Armenia in comments -- Book: Isaiah (tIs) Եսայի
Searched terms: chald
isa 63:0
The prophet, (or rather the Church he represents), sees the great Deliverer, long promised and expected, making his appearance, after having crushed his enemies, like grapes in the wine-vat. The comparison suggests a lively idea of the wrath of Omnipotence, which its unhappy objects can no more resist than the grapes can resist the treader. Indeed, there is so much pathos, energy, and sublimity in this remarkable passage, as hardly any thing can be conceived to exceed. The period to which it refers must be the same with that predicted in the nineteenth chapter of the Revelation, some parts of which are expressed in the same terms with this, and plainly enough refer to the very sudden and total overthrow of Antichrist, and of all his adherents and auxiliaries, of which the destruction of Babylon, the capital of Chald:ea, and of Bozra, the chief city of the Edomites, was the prototype, Isa 63:1-6. At the seventh verse commences a penitential confession and supplication of the Jews, as uttered in their present dispersion, Isa 63:7-19.
The very remarkable passage with which this chapter begins seems to me to be, in a manner, detached from the rest, and to stand singly by itself; having no immediate connection with what goes before, or with what follows, otherwise than as it may pursue the general design, and stand in its proper place in the order of prophecy. It is by many learned interpreters supposed that Judas Maccabeus and his victories make the subject of it. What claim Judas can have to so great an honor will, I think, be very difficult to make out; or how the attributes of the great person introduced can possibly suit him. Could Judas call himself the announcer of righteousness, mighty to save? Could he talk of the day of vengeance being in his heart, and the year of his redeemed being come? or that his own arm wrought salvation for him? Besides, what were the great exploits of Judas in regard to the Idumeans? He overcame them in battle, and slew twenty thousand of them. And John Hyrcanus, his brother Simon's son and successor, who is called in to help out the accomplishment of the prophecy, gave them another defeat some time afterward, and compelled them by force to become proselytes to the Jewish religion, and to submit to circumcision: after which they were incorporated with the Jews, and became one people with them. Are these events adequate to the prophet's lofty prediction? Was it so great an action to win a battle with considerable slaughter of the enemy or to force a whole nation by dint of the sword into Judaism? or was the conversion of the Idumeans, however effected, and their admission into the Church of God, equivalent to a most grievous judgment and destruction, threatened in the severest terms? But here is another very material circumstance to be considered, which, I presume, entirely excludes Judas Maccabeus, and even the Idumeans, properly so called. For the Idumea of the prophet's time was quite a different country from that which Judas conquered. For during the Babylonish captivity the Nabatheans had driven the Edomites out of their country; who upon that took possession of the southern parts of Judea, and settled themselves there; that is, in the country of the whole tribe of Simeon and in half of that of Judah. See Prideaux, ad. an. 740 and 165. And the metropolis of the Edomites, and of the country thence called Idumea, which Judas took, was Hebron 1 Maccabees 5:65, not Bozrah.
I conclude, therefore, that this prophecy has not the least relation to Judas Maccabeus. It may be asked, to whom, and to what event does it relate? I can only answer, that I know of no event in history to which, from its importance and circumstances, it can be applied: unless, perhaps, to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity; which in the Gospel is called the coming of Christ and the days of vengeance, Mat 16:28; Luk 21:22. But though this prophecy must have its accomplishment, there is no necessity for supposing that it has been already accomplished. There are prophecies, which intimate a great slaughter of the enemies of God and his people, which remain to be fulfilled; these in Ezekiel, chap. 38, and in the Revelation of St. John, Rev 20:1-15, are called Gog and Magog. This prophecy of Isaiah may possibly refer to the same or the like event. We need not be at a loss to determine the person who is here introduced, as stained with treading the wine-press, if we consider how St. John in the Revelation has applied this image of the prophet, Rev 19:13, Rev 19:15, Rev 19:16. Compare chap. 34. - L. Isaiah 63:1
tIs 63::6 And make them drunk in my fury "And I crushed them in mine indignation" - For ואשכרם vaashkerem, and I made them drunken, twenty-seven MSS., (three ancient), twelve of De Rossi's, and the old edition of 1488, have ואשברם vaashabberem, and I crushed them: and so the Syriac and Chald:ee. The Septuagint have omitted this whole line. Isaiah 63:7 tIs 63::11 Moses and his people "Moses his servant" - For עמו ammo, his people, two MSS. (one of them ancient) and one of my own, (ancient), and one of De Rossi's, and the old edition of 1488, and the Syriac, read עבדו abdo, his servant. These two words have been mistaken one for the other in other places; Psa 78:71, and Psa 80:5, for עמו ammo, his people, and עמך ammecha, thy people, the Septuagint read עבדו abdo, his servant, and עבדך abdecha, thy servant.
Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where etc. "How he brought them up from the sea, with the shepherd of his flock; how," etc. - For איה aiyeh, how, interrogative, twice, the Syriac Version reads איך eich, how, without interrogation, as that particle is used in the Syriac language, and sometimes in the Hebrew. See Rut 3:18; Ecc 2:16.
The shepherd of his flock - That is, Moses. The MSS. and editions vary in this word; some have it רעה roeh, in the singular number; so the Septuagint, Syriac, and Chald:ee. Others רעי roey, plural, the shepherds. - L. Isaiah 63:13 tIs 63::14 The Spirit of the Lord caused him to rest "The Spirit of Jehovah conducted them" - For תניחנו tenichennu, caused him to rest, the Septuagint have ὡδηγησεν αυτους, conducted them; they read תנחם tanchem. The Syriac, Chald:ee, and Vulgate read תנחנו tanchennu, conducted him. Two MSS. have the word without the י yod in the middle. Isaiah 63:15
isa 63:0
This chapter and the following relate to the same general subject, and should not have been separated. The subject with which they are introduced is the destruction of the enemies of God Isa 63:1-6, and this is followed by tender expressions of confidence in Yahweh, and by earnest supplications, on the part of his people, that he would interpose in their behalf. The prophet sees in vision a magnificent conqueror, stained with the blood of his enemies, returning from Edom, and from its capital Bozrah - a warrior flushed with victory, unsubdued, unweakened, and coming with the pride and stateliness of conquest. Who he is, is the object of inquiry; and the answer is, that he is a great and holy deliverer. Why his gorgeous robes are thus polluted with blood, becomes also a question of intense anxiety. The reply of the conqueror is, that he has been forth to subdue mighty foes; that he went alone; that there was none that could aid; and that he had trodden them down as a treader of grapes treads in the wine-press. The whole image here is that of a triumphant, blood-stained warrior, returning from the conquest of Idumea.
Who is referred to here has been a question in which interpreters have greatly differed in opinion. The following are some of the opinions which have been expressed.
1. Some have referred it to Judas Maccabeus. This was the opinion of Grotius, who supposed that it was designed to represent his conquest of Idumea (1 Macc. 5:1-5; Jos. Ant. xii. 8. 1). But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections.
(1) The attributes of the person here referred to do not agree with him. How could he announce that he was the proclaimer of righteousness and was mighty to save?
(2) The exploits of Judas Maccabeus were not such as to justify the language which the prophet here uses. He overcame the Idumeans, and killed twenty thousand men, but this event is by no means adequate to the lofty prediction of the prophet.
(3) There is another objection suggested by Lowth to this supposition. It is that the Idumea of the time of Isaiah was quite a different country from that which was laid waste by Judas. In the time of Isaiah, Idumea was known as the country south of Palestine, whose capital at one time was Petra, and at another Bozrah. But during the captivity in Babylon, the Nabatheans invaded and conquered the southern part of Judea, and took possession of a great part of what was the territory of the tribe of Judah, and made Hebron the capital. This was the Idumea known in later times, and this was the Idumea that Judas Maccabeus conquered (1 Macc. 5:65).
2. One writer, referred to by Poole (Synopsis); supposes that the allusion is to Michael, who came to assist Daniel against the Prince of the kingdom of Persia Dan 10:13.
3. Others have referred it to Yahweh subduing his enemies, and restoring safety to his people. This is the opinion of Calvin, Piscator, Junius, Noyes, and Gesenius.
4. The mass of interpreters have referred it to the Messiah. This is the opinion, among the ancients, of Origen, Jerome, Cyril, Eusebius, and Procopius; and among the moderns, of Lowth, Cocceius - of course, Calovius, etc. But to this opinion Calvin makes the following weighty objection; 'Christians,' says he, 'have violently distorted this passage by referring it to Christ, when the prophet simply makes an announcement respecting God. And they have reigned that Christ was red because he was covered with his own blood, which he poured out on the cross. But the simple sense is, that the Lord here goes forth in the sight of his people with red garments, that all might understand that he was their vindicator and avenger' - (Commentary in loc.). The objections to an immediate and direct application to Christ, seem to me to be insuperable.
(1) There is no reference to it in the New Testament as applicable to him.
(2) The blood with which the hero was stained, was not his own blood, but that of his foes; consequently all the applications of the words and phrases here to the Messiah as stained with his own blood are misplaced.
(3) The whole image of the prophet is that of a triumphant warrior, returning from conquest, himself unharmed and unwounded, not that of a meek and patient sufferer such as the Messiah. It is, therefore, not without the greatest perversion that it can be referred to the Messiah, nor should it be so employed. (These objections against the application of the passage to the Messiah, seem to be fatal only to one aspect of it, namely, that which presents the Messiah as stained with his own blood; but though the warrior here very clearly appears stained with the blood of others, not his own, but the blood of vanquished foes, still that warrior may be the Messiah, and this one of the numerous passages in which he is represented as a victorious conqueror Psa 45:3; Rev 6:2; Rev 19:11-16. The beautiful accommodation of the language in the third verse to the sufferings of Christ, seems to have led to the forced application of the whole passage to the Redeemer's passion. It certainly refers, however, to a conquering, not a suffering, Messiah. Alexander supposes the conqueror to be Yahweh, or the Messiah; Henderson, the divine Logos, the Angel or Messenger of the divine presence, who acted as the Protector and Saviour of ancient Israel. Edom is generally taken as the type of the enemies of Israel, or of the church; and this prophecy announces their overthrow - E. D.)
5. Vitringa supposes that there is described under the emblem used here, the final and peremptory manner with which the Messiah, the vindicator and avenger of his people, will take severe vengeance, with the shedding of much blood, on the princes, people, subjects, and patrons of idolatrous and apostate Rome; that the true church on the earth would be reduced to extremities; would be destitute of protectors; and that the Messiah would interpose and by his own power destroy the foes of his people.
The whole passage Isa 63:1-6 has a striking resemblance to Isa. 34, where the prophet predicts the overthrow of Idumea, and the long desolations that would come upon that country and people, and probably the same idea is intended to be conveyed by this which was by that - that all the enemies of the Jews would be destroyed (see the Analysis to Isa 39:1-8, and the note at that chapter). It is to be remembered that Idumea was a formidable foe to the Jews; that there had been frequent wars between them; and especially that they had greatly provoked the anger of the Hebrews, and deserved the severest divine vengeance for uniting with the Chald:eans when they took Jerusalem, and for urging them to raze it to its foundation Psa 137:7. On these accounts, Idumea was to he destroyed. Vengeance was to be taken on this foe; and the destruction of ldumea became a kind of Fledge and emblem of the destruction of all the enemies of the people of God. Thus it is used here; and the prophet sees in vision Yahweh returning in triumph from the complete overthrow of the capital of that nation, and the entire destruction of the inhabitants. He sees the mighty warrior return from the conquest; his raiment stained with blood; and he inquires who he is, and receives for answer that he has been alone to the conquest of the foes of his people. The idea is, that all those foes would be destroyed, and that it would be done by the power of God alone. The chapter, therefore, I do not regard as immediately referring to the Messiah, but to Yahweh, and to his solemn purpose to destroy the enemies of his people, and to effect their complete deliverance. It may be further remarked that the portion in Isa 63:1-6, is a responsive song; a species of composition common in the Bible (see Psa 24:1-10; Psa 134:1-3; Sol 3:6).
The two chapters Isa. 63; Isa 64:1-12 may be divided into three parts.
I. The destruction of Edom Isa 63:1-6.
1. The view of the conquering hero coming from Bozrah, and the inquiry by the people who he is (Isa 63:1, first part). He comes with dyed garments, yet glorious, and with the state and air of a conqueror.
2. The response of Yahweh the conqueror, that it was he who was mighty to save (Isa 63:1, last part).
3. The inquiry of the people why he was thus red in his apparel, as if he had been treading in the wine-press Isa 63:2.
4. The answer of Yahweh Isa 63:3-6.
(1) He had indeed trod the Wine-press, and he had done it alone. He had trod down the people in his anger, and their blood had been sprinkled on lids raiment.
(2) The day of his vengeance had arrived, and the year of his redeemed had come.
(3) No one had been able to do it, and he had gone forth alone, and had trod down their strength in his fury.
II. A hymn of thanksgiving in view of the deliverance performed, and of the many mercies conferred on Israel Isa 63:7-14.
1. A general acknowledgment of his mercy Isa 63:7.
2. His choice of them as his people Isa 63:8.
3. His sympathy for them in all their trials Isa 63:9.
4. His kindness and compassion, illustrated by a reference to his leading them through the wilderness, notwithstanding their ingratitude and sin Isa 63:10-14.
III. An earnest supplication in view of the condition of Israel Isa 63:15-19; Isa 64:1-12. The arguments are very beautiful and various for his interposition.
1. An appeal to Yahweh in view of his former mercies Isa 63:15.
2. An argument from the fact that he was their Father, though they should be disowned and despised by all others Isa 63:16.
3. Earnest intercession from the fact that his enemies had trodden down the sanctuary, and that those who never acknowledged him, ruled in the land that he had given to his own people Isa 63:17-19.
4. An earnest pleading with God, in view of the inestimable value of the favors which he conferred - the fact that there was nothing so much to be desired, that the world could confer nothing that was to be compared with his favor Isa 64:1-5.
5. An argument derived from the general prevalence of irreligion among the people Isa 64:6-7.
6. Tender and affectionate pleading from the fact that they were his people Isa 64:8-9.
7. A tender and affectionate argument from the fact that the holy city was waste; the temple in ruins; and the beautiful house where their fathers worshipped had been burned up with fire Isa 64:10-12.
This last passage Isa 64:10-12, proves that the scene of this prayer and vision is laid in Babylon. The time is after Jerusalem had been destroyed, the temple fired, and their sacred things transported; after Edom had joined with the Chald:eans in demanding the entire destruction of the city and temple, and had urged them on to the work of destruction Psa 137:7; after the Idumeans had invaded the territories of Judea, and established a kingdom there. In their exile they are represented as calling upon God, and they are assured that the kingdom of their enemies would be wholly destroyed. Isaiah 63:1
tIs 63::6 And I will tread them down - Or rather, 'I did tread them down.' The allusion here is to a warrior who tramples on his foes and treads them in the dust (see the notes at Isa 25:10).
And made them drunk - That is, I made them reel and fall under my fury like a drunken man. In describing the destruction of Idumea in Isa 34:5, Yahweh says that his sword was made drunk, or that it rushed intoxicated from heaven. See the notes on that verse. But here he says that the people, under the terrors of his wrath, lost their power of self-command, and fell to the earth like an intoxicated man. Kimchi says that the idea is, that Yahweh extended the cup of his wrath for them to drink until they became intoxicated and fell. An image of this kind is several times used in the Scriptures (see the notes at Isa 51:17; compare Psa 75:8). Lowth and Noyes render this, 'I crushed them.' The reason of this change is, that according to Kennicott, twenty-seven manuscripts (three of them ancient) instead of the present Hebrew reading ואשׁכרם va'ăshakerēm, 'And I will make them drunk,' read ואשׁברם va'ăshaberēm, 'I will break or crush them.' Such a change, it is true, might easily have been made from the similarity of the Hebrew letters, כ (k) and ב (b). But the authority for the change does not seem to me to be sufficient, nor is it necessary. The image of making them stagger and fall like a drunken man, is more poetic than the other, and is in entire accordance with the usual manner of writing by the sacred penman. The Chald:ee renders it, 'I cast to the lowest earth the slain of their strong ones.'
And I will bring down their strength - I subdued their strong places, and their mighty armies. Such is the sense giver, to the passage by our translators. But Lowth and Noyes render it, more correctly, 'I spilled their life-blood upon the ground.' The word which our translators have rendered 'strength' (נצח nētsach), is the same word which is used in Isa 63:3, and which is rendered there 'blood' (see the note at that verse). It is probably used in the same sense here, and means that Yahweh had brought their blood to the earth; that is, he had spilled it upon the ground. So the Septuagint renders it, 'I shed their blood (κατήγαγον τὸ αίμα katēgagon to haima) upon the earth.' This finishes the vision of the mighty conqueror returning from Edom. The following verse introduces a new subject. The sentiment in the passage is, that Yahweh by his own power, and by the might of his own arm, would subdue all his foes and redeem his people. Edom in its hostility to his people, the apt emblem of all his foes, would be completely humbled; and in its subjugation there would be the emblem and the pledge that all his enemies would be destroyed, and that his own church would be safe. See the notes at Isa. 34; Isa 35:1-10. Isaiah 63:7 tIs 63::7 I will mention - This is evidently the language of the people celebrating the praises of God in view of all his mercies in former days. See the analysis to the chapter. The design of what follows, to the close of Isa 64:1-12, is to implore the mercy of God in view of their depressed and ruined condition. They are represented as suffering under the infliction of long and continued ills; as cast out and driven to a distant land; as deprived of their former privileges, and as having been long subjected to great evils. Their temple is destroyed; their city desolate; and their whole nation afflicted and oppressed. The time is probably near the close of the captivity; though Lowth supposes that it refers to the Jews as scattered over all lands, and driven away from the country of their fathers. They begin their petitions in this verse with acknowledging God's great mercies to their fathers and to their nation; then they confess their own disobedience, and supplicate, by various arguments, the divine mercy and favor. The Chald:ee commences the verse thus, 'The prophet said, I will remember the mercy of the Lord.' But it is the language of the people, not that of the prophet. The word rendered 'mention' (אזכיר 'azekiyr), means properly, I will cause to remember, or to be remembered (see the notes at Isa 62:6).
And the praises of the Lord - That is, I will recount the deeds which show that he is worthy of thanksgiving. The repetitions in this verse are designed to be emphatic; and the meaning of the whole is, that Yahweh had given them abundant cause of praise, notwithstanding the evils which they endured. Isaiah 63:8 tIs 63::8 For he said - Yahweh had said. That is, he said this when he chose them as his unique people, and entered into solemn covenant with them.
Surely they are my people - The reference here is to the fact that he entered into covenant with them to be their God.
Children that will not lie - That will not prove false to me - indicating the reasonable expectation which Yahweh might have, when he chose them, that they would be faithful to him.
So he was their Saviour - Lowth renders this, 'And he became their Saviour in all their distress;' connecting this with the first member of the following verse, and translating that, 'it was not an envoy, nor an angel of his presence that saved them.' So the Septuagint renders it, 'And he was to them for salvation εἰς σωτηρίαν eis sōtērian) from all their affliction.' The Chald:ee render it, 'And his word was redemption (פריק pâriyq) unto them.' But the true idea probably is, that he chose them, and in virtue of his thus choosing them he became their deliverer. Isaiah 63:9 tIs 63::9 In all their affliction he was afflicted - This is a most beautiful sentiment, meaning that God sympathized with them in all their trials, and that he was ever ready to aid them. This sentiment accords well with the connection; but there has been some doubt whether this is the meaning of the Hebrew. Lowth renders it, as has been already remarked, 'It was not an envoy, nor an angel of his presence that saved him.' Noyes, 'In all their straits they had no distress.' TheSeptuagint renders it, 'It was not an ambassador (ου ̓ πρέσβυς ou presbus), nor an angel (οὐδὲ ἄγγελος oude angelos), but he himself saved them.' Instead of the present Hebrew word (צר tsâr, 'affliction'), they evidently read it, ציר tsiyr, 'a messenger.' The Chald:ee renders it, 'Every time when they sinned against him, so that he might have brought upon them tribulation, he did not afflict them.' The Syriac, 'In all their calamities he did not afflict them.' This variety of translation has arisen from an uncertainty or ambiguity in the Hebrew text.
Instead of the present reading (לא lo', 'not') about an equal number of manuscripts read לו lô, 'to him,' by the change of a single letter. According to the former reading, the sense would be, 'in all their affliction, there was no distress,' that is, they were so comforted and supported by God, that they did not feel the force of the burden. According to the other mode of reading it, the sense would be, 'in all their affliction, there was affliction to him;' that is, he sympathized with them, and upheld them. Either reading makes good sense, and it is impossible now to ascertain which is correct. Gesenius supposes it to mean, 'In all their afflictions there would be actually no trouble to them. God sustained them, and the angel of of his presence supported and delivered them.' For a fuller view of the passage, see Rosenmuller. In the uncertainty and doubt in regard to the true reading of the Hebrew, the proper way is not to attempt to change the translation in our common version. It expresses an exceedingly interesting truth, and one that is suited to comfort the people of God; - that he is never unmindful of their sufferings; that he feels deeply when they are afflicted; and that he hastens to their relief. It is an idea which occurs everywhere in the Bible, that God is not a cold, distant, abstract being; but that he takes the deepest interest in human affairs, and especially that he has a tender solicitude in all the trials of his people.
And the angel of his presence saved them - This angel, called 'the angel of the presence of God,' is frequently mentioned as having conducted the children of Israel through the wilderness, and as having interposed to save them Exo 23:20, Exo 23:31; Exo 32:34; Exo 33:2; Num 20:16. The phrase, 'the angel of his presence,' (Hebrew, פניו מלאך פ male'âk pânâyv, 'angel of his face,' or 'countenance'), means an angel that stands in his presence, and that enjoys his favor, as a man does who stands before a prince, or who is admitted constantly to his presence (compare Pro 22:29). Evidently there is reference here to an angel of superior order or rank, but to whom has been a matter of doubt with interpreters. Jarchi supposes that it was Michael, mentioned in Dan 10:13-21. The Chald:ee renders it, 'The angel sent (שׁליח shelı̂yach) from his presence.' Most Christian interpreters have supposed that the reference is to the Messiah, as the manifested guide and defender of the children of Israel during their long journey in the desert. This is not the place to go into a theological examination of that question. The sense of the Hebrew here is, that it was a messenger sent from the immediate presence of God, and therefore of elevated rank. The opinion that it was the Son of God is one that can be sustained by arguments that are not easily refuted. On the subject of angels, according to the Scripture doctrine, the reader may consult with advantage an article by Dr. Lewis Mayer, in the Bib. Rep., Oct. 1388.
He redeemed them - (See the notes at Isa 43:1).
And he bare them - As a shepherd carries the lambs of the flock, or as a nurse carries her children; or still more probably, as an eagle bears her young on her wings Deu 32:11-12. The idea is, that he conducted them through all their trials in the wilderness, and led them in safety to the promised land (compare the notes at Isa 40:11).
All the days of old - In all their former history. He has been with them and protected them in all their trials. Isaiah 63:10 tIs 63::10 But they rebelled - Against God. This charge is often made against the Jews; and indeed their history is little more than a record of a series of rebellions against God.
And vexed - Or rather 'grieved.' The Hebrew word עצב ‛âtsab, in Piel, means to pain, to afflict, to grieve. This is the idea here. Their conduct was such as was suited to produce the deepest pain - for there is nothing which we more deeply feel than the ingratitude of those who have been benefited by us. Our translators have supposed that the word conveyed the idea of provoking to wrath by their conduct (thus the Septuagint renders it παρώξυναν τὸ πνεύμα, κ.τ.λ. parōxunan to pneuma, etc.; but the more appropriate sense is, that their conduct was such as to produce pain or grief. Compare Eph 4:30 : 'Grieve not (μὴ λυπεῖτε mē lupeite) the Holy Spirit.' Psa 78:40; Psa 95:10. Heb 3:10-17.
His Holy Spirit - The Chald:ee renders this, 'But they were unwilling to obey, and they irritated (provoked, blasphemed רגז râgaz) against the words of the prophets.' But the reference seems rather to be to the Spirit of God that renewed, comforted, enlightened, and sanctified them. Grotius, Rosenmuller, and Gesenius, suppose that this means God himself - a Spirit of holiness. But, with the revelation of the New Testament before us, we cannot well doubt that the real reference here is to the third person of the Trinity - the renewer and sanctifier of the people of God. It may be admitted, perhaps, that the ancient Hebrews would refer this to God himself, and that their views of the offices of the different persons in the divine nature were not very clearly marked, or very distinct. But this does not prove that the real reference may not have been to 'the Holy Spirit.' The renewer and sanctifier of the human heart at all times has been the same.
And when any operations of the mind and heart pertaining to salvation are referred to in the Old Testament, nothing should forbid us to apply to the explanation of the expressions and the facts, the clear light which we have in the New Testament - in the same way as when the ancients speak of phenomena in the physical world, we deem it not improper to apply to the explanation of them the established doctrines which we now have in the physical sciences. By this we by no means design to say that the ancients had the same knowledge which we have, or that the language which they used conveyed the same idea to them which it now does to us, but that the events occurred in accordance with the laws which we now understand, and that the language may be explained by the light of modern science. Thus the word eclipse conveyed to them a somewhat different idea from what it does to us. They supposed it was produced by different causes. Still they described accurately the facts in the case; and to the explanation of those facts we are permitted now to apply the principles of modern science. So the Old Testament describes facts occurring under the influence of truth. The facts were clearly understood. What shall hinder us, in explaining them, from applying the clearer light of the New Testament? Admitting this obvious principle, I suppose that the reference here was really to the third person of the Trinity; and that the sense is, that their conduct was such as was suited to cause grief to their Sanctifier and Comforter, in the same way as it is said in the New Testament that this is done now.
He was turned - He abandoned them for their sins, and left them to reap the consequences.
And he fought against them - He favored their enemies and gave them the victory. He gave them up to a series of disasters which finally terminated in their long and painful captivity, and in the destruction of their temple, city, and nation. The sentiment is, that when we grieve the Spirit of God, he abandons us to our chosen course, and leaves us to a series of spiritual and temporal disasters. Isaiah 63:11 tIs 63::11 Then he remembered - He did not forget his solemn premises to be their protector and their God. For their crimes they were subjected to punishment, but God did not forget that they were his people, nor that he had entered into covenant with them. The object of this part of the petition seems to be, to recall the fact that in former times God had never wholly forsaken them, and to plead that the same thing might occur now. Even in the darkest days of adversity, God still remembered his promises, and interposed to save them. Such they trusted it would be still.
Moses and his people - Lowth renders this, 'Moses his servant,' supposing that a change had occurred in the Hebrew text. It would be natural indeed to suppose that the word 'servant' would occur here (see the Hebrew), but the authority is not sufficient for the change. The idea seems to be that which is in our translation, and which is approved by Vitringa and Gesenius. 'He recalled the ancient days when he led Moses and his people through the sea and the wilderness.'
Where is he - The Chald:ee renders this, 'Lest they should say, Where is he?' that is, lest surrounding nations should ask in contempt and scorn, Where is the protector of the people, who defended them in other times? According to this, the sense is that God remembered the times of Moses and interposed, lest his not doing it should bring reproach upon his name and cause. Lowth renders it, 'How he brought them up;' that is, he recollected his former interposition. But the true idea is that of one asking a question. 'Where now is the God that formerly appeared for their aid? And though it is the language of God himself, yet it indicates that state of mind which arises when the question is asked, Where is now the former protector and God of the people?
That brought them up out of the sea - The Red Sea, when he delivered them from Egypt. This fact is the subject of a constant reference in the Scriptures, when the sacred writers would illustrate the goodness of God in any great and signal deliverance.
With the shepherd of his flock - Margin, 'Shepherds.' Lowth and Noyes render this in the singular, supposing it to refer to Moses. The Septuagint, Chald:ee, and Syriac, also read it in the singular. The Hebrew is in the plural (רעי ro‛ēy), though some manuscripts read it in the singular. If it is to be read in the plural, as the great majority of manuscripts read it, it probably refers to Moses and Aaron as the shepherds or guides of the people. Or it may also include others, meaning that Yahweh led up the people with all their rulers and guides.
Where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him? - (see the notes at Isa 63:10). Hebrew, בקרבו beqirebô - 'In the midst of him,' that is, in the midst of the people or the flock. They were then under his guidance and sanctifying influence. The generation which was led to the land of Canaan was eminently pious, perhaps more so than any other of the people of Israel (compare Jos 24:31; Jdg 2:6-10). The idea here is, that God, who then gave his Holy Spirit, had seemed to forsake them. The nation seemed to be abandoned to wickedness; and in this state, God remembered how he had formerly chosen and sanctified them; and he proposed again to impart to them the same Spirit. Isaiah 63:12
isa 63:0
Sixth Prophecy - Isa 63:1-6
Judgment Upon Edom and Upon the Whole World that Is Hostile to the Church
Just as the Ammonites had been characterized by a thirst for extending their territory as well as by cruelty, and the Moabites by boasting and a slanderous disposition, so were the Edomites, although the brother-nation to Israel, characterised from time immemorial by fierce, implacable, bloodthirsty hatred towards Israel, upon which they fell in the most ruthless and malicious manner, whenever it was surrounded by danger or had suffered defeat. The knavish way in which they acted in the time of Joram, when Jerusalem was surprised and plundered by Philistines and Arabians (Ch2 21:16-17), has been depicted by Obadiah. A large part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were then taken prisoners, and sold by the conquerors, some to the Phoenicians and some to the Greeks (Oba 1:20; Joe 3:1-8); to the latter through the medium of the Edomites, who were in possession of the port and commercial city of Elath on the Elanitic Gulf (Amo 1:6). Under the rule of the very same Joram the Edomites had made themselves independent of the house of David (Kg2 8:20; Ch2 21:10), and a great massacre took place among the Judaeans settled in Idumaea; an act of wickedness for which Joel threatens them with the judgment of God (Joe 3:19), and which was regarded as not yet expiated even in the time of Uzziah, notwithstanding the fact that Amaziah had chastised them (Kg2 14:7), and Uzziah had wrested Elath from them (Kg2 14:22). "Thus saith Jehovah," was the prophecy of Amos (Amo 1:11-12) in the first half of Uzziah's reign, "for three transgressions of Edom, ad for four, I will not take it back, because he pursued his brother with the sword, and stifled his compassion, so that his anger tears in pieces for ever, and he keeps his fierce wrath eternally: And I let fire loose upon Teman, and it devours the palaces of Bozrah." So also at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chald:eans, and the carrying away of the people, Edom took the side of the Chald:eans, rejoiced over Israel's defeat, and flattered itself that it should eventually rule over the territory that had hitherto belonged to Israel. They availed themselves of this opportunity to slake their thirst for revenge upon Israel, placing themselves at the service of its enemies, delivering up fugitive Judaeans or else massacring them, and really obtaining possession of the southern portion of Judaea, viz., Hebron (1 Macc. 5:65; cf., Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv 9, 7). With a retrospective glance at these, the latest manifestations of eternal enmity, Edom is threatened with divine vengeance by Jeremiah in the prophecy contained in Jer 49:7-22, which is taken for the most part from Obadiah; also in the Lamentations (Lam 4:21-22), as well as by Ezekiel (Eze 25:12-14, and especially Eze 35:1), and by the author of Psa 137:1-9, which looks back upon the time of the captivity. Edom is not always an emblematical name for the imperial power of the world: this is evident enough from Psa 137:1-9, from Isaiah 21, and also from Isaiah 34 in connection with chapter 13, where the judgment upon Edom is represented as a different one from the judgment upon Babylon. Babylon and Edom are always to be taken literally, so far as the primary meaning of the prophecy is concerned; but they are also representative, Babylon standing for the violent and tyrannical world-power, and Edom for the world as cherishing hostility and manifesting hostility to Israel as Israel, i.e., as the people of God. Babylon had no other interest, so far as Israel was concerned, than to subjugate it like other kingdoms, and destroy every possibility of its ever rising again. But Edom, which dwelt in Israel's immediate neighbourhood, and sprang from the same ancestral house, hated Israel with hereditary mortal hatred, although it knew the God of Israel better than Babylon ever did, because it knew that Israel had deprived it of its birthright, viz., the chieftainship. If Israel should have such a people as this, and such neighbouring nations generally round about it, after it had been delivered from the tyranny of the mistress of the world, its peace would still be incessantly threatened. Not only must Babylon fall, but Edom also must be trodden down, before Israel could be redeemed, or be regarded as perfectly redeemed. The prophecy against Edom which follows here is therefore a well-chosen side-piece to the prophecy against Babel in Isa 47:1-15, at the point of time to which the prophet has been transported. Isaiah 63:1
tIs 63::3 The person replies: "I have trodden the wine-trough alone, and of the nations no one was with me: and I trode them in my wrath, and trampled them down in my fury; and their life-sap spirted upon my clothes, and all my raiment was stained. For a day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redemption was come. And I looked round, and there was no helper; and I wondered there was no supporter: then mine own arm helped me; and my fury, it became my support. And I trode down nations in my wrath, and made them drunk in my fury, and made their life-blood run down to the earth." He had indeed trodden the wine-press (pūrâh = gath, or, if distinct from this, the pressing-trough as distinguished from the pressing-house or pressing-place; according to Frst, something hollowed out; but according to the traditional interpretation from pūr = pârar, to crush, press, both different from yeqebh: see at Isa 5:2), and he alone; so that the juice of the grapes had saturated and coloured his clothes, and his only. When he adds, that of the nations no one was with him, it follows that the press which he trode was so great, that he might have needed the assistance of whole nations. And when he continues thus: And I trod them in my wrath, etc., the enigma is at once explained. It was to the nations themselves that the knife was applied. They were cut off like grapes and put into the wine-press (Joe 3:13); and this heroic figure, of which there was no longer any doubt that it was Jehovah Himself, had trodden them down in the impulse and strength of His wrath. The red upon the clothes was the life-blood of the nations, which had spirted upon them, and with which, as He trode this wine-press, He had soiled all His garments. Nētsach, according to the more recently accepted derivation from nâtsach, signifies, according to the traditional idea, which is favoured by Lam 3:18, vigor, the vital strength and life-blood, regarded as the sap of life. ויז (compare the historical tense ויּז in Kg2 9:33) is the future used as an imperfect, and it spirted, from nâzâh (see at Isa 52:15). אגאלתּי (from גּאל = גּעל, Isa 59:3) is the perfect hiphil with an Aramaean inflexion (compare the same Aramaism in Psa 76:6; Ch2 20:35; and הלאני, which is half like it, in Job 16:7); the Hebrew form would be הגאלתּי.
(Note: The Babylonian MSS have אגאלתי with chirek, since the Babylonian (Assyrian) system of punctuation has no seghol.)
AE and A regard the form as a mixture of the perfect and future, but this is a mistake. This work of wrath had been executed by Jehovah, because He had in His heart a day of vengeance, which could not be delayed, and because the year (see at Isa 61:2) of His promised redemption had arrived. גּאּלי (this is the proper reading, not גּאוּלי, as some codd. have it; and this was the reading which Rashi had before him in his comm. on Lam 1:6) is the plural of the passive participle used as an abstract noun (compare היּים vivi, vitales, or rather viva, vitalia = vita). And He only had accomplished this work of wrath. Isa 63:5 is the expansion of לבדּי, and almost a verbal repetition of Isa 59:16. The meaning is, that no one joined Him with conscious free-will, to render help to the God of judgment and salvation in His purposes. The church that was devoted to Him was itself the object of the redemption, and the great mass of those who were estranged from Him the object of the judgment. Thus He found Himself alone, neither human co-operation nor the natural course of events helping the accomplishment of His purposes. And consequently He renounced all human help, and broke through the steady course of development by a marvellous act of His own. He trode down nations in His wrath, and intoxicated them in His fury, and caused their life-blood to flow down to the ground. The Targum adopts the rendering "et triturabo eos," as if the reading were ואשׁבּרם, which we find in Sonc. 1488, and certain other editions, as well as in some codd. Many agree with Cappellus in preferring this reading; and in itself it is not inadmissible (see Lam 1:15). But the lxx and all the other ancient versions, the Masora (which distinguishes ואשׁכרם with כ, as only met with once, from ואשׁברם morf , with ב in Deu 9:17), and the great majority of the MSS, support the traditional reading. There is nothing surprising in the transition to the figure of the cup of wrath, which is a very common one with Isaiah. Moreover, all that is intended is, that Jehovah caused the nations to feel the full force of this His fury, by trampling them down in His fury.
Even in this short ad highly poetical passage we see a desire to emblematize, just as in the emblematic cycle of prophetical night-visions in Isaiah 21:1-22:14. For not only is the name of Edom made covertly into an emblem of its future fate, אדם becoming אדם upon the apparel of Jehovah the avenger, when the blood of the people, stained with blood-guiltiness towards the people of God, is spirted out, but the name of Bozrah also; for bâtsar means to cut off bunches of grapes (vindemiare), and botsrâh becomes bâtsı̄r, i.e., a vintage, which Jehovah treads in His wrath, when He punishes the Edomitish nation as well as all the rest of the nations, which in their hostility towards Him and His people have taken pleasure in the carrying away of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem, and have lent their assistance in accomplishing them. Knobel supposes that the judgment referred to is the defeat which Cyrus inflicted upon the nations under Croesus and their allies; but it can neither be shown that this defeat affected the Edomites, nor can we understand why Jehovah should appear as if coming from Edom-Bozrah, after inflicting this judgment, to which Isa 41:2. refers. Knobel himself also observes, that Edom was still an independent kingdom, and hostile to the Persians (Diod. xv 2) not only under the reign of Cambyses (Herod. iii. 5ff.), but even later than that (Diod. xiii. 46). But at the time of Malachi, who lived under Artaxerxes Longimanus, if not under his successor Darius Nothus, a judgment of devastation was inflicted upon Edom (Mal 1:3-5), from which it never recovered. The Chald:eans, as Caspari has shown (Obad. p. 142), cannot have executed it, since the Edomites appear throughout as their accomplices, and as still maintaining their independence even under the first Persian kings; nor can any historical support be found to the conjecture, that it occurred in the wars between the Persians and the Egyptians (Hitzig and Khler, Mal. p. 35). What the prophet's eye really saw was fulfilled in the time of the Maccabaeans, when Judas inflicted a total defeat upon them, John Hyrcanus compelled them to become Jews, and Alexander Jannai completed their subjection; and in the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, when Simon of Gerasa avenged their cruel conduct in Jerusalem in combination with the Zelots, by ruthlessly turning their well-cultivated land into a horrible desert, just as it would have been left by a swarm of locusts (Jos. Wars of the Jews, iv 9, 7).
The New Testament counterpart of this passage in Isaiah is the destruction of Antichrist and his army (Rev 19:11.). He who effects this destruction is called the Faithful and True, the Logos of God; and the seer beholds Him sitting upon a white horse, with eyes of flaming fire, and many diadems upon His head, wearing a blood-stained garment, like the person seen by the prophet here. The vision of John is evidently formed upon the basis of that of Isaiah; for when it is said of the Logos that He rules the nations with a staff of iron, this points to Psa 2:1-12; and when it is still further said that He treads the wine-press of the wrath of Almighty God, this points back to Isaiah 63. The reference throughout is not to the first coming of the Lord, when He laid the foundation of His kingdom by suffering and dying, but to His final coming, when He will bring His regal sway to a victorious issue. Nevertheless Isa 63:1-6 has always been a favourite passage for reading in Passion week. It is no doubt true that the Christian cannot read this prophecy without thinking of the Saviour streaming with blood, who trode the wine-press of wrath for us without the help of angels and men, i.e., who conquered wrath for us. But the prophecy does not relate to this. The blood upon the garment of the divine Hero is not His own, but that of His enemies; and His treading of the wine-press is not the conquest of wrath, but the manifestation of wrath. This section can only be properly used as a lesson for Passion week so far as this, that Jehovah, who here appears to the Old Testament seer, was certainly He who became man in His Christ, in the historical fulfilment of His purposes; and behind the first advent to bring salvation there stood with warning form the final coming to judgment, which will take vengeance upon that Edom, to whom the red lentil-judgment of worldly lust and power was dearer than the red life-blood of that loving Servant of Jehovah who offered Himself for the sin of the whole world.
There follows now in Isaiah 63:7-64:11 a prayer commencing with the thanksgiving as it looks back to the past, and closing with a prayer for help as it turns to the present. Hitzig and Knobel connect this closely with Isa 63:1-6, assuming that through the great event which had occurred, viz., the overthrow of Edom, and of the nations hostile to the people of God as such, by which the exiles were brought one step nearer to freedom, the prophet was led to praise Jehovah for all His previous goodness to Israel. There is nothing, however, to indicate this connection, which is in itself a very loose one. The prayer which follows is chiefly an entreaty, and an entreaty appended to Isa 63:1-6, but without any retrospective allusion to it: it is rather a prayer in general for the realization of the redemption already promised. Ewald is right in regarding Isaiah 63:7-66:24 as an appendix to this whole book of consolation, since the traces of the same prophet are unmistakeable; but the whole style of the description is obviously different, and the historical circumstances must have been still further developed in the meantime.
The three prophecies which follow are the finale of the whole. The announcement of the prophet, which has reached its highest point in the majestic vision in Isa 63:1-6, is now drawing to an end. It is standing close upon the threshold of all that has been promised, and nothing remains but the fulfilment of the promise, which he has held up like a jewel on every side. And now, just as in the finale of a poetical composition, all the melodies and movements that have been struck before are gathered up into one effective close; and first of all, as in Hab, into a prayer, which forms, as it were, the lyrical echo of the preaching that has gone before. Isaiah 63:7 tIs 63::18 But the existing condition of Israel looks like a withdrawal of this grace; and it is impossible that these contrasts should cease, unless Jehovah comes down from heaven as the deliverer of His people. Isa 63:8, Isa 63:19 (Isa 64:1). "For a little time Thy holy people was in possession. Our adversaries have trodden down Thy sanctuary. We have become such as He who is from everlasting has not ruled over, upon whom Thy name was not called. O that Thou wouldst rend the heaven, come down, the mountains would shake before thy countenance." It is very natural to try whether yâreshū may not have tsârēnū for its subject (cf., Jer 49:2); but all the attempts made to explain the words on this supposition, show that lammits‛âr is at variance with the idea that yâreshū refers to the foes. Compare, for example, Jerome's rendering "quasi nihilum (i.e., ad nihil et absque allo labore) possederunt populum sanctum tuum;" that of Cocceius, "propemodum ad haereditatem;" and that of Stier, "for a little they possess entirely Thy holy nation." Mits‛âr is the harsher form for miz‛âr, which the prophet uses in Isa 10:25; Isa 16:14; Isa 29:17 for a contemptibly small space of time; and as ל is commonly used to denote the time to which, towards which, within which, and through which, anything occurs (cf., Ch2 11:17; Ch2 29:17; Ewald, 217, d), lammits‛âr may signify for a (lit. the well-known) short time (per breve tempus; like εἰς ἐπ ̓κατ ̓ ἐνιαυτόν, a year long). If miqdâsh could mean the holy land, as Hitzig and others suppose, miqdâshekhâ might be the common object of both sentences (Ewald, 351, p. 838). But miqdash Jehovah (the sanctuary of Jehovah) is the place of His abode and worship; and "taking possession of the temple" is hardly an admissible expression. On the other hand, yârash hâ'ârets, to take possession of the (holy) land, is so common a phrase (e.g., Isa 60:21; Isa 65:9; Psa 44:4), that with the words "Thy holy people possessed for a little (time)" we naturally supply the holy land as the object. The order of the words in the two clauses is chiastic. The two strikingly different subjects touch one another as the two inner members. Of the perfects, the first expresses the more remote past, the second the nearer past, as in Isa 60:10. The two clauses of the v. rhyme - the holiest thing in the possession of the people, which was holy according to the choice and calling of Jehovah, being brought into the greatest prominence; bōsēs = πατεῖν, Luk 21:24; Rev 11:2. Hahn's objection, that the time between the conquest of the land and the Chald:ean catastrophe could not be called mits‛âr (a little while), may be answered, from the fact that a time which is long in itself shrinks up when looked back upon or recalled, and that as an actual fact from the time of David and Solomon, when Israel really rejoiced in the possession of the land, the coming catastrophe began to be foreboded by many significant preludes.
The lamentation in Isa 63:19 proceeds from the same feeling which caused the better portion of the past to vanish before the long continuance of the mournful present. Hitzig renders היינוּ "we were;" Hahn, "we shall be;" but here, where the speaker is not looking back, as in Isa 26:17, at a state of things which has come to an end, but rather at one which is still going on, it signifies "we have become." The passage is rendered correctly in S.: ἐγενήθημεν (or better, γεγόναμεν) ὡς ἀπ ̓αἰῶνος ὧν οὐκ ἐξουσίασας οὐδὲ ἐπικλήθη τὸ ὄνομά σου αὐτοῖς. The virtual predicate to hâyı̄nū commences with mē‛ōlâm: "we have become such (or like such persons) as," etc.; which would be fully expressed by אשׁר כּעם, or merely כּעשׁר, or without אשׁר, and simply by transposing the words, וגו משׁלתּ כּלא (cf., Oba 1:16): compare the virtual subject אהבו יהוה in Isa 48:14, and the virtual object בשׁמי יקרא in Isa 41:25 (Ewald, 333, b). Every form of "as if" is intentionally omitted. The relation in which Jehovah placed Himself to Israel, viz., as its King, and as to His own people called by His name, appears not only as though it had been dissolved, but as though it had never existed at all. The existing state of Israel is a complete practical denial of any such relation. Deeper tones than these no lamentation could possibly utter, and hence the immediate utterance of the sigh which goes up to heaven: "O that Thou wouldst rend heaven!" It is extremely awkward to begin a fresh chapter with כּקדח ("as when the melting fire burneth"); at the same time, the Masoretic division of the vv. is unassailable.
(Note: In the Hebrew Bibles, Isa 64:1-12 commences at the second v. of our version; and the first v. is attached to Isa 63:19 of the previous chapter. - Tr.)
For Isa 63:19 (Isa 64:1) could not be attached to Isa 64:1-2, since this v. would be immensely overladen; moreover, this sigh really belongs to Isa 63:19 (Isa 63:19), and ascends out of the depth of the lamentation uttered there. On utinam discideris = discinderes, see at Isa 48:18. The wish presupposes that the gracious presence of God had been withdrawn from Israel, and that Israel felt itself to be separated from the world beyond by a thick party-wall, resembling an impenetrable black cloud. The closing member of the optative clause is generally rendered (utinam) a facie tua montes diffluerent (e.g., Rosenmller after the lxx τακήσονται), or more correctly, defluerent (Jerome), as nâzal means to flow down, not to melt. The meaning therefore would be, "O that they might flow down, as it were to the ground melting in the fire" (Hitzig). The form nâzollu cannot be directly derived from nâzal, if taken in this sense; for it is a pure fancy that nâzōllū may be a modification of the pausal נזלוּ with ō for ā, and the so-called dagesh affectuosum). Stier invents a verb med. o. נזל. The more probable supposition is, that it is a niphal formed from zâlāl = nâzal (Ewald, 193, c). But zâlal signifies to hang down slack, to sway to and fro (hence zōlēl, lightly esteemed, and zalzallı̄m, Isa 18:5, pliable branches), like zūl in Isa 46:6, to shake, to pour down;
(Note: Just as the Greek has in addition to σαλ-εὐειν the much simpler and more root-like σεἰ-ειν; so the Semitic has, besides זל, the roots זא, זע: compare the Arabic סלסל, זאזע, זעזע, all three denoting restless motion.)
and nâzōllu, if derived from this, yields the appropriate sense concuterentur (compare the Arabic zalzala, which is commonly applied to an earthquake). The nearest niphal form would be נזלּוּ (or resolved, נזלוּ, Jdg 5:5); but instead of the a of the second syllable, the niphal of the verbs ע has sometimes o, like the verb ע ו (e.g., נגלּוּ, Isa 34:4; Ges. 67, Anm. 5). Next: Isaiah Chapter 64
tIs 63::1 It is a glorious victory that is here enquired into first and then accounted for. 1. It is a victory obtained by the providence of God over the enemies of Israel; over the Babylonians (say some), whom Cyrus conquered and God by him, and they will have the prophet to make the first discovery of him in his triumphant return when he is in the country of Edom: but this can by no means be admitted, because the country of Babylon is always spoken of as the land of the north, whereas Edom lay south from Jerusalem, so that the conqueror would not return through that country; the victory therefore is obtained over the Edomites themselves, who had triumphed in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chald:eans (Psa 137:7) and cut off those who, making their way as far as they could from the enemy, escaped to the Edomites (Oba 1:12, Oba 1:13), and were therefore reckoned with when Babylon was; for no doubt that prophecy was accomplished, though we do not meet in history with the accomplishment of it (Jer 49:13), Bozrah shall become a desolation. Yet this victory over Edom is put as an instance or specimen of the like victories obtained over other nations that had been enemies to Israel. This over the Edomites is named for the sake of the old enmity of Esau against Jacob (Gen 27:41) and perhaps with an allusion to David's glorious triumphs over the Edomites, by which it should seem, more than by any other of his victories, he got himself a name, Psa 60:1-12, title, Sa2 8:13, Sa2 8:14. But this is not all: 2. It is a victory obtained by the grace of God in Christ over our spiritual enemies. We find the garments dipped in blood adorning him whose name is called The Word of God, Rev 19:13. And who that is we know very well; for it is through him that we are more than conquerors over those principalities and powers which on the cross he spoiled and triumphed over.
In this representation of the victory we have,
I. An admiring question put to the conqueror, Isa 63:1, Isa 63:2. It is put by the church, or by the prophet in the name of the church. He sees a mighty hero returning in triumph from a bloody engagement, and makes bold to ask him two questions: - 1. Who he is. He observes him to come from the country of Edom, to come in such apparel as was glorious to a soldier, not embroidered or laced, but besmeared with blood and dirt. He observes that he does not come as one either frightened or fatigued, but that he travels in the greatness of his strength, altogether unbroken.
Triumphant and victorious he appears,
And honour in his looks and habit wears.
How strong he treads! how stately doth he go!
Pompous and solemn is his pace,
And full of majesty, as is his face;
Who is this mighty hero - who!
- Mr. Norris
The question, Who is this? perhaps means the same with that which Joshua put to the same person when he appeared to him with his sword drawn (Jos 5:13): Art thou for us or for our adversaries? Or, rather, the same with that which Israel put in a way of adoration (Exo 15:11): Who is a God like unto thee? 2. The other question it, "Wherefore art thou red in thy apparel? What hard service hast thou been engaged in, that thou carriest with thee these marks of toil and danger?" Is it possible that one who has such majesty and terror in his countenance should be employed in the mean and servile work of treading the wine-press? Surely it is not. That which is really the glory of the Redeemer seems, prim facie - at first, a disparagement to him, as it would be to a mighty prince to do the work of the wine-dressers and husbandmen; for he took upon him the form of a servant, and carried with him the marks of servitude.
II. An admirable answer returned by him.
1. He tells who he is: I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. He is the Saviour. God was Israel's Saviour out of the hand of their oppressors; the Lord Jesus is ours; his name, Jesus, signifies a Saviour, for he saves his people from their sins. In the salvation wrought he will have us to take notice, (1.) Of the truth of his promise, which is therein performed: He speaks in righteousness, and will therefore make good every word that he has spoken with which he will have us to compare what he does, that, setting the word and the work the one over against the other, what he does may ratify what he has said and what he has said may justify what he does. (2.) Of the efficacy of his power, which is therein exerted: He is mighty to save, able to bring about the promised redemption, whatever difficulties and oppositions may lie in the way of it.
'Tis I who to my promise faithful stand,
I, who the powers of death, hell, and the grave,
Have foil'd with this all-conquering hand,
I, who most ready am, and mighty too, to save.
- Mr. Norris
2. He tells how he came to appear in this hue (Isa 63:3): I have trodden the wine-press alone. Being compared to one that treads in the wine-fat, such is his condescension, in the midst of his triumphs, that he does not scorn the comparison, but admits it and carries it on. He does indeed tread the wine-press, but it is the great wine-press of the wrath of God (Rev 14:19), in which we sinners deserved to be cast; but Christ was pleased to cast our enemies into it, and to destroy him that had the power of death, that he might deliver us. And of this the bloody work which God sometimes made among the enemies of the Jews, and which is here foretold, was a type and figure. Observe the account the conqueror gives of his victory.
(1.) He gains the victory purely by his own strength: I have trodden the wine-press alone, Isa 63:3. When God delivered his people and destroyed their enemies, if he made use of instruments, he did not need them. But among his people, for whom the salvation was to be wrought, no assistance offered itself; they were weak and helpless, and had no ability to do any thing for their own relief; they were desponding and listless, and had no heart to do any thing; they were not disposed to give the least stroke or struggle for liberty, neither the captives themselves nor any of their friends for them (Isa 63:5): "I looked, and there was none to help, as one would have expected, nothing of a bold active spirit appeared among them; nay, there was not only none to lead, but, which was more strange, there was none to uphold, none that would come in as a second, that had the courage to join with Cyrus against their oppressors; therefore my arm brought about the salvation; not by created might or power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts, my own arm." Note, God can help when all other helpers fail; nay, that is his time to help, and therefore for that very reason he will put forth his own power so much the more gloriously. But this is most fully applicable to Christ's victories over our spiritual enemies, which he obtained by a single combat. He trod the wine-press of his Father's wrath alone, and triumphed over principalities and powers in himself, Col 2:15. Of the people there was none with him; for, when he entered the lists with the powers of darkness, all his disciples forsook him and fled. There was non to help, none that could, none that durst; and he might well wonder that among the children of men, whose concern it was, there was not only none to uphold, but that there were so many to oppose and hinder it if they could.
(2.) He undertakes the war purely out of his own zeal. It is in his anger, it is in his fury, that he treads down his enemies (Isa 63:3), and that fury upholds him and carries him on in this enterprise, Isa 63:5. God wrought salvation for the oppressed Jews purely because he was very angry with the oppressing Babylonians, angry at their idolatries and sorceries, their pride and cruelty, and the injuries they did to his people, and, as they increased their abominations and grew more insolent and outrageous, his anger increased to fury. Our Lord Jesus wrought out our redemption in a holy zeal for the honour of his Father and the happiness of mankind, and a holy indignation at the daring attempts Satan had made upon both; this zeal and indignation upheld him throughout his whole undertaking. Two branches there were of this zeal that animated him: - [1.] He had a zeal against his and his people's enemies: The day of vengeance is in my heart (Isa 63:4), the day fixed in the eternal counsels for taking vengeance on them; this was written in his heart, so that he could not forget it, could not let it slip; his heart was full of it, and it lay as a charge, as a weight, upon him, which made him push on this holy war with so much vigour. Note, There is a day fixed for divine vengeance, which may be long deferred, but will come at last; and we may be content to wait for it, for the Redeemer himself does so, though his heart is upon it. [2.] He had a zeal for his people, and for all that he designed to make sharers in the intended salvation: "The year of my redeemed has come, the year appointed for their redemption." There was a year fixed for the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and God kept time to a day (Exo 12:41); so there was for their release out of Babylon (Dan 9:2); so there was for Christ's coming to destroy the works of the devil; so there is for all the deliverances of the church, and the deliverer has an eye to it. Observe, First, With what pleasure he speaks of his people; they are his redeemed; they are his own, dear to him. Though their redemption is not yet wrought out, yet he calls them his redeemed, because it shall as surely be done as if it were done already. Secondly, With what pleasure he speaks of his people's redemption; how glad he is that the time has come, though he is likely to meet with a sharp encounter. "Now that the year of my redeemed has come, Lo, I come; delay shall be no longer. Now will I arise, saith the Lord. Now thou shalt see what I will do to Pharaoh." Note, The promised salvation must be patiently waited for till the time appointed comes; yet we must attend the promises with our prayers. Does Christ say, Surely I come quickly; let our hearts reply, Even so come; let the year of the redeemed come.
(3.) He will obtain a complete victory over them all. [1.] Much is already done; for he now appears red in his apparel; such abundance of blood is shed that the conqueror's garments are all stained with it. This was predicted, long before, by dying Jacob, concerning Shiloh (that is, Christ), that he should wash his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes, which perhaps this alludes to, Gen 49:11.
With ornamental drops bedeck'd I stood,
And wrote my vict'ry with my en'my's blood.
- Mr. Norris
In the destruction of the antichristian powers we meet with abundance of blood shed (Rev 14:20, Rev 19:13), which yet, according to the dialect of prophecy, may be understood spiritually, and doubtless so may this here. [2.] More shall yet be done (Isa 63:6): I will tread down the people that yet stand it out against me, in my anger; for the victorious Redeemer, when the year of the redeemed shall have come, will go on conquering and to conquer, Rev 6:2. When he begins he will also make an end. Observe how he will complete his victories over the enemies of his church. First, He will infatuate them; he will make them drunk, so that there shall be neither sense nor steadiness in their counsels; they shall drink of the cup of his fury, and that shall intoxicate them: or he will make them drunk with their own blood, Rev 17:6. Let those that make themselves drunk with the cup of riot (and then they are in their fury) repent and reform, lest God make them drunk with the cup of trembling, the cup of his fury. Secondly, He will enfeeble them; he will bring down their strength, and so bring them down to the earth; for what strength can hold out against Omnipotence? Isaiah 63:7