A Cry for the Lord to Rend the Heavens and Remember His People

Isa 64:6 Universal forgetfulness of God was the consequence of this self-instigated departure from God. “And there was no one who called upon Thy name, who aroused himself to lay firm hold of Thee: for Thou hadst hidden Thy face from us, and didst melt us into the hand of our transgressions. ” There was no one (see Isa 59:16) who had risen up in prayer and intercession out of this deep fall, or had shaken himself out of the sleep of security and lethargy of insensibility, to lay firm hold of Jehovah, i.

e. , not to let Him go till He blessed him and his people again. The curse of God pressed every one down; God had withdrawn His grace from them, and given them up to the consequences of their sins. The form ותּמוּגנוּ is not softened from the pilel ותּמגגנוּ, but is a kal like ויכוּננּוּ ekil in Job 31:15 (which see), מוּג being used in a transitive sense, as kūn is there (cf.

, shūbh , Isa 52:8; mūsh , Zec 3:9). The lxx, Targ. , and Syr. render it et tradidisti nos ; but we cannot conclude from this with any certainty that they read ותּמגּננוּ, which Knobel follows Ewald in correcting into the incorrect form ותּמגּנּוּ. The prophet himself had the expression miggēn beyad (Gen 14:20, cf. , Job 8:4) in his mind, in the sense of liquefecisti nos in manum , equivalent to liquefecisti et tradidisti (παρέδωκας, Rom 1:28), from which it is evident that ביד is not a mere διά (lxx), but the “hand” of the transgressions is their destructive and damning power.

Isa 64:7-8 This was the case when the measure of Israel’s sins had become full. They were carried into exile, where they sank deeper and deeper. The great mass of the people proved themselves to be really massa perdita , and perished among the heathen. But there were some, though a vanishingly small number, who humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God, and, when redemption could not be far off, wrestled in such prayers as these, that the nation might share it in its entirety, and if possible not one be left behind.

With ועתּה the existing state of sin and punishment is placed among the things of the past, and the petition presented that the present moment of prayer may have all the significance of a turning-point in their history. “And now, O Jehovah, Thou art our Father: we are the clay, and Thou our Maker; and we are all the work of Thy hand. Be not extremely angry, O Jehovah, and remember not the transgression for ever!

Behold, consider, we beseech Thee, we are all Thy people. ” The state of things must change at last; for Israel is an image made by Jehovah; yea, more than this, Jehovah is the begetter of Israel, and loves Israel not merely as a sculptor, but as a father (compare Isa 45:9-10, and the unquestionable passage of Isaiah in Isa 29:16). Let Him then not be angry עד־מאד, “to the utmost measure” (cf.

, Psa 119:8), or if we paraphrase it according to the radical meaning of מד, “till the weight becomes intolerable. ” Let Him not keep in mind the guilt for ever, to punish it; but, in consideration of the fact that Israel is the nation of His choice, let mercy take the place of justice. הן strengthens the petition in its own way (see Gen 30:34), just as נא does; and הבּיט signifies here, as elsewhere, to fix the eye upon anything.

The object, in this instance, is the existing fact expressed in “we are all Thy people. ” Hitzig is correct in regarding the repetition of “all of us” in this prayer as significant. The object throughout is to entreat that the whole nation may participate in the inheritance of the coming salvation, in order that the Exodus from Babylonia may resemble the Exodus from Egypt.

Isa 64:7-8 This was the case when the measure of Israel’s sins had become full. They were carried into exile, where they sank deeper and deeper. The great mass of the people proved themselves to be really massa perdita , and perished among the heathen. But there were some, though a vanishingly small number, who humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God, and, when redemption could not be far off, wrestled in such prayers as these, that the nation might share it in its entirety, and if possible not one be left behind.

With ועתּה the existing state of sin and punishment is placed among the things of the past, and the petition presented that the present moment of prayer may have all the significance of a turning-point in their history. “And now, O Jehovah, Thou art our Father: we are the clay, and Thou our Maker; and we are all the work of Thy hand. Be not extremely angry, O Jehovah, and remember not the transgression for ever!

Behold, consider, we beseech Thee, we are all Thy people. ” The state of things must change at last; for Israel is an image made by Jehovah; yea, more than this, Jehovah is the begetter of Israel, and loves Israel not merely as a sculptor, but as a father (compare Isa 45:9-10, and the unquestionable passage of Isaiah in Isa 29:16). Let Him then not be angry עד־מאד, “to the utmost measure” (cf.

, Psa 119:8), or if we paraphrase it according to the radical meaning of מד, “till the weight becomes intolerable. ” Let Him not keep in mind the guilt for ever, to punish it; but, in consideration of the fact that Israel is the nation of His choice, let mercy take the place of justice. הן strengthens the petition in its own way (see Gen 30:34), just as נא does; and הבּיט signifies here, as elsewhere, to fix the eye upon anything.

The object, in this instance, is the existing fact expressed in “we are all Thy people. ” Hitzig is correct in regarding the repetition of “all of us” in this prayer as significant. The object throughout is to entreat that the whole nation may participate in the inheritance of the coming salvation, in order that the Exodus from Babylonia may resemble the Exodus from Egypt.

Isa 64:9-11 The re-erection of the ruins of the promised land requires the zeal of every one, and this state of ruin must not continue. It calls out the love and faithfulness of Jehovah. “The cities of Thy holiness have become a pasture-ground; Zion has become a pasture-ground, Jerusalem a desert. The house of our holiness and of our adorning, where our fathers praised Thee, is given up to the fire, and everything that was our delight given up to devastation.

Wilt Thou restrain Thyself in spite of this, O Jehovah, be silent, and leave us to suffer the utmost? ” Jerusalem by itself could not possibly be called “cities” ( ‛ârē ), say with reference to the upper and lower cities (Vitringa). It is merely mentioned by name as the most prominent of the many cities which were all “holy cities,” inasmuch as the whole of Canaan was the land of Jehovah (Isa 14:25), and His holy territory (Psa 78:54).

The word midbâr (pasture-land, heath, different from tsiyyâh , the pastureless desert, Isa 35:1) is repeated, for the purpose of showing that the same fate had fallen upon Zion-Jerusalem as upon the rest of the cities of the land. The climax of the terrible calamity was the fact, that the temple had also fallen a prey to the burning of the fire (compare for the fact, Jer 52:13).

The people call it “house of our holiness and of our glory. ” Jehovah’s qōdesh and tiph'ereth have, as it were, transplanted heaven to earth in the temple (compare Isa 63:15 with Isa 60:7); and this earthly dwelling-place of God is Israel’s possession, and therefore Israel’s qōdesh and tiph'ereth . The relative clause describes what sublime historical reminiscences are attached to the temple: אשׁר is equivalent to שׁם אשׁר, as in Gen 39:20; Num 20:13 (compare Psa 84:4), Deu 8:15, etc.

הללּך has chateph - pathach , into which, as a rule, the vocal sheva under the first of two similar letters is changed. Machămaddēnū (our delights) may possibly include favourite places, ornamental buildings, and pleasure grounds; but the parallel leads us rather to think primarily of things associated with the worship of God, in which the people found a holy delight.

כל, contrary to the usual custom, is here followed by the singular of the predicate, as in Pro 16:2; Eze 31:15 (cf. , Gen 9:29). Will Jehovah still put restraint upon Himself, and cause His merciful love to keep silence, על־זאת, with such a state of things as this, or notwithstanding this state of things (Job 10:7)? On התאפּק, see Isa 63:15; Isa 42:14. The suffering would indeed increase עד־מאד (to the utmost), if it caused the destruction of Israel, or should not be followed at last by Israel’s restoration.

Jehovah’s compassion cannot any longer thus forcibly restrain itself; it must break forth, like Joseph’s tears in the recognition scene (Gen 45:1).

Isa 64:9-11 The re-erection of the ruins of the promised land requires the zeal of every one, and this state of ruin must not continue. It calls out the love and faithfulness of Jehovah. “The cities of Thy holiness have become a pasture-ground; Zion has become a pasture-ground, Jerusalem a desert. The house of our holiness and of our adorning, where our fathers praised Thee, is given up to the fire, and everything that was our delight given up to devastation.

Wilt Thou restrain Thyself in spite of this, O Jehovah, be silent, and leave us to suffer the utmost? ” Jerusalem by itself could not possibly be called “cities” ( ‛ârē ), say with reference to the upper and lower cities (Vitringa). It is merely mentioned by name as the most prominent of the many cities which were all “holy cities,” inasmuch as the whole of Canaan was the land of Jehovah (Isa 14:25), and His holy territory (Psa 78:54).

The word midbâr (pasture-land, heath, different from tsiyyâh , the pastureless desert, Isa 35:1) is repeated, for the purpose of showing that the same fate had fallen upon Zion-Jerusalem as upon the rest of the cities of the land. The climax of the terrible calamity was the fact, that the temple had also fallen a prey to the burning of the fire (compare for the fact, Jer 52:13).

The people call it “house of our holiness and of our glory. ” Jehovah’s qōdesh and tiph'ereth have, as it were, transplanted heaven to earth in the temple (compare Isa 63:15 with Isa 60:7); and this earthly dwelling-place of God is Israel’s possession, and therefore Israel’s qōdesh and tiph'ereth . The relative clause describes what sublime historical reminiscences are attached to the temple: אשׁר is equivalent to שׁם אשׁר, as in Gen 39:20; Num 20:13 (compare Psa 84:4), Deu 8:15, etc.

הללּך has chateph - pathach , into which, as a rule, the vocal sheva under the first of two similar letters is changed. Machămaddēnū (our delights) may possibly include favourite places, ornamental buildings, and pleasure grounds; but the parallel leads us rather to think primarily of things associated with the worship of God, in which the people found a holy delight.

כל, contrary to the usual custom, is here followed by the singular of the predicate, as in Pro 16:2; Eze 31:15 (cf. , Gen 9:29). Will Jehovah still put restraint upon Himself, and cause His merciful love to keep silence, על־זאת, with such a state of things as this, or notwithstanding this state of things (Job 10:7)? On התאפּק, see Isa 63:15; Isa 42:14. The suffering would indeed increase עד־מאד (to the utmost), if it caused the destruction of Israel, or should not be followed at last by Israel’s restoration.

Jehovah’s compassion cannot any longer thus forcibly restrain itself; it must break forth, like Joseph’s tears in the recognition scene (Gen 45:1).

Isa 64:9-11 The re-erection of the ruins of the promised land requires the zeal of every one, and this state of ruin must not continue. It calls out the love and faithfulness of Jehovah. “The cities of Thy holiness have become a pasture-ground; Zion has become a pasture-ground, Jerusalem a desert. The house of our holiness and of our adorning, where our fathers praised Thee, is given up to the fire, and everything that was our delight given up to devastation.

Wilt Thou restrain Thyself in spite of this, O Jehovah, be silent, and leave us to suffer the utmost? ” Jerusalem by itself could not possibly be called “cities” ( ‛ârē ), say with reference to the upper and lower cities (Vitringa). It is merely mentioned by name as the most prominent of the many cities which were all “holy cities,” inasmuch as the whole of Canaan was the land of Jehovah (Isa 14:25), and His holy territory (Psa 78:54).

The word midbâr (pasture-land, heath, different from tsiyyâh , the pastureless desert, Isa 35:1) is repeated, for the purpose of showing that the same fate had fallen upon Zion-Jerusalem as upon the rest of the cities of the land. The climax of the terrible calamity was the fact, that the temple had also fallen a prey to the burning of the fire (compare for the fact, Jer 52:13).

The people call it “house of our holiness and of our glory. ” Jehovah’s qōdesh and tiph'ereth have, as it were, transplanted heaven to earth in the temple (compare Isa 63:15 with Isa 60:7); and this earthly dwelling-place of God is Israel’s possession, and therefore Israel’s qōdesh and tiph'ereth . The relative clause describes what sublime historical reminiscences are attached to the temple: אשׁר is equivalent to שׁם אשׁר, as in Gen 39:20; Num 20:13 (compare Psa 84:4), Deu 8:15, etc.

הללּך has chateph - pathach , into which, as a rule, the vocal sheva under the first of two similar letters is changed. Machămaddēnū (our delights) may possibly include favourite places, ornamental buildings, and pleasure grounds; but the parallel leads us rather to think primarily of things associated with the worship of God, in which the people found a holy delight.

כל, contrary to the usual custom, is here followed by the singular of the predicate, as in Pro 16:2; Eze 31:15 (cf. , Gen 9:29). Will Jehovah still put restraint upon Himself, and cause His merciful love to keep silence, על־זאת, with such a state of things as this, or notwithstanding this state of things (Job 10:7)? On התאפּק, see Isa 63:15; Isa 42:14. The suffering would indeed increase עד־מאד (to the utmost), if it caused the destruction of Israel, or should not be followed at last by Israel’s restoration.

Jehovah’s compassion cannot any longer thus forcibly restrain itself; it must break forth, like Joseph’s tears in the recognition scene (Gen 45:1).

Isa 65:1-2 After the people have poured out their heart before Jehovah, He announces what they may expect from Him. But instead of commencing with a promise, as we might anticipate after the foregoing prayer, He begins with reproach and threatening; for although the penitential portion of the community had included the whole nation in their prayer, it was destruction, and not deliverance, which awaited one portion of the nation, and that portion was the greater one.

The great mass were in that state of “sin unto death” which defies all intercession (1Jo 5:16), because they had so scornfully and obstinately resisted the grace which had been so long and so incessantly offered to them. “I was discernible to those who did not inquire, discoverable by those who did not seek me. I said, 'Here am I, here am I,' to a nation where my name was not called.

I spread out my hands all the day to a refractory people, who walked in the way that was not good, after their own thoughts. ” The lxx (A) render Isa 65:1 , “I was found by those who did not seek me, I became manifest to those who did not ask for me” (B reverses the order); and in Rom 10:20-21, Paul refers Isa 65:1 to the Gentiles, and Isa 65:2 to Israel. The former, to whom He has hitherto been strange, enter into fellowship with Him; whilst the latter, to whom He has constantly offered Himself, thrust Him away, and lose His fellowship.

Luther accordingly adopts this rendering: “I shall be sought by those who did not ask for me, I shall be found by those who did not seek me. And to the heathen who did not call upon my name, I say, Here am I, here am I. ” Zwingli, again, observes on Isa 65:1, “This is an irresistible testimony to the adoption of the Gentiles. ” Calvin also follows the apostle’s exposition, and observes, that “Paul argues boldly for the calling of the Gentiles on the ground of this passage, and says that Isaiah dared to proclaim and assert that the Gentiles had been called by God, because he announced a greater thing, and announced it more clearly than the reason of those times would bear.

” Of all the Jewish expositors, where is only one, viz. , Gecatilia, who refers v. 1 to the Gentiles; and of all the Christina expositors of modern times, there is only one, viz. , Hendewerk, who interprets it in this way, without having been influenced by the quotation made by Paul. Hofman, however, and Stier, feel obliged to follow the apostle’s exposition, and endeavour to vindicate it.

But we have no sympathy with any such untenable efforts to save the apostle’s honour. In Rom 9:25-26, he also quotes Hos 2:23 and Hos 2:1 in support of the calling of the Gentiles; whereas he could not have failed to know, that it is the restoration of Israel to favour which is alluded to there. He merely appeals to Hos 2 in support of the New Testament fact of the calling of the Gentiles, so far as it is in these words of the Old Testament prophet that the fact is most adequately expressed.

And according to 1Pe 2:10, Peter received the same impression from Hosea’s words. But with the passage before us it is very different. The apostle shows, by the way in which he applies the Scripture, how he depended in this instance upon the Septuagint translation, which was in his own hands and those of his readers also, and by which the allusion to the Gentiles is naturally suggested, even if not actually demanded.

And we may also assume that the apostle himself understood the Hebrew text, with which he, the pupil of Rabban Gamaliel, was of course well acquainted, in the same sense, viz. , as relating to the calling of the Gentiles, without being therefore legally bound to adopt the same interpretation. The interchange of גּוי (cf. , Isa 55:5) and עם; the attribute בשׁים קרא לא, which applies to heathen, and heathen only; the possibility of interpreting Isa 65:1-2, in harmony with the context both before and after, if Isa 65:1 be taken as referring to the Gentiles, on the supposition that Jehovah is here contrasting His success with the Gentiles and His failure with Israel: all these certainly throw weight into the scale.

Nevertheless they are not decisive, if we look at the Hebrew alone, apart altogether from the lxx. For nidrashtı̄ does not mean “I have become manifest;” but, regarded as the so-called niphal tolerativum (according to Eze 14:3; Eze 20:3, Eze 20:31; Eze 36:37), “I permitted myself to be explored or found out;” and consequently נמצאתי, according to Isa 55:6, “I let myself be found.

” And so explained, Isa 65:1 stands in a parallel relation to Isa 55:6 : Jehovah was searchable, was discoverable (cf. , Zep 1:6) to those who asked no questions, and did not seek Him (ללוא = לא לאשׁר, Ges. §123, 3), i. e. , He displayed to Israel the fulness of His nature and the possibility of His fellowship, although they did not bestir themselves or trouble themselves in the least about Him - a view which is confirmed by the fact that Isa 65:1 merely refers to offers made to them, and not to results of any kind.

Israel, however, is called בשׁמי אל־קרא גוי, not as a nation that was not called by Jehovah’s name (which would be expressed by נקרא, Isa 43:7; cf. , מקראי, κλητός μου, Isa 48:12), but as a nation where (supply 'ăsher ) Jehovah’s name was not invoked (lxx “who called not upon my name”), and therefore as a thoroughly heathenish nation; for which reason we have gōi (lxx ἔθνος) here, and not ‛am (lxx λαός).

Israel was estranged from Him, just like the heathen; but He still turned towards them with infinite patience, and (as is added in Isa 65:2) with ever open arms of love. He spread out His hands (as a man does to draw another towards him to embrace him) all the day (i. e. , continually, cf. , Isa 28:24) towards an obstinate people, who walked in the way that was not good (cf.

, Psa 36:5; Pro 16:29; here with the article, which could not be repeated with the adjective, because of the לא), behind their own thoughts. That which led them, and which they followed, was not the will of God, but selfish views and purposes, according to their won hearts’ lusts; and yet Jehovah did not let them alone, but they were the constant thought and object of His love, which was ever seeking, alluring, and longing for their salvation.

Isa 65:1-2 After the people have poured out their heart before Jehovah, He announces what they may expect from Him. But instead of commencing with a promise, as we might anticipate after the foregoing prayer, He begins with reproach and threatening; for although the penitential portion of the community had included the whole nation in their prayer, it was destruction, and not deliverance, which awaited one portion of the nation, and that portion was the greater one.

The great mass were in that state of “sin unto death” which defies all intercession (1Jo 5:16), because they had so scornfully and obstinately resisted the grace which had been so long and so incessantly offered to them. “I was discernible to those who did not inquire, discoverable by those who did not seek me. I said, 'Here am I, here am I,' to a nation where my name was not called.

I spread out my hands all the day to a refractory people, who walked in the way that was not good, after their own thoughts. ” The lxx (A) render Isa 65:1 , “I was found by those who did not seek me, I became manifest to those who did not ask for me” (B reverses the order); and in Rom 10:20-21, Paul refers Isa 65:1 to the Gentiles, and Isa 65:2 to Israel. The former, to whom He has hitherto been strange, enter into fellowship with Him; whilst the latter, to whom He has constantly offered Himself, thrust Him away, and lose His fellowship.

Luther accordingly adopts this rendering: “I shall be sought by those who did not ask for me, I shall be found by those who did not seek me. And to the heathen who did not call upon my name, I say, Here am I, here am I. ” Zwingli, again, observes on Isa 65:1, “This is an irresistible testimony to the adoption of the Gentiles. ” Calvin also follows the apostle’s exposition, and observes, that “Paul argues boldly for the calling of the Gentiles on the ground of this passage, and says that Isaiah dared to proclaim and assert that the Gentiles had been called by God, because he announced a greater thing, and announced it more clearly than the reason of those times would bear.

” Of all the Jewish expositors, where is only one, viz. , Gecatilia, who refers v. 1 to the Gentiles; and of all the Christina expositors of modern times, there is only one, viz. , Hendewerk, who interprets it in this way, without having been influenced by the quotation made by Paul. Hofman, however, and Stier, feel obliged to follow the apostle’s exposition, and endeavour to vindicate it.

But we have no sympathy with any such untenable efforts to save the apostle’s honour. In Rom 9:25-26, he also quotes Hos 2:23 and Hos 2:1 in support of the calling of the Gentiles; whereas he could not have failed to know, that it is the restoration of Israel to favour which is alluded to there. He merely appeals to Hos 2 in support of the New Testament fact of the calling of the Gentiles, so far as it is in these words of the Old Testament prophet that the fact is most adequately expressed.

And according to 1Pe 2:10, Peter received the same impression from Hosea’s words. But with the passage before us it is very different. The apostle shows, by the way in which he applies the Scripture, how he depended in this instance upon the Septuagint translation, which was in his own hands and those of his readers also, and by which the allusion to the Gentiles is naturally suggested, even if not actually demanded.

And we may also assume that the apostle himself understood the Hebrew text, with which he, the pupil of Rabban Gamaliel, was of course well acquainted, in the same sense, viz. , as relating to the calling of the Gentiles, without being therefore legally bound to adopt the same interpretation. The interchange of גּוי (cf. , Isa 55:5) and עם; the attribute בשׁים קרא לא, which applies to heathen, and heathen only; the possibility of interpreting Isa 65:1-2, in harmony with the context both before and after, if Isa 65:1 be taken as referring to the Gentiles, on the supposition that Jehovah is here contrasting His success with the Gentiles and His failure with Israel: all these certainly throw weight into the scale.

Nevertheless they are not decisive, if we look at the Hebrew alone, apart altogether from the lxx. For nidrashtı̄ does not mean “I have become manifest;” but, regarded as the so-called niphal tolerativum (according to Eze 14:3; Eze 20:3, Eze 20:31; Eze 36:37), “I permitted myself to be explored or found out;” and consequently נמצאתי, according to Isa 55:6, “I let myself be found.

” And so explained, Isa 65:1 stands in a parallel relation to Isa 55:6 : Jehovah was searchable, was discoverable (cf. , Zep 1:6) to those who asked no questions, and did not seek Him (ללוא = לא לאשׁר, Ges. §123, 3), i. e. , He displayed to Israel the fulness of His nature and the possibility of His fellowship, although they did not bestir themselves or trouble themselves in the least about Him - a view which is confirmed by the fact that Isa 65:1 merely refers to offers made to them, and not to results of any kind.

Israel, however, is called בשׁמי אל־קרא גוי, not as a nation that was not called by Jehovah’s name (which would be expressed by נקרא, Isa 43:7; cf. , מקראי, κλητός μου, Isa 48:12), but as a nation where (supply 'ăsher ) Jehovah’s name was not invoked (lxx “who called not upon my name”), and therefore as a thoroughly heathenish nation; for which reason we have gōi (lxx ἔθνος) here, and not ‛am (lxx λαός).

Israel was estranged from Him, just like the heathen; but He still turned towards them with infinite patience, and (as is added in Isa 65:2) with ever open arms of love. He spread out His hands (as a man does to draw another towards him to embrace him) all the day (i. e. , continually, cf. , Isa 28:24) towards an obstinate people, who walked in the way that was not good (cf.

, Psa 36:5; Pro 16:29; here with the article, which could not be repeated with the adjective, because of the לא), behind their own thoughts. That which led them, and which they followed, was not the will of God, but selfish views and purposes, according to their won hearts’ lusts; and yet Jehovah did not let them alone, but they were the constant thought and object of His love, which was ever seeking, alluring, and longing for their salvation.

Isa 65:3-5 But through this obstinate and unyielding rejection of His love they have excited wrath, which, though long and patiently suppressed, now bursts forth with irresistible violence. “The people that continually provoketh me by defying me to my face, sacrificing in the gardens, and burning incense upon the tiles; who sit in the graves, and spend the night in closed places; to eat the flesh of swine, and broken pieces of abominations is in their dishes; who say, Stop!

come not too near me; for I am holy to thee: they are a smoke in my nose, a fire blazing continually. ” אלּה (these) in Isa 65:5 is retrospective, summing up the subject as described in Isa 65:3-5 , and what follows in Isa 65:5 contains the predicate. The heathenish practices of the exiles are here depicted, and in Isa 65:7 they are expressly distinguished from those of their fathers.

Hence there is something so peculiar in the description, that we look in vain for parallels among those connected with the idolatry of the Israelites before the time of the captivity. There is only one point of resemblance, viz. , the allusion to gardens as places of worship, which only occurs in the book of Isaiah, and in which our passage, together with Isa 57:5 and Isa 66:17, strikingly coincides with Isa 1:29.

“Upon my face” ( ‛al - pânai ) is equivalent to “freely and openly, without being ashamed of me, or fearing me;” cf. , Job 1:11; Job 6:28; Job 21:31. “Burning incense upon the bricks” carries us to Babylonia, the true home of the cocti lateres ( laterculi ). The thorah only mentions lebhēnı̄m in connection with Babylonian and Egyptian buildings. The only altars that it allows are altars of earth thrown up, or of unhewn stones and wooden beams with a brazen covering.

“They who sit in the graves,” according to Vitringa, are they who sacrifice to the dead. He refers to the Greek and Roman inferiae and februationes , or expiations for the dead, as probably originating in the East. Sacrifices for the dead were offered, in fact, not only in India and Persia, but also in Hither Asia among the Ssabians, and therefore probably in ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia.

But were they offered in the graves themselves, as we must assume from בּקּברים (not על־קברים)? Nothing at all is known of this, and Böttcher ( de inferis , §234) is correct in rendering it “among ( inter ) the graves,” and supposing the object to be to hold intercourse there with the dead and with demons. The next point, viz. , passing the night in closed places (i.

e. , places not accessible to every one: netsūrı̄m , custodita = clausa , like ne‛ı̄mı̄m , amaena ), may refer to the mysteries celebrated in natural caves and artificial crypts (on the mysteries of the Ssabians, see Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier u. der Ssabismus , ii. 332ff.) But the lxx and Syriac render it ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις κοιμῶνται δι ̓ἐνύπνια, evidently understanding it to refer to the so-called incubare , ἐγκοιμᾶσθαι; and so Jerome explains it.

“In the temples of idols,” he says, “where they were accustomed to lie upon the skins of the victims stretched upon the ground, to gather future events from their dreams. ” The expression ubhannetsūrı̄m points not so much to open temples, as to inaccessible caves or subterraneous places. G. Rawlinson ( Monarchies , ii. 269) mentions the discovery of “clay idols in holes below the pavement of palaces.

” From the next charge, “who eat there the flesh of the swine,” we may infer that the Babylonians offered swine in sacrifice, if not as a common thing, yet like the Egyptians and other heathen, and ate their flesh (“the flesh taken from the sacrifice,” 2 Macc. 6:21); whereas among the later Ssabians (Harranians) the swine was not regarded as either edible or fit for sacrifice.

On the synecdochical character of the sentence כּליהם פּגּלים וּפרק, see at Isa 5:12 , cf. , Jer 24:2. Knobel’s explanation, “pieces” (but it is not וּפרקי) “of abominations are their vessels, i. e. , those of their ἱεροσκοπία,” is a needless innovation. פּגּוּל signifies a stench, putrefaction (Eze 4:14, besar piggūl ), then in a concrete sense anything corrupt or inedible, a thing to be abhorred according to the laws of food or the law generally (syn.

פּסּוּל, פּצוּל); and when connected with פרק ( chethib ), which bears the same relation to מרק as crumbs or pieces (from פּרק, to crumble) to broth (from מתק, to rub off or scald off), it means a decoction, or broth made either of such kinds of flesh or such parts of the body as were forbidden by the law. The context also points to such heathen sacrifices and sacrificial meals as were altogether at variance with the Mosaic law.

For the five following words proceed from the mouths of persons who fancy that they have derived a high degree of sanctity either from the mysteries, or from their participation in rites of peculiar sacredness, so that to every one who abstains from such rites, or does not enter so deeply into them as they do themselves, they call out their “ odi profanum vulgus et arceo . ” אליך קרב, keep near to thyself, i.

e. , stay where you are, like the Arabic idhab ileika , go away to thyself, for take thyself off. על־תּגּשׁ־בּי (according to some MSS with mercha tifchah ), do not push against me (equivalent to גּשׁ־הלאה or גּשׁה־לך, get away, make room; Gen 19:9; Isa 49:20), for qedashtikhâ , I am holy to thee, i. e. , unapproachable. The verbal suffix is used for the dative, as in Isa 44:21 (Ges.

§121, 4), for it never occurred to any of the Jewish expositors (all of whom give sanctus prae te as a gloss ) that the kal qâdash was used in a transitive sense, like châzaq in Jer 20:7, as Luther, Calvin, and even Hitzig suppose. Nor is the exclamation the well-meant warning against the communication of a burdensome qedusshâh , which had to be removed by washing before a man could proceed to the duties of every-day life (such, for example, as the qedusshâh of the man who had touched the flesh of a sin-offering, or bee sprinkled with the blood of a sin-offering; Lev 6:20, cf.

, Eze 44:19; Eze 46:20). It is rather a proud demand to respect the sacro-sanctus , and not to draw down the chastisement of the gods by the want of reverential awe. After this elaborate picture, the men who are so degenerate receive their fitting predicate. They are fuel for the wrath of God, which manifests itself, as it were, in smoking breath. This does not now need for the first time to seize upon them; but they are already in the midst of the fire of wrath, and are burning there in inextinguishable flame.

Isa 65:3-5 But through this obstinate and unyielding rejection of His love they have excited wrath, which, though long and patiently suppressed, now bursts forth with irresistible violence. “The people that continually provoketh me by defying me to my face, sacrificing in the gardens, and burning incense upon the tiles; who sit in the graves, and spend the night in closed places; to eat the flesh of swine, and broken pieces of abominations is in their dishes; who say, Stop!

come not too near me; for I am holy to thee: they are a smoke in my nose, a fire blazing continually. ” אלּה (these) in Isa 65:5 is retrospective, summing up the subject as described in Isa 65:3-5 , and what follows in Isa 65:5 contains the predicate. The heathenish practices of the exiles are here depicted, and in Isa 65:7 they are expressly distinguished from those of their fathers.

Hence there is something so peculiar in the description, that we look in vain for parallels among those connected with the idolatry of the Israelites before the time of the captivity. There is only one point of resemblance, viz. , the allusion to gardens as places of worship, which only occurs in the book of Isaiah, and in which our passage, together with Isa 57:5 and Isa 66:17, strikingly coincides with Isa 1:29.

“Upon my face” ( ‛al - pânai ) is equivalent to “freely and openly, without being ashamed of me, or fearing me;” cf. , Job 1:11; Job 6:28; Job 21:31. “Burning incense upon the bricks” carries us to Babylonia, the true home of the cocti lateres ( laterculi ). The thorah only mentions lebhēnı̄m in connection with Babylonian and Egyptian buildings. The only altars that it allows are altars of earth thrown up, or of unhewn stones and wooden beams with a brazen covering.

“They who sit in the graves,” according to Vitringa, are they who sacrifice to the dead. He refers to the Greek and Roman inferiae and februationes , or expiations for the dead, as probably originating in the East. Sacrifices for the dead were offered, in fact, not only in India and Persia, but also in Hither Asia among the Ssabians, and therefore probably in ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia.

But were they offered in the graves themselves, as we must assume from בּקּברים (not על־קברים)? Nothing at all is known of this, and Böttcher ( de inferis , §234) is correct in rendering it “among ( inter ) the graves,” and supposing the object to be to hold intercourse there with the dead and with demons. The next point, viz. , passing the night in closed places (i.

e. , places not accessible to every one: netsūrı̄m , custodita = clausa , like ne‛ı̄mı̄m , amaena ), may refer to the mysteries celebrated in natural caves and artificial crypts (on the mysteries of the Ssabians, see Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier u. der Ssabismus , ii. 332ff.) But the lxx and Syriac render it ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις κοιμῶνται δι ̓ἐνύπνια, evidently understanding it to refer to the so-called incubare , ἐγκοιμᾶσθαι; and so Jerome explains it.

“In the temples of idols,” he says, “where they were accustomed to lie upon the skins of the victims stretched upon the ground, to gather future events from their dreams. ” The expression ubhannetsūrı̄m points not so much to open temples, as to inaccessible caves or subterraneous places. G. Rawlinson ( Monarchies , ii. 269) mentions the discovery of “clay idols in holes below the pavement of palaces.

” From the next charge, “who eat there the flesh of the swine,” we may infer that the Babylonians offered swine in sacrifice, if not as a common thing, yet like the Egyptians and other heathen, and ate their flesh (“the flesh taken from the sacrifice,” 2 Macc. 6:21); whereas among the later Ssabians (Harranians) the swine was not regarded as either edible or fit for sacrifice.

On the synecdochical character of the sentence כּליהם פּגּלים וּפרק, see at Isa 5:12 , cf. , Jer 24:2. Knobel’s explanation, “pieces” (but it is not וּפרקי) “of abominations are their vessels, i. e. , those of their ἱεροσκοπία,” is a needless innovation. פּגּוּל signifies a stench, putrefaction (Eze 4:14, besar piggūl ), then in a concrete sense anything corrupt or inedible, a thing to be abhorred according to the laws of food or the law generally (syn.

פּסּוּל, פּצוּל); and when connected with פרק ( chethib ), which bears the same relation to מרק as crumbs or pieces (from פּרק, to crumble) to broth (from מתק, to rub off or scald off), it means a decoction, or broth made either of such kinds of flesh or such parts of the body as were forbidden by the law. The context also points to such heathen sacrifices and sacrificial meals as were altogether at variance with the Mosaic law.

For the five following words proceed from the mouths of persons who fancy that they have derived a high degree of sanctity either from the mysteries, or from their participation in rites of peculiar sacredness, so that to every one who abstains from such rites, or does not enter so deeply into them as they do themselves, they call out their “ odi profanum vulgus et arceo . ” אליך קרב, keep near to thyself, i.

e. , stay where you are, like the Arabic idhab ileika , go away to thyself, for take thyself off. על־תּגּשׁ־בּי (according to some MSS with mercha tifchah ), do not push against me (equivalent to גּשׁ־הלאה or גּשׁה־לך, get away, make room; Gen 19:9; Isa 49:20), for qedashtikhâ , I am holy to thee, i. e. , unapproachable. The verbal suffix is used for the dative, as in Isa 44:21 (Ges.

§121, 4), for it never occurred to any of the Jewish expositors (all of whom give sanctus prae te as a gloss ) that the kal qâdash was used in a transitive sense, like châzaq in Jer 20:7, as Luther, Calvin, and even Hitzig suppose. Nor is the exclamation the well-meant warning against the communication of a burdensome qedusshâh , which had to be removed by washing before a man could proceed to the duties of every-day life (such, for example, as the qedusshâh of the man who had touched the flesh of a sin-offering, or bee sprinkled with the blood of a sin-offering; Lev 6:20, cf.

, Eze 44:19; Eze 46:20). It is rather a proud demand to respect the sacro-sanctus , and not to draw down the chastisement of the gods by the want of reverential awe. After this elaborate picture, the men who are so degenerate receive their fitting predicate. They are fuel for the wrath of God, which manifests itself, as it were, in smoking breath. This does not now need for the first time to seize upon them; but they are already in the midst of the fire of wrath, and are burning there in inextinguishable flame.