« PoprzedniaDalej »
xxxii. sq.; Ps. cxlvii. 19 sq. It is therefore the peculiar people (no by, Deut. vii. 6; xiv.2) through whom the blessing of Jehovah shall come on all nations (Gen. xii. 2 sq.; xxii. 18; Jer. iv. 2). And in consequence of all this, it is called “high above all nations,” Deut. xxvi. 19; xxviii. 1; comp. 2 Sam. vii. 23. The time of David and Solomon, and Uzziah's and Jotham's time, the echo of the former, are to be regarded as forerunner and type of these promises. And they have rebelled against me.—According to well-known Hebrew usage, what in substance stands related as opposite is designated as equivalent in form. yo is a current word in Isa. i. 28; xliii. 27; xlvi. 8; lix. 13, etc. Expositors inquire whether only idolatry is meant, or also every kind of transgression. But we can't see why every thing should not be meant that could be called opposition to the Lord; or rather, why every transgression should not be regarded as idolatry. [They have broken away from me.—M. W. J.] The ox knoweth his owner.—An
or knoweth his owner, any or. The words explain
the rebelling, ver. 2, by a rhetorical contrast that sets this in clearer light. The unthinking brutes, even those of lowest degree, as the ox and ass, still know their masters that feed them, and the cri out of which they eat, and acquire a certain attachment for master and crib, so that they do not voluntarily forsake them. 3. Ah, sinful nation—besieged city. Vers. 4–8. Jehovah's benefactions have not sufficed to awaken in Israel the feeling of grateful attachment. On the contrary this nation forsakes its God, rejects Him, and sinks back into the darkness of heathendom, out of which He had rescued them. The three verbs in ver. 4 b express the itive consequences of the negative “doth not now,” ver. 3; and vers. 3 and 4 together contain the more particular signification of “rebelled against me,” ver. 2. Thus a climax occurs in vers. 2-4. The outward construction of the language also corresponds to this. Vers. 2 and 3 consist of four members, and vers. 4 of seven, of which the first begins with an impressive assurance. But in the first four members of ver. 4 the reason is given why Israel became untrue to its God. The reason is a subjective one. Israel itself is good for nothing—it is a bad tree with bad fruit. The meaning heathen nation need not be pressed, and so much the less, seeing the singular is often used for Israel without any secondary idea of reproach (Exod. xix. 6; Jos. iii. 17,
etc.), and also parallel with Dy. We have trans. lated it “Woe world” in order to re-echo the consonance of the original as nearly as possible. It has been justly remarked besides that Israel is called here son "1, “sinful nation,” in contrast with vino “s, “holy nation,” which it ought to be according to Exod. xix. 6; Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 2,21; and To, T-2 by in contrast with sty, by to, which it is called xxxiii. 24. Israel is called moreover “a seed of evil doers,” though it ought to be “a holy seed” (vi. 13; Ezra ix. 2). Many expositors (e.g., DRECHSLER) scruple to render these words as in the Genitive relation, because
then the ancestors themselves would be called reprobates. They therefore take to job as in apposition with Vol. But, apart from the fact that then it must rather read V'Yo. VM, as in lvii. 3, Top VI, that scruple is entirely groundless. For Dyno yn is not only a posterity from reprobates, but also a posterity that consists of reprobates, as lxv. 23, " of y]], means, not the descendants of blessed ones, but those themselves blessed, and like the expressions, 53. o, by on 12, Don Jo, Rs 12, etc., do not ' mean the sons of fools, of worthless fellows, of prophets, of sheep, but sons that are themselves
fools, worthless, prophets, sheep. But as the idea of points to the essential identity in fruit
_| made high; for, although any one may be called
2, and all the places that express Israel's filial relation to Jehovah, e.g. Deut. xiv. 1. In three phrases, now, the bad fruits are declared that the bad tree has borne. They have (negative) forsaken Jehovah, they have (positive) rejected with sco n (v. 24; lii. 5; lx. 14), the Holy One of Israel (an expression peculiarly Isaiah's, that occurs fourteen times in the first part, and fifteen times in the second, and in other parts of the Old Testament only six times), and they have turned themselves backwards. This turning backwards can only mean the turning to idols. For the Lord had turned Israel from idols to Himself, comp. Josh. xxiv. 2, 14. If the | nation then turned their backs to Him, it was pre| cisely that they might return to their idols. This is confirmed by Ezek. xiv. 5, the only place beside the present in which the expression occurs. Vers. 5 and 6 seem to respond to an objection. For after the description in vers. 3, 4, of the nation's deep depravity, the prophet proceeds to portray the impending chastisement of it, ver, 7. But before he does so, he removes an objection that might be raised from the stand-point of forbearing love, viz. had sufficient discipline been exercised on Israel? if not, might not the renewed application of it ward off the judgment? The inquiry is negatived. For the so of the smiting has long been proved by the everrepeated backsliding of the nation. It is seen that we render the beginning of ver. 5: “To what purpose shall one smite you still more?” For there are three expositions of these words. The first is: “On what part of the body shall one still smite you?” (thus JEROME, SAADA, GESENIUs, RosPNMUELLER, UMBREIT, KNobel and others [J. A. ALEXANDER, BARNES]. This rests chiefly on what follows, where the body is described as beaten all over. However, four things are to be objected to this view: a) it could not then read no-hy, but Ty on ni s. or the like. For no is purely the general, abstract “what?” never the partitive, distino: one part from another: “which 7” ob xxxviii. 6 cannot be appealed to. For the meaning of that place is not: On which foundations do the pillars of the earth rest?” But: do they rest at all on anything # , b) Were the rendering: “where shall we smite?” correct, then the intermediate phrase, To *D'bīn, were out of place. For then one would right off look for the answer: “nowhere, for all is beaten to pieces.” The insertion of those words in this form plainly indicate that they themselves contain the an arked, the phrase oil oni-s”, “not closed ,” would be quite without meaning. For may à'oandaged-up person be sooner smitten than one not bound up? But this phrase becomes very significant if we regard the words: “every head,” etc., as portraying the moral condition of things. For it is most important in regard to a man's moral state whether the proper curatives for the moral disorder are used or not. Your land, etc. The outward state of the nation answers to the moral state. The nation had already begun to reap the fruits of their revolt. The country is desolate; only the metropolis still remains intact, yet isolated in the midst of a land that has been made a desert. Therefore it may be said that the train of thought that began with ver. 5 ends with ver. 8. The Lord declares, ver. 5, that for the present He will smite Israel no more. For there is no use. This is because Israel is still sick inside and out, spite of having suffered chastisement almost to annihilation. it seems to me therefore that vers. 7 and 8 stand in contrastive relation to the two preceding, although this contrast is indicated by no particle. Israel is morally sick, the country is turned into a desert. Had things taken a normal course, then the country had been desolated, but Israel would have been in health. Then Israel had received instruction, Prov. viii. 10; xix. 20. But now that the country is waste, and Israel still sick, one sees that whipping is of no use. Comp. Jer. ii. 30; v. 3; Isa. ix. 13; xiii. 25. Thus I construe vers. 7 and 8, not as a mere change from figurative language (vers. 5 and 6) to literal, because, as was shown, both ver. 5 b and 6 b contain thoughts that do not answer to purely outward circumstances. . Moreover, according to our explanation, it is clear that ver. 7 sqq. does not speak of future, but of present affairs. These verses do not contain threats of judgment, but a portrait of judgment already accomplished. If it were otherwise, then surely the threatenings of judgment would not stop outside of the gates of the metropolis, which yet was crater and fountain of all the revolt. This is not opposed by Jer. iv. 27; v. 10, 18: “Yet will I not make a full end,” which some adduce against our view. For threats of judgment only for the country, but that spare the capital, are not to be found in any prophet.— The words: “your land waste,” etc., are quoted from Lev. xxvi. 33, where it is said: “Your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.” Your ground before, etc. Here, too, imprecations from the Law are in the mind of the prophet, and particularly Deut. xxviii. 33: “The fruit of thy land, and all thy labors, shall a nation which thou knowest not, eat up.” Comp., too, ver. 51 ; Lev. xxi. 16, 32. From Deut. xxviii. 33, 51, it is seen what is meant by n!. It is one that Israel does not know, and whose langu is not understood. That the word “stranger” includes also the idea of “enemy,” is manifest from the parallel passages in Lev. xxvi. 16, 32, where for Do we have bok. To occurs Isa. xvii. 10; xxv. 2, 5; xxviii. 21; xxix. 5;
swer to the inquiry, his no-hy, and that what follows is only to be viewed as the nearer explanation of this reply. It would be very different if the words were in apposition with the subject of 33A. c) It is remarked by LUzzATTo (see in DELITzsch) that the fact that the body was beaten all over would not hinder its being smit
ten more. d) The phrase, ver. 6 b, ont s') : etc., “they have not been closed,” shows that not the being wounded itself was the matter of chief moment, but the being wounded without application of curatives. The latter, however, as little hinders the smiting as the binding up and heal
ing would provoke it. If np-by = “where?” then the whole phrase, ver. 6 b, would be superfluous.-A second exposition (DELITZSCH) takes no-hy = no. and 33A = ye want to be smitten. Then the remote thought would be: “That were an insane delight in self-destruction.” But the “that were” must not be adopted as the under.# thought, but: “that is indeed delight in self-destruction.” For: “that were” would involve the thought that this delight is not presupposed, consequently there can be no question about a wanting to be smitten. But if we supply “that is,” etc., that would impute too much to the simple Imperfect. The idea of wanting it must then be more strongly indicated, say by Yās), or the like—According to the third ren
dering, which seems to me the correct one.
revolt, because it is thoroughly sick, and does not even use curatives for its sickness. We
therefore construe the words vsh-o to |pga
not as describing a condition resulting from the previous smiting, much as this seems to answer
the inquiry, ll) np-by, but as a figurative expression for the moral habit of the nation.
-o-op, vsno, especially seem to favor this view. This does not mean “the whole head, the whole heart,” but “every head, every heart.” If it read ()]] vson-op, the meaning might easily enough be that head and heart were already so sore and sick that no spot remained for a blow. But every head, every heart only expresses that no head, no heart remained intact. The context closely considered forbids our understanding by head and heart “all that exercise indispensable functions in spiritual and temporal offices” (DRECIISLER). For by ver. 6 it plainly appears that not only the heads, but all individuals of the nation, are described as seriously sick. Head and heart are rather the central and dominant organs in the life of every sungle person, whereas ver. 6 speaks also of the structure of the outward manifestation of the life.
From a comparison of "Y" 55% with ver, 6, it
seems to me that by “n not an outward wound
ing of the head is meant, but an internal disorder (comp. 2 Kings iv.19).—From the sole of the foot, etc. Ver. 6. As has been remarked, these words describe the moral condition as to its outward manifestation, as ver. 5 b described its inward form. We must not press too far the figurative language of the prophet in regard to this inward and outward disorder, and especially the wounds of ver, 6 must not be regarded as presenting something additional. The three substantives yśń, non and to n-p
are followed by three corresponding verbs, and one is tempted to construe them as if those occupying the same relative position belonged to each other. But such strict parallelism cannot be carried out. It is rather to be said that each of the three corts of wounds referred to requires all the three means of healing. Each wound must be pressed together, and treated with healing stuffs. The former process is two-fold: first it is done by the hand in order to cleanse the wound from blood and matter, and then by the bandage, that prevents further bleeding and promotes the growing together of the several parts. Thirdly, mollifying, healing oil (see Luke x. 34; HERzog's R. Encyc. X., p. 548) must be superadded as organic means of cure. The words of ver. 6 b moreover contain ano
xiii. 12; xi. 5. The participle book confirms
our view that the prophet speaks of present and still continuing circumstances. The metonymy (the enemies eat the land) is as in xxxvi. 16;
“strangers,” be taken as object, it will not suit the context. For immediately before the strangers were named as destroyers. How shall they suddenly be named the destroyed?—From the connection it appears that the “daughter of Zion” means Jerusalem. Zion is originally the mountain, then the castle, then the quarter built about it (2 Sam. v. 6–9; 1 Kings viii. 1); then in an extended sense the city without the inhabitants (Lam. ii. 8) or the inhabitants without the city (Mic, iv. 10), or as both together, as in our passage. Jerusalem with its inhabitants lying isolated in the midst of a desolated country is now com|. to: a) a booth in a vineyard; b) to a anging mat [hammock] in a cucumber-field, which like the booth of the vineyard-keeper, is a lonely and scanty dwelling-place for men; c) to a besieged city. But why is Jerusalem only compared to a beleagured city? After all that vers. 7, 8 say of it, is it not such itself? First of all we must investigate the meaning of nyls).
The verb ng means primarily observare, which
watched or a beleaguered city. But the first does not suit the connection. The latter is equally unsuitable if Jerusalem at the time of writing was actually besieged. But ver. 7 speaks only of the desolating of the country. That Jerusalem itself was besieged or blockaded is not said directly. At the moment of saying this, therefore, the position of Jerusalem seems to have been that the enemy enclosed the city, not yet in its immediate neighborhood, but still so as to restrict all intercourse with it, so that it lay there isolated like a blockaded town No one ventured out or in, for the enemy was near, though his forces were not seen encamped around the walls of the city. The other renderings: “as a rescued city” (GESENIUs, in loc.; MAURER, etc.), “as a devastated city” (RAoss, VUL.G., LUTHER), “as a watch-tower” (HitziG, TINGSTAD, GESENIUs in his Thesaurus, p. 908), etc.,
which are to be found in RoseNMUELLER, either
conflict with the requirements of the language or the context. 4. Had not—we were like, ver. 9. We must regard it, not as accidental, but as an evidence of the artistic design of this address, that in vers. 2, 3, Jehovah Himself speaks, in vers. 4–8 the prophet in the name of Jehovah, and in ver, 9 the prophet in his own and the people's name. It is therefore a climax descendens. The first word belongs to Jehovah the Lord. After that Jehovah's prophet speaks in His name to the people. Last of all the prophet, who is in a sense the mediator of the people, speaks in their name to Jehovah. In this scheme is prefigured in a certain degree the direction of all prophetic discourse. For it is either Jehovah speaking, directly or indirectly, or it is a speaking to Jehovah. But ver. 9 is joined by a double band to what precedes: by hon, “had left,” and by
the comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah. As to Whe former, it is recognized that something remains in Israel, Tinml), ver. 8, and that this remnant is owing to the grace of Jehovah. But so the clear consciousness is expressed, that but for the grace of God, the resemblance to Sodom and Gomorrah, which in yer. 7 was only slightly intimated, would have been a notorious one. This is, on the one hand, an humble confession, for this comparison is not honorable for Israel; but on the other hand there is the opposite thought that underlies the hypothetic reflection: “he has, however, left something remaining; therefore we are still not like Sodom and Gomorrah;” and that forms a comforting germ of hope for the future. The expression msn's nin', Jehovah Sabaoth,
may regard the completest form as the original one, then we must designate Hosea as the originator of the expression. For in Hos. xii. 6 we
may be debated. Comp. DELITzsch, The . Name Jahve Zebaot, in der Zeitschrift f. d. ges Theologie u. Kirche 1874, Hest 2, p. 217. – it “Hosts” becomes gradually a proper narwa"ot is so beyond doubt in God of Hosts, Ps. lix. 6; lxxx. 5, 8, 15, 20; lxxxiv. 9, and Lord of Hosts, Isa. x. 16. Probably it is to be so rendered in “Jehovah of Hosts,” which is very frequent in the first and second parts of Isaiah. Also Jer, Zech., Mal., use it very often.—to is not added to the verb here adverbially with the meaning “almost,” but united to it substantively, and as in 2 Chron. xii. 7, is object (as apposition with the object). In Prov. x. 20; Ps. cw. 12, it is similarly a predicate. In respect to its sense, it is a dimished to 2, i. e. not paulum, but quasi paulum. I do not think with DELITzsch that referring to Ps. lxxxi. 14 sq.; Job xxxii. 22, it may be construcd with what follows. For with the supposition that is expressed in the first clause of the verse, they had been, not almost, but altogether a Sodom and Gomorrah. Moreover, it is affecting to observe how the man penetrates through the prophet. He began as the mouth of God, that does not distinguish himself from God; he proceeds as servant of God, that clearly distinguishes himself from God; he concludes as citizen of Jerusalem, that comprehends himself with the men against whom he directs his words of threatening. [Ver, 7. 'i nompo, like the overthrow of strangers, J. A. ALEXANDER, “i.e. as foreign foes are wont to waste a country in which they have no interest, and for which they have no BARNES, similarly. Ver. 9. “The idea of a desolation almost total is expressed in other words, and with an intimation that the narrow escape was owing to God’s favor for the remnant according to the election of grace, who still existed in the Jewish Church. That the verse has reference to quality, as well as quantity, is evident from Rom. ix. 29, where Paul makes use of it, not as an illustration, but as an argument to show that mere connection with the Church could not save men from the wrath of God. The citation would have been irrelevant if this phrase denoted merely a small number of survivors, and not a minority of true helievers in the midst of the prevailing unbelief.” J. A. ALEXANDER].
3. THE MEANS FOR OBTAINING A BETTER FUTURE.
CHAPTER I. 10–20.
10 Hear the word of the LoRD, ye rulers of Sodom;
Give ear unto the law of our God,
ye people of Gomorrah.
I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts;
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; -
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth:
And when ye spread forth your hands,
Yea, when ye “make many prayers, I will not hear:
Your hands are full of “blood.
Put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes:
Cease to do evil; learn to do well;
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LoRD:
Though your sins be as scarlet,” they shall be as white as snow;
19 If ye be willing and obedient,
20 But if ye refuse and rebel,
Ye shall be devoured with the sword: