which the Jewish exposition may be founded. Gesenius understands these as the words of the Prophet himself, and by watchmen, devout Jews among the ruins of Jerusalem, awaiting the return of the exiles, and praying to God for it. For this limitation of the passage to Jerusalem in ruins, and to the period of the exile, there is not the least foundation in the text. The promise is a general one, or rather the command, that those who are constituted guardians of the church should be importunate in prayer to God on her behalf. D*T3fl?n admits of three interpretations, all consistent with Isaiah's usage. In chap, xxxvi. 3, 22, it seems to mean an official recorder or his toriographer. In chap. Ixvi. 3, it means one burning incense as a memorial oblation. Hence '"O-PJN, tho name used in the law of Moses to denote such an offering. (See Lev. ii. 2, v. 12, xxiv. 7, Num. v. 26.) In chap, xliii. 26, the verb means to remind God of something which he seems to have forgotten ; and as this is an appropriate description of importunate inter cession, it is here entitled to the preference. Gesenius speaks of a belief in the effect of such entreaties as peculiar to the ancient orientals ; but our Lord himself expressly teaches it (Luke xviii. 1), and Tertullian finely says of it, hcec vis Deo grata est.

8. Sworn hath Jehovah by his riijht hand, and by his arm of strength, If I give (j. e. I will not give) thy corn any more as food to thine enemies, and if the sons of the outland shall drink thy new icine ichidi thou hast laboured in (I am not God). On the elliptical formula of swearing, see above, on chap. xxii. 14, and vol. i. p. 385. The declaration, though conditional in form, is in fact an absolute negation. In swearing by his hand and ami, the usual symbols of strength, he pledges his omnipotence for the fulfilment of the promise, " As sure as I am almighty, thou shalt suffer this no more." — For the true sense of 133^3, see ajbove, on chap. Ivi. 3.

9. For those gathering it shall eat it, and shall praise Jehovah, and those collecting it shall drink it in wy holy courts (or in the courts of my sanctiian/'). The *? is not directly equivalent to but, as some explain it, but retains its proper meaning, in relation to an intermediate thought not ex pressed. As if he had said, it shall not be so, or it shall be far otherwise, because those gathering, &c. Lowth has they that reap the harvest, and

they that gather the vintage, which, although correct in sense, is not a version, but a paraphrase. The indefinite it takes the place both of corn and wine, but all ambiguity is removed by the use of the verbs eat and drink. Gesenius and Rosenmiiller agree with Grotius and the other early writers in supposing an allusion to the sacrificial feasts of the Mosaic law. (See Lev. xix. 23-25, Deut. xii. 17, 18, xiv. 23.) But Hitzig and Knobel refer what is here said simply to the sacerdotal standing to be occupied by Israel in reference to the Gentiles. (See above, on chap. Ixi. 6.) To the former supposition, Knobel objects that the Levitical feasts had exclu sive reference to the tithes and first-fruits, whereas the promise here is universal. This appears to be a needless refinement, and is wholly insuffi cient to explain away the obvious allusion in the terms of the promise to the ancient institutions of the law. That these, however, are but types and emblems of abundance, and security, and liberty of worship, is acknow ledged even by that school of interpreters supposed to be most strenuous in favour of attaching to these promises their strictest sense. Thus Hen derson, instead of urging, as consistency might seem to require, that the language of this passage, like that of chap. lx., "must be literally ex plained," interprets it as meaning that "the enemies of Israel having all been swept away by the powerful judgments of God, the most perfect tranquillity shall reign throughout the land, and those who may go up to worship at Jerusalem shall enjoy, unmolested, the fruit of their labour." Here again we may perceive, although unable to reduce to rule, the exer cise of a large discretion in determining what shall and what shall not be strictly understood. The literal Jerusalem, with its temple and its courts, and literal corn and wine, appears to be intended; but for aught that ap pears, the eating and drinking in the courts of that temple is a mere figure for exemption from anno}'ance and loss, while present there for worship,

10. Pass, pass through the gates, clear the way of the people, raise high, raise high the highway, free (it] from stones, raise a banner (or a signal) over the nations. Vitringa puts these words into the mouth of his prophetic chorus ; Maurer thinks they may be uttered by the watchmen of ver. 6 ; but most interpreters appear to be contented with the obvious hypothesis, that Isaiah is here speaking in the name of God. As to the object of ad dress, Eichhorn supposes it to be the Jews still lingering among the ruins of the Holy City ; Maurer, the remaining population of that city, which he seems to think considerable ; Gesenius, the exiled Jews in Babylon and other lands ; Henderson, " the inhabitants of the cities that may lie in the way of the returning Israelites." The readiness with which these inter preters accommodate the terms of the text to their several hypotheses, may shew how little ground there is for any definite conclusion, and thus serve to recommend the hypothesis of Hitzig, that the order is supposed to be given to those whose duty it is to execute it. Another subject of dispute is the direction of the march required. According to Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Henderson, " pass through the gates" means go out of them ; according to Gesenius and others, go into them. It means neither one nor the other, but go through them, leaving the direction to be gathered from the context, which, combined with the analog}* of chap. Ivii. 14, makes it probable that what is here described is the entrance of the nations into Zion or the church, an event so frequently and fully set forth in the preceding chapters. The use of the term D^3y in the last clause is so favourable to this exposition, or at least so adverse to the supposition that the restoration of the Jews from Babylon is here intended, that Gesenius, in order to evade this difficulty, has

recourse to au expedient which he would have laughed to scorn if used in vindication of the truth of prophecy. This is the explanation of D^py as meaning tribes, or more specifically those of Israel, on the authority, as he alleges, of Deut. xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 3, 19. Nothing but extreme exegetical necessity could warrant this interpretation of the word here, if it were true that Moses so employed it. But this very fact is still more doubtful than the one which it is called in to confirm, or rather it is still more certain that D'py in Deuteronomy denotes the Gentiles than it is in this case. On the other hand, the singular form DJ? is used repeatedly in these very prophecies to signify the Gentiles or mankind at large. (See above, chaps, xlii. 5, xlix. 8.) It may therefore be alleged, in opposition to the views which have been quoted, with as much plausibility at least, that this is not a prediction of the former restoration of the Jews from Babylon, or of their future restora tion from the ends of the earth, but of the increase of the church or chosen people by the accession of the Gentiles. The gates are then the gates of the ideal Zion or Jerusalem, the passage is an inward, not an outward passage, and the exhortation of the text is one to all concerned, or all who have the opportunity to take away obstructions and facilitate their entrance. The argument in favour of the reference to Babylon, derived from the analogy of chap. Ivii. 19, lies equally against the hypothesis of Henderson, who cannot consistently repel it, as we do, by appealing to our uniform assertion that the Babylonish exile is referred to only as a signal example of deliverance. What is said in one place, therefore, with acknowledged reference to Babylon proves nothing where the same generic terms are used

without any trace of local allusion. The verb v?pD, which is ambiguous (compare chap. v. 2, and 2 Sam. xvi. 6), is here determined by the addition of the phrase \$$Q, in which the noun is used as a collective. In the last

clause, some explain?S? with the Septuagint and Vulgate as simply mean ing to, others with J. D. Michaelis/or. Knobel not only makes it perfectly synonymous with?#, but, then notes this imaginary fact as one proof of a later age. The most exact and at the same time most poetical idea is Luther's, " raise the banner high above the nations;" to which Hitzig theoretically acquiesces, but translates the preposition for, like others.

11. Behold, Jehovah has caused it to be heard to the end of the earth, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, behold, thy salvation cometh, behold, his reward is with him and his hire before him. There is some doubt as to the connection of the clauses. It may be questioned whether the verse contains the words uttered by Jehovah to the end of the earth, and if so, whether these con tinue to the end of the verse, or only to the third behold. Hitzig supposes y'P^'n to be absolutely used, and to denote that God has made a proclama tion, but without saying what ; after which the Prophet goes on to address the messengers mentioned in chap. xl. 9, and lii. 7. But as the verb yP^'1!1 seems to require an object after it, and as the words immediately succeeding are precisely such as might thus be uttered, it is certainly most natural to understand what follows as the words or substance of the procla mation. It has also been made a question whether the pronoun his refers to Jehovah or to the nearest antecedent, salvation ; and if the latter, whether that word is to be translated saviour, as it is by Lowth and in the ancient versions. This last is a question of mere form, and the other of but little exegetical importance, since the saviour or salvation meant is clearly re presented elsewhere as identical with God himself. The last clause is a repetition of chap. xl. 10, and if ever the identity of thought, expression,

and connection, served to indicate identity of subject, it is so in this case. The reader therefore may imagine the inducement which could lead even Henderson to speak of the two places as " strictly parallel in language, though the advents in the two passages are different." If this be so, then nothing can ever be inferred from similarity of language, and an unlimited discretion is allowed to the interpreter to parry all attacks upon his theory by stoutly maintaining a diversity of subject in the very places where the opposite appears to be most manifest. Another arbitrary statement rendered necessary in a dozen lines by the determination to apply the passage to the future restoration of the Jews to Palestine, is that " the daughter of Zion means here the rightful inhabitants of Jerusalem scattered over the face of the earth," a sense which even this interpreter attaches to the words in this place only, out of the many in which Isaiah uses them. But while these violent expedients are required to bring the passage even into seeming application to the future restoration of the Jews, it is, if possible, still more inapplicable to their former restoration from the Babylonish exile. In the first place, why should the ends of the earth be summoned to announce this event to Zion? Hitzig replies, as we have seen already, that the two clauses are entirely unconnected; Knobel more boldly explains end of the earth to mean " the end of the oriental world, whose west end touched the Mediterranean sea, i. e. Palestine!" Whether a theory requiring such contrivances can well be sound, is left to the decision of the reader. But another difficulty in the way of this interpretation is presented by the last clause. Even supposing that the old opinion as to this clause is the true one, and that his reward means that which he bestows, in what sense can the restoration of the Jews from Babylon be represented as the coming of salvation (or a saviour) to the daughter of Zion, bringing a reward? The daughter of Zion is throughout these prophecies the suffering person and the object of encouraging address. Even where it primarily means the city, it is only as the centre, representative, and symbol of the Church or chosen people. How then could the saviour be described as coming to his people, bringing themselves with him as a recompence for what they had endured. But if, for reasons given in expounding chap. xl. 10, we understand his reward as meaning that which he receives, what constitutes this recompense in the case supposed? The image then presented is that of Jehovah com ing back to his people, and bringing his people with him as his recompense. The incongruity of this verse with the Babylonian theory was either over looked by its ablest modern champions, or occasioned such laconic com ments as that of liosenmiiller, who contents himself with saying that the last clause has already been explained in the note upon chap. xl. 10 ; while Gesenius still more briefly says, " dieselben Worte xl. 10 ;" and Maurer, " eadem verba legimus xl. 10." This is the entire exposition of the whole verse by these three distinguished writers, while those of later date, who have been less reserved, have found themselves driven to the forced constructions which have been already mentioned. On the other hand, the plain sense of the words, the context here, and the analogy of chap. xl. 10, are all completely satisfied by the hypothesis that the Messiah (or Jehovah) is here described as coming to his people, bringing with him a vast multitude of strangers, or new converts, the reward of his own labours, and at the same time the occasion of a vast enlargement to his church. At the same time, let it be observed that this hypothesis is not one framed for the occasion, without reference; or even in opposition to the previous explanation of passages in every point resembling this, but one suggested at

the outset of the book, and found upon comparison, at every step of the interpretation, to be more satisfactory than any other.

12. And they shall call them the Holy People, the redeemed of Jelwr ah, and thou shalt be called Derushah (sought for], Ir-lo-neezabah (City not for - taken). The first verb is indefinite, they (i. e. men) shall call ; hence the parallel expression has the passive form. On the construction and the idiomatic use of call, see vol. i. p. 92. The distinction here so clearly made by the use of the second and third persons, is supposed by the modern Germans to be that between the city and her returning citizens ; but this, as we have seen repeatedly before, involves a constant vacillation between different senses of Jerusalem and Zion in the foregoing context. The only supposition which can be consistently maintained, is that it always means the city, but the city considered merely as a representative or sign of the whole system and economy of which it was the visible centre. The true distinction is between the church or chosen people as it is, and the vast accessions yet to be received from the world around it. Even the latter shall be honoured with the name of Holy People, while the church itself, becoming co-extensive with the world, shall cease to be an object of con tempt or disregard to God or man. The sense of sought for seems to be determined by the parallel description in Jer. xxx. 14, as expressing the opposite of the complaint in chap. xlix. 14. — According to Henderson, the meaning of the verse is that " the Jews shall now," i.e. after their restora tion to their own land, " be a holy people, redeemed from all iniquity, and thronging their ancient capital for religious purposes." The only prospect opened to the Gentiles in the whole prediction, thus expounded, is that of becoming ploughmen, shepherds, and purveyors to the favoured nation !

CHAPTER LXIII.

THE influx of the Gentiles into Zion having been described in the preceain" verses, the destruction of her enemies is now sublimely represented as a sanguinary triumph of Jehovah or the Messiah, vers. 1-0. The Pro phet then supposes the catastrophe already past, and takes a retrospective view of God's compassion towards his people, and of their unfaithfulness during the old economy, vers. 7-14. He then assumes the tone of earnest supplication, such as might have been offered by the believing Jews when all seemed lost in the destruction of their commonwealth and temple, vers. 15-19.

1. Who (is} thin coming from Edom, bright (as to his] garments from Bozrah, this one adorned in his apparel, lending in the abundance of his strength ? I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save. The hypothesis that this is a detached prophecy, unconnected with what goes before or follows, is now commonly abandoned as a mere evasion of the difficulty. Hitzig indeed adheres to it in order to sustain his theory as to the gradual composition of the book. The dramatic form of the description is recog nised by modern writers, without the awkward supposition of a chorus, adopted by Vitringa and Lowth. It is not necessary even to introduce the people as a party to the dialogue. The questions may be naturally put into the mouth of the Prophet himself. Interpreters are much divided as to the Edom of this passage. That it is not merely a play upon the mean ing of the name (viz. red), is clear from the mention of the chief town, Bozrah. The reference to Rome, whether the Roman Empire or the

Romish Church, is purely fanciful. J. D. Michaelis consistently applies the passage, like the foregoing context, to a future event; but Henderson unexpectedly pronounces it unjustifiable " to apply it to any future judg ments to be inflicted on the country formerly occupied by the Edomites." His own opinion is that " the object of the Prophet is to deduce an argu ment from God's dealings with his ancient people in favour of his graciously regarding them in their then distantly future dispersion." He does not explain why this is any less " unjustifiable " than the reference of the pas sage to a " distantly future " event. While J. D. Michaelis thus makes both the threatening and the promise alike future, and Henderson makes one distantly future, and the other distantly past, Knobel makes both past, and supposes Jehovah to be here described merely as coming through the land of Edom from the slaughter of the nations confederate with Croesus, who had just been overthrown by Cyrus in a battle near Sardis. With these exceptions, most interpreters, even of the modern German school, suppose Edom to be here, as in chap, xxxiv., the representative of Israel's most inveterate enemies. For this use of the name, see under xxxiv. 5. The connection with what goes before, as Rosenmiiller states it, is that the restored Jews might apprehend the enmity of certain neighbouring nations, who had rejoiced in their calamity; and that the prophecy be fore us was intended to allay this apprehension. P^H strictly means fermented, then acetous, sharp, but is here applied to vivid colour, like the Greek 6£o yj>u^a.. "Vnn properly means swollen, inflated, but is here meta phorically used in the sense of adorned, or, as Vitringa thinks, terrible, inspiring awe. For the sense of the word njJS, see above, on chap. li. 14. Vitringa understands it to mean here the restless motion of one not yet recovered from the excitement of a conflict; Gesenius, the tossing or throw ing back of the head as a gesture indicative of pride; Hitzig, the leaning of the head to one side with a similar effect. The Vulgate version (gradiens) conveys too little. Speaking in righteousness is understood by most of the modern writers in the sense of speaking about it or concerning it, in which case righteousness must have the sense of deliverance, or at least be re garded as its cause. It is much more natural, however, to explain the phrase as meaning, I that speak in truth, I who promise and am able to perform. — The terms of this description are applied in Rev. xix. 13, to the victorious Word of God, a name which has apparently some reference to IS??.

2. Why (is there) redness to thy raiment, and (why are) thy garments like (those of) one treading in a wine-press ? The adjective E'"IN is here used substantively, just as we speak of a deep red in English. Or the word here employed may be explained as the infinitive of DHX to be red. There is no need, in any case, of making the "? pleonastic or a sign of the nominative case, with Rosenmiiller and some older writers, or of reading "I^'Q'PO with Lowth. Twenty-one manuscripts and one edition gave the noun a plural form, but of course without effect upon the meaning. The allusion is of course to the natural red wine of the East, that of some vine yards on Mount Lebanon, according to J. D. Michaelis, being almost black. The J"l| is the wine-press properly so called, as distinguished from the 1\£. or reservoir. It is a slight but effective stroke in this fine picture, that the first verse seems to speak of the stranger as still at a distance, whereas in the second he has come so near as to be addressed directly.

3. The press I have trodden by myself, and of the nations there was not a man with me ; and I will tread them in my anger and trample them in my

fur if. nd their juice shall spirt upon my garment*, and all my vesture I have stained. The word here used for press is different from that in the foregoing verse, and occurs elsewhere only in Haggai ii. 16. According to its seeming derivation, it denotes the place where grapes are crushed or broken, as J"I3 does the place where they are pressed or trodden. The com parison suggested in the question (ver. 2) is here carried out in detail. Being asked why he looks like the treader of a wine-press, he replies that he has been treading one, and that alone, which Hosenmiiller understands to mean without the aid of labourers or servants. The meaning of the figure is then expressed in literal terms. " Of the nations there was not a man with me." This expression and the otherwise inexplicable alternation of the tenses make it probable that two distinct treadings are here mentioned, one in which he might have expected aid from the nations, and another in which the nations should themselves be trodden down as a punishment of this neglect. Or the future may denote merely a relative futurity, i.e. in refer ence to the act first mentioned. The more general opinion is, however, that but one act of treading is here mentioned, and that the nations are themselves represented as the grapes. In order to make this appear more natural, Jarchi and Tremellius explain with me as meaning against me, or to contend with me, which is not justified by usage. The most satisfactory solution seems to be that these words are added to convey the idea that all the nations were on the adverse side, none on that of the conqueror. The sense will then be not that they refused to join in trampling others, but simply that they were among the trampled. As if he had said, I trod the press alone, and all the nations, without exception, were trodden in it. By all the nations we are of course to understand all but God's people. The principle of this limitation is recognised by Knobel, though he makes an absurd application of it by supposing the exception to be Cyrus and the Persians, who derived no aid from other nations in the overthrow of Croesus. Henderson understands it as implying that the punishment here mentioned was inflicted upon Edom without the intervening aid of any foreign power, which he thinks was verified in their subjection by a native Jewish con queror, Hyrcauus. The meaning given to H¥3 is justified by the use of the verb in Arabic as meaning to sprinkle. TPXJX is a mixed form, considered by the modern Germans as a proof of later date; but such anomalies are usually introduced b}7 slow degrees, and may for the most part be traced back to certain singularities of diction in the older books. The treading of the wine-press alone is an expression often applied in sermons and in reli gious books and conversation to our Saviour's sufferings. This application is described as customary in his own time by Vitringa, who considers it as having led to the forced exposition of the whole passage by the Fathers and Cocceius as a description of Christ's passion. While the impossibility of such a sense in the original passage cannot be too strongly stated, there is no need of denying that the figure may be happily accommodated in the way suggested, as many expressions of the Old Testament may be applied to different objects with good effect, provided we are careful to avoid con founding such accommodations with the strict and primary import of the passage.

4. For the day of vengeance (is) in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. For the sense of day and year in this connection, see above, on chap. Ixi. 2. In my heart, i. e. my mind or purpose. Some writers need lessly and arbitrarily change my redeemed to my redemption. It is not even necessary to explain the participle in a future sense (to be redeemed), since

Jtheir redemption was. as firmly settled in the divine purpose as the day of vengeance.

5. And I look, and there is none helping ; and I stand aghast, and there is none sustaining; and my own arm saves for me, and my fury it sustains me. These expressions have already been explained in chap. lix. 16. Hitzig's idea that this is the original, and that a quotation from memory, and his inference that this is the older composition, are alike unfounded. With equal, if not greater plausibility, it might be argued from the greater regu larity and finish of the sentence here, that it is an improvement on the other. Fury here takes the place of righteousness in chap. lix. 16, not as a synonyme but as an equivalent. God's wrath is but the executioner and agent of his justice. Upon either he might therefore be described as ex clusively relying. The present form is used in the translation, on account of the uncertainty in which the use of the tenses is involved, and which may arise in part from an intentional confusion of the past and future in the mind of one who had begun a great work, and was yet to finish it.

6. And I tread the nations in my anger, and I make them drunk in my wrath, and I bring down to the earth their juice. The use of the word tread leads to the resumption of the figure of a wine-press, which is employed besides this passage in Lam. i. 15, Joel iv. 13, Rev. xiv. 19, 20. For D.13K'X I make them drunk, most of the modern writers since Cappellus read D!?2^8 I crush them ; which is not only confirmed by many manu scripts and some editions, as well as by the Targum, but is recommended by its suiting the connection better. This very circumstance, however, throws suspicion on the emendation, as a device to get rid of a difficulty. In order to connect the common reading with the context, we have only to assume a mixture of metaphors, such as we continually meet with in Isaiah. There is no need of going with Vitringa to the extravagant and revolting length of supposing that the nations are described as rolling in their own blood till it gets into their mouths and down their throats. There is simply a sudden change of figure, which is not only common, but characteristic of Isaiah, notwithstanding Gesenius's paradoxical denial.

7. The mercies of Jehovah I will cause to le remembered, the praises of Jehovah according to all that Jehorah hath done for us, and the great goodness to the home of Israel which he hath done for them, according to his compas sions and according to the multitude of Ins mercies. The sudden change of tone in this verse has of course led to many suppositions as to its connec tion with what goes before and follows. The easiest expedient is the one which Lowth adopts, by denying all immediate connection with what goes before ; but it is also the least satisfactory. Ewald begins the closing sec tion of the book here, and thinks it quite indubitable that events had made considerable progress between the dates of the sixth and seventh verses. The prevalent opinion among Christian interpreters is that we have here the beginning of a prophecy relating to the future restoration of Israel. Even "Vitringa, who shews little partiality to this hypothesis in the fore going chapters, acquiesces in it here. His arguments, however, only go to shew that this interpretation is better than the one which applies the pas sage to the Babylonish exile. Lowth simply says that it is so, without assigning any reason. On the general principle assumed throughout our exposition as to the design and subject of these prophecies, a more general application is entitled to the preference, and the passage must be under stood as relating to the favours experienced arid the sins committed by the chosen people throughout the period of the old dispensatior. There is no

need of assuming any speaker but the Prophet himself. The plural form, mercies, may be intended to denote abundance. T will cause to be remem bered, may have reference to men; in which case the phrase is equivalent to celebrate, record, or praise. But as these acknowledgments are merely preparatory to a prayer that God would renew his ancient favours to them, it is better to understand it as meaning, I will cause God himself to remem ber, or remind him, in which application the verb is often used, e.g. in the titles of Ps. xxxviii. and Ixx. (See Hengstenberg on the Psalms, vol. ii. p. 293). There is no need of giving to nttnn the factitious sense of praise worthy acts or virtues, as the Septuagint does by its uesrds. The proper sense of praises is appropriate and sufficient. For the sense of fe and ^D|, see above on chap. lix. 18. We have here another illustration of the ease with which the parallelism may be urged on different sides of the same question. It had been made a question whether 31U 3"l is governed by "V3TN or by 7jn. The former is maintained by Maurer, the latter by Hitzig, on pre cisely the same ground: ita postulate parallelismo, says the one; diem rerlant/t der Parallelism us, says the other.

8. And he said, Only they are my people, (my} children shall not lie (or deceive}, ami he became a saviour for them. To the general acknowledg ment of God's goodness to his people, there is now added a specification of his favours, beginning with the great distinguishing favour by which they became what they were. This verse is commonly explained as an expres sion of unfounded confidence and hope on God's part, surely they are my people, children that will not lie. This must then be accounted for as anthropopathy; but although the occurrence of this figure in the Scriptures is indisputable, it is comparatively rare, and not to be assumed without necessity. Besides, the explanation just referred to rests almost entirely on the sense attached to ^N as a mere particle of asseveration. Now, in every other case where Isaiah uses it, the restrictive sense of only is not admissible merely, but necessary to the full force of the sentence. It is surely not the true mode of interpretation, to assume a doubtful definition for the sake of obtaining an unsatisfactory and offensive sense. Another advantage of the strict translation is, that it makes the Prophet go back to the beginning of their course, and instead of setting out from the hopes which God expressed after the choice of Israel, record the choice itself. Thus understood, the first clause is a solemn declaration of his having chosen Israel, to the exclusion of all other nations. Only they (and no others) are my people. The objection which may seem to arise from the collocation of Jk with nan rather than nsy, applies only to the occidental idiom ; since in Hebrew a qualifying particle is often attached to the first word of the clause, even when it is more closely related to some other. But even if the force of this objection were allowed, it could not prove that ^N must here be taken in a sense which does not properly belong to it, but only that it must be made to qualify By. The sense will then be, they are only my people, i.e. nothing else \ which, although less satisfactory 'than the other sense, is still far better than the one which makes Jehovah here express a groundless expectation.— The second clause may possibly mean (tuir] sns shall not deal falsely, i.e. degenerate from their father's faith. In either case, the future is the future of command, as in the decalogue, not that of mere prediction. Gesenius explains npB as an elliptical ex pression, to be supplied by the analogy of Ps. xliv. 18, and Ixxxix. 34 ; but it is simpler to understand it absolutely, as in 1 Sam. xv. 29.— The

English Version, so he teas their saviour, is a needless departure from the simplicity of the original, and aggravates the misinterpretation of the first clause, by suggesting that he was their saviour because he believed they would be faithful. The verse in Hebrew simply states two facts, without intimating any causal relation between them. He chose them and he saved them.

9. In all their enmity he was not an enemy, and the angel of his face (or presence] saved them, in his love and \n his sparing mercy he redeemed them, and he took them up and carried them all the days of old. The first clause is famous as the subject of discordant and even contradictory interpreta tions. These have been multiplied by the existence of a doubt as to the text.

The Masora notes this as one of fifteen places in which &O, not, is written by

mistake for 1?, to him or it. Another instance of the same alleged error in the text of Isaiah occurs in chap. ix. 2. (See vol. i. p. 199.) Kabbi Jonah, according to Solomon Ben Melek, understands the amended text to mean that in all their distress they still had a rock or refuge, making IV synonymous with "VIV, which is wholly unsustained by usage. A far better sense is that of Aben Ezra, that in all their distress there was distress to him, or as the English Version renders it, " in all their affliction he was afflicted." This explanation, with the text on which it is founded, and which is exhibited by a number of manuscripts and editions, is approved by Luther, Vitringa, Clericus, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Hendewerk, and Knobel. It is favoured, not only by the strong and affecting sense which it yields, but by the analogy of Judges x. 16, xi. 7, in one of which places the same phrase is used to denote human suffering, and in the other God is repre sented as sj'mpathising with it. The objections to it are, that it gratuitously renders necessary another anthropopathic explanation; that the natural

collocation of the words, if this were the meaning, would be i? "IV, as in 2 Sam. i. 26; that the negative is expressed by all the ancient versions; and that the critical presumption is in favour of the Kethib, or textual read ing, as the more ancient, which the Masorites merely corrected in the margin, without venturing to change it, and which ought not to be now abandoned, if a coherent sense can be put upon it, as it can in this case. Jerome, in his version, makes the clause assert the very opposite of that sense which is usually put upon the marginal reading or Keri, in omni tribulations eorum non est tribulatiu. The Septuagint makes it contradict the next clause, as it is usually understood, by rendering it ou xs'sajSv: ov ayyjAoj dXX' alrog sauaev alrou:. This is followed b}r Lowth even so far as to connect the first words of the clause with the preceding verse: and he became their saviour in all their distress. It was not an envoy nor an angel of his presence that saved them, &c. Not to mention other difficulties in the way of this interpretation, its making ">¥ synonymous with "I'V is wholly arbitrary. Another forced construction, given by Cocceius, and approved by Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and almost by Gescnius, explains there was not an adversary, and he saved them, to mean, there scarcely was or no sooner was there an adversary, when or than he saved them. The only example of this harsh and obscure syntax which is cited, namely, 2 Kings xx. 4, is nothing to the purpose, because there it is expressly said, and no doubt meant, that Isaiah had not gone out into the court; whereas here it cannot possibly be meant that Israel had no adversaries. A much more natural construction is the one proposed by Jerome in his commentary, " in all their affliction he did not afflict (them) ;" which, however, is scarcely reconcileable with

history. This difficulty is avoided by Henderson's modification of the same construction, in all their afflict ion he was not an adversary, i. e. although he afflicted them, he did not hate them. This agrees well with what im mediately follows, hut is still liable to the objection that it takes "IV and '~ny in entirely different senses, which can only be admissible in case of necessity. Others accordingly regard them as synonymous expressions, and in order to remove the appearance of a contradiction, supply some qualification of the second word. Thus Jarchi understands the clause to mean that in all their affliction there was no such affliction as their sins had merited. Aurivillius supposes the masculine form to express the same thing with the feminine essentially, but in a higher degree, " in all their affliction there was no extreme or fatal affliction." Gesenius rejects this explanation of the forms as too artificial, but adopts a similar interpretation of the clause, which he explains to mean that in all their distress there was no real or serious distress, none that deserved the name; which could hardly be alleged with truth. It is also hard to account in this case for the use of the different forms IV and HIV to express the same idea, after rejecting Aurivillius's solution. This circumstance appears to point to an interpretation which shall give the words the same sense, yet so far modified as to explain the difference of form. Such an interpretation is the one suggested by De Wette's version of the clause, which takes "IV and!"HV as correlative derivatives from one sense of the same root, but distinguished from each other as an abstract and a concrete, enemy and enmity. A real difficulty in the way of this interpretation, is the want of any usage to sustain the latter definition, which, however, is so easily deducible from the primary meaning, and so clearly indicated by the parallel expression, that it may perhaps be properly assumed in a case where the only choice is one of difficulties. Thus understood, the clause simply throws the blame of all their conflicts with Jehovah on them selves: in all their enmity (to him) li" was not an enemy (to them). The proof of this assertion is that he saved them, not from Egypt merely, but from all their early troubles, with particular reference perhaps to the period of the Judges, in the history of which this verb very frequently occurs. (See Judges ii. 1C, 18, iii. 15, vi. 1-i, &e.) This salvation is ascribed, however, not directly to Jehovah, but to the angel of his face or presence. Kimchi explains this to mean the agency of second causes, which he says are called in Scripture angels or messengers of God. Abarbenel gives it a personal sense, but applies it to the angels collectively. Jarchi makes it not only a personal but an individual description, and explains it to mean Michael, as the tutelary angel of Israel (Dan. xii. 1). Aben Ezra, with sagacity and judgment superior to all his brethren, understands it of the angel whom Jehovah promised to send with Israel (Exod. xxiii. 20-23), and whom he did s^nd (Exod. xiv. 19, Num. xx. 16), and who is iden tified with the presence of Jehovah (Exod. xxxiii. 14, 15) and with Jehovah himself (Exod. xxxiii. 12). The combination of these passages determines the sense of the angel of his presence, as denoting the angel whose presence was the presence of Jehovah, or in whom Jehovah was personally present, and precludes the explanation given by Clericus and many later writers, who suppose it to mean merely an angel who habitually stands in the presence of Jehovah (1 Kings xxii. 19), just as human courtiers or officers of state are said to see the king's face (Jer. Iii. 25.) Even Hitzig admits the identity of the angel of Jehovah's presence with Jehovah himself, but explains it away by making angel an abstract term,

not denoting in any case a person, but!he manifestation of Jehovah's pre sence at a certain time and place. Heudewerk, on the other hand, alleges that the angel is always represented as a personality distinct from Jehovah himself. By blending these concessions from two writers of the same great school, we obtain a striking testimony, if not to the absolute truth, to the scriptural correctness of the old Christian doctrine, as expounded with consummate force and clearness by Vitringa in his comment on this pas sage, viz. the doctrine that the Angel of God's presence, who is mentioned in the passages already cited, and from time to time in other books of the Old Testament (Gen. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 11, xiviii. 16, Exod. iii. 2, Joshua v. 14, Judges xiii. 6, Hosea xii. 5, Zech. iii. 1, Mai. iii. 1, Ps. xxxiv. 8), was that divine person who is represented in the New as the brightness oi' the Father's glory, and the express image of his person (Heb. i. 3), the image of God (2 Cor. iv. 4, Col. i. 15), in whose face the glory of God shines (2 Cor. iv. G), and in whom dvvelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. ii. 9). Lowth's unfortunate adoption of the Septuagiut ver sion or perversion of the text, led him to argue ingeniously, but most unfairly, that although the Angel of Jehovah's presence is sometimes identified with Jehovah himself, yet in other places he is explicitly distin guished from him, and must therefore be considered as a civaturo; so that in the case before us, which is one of those last mentioned, the honour of Israel's deliverance is denied to this angel and exclusively ascribed to God himself. All this not only rests upon a fanciful and false translation, but is contradicted by the unanimous consent of Jews and infidels as well as Christians, that the salvation of God's people is directly ascribed to the Angel of Jehovah's presence. — Titringa insists, perhaps, with too much pertinacity, upon applying what immediately follows to the Angel and not to Jehovah: first, because the question is in fact a doubtful one, and both constructions are grammatical; and secondly, because it is a question of no moment, after the essential identity of the Angel and Jehovah has been ascertained from other quarters. — The Hebrew ^PPH, from?£>£, to spare, has no exact equivalent in English, and can only be expressed by a peri phrasis. The same affections towards Israel are described to Jehovah in the Pentateuch. (Deut. xxiii. 9-11, Ps. Ixxvii. 15.) — For the true sense of what follows, as to taking up and carrying Ihem, see above, on chap, xlvi. 3. — EpW, which Yitringa regards as identical with the Latin olim, is like it applied as well to the past as to the future. It originally signifies unknown or indefinite duration, and in such a case as this, remote anti quity; the whole phrase being used precisely in the same sense as by Amos (ix. 11) aud Micah (vii. 14). — The verb redeem is not only one of frequent occurrence in these prophecies (chap, xliii. 1, xliv. 22, 23, xiviii. 20, xlix. 7, &c.), but is expressly applied elsewhere to the redemption of Israel from Egypt (Exod. vi. 5, Ps. Ixxiv. 2, Ixxvii. 1G), and is therefore applicable to all other analogous deliverances.

10. And they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit (or Spirit of holiness}, and he was turned from them inio an enemy, J/e himself fought against them. The pronoun at the beginning is emphatic : they on their part, as opposi d to God's forbearance and long-Buffering. There seems to be an allusion in this clause to the injunction given to the people at the exodus, in reference to the Angel who wns to conduct them : "'Beware of him find obey his voice, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him " (Exod. xxiii. 21). From this analogy Vitringa argues that the verse before us has specific reference to the disobedience or resistance

offered by the people to the Angel of God's presence. As the next clause may have reference to Jehovah, it cannot be demonstrated from it that the spirit here mentioned is a personal spirit, and not a mere disposition or affection. But the former supposition, which is equally consistent with the language here used, in itself considered, becomes far more probable when taken in connection with the preceding verse, where a personal angel is joined with Jehovah precisely as the Spirit is joined with him here. Assuming that the following words relate to this Spirit, he is then described as endued with personal susceptibilities and performing personal acts, and we have in these two verses a distinct enumeration of the three divine persons. That the Spirit of this verse, like the Angel of the ninth, is represented as divine, is evident not only from a comparison of Ps. Ixxviii. 17, 40, where the same thing is said of God himself, but also from the fact that those interpreters who will not recognise a personal spirit in this passage, unanimously understand the spirit either as denoting an attribute of God or God himself. Henderson thinks it necessary to explain away a seeming contradiction between this verse and the first clause of ver. 9, by making ">V a stronger expression than ^.1K. The true solution is, that the passage is in some sort historical, and shews the progress of the alienation between God and Israel. Having shewn in the preceding verse that it began upon the part of Israel, and was long resisted and deferred by Jehovah, he now shews how at length his patience was exhausted, and he really became what he was not before. This is the true sense of the verb ^n.i, to which many of the moderns give a reflexive fonn, he changed him self. The disputes aaiong interpreters whether this verse has reference to the conduct of the people in the wilderness, or under the judges, or before the Babylonish exile, or before the final destruction of Jerusalem, are only useful as a demonstration that the passage is a general description, which was often verified. — From this verse Paul has borrowed a remarkable expression in Eph. iv. 30. (Compare Mat. xii. 31, Acts vii. 51, Heb. x. 29.) 11. And he remembered the days of old, Moses (and] his people. Where is he that brought them up from the sea, the dwpherd of his flock? Where is he that put within him his Holy Spirit? Grotins and others make Jehovah the subject of the first verb, and suppose him to be here described as relenting. This construction has the advantage of avoiding an abrupt change of person without any intimation in the text. But as the following can be naturally understood only as the language of the people, especially when compared with Jer. ii. 6, most writers are agreed in referring this clause to the people also. Cyril and Jerome, it is true, combine both sup positions, by referring he remembered to Jehovah, and explaining what fol lows as the language of the people. But a transition so abrupt is not to be assumed without necessity. The Targum gives a singular turn to the sentence by supplying lest they say before the second clause, which then becomes the language of the enemies of Israel, exulting in the failure of Jehovah's promises. This explanation may appear to derive some support from the analogy of Deut. xxxii. 17, which no doubt suggested it; but a fatal objection is the one made by Yitringa, that the essential idea is one not expressed but arbitrarily supplied. Another singular interpretation is the one contained in the Dutch Bible, which makes God the subject of the first verb, but includes it in the language of the people, complaining that he dealt with them no longer as he once did: Once he remembered the days of old, &c., but now where is he, &c. But here again, the words but now, on which the whole depends, must be supplied without authority.

422 ISAIAH LXIIL [Van. 11.

The modern writers, since Vitringa, are agreed that the first clause de scribes the repentance of the people, and that the second gives their very words, contrasting their actual condition with their former privileges and enjoyments. There is still a difference of opinion, however, with respect to the grammatical construction of the first clause. Rosenmiiller and most of the later writers follow Jarchi in making 1SJ? the subject of the verb; and his people remembered the days of old, &c. As such a colloca tion falls in with the German idiom, the writers in that language have easily been led to regard it as entirely natural, though really as foreign from Hebrew as from English usage. The solitary case which Hitzig cites (Ps. xxxiv. 22) would prove nothing by itself, even if it were exactly simi lar and unambiguous, neither of which is really the case. But another difficulty still remains, viz., that of construing the words 1EJ? Hl^O, which seemed to stand detached from the remainder of the sentence. Lowth resorts to his favourite but desperate method of reading l^y his servant, on the authority of the Peshito and a few manuscripts. Gesenius, on the other hand, is half inclined to strike out H^D as a marginal gloss still wanting in the Septuagint. These emendations, even if they rested upon surer grounds, would only lessen, not remove, the difficulty as to the con struction of H^D or iE>y with what goes before. Gesenius makes days of old a complex noun governing Moses: the ancient days of Moses. This con struction, harsh and unusual as it is, has been adopted by the later German writers except Maurer, who, after denying the existence of the difficulty, brings out as if it were a new discovery, the old construction, given in the English Bible and maintained at length by Vitriuga, which makes Moses and his people correlatives, as objects of the verb remembered: He remem bered the ancient days, viz. those of Moses and his people. So Gesenius, in the notes to the second edition of his German version, calls attention to the explanation of H^O as a noun or participle meaning the deliverer of his people, as having been recently proposed by Horst, whereas it is at least as old as Aben Ezra, who recites without adopting it. — Henderson is dis posed to omit the pronoun in D?P.On, on the authority of two old manu scripts, apparently confirmed by that of two old versions, or to gain the same end by regarding the construction as an Aramaic one, in which the pronoun is prefixed in pleonastic anticipation of the noun which follows. In either case the OS will be not a preposition meaning with, but the ob jective participle, " he that brought up from the sea the shepherds of his flock." The objection to making HN a preposition is that it seems to separate the case of Moses from that of the people. The Targum seems to make it a particle of likeness or comparison, as a shepherd does his flock, which Gesenius thinks a far better sense; but Hitzig thinks it false, because shepherds do not bring their flocks up from the sea. The simplest construction is to repeat n^JJDn before HJH: Where is he that brought them up from the sea, (that brought up) the shepherd of his flock? All these constructions suppose the shepherd to be Moses; but Knobel understands it to be God himself, as in Ps. Ixxviii. 52, and repeats the verb remembered, " (the people) remembered the shepherd of his flock," which makes an equally good sense. But nearly sixty manuscripts and forty editions read ^JP in the plural, which may then be understood as including Aaron (Ps. Ixxvii. 21), and as Vitringa thinks Miriam (Micah vi. 4), or perhaps the seventy elders who are probably referred to in the last clause as under a special divine influence. .(£>ee Num. xi. 17. Compare Exod. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31.) The suffix in i^!?? refers to Djtf. The noun itself is used as

in 1 Kings xvii. 22. The clause implies, if it does not express directly, the idea of a personal spirit, as in the preceding verse.

12. Leading them by the right hand of Moses (and} his glorious arm, cleaving the waters from before them, to make for him an everlasting name ? The sentence and the interrogation are continued from the foregoing verse. The participle with the article there defines or designates the subject as the one bringing up ; the participle here without the article simply con tinues the description. Vitringa and the later writers follow Jarchi in giving a very different construction to the first clause, making his glorious arm the object of the verb. The meaning of the whole then is as follows: causing his glorious arm to march at the right hand of Moses, i. c. as Jarchi explains, causing his almighty power, of which the arm is the established symbol (chap. xl. 10, lix. 16, Ixiii. 5), to be near or present with the Pro phet when he needed its interposition. This is a good sense, but it seems more natural to give "=]yiE the same object as in the next verse, the pro noun which is there expressed being here understood. The •>, which the writers above mentioned understand as in Ps. xvi. 8, may agreeably to usage denote general relation, the specific sense of by being not expressed but suggested by the context. The right hand may be mentioned in allusion to the wielding of the rod by Moses, and the glorious arm may be either his or that of God himself, which last sense is expressed in the English version by a change of preposition (by fhe right hand of Muses with his glorious arm}. The same ambiguity exists in the last clause, where the everlasting mine may be the honour put upon Moses, or the glory which redounded to Jehovah himself, as in chap. Iv. 13. Kuobel is singular and somewhat paradoxical in understanding D\J? J?i?13 as descriptive of the smiting of the rock to supply the people's thirst, simply because the passive of the same verb is applied in chap. xxxv. 6 to the bursting forth of water in the desert ; whereas it is repeatedly employe J, both in the active and the passive form, in reference to the cleaving of the waters of the Rsd Sea (Exod. xiv. 21 ; P.s. Ixxviii. 13 ; Neh. ix. 11), and is so understood here by all other writers whom I have consulted. It also agrees better with the expression from before them, which implies the re moval of a previous obstruction.

13. Making them walk in the depths, like the horse in the desert they shall not stumble. The description of the exodus is still continued, and its perfect security illustrated by comparisons. There is no need of giving to nionjjl with the modern writers the distinct sense of waves in this and other places, as the proper meaning, depths, is more appropriate and striking in a poetical description. The desert is commonly supposed to be referred to as a vast plain free from inequalities. But J. D. Michaelis, after twice announcing that he never rode on horseback through a desert in his life, makes the point of comparison to lie in the fine gravel or coarse sand with which the desert of Arabia is covered, and which makes an admirable foot ing for horses. In the same note, and in the same spirit, he discards the word stumbling (straucheln), which he says would be employed by one who never sat upon a horse, and substitutes another (anstossen) as the technical term of the manege, although requiring explanation to the common reader. The last verb would seem most naturally to refer to the horse ; but its plural form forbids this construction, while its future form creates a difficulty in referring it to Israel. Most versions get around this difficulty by periphrasis, without stumbling, so as not to stumble, or the like. The true solution is afforded by the writer's frequent habit of assuming his position in the midst

of the events which he describes, and speaking of them as he would have spoken if he had been really so situated. The comparison in the first clause brings up to his view the people actually passing through the wilderness; and in his confident assurance of their safe and easy progress he exclaims, " they will not stumble!" The same explanation is admissible in many cases where it is customary to confound the tenses, or regard their use as perfectly capricious. As Knobel in the foregoing verse supposes an allu sion to the smiting of the rock, so here he refers the description to the passage of the Jordan, as if unwilling to acknowledge any reference to the Red Sea or the actual exodus from Egypt.

14. As the herd into the valley will go down, the Spirit of Jehovah will make him rest. So didst thou lead thy people, to make for thyself a name of glory. — HCn? is probably here used in its collective sense of cattle, rather than in that of an individual animal or beast, This version is not only more exact than the common one, but removes the ambiguity in the construction, by precluding the reference of him, in make him rest, to the preceding noun, which is natural enough in the English Version, though forbidden in Hebrew by the difference of gender. — The him really refers to Israel or people. J. D. Michaelis and Lowth follow the ancient versions, which they understand as reading fotyfi will guide him. But the idea of guidance is sufficiently implied in the common reading, which may be understood as meaning " will bring him to a place of rest," a form of ex pression often used in reference to the promised land. (Deut. xii. 9, 10, Ps. xcv. 11, &c. A similar agency is elsewhere ascribed to the Spirit of God. (Ps. cxliii. 10, Hagg. ii. 5, Neh. ix. 20.)— The use of the futures in this clause is precisely the same as in the foregoing verse. In the last clause the Prophet ceases to regard the scene as actually present, and resumes the tone of historical retrospection, at the same time summing up the whole in one comprehensive proposition, thus didst thou lead thy people. — With the last words of the verse compare chap. Ix. 21, Ixi. 3.

15. Look (down) from heaven and see from thy dwelling-place of holiness and beauty ! Wliere is thy zeal and thy might (or mighty deeds) ? The sounding of thy bowels and thy mercies towards me have ivithdraivn them selves. The foregoing description of God's ancient favours is now made the ground of an importunate appeal for new ones. The unusual word for dwelling-place is borrowed from the prayer of Solomon (1 Kings viii. 13). For a similar description of heaven, see above, chap. Ivii. 15. God is here represented as withdrawn into heaven, and no longer active upon earth. For the meaning of his zeal, see above, on chap. lix. 17. Jarchi adds ruSWin, i.e. thy former zeal. Eighteen manuscripts, two editions, and the ancient versions, read ^1^12? in the singular. The plural probably denotes mighty deeds or feats of strength, as in 1 Kings xv. 23, xvi. 27, xxii. 46. POH is not to be taken in its secondary sense of (multitude}, as it is by the Septuagint (<x\r,Qog) and the Vulgate (mvltitudo), but in its primary sense of commotion, noise. The verbal root is applied in like manner to the movements of compassion, chap. xvi. 11, Jer. xxxi. 20, xlviii. 36, in the last of which places it is connected with the verbal root of D'Dm, the parallel expression in the case before us. Although we are obliged to render one of these nouns by a literal and the other by a figurative term, both of them properly denote the viscera, on the figurative use of which to signify strong feeling, see vol. i. p. 329. — The last verb in the verse denotes a violent suppression or restraint of strong emotion (Gen. xliii. 30, xlv. 1), and is sometimes applied directly to God himself. (See above, chap.

xlii. 14, and below, chap. Ixiv. 11.) The last clause may be variously divided, without a material change of meaning. The English Version makes the last verb a distinct interrogation, are they restrained? Henderson makes the second question the larger of the two, are the sounding of thy bowels? &c. The objection to both is, that the second question is not natural, and that they arbitrarily assume an interrogative construction, without anything to indicate it, as the where cannot be repeated. Vitringa and Hitzig make the whole one question, and supply the relative before the last verb, where is Ury zeal, &c., which are restrained? But the simplest construction is that which makes the last clause a simple affirmation (Gesenius), or an impassioned exclamation (Ewald). There is something peculiarly expressive in Luther's paraphrase of this last clause, deine grosse lierzliche llarmherzigkeit halt sich hart gegcn mich.

16. For thou (art} our father ; for Abraham hath not known us, and Israel \nll not recognise us, thou Jehovah (art) our father, our redeemer, of old (or from everlasting) is thy name. The common version needlessly obscures the sense and violates the usage of the language by rendering the first *3 doubtless, and the second though. Rosenmliller gives tbe first the sense of but, simply observing that the particle is here not causal, but adver sative. This wanton variation from the ordinary sense of terms, whenever there appears to be the least obscurity in the connection, is one of the errors of the old school of interpreters, retained by Rosenmiiller, who is a kind of link between them and the moderns. The later German writers are more rigidly exact, and Maurer, in particular, observes in this case that the ^? has its proper causal sense in reference to the first clause of ver. 15. Why do we ask thee to look down from heaven and to hear our prayer ? Because thou art our father. This does not merely roean our natural creator, but our founder, our national progenitor, as in Deut. xxxii. 0. Here, however, it ap pears to be employed in an emphatic and exclusive sense, as if he had said, " Thou, and thou alone, art our father;" for he immediately adds, as if to ex plain and justify this strange assertion, " for Abraham has not known us, and Israel will not recognise or acknowledge us." The assimilation of these tenses, as if both past or future, is entirely arbitrary, and their explanation as both present a gratuitous evasion. As in many other cases, past and future are here joined to make the proposition universal. Dropping the peculiar pa rallel construction, the sense is, that neither Abraham nor Israel have known or will know anything about us, have recognised or will hereafter recog nise us as their children. The meaning, therefore, cannot be that Abra ham and Israel are ashamed of us as unworthy and degenerate descend ants, as Piscator understands it ; or that Abraham rmd Israel cannot save us by their merits, as Cocceius understands it ; or that Abraham and Israel did not deliver us from Egypt, as the Targum understands it; or that Abraham and Israel, being now dead, can do nothing for us, as Vitringa and the later writers understand it. All these interpretations, and a number of unnatural constructions and false versions, some of which have been already mentioned, owe their origin to the insuperable difficulty of applying these words, in their strict and unperverted sense, to the Jews as the natural descendants of the patriarchs in question. Henderson's mode of reconciling what is here said with his general application of the prophecies is curious enough. After justlv observing that "the hereditary descent of the Jews from Abraham, and their dependence upon his merits and those of Isaac and Jacob, form the proudest grounds of boasting among them at the present day, as they did in the time of our Lord," he adds that, "when converted,

they shall be ashamed of all such confidence, and glory in Jehovah alone." Such an effect of individual conversion and regeneration may be certainly expected; but a general restoration of the Jews as a people, not only to the favour of God but to the land of their fathers, and not only to the land of their fathers, but to pre-eminence among the nations, so that their temple shall again be universally frequented, and the whole world reduced to the alternative of perishing or serving them, is so far from naturally tending to correct the evil which has been described, that nothing but a miracle would seem sufficient to prevent its being aggravated vastly by the very means which Henderson expects to work a final cure. The true sense of the verse, as it appears to me, is that the church or chosen people, although once, for temporary reasons, coextensive and coincident with a single race, is not essentially a national organization, but a spiritual body. Its father is not Abraham or Israel, but Jehovah, who is and always has been its redeemer, who has borne that name from everlasting; or as Hitzig under stands the last clause, he is our redeemer, whose name is from everlasting. Most interpreters, however, are agreed in understanding this specific name of our redeemer to be here described as everlasting or eternal. According to the explanation which has now been given, this verse explicitly asserts what is implied and indirectly taught throughout these prophecies, in refer ence to the true design and mission of the church, and its relation to Jehovah, to the world, and to the single race with which of old it seemed to be identified. This confirmation of our previous conclusions is the more satis factory, because no use has hitherto been made of it, by anticipation, in determining the sense of many more obscure expressions, to which it may now be considered as affording a decisive key. It only remains to add, as a preventive of misapprehension, that the strong terms of this verse are of course to be comparatively understood, not as implying that the church will ever have occasion to repudiate its historical relation to the patriarchs, or cease to include among its members many of their natural descendants, but simply as denying all continued or perpetual pre-eminence to Israel as a race, and exalting the common relation of believers to their great Head as paramount to all connection with particular progenitors; — the very doctrine BO repeatedly and emphatically taught in the New Testament.

17. Why wilt tJiou make us wander, 0 Jehovah, from thy ways ; (why} wilt thou harden our heart from thy fear? Return, for the sake of thy ser vants, the tribes of thy inlieritance. The earnestness of the prayer is evinced by an increasing boldness of expostulation. Rosenmiiiler shews, by a reference to Deut. ii. 28, and 1 Sam. xiv. 36, that the Hiphil often signifies permission rather than direct causation. But although this usage is indisputable, it is here forbidden by the parallel expression, which can hardly mean to suffer to grow hard, and rendered unnecessary by the frequency and clearness with which such an agency is ascribed to God him self elsewhere. As to the sense of such expressions, see vol. i. p. 152. Equally shallow and malignant are the comments of the German writers on this subject ; as a specimen of which may be given Hitzig's statement that " Jehovah makes men sinners for the sake of punishing them after wards ; to the question why he does so, the East," by \vhk-h he means the Bible, " makes no answer. Compare Rom ix. 17-22." The future verbs arc not to be arbitrarily explained as preterites, or (with Hitzig) as imply ing that the action still continues, but as asking why he will continue so to do. The second verb occurs only here and in Job xxxix. 16, where it is applied to the ostrich's hard treatment of her young. It is obviously near

akin to ni'>j3, and Vitringa thinks the substitution of the stronger guttural has an intensive effect upon the meaning. The particle in//-om thy fear is commonly supposed to have a primitive or negative meaning, so as not to fear thee; but there is rather an allusion to the wandering just before mentioned, as if he had said, "And why wilt thou make us wander, by hardening our heart, from thy fear? " This last expression, as in many other cases, includes all the duties and affections of true piety. — For the sense of God's returning to his peeple, see above, on chap. Hi. 8. The tribes of thine inheritance is an equivalent expression to thy people; which originated in the fact that Israel, like other ancient oriental races, was divided into tribes. The argument drawn from this expression in favour of applying the whole passage to the Jews, proves too much; for the distinction into tribes is as much lost now among the Jews as among the Gentiles. The Jews, indeed, are properly but one tribe, that of Judah, in which the remnants of the others were absorbed after the exile.

18. For a little thy holy people possessed, our enemies trod doion thy sanctuary. The sense of this verse is extremely dubious. ~WVP is else where used in reference to magnitude (Gen. xix. 20), and number (2 Chron. xxiv. 24), not to time. J. D. Michaelis connects it with the foregoing verse, and reads, " the tribes of thy inheritance have become a little thing," i.e. an object of contempt. So the Vulgate, quasi nihilum. The Scptuagint also joins the first clause with ver. 17, and omits the second, "that we may inherit a little of thy holy mountain," reading "in for DV which is approved by Lowth. Cocceius takes "iyVw in the sense of almost, like EJ?P? (Gen xxvi. 10, Ps. hxiii. 2.) Lowth, Kocher, and Roscnmiiller, make it equivalent to the Latin par cum. But Vitringa and the later writers understand it as an abverb of time, cognate and equivalent to 1^?P (chap. x. 25, xxix. 17). Another question is whether thy holy people is the subject or object of the verb possessed. Thus Grotius understands the clause to mean that the enemy for a little while possessed thy holy people ; and Cocceius, that they almost possessed thy holy people ; Kocher and Rosenrnuller, it was not enough that they possessed thy holy people, they also trampled on thy sanctuary ; Lowth, it was little that they did both, if God had not besides rejected them. The subject is then to be supplied from the other clause, or brought into this, by a removal of the accent and a consequent change of interpunction. The modem writers are agreed, however, in making holy people the subject of the verb, and supplying the object from the other clause, thy sanctuary, which is understood by Hitzig as denoting the entire holy land (Zech. ii. 16), as the cities of Judah are, he thinks, called holy cities in chap. Ixiv. 9. Maurer suggests another method of providing both a sub ject and an object to the verb by omitting the makkeph and reading -lii'lV 1tf72 DV, the people possessed thy holy (thing or place). According to the usual construction of the sentence, it assigns as a reason for Jehovah's interference, the short time during which the chosen people had possessed the land of promise. But it may be objected that TJWD7 would naturally seem to qualify both clauses, which can only be prevented by supplying arbitrarily between them and then or now. This consideration may be said to favour Grotius's construction ; which is further recommended by its grammatical simplicity, in giving to both verbs one and the same subject. What is common to both explanations is the supposition that the verse describes a subjection to enemies. The question upon which they disagree is whether this subjection is itself described as temporary, or the peaceable possession which preceded it. — In no case can an argument be drawn from

it to prove that this whole passage has respect to the Jews in their present dispersion: first, because the sufferings of the church in after ages are frequently presented under figures drawn from the peculiar institutions of the old economy; and secondly, because the early history of Israel is as much the early history of the Christian Church as of the Jewish nation, so that we have as much right as the Jews to lament the profanation of the Holy Land, and more cause to pray for its recovery by Christendom, than they for its restoration to themselves. Gesenius's translation of -IDpia as meaning plundered, although copied by Umbreit, is most probably an in advertence; as no such meaning of the verb is given or referred to in any of his Hebrew lexicons. The error was observed and corrected even by De Wette and Noyes, the two most faithful followers of Gesenius in his version of Isaiah.

19. We are of old, thou hast not ruled over them, thy name has not been called upon them. Oh that thou wouldst rend the heavens (and] come down, (that] from before thee the mountains might quake (or fow down). Most of the modern writers have adopted a construction of the first clause suggested by the paraphrastic versions of the Septuagint and Vulgate. This supposes the description of the people's alienation from God to be continued : We have long been those (or like those) over whom thou didst not rule, and who were not called by thy name ; that is to say, thou hast long regarded and treated us as aliens rather than thy chosen people. The B^iyo is then referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar or by Titus, according to the general exegetical hypothesis of each inter preter. The ellipsis of the relative involved in this construction can create no difficulty, as it is one of perpetual occurrence ; but the sense which it puts upon the clause is very far from being obvious, or one which a Hebrew writer would be likely to express in this way. Another old and well-known construction of the clause is founded on the Chaldee Paraphrase, which understands this, not as a description of their misery, but an assertion of their claim to relief, in the form of a comparison between themselves and their oppressors. This is the sense given in the English Version : We are thine, thou never barest rule over them, &c. To this form of the interpreta tion it has been objected, not without reason, that it puts upon the verb we are or have been a sense not justified by usage, or in other words, that it arbitrarily supplies the essential idea upon which the whole turns, namely, thine or //i// people. But this objection may be easily removed by connect ing the verb with E?WP, ice are of old. The point of comparison is then their relative antiquity, the enemy being represented as a new race come into possession of the rights belonging to the old. There is then no need of supplying thine, the relation of the people to Jehovah being not particu larly hinted here, although suggested by the whole connection. With this modification, the construction of the Targum and the English Bible seems entitled to the preference. — Thou didst not rule over them. This has no reference, of course, to God's providential government, but only to the peculiar theocratical relation which he bears to his own people. The same idea is expressed by the following words, as to the sense of which see above, on chap, xlviii. 1. The inconvenience of strongly marked divisions in a book like this, is exemplified by the disputes among interpreters, whether the remaining words of this verse as it stands in the Masoretic text should or should not be separated from it, and connected with the following chap ter. Gesenius and the later writers choose the latter course, while Rosenmiiller stedfastly adheres to the Masoretic interpunction. The simple

truth is that there ought to be no pause at all in this place, the transition from complaint to the expression of an ardent wish heing not only inten tional, but highly effective. It is true that this clause ought not to be:ited from what follows; but it does not follow that it ought to be severed from what goes before, a gross non seqnitnr, with which the reason ing of some learned writers is too often justly chargeable. Ewald reckons the remainder of this sentence as the first verse of the sixty-fourth chapter, on the authority of the ancient versions, but obviates the inconvenience commonly attending it, by throwing the whole context, from ver. 18 to ver. 5 of the next chapter, both inclusive, into one unl-roken paragraph. Our own exposition will proceed upon the principle heretofore applied, that this is a continuous composition, that the usual divisions are mere matters of convenience or inconvenience as the case may be, and that more harm is likely to result from too much than from too little separation of the parts. The passionate apostrophe in this clause, far from being injured or obscured, is rendered more expressive by its close connection with the previous com plaints and lamentations. The idea now suggested is, that weary of cornpluiut, the people, or the Prophet speaking for them, suddenly appeals to God directly with an ardent wish that he would deal with them as in days of old. For the construction of the optative particle N-l1?, see above, on chap, xlviii. 18. The Targuui and Lu/./.atto make it negative, as if written

Nv or N1?, a variation which does not materially affect the sense, but merely changes the expression of a wish that something might be done, to a com plaint that it is not done; " thou hast not rent the heavens," &c. The remaining words are a poetical description of Jehovah's interposition or the manifestation of his presence, under figures drawn perhaps from the account of his epiphany on Sinai. Gesenius explains -17T3 to denote commotion; Ewald adheres to the old etymology and sense of melting.

CIIAPTEli LXIV.

THIS chapter, like the one before it, from which it is in fact inseparable, has respect to the critical or turning-point between the old and new dispen sations, and presents it just as it might naturally have appeared to the believing Jews, i. e. the first Christian converts, at that juncture. The strongest confidence is expressed in the divine power, founded upon former experience, vers. 1-3. The two great facts of Israel's rejection as a nation, and the continued existence of the church, ai*3 brought together in ver. 4. The unworlhiness of Israel is acknowledged still more fully, vers. 5, 0. The sovereign authority of God is humbly recognised, ver. 7. His favour is earnestly implored, ver. 8. The external prerogatives of Israel are lost, ver. 9. But will God for that cause cast off the true Israel, his own church or people? ver. 10.

1. As fire kindles brush, fire boils water — to make known thy name to thine enemies, from before thee nations shall tremble. The last clause coheres directly with the preceding verse, while the first is a parenthetical comparison ; for which cause some of the latest writers throw the last words of chap. Ixiii. into this sentence. This, for reasons which have been already given, is unnecessary ; it is sufficient to observe the connection upon which the proposed arrangement rests. As rnf? is both transitive and intran sitive, either of two constructions may be here adopted — as a fire of brush wood burns, or, as fire kindles brush — the last of which is preferred by

most interpreters, as simpler in itself, and because fire is the subject of the verb in the next clause also. The various explanations of D^P-D. by the older writers are detailed by Yitringa and Rosenmuller. The ancient ver sions and several of the rabbins derive it from DDD, to melt, but in violation of etymological analogy. The first hint of the true sense was given by Rabbi Jonah, who pronounces it to mean dry stubble (C3' Cp), and the definition has been since completed by the Arabic analogy. Schultens' construction of the next words, aqitcc cffervescunt irjne, involves a twofold irregularity, viz. in gender and in number, which is not to be assumed without necessity. The point of comparison in both these clauses is the rapidity and ease with which the effect is produced. Hitzig supposes a specific allusion in the second to the boidevcrscment or complete transposition of the particles of boiling water, as an emblem of the general confusion which the presence of Jehovah would produce; but this is more ingenious and refined than natural. The literal effect is described in the next words, to make known thy name, ?. e. to manifest thy being and thine attributes to thine enemies. In both parts of the sentence the construction passes as it were insensibly from the infinitive to the future, a transition not unfrequent in Hebrew syntax. The last future is supposed by the latest writers to be still dependent on the optative particle in chap. Ixiii. 19, " Oh that the nations at thy presence might tremble." But as the infinitive immediately precedes, and as N-1^3 is there construed with the praeter, it is better to regard WP simply as a statement of what would be the effect of God's appearance.

2. In tliy doing fearful things (which} we expect not, (oh that} thou wouldst come down, (that] the mountains from before thee might flow down. There are two very different constructions of this verse. Gesenius agrees with the English Version in making it a direct historical statement of a past event : " When thou didst terrible things which we looked not for, thou earnest down, the mountains flowed down at thy presence." This seems to be the simplest possible construction ; but it is attended by a serious gram matical difficulty, viz. the necessity of referring the future n.-jj^ to past time, without anything in the connection to faeiliate or justify the version. On the other hand, this word appears to be decisive of the future bearing of the whole verse, and in favour of the syntax adopted by Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel, which supposes the influence of the optative particle to be still continued through this verse, as well as that before it : (Oh that) in doing terrible things, such as we expect not, thou wouldst come down, &c. There is then no need of resorting to forced explanations of the sense in which the Prophet could speak as if he had been present at mount Sinai. The construction of the preterite with N-l? is the same as in chap. Ixiii. 19.

3. And from eternity they have not heard, they have not perceived ly the ear, the eye hath not seen, a God beside thee (who] loill do for (one] waiting

for him. This verse assigns a reason why such fearful things should be expected from Jehovah, namely, because he alone had proved himself able to perform them. Kimchi supplies filDIN, nations, as the subject of the plural verbs; but they are really indefinite, and mean that men in general have not heard, or, as we should say, that no one has heard, or in a passive form, it has not been heard. Do may be either taken absolutely, or as governing them, i. e. the fearful things mentioned in ver. 2. Waiting for God implies faith, hope, and patient acquiescence. (See above, on chap, xl. 31.) The construction here given is the one now commonly adopted,

and is also given in the margin of the English Bible, and by Grotius and Cocceius; while the text of that version, with Vitringa and others, makes 0'n?X a vocative, and ascribes to God not only the doing but the know ledge of the fearful things in question. This construction is preferred by Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and many others, and agrees better with Paul's quotation (2 Cor. ii. 9) of the words as descriptive of the gospel as a mvsterv or something hidden till revealed by the Spirit. (Compare Rom. xv. 20, and Mat. xiii. 17.) But in this, as in many other cases, the apostle, by deliberately varying the form of the expression, shews that it was not his purpose to interpret the original passage, but simply to make use of its terms in expressing his own thoughts on a kindred subject. Least of all can any emendation of the text be founded upon this quotation, such as the change of *3nD to *3I"IO from 3211, wnich, as Vitringa well observes, although applied to the divine love for man, is inappropriate to human love for God, not to mention the unusual construction with X

4. Thou hast met with one rejoicing and executing righteousness; in thy ways shall they remember thee ; behold, thou hast been ivroth, and we have sinned; in them is perpetuity, and we shall be saved. There is perhaps no sentence in Isaiah, or indeed in the Old Testament, which hus moro divided and perplexed interpreters, or on which the ingenuity and learning of the modern writers have thrown less light. To enumerate the various interpretations, would be endless and of no avail. Gesenius professes to recite them, but gives only a selection. A more full detail is furnished by Vitringa and Rosenmiiller, and in Poole's Synopsis. Nothing more will here be attempted than to give the reader some idea of the various senses which have been attached to the particular expressions, as a means of shewing that we have at best but a choice of difficulties, and of procuring for our own exposition a more favourable hearing than it might be thought entitled to in other circumstances. The first verb has been variously taken in the sense of meeting as an enemy and meeting as a friend, making a covenant, removing out of life, interceding, and accepting intercession. It has been construed as a simple affirmation, both in the past and present form ; as a conditional expression (si incidas) ; and as the expression of a wish (ittinam offender es). The next verb has been also treated both as a direct and as a relative expression, they will remember thee, and those who remember thee. Thy ways has been explained to mean the way of God's command ments and of his providential dispensations. In them has been referred to ways, to sins, to sufferings, to the older race of Israelites. 2^y has been treated as a noun and as an adverb ; as meaning perpetuity, eternity, a long time, and for ever. VB"3 has been changed to y^'33, and the common reading has been construed interrogatively (shall or could we be saved ? ), optatively (may we be saved), and indicatively, present, past, and future (we have been, are, or shall be saved). Of the various combinations of these elements on record, the most important in relation to the first clause are the following : Thou hast taken away those who rejoiced to do right eousness, and remembered thee in thy ways (Kirnchi). Thou didst accept the intercession of those who rejoiced, &c. (Aben Ezra). Thou didst encounter or resist as if they had been enemies, those who rejoiced, &c. (Cocceius). Thou meetest as a friend him rejoicing, &c. (Jerome). If thou meet with or light upon one rejoicing, &c., they will remember thee in thy ways (Vitringa). Oh that thou mightest meet with one rejoicing, &c. (Ros.). — Of the second clause, the following constructions may be noted : In them (i. e. our sins) we have been always, and yet we shall be saved

(Jerome). We have sinned against them (z. e. thy ways), always, and yet have been delivered. In them (i.e. thy ways of mercy) there is continu ance, and we are saved (Piscator). Thou wast angry after we had sinned against them (i. e. our fathers), and yet we are safe (Vitringa). J. D. Michaelis : we sinned an eternity (/. e. for ages) among them (the heathen) and apostatized (J?£'DJ1). Lowth : thou art angry, for we have sinned ;

because of our deeds (\3v7JttD3), for we have been rebellious (y"'£31). Eosenmiiller: we have sinned in them (thy ways) of old, and can we be saved? Kocher: in them (our miseries) there is long continuance; oh may we be saved! Maurer: in them (the ways of duty) let us ever go, and we shall be saved. Hitzig: thou wast angry, and we sinned on that account (B^) continual!}7, and can we be saved? Grotius: had we been always in Ihein (thy ways), we should have been saved. Gesenius substantially agrees with Kocher; De Wette and Umbreit with Rosenmiiller; Henderson with Piscator; Ewald with Hitzig: Hendewerk with Grotius; Knobel, partly with Jerome, partly with Lowth, and partly with Kocher. It is curious enough that Yitringa, whose construction has probably never been adopted by another writer on the passage, says of it himself, sensus faciUimus et oplimus ut quisque viderit. Yet in his exposition of the very next verse he says, <rgre aspicio homines, ne videantur nihil scribere, ea in certis consiynare, quae ipsi facile pnevideant neminem recepturum esse. As if to shew that exegetical invention is not yet exhausted, the ingenious modern Rabbin, Samuel Luzzatto, closes his curious notes on Isaiah, prefixed to the abridgment of Rosenmiillcr's Scholia, with still another exposition of this verse, and of the whole connection, which deserves to be stated, were it only for its novelty. He understands the people as denying at the close of the preceding chapter (ver. 19) that Jehovah had attested his divinity by suit able exertion of his power on their behalf. At the beginning of this chapter they correct themselves, and own that he has proved himself able to secure his ends as easily as fire kindles chaff or causes water to boil (ver. 1) ; but as he does not do it, this neglect is to be regarded as the cause or the occasion of their sins. They then assure him that they know his ancient deeds, even when they were not looked for (ver. 2), and can compare them not only with the impotence of idols (ver. 3), but with his present inaction: " Thou bast to do with those who remember thee as joyfully exercising righteousness in thy ways (or dispensations) ; oh that thou wouldst per severe in them (those ways) for ever, that we might be saved." — I shall not attempt to define what is correct and what erroneous in these various constructions, but simply to justify the one assumed in my own version. The general meaning of the sentence may be thus expressed in paraphrase: " Although thou hast cast off Israel as a nation, thou hast nevertheless met or favourably answered every one rejoicing to do righteousness, and in thy ways or future dispensations such shall still remember and acknowledge thee; thou hast been angry, and with cause, for we have sinned; but in them, thy purposed dispensations, there is perpetuity, and we shall be saved." The abrogation of the old economy, though fatal to the national pre-eminence of Israel, was so far from destroying the true church or the hopes of true believers, that it revealed the way of life more clearly than ever, and substituted for an insufficient, temporary system, a complete and everlasting one. In this construction of the sentence, the verb V33 and the

noun Dpiy are taken in their usual sense, and the pronoun in E£2 refers to its natural antecedent

5. JM<£ MY ?rere like the unclean all of us, and like a flthy garment all our righteousness (virtues or good works), and ice faded like the (fading) leaf all of us, and our iniquities like the wind will take us up (or carry us aicay). Having shewn what they are or hope to be through the mercy of God and the righteousness of Christ, they state more fully what they are in themselves, and what they must expect to be if left to themselves. This twofold reference to their past experience and their future destiny accounts for the transition from the praeter to the future, without arbitrarily confirandiog them together. — Vitriuga makes NPL2H descriptive of a leper, which is wholly arbitrary ; the adjective appears to be used absolutely for the un clean, or that which is unclean, perhaps with a superlative emphasis, like pBftn, in chap. Ix. 22. Vitringa and Gesenius dwell with great zest and fulness on the strict sense of D^P 1^3. Some understand the comparison with withered leaves as a part of the description of their sin, while others apply it to their punishment. The first hypothesis is favoured by the difference of the tenses, which has been already noticed ; the last by the parallelism of the clauses. It is probable, however, that here as in chap. i. 4 the two things ran together in the writer's mind, and that no refined distinction as to this point was intended. (With the figures of the last clause compare chap. Ivii. 13, Ps. i. 1, Job xxvii. 21.) Hitxig and Hendewerk appty this last expression to the actual deportation of the Jews to Babylon. Yitringa, having satisfied himself that this whole context has respect to the present exile and dispersion of the Jews, takes pleasure in applying the particular expressions to the circumstances of that great affliction. It is very remarkable, however, that in this, as in other cases heretofore considered, there is no expression which admits of this application exclusively, and none which admits of it at all but for their generality and vagueness, which would equally admit an application to any other period of distress which had been previously set down as the specific subject of the prophecy.

6. And there is no one calling on thy name, rousing himself to lay hold on tJiee ; for thou luist hid thy face from us, and hast melted us because of (or by means of) our iniquities. The German writers make the whole his torical and retrospective, so as to throw what is here described far enough back to be the antecedent and procuring cause of the Babylonish exile. But although there is evident allusion to the past implied in the very form of tfre expression, the description reaches to the present also, and describes not only what the speakers were, but what they are when considered in themselves, as well as the effects of their own weakness and corruption which they have already experienced. — Calling on the name of God is here used in its proper sense of praying to him and invoking his assistance and protection ; which idea is expressed still more strongly by the next phrase, rousing himself (which implies a just view of the evil, and a strenuous exer tion to correct it) to lay hold upon thee, — a strong figure for attachment to a person, and reliance on him. — Lowth's version of the next words, " therefore thou hast hidden," is wholly unauthorized and wholly unnecessary, since the withdrawal of divine grace is constantly spoken of in Scripture both as the cause and the effect of men's continued alienation from God. Grotius, Cappellus, Houbigant, Lowth, and Ewald, read UJJOn from PO, "thou hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities." (See Gen. xiv. 20; Prov. iv. 9). This sense is also expressed by several of the ancient versions, but has probably arisen not from a difference of text, but from a wish to assimilate the verb to the following expression, in the hand. Gesenius and most of the late writers suppose J-1B in this one place to have the transitive sense of causing to dissolve, in which twofold usage it resembles the corre sponding English verb, to melt. Hitzig notes this among the indications of a later writer, notwithstanding the analogous use of 2-1^ by Amos (ix. 14). In the hand may either mean by means of, in the midst of, or because of; or we may suppose with Rosenmiiiler that the phrase strictly means, thou dost melt us into the hand of our iniquities, i. e. subject us to them, make us unable to resist them, and passively submissive to their power.

7. And noiv, Jehovah, our father (art} thou, ice the day and thou our potter, and the work of thy hand (are] we. all. Instead of relying upon any sup posed merits of their own, they appeal to their very dependence upon God as a reason why he should have mercy on them. Lowth follows two edi tions and five manuscripts in reading i"lP)K twice, which repetition has great force, he thinks, whereas the other word may well be spared. In other cases where a word is repeated in the common text, he substitutes a different one, because the repetition is inelegant. The Bishop's judgment upon such points was continually warped by his predominant desire to change the text. He overlooked in this case the obvious use of noir, not merely as a particle of time, but as a formula of logical resumption, which could not be orritted without obscuring the relation of this verse to the preceding context, as a Bumming up of its appeals and arguments. Vitringa regards HJPIN as the origin of the Homeric ar-a, rsrra ; but the Hebrew word is not expressive of endearment, it is absolutely necessary to the sense. The Prophet here resumes the thought of chap. Ixiii. 16, where, as here, the paternity ascribed to God is not that of natural creation in the case of individuals, but the creation of the church or chosen people, and of Israel ns a spiritual and ideal person. The figure of the potter and the clay, implying absolute authority and power, is used twice before (chap. xxix. 6, xlv. 9), and is one of the connecting links between this book and the acknowledged Isainh. — There is more dignity in the original expression than in the English phrase our potter, as the Hebrew word properly denotes one forming or imparting shape to anything, though specially applied in usage to a work man in clay, when that material is mentioned. Lowth retains the general meaning, but in order to avoid the ambiguity attending the word former, treats it as a finite verb, thou hast formed us, which is clear enough, but inexact and drawling. The use of the word all in this verse, and its em phatic repetition in the next, exclude the application of the passage to nn idolatrous party in the Babylonish exile, even if that limitation would bo otherwise admissible. The same plea, derived from the relation of the creature to the maker, is used in Ps. cxxxviii. 8,foma7ce not the wnrlc of thy hands. (Compare Ps. Ixxvi. 1, Ixxix. 1). In either case there is a tacit : appeal to the covenant and promise in Gen. xvii. 7 ; Lev. xxvi. 42-45 ; • Deut. \ii. 6, xxvi. 17, 18.

8. £e not angry, 0 Jehorah, to extremity, and do not to eternity remcmlcr guilt; lo, look, ice pray thee, thy people (are] we all. This is the applica tion of the argument presented in the foregoing verse, the actual prayer four.ded on the fact there stated. The common version of "1NIp""iy (very, sore) fails to reproduce the form of the original expression, as consisting of a preposition and a noun. This is faithfully conveyed in Lowth's version (to (he uttermost), and still more in Henderson's (to cures*) ; although the latter is objectionable as suggesting the idea of injustice or moral wrong,, which is avoided in the version above given. The first defect is also

chargeable upon the common version of "IJ^, for ever; which, although a fair equivalent, and perfectly sufficient in all ordinary cases, is neither so exact nor so expressive as the literal translation in the case before us, where there seems to be an intentional regard to the peculiar form and sound as well as to the meaning of the sentence. The common version is besides defective, or at least ambiguous, in seeming to make ID a verb and W a particle of time; whereas the former is an interjection, and the latter the peculiar Hebrew formula of courteous or importunate entreaty.

9. Thy holy cities are a desert, Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a waste. By holy cities, Grotius understands the towns of Judah ; Vitringa, Jerusalem alone, considered as consisting of two towns, the upper and the lower, hero called Zion and Jerusalem, though each of these names sometimes compre hends the whole, and the latter is dual in its very form. Gesenius cites Ps. Ixxviii. 54, to shew that even the frontier of the lund was reckoned holy, and that its cities might be naturally so described likewise. But the question is not one of possibility or propriety, but of actual usage ; not what they might be called, but what they are called. The passage in the Psalms, moreover, is itself too doubtful to throw light upon the one before us. A better argument is that of Hitzig, in his note on chap. Ixiii. 18, drawn from the use of the phrase EHp riOIK by Zechariah (ii. 16), in ap plication to the whole. Even this, however, is not conclusive ; since the writer, if he had intended to employ the terms in this wide sense, would hardly have confined his specifications in the other clause to Zion and Jerusalem. In any case, these must be regarded as the chief if not the only subjects of his proposition. — There is something worthy of attention in the use here made of the substantive verb HM. To express mere pre sent existence, Hebrew usage employs no verb at all, though the pronoun which would be its subject is occasionally introduced. The preterite form of the verb as here used must either have the sense of was, in reference to a definite time past, or has been, implying a continuation of the same state till the present. The former meaning is excluded, and the latter rendered necessary, by the obvious allusions in the context to the evils mentioned as being still experienced. To express the idea has become, which is given in some versions, usage would require the verb to be connected with the noun

by the preposition 7. On the whole, the true sense of the verse, expressed or implied, appears to be that Zion has long been a desolation and Jeru salem a waste.

10. Our house of holiness and beauty (in) which our fathers praised thee Jias been burned up with fre, and all our delights (or desirable places] have become a desolation. The elliptical use of the relative in reference to place is the same as in Gen. xxxix. 20. Burned up, literally, become a burning of fire, as in chap. ix. 6. The reference in this verse is of course to the destruction of the temple, but to which destruction is disputed. The modern Germans all refer it to the Babylonian conquest, when the temple, as we are expressly told, was burnt (Jer. lii. 13) ; Grotius to its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes, at which time, however, it was not consumed by fire ; Yitringa and many later writers, with the Jews themselves, to its destruction by the Romans, since which the city and the land have lain desolate. To the first and last of these events the words are equally ap propriate. Either hypothesis being once assumed, the particular expres sions admit of being easily adapted to it. With our own hypothesis the passage may be reconciled in several different ways. There is nothing, however, in the terms themselves, or in the analogy of prophetic language,

to forbid our understanding this as a description of the desolations of the church itself expressed by figures borrowed from the old economy, and from the ancient history of Israel. If literally understood, the destruction of the temple and the holy city may be here lamented as a loss not merely to the Jewish nation, but to the church of God to which they rightfully belong and by which they ought yet to be recovered, a sense of which obligation blended with some superstitious errors gave occasion to the fanatical attempt of the Crusades. (See above, on chap. Ixiii. 18.)

12. Wilt thoufor these (things) restrain thyself, 0 Jehovah, wilt thou keep silence and afflict us to extremity ? This is simply another application of the argument by way of an importunate appeal to the divine compassions. Self-restraint and silence, as applied to God, are common figures for in action and apparent indifference to the interests, and especially the sufferings, of his people. (See above, on chap. xlii. 14, and Ixiii. 15.) The question is not whether God will remain silent in spite of what his people suffered, but whether the loss of their external advantages will induce him to forsake them. The question as in many other cases implies a negation of th strongest kind. The destruction of the old theocracy was God's own act and was designed to bring the church under a new and far more gloriou dispensation. How the loss of a national organisation and pre-eminenc was to be made good is fully stated in the following chapter.

CHAPTEE LXV.

THE great enigma of Israel's simultaneous loss and gain is solved by prediction of the calling of the Gentiles, ver. 1. This is connected wit the obstinate unfaithfulness of the chosen people, ver. 2. They are repre sented under the two main aspects of their character at different periods as gross idolaters and as pharisaical bigots, vers. 8-5. Their casting o was not occasioned by the sins of one generation, but of many, vers. 6, But even in this rejected race there was a chosen remnant, in whom tb promises shall be fulfilled, vers. 8-10. He then reverts to the idolatroi Jews, and threatens them with condign punishment, vers. 11, 12. TL fate of the unbelieving carnal Israel is compared with that of the trie spiritual Israel, vers. 13-16. The gospel economy is described as a creation, ver. 17. Its blessings are represented under glowing figures bo rowed from the old dispensation, vers. 18, 19. Premature death shall no longer known, ver. 20. Possession and enjoyment shall no longer precarious, vers. 21-23. Their very desires shall be anticipated, ver. 2 All animosities and noxious influences shall cease for ever, ver. 25.

1. I have been inquired of by those that asked not, I have been found those that sought me not, I have said, Bcliold me, behold me, to a nation (th was not called ly my name. There is an apparent inconsistency betw the first two members of the sentence in the English Version, arising the use of the same verb (sought), to express two very different Hebj. verbs. _ ^'i?? is here used in the general sense of seeking or trying to tain, ^"D;! in the technical religious sense of consulting as an oracle, the latter case, the difficulty of translation is enhanced by the peculiar of the original, not simply passive, but reflexive, and capable of beingn dered in our idiom only by periphrasis. The exact sense seems to je allowed myself to be consulted, I afforded access to myself for the pu^g, of consultation. This is not a mere conjectural deduction from the so

of the Hebrew verb or from general analogy, but a simple statement of the actual usage of this very word, as when Jehovah says again and again of the ungodly exiles that he will not be inquired of or consulted by them (Ezek. xiv. 8, xx. 3), i. e. with effect or to any useful purpose. In this connection it is tantamount to saying that he will not hear them, answer them, or reveal himself to them; all which or equivalent expressions have been used by different writers in the translation of the verse before xis. There is nothing therefore incorrect in substance, though the form be singular, in the Septuagint version of this verb, retained in the New Testament, viz. ipfavrts iy£K?j<V, I became manifest, i. e. revealed myself. The object of the verb asked, if exact uniformity be deemed essential, may be readily supplied from the parallel expression sought me. — Jlehold me, or, as it is sometimes rendered in the English Bible, here lam, is the usual idiomatic Hebrew answer to a call by name, and when ascribed to God, contains an assurance of his presence, rendered more emphatic by the repetition. (See above, chap, lii. G, Iviii. 9.) It is therefore equivalent to being inquired of, and being found. This last expression has occurred before in chap. Iv. 6, and, as here, in combination with the verb to seek. A people not called by my name, i.e. not recognised or known as my people. (See above, chap, xlviii. 2.) All in terpreters agree that this is a direct continuation of the foregoing context, and most of them regard it as the answer of Jehovah to the expostulations and petitions there presented by his people. The modern Germans and the Jews apply both this verse and the next to Israel. The obvious objection is, that Israel even in its worst estate could never be described as a nation which had not been called by the name of Jehovah. Jarchi's solution of this difficulty, namely, that they treated him as if they were not called by his name, is an evasion, tending to destroy the force of language, and con found all its distinctions. It is a standing characteristic of the Jews in the Old Testament, that they were called by the name of Jehovah; but if they may also be described in terms directly opposite, whenever the interpreter pre fers it, then may anything mean anything. With equal right may we allege that the seed of Abraham in chap. xli. 8 means those who act as if they were his seed, and that the nation who had never known Messiah (chap. Iv. 5) means a nation that might just as well have never known him. On the other hand, Kimchi's explanation of the clause as meaning that they were unwilling to be called his people, is as much at variance with the facts of his tory as Jarchi's with the principles of language. In all their alienations, exiles, and dispersions, the children of Israel have still retained that title as their highest glory and the badge of all their tribes. The incongruity of this interpretation of the first verse is admitted by Rabbi Moshe Haccohen among the Jews, and by Heudewerk among the Germans, the last of whom pronounces it impossible, and therefore understands the passage as applying It to the Persians under Cyrus, who, without any previous relation to Jehovah, L,e" had been publicly and honourably called into his service. A far more fco obvious and natural application may be made to the Gentiles generally, t Vc whose vocation is repeatedly predicted in this book, and might be here used Ure\'ith powerful effect in proof that the rejection of the Jews was the result of I.heir own obstinate perverseuess, not of God's unfaithfulness or want of ^jower. This is precisely Paul's interpretation of the passage in Rom. ;. 20, 21, where he does not, as in many other cases, merely borrow the sjt)I| pressions of the Prophet, but formally interprets them, applying this _asgirse to the Gentiles, and then adding, " but to Israel (or of Israel) he kOW(ith" what follows in the next verse. The same intention to expound the

Prophet's language is clear from the Apostle's mention of Isaiah's boldness in thus shocking the most cherished prepossessions of the Jews. Grotius takes no notice of this apostolic interpretation, but applies both verses to the Jews in Babylon, although Al arbenel himself had been constrained to abandon it, and understand the passage as referring to the Jews in Egypt. Gesenius merely pleads for the reference to Babylon as equally admissible with that which Paul makes, and as better suited to the context in Isaiah. Hitzig as usual goes further, and declares it to be evident (nffenbar) that the words relate only to the Jews as alienated from Jehovah. This con tempt for Paul's authority is less surprising in a writer who describes Jehovah's answer to the expostulations of the people as moving in a circle, and pronounces both incompetent to solve the question, why Jehovah should entice men into sin and then punish them. Instead of &\P Lowth reads N^j5 (never invoked my name) on the authority of the Septuagint (txciXc0et). The last clause is not included in Paul's quotation.

2. / have spread (or stretched] out my hands all the day (or every day} to a rebellious people, those going the way not good, after their own thoughts (or designs). The gesture mentioned in the first clause is variously explained as a gesture of simple calling, of instruction, of invitation, of persuasion. According to Hitzig it is an offer of help on God's part, corresponding to the same act as a prayer for help on man's. (See chap. i. 15.) All agree that it implies a gracious offer of himself and of his favour to the people. Whether all the day or every day be the correct translation, the idea meant to be conveyed is evidently that of frequent repetition, or rather of unre mitting constancy. There is no need of supposing, with Vitringa and others, that it specifically signifies the period of the old dispensation. The rebel lious people is admitted upon all hands to be Israel. The last clause is an amplification and explanatory paraphrase of the first. Going and way are common figures for the course of life. A way not good, is a litotes or meiosis for a bad or for the worst way. (See Ps. xxxvi. 5, Ezek. xxxvi. 31. Thoughts, not opinions merely, but devices and inventions of wickedness. (See above, on chap. Iv. 7.) With this description compare that of Moses, Deut. xxxii. 5, G.

3. The people angering me to my face continually, sacrificing in the gardens, and censing on the brides. We have now a more detailed description of the way not good, and the devices mentioned in the foregoing verse. The con struction is continued, the people provoking me, &c., being in direct apposi tion with the rebellious people going, &c. To my face, not secretly or timidly (Job xxxi. 27), but openly and in defiance of me (chap. iii. 9, Job i. 11), which is probably the meaning of before me in the first command ment (Exod. xx. 3). Animal offerings and fumigations are combined to represent all kinds of sacrifice. As to the idolatrous use of groves and gardens, see above, on chap. Ivii. 5, vol. i. p. 94. Vitringa's distinction between groves and gardens is gratuitous, the Hebrew word denoting any enclosed and carefully cultivated ground, whether chiefly occupied by trees or not. Of the last words, on the brides, there are four interpretations. The first is that of many older writers, who suppose an allusion to the pro hibition in Exod. xx. 24, 25. But bricks are not there mentioned, and can hardly come under the description of " hewn stone," besides the doubt which overhangs the application of that law, and especially the cases in which it was meant to operate. This evil is not remedied but rather aggravated, by supposing an additional allusion to Lev. xxvi. 1, and Num. xxxiii. 52, as Grotius does, and understanding by the bricks such as were impressed with

unlawful decorations or inscriptions. A sccbnd hypothesis is that of Bochnrt, who supposes bricks to mean roofing- tiles (Mark ii. 4, Luke v. 19), ani the phr.ise to be descriptive of idolatry as practised on the roofs of houses. (2 Kings xxiii. 12, Jer. xix. 13, xxxii. 29, Zeph. i. 5.) Ewald approves of this interpretation, and, to make the parallelism perfect, changes H133, gardens, to f\M3> rocfs. Vitringa's objection to this reading, drawn from the analog}' of chap. i. 29, and Ivi. 17, is converted by Ewald into a reason for it, by supposing the common text to have arisen from assimila tion. An objection not so easily disposed of is the one alleged by Knobel, namely, that Hebrew usage would require a different preposition before 0133. A third hypothesis is that of Rosenmiiller, who supposes an allusion to some practice now unknown, but possibly connected with the curiously inscribed bricks found in modern times near the site of ancient Babylon. Gesenius hesitates between this and a fourth interpretation, much the simplest and most natural of all, viz., that the phrase means nothing more than altnrs, or at most altars slightly and hastily constructed. Of such altars bricks may be named as the materials, or tiles as the superficial covering.

4. Sitting in the graves and in the holes they will lodge, eating the flesh of swine, and broth of filthy things (is in] their vessels. All agree that this verse is intended to depict, in revolting colours, the idolatrous customs of the people. Nor is there much doubt as to the construction of the sentence, or the force of the particular expressions. But the obscurity which over hangs the usage referred to affords full scope to the archaeological propen sities of modern commentators, some of whom pass by in silence questions of the highest exegetical importance, while they lavish without stint or scruple, time and labour, ingenuity and learning, on a vain attempt to settle questions which throw no light on the drift of the passage, nor even on the literal translation of the words, but are investigated merely for their own sake or their bearing upbn other objects, so that Rosenmuller interrupts himself in one of these antiquarian inquiries by saying, " sed redeamus ad locum vatis in quo explicando versamur." Such are the questions, whether these idolaters sat in the graves or among them ; whether for necromantic purposes, i. e. to interrogate the dead, or to perform sacrificial rites to their memory, or to obtain demoniacal inspiration ; whether D^IVjl means monu ments, or caves, or temples ; whether they were lodged in for licentious purposes, or to obtain prophetic dreams ; whether they are charged with simply eating pork for food, or after it had been sacrificed to idols ; whether swine's flesh was forbidden for medicinal reasons or because the heathen sacrificed and ate it, or on other grounds ; whether P"13 means broth or bits of meat, and if the former, whether it was so called on account of the bread broken in it, or for other reasons, &c. The only question of grammatical construction which has found a place among these topics of pedantic disquisition, is as such entitled to consideration, though of small importance with respect to the interpretation of the passage. It is the question whether Dn"1;?? is to be governed by a preposition understood (Rosen m tiller), or explained as an accusative of place (Gesenius), or as the predicate of the proposition, broth of abominable meats are their vessels (Maurer). This last construction is retained by Knobel, but he changes the whole meaning of the clause by explaining the last word to mean their instruments or implements, and giving to P"® the sense of bits or pieces : " pieces of abominable meat are their instruments of divination," in allusion to the mantic inspection of the sacrificial victims by the heathen priests as

means of ascertaining future events. Even if we should successively adopt and then discard every one of the opinions, some of which have now been mentioned, the essential meaning of the verse would still remain the same, as a highly wrought description of idolatrous abominations.

5. The (men] saying, Keep to thyself, come not near to me, for I am holy to tliee, these (are] a smoke in my wrath, a fire burning all the day (or every day}. Gesenius's obscure addition, und nocht sctyt, is faithfully transcribed by Noyes, who yet say. The peculiar phrase, T.?$? ^i?? is analogous, but not precisely equivalent to *7rf^>| in chap. xlix. 20. (See above, p. 239.) The literal translation is approach to thyself; and as this implies removal from the speaker, the essential meaning is correctly expressed, though in a very different form from the original, both by the Septuagint (nd'ow O.K l/i&D) and by the Vulgate (recede a me}. The common English version (stand by thyself], and Henderson's improvement of it (keep ly thyself], both suggest an idea not contained in the original, viz. that of standing alone, whereas all that is expressed by the Hebrew phrase is the act of standing away from the speaker, for which Lowth has found the idiomatic equivalent (keep to thyself]. Another unusual expression is T^ff?, which may be represented by the English words, I am holy thee. The Targum resolves this into "|BO Tl^np, and Yitringa accordingly assumes an actual ellipsis of the preposition JD as a particle of comparison. But as this ellipsis is extremely rare, De Dieu and Cocceius assume that of ?, / am holy to thee. Gesenius adopts the same construction, but explains the ^ as a mere pleonasm, and translates accordingly, I am holy, which is merely omitting what cannot be explained. The particle no doubt expresses general relation, and the phrase means, / am holy with respect to thee; and as this implies comparison, the same sense is attained as by the old construction, but in a manner more grammatical and regular. The implied comparison enables us to reconcile two of the ancient versions as alike in spirit, although in letter flatly contradictory. The Septuagint has / am pure (i. e. in com parison with thee) ; the Vulgate, Thou art impure (i. e. in comparison with me). There is no need, therefore, of resorting to the forced explanation proposed by Thenius in a German periodical, which takes 'nV1\> in the sense of separating, one which occurs nowhere else in actual usage, and is excluded even from the Etymon, by some of the best modern lexicographers. Equally gratuitous is Hitzig's explanation of the verb (in which he seems to have been anticipated by Luther) as transitive, and meaning lest I hallow thee, i. e. by touching thee, a notion contradictory to that expressed in Haggai ii. 12, 13, and affording no good sense here, as the fear of making others holy, whether as an inconvenience or a benefit, would hardly have been used to characterise the men described. As to the question, Who are here described ? there are two main opinions : first, that the clause relates to the idolaters mentioned in the foregoing verses ; the other, that it is de scriptive of a wholly different class. On the first supposition, Gesenius imagines that Jewish converts to the Parsee religion are described as look ing at their former brethren with contempt. On the other, Henderson assumes that the Prophet, having first described the idolatrous form of Jewish apostasy, as it existed in his own day and long after, then describes the Pharisaical form of the same evil, as it existed in the time of Christ, both being put together as the cause of the rejection of the Jews. To any specific application of the passage to the Babylonish exile, it may be ob jected that the practice of idolatry at that time by the Jews can only be established by a begging of the question in expounding this and certain

parallel passages. The other explanation is substantially the true one. The great end which the Prophet had in view was to describe the unbe lieving Jews as abominable in the sight of God. His manner of expressing this idea is poetical, by means of figures drawn from various periods of their history, without intending to exhibit either of these periods exclusively. To a Hebrew writer what could be more natural than to express the idea of religious corruption by describing its subjects as idolaters, diviners, eaters of swine's flesh, worshippers of outward forms, and self-righteous hypocrites'? Of such the text declares God's abhorrence. Smoke and fire may be taken as natural concomitants and parallel figures, as if he bad said, against whom my wrath smokes and burns continually. Or the smoke may represent the utter consumption of the object, and the fire the means by which it is effected, which appears to have been Luther's idea. That *\$ in such con nections does not mean the nose, but wrath itself, has been shewn in the exposition of chap, xlviii. 9. (See above, p. 215.)

6, 7. Lo, it is written before me. I will not rent except I repay, and I will repay into their bosom your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith Jehovah, icho burned incense on the mountains, and on the hills blasphemed me, and I will measure their first work into their bosom. The particle at the beginning calls attention both to the magnitude and certainty of the event about to be predicted. — Lowth, for some reason un explained, thinks proper to translate nri-in? is recorded in writiny, which is abridged by Noyes to stands recorded, and still more by Henderson to in recorded. One step further in the same direction brings us back to the simple and perfectly sufficient version of the English Bible, it is written. This may serve as an instructive sample of the way in which the later English versions sometimes improve upon the old. The figure which these verbs express is variously understood by different writers. Uuibreit seems to think that what is said to be written is the eternal law of retribution. Hitzig and Knobel understand by it a book of remembrance (Mai. iii. 16), i.e. a record of the sins referred to afterwards, by which they are kept per petually present to the memory of Jehovah (Daniel vii. 10). Vitringa and most later writers understand by it a record, not of crime, but of its punish ment, or rather of the purpose or decree to punish it (Daniel v. 5. 24), in reference to the written judgments of the ancient courts (chap. x. 1). , This last interpretation does not necessarily involve the supposition that the thing here said to be written is the threatening which immediately follows, although this is by no means an unnatural construction. — / will not rest or be silent, an expression used repeatedly before in reference to the seeming inaction or indifference of Jehovah. (See above, chaps, xlii. 14, Ivii. 11 ; and com pare Ps. 1. 21, Hab. i. 18.) — Gesenius and De Wettc follow the older writers in translating, 1 will not keep silence, but will recompense. But although . DN, like the Gorman sondern, is the usual adversative after a negation, this construction of the preterite ^P?'^ would be contrary to usage, and QK '? must be construed, as it usually is, before the preterite, as meaning unless or until, in which sense it is accurately rendered both by Hitzig (bis) and Ewuld (ausser). See above, on chap. Iv. 10, where this same construction is gratuitously set aside by Hitzig on the ground that it would argue too much knowledge of natural philosophy in a Hebrew writer. (Compare also 2 Sam. i. 18.) — For repay into their bosom, we have in the seventh verse measure into their bosom, which affords a clue to the origin and real mean ing of the figure; as we read that Boaz said to Ruth, " Bring the veil (or clonk) that is upon thee and hold it, and she held it, and he measured

six (measures of) barley, and laid it on her" (Ruth iii. 15). Hence the phrase to measure into any one's bosom, i. e. into the lap, or the fold of the garment covering the bosana (See above, on chap. xlix. 22). The same figure is employed by Jer. xxxii. 18, and in Ps. Ixxix. 12, and is explained by Eosenmiiller in his Scholia on the latter, and by Winer in his Lexicon, as implying abundance, or a greater quantity than one could carry in the hand. (Compare Luke vi. 38.) But Gesenius and Maurer understand the nnin idea to be not that of abundance, but of retribution, anything being said to return into one's own bosom, just as it is elsewhere said to return upon his own head (Judges ix. 57, Ps. vii. 17). Both these accessory ideas are appropriate in the case before us. In Jer. xxxii. 18, and Ps. Ixxix. 12, the preposition?$ is used, and the same form is also found here in some manuscripts, and even in the Masora upon the next verse, though the TV is no more likely to be wrong there than here, nor at all, according to Maurer, who explains it as denoting motion towards an object from above. The sudden change from their to your at the beginning of ver. 7, has been commonly explained as an example of the enullage personal so frequently occurring in Isaiah. This supposition is undoubtedly sufficient to remove all difficulty from the syntax. It is possible, however, that the change is not a mere grammatical anomaly or licence of construc tion, but significant, and intended to distinguish between three generations. I will repay into their bosom (that of your descendants) your iniquities, and the iniquities of 3-our fathers. If this be not a fanciful distinction, it gives colour to Henderson's opinion that the previous description brings to view successively the gross idolatry of early times, and the pharisaical hypocrisy prevailing at the time of Christ. Supposing his contemporaries to be the immediate objects of address, there would then be a distinct allusion to their idolatrous progenitors, the measure of whose guilt they filled up (Mat. xxiii. 32), and to their children, upon whom it was to be conspicuously visited (Luke xxiv. 28). But whether this be so or not, the meaning of the text is obvious, as teaching that the guilt which had accumulated through successive generations should be visited, though not exclusively, upon the last. The whole of idolatry is here summed up in burning incense on the mountains, which are elsewhere mentioned as a favourite resort of those who worshipped idols (chap. Ivii. 7, Jer. iii. 6, Ezek. vi. 13, xviii. 6, Hosea iv. 13), and blaspheming God upon the JiiUs, which may either be regarded as a metaphorical description of idolatry itself, or strictly taken to denote the oral expression of contempt for Jehovah and his worship, which might naturally be expected to accompany such practices. — There is some obscurity in the word n3t5>JO as here used. Ewald takes it as an adverb, meaning first, or at first (zuersJ), and appears to understand the clause as meaning, their reward (that of your fathers) will I measure first into their bosom. But this does not seem to agree with the previous declaration that the sons should suffer for the fathers' guilt and for their own together. At the same time the construction is less natural and obvious than that of Gesenius and other writers, who make n^S"! an adjective agreeing with i"I?yp, their former work, i. e. its product or reward, as in chap. xl. 10. (See above, p. 100.) The only sense in which it can be thus described is that of ancient, as distinguished, not from the subsequent transgressions of the fathers, but from those of the children who came after them. — According to the sense which the apostle puts upon the two first verses of this chapter, we may understand those now before us as predicting the excision of the Jews from the communion

of the church, and from their covenant relation to Jehovah, as a testimony of his sore displeasure on account of the unfaithfulness and manifold transgressions of that chosen race throughout its former history, hut also on account of the obstinate and spiteful unbelief with which so many later generations have rejected the Messiah for whose sake alone they ever had a national existence, and enjoyed so many national advantages.

8. Thus saith Jehovah, as (when) juice is fvund in the cluster, and one says, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, so will I do for the S'ike of my servants, not to destroy the whole. Gesenius objects to the translation of 1£'??3, as if, or as when, in the Vulgate and many other versions, on the ground that, though ~>'^ is sometimes elliptically used for when, the com. pound particle never denotes as ivhfn. He therefore gives it the conditional sense of if or ivhen, as in Gen. xxvii. 40, and takes 1 as in that case for the sign of the apodosis, " ichcn (or if) juice is found in the cluster, then one says," &c. But most interpreters consider it more natural to make "l?'?$3 .and I? correlatives, as usual in cases of comparison, equivalent to as and so in English. We may then either supply ivhen as Maurer does, or translate it strictly, with Ewald and the English Version, as the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says destroy it not, so will I do, &c. — Although BHTflj according to the derivation usually given, means fermented grapejuice of the first year, it is evidently here applied to the juice in its original state, unless we understand it to be used proleptically for the pledge or earnest of new wine. A blessing is in it, seems to mean something more than that it has some value. The idea meant to be suggested is, that God has blessed it, and that man should therefore not destroy it. The meaning of the simile in this clause appears obvious, and yet it has been strangely misconceived both by the oldest and the latest writers. Knobel under stands it to mean that as a grape or a cluster of grapes is preserved for the sake of the juice, notwithstanding the presence of the stem, skin, and stones, which are of no use, so the good Jews shall be saved, notwithstand ing the bad ones who are mingled with them. But this explanation would imply that men are sometimes disposed to destroy good grapes because they consist partly of unprofitable substances, and need to be reminded that the juice within is valuable. Much nearer to the truth, and yet erroneous, is Jerome's explanation of the clause as relating to a single good grape in a cluster, which diminishes the force of the comparison by making the redeeming element too insignificant. The image really pre sented by the Prophet, as Vitringa clearly shews, and most later writers have admitted, is that of a good cluster (?13y^), in which juice is found, while others are unripe or rotten. — / will do, is by some understood as meaning I will act, or I will cause it to be so ; but this is not the usage of the Hebrew verb, which rather means precisely what the English / will do denotes in such connections, *'. e. I will do so, or will act in the same manner. — My servants is by some understood to mean the patriarchs, the fathers, for whose sake Israel was still beloved (Rom. xi. 28). It is more natural, however, to apply it to the remnant, according to the election of grace (Rom. xi. 5), the true believers represented by the ripe and juicy cluster in the foregoing simile. — The construction of the last words is the same as in chap, xlviii. 9. — Tlie whole is a literal translation of the He brew phrase, and at once more exact and more expressive than the common version, them all.

9. And I will bi ing forth from Jacob a seed, and from Judah an lieir of my mountains, and my chosen ones shall inherit it, and my servants shall

dwell there. This is an amplification of the promise, I trill do so, in the foregoing verse. Knobel's interpretation of iO.t as meaning a generation, i. e. a body of contemporaries, is at variance both with etymology and usage, with the parallel expression, heir or inheritor, and with the figurative import of the verb, which is constantly applied to the generation of new animal and vegetable products. (See chap. i. 4.) That there is reference to propagation and increase is also rendered probable by the analogy of chap, xxvii. 6, and xxxvii. 31. Objections of the same kind may be urged against the needless attenuation of the proper sense of EnV, so as to exclude the idea of regular succession and hereditary right. My mountains is supposed by Vitringa to.denote mounts Zion and Moriah, or Jerusalem as built upon them; but the later writers more correctly suppose it to describe the whole of Palestine,, as being an uneven, hilly country. See the same use of the plural in chap, xiv. 25, and the analogous phrase, mountains of Israel, repeatedly em ployed by Ezekiel (xxxvi. 1, 8, xxxviii. 8). The corresponding singular, my mountain (xi. 9, Ivii. 18), is by many understood in the same manner. Lowth restores that reading here on the authority of the Septuagint and Peshito, but understands it to mean Zion, which he also makes the antecedent of the suffix in the phrase Inherit it, while Maurer refers it to the land directly, and some of the older writers make it a collective neuter. The adverb at the end of the sentence properly means thither, and is never per haps put for there except in cases where a change of place is previously men tioned or implied. If so, the sense is not merely that they shall abide there, but that they shall first go or return thither, which in this connection is peculiarly appropriate. — Of the promise here recorded there are three principal interpretations. The first, embraced by nearly all the modern Germans, is that the verse predicts the restoration of the Jews from Baby lon. The second may be stated in the words of Henderson, viz. that " the future happy occupation of Palestine by a regenerated race of Jews is here clearly predicted." The third is that the verse foretells the perpetuation of the old theocracy or Jewish Church; not in the body of the nation, but in the remnant which believed on Christ; and which, enlarged by the accession of the Gentiles, is identical in character and rights with the church of the old dispensation, the heir to all its promises, and this among the rest, which either has been or is to be fulfilled both in a literal and figurative sense; in the latter, because the church already has what is essentially equivalent to the possession of the land of Canaan under a local ceremonial system; in the former, because Palestine is yet to be recovered from the Paynim and the Infidel, and rightfully occupied, if not by Jews, by Christians, as the real seed of Abraham, partakers of the same faith and heirs of the same promise (Heb. xi. 9), for the pro mise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. iv. 13). If it should please God to collect the natural descendants of the patriarch in that land and convert them in a body to the true faith, there would be an additional coincidence between the prophecy and the event, even in minor circumstances, such as we often find in the history of Christ. But if no such national restoration of the Jews to Palestine should ever happen, the extension of the true religion over that, benighted region, which both prophecy and providence encourage us to look for, would abundantly redeem the pledge which God has given to his people in this and other parts of Scripture.

10. And Sharon shall be for (or become} a home of flocks, and the Valley

of A ehor a lair of herds, for my people who hare sought me. Tliis is a re petition of the promise in the foregoing verse, rendered more specific by the mention of one kind of prosperity, viz. that connected with the raising of cattle, and of certain places where it should be specially enjoyed, viz. the valley of Achor and the plain of Sharon. Two reasons have been given for the mention of these places, one derived from their position, the other from their quality. As the valley of Achor was near Jericho and Jordan, and the plain of Sharon on the Mediterranean, between Joppa and Cesarea, some suppose that they are here combined to signify the whole breadth of the land, from East to West. And as Sharon was proverbial for its verdure and fertility (see above, chaps, xxxiii. 9, xxxv. 2), it is in ferred by some that Achor was so likewise, which they think is the more probable because Hosea says that the valley of Achor shall be a door of hopa (Hos. ii. 17). But this may have respect to the calamity which Is rael experienced there at his first entrance on the land of promise (Joshua vii. 20), so that where his troubles then began, his hopes shall now begin. For these or other reasons Sharon and Achor are here mentioned in Isaiah's characteristic manner, as samples of the whole land, or its pastures, just as flocks and herds are used as images of industry and wealth, derived from the habits of the patriarchial age. That this is the correct interpre tation of the flocks and herds, is not disputed even by the very writers who insist upon the literal construction of the promise that the seed of Jacob shall possess the land, as guaranteeing the collection of the Jews into the region which their fathers once inhabited. By what subtle process the absolute necessity of literal interpretation is transformed into a very large discretion when the change becomes convenient, is a question yet to be determined. — That to seek Jehovah sometimes has specific reference ' to re pentance and conversion, on the part of those who have been alienated from him, may be seen by a comparison of chaps, ix. 12, and Iv. 6.

11. And (as for] you, forsaken of Jelwrah, the (men} forgetting my holy

mountain, the (men} setting for Fortune a table, and the men filling for Fate

a mingled draught. This is only a description of the object of address;

the address itself is contained in the next verse. The form Efl-*} indicates

a contrast with what goes before, as in chap. iii. 14. The class of persons

meant is first described as forsakers of Jehovah and forgetters of his holy

mountain. Rosenmiiller understands this as a figurative name for the despisers of his worship; but Kiiobel, as a literal description of those exiles

who had lost all affection for Jerusalem, and had no wish to return thither.

The description of the same persons in the last clause is much more obscure,

and has occasioned a vast amount of learned disquisition and discussion.

The commentators on the passage who have gone most fully into the details,

are Yitringa and Rosenmiiller ; but the clearest summary is furnished by

Gesenius. The strangest exposition of the clause is that of Zeltner, in a

dissertation on the verse, in which he applies it to the modern Jews

as a prolific and an avaricious race. Many interpreters have understood

the two most important words (~I3 and ^P) as common nouns denoting

troop and number (the former being the sense put upon the name Gad, in

Gen. xxx. 11), and referred the whole clause either to convivial assemblies,

perhaps connected with idolatrous worship, or to the troop of planets and

the multitude of stars, as objects of such worship. But as the most essential

words in this case are supplied, the later writers, while they still suppose

the objects worshipped to be here described, explain the descriptive terms

in a different manner. Luther retains the Hebrew name Gad and JHeni,

•which are also given in the margin of the English Bible ; but most inter preters explain them by equivalents. Gesenius ingeniously argues from the etymology of the names that they relate to human destiny ; and from the mythology of the ancient Eastern nations, that they relate to heavenly bodies. He dissents, however, from Vitringa's opinion that the sun and moon are meant, as well as from the notions of older writers, that the names are descriptive of the planetary system, the s:gns of the Zodiac, particular constellations, &c. His own opinion is that 13 is the planet Jupiter (identical with Bel or Baal), and *2P the planet Venus (identical with Ashtoreth), which are called in the old Arabian mythology the Greater and Lesser Fortune, or good luck, while Saturn and Mars were known as the Greater and Lesser Evil Fortune, or 111 Luck. J. D. Michaelis had long before explained the names here used as meaning Fortune and Fate, or Good and Evil Destiny ; and Ewald, in like manner, under stands the planets here intended to be Jupiter and Saturn, while Knobel goes back to the old hypothesis of Vitringa and the others, that the names denote the Sun and Moon, the latter assumption being chiefly founded on the supposed affinity between ^P and iwq. Others connect it with the Arabic i'Ux an idol worshipped at Mecca before the time of Mohammed. Some supposed the moon to be called ^p (from H3pto measure), as a mea sure of time. Amidst this diversity of theories and explanations, only a very minute part of which has been introduced by way of sample, it is satisfactory to find that there is perfect unanimity upon the only point of exegetical importance, namely, that the passage is descriptive of idolatrous worship ; for even those who apply it directly to convivial indulgences con nect the latter with religious institutions. This being settled, the details still doubtful can be interesting only to the philologist and antiquarian. The kind of offering described is supposed to be identical with the Icctisternia of the Roman writers ; and Gesenius characteristically says, the shewbread in the temple at Jerusalem was nothing else (nichts anders). The heathen rite in question consisted in the spreading of a feast for the con sumption of the gods. Herodotus mentions a rga-=^a ^X/'c/u as known in Egypt ; and Jeremiah twice connects this usage with the worship of the queen of heaven. (Jer. vii. 18, xliv. 17.) "=]pPP denotes mixture, and may either mean spiced or wine, or a compound of different liquors, or a mere preparation or infusion of one kind. (See vol. i. p. 139.) — As to the ap plication of the passage, there is the usual division of opinion among the adherents of the different hypothesis. Henderson's reasoning upon this verse is remarkable. Having applied vers. 3-5 to the ancient Jewish idolatry, he might have been expected to attach the same sense to the •words before us, where the prophet seems to turn again to those of whom he had been speaking when he began to promise the deliverance of ihe elect remnant ver. 8.) But " it seems more natural to regard them as the impe nitent and worldly portion of the Jews who shall live at the time of the restoration." The reason given for this sudden change can only satisfy the minds of those who agree with the author in his foregone conclusion, namely, that " the persons addressed in this and the four following verses are con trasted with those who are to return and enjoy the divine favour in Pales tine." But even after the application of the terms is thus decided, there is a question cot so easily disposed of, as to what they mean. The prin ciple of strict interpretation might be thought to require the conclusion doubtingly hinted at by J. D. Michaelis, that the Jews are to worship Gad and Meni hereafter. But, according to Henderson, " there is no reason to

imagine ihat the Jews will again become actual idolaters," as if the stiict interpretation of this verse would not itself a fiord a reason not for imagin ing but for believing that it will be so. But rather than admit this, he declares that " all attempts to explain Gad ar.d Mcni of idols literally taken, are aside from the point." From what point they are thus aside does not appear, unless it be the point of making half the prophecy a loose metapho rical description, and cutting the remainder to the quick by a rigorously literal interpretation." "Israel," "Jerusalem," "the land," must all denote the " Israel," " Jerusalem," and " land" of ancient times and of the old economy; but all attempts to explain Gad and Meni of idols literally taken are aside from the point. And thus we are brought to the curious result of one literal interpretation excluding another as impossible. The true sense of the passage set ms to be the same as in vers. 3-7, where Henderson him self regards the prophet as completing his description of the wickedness of Israel, by circumstances drawn from different periods of his history, guch as the idolatrous period, the pharisaical period, &c.

12. And I have numbered you to the sword, and all of you to the slaughter shall low ; because I called and ye did not answer, I fj)al;e and ye did not hear, and ye did the (thing that was) evil in rnyeyes, and that ichich I desired not ye chose. The preceding verse having reference only to the present and tho past, the Vav at the beginning of this can have no conversive influence upon the verb, which is therefore to be rendered as a preterite. The objec tions to making it the sign of the apodosis have been already stated. The paraphrastic version, therefore, is entirely gratuitous. Gesenins gives the verb in this one place the diluted sense of allotting or appointing ; but the strict sense of numbering or counting is not only admissible, but necessary to express a portion of the writer's meaning, namely, the idea that they should be cut off one by one, or rather one with another, i. e. all without exception. (See chap, xxvii. 12, and vol. i. p. 442.) Knobel, indeed, imagines that a universal slaughter cannot be intended, because he goes on to tell what shall leiall the survivors, viz. hunger, thirst, disgrace, distress, &c. Hitzig had taste enough to see that these are not described as subse quent in time to the evils threatened in the verse before us, but specifica tions of the way in which that threatening should be executed. The sense above given to 'JV?D is confirmed and illustrated by its application else where to the numbering of sheep. (Jer. xxxiii. 13.) In its use here there is evident allusion to its derivative *JP in *ne preceding verse, which some of the German writers try to make perceptible to German readers by combining cognate nouns and verbs, such as Shicksal and schicke, Verhiingniss and verhanye, 1'estimmung and lestimme, &c. The same effect, if it •were worth the- while, might be produced in English by the use of destiny and destine. Vitringa, in order to identify the figures of the first and second clauses, makes 2^n mean a butcher's knife ; but an opposite assimilation would be better, namely, that of making n?tp mean slaughter in general, not that of the slaughter-hou?e exclusively. Both sword and slaughter aro familiar figures for violent destruction. The verb JH3 is also applied else where to one slain by violence (Judges v. 27, 2 Kings ix. 24). Bowing or stooping to the slaughter is submitting to it either willingly or by compul sion. Gesenius takes I"l3t? in the local sense of Schlachtbank, to suit which he translates the verb kntet, and the particle before. This last Noyes re tains without the others, in the English phrase bow down before the slaugh ter, which is either unmeaning, or conveys a false idea, that of priority in time. The remainder of the verse assigns the reason of the threatened

punishment. The first expression bears a strong resemblance to the words of Wisdom, in Prov. i. 24-81. Knobel's explanation of the "thing that was evil in my eyes" as a description of idolatry, is as much too restricted as Yitringa's explanation of " that which I desired not or delighted not in" as signifying ritual or formal as opposed to spiritual worship. Of the two the former has the least foundation, as the only proof cited is chap, xxxviii. 3, whereas Yitringa's explanation of the other phrase derives no little coun tenance from Ps. xl. 7, li. IS, Hos. vi. 6. The only objection to either is that it mistakes a portion of the true sense for the whole. — As to the appli cation of the words, there is the usual confidence and contradiction. Knobel regards them as a threatening of captivity and execution to the Jews who took sides with the Babylonians against Cyrus. Henderson applies them to the inevitable and condign punishment of those Jews who shall prefer the pleasures of sin to those of true religion embraced by the great body of the nation, which punishment, he adds, " will, in all probability, be inflicted upon them in common with the members of the anti- Christian confederacy, after their believing brethren shall have been securely settled in Palestine." The grounds of this all probable anticipation are not given. Yitringa understands the passage as predicting the excision of the Jewish nation from the church, not only for the crowning sin of rejecting Christ, but for their aggregate offences as idolaters and hypocrites, as rebels against God and despisers of his mercy, with which sins they are often charged in the Old Testament (e.g. chaps. 1. 2; Ixv. 2; Ixvi. 4; Jer. vii. 13, 25), and still more pointedly by Christ himself in several of his parables and other discourses, some of which remarkably resemble that before us both in sentiment and language. (See Mat. xxiii. 37, xxii. 7, Luke xix. 27, and compare Acts xiii. 46). Besides the countenance which this analogy affords to Yitringa's exposition, it is strongly recomir. ended by its strict agreement with what we have determined, independently of this place, to be the true sense of the whole foregoing context. Interpreted by these harmonious analogies, the verse, instead of threatening the destruction of the Baby lonish Jews before the advent, or of the wicked Jews and Antichrist here after, is a distinct prediction of a fur more critical event than either, the judicial separation of the Jewish nation and the Israel of God which had for ages seemed inseparable, not to say identical.

13, 14. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Lo! my servants shall cat and ye shall hunger; lo, my servants shall drink and ye shall thirst; lo, my servants shall rejoice and ye shall be ashamed ; lo, my servants shall shout from gladness of heart, and ye shall cry from grief of heart, and from Irokcn- 'nes-i of spirit ye shall howl. These verses merely carry out the general threatening of the one preceding, in a series of poetical antithesis, where hunger, thirst, disgrace, and anguish, take the place of sword and slaughter, and determine these to be symbolical or emblematic terms. Knobel's interpretation of these verses as predicting bodily privations and hard bond age to those who should escape the sword of Cyrus, is entitled to as little deference as he would pay to the suggestion of Vitringa, that the eating and drinking have specific reference to the joy with which the first Chris tian converts partook of the Lord's supper (Acts. ii. 46, xx. 7). This is no doubt chargeable with undue refinement and particularity, but notwith standing this excess, the exposition is correct in principle, as we may learn from the frequent use of these antagonistic metaphors to signify spiritual joy and horror, not only in the Prophets (see above, chaps, viii. 21, xxxiii. 16, Iv. 1, Iviii. 14), but by our Saviour when he speaks of his disciples as eating bread in the kingdom of heaven (Luke xiv. 13), where many shall come from the east and the west, and sit down (or recline at table) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mat. viii. 11) ; and ascribes to the king in the parable the solemn declaration, "I say unto you none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper" (Luke xiv. 24). Thus understood, the passage is a solemn prediction of happiness to the believ ing, and of misery to the unbelieving Jews. The latter are directly ad dressed, the former designated as my servants. — Gladness of heart, literally goodness of heart, which in our idiom would express a different idea, on account of our predominant use of the first word in a moral sense. For the Hebrew expression see Deut. xxviii. 47, Judges xix. 6, 22. For brokcnness of spirit, compare chap. Ixi. 1, and Ps. li. 17. — To be ashamed, as often elsewhere, includes disappointment and frustration of hope.

15. And ye shall leace your name far an oath to my chosen ones, and the Lord Jehovah shall slay thee, and shall call his servants by another name (literally, call another name to them). The object of address is still the body of the Jewish nation, from which the believing remnant are distin guished by the names my chosen and my servants. Oath is here put for curse, as it is added to it in Dan. ix. 11, and the two are combined in Num. v. 21, where the oath of cursing may be regarded as the complete expres sion of which oath is here an ellipsis. To leave one's name for a curse, according to Old Testament usage, is something more than to leave it to be cursed. The sense is that the name shall be used as a formula of cursing, so that men shall be able to wish nothing worse to others than a like cha racter and fate. This is clear from Jer. xxix. 22, compared with Zech. iii. 2, as well as from the converse or correlative promise to the patriarchs and their children, that a like use should be made of their names as a formula of blessing (Gen. xxii. 18, xlviii. 20). As in other cases where the use of names is the subject of discourse, there is no need of supposing that any actual practice is predicted, but merely that the character and fate of those addressed will be so bad as justly to admit of such an application. — Ewald ingeniously explains the words ninj! i)~\$ ^P™ as the very form of cursing to be used, so may the Lord Jehovah slay thee! This construction, though adopted by Umbreit and Knobel, is far from being obvious or natural. The preterite, though sometimes construed with the optative particles, would hardly be employed in that sense absolutely, especially in the middle of a sentence preceded and followed by predictive clauses, each beginning with \ which on Ewald's supposition must be either overlooked as pleonastic or violent!}7 made to bear the sense of so. Even if this were one of the mean ings of the particle, a more explicit form would no doubt have been used in a case where the comparison is everything. The wish required by the con text is that God would kill them so, or in like manner ; a bare wish that he would kill them, would be nothing to the purpose. The violence of this construction as an argument against it might be counteracted by exegetical necessity, but no such necessity exists. The use of the singular pronoun thee, so far from requiring it, is in perfect keeping with the rest of the sentence. As the phrase your name shews that the object of address is a plurality of persons bearing one name, or in other words an organ ized community, so the singular form stay thee is entirely appropriate to this collective or ideal person. Of the last clause there are three inter pretations. The Rabbinical expounders understand it as the converse of the other clause. As your name is to be a name of cursing, so my ser-

ISAIAH LXV. [VER- 16.

vants are to have another name, i.e. a name of blessing, or a name by which men shall bless. Others give it a more general sense,_ as meanin* their condition shall be altogether different. A third opinion is that it relates to the substitution of the Christian name for that of Jew, as i distinctive designation of God's people. The full sense of the clause can only be obtained by combining all these explanations, or at least a part of each. The first is obviously implied, if not expressed. The second is established by analogy and usage, and the almost unanimous Consent of all interpreters. The only question is in reference to the last which is of course rejected with contempt by the neologists, and regarded as fanci bv some Christian writers. These have been influenced in part by the erroneous assumption that if this is not the whole sense of the words it cannot be a part of it. But this is only true in cases where the two pro posed are incompatible. The true state of the case is this. According to the usaoe of the prophecies the promise of another _ name imports a different character and state, and in this sense the promise has been fully verified. But in addition to this general fulfilment, which no one calls in question, it is matter of history that the Jewish commonwealth or nation 13 destroyed; that the name of Jew has been for centuries a by -word and a formula of execration, and that they who have succeeded to the spiritual honours of this once favoured race, although they claim historical identity therewith, have never borne its name, but another, which from ite very nature could have no existence until Christ had come, and whicn in th common parlance of the Christian world is treated as the opposite ot Jew. Now all this must be set aside as mere fortuitous coincidence, or it musl be accounted for precisely in the same way that we all account for sin coincidences between the history of Christ and the Old Testament in minor points, where all admit that the direct sense of the prophecy is more exten sive As examples, may be mentioned John the Baptist s_ preaching in a literal wilderness, our Saviour's riding on a literal ass, his literally opemn! the eyes of the blind, when it is evident to every reader of the original pas sages that they predict events of a far more extensive and more elevated nature. While I fully believe that this verse assures God s servants of verv different fate from that of the unbelieving Jews, I have no doubt that it also has respect to the destruction of the Jewish State, and the repudia tion of its name by the true church or Israel of God. ^ * 1C (By] u-hich the (man) Messing himself in the land (or earth) shall Uess himself by the God of truth, and (by which) the (man) swearing m the land (or earth) shall swear by the God of truth, because forgotten are the former enmities (or troubles), and because they are hidden from my eyes. Two things have divided and perplexed interpreters in this verse, as stands connected with the one before it. The first is the apparent change of subject, and the writer's omission to record the new name which had jus been promised. The other is the very unusual construction of the rela •tiPK The first of these has commonly been left without solution, or ri feWed to the habitual freedom of the writer. The other has been variously but very unsuccessfully explained. Kirnchi takes it in the sense of when, Luther in that of so that. Vitringa connects it with the participle, as it were a future. Rosenmiiller and Geseuius regard it as redundant, which is a mere evasion of the difficulty, as the cases which they cite of such a USE are entirely irrelevant, as shewn by Maurer, whose own hypothesis is not more satisfactory, viz. that either the article or relative was carelessly inserted (negligent** dictum). Ewald gives the relative its strict sense,

and makes Jehovah the antecedent, by supplying before it, thus saith Jeho vah (or saith he) by whom the man that blesses, &c. This has the advan tage of adhering to the strict sense of the pronoun, but the disadvantage of involving an improbable ellipsis, and of making the writer say circuitously what he might have said directly. " Thus saith he by whom the person blessing blesses by the God of truth," is perfectly equivalent to, Thus saith the God of truth. Both these objections may be obviated by referring ">£% to an expressed antecedent, viz. name, a construction given both in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions, although otherwise defective and obscure. Another advantage of this construction is that it removes the abrupt transi tion and supplies the name, which seems on any other supposition to bo wanting. According to this view of the place, the sense is that the people shall be called after the God of truth, so that his name and theirs shall be identical, and consequently whoever blesses or swears by the one, blesses or swears by the other also. The form in which this idea is expressed is peculiar, but intelligible and expressive: " His people he shall call by another name, which (i. e. with respect to which, or more specifically by which) he that blesseth shall bless by the God of truth," &c. Ewald sup poses blessing and cursing to be meant, as oath is used above to signify a curse; but most inteqireters understand by blessing himself, praying for God's blessing, and by swearing, the solemn invocation of his presence as a witness, both being mentioned as acts of religious worship and of solemn recognition. — |£?K is probably an adjective moaning sure, trustworthy, and therefore including the ideas of reality and faithfulness, neither of which should be excluded, and both of which are comprehended in the English phrase, the true God, or retaining more exactly the form of the original, the God of truth. Henderson's version, " faithful God," expresses only half of the idea. This Hebrew word is retained in the Greek of the New Testament, not only as a particle of asseveration, but in a still more remark able manner as a name of Christ (Rev. i. 18, iii. 14), with obvious reference to the case before us; and there must be something more than blind chance in the singular coincidence thus brought to light between this application of the phrase and the sense which has been put upon the fore going verse, as relating to the adoption of the Christian name Ly the church or chosen people. As applied to Christ, the name is well explained by Yitringa to describe him as very God, as a witness to the truth, as the sub stance or reality of the legal shadows, and as the fulfiller of the divine pro mises. Ewald agrees with the older writers in rendering r"1^, in the earth. but most interpreters prefer the more restricted version, in the land. The difference is less than might at first sight be supposed, as " in the land " could here mean nothing less than in the land of promise, the domain of Israel, the church in its widest and most glorious diffusion. — The last clause gives the reason for the application of the title, God of truth, viz. because in his deliverance of his people he will prove himself to be the true God in both senses, truly divine and eminently faithful. This proof will be afforded by the termination of those evils which the sins of his own people once rendered necessary. Usage is certainly in favour of the common ver sion, troubles or distresses; but there is something striking in Lowth's version, provocations, which agrees well with what seems to be the sense of "ny m chap. Ixiii. 9. As commonly translated, it is understood by Gesenius as meaning that God will forget the former necessity for punishing his people, which is equivalent to saying that he will forget their sins. But Maurer understands the sense to be that he will think no more of smiting

them again. Both seem to make the last words a poetical description of oblivion; but Knobel refers what is said of forgetting to a people, and only the remaining words to God.

17. For lo I (am) creating (or about to create) new heavens and a new earth, and the former (things) shall not be remembered, and shall not come up into the mind (literally, on the heart). Some interpreters refer former to heavens and earth, which makes the parallelism more exact ; but most interpreters refer it to n'lTJfn in ver. 16, where the same adjective is used, or construe it indefinitely in the sense of former things. Of the whole verse there are several distinct interpretations. Aben Ezra understands it as predicting an improvement in the air and soil, conducive to longevity and uninterrupted health ; and a similar opinion is expressed by J. D. Michaelis, who illustrates the verse by the supposition of a modern writer who should describe the vast improvement in Germany since ancient times, by saying that the heaven and the earth are new. A second explanation of the verse is that of Thomas Burnet and his followers, which makes it a prediction of the renovation of the present earth with its skies, &c., after the destruction of the present at the clay of judgment. A third is that of Vitringa, who regards it as a figurative prophecy of changes in the church, according to a certain systematic explication of the several parts of the material universe as symbols. Better than all these, because requiring less to be assumed, and more in keeping with the usage of prophetic language, is the explana tion of the verse as a promise or prediction of entire change in the existing state of things, the precise nature of the change and of the means by which it shall be brought about forming no part of the revelation here. That the words are not inapplicable to a revolution of a moral and spiritual nature, we may learn from Paul's analogous description of the change wrought in conversion (2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15), and from Peter's application of this very passage, " Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness " (2 Peter iii. 13). That the words have such meaning even here, is rendered pro bable by the last clause, the oblivion of the former state of things being much more naturally connected with moral and spiritual changes than with one of a material nature.

18. Bat rejoice and be glad unto eternity (in) that which I (am) creating, for lo I (am) creating Jerusalem a joy, and her people a rejoicing, i. e. a subject or occasion of it. There is no need of explaining the imperatives as futures, though futurity is of course implied in the command. It would be highly arbitrary to explain what £ create in this place as different from the creation in the verse preceding. It is there said that a creation shall take place. It is here enjoined upon God's people to rejoice in it. But here the creation is declared to be the making of Jerusalem a joy and Israel a rejoicing. Now the whole analogy of the foregoing prophecies leads to the conclusion that this means the exaltation of the church or chosen people ; and the same analogy admits of that exaltation being represented as a revolution in the frame of nature. On the other hand, a literal pre diction of new heavens and new earth would scarcely have been followed by a reference merely to the church ; and if Jerusalem and Zion be ex plained to mean the literal Jerusalem and the restored Jews, the only alternative is then to conclude that as soon as they return to Palestine, it and the whole earth are to be renewed, or else that what relates to Jeru salem and Israel is literal, and what relates to the heavens and the earth metaphorical, although, as we have just seen, the connection of the verses

renders it necessary to regard the two events as one. From all these in congruities we are relieved by understanding the whole passage as a poetical description of a complete and glorious change.

19. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people ; and there shall not be heard in her again the voice oficeepinrf and the voice of crying. Con sidered as the language of the Prophet himself, this would express his sympathetic interest in the joyous changes which awaited his people. But such an application would be wholly arbitrary, as Jehovah is undoubtedly the speaker in the foregoing verse, where he claims creative power ; and even here there is an implication of divine authority in the promise that weeping shall no more be heard in her. There is something very beauti ful in the association of ideas here expressed. God shall rejoice in his people, and they shall rejoice with him. They shall no longer know what grief is, because he shall cease to grieve over them ; their former distresses shnll be forgotten by them, and for ever hidden from his eyes.

20. TJiere shall be no more from there an infant of days, and an old man who shall not fulfil his days; for the child a hundred years old shall die, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. — Some refer DJi'p to time, and understand it to mean thenceforth, a departure from the settled usage which can be justified only by necessity. Others regard the preposition as unmeaning, and read there, which is as arbitrary as Lowth's reading D^, neither of which proceedings can be justified by the example of the ancient versions. The strict translation thence (from there) is not only admissible but necessary to the sense. It does not, however, mean springing or proceeding thence, but taken away thence, or as Kimchi has it, carried thence to burial. It is thus equivalent to n-ISJ in the next clause, and denotes that none shall die there in infancy. In conseqxience of not correctly apprehending this, Hitzig alleges that this first clause by itself can only mean that there shall bo no longer any infants, to avoid which paralogism he connects 0'^ ?1V as well as jpt with the following words : neither infant nor old man who shall not fulfil their days. But there is no need of this tautological construction if DB>O iT?;P implies death, and E*PJ a few days only, which last is more agreeable to usage than the specific sense of year, which some assume. A curious turn is given to the sentence by some of the older writers, who tata fulfil his days in the moral sense of spending them well, with special reference to improvement in knowledge, and the child as meaning one who even at a very advanced age continues still a child in understanding, and shall therefore die. Still more unnatural is the modification of this exposi tion by Cocceius, who explains the whole to mean that men shall have as abundant opportunities of instruction iu the truth as if they enjoyed a patriarchal longevity, so that he who perishes for lack of knowledge will be left without excuse. Yitringa justly repudiates these far-fetched ex planations, but agrees with them in understanding shall die as an emphatic threatening, and in departing from the ordinary sense of "IJ?3, which he takes to be here an equivalent to sinner. All the modern writers are agreed as to the literal meaning of this list clause, though they differ as to the relation of its parts. Some regard it as a synonymous parallelism, and understand the sense to be that he who dies a hundred years old, will be considered as dying young, and by a special curse from God interrupting the ordinary course of nature. Others follow Do Dieu in making the parallelism antithetic, and contrasting the child with the sinner. Perhaps the true view of the passage is, that it- resumes the contrast drawn in vers. 13-15 between the sen-ants of Jehovah and the sinners there ad-

454 ISAIAH LXV. [Visa. 21-24.

dressed. Vers. 16-19 may then be regarded as a parenthetical amplifica tion. As if he had said, My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall mourn; my servants shall be just beginning life when ye are driven out of it; among the former, he who dies a hundred years old shall die a child; among you, he who dies at the same age shall die accursed. On the whole, however, the most natural meaning is the one already men tioned as preferred by most modern writers. Premature death, and even death in a moderate old age, shall be unknown; he who dies a hundred years old shall be considered either as dying iti childhood, or as cut off by a special malediction. The whole is a highly poetical description of longevity, to be explained precisely like the promise of new heavens and a new earth in ver. 17. Beck's gross expressions of contempt for the absurdity of this verse are founded on a wilful perversion or an ignorant misapprehension. Ewald is equally unjust but less indecent in his repre sentation of this verse as a fanatical anticipation of the literal change which it describes.

21, 22. And they shall build houses and inhabit (them], and shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them, they shall not build and another inhabit, they shall not plant and another eat ; for as the days of a tree (shall be] the days of my people, and the work of their hands my chosen ones shall icear out (or survive). This is a promise of security and permanent enjoyment, clothed in expressions drawn from the promises and threatenings of the Mosaic law. By the age of a tree is generally understood the great age •which some species are said to attain, such as the oak, the banyan, &c. But Knobel takes it in the general sense of propagation and succession, and understands the promise to be that, as trees succeed each other natu rally and for ever, so shall the chosen of Jehovah do. The essential idea is in either case that of permanent continuance, and the figures here used to express it make it still more probable that in the whole foregoing con text the predictions are to be figuratively understood.

23. They shall not labour in vain, and they shall not bring forth for terror ; for the seed of the blessed of Jehovah are they, and their offspring with them. The sense of sudden destruction given to "^n? by some modern writers, is a mere conjecture from the context, and no more correct than the transla tion cwse, 'which others derive from the Arabic analogy, and which Hender son regards as the primitive meaning. The Hebrew word properly denotes extreme agitation and alarm, and the meaning of the clause is that they shall not bring forth children merely to be subjects of distressing solicitude. Knobel, as in chap. i. 4, takes JH1 in the sense of a generation or contem porary race ; bat it adds greatly to the strength of the expression if we give its more usual sense of progeny or offspring : they are themselves the offspring of those blessed of God, and their own offspring likewise, as the older writers understand EfiK, while the moderns suppose it to mean shall be with them, i. e. shall continue with them, as opposed to the alarm referred to in the other clause. Umbreit's idea that the picture of domestic happi ness is here completed by the unexpected stroke of parents and children still continuing to live together, is ingenious and refined, perhaps too much so to be altogether natural in this connection.

24. And it shall be (or come foptut), that they shall not yet have called and I will answer, yet (shall) they (be) speaking and I will hear. A strong expression of God's readiness to hear and answer prayer, not a mere pro mise that it shall be heard (like that in Jer. xxix. 12 ; Zech. xiii. 9), but

an assurance that it shall be granted before it is heard. The nearest parallel is Mat. vi. 8, where our Lord himself says, Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Compare chap. xxx. 19, Iviii. 9 ; Ps. cxlv. 18, 19.) — D.?P is commonly explained here as a conjunc tion, before they call, and Gesenius gives this as the primary meaning of the Hebrew particle. But according to Hitzig and Maurer, this is always expressed by the compound form COP?, and the simple form invariably means not yet. This construction, which might otherwise seem very harsh, is favoured by the use of the conjunction and, which, on the usual hypo thesis, must be omitted or regarded merely as a sign of the apodosis, whereas in the parallel clause it occupies precisely the same place, and can only be taken in its usual sense. Lowth attempts to reproduce the form of the original, but not with much success, by rendering the last clause, " they shall be yet speaking and I shall have heard." The parallel verbs both mean to hear prayer in a favourable sense, and are therefore rendered in the Vulgate by the cognate forms audinm and exaudiam. The last verb is curiously paraphrased in the Septuagint, / will say, ivhat is it? (CPU T'I sen.) 25. Tfte icolf and the lamb shall feed as one, and the lion like the ox shall eat straw, and the serpent dust (for) his food. They shall not hurt and they shall not corrupt (or destroy) in all my holy mountain, saith Jehovah. The promise of a happy change is wound up in the most appropriate man ner by repeating the prophecy in chap. xi. 6-9, that all hurtful influences shall for ever cease in the holy hill or church of God. Yet Knobel ven tures to assert that it is an unmeaning imitation of that passage, introduced here without any just connection, and perhaps by a different hand from that of the original writer. Another fact which had escaped preceding writers, is that the phrase as one belongs to the later Hebrew, because used in Eccles. xi. 6, whereas it is essentially identical with as one man in Judges xx. 8, 1 Sam. xi. 7. It is not a simple synonyme of I^H!, toe/ether (the word used in chap. xi. G, but much stronger and more graphic; so that Lowth only weakens the expression by proposing to assimilate the readings on the autho rity of a single manuscript. Another point in which the description is here heightened is the substitution of '"i?p, a young and tender lamb, for ^3?, a he-lamb of riper age. Ewald expresses the distinction here by using the diminutive term Lammlein. Instead of the lion like the ox, the Vulgate has tfie lion and the ox (Ico et bos), and that the et is not an error of the text for ut appears from the plural form of the verb comedent. Most of the modern writers construe ViJ) a§ ft nominative absolute, as for the serpent, dust (shall be) his food. A more obvious construction is to repeat the verb shall eat, and consider dust and food as in apposition. J. D. Michaelis supplies continue (bleibe), and most writers regard this idea as implied though not expressed: The serpent shall continue to eat dust. Michaelis and Gesenius suppose an allusion to the popular belief that serpents feed on dust becaase they creep upon the ground, and understand the prophecy to be that they shall henceforth be contented with this food and cease to prey on men or other animals. But this, as Vitringa well observes, would be too small a promise for the context, since a very small part of the evils which men suffer can arise from this cause. He therefore understands the clause to mean that the original curse upon the serpent who deceived Eve (Gen. iii. 14) shall be fully executed. (Compare Rev. xx. 1-3.) He refers to some of his contemporaries as explaining it to mean that the serpent should henceforth prey only upon low and earthly men; but this would be too large a concession, and the true sense seems to be that, in accordance with

his ancient doom, he shall he rendered harmless, robbed of his favourite nutriment, and made to bite the dust at the feet of his conqueror. (Gen. iii. 15 ; Rom. xvi. 20 ; 1 John iii. 8; compare Isaiah xlix. 20.) — The last clause resolves the figure of the first. The verbs are therefore to be under stood indefinitely, as in chap. xi. 9 ; or if they be referred to the animals pre viously mentioned, it is only a symbolical or tropical expression of the same idea. Hitzig gratuitously says that the verbs which in the other place relate to men, are here determined to refer to animals by the connection; to which Knobel flippantly replies that this is not the case, because there is no con nection to determine it. The truth is, that the form of expression is the same in either case, except that what begins a verse in the eleventh chapter here concludes one. Had the passage here repeated been in one of the so-called later chapters, it would no doubt have been cited as a proof of the author' s identity; but no such proof can be admitted by the ' ' higher criticism, ' ' in favour of identifying the writer of this chapter with the genuine Isaiah. Rather than listen to such reasoning, the "higher critics " make it a case of imitation and abridgment, and one of them, as we have seen, of ignorant interpolation. — For any further explanation of this verse, the reader is referred to vol. i. pp. 253-255.

CHAPTER LXVL

THIS chapter winds up the prophetic discourse with an express prediction of the change of dispensation, and a description of the difference between them. Jehovah will no longer dwell in temples made with hands, ver. 1. Every sincere and humble heart shall be his residence, ver. 2. The ancient sacrifices, though divinely instituted, will henceforth be as hateful as the rites of idolatry, ver. 3. They who still cling to the abrogated ritual will be fearfully but righteously requited, ver. 4. The true Israel cast out by these deluded sinners shall ere long be glorified, and the carnal Israel fearfully rewarded, vers. 5, 6. The ancient Zion may already be seen travailing with a new and glorious dispensation, vers. 7-9. They who mourned for her seeming desolation, nowrejoice in her abundance and her honour, vers. 10-14. At the same time the carnal Israel shall be destroyed, as apostates and idolaters, vers. 14—17. The place which they once occupied shall now be filled by the elect from all nations, ver. 18. To gather these, a remnant of the ancient Israel shall go forth among the Gentiles, ver. 19. They shall come from every quarter, and by every method of conveyance, ver. 20. They shall be admitted to the sacerdotal honours of the chosen people, ver. 21. This new dispensation is not to be temporary, like the one before it, but shall last for ever, ver. 22. While the spiritual Israel is thus replenished from all nations, the apostate Israel shall perish by a lingering decay in the sight of an astonished world, vers. 23, 24.

1. Thus saith Jehovah. The heavens (are) my throne, and the earth my footstool; where is (or what is) the house which ye will build for me, and where is (or what is) the jjZerce of my rest ? literally, the place my rest, i. e. the place which is or can be my rest or permanent abode. The same term is elsewhere applied to the temple, as distinguished from the taber nacle or moveable sanctuary. (See 2 Sam. vii. 6, 2 Chron. vi. 41, Ps. cxxxii. 8.) As to the sense of H.pK, see above, p. 246. In this case where is less appropriate than what, as the inquiry seems to have respect to the nature or the quality rather than the mere locality of the edifice in

question. Hitzig translates fl!1? strictly a house, and -I^R is variously rendered ye build, in the English Bible; ye would build, by Ewald; ye could build, by Gesenius, &c. ; but the simplest and best version is ye will build, as including all the others. All interpreters agree that this question implies disapprobation of the building as at variance with the great truth propounded in the first clause, namely, that the frame of nature is the only material temple v.orthy of Jehovah. This obvious relation of the clauses is sufficient of itself to set aside two of the old interpretations of the passage. The first is that of Kimchi, favoured more or less by Calvin and some later writers, which supposes that this chapter is a counterpart to the first, and that the Prophet here recurs to his original theme, the corruptions and abuses of his own age. But besides the undisputed references to the future in the latter part of this very chapter, it has been conclusively objected by Yitringa to the theory in question, that in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah there could be no thought of building or rebuilding, nor even of repairing or adorning the temple, but rather of despoiling it. (2 Kings xvi. 17, 18 ; xviii. 15.) The same objection lies against the theory of Grotius, that this chapter was intended to console the pious Jews who were debarred from the customary public worship during the profanation of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. In neither of these cases could there be occasion for objecting to the building or rebuilding of the temple. Those who refer this whole series of predictions to the period of the Babylonish exile find it hard to explain this chapter upon that hypothesis, since the building of the temple is urged upon the people as a duty by the acknowledged prophets of the exile. In order to facilitate the process, some of them detached it from the foregoing context, on the ground of its abrupt commencement, which is not at all more striking than in other cases where no such conclusion has been drawn, because not felt to be necessary for the critic's purpose. Eichhorn found this a fit occasion for the application of the " higher criticism," and he accordingly strikes out vers. 1-17 of this chapter as an older composition than the rest, the exact date not definable, but certainly prior to the downfall of the Jewish monarchy. Paulus and Rosenmuller, on the other hand, regard the whole as later than the first return from Babylon. Between these extremes Gesenius as usual undertakes to mediate, condemns the first as " trennende Kritik," and refutes it by a copious but superfluous detail of minute coin cidences both of thought and language between the disputed passage and ihe foregoing chapters which he therefore supposes to belong to the sumo period. From this decision there is no material dissent among the later writers, although Ilitzig asserts in the strongest terms the utter want of connection between this and the preceding chapters. The same assertion might be made with equal plausibility in any other case of a continued com position where the writer is not trammelled by a systematic method; but passes freely from one topic to another, in obedience to a lively and un checked association of ideas. No reader or interpreter who has not a hypothesis to verify will find any reason for supposing a greater interruption here than at the end of an ordinary paragraph. The fallacy of the contrary assertion has been shewn by Vitringa to consist in assuming that the pas sages are unconnected unless the first verse of the second carries out the thought expressed in the last verse of the first, whereas the chapter now before us is in some sense parallel to that before it, taking up the subject at the same point and bringing it at last to the same issue. That exposi tion is indeed most probably the true one which assumes the most intimate

connection of the chapters here, and is least dependent upon forced divi sions and arbitrary intervals crowded with imaginary events. Thus Rosenmiiller thinks that in the interval between these chapters the tribes of Benjamin and Judah had resolved to exclude the others from all participa tion in the rebuilding of the temple, and that the passage now before us was intended to reprove them for their want of charity, as if this end could be accomplished by proclaiming the worthlessness of all material temples, which is tantamount to saying, Why do ye refuse to let your countrymen assist in the rebuilding of the temple, since no temples are of any value? Hitzig's imagination is still more prolific, and invents a project to erect another temple in Chaldea as a succedaneum for returning to Jerusalem. At the same time his superior acuteness guards against the palpable absurdity already mentioned, by supposing the error here corrected to be that of believing that the mere erection of a temple would discharge their obligations and secure their welfare, without any reference to what Jehovah had commanded. They are therefore taught that he has no need of material dwellings, and that these, to be of any value, must be built exactly when and where and as he pleases to require. (1 Sam. xv. 22, 23.) This ingenious exposition would be faultless if it rested upon any firmer basis than a perfectly imaginary fact. That there is any proof of it from, other quarters, is not pretended. That it is not a necessary inference from that before us, will be clear when the true interpretation has been given. It is necessary first to state, however, that while Hitzig thus infers from the text itself a fact unknown to history because it never happened, Henderson with equal confidence infers from it a fact as little known to history, but for a very different reason. While the one considers it as proving that a party of the exiles in Babylon desired to build a temple there instead of going back to Palestine, the other considers it as proving that part of the restored Jews will unlawfully attempt to rebuild the old temple in Palestine itself, and that this passage is intended to reprove them. Yet in chap. Ix. 7, 18, we read not only of a sanctuary to be literally built of the most costly timber, but of an altar and of victims to be offered on it; all which may be tortured into figures, it appears, provided that the future restoration of the Jews be strictly expounded in a local sense. With these interpretations and the forced hypotheses which they involve, we may now compare another which has been approved by various judi cious writers, but by none more clearly stated or more successfully main tained than by Yitringa. It is simply this, that having held up in every point of view the true design, mission, and vocation of the church or chosen people, its relation to the natural descendants of Abraham, the causes which required that the 'latter should be stripped of their peculiar privileges, and the vocation of the Gentiles as a part of the divine plan from its origin, the Prophet now addresses the apostate and unbelieving Jews at the close of the old dispensation, who, instead of preparing for the general extension of the church, and the exchange of ceremonial for spiritual worship, were engaged in the rebuilding and costly decoration of the temple at Jerusalem. The pride and interest in this great public work, felt not only by the Herods but by all the Jews, is clear from incidental statements of the Scriptures (John ii. 20, Matt. xxiv. 1), as well as from the ample and direct assertions of Josephus. That the nation should have been thus occupied precisely at the time when the Messiah came, is one of those agreements between prophecy and history which cannot be accounted for except upon the supposition of a providential and designed assimilation.

To the benefit of this coincidence the exposition which has last been given is entitled, and by means of it the probabilities, already great, may be said to be converted into certainties, or if anything more be needed for this purpose it will be afforded by the minuter points of similarity which will be presented in the course of the interpretation. One advantage of this ex position is that it accounts for the inference here drawn from a doctrine which was known to Solomon and publicly announced by him (1 Kings viii. 27), though described by Gesenius as unknown to the early Hebrews, who supposed that God was really confined to earthly temples (1 Chron. xxviii. 2, Ps. xcix. 5, cxxxii. 5). It may be asked, then, why this truth did not forbid the erection of the temple at first, as well as its gorgeous reconstruction in the time of Christ. The answer is, that it was necessary for a temporary purpose, but when this temporary purpose was accomplished it became not only useless but unlawful. Henceforth the worship was to be a spiritual worship, the church universally diffused, and the material sanctuary, as J. D. Michaelis says, no longer an earthly residence for God but a convenient place of meeting for his people.

2. And all these my own land made, and all these were (or arc], saith Jeltovah; and to this one icill I look, to the afflicted and contrite in spirit and trembling at my word. By all tJieae it is universally admitted that we are to understand the heavens and the earth, of which he claims to be not only the sovereign, as in the preceding verse, but the creator. The next ex pression may be differently understood. Lowth suplies v, to me, on the authority of the Septuagint (tanv spa.}, and adds that this word is absolutely necessary to the sense. But according to Hebrew usage, the verb would not have been expressed if this had been the meaning ; and the clause as Lowth completes it does not mean (hey are mine, but they were (or have leen) mine. The same objection lies in some degree against the explana tion of Vn?1 without Y as meaning (hey exist (/. e. by my creative power). The reference is rather to the time of actual creation, my hand made tliem and they were, i.e. began to be. (See Gen. i. 3, Ps. xxxiii. 9.) Both tenses of the verb are combined to express the same idea in Rev. iv. 11. J. D. Michaelis and Ewald shew the true connection by translating, " my hand made them and so they were or came into existence." It is impor tant to the just interpretation of these verses to observe the climax in them. First, the temples made by men are contrasted with the great material temple of the universe ; then this is itself disparaged by Jehovah as his own handiwork, and still more in comparison with the nobler temple of a spiritual nature, the renewed and contrite heart. (See chap. Ivii. 15, 2 Cor. vi. 10.) The same condescending favour is expressed for the same objects elsewhere (Ps. xxxiv. 19, cxxxviii. 6). To look to, is to have regard to, and implies both approbation and affection. (See Gen. iv. 4, 5, Exod. ii. 25, Num. xvi. 15, Judges vi. 14, Ps. xxv. 10.) The Septuagint and Vulgate make the last clause interrogative: "To whom shall I look but' ? &c. Contrite or broken in heart or spirit is a Scriptural description of the subjects of divine grace in its humbling aud subduing influences (chaps. Ixi. 1, Ixv. 14). The Septuagint renders it itrtyov, quiet, implying patient acquiescence in the will of God. The HJ refers to the following descrip tion, like n'KT in chap. Ivi. 2. Gesenius illustrates ?J> "nn by citing 1 Sam. iv. 13, where Eli is described as trembling for the ark of God ; but Hitzig justly represents the cases as unlike, and explains the one before us as de noting not solicitude about the word of God, but an earnest inclination to it,

or as Ewald renders it a trembling to his \vord, i. c. an eager and vet fearful haste to execute his will. (Compare Hosea iii. 5, xi. 10, 11.) The use of the phrase in histoi'ical prose by Ezra (ix. 4, x. 8) is probably borrowed from the place before us.

3. Slaying the ox, smiting a man — sacrificing the sheep, breaking a dog's neck — offering an oblation, blood of sicinc — making a memorial of incense, Mewing vanity — also they have chosen their ways, and in their abominations has their soul delighted. This translation, although scarcely English, will convey some idea of the singular form of the original, and render intelligible what is said as to the different constructions of the sentence. — The first clause consists of four similar members, in each of which are coupled a form of sacrifice under the Mosaic law and an offering which according to that law was inadmissible and even revolting. The ox and the ^heep represent the animal sacrifices, the '"in^jp or meat-offering and the incense those of an unbloody nature. The verbs connected with these nouns are likewise all selected from the technical vocabulary of the law. OfT^ and n2T both originally signify to slay or slaughter, but are especially applied to sacrificial slaughter in the Pentateuch. n<^ is the participle of a verb which means to cause to ascend, and in the language of the ritual, upon the altar. "^?I!? is another, of obscurer origin and strict signification, though its use and ap plication are as clear as any of the rest. The modern writers commonly derive it from the noun l"n3TN the technical name of a certain kind of offer ing, especially of incense (Lev. xxiv. 7), with or without other vegetable substances (Num. v. 26). It seems to mean memorial, and is usually so translated, and explained upon the ground that the fumes of incense were conceived of as ascending into heaven and reminding God of the worshipper. The same figure was then transferred to prayers and other spiritual offer ings. — Thus we read in Acts x. 4 that the angel said to Cornelius, thy prayers and thine alms are come up before God fur a memorial ii$ pvr^oovvov, the very phrase employed by the Septuagint in the case before us. The verb then means to offer this oblation, but may be considered as ex pressing more directly the recalling of the worshipper to God's remembrance, as it literally means to remind. Being also used in the sense of mention ing, it is so understood here by Luther, while the Vulgate gives it the meaning of its primitive, remembering. — Smiting has here, as often else where, the emphatic sense of wounding mortally or killing (Gen. iv. 15, Exod. ii. 12, Josh. xx. 5, 1 Sam. xvii. 26). *P*j (from *pJJ, the neck) is a technical term used in the law to denote the breaking of the neck of unclean animals when not redeemed from consecration to Jehovah (Exod. xiii. 13, Deut. xxi. 4). It expresses, therefore, a peculiar mode of killing. The dog has ever been regarded in the east as peculiarly unclean, and in that light is coupled with the swine not only in the Bible (Mat. vii. 6, 2 Piter ii. 22), but by Horace, who twice names dog and swine together as the vilest animals. Swine's blood alone is without a verb to govern it, which Lowth thinks a defect in the existing text, while Hitzig ascribes it to the haste of composition. Bochart supplies eating, but Vitringa properly objects that all the rest relates to sacrifice. The simplest course is to repeat the leading verb of the same member. — })&? is commonly supposed to mean an idol, as it does in a few places ; but it is better to retain its generic sense, as more expressive. This is by some understood to be vanity, nonentity, or worthlessness, as attributes of idols ; by others, injustice or iniquity in general. The whole phrase is commonly explained to mean blessing (i. e. praising or worshipping) an idol, or as Hitzig thinks, saluting it by kissing

1.; ISAIAH LXVL 4G1

(1 Kings xix. 18, Job xxxi. 27) ; but Luther gives it the general sense ofprauing wickedness, an act to which he supposes that of mentioning in cense to be likened, while Knobel understands JIN adverbially, and the phraso as meaning one who worships God unlawfully or wickedly ; but this would be comparing a thing merely with itself, and as all the other secondarv phrases denote rites of worship, it is better so to understand this likewise. Such is the meaning of the several expressions; but a question still remains as to their combination. The .simplest syntax is to supply the verb of existence, and thus produce a series of short propositions. He that slays an ox smites a man, &c. Lowth and Ewald understand this to mean that the same person who offers sacrifices to God in the form prescribed by law, is also guilty of murder and idolatry, a practice implying gross hypocrisy as well as gross corruption. The ancient versions all supply a particle of like ness — he that slays an ox is like one that murders a man\ &c. This is adopted by most of the modern writers, but of late without supplying any thing, the words being taken to assert not mere resemblance, but identity, •which is the strongest form of comparison. It is certainly more expressive to say that an offerer of cattle is a murderer, than to say that he is like one, though the latter may be, after all, the real meaning. He is a murderer, i.e. God so esteems him. According to Lowth and Ewald, the verse de scribes the co-existence of ritual formality with every kind of wickedness, especially idolatry, as in the first chapter. Gesenius objects that this pre supposes the existence of the Mosaic ritual when the passage was written, never dreaming that instead of presupposing it might prove it. His own interpretation, and the common one, is, that the passage relates not to the actual practice of the abominations mentioned, but to the practice of iniquity in general, which renders the most regular and costly offerings as hateful to Jehovah as the most abominable rites of idolatry. Among those who adopt this explanation of the sentence there is still a difference as to its application. Gesenius applies it to the worthlessness of ritual perform ances without regard to moral duty, Hitzig and Knobel to the worthlessness of sacrifices which might be offered at the temple built in Babylonia, Henderson to the unlawfulness of sacrifices under the Christian dispensa tion, with particular reference to the case of the restored Jews and their temple at Jerusalem. I still regard Yitringa's exposition as the most exact, profound, and satisfactory, whether considered in itself, or in rela'.ion to the whole preceding context. He agrees with Gesenius in making the text the general doctrine that sacrifice is hateful in the s;ght of God if offered in a wicked spirit, but with a special reference to those who still adhered to the old sacrifices alter the great Sacrifice for sin was come, and had been offered once for all. Thus understood, this verse extends to sacrifices that which the foregoing verses said of the temple, after the change of dis pensations.

4. / also wilt choose their vexations, and their fear I will briny upon them; because I called and there was no one answering, I s/>ake and they did not hear, and they did evil in my eyes, and that which I delinht not in they chose. The larger part of this verse, from because to the end, is repeated from chap. Ixv. 12, and serves not only to connect the passages as parts of an unbroken composition, but also to identify the subjects of discourse in the two places. According to the usual analogy of the Masoretic interpunction, the first words of the verse before us ought to be connected as a parallel clause with the last words of ver. 3, partly because each verse is complete and of the usual length without the clause in question, partly

because the parallelism is indicated by the repetition of the DJ. This repe tition occurs elsewhere as an equivalent to the Greek v.a.1 — KO.!, the Latin et — et, and our both — and, as in the phrase also yesterday, also to-day (Exod. v. 14). In the case before us it is paraphrased by some translators as they chose, so I choose, by others, as well they as I chose; but perhaps the nearest equivalent in English is, on their part they chose, and on my part I choose. The obvious antithesis between the pronoun of the third and first person precludes the supposition that a different class of persons is denoted by nan D|. The common version of Dv-V?yri (delusions') seems to be founded on a misconception of the Vulgate illusiones, which was probably intended to suggest the idea of derision, like the lyccwa/y/iara of the Septuagint. The true sense of the word here is essentially the same, but somewhat stronger, viz. annoyances, vexations, which last is employed to represent it by Cocceius. It is in the cognate sense of petulance or caprice, that it is used to denote children in chap. iii. 4. This etymological affinity is wholly disregarded, by translating the word here calamities, with Lowth, Gesenius, and others. Their fear is the evil which they fear, as in Prov. x. 24, where the same idea is expressed almost in the same words.

5. Hear the word of Jehovah, ye that tremble at his word. Your brethren say, (those] hating you and casting you out for my name's sake, Jehovah will be glorified, and ice shall gaze upon your joy — and they shall be ashamed. Trembling at (or rather to) Jehovah's word seems to mean reverently wait ing for it. Ye that thus expect a message from Jehovah, now receive it. Vitringa adheres strictly to the Masoretic accents, which connect for my name's sake with what follows : " Your brethren say — those hating you and casting you out — for my name's sake Jehovah shall be glorified." To this construction there are two objections : first, that the same persons who are three times mentioned in the plural are abruptly made to speak in the sin gular, for my name's sake, an enallage which, although possible, is not to be assumed without necessity; and secondly, that for my name's sake is not the appropriate expression of the thought supposed to be intended, which would rather be by my means. The majority of later writers are agreed in so far departing from the accents as to join the phrase in question with what goes before ; which is the less objectionable here, as we have seen already in the preceding verses some appearance of inaccuracy in the Ma- . soretic interpunction. The neuter verb "l??? is here applied to God, as it is elsewhere to men (Job xiv. 21) and cities (Ezek. xxvii. 25), in the sense of being glorious rather than glorified, which would require a passive form. It may be construed either as an optative or future ; but the last is more exact, and really includes the other. All are agreed that these two words (nin^ 1?5J) are put into the mouth of the brethren before mentioned ; but it is made a question whether the exact phrase, D3J}npb>3 n^31:> is spoken by them likewise. Piscator, followed by the English and Dutch ver sions, makes this the language of the Prophet, and translates it, and he shall appear to your joy. Besides the doubtful sense thus put upon the preposition, this translation really involves a change of pointing, so as to read HNp3 or a very unusual construction of the participle. Vitringa makes these words the language of a chorus, and supposes them to mean, "But we shall see your joy and they shall be ashamed." The modern writers who refer *P^, as we have seen, to God himself, are obliged to make ri^pJ. the language of another speaker ; unless they assume a pluralis majestaticus, as some old Jewish writers did, according to Aben Ezra, which they do by adding it to what immediately precedes : "Your brethren say, Jehovah shall

bo glorified and we shall see your happiness;" the verb n&n, as usual when followed by the preposition 3, meaning to view or gaze at with strong feclin", and in this case with delight. This construction is unanimously sanctioned by the latest German writers, and is in itself much simpler and more natural than any other. As to the application of the verse there is the usual diver sity of judgment. Jarchi and Abarbanel apply it to the treatment of the Jews in their present exile by the Mohammedans and Romans, called their brethren because descendants of Ishmael and Esau. Gesenius seems to understand it as relating to the scornful treatment of the exiled Jews in Babylon by their heathen enemies. Knobel denies that the latter would be spoken of as brethren, and applies it to the treatment of the pious Jews by their idolatrous countrymen. Hitzig questions even this application of brethren, and explains the verse of the contempt with which the exiles who were willing to return were treated by the unbelievers who remained behind. But how could those who thus remained be said to cast out such as insisted on returning? The phrase may posssibly be taken in the vague sense of despising or treating with contempt; but this diluted explanation, though admissible in case of necessity, cannot take precedence of the strict one, or of the interpretation which involves it. Vitriuga, although rather infelicitous in his construction and translation of the sentence, has excelled all other writers in his exhibition of its general import. He applies it, in accordance with his previous hypothesis, to the rejection of the tirst Christian converts by the unbelieving Jews: Hear the word (or promise) of Jehovah, ye that wait for it with trembling confidence: your brethren (the unconverted Jews) who hate you and cast you out for my name's sake, have said (in so doing), " Jehovah will be glorious (or glorify himself in your behalf no doubt), and we shall witness your salvation " (a bitter irony like that in chap. v. 19) ; but they (who thus speak) shall themselves be confounded (by beholding what they now consider so incredible). Besides the clearness and coherence of this exposition in itself considered, and its perfect har mony with what we have arrived at as the true sense of the whole forego ing context, it is strongly recommended by remarkable coincidences with the New Testament, some of which Vitringa specifies. That the unbe lieving Jews might still be called the brethren of the converts, if it nee led either proof or illustration, might derive it from Paul's mode of address to them in Acts xxii. 1, and of reference to them in Rom. ix. 3. The phrase those hating you may be compared with John xv. 18, xvii. 14 ; Mat. x. 22; 1 Thes. ii. 14 ; and casting you out with John xvi. 2, and Matthew xviii. 17 ; for my names sake with Mat. xxiv. 10 ; to which may be added the interesting fact that the verb H;I3 and its derivatives are used to this day by the Jews in reference to excommunication. Thus understood the verse is an assurance to the chosen remnant in whom the true Israel was to be perpetuated, that although their unbelieving countrymen might cast them out with scorn and hatred for a time, their spite should soon be utterly con founded. The great truth involved in the change of dispensations may be signally developed and exemplified hereafter, as Henderson infers from this passage that it will be, in the case of the restored Jews who receive the doctrine of the gospel and their brethren who persist in endeavouring to establish the old ritual; but we dare not abandon the fulfilment which has actually taken place for the sake of one which may never happen, since we have not been able thus far to discover any clear prediction of it.

6. A voice of tumult from the city ! A voice from the temple ! The voice of 'Jehovah, rendering requital to his enemies! The Hebrew word |1N^ is

4G4 ISAIAH LXV I.

never applied elsewhere to a joyful cry or a cry of lamentation, but to the tumult of war, the rushing sound of armies and the shock of battle, in which sense it is repeatedly employed by Isaiah. The enemies here men tioned must of course be those who had just been described as the despisers and persecutors of their brethren, and whose confusion after being threatened generally in the verse preceding is graphically represented in detail. Even Aben Ezra says, these enemies of God are those who cast the others out. The description therefore cannot without violence be understood of foreign or external enemies. These data furnished by usage and the context will enable us to estimate the various interpretations of the verse before us. If what has just been stated be correct, the noise heard by the Prophet cannot be the rejoicing of the Maccabees and their ad herents when the temple was evacuated by Antiochus, as Grotius imagines; nor the preaching of the gospel by the apostles beginning at Jerusalam, as Junius and Tremellius think; nor a voice calling for vengeance on the Romans, according to Jarchi; nor the blasphemies of the heathen, accord ing to Abarbanel. Nor can the words if rightly understood as meaning the tumult of war, be applied to the destruction of Gog and Magog, as by Kimchi; or to any other external enemies, as by the modern Germans. These indeed are not a little puzzled to explain the verse in any consistency with their hypotheses. Gesenius admits that there is so far a difficulty as the anti-theocratic party stayed behind in Babylon, and queries whether the Prophet may not have suspected many such to go up in the hope of worldly advantages, and there be smitten by the divine judgments! Maurer as usual sees no difficulty in the case, because Jehovah is described as punishing the wicked Jews not in Jerusalem, but from it. Hitzig makes it a description of the general judgment foretold by Joel, when all the nations should be judged at Jerusalem (Joel iv. 2). Knobel confidently adds that the Prophet expected this great judgment to fall especially upon the Babylonians, whom Cyrus had not punished sufficiently, and with them on the idolatrous exiles. Umbreit, who seems to float in mid-air between faith and unbelief in his interpretation of this passage, makes the noise a joyful noise, and separates it from Jehovah's voice bringing vengeance to his external enemies. — The only Christian interpreter that need be quoted here is Henderson, who says that " by a remarkable and astounding inter position of Jehovah the scheme of the Jews shall be defeated; the very temple which they shall be in the act of erecting shall be the scene of judgment." Then adopting the groundless notion of the German writers, that the voice of Jehovah always means thunder, he adds that "in all pro bability the projected temple will be destroyed by lightning." This is certainly sufficiently specific, but by no means so entitled to belief as the fulfilment of the prophecy which has already taken place. In strict ad herence to the usage of the words and to requisitions of the context both immediate and remote, the verse may be applied to the giving up of Zion and the temple to its enemies, as a final demonstration that the old economy was at an end, and that the sins of Israel were now to be visited on that generation. The assailants of Jerusalem and of the Jews were now no longer those of God himself, but rather chosen instruments to execute his vengeance on his enemies, the unbelieving Jews themselves. Vitringa goes too far. when he restricts the tumult here described to the noise actu ally made by the Romans in the taking of Jerusalem. — It rather compre hends the whole confusion of the siege and conquest, and a better com mentary on this brief but grand prediction cannot be desired than that

Yi,u. 7.] ISAIAH LXVI. 465

afforded by Josephus in his narrative of what may be regarded as not only the most dreadful siege on record, but in some respects the most sublime and critical conjuncture in all history, because coincident with the transition from the abrogated system of the old economy to the acknowledged intro duction of the new, a change of infinitely more extensive influence on human character and destiny than many philosophical historians have been willing to admit, or even able to discover.

7. Before she travailed she brouyht forth, before her pain came she was delivered of a male. All interpreters agree that the mother here described is Zion, that the figure is essentially the same as in chap. xlix. 21, and that in both cases an increase of numbers is represented as a birth, while in that before us the additional idea of suddenness is expressed by the figure of an unexpected birth. The difference between the cases is that in the other a plurality of children is described, while in this the whole increase is represented in the aggregate as a single birth. As to the specification of the sex, some regard it as a mere illustration of the oriental predilection for male children, not intended to have any special emphasis, while others make it significant of strength as well as numbers in the increase of the people. As to the application of the passage, there is nothing in the terms employed which can determine it, but it must follow the sense put upon the foregoing context or the general hypothesis of the interpreter. Those who see no thing in these chapters but the restoration of the Jews from Babylon explain this verse as meaning simply that the joyful return of the exiles to the long forsaken city would be like an unexpected birth to a childless mother. According to Henderson, " the language forcibly expresses the sudden and unexpected reproduction of the Jewish nation in their own land in the latter day ; their future recovery is the object of the divine purpose, and every providential arrangement shall be made for effecting it ; yet the event shall be unexpectedly sudden." In both these cases there is an accommodation of the passage to the exegetical hypothesis, without any attempt to shew that the latter derives confirmation from it. In both cases, too, there is a certain abruptness in the transition from the judgment threatened in the preceding verse to the promise here recorded. Knobel somewhat awkwardly describes the general judgment on the nations at Jerusalem, including specially the Babylonians and apostate Jews, as being followed by the speedy return of the believing exiles. Henderson, in like manner, makes the restoration follow the destruction of the projected temple by lightning, and yet supposes it to be described as unexpectedly sudden. Such retro gressions in the order of events are not without example, but they certainly give no advantage to the theories in which they are involved over such as have no need of them. Of this description is Vitringa's doctrine that the passage has respect to the vocation of the Gentiles as immediately conse quent upon the excision of the Jews, a sequence of events which is con tinually held up to view in the New Testament history. (Luke xxiv. 47 ; Acts iii. 26, xiii. 46, xviii. 6 ; Rom. i. 16, ii. 10.) The only questionable point in his interpretation is his pressing the mere letter of the metaphor too far by representing the Gentiles or the Gentile churches as the male child of which the Apostolic Church was unexpectedly delivered. It is perfectly sufficient, and in better taste, to understand the parturition as a figure for the whole eventual crisis of the change of dispensations, and the consequent change in the condition of the church. This indestructible ideal person, when she might have seemed to be reduced to nothing by the

defection of the natural Israel, is vastly and suddenly augmented by the introduction of the Gentiles, a succession of events which is here most appropriately represented as the birth of a male child without the pains of childbirth.

8. WTio hath heard such a thing? ^vho hath seen such tilings? Shall a land be brought forth in one day, or shall a nation be born at once? For Zion hath travailed, she hath also brought forth her children. This verse, in the form of pointed interrogation, represents the event previously mentioned as without example. The terms of the sentence are exceedingly appropriate both to the return from Babylon and the future restoration of the Jews, but admit at the same time of a wider application to the change of economy, the birth of the church of the New Testament. fp$ appears to be construed as a masculine, because it is put for the inhabitants, as in chaps, ix. 18, xxvi. 18 (compare Judges xviii. 30) ; or the verb may take that form according to the usual licence when the object follows, as in Gen. xiii. 6 ; Psalm cv. 30. — The causative sense given to this verb in the English and some other versions is not approved by the later lexicographers, who make ?0*' a simple passive. Beck's application of the phrase to the creation of the earth is forbidden by the parallel term '13. — To avoid the apparent con tradiction between this and the foregoing verse as to the pains of childbirth, some explain m^' DJ ir?n 'D to mean, " scarcely had she travailed when she brought forth," which is a forced construction. Hitzig attains the same end by making sons the object of both verbs, and making both synonymous. Both these expedients are unnecessary, as the reference is merely to the short time required for the birth, as if he had said, she has (already) travailed, she has also brought forth.

9. Shall I bring to the birth and not cause to bring forth ? saith Jehovah. Or am I the one causing to bring forth, and shall I shut up? saith thy God. Without pretending to enumerate the various explanations of this verse, some of which are as disgusting as absurd, it will be sufficient to adduce as specimens Jerome's interpretation, which supposes him to ask whether he who causes others to bring forth shall not bring forth himself; and that of Cocceius, whether he who causes others to bring forth shall not cause Zion to do so likewise. The sense now put upon the figure by the general con sent of interpreters is, that he who begins the work may be expected to accomplish it, to be both its author and its finisher. The reason why it is expressed in this form is not any peculiar adaptation or expressiveness in these unusual metaphors, but simply that the increase of the church had been already represented as a birth, and the additional ideas of the writer are expressed without a change of figure. The precise connection of the verse with that before it seems to be that it extenuates the wonder which had been described by representing it as something which was to be expected in the case supposed. That is to say, if God had undertaken to supply the place of what his church had lost by new accessions, the extent and suddenness of the effect could not be matters of surprise. On the contrary, it would have been indeed surprising, if he who began the change had stopped it short, and interfered for the prevention of his own designs. — On the metaphor of this verse and the one preceding, compare chap, xxvi. 18 ; on the peculiar use of "^y in this application, Gen. xvi. 2, xx. 18.

10. Rejoice ye with Jerusalem and exult in her, all that love her; be glad with her with gladness, all those mourning for her. This is an indirect pre diction of the joyful change awaiting Zion, clothed in the form of a command

*

or invitation to her friends to rojoice with her. The expression H3 -1^3 niay either have the same sense, viz. that of sympathetic joy, or it may mean rejoice in her or within her in a local sense, or in her as the object of your joy, all which constructions are grammatical and justifiable by usage. Different interpreters, according to their various exegetical hypotheses, explain this as a prophecy of Israel's ancient restoration from the Babylonish exile, or of their future restoration from the present exile and dispersion, or of the glorious enlargement of the church after the excision of the unbelieving Jews, and the throes of that great crisis in which old things passed away and the new heavens and the new earth came into existence; which last I believe to be the true sense, for reasons which have been already fully stated.

11. TJiat ye may suck and be satisfied from the breast of her consolation*, that ye may milk out and enjoy yourselves, from the fulness (or the full breast] of her glory. Those who have sympathized with Zion in her joys and sorrows shall partake of her abundance and her glory. The figure of a mother is continued, but beautifully varied. The Targurn takes ~& in its usual sense of spoil or plunder ; but see above, on chap. Ix. 16. Hendewerk, with some of the older writers, reads because instead of so that or in order that ; but this is a needless substitution of a meaning rare and doubt ful at the best. Suck and be satisfied, milk out and enjoy yourselves, may be regarded as examples of hendiadys, meaning, suck to satiety, and milk out with delight ; but no such change in the form of the translation is required or admissible. The Targum explains H as meaning wine; Lowth proposes to read H provision, but there is no such word ; Cocceius trans lates it animals, as in Ps. 1. 11, Ixxx. 14, which makes no sense ; Jerome and Symmachus make it mean variety (omninwda) ; but the modern writers are agreed that it originally signifies radiation or a radiating motion, then the radiating flow of milk or other liquids, and then fulness, or the full breast whence the radiation flows. Glory includes wealth or abundance, but much more, viz. all visible superiority or excellence.

12. For thus saith Jehovah, BeJwld I am extending to her peace like a river, aud like an overflowing stream the glory of nations ; and ye shall suck; on the side shall ye be borne, and on the knees shall ye be dandled. As

/$ is sometimes interchanged with?y, Yitringa here translates extending over, i. e. so as to cover or submerge. But the force and beauty of the Prophet's figure are secured, without any departure from the ordinary usage, by supposing it to represent a river suddenly or gradually widening its channel or its flow until it reaches to a certain spot, its actual submersion being not expressed though it may be imputed. That the particle retains its proper meaning may be argued from the use of the entire phrase in Gen. xxxix. 21. Another suggestion of Vitringa, which has been rejected

by the later writers, is that "inj! and?H3 here denote specifically the Eu phrates and the Nile, which last he regards as a derivative of the Hebrew word. But the incorrectness of this etymology, the absence of the article which elsewhere makes the nouns specific, and the uselessness of this sup position to the force and beauty of the passage, all conspire to condemn it. Peace is here to be taken in its frequent sense of welfare or prosperity. (See above, on chap, xlviii. 18.) The words and ye shall suck are added to announce a resumption of the figure of the foregoing verse. The Targum and Vulgate read "IK* ?V instead of IV *?!?, while Houbigant and Lowt!i insert the former after suck (ye shall suck at the breast, ye shall be carried

4G8 ISAIAH LXVL [VEB. 13, 14.

at the side). Equally gratuitous is the addition of the pronoun by Hen derson (ye shall suck them), and Hendewerk (ye shall suck it), and Gesenius's paraphrase (zum Genms). For the sense of "IV ty, see above, on chap. Ix. 4, and compare chap. xlix. 22. The objects of address in this verse are the sons of Zion, to be gathered from all nations.

13. As a man whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you, and in Jerusalem shall ye be comforted. De Wette's version, " as a man who comforts his mother " (der seine Mutter trostet} is so utterly at variance with the form of the original, that it must be regarded as an inadvertence, or perhaps as an error of the press. The image, xlviii. 18, is essentially the same with that in chap. xlix. 15, but with a striking variation. The English Version, which in multitudes of cases inserts man where the original expression is indefinite, translating ou5s/s, for example, always no man, here reverses the process, and dilutes a man to one. The same liberty is taken by many other versions, old and new, occasioned no doubt by a feeling of the incongruity of making a full-grown man the subject of maternal consolations. _ The difficulty might, if it were necessary, be avoided by explaining tJ"S to mean a man-child, as it does in Gen. iv. 1, 1 Sam. i. 11, and in many other cases. But the truth is that the solecism, which has been so carefully expunged by these translators, is an exquisite trait of patriarchal manners, in their primitive simplicity. Compare Gen. xxiv. 67, Judges xvii. 2, 1 Kings ii. 19, 20, and the affecting scenes between Thetis and Achilles in the Iliad. Of the modern writers, Umbreit alone does justice to this beautiful allusion, not only by a strict translation, but by adding as a gloss, " with the consolation of a mother who, as no other can, soothes the ruffled spirit of a man (ties Mamies).'" Equally characteristic is the brief remark of Hitzig, that " the W$ is not well chosen." — Lowth in another respect shews what would now be thought a morbid distaste for simplicity by changing the passive, ye shall be com forted into ye shall receive consolation, in order to avoid a repetition which to any unsophisticated ear is charming. — The in Jerusalem suggests the only means by which these blessings are to be secured, viz. a union of affection and of interest with the Israel of God, to whom alone they are promised.

14. And ye shall see, and your heart shall leap (irith joy}, and your bones like grass shall sprout, aud the hand of Jehovah shall be known to his servants, and he shall be indignant at his enemies. The object of address still continues to be those who had loved Zion, and had mourned for her, and whom God had promised to comfort in Jerusalem. They are here assured that they shall see for themselves the fulfilment of these promises. — Ewald gives C?K> its primary sense of bounding, leaping, which agrees well with the strong figure in the next clause, where the bones, as the seat of strength or the framework of the body, are compared with springing herbage to denote their freshness and vigour. Here again Ewald makes the language more expressive by translating become green like the young grass, which, however, is a paraphrase and not an exact version, as the primary meaning of the Hebrew verb is to burst out or put forth. (For the figure, compare chaps, xxvii. 6, Iviii. 11, Job xxi. 24, Prov. iii. 8, xv. 30, Ps. li. 10, and e converso Ps. vi. 3, xxii. 15, xxxi. 11.) There is no need of supposing with Hitzig that the human frame is likened to a tree of which the bones are the branches, and the muscles, flesh, and skin, the leaves. (See Job. x. 11.) — The hand of God is known when his power is recognised as the cause of any given effect. Gesenius makes ""1JT113 the

VEB. 15.] ISAIAH LXVL 4G9

passive of JTHin and riX the sign of the second accusative (it is made known his servants, i. e. to his servants). But Hitzig explains the first word as the passive of VT and J"ltf as a preposition equivalent to /># in

chap. liii. 1, and to \}^/? in Ezek. xxxviii. 23, where the same passive verb is used. The English Version follows Luther in translating C^'T as a noun, which never has this form, however, out of pause. It is correctly explained by Eben Ezra as a verb with Vav conversive. The J"l# may be either the objective particle, as this verb usually governs the accusative,

or a preposition equivalent to 71? Dyt in Dan. xi. 30, and to our expression, he is angry tvith another. Noyes makes this verb agree with hand; which would be ungrammatical, as "V is feminine. The whole clause is omitted in Hendewerk's translation. It is important as affording a transition from the promise to the threatening, in accordance with the Prophet's constant practice of presenting the salvation of God's people as coincident and simultaneous with the destruction of his enemies.

15. For lo, Jehovah in fire will com?, and like the whirlwind his chariots, to appease in fury his anger, and his rebuke in flames of fire. This is an amplification of the brief phrase at the end of ver. 14. Lowth reads as a fire, with the Septuagint version, which is probably a mere inadvertence. Luther and others translate with fire (see ver. 16), but the modern writers generally in fire, that is, enveloped and surrounded by it, as on Sinai. (See above, chap. xxix. 6, xxx. 27, 30, and compare Ps. 1. 3.) — The second clause is repeated in Jcr. iv. 13. The points of comparison are swiftness and violence. The allusion is to the two-wheeled chariots of ancient war fare. Vitringa supposes angels to be meant, on the authority of Ps. Ixviii. 18. (Compare Ps. xviii. 11.) Hendewerk supposes an allusion to the chariots and horses of fire, mentioned 2 Kings ii. 11, vi. 17. (Compare Hab. iii. 8.) The English Version supplies irith before his chariots, but this is forbidden by the order of the words in Hebrew, and unnecessary, as the chariots may be construed either with shall come or with the sui stantive verb are or shall be.— Ewald agrees with the older writers who give ^'.^n the sense of ren dering, returning, recompensing, which it has in Ps. liv. 7, Hosea xii. 15, and in which it is construed with vengeance in Deut. xxxii. 41, 43. Henderson prefers the sense of causing to return, implying repetition and severity. Gesenius adheres to the usage of this very verb and noun in Ps. Ixxviii. 38, and Job ix. 13 (compare Gen. xxvii. 44, 45), where it means to withdraw anger, i. e. to appease it, which may seem to be at variance with the con text here, but is really, as Maurer has observed, the most appropriate and elegant expression of the writer's meaning, which is that of wrath appeased by being gratified. (Compare chap. i. 24, vol. i. p. 91.)— Lowth's emendation of the text by reading Ttrn (from 3^'?> to breathe out) is gratui tous and not supported by the usage of that verb itself. — Luther and Hende werk make 12N npn a kind of intensive compound (Zornesgluth), as in chap. xlii. 25; but it is better with Maurer to regard npn? as qualifying 3^'?, and explaining how his anger was to be appeased, viz. in fury, i.e. in the free indulgence of it. — God's rebuke is often coupled with his wrath as its effect or practical manifestation. (See above, chaps, xvii. 13, li. 20, liv. 9.) Mo.-t writers seem to make rebuke dependent on the preceding verb ; but Hendewerk apparently regards it as an independent clause, exactly similar in form to fche second member of the sentence, and like the whirlwind his chariots, and his rebuke inflames of fire. The leading noun may then, in stead of being governed by ^y'n, agree with is or shall be understood. The

whole verse represents Jehovah, considered in relation to his enemies, as a consuming fire. (Deut. iv. 24, Heb. xii. 29. Compare 2 Thess. i. 8.)

16. For by fire is Jehovah striving and by his sword with all flesh, and multiplied (or many) are the slain of Jehovah. Fire and sword are men tioned as customary means of destruction, especially in war. The reflexive form 122^3 has here its usual sense of reciprocal judgment, litigation, or contention in general. (See above, chap, xliii. 26.) Gesenius makes it mean directly to punish, which it never means except by implication : and Hitzig, on the same ground, explains HNI as the sign of the accusative ; but that it is really a preposition is clear from Ezek. xvii. 20, and Joel iv. 2. — The repetition of with by Koyes and Henderson, " with fire, with his sword, with all flesh," is a cacophonous tautology not found in the original, where two distinct prepositions are employed, which Lowth has well translated by and with. — According to Knobel, all flesh means all nations, and especially the Babylonians who had not been sufficiently punished by Cyrus. Hen derson applies the verses to the battle of Armageddon, described in Rev. xvi. 14-21, xix. 11-21, and Yitringa admits a reference to the same event, But this interpretation rests upon the false assumption, often noticed here tofore, that the Apocalyptic prophecies are exegetical of those in the Old Tes tament, from which their images and terms are borrowed. — A much surer clue to the primary application of the one before us is afforded by our Saviour's words in Matt. xxiv. 22, where in speaking of the speedy destruc tion of Jerusalem he says, that excepting the elect no flesh should be saved, i.e. no portion of the Jewish race but those who were ordained to everlast ing life through faith in him. This application of Isaiah's prophecy agrees exactly with the view already taken of the whole preceding context as re lating to that great decisive crisis in the history of the church and of the world, the dissolution of the old economy and the inauguration of the new. According to this view of the passage, what is here said of fire, sword, and slaughter, was fulfilled not only as a figurative prophecy of general destruc tion, but in its strictest sense in the terrific carnage which attended the extinction of the Jewish State, and of which, more emphatically than of any other event outwardly resembling it, it might be said that many were the slain of Jehovah.

17. TJie (men) hallowing themselves and the (men) cleansing themselves to (or towards) the gardens after one in the midst, eaters of swine's flesh and vermin and mouse, together shall cease (or come to an end), saith Jeho vah. This verse is closely connected with the one before it, and explains who are meant by the slain of Jehovah. It is almost universally agreed that these are here described as gross idolaters ; but Henderson, with some of the old Jewish writers, is inclined to understand it of the Mohammedans, as we shall see. But even among those who understand it of idolaters, there is no small difference of opinion in relation to particular expressions. The class of persons meant is obviously the same as that described in chap. Ixv. 3, 5, the gardens and the swine's flesh being common to both. The reflexive participles in the first clause are technical terms for cere monial purification under the law of Moses, but here transferred to heathen rites. The older writers for the most part follow the Vulgate in explaining ni3|n"?^ as synonymous with m3|2 in chap. Ixv. 3. Even Gesenius admits this sense, although he gives the preference to that of for. But Maurer speaks of it as one no longer needing refutation, and returns to the strict translation of the Septuagint (it$ roi>$ Kr,iro\jg), implying that they purified themselves not in but on their way to the gardens, which is essentially the

sense conveyed by the translation for, i. e. in preparation for the gardens where the idolatrous services were to be performed. The next words Cty?? ins "ins) are those which constitute the principal difficulty of the sentence. This some have undertaken to remove by emendations of the text. Even the Masora reads nns, which is only changing the gender of the numeral. Ewald assimilates the first two words so as to read IDS "ins, which he renders hinten hinten, i. e. far back. Lowth on the other hand reads """IS "ins one one, i. e. one by one, or one after the other. The same reading seems to be applied in Luther's version, one here and another there. The Pe^hito has one after another, and the same sense is expressed by the Targum, crowd after croivd, and by Symmachus and Theodotion 6<r/'<rw dXX^Xwi/. Schelling accordingly inserts a word, reading "ins "IHX "IRK. Whether a various reading is implied in the Septuagint version (sv roT$ ircoO-jsci:'), or merely, a peculiar explanation of ins, is a matt< r of dispute. Some, without a change of text, bring out the same sense by supposing an ellipsis. Most interpreters take ins (or according to the Masoretic Keri J"inS) as the numeral one, agreeing either with grove (Aben Ezra), or with pool (Kimchi), or with tree (Saadias), or with priest or priestess (Gesenius) ; which last may be given as the current explanation, in which an allusion is supposed to an idolatrous procession led by a hierophaut. Maurer applies "ins to the idol, which he supposes to be so called in contempt, one, being then equivalent to the Latin quidam, necscio quern. Vitringa follows Scaliger, Bochart, and other learned men of early date, in treating "ins as the proper name of a Syrian idol, called by Sanchoniathon " Abuoog and by Pliny and Macrobius Adad, the last writer adding expressly that the name means one. For the difference of form various explanations have been suggested, and among the rest a corruption in the classical orthography, which is rendered exceedingly improbable, however, by the substantial agreement of the Greek and Latin writers above cited. Rosenmuller acquiesces in Vitringa' s sug gestion that the difference of form may be explained by the exclusion of the aspirate from the middle of a Greek word, the hiatus being remedied by the insertion of a dental; but Gesenius replies that in^ would more naturally have been written " A^adog and Achadus in Greek and Latin The Masoretic reading fins is identified by Clericus with Hecate, in whose Egyp tian worship swine's flesh was particularly used. Henderson calls attention to a very striking coincidence between the use of this word here and the con stant application of the cognate one in Arabic (ji^) by the Mohammedans

to God as being One, in express contradiction to the doctrine of the Trinity. This is especially the case in the 112th Surah of the Koran, to which they attach peculiar doctrinal importance. The common editions of the Vulgate render ins here byjanua (like the Peshito) ; but some of more authority have nnam, in accordance with the marginal Keri. Besides the difficulty which attends the absolute use of the numeral without a noun, there is another of the same kind arising from the like use of ^1?), midst, without any thing to limit or determine it. Gesenius attaches to it here as he does in 2 Sam. iv. 0, the sense of the interior or court of an oriental house, and applies it to the edifice in which the lustrations were performed before entering the gardens; which may also be the meaning of the Septuagint version, ; rot)$ X^TGUJ, ev ToTg rgoQvpotf. Maurer and others follow Scaliger, who makes it mean the midst of the grove or garden, where the idol was commonly erected. But Knobel, by ingeniously combining Gen. xlii. 5, Ps. xlii. 5, Ixviii. 26, makes it more improbable that in the midst means in the crowd

or procession of worshippers. All these constructions adhere to the Masoretic points and interpunction. But Lowth and Henderson follow Theodotion and Symmachus in reading ^Ifi? and connecting it directly with what follows, in the midst of those eating swine's flesh, &c., implying, as Lowth thinks, a participation in these impure rites, while Henderson supposes the Mohammedans to be distinguished, as to this point, from the Pagans who surround them. Boettcher departs still further from the usual iuterpunction, and includes "pro not in the description of the sin, but in the threaten ing of punishment — in the midst of the eaters of swine's flesh, &c., together shall they perish. One reason urged by Henderson in favour of iiis own construction is without weight, namely, that Dv3N being without the article cannot be in apposition with the words at the beginning of the sentence, but must designate a totally different class of persons. He did not observe that v3N is rendered definite by the addition of a qualifying noun, which being equivalent to the article excludes it. As to the eating of swine's flesh, see above on chap. Ixv. 4. — ¥$¥ mav either have its generic sense of abomination or abominable food, or the more specific sense of flesh offered to idols (Hitzig), or of the smaller unclean animals, whether quad rupeds, insects, or reptiles, to which it is specially applied in the law (Lev. xi. 41-43), and in reference to which it corresponds very nearly, in effect, to the English word vermin. Spencer thinks that it means a kid boiled in its mother's milk. (Exod. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26.) Against the wide sense of abomination and in favour of some more specific meaning is the colloca tion of the word between swine's flesh and the mouse, or as the modern writers understand the word, the jerboa or Arabian field-mouse which is eaten by the Arabs. The actual use of any kind of mouse in the ancient heathen rites has never been established, the modern allegations of the fact being founded on the place before us. As to the application of the passage, those who make the Babylonian exile the great subject of the prophecy, see nothing here but a description of the practices of those Jews who aposta tised to heathenism, and who were to be cut off by the same judgments which secured the restoration of their brethren. J. D. Michaelis confesses his uncertainty in what sense this description will be verified hereafter; and Henderson, who holds the same hypothesis, pleads guilty to a part of the same ignorance, but bravely and ingeniously endeavours, by the com bination of the particular contrivances already mentioned, to impart some plausibility to his assumption that the prophecy has reference to the future restoration of the Jews. This could not have been done with greater skill or more success than he has shewn in his attempt to make it probable that what is here predicted is the future destruction of the Moslems as tho enemies of Christ's divinity and noted for their trust ia outward rites, especially ablutions — their destruction in the midst of the idolaters whom now they hate most bitterly and most profoundly scorn. This explanation seems to have been framed by its ingenious author without any reference to the dictum of the Rabbins, that the first clause of the verse is a descrip tion of the Moslems and their purifications, but the next of the Christians as eaters of swine-flesh, and regardless of all difference in meats and drinks. The most offensive part of this interpretation, although extant in the writ ings of Kimchi himself, has been expunged from most editions for pruden tial motives. (See Vitringa on the passage.) It is not to be expected that the advocates of an_y exegetical hypothesis will here abandon it if able by any means to reconcile it with the Prophet's language, and accordingly I see no cause to change my previous conclusion that this prophecy relates

to the excision of the Jews and the vocation of the Gentiles, or in other words the change of dispensation. The apparent difficulty which arises from the description of such gross idolatry as all admit to have had no existence among the Jews after their return from exile, is removed hy the consideration that the Jews were cast off not for the sins of a single gene ration, but of the race throughout its ancient history, and that idolatry was not only one of these, but that wliich most abounded in the days of the Pro phet; so that when ho looks forward to the great catastrophe ami paints its causes, he naturally dips his pencil in the colours which were nearest and most vivid to his own perceptions, without meaning to exclude from his description other sins as great or greater in themselves, which after wards supplanted these revolting practices as the besetting national trans gressions of apostate Israel. A writer in the early days of Wilberforce and Clarkson, in denouncing God's wrath upon England, would most naturally place the oppression of the negro in the foreground of his picture, even if he had been gifted to foresee that this great evil in the course of time would be completely banished from the sight of men by new forms of iniquity successively usurping its conspicuous position, such as excessive luxury, dishonest speculation, and ambitious encroachment on the rightful posses sions of inferior powers in the East. If it were really God's purpose to destroy that mighty kingdom for its national offences, he would not lose sight of ancient half-forgotten crimes, because they have long since given place to others more or less atrocious. So in reference to Israel, although the generation upon whom the final blow fell were hypocrites, not idolaters, the misdeeds of their fathers entered into the account, and they were cast off not merely as the murderers of the Lord of life, but as apostates who insulted Jehovah to his face by bowing down to stocks and stones in groves and gardens, and by eating swine's flesh, the abomination, and the mouse. And as all this was included in the grounds of their righteous condemna tion, it might well be rendered prominent in some of the predictions of that great catastrophe. — Another possible interpretation of the passage, in direct application to the unbelieving Jews who were contemporary with our Saviour, is obtained by supposing an allusion to ver. 3, where those who still clung to the abrogated ritual are put upon a level with the grossest idolaters, and may here be absolutely so described, just as the rulers and people of Jeru salem in chap. i. 9, an; addressed directly as rubrs of Sodom and people of Gomorrah, on account of the comparison immediately preceding. This view of the passage is undoubtedly favoured by the mention of swine's flesh in both places, which would naturally make the one suggestive of the other. Neither of these ex-jgetical hypotheses requires the assumption of imaginary facts, such as the practice of idolatry by the Jews in exile, or their return to it hereafter.

18. And I—tlrir ivorks and their thoughts — it is come — to gather all the nations and the t;j/i</ue$ — and they shall come and *ce my glory. This is an exact transcript of the Hebrew sentence, the grammatical construction of which has much perplexed interpreters. Luther cuts the knot by arbitrary transposition, 1 will come and gather all their works and thoughts with all nations, &c. ; J. 1). Michaelis, by a no less arbitrary change of pointing, so as to read, they are my work, even mine, and my thought, i.e. cxre. llius and Cocceius among the older writers, Hitzig and Hendewerk among the moderns, follow Jarchi in taking the pronoun as a nominative absolute and construing HS3 with the nouns preceding : As for me—their works and thoughts are come to gather, &c. Hitzig explains are come as

meaning they have this effect; while Hendewerk gives to the nouns them selves the sense of recompence, as in chap. xl. 10, and Rev. xiv. 13. Hen derson has substantially the same construction, but supplies before me after come, and takes |*3i?? as a simple future, I will assemble; both which as sumptions are extremely forced. Vitringa, Gesenius, and most other writers, suppose an aposiopesis or a double ellipsis, supplying a verb after *?3K and a noun before nN2. The verb most commonly supplied is know, as in the English Version (I know their works and their thoughts), and substantially in the Chaldee Paraphrase (revealed before me are their works and thoughts). The noun supplied is time, according to the dictum of Aben Ezra. But the verb supplied by Maurer is I will punish, and he makes!"IK2 impersonal, it comes or it is come, as we say, Is it come to this? without referring to a definite subject. In this obscurity and doubt as to the syntax, there is something attractive in the theory of Ewald and Knobel who supply nothing, but regard the first clause as a series of broken and irregular ejaculations, in which the expression of the thought is interrupted by the writer's feelings. — Common to all these explanations is the general assumption that the words and thoughts of the persons in question are in some way represented as the cause or the occasion of the gathering mentioned in the other clause. The use of the word tongues as -in equivalent to nations, has reference to national distinctions springing from diversity of language, and is founded on Gen. x. 5, 20, 31, by the influence of which passage and the one before us it became a phrase of frequent use in Daniel, whose predictions turn so much upon the calling of the Gentiles. (Dan. iii. 4, 7, 31, v. 19). The representation of this form of speech as an Aramaic idiom by some modern critics is character istic of their candour. — To see the glory of Jehovah is a phrase repeatedly used elsewhere to denote the special manifestation of his presence and his power (chaps, xl. 4, lix. 19, Ix. 2), aud is applied by Ezekiel to the display of his punitive justice in the sight of all mankind (Ezek. xxxix. 8). Cocceius refers this passage to the Reformation and the Council of Trent. The Jews understand it of the strokes to be inflicted hereafter on their. enemies. But as we have seen that the crimes described in the foregoing verses are not those of the heathen, but of the apostate Jews, whose deeds and thoughts must therefore be intended in the first clause, the explanation most in harmony with this immediate context, as well as with the whole drift of the prophecy thus far, is that which makes the verse before us a distinct prediction of the calling of the Gentiles, both to witness the infliction of God's vengeance on the Jews, and to supply their places in his church or chosen people. It is perhaps to the language of this prophecy that Christ himself alludes in Mat. xxiv. 31. (Compare also John v. 26).

19. And I will place in them (or among them) a sign, and I will send of them survivors (or escaped ones) to the nations, Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, drawers of the bow, Tubal and Javan, the distant isles, which have not heard my fame and have not seen my glory, and they shall declare my glory among the nations. By a sign Grotius understands a signal, making fllX equiva lent to D3 in chaps, v. 20, xi. 12, xviii. 3, Ixii. 10. Gesenius objects to the sense thus put upon JTIX as not sustained by usage ; but Maurer defends it as easily deducible from that of a military standard, which it has in Num. ii. 2. Most modern writers agree, however, with Gesenius in determining the sense of the whole phrase from that which it evidently has in Exod. x. 1, 2, where God is twice said to have placed his signs among the Egyp-