Commentari biblici

Ch. Isaiah 1:2-31. The Lord’s Controversy with His People

The passage falls into two main divisions:—

i. Isaiah 1:2-20. The moral and religious issues involved in the great dispute between Jehovah and Israel.

(i) Isaiah 1:2-3. Jehovah has discovered rebellion and ingratitude in the sons whom He has reared and brought to honour. This fact, disclosed to the spiritual perception of the prophet, is the basis of the whole subsequent argument.

(2) Isaiah 1:4-9. The prophet, in his own name, presses home the charge of rebellion; the divine accusation being “translated into passionate invective and threatening by the prophet” (Delitzsch) (Isaiah 1:4). The evidence of Israel’s sin is seen in the calamities of the land; why should they invite further chastisement by persistent disobedience? (5–8). It is of the Lord’s mercy that they are not utterly consumed, like the Cities of the Plain (9).

(3) Isaiah 1:10-17. Does Israel imagine that Jehovah can be propitiated by costly rites and offerings? Nay, the whole system of ritual worship as practised by them is an intolerable insult to Him (10–15). The prophet’s invective is aimed at a deep-seated fallacy of the popular religion. In opposition to this mistaken notion he demands moral reformation and public righteousness as the only service acceptable to God (16 f.).

(4) Isaiah 1:18-20. The conclusion of the argument. Jehovah summons the nation to a trial at law, and submits the alternative: prosperity as the reward of obedience, or destruction as the penalty of continued rebellion.

ii. Isaiah 1:21-31. The necessity for a purifying judgment. This is the prominent idea in the second division of the chapter, but the connexion of thought is less obvious than in the first. The keynote is struck in

(1) Isaiah 1:21-26. A dirge over the decay of civic virtue in Jerusalem (21–23), followed by a threat of judgment (24 f.), and a picture of the city restored to its pristine purity (26).

(2) Isaiah 1:27-31. The operation of the judgment is shewn to be twofold: the deliverance of a converted remnant (27), and the annihilation of apostates (28). And a further consequence will be a demonstration of the vanity of nature-worship and idolatry (29–31).

The chapter, entitled by Ewald ‘The Great Arraignment,’ stands worthily as the introduction to Isaiah’s prophecies. Its leading ideas—the breach between Jehovah and Israel, the inefficacy of mere ritual, the call to national repentance, the certainty of a sweeping judgment—are those which underlie not only Isaiah’s teaching, but also that of all the pre-Exilic prophets; and these elementary principles are here presented with a force and clearness unrivalled m the Old Testament. Certain resemblances, both in thought and expression, to the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deuteronomy 32) have been noted by commentators, but the inference that this discourse is in any sense an imitation of that poem is on every ground to be rejected. The passage is probably a summary of several public discourses; these, however, have been worked up into a literary unity, and there is perhaps a presumption that the original oracles belong to one and the same period of the prophet’s activity.

What that period was cannot, however, be determined with certainty. Critical opinion seems to gravitate more and more to the view that the first part of the chapter (Isaiah 1:2-17) belongs to the time of Sennacherib’s campaign (b.c. 701). This conclusion is based chiefly on the historical allusions in Isaiah 1:7-9. But it is not quite clear that the expressions there used might not apply to the Syro-Ephraimitish invasion of circa 735; and there are one or two general considerations which plead for the earlier date. (1) A presentation of fundamental prophetic ideas so fresh and powerful as this points to the beginning rather than the close of Isaiah’s career. (2) It is difficult to read the whole chapter in the light of Sennacherib’s invasion. It would be surprising if a series of discourses uttered during that crisis should contain only a pair of doubtful indications of their historical setting. It is admitted, moreover, that the allusions to idolatry (29 ff.) are more naturally understood of the reign of Ahaz than of that of Hezekiah, and no counter argument can fairly be drawn from the assiduous worship of Jehovah referred to in 10 ff. (3) The tone and teaching of the chapter closely resemble the prophecies uttered by Isaiah in the earliest portion of his public work (ch. 2–5). On the whole it seems not improbable that the passage is a résumé of the principal themes of Isaiah’s early ministry, compiled shortly after the attack by Rezin and Pekah (see on ch. 7). Fortunately the interpretation of the chapter is but little affected by the question of its date.

Ch. Isaiah 1:1. The Superscription

The verse is probably best understood as the heading of the first great collection of prophecies, ch. 1–12. The contents of these chapters are described with sufficient accuracy for the purposes of a title; whereas the phrase concerning Judah and Jerusalem is unsuitable to many of the later prophecies, and the note of time forbids us to limit the reference to ch. 1. The second difficulty (but not the first) might be removed by accepting Vitringa’s ingenious suggestion that the first half of the verse (down to “Jerusalem”) was originally the title of ch. 1, the latter part having been added in order to extend its scope to the whole book. Since, however, there is reason to suppose that ch. 1–12 once formed a separate volume (see General Introduction, p. lxxii), it is better to adopt the view which most fully accounts for all the particulars of the superscription.

The word vision is used here in the wide sense of a collection of prophetic oracles (cf. Nahum 1:1; Obadiah 1:1). As the prophet was called a “seer” (ḥôzeh), and his perception of divine truth was called “seeing,” so his message as a whole is termed a “vision” (ḥâzôn). See further on ch. Isaiah 2:1, Isaiah 30:10.

Isaiah the son of Amoz] On the name and parentage of the prophet, see General Introduction, p. xxii.

concerning Judah and Jerusalem] as distinguished from prophecies on foreign nations, ch. 13 ff.

in the days of Uzziah … Judah] The words indicate generally the period covered by Isaiah’s public ministry. The author of the title probably understood that the vision of ch. 6 took place in the lifetime of Uzziah. It is not necessary to suppose that he assigned other prophecies to the reign of that king.

2. the Lord hath spoken] The inner ear of the prophet has heard the words which follow; he will utter them in trumpet-tones which shall cause all creation to hear and shudder. The apostrophe to the heavens and the earth has probably no other force than this (cf. Deuteronomy 32:1; Micah 6:1-2; Jeremiah 2:12), although Dillmann thinks they are appealed to as witnesses of all that has passed between the Lord and His people. The dramatic conception of a formal Assize, with Heaven and Earth for Assessors, the prophet for Herald, and so on, although a favourite one with commentators, is merely fanciful, and weakens the rhetorical effect of the passage.

nourished and brought up] The two expressions may be synonymous, as in ch. Isaiah 23:4; Ezekiel 31:4. More probably, however, the second means “set on high [among the nations]” (cf. R.V. marg.).

children] sons; the position of the word is emphatic. (Israel, the son of Jehovah, as Exodus 4:22 f.; Deuteronomy 16:1; Deuteronomy 32:5-6; Deuteronomy 32:18; Hosea 11:1 ff.) The “sons” are not named here, attention being concentrated on the tragic fact that He who is Lord of all should know

“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is

To have a thankless child.”

have rebelled] The charge of rebellion in the mouth of Isaiah (only here and Isaiah 1:28) would include three things: (1) the sin of idolatry, (2) breaches of the moral law, (3) rejection of his own prophetic message (cf. Isaiah 1:4). It is possible that the occasion of this revelation may have been some particular incident of the kind last mentioned, such as e.g. the decision of Ahaz to call in the help of Assyria (ch. 7), or Hezekiah’s treaty with Egypt in 701 (cf. ch. Isaiah 30:9-15).

2, 3. The heart-rending complaint of Jehovah.

3. Israel’s ingratitude is rebuked by the instinctive fidelity of the dumb animals to their human benefactors (cf. Jeremiah 8:7). Ox and ass are mentioned, not as the most stupid animals, but as the only thoroughly domesticated animals of the Hebrews,—lodged probably under the same roof as their owner and his family.

4. seed (i.e. race or brood, consisting) of evildoers] Cf. Matthew 3:7, “brood of vipers.” The indef. art. should be omitted in this clause and the preceding.

children … corrupters] better: sons that deal corruptly (R.V.); lit. “that corrupt [sc. their way]” as Genesis 6:12.

provoked … unto anger] R.V., rightly, despised.

Holy One of Israel] i.e. “the Holy One who is Israel’s God.” Holiness was the aspect of the divine nature impressed on Isaiah’s mind in his inaugural vision, and this phrase, common in his writings and apparently coined by him, sums up his fundamental conception of God in relation to Israel (see Introd., p. lii, and on ch. 6 below).

they are gone away backward] A pregnant construction, to be rendered as in R.V.: they are estranged [and gone] backward. The words are wanting in the LXX.

4–9. The prophet speaks.

5. Why] Many comm., following the Vulg., render “On what (sc. part of the body).” Their meaning is exactly expressed by the line of Ovid (cited by Gesenius), “Vix habet in vobis iam nova plaga locum.” The idea seems somewhat frigid, and hardly suits the clause immediately following. The translation “why” is thoroughly established by Hebrew usage, is supported by most ancient versions, and ought probably to be retained.

the whole head … heart] Not “every head” (in spite of the absence of the Hebr. art.). The commonwealth is conceived as a body, sorely wounded and sick unto death: afterwards its calamities are described literally (Isaiah 1:7).

6. The state of the nation is indeed desperate; no remedial measures have yet been applied. In the simple surgery of Isaiah’s time a wound was first pressed (to extrude suppurating matter), then bandaged and softened with oil (cf. Luke 10:34).

7. The situation here described (which was undoubtedly present at the time of utterance) is that of a land ravaged by foreign troops (land is “cultivated land”). It has been contended that the word strangers (foreigners) must refer to the Assyrians, and could not be used of the allied Syrians and Ephraimites. But there seems no good reason why an army mainly composed of Syrians should not be designated as “foreigners.”

and it is desolate … strangers] Lit., “and a desolation like an overthrow of strangers.” If the text is sound it must mean “is such an overthrow as might be expected at the hands of strangers” (the so-called Kaph veritatis). This is a weak sense; and hence Ewald’s plausible emendation, “like the overthrow of Sodom,” has been accepted by most subsequent writers. The word for “overthrow” never occurs elsewhere except in connexion with Sodom (ch. Isaiah 13:19; Deuteronomy 29:23; Jeremiah 49:18; Jeremiah 50:40; Amos 4:11).