Isaiah 1 commentary

Isaiah signifies, "The salvation of the Lord;" a very suitable name for this prophet, who prophesies so much of Jesus the Saviour, and his salvation. God's professing people did not know or consider that they owed their lives and comforts to God's fatherly care and kindness. How many are very careless in the affairs of their souls! Not considering what we do know in religion, does us as much harm, as ignorance of what we should know. The wickedness was universal. Here is a comparison taken from a sick and diseased body. The distemper threatens to be mortal. From the sole of the foot even to the head; from the meanest peasant to the greatest peer, there is no soundness, no good principle, no religion, for that is the health of the soul. Nothing but guilt and corruption; the sad effects of Adam's fall. This passage declares the total depravity of human nature. While sin remains unrepented, nothing is done toward healing these wounds, and preventing fatal effects. Jerusalem was exposed and unprotected, like the huts or sheds built up to guard ripening fruits. These are still to be seen in the East, where fruits form a large part of the summer food of the people. But the Lord had a small remnant of pious servants at Jerusalem. It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed. The evil nature is in every one of us; only Jesus and his sanctifying Spirit can restore us to spiritual health.

Judea was desolate, and their cities burned. This awakened them to bring sacrifices and offerings, as if they would bribe God to remove the punishment, and give them leave to go on in their sin. Many who will readily part with their sacrifices, will not be persuaded to part with their sins. They relied on the mere form as a service deserving a reward. The most costly devotions of wicked people, without thorough reformation of heart and life, cannot be acceptable to God. He not only did not accept them, but he abhorred them. All this shows that sin is very hateful to God. If we allow ourselves in secret sin, or forbidden indulgences; if we reject the salvation of Christ, our very prayers will become abomination.

Not only feel sorrow for the sin committed, but break off the practice. We must be doing, not stand idle. We must be doing the good the Lord our God requires. It is plain that the sacrifices of the law could not atone, even for outward national crimes. But, blessed be God, there is a Fountain opened, in which sinners of every age and rank may be cleansed. Though our sins have been as scarlet and crimson, a deep dye, a double dye, first in the wool of original corruption, and afterwards in the many threads of actual transgression; though we have often dipped into sin, by many backslidings; yet pardoning mercy will take out the stain, Ps. 51:7. They should have all the happiness and comfort they could desire. Life and death, good and evil, are set before us. O Lord, incline all of us to live to thy glory.

Neither holy cities nor royal ones are faithful to their trust, if religion does not dwell in them. Dross may shine like silver, and the wine that is mixed with water may still have the colour of wine. Those have a great deal to answer for, who do not help the oppressed, but oppress them. Men may do much by outward restraints; but only God works effectually by the influences of his Spirit, as a Spirit of Judgment. Sin is the worst captivity, the worst slavery. The redemption of the spiritual Zion, by the righteousness and death of Christ, and by his powerful grace, most fully accord with what is here meant. Utter ruin is threatened. The Jews should become as a tree when blasted by heat; as a garden without water, which in those hot countries would soon be burned up. Thus shall they be that trust in idols, or in an arm of flesh. Even the strong man shall be as tow; not only soon broken, and pulled to pieces, but easily catching fire. When the sinner has made himself as tow and stubble, and God makes himself as a consuming fire, what can prevent the utter ruin of the sinner?

1. The vision of Isaiah The Hebrew word חזון (chazon,) though it is derived from חזה, (chazah,) he saw, and literally is a vision, yet commonly signifies a prophecy. For when the Scripture makes mention of special visions which were exhibited to the prophets in a symbolical manner, when it was the will of God that some extraordinary event should receive confirmation, in such cases the word Tibet, (מראה,) vision, is employed. Not to multiply quotations, in a passage which relates to prophecy in general the writer says, that the word of God was precious, because חזון, (chazon,) vision, was of rare occurrence. (1 Samuel 3:1.) A little afterwards, the word מראה: (mar-ah) is employed to denote the vision by which God revealed himself to Samuel. (1 Samuel 3:13.) In distinguishing between two ordinary methods of revelation, a vision and a dream, Moses speaks of a vision (מראה) as the special method. (Numbers 12:6.) It is evident, however, that the seer, הראה, (haroeh,) was the name formerly given to prophets, (1 Samuel 9:9;) but by way of excellence, because God revealed to them his counsel in a familiar manner.

So far as relates to the present passage, this word unquestionably denotes the certainty of the doctrine; as if it had been said that there is nothing contained in this book which was not made known to Isaiah by God himself. The derivation of the word, therefore, deserves attention; for we learn by it that the prophets did not speak of their own accord, or draw from their own imaginations, but that they were enlightened by God, who opened their eyes to perceive those things which otherwise they would not of themselves have been able to comprehend. Thus the inscription of Isaiah recommends to us the doctrine of this book, as containing no human reasonings, but the oracles of God, in order to convince us that it contains nothing but what was revealed by the Spirit of God.

Concerning Judah Were we to render it to Judah, it would make little difference, for the preposition על (al) has both significations, and the meaning will still be, that everything contained in this book belongs strictly to Judah and Jerusalem. For though many things are scattered through it which relate to Babylon, Egypt, Tyre, and other cities and countries, yet it was not necessary that those places should be expressly enumerated in the title; for nothing more was required than to announce the principal subject, and to explain to whom Isaiah was chiefly sent, that is, to Jerusalem, and the Jews. Everything else that is contained in his prophecies may be said to have been accidental and foreign to the subject.

And yet it was not inconsistent with his office to make known to other nations the calamities which should overtake them; for in like manner Amos did not go beyond the limits of his calling, when he did not spare the Jews, though he was not sent to them. (Amos 2:4, 5.) A still more familiar instance is found in the calling of Peter and Paul, the former of whom was appointed to the Jews, and the latter to the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:8.) And yet Peter did not rush beyond the limits of his office, by preaching to the Gentiles; as, for example, when he went to Cornelius: (Acts 10:17:) nor did Paul, when he offered his services to the Jews, to whom he immediately went as soon as he entered into any city. (Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:2, 10; 18:4,19.) In the same light ought we to view Isaiah; for while he is careful to instruct the Jews, and directs his labors expressly towards that object, he does not transgress his proper limits when he likewise takes a passing notice of other nations.

Judah and Jerusalem He takes Judah for the whole nation, and Jerusalem for the chief city in the kingdom; for he does not make a distinction between Jerusalem and the Jews, but mentions it, by way of eminence, (κατ ᾿ ἐξοχὴν,) as the metropolis, just as if a prophet of the present day were to address the kingdom of France, and Paris, which is the metropolis of the nation. And this was of great importance, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem might not hold themselves exempted, as if they were free from all blame, or placed above the laws on account of their high rank, and thus might send the meaner sort of people to be instructed by homely prophets. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that Jerusalem is mentioned separately, on account of its being situated in the tribe of Benjamin; for the half of that tribes which was subject to the posterity of David, is included under the name of Judah

2. Hear, O heavens Isaiah has here imitated Moses, as all the prophets are accustomed to do; and there cannot be a doubt that he alludes to that illustrious Song of Moses, in which, at the very commencement, he calls heaven and earth to witness against the people:

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. (Deuteronomy 32:1.)

This is unquestionably a very severe protestation; for it conveys this meaning, that both turn to the elements which are dumb and devoid of feeling, because men have now no ears, or are bereft of all their senses. The Prophet, therefore, speaks of it as an extraordinary and monstrous thing, which ought to strike even the senseless elements with amazement. For what could be more shocking than that the Israelites should revolt from God, who had bestowed on them so many benefits? Those who think that by heaven are meant angels, and by earth men, weaken too much the import of those words, and thus destroy all their force and majesty.

Almost all the commentators consider the clause to end with the words, for the Lord hath spoken; as if the Prophet had intimated, that as soon as the Lord opens his sacred mouth, all ought to be attentive to hear his voice. And certainly this meaning has the appearance of being more full; but the context demands that we connect the words in a different manner, so as to make the word hear to refer, not in a general manner to any discourse whatever, but only to the expostulation which immediately follows. The meaning therefore is, Hear the complaint which the Lord brings forward, I have nourished and brought up children, etc. For he relates a prodigy, which fills him with such horror that he is compelled to summon dead creatures as witnesses, contrary to nature.

That no one may wonder at the circumstance of his addressing dumb and lifeless objects, experience very clearly shows that the voice of God is heard even by dumb creatures, and that the order of nature is nothing else than the obedience which is rendered to him by every part of the world, so that everywhere his supreme authority shines forth; for at his bidding the elements observe the law laid down to them, and heaven and earth perform their duty. The earth yields her fruits; the sea flows not beyond her settled boundaries; the sun, moon, and stars perform their Courses; the heavens, too, revolve at stated periods; and all with wonderful accuracy, though they are destitute of reason and understanding But man, endued with reason and understanding, in whose ears and in whose heart the voice of God frequently sounds, remains unmoved, like one bereft of his senses, and cannot bend the neck to submit to him. Against obstinate and rebellious men shall dumb and lifeless creatures bear testimony, so that they will one day feel that this protestation was not in vain.

I have nourished Literally it runs, I have made them great; Feci magnos. The term feci (I have made) exhibits the force of the Pihel form, גדלתי(giddalti,) which, as in other instances, approaches the meaning of the Hiphil form, הגדלתי, (higdalti.) — Ed but as he is speaking about children, we cannot obtain a better rendering than I have nourished, or, I have brought up; Educavi, vel sustuli. for instead of the verb, to nourish, Enutrire. the Latins employ the phrase, to bring up children Tollere liberos. But he afterwards mentions other benefits which he had bestowed on them in rich abundance; as if he had said, that he not only had performed the part of a kind father, by giving them food and the ordinary means of support, but had labored to raise them to an honorable rank. For in every sort of kindness towards them he had, as it were, exhausted himself, as he elsewhere reproaches them,

What could have been done to my vineyard that I have not done? (Isaiah 5:4.)

A similar charge the Lord might indeed have brought against all nations; for all of them he feeds, and on all he confers great and multiplied benefits. But he had chosen the Israelites in a peculiar manner, had given them a preference above others by adopting them into his family, had treated them as his most beloved children, had tenderly cherished them in his bosom, and, in a word, had bestowed on them every kind of blessings.

To apply these observations to our own times, we ought to consider whether our condition be not equal, or even superior to that which the Jews formerly enjoyed. Their adoption into the family of God bound them to maintain the purity of his worship. Our obligation is twofold; for not only have we been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but he who once redeemed us is pleased to favor us with his Gospel, and in this manner prefers us to all those whom he still allows to remain blinded by ignorance. If we do not acknowledge these things, how much severer punishment shall we deserve? For the more full and abundant the grace of God which hath been poured out on us, the higher will be the ingratitude of which it shall convict us.

They have revolted. Our Author, in his Latin version of the Prophet, (see p. 33,) has rendered this word by “scelerate egerunt in me“ — “they have acted wickedly towards me;” and, in the margin, by “rebellarunt contra me,” — “have rebelled against me.” Without taking notice of either of these translations, he has here introduced a third, “defecerunt“ — “have revolted,” for which it would be easy to produce authorities. The participle, פושעים (poshegnim,) at Hosea 14:10, is defined by Aben Ezra (quoted by Buxtorff) to mean שיוצאים מהרשות, (sheyotzeim meharshoth,) those who withdraw from authority, who set at nought, or oppose, the authority of a lawful magistrate. — Ed Jerome translates it, they have despised; Spreverunt. but it is plain enough, from many passages, that פשע (pashang) means something more, namely, revolt. God declares, that by no acts of kindness could they be kept in a state of obedience, that they were utterly disaffected and estranged, like a son who leaves his father’s house, and thus makes manifest that there remains no hope of his improvement. It is indeed a monstrous thing that children should not be obedient to their father, and to a Father who is so kind, and who gives unceasing attention to his family. Lycurgus refused to enact a law against ungrateful persons, because it was monstrously unnatural not to acknowledge a benefit received. A child who is ungrateful to his father is therefore a double monster; but a child who is ungrateful to a kind and generous father is a threefold monster. For he employs the word children, not for the purpose of treating them with respect, but in order to exhibit that revolt in a more striking manner, and in more hateful colors.

3. The ox knoweth his owner This comparison marks the more strongly the criminality of the revolt; for the Lord might have compared his people to the Gentiles; but he is still more severe when he compares them to dumb beasts, and pronounces them to be more stupid than the beasts are. Though beasts are destitute of reason and understanding, still they are capable of being taught; to such an extent, at least, as to recognize those who feed them. Since, therefore, God had not only fed this people at a stall, but had nourished them with all the kindness which is wont to be exercised by a father towards his sons, and had not only filled their bellies, but supplied them daily with spiritual food; having perceived them to be so exceedingly sluggish, he justly considers that they deserve to be taught in the school of beasts, and not of men; and therefore he sends them to the oven and asses to learn from them what is their duty. Nor ought we to wonder at this; for the beasts frequently observe the order of nature more correctly, and display greater kindness, than men themselves.

Not to multiply instances, it will be sufficient to notice that which is here mentioned by Isaiah, that the beasts, though they are exceedingly dull and stupid, do, notwithstanding, obey their masters and those who have the charge of them. But if we choose to attend to other points in which they excel men, how many shall we discover? What is the reason why scarcely any animal is cruel to its own species, and that it recognizes in another its own likeness? What is the reason why all animals commonly bestow so much care in rearing their young, while it frequently happens that mothers, forgetful of the voice of nature and of humanity, forsake their children? What is the reason why they are accustomed to take no more meat and drink than what is sufficient for sustaining their life and their strength, while men gorge themselves, and utterly ruin their constitutions? In a word, What is the reason why they do not, in any respect, transgress the laws which nature has prescribed to them?

The papists, who are accustomed to set aside the true meaning of the Scriptures, and to spoil all the mysteries of God by their own fooleries, have here contrived an absurd fable; for they have falsely alleged that the oxen and asses in the stall worshipped Christ when he was born; by which they show themselves to be egregious asses. (And indeed I wish that they would imitate the ass which they have invented; for then they should be asses worshipping Christ, and not lifting up the heel against his divine authority.) For here the Prophet does not speak of miracles, but of the order of nature, and declares, that those who overturn that order may be regarded as monsters. We must not contrive new miracles for the purpose of adding to the authority of Christ; for, by mingling the false with the true, there is danger lest both should be disbelieved; nor can there be any doubt but that, if such a miracle had been wrought, the Evangelists would have committed it to writing.

Israel doth not know. The name Israel, which he contrasts with those beasts, is emphatic. We know how honorable it was for the posterity of Abraham to be known by this name, which God had bestowed on the holy patriarch, because he had vanquished the angel in wrestling. (Genesis 32:28.) So much the more dishonorable was it for bastard and rebellious children to make false boasting of that honor. First, there is an implied reproof, not only because those who do not at all resemble the holy mall do wrong in assuming his name, but because they are ungrateful to God, from whom they had received most valuable blessings. Secondly, there is also conveyed an indirect comparison; for the higher their rank was in being far exalted above all other nations, so much the greater disgrace is flow intended to be expressed by separating them from other nations under the honorable designation of Israel

The Greek translators have added the word me ‘Ἰσραὴλ δέ με οὐκ ἔγνω, καὶ ὁ λαός με ού συνὢκεν — But Israel doth not know me, and the people doth not understand me ; but I prefer to repeat what he had said before, Israel doth not know His Owner, that is, God; nor his crib, that is, the Church, in which he had been brought up, and to which he ought to be attracted; while those beasts, on the other hand, recognize the master by whom they are nourished, and willingly return to the place where they have been fed.

4. Ah sinful nation! This comes very near the rendering of the Septuagint, οὐαὶ ἔθνος ἁμαρτωλὸν Though he held already reproved their crime with sufficient severity, yet, for the purpose of exposing it still more, he adds an exclamation, by which he expresses still more strongly his abhorrence of such base ingratitude and wickedness. Some are of opinion that the particle הוי (hoi) denotes grief; Jerome renders it vae (Wo to); but for my part I reckon it sufficient to say that it is an exclamation, suggested partly by astonishment, and partly by sorrow. For we burst into loud cries, when the disgracefulness of the action is such as cannot be expressed in plain terms, or when we want words to correspond to the depth of our grief Where we have rendered wicked nation, the Greeks have translated ἁμαρτωλὸν that is, a sinner; and such is likewise the rendering of the Vulgate. But the Hebrew word denotes those who are given up to crime; and the Prophet unquestionably charges them with abandoned wickedness.

A people laden with iniquity The force of the metaphor ought to be observed; for not only does he mean that they are sunk in their iniquity, as in a deep mire, but he likewise brings a charge against them, that they sin, not through mistake or thoughtlessness, as frequently happens with those who are easily led astray, but that they follow out their rebellion with a firm purpose of mind; as if he had said that they were the slaves of sin, or sold to act wickedly.

When he adds, a seed of evil-doers, he means a wicked seed. Others, with greater ingenuity, consider this passage to mean, that they are declared to be unworthy of holding a place among the children of Abraham, because they are bastards, and not related to him; as they are elsewhere called the seed of Canaan, and are reproached with being uncircumcised, (Jeremiah 9:26,) as if they had been the descendants of heathens and foreigners. But it is customary with the Hebrews to employ the phrase, “children of the good” for “good children,” a mode of expression which has been imitated by the Greeks. Vigerus remarks, that παῖδες, when construed with the genitives of nouns, denoting artists, nations, or any particular condition or profession of men, is put for the nouns themselves; and he adduces the following instances, ῥητόρων, ἰατρῶν φιλοσόφων, γραφέων παιδες, which is far more elegant than ῥήτορες etc.; and in like manner, Κελτῶν παῖδες, sons of the Celts, or, Gauls, that is, Gauls; δυστήνων παῖδες, sons of the wretched, that is, the wretched — Ed

Degenerate children. The word משחיתים (mashchithim) literally means corrupting, and accordingly translators supply the word themselves, or, their pursuits. But I reckon that degenerate is a more appropriate rendering; for the Prophet means that they are so depraved as to be altogether unlike their parents. The four epithets which are here bestowed by him on his nation are far from being honorable, and are widely different from the opinion which they had formed about themselves. For this is the manner in which we must arouse hypocrites; and the more they flatter themselves, and the farther they are from being regulated by the fear of God, so much the more ought we to wield against them the thunderbolts of words. On such persons a milder form of instruction would produce no effect, and an ordinary exhortation would not move them. It is necessary, also, to remove that false conviction of their holiness, righteousness, and wisdom, which they commonly employ as a disguise, and as the ground of idle boasting.

For they have forsaken the Lord He assigns the reason why he reproves them with such sharpness and severity. It is, that they may not complain, as they are wont to do, of being treated with excessive harshness and rigour. And first he upbraids them with that which is the source of all evils, their revolt from God; for, as it is the highest perfection of righteousness to cleave to God, agreeably to those words of Moses, Now, Israel, what doth thy God require from thee but that thou shouldst cleave to him? Our Author, quoting from memory, has mingled two passages: And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul? (Deuteronomy 10:12.) Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave and swear by his name. (Deuteronomy 10:20.) — Ed. so, when we have revolted from him, we are utterly ruined. The design of the Prophet is, not to convince the Jews that they are guilty of a single crime, but to show that they are wholly apostates.

The following words, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel, whether the word be rendered provoke, or despise, the latter of which I prefer, are undoubtedly added in order to place their sin in a still stronger light; for it was shamefully base to treat with contempt the favor of him who had chosen them alone out of all the nations to be adopted into his family. This is also the reason why he calls himself the Holy One of Israel; because, by admitting them to alliance with him, he had at the same time adorned them with his holiness; for wherever this name occurs it is ascribed to him on account of the effect. What barbarous pride was there in despising so great an honor! If any one choose rather to render the word provoke, the meaning will be, that they rejected God, as if they expressly intended to provoke his anger; which shows how detestable their apostasy is.

They are gone away backward The meaning is, that when the Lord laid down to them a fixed way and rule of living, they were hurried along by their sinful passions; but he confirms the statement which he had just now made, that their licentiousness was so unbridled that they utterly revolted from God, and deliberately turned aside from that course to which their life ought to have been directed.

5. Why should ye be stricken any more? Some render it, Upon what? or, On what part? and interpret the passage as if the Lord had said that he had not another scourge left; because so various are the methods by which he has attempted to bring them back to the path of duty, that no other way of chastising them remains to be tried. But I prefer to render it Why? because this corresponds to the Hebrew word, and agrees better with the context. It is equivalent to phrases in daily use, To what purpose? For what object? A quel propos? Pour quelle fin? He means that the Jews have proceeded to such a pitch of wickedness and crimes, that it is impossible to believe that chastisements will do them any good; for when desperate men have been hardened, we know that they will rather be broken to shreds than submit to correction. He complains of their prodigious obstinacy, like a physician who should declare that every remedy had been tried, and that his skill was now exhausted.

At the same time he charges them with extreme malice; for when ungodly men are not even humbled by punishments, they have arrived at the very height of wickedness; as if the Lord had said, “I see that I should do you no good if I were to chastise you;” for although chastisements and afflictions are the remedies which God employs for curing our vices, yet, when they are found to be of no advantage to us, we are past hope. True, indeed, God does not on that account cease to punish us, but, on the contrary, his wrath against us is the more enflamed; for such obstinacy God abhors above all things else. But he justly says that his labor is lost when he does not succeed in bringing us to repentance, and that it is useless to apply remedies to those who cannot be cured. Thus he does not fail to double their chastisements and afflictions, and to try the very utmost of what can be done, and he is even compelled to take this course until he absolutely ruin and destroy them. But in all this he does not discharge the office of a physician; but what he laments is, that the chastisements which he inflicts will be of no avail to his people.

You will yet grow more faithless It is a confirmation of the former statement, and therefore I separate it from the former clause, though there are some who put them together. It is as if he had said, “Still you will not cease to practice treachery; yea, you will add to your crimes; for I perceive that you rush to the commission of iniquity as if you had leagued and banded yourselves for that purpose, so that we can no longer hope that you will slacken in your course.” The design of God is to exhibit their incorrigible disposition, that they may be left without excuse.

The whole head is sick. Others translate it every head, and suppose that those terms denote the princes and nobles of the nation. I rather agree with the opinion of those who render it the whole head; for I consider it to be a plain comparison taken from the human body, to this effect, that the body is so severely afflicted that there is no hope of returning health. He points out two principal parts on which the health of the body depends, and thus shows the extent of the disease which, he tells us, has infected this wretched people to such a degree that they are wasting away; that the disease exists not in a single member, or in the extremities of the body, but that the heart itself has been wounded, and the head is severely afflicted; in short, that the vital parts, as they are called, are so much injured and corrupted that it is impossible to heal them.

But here also commentators differ; for some of them view this state of disease as referring to sins, and others to punishments. Those who view it as referring to sins interpret it thus: “You are like a rotten and stinking body, in which no part is sound or healthy. Crimes of the worst description prevail amongst you, by the infection of which every thing is corrupted and debased.” But I choose rather to interpret it as referring to punishments; for unquestionably God still proceeds with this complaint, that the nation is so obstinate as to be incapable of being cured by any chastisements, because, though it has been beaten almost to death, or at least has been maimed and frightfully torn by repeated blows, still it is not reformed. Such too is the import of —

6. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it Here he proceeds with the same comparison, and repeats the same statement; for certainly those who explain the former part of the verse, as referring to punishments, do not sufficiently consider the remaining part of the context. If we shall admit that a nation corrupted by vices is compared to a diseased body, what is the meaning of the words which immediately follow, that the wounds have not been bound up or mollified with ointment? It is plain that the Prophet speaks of afflictions by which the nation had almost wasted away, and that he adduces this long-continued weakness as a proof of hardened impenitence. He calls it a putrifying sore, from which diseased matter is continually flowing, as if some concealed fountain were perpetually sending forth an additional supply of venom. By this comparison he shows that the wound is incurable, because that supply cannot be stopped. All this is prodigiously heightened by affirming that no remedies have been applied; for the three metaphors which he joins together — they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment — have all the same meaning that the nation, without any hope of relief, without comfort, without remedy, is reduced to such a state of distress, that in such punishments the utmost severity of God is openly displayed.

7. Your country is desolate Literally, it is desolation; and thus Isaiah goes on to speak more fully and plainly of what he had already said figuratively about chastisements, that the country has been reduced to a frightful state of devastation: for I choose to interpret all those statements as relating to past occurrences, because the Prophet does not threaten the vengeance of God, but describes those heavy calamities which have already happened. He upbraids them with indolence and stupidity in remaining unmoved by their afflictions.

Like the destruction of strangers In the English version it runs, as overthrown by strangers; and the marginal reading, adhering more closely to the Hebrew idiom, is, as the overthrow of strangers. The interpretation rejected by Calvin has been approved by some able critics; and Lowth, distrusting the philological views given by his predecessors, has resorted to a conjectural alteration of the Hebrew text: — “This reading, though confirmed by all the ancient versions, gives us no good sense; for your land is devoured by strangers, and is desolate as if overthrown by strangers, is a mere tautology, or, what is as bad, an identical comparison. Aben Ezra thought that the word, in its present form, might be taken for the same with זרם, an inundation. Schultens is of the same opinion, (see Taylor’s Concord;) and Schindler, in his Lexicon, explains it in the same manner, and so, says Kimchi, some explain it.” After enumerating the attempts of Abendana “to reconcile it to grammatical analogy,” he adds, “but I rather suppose the true reading to be זרם, and have translated it accordingly: the word זרים, in the line above, seems to have caught the transcriber’s eye, and to have led him into this mistake.” — Notes on Isaiah. — Ed . This is added for the sake of heightening the picture; for the opinion that זרים (zarim) is here put for זרם (zerem), an inundation, is farfetched. That word might no doubt be applied to enemies, but it is better to take it as literally denoting foreigners. The calamity is more grievous when it is brought on by men who are unknown, and who have come from a distant country, who lay waste with far greater recklessness and cruelty than neighboring tribes. Such men destroy cities, burn houses, buildings, and villages, and spread desolation all around. In short, they rush forward with barbarous ferocity, bent on murders and conflagrations, and are more eager to inflict damage than to make gain. But neighbors, when they have subdued a country, can retain possession of it by having a garrison, and as soon as a revolt is attempted, or an insurrection takes place, can send additional troops; and therefore they are not so cruel; nor do they lay waste a country from which they hope to derive some advantage. It is therefore no ordinary calamity, but the most shocking of all calamities, that is here described.

Hence we ought to learn that, when God begins to punish us, if we do not repent, he does not immediately desist, but multiplies the chastisements, and continually follows them up with other afflictions. We ought therefore to abstain from such obstinacy, if we do not wish to draw down upon ourselves the same punishments, or at least to deserve the same reproach which was brought against the Jews, that though they had received sharp warnings, and had felt the hand of God, still they could not be corrected or reformed.

Moreover, we ought not to wonder that we are visited with so great an amount and variety of afflictions, of which we see no end or limit, for by our obstinacy we fight with God and with his stripes. It must therefore happen with us as with wincing and unruly horses, which, the more obstinate and refractory they are, have the whip and spur applied to them with greater severity. In the present day there are many who almost accuse God of cruelty, as if he always treated us with harshness, and as if he ought to chastise us more gently; but they do not take into account our shocking crimes. If those crimes were duly weighed by them, they would assuredly acknowledge that, amidst the utmost severity, the forbearance of God is wonderful; and that we may not think that in this case the Lord was too severe, we must take into consideration the vices which he afterwards enumerates.

Here an objection will be started. Why does Isaiah declare that the nation endured such a variety of afflictions, while we have already mentioned that he began to prophesy under Uzziah, Called also Azariah, 2 Kings 15:1. — Ed. during whose reign the kingdom of Judah was in a prosperous condition? (2 Chronicles 26:5-15.) For although, towards the end of his life, the kingdom of Israel met with some disasters, still this did not affect the kingdom of Judah. Accordingly, the Jews think that these words relate to the reign of Jotham, (2 Kings 15:32,) and not of Uzziah. Their opinion appears at first sight to have little weight; and yet, when the whole matter is examined, it is not destitute of probability; for we know that the prophets did not always attend to chronological arrangement in collecting their prophecies; and it is possible that this discourse of Isaiah was placed first in order for no other reason but because it contains a summary view of that doctrine which is afterwards to be delivered.

Others think that they can easily get rid of the difficulty by interpreting the whole passage as a description of vice, and not of punishments; but what is said about the burning of cities and about the desolation of the country cannot easily be disposed of in that manner. If it is supposed that the Prophet speaks of the future and not the present condition of that kingdom, and that in the name of God he foretells approaching calamities, though they did not behold them with their eyes, I do not greatly object to that view, though it is probable that he treats of events which were known to them. It is a real narrative, and not a prediction, though in the next verse I acknowledge he announces the approaching result.

8. And the daughter of Zion shall be left Residua manebit. as a cottage in a vineyard He alludes to a custom which exists in France, that the vinekeepers rear a cottage for themselves when the grapes begin to ripen. His next comparison, which is closely allied to the former, is taken from a custom of that nation of protecting also gardens of cucumbers A lively French traveler, Tavernier, who flourished about the middle of the seventeenth century, in describing the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, gives the following account: — “There we see large beds of melons and of cucumbers, but especially of the latter, of which the inhabitants of the Levant are particularly fond. Most frequently they eat them without peeling, and afterwards drink a glass of water. Throughout the whole of Asia this is the ordinary food of the common people for three or four months. The whole family lives on it; and when a child asks for something to eat, instead of giving it bread, as in France and other places is the custom, in the Levant they offer it a cucumber, which it eats raw just as it has been fresh pulled. Cucumbers in the Levant have a peculiarly excellent flavour, and though they are eaten raw they never do any injury.” — Ed. by means of men who kept watch during the night. He next explains what he intended to convey by both comparisons.

Like a besieged city This may be explained in two ways; either that the whole country will be wasted, with the solitary exception of the city, which shall be left standing like a cottage, or that the city itself will be destroyed. The former interpretation is adopted by the Jews, and they understand this passage to relate to the siege of Sennacherib; but I think that it has a wider signification, and embraces other calamities which followed afterwards. This may indeed refer to the neighboring country, from the misery and devastation of which it was impossible but that the city should sustain much damage; but I consider the Prophet’s meaning to be, that the evils of which he speaks shall reach even to the city itself, until, broken and ruined, it shall wear the aspect of a mean cottage

The daughter of Zion is the name here given to Jerusalem, in accordance with what is customary in Scripture to give the designation of daughter to any nation, in the same manner as the daughter of Babylon (Isaiah 47:1) and the daughter of Tyre (Psalm 45:12) are names given to the Tyrians and Babylonians. Zion is the name here employed rather than Jerusalem, on account of the dignity of the temple; and this figure of speech, by which a part is taken for the whole, is frequently employed.

9. Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us Here he concludes what he had formerly declared concerning God’s chastisements, that the desolation which shall take place — or rather which is present, and which they now behold — may be compared to the destruction of Sodom, were it not that the Lord snatched as it were from the burning a very small remnant. And this verse confirms what I formerly said, that the Prophet’s description of the calamities which had already taken place is interwoven with those events which were immediately at hand, as if he had said, Be not deceived by flatteries; you would be in the same condition that Sodom and Gomorrah now are, were it not that God, in compassion on you, has preserved a remnant. This agrees with the words of Jeremiah,

It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed. (Lamentations 3:22.)

Hence we ought to observe two things. First, the Prophet here describes utter destruction; and yet, because God had to deal with his Church and his beloved people, that judgment is mitigated by special grace, so that out of the general ruin of the whole nation God rescues his people, whom he justly compares to a very small remnant. But if God punished the crimes of the Jews by such dreadful chastisements, let us consider that we may share the same fate if we imitate their rebellion: for God had set apart that nation for himself, and had distinguished them from the ordinary lot of other men. Why then should he spare us if we shall be hardened in our ungodliness and treachery? Or rather, what is likely to be the result of that mass and sink of crimes in which men throughout the whole world give way to their passions? Unquestionably it will be the same with the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, unless his vengeance shall be restrained by a regard to that gracious covenant in which he promised that the Church shall be eternal; and this threatening, which is truly awful and alarming, is applicable to all obstinate and incurable men, whose vices no punishments can destroy or weaken.

Again, we ought to observe that saying of Jeremiah, which I have already glanced at, that it must be attributed to the tender mercies of God that we are not altogether destroyed. (Lamentations 2:22.) For if We Shall Consider the vast amount Of wickedness which prevails among all classes, we shall wonder that even a single individual is left, and that all have not been removed from the land of the living; and in this way God withdraws his hand, (Ezekiel 20:22,) that there may be some Church preserved in the world. This is the reason assigned by Paul, who is the best interpreter of this passage, when, by quoting it, he represses the haughtiness of the Jews, that they may not boast of the mere name, as if it had been enough that they were descended from the fathers; for he reminds them that God could act towards them as he had formerly done towards the fathers, but that through his tender mercies a remnant shall be saved. (Romans 9:27.) And why? That the Church may not utterly perish; for it is through the favor which he bears towards it that the Lord, though our obstinacy lays him under the necessity of trying the severest judgments, still reserves some small seed. (Romans 9:29.) This statement ought to yield us powerful consolation even in those heaviest calamities in which we are apt to think that it is all over with the Church; that, though everything should go into confusion, and the world, as we say, be turned upside down, we may persevere with unshaken fortitude, and may rest assured that God will always be mindful of his Church.

A very small remnant This clause may be connected either with what goes before or with what follows, and accordingly some render it, We would have been almost like Sodom. But I prefer connecting it with the former clause, so as to deduce that the number which God had reserved out of the destruction is small. Some think that: כ (caph) is here used affirmatively, so as to express the matter more strongly; and I have no objection to that view, though we may take it in its natural and literal signification, as if he had said, “and that shall be a small number.” This declaration ought to be carefully observed; for if the Church does not spread far and wide, men are wont to despise her. Hence it comes that hypocrites are proud of their numbers; and weak men, terrified by the pompous display of those numbers, stagger. We also learn from it that we ought not to judge by the largeness of the number, unless we choose to prefer the chaff to the wheat, because the quantity is greater; but we ought to be satisfied with knowing that, though the number of the godly be small, still God acknowledges them as his chosen people; and we ought also to call to remembrance that consolatory saying,

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12:32.)

10. Hear the word of the Lord He confirms what he had formerly said, that the Lord’s vengeance is not cruel; because they deserved far more severe punishment. For although there was a difference between them and the inhabitants of Sodom as to punishment, yet their guilt was the same; so that equal punishment might have been inflicted, if the Lord had not spared them. It amounts to this, that, if they have received milder treatment, it is not because they have sinned less heinously than the inhabitants of Sodom, but it must be ascribed to the mercy of God.

When he gives to the rulers the name of Sodom, and distinguishes the people by the name of Gomorrah, this does not point out that there is a difference, but rather that their condition is alike. But by repeating the same thing twice, the diversity of the names lends additional elegance; as if he had said, that there is no greater difference between the rulers and the people than there is between Sodom and Gomorrah. There is, no doubt, an allusion to the various ranks of men, by assigning to them, separately, as it were, two cities; but as Sodom and Gomorrah mean the same thing, we perceive that he throws them, as it were, into one bundle. In short, the meaning is, “If any one shall form an opinion about the people and the rulers, he will find that there is as close a resemblance between them as between Sodom and Gomorrah, or between one egg and another; for no one part is more sound than any other part.”

The Prophet begins with stripping the Jews of their disguises, and justly; for while all hypocrites are accustomed to employ strange coverings for concealing themselves from view, that nation was particularly addicted to this vice, and on no subject did the prophets contend with them more keenly or fiercely. Along with their vaunting about pretended holiness pride also reigned, and they boasted of the grandeur and excellency of their nation as much as of ceremonies and outward worship. So much the more were they offended at the great harshness with which Isaiah addressed them. But it was necessary to drag their wickedness from their lurking places, and therefore the more haughty their demeanour, the greater is the vehemence with which the Prophet thunders against them. In the same manner ought we to deal with all hypocrites.

The word of the Lord The Prophet takes the word and the law for the same thing; and yet I fully believe that he purposely employed the term law, in order to glance at their absurd opinion; because, by imagining that the offering of sacrifices, unaccompanied by faith and repentance, can appease God, they put an absurd interpretation on the law. By these words he reminded them that, by quoting Moses to them, he introduces nothing new and makes no addition to the law; that it is only necessary for them to hear what the will of God is; and that on this subject he will faithfully instruct them. Lest they should suppose that, by an unfounded belief of their own righteousness, they can deceive God, he likewise reminds them that the law gives no countenance to them in this matter.

11. To what purpose is he multitude of your sacrifices to me? Isaiah now introduces God as speaking, for the purpose of making known his own meaning; for it belongs to a lawgiver not only to issue commands, but likewise to give a sound interpretation to the laws, that they may not be abused. Beyond all doubt, the former reproof was exceedingly unpalatable and oppressive to them; for what language expressive of stronger disapprobation or abhorrence could have been employed? They gloried in the name of Abraham, boasted that they were his children, and on this ground maintained a haughty demeanor. This is the reason why the Prophet arms himself with the authority of God against them; as if he had said, “Know that it is not with me but with God that you have to do.”

Next he explains the intention and design of God in demanding sacrifices; that he does so, not because he sets a high value on them, but in order that they may be aids to piety; and, consequently, that the Jews were greatly mistaken who made all their holiness to consist of those services. For they thought that they had performed their duty admirably well when they offered sacrifices of slain beasts; and when the prophets demanded something beyond this, they complained that they were treated harshly. Now the Lord says that he rejects and abhors them, which may appear to be excessive severity, for it was by him that they were appointed. But it ought to be observed that some of the commandments of God ought to be obeyed on their own account, while others of them have a remoter object. For instance, the law enjoins us to serve and worship God, and next enjoins us to do good to our neighbors. (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18.) These things are in themselves acceptable to God, and are demanded on their own account. The case is different with ceremonies; for they are performances which are not demanded on their own account, but for a different reason. The same thing may be said of fasting;

For the kingdom of God does not consist in meat and drink; (Romans 14:17;)

and therefore fasting is directed to another object.

It follows, therefore, that ceremonies were not appointed in such a manner as if they were a satisfaction by which he should be appeased, but in order that by means of them the nation might be trained to godliness, and might make greater and greater progress in faith and in the pure worship of God. But hypocrites observe them with the most scrupulous care, as if the whole of religion turned on this point, and think that they are the most devout of all men, when they have long and anxiously wearied themselves in observing them. And that they may be thought more devout, they likewise add something of their own, and daily contrive new inventions, and most wickedly abuse the holy ordinances of God, by not keeping in view their true object. All their ceremonies, therefore, are nothing else than corruptions of the worship of God. For when their whole attention is given to the outward and naked performance, in what respect do their sacrifices differ from the sacrifices of the Gentiles, which, we know, were full of sacrilege, because they had no regard to a lawful end?

This is the reason why the Lord rejects those ceremonies, though they had been appointed by his authority, because the nation did not consider the object and purpose for which they were enjoined. The unceasing contest between the prophets and the nation was to tear off these masks, and to show that the Lord is not satisfied with merely outward worship, and cannot be appeased by ceremonies. In all places godly ministers have experience of the same kind of conflicts; for men always form their estimate of God from themselves, and think that he is satisfied with outward display, but cannot without the greatest difficulty be brought to offer to him the integrity of their heart.

All the perplexity of this passage will be easily removed by Jeremiah, who says,

When I redeemed your fathers out of Egypt, I did not order them to offer sacrifices to me; I only enjoined them to hear me and to keep my commandments. (Jeremiah 7:22.)

For he shows that the observance of ceremonies depends wholly on the word, and that it is as idle and unprofitable to separate there from the word as it would be for the soul to be parted from the body. To this also belongs the argument in Psalm 50:13, 14, —

Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows to the Most High.

And in another passage the same Jeremiah says,

“Trust not in words of falsehood, saying, The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD are we. But rather excel in doing good, etc.” (Jeremiah 7:4.)

The Prophet Micah likewise says, “Doth the LORD take pleasure in thousands of rams, or in ten thousand rivers of oil?” Immediately afterwards he adds,

“I will show thee, O man, what is good, and what the LORD requireth from thee, namely, to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” (Micah 6:7, 8.)

From these passages it is evident that the reason why ceremonies are condemned is, that they are separated from the word as from their soul. Hence we see how great is the blindness of men, who cannot be convinced that all the pains they take to worship God are of no advantage unless they flow from integrity of heart. Nor is this vice confined to the common people, but is found in almost all men; and in those who in their opinion excel all others. Hence springs the notion of the efficacy which belongs to the mere performance of the outward act — or, as they call it, the opus operatum — which Popish doctors have contrived, and which at the present day keeps a firm hold of the minds of many. Now here it is not man but God himself who speaks, and who pronounces, by an unchangeable decree, that all that men do is in vain offered for his acceptance, is empty and unprofitable, unless they call upon him with true faith.

12. Who hath required this at your hand? What an admirable confutation of false worship, when God declares that they will not come before him according to the appointed manner, and makes a general declaration, that in vain do they offer to him anything which he does not require; for he does not choose to be worshipped in any other way than that which has been enjoined! For how comes it that men are so highly delighted with those inventions, but because they do not consider that all their services are neither profitable to themselves nor acceptable to God? Otherwise they would immediately recollect that obedience is all that remains for them to do; (1 Samuel 15:22;) and they would not so insolently vaunt of their exertions, which the Lord looks upon with scorn, not only because he derives no advantage from it, but because he does not wish that men should attribute to him what they have rashly undertaken without his authority, or suffer the caprice of men to pass for a law: Yet in order to express still stronger contempt, he immediately adds, that they improperly give the name of obedience to that which he considers to be labor thrown away; namely, that their close attendance at the temple amounts to nothing more than treading its pavements; as if, in reference to their hypocritical prayers, he had said, “Truly they lay me under deep obligations by stunning my ears.”

13. Bring no more vain oblations This is a useful admonition for restraining the irregular desires of those who do not cease to follow inveterately unmeaning and hypocritical worship, that, warned by God, they may at length repent, if they would listen to any advice. But hence we learn how hard it is to shake the false confidence of hypocrites, when they have once been hardened, since they cannot even endure to hear God plainly warning them not to go on in losing their pains, and in the practice of such madness.

Incense is an abomination to one To press them more closely, he proceeds farther, and declares that such worship is not only unprofitable, but even that he detests and abhors it; and justly, because the profanation of the worship of God, in which his name is falsely employed, is not free from sacrilege. For as nothing is more dear to God than his own glory, so there is nothing which he more strongly detests than to have it infringed by any kind of corruptions: and this is done, when any sort of unmeaning service is put in the room of true worship. The meaning of this passage has been mistaken by some, who have thought that the Prophet speaks of the repeal of the law; for that is not his object, but he recalls the people of his time to the right manner of observing ceremonies, and shows with what design and for what purpose they were instituted. For since the beginning of the world the worship of God was spiritual, and the diversity of our worship from that which prevailed under the Old Testament had a reference to men, but not to God. In God there is no change, (James 1:17,) but he accommodates himself to the weakness of men. That kind of government therefore was suitable to the Jews, just as a preparatory training Poedagogia. In what sense our Author uses this term may be gathered from his Commentary on Galatians 3:24. The law was our schoolmaster (παιδαγωγός) to Christ. — Ed is needed for children. For what purpose they were instituted, and what is the right manner of observing ceremonies, he now describes.

14. Your new-moons The Prophet adds nothing new to his former doctrine; but with respect to all ceremonies, in which there is no spiritual truth, but only the glare of a false pretense, he declares generally that they are not merely useless but wicked. Hence we ought to observe that we labor to no purpose, if we do not worship God in the right manner, and as God himself enjoins. In all things God delights in truth, but especially in the worship due to his majesty. Besides, not only do we lose our labor, but the worship of God (as we have already said) is perverted; and nothing can be more wicked than this. Now all superstitions are so many corruptions of the worship of God; it follows, therefore, that they are wicked and unlawful.

Superstition may be viewed, either in itself, or in the disposition of the mind. In itself when men have the audacity to contrive what God has not commanded. Such are those actions which spring from will-worship, (ἐθελοθρησκεία, Colossians 2:23,) Which is commonly called devotion. One man shall set up an idol, another shall build a chapels another shall appoint annual festivals, and innumerable things of the same nature. When men venture to take such liberties as to invent new modes of worship, that is superstition. In the disposition of the mind, when men imitate those services which are lawful and of which God approves, but keep their whole attention fixed on the outward form, and do not attend to their object or truth. In this manner the Jews earnestly adhered to the ceremonies which Moses had enjoined, but left out what was of the greatest importance; for they paid no regard to a pure conscience, never mentioned faith and repentance, had no knowledge of their guilt, and — what was still worse — separated Christ from them, and left no room for the truth. This plainly shows, as I have already stated, that it was a spurious and deceitful mask; so that their sacrifices did not at all differ from the sacrifices of the Gentiles. It is therefore not wonderful that the Lord calls them abomination

I shall not stay to notice the phrases here used, which are various; and yet they ought not to be lightly passed over. For the Lord perceives how great is the wantonness of men in contriving modes of worship; and therefore he heaps up a variety of expressions, that he may more powerfully restrain that wantonness, and again declares that those actions are hateful to him. Moreover, because men flatter themselves, and foolishly entertain the belief that the Lord will hold in some estimation the idle contrivances which they have framed, he declares, on the contrary, that he regards them with detestation and abhorrence.

15. When ye spread forth your hands The ancient custom of spreading forth the hands in prayer did not arise from superstition; nor did that practice, like many others, obtain currency through foolish and idle ambition; but because nature herself prompts men to declare, even by outward signs, that they betake themselves to God. Accordingly, since they cannot fly to him, they raise themselves by this sign. No injunction, certainly, respecting this sign, was given to the fathers; but they used it as men divinely inspired; and by this very sign all idolaters are convicted of gross blindness; for, while they declare by an outward attitude that they betake themselves to God, in reality they betake themselves to idols. In order to convict them more strongly, the Lord permitted the uninterrupted use of this custom to continue among them. The Prophet, therefore, does not condemn the spreading forth of the hands, but their hypocrisy; because they assumed the appearance of men who called on God, while in their heart they were wholly averse to him, as he elsewhere declares more fully that

“this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honors me, but have removed their heart far from me” (Isaiah 29:13.)

The Lord saith that he is nigh, but it is to those who call upon him in truth. (Psalm 145:18.)

Where hypocrisy is, there can be no true calling on God. And yet this passage does not contradict what is said elsewhere, “When they shall spread forth their hands, I will hear.” Our Author seems to allude to Isaiah 65:24, It shall come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. This conjecture is confirmed by the remarks which immediately follow on the word call, as the leading word in the passage. It appears to have escaped his recollection, that in this instance the spreading forth of the hands is not mentioned, though it occurs in an analogous passage of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple — What prayer or what supplication soever shall be made of any man, when he shall spread forth his hands in this house; then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling-place. 2 Chronicles 6:29, 30. — Ed. For in that passage the Lord speaks of that calling which proceeds from confidence in him. Faith is the mother of calling on God; and if that be absent, nothing is left but empty mockery.

Yea, when ye make many prayers He amplifies the former statement by threatening that he will be deaf to their cries, to whatever extent they may multiply prayers; as if he had said, “Though you be constant in prayer, that diligence will be of no avail to you.” For this also is a fault which belongs to hypocrites, that the more their prayers abound in words, they think that they are more holy, and will more easily obtain what they wish. Thus their idle talkativeness is indirectly rebuked.

Your hands are full of blood Here he begins to explain more fully the reason why he disapproves, and even disdainfully rejects, both their prayers and their sacrifices. It is because they are cruel and bloody, and stained with crimes of every sort, though they come into his presence with hypocritical display. Though he will afterwards add other kinds of crime, yet as he had mentioned the spreading forth of the hands, so he speaks of the hands, and says that in them they carry and hold out a testimony of their crimes, so that they need not wonder that he thrusts them back so harshly. For, on the other hand, the phrase, to lift up clean hands, was employed not only by prophets and apostles, (1 Timothy 2:8,) but even by profane authors, who were driven by mere instinct to reprove the stupidity of men; if it were not that God perhaps forced them to make this confession, in order that true religion might never be without some kind of attestation.

And yet the Prophet does not mean that they were robbers or murderers, but reproves the tricks and deceit by which they obtained possession of the property of others. God judges in a different manner from men; for the hidden tricks and wicked arts, by which wicked men are accustomed to deceive and take advantage of the more simple, are not taken into account by men; or if they are taken into account, they are at least extenuated, and are not estimated according to their just weight. But God, dragging forth to light those very men of dazzling reputation, who under specious pretenses had been in the habit of concealing their unjust practices, plainly declares that they are murderers. For in whatever way you kill a man, whether you cut his throat or take away his food and the necessaries of life, you are a murderer. Consequently, God does not speak of men who are openly wicked, or whose crimes have made them openly infamous, but of those who wished to be thought good men, and who kept up some kind of reputation.

This circumstance ought to be carefully observed; for on the same grounds must we now deal with wicked men, who oppress the poor and feeble by fraud and violence, or some kind of injustice, and yet cloak their wickedness by plausible disguise. But with whatever impudence they may exclaim that they do not resemble thieves or assassins we must reprove them with the same severity which the Prophet employed towards persons of the same stamp; for when we speak in the name of God, we must not judge according to the views and opinions of men, but must boldly declare the judgment which the Lord hath pronounced.

16. Wash you, make you clean He exhorts the Jews to repentance, and points out the true way of it, provided that they wish to have their obedience approved by God. Hence we conclude that nothing can please God, unless it proceed from a pure conscience; for God does not, like men, judge of our works according to their outward appearance. It frequently happens that some particular action, though performed by a very wicked man, obtains applause among men; but in the Sight of God, who beholds the heart, a depraved conscience pollutes every virtue. And this is what is taught by Haggai, holding out an illustration drawn from the ancient ceremonies, that everything which an unclean person has touched is polluted; from which he concludes that nothing clean proceeds from the wicked. Our Prophet has already declared, that in vain do they offer sacrifices to God, in vain do they pray, in vain do they call on his name, if integrity of heart do not sanctify the outward worship. For this reason, in order that the Jews may no longer labor to no purpose, he demands that cleanness; and he begins with a general reformation, lest, after having discharged one part of their duty, they should imagine that this would be a veil to conceal them from the eyes of God.

Such is the manner in which we ought always to deal with men who are estranged from God. We must not confine our attention to one or a few sores of a diseased body but if we aim at a true and thorough cure, we must call on them to begin anew, and must thoroughly remove the contagion, that they who were formerly hateful and abominable in the sight of God may begin to please God. By the metaphor washing, he unquestionably exhorts to remove inward pollution, but shortly afterwards he will also add the fruits of actions.

When he bids them wash, he does not mean that men repent by their own exercise of free-will; but he shows that there is no other remedy but this, that they shall appear pure in the sight of God. Now, we know that the sacred writers attribute to men what is wrought in them by the Spirit of God, whom Ezekiel calls clean water, because to him belongs the work of repentance. (Ezekiel 36:25.)

Put away the evil of your doings The Prophet now comes to describe the fruits of repentance; for not only does he explain without a metaphor what it is to wash and to be cleansed, but he enjoins them to exhibit in their whole life, and in every action, the evidence of their being renewed. Yet he confirms the former statement, that the pollution of the people is before the eyes of God, that it stains and debases all their actions, and thus makes it impossible that they shall be pleasing in his sight. And he particularly mentions the eyes of God, lest, when they employed a veil to hinder themselves from seeing, they should vainly imagine that God shared with them in their blindness.

Cease to do evil He still proceeds to reprove their manner of life. This passage is commonly interpreted as if by doing ill the Prophet meant loving ill; but it ought strictly to be understood as denoting those crimes by which a neighbor is injured; so that in the exhortation, Learn to do well, which occurs in the next verse, the expression to your neighbor ought to be supplied; for he speaks of the injuries and kind offices which Eve perform to our neighbors. Now since repentance has its seal in the heart of man, he describes it by those outward appearances by means of which it is, in some measure, brought before the eyes of men. There is no man who does not wish to be reckoned a good man; but the true character of every man is manifested by his actions. He therefore calls them to the performance of those outward actions by which they may give evidence of their repentance.

He comprehends under two heads the fruits of repentance, ceasing to do evil, and doing well. First, we must cease to commit every act of injustice; for we must not imitate those spendthrifts who wish to be thought bountiful, and fraudulently take from one person what they bestow on another. Again, we must not resemble those idle people who think that they have done enough, if they have kept themselves from doing harm, and from invading the property of their neighbors, but are not careful to perform acts of kindness. He intended, therefore, to include both; for under those two heads the keeping of the second table of the law is comprehended.

17. Learn to do well As he had just now, ill enjoining them to cease to do evil, charged them with the continual practice of iniquity as if he had said that their whole life was a constant habit of sinning; so now he enjoins them to become skilled in acts of kindness, and in entreating them to learn this, he addresses them as scholars who had not yet learned their earliest lessons. And first he bids them seek judgment. Others render it, inquire respecting judgment, of which I do not approve; for by the word seek the Prophet meant more than this, he meant what we call the actual practice of it. By the word judgment he denotes what is good and right; as if he had said, “Aim at uprightness.”

Relieve the oppressed The Prophet, after his wonted manner, adds to the general description the mention of particular classes; and although he has already given a special exhortation to kindness and justice, yet wishing to press them more closely, he enters into a more careful enumeration of certain classes, so as to present a more complete view of the subject. For otherwise men always wish to be reckoned good and righteous, and can scarcely be moved by general instruction; but when we come to particular cases, they are forced, as it were, to deal with the matter in hand, and are compelled to yield, or at least become more tractable, of which we have daily experience.

Judge the fatherless, plead for the widow The Prophet here selects two classes, by means of which the wickedness of men is more fully exposed; for it seldom happens that the causes of the fatherless and widows are defended, because men do not expect from them any rewards. To such an extent are they exposed to every kind of injustice, that no man comes forward in defense of them, because there is no man who follows justice on its own account; and not only so, but there is a very great number of persons who are ready to plunder the poor and needy. This proves that there is no one who cares about exercising judgment; for we need not at all wonder that men of wealth and influence have friends to assist them, who are excited and allured by the expectation of reward. But the Lord declares that he takes charge of the fatherless and widows, and will avenge them if they shall sustain any injury.

“Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict then in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry: and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:22-24.)

The same declaration is now extended to all others, who are oppressed and groan under the violence and lawless passions of men of rank and influence.

This ought to yield the highest consolation to all the children of God, who are enjoined to possess their souls in patience. (Luke 21:19.) Whatever may be the haughty boasting of enemies, this will not prevent the people of God from glorying amidst their tribulations, while such considerations as these shall have an abiding place in their minds: “The Lord will be our avenger. Though men disregard us, he takes care of us. He will aid the destitute, and will defend their cause.”

18. Come now, and let us reason together ונוכחה (venivvakechah), and let us settle our dispute. — Bishop Stock. “Both of us, I and you, that we may ascertain which of us has committed an offense against the other; and if you have sinned against me, still I hope to convert you.” — Jarchi. The Hebrew word נא (na) is commonly translated I pray, or therefore; but I think that it denotes the confidence of a good cause, and thus is an exhortation, Come. For the Lord declares that the Jews will have nothing, to reply, and that, even though they obtain an opportunity of clearing themselves, they will still be speechless. And certainly this is the way in which hypocrites ought to be treated; for they boldly enter into disputes with God, and there is no end of their reasonings. Accordingly, he tells them that, if they choose to debate, he will be equally prepared on the other side.

The question will perhaps be put, Why does the Prophet speak chiefly about the second table of the law, and not rather about the worship of God? For we know that there were good reasons why God assigned the foremost place to the first table, when he divided the law; and there can be no doubt that, as it comes first in order, so it is likewise of greater importance. I reply, when the Prophets reprove the hypocrisy of men, they employ various modes of address. Sometimes they complain that the Sabbath has been profaned; sometimes they say that men do not call on God; but for the most part they censure idolatry, and raise their voice against superstitions. But here Isaiah complains that their duties towards their neighbors have not been performed.

Still in all these cases the object is the same, to show that our actions are of no value in the sight of God, when they do not proceed from a good conscience, and when we are destitute of the fear of God. This fear they sometimes denote by “calling on the name of God,” sometimes by “keeping the Sabbath,” and sometimes by other actions; but as the distinction between true worship and hypocrisy is most clearly and manifestly pointed out by means of the duties of brotherly kindness, there are good reasons why the mention of those duties is brought forward by Isaiah. For hypocrites are careful to perform outward worship and ceremonies; but inwardly they are full of envy, they swell with pride and contempt of the brethren, they burn with covetousness and ambition; and while they conceal themselves under those masks, they cannot easily be detected. They must, therefore, be tried by this rule, as by a touchstone, and thus it must be ascertained whether or not they fear God.

We might, indeed, be deceived, were it from the second table only that we formed our judgment about the godliness of a man; but if any one discharge the duties of the first table, which are evidences of godliness and of the worship of God, he must then be brought to this standard, Does he act inoffensively towards other men? Does he abstain from every act of injustice? Does he speak truth? Does he live in the exercise of kindness to his brethren? This is the reason why Christ pronounces

mercy, judgment, and faith, to be the weighty matters of the law, (Matthew 23:23,)

and censures the Pharisees because, in their eagerness about tithes and offerings, they attended only to smaller matters, and neglected true righteousness. By faith he means fidelity, or what we commonly call loyalty. Loyauté By judgment he means every kind of uprightness, when we render to every man what belongs to him, and do not allow others to be injured, but assist them, as far as lies in our power.

But if these are the weighty matters of the law, in what order ought we to place the commandments of the second table? I answer, they retain their due importance and order; but by means of those duties which Christ so rigidly demands, and on which he dwells so largely, hypocrisy is more fully detected, and we are better enabled to judge whether a man sincerely fears God or not. In the same sense ought we to understand that passage, I will have mercy and not sacrifice; (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13;) for mercy is an evidence and proof of true godliness. Again, it is pleasing to God, because it is a true demonstration of the love which we owe to our fellow-men; but sacrifices are pleasing to him for a different reason. It is now, I think, sufficiently plain why the Prophet Isaiah mentions kindness rather than faith or calling upon God; and why the prophets employ such variety in their modes of address, when they endeavor to bring back hypocrites to the true worship of God, and when they bid them show it by its fruits.

Though your sins be as scarlet It is as if he had said, that he does not accuse innocent persons, and has no wish to enter into controversy; so that the charges which he makes against them are not brought forward or maintained without strong necessity. For hypocrites are wont to find fault with God, as if he were too severe, and could not be at all appeased. They go still farther, and discover this excuse for their obstinacy, that it is in vain for them to attempt to return to a state of favor with God. If every other expedient fail, still they fly to this, that it is not proper to make such rigid demands on them, and that even the very best of men have something that needs to be forgiven. The Prophet anticipates the objection, by introducing the Lord speaking ill this manner — “For my part, if it be necessary, I do not refuse to dispute with you; for the result will be to show that it is your own obstinacy which prevents a reconciliation from taking place between us. Only bring cleanness of heart, and all controversy between us will be at an end. I would no longer contend with you, if you would bring me an upright heart.”

Hence we obtain a declaration in the highest degree consolatory, that God does not contend with us as if he wished to pursue our offenses to the utmost. For if we sincerely turn to him, he will immediately return to favor with us, and will blot out all remembrance of our sins, and will not demand an account of them. For he is not like men who, even for a slight and inconsiderable offense, often refuse to be reconciled. Nay, so far is he from giving us reason to complain of his excessive severity, that he is ready to cleanse us, and to make us as white as snow. He is satisfied With cleanness of heart, and if, notwithstanding of this cleanness of heart, there be any offense, he forgives it, and acquits those who have provoked him.

19. If ye be willing and obedient Isaiah continues to plead the cause of God against the people, and states in a few words, that not only must the people bear the blame of all the calamities which they endured, but that it lies in their own power to regain immediately prosperity and happiness; because God is always ready to forgive them, provided that they do not harden their hearts. But because happiness appears here to be placed in the power of men, and at their disposal, the papists openly maintain that men, by the exercise of their own will, are free to choose either good or evil. When God charges men with obstinacy, we must not on that account believe that he describes the nature or extent of their ability.

But it would be useless to say, if ye be willing, unless it were in the power of men to will. I answer, though the choice be not so free as they pretend that it is, yet sinners are justly chargeable with being the voluntary agents of their calamities, because it is of their own accord, and not by compulsion, that they provoke God to anger. It is therefore true, that it is a special gift of God when a man aims at what is good; but it is equally true that it is their own wickedness that hinders the reprobate from applying their mind to it, and, consequently, that the whole blame of their obstinacy rests with themselves. On this depends the reproach brought against the people, that they would have led a prosperous and happy life, if they had been submissive and obedient to God. For since God is by nature disposed to acts of kindness, nothing but our ingratitude and enmity hinders us from receiving that goodness which he freely offers to all. On the other hand, he adds a sharp and heavy threatening, that it is in his power to take vengeance; lest they should imagine that they who despise God will escape without punishment. It ought also to be observed, that the only rule of living well is to yield obedience to God and his word; for to will and to hear mean nothing else than to comply with the will of God.

A change of the construction of the words (hypallage) has been admitted into this sentence; for the meaning fully brought out would stand thus: “if your mind be ready, and your will be disposed, to obey;” or, which amounts to the same thing, “if you render obedience to me, and lend an ear to my word.” since, therefore, God places the happiness of men in obedience, it follows that our life is properly conducted, when we hear God speaking, and obey him in all things. How great, therefore, is the wickedness of men, when they refuse to listen to God who is continually speaking to them, and reject the happiness which he has provided and offered! It was proper that their wayward dispositions should be subdued, lest those wretched men should draw down on themselves the wrath of God, and willingly throw themselves, like wild beasts, on the edge of the sword. We must likewise observe, that he at length threatens them with final destruction, if they shall obstinately refuse to submit themselves to God.

Ye shall eat the good of the land He means the fruits which the earth yields for supplying the necessaries of life; for in some sense the earth may be said to be unkind when it does not produce its fruits, and keeps them, as it were, in its bosom. Yet I have no doubt he alludes to the promises of the law, in which God declares, that to those who fear him he will bless the earth and will cause it to produce a great abundance of all good things.

The Lord shall make thee plenteous in the fruit of the ground, in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers to give thee. (Deuteronomy 28:11.)

And yet, when he offers to us the conveniences of the earthly life, it is not because he wishes that our attention should be confined to our present happiness, which alone hypocrites value, and which entirely occupies their minds; but in order that, by the contemplation of it, we may rise to the heavenly life, and that, by tasting so much goodness, he may prepare us for the enjoyment of eternal happiness. More especially was God accustomed to act in this manner towards the ancient people, that, by tasting present benefits, as by a shadow, they might be called to the heavenly inheritance. This distinction ought to be carefully observed, that we may apply this instruction to ourselves, according to the degree of prosperity to which God has exalted us. The Prophet intended to show that true happiness, with its accompaniments, consists in obedience to God; and that the wicked, by their obstinacy, bring upon themselves every kind of calamities, and therefore that all our distresses ought to be ascribed to the sins and crimes which we have committed.

20. But if ye refuse and rebel The wicked always think that the severity of the punishment is greater than their guilt, even though the Lord chastise them very gently; and although they do not venture to justify themselves entirely, yet they never cease, as I formerly said, to accuse God of excessive severity. But the Prophet threatens that there will be no end of their calamities till they be destroyed; and lest they should imagine that they had nothing more to fear than those slight and inconsiderable punishments which they had hitherto suffered, he declares that far heavier judgments of God are still awaiting them.

The papists torture this passage to support the doctrine of freewill, and argue in the following manner: — “If men be happy whenever they are willing to obey God, it follows that this is placed in our own power.” The argument certainly is very childish; for the Lord does not inform us by the Prophet what is the nature or extent of our capacity for good or evil; but he reminds us that it is our own fault if we do not enjoy good things, and that the calamities with which we are afflicted are the punishments of our disobedience. The question, whether a man can make his bad will good, is altogether different from the question, whether, by the bad will, which is natural to him, he brings upon himself all the evils which he endures. Unjustly and falsely, therefore, do those skillful and ingenious doctors employ this passage to support their doctrine about a free choice of good and evil.

For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it This paragraph, which our Author had inadvertently inserted in his exposition of the nineteenth verse, is here restored to its proper place. — Ed. Since men who are blinded by their lusts are little moved by threatenings, the Prophet, in order to arouse them from deep slothfulness, reminds them that this declaration is not uttered by a mortal man, but has proceeded from the mouth of God, who is not changeable like men, but adheres constantly to his purpose. “For Jehovah hath spoken, who fulfills his threatening as well as his promises, and does not rashly recall what he hath spoken.” — Rosensmuller. He therefore mentions the mouth of the Lord, in order to terrify them, that they who in their vices have fallen into a deep slumber may give earnest attention to his threatenings.

21. How is the faithful city become an harlot! In order to make the rebuke more forcible, and the crime of the people more shocking, in having thus departed from God and from all uprightness, he cries aloud as if he had seen some monstrous thing; and certainly it was a change fitted to awaken horror, that a nation devoted to God, and chosen to a royal priesthood, (Exodus 19:6,) had fallen from lofty piety to the lowest sink of wickedness. More especially he speaks of the city of Jerusalem, which was God’s sanctuary and royal abode. He complains that the city which had formerly been a guardian of justice is a den of robbers; that she who formerly was a chaste and pure virgin hath become a harlot, To strike the deeper shame into the degenerate Jews, who had departed widely from their holy fathers, he assumes the air of a person astonished, and asks himself how this could possibly have happened.

The faithful city By the word faithful he alludes, in my opinion, to the conjugal fidelity which a wife ought to preserve to her husband. The signification is undoubtedly more extensive; but when I look at the connection of the passage I do not hesitate to say that faithful means chaste; for immediately afterwards he employs another term in contrast with it, calling her an harlot. Whereas she once was a virtuous wife, faithful to the marriage-contract, she has now become an harlot, and her base conduct brings not a blush on her countenance. The Scriptures frequently call the Church the wife of God. (Hosea 2:19, 20.) That honorable rank Jerusalem held, so long as she maintained spiritual chastity, and continued in the pure and lawful worship of God; but as soon as she departed from it she became an harlot.

This astonishment of the Prophet was undoubtedly joined with the deepest grief; for we ought to look upon it as something monstrous when men revolt from God, and refuse that allegiance which they have promised to render; nor is it possible that right-hearted men, when they behold such a revolt, can fail to be affected with the most poignant grief. We read that the angels in heaven rejoice at the conversion of one sinner; (Luke 15:7, 10;) and therefore they cannot but mourn over the final ruin of any sinner. How much more then will they bewail the ruin and destruction of a whole state and Church!

Besides, that astonishment conveys also a complaint; as if the Prophet had said, “O Jerusalem, from what a flourishing condition hast thou fallen! Into what distress hast thou plunged thyself! What shame and disgrace hast thou brought upon thee!” When the flourishing state in which she had been, and the respect that had been paid to her in former times, are called to her remembrance, it ought to produce a still deeper impression on her mind; for she who was at one time the respected mother of a family is naturally more careful about her honor and reputation than one who has spent her whole life in base and licentious conduct.

It was full of judgment He shows what fruits were produced by that allegiance to God at a former period. We may take judgment as but another name for uprightness; or, if it be thought preferable, we may call it justice when men render to every man his own, and judgment when the cause of the innocent is defended, and the poor and needy are avenged; for such is the use of the words in Scripture when they are employed together; but as they are not perfectly connected in this passage, I consider judgment to denote uprightness; so that the same thing is twice expressed for the purpose of explaining it more fully.

But now murderers He shows in what manner Jerusalem became an harlot. It was, that the city, which had formerly been distinguished for the love of justice and equity, was now full of murders. The meaning is, as we have formerly said, not that they were assassins or robbers, but that, by fraudulent and dishonest methods, under the pretense of justice, they had gained the property of others. In short, he means that they did not act fairly and justly towards their fellow-men, whatever might be the estimation in which they were held; for sometimes, and indeed very frequently, it happens that very wicked men are held in high esteem.

The condition to which Jerusalem was reduced should lead us to consider how often Satan exercises what may be called unbounded tyranny over the Church of God; for if ever there was a Church, there was one at that time in Jerusalem; and yet Isaiah affirms that it was a den of robbers, or a slaughterhouse, where they cut men’s throats. But if Satan could freely riot in that Church, let us not wonder that the same thing takes place among us; but let us labor not to suffer ourselves to be corrupted by such wicked examples.

22. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water Isaiah speaks metaphorically, and by two comparisons shows here, that though the outward appearance of affairs was not openly overturned, yet their condition was changed and corrupted, so as to be widely different from what it had formerly been: for he says that dross now shines instead of gold, and that the wine, though it retains its color, has lost its flavour. “Though thou still make an empty show,” saith the Prophet, “yet nothing pure will be found in thee: that wine which was wont to be Stare in thee is corrupted; and though its color deceive the eye, its taste shows that it has been mixed.”

All this means nothing more than that the Jews should lay aside hypocrisy, and should begin to confess their sins, and no longer flatter themselves after the manner of hypocrites. The comparisons here employed are exceedingly well adapted to this end, for dross bears some resemblance to gold; and in like manner, the color of wine mixed with water resembles that of pure wine; and yet both are very far from having that purity of which they make an outward show. In like manner hypocrites, by their hypocrisy, may be said to assume a false color of silver, though they are of no more value than dross, and indeed are the more detestable on this account, that, though they are exceedingly wicked, yet, with not less treachery than baseness, they present to God and to men those hollow pretensions by which they cloak their malice.

23. Thy princes are rebellious There is here an elegant allusion or play on words. Our author illustrates it by the alliteration of primi pravi. “The word סוררים (sorerim) is here equivalent,” says Jarchi, “to סרים, (sarim,) that is, persons departing from the right path.” “In this word סוררים, (sorerim,)” says his annotator Breithaupt, which our Commentator here explains by סרים, (sarim,) departers, “there is an allusion to the word שרים, (princes,) which we here find in the sacred text.” — Ed He does not speak of princes in such a manner as if the common people were holy and needed no reproof, but he points out the source of the evil; for as no disease is more injurious than that which spreads from the head into the whole body, so no evil is more destructive in a commonwealth than a wicked and depraved prince, who conveys his corruptions into the whole body both by his example and by the liberty which he allows. Hence, too, comes the proverb, ὁποῖα ἡ δέσποινα, τοῖαι καὶ αἱ θεραπαινίδες, like mistress, like maids. The meaning, therefore, is as if the Prophet had said that there was no one vice more than another that reigned among the people, but that an unbounded commission of crimes prevailed among the nobles themselves, and that in this manner the whole body was stained with pollution. Something which gives additional force to the statement is implied in the word princes; for it is deeply to be lamented when an evil arises from that very quarter in which the remedy for it ought to be expected. He next mentions a particular instance.

Companions of thieves By these words he means that they are so far from restraining theft and false dealing, that, on the contrary, they draw gain from them; and he justly calls those persons companions of thieves, who, by receiving part of the booty, grant permission to commit theft. And, indeed, when a judge is corrupted by a bribe, it is impossible but that crimes shall abound and pass unpunished, with the perpetrators of which we must consider him to be in collusion.

Every one loveth a gift He next points out the reason why princes have made themselves companions of thieves, and have bound themselves by a wicked conspiracy to lend countenance to crimes. It is avarice. When judges are devoted to the love of money, justice is utterly destroyed; for if the acceptance of persons be a corruption of judgment, so that no room is left for justice, every man who is under the dominion of covetousness will assuredly regard the person rather than the cause. The consequence is, that he will not be able to perceive what is just and right, but, as one expresses it, will make laws and unmake them.

This reminds us how great a virtue it is in a magistrate to disregard money; for unless he keep his mind, his hands, and his eyes under restraint, he will never be able to judge justly. It is absurd to say, as some men do, that they keep their heart pure and uncorrupted, even though they receive bribes. What the Lord saith must be true, that a gift blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous. (Exodus 23:8.) No man is so upright, no man is so clearsighted and sagacious, that his mind shall resist the enchantment, and his eyes the blinding influence, of gifts. Such judges, therefore, he justly declares to be companions of thieves; for, hurried along by a blind desire of money, they overturn all law both of God and man, and leave no room for justice or modesty.

We must likewise observe that the Prophet, in order to convince hypocrites, brings forward their actions which were open and universally known; for otherwise they would not submit. And yet there can be no doubt that there were at that time many who objected, when he thus called them thieves, as even in the present day most men impudently and obstinately exclaim that they are not thieves on account of receiving the rewards and gifts which are offered to them, because their do not prevent them from passing a just judgment. But these replies being frivolous, the Prophet, after having exposed their wicked actions, satisfies himself with the reproof which he has given, and argues with them no longer. And, indeed, nature declares that it is impossible to give just judgment, when judges are so eager for gain and regard; because they cannot but absolutely expose to sale their honesty and reputation.

They judge not the fatherless As the Lord specially recommends to us the fatherless and widows, because they have been deprived of the protection of men, so we need not wonder if he is displeased when they are abandoned by the judges, who ought to have been their guardians and defenders; for since they have neither foresight, nor industry nor strength if no one comes forward to render assistance they must be exposed without redress to every kind of violence and injustice. Now, when no regard is paid to them, it follows that the sway is held, not by justice, but by covetousness and plunder.

24. Therefore saith the lord, the LORD of hosts He first employs the word האדון, (haadon) which literally signifies lord, and expresses the relation to a servant. Next is added the word יהוה (Jehovah,) which denotes the eternal essence and majesty of God. After having laid open some kinds of crimes, which made it manifest that in that nation everything was corrupted, Isaiah, now wishing to threaten and to hold out to them the judgment of God, not only represents God as invested with the power and authority of a Judge, but at the same time reminds them that the children of Abraham are his peculiar people, and for this reason he immediately adds, the mighty One of Israel. There may also be implied in it a kind of irony, by which he stings the Jews, as if he had said that it was foolishness in them to boast of the name of God, seeing that they were worthless and unprincipled servants, and that it was vain for them to rely on his strength, which would immediately break forth against them. After this preface, he adds —

Ah! I will take consolation on my adversaries In our English version it runs, Ah! I will ease me of mine adversaries. — Ed. By these words he intimates that God will not be pacified until he has satiated himself with inflicting punishment. He employs the word consolation after the manner of men; for as anger is nothing else than the desire of revenge, so revenge gives relief to the mind, and he who has taken vengeance congratulates himself and is satisfied. By this course, which may be regarded as a kind of compensation, the Lord says that he will satisfy himself with inflicting punishment on his adversaries

There are various ways, indeed, of expounding this passage; and I shall not undertake the task of examining all the interpretations and refuting those which I do not approve: it will be enough if we ascertain the true meaning. He does not here speak of Chaldeans or Assyrians, as some imagine, but of Jews, to whom, in the character of a herald, he proclaims war in the name of the Lord. This threatening sounded harshly in their ears; for they supposed that they were joined in such a confederacy with God, that he was an adversary to their adversaries. He declares, on the other hand, that he is their enemy because he had so often been provoked by their crimes. In this manner we must shake off the slothfulness of hypocrites, who are continually waging war with God, and yet do not hesitate to allege that they enjoy his protection. We need not wonder, therefore, if the Prophet sternly pronounces them to be adversaries of God, who had broken the covenant, and had thus carried on war against him.

And yet, in order to show that he is unwillingly, as it were, constrained to inflict punishment on his people, God utters his threatening with a kind of groan. For as nothing is more agreeable to his nature than to do good, so whenever he is angry with us and treats us harshly, it is certain that our wickedness has compelled him to do so, because we do not allow his goodness to take its free course. More especially he is disposed to treat his own people with gentleness, and when he sees that there is no longer any room for his forbearance, he takes measures, as it were in sorrow, for inflicting punishment.

Some would rather choose perhaps to explain the particle הוי (hoi) as of God made this exclamation when aroused by anger. For my own part, I rather consider it, in this passage, to be an expression of grief; because God, being mindful of his covenant, would willingly spare his chosen people, were it not that pardon was entirely prevented by their obstinacy.

And avenge me of mine enemies In this second clause there is a reduplication, (ἀναδίπλωσις) a figure of speech customary with the Hebrews, who frequently express the same thing twice in one verse. Hence also we learn that the object of the statement is, that God cannot rest until he has taken vengeance on a wicked and treacherous people

25. And I will turn my hand upon thee This is an alleviation of the former threatening; for though he still proceeds with what he had begun to state about his severity, he at the same time declares that, amidst those calamities which were to be inflicted, the Church would be preserved. But the principal design was to comfort believers, that they might not suppose the Church to be utterly ruined, though God treated them more roughly than before. The Spirit of God, by the Prophets, continually warns the children of God, who always tremble at his word, not to be overwhelmed and lose heart on account of terrors and threatening; for the more daringly that wicked men practice licentiousness and scoff at all threatening the more do those who are affected by a sincere fear of God tremble at them.

Besides, the turning of the hands of God denotes generally a token of his presence, as if he should say, I will display my hand. This he is wont to do in two ways, either by chastising the wicked, or by delivering believers from their distresses. Since, therefore, it is evident from the context that God purposes, by applying consolation, to mitigate the severity of punishment, the turning of the hands must here be viewed as referring to the restoration of the Church; for although he declared in general terms that all were his enemies, he now modifies or limits that statement by addressing Jerusalem or Zion by name.

When he adds, I will purge away thy dross, though he points out the fruit of correction, that believers may not be immoderately grieved or distressed on account of it, yet we learn from this expression that the purification of the Church is God’s own work. For this purpose he always lifts up his hand to punish transgressions, that he may bring back wanderers into the road; but rods would be of no avail, if he did not make them useful by touching their hearts inwardly. And, indeed, since he points out here a special favor which he bestows on his elect, it follows from this that repentance is a true and peculiar work of the Holy Spirit; for otherwise the sinner, instead of profiting in the smallest degree, would be more and more hardened by chastisements.

The pure purging, so that no dross remains, must not, however, be understood as if God ever cleansed his Church entirely in this world from every stain, but must be regarded as spoken after the manner of men; as if he said that the condition of his Church will be such that her holiness will shine like pure silver. These words, therefore, indicate real purity, for the Jews had formerly been too well satisfied with their filthiness. This is a highly appropriate comparison, by which the Prophet declares, that though the Church was at that time polluted by many defilements, still some remnant would be left, which, after the removal of the pollution, would regain its brightness. In this manner he also connects both clauses; for when he formerly spoke of their crimes, he said that their silver had become dross. (Isaiah 1:22.)

26. And I will restore thy judges as at the first He now speaks without a figure; and having said that the source and origin of the evils was in the princes, he shows that a divine hand will purify that rank, when the Lord shall be pleased to restore the Church to perfect health. And, indeed, when they who rule are good and holy men, public order is maintained; for when wicked men have power, everything goes to ruin. By judges and counsellors are evidently meant any kind of magistrates; and when he promises that they will be such as they were at the beginning, he brings to their remembrance the extraordinary goodness of God, of which they had been deprived. God had graciously raised up the throne of David, and in that government was pleased to give a bright resemblance of his own parental love. Though the authority of the family of David had degenerated into the grossest tyranny, yet they continued to boast of a false title; for they still vaunted of the reign of David in the same manner as the papists of the present day plume themselves on a false pretense of the Church. Justly, therefore, are the people reminded of the happiness from which they had fallen by their own fault, that they might not be displeased at a diminution of their numbers, by means of which they would again possess that order which God had established

Then shalt thou be called He describes the fruit of that reformation, of which he has spoken, as extending to the whole body; for, having said that Jerusalem, before she revolted from God, was a faithful city, full of righteousness, the Prophet now says, that when she shall have been chastised the same virtues will be illustriously displayed in her. Here, too, is expressed the sum of true repentance; for by righteousness is meant uprightness, when every man obtains what belongs to him, and men live with each other without committing injury. The word faithful has a still more extensive meaning; for when a city is called faithful, it means not only that justice and honesty between man and man are observed, but that the purity of God’s worship is maintained and therefore the chastity and purity of the mind are included under that designation.

It must also be observed, however, that from this faithfulness springs justice; for when we adhere to truth in our mutual intercourse, justice easily gains the ascendency. And, indeed, when I closely examine the whole passage, I think that the Prophet now employs the word faithfulness in a more limited sense than formerly, and connects the two virtues as leading to the same object, so that, while truth goes first as the cause, justice is the effect of it. Isaiah promises not only that she will be righteous and faithful, but that she will also be distinguished by these commendations; by which he means that the knowledge or reputation of it will be everywhere diffused. We know that hypocrites, too, are adorned with honorable titles; but Isaiah, having introduced God as speaking, takes for granted that the city will actually be righteous, as it is foretold that she shall be. In the meantime, as I have said, he describes the fruit of a true conversion; as if he had said,” When Jerusalem shall be brought Jack to true godliness, men will be persuaded that she is renewed.”

27. Zion shall be redeemed with judgment He confirms the same doctrine; and because the restoration of the Church was hard to be believed, he shows that it does not depend on the will of men, but is founded on the justice and judgment of God; as if he had said, that God will by no means permit his Church to be altogether destroyed, because he is righteous. The design of the Prophet, therefore, is to withdraw the minds of the godly from earthly thoughts, that in looking for the safety of the Church they may depend entirely on God, and not cease to entertain good hopes, although instead of aids they should see nothing but obstructions. It is a great mistake to consider justice and judgment to refer to the Church, as if Isaiah were speaking about the well-ordered condition of a city; for the plain meaning is what I have stated, that though men yield no assistance, the justice of God is fully sufficient for redeeming his Church. And, indeed, so long as we look at ourselves, what hope are we entitled to cherish? How many things, on the contrary, immediately present themselves that are fitted to weaken our faith! It is only in the justice of God that we shall find solid and lasting ground of confidence.

And they that return to her In the English version it is rendered, her converts; but the marginal reading is, And they that return of her. “That is,” says Jarchi, “those who are in her (in the city of Zion) that repent.” — Ed. This second clause points out the manner of their deliverance; namely that the exiles, who had been widely dispersed, will again be gathered together.

28. And the destruction of the transgressors Lest hypocrites should imagine that any fruit of these promises belongs to them, and should indulge in vain boasting, he threatens that they shall perish, though God redeem his Church. For hypocrites have always been mingled with the Church, and indeed are connected with it in the closest manner; but they form their estimation of it from outward show. All that God promises they at once apply confidently to themselves. The apostle tears from them this trust, if indeed it deserve the name of trust, which springs from pride and the arrogance of a haughty mind. Here we ought to observe how great wisdom is needed by godly teachers, that, while they terrify the wicked by the judgment of God, they may at the same time support good men, and strengthen them by some consolation, that they may not be cast down and discouraged. On the other hand, when believers are encouraged be the promise of God, and when wicked men falsely apply it to themselves, and puff up their minds with vain confidence, the method and course which we ought to pursue is, that we neither give occasion to wicked men to become proud, nor depress and discourage the minds of the godly; as Isaiah does in this passage. For while he speaks of the redemption of the Church, he at the same time threatens that sinners, that is, wicked men, shall be destroyed, that they may not suppose that these acts of God’s kindness belong at all to them.

And yet, while he pronounces destruction against the wicked, by this comparison he exhibits more fully the favor of God towards believers, which is far more distinctly seen, when God allows the reprobate to perish, but preserves his own in safety, as it is said,

A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Psalm 91:7.

Besides, he mitigates the grief and anguish which the diminution of the numbers of the Church might produce in godly minds; for he shows that there is no other way of imparting health to the whole body than by removing its corruption.

29. For (or, that is) they shall be ashamed In the Hebrew the particle כי(ki) is employed, which properly denotes a cause, but frequently also denotes exposition. Now, since the Prophet does not here state anything new, but only explains the cause of the destruction which awaited the ungodly, to render כי (ki) by that is, appears to connect it better with the preceding word, כלה, (kalah,) consumed, They shall be consumed, that is, they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired; as if the Prophet had said that no evil will be more destructive to them than their own superstition. The idols, says he, which you call upon for your protection and safety will rather bring destruction upon you.

The word אלים, (elim,) oaks, “The word אילים (elim) has, in the singular number, אלה, (elah,) a kind of tree, called, in the German language, ulme.” — Jarchi. For the purpose of proving that by אולמא, Jarchi means the elm, his annotator, Breithaupt, adduces not only the German ulme, but the Italian olmo, the French orme, and the Latin ulmus. — Ed has been sometimes rendered Gods; Evidently supposing that it is the plural of אל, (el,) God, and overlooking the medial radical Yod, which is sometimes expressed, but oftener left out, in this word. — Ed but this meaning is set aside by the context; for immediately afterwards he adds the word groves: Ye shall be ashamed of the groves which you have chosen. Now, under the image both of trees and of groves, the Prophet, by a figure of speech, in which a part is taken for the whole, reproves every kind of false worship; for although among the Jews there were many forms of idolatry, the custom here mentioned, of choosing groves and forests for offering sacrifices, was the most common of all. Whether the word גנות (gannoth) in the second clause be translated groves or gardens, there can be no doubt that it means the altars and sacred buildings in which they performed their idolatrous worship. Although they did not intend openly to revolt from God, they invented new kinds of worship; and, as if one place had been more acceptable to God than another, they devoted it to his service, as we see done by the papists. Next follows a change of the person; for, in order to make the reproof more severe, those wicked men of whom he spoke in the third person are now directly addressed, Ye shall be ashamed

Which you have desired By the word desired he reproves the mad and burning eagerness with which wicked men follow their superstitions. They ought to have been earnestly devoted with their whole heart to the service of one Gods but they rush with blind violence to false worship, as if they were driven by brutish lust. In almost every human mind there naturally exists this disease, that they have forsaken the true God, and run mad in following idols; and hence Scripture frequently compares this madness to the loves of harlots, who shake off shame, as well as reason.

For the gardens that ye have chosen That the Prophet describes not only their excessive zeal, but their presumption, in corrupting the worship of God, is evident from this second clause, in which he says that they chose gardens, for this term is contrasted with the injunction of the law. Whatever may be the plausible appearances under which unbelievers endeavor to cloak their superstitions, still this saying remains true, that obedience is better than all sacrifices. (1 Samuel 15:22.) Accordingly, under the term willworship (ἐθελοθρησκεία) Paul includes (Colossians 2:23) all kinds of false worship which men contrive for themselves without the command of God. On this account God complains that the Jews have despised his word, and have delighted themselves with their own inventions; as if he had said, “It was your duty to obey, but you wished to have an unfettered choice, or rather an unbounded liberty.”

This single consideration is sufficient to condemn the inventions of men, that they have it not in their power to choose the manner of worshipping God, because to him alone belongs the right to command. God had at that time enjoined that sacrifices should not be offered to him anywhere else than at Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12:13); the Jews thought that they pleased him in other places, and that false imagination deceived also the heathen nations. Would that it had gone no farther! But we see how the papists are involved in the same error, and, in short, experience shows that the disease has prevailed extensively in every age.

If it be objected that there was not so much importance in the place, that God ought to have regarded with such strong abhorrence the worship which was everywhere offered to him, — first, we ought to consider the reason why God chose that at that time there should be only one altar, which was, that it might be a bond of holy unity to an uncivilized nation, and that by means of it their religion might continue unchanged. Besides, granting that this spiritual reason were but of temporary force, we must hold by the principle that commandments were given in the smallest matters, that the Jews might be better trained to obedience; for since superstition conceals itself under the pretense of devotion, it is hardly possible but that men will flatter themselves with their own inventions. But since obedience is the mother of true religion, it follows that when men exercise their own fancy, it becomes the source of all superstitions.

It must also be added, that as Isaiah formerly complained of those crimes which were contrary to brotherly love and to the second table of the law, so he now complains of their having transgressed the first table. For since the whole perfection of righteousness consists in keeping the law, when the Prophets wish to reprove men for their sins, they speak sometimes of the first, and sometimes of the second, table of the law. But we ought always to observe the figurative mode of expression, when under one class they include the whole.

30. Ye shall certainly be For ye shall be. — Eng. Ver. as an oak whose leaf fadeth The Hebrew particle כי (ki) may be taken in an affirmative sense, as I have translated it; and the Prophet appears to allude to those groves to which they had improperly restricted the worship of God; for, having mentioned gardens, he reproaches them with the confidence which they placed in theme and threatens drought. “You take pleasure,” says he, “in your gardens and trees, but you shall be like withered trees that have lost their foliage.” God therefore mocks the vain boasting of idolaters, who marvellously flatter themselves with their contrivances, and think that heaven is open to them, when they are employed in their ceremonies. Just as at the present day, when the papists have lighted their lamps and adorned their temples, when they dazzle with gold and precious stones, when they have played on their organs and rung their bells, they imagine that they are the happiest of all men, as if there were now no reason to dread that any evil should come to them from God, who had received from them a hundredfold satisfaction.

31. And your God And the strong. — Eng. Ver. shall be as tow The Hebrew word חסן (chason) signifies strong: and though it is here applied to God, still it retains its signification, as if he had said, “That god who was your strength shall be turned into stubble.”

And the maker of it By the maker he means the carver; but as he mentions an idol, we must explain it agreeably to the matter in hand. Some think that he expresses the repentance of idolaters, by telling us that they would acknowledge their folly, and, being covered with shame, would burn their idols. But I consider the meaning to be different; for as a fire is made of dry fuel such as tow, “in like manner,” saith the Prophet,” gather you and your idols into one heap, as when a pile of wood is built up, that you may be consumed together, so that the idols may be like tow, and the men like fire, and that one conflagration may consume the whole.”

And there shall be none to quench them It ought to be observed that the Prophets, when they mention the wrath of God, describe it by outward representations, because it cannot be perceived by the eyes or by any other sense. Thus the wrath of God, by which the ungodly are destroyed, is compared to fire, which consumes all things. It is now evident enough what the Prophet means, namely, that all the ungodly shall be destroyed, whatever may be the nature of their confidence; and not only so, but that their destruction shall be the greater, because they have placed their confidence in false and deceitful things, and that utter destruction will overtake them from that very quarter from which they had vainly looked for deliverance. For the images and idols are excitements of the wrath of God, kindling it into a flame which cannot be quenched.

CHAPTER 2

Isaiah Chapter 2:1-22

1. The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

1. Verbum quod vidit Isaias, filius Amos super Iuda et Ierusalem.

2. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

2. Et accidet in novissimo dierum, ut statuatur mons domus Iehovae in verticem montium, et erigatur supra omnes colles; et fluent ad eum omnes gentes.

3. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

3. Et venient populi multi, ac dicent, Venite, et ascendemus in montem Iehovae, in domum Dei Iacob. Et instituet nos in viis suis, et ambulabimus in semitis ejus. Quoniam e Zion exibit lex, et verbum Domini e Ierusalem.

4. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

4. Et judicabit inter gentes, arguetque populos multos: et concident gladios suos in ligones, et lanceas suas in falces: nec levabit gens in gentem gladium, nec consuescent ultra praelio.

5. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.

5. Domus Iacob, venite, et ambulabimus in lumine Domini.

6. Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.

6. Certe deseruisti populum tuum, domum Iacob: eo quod impleti sint Oriente, (vel, antiquitate,) et auguribus, ut Philistaei: atque in filiis alienis acquieverint.

7. Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots:

7. Impletur est terra ejus argento et auro; nec finis thesauris ejus. Equis quoque repleta est terra ejus, nec quadrigis ejus finis.

8. Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:

8. Impleta est etiam terra ejus idolis: et coram opere manuum suorum se incurvarunt, coram eo quod fixerunt digiti ipsorum.

9. And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.

9. Et inclinatus est homo, et humiliatus est vir: ideo, ne remittas, (vel, non remittes.)

10. Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.

10. Ingredere in petram, abscondere in pulvere a conspectu pavoris Domini, et gloria magnificentiae ejus.

11. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down; and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

11. Sublimitas oculorum hominis humiliabitur, et incurvabitur altitudo hominum, et exaltabitur Iehova solus in die illa.

12. For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up, and he shall be brought low:

12. Quoniam dies Iehovae exercituum super omnem superbum et excelsum, et super omne elevatum, et humile erit.

13. And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

13. Super omnes, inquam, cedros Libani sublimes et elevatos, super omnes quercus Basan,

14. And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up,

14. Et super omnes montes excelsos, et super omnes colles elevatos,

15. And upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall,

15. Et super omnem turrim excelsam, et super omnem murum munitum,

16. And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

16. Super omnes naves Tharsis, et super exquisitas picturas.

17. And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low; and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

17. Et incurvabitur celsitudo hominis, et humiliabitur altitudo hominum, et exaltabitur Iehova solus in die illa.

18. And the idols he shall utterly abolish.

18. Idola autem in universum abolebit.

19. And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

19. Et ingredientur in cavernas petrarum, et in voragines terrae, a praesentia terroris Iehovae et gloria majestatis ejus: cum surrexerit ut concutiat terram.

20. In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;

20. In die illa projiciet homo idola sua argentea, et idola sua aurea, quae fecerunt ei ad adorandum, in cavernam talparum et vespertilionum;

21. To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

21. Et ingredientur in scissuras petrarum, et cacumina saxorum, a facie pavoris Iehovae et gloria majestatis ejus, cum surrexerit ut concutiat terram.

22. Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?

22. Cessate igitur ab homine cujus in nare spiritus; qua enim in re (vel, ad quid, vel, quanti) ipse reputatur?

INTRODUCTION

Isaiah, son of Amoz (not Amos); contemporary of Jonah, Amos, Hosea, in Israel, but younger than they; and of Micah, in Judah. His call to a higher degree of the prophetic office (Is 6:1-13) is assigned to the last year of Uzziah, that is, 754 B.C. The first through fifth chapters belong to the closing years of that reign; not, as some think, to Jotham's reign: in the reign of the latter he seems to have exercised his office only orally, and not to have left any record of his prophecies because they were not intended for all ages. The first through fifth and sixth chapters are all that was designed for the Church universal of the prophecies of the first twenty years of his office. New historical epochs, such as occurred in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, when the affairs of Israel became interwoven with those of the Asiatic empires, are marked by prophetic writings. The prophets had now to interpret the judgments of the Lord, so as to make the people conscious of His punitive justice, as also of His mercy. Is 7:1-10:4 belong to the reign of Ahaz. The thirty-sixth through thirty-ninth chapters are historical, reaching to the fifteenth year of Hezekiah; probably the tenth through twelfth chapters and all from the thirteenth through twenty-sixth chapters, inclusive, belong to the same reign; the historical section being appended to facilitate the right understanding of these prophecies; thus we have Isaiah's office extending from about 760 to 713 B.C., forty-seven years. Tradition (Talmud) represents him as having been sawn asunder by Manasseh with a wooden saw, for having said that he had seen Jehovah (Ex 33:20; 2Ki 21:16; He 11:37). 2Ch 32:32 seems to imply that Isaiah survived Hezekiah; but "first and last" is not added, as in 2Ch 26:22, which makes it possible that his history of Hezekiah was only carried up to a certain point. The second part, the fortieth through sixty-sixth chapters, containing complaints of gross idolatry, needs not to be restricted to Manasseh's reign, but is applicable to previous reigns. At the accession of Manasseh, Isaiah would be eighty-four; and if he prophesied for eight years afterwards, he must have endured martyrdom at ninety-two; so Hosea prophesied for sixty years. And Eastern tradition reports that he lived to one hundred and twenty. The conclusive argument against the tradition is that, according to the inscription, all Isaiah's prophecies are included in the time from Uzziah to Hezekiah; and the internal evidence accords with this.

His Wife is called the prophetess [Is 8:3], that is, endowed, as Miriam, with a prophetic gift.

His Children were considered by him as not belonging merely to himself; in their names, Shearjashub, "the remnant shall return" [Is 7:3, Margin], and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "speeding to the spoil, he hasteth to the prey" [Is 8:1, Margin], the two chief points of his prophecies are intimated to the people, the judgments of the Lord on the people and the world, and yet His mercy to the elect.

His Garment of sackcloth (Is 20:2), too, was a silent preaching by fact; he appears as the embodiment of that repentance which he taught.

His Historical Works.--History, as written by the prophets, is retroverted prophecy. As the past and future alike proceed from the essence of God, an inspired insight into the past implies an insight into the future, and vice versa. Hence most of the Old Testament histories are written by prophets and are classed with their writings; the Chronicles being not so classed, cannot have been written by them, but are taken from historical monographs of theirs; for example, Isaiah's life of Uzziah, 2Ch 26:22; also of Hezekiah, 2Ch 32:32; of these latter all that was important for all ages has been preserved to us, while the rest, which was local and temporary, has been lost.

The Inscription (Is 1:1) applies to the whole book and implies that Isaiah is the author of the second part (the fortieth through sixty-sixth chapters), as well as of the first. Nor do the words, "concerning Judah and Jerusalem" [Is 1:1], oppose the idea that the inscription applies to the whole; for whatever he says against other nations, he says on account of their relation to Judah. So the inscription of Amos, "concerning Israel" [Am 1:1], though several prophecies follow against foreign nations. Ewald maintains that the fortieth through sixty-sixth chapters, though spurious, were subjoined to the previous portion, in order to preserve the former. But it is untrue that the first portion is unconnected with those chapters. The former ends with the Babylonian exile (Is 39:6), the latter begins with the coming redemption from it. The portion, the fortieth through forty-sixth chapters, has no heading of its own, a proof that it is closely connected with what precedes, and falls under the general heading in Is 1:1. Josephus (The Antiquities of the Jews, 11. 1, sec. 1, 2) says that Cyrus was induced by the prophecies of Isaiah (Is 44:28; 45:1, 13) to aid the Jews in returning and rebuilding the temple Ezr 1:1-11 confirms this; Cyrus in his edict there plainly refers to the prophecies in the second portion, which assign the kingdoms to him from Jehovah, and the duty of rebuilding the temple. Probably he took from them his historical name Cyrus (Coresh). Moreover, subsequent prophets imitate this second portion, which Ewald assigns to later times; for example, compare Jr 50:1-51:64 with Isaiah's predictions against Babylon [Is 13:1-14:23]. "The Holy One of Israel," occurring but three times elsewhere in the Old Testament [2Ki 19:22; Psa 78:41; 89:18; Jr 50:29; 51:5], is a favorite expression in the second, as in the first portion of Isaiah: it expresses God's covenant faithfulness in fulfilling the promises therein: Jeremiah borrows the expression from him. Also Ecclesiasticus 48:22-25 ("comforted"), quotes Is 40:1 as Isaiah's. Lu 4:17 quotes Is 61:1, 2 as Isaiah's, and as read as such by Jesus Christ in the synagogue.

The Definiteness of the prophecies is striking: As in the second portion of isaiah, so in Mi 4:8-10, the Babylonian exile, and the deliverance from it, are foretold a hundred fifty years before any hostilities had arisen between Babylon and Judah. On the other hand, all the prophets who foretell the Assyrian invasion coincide in stating, that Judah should be delivered from it, not by Egyptian aid, but directly by the Lord. Again Jeremiah, in the height of the Chaldean prosperity, foretold its conquest by the Medes, who should enter Babylon through the dry bed of the Euphrates on a night of general revelry. No human calculation could have discovered these facts. Eichorn terms these prophecies "veiled historical descriptions," recognizing in spite of himself that they are more than general poetical fancies. The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was certainly written ages before the Messiah, yet it minutely portrays His sufferings: these cannot be Jewish inventions, for the Jews looked for a reigning, not a suffering, Messiah.

Rationalists are so far right that The Prophecies Are on a General Basis whereby they are distinguished from soothsaying. They rest on the essential idea of God. The prophets, penetrated by this inner knowledge of His character, became conscious of the eternal laws by which the world is governed: that sin is man's ruin, and must be followed by judgment, but that God's covenant mercy to His elect is unchangeable. Without prophetism, the elect remnant would have decreased, and even God's judgments would have missed their end, by not being recognized as such: they would have been unmeaning, isolated facts. Babylon was in Isaiah's days under Assyria; it had tried a revolt unsuccessfully: but the elements of its subsequent success and greatness were then existing. The Holy Ghost enlightened his natural powers to discern this its rise; and his spiritual faculties, to foresee its fall, the sure consequence, in God's eternal law, of the pride which pagan success generates--and also Judah's restoration, as the covenant-people, with whom God, according to His essential character, would not be wroth for ever. True conversion is the prophet's grand remedy against all evils: in this alone consists his politics. Rebuke, threatening, and promise, regularly succeed one another. The idea at the basis of all is in Is 26:7-9; Le 10:3; Am 3:2.

The Use of the Present and Preterite in prophecy is no proof that the author is later than Isaiah. For seers view the future as present, and indicate what is ideally past, not really past; seeing things in the light of God, who "calls the things that are not as though they were." Moreover, as in looking from a height on a landscape, hills seem close together which are really wide apart, so, in events foretold, the order, succession, and grouping are presented, but the intervals of time are overlooked. The time, however, is sometimes marked (Jr 25:12; Da 9:26). Thus the deliverance from Babylon, and that effected by Messiah, are in rapid transition grouped together by THE Law of Prophetic Suggestion; yet no prophet so confounds the two as to make Messiah the leader of Israel from Babylon. To the prophet there was probably no double sense; but to his spiritual eye the two events, though distinct, lay so near, and were so analogous, that he could not separate them in description without unfaithfulness to the picture presented before him. The more remote and antitypical event, however, namely, Messiah's coming, is that to which he always hastens, and which he describes with far more minuteness than he does the nearer type; for example, Cyrus (compare Is 45:1 with Is 53:1-12). In some cases he takes his stand in the midst of events between, for example, the humiliation of Jesus Christ, which he views as past, and His glorification, as yet to come, using the future tense as to the latter (compare Is 53:4-9 with 53:10-12). Marks of the time of events are given sparingly in the prophets: yet, as to Messiah, definitely enough to create the general expectation of Him at the time that He was in fact born.

The Chaldæisms alleged against the genuineness of the second portion of Isaiah, are found more in the first and undoubted portion. They occur in all the Old Testament, especially in the poetical parts, which prefer unusual expressions, and are due to the fact that the patriarchs were surrounded by Chaldee-speaking people; and in Isaiah's time a few Chaldee words had crept in from abroad.

His Symbols are few and simple, and his poetical images correct; in the prophets, during and after the exile, the reverse holds good; Haggai and Malachi are not exceptions; for, though void of bold images, their style, unlike Isaiah's, rises little above prose: a clear proof that our Isaiah was long before the exile.

Of Visions, strictly so called, he has but one, that in the sixth chapter; even it is more simple than those in later prophets. But he often gives Signs, that is, a present fact as pledge of the more distant future; God condescending to the feebleness of man (Is 7:14; 37:30; 38:7).

The Varieties in His Style do not prove spuriousness, but that he varied his style with his subject. The second portion is not so much addressed to his contemporaries, as to the future people of the Lord, the elect remnant, purified by the previous judgments. Hence its tenderness of style, and frequent repetitions (Is 40:1): for comforting exhortation uses many words; so also the many epithets added to the name of God, intended as stays whereon faith may rest for comfort, so as not to despair. In both portions alike there are peculiarities characteristic of Isaiah; for example, "to be called" equivalent to to be: the repetition of the same words, instead of synonyms, in the parallel members of verses; the interspersing of his prophecies with hymns: "the remnant of olive trees," &c., for the remnant of people who have escaped God's judgments. Also compare Is 65:25 with Is 11:6.

The Chronological Arrangement favors the opinion that Isaiah himself collected his prophecies into the volume; not Hezekiah's men, as the Talmud guesses from Pr 25:1. All the portions, the dates of which can be ascertained, stand in the right place, except a few instances, where prophecies of similar contents are placed together: with the termination of the Assyrian invasion (the thirty-sixth through thirty-ninth chapters) terminated the public life of Isaiah. The second part is his prophetic legacy to the small band of the faithful, analogous to the last speeches of Moses and of Jesus Christ to His chosen disciples.

The Expectation of Messiah is so strong in Isaiah, that Jerome To Paulinus calls his book not a prophecy, but the gospel: "He is not so much a prophet as an evangelist." Messiah was already shadowed forth in Ge 49:10, as the Shiloh, or tranquillizer; also in Psalms 2, 45, 72,110. Isaiah brings it out more definitely; and, whereas they dwelt on His kingly office, Isaiah develops most His priestly and prophetic office; the hundred tenth Psalm also had set forth His priesthood, but His kingly rather than, as Isaiah, His suffering, priesthood. The latter is especially dwelt on in the second part, addressed to the faithful elect; whereas the first part, addressed to the whole people, dwells on Messiah's glory, the antidote to the fears which then filled the people, and the assurance that the kingdom of God, then represented by Judah, would not be overwhelmed by the surrounding nations.

His Style (Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament,) is simple and sublime; in imagery, intermediate between the poverty of Jeremiah and the exuberance of Ezekiel. He shows his command of it in varying it to suit his subject.

The Form is mostly that of Hebrew poetical parallelism, with, however, a freedom unshackled by undue restrictions.

Judah, the less apostate people, rather than Israel, was the subject of his prophecies: his residence was mostly at Jerusalem. On his praises, see Ecclesiasticus 48:22-25. Christ and the apostles quote no prophet so frequently.

CHAPTER 1

Is 1:1-31.

1. The General Title or Program applying to the entire book: this discountenances the Talmud tradition, that he was sawn asunder by Manasseh.

Isaiah--equivalent to "The Lord shall save"; significant of the subject of his prophecies. On "vision," see 1Sa 9:9; Nu 12:6; and see my Introduction.

Judah and Jerusalem--Other nations also are the subjects of his prophecies; but only in their relation to the Jews (Is 13:1-23:18); so also the ten tribes of Israel are introduced only in the same relation (Is 7:1-9:21). Jerusalem is particularly specified, being the site of the temple, and the center of the theocracy, and the future throne of Messiah (Psa 48:2, 3, 9; Jr 3:17). Jesus Christ is the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" (Re 5:5).

Uzziah--called also Azariah (2Ki 14:21; 2Ch 26:1, 17, 20). The Old Testament prophecies spiritually interpret the histories, as the New Testament Epistles interpret the Gospels and Acts. Study them together, to see their spiritual relations. Isaiah prophesied for only a few years before Uzziah's death; but his prophecies of that period (Is 1:1-6:13) apply to Jotham's reign also, in which he probably wrote none; for Is 7:1-25 enters immediately on Ahaz' reign, after Uzziah in Is 6:1-13; the prophecies under Hezekiah follow next.

2. The very words of Moses (De 32:1); this implies that the law was the charter and basis of all prophecy (Is 8:20).

Lord--Jehovah; in Hebrew, "the self-existing and promise-fulfilling, unchangeable One." The Jews never pronounced this holy name, but substituted Adonai. The English Version, Lord in capitals, marks the Hebrew "Jehovah," though Lord is rather equivalent to "Adonai" than "Jehovah."

children--(Ex 4:22).

rebelled--as sons (De 21:18) and as subjects, God being king in the theocracy (Is 63:10). "Brought up," literally, "elevated," namely, to peculiar privileges (Jr 2:6-8; Ro 9:4, 5).

3. (Jr 8:7).

crib--the stall where it is fed (Pr 14:4). Spiritually the word and ordinances.

Israel--The whole nation, Judah as well as Israel, in the restricted sense. God regards His covenant-people in their designed unity.

not know--namely, his Owner, as the parallelism requires; that is, not recognize Him as such (Ex 19:5, equivalent to "my people," Joh 1:10, 11).

consider--attend to his Master (Is 41:8), notwithstanding the spiritual food which He provides (answering to "crib" in the parallel clause).

4. people--the peculiar designation of God's elect nation (Ho 1:10), that they should be "laden with iniquity" is therefore the more monstrous. Sin is a load (Psa 38:4; Mt 11:28).

seed--another appellation of God's elect (Ge 12:7; Jr 2:21), designed to be a "holy seed" (Is 6:13), but, awful to say, "evildoers!"

children--by adoption (Ho 11:1), yet "evildoers"; not only so, but "corrupters" of others (Ge 6:12); the climax. So "nation--people--seed children."

provoked--literally, "despised," namely, so as to provoke (Pr 1:30, 31).

Holy One of Israel--the peculiar heinousness of their sin, that it was against their God (Am 3:2).

gone ... backward--literally, "estranged" (Psa 58:3).

5. Why--rather, as Vulgate, "On what part." Image from a body covered all over with marks of blows (Psa 38:3). There is no part in which you have not been smitten.

head ... sick, &c.--not referring, as it is commonly quoted, to their sins, but to the universality of their punishment. However, sin, the moral disease of the head or intellect, and the heart, is doubtless made its own punishment (Pr 1:31; Jr 2:19; Ho 8:11). "Sick," literally, "is in a state of sickness" [Gesenius]; "has passed into sickness" [Maurer].

6. From the lowest to the highest of the people; "the ancient and honorable, the head, the prophet that teacheth lies, the tail." See Is 9:13-16. He first states their wretched condition, obvious to all (Is 1:6-9); and then, not previously, their irreligious state, the cause of it.

wounds--judicially inflicted (Ho 5:13).

mollified with ointment--The art of medicine in the East consists chiefly in external applications (Lu 10:34; Jas 5:14).

7. Judah had not in Uzziah's reign recovered from the ravages of the Syrians in Joash's reign (2Ch 24:24), and of Israel in Amaziah's reign (2Ch 25:13, 23, &c.). Compare Isaiah's contemporary (Am 4:6-11), where, as here (Is 1:9, 10), Israel is compared to "Sodom and Gomorrah," because of the judgments on it by "fire."

in your presence--before your eyes: without your being able to prevent them.

desolate, &c.--literally, "there is desolation, such as one might look for from foreign" invaders.

8. daughter of Zion--the city (Psa 9:14), Jerusalem and its inhabitants (2Ki 19:21): "daughter" (feminine, singular being used as a neuter collective noun), equivalent to sons (Is 12:6, Margin) [Maurer]. Metropolis or "mother-city" is the corresponding term. The idea of youthful beauty is included in "daughter."

left--as a remnant escaping the general destruction.

cottage--a hut, made to give temporary shelter to the caretaker of the vineyard.

lodge--not permanent.

besieged--rather, as "left," and Is 1:9 require, preserved, namely, from the desolation all round [Maurer].

9. Jehovah of Sabaoth, that is, God of the angelic and starry hosts (Psa 59:5; 147:4; 148:2). The latter were objects of idolatry, called hence Sabaism (2Ki 17:16). God is above even them (1Ch 16:26). "The groves" were symbols of these starry hosts; it was their worship of Sabaoth instead of the Lord of Sabaoth, which had caused the present desolation (2Ch 24:18). It needed no less a power than His, to preserve even a "remnant." Condescending grace for the elect's sake, since He has no need of us, seeing that He has countless hosts to serve Him.

10. Sodom--spiritually (Ge 19:24; Jr 23:14; Eze 16:46; Re 11:8).

11. God does not here absolutely disparage sacrifice, which is as old and universal as sin (Ge 3:21; 4:4), and sin is almost as old as the world; but sacrifice, unaccompanied with obedience of heart and life (1Sa 15:22; Psa 50:9-13; 51:16-19; Ho 6:6). Positive precepts are only means; moral obedience is the end. A foreshadowing of the gospel, when the One real sacrifice was to supersede all the shadowy ones, and "bring in everlasting righteousness" (Psa 40:6, 7; Da 9:24-27; He 10:1-14).

full--to satiety; weary of

burnt offerings--burnt whole, except the blood, which was sprinkled about the altar.

fat--not to be eaten by man, but burnt on the altar (Le 3:4, 5, 11, 17).

12. appear before me--in the temple where the Shekinah, resting on the ark, was the symbol of God's presence (Ex 23:15; Psa 42:2).

who hath required this--as if you were doing God a service by such hypocritical offerings (Job 35:7). God did require it (Ex 23:17), but not in this spirit (Mi 6:6, 7).

courts--areas, in which the worshippers were. None but priests entered the temple itself.

13. oblations--unbloody; "meat (old English sense, not flesh) offerings," that is, of flour, fruits, oil, &c. (Le 2:1-13). Hebrew, mincha.

incense--put upon the sacrifices, and burnt on the altar of incense. Type of prayer (Psa 141:2; Re 8:3).

new moons--observed as festivals (Nu 10:10; 28:11, 14) with sacrifices and blowing of silver trumpets.

sabbaths--both the seventh day and the beginning and closing days of the great feasts (Le 23:24-39).

away with--bear, Maurer translates, "I cannot bear iniquity and the solemn meeting," that is, the meeting associated with iniquity--literally, the closing days of the feasts; so the great days (Le 23:36; Joh 7:37).

14. appointed--the sabbath, passover, pentecost, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles [Hengstenberg]; they alone were fixed to certain times of the year.

weary--(Is 43:24).

15. (Psa 66:18; Pr 28:9; La 3:43, 44).

spread ... hands--in prayer (1Ki 8:22). Hebrew, "bloods," for all heinous sins, persecution of God's servants especially (Mt 23:35). It was the vocation of the prophets to dispel the delusion, so contrary to the law itself (De 10:16), that outward ritualism would satisfy God.

16. God saith to the sinner, "Wash you," &c., that he, finding his inability to "make" himself "clean," may cry to God, Wash me, cleanse me (Psa 51:2, 7, 10).

before mine eyes--not mere outward reformation before man's eyes, who cannot, as God, see into the heart (Jr 32:19).

17. seek judgment--justice, as magistrates, instead of seeking bribes (Jr 22:3, 16).

judge--vindicate (Psa 68:5; Jas 1:27).

18. God deigns to argue the case with us, that all may see the just, nay, loving principle of His dealings with men (Is 43:26).

scarlet--the color of Jesus Christ's robe when bearing our "sins" (Mt 27:28). So Rahab's thread (Jos 2:18; compare Le 14:4). The rabbins say that when the lot used to be taken, a scarlet fillet was bound on the scapegoat's head, and after the high priest had confessed his and the people's sins over it, the fillet became white: the miracle ceased, according to them, forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, exactly when Jesus Christ was crucified; a remarkable admission of adversaries. Hebrew for "scarlet" radically means double-dyed; so the deep-fixed permanency of sin in the heart, which no mere tears can wash away.

snow--(Psa 51:7). Repentance is presupposed, before sin can be made white as snow (Is 1:19, 20); it too is God's gift (Jr 31:18, Lam 5:21, Acts 5:31).

red--refers to "blood" (Is 1:15).

as wool--restored to its original undyed whiteness. This verse shows that the old fathers did not look only for transitory promises (Article VII, Book of Common Prayer). For sins of ignorance, and such like, alone had trespass offerings appointed for them; greater guilt therefore needed a greater sacrifice, for, "without shedding of blood there was no remission"; but none such was appointed, and yet forgiveness was promised and expected; therefore spiritual Jews must have looked for the One Mediator of both Old Testament and New Testament, though dimly understood.

19-20. Temporal blessings in "the land of their possession" were prominent in the Old Testament promises, as suited to the childhood of the Church (Ex 3:17). New Testament spiritual promises derive their imagery from the former (Mt 5:5).

21. faithful--as a wife (Is 54:5; 62:5; Ho 2:19, 20).

harlot--(Eze 16:28-35).

righteousness lodged--(2Pe 3:13).

murderers--murderous oppressors, as the antithesis requires (see on Is 1:15; 1Jo 3:15).

22. Thy princes and people are degenerate in "solid worth," equivalent to "silver" (Jr 6:28, 30; Eze 22:18, 19), and in their use of the living Word, equivalent to "wine" (So 7:9).

mixed--literally, "circumcised." So the Arabic, "to murder" wine, equivalent to dilute it.

23. companions of thieves--by connivance (Pr 29:24).

gifts--(Eze 22:12). A nation's corruption begins with its rulers.

24. Lord ... Lord--Adonai, Jehovah.

mighty One of Israel--mighty to take vengeance, as before, to save.

Ah--indignation.

ease me--My long tried patience will find relief in at last punishing the guilty (Eze 5:13). God's language condescends to human conceptions.

25. turn ... hand--not in wrath, but in grace (Zec 13:7), "upon thee," as Is 1:26, 27 show; contrasted with the enemies, of whom He will avenge Himself (Is 1:24).

purely--literally, "as alkali purifies."

thy dross--not thy sins, but the sinful persons (Jr 6:29); "enemies" (Is 1:24); degenerate princes (see on Is 1:22), intermingled with the elect "remnant" of grace.

tin--Hebrew, bedil, here the alloy of lead, tin, &c., separated by smelting from the silver. The pious Bishop Bedell took his motto from this.

26. As the degeneracy had shown itself most in the magistrates (Is 1:17-23), so, at the "restoration," these shall be such as the theocracy "at the first" had contemplated, namely, after the Babylonish restoration in part and typically, but fully and antitypically under Messiah (Is 32:1; 52:8; Jr 33:7; Mt 19:28).

faithful--no longer "an harlot."

27. redeemed--temporarily, civilly, and morally; type of the spiritual redemption by the price of Jesus Christ's blood (1Pe 1:18, 19), the foundation of "judgment" and "righteousness," and so of pardon. The judgment and righteousness are God's first (Is 42:21; Ro 3:26); so they become man's when "converted" (Ro 8:3, 4); typified in the display of God's "justice," then exhibited in delivering His covenant-people, whereby justice or "righteousness" was produced in them.

converts--so Maurer. But Margin, "they that return of her," namely the remnant that return from captivity. However, as Isaiah had not yet expressly foretold the Babylonian captivity, the English Version is better.

28. destruction--literally, "breaking into shivers" (Re 2:27). The prophets hasten forward to the final extinction of the ungodly (Psa 37:20; Re 19:20; 20:15); of which antecedent judgments are types.

29. ashamed--(Ro 6:21).

oaks--Others translate the "terebinth" or "turpentine tree." Groves were dedicated to idols. Our Druids took their name from the Greek for "oaks." A sacred tree is often found in Assyrian sculpture; symbol of the starry hosts, Saba.

gardens--planted enclosures for idolatry; the counterpart of the garden of Eden.

30. oak--Ye shall be like the "oaks," the object of your "desire" (Is 1:29). People become like the gods they worship; they never rise above their level (Psa 135:18). So men's sins become their own scourges (Jr 2:9). The leaf of the idol oak fades by a law of necessary consequence, having no living sap or "water" from God. So "garden" answers to "gardens" (Is 1:29).

31. strong--powerful rulers (Am 2:9).

maker of it--rather, his work. He shall be at once the fuel, "tow," and the cause of the fire, by kindling the first "spark."

both--the wicked ruler, and "his work," which "is as a spark."

Hear, O heavens "Hear, O ye heavens" - God is introduced as entering into a public action, or pleading, before the whole world, against his disobedient people. The prophet, as herald or officer to proclaim the summons to the court, calls upon all created beings, celestial and terrestrial, to attend and bear witness to the truth of his plea and the justice of his cause. The same scene is more fully displayed in the noble exordium of Psa 1:1-6, where God summons all mankind, from east to west, to be present to hear his appeal; and the solemnity is held on Sion, where he is attended with the same terrible pomp that accompanied him on Mount Sinai: - "A consuming fire goes before him

And round him rages a violent tempest:

He calleth the heavens from above.

And the earth, that he may contend in judgment with his people." Psa 50:3, Psa 50:4.

By the same bold figure, Micah calls upon the mountains, that is, the whole country of Judea, to attend to him, Isa 6:1, Isa 6:2 : - "Arise, plead thou before the mountains,

And let the hills hear thy voice.

Hear, O ye mountains, the controversy of Jehovah;

And ye, O ye strong foundations of the earth:

For Jehovah hath a controversy with his people,

And he will plead his cause against Israel."

With the like invocation, Moses introduces his sublime song, the design of which was the same as that of this prophecy, "to testify as a witness, against the Israelites," for their disobedience, Deu 31:21 : - "Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak;

And let the earth hear the words of my mouth." Deu 32:1.

This, in the simple yet strong oratorical style of Moses, is, "I call heaven and earth to witness against thee this day; life and death have I set before thee; the blessing and the curse: choose now life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed." Deu 30:19. The poetical style, by an apostrophe, sets the personification in a much stronger light.

Hath spoken "That speaketh" - I render it in the present time, pointing it דבר dober. There seems to be an impropriety in demanding attention to a speech already delivered. But the present reading may stand, as the prophet may be here understood to declare to the people what the Lord had first spoken to him.

I have nourished - The Septuagint have εγεννησα, "I have begotten." Instead of גדלתי giddalti, they read ילדתי yaladti; the word little differing from the other, and perhaps more proper; which the Chaldee likewise seems to favor; "vocavi eos filios." See Exo 4:22; Jer 31:9.

The ox knoweth - An amplification of the gross insensibility of the disobedient Jews, by comparing them with the most heavy and stupid of all animals, yet not so insensible as they. Bochart has well illustrated the comparison, and shown the peculiar force of it. "He sets them lower than the beasts, and even than the most stupid of all beasts, for there is scarcely any more so than the ox and the ass. Yet these acknowledge their master; they know the manger of their lord; by whom they are fed, not for their own, but for his good; neither are they looked upon as children, but as beasts of burden; neither are they advanced to honors, but oppressed with great and daily labors. While the Israelites, chosen by the mere favor of God, adopted as sons, promoted to the highest dignity, yet acknowledged not their Lord and their God; but despised his commandments, though in the highest degree equitable and just." Hieroz. i., Colossians 409.

Jeremiah's comparison to the same purpose is equally elegant, but has not so much spirit and severity as this of Isaiah. "Even the stork in the heavens knoweth her season;

And the turtle, and the swallow, and the crane, observe the time of their coming:

But my people doth not know the judgment of Jehovah. Jer 8:7.

Hosea has given a very elegant turn to the same image, in the way of metaphor or allegory: - "I drew them with human cords, with the bands of love:

And I was to them as he that lifteth up the yoke upon their cheek;

And I laid down their fodder before them." Hos 11:4.

Salomo ben Melech thus explains the middle part of the verse, which is somewhat obscure: "I was to them at their desire as they that have compassion on a heifer, lest she be overworked in ploughing; and that lift up the yoke from off her neck, and rest it upon her cheek that she may not still draw, but rest from her labor an hour or two in the day."

But Israel - The Septuagint, Syriac, Aquila, Theodotion, and Vulgate, read וישראל veyisrael, But Israel, adding the conjunction, which being rendered as an adversative, sets the opposition in a stronger light.

Doth not know - The same ancient versions agree in adding Me, which very properly answers, and indeed is almost necessarily required to answer, the words possessor and lord preceding. Ισραηλ δε ΜΕ ουκ εγνω; Sept. "Israel autem me non cognovit," Vulg. Ισραηλ δε ΜΟΥ ουκ εγνω; Aquil., Theod. The testimony of so scrupulous an interpreter as Aquila is of great weight in this case. And both his and Theodotion's rendering is such as shows plainly that they did not add the word ΜΟΥ to help out the sense, for it only embarrasses it. It also clearly determines what was the original reading in the old copies from which they translated. It could not be ידעני yedani, which most obviously answers to the version of the Septuagint and Vulgate, for it does not accord with that of Aquila and Theodotion. The version of these latter interpreters, however injudicious, clearly ascertains both the phrase, and the order of the words of the original Hebrew; it was ישראל אותי לא ידע veyisrael othi lo yada. The word אותי othi has been lost out of the text. The very same phrase is used by Jeremiah, Jer 4:22, עמי אותי לא ידעו ammi othi lo yadau. And the order of the words must have been as above represented; for they have joined ישראל yisrael, with אותי othi, as in regimine; they could not have taken it in this sense, Israel meus non cognovit, had either this phrase or the order of the words been different. I have endeavored to set this matter in a clear light, as it is the first example of a whole word lost out of the text, of which the reader will find many other plain examples in the course of these notes. But Rosenmuller contends that this is unnecessary, as the passage may be translated, "Israel knows nothing: my people have no understanding." The Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, read ועמי veammi, "and my people;" and so likewise sixteen MSS. of Kennicott, and fourteen of De Rossi.

Ah sinful nation "Degenerate" - Five MSS., one of them ancient, read משחתים moschathim, without the first י yod, in hophal corrupted, not corrupters. See the same word in the same form, and in the same sense, Pro 25:26.

Are corrupters "Are estranged" - Thirty-two MSS., five ancient, and two editions, read נזורו nazoru; which reading determines the word to be from the root זור zur, to alienate, not from נזר nazar, to separate; so Kimchi understands it. See also Annotat. in Noldium, 68.

They are gone away backward "They have turned their backs upon him" - So Kimchi explains it:" they have turned unto him the back and not the face." See Jer 2:27; Jer 7:24. I have been forced to render this line paraphrastically; as the verbal translation, "they are estranged backward," would have been unintelligible.

Why should ye be stricken any more "On what part," etc.? - The Vulgate renders על מה al meh, super quo, (see Job 38:6; 2Chr 32:10), upon what part. And so Abendana on Sal. Den Melech: "There are some who explain it thus: Upon what limb shall you be smitten, if you add defection? for already for your sins have you been smitten upon all of them; so that there is not to be found in you a whole limb on which you can be smitten." Which agrees with what follows: "From the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it:" and the sentiment and image is exactly the same with that of Ovid, Pont. 2:7, 42: -

Vix habet in nobis jam nova plaga locum.

There is no place on you for a new stripe. Or that still more expressive line of Euripides; the great force and effect of which Longinus ascribes to its close and compressed structure, analogous to the sense which it expresses: - ́γεμω κακων δη· κ' ουκετ' εσθ' ὁπη τιθῃ.

I am full of miseries: there's no room for more.

Herc. Fur. 1245, Long. sec. 40. "On what part will ye strike again? will ye add correction?" This is addressed to the instruments of God's vengeance; those that inflicted the punishment, who or whatsoever they were. Ad verbum certae personae intelligendae sunt, quibus ista actio quae per verbum exprimitur competit; "The words are addressed to the persons who were the agents employed in the work expressed by the original word," as Glassius says in a similar case, Philippians Sacr. 1:3, 22. See Isa 7:4.

As from ידע yada, דעה deah, knowledge; from יעץ yaats, עצה etsah, counsel; from ישן yeshan, שנה shenah, sleep, etc.; so from יסר yasar is regularly derived סרה sarah, correction.

The whole head is sick - The king and the priests are equally gone away from truth and righteousness. Or, The state is oppressed by its enemies, and the Church corrupted in its rulers and in its members.

They have not been closed, etc. "It hath not been pressed," etc. - The pharmaceutical art in the East consists chiefly in external applications: accordingly the prophet's images in this place are all taken from surgery. Sir John Chardin, in his note on Pro 3:8, "It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones," observes that "the comparison is taken from the plasters, ointments, oils, and frictions, which are made use of in the East upon the belly and stomach in most maladies. Being ignorant in the villages of the art of making decoctions and potions, and of the proper doses of such things, they generally make use of external medicines." - Harmer's Observations on Scripture, vol. 2 p. 488. And in surgery their materia medica is extremely simple, oil making the principal part of it. "In India," says Tavernier, "they have a certain preparation of oil and melted grease, which they commonly use for the healing of wounds." Voyage Ind. So the good Samaritan poured oil and wine on the wounds of the distressed Jew: wine, cleansing and somewhat astringent, proper for a fresh wound; oil, mollifying and healing, Luk 10:34. Kimchi has a judicious remark here: "When various medicines are applied, and no healing takes place, that disorder is considered as coming immediately from God."

Of the three verbs in this sentence, one is in the singular number in the text; another is singular in two MSS., (one of them ancient), חבשה chubbeshah; and the Syriac and Vulgate render all of them in the singular number.

Your country is desolate - The description of the ruined and desolate state of the country in these verses does not suit with any part of the prosperous times of Uzziah and Jotham. It very well agrees with the time of Ahaz, when Judea was ravaged by the joint invasion of the Israelites and Syrians, and by the incursions of the Philistines and Edomites. The date of this prophecy is therefore generally fixed to the time of Ahaz. But on the other hand it may be considered whether those instances of idolatry which are urged in Isa 1:29 - the worshipping in groves and gardens - having been at all times too commonly practiced, can be supposed to be the only ones which the prophet would insist upon in the time of Ahaz; who spread the grossest idolatry through the whole country, and introduced it even into the temple; and, to complete his abominations, made his son pass through the fire to Molech. It is said, 2Kgs 15:37, that in Jotham's time "the Lord began to send against Judah Rezin - and Pekah." If we may suppose any invasion from that quarter to have been actually made at the latter end of Jotham's reign, I should choose to refer this prophecy to that time.

And your cities are burned. - Nineteen of Dr. Kennicott's MSS. and twenty-two of De Rossi's, some of my own, with the Syriac and Arabic, add the conjunction which makes the hemistich more complete.

At the end of the verse, זרים zarim. This reading, though confirmed by all the ancient versions, gives us no good sense; for "your land is devoured by strangers; and is desolate, as if overthrown by strangers," is a mere tautology, or, what is as bad, an identical comparison. Aben Ezra thought that the word in its present form might be taken for the same with זרם zerem, an inundation: Schultens is of the same opinion; (see Taylor's Concord.); and Schindler in his Lexicon explains it in the same manner: and so, says Zimchi, some explain it. Abendana endeavors to reconcile it to grammatical analogy in the following manner: "זרים zarim is the same with זרם zerem; that is, as overthrown by an inundation of waters: and these two words have the same analogy as קדם kedem and קדים kadim. Or it may be a concrete of the same form with שכיר shechir; and the meaning will be: as overthrown by rain pouring down violently, and causing a flood." On Sal. ben Melech, in loc. But I rather suppose the true reading to be זרם zerem, and have translated it accordingly: the word זרים zerim, in the line above, seems to have caught the transcriber's eye, and to have led him into this mistake. But this conjecture of the learned prelate is not confirmed by any MS. yet discovered.

As a cottage in a vineyard "As a shed in a vineyard" - A little temporary hut covered with boughs, straw, turf, or the like materials, for a shelter from the heat by day, and the cold and dews by night, for the watchman that kept the garden or vineyard during the short season the fruit was ripening, (see Job 27:18), and presently removed when it had served that purpose. See Harmer's Observ. 1:454. They were probably obliged to have such a constant watch to defend the fruit from the jackals. "The jackal," (chical of the Turks), says Hasselquist, (Travels, p. 227), "is a species of mustela which is very common in Palestine, especially during the vintage; and often destroys whole vineyards, and gardens of cucumbers." "There is also plenty of the canis vulpes, the fox, near the convent of St. John in the desert, about vintage time; for they destroy all the vines unless they are strictly watched." Ibid. p. 184. See Sol 2:15.

Fruits of the gourd kind, melons, watermelons, cucumbers, etc., are much used and in great request in the Levant, on account of their cooling quality. The Israelites in the wilderness regretted the loss of the cucumbers and melons among the other good things of Egypt, Num 11:5. In Egypt the season of watermelons, which are most in request, and which the common people then chiefly live upon, lasts but three weeks. See Hasselquist, p. 256. Tavernier makes it of longer continuance:

L'on y void de grands carreaux de melons et de concombres, mais beaucoup plus de derniers, dont les Levantins font leur delices. Le plus souvent, ils les mangent sans les peter, apres quoi ils vont boire une verre d'eau. Dans toute l'Asie c'est la nourriture ordinaire du petit peuple pendant trois ou quatre mois; toute la famine en vit, et quand un enfant demand a manger, au lieu qu'en France ou aillieurs nous luy donnerions du pain, dans le Levant on luy presente un concombre, qu'il mange cru comme on le vient de cueillir. Les concombres dans le Levant ont une bonte particuliere; et quoiqu' on les mange crus, ils ne font jamais de mal; "There are to be seen great beds of melons and cucumbers, but a greater number of the latter, of which the Levantines are particularly fond. In general they eat them without taking off the rind, after which they drink a glass of water. In every part of Asia this is the aliment of the common people for three or four months; the whole family live on them; and when a child asks something to eat, instead of giving it a piece of bread, as is done in France and other countries, they present it with a cucumber, which it eats raw, as gathered. Cucumbers in the Levant are peculiarly excellent; and although eaten raw, they are seldom injurious." Tavernier, Relat. du Serrail, cap. xix.

As a lodge, etc. - That is, after the fruit was gathered; the lodge being then permitted to fall into decay. Such was the desolate, ruined state of the city.

So the ὡς πολις πολιορκουμενη; Septuagint: see also the Vulgate.

The Lord of hosts "Jehovah God of hosts" - As this title of God, יהוה צבאות Yehovah tsebaoth, "Jehovah of hosts, occurs here for the first time, I think it proper to note, that I translate it always, as in this place, "Jehovah God of hosts;" taking it as an elliptical expression for יהוה אלהי צבאות Yehovah Elohey tsebaoth. This title imports that Jehovah is the God or Lord of hosts or armies; as he is the Creator and Supreme Governor of all beings in heaven and earth, and disposeth and ruleth them all in their several orders and stations; the almighty, universal Lord.

We should have been as Sodom - As completely and finally ruined as that and the cities of the plain were, no vestige of which remains at this day.

Ye rulers of Sodom "Ye princes of Sodom" - The incidental mention of Sodom and Gomorrah in the preceding verse suggested to the prophet this spirited address to the rulers and inhabitants of Jerusalem, under the character of princes of Sodom and people of Gomorrah. Two examples of a sort of elegant turn of the like kind may be observed in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Rom 15:4, Rom 15:5, Rom 15:12, Rom 15:13. See Locke on the place; and see Isa 1:29, Isa 1:30, of this chapter, which gives another example of the same.

And - like unto Gomorrah. - The ו vau is added by thirty-one of Kennicott's MSS., twenty-nine of De Rossi's and one, very ancient, of my own. See note on Isa 1:6 (note).

To what purpose, etc. "What have I to do" - The prophet Amos has expressed the same sentiments with great elegance: -

I hate, I despise your feasts;

And I will not delight in the odour of your solemnities:

Though ye offer unto me burnt-offerings

And your meat-offerings, I will not accept:

Neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fatlings.

Take away from me the noise of your songs;

And the melody of your viols I will not hear.

But let judgment roll down like waters;

And righteousness like a mighty stream. Amo 5:21-24.

So has Persius; see Sat. 2 v. 71-75: - "Quin damus id Superis, de magna quod dare lanae," etc.

The two or three last pages of Plato's Euthyphro contain the same idea. Sacrifices and prayers are not profitable to the offerer, nor acceptable to the gods, unless accompanied with an upright life.

The fat of fed beasts, etc. - The fat and the blood are particularly mentioned, because these were in all sacrifices set apart to God. The fat was always burnt upon the altar, and the blood was partly sprinkled, differently on different occasions, and partly poured out at the bottom of the altar. See Leviticus 4.

When ye come to appear - Instead of לראות leraoth, to appear, one MS. has לראות liroth, to see. See De Rossi. The appearing before God here refers chiefly to the three solemn annual festivals. See Exo 23:14.

Tread my courts (no more) - So the Septuagint divide the sentence, joining the end of this verse to the beginning of the next: Πατειν την αυλην μου, ου προσθησεσθε; "To tread my court ye shall not add - ye shall not be again accepted in worship."

The new moons and Sabbaths "The fast and the day of restraint" - און ועצרה aven vaatsarah. These words are rendered in many different manners by different interpreters, to a good and probable sense by all; but I think by none in such a sense as can arise from the phrase itself, agreeably to the idiom of the Hebrew language. Instead of און aven, the Septuagint manifestly read צום tsom, νηστειαν, "the fast." This Houbigant has adopted. The prophet could not well have omitted the fast in the enumeration of their solemnities, nor the abuse of it among the instances of their hypocrisy, which he has treated at large with such force and elegance in his fifty-eighth chapter. Observe, also, that the prophet Joel, (Joe 1:14, and Joe 2:15), twice joins together the fast and the day of restraint: - עצרה קראו צום קדשו atsarah kiru tsom kaddeshu "Sanctify a fast; proclaim a day of restraint:" which shows how properly they are here joined together. עצרה atsarah, "the restraint," is rendered, both here and in other places of our English translation, "the solemn assembly." Certain holy days ordained by the law were distinguished by a particular charge that "no servile work should be done therein;" Lev 23:36; Num 29:35; Deu 16:8. This circumstance clearly explains the reason of the name, the restraint, or the day of restraint, given to those days.

If I could approve of any translation of these two words which I have met with, it should be that of the Spanish version of the Old Testament, made for the use of the Spanish Jews: Tortura y detenimento, "it is a pain and a constraint unto me." But I still think that the reading of the Septuagint is more probably the truth.

When ye spread - The Syriac, Septuagint, and a MS., read בפרשכם beparshecem, without the conjunction ו vau.

Your hands "For your hands" - Αἱ γαρ χειρες - Sept. Manus enim vestrae-Vulg. They seem to have read כי ידיכם ki yedeychem.

Wash you - Referring to the preceding verse, "your hands are full of blood;" and alluding to the legal washing commanded on several occasions. See Lev 14:8, Lev 14:9, Lev 14:47.

Relieve the oppressed "Amend that which is corrupted" - אשרו חמוץ asheru chamots. In rendering this obscure phrase I follow Bochart, (Hieroz. Part i., lib. ii., cap. 7), though I am not perfectly satisfied with this explication of it.

Though your sins be as scarlet - שני shani, "scarlet or crimson," dibaphum, twice dipped, or double dyed; from שנה shanah, iterare, to double, or to do a thing twice. This derivation seems much more probable than that which Salmasius prefers from שנן shanan, acuere, to whet, from the sharpness and strength of the color, οξυφοινικον; תלע tela, the same; properly the worm, vermiculus, (from whence vermeil), for this color was produced from a worm or insect which grew in a coccus or excrescence of a shrub of the ilex kind, (see Plin. Nat. Hist. 16:8), like the cochineal worm in the opuntia of America. See Ulloa's Voyage book v., chap. ii., note to page 342. There is a shrub of this kind that grows in Provence and Languedoc, and produces the like insect, called the kermes oak, (see Miller, Dict. Quercus), from kermez, the Arabic word for this color, whence our word crimson is derived. "Neque amissos colores

Lana refert medicata fuco," says the poet, applying the same image to a different purpose. To discharge these strong colors is impossible to human art or power; but to the grace and power of God all things, even much more difficult are possible and easy. Some copies have כשנים keshanim, "like crimson garments."

Though they be red, etc. - But the conjunction ו vau is added by twenty-one of Kennicott's, and by forty-two of De Rossi's MSS., by some early editions, with the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic. It makes a fuller and more emphatic sense. "And though they be red as crimson," etc.

Ye shall eat the good of the land - Referring to Isa 1:7 : it shall not be "devoured by strangers."

Ye shall be devoured with the sword "Ye shall be food for the sword" - The Septuagint and Vulgate read תאכלכם tochalchem, "the sword shall devour you;" which is of much more easy construction than the present reading of the text.

The Chaldee seems to read בחרב אויב תאכלו bechereb oyeb teachelu, "ye shall be consumed by the sword of the enemy." The Syriac also reads בחרב beehereb and renders the verb passively. And the rhythmus seems to require this addition. - Dr. Jubb.

Become a harlot - See before, the Discourse on the Prophetic Style; and see Lowth's Comment on the place, and De Sacr. Poes. Hebr. Prael. xxxi.

Wine mixed with water - An image used for the adulteration of wines, with more propriety than may at first appear, if what Thevenot says of the people of the Levant of late times were true of them formerly. He says, "They never mingle water with their wine to drink; but drink by itself what water they think proper for abating the strength of the wine." "Lorsque les Persans boivent du vin, ils le prennent tout pur, a la facon des Levantins, qui ne le melent jamais avec de l'eua; mais en beuvant du vin, de temps en temps ils prennent un pot d'eau, et en boivent de grand traits." Voyage, part ii., 54 ii., chap. 10. "Ils (les Turcs) n'y meslent jamais d'eau, et se moquent des Chretiens qui en mettent, ce qui leur semble tout a fait ridicule." Ibid. part i., chap. 24. "The Turks never mingle water with their wine, and laugh at the Christians for doing it, which they consider altogether ridiculous."

It is remarkable that whereas the Greeks and Latins by mixed wine always understood wine diluted and lowered with water, the Hebrews on the contrary generally mean by it wine made stronger and more inebriating by the addition of higher and more powerful ingredients, such as honey, spices, defrutum, (or wine inspissated by boiling it down to two-thirds or one-half of the quantity), myrrh, mandragora, opiates, and other strong drugs. Such were the exhilarating, or rather stupefying, ingredients which Helen mixed in the bowl together with the wine for her guests oppressed with grief to raise their spirits, the composition of which she had learned in Egypt: - Αυτικ' αρ' εις οινον βαλε φαρμακον, ενθεν επινον, Νηπενθες τ' αχολον τε, κακων επιληθον ἁπαντων.

Homer. Odyss. lib. iv., ver. 220. "Meanwhile, with genial joy to warm the soul,

Bright Helen mix'd a mirth-inspiring bowl;

Temper'd with drugs of sovereign use, to assuage

The boiling bosom of tumultuous rage:

Charm'd with that virtuous draught, the exalted mind

All sense of wo delivers to the wind."

Pope.

Such was the "spiced wine and the juice of pomegranates," mentioned Sol 8:2. And how much the Eastern people to this day deal in artificial liquors of prodigious strength, the use of wine being forbidden, may be seen in a curious chapter of Kempfer upon that subject. Amoen. Exot. Fasc. iii., Obs. 15.

Thus the drunkard is properly described, Pro 23:30, as one "that seeketh mixed wine," and "is mighty to mingle strong drink," Isa 5:22. And hence the poet took that highly poetical and sublime image of the cup of God's wrath, called by Isa 51:17, the "cup of trembling," causing intoxication and stupefaction, (see Chappelow's note on Hariri, p. 33), containing, as St. John expresses in Greek the Hebrew idea with the utmost precision, though with a seeming contradiction in terms, κεκερασμενον ακρατον, merum mixtum, pure wine made yet stronger by a mixture of powerful ingredients; Rev 14:10. "In the hand of Jehovah," saith the psalmist, Psa 75:8, "there is a cup, and the wine is turbid: it is full of a mixed liquor, and he poureth out of it," or rather, "he poureth it out of one vessel into another," to mix it perfectly, according to the reading expressed by the ancient versions, ויגר מזה אל זה vaiyagger mizzeh al zeh, and he pours it from this to that, "verily the dregs thereof," the thickest sediment of the strong ingredients mingled with it, "all the ungodly of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them."

R. D. Kimchi says, "The current coin was adulterated with brass, tin, and other metals, and yet was circulated as good money. The wine also was adulterated with water in the taverns, and sold notwithstanding for pure wine."

Companions of thieves "Associates" - The Septuagint, Vulgate, and four MSS., read חברי chabrey without the conjunction ו vau.

Ah, I will ease me "Aha! I will be eased" - Anger, arising from a sense of injury and affront, especially from those who, from every consideration of duty and gratitude, ought to have behaved far otherwise, is an uneasy and painful sensation: and revenge, executed to the full on the offenders, removes that uneasiness, and consequently is pleasing and quieting, at least for the present. Ezekiel, Eze 5:13, introduces God expressing himself in the same manner: - "And mine anger shall be fully accomplished;

And I will make my fury rest upon them;

And I will give myself ease."

This is a strong instance of the metaphor called anthropopathia, by which, throughout the Scriptures, as well the historical as the poetical parts, the sentiments sensations, and affections, the bodily faculties qualities, and members, of men, and even of brute animals, are attributed to God, and that with the utmost liberty and latitude of application. The foundation of this is obvious; it arises from necessity; we have no idea of the natural attributes of God, of his pure essence, of his manner of existence, of his manner of acting: when therefore we would treat on these subjects, we find ourselves forced to express them by sensible images. But necessity leads to beauty; this is true of metaphor in general, and in particular of this kind of metaphor, which is used with great elegance and sublimity in the sacred poetry; and what is very remarkable, in the grossest instances of the application of it, it is generally the most striking and the most sublime. The reason seems to be this: when the images are taken from the superior faculties of the human nature, from the purer and more generous affections, and applied to God, we are apt to acquiesce in the notion; we overlook the metaphor, and take it as a proper attribute; but when the idea is gross and offensive as in this passage of Isaiah, where the impatience of anger and the pleasure of revenge is attributed to God, we are immediately shocked at the application; the impropriety strikes us at once, and the mind, casting about for something in the Divine nature analogous to the image, lays hold on some great, obscure, vague idea, which she endeavors to comprehend, and is lost in immensity and astonishment. See De Sacr. Poesi. Hebr. Praeel. 16 sub. fin., where this matter is treated and illustrated by examples.

I will turn my hand upon thee - So the common version; and this seems to be a metaphor taken from the custom of those who, when the metal is melted, strike off the scoriae with their hand previously to its being poured out into the mould. I have seen this done with the naked hand, and no injury whatever sustained.

Purge away thy dross "In the furnace" - The text has כבר cabbor, which some render "as with soap;" as if it were the same with כברית keborith; so Kimchi; but soap can have nothing to do with the purifying of metals. Others, "according to purity," or "purely," as our version. Le Clerc conjectured that the true reading is ככור kechur, "as in the furnace;" see Eze 22:18, Eze 22:20. Dr. Durell proposes only a transposition of letters בכר to the same sense; and so likewise Archbishop Secker. That this is the true reading is highly probable.

I will restore - "This," says Kimchi, "shall be in the days of the Messiah, in which all the wicked shall cease, and the remnant of Israel shall neither do iniquity, nor speak lies." What a change must this be among Jews!

Afterward "And after this" - The Septuagint, Syriac, Chaldee, and eighteen MSS., and one of my own, very ancient, add the conjunction ו vau, And.

With judgment "In judgment" - By the exercise of God's strict justice in destroying the obdurate, (see Isa 1:28), and delivering the penitent in righteousness; by the truth and faithfulness of God in performing his promises."

For they shall be ashamed of the oaks "For ye shall be ashamed of the ilexes" - Sacred groves were a very ancient and favorite appendage of idolatry. They were furnished with the temple of the god to whom they were dedicated, with altars, images, and every thing necessary for performing the various rites of worship offered there; and were the scenes of many impure ceremonies, and of much abominable superstition. They made a principal part of the religion of the old inhabitants of Canaan; and the Israelites were commanded to destroy their groves, among other monuments of their false worship. The Israelites themselves became afterwards very much addicted to this species of idolatry. "When I had brought them into the land,

Which I swore that I would give unto them;

Then they saw every high hill and every thick tree;

And there they slew their victims;

And there they presented the provocation of their offerings;

And there they placed their sweet savor;

And there they poured out their libations." Eze 20:28. "On the tops of the mountains they sacrifice;

And on the hills they burn incense;

Under the oak and the poplar;

And the ilex, because her shade is pleasant." Hos 4:13.

Of what particular kinds the trees here mentioned are, cannot be determined with certainty. In regard to אלה ellah, in this place of Isaiah, as well as in Hosea, Celsius (Hierobot.) understands it of the terebinth, because the most ancient interpreters render it so; in the first place the Septuagint. He quotes eight places; but in three of these eight places the copies vary, some having δρυς, the oak, instead of τερεβινθος, the terebinth or turpentine tree. And he should have told us, that these same seventy render it in sixteen other places by δρυς, the oak; so that their authority is really against him; and the Septuagint, "stant pro quercu," contrary to what he says at first setting out. Add to this that Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila, generally render it by δρυς, the oak; the latter only once rendering it by τερεβινθος, the terebinth. His other arguments seem to me not very conclusive; he says, that all the qualities of אלה ellah agree to the terebinth, that it grows in mountainous countries, that it is a strong tree, long-lived, large and high, and deciduous. All these qualities agree just as well to the oak, against which he contends; and he actually attributes them to the oak in the very next section. But I think neither the oak nor the terebinth will do in this place of Isaiah, from the last circumstance which he mentions, their being deciduous, where the prophet's design seems to me to require an evergreen, otherwise the casting of its leaves would be nothing out of the common established course of nature, and no proper image of extreme distress and total desolation, parallel to that of a garden without water, that is, wholly burnt up and destroyed. An ancient, who was an inhabitant and a native of this country, understands it in like manner of a tree blasted with uncommon and immoderate heat; velut arbores, cum frondes aestu torrente decusserunt. Ephrem Syr. in loc., edit. Assemani. Compare Psa 1:4; Jer 17:8. Upon the whole I have chosen to make it the ilex, which word Vossius, Etymolog., derives from the Hebrew אלה ellah, that whether the word itself be rightly rendered or not, I might at least preserve the propriety of the poetic image. - L.

By the ilex the learned prelate means the holly, which, though it generally appears as a sort of shrub, grows, in a good soil, where it is unmolested, to a considerable height. I have one in my own garden, rising three stems from the root, and between twenty and thirty feet in height. It is an evergreen.

For they shall be ashamed "For ye shall be ashamed" - תבושו teboshu, in the second person, Vulgate, Chaldee, three MSS., one of my own, ancient, and one edition; and in agreement with the rest of the sentence.

Whose leaf "Whose leaves" - Twenty-six of Kennicott's, twenty-four of De Rossi's, one ancient, of my own, and seven editions, read אליה aleyha, in its full and regular form. This is worth remarking, as it accounts for a great number of anomalies of the like kind, which want only the same authority to rectify them.

As a garden that hath no water "A garden wherein is no water" - In the hotter parts of the Eastern countries, a constant supply of water is so absolutely necessary for the cultivation and even for the preservation and existence of a garden, that should it want water but for a few days, every thing in it would be burnt up with the heat, and totally destroyed. There is therefore no garden whatever in those countries but what has such a certain supply, either from some neighboring river, or from a reservoir of water collected from springs, or filled with rain water in the proper season, in sufficient quantity to afford ample provision for the rest of the year.

Moses, having described the habitation of man newly created as a garden planted with every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food, adds, as a circumstance necessary to complete the idea of a garden, that it was well supplied with water, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;" Gen 2:10 : see also Gen 13:10.

That the reader may have a clear notion of this matter, it will be necessary to give some account of the management of their gardens in this respect. "Damascus," says Maundrell, p. 122, "is encompassed with gardens, extending no less, recording to common estimation, than thirty miles round; which makes it look like a city in a vast wood. The gardens are thick set with fruit trees of all kinds, kept fresh and verdant by the waters of the Barrady, (the Chrysorrhoas of the ancients), which supply both the gardens and city in great abundance. This river, as soon as it issues out from between the cleft of the mountain before mentioned into the plain, is immediately divided into three streams; of which the middlemost and biggest runs directly to Damascus, and is distributed to all the cisterns and fountains of the city. The other two (which I take to be the work of art) are drawn round, one to the right hand, and the other to the left, on the borders of the gardens, into which they are let as they pass, by little currents, and so dispersed all over the vast wood, insomuch that there is not a garden but has a fine quick stream running through it. The Barrady is almost wholly drunk up by the city and gardens. What small part of it escapes is united, as I was informed, in one channel again on the southeast side of the city; and, after about three or four hours' course finally loses itself in a bog there, without ever arriving at the sea." This was likewise the case in former times, as Strabo, lib. xvi., Pliny, lib. 5:18, testify; who say, "that this river was expended in canals, and drunk up by watering the place." "The best sight," says the same Maundrell, p. 39, "that the palace of the emir of Beroot, anciently Berytus, affords, and the worthiest to be remembered, is the orange garden. It contains a large quadrangular plat of ground, divided into sixteen lesser squares, four in a row, with walks between them. The walks are shaded with orange trees of a large spreading size. Every one of these sixteen lesser squares in the garden was bordered with stone; and in the stone work were troughs, very artificially contrived, for conveying the water all over the garden; there being little outlets cut at every tree for the stream as it passed by to flow out and water it." The royal gardens at Ispahan are watered just in the same manner, according to Kempfer's description, Amoen. Exot., p. 193.

This gives us a clear idea of the פלגי מים palgey mayim, mentioned in the first Psalm, and other places of Scripture, "the divisions of waiters," the waters distributed in artificial canals; for so the phrase properly signifies. The prophet Jeremith, chap. 17:8, has imitated, and elegantly amplified, the passage of the psalmist above referred to: - "He shall be like a tree planted by the water side,

And which sendeth forth her roots to the aqueduct.

She shall not fear, when the heat cometh;

But her leaf shall be green;

And in the year of drought she shall not be anxious,

Neither shall she cease from bearing fruit."

From this image the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus 24:30, 31, has most beautifully illustrated the influence and the increase of religious wisdom in a well prepared heart. "I also come forth as a canal from a river,

And as a conduit flowing into a paradise.

I said, I will water my garden,

And I will abundantly moisten my border:

And, lo! my canal became a river,

And my river became a sea."

This gives us the true meaning of the following elegant proverb, Pro 21:1 : - "The heart of the king is like the canals of waters in the hand of Jehovah; Whithersoever it pleaseth him, he inclineth it."

The direction of it is in the hand of Jehovah, as the distribution of the water of the reservoir through the garden by different canals is at the will of the gardener. "Et, cum exustus ager morientibus aestuat herbis,

Ecce supercilio clivosi tramitis undam

Elicit: illa cadens raucum per levia murmur

Saxa ciet, scatebrisque arentia temperat arva."

Virg., Georg. 1:107. "Then, when the fiery suns too fiercely play,

And shrivelled herbs on withering stems decay,

The wary ploughman on the mountain's brow

Undams his watery stores; huge torrents flow;

And, rattling down the rocks, large moisture yield,

Tempering the thirsty fever of the field."

Dryden.

Solomon, Ecc 2:1, Ecc 2:6, mentions his own works of this kind: - "I made me gardens, and paradises;

And I planted in them all kinds of fruit trees.

I made me pools of water,

To water with them the grove flourishing with trees."

Maundrell, p. 88, has given a description of the remains, as they are said to be, of these very pools made by Solomon, for the reception and preservation of the waters of a spring, rising at a little distance from them; which will give us a perfect notion of the contrivance and design of such reservoirs. "As for the pools, they are three in number, lying in a row above each other; being so disposed that the waters of the uppermost may descend into the second, and those of the second into the third. Their figure is quadrangular, the breadth is the same in all, amounting to about ninety paces. In their length there is some difference between them; the first being about one hundred and sixty paces long, the second, two hundred, and the third, two hundred and twenty. They are all lined with wall and plastered; and contain a great depth of water."

The immense works which were made by the ancient kings of Egypt for recovering the waters of the Nile, when it overflowed, for such uses, are well known. But there never was a more stupendous work of this kind than the reservoir of Saba, or Merab, in Arabia Felix. According to the tradition of the country, it was the work of Balkis, that queen of Sheba who visited Solomon. It was a vast lake formed by the collection of the waters of a torrent in a valley, where, at a narrow pass between two mountains, a very high mole or dam was built. The water of the lake so formed had near twenty fathoms depth; and there were three sluices at different heights, by which, at whatever height the lake stood, the plain below might be watered. By conduits and canals from these sluices the water was constantly distributed in due proportion to the several lands; so that the whole country for many miles became a perfect paradise. The city of Saba, or Merab, was situated immediately below the great dam; a great flood came, and raised the lake above its usual height; the dam gave way in the middle of the night; the waters burst forth at once, and overwhelmed the whole city, with the neighboring towns and people. The remains of eight tribes were forced to abandon their dwellings, and the beautiful valley became a morass and a desert. This fatal catastrophe happened long before the time of Mohammed, who mentions it in the Koran, chap. 34: ver. 15. See also Sale, Prelim. s. 1 p. 10, and Michaelis, Quest. aux Voyag. Daniel No. 94. Niebuhr, Descrip. de l'Arabie. p. 240. - L.

Vision - Or, the visions; the word being here collectively used: the sense is, this is the book of the visions or prophecies. As prophets were called Seers, 1Sam 9:9, so prophecies are called visions, because they were as clearly and certainly represented to the prophets minds, as bodily objects are to mens eyes. Saw - Foresaw and foretold. But he speaks, after the manner of the prophets, of things to come, as if they were either past or present. Judah - Principally, but not exclusively. For he prophecies also concerning Egypt and Babylon, and divers other countries; yet with respect to Judah. The days - ln the time of their reign. Whence it may be gathered, that Isaiah exercised his prophetical office above fifty years altogether.

Hear - He directs his speech to those senseless creatures, that he might awaken the Israelites, whom he hereby proclaims to be so dull and stupid that they were past hearing, and therefore calls in the whole creation of God to bear witness against them. The Lord - This is his plea against them, of the equity whereof he is willing that all the creatures should be judges.

Know - Me their owner and master. Knowing is here taken practically, as it is usually in scripture, and includes reverence and obedience.

A seed - The children of wicked parents, whose guilt they inherit, and whose evil example they follow. Corrupters - Heb. that corrupt themselves, or others by their counsel and example. Backward - Instead of proceeding forward and growing in grace.

Head - The very head and heart of the body politick, from whence the plague is derived to all the other members.

In your presence - Which your eye shall see to torment you, when there is no power in your hands to deliver you. As - Heb. as the overthrow of strangers, that is, which strangers bring upon a land which is not likely to continue in their hands, and therefore they spare no persons, and spoil and destroy all things, which is not usually done in wars between persons of the same, or of a neighbouring nation.

Is left - Is left solitary, all the neighbouring villages and country round about it being laid waste.

Of Sodom - So called for their resemblance of them in wickedness. The law - The message which I am now to deliver to you from God, your great lawgiver.

To me - Who am a spirit, and therefore cannot be satisfied with such carnal oblations, but expect to have your hearts and lives, as well as your bodies and sacrifices, presented unto me. Blood - He mentions the fat and blood, because these were in a peculiar manner reserved for God, to intimate that even the best of their sacrifices were rejected by him.

To appear - Upon the three solemn feasts, or upon other occasions. Who required - The thing I commanded, was not only, nor chiefly, that you should offer external sacrifices, but that you should do it with true repentance, with faith in my promises, and sincere resolutions of devoting yourselves to my service.

The solemn meeting - The most solemn day of each of the three feasts, which was the last day.

Blood - You are guilty of murder, and oppression.

Wash - Cleanse your hearts and hands.

Learn - Begin to live soberly, righteously, and godly. Judgment - Shew your religion to God, by practising justice to men. Judge - Defend and deliver them.

If - If you are fully resolved to obey all my commands. Shall eat - Together with pardon, you shall receive temporal and worldly blessings.

The city - Jerusalem, which in the reign of former kings was faithful to God. An harlot - Is filled with idolatry. Murderers - Under that one gross kind, he comprehends all sorts of unrighteous men and practices.

Rebellious - Against me their sovereign Lord. Companions of thieves - Partly by giving them connivance and countenance, and partly by practising the same violence, and cruelty, and injustice that thieves used to do. Gifts - That is, bribes given to pervert justice.

And purge - I will purge out of thee, those wicked men that are incorrigible, and for those of you that are curable, I will by my word, and by the furnace of affliction, purge out all that corruption that yet remains in you.

Thy counsellors - Thy princes shall hearken to wise and faithful counsellors. Called faithful - Thou shalt be such.

Redeemed - Shall be delivered from all their enemies and calamities. With - Or, by judgment, that is, by God's righteous judgment, purging out those wicked and incorrigible Jews, and destroying their unmerciful enemies. Converts - Heb. her returners, those of them who shall come out of captivity into their own land. Righteousness - Or, by righteousness, either by my faithfulness, in keeping my promise, or by my goodness.

The oaks - Which, after the manner of the Heathen, you have consecrated to idolatrous uses. Gardens - In which, as well is in the groves, they committed idolatry.

The strong - Your idols, which you think to be strong and able to defend you. As tow - Shall be as suddenly and easily, consumed by my judgments, as tow is by fire. The maker - Of the idol, who can neither save himself nor his workmanship.

THE Vision of Isaiah the Son of Amoz , which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem , in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah , Kings of Judah.

Or, The Visions; the word being here collectively used, as it is ch. 22. 1. 1 Sam. 3. 1. The sense is, This is the Book of the Visions or Prophecies. As Prophets were called Seers, 1 Sam. 9. 9. so Prophecies are called Visions, because they were as clearly and certainly represented to the Prophets minds, as bodily Objects are to mens eyes.

Either the Brother of Amaziah King of Iudah, as the Hebrew Writers fancy: Or, rather some other person then well known.

i. e. Foresaw and foretold. But he speaks, after the manner of the Prophets, of things to come, as if they were either past or present.

Principally, but not exclusively. For he prophecieth also concerning Egypt and Babylon, and divers other Countries; which yet he doth with respect to Iudah.

In the time of their Reign. Whence it may be gathered, that Isaiah exercised his Prophetical Office above fifty years together, See 2 Kings 15 and 16.

2 Hear, O Heavens, and give ear O Earth ; for the Lord hath spoken , I have nourished and brought up Children , and they have rebelled against me.

He directeth his speech to these senseless Creatures, that thereby he might more awaken and affect the Israelites, whom he hereby proclaimeth to be so dull and stupid that they were past hearing, and therefore he gives them over as desperate, and calleth in the whole Creation of God to bear witness against them.

This is his Plea against them, of the equity whereof he is willing that all the Creatures should be Judges.

I first made them a People, and until this time I have sustained and blessed them, above all other Nations.

Marginal references: De[illegible: 1+ letters]t. 3[illegible: 1+ letters]. 1. I[illegible: 1+ letters]r. [illegible: 1+ letters]. 12. & 22. 29. [illegible: 1 word]. 36. 4.

3 The Ox knoweth his Owner, and the Ass his Masters Crib : but Israel doth not know , my People doth not consider.

The most stupid bruit beasts acknowledge and obey their Lord and Benefactor, as experience sheweth.

To wit, me their Owner and Master, which is easily and necessarily understood out of the former Clause. Knowing is here taken practically, as it is usually in Scripture, and includes reverence and obedience.

Marginal references: I[illegible: 1+ letters]r. 8. 7.

4 Ah sinful Nation, a People laden with iniquity , a seed of evil-doers , children that are corrupters , they have forsaken the LORD , they have provoked the holy One of Israel unto anger , they are gone away backward .

This Particle implies both his wonder, and anger, and grief, and shame that they were such.

Heb. Of heaviness of iniquity, i. e. of heavy or great sins, for heavy is commonly put for great or grievous, as Isa. 21. 15. and 30. 27. Laden not with the sense of sin, as Mat. 11. 28. but with the guilt and bondage of sin.

The Children of wicked Parents, whose guilt they inherit, and whose evil Example they follow.

Heb. that corrupt, to wit, themselves or their ways, or others by their counsel and example. Or, that destroy themselves and their land by their wickedness.

Not in profession, but in practice and reality, neglecting or corrupting his Worship, refusing his yoke and conduct.

They have lived as if it were their great design and business to provoke him.

Instead of proceeding forward and growing in grace, which was their duty, they are all faln from their former professions, and grown worse and worse, and have impudently turned their backs upon me.

Marginal references: Heb. of heaviness.; Heb. alienated; Or, separated. Psal. 58. 3.

5 Why should ye be stricken any more , ye will revolt more and more : the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint .

It is to no purpose to seek to reclaim you by one Chastisement after another: and therefore I will utterly forsake and destroy you at once.

I see you are incorrigible, and turn even your afflictions into sin.

Your disease is mortal, as being in the most noble and vital parts, the very head and heart of the body politick, from whence the plague is derived to all the other Members, as it follows. And this is to be understood either, 1. Of their sins; or rather, 2. Of their miseries. Which best suits, 1. with the foregoing words, this being added as a reason why it was in vain to strike them any more, or to expect any amendment that way, because he had stricken them already, and that very terribly, even in their head and heart, whose wounds are most dangerous, and yet they were not at all better for it. 2. With vers. 7, 8. where this Metaphor is so explained.

Marginal references: Heb. increase revolt.

6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it ; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment .

You have been all of you punished, from the highest to the lowest, from the worst to the best.

I have suffered you to lie under your maladies for a time, without applying any remedies, to try whether the length and continuance of your affliction might not work that cure which the strength of it could not do, but all in vain.

Marginal references: Or, Oil.

7 Your countrey is desolate, your cities are burnt with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence , and it is desolate , as overthrown by strangers .

All this and what follows was verified in the days of King Ahaz, 2 Chron. 28. in whose time, and upon which occasion, this Prophesie seems to have been delivered, as more exactly agreeing with that time than with any other. If any object, That this being the first of his Prophecies, must rather belong to the days of Uzziah, they must take notice, and it is agreed by Interpreters; and is undeniably true, that the Prophecies of Isaiah, as also of the other Prophets, are not set down in the same order in which they were delivered, but oftentimes the latter are put before the former.

Which your eyes shall see to torment you, when there is no power in your hands to deliver you.

Heb. As the overthrow of strangers, i. e. which strangers bring upon a land which is not theirs, nor likely to continue in their hands, and therefore they spare no persons that come in their way, and they spoil and destroy all things, which is not usually done in wars between persons of the same, or of a neighbour nation.

Marginal references: Deut. 28. 51, 52. Chap. 5. 5.; Heb. as the overthrow of strangers.

8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodg in a garden of cucumbers , as a besieged city.

i. e. Zion, or Ierusalem; for these two names are promiscuously used of the same place. The name of daughter being frequently given to cities or countries. Thus the daughter of Babylon is put for Babylon it self, Psal. 137. 8. Isa. 47. 1. In the same sence we read of the daughter of Tyre, Psal. 45. 12. and of Zidon, Isa. 23. 12. and of Egypt, Ier. 46. 11, 24. and of Edom, Lam. 4. 21.

Is left solitary, all the neighbouring villages and country round about it being laid waste.

9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant , we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah .

If God, by his Infinite Power and Goodness, had not restrained our enemies, and reserved some of us.

The whole nation and race of us had been utterly cut off, as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were. So great was the rage and power of our enemies, and so utterly unable we were to deliver our selves.

Marginal references: Lam. 3. 22. Rom. 9. 29.; Gen. 19. 24.

10 Hear the word of the LORD , ye rulers of Sodom ; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

I speak not my own fancies or passions, but the message of your Lord and governour, to whom you owe all reverence and obedience.

So called for their resemblance of them in wickedness, Comp. Deut. 32. 32. Ezek 16. 46, 48.

Or, Doctrine, as this word is commonly used: the message which I am now to deliver to you from God, your great Lawgiver, which ought to have the force of a Law with you.

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

They are vain and useless, being neither accepted by me, nor beneficial to you.

Who am a Spirit, and therefore cannot be satisfied with such carnal Oblations, but expect to be worshipped in spirit and truth, and to have your Hearts and Lives, as well as your Bodies and Sacrifices, presented unto me.

I am glutted with them, and therefore loath them.

He mentions the fat and blood, because these were in a peculiar manner reserved for God, Levit. 3. 15, 16 & 17. 11. to intimate, that even the best of their Sacrifices were rejected by him.

Marginal references: Psal. 50. 8, 9. & 51. 16. Prov. 15. 8. & 21. 27. Chap. 66. 3. Jer. 6. 20. Amos 5. 21, 22. Mic. 6. 7.; Heb. great he-goats.

12 When ye come to appear before me , who hath required this at your hands , to tread my courts ?

Upon the three Solemn Feasts, Exod. 23. 17. & 34. 23. or upon other occasio[illegible: 1+ letters] ▪

To wit, in this manner, and upon these terms. The thing that I commanded, was not onely, nor chiefly, that you should offer external Sacrifices to me, but that you should do it with true repentance for all your sins, with Faith in my Promises, with hearty Love to me, and sincere Resolutious of devoting your selves to my Service, without which you offer me a dead Carcass in stead of a living Sacrifice.

The Courts of my Temple, which were two, that of the Priests, and that where the People assembled, 2 Chron. 4. 9. So this Reproof seems to be directed against both Priests and People, as unworthy to enjoy this Privilege.

Marginal references: Heb. to be seen.

13 Bring no more vain oblations , incense is an abomination unto me , the new-moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies , I cannot away with , it is iniquity , even the solemn meeting .

I neither desire nor will accept of any upon these terms.

Heb. Meat-offerings; of which see Levit. 2. 1. Numb. 15. 4.

So far is it from being a sweet [illegible: 1+ letters]avour to me, as you foolishly imagine.

Which were holy to God, and observed with great solemnity. See Numb 28. 11, 14. Psal. 81. 3.

All other Solemn times wherein the People were obliged to meet together, as the three great yearly Feasts, and other extraordinary Seasons.

Heb. I cannot bear: It is burdensom and grievous to me.

So far is it from pleasing me, that it is an offence to me, and in stead of reconciling me to you, which is your design, it provoketh me more against you.

The most Sol[illegible: 1+ letters]mn Day of each of the three Feasts, which was the last day, which is called by this very name, Levit. 23. 36. Numb. 29. 35. and elsewhere; although the word be sometimes more generally used of any other Solemn Festival-day.

Marginal references: Or, grief.

15 And when ye spread forth your hands , I will hide mine eyes from you : yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood .

When you pray with hands spread abroad, as the manner was; of which see Exod. 9. 29. 33. Iob 11. 13. &c.

Which is a gesture of contempt and loathing. I will take no notice of your Persons or Requests.

You are guilty of Murder, and Oppression, and other crying Sins, which I abhor, and have forbidden, under pain of mine highest displeasure.

Marginal references: Prov. 1. 28. Jer. 14. 12. Mic. 3. 4.; Heb. multiply prayer.; Chap. 59. 3.; Heb. blood[illegible: 1+ letters].

16 Wash ye, make you clean , put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil,

Cleanse your Hearts and Hands from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, and do not content your selves with your Ceremonial Washings.

Reform your selves so throughly, that you may not onely approve your selves to Men, but to me, who search your Hearts, and try all your Actions.

Marginal references: Psal. 34. 14. & 37. 27. Amos 5. 15. Rom. 12. 9. 1 Pet. 3. 11.

17 Learn to do well , seek judgment , relieve the oppressed , judge the fatherless, plead for the widow .

Begin and inure your selves to live soberly, righteously, and godlily.

Shew your Religion to God, by studying and practising Justice to Men, and neither give nor procure any unrighteous Judgment.

Be not onely just, but merciful.

Defend and deliver them, as this Word is used Psal. 7. 8, 11. & 9. 4. and oft elsewhere.

Maintain the righteous Cause of poor and helpless Persons, against their unjust and potent Adversaries; whereby you will shew your love to Justice and Mercy, and that you fear God more than Men.

Marginal references: Or, right.

18 Come now and let us reason together , saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet , they shall be as white as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wooll .

I am willing to lay aside my Prerogative, and to submit the Matter to a fair and equal Trial, whether I do not deal justly in rejecting all your Services, which are accompanied with such gross Hypocrisie and Wickedness, and whether I do not deal very graciously, in offering Mercy and Pardon to you upon these Conditions.

Red and bloody, as theirs were, v. 15. great and hainous.

They shall be washed and purged by the Blood of the Messias, whereby you shall be made white and pure in Gods sight. It is a Me [illegible: 1+ letters]onymical Expression, as sins are said to be purged, Heb. 1. 3. when Men are purged from their sins, Heb. 9. 14.

Which for the most part is white, and is compared to Snow for whiteness, Revel. 1. 14.

Marginal references: Psal. 51. 7. Rev. 7. 14.

19 If ye be willing and obedient , ye shall eat the good of the land .

If you are heartily willing and fully resolved to obey all my Commands.

Together with the Pardon of your Sins, you shall receive many Temporal and Worldly Blessings.

20 But if ye refuse and rebell , ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it .

If you obstinately persist in your disobedience to me, as hitherto you have done.

He hath said it, who can as easily do it as speak the Words, and who cannot lie, and therefore will do it.

21 How is the faithful City become an harlot ! it was full of judgment , righteousness lodged in it ; but now murderers .

A Note of Admiration at so strange, and sad, and sudden a Change.

Ierusalem, which in the Reign of former Kings was faithful to God.

Is filled with Idolatry, which is commonly called Whoredom.

Judgment was duly and truly executed in all its Courts.

It was famous for being the Seat of Justice, which did not only pass through it, like a wayfaring Man, but had its setled abode in it.

Under that one gross kind he comprehends all sorts of unrighteous Men and Practices, as may be gathered by the opposition. Onely their Connivance at that horrid Crime of Murther is noted, to assure us, that other Crimes of a lower nature were not onely unpunished, but even encouraged.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 2. 21.

22 Thy silver is become dross , thy wine mixt with water .

Thou art wofully degenerated from thy former purity.

If there be any remainders of Religion and Justice in thee, they are mixed with many and great Corruptions.

23 Thy princes are rebellious , and companions of thieves : every one loveth gifts , and followeth after rewards : they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them .

Against me their Sovereign Lord, they cast off my yoke, and make their own Wills and Lusts the Rule of their Life and Government.

Partly by giving them connivence and countenance, and receiving a Recompence from them for it; and partly by practising the same Violence, and Cruelty, and Injustice that Thieves use.

i. e. Bribes given to pervert Justice, which are severely forbidden, Deut. 10. 17. & 27. 25.

Pursuing them with all eagerness, and by all means possible.

They are so far from doing them Justice, that they will not so much as give them a fair Hearing of their Cause, because they cannot make their way to them by Gifts.

Marginal references: Prov. 29. 24.; Ezek. 22. 12. [illegible: 1 word]. 4. 18. [illegible: 1 word]. 3. 11.; Jer. 5. 28. [illegible: 1 word]. 7. 10.

24 Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries , and avenge me of mine enemies.

Heb. I will comfort my self, ease my Mind, and satisfie my Justice, by taking vengeance, as the next Clause explains this. The same Expression is used in the same sense, Ezek. 5. 13.

Of the Israelites, who, though they have called themselves my Children and Friends, yet by their Temper and Carriage towards me have shewed themselves to be mine Enemies.

Marginal references: Deut. 28. 63.

25 And I will turn my hand upon thee , and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin .

To chastise thee again, which God threatned that he would not do, v. 5. but now promiseth that he will do it, not in fury, or so as utterly to destroy them, but in mercy, and with moderation, so as to purge them, as it here follows.

I will purge out of thee and destroy those wicked Men that are incorrigible, and infectious to others; and for those of you that are curable, I will by my Word, and by the Furnace of Affliction, purge out all that Hypocrisie and Corruption that yet remains in you, and requires so sharp a Cure.

Marginal references: Heb. accord [illegible: 1+ letters]ng to pure [illegible: 1+ letters].; Jer. 6. 29. [illegible: 1+ letters] 9. 7. Mal. [illegible: 1 word] ▪

26 And I will restore thy judges as at the first , and thy counsellers as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called , The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

I will give thee such Princes and Magistrates.

Heb. As thou hadst in the beginning, either, 1. of thy Commonwealth; such as Moses, and Ioshua: or, 2. of thy Kingdom, such as David.

Thy Princes shall have and hearken to wise and faithful Counsellors, which is a singular Blessing to a Prince and People.

To wit, justly and truly; thou shalt be such: for, to be called is oft put for to be, as Isa. 4. 3. & 61. 6. Mat. 5. 9.

Marginal references: Zech. 8. [illegible: 1+ letters] ▪

27 Zion shall be redeemed with judgment , and her converts with righteousness .

The Iews that live in or near Zion, and worship God in Zion.

Shall be delivered from all their Enemies and Calamities.

Or, by judgment, i. by Gods righteous Judgment, purging out those wicked and incorrigible Iews, who by their Sins hindred the Deliverance of the People, and punishing and destroying their unmerciful Enemies, who kept them in cruel Bondage, as he did to the Babylonians, whereby he made the way open for their deliverance.

Heb. her returners, those of them who shall come out of Captivity into their own Land.

Or, by righteousness, i. e. either by my Faithfulness, in keeping my Promise of delivering them after seventy years; or by my Goodness; for both these come under the name of righteousness in Scriptureuse.

Marginal references: Or, they that return of her.

28 And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together , and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed.

Or rather, But, as that Particle is oft used; for here is a manifest opposition.

Though I will deliver my People from the Babylonish Captivity, yet those of them who shall still go on in their wickedness, shall not have the benefit of that Mercy, but are reserved for a more dreadful and total destruction.

Marginal references: Job 31. 3. Psal. 1. 6. & 5. 6. & 73. 27. & 92. 9. & 104. 35.; Heb. breaking.

29 For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired , and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye have chosen .

Not with an ingenuous and penitential shame for the Sin, but with an involuntary and penal shame for the disappointment of their hopes which they had in their Idols.

Which, after the manner of the Heathen, you have consecrated to Idolatrous Uses, that under them you might worship your Idols, as they did Ezek. 6. 13. Hos. 4. 13. See also Isa. 57. 5. Ier. 2. 20. & 3. 6.

In which, as well as in the Groves, they committed Idolatry; of which we read Isa. 65. 3. & 66. 17.

To wit, for the Place of your Worship, which is opposed to the Place which God had chosen and appointed for his Worship.

Marginal references: Or, gods. Chap. 57. 5. [illegible: 1+ letters]r. idols.

30 For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water .

As you have sinned under the Oaks and in Gardens, so you shall be made like unto Oaks and Gardens, not when they are green and flourishing, but when they wither and decay.

31 And the strong shall be as tow , and the maker of it as a spark; and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them.

Either 1. your Idols, which you think to be strong, and able to defend you, as appears by your Confidence in them; or 2. the strongest Persons among you, who think to secure themselves against the threatned danger by their Wealth, or Power, or Wisdom; and much more they that are weak and helpless.

Shall be as suddenly and easily consumed by my Judgments, as Tow is by Fire.

The Maker of the Idol, who can neither save himself nor his Workmanship. Or, his work; either all that he doth or can do, or that which he hath done, his wicked course of Life, shall bring him to ruine.

Marginal references: Or, and his work.

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 „YJIYBINi. On account of their relative position in the canon, the former are also described as „YNI ŠOJRIHF „YJIYBINi, the first prophets, and the latter „YNIOERXáJÁHF, the last prophets. In the Masora this central portion is sometimes designated as JTfMiLEŠiJÁ, possibly because it exhibits a complete and homogeneous whole. The first prophets are in that case distinguished from the last, as JTFYiMFDiQA JTMLŠJ and JNFYFNiTI JTMLŠJ.

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 „YN§JR „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 TirsaÑta,[1] 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 Jeremiah’s 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., Gen 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 eÏpiÂpnoia profhtikhÃ, 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 3 a), 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.”[2]

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 writer’s 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 Saul’s 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 23:2-24 a, he adds, in v. 24 b 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 David’s 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 king’s-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. Saul’s 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, uÎpomnhmatoÂgrafoj or (in 2Sa 8:16) eÏpià twÌn uÎpomnhmaÂtwn (Jerome: a commentariis, a thoroughly Roman translation). The Targums give a similar rendering, JyFNARFKidF‰LJA JnFMÁMi, 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.[3]

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-AhiluÑd.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 écrivains 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 king’s-book; and it is taken for granted that this great king’s-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; 2Ch 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 king’s approval; or that the sections of the annals, in which they were contained, were really based upon documents written with the king’s 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; 2Ki 12:20; 2Ki 15:6, 2Ki 15:36; 2Ki 16:19; 2Ki 21:25; 2Ki 23:28; 2Ki 24:5; 1Ki 15:31; 1Ki 16:14; 2Ki 1:18; 2Ki 15:11, 2Ki 15:21, 2Ki 15:26, 2Ki 15:31). 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, 1Ki 16:27; 2Ki 10:34; 2Ki 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; 2Ki 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 Ye’di (Ye’do; 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; 2Ch 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 YRBD‰Lˆ, which requires still more decidedly that it should be understood as denoting authorship: and fourthly, this is placed beyond all doubt by the alternation ofmidrash 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 Solomon’s 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 king’s 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 Jdg 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 prophet’s 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, 1Ki 20:22, 1Ki 20:28); (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) Isaiah’s 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 (Jdg 2:1-5); (2) the address of a prophet (ish nabi) to Israel, in Jdg 6:8-10; (3) that of a man of God to Eli (1Sa. 2:27ff.); (4) Jehovah to Samuel concerning Eli’s 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” (HOEFHYi „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 Jdg 6:8-10, 2Ki 17:13; 2Ki 21:10-15. 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 historian’s 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 Jdg 6:8, and 2Ki 19:20, before the message of Isaiah); and nothing is more frequent in them than the explanatory phrase RŠEJá †JAYA, and such Deuteronomic expressions as SYˆKH, JY‹XH, DYB †TN, and others; to which we may add a fondness for similes introduces with “as” (e.g., 1Ki 14:10, 1Ki 14:15; 2Ki 21:13). The thought of Jehovah’s 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 1Ki. 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 Ahijah’s second address (1Ki 14:11), in Jehu’s address (ch. 16:4), and in that of Elijah to Ahab (1Ki. 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 Ahijah’s second address (1Ki 14:10), in Elijah’s address to Ahab (1Ki. 21:21), and in Elisha’s 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 chronicler’s 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 Isaiah’s 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., Hos 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 2Ch 13:4 and 1Ch. 28:9; 2Ch. 12:5 with 2Ch 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 prophet’s 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, Deu 12:21; Deu 14:24; Deu 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; 2Ch 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; Amo 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 image-worship 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, Ahijah’s 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 Obadiah’s prophecy before him, since he introduces into the wider and more comprehensive range of his announcement, not only Obadiah’s prophetic matter, but Obadiah’s prophetic words. We may also see from Joel’s 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. 2:18-19 a, 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 Elisha’s 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 Jonah’s 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 Jeroboam’s 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 Jeroboam’s 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 Hezekiah’s 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 Uzziah’s reign, and therefore twenty-five years after the death of Jeroboam II, and continued his labours at least till the second half of Hezekiah’s 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 Hezekiah’s reign (with which the account in Jer. 25:17ff. also agrees); so that his labours began and ended within the incomparably longer period of Isaiah’s 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 Judah’s 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 Isaiah’s 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 Jeremiah’s 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 Josiah’s 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 Josiah’s reign. Jeremiah’s 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 greatgrandfather 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-andtwentieth year of the captivity, which was the sixteenth year from the destruction of Jerusalem, the time between Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 MAL’ACHI. 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., Wis. 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. 3:16): “Jehovah will roar out of Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem.” Then follows Obadiah, on account of the reciprocal relation between Obad. 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 Zephaniah’s 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, 14 b. 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.[4] [1] The title Tirshatha is probably to be explained according to the Armenian tir-saÑt,“lord of the kingdom or province.” Shatha is another form of the terminations to such names of towns as Artaxata (= Artasata, for saÑtis equivalent to the Persian khsatra), Samosata, etc. [2] See my article on Daniel in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia. [3] The office of national annalist among the ancient Persians (see Brissonius, De regno Persarum, i. § 229), and that of wakaÑjinuwÑs, or historian, which still exists at the Persian court, are perfectly similar in character. The Chinese have had their national historians from the time of Emperor Wu-ti of the Han dynasty (in the second century after Christ), and the annals of each dynasty are published on its extinction. The same institution existed in the kingdom of Barma, where the annals of every king were written after his death. [4] Isaiah was regarded as the consolatory prophet preeminently, and more especially on account of Isa. 40-66, so that, according to b. Berachoth, 57 b, whoever saw Isaiah in a dream might look for consolation; and, according to the Midrash on the Lamentations, Isaiah had previously rectified all the evils that Jeremiah foretold.

The Prophecies of Isaiah

Introduction

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 6:1-13. But, in any case, Isaiah commenced his ministry towards the close of Uzziah’s 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 Judah’s 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 world-embracing 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 Hezekiah’s 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 6:1-13, 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 Hezekiah’s reign, he took no further part in public affairs; but he lived till the commencement of Manasseh’s reign, when, according to a credible tradition, to which there is an evident allusion in Heb 11:37 (“they were sawn asunder”),According to b. Jebamoth, 49 b, it was found in a roll containing the history of a Jerusalem family; and according to Sanhedrin, 103 b, in the Targum on 2Ki 21:16. 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 2Ki 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 Amaziah’s 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 Azariah’s 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 Uzziah’s 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, 2Ch 26:2 : 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 Jeroboam’s 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 (2 Chron 26) is much more copious: the writer had our book of Kings before him, as 2Ch 26:3-4, 2Ch 26:21, 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, Uzziah’s 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 b'ashdod and b'phelistim (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 Uzziah’s 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 Gur-baal 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 Amaziah’s life - occupied in relation to the other wars, and at what part of Uzziah’s 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 Isa 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 king’s 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 king’s 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 Uzziah’s 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 Isaiah’s predictions, to which reference is here made; for in that case we should expect the same notice at the close of the account of Jotham’s reign, or, at any rate, at the close of that of Ahaz (cf., 2Ch 27:7 and 2Ch 28:26). It is also inconceivable that Isaiah’s 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., Shemaiah’s and Iddo’s - 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 Jotham’s 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 27:1-9). 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 Jotham’s 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 Uzziah’s reign, we may learn at least so much from him with regard to Uzziah’s 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 Jeroboam’s 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 (Amo 5:5); 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., Hos 1:7). But, at the same time, it has become full of carnal trust and manifold apostasy from Jehovah (Hos 5:10; Hos 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 (2 Kings 16; 2Ch 28:1), 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.On the temple at Damascus, whose altar Ahaz imitated, see the Commentary on the Book of Job. (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 2Ch 28:16, and “the sons” in 2Ch 24:25 : “burnt,” ויּבער, unless the reading  ויּעבר 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 l'aram (to Aram) into l'edom (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 ארומים for ארמּים 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 Caspari’s 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 Jotham’s 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 (2Ki 16:7): “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 2Ki 16:5 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 (2 Chron 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 Rezin’s 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 Ma'asejahu the king’s 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; 2Ch 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 God’s 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 prophet’s 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 2Ch 28:16, 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 2Ch 28:18 in the section reaching from 2Ch 28:5 to 2Ch 28:21 (viz., 2Ch 28:18, invasion of the Philistines; 2Ch 28:17, that of the Edomites) renders this certainly very probable, though it is not conclusive, as Caspari himself admits.

In 2Ch 28:20, 2Ch 28:21, 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 Hezekiah’s 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 king’s 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. Ewald’s 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 הסבdoes not mean to alter, and בית ה = בבית ה would be an unmeaning addition in the wrong place, which would only obscure the sense. If the great alterations mentioned in 2Ki 16:17 were made for the purpose of sending presents to the king of Assyria with or from the things that were removed, those described in 2Ki 16:18 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 king’s 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 (2Ki 16:6), hakkomim (2Ki 16:7), Dummesek (2Ki 16:10), and Aromim (2Ki 16:6); the name Tiglath-peleser;This mode of spelling the name, also the one adopted by the chronicler (Tiglath-pilnezer), are both incorrect. Pal is the Assyrian for son, and according to Oppert (Expédition Scientifique en Mésopotamie), the whole name would read thus: Tiglatḣpalli̇shiar, i.e., reverence to the son of the zodiac (the Assyrian Hercules). מכף instead of מיד, which is customary elsewhere; the rare and more colloquial term jehudim (Jews); the inaccurate construction את־המסגרות המכונות (2Ki 16:17); and the verb בּקּר (to consider, 2Ki 16:15), 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 Isaiah’s 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 Isaiah 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-Tāb'êl (“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 (2 Kings 18:13-20:19), which is also found in the book of Isaiah, and which will come under review in the commentary on Isaiah 36-39. All that is then left to the author of the book of Kings is 2Ki 18:1-12 and 2Ki 20:20, 2Ki 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 Hezekiah’s 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 17:1-14 in the history of Hosea’s reign,The Chabor nehar Gozan (Eng. ver.: Habor by the river of Gozan), which is mentioned in both passages among the districts to which the Israelitish exiles were taken, is no doubt the Châbūr, which flows into the Tigris from the east above Mosul, and of which it is stated in Merâsid ed . Juynboll, that “it comes from the mountains of the land of Zauzân,” a district of outer Armenia lying towards the Tigris, which is described by Edrisi in Jaubert’s translation, Pt. ii. p. 330. Another river, on the banks of which Ezekiel’s colony of exiles lived, is the Chebar, which flows from the north-east into the Euphrates, and the source of which is in the Mesopotamian town of Râs-el-'ain, a place celebrated through the marvellous springs of this Chaboras, the praises of which have often been sung. to describe Shalmanassar’s expedition against Israel in the fourth year of Hezekiah’s reign (the seventh of Hosea's), and the fall of Samaria, which took place, after a siege of three years, in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign, and the ninth of Hosea's. 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 2Ki 20:20, 2Ki 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 2 Chron 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 2Ch 29:2. Even in the month Nisan of the first year of his reign, Hezekiah re-opened 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 (Isa 29:3.). Hezekiah is introduced here (a fact of importance in relation to Isaiah 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 Isaiah 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 Hezekiah’s 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 Hezekiah’s 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 31:2., 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 32:1-26, 2Ch 32:31, belongs to a later period than the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s 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 2Ki 22:8-11 (which relates to precautions taken in the prospect of the approaching Assyrian siege). But the account of Hezekiah’s 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 starting-point and object the history of the prophet’s 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 Isaiah’s prophecies. As a whole, it is arranged chronologically. The dates given in Isa 6:1; Isa 7:1; Isa 14:28; Isa 20:1, are so many points in a progressive line. The three principal divisions also form a chronological series. For Isaiah 1-6 set forth the ministry of Isaiah under Uzziah-Jotham; Isaiah 7-39, his ministry under Ahaz and Hezekiah down to the fifteenth year of the reign of the latter; whilst Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 7-12) also precedes the Hezekiah group (Isaiah 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 Isaiah 1 is not the oldest, but is placed at the head as an introduction to the whole. The consecration of the prophet (Isa 6:1-13), 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 (Isaiah 7-12), is complete in itself, and, as it were, from one casting. And in the Hezekiah group (Isaiah 13-39) the chronological order is frequently interrupted again. The prophecies against the nations (Isa 14:24-32), which belong to the Assyrian period, have a massa upon Babel, the city of the world’s power, for their opening piece (Isaiah 13-14:23); a massa upon Tyre, the city of the world’s commerce, which was to be destroyed by the Chaldeans, for their finale (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 24-27), like rivers into a sea. The first part of the Hezekiah group, the contents of which are pre-eminently ethnic (Isaiah 13-27), are interwoven with passages which may not have been composed till after the fifteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The grand epilogue (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 27-33). This prediction closes with a declaration, in Isaiah 34-35, on the one hand, of the judgment of God upon the world of Israel’s foes; and on the other hand, of the redemption of Israel itself. This passage, which was composed after the fifteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign, is followed by the historical portions (Isaiah 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 Isaiah 7-35, but of Isaiah 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., Isaiah 1-39, and Isaiah 40-66. 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 (Isaiah 2-6). (2.) The consolation of Immanuel under the Assyrian oppressions (Isaiah 7-12). These two form a syzygy, which concludes with a psalm of the redeemed (Isa 12:1-6), the echo, in the last days, of the song at the Red Sea. The whole is divided by the consecration of the prophet (Isa 6:1-13), which looks backwards and forwards with threatenings and promises. It is introduced by a summary prologue (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 13-14:23); an oracle concerning Tyre, the city of the world’s commerce, which was to receive its mortal wound from the Chaldeans, the conclusion (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 34-35), in which we already hear, as in a prelude, the keynote of Isaiah 40-66. (7.) After these three syzygies we are carried back, in the first two historical accounts of Isaiah 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 Israel’s history tends. There, from this time forward, is Isaiah buried in spirit with his people. And there, in Isaiah 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 Rückert 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 Isaiah’s 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 Isaiah 13-14:23; Isa 21:1-10; 23; 24-27; 34-35, could have been composed by Isaiah, and (2.) if the historical accounts in Isaiah 36-39, which are also to be found in 2 Kings 18:13-20:19, 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 Isaiah 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 Isaiah 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. Rosenmüller, who was always very dependent upon his predecessors, was the first to question whether the oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13-14:23 was really Isaiah’s, 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 Isaiah 13-14:23, the second, in Isa 21:1-10, was also condemned; and Rosenmüller 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 Isaiah 23, which might either be left as Isaiah’s, 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 Rosenmüller, decided that it was not genuine. But Gesenius understood by the destroyers the Assyrians; and as the prophecy consequently did not extend beyond Isaiah’s 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 Isaiah 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 Isaiah 34-35, on account of its relation to the second part. Rosenmüller 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 swaddling-clothes 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 Isaiah’s, are no proof of the contrary, since Psa 2:1-12, for example, which has no heading at all, is cited in Act 4:25 as David’s, 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 Isaiah 9-14 is said to stand in precisely the same position as Isaiah 40-66, according to Hitzig, Ewald, and others; with this difference, however, that Isaiah 40-66 is attributed to a later prophet than Isaiah, whereas Zech. 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 Zech was written before the captivity, altered his views in the fourth edition; and Köhler 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 Isaiah 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 Isaiah’s 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 compiler’s 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 so-called 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 Isaiah 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 Isaiah’s spirit which animates the whole, Isaiah’s heart which beats, and Isaiah’s 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 prophet’s 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 counter-proofs, 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 prophet’s 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 Isaiah 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 (2 Kings 18:13-20:19) from any other source than the book of Isaiah. We have similar evidence in 2Ki 24:18. and Isa 25:1, as compared with Jer, 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 Isaiah’s prophetico-historical pen which committed to writing the accounts in Isaiah 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 full-blown 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,e.g., that of Abenezra, who regarded king Jehoiakim, who was set free in the thirty-seventh year of his Babylonian captivity, as the author of Isaiah 40-60.. 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 ever-deepening 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.

Calvin’s Commentarii answer the expectations with which we take them up; but Luther’s 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 reader’s 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 author’s 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. Rosenmüller’s 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. Hitzig’s 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. Hendewerk’s 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. Ewald’s 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 one’s taste. Umbreit’s 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. Knobel’s 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. Drechsler’s Commentary was a great advance in the exposition of Isaiah. He was only able to carry it out himself as far as Isa 27:1-13; but is was completed by Delitzsch and H. A. Hahn of Greifswald (†  1st Dec. 1861), with the use of Drechsler’s notes, though they contained very little that was of any service in relation to Isaiah 40-66. This was, comparatively speaking, the best commentary upon Isaiah that had appeared since the time of Vitringa, more especially the portion on Isaiah 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 Tübingen 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 Isaiah 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 6:1-13; 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 Isaiah’s 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 Isaiah 34, and therefore also to that of Isaiah 13:1-14:23, and Isa 21:1-10,” which appeared in the Zeitschrift für 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.

Isa 1:1 Title of the collection, as given in Isa 1:1 : “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 15 a), which was known to the fathers, that whenever the name of a prophet’s 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 10 b). 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 Isa 1:1, viz., Uzziah (who reigned 52 years, 811-759), Jotham (16 years, 759-743), Ahaz (16 years, 743-728), and Hezekiah (29 years, 728-699). 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 copyist’s error for וחזקיּהוּ or וחזקיּה; 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 Jesimiël from sim, 1Ch 4:36 : vid., Olshausen, §277, p. 621). Under these four kings Isaiah laboured, or, as it is expressed in Isa 1:1, saw the sight which is committed to writing in the book before us.

Of all the many Hebrew synonyms for seeing, חזה (cf., Cernere, κρίνειν, 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; Job 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 Isa 1:1 was originally nothing more than the heading to the first prophecy, and that it was only by the addition of Isa 1:1 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 Isa 1:1 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 chapter 7 the king of Israel, including Samaria, also comes within the horizon of the prophet’s 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 well-known 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 prophet’s 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 Isa 1:1 may pass without hesitation as the heading written by the prophet’s own hand. This is admitted not only by Caspari (Micah, pp. 90-93), but also by Hitzig and Knobel. But if Isa 1:1 contains the title to the whole book, where is the heading to the first prophecy? Are we to take אשׁר 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 Isa 1:1 as the heading to the first prophetic words in Chapter 1; but it is unnatural, as חזון אשׁר חזה, 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.

Isa 1:2

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 Uzziah-Jotham, 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 Uzziah’s reign, the twenty-fifth of Jeroboam II; Micah prophesied from the time of Jotham till the fall of Samaria, in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s 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 hâzinu (song of “Give ear”), from the opening words in chapter 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 Lord’s Prayer to all other prayers. The lawgiver summed up the whole of the prophetic contents of his last words (Deut. 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 1:2), 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 Israel’s 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; Deu 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” (Isa 1:2). 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 Jehovah’s son (Exo 4:22-23). All the members of the nation were His children (Deu 14:1; Deu 32:20). Jehovah was Israel’s father, by whom it had been begotten (Deu 32:6, Deu 32:18). 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 Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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 vv. 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 - Israel’s filial relation to Jehovah, and Israel’s 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 self-will; 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 prophet’s 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 master’s 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 Dietrich’s 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 φάτνη, vulgar πάτνη, Dor. and Lac. πάτνη, and is applied in the Talmud to the large common porringer used by labourers).Nedarim iv 4 jer. Demai viii. The stable is called repheth Even injer. Shebuoth viii. 1, where cattle are spoken of as standing b'evus, the word signifies a crib or manger, not a stable. Luzzatto tries to prove that evus signifies a threshing-floor, and indeed an enclosed place, in distinction from geren; but he is mistaken.

Israel had no such knowledge, neither instinctive and direct, nor acquired by reflection (hithbonan, the reflective conjugation, with a pausal change of the e4 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 Isa 1:2 and Isa 1:3 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 prophet’s mind.

With Isa 1:4 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 Israel’s 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. חטא 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 חטאי, 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. Num 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). עון (sin regarded as crookedness and perversity, whereas חטא 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; Gen 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 Israel’s true nature become. It is with deliberate intention that we have rendered גּוי a nation (Nation), and עם(am a people (Volk): for, according to Malbim’s 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; Isa 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; Isa 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 evil-doers” is just the same as “house of evil-doers” in Isa 31:2. The singular of the noun מרעים is  מרע , with the usual sharpening in the case of gutturals in the verbs (' '(, מרע with patach, מרע 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 (bânim mashchithim), so that what the thorah feared and predicted had now occurred (Deu 4:16, Deu 4:25; Deu 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 one’s self and to others. It is evident from Isa 1:2, that the term children is to be understood as indicating their relation to Jehovah (cf., Isa 30:1, Isa 30:9). The four interjectional clauses are followed by three declaratory clauses, which describe Israel’s 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, Num 14:23; Num 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 Isaiah’s 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 Israel’s 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. נזור is the reflective of זוּר, related to נור and סוּר, 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 מאחריו). 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 v. a disputed question arises as to the words על־מה (מה, the shorter, sharper form of מה, 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 Schröring, 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 hiccâh, to smite (Num 22:32), whilst it is only in Isa 1:6 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 1:5 we therefore render thus: “Why would ye be perpetually smitten, multiplying rebellion?” עוד (with tiphchah, a stronger disjunctive than tebir) belongs to תּכּוּ; 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.” Sârâh (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 Isa 1:5, “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. “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 פּצע 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 (Chabburâh, from Châbar, 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, maccâh teriyâh, from târâh, to be fresh (a different word from the talmudic word t're, Chullin 45 b, 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 ולא רּכּכה בּשּׁמן, which refers to חבורה (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 zóru), it has the tone upon the penultimate, for which it would be impossible to discover any reason, if it were derived from zârâh. For the assumption that the tone is drawn back to prepare the way for the strong tone of the next verb (Chubbâshu) 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, zorâh signifies to be dispersed, not to be pressed out; whereas zur and zârar 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., Isa 1:4) - the kal of zârar (= 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 v. from figurative language to literal, we may presume that he is still speaking of his own times. It is Isaiah’s custom to act in this manner as his own expositor (compare Isa 1:22 with Isa 1:23). 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 Isa 1:7, which commences with the most general view, and returns to it again at the close.”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, how nearly every word corresponds to the curses threatened in Lev 26 and Deut 28 (29); Mic 6:13-16 and Jer 5:15. 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 barōye, 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 Isa 1:7 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 v. 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 mahpechâh (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 Isa 1:8 clearly shows; we decide in favour of the conclusion that zârim 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 Isa 1:8, Isa 1:9 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 Isa 1:8 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; Jer 48:18; Zec 2:11). In this instance the latter are included, as Isa 1:9 clearly shows. This is precisely the point in the first two comparisons.

Isa 1:8 “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, dalâth, 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 watch-tower;” 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 nezurâh 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, Isa 1:8, “As a besieged city,” deriving nezurâh not from zur, niphal nâzor (never used), as Luzzatto does, but from nâzar, 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. 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 σπέρμα 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 כּמעט (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 prophet’s 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 Isa 1:9 and Isa 1:10. 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 (petuchah). 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 Isa 1:10, Isa 1:11, 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 prophet’s address commences, like the first, with “hear” and “give ear.” The summons to hear is addressed in this instances (as in the case of Isaiah’s contemporary Micah, Mic 3:1-12) to the kezinim (from kâzâh, 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 יאמר, not אמר: 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 zebâchim, i.e., animal sacrifices, had no worth at all to Him. As the whole worship is summed up here in one single act, zebâchim 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 zebâchim 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 shelâmim offerings. Of the sacrificial animals mentioned, the bullocks (pârim) and fed beasts (meri'im, fattened calves) are species of oxen (bakar); and the lambs (Cebashim) and he-goats (atturim, young he-goats, as distinguished from se'ir, 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 trespass-offering; 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 (Isa 7:22); Isaiah also applies it to visits to the temple: “When ye come to appear before my face, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?” לראות is a contracted infinitive niphal for להראות (compare the hiphil forms contracted in the same manner in Isa 3:8; Isa 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; Psa 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 ל, את, and אל? It is possible that לראות is pointed as it is here, and in Exo 34:24 and in Deu 31:11, instead of לראות - like יראוּ for יראוּ, in Exo 23:15; Exo 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; Exo 34:23, and 1Sa 1:22; and in the Mishnah and Talmud the terms ראיה and ראיון 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 1:13

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 meat-offering 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 azcârâh, 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 God’s 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 1:13. 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” (לא־אוּכל: 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. עצרה (from עצר, to press, or crowd thickly together) is synonymous with מקרא), so far as its immediate signification is concerned, as Jer 9:1 clearly shows, just as πανήγυρις is synonymous with εκκλησία . און (from אוּן, 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 self-consciousness, is yet the place in which he draws, as it were, the circle of self-consciousness, 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 self-consciousness; 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” (נשׂא), in Isaiah, even in Isa 18:3, for שׂאת or שׂאת ro , and here for לשׂאת: 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;The primary idea of hithpallel and tephillah is not to be obtained from Deu 9:18 and Ezr 10:1, as Dietrich and Fürst suppose, who make hithpallel equivalent to hithnappel, to throw one’s self down; but from 1Sa 2:25, “If a man sin against a man, the authorities right him” (וּפללו אלהים: it is quite a mistake to maintain that Elohim cannot have this meaning), i.e., they can set right the relation which he has disturbed. “But if one sin against Jehovah, who shall mediate for him (מי יתפּלּל־לו, quis intercedat pro eo)?” We may see from this that prayer is regarded as mediation, which sets right and establishes fellowship; and hithpallel signifies to make one’s self a healer of divisions, or to settle for one’s self, to strive after a settlement (sibi, pro se, intercedere: cf., Job 19:16, hithchannen, sibi propitium facere; Job 13:27, hithchakkah, sibi insculpere, like the Arabic ichtatta, to bound off for one’s self). it is the true spiritual sacrifice. The law contains no command to pray, and, with the exception of Deut 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 sham-holiness, which was corrupt even to this the last foundation, to its real nothingness. “Spread out,” parash, or pi pērēsh, 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.As Chittah signified corn standing in the field, and Chittim corn threshed and brought to the market, so damim was not blood when flowing through the veins, but when it had flowed out-in other words, when it had been violently shed. (For the Talmudic misinterpretation of the true state of the case, see my Genesis, p. 626.)

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 Isa 1:11-15 : 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 Isa 1:16, Isa 1:17, 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 râchatz, in the frequent middle sense of washing one’s self. Clean yourselves: hizdaccu, with the tone upon the last syllable, is not the niphal of zâkak, 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 one’s self, to clean one’s 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 ne‛gd, 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. הרע in Isa 1:16 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” (dârash, to devote one’s self to a thing with zeal and assiduity); and “bring the oppressor to the right way.” This is the true rendering, as Châmotz (from Châmatz, 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 בּגוד בּגודה (cf., נקד נקּדּה), 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 Chomeotz in Psa 71:4, and âshok in Jer 22:3, which is similar in its form. But if Châmotz signifies the oppressive, reckless, churlish man, אשּׁר cannot mean to make happy, or to congratulate, or to set up, or, as in the talmudic rendering, to strengthen (Luzzatto: rianimate chi è oppresso); but, as it is also to be rendered in Isa 3:12; Isa 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.The Talmud varies in its explanation of Chamoz: in one instance it is applied to a judge who lets his sentence be thoroughly leavened before pronouncing it; in another the Chamuz is said to signify a person robbed and injured, in opposition to Chomez (b. Sanhedrin 35 a). It is an instructive fact in relation to the idea suggested by the word, that, according to Joma 39 b, a man who had not only taken possession of his own inheritance, but had seized upon another person’s also, bore the nickname of ben chimzon as long as he lived.

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 protégés of God and His law, standing under His especial guardianship and care (see, for example, Exo 22:22 (21), cf., Exo 21:21 (20). “Do justice to the orphan” (Shâphat, as in Deu 25:1, is a contracted expression for shâphat 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:” ריב with an accusative, as in Isa 51:22, the only other passage in which it occurs, is a contracted form for ריב ריב. 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 Isa 1:10, 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 Isa 1:18 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 Isa 1:16, Isa 1:17. And now this love, which desired not Israel’s destruction, but Israel’s inward and outward salvation, breaks fully through. “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 Israel’s 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. Shâni, bright red (the plural shânim, as in Pro 31:21, signifies materials dyed with shâni), and tolâ, 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 (Isa 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 Israel’s own decision would Jehovah determine Israel’s future. “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 Isa 1:19 with Deu 28:3., Lev 26:3., and Isa 1:20 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, חרב תּאכלכם, for the sake of the paronomasia (Böttcher, 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 Isa 1:18-20 formed a separate parashah by themselves, viz., a sethumah, or parashah indicated by spaces left within the line. The piskah after Isa 1:20 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. איכה, and but rarely איך, 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 mâshōl (e.g., Isa 14:4, Isa 14:12; 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 מלאתי for מלאת, softened by lengthening, were adapted to elegiac compositions, from the first v. 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).We have translated the word kiryah “citadel” (Burg), instead of “city;” but Burg also became the name of the town which sprang up around the citadel, and the persons living in and around the Burg or citadel were called burgenses, “burghers.” Jerusalem, which was also called Zion, might be called, with quite as much right, a citadel (Burg), as a city.

This covenant was a marriage covenant. And she had broken it, and had thereby become a zonâh (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 v. 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 tzedâkâh). 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 Isaiah’s appearance), who restored the administration of justice, which had fallen into neglect since the closing years of Solomon’s reign and the time of Rehoboam and Abijah, to which Asa’s reformation had not extended, and re-organized 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 bâh, 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.It is well known that rebia has less force as a disjunctive than tiphchah, and that zakeph is stronger then either. With regard to the law, according to which bâh has rebia instead of zakeph, see Bär, Thorath Emeth, p. 70. To the copies enumerated by Luzzatto, as having the correct accentuation (including Brescia 1494, and Venice, by J. B. Chayim, 1526), we may add Plantin (1582), Buxtorf (1618), Nissel (1662), and many others (cf., Dachselt’s Biblia accentuata, which is not yet out of date).

Formerly righteousness, now “murderers” (merazzechim), and indeed, as distinguished from rozechim, murderers by profession, who formed a band, like king Ahab and his son (2Ki 6:32). The contrast was as glaring as possible, since murder is the direct opposite, the most crying violation, of righteousness.

Isa 1:22

The complaint now turns from the city generally to the authorities, and first of all figuratively. “Thy silver has become dross, thy drink mutilated with water.” It is upon this passage that the figurative language of Jer 6:27. 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 (Bähr, 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 l'sigim, 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; Pro 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 Isaiah’s time (cf., Nah 1:10). This pure, strong, and costly wine was now adulterated with water (lit. castratum, according to Pliny’s 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.

In Isa 1:23 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 (sârim). 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 (shâlom) that they hunted after (Psa 34:16), but shalmonimshalmonim, 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 Isa 1:18; 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; Isa 3:1; Isa 10:16, Isa 10:33; Isa 3:15). With three names, descriptive of the irresistible omnipotence of God, the irrevocable decree of a sifting judgment is sealed. The word נאּם, which is used here instead of אמר and points back to a verb נאם, related to נהם and המה, 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 one’s self). The two words are derived from kindred roots. The latter is conjugated with ĕ in the preformative syllable, the former with i, according to the older system of vowel-pointing adopted in the East.The so-called Assyrian mode of pointing, which was entirely supplanted, with the exception of a few relics, by the Tiberian mode which now lies before us, has no seghol (see DMZ. xviii. 322). According to Luzzatto (Proleg. p. 200), they wrote ektol instead of iktol, to avoid confounding it with יקטל, which was pronounced iktol, and not yiktol.

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 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 person’s 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 C'babbor: for this mode of dropping Beth after Caph, compare Isa 9:3; Lev 22:13, and many other passages). By bedilim (from bâdal, to separate) we are to understand the several pieces of stannum or leadPlumbum nigrum, says Pliny, n. n. xxiv. 16, is sometimes found alone, and sometimes mixed with silver: ejus qui primus fluic in fornacibus liquor, stannum appellatur. The reference here is to the lead separated from the ore in the process of obtaining pure silver. In the form of powder this dross is called bedil, and the pieces bedilim; whereas ophereth is the name of solid lead, obtained by simply melting down from ore which does not contain silver. The fact that bedil is also apparently used as a name for tin, may be explained in the same way as the homonymy of iron and basalt (Com. on Job 28:2), and of the oak and terebinth. The two metals are called by the same name on account of their having a certain outward resemblance, viz., in softness, pliability, colour, and specific gravity. 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 Isa 1:26 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 Israel’s history.

Isa 1:27 presents it in a brief and concise form: “Sion will be redeemed through judgment, and her returning ones through righteousness.” Mishpat and tzedâkâh are used elsewhere for divine gifts (Isa 33:5; Isa 28:6), for such conduct as is pleasing to God (Isa 1:21; Isa 32:16), and for royal Messianic virtues (Isa 9:6; Isa 11:3-5; Isa 16:5; Isa 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; Isa 5:16; Isa 28:17, as signifying God’s 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 thunder-clouds. 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 v. 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 declares how God’s judgment of destruction would fall upon all of these. The v. 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; Isa 65:3; Isa 66:17): Châmor and bâchar are also the words commonly applied to an arbitrary choice of false gods (Isa 44:9; Isa 41:24; Isa 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 Châpher, see the comm. on Psa 35:4.It is perfectly certain that Châpher (Arab. Chaphira, as distinguished from Châphar, hafara, to dig) signifies to blush, erubescere; but the combination of bosh and yâbash (bâda), which would give albescere or expallescere (to turn white or pale) as the primary idea of bosh, has not only the Arabic use of bayyada and ibyadda (to rejoice, be made glad) against it, but above all the dialectic bechath, bahita (bahuta), which, when taken in connection with bethath (batta), points rather to the primary idea of being cut off (abscindi: cf., spes abscissa). See Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, i. 263.

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.With regard to the derivation, êlim, whether used in the sense of strong men, or gods, or rams, or terebinths, is still but one word, derived from ı̄l or ūl, so that in all three senses it may be written either with or without Yod. Nevertheless elim in the sense of “rams” only occurs without Yod in Job 42:8. In the sense of “gods” it is always written without Yod; in that of “strong men” with Yod. In the singular the name of the terebinth is always written elah without Yod; in the plural, however, it is written either with or without. But this no more presupposes a singular êl (ayil) in common use, than bêtzim presupposes a singular bêts (bayits); still the word êl with Yod does occur once, viz., in Gen 14:6. Allâh and allōn, an oak, also spring from the same root, namely âlal = il; just as in Arabic both ı̄l and ill are used for ēl (God); and âl and ill, in the sense of relationship, point to a similar change in the form of the root.

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 distroyed, so that they resemble a terebinth withered as to its leaves, which in other cases are always green (nobleth ‛aleah, 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 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 החסון 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 פּעלו and פּעלו (cf., Isa 52:14 and Jer 22:13) are two equally admissible changes of the ground-form פעלו (פּעלו). As Isa 1:29 refers to idolatrous worship, poalo (his work) is an idol, a god made by human hands (cf., Isa 2:8; Isa 37:19, etc.). The prosperous idolater, who could give gold and silver for idolatrous images out of the abundance of his possessions (Châson 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 idolater’s 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 Isa 1:7-9 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 Isa 1:7-9 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 Syro-Ephraimitish war is supported by Gesenius, Rosenmüller (who expresses a different opinion in every one of the three editions of his Scholia), Maurer, Movers, Knobel, Hävernick, 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 6:1-13. Till then, the date of the composition of chapter 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.

Isaiah to Malachi

Those books of scripture are all prophetical of which here, in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling, we have endeavoured a methodical explication and a practical improvement. I call them prophetical because so they are for the main, though we have some histories (here and there brought in for the illustration of the prophecies) and a book of Lamentations. Our Saviour often puts the Law and the Prophets for all the Old Testament. The prophets, by waiving the ceremonial precepts, and not insisting on them, but only on the weightier matters of the law, plainly intimated the abolishing of that part of the law of Moses by the gospel; and by their many predictions of Christ, and the kingdom of his grace, they intimated the accomplishing the perfecting of that part of the law of Moses in the gospel. Thus the prophets were the nexus—the connecting bond between the law and the gospel, and are therefore fitly placed between them.

These books, being prophetical, are, as such, divine, and of heavenly origin and extraction. We have human laws, human histories, and human poems, as well as divine ones, but we can have no human prophecies. Wise and good men may make prudent conjectures concerning future events (moral prognostications we call them); but it is essential to true prophecy that it be of God. The learned HuetiusDemonstrat. Evang. pag. 15. lays this down for one of his axioms, Omnis prophetica facultas à Deo est—The prophetic talent is entirely from God; and he proves it to be the sense both of Jews and heathen that it is God's prerogative to foresee things to come, and that whoever had such a power had it from God. And therefore the Jews reckon all prophecy to be given by the highest degree of inspiration, except that which was peculiar to Moses. When our Saviour asked the chief priests whether John's baptism were from heaven or of men, they durst not say Of men, because the people counted him a prophet, and, if so, then not of men. The Hebrew name for a prophet is nby'—a speaker, preacher, or orator, a messenger, or interpreter, that delivers God's messages to the children of men, as a herald to proclaim war or an ambassador to treat of peace. But then it must be remembered that he was formerly called r'h or hsh, that is, a seer (1 Sam. ix. 9); for prophets, with the eyes of their minds, first saw what they were to speak and then spoke what they had seen.

Prophecy, taken strictly, is the foretelling of things to come; and there were those to whom God gave this power, not only that it might be a sign for the confirming of the faith of the church concerning the doctrine preached when the things foretold should be fulfilled, but for warning, instruction, and comfort, in prospect of what they themselves might not live to see accomplished, but which should be fulfilled in its season: so predictions of things to come long after might be of present use.

The learned Dr. GrewCosmol. sacra, lib. 4, cap. 6. describes prophecy in this sense to be, "A declaration of the divine prescience, looking at any distance through a train of infinite causes, known and unknown to us, upon a sure and certain effect." Hence he infers, "That the being of prophecies supposes the non-being of contingents; for, though there are many things which seem to us to be contingents, yet, were they so indeed, there could have been no prophecy; and there can be no contingent seemingly so loose and independent but it is a link of some chain." And Huetius gives this reason why none but God can foretel things to come, Because every effect depends upon an infinite number of preceding causes, all which, in their order, must be known to him that foretels the effect, and therefore to God only, for he alone is omniscient. So Tully argues: Qui teneat causas rerum futurarum, idem necesse est omnia teneat quæ futura sint; quod facere nemo nisi Deus potest—He who knows the causes of future events must necessarily know the events themselves; this is the prerogative of God alone.Cicero de Divin. lib. 1. And therefore we find that by this the God of Israel proves himself to be God, that by his prophets he foretold things to come, which came to pass according to the prediction, Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. And by this he disproves the pretensions of the Pagan deities, that they could not show the things that were to come to pass hereafter, Isa. xli. 23. Tertullian proves the divine authority of the scripture from the fulfilling of scripture-prophecies: Idoneum, opinor, testimonium divinitatis, veritas divinationis—I conceive the accomplishment of prophecy to be a satisfactory attestation from God.(Apol. cap. 20). And, besides the foretelling of things to come, the discovering of things secret by revelation from God is a branch of prophecy, as Ahijah's discovering Jeroboam's wife in disguise, and Elisha's telling Gehazi what passed between him and Naaman. ButDu Pin, Hist. of the Canon. lib. 1, cap. 2. prophecy, in scripture language, is taken more largely for a declaration of such things to the children of men, either by word or writing, as God has revealed to those that speak or write it, by vision, dream, or inspiration, guiding their minds, their tongues, and pens, by his Holy Spirit, and giving them not only ability, but authority, to declare such things in his name, and to preface what they say with, Thus saith the Lord. In this sense it is said, The prophecy of scripture came not in old time by the will of man, as other pious moral discourses might, but holy men spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 20, 21. The same Holy Spirit that moved upon the face of the waters to produce the world moved upon the minds of the prophets to produce the Bible.

Now I think it is worthy to be observed that all nations, having had some sense of God and religion, have likewise had a notion of prophets and prophecy, have had a veneration for them, and a desire and expectation of acquaintance and communion with the gods they worshipped in that way. Witness their oracles, their augurs, and the many arts of divination they had in use among them in all the ages and all the countries of the world.

It is commonly urged as an argument against the atheists, to prove that there is a God, That all nations of the world acknowledged some god or other, some Being above them, to be worshipped and prayed to, to be trusted in and praised; the most ignorant and barbarous nations could not avoid the knowledge of it; the most learned and polite nations could not avoid the belief of it. And this is a sufficient proof of the general and unanimous consent of mankind to this truth, though far the greatest part of men made to themselves gods which yet were no gods. Now I think it may be urged with equal force against the Deists, for the proof of a divine revelation, that all nations of the world had, and had veneration for, that which they at least took to be a divine revelation, and could not live without it, though in this also they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. But, if there were not a true deity and a true prophecy, there would never have been pretended deities and counterfeit prophecies.

Lycurgus and Numa, those two great lawgivers of the Spartan and Roman commonwealths, brought their people to an observance of their laws by possessing them with a notion that they had them by divine revelation, and so making it a point of religion to observe them. And those that have been ever so little conversant with the Greek and Roman histories, as well as with the more ancient ones of Chaldea and Egypt cannot but remember what a profound deference their princes and great commanders, and not their unthinking commonalty only, paid to the oracles and prophets, and the prognostications of their soothsayers, which, in all cases of importance, were consulted with abundance of gravity and solemnity, and how often the resolutions of councils and the motions of mighty armies turned upon them, though they appeared ever so groundless and farfetched.

There is a full account given by that learned philosopher and physician Caspar PeucerDe Præcipuis Divinationum Generibus, A. 1591. of the many kinds of divination and prediction used among the Gentiles, by which they took on them to tell the fortune both of states and particular persons. They were all, he says, reduced by Plato to two heads: Divinatio Mantike, which was a kind of inspiration, or was though to be so, the prophet or prophetess foretelling things to come by an internal flatus or fury; such was the oracle of Apollo at Delphos, and that of Jupiter Trophonius, which, with others like them, were famous for many ages, during the prevalency of the kingdom of darkness, but (as appears by some of the Pagan writers themselves) they were all silenced and struck dumb, when the gospel (that truly divine oracle) began to be preached to the nations. The other kind of divination was that which he calls Oionistike, which was a prognostication by signs, according to rules of art, as by the flight of birds, the entrails of beasts, by stars or meteors, and abundance of ominous accidents, with which a foolish world was miserably imposed upon. A large account of this matter we have also in the late learned dissertations of Anton. Van Dale, to which I refer the reader.De Verâ ac Falsâ Prophetiâ, A. 1696. But nothing of this kind made a greater noise in the Gentile world than the oracles of the Sibyls and their prophecies. Their name signifies a divine counsel: Sibyllæ, qu. Siobulæ, Sios, in the Æolic dialect, being put for Theos. Peucer says, "Almost every nation had its Sibyls, but those of Greece were most celebrated." They lived in several ages; the most ancient is said to be the Sibylla Delphica, who lived before the Trojan war, or about that time. The Sibylla Erythrea was the most noted; she lived about the time of Alexander the Great. But it the Sibylla Cumana of whom the story goes that she presented herself, and nine books of oracles, to Tarquinius Superbus, which she offered to sell him at so vast a rate that he refused to purchase them, upon which she burnt three, and, upon his second refusal, three more, but made him give the same rate for the remaining three, which were deposited with great care in the Capitol. But, those being afterwards burnt accidentally with the Capitol, a collection was made of other Sibylline oracles, and those are they which Virgil refers to in his fourth Eclogue.Vid. Virg. Æneid. lib. 6. All the oracles of the Sibyls that are extant were put together, and published, in Holland, not many years ago, by Seryatius Gallæus, in Greek and Latin, with large and learned notes, together with all that could be met with of the metrical oracles that go under the names of Jupiter, Apollo, Serapis, and others, by Joannes Opsopæus.

The oracles of the Sibyls were appealed to by many of the fathers for the confirmation of the Christian religion. Justin MartyrAd Græcos Cohortat. juxta finem. appeals with a great deal of assurance, persuading the Greeks to give credit to that ancient Sibyl, whose works were extant all the world over; and to their testimony, and that of Hydaspis, he appeals concerning the general conflagration and the torments of hell. Clemens AlexandrinusApol. 2. p. mihi. 66. l. often quotes the Sibyls' verses with great respect; so does Lactantius;Quæst. et Respons. p. 436. St. Austin,(Aug. de Div. Dei, lib. 18, cap. 23.) De Civitate Dei, has the famous acrostic at large, said to be one of the oracles of the Sibylla Erythrea, the first letters of the verses making Iesous Christos Theou hyios Soter—Jesus Christ the Son of God the Saviour. Divers passages they produce out of those oracles which expressly foretel the coming of the Messiah, his being born of a virgin, his miracles, his sufferings, particularly his being buffeted, spit upon, crowned with thorns, having vinegar and gall given him to drink, &c. Whether these oracles were genuine and authentic or no has been much controverted among the learned. Baronius and the popish writers generally admit and applaud them, and build much upon them; so do some protestant writers; Isaac Vossius has written a great deal to support the reputation of them, and (as I find him quoted by Van Dale) will needs have it that they were formerly a part of the canon of scripture; and a learned prelate of our own nation, Bishop Montague, pleads largely, and with great assurance, for their authority, and is of opinion that some of them were divinely inspired. But many learned men look upon it to be a pious fraud, as they call it, concluding that those verses of the Sibyls which speak so very expressly of Christ and the future state were forged by some Christians and imposed upon the over-credulous. Huetius,Demonstrat. p. 748. though of the Romish church, condemns both the ancient and more modern compositions of the Sibyls, and refers his reader, for the proof of their vanity, to the learned Blondel. Van Dale and Gallæus look upon them to be a forgery. And the truth is they speak so much more particularly and plainly concerning our Saviour and the future state than any of the prophets of the Old Testament do, that we must conclude St. Paul, who was the apostle of the Gentiles, guilty not only of a very great omission (that in all his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, and in all his epistles to the Gentile churches, he never so much as mentions the prophecies of the Sibyls, nor vouches their authority, as he does that of the Old-Testament prophets, in his preaching and writing to the Jews), but likewise of a very great mistake, in making it the particular advantage which the Jews had above the Gentiles that to them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 1, 2), and that they were the children of the prophets, while he speaks of the Gentiles as sitting in darkness and being afar off. We cannot conceive that heathen women, and those actuated by dæmons, should speak more clearly and fully of the Messiah than those holy men did who, we are sure, were moved by the Holy Ghost, nor that the Gentiles should be entrusted with larger and earlier discoveries of the great salvation than that people of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ was to come. But enough, if not more than enough, of the pretenders to prophecy. It is a good remark which the learned Gallæus makes upon the great veneration which the Romans had for the oracles of the Sibyls, for which he quotes Dionysius Halicarnassæus, Ouden oute Romaioi phylattousin, oute hosion ktema oute hieron, hos ta Sibylleia thesphata—The Romans preserve nothing with such sacred care, nor do they hold any thing in such high estimation, as the Sibylline oracles. Hi si pro vitreis suis thesauris adeò decertarunt, quid nos pro genuinis nostris, à Deo inspiratis?—If they had such a value for these counterfeits, how precious should the true treasure of the divine oracles be to us! Of these we come next to speak.

Prophecy, we are sure, was of equal date with the church; for faith comes, not by thinking and seeing, as philosophy does, but by hearing, by hearing the word of God, Rom. x. 17. In the antediluvian period Adam received divine revelation in the promise of the Seed of the woman, and no doubt communicated it in the name of the Lord, to his seed, and was prophet, as well as priest, to his numerous family. Enoch was a prophet, and foretold perhaps the deluge, certainly the last judgment, that of the great day. Behold the Lord comes, Jude 14. When men began, as a church, to call upon the name of the Lord (Gen. iv. 26), or to call themselves by his name, they were blessed with prophets, for the prophecy came in old time (2 Pet. i. 21); it is venerable for its antiquity. When God renewed his covenant of providence (and that a figure of the covenant of grace) with Noah and his sons, we soon after find Noah, as a prophet, foretelling, not only the servitude of Canaan, but God's enlarging Japhet by Christ, and his dwelling in the tents of Shem, Gen. ix. 26, 27. And when, upon the general revolt of mankind to idolatry (as, in the former period, upon the apostasy of Cain), God distinguished a church for himself by the call of Abraham, and by his covenant with him and his seed, he conferred upon him and the other patriarchs the spirit of prophecy; for, when he reproved kings for their sakes, he said, Touch not my anointed, who have received that unction from the Holy One, and do my prophets no harm, Ps. cv. 14, 15. And of Abraham he said expressly, He is a prophet (Gen. xx. 7); and it was with a prophetic eye, as a seer, that Abraham saw Christ's day (John viii. 56), saw it as so great a distance, and yet with so great an assurance triumphed in it. And Stephen seems to speak of the first settling of a correspondence between him and God, by which he was established to be a prophet, when he says, The God of glory appeared to him (Acts vii. 2), appeared in glory. Jacob, upon his death-bed, as a prophet, told his sons what should befal them in the last days (Gen. xlix. 1), and spoke very particularly concerning the Messiah.

Hitherto was the infancy of the church, and with it of prophecy; it was the dawning of that day; and that morning-light owed its rise to the Sun of righteousness, though he rose not till long after, but it shone more and more. During the bondage of Israel in Egypt, this, as other glories of the church, was eclipsed; but, as the church made a considerable and memorable advance in the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and the forming of them into a people, so did the Spirit of prophecy in Moses, the illustrious instrument employed in that great service; and it was by that Spirit that he performed that service; so it is said, Hos. xii. 13, By a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved through the wilderness to Canaan, that is, by Moses as a prophet. It appears, by what God said to Aaron, that there were then other prophets among them, to whom God made known himself and his will in dreams and visions (Num. xii. 6), but to Moses he spoke in a peculiar manner, mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, Num. xii. 8. Nay, such a plentiful effusion was there of the Spirit of prophecy at that time (because Moses was such a prophet as was to be a type of Christ the great prophet) that some of his Spirit was put upon seventy elders of Israel at once, and they prophesied, Num. xi. 25. What they said was extraordinary, and not only under the direction of a prophetic inspiration, but under the constraint of a prophetic impulse, as appears by the case of Eldad and Meded.

When Moses, that great prophet, was laying down his office, he promised Israel that the Lord God would raise them up a prophet of their brethren like unto him, Deut. xviii. 15, 18. In these words, says the learned Bishop StillingfleetOrig. Sacr. B. 2, c. 4. though, in their full and complete sense, they relate to Christ, and to him they are more than once applied in the New Testament), there is included a promise of an order of prophets, which should succeed Moses in the Jewish church, and be the logia zonta—the living oracles among them (Acts vii. 38), by which they might know the mind of God; for, in the next words, he lays down rules for the trial of prophets, whether what they said was of God or no, and it is observable that that promise comes in immediately upon an express prohibition of the Pagan rites of divination and the consulting of wizards and familiar spirits: "You shall not need to do that" (said Moses), "for, to your much better satisfaction, you shall have prophets divinely inspired, by whom you may know from God himself both what to do and what to expect." But as Jacob's dying prophecy concerning the sceptre in Judah, and the lawgiver between his feet, did not begin to be remarkably fulfilled till David's time, most of the Judges being of other tribes, so Moses's promise of a succession of prophets began not to receive its accomplishment till Samuel's time, a little before the other promise began to emerge and operate; and it was an introduction to the other, for it was by Samuel, as a prophet, that David was anointed king, which was an intimation that the prophetical office of our Redeemer should make way, both in the world and in the heart, for his kingly office; and therefore when he was asked, Art thou a king? (John xviii. 37) he answered, not evasively, but very pertinently, I came to bear witness to the truth, and so to rule as a king purely by the power of truth.

During the government of the Judges there was a pouring out of the Spirit, but more as a Spirit of skill and courage for war than as a Spirit of prophecy. Deborah is indeed called prophetess, because of her extraordinary qualifications for judging Israel; but that is the only mention of prophecy, that I remember, in all the book of Judges. Extraordinary messages were sent by angels, as to Gideon and Manoah; and it is expressly said that before the word of the Lord came to Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 1) it was precious, it was very scarce, there was no open vision. And it was therefore with more than ordinary solemnity that the word of the Lord came first to Samuel; and by degrees notice and assurance were given to all Israel that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord, 1 Sam. iii. 20. In Samuel's time, and by him, the schools of the prophets were erected, by which prophecy was dignified and provision made for a succession of prophets; for it should seem that in those colleges, hopeful young men were bred up in devotion, in a constant attendance upon the instruction the prophets gave from God, and under a strict discipline, as candidates, or probationers, for prophecy, who were called the sons of the prophets; and their religious exercises of prayer, conference, and psalmody especially, are called prophesyings; and their præfect, or president, is called their father, 1 Sam. x. 12. Out of these God ordinarily chose the prophets he sent; and yet not always: Amos was no prophet nor prophet's son (Amos vii. 14), had not his education in the schools of the prophets, and yet was commissioned to go on God's errands, and (which is observable) though he had not academical education himself, yet he seems to speak of it with great respect when he reckons it among the favours God had bestowed upon Israel that he raised up of their sons for prophets and of their young men for Nazarites, Amos ii. 11.

It is worth noting that when the glory of the priesthood was eclipsed by the iniquity of the house of Eli, the desolations of Shiloh, and the obscurity of the ark, there was then a more plentiful effusion of the Spirit of prophecy than had been before; a standing ministry of another kind was thereby erected, and a succession of it kept up. And thus afterwards, in the kingdom of the ten tribes, where there was no legal priesthood at all, yet there were prophets and prophets; sons; in Ahab's time we meet with a hundred of them, whom Obadiah his by fifty in a cave, 1 Kings xviii. 4. When the people of God, who desired to know his mind, were deprived of one way of instruction, God furnished them with another, and a less ceremonious one; for he left not himself without witness, nor them without a guide. And when they had no temple or altar that they could attend upon with any safety or satisfaction then had private meetings at the prophets' houses, to which the devout faithful worshippers of God resorted (as we find the good Shunamite did, 2 Kings iv. 23), and where they kept their new-moons and their sabbaths, comfortably, and to their edification.

David was himself a prophet; so St. Peter calls him (Acts ii. 30); and, though we read not of God's speaking to him by dreams and visions, yet we are sure that the Spirit of the Lord spoke by him, and his word was in his tongue (2 Sam. xxiii. 2), and he had those about him that were seers, that were his seers, as Gad and Iddo, that brought him messages from God, and wrote the history of his times. And now the productions of the Spirit of prophecy were translated into the service of the temple, not only in the model of the house which the Lord made David understand in writing by his hand upon him (1 Chron. xxviii. 19), but in the worship performed there; for there we find Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, prophesying with harps and other musical instruments, according to the order of the king, not to foretel things to come, but to give thanks and to praise the Lord (1 Chron. xxv. 1-3); yet, in their psalms, they spoke much of Christ and his kingdom, and the glory to be revealed.

In the succeeding reigns, both of Judah and Israel, we frequently meet with prophets sent on particular errands to Rehoboam, Jeroboam, Asa, and other kings, who, it is probable, instructed the people in the things of God at other times, though it is not recorded. But, prophecy growing into contempt with many, God revived the honour of it, and put a new lustre upon it, in the power given to Elijah and Elisha to work miracles, and the great things that God did by them for the confirming of the people's faith in it, and the awakening of their regard to it, 2 Kings ii. 3; iv. 1, 38; v. 22; vi. 1. In their time, and by their agency, it should seem, the schools of the prophets were revived, and we find sons of the prophets, fellows of those sacred colleges, employed in carrying messages to the great men, as to Ahab (2 Kings ix. 1.

Hitherto, the prophets of the Lord delivered their messages by word of mouth, only we read of one writing which came from Elijah the prophet to Jehoram king of Israel, 2 Chron. xxi. 12. The histories of those times which are left us were compiled by prophets, under a divine direction; and, when the Old Testament is divided into the law and the Prophets, the historical books are, for that reason, reckoned among the prophets. But, in the later times of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, some of the prophets were divinely inspired to write their prophecies, or abstracts of them, and to leave them upon record, for the benefit of after-ages, that the children who should be born might praise the Lord for them, and, by comparing the event with the prediction, might have their faith confirmed. And, probably, those later prophets spoke more fully and plainly of the Messiah and his kingdom than their predecessors had done, and for that reason their prophecies were put in writing, not only for the encouragement of the pious Jews that looked for the consolation of Israel, but for the use of us Christians, upon whom the ends of the world have come, as David's psalms had been for the same reason, that the Old Testament and the New might mutually give light and lustre to each other. Many other faithful prophets there were at the same time, who spoke in God's name, who did not commit their prophecies to writing, but were of those whom God sent, rising up betimes and sending them, the contempt of whom, and of their messages, brought ruin without remedy upon that sottish people, that knew not the day of their visitation. In their captivity they had some prophets, some to show them how long; and though it was not by a prophet, like Moses, that they were brought out of Babylon, as they had been out of Egypt, but by Joshua the high priest first, and afterwards by Ezra the scribe, to show that God can do his work by ordinary means when he pleases, yet, soon after their return, the Spirit of prophecy was poured out plentifully, and continued (according to the Jews' computation) forty years in the second temple, but ceased in Malachi. Then (say the rabbin) the Holy Spirit was taken from Israel, and they had the benefit only of the Bathkol—the daughter of a voice, that is, a voice from heaven, which they look upon to be the lowest degree of divine revelation. Now herein they are witnesses against themselves for rejecting the true Messiah, for our Lord Jesus, and he only was spoken to by a voice from heaven at his baptism, his transfiguration, and his entrance on his sufferings.

In John the Baptist prophecy revived, and therefore in him the gospel is said to begin, when the church had had no prophets for above 300 years. We have not only the vox populi—the voice of the people to prove John a prophet, for all the people counted him so, but vox Dei—the voice of God too; for Christ calls him a prophet, Matt. xi. 9, 10. He had an extraordinary commission from God to call people to repentance, was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, and was therefore called the prophet of the Highest, because he went before the face of the Lord, to prepare his way (Luke i. 15, 16); and though he did no miracle, nor gave any sign or wonder, yet this proved him a true prophet, that all he said of Christ was true, John x. 41. Nay, and this proved him more than a prophet, than any of the other prophets, that whereas by other prophets Christ was discovered as at a great distance, by him he was discovered as already come, and he was enabled to say, Behold the Lamb of God. But after the ascension of our Lord Jesus there was a more plentiful effusion of the Spirit of prophecy than ever before; then was the promise fulfilled that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (and not as hitherto upon the Jews only), and their sons and their daughters should prophesy, Acts ii. 16, &c. The gift of tongues was one new product of the Spirit of prophecy, and given for a particular reason, that, the Jewish pale being taken down, all nations might be brought into the church. These and other gifts of prophecy, being for a sign, have long since ceased and laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast, 2 Pet. i. 19. All God's spiritual Israel know that they are established to be the oracles of God (1 Sam. iii. 20), and if any add to, or take from, the book of that prophecy, they may read their doom in the close of it; God shall take blessings from them, and add curses to them, Rev. xxii. 18, 19).

Now concerning the prophets of the Old Testament, whose writings are before us, observe,

I. That they were all holy men. We are assured by the apostle that the prophecy came in old time by holy men of God (and men of God they were commonly called, because they were devoted to him), who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. They were men, subject to like passions as we are (so Elijah, one of the greatest of them, is said to have been, Jam. v. 17); but they were holy men, men that in the temper of their minds, and the tenour of their lives, were examples of serious piety. Though there were many pretenders, that, without warrant, said Thus saith the Lord, when he sent them not, and some that prophesied in Christ's name, but he never knew them, and they indeed were workers of iniquity (Matt. vii. 22, 23), and though the cursing blaspheming lips of Balaam and Caiaphas, even when they actually designed mischief, were over-ruled to speak oracles, yet none were employed and commissioned to speak as prophets but those that had received the Spirit of grace and sanctification; for holiness becomes God's house. The Jewish doctors universally agree in this rule, That the Spirit of prophecy never rests upon any but a holy and wise man, and one whose passions are allayed,See Mr. Smith on Prophecy. or, as others express it, a humble man and a man of fortitude, that is, one that has power to keep his sensual animal part in due subjection to religion and right reason. And some of themGemara Schab. c. 2. give this rule, That the Spirit of prophecy does not reside where there are either, on the one hand, grief and melancholy, or, on the other hand, laughter and lightness of behaviour, and impertinent idle talk: and it is commonly observed by them, both from the musical instruments used in the schools of the prophets in Samuel's time and from the instance of Elisha's calling for a minstrel (2 Kings iii. 15), that the divine presence does not reside with sadness, but with cheerfulness, and Elisha, they say, had not yet recovered himself from the sorrow he conceived at parting with Elijah. They have also a tradition (but I know no ground for it) that all the while Jacob mourned for Joseph, the Shechinah, or Holy Spirit, withdrew from him. Yet I believe that when David intimates that by his sin in the matter of Uriah he had lost the right Spirit, and the free Spirit, Ps. li. 10, 12 (which therefore he begs might be renewed in him and restored to him), it was not because he was under grief, but because he was under guilt. And therefore, in order to the return of that right and free Spirit, he prays that God would create in him a clean heart.

II. That they had all a full assurance in themselves of their divine mission; and (though they could not always prevail to satisfy others) they were abundantly satisfied themselves that what they delivered as from God, and in his name, was indeed from him; and with the same assurance did the apostles speak of the word of life, as that which they had heard, and seen, and looked on, and which their hands had handled, 1 John i. 1. Nathan spoke from himself when he encouraged David to build the temple, but afterwards knew he spoke from God when, in his name, he forbade him to do it. God had various ways of making known to his prophets the messages they were to deliver to his people; it should seem, ordinarily, to have been by the ministry of angels. In the Apocalypse Christ is expressly said to have signified by his angel to his servant John, Rev. i. 1. It was sometimes done in a vision when the prophet was awake, sometimes in a dream when the prophet was asleep, and sometimes by a secret but strong impression upon the mind of the prophet. But Maimonides has laid down, as a maxim, That all prophecy makes itself known to the prophet that it is prophecy indeed; that is, says another of the rabbin, By the vigour and liveliness of the perception whereby he apprehends the thing propounded (which Jeremiah intimates when he says, The word of the Lord was as a fire in my bones, Jer. xx. 9), and therefore they always spoke with great assurance, knowing they should be justified, Isa. i. 7.

III. That in their prophesying, both in receiving their message from God and in delivering it to the people, they always kept possession of their own souls. Dan. x. 8. Though sometimes their bodily strength was overpowered by the abundance of the revelations, and their eyes were dazzled with the visionary light, as in the instances of Daniel and John (Rev. i. 17), yet still their understanding remained with them, and the free exercise of their reason. This is excellently well expressed by a learned writer of our own:Smith on Prophecy, p. 190. "The prophetical Spirit, seating itself in the rational powers as well as in the imagination, did never alienate the mind, but inform and enlighten it; and those that were actuated by it always maintained a clearness and consistency of reason, with strength and solidity of judgment. "For" (says he afterwardsPag. 266.) "God did not make use of idiots or fools to reveal his will by, but such whose intellects were entire and perfect; and he imprinted such a clear copy of his truth upon them as that it became their own sense, being digested fully into their understandings, so that they were able to deliver and represent it to others as truly as any can paint forth his own thoughts." God's messengers were speaking men, not speaking trumpets. The Fathers frequently took notice of this difference between the prophets of the Lord and the false prophets—that the pretenders to prophecy (who either were actuated by an evil spirit or were under the force of a heated imagination) underwent alienations of mind, and delivered what they had to say in the utmost agitation and disorder, as the Pythian prophetess, who delivered her infernal oracles with many antic gestures, tearing her hair and foaming at the mouth. And by this rule they condemned the Montanists, who pretended to prophecy, in the second century, that what they said was in a way of ecstasy, not like rational men, but like men in a frenzy. Chrysostom,In 1 Co. 12. 1. having described the furious violent motions of the pretenders to prophecy, adds, Ho de Prophetes ouch houtos—A true prophet does not do so. Sed mente sobriâ, et constanti animi staut, et intelligens quæ profert, omnia pronunciat—He understands what he utters, and utters it soberly and calmly. And Jerome, in his preface to his Commentaries upon Nahum, observes that it is called the book of the vision of Nahum. Non enim loquitur en ekstasei, sed est liber intelligentis omnia quæ loquitur—For he speaks not in an ecstasy, but as one who understands every thing he says. And again,Prolog. in Habac. Non ut amens loquitur propheta, nec in morem insanientium foeminarum dat sine mente sonum—The prophet speaks not as an insane person, nor like women wrought into fury, does he utter sound without sense.

IV. That they all aimed at one and the same thing, which was to bring people to repent of their sins and to return to God and to do their duty to him. This was the errand on which all God messengers were sent, to beat down sin, and to revive and advance serious piety. The burden of every son was, Turn you now every one from his evil way; amend your ways and your doings, and execute judgment between a man and his neighbour, Zech. vii. 8, 9; viii. 16. The scope and design of all their prophecies were to enforce the precepts and sanctions of the law of Moses, the moral law, which is of universal and perpetual obligation. Here is nothing of the ceremonial institutes, of the carnal ordinances that were imposed only till the times of reformation, Heb. ix. 10. Those were now waxing old and ready to vanish away; but they make it their business to press the great and weighty matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and truth.

V. That they all bore witness to Jesus Christ and had an eye to him. God raising up the horn of salvation for us, in the house of his servant David, was consonant to, and in pursuance of, what he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets who have been since the world began, Luke i. 69, 70. They prophesied of the grace that should come to us, and it was the Spirit of Christ in them, one and the same Spirit, that testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. Christ was then made known, and yet comparatively hid, in the predictions of the prophets, as before in the types of the ceremonial law. And the learned HuetiusDemonstrat. Evang. p. 737. observes it as really admirable that so many persons, in different ages, should conspire with one consent, as it were, to foretel, some one particular and others another, concerning Christ, all which had, at length, their full accomplishment in him. Ab ipsis mundi incunabulis, per quatuor annorum millia, uno ore venturum Christum prædixerunt viri complures, in ejusque ortu, vitâ, virtutibus, rebus gestis, morte, ac totâ denique Oikonomia præmonstranda consenserunt—From the earliest period of time, for 4000 years, a great number of men have predicted the advent of Christ, and presented a harmonious statement of his birth, life, character, actions, and death, and of that economy which he came to establish.

VI. That these prophets were generally hated and abused in their several generations by those that lived with them. Stephen challenges his judges to produce an instance to the contrary: Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? Yea, and, as it should seem, for this reason, because they showed before of the coming of the Just One, Acts vii. 52. Some there were that trembled at the word of God in their mouths, but by the most they were ridiculed and despised, and (as ministers are now by profane people) made a jest of (Hos. ix. 7); the prophet was the fool in the play. Wherefore came this mad fellow unto thee? (2 Kings ix. 11) said one of the captains concerning one of the sons of the prophets! The Gentiles never treated their false prophets so ill as the Jews did their true prophets, but, on the contrary, had them always in veneration. The Jews' mocking the messengers of the Lord, killing the prophets, and stoning those that were sent unto them, was as amazing unaccountable an instance of the enmity that is in the carnal mind against God as any that can be produced. And this makes their rejection of Christ's gospel the less strange, that the Spirit of prophecy, which, for many ages, was so much the glory of Israel, in every age met with so much opposition, and there were those that always resisted the Holy Ghost in the prophets, and turned that glory into shame, Acts vii. 51. But this was it that was the measure-filling sin of Israel, that brought upon them both their first destruction by the Chaldeans and their final ruin by the Romans, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16.

VII. That though men slighted these prophets, God owned them and put honour upon them. As they were men of God, his immediate servants and his messengers, so he always showed himself the Lord God of the holy prophets (Rev. xxii. 6), stood by them and strengthened them, and by his Spirit they were full of power; and those that slighted them, when they had lost them, were made to know, to their confusion, that a prophet had been among them. What was said of one of the primitive fathers of the prophets was true of them all, The Lord was with them, and did let none of their words fall to the ground, 1 Sam. iii. 19. What they said by way of warning and encouragement, for the enforcing of their calls to repentance and reformation, was to be understood conditionally. When God spoke by them either, on the one hand, to build and to plant, or, on the other hand, to pluck up and pull down, the change of the people's way might produce a change of God's way (Jer. xviii. 7-10); such was Jonah's prophecy of Nineveh's ruin within forty days; or God might sometimes be better than his word in granting a reprieve. But what they said by way of prediction of a particular matter, and as a sign, did always come to pass exactly as it was foretold; yea, and the general predictions, sooner or later, took hold even of those that would fain have got clear of them (Zech. i. 6); for this is that which God glories in, that he confirms the word of his servants and performs the counsel of his messengers, Isa. xliv. 26.

In the opening these prophecies I have endeavoured to give the genuine sense of them, as far as I could reach it, by consulting the best expositors, considering the scope and coherence, and comparing spiritual things with spiritual, the spiritual things of the Old Testament with those of the New, and especially by prayer to God for the guidance and direction of the Spirit of truth. But, after all, thee are many things here dark and hard to be understood, concerning the certain meaning of which though I could not gain myself, much less expect to give my reader, full satisfaction, Yet I have not, with the unlearned and unstable, wrested them to the destruction of any, 2 Pet. iii. 16. It is the prerogative of the Lamb of God to take this book and to open all its seals. I have likewise endeavoured to accommodate these prophecies to the use and service of those who desire to faith and holiness. And we shall find that whatever is given by inspiration of God is profitable (2 Tim. iii. 16), though not all alike profitable, not all alike easy or improvable; but, when the mystery of God shall be finished, we shall see, what we are now bound to believe, that there is not one idle word in all the prophecies of this book. What God has said, as well as what he does, we know not now, but we shall know hereafter.

The pleasure I have had in studying and meditating upon those parts of these prophecies which are plain and practical, and especially those which are evangelical, has been an abundant balance to, and recompence for, the harder tasks we have met with in other parts that are more obscure. In many parts of this field the treasure must be dug for, as that in the mines; but in other parts the surface is covered with rich and precious products, with corn, and flocks, of which we may say, as was said of Noah, These same have comforted us greatly concerning our work and the toil of our hands, and have made it very pleasant and delightful; God grant it may be no less so to the readers!

And now let me desire the assistance of my friends, in setting up my Eben-Ezer here, in a thankful acknowledgment that hitherto the Lord has helped me. I desire to praise God that he has spared my life to finish the Old Testament, and has graciously given me some tokens of his presence with me in carrying this work, though the more I reflect upon myself the more unworthy I see myself of the honour of being thus employed, and the more need I see of Christ and his merit and grace. Remember me, O my God! for good, and spare me according to the multitude of thy mercies. The Lord forgive what is mine, and accept what is his own!

I purpose, if God continue my life and health, according to the measure of the grace given to me, and in a constant and entire dependence upon divine strength, to go through the New Testament in two volumes more. I intimated in my preface to the first volume that I had drawn up some expositions upon some parts of the New Testament; namely, The gospels of St. Matthew and St. John; but they are so large that, to make them bear some proportion to the rest, it is necessary that they be much contracted, so that I shall be obliged to write them all over again, and to make considerable alterations, and therefore I cannot expect they should be published but as these hitherto have been, if God permit, a volume every other year. I shall begin it now shortly, if the Lord will, and apply myself to it as closely as I can; and I earnestly desire the prayers of all that wish well to that undertaking that, if the Lord spare me to go on with it, I may be enabled to do it well, and so as that by it some may be led into the riches of the full assurance of understanding in the mystery of God, even of the Father and of Christ, Col. ii. 2. And, if it shall please God to remove me by death before it be finished, I trust I shall be able to say not only, Welcome his blessed will, but, Welcome that blessed world, in which, though now we know in part, and prophesy but in part, that knowledge which is perfect will come, and that which is partial will be done away (1 Cor. xiii. 8-10, 12), in which all our mistakes will be rectified, all our doubts resolved, all our deficiencies made up, all our endeavours in preaching, catechising, and expounding, superseded and rendered useless, and all our prayers swallowed up in everlasting praises,—in which prophecy, now so much admired, shall fail, and tongues shall cease, and the knowledge we have now shall vanish away, as the light of the morning-star does when the sun has risen,—in which we shall no longer see through a glass darkly, but face to face. In a believing, comfortable, well-grounded, expectation of that true and perfect light, I desire to continue, living and dying; in a humble and diligent preparation for it let me spend my time, and in the full enjoyment of it Oh that I may spend a glorious eternity! 18,

Prophet is a title that sounds very great to those that understand it, though, in the eye of the world, many of those that were dignified with it appeared very mean. A prophet is one that has a great intimacy with Heaven and a great interest there, and consequently a commanding authority upon earth. Prophecy is put for all divine revelation (2 Pet. i. 20, 21), because that was most commonly by dreams, voices, or visions, communicated to prophets first, and by them to the children of men, Num. xii. 6. Once indeed God himself spoke to all the thousands of Israel from the top of Mount Sinai; but the effect was so intolerably dreadful that they entreated God would for the future speak to them as he had done before, by men like themselves, whose terror should not make them afraid, nor their hands be heavy upon them, Job xxxiii. 7. God approved the motion (they have well said, says he, Deut. v. 27, 28), and the matter was then settled by consent of parties, that we must never expect to hear from God any more in that way, but by prophets, who received their instructions immediately from God, with a charge to deliver them to his church. Before the sacred canon of the Old Testament began to be written there were prophets, who were instead of Bibles to the church. Our Saviour seems to reckon Abel among the prophets, Matt. xxiii. 31, 35. Enoch was a prophet; and by him that was first in prediction which is to be last in execution—the judgment of the great day. Jude 14, Behold, the Lord comes with his holy myriads. Noah was a preacher of righteousness. God said of Abraham, He is a prophet, Gen. xx. 7. Jacob foretold things to come, Gen. xlix. 1. Nay, all the patriarchs are called prophets. Ps. cv. 15, Do my prophets no harm. Moses was, beyond all comparison, the most illustrious of all the Old-Testament prophets, for with him the Lord spoke face to face, Deut. xxxiv. 10. He was the first writing prophet, and by his hand the first foundations of holy writ were laid. Even those that were called to be his assistants in the government had the spirit of prophecy, such a plentiful effusion was there of that spirit at that time, Num. xi. 25. But after the death of Moses, for some ages, the Spirit of the Lord appeared and acted in the church of Israel more as a martial spirit than as a spirit of prophecy, and inspired men more for acting than speaking. I mean in the time of the judges. We find the Spirit of the Lord coming upon Othniel, Gideon, Samson, and others, for the service of their country, with their swords, not with their pens. Messages were then sent from heaven by angels, as to Gideon and Manoah, and to the people, Judges ii. 1. In all the book of judges there is never once mention of a prophet, only Deborah is called a prophetess. Then the word of the Lord was precious; there was no open vision, 1 Sam. iii. 1. They had the law of Moses, recently written; let them study that. But in Samuel prophecy revived, and in him a famous epocha, or period of the church began, a time of great light in a constant uninterrupted succession of prophets, till some time after the captivity, when the canon of the Old Testament was completed in Malachi, and then prophecy ceased for nearly 400 years, till the coming of the great prophet and his forerunner. Some prophets were divinely inspired to write the histories of the church. But they did not put their names to their writings; they only referred for proof to the authentic records of those times, which were known to be drawn up by prophets, as Gad, Iddo, &c. David and others were prophets, to write sacred songs for the use of the church. After them we often read of prophets sent on particular errands, and raised up for special public services, among whom the most famous were Elijah and Elisha in the kingdom of Israel. But none of these put their prophecies in writing, nor have we any remains of them but some fragments in the histories of their times; there was nothing of their own writing (that I remember) but one epistle of Elijah's, 2 Chron. xxi. 12. But towards the latter end of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, it pleased God to direct his servants the prophets to write and publish some of their sermons, or abstracts of them. The dates of many of their prophecies are uncertain, but the earliest of them was in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and Jeroboam the second, his contemporary, king of Israel, about 200 years before the captivity, and not long after Joash had slain Zechariah the son of Jehoiada in the courts of the temple. If they begin to murder the prophets, yet they shall not murder their prophecies; these shall remain as witnesses against them. Hosea was the first of the writing prophets; and Joel, Amos, and Obadiah, published their prophecies about the same time. Isaiah began some time after, and not long; but his prophecy is placed first, because it is the largest of them all, and has most in it of him to whom all the prophets bore witness; and indeed so much of Christ that he is justly styled the Evangelical Prophet, and, by some of the ancients, a fifth Evangelist. We shall have the general title of this book (v. 1) and therefore shall here only observe some things,

I. Concerning the prophet himself. He was (if we may believe the tradition of the Jews) of the royal family, his father being (they say) brother to king Uzziah. He was certainly much at court, especially in Hezekiah's time, as we find in his story, to which many think it is owing that his style is more curious and polite than that of some other of the prophets, and, in some places, exceedingly lofty and soaring. The Spirit of God sometimes served his own purpose by the particular genius of the prophet; for prophets were not speaking trumpets, through which the Spirit spoke, but speaking men, by whom the Spirit spoke, making use of their natural powers, in respect both of light and flame, and advancing them above themselves.

II. Concerning the prophecy. It is transcendently excellent and useful; it was so to the church of God then, serving for conviction of sin, direction in duty, and consolation in trouble. Two great distresses of the church are here referred to, and comfort prescribed in reference to them, that by Sennacherib's invasion, which happened in his own time, and that of the captivity in Babylon, which happened long after; and in the supports and encouragements laid up for each of these times of need we find abundance of the grace of the gospel. There are not so many quotations in the gospels out of any, perhaps not out of all, the prophecies of the Old Testament, as out of this; nor such express testimonies concerning Christ, witness that of his being born of a virgin (ch. vii.) and that of his sufferings, ch. liii. The beginning of this book abounds most with reproofs for sin and threatenings of judgment; the latter end of it is full of wood words and comfortable words. This method the Spirit of Christ took formerly in the prophets and does still, first to convince and then to comfort; and those that would be blessed with the comforts must submit to the convictions. Doubtless Isaiah preached many sermons, and delivered many messages to the people, which are not written in this book, as Christ did; and probably these sermons were delivered more largely and fully than they are here related, but so much is left on record as Infinite Wisdom thought fit to convey to us on whom the ends of the world have come; and these prophecies, as well as the histories of Christ, are written that we might believe on the name of the Son of God, and that, believing, we might have life through his name; for to us is the gospel here preached as well as unto those that lived then, and more clearly. O that it may be mixed with faith!

The first verse of this chapter is intended for a title to the whole book, and it is probable that this was the first sermon that this prophet was appointed to publish and to affix in writing (as Calvin thinks the custom of the prophets was) to the door of the temple, as with us proclamations are fixed to public places, that all might read them (Hab. ii. 2), and those that would might take out authentic copies of them, the original being, after some time, laid up by the priests among the records of the temple. The sermon which is contained in this chapter has in it, I. A high charge exhibited, in God's name, against the Jewish church and nation, 1. For their ingratitude, ver. 2, 3. 2. For their incorrigibleness, ver. 5. 3. For the universal corruption and degeneracy of the people, ver. 4, 6, 21,, 22. 4. For the perversion of justice by their rulers, ver. 23. II. A sad complaint of the judgments of God, which they had brought upon themselves by their sins, and by which they were brought almost to utter ruin, ver. 7-9. III. A just rejection of those shows and shadows of religion which they kept up among them, notwithstanding this general defection and apostasy, ver. 10-15. IV. An earnest call to repentance and reformation, setting before them life and death, life if they compiled with the call and death if they did not, ver. 16-20. V. A threatening of ruin to those that would not be reformed, ver. 24, 28-31. VI. A promise of a happy reformation at last, and a return to their primitive purity and prosperity, ver. 25-27. And all this is to be applied by us, not only to the communities we are members of, in their public interests, but to the state of our own souls.

The Vision of Isaiah. (b. c. 738.)

1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Here is, I. The name of the prophet, Isaiah, or Jesahiahu (for so it is in the Hebrew), which, in the New Testament is read Esaias. His name signifies the salvation of the Lord—a proper name for a prophet by whom God gives knowledge of salvation to his people, especially for this prophet, who prophesies so much of Jesus the Saviour and of the great salvation wrought out by him. He is said to be the son of Amoz, not Amos the prophet (the two names in the Hebrew differ more than in the English), but, as the Jews think, of Amoz the brother, or son, of Amaziah king of Judah, a tradition as uncertain as that rule which they give, that, where a prophet's father is named, he also was himself a prophet. The prophets' pupils and successors are indeed often called their sons, but we have few instances, if any, of their own sons being their successors.

II. The nature of the prophecy. It is a vision, being revealed to him in a vision, when he was awake, and heard the words of God, and saw the visions of the Almighty (as Balaam speaks, Num. xxiv. 4), though perhaps it was not so illustrious a vision at first as that afterwards, ch. vi. 1. The prophets were called seers, or seeing men, and therefore their prophecies are fitly called visions. It was what he saw with the eyes of his mind, and foresaw as clearly by divine revelation, was as well assured of it, as fully apprised of it, and as much affected with it, as if he had seen it with his bodily eyes. Note 1. God's prophets saw what they spoke of, knew what they said, and require our belief of nothing but what they themselves believed and were sure of, John vi. 69; 1 John i. 1. 2. They could not but speak what they saw, because they saw how much all about them were concerned in it, Acts iv. 20; 2 Cor. iv. 13.

III. The subject of the prophecy. It was what he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, the country of the two tribes, and that city which was their metropolis; and there is little in it relating to Ephraim, or the ten tribes, of whom there is so much said in the prophecy of Hosea. Some chapters there are in this book which relate to Babylon, Egypt, Tyre, and some other neighbouring nations; but it takes its title from that which is the main substance of it, and is therefore said to be concerning Judah and Jerusalem, the other nations spoken of being such as the people of the Jews had concern with. Isaiah brings to them in a special manner, 1. Instruction; for it is the privilege of Judah and Jerusalem that to them pertain the oracles of God. 2. Reproof and threatening; for if in Judah, where God is known, if in Salem, where his name is great, iniquity be found, they, sooner than any other, shall be reckoned with for it. 3. Comfort and encouragement in evil times; for the children of Zion shall be joyful in their king.

IV. The date of the prophecy. Isaiah prophesied in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. By this it appears, 1. That he prophesied long, especially if (as the Jews say) he was at last put to death by Manasseh, to a cruel death, being sawn asunder, to which some suppose the apostle refers, Heb. xi. 37. From the year that king Uzziah died (ch. vi. 1) to Hezekiah's sickness and recovery was forty-seven years; how much before, and after, he prophesied, is not certain; some reckon sixty, others eighty years in all. It was an honour to him, and a happiness to his country, that he was continued so long in his usefulness; and we must suppose both that he began young and that he held out to old age; for the prophets were not tied, as the priests were, to a certain age, for the beginning or ending of their administration. 2. That he passed through variety of times. Jotham was a good king, and Hezekiah a better, and no doubt gave encouragement to and took advice from this prophet, were patrons to him, and he a privy-counsellor to them; but between them, and when Isaiah was in the prime of his time, the reign of Ahaz was very profane and wicked; then, no doubt, he was frowned upon at court, and, it is likely, forced to abscond. Good men and good ministers must expect bad times in this world, and prepare for them. Then religion was run down to such a degree that the doors of the house of the Lord were shut up and idolatrous altars were erected in every corner of Jerusalem; and Isaiah, with all his divine eloquence and messages immediately from God himself, could not help it. The best men, the best ministers, cannot do the good they would do in the world.

The Degeneracy of Israel; The Sinfulness of Israel; The Sufferings of Israel. (b. c.  738.)

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. 3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord , they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. 7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. 8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. 9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

We will hope to meet with a brighter and more pleasant scene before we come to the end of this book; but truly here, in the beginning of it, every thing looks very bad, very black, with Judah and Jerusalem. What is the wilderness of the world, if the church, the vineyard, has such a dismal aspect as this?

I. The prophet, though he speaks in God's name, yet, despairing to gain audience with the children of his people, addresses himself to the heavens and the earth, and bespeaks their attention (v. 2): Hear, O heavens! and give ear, O earth! Sooner will the inanimate creatures hear, who observe the law and answer the end of their creation, than this stupid senseless people. Let the lights of the heaven shame their darkness, and the fruitfulness of the earth their barrenness, and the strictness of each to its time their irregularity. Moses begins thus in Deut. xxxii. 1, to which the prophet here refers, intimating that now those times had come which Moses there foretold, Deut. xxxi. 29. Or this is an appeal to heaven and earth, to angels and then to the inhabitants of the upper and lower world. Let them judge between God and his vineyard; can either produce such an instance of ingratitude? Note, God will be justified when he speaks, and both heaven and earth shall declare his righteousness, Mic. vi. 1, 2; Ps. l. 6.

II. He charges them with base ingratitude, a crime of the highest nature. Call a man ungrateful, and you can call him no worse. Let heaven and earth hear and wonder at, 1. God's gracious dealings with such a peevish provoking people as they were: "I have nourished and brought them up as children; they have been well fed and well taught" (Deut. xxxii. 6); "I have magnified and exalted them" (so some), "not only made them grow, but made them great—not only maintained them, but preferred them—not only trained them up, but raised them high." Note, We owe the continuance of our lives and comforts, and all our advancements, to God's fatherly care of us and kindness to us. 2. Their ill-natured conduct towards him, who was so tender of them: "They have rebelled against me," or (as some read it) "they have revolted from me; they have been deserters, nay traitors, against my crown and dignity." Note, All the instances of God's favour to us, as the God both of our nature and of our nurture, aggravate our treacherous departures from him and all our presumptuous oppositions to him—children, and yet rebels!

III. He attributes this to their ignorance and inconsideration (v. 3): The ox knows, but Israel does not. Observe, 1. The sagacity of the ox and the ass, which are not only brute creatures, but of the dullest sort; yet the ox has such a sense of duty as to know his owner and to serve him, to submit to his yoke and to draw in it; the ass has such a sense of interest as to know has master's crib, or manger, where he is fed, and to abide by it; he will go to that of himself if he be turned loose. A fine pass man has come to when he is shamed even in knowledge and understanding by these silly animals, and is not only sent to school to them (Prov. vi. 6, 7), but set in a form below them (Jer. viii. 7), taught more than the beasts of the earth (Job xxxv. 11) and yet knowing less. 2. The sottishness and stupidity of Israel. God is their owner and proprietor. He made us, and his we are more than our cattle are ours; he has provided well for us; providence is our Master's crib; yet many that are called the people of God do not know and will not consider this, but ask, "What is the Almighty that we should serve him? He is not our owner; and what profit shall we have if we pray unto him? He has no crib for us to feed at." He had complained (v. 2) of the obstinacy of their wills; They have rebelled against me. Here he runs it up to its cause: "Therefore they have rebelled because they do not know, they do not consider." The understanding is darkened, and therefore the whole soul is alienated from the life of God, Eph. iv. 18. "Israel does not know, though their land is a land of light and knowledge; in Judah is God known, yet, because they do not live up to what they know, it is in effect as if they did not know. They know; but their knowledge does them no good, because they do not consider what they know; they do not apply it to their case, nor their minds to it." Note, (1.) Even among those that profess themselves God's people, that have the advantages and lie under the engagements of his people, there are many that are very careless in the affairs of their souls. (2.) Inconsideration of what we do know is as great an enemy to us in religion as ignorance of what we should know. (3.) Therefore men revolt from God, and rebel against him, because they do not know and consider their obligations to God in duty, gratitude, and interest.

IV. He laments the universal pravity and corruption of their church and kingdom. The disease of sin was epidemic, and all orders and degrees of men were infected with it; Ah sinful nation! v. 4. The prophet bemoans those that would not bemoan themselves: Alas for them! Woe to them! He speaks with holy indignation at their degeneracy, and a dread of the consequences of it. See here,

1. How he aggravates their sin, and shows the malignity that there was in it, v. 4. (1.) The wickedness was universal. They were a sinful nation; the generality of the people were vicious and profane. They were so in their national capacity. In the management of their public treaties abroad, and in the administration of public justice at home, they were corrupt. Note, It is ill with a people when sin becomes national. (2.) It was very great and heinous in its nature. They were laden with iniquity; the guilt of it, and the curse incurred by that guilt, lay very heavily upon them. It was a heavy charge that was exhibited against them, and one which they could never clear themselves from; their wickedness was upon them as a talent of lead, Zec. v. 7, 8. Their sin, as it did easily beset them and they were prone to it, was a weight upon them, Heb. xii. 1. (3.) They came of a bad stock, were a seed of evil-doers. Treachery ran in their blood; they had it by kind, which made the matter so much the worse, more provoking and less curable. They rose up in their fathers' stead, and trod in their fathers' steps, to fill up the measure of their iniquity, Num. xxxii. 14. They were a race and family of rebels. (4.) Those that were themselves debauched did what they could to debauch others. They were not only corrupt children, born tainted, but children that were corrupters, that propagated vice, and infected others with it—not only sinners, but tempters—not only actuated by Satan, but agents for him. If those that are called children, God's children, that are looked upon as belonging to his family, be wicked and vile, their example is of the most malignant influence. (5.) Their sin was a treacherous departure from God. They were deserters from their allegiance: "They have forsaken the Lord, to whom they had joined themselves; they have gone away backward, are alienated or separated from God, have turned their back upon him, deserted their colours, and quitted their service." When they were urged forward, they ran backward, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke, as a backsliding heifer, Hos. iv. 16. (6.) It was an impudent and daring defiance of him: They have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger wilfully and designedly; they knew what would anger him, and that they did. Note, The backslidings of those that have professed religion and relation to God are in a special manner provoking to him.

2. How he illustrates it by a comparison taken from a sick and diseased body, all overspread with leprosy, or, like Job's, with sore boils, v. 5, 6. (1.) The distemper has seized the vitals, and so threatens to be mortal. Diseases in the head and heart are most dangerous; now the head, the whole head, is sick—the heart, the whole heart, is faint. They had become corrupt in their judgment: the leprosy was in their head. They were utterly unclean; their affection to God and religion was cold and gone; the things which remained were ready to die away, Rev. iii. 2. (2.) It has overspread the whole body, and so becomes exceedingly noisome; From the sole of the foot even to the head, from the meanest peasant to the greatest peer, there is no soundness, no good principles, no religion (for that is the health of the soul), nothing but wounds and bruises, guilt and corruption, the sad effects of Adam's fall, noisome to the holy God, painful to the sensible soul; they were so to David when he complained (Ps. xxxviii. 5), My wounds stink, and are corrupt, because of my foolishness. See Ps. xxxii. 3, 4. No attempts were made for reformation, or, if they were, they proved ineffectual: The wounds have not been closed, not bound up, nor mollified with ointment. While sin remains unrepented of the wounds are unsearched, unwashed, the proud flesh in them not cut out, and while, consequently, it remains unpardoned, the wounds are not mollified or closed up, nor any thing done towards the healing of them and the preventing of their fatal consequences.

V. He sadly bewails the judgments of God which they had brought upon themselves by their sins, and their incorrigibleness under those judgments. 1. Their kingdom was almost ruined, v. 7. So miserable were they that both their towns and their lands were wasted, and yet so stupid that they needed to be told this, to have it shown to them. "Look and see how it is; your country is desolate; the ground is not cultivated, for want of inhabitants, the villages being deserted, Judg. v. 7. And thus the fields and vineyards become like deserts, all grown over with thorns, Prov. xxiv. 31. Your cities are burned with fire, by the enemies that invade you" (fire and sword commonly go together); "as for the fruits of your land, which should be food for your families, strangers devour them; and, to your greater vexation, it is before your eyes, and you cannot prevent it; you starve while your enemies surfeit on that which should be your maintenance. The overthrow of your country is as the overthrow of strangers; it is used by the invaders, as one might expect it should be used by strangers." Jerusalem itself, which was as the daughter of Zion (the temple built on Zion was a mother, a nursing mother, to Jerusalem), or Zion itself, the holy mountain, which had been dear to God as a daughter, was now lost, deserted, and exposed as a cottage in a vineyard, which, when the vintage is over, nobody dwells in or takes any care of, and looks as mean and despicable as a lodge or hut, in a garden of cucumbers; and every person is afraid of coming near it, and solicitous to remove his effects out of it, as if it were a besieged city, v. 8. And some think, it is a calamitous state of the kingdom that is represented by a diseased body, v. 6. Probably this sermon was preached in the reign of Ahaz, when Judah was invaded by the kings of Syria and Israel, the Edomites and the Philistines, who slew many, and carried many away into captivity, 2 Chron. xxviii. 5, 17, 18. Note, National impiety and immorality bring national desolation. Canaan, the glory of all lands, Mount Zion, the joy of the whole earth, both became a reproach and a ruin; and sin made them so, that great mischief-maker. 2. Yet they were not all reformed, and therefore God threatens to take another course with them (v. 5): "Why should you be stricken any more, with any expectation of doing you good by it, when you increase revolts as your rebukes are increased? You will revolt more and more, as you have done," as Ahaz particularly did, who, in his distress, trespassed yet more against the Lord, 2 Chron. xxviii. 22. Thus the physician, when he sees the patient's case desperate, troubles him no more with physic; and the father resolves to correct his child no more when, finding him hardened, he determines to disinherit him. Note, (1.) There are those who are made worse by the methods God takes to make them better; the more they are stricken the more they revolt; their corruptions, instead of being mortified, are irritated and exasperated by their afflictions, and their hearts more hardened. (2.) God, sometimes, in a way of righteous judgment, ceases to correct those who have been long incorrigible, and whom therefore he designs to destroy. The reprobate silver shall be cast, not into the furnace, but to the dunghill, Ezek. xxiv. 13; Hos. iv. 14. He that is filthy, let him be filthy still.

VI. He comforts himself with the consideration of a remnant that should be the monuments of divine grace and mercy, notwithstanding this general corruption and desolation, v. 9. See here, 1. How near they were to an utter extirpation. They were almost like Sodom and Gomorrah in respect both of sin and ruin, had grown almost so bad that there could not have been found ten righteous men among them, and almost as miserable as if none had been left alive, but their country turned into a sulphureous lake. Divine Justice said, Make them as Admah; set them as Zeboim; but Mercy said, How shall I do it? Hos. xi. 8, 9. 2. What it was that saved them from it: The Lord of hosts left unto them a very small remnant, that were kept pure from the common apostasy and kept safe and alive from the common calamity. This is quoted by the apostle (Rom. ix. 27), and applied to those few of the Jewish nation who in his time embraced Christianity, when the body of the people rejected it, and in whom the promises made to the fathers were accomplished. Note, (1.) In the worst of times there is a remnant preserved from iniquity and reserved for mercy, as Noah and his family in the deluge, Lot and his in the destruction of Sodom. Divine grace triumphs in distinguishing by an act of sovereignty. (2.) This remnant is often a very small one in comparison with the vast number of revolting ruined sinners. Multitude is no mark of the true church. Christ's is a little flock. (3.) It is God's work to sanctify and save some, when others are left to perish in their impurity. It is the work of his power as the Lord of hosts. Except he had left us that remnant, there would have been none left; the corrupters (v. 4) did what they could to debauch all, and the devourers (v. 7) to destroy all, and they would have prevailed of God himself had not interposed to secure to himself a remnant, who are bound to give him all the glory. (4.) It is good for a people that have been saved from utter ruin to look back and see how near they were to it, just upon the brink of it, to see how much they owed to a few good men that stood in the gap, and that that was owing to a good God, who left them these good men. It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed.

The Vanity of Mere Ritual Obedience. (b. c. 738.)

10 Hear the word of the Lord , ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord : I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Here, I. God calls to them (but calls in vain) to hear his word, v. 10. 1. The title he gives them is very strange; You rulers of Sodom, and people of Gomorrah. This intimates what a righteous thing it would have been with God to make them like Sodom and Gomorrah in respect of ruin (v. 9), because that had made themselves like Sodom and Gomorrah in respect of sin. The men of Sodom were wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. xiii. 13), and so were the men of Judah. When the rulers were bad, no wonder the people were so. Vice overpowered virtue, for it had the rulers, the men of figure, on its side; and it out-polled it, for it had the people, the men of number, on its side. The streams being thus strong, no less a power than that of the Lord of hosts could secure a remnant, v. 9. The rulers are boldly attacked here by the prophet as rulers of Sodom; for he knew not how to give flattering titles. The tradition of the Jews is that for this he was impeached long after, and put to death, as having cursed the gods and spoken evil of the ruler of his people. 2. His demand upon them is very reasonable: "Hear the word of the Lord, and give ear to the law of our God; attend to that which God has to say to you, and let his word be a law to you." The following declaration of dislike to their sacrifices would be a kind of new law to them, though really it was but an explication of the old law; but special regard is to be had to it, as is required to the like, Ps. l. 7, 8. "Hear this, and tremble; hear it, and take warning."

II. He justly refuses to hear their prayers and accept their services, their sacrifices and burnt-offerings, the fat and blood of them (v. 11), their attendance in his courts (v. 12), their oblations, their incense, and their solemn assemblies (v. 13), their new moons and their appointed feasts (v. 14), their devoutest addresses (v. 15); they are all rejected, because their hands were full of blood. Now observe,

1. There are many who are strangers, nay, enemies, to the power of religion, and yet seem very zealous for the show and shadow and form of it. This sinful nation, this seed of evil-doers, these rulers of Sodom and people of Gomorrah, brought, not to the altars of false gods (they are not here charged with that), but to the altar of the God of Israel, sacrifices, a multitude of them, as many as the law required and rather more—not only peace-offerings, which they themselves had their share of, but burnt-offerings, which were wholly consumed to the honour of God; nor did they bring the torn, and lame, and sick, but fed beasts, and the fat of them, the best of the kind. They did not send others to offer their sacrifices for them, but came themselves to appear before God. They observed the instituted places (not in high places or groves, but in God's own courts), and the instituted time, the new moons, and sabbaths, and appointed feasts, none of which they omitted. Nay, it should seem, they called extraordinary assemblies, and held solemn meetings for religious worship, besides those that God had appointed. Yet this was not all: they applied to God, not only with their ceremonial observances, but with the exercises of devotion. They prayed, prayed often, made many prayers, thinking they should be heard for their much speaking; nay, they were fervent and importunate in prayer, they spread forth their hands as men in earnest. Now we should have thought these, and, no doubt, they thought themselves, a pious religious people; and yet they were far from being so, for (1.) Their hearts were empty of true devotion. They came to appear before God (v. 12), to be seen before him (so the margin reads it); they rested in the outside of the duties; they looked no further than to be seen of men, and went no further than that which men see. (2.) Their hands were full of blood. They were guilty of murder, rapine, and oppression, under colour of law and justice. The people shed blood, and the rulers did not punish them for it; the rulers shed blood, and the people were aiding and abetting, as the elders of Jezreel were to Jezebel in shedding Naboth's blood. Malice is heart-murder in the account of God; he that hates his brother in his heart has, in effect, his hands full of blood.

2. When sinners are under the judgments of God they will more easily be brought to fly to their devotions than to forsake their sins and reform their lives. Their country was now desolate, and their cities were burnt (v. 7), which awakened them to bring their sacrifices and offerings to God more constantly than they had done, as if they would bribe God Almighty to remove the punishment and give them leave to go on in the sin. When he slew them, then they sought him, Ps. lxxviii. 34. Lord, in trouble have they visited thee, ch. xxvi. 16. Many that will readily part with their sacrifices will not be persuaded to part with their sins.

3. The most pompous and costly devotions of wicked people, without a thorough reformation of the heart and life, are so far from being acceptable to God that really they are an abomination to him. It is here shown in a great variety of expressions that to obey is better than sacrifice; nay, that sacrifice, without obedience, is a jest, an affront and provocation to God. The comparative neglect which God here expresses of ceremonial observance was a tacit intimation of what they would come to at last, when they would all be done away by the death of Christ. What was now made little of would in due time be made nothing of. "Sacrifice and offering, and prayer made in the virtue of them, thou wouldest not; then said I, Lo, I come." Their sacrifices are here represented,

(1.) As fruitless and insignificant; To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices? v. 11. They are vain oblations, v. 13. In vain do they worship me, Matt. xv. 9. Their attention to God's institutions was all lost labour, and served not to answer any good intention; for, [1.] It was not looked upon as any act of duty or obedience to God: Who has required these things at your hands? v. 12. Not that God disowns his institutions, or refuses to stand by his own warrants; but in what they did they had not an eye to him that required it, nor indeed did he require it of those whose hands were full of blood and who continued impenitent. [2.] It did not recommend them to God's favour. He delighted not in the blood of their sacrifices, for he did not look upon himself as honoured by it. [3.] It would not obtain any relief for them. They pray, but God will not hear, because they regard iniquity (Ps. lxvi. 18); he will not deliver them, for, though they make many prayers, none of them come from an upright heart. All their religious service turned to no account to them. Nay,

(2.) As odious and offensive. God did not only not accept them, but he did detest and abhor them. "They are your sacrifices, they are none of mine; I am full of them, even surfeited with them." He needed them not (Ps. l. 10), did not desire them, had had enough of them, and more than enough. Their coming into his courts he calls treading them, or trampling upon them; their very attendance on his ordinances was construed into a contempt of them. Their incense, though ever so fragrant, was an abomination to him, for it was burnt in hypocrisy and with an ill design. Their solemn assemblies he could not away with, could not see them with any patience, nor bear the affront they gave him. The solemn meeting is iniquity; though the thing itself was not, yet, as they managed it, it became so. It is a vexation (so some read it), a provocation, to God, to have ordinances thus prostituted, not only by wicked people, but to wicked purposes: "My soul hates them; they are a trouble to me, a burden, an incumbrance; I am perfectly sick of them, and weary of bearing them." God is never weary of hearing the prayers of the upright, but soon weary of the costly sacrifices of the wicked. He hides his eyes from their prayers, as that which he has an aversion to and is angry at. All this is to show, [1.] That sin is very hateful to God, so hateful that it makes even men's prayers and their religious services hateful to him. [2.] That dissembled piety is double iniquity. Hypocrisy in religion is of all things most abominable to the God of heaven. Jerome applies the passage to the Jews in Christ's time, who pretended a great zeal for the law and the temple, but made themselves and all their services abominable to God by filling their hands with the blood of Christ and his apostles, and so filling up the measure of their iniquities.

A Call to Repentance; Repentance and Reformation Urged. (b. c. 738.)

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord : though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: 20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Though God had rejected their services as insufficient to atone for their sins while they persisted in them, yet he does not reject them as in a hopeless condition, but here calls upon them to forsake their sins, which hindered the acceptance of their services, and then all would be well. Let them not say that God picked quarrels with them; no, he proposes a method of reconciliation. Observe here,

I. A call to repentance and reformation: "If you would have your sacrifices accepted, and your prayers answered, you must begin your work at the right end: Be converted to my law" (so the Chaldee begins this exhortation), "make conscience of second-table duties, else expect not to be accepted in the acts of your devotion." As justice and charity will never atone for atheism and profaneness, so prayers and sacrifices will never atone for fraud and oppression; for righteousness towards men is as much a branch of pure religion as religion towards God is a branch of universal righteousness.

1. They must cease to do evil, must do no more wrong, shed no more innocent blood. This is the meaning of washing themselves and making themselves clean, v. 16. It is not only sorrowing for the sin they had committed, but breaking off the practice of it for the future, and mortifying all those vicious affections and dispositions which inclined them to it. Sin is defiling to the soul. Our business is to wash ourselves from it by repenting of it and turning from it to God. We must put away not only that evil of our doings which is before the eye of the world, by refraining from the gross acts of sin, but that which is before God's eyes, the roots and habits of sin, that are in our hearts; these must be crushed and mortified.

2. They must learn to do well. This was necessary to the completing of their repentance. Note, It is not enough that we cease to do evil, but we must learn to do well. (1.) We must be doing, not cease to do evil and then stand idle. (2.) We must be doing good, the good which the Lord our God requires and which will turn to a good account. (3.) We must do it well, in a right manner and for a right end; and, (4.) We must learn to do well; we must take pains to get the knowledge of our duty, be inquisitive concerning it, in care about it, and accustom ourselves to it, that we may readily turn our hands to our work and become masters of this holy art of doing well. He urges them particularly to those instances of well-doing wherein they had been defective, to second-table duties: "Seek judgment; enquire what is right, that you may do it; be solicitous to be found in the way of your duty, and do not walk carelessly. Seek opportunities of doing good: Relieve the oppressed, those whom you yourselves have oppressed; ease them of their burdens, ch. lviii. 6. You, that have power in your hands, use it for the relief of those whom others do oppress, for that is your business. Avenge those that suffer wrong, in a special manner concerning yourselves for the fatherless and the widow, whom, because they are weak and helpless, proud men trample upon and abuse; do you appear for them at the bar, on the bench, as there is occasion. Speak for those that know not how to speak for themselves and that have not wherewithal to gratify you for your kindness." Note, We are truly honouring God when we are doing good in the world; and acts of justice and charity are more pleasing to him than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices.

II. A demonstration, at the bar of right reason, of the equity of God's proceedings with them: "Come now, and let us reason together (v. 18); while your hands are full of blood I will have nothing to do with you, though you bring me a multitude of sacrifices; but if you wash, and make yourselves clean, you are welcome to draw nigh to me; come now, and let us talk the matter over." Note, Those, and those only, that break off their league with sin, shall be welcome into covenant and communion with God; he says, Come now, who before forbade them his courts. See Jam. iv. 8. Or rather thus: There were those among them who looked upon themselves as affronted by the slights God put upon the multitude of their sacrifices, as ch. lviii. 3, Wherefore have we fasted (say they) and thou seest not? They represented God as a hard Master, whom it was impossible to please. "Come," says God, "let us debate the matter fairly, and I doubt not but to make it out that my ways are equal, but yours are unequal," Ezek. xviii. 25. Note, Religion has reason on its side; there is all the reason in the world why we should do as God would have us do. The God of heaven condescends to reason the case with those that contradict him and find fault with his proceedings; for he will be justified when he speaks, Ps. li. 4. The case needs only to be stated (as it is here very fairly) and it will determine itself. God shows here upon what terms they stood (as he does, Ezek. xviii. 21-24; xxxiii. 18, 19) and then leaves it to them to judge whether these terms are not fair and reasonable.

1. They could not in reason expect any more then, if they repented and reformed, they should be restored to God's favour, notwithstanding their former provocations. "This you may expect," says God, and it is very kind; who could have the face to desire it upon any other terms? (1.) It is very little that is required, "only that you be willing and obedient, that you consent to obey" (so some read it), "that you subject your wills to the will of God, acquiesce in that, and give up yourselves in all things to be ruled by him who is infinitely wise and good" Here is no penance imposed for their former stubbornness, nor the yoke made heavier or bound harder on their necks; only, "Whereas hitherto you have been perverse and refractory, and would not comply with that which was for your own good, now be tractable, be governable" He does not say, "If you be perfectly obedient," but, "If you be willingly so;" for, if there be a willing mind, it is accepted. (2.) That is very great which is promised hereupon. [1.] That all their sins should be pardoned to them, and should not be mentioned against them. "Though they be as red as scarlet and crimson, though you lie under the guilt of blood, yet, upon your repentance, even that shall be forgiven you, and you shall appear in the sight of God as white as snow." Note, The greatest sinners, if they truly repent, shall have their sins forgiven them, and so have their consciences pacified and purified. Though our sins have been as scarlet and crimson, as deep dye, a double dye, first in the wool of original corruption and afterwards in the many threads of actual transgression—though we have been often dipped, by our many backslidings, into sin, and though we have lain long soaking in it, as the cloth does in the scarlet dye, yet pardoning mercy will thoroughly discharge the stain, and, being by it purged as with hyssop, we shall be clean, Ps. li. 7. If we make ourselves clean by repentance and reformation (v. 16), God will make us white by a full remission. [2.] That they should have all the happiness and comfort they could desire. "Be but willing and obedient, and you shall eat the good of the land, the land of promise; you shall have all the blessings of the new covenant, of the heavenly Canaan, all the good of the land." Those that go on in sin, though they may dwell in a good land, cannot with any comfort eat the good of it; guilt embitters all; but, if sin be pardoned, creature-comforts become comforts indeed.

2. They could not in reason expect any other than that, if they continued obstinate in their disobedience, they should be abandoned to ruin, and the sentence of the law should be executed upon them; what can be more just? (v. 20); "If you refuse and rebel, if you continue to rebel against the divine government and refuse the offers of the divine grace, you shall be devoured with the sword, with the sword of your enemies, which shall be commissioned to destroy you—with the sword of God's justice, his wrath, and vengeance, which shall be drawn against you; for this is that which the mouth of the Lord has spoken, and which he will make good, for the maintaining of his own honour." Note, Those that will not be governed by God's sceptre will certainly and justly be devoured by his sword.

"And now life and death, good and evil, are thus set before you. Come, and let us reason together. What have you to object against the equity of this, or against complying with God's terms?"

The Degeneracy of Jerusalem; Reformation of the Church. (b. c. 738.)

21 How is the faithful city become a harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. 22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: 23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. 24 Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies: 25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin: 26 And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city. 27 Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness. 28 And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed. 29 For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye have chosen. 30 For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water. 31 And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them.

Here, I. The woeful degeneracy of Judah and Jerusalem is sadly lamented. See, 1. What the royal city had been, a faithful city, faithful to God and the interests of his kingdom among men, faithful to the nation and its public interests. It was full of judgment; justice was duly administered upon the thrones of judgment which were set there, the thrones of the house of David, Ps. cxxii. 5. Men were generally honest in their dealings, and abhorred to do an unjust thing. Righteousness lodged in it, was constantly resident in their palaces and in all their dwellings, not called in now and then to serve a turn, but at home there. Note, Neither holy cities nor royal ones, neither places where religion is professed nor places where government is administered, are faithful to their trust if religion do not dwell in them. 2. What it had now become. That beauteous virtuous spouse was now debauched, and become an adulteress; righteousness no longer dwelt in Jerusalem (terras Astræa reliquit—Astrea left the earth); even murderers were unpunished and lived undisturbed there; nay, the princes themselves were so cruel and oppressive that they had become no better than murderers; an innocent man might better guard himself against a troop of banditti or assassins than against a bench of such judges. Note, It is a great aggravation of the wickedness of any family or people that their ancestors were famed for virtue and probity; and commonly those that thus degenerate prove the most wicked of all men. Corruptio optimi est pessima—That which was originally the best becomes when corrupted the worst, Luke xi. 26; Eccl. iii. 16. See Jer. xxii. 15-17. The degeneracy of Jerusalem is illustrated, (1.) By similitudes (v. 22): Thy silver has become dross. This degeneracy of the magistrates, whose character is the reverse of that of their predecessors, is a great a reproach and injury to the kingdom as the debasing of their coin would be and the turning of their silver into dross. Righteous princes and righteous cities are as silver for the treasury, but unrighteous ones are as dross for the dunghill. How has the gold become dim! Lam. iv. 1. Thy wine is mixed with water, and so has become flat and sour. Some understand both these literally: the wine they sold was adulterated, it was half water; the money they paid was counterfeit, and so they cheated all they dealt with. But it is rather to be taken figuratively: justice was perverted by their princes, and religion and the word of God were sophisticated by their priests, and made to serve what turn they pleased. Dross may shine like silver, and the wine that is mixed with water may retain the colour of wine, but neither is worth any thing. Thus they retained a show and pretence of virtue and justice, but had no true sense of either. (2.) By some instances (v. 23): "Thy princes, that should keep others in their allegiance to God and subjection to his law, are themselves rebellious, and set God and his law at defiance." Those that should restrain thieves (proud and rich oppressors, those worst of robbers, and those that designedly cheat their creditors, who are no better), are themselves companions of thieves, connive at them, do as they do, and with greater security and success, because they are princes, and have power in their hands; they share with the thieves they protect in their unlawful gain ( Ps. l. 18) and cast in their lot among them, Prov. i. 13, 14. [1.] The profit of their places is all their aim, to make the best hand they can of them, right or wrong. They love gifts, and follow after rewards; they set their hearts upon their salary, the fees and perquisites of their offices, and are greedy of them, and never think they can get enough; nay, they will do any thing, though ever so contrary to law and justice, for a gift in secret. Presents and gratuities will blind their eyes at any time, and make them pervert judgment. These they love and are eager in the pursuit of. [2.] The duty of their places is none of their care. They ought to protect those that are injured, and take cognizance of the appeals made to them; why else were they preferred? But they judge not the fatherless, take no care to guard the orphans, nor does the cause of the widow come unto them, because the poor widow has no bribe to give, with which to make way for her and to bring her cause on. Those will have a great deal to answer for who, when they should be the patrons of the oppressed, are their greatest oppressors.

II. A resolution is taken up to redress these grievances (v. 24): Therefore saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel—who has power to make good what he says, who has hosts at command for the executing of his purposes, and whose power is engaged for his Israel—Ah! I will ease me of my adversaries. Observe,

1. Wicked people, especially wicked rulers that are cruel and oppressive, are God's enemies, his adversaries, and shall so be accounted and so dealt with. If the holy seed corrupt themselves, they are the foes of his own house.

2. They are a burden to the God of heaven, which is implied in his easing himself of them. The Mighty One of Israel, that can bear any thing, nay, that upholds all things, complains of his being wearied with men's iniquities, ch. xliii. 24. Amos ii. 13.

3. God will find out a time and a way to ease himself of this burden, by avenging himself on those that thus bear hard upon his patience. He here speaks as one triumphing in the foresight of it: Ah. I will ease me. He will ease the earth of the burden under which it groans (Rom. viii. 21, 22), will ease his own name of the reproaches with which it is loaded. He will be eased of his adversaries, by taking vengeance on his enemies; he will spue them out of his mouth, and so be eased of them, Rev. iii. 16. He speaks with pleasure of the day of vengeance being in his heart, ch. lxiii. 4. If God's professing people conform not to his image, as the Holy One of Israel (v. 4), they shall feel the weight of his hand as the Mighty One of Israel: his power, which was wont to be engaged for them, shall be armed against them. In two ways God will ease himself of this grievance:—

(1.) By reforming his church, and restoring good judges in the room of those corrupt ones. Though the church has a great deal of dross in it, yet it shall not be thrown away, but refined (v. 25): "I will purely purge away thy dross. I will amend what is amiss. Vice and profaneness shall be suppressed and put out of countenance, oppressors displaced, and deprived of their power to do mischief." When things are ever so bad God can set them to rights, and bring about a complete reformation; when he begins he will make an end, will take away all the tin. Observe, [1.] The reformation of a people is God's own work, and, if ever it be done, it is he that brings it about: "I will turn my hand upon thee; I will do that for the reviving of religion which I did at first for the planting of it." He can do it easily, with the turn of his hand; but he does it effectually, for what opposition can stand before the arm of the Lord revealed? [2.] He does it by blessing them with good magistrates and good ministers of state (v. 26): "I will restore thy judges as at the first, to put the laws in execution against evil-doers, and thy counsellors, to transact public affairs, as at the beginning," either the same persons that had been turned out or others of the same character. [3.] He does it by restoring judgment and righteousness among them (v. 27), by planting in men's minds principles of justice and governing their lives by those principles. Men may do much by external restraints; but God does it effectually by the influences of his Spirit, as a Spirit of judgment, ch. iv. 4; xxviii. 6. See Ps. lxxxv. 10, 11. [4.] The reformation of a people will be the redemption of them and their converts, for sin is the worst captivity, the worst slavery, and the great and eternal redemption is that by which Israel is redeemed from all his iniquities (Ps. cxxx. 8), and the blessed Redeemer is he that turns away ungodliness from Jacob (Rom. xi. 26), and saves his people from their sins, Matt. i. 21. All the redeemed of the Lord shall be converts, and their conversion is their redemption: "Her converts, or those that return of her (so the margin), shall be redeemed with righteousness." God works deliverance for us by preparing us for it with judgment and righteousness. [5.] The reviving of a people's virtues is the restoring of their honour: Afterwards thou shalt be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city; that is, First, "Thou shalt be so;" the reforming of the magistracy is a good step towards the reforming of the city and the country too. Secondly, "Thou shalt have the praise of being so;" and a greater praise there cannot be to any city than to be called the city of righteousness, and to retrieve the ancient honour which was lost when the faithful city became a harlot, v. 21.

(2.) By cutting off those that hate to be reformed, that they may not remain either as snares or as scandals to the faithful city. [1.] it is an utter ruin that is here threatened. They shall be destroyed and consumed, and not chastened and corrected only. The extirpation of them will be necessary to the redemption of Zion. [2.] It is a universal ruin, which will involve the transgressors and the sinners together, that is, the openly profane that have quite cast of all religion, and the hypocrites that live wicked lives under the cloak of a religious profession—they shall both be destroyed together, for they are both alike an abomination to God, both those that contradict religion and those that contradict themselves in their pretensions to it. And those that forsake the Lord, to whom they had formerly joined themselves, shall be consumed, as the water in the conduit-pipe is soon consumed when it is cut off from the fountain. [3.] It is an inevitable ruin; there is no escaping it. First, Their idols shall not be able to help them, the oaks which they have desired, and the gardens which they have chosen; that is, the images, the dunghill-gods, which they had worshipped in their groves and under the green trees, which they were fond of and wedded to, for which they forsook the true God, and which they worshipped privately in their own garden even when idolatry was publicly discountenanced. "This was the practice of the transgressors and the sinners; but they shall be ashamed of it, not with a show of repentance, but of despair, v. 29. They shall have cause to be ashamed of their idols; for, after all the court they have made to them, they shall find no benefit by them; but the idols themselves shall go into captivity," ch. xlvi. 1, 2. Note, Those that make creatures their confidence are but preparing confusion for themselves. You were fond of the oaks and the gardens, but you yourselves shall be, 1. "Like an oak without leaves, withered and blasted, and stripped of all its ornaments." Justly do those wear no leaves that bear no fruit; as the fig-tree that Christ cursed. 2. "Like a garden without water, that is neither rained upon nor watered with the foot (Deut. xi. 10), that had no fountain (Cant. iv. 15), and consequently is parched, and all the fruits of it gone to decay." Thus shall those be that trust in idols, or in an arm of flesh, Jer. xvii. 5, 6. But those that trust in God never find him as a wilderness, or as waters that fail, Jer. ii. 31. Secondly, They shall not be able to help themselves (v. 31): "Even the strong man shall be as tow not only soon broken and pulled to pieces, but easily catching fire; and his work (so the margin reads it), that by which he hopes to fortify and secure himself, shall be as a spark to his own tow, shall set him on fire, and he and his work shall burn together. His counsels shall be his ruin; his own skin kindles the fire of God's wrath, which shall burn to the lowest hell, and none shall quench it." When the sinner has made himself as tow and stubble, and God makes himself to him as a consuming fore, what can prevent the utter ruin of the sinner?

Now all this is applicable, 1. To the blessed work of reformation which was wrought in Hezekiah's time after the abominable corruptions of the reign of Ahaz. Then good men came to be preferred, and the faces of the wicked were filled with shame. 2. To their return out of their captivity in Babylon, which had thoroughly cured them of idolatry. 3. To the gospel-kingdom and the pouring out of the Spirit, by which the New-Testament church should be made a new Jerusalem, a city of righteousness. 4. To the second coming of Christ, when he shall thoroughly purge his floor, his field, shall gather the wheat into his barn, into his garner, and burn the chaff, the tares, with unquenchable fire.

CHAP. I.

Verſe 1. THE Viſion of Iſaiah] That which was not unfitly affirmed of a Modern Expoſitor,Snepfius. that his Commentaries on this Propheſie of Iſaiah are mole parvi, eruditione magni, ſmall in bulk, but great in worth, may much more fitly be ſpoken of the Propheſie it ſelf, which is aureus quantivis precii libellus, worth its weight in gold. A great roll or volume it is called, chap. 8.6. becauſe it is Magnum in parvo, much in a little; and is ſaid there to be written with a mans pen, that is, plainly and perſpicuouſly: ſo little reaſon was there that John Haſelbach, Mercat. Atlas Profeſſor at Vienna, ſhould read twenty and one years to his Auditors upon this firſt chapter only, and yet not finiſh it. I confeſs there is no Propheſie but hath its obſcurity (the picture of Propheſie is ſaid to hang in the Popes Library like a Matron with her eyes covered) and Jerom ſaith that this of Iſaiah containeth all Rhetorick, Ethicks and Theologie. But, if Brevity and Suavity (which Fulgentius maketh to be the greateſt graces of a ſentence) if Eloquence of ſtile and Evidence of Viſion may carry it with the Reader,Caſaub. here they are eminently met in this Seraphical Orator; of whom we may far better ſay then the learned Critick doth of Livy, Non ita copioſus ut nimius; ne que ita ſuavis ut laſcivus; nec adeò lenis ut remiſſus: non ſic triſtis ut horridus; ne que ita ſimplex ut nudus; aut adeò comptus ut affectatâ compoſitione calamiſtris videatur inuſtus. Par verbis materia, par ſententia ribus, &c. A Courtier he was, and a Maſter of ſpeech: a man of Noble birth, and as noble a ſpirit: not the firſt of the holy Prophets, and yet worthily ſet in the firſt place (as St. Pauls Epiſtle to the Romans is for like cauſe ſet before the reſt) becauſe in abundance of Viſions he exceedeth his fellows; and in ſpeaking of the Lord Chriſt, he delivereth himſelf more like an Evangeliſt then a Prophet, Hieronym. Eſt in fragmentis Demad[illegible: 1 letter], orationes Demoſtheni[illegible: 1 letter] eſſe [non-Latin text not transcribed]. De Iſaiae viſion bus idem p[illegible: 1 letter] Conciones ha[illegible: 1 letter] poenitential[illegible: 1 letter] comminator as & Conſ[illegible: 1 letter] [illegible: 1 letter]ortas. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. and is therefore called The Evangelical Prophet. In the New-Teſtament he is cited by Chriſt and his Apoſtles ſixty ſeveral times at leaſt, and by the devouter Heathens he was not a little reſpected, as appeareth by the hiſtory of that Ethiopian Eunuch, Acts 8.

The viſion] That is, the ſeveral Viſions or Doctrines ſo certainly and clearly revealed to him by God, as if he had ſeen them with his bodily eyes: ſee chap. 2.1. Nahum. 1.1. for they are not to be hearkened to, who hold that theſe Seers, the Prophets underſtood not their own propheſies, 1 Pet. 1.10, 11. though it is true, that thoſe holy men of God ſpake as they were moved, acted, and powerfully carryed on to ſee and ſay as they did, by the Holy Ghoſt, 2 Pet. 1.21.

Of Iſaiah] Which ſignifieth Gods health. He would indeed have healed that perverſe people to whom he was ſent, but they would not be healed, as he ſadly complaineth, chap. 44.4. & 53.1. turning them over to God with a Non convertentur, They will not repent, let them therefore periſh: When there is no hope of curing, there muſt be cutting.

The Son of Amoz] Who likewiſe was a Prophet, ſay the Hebrews, and of royal extraction.

Luth. in Pſal. 127. Which he ſaw] Not which I ſaw: thus he ſpeaketh for modeſty ſake. Luther wittily ſaith that Haec ego feci, Haec ego feci, ſhews men to be nothing elſe but Faeces, dregs.

Concerning Judah and Jeruſalem] The Inhabitants whereof lived in Gods good land, but would not live by Gods good laws: to them was objected as afterwards to the Athenians, Eos ſcire quae recta ſunt, ſed facere nolle, that they knew what was right, but had no mind to do it, though this and other Prophets uſed their beſt Oratory in inviting thoſe of them that did rebel, inciting thoſe that did neglect, haſtening thoſe that did linger, and recalling thoſe that did wander, to ſue out their pardons, and make their peace with their Maker.

In the days of Ʋzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah] And longer too, if that be true which the Hebrews tell us, that at the age of one hundred twenty and ſix years he was ſawn aſunder by Manaſſeh (his grand-ſon by the Mothers ſide) with a wooden ſaw.Hier. lib. 15. in Iſa. in ſine. Sure it is that Manaſſeh was a moſt bloody perſecutor, and perhaps not inferior to Diocleſian, in whoſe days ſuch cruelty was exerciſed toward the Chriſtian Biſhops, and others, Ʋt totum orcum dicas in orbem effuſum, Buſſieres. ubi nemo niſi tortus vel tortor ſit, as if Hell had been broke looſe, and all men turned either Torturers or Tortured.

Deut. 4.26. & 30.19. & 31.28.Verſe 2. Hear O Heavens, and give ear O Earth] Exordium patheticum! Moſes-like he calleth heaven and earth, brutas illas mutaſ que creaturas, to record againſt Gods rebels, whoſe ſtupendious ſtupidity is hereby taxed. Heaven and earth do hear and obey Gods voyce, for they are all his ſervants, Pſal. 119.91. keeping their conſtant courſe. Only Man (that great Heteroclite) breaketh order; and is therefore worſe then other creatures, becauſe he ſhould be better.

For the Lord hath ſpoken it] So Jer. 13.15. Hear and give ear, be not proud, for the Lord hath ſpoken it. Jehovah, whoſe voyce ſhaketh not the earth only, but the heavens alſo, Heb. 12.26. Pſal. 104.32. at whoſe dreadful preſence Mountains melt, Rocks rent aſunder, and the whole fabrick of heaven and earth is aſtoniſhed, horribly afraid, and very deſolate, Jer. 2.12. This Great Jehovah (whoſe Name is great among the Heathen, Mal. 1.11. The Pythagoreans uſed to ſwear by [non-Latin text not transcribed] Quaternity, the name Jehovah conſiſting of four letters in the Hebrew,Lingua mea eſt calamus S. S. & guttur meum eſt tuba divino inflata & clangens anhelitu. Deut. 32.15. which alſo they called [non-Latin text not transcribed] the fountain of Eternity) Aph[illegible: 1 letter]hu even he hath ſpoken, or, is about to ſpeak, ſc. by my mouth and Miniſtery. Hear now this O fooliſh people, and without underſtanding, which have eyes and ſee not, which have ears and hear not: Fear ye not me, ſaith Jehovah? Will ye not tremble at my preſence? &c. Jer. 5.21, 22. Hear ye deaf, and look ye blind that ye may ſee. Iſa. 42.18. Thus muſt Miniſters preach to the conſcience, cut to the quick, rouſe up themſelves and wreſtle with their hearers, goring their very ſouls with ſmarting pain, whileſt they ſpeak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4.11. with all gravity and authority.

I have nouriſhed and brought up children] Or advanced, exalted them. Brevicula verba, ſed cauſa querulandi maxima; A ſhort but ſharp conteſt. God had adopted, educated,Plato Ariſtotelem vocabat mulum. and advanced the people of Iſrael: but Jeſurun waxed fat, and kicked, as young Mulets, when they have ſucked, lift up the heel, and kick the dams dugs, as Hawks when full fed forget their Maſter.

And they have rebelled againſt me] Or tranſgreſſed, blaſphemed. Rebellion is a kind of blaſphemy, Numb. 15.30, 31. with Ezek. 20.27. and unthankfulneſs is, as one ſaith, an accumulative ſin, a voluminous wickedneſs; many ſins are bound up in it, as Cicero ſaith of parricide. Solon would make no law againſt parricide, becauſe he thought none would be ſo vile as to commit it. Lycurgus would make no law againſt Ingratitude for like reaſon.

[non-Latin text not transcribed].Ver. 3. The Ox knoweth his owner] Yea helpeth him: whence theſe creatures are called juumenta a juvando, and the Aſs hath his name in Greek from his uſefulneſs. Yea the moſt ſavage creatures will be at the beck and check of thoſe that feed them. Diobedience therefore is againſt the Principles of nature: and Gods Rebels fall below the ſtirrup of Reaſon, yea of Senſe: ſo great cauſe was there that our Prophet tantas tragoedias ageret, ſhould begin his Sermon with ſuch a ſolemn conteſtation, Hear O Heavens, &c. O coelum, O terram! But Iſrael doth not know, quo eſt ſtupore; he needeth to be ſet to School to theſe dulleſt of creatures to learn the knowledge of God, and of his will, of himſelf and his duty. Oh the brutiſh ignorance of many profligate profeſſours! they are a people of no underſtanding, Pſalm 53.4. So chap. 44.18.

My people doth not conſider; Though them only have I known of all the Families of the Earth, Amos 3.2. culling and calling them, owning and honouring them, adopting and accepting them for my people, when I had all the world before me to chuſe in, Deut. 10.14, 15. yet they value not my benefits, they ſtir not up themſelves (as the Hebrew word ſignifieth) to apprehend them, and to be affected with them: All's loſt that I have laid out upon them. Unthankfulneſs is as a grave, which receiveth dead bodies, but rendreth them not up again without a Miracle. But ſhould ye thus requite the Lord, Oh fooliſh people and unwiſe! Deut. 32.6. See the Note there.

Ver. 4. Ah ſinful Nation! Hoi goi chote.] He beginneth his complaint with a ſigh, as well he might, when he ſaw that the better God was to them, the worſe they were to him: like Springs of water, which are then coldeſt, when the Sun is hotteſt: like the Thracian flint, which is ſaid to burn with water, and to be quenched with oyl: or like that Countrey where drought maketh dirt, and rain duſt.Siccitas dat lutum, imbres pulverem. Plin. Ah geus peccatrix! Oh thou that art wholly made up of miſchief! as Aaron once ſaid of their Fore-fathers in the Wilderneſs, that they were wholly ſet upon wickedneſs, Exod. 32.22. and as the Prophet ſaith, What is the tranſgreſſion of Jacob?Gens quae non niſi peccare didicit. Scult. ſecura & petulans. Piſeat. Luke 15.30. Is it not Samaria? And what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jeruſalem? Mic. 1.5.

A people laden with iniquity] Great and grievous offenders, guilty of many and mighty (or long) ſins, Amos 5.12. quorum amplitudine pragravantur, yet not ſenſible of their burden, not heavy-laden, as Mat. 11.28. nor labouring to be delivered of that hedg-hog that woundeth and teareth them in their tender inſide.

A ſeed of evil-doers] A race of Rebels, a ſeed of Serpents: Mali corvi malum ovum; ſuch as were as good at reſiſting the Holy Ghoſt as ever their Fathers had been, Acts 7.51. generation after generation they held it out, and were no changelings then, neither are to this day.

Children that are corrupters] Or, deſtroyers, ding thrifts, [non-Latin text not transcribed] quaſi [non-Latin text not transcribed], ſtroygoods, ſuch as the Roman Prodigal who gloried that of a large Patrimony left him by his Parents, he had now left himſelf nothing praeter coelum & coenum; or that other in the Goſpel, who had drawn much of his portion through his throat, and ſpent the reſt on harlots. Lo, ſuch ill husbands for their ſouls were theſe Jews here ſpoken of, ſcipſis aſſidue facti deteriores, whileſt they wofully waſted their time and ſtrength in the purſuit of their luſts: curſed children, 2 Pet. 2.14.

They have forſaken the Lord] which is ſuch a foul enormity, as good Jeremy thinks the very Heaven ſweateth at, and the earth groaneth under, Jer. 2.12, 13.

They have provoked unto anger] as if they had a mind to wraſtle a fall, and try maſteries with him. The Vulgar rendreth it, They have blaſphemed. See the Note on ver. 2.

They are gone away backward] Alienaverunt ſeretrorſum, certatim exardeſcentes in Apoſtaſiam: as the Moon when fulleſt of light getteth farther off from the Sun. They had turned upon God the back and not the face, by a ſhameful Apoſtacy, even then when they frequently trod his Courts, ver. 12. and departed not thence, haply, any otherwiſe then the Jews at this day do, out of their Synagogues, with their faces ſtill toward the Ark, like crabs going backward.

Ver. 5. Why ſhould ye be ſtriken any more?] This was the heavieſt ſtroke that ever Judah felt from the hand of God; like as Ephraims ſoreſt Judgement was, He is joyned to Idols, let him alone, Hoſ. 4.17. q. d he is incorrigible, irreclaimable, let him go on and periſh: Ile not any longer foul my fingers with him. O fearful Sentence! To proſper in ſin is a grievous plague, and a ſign of one given up by God. To be like the Smiths-dog, whom neither the Hammers above him, nor the ſparks of fire falling round about him can awaken, is to be in a deſperate condition. To wax worſe by chaſtiſements, as 2 Chron. 28.22. is a ſure ſign of reprobate ſilver, Jerem. 6.30. of a dead and dedolent diſpoſition, Epheſ. 4.18. God as a loving Father, verba, verbera, beneficia, ſupplicia miſcuerat, had done all that could be done to do them good, but all would not do; ſuch was their obſtinacy.

The whole head is ſick, and the whole heart is faint] Head, Heart, Feet; Princes, Prieſts, and common people, as they had all ſinned, ſo they all had their payment: Sin is an univerſal ſickneſs, like thoſe Diſeaſes which Phyſitians ſay are Corruptio totius ſubſtantiae, a corruption of the whole ſubſtance. And National ſins bring National plagues, wherein all ſorts ſuffer, as they did in the dayes of Ahaz, de quibus haud dubie loquitur hic propheta, ſaith Scultetus: though others think the Prophet here ſpeaketh rather of thoſe miſeries inflicted upon Judah by Hazael King of Syria, 2 King. 12. and by Joaſh King of Iſrael, 2 King. 14. wherein all ſorts had their ſhare, none ſcaped ſcot-free.

Verſ. 6. From the ſole of the head] totum eſt pro vulnere corpus, The whole body Politick was deadly diſeaſed, and it was our Prophets unhappineſs to be the Phyſian to a dying State; Tunc etenim docta plus valet arte malum.

There is no ſoundneſs] Nec ſanitas in corpore, nec ſanctitas in corde. Heu, heu, Domine Deus.

But wounds, and bruiſes and putrifying ſores] And thoſe alſo ſuch as would not be cured, but called for cutting off— Immedicabile vulnus Enſe recidendum eſt.

They have not been cloſed] Neither will be, Non eſt malagma imponere, ſay the Septuagint here. You will not endure to have them ſearched or ſuppled: what hope therefore of healing? If the Sun of Righteouſneſs ſhall ſhine upon us with healing under his wings, we muſt repent and believe the Goſpel, Mar. 1.15.

Ver. 7. Your Countrey is deſolate] Here the Prophet ſpeaketh plainly, what before, parabolically: thus many times the Scripture explaineth it ſelf, Joh. 7.39.

Your Cities are burnt] So that there is ſometimes but an hours ſpace, inter civitatem magnam, & nullam, ſaith Seneca, betwixt a fair City and an heap.

Zar alienum ſignificat & hoſtem. Your land ſtrangers devour it] that is, Enemies: In which ſenſe alſo an Harlot is called a ſtrange woman, ſeemingly a friend, but really an enemy: ſhe will deſtroy his peace who is overcome by her.

In your preſence] to your greater grief. Witneſs the experience hereof in our late ſtripping and deſolating times, whereof we have here a kind of Theological [illegible: 1 letter]icture.

Ver. 8. And the Daughter of Zion] 1. Jeruſalem which is called the Daughter of Zion ſay ſome, becauſe ſtanding at the foot of that Hill as a Daughter, it comes out from between the feet, being alſo cheriſhed and tendered by God as his Daughter. Howbeit, as dear as ſhe was to him, ſhe fell into deep diſtreſs, when ſhe became undutifull. Abuſed Mercy turneth into fury.

Is left as a cottage in a Vineyard] As a ſhed or booth, whereof after the Vintage, there is little uſe or regard.

As a lodge in a garden of Cucumers] Or Melons, which when ripe, lie on the ground: So ſaith one, do Gods ripeſt and beſt ſervants, being humble, and meanly conceited of themſelves.

As a beſieged City] Beſieged, though at a diſtance: as Rome was, when Saguntum was beleagured.

Ver. 9. Except the Lord] Jehovah the Eſſentiator & Induperator, the Maker and Monarch of the Univerſe.

Had left unto us a very ſmall remnant] which he reſerved for Royal uſe: pulling them as a brand out of the fire, Zech. 3.2. or as two legs or a piece of an ear taken by the Shepherd out of the mouth of a Lion, Amos 3.12. The Apoſtle, after the Septuagint, rendreth it a ſeed, Rom 9.29. in alluſion to ſtore-ſeed, kept by the Huſbandman; and there hence inferreth, that the Elect Jews ſhall by faith in Chriſt be freed from the Tyrannie of Satan, and terrour of Hell. And this is here alledged for an allay to thoſe foregoing dreadfull Declarations of bygone and direfull menaces of future deſolations; ſo loth is the Sun of Righteouſneſs to ſet in a cloud; ſurely in the midſt of Judgement he remembreth mercy — quamvis cecidere trecent, Non omnes Fabios abſtulit una dies. Ovid.

We ſhould have been as Sodom] Thoſe five Cities of the Plain are thrown forth for an Example; Jude 7. Lot was no ſooner taken out of Sodom, but Sodom was taken out of the World, and turned into a ſea of ſalt, Deut. 24.23. So Meroz, Judg. 5.23. ſome City, likely, near the place where that battel was fought, hath the very Name and memorial of it utterly extinct.

Ver. 10. Hear the Word of the Lord, ye Princes of Sodom] Having mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, verſ 9. he maketh further uſe thereof, probroſa hac appellatione auditores ſuos conveniens: ſharping up his Hearers in this ſort, whom he knew he ſhould not wrong at all by ſo calling them; ſee Ezek. 16.46, 48. Non tam ovum ovo ſimile, Like they were, both Princes and people, to thoſe of Sodom and Gomorrah, 1. In their ingratitude toward God. 2. in their cruelty toward men. Our Prophet therefore is very bold (as Saint Paul alſo teſtifieth of him, Rom. 10.20.) fearing no colours, although for his boldneſs he loſt his life: if at leaſt that be true which Hierom out of the Rabbins telleth us,Hier. [illegible: 2 letters] Iſ▪ 1. viz. that this Prophet Iſay was ſawn aſunder. 1. Becauſe he ſaid he had ſeen the Lord, chap. 6.1. Secondly, Becauſe he called the great Ones of Judah Princes of Sodom, &c. giving them a Title agreeable to their wicked practiſes. The like liberty of ſpeech uſed Athanaſius toward Conſtantius, Agapetus toward Juſtinian, Johannes Sarisburienſis toward the Pope. &c.

Ver. 11. To what purpoſe is the multitude of your ſacrifices] All which, without faith and devotion, are no better then meer hypocriſie and illuſion. It is, ſaith Oecolampadius, as if one ſhould preſent his Prince with many Carts laden with dirt: or as if good meat well-cooked ſhould be brought to Table by a naſty ſloven, who hath been tumbling in a jakes. They are your ſacrifices, and not mine: and though many and coſtly, yet I abhor ſuch ſacrificing Sodomites as you are, neither ſhall you be a button the better for your pompous he catombe and holocauſts. Your devotions are placed more in the maſſy materiality then inward purity, and therefore rejected. Go ye and learn what that is, I will have mercy (ſo, Faith, Repentance, new Obedience) and not ſacrifice, Mat. 9.14. You ſtick in the bark, reſt in the work done: your piety is potius in labris quam in fibris nata, a meer outſide, ſhels, Nut-kernels, ſhews and Pageants, not heart-workings, &c. Ʋna Dei eſt, purum, gratiſſima victima, pectus.

I am full of the burnt offerings] I am even cloyed and lothed with the ſight of them.

And of the fat of fed beaſts] Though ye bring the very beſt of the beſt; yet you do worſe then loſe your labour, caſt away your coſt: for therein ye commit ſin, Prov. 15.8. Diſpleaſing ſervice is double diſhonour, Deus homines iſtis, ut vocant, meritis praefidentes averſatur.

I delight not in the blood of Bullocks, &c.] He that killeth an Ox, unleſs withall he kill his corruptions, is as if he ſlew a man. He that ſacrificeth a Lamb, as if he cut off a dogs neck, &c. chap. 66.3. Thoſe miſcreants in Micah who offered largely for a Licenſe to live as they liſt, are rejected with ſcorn, Mic. 6 7.

Ver. 12. When ye come to appear before me] Heb. to be ſeen, elſe all had been loſt: Hypocriſie is very oſtentous; it would be noted and noticed: whereas true Devotion deſireth not to be ſeen of any, ſave Him who ſeeth in ſecret.

Who hath required this at your hand?] This is Gods Voyce to all ſuperſtitious Will-worſhippers and carnal-Goſpellers. Friend, how cameſt thou in hither? Who ſent for thee to my ſervice? Who hath forewarned this generation of Vipers to flye from the wrath to come? What haſt thou to do to take up my Name? &c. Pſalm 50.16. to tread my Courts, to pollute my Preſence? This is the gate of the Lord into which the Righteous only ſhould enter, Pſalm 118.20. The ſacrifice of the wicked is abomination, how much more when he bringeth it with a wicked mind! Prov. 21.27.

To tread my Courts] Or trample on, as chap. 62.3. to foul it, Calca[illegible: 1 letter]is atria & teritis pavimentum. A Lap. Sands his Relat. of Weſt. Relig. Sect. 8. and wear it out with their feet: as in ſome places Marble-croſſes graven in Pavements of Popiſh Churches (with indulgences annexed for every time they are kiſſed) are even worn by the kiſſes of the devouter Sexe, eſpecially. Diodaete noteth here that a phraſe is pickt out on purpoſe to ſhew that theſe falſe appearances were rather acts of prophane contempt then of right Religion. The Greeks gave ſuch honour to their Temples, that they durſt not tread on the Threſhold thereof, but leap over it. The Prieſts at their ſolemn ſervices, cryed aloud [non-Latin text not transcribed], Greſſus removete prophani. The Jews at this day, before they come to the Synagogue, waſh themſelves, and ſcrape their ſhoos with an Iron faſtened in a wall at the entrance. The Habaſſines (a mongrel kind of Chriſtians in Africk) do neither walk nor talk, nor ſit nor ſpit, nor laugh in the Church, nor admit dogs into the Church-yards. Sed quorſum haec omnia? to what end is all this, without an honeſt care to lift up pure hands and holy hearts in Gods preſence? See Jer. 7.3, 4, 9, 10, 11.

Ver. 13. Bring no more vain oblations] Vain, becauſe unacceptable, ineffectual, unſubſtantial: Epitheton argumentoſum, ſaith Piſcator. Lip-labour is loſt-labour; For God is not mocked with ſhadows of ſervice: his ſharp noſe eaſily diſcerneth and is offended with the ſtinking breath of the Hypocrites rotten Lungs, though his words be never ſo ſcented and perfumed with ſhews of holineſs. Hence it is added

Incenſe is an abomination unto me] ſc. becauſe it ſtinketh of the hand that offereth it. Incenſe of it ſelf was a ſweet and precious Perfume, compounded of the beſt Odours and Spices. In the incenſe of faithful prayer alſo, how many ſweet ſpices are burnt together by the fire of Faith, as Humility, Hope, Love, &c. all which come up for a memorial before God, through the Merits and Mediation of Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. 9.24. But it is otherwiſe with the wicked, whoſe carnal heart is like ſome fen or bog, and every prayer thence proceeding is as an evil vapour reaking and riſing from that dunghill. Never did thoſe five Cities of the Plain ſend up ſuch poiſonous ſmels to Heaven; which God being not able to abide, ſent down upon them a counter-poyſon of fire and brimſtone.

I cannot away with] Heb. I cannot, by an angry Apoſiopeſis: I cannot, that is, I cannot behold, bear with, or forbear to puniſh: as Oecolampadius maketh the ſupply to be.

It is iniquity] Or an affliction, a grievance, as Joh. 5.6. Yea it is a Vexation, as ſome render the next word, viz. your ſolemn meeting.

Ver. 14. Your New Moons] Theſe were commanded to be kept to mind them of Gods gubernation of all things, as from whom come all alterations and changes; and ſo to teach them to rely on his providence at all times and turns. This they thought not on, and are therefore turn'd off with contempt.

Your appointed Feaſts] Or rather your ſet-meetings, whether for Feaſts or Faſts.

My ſoul hateth] Not all his ſences only were offended, but his very ſoul alſo, which is an Emphatical ſpeech, and an argument of his hearty deteſtation. Hypocriſie is hatefull to men, much more to the holy God. When Bernardine Ochin offered the Cardinal of Lorrain his ſervice in writing againſt the Proteſtants, he ſleighted him with greateſt ſcorn, becauſe he knew he had diſſembled and plaid the Hypocrite. The other Papiſts ſhould have dealt in like ſort with Bolſecus, that twice-baniſhed and thrice-runnagate Fryar and Phyſitian, whom they baſely hired to write the lives of Calvin and Beza, alledging him in all their writings as Canonical.

They are a trouble unto me] or a burthen, a combrance, God, though he be not weary of bearing up the whole world, yet under this burden he buckles as it were, and elſwhere complains, that he is preſſed under it as a cart is preſſed that is full of ſheaves, Amos 2.13.

Ver. 15. And when ye spread forth your hands] This was the ancient guiſe and garb in extraordinary and moſt earneſt prayer, eſpecially to ſpread forth the arms, and lay open the hands as it were, to receive a bleſſing from the Allmighty. Exod. 9.24. Pſalm 44.20. & 143.6. 1 King. 8.22, 38.

I will hide mine eyes from you] tanquam à teterrimo cadavere, quod oculos & naſum ut occludatis faciat. The eyes of the Lord are upon the Righteous, and his ears are open to their cry: But the face of the Lord is againſt them that do evil, Pſalm 34.15, 16. his pure eyes cannot behold them with patience, Hab. 1.13.

Yea, when ye make many prayers] as hoping to be heard for your much babling. The Turks pray conſtantly five times a day. The Jews pronounce daily an hundred benedictions. The Papiſts pray more by tale then by weight of Zeal. The wild Iriſh pray for a bleſſing on their theft alſo.

I will not hear:] Your prayers are as jarring in mine ears, as if divers diſtracted Muſicians ſhould play upon divers had Inſtruments ſo many ſeveral tunes at one time: or as if ſo many dogs ſhould ſet up a Howl together, Hoſ. 7.14. See the Note there. Take thou away from me the noiſe of thy ſongs, (thoſe black Santi's) for I will not hear the melody of thy viols, Amos 5.23. The Jews at this day conclude their Sabbath with ſinging, or caterwawling rather, which they continue as long as they can, for the eaſe of ſouls departed: and withall they pray many times over and over, that Elias would haſten his coming, even the next Sabbath, if he pleaſe, to give them notice of the Meſſias his coming. All this is loſt labor.

Your hands are full of blood.] Ac proinde horrorem mihi incutiunt. Hands imbrued in blood are horrible to behold: Should he who hath aſſaſſined the Kings ſon, come to him with a petition preſently upon it? And ſhould not pure hands be everywhere lifted up to God without wrath and without doubting? 1 Tim. 2.8. By Blood here may be meant not only Injuſtice and Oppreſſion of the poor, but all other ſins alſo allowed and wallowed in, when blood toucheth blood, Hoſ. 4.2 one foul ſin is added to another.

Ver. 16. Waſh ye, make ye clean.] Waſh your hearts from wickedneſs, that ye may be ſaved, Jer. 4.14. Yea, cleanſe your hands ye ſinners, and purifie your hearts ye double-minded, Jam. 4.8. But how is that done? Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep, &c. ver. 9. Ye cannot waſh your bloody hands in innocency; waſh them therefore in tears, which are a ſecond Baptiſm of the ſoul where it is rinſed anew. And ſurely, as the ſins of the old world, ſo of this little world, need a Deluge. Set to work therefore, and God will ſoon ſet in with you. Waſh your ſelves with the tears of true Repentance, and God will waſh you with the blood of his Son; only be ſure to do your work throughly, waſh hard, rub, rinſe: we have inveterate ſtains, which will hardly be got out till the cloth be almoſt rubd to peeces. And as an error in the firſt Concoction, is not mended in the ſecond; nor of the ſecond, in the third; ſo if a mans humiliation hath not been ſound, his reformation cannot be right. Waſh therefore, and then,

Put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes.] Away with that abominable thing that is ſo grievous to all my five ſenſes, yea, to my very ſoul, as is above ſaid. Sin is in Scripture called Pollution, Leproſie, Contagion, Vomit of a dog, wallowing of a ſwine in the mire, &c: and muſt therefore be rid and removed out of the heart and life, or we cannot find favour.

Ceaſe to do evil.] This is firſt to be done; Depart from evil, and do good: break off your ſins by Repentance, and be abrupt in the work: ſow not among the Thorns; caſt away all your tranſgreſſions, &c. The Prophets preſſing moral duties in this ſort, do it as Explainers of the Law; they did but unfold and draw out that Arras which was folded together before.

Learn to do well.] Turn over a new leaf, take out a new leſſon. Be thou inſtructed O Jeruſalem, leſt God's ſoul depart from thee, Jer. 6.8. Deliver thy ſelf wholly up to his Diſcipline: Religion is the beſt learning, Philoſophia ſacra: To know Chriſt and him crucified is as much as Saint Paul cared for: Deum cognoſcere & colere, is the whole duty of man; add this to the former: Negative goodneſs profiteth not.

Seek Judgment, relieve the oppreſſed, &c.] Look to the Duties of the ſecond Table; thoſe of your own particular places eſpecially: Exerciſe your general Calling in your particular, and think not to ſet off with God by your ſacrifices for your oppreſſions; I will have Mercy and not ſacrifice. Primo praecepto reliquorum omnium obſervantia praecipitur, ſaith Luther. All Gods Laws were in Davids ſight, Pſalm 119.198. all his wayes in Gods ſight. What a good Juſticer and Houſholder both he was, ſee Pſalm 101.

Relieve the oppreſſed] Heb, righten the ſowred, or leavened.

Judge the fatherleſs, plead for the widdow] Theſe are Gods own Clyents, Exodus 22.21.

Ver. 18. Come now let us reaſon together] In the Greek Church, at the beginning of Divine ſervice, the Deacon cryed out, Sacra Sacris, Holy ſouls to holy ſervice.Chryſoſt. Baſil. Liturg. God will not treat with this people till purified, till reſolved upon better practices. As when he is content, by a wonderfull condeſcention, to make them even as Judges in their own cauſe. The Vulgar rendreth it, but not ſo well, Et venite & arguite me. See chap. 5.3. Jer. 2.9. Mic. 6.1, 2, 3.

Allu[illegible: 1 letter]it ad habitum meretricum. A Lap. Though your ſin be of ſcarlet] blood-red, as ver. 15. and of a double dye, ſins in grain, enormia & horrenda, ſuch as ye may well think will never waſh out.

They ſhall be white as ſnow] i. e. You ſhall be fully freed of the guilt and filth of your moſt heinous offences by the blood of my Son; ſc. Not your peccadilla's only ſhall be remitted, but your many and mighty ſins, quae coccini, quae vermiculi inſtar ſunt. Ci[illegible: 1 letter]cr. l. 4. Acad. queſt. Galen. l. 2. De virt. [illegible: 1 letter]mp. remediorum. But what meant that mad Philoſopher Anaxagoras to affirm that ſnow was black? Purge me with Hyſop (waſh me by the blood of ſprinkling from the ſting and ſtink of ſin) and I ſhall be clean; waſh me, and I ſhall be whiter then ſnow, Pſalm 51.7. Cleaner I ſhall be then the picked glaſs, whiter then the driven ſnow. The Law, ſaith one, is like a glaſs wherein we ſee our ſpots: but the Goſpel is like the Laver,Ainſw. in loc. Exod. 38.8. which was made of the womens Looking-glaſſes, whereby they might both ſee their Faces, and alſo waſh out their ſpots: for it was both a Glaſs to look in, and a Laver to waſh in; and this typified Chriſt: ſee 1 Joh. 1.7. Revel. 1.1.

Though they be redlike crimſon] which is, ſay the Rabbins, of a deeper colour then the former.

They ſhall be as wool] which naturally is exceeding white in thoſe Countries, Pſalm 147.16. Scultetus noteth that God here promiſeth not only pardoning, but purging Grace alſo.

Ver. 19. If ye be willing and obedient] If ye love God and keep his Commandements, Exod. 20.6. If ye love to be his ſervants, Iſa. 56.6. willing in all things to live honeſtly,Baſil. Conc. de prodigo. Enchir. id. cap. 32. Heb 13.18. Tantum velis & Deus tibi praecurret: ſay thou canſt not open the door, yet be lifting at the latch: ever holding that of Auſtin, Nolentem praevenit Deus ut velit, volentem ſubſequitur ne fruſtra velit. It is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleaſure. Phil. 2.8. Auſtin (after Paul) ſtood ſo much for free-grace, that the Papiſts ſay be yielded too little to free will.

Ye ſhall eat the good things of the land] Ye ſhall, and not ſtrangers for you, as ver. 7. The Eaſterlings ſhall not eat thy fruit, nor drink thy milk, as Ezek. 25.4. Thine enemies ſhall not eat thy corn, nor the ſons of the ſtranger drink thy wine; But they that have gathered it ſhall eat it and praiſe the Lord: and they that have brought it together ſhall drink it in the Courts of my holineſs, Iſa. 62.8, 9. Godlineſs hath a Cornucopia: Religion is the right Palladium of a Nation. The Heathen Poet could acknowledge that ſo long as Rome ſtood Religious, ſo long ſhe continued victorious and proſperous; as on the contrary, Horat.Dii multa neglecti dederunt Heſperiae mala luctuoſae.

Italy was undone by irreligion. The Greek Empire had not faln from the Paleologi to the Turks,Non caliditate & robore. ſed pietate & religione omnes gentes ſupera [illegible: 1 letter]is. Orat. de Art. reſponſ. [illegible: 1 letter]ib. 3. had the Chriſtian verity ſtood firm in Conſtantinople. Tully confeſſeth that the Inſtruments by which the Romans ſubdued the world, were not ſtrength and policy, but Religion and Piety. Wherefore alſo Mecaenas in Dion Caſſius adviſeth Auguſtus [non-Latin text not transcribed] by all means, and at all times to advance the worſhip of God, to cauſe others to do the ſame, and not ſuffer Innovations in Religion.

Ver. 20. But if ye refuſe and rebel] The Romans ſent the Carthaginians caduceum & haſtam, that they might take their choice of Peace upon ſubmiſſion, or war upon refuſal ſo to do. Semblably dealeth the Lord by this people here; See Deut. 30.19.

Yet ſhall be devoured with the ſword] War is threatned, which is, ſaith One, the Slaughter-houſe of mankind, and the Hell of this preſent world; and that we may not think that theſe are but big words, brute thunder-bolts, it is added for confirmation.

For the mouth of the Lord hath ſpoken it] Now whatſoever he hath ſpoken with his mouth, he will ſurely make good with his hand, as Solomon phraſeth it in his prayer. The Original hath it, For the mouth of the Lord hath ſpoken, q. d. let his Word ſtand for a Law with you. Juſtinian telleth us in his Inſtitutes, that it was a Prerogative belonging to the Roman Emperour, Quicquid principi placuirit, legis habet vigorem, whatſoever he pleaſed to bid be done was a Law. And the French Kings Edicts or Proclamations alwayes end with theſe binding words, Car bel eſt noſtre plaſir, for ſuch is our pleaſure, and we look to be obeyed. May not the King of Kings ſay ſo much more?

Ver. 21. How is the faithful City] Here beginneth, as ſome think,Nota eſt admirantis, & deplorantis. a new Sermon; and it beginneth as Jeremiah's Lamentations do with an Ecack: How, a particle of Admiration mixt with grief, q. d. Proh pudor! proh dolor! O ſhamefull! O dolefull! What a ſtrange buſineſs is this? and how unworthily is this matter carried? Here's a City ſo altered that ye can ſcarce know her to be the ſame; ye may ſeek Jeruſalem in Jeruſalem and not find her: — tota eſt jam Roma lupanar. Mantuan. See Ezek. 16.15, 23. & 23.3. &c.

Become an Harlot?] In meretricem; not a privy Harlot only, but a proſtituted harlot, a very proſtibulum meretrix meretriciſſima, utpote quae cubile dilatavit, Iſa 57. Tibias devaricavit, Ezek. 16. Such a trite harlot is the great whore of Babylon at this day, whoſe faithfulneſs was once famous all the world over, Rom. 1. But now, O quantum haec Niobe! Ex aurea factam argenteam, ex argentea, ferream, ex ferrea terream, ſupereſſe ut in ſtercus abiret. Theod. Urias Auguſtinianus. circa. An. 1414. One of her own ſons once complained that of gold ſhe was become ſilver, of ſilver braſs: and that ſhe was ready to degenerate into dirt, and worſe.

It was full of judgement] topfull: Sad, that it was ſo. Fuimus Troes. It's a miſery to have been happy.

Righteouſneſs lodged there] Not in Melchiſedecks days only, who was King of Righteouſneſs according to his Name, and King alſo of Salem, afterwards called Jeruſalem: but alſo in the raignes of David, Solomon, Jehoſophat, and other good Princes. But now no ſuch matter; nay the contrary, like as the Prince of Orange his Country is fertil of all fruits ſave Orenges; whence the French Proverb, En Orenge it n'y a point de Oranges.

But now Murtherers] Hierapolis was become a very Poneropolis, the City of God a den of Thieves, or (as the Papiſts maliciovſly ſay of Geneva) a profeſſed Sanctuary of roguery. By Murtherers here may be meant Perſecutors of the pious, and oppreſſours of the poor man, whoſe livelihood is his life, Mark 12. ult. Luke 8.43. A poor man in his houſe is like a ſnail in his ſhell: cruſh that, and you kill him.

Ver. 22. Thy ſilver is become droſs] Heb: droſſes. A proverbial kind of ſpeech, deciphering Apoſtacy. It is as if the Prophet had ſaid, There is nothing pure in thee, nothing ſincere or ſimple; ſed omnia fallacia, omnia fucata, omnia inquinata; but all things are deceitful, degenerate and corrupt. Droſs looketh like ſilver, and is nothing leſs: Wine mixt (or marred) with water hath the name of wine, when it is nil niſi vappa: Hypocrites are meer ſeemers, Jam, 1.26. Juglers, Job 13.16. having a form of Knowledge, Rom. 2. a form of Godlineſs, 2 Tim. 3.5. fair profeſſors they are, and foul ſinners. But be not deceived, God is not mocked; he is a faithful Metallary, ſaith a Father, and will eaſily find out mens mixtures and impoſtures. It is to be feared that he hath yet a further controverſie with this Nation for our hateful Hypocriſie and Apoſtacy: for where now alas, is our ancient fervour and forwardneſs, our heating and whetting one another? O how dull and dilute are we, &c.

Ver. 23. Thy Princes are rebellious] Or, Revolters, Apoſtates: there is an Elegancy in the Original, ſuch as this Prophet is full of: ac ſi dicas primi ſunt Pravi vel Perverſi; ſo ſaith Calvin here; Epiſcopi may be called Apoſcopi, Cardinales Carnales vel Carpinales, Carpet-men; Canonisi, Cenonici, Praepoſiti praepoſteri, &c. This note A Lapide is very angry at, & lapides loquitur.

And companions of Thieves] Whileſt they not only ſuffered ſuch to go unpuniſhed, but alſo ſhared with them, as Pſalm 50.18. Cato complained that in his time ſome thieves ſtood at the bar in cold Irons, when others and worſe ſat on the Bench with Gold-chains about their necks. The bold Pirat told Alexander to his teeth, that he was the Arch-Pirat of the World. And what ſhall we think of Pope Alexander, who Anno 1505. ſent a Bull of Pardons for many,Speed. 992. diſpenſing thereby with ſuch as kept away, or by any fraud had gotten the goods of other men, which they ſhould now retain ſtill without ſcruple of conſcience, ſo as they paid a rateable portion thereof to his Holineſſes receivers? And at this day Popiſh Prieſts will abſolve a thief of his wickedneſs, Scultet in loc. if he may have half with him of the ſtollen goods.

Every one loveth gifts] Not only taketh; although in taking alſo the Greek proverb ſaith, [non-Latin text not transcribed], great care and caution ſhould be uſed. Olim didici quid ſint munera, ſaid a grave man. See Deut. 16 19.

And followeth after rewards] As an Hunter his game, or a Merchant his gain, or a Martialiſt his enemy; Sectantur retributiones, i. e. Collidunt inter ſe judices, ſaith the Chaldee Paraphraſt: the Judges complot, ſaying one to another, Help thou me in Judging againſt the poor, and I'le do as much for thee another time.

They judge not the fatherleſs] Becauſe friendleſs, pennileſſe. Sed pupillos laedere, eſt pupillam oculi Dei contingere.

Neither doth the cauſe of the Widow come before them] The Widow cannot ſpeak for her ſelf (in the Original ſhe hath her name from Dumneſs) and hath no mony to make room for her: hence her cauſe is ſlighted.

Ver. 24. Therefore thus ſaith the Lord] Dominator, [non-Latin text not transcribed], the great Houſe-keeper of the World. [non-Latin text not transcribed]

The Lord of Hoſts] Heb. Jehovah of Armies.

The mighty One of Iſrael] Able enough to deal with them, and to puniſh their facinus majoris abollae.

Ah] Some render it Heu, Alaſs, to ſhew that God puniſheth nolens & dolens, unwillingly and with grief,Heu [illegible: 1 letter]olentis. Luther. Oecol[illegible: 1 letter]mp. Ab exultantis. as Lam. 3.33. Others make it to be an expreſſion of joy, to ſhew what content he will take in puniſhing the obſtinate: and ſo it followeth.

I will eaſe me— I will avenge me] As it is an eaſe to a full ſtomack to diſgorge: and as to a vindictive perſon Revenge is very ſweet.

Eſt vindicta bonum vita jucundius ipſa.

So (but in a way of Juſtice) God delighteth in the deſtruction of his ſtubborn enemies.animum que expleſſe juvabit. See Deut. 28.63. Ezek 5.13. Prov, 1.26.

Mine Adverſaries] Such by a ſpecialty are corrupt Judges, as Calvin here noteth.

Ver. 25. And I will turn my hand upon thee] So Zech. 13.] I will turn my hand upon the little ones; ſo ſoon doth it repent the Lord concerning his ſervants. Here he mitigateth the former fearful menace, and promiſeth a Reformation.

And purily purge away thy droſs] Et expurgabo, ut purificativum, ſcorias tuas. The wicked are the droſs of the State, Pſal. 119.119. and wickedneſs is the droſs and dregs of the ſoul Prov. 17.3. & 27.21. God promiſeth her to purge out both, to ſeparate the precious from the vile; to reform & refine all: a Metaphor from Metallaries.

And I will take away all thy tinne] 1. Thine Hypocriſie: for tinne hath a ſhew of ſilver, but tis not ſo, nay it is a deadly enemy to gold & ſilver, ſaith One, making them hard and brittle.Diod. It is alſo a Tyrant over them and will hardly be ſeparated from them. Hereby are figured your moſt noted, rooted, and inveterate ſins.

Ver. 26. And I will reſtore] By new minting the Common-wealth, Volut adulterinum nummum, as Jer. 9.7. Mal. 3.3. This I will do for thee after thy Captivity, but eſpecially after the coming of Chriſt in the fleſh.

Thou ſhalt be called] Thou ſhalt have the name and the note, the comfort and the credit of ſuch a one.

The City of Righteouſneſs] Wherein dwelleth Righteouſneſs: or the City of the Righteous, of Jeſus Chriſt the Righteous One, 1 Ioh. 2.2. and of his people, which ſhall be all righteous, Iſa 60.21. Thou ſhalt be a very Jehovah ſhammah, Ezek 48.35.

The faithful City] As once thou waſt, ver. 21.

Ver. 27. Zion ſhall be redeemed in judgement] Or, by judgement executed on her enemies, who are alſo Gods enemies, ver. 24.

And her converts] Such as were Manaſſeh, made of a Lion a Lamb, Matthew of a Publican an Evangeliſt, Paul of a Phariſee an Apoſtle, Juſtin of a Philoſopher a Martyr, Cyprian of a Rhetorician, and (as ſome think) a Magician, a moſt famous Biſhop; Auſtin of a Manichee, a Champion of the Church: Petrus Paulus Vergerius, of the Popes Nuntio a zealous Preacher at Zurich: that I ſpeak not of Peter Martyrs converts in Italy, Earl Martinenſ. Marqueſs Caracciolus, Laciſius, Tremellius, Zanchius, and other great Divines.Hiſt. of Modern Divines by Lupton. Bucer was firſt wrought upon by Luthers Sermon preached before the Emperour at Worms, and ſo of a Dominican became a famous Proteſtant. Bilney was converted by reading Eraſmus his Tranſlation of the New Teſtament, for the Eloquence of it; and particularly by that ſweet ſentence, 1 Tim. 1.15. Latimer was converted by bleſſed Bilney (as he calleth him) from a ſtiff Papiſt to a ſtout Profeſſor of the Truth; Julius Palmer the Martyr, by reading Calvins Inſtitutions; Dr. Sibbs by a Sermon preached by Mr. Paul Bains; Mr. Whateley by Mr. Dod.

In Righteouſneſs] or by Gods faithfulneſs in fulfilling his promiſes, whereby they are made partakers of the Divine Nature, having eſcaped the corruption that is in the World through luſt, 2 Pet. 1.4.

Ver. 28. And the deſtruction] Heb. the ſhivering or ſhattering. Tremelius rendereth it, the fragments or ſcraps, ſc. of the droſs above mentioned; theſe ſhall be broken and burnt together.

Shall be together] As well the ſinners in Zion or Hypocrites, as the Tranſgreſſors or notorious offendors, ſhall be deſtroyed without diſtinction. Such as turn aſide unto their crooked wayes, ſtealing their paſſage to Hell as it were, the Lord ſhall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity, with openly prophane perſons, Pſalm 125.5. The Angels alſo ſhall bundle them up together to be burnt, Mat. 13.30.

Ver. 29. For they ſhall be aſhamed of the Okes] Pudefient & peribunt; [non-Latin text not transcribed]. they ſhall be aſhamed of their falſe wayes of worſhip, but not with a godly ſhame, ſuch as was Ephraims, Ier. 31.19. that made him ſay, What have I do any more with Idols? Hoſ. 14.8. See Ezek. 16.61. & 36.31. Dan. 9.5. 2 Theſſ. 3.14. Of this holy ſhame Chryſoſtom ſaith, that it is the beginning of Salvation, as that which drives a man into himſelf, makes him fall low in his own eyes, ſhame and ſhent himſelf in the preſence of God, ſeek for covering by Chriſt, that the ſhame of his nakedneſs may not appear, Rev. 3.18, &c. But the ſhame here mentioned is of another nature, unſeaſonable, unprofitable, not conducing at all to true Repentance; ſuch as was that of Cain, and of thoſe Jews in Jeremy, Chap. 2.26. and of Reprobates at the Reſurrection, Dan. 12.2.

Which ye have deſired] Or have delighted in, as Adulterers do ſin their ſweet ſin, Alludit verecunde ad ſcortationem, qua eſt in idolorum cultu. Oecolamp. as they call it.

And the Gardens] where you have wickedly worſhipped Priapus or Baal-peor.

That ye have choſen] Where ye have had your ſacra electitia, which now, ye ſee, cannot help you.

Ver. 30. For ye ſhall be as an oak] Peccato poenam accommodat: By oaks they ſinned, and by a withering oak is their puniſhment ſet forth:Infeliciſſime marceſceth & exareſcetis. Jun. as alſo by a garden that wanteth water, wherein every thing fadeth and hangeth the head, as ſuffering a Maraſus. Well might God ſay, Hoſ. 12.10. I have multiplied Viſions, and uſed ſimilitudes by the Miniſtery of the Prophets, ſuch as are very natural, plain and proper.

Ver. 31. And the ſtrong ſhall be as tow] The Idol is here called the ſtrong one, either by an Irony, ſicut ſiquis ſceleſtum bonum virum dicat, as if one ſhould ſay to a knave, You are a right honeſt man: or elſe according to the Idolaters falſe opinion of it, and vain expectation of it: like as 2 Chron. 28.23. the gods of Damaſcus are ſaid to have ſmitten, or plagued Ahaz: not that they did ſo indeed (for an Idol is nothing in the world, and this ſtrong in the Text is weak as water, Ier. 10.5. 2 Cor. 8.4.) but he thought they did ſo: like as the ſilly Papiſts alſo think of their He-ſaints and She-ſaints, whereof they have not a few, but are ſhamefully foyled and fruſtrated: beſides that they are here and elſwhere threatned with unquenchable fire. Hierom following Symmachus, for tow hath the refuſe of tow which is quickly kindled.

And the maker of it] Or, and his work: that is, all your pains taken to no purpoſe in worſhipping your mawmets, and bringing your Memories (as they are called) and preſents to them.

And they ſhall both burn together] As one ſaith of Aretines obſcene book that it is opus dignum quod cremetur cum Authore, Boiſſard. Biblioth. Rev. 19.20. fit for nothing but to make a bone-fire to burn the Author of it in. The Beaſt and his Complices ſhall be caſt alive into the burning lake.

And none ſhall quench them] Hell-fire is unquenchable, chap. 30. ult. Mat. 3.12. This Origen denied, and is therefore juſtly condemned by all ſound Divines.