Bibelkommentare

Ch. 65. Threats and Promises, addressed to Two distinct Parties

The chapter may be divided into two nearly equal portions:—

i. Isaiah 65:1-12. A contrast is drawn between the servants of Jehovah and a party who have apostatised from the true religion.

(1) Isaiah 65:1-7. The divine speaker complains that His gracious invitations have been scorned by an “obdurate people” (Isaiah 65:1-2), who have provoked Him continually by scandalous and abominable superstitions (Isaiah 65:3-5), and against whom He now pronounces a final sentence of rejection (Isaiah 65:6-7).

(2) Isaiah 65:8-10. The method of Jehovah’s dealings with Israel illustrated by a figure from the vintage. As the grape cluster is spared for the sake of the new wine that is in it, so for the sake of the spiritual principle embodied in Israel, Jehovah will “not destroy the whole” (Isaiah 65:8). On the contrary a seed shall be brought forth from Jacob to inherit the Holy Land from the west to the east (Isaiah 65:9-10).

(3) Isaiah 65:11-12. The schismatics, here directly addressed as they that “forsake the Lord” and repudiate the Temple worship in their service of strange gods, are threatened with extinction. The first section ends, as it began, by reminding the apostates of the overtures of Divine love and condescension which they had so wantonly spurned.

ii. Isaiah 65:13-25. The final separation of the two classes.

(1) Isaiah 65:13-16. The future of the idolaters is more explicitly contrasted with that of the “servants” of Jehovah (Isaiah 65:13 f.). The former shall be annihilated, leaving behind them nothing but a name for a formula of imprecation (Isaiah 65:15); while Jehovah’s true servants remain in the land to “bless themselves in the God of truth” (Isaiah 65:16).

(2) Isaiah 65:17-25. The blessings reserved for the people of God in the Messianic age: an entire transformation of the conditions of human existence, compared to the creation of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17); Jehovah’s delight in His handiwork dissipating the sorrows of earth (18, 19); patriarchal longevity (20); undisturbed possession of the land (21–23); immediate answer to prayer (24); and harmony in the animal world (25) are the features of this captivating picture of the latter days.

In the view of most expositors ch. 65 is Jehovah’s answer to the preceding intercession (Isaiah 63:7 to Isaiah 64:12). But this connexion, as Cheyne has long insisted, is far from obvious and probably does violence to the natural interpretation of Isaiah 65:1-2. The persons there referred to are sharply and explicitly distinguished from those in whose name the prayer is uttered. The community which in Isaiah 64:9 says, “We are all thy people” cannot surely have included amongst its members the openly pagan party described in Isaiah 65:3 ff., Isaiah 65:8 ff. And to suppose the meaning to be that Jehovah has always been ready to answer prayer, but must first effect a separation between the two classes, is very like an attempt to force a connexion where none exists. The theory becomes still more untenable when we take into account the extremely close resemblance between ch. 65 and 66. It is safer to regard these two chapters as one continuous discourse, complete in itself, and having no special reference to what immediately precedes.

The situation presupposed by this chapter and the next presents many features of great interest and importance. On the whole the impression is confirmed that in this part of the book we have to do with prophecies delivered in Palestine, at a time subsequent to the Restoration. The notes will supply some indications of this; and there appears to be nothing which really countenances the idea that the author lived among the exiles in Babylon. The most important fact is the sharp division of parties, already referred to, which runs through the prophecy. This fact may be explained in two ways: (1) It may be merely the distinction, which always existed in Israel, between the godly kernel of the nation and the great mass who were addicted to heathen practices. The antithesis in this case would be largely ideal, being obvious from the point of view of the prophet and those who shared his faith, but not recognised by their opponents. But this conception hardly corresponds to the state of things revealed by the allusions of the prophecy. The separation is open and acknowledged on both sides; each party excommunicates the other (Isaiah 66:5); and the apostates maintain an attitude of opposition to the Temple at Jerusalem (Isaiah 65:11). (2) The second theory may better enable us to comprehend this situation. It is the same as was already suggested by ch. Isaiah 57:3 ff., viz., that the schismatics referred to are the half-caste Samaritans and their adherents amongst the “people of the land,” while the servants of Jehovah are the religious and strictly legal party which is known to have existed in the time of Malachi, and had been reinforced by the arrival of Ezra and his company from Babylon (Ezra 9:1-4). Some points in favour of this view are (a) the Hebrew extraction of the party denounced (Isaiah 66:5; see on Isaiah 57:3); (b) their separation from the Temple service (Isaiah 65:11); (c) the peculiar and revolting heathen rites to which they were addicted (Isaiah 65:3-5; Isaiah 65:11, Isaiah 66:3; Isaiah 66:17) implying a degree of religious degeneracy not easy to conceive in a properly Jewish society; (d) their perpetuation of the illegal worship of the “high places” (Isaiah 65:7); and (e) the manner in which they are addressed as a distinct and well-known body (Isaiah 65:5; Isaiah 65:11, Isaiah 66:5). These circumstances do not of course amount to a demonstration of the hypothesis, although in conjunction with the presumption of post-exilic authorship they invest it with a certain degree of probability.

1, 2. Jehovah’s overtures have been rejected by an obdurate people.

1 Render:  I was to be enquired of by those that asked not, I was to be found by them that sought me not, etc.

The first verb in each line is of the form Niphal, which is to be understood not as a simple passive, but in its tolerative sense: “I let myself be enquired of,” i.e. “I was ready to answer,” exactly as Ezekiel 14:3; Ezekiel 20:3; Ezekiel 20:31; Ezekiel 36:37 : “I let myself be found,” as ch. Isaiah 55:6. Jehovah’s readiness to hear is contrasted with the people’s unwillingness to pray.

Behold me, behold me] Cf. ch. Isaiah 40:9, Isaiah 41:27, Isaiah 52:6, Isaiah 58:9.

that was not called by my name] We should read, changing the vowels in accordance with the Old Versions: that did not call on my name.

2. spread out mine hands] The attitude of supplication; cf. Proverbs 1:24.

a rebellious (refractory, Hosea 4:16) people] LXX. has; λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα; and so the citation Romans 10:21.

a way that was not good] “A not-good way” (litotes). The same phrase in Psalm 36:4; Proverbs 16:29.

The people referred to here are necessarily the same as those described in the sequel. If these be the paganised Israelites of the North who had not shared the Captivity the two verses reveal an important fact not otherwise recorded. The prophetic representatives of Jehovah in the post-exilic community must, in that case, have sought to win over these outcasts to the pure worship of Jehovah, and the acceptance of the Law. This might appear to be inconsistent with what is told in Ezra 4:1-3, where the friendly advances of the Samaritans are met with a stern refusal on the part of the Jews. But the contradiction is perhaps only apparent. The Jewish leaders might very well have declined the co-operation of these people while they maintained their impure religion, and at the same time been eager to incorporate them in the Theocracy on the terms offered to foreigners in ch. Isaiah 56:6 f.

In Romans 10:20-21, St Paul quotes parts of these verses, applying Isaiah 65:1 to the conversion of the Gentiles and Isaiah 65:2 to the unbelief of Israel. Possibly this exegesis may have been traditional in the Apostle’s time (Delitzsch), although the primary sense of the passage is that the same persons are referred to throughout.

3. that sacrificeth in the gardens] Cf. ch. Isaiah 66:17, and see on Isaiah 1:29.

burneth incense upon altars of brick] Strictly on the bricks (R.V.), or tiles. We have no key to the meaning of the expression. Some think the “tiles” denote the roofs of the houses, where sacrifices were sometimes offered to false gods (see 2 Kings 23:12; Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5); others (like A.V.) suppose that altars made of bricks are referred to. Why the custom should be specially Babylonian (Del.) does not appear. The word for “burn incense” may mean simply “burn sacrifice”; see on ch. Isaiah 1:13.

3–5. Description of their illegal and superstitious cults.

4. The first two lines read:

Who sit in the graves,

and pass the night in secret (lit. guarded) places.

The practice of “sitting in graves” is undoubtedly rooted in the worship of ancestors (Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, pp. 68, 71), and the object probably was to obtain oracles from the dead. The phrase “pass the night” seems to point to the custom known to the ancients as incubation: “ubi stratis pellibus hostiarum incubare soliti erant, ut somniis futura cognoscerent” (Jerome). This idea is expressed by the LXX. (which runs the two clauses into one): κοιμῶνται διὰ ἐνύπνια; i.e. for the purpose of obtaining dream-oracles. But whether the “secret places” are connected with the “graves” is uncertain.

which eat swine’s flesh] in sacrificial meals; in any case a violation of the Law (Deuteronomy 14:8; Leviticus 11:7). From the fact that wild pigs are mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions (Jensen, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Vol. i. pp. 306 ff.) it has been inferred that the Jews were tempted into this during the Exile. But the swine was “forbidden food to all the Semites,” being sacred to more than one deity, and used in sacrifice only in some exceptional rites (W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites2, pp. 218, 290 f., 351). It is probably such mystic sacrifices that are here referred to; and there was no place where lax Jews were more likely to be enticed into them than in their own land.

broth of abominable things] Such creatures as are enumerated in Isaiah 66:17. The “sacrifices are boiled and yield a magical hell-broth” (W. R. Smith, Marriage and Kinship, p. 310). “Broth” is the rendering of the Qěrê (mârâq, Jdg 6:19 f.); the Kěthîb has a word (pârâq) which might mean “piece” (sing.), although it does not occur elsewhere.

5. Stand by thyself] Lit. “Draw near to thyself.” Cf. Isaiah 49:20.

for I am holier than thou] This construction of the accus. suffix is hardly admissible. The verb is to be pointed as Piel, and the clause rendered: else I sanctify thee (cf. the similar use of the perf. in 1 Samuel 2:16). The words express no Pharisaic sense of superior virtue; they are addressed by a Mystagogue (see on Isaiah 66:17), or at least a member of a special religious fellowship, to the uninitiated, warning them against the dangerous degree of holiness (taboo) which would be incurred by contact with the initiated (cf. Ezekiel 44:19). (See Rel. of Sem.2 pp. 343, 357–368). It is true we have no further evidence of the existence of such mystic societies in Palestine at any time. But the whole passage (Isaiah 65:3-5) is unique, and furnishes a startling revelation of a state of things without parallel in the O.T., although something similar may be inferred from Ezekiel 8:10. Its emergence at this particular period is no doubt to be explained by the collapse of the old national religions, which was the inevitable result of the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests. This naturally led to a recrudescence of primitive superstitions which had been handed down in obscure circles, but had been kept in check so long as the public religion of the state retained its vitality (Rel. of Sem.2 pp. 357 f.). But while this general explanation may be sufficient, the situation becomes perhaps still more intelligible if we suppose the description to apply to descendants of the colonists settled by Assyrian kings in Samaria (Cheyne, Introd. p. 369).

these are a smoke in my nose] If the clause stood alone it would be interpreted as a figurative expression of the idea of Isaiah 65:3 a,—a smoke entering into and irritating the nostrils. The parallel clause, however, has led nearly all commentators to understand the “smoke” as a symbol of the Divine anger (cf. Psalm 18:8); and to paraphrase the line thus: “these are (the cause of) a smoke (proceeding from) my nostrils.” This is certainly very unnatural. Why should not the second line be subordinate to the first,—the continually burning fire being the source of the “smoke” as the emblem of provocation?

a fire that burneth all the day] Probably a citation from Jeremiah 17:4; cf. Deuteronomy 32:22.

6, 7. Sentence is now pronounced on the reprobates, who by their persistent idolatries have served themselves heirs to the guilt of their fathers.

it is written before me] The sins mentioned above stand recorded in the heavenly books, calling constantly for punishment (cf. Jeremiah 17:1). Another interpretation, according to which the subject of the sentence is the Divine decree of judgement, is less acceptable, because the following words can hardly be taken as the contents of such a decree.

I will not keep silence until I have recompensed] For the construction cf. Genesis 32:26; Leviticus 22:6, &c.

even recompense &c.] and I will recompense into their bosom,—a new sentence, as is shown by the Hebr. pointing of the verb as consec. perf. Cf. Jeremiah 32:18; Psalm 79:12.

7. Your iniquities … your fathers] The change from 3rd to 2nd pers. is extremely awkward, unless the verse could be detached from the preceding and regarded (down to “hills”) as an exclamation. This is far from natural; the better construction is that of the E.V. which makes “iniquities” the obj. to “recompense.” It is probably necessary (with the LXX.) to read “their” in both cases. The iniquities of the fathers are indicated in the following words.

which have burnt incense (have sacrificed,—see on Isaiah 1:13) upon the mountains] The reference is obviously to the illegal worship of the “high places” or local sanctuaries, which is denounced in similar terms in Hosea 4:13; Ezekiel 6:13; cf. Ezekiel 18:6 (if the text be right,—see Davidson on the passage in Camb. Bible for Schools). That this form of idolatry was also practised by those here spoken of is in every way probable (see ch. Isaiah 57:7); on the other hand their ancestors, the pre-exilic Israelites, could not be charged with the more heinous offences described in Isaiah 65:3-5. These last, however, were the outcome of the same idolatrous tendency which formerly shewed itself in the worship at the high places, and the judgement now about to descend on the children is called forth both by their own guilt and by that of their fathers.

therefore will I measure their former work] Rather: and I will first measure their reward. The word for “former” (rí’shônâh) if an adj., ought to have the art., and moreover the thought expressed by this translation would be unsuitable, since it passes by in silence the recompense due to the sins of the children themselves. It must therefore be rendered as an adverb, as in Jeremiah 16:18 (“and first I will recompense their iniquity” &c.). So R.V.

into their bosom] as Isaiah 65:6.