Bible Commentaries

2. THE MOURNFUL PRESENT MARKED BY THE IDOLATROUS DOINGS OF THE NATION

Isaiah 57:3-14

3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress,

The seed of the adulterer and ¹the whore.

4 Against whom do ye sport yourselves?

Against whom make ye a wide mouth,

And draw out the tongue?

Are ye not children of transgression, a ²seed of falsehood,

5 Enflaming yourselves ^{3 4}with idols

Under every green tree,

Slaying the children in the valleys

Under the cliffs of the rocks?

6 Among the smooth stones of the stream is thy portion;

They, they are thy lot:

Even to them hast thou poured a drink offering.

Thou hast offered a meat offering,

⁵Should I receive comfort in these?

7 Upon a lofty and high mountain hast thou set thy bed:

Even thither wentest thou up to offer sacrifice.

8 Behind the doors also and the posts hast thou set up thy remembrance:

⁶For thou hast discovered thyself to another than me,

And art gone up; thou hast enlarged thy bed,

⁷And ⁸made thee a covenant with them;

Thou lovedst their bed ⁹where thou sawest it.

9 And ¹⁰thou wentest to the king with ointment,

And didst increase thy perfumes,

And didst send thy messengers far off,

And didst ¹¹debase thyself even unto hell.

10 Thou art wearied in the greatness of thy way;

Yet saidst thou not, There is no hope:

Thou hast found the ¹²life of thine hand;

Therefore thou wast not ¹³grieved.

11 And of whom hast thou been afraid ¹⁴or feared,

That thou hast lied,

And hast not remembered me, nor laid it to thy heart?

Have not I held my peace even of old,

And thou fearest me not?

12 I will declare thy righteousness,

And thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

13 When thou criest, let thy ¹⁵companies deliver thee;

But the wind shall carry them all away;

¹⁶Vanity shall take them:

But he that putteth his trust in me

Shall possess the land,

And shall inherit my holy mountain;

14 ¹⁷And shall say, Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way,

Take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

See List for the recurrence of the words: Isaiah 57:4. התענג—ילדי־פשׁע. and זרע שׁקר. Isaiah 57:5. סְעִפֵי הַסְּלָעִים. Isaiah 57:9. שוּר—עד־מרחוק.

Isaiah 57:4. The form יִלְדֵי is found only in this place before Makkeph. Except this, יַלְדֵי three times without Makkeph: Isaiah 2:6; Exodus 2:6; Hosea 1:2.

Isaiah 57:5. The participles נחמים and שׁחטי are in apposition with and explanatory of ילדי פ׳ and נֵחָמִים .זרעשׁ׳ is part. Niph. from חמם.—The expression כל־עץ רענן, which occurs only here in is, is found beside Deuteronomy 12:2; 2 Kings 16:4; 2 Kings 17:10; 2 Chronicles 28:4; Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:6; Jeremiah 3:13; Ezekiel 6:13.

Isaiah 57:6. The clause כְּחַלְּקֵ׳־נחל חלקך is very difficult; and expositors differ very much about it. The LXX. connect the words כחלקי־נחל with what precedes (σφάζοντες τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν ἐν ταῖς φάραγξιν ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν πετρῶν ἐν ταῖς μερίσι φάραγγος. Ἐκείνη σου ἠ μερίς, οὖτός σου ὁ κλῆρος). [The words ἐν ταῖς μερίσι φάραγγος are wanting in Tischendorf’s 4 th edition of the LXX. of1869,—Tr.], but that gives an intolerable tautology. Vulg. in partibus torrentis pars tua; thus it takes חַלְּקֵי for חֶלְקֵי.—Targ. Jonatan: in laevibus locis ripae torrentis est pars tua.—Syrus: sors tua et haereditas tua cum sorte torrentium erit. Thus he takes בְּ=cum, and likewise חַלְּקֵי־נחל = חֶלְקֵי־נ׳; the double הֵם he takes as simply=et. Similarly, only still more freely, does the Arabic version in the London Polyglot translate: Sors illorum (scil. idolorum) erit portio vestra. One sees that these ancient versions were little exact in adhering to the original text. Jerome understands the “in partibus torrents,” to declare how “omnes montes, vales atque torrentes plenierant cultu daemonum,” and the “pars tua, sors tua” denotes for him that the demons were to the Israelites what the Lord should have been, according to Deuteronomy 32:9; Psalm 47:5; Psalm 73:26. Later expositors divide into five classes. Some take חַלְּקֵי also to be equal to חֶלְקֵי, which they understand variously, partly in a physical, partly in a spiritual sense. But all these views we must reject as grammatically unfounded. Others take חַלְּקֵי somehow in the sense of “laevitas, laeva, smoothness, smooth places,” but construe חלקך in the sense of “punishment.” According to this the sense would be: stoning with the smooth stones (Raschi), drowning, casting down over smooth, slippery places into the deep (Vitringa: Vos detrudemini in laevia vallis, i.e., in lubrica et salebrosa loca, quae quem in profunda vallis praecipitem agunt), the stony desert (Coccejus),—that is your well-merited portion. But it is manifest that חלקך and גורלך have here nothing to do with punishment, but continue to describe the sin. The third class of expositors construe חֶלְקֵךְ in the sense of “the right place, theatre.” Then the meaning would be: in the smooth clefts of the rock, or in the bare places of the valleys, there is the place where thou carriest on thy iniquitous work (J. D. Michaelis, Paulus, Gesen, Comment, Rueckert, Hitzig, Umbreit). But the following emphatic הֵם הֵם ו׳ and the second half of the verse show, that the mention here is not merely of the theatre of the idolatrous doings. A fourth class see in חלקי a designation of the idol images themselves. They derive the word from the Arabic chalaqa, efformavit, effinxit, so that the meaning would be: “in the images of the valley is thy portion,” or “with the idols in the valley thou carriest on thy trade” (Koppe in Lowth’s is, Knobel). But the root חָלַק in Hebrew never has this sense. Finally, the fifth class (Lowth, Rosenm, Gesen. Thes., Ewald, Delitzsch, Seinecke, Rohling, [J. A. Alex.]) take חלקך in the spiritual sense in which Jehovah is called the portion of His people (comp. the places cited above, and Psalm 119:57; Joshua 22:25; Psalm 16:5, etc.) But הַלְּקֵי־נחל are smooth stones such as, according to a widespread custom of antiquity, were objects of divine worship. Very properly reference has been made to הֲמִשָׁה חַלֻקֵי אֲבָנִים מִן־הַנַּחַל 1 Samuel 17:40. Fuerst, in the Concordance, puts our חַלְּקֵי with חַלֻּקֵי under one rubric, in that without further notice he points it חַלֻּקֵי. And indeed the two words differ only by one dot, and hence a copyist’s error were cot impossible. Fuerst in his Lex. derives our חַלְּקֵי from חַלָּק, which would be an abnormal vocalization instead of הַלָּקֵי (Olsh, § 183, a). Now if one may neither read חַלֻּקֵי instead of חַלְּקֵי, nor yet take חַלְּקֵי for an abnormal stat. const. pl. from חַלָּק, then we can only derive חַלְּקֵי either from חָלָק ( Isaiah 30:10) or from חֵלֶק. But the latter were likewise an unusual formation, for the connecting form of the plural must sound חֶלְקִי, according the sole suffix forms in use (comp חֶלְקִי,חֶלְקֵיהֶם,חֶלְקֵךְ, Hosea 5:7). The Daghesh in ל would any way be Dag. Dirimens. If then we derive our word from the adjective חָלָק “laevus, lubricus, smooth,” then חלקי־נחל would be the smooth things of the valley. But, in view of the intentional paronomasia with חֶלְקֵךּ, we may further assume that חַלְּקֵי the Prophet means nothing else than what is described in 1 Samuel 17:4, “smooth stones from the brook,” in fact that חלקי־נחל is in the end nothing more than an abbreviation of חַלְקֵי אַבִנֵי הַנַחַל, an abbreviation that of course would be understood only by one that had the passage of 1 Sam. in his mind.—בְּ before חַלְּקֵי is used as Joshua 22:25 אֵין־לָכֶם חֵלֶק בַיהוָֹה.

Isaiah 57:8. מֵאִתִּי גִלִית, as it seems to me, must be judged after the analogy of the expressions גָלָה עַמִּי ( Isaiah 5:13), גָּֽלְתָה יְהוּדָה ( Lamentations 1:3), גָּלָה מָשׂוֹשׁ ( Isaiah 24:11; comp. 1 Samuel 4:21 sq.; Proverbs 27:25, etc..). For as גָלָה originally means “to uncover, make bare,” so that form of expression declares that by removal of the people, who as it were cover it, the land Is uncovered, made bare. It is to be noticed, moreover, that אֶרֶץ itself is by metonymy used for the people ( Judges 18:30), and that also other things, e. g., the grass, can be described as uncovering their place by their removal. It is true that only Kal is used in this sense. But had the Prophet written גָּלִית then, according to the constant and frequent usage, one must have taken this in the sense of: “in exilium abiisti.” But he would not say that. What is here spoken of, is no punitive ridding out of a place, but a very spontaneous, headstrong and willful making bare, empty. Hence the Prophet uses the Piel. Therefore I cannot approve of the other explanations that supply “the shame” or “the clothes,” or that treat מִשְׁכָּבֵךְ as the common object of the three verbs (Delitzsch.—יתרת־לך מהם (certainly not castrasti quosdam ex iis, Grotius) is properly without analogy; for 2 Chronicles 7:18 the person with whom the covenant is made is designated by לְ, in 1 Samuel 20:16; 1 Samuel 22:8 עִם is used. But these passages show that after כרת the בְּרִית may be omitted. The Prophet might then have written ותכרת לָהֶם. But then the particular would be wanting, that Israel made demands, conditions which were to be fulfilled on the part of the other. One must, to be exact, translate: thou bargainedst, madest conditions for thee from those.—The words יד חזית are likewise without analogy. The explanations: thou descriest a place (to lie down),—where thou seest but a beckoning hand,—thou dividest a hand, i.e., thou dost destine a side of the couch for the lover (Knobel)—all of them contain an unsuitable clumsy thought. One looks for something that belongs to the משׁכב in the sense indicated, or that follows on it. And thus there is much to favor the view that sees in יָד an euphemism for the masculine member. Only analogies from other languages (see Delitzsch) can be adduced, but considering the originality of our author this can be no obstacle. חָזָה then, like רָאָה, according to well known usage, stands for sentire, experiri (comp. Job 8:17; Job 15:17; Job 24:1; Psalm 58:11). [J. A. Alexander briefly dismisses the euphemistic view by saying; “the sense gratuitously put upon the phrase by Doederlein, and the praises given him for the discovery, are characteristic of neological aesthetics.” His own comment is: “The most probable interpretation of the last words of the verse is that which gives יָד the same sense as in Isaiah 56:5” (viz., “a place”). Spite of the respectable commentators that approve of this euphemistic sense (Ewald, Hitzig cited by Delitzsch who agrees), it should be rejected. Delitzsch refers to Ezekiel 16:26; Ezekiel 23:20. But the coarse, plainness of the language there is ground enough for inferring that, did Isaiah mean to express the like here, he would use language as plain. It were just as reasonable to imagine the same significance for יָד in Isaiah 56:5. There is actually no ground for doing Song of Solomon, in either case. “Thou descriest a place (to lie down)” gives a good rendering. Comp. the clause חזית—אהבת with Job 8:18, עַל־גַּל שָֽׁרָשָׁיו יְסֻבָּב֑וּ בֵּת אֲבָנים יַֽחֱזֶה.—Tr.].

Isaiah 57:10. נוֹאָשׁ is part. Niph. desperatus ( Job 6:26), The neuter only here and Isaiah 2:25; Isaiah 18:12.

Isaiah 57:11. דָאַג is sollicitum esse and has primarily intransitive meaning ( Jeremiah 17:8). In this sense it is conjoined with לְ ( 1 Samuel 9:5; 1 Samuel 10:2) or with מִן ( Psalm 38:19; Jeremiah 42:16). In our text it is used transitively, as in Jeremiah 38:19, joined with the accusative.—The תִּירְאִי with the attached Vav consec, shows that the Prophet conceives of it as the consequence of דאג. The latter accordingly denotes the inward, religious dread, of which the outward evidences are only the consequence. כִּי before תכזבי is the causal “that” after questions.

Isaiah 57:14. וְאָמַר is used impersonally as in Isaiah 25:9; Isaiah 45:24; Isaiah 65:8.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. In this section the Prophet describes the idolatrous, and hence adulterous doings that at the time of this prophecy were prevalent in the entire nation. He summons the nation to approach in order to hear his castigating words. He addresses them as posterity of adulterous parents ( Isaiah 57:3). They had often scoffed at him. Hence he asks them: Who is he whom ye derided, and who are ye? Are ye not as bastards who would supplant the genuine offshoots ( Isaiah 57:4)? And then he points out to them their untheocratic, bastard way, by enumerating facts. Ye carry on your idolatry under every green tree. Ye slay the children by the brooks and in rocky hollows ( Isaiah 57:5). These places have become the holy and promised land to you. And, that every part of the worship of Jehovah may have its idolatrous counterpart, ye do not omit drink and meat offerings for the idols ( Isaiah 57:6). Then by sacrifices ye have made the high mountains the scene of your adulterous worship of idols ( Isaiah 57:7). Jehovah’s mottoes, that should be in every house, are thrust into the corner. But ye do as a woman that forsakes the place at the side of her husband, and sets up a couch of lewdness in another place ( Isaiah 57:8). And also by seeking aid from foreigners ye carry on an adulterous idolatry. For ye sent messengers with rich gifts to foreign kings, yea, ye have boasted even of alliances with hell ( Isaiah 57:9). And ye were indefatigable in these doings; nothing availed to convince you of their vanity. Rather, as long as ye could stir, ye would never confess to sickness ( Isaiah 57:10). How wrong such conduct was appears the more manifest, when one compares whom Israel feared and whom it did not fear. Yea, what sort of beings were those whom thou fearedst, whereas thou fearedst me no more, who so long kept silence spite of thy unfaithfulness? ( Isaiah 57:11). But I will speak and make manifest your righteousness and your works. From that will be seen that ye have no claim to be helped ( Isaiah 57:12). Then let your numerous idols help you. But the wind will carry them off. Hebrews, on the contrary, that trusts in me, will receive inheritance in the holy land and on the holy mountain ( Isaiah 57:13). For these there will be a glorious return into the promised land ( Isaiah 57:14).

2. But draw near——falsehood.

Isaiah 57:3-4. וְאַתֶּם strongly reminds one of that ואתם, Isaiah 48:6, which, according to our construction, is also to be understood as an address of the Prophet to the people living in his own time. Draw near hither is like a citation before the ruler, who proposes to hold up to the subject his guilt, and to announce the punishment (comp. Isaiah 34:1; Isaiah 48:16; Isaiah 41:1; Isaiah 41:5; הֵנָּה, as in 2 Samuel 20:16, and often). The Israelites are addressed as sons of a sorceress (comp. on Isaiah 2:6). Witchcraft is only possible by reason of idolatrous superstition, because it would produce effects by supernatural powers that are not the powers of the true God. The children of the witch are such as have not only a witch for mother, but have also themselves a witch nature. Thus the idolatrous inclination of the people is charged as something inherited (comp. on Isaiah 1:4). What is here expressed in one notion is explained in the second half of the verse. For זרע מנאף is seed of the adulterer (comp. ז׳ מְרֶעִים, Isaiah 1:4; Isaiah 14:20; ז׳ קֹדֶשׁ, Isaiah 6:13; ז׳ שֶׁקֶר, Isaiah 57:4), thus the ancestors of the present generation are designated as adulterers in their relation to Jehovah, i.e., as idolaters. But that the present generation is adulterous, i.e., idolatrous, is expressed by the addition (וַתִּזְנֶה) [Eng-V. “and the whore”]. The view that this word is only the feminine of מנאפ is disproved from the fact that the simple Vav copulative (וְתִזְנֱה) would be used. Moreover, the mode of expression would be affected, and the addition superfluous. For from the view-point of polygamy, adultery is only possible with a married woman. Therefore in זרע מנאף is implied the representation, that the married woman had sinned with another man, i.e., with idols, and that therefore the present generation no longer has Jehovah for a father de facto, though de jure He may still pass for such. But וַתִּזְנֶה expresses that this generation, sprung from adultery, though recognized as legitimate, has itself committed adultery. As is well known, זָנָה stands very often for Israel’s apostacy to idols ( Exodus 34:15 sq.; Leviticus 17:7; Numbers 15:39; Deuteronomy 31:16; Hosea 2:6 sq.; Isaiah 1:21, etc.).

In Isaiah 57:4 the Prophet charges the people with the audacious scoffing with which they persecuted the followers of Jehovah in general and himself, the worthy Prophet in particular. For the question על מי can, of course, in itself have a quantitative sense: are there then men at all, about whom ye make yourselves merry? But why might there not have been men, about whom even such a degenerate people might with a certain justice make themselves merry? For this reason we must take the question על מי in a qualitative sense as in Isaiah 37:23. There it is asked: whom hast thou derided, etc.? Answer: the holy One of Israel. Thus here, also, the sense of qualis must be in the מי (comp. Isaiah 57:11; Isaiah 51:12). The imperfects תתעננו, etc., denote that these derisions still continue. Here also we have that personal אַתֶּם, which makes so entirely the impression of immediate living presence. And if the contemporaries derided Jehovah’s true followers and His prophets especially, who amongst them all was more exposed to the derision and deserved it less, than Isaiah. Hence there seems to me in this על־מי to be expressed the consciousness of personal worth and of outrage perpetrated by wounding it. התעננ, “delectari aliquare, to delight one’s self, to take pleasure from something,” is found only here in a bad sense. Opening wide the mouth along with derisive laughter is mentioned also Psalm 22:8; Psalm 35:21. Sticking out the tongue as a gesture of derision is not mentioned elsewhere in the Scripture. Expositors cite Livy, VII. Isaiah 10 : linguam ab irrisu exserens. The point of the verse consists in the distinction between the one scoffed at and the scoffers. What the former is, is not said. But we guess it. What the latter are, the Prophet states with the words: are ye not children of sin (i.e., such whose own nature partakes of the sin of those that begot), a spurious seed? That is, I think that זרע שׁקר is the antithesis of זרע אֱמֶת ( Jeremiah 2:21). Then it is not a seed in which materially the species “lie.” appears out of the sphere of the genus “sin;” but זרע שׁקר is a seed which any how formally is not what it pretends to be; i.e., a false, spurious seed. Thus the same is expressed as by מנאף זרע Isaiah 57:3.

3. Inflaming——yourselves comfort in these.

Isaiah 57:5-6. In what follows the Prophet enumerates all the sorts of idolatry by which the Israelites of his times proved themselves to be “children of sin” and “a spurious seed.” אֵלִים here means terebinths and not “gods,” as appears from the כל־עץ י׳ (see on Isaiah 1:29) that stands in parallelism. As a beautiful, shady tree, the terebinth played a great part in the idolatrous tree worship of the Hebrews (comp. Ezekiel 6:13; Hosea 4:13). It enticed to idolatry. Hence it is said, that the idolatrous fervor, that was only too closely joined to fleshly voluptuousness, was kindled by the terebinths. But not only stately, shady terebinths, every green tree kindled the idolatrous desire. But worse still than the tree-worship, was the murderous Baal and Moloch worship, to which especially the poor children fell a sacrifice (comp. my remarks on Jeremiah 17:2). Although this horrible worship exacted the burning of children, still the word שָׁחַט is used in connection with it, beside other expressions referring to it ( Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 16:20-21. At the same time it seems to me that the Prophet (who in what follows pursues the thought that Israel in a sacrilegious way transferred all parts of Jehovah’s worship to its idolatrous worship), would here, by the choice of this word שׁחט, express the thought that the children were their עוֹלוֹת. For the slaying of beasts destined for whole-burnt-offerings was expressed by שׁחט, whereas זָבַח was the specific word for the slaying of the שׁלמים (see on Isaiah 5:7-8). In the valleys, under the clifts of the rocks, thus not only in the vale of Hinnom, but elsewhere also, in forbidding rocky defiles, were those horrid sacrifices offered.

Isaiah 57:6. Among the smooth stones of the stream is thy portion. See Text. and Gram. By these smooth stones are any way to be understood the sacred anointed stones (Bayetilia). The earliest trace of this usage appears in Genesis 28:18; Genesis 35:14. But what was originally a simple act of consecration to serve for sacred remembrance, became gradually the substratum of an idolatrous worship, the stone worship (comp. Jeremiah 3:9; Ezekiel 20:32). As the name βαίτυλος, βαιτύλια is of Phœnician origin, the view is not without foundation that this name is to be referred back to בֵּית־אֵל. Comp. [Smith’sDic. of the B. Art. Stones]; Leyrer in Herz. R-Encycl. XVI. p322; Kurtz, Hist. of theOld Covenant, I. § 75, 3; Grimmel, De lapidum cultu, Marburg, 1853. The baetylia were indeed stones smooth with oil. Arnobius (Adver. Gentes I:39) relates of the heathen period of his life: “Si quando conspexeram lubricatum lapidem et ex olivi unguine sordidatum, tanquam inesset vis praesens, adulabar, affabar et beneficia poscebam nihil sentiente de trunco.” Lowth cites at our text a passage from Theophrast (to Autolykos I:15) where it is said of a superstitious man: “Καί τῶν λιπαρῶν λίθων τῶν ἐν ταῖς τριόδοις παριὼν ἐκ τῆς ληκύθου ἔλαιον καταχεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ γόνατα πεσὼν καὶ προσκυνήσας ἁπαλλάττεσθαι.” Comp. Clement of Alex. Strom. VII:843. Our passage indeed does not seem to speak of oily, smooth stones. But it appears that that worship, apart from the smoothing by oil, was only given to stones that by nature or art had a smooth surface. At least we could not suppose that Jacob chose a rough stone for his pillow. And our text favors the idea that one did not choose for adoration any sort of stone remarkable for size or form, but especially smooth stones. The emphatic הֵם הֵםthese, these, refers to the stones as something that Israel in a shameful way made rivals of Jehovah. נּוֹרָל, properly lapillus, is, indeed, no where else so used that Jehovah Himself is called “the lot” of His people. But the word is chosen here because the Prophet intended an allusion to the notion “stone” contained in חלקי־נהל. The thought underlying also the second half of verse6 is, that the idolatrous Israelites gave to their lumpish idols what was due to Jehovah alone. For here, too, the aping is rebuked, by which they transferred the various parts of Jehovah worship to the idol worship. For נֶסֶךְdrink offering, and מִנְחָהmeat offering were essential parts of Jehovah’s worship. The latter consisted of flour in various forms, with salt, olive oil and incense in addition ( Leviticus 2). The former represented the drinking suited to eating, and consisted only of wine ( Exodus 29:40; Numbers 15:5 sqq.). הֶ‍ֽעֱלָה with the object מנחח = altari imposuit fertum occurs again Isaiah 66:3. How deeply the Lord feels the insult, is declared in the words: should I console myself (be quiet) concerning such? Niph. נִחַם with עַל denotes1) to pity one’s self, 2) to feel regret, sorrow, 3) to console one’s self, to quiet one’s self ( 2 Samuel 13:39; Jeremiah 31:15; Ezekiel 32:31). A modification of the last meaning given is “to revenge one’s self,” which we had Isaiah 1:24. The context shows that only the meaning given under3) suits here.

4. Upon a lofty——sawest it.

Isaiah 57:7-8. In these two verses the Prophet shows how in idolatrous worship, Israel even (נם־שׁם עלית Isaiah 57:7) aped the peace offering, the זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים. And he joins with it, in a particularly marked way, the adulterous conduct of which it was thereby guilty. Why the Prophet connects the latter particular just with שְׁלָמִים may have this reason, that these sacrifices were always united with meals, and just these may have given occasion for abandonment to joviality and especially to fleshly debauchery, particularly when celebrated in the open air on mountain elevations. Hosea 4:13 also mentions the offering of the idolatrous זֶבַח on mountain tops and connected with licentiousness. The expression חר־נבה ונשֹא is found so exactly only here; but comp. Isaiah 2:2; Isaiah 30:25. שַׂמְתְּ מִשְׁכָּבֵךְ is a figurative expression for the act of idolatrous worship. It cannot be doubted that by לִזְבֹּחַ זֶבַח the Prophet means the Shelamim sacrifice. For the זבח was most closely joined with that. “For the Shelamim offering [peace offering] the Pentateuch also uses simply the expression זֶבַח, i.e., killing; indeed this word in the Pentateuch has only this narrower sense, as further the meal of the שׁלמים as often designated by the verb זבח. The reason of this mode of expression was, that, as in the burnt-offering, the peculiar feature was the bringing up of the entire sacrifice on to the altar, so the sacrificial meal belonged essentially to the peace offering. זָבַח denotes the killing with reference to a meal that was to be held (comp. especially Leviticus 17:3 sqq.; Deuteronomy 12:15); it is thus distinguished from שָׁחַט which has no such reference.” (Œhler in Herz, R-Encycl. X. p637).

The initial words of Isaiah 57:8 have experienced a double explanation. The ancient expositors from Jerome down understand by זכרון, remembrance, any sort of idolatrous emblem, especially the household gods, Lares. But first it is to be objected, that the expression is a strange one to denote that, and then to put behind the doors and the posts seems rather to describe contemptuous than honorable treatment. Hence modern expositors have justly understood זכרון to mean what in Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:20, was prescribed to be written on the מְזִוּזוֹת and on the שְׁעָרִים, especially since in Exodus 13:9 a similar memorial is expressly called זִכָּרוֹן. Therefore we may justly regard our text as a reference to the passages of the Pentateuch just cited. The Prophet charges the Israelites with putting those memorials containing the principles of the Theocracy behind the posts and doors, instead of on them, of course to get those hated reminders as far out of sight as possible. This done, they shamelessly left vacant (see Text. and Gram.) the place at the side of their husband, like an adulterous wife, in order to betake themselves to the couch of a lover.—מאתי נלית states how the adulterous wife made empty the place at her husband’s side; ותעלו, how she ascended to the elevation ( Isaiah 57:7); הרחבת משׁבּבך, how she made the lewd bed, i.e. broad, to give room for the lover. יכרת־לך מהם (see Text. and Gram.), describes the coarseness of this relation. The shameless harlot demands her price. What it was is not said. Any way it was agreed to. For the text continues: thou lovedest their embrace (משׁכב frequent in this sense: Numbers 31:17-18; Numbers 31:35; Judges 21:11-12, etc.).

5. And thou wentest—wast not grieved.

Isaiah 57:9-10. The Prophet has hitherto described what we may call the immediate worship of idols. Now he turns to what may be called the political or indirect idolatry of the Israelites. For when they turned to heathen nations for help, instead of relying on the Lord, that also was idolatry. And it was such not merely in the subtile sense of trusting in an arm of flesh (comp. Jeremiah 17:5-6; Isaiah 30:1 sq.; Isaiah 31:1-3; 2 Kings 16:7), but also in the grosser sense, inasmuch as trusting in a heathen nation involved trusting in its gods ( Isaiah 10:10-11; Jeremiah 2:33; Jeremiah 2:36; Ezekiel 23:7; Ezekiel 23:30; Hosea 12:1). If this is the correct understanding of the fundamental thought of our passage, it is clear that we are not to understand מֶלֶךְ as meaning an idol, as many expositors do. It is therefore neither Moloch (comp. Isaiah 8:21; Amos 5:26; Jeremiah 49:1; Jeremiah 49:3; Zephaniah 1:5), nor Anamelech, the Chronos of the Sepharvaim ( 2 Kings 17:31), as Hitzig thinks, nor the Phœnician Baal (מֶלֶך בַּעַל) as Knobel says. It seems to me also incorrect to suppose it refers directly to the king of Assyria. For there is nowhere any trace of his having been directly “the king” for the Israelites. And one cannot appeal to Isaiah 30:30 to show that he was, for there, according to the context (comp. Isaiah 57:31, אַשׁוּר), only the Assyrian king can be thought of. Hence it seems to me that the Prophet would say: Israel has ever turned to him who, according to existing relations, was for the time the king, κατ’ ἐξοχήν. Nearly like, but not identical, is the construction of Saadia, who understands מלך as collective. Also the choice of the word שׁוּר seems to favor our constructions, for it means “circuire, to go about” (comp. שָׁרָה, the wandering about, for caravans, Ezekiel 27:25). בַּשֶׁמֶן is “with oil.” But it remains doubtful whether that means “as one anointed with oil” (in order to charm the senses, Ezekiel 23:40) or “with presents of oil and ointments.” Grammatically either is allowable. Comp. for the former use, Genesis 32:11. But I prefer the latter, because it cannot be said that Israel itself came to the king, but sent ambassadors to remote places. Rather, according to Isaiah’s style, the latter is the explanation of the figure. The great rulers, now Assyria, now Egypt, lived far away. Did Israel perhaps send ambassadors further than that? Any way one may not press the significance of “oil and ointments.” The simple meaning is, that Israel sent the noblest and costliest gifts of its land as presents. The olive tree grew nowhere so well as in Palestine; comp. Leyrer, Herzog’sReal-Enc. X. p547. One of the ingredients of the רִקֻּהִים (ἅπ. λεγ., otherwise רֹקַה), “ointments,” perfumes, were בְּשָׂמִים, and Palestine was regarded as the exclusive home of the balsam shrub, ibid. I:673. Isaiah 39:2 shows that costly oil and noble ointment belonged to the royal treasures. עִיר=“messenger,” as in Isaiah 18:2. But Israel’s attempts to find helpers not only went far, but also deep. It is common to understand ער־שׁאול to mean the humble gestures and words of those seeking help. But that were a bad and senseless hyperbole. I believe the Prophet by didst send thy messengers far off refers chiefly to chaps28–33, and by thou wentest down to hell has especially in mind Isaiah 28:15, where the rulers of Jerusalem are made to say: “We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement.” The Hiph. השׁפיל, therefore, has not an ethical, but a local sense (comp. Isaiah 25:12; Isaiah 26:5; Psalm 113:6).

Isaiah 57:10. Thus Israel had wearied itself with much running (דֶּרֶד is abstractum here: the going, running, as often, comp. 1 Kings 18:27 and Isaiah 47:12; 1 Kings 19:7); but did not learn to see the uselessness of its efforts. Rather, because the weak hand from time to time felt some life, Israel never came to feel sick, i.e. to know and feel its powerlessness in its complete reality.

6. And of whom hast thou——way of my people.

Isaiah 57:11-14. Having thus described the idolatrous practices of the nation, the Prophet next asks for the reasons of it. These may be positive and negative: the idols may have advantages that Jehovah has not, and Jehovah may have defects that the idols are free from. I do not believe that את־מי refers to the heathen nations or their rulers, to whom Israel had looked for protection. For the whole context treats essentially of Israel’s religious conduct, and here especially of the reasons Israel might have for preferring idols to Jehovah. And, indeed, according to our remark on Isaiah 57:9, the dreadfulness of a nation depended on the power of its gods. מִי therefore refers to the idols. It is to be taken in the same sense as in Isaiah 57:4. Indeed one may say that this את־מי stands in a certain antithetical relation to that על־מי. For if על־מי, Isaiah 57:4, relates primarily to the Prophet, still it refers indirectly also to Jehovah, because the Prophet is such a one only through Jehovah. Of whom wast thou apprehensive, and so wast afraid. See Text. and Gram. It might be thought that what could move Israel to unfaithfulness to its Lord must be very considerable, grand in power and glory, far superior to Jehovah. But is such the case? No. One might expect the Prophet to dwell here on the contemptible quality of idols, that is intimated only by מִי. But what were the use? Has he not abundantly done so in the first Ennead? See Isaiah 40:18 sqq.; Isaiah 41:6 sq.; 21sqq.; Isaiah 42:17; Isaiah 43:9 sqq.; Isaiah 44:9 sqq.; Isaiah 45:20; Isaiah 46:1 sqq.; Isaiah 47:12; Isaiah 48:3 sqq.—That thou liedst. The meaning of כִּזֵּב here appears from what follows. It denotes the unfaithfulness, covenant-breaking nature of Israel. For by its deeds it proved its words to be lying words (comp. Psalm 78:36 sq.). Apart from single covenants ( Exodus 19:8; Exodus 24:3; Exodus 24:7; Deuteronomy 5:27 sqq.; Joshua 24:16; Joshua 24:24) the confession of Jehovah was the standing law in Israel. The sense is: What is the quality of those things that thou fearest, that (בִּי, see Text. and Gram.) thou couldest be seduced by them to break faith with thy God? But, from the antithesis to על־מי, Isaiah 57:4, and from what the Prophet has already said of the idols, it is seen that Israel found no sufficient motive for apostacy in the nature of its idols. There is another motive, viz. the silence of Jehovah. This must have been of such a nature as to explain the absence of fear of Him who was with Israel. This appears from the apodosis; therefore thou fearest Me not.—Therefore we are not to understand a not-speaking, but a not-doing. The Lord had kept His peace, and indeed from very ancient time (וְ before עולמ=“and indeed,” comp. Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 32:7; Isaiah 44:28), He had looked on, spared, used forbearance. Of course this must be understood relatively, for single chastisements were not wanting. But in comparison with the language the Lord used in leading Israel into exile, all that had been before was silence. Thus the Lord speaks of such a silence with reference to Israel as He had before spoken of with reference to the Gentiles, Isaiah 42:14. If one supposes the Prophet to speak from the stand-point of the Exile, it is verily not evident what so terrible happened to the wicked Israelites after the Exile, as to make all that happened before seem silence in comparison.

Isaiah 57:12. I will declare.—In contrast with His former silence, the Lord says He will speak. He will declare the righteousness of Israel and its fruits, the works. The whole verse is ironically meant. First of all there is irony in אניד. At first sight it seems as if the Lord presented the prospect of an imposing proclamation of the great, hitherto-ignored deserts of Israel. Second, one supposes on this account that by “righteousness” and “works” are to be understood the manifestations of an actually existing righteousness of Israel’s. But in fact the Lord means that the unrighteousness, the malignity, of Israel shall, by a suitable judicial Acts, be pilloried before the whole world. Third, the expression: but they will not profit thee is an ironical meiosis. For what Israel has to show in fruits of righteousness is so much the opposite of true righteousness that no other fruit than destruction can come of it. It is seen that I do not follow the punctuation of the Masorets. I cannot therefore approve of the rendering: “and as regards thy handiwork (the idols), they will not profit thee (Delitzsch, Seinecke, Rohling, Weber). For1) the brief words, Isaiah 57:12 b a, would be no suitable expression for the important thought that the Lord will bring Israel’s sin to light by great judgments; 2) it were strange to say, Isaiah 57:12 b, of the idols: “they will not help thee,” and then to continue, Isaiah 57:13 : “when thou criest let them help thee.”—Thus I believe that not till in Isaiah 57:13 is declared the incapacity of the heaps of idols (קבּוּצִים., ἅπ. λεγ., properly “gatherings” in the sense of “pantheon”).—[“Aben Ezra appears to understand the word generically, as denoting all that they could scrape together for their own security, including idols, armies and all other objects of reliance.” J. A. Alex. This comprehensive meaning would suit the reference of Isaiah 57:9-10, which, spite of the Author’s interpretation, that makes the main reference in the end to be to idols, certainly does not exclude reliance on foreign kings and their armies.—Tr.]—The wind, yea, a breath will carry away the whole pantheon (Hengstenbebg, Delitzsch, comp. Isaiah 41:16; Isaiah 41:29). On the other hand, those that put their trust in the Lord, even if the general calamity shall have carried them off into the Exile, will take possession of the holy hand and of the holy mountain as their inheritance. Hence return out of the Exile is the concluding thought, which is expressed in Isaiah 57:14 with great emphasis.

Footnotes