성경 주석서

이 장은 거룩한 기쁨과 찬송의 노래이다. 앞 장에서 하나님이 자기 백성을 위해, 자기 원수들과 그들의 원수들을 대적하여 행하시겠다고 약속하신 큰 일들이 여기서 찬양된다. 이 노래는 그 예언이 성취될 때 부르도록 준비된 것이다. 하나님이 자비를 가지고 우리에게 오실 때, 우리는 감사로 하나님을 맞이하는 데 앞서 있어야 하기 때문이다. 이제 여기서 하나님의 백성은 다음을 배운다. I. 하나님의 보호 아래서 교회 전체와 그 각 지체가 누리는 안전과 거룩한 평안한 확신을 자랑하는 것, 사 26:1-4. II. 모든 대적하는 권세들을 이긴 승리를 자랑하는 것, 사 26:5,6. III. 가장 나쁘고 어두운 때에도 하나님과 동행하고 그를 기다리는 것, 사 26:7-9. IV. 하나님의 섭리가 자비로운 것이든 고난을 주는 것이든 그것을 주목하지 않는 자들의 둔감함을 탄식하는 것, 사 26:10,11. V. 하나님이 계속해서 그들에게 선을 행하실 것이라는 소망으로 자신과 서로를 격려하고(사 26:12,14), 계속 그분을 섬기겠다고 헌신하는 것, 사 26:13. VI. 낮고 고통스러운 처지에 있던 그들에게 베푸신 하나님의 선한 섭리와, 그 섭리 아래서 그들이 보인 태도를 되새기는 것, 사 26:15-18. VII. 그들에게 부활과 같을 영광스러운 구원을 소망하며 기뻐하고(사 26:19), 그것을 기대하며 물러나 있는 것, 사 26:20,21. 이것은 모든 시대의 하나님의 백성, 곧 세상 끝을 만난 사람들에게까지도 그들의 믿음과 소망을 붙들고 돕기 위해 기록되었다.

이 장의 전반적인 범위와 목적은 이사야 24장과 25:1-12의 시작 부분에 있는 설명을 보라. 이것은 유대인들이 자기 땅으로 돌아와 시온산에서 예배 규례와 함께 하나님의 통치가 다시 세워질 때 부를 것으로 생각되는 찬양의 노래이다. 앞서 이미 언급했듯 큰 사건을 찬양의 노래로 기념하는 것이 관례였으며, 선지자는 회복된 유대인들이 여호와께서 다시 자기 땅과 성전 예배의 특권으로 회복시켜 주신 선하심을 이렇게 기념하려 할 것이라고 본다. 이것이 많은 시편처럼 합창과 교창으로 부르도록 의도되었음을 나타내는 몇 가지 표지가 있다. 이 송가는 하나님의 보호 아래 안전을 찾을 수 있는 견고한 성 예루살렘을 바라보는 것으로 시작한다(이사야 26:1). 이어 돌아오는 민족을 맞아들이도록 견고한 성의 문들을 열라는 응답 또는 외침이 나온다(이사야 26:2).

그 뒤에는 여호와를 신뢰하는 것이 안전하다는 선언과 모든 사람에게 그를 의지하라는 부름이 이어진다(이사야 26:3-4). 그 이유는 여호와께서 교만한 자를 낮추시고 의인의 길을 지키시기 때문이라고 진술된다(이사야 26:5-7). 다음으로 여호와를 향한 유대인들의 신뢰가 묘사되고(이사야 26:8-9), 이어 악인들은 하나님의 손을 알아보지 못하리라는 선언(이사야 26:10-11)과 그들의 모든 구원이 하나님께서 이루신 것이라는 단언이 나온다(이사야 26:12). 그 뒤에는 그들이 여호와 아닌 다른 주들에게 복종했지만 이제는 오직 그에게만 복종하겠다는 고백이 이어진다(이사야 26:13-14). 하나님께서 그들의 민족을 확장하셨다는 선언이 나오고(이사야 26:15), 이어 그들의 재난과 자신을 구하려던 헛된 노력이 묘사된다(이사야 26:16-18). 포로 생활 중 많은 사람이 죽었지만 이제 그들이 다시 살리라는 확신이 주어지고(이사야 26:19), 하나님의 백성에게 진노가 지나갈 때까지 방에 들어가 그곳에 숨으라는 일반적인 부름이 주어진다(이사야 26:20). 여호와께서 나아오셔서 압제자들의 죄악을 벌하시리라는 확언과 함께 이 시는 끝난다(이사야 26:21).

이 장은 앞 장과 마찬가지로 찬양의 노래이다. 여기에는 현세적 자비와 영적 자비에 대한 감사가 아름답게 어우러져 있지만, 여전히 후자가 우세하다. 숭고하고 복음적인 부활 교리까지도 여기에서 암시되는 듯하며, 가장 비참한 상태 곧 포로 생활이나 전 세계적 흩어짐 또는 이 둘 모두에서 하나님의 백성이 구출되는 일을 예표한다. 이 찬송 역시 앞의 찬송처럼 화자가 자주 바뀜으로써 아름답게 다양해진다. 먼저 교회의 합창이 하나님의 백성에게 허락된 보호와, 하나님께서 지키시는 의인의 행복을 그분이 벌하시는 악인의 비참함과 대조하여 노래한다. 이사야 26:1-7. 이어 그들은 하나님께 순종하고 그분을 신뢰하며 그분 안에서 기뻐하겠다는 경건한 결심을 밝힌다. 이사야 26:8. 여기에서 예언자는 자신의 인격으로 끼어들어 합창의 마지막 말을 열렬히 받아들인다. 그 말은 자기 영혼의 감정과 완전히 조화를 이루었으며, 그는 한 악기가 같은 조의 다른 악기 소리를 울려 되돌려 주듯 그것을 아름답게 반복한다. 또한 그는 하나님의 심판에 관하여 말한 내용에 알맞게 응답하고, 그 심판이 선한 자와 악한 자에게 각각 다른 효과를 내어 한쪽은 개선하고 다른 쪽은 완고하게 만든다고 관찰한다. 이사야 26:9-11. 그 뒤 유대인들의 합창은 과거의 구원에 대하여 하나님께 감사를 표하고, 자기들의 죄를 고백하며, 오랫동안 기다려 온 하나님의 능력을 간구한다. 이사야 26:12-18. 이에 하나님께서는 은혜롭게 응답하시어 죽은 자가 살아나는 것과 같은 구원을 약속하신다. 이사야 26:19. 그리고 예언자는 이스라엘 백성에게 멸하는 천사가 이집트 땅을 지나갈 때 내린 모세의 명령을 암시하는 듯, 하나님께서 약속하신 구원을 보내실 때까지 인내하며 순복하라고 자기 백성을 권면하면서 이 장을 마친다. 이사야 26:20, 이사야 26:21.

INTRODUCTION TO Isaiah 26

This chapter contains a song of praise for the safety and prosperity of the church, and the destruction of its enemies. The church is represented as a strong city, whose walls and bulwarks are salvation, Isaiah 26:1 it is said to have gates which are to be opened to a righteous nation, Isaiah 26:2 its inhabitants, being such who trust in the Lord, are promised perfect peace, Isaiah 26:3 hence the saints are exhorted to trust in him, Isaiah 26:4 then follows an account of another city, described as lofty, and its inhabitants as dwelling on high, who are brought down, and trampled on, by the feet of the poor and needy, Isaiah 26:5 when the prophet returns to the righteous, and asserts their way to be uprightness, because their path is weighed or levelled by God the most upright, Isaiah 26:7 and in the name of the church declares that they had waited for the Lord in the way of his judgments; and that the desire of their souls was to his name, and the remembrance of it; and that they continued, and would continue, to desire him, and seek after him, seeing righteousness was to be learned by his judgments, Isaiah 26:8 and though the wicked would not be brought to repentance and reformation by the goodness of God, nor take notice of his hand, yet they should see and be ashamed, and destroyed at last, Isaiah 26:10 but notwithstanding these judgments of God in the earth, the church professes her faith in the Lord, that he would give her peace and prosperity, from the consideration of what he had wrought for her, and in her, Isaiah 26:12 and rejects all other lords but him, Isaiah 26:13 who were dead, and should not live again, but were visited and destroyed, and their memory made to perish, Isaiah 26:14 but the righteous nation should be increased, though they should meet with trouble, which would cause them to go to the throne of grace, and there pour out their complaints, express their pain and distresses, and the disappointments they had met with, Isaiah 26:15 to which an answer is returned, promising a glorious resurrection, Isaiah 26:19 and calling upon the people of God to retire to their chambers for protection in the mean while, until the punishment to be inflicted on the inhabitants of the earth for their sins was over, Isaiah 26:20.

Ch. Isaiah 26:1-19. The Nation’s Prayer for a more complete Salvation

(1) Isaiah 26:1-6. The nation praises God for the strength and safety of Jerusalem, henceforth to be the dwelling place of a righteous, truth-keeping people (1, 2); for the steadfast faith which is now rewarded with peace (3, 4), and for the overthrow of a proud hostile city (5, 6).

(2) Isaiah 26:7-10. The enthusiasm of the opening verses here gives place to a more subdued and wistful mood. Israel still waits with ardent longing for the accomplishment of Jehovah’s judgments (8, 9a), knowing well that only by the discipline of judgment will the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness (9 b, 10).

(3) Isaiah 26:11-15. Meditation passes into prayer,—first for the destruction of enemies (11), then for peace to Israel (12 a); and this again into a retrospect of the past history of the nation, in which the writer thankfully recognises tokens of the Divine presence and help (12 b). Much has been achieved; foreign tyrants have been swept away (13, 14), the people has been increased and its territory extended (15).

(4) Isaiah 26:16-18. But the past has its failures also, and the effect of them is felt in the present. Israel has learned prayer through severe discipline (16); yet how vain and ineffectual have all its pain and effort been! (17, 18). And apparently the chief source of disappointment is the scantiness of the population that remains on the eve of the final glory.

(5) Isaiah 26:19. The last verse comes on us almost with a shock of surprise, so far does it seem to exceed the aspiration to which it is the answer. It is a promise of life from the dead in the most literal sense, a resurrection of those members of the community whom death had seemed to rob of their share in the hope of Israel.

It is difficult to interpret the situation which gave rise to this deeply interesting meditation. The nation has emerged from a season of great trouble and oppression, and gratefully acknowledges the mercies it now enjoys, but this feeling is accompanied by confession of failure and an eager longing for a fuller experience of the Divine blessing. Such a state of mind is in itself perfectly intelligible; the difficulty is that it is hardly appropriate to the ideal future standpoint to which the psalm is assigned by the heading. “In that day”—the day of Jehovah’s kingdom—the praises of Israel must surely rise higher than the sombre and almost melancholy strains that appear in the latter part of this poem. Yet it seems impossible to regard the passage as other than a unity. The verse-connexion is as a rule very close, and just at those points where some critics have recognised a discontinuity in the thought (e.g. after Isaiah 26:7, or Isaiah 26:10 or Isaiah 26:16) the phraseology presents indications of a studied transition. The poem indeed is remarkable for its concatenated structure; that is to say, a word or idea is taken up from one verse and suggests a new thought for the next (Isaiah 26:2 f., 3 f., 7 f., 8 f., 9 f., 10 f., 17 f.). Partly from this peculiarity it is difficult to trace all the windings of the thought; and clearly denned sections do not exist.

Concluding Note on Ch. 24–27

The above exposition has left some general questions in suspense; and for the most part they are such as cannot be adequately discussed in this commentary. There are two, however, on which a few additional observations are necessary, viz., (1) the unity and (2) the date, of the prophecy.

(1) The question of unity, as raised by the recent criticisms of Duhm and Cheyne, relates principally to the lyrical passages already marked off in the notes (Isaiah 25:1-5; Isaiah 25:9-12, Isaiah 26:1-19, Isaiah 27:2-6), although it is acknowledged that the section Isaiah 27:7-11 presents difficulties almost as great. As has been hinted above, the commonly accepted view has been that the lyrics represent flights of the author’s imagination, depicting the feelings of the redeemed community after the great judgment is past. The chief considerations urged against this view are as follows. (a) If we read consecutively 24, Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 26:20 to Isaiah 27:1; Isaiah 27:7-13, we have a series of conceptions which readily fit into a consistent picture of the future, and (at least up to Isaiah 27:1) a very natural sequence of thought. (b) the songs are distinguished from the main prophecy in poetic structure and rhythm, as well as in the point of view they represent. (c) They do not occur at places where their insertion would be natural if due to the literary plan of the composition, while one of them (Isaiah 25:1-5) appears to interrupt a close connexion of thought. (d) The most important of all (Isaiah 26:1-19) is written in a vein of mingled exultation and despondency inappropriate to the supposed situation. Although the reader is naturally averse to entertaining the idea of interpolation if it can possibly be avoided, it can hardly be denied that these arguments have a considerable cumulative force. (b) counts for little or nothing by itself, while the others may involve merely subjective differences of critical judgment. The crucial case is probably (d), where the ‘ideal standpoint’ theory could only be maintained by assuming that the writer’s imagination lacks the strength of wing needful to bear him triumphantly away from the discouraging outlook of his actual present. It must be pointed out, however, that the demarcation of the lyrics given in the notes is adopted from Duhm and Cheyne, and to discuss the question of unity on this basis necessarily does some injustice to the views of other critics, who might prefer a different division.

(2) The question of the date of the prophecy is of course influenced by the view held as to its unity, although to a less extent than might be imagined, since both the critics named agree in regarding the whole series of compositions as belonging to the literature of a single general period. Duhm assigns them to the reign of John Hyrcanus, and finds allusions to the Parthian campaign of Antiochus Sidetes (b.c. 129) and the destruction of Samaria (c. 107). But there is really nothing to warrant these precise determinations, and the theory is negatived by well-established conclusions as to the close of the O.T. Canon. Cheyne’s view is free from this objection and is in itself very attractive. The historical background of the prophecy is found in the events which preceded the dissolution of the Persian Empire (say 350–330). The gloomy survey of ch. 24 is explained by the “desolating and protracted wars” of the period, in which the Jews are known to have suffered severely and during which Jerusalem was not improbably laid waste by Persian armies. The premature songs of triumph referred to in ch. Isaiah 24:16 are supposed to have been called forth by rumours of the expedition of Alexander the Great, whilst the interspersed lyrical passages celebrate the Jewish deliverance achieved by the Macedonian victories. Perhaps the least convincing part of the hypothesis is the identification of the conquered city of Isaiah 25:2, Isaiah 26:5, with Tyre or Gaza, destroyed by Alexander; but in spite of that Cheyne’s view is probably the one which best harmonises the varied indications of the prophecy (see his Introduction, pp. 155 ff., and the refs. there).

Of rival theories there is perhaps but one that deserves careful examination, that, viz., which seeks the occasion of the prophecy in the age immediately succeeding the Exile, particularly the Babylonian troubles under Darius Hystaspis. There is, indeed, a surprising number of coincidences between the phenomena of this prophecy and the circumstances of that time or the contemporary literature. The expectation of a great overturning of existing political conditions occurs in the writings of Haggai (Isaiah 2:6-7; Isaiah 2:21-22) and Zechariah (Isaiah 1:11 ff.); the idea of a world-judgment in Isaiah 13:6 ff.; the universalism of Isaiah 25:6-8 finds nowhere a more sympathetic response than in Isaiah 40-55; and even the ‘songs of the righteous’ (Isaiah 24:16) have a certain resemblance to Isaiah 45:10. The allusion to recent idolatry in Isaiah 27:9 is amply accounted for; and the “city” (although too much has been made of this point) of Isaiah 24:10 ff., Isaiah 27:10 f., Isaiah 25:2, Isaiah 26:5 might be Babylon, the “world-city,” now humbled and soon to be utterly destroyed.

The ultimate decision probably turns on certain general features of the prophecy, which are thought to point to a very late age. These are (a) its apocalyptic colouring and imagery (see, however, the caveat on p. 179 above), (b) the advanced form in which it presents the doctrines of immortality (Isaiah 25:8) and the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19); and (possibly) (c) the belief in tutelary genii of the nations. With regard to these phenomena many will agree with Cheyne that they “become the more intelligible the later we place this composition in the Persian period.”

Ch. Isaiah 26:20 to Isaiah 27:13. The Conclusion of the Prophecy

Isaiah 26:20 resumes the connexion of the prophetic discourse, interrupted since Isaiah 25:8; and this continues to the end, broken only by the lyrical passage, Isaiah 27:2-6. The contents, however, are of a somewhat mixed character, and the divisions are clearly marked.

(1) vv. Isaiah 26:20-21.—A call to the people of God to hide themselves till the indignation be overpast.

(2) v. Isaiah 27:1.—Announcement of judgment on the great World-powers.

(3) Isaiah 27:2-6.—A song of Jehovah concerning His vineyard.

(4) Isaiah 27:7-11.—The moderation displayed in Jehovah’s chastisement of Israel, and the lesson to be learned from it.

(5) Isaiah 27:12-13.—A prophecy of the restoration of the dispersed of Israel.

Concluding Note on Ch. 24–27

The above exposition has left some general questions in suspense; and for the most part they are such as cannot be adequately discussed in this commentary. There are two, however, on which a few additional observations are necessary, viz., (1) the unity and (2) the date, of the prophecy.

(1) The question of unity, as raised by the recent criticisms of Duhm and Cheyne, relates principally to the lyrical passages already marked off in the notes (Isaiah 25:1-5; Isaiah 25:9-12, Isaiah 26:1-19, Isaiah 27:2-6), although it is acknowledged that the section Isaiah 27:7-11 presents difficulties almost as great. As has been hinted above, the commonly accepted view has been that the lyrics represent flights of the author’s imagination, depicting the feelings of the redeemed community after the great judgment is past. The chief considerations urged against this view are as follows. (a) If we read consecutively 24, Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 26:20 to Isaiah 27:1; Isaiah 27:7-13, we have a series of conceptions which readily fit into a consistent picture of the future, and (at least up to Isaiah 27:1) a very natural sequence of thought. (b) the songs are distinguished from the main prophecy in poetic structure and rhythm, as well as in the point of view they represent. (c) They do not occur at places where their insertion would be natural if due to the literary plan of the composition, while one of them (Isaiah 25:1-5) appears to interrupt a close connexion of thought. (d) The most important of all (Isaiah 26:1-19) is written in a vein of mingled exultation and despondency inappropriate to the supposed situation. Although the reader is naturally averse to entertaining the idea of interpolation if it can possibly be avoided, it can hardly be denied that these arguments have a considerable cumulative force. (b) counts for little or nothing by itself, while the others may involve merely subjective differences of critical judgment. The crucial case is probably (d), where the ‘ideal standpoint’ theory could only be maintained by assuming that the writer’s imagination lacks the strength of wing needful to bear him triumphantly away from the discouraging outlook of his actual present. It must be pointed out, however, that the demarcation of the lyrics given in the notes is adopted from Duhm and Cheyne, and to discuss the question of unity on this basis necessarily does some injustice to the views of other critics, who might prefer a different division.

(2) The question of the date of the prophecy is of course influenced by the view held as to its unity, although to a less extent than might be imagined, since both the critics named agree in regarding the whole series of compositions as belonging to the literature of a single general period. Duhm assigns them to the reign of John Hyrcanus, and finds allusions to the Parthian campaign of Antiochus Sidetes (b.c. 129) and the destruction of Samaria (c. 107). But there is really nothing to warrant these precise determinations, and the theory is negatived by well-established conclusions as to the close of the O.T. Canon. Cheyne’s view is free from this objection and is in itself very attractive. The historical background of the prophecy is found in the events which preceded the dissolution of the Persian Empire (say 350–330). The gloomy survey of ch. 24 is explained by the “desolating and protracted wars” of the period, in which the Jews are known to have suffered severely and during which Jerusalem was not improbably laid waste by Persian armies. The premature songs of triumph referred to in ch. Isaiah 24:16 are supposed to have been called forth by rumours of the expedition of Alexander the Great, whilst the interspersed lyrical passages celebrate the Jewish deliverance achieved by the Macedonian victories. Perhaps the least convincing part of the hypothesis is the identification of the conquered city of Isaiah 25:2, Isaiah 26:5, with Tyre or Gaza, destroyed by Alexander; but in spite of that Cheyne’s view is probably the one which best harmonises the varied indications of the prophecy (see his Introduction, pp. 155 ff., and the refs. there).

Of rival theories there is perhaps but one that deserves careful examination, that, viz., which seeks the occasion of the prophecy in the age immediately succeeding the Exile, particularly the Babylonian troubles under Darius Hystaspis. There is, indeed, a surprising number of coincidences between the phenomena of this prophecy and the circumstances of that time or the contemporary literature. The expectation of a great overturning of existing political conditions occurs in the writings of Haggai (Isaiah 2:6-7; Isaiah 2:21-22) and Zechariah (Isaiah 1:11 ff.); the idea of a world-judgment in Isaiah 13:6 ff.; the universalism of Isaiah 25:6-8 finds nowhere a more sympathetic response than in Isaiah 40-55; and even the ‘songs of the righteous’ (Isaiah 24:16) have a certain resemblance to Isaiah 45:10. The allusion to recent idolatry in Isaiah 27:9 is amply accounted for; and the “city” (although too much has been made of this point) of Isaiah 24:10 ff., Isaiah 27:10 f., Isaiah 25:2, Isaiah 26:5 might be Babylon, the “world-city,” now humbled and soon to be utterly destroyed.

The ultimate decision probably turns on certain general features of the prophecy, which are thought to point to a very late age. These are (a) its apocalyptic colouring and imagery (see, however, the caveat on p. 179 above), (b) the advanced form in which it presents the doctrines of immortality (Isaiah 25:8) and the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19); and (possibly) (c) the belief in tutelary genii of the nations. With regard to these phenomena many will agree with Cheyne that they “become the more intelligible the later we place this composition in the Persian period.”

이사야 26:1-21은 24장과 25장과 연결되며, 자기 땅으로 회복된 이스라엘의 찬양 노래다. 25장이 배교 무리의 전복을 말한다면, 26장은 신실한 자들의 평화를 견고한 성읍으로 묘사한다. '견고한 성읍'은 여호와의 보호 안에 있는 예루살렘이며 새 예루살렘의 예표다(시편 48:1-3). 이는 불경건한 원수의 전복과 대조된다(이사야 26:4-7, 12-14; 요한계시록 22장). '구원을 성벽으로'는 이사야 60:18; 예레미야 3:23; 스가랴 2:5를 보라. '외벽'은 성벽 바깥의 해자와 앞 토루다.

그날에 이 노래를 — 하나님의 백성이 자기 땅으로 회복될 때 부를 것이다.

우리에게 견고한 성읍이 있음이여 — 예루살렘을 가리킨다. 이는 그때 성이 강하게 요새화되어 있었다는 뜻이 아니라, 하나님께서 지키시므로 강해지리라는 뜻이다. 예루살렘은 쉽게 강하게 요새화할 수 있는 곳이었다(시편 125:2). 그러나 여기서의 관념은 여호와께서 보호자가 되시며, 이것이 성의 힘을 이룬다는 것이다.

구원으로 성과 외벽을 삼으시리로다 — 곧 하나님께서 성벽과 방벽을 대신하여 친히 자기 백성의 수호자가 되시리라는 뜻이다. 이사야 60:18에도 비슷한 표현이 나온다(예레미야 3:23 및 스가랴 2:5도 참조).

외벽 — 이 단어는 본래 보루 또는 성루를 뜻한다. 원어는 본래 포메리움 또는 전방 방어 시설, 곧 성벽 밖에 작은 벽처럼 높여 만든 공간을 뜻한다. 수리아역은 ‘성벽의 아들’, 곧 작은 성벽이라는 뜻의 바르 슈로(Bar shuro)로 번역한다. 이는 보통 성읍 주위에 쌓은 흉벽 또는 흙더미로서 추가 방어 시설을 이루었다. 적에게서 그곳을 빼앗기면 성벽 안으로 후퇴할 수 있었다.

우리에게 견고한 성읍이 있다 - 하나님께서 멸하신 원수의 성읍과 대조된다. 이사야 25:1-12의 주를 보라.

구원을 성벽과 보루로 - חומת וחל chomsoth vachel은 성벽과 보루 또는 성벽과 해자를 뜻한다. חל chel은 엄밀히 말해 성벽 바깥의 해자나 도랑을 뜻한다. 김히를 보라. 같은 랍비는 이 노래가 구원의 때, 곧 메시아의 날들을 가리킨다고 말한다.