Introduction To The Prophetical Books Of The

Old Testament
The prophetical histories are followed in the Old Testament canon by the
prophetical books of prediction. The two together form the middle portion of
the threefold canon, under the common name of YJIYBIN.i On account of their
relative position in the canon, the former are also described as YNI OJRIHF
YJIYBIN,i the first prophets, and the latter YNI
RXJHF, the last prophets. In the
Masora this central portion is sometimes designated as JTfMiL
E iJ, possibly
because it exhibits a complete and homogeneous whole. The first prophets are
in that case distinguished from the last, as JTFYiMFDiQA JTMLJ and JNFYFNiTI
JTMLJ.
The thorah is indeed also a prophetical work, since Moses, the mediator
through whom the law was revealed, was for that very reason a prophet
without an equal (Deu. 34:10); and even the final codification of the great
historical law-book possessed a prophetical character (Ezr. 9:11). But it would
not have been right to include the thorah (Pentateuch) in that portion of the
canon which is designated as the prophets (nebiim), inasmuch as, although
similar in character, it is not similar in rank to the other prophetical books. It
stands by itself as perfectly unique the original record which regulated on all
sides the being and life of Israel as the chosen nation, and to which all other
prophecy in Israel stood in a derivative relation. And this applies not to
prophecy alone, but to all the later writings. The thorah was not only the type
of the prophetic histories, but of the non-prophetic, the priestly, political, and
popular histories also. The former followed the Jehovistic or Deuteronomic
type, and the latter the Elohistic. The thorah unites the prophetical and (so to
speak) hagiographical styles of historical composition in a manner which is
peculiar to itself, and not to be met with in any of the works included among the
YNJR YJYBN.
Those who imagine that it is only because of their later origin, that the historical
words which are found among the hagiographa have not found their appropriate
place among the first prophets, have evidently no idea whatever of this
diversity in the style of historical writing. Ezra whom we have good reason
for regarding as the author of the larger book of the Kings, which the
chronicler refers to under the title of the story of the book of the Kings
(midrash sepher hammelacim, 2Ch. 24:27), a compilation relating to the history
of Israel, to which he had appended the history of the time of the restoration as
the concluding part is never called a prophet (nabi), and in fact was not one.

The chronicler who not only had before him our book of Samuel, which has
been so arbitrarily divided into two parts, and our book of Kings, which has
been just as arbitrarily divided in the same manner, but used as his principal,
authority the book of Ezra just referred to, and who worked out from this the
compendium of history which lies before us, concluding with the memorabilia of
Ezra, which we possess in a distinct form as the book of Ezra also asserts no
claim to be a prophet, and, judging from the liturgico-historical purpose of his
work, is more likely to have been a priest. Nehemiah, from whose memorabilia
our book of Nehemiah is an extract arranged in conformity with the book of
Ezra, was, as we well know, not a prophet, but a Tirsata, f1 i.e., a royal Persian
governor, and at the same time an Israelitish patriot, whose prayerful heart was
set upon the welfare of his people, and who had performed good service in
connection with the restoration of Jerusalem by the erection of buildings and
the introduction of reforms. The book of Esther, with its religious features kept
as they are in the background, is as far removed as possible from the prophetic
style of historical composition: it differs indeed from this quite as much as the
feast of purim that Jewish carnival differs from the feast of passover, the
Israelitish Christmas. It does appear surprising, however, that the book of Ruth
should stand among the hagiographa. This little book is so similar in character
to the concluding portion of the book of Judges (Jud. 17-21), that it might be
placed between Judges and Samuel. And in all probability it did stand there
originally, but for liturgical reasons it was added to the so-called five megilloth
(festal rolls), which follow one another in our editions, so to speak, according
to the calendar of feasts of the ecclesiastical year: for the Song of Solomon is
the lesson for the eighth day of the feast of passover; Ruth, that of the second
day of the feast of Shabuoth (pentecost); Kinoth (Lamentations), that of the
ninth Abib; Koheleth (Ecclesiastes), that of the third day of the feast of
tabernacles; and Esther, that of the feast of purim, which fell in the middle of
Adar.
This is also the simplest answer to the question why the Lamentations of
Jeremiah are not placed among the prophetic writings, and appended, as we
should expect, to the collection of Jeremiahs prophecies. The Psalms are
placed first among the hagiographa although David might be called a
prophet (Act. 2:30), and Asaph is designated the seer for the simple
reason that they do not belong to the literature of prophecy, but to that of the
shir Jehovah, i.e., the sacred (liturgical) lyric poetry. Their prophetic contents
rest entirely upon a lyric ground, whereas it is the very reverse with the
Lamentations of Jeremiah, the lyric contents of which, though less prophetic in
themselves, presuppose throughout the official position and teaching of
Jeremiah the prophet. The canonical nebiim or prophets embrace only the
writings of such persons as were called to proclaim the word of God publicly,

whether in writing or by word of mouth; not like the priests, according to

definite modes prescribed by the law, but in a free unfettered manner, by virtue
of a special gift and calling. The word nabi is to be regarded, as we may judge
from its Arabic flexion, not as a passive, but as an active form; in fact, as an
emphatic form of the active participle, denoting the proclaimer, publisher,
speaker, namely, of God and of His secrets. The oldest use of the word (vid.,
Gen. 20: 7, cf., 18:17-19, and Psa. 105:15), which was revived by the
chronicler, is incomparably less restricted in its meaning than the later use. But
when used to designate the middle portion of the Old Testament canon,
although the word is not so limited as in Amo. 7:14, where it signifies a man
who has passed through a school of the prophets and been trained in
intercourse with other prophets, and has made prophetic teaching from the very
first the exclusive profession of his life; yet it is employed in a sense connected
with the organization of the theocratic life, as the title given to those who stood
forward as public teachers by virtue of a divine call and divine revelations, and
who therefore not only possessed the gift (charisma) of prophecy, but
performed the duties of a prophet both in preaching and writing, and held an
office to which, at least on Ephraimitish soil, the institution of schools of the
prophets gave the distinct stamp of a separate order. This will serve to explain
the fact that the book of Daniel was not placed among the nebiim. Daniel
himself was not a prophet in this sense. Not only was the mode in which the
divine revelations were made to him a different one from the prevailing
epipnoia profhtikh, as Julius Africanus observes in his writing to Origen
concerning Susanna, but he did not hold the office of a prophet; and for this
reason even the Talmud (b. Megilla 3a), when speaking of the relation in which
the prophets after the captivity stood to him, says, They stood above him, for
they were prophets; but he was not a prophet. A distinction must be drawn,
as Witsius has said, between the gift of prophecy, which was bestowed even
upon private persons, and consisted in the revelation of secret things, and the
prophetic office, which was an extraordinary function in the church, committed
to certain persons who were set apart by a special call from God. f2
The reason, therefore, why all the historical and prophetic books which are to
be found among the hagiographa (cethubim, which the son of Sirach speaks of
in his prologue as other books of our fathers, and the rest of the books)
were excluded from the second or middle part of the Old Testament canon
called nebiim, rested upon a primary distinction between writings that were
strictly prophetic and writings that were not so, a distinction which existed in
the domain of history as well as in that of prophecy. Thus the historical books
from Joshua to Kings, and the prophetical books from Isaiah to Malachi, were
separated, as works written by men whose vocation in life was that of a prophet
and therefore works of a prophetical character, from such books as Chronicles

and Daniel, which were written indeed under the influence of the Holy Spirit,
but not in the exercise of a prophetical calling received through a prophetical
impulse of the Spirit of God. The two different kinds of historical composition
are also perfectly unmistakeable. Each of them has its own peculiar history. Of
course it is quite possible for a prophetical history like the book of Kings, or an
annalistic history like that of Chronicles, to embrace within itself certain
ingredients which really belong to the other historical style; but when we have
once discovered the characteristics of the two styles, it is almost always
possible to single out at once, and with perfect certainty, those ingredients
which are foreign to the peculiar character of the work in which they are found,
and have simply been made subservient to the writers plan. It is very necessary,
therefore, that we should look more minutely at the two styles of historical
writing, for the simple reason that the literature of the books of prophecy
gradually arose out of the literature of the prophetical books of history, and so
eventually attained to an independent standing, though they never became
entirely separate and distinct, as we may see from the book of Isaiah itself,
which is interwoven with many fragments of prophetico-historical writing.
The oldest type of non-prophetic historical writing is to be found, as we have
already observed, in the priestly Elohistic style which characterizes one portion
of the Pentateuch, as distinguished from the Jehovistic or Deuteronomic style of
the other. These two types are continued in the book of Joshua; and taken as a
whole, the Jehovistic, Deuteronomic type is to be been in those sections which
relate to the history of the conquest; the priestly, Elohistic, in those which refer
to the division of the land. At the same time, they are coloured in many other
ways; and there is nothing to favour the idea that the book of Joshua ought to
be combined with the Pentateuch, so as to form a hexateuchical whole. The
stamp of prophetic history is impressed upon the book of Judges at the very
outset by the introduction, which shows that the history of the judges is to be
regarded as a mirror of the saving government of God; whilst the concluding
portion, like the book of Ruth, is occupied with Bethlehemitish narratives that
point to the Davidic kingdom, the kingdom of promise, which formed the direct
sphere of prophecy. The body of the book is founded, indeed, upon oral and
even written forms of the saga of the judges; but not without the intervention of
a more complete work, from which only extracts are given, and in which the
prophetic pencil of a man like Samuel had combined into one organic whole the
histories of the judges not only to the time of Samson, but to the entire
overthrow of the Philistian oppression. That the books of Samuel are a
prophetico-historical work, is expressly attested by a passage in the Chronicles,
of which we shall speak more fully presently; but in the passages relating to the
conflicts with the four Philistian children of the giants (2Sa. 21:15ff. =
1Ch. 20: 4ff.), and to the Davidic gibborim, i.e., the heroes who stood nearest

to him (2Sa. 23: 8ff. = 1Ch. 11:11ff.), they contain at least two remnants of
popular or national historical writing, in which we discern a certain liking for
the repetition of the same opening and concluding words, which have all the
ring of a refrain, and give to the writing very much of the character of an epic
or popular ode, suggesting, as Eisenlohr has said, the legend of Roland and
Artus, or the Spanish Cid. We find more of these remains in the Chronicles
such, for example, as the list of those who attached themselves to David in
Ziklag, and, in fact, during the greater part of Sauls persecutions. It
commences thus: And these are they that came to David to Ziklag, whilst still
hard pressed on the part of Saul the son of Kish; and they belong to the heroes,
those ready to help in war, armed with bows, both with the right hand and the
left hand using stones and arrows by means of the bow. Some of these
fragments may have fallen singly and unwrought into the hands of the later
historians; but so far as they are tabulated, the chronicler leaves us in no doubt
as to the place where they were chiefly to be found. After giving a census of the
Levites from thirty years old and upwards, in 1Ch. 23: 2-24a, he adds, in v. 24b
and the following verses, in a fragmentary manner, that David, taking into
account the fact that the hard work of past times had no longer to be
performed, lowered the age for commencing official service to twenty, for in
the last words of David (dibre David ha-acheronim) the descendants of Levi
are numbered from the twentieth year of their age. He refers here to the last
part of the history of Davids life in the book of the kings of Israel (sepher
malce Israel), which lay before him; and from what other work such lists as
these had been taken into this his main source, we may learn from 1Ch. 27:24,
where he follows up the list of the tribe-princes of Israel with this remark with
reference to a general census which David had intended to take: Joab the son
of Zeruiah began to number, but he did not finish it; and there arose a bursting
forth of wrath upon Israel in consequence, and this numbering was not placed in
the numbering (RPSMB, read RPSB, in the book) of the chronicles (dibre
hayyamim) of David. Consequently the annals or chronicles of David
contained such tabular notices as these, having the character of popular or
national historical composition; and they were copied from these annals into the
great kings-book, which lay before the chronicler.
The official annals commenced with David, and led to those histories of the
kingdom from which the authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles for the
most part drew their materials, even if they did not do so directly. Sauls
government consisted chiefly in military supremacy, and the unity of the
kingdom as renewed by him did not embrace much more than the simple
elements of a military constitution. But under David there grew up a reciprocal
relation between the throne and the people, of the most comprehensive
character; and the multiplication of government offices followed, as a matter of

course, from the thorough organization of the kingdom. We find David, as head
of the kingdom, asserting his official supremacy on all hands, even in relation to
religious affairs, and meet with several entirely new posts that were created by
him. Among these was the office of mazcir (recorder in Eng. ver.: Tr.), i.e., as
the LXX have often rendered it, upomnhmatografoj or (in 2Sa. 8:16) epi twn
upomnhmatwn (Jerome: a commentariis, a thoroughly Roman translation). The
Targums give a similar rendering, JyFNARFKidFLJA JnFMMi, the keeper of the
memorabilia (i.e., of the book of records or annals, 2Ch. 34: 8, cf., Ezr. 4:15,
Esther 6:10. The mazcir had to keep the annals of the kingdom; and his office
was a different one from that of the sopher, or chancellor. The sopher (scribe in
Eng. ver.: Tr.) had to draw up the public documents; the mazcir had to keep
them, and incorporate them in the connected history of the nation. Both of
these offices are met with throughout the whole of the East, both ancient and
modern, even to the remotest parts of Asia. f3
It is every evident that the office in question was created by David, from the
fact that allusions to the annals commence with the chronicles (dibre
hayyamim) of David (1Ch. 27:24), and are continued in the sepher dibre
Shelomoh (a contraction for sepher dibre hayyamim Shelomoh, book of the
chronicles of Solomon, 1Ki. 11:41). The references are then carried on in
Judah to the end of the reign of Jehoiakim, and in Israel to the end of the reign
of Pekah. Under David, and also under Solomon, the office of national annalist
was filled by Jehoshaphat ben-Ahilud. The fact that, with the exception of the
annals of David and Solomon, the references are always made to annals of the
kings of Judah and kings of Israel, admits of a very simple explanation. If
we regard the national annals as a complete and independent work, they
naturally divide themselves into four parts, of which the first two treated of the
history of the kingdom in its unity; the last two, viz., the annals of the kings of
Judah and Israel, of the history of the divided kingdom. The original archives,
no doubt, perished when Jerusalem was laid in ashes by the Chaldeans. But
copies were taken from them and preserved, and the histories of the reigns of
David and Solomon in the historical books which have come down to us, and
are peculiarly rich in annalistic materials, show very clearly that copies of the
annals of David and Solomon were taken and distributed with special diligence,
and that they were probably circulated in a separate form, as was the case with
some of the decades of Livy.
Richard Simon supposed the crivains publics to be prophets; and upon this
hypothesis he founded an exploded view as to the origin of the Old Testament
writings. Even in more recent times the annals have occasionally been regarded
as prophetic histories, in which case the distinction between prophetic and
annalistic histories would unquestionably fall to the ground. But the arguments

adduced in support of this do not prove what is intended. In the first place,
appeal is made to the statements of the chronicler himself, with regard to certain
prophetic elements in the work which constituted his principal source, viz., the
great kings-book; and it is taken for granted that this great kings-book
contained the combined annals of the kings of Judah and Israel. But (a) the
chronicler speaks of his principal source under varying names as a book of the
kings, and on one occasion as dibre, i.e., res gestae or historiae, of the kings of
Israel (2Ch. 33:18), but never as the annals of the kings of Israel or Judah: he
even refers to it once as midrash sepher hammelacim (commentarius libri
regum), and consequently as an expository and more elaborate edition either of
our canonical book of Kings, or else (a point which we will leave undecided) of
an earlier book generally. (b) In this midrash the history of the kings was
undoubtedly illustrated by numerous comprehensive prophetico-historical
portions: but the chronicler says expressly, on several occasions, that these
were ingredients incorporated into it (2Ch. 20:34; 32:32); so that no conclusion
can be drawn from them with regard to the prophetic authorship of his principal
source, and still less as to that of the annals. We do not, in saying this, dispute
for a moment the fact, that there were prophetic elements to be found among
the documents admitted into the annals, and not merely such as related to
levitical and military affairs, or others of a similar kind; nor do we deny that the
interposition of great prophets in the history of the times would be there
mentioned and described. There are, in fact, distinct indications of this, of which
we shall find occasion to speak more fully by and by. But it would be the
greatest literary blunder that could be made, to imagine that the accounts of
Elijah and Elisha, for example, which have all the stamp of their Ephraimitish
and prophetic authorship upon the forefront, could possibly have been taken
from the annals; more especially as Joram the king of Israel, in whose reign
Elisha lived, is the only king of the northern kingdom in connection with whose
reign there is no reference to the annals at all. The kind of documents, which
were principally received into the annals and incorporated into the connected
history, may be inferred from such examples as 2Ch. 35: 4, where the division
of the Levites into classes is taken from the writing of David and the writing
of Solomon: whether we suppose that the documents in question were
designated royal writings, because they were drawn up by royal command and
had received the kings approval; or that the sections of the annals, in which
they were contained, were really based upon documents written with the kings
own hand (vid., 1Ch. 28:11-19). When we bear in mind that the account given
by the chronicler of the arrangements made by David with reference to priests
and Levites rests upon the annals as their ultimate source, we have, at any rate,
in 2Ch. 35: 4 a confirmation of the national, and so to speak, regal character of
the year-books in question.

A second argument employed to prove that the annals were prophetic histories,
is the fact that otherwise they would not have been written in a theocratic spirit,
especially in the kingdom of Israel. But (1) their official or state origin is
evident, from the fact that they break off just where the duties of the prophets
as historiographs really began. For fourteen of the references to the annals in
our book of Kings, from Rehoboam and Jeroboam onwards, are to be found in
the history of the kings of Judah (it being only in the case of Ahaziah, Amaziah,
and Jehoahaz that the references are wanting), and seventeen in the history of
the kings of Israel (the reference failing in the case of Joram alone); whilst in
both lines the annals do not reach to the last king in each kingdom, but only to
Jehoiakim and Pekah, from which we may conclude that the writing of annals
was interrupted with the approaching overthrow of the two kingdoms. Now, if
(b) we examine the thirty-one references carefully, we shall find that sixteen of
them merely affirm that the rest of the acts of the king in question, what he did,
are written in the annals (1Ki. 14:29; 2Ki. 8:23; 12:20; 15: 6, 36; 16:19; 21:25;
23:28; 24: 5; 1Ki. 15:31; 16:14; 2Ki. 1:18; 15:11, 21, 26, 31). In the case of
four Israelitish kings, it is simply stated in addition to this, that their geburah
(might, heroism, i.e., their bravery in war) is written in the annals (1Ki. 16: 5,
27; 2Ki. 10:34; 13: 8). But in the accounts of the following kings we find more
precise statements as to what was to be read in the annals concerning them,
viz.: Abijam carried on war with Jeroboam, as might be read in them
(1Ki. 15: 7); in the case of Asa they contained an account of his heroism, and
all that he did, and the cities which he built (1Ki. 15:23); in that of Jehoshaphat
the heroic acts that he performed, and what wars he carried on
(1Ki. 22:46); in that of Hezekiah all his heroism, and how he made the
pool, and the aqueduct, and brought the water into the city (2Ki. 20:20); in
that of Manasseh all that he did, and his sin in which he sinned
(2Ki. 21:17); in that of Jeroboam what wars he waged, and how he
reigned (1Ki. 14:19); in that of Zimri his conspiracy that he set on foot
(1Ki. 16:20); in that of Ahab all that he did, and the ivory house which he
erected, and all the towns that he built (1Ki. 22:39); in that of Joash his
heroism, how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah (2Ki. 13:12; 14:15); in
that of Jeroboam II his heroism, how he warred, and how he recovered
Damascus and Hamath to Judah in Israel (2Ki. 14:28); and in that of Shallum
his conspiracy which he made (2Ki. 15:15). These references furnish a
very obvious proof, that the annalistic history was not written in a propheticopragmatical form; though there is no necessity on that account to assume, that
in either of the two kingdoms it stopped to courtly flattery, or became the mere
tool of dynastic selfishness, or of designs at variance with the theocracy. It
simply registered outward occurrences, entering into the details of new
buildings, and still more into those of wars and warlike deed; it had its roots in
the spirit of the nation, and moved in the sphere of the national life and its

institutions; in comparison with the prophetic histories, it was more external

than idea, more purely historical than didactic, more of the nature of a
chronicle than written with any special bias of intention: in short, it was more
distinctly connected with political than with sacred history.
From the time of Samuel, with whom the prophetic period in the history of the
legally constituted Israel strictly speaking commenced (Act. 3:24), the prophets
as a body displayed great literary activity in the department of historical
composition. This is evident from the numerous references made by the author
of the Chronicles to original historical writings by prophetic authors. At the
close of the history of David he refers to the dibre (Eng. ver. book) of
Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the seer; at the close of the
history of Solomon (2Ch. 9:29), to dibre (Eng. ver. book) of Nathan the
prophet, nebuoth (Eng. ver. the prophecy) of Ahijah the Shilonite, and
chazoth (visions) of Yedi (Yedo; Eng. ver. Iddo) the seer; in the case of
Rehoboam (2Ch. 12:15), to dibre of Shemaiah the prophet and Iddo the seer;
in that of Abijah (2Ch. 13:22), to the midrash (Eng. ver. story) of the prophet
Iddo; in that of Jehoshaphat (2Ch. 20:34), to dibre of Jehu ben Hanani, which
were included in the book of the kings of Israel; in that of Uzziah (2Ch. 26:22),
to a complete history of that king, which had been composed by Isaiah ben
Amoz; in that of Hezekiah (2Ch. 32:32), to a chazon (Eng. ver. vision) of
Isaiah, which was to be found in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel; and
in that of Manasseh (2Ch. 33:19), to dibre of Hosai. The question might be
raised, indeed, whether the dibre referred to in these passages are not to be
understood as in 1Ch. 23:27, for example as signifying the historical
account of such and such a person; but the following are sufficient proofs that
the chronicler used the expression in the sense of historical accounts written by
the persons named. In the first place, we may see from 2Ch. 27:22 how
customary it was for him to think of prophets as historians of particular epochs
of the history of the kings; secondly, even in other passages in which the name
of a prophet is connected with dibre, such, for example, as 2Ch. 29:30;
33:18, the former is the genitive of the subject or author, not of the object;
thirdly, in the citations given above, dibre is used interchangeably with
YRBDL, which requires still more decidedly that it should be understood as
denoting authorship: and fourthly, this is placed beyond all doubt by the
alternation of midrash Iddo (2Ch. 13:22), with dibre Iddo (2Ch. 12:15). At the
same time, it is evident that these accounts, which are called by prophets
names, were not lying before the chronicler in the form of separate writings in
addition to the work which constituted his principal source, from the fact that,
with the exception of 2Ch. 33:18, 19, he never quotes the two together. They
were incorporated into the midrash sephere hammelakim (the story of the
book of the kings, Eng. ver.), which lay before him (2Ch. 24:27), though not

without showing their prophetic origin in distinction from the annalistic sources
of the work in question; and inasmuch as it is inconceivable that the authors of
our canonical books of Samuel and Kings should have made no use of these
prophetic records, the question is allowable, whether it is still possible for
critical analysis to trace them out either in whole or in part, with the same
certainty with which it can be affirmed that the list of officers which is employed
as a boundary-stone in 2Sa. 20:23-26, and the general survey of Solomons
ministers and court in 1Ki. 4: 2-19, together with the account of the daily
provision for the royal kitchen in 1Ki. 4:22, 23, and the number of stalls for the
kings horses in 1Ki. 4:26, 27, and others of a similar kind, were taken from the
annals.
This is not the place in which to enter more minutely into such an analysis. It is
quite sufficient for our purpose to have exhibited, in the citations we have made
from the Chronicles, the stirring activity of the prophets as historians from the
time of Samuel onwards; although this is evident enough, even without
citations, from the many prophetico-historical extracts from the writings of the
prophets which we find in the book of Kings. Both authors draw either directly
or indirectly from annalistic and prophetic sources. But when we look at the
respective authors, and their mode of rounding off and working up the
historical materials, the book of Kings and the Chronicles exhibit of themselves,
at least as a whole, the two different kinds of historical composition; for the
book of Kings is a thoroughly prophetic book, the Chronicles a priestly one.
The author of the book of Kings formed his style upon the model of
Deuteronomy and the prophetic writings; whilst the chronicler so thoroughly
imitated the older dibre-hayyamim style, that it is often impossible to
distinguish his own style from that of the sources which came either directly or
indirectly to his hand; and consequently his work contains a strange admixture
of very ancient and very modern forms. The observation inserted in 2Ki. 17: 7ff.
shows clearly enough in what spirit and with what intention the writer of the
book of Kings composed his work. Like the author of the book of Judges, who
wrote in a kindred spirit (see Jud. 2:11ff.), he wished to show, in his history of
the kings, how the Israel of the two kingdoms sank lower and lower both
inwardly and outwardly till it had fallen into the depths of captivity, in
consequence of its contempt of the word of god as spoken by the prophets, and
still more because of the radical evil of idolatry; but how Judah, with its Davidic
government, was not left without hope of rescue from the abyss, provided it
would not shut its heart against such prophetic preaching as was to be found in
its own past history. The chronicler, on the other hand, whose love to the
divinely chosen monarchy and priesthood of the tribes of Judah and Levi is
obvious enough, from the annalistic survey with which he prefaces his work,
commences with the mournful end of Saul, and wastes no words upon the path

of sorrow through which David reached the throne, but passes at once to the
joyful beginning of his reign, which he sets before us in the popular, warlike,
priestly style of the annals. He then relates the history of Judah and Jerusalem
under the rule of the house of David, almost without reference to the history of
the northern kingdom, and describes it with especial completeness wherever he
has occasion to extol the interest shown by the king in the temple and worship
of God, and his co-operation with the Levites and priests. The author of the
book of Kings shows us in prophecy the spirit which pervaded the history, and
the divine power which moulded it. The chronicler exhibits in the monarchy and
priesthood the two chambers of its beating heart. In the former we see storm
after storm gather in the sky that envelopes the history, according to the
attitude of the nation and its kings towards the word of God; with the latter the
history is ever encircled by the cloudless sky of the divine institutions. The
writer of the Chronicles dwells with peculiar preference, and a certain partiality,
upon the brighter portions of the history; whereas, with the author of the book
of Kings, the law of retribution which prevails in the historical materials
requires that at least an equal prominence should be given to the darker side. In
short, the history of the book of Kings is more inward, divine, theocratic in its
character; that of the Chronicles more outward, human, and popular. The
author of the book of Kings writes with a prophets pen; the chronicler with the
pen of an annalist.
Nevertheless, they both of them afford us a deep insight into the laboratory of
the two modes of writing history; and the historical productions of both are rich
in words of the prophets, which merit a closer inspection, since they are to be
regarded, together with the prophetico-historical writings quoted, as precludes
and side-pieces to the prophetic literature, properly so called, which gradually
established itself in more or less independence, and to which the nebiim
acharonim (the last prophets) belong. The book of Kings contains the following
words and sayings of prophets:
(1) Ahijah of Shilo to Jeroboam (1Ki. 11:29-39);
(2) Shemaiah to Rehoboam (1Ki. 12:22-24);
(3) a man of God to the altar of Jeroboam (1Ki. 13: 1, 2);
(4) Ahijah to the wife of Jeroboam (1Ki. 14: 5-16);
(5) Jehu ben Hanani to Baasha (1Ki. 16: 1-4);
(6) a prophet to Ahab king of Israel (1Ki. 20:13, 14, 22, 28);
(7) a pupil of the prophets to Ahab (1Ki. 20:35ff.);
(8) Elijah to Ahab (1Ki. 21:17-26);
(9) Micha ben Yimla to the two kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat (1Ki. 22:14ff.);
(10) Elisha to Jehoram and Jehoshaphat (2Ki. 3:11ff.);
(11) a pupil of Elisha to Jehu (2Ki. 9: 1-10);
(12) a massa concerning the house of Ahab (2Ki. 9:25, 26);
(13) Jehovah to Jehu (2Ki. 10:30);

(14) Jonah to Jeroboam II (indirectly; 2Ki. 14:25-27);

(15) leading message of the prophets (2Ki. 17:13);
(16) Isaiahs words to Hezekiah (2Ki. 19-20);
(17) threat on account of Manasseh (2Ki. 21:10-15);
(18) Huldah to Josiah (2Ki. 22:14ff.);
(19) threat of Jehovah concerning Judah (2Ki. 23:27).

Of all these prophetic words and sayings, Nos. 2, 9, and 18 are the only ones
that are given by the chronicler (2Ch. 11: 2-4, 18, and 34), partly because he
confined himself to the history of the kings of Judah, and partly because he
wrote with the intention of supplementing our book of Kings, which was no
doubt lying before him. On the other hand, we find the following words of
prophets in the Chronicles, which are wanting in the book of Kings:
(1) words of Shemaiah in the war between Rehoboam and Shishak (2Ch. 12: 7, 8);
(2) Azariah ben Oded before Asa (2Ch. 15: 1-7);
(3) Hanani to Asa (2Ch. 16: 7-9);
(4) Jahaziel the Asaphite in the national assembly (2Ch. 20:14-17);
(5) Eliezer ben Dodavahu to Jehoshaphat (2Ch. 20:37);
(6) letter of Elijah to Jehoram (2Ch. 21:12-15);
(7) Zechariah ben Jehoiada in the time of Joash (2Ch. 24:20);
(8) a man of God to Amaziah (2Ch. 25: 7-9);
(9) a prophet to Amaziah (2Ch. 25:15, 16);
(10) Oded to Pekah (2Ch. 28: 9-11).

To extend the range of our observation still further, we may add,

(1) the address of the maleach Jehovah in Bochim (Jud. 2: 1-5);
(2) the address of a prophet (ish nabi) to Israel, in Jud. 6: 8-10;
(3) that of a man of God to Eli (1Sa. 2:27ff.);
(4) Jehovah to Samuel concerning Elis house (1Sa. 3:11-14);
(5) Samuel to Israel before the battle at Ebenezer (1Sa. 7: 3);
(6) Samuel to Saul in Gilgal (1Sa. 13:13, 14);
(7) Samuel to Saul after the victory over Amalek (1Sa. 15);
(8) Nathan to David concerning his wish to build the temple (2Sa. 7);
(9) Nathan to David after his adultery (2Sa. 12);
(10) Gad to David after the numbering of the people (2Sa. 24).

If we take a general survey of these prophetic words and sayings, and compare
them with one another, there can be no doubt that some of them have come
down to us in their original form; such, for example, as the address of the man
of God to Eli, in the first book of Samuel, and the words of Samuel to Saul
after the victory over Amalek. This is guaranteed by their distinct peculiarity,
their elevated tone, and the manifest difference between them and the ordinary
style of the historian who relates them. In the case of others, at least, all that is
essential in their form has been preserved; as, for example, in the addresses of
Nathan to David: this is evident from the echoes that we find of them in the

subsequent history. Among the sayings that have been handed down verbatim
by the author of the book of Kings, we may include those of Isaiah, whose
originality several things combine to sustain, viz. the massa in 2Ki. 9:25, 26,
the construction of which is peculiar and primitive; together with a few other
brief prophetic words, possibly in all that is essential the words of Huldah: for it
is only in the mouth of Huldah (2Ki. 22:19; 2Ch. 34:27) and Isaiah
(2Ki. 19:33), and in the massa referred to, that we meet with the prophetic
saith the Lord (H
FHYi JUNi ), which we also find in 1Sa. 2:30, with other marks
of originality, whilst its great antiquity is attested by Gen. 22:16, the Davidic
Psalms, and 2Sa. 23: 1. In some of these sayings the historian is not at all
concerned to give them in their original words: they are simply prophetic voices
generally, which were heard at a particular time, and the leading tones of which
he desires to preserve, such, for example, as Jud. 6: 8-10, 2Ki. 17:13; 21:1015. Reproductions of prophetic witnesses in so general a form as this naturally
bear the stamp of the writer who reproduces them. In the books of Judges and
Kings, for example, they show clearly the Deuteronomic training of their last
editors. But we can go still further, and maintain generally, that the prophecies
in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles contain marked traces of the
historians own hand, as well as of the sources from which they were indirectly
drawn. Such sayings as are common to the two books (Chronicles and Kings)
are almost word for word the same in the former as in the latter; but the rest
have all a marked peculiarity, and a totally different physiognomy. The sayings
in the book of Kings almost invariably begin with Thus saith the Lord, or
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel (also Jud. 6: 8, and 2Ki. 19:20, before the
message of Isaiah); and nothing is more frequent in them than the explanatory
phrase REJ JAY,A and such Deuteronomic expressions as SYKH, JYXH, DYB
TN, and others; to which we may add a fondness for similes introduces with
as (e.g., 1Ki. 14:10, 15; 2Ki. 21:13). The thought of Jehovahs choosing
occurs in the same words in 1Ki. 11:36 and 2Ki. 23:27; and the expression,
that David may have a light alway, in 1Ki. 11:36, is exclusively confined to
the Deuteronomic author of the work (vid., 1Ki. 15: 4, 2Ki. 8:19, cf.,
2Ch. 21: 7). The words, I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee
prince over my people Israel, are not only to be found in the second address of
Ahijah in 1Ki. 14: 7, but, with slight alteration, in the address of Jehu in ch.
16: 2. The words, Him that dieth in the city shall the dogs eat, and him that
dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat, are found in the same form in
Ahijahs second address (1Ki. 14:11), in Jehus address (ch. 16: 4), and in that
of Elijah to Ahab (ch. 21:24). That threat, I will cut off all that pisseth against
the wall, that is shut up and that is free in Israel, and will sweep behind the
house of Jeroboam, is found, with trifling variations, in Ahijahs second
address (1Ki. 14:10), in Elijahs address to Ahab (ch. 21:21), and in Elishas

address to Jehu (2Ki. 9: 8); whilst it is evident from 1Ki. 16:11 and 2Ki. 14:26,
that the form of the threat is just in the style of the Deuteronomic historian.
There can be no question, therefore, that nearly all these prophetic sayings, so
far as a common impress can exist at all, are of one type, and that the common
bond which encircles them is no other than the prophetic subjectivity of the
Deuteronomic historian. A similar conclusion may be drawn with regard to the
prophetic sayings contained in the Chronicles. They also bear so decidedly the
evident marks of the chroniclers own work, that Caspari himself, in his work
upon the Syro-Ephraimitish war, is obliged to admit that the prophetic address
in 2Ch. 15: 2-7, which is apparently the most original of all, recals the peculiar
style of the chronicler. At the same time, in the case of the chronicler, whose
principal source of information must have resembled his own work in spirit and
style (as we are warranted in assuming by the book of Ezra especially), it is not
so easy to determine how far his own freedom of treatment extended as it is in
the case of the author of the book of Kings, who appears to have found the
greater part of the sayings given in mere outline in the annals, and in taking
them thence, to have reproduced them freely, in the consciousness of his own
unity of spirit with the older prophets.
If these sayings had been handed down to us in their original form, we should
possess in them a remarkably important source of information with regard to
the historical development of the prophetic ideas and modes of expression. We
should then know for certain that Isaiahs favourite phrase, for the Lord hath
spoken it, was first employed by Ahijah (1Ki. 14:11); that when Joel
prophesied in Jerusalem shall be deliverance (Joe. 2:32), he had already been
preceded by Shemaiah (2Ch. 12: 7); that Hosea (in Hos. 3: 4, 5, cf., 5:15) took
up the declaration of Azariah ben Oded, And many days will Israel continue
without the God of truth, and without a teaching priest, and without law; but
when it turneth in its trouble, etc. (2Ch. 15: 3, 4, where, as the parallel proves,
the preterites of v. 4 are to be interpreted according to the prophetic context);
that in Jer. 31:16, for thy work shall be rewarded, we have the echo of
another word of the same Azariah; that in the words spoken by Hanani in
2Ch. 16: 9, The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth,
he was the precursor of Zechariah (Zec. 4:10); and other instances of a similar
kind. But, with the influence which was evidently exerted upon the sayings
quoted by the subjective peculiarities of the two historians (compare, for
example, 2Ch. 15: 2 with 13: 4 and 1Ch. 28: 9; 2Ch. 12: 5 with 24:20; also v. 7
with 2Ch. 34:21, and the parallel 2Ki. 22:13 and 2Ch. 15: 5, In those times,
with Dan. 11:14), and with the difficulty of tracing the original elements in these
sayings (it is quite possible, for example, that the thought of a light remaining to
David, 1Ki. 15: 4, 2Ki. 8:19, was really uttered first of all by Ahijah,
1Ki. 11:36), it is only a very cautious and sparing use that can be made of them

for this purpose. It is quite possible, since Deuteronomy is the real prophets
book, as compared with the other books of the Pentateuch, that the prophets of
the earlier regal times took pleasure in employing Deuteronomic expressions;
but it cannot be decided whether such expressions as put my name there, in
1Ki. 11:36, and root up Israel, etc., in 1Ki. 14:15, received their
Deuteronomic form (cf., Deu. 12: 5, 21; 14:24; 29:27) from the prophet
himself, or from the author of the book of Kings (cf., 1Ki. 9: 3, and the parallel
passages, 2Ch. 7:20; 9: 7, 2Ki. 21: 7, 8). At the same time, quite enough of the
original has been retained in the prophecies of these earlier prophets, to enable
us to discern in them the types and precursors of the later ones. Shemaiah, with
his threat and its subsequent modification in the case of Asa, calls to mind
Micah and his words to Hezekiah, in Jer. 26:17ff. The attitude of Hanani
towards Asa, when he had appealed to Aram for help, is just the same as that
which Isaiah assumed towards Ahaz; and there is also a close analogy in the
consequences of the two events. Hose and Amos prophesy against the high
places of Aven (Hos. 10: 8), and the altars of Bethel (Amo. 3:14; 9: 1), like
the man of God in Bethel. When Amos leaves his home in consequence of a
divine call (Amo. 7:15) and goes to Bethel, the headquarters of the imageworship of the Israelites, to prophesy against the idolatrous kingdom; is there
not a repetition in this of the account of the prophet in 1Ki. 13? And when
Hanani is cast into prison on account of his denunciation of Asa; is not this a
prelude, as it were, to the subsequent fate of Micah ben-Imlah (1Ki. 22) and
Jeremiah (Jer. 32)? And so, again, Ahijahs confirmation and symbolical
representation of what he predicted, by the rending in pieces of a new garment
(the symbol of the kingdom in its unity and strength), has its analoga in the
history of the earlier prophets (1Sa. 15:26-29) as well as in that of the latest
(e.g., Jer. 22). It is only such signs (mophethim), as that by which the prophet
who came out of Judah into Bethel confirmed his prophecy, that disappear
entirely from the alter history, although Isaiah does not think it beneath him to
offer Ahaz a sign, either in the depth or in the height above, in attestation of his
prophetic testimony.
There was no essential difference, however, between the prophets of the earlier
and those of the later times; and the unity of spirit which linked together the
prophets of the two kingdoms from the very first, notwithstanding the inevitable
diversity in their labours in consequence of the different circumstances in which
they were placed, continued all through. Still we do meet with differences. The
earlier prophets are uniformly occupied with the internal affairs of the kingdom,
and do not bring within their range the history of other nations, with which that
of Israel was so intimately interwoven. Their prophecies are directed exclusively
to the kings and people of the two kingdoms, and not to any foreign nation at
all, either to those immediately adjoining, or what we certainly might expect, to

Egypt and Aram. The Messianic element still remains in a somewhat obscure
chrysalis state; and the poetry of thoughts and words, which grew up
afterwards as the result of prophetic inspiration, only just manifests itself in
certain striking figures of speech. It is indeed true, as we have already seen, that
it is hardly possible to pronounce a decided opinion respecting the delivery of
these earlier prophets; but from a sufficiently reliable and general impression,
we may trace this distinction between the prophecy which prevailed till about
the reign of Joash and that of the later times, that the former was for the most
part prophecy in irresistible actions, the latter prophecy in convincing words. As
G. Baur has observed; in the case of the older prophets it is only as the modest
attendants of mighty outward acts, that we meet with words at all concerned to
produce clear inward conviction. For this very reason, they could hardly
produce prophetic writings in the strict sense of the word. But from the time of
Samuel downwards, the prophets had made the theocratic and pragmatic
treatment of the history of their own times a part of the regular duties of their
calling. The cloistral, though by no means quietistic, retirement of their lives in
the schools of the prophets, was very favourable to this literary occupation,
more especially in the northern kingdom, and secured for it unquestioned
liberty. We may see, however, from 2Ch. 20:34, that the prophets of Judah also
occupied themselves with writing history; for the prophet Jehu was a Judaean,
and, as we may infer from 2Ch. 19: 1-3, had his home in Jerusalem.
The literature of the prophetic writings, strictly so called, commenced in the
time of Jehoram king of Judah with a fugitive writing against Edom; if, as we
think we have proved elsewhere, the vision of OBADIAH was occasioned by the
calamity described in 2Ch. 21:16, 17, to which Joel and Amos also refer. He
was followed by JOEL, who had Obadiahs prophecy before him, since he
introduces into the wider and more comprehensive range of his announcement,
not only Obadiahs prophetic matter, but Obadiahs prophetic words. We may
also see from Joels writings how the prophetic literature, in the stricter sense,
sprang out of prophetical histories; for Joel himself relates the result of the
penitential worship, which was occasioned by his appeal, in a historical
statement in Joe. 2:18, 19a, through which the two halves of his writings are
linked together. The time when he prophesied can be distinctly proved to have
been the first half of the reign of Joash king of Judah. Obadiah and Joel were
both of them contemporaries of Elisha. Elisha himself did not write anything,
but the schools under his superintendence not only produced prophetic deeds,
but prophetic writings also; and it is a characteristic circumstance, that the
writings which bear the name of Jonah, whom an ancient Haggada describes as
one of the sons of the prophets belonging to Elishas school, belong far less to
the prophetic literature in the strict sense of the term than to the prophetical
histories, and in fact to the historical writings of prophets. At what period it was

that Jonahs mission to Nineveh took place, may be gathered to some extent
from 2Ki. 14:25, where Jonah ben-Ammitai, the prophet of Gath ha-Hepher, in
the territory of Zebulun, is said to have predicted the restoration of the kingdom
of Israel to its promised boundaries, a prediction which was fulfilled in
Jeroboam ben-Joash, the third in succession from Jehu, and therefore was
uttered at the commencement of the reign of Jeroboam II, if not under Joash
himself. The mission to Nineveh may possibly belong to a somewhat earlier
period than this prediction, namely, to the time of the older Assyrian kingdom,
which was fast approaching its dissolution. Eusebius is probably correct in
making Sardanapalus the last ruler of the old kingdom of Ninos, who was
overcome by Arbaces the Mede, a contemporary of Jeroboam II. A glance at
the book of Amos, on the other hand, will show us that, at the time when he
prophesied, a new Asshur was arising, and had already made considerable
conquests. The date given in Amo. 1: 1, two years before the earthquake,
does not afford us any clue. But if Amos prophesied in the days of Uzziah king
of Judah, and Jeroboam ben-Joash king of Israel; assuming that Jeroboam II
reigned forty-one years, commencing with the fifteenth year of Amaziah
(2Ki. 14:23), and therefore was contemporary with Amaziah for fourteen years
and with Uzziah for twenty-seven, it must have been in the last twenty-seven
years of Jeroboams reign that Amos prophesied. At the time when his ministry
began, the kingdom of Israel was at the summit of its greatness in consequence
of the successes of Jeroboam, and the kingdom of Judah still continued in the
depression into which it had fallen in the time of Amaziah; and to both of them
he foretells a common fate at the hand of Asshur, which is indicated clearly
enough, although not mentioned by name. The commencement of the ministry
of Hosea coincides at the most with the close of that of Amos. The symbolical
portion (Isa. 1-3), with which his book commences, brings us to the five last
years of Jeroboams reign; and the prophetic addresses which follow are not at
variance with the statement in Isa. 1: 1, which is by a later hand, and according
to which he still continued to prophesy even under Hezekiah, and therefore until
the fall of Samaria, which occurred in the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign. Hosea,
the Ephraimitish Jeremiah, was followed by Isaiah, who received his call, if
Isa. 6 contains the account of his prophetic consecration, in the last year of
Uzziahs reign, and therefore twenty-five years after the death of Jeroboam II,
and continued his labours at least till the second half of Hezekiahs reign,
possibly to the commencement of that of Manasseh. His younger contemporary
was Micah of Moresheth, whose first appearance took place, according to
Isa. 1: 1, within the reign of Jotham, and whose book must have been written,
according to the heading concerning Samaria and Jerusalem, before the fall of
Samaria, in the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign (with which the account in
Jer. 25:17ff. also agrees); so that his labours began and ended within the
incomparably longer period of Isaiahs ministry. This also applies to NAHUM,

whose burden of Nineveh closes the prophetic writings of the Assyrian age.
He prophesied after the defeat of Sennacherib, when the power of Asshur was
broken, and also the yoke upon Judahs neck (Isa. 1:13), provided, that is to
say, that Asshur did not recover itself again. HABAKKUK is linked on to Nahum.
He was the last prophet of Isaiahs type in the book of twelve prophets, and
began to foretell a new era of judgment, namely the Chaldean. He prophesied in
the time of Josiah, before Zephaniah and Jeremiah, and possibly even as early as
the time of Manasseh.
With ZEPHANIAH the line of prophets of Jeremiahs type begins. He resembles
Jeremiah in his reproductive, and, as it were, mosaic use of the words of the
older prophets. As JEREMIAH was called, according to Jer. 1: 2, in the thirteenth
year of Josiahs reign, his ministry commenced before that of Zephaniah, since
we are compelled by internal grounds to assign the prophecies of the latter to
the period subsequent to the eighteenth year of Josiahs reign. Jeremiahs
labours in Judaea, and eventually in Egypt, extended over a period of more than
forty years. He gave, as a warrant of the threats contained in his last prophetic
address in Isa. 44, the approaching fall of Pharaoh Hophra, who lost his throne
and life in the year 570 B.C., upon the very spot where his great-grandfather
Psammetichus had obtained forcible possession of the throne of Egypt a century
before. Contemporaneous with Jeremiah was Ezekiel, who, though not
personally acquainted with him, so far as we know, laboured in the very same
spirit as he among the exiles of Judah. According to Isa. 1: 1, 2, the year of his
call was the thirteenth year, viz., of the era of Nabopolassar, which was really
the fifth years after the captivity of Jehoiachin, B.C. 595. The latest date given
in connection with his ministry (Isa. 29:17) is the seven-and-twentieth year of
the captivity, which was the sixteenth year from the destruction of Jerusalem,
the time between Nebuchadnezzars raising of the siege of Tyre and his
expedition against Egypt. We are aware, therefore, of twenty-two years of
active life on the part of this prophet, who may have been older when called
than Jeremiah, who was youthful still. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were the two great
prophets who spread their praying hands over Jerusalem as a shield as long as
they possibly could, and when the catastrophe was inevitable, saved it even in
its fall. Their prophecies bridged over the great chasm of the captivity (though
not without the co-operation of the book of consolation, Isa. 40-66, which
was unsealed in the time of exile), and prepared the way for the restoration of
the national community when the captivity was over. Into the community
HAGGAI infused a new spirit in the second year of Darius Hystaspis, through his
prediction of the glory which awaited the newly-built temple and the house of
David, that was raised to honour once more in the person of Zerubbabel.
ZECHARIAH began to prophesy only two months later. His last prophetic
address belongs to the third year of Darius Hystaspis, the year after the edict

requiring that the building of the temple should be continued. The predictions of
the second part of his book (Isa. 9-14) were hardly delivered publicly: they are
throughout eschatological and apocalyptical, and take earlier situations and
prophetic words as emblems of the last days. Prophecy was now silent for a
long time. At length the last prophetic voice of the old covenant has heard in
MALACHI. His book coincides with the condition of things which Nehemiah
found on his second sojourn in Jerusalem under Darius Notus; and his peculiar
calling in connection with the sacred history was to predict, that the messenger
who was appointed to precede the coming of Jehovah would soon appear,
namely, Elijah the Tishbite, and that he, the forerunner, a pioneer, would
then be followed by the Lord Himself, as the Angle of the covenant, i.e., the
Messenger or Mediator of a new covenant.
This general survey will show very clearly that the arrangement of the nebiim
acharonim (last prophets) in the canon is not a strictly chronological one. The
three major prophets, who are so called on account of the comparative size of
their books of prophecy, are placed together; and the twelve minor prophets
are also grouped together, so as to form one book (monobiblos, as Melito calls
it), on account of the smaller extent of their prophetic books (propter
parvitatem colligati, as b. Bathra says). To this the name of the twelve, or
the twelve-prophet-book, was given (vid., Wisd. 49:10; Josephus, c. Apion, i.
8; cf., Eusebius, h. e. iii. 10). In the collection itself, on the other hand, the
chronological order has so far been regarded, that the whole is divisible into
three groups, representing three periods of prophetic literature, viz., prophets of
the Assyrian period (Hosea to Nahum), prophets of the Chaldean period
(Habakkuk and Zephaniah), and prophets after the captivity (Haggai to
Malachi). And there is also an obvious desire to pair off as far as possible a
prophet of the kingdom of Israel with one of the kingdom of Judah, viz., Hosea
and Joel; Amos and Obadiah; Jonah and Micah; Nah. and Habakkuk (for the
Elkosh of Nahum, if not the town on the eastern bank of the Tigris near to
Mosul, was at any rate, according to Eusebius and Jerome, a Galilean town).
Hosea is placed first, not because the opening word techillath made this book a
very suitable one with which to begin the collection; still less because Hosea
was the first to be called of the four prophets, Hosea and Isaiah, Amos and
Micah, as b. Bathra affirms; but for the very same reason for which the Epistle
to the Romans is placed first among the Pauline epistles, viz., because his book
is the largest in the collection, a point of view which comes out still more
prominently in the Septuagint, where Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, and Obadiah
follow one another, the first with fourteen chapters, the second with one, the
third with seven, the fourth with three, and the last with one, and then a new
series commences with Jonah. But the reason why Joel is placed next to Hosea
in the Hebrew canon, may possibly be found in the contrast which exists

between the lamentations of the former on account of the all-parching heat and
the all-consuming swarms of insects, and the dewy, verdant, and flowery
imagery with which the book of Hosea closes. Amos then follows Joel, because
he not only takes up again his denunciations of judgment, but opens with one of
the utterances with which Joel closes (Joe. 4:16): Jehovah will roar out of
Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem. Then follows Obadiah, on account
of the reciprocal relation between Oba. 1:19 and Amo. 9:12. And Jonah is
linked on to Obadiah: for Obadiah begins thus, We have heard tidings from
Jehovah, and a messenger is sent among the nations; and Jonah was such a
messenger. Such grounds as these, the further study of which we must leave to
the introduction to the book of the twelve prophets, also had their influence
upon the pairing of the prophets of Judah with those of Israel. The fact that
Zephaniah follows Habakkuk may be accounted for from a similar ground,
which coincides in this case with the chronological order; for a catchword in
Zephaniahs prophecy, Hold thy peace at the presence of Jehovah (Zep. 1: 7),
is taken from Hab. 2:20. The prophets after the captivity (called in the Talmud
nebiim ha-acharonim, the last prophets), which necessarily followed one
another in the order determined by the date and contents of their books, bring
the whole to a close.
The so-called greater prophets are attached in the Hebrew canon to the book of
Kings; and in both the Hebrew and Alexandrian canons Isaiah stands at the
head. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel this is the order in which they follow one
another in our editions, in accordance with the time of their respective labours.
In German and French codices, we occasionally meet with a different
arrangement, viz., Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah. This is the order given in
the Talmud, b. Bathra, 14b. The principle upon which it is founded is the
kindred nature of the contents, which also helped to determine the order of the
twelve. Jeremiah follows the book of Kings, because nearly all his predictions
group themselves around the Chaldean catastrophe, with which the book of
Kings closes; and Isaiah follows Ezekiel, whose book closes in a consolatory
strain, because that of Isaiah is, as the Talmud says, nothing but consolation.
But the other arrangement, adopted in the Masora and MSS of the Spanish
class, has prevailed over this talmudic order, which has been appealed to,
though without any good ground, by the opponents of the authenticity of
Isa. 40-66 as supporting their conclusions. f4

THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH

TRANSLATED BY
JAMES MARTIN

Introduction
(MORE ESPECIALLY TO THE FIRST PART. CH. 1-29) f5
TIME OF THE PROPHET
The first prerequisite to a clear understanding and full appreciation of the
prophecies of Isaiah, is a knowledge of his time, and of the different periods of
his ministry. The first period was in the reigns of Uzziah (B.C. 811-759) and
Jotham (759-743). The precise starting-point depends upon the view we take of
Isa. 6. But, in any case, Isaiah commenced his ministry towards the close of
Uzziahs reign, and laboured on throughout the sixteen years of the reign of
Jotham. The first twenty-seven of the fifty-two years that Uzziah reigned run
parallel to the last twenty-seven of the forty-one that Jeroboam II reigned (B.C.
825-784). Under Joash, and his son Jeroboam II, the kingdom of Israel passed
through a period of outward glory, which surpassed, both in character and
duration, any that it had reached before; and this was also the case with the
kingdom of Judah under Uzziah and his son Jotham. As the glory of the one
kingdom faded away, that of the other increased. The bloom of the northern
kingdom was destroyed and surpassed by that of the southern. But outward
splendour contained within itself the fatal germ of decay and ruin in the one
case as much as in the other; for prosperity degenerated into luxury, and the
worship of Jehovah became stiffened into idolatry. It was in this last and longest
time of Judahs prosperity that Isaiah arose, with the mournful vocation to
preach repentance without success, and consequently to have to announce the
judgment of hardening and devastation, of the ban and of banishment. The
second period of his ministry extended from the commencement of the reign of
Ahaz to that of the reign of Hezekiah. Within these sixteen years three events
occurred, which combined to bring about a new and calamitous turn in the
history of Judah. In the place of the worship of Jehovah, which had been
maintained with outward regularity and legal precision under Uzziah and
Jotham; as soon as Ahaz ascended the throne, open idolatry was introduced of
the most abominable description and in very various forms. The hostilities
which began while Jotham was living, were perpetuated by Pekah the king of
Israel and Rezin the king of Damascene Syria; and in the Syro-Ephraimitish

war, an attack was made upon Jerusalem, with the avowed intention of bringing
the Davidic rule to an end. Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser, the king of
Assyria, to help him out of these troubles. He thus made flesh his arm, and so
entangled the nation of Jehovah with the kingdom of the world, that from that
time forward it never truly recovered its independence again. The kingdom of
the world was the heathen state in its Nimrodic form. Its perpetual aim was to
extend its boundaries by constant accretions, till it had grown into a worldembracing colossus; and in order to accomplish this, it was ever passing beyond
its natural boundaries, and coming down like an avalanche upon foreign nations,
not merely for self-defence or revenge, but for the purpose of conquest also.
Assyria and Rome were the first and last links in that chain of oppression by the
kingdom of the world, which ran through the history of Israel. Thus Isaiah,
standing as he did on the very threshold of this new and all-important turn in the
history of his country, and surveying it with his telescopic glance, was, so to
speak, the universal prophet of Israel. The third period of his ministry extended
from the accession of Hezekiah to the fifteenth year of his reign. Under
Hezekiah the nation rose, almost at the same pace at which it had previously
declined under Ahaz. He forsook the ways of his idolatrous father, and restored
the worship of Jehovah. The mass of the people, indeed, remained inwardly
unchanged, but Judah had once more an upright king, who hearkened to the
word of the prophet by his side, two pillars of the state, and men mighty in
prayer (2Ch. 32:20). When the attempt was afterwards made to break away
from the Assyrian yoke, so far as the leading men and the great mass of the
people were concerned, this was an act of unbelief originating merely in the
same confident expectation of help from Egypt which had occasioned the
destruction of the northern kingdom in the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign; but
on the part of Hezekiah it was an act of faith and confident reliance upon
Jehovah (2Ki. 18: 7). Consequently, when Sennacherib, the successor of
Shalmaneser, marched against Jerusalem, conquering and devastating the land
as he advanced, and Egypt failed to send the promised help, the carnal defiance
of the leaders and of the great mass of the people brought its own punishment.
But Jehovah averted the worst extremity, by destroying the kernel of the
Assyrian army in a single night; so that, as in the Syro-Ephraimitish war,
Jerusalem itself was never actually besieged. Thus the faith of the king, and of
the better portion of the nation, which rested upon the word of promise, had its
reward. There was still a divine power in the state, which preserved it from
destruction. The coming judgment, which nothing indeed could now avert,
according to Isa. 6, was arrested for a time, just when the last destructive blow
would naturally have been expected. It was in this miraculous rescue, which
Isaiah predicted, and for which he prepared the way, that the public ministry of
the prophet culminated. Isaiah was the Amos of the kingdom of Judah, having
the same fearful vocation to foresee and to declare the fact, that for Israel as a

people and kingdom the time of forgiveness had gone by. But he was not also
the Hosea of the southern kingdom; for it was not Isaiah, but Jeremiah, who
received the solemn call to accompany the disastrous fate of the kingdom of
Judah with the knell of prophetic denunciations. Jeremiah was the Hosea of the
kingdom of Judah. To Isaiah was given the commission, which was refused to
his successor Jeremiah, namely, to press back once more, through the might
of his prophetic word, coming as it did out of the depths of the strong spirit of
faith, the dark night which threatened to swallow up his people at the time of
the Assyrian judgment. After the fifteenth year of Hezekiahs reign, he took no
further part in public affairs; but he lived till the commencement of Manassehs
reign, when, according to a credible tradition, to which there is an evident
allusion in Heb. 11:37 (they were sawn asunder), f6 he fell a victim to the
heathenism which became once more supreme in the land.
To this sketch of the times and ministry of the prophet we will add a review of
the scriptural account of the four kings, under whom he laboured according to
Isa. 1: 1; since nothing is more essential, as a preparation for the study of his
book, than a minute acquaintance with these sections of the books of Kings and
Chronicles.

I. Historical Account of Uzziah-Jotham. The account of Uzziah

given in the book of Kings (2Ki. 15: 1-7, to which we may add 14:21, 22), like
that of Jeroboam II, is not so full as we should have expected. After the murder
of Amaziah, the people of Judah, as related in Isa. 14:21, 22, raised to the
throne his son Azariah, probably not his first-born, who was then sixteen years
old. It was he who built the Edomitish seaport town of Elath (for navigation
and commerce), and made it a permanent possession of Judah (as in the time of
Solomon). This notice is introduced, as a kind of appendix, at the close of
Amaziahs life and quite out of its chronological position, because the conquest
of Elath was the crowning point of the subjugation of Edom by Amaziah, and
not, as Thenius supposes, because it was Azariahs first feat of arms, by which,
immediately after his accession, he satisfied the expectations with which the
army had made him king. For the victories gained by this king over Edom and
the other neighbouring nations cannot have been obtained at the time when
Amos prophesied, which was about the tenth year of Uzziahs reign. The attack
made by Amaziah upon the kingdom of Israel, had brought the kingdom of
Judah into a state of dependence upon the former, and almost of total ruin, from
which it only recovered gradually, like a house that had fallen into decay. The
chronicler, following the text of the book of Kings, has introduced the notice
concerning Elath in the same place (2Ch. 26: 1, 2: it is written Eloth, as in
1Ki. 9:26, and the Septuagint at 2Ki. 14:22). He calls the king Uzziahu; and it is
only in the table of the kings of Judah, in 1Ch. 3:12, that he gives the name as

Azariah. The author of the book of Kings, according to our Hebrew text, calls
him sometimes Azariah or Azariahu, sometimes Uzziah or Uzziahu; the
Septuagint always gives the name as Azarias. The occurrence of the two names
in both of the historical books is an indubitable proof that they are genuine.
Azariah was the original name: out of this Uzziah was gradually formed by a
significant elision; and as the prophetical books, from Isa. 1: 1 to Zec. 14: 5,
clearly show, the latter was the name most commonly used.
Azariah, as we learn from the section in the book of Kings relating to the reign
of this monarch (2Ki. 15: 1-7), ascended the throne in the twenty-seventh year
of Jeroboams reign, that is to say, in the fifteenth year of his sole government,
the twenty-seventh from the time when he shared the government with his
father Joash, as we may gather from 2Ki. 13:13. The youthful sovereign, who
was only sixteen years of age, was the son of Amaziah by a native of Jerusalem,
and reigned fifty-two years. He did what was pleasing in the sight of God, like
his father Amaziah; i.e., although he did not come up to the standard of David,
he was one of the better kings. He fostered the worship of Jehovah, as
prescribed in the law: nevertheless he left the high places (bamoth) standing;
and while he was reigning, the people maintained in all its force the custom of
sacrificing and burning incense upon the heights. He was punished by God with
leprosy, which compelled him to live in a sick-house (chophshuth = chophshith:
sickness) till the day of his death, whilst his son Jotham was over the palace,
and conducted the affairs of government. He was buried in the city of David,
and Jotham followed by him on the throne. This is all that the author of the
book of Kings tells us concerning Azariah: for the rest, he refers to the annals
of the kings of Judah. The section in the Chronicles relating to Uzziah (2Ch. 26)
is much more copious: the writer had our book of Kings before him, as
2Ch. 26: 3, 4, 21, clearly proves, and completed the defective notices from the
source which he chiefly employed, namely, the much more elaborate
midrash.
Uzziah, he says, was zealous in seeking Elohim in the days of Zechariah, who
had understanding in divine visions; and in the days when he sought Jehovah,
God made him to prosper. Thus the prophet Zechariah, as a faithful pastor and
counsellor, stood in the same relation to him in which Jehoiada the high priest
had stood to Joash, Uzziahs grandfather. The chronicler then enumerates singly
the divine blessings which Uzziah enjoyed. First, his victories over the
surrounding nations (passing over the victory over Edom, which had been
already mentioned), viz.:
(1) he went forth and warred against the Philistines, and brake down the wall of
Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and built towns bashdod and
bphelistim (i.e., in the conquered territory of Ashdod, and in Philistia generally);

(2) God not only gave him victory over the Philistines, but also over the Arabians
who dwelt in Gur-Baal (an unknown place, which neither the LXX nor the
Targumists could explain), and the Mehunim, probably a tribe of Arabia Petraea;
(3) the Ammonites gave him presents in token of allegiance, and his name was
honoured even as far as Egypt, to such an extent did his power grow. Secondly, his
buildings: he built towers (fortifications) above the corner gate, and above the valley
gate, and above the Mikzoa, and fortified these (the weakest) portions of Jerusalem:
he also built towers in the desert (probably in the desert between Beersheba and
Gaza, to protect either the land, or the flocks and herds that were pasturing there);
and dug many cisterns, for he had large flocks and herds both in the shephelah (the
western portion of Southern Palestine) and in the mishor (the extensive pasture-land
of the tribe territory of Reuben on the other side of the Jordan): he had also
husbandmen and vine-dressers on the mountains, and in the fruitful fields, for he
was a lover of agriculture.

Thirdly, his well-organized troops: he had an army of fighting men which

consisted according to a calculation made by Jeiel the scribe, and Maaseiah,
the officer under the superintendence of Nahaniah, one of the royal princes
of 2600 heads of families, who had 307,500 men under their command, that
made war with mighty power to help the king against the enemy. Uzziah
furnished these, according to all the divisions of the army, with shields, had
spears, and helmet, and coats of mail, and bows, even with slinging-stones. He
also had ingenious slinging-machines (balistae) made in Jerusalem, to fix upon
the towers and ramparts, for the purpose of shooting arrows and large stones.
His name resounded far abroad, for he had marvellous success, so that he
became very powerful.
Up to this point the chronicler has depicted the brighter side of Uzziahs reign.
His prosperous deeds and enterprises are all grouped together, so that it is
doubtful whether the history within these several groups follows the
chronological order or not. The light thrown upon the history of the times by
the group of victories gained by Uzziah, would be worth twice as much if the
chronological order were strictly observed. But even if we might assume that
the victory over the Philistines preceded the victory over the Arabians of GurBaal and the Mehunim, and this again the subjugation of Ammon, it would still
be very uncertain what position the expedition against Edom which was
noticed by anticipation at the close of Amaziahs life occupied in relation to
the other wars, and at what part of Uzziahs reign the several wars occurred.
All that can be affirmed is, that they preceded the closing years of his life, when
the blessing of God was withdrawn from him.
The chronicler relates still further, in 2Ch. 26:16, that as Uzziah became
stronger and stronger, he fell into pride of heart, which led him to perform a
ruinous act. He sinned against Jehovah his God, by forcing his way into the holy
place of the temple, to burn incense upon the altar of incense, from the proud

notion that royalty involved the rights of the priesthood, and that the priests
were only the delegates and representatives of the king. Then Azariah the high
priest, and eighty other priests, brave men, hurried after him, and went up to
him, and said, This does not belong to thee, Uzziah, to burn incense of
Jehovah; but to the priests, and sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn
incense: go out of the sanctuary, for thou sinnest; and this is not for thine
honour with Jehovah Elohim! Then Uzziah was wroth, as he held the censer in
his hand; and while he was so enraged against the priests, leprosy broke out
upon his forehead in the sight of the priests, in the house of Jehovah, at the altar
of incense. When Azariah the high priest and the rest of the priests turned to
him, behold, he was leprous in his forehead; and they brought him hurriedly
away from thence, in fact, he himself hasted to go out, for Jehovah had
smitten him. After having thus explained the circumstances which led to the
kings leprosy, the chronicler follows once more the text of the book of Kings,
where the leprosy itself is also mentioned, and states that the king
remained a leper until the day of his death, and lived in a sick-house, without
ever being able to visit the temple again. But instead of the statement in the
book of Kings, that he was buried in the city of David, the chronicler affirms
more particularly that he was not placed in the kings sepulchre; but, inasmuch
as he was leprous, and would therefore have defiled it, was buried in the field
near the sepulchre. But before introducing this conclusion to the history of
Uzziahs reign, and instead of referring to the annals of the kings of Judah, as
the author of the book of Kings has done, or making such citations as we
generally find, the author simply states, that the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first
and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write.
It cannot possibly be either the prophecies of Isaiah of the time of Uzziah, or a
certain historical portion of the original book of Isaiahs predictions, to which
reference is here made; for in that case we should expect the same notice at the
close of the account of Jothams reign, or, at any rate, at the close of that of
Ahaz (cf., 2Ch. 27: 7 and 28:26). It is also inconceivable that Isaiahs book of
predictions should have contained either a prophetical or historical account of
the first acts of Uzziah, since Isaiah was later than Amos, later even than Hosea;
and his public ministry did not commence till the close of his reign, in fact,
not till the year of his death. Consequently the chronicler must refer to some
historical work distinct from the visions of Isaiah. Just as he mentions two
historical works within the first epoch of the divided kingdom, viz., Shemaiahs
and Iddos, the former of which referred more especially to the entire history
of Rehoboam, and the latter to the history of Abijah, and then again, in the
second epoch, an historical work by Jehu ben Hanani, which contained a
complete history of Jehoshaphat from the beginning to the end; so here, in the
third epoch, he speaks of Isaiah ben Amoz, the greatest Judaean prophet of this

epoch as the author of a special history of Uzziah, which was not incorporated
in his visions like the history of Hezekiah (cf., 2Ch. 32:32), but formed an
independent work. Besides this prophetical history of Uzziah, there was also an
annalistic history, as 2Ki. 15: 6 clearly shows; and it is quite possible that the
annals of Uzziah were finished when Isaiah commenced his work, and that they
were made use of by him. For the leading purpose of the prophetical histories
was to exhibit the inward and divine connection between the several outward
events, which the annals simply registered. The historical writings of a prophet
were only the other side of his more purely prophetic work. In the light of the
Spirit of God, the former looked deep into the past, the latter into the present.
Both of them had to do with the ways of divine justice and grace, and set forth
past and present, alike in view of the true goal, in which these two ways
coincide.
Jotham succeeded Uzziah, after having acted as regent, or rather as viceroy, for
several years (2Ki. 15:32-38). He ascended the throne in the second year of
Pekah king of Israel, in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and reigned for sixteen
years in a manner which pleased God, though he still tolerated the worship
upon high places, as his father had done. He built the upper gate of the temple.
The author has no sooner written this than he refers to the annals, simply
adding, before concluding with the usual formula concerning his burial in the
city of David, that in those days, i.e., towards the close of Jothams reign, the
hostilities of Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel commenced, as a judgment
from God upon Judah. The chronicler, however, makes several valuable
additions to the text of the book of Kings, which he has copied word for word
down to the notice concerning the commencement of the Syro-Ephraimitish
hostilities (vid., 2Ch. 27). We do not include in this the statement that Jotham
did not force his way into the holy place in the temple: this is simply intended as
a limitation of the assertion made by the author of the book of Kings as to the
moral equality of Jotham and Uzziah, and in favour of the former. The words,
the people continued in their destructive course, also contain nothing new,
but are simply the shorter expression used in the Chronicles to indicate the
continuance of the worship of the high places during Jothams reign. But there
is something new in what the chronicler appends to the remark concerning the
building of the upper gate of the temple, which is very bold and abrupt as it
stands in the book of Kings, viz., On the wall of the Ophel he built much (i.e.,
he fortified this southern spur of the temple hill still more strongly), and put
towns in the mountains of Judah, and erected castles and towers in the forests
(for watchtowers and defences against hostile attacks). He also fought with the
king of the Ammonites; and when conquered, they were obliged to give him
that year and the two following a hundred talents of silver, ten thousand cors of
wheat, and the same quantity of barley. Jotham grew stronger and stronger,

because he strove to walk before Jehovah his God. The chronicler breaks off
with this general statement, and refers, for the other memorabilia of Jotham,
and all his wars and enterprises, to the book of the Kings of Israel and Judah.
This is what the two historical books relate concerning the royal pair
Uzziah-Jotham under whom the kingdom of Judah enjoyed once more a
period of great prosperity and power, the greatest since the disruption, with
the exception of that of Jehoshaphat; the longest during the whole period of its
existence, the last before its overthrow (Caspari). The sources from which the
two historical accounts were derived were the annals: they were taken directly
from them by the author of the book of Kings, indirectly by the chronicler. No
traces can be discovered of the work written by Isaiah concerning Uzziah,
although it may possibly be employed in the midrash of the chronicler. There is
an important supplement to the account given by the chronicler in the casual
remark made in 1Ch. 5:17, to the effect that Jotham had a census taken of the
tribe of Gad, which was settled on the other side of the Jordan. We see from
this, that in proportion as the northern kingdom sank down from the eminence
to which it had attained under Jeroboam II, the supremacy of Judah over the
land to the east of the Jordan was renewed. But we may see from Amos, that it
was only gradually that the kingdom of Judah revived under Uzziah, and that at
first, like the wall of Jerusalem, which was partially broken down by Joash, it
presented the aspect of a house full of fissures, and towards Israel in a very
shaky condition; also that the Ephraimitish ox- (or calf-) worship of Jehovah
was carried on at Beersheba, and therefore upon Judaean soil, and that Judah
did not keep itself free from the idolatry which it had inherited from the fathers
(Amo. 2: 4, 5). Again, assuming that Amos commenced his ministry at about
the tenth year of Uzziahs reign, we may learn at least so much from him with
regard to Uzziahs victories over Edom, Philistia, and Ammon, that they were
not gained till after the tenth year of his reign. Hosea, on the other hand, whose
ministry commenced at the very earliest when that of Amos was drawing to a
close, and probably not till the last five years of Jeroboams reign, bears witness
to, and like Amos condemns, the participation in the Ephraimitish worship, into
which Judah had been drawn under Uzziah-Jotham. But with him Beersheba is
not referred to any more as an Israelitish seat of worship (Hos. 4:15); Israel
does not interfere any longer with the soil of Judah, as in the time of Amos,
since Judah has again become a powerful and well-fortified kingdom
(Hos. 8:14, cf., 1: 7). But, at the same time, it has become full of carnal trust
and manifold apostasy from Jehovah (Hos. 5:10; 12: 1); so that, although
receiving at first a miraculous deliverance from God (Hos. 1: 7), it is ripening
for the same destruction as Israel (Hos. 6:11).

This survey of the kingdom of Judah in the time of Uzziah-Jotham by the

Israelitish prophet, we shall find repeated in Isaiah; for the same spirit animates
and determines the verdicts of the prophets of both kingdoms.

II. Historical Account of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitish War.

The account of Ahaz, given in the book of Kings and in the Chronicles
(2Ki. 16, 2Ch. 28), may be divided into three parts: viz., first, the general
characteristics; secondly, the account of the Syro-Ephraimitish war; and thirdly,
the desecration of the temple by Ahaz, more especially by setting up an altar
made after the model of that at Damascus. f7
(1.) 2Ki. 16: 1-4. Ahaz ascended the throne in the seventeenth year of Pekah.
He was then twenty years old (or twenty-five according to the LXX at
2Ch. 28: 1, which is much more probable, as he would otherwise have had a
son, Hezekiah, in the tenth years of his age), and he reigned sixteen years. He
did not please God as his forefather David had done, but took the way of the
kings of Israel, and even made his son pass through the fire (i.e., burnt him in
honour of Moloch), according to the abominations of the (Canaanitish) people
whom Jehovah had driven out before Israel; and he offered sacrifice and burnt
incense upon the high places, and upon the hills, and under every green tree.
The Deuteronomic colouring of this passage is very obvious. The
corresponding passage in the Chronicles is 2Ch. 28: 1-4, where the additional
fact is mentioned, that he even made molten images for Baalim, and burnt
incense in the valley of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire (his
children, a generic plural like the kings in v. 16, and the sons in
2Ch. 24:25: burnt, R
BiyAWA, unless the reading RB
yAWA be adopted, as it has
been by the LXX, he caused to pass through.)
(2.) 2Ki. 16: 5-9. Then (in the time of this idolatrous king Ahaz) the following
well-known and memorable event occurred: Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah
the son of Remaliah king of Israel, went up against Jerusalem to war, and
besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him, i.e., as we may gather from
Isa. 7: 1, they were not able to get possession of Jerusalem, which was the real
object of their expedition. At that time (the author of the book of Kings
proceeds to observe), viz., at the time of this Syro-Ephraimitish war, Rezin king
of Aram brought Elath to Aram (i.e., wrested again from the kingdom of Judah
the seaport town which Uzziah had recovered a short time before), and drove
the Judaeans out of Elath (sic); and Aramaeans came to Elath and settled there
unto this day. Thenius, who starts with the needless assumption that the
conquest of Elath took place subsequently to the futile attempt to take
Jerusalem, gives the preference to the reading of the Keri, and Edomites
(Edomina) came to Elath, and would therefore correct laram (to Aram) into
ledom (to Edom). Rezin, he says, destroyed the work of Uzziah, and gave

Edom its liberty again, in the hope that at some future time he might have the
support of Edom, and so operate against Judah with greater success. But, in
answer to this, it may be affirmed that such obscure forms as YMI
RJ for
YmIRJ are peculiar to this account, and that the words do not denote the
restoration of a settlement, but mention the settlement as a new and remarkable
fact. I therefore adopt Casparis conclusion, that the Syrian king transplanted a
Syrian colony of traders to Elath, to secure the command of the maritime trade
with all its attendant advantages; and this colony held its ground there for some
time after the destruction of the Damascene kingdom, as the expression to this
day, found in the earlier source of the author of the book of Kings, clearly
implies.
But if the conquest of Elath fell within the period of the Syro-Ephraimitish war,
which commenced towards the end of Jothams reign, and probably originated
in the bitter feelings occasioned by the almost total loss to Judah of the country
on the east of the Jordan, and which assumed the form of a direct attack upon
Jerusalem itself soon after Ahaz ascended the throne; the question arises, How
was it that this design of the two allied kings upon Jerusalem was not
successful? The explanation is given in the account contained in the book of
Kings (vv. 7-9): Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pelezer (sic) the king of
Asshur, to say to him, I am thy servant, and thy son; come up, and save me out
of the hand of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who have risen
up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and the gold that was found in the
house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the palace, and sent it for a present to
the king of Asshur. The king hearkened to his petition; and went against
Damascus, and took it, and carried the inhabitants into captivity to Kir, and
slew Rezin. And what did Tiglath-pileser do with Pekah? The author of the
book of Kings has already related, in the section referring to Pekah
(2Ki. 15:29), that he punished him by taking away the whole of the country to
the east of the Jordan, and a large part of the territory on this side towards the
north, and carried the inhabitants captive to Assyria. This section must be
supplied here, an example of the great liberty which the historians allowed
themselves in the selection and arrangement of their materials. The anticipation
in v. 5 is also quite in accordance with their usual style: the author first of all
states that the expedition against Jerusalem was an unsuccessful one, and then
afterwards proceeds to mention the reason for the failure, namely, the appeal
of Ahaz to Assyria for help. For I also agree with Caspari in this, that the
Syrians the Ephraimites were unable to take Jerusalem, because the tidings
reached them, that Tiglath-pileser had been appealed to by Ahaz and was
coming against them; and they were consequently obliged to raise the siege and
made a speedy retreat.

The account in the Chronicles (2Ch. 28: 5-21) furnishes us with full and
extensive details, with which to supplement the very condensed notice of the
book of Kings. When we compare the two accounts, the question arises,
whether they refer to two different expeditions (and if so, which of the two
refers to the first expedition and which to the second), or whether they both
relate to the same expedition. Let us picture to ourselves first of all the facts as
given by the chronicler. Jehovah, his God, he says of Ahaz, delivered him
into the hand of the king of Aram, and they (the Aramaeans) smote him, and
carried off from him a great crowd of captives, whom they brought to
Damascus; and he was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who
inflicted upon him a terrible defeat. This very clearly implies, as Caspari has
shown, that although the two kings set the conquest of Jerusalem before them
as a common end at which to aim, and eventually united for the attainment of
this end, yet for a time they acted separately. We are not told here in what
direction Rezins army went. But we know from 2Ki. 16: 6 that it marched to
Idumaea, which it could easily reach from Damascus by going through the
territory of his ally, namely, the country of the two tribes and a half. The
chronicler merely describes the simultaneous invasion of Judaea by Pekah, but
he does this with all the greater fulness.
Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand in
one day, all valiant men, because they forsook Jehovah, the God of their
fathers. Zichri, an Ephraimitish hero, slew Maasejahu the kings son, and
Azrikam the governor of the palace, and Elkanah, the second in rank to the
king. And the Israelites carried away captive of their brethren two hundred
thousand women, boys, and girls, and took away much spoil from them, and
brought this booty to Samaria. As the Jewish army numbered at that time three
hundred thousand men (2Ch. 25: 5; 26:13), and the war was carried on with the
greatest animosity, these numbers need not be regarded as either spurious or
exaggerated. Moreover, the numbers, which the chronicler found in the sources
he employed, merely contained the estimate of the enormous losses sustained,
as generally adopted at that time of the side of Judah itself.
This bloody catastrophe was followed by a very fine and touching occurrence.
A prophet of Jehovah, named Oded (a contemporary of Hosea, and a man of
kindred spirit), went out before the army as it came back to Samaria, and
charged the victors to release the captives of their brother nation, which had
been terribly punished in Gods wrath, and by so doing to avert the wrath of
God which threatened them as well. Four noble Ephraimitish heads of tribes,
whose names the chronicler has preserved, supported the admonition of the
prophet. The army then placed the prisoners and the booty at the disposal of the
princes and the assembled people: And these four memorable men rose up, and
took the prisoners, and all their naked ones they covered with the booty, and

clothed and shod them, and gave them to eat and drink, and anointed them, and
conducted as many of them as were cripples upon asses, and brought them to
Jericho the palm-city, to the neighbourhood of their brethren, and returned to
Samaria. Nothing but the rudest scepticism could ever seek to cast a slur upon
this touching episode, the truth of which is so conspicuous. There is nothing
strange in the fact that so horrible a massacre should be followed by a strong
manifestation of the fraternal love, which had been forcibly suppressed, but was
not rekindled by the prophets words. We find an older fellow-piece to this in
the prevention of a fratricidal war by Shemaiah, as described in 1Ki. 12:22-24.
Now, when the chronicler proceeds to observe in v. 16, that at that time Ahaz
turned for help to the royal house of Assyria (malce asshur), in all probability
this took place at the time when he had sustained two severe defeats, one at the
hands of Pekah to the north of Jerusalem; and another from Rezin in Idumaea.
The two battles belong to the period before the siege of Jerusalem, and the
appeal for help from Assyria falls between the battles and the siege. The
chronicler then mentions other judgments which fell upon the king in his
estrangement from God, viz.:
(1) Moreover the Edomites came, smote Judah, and carried away captives; possibly
while the Syro-Ephraimitish war was still going on, after they had welcomed Rezin
as their deliverer, had shaken off the Jewish yoke, and had supported the Syrian king
against Judah in their own land;
(2) the Philistines invaded the low land (shephelah) and the south land (negeb) of
Judah, and took several towns, six of which the chronicler mentions by name, and
settled in them; for Jehovah humbled Judah because of Ahaz the king of Israel (an
epithet with several sarcastic allusions), for he acted without restraint in Judah, and
most wickedly against Jehovah.

The breaking away of the Philistines from the Jewish dominion took place,
according to Caspari, in the time of the Syro-Ephraimitish war. The position of
v. 18 in the section reaching from v. 5 to v. 21 (viz., v. 18, invasion of the
Philistines; v. 17, that of the Edomites) renders this certainly very probable,
though it is not conclusive, as Caspari himself admits.
In vv. 20, 21, the chronicler adds an appendix to the previous list of
punishments: Tiglath-Pilnezer (sic) the king of Asshur came upon him, and
oppressed him instead of strengthening him; for Ahaz had plundered both
temple and palace, and given the treasures to the king of Asshur, without
receiving any proper help in return. Thenius disputes the rendering, He
strengthened him not (cf., Eze. 30:21); but Caspari has shown that it is quite in
accordance with the facts of the case. Tiglath-pileser did not bring Ahaz any
true help; for what he proceeded to do against Syria and Israel was not taken in
hand in the interests of Ahaz, but to extend his own imperial dominion. He did

not assist Ahaz to bring ether the Edomites or the Philistines into subjection
again, to say nothing of compensating him for his losses with either Syrian or
Ephraimitish territory. Nor was it only that he did not truly help him: he really
oppressed him, by making him a tributary vassal instead of a free and
independent prince, a relation to Asshur which, according to many evident
signs, was the direct consequence of his appeal for help, and which was
established, at any rate, at the very commencement of Hezekiahs reign. Under
what circumstances this took place we cannot tell; but it is very probable that,
after the victories over Rezin and Pekah, a second sum of money was demanded
by Tiglath-pileser, and then from that time forward a yearly tribute. The
expression used by the chronicler he came upon him seems, in fact, to
mean that he gave emphasis to this demand by sending a detachment of his
army; even if we cannot take it, as Caspari does, in a rhetorical rather than a
purely historical sense, viz., as signifying that, although Tiglath-pileser came,
as Ahaz desired, his coming was not such as Ahaz desired, a coming to help and
benefit, but rather to oppress and injure.
(3.) The third part of the two historical accounts describes the pernicious
influence which the alliance with Tiglath-pileser exerted upon Ahaz, who was
already too much inclined to idolatry (2Ki. 16:10-18). After Tiglath-pileser had
marched against the ruler of Damascus, and delivered Ahaz from the more
dangerous of his two adversaries (and possibly from both of them), Ahaz went
to Damascus to present his thanks in person. There he saw the altar (which was
renowned as a work of art), and sent an exact model to Uriah the high priest,
who had an altar constructed like it by the time that the king returned. As soon
as Ahaz came back he went up to this altar and offered sacrifice, thus officiating
as priest himself (probably as a thanksgiving for the deliverance he had
received). The brazen altar (of Solomon), which Uriah had moved farther
forward to the front of the temple building, he put farther back again, placing it
close to the north side of the new one (that the old one might not appear to
have the slightest preference over the new), and commanded the high priest to
perform the sacrificial service in future upon the new great altar; adding, at the
same time, And (as for) the brazen altar, I will consider (what shall be done
with it). And king Ahaz, it is stated still further, broke out the borders of
the stools, and took away the basons; and the sea he took down from the oxen
that bare it, and set it upon a stone pedestal (that took the place of the oxen).
And the covered sabbath-hall which had been built in the temple, and the outer
kings entrance, he removed into the temple of Jehovah before the king of
Assyria. Thenius explains this as meaning he altered them (taking away the
valuable ornaments from both), that he might be able to take with him to
Damascus the necessary presents for the king of Asshur. Ewalds explanation,
however, is better than this, and more in accordance with the expression

before, viz., in order that he might be able to secure the continued favour of
the dreaded Assyrian king, by continually sending him fresh presents. But BSH
does not mean to alter, and `H TYB = H TYBB would be an unmeaning addition
in the wrong place, which would only obscure the sense. If the great alterations
mentioned in v. 17 were made for the purpose of sending presents to the king of
Assyria with or from the things that were removed, those described in v. 18
were certainly made from fear of the king; and, what appears most probable to
me, not to remove the two splendid erections from the sight of the Assyrians,
nor to preserve their being used in the event of an Assyrian occupation of
Jerusalem, but in order that his relation to the great king of Assyria might not
be disturbed by his appearing as a zealous worshipper of Jehovah. They were
changes made from fear of man and servility, and were quite in keeping with the
hypocritical, insincere, and ignoble character of Ahaz. The parallel passage in
the Chronicles is 2Ch. 28:22-25. In the time of his distress, says the
chronicler in his reflective and rhetorical style, he sinned still more grievously
against Jehovah: he, king Ahaz. He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, who
had smitten him. For the gods of the kings of Aram, he said, helped them; I will
sacrifice to them, that they may also help me. And they brought him and all
Israel to ruin. And Ahaz collected together the vessels of the house of God, and
cut them in pieces, and shut the doors of the house of Jehovah, and made
himself altars in ever corner of Jerusalem. And in every town of Judah he
erected high places to burn incense to other gods, and stirred up the displeasure
of Jehovah the God of his fathers. Thenius regards this passage as an
exaggerated paraphrase of the parallel passage in the book of Kings, and as
resting upon a false interpretation of the latter. But the chronicler does not
affirm that Ahaz dedicated the new altar to the gods of Damascus, but rather
that in the time of the Syro-Ephraimitish war he attempted to secure for himself
the same success in war as the Syrians had obtained, by worshipping their gods.
The words of Ahaz, which are reported by him, preclude any other
interpretation. He there states what by no means contradicts the book of
Kings that Ahaz laid violent hands upon the furniture of the temple. All the
rest namely, the allusion to his shutting the temple-gates, and erecting altars
and high places on every hand is a completion of the account in the book of
Kings, the historical character of which it is impossible to dispute, if we bear in
mind that the Syro-Ephraimitish war took place at the commencement of the
reign of Ahaz, who was only sixteen years old at the time.
The author of the book of Kings closes the history of the reign of Ahaz with a
reference to the annals of the kings of Judah, and with the remark that he was
buried in the city of David (2Ki. 16:19, 20). The chronicler refers to the book of
the kings of Judah and Israel, and observes that he was indeed buried in the city
(LXX in the city of David), but not in the kings sepulchre (2Ch. 28:26, 27).

The source employed by the chronicler was his midrash of the entire history of
the kings; from which he made extracts, with the intention of completing the
text of our book of Kings, to which he appended his work. His style was
formed after that of the annals, whilst that of the author of the book of Kings is
formed after Deuteronomy. But from what source did the author of the book of
Kings make his extracts? The section relating to Ahaz has some things quite
peculiar to itself, as compared with the rest of the book, viz., a liking for
obscure forms, such as Eloth (v. 6), hakkomim (v. 7), Dummesek (v. 10), and
Aromim (v. 6); the name Tiglath-peleser; f8 KM instead of DYM, which is
customary elsewhere; the rare and more colloquial term jehudim (Jews); the
inaccurate construction TWNWKMH TWRGSMHTJ (v. 17); and the verb Rq
b (to
consider, v. 15), which does not occur anywhere else. These peculiarities may
be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that the author employed the
national annals; and that, as these annals had been gradually composed by the
successive writings of many different persons, whilst there was an essential
uniformity in the mode in which the history was written, there was also of
necessity a great variety in the style of composition. But is the similarity
between 2Ki. 16: 5 and Isa. 7: 1 reconcilable with this annalistic origin? The
resemblance in question certainly cannot be explained, as Thenius supposes,
from the fact that Isa. 7: 1 was also taken from the national annals; but rather
on the ground assigned by Caspari, namely, that the author of the Chronicles
had not only the national annals before him, but also the book of Isaiahs
prophecies, to which he directs his readers attention by commencing the
history of the Syro-Ephraimitish war in the words of the portion relating to
Ahaz. The design of the two allies, as we know from the further contents of
Isa. 1, was nothing less than to get possession of Jerusalem, to overthrow the
Davidic government there, and establish in its stead, in the person of a certain
ben-Tabel (son of Tabeal, Isa. 7: 6), a newly created dynasty, that would be
under subjection to themselves. The failure of this intention is the thought that
is briefly indicated in 2Ki. 16: 5 and Isa. 7: 1.

III. Historical Account of Hezekiah, more especially of the first

six years of his reign. The account given of Hezekiah in the book of
Kings is a far more meagre one than we should expect to find, when we have
taken out the large section relating to the period of the Assyrian catastrophe
(2Ki. 18:13-20:19), which is also found in the book of Isaiah, and which will
come under review in the commentary on Isa. 36-39. All that is then left to the
author of the book of Kings is 2Ki. 18: 1-12 and 20:20, 21; and in these two
paragraphs, which enclose the section of Isaiah, there are only a few annalistic
elements worked up in Deuteronomical style. Hezekiah began to reign in the
third year of Hosea king of Israel. He was twenty-five years old when he came

to the throne, and reigned twenty-nine years. He was a king after the model of
David. He removed the high places, broke in pieces the statutes, cut down the
Asheroth, and pounded the serpent, which had been preserved from the time of
Moses, and had become an object of idolatrous worship. In his confidence in
Jehovah he was unequalled by any of his followers or predecessors. The
allusion here is to that faith of his, by which he broke away from the tyranny of
Asshur, and also recovered his supremacy over the Philistines. We have no
means of deciding in what years of Hezekiahs reign these two events the
revolt from Asshur, and the defeat of the Philistines occurred. The author
proceeds directly afterwards, with a studious repetition of what he has already
stated in Isa. 17 in the history of Hoseas reign, f9 to describe Shalmanassars
expedition against Israel in the fourth year of Hezekiahs reign (the seventh of
Hoseas), and the fall of Samaria, which took place, after a siege of three years,
in the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign, and the ninth of Hoseas. But as
Shalmanassar made no attack upon Judah at the time when he put an end to the
kingdom of Israel, the revolt of Hezekiah cannot have taken place till
afterwards. But with regard to the victory over the Philistines, there is nothing
in the book of Kings to help us even to a negative conclusion. In Isa. 20:20, 21,
the author brings his history rapidly to a close, and merely refers such as may
desire to know more concerning Hezekiah, especially concerning his victories
and aqueducts, to the annals of the kings of Judah.
The chronicler merely gives an extract from the section of Isaiah; but he is all
the more elaborate in the rest. All that he relates in 2Ch. 29: 2-31 is a historical
commentary upon the good testimony given to king Hezekiah in the book of
Kings (2Ki. 18: 3), which the chronicler places at the head of his own text in
Isa. 29: 2. Even in the month Nisan of the first year of his reign, Hezekiah reopened the gates of the temple, had it purified from the defilement consequent
upon idolatry, and appointed a re-consecration of the purified temple,
accompanied with sacrifice, music, and psalms (2Ch. 29: 3ff.). Hezekiah is
introduced here (a fact of importance in relation to Isa. 38) as the restorer of
the song of the Lord (Shir Jehovah), i.e., of liturgical singing. The Levitical
and priestly music, as introduced and organized by David, Gad, and Nathan,
was heard again, and Jehovah was praised once more in the words of David the
king and Asaph the seer. The chronicler then relates in 2Ch. 30 how Hezekiah
appointed a solemn passover in the second month, to which even inhabitants of
the northern kingdom, who might be still in the land, were formally and urgently
invited. It was an after-passover, which was permitted by the law, as the priests
had been busy with the purification of the temple in the first month, and
therefore had been rendered unclean themselves: moreover, there would not
have been sufficient time for summoning the people to Jerusalem. The northern
tribes as a whole refused the invitation in the most scornful manner, but certain

individuals accepted it with penitent hearts. It was a feast of joy, such as had
not been known since the time of Solomon (this statement is not at variance
with 2Ki. 23:22), affording, as it did, once more a representation and assurance
of that national unity which had been rent in twain ever since the time of
Rehoboam. Caspari has entered into a lengthened investigation as to the
particular year of Hezekiahs reign in which this passover was held. He agrees
with Keil, that it took place after the fall of Samaria and the deportation of the
people by Shalmanassar; but he does not feel quite certain of his conclusion.
The question itself, however, is one that ought not to be raised at all, if we think
the chronicler a trustworthy authority. He places this passover most
unquestionably in the second month of the first year of Hezekiahs reign; and
there is no difficulty occasioned by this, unless we regard what Tiglath-pileser
had done to Israel as of less importance than it actually was. The population
that was left behind was really nothing more than a remnant; and, moreover, the
chronicler draws an evident contrast between tribes and individuals, so that he
was conscious enough that there were still whole tribes of the northern
kingdom who were settled in their own homes. He then states in 2Ch. 31: 1,
that the inhabitants of the towns of Judah (whom he calls all Israel, because a
number of emigrant Israelites had settled there) went forth, under the influence
of the enthusiasm consequent upon the passover they had celebrated, and broke
in pieces the things used in idolatrous worship throughout both kingdoms; and
in 2Ch. 31: 2ff., that Hezekiah restored the institutions of divine worship that
had been discontinued, particularly those relating to the incomes of the priests
and Levites. Everything else that he mentions in 2Ch. 32: 1-26, 31, belongs to a
later period than the fourteenth year of Hezekiahs reign; and so far as it differs
from the section in Isaiah, which is repeated in the book of Kings, it is a
valuable supplement, more especially with reference to Isa. 22: 8-11 (which
relates to precautions taken in the prospect of the approaching Assyrian siege).
But the account of Hezekiahs wealth in 2Ch. 32:27-29 extends over the whole
of his reign. The notice respecting the diversion of the upper Gihon
(2Ch. 32:30) reaches rather into the period of the return after the Assyrian
catastrophe, than into the period before it; but nothing can be positively
affirmed.
Having thus obtained the requisite acquaintance with the historical accounts
which bear throughout upon the book of Isaiah, so far as it has for its startingpoint and object the history of the prophets own times, we will now turn to the
book itself, for the purpose of acquiring such an insight into its general plan as
is necessary to enable us to make a proper division of our own work of
exposition.

ARRANGEMENT OF THE COLLECTION

We may safely enter upon our investigation with the preconceived opinion that
the collection before us was edited by the prophet himself. For, with the
exception of the book of Jonah, which belongs to the prophetico-historical
writings rather than to the literature of prediction, or the prophetical writings in
the ordinary acceptation of the term, all the canonical books of prophecy were
written and arranged by the prophets whose names they bear. The most
important to our purpose is the analogy of the larger books of Jeremiah and
Ezekiel. No one denies that Ezekiel prepared his work for publication exactly as
it lies before us now; and Jeremiah informs us himself, that he collected and
published his prophecies on two separate occasions. Both collections are
arranged according to the two different points of view of the subject-matter and
the order of time, which are interwoven the one with the other. And this is also
the case with the collection of Isaiahs prophecies. As a whole, it is arranged
chronologically. The dates given in Isa. 6: 1; 7: 1; 14:28; 20: 1, are so many
points in a progressive line. The three principal divisions also form a
chronological series. For Isa. 1-6 set forth the ministry of Isaiah under UzziahJotham; Isa. 7-39, his ministry under Ahaz and Hezekiah down to the fifteenth
year of the reign of the latter; whilst Isa. 40-66, assuming their authenticity,
were the latest productions of the deepest inner-life, and were committed
directly to writing. In the central part, the Ahaz group (Isa. 7-12) also precedes
the Hezekiah group (Isa. 13-39) chronologically. But the order of time is
interrupted in several places by an arrangement of the subject-matter, which
was of greater importance to the prophet. The address in Isa. 1 is not the
oldest, but is placed at the head as an introduction to the whole. The
consecration of the prophet (Isa. 6), which ought to stand at the beginning of
the Uzziah-Jotham group, if it relates to his original consecration to his office,
is placed at the end, where it looks both backwards and forwards, as a prophecy
that was in course of fulfilment. The Ahaz group, which follows next (Isa. 712), is complete in itself, and, as it were, from one casting. And in the Hezekiah
group (Isa. 13-39) the chronological order is frequently interrupted again. The
prophecies against the nations (Isa. 14:24-22:24), which belong to the Assyrian
period, have a massa upon Babel, the city of the worlds power, for their
opening piece (Isa. 13-14:23); a massa upon Tyre, the city of the worlds
commerce, which was to be destroyed by the Chaldeans, for their finale
(Isa. 23); and a shorter massa upon Babel, for a party-wall dividing the cycle
into two halves (Isa. 21: 1-10); and all the prophecies upon the nations run into
a grand apocalyptic epilogue (Isa. 24-27), like rivers into a sea. The first part of
the Hezekiah group, the contents of which are pre-eminently ethnic (Isa. 1327), are interwoven with passages which may not have been composed till after
the fifteenth year of Hezekiahs reign. The grand epilogue (Isa. 34-35), in which

the second portion of the Hezekiah group dies away, is also another such
passage. This second part is occupied chiefly with the fate of Judah, the
judgment inflicted upon Judah by the imperial power of Assyria, and the
deliverance which awaited it (Isa. 27-33). This prediction closes with a
declaration, in Isa. 34-35, on the one hand, of the judgment of God upon the
world of Israels foes; and on the other hand, of the redemption of Israel itself.
This passage, which was composed after the fifteenth year of Hezekiahs reign,
is followed by the historical portions (Isa. 36-39), which enclose in a historical
frame the predictions of Isaiah delivered when the Assyrian catastrophe was
close at hand, and furnish us with the key to the interpretation not only of
Isa. 7-35, but of Isa. 40-66 also.
Taking the book of Isaiah, therefore, as a whole, in the form in which it lies
before us, it may be divided into two halves, viz., Isa. 1 to 39, and Isa. 40 to 66.
The former consists of seven parts, the latter of three. The first half may be
called the Assyrian, as the goal to which it points is the downfall of Asshur; the
second the Babylonian, as its goal is the deliverance from Babel. The first half,
however, is not purely Assyrian; but there are Babylonian pieces introduced
among the Assyrian, and such others, as a rule, as break apocalyptically through
the limited horizon of the latter. The following are the seven divisions in the
first half.
(1.) Prophecies founded upon the growing obduracy of the great mass of the people
(Isa. 2-6).
(2.) The consolation of Immanuel under the Assyrian oppressions (Isa. 7-12). These
two form a syzygy, which concludes with a psalm of the redeemed (Isa. 12), the
echo, in the last days, of the song at the Red Sea. The whole is divided by the
consecration of the prophet (Isa. 6), which looks backwards and forwards with
threatenings and promises. It is introduced by a summary prologue (Isa. 1), in which
the prophet, standing midway between Moses and Jesus the Christ, commences in
the style of the great Mosaic ode.
(3.) Predictions of the judgment and salvation of the heathen, which belong, for the
most part, to the time of the Assyrian judgment, though they are enclosed and
divided by Babylonian portions. For, as we have already observed, and oracle
concerning Babel, the city of the world-power, forms the introduction (Isa. 1314:23); an oracle concerning Tyre, the city of the worlds commerce, which was to
receive its mortal wound from the Chaldeans, the conclusion (Isa. 23); and a second
oracle on the desert by the sea, i.e., Babel, the centre (Isa. 21: 1-10).
(4.) To this so thoughtfully arranged collection of predictions concerning the nations
outside the Israelitish pale, there is attached a grand apocalyptic prophecy of the
judgment of the world and the last things (Isa. 24-27), which gives it a background
that fades away into eternity, and forms with it a second syzygy.
(5.) From these eschatological distances the prophet returns to the realities of the
present and of the immediate future, and describes the revolt from Asshur, and its

consequences (Isa. 28-33). The central point of this group is the prophecy of the
precious corner-stone laid in Zion.
(6.) This is also paired off by the prophet with a far-reaching eschatological
prediction of revenge and redemption for the church (Isa. 34-35), in which we
already hear, as in a prelude, the keynote of Isa. 40-66.
(7.) After these three syzygies we are carried back, in the first two historical accounts
of Isa. 36-39, into the Assyrian times, whilst the other two show us in the distance
the future entanglement with Babylon, which was commencing already.

These four accounts are arranged without regard to the chronological order, so
that one half looks backwards and the other forwards, and thus the two halves
of the book are clasped together. The prophecy in Isa. 39: 5-7 stands between
these two halves like a sign-post, with the inscription To Babylon upon it. It
is thither that the further course of Israels history tends. There, from this time
forward, is Isaiah buried in spirit with his people. And there, in Isa. 40-66, he
proclaims to the Babylonian exiles their approaching deliverance. The trilogical
arrangement of this book of consolation has been scarcely disputed by any one,
since it was first pointed out by Rckert in his Translation and Exposition of
Hebrew Prophets (1831). It is divided into three sections, each containing three
times three addresses, with a kind of refrain at the close.
THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS
The collection of Isaiahs prophecies is thus a complete work, most carefully
and skilfully arranged. It is thoroughly worthy of the prophet. Nevertheless, we
should be unable to attribute it to him in its present form,
(1) if it were impossible that Isa. 13-14:23; 21: 1-10, 23, 24-27, 34, 35, could have
been composed by Isaiah, and
(2) if the historical accounts in Isa. 36-39, which are also to be found in 2Ki. 18:1320:19, have been copied from the book of Kings, or even directly from the national
annals.

For if the prophecies in question be taken away, the beautiful whole

unquestionably falls into a confused quodlibet, more especially the book against
the nations; and if Isa. 36-39 were not written directly by Isaiah, the two halves
of the collection would be left without a clasp to bind them together. It would
be irregular to think of deciding the critical questions bearing upon this point
now, instead of taking them up in connection with our exegetical inquiries. At
the same time, we will put the reader in possession at once of the more general
points, which cause us to dissent from the conclusions of the modern critics,
who regard the book of Isaiah as an anthology composed of the productions of
different authors.

The critical treatment of Isaiah commenced as follows: It began with the

second part. Koppe first of all expressed some doubts as to the genuineness of
Isa. 1. Doderlein then gave utterance to a decided suspicion as to the
genuineness of the whole; and Justi, followed by Eichhorn, Paulus, and
Bertholdt, raised this suspicion into firm assurance that the whole was spurious.
The result thus obtained could not possibly continue without reaction upon the
first part. Rosenmller, who was always very dependent upon his predecessors,
was the first to question whether the oracle against Babylon in Isa. 13-14:23
was really Isaiahs, as the heading affirms; and to his great relief, Justi and
Paulus undertook the defence of his position. Further progress was now made.
With the first oracle against Babylon in Isa. 13-14:23, the second, in Isa. 21: 110, was also condemned; and Rosenmller was justly astonished when Gesenius
dropped the former, but maintained that the arguments with regard to the latter
were inconclusive. There still remained the oracle against Tyre in Isa. 23, which
might either be left as Isaiahs, or attributed to a younger unknown prophet,
according to the assumption that it predicted the destruction of Tyre by
Assyrians or by Chaldeans. Eichhorn, followed by Rosenmller, decided that it
was not genuine. But Gesenius understood by the destroyers the Assyrians; and
as the prophecy consequently did not extend beyond Isaiahs horizon, he
defended its authenticity. Thus the Babylonian series was set aside, or at any
rate pronounced thoroughly suspicious. But the keen eyes of the critics made
still further discoveries. Eichhorn found a play upon words in the cycle of
predictions in Isa. 24-27, which was unworthy of Isaiah. Gesenius detected an
allegorical announcement of the fall of Babylon. Consequently they both
condemned these three chapters; and it had its effect, for Ewald transferred
them to the time of Cambyses. Still shorter work was made with the cycle of
predictions in Isa. 34-35, on account of its relation to the second part.
Rosenmller pronounced it, without reserve, a song composed in the time of
the Babylonian captivity, when it was approaching its termination. This is the
true account of the origin of the criticism upon Isaiah. It was in the swaddlingclothes of rationalism that it attained its maturity. Its first attempts were very
juvenile. The names of its founders have been almost forgotten. It was
Gesenius, Hitzig, and Ewald, who first raised it to the eminence of a science.
If we take our stand upon this eminence, we find that the book of Isaiah
contains prophecies by Isaiah himself, and also prophecies by persons who were
either directly or indirectly his disciples. The New Testament passages in which
the second half of the book of Isaiah is cited as Isaiahs, are no proof of the
contrary, since Psa. 2, for example, which has no heading at all, is cited in
Act. 4:25 as Davids, merely because it is contained in the Davidic Psalter, and
no critic would ever feel that he was bound by that. But many objections
present themselves to such a conclusion. In the first place, nothing of the kind

can be pointed out in any of the other canonical books of prophecy, except
indeed the book of Zechariah, in which Isa. 9-14 is said to stand in precisely the
same position as Isa. 40-66, according to Hitzig, Ewald, and others; with this
difference, however, that Isa. 40-66 is attributed to a later prophet than Isaiah,
whereas Zec. 9-14 is attributed to one or two prophets before the time of
Zechariah. But even De Wette, who maintained, in the first three editions of his
Introduction to the Old Testament, that Zec. 9-14 was written before the
captivity, altered his views in the fourth edition; and Khler has lately confirmed
the unity of the book of Zechariah after an unbiased investigation. It is
Zechariah himself who prophesies of the last times in Zec. 9-14, in images
drawn from the past, and possibly with the introduction of earlier oracles. It
remains, therefore, that not a single book of prophecy is open to any such
doubts as to the unity of its authorship and Hitzig admits that even the book of
Jeremiah, although interpolated, does not contain spurious sections.
Nevertheless, it is quite possible that something extraordinary might have taken
place in connection with the book of Isaiah. But there are grave objections even
to such an assumption as this in the face of existing facts. For example, it would
be a marvellous occurrence in the history of chances, for such a number of
predictions of this particular kind to have been preserved, all of them bearing
so evidently the marks of Isaiahs style, that for two thousand years the have
been confounded with his own prophecies. It would be equally marvellous that
the historians should know nothing at all about the authors of these prophecies;
and thirdly, it would be very strange that the names of these particular prophets
should have shared the common fate of being forgotten, although they must all
have lived nearer to the compilers own times than the old model prophet,
whose style they imitated. It is true that these difficulties are not conclusive
proofs to the contrary; but, at any rate, they are so much to the credit of the
traditional authorship of the prophecies attacked. On the other hand, the weight
of this tradition is not properly appreciated by opponents. Wilful contempt of
external testimony, and frivolity in the treatment of historical data, have been
from the very first the fundamental evils apparent in the manner in which
modern critics have handled the questions relating to Isaiah. These critics
approach everything that is traditional with the presumption that it is false; and
whoever would make a scientific impression upon them, must first of all declare
right fearlessly his absolute superiority to the authority of tradition. Now
tradition is certainly not infallible. No more are the internal grounds of the socalled higher criticism, especially in the questions relating to Isaiah. And in the
case before us, the external testimony is greatly strengthened by the relation in
which Zephaniah and Jeremiah, the two most reproductive prophets, stand not
only to Isa. 40-66, but also to the suspected sections of the first half. They had
these prophecies in their possession, since they evidently copy them, and
incorporate passages taken from them into their own prophecies; a fact which

Caspari has most conclusively demonstrated, but which not one of the negative
critics has ventured to look fairly in the face, or to set aside by counter-proofs
of equal force. Moreover, although the suspected prophecies do indeed contain
some things for which vouchers cannot be obtained from the rest of the book,
yet the marks which are distinctly characteristic of Isaiah outweigh by far these
peculiarities, which have been picked out with such care; and even in the
prophecies referred to, it is Isaiahs spirit which animates the whole, Isaiahs
heart which beats, and Isaiahs fiery tongue which speaks in both the substance
and the form.
Again, the type of the suspected prophecies which, if they are genuine,
belong to the prophets latest days is not thoroughly opposed to the type of
the rest; on the contrary, those prophecies which are acknowledged to be
genuine, present many a point of contact with this; and even the transfigured
form and richer eschatological contents of the disputed prophecies have their
preludes there. There is nothing strange in this great variety of ideas and forms,
especially in Isaiah, who is confessedly the most universal of all the prophets,
even if we only look at those portions which are admitted to be genuine, and
who varies his style in so masterly a way to suit the demands of his materials,
his attitude, and his purpose. One might suppose that these three counterproofs, which can be followed up even to the most minute details, would have
some weight; but for Hitzig, Ewald, and many others, they have absolutely
none. Why not? These critics think it impossible that the worldwide empire of
Babel, and its subsequent transition to Medes and Persians, should have been
foreseen by Isaiah in the time of Hezekiah. Hitzig affirms in the plainest terms,
that the very same caligo futuri covered the eyes of the Old Testament prophets
generally, as that to which the human race was condemned during the time that
the oracle at Delphi was standing. Ewald speaks of the prophets in
incomparably higher terms; but even to him the prophetic state was nothing
more than a blazing up of the natural spark which lies slumbering in every man,
more especially in Ewald himself. These two coryphaei of the modern critical
school find themselves hemmed in between the two foregone conclusions,
There is no true prophecy, and There is no true miracle. They call their
criticism free; but when examined more closely, it is in a vice. In this vice it has
two magical formularies, with which it fortifies itself against any impression
from historical testimony. It either turns the prophecies into merely
retrospective glances (vaticinia post eventum), as it does the account of
miracles into sagas and myths; or it places the events predicted so close to the
prophets own time, that there was no need of inspiration, but only of
combination, to make the foresight possible. This is all that it can do. Now we
could do more than this. We could pronounce all the disputed prophecies the
production of other authors than Isaiah, without coming into contact with any

dogmatical assumptions: we could even boast, as in the critical analysis of the

historical books, of the extent to which the history of literature was enriched
through this analysis of the book of Isaiah. And if we seem to despise these
riches, we simply yield to the irresistible force of external and internal evidence.
This applies even to Isa. 36-39. For whilst it is true that the text of the book of
Kings is the better of the two, yet, as we shall be able to prove, the true relation
is this, that the author of the book of Kings did not obtain the parallel section
(2Ki. 18:13-20:19) from any other source than the book of Isaiah. We have
similar evidence in 2Ki. 24:18ff. and 25, as compared with Jer. 52, that the text
of a passage may sometimes be preserved in greater purity in a secondary work
than in the original work from which it was taken. It was Isaiahs propheticohistorical pen which committed to writing the accounts in Isa. 36-39. The
prophet not only wrote a special history of Uzziah, according to 2Ch. 26:22,
but he also incorporated historical notices of Isaiah in his vision (2Ch. 32:32).
We reserve the fuller demonstration of all this. For whilst, on the one hand, we
consider ourselves warranted in rejecting those tendencies of modern criticism,
to which naturalistic views of the world have dictated at the very outset fullblown negative results, and we do so on the ground of supernatural facts of
personal experience; on the other hand, we are very far from wishing to dispute
the well-founded rights of criticism as such.
For centuries, yea, for thousands of years, no objection was raised as to the
Davidic origin of a psalm headed a psalm of David, to say nothing of a
prophecy of Isaiah; and therefore no such objection was refuted. Apart from the
whims of a few individuals, f10 which left no traces behind them, it was
universally assumed by both Jewish and Christian writers down to the last
century, that all the canonical books of the Old Testament had the Holy Ghost
as their one auctor primarius, and for their immediate authors the men by
whose names they are called. But when the church in the time of the
Reformation began to test and sift what had been handed down; when the rapid
progress that was made in classical and oriental philology compelled the
students of the Scriptures to make larger if not higher demands upon
themselves; when their studies were directed to the linguistic, historical,
archaeological, aesthetic in short, the human side of the Scriptures, and
the attempt was made to comprehend the several aspects presented by sacred
literature in their progressive development and relation to one another,
Christian science put forth many branches that had never been anticipated till
then; and biblical criticism sprang up, which from that time forward has been
not only an inalienable, but a welcome and even necessary, member in the
theological science of the church. That school of criticism, indeed, which will
not rest till all miracles and prophecies, which cannot be set aside exegetically,
have been eliminated critically, must be regarded by the church as self-

condemned; but the labour of a spiritual criticism, and one truly free in spirit,
will not only be tolerated, because the spiritual man discerneth all things
(1Co. 2:15), but will be even fostered, and not looked upon as suspicious,
although its results should seem objectionable to minds that are weakly strung,
and stand in a false and fettered attitude in relation to the Scriptures. For it will
be no more offended that the word of God should appear in the form of a
servant, than that Christ Himself should do so; and, moreover, criticism not
only brings any blemishes in the Scriptures to the light, but affords an everdeepening insight into its hidden glory. It makes the sacred writings, as they lie
before us, live again; it takes us into its very laboratory; and without it we
cannot possibly obtain a knowledge of the historical production of the biblical
books.
EXPOSITION IN ITS EXISTING STATE
It was at the time of the Reformation also that historico-grammatical exposition
first originated with a distinct consciousness of the task that it had to perform.
It was then that the first attempt was made, under the influence of the revival of
classical studies, and with the help of a knowledge of the language obtained
from Jewish teachers, to find out the one true meaning of the Scriptures, and an
end was put to the tedious jugglery of multiplex Scripturae sensus. But very
little was accomplished in the time of the Reformation for the prophecies of
Isaiah.
Calvins Commentarii answer the expectations with which we take them up; but
Luthers Scholia are nothing but college notes, of the most meagre description.
The productions of Grotius, which are generally valuable, are insignificant in
Isaiah, and, indeed, throughout the prophets. He mixes up things sacred and
profane, and, because unable to follow prophecy in its flight, cuts off its wings.
Aug. Varenius of Rostock wrote the most learned commentary of all those
composed by writers of the orthodox Lutheran school, and one that even now is
not to be despised; but though learned, it is too great a medley, and written
without discipline of mind. Campegius Vitringa (1722) threw all the labours of
his predecessors into the shade, and none even of his successors approach him
in spirit, keenness, and scholarship. His Commentary on Isaiah is still
incomparably the greatest of all the exegetical works upon the Old Testament.
The weakest thing in the Commentary is the allegorical exposition, which is
appended to the grammatical and historical one. In this the temperate pupil of
the Cocceian school is dependent upon what was then the prevalent style of the
commentary in Holland, where there was an utter absence of all appreciation of
the complex-apotelesmatical character of prophecy, whilst the most minute
allusions were traced in the prophets to events connected with the history of
both the world and the church. The shady sides of the Commentary are

generally the first to present themselves to the readers eye; but the longer he
continues to use it, the more highly does he learn to value it. There is deep
research everywhere, but nowhere a luxuriance of dry and dead scholarship.
The authors heart is in his work. He sometimes halts in his toilsome path of
inquiry, and gives vent to loud, rapturous exclamations. But the rapture is very
different from that of the Lord Bishop Robert Lowth, who never gets below the
surface, who alters the Masoretic text at his pleasure, and goes no further than
an aesthetic admiration of the form.
The modern age of exegesis commenced with that destructive theology of the
latter half of the eighteenth century, which pulled down without being able to
build. But even this demolition was not without good result. The negative of
anything divine and eternal in the Scriptures secured a fuller recognition of its
human and temporal side, bringing out the charms of its poetry, and, what was
of still greater importance, the concrete reality of its history. Rosenmllers
Scholia are a careful, lucid, and elegant compilation, founded for the most part
upon Vitringa, and praiseworthy not only for the judicious character of the
selection made, but also for the true earnestness which is displayed, and the
entire absence of all frivolity. The decidedly rationalistic Commentary of
Gesenius is more independent in its verbal exegesis; displays great care in its
historical expositions; and is peculiarly distinguished for its pleasing and
transparent style, for the survey which it gives of the whole of the literature
bearing upon Isaiah, and the thoroughness with which the author avails himself
of all the new sources of grammatical and historical knowledge that have been
opened since the days of Vitringa. Hitzigs Commentary is his best work in our
opinion, excelling as it does in exactness and in the sharpness and originality of
its grammatical criticisms, as well as in delicate tact in the discovery of the train
of thought and in thoroughness and precision in the exposition of well-pondered
results; but it is also disfigured by rash pseudo-critical caprice, and by a
studiously profane spirit, utterly unaffected by the spirit of prophecy.
Hendewerks Commentary is often very weak in philological and historical
exposition. The style of description is broad, but the eye of the disciple of
Herbart is too dim to distinguish Israelitish prophecy from heathen poetry, and
the politics of Isaiah from those of Demosthenes. Nevertheless, we cannot fail
to observe the thoughtful diligence displayed, and the anxious desire to point
out the germs of eternal truths, although the author is fettered even in this by
his philosophical standpoint. Ewalds natural penetration is universally
recognised, as well as the noble enthusiasm with which he dives into the
contents of the prophetical books, in which he finds an eternal presence. His
earnest endeavours to obtain deep views are to a certain extent rewarded. But
there is something irritating in the self-sufficiency with which he ignores nearly
all his predecessors, the dictatorial assumption of his criticism, his false and

often nebulous pathos, and his unqualified identification of his own opinions
with truth itself. He is a perfect master in the characteristics of the prophets, but
his translations of them are stiff, and hardly to any ones taste. Umbreits
Practical Commentary on Isaiah is a useful and stimulating production,
exhibiting a deep aesthetic and religious sensibility to the glory of the prophetic
word, which manifests itself in lofty poetic language, heaping image upon
image, and, as it were, never coming down from the cothrunus. Knobels prose
is the very opposite extreme. The precision and thoroughness of this scholar,
the third edition of whose Commentary on Isaiah was one of his last works (he
died, 25th May 1863), deserve the most grateful acknowledgment, whether
from a philological or an archaeological point of view; but his peculiar triviality,
which amounts almost to an affectation, seems to shut his eyes to the deeper
meaning of the work, whilst his excessive tendency to historize (historisiren,
i.e., to give a purely historical interpretation to everything) makes him blind
even to the poetry of the form. Drechslers Commentary was a great advance in
the exposition of Isaiah. He was only able to carry it out himself as far as
Isa. 27; but is was completed by Delitzsch and H. A. Hahn of Greifswald ( 1st
Dec. 1861), with the use of Drechslers notes, though they contained very little
that was of any service in relation to Isa. 40-66. This was, comparatively
speaking, the best commentary upon Isaiah that had appeared since the time of
Vitringa, more especially the portion on Isa. 13-27. Its peculiar excellency is
not to be found in the exposition of single sentences, which is unsatisfactory, on
account of the comminuting, glossatorial style of its exegesis, and, although
diligent and thorough enough, is unequal and by no means productive, more
especially from a grammatical point of view; but in the spiritual and spirited
grasp of the whole, the deep insight which it exhibits into the character and
ideas of the prophet and of prophecy, its vigorous penetration into the very
heart of the plan and substance of the whole book. In the meantime (1850),
there had appeared the Commentary written by the catholic Professor Peter
Schegg, which follows the Vulgate, although with as little slavishness as
possible, and contains many good points, especially the remarks relating to the
history of translation. At the same time there also appeared the Commentary of
Ernst Meier, the Tbingen orientalist, which did not get beyond the first half. If
ever any one was specially called to throw fresh light upon the book of Isaiah, it
was C. P. Caspari of Christiania; but all that has yet appeared of his Norwegian
Commentary only reaches to the end of Isa. 5. Its further progress has been
hindered partly by the exhaustive thoroughness at which he aimed, and the
almost infinite labour which it involved, and partly by the fact that the
Grundtvig controversy involved him in the necessity of pursuing the most
extensive studies in ecclesiastical history. In the meantime, he has so far
expanded his treatise om Serapherne (on the Seraphim), that it may be regarded
as a commentary on Isa. 6; and rich materials for the prophetic sayings which

follow may be found in his contributions to the introduction to the book of

Isaiah, and to the history of Isaiahs own times, which appeared as a second
volume of our biblico-theological and apologetico-critical Studien (1858), his
Programme on the Syro-Ephraimitish war (1849), and his comprehensive and
by no means obsolete article, entitled, Jeremiah a witness to the genuineness of
Isa. 34, and therefore also to that of Isa. 40-66, 13-14:23, and 21: 1-10, which
appeared in the Zeitschrift fr d. ges. luth. Theologie u. Kirche (1843),
together with an excursus on the relation of Zephaniah to the disputed
prophecies of Isaiah.
We shall reserve those works which treat more particularly of the second part
of the book of Isaiah for our special introduction to that part. But there are two
other distinguished commentaries that we must mention here, both of them by
Jewish scholars: viz., that of the M. L. Malbim (Krotoshin 1849), which is
chiefly occupied with the precise ideas conveyed by synonymous words and
groups of words; and that of S. D. Luzzatto of Padua, a stimulating work,
entitled Profeta Isaia volgarizzato e commentato ad uso degli Israeliti, which
aims throughout at independence, but of which only five parts have yet
appeared.

Exposition
In passing to our exposition of the book, the first thing which strikes us is its
traditional title Yeshaiah (Isaiah). In the book itself, and throughout the Old
Testament Scriptures, the prophet is called Yeshayahu; and the shorter form is
found in the latest books as the name of other persons. It was a common thing
in the very earliest times for the shorter forms of such names to be used
interchangeably with the longer; but in later times the shorter was the only form
employed, and for this reason it was the one adopted in the traditional title. The
name is a compound one, and signifies Jehovahs salvation. The prophet was
conscious that it was not merely by accident that he bore this name; for AY
(he
shall save) and HFwYi (salvation) are among his favourite words. It may be
said, in fact, that he lived and moved altogether in the coming salvation, which
was to proceed from Jehovah, and would be realized hereafter, when Jehovah
should come at last to His people as He had never come before. This salvation
was the goal of the sacred history (Heilsgeschichte, literally, history of
salvation); and Jehovah was the peculiar name of God in relation to that
history. It denotes the existing one, not however the always existing, i.e.,
eternal, as Bunsen and the Jewish translators render it, but existing evermore,
i.e., filling all history, and displaying His glory therein in grace and truth. The
ultimate goal of this historical process, in which God was ever ruling as the
absolutely free One, according to His own self-assertion in Exo. 3:14, was true
and essential salvation, proceeding outwards from Israel, and eventually
embracing all mankind. In the name of the prophet the tetragrammaton HWHY is
contracted into WHY (HY) by the dropping of the second H. We may easily see
from this contraction that the name of God was pronounced with an a sound, so
that it was either called Yahveh, or rather Yahaveh, or else Yahvah, or rather
Yahavah. According to Theodoret, it was pronounced Iabe (Yahaveh) by the
Samaritans; and it is written in the same way in the list of the names of the
Deity given in Epiphanius. That the ah sound was also a customary
pronunciation, may not only be gathered from such names as Jimnah, Jimrah,
Jishvah, Jishpah (compare Jithlah, the name of a place), but is also expressly
attested by the ancient variations, Jao, Jeuo, Jo (Jer. 23: 6, LXX), on the one
hand, and on the other hand by the mode of spelling adopted by Origen (Jaoia)
and Theodoret (Aia, not only in quaest, in Exo. 15, but also in Fab. haeret. v.
4: Aia signifies the existing one; it was pronounced thus by Hebrews, but the
Samaritans call it Jabai, overlooking the force of the word). The dull-sounding
long a could be expressed by omega quite as well as by alpha. Isidor follows
these and similar testimonies, and says (Orig. vii. 7), The tetragrammaton
consisted of ia written twice (ia, ia), and with this reduplication it constituted
the unutterable and glorious name of God. The Arabic form adopted by the

Samaritans leaves it uncertain whether it is to be pronounced Yahve or Yahva.

They wrote to Job Ludolf (in the Epistola Samaritana Sichemitarum tertia,
published by Bruns, 1781), in opposition to the statement of Theodoret, that
they pronounced the last syllable with damma; that is to say, they pronounced
the name Yahavoh (Yahvoh), which was the form in which it was written in the
last century by Velthusen, and also by Muffi in his Disegno di lezioni e di
ricerche sulla lingua Ebraica (Pavia, 1792). The pronunciation Jehovah
(Yehovah) arose out of a combination of the keri and the chethib, and has only
become current since the time of the Reformation. Genebrard denounces it in
his Commentary upon the Psalms with the utmost vehemence, in opposition to
Beza, as an intolerable innovation. Ungodly violators of what is most ancient,
he says, profaning and transforming the unutterable name of God, would read
Jova or Jehova, a new, barbarous, fictitious, and irreligious word, that
savours strongly of the Jove of the heathen. Nevertheless his Jehova (Jova)
forced its way into general adoption, and we shall therefore retain it,
notwithstanding the fact that the o sound is decidedly wrong. To return, then:
the prophets name signifies Jehovahs salvation. In the Septuagint it is
always written Hsaiaj, with a strong aspirate; in the Vulgate it is written
Isaias, and sometimes Esaias.
In turning from the outward to the inward title, which is contained in the book
itself, there are two things to be observed at the outset:
(1.) The division of the verses indicated by soph pasuk is an arrangement for
which the way was prepared as early as the time of the Talmud, and which was
firmly established in the Masoretic schools; and consequently it reaches as far
back as the extreme limits of the middle ages differing in this respect from
the division of verses in the New Testament. The arrangement of the chapters,
however, with the indications of the separate sections of the prophetic
collection, is of no worth to us, simply because it is not older than the thirteenth
century. According to some authorities, it originated with Stephen Langton,
Archbishop of Canterbury (1227); whilst others attribute it to Cardinal Hugo
of St. Caro (1262). It is only since the fifteenth century that it has been
actually adopted in the text.
(2.) The small ring or star at the commencement points to the footnote, which
affirms that Isa. 1: 1-28 (where we find the same sign again) was the
haphtarah, or concluding pericope, taken from the prophets, which was read
on the same Sabbath as the parashah from the Pentateuch, in Deu. 1: 1ff. It
was, as we shall afterwards see, a very thoughtful principle of selection which
led to the combination of precisely these two lessons.

Isa. 1: 1. Title of the collection, as given in v. 1:

Seeing of Jesha-yahu, son of Amoz, which he saw over Judah and Jerusalem in
the days of Uzziyahu, Jotham, Ahaz, and Yehizkiyahu, the kings of Judah.

Isaiah is called the son of Amoz. There is no force in the old Jewish doctrine
(b. Megilla 15a), which was known to the fathers, that whenever the name of a
prophets father is given, it is a proof that the father was also a prophet. And
we are just as incredulous about another old tradition, to the effect that Amoz
was the brother of Amaziah, the father and predecessor of Uzziah (b. Sota 10b).
There is some significance in this tradition, however, even if it is not true. There
is something royal in the nature and bearing of Isaiah throughout. He speaks to
kings as if he himself were a king. He confronts with majesty the magnates of
the nation and of the imperial power. In his peculiar style, he occupies the same
place among the prophets as Solomon among the kings. Under all
circumstances, and in whatever state of mind, he is completely master of his
materials simple, yet majestic in his style elevated, yet without affectation
and beautiful, though unadorned. But this regal character had its roots
somewhere else than in the blood. All that can be affirmed with certainty is, that
Isaiah was a native of Jerusalem; for notwithstanding his manifold prophetic
missions, we never find him outside Jerusalem. There he lived with his wife and
children, and, as we may infer from Isa. 22: 1, and the mode of his intercourse
with king Hezekiah, down in the lower city. And there he laboured under the
four kings named in v. 1, viz., Uzziah (who reigned 52 years, 811-759), Jotham
(16 years, 759-743), Ahaz (16 years, 743-728), and Hezekiah (29 years, 728699). The four kings are enumerated without a Vav cop.; there is the same
asyndeton enumerativum as in the titles to the books of Hosea and Micah.
Hezekiah is there called Yehizkiyah, the form being almost the same as ours,
with the simple elision of the concluding sound. The chronicler evidently
preferred the fullest form, at the commencement as well as the termination.
Roorda imagines that the chronicler derived this ill-shaped form from the three
titles, were it is a copyists error for wHyFQIZiXIWi or HyFQIZiXIWi; but the estimable
grammarian has overlooked the fact that the same form is found in Jer. 15: 4
and 2Ki. 20:10, where no such error of the pen can have occurred. Moreover, it
is not an ill-shaped form, if, instead of deriving it from the piel, as Roorda does,
we derive it from the kal of the verb strong is Jehovah, an imperfect noun
with a connecting i, which is frequently met with in proper names from verbal
roots, such as Jesimil from sim, 1Ch. 4:36: vid., Olshausen, 277, p. 621).
Under these four kings Isaiah laboured, or, as it is expressed in v. 1, saw the
sight which is committed to writing in the book before us.
Of all the many Hebrew synonyms for seeing, HZFXF (cf., cernere, krinein, and
the Sanscrit and Persian kar, which is founded upon the radical notion of
cutting and separating) is the standing general expression used to denote
prophetic perception, whether the form in which the divine revelation was made

to the prophet was in vision or by word. In either case he saw it, because he
distinguished this divine revelation from his own conceptions and thoughts by
means of that inner sense, which is designated by the name of the noblest of all
the five external senses. From this verb chazah there came both the abstract
chazon, seeing, and the more concrete chizzayon, a sight (visum), which is a
stronger from of chizyon (from chazi = chazah). The noun chazon is indeed
used to denote a particular sight (comp. Isa. 29: 7 with Job. 20: 8; 33:15),
inasmuch as it consists in seeing (visio); but here in the title of the book of
Isaiah the abstract meaning passes over into the collective idea of the sight or
vision in all its extent, i.e., the sum and substance of all that was seen. It is a
great mistake, therefore, for any one to argue from the use of the word chazon
(vision), that v. 1a was originally nothing more than the heading to the first
prophecy, and that it was only by the addition of v. 1b that it received the stamp
of a general title to the whole book. There is no force in the argument.
Moreover, the chronicler knew the book of Isaiah by this title (2Ch. 32:32); and
the titles of other books of prophecy, such as Hosea, Amos, Micah, and
Zephaniah, are very similar. A more plausible argument in favour of the twofold
origin of v. 1 has been lately repeated by Schegg and Meier, namely, that whilst
Judah and Jerusalem are appropriate enough as defining the object of the
first prophecy, the range is too limited to apply to all the prophecies that follow;
since their object is not merely Judah, including Jerusalem, but they are also
directed against foreign nations, and at Isa. 7 the king of Israel, including
Samaria, also comes within the horizon of the prophets vision. And in the title
to the book of Micah, both kingdoms are distinctly named. But it was necessary
there, inasmuch as Micah commences at once with the approaching overthrow
of Samaria. Here the designation is a central one. Even, according to the wellknown maxims a potiori, and a proximo, fit denominatio, it would not be
unsuitable; but Judah and Jerusalem are really and essentially the sole object of
the prophets vision. For within the largest circle of the imperial powers there
lies the smaller one of the neighbouring nations; and in this again, the still more
limited one of all Israel, including Samaria; and within this the still smaller one
of the kingdom of Judah. And all these circles together form the circumference
of Jerusalem, since the entire history of the world, so far as its inmost
pragmatism and its ultimate goal were concerned, was the history of the church
of God, which had for its peculiar site the city of the temple of Jehovah, and of
the kingdom of promise. The expression concerning Judah and Jerusalem is
therefore perfectly applicable to the whole book, in which all that the prophet
sees is seen from Judah-Jerusalem as a centre, and seen for the sake and in the
interests of both. The title in v. 1 may pass without hesitation as the heading
written by the prophets own hand. This is admitted not only by Caspari
(Micah, pp. 90-93), but also by Hitzig and Knobel. But if v. 1 contains the title
to the whole book, where is the heading to the first prophecy? Are we to take

REJ as a nominative instead of an accusative (qui instead of quam, sc.

visionem), as Luzzatto does? This is a very easy way of escaping from the
difficulty, and stamping v. 1 as the heading to the first prophetic words in Isa. 1;
but it is unnatural, as HZX RJ WZX, according to Ges. ( 138, note 1), is the
customary form in Hebrew of connecting the verb with its own substantive. The
real answer is simple enough. The first prophetic address is left intentionally
without a heading, just because it is the prologue to all the rest; and the second
prophetic address has a heading in Isa. 2: 1, although it really does not need
one, for the purpose of bringing out more sharply the true character of the first
as the prologue to the whole.

First Half of the Collection

CH. 1-39

Part I
PROPHECIES RELATING TO THE ONWARD COURSE OF THE
GREAT MASS OF THE PEOPLE TOWARDS HARDENING
OF HEART (CH. 1-6)

Opening Address concerning the Ways of Jehovah with His

Ungrateful and Rebellious Nation Ch. 1: 2ff.
Isa. 1: 2ff. The difficult question as to the historical and chronological
standpoint of this overture to all the following addresses, can only be brought
fully out when the exposition is concluded. But there is one thing which we may
learn even from a cursory inspection: namely, that the prophet was standing at
the eventful boundary line between two distinct halves in the history of Israel.
The people had not been brought to reflection and repentance either by the
riches of the divine goodness, which they had enjoyed in the time of UzziahJotham, the copy of the times of David and Solomon, or by the chastisements of
divine wrath, by which wound after wound was inflicted. The divine methods of
education were exhausted, and all that now remained for Jehovah to do was to
let the nation in its existing state be dissolved in fire, and to create a new one
from the remnant of gold that stood the fiery test. At this time, so pregnant with
storms, the prophets were more active than at any other period. Amos appeared
about the tenth year of Uzziahs reign, the twenty-fifth of Jeroboam II; Micah
prophesied from the time of Jotham till the fall of Samaria, in the sixth year of
Hezekiahs reign; but most prominent of all was Isaiah, the prophet par
excellence, standing as he did midway between Moses and Christ.
In the consciousness of his exalted position in relation to the history of
salvation, he commences his opening address in Deuteronomic style. Modern
critics are of opinion, indeed, that Deuteronomy was not composed till the time
of Josiah, or at any rate not earlier than Manasseh; and even Kahnis adduces
this as a firmly established fact (see his Dogmatik, i. 277). But if this be the
case, how comes it to pass, not only that Micah (Mic. 6: 8) points back to a
saying in Deu. 10:12, but that all the post-Mosaic prophecy, even the very
earliest of all, is tinged with a Deuteronomic colouring. This surely confirms the
self-attestation of the authorship of Moses, which is declared most distinctly in
Isa. 31: 9. Deuteronomy was most peculiarly Moses own law-book his last
will, as it were: it was also the oldest national book of Israel, and therefore the

basis of all intercourse between the prophets and the nation. There is one
portion of this peculiarly Mosaic thorah, however, which stands not only in a
more truly primary relation to the prophecy of succeeding ages than any of the
rest, but in a normative relation also. We refer to Moses dying song, which has
recently been expounded by Volck and Camphausen, and is called shirath
haazinu (song of Give ear), from the opening words in Isa. 32. This song is a
compendious outline or draft, and also the common key to all prophecy, and
bears the same fundamental relation to it as the Decalogue to all other laws, and
the Lords Prayer to all other prayers. The lawgiver summed up the whole of
the prophetic contents of his last words (Isa. 27-28, 29-30), and threw them
into the form of a song, that they might be perpetuated in the memories and
mouths of the people. This song sets before the nation its entire history to the
end of time. That history divides itself into four great periods: the creation and
rise of Israel; the ingratitude and apostasy of Israel; the consequent surrender of
Israel to the power of the heathen; and finally, the restoration of Israel, sifted,
but not destroyed, and the unanimity of all nations in the praise of Jehovah, who
reveals Himself both in judgment and in mercy. This fourfold character is not
only verified in every part of the history of Israel, but is also the seal of that
history as a whole, even to its remotest end in New Testament times. In every
age, therefore, this song has presented to Israel a mirror of its existing condition
and future fate. And it was the task of the prophets to hold up this mirror to the
people of their own times. This is what Isaiah does. He begins his prophetic
address in the same form in which Moses begins his song. The opening words
of Moses are: Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and let the earth hear
the words of my mouth (Deu. 32: 1). In what sense he invoked the heaven and
the earth, he tells us himself in Deu. 31:28, 29. He foresaw in spirit the future
apostasy of Israel, and called heaven and earth, which would outlive his earthly
life, that was now drawing to a close, as witnesses of what he had to say to his
people, with such a prospect before them. Isaiah commences in the same way
(Isa. 1: 2a), simply transposing the two parallel verbs hear and give ear:
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for Jehovah speaketh! The reason
for the appeal is couched in very general terms: they were to hear, because
Jehovah was speaking. What Jehovah said coincided essentially with the words
of Jehovah, which are introduced in Deu. 32:20 with the expression And He
said. What it was stated there that Jehovah would one day have to say in His
wrath, He now said through the prophet, whose existing present corresponded
to the coming future of the Mosaic ode. The time had now arrived for heaven
and earth, which are always existing, and always the same, and which had
accompanied Israels history thus far in all places and at all times, to fulfil their
duty as witnesses, according to the word of the lawgiver. And this was just the
special, true, and ultimate sense in which they were called upon by the prophet,
as they had previously been by Moses, to hear. They had been present, and

had taken part, when Jehovah gave the thorah to His people: the heavens,
according to Deu. 4:36, as the place from which the voice of God came forth;
and the earth, as the scene of His great fire. They were solemnly invoked when
Jehovah gave His people the choice between blessing and cursing, life and death
(Deu. 30:19; 4:26).
And so now they are called upon to hear and join in bearing witness to all that
Jehovah, their Creator, and the God of Israel, had to say, and the complaints
that He had to make: I have brought up children, and raised them high, and
they have fallen away from me (v. 2b). Israel is referred to; but Israel is not
specially named. On the contrary, the historical facts are generalized almost into
a parable, in order that the appalling condition of things which is crying to
heaven may be made all the more apparent. Israel was Jehovahs son
(Exo. 4:22, 23). All the members of the nation were His children (Deu. 14: 1;
32:20). Jehovah was Israels father, by whom it had been begotten (Deu. 32: 6,
18). The existence of Israel as a nation was secured indeed, like that of all other
nations, by natural reproduction, and not by spiritual regeneration. But the
primary ground of Israels origin was the supernatural and mighty word of
promise given to Abraham, in Gen. 17:15, 16; and it was by a series of
manifestations of miraculous power and displays of divine grace, that the
development of Israel, which dated from that starting-point, was brought up to
the position it had reached at the time of the exodus from Egypt. It was in this
sense that Israel had been begotten by Jehovah. And this relation between
Jehovah and Israel, as His children, had now, at the time when Jehovah was
speaking through the mouth of Isaiah, a long and gracious past behind it, viz.,
the period of Israels childhood in Egypt; the period of its youth in the desert;
and a period of growing manhood from Joshua to Samuel: so that Jehovah
could say, I have brought up children, and raised them high. The piel (giddel)
used here signifies to make great; and when applied to children, as it is here
and in other passages, such as 2Ki. 10: 6, it means to bring up, to make great,
so far as natural growth is concerned. The pilel (romem), which corresponds to
the piel in the so-called verbis cavis, and which is also used in Isa. 23: 4 and
Eze. 31: 4 as the parallel to giddel, signifies to lift up, and is used in a dignified
(dignitative) sense, with reference to the position of eminence, to which, step
by step, a wise and loving father advances a child. The two verses depict the
state of Israel in the times of David and Solomon, as one of mature manhood
and proud exaltation, which had to a certain extent returned under Uzziah and
Jotham. But how base had been the return which it had made for all that it had
received from God: And they have fallen away from me. We should have
expected an adversative particle here; but instead of that, we have merely a Vav
cop., which is used energetically, as in Isa. 6: 7 (cf., Hos. 7:13). Two things
which ought never to be coupled Israels filial relation to Jehovah, and

Israels base rebellion against Jehovah had been realized in their most
contradictory forms. The radical meaning of the verb is to break away, or break
loose; and the object against which the act is directed is construed with Beth.
The idea is that of dissolving connection with a person with violence and selfwill; here it relates to that inward severance from God, and renunciation of
Him, which preceded all outward acts of sin, and which not only had idolatry
for its full and outward manifestation, but was truly idolatry in all its forms.
From the time that Solomon gave himself up to the worship of idols, at the
close of his reign, down to the days of Isaiah, idolatry had never entirely or
permanently ceased to exist, even in public. In two different reformations the
attempt had been made to suppress it, viz., in the one commenced by Asa and
concluded by Jehoshaphat; and in the one carried out by Joash, during the
lifetime of the high priest Jehoiada, his tutor and deliverer. But the first was not
successful in suppressing it altogether; and what Joash removed, returned with
double abominations as soon as Jehoiada was dead. Consequently the words,
They have rebelled against me, which sum up all the ingratitude of Israel in
one word, and trace it to its root, apply to the whole history of Israel, from its
culminating point under David and Solomon, down to the prophets own time.

Isa. 1: 3. Jehovah then complains that the rebellion with which His children
have rewarded Him is not only inhuman, but even worse than that of the brutes:
An ox knoweth its owner, and an ass its masters crib: Israel doth not know, my
people doth not consider.

An ox has a certain knowledge of its buyer and owner, to whom it willingly

submits; and an ass has at least a knowledge of the crib of its master (the noun
for master is in the plural: this is not to be understood in a numerical, but in
an amplifying sense, the authority over it, as in Exo. 21:29: vid., Ges. 108,
2, b, and Dietrichs Heb. Gram. p. 45), i.e., it knows that it is its master who
fills its crib or manger with fodder (evus, the crib, from avas, to feed, is
radically associated with fatnh, vulgar paqnh, Dor. and Lac. patnh, and is
applied in the Talmud to the large common porringer used by labourers). f11
Israel had no such knowledge, neither instinctive and direct, nor acquired by
reflection (hithbonan, the reflective conjugation, with a pausal change of the e
into a long a, according to Ges. 54, note). The expressions doth not know
and doth not consider must not be taken here in an objectless sense, as, for
example, in Isa. 56:10 and Psa. 82: 5, viz. as signifying they were destitute
of all knowledge and reflection; but the object is to be supplied from what goes
before: they knew not, and did not consider what answered in their case to the
owner and to the crib which the master fills, namely, that they were the
children and possession of Jehovah, and that their existence and prosperity were
dependent upon the grace of Jehovah alone. The parallel, with its striking

contrasts, is self-drawn, like that in Jer. 8: 7, where animals are referred to

again, and is clearly indicated in the words Israel and my people. Those
who were so far surpassed in knowledge and perception even by animals, and
so thoroughly put to shame by them, were not merely a nation, like any other
nation on the earth, but were Israel, descendants of Jacob, the wrestler with
God, who wrestled down the wrath of God, and wrestled out a blessing for
himself and his descendants; and my people, the nation which Jehovah had
chosen out of all other nations to be the nation of His possession, and His own
peculiar government. This nation, bearing as it did the God-given title of a hero
of faith and prayer, this favourite nation of Jehovah, had let itself down far
below the level of the brutes. This is the complaint which the exalted speaker
pours out in vv. 2 and 3 before heaven and earth. The words of God, together
with the introduction, consist of two tetrastichs, the measure and rhythm of
which are determined by the meaning of the words and the emotion of the
speaker. There is nothing strained in it at all. Prophecy lives and moves amidst
the thoughts of God, which prevail above the evil reality: and for that very
reason, as a reflection of the glory of God, which is the ideal of beauty
(Psa. 50: 1), it is through and through poetical. That of Isaiah is especially so.
There was no art of oratory practised in Israel, which Isaiah did not master, and
which did not serve as the vehicle of the word of God, after it had taken shape
in the prophets mind.
With v. 4 there commences a totally different rhythm. The words of Jehovah are
ended. The piercing lamentation of the deeply grieved Father is also the severest
accusation. The cause of God, however, is to the prophet the cause of a friend,
who feels an injury done to his friend quite as much as if it were done to himself
(Isa. 5: 1). The lamentation of God, therefore, is changed now into violent
scolding and threatening on the part of the prophet; and in accordance with the
deep wrathful pain with which he is moved, his words pour out with violent
rapidity, like flash after flash, in climactic clauses having no outward
connection, and each consisting of only two or three words.

Isa. 1: 4.
Woe upon the sinful nation, the guilt-laden people, the miscreant race, the
children acting corruptly! They have forsaken Jehovah, blasphemed Israels Holy
One, turned away backwards.

The distinction sometimes drawn between hoi (with He) and oi (with Aleph)
as equivalent to oh! and woe! cannot be sustained. Hoi is an exclamation of
pain, with certain doubtful exceptions; and in the case before us it is not so
much a denunciation of woe (vae genti, as the Vulgate renders it), as a
lamentation (vae gentem) filled with wrath. The epithets which follow point
indirectly to that which Israel ought to have been, according to the choice and

determination of God, and plainly declare what it had become through its own
choice and ungodly self-determination.
(1.) According to the choice and determination of God, Israel was to be a holy
nation (goi kadosh, Exo. 19: 6); but it was a sinful nation gens peccatrix, as
it is correctly rendered by the Vulgate. J
XO is not a participle here, but rather a
participial adjective in the sense of what was habitual. It is the singular in
common use for the plural YJIFX, sinners, the singular of which was not used.
Holy and Sinful are glaring contrasts: for kadosh, so far as its radical notion is
concerned (assuming, that is to say, that this is to be found in kad and not in
dosh: see Psalter, i. 588, 9), signifies that which is separated from what is
common, unclean, or sinful, and raised above it. The alliteration in hoi goi
implies that the nation, as sinful, was a nation of woe.
(2.) In the thorah Israel was called not only a holy nation, but also the
people of Jehovah (Num. 17: 6, Eng. ver. 16:41), the people chosen and
blessed of Jehovah; but now it had become a people heavy with iniquity.
Instead of the most natural expression, a people bearing heavy sins; the sin, or
iniquity, i.e., the weight carried, is attributed to the people themselves upon
whom the weight rested, according to the common figurative idea, that
whoever carries a heavy burden is so much heavier himself (cf., gravis
oneribus, Cicero). WOF (sin regarded as crookedness and perversity, whereas
JiX
suggests the idea of going astray and missing the way) is the word
commonly used wherever the writer intends to describe sin in the mass (e.g.,
Isa. 33:24; Gen. 15:16; 19:15), including the guilt occasioned by it. The people
of Jehovah had grown into a people heavily laden with guilt. So crushed, so
altered into the very opposite, had Israels true nature become. It is with
deliberate intention that we have rendered Y
g a nation (Nation), and JA a
people (Volk): for, according to Malbims correct definition of the distinction
between the two, the former is used to denote the mass, as linked together by
common descent, language, and country; the latter the people as bound
together by unity of government (see, for example, Psa. 105:13). Consequently
we always read of the people of the Lord, not the nation of the Lord; and there
are only two instances in which goi is attached to a suffix relating to the ruler,
and then it relates to Jehovah alone (Zep. 2: 9; Psa. 106: 5).
(3.) Israel bore elsewhere the honourable title of the seed of the patriarch
(Isa. 41: 8; 45:19; cf., Gen. 21:12); but in reality it was a seed of evil-doers
(miscreants). This does not mean that it was descended from evil-doers; but the
genitive is used in the sense of a direct apposition to zera (seed), as in
Isa. 65:23 (cf., Isa. 61: 9; 6:13, and Ges. 116, 5), and the meaning is a seed
which consists of evil-doers, and therefore is apparently descended from evil-

doers instead of from patriarchs. This last thought is not implied in the genitive,
but in the idea of seed; which is always a compact unit, having one origin, and
bearing the character of its origin in itself. The rendering brood of evil-doers,
however it may accord with the sense, would be inaccurate; for seed of evildoers is just the same as house of evil-doers in Isa. 31: 2. The singular of the
noun YIR
Mi is JAR
M
, with the usual sharpening in the case of gutturals in the
verbs , RM
with patach, RFM
with kametz in pause (Isa. 9:16, which see),
a noun derived from the hiphil participle.
(4.) Those who were of Israel were children of Jehovah through the act of
God (Deu. 14: 1); but in their own acts they were children acting destructively
(banim mashchithim), so that what the thorah feared and predicted had now
occurred (Deu. 4:16, 25; 31:29). In all these passages we find the hiphil, and in
the parallel passage of the great song (Deu. 32: 5) the piel both of them
conjugations which contain within themselves the object of the action indicated
(Ges. 53, 2): to do what is destructive, i.e., so to act as to become destructive
to ones self and to others. It is evident from v. 2b, that the term children is to
be understood as indicating their relation to Jehovah (cf., Isa. 30: 1, 9). The
four interjectional clauses are followed by three declaratory clauses, which
describe Israels apostasy as total in every respect, and complete the mournful
seven. There was apostasy in heart: They have forsaken Jehovah. There was
apostasy in words: They blaspheme the Holy One of Israel. The verb literally
means to sting, then to mock or treat scornfully; the use of it to denote
blasphemy is antiquated Mosaic (Deu. 31:20; Num. 14:11, 23; 16:30). It is with
intention that God is designated here as the Holy One of Israel, a name
which constitutes the keynote of all Isaiahs prophecy (see at Isa. 6: 3). It was
sin to mock at anything holy; it was a double sin to mock at God, the Holy One;
but it was a threefold sin for Israel to mock at God the Holy One, who had set
Himself to be the sanctifier of Israel, and required that as He was Israels
sanctification, He should also be sanctified by Israel according to His holiness
(Lev. 19: 2, etc.). And lastly, there was also apostasy in action: they have
turned away backwards; or, as the Vulgate renders it, abalienati sunt. R
ZNF is
the reflective of RwZ, related to RZANF and RwS, for which it is the word commonly
used in the Targum. The niphal, which is only met with here, indicates the
deliberate character of their estrangement from God; and the expression is
rendered still more emphatic by the introduction of the word backwards
(achor, which is used emphatically in the place of WYRXJM). In all their actions
they ought to have followed Jehovah; but they had turned their backs upon
Him, and taken the way selected by themselves.

Isa. 1: 5. In this verse a disputed question arises as to the words HMELJA (HME,

the shorter, sharper form of HMF, which is common even before non-gutturals,
Ges. 32, 1): viz., whether they mean wherefore, as the LXX, Targums,
Vulgate, and most of the early versions render them, or upon what, i.e., upon
which part of the body, as others, including Schrring, suppose. Luzzatto
maintains that the latter rendering is spiritless, more especially because there is
nothing in the fact that a limb has been struck already to prevent its being struck
again; but such objections as these can only arise in connection with a purely
literal interpretation of the passage. If we adopted this rendering, the real
meaning would be, that there was no judgment whatever that had not already
fallen upon Israel on account of its apostasy, so that it was not far from utter
destruction. We agree, however, with Caspari in deciding in favour of the
meaning to what (to what end). For in all the other passage in which the
expression occurs (fourteen times in all), it is used in this sense, and once even
with the verb hiccah, to smite (Num. 22:32), whilst it is only in v. 6 that the
idea of the people as one body is introduced; whereas the question upon what
would require that the reader or hearer should presuppose it here. But in
adopting the rendering whereto, or to what end, we do not understand it, as
Malbim does, in the sense of cui bono, with the underlying thought, It would
be ineffectual, as all the previous smiting has proved; for this thought never
comes out in a direct expression, as we should expect, but rather according
to the analogy of the questions with lamah in Eze. 18:31, Jer. 44: 7 in the
sense of qua de causa, with the underlying thought, There would be only an
infatuated pleasure in your own destruction.

Isa. 1: 5a. V. 5a we therefore render thus: Why would ye be perpetually

smitten, multiplying rebellion? D
(with tiphchah, a stronger disjunctive
than tebir) belongs to wktU; see the same form of accentuation in Eze. 19: 9.
They are not two distinct interrogative clauses (why would ye be smitten
afresh? why do ye add revolt? (Luzzatto), but the second clause is
subordinate to the first (without there being any necessity to supply chi,
because, as Gesenius supposes), an adverbial minor clause defining the main
clause more precisely; at all events this is the logical connection, as in Isa. 5:11
(cf., Psa. 62: 4, delighting in lies, and Psa. 4: 3, loving vanity): LXX
adding iniquity. Sarah (rebellion) is a deviation from truth and rectitude; and
here, as in many other instances, it denotes apostasy from Jehovah, who is the
absolutely Good, and absolute goodness. There is a still further dispute whether
the next words should be rendered every head and every heart, or the
whole head and the whole heart. In prose the latter would be impossible, as
the two nouns are written without the article; but in the poetic style of the
prophets the article may be omitted after col, when used in the sense of the

whole (e.g., Isa. 9:12: with whole mouth, i.e., with full mouth). Nevertheless
col, without the article following, never signifies the whole when it occurs
several times in succession, as in Isa. 15: 2 and Eze. 7:17, 18. We must
therefore render v. 5b, Every head is diseased, and every heart is sick. The
Lamed in locholi indicates the state into which a thing has come: every head in
a state of disease (Ewald, 217, d: locholi without the article, as in
2Ch. 21:18). The prophet asks his fellow-countrymen why they are so foolish as
to heap apostasy upon apostasy, and so continue to call down the judgments of
God, which have already fallen upon them blow after blow. Has it reached such
a height with them, that among all the many heads and hearts there is not one
head which is not in a diseased state, not one heart which is not thoroughly ill?
(davvai an emphatic form of daveh). Head and heart are mentioned as the
noblest parts of the outer and inner man. Outwardly and inwardly every
individual in the nation had already been smitten by the wrath of God, so that
they had had enough, and might have been brought to reflection.

Isa. 1: 6. This description of the total misery of every individual in the nation is
followed by a representation of the whole nation as one miserably diseased
body.
V. 6. From the some of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it: cuts,
and stripes, and festering wounds; they have not been pressed out, nor bound up,
nor has there been any soothing with oil.

The body of the nation, to which the expression in it applies (i.e., the nation
as a whole), was covered with wounds of different kinds; and no means
whatever had been applied to heal these many, various wounds, which lay all
together, close to one another, and one upon the other, covering the whole
body. Cuts (from CpF to cut) are wounds that have cut into the flesh
sword-cuts, for example. These need binding up, in order that the gaping
wound may close again. Stripes (chabburah, from chabar, to stripe), swollen
stripes, or weals, as if from a cut with a whip, or a blow with a fist: these
require softening with oil, that the coagulated blood of swelling may disperse.
Festering wounds, maccah teriyah, from tarah, to be fresh (a different word
from the talmudic word tre, Chullin 45b, to thrust violently, so as to shake):
these need pressing, for the purpose of cleansing them, so as to facilitate their
healing. Thus the three predicates manifest an approximation to a chiasm (the
crossing of the members); but this retrospective relation is not thoroughly
carried out. The predicates are written in the plural, on account of the collective
subject. The clause MEFb HKFkiRU JLOW,i which refers to HRWBX (stripes), so far
as the sense is concerned (olive-oil, like all oleosa, being a dispersing medium),
is to be taken as neuter, since this is the only way of explaining the change in
the number: And no softening has been effected with oil. Zoru we might

suppose to be a pual, especially on account of the other puals near: it is not so,
however, for the simple reason that, according to the accentuation (viz., with
two pashtahs, the first of which gives the tone, as in tohu, Gen. 1: 2, so that it
must be pronounced zru), it has the tone upon the penultimate, for which it
would be impossible to discover any reason, if it were derived from zarah. For
the assumption that the tone is drawn back to prepare the way for the strong
tone of the next verb (chubbashu) is arbitrary, as the influence of the pause,
though it sometimes reaches the last word but one, never extends to the last but
two. Moreover, according to the usage of speech, zorah signifies to be
dispersed, not to be pressed out; whereas zur and zarar are commonly used in
the sense of pressing together and squeezing out. Consequently zoru is either
the kal of an intransitive zor in the middle voice (like boshu), or, what is more
probable as zoru, the middle voice in Psa. 58: 4, has a different meaning
(abalienati sunt: cf., v. 4) the kal of zarar (= Arab. constringere), which is
here conjugated as an intransitive (cf., Job. 24:24, rommu, and Gen. 49:23,
where robbu is used in an active sense). The surgical treatment so needed by
the nation was a figurative representation of the pastoral addresses of the
prophets, which had been delivered indeed, but, inasmuch as their salutary
effects were dependent upon the penitential sorrow of the people, might as well
have never been delivered at all. The people had despised the merciful,
compassionate kindness of their God. They had no liking for the radical cure
which the prophets had offered to effect. All the more pitiable, therefore, was
the condition of the body, which was sick within, and diseased from head to
foot. The prophet is speaking here of the existing state of things. He affirms that
it is all over with the nation; and this is the ground and object of his reproachful
lamentations. Consequently, when he passes in the next verse from figurative
language to literal, we may presume that he is still speaking of his own times. It
is Isaiahs custom to act in this manner as his own expositor (compare v. 22
with v. 23). The body thus inwardly and outwardly diseased, was, strictly
speaking, the people and the land in their fearful condition at that time.

Isa. 1: 7. This is described more particularly in v. 7, which commences with the

most general view, and returns to it again at the close.
V. 7. Your land...a desert; your cities...burned with fire; your field...foreigners
consuming it before your eyes, and a desert like overthrowing by strangers.

Caspari has pointed out, in his Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (p. 204), how
nearly every word corresponds to the curses threatened in Lev. 26 and Deu. 28
(29); Mic. 6:13-16 and Jer. 5:15ff. stand in the very same relation to these
sections of the Pentateuch. From the time of Isaiah downwards, the state of
Israel was a perfect realization of the curses of the law. The prophet
intentionally employs the words of the law to describe his own times; he

designates the enemy, who devastated the land, reduced its towers to ashes, and
took possession of its crops, by the simple term zarim, foreigners or barbarians
(a word which would have the very same meaning if it were really the
reduplication of the Aramaean bar; compare the Syriac baroye, a foreigner),
without mentioning their particular nationality. He abstracts himself from the
definite historical present, in order that he may point out all the more
emphatically how thoroughly it bears the character of the fore-ordained curse.
The most emphatic indication of this was to be found in the fact, which the
clause at the close of v. 7 palindromically affirms, that a desolation had been
brought about like the overthrow of foreigners. The repetition of a catchword
like zarim (foreigners) at the close of the verse in this emphatic manner, is a
figure of speech, called epanaphora, peculiar to the two halves of our
collection. The question arises, however, whether zarim is to be regarded as the
genitive of the subject, as Caspari, Knobel, and others suppose, such an
overthrow as is commonly produced by barbarians (cf., 2Sa. 10: 3, where the
verb occurs), or as the genitive of the object, such an overthrow as comes
upon barbarians. As mahpechah (overthrow) is used in other places in which it
occurs to denote the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, etc., according to the
primary passage, Deu. 29:22, and Isaiah had evidently also this catastrophe in
his mind, as v. 8 clearly shows; we decide in favour of the conclusion that zarim
is the genitive of the object (cf., Amo. 4:11). The force of the comparison is
also more obvious, if we understand the words in this sense. The desolation
which had fallen upon the land of the people of God resembled that thorough
desolation (subversio) with which God visited the nations outside the covenant,
who, like the people of the Pentapolis, were swept from off the earth without
leaving a trace behind. But although there was similarity, there was not
sameness, as vv. 8, 9 distinctly affirm. Jerusalem itself was still preserved; but in
how pitiable a condition! There can be no doubt that bath-Zion (daughter of
Zion, Eng. ver.) in v. 8 signifies Jerusalem. The genitive in this case is a
genitive of apposition: daughter Zion, not daughter of Zion (cf., Isa. 37:22:
see Ges. 116, 5). Zion itself is represented as a daughter, i.e., as a woman.
The expression applied primarily to the community dwelling around the fortress
of Zion, to which the individual inhabitants stood in the same relation as
children to a mother, inasmuch as the community sees its members for the time
being come into existence and grow: they are born within her, and, as it were,
born and brought up by her. It was then applied secondarily to the city itself,
with or without the inhabitants (cf., Jer. 46:19; 48:18; Zec. 2:11). In this
instance the latter are included, as v. 9 clearly shows. This is precisely the point
in the first two comparisons.

Isa. 1: 8a.
And the daughter of Zion remains lie a hut in a vineyard; like a hammock in a
cucumber field.

The vineyard and cucumber field (mikshah, from kisshu, a cucumber, cucumis,
not a gourd, cucurbita; at least not the true round gourd, whose Hebrew name,
dalaath, does not occur in the Old Testament) are pictured by the prophet in
their condition before the harvest (not after, as the Targums render it), when it
is necessary that they should be watched. The point of comparison therefore is,
that in the vineyard and cucumber field not a human being is to be seen in any
direction; and there is nothing but the cottage and the night barrack or
hammock (cf., Job. 27:18) to show that there are any human beings there at all.
So did Jerusalem stand in the midst of desolation, reaching far and wide, a
sign, however, that the land was not entirely depopulated. But what is the
meaning of the third point of comparison? Hitzig renders it, like a watchtower; Knobel, like a guard-city. But the noun neither means a tower nor a
castle (although the latter would be quite possible, according to the primary
meaning, cingere); and nezurah does not mean watch or guard. On the
other hand, the comparison indicated (like, or as) does not suit what would
seem the most natural rendering, viz., like a guarded city, i.e., a city shielded
from danger. Moreover, it is inadmissible to take the first two Caphs in the
sense of sicut (as) and the third in the sense of sic (so); since, although this
correlative is common in clauses indicating identity, it is not so in sentences
which institute a simple comparison. We therefore adopt the rendering, v. 8b,
As a besieged city, deriving nezurah not from zur, niphal nazor (never used),
as Luzzatto does, but from nazar, which signifies to observe with keen eye,
either with a good intention, or, as in Job. 7:20, for a hostile purpose. It may
therefore be employed, like the synonyms in 2Sa. 11:16 and Jer. 5: 6, to denote
the reconnoitring of a city. Jerusalem was not actually blockaded at the time
when the prophet uttered his predictions; but it was like a blockaded city. In the
case of such a city there is a desolate space, completely cleared of human
beings, left between it and the blockading army, in the centre of which the city
itself stands solitary and still, shut up to itself. The citizens do not venture out;
the enemy does not come within the circle that immediately surrounds the city,
for fear of the shots of the citizens; and everything within this circle is
destroyed, either by the citizens themselves, to prevent the enemy from finding
anything useful, or else by the enemy, who cut down the trees. Thus, with all
the joy that might be felt at the preservation of Jerusalem, it presented but a
gloomy appearance. It was, as it were, in a state of siege. A proof that this is
the way in which the passage is to be explained, may be found in Jer. 4:16, 17,
where the actual storming of Jerusalem is foretold, and the enemy is called
nozerim, probably with reference to the simile before us.

Isa. 1: 9. For the present, however, Jerusalem was saved from this extremity.
V. 9. The omnipotence of God had mercifully preserved it:
Unless Jehovah of hosts had left us a little of what had escaped, we had become
like Sodom, we were like Gomorrah.

Sarid (which is rendered inaccurately sperma in the Sept.; cf., Rom. 9:29) was
used, even in the early Mosaic usage of the language, to signify that which
escaped the general destruction (Deu. 2:34, etc.); and FMikI (which might very
well be connected with the verbs which follow: we were very nearly within a
little like Sodom, etc.) is to be taken in connection with sarid, as the pausal
form clearly shows: a remnant which was but a mere trifle (on this use of the
word, see Isa. 16:14; 2Ch. 12: 7; Pro. 10:20; Psa. 105:12). Jehovah Zebaoth
stands first, for the sake of emphasis. It would have been all over with Israel
long ago, if it had not been for the compassion of God (vid., Hos. 11: 8). And
because it was the omnipotence of God, which set the will of His compassion in
motion, He is called Jehovah Zebaoth, Jehovah (the God) of the heavenly hosts,
an expression in which Zebaoth is a dependent genitive, and not, as Luzzatto
supposes, an independent name of God as the Absolute, embracing within itself
all the powers of nature. The prophet says us and we. He himself was an
inhabitant of Jerusalem; and even if he had not been so, he was nevertheless an
Israelite. He therefore associates himself with his people, like Jeremiah in
Lam. 3:22. He had had to experience the anger of God along with the rest; and
so, on the other hand, he also celebrates the mighty compassion of God, which
he had experienced in common with them. But for this compassion, the people
of God would have become like Sodom, from which only four human beings
escaped: it would have resembled Gomorrah, which was absolutely annihilated.
(On the prefects in the protasis and apodosis, see Ges. 126, 5.)

Isa. 1:10, 11. The prophets address has here reached a resting-place. The fact
that it is divided at this point into two separate sections, is indicated in the text
by the space left between vv. 9 and 10. This mode of marking larger or smaller
sections, either by leaving spaces of by breaking off the line, is older than the
vowel points and accents, and rests upon a tradition of the highest antiquity
(Hupfeld, Gram. p. 86ff.). The space is called pizka; the section indicated by
such a space, a closed parashah (sethumah); and the section indicated by
breaking off the line, an open parashah (pethuchah). The prophet stops as soon
as he has affirmed, that nothing but the mercy of God has warded off from
Israel the utter destruction which it so well deserved. He catches in spirit the
remonstrances of his hearers. They would probably declare that the accusations
which the prophet had brought against them were utterly groundless, and
appeal to their scrupulous observance of the law of God. In reply to this self-

vindication which he reads in the hearts of the accused, the prophet launches
forth the accusations of God. In vv. 10, 11, he commences thus:
Hear the word of Jehovah, ye Sodom judges; give ear to the law of our God, O
Gomorrah nation! What is the multitude of your slain-offerings to me? saith
Jehovah. I am satiated with whole offerings of rams, and the fat of stalled calves;
and blood of bullocks and sheep and he-goats I do not like.

The second start in the prophets address commences, like the first, with hear
and give ear. The summons to hear is addressed in this instances (as in the
case of Isaiahs contemporary Micah, Mic. 3) to the kezinim (from kazah,
decidere, from which comes the Arabic el-Kadi, the judge, with the substantive
termination in: see Jeshurun, p. 212 ss.), i.e., to the men of decisive authority,
the rulers in the broadest sense, and to the people subject to them. It was
through the mercy of God that Jerusalem was in existence still, for Jerusalem
was spiritually Sodom, as the Revelation (Rev. 11: 8) distinctly affirms of
Jerusalem, with evident allusion to this passage of Isaiah. Pride, lust of the flesh,
and unmerciful conduct, were the leading sins of Sodom, according to
Eze. 16:49; and of these, the rulers of Jerusalem, and the crowd that was
subject to them and worthy of them, were equally guilty now. But they fancied
that they could not possibly stand in such evil repute with God, inasmuch as
they rendered outward satisfaction to the law. The prophet therefore called
upon them to hear the law of the God of Israel, which he would announce to
them: for the prophet was the appointed interpreter of the law, and prophecy
the spirit of the law, and the prophetic institution the constant living presence of
the true essence of the law bearing its own witness in Israel. To what purpose
is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith Jehovah. The prophet
intentionally uses the word RMJYO, not RMJF: this was the incessant appeal of
God in relation to the spiritless, formal worship offered by the hypocritical,
ceremonial righteousness of Israel (the future denoting continuous actions,
which is ever at the same time both present and future). The multitude of
zebachim, i.e., animal sacrifices, had no worth at all to Him. As the whole
worship is summed up here in one single act, zebachim appears to denote the
shelamim, peace-offerings (or better still, communion offerings), with which a
meal was associated, after the style of a sacrificial festival, and Jehovah gave the
worshipper a share in the sacrifice offered. It is better, however, to take
zebachim as the general name for all the bleeding sacrifices, which are then
subdivided into oloth and cheleb, as consisting partly of whole offerings, or
offerings the whole of which was placed upon the altar, though in separate
pieces, and entirely consumed, and partly of those sacrifices in which only the
fat was consumed upon the altar, namely the sin-offerings, trespass-offerings,
and pre-eminently the shelamim offerings. Of the sacrificial animals mentioned,
the bullocks (parim) and fed beasts (meriim, fattened calves) are species of

oxen (bakar); and the lambs (cebashim) and he-goats (atturim, young he-goats,
as distinguished from seir, the old long-haired he-goat, the animal used as a
sin-offering), together with the ram (ayil, the customary whole offering of the
high priest, of the tribe prince, and of the nation generally on all the high feast
days), were species of the flock. The blood of these sacrificial animals such,
for example, as the young oxen, sheep, and he-goats was thrown all round
the altar in the case of the whole offering, the peace-offering, and the trespassoffering; in that of the sin-offering it was smeared upon the horns of the altar,
poured out at the foot of the altar, and in some instances sprinkled upon the
walls of the altar, or against the vessels of the inner sanctuary. Of such offerings
as these Jehovah was weary, and He wanted no more (the two perfects denote
that which long has been and still is: Ges. 126, 3); in fact, He never had
desired anything of the kind.

Isa. 1:12. Jeremiah says this with regard to the sacrifices (Jer. 7:22); Isaiah
also applies it to visits to the temple: V. 12.
When ye come to appear before my face, who hath required this at your hand, to
tread my courts?

T
JRFL
is a contracted infinitive niphal for T
JRFH
Li (compare the hiphil forms
contracted in the same manner in Isa. 3: 8; 23:11). This is the standing
expression for the appearance of all male Israelites in the temple at the three
high festivals, as prescribed by the law, and then for visits to the temple
generally (cf., Psa. 42: 3; 84: 8). My face (panai): according to Ewald,
279, c, this is used with the passive to designate the subject (to be seen by the
face of God); but why not rather take it as an adverbial accusative, in the face
of, or in front of, as it is used interchangeably with the prepositions Li, TJ
,
and LJE? It is possible that T
JRFL
is pointed as it is here, and in Exo. 34:24 and
in Deu. 31:11, instead of T
JRiLI , like wJRFY
for wJRiY,I in Exo. 23:15; 34:20,
for the purpose of avoiding an expression which might be so easily
misunderstood as denoting a sight of God with the bodily eye. But the niphal is
firmly established in Exo. 23:17; 34:23, and 1Sa. 1:22; and in the Mishnah and
Talmud the terms HyFJIRi and
YJFR
are applied without hesitation to
appearance before God at the principal feasts. They visited the temple diligently
enough indeed, but who had required this at their hand, i.e., required them to
do this? Jehovah certainly had not. To tread my courts is in apposition to
this, which it more clearly defines. Jehovah did not want them to appear before
His face, i.e., He did not wish for this spiritless and undevotional tramping
thither, this mere opus operatum, which might as well have been omitted, since
it only wore out the floor.

Isa. 1:13a. Because they had not performed what Jehovah commanded as He
commanded it, He expressly forbids them to continue it.
Continue not to bring lying meat-offering; abomination incense is it to me.

Minchah (the meat-offering) was the vegetable offering, as distinguished from

zebach, the animal sacrifice. It is called a lying meat-offering, as being a
hypocritical dead work, behind which there was none of the feeling which it
appeared to express. In the second clause the Sept., Vulg., Gesenius, and others
adopt the rendering incense an abomination is it to me, ketoreth being
taken as the name of the daily burning of incense upon the golden altar in the
holy place (Exo. 30: 8). But neither in Psa. 141: 2, where prayer is offered by
one who is not a priest, nor in the passage before us, where the reference is not
to the priesthood, but to the people and to their deeds, is this continual incense
to be thought of. Moreover, it is much more natural to regard the word ketoreth
not as a bold absolute case, but, according to the conjunctive darga with which
it is marked, as constructive rather; and this is perfectly allowable. The meatoffering is called incense (ketoreth) with reference to the so-called azcarah,
i.e., that portion which the priest burned upon the altar, to bring the grateful
offerer into remembrance before God (called burning the memorial, hiktir
azcarah, in Lev. 2: 2). As a general rule, this was accompanied with incense
(Isa. 66: 3), the whole of which was placed upon the altar, and not merely a
small portion of it. The meat-offering, with its sweet-smelling savour, was
merely the form, which served as an outward expression of the thanksgiving for
Gods blessing, or the longing for His blessing, which really ascended in prayer.
But in their case the form had no such meaning. It was nothing but the form,
with which they thought they had satisfied God; and therefore it was an
abomination to Him.

Isa. 1:13b. God was just as little pleased with their punctilious observance of
the feasts:
New-moon and Sabbath, calling of festal meetings...I cannot bear ungodliness and
a festal crowd.

The first objective notions, which are logically governed by I cannot bear
(LKAwJJLO: literally, a future hophal I am unable, incapable, viz., to bear,
which may be supplied, according to Psa. 101: 5, Jer. 44:22, Pro. 30:21),
become absolute cases here, on account of another grammatical object
presenting itself in the last two nouns: ungodliness and a festal crowd. As for
new-moon and Sabbath (the latter always signifies the weekly Sabbath when
construed with chodesh), and, in fact, the calling of meetings of the whole
congregation on the weekly Sabbath and high festivals, which was a simple duty
according to Lev. 23, Jehovah could not endure festivals associated with

wickedness. HRFC
F (from RCF, to press, or crowd thickly together) is
synonymous with JRFQiMI, so far as its immediate signification is concerned, as
Jer. 9: 1 clearly shows, just as panhgurij is synonymous with ekklhsia. WEJF
(from wJ, to breathe) is moral worthlessness, regarded as an utter absence of
all that has true essence and worth in the sight of God. The prophet
intentionally joins these two nouns together. A densely crowded festal meeting,
combined with inward emptiness and barrenness on the part of those who were
assembled together, was a contradiction which God could not endure.

Isa. 1:14. He gives a still stronger expression to His repugnance:

Your new-moons and your festive seasons my soul hateth; they have become a
burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.

As the soul (nephesh) of a man, regarded as the band which unites together
bodily and spiritual life, though it is not the actual principle of selfconsciousness, is yet the place in which he draws, as it were, the circle of selfconsciousness, so as to comprehend the whole essence of His being in the single
thought of I; so, according to a description taken from godlike man, the
soul (nephesh) of God, as the expression my soul indicates, is the centre of
His being, regarded as encircled and pervaded (personated) by selfconsciousness; and therefore, whatever the soul of God hates (vid., Jer. 15: 1)
or loves (Isa. 42: 1), is hated or loved in the inmost depths and to the utmost
bounds of His being (Psychol. p. 218). Thus He hated each and all of the
festivals that were kept in Jerusalem, whether the beginnings of the month, or
the high feast-days (moadim, in which, according to Lev. 23, the Sabbath was
also included) observed in the course of the month. For a long time past they
had become a burden and annoyance to Him: His long-suffering was weary of
such worship. To bear (JVNi , in Isaiah, even in Isa. 18: 3, for TJ
Vi or TJV
,
and here for TJV
L:F Ewald, 285, c) has for its object the seasons of worship
already mentioned.

Isa. 1:15. Their self-righteousness, so far as it rested upon sacrifices and festal
observances, was now put to shame, and the last inward bulwark of the sham
holy nation was destroyed:
And if ye stretch out your hands, I hide my eyes from you; if ye make ever so much
praying, I do not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Their praying was also an abomination to God. Prayer is something common to

man: it is the interpreter of religious feeling, which intervenes and mediates
between God and man; f12 it is the true spiritual sacrifice. The law contains no
command to pray, and, with the exception of Deu. 26, no form of prayer.
Praying is so natural to man as man, that there was no necessity for any precept

to enforce this, the fundamental expression of the true relation to God. The
prophet therefore comes to prayer last of all, so as to trace back their shamholiness, which was corrupt even to this the last foundation, to its real
nothingness. Spread out, parash, or pi. peresh, to stretch out; used with
cappaim to denote swimming in Isa. 25:11. It is written here before a strong
suffix, as in many other passages, e.g., Isa. 52:12, with the inflection i instead of
e. This was the gesture of a man in prayer, who spread out his hands, and when
spread out, stretched them towards heaven, or to the most holy place in the
temple, and indeed (as if with the feeling of emptiness and need, and with a
desire to receive divine gifts) held up the hollow or palm of his hand (cappaim:
cf., tendere palmas, e.g., Virg. Aen. xii. 196, tenditque ad sidera palmas).
However much they might stand or lie before Him in the attitude of prayer,
Jehovah hid His eyes, i.e., His omniscience knew nothing of it; and even though
they might pray loud and long (gam chi, etiamsi: compare the simple chi,
Jer. 14:12), He was, as it were, deaf to it all. We should expect chi here to
introduce the explanation; but the more excited the speaker, the shorter and
more unconnected his words. The plural damim always denotes human blood as
the result of some unnatural act, and then the bloody deed and the
bloodguiltiness itself. The plural number neither refers to the quantity nor to the
separate drops, but is the plural of production, which Dietrich has so elaborately
discussed in his Abhandlung, p. 40. f13
The terrible damim stands very emphatically before the governing verb,
pointing to many murderous acts that had been committed, and deeds of
violence akin to murder. Not, indeed, that we are to understand the words as
meaning that there was really blood upon their hands when they stretched them
out in prayer; but before God, from whom no outward show can hide the true
nature of things, however clean they might have washed themselves, they still
dripped with blood. The expostulations of the people against the divine
accusations have thus been negatively set forth and met in vv. 11-15: Jehovah
could not endure their work-righteous worship, which was thus defiled with
unrighteous works, even to murder itself. The divine accusation is now
positively established in vv. 16, 17, by the contrast drawn between the true
righteousness of which the accused were destitute, and the false righteousness
of which they boasted. The crushing charge is here changed into an admonitory
appeal; and the love which is hidden behind the wrath, and would gladly break
through, already begins to disclose itself. There are eight admonitions. The first
three point to the removal of evil; the other five to the performance of what is
good.

Isa. 1:16. The first three run thus:

Wash, clean yourselves; put away the badness of your doings from the range of my
eyes; cease to do evil.

This is not only an advance from figurative language to the most literal, but
there is also an advance in what is said. The first admonition requires, primarily
and above all, purification from the sins committed, by means of forgiveness
sought for and obtained. Wash: rachatzu, from rachatz, in the frequent middle
sense of washing ones self. Clean yourselves: hizzaccu, with the tone upon the
last syllable, is not the niphal of zakak, as the first plur. imper. niph. of such
verbs has generally and naturally the tone upon the penultimate (see Isa. 52:11;
Num. 17:10), but the hithpael of zacah for hizdaccu, with the preformative Tav
resolved into the first radical letter, as is very common in the hithpael (Ges.
54, 2, b). According to the difference between the two synonyms (to wash
ones self, to clean ones self), the former must be understood as referring to
the one great act of repentance on the part of a man who is turning to God, the
latter to the daily repentance of one who has so turned. The second admonition
requires them to place themselves in the light of the divine countenance, and put
away the evil of their doings, which was intolerable to pure eyes (Hab. 1:13).
They were to wrestle against the wickedness to which their actual sin had
grown, until at length it entirely disappeared. Neged, according to its radical
meaning, signifies prominence (compare the Arabic ngd, high land which is
visible at a great distance), conspicuousness, so that minneged is really
equivalent to ex apparentia.

Isa. 1:17. Five admonitions relating to the practice of what is good:

Learn to do good, attend to judgment, set the oppressor right, do justice to the
orphan, conduct the cause of the widow.

The first admonition lays the foundation for the rest. They were to learn to do
good, a difficult art, in which a man does not become proficient merely by
good intentions. Learn to do good: hetib is the object to limdu (learn),
regarded as an accusative; the inf. abs. JAR
HF in v. 16 takes the place of the
object in just the same manner. The division of this primary admonition into
four minor ones relating to the administration of justice, may be explained from
the circumstance that no other prophet directs so keen an eye upon the state
and its judicial proceedings as Isaiah has done. He differs in this respect from
his younger contemporary Micah, whose prophecies are generally more ethical
in their nature, whilst those of Isaiah have a political character throughout.
Hence the admonitions: Give diligent attention to judgment (darash, to
devote ones self to a thing with zeal and assiduity); and bring the oppressor to
the right way. This is the true rendering, as chamotz (from chamatz, to be
sharp in flavour, glaring in appearance, violent and impetuous in character)
cannot well mean the oppressed, or the man who is deprived of his rights, as

most of the early translators have rendered it, since this form of the noun,
especially with an immutable kametz like D
GbF HD
FGbF (cf., DQONF HdFQUNi), is not
used in a passive, but in an active or attributive sense (Ewald, 152, b: vid., at
Psa. 137: 8): it has therefore the same meaning as chometz in Psa. 71: 4, and
ashok in Jer. 22: 3, which is similar in its form. But if chamotz signifies the
oppressive, reckless, churlish man, R
JI cannot mean to make happy, or to
congratulate, or to set up, or, as in the talmudic rendering, to strengthen
(Luzzatto: rianimate chi oppresso); but, as it is also to be rendered in
Isa. 3:12; 9:15, to lead to the straight road, or to cause a person to keep the
straight course. In the case before us, where the oppressor is spoken of, it
means to direct him to the way of justice, to keep him in bounds by severe
punishment and discipline. f14
In the same way we find in other passages, such as Isa. 11: 4 and Psa. 72: 4,
severe conduct towards oppressors mentioned in connection with just treatment
of the poor. There follow two admonitions relating to widows and orphans.
Widows and orphans, as well as foreigners, were the protgs of God and His
law, standing under His especial guardianship and care (see, for example,
Exo. 22:22 (21), cf., 21 (20). Do justice to the orphan ( Shaphat, as in
Deu. 25: 1, is a contracted expression for shaphat mishpat): for if there is not
even a settlement or verdict in their cause, this is the most crying injustice of all,
as neither the form nor the appearance of justice is preserved. Conduct the
cause of the widows: BYRI with an accusative, as in Isa. 51:22, the only other
passage in which it occurs, is a contracted form for BYRI BYRI. Thus all the
grounds of self-defence, which existed in the hearts of the accused, are both
negatively and positively overthrown. They are thundered down and put to
shame. The law (thorah), announced in v. 10, has been preached to them. The
prophet has cast away the husks of their dead works, and brought out the moral
kernel of the law in its universal application.

Isa. 1:18. The first leading division of the address is brought to a close, and v.
18 contains the turning-point between the two parts into which it is divided.
Hitherto Jehovah has spoken to His people in wrath. But His love began to
move even in the admonitions in vv. 16, 17. And now this love, which desired
not Israels destruction, but Israels inward and outward salvation, breaks fully
through. V. 18.
O come, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah. If your sins come forth like
scarlet cloth, they shall become white as snow; if they are red as crimson, they shall
come forth like wool!

Jehovah here challenges Israel to a formal trial: nocach is thus used in a

reciprocal sense, and with the same meaning as nishpat in Isa. 43:26 (Ges. 51,

2). In such a trial Israel must lose, for Israels self-righteousness rests upon
sham righteousness; and this sham righteousness, when rightly examined, is but
unrighteousness dripping with blood. It is taken for granted that this must be
the result of the investigation. Israel is therefore worthy of death. Yet Jehovah
will not treat Israel according to His retributive justice, but according to His
free compassion. He will remit the punishment, and not only regard the sin as
not existing, but change it into its very opposite. The reddest possible sin shall
become, through His mercy, the purest white. On the two hiphils here applied
to colour, see Ges. 53, 2; though he gives the meaning incorrectly, viz., to
take a colour, whereas the words signify rather to emit a colour: not colorem
accipere, but colorem dare. Shani, bright red (the plural shanim, as in
Pro. 31:21, signifies materials dyed with shani), and tola, warm colour, are
simply different names for the same colour, viz., the crimson obtained from the
cochineal insect, color cocccineus. The representation of the work of grace
promised by God as a change from red to white, is founded upon the symbolism
of colours, quite as much as when the saints in the Revelation (Rev. 19: 8) are
described as clothed in white raiment, whilst the clothing of Babylon is purple
and scarlet (Isa. 17: 4). Red is the colour of fire, and therefore of life: the blood
is red because life is a fiery process. For this reason the heifer, from which the
ashes of purification were obtained for those who had been defiled through
contact with the dead, was to be red; and the sprinkling-brush, with which the
unclean were sprinkled, was to be tied round with a band of scarlet wool. But
red as contrasted with white, the colour of light (Mat. 17: 2), is the colour of
selfish, covetous, passionate life, which is self-seeking in its nature, which goes
out of itself only to destroy, and drives about with wild tempestuous violence: it
is therefore the colour of wrath and sin. It is generally supposed that Isaiah
speaks of red as the colour of sin, because sin ends in murder; and this is not
really wrong, though it is too restricted. Sin is called red, inasmuch as it is a
burning heat which consumes a man, and when it breaks forth consumes his
fellow-man as well. According to the biblical view, throughout, sin stands in the
same relation to what is well-pleasing to God, and wrath in the same relation to
love or grace, as fire to light; and therefore as red to white, or black to white,
for red and black are colours which border upon one another. In the Song of
Solomon (Son. 7: 5), the black locks of Shulamith are described as being like
purple, and Homer applies the same epithet to the dark waves of the sea. But
the ground of this relation lies deeper still. Red is the colour of fire, which
flashes out of darkness and returns to it again; whereas white without any
admixture of darkness represents the pure, absolute triumph of light. It is a
deeply significant symbol of the act of justification. Jehovah offers to Israel an
actio forensis, out of which it shall come forth justified by grace, although it has
merited death on account of its sins. The righteousness, white as snow and

wool, with which Israel comes forth, is a gift conferred upon it out of pure
compassion, without being conditional upon any legal performance whatever.

Isa. 1:19, 20. But after the restoration of Israel in integrum by this act of
grace, the rest would unquestionably depend upon the conduct of Israel itself.
According to Israels own decision would Jehovah determine Israels future.
Vv. 19, 20. If ye then shall willingly hear, ye shall eat the good of the land; if ye
shall obstinately rebel, ye shall be eaten by the sword: for the mouth of Jehovah
hath spoken it.

After their justification, both blessing and cursing lay once more before the
justified, as they had both been long before proclaimed by the law (compare v.
19b with Deu. 28: 3ff., Lev. 26: 3ff., and v. 20b with the threat of vengeance
with the sword in Lev. 26:25). The promise of eating, i.e., of the full enjoyment
of domestic blessings, and therefore of settled, peaceful rest at home, is placed
in contrast with the curse of being eaten with the sword. Chereb (the sword) is
the accusative of the instrument, as in Psa. 17:13, 14; but this adverbial
construction without either genitive, adjective, or suffix, as in Exo. 30:20, is
very rarely met with (Ges. 138, Anm. 3); and in the passage before us it is a
bold construction which the prophet allows himself, instead of saying,
KELiKAJtO BREXE, for the sake of the paronomasia (Bttcher, Collectanea, p.
161). In the conditional clauses the two futures are followed by two preterites
(compare Lev. 26:21, which is more in conformity with our western mode of
expression), inasmuch as obeying and rebelling are both of them consequences
of an act of will: if ye shall be willing, and in consequence of this obey; if ye
shall refuse, and rebel against Jehovah. They are therefore, strictly speaking,
perfecta consecutiva. According to the ancient mode of writing, the passage vv.
18-20 formed a separate parashah by themselves, viz., a sethumah, or
parashah indicated by spaces left within the line. The piskah after v. 20
corresponds to a long pause in the mind of the speaker. Will Israel tread the
saving path of forgiveness thus opened before it, and go on to renewed
obedience, and will it be possible for it to be brought back by this path?
Individuals possibly may, but not the whole. The divine appeal therefore
changes now into a mournful complaint. So peaceful a solution as this of the
discord between Jehovah and His children was not to be hoped for. Jerusalem
was far too depraved.

Isa. 1:21.
How is she become a harlot, the faithful citadel! she, full of right, lodged in
righteousness, and now murderers.

It is the keynote of an elegy (kinah) which is sounded here. HKFYJ

, and but
rarely YJ
, which is an abbreviated form, is expressive of complaint and
amazement. This longer form, like a long-drawn sigh, is a characteristic of the
kinah. The kinoth (Lamentations) of Jeremiah commence with it, and receive
their title from it; whereas the shorter form is indicative of scornful
complaining, and is characteristic of the mashol (e.g., Isa. 14: 4, 12; Mic. 2: 4).
From this word, which gives the keynote, the rest all follows, soft, full,
monotonous, long drawn out and slow, just in the style of an elegy. We may see
clearly enough that forms like YTIJLIMi for TJL
Mi, softened by lengthening, were
adapted to elegiac compositions, from the first verse of the Lamentations of
Jeremiah, where three of these forms occur. Jerusalem had previously been a
faithful city, i.e., one stedfastly adhering to the covenant of Jehovah with her
(vid., Psa. 78:37). f15
This covenant was a marriage covenant. And she had broken it, and had thereby
become a zonah (harlot), a prophetic view, the germs of which had already
been given in the Pentateuch, where the worship of idols on the part of Israel is
called whoring after them (Deu. 31:16; Exo. 34:15, 16; in all, seven times). It
was not, however, merely gross outward idolatry which made the church of
God a harlot, but infidelity of heart, in whatever form it might express itself;
so that Jesus described the people of His own time as an adulterous
generation, notwithstanding the pharisaical strictness with which the worship
of Jehovah was then observed. For, as the verse before us indicates, this
marriage relation was founded upon right and righteousness in the broadest
sense: mishpat, right, i.e., a realization of right answering to the will of God
as positively declared; and tzedek, righteousness, i.e., a righteous state
moulded by that will, or a righteous course of conduct regulated according to it
(somewhat different, therefore, from the more qualitative tzedakah). Jerusalem
was once full of such right; and righteousness was not merely there in the form
of a hastily passing guest, but had come down from above to take up her
permanent abode in Jerusalem: she tarried there day and night as if it were her
home. The prophet had in his mind the times of David and Solomon, and also
more especially the time of Jehoshaphat (about one hundred and fifty years
before Isaiahs appearance), who restored the administration of justice, which
had fallen into neglect since the closing years of Solomons reign and the time
of Rehoboam and Abijah, to which Asas reformation had not extended, and reorganized it entirely in the spirit of the law. It is possible also that Jehoiada, the
high priest in the time of Joash, may have revived the institutions of
Jehoshaphat, so far as they had fallen into disuse under his three godless
successors; but even in the second half of the reign of Joash, the administration
of justice fell into the same disgraceful state, at least as compared with the times
of David, Solomon, and Jehoshaphat, as that in which Isaiah found it. The

glaring contrast between the present and the past is indicated by the expression
and now. In all the correct MSS and editions, mishpat is not accented with
zakeph, but with rebia; and bah, which ought to have zakeph, is accented with
tiphchah, on account of the brevity of the following clause. In this way the
statement as to the past condition is sufficiently distinguished from that relating
to the present. f16

Isa. 1:22. The complaint now turns from the city generally to the authorities,
and first of all figuratively. V. 22.
Thy silver has become dross, thy drink mutilated with water.

It is upon this passage that the figurative language of Jer. 6:27ff. and
Eze. 22:18-22 is founded. Silver is here a figurative representation of the
princes and lords, with special reference to the nobility of character naturally
associated with nobility of birth and rank; for silver refined silver is an
image of all that is noble and pure, light in all its purity being reflected by it
(Bhr, Symbolik, i. 284). The princes and lords had once possessed all the
virtues which the Latins called unitedly candor animi, viz., the virtues of
magnanimity, affability, impartiality, and superiority to bribes. This silver had
now become lsigim, dross, or base metal separated (thrown off) from silver in
the process of refining (sig, pl. sigim, siggim from sug, recedere, refuse left in
smelting, or dross: cf., Pro. 25: 4; 26:23). A second figure compares the leading
men of the older Jerusalem to good wine, such as drinkers like. The word
employed here (sobe) must have been used in this sense by the more cultivated
classes in Isaiahs time (cf., Nah. 1:10). This pure, strong, and costly wine was
now adulterated with water (lit. castratum, according to Plinys expression in
the Natural History: compare the Horatian phrase, jugulare Falernum), and
therefore its strength and odour were weakened, and its worth was diminished.
The present was nothing but the dross and shadow of the past.

Isa. 1:23. In v. 23 the prophet says this without a figure:

Thy rulers are rebellious, and companions of thieves; every one loveth presents,
and hunteth after payment; the orphan they right not, and the cause of the widow
has no access to them.

In two words the prophet depicts the contemptible baseness of the national
rulers (sarim). He describes first of all their baseness in relation to God, with
the alliterative sorerim: rebellious, refractory; and then, in relation to men,
companions of thieves, inasmuch as they allowed themselves to be bribed by
presents of stolen goods to acts of injustice towards those who had been
robbed. They not only willingly accepted such bribes, and that not merely a few
of them, but every individual belonging to the rank of princes (cullo, equivalent
to haccol, the whole: every one loveth gifts); but they went eagerly in pursuit of

them (rodeph). It was not peace ( shalom) that they hunted after (Psa. 34:16),
but shalmonim, things that would pacify their avarice; not what was good, but
compensation for their partiality. This was the existing state of Jerusalem,
and therefore it would hardly be likely to take the way of mercy opened before
it in v. 18; consequently Jehovah would avail himself of other means of setting
it right:

Isa. 1:24.
Therefore, saying of the Lord, of Jehovah of hosts, of the Strong One of Israel: Ah!
I will relieve myself on mine adversaries, and will avenge myself upon mine
enemies.

Salvation through judgment was the only means of improvement and

preservation left to the congregation, which called itself by the name of
Jerusalem. Jehovah would therefore afford satisfaction to His holiness, and
administer a judicial sifting to Jerusalem. There is no other passage in Isaiah in
which we meet with such a crowding together of different names of God as we
do here (compare Isa. 19: 4; 3: 1; 10:16, 33; 3:15). With three names,
descriptive of the irresistible omnipotence of God, the irrevocable decree of a
sifting judgment is sealed. The word JUNi, which is used here instead of RMJF
and points back to a verb JNF, related to HANF and HMFH,F corresponds to the
deep, earnest pathos of the words. These verbs, which are imitations of sounds,
all denote a dull hollow groaning. The word used here, therefore, signifies that
which is spoken with significant secrecy and solemn softness. It is never written
absolutely, but is always followed by the subject who speaks (saying of Jehovah
it is, i.e., Jehovah says). We meet with it first of all in Gen. 22:16. In the
prophetic writings it occurs in Obadiah and Joel, but most frequently in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is generally written at the close of the sentence, or
parenthetically in the middle; very rarely at the commencement, as it is here and
in 1Sa. 2:30 and Psa. 110: 1. The saying commences with hoi (ah!), the
painfulness of pity being mingled with the determined outbreak of wrath. By the
side of the niphal nikkam min (to be revenged upon a person) we find the niphal
nicham (lit. to console ones self). The two words are derived from kindred
roots. The latter is conjugated with e in the preformative syllable, the former
with i, according to the older system of vowel-pointing adopted in the East. f17
Jehovah would procure Himself relief from His enemies by letting out upon
them the wrath with which He had hitherto been burdened (Eze. 5:13). He now
calls the masses of Jerusalem by their right name.

Isa. 1:25. V. 25 states clearly in what the revenge consisted with which
Jehovah was inwardly burdened (innakmah, a cohortative with the ah,
indicating internal oppression):

And I will bring my hand over thee, and will smelt out thy dross as with alkali, and
will clear away all thy lead.

As long as God leaves a persons actions or sufferings alone, His hand, i.e., His
acting, is at rest. Bringing the hand over a person signifies a movement of the
hand, which has been hitherto at rest, either for the purpose of inflicting judicial
punishment upon the person named (Amo. 1: 8; Jer. 6: 9; Eze. 38:12;
Psa. 81:15), or else, though this is seldom the case, for the purpose of saving
him (Zec. 13: 7). The reference here is to the divine treatment of Jerusalem, in
which punishment and salvation were combined punishment as the means,
salvation as the end. The interposition of Jehovah was, as it were, a smelting,
which would sweep away, not indeed Jerusalem itself, but the ungodly in
Jerusalem. They are compared to dross, or (as the verb seems to imply) to ore
mixed with dross, and, inasmuch as lead is thrown off in the smelting of silver,
to such ingredients of lead as Jehovah would speedily and thoroughly remove,
like alkali, i.e., as if with alkali (cabbor, comparatio decurtata, for
cbabbor: for this mode of dropping Beth after Caph, compare Isa. 9: 3,
Lev. 22:13, and many other passages). By bedilim (from badal, to separate) we
are to understand the several pieces of stannum or lead f18 in which the silver is
contained, and which are separated by smelting, all the baser metals being
distinguished from the purer kinds by the fact that they are combustible (i.e.,
can be oxidized). Both bor, or potash (an alkali obtained from land-plants), and
nether, natron (i.e., soda, or natron obtained from the ashes of marine plants,
which is also met with in many mineral waters), have been employed from the
very earliest times to accelerate the process of smelting, for the purpose of
separating a metal from its ore.

Isa. 1:26. As the threat couched in the previous figure does not point to the
destruction, but simply to the smelting of Jerusalem, there is nothing strange in
the fact that in v. 26 it should pass over into a pure promise; the meltingly soft
and yearningly mournful termination of the clauses with ayich, the keynote of
the later songs of Zion, being still continued.
And I will bring back thy judges as in the olden time, and thy counsellors as in the
beginning; afterwards thou wilt be called city of righteousness, faithful citadel.

The threat itself was, indeed, relatively a promise, inasmuch as whatever could
stand the fire would survive the judgment; and the distinct object of this was to
bring back Jerusalem to the purer metal of its own true nature. But when that
had been accomplished, still more would follow. The indestructible kernel that
remained would be crystallized, since Jerusalem would receive back from
Jehovah the judges and counsellors which it had had in the olden flourishing
times of the monarchy, ever since it had become the city of David and of the
temple; not, indeed, the very same persons, but persons quite equal to them in

excellence. Under such God-given leaders Jerusalem would become what it had
once been, and what it ought to be. The names applied to the city indicate the
impression produced by the manifestation of its true nature. The second name is
written without the article, as in fact the word kiryah (city), with its massive,
definite sound, always is in Isaiah. Thus did Jehovah announce the way which it
had been irrevocably determined that He would take with Israel, as the only
way to salvation. Moreover, this was the fundamental principle of the
government of God, the law of Israels history.

Isa. 1:27. V. 27 presents it in a brief and concise form:

Sion will be redeemed through judgment , and her returning ones through
righteousness.

Mishpat and tzedakah are used elsewhere for divine gifts (Isa. 33: 5; 28: 6), for
such conduct as is pleasing to God (Isa. 1:21; 32:16), and for royal Messianic
virtues (Isa. 9: 6; 11: 3-5; 16: 5; 32: 1). Here, however, where we are helped by
the context, they are to be interpreted according to such parallel passages as
Isa. 4: 4; 5:16; 28:17, as signifying Gods right and righteousness in their
primarily judicious self-fulfilment. A judgment, on the part of God the righteous
One, would be the means by which Zion itself, so far as it had remained faithful
to Jehovah, and those who were converted in the midst of the judgment, would
be redeemed, a judgment upon sinners and sin, by which the power that had
held in bondage the divine nature of Zion, so far as it still continued to exist,
would be broken, and in consequence of which those who turned to Jehovah
would be incorporated into His true church. Whilst, therefore, God was
revealing Himself in His punitive righteousness; He was working out a
righteousness which would be bestowed as a gift of grace upon those who
escaped the former. The notion of righteousness is now following a New
Testament track. In front it has the fire of the law; behind, the love of the
gospel. Love is concealed behind the wrath, like the sun behind the thunderclouds. Zion, so far as it truly is or is becoming Zion, is redeemed, and none but
the ungodly are destroyed. But, as is added in the next verse, the latter takes
place without mercy.

Isa. 1:28.
And breaking up of the rebellious and sinners together; and those who forsake
Jehovah will perish.

The judicial side of the approaching act of redemption is here expressed in a

way that all can understand. The exclamatory substantive clause in the first half
of the verse is explained by a declaratory verbal clause in the second. The
rebellious were those who had both inwardly and outwardly broken away
from Jehovah; sinners, those who were living in open sins; and those who

forsake Jehovah, such as had become estranged from God in either of these
ways.

Isa. 1:29. Ver. 29 declares how Gods judgment of destruction would fall upon
all of these. The verse is introduced with an explanatory for (chi):
For they become ashamed of the terebinths, in which ye had your delight; and ye
must blush for the gardens, in which ye took pleasure.

The terebinths and gardens (the second word with the article, as in Hab. 3: 8,
first binharim, then banneharim) are not referred to as objects of luxury, as
Hitzig and Drechsler assume, but as unlawful places of worship and objects of
worship (see Deu. 16:21). They are both of them frequently mentioned by the
prophets in this sense (Isa. 57: 5; 65: 3; 66:17): chamor and bachar are also the
words commonly applied to an arbitrary choice of false gods (Isa. 44: 9; 41:24;
66: 3), and bosh min is the general phrase used to denote the shame which falls
upon idolaters, when the worthlessness of their idols becomes conspicuous
through their impotence. On the difference between bosh and chapher, see the
comm. on Psa. 35: 4. f19
The word elim is erroneously translated idols in the Septuagint and other
ancient versions. The feeling which led to this, however, was a correct one,
since the places of worship really stand for the idols worshipped in those places.
f20

The excited state of the prophet at the close of his prophecy is evinced by his
abrupt leap from an exclamation to a direct address (Ges. 137, Anm. 3).

Isa. 1:30. He still continues in the same excitement, piling a second

explanatory sentence upon the first, and commencing this also with for (chi);
and then, carried away by the association of ideas, he takes terebinths and
gardens as the future figures of the idolatrous people themselves.
For ye shall become like a terebinth with withered leaves, and like a garden that
hath no water.

Their prosperity is destroyed, so that they resemble a terebinth withered as to

its leaves, which in other cases are always green (nobeleth aleah, a genitives
connection according to Ges. 112, 2). Their sources of help are dried up, so
that they are like a garden without water, and therefore waste. In this withered
state terebinths and gardens, to which the idolatrous are compared, are easily
set on fire. All that is wanted is a spark to kindle them, when they are
immediately in flames.

Isa. 1:31. Ver. 31 shows in a third figure where this spark was to come from:

And the rich man becomes tow, and his work the spark; and they will both burn
together, and no one extinguishes them.

The form poalo suggests at first a participial meaning (its maker), but
SXFHE
would be a very unusual epithet to apply to an idol. Moreover, the figure itself
would be a distorted one, since the natural order would be, that the idol would
be the thing that kindled the fire, and the man the object to be set on fire, and
not the reverse. We therefore follow the LXX, Targ., and Vulg., with Gesenius
and other more recent grammarians, and adopt the rendering his work (opus
ejus). The forms
LfpF and
LfpO (cf., Isa. 52:14 and Jer. 22:13) are two
equally admissible changes of the ground-form
LiPF (
Lip)U . As v. 29 refers to
idolatrous worship, poalo (his work) is an idol, a god made by human hands
(cf., Isa. 2: 8; 37:19, etc.). The prosperous idolater, who could give gold and
silver for idolatrous images out of the abundance of his possessions (chason is
to be interpreted in accordance with Isa. 33: 6), becomes tow (talm. the refuse
of flax: the radical meaning is to shake out, viz., in combing), and the idol the
spark which sets this mass of fibre in flames, so that they are both irretrievably
consumed. For the fire of judgment, by which sinners are devoured, need not
come from without. Sin carries the fire of indignation within itself. And an idol
is, as it were, an idolaters sin embodied and exposed to the light of day.
The date of the composition of this first prophecy is a puzzle. Caspari
thoroughly investigated every imaginary possibility, and at last adopted the
conclusion that it dates from the time of Uzziah, inasmuch as vv. 7-9 do not
relate to an actual, but merely to an ideal, present. But notwithstanding all the
acuteness with which Caspari has worked out his view, it still remains a very
forced one. The oftener we return to the reading of this prophetic address, the
stronger is our impression that vv. 7-9 contain a description of the state of
things which really existed at the time when the words were spoken. There
were actually two devastations of the land of Judah which occurred during the
ministry of Isaiah, and in which Jerusalem was only spared by the miraculous
interposition of Jehovah: one under Ahaz in the year of the Syro-Ephraimitish
war; the other under Hezekiah, when the Assyrian forces laid the land waste but
were scattered at last in their attack upon Jerusalem. The year of the SyroEphraimitish war is supported by Gesenius, Rosenmller (who expresses a
different opinion in every one of the three editions of his Scholia), Maurer,
Movers, Knobel, Hvernick, and others; the time of the Assyrian oppression by
Hitzig, Umbreit, Drechsler, and Luzzatto. Now, whichever of these views we
may adopt, there will still remain, as a test of its admissiblity, the difficult
question, How did this prophecy come to stand at the head of the book, if it
belonged to the time of Uzziah-Jotham? This question, upon which the solution
of the difficulty depends, can only be settled when we come to Isa. 6. Till then,

the date of the composition of Isa. 1 must be left undecided. It is enough for the
present to know, that, according to the accounts given in the books of Kings
and Chronicles, there were two occasions when the situation of Jerusalem
resembled the one described in the present chapter.

The Way of General Judgment; or the Course of Israel from False

Glory to the True Ch. 2-4
Isa. 2: 1. The limits of this address are very obvious. The end of Isa. 4
connects itself with the beginning of Isa. 2, so as to form a circle. After various
alternations of admonition, reproach, and threatening, the prophet reaches at
last the object of the promise with which he started. Ch. 5, on the other hand,
commences afresh with a parable. It forms an independent address, although it
is included, along with the previous chapters, under the heading in Isa. 2: 1:
The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw over Judah and Jerusalem.

Ch. 2-5 may have existed under this heading before the whole collection arose.
It was then adopted in this form into the general collection, so as to mark the
transition from the prologue to the body of the book. The prophet describes
what he here says concerning Judah and Jerusalem as the word which he saw.
When men speak to one another, the words are not seen, but heard. But when
God spoke to the prophet, it was in a supersensuous way, and the prophet saw
it. The mind indeed has no more eyes than ears; but a mind qualified to perceive
what is supersensuous is altogether eye.
The manner in which Isaiah commences this second address is altogether
unparalleled. There is no other example of a prophecy beginning with HYFHFWi.
And it is very easy to discover the reason why. The praet. consecutivum
vhayah derives the force of a future from the context alone; whereas the fut.
consecutivum vayhi (with which historical books and sections very generally
commence) is shown to be an aorist by its simple form. Moreover, the Vav in
the fut. consecut. has almost entirely lost its copulative character; in the praet.
consec., on the other hand, it retains it with all the greater force. The prophet
therefore commences with and; and it is from what follows, not from what
goes before, that we learn that hayah is used in a future sense. But this is not
the only strange thing. It is also an unparalleled occurrence, for a prophetic
address, which runs as this does through all the different phases of the prophetic
discourses generally (viz., exhortation, reproof, threatening, and promise), to
commence with a promise. We are in a condition, however, to explain the cause
of this remarkable phenomenon with certainty, and not merely to resort to
conjecture. Vv. 2-4 do not contain Isaiahs own words, but the words of
another prophet taken out of their connection. We find them again in Mic. 4: 14; and whether Isaiah took them from Micah, or whether both Isaiah and Micah

took them from some common source, in either case they were not originally
Isaiahs. f21
Nor was it even intended that they should appear to be his. Isaiah has not fused
them into the general flow of his own prophecy, as the prophets usually do with
the predictions of their predecessors. He does not reproduce them, but, as we
may observe from the abrupt commencement, he quote them. It is true, this
hardly seems to tally with the heading, which describes what follows as the
word of Jehovah which Isaiah saw. But the discrepancy is only an apparent one.
It was the spirit of prophecy, which called to Isaiahs remembrance a prophetic
saying that had already been uttered, and made it the starting-point of the
thoughts which followed in Isaiahs mind. The borrowed promise is not
introduced for its own sake, but is simply a self-explaining introduction to the
exhortations and threatenings which follow, and through which the prophet
works his way to a conclusion of his own, that is closely intertwined with the
borrowed commencement.

Isa. 2: 2. The subject of the borrowed prophecy is Israels future glory:

And it cometh to pass at the end of the days, the mountain of the house of Jehovah
will be set at the top of the mountains, and exalted over hills; and all nations pour
unto it.

The expression the last days (acharith hayyamim, the end of the days),
which does not occur anywhere else in Isaiah, is always used in an
eschatological sense. It never refers to the course of history immediately
following the time being, but invariably indicates the furthest point in the history
of this life the point which lies on the outermost limits of the speakers
horizon. This horizon was a very fluctuating one. The history of prophecy is
just the history of its gradual extension, and of the filling up of the intermediate
space. In Jacobs blessing (Gen. 49) the conquest of the land stood in the
foreground of the acharith or last days, and the perspective was regulated
accordingly. But here in Isaiah the acharith contained no such mixing together
of events belonging to the more immediate and the most distant future. It was
therefore the last time in its most literal and purest sense, commencing with the
beginning of the New Testament aeon, and terminating at its close (compare
Heb. 1: 1, 1Pe. 1:20, with 1Co. 15 and the Revelation). The prophet here
predicted that the mountain which bore the temple of Jehovah, and therefore
was already in dignity the most exalted of all mountains, would. one day tower
in actual height above all the high places of the earth. The basaltic mountains of
Bashan, which rose up in bold peaks and columns, might now look down with
scorn and contempt upon the small limestone hill which Jehovah had chosen
(Psa. 68:16, 17); but this was an incongruity which the last times would
remove, by making the outward correspond to the inward, the appearance to

the reality and the intrinsic worth. That this is the prophets meaning is
confirmed by Eze. 40: 2, where the temple mountain looks gigantic to the
prophet, and also by Zec. 14:10, where all Jerusalem is described as towering
above the country round about, which would one day become a plain. The
question how this can possibly take place in time, since it presupposes a
complete subversion of the whole of the existing order of the earths surface, is
easily answered. The prophet saw the new Jerusalem of the last days on this
side, and the new Jerusalem of the new earth on the other (Rev. 21:10), blended
as it were together, and did not distinguish the one from the other. But whilst
we thus avoid all unwarrantable spiritualizing, it still remains a question what
meaning the prophet attached to the word brosh (at the top). Did he mean
that Moriah would one day stand upon the top of the mountains that
surrounded it (as in Psa. 72:16), or that it would stand at their head (as in
1Ki. 21: 9, 12, Amo. 6: 7, Jer. 31: 7)? The former is Hofmanns view, as given
in his Weissagung und Erfllung, ii. 217: he did not indeed mean that the
mountains would be piled up one upon the other, and the temple mountain upon
the top, but that the temple mountain would appear to float upon the summit of
the others. But as the expression will be set (nacon) does not favour this
apparently romantic exaltation, and brosh occurs more frequently in the sense
of at the head than in that of on the top, I decide for my own part in
favour of the second view, though I agree so far with Hofmann, that it is not
merely an exaltation of the temple mountain in the estimation of the nations that
is predicted, but a physical and external elevation also. And when thus
outwardly exalted, the divinely chosen mountain would become the rendezvous
and centre of unity for all nations. They would all flow unto it (nahar, a
denom. verb, from nahar, a river, as in Jer. 51:44; 31:12). It is the temple of
Jehovah which, being thus rendered visible to nations afar off, exerts such
magnetic attraction, and with such success. Just as at a former period men had
been separated and estranged from one another in the plain of Shinar, and thus
different nations had first arisen; so would the nations at a future period
assemble together on the mountain of the house of Jehovah, and there, as
members of one family, live together in amity again. And as Babel (confusion,
as its name signifies) was the place whence the stream of nations poured into all
the world; so would Jerusalem (the city of peace) become the place into which
the stream of nations would empty itself, and where all would be reunited once
more. At the present time there was only one people, viz., Israel, which made
pilgrimages to Zion on the great festivals, but it would be very different then.

Isa. 2: 3.
And peoples in multitude go and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of
Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; let Him instruct us out of His ways, and
we will walk in His paths.

This is their signal for starting, and their song by the way (cf., Zec. 8:21, 22).
What urges them on is the desire for salvation. Desire for salvation expresses
itself in the name they give to the point towards which they are travelling: they
call Moriah the mountain of Jehovah, and the temple upon it the house of
the God of Jacob. Through frequent use, Israel had become the popular name
for the people of God; but the name they employ is the choicer name Jacob,
which is the name of affection in the mouth of Micah, of whose style we are
also reminded by the expression many peoples (ammim rabbim). Desire for
salvation expresses itself in the object of their journey; they wish Jehovah to
teach them out of His ways, a rich source of instruction with which they
desire to be gradually entrusted. The preposition min (out of, or from) is not
partitive here, but refers, as in Psa. 94:12, to the source of instruction. The
ways of Jehovah are the ways which God Himself takes, and by which men
are led by Him the revealed ordinances of His will and action. Desire for
salvation also expresses itself in the resolution with which they set out: they not
only wish to learn, but are resolved to act according to what they learn. We
will walk in His paths: the hortative is used here, as it frequently is (e.g.,
Gen. 27: 4, vid., Ges. 128, 1, c), to express either the subjective intention or
subjective conclusion. The words supposed to be spoken by the multitude of
heathen going up to Zion terminate here. The prophet then adds the reason and
object of this holy pilgrimage of the nations: For instruction will go out from
Zion, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. The principal emphasis is
upon the expressions from Zion and from Jerusalem. It is a triumphant
utterance of the sentiment that salvation is of the Jews (Joh. 4:22). From
Zion-Jerusalem there would go forth thorah, i.e., instruction as to the questions
which man has to put to God, and debar Jehovah, the word of Jehovah, which
created the world at first, and by which it is spiritually created anew. Whatever
promotes the true prosperity of the nations, comes from Zion-Jerusalem. There
the nations assemble together; they take it thence to their own homes, and thus
Zion-Jerusalem becomes the fountain of universal good. For from the time that
Jehovah made choice of Zion, the holiness of Sinai was transferred to Zion
(Psa. 68:17), which now presented the same aspect as Sinai had formerly done,
when God invested it with holiness by appearing there in the midst of myriads
of angels. What had been commenced at Sinai for Israel, would be completed at
Zion for all the world. This was fulfilled on that day of Pentecost, when the
disciples, the first-fruits of the church of Christ, proclaimed the thorah of Zion,
i.e., the gospel, in the languages of all the world. It was fulfilled, as Theodoret
observes, in the fact that the word of the gospel, rising from Jerusalem as from
a fountain, flowed through the whole of the known world. But these
fulfilments were only preludes to a conclusion which is still to be looked for in
the future. For what is promised in the following verse is still altogether
unfulfilled.

Isa. 2: 4.
And He will judge between the nations, and deliver justice to many peoples; and
they forge their swords into coulters, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation
lifts not up the sword against nation, neither do they exercise themselves in war any
more.

Since the nations betake themselves in this manner as pupils to the God of
revelation and the word of His revelation, He becomes the supreme judge and
umpire among them. If any dispute arise, it is no longer settled by the
compulsory force of war, but by the word of God, to which all bow with willing
submission. With such power as this in the peace-sustaining word of God
(Zec. 9:10), there is no more need for weapons of iron: they are turned into the
instruments of peaceful employment, into ittim (probably a synonym for ethim
in 1Sa. 13:21), plough-knives or coulters, which cut the furrows for the
ploughshare to turn up and mazmeroth, bills or pruning-hooks, with which
vines are pruned to increase their fruit-bearing power. There is also no more
need for military practice, for there is no use in exercising ones self in what
cannot be applied. It is useless, and men dislike it. There is peace, not an armed
peace, but a full, true, God-given and blessed peace. What even a Kant
regarded as possible is now realized, and that not by the so-called Christian
powers, but by the power of God, who favours the object for which an Elihu
Burritt enthusiastically longs, rather than the politics of the Christian powers. It
is in war that the power of the beast culminates in the history of the world. This
beast will then be destroyed. The true humanity which sin has choked up will
gain the mastery, and the worlds history will keep Sabbath. And may we not
indulge the hope, on the ground of such prophetic words as these, that the
history of the world will not terminate without having kept a Sabbath? Shall we
correct Isaiah, according to Quenstedt, lest we should become chiliasts? The
humanitarian ideas of Christendom, says a thoughtful Jewish scholar, have
their roots in the Pentateuch, and more especially in Deuteronomy. But in the
prophets, particularly in Isaiah, they reach a height which will probably not be
attained and fully realized by the modern world for centuries to come. Yet they
will be realized. What the prophetic words appropriated by Isaiah here affirm, is
a moral postulate, the goal of sacred history, the predicted counsel of God.

Isa. 2: 5. Isaiah presents himself to his contemporaries with this older prophecy
of the exalted and world-wide calling of the people of Jehovah, holds it up
before them as a mirror, and exclaims in v. 5,
O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of Jehovah.

This exhortation is formed under the influence of the context, from which vv. 24 are taken, as we may see from Mic. 4: 5, and also of the quotation itself. The
use of the term Jacob instead of Israel is not indeed altogether strange to Isaiah

(Isa. 8:17; 10:20, 21; 29:23), but he prefers the use of Israel (compare Isa. 1:24
with Gen. 49:24). With the words O house of Jacob he now turns to his
people, whom so glorious a future awaits, because Jehovah has made it the
scene of His manifested presence and grace, and summons it to walk in the light
of such a God, to whom all nations will press at the end of the days. The
summons, Come, let us walk, is the echo of v. 3, Come, let us go; and as
Hitzig observes, Isaiah endeavours, like Paul in Rom. 11:14, to stir up his
countrymen to a noble jealousy, by setting before them the example of the
heathen. The light of Jehovah (or Jehovah, in which the echo of vyorenu in
v. 3 is hardly accidental; cf., Pro. 6:23) is the knowledge of Jehovah Himself, as
furnished by means of positive revelation, His manifested love. It was now high
time to walk in the light of Jehovah, i.e., to turn this knowledge into life, and
reciprocate this love; and it was especially necessary to exhort Israel to this,
now that Jehovah had given up His people, just because in their perverseness
they had done the very opposite. This mournful declaration, which the prophet
was obliged to make in order to explain his warning cry, he changes into the
form of a prayerful sigh.

Isa. 2: 6.
For Thou hast rejected Thy people , the house of Jacob; for they are filled with
things from the east, and are conjurors like the Philistines; and with the children of
foreigners they go hand in hand.

Here again we have for (chi) twice in succession; the first giving the reason
for the warning cry, the second vindicating the reason assigned. The words are
addressed to Jehovah, not to the people. Saad., Gecatilia, and Rashi adopt the
rendering, Thou has given up thy nationality; and this rendering is supported
by J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, and Luzzatto. But the word means people, not
nationality; and the rendering is inadmissible, and would never have been
thought of were it not that there was apparently something strange in so sudden
an introduction of an address to God. But in Isa. 2: 9; 9: 2, and other passages,
the prophecy takes the form of a prayer. And natash (cast off) with am (people)
for its object recals such passages as Psa. 94:14 and 1Sa. 12:22. Jehovah had
put away His people, i.e., rejected them, and left them to themselves, for the
following reasons:
(1.) Because they were full from the east (mikkedem: min denotes the source
from which a person draws and fills himself, Jer. 51:34, Eze. 32: 6), i.e., full of
eastern manners and customs, more especially of idolatrous practices. By the
east (kedem) we are to understand Arabia as far as the peninsula of Sinai, and
also the Aramaean lands of the Euphrates. Under Uzziah and Jotham, whose
sway extended to Elath, the seaport town of the Elanitic Gulf, the influence of
the south-east predominated; but under Ahaz and Hezekiah, on account of their

relations to Asshur, Aram, and Babylon, that of the north-east. The conjecture
of Gesenius, that we should read mikkesem, i.e., of soothsaying, it a very
natural one; but it obliterates without any necessity the name of the region from
which Judahs imitative propensities received their impulse and materials.
(2.) They were onenim (= meonenim, Mic. 5:11, from the poel onen:
2Ki. 21: 6), probably cloud-gatherers or storm-raisers, f22 like the
Philistines (the people conquered by Uzziah, and then again by Hezekiah),
among whom witchcraft was carried on in guilds, whilst a celebrated oracle of
Baal-Zebub existed at Ekron.
(3.) And they make common cause with children of foreigners. This is the
explanation adopted by Gesenius, Knobel, and others. Saphak with cappaim
signifies to clap hands (Job. 27:23). The hiphil followed by Beth is only used
here in the sense of striking hands with a person. Luzzatto explains it as
meaning, They find satisfaction in the children of foreigners; it is only through
them that they are contented; but this is contrary to the usage of the language,
according to which hispik in post-biblical Hebrew signifies either suppeditare or
(like saphak in 1Ki. 20:10) sufficere. Jerome renders it pueris alienis
adhaeserunt; but yalde nacrim does not mean pueri alieni, boys hired for
licentious purposes, but the sons of strangers generally (Isa. 60:10; 61: 5),
with a strong emphasis upon their unsanctified birth, the heathenism inherited
from their mothers womb. With heathen by birth, the prophet would say, the
people of Jehovah made common cause.

Isa. 2: 7, 8. In vv. 7, 8 he describes still further how the land of the people of
Jehovah, in consequence of all this (on the future consec. see Ges. 129, 2, a),
was crammed full of objects of luxury, of self-confidence, of estrangement from
God:
And their land is filled with silver and gold, and there is no end of their treasures;
and their land is filled with horses, and there is no end of their chariots. And their
land is filled with idols; the work of their own hands they worship, that which
their own fingers have made.

The glory of Solomon, which revived under Uzziahs fifty-two years reign, and
was sustained through Jothams reign of sixteen years, carried with it the curse
of the law; for the law of the king, in Deu. 17:14ff., prohibited the multiplying
of horses, and also the accumulation of gold and silver. Standing armies, and
stores of national treasures, like everything else which ministers to carnal selfreliance, were opposed to the spirit of the theocracy. Nevertheless Judaea was
immeasurably full of such seductions to apostasy; and not of those alone, but
also of things which plainly revealed it, viz., of elilim, idols (the same word is
used in Lev. 19: 4; 26: 1, from elil, vain or worthless; it is therefore equivalent

to not-gods). They worshipped the work of their own hands, what their
own fingers had made: two distributive singulars, as in Isa. 5:23, the hands and
fingers of every individual (vid., Mic. 5:12, 13, where the idols are classified).
The condition of the land, therefore, was not only opposed to the law of the
king, but at variance with the decalogue also. The existing glory was the most
offensive caricature of the glory promised to the nation; for the people, whose
God was one day to become the desire and salvation of all nations, had
exchanged Him for the idols of the nations, and was vying with them in the
appropriation of heathen religion and customs.

Isa. 2: 9-11. It was a state ripe for judgment, from which, therefore, the
prophet could at once proceed, without any further preparation, to the
proclamation of judgment itself. V. 9.
Thus, then, men are bowed down, and lords are brought low; and forgive them
no, that Thou wilt not.

The consecutive futures depict the judgment, as one which would follow by
inward necessity from the worldly and ungodly glory of the existing state of
things. The future is frequently used in this way (for example, in Isa. 9: 7ff.). It
was a judgment by which small and great, i.e., the people in all its classes, were
brought down from their false eminence. Men and lords (adam and ish, as
in Isa. 5:15, Psa. 49: 3, and Pro. 8: 4, and like anqrwpoj and anhr in the Attic
dialect), i.e., men who were lost in the crowd, and men who rose above it,
all of them the judgment would throw down to the ground, and that without
mercy (Rev. 6:15). The prophet expresses the conviction (al as in 2Ki. 6:27),
that on this occasion God neither could nor would take away the sin by
forgiving it. There was nothing left for them, therefore, but to carry out the
command of the prophet in v. 10:
Creep into the rock, and bury thyself in the dust, before the terrible look of
Jehovah, and before the glory of His majesty.

The glorious nation would hide itself most ignominiously, when the only true
glory of Jehovah, which had been rejected by it, was manifested in judgment.
They would conceal themselves in holes of the rocks, as if before a hostile army
(Jud. 6: 2; 1Sa. 13: 6; 14:11), and bury themselves with their faces in the sand,
as if before the fatal simoom of the desert, that they might not have to bear this
intolerable sight. And when Jehovah manifested Himself in this way in the fiery
glance of judgment, the result summed up in v. 11 must follow:
The peoples eyes of haughtiness are humbled, and the pride of their lords is
bowed down; and Jehovah, He only, stands exalted in that day.

The result of the process of judgment is expressed in perfects: nisgab is the

third pers. praet., not the participle: Jehovah is exalted, i.e., shows Himself as

exalted, whilst the haughty conduct of the people is brought down (shaphel is a
verb, not an adjective; it is construed in the singular by attraction, and either
refers to adam, man or people: Ges. 148, 1; or what is more probable, to the
logical unity of the compound notion which is taken as subject, the constr. ad
synesin s. sensum: Thiersch, 118), and the pride of the lords is bowed down
(shach = shachach, Job. 9:13). The first strophe of the proclamation of
judgment appended to the prophetic saying in vv. 2-4 is here brought to a close.
The second strophe reaches to v. 17, where v. 11 is repeated as a concluding
verse.

Isa. 2:12. The expression that day suggests the inquiry, What day is referred
to? The prophet answers this question in the second strophe.
V. 12. For Jehovah of hosts hath a day over everything towering and lofty, and
over everything exalted; and it becomes low.

Jehovah hath a day (yom layehovah), lit., there is to Jehovah a day, which
already exists as a finished divine thought in that wisdom by which the course of
history is guided (Isa. 37:26, cf., 22:11), the secret of which He revealed to the
prophets, who from the time of Obadiah and Joel downwards proclaimed that
day with one uniform watchword. But when the time appointed for that day
should arrive, it would pass out of the secret of eternity into the history of time,
a day of world-wide judgment, which would pass, through the omnipotence
with which Jehovah rules over the hither as well as lower spheres of the whole
creation, upon all worldly glory, and it would be brought low (shaphel). The
current accentuation of v. 12b is wrong; correct MSS have Lwith mercha,
JVNLK with tifcha. The word vshaphel (third pers. praet. with the rootvowel e) acquires the force of a future, although no grammatical future
precedes it, from the future character of the day itself: and it will sink down
(Ges. 126, 4).

Isa. 2:13, 14. The prophet then proceeds to enumerate all the high things upon
which that day would fall, arranging them two and two, and binding them in
pairs by a double correlative Vav. The day of Jehovah comes, as the first two
pairs affirm, upon everything lofty in nature. Vv. 13, 14.
As upon all the cedars of Lebanon, the lofty and exalted, so upon all the oaks of
Bashan. As upon all mountains, the lofty ones, so upon all hills the exalted ones.

But wherefore upon all this majestic beauty of nature? Is all this merely
figurative? Knobel regards it as merely a figurative description of the grand
buildings of the time of Uzziah and Jotham, in the erection of which wood had
been used from Lebanon as well as from Bashan, on the western slopes of
which the old shady oaks (sindian and ballut) are flourishing still. f23

But the idea that trees can be used to signify the houses built with the good
obtained from them, is one that cannot be sustained from Isa. 9: 9 (10), where
the reference is not to houses built of sycamore and cedar wood, but to trunks
of trees of the king mentioned; nor even from Nah. 2: 4 (3), where
habberoshim refers to the fir lances which are brandished about in haughty
thirst for battle. So again mountains and hills cannot denote the castles and
fortifications built upon them, more especially as these are expressly mentioned
in v. 15 in the most literal terms. In order to understand the prophet, we must
bear in mind what the Scriptures invariably assume, from their first chapter to
the very close, namely, that the totality of nature is bound up with man in one
common history; that man and the totality of nature are inseparably connected
together as centre and circumference; that this circumference is affected by the
sin which proceeds from man, as well as by the anger or the mercy which
proceeds from God to man; that the judgments of God, as the history of the
nations proves, involve in fellow-suffering even that part of the creation which
is not free; and that this participation in the corruption (phthora) and glory
(doxa) of humanity will come out with peculiar distinctness and force at the
close of the worlds history, in a manner corresponding to the commencement;
and lastly, that the world in its present condition needs a palingenesia, or
regeneration, quite as much as the corporeal nature of man, before it can
become an object of good pleasure on the part of God. We cannot be surprised,
therefore, that, in accordance with this fundamental view of the Scriptures,
when the judgment of God fell upon Israel, it should also be described as going
down to the land of Israel, and as overthrowing not only the false glory of the
nation itself, but everything glorious in the surrounding nature, which had been
made to minister to its national pride and love of show, and to which its sin
adhered in many different ways. What the prophet foretold began to be fulfilled
even in the Assyrian wars. The cedar woods of Lebanon were unsparingly
destroyed; the heights and valleys of the land were trodden down and laid
waste; and, in the period of the great empires which commenced with Tiglathpileser, the Holy Land was reduced to a shadow of its former promised beauty.

Isa. 2:15, 16. The glory of nature is followed by what is lofty and glorious in
the world of men, such as magnificent fortifications, grand commercial
buildings, and treasures which minister to the lust of the eye.
Vv. 15, 16. As upon every high tower, so upon every fortified wall. As upon all
ships of Tarshish, so upon all works of curiosity.

It was by erecting fortifications for offence and defence, both lofty and steep
(bazur, praeruptus, from bazar, abrumpere, secernere), that Uzziah and Jotham
especially endeavoured to serve Jerusalem and the land at large. The chronicler
relates, with reference to Uzziah, in 2Ch. 26, that he built strong towers above

the corner-gate, the valley-gate, and the southern point of the cheesemakers
hollow, and fortified these places, which had probably been till that time the
weakest points in Jerusalem; also that he built towers in the desert (probably in
the desert between Beersheba and Gaza, to increase the safety of the land, and
the numerous flocks which were pastured in the shephelah, i.e., the western
portion of southern Palestine). With regard to Jotham, it is related in both the
book of Kings (2Ki. 15:32ff.) and the Chronicles, that he built the upper gate of
the temple; and in the Chronicles (2Ch. 27) that he fortified the Ofel, i.e., the
southern spur of the temple hill, still more strongly, and built cities on the
mountains of Judah, and erected castles and towers in the forests (to watch for
hostile attacks and ward them off). Hezekiah also distinguished himself by
building enterprises of this kind (2Ch. 32:27-30). But the allusion to the ships of
Tarshish takes us to the times of Uzziah and Jotham, and not to those of
Hezekiah (as Psa. 48: 7 does to the time of Jehoshaphat); for the seaport town
of Elath, which was recovered by Uzziah, was lost again to the kingdom of
Judah during the reign of Ahaz. Jewish ships sailed from this Elath (Ailath)
through the Red Sea and round the coast of Africa to the harbour of Tartessus,
the ancient Phoenician emporium of the maritime region watered by the Baetis
(Guadalquivir), which abounded in silver, and then returned through the Pillars
of Hercules (the Straits of Gibraltar: vid., Duncker, Gesch. i. 312-315). It was
to these Tartessus vessels that the expression ships of Tarshish primarily
referred, though it was afterwards probably applied to mercantile ships in
general. The following expression, works of curiosity (sechiyyoth
hachemdah), is taken in far too restricted a sense by those who limit it, as the
LXX have done, to the ships already spoken of, or understand it, as Gesenius
does, as referring to beautiful flags. Jeromes rendering is correct: et super
omne quod visu pulcrum est (and upon everything beautiful to look at);
seciyyah, from sacah, to look (see Job, p. 468), is sight generally. The reference
therefore is to all kinds of works of art, whether in sculpture or paintings
(mascith is used of both), which delighted the observer by their imposing,
tasteful appearance. Possibly, however, there is a more especial reference to
curiosities of art and nature, which were brought by the trading vessels from
foreign lands.

Isa. 2:17. Ver. 17 closes the second strophe of the proclamation of judgment
appended to the earlier prophetic word:
And the haughtiness of the people is bowed down, and the pride of the lords
brought low; and Jehovah, He alone, stands exalted on that day.

The closing refrain only varies a little from v. 11. The subjects of the verbs are
transposed. With a feminine noun denoting a thing, it is almost a rule that the
predicate shall be placed before it in masculine (Ges. 147, a).

Isa. 2:18. The closing refrain of the next two strophes is based upon the
concluding clause of v. 10. The proclamation of judgment turns now to the
elilim, which, as being at the root of all the evil, occupied the lowest place in
the things of which the land was full (vv. 7, 8). In a short verse of one clause
consisting of only three words, their future is declared as it were with a
lightning-flash. V. 18. And the idols utterly pass away. The translation shows
the shortness of the verse, but not the significant synallage numeri. The idols
are one and all a mass of nothingness, which will be reduced to absolute
annihilation: they will vanish calil, i.e., either they will utterly perish (funditus
peribunt), or, as calil is not used adverbially in any other passage, they will all
perish (tota peribunt, Jud. 20:40) their images, their worship, even their
names and their memory (Zec. 13: 2).

Isa. 2:19. What the idolaters themselves will do when Jehovah has so
completely deprived their idols of all their divinity, is then described in v. 19:
And they will creep into caves in the rocks, and cellars in the earth, before the
terrible look of Jehovah, and before the glory of His majesty, when He ariseth to put
the earth in terror.

Mearah is a natural cave, and mechillah a subterraneous excavation: this is

apparently the distinction between the two synonyms. To put the earth in
terror: laarotz ha-aretz, a significant paronomasia, which can be reproduced in
Latin, thus: ut terreat terram. Thus the judgment would fall upon the earth
without any limitation, upon men universally (compare the word ha-adam in v.
20, which is scarcely ever applied to a single individual (Jos. 14:15), excepting,
of course, the first man, but generally to men, or to the human race) and upon
the totality of nature as interwoven in the history of man one complete
whole, in which sin, and therefore wrath, had gained the upper hand. When
Jehovah rose up, i.e., stood up from His heavenly throne, to reveal the glory
manifested in heaven, and turn its judicial fiery side towards the sinful earth, the
earth would receive such a shock as would throw it into a state resembling the
chaos of the beginning. We may see very clearly from Rev. 6:15, where this
description is borrowed, that the prophet is here describing the last judgment,
although from a national point of view and bounded by a national horizon.

Isa. 2:20. Ver. 20 forms the commencement to the fourth strophe:

In that day will a man cast away his idols of gold and his idols of silver, which
they made for him to worship, to the moles and to the bats.

The traditional text separates lachpor peroth into two words, f24 though without
its being possible to discover what they are supposed to mean. The reason for
the separation was simply the fact that plurilitera were at one time altogether
misunderstood and regarded as composita: for other plurilitera, written as two

words, compare Isa. 61: 1, Hos. 4:18, Jer. 46:20. The prophet certainly
pronounced the word lachparparoth (Ewald, 157, c); and chapharparah is
apparently a mole (lit. thrower up of the soil), talpa, as it is rendered by Jerome
and interpreted by Rashi. Gesenius and Knobel, however, have raised this
objection, that the mole is never found in houses. But are we necessarily to
assume that they would throw their idols into lumber-rooms, and not hide them
in holes and crevices out of doors? The mole, the shrew-mouse, and the bat,
whose name (atalleph) is regarded by Schultens as a compound word (atal-eph,
night-bird), are generically related, according to both ancient and modern
naturalists. Bats are to birds what moles are to the smaller beasts of prey (vid.,
Levysohn, Zoologie des Talmud, p. 102). The LXX combine with these two
words lhishtachavoth (to worship). Malbim and Luzzatto adopt this rendering,
and understand the words to mean that they would sink down to the most
absurd descriptions of animal worship. But the accentuation, which does not
divide the verse at
LwVF, as we should expect if this were the meaning, is
based upon the correct interpretation. The idolaters, convinced of the
worthlessness of their idols through the judicial interposition of God, and
enraged at the disastrous manner in which they had been deceived, would throw
away with curses the images of gold and silver which artists hands had made
according to their instructions, and hide them in the holes of bats and in molehills, to conceal them from the eyes of the Judge, and then take refuge there
themselves after ridding themselves of this useless and damnable burden.

Isa. 2:21, 22.

To creep into the cavities of the stone-blocks, and into the clefts of the rocks,
before the terrible look of Jehovah, and before the glory of His majesty, when He
arises to put the earth in terror.

Thus ends the fourth strophe of this dies irae, dies illa, which is appended to
the earlier prophetic word. But there follows, as an epiphonem, this nota bene
in v. 22:
Oh, then, let man go, in whose nose is a breath; for what is he estimated at?

The Septuagint leaves this verse out altogether. But was it so utterly
unintelligible then? Jerome adopted a false pointing, and has therefore given this
marvellous rendering: excelsus (bamah!) reputatus est ipse, by which Luther
was apparently misled. But if we look backwards and forwards, it is impossible
to mistake the meaning of the verse, which must be regarded not only as the
resultant of what precedes it, but also as the transition to what follows. It is
preceded by the prediction of the utter demolition of everything which ministers
to the pride and vain confidence of men; and in Isa. 3: 1ff. the same prediction
is resumed, with a more special reference to the Jewish state, from which

Jehovah is about to take away every prop, so that it shall utterly collapse.
Accordingly the prophet exhorts, in v. 22, to a renunciation of trust in man, and
everything belonging to him, just as in Psa. 118: 8, 9; 146: 3, and Jer. 17: 5.
The construction is as general as that of a gnome. The dat. commodi KELF (Ges.
154, 3, e) renders the exhortation both friendly and urgent: from regard to
yourselves, for your own good, for your own salvation, desist from man, i.e.,
from your confidence in him, in whose nose (in cujus naso, the singular, as in
Job. 27: 3; whereas the plural is used in Gen. 2: 7 in the same sense, in nares
ejus, into his nostrils) is a breath, a breath of life, which God gave to him, and
can take back as soon as He will (Job. 34:14; Psa. 104:29). Upon the breath,
which passes out and in through his nose, his whole earthly existence is
suspended; and this, when once lost, is gone for ever (Job. 7: 7). It is upon this
breath, therefore, that all the confidence placed in man must rest, a bad soil
and foundation! Under these conditions, and with this liability to perish in a
moment, the worth of man as a ground of confidence is really nothing. This
thought is expressed here in the form of a question: At (for) what is he
estimated, or to be estimated? The passive participle nechshab combines with
the idea of the actual (aestimatus) that of the necessary (aestimandus), and also
of the possible or suitable (aestimabilis); and that all the more because the
Semitic languages have no special forms for the latter notions. The Beth is Beth
pretii, corresponding to the Latin genitive (quanti) or ablative (quanto), a
modification of the Beth instrumenti, the price being regarded as the medium of
exchange or purchase: at what is he estimated, not with what is he compared,
which would be expressed by eth (Isa. 53:12; compare meta, Luke 22:37) or
im (Psa. 88: 5). The word is HmEb, not HMEb,I because this looser form is only
found in cases where a relative clause follows (eo quod, Ecc. 3:22), and not
bammah, because this termination with a is used exclusively where the next
word begins with Aleph, or where it is a pausal word (as in 1Ki. 22:21); in
every other case we have bammeh. The question introduced with this quanto
(quanti), at what, cannot be answered by any positive definition of value. The
worth of man, regarded in himself, and altogether apart from God, is really
nothing.
The proclamation of judgment pauses at this porisma, but only for the purpose
of gathering fresh strength. The prophet has foretold in four strophes the
judgment of God upon every exalted thing in the kosmos that has fallen away
from communion with God, just as Amos commences his book with a round of
judgments, which are uttered in seven strophes of uniform scope, bursting like
seven thunder-claps upon the nations of the existing stage of history. The
seventh stroke falls upon Judah, over which the thunderstorm rests after finding
such abundant booty. And in the same manner Isaiah, in the instance before us,
reduces the universal proclamation of judgment to one more especially affecting

Judah and Jerusalem. The current of the address breaks through the bounds of
the strophe; and the exhortation in Isa. 2:22 not to trust in man, the reason for
which is assigned in what precedes, also forms a transition from the universal
proclamation of judgment to the more special one in Isa. 3: 1, where the
prophet assigns a fresh ground for the exhortation:

Isa. 3: 1.
For, behold, the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, takes away from Jerusalem and from
Judah supporter and means of support, every support of bread and every support of
water.

The divine name given here, The Lord, Jehovah of hosts, with which Isaiah
everywhere introduces the judicial acts of God (cf., Isa. 1:24; 10:16, 33; 19: 4),
is a proof that the proclamation of judgment commences afresh here. Trusting
in man was the crying sin, more especially of the times of Uzziah-Jotham. The
glory of the kingdom at that time carried the wrath of Jehovah within it. The
outbreak of that wrath commenced in the time of Ahaz; and even under
Hezekiah it was merely suspended, not changed. Isaiah foretells this outbreak of
wrath. He describes how Jehovah will lay the Jewish state in ruins, by taking
away the main supports of its existence and growth. Supporter and means of
support (mashen and mashenah) express, first of all, the general idea. The
two nouns, which are only the masculine and feminine forms of one and the
same word (compare Mic. 2: 4, Nah. 2:11, and the examples from the Syriac
and Arabic in Ewald, 172, c), serve to complete the generalization: fulcra
omne genus (props of every kind, omnigena). They are both technical terms,
denoting the prop which a person uses to support anything, whilst mishan
signifies that which yields support; so that the three correspond somewhat to
the Latin fulcrum, fultura, fulcimen. Of the various means of support, bread
and wine are mentioned first, not in a figurative sense, but as the two
indispensable conditions and the lowest basis of human life. Life is supported by
bread and water: it walks, as it were, upon the crutch of bread, so that
breaking the staff of bread (Lev. 26:26; Eze. 4:16; 5:16; 14:13; Psa. 105:16)
is equivalent to physical destruction. The destruction of the Jewish state would
accordingly be commenced by a removal on the part of Jehovah of all the
support afforded by bread and water, i.e., all the stores of both. And this was
literally fulfilled, for both in the Chaldean and Roman times Jerusalem perished
in the midst of just such terrible famines as are threatened in the curses in
Lev. 26, and more especially in Deu. 28; and in both cases the inhabitants were
reduced to such extremities, that women devoured their own children
(Lam. 2:20; Josephus, Wars of Jews, vi. 3, 3, 4). It is very unjust, therefore, on
the part of modern critics, such as Hitzig, Knobel, and Meier, to pronounce v.
1b a gloss, and, in fact, a false one. Gesenius and Umbreit retracted this

suspicion. The construction of the verse is just the same as that of Isa. 25: 6;
and it is Isaiahs custom to explain his own figures, as we have already observed
when comparing Isa. 1: 7ff. and 1:23 with what preceded them. Every support
of bread and every support of water are not to be regarded in this case as an
explanation of the general idea introduced before, supporters and means of
support, but simply as the commencement of the detailed expansion of the
idea. For the enumeration of the supports which Jehovah would take away is
continued in the next two verses.

Isa. 3: 2, 3.
Hero and man of war, judge and prophet, and soothsayer and elder; captains of
fifty, and the highly distinguished, and counsellors, and masters in art, and those
skilled in muttering.

As the state had grown into a military state under Uzziah-Jotham, the prophet
commences in both verses with military officers, viz., the gibbor, i.e.,
commanders whose bravery had been already tried; the man of war (ish
milchamah), i.e., private soldiers who had been equipped and well trained (see
Eze. 39:20); and the captain of fifty (sar chamisshim), leaders of the smallest
divisions of the army, consisting of only fifty men (pentekontarchos, 2Ki. 1: 9,
etc.). The prominent members of the state are all mixed up together; the
judge (shophet), i.e., the officers appointed by the government to administer
justice; the elder (zaken), i.e., the heads of families and the senators
appointed by the town corporations; the counsellor (yoetz), those nearest to
the king; the highly distinguished (nesu panim), lit., those whose personal
appearance (panim) was accepted, i.e., welcome and regarded with honour
(Saad.: wag-h, from wagh, the face of appearance), that is to say, persons of
influence, not only on account of their office, but also on account of wealth,
age, goodness, etc.; masters in art (chacam charashim: LXX sofoj
arxitektwn), or, as Jerome has very well rendered it, in artibus mechanicis
exercitatus easque callide tractans (persons well versed in mechanical arts, and
carrying them out with skill). In the Chaldean captivities skilled artisans are
particularly mentioned as having been carried away (2Ki. 24:14ff.; Jer. 24: 1;
29: 2); so that there can be no doubt whatever that charashim (from cheresh) is
to be understood as signifying mechanical and not magical arts, as Gesenius,
Hitzig, and Meier suppose, and therefore that chacam charashim does not mean
wizards, as Ewald renders it (charashim is a different word from charashim,
fabri, from charash, although in 1Ch. 4:14, cf., Neh. 11:35, the word is
regularly pointed YIRFX even in this personal sense). Moreover, the rendering
wizards produces tautology, inasmuch as masters of the black art are cited as
nebon lachash, skilled in muttering. Lachash is the whispering or muttering
of magical formulas; it is related both radically and in meaning to nachash,

enchantment (Arabic nachs, misfortune); it is derived from lachash, sibilare, to

hiss (a kindred word to nachash; hence nachash, a serpent). Beside this, the
masters of the black art are also represented as kosem, which, in accordance
with the radical idea of making fast, swearing, conjuring, denoted a soothsayer
following heathen superstitions, as distinguished from the nabi, of false Jehovah
prophet (we find this as early as Deu. 18:10, 14). f25
These came next to bread and water, and were in a higher grade the props of
the state. They are mixed together in this manner without regular order,
because the powerful and splendid state was really a quodlibet of things Jewish
and heathen; and when the wrath of Jehovah broke out, the godless glory would
soon become a mass of confusion.

Isa. 3: 4. Thus robbed of its support, and torn out of its proper groove, the
kingdom of Judah would fall a prey to the most shameless despotism: And I
give them boys for princes, and caprices shall rule over them. The revived
Solomonian glory is followed, as before, by the times of Rehoboam. The king
is not expressly named. This was intentional. He had sunk into the mere shadow
of a king: it was not he who ruled, but the aristocratic party that surrounded
him, who led him about in leading strings as unum inter pares. Now, if it is a
misfortune in most cases for a king to be a child (naar, Ecc. 10:16), the
misfortune is twice as great when the princes or magnates who surround and
advise him are youngsters (nearim, i.e., young lords) in a bad sense. It
produces a government of taalulim. None of the nouns in this form have a
personal signification. According to the primary meaning of the verbal stem, the
word might signify childishnesses, equivalent to little children (the abstract for
the concrete, like ta paidika, amasius), as Ewald supposes; or puppets,
fantocci, poltroons, or men without heart or brain, as Luzzatto maintains. But
the latter has no support in the general usage of the language, and the verb
yimshelu (shall rule) does not necessarily require a personal subject (cf.,
Psa. 19:14; 103:19). The word taalulim is formed from the reflective verb
hithallel, which means to meddle, to gratify ones self, to indulge ones caprice.
Accordingly taalulim itself might be rendered vexationes (Isa. 66: 4). Jerome,
who translates the word effeminati, appears to have thought of Ll
JATiHI in an
erotic sense. The Sept. rendering, empaiktai, is better, though empaigmata
would be more exact. When used, as the word is here, along with nearim, it
signifies outbursts of youthful caprice, which do injury to others, whether in
joke or earnest. Neither law nor justice would rule, but the very opposite of
justice: a course of conduct which would make subjects, like slaves, the helpless
victims at one time of their lust (Jud. 19:25), and at another of their cruelty.
They would be governed by lawless and bloodstained caprice, of the most
despotic character and varied forms. And the people would resemble their

rulers: their passions would be let loose, and all restraints of modesty and
decorum be snapt asunder.

Isa. 3: 5.
And the people oppress one another, one this and another that; the boy breaks out
violently upon the old man, and the despised upon the honoured.

Niggas is the reciprocal niphal, as the clause depicting the reciprocity clearly
shows (cf., nilcham, Isa. 19: 2); nagas followed by Beth means to treat as a
tyrant or taskmaster (Isa. 9: 3). The commonest selfishness would then stifle
every nobler motive; one would become the tyrant of another, and ill-mannered
insolence would take the place of that reverence, which is due to the old and
esteemed from boys and those who are below them in position, whether we
regard the law of nature, the Mosaic law (Lev. 19:32), or the common custom
of society. Nikleh (from kalah, the synonym of LQAH
, Isa. 8:23; 23: 9; cf.,
Isa. 16:14, kal, to be light or insignificant) was a term used to denote whoever
belonged to the lowest stratum of society (1Sa. 18:23). It was the opposite of
nicbad (from cabed, to be heavy or of great importance). The Septuagint
rendering, o atimoj proj ton entimon is a very good one (as the Semitic
languages have no such antithetical formations with a sterhtikon). With such
contempt of the distinctions arising from age and position, the state would very
soon become a scene of the wildest confusion.

Isa. 3: 6, 7. At length there would be no authorities left; even the desire to rule
would die out: for despotism is sure to be followed by mob-rule, and mob-rule
by anarchy in the most literal sense. The distress would become so great, that
whoever had a coat (cloak), so as to be able to clothe himself at all decently,
would be asked to undertake the government. Vv. 6, 7.
When a man shall take hold of his brother in his fathers house, Thou hast a coat,
thou shalt be our ruler, and take this ruin under thy hand; he will cry out in that day,
I do not want to be a surgeon; there is neither bread nor coat in my house: ye cannot
make me the ruler of the people. his fathers house

this is not an unmeaning trait in the picture of misery. The population would
have become so thin and dispirited through hunger, that with a little energy it
would be possible to decide within the narrow circle of a family who should be
ruler, and to give effect to the decision. In his fathers house: Beth abiv is an
acc. loci. The fathers house is the place where brother meets with brother; and
one breaks out with the urgent petition contained in the words, which follow
without the introductory saying (cf., Isa. 14: 8, 16, and 22:16; 33:14). HKFLi
for Li with He otians, a form rarely met with (vid., Gen. 27:37). HYEHit,I which
would be written YHIti before the predicate, is jussive in meaning, though not in

form. This ruin: macshelah is used in Zep. 1: 3 for that which occasions a
persons fall; here it signifies what has been overthrown; and as cashal itself,
which means not only to stumble, strip, or slide, but also to fall in consequence
of some force applied from without, is not used in connection with falling
buildings, it must be introduced here with an allusion to the prosopopeia which
follows in v. 8. The man who was distinguished above all others, or at any rate
above many others, by the fact that he could still dress himself decently (even if
it were only in a blouse), should be made supreme ruler or dictator (cf., katzin,
Jud. 11: 6); and the state which lay so miserably in ruins should be under his
hand, i.e., his direction, protection, and care (2Ki. 8:20; Gen. 41:35, cf.,
Isa. 16: 9, where the plural is used instead of the ordinary singular yad). The
apodosis to the protasis introduced with chi as a particle of time (when)
commences in v. 7. The answer given by the brother to the earnest petition is
introduced with he will raise (viz., his voice, Isa. 24:14) in that day, saying.
It is given in this circumstantial manner because it is a solemn protest. He does
not want to be a chobesh, i.e., a binder, namely of the broken arms, and bones,
and ribs of the ruined state (Isa. 30:26; 1: 6; 61: 1). The expression ehyeh
implies that he does not like it, because he is conscious of his inability. He has
not confidence enough in himself, and the assumption that he has a coat is a
false cone: he not only has no coat at home (we must remember that the
conversation is supposed to take place in his fathers house), but he has not any
bread; so that it is utterly impossible for a naked, starving man like him to do
what is suggested (in my house, ubebethi with a Vav of causal connection:
Ges. 155, 1, c).

Isa. 3: 8. The prophet then proceeds, in vv. 8-12, to describe this deep, tragical
misery as a just retribution. V. 8.
For Jerusalem is ruined and Judah fallen; because their tongue and their doings
(are) against Jehovah, to defy the eyes of His glory.

Jerusalem as a city is feminine, according to the usual personification; Judah as

a people is regarded as masculine. f26
The two preterites cashlah and naphal express the general fact, which
occasioned such scenes of misery as the one just described. The second clause,
beginning with because (chi), is a substantive clause, and attributes the
coming judgment not to future sin, but to sin already existing. Again
Jehovah: LJE is used to denote a hostile attitude, as in Isa. 2: 4, Gen. 4: 8,
Num. 32:14, Jos. 10: 6. The capital and the land are against Jehovah both in
word and deed, to defy the eyes of His glory (lamroth ene chebodo ). YN

is
equivalent to YN
Y
; and lamroth is a syncopated hiphil, as in Isa. 23:11, and like
the niphal in Isa. 1:12: we find the same form of the same word in Psa. 78:17.

The kal marah, which is also frequently construed with the accusative, signifies
to thrust away in a refractory manner; the hiphil himrah, to treat refractorily,
literally to set ones self rigidly in opposition, obniti; mar, stringere, to draw
tightly, with which unquestionably the meaning bitter as an astringent is
connected, though it does not follow that marah, himrah, and hemar
(Exo. 23:21) can be rendered parapikrainein, as they have been in the
Septuagint, since the idea of opposing, resisting, fighting in opposition, is
implied in all these roots, with distinct reference to the primary meaning. The
Lamed is a shorter expression instead of JAMLi, which is the term generally
employed in such circumstances (Amo. 2: 7; Jer. 7:18; 32:29). But what does
the prophet mean by the eyes of His glory? Knobels assertion, that chabod is
used here for the religious glory, i.e., the holiness of God, is a very strange one,
since the chabod of God is invariably the fiery, bright doxa which reveals Him
as the Holy One. but his remark does not meet the question, inasmuch as it does
not settle the point in dispute, whether the expression the eyes of His glory
implies that the glory itself has eyes, or the glory is a quality of the eyes. The
construction is certainly not a different one from the arm of His glory in
Isa. 52:10, so that it is to be taken as an attribute. But this suggests the further
question, what does the prophet mean by the glory-eyes or glorious eyes of
Jehovah? If we were to say the eyes of Jehovah are His knowledge of the
world, it would be impossible to understand how they could be called holy, still
less how they could be called glorious. This abstract explanation of the
anthropomorphisms cannot be sustained. The state of the case is rather the
following. The glory (chabod) of God is that eternal and glorious morphe which
His holy nature assumes, and which men must picture to themselves
anthropomorphically, because they cannot imagine anything superior to the
human form. In this glorious form Jehovah looks upon His people with eyes of
glory. His pure but yet jealous love, His holy love which breaks out in wrath
against all who meet it with hatred instead of with love, is reflected therein.

Isa. 3: 9. But Israel, instead of walking in the consciousness of being a

constant and favourite object of these majestic, earnestly admonishing eyes, was
diligently engaged in bidding them defiance both in word and deed, not even
hiding its sin from fear of them, but exposing them to view in the most
shameless manner. V. 9.
The look of their faces testifies against them, and their sin they make known like
Sodom, without concealing it: woe to their soul! for they do themselves harm.

In any case, the prophet refers to the impudence with which their enmity against
God was shamelessly stamped upon their faces, without even the selfcondemnation which leads in other cases to a diligent concealment of the sin.
But we cannot follow Luzzatto and Jos. Kimchi, who take haccarath as used

directly for azzuth (impudence), inasmuch as the Arabic hakara (hakira), to

which Kimchi appeals, signifies to be astonished and to stare (see at Job. 19: 3).
And in this case there would be nothing strange in the substantive form, which
would be a piel formation like HHFlFb HJFFX. But it may be a hiphil formation
(Ewald, 156, a); and this is incomparably the more probable of the two, as
hiccir panim is a very common phrase. It signifies to look earnestly, keenly, or
inquiringly in the face of a person, to fix the eye upon him; and, when used of a
judge, to take the part of a person, by favouring him unjustly (Deu. 1:17;
16:19). But this latter idea, viz., their acceptance of the person, or partiality
(according to Pro. 24:23; 28:21), is inadmissible here, for the simple reason that
the passage refers to the whole nation, and not particularly to the judges. The
look of their faces (haccarath pnehem) is to be understood in an objective
sense, viz., the appearance (to eidoj, Luke 9:29), like the agnitio of Jerome, id
quo se agnoscendum dat vultus eorum. This was probably the expression
commonly employed in Hebrew for what we designate by a very inappropriate
foreign word, viz., physiognomy, i.e., the expression of the face which reveals
the state of the mind. This expression of their countenance testified against
them (anah b, as in Isa. 59:12), for it was the disturbed and distorted image of
their sin, which not only could not be hidden, but did not even wish to be; in a
word, of their azzuth (Ecc. 8: 1). And it did not even rest with this open though
silent display: they spoken openly of their sin (higgid in its simplest meaning,
palam facere, from nagad, nagada, to be open, evident) without making any
secret of it, like the Sodomites, who publicly proclaimed their fleshly lusts
(Gen. 19). Jerusalem was spiritually Sodom, as the prophet called it in Isa. 1:10.
By such barefaced sinning they did themselves harm (gamal, lit., to finish, then
to carry out, to show practically f27

Isa. 3:10, 11. The prophets meaning is evident enough. But inasmuch as it is
the curse of sin to distort the knowledge of what is most obvious and selfevident, and even to take it entirely away, the prophet dwells still longer upon
the fact that all sinning is self-destruction and self-murder, placing this general
truth against its opposite in a palillogical Johannic way, and calling out to his
contemporaries in vv. 10, 11:
Say of the righteous, that it is well with him; for they will enjoy the fruit of their
doings. Woe to the wicked! it is ill; for what his hands have wrought will be done to
him.

We cannot adopt the rendering Praise the righteous, proposed by Vitringa

and other modern commentators; for although amar is sometimes construed
with the accusative of the object (Psa. 40:11; 145: 6, 11), it never means to
praise, but to declare (even in Psa. 40:11). We have here what was noticed from
Gen. 1: 4 onwards, namely, the obvious antiptosis or antiphonesis in the

verbs HJFRF (cf., Isa. 22: 9, Exo. 2: 2), DAYF (1Ki. 5:17), and RMJF (like legein,
Joh. 9: 9): dicite justum quod bonus = dicite justum esse bonum (Ewald, 336,
b). The object of sight, knowledge, or speech, is first of all mentioned in the
most general manner; then follows the qualification, or more precise definition.
B
, and in v. 11 RF (R without the pause), might both of them be the third
pers. pret. of the verbs, employed in a neuter sense: the former signifying, it is
well, viz., with him (as in Deu. 5:30, Jer. 22:15, 16); the latter, it is bad (as in
Psa. 106:32). But it is evident from Jer. 44:17 that JwH B
and JwH R may
be used in the sense of kalwj (kakwj) exei, and that the two expressions are
here thought of in this way, so that there is no
L to be supplied in either case.
The form of the first favours this; and in the second the accentuation fluctuates
between YWJ tiphchah RL munach, and the former with merka, the latter
tiphchah. At the same time, the latter mode of accentuation, which is
favourable to the personal rendering of R, is supported by editions of some
worth, such as Brescia 1494, Pesaro 1516, Venice 1515, 1521, and is justly
preferred by Luzzatto and Br. The summary assertions, The righteous is well,
the wicked ill, are both sustained by their eventual fate, in the light of which the
previous misfortune of the righteous appears as good fortune, and the previous
good fortune of the wicked as misfortune. With an allusion to this great
difference in their eventual fate, the word say, which belongs to both clauses,
summons to an acknowledgment of the good fortune of the one and the
misfortune of the other. O that Judah and Jerusalem would acknowledge their
to their own salvation before it was too late! For the state of the poor nation
was already miserable enough, and very near to destruction.

Isa. 3:12.
My people, its oppressors are boys, and women rule over it; my people, thy
leaders are misleaders, who swallow up the way of thy paths.

It is not probable that meolel signifies maltreaters or triflers, by the side of the
parallel nashim; moreover, the idea of despotic treatment is already contained in
nogesaiv. We expect to find children where there are women. And this is one
meaning of meolel. It does not mean a suckling, however, as Ewald supposes
( 160, a), more especially as it occurs in connection with yonek (Jer. 44: 7;
Lam. 2:11), and therefore cannot have precisely the same meaning; but, like
LL

and LL
F(the former of which may be contracted from meolel), it refers
to the boy as playful and wanton (Lascivum, protervum). Bttcher renders it
correctly, pueri, lusores, though meolel is not in itself a collective form, as he
supposes; but the singular is used collectively, or perhaps better still, the
predicate is intended to apply to every individual included in the plural notion of
the subject (compare Isa. 16: 8; 20: 4, and Ges. 146, 4): the oppressors of the

people, every one without exception, were (even though advance din years)
mere boys or youths in their mode of thinking and acting, and made all subject
to them the football of their capricious humour. Here again the person of the
king is allowed to fall into the background. but the female rule, referred to
afterwards, points us to the court. And this must really have been the case when
Ahaz, a young rake, came to the throne at the age of twenty (according to the
LXX twenty-five), possibly towards the close of the reign of Jotham. With the
deepest anguish the prophet repeats the expression my people, as he passes in
his address to his people from the rulers to the preachers: for the meassherim or
leaders are prophets (Mic. 3: 5); but what prophets! Instead of leading the
people in a straight path, they lead them astray (Isa. 9:15, cf., 2Ki. 21: 9). This
they did, as we may gather from the history of this crowd of prophets, either by
acting in subservience to the ungodly interests of the court with dynastic or
demagogical servility, or by flattering the worst desires of the people. Thus the
way of the path of the people, i.e., the highway or road by whose ramifying
paths the people were to reach the appointed goal, had been swallowed up by
them, i.e., taken away from the sight and feet of the people, so that they could
not find it and walk therein (cf., Isa. 25: 7, 8, where the verb is used in another
connection). What is swallowed up is invisible, has disappeared, without a grace
being left behind. The same idea is applied in Job. 39:27 to a galloping horse,
which is said to swallow the road, inasmuch as it leaves piece after piece behind
it in its rapid course. It is stated here with regard to the prophets, that they
swallow up the road appointed by Jehovah, as the one in which His people were
to walk, just as a criminal swallows a piece of paper which bears witness against
him, and so hides it in his own stomach. Thus the way of salvation pointed out
by the law was no longer to be either heard of or seen. The prophets, who
ought to have preached it, said mum, mum, and kept it swallowed. It had
completely perished, as it were, in the erroneous preaching of the false
prophets.

Isa. 3:13. This was how it stood. There was but little to be expected from the
exhortations of the prophet; so that he had to come back again and again to the
proclamation of judgment. The judgment of the world comes again before his
mind. V. 13. Jehovah has appeared to plead, and stands up to judge the
nations. When Jehovah, weary with His long-suffering, rises up from His
heavenly throne, this is described as standing up (kum, Isa. 2:19, 21; 33:10);
and when He assumes the judgment-seat in the sight of all the world, this is
called sitting down (yashab, Psa. 9: 5, Joe. 4:12); when, having come down
from heaven (Mic. 1: 2ff.), He comes forward as accuser, this is called
standing (nizzab or amad, Psa. 82: 1: amad is coming forward and standing,
as the opposite of sitting; nizzab, standing, with the subordinate idea of being
firm, resolute, ready). This pleading (ribh, Jer. 25:31) is also judging (din),

because His accusation, which is incontrovertible, contains the sentence in itself;

and His sentence, which executes itself irresistibly, is of itself the infliction of
punishment. Thus does he stand in the midst of the nations at once accuser,
judge, and executioner (Psa. 7: 8). But among the nations it is more especially
against Israel that He contends; and in Israel it is more especially against the
leaders of the poor misguided and neglected people that He sets Himself.

Isa. 3:14, 15.

Jehovah will proceed to judgment with the elders of His people, and its princes.
And ye, ye have eaten up the vineyard; prey of the suffering is in your houses. What
mean ye that ye crush my people, and grind the face of the suffering? Thus saith the
Lord Jehovah of hosts.

The words of God Himself commence with and ye (vattem). The sentence
to which this (et vos = at vos) is the antithesis is wanting, just as in Psa. 2: 6,
where the words of God commence with and I (vaani, et ego = ast ego). the
tacit clause may easily be supplied, viz., I have set you over my vineyard, but he
have consumed the vineyard. The only question is, whether the sentence is to be
regarded as suppressed by Jehovah Himself, or by the prophet. Most certainly
by Jehovah Himself. The majesty with which He appeared before the rulers of
His people as, even without words, a practical and undeniable proof that their
majesty was only a shadow of His, and their office His trust. But their office
consisted in the fact that Jehovah had committed His people to their care. The
vineyard of Jehovah was His people a self-evident figure, which the prophet
dresses up in the form of a parable in Isa. 5. Jehovah had appointed them as
gardeners and keepers of this vineyard, but they themselves have become the
very beasts that they ought to have warded off. R
bI is applied to the beasts
which completely devour the blades of a corn-field or the grapes of a vineyard
(Exo. 22: 4). This change was perfectly obvious. The possessions stolen from
their unhappy countrymen, which were still in their houses, were the tangible
proof of their plundering of the vineyard. The suffering: ani (depressus, the
crushed) is introduced as explanatory of haccerem, the prey, because
depression and misery were the ordinary fate of the congregation which God
called His vineyard. It was ecclesia pressa, but woe to the oppressors! In the
question what mean ye? (mallacem ) the madness and wickedness of their
deeds are implied. HMF and KELF are fused into one word here, as if it were a
prefix (as in Exo. 4: 2, Eze. 8: 6, Mal. 1:13; vid., Ges. 20, 2). The keri helps
to make it clear by resolving the chethibh. The word mallacem ought, strictly
speaking, to be followed by chi: What is there to you that ye crush my
people? as in Isa. 22: 1, 16; but the words rush forwards (as in Jon. 1: 6),
because they are an explosion of wrath. For this reason the expressions relating
to the behaviour of the rulers are the strongest that can possibly be employed.

JkFdI (crush) is also to be met with in Pro. 22:22; but grind the face ( tachan
pne) is a strong metaphor without a parallel. The former signifies to pound,
the latter to grind, as the millstone grinds the corn. They grind the faces of
those who are already bowed down, thrusting them back with such unmerciful
severity, that they stand as it were annihilated, and their faces become as white
as flour, or as the Germans would say, cheese-white, chalk-white, as pale as
death, from oppression and despair. Thus the language supplied to a certain
extent appropriate figures, with which to describe the conduct of the rulers of
Israel; but it contained no words that could exhaust the immeasurable
wickedness of their conduct: hence the magnitude of their sin is set before them
in the form of a question, What is to you? i.e., What indescribable wickedness
is this which you are committing? The prophet hears this said by Jehovah, the
majestic Judge, whom he here describes as Adonai Elohim Zebaoth (according
to the Masoretic pointing). This triplex name of God, which we find in the
prophetic books, viz., frequently in Amos and also in Jer. 2:19, occurs for the
first time in the Elohistic Psalm, Psa. 69: 7. This scene of judgment is indeed
depicted throughout in the colours of the Psalms, and more especially recals the
(Elohistic) Psalm of Asaph (Psa. 82).

Isa. 3:16, 17. But notwithstanding the dramatic vividness with which the
prophet pictures to himself this scene of judgment, he is obliged to break off at
the very beginning of his description, because another word of Jehovah comes
upon him. This applies to the women of Jerusalem, whose authority, at the time
when Isaiah prophesied, was no less influential than that of their husbands who
had forgotten their calling. V. 16, 17.
Jehovah hath spoken: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk about
with extended throat, and blinking with the eyes, walk about with tripping gait, and
tinkle with their foot-ornaments: the Lord of all makes the crown of the daughters of
Zion scabbed, and Jehovah will uncover their shame.

Their inward pride (gabah, as in Eze. 16:50; cf., Zep. 3:11) shows itself
outwardly. They walk with extended throat, i.e., bending the neck back, trying
to make themselves taller than they are, because they think themselves so great.
The keri substitutes the more usual form, TYOwNi; but Isaiah in all probability
intentionally made use of the rarer and ruder form netuvoth, since such a form
really existed (1Sa. 25:18), as well as the singular natu for natui (Job. 15:22;
41:25: Ges. 75, Anm. 5). They also went winking the eyes (mesakkeroth, for
which we frequently find the erratum meshakkeroth), i.e., casting voluptuous
and amatory glances with affected innocence (neumata ofqalmwn, LXX).
Winking: sakar is not used in the sense of fucare (Targ. b. Sabbath 62b,
Jome 9b, Luther), which is all the more inappropriate, because blackening
the eyelids with powder of antimony was regarded in the East of the Old

Testament as indispensable to female beauty, but in the sense of nictare

(LXX, Vulg., Syr., syn. remaz, cf., sekar, Syr. to squint; Targ. = shazaph,
Job. 20: 9). Compare also the talmudic saying: God did not create woman out
of Adams ear, that she might be no eavesdropper (tsaithanith), nor out of
Adams eyes, that she might be no winker (sakranith f28
The third was, that they walked incedendo et trepidando. The second inf. abs.
is in this case, as in most others, the one which gives the distinct tone, whilst the
other serves to keep before the eye the occurrence indicated in its finite verb
(Ges. 131, 3). They walk about tripping (taphoph, a wide-spread onomatopoetic word), i.e., taking short steps, just putting the heel of one foot against
the toe of the other (as the Talmud explains it). Luther renders it, they walk
along and waggle (schwanzen, i.e., clunibus agitatis). The rendering is
suitable, but incorrect. They could only take short steps, because of the chains
by which the costly foot-rings (achasim) worn above their ankles were
connected together. These chains, which were probably ornamented with bells,
as is sometimes the case now in the East, they used to tinkle as they walked:
they made an ankle-tinkling with their feet, setting their feet down in such a
manner that these ankle-rings knocked against each other. The writing
beraglehem (masc.) for beraglehen (fem.) is probably not an unintentional
synallage gen.: they were not modest virgines, but cold, masculine viragines,
so that they themselves were a synallage generis. Nevertheless they tripped
along. Tripping is a childs step. Nevertheless they tripped along. Tripping is a
childs step. Although well versed in sin and old in years, the women of
Jerusalem tried to maintain a youthful, childlike appearance. They therefore
tripped along with short, childish steps. The women of the Mohammedan East
still take pleasure in such coquettish tinklings, although they are forbidden by
the Koran, just as the women of Jerusalem did in the days of Isaiah. The
attractive influence of natural charms, especially when heightened by luxurious
art, is very great; but the prophet is blind to all this splendour, and seeing
nothing but the corruption within, foretells to these rich and distinguished
women a foul and by no means aesthetic fate. The Sovereign Ruler of all would
smite the crown of their head, from which long hair was now flowing, with scab
(vsippach, a progressive preterite with Vav apodosis, a denom. verb from
sappachath, the scurf which adheres to the skin: see at Hab. 2:15); and Jehovah
would uncover their nakedness, by giving them up to violation and abuse at the
hands of coarse and barbarous foes, the greatest possible disgrace in the eyes
of a woman, who covers herself as carefully as she can in the presence of any
stranger (Isa. 47: 3; Nah. 3: 5; Jer. 13:22; Eze. 16:37).

Isa. 3:18-23. The prophet then proceeds to describe still further how the Lord
would take away the whole of their toilet as plunder. Vv. 18-23.

On that day the Lord will put away the show of the ankle-clasps, and of the headbands, and of the crescents; the ear-rings, and the arm-chains, and the light veils;
the diadems, and the stepping-chains, and the girdles, and the smelling-bottles, and
the amulets; the finger-rings, and the nose-rings; the gala-dresses, and the sleevefrocks, and the wrappers, and the pockets; the hand-mirrors, and the Sindu-cloths,
and the turbans, and the gauze mantles.

The fullest explanation of all these articles of female attire is to be found in N.

W. Schrders work, entitled Commentarius de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum
ad Jes. 3:16-24, Ludg. Batav. 1745 (a quarto volume), and in that of Ant.
Theod. Hartmann, consisting of three octavo volumes, and entitled Die
Hebrerin am Putztische und als Braut (The Jewess at the Toilet-table, and as
Bride, 1809-10); to which we may also add, Saalschtz, Archaeologie, ch. iii.,
where he treats of the dresses of men and women. It was not usually Isaiahs
custom to enter into such minute particulars. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel was
the one most addicted to this, as we may see, for example, from Eze. 16. And
even in other prophecies against the women we find nothing of the kind again
(Isa. 32: 9ff.; Amo. 4: 1ff.). But in this instance, the enumeration of the female
ornaments is connected with that of the state props in Isa. 3: 1-3, and that of
the lofty and exalted in Isa. 2:13-16, so as to form a trilogy, and has its own
special explanation in that boundless love of ornament which had become
prevalent in the time of Uzziah-Jotham. It was the prophets intention to
produce a ludicrous, but yet serious impression, as to the immeasurable luxury
which really existed; and in the prophetic address, his design throughout is to
bring out the glaring contrast between the titanic, massive, worldly glory, in all
its varied forms, and that true, spiritual, and majestically simple glory, whose
reality is manifested from within outwards. In fact, the theme of the whole
address is the way of universal judgment leading on from the false glory to the
true. The general idea of tiphereth (show: rendered bravery in Eng. ver.)
which stands at the head and includes the whole, points to the contrast
presented by a totally different tiphereth which follows in Isa. 4: 2. In
explaining each particular word, we must be content with what is most
necessary, and comparatively the most certain. Ankle-clasps (acasim): these
were rings of gold, silver, or ivory, worn round the ankles; hence the denom.
verb (icces) in v. 16, to make a tinkling sound with these rings. Head-bands,
or frontlets (shebisim, from shabas = shabatz: plectere), were plaited bands
of gold or silver thread worn below the hair-net, and reaching from one ear to
the other. There is some force, however, in the explanation which has been very
commonly adopted since the time of Schrder, namely, that they were sun-like
balls (= shemisim), which were worn as ornaments round the neck, from the
Arabic sumeisa (subeisa), a little sun. The crescents (saharonim) were little
pendants of this kind, fastened round the neck and hanging down upon the
breast (in Jud. 8:21 we meet with them as ornaments hung round the camels

necks). Such ornaments are still worn by Arabian girls, who generally have
several different kinds of them; the hilal, or new moon, being a symbol of
increasing good fortune, and as such the most approved charm against the evil
eye. Ear-rings (netiphoth, ear-drops): we meet with these in Jud. 8:26, as an
ornament worn by Midianitish kings. Hence the Arabic munattafe, a woman
adorned with ear-rings. Arm-chains: sheroth, from shara, to twist.
According to the Targum, these were chains worn upon the arm, or spangles
upon the wrist, answering to the spangles upon the ankles. Fluttering veils
(realoth, from raal, to hang loose): these were more expensive than the
ordinary veils worn by girls, which were called tzaiph.
Diadems (peerim) are only mentioned in other parts of the Scriptures as
being worn by men (e.g., by priests, bride-grooms, or persons of high rank).
Stepping-chains: tzeadoth, from tzeadah, a step; hence the chain worn to
shorten and give elegance to the step. Girdles: kisshurim, from kashar
(cingere), dress girdles, such as were worn by brides upon their wedding-day
(compare Jer. 2:32 with Isa. 49:18); the word is erroneously rendered hair-pins
(kalmasmezayyah) in the Targum. Smelling-bottles: botte hannephesh,
holders of scent (nephesh, the breath of an aroma). Amulets: lechashim
(from lachash, to work by incantations), gems or metal plates with an
inscription upon them, which were worn as a protection as well as an ornament.
Finger-rings: tabbaoth, from taba, to impress or seal, signet-rings worn
upon the finger, corresponding to the chotham worn by men upon the breast
suspended by a cord. Nose-rings (nizme haaph) were fastened in the central
division of the nose, and hung down over the mouth: they have been ornaments
in common use in the East from the time of the patriarchs (Gen. 24:22) down to
the present day. Gala-dresses (machalatsoth) are dresses not usually worn,
but taken off when at home. Sleeve-frocks (maataphah): the second tunic,
worn above the ordinary one, the Roman stola. Wrappers (mitpachoth, from
taphach, expandere), broad cloths wrapped round the body, such as Ruth wore
when she crept in to Boaz in her best attire (Ruth 3:15). Pockets (charitim)
were for holding money (2Ki. 5:23), which was generally carried by men in the
girdle, or in a purse (cis). Hand-mirrors (gilyonim): the Septuagint renders
this diafanh lakwnika, sc. imatia, Lacedaemonian gauze or transparent
dresses, which showed the nakedness rather than concealed it (from galah,
retegere); but the better rendering is mirrors with handles, polished metal plates
(from galah, polire), as gillayon is used elsewhere to signify a smooth table.
Sindu-cloths (sedinim), veils or coverings of the finest linen, viz., of Sindu or
Hindu cloth (sindonej), Sindu, the land of Indus, being the earlier name of
India. f29
Turbans (tseniphoth, from tsanaph, convolvere), the head-dress composed of
twisted cloths of different colours. Gauze mantles (redidim, from radad,

extendere, tenuem facere), delicate veil-like mantles thrown over the rest of the
clothes. Stockings and handkerchiefs are not mentioned: the former were first
introduced into Hither Asia from Media long after Isaiahs time, and a
Jerusalem lady no more thought of suing the latter than a Grecian or Roman
lady did. Even the veil (burko) now commonly worn, which conceals the whole
of the face with the exception of the eyes, did not form part of the attire of an
Israelitish woman in the olden time. f30
The prophet enumerates twenty-one different ornaments: three sevens of a very
bad kind, especially for the husbands of these state-dolls. There is no particular
order observed in the enumeration, either from head to foot, or from the inner
to the outer clothing; but they are arranged as much ad libitum as the dress
itself.

Isa. 3:24. When Jehovah took away all this glory, with which the women of
Jerusalem were adorned, they would be turned into wretched-looking prisoners,
disfigured by ill-treatment and dirt. V. 24.
And instead of balmy scent there will be mouldiness, and instead of the sash a
rope, and instead of artistic ringlets a baldness, and instead of the dress-cloak a
frock of sackcloth, branding instead of beauty.

Mouldiness, or mother (mak, as in Isa. 5:24, the dust of things that have
moulded away), with which they would be covered, and which they would be
obliged to breathe, would take the place of the bosem, i.e., the scent of the
balsam shrub (basam), and of sweet-scented pomade in general; and nipah that
of the beautifully embroidered girdle (Pro. 31:24). The meaning of this word is
neither a wound, as the Targums and Talmud render it, nor rags, as given
by Knobel, ed. 1 (from nakaph, percutere, perforare), but the rope thrown over
them as prisoners (from kaphah = kavah, contorquere: LXX, Vulg., Syr.). f31
Baldness takes the place of artistic ringlets (HEQiMI HVE M, not HV
M, so that
it is in apposition: cf., Isa. 30:20; Ges. 113; Ewald, 287, b). The reference is
not to golden ornaments for the head, as the Sept. rendering gives it, although
miksheh is used elsewhere to signify embossed or carved work in metal or
wood; but here we are evidently to understand by the artificial twists either
curls made with the curling-tongs, or the hair plaited and twisted up in knots,
which they would be obliged to cut off in accordance with the mourning
customs (Isa. 15: 2; 22:12), or which would fall off in consequence of grief. A
frock of sackcloth (machagoreth sak), i.e., a smock of coarse haircloth worn
next to the skin, such as Layard found depicted upon a bas-relief at Kouyunjik,
would take the place of the pethigil, i.e., the dress-cloak (either from pathag, to
be wide or full, with the substantive termination -l, or else composed of pethi,
breadth, and gil, festive rejoicing); and branding the place of beauty. Branding

(ci = cevi, from cavah, kaiein), the mark burnt upon the forehead by their
conquerors: ci is a substantive, f32 not a particle, as the Targum and others
render it, and as the makkeph might make it appear. There is something very
effective in the inverted order of the words in the last clause of the five. In this
five-fold reverse would shame and mourning take the place of proud,
voluptuous rejoicing.

Isa. 3:25. The prophet now passes over to a direct address to Jerusalem itself,
since the daughters of Zion and the daughter of Zion in her present
degenerate condition. The daughter of Zion loses her sons, and consequently
the daughters of Zion their husbands. V. 25.
Thy men will fall by the sword, and thy might in war.

The plural methim (the singular of which only occurs in the form methu, with
the connecting vowel u as a component part of the proper names) is used as a
prose word in the Pentateuch; but in the later literature it is a poetic archaism.
Thy might is used interchangeably with thy men, the possessors of the
might being really intended, like robur and robora in Latin (compare
Jer. 49:35).

Isa. 3:26. What the prophet here foretells to the daughter of Zion he sees in v.
26 fulfilled upon her:
Then will her gates lament and mourn, and desolate is she, sits down upon the
ground.

The gates, where the husbands of the daughters of Zion, who have now fallen in
war, sued at one time to gather together in such numbers, are turned into a state
of desolation, in which they may, as it were, be heard complaining, and seen to
mourn (Isa. 14:31; Jer. 14: 2; Lam. 1: 4); and the daughter of Zion herself is
utterly vacated, thoroughly emptied, completely deprived of all her former
population; and in this state of the most mournful widowhood or orphanage,
brought down from her lofty seat (Isa. 47: 1) and princely glory (Jer. 13:18),
she sits down upon the ground, just as Judaea is represented as doing upon
Roman medals that were struck after the destruction of Jerusalem, where she is
introduced as a woman thoroughly broken down, and sitting under a palm-tree
in an attitude of despair, with a warrior standing in front of her, the inscription
upon the medal being Judaea capta, or devicta. The Septuagint rendering is
quite in accordance with the sense, viz., kai kataleifqhsh monh kai eij thn
ghn edafisqhsh (cf., Luke 19:44), except that B
T
is not the second person,
but the third, and HTFqFNI the third pers. pret. niph. for HTFqiNI, a pausal form
which is frequently met with in connection with the smaller distinctive accents,
such as silluk and athnach (here it occurs with tiphchah, as, for example, in

Amo. 3: 8). The clause sits down upon the ground is appended asundetwj;
a frequent construction in cases where one of two verbs defines the other in
a manner which is generally expressed adverbially (vid., 1Ch. 13: 2, and the
inverted order of the words in Jer. 4: 5; cf., 12: 6): Zion sits upon the earth in a
state of utter depopulation.

Isa. 4: 1. When war shall thus unsparingly have swept away the men of Zion, a
most unnatural effect will ensue, namely, that women will go in search of
husbands, and not men in search of wives. Ch. 4: 1.
And seven women lay hold of one man in that day, saying, We will eat our won
bread, and wear our own clothes; only let thy name be named upon us, take away
our reproach.

The division of the chapters is a wrong one here, as this verse is the closing
verse of the prophecy against the women, and the closing portion of the whole
address does not begin till Isa. 4: 2. The present pride of the daughters of Zion,
every one of whom now thought herself the greatest as the wife of such and
such a man, and for whom many men were now the suitors, would end in this
unnatural self-humiliation, that seven of them would offer themselves to the
same man, the first man who presented himself, and even renounce the ordinary
legal claim upon their husband for clothing and food (Exo. 21:10). It would be
quite sufficient for them to be allowed to bear his name (let thy name be named
upon us: the name is put upon the thing named, as giving it its distinctness and
character), if he would only take away their reproach (namely, the reproach of
being unmarried, Isa. 54: 4, as in Gen. 30:23, of being childless) by letting them
be called his wives. The number seven (seven women to one man) may be
explained on the ground that there is a bad seven as well as a holy one (e.g.,
Mat. 12:45).
In Isa. 4: 1 the threat denounced against the women of Jerusalem is brought to
a close. It is the side-piece to the threat denounced against the national rulers.
And these two scenes of judgment were only parts of the general judgment
about to fall upon Jerusalem and Judah, as a state or national community. And
this again was merely a portion, viz., the central group of the picture of a far
more comprehensive judgment, which was about to fall upon everything lofty
and exalted on the earth. Jerusalem, therefore, stands here as the centre and
focus of the great judgment-day. It was in Jerusalem that the ungodly glory
which was ripe for judgment was concentrated; and it was in Jerusalem also that
the light of the true and final glory would concentrate itself. To this promise,
with which the address returns to its starting-point, the prophet now passes on
without any further introduction. In fact it needed no introduction, for the
judgment in itself was the medium of salvation. When Jerusalem was judged, it
would be sifted; and by being sifted, it would be rescued, pardoned, glorified.

The prophet proceeds in this sense to speak of what would happen in that day,
and describes the one great day of God at the end of time (not a day of fourand-twenty hours any more than the seven days of creation were), according to
its general character, as opening with judgment, but issuing in salvation.

Isa. 4: 2.
In that day will the sprout of Jehovah become an ornament and glory, and the fruit
of the land pride and splendour for the redeemed of Israel.

The four epithets of glory, which are here grouped in pairs, strengthen our
expectation, that now that the mass of Israel has been swept away, together
with the objects of its worthless pride, we shall find a description of what will
become an object of well-grounded pride to the escaped of Israel, i.e., to the
remnant that has survived the judgment, and been saved from destruction. But
with this interpretation of the promise it is impossible that it can be the church
of the future itself, which is here called the sprout of Jehovah and fruit of
the land, as Luzzatto and Malbim suppose; and equally impossible, with such
an antithesis between what is promised and what is abolished, that the sprout
of Jehovah and fruit of the earth should signify the harvest blessings
bestowed by Jehovah, or the rich produce of the land. For although the
expression zemach Jehovah (sprout of Jehovah) may unquestionably be used to
signify this, as in Gen. 2: 9 and Psa. 104:14 (cf., Isa. 61:11), and fruitfulness of
the land is a standing accompaniment of the eschatological promises (e.g.,
Isa. 30:23ff., compare the conclusion of Joel and Amos), and it was also
foretold that the fruitful fields of Israel would become a glory in the sight of the
nations (Eze. 34:29; Mal. 3:12; cf., Joe. 2:17); yet this earthly material good, of
which, moreover, there was no lack in the time of Uzziah and Jotham, was
altogether unsuitable to set forth such a contrast as would surpass and outshine
the worldly glory existing before. But even granting what Hofmann adduces in
support of this view, namely, that the natural God-given blessings of the
field do form a fitting antithesis to the studied works of art of which men had
hitherto been proud, there is still truth in the remark of Rosenmller, that
the magnificence of the whole passage is at variance with such an
interpretation. Only compare Isa. 28: 5, where Jehovah Himself is described in
the same manner, as the glory and ornament of the remnant of Israel. But if the
sprout of Jehovah is neither the redeemed remnant itself, nor the fruit of the
field, it must be the name of the Messiah. And it is in this sense that it has been
understood by the Targum, and by such modern commentators as Rosenmller,
Hengstenberg, Steudel, Umbreit, Caspari, Drechsler, and others. The great
King of the future is called zemach, anatolh in the sense of Heb. 7:14, viz., as
a shoot springing out of the human, Davidic, earthly soil, a shoot which
Jehovah had planted in the earth, and would cause to break through and spring

forth as the pride of His congregation, which was waiting for this heavenly
child. It is He again who is designated in the parallel clause as the fruit of the
land (or lit., fruit of the earth), as being the fruit which the land of Israel, and
consequently the earth itself, would produce, just as in Eze. 17: 5 Zedekiah is
called a seed of the earth. The reasons already adduced to show that the
sprout of Jehovah cannot refer to the blessings of the field, apply with equal
force to the fruit of the earth. This also relates to the Messiah Himself,
regarded as the fruit in which all the growth and bloom of this earthly history
would eventually reach its promised and divinely appointed conclusion. The use
of this double epithet to denote the coming One can only be accounted for,
without anticipating the New Testament standpoint, f33 from the desire to depict
His double-sided origin. He would come, on the one hand, from Jehovah; but,
on the other hand, from the earth, inasmuch as He would spring from Israel.
We have here the passage, on the basis of which zemach (the sprout of
Branch) was adopted by Jeremiah (Jer. 23: 5 and 33:15) and Zechariah
(Zec. 3: 8; 6:12) as a proper name for the Messiah, and upon which Matthew,
by combining this proper name zemach (sprout) with nezer (Isa. 11: 1, cf.,
53: 2), rests his affirmation, that according to the Old Testament prophecies the
future Messiah was to be called a Nazarene. It is undoubtedly strange that this
epithet should be introduced so entirely without preparation even by Isaiah,
who coined it first. In fact, the whole passage relating to the Messiah stands
quite alone in this cycle of prophecies in Isa. 1-6. But the book of Isaiah is a
complete and connected work. What the prophet indicates merely in outline
here, he carries out more fully in the cycle of prophecies which follows in
Isa. 7-12; and there the enigma, which he leaves as an enigma in the passage
before us, receives the fullest solution. Without dwelling any further upon the
man of the future, described in this enigmatically symbolical way, the prophet
hurries on to a more precise description of the church of the future.

Isa. 4: 3.
And it will come to pass, whoever is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem, holy
will he be called, all who are written down for life in Jerusalem.

The leading emphasis of the whole verse rests upon kadosh (holy). Whereas
formerly in Jerusalem persons had been distinguished according to their rank
and condition, without any regard to their moral worth (Isa. 3: 1-3, 10, 11; cf.,
Isa. 32: 5); so the name kadosh (holy) would now be the one chief name of
honour, and would be given to every individual, inasmuch as the national calling
of Israel would now be realized in the persons of all (Exo. 19: 6, etc.).
Consequently the expression he shall be called is not exactly equivalent to
he shall be, but rather presupposes the latter, as in Isa. 1:26; 61: 6; 62: 4. The
term kadosh denotes that which is withdrawn from the world, or separated from

it. The church of the saints or holy ones, which now inhabits Jerusalem, is what
has been left from the smelting; and their holiness is the result of washing.
RT
FnHA is interchanged with RJFiniH.A The latter, as Papenheim has shown in his
Hebrew synonyms, involves the idea of intention, viz., that which has been left
behind; the former merely expresses the fact, viz., that which remains. The
character of this remnant of grace, and the number of members of which it
would consist, are shown in the apposition contained in v. 3b. This apposition
means something more than those who are entered as living in Jerusalem, i.e.,
the population of Jerusalem as entered in the city register (Hofmann); for the
verb with Lamed does not mean merely to enter as a certain thing, but (like the
same verb with the accusative in Jer. 22:30) to enter as intended for a certain
purpose. The expression YyIXL may either be taken as a noun, viz., to life
(Dan. 12: 2), or as an adjective, to the living (a meaning which is quite as
tenable; cf., Psa. 69:29, 1Sa. 25:29). In either case the notion of predestination
is implied, and the assumption of the existence of a divine book of life
(Exo. 32:32, 33; Dan. 12: 1; cf., Psa. 139:16); so that the idea is the same as
that of Act. 13:48: As many as were ordained to eternal life. The reference
here is to persons who were entered in the book of God, on account of the
good kernel of faith within them, as those who should become partakers of the
life in the new Jerusalem, and should therefore be spared in the midst of the
judgment of sifting in accordance with this divine purpose of grace. For it was
only through the judgment setting this kernel of faith at liberty, that such a holy
community as is described in the protasis which comes afterwards, as in
Psa. 63: 6, 7, could possibly arise.

Isa. 4: 4.
When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall
have purged away the bloodguiltinesses of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the
spirit of judgment and by the spirit of sifting.

When, followed by a preterite (equivalent to a fut. exact. as in Isa. 24:13;

Ges. 126, 5), introduces the circumstance, whose previous occurrence would
be the condition of all the rest. The force of the future yadiach (shall have
purged) is regulated by that of the preterite rachatz, as in Isa. 6:11; for
although, when regarded simply by itself, as in Isa. 10:12, the future tense may
suggest the idea of a future prefect, it cannot have the force of such a future.
The double purification answers to the two scenes of judgment described in
Isa. 3. The filth of the daughters of Zion is the moral pollution hidden under
their vain and coquettish finery; and the murderous deeds of Jerusalem are the
acts of judicial murder committed by its rulers upon the poor and innocent. This
filth and these spots of blood the Sovereign Ruler washes and purges away (see
2Ch. 4: 6), by causing His spirit or His breath to burst in upon all the

inhabitants of Jerusalem, both male and female. This breath is called the spirit
of judgment, because it punishes evil; and the spirit of sifting, inasmuch as it
sweeps or cleans it away. R
bF is to be explained, as in Isa. 6:13, in accordance
with Deu. 13: 6 (5, Eng. Ver.; put the evil away) and other passages, such
especially as Isa. 19:13; 21: 9. The rendering given in the Septuagint and
Vulgate, viz., in the spirit of burning, is founded upon the radical meaning of
the verb, which signifies literally to burn up, and hence to clear away or destroy
(see Comm. on Job, at 31:12, Eng. Tr.). Nevertheless, burning in connection
with judgment is not definite enough, since every manifestation of divine
judgment is a manifestation of fire; but it is not every judgment that has
connected with it what is here implied, namely, the salutary object of burning
away or, in other words, of winnowing. The spirit is in both instances the
Spirit of God which pervades the world, not only generating and sustaining life,
but also at times destroying and sifting (Isa. 30:27, 28), as it does in the case
before us, in which the imperishable glory described in v. 5 is so prepared.

Isa. 4: 5.
And Jehovah creates over every spot of Mount Zion, and over its festal assemblies,
a cloud by day, and smoke, and the shining of flaming fire by night: for over all the
glory comes a canopy.

Just as Jehovah guided and shielded Israel in the days of the redemption from
Egypt in a smoke-cloud by day and a fire-cloud by night, which either moved in
front like a pillar, or floated above them as a roof (Num. 14:14, etc.), the
perpetuation of His presence at Sinai (Exo. 19: 9, 16ff.); so would Jehovah in
like manner shield the Israel of the final redemption, which would no longer
need the pillar of cloud since its wanderings would be over, but only the cloudy
covering; and such a covering Jehovah would create, as the praet. consec.
JRFBFw (and He creates) distinctly affirms. The verb barah always denotes a
divine and miraculous production, having its commencement in time; for even
the natural is also supernatural in its first institution by God. In the case before
us, however, the reference is to a fresh manifestation of His gracious presence,
exalted above the present course of nature. This manifestation would consist by
day in a cloud, and as the hendiadys cloud and smoke (i.e., cloud in form
and smoke in substance) distinctly affirms, a smoke-cloud, not a watery cloud,
like those which ordinarily cover the sky; and by night in a fiery splendour, not
merely a lingering fiery splendour like that of the evening sky, but, as the words
clearly indicate, a flaming brightness (lehabah), and therefore real and living
fire. The purpose of the cloud would not only be to overshadow, but also to
serve as a wall of defence against opposing influences; f34 and the fire would not
only give light, but by flaming and flashing would ward off hostile powers. But,
above all, the cloud and fire were intended as signs of the nearness of God, and

His satisfaction. In the most glorious times of the temple a smoke-cloud of this
kind filled the Holy of holies; and there was only one occasion namely, at the
dedication of Solomons temple on which it filled the whole building
(1Ki. 8:10); but now the cloud, the smoke of which, moreover, would be turned
at night into flaming fire, would extend over every spot (macon, a more poetical
word for makom) of Mount Zion, and over the festal assemblies thereon. The
whole mountain would thus become a Holy of holies. It would be holy not only
as being the dwelling-place of Jehovah, but as the gathering-place of a
community of saints. Her assemblies ( mikraeha) points back to Zion, and is
a plural written defectively (at least in our editions f35 ), as, for example, in
Jer. 19: 8. There is no necessity to take this noun in the sense of meeting halls
(a meaning which it never has anywhere else), as Gesenius, Ewald, Hitzig, and
others have done, since it may also signify the meetings, though not in an
abstract, but in a concrete sense (ecclesiae). f36
The explanatory clause, for over all the glory (comes) a canopy, admits of
several interpretations. Dr. Shegg and others take it in the general sense: for
defence and covering are coming for all that is glorious. Now, even if this
thought were not so jejune as it is, the word chuppah would not be the word
used to denote covering for the sake of protection; it signifies rather covering
for the sake of beautifying and honouring that which is covered. Chuppah is the
name still given by the Jews to the wedding canopy, i.e., a canopy supported on
four poles and carried by four boys, under which the bride and bridegroom
receive the nuptial blessing, a meaning which is apparently more appropriate,
even in Psa. 19: 6 and Joe. 2:16, than the ordinary explanation thalamus to
torus. Such a canopy would float above Mount Zion in the form of a cloud of
smoke and blaze of fire. (There is no necessity to take chuppah as a third pers.
pual, since HYEHit,I which follows immediately afterwards in v. 6, may easily be
supplied in thought.) The only question is whether col-cabod signifies every
kind of glory, or according to Psa. 39: 6; 45:14, pure glory (Hofmann, Stud.
u. Krit. 1847, pp. 936-38). The thought that Jerusalem would now be all
glory, as its inhabitants were all holiness, and therefore that this shield would
be spread out over pure glory, is one that thoroughly commends itself. but we
nevertheless prefer the former, as more in accordance with the substantive
clause. The glory which Zion would now possess would be exposed to no
further injury: Jehovah would acknowledge it by signs of His gracious presence;
for henceforth there would be nothing glorious in Zion, over which there would
not be a canopy spread in the manner described, shading and yet enlightening,
hiding, defending, and adorning it.

Isa. 4: 6. Thus would Zion be a secure retreat from all adversities and
disasters. V. 6.

And it will be a booth for shade by day from the heat of the sun, and for a refuge
and covert from storm and from rain.

The subject to will be is not the miraculous roofing; for anan (cloud) is
masculine, and the verb feminine, and there would be no sense in saying that a
chuppah or canopy would be a succah or booth. Either, therefore, the verb
contains the subject in itself, and the meaning is, There will be a booth (the
verb hayah being used in a pregnant sense, as in Isa. 15: 6; 23:13); or else Zion
(v. 5) is the subject. We prefer the latter. Zion or Jerusalem would be a booth,
that is to say, as the parallel clause affirms, a place of security and concealment
(mistor, which only occurs here, is used on account of the alliteration with
machseh in the place of sether, which the prophet more usually employs, viz., in
Isa. 28:17; 32: 2). By day (yomam, which is construed with LC
Li in the
construct state, cf., Eze. 30:16) is left intentionally without any by night to
answer to it in the parallel clause, because reference is made to a place of safety
and concealment for all times, whether by day or night. Heat, storm, and rain
are mentioned as examples to denote the most manifold dangers; but it is a
singular fact that rain, which is a blessing so earnestly desired in the time of
choreb, i.e., of drought and burning heat, should also be included. At the
present day, when rain falls in Jerusalem, the whole city dances with delight.
Nevertheless rain, i.e., the rain which falls from the clouds, is not paradisaical;
and its effects are by no means unfrequently destructive. According to the
archives of Genesis, rain from the clouds took the place of dew for the first time
at the flood, when it fell in a continuous and destructive form. The Jerusalem of
the last time will be paradise restored; and there men will be no longer exposed
to destructive changes of weather. In this prediction the close of the prophetic
discourse is linked on to the commencement. This mountain of Zion, roofed
over with a cloud of smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night, is
no other than the mountain of the house of Jehovah, which was to be exalted
above all the mountains, and to which the nations would make their pilgrimage;
and this Jerusalem, so holy within, and all glorious without, is no other than the
place from which the word of Jehovah was one day to go forth into all the
world. But what Jerusalem is this? Is it the Jerusalem of the time of final glory
awaiting the people of God in this life, as described in Rev. 11 (for,
notwithstanding all that a spiritualistic and rationalistic anti-chiliasm may say,
the prophetic words of both Old and New Testament warrant us in expecting
such a time of glory in this life); or is it the Jerusalem of the new heaven and
new earth described in Rev. 20:21? The true answer is, Both in one. The
prophets real intention was to depict the holy city in its final and imperishable
state after the last judgment. But to his view, the state beyond and the closing
state here were blended together, so that the glorified Jerusalem of earth and
the glorified Jerusalem of heaven appeared as if fused into one. It was a

distinguishing characteristic of the Old Testament, to represent the closing

scene on this side the grave, and the eternal state beyond, as a continuous line,
having its commencement here. The New Testament first drew the cross line
which divides time from eternity. It is true, indeed, as the closing chapters of
the Apocalypse show, that even the New Testament prophecies continue to
some extent to depict the state beyond in figures drawn from the present world;
with this difference, however, that when the line had once been drawn, the
demand was made, of which there was no consciousness in the Old Testament,
that the figures taken from this life should be understood as relating to the life
beyond, and that eternal realities should be separated from their temporal forms.

Judgment of Devastation upon the Vineyard of Jehovah Ch.

CLOSING WORDS OF THE FIRST CYCLE OF PROPHECIES
The foregoing prophecy has run through all the different phases of prophetic
exhortation by the time that we reach the close of Isa. 4; and its leading
thought, viz., the overthrow of the false glory of Israel, and the perfect
establishment of true glory through the medium of judgment, has been so fully
worked out, that Isa. 5 cannot possibly be regarded either as a continuation or
as an appendix to that address. Unquestionably there are many points in which
Isa. 5 refers back to Isa. 2-4. The parable of the vineyard in Isa. 5: 1-7 grows,
as it were, out of Isa. 3:14; and in Isa. 5:15 we have a repetition of the refrain
in Isa. 2: 9, varied in a similar manner to Isa. 2:17. But these and other points of
contact with Isa. 2-4, whilst they indicate a tolerable similarity in date, by no
means prove the absence of independence in Isa. 5. The historical circumstances
of the two addresses are the same; and the range of thought is therefore closely
related. But the leading idea which is carried out in Isa. 5 is a totally different
one. The basis of the address is a parable representing Israel as the vineyard of
Jehovah, which, contrary to all expectation, had produced bad fruit, and
therefore was given up to devastation. What kind of bad fruit it produced is
described in a six-fold woe; and what kind of devastation was to follow is
indicated in the dark nocturnal conclusion to the whole address, which is
entirely without a promise.

Isa. 5: 1, 2. The prophet commenced his first address in Isa. 1 like another
Moses; the second, which covered no less ground, he opened with the text of
an earlier prophecy; and now he commences the third like a musician,
addressing both himself and his hearers with enticing words. V. 1a.
Arise, I will sing of my beloved, a song of my dearest touching his vineyard.

The fugitive rhythm, the musical euphony, the charming assonances in this
appeal, it is impossible to reproduce. They are perfectly inimitable. The Lamed

in lididi is the Lamed objecti. The person to whom the song referred, to whom
it applied, of whom it treated, was the singers own beloved. It was a song of
his dearest one (not his cousin, patruelis, as Luther renders it in imitation of the
Vulgate, for the meaning of dod is determined by yadid, beloved) touching his
vineyard. The Lamed in lcarmo is also Lamed objecti. The song of the beloved
is really a song concerning the vineyard of the beloved; and this song is a song
of the beloved himself, not a song written about him, or attributed to him, but
such a song as he himself had sung, and still had to sing. The prophet, by
beginning in this manner, was surrounded (either in spirit or in outward reality)
by a crowd of people from Jerusalem and Judah. The song is a short one, and
runs thus in vv. 1b, 2:
My beloved had a vineyard on a fatly nourished mountain-horn, and dug it up and
cleared it of stones, and planted it with noble vines, and built a tower in it, and also
hewed out a wine-press therein; and hoped that it would bring forth grapes, and it
brought forth wild grapes.

The vineyard was situated upon a keren, i.e., upon a prominent mountain peak
projecting like a horn, and therefore open to the sun on all sides; for, as Virgil
says in the Georgics, apertos Bacchus amat colles. This mountain horn was
ben-shemen, a child of fatness: the fatness was innate, it belonged to it by
nature (shemen is used, as in Isa. 28: 1, to denote the fertility of a nutritive
loamy soil). And the owner of the vineyard spared no attention or trouble. The
plough could not be used, from the steepness of the mountain slope: he
therefore dug it up, that is to say, he turned up the soil which was to be made
into a vineyard with a hoe (izzek, to hoe; Arab. mizak, mizaka); and as he
found it choked up with stones and boulders, he got rid of this rubbish by
throwing it out sikkel, a privative piel, lapidibus purgare, then operam
consumere in lapides, sc. ejiciendos, to stone, or clear of stones: Ges. 52, 2).
After the soil had been prepared he planted it with sorek, i.e., the finest kind of
eastern vine, bearing small grapes of a bluish-red, with pips hardly perceptible
to the tongue. The name is derived from its colour (compare the Arabic zerka,
red wine). To protect and adorn the vineyard which had been so richly planted,
he built a tower in the midst of it. The expression and also calls especial
attention to the fact that he hewed out a wine-trough therein (yekeb, the trough
into which the must or juice pressed from the grapes in the wine-press flows,
lacus as distinguished from torcular ); that is to say, in order that the trough
might be all the more fixed and durable, he constructed it in a rocky portion of
the ground (chatseb bo instead of chatsab bo, with a and the accent drawn back,
because a Beth was thereby easily rendered inaudible, so that chatseb is not a
participial adjective, as Bttcher supposes). This was a difficult task, as the
expression and also indicates; and for that very reason it was an evidence of
the most confident expectation. But how bitterly was this deceived! The

vineyard produced no such fruit, as might have been expected from a sorek
plantation; it brought forth no anabim whatever, i.e., no such grapes as a
cultivated vine should bear, but only bushim, or wild grapes. Luther first of all
adopted the rendering wild grapes, and then altered it to harsh or sour grapes.
But it comes to the same thing. The difference between a wild vine and a good
vine is only qualitative. The vitis vinifera, like all cultivated plants, is assigned
to the care of man, under which it improves; whereas in its wild state it remains
behind its true intention (see Genesis, 622). Consequently the word bushim
(from baash, to be bad, or smell bad) denotes not only the grapes of the wild
vine, which are naturally small and harsh (Rashi, lambruches, i.e., grapes of the
labrusca, which is used now, however, as the botanical name of a vine that is
American in its origin), but also grapes of a good stock, which have either been
spoiled or have failed to ripen. f37
These were the grapes which the vineyard produced, such as you might indeed
have expected from a wild vine, but not from carefully cultivated vines of the
very choicest kind.

Isa. 5: 3, 4. The song of the beloved who was so sorely deceived terminates
here. The prophet recited it, not his beloved himself; but as they were both of
one heart and one soul, the prophet proceeds thus in vv. 3 and 4:
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, I pray you,
between me and my vineyard! What could have been done more to my vineyard that
I have not done in it? Wherefore did I hope that it would bring forth grapes, and it
brought forth wild grapes?

The fact that the prophet speaks as if he were the beloved himself, shows at
once who the beloved must be. The beloved of the prophet and the lover of the
prophet (yadid and dod) were Jehovah, with whom he was so united by a union
mystica exalted above all earthly love, that, like the angel of Jehovah in the
early histories, he could speak as if he were Jehovah Himself (see especially
Zec. 2:12-15). To any one with spiritual intuition, therefore, the parabolical
meaning and object of the song would be at once apparent; and even the
inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah (yosheb and ish are used
collectively, as in Isa. 8:14; 9: 8; 22:21, cf., 20: 6) were not so stupefied by sin,
that they could not perceive to what the prophet was leading. It was for them to
decide where the guilt of this unnatural issue lay that is to say, of this
thorough contradiction between the doing of the vineyard and the doing of
the Lord; that instead of the grapes he hoped for, it brought forth wild grapes.
(On the expression what could have been done, quid faciendum est, mahlaasoth, see at Hab. 1:17, Ges. 132, Anm. 1.) Instead of HMFLF (HmFL)F we
have the more suitable term JAwdM, the latter being used in relation to the actual
cause (causa efficiens), the former in relation to the object (causa finalis). The

parallel to the second part, viz., Isa. 50: 2, resembles the passage before us, not
only in the use of this particular word, but also in the fact that there, as well as
here, it relates to both clauses, and more especially to the latter of the two. We
find the same paratactic construction in connection with other conjunctions (cf.,
Isa. 12: 1; 65:12). They were called upon to decide and answer as to this what
and wherefore; but they were silent, just because they could clearly see that they
would have to condemn themselves (as David condemned himself in connection
with Nathans parable, 2Sa. 12: 5). The Lord of the vineyard, therefore, begins
to speak. He, its accuser, will now also be its judge.

Isa. 5: 5.
Now then, I will tell you what I will do at once to my vineyard: take away its
hedge, and it shall be for grazing; pull down its wall, and it shall be for treading
down.

Before now then (vattah) we must imagine a pause, as in Isa. 3:14. The
Lord of the vineyard breaks the silence of the umpires, which indicates their
consciousness of guilt. They shall hear from Him what He will do at once to His
vineyard (Lamed in lcarmi, as, for example, in Deu. 11: 6). I will do: ani
oseh, fut. instans, equivalent to facturus sum (Ges. 134, 2, b). In the inf. abs.
which follow He opens up what He will do. On this explanatory use of the inf.
abs., see Isa. 20: 2; 58: 6, 7. In such cases as these it takes the place of the
object, as in other cases of the subject, but always in an abrupt manner (Ges.
131, 1). He would take away the mesucah, i.e., the green thorny hedge
(Pro. 15:19; Hos. 2: 8) with which the vineyard was enclosed, and would pull
down the gared, i.e., the low stone wall (Num. 22:24; Pro. 24:31), which had
been surrounded by the hedge of thorn-bushes to make a better defence, as well
as for the protection of the wall itself, more especially against being
undermined; so that the vineyard would be given up to grazing and treading
down (LXX katapathma), i.e., would become an open way and gathering-place
for man and beast.

Isa. 5: 6. This puts an end to the unthankful vineyard, and indeed a hopeless
one. V. 6.
And I will put an end to it: it shall not be pruned nor digged, and it shall break out
in thorns and thistles; and I will command the clouds to rain no rain over it.

Put an end: bathah (= battah: Ges. 67, Anm. 11) signifies, according to the
primary meaning of bathath (Twb, THAb,I see at Isa. 1:29), viz., abscindere,
either abscissum = locus abscissus or praeruptus (Isa. 7:19), or abscissio =
deletio. The latter is the meaning here, where shith bathah is a refined
expression for the more usual HLFKF HVF F, both being construed with the
accusative of the thing which is brought to an end. Further pruning and hoeing

would do it no good, but only lead to further disappointment: it was the will of
the Lord, therefore, that the deceitful vineyard should shoot up in thorns and
thistles (alah is applied to the soil, as in Isa. 34:13 and Pro. 24:31; shamir
vashaith, thorns and thistles, are in the accusative, according to Ges. 138, 1,
Anm. 2; and both the words themselves, and also their combination, are
exclusively and peculiarly Isaiahs). f38
In order that it might remain a wilderness, the clouds would also receive
commandment from the Lord not to rain upon it. There can be no longer any
doubt who the Lord of the vineyard is. He is Lord of the clouds, and therefore
the Lord of heaven and earth. It is He who is the prophets beloved and dearest
one. The song which opened in so minstrel-like and harmless a tone, has now
become painfully severe and terribly repulsive. The husk of the parable, which
has already been broken through, now falls completely off (cf., Mat. 22:13;
25:30). What it sets forth in symbol is really true. This truth the prophet
establishes by an open declaration.

Isa. 5: 7.
For the vineyard of Jehovah of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah
are the plantation of His delight: He waited for justice, and behold grasping; for
righteousness, and behold a shriek.

The meaning is not that the Lord of the vineyard would not let any more rain
fall upon it, because this Lord was Jehovah (which is not affirmed in fact in the
words commencing with for, ci), but a more general one. This was how the
case stood with the vineyard; for all Israel, and especially the people of Judah,
were this vineyard, which had so bitterly deceived the expectations of its Lord,
and indeed the vineyard of Jehovah of hosts, and therefore of the omnipotent
God, whom even the clouds would serve when He came forth to punish. The
expression for (ci) is not only intended to vindicate the truth of the last
statement, but the truth of the whole simile, including this: it is an explanatory
for (ci explic.), which opens the epimythion. The vineyard of the Lord of
hosts (cerem Jehovah Zebaoth) is the predicate. The house of Israel ( beth
Yisrael) was the whole nation, which is also represented in other passages
under the same figure of a vineyard (Isa. 27: 2ff.; Psa. 80, etc.). But as Isaiah
was prophet in Judah, he applies the figure more particularly to Judah, which
was called Jehovahs favourite plantation, inasmuch as it was the seat of the
divine sanctuary and of the Davidic kingdom. This makes it easy enough to
interpret the different parts of the simile employed. The fat mountain-horn was
Canaan, flowing with milk and honey (Exo. 15:17); the digging of the vineyard,
and clearing it of stones, was the clearing of Canaan from its former heathen
inhabitants (Psa. 54: 3); the sorek-vines were the holy priests and prophets and
kings of Israel of the earlier and better times (Jer. 2:21); the defensive and

ornamental tower in the midst of the vineyard was Jerusalem as the royal city,
with Zion the royal fortress (Mic. 4: 8); the winepress-trough was the temple,
where, according to Psa. 36: 9 (8), the wine of heavenly pleasures flowed in
streams, and from which, according to Psa. 42 and many other passages, the
thirst of the soul might all be quenched. The grazing and treading down are
explained in Jer. 5:10 and 12:10. The bitter deception experienced by Jehovah is
expressed in a play upon two words, indicating the surprising change of the
desired result into the very opposite. The explanation which Gesenius, Caspari,
Knobel, and others give of mispach, viz., bloodshed, does not commend itself;
for even if it must be admitted that saphach occurs once or twice in the
Arabizing book of Job (Job. 30: 7; 14:19) in the sense of pouring out, this
verbal root is strange to the Hebrew (and the Aramaean). Moreover, mispach in
any case would only mean pouring or shedding, and not bloodshed; and
although the latter would certainly be possible by the side of the Arabic saffach,
saffak (shedder of blood), yet it would be such an ellipsis as cannot be shown
anywhere else in Hebrew usage. On the other hand, the rendering leprosy
does not yield any appropriate sense, as mispachath (sappachath) is never
generalized anywhere else into the single idea of dirt (Luzzatto: sozzura), nor
does it appear as an ethical notion. We therefore prefer to connect it with a
meaning unquestionably belonging to the verb XPS (see kal, 1Sa. 3:36; niphal,
14: 1; hithpael, 1Sa. 26:19), which is derived in SAY,F SAJ,F wS, from the
primary notion to sweep, spec. to sweep towards, sweep in, or sweep away.
Hence we regard mispach as denoting the forcible appropriation of another
mans property; certainly a suitable antithesis to mishpat. The prophet
describes, in full-toned figures, how the expected noble grapes had turned into
wild grapes, with nothing more than an outward resemblance. The introduction
to the prophecy closes here.
The prophecy itself follows next, a seven-fold discourse composed of the sixfold woe contained in vv. 8-23, and the announcement of punishment in which
it terminates. In this six-fold woe the prophet describes the bad fruits one by
one. In confirmation of our rendering of mispach, the first woe relates to
covetousness and avarice as the root of all evil.

Isa. 5: 8.
Woe unto them that join house to house, who lay field to field, till there is no more
room, and ye alone are dwelling in the midst of the land.

The participle is continued in the finite verb, as in v. 23, Isa. 10: 1; the regular
syntactic construction is cases of this kind (Ges. 134, Anm. 2). The preterites
after till (there are to such preterites, for ephes is an intensified YJ
enclosing
the verbal idea) correspond to future perfects: They, the insatiable, would not

rest till, after every smaller piece of landed property had been swallowed by
them, the whole land had come into their possession, and no one beside
themselves was settled in the land (Job. 22: 8). Such covetousness was all the
more reprehensible, because the law of Israel and provided so very stringently
and carefully, that as far as possible there should be an equal distribution of the
soil, and that hereditary family property should be inalienable. All landed
property that had been alienated reverted to the family every fiftieth year, or
year of jubilee; so that alienation simply had reference to the usufruct of the
land till that time. It was only in the case of houses in towns that the right of
redemption was restricted to one year, at least according to a later statute. How
badly the law of the year of jubilee had been observed, may be gathered from
Jer. 34, where we learn that the law as to the manumission of Hebrew slaves in
the sabbatical year had fallen entirely into neglect. Isaiahs contemporary,
Micah, makes just the same complaint as Isaiah himself (vid., Mic. 2: 2).

Isa. 5: 9, 10. And the denunciation of punishment is made by him in very

similar terms to those which we find here in vv. 9, 10:
Into mine ears Jehovah of hosts: Of a truth many houses shall become a
wilderness, great and beautiful ones deserted. For ten yokes of vineyard will yield
one pailful, and a quarter of seed-corn will produce a bushel.

We may see from Isa. 22:14 in what sense the prophet wrote the substantive
clause, Into mine ears, or more literally, In mine ears [is] Jehovah Zebaoth,
viz., He is here revealing Himself to me. In the pointing, YNFZiJFbI is written with
tiphchah as a pausal form, to indicate to the reader that the boldness of the
expression is to be softened down by the assumption of an ellipsis. In Hebrew,
to say into the ears did not mean to speak softly and secretly, as
Gen. 23:10, 16, Job. 33: 8, and other passages, clearly show; but to speak in a
distinct and intelligible manner, which precludes the possibility of any
misunderstanding. The prophet, indeed, had not Jehovah standing locally beside
him; nevertheless, he had Him objectively over against his own personality, and
was well able to distinguish very clearly the thoughts and words of his own
personality, from the words of Jehovah which arose audibly within him. These
words informed him what would be the fate of the rich and insatiable
landowners. Of a truth: JLOJI (if not) introduces an oath of an affirmative
character (the complete formula is chai ani im-lo, as I live if not), just as
im (if) alone introduces a negative oath (e.g., Num. 14:23). The force of the
expression im-lo extends not only to rabbim, as the false accentuation with
gershayim (double-geresh) would make it appear, but to the whole of the
following sentence, as it is correctly accentuated with rebia in the Venetian
(1521) and other early editions. A universal desolation would ensue: rabbim
(many) does not mean less than all; but the houses (battim, as the word should

be pronounced, notwithstanding Ewalds objection to Khlers remarks on

Zec. 14: 2; cf., Job, 2:31) constituted altogether a very large number (compare
the use of the word many in Isa. 2: 3, Mat. 20:28, etc.). YJ
M
is a double, and
therefore an absolute, negation (so that there is not, no inhabitant, i.e., not any
inhabitant at all). V. 10, which commences, with ci, explains how such a
desolation of the houses would be brought about: failure of crops produces
famine, and this is followed by depopulation. Ten zimde (with dagesh lene,
Ewald) of vineyard are either ten pieces of the size that a man could plough in
one day with a yoke of oxen, or possibly ten portions of yoke -like espaliers of
vines, i.e., of vines trained on cross laths (the vina jugata of Varro), which is
the explanation adopted by Biesenthal. But if we compare 1Sa. 14:14, the
former is to be preferred, although the links are wanting which would enable us
to prove that the early Israelites had one and the same system of land measure
as the Romans; f39 nevertheless Arab. fddan (in Hauran) is precisely similar, and
this word signifies primarily a yoke of oxen, and then a yoke (jugerum) regarded
as a measure of land. Ten days work would only yield a single bath. This liquid
measure, which was first introduced in the time of the kings, corresponded to
the ephah in dry measure (Eze. 45:11). According to Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, 9),
it was equal to seventy-two Roman sextarii, i.e., a little more than thirty-three
Berlin quarts; but in the time of Isaiah it was probably smaller. The homer, a dry
measure, generally called a cor after the time of the kings, was equal to ten
Attic medimnoi; f40 a medimnos being (according to Josephus, Ant. xv. 9, 2)
about 15-16ths of a Berlin bushel, and therefore a little more than fifteen pecks.
Even if this quantity of corn should be sown, they would not reap more than an
ephah. The harvest, therefore, would only yield the tenth part of the sowing,
since an ephah was the tenth part of a homer, or three seahs, the usual
minimum for one baking (vid., Mat. 13:33). It is, of course, impossible to give
the relative measure exactly in our translation.

Isa. 5:11. The second woe, for which the curse about to fall upon vinedressing
(v. 10a) prepared the way by the simple association of ideas, is directed against
the debauchees, who in their carnal security carried on their excesses even in
the daylight. V. 11.
Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning to run after strong drink; who
continue till late at night with wine inflaming them!

Boker (from bakar, bakara, to slit, to tear up, or split) is the break of day; and
nesheph (from nashaph, to blow) the cool of the evening, including the night
(Isa. 21: 4; 59:10); ichr, to continue till late, as in Pro. 23:30: the construct
state before words with a preposition, as in Isa. 9: 2; 28: 9, and many other
passages (Ges. 116, 1). Shecar, in connection with yayin, is the general name
for every other kind of strong drink, more especially for wines made artificially

from fruit, honey, raisins, dates, etc., including barley-wine (oinoj kriqinoj) or
beer (ek kriqwn mequ in Aeschylus, also called bruton bruton, zuqoj zuqoj,
and by many other names), a beverage known in Egypt, which was half a wine
country and half a beer country, from as far back as the time of the Pharaohs.
The form shecar is composed, like BNF
(with the fore-tone tsere), from shacar,
to intoxicate; according to the Arabic, literally to close by stopping up, i.e., to
stupefy. f41
The clauses after the two participles are circumstantial clauses (Ewald, 341,
b), indicating the circumstances under which they ran out so early, and sat till
long after dark: they hunted after mead, they heated themselves with wine,
namely, to drown the consciousness of their deeds of darkness.

Isa. 5:12. Ver. 12 describes how they go on in their blindness with music and
carousing:
And guitar and harp, kettle-drum, and flute, and wine, is their feast; but they
regard not the work of Jehovah, and see not the purpose of His hands.

Their feast is so and so (HEYT

iMI is only a plural in appearance; it is really a
singular, as in Dan. 1:10, 16, and many other passages, with the Yod of the
primary form, YtiMI = HtEiMI, softened: see the remarks on HFL
E F at Isa. 1:30,
and HFYVEO at Isa. 22:11); that is to say, their feast consisted or was composed
of exciting music and wine. Knobel construes it, and there are guitar, etc., and
wine is their drink; but a divided sentence of this kind is very tame; and the
other expression, based upon the general principle, The whole is its parts, is
thoroughly Semitic (see Fleischers Abhandlungen ber einige Arten der
Nominalapposition in den Sitzungsberichten der schs. Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaft, 1862). Cinnor (guitar) is a general name for such instruments as
have their strings drawn (upon a bridge) over a sounding board; and nebel (the
harp and lyre) a general name for instruments with their strings hung freely, so
as to be played with both hands at the same time. Toph (Arab. duff) is a general
name for the tambourin, the drum, and the kettle-drum; chalil (lit. that which is
bored through) a general name for the flute and double flute. In this tumult and
riot they had no thought or eye for the work of Jehovah and the purpose of His
hands. This is the phrase used to express the idea of eternal counsel of God
(Isa. 37:26), which leads to salvation by the circuitous paths of judgment
(Isa. 10:12; 28:21; 29:23), so far as that counsel is embodied in history, as
moulded by the invisible interposition of God. In their joy and glory they had no
sense for what was the most glorious of all, viz., the moving and working of
God in history; so that they could not even discern the judgment which was in
course of preparation at that very time.

Isa. 5:13. Therefore judgment would overtake them in this blind, dull, and
stupid animal condition. V. 13.
Therefore my people go into banishment without knowing; and their glory will
become starving men, and their tumult men dried up with thirst.

As the word therefore (lacen, as in Isa. 1:24) introduces the threat of

punishment, galah (go into captivity) is a prophetic preterite. Israel would go
into exile, and that without knowing (mibbli-daath). The meaning of this
expression cannot be from want of knowledge, since the min which is fused
into one word with bli is not causal, but negative, and mibbli, as a
preposition, always signifies without (absque). But are we to render it
without knowing it (as in Hos. 4: 6, where haddaath has the article), or
unawares? There is no necessity for any dispute on this point, since the two
renderings are fundamentally one and the same. The knowledge, of which v. 12
pronounces them destitute, was more especially a knowledge of the judgment
of God that was hanging over them; so that, as the captivity would come upon
them without knowledge, it would necessarily come upon them unawares.
Their glory (cebodo) and their tumult (hamono) are therefore to be
understood, as the predicates show, as collective nouns used in a personal
sense, the former signifying the more select portion of the nation (cf.,
Mic. 1:15), the latter the mass of the people, who were living in rioting and
tumult. The former would become men of famine (methe raab: YT
Mi, like
Y
NiJ in other places, viz., 2Sa. 19:29, or YN
bI, 1Sa. 26:16); the latter men
dried up with thirst ( tsicheh tsamah: the same number as the subject). There is
no necessity to read YT
M
(dead men) instead of YT
Mi, as the LXX and Vulgate
do, or YZ
Mi (HZ
Mi) according to Deu. 32:24, as Hitzig, Ewald, Bttcher, and
others propose (compare, on the contrary, Gen. 34:30 and Job. 11:11). The
adjective tzicheh (hapax leg.) is formed like chiresh, ceheh, and other adjectives
which indicate defects: in such formations from verbs Lamed-He, instead of e
we have an ae that has grown out of ay (Olshausen, 182, b). The rich gluttons
would starve, and the tippling crowd would die with thirst.

Isa. 5:14. The threat of punishment commences again with therefore; it has
not yet satisfied itself, and therefore grasps deeper still. V. 14.
Therefore the under-world opens its jaws wide, and stretches open its mouth
immeasurably wide; and the glory of Jerusalem descends, and its tumult, and noise,
and those who rejoice within it.

The verbs which follow lacen (therefore) are prophetic preterites, as in v. 13.
The feminine suffixes attached to what the lower world swallows up do not
refer to sheol (though this is construed more frequently, no doubt, as a feminine
than as a masculine, as it is in Job. 26: 6), but, as expressed in the translation, to

Jerusalem itself, which is also necessarily required by the last clause, those who
rejoice within it. The withdrawal of the tone from ZL
FWi to the penultimate (cf.,
chaphetz in Psa. 18:20; 22: 9) is intentionally omitted, to cause the rolling and
swallowing up to be heard as it were. A mouth is ascribed to the under-world,
also a nephesh, i.e., a greedy soul, in which sense nephesh is then applied
metonymically sometimes to a thirst for blood (Psa. 27:12), and sometimes to
simple greediness (Isa. 56:11), and even, as in the present passage and
Hab. 2: 5, to the throat or swallow which the soul opens without measure,
when its craving knows no bounds (Psychol. p. 204). It has become a common
thing now to drop entirely the notion which formerly prevailed, that the noun
sheol was derived from the verb shaal in the sense in which it was generally
employed, viz., to ask or demand; but Caspari, who has revived it again, is
certainly so far correct, that the derivation of the word which the prophet had in
his mind was this and no other. The word sheol (an infinitive form, like pekod)
signifies primarily the irresistible and inexorable demand made upon every
earthly thing; and then secondarily, in a local sense, the place of the abode of
shades, to which everything on the surface of the earth is summoned; or
essentially the divinely appointed curse which demands and swallows up
everything upon the earth. We simply maintain, however, that the word sheol,
as generally sued, was associated in thought with shaal, to ask or demand.
Originally, no doubt, it may have been derived from the primary and more
material idea of the verb LJ, possibly from the meaning to be hollow, which
is also assumed to be the primary meaning of L. f42
At any rate, this derivation answers to the view that generally prevailed in
ancient times. According to the prevalent idea, Hades was in the interior of the
earth. And there was nothing really absurd in this, since it is quite within the
power and freedom of the omnipresent God to manifest Himself wherever and
however He may please. As He reveals Himself above the earth, i.e., in heaven,
among blessed spirits in the light of His love; so did He reveal Himself
underneath the earth, viz., in Sheol, in the darkness and fire of His wrath. And
with the exception of Enoch and Elijah, with their marvellous departure from
this life, the way of every mortal ended there, until the time when Jesus Christ,
having first paid the lutron, i.e., having shed His blood, which covers our guilt
and turns the wrath of God into love, descended into Hades and ascended into
heaven, and from that time forth has changed the death of all believers from a
descent into Hades into an ascension to heaven. But even under the Old
Testament the believer may have known, that whoever hid himself on this side
the grave in Jehovah the living One, would retain his eternal germ of life even in
Sheol in the midst of the shades, and would taste the love of God even in the
midst of wrath. It was this postulate of faith which lay at the foundation of the
fact, that even under the Old Testament the broader and more comprehensive

idea of Sheol began to be contracted into the more limited notion of hell (see
Psychol. p. 415). This is the case in the passage before us, where Isaiah predicts
of everything of which Jerusalem was proud, and in which it revelled, including
the persons who rejoice din these things, a descent into Hades; just as the
Korahite author of Psa. 49 wrote (v. 14) that the beauty of the wicked would be
given up to Hades to be consumed, without having hereafter any place in the
upper world, when the upright should have dominion over them in the morning.
Hades even here is almost equivalent to the New Testament gehenna.

Isa. 5:15, 16. The prophet now repeats a thought which formed one of the
refrains of the second prophetic address (Isa. 2: 9, 11, cf., v. 17). It acquires
here a still deeper sense, from the context in which it stands. Vv. 15, 16.
Then are mean men bowed down, and lords humbled, and the eyes of lofty men are
humbled. And Jehovah of hosts shows Himself exalted in judgment, and God the
Holy One sanctifies Himself in righteousness.

That which had exalted itself from earth to heaven, would be cast down
earthwards into hell. The consecutive futures depict the coming events, which
are here represented as historically present, as the direct sequel of what is also
represented as present in v. 14: Hades opens, and then both low and lofty in
Jerusalem sink down, and the soaring eyes now wander about in horrible
depths. God, who is both exalted and holy in Himself, demanded that as the
exalted One He should be exalted, and that as the Holy One He should be
sanctified. But Jerusalem had not done that; He would therefore prove Himself
the exalted One by the execution of justice, and sanctify Himself (nikdash is to
be rendered as a reflective verb, according to Eze. 36:23; 38:23) by the
manifestation of righteousness, in consequence of which the people of
Jerusalem would have to give Him glory against their will, as forming part of
the things under the earth (Phi. 2:10). Jerusalem has been swallowed up twice
in this manner by Hades; once in the Chaldean war, and again in the Roman.
But the invisible background of these outward events was the fact, that it had
already fallen under the power of hell. And now, even in a more literal sense,
ancient Jerusalem, like the company of Korah (Num. 16:30, 33), has gone
underground. Just as Babylon and Nineveh, the ruins of which are dug out of
the inexhaustible mine of their far-stretching foundation and soil, have sunk
beneath the ground; so do men walk about in modern Jerusalem over the
ancient Jerusalem, which lies buried beneath; and many an enigma of
topography will remain an enigma until ancient Jerusalem has been dug out of
the earth again.

Isa. 5:17. And when we consider that the Holy Land is at the present time an
extensive pasture-ground for Arab shepherds, and that the modern Jerusalem

which has arisen from the dust is a Mohammedan city, we may see in this also a
literal fulfilment of v. 17:
And lambs feed as upon their pasture , and nomad shepherds eat the waste places
of the fat ones.

There is no necessity to supply an object to the verb wRFWi, as Knobel and

others assume, viz., the waste lands mentioned in the second clause; nor is
cedabram to be taken as the object, as Caspari supposes; but the place referred
to is determined by the context: in the place where Jerusalem is sunken, there
lambs feed after the manner of their own pasture-ground, i.e., just as if they
were in their old accustomed pasture (dober, as in Mic. 2:12, from dabar, to
drive). The lambs intended are those of the garim mentioned in the second
clause. The garim themselves are men leading an unsettled, nomad, or pilgrim
life; as distinguished from gerim, strangers visiting, or even settled at a place.
The LXX have arnej, so that they must have read either carim or gedaim,
which Ewald, Knobel, and others adopt. But one feature of the prophecy, which
is sustained by the historical fulfilment, is thereby obliterated. Charboth mechim
are the lands of those that were formerly marrowy, i.e., fat and strutting about
in their fulness; which lands had now become waste places. Knobels statement,
that acal is out of place in connection with garim, is overthrown by Isa. 1: 7, to
which he himself refers, though he makes he-goats the subject instead of men.
The second woe closes with v. 17. It is the longest of all. This also serves to
confirm the fact that luxury was the leading vice of Judah in the time of UzziahJotham, as it was that of Israel under Jeroboam II (see Amo. 6, where the same
threat is held out).

Isa. 5:18. The third woe is directed against the supposed strong-minded men,
who called down the judgment of God by presumptuous sins and wicked
words. V. 18.
Woe unto them that draw crime with cords of lying, and sin as with the rope of the
waggon.

Knobel and most other commentators take mashak in the sense of attrahere (to
draw towards ones self): They draw towards them sinful deeds with cords of
lying palliation, and the cart-rope of the most daring presumption; and cite, as
parallel examples, Job. 40:25 and Hos. 11: 4. But as mashak is also used in
Deu. 21: 3 in the sense of drawing in a yoke, that is to say, drawing a plough or
chariot; and as the waggon or cart (agalah, the word commonly used for a
transport-waggon, as distinguished from mercabah, the state carriage or war
chariot: see Genesis, pp. 562-3) is expressly mentioned here, the figure
employed is certainly the same as that which underlies the New Testament
eterozugein (unequally yoked, 2Co. 6:14). Iniquity was the burden which

they drew after them with cords of lying (shavh: see at Psa. 26: 4 and
Job. 15:31), i.e., want of character or religion; and sin was the waggon to
which they were harnessed as if with a thick cart-rope (Hofmann, Drechsler,
and Caspari; see Ewald, 221, a). Iniquity and sin are mentioned here as
carrying with them their own punishment. The definite WOFHE (crime or misdeed)
is generic, and the indefinite HJFFX qualitative and massive. There is a bitter
sarcasm involved in the bold figure employed. They were proud of their
unbelief; but this unbelief was like a halter with which, like beasts of burden,
they were harnessed to sin, and therefore to the punishment of sin, which they
went on drawing further and further, in utter ignorance of the waggon behind
them.

Isa. 5:19. Ver. 19 shows very clearly that the prophet referred to the freethinkers of his time, the persons who are called fools (nabal) and scorners ( letz)
in the Psalms and Proverbs.
Who say, Let Him hasten, accelerate His work, that we may see; and let the
counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, that we may experience it.

They doubted whether the day of Jehovah would ever come (Eze. 12:22;
Jer. 5:12, 13), and went so far in their unbelief as to call out for what they could
not and would not believe, and desired it to come that they might see it with
their own eyes and experience it for themselves (Jer. 17:15; it is different in
Amo. 5:18 and Mal. 2:17-3: 1, where this desire does not arise from scorn and
defiance, but from impatience and weakness of faith). As the two verbs
denoting haste are used both transitively and intransitively (vid., Jud. 20:37, to
hasten or make haste), we might render the passage let His work make haste,
as Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, and Drechsler do; but we prefer the rendering
adopted by Gesenius, Caspari, and Knobel, on the basis of Isa. 60:22, and take
the verb as transitive, and Jehovah as the subject. The forms yachishah and
taboah are, with Psa. 20: 4 and Job. 11:17, probably the only examples of the
expression of a wish in the third person, strengthened by the ah, which indicates
a summons or appeal; for Eze. 23:20, which Gesenius cites ( 48, 3), and
Job. 22:21, to which Knobel refers, have no connection with this, as in both
passages the ah is the feminine termination, and not hortative (vid., Comm. on
Job, at 11:17, note, and at 22:21). The fact that the free-thinkers called God
the Holy One of Israel, whereas they scoffed at His intended final and
practical attestation of Himself as the Holy One, may be explained from
Isa. 30:11: they took this name of God from the lips of the prophet himself, so
that their scorn affected both God and His prophet at the same time.

Isa. 5:20. The fourth woe:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who give out darkness for light,
and light for darkness; who give out bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

The previous woe had reference to those who made the facts of sacred history
the butt of their naturalistic doubt and ridicule, especially so far as they were the
subject of prophecy. This fourth woe relates to those who adopted a code of
morals that completely overturned the first principles of ethics, and was utterly
opposed to the law of God; for evil, darkness, and bitter, with their respective
antitheses, represent moral principles that are essentially related (Mat. 6:23;
Jam. 3:11), Evil, as hostile to God, is dark in its nature, and therefore loves
darkness, and is exposed to the punitive power of darkness. And although it
may be sweet to the material taste, it is nevertheless bitter, inasmuch as it
produces abhorrence and disgust in the godlike nature of man, and, after a brief
period of self-deception, is turned into the bitter woe of fatal results. Darkness
and light, bitter and sweet, therefore, are not tautological metaphors for evil and
good; but epithets applied to evil and good according to their essential
principles, and their necessary and internal effects.

Isa. 5:21. The fifth woe:

Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight.

The third woe had reference to the unbelieving naturalists, the opponents of
prophecy (nebuah); the fourth to the moralists, who threw all into confusion;
and to this there is appended, by a very natural association of ideas, the woe
denounced upon those whom want of humility rendered inaccessible to that
wisdom which went hand in hand with prophecy, and the true foundation of
which was the fear of Jehovah (Pro. 1: 7; Job. 28:28; Ecc. 12:13). Be not wise
in thine own eyes, is a fundamental rule of this wisdom(Pro. 3: 7). It was upon
this wisdom that that prophetic policy rested, whose warnings, as we read in
Isa. 28: 9, 10, they so scornfully rejected. The next woe, which has reference to
the administration of justice in the state, shows very clearly that in this woe the
prophet had more especially the want of theocratic wisdom in relation to the
affairs of state in his mind.

Isa. 5:22, 23. The sixth woe:

Woe to those who are heroes to drink wine, and brave men to mix strong drink;
who acquit criminals for a bribe, and take away from every one the righteousness of
the righteous.

We see from v. 23 that the drinkers in v. 22 are unjust judges. The threat
denounced against these is Isaiahs universal ceterum censeo; and accordingly it
forms, in this instance also, the substance of his sixth and last woe. They are
heroes; not, however, in avenging wrong, but in drinking wine; they are men of
renown, though not for deciding between guilt and innocence, but for mixing up

the ingredients of strong artistic wines. For the terms applied to such mixed
wines, see Psa. 75: 9, Pro. 23:30, Son. 7: 3. It must be borne in mind, however,
that what is here called shecar was not, properly speaking, wine, but an artificial
mixture, like date wine and cider. For such things as these they were
noteworthy and strong; whereas they judged unjustly, and took bribes that they
might consume the reward of their injustice in drink and debauchery (Isa. 28: 7,
8; Pro. 31: 5). For reward: ekeb (Arab. ukb; different from akeb, a heel, =
akib) is an adverbial accusative, in recompense, or for pay. From him
(mimmennu) is distributive, and refers back to tsaddikim (the righteous); as, for
example, in Hos. 4: 8.

Isa. 5:24. In the three exclamations in vv. 18-21, Jehovah rested contented
with the simple undeveloped woe (hoi). On the other hand, the first two
utterances respecting the covetous and the debauchees were expanded into an
elaborate denunciation of punishment. But now that the prophet has come to
the unjust judges, the denunciation of punishment bursts out with such violence,
that a return to the simple exclamation of woe is not to be thought of. The
two therefores in vv. 13, 14, a third is now added in v. 24:
Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours stubble, and hay sinks together in the
flame, their root will become like mould, and their blossom fly up like dust; for they
have despised the law of Jehovah of hosts, and scornfully rejected the proclamation
of the Holy One of Israel.

The persons primarily intended as those described in vv. 22, 23, but with a
further extension of the range of vision to Judah and Jerusalem, the vineyard of
which they are the bad fruit. The sinners are compared to a plant which
moulders into dust both above and below, i.e., altogether (cf., Mal. 3:19, and
the expression, Let there be to him neither root below nor branch above, in
the inscription upon the sarcophagus of the Phoenician king Esmunazar).
Their root moulders in the earth, and their blossom (perach, as in Isa. 18: 5)
turns to fine dust, which the wind carries away. And this change in root and
blossom takes place suddenly, as if through the force of fire. In the expression
ceecol kash leshon esh (as the tongue of fire devours stubble), which
consists of four short words with three sibilant letters, we hear, as it were, the
hissing of the flame. When the infinitive construct is connected with both
subject and object, the subject generally stands first, as in Isa. 64: 1; but here
the object is placed first, as in Isa. 20: 1 (Ges. 133, 3; Ewald, 307). In the
second clause, the infinitive construct passes over into the finite verb, just as in
the similarly constructed passage in Isa. 64: 1. As yirpeh has the intransitive
meaning collabi, to sink together, or collapse; either lehabah must be an acc.
loci, or chashash lehabah the construct state, signifying flame-hay, i.e., hay
destined to the flame, or ascending in flame. f43

As the reason for the sudden dissolution of the plantation of Judah, instead of
certain definite sins being mentioned, the sin of all sins is given at once, namely,
the rejection of the word of God with the heart (maas), and in word and deed
(niets). The double eth (with yethib immediately before pashta, as in eleven
passages in all; see Heidenheims Mispete hateamim, p. 20) and veth (with
tebir) give prominence to the object; and the interchange of Jehovah of hosts
with the Holy One of Israel makes the sin appear all the greater on account of
the exaltation and holiness of God, who revealed Himself in this word, and
indeed had manifested Himself to Israel as His own peculiar people. The
prophet no sooner mentions the great sin of Judah, than the announcement of
punishment receives, as it were, fresh fuel, and bursts out again.

Isa. 5:25.
Therefore is the wrath of Jehovah kindled against His people, and He stretches
His hand over them, and smites them; then the hills tremble, and their carcases
become like sweepings in the midst of the streets. For all this His anger is not
appeased, and His hand is stretched out still.

We may see from these last words, which are repeated as a refrain in the cycle
of prophecies relating to the time of Ahaz (Isa. 9:11, 16; 10: 4), that the
prophet had before his mind a distinct and complete judgment upon Judah,
belonging to the immediate future. It was certainly a coming judgment, not one
already past; for the verbs after therefore (al-cen), like those after the three
previous lacen, are all prophetic preterites. It is impossible, therefore, to take
the words and the hills tremble as referring to the earthquake in the time of
Uzziah (Amo. 1: 1; Zec. 14: 5). This judgment, which was closer at hand,
would consist in the fact that Jehovah would stretch out His hand in His wrath
over His people (or, as it is expressed elsewhere, would swing His hand:
Luther, wave His hand, i.e., move it to and fro; vid., Isa. 11:15; 19:16; 30:30,
32), and bring it down upon Judah with one stroke, the violence of which
would be felt not only by men, but by surrounding nature as well. What kind of
stroke this would be, was to be inferred from the circumstance that the corpses
would lie unburied in the streets, like common street-sweepings. The reading
T
cXU must be rejected. Early editors read the word much more correctly
T
CXU; Buxtorf (1618) even adopts the reading T
CwX, which has the
Masoretic pointing in Num. 22:39 in its favour. It is very natural to connect
cassuchah with the Arabic kusacha (sweepings; see at Isa. 33:12): but kusacha
is the common form for waste or rubbish of this kind (e.g., kulame, nailcuttings), whereas cassuach is a form which, like the forms faol (e.g., chamots)
and faul (compare the Arabic fasus, a wind-maker, or wind-bag, i.e., a boaster),
has always an intensive, active (e.g., channun), or circumstantial signification
(like shaccul), but is never found in a passive sense. The Caph is consequently

to be taken as a particle of comparison (followed, as is generally the case, with

a definite article); and suchah is to be derived from suach (= verrere, to sweep).
The reference, therefore, is not to a pestilence (which is designated, as a stroke
from God, not by hiccah, but by nagaph ), but to the slaughter of battle; and if
we look at the other terrible judgment threatened in vv. 26ff., which was to
proceed from the imperial power, there can be no doubt that the spirit of
prophecy here points to the massacre that took place in Judah in connection
with the Syro-Ephraimitish war (see 2Ch. 28: 5, 6). The mountains may then
have trembled with the marching of troops, and the din of arms, and the felling
of trees, and the shout of war. At any rate, nature had to participate in what
men had brought upon themselves; for, according to the creative appointment
of God, nature bears the same relation to man as the body to the soul. Every
stroke of divine wrath which falls upon a nation equally affects the land which
has grown up, as it were, with it; and in this sense the mountains of Judah
trembled at the time referred to, even though the trembling was only discernible
by initiated ears. But for all this (Beth, = notwithstanding, in spite of, as
in Job. 1:22) the wrath of Jehovah, as the prophet foresaw, would not turn
away, as it was accustomed to do when He was satisfied; and His hand would
still remain stretched out over Judah, ready to strike again.

Isa. 5:26. Jehovah finds the human instruments of His further strokes, not in
Israel and the neighbouring nations, but in the people of distant lands. V. 26.
And lifts up a banner to the distant nations, and hisses to it from the end of the
earth; and, behold, it comes with haste swiftly.

What the prophet here foretold began to be fulfilled in the time of Ahaz. But the
prophecy, which commences with this verse, has every possible mark of the
very opposite of a vaticinium post eventum. It is, strictly speaking, only what
had already been threatened in Deu. 28:49ff. (cf., ch. 32:21ff.), though here it
assumes a more plastic form, and is here presented for the first time to the view
of the prophet as though coming out of a mist. Jehovah summons the nations
afar off: haggoyim merachok signifies, as we have rendered it, the distant
nations, for merachok is virtually an adjective both here and Isa. 49: 1, just as
in Jer. 23:23 it is virtually a substantive. The visible working of Jehovah
presents itself to the prophet in two figures. Jehovah plants a banner or
standard, which, like an optical telegraph, announces to the nations at a more
remote distance than the horn of battle (shophar) could possibly reach, that they
are to gather together to war. A banner (nes): i.e., a lofty staff with flying
colours (Isa. 33:23) planted upon a bare mountain-top (Isa. 13: 2). JVFNF
alternates with YRIH
in this favourite figure of Isaiah. The nations through
whom this was primarily fulfilled were the nations of the Assyrian empire.
According to the Old Testament view, these nations were regarded as far off,

and dwelling at the end of the earth (Isa. 39: 3), not only inasmuch as the
Euphrates formed the boundary towards the north-east between what was
geographically known and unknown to the Israelites (Psa. 72: 8; Zec. 9:10), but
also inasmuch as the prophet had in his mind a complex body of nations
stretching far away into further Asia. The second figure is taken from a beemaster, who entices the bees, by hissing or whistling, to come out of their hives
and settle on the ground. Thus Virgil says to the bee-master who wants to make
the bees settle, Raise a ringing, and beat the cymbals of Cybele all around
(Georgics, iv. 54). Thus does Jehovah entice the hosts of nations like swarms of
bees (Isa. 7:18), and they swarm together with haste and swiftness. The plural
changes into the singular, because those who are approaching have all the
appearance at first of a compact and indivisible mass; it is also possible that the
ruling nation among the many is singled out. The thought and expression are
both misty, and this is perfectly characteristic. With the word behold (hinneh)
the prophet points to them; they are approaching meherah kal, i.e., in the
shortest time with swift feet, and the nearer they come to his view the more
clearly he can describe them.

Isa. 5:27.
There is none exhausted, and none stumbling among them: it gives itself no
slumber, and no sleep; and to none is the girdle of his hips loosed; and to none is the
lace of his shoes broken.

Notwithstanding the long march, there is no exhausted one, obliged to separate

himself and remain behind (Deu. 25:18; Isa. 14:31); no stumbling one (coshel),
for they march on, pressing incessantly forwards, as if along a well-made road
(Jer. 31: 9). They do not slumber ( num), to say nothing of sleeping ( yashen),
so great is their eagerness for battle: i.e., they do not slumber to refresh
themselves, and do not even allow themselves their ordinary nights rest. No
one has the girdle of his armour-shirt or coat of mail, in which he stuck his
sword (Neh. 4:18), at all loosened; nor has a single one even the shoe-string,
with which his sandals were fastened, broken (nittak, disrumpitur). The
statement as to their want of rest forms a climax descendens; the other, as to
the tightness and durability of their equipment, a climax ascendens: the two
statements follow one another after the nature of a chiasmus.

Isa. 5:28. The prophet then proceeds to describe their weapons and warchariots. V. 28.
He whose arrows are sharpened, and all his bows strung; the hoofs of his horses
are counted like flint, and his wheels like the whirlwind.

In the prophets view they are coming nearer and nearer. For he sees that they
have brought the sharpened arrows in their quivers (Isa. 22: 6); and the fact that

all their bows are already trodden (namely, as their length was equal to a mans
height, by treading upon the string with the left foot, as we may learn from
Arrians Indica), proves that they are near to the goal. The correct reading in
Jablonsky (according to Kimchis Lex. cf., Michlal yofi) is WYTFTOiQA with
dagesh dirimens, as in Psa. 37:15 (Ges. 20, 2, b). As the custom of shoeing
horses was not practised in ancient times, firm hoofs (oplai karterai,
according to Xenophons Hippikos) were one of the most important points in a
good horse. And the horses of the enemy that was now drawing near to Judah
had hoofs that would be found like flint (tzar, only used here, equivalent to the
Arabic zirr). Homer designates such horses chalkopodes, brazen-footed. And
the two wheels of the war-chariots, to which they were harnessed, turned with
such velocity, and overthrew everything before them with such violence, that it
seemed not merely as if a whirlwind drove them forward, but as if they were the
whirlwind itself (ch. 56:15; Jer. 4:13). Nah. compares them to lightning
(Isa. 2: 5). Thus far the prophets description has moved on, as if by forced
marches, in clauses of from two to four words each. It now changes into a
heavy, stealthy pace, and then in a few clauses springs like a wild beast upon its
prey.

Isa. 5:29.
Roaring issues from it as from the lioness: it roars like lions, and utters a low
murmur; seizes the prey, carries it off, and no one rescues.

The futures, with the preceding

L HGFJFi which is equivalent to a future, hold
each feature in the description fast, as if for prolonged contemplation. The lion
roars when eager for prey; and such is now the war-cry of the bloodthirsty
enemy, which the prophet compares to the roaring of a lion or of young lions
(cephirim) in the fulness of their strength. (The lion is described by its poetic
name, JYBILF ; this does not exactly apply to the lioness, which would rather be
designated by the term HyFBIL.i ) The roar is succeeded by a low growl (naham,
fremere), when a lion is preparing to fall upon its prey. f44
And so the prophet hears a low and ominous murmur in the army, which is now
ready for battle. But he also sees immediately afterwards how the enemy seizes
its booty and carries it irrecoverably away: literally, how he causes it to
escape, i.e., not lets it slip in cruel sport, as Luzzatto interprets it, but carries
it to a place of safety (Mic. 6:14). The prey referred to is Judah. It also adds to
the gloomy and mysterious character of the prophecy, that the prophet never
mentions Judah. In the following verse also (v. 30) the object is still suppressed,
as if the prophet could not let it pass his lips.

Isa. 5:30.

And it utters a deep roar over it in that day like the roaring of the sea: and it looks
to the earth, and behold darkness, tribulation, and light; it becomes night over it in
the clouds of heaven.

The subject to roars is the mass of the enemy; and in the expressions over it
and it looks (nibbat; the niphal, which is only met with here, in the place of
the hiphil) the prophet has in his mind the nation of Judah, upon which the
enemy falls with the roar of the ocean that is to say, overwhelming it like a
sea. And when the people of Judah look to the earth, i.e., to their own land,
darkness alone presents itself, and darkness which has swallowed up all the
smiling and joyous aspect which it had before. And what then? The following
words, tzar vaor, have been variously rendered, viz., moon (= sahar) and sun
by the Jewish expositors, stone and flash, i.e., hail and thunder-storm, by
Drechsler; but such renderings as these, and others of a similar kind, are too far
removed from the ordinary usage of the language. And the separation of the
two words, so that the one closes a sentence and the other commences a fresh
one (e.g., darkness of tribulation, and the sun becomes dark), which is
adopted by Hitzig, Gesenius, Ewald, and others, is opposed to the impression
made by the two monosyllables, and sustained by the pointing, that they are
connected together. The simplest explanation is one which takes the word tzar
in its ordinary sense of tribulation or oppression, and or in its ordinary sense of
light, and which connects the two words closely together. And this is the case
with the rendering given above: tzar vaor are tribulation and brightening up,
one following the other and passing over into the other, like morning and night
(Isa. 21:12). This pair of words forms an interjectional clause, the meaning of
which is, that when the predicted darkness had settled upon the land of Judah,
this would not be the end; but there would still follow an alternation of anxiety
and glimmerings of hope, until at last it had become altogether dark in the
cloudy sky over all the land of Judah (ariphim, the cloudy sky, is only met with
here; it is derived from araph, to drop or trickle, hence also araphel: the suffix
points back to laaretz, eretz denoting sometimes the earth as a whole, and at
other times the land as being part of the earth). The prophet here predicts that,
before utter ruin has overtaken Judah, sundry approaches will be made towards
this, within which a divine deliverance will appear again and again. Grace tries
and tries again and again, until at last the measure of iniquity is full, and the
time of repentance past. The history of the nation of Judah proceeded according
to this law until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The Assyrian
troubles, and the miraculous light of divine help which arose in the destruction
of the military power of Sennacherib, were only the foreground of this mournful
but yet ever and anon hopeful course of history, which terminated in utter
darkness, that has continued now for nearly two thousand years.

This closes the third prophetic address. It commences with a parable which
contains the history of Israel in nuce, and closes with an emblem which
symbolizes the gradual but yet certain accomplishment of the judicial, penal
termination of the parable. This third address, therefore, is as complete in itself
as the second was. The kindred allusions are to be accounted for from the
sameness of the historical basis and arena. During the course of the exposition,
it has become more and more evident and certain that it relates to the time of
Uzziah and Jotham, a time of peace, of strength, and wealth, but also of
pride and luxury. The terrible slaughter of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, which
broke out at the end of Jothams reign, and the varied complications which king
Ahaz introduced between Judah and the imperial worldly power, and which
issued eventually in the destruction of the former kingdom, those five
marked epochs in the history of the kingdoms of the world, or great empires, to
which the Syro-Ephraimitish war was the prelude, were still hidden from the
prophet in the womb of the future. The description of the great mass of people
that was about to roll over Judah from afar is couched in such general terms, so
undefined and misty, that all we can say is, that everything that was to happen
to the people of God on the part of the imperial power during the five great and
extended periods of judgment that were now so soon to commence (viz., the
Assyrian, the Chaldean, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman), was here
unfolding itself out of the mist of futurity, and presenting itself to the prophets
eye. Even in the time of Ahaz the character of the prophecy changed in this
respect. It was then that the eventful relation, in which Israel stood to the
imperial power, generally assumed its first concrete shape in the form of a
distinct relation to Asshur (Assyria). And from that time forth the imperial
power in the mouth of the prophet is no longer a majestic thing without a name;
but although the notion of the imperial power was not yet embodied in Asshur,
it was called Asshur, and Asshur stood as its representative. It also necessarily
follows from this, that Isa. 2-4 and 5 belong to the times anterior to Ahaz, i.e.,
to those of Uzziah and Jotham. But several different questions suggest
themselves here. If Isa. 2-4 and 5 were uttered under Uzziah and Jotham, how
could Isaiah begin with a promise (Isa. 2: 1-4) which is repeated word for word
in Mic. 4: 1ff., where it is the direct antithesis to Isa. 3:12, which was uttered by
Micha, according to Jer. 26:18, in the time of Hezekiah? Again, if we consider
the advance apparent in the predictions of judgment from the general
expressions with which they commence in Isa. 1 to the close of Isa. 5, in what
relation does the address in Isa. 1 stand to Isa. 2-4 and 5, inasmuch as vv. 7-9
are not ideal (as we felt obliged to maintain, in opposition to Caspari), but have
a distinct historical reference, and therefore at any rate presuppose the SyroEphraimitish war? And lastly, if Isa. 6 does really relate, as it apparently does,
to the call of Isaiah to the prophetic office, how are we to explain the singular
fact, that three prophetic addresses precede the history of his call, which ought

properly to stand at the commencement of the book? Drechsler and Caspari

have answered this question lately, by maintaining that Isa. 6 does not contain
an account of the call of Isaiah to the prophetic office, but simply of the call of
the prophet, who was already installed in that office, to one particular mission.
The proper heading to be adopted for Isa. 6 would therefore be, The
ordination of the prophet as the preacher of the judgment of hardening; and
Isa. 1-5 would contain warning reproofs addressed by the prophet to the
people, who were fast ripening for this judgment of hardening (reprobation), for
the purpose of calling them to repentance. The final decision was still trembling
in the balance. But the call to repentance was fruitless, and Israel hardened
itself. And now that the goodness of God had tried in vain to lead the people to
repentance, and the long-suffering of God had been wantonly abused by the
people, Jehovah Himself would harden them. Looked at in this light, Isa. 6
stands in its true historical place. It contains the divine sequel to that portion of
Isaiahs preaching, and of the prophetic preaching generally, by which it had
been preceded. But true as it is that the whole of the central portion of Israels
history, which lay midway between the commencement and the close, was
divided in half by the contents of Isa. 6, and that the distinctive importance of
Isaiah as a prophet arose especially from the fact that he stood upon the
boundary between these two historic halves; there are serious objections which
present themselves to such an explanation of Isa. 6. It is possible, indeed, that
this distinctive importance may have been given to Isaiahs official position at
his very first call. And what Umbreit says namely, that Isa. 6 must make the
impression upon every unprejudiced mind, that it relates to the prophets
inaugural vision cannot really be denied. but the position in which Isa. 6
stands in the book itself must necessarily produce a contrary impression, unless
it can be accounted for in some other way. Nevertheless the impression still
remains (just as at Isa. 1: 7-9), and recurs again and again. We will therefore
proceed to Isa. 6 without attempting to efface it. It is possible that we may
discover some other satisfactory explanation of the enigmatical position of
Isa. 6 in relation to what precedes.

The Prophet's Account of His Own Divine Mission Ch. 6

Isa. 6: 1. The time of the occurrence here described, viz., the year that king
Uzziah (Uz-yahu ) died, was of importance to the prophet. The statement
itself, in the naked form in which it is here introduced, is much more emphatic
than if it commenced with it came to pass (vayhi; cf., Exo. 16: 6,
Pro. 24:17). It was the year of Uzziahs death, not the first year of Jothams
reign; that is to say, Uzziah was still reigning, although his death was near at
hand. If this is the sense in which the words are to be understood, then, even if
the chapter before us contains an account of Isaiahs first call, the heading to

Isa. 1, which dates the ministry of the prophet from the time of Uzziah, is quite
correct, inasmuch as, although his public ministry under Uzziah was very short,
this is properly to be included, not only on account of its own importance, but
as inaugurating a new ear (lit. an epoch-making beginning). But is it not
stated in 2Ch. 26:22, that Isaiah wrote a historical work embracing the whole of
Uzziahs reign? Unquestionably; but it by no means follows from this, that he
commenced his ministry long before the death of Uzziah. If Isaiah received his
call in the year that Uzziah died, this historical work contained a retrospective
view of the life and times of Uzziah, the close of which coincided with the call
of the prophetic author, which made a deep incision into the history of Israel.
Uzziah reigned fifty-two years (809-758 B.C.). This lengthened period was just
the same to the kingdom of Judah as the shorter age of Solomon to that of all
Israel, viz., a time of vigorous and prosperous peace, in which the nation was
completely overwhelmed with manifestations of divine love. But the riches of
divine goodness had no more influence upon it, than the troubles through which
it had passed before. And now the eventful change took place in the relation
between Israel and Jehovah, of which Isaiah was chosen to be the instrument
before and above all other prophets. The year in which all this occurred was the
year of Uzziahs death. It was in this year that Israel as a people was given up
to hardness of heart, and as a kingdom and country to devastation and
annihilation by the imperial power of the world. How significant a fact, as
Jerome observes in connection with this passage, that the year of Uzziahs
death should be the year in which Romulus was born; and that it was only a
short time after the death of Uzziah (viz., 754 B.C. according to Varros
chronology) that Rome itself was founded! The national glory of Israel died out
with king Uzziah, and has never revived to this day.
In that year, says the prophet, I saw the Lord of all sitting upon a high and
exalted throne, and His borders filling the temple. Isaiah saw, and that not
when asleep and dreaming; but God gave him, when awake, an insight into the
invisible world, by opening an inner sense for the supersensuous, whilst the
action of the outer senses was suspended, and by condensing the supersensuous
into a sensuous form, on account of the composite nature of man and the limits
of his present state. This was the mode of revelation peculiar to an ecstatic
vision (en ekstasei, Eng. ver. in a trance, or en pneumati, in the spirit).
Isaiah is here carried up into heaven; for although in other instances it was
undoubtedly the earthly temple which was presented to a prophets view in an
ecstatic vision (Amo. 9: 1; Eze. 8: 3; 10: 4, 5; cf., Act. 22:17), yet here, as the
description which follows clearly proves, the high and exalted throne f45 is
the heavenly antitype of the earthly throne which was formed by the ark of the
covenant; and the temple (hecal: lit., a spacious hall, the name given to the
temple as the palace of God the King) is the temple in heaven, as in Psa. 11: 4;

18: 7; 29: 9, and many other passages. There the prophet sees the Sovereign
Ruler, or, as we prefer to render the noun, which is formed from adan = dun,
the Lord of all (All-herrn, sovereign or absolute Lord), seated upon the
throne, and in human form (Eze. 1:26), as is proved by the robe with a train,
whose flowing ends or borders (fimbriae: shulim, as in Exo. 28:33, 34) filled
the hall. The Sept., Targum, Vulgate, etc., have dropped the figure of the robe
and train, as too anthropomorphic. But John, in his Gospel, is bold enough to
say that it was Jesus whose glory Isaiah saw (Joh. 12:41). And truly so, for the
incarnation of God is the truth embodied in all the scriptural
anthropomorphisms, and the name of Jesus is the manifested mystery of the
name Jehovah. The heavenly temple is that super-terrestrial place, which
Jehovah transforms into heaven and a temple, by manifesting Himself there to
angels and saints. But whilst He manifests His glory there, He is obliged also to
veil it, because created beings are unable to bear it. But that which veils His
glory is no less splendid, than that portion of it which is revealed. And this was
the truth embodied for Isaiah in the long robe and train. He saw the Lord, and
what more he saw was the all-filling robe of the indescribable One. As far as the
eye of the seer could look at first, the ground was covered by this splendid
robe. There was consequently no room for any one to stand. And the vision of
the seraphim is in accordance with this.

Isa. 6: 2.
Above it stood seraphim: each one had six wings; with two he covered his face,
and with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly.

We must not render

L LJAmAMI near him; for although LJA or LJAM
is applied
to a person standing near or over against another who is sitting down
(Exo. 18:13; Jer. 36:21; compared 2Ch. 26:19, where the latter is used to
signify over against the altar of incense), and is used in this sense to denote
the attitude of spirits (Job. 1:16; 1Ki. 22:19; Zec. 6: 5), and even of men
(Zec. 4:14), in relation to God when seated on His throne, in which case it
cannot possibly be employed in the sense of towering above; yet
L LJAmAMI ,
the strongest expression for supra, cannot be employed in any other than a
literal sense here; for which reason Rashi and the Targums understand it as
signifying above in the attitude of service, and the accentuation apparently,
though erroneously, implies this (Luzzatto). What Isaiah meant by this standing
above, may be inferred from the use which the seraphim are said to have made
of their wings. The imperfects do not describe what they were accustomed to
do (Bttcher and others), but what the seer saw them do: with two of their six
wings he saw them fly. Thus they stood flying, i.e., they hovered or soared (cf.,
Num. 14:14), as both the earth and stars are said to stand, although suspended
in space (Job. 26: 7). The seraphim would not indeed tower above the head of

Him that sat upon the throne, but they hovered above the robe belonging to
Him with which the hall was filled, sustained by two extended wings, and
covering their faces with two other wings in their awe at the divine glory (Targ.
ne videant), and their feet with two others, in their consciousness of the depth
at which the creature stands below the Holiest of all (Targ. ne videantur), just
as the cherubim are described as veiling their bodies in Eze. 1:11. This is the
only passage in the Scriptures in which the seraphim are mentioned. According
to the orthodox view, which originated with Dionysius the Areopagite, they
stand at the head of the nine choirs of angels, the first rank consisting of
seraphim, cherubim, and throni. And this is not without support, if we compare
the cherubim mentioned in Ezekiel, which carried the chariot of the divine
throne; whereas here the seraphim are said to surround the seat on which the
Lord was enthroned. In any case, the seraphim and cherubim were heavenly
beings of different kinds; and there is no weight in the attempts made by
Hendewerk and Stickel to prove that they are one and the same. And certainly
the name serpahim does not signify merely spirits as such, but even, if not the
highest of all, yet a distinct order from the rest; for the Scriptures really teach
that there are gradations in rank in the hierarchy of heaven. Nor were they mere
symbols or fanciful images, as Hvernick imagines, but real spiritual beings,
who visibly appeared to the prophet, and that in a form corresponding to their
own supersensuous being, and to the design of the whole transaction. Whilst
these seraphim hovered above on both sides of Him that sat upon the throne,
and therefore formed two opposite choirs, each ranged in a semicircle, they
presented antiphonal worship to Him that sat upon the throne.

Isa. 6: 3.
And one cried to the other, and said, Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of hosts: filling
the whole earth is His glory.

The meaning is not that they all lifted up their voice in concert at one and the
same time (just as in Psa. 42: 8 el is not used in this sense, viz., as equivalent to
cneged), but that there was a continuous and unbroken antiphonal song. One
set commenced, and the others responded, either repeating the Holy, holy,
holy, or following with filling the whole earth is His glory. Isaiah heard this
antiphonal or hypophonal song of the seraphim, not merely that he might
know that the uninterrupted worship of God was their blessed employment, but
because it was with this doxology as with the doxologies of the Apocalypse, it
had a certain historical significance in common with the whole scene. God is in
Himself the Holy One (kadosh), i.e., the separate One, beyond or above the
world, true light, spotless purity, the perfect One. His glory (cabod) is His
manifested holiness, as Oetinger and Bengel express it, just as, on the other
hand, His holiness is His veiled or hidden glory. The design of all the work of

God is that His holiness should become universally manifest, or, what is the
same thing, that His glory should become the fulness of the whole earth
(Isa. 11: 9; Num. 14:21; Hab. 2:14). This design of the work of God stands
before God as eternally present; and the seraphim also have it ever before them
in its ultimate completion, as the theme of their song of praise. But Isaiah was a
man living in the very midst of the history that was moving on towards this
goal; and the cry of the seraphim, in the precise form in which it reached him,
showed him to what it would eventually come on earth, whilst the heavenly
shapes that were made visible to him helped him to understand the nature of
that divine glory with which the earth was to be filled. The whole of the book of
Isaiah contains traces of the impression made by this ecstatic vision. The
favourite name of God in the mouth of the prophet viz., the Holy One of
Israel (kedosh Yisrael), is the echo of this seraphic sanctus; and the fact that
this name already occurs with such marked preference on the part of the
prophet in the addresses contained in Isa. 1: 2-4: 5, supports the view that
Isaiah is here describing his own first call. All the prophecies of Isaiah carry this
name of God as their stamp. It occurs twenty-nine times (including Isa. 10:17;
43:15; 49: 7), viz., twelve times in Isa. 1-39, and seventeen times in Isa. 40-66.
As Luzzatto has well observed, the prophet, as if with a presentiment that the
authenticity of the second part of his book would be disputed, has stamped both
parts with this name of God, the Holy One of Israel, as if with his own seal.
The only other passages in which the word occurs, are three times in the Psalms
(Psa. 71:22; 78:41; 89:19), and twice in Jeremiah (Jer. 50:29; 51: 5), and that
not without an allusion to Isaiah. It forms an essential part of Isaiahs distinctive
prophetic signature. And here we are standing at the source from which it
sprang. But did this thrice-holy refer to the triune God? Knobel contents himself
with saying that the threefold repetition of the word holy serves to give it the
greater emphasis. No doubt men are accustomed to say three times what they
wish to say in an exhaustive and satisfying manner; for three is the number of
expanded unity, of satisfied and satisfying development, of the key-note
extended into the chord. But why is this? The Pythagoreans said that numbers
were the first principle of all things; but the Scriptures, according to which God
created the world in twice three days by ten mighty words, and completed it in
seven days, teach us that God is the first principle of all numbers. The fact that
three is the number of developed and yet self-contained unity, has its ultimate
ground in the circumstance that it is the number of the trinitarian process; and
consequently the trilogy (trisagion) of the seraphim (like that of the cherubim in
Rev. 4: 8), whether Isaiah was aware of it or no, really pointed in the distinct
consciousness of the spirits themselves to the truine God.

Isa. 6: 4. When Isaiah heard this, he stood entranced at the farthest possible
distance from Him that sat upon the throne, namely, under the door of the

heavenly palace or temple. What he still further felt and saw, he proceeds to
relate in v. 4:
And the foundations of the thresholds shook with the voice of them that cried; and
the house became full of smoke.

By ammoth hassippim, the LXX, Vulgate, Syriac, and others understand the
posts of the lintels, the supporting beams of the superliminaria, which closed
the doorway at the top. But as saph is only used in other places to signify the
threshold and porch (limen and vestibulum), ammoth hassippim must be
understood here in the (perfectly appropriate) sense of the foundations of the
thresholds (ammah, which bears the same relation to J
, mother, as matrix to
mater, is used to denote the receptive basis into which the door-steps with their
plugs were inserted, like the talmudic ammetah derechayyah, the frame or box
of the hand-mill (Berachoth 18b), and ammath megerah, the wood-work which
runs along the back of the saw and keeps it firmly extended (Kelim 21, 3);
compare the Schraubenmutter, literally screw-mother, or female screw,
which receives and holds the cylindrical screw). Every time that the choir of
seraphim (JR

qHA: compare such collective singulars as haoreb, the ambush, in

Jos. 8:19; hechalutz, of men of war, in Jos. 6: 7, etc.) began their song, the
support of the threshold of the porch in which Isaiah was standing trembled.
The building was seized with reverential awe throughout its whole extent, and
in its deepest foundations: for in the blessed state beyond, nothing stands
immoveable or unsusceptible in relation to the spirits there; but all things form,
as it were, the accidentia of their free personality, yielding to their impressions,
and voluntarily following them in all their emotions. The house was also filled
with smoke. Many compare this with the similar occurrence in connection with
the dedication of Solomons temple (1Ki. 8:10); but Drechsler is correct in
stating that the two cases are not parallel, for there God simply attested His
own presence by the cloud of smoke behind which He concealed Himself,
whereas here there was no need of any such self-attestation. Moreover, in this
instance God does not dwell in the cloud and thick darkness, whilst the smoke
is represented as the effect of the songs of praise in which the seraphim have
joined, and not of the presence of God. The smoke arose from the altar of
incense mentioned in v. 6. But when Drechsler says that it was the prayers of
saints (as in Rev. 5: 8; 8: 3, 4), which ascended to the Lord in the smoke, this is
a thought which is quite out of place here. The smoke was the immediate
consequence of the seraphs song of praise.
This begins to throw a light upon the name seraphim, which may help us to
decipher it. The name cannot possibly be connected with saraph, a snake
(Sanscr. sarpa, Lat. serpens); and to trace the word to a verb saraph in the
sense of the Arabic sarafa (sarufa), to tower high, to be exalted, or highly

honoured (as Gesenius, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, and others have done), yields
a sense which does not very strongly commend itself. On the other hand, to
follow Knobel, who reads sharathim (worshippers of God), and thus presents
the Lexicon with a new word, and to pronounce the word serpahim a copyists
error, would be a rash concession to the heaven-storming omnipotence which is
supposed to reside in the ink of a German scholar. It is hardly admissible,
however, to interpret the name as signifying directly spirits of light or fire, since
the true meaning of saraph is not urere (to burn), but comburere (to set on fire
or burn up). Umbreit endeavours to do justice to this transitive meaning by
adopting the explanation fiery beings, by which all earthly corruption is
opposed and destroyed. The vision itself, however, appears to point to a much
more distinctive and special meaning in the name, which only occurs in this
passage of Isaiah. We shall have more to say upon this point presently.

Isa. 6: 5. The seer, who was at first overwhelmed and intoxicated by the
majestic sight, now recovers his self-consciousness. V. 5.
Then said I, Woe to me! for I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I am
dwelling among a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah
of hosts.

That a man cannot see God without dying is true in itself, and was an Old
Testament conviction throughout (Exo. 33:20, etc.). He must die, because the
holiness of God is to the sinner a consuming fire (Isa. 33:14); and the infinite
distance between the creature and the Creator is sufficient of itself to produce a
prostrating effect, which even the seraphim could not resist without veiling their
faces. Isaiah therefore regarded himself as lost (nidmethi, like olwla, perii, a
preterite denoting the fact which, although not outwardly completed, is yet
effected so far as a mans own consciousness is concerned), and all the more
because he himself was of unclean lips, and he was also a member of a nation of
unclean lips. The unholiness of his own person was doubled, in consequence of
the closeness of the natural connection, by the unholiness of the nation to which
he belonged. He designates this unholiness as uncleanness of lips, because he
found himself transported into the midst of choirs of beings who were praising
the Lord with pure lips; and he calls the King Jehovah, because, although he
had not seen Jehovah face to face, he had seen the throne, and the all-filling
robe, and the seraphim who surrounded and did homage to Him that sat upon
the throne; and therefore, as he had seen the heavenly King in His revealed
majesty, he describes the scene according to the impression that he had
received. But to stand here in front of Jehovah of hosts, the exalted King, to
whom everything does homage, and to be obliged to remain mute in the
consciousness of deep uncleanness, excited within him the annihilating anguish

of self-condemnation. And this is expressed in the confession made by the

contrite seer.

Isa. 6: 6, 7. This confession was followed by the forgiveness of his sins, of

which he received an attestation through a heavenly sacrament, and which was
conveyed to him through the medium of a seraphic absolution. Vv. 6, 7.
And one of the seraphim flew to me with a red-hot coal in his hand, which he had
taken with the tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth with it, and said,
Behold, this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away; and so thy sin is
expiated.

One of the beings hovering round the Lord (there were, therefore, a large and
indefinite number) flew to the altar of incense, the heavenly original of the
altar of incense in the earthly temple, which was reckoned as belonging to the
Most Holy Place, and took from this altar a ritzpah, i.e., either a red-hot
stone (Vulg. calculum, Ar. radfe or radafe), or, according to the prevailing
tradition, a red-hot coal (vid., ratzeph - rashaph, to scatter sparks, sparkle, or
glow: syn. gacheleth), and that with a pair of tongs, because even a seraphs
hand cannot touch the vessels consecrated to God, or the sacrifices that belong
to Him. With this red-hot coal he flew to Isaiah, and having touched his mouth
with it, i.e., that member of his body of whose uncleanness he had more
especially complained (cf., Jer. 1: 9, where the prophets mouth is touched by
Jehovahs hand, and made eloquent in consequence), he assured him of the
forgiveness of his sins, which coincided with the application of this sacramental
sign. The Vav connects together what is affirmed by naga (hath touched) and
sar (a taker away) as being simultaneous; the zeh (this) points as a neuter to the
red-hot coal. The future tecuppar is a future consec., separated by Vav
conversive for the purpose of bringing the subject into greater prominence; as it
is practically impossible that the removal of guilt should be thought of as
immediate and momentary, and the expiation as occurring gradually. The fact
that the guilt was taken away was the very proof that the expiation was
complete. Cipper, with the sin in the accusative, or governed by LJA , signifies
to cover it up, extinguish, or destroy it (for the primary meaning, vid.,
Isa. 28:18), so that it has no existence in relation to the penal justice of God. All
sinful uncleanness was burned away from the prophets mouth. The seraph,
therefore, did here what his name denotes: he burned up or burned away
(comburit). He did this, however, not by virtue of his own fiery nature, but by
means of the divine fire which he had taken from the heavenly altar. As the
smoke which filled the house came from the altar, and arose in consequence of
the adoration offered to the Lord by the seraphim, not only must the incenseoffering upon the altar and this adoration be closely connected; but the fire,
which revealed itself in the smoke and consumed the incense-offering, and

which must necessarily have been divine because of its expiatory power, was an
effect of the love of God with which He reciprocated the offerings of the
seraphim. A fiery look from God, and that a fiery look of pure love as the
seraphim were sinless, had kindled the sacrifice. Now, if the fact that a seraph
absolved the seer by means of this fire of love is to be taken as an illustrative
example of the historical calling of the seraphim, they were the vehicles and
media of the fire of divine love, just as the cherubim in Ezekiel are vehicles and
media of the fire of divine wrath. For just as, in the case before us, a seraph
takes the fire of love from the altar; so there, in Eze. 10: 6, 7, a cherub takes the
fire of wrath from the throne-chariot. Consequently the cherubim appear as the
vehicles and media of the wrath which destroys sinners, or rather of the divine
doxa, with its fiery side turned towards the world; and the seraphim as the
vehicles and media of the love which destroys sin, or of the same divine doxa
with its light side towards the world. f46

Isa. 6: 8. When Isaiah had been thus absolved, the true object of the heavenly
scene was made apparent. V. 8.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for
us? Then I said, Behold me here; send me!

The plural for us (lanu) is not to be accounted for on the ground that, in a
case of reflection or self-consultation, the subject also stands as the object in
antithesis to itself (as Hitzig supposes); nor is it a pluralis majestatis, as Knobel
maintains; nor is the original abstract signification of the plural hinted at, as
Meier thinks. The plural is no doubt used here with reference to the seraphim,
who formed, together with the Lord, one deliberative council (sod kedoshim,
Psa. 89: 8), as in 1Ki. 22:19-22, Dan. 4:14, etc.; just as, from their very nature
as sons of God (bne Ha-elohim), they made one family with God their
Creator (vid., Eph. 3:15), all linked so closely together that they themselves
could be called Elohim, like God their Creator, just as in 1Co. 12:12 the church
of believers is called Christos, like Christ its head. The task for which the right
man was sought was not merely divine, but heavenly in the broadest sense: for
it is not only a matter in which God Himself is interested, that the earth should
become full of the glory of God, but this is also an object of solicitude to the
spirits that minister unto Him. Isaiah, whose anxiety to serve the Lord was no
longer suppressed by the consciousness of his own sinfulness, no sooner heard
the voice of the Lord, than he exclaimed, in holy self-consciousness, Behold
me here; send me. It is by no means a probable thing, that he had already acted
as a messenger of God, or held the office of prophet. For if the joy, with which
he offered himself here as the messenger of God, was the direct consequence of
the forgiveness of sins, of which he had received the seal; the consciousness of
his own personal sinfulness, and his membership in a sinful nation, would

certainly have prevented him thereto from coming forward to denounce

judgment upon that nation. And as the prophetic office as such rested upon an
extraordinary call from God, it may fairly be assumed, that when Isaiah relates
so extraordinary a call as this, he is describing the sealing of his prophetic
office, and therefore his own first call.

Isa. 6: 9, 10. This is confirmed by the words in which his commission is

expressed, and the substance of the message. Vv. 9, 10.
He said, Go, and tell this people, Hear on, and understand not; and look on, but
perceive not. Make ye the heart of this people greasy, and their ears heavy, and
their eyes sticky; that they may not see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and
their heart understand, and they be converted, and one heal them.

This people points back to the people of unclean lips, among whom Isaiah
had complained of dwelling, and whom the Lord would not call my people. It
was to go to this people and preach to them, and therefore to be the prophet of
this people, that he was called. But how mournful does the divine commission
sound! It was the terrible opposite of that seraphic mission, which the prophet
had experienced in himself. The seraph had absolved Isaiah by the burning coal,
that he as prophet might not absolve, but harden his people by his word. They
were to hear and see, and that continually as the gerundives imply (Ges. 131,
3, b; Ewald, 280, b), by having the prophets preaching actu directo
constantly before them; but not to their salvation. The two prohibitory
expressions, understand not and perceive not, show what the result of the
prophets preaching was to be, according to the judicial will of God. And the
imperatives in v. 10 are not to be understood as simply instructing the prophet
to tell the people what God had determined to do; for the fact that prophets
are often said to do what they announce as about to happen, in proof of which
Jer. 1:10 is sometimes quoted (cf., Jer. 31:28; Hos. 6: 5; Eze. 43: 3), has its
truth not in a rhetorical figure, but in the very nature of the divine word. The
prophet was the organ of the word of God, and the word of God was the
expression of the will of God, and the will of God is a divine act that has not yet
become historical. For this reason a prophet might very well be said to perform
what he announced as about to happen: God was the causa efficiens
principalis, the word was the causa media, and the prophet the causa
ministerialis. This is the force of the three imperatives; they are three figurative
expressions of the idea of hardening. The first, hishmin, signifies to make fat
(pinguem), i.e., without susceptibility or feeling for the operations of divine
grace (Psa. 119:70); the second, hicbid, to make heavy, more especially heavy
or dull of hearing (Isa. 59: 1); the third, JA
H
or AH
(whence the imperative
JA
HF or AHF), to smear thickly, or paste over, i.e., to put upon a person what
is usually the result of weak eyes, which become firmly closed by the hardening

of the adhesive substance secreted in the night. The three future clauses, with
lest (pen), point back to these three imperatives in inverse order: their
spiritual sight, spiritual hearing, and spiritual feeling were to be taken away,
their eyes becoming blind, and their ears deaf, and their hearts being covered
over with the grease of insensibility.
Under the influence of these futures the two preterites
L JPFRFWi BF affirm
what might have been the result if this hardening had not taken place, but what
would never take place now. The expression Li JPFRF is used in every other
instance in a transitive sense, to heal a person or a disease, and never in the
sense of becoming well or being healed; but in the present instance it acquires a
passive sense from the so-called impersonal construction (Ges. 137, 3), and
one heal it, i.e., and it be healed: and it is in accordance with this sense that
it is paraphrased in Mar. 4:12, whereas in the three other passages in which the
words are quoted in the New Testament (viz., Matthew, John, and Acts) the
Septuagint rendering is adopted, and I should heal them (God Himself being
taken as the subject). The commission which the prophet received, reads as
though it were quite irreconcilable with the fact that God, as the Good, can only
will what is good. But our earlier doctrinarians have suggested the true
solution, when they affirm that God does not harden men positive aut effective,
since His true will and direct work are mans salvation, but occasionaliter et
eventualiter, since the offers and displays of salvation which man receives
necessarily serve to fill up the measure of his sins, and judicialiter so far as it is
the judicial will of God, that what was originally ordained for mens salvation
should result after all in judgment, in the case of any man upon whom grace has
ceased to work, because all its ways and means have been completely
exhausted. It is not only the loving will of God which is good, but also the
wrathful will into which His loving will changes, when determinately and
obstinately resisted. There is a self-hardening in evil, which renders a man
thoroughly incorrigible, and which, regarded as the fruit of his moral behaviour,
is no less a judicial punishment inflicted by God, than self-induced guilt on the
part of man. The two are bound up in one another, inasmuch as sin from its
very nature bears its own punishment, which consists in the wrath of God
excited by sin. For just as in all the good that men do, the active principle is the
love of God; so in all the harm that they do, the active principle is the wrath of
God. An evil act in itself is the result of self-determination proceeding from a
mans own will; but evil, regarded as the mischief in which evil acting quickly
issues, is the result of the inherent wrath of God, which is the obverse of His
inherent love; and when a man hardens himself in evil, it is the inward working
of Gods peremptory wrath. To this wrath Israel had delivered itself up through
its continued obstinacy in sinning. And consequently the Lord now proceeded
to shut the door of repentance against His people. Nevertheless He directed the

prophet to preach repentance, because the judgment of hardness suspended

over the people as a whole did not preclude the possibility of the salvation of
individuals.

Isa. 6:11-13. Isaiah heard with sighing, and yet with obedience, in what the
mission to which he had so cheerfully offered himself was to consist. V. 11a.
Then said I, Lord, how long? He inquired how long this service of hardening
and this state of hardness were to continue, a question forced from him by
his sympathy with the nation to which he himself belonged (cf., Exo. 32: 9-14),
and one which was warranted by the certainty that God, who is ever true to His
promises, could not cast off Israel as a people for ever. The answer follows in
vv. 11b -13:
Until towns are wasted without inhabitant, and houses are without man, and the
ground shall be laid waste, a wilderness, and Jehovah shall put men far away, and
there shall be many forsaken places within the land. And is there still a tenth
therein, this also again is given up to destruction, like the terebinth and like the oak,
of which, when they are felled, only a root-stump remains: such a root-stump is a
holy seed.

The answer is intentionally commenced, not with YkIDJA, but with JI REJ
DJA (the expression only occurs again in Gen. 28:15 and Num. 32:17), which,
even without dropping the conditional force of JI, signified that the hardening
judgment would only come to an end when the condition had been fulfilled, that
towns, houses, and the soil of the land of Israel and its environs had been made
desolate, in fact, utterly and universally desolate, as the three definitions
(without inhabitant, without man, wilderness) affirm. The expression richak
(put far away) is a general and enigmatical description of exile or captivity (cf.,
Joe. 4: 6, Jer. 27:10); the literal term galah has been already used in Isa. 5:13.
Instead of a national term being used, we find here simply the general
expression men (eth-haadam; the consequence of depopulation, viz., the
entire absence of men, being expressed in connection with the depopulation
itself. The participial noun ha azubah (the forsaken) is a collective term for
places once full of life, that had afterwards died out and fallen into ruins
(Isa. 17: 2, 9). This judgment would be followed by a second, which would
expose the still remaining tenth of the nation to a sifting. HYFHFWi BF, to become
again (Ges. 142, 3); R
BFLi HYFH,F not as in Isa. 5: 5, but as in Isa. 4: 4, after
Num. 24:22: the feminine does not refer to the land of Israel (Luzzatto), but to
the tenth. Up to the words given up to destruction, the announcement is a
threatening one; but from this point to remains a consolatory prospect begins
to dawn; and in the last three words this brighter prospect, like a distant streak
of light, bounds the horizon of the gloomy prophecy. It shall happen as with the
terebinth and oak. These trees were selected as illustrations, not only because

they were so near akin to evergreens, and produced a similar impression, or

because there were so many associations connected with them in the olden
times of Israels history; but also because they formed such fitting symbols of
Israel, on account of their peculiar facility for springing up again from the root
(like the beech and nut, for example), even when they had been completely
felled. As the forms yabbesheth (dryness), dalleketh (fever), avvereth
(blindness), shachepheth (consumption), are used to denote certain qualities or
states, and those for the most part faulty ones (Concord. p. 1350); so shalleceth
here does not refer to the act itself of felling or casting away, but rather to the
condition of a tree that has been hewn or thrown down; though not to the
condition of the trunk as it lies prostrate upon the ground, but to that of the
root, which is still left in the earth. Of this tree, that had been deprived of its
trunk and crown, there was still a mazzebeth kindred form of mazzebah), i.e., a
root-stump (truncus) fast in the ground. The tree was not yet entirely
destroyed; the root-stump could shoot out and put forth branches again. And
this would take place: the root-stump of the oak or terebinth, which was a
symbol of Israel, was a holy seed. The root-stump was the remnant that had
survived the judgment, and this remnant would become a seed, out of which a
new Israel would spring up after the old had been destroyed. Thus in a few
weighty words is the way sketched out, which God would henceforth take with
His people. The passage contains an outline of the history of Israel to the end of
time. Israel as a nation was indestructible, by virtue of the promise of God; but
the mass of the people were doomed to destruction through the judicial
sentence of God, and only a remnant, which would be converted, would
perpetuate the nationality of Israel, and inherit the glorious future. This law of a
blessing sunk in the depths of the curse actually inflicted, still prevails in the
history of the Jews. The way of salvation is open to all. Individuals find it, and
give us a presentiment of what might be and is to be; but the great mass are
hopelessly lost, and only when they have been swept away will a holy seed,
saved by the covenant-keeping God, grow up into a new and holy Israel, which,
according to Isa. 27: 6, will fill the earth with its fruits, or, as the apostle
expresses it in Rom. 11:12, become the riches of the Gentiles.
Now, if the impression which we have received from Isa. 6 is not a false one,
namely, that the prophet is here relating his first call to the prophetic office, and
not, as Seb. Schmidt observes, his call to one particular duty (ad unum
specialem actum officii), this impression may be easily verified, inasmuch as
the addresses in Isa. 1-5 will be sure to contain the elements which are here
handed to the prophet by revelation, and the result of these addresses will
correspond to the sentence judicially pronounced here. And the conclusion to
which we have come will stand this test. For the prophet, in the very first
address, after pointing out to the nation as a whole the gracious pathway of

justification and sanctification, takes the turn indicated in Isa. 6:11-13, in full
consciousness that all is in vain. And the theme of the second address is, that it
will be only after the overthrow of the false glory of Israel that the true glory
promised can possibly be realized, and that after the destruction of the great
body of the people only a small remnant will live to see this realization. The
parable with which the third begins, rests upon the supposition that the measure
of the nations iniquity is full; and the threatening of judgment introduced by
this parable agrees substantially, and in part verbally, with the divine answer
received by the prophet to his question How long? On every side, therefore,
the opinion is confirmed, that in c. 6 Isaiah describes his own consecration to
the prophetic office. The addresses in Isa. 2-4 and 5, which belong to the time
of Uzziah and Jotham, do not fall earlier than the year of Uzziahs death, from
which point the whole of Jothams sixteen years reign lay open before them.
Now, as Micah commenced his ministry in Jothams reign, though his book was
written in the form of a complete and chronologically indivisible summary, by
the working up of the prophecies which he delivered under Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah, and was then read or published in the time of Hezekiah, as we may
infer from Jer. 26:18, it is quite possible that Isaiah may have taken from
Micahs own lips (though not from Micahs book) the words of promise in
Isa. 2: 1-4, which he certainly borrowed from some quarter. The notion that this
word of promise originated with a third prophet (who must have been Joel, if he
were one of the prophets known to us), is rendered very improbable by the
many marks of Micahs prophetic peculiarities, and by its natural position in the
context in which it there occurs (vid., Caspari, Micha, pp. 444-5).
Again, the situation of Isa. 6 is not inexplicable. As Hvernick has observed,
the prophet evidently intended to vindicate in Isa. 6 the style and method of his
previous prophecies, on the ground of the divine commission that he had
received. but this only serves to explain the reason why Isaiah has not placed
Isa. 6 at the commencement of the collection, and not why he inserts it in this
particular place. He has done this, no doubt, for the purpose of bringing close
together the prophecy and its fulfilment; for whilst on the one hand the
judgment of hardening suspended over the Jewish nation is brought distinctly
out in the person of king Ahaz, on the other hand we find ourselves in the midst
of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, which formed the introduction to the judgments
of extermination predicted in Isa. 6:11-13. It is only the position of Isa. 1 which
still remains in obscurity. If Isa. 1: 7-9 is to be understood in a historically
literally sense, then c. 1 must have been composed after the dangers of the
Syro-Ephraimitish war had been averted from Jerusalem, though the land of
Judah was still bleeding with the open wounds which this war, designed as it
was to destroy it altogether, had inflicted upon it. Ch. 1 would therefore be of
more recent origin than Isa. 2-5, and still more recent than the connected Isa. 7-

12. It is only the comparatively more general and indefinite character of Isa. 1
which seems at variance with this. But this difficulty is removed at once, if we
assume that Isa. 1, though not indeed the first of the prophets addresses, was
yet in one sense the first, namely, the first that was committed to writing,
though not the first that he delivered, and that it was primarily intended to form
the preface to the addresses and historical accounts in Isa. 2-12, the contents of
which were regulated by it. For Isa. 2-5 and 7-12 form two prophetic cycles,
Isa. 1 being the portal which leads into them, and Isa. 6 the band which
connects them together. The prophetic cycle in Isa. 2-5 may be called the Book
of hardening, as it is by Caspari, and Isa. 7-12 the Book of Immanuel, as Chr.
Aug. Crusius suggests, because in all the stages through which the proclamation
in Isa. 7-12 passes, the coming Immanuel is the banner of consolation, which it
lifts up even in the midst of the judgments already breaking upon the people, in
accordance with the doom pronounced upon them in Isa. 6.

Part II
CONSOLATION OF IMMANUEL IN THE MIDST OF THE
ASSYRIAN OPPRESSIONS CH. 7-12

Divine Sign of the Virgin's Wondrous Son Ch. 7

Isa. 7: 1. As the following prophecies could not be understood apart from the
historical circumstances to which they refer, the prophet commences with a
historical announcement. V. 1.
It came to pass, in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah
(Uziyahu), king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aramaea, and Pekah (Pekach) the
son of Remaliah ( Remalyahu), king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war
against it, and (he) could not make war upon it.

We have the same words, with only slight variations, in the history of the reign
of Ahaz in 2Ki. 16: 5. That the author of the book of Kings copied them from
the book of Isaiah, will be very apparent when we come to examine the
historical chapters (36-39) in their relation to the parallel sections of the book
of Kings. In the passage before us, the want of independence on the part of the
author of the book of Kings is confirmed by the fact that he not only repeats,
but also interprets, the words of Isaiah. Instead of saying, And (he) could not
make war upon it, he says, And they besieged Ahaz, and could not make
war. The singular yacol (he could) of Isaiah is changed into the simpler plural,
whilst the statement that the two allies could not assault or storm Jerusalem
(which must be the meaning of nilcham al in the passage before us), is more
clearly defined by the additional information that they did besiege Ahaz, but to
no purpose (tzur al, the usual expression for obsidione claudere; cf.,

Deu. 20:19). The statement that they besieged Ahaz cannot merely signify
that they attempted to besiege him, although nothing further is known about
this siege. But happily we have two accounts of the Syro-Ephraimitish war
(2Ki. 16 and 2Ch. 28). The two historical books complete one another. The
book of Kings relates that the invasion of Judah by the two allies commenced at
the end of Jothams reign (2Ki. 15:37); and in addition to the statement taken
from Isa. 7: 1, it also mentions that Rezin conquered the seaport town of Elath,
which then belonged to the kingdom of Judah; whilst the Chronicles notice the
fact that Rezin brought a number of Judaean captives to Damascus, and that
Pekah conquered Ahaz in a bloody and destructive battle. Indisputable as the
credibility of these events may be, it is nevertheless very difficult to connect
them together, either substantially or chronologically, in a certain and reliable
manner, as Caspari has attempted to do in his monograph on the SyroEphraimitish war (1849). We may refer here to our own manner of dovetailing
the historical accounts of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitish war in the
introduction to the present work (p. 23ff.). If we could assume that LKOYF (not
wLKiY)F was the authentic reading, and that the failure of the attempt to take
Jerusalem, which is mentioned here, was occasioned by the strength of the city
itself, and not by the intervention of Assyria, so that v. 1b did not contain
such an anticipation as we have supposed (p. 24), although summary
anticipations of this kind were customary with biblical historians, and more
especially with Isaiah, the course of events might be arranged in the
following manner, viz., that whilst Rezin was on his way to Elath, Pekah
resolved to attack Jerusalem, but failed in his attempt; but that Rezin was more
successful in his expedition, which was a much easier one, and after the
conquest of Elath united his forces with those of his allies.

Isa. 7: 2. It is this which is referred to in v. 2:

And it was told the house of David, Aram has settled down upon Ephraim: then his
heart shook, and the heart of his people, as trees of the wood shake before the
wind.

The expression nuach al (settled down upon) is explained in 2Sa. 17:12 (cf.,
Jud. 7:12) by the figurative simile, as the dew falleth upon the ground: there it
denotes a hostile invasion, here the arrival of one army to the support of
another. Ephraim (feminine, like the names of countries, and of the people that
are regarded as included in their respective countries: see, on the other hand,
Isa. 3: 8) is used as the name of the leading tribe of Israel, to signify the whole
kingdom; here it denotes the whole military force of Israel. Following the
combination mentioned above, we find that the allies now prepared for a second
united expedition against Jerusalem. In the meantime, Jerusalem was in the
condition described in Isa. 1: 7-9, viz., like a besieged city, in the midst of

enemies plundering and burning on every side. Elath had fallen, as Rezins
timely return clearly showed; and in the prospect of his approaching junction
with the allied army, it was quite natural, from a human point of view, that the
court and people of Jerusalem should tremble like aspen leaves. NAyFWA is a
contracted fut. kal, ending with an a sound on account of the guttural, as in
Ruth 4: 1 (Ges. 72, Anm. 4); and JA
N, which is generally the form of the infin.
abs. (Isa. 24:20), is here, and only here, the infin. constr. instead of JAwN (cf.,
noach, Num. 11:25; shob, Jos. 2:16; mot, Psa. 38:17, etc.: vid., Ewald, 238,
b).

Isa. 7: 3. In this season of terror Isaiah received the following divine

instructions. V. 3.
Then said Jehovah to Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou and Shear-jashub
thy son, to the end of the aqueduct of the upper pool, to the road of the fullers
field.

The fullers field (sedeh cobes ) was situated, as we may assume with Robinson,
Schultz, and Thenius, against Williams, Krafft, etc., on the western side of the
city, where there is still an upper pool of great antiquity (2Ch. 32:30). Near to
this pool the fullers, i.e., the cleaners and thickeners of woollen fabrics, carried
on their occupation (cobes, from cabas, related to cabash, subigere, which bears
the same relation to rachatz as plunein to louein). Robinson and his
companions saw some people washing clothes at the upper pool when they
were there; and, for a considerable distance round, the surface of this favourite
washing and bleaching place was covered with things spread out to bleach or
dry. The road (mesillah), which ran past this fullers field, was the one which
leads from the western gate to Joppa. King Ahaz was there, on the west of the
city, and outside the fortifications, engaged, no doubt, in making provision
for the probable event of Jerusalem being again besieged in a still more
threatening manner. Jerusalem received its water supply from the upper Gihon
pool, and there, according to Jehovahs directions, Isaiah was to go with his son
and meet him. The two together were, as it were, a personified blessing and
curse, presenting themselves to the king for him to make his own selection. For
the name Shear-yashub (which is erroneously accentuated with tiphchah
munach instead of merchah tiphchah, as in Isa. 10:22), i.e., the remnant is
converted (Isa. 10:21, 22), was a kind of abbreviation of the divine answer
given to the prophet in Isa. 6:11-13, and was indeed at once threatening and
promising, but in such a way that the curse stood in front and the grace behind.
The prophetic name of Isaiahs son was intended to drive the king to Jehovah
by force, through the threatening aspect it presented; and the prophetic
announcement of Isaiah himself, whose name pointed to salvation, was to allure
him to Jehovah with its promising tone.

Isa. 7: 4. No means were left untried. V. 4.

And say unto him, Take heed, and keep quiet; and let not thy heart become soft
from these two smoking firebrand-stumps: at the fierce anger of Rezin, and Aram,
and the son of Remaliah.

The imperative RM
FHI (not pointed RMEFH,I as is the case when it is to be
connected more closely with what follows, and taken in the sense of cave ne, or
even cave ut) warned the king against acting for himself, in estrangement from
God; and the imperative hashket exhorted him to courageous calmness, secured
by confidence in God; or, as Calvin expresses it, exhorted him to restrain
himself outwardly, and keep his mind calm within. The explanation given by
Jewish expositors to the word hisshamer, viz., conside super faeces tuas
(Luzzatto: vivi riposato), according to Jer. 48:11, Zep. 1:12, yields a sense
which hardly suits the exhortation. The object of terror, at which and before
which the kings heart was not to despair, is introduced first of all with Min and
then with Beth, as in Jer. 41:46. The two allies are designated at once as what
they were in the sight of God, who sees through the true nature and future
condition. They were two tails, i.e., nothing but the fag-ends, of wooden pokers
(lit. stirrers, i.e., fire-stirrers), which would not blaze any more, but only
continue smoking. They would burn and light no more, though their smoke
might make the eyes smart still. Along with Rezin, and to avoid honouring him
with the title of king, Aram (Syria) is especially mentioned; whilst Pekah is
called Ben-Remaliah, to recal to mind his low birth, and the absence of any
promise in the case of his house.
The yaan asher (because) which follows (as in Eze. 12:12) does not belong
to v. 4 (as might appear from the sethume that comes afterwards), in the sense
of do not be afraid because, etc., but is to be understood as introducing the
reason for the judicial sentence in v. 7.

Isa. 7: 5-7.
Because Aram hath determined evil over thee, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah
(Remalyahu), saying, We will march against Judah, and terrify it, and conquer it for
ourselves, and make the son of Tabel king in the midst of it: thus saith the Lord
Jehovah, It will not be brought about, and will not take place.

The inference drawn by Caspari (Krieg, p. 98), that at the time when Isaiah said
this, Judaea was not yet heathen or conquered, is at any rate not conclusive.
The promise given to Ahaz was founded upon the wicked design, with which
the war had been commenced. How far the allies had already gone towards this
last goal, the overthrow of the Davidic sovereignty, it does not say. But we
know from 2Ki. 15:37 that the invasion had begun before Ahaz ascended the
throne; and we may see from v. 16 of Isaiahs prophecy, that the terrifying

(nekitzennah, from kutz, taedere, pavere ) had actually taken place; so that the
conquering (hibkia, i.e., splitting, forcing of the passes and fortifications,
2Ki. 25: 4, Eze. 30:16, 2Ch. 21:17; 32: 1) must also have been a thing
belonging to the past. For history says nothing about a successful resistance on
the part of Judah in this war. Only Jerusalem had not yet fallen, and, as the
expression king in the midst of it shows, it is to this that the term Judah
especially refers; just as in Isa. 23:13 Asshur is to be understood as signifying
Nineveh. There they determined to enthrone a man named Tabel (vid.,
Ezr. 4: 7; it is written Tabal here in pause, although this change does not occur
in other words (e.g., Israel) in pause a name resembling the Syrian name
Tab-rimmon), f47 a man who is otherwise unknown; but it never went beyond
the determination, never was even on the way towards being realized, to say
nothing of being fully accomplished. The allies would not succeed in altering the
course of history as it had been appointed by the Lord.

Isa. 7: 8, 9.
For head of Aram is Damascus, and head of Damascus Rezin, and in five-andsixty years will Ephraim as a people be broken in pieces. And head of Ephraim is
Samaria, and head of Samaria the son of Remalyahu; if ye believe not, surely ye will
not remain.

The attempt to remove v. 8b, as a gloss at variance with the context, which is
supported by Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Knobel, and others, is a very natural
one; and in that case the train of thought would simply be, that the two hostile
kingdoms would continue in their former relation without the annexation of
Judah. But when we look more closely, it is evident that the removal of v. 8b
destroys both the internal connection and the external harmony of the clauses.
For just as 8a and 8b correspond, so do 9a and 9b. Ephraim, i.e., the kingdom
of the ten tribes, which has entered into so unnatural and ungodly a covenant
with idolatrous Syria, will cease to exist as a nation in the course of sixty-five
years; and ye, if ye do not believe, but make flesh your arm, will also cease to
exist. Thus the two clauses answer to one another: 8b is a prophecy
announcing Ephraim's destruction, and 9b a warning, threatening Judah with
destruction, if it rejects the promise with unbelief. Moreover, the style of 8b is
quite in accordance with that of Isaiah (on D
bI, see Isa. 21:16 and 16:14; and
on FM
, away from being a people, in the sense of so that it shall be no
longer a nation, Isa. 17: 1; 25: 2, and Jer. 48: 2, 42). And the doctrinal
objection, that the prophecy is too minute, and therefore taken ex eventu, has
no force whatever, since the Old Testament prophecy furnishes an abundance of
examples of the same kind (vid., Isa. 20: 3, 4; 38: 5; 16:14; 21:16; Eze. 4: 5ff.,
24: 1ff., etc.). The only objection that can well be raised is, that the time given
in v. 8b is wrong, and is not in harmony with v. 16. Now, undoubtedly the

sixty-five years do not come out if we suppose the prophecy to refer to what
was done by Tiglath-pileser after the Syro-Ephraimitish war, and to what was
also done to Ephraim by Shalmanassar in the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign, to
which v. 16 unquestionably refers, and more especially to the former. But there
is another event still, through which the existence of Ephraim, not only as a
kingdom, but also as a people, was broken up, namely, the carrying away of
the last remnant of the Ephraimitish population, and the planting of colonies
from Eastern Asia by Esarhaddon f48 on Ephraimitish soil (2Ki. 17:24;
Ezr. 4: 2). Whereas the land of Judah was left desolate after the Chaldean
deportation, and a new generation grew up there, and those who were in
captivity were once more enabled to return; the land of Ephraim was occupied
by heathen settlers, and the few who were left behind were melted up with these
into the mixed people of the Samaritans, and those in captivity were lost among
the heathen. We have only to assume that what was done to Ephraim by
Esarhaddon, as related in the historical books, took place in the twenty-second
and twenty-third years of Manasseh (the sixth year of Esarhaddon), which is
very probable, since it must have been under Esarhaddon that Manasseh was
carried away to Babylon about the middle of his reign (2Ch. 33:11); and we get
exactly sixty-five years from the second year of the reign of Ahaz to the
termination of Ephraims existence as a nation (viz., Ahaz, 14; Hezekiah, 29;
Manasseh, 22; in all, 65). It was then that the unconditional prediction,
Ephraim as a people will be broken in pieces, was fulfilled (yechath meam; it
is certainly not the 3rd pers. fut. kal, but the niphal, Mal. 2: 5), just as the
conditional threat ye shall not remain was fulfilled upon Judah in the
Babylonian captivity. MJNE signifies to have a fast hold, and YMIJHE to prove
fast-holding. If Judah did not hold fast to its God, it would lose its fast hold by
losing its country, the ground beneath its feet. We have the same play upon
words in 2Ch. 20:20. The suggestion of Geiger is a very improbable one, viz.,
that the original reading was YBI WNYMJT JL J, but that YB appeared
objectionable, and was altered into YkI. Why should it be objectionable, when
the words form the conclusion to a direct address of Jehovah Himself, which is
introduced with all solemnity? For this YkI, passing over from a confirmative
into an affirmative sense, and employed, as it is here, to introduce the apodosis
of the hypothetical clause, see 1Sa. 14:39, and (in the formula HTfJA YkI)
Gen. 31:42; 43:10, Num. 22:29, 33, 1Sa. 14:30: their continued existence
would depend upon their faith, as this chi emphatically declares.

Isa. 7:10, 11. Thus spake Isaiah, and Jehovah through him, to the king of
Judah. Whether he replied, or what reply he made, we are not informed. He was
probably silent, because he carried a secret in his heart which afforded him more
consolation than the words of the prophet. The invisible help of Jehovah, and

the remote prospect of the fall of Ephraim, were not enough for him. His trust
was in Asshur, with whose help he would have far greater superiority over the
kingdom of Israel, than Israel had over the kingdom of Judah through the help
of Damascene Syria. The pious, theocratic policy of the prophet did not come
in time. He therefore let the enthusiast talk on, and had his own thoughts about
the matter. Nevertheless the grace of God did not give up the unhappy son of
David for lost. Vv. 10, 11.
And Jehovah continued speaking to Ahaz as follows: Ask thee a sign of Jehovah
thy God, going deep down into Hades, or high up to the height above.

Jehovah continued: what a deep and firm consciousness of the identity of the
word of Jehovah and the word of the prophet is expressed in these words!
According to a very marvellous interchange of idioms (communicatio
idiomatum) which runs through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, at
one time the prophet speaks as if he were Jehovah, and at another, as in the
case before us, Jehovah speaks as if He were the prophet. Ahaz was to ask for a
sign from Jehovah his God. Jehovah did not scorn to call Himself the God of
this son of David, who had so hardened his heart. Possibly the holy love with
which the expression thy God burned, might kindle a flame in his dark heart;
or possibly he might think of the covenant promises and covenant duties which
the words thy God recalled to his mind. From this, his God, he was to ask for
a sign. A sign (oth, from uth, to make an incision or dent) was something,
some occurrence, or some action, which served as a pledge of the divine
certainty of something else. This was secured sometimes by visible miracles
performed at once (Exo. 4: 8, 9), or by appointed symbols of future events
(Isa. 8:18; 20: 3); sometimes by predicted occurrences, which, whether
miraculous or natural, could not possibly be foreseen by human capacities, and
therefore, if they actually took place, were a proof either retrospectively of the
divine causality of other events (Exo. 3:12), or prospectively of their divine
certainty (Isa. 37:30; Jer. 44:29, 30). The thing to be confirmed on the present
occasion was what the prophet had just predicted in so definite a manner, viz.,
the maintenance of Judah with its monarchy, and the failure of the wicked
enterprise of the two allied kingdoms. If this was to be attested to Ahaz in such
a way as to demolish his unbelief, it could only be effected by a miraculous sign.
And just as Hezekiah asked for a sign when Isaiah foretold his recovery, and
promised him the prolongation of his life for fifteen years, and the prophet gave
him the sign he asked, by causing the shadow upon the royal sun-dial to go
backwards instead of forwards (Isa. 38); so here Isaiah meets Ahaz with the
offer of such a supernatural sign, and offers him the choice of heaven, earth,
and Hades as the scene of the miracle.

QM
HA and hAb
GiHA are either in the infinitive absolute or in the imperative; and
HLFJ
F i is either the imperative LJi with the He of challenge, which is written
in this form in half pause instead of HLFJ
A (for the two similar forms with
pashtah and zakeph, vid., Dan. 9:19), Only ask, going deep down, or
ascending to the height, without there being any reason for reading HLFJ
F i
with the tone upon the last syllable, as Hupfeld proposes, in the sense of
profundam fac (or faciendo) precationem (i.e., go deep down with thy
petition); or else it is the pausal subordinate form for HLFJ
O i, which is quite
allowable in itself (cf., yechpatz, the constant form in pause for yachpotz, and
other examples, Gen. 43:14; 49: 3, 27), and is apparently preferred here on
account of its consonance with HLFiMFLi (Ewald, 93, 3). We follow the
Targum, with the Sept., Syr., and Vulgate, in giving the preference to the latter
of the two possibilities. It answers to the antithesis; and if we had the words
before us without points, this would be the first to suggest itself. Accordingly
the words would read, Go deep down (in thy desire) to Hades, or go high up to
the height; or more probably, taking QMH and HBGH in the sense of
gerundives, Going deep down to Hades, or (
J from HWFJF, like vel from velle
= si velis, malis) going high up to the height. This offer of the prophet to
perform any kind of miracle, either in the world above or in the lower world,
has thrown rationalistic commentators into very great perplexity. The prophet,
says Hitzig, was playing a very dangerous game here; and if Ahaz had closed
with his offer, Jehovah would probably have left him in the lurch. And Meier
observes, that it can never have entered the mind of an Isaiah to perform an
actual miracle: probably because no miracles were ever performed by Gthe,
to whose high poetic consecration Meier compares the consecration of the
prophet as described in Isa. 6. Knobel answers the question, What kind of sign
from heaven would Isaiah have given in case it had been asked for? by saying,
Probably a very simple matter. But even granting that an extraordinary
heavenly phenomenon could be a simple matter, it was open to king Ahaz not
to be so moderate in his demands upon the venturesome prophet, as Knobel
with his magnanimity might possibly have been. Dazzled by the glory of the Old
Testament prophecy, a rationalistic exegesis falls prostrate upon the ground;
and it is with such frivolous, coarse, and common words as these that it tries to
escape from its difficulties. It cannot acknowledge the miraculous power of the
prophet, because it believes in no miracles at all. But Ahaz had no doubt about
his miraculous power, though he would not be constrained by any miracle to
renounce his own plans and believe in Jehovah. V. 12.
But Ahaz replied, I dare not ask, and dare not tempt Jehovah.

What a pious sound this has! And yet his self-hardening reached its culminating
point in these well-sounding words. He hid himself hypocritically under the
mask of Deu. 6:16, to avoid being disturbed in his Assyrian policy, and was
infatuated enough to designate the acceptance of what Jehovah Himself had
offered as tempting God. He studiously brought down upon himself the fate
denounced in Isa. 6, and indeed not upon himself only, but upon all Judah as
well. For after a few years the forces of Asshur would stand upon the same
fullers field (Isa. 36: 2) and demand the surrender of Jerusalem. In that very
hour, in which Isaiah was standing before Ahaz, the fate of Jerusalem was
decided for more than two thousand years.

Isa. 7:13. The prophet might have ceased speaking now; but in accordance
with the command in Isa. 6 he was obliged to speak, even though his word
should be a savour of death unto death. V. 13.
And he spake, Hear ye now, O house of David! Is it too little to you to weary men,
that ye weary my God also?

He spake. Who spake? According to v. 10 the speaker was Jehovah; yet what
follows is given as the word of the prophet. Here again it is assumed that the
word of the prophet was the word of God, and that the prophet was the organ
of God even when he expressly distinguished between himself and God. The
words were addressed to the house of David, i.e., to Ahaz, including all the
members of the royal family. Ahaz himself was not yet thirty years old. The
prophet could very well have borne that the members of the house of David
should thus frustrate all his own faithful, zealous human efforts. But they were
not content with this (on the expression minus quam vos = quam ut vobis
sufficiat, see Num. 16;9, Job. 15:11): they also wearied out the long-suffering
of his God, by letting Him exhaust all His means of correcting them without
effect. They would not believe without seeing; and when signs were offered
them to see, in order that they might believe, they would not even look.
Jehovah would therefore give them, against their will, a sign of His own
choosing.

Isa. 7:14, 15.

Therefore the Lord, He will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin conceives, and
bears a son, and calls his name Immanuel. Butter and honey will he eat, at the time
that he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.

In its form the prophecy reminds one of Gen. 16:11, Behold, thou art with
child, and wilt bear a son, and call his name Ishmael. Here, however, the words
are not addressed to the person about to bear the child, although Matthew gives
this interpretation to the prophecy; f49 for TJRFQF is not the second person, but
the third, and is synonymous with HJFRiQF (according to Ges. 74. Anm. 1),

another form which is also met with in Gen. 33:11, Lev. 25:21, Deu. 31:29, and
Psa. 118:23. f50
Moreover, the condition of pregnancy, which is here designated by the
participial adjective HRFHF (cf., 2Sa. 11: 5), was not an already existing one in
this instance, but (as in all probability also in Jud. 13: 5, cf., 4) something
future, as well as the act of bearing, since hinneh is always used by Isaiah to
introduce a future occurrence. This use of hinneh in Isaiah is a sufficient answer
to Gesenius, Knobel, and others, who understand haalmah as referring to the
young wife of the prophet himself, who was at that very time with child. But it
is altogether improbable that the wife of the prophet himself should be intended.
For if it were to her that he referred, he could hardly have expressed himself in a
more ambiguous and unintelligible manner; and we cannot see why he should
not much rather have said YtIiJI or HJFYBIniHA, to say nothing of the fact that
there is no further allusion made to any son of the prophet of that name, and
that a sign of this kind founded upon the prophets own family affairs would
have been one of a very precarious nature.
And the meaning and use of the word almah are also at variance with this. For
whilst bethulah (from bathal, related to badal, to separate, sejungere) signifies a
maiden living in seclusion in her parents house and still a long way from
matrimony, almah (from alam, related to chalam, and possibly also to LJ,F to
be strong, full of vigour, or arrived at the age of puberty) is applied to one fully
mature, and approaching the time of her marriage. f51
The two terms could both be applied to persons who were betrothed, and even
to such as were married (Joe. 2:16; Pro. 30:19: see Hitzig on these passages). It
is also admitted that the idea of spotless virginity was not necessarily connected
with almah (as in Gen. 24:43, cf., 16), since there are passages such, for
example, as Son. 6: 8 where it can hardly be distinguished from the Arabic
surr-je; and a person who had a very young-looking wife might be said to have
an almah for his wife. But it is inconceivable that in a well-considered style,
and one of religious earnestness, a woman who had been long married, like the
prophets own wife, could be called haalmah without any reserve. f52
On the other hand, the expression itself warrants the assumption that by
haalmah the prophet meant one of the alamoth of the kings harem (Luzzatto);
and if we consider that the birth of the child was to take place, as the prophet
foresaw, in the immediate future, his thoughts might very well have been fixed
upon Abijah (Abi) bath-Zechariah (2Ki. 18: 2; 2Ch. 29: 1), who became the
mother of king Hezekiah, to whom apparently the virtues of the mother
descended, in marked contrast with the vices of his father. This is certainly
possible. At the same time, it is also certain that the child who was to be born

was the Messiah, and not a new Israel (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, 87, 88);
that is to say, that he was no other than that wonderful heir of the throne of
David, whose birth is hailed with joy in Isa. 9, where even commentators like
Knobel are obliged to admit that the Messiah is meant. It was the Messiah
whom the prophet saw here as about to be born, then again in Isa. 9 as actually
born, and again in Isa. 11 as reigning, an indivisible triad of consolatory
images in three distinct states, interwoven with the three stages into which the
future history of the nation unfolded itself in the prophets view. If, therefore,
his eye was directed towards the Abijah mentioned, he must have regarded her
as the future mother of the Messiah, and her son as the future Messiah. Now it
is no doubt true, that in the course of the sacred history Messianic expectations
were often associated with individuals who did not answer to them, so that the
Messianic prospect was moved further into the future; and it is not only
possible, but even probable, and according to many indications an actual fact,
that the believing portion of the nation did concentrate their Messianic wishes
and hopes for a long time upon Hezekiah; but even if Isaiahs prophecy may
have evoked such human conjectures and expectations, through the measure of
time which it laid down, it would not be a prophecy at all, if it rested upon no
better foundation than this, which would be the case if Isaiah had a particular
maiden of his own day in his mind at the time.
Are we to conclude, then, that the prophet did not refer to any one individual,
but that the virgin was a personification of the house of David? This view,
which Hofmann propounded, and Stier appropriated, and which Ebrard has
revived, notwithstanding the fact that Hofmann relinquished it, does not help us
over the difficulty; for we should expect in that case to find daughter of Zion,
or something of the kind, since the term virgin is altogether unknown in a
personification of this kind, and the house of David, as the prophet knew it, was
by no means worthy of such an epithet.
No other course is left, therefore, than to assume that whilst, on the one hand,
the prophet meant by the virgin a maiden belonging to the house of David,
which the Messianic character of the prophecy requires; on the other hand, he
neither thought of any particular maiden, nor associated the promised
conception with any human father, who could not have been any other than
Ahaz. The reference is the same as in Mic. 5: 3 (she which travaileth,
yoledah). The objection that haalmah (the virgin) cannot be a person belonging
to the future, on account of the article (Hofmann, p. 86), does not affect the
true explanation: it was the virgin whom the spirit of prophecy brought before
the prophets mind, and who, although he could not give her name, stood
before him as singled out for an extraordinary end (compare the article in
hannaar in Num. 11:27 etc.). With what exalted dignity this mother appeared
to him to be invested, is evident from the fact that it is she who gives the name

to her son, and that the name Immanuel. This name sounds full of promise. But
if we look at the expression therefore, and the circumstance which occasioned
it, the sign cannot have been intended as a pure or simple promise. We naturally
expect, first, that it will be an extraordinary fact which the prophet foretells; and
secondly, that it will be a fact with a threatening front. Now a humiliation of the
house of David was indeed involved in the fact that the God of whom it would
know nothing would nevertheless mould its future history, as the emphatic JwH
implies, He (autoj, the Lord Himself), by His own impulse and unfettered
choice. Moreover, this moulding of the future could not possibly be such an one
as was desired, but would of necessity be as full of threatening to the
unbelieving house of David as it was full of promise to the believers in Israel.
And the threatening character of the sign is not to be sought for exclusively in
v. 15, since both the expressions therefore (lacen) and behold (hinneh)
place the main point of the sign in v. 14, whilst the introduction of v. 15 without
any external connection is a clear proof that what is stated in v. 14 is the chief
thing, and not the reverse. But the only thing in v. 14 which indicated any
threatening element in the sign in question, must have been the fact that it
would not be by Ahaz, or by a son of Ahaz, or by the house of David generally,
which at that time had hardened itself against God, that God would save His
people, but that a nameless maiden of low rank, whom God had singled out and
now showed to the prophet in the mirror of His counsel, would give birth to the
divine deliverer of His people in the midst of the approaching tribulations,
which was a sufficient intimation that He who was to be the pledge of Judahs
continuance would not arrive without the present degenerate house of David,
which had brought Judah to the brink of ruin, being altogether set aside.
But the further question arises here, What constituted the extraordinary
character of the fact here announced? It consisted in the fact, that, according to
Isa. 9: 5, Immanuel Himself was to be a JLEpE (wonder or wonderful). He would
be God in corporeal self-manifestation, and therefore a wonder as being a
superhuman person. We should not venture to assert this if it went beyond the
line of Old Testament revelation, but the prophet asserts it himself in Isa. 9: 5
(cf., Isa. 10:21): his words are as clear as possible; and we must not make them
obscure, to favour any preconceived notions as to the development of history.
The incarnation of Deity was unquestionably a secret that was not clearly
unveiled in the Old Testament, but the veil was not so thick but that some rays
could pass through. Such a ray, directed by the spirit of prophecy into the mind
of the prophet, was the prediction of Immanuel. But if the Messiah was to be
Immanuel in this sense, that He would Himself be El (God), as the prophet
expressly affirms, His birth must also of necessity be a wonderful or miraculous
one. The prophet does not affirm, indeed, that the almah , who had as yet
known no man, would give birth to Immanuel without this taking place, so that

he could not be born of the house of David as well as into it, but be a gift of
Heaven itself; but this almah or virgin continued throughout an enigma in the
Old Testament, stimulating inquiry (1Pe. 1:10-12), and waiting for the
historical solution. Thus the sign in question was, on the one hand, a mystery
glaring in the most threatening manner upon the house of David; and, on the
other hand, a mystery smiling with which consolation upon the prophet and all
believers, and couched in these enigmatical terms, in order that those who
hardened themselves might not understand it, and that believers might
increasingly long to comprehend its meaning.
In v. 15 the threatening element of v. 14 becomes the predominant one. It
would not be so, indeed, if butter (thickened milk) and honey were mentioned
here as the ordinary food of the tenderest age of childhood (as Gesenius,
Hengstenberg, and others suppose). But the reason afterwards assigned in vv.
16, 17, teaches the very opposite. Thickened milk and honey, the food of the
desert, would be the only provisions furnished by the land at the time in which
the ripening youth of Immanuel would fall. HJFMiXE (from JMFXF, to be thick) is a
kind of butter which is still prepared by nomads by shaking milk in skins. It may
probably include the cream, as the Arabic semen signifies both, but not the
curds or cheese, the name of which (at least the more accurate name) if
gebinah. The object to DAYF is expressed in vv. 15, 16 by infinitive absolutes
(compare the more usual mode of expression in Isa. 8: 4). The Lamed prefixed
to the verb does not mean until (Ges. 131, 1), for Lamed is never used as so
definite an indication of the terminus ad quem; the meaning is either towards
the time when he understands (Amo. 4: 7, cf., Lev. 24:12, to the end that),
or about the time, at the time when he understands (Isa. 10: 3; Gen. 8:11;
Job. 24:14). This kind of food would coincide in time with his understanding,
that is to say, would run parallel to it. Incapacity to distinguish between good
and bad is characteristic of early childhood (Deu. 1:39, etc.), and also of old
age when it relapses into childish ways (2Sa. 19:36). The commencement of the
capacity to understand is equivalent to entering into the so-called years of
discretion the riper age of free and conscious self-determination. By the time
that Immanuel reached this age, all the blessings of the land would have been so
far reduced, that from a land full of luxuriant corn-fields and vineyards, it would
have become a large wooded pasture-ground, supplying milk and honey, and
nothing more. A thorough devastation of the land is therefore the reason for
this limitation to the simplest, and, when compared with the fat of wheat and
the cheering influence of wine, most meagre and miserable food. And this is the
ground assigned in vv. 16, 17. Two successive and closely connected events
would occasion this universal desolation.

Isa. 7:16, 17.

For before the boy shall understand to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the
land will be desolate, of whose two kings thou art afraid. Jehovah will bring upon
thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy fathers house, days such as have not come
since the day when Ephraim broke away from Judah the king of Asshur.

The land of the two kings, Syria and Israel, was first of all laid waste by the
Assyrians, whom Ahaz called to his assistance. Tiglath-pileser conquered
Damascus and a portion of the kingdom of Israel, and led a large part of the
inhabitants of the two countries into captivity (2Ki. 15:29; 16: 9). Judah was
then also laid waste by the Assyrians, as a punishment for having refused the
help of Jehovah, and preferred the help of man. Days of adversity would come
upon the royal house and people of Judah, such as (asher, quales, as in
Exo. 10: 6) had not come upon them since the calamitous day (lmiyyom, inde
a die; in other places we find lmin-hayyom, Exo. 9:18, Deu. 4:32; 9: 7, etc.) of
the falling away of the ten tribes. The appeal to Asshur laid the foundation for
the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah, quite as much as for that of the
kingdom of Israel. Ahaz became the tributary vassal of the king of Assyria in
consequence; and although Hezekiah was set free from Asshur through the
miraculous assistance of Jehovah, what Nebuchadnezzar afterwards performed
was only the accomplishment of the frustrated attempt of Sennacherib. It is with
piercing force that the words the king of Assyria (eth melek Asshur) are
introduced at the close of the two verses. The particle eth is used frequently
where an indefinite object is followed by the more precise and definite one
(Gen. 6:10; 26:34). The point of the verse would be broken by eliminating the
words as a gloss, as Knobel proposes. The very king to whom Ahaz had
appealed in his terror, would bring Judah to the brink of destruction. The
absence of any link of connection between vv. 16 and 17 is also very effective.
The hopes raised in the mind of Ahaz by v. 16 are suddenly turned into bitter
disappointment. In the face of such catastrophes as these, Isaiah predicts the
birth of Immanuel. His eating only thickened milk and honey, at a time when he
knew very well what was good and what was not, would arise from the
desolation of the whole of the ancient territory of the Davidic kingdom that had
preceded the riper years of his youth, when he would certainly have chosen
other kinds of food, if they could possibly have been found. Consequently the
birth of Immanuel apparently falls between the time then present and the
Assyrian calamities, and his earliest childhood appears to run parallel to the
Assyrian oppression. In any case, their consequences would be still felt at the
time of his riper youth. In what way the truth of the prophecy was maintained
notwithstanding, we shall see presently. What follows in vv. 18-25, is only a
further expansion of v. 17. The promising side of the sign remains in the
background, because this was not for Ahaz. When Ewald expresses the opinion
that a promising strophe has fallen out after v. 17, he completely mistakes the
circumstances under which the prophet uttered these predictions. In the

presence of Ahaz he must keep silence as to the promises. But he pours out
with all the greater fluency his threatening of judgment.

Isa. 7:18.
And it comes to pass in that day, Jehovah will hiss for the fly which is at the end of
the Nile-arms of Egypt, and the bees that are in the land of Asshur; and they come
and settle all of them in the valleys of the slopes, and in the clefts of the rocks, and
in all the thorn-hedges, and upon all grass-plats.

The prophet has already stated, in Isa. 5:26, that Jehovah would hiss for distant
nations; and how he is able to describe them by name. The Egyptian nation,
with its vast and unparalleled numbers, is compared to the swarming fly; and the
Assyrian nation, with its love of war and conquest, to the stinging bee which is
so hard to keep off (Deu. 1:44; Psa. 118:12). The emblems also correspond to
the nature of the two countries: the fly to slimy Egypt with its swarms of insects
(see Isa. 18: 1), f53 and the bee to the more mountainous and woody Assyria,
where the keeping of bees is still one of the principal branches of trade. RJOY,i pl.
YRIJOY,i is an Egyptian name (yaro, with the article phiaro, pl. yarou) for the
Nile and its several arms. The end of the Nile-arms of Egypt, from a Palestinian
point of view, was the extreme corner of the land. The military force of Egypt
would march out of the whole compass of the land, and meet the Assyrian force
in the Holy Land; and both together would cover the land in such a way that the
valleys of steep precipitous heights (nachale habbattoth), and clefts of the rocks
(nekike hasselaim), and all the thorn-hedges (naazuzim) and pastures
(nahalolim, from nihel, to lead to pasture), would be covered with these
swarms. The fact that just such places are named, as afforded a suitable shelter
and abundance of food for flies and bees, is a filling up of the figure in simple
truthfulness to nature. And if we look at the historical fulfilment, it does not
answer even in this respect to the actual letter of the prophecy; for in the time
of Hezekiah no collision really took place between the Assyrian and Egyptian
forces; and it was not till the days of Josiah that a collision took place between
the Chaldean and Egyptian powers in the eventful battle fought between
Pharaoh-Necho and Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish (Circesium), which decided
the fate of Judah. That the spirit of prophecy points to this eventful occurrence
is evident from v. 20, where no further allusion is made to Egypt, because of its
having succumbed to the imperial power of Eastern Asia.

Isa. 7:20.
In that day will the Lord shave with a razor, the thing for hire on the shore of the
river, with the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet; and even the beard
it will take away.

Knobel takes the hair to be a figurative representation of the produce of the

land; but the only thing which at all favours the idea that the flora is ever
regarded by biblical writers as the hairy covering of the soil, is the use of the
term nazir as the name of an uncultivated vine left to itself (Lev. 25: 5). The
nation of Judah is regarded here, as in Isa. 1: 6, as a man stript naked, and not
only with all the hair of his head and feet shaved off (raglaim, a euphemism),
but what was regarded as the most shameful of all, with the hair of his beard
shaved off as well. To this end the Almighty would make use of a razor, which
is more distinctly defined as hired on the shore of the Euphrates (conductitia in
litoribus Euphratis: nahar stands here for hannahar), and still more precisely as
the king of Asshur (the latter is again pronounced a gloss by Knobel and
others). The thing for hire: hassecirah might be an abstract term (hiring,
conductio), but it may also be the feminine of sacir, which indicates an emphatic
advance from the indefinite to the more definite; in the sense of with a razor,
namely, that which was standing ready to be hired in the lands on both sides of
the Euphrates, the king of Assyria. In hassecirah (the thing for hire) there was
involved the bitterest sarcasm for Ahaz. The sharp knife, which it had hired for
the deliverance of Judah, was hired by the Lord, to shave Judah most
thoroughly, and in the most disgraceful manner. Thus shaved, Judah would be a
depopulated and desert land, in which men would no longer live by growing
corn and vines, or by trade and commerce, but by grazing alone.

Isa. 7:21, 22.

And it will come to pass in that day, that a man will keep a small cow and a couple
of sheep; and it comes to pass, for the abundance of the milk they give he will eat
cream: for butter and honey will every one eat that is left within the land.

The former prosperity would be reduced to the most miserable housekeeping.

One man would keep a milch cow and two head of sheep (or goats) alive with
the greatest care, the strongest and finest full-grown cattle having fallen into the
hands of the foe (HyFXI, like HYFXHE in other places: shte, not shne, because two
female sheep or goats are meant). But this would be quite enough, for there
would be only a few men left in the land; and as all the land would be pasture,
the small number of animals would yield milk in abundance. Bread and wine
would be unattainable. Whoever had escaped the Assyrian razor, would eat
thickened milk and honey, that and nothing but that, without variation, ad
nauseam. The reason for this would be, that the hills, which at other times were
full of vines and corn-fields, would be overgrown with briers.

Isa. 7:23-25. The prophet repeats this three times in vv. 23-25:
And it will come to pass in that day, every place, where a thousand vines stood at
a thousand silverlings, will have become thorns and thistles. With arrows and with
bows will men go, for the whole land will have become thorns and thistles. And all

the hills that were accustomed to be hoed with the hoe, thou wilt not go to them for
fear of thorns and thistles; and it has become a gathering-place for oxen, and a
treading-place for sheep.

The thousand silverlings (eleph ceseph, i.e., a thousand shekels of silver)

recall to mind Son. 8:11, though there it is the value of the yearly produce,
whereas here the thousand shekels are the value of a thousand vines, the sign of
a peculiarly valuable piece of a vineyard. At the present time they reckon the
worth of a vineyard in Lebanon and Syria according to the value of the separate
vines, and generally take the vines at one piastre (from 2nd to 3rd) each; just as
in Germany a Johannisberg vine is reckoned at a ducat. Every piece of ground,
where such valuable vines were standing, would have fallen a prey to the briers.
People would go there with bow and arrow, because the whole land had
become thorns and thistles (see at Isa. 5:12a), and therefore wild animals had
made their homes there. And thou (the prophet addresses the countryman thus)
comest not to all the hills, which were formerly cultivated in the most careful
manner; thou comest not thither to make them arable again, because thorns and
thistles deter thee from reclaiming such a fallow. They would therefore give the
oxen freedom to rove where they would, and let sheep and goats tread down
whatever grew there. The description is intentionally thoroughly tautological
and pleonastic, heavy and slow in movement. The writers intention is to
produce the impression of a waste heath, or tedious monotony. Hence the
repetitions of hayah and yihyeh. Observe how great the variations are in the use
of the future and perfect, and how the meaning is always determined by the
context. In vv. 21, 22, the futures have a really future sense; in v. 23 the first
and third yihyeh signify will have become (factus erit omnis locus), and the
second was (erat); in v. 24 J
BYF means will come (veniet), and tihyeh will
have become (facta erit terra); in v. 25 we must render yeaderun,
sarciebantur (they used to be hoed). And in vv. 21, 22, and 23, hayah is
equivalent to fiet (it will become); whilst in v. 25 it means factum est (it has
become). Looked at from a western point of view, therefore, the future tense is
sometimes a simple future, sometimes a future perfect, and sometimes an
imperfect or synchronistic preterite; and the perfect sometimes a prophetic
preterite, sometimes an actual preterite, but the sphere of an ideal past, or what
is the same thing, of a predicted future.
This ends Isaiahs address to king Ahaz. He does not expressly say when
Immanuel is to be born, but only what will take place before he has reached the
riper age of boyhood, namely, first, the devastation of Israel and Syria, and
then the devastation of Judah itself, by the Assyrians. From the fact that the
prophet says no more than this, we may see that his spirit and his tongue were
under the direction of the Spirit of God, who does not descend within the
historical and temporal range of vision, without at the same time remaining

exalted above it. On the other hand, however, we may see from what he says,
that the prophecy has its human side as well. When Isaiah speaks of Immanuel
as eating thickened milk and honey, like all who survived the Assyrian troubles
in the Holy Land; he evidently looks upon and thinks of the childhood of
Immanuel as connected with the time of the Assyrian calamities. And it was in
such a perspective combination of events lying far apart, that the complex
character of prophecy consisted. The reason for this complex character was a
double one, viz., the human limits associated with the prophets telescopic view
of distant times, and the pedagogical wisdom of God, in accordance with which
He entered into these limits instead of removing them. If, therefore, we adhere
to the letter of prophecy, we may easily throw doubt upon its veracity; but if we
look at the substance of the prophecy, we soon find that the complex character
by no means invalidates its truth. For the things which the prophet saw in
combination were essentially connected, even though chronologically separated.
When, for example, in the case before us (Isa. 7-12), Isaiah saw Asshur only,
standing out as the imperial kingdom; this was so far true, that the four imperial
kingdoms from the Babylonian to the Roman were really nothing more than the
full development of the commencement made in Assyria. And when he spoke of
the son of the virgin (Isa. 7) as growing up in the midst of the Assyrian
oppressions; this also was so far true, that Jesus was really born at a time when
the Holy Land, deprived of its previous abundance, was under the dominion of
the imperial power, and in a condition whose primary cause was to be traced to
the unbelief of Ahaz. Moreover, He who became flesh in the fulness of time, did
really lead an ideal life in the Old Testament history. He was in the midst of it in
a pre-existent presence, moving on towards the covenant goal. The fact that the
house and nation of David did not perish in the Assyrian calamities, was
actually to be attributed, as Isa. 8 presupposes, to His real though not His
bodily presence. In this way the apparent discrepancy between the prophecy and
the history of the fulfilment may be solved. We do not require the solution
proposed by Vitringa, and recently appropriate by Haneberg, namely, that
the prophet takes the stages of the Messiahs life out of the distant future, to
make them the measure of events about to take place in the immediate future;
nor that of Bengel, Schegg, Schmieder, and others, namely, that the sign
consisted in an event belonging to the immediate future, which pointed typically
to the birth of the true Immanuel; nor that of Hofmann, who regards the words
of the prophet as an emblematical prediction of the rise of a new Israel, which
would come to the possession of spiritual intelligence in the midst of troublous
times, occasioned by the want of intelligence in the Israel of his own time. The
prophecy, as will be more fully confirmed as we proceed, is directly Messianic;
it is a divine prophecy within human limits.

Two Omens of the Immediate Future Ch. 8: 1-4

Isa. 8: 1, 2. In the midst of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, which was not yet at an
end, Isaiah received instructions from God to perform a singular prophetic
action. Vv. 1, 2.
Then Jehovah said to me, Take a large slab, and write upon it with common
strokes, In Speed Spoil, Booty hastens; and I will take to me trustworthy witnesses,
Uriyah the priest, and Zecharyahu the son of Yeberechyahu.

The slab or table (cf., Isa. 3:23, where the same word is used to signify a metal
mirror) was to be large, to produce the impression of a monument; and the
writing upon it was to be a mans pen (cheret enosh), i.e., written in the
vulgar, and, so to speak, popular character, consisting of inartistic strokes that
could be easily read (vid., Rev. 13:18; 21:17). Philip dAquin, in his Lexicon,
adopts the explanation, Enosh -writing, i.e., hieroglyphic writing, so called
because it was first introduced in the time of Enosh. Luzzatto renders it, a
lettere cubitali; but the reading for this would be bcheret ammath ish. The
only true rendering is stylo vulgari (see Ges. Thes. s.v. enosh). The words to
be written are introduced with Lamed, to indicate dedication (as in Eze. 37:16),
or the object to which the inscription was dedicated or applied, as if it read, A
table devoted to Spoil very quickly, booty hastens; unless, indeed, lmaher is
to be taken as a fut. instans, as it is by Luzzatto after Gen. 15:12, Jos. 2: 5,
Hab. 1:17 in the sense of acceleratura sunt spolia, or (what the position of
the words might more naturally suggest) with maher in a transitive sense, as in
the construction R
BFLi HYFH,F and others, accelerationi spolia, i.e., they are
ready for hastening. Most of the commentators have confused the matter here
by taking the words as a proper name (Ewald, 288, c), which they were not at
first, though they became so afterwards. At first they were an oracular
announcement of the immediate future, accelerant spolia, festinat praeda (spoil
is quick, booty hastens). Spoil; booty; but who would the vanquished be?
Jehovah knew, and His prophet knew, although not initiated into the policy of
Ahaz. But their knowledge was studiously veiled in enigmas. For the writing
was not to disclose anything to the people. It was simply to serve as a public
record of the fact, that the course of events was one that Jehovah had foreseen
and indicated beforehand. And when what was written upon the table should
afterwards take place, they would know that it was the fulfilment of what had
already been written, and therefore was an event pre-determined by God. For
this reason Jehovah took to Himself witnesses. There is no necessity to read
HDFYIJFWF (and I had it witnessed), as Knobel and others do; nor HDFYIHFWi (and
have it witnessed), as the Sept., Targum, Syriac, and Hitzig do. Jehovah said
what He would do; and the prophet knew, without requiring to be told, that it
was to be accomplished instrumentally through him. Uriah was no doubt the
priest (Urijah), who afterwards placed himself at the service of Ahaz to gratify
his heathenish desires (2Ki. 16:10ff.). Zechariah ben Yeberechyahu (Berechiah)

was of course not the prophet of the times after the captivity, but possibly the
Asaphite mentioned in 2Ch. 29:13. He is not further known to us. In good
editions, ben is not followed by makkeph, but marked with mercha, according
to the Masora at Gen. 30:19. These two men were reliable witnesses, being
persons of great distinction, and their testimony would weigh with the people.
When the time should arrive that the history of their own times solved the riddle
of this inscription, these two men were to tell the people how long ago the
prophet had written that down in his prophetic capacity.

Isa. 8: 3, 4. But something occurred in the meantime whereby the place of the
lifeless table was taken by a more eloquent and living one. Vv., 3, 4.
And I drew near to the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son: and
Jehovah said to me, Call his name In-speed-spoil-booty-hastens (Maher-shalalhash-baz): for before the boy shall know how to cry, My father, and my mother, they
will carry away the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, before the king of
Asshur.

To his son Shear-yashub, in whose name the law of the history of Israel, as
revealed to the prophet on the occasion of his call (Isa. 6), viz., the restoration
of only a remnant of the whole nation, had been formulated, there was now
added a second son, to whom the inscription upon the table was given as a
name (with a small abbreviation, and if the Lamed is the particle of dedication, a
necessary one). He was therefore the symbol of the approaching chastisement
of Syria and the kingdom of the ten tribes. Before the boy had learned to
stammer out the name of father and mother, they would carry away (yissa, not
the third pers. fut. niphal, which is yinnase, but kal with a latent, indefinite
subject hannose: Ges. 137, 3) the treasures of Damascus and the trophies
(i.e., the spoil taken from the flying or murdered foe) of Samaria before the king
of Asshur, who would therefore leave the territory of the two capitals as a
conqueror. It is true that Tiglath-pileser only conquered Damascus, and not
Samaria; but he took from Pekah, the king of Samaria, the land beyond the
Jordan, and a portion of the land on this side. The trophies, which he took
thence to Assyria, were no less the spoil of Samaria than if he had conquered
Samaria itself (which Shalmanassar did twenty years afterwards). The birth of
Mahershalal took place about three-quarters of a year later than the preparation
of the table (as the verb vaekrab is an aorist and not a pluperfect); and the time
appointed, from the birth of the boy till the chastisement of the allied kingdoms,
was about a year. Now, as the Syro-Ephraimitish war did not commence later
than the first year of the reign of Ahaz, i.e., the year 743, and the chastisement
by Tiglath-pileser occurred in the lifetime of the allies, whereas Pekah was
assassinated in the year 739, the interval between the commencement of the war
and the chastisement of the allies cannot have been more than three years; so
that the preparation of the table must not be assigned to a much later period

than the interview with Ahaz. The inscription upon the table, which was
adopted as the name of the child, was not a purely consolatory prophecy, since
the prophet had predicted, a short time before, that the same Asshur which
devastated the two covenant lands would lay Judah waste as well. It was simply
a practical proof of the omniscience and omnipotence of God, by which the
history of the future was directed and controlled. The prophet had, in fact, the
mournful vocation to harden. Hence the enigmatical character of his words and
doings in relation to both kings and nation. Jehovah foreknew the consequences
which would follow the appeal to Asshur for help, as regarded both Syria and
Israel. This knowledge he committed to writing in the presence of witnesses.
When this should be fulfilled, it would be all over with the rejoicing of the king
and people at their self-secured deliverance.
But Isaiah was not merely within the broader circle of an incorrigible nation ripe
for judgment. He did not stand alone; but was encircled by a small band of
believing disciples, who wanted consolation, and were worthy of it. It was to
them that the more promising obverse of the prophecy of Immanuel belonged.
Mahershalal could not comfort them; for they knew that when Asshur had done
with Damascus and Samaria, the troubles of Judah would not be over, but
would only then be really about to commence. To be the shelter of the faithful
in the terrible judicial era of the imperial power, which was then commencing,
was the great purpose of the prediction of Immanuel; and to bring out and
expand the consolatory character of that prophecy for the benefit of believers,
was the design of the addresses which follow.

Esoteric Addresses Ch. 8: 5-12:

A. CONSOLATION OF IMMANUEL IN THE COMING DARKNESS
CH. 8: 5-9:

Isa. 8: 5-7. The heading or introduction, And Jehovah proceeded still further
to speak to me, as follows, extends to all the following addresses as far as
Isa. 12. They all finish with consolation. But consolation presupposes the need
of consolation. Consequently, even in this instance the prophet is obliged to
commence with a threatening of judgment. Vv. 6, 7.
Forasmuch as this people despiseth the waters of Siloah that go softly , and
regardeth as a delight the alliance with Rezin and the son of Remalyahu, therefore,
behold! the Lord of all bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, the mighty and
the great, the king of Asshur and all his military power; and he riseth over all his
channels, and goeth over all his banks.

The Siloah had its name (Shiloach, or, according to the reading of this passage
contained in very good MSS, Shilloach), ab emittendo, either in an infinitive

sense, shooting forth, or in a participial sense, with a passive colouring,

emissus, sent forth, spirted out (vid., Joh. 9: 7; and on the variations in meaning
of this substantive form, Concord. p. 1349, s.). Josephus places the fountain
and pool of Siloah at the opening of the Tyropoeon, on the south-eastern side
of the ancient city, where we still find it at the present day (vid., Jos. Wars of
the Jews, v. 4, 1; also Robinson, Pal. i. 504). The clear little brook a
pleasant sight to the eye as it issues from the ravine which runs between the
south-western slope of Moriah and the south-eastern slope of Mount Zion f54 (v.
Schulbert, Reise, ii. 573) is used here as a symbol of the Davidic monarchy
enthroned upon Zion, which had the promise of God, who was enthroned upon
Moriah, in contrast with the imperial or world kingdom, which is compared to
the overflowing waters of the Euphrates. The reproach of despising the waters
of Siloah applied to Judah as well as Ephraim: to the former because it trusted
in Asshur, and despised the less tangible but more certain help which the house
of David, if it were but believing, had to expect from the God of promise; to the
latter, because it had entered into alliance with Aram to overthrow the house of
David; and yet the house of David, although degenerate and deformed, was the
divinely appointed source of that salvation, which is ever realized through quiet,
secret ways. The second reproach applied more especially to Ephraim. The eth
is not to be taken as the sign of the accusative, for sus never occurs with the
accusative of the object (not even in Isa. 35: 1), and could not well be so used.
It is to be construed as a preposition in the sense of and (or because) delight
(is felt) with (i.e., in) the alliance with Rezin and Pekah. (On the constructive
before a preposition, see Ges. 116, 1: sus eth, like ratzah im. ) Luzzatto
compares, for the construction, Gen. 41:43, vnathon; but only the inf. abs. is
used in this way as a continuation of the finite verb (see Ges. 131, 4, a).
Moreover, V
VMi is not an Aramaic infinitive, but a substantive used in such a
way as to retain the power of the verb (like sAM in Num. 10: 2, and RpFSiMI in
Num. 23:10, unless, indeed, the reading here should be RPASF YMI ). The
substantive clause is preferred to the verbal clause VVFWi , for the sake of the
antithetical consonance of V
VMi with SJM. It is also quite in accordance with
Hebrew syntax, that an address which commences with YK Y should here lose
itself in the second sentence in the twilight, as Ewald expresses it ( 351, c),
of a substantive clause. Knobel and others suppose the reproof to relate to
dissatisfied Judaeans, who were secretly favourable to the enterprise of the two
allied kings. But there is no further evidence that there were such persons; and
v. 8 is opposed to this interpretation. The overflowing of the Assyrian forces
would fall first of all upon Ephraim. The threat of punishment is introduced
with K
LFWi, the Vav being the sign of sequence (Ewald, 348, b). The words
the king of Asshur are the prophets own gloss, as in Isa. 7:17, 20.

Isa. 8: 8. Not till then would this overflowing reach as far as Judah, but then it
would do so most certainly and incessantly. V. 8.
And presses forward into Judah, overflows and pours onward, till it reaches to the
neck, and the spreading out of its wings fill the breadth of thy land, Immanuel.

The fate of Judah would be different from that of Ephraim. Ephraim would be
laid completely under water by the river, i.e., would be utterly destroyed. And
in Judah the stream, as it rushed forward, would reach the most dangerous
height; but if a deliverer could be found, there was still a possibility of its being
saved. Such a deliverer was Immanuel, whom the prophet sees in the light of
the Spirit living through all the Assyrian calamities. The prophet appeals
complainingly to him that the land, which is his land, is almost swallowed up by
the world-power: the spreadings out (muttoth, a hophal noun: for similar
substantive forms, see v. 23, Isa. 14: 6; 29: 3, and more especially Psa. 66:11)
of the wings of the stream (i.e., of the large bodies of water pouring out on both
sides from the main stream, as from the trunk, and covering the land like two
broad wings) have filled the whole land. According to Norzi, Immanul is to be
written here as one word, as it is in Isa. 7:14; but the correct reading is
Immanu El, with mercha silluk (see note on Isa. 7:14), though it does not
therefore cease to be a proper name. As Jerome observes, it is nomen proprium,
non interpretatum; and so it is rendered in the Sept., Meq hmwn o Qeoj.

Isa. 8: 9, 10. The prophets imploring look at Immanuel does not remain
unanswered. We may see this from the fact, that what was almost a silent prayer
is changed at once into the jubilate of holy defiance. Vv. 9, 10.
Exasperate yourselves, O nations, and go to pieces; and see it, all who are far off
in the earth! Gird yourselves, and go to pieces; gird yourselves, and go to pieces!
Consult counsel, and it comes to nought; speak the word, and it is not realized: for
with us is God.

The second imperatives in v. 9 are threatening words of authority, having a

future signification, which change into futures in v. 19 (Ges. 130, 2): Go on
exasperating yourselves (wRO with the tone upon the penultimate, and therefore
not the pual of HFRF , consociari, which is the rendering adopted in the Targum,
but the kal of JAR,F malum esse; not vociferari, for which JAwR, a different verb
from the same root, is commonly employed), go on arming; ye will nevertheless
fall to pieces (chottu, from chathath, related to cathath, confringi, consternari).
The prophet classes together all the nations that are warring against the people
of God, pronounces upon them the sentence of destruction, and calls upon all
distant lands to hear this ultimate fate of the kingdom of the world, i.e., of the
imperial power. The world-kingdom must be wrecked on the land of Immanuel;

for with us, as the watchword of believers runs, pointing to the person of the
Savour, with us is God.

Isa. 8:11, 12. There then follows in v. 11 an explanatory clause, which seems
at first sight to pass on to a totally different theme, but it really stands in the
closest connection with the triumphant words of vv. 9, 10. It is Immanuel
whom believers receive, constitute, and hold fast as their refuge in the
approaching times of the Assyrian judgment. He is their refuge and God in Him,
and not any human support whatever. This is the link of connection with vv. 11,
12:
For Jehovah hath spoken thus to me, overpowering me with Gods hand, and
instructing me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, Call ye not conspiracy
all that this people calls conspiracy; and what is feared by it, fear ye not, neither
think ye dreadful.

DyFHA, the hand, is the absolute hand, which is no sooner laid upon a man than
it overpowers all perception, sensation, and though: chezkath hayyad (viz.,
alai, upon me, Eze. 3:14) therefore describes a condition in which the hand of
God was put forth upon the prophet with peculiar force, as distinguished from
the more usual prophetic state, the effect of a peculiarly impressive and
energetic act of God. Luther is wrong in following the Syriac, and adopting the
rendering, taking me by the hand; as chezkath points back to the kal
(invalescere), and not to the hiphil (apprehendere). It is this circumstantial
statement, which is continued in vyissereni (and instructing me), and not the
leading verb amar (he said); for the former is not the third pers. pret. piel,
which would be vyisserani, but the third pers. fut. kal, from the future form
yissor (Hos. 10:10, whereas the fut. piel is vyasser); and it is closely connected
with chezkath hayyad, according to the analogy of the change from the
participial and infinitive construction to the finite verb (Ges. 132, Anm. 2).
With this overpowering influence, and an instructive warning against going in
the way of this people, Jehovah spake to the prophet as follows. With regard
to the substance of the following warning, the explanation that has been
commonly adopted since the time of Jerome, viz., noli duorum regum timere
conjurationem (fear not the conspiracy of the two kings), is contrary to the
reading of the words. The warning runs thus: The prophet, and such as were on
his side, were not to call that kesher which the great mass of the people called
kesher (cf., 2Ch. 23:13, She said, Treason, Treason! kesher, kesher); yet the
alliance of Rezin and Pekah was really a conspiracy a league against the
house and people of David. Nor can the warning mean that believers, when they
saw how the unbelieving Ahaz brought the nation into distress, were not to join
in a conspiracy against the person of the king (Hofmann, Drechsler); they are
not warned at all against making a conspiracy, but against joining in the popular

cry when the people called out kesher. The true explanation has been given by
Roorda, viz., that the reference is to the conspiracy, as it was called, of the
prophet and his disciples (sermo hic est de conjuratione, quae dicebatur
prophetae et discipulorum ejus). The same thing happened to Isaiah as to
Amos (Amo. 7:10) and to Jeremiah. Whenever the prophets were at all zealous
in their opposition to the appeal for foreign aid, they were accused and branded
as standing in the service of the enemy, and conspiring for the overthrow of the
kingdom. In such perversion of language as this, the honourable among them
were not to join. The way of God was now a very different one from the way of
that people. If the prophet and his followers opposed the alliance with Asshur,
this was not a common human conspiracy against the will of the king and
nation, but the inspiration of God, the true policy of Jehovah. Whoever trusted
in Him had no need to be afraid of such attempts as those of Rezin and Pekah,
or to look upon them as dreadful.

Isa. 8:13-15. The object of their fear was a very different one. Vv. 13-15.
Jehovah of hosts, sanctify Him; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your
terror. So will He become a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offence (vexation) to both the houses of Israel, a snare and trap to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and shall fall; and be dashed to
pieces, and be snared and taken.

The logical apodosis to v. 13 commences with vhahah (so shall He be). If ye

actually acknowledge Jehovah the Holy One as the Holy One (hikdish, as in
Isa. 29:23), and if it is He whom ye fear, and who fills you with dread (maaritz,
used for the object of dread, as morah is for the object of fear; hence that
which terrifies in a causative sense), He will become a mikdash. The word
mikdash may indeed denote the object sanctified, and so Knobel understands it
here according to Num. 18:29; but if we adhere to the strict notion of the word,
this gives an unmeaning apodosis. Mikdash generally means the sanctified place
or sanctuary, with which the idea of an asylum would easily associate itself,
since even among the Israelites the temple was regarded and respected as an
asylum (1Ki. 1:50; 2:28). This is the explanation which most of the
commentators have adopted here; and the punctuators also took it in the same
sense, when they divided the two halves of v. 14 by athnach as antithetical. And
mikdash is really to be taken in this sense, although it cannot be exactly
rendered asylum, since this would improperly limit the meaning of the word.
The temple was not only a place of shelter, but also of grace, blessing, and
peace. All who sanctified the Lord of lords He surrounded like temple walls; hid
them in Himself, whilst death and tribulation reigned without, and comforted,
fed, and blessed them in His own gracious fellowship. This is the true
explanation of vhayah lmikdash, according to such passages as Isa. 4: 5, 6,
Psa. 27: 5; 31:21. To the two houses of Israel, on the contrary, i.e., to the great

mass of the people of both kingdoms who neither sanctified nor feared Jehovah,
He would be a rock and snare. The synonyms are intentionally heaped together
(cf., Isa. 28:13), to produce the fearful impression of death occurring in many
forms, but all inevitable. The first three verbs of v. 15 refer to the stone
(eben) and rock ( tzur); the last two to the snare (pach), and trap or
springe (mokesh f55
All who did not give glory to Jehovah would be dashed to pieces upon His
work as upon a stone, and caught therein as in a trap. This was the burden of
the divine warning, which the prophet heard for himself and for those that
believed.

Isa. 8:16. The words that follow in v. 16,

Bind up the testimony, seal the lesson in my disciples,

appear at first sight to be a command of God to the prophet, according to such

parallel passages as Dan. 12: 4, 9, Rev. 22:10, cf., Dan. 8:26; but with this
explanation it is impossible to do justice to the words in my disciples
(blimmudai). The explanation given by Rosenmller, Knobel, and others, viz.,
by bringing in men divinely instructed (adhibitis viris piis et sapientibus), is
grammatically inadmissible. Consequently I agree with Vitringa, Drechsler, and
others, in regarding v. 16 as the prophets own prayer to Jehovah. We tie
together (RRC,F imperf. R
C = RCO) what we wish to keep from getting
separated and lost; we seal (chatham ) what is to be kept secret, and only
opened by a person duly qualified. And so the prophet here prays that Jehovah
would take his testimony with regard to the future, and his instruction, which
was designed to prepare for this future, that testimony and thorah which the
great mass in their hardness did not understand, and in their self-hardening
despised, and lay them up well secured and well preserved, as if by band and
seal, in the hearts of those who received the prophets words with believing
obedience (limmud, as in Isa. 50: 4; 54:13). For it would be all over with Israel,
unless a community of believers should be preserved, and all over with this
community, if the word of God, which was the ground of their life, should be
allowed to slip from their hearts. We have here an announcement of the grand
idea, which the second part of the book of Isaiah carries out in the grandest
style. It is very evident that it is the prophet himself who is speaking here, as we
may see from v. 17, where he continues to speak in the first person, though he
does not begin with YNIJWA .

Isa. 8:17. Whilst offering this prayer, and looking for its fulfilment, he waits
upon Jehovah. V. 17.

And I wait upon Jehovah, who hides His face before the house of Jacob, and hope
for Him.

A time of judgment had now commenced, which would still last a long time; but
the word of God was the pledge of Israels continuance in the midst of it, and
of the renewal of Israels glory afterwards. The prophet would therefore hope
for the grace which was now hidden behind the wrath.

Isa. 8:18. His home was the future, and to this he was subservient, even with
all his house. V. 18.
Behold, I and the children which Jehovah hath given me for signs and types in
Israel, from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth upon Mount Zion.

He presents himself to the Lord with his children, puts himself and them into
His hands. They were Jehovahs gift, and that for a higher purpose than everyday family enjoyment. They subserved the purpose of signs and types in
connection with the history of salvation. Signs and types: oth (sign) was an
omen or prognostic (shmeion) in word and deed, which pointed to and was the
pledge of something future (whether it were in itself miraculous or natural);
mopheth was either something miraculous (teraj) pointing back to a
supernatural cause, or a type (tupoj, prodigium = porridigium) which pointed
beyond itself to something future and concealed, literally twisted round, i.e., out
of the ordinary course, paradoxical, striking, standing out (Arab. aft, ift, res
mira, deinon ti), from TPAJF (related to PAHF, BJF) = TP
JMO, like RS

M=
RS
JMO. His children were signs and enigmatical symbols of the future, and that
from Jehovah of hosts who dwelt on Zion. In accordance with His counsel (to
which the I in IM
points), He had selected these signs and types: He who
could bring to pass the future, which they set forth, as surely as He was Jehovah
of hosts, and who would bring it to pass as surely as He had chosen Mount
Zion for the scene of His gracious presence upon earth. Shear-yashub and
Mahershalal were indeed no less symbols of future wrath than of future grace;
but the name of the father (Yeshahahu) was an assurance that all the future
would issue from Jehovahs salvation, and end in the same. Isaiah and his
children were figures and emblems of redemption, opening a way for itself
through judgment. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 2:13) quotes these words
as the distinct words of Jesus, because the spirit of Jesus was in Isaiah, the
spirit of Jesus, which in the midst of this holy family, bound together as it was
only to the bands of the shadow, pointed forward to that church of the New
Testament which would be found together by the bands of the true substance.
Isaiah, his children, and his wife, who is called the prophetess (nebiah) not
only because she was the wife of the prophet but because she herself possessed
the gift of prophecy, and all the believing disciples gathered round this family,

 these together formed the stock of the church of the Messianic future, on the
foundation and soil of the existing massa perdita of Israel.

Isa. 8:19. It is to this ecclesiola in ecclesia that the prophets admonition is

addressed. V. 19.
And when they shall say to you, Inquire of the necromancers, and of the
soothsayers that chirp and whisper: Should not a people inquire of its God? for
the living to the dead?

The appeal is supposed to be made by Judaeans of the existing stamp; for we

know from Isa. 2: 6; 3: 2, 3, that all kinds of heathen superstitions had found
their way into Jerusalem, and were practised there as a trade. The persons into
whose mouths the answer is put by the prophet (we may supply before v. 19b,
Thus shall ye say to them; cf., Jer. 10:11), are his own children and disciples.
The circumstances of the times were very critical; and the people were applying
to wizards to throw light upon the dark future. Ob signified primarily the spirit
of witchcraft, then the possessor of such a spirit (equivalent to Baal ob), more
especially the necromancer. Yiddoni, on the other hand, signified primarily the
possessor of a prophesying or soothsaying spirit (puqwn or pneuma tou
puqwnoj), Syr. yodua (after the intensive from paul with immutable vowels),
and then the soothsaying spirit itself (Lev. 20:27), which was properly called
yiddaon (the much knowing), like daimwn, which, according to Plato, is
equivalent to dahmwn. These people, who are designated by the LXX, both here
and elsewhere, as eggastromuqoi, i.e., ventriloquists, imitated the chirping of
bats, which was supposed to proceed from the shadows of Hades, and uttered
their magical formulas in a whispering tone. f56
What an unnatural thing, for the people of Jehovah to go and inquire, not of
their won God, but of such heathenish and demoniacal deceivers and victims as
these (darash el, to go and inquire of a person, Isa. 11:10, synonymous with
shaal b, 1Sa. 28: 6)! What blindness, to consult the dead in the interests of the
living! By the dead (hammethim) we are not to understand the idols in this
passage, as in Psa. 106:28, but the departed, as Deu. 18:11 (cf., 1Sa. 28)
clearly proves; and DJAbI is not to be taken, either here or elsewhere, as
equivalent to tachath (instead of), as Knobel supposes, but, as in Jer. 21: 2
and other passages, as signifying for the benefit of. Necromancy, which
makes the dead the instructors of the living, is a most gloomy deception.

Isa. 8:20. In opposition to such a falling away to wretched superstition, the

watchword of the prophet and his supporters is this. V. 20.
To the teaching of God (thorah, Gotteslehre), and to the testimony! If they do not
accord with this word, they are a people for whom no morning dawns.

The summons, to the teaching and to the testimony (namely, to those which
Jehovah gave through His prophet, v. 17), takes the form of a watchword in
time of battle (Jud. 7:18). With this construction the following JLOJI (which
Knobel understands interrogatively, Should not they speak so, who, etc.? and
Luzzatto as an oath, as in Psa. 131: 2, Surely they say such words as have no
dawn in them) has, at any rate, all the presumption of a conditional
signification. Whoever had not this watchword would be regarded as the enemy
of Jehovah, and suffer the fate of such a man. This is, to all appearance, the
meaning of the apodosis RXA
LYJ
REJ. Luther has given the meaning
correctly, If they do not say this, they will not have the morning dawn; or,
according to his earlier and equally good rendering, They shall never overtake
the morning light, literally, They are those to whom no dawn arises. The use
of the plural in the hypothetical protasis, and the singular in the apodosis, is an
intentional and significant change. All the several individuals who did not
adhere to the revelation made by Jehovah through His prophet, formed one
corrupt mass, which would remain in hopeless darkness. REJ is used in the
same sense as in Isa. 5:28 and 2Sa. 2: 4, and possibly also as in 1Sa. 15:20,
instead of the more usual YkI , when used in the affirmative sense which springs
in both particles out of the confirmative (namque and quoniam): Truly they
have no morning dawn to expect. f57

Isa. 8:21, 22. The night of despair to which the unbelieving nation would be
brought, is described in vv. 21, 22:
And it goes about therein hard pressed and hungry: and it comes to pass, when
hunger befals it, it frets itself, and curses by its king and by its God, and turns its
face upward, and looks to the earth, and beyond distress and darkness, benighting
with anguish, and thrust out into darkness.

The singulars attach themselves to the

L in v. 19, which embraces all the
unbelievers in one mass; therein (bah) refers to the self-evident land (eretz).
The people would be brought to such a plight in the approaching Assyrian
oppressions, that they would wander about in the land pressed down by their
hard fate (niksheh) and hungry ( raeb), because all provisions would be gone
and the fields and vineyards would be laid waste. As often as it experienced
hunger afresh, it would work itself into a rage (vhithkazzaqph with Vav apod.
and pathach, according to Ges. 54, Anm.), and curse by its king and God,
i.e., by its idol. This is the way in which we must explain the passage, in
accordance with 1Sa. 14:43, where killel beholim is equivalent to killel bshem
elohim, and with Zep. 1: 5, where a distinction is made between an oath
layehovah, and an oath bmalcam; if we would adhere to the usage of the
language, in which we never find a bI LLQ corresponding to the Latin execrari
in aliquem (Ges.), but on the contrary the object cursed is always expressed in

the accusative. We must therefore give up Psa. 5: 3 and 68:25 as parallels to

bmalco and belohaiv: they curse by the idol, which passes with them for both
king and God, curse their wretched fate with this as they suppose the most
effectual curse of all, without discerning in it the just punishment of their own
apostasy, and humbling themselves penitentially under the almighty hand of
Jehovah. Consequently all this reaction of their wrath would avail them nothing:
whether they turned upwards, to see if the black sky were not clearing, or
looked down to the earth, everywhere there would meet them nothing but
distress and darkness, nothing but a night of anguish all around (meuph zu