Commentari biblici

LXIII.

(1) Who is this that cometh from Edom? . . .—There is no apparent connection between Isaiah 63:1-6 and what precedes and follows. They must be dealt with, accordingly, as a separate section, though not, as some critics have suggested, by a different writer. To understand its relation to the prophet’s mind, we must remember the part which Edom had taken during the history of which Isaiah was cognisant, perhaps also that which he foresaw they would take in the period that was to follow. That part had been one of persistent hostility. They had been allied with the Tyrians against Judah, and had been guilty of ruthless atrocities (Amos 1:9-11). They had carried off Jewish prisoners as slaves (Obadiah 1:10-11). They had been allies of the Assyrian invaders (Psalm 83:6), and had smitten Judah in the days of Ahaz (2Chronicles 28:17). If we think of the prophet as seeing in spirit the working of the old enmity at a later period, we may extend the induction to their exultation at the capture of Jerusalem (Psalm 137:7; Lamentations 4:21). The memory of these things sank deep into the nation, and the first words of the last of the prophets echo the old hatred (Malachi 1:2-4). In the later days of Judaism, where Rabbis uttered their curses against their oppressors, Edom was substituted for Rome, as St. John substitutes Babylon (Revelation 18:2). Isaiah, possibly starting from the memory of some recent outrages in the reign of Hezekiah, and taking Edom as the representative of all the nearer hereditary enemies of Israel, into an ecstacy of jubilation, and sees the conquering king returning from his work of vengeance. The form is that of a warrior coming from the Idumsean Bozrah (as distinct from that in the Haurân, Jeremiah 48:24) in bright-red garments. And the colour (as in Revelation 19:13) is not that of the scarlet dress worn by soldiers (Nahum 2:3), but that of blood just shed.

Travelling.—The Hebrew verb (bending, or tossing the head) indicates the movement and gestures of a conqueror exulting in his victory.

I that speak . . .—The hero-avenger, the righteous king who represents Jehovah, hears the wondering question, and makes answer for himself. “Righteousness” and “salvation,” which he claims as his attributes, show that he is none other than the ideal Servant of the Lord of Hosts, sharing His attributes.

(2) Wherefore art thou red . . .?—The wondering question shows that the colour is not that of the warrior’s usual dress. The Hebrew word for “red” (ādom) connects itself with Edom (comp. Genesis 25:30), as batsir (“vintage”) probably with Bozrah.

(3) I have trodden the winepress alone . . .—The “winepress” is here, as elsewhere (Joel 3:13; Lamentations 1:15; Revelation 14:18-20), the received symbol of the carnage of battle. What the hero-conqueror asserts is that the battle was fought by him single-handed. He had no human allies, but God was with him. A slight change in the vowel-points, adopted by some interpreters, turns the verbs into futures: “I will tread . . . will trample, . . .” as in the second clause of the Authorised Version. It is better, perhaps to take the latter verb also as in the past. The work of slaughter is clearly thought of as accomplished before the warrior is seen.

(4) The day of vengeance is.—Better, in both clauses, was, as pointing to the motive of the action, of which the blood-stained garments were the result.

The year of my redeemed . . .—Better, the year of my redemption, scil., the work of redeeming my people.

(5) I looked . . .—As in Isaiah 1:2, the absolute isolation of the avenger and redeemer is emphasised again and again. Nothing but his own indomitable and righteous zeal against evil had sustained him.

(6) I will tread down . . .—Better, I trod; and so throughout the verse.

Make them drunk, implies a change of imagery from that of the battle to that of the cup of wrath, as in Isaiah 51:17, Psalm 75:8, Jeremiah 25:15. The section which thus closes has often been applied (as, e.g., in the Prayer-Book Epistle for the Monday before Easter) to the passion of our Lord. In that agony and death it has been said He was alone, and none was with Him. He trod the winepress of the wrath of God. It is obvious, however, that this, though we may legitimately apply some of Isaiah’s phrases to it, is not an interpretation of this passage, which paints a victory, and not a passion. The true analogue in the New Testament is that of the victory of the triumphant Christ in Revelation 19:11-13; but it may be conceded that, from one point of view, the agony and the cross were themselves a conflict with the powers of evil (John 12:31-32; Colossians 2:15), and that as He came out of that conflict as a conqueror, the words in which Isaiah paints the victor over Edom may, though in a much remoter analogy, be applicable to Him in that conflict also.

(7) I will mention . . .—The words begin an entirely new section, of the nature of a psalm of thanksgiving for redemption (Isaiah 63:16). Possibly, in the arrangement of the book it was thought that such a psalm followed rightly on the great dramatic dialogue which represented the victory of the Redeemer. The psalm begins, according to the implied rule of Psalm 50:23, with praise, and passes afterward to narrative and supplication.

(8) For he said . . .—The words throw us back to the starting-point of God’s covenant with His people, based, so to speak, on the assumption that they would not fail utterly in the fulfilment of their promises. (Comp. Exodus 19:3-6.)