Isaiah 66:1-6

5. THE NEW LIFE IN ITS INWARD RELATIONS

Isaiah 66:1-3 a.

1          Thus saith the Lord,

The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool:

1 Where is the house that ye build unto me?

And 2 where is the place of my rest?

2     For all those things hath mine hand made,

And all those things 3have been, saith the Lord:

But to this man will I look,

Even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit,

And trembleth at my word.

3     aHe that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man;

He that sacrificeth a 4lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck;

He that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood;

He that 5burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. The Prophet continues to describe the condition of things which is to be expected in the time of the end when there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Here he has respect more to the inward life, as in Isaiah 65:17 sqq. he had depicted the renovation of the life of nature. What he here declares is to be regarded only as a measure to help us to estimate what will take place. The question, it is true, “What house will ye build me, and what shall be the place of my rest?” appears primarily to have practical application to those returning home from Exile, while it looks as if this question interdicted them from building a temple in Jerusalem. But this cannot possibly have been the design of the Prophet. For that the Lord desired for that time the erection of a temple is proved most clearly by such places as Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 56:7; Isaiah 60:7; Ezra 1:2-4; Haggai 1:2 This, then, must be the meaning of the words, that the external temple is at all times a thing of minor importance, and that hereafter, in the time of the new heaven and the new earth, the external temple will exist no longer (Isaiah 66:1). For all that the Lord has made belongs to Him. If He needed a house, the whole vast world would be at His command. But He does not dwell in temples built by human hands. In the hearts of the afflicted, contrite and obedient He will make His spiritual dwelling (Isaiah 66:2). And as He needs no temple, so He needs no external ceremonial worship. In the time when all things will be new, every act of the old, external, ceremonial worship must rather be regarded as an offence against the spirit of the new aeon (Isaiah 66:3 a).

2. Thus saith the Lord—an idol.

Isaiah 66:1-3 a. The Prophet begins by setting forth the infinite greatness and majesty of God by means of a figure used elsewhere in holy Scripture. For we read that the heaven is God’s throne also in Psalms 11:4; Psalms 103:19; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 23:22. That the earth is his footstool is directly stated only here and Matthew 5:35, which latter place is based on the one before us. But the thought is indirectly contained in those places where the holy mountain or the temple is named the footstool of God: Psalms 99:5, comp. Psalms 66:9; Psalms 132:7; Lamentations 2:1; 1 Chronicles 28:2. With this view of the greatness and majesty of God the idea of an earthly habitation for God stands in contradiction, if God is conceived as a local god like the heathen divinities, and the temple is a space that encloses Him. This is a view from which even the Israelites (comp., e.g., the prophet Jonah) could not get free. Even the Christian martyr Stephen had to protest against this vain imagination (Acts 7:48 sqq.), and in doing so he appeals to our place (comp. Acts 17:24 sq.). But the idea of a temple did not contradict God’s infinity, when the temple was regarded as a place in which God was present only partially and repraesentativo modo, with a shining forth of His glory. The Rabbis call this effulgence of the absolute glory the Shekinah, and appeal to passages such as Exodus 25:21 sq.; Leviticus 16:2; Leviticus 26:11 sqq.; Num 7:89; 1 Samuel 4:4, etc. Solomon, too, was fully conscious that the heaven and heaven of heavens could not contain God, much less a house built on the earth (1 Kings 8:27). He therefore did not think of building a place for the Deity which should enclose Him in His totality. Our Prophet, in asking the question, “What house will ye build?” has manifestly the returning exiles before his mind, 6 and while he rejects an external temple and temple-worship, he has in view the remotest end of the time of salvation, the time of the new heaven and new earth, when, according to Revelation 21:22, there shall be no temple. The form of a question is intentionally chosen in the sentence אי־זח בית וגו׳. For it makes known that the Lord declares an earthly place to be insufficient to be a habitation for His Godhead, without directly forbidding the erection of such a habitation. Such a prohibition He could not possibly design to make. For, in fact, He plainly disclosed to the returning exiles His will that His house should be rebuilt in Jerusalem (comp. the close of chap. 46; Ezra 1:2 sqq.; Haggai 1:2 sqq.). There is no indication that the rebuilding of the temple and the re-institution of the Mosaic cultus were hindered by the place before us. Doubtless there was found in Isaiah 66:1 b merely the thought that there is no place which, as a dwelling, corresponds in the least degree to the greatness of God, and that the Prophet warns against such rude childish notions as formerly were entertained in Israel, that Jehovah really dwells in the most holy place of the temple as a man dwells in his house. The thought would readily suggest itself when this passage would be considered, that the new temple was not intended to be a place to contain God, but only to be the restoration of the old place where God revealed Himself. מְנוּחָה is=place of rest, Psalms 132:14. The second question is literally rendered: what place is my resting place? I will not undertake to decide whether it was also seen that the look of the Prophet is here directed also to the time of the end. But we can have no doubt on this point. For it is undeniable that all through chapters 65 and 66 even the remotest time of the end is present to the spirit of the Prophet. And in this last time there will really, according to Revelation 21:22, be no temple. For God is then inwardly and outwardly ever present to all. He is then Himself their temple. The Prophet assigns as reasons for the questions which he puts: First, God has heaven for His throne, the earth for His footstool. Secondly, he declares that God has made all these, that all have arisen through His almighty “Let there be.” He evidently alludes to the word of the Creator in Genesis 1:0, יְהִי. He thus lets it be known that God, if He wished, could build Himself a temple. For what would that be for Him who made “all these,” heaven and earth? And thirdly and lastly, he tells why God does not do this, although He could do it. He needs no temple. Hearts that feel their misery, that with contrition (comp. Isaiah 16:7; Proverbs 15:13; Proverbs 17:22; Proverbs 18:14) are conscious of their sin, and humbly hearken to His word (חָרֵד, comp. Jdg 7:3; 1 Samuel 4:13; Ezra 9:4; Ezra 10:3. עַל for אֶל, comp. Isaiah 66:5; Isaiah 60:5; Isaiah 10:3) are the temple which He most desires and values. On these He looks, these He regards and loves, and in these He will dwell. And because He is in them, they also are in Him. They are His temple, and He is their temple. While I cannot believe that the Prophet in Isaiah 66:1-2 absolutely repels the design of the returning Israelites to build God a temple, still less can I believe that he in Isaiah 66:3 a declares only to those estranged from God that the Lord will accept no religious services from them. Where is it by a single syllable intimated that Isaiah 66:3 is addressed solely to those estranged from God?—[See the words immediately following Isaiah 66:3 b and Isaiah 66:4.—D. M.]—Delitzsch indeed affirms that the sentence: “He who slays in the new Jerusalem an ox in sacrifice is like one who slays a man,” could not possibly be contained in the Old Testament. If under the “new Jerusalem” he means the city rebuilt by the exiles on their return, I admit that Delitzsch is perfectly right. But distingue tempora et concordabit Scriptura! The Prophet does not distinguish the times. He surveys the whole time of salvation from the end of the Exile to the αἰὼν μέλλων at one view, and in this space of time he perceives really a temple and sacrificial worship; but he declares both to be insufficient. He utters no absolute prohibition; but he declares most unambiguously that this temple must disappear and give place to a better. And when this shall have happened, then (this the Prophet sees quite clearly, as it is also self-evident), an animal sacrifice will be an abomination. He who in the Christian church would present an ox or a sheep as as sin-offering—would he not commit a crime, which in its way would be as great as if a Jew should present a sacrifice of a man or of a dog? Would he not thus despise the blood of the Lamb of God? If in chaps. 56 and 60 and also in our chapter, Isaiah 66:6; Isaiah 66:20 sqq., a temple and sacrificial worship are still spoken of, are we to suppose that the old temple of stone, with its material, bloody offerings, is intended? Verily chaps. 53 and 55 testify that the Prophet knew of an infinitely better offering and of an infinitely better way of appropriating salvation. Even Jeremiah can speak of a time in which the ark of the covenant will be no more thought of (Jeremiah 3:16). And Isaiah emphatically testifies that the religious conception of the Israelites of his time will be superseded by one infinitely higher (Isaiah 55:8 sqq.). I cannot therefore agree with those who propose this explanation: “He who with a disposition unholy and estranged from God offers an ox, a sheep, etc., is like one who kills a man, etc.” For in the time present to the mind of the Prophet every animal sacrifice will be a crimen laesae majestatis. Still less is that explanation to be approved which Hahn, not after the example of Gesenius, whom he misunderstands, but after the example of Lowth, adopts: “He who slays an ox kills at the same time a man,” etc. According to it the Prophet is supposed to censure those who, while they offer sacrifice to the Lord in His sanctuary, outside of it commit all possible abominations; a course of conduct which is reproved by Ezekiel 23:39, and in the New Testament by our Lord,Matthew 23:14. We have here sentences containing comparisons in which the figure and the thing compared are put in the relation of subject and predicate, whereby they are not absolutely, but yet relatively, identified. The offerer of an ox is a manslayer,i. e. he is, viewed as to his religious worth, a manslayer. He stands before God on the same level with one who now should offer a human sacrifice. For according to the context the Prophet does not mean to compare animal sacrifices in the time of the end with every kind of offence, but with offerings which would be abominable in the present time. Human sacrifices in general are not expressly forbidden in the law. Implicitly they are prohibited by all the places of the law which command Israel to shun all the abominations of the heathen (comp. Exodus 23:24; Leviticus 18:3, et saepe). But the offering of children, such as was practised in the worship of Baal, is in various places most strictly prohibited (comp. Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2 sqq.; Deuteronomy 12:31, et saepe). Regarding the custom of sacrificing dogs practised by the Carians, Lacedaemonians, Macedonians and other Greeks, see Bochart,Hieroz. I., p. 798 sqq., ed Lips.עֹרֵף is part. act. Kal. from עָרַף, verb. denom. from עֹרֵף, the neck (comp. Exodus 13:13; Deuteronomy 21:4; Deuteronomy 21:7; Hosea 10:2). It means to break the neck.—In the clause מעלה מנחה ד׳ ח׳ we have in order to complete the sentence simply to repeat מעלה before דם (comp. Isaiah 57:6). On the offering of swine, comp. on Isaiah 65:4. Dogs and swine are in the Scriptures, as in profane authors, often joined together (comp. Matthew 7:6; 2Pe 2:22; 1 Kings 21:19; 1 Kings 22:38 in several codices of the LXX. Horatii,Epist. I. 2, 26; II. 2, 75). אַזְכִּיר stands only here as direct causative Hiphil in the sense of to make an אַזְכָּרָה, to offer as מַזְכָּרָה אָוֶן is taken by most interpreters correctly in the sense of vanum, i. e.idolum (comp. 1 Samuel 15:23; Hosea 10:8; Hosea 12:12), for this particular meaning corresponds better to the context than the general one of iniquitas, scelus, wickedness (Luther).

____________________6. PUNISHMENT TO THE WICKED! REWARD TO THE FAITHFUL

Isaiah 66:3-6

3          b 7Yea, they have chosen their own ways,

And their soul delighteth in their abominations.

4     8 I also will choose their [9]10delusions,

And will bring their fears upon them;Because when I called, none did answer;When I spake, they did not hear:But they did evil before mine eyes,And chose that in which I delighted not.

5     Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word;

Your brethren that hated you,That cast you out for my name’s sake, said,

11Let the Lord be glorified:

But he shall appear to your joy,

12And they shall be ashamed.

6     A voice of 13noise from the city,

A voice from the temple,A voice of the Lord that rendereth recompence to his enemies.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. There were among the exiles in Babylon not a few who forsook Jehovah and forgot His holy mountain (Isaiah 65:11). These looked upon the theocracy as a played-out game. Jehovah had not protected them against the gods of Babylon. To these, therefore, they now attached themselves. Between such persons and the faithful Israelites there existed naturally a hostile relation. The apostates mocked those who remained faithful, while the latter abhorred the others as shameful apostates, and threatened them with the wrath of Jehovah. We repeatedly find traces of this enmity in chaps. 65 and 66. It appears that one of those who remained faithful used every opportunity which he could find in chapters 65 and 66 in order to attach to the words of the Prophet a commination against the abhorred apostates [!]. If we must discard the opinion that the Prophet in Isaiah 66:3 a rejects only the sacrifices of the wicked, we cannot avoid perceiving that a wide chasm exists between Isaiah 66:3 a and b. For Isaiah 66:3 a relates to the glorious time of the end. Yea, the highest elevation of its spiritual life is indicated by these words. But Isaiah 66:3-6Isaiah 66:3-6Isaiah 66:3-6 bring us back into the particular relations of the Exile.—[Dr. Naegelsbach accordingly condemns Isaiah 66:3-6Isaiah 66:3-6Isaiah 66:3-6 as an interpolation. The interpolator we are asked to regard as a faithful servant of Jehovah. But assuredly he was not one “who trembled at Jehovah’s word,” else he would have shrunk with horror from corrupting that holy word. Even the Pharisees did not venture to alter the text of Scripture to make it support their views. The apostates, too, whom the interpolator is supposed to threaten, having openly renounced the worship of Jehovah, would pay no regard to the fictitious or real utterances of His Prophet. Were the transition in Isaiah 66:3Isaiah 66:3Isaiah 66:3b sqq. as abrupt as our author supposes, from the time of the end to concrete existing relations, such a transition could not be pronounced unparalleled. Look, e.g. at the surroundings of the glorious promise respecting the abolition of death contained in Hosea 13:14. Shall we say that what follows that promise is to be rejected as spurious? But the want of coherence, of which our author here complains, is only imaginary. If we adopt the view of Isaiah 66:3 a taken by Delitzsch and others “that not the temple-offerings in themselves are rejected, but the offerings of those whose heart is divided between Jahve and the false gods, and who refuse Him the offering which is most dear to Him (Psalms 51:19; comp. Psalms 50:23),” then there is no difficulty in perceiving the coherence of the words that follow. But if we should (as I believe Dr. Naegelsbach rightly does) regard the Prophet as here predicting the future abolition of the temple-service under a more glorious dispensation, we should be at no loss to perceive the coherence of Isaiah 66:3 b, Isaiah 66:4 with such a prediction. The language can be aptly applied to those Jews who obstinately refused to obey the revealed will of God, and persisted in practising rites which were superseded by the establishment of the new and better economy. This is the view taken by many interpreters who, in order to justify it, do not find it necessary to condemn the Hebrew text as interpolated. Henderson,e.g., looks upon Isaiah 66:3 a “as teaching the absolute unlawfulness of sacrifices under the Christian dispensation. When the Jews are converted to the faith of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, they must acquiesce in the doctrine taught in the ninth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the one offering which He presented on the cross forever set aside all the animal sacrifices and oblations which had been appointed by the law of Moses. Any attempt to revive the practice is here declared to be upon a par with the cruel and abominable customs of the heathen, who offered human sacrifices and such animals as the ancient people of God were taught to hold in abomination.” And he finds what follows Isaiah 66:3 b to have this connection with the aforesaid teaching: “In retribution of the unbelieving and rebellious persistence of the Jews in endeavoring to establish the old ritual, Jehovah threatens them with condign punishment: while such of them as may render themselves obnoxious to their brethren by receiving the doctrines of the Gospel on the subject, have a gracious promise of divine approbation and protection given to them.” In no case, then, is there any necessity for supposing the hand of an interpolator to have been here at work. Strange would be the course taken by this assumed interpolator! The sentiments which he utters do not look like those of one who would recklessly alter the sacred text, and give out his own words for those of Jehovah. See especially Isaiah 66:5 where the writer addresses those who tremble at God’s word. Can we suppose that he was, while using this language, corrupting the word of God and making his own additions to it? The character of this passage strongly attests its genuineness. We have to add that Isaiah 66:3 b, Isaiah 66:4, should not have been separated from what precedes, as the close connection between the two parts has been pointed out.—D. M.]

2. “Yea, they have chosen—delighted not, Isaiah 66:3-4Isaiah 66:3-4Isaiah 66:3-4. גס־גם are related as et-et, tamquam (comp. Genesis 24:25; Jeremiah 51:12, et saepe). דֶּרֶןְ stands here, as often (comp. Amos 8:14; Psalms 139:24), in the signification of the religious bent. שִׁקּוּץ is likewise used frequently of the abominations of idolatry (comp. 1 Kings 11:5; 1 Kings 11:7; Jeremiah 7:30, et saepe). The word is found only here in Isaiah. תעלול (in which word the signification of the Hithpael הִתְעַלֵּל with בְּ following (comp. Judges 19:25) is reflected) is ἄπ. λεγ.—[This is an error. The word occurs in Isaiah 3:4 in the plural as here. There it means the petulances, the puerilities of boys. Here it retains the kindred notion of annoyances, vexations. The occurrence of this peculiar word here and in Isaiah 3:4 speaks in favor of identity of authorship. The rendering of the E. V. delusions, in the sense of childish, wayward follies, may be defended. These childish delusions would mock and disappoint those who entertained them. God could be said to choose their delusions by allowing them in His providence, and causing the people to eat the fruit of them. Their fears,מְגוּרֹת, may be taken as what is feared by them, or, with Delitzsch, situations, conditions, which inspire dread. The latter part of Isaiah 66:4 from becauseDr. Naegelsbach regards as a needless repetition from Isaiah 65:12; but Alexander rightly judges that the repetition serves not only to connect the passages as parts of an unbroken composition, but also to identify the subjects of discourse in the two places.—D. M.]

3. Hear the word—His enemies, Isaiah 66:5-6. These words are a consolation for the faithful adherents of Jehovah, who tremble at His word. The verb נָדָה occurs only in Piel, and is found only here and Amos 6:3. In later Hebrew the word is employed of removal, exclusion from the community, or excommunication (comp. Luke 6:22; John 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2). The Rabbis use the word נִדּוּי to denote the lowest of the three grades of excommunication (comp. Buxtorf,Lex. Chal., p. 1303). The Masoretes connect למען שׁמי with what follows, because they could not conceive, or would not admit that an Israelite was ever put out of the community for the sake of the name of Jehovah. But this is what the forsakers of Jehovah did in the Exile where they had the power [?]. And they scoffingly called out to the excommunicated: “Let Jehovah be (appear as) glorious (comp. Job 14:21; Ezekiel 27:25), and we will (in consequence) behold with delight your joy.” They thus mock the Lord and their brethren, regarding whom they do not think that they will experience the joy of seeing their hopes fulfilled. But this scoffing misses the mark. Not those who are scoffed at, but the scoffers will be put to shame.—[Barnes, Alexander and Kay think with Vitringa that in this verse we are brought down to New Testament times. Vitringa applies it “to the rejection of the first Christian converts by the unbelieving Jews: Hear the word (or promise) of Jehovah, ye that wait for it with trembling confidence: your brethren (the unconverted Jews) who hate you and cast you out for my name’s sake, have said (in so doing): Jehovah will be glorious (or glorify Himself on your behalf no doubt), and we shall witness your salvation (a bitter irony like that in Isaiah 5:19); but they (who thus speak) shall themselves be confounded (by beholding what they now consider so incredible). The phrase those hating you may be compared with John 15:18; John 17:14; Matthew 10:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; and casting you out with John 16:2; and Matthew 18:17 : for my name’s sake, with Matthew 24:9; John 15:21.” Alexander.And they shall be ashamed. “How true this has been of the Jews who persecuted the early Christians! How entirely were they confounded and overwhelmed! God established permanently the persecuted; He scattered the persecutors to the ends of the earth.” Barnes Isaiah 66:6. “The Hebrew word שֳַאון is never applied elsewhere to a joyful cry or a cry of lamentation, but to the tumult of war, the rushing sound of armies and the shock of battle, in which sense it is repeatedly employed by Isaiah. The enemies here mentioned must of course be those who had just been described as the despisers and persecutors of the brethren. The description cannot without violence be understood of foreign or external enemies.” Alexander. Barnes observes here: “1) that it is recompense taken on those who had cast out their brethren (Isaiah 66:5). 2) It is vengeance taken within the city, and on the internal, not the external enemies. 3) It is vengeance taken in the midst of this tumult. All this is a striking description of the scene when the city and temple were taken by the Roman armies; and it seems to me that it is to be regarded as descriptive of that event. It was the vengeance which was to precede the glorious triumph of truth and of the cause of the true religion.”—D. M.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 65:1-2. Our Lord has said, “He that seeketh findeth” (Matthew 7:8). How, then, does it come that the Jews do not find what they seek, but the heathen find what they did not seek? The Apostle Paul puts this question and answers it, Romans 9:30 sqq.; Isaiah 10:19 sqq.; Isaiah 11:7. [See also Isaiah 10:3]. All depends on the way in which we seek. Luther says: Quaerere fit dupliciter. Primo, secundum praescriptum verbi Dei, et sic invenitur Deus, Secundo, quaeritur nostris studiis et consiliis, et sic non invenitur.” The Jews, with exception of the ἐκλογή (Romans 11:7), sought only after their own glory and merit. They sought what satisfies the flesh. They did not suffer the spirit in the depths of their heart to speak,—the spirit which can be satisfied only by food fitted for it. The law which was given to them that they might perceive by means of it their own impotence, became a snare to them. For they perverted it, made what was of minor importance the chief matter, and then persuaded themselves that they had fulfilled it and were righteous. But the Gentiles who had not the law, had not this snare. They were not tempted to abuse the pædagogical discipline of the law. They felt simply that they were forsaken by God. Their spirit was hungry. And when for the first time God’s word in the Gospel was presented to them, then they received it the more eagerly in proportion to the poverty, wretchedness and hunger in which they had been. The Jews did not find what they sought, because they had not a spiritual, but a carnal apprehension of the law, and, like the elder brother of the prodigal son, were full, and blind for that which was needful for them. But the Gentiles found what they did not seek, because they were like the prodigal son, who was the more receptive of grace, the more he needed it, and the less claim he had to it. [There is important truth stated in the foregoing remarks. But it does not fully explain why the Lord is found of those who sought Him not. The sinner who has obtained mercy when he asks why? must have recourse to a higher cause, a cause out of himself, even free, sovereign, efficacious grace. “It is of God that showeth mercy,” Romans 9:16. “Though in after-communion God is found of those that seek Him (Proverbs 8:17), yet in the first conversion He is found of those that seek Him not; for therefore we love Him, because He first loved us.” Henry. D. M.].

2. On Isaiah 65:2. God’s long-suffering is great. He stretches out His hands the whole day and does not grow weary. What man would do this? The disobedient people contemns Him, as if He knew nothing, and could do nothing.

3. On Isaiah 65:2. “It is clear from this verse gratiam esse resistibilem. Christ earnestly stretched out His hands to the Jews. He would, but they would not. This doctrine the Remonstrants prove from this place, and rightly too, in Actis Synodi Dodrac. P. 3. p. 76.” Leigh. [The grace of God which is signified by His stretching out His hands can be, and is, resisted. That figurative expression denotes warning, exhorting, entreating, and was never set forth by Reformed theologians as indicating such grace as was necessarily productive of conversion. The power by which God quickens those who were dead in sins (Ephesians 2:5), by which He gives a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26), by which He draws to the Son (John 6:44-45; John 6:65), is the grace which is called irresistible. The epithet is admitted on all hands to be faulty; but the grace denoted by it is, from the nature of the case, not resisted. Turrettin in treating De Vocatione et Fide thus replies to this objection, “Aliud est Deo monenti et vocanti externe resistere; Aliud est conversionem intendenti et efficaciter ac interne vocanti. Prius asseritur Isa. lxv. 2, 3. Quum dicit Propheta se expandisse totâ die manus ad populum perversum etc., non posterius. Expansio brachiorum notat quidem blandam et benevolam Dei invitationem, quâ illos extrinsecus sive Verbo, sive beneficiis alliciebat, non semel atque iterum, sed quotidie ministerio servorum suorum eos compellando. Sed non potest designate potentem et efficacem operationem, quâ brachium Domini illis revelatur qui docentur á Deo et trahuntur a Patre, etc.” Locus XV.; Quaestio VI .25.—D. M.].

4. On Isaiah 65:2. (Who walk after their own thoughts.)

Duc me, nec sine, me per me, Deus optime, duci.

Nam duce me pereo, te duce certus eo.

[“If our guide be our own thoughts, our way is not likely to be good; for every imagination of the thought of our hearts is only evil.” Henry. D. M.].

5. On Isaiah 65:3 sq. “The sweetest wine is turned into the sourest vinegar; and when God’s people apostatize from God, they are worse than the heathen (Jeremiah 3:11).” Starke.

6. On Isaiah 65:5. [I am holier than thou. “A deep insight is here given us into the nature of the mysterious fascination which heathenism exercised on the Jewish people. The law humbled them at every turn with mementoes of their own sin and of God’s unapproachable holiness. Paganism freed them from this, and allowed them (in the midst of moral pollution) to cherish lofty pretensions to sanctity. The man, who had been offering incense on the mountain-top, despised the penitent who went to the temple to present ‘a broken and contrite heart.’ If Pharisaism led to a like result, it was because it, too, had emptied the law of its spiritual import, and turned its provisions into intellectual idols.” Kay. D. M.].

7. On Isaiah 65:6-7. “The longer God forbears, the harder He punishes at last. The greatness of the punishment compensates for the delay (Psalms 50:21).” Starke after Leigh.

8. On Isaiah 65:8 sqq. [“This is expounded by St. Paul, Romans 11:1-5, where, when upon occasion of the rejection of the Jews, it is asked Hath God then cast away His people? He answers, no; for, at this time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. This prophecy has reference to that distinguished remnant…Our Saviour has told us that for the sake of these elect the days of the destruction of the Jews should be shortened, and a stop put to the desolation, which otherwise would have proceeded to that degree that no flesh should be saved. Matthew 24:22. Henry. D. M.].

9. On Isaiah 65:15. The judgment which came upon Israel by the hand of the Romans, did not altogether destroy the people, but it so destroyed the Old Covenant, i.e., the Mosaic religion, that the Jews can no more observe its precepts in essential points. For no Jew knows to what tribe he belongs. Therefore, they have no priests, and, consequently, no sacrifices. The Old Covenant is now only a ruin. We see here most clearly that the Old Covenant, as it was designed only for one nation, and for one country, was to last only for a certain time. If we consider, moreover, the way in which the judgment was executed, (comp. Josephus), we can truly say that the Jews bear in themselves the mark of a curse. They bear the stamp of the divine judgment. The beginning of the judgment on the world has been executed on them as the house of God. But how comes it that the Jews have become so mighty, so insolent in the present time, and are not satisfied with remaining on the defensive in their attitude toward the Christian church, but have passed over to the offensive? This has arisen solely from Christendom having to a large extent lost the consciousness of its new name. There are many Christians who scoff at the name of Christian, and seek their honor in combating all that is called Christian. This is the preparation for the judgment on Christendom itself. If Christendom would hold fast her jewel, she would remain strong, and no one would dare to mock or to assail her. For she would then partake of the full blessing which lies in the principle of Christianity, and every one would be obliged to show respect for the fruits of this principle. But an apostate Christendom, that is ashamed of her glorious Christian name, is something more miserable than the Jews, judged though they have been, who still esteem highly their name, and what remains to them of their old religion. Thus Christendom, in so far as it denies the worth and significance of its name, is gradually reaching a condition in which it will be so ripe for the second act of the judgment on the world, that this will be longed for as a benefit. For, this apostate Christendom will be the kingdom of Antichrist, as Antichrist will manifest himself in Satanic antagonism to God by sitting in the temple of God, and pretending to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:3 sqq.). [We do not quite share all the sentiments expressed in this paragraph. We are far from being so despondent as to the prospects of Christendom, and think that there is a more obvious interpretation of the prophecy quoted from 2 Thess., than that indicated.—D. M.].

10. On Isaiah 65:17. [If we had only the present passage to testify of new heavens and a new earth, we might say, as many good interpreters do, that the language is figurative, and indicates nothing more than a great moral and spiritual revolution. But we cannot thus explain 2 Peter 3:10-13. The present earth and heavens shall pass away; (comp. Isaiah 51:6; Psalms 102:25-26). But how can we suppose that our Prophet here refers to the new heavens and new earth, which are to succeed the destruction of the world by fire? In the verses that follow Isaiah 65:17, a condition of things is described which, although better than the present, is not so good as that perfectly sinless, blessed state of the redeemed, which we look for after the coming of the day of the Lord. Yet the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:13) evidently regards the promise before us of new heavens and a new earth, as destined to receive its accomplishment after the conflagration which is to take place at the end of the world. If we had not respect to other Scriptures, and if we overlooked the use made by Peter of this passage, we should not take it literally. But we can take it literally, if we suppose that the Prophet brings together future events not according to their order in time. He sees the new heavens and new earth arise. Other scenes are disclosed to his prophetic eye of a grand and joy-inspiring nature. He announces them as future. But these scenes suppose the continued prevalence of death and labor (Isaiah 65:20 sqq.), which, we know from definite statements of Scripture, will not exist when the new heaven and new earth appear (comp. Revelation 21:1-4). The proper view then of Isaiah 65:17 is to take its prediction literally, and to hold at the same time that in the following description (which is that of the millennium) future things are presented to us which are really prior, and not posterior to the promised complete renovation of heaven and earth. Nor should this surprise us, as Isaiah and the other Prophets place closely together in their pictures future things which belong to different times. They do not draw the line sharply between this world and the next. Compare Isaiah’s prophecy of the abolition of death (Isaiah 25:8) in connection with other events that must happen long before that state of perfect blessedness.—D. M.].

11. On Isaiah 65:20. [“The extension of the Gospel every where,—of its pure principles of temperance in eating and drinking, in restraining the passions, in producing calmness of mind, and in arresting war, would greatly lengthen out the life of man. The image here employed by the Prophet is more than mere poetry; it is one that is founded in reality, and is designed to convey most important truth.” Barnes. D. M.].

12. On Isaiah 65:24. [It occurs to me that an erroneous application is frequently made of the promise, Before they call, etc. This declaration is made in connection with the glory and blessedness of the last days. It belongs specifically to the millennium. There are, indeed, occasions when God even now seems to act according to this law. (Comp. Daniel 9:23). But Paul had to pray thrice before he received the answer of the Lord (2 Corinthians 12:8). Compare the parable of the importunate widow, Luke 18:1-7. The answer to prayer may be long delayed. This is not only taught in the Bible, but is verified in Christian experience. But the time will come when the Lord will not thus try and exercise the faith of His people.—D. M.].

13. On Isaiah 65:25. “If the lower animals live in hostility in consequence of the sin of man, a state of peace must be restored to them along with our redemption from sin.” J. G. Mueller in Herz. R.-Encycl. xvi. p. 45. [“By the serpent in this place there seems every reason to believe that Satan, the old seducer and author of discord and misery, is meant. During the millennium he is to be subject to the lowest degradation. Compare for the force of the phrase to lick the dust, Psalms 72:9; Micah 7:17. This was the original doom of the tempter, Genesis 3:14, and shall be fully carried into execution. Comp. Revelation 20:1-3.” Henderson. D. M.].

14. On Isaiah 66:1. [“Having held up in every point of view the true design, mission and vocation of the church or chosen people, its relation to the natural descendants of Abraham, the causes which required that the latter should be stripped of their peculiar privileges, and the vocation of the Gentiles as a part of the divine plan from its origin, the Prophet now addresses the apostate and unbelieving Jews at the close of the old dispensation, who, instead of preparing for the general extension of the church and the exchange of ceremonial for spiritual worship, were engaged in the rebuilding and costly decoration of the temple at Jerusalem. The pride and interest in this great public work, felt not only by the Herods but by all the Jews, is clear from incidental statements of the Scriptures (John 2:20; Matthew 24:1), as well as from the ample and direct assertions of Josephus. That the nation should have been thus occupied precisely at the time when the Messiah came, is one of those agreements between prophecy and history, which cannot be accounted for except upon the supposition of a providential and designed assimilation.” Alexander after Vitringa. D. M.].

15. On Isaiah 66:1-2. What a grand view of the nature of God and of the way in which He is made known lies at the foundation of these words! God made all things. He is so great that it is an absurdity to desire to build a temple for Him. The whole universe cannot contain Him (1 Kings 8:27)! But He, who contains all things and can be contained by nothing, has His greatest joy in a poor, humble human heart that fears Him. He holds it worthy of His regard, it pleases Him, He enters into it, He makes His abode in it. The wise and prudent men of science should learn hence what is chiefly necessary in order to know God. We cannot reach Him by applying force, by climbing up to Him, by attempting to take Him by storm. And if science should place ladder upon ladder upwards and downwards, she could not attain His height or His depth. But He enters of His own accord into a child-like, simple heart. He lets Himself be laid hold of by it, kept and known. It is not, therefore, by the intellect [alone] but by the heart that we can know God.

16. On Isaiah 66:3. He who under the Christian dispensation would retain the forms of worship of the ancient ritual of shadows would violate the fundamental laws of the new time, just as a man by killing would offend against the foundation of the moral law, or as he would by offering the blood of dogs or swine offend against the foundation of the ceremonial law. For when the body, the substance has appeared, the type must vanish. He who would retain the type along with the reality would declare the latter to be insufficient, would, therefore, found his salvation not upon God only, but also in part on his own legal performance. But God will brook no rival. He is either our All, or nothing. Christianity could tolerate animal sacrifices just as little as the Old Testament law could tolerate murder or the offering of abominable things.

17. On Isaiah 66:5. [“The most malignant and cruel persecutions of the friends of God have been originated under the pretext of great zeal in His service, and with a professed desire to honor His name. So it was with the Jews when they crucified the Lord Jesus. So it is expressly said it would be when His disciples would be excommunicated and put to death, John 16:2. So it was in fact in the persecutions excited against the apostles and early Christians. See Acts 6:13-14; Acts 21:28-31. So it was in all the persecutions of the Waldenses, in all the horrors of the Inquisition, in all the crimes of the Duke of Alva. So it was in the bloody reign of Mary; and so it has ever been in all ages and in all countries where Christians have been persecuted.” Barnes.—D. M.].

18. On Isaiah 66:10. “The idea which is presented in this verse is, that it is the duty of all who love Zion to sympathize in her joy. The true friends of God should rejoice in every real revival of religion, they should rejoice in all the success which attends the Gospel in heathen lands. And they will rejoice. It is one evidence of piety to rejoice in her joy; and they who have no joy when souls are born into the kingdom of God, when He pours down His Spirit and in a revival of religion produces changes as sudden and transforming as if the earth were suddenly to pass from the desolation of winter to the verdure and bloom of summer, or when the Gospel makes sudden and rapid advances in the heathen world, have no true evidence that they love God and His cause. They have no religion.” Barnes.—D. M.

19. On Isaiah 66:13. The Prophet is here completely governed by the idea that in the glorious time of the end, love, maternal love will reign. Thus He makes Zion appear as a mother who will bring forth with incredible ease and rapidity innumerable children (Isaiah 66:7-9). Then the Israelites are depicted as little children who suck the breasts of their mother. Further, the heathen who bring back the Israelites into their home, must do this in the same way in which mothers in the Orient are wont to carry their little children. Lastly, even to the Lord Himself maternal love is ascribed (comp. Isaiah 42:14; Isaiah 49:15), and such love as a mother manifests to her adult son. Thus the Israelites will be surrounded in that glorious time on all sides by maternal love. Maternal love will be the characteristic of that period.

20. On Isaiah 66:19 sqq. The Prophet describes remote things by words which are borrowed from the relations and conceptions of his own time, but which stand in strange contrast to the reality of the future which he beholds. Thus the Prophet speaks of escaped persons who go to Tarshish, Pul, Lud, Tubal, and Javan. Here he has rightly seen that a great act of judgment must have taken place. And this act of judgment must have passed on Israel, because they who escape, who go to the Gentiles to declare to them the glory of Jehovah, must plainly be Jews How accurately, in spite of the strange manner of expression, is the fact here stated that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was proclaimed to the Gentiles exactly at the time when the old theocracy was destroyed! How justly does he indicate that there was a causal connection between these events! He did not, indeed, know that the shattering of the old form was necessary in order that the eternal truth enclosed in it might be set free, and fitted for filling the whole earth. For the Old Covenant cannot exist along with the New, the Law cannot stand with equal dignity beside the Gospel. The Law must be regarded as annulled, in order that the Gospel may come into force. How remarkably strange is it, however, that he calls the Gentile nations Tarshish, Pul, Lud, etc. And how singular it sounds to be told that the Israelites shall be brought by the Gentiles to Jerusalem as an offering for Jehovah! But how accurately has he, notwithstanding, stated the fact, which, indeed, still awaits its fulfilment, that it is the conversion of the heathen world which will induce Israel to acknowledge their Saviour, and that they both shall gather round the Lord as their common centre! How strange it sounds that then priests and Levites shall be taken from the Gentiles also, and that new moon and Sabbath shall be celebrated by all flesh in the old Jewish fashion! But how accurately is the truth thereby stated that in the New Covenant there will be no more the priesthood restricted to the family of Aaron, but a higher spiritual and universal priesthood, and that, instead of the limited local place of worship of the Old Covenant, the whole earth will be a temple of the Lord! Verily the prophecy of the two last chapters of Isaiah attests a genuine prophet of Jehovah. He cannot have been an anonymous unknown person. He can have been none other than Isaiah the son of Amoz!

HOMILETICAL HINTS

1. On Isaiah 65:1 sq. [I. “It is here foretold that the Gentiles, who had been afar off, should be made nigh, Isaiah 65:1. II. It is here foretold that the Jews, who had long been a people near to God, should be cast off, and set at a distance, Isaiah 65:2.” Henry, III. We are informed of the cause of the rejection of the Jews. It was owing to their rebellion, waywardness and flagrant provocations, Isaiah 65:2 sqq.—D. M.]

2. On Isaiah 65:1-7. A Fast-Day Sermon. When the Evangelical Church no more holds fast what she has; when apostasy spreads more and more, and modern heathenism (Isaiah 65:3-5 a) gains the ascendency in her, then it can happen to her as it did to the people of Israel, and as it happened to the Church in the Orient. Her candlestick can be removed out of its place.—[By the Evangelical Church we are not to understand here the Church universal, for her perpetuity is certain. The Evangelical Church is in Germany the Protestant Church, and more particularly the Lutheran branch of it.—D. M.]

3. On Isaiah 65:8-10. Sermon on behalf of the mission among the Jews. Israel’s hope. 1) On what it is founded (Israel is still a berry in which drops of the divine blessing are contained); 2) To what this hope is directed (Israel’s Restoration).

4. On Isaiah 65:13-16. [“The blessedness of those that serve God, and the woful condition of those that rebel against him, are here set the one over against the other, that they may serve as a foil to each other. The difference of their states here lies in two things: 1) In point of comfort and satisfaction, a. God’s servants shall eat and drink; they shall have the bread of life to feed, to feast upon continually, and shall want nothing that is good for them. But those who set their hearts upon the world, and place their happiness in it, shall be hungry and thirsty, always empty, always craving. In communion with God and dependence upon Him there is full satisfaction; but in sinful pursuits there is nothing but disappointment. b. God’s servants shall rejoice and sing for joy of heart; they have constant cause for joy, and there is nothing that may be an occasion of grief to them but they have an allay sufficient for it. But, on the other hand, they that forsake the Lord shut themselves out from all true joy, for they shall be ashamed of their vain confidence in themselves, and their own righteousness, and the hopes they had built thereon. When the expectations of bliss, wherewith they had flattered themselves, are frustrated, O what confusion will fill their faces! Then shall they cry for sorrow of heart and howl for vexation of spirit. 2) In point of honor and reputation, Isaiah 65:15-16. The memory of the just is, and shall be, blessed; but the memory of the wicked shall rot.” Henry.—D. M.]

5. On Isaiah 66:1-2. Carpzov has a sermon on this text. He places it in parallel with Luke 18:9-14, and considers, 1) The rejection of spiritual pride; 2) The commendation of filial fear.

6. On Isaiah 66:2 Arndt, in his True Christianity I. cap. 10, comments on this text. He says among other things: “The man who will be something is the material out of which God makes nothing, yea, out of which He makes fools. But a man who will be nothing, and regards himself as nothing, is the material out of which God makes something, even glorious, wise people in His sight.”

7. On Isaiah 66:3. [Saurin has a sermon on this text entitled “Sur l’ Insuffisance du culte exterieur” in the eighth volume of his sermons.—D. M.]

8. On Isaiah 66:13. As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you. “These words stand, let us consider it, 1) In the Old Testament; 2) In the heart of God always; 3) But are they realized in our experience?” Koegel in “Aus dem Vorhof ins Heiligthum, II. Bd., p. 242, 1876.

9. On Isaiah 66:24. The punishment of sin is twofold—inward and outward. The inward is compared with a worm that dies not; the outward with a fire that is not quenched. This worm and this fire are at work even in this life. He who is alarmed by them and hastens to Christ can now be delivered from them.—[“It is better not to fall into this fire and never to have any experience of this worm, even though, as some imagine, eternity should not be eternal, and the unquenchable fire might be quenched, and the worm that shall never die, should die, and Jesus and His apostles should not have expressed themselves quite in accordance with the compassionate taste of our time. Better, I say, is better. Save thyself and thy neighbor before the fire begins to burn, and the smoke to ascend.” Gossner.—D. M.]

Footnotes:

[1]What.

[2]what.

[3]began to be.

[4]Or, kid.

[5]Heb. maketh a memorial of.

[6][“From the whole strain of the prophecy and particularly from Isaiah 66:3-5, it seems probable that it refers to the time when the temple which Herod had reared was finishing; when the nation was full of pride, self-righteousness and hypocrisy, and when all sacrifices were about to be superseded by the one great sacrifice which the Messiah was about to make of Himself for the sins of the world.” Barnes.—D. M.].

[7]As they have chosen.

[8]So I also will choose.

[9]Or, devices.

[10]vexations.

[11]Let Jehovah be glorified that we may see your joy!

[12]But.

[13]tumult.