Yesaya 1:1 Komentar

The first verse of this chapter is intended for a title to the whole book, and it is probable that this was the first sermon that this prophet was appointed to publish and to affix in writing (as Calvin thinks the custom of the prophets was) to the door of the temple, as with us proclamations are fixed to public places, that all might read them (Hab 2:2), and those that would might take out authentic copies of them, the original being, after some time, laid up by the priests among the records of the temple. The sermon which is contained in this chapter has in it, I. A high charge exhibited, in God's name, against the Jewish church and nation, 1. For their ingratitude (Isa 1:2, Isa 1:3). 2. For their incorrigibleness (Isa 1:5). 3. For the universal corruption and degeneracy of the people (Isa 1:4, Isa 1:6, Isa 1:21, Isa 1:22). 4. For the perversion of justice by their rulers (Isa 1:23). II. A sad complaint of the judgments of God, which they had brought upon themselves by their sins, and by which they were brought almost to utter ruin (Isa 1:7-9). III. A just rejection of those shows and shadows of religion which they kept up among them, notwithstanding this general defection and apostasy (Isa 1:10-15). IV. An earnest call to repentance and reformation, setting before them life and death, life if they compiled with the call and death if they did not (Isa 1:16-20). V. A threatening of ruin to those that would not be reformed (Isa 1:24, Isa 1:28-31). VI. A promise of a happy reformation at last, and a return to their primitive purity and prosperity (Isa 1:25-27). And all this is to be applied by us, not only to the communities we are members of, in their public interests, but to the state of our own souls.

Here is, I. The name of the prophet, Isaiah, or Jesahiahu (for so it is in the Hebrew), which, in the New Testament is read Esaias. His name signifies the salvation of the Lord - a proper name for a prophet by whom God gives knowledge of salvation to his people, especially for this prophet, who prophesies so much of Jesus the Saviour and of the great salvation wrought out by him. He is said to be the son of Amoz, not Amos the prophet (the two names in the Hebrew differ more than in the English), but, as the Jews think, of Amoz the brother, or son, of Amaziah king of Judah, a tradition as uncertain as that rule which they give, that, where a prophet's father is named, he also was himself a prophet. The prophets' pupils and successors are indeed often called their sons, but we have few instances, if any, of their own sons being their successors. II. The nature of the prophecy. It is a vision, being revealed to him in a vision, when he was awake, and heard the words of God, and saw the visions of the Almighty (as Balaam speaks, Num 24:4), though perhaps it was not so illustrious a vision at first as that afterwards, Amo 6:1. The prophets were called seers, or seeing men, and therefore their prophecies are fitly called visions. It was what he saw with the eyes of his mind, and foresaw as clearly by divine revelation, was as well assured of it, as fully apprised of it, and as much affected with it, as if he had seen it with his bodily eyes. Note 1. God's prophets saw what they spoke of, knew what they said, and require our belief of nothing but what they themselves believed and were sure of, Joh 6:69; Jo1 1:1. 2. They could not but speak what they saw, because they saw how much all about them were concerned in it, Act 4:20; Co2 4:13. III. The subject of the prophecy. It was what he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, the country of the two tribes, and that city which was their metropolis; and there is little in it relating to Ephraim, or the ten tribes, of whom there is so much said in the prophecy of Hosea. Some chapters there are in this book which relate to Babylon, Egypt, Tyre, and some other neighbouring nations; but it takes its title from that which is the main substance of it, and is therefore said to be concerning Judah and Jerusalem, the other nations spoken of being such as the people of the Jews had concern with. Isaiah brings to them in a special manner, 1. Instruction; for it is the privilege of Judah and Jerusalem that to them pertain the oracles of God. 2. Reproof and threatening; for if in Judah, where God is known, if in Salem, where his name is great, iniquity be found, they, sooner than any other, shall be reckoned with for it. 3. Comfort and encouragement in evil times; for the children of Zion shall be joyful in their king. IV. The date of the prophecy. Isaiah prophesied in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. By this it appears, 1. That he prophesied long, especially if (as the Jews say) he was at last put to death by Manasseh, to a cruel death, being sawn asunder, to which some suppose the apostle refers, Heb 11:37. From the year that king Uzziah died (Isa 6:1) to Hezekiah's sickness and recovery was forty-seven years; how much before, and after, he prophesied, is not certain; some reckon sixty, others eighty years in all. It was an honour to him, and a happiness to his country, that he was continued so long in his usefulness; and we must suppose both that he began young and that he held out to old age; for the prophets were not tied, as the priests were, to a certain age, for the beginning or ending of their administration. 2. That he passed through variety of times. Jotham was a good king, and Hezekiah a better, and no doubt gave encouragement to and took advice from this prophet, were patrons to him, and he a privy-counsellor to them; but between them, and when Isaiah was in the prime of his time, the reign of Ahaz was very profane and wicked; then, no doubt, he was frowned upon at court, and, it is likely, forced to abscond. Good men and good ministers must expect bad times in this world, and prepare for them. Then religion was run down to such a degree that the doors of the house of the Lord were shut up and idolatrous altars were erected in every corner of Jerusalem; and Isaiah, with all his divine eloquence and messages immediately from God himself, could not help it. The best men, the best ministers, cannot do the good they would do in the world.

This chapter, after the inscription, contains a charge of aggravated sin against the Jews; God's rejection of their ceremonial sacrifices and service; an exhortation to repentance and obedience, with a promise of pardon; a restoration from their sad estate; a prophecy of their restoration to a better; and of the destruction of idolatrous sinners. The inscription is in Isa 1:1 in which are the title of the prophecy, a vision; the writer of it described by his name, his descent, and the times in which he prophesied; and the subject of the prophecy is Judah and Jerusalem. The charge against the Jews is rebellion against the Lord, and the heavens and earth are called as witnesses of it; which is aggravated by the relation they stood in to God, and by the favours bestowed upon them, Isa 1:2 by their more than brutish stupidity, Isa 1:3 by the multitude of their sins, which were of a provoking nature, Isa 1:4 by the uselessness of chastisements, the whole body of the people, from the highest to the lowest, being afflicted without being the better for it, and so generally depraved, that no regard was had to any means of reformation, Isa 1:5 and by the desolation it brought upon them, which is illustrated by several similes, Isa 1:7 and by the grace and goodness of God in reserving a few, or otherwise they must have been for their punishment, as they were for their sins, like Sodom and Gomorrah, Isa 1:9 wherefore both rulers and people are called upon under those names to hearken to the law of God, and not trust in and depend upon their sacrifices and other rites of the ceremonial law, together with their hypocritical prayers; all which were abominable to the Lord, since they were guilty of such dreadful immoralities, Isa 1:11 when they are exhorted to repentance for sin, to the obedience of faith, and washing in the blood of Christ, whereby their crimson and scarlet sins would become as white as wool and snow, otherwise destruction must be expected, Isa 1:16 and then a lamentation is taken up concerning the deplorable state of Jerusalem, representing the difference between what it was now, and what it was formerly, and the sad degeneracy of the people, rulers, and judges, Isa 1:21 upon which the Lord foretells what he thought to do: to avenge himself of his enemies; to purge his church and people; to restore them to their former uprightness and integrity; and to redeem them with judgment and righteousness, Isa 1:24 and the chapter is concluded with a denunciation of utter destruction upon wicked men, who are described and pointed at as idolaters; which will cover them with shame and confusion, Isa 1:28 and which is illustrated by the fading of the leaves of an oak, and by a garden parched with drought, Isa 1:30 and it is suggested that it will be by burning with fire unquenchable, Isa 1:31.

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz,.... This is either the particular title of the prophecy contained in this single chapter, as Jarchi and Abarbinel think; seeing the second chapter Isa 2:1 begins with another title, "the word that Isaiah saw", &c. or rather it is the common title of the whole book; since it is the vision which Isaiah saw in the reign of four kings, as is later affirmed; and so is no other than in general "the prophecy of Isaiah", as the Targum renders it; called a "vision", because it was delivered to him, at least the greatest part of it, in a vision; and because he had a clear perception of the things he prophesied of, as well as delivered them in a clear and perspicuous manner to others: hence the Jews say (m), that Moses and Isaiah excelled the other prophets, seeing they understood what they prophesied of. The name of Isaiah, the penman of this book, signifies either "the Lord shall save", according to Hilleras (n); or "the salvation of the Lord", as Abarbinel, Jerom, and others; and is very suitable to the message he was sent with to the people of God; to acquaint them that the Lord had provided a Saviour for them, and that he would come and save them. He is said to be "the son of Amoz"; not of Amos the prophet; the names differ; the name of the prophet that stands among the twelve lesser prophets is "Amos"; the name of Isaiah's parent is "Amoz". It is a tradition with the Jews (o), that Amoz, the father of Isaiah, was brother to Amaziah, king of Judah, so that Isaiah was of the royal family. Abarbinei endeavours to confirm it from that greatness of mind, freedom and boldness, he used in reproofs, and from his polite and courtly way of speaking; and this is mentioned by Aben Ezra as a reason why the Jews did not harm him, as they did Jeremiah: but this tradition is not equally regarded by the Jewish writers; and though Kimchi takes notice of it, yet he says the genealogy of Isaiah is not known, nor of what tribe he was. If he was of the seed royal, this is an instance of God's calling some that are noble, not only by his grace, but to office in his church; and it is with a view to this tradition, no doubt, that Jerom (p) calls him "vir nobilis", a "nobleman". It is also a rule with the Jews (q), that where the name of a prophet's father is mentioned, it is a sign that his father was a prophet; and so they say this Amoz was, though the king's brother; and that he is the same with the man of God that came to Amaziah (r), Ch2 25:7 but Aben Ezra suggests, that this rule does not always hold good. Which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem; that is, chiefly and principally; for though Ephraim, or the ten tribes of Israel, are mentioned, yet very rarely; and though there are prophecies concerning other nations in it, yet these relate to the deliverance of the Jews from them, or to God's vengeance on them for their sake. Judah is put for the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and is particularly mentioned, because the Messiah, so much spoken of in this book, was to spring from thence, whose title is the Lion of the tribe of Judah; and though Jerusalem was in it, yet that is also particularly taken notice of, because not only the temple, the place of divine worship, was in it, and it was the metropolis of the land; but because the Messiah, when he came, was often to appear here, and from thence the Gospel was to go forth into all the world; and this was a figure of the Gospel church state to the end of the world, which often bears this name: and many things are said in this prophecy not only concerning the coming of Christ, but of the Gospel dispensation, and of various things that should come to pass in it; concerning the glory of the church in the latter day, the calling of the Gentiles, the conversion of the Jews, the destruction of antichrist, and the new heavens and new earth. In the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah: if Isaiah began to prophesy in the first year of Uzziah's reign, as Kimchi and Abarbinel think, relying pretty much on Ch2 26:22 and lived out the reign of Hezekiah, as he must, if he was put to death by Manasseh, according to the tradition of the Jews, he must prophesy a hundred and twelve or thirteen years; for Uzziah reigned fifty two years, Jotham sixteen, Ahaz sixteen, and Hezekiah twenty nine; but as this seems to begin his prophecy too soon, since so small a part of it was in or concerns Uzziah's reign; so it seems too late to fix the date of his prophecy from the year that King Uzziah died, when he had the vision in Isa 6:1 and desired to be sent of the Lord; which is the opinion of Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and others; but Dr. Lightfoot's opinion is more probable, who places the beginning of his prophecy in the twenty third year of Uzziah; though perhaps it may be sufficient to allow him only ten years of Uzziah's reign: and as he lived through the two reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, so it is certain that he lived through more than half of the reign of Hezekiah; his whole reign was twenty nine years; and therefore it was when he had reigned fourteen years that he was taken sick, and then fifteen years more were added to his days; and the year after this came the messengers from Babylon to congratulate him on his recovery; all which Isaiah gives an account of Isa 38:1 but how long he lived and prophesied after this cannot be said: had his days been prolonged to the times of Manasseh, it would have been written, as Aben Ezra observes, and who pays but little regard to the tradition of the Jews concerning Isaiah's being put to death by Manasseh; if the thing, says he, is "cabala", a tradition, it is truth; but he seems to call in question its reality; however, it is not to be depended on. (m) R. Eleazar in Yalkut, pars 2. fol. 118. 2. (n) Onomastic. Sacr. p. 319. (o) T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 10. 2. & Sota, fol. 10. 2. & Seder Olam Zuta, p. 104. Juchasin, fol. 12. 1. Shalshalet Hakabala, fol. 11. 2. (p) Ad Paulam, fol. 8. M. tom. 3. (q) T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 15. 1. (r) Kimchi in 2 Chron. xxv. 7.

Under Egypt he meant the world, and under things made with hands its idolatry, and under the shaking its subversion and dissolution. And the Lord, the Word, he represented as upon a light cloud, referring to that most pure tabernacle, in which setting up His throne, our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to shake error.

When Hezekiah, king of Judah, was still sick and weeping, there came an angel, and said to him: "I have seen thy tears, and I have heard thy voice. Behold, I add unto thy time fifteen years. And this shall be a sign to thee from the Lord: Behold, I turn back the shadow of the degrees of the house of thy father, by which the sun has gone down, the ten degrees by which the shadow has gone down," so that day be a day of thirty-two hours. For when the sun had run its course to the tenth hour, it returned again. And again, when Joshua the son of Nun was fighting against the Amorites, when the sun was now inclining to its setting, and the battle was being pressed closely, Joshua, being anxious lest the heathen host should escape on the descent of night, cried out, saying, "Sun, stand thou still in Gibeon; and thou moon, in the valley of Ajalon," until I vanquish this people. And the sun stood still, and the moon, in their places, so that day was one of twenty-four hours. And in the time of Hezekiah the moon also turned back along with the sun, that there might be no collision between the two elemental bodies, by their bearing against each other in defiance of law. And Merodach the Chaldean, king of Babylon, being struck with amazement at that time-for he studied the science of astrology, and measured the courses of these bodies carefully-on learning the cause, sent a letter and gifts to Hezekiah, just as also the wise men from the east did to Christ.

A “vision,” he says, not ordinary or perceptible with physical eyes, but a prophetic vision of things to come in far distant times; for just as one sees in a great tablet the invasion of enemies, ravagings of countryside, sieges of cities and enslavements of people, represented with the brilliance of color, the same way he seems to see a dream, but not a vision in sleep, when the divine spirit enlightens the soul.

[The heading] indicated the ages of the kings, since there was a different state of affairs among the Jews, and events were to transpire in the distant future which never entered the mind or suspicion of the people of that time. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the whole book, which only seems to be a single composition, was actually spoken over long periods of time, since there was need of extensive and precise understanding to discern the future, to determine the meaning of the events of the time and to suit the prophecy for the events that occurred in each reign. For the age of these kings covered fifty years in all, during which the things contained in this whole book were spoken.

It is our task to pay diligent attention to the mind, so that it becomes clear-sighted, becoming perfect through appropriate exercises, while it is God’s gift that the Spirit should illuminate us for the comprehension of his mysteries. The prophet puts “vision” first in his account and then introduces his report of the words, in order to show that he did not receive it through the faculty of hearing but is proclaiming the meaning of the word that has been impressed on his mind. For we need voice to indicate our thoughts, but God, affecting directly the very ruling aspect of the soul in those who are worthy, impresses on them the knowledge of his own will.

No one, when he will have seen the Prophets to be written in verses, would think them to be bound in meter among the Hebrews, and to have anything in common with the Psalms or the works of Solomon. But what is customary to be used in Demosthenes and Cicero, as they are written in words with divisions, who certainly wrote prose and not in verses, we also, providing ease of reading, have divided a new translation with a new kind of writing. And first, knowing of Isaiah what is presented in his speech, certainly as a man noble and of urbane elegance he does not have anything of rusticity mixed into (his) speech. For this reason it happens that in comparison with others the translation was not able to preserve the flower of his speech. And then adding this, that it is being spoken not only by a prophet, but by an evangelist. For thus all the mysteries of Christ and the Church are pursued to clarity, so that you would not think them to be prophesied of the future, but they covered the history of things past. For this reason I suppose the Seventy interpreters to have been unwilling at that that time to set forth clearly for the gentiles the sacraments of their faith, not throwing holy things to dogs or pearls to swine, which things, when you will have read this edition, you will note were hidden by them. Nor am I unaware of how much work it is to understand the Prophets, or for anyone not to be easily able to judge from the translation, unless he will have before understood those things which he will have read, and we to suffer from the bites of many, who, being goaded by jealousy, what they are not able to follow, they despise. Therefore, knowing and being wise, I place my hand in the fire, and nevertheless I pray this for the scornful readers: that just as the Greeks after the Seventy translators read Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion, either for study of their doctrines or so that they better understand the Seventy through their collation, that these are deemed worthy to have at least one translator after the earlier ones. Reading first and afterward despising, they are seen not to condemn by judgment, but rather by the ignorant presumption of hatred. And Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem and Judea when the ten tribes had not yet been led into captivity, and the oracle covered both kingdoms, now together, now separately. And while he sometimes looks at present history, and indicated the return of the people to Judea after the Babylonian captivity, yet is all his concern for the calling of the nations and for the coming of Christ. Who, how much the more you love, O Paula and Eustochium, the more strive for him, so that for the present disparagement, by which the envious incessantly tear me into pieces, the same One may restore a reward to me in the future, Who knows me to have exerted myself in the learning of foreign languages: the Jews might not jump all day on the errors of the Scriptures in His Church.

[Isaiah] should be called an evangelist rather than a prophet, because he describes all the mysteries of Christ and the church so clearly that one would think he is composing a history of what has already happened rather than prophesying what is to come.

(Chapter 1, Verse 1) The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amos, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. For Judah, in which two tribes are signified, the Seventy and Theodotion have translated 'Judah,' which signifies the entire land of the twelve tribes. And because we translate from Hebrew, 'concerning Judah and Jerusalem,' they have interpreted it as 'against Judah and Jerusalem.' Symmachus, in his own way, more clearly, 'concerning Judah and Jerusalem,' so that he does not want to indicate either prosperity or adversity by the title, but what the prophetic discourse has foretold about Judah and Jerusalem in both respects. Therefore, Isaiah primarily speaks about two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, excluding the ten tribes that were in Samaria and were called Ephraim and Israel; and those that under the reign of King Uzziah of Judah, and Jerusalem, the king of Assyria, Tiglath-Pileser, had already begun to devastate. Finally, in the fifty-second year of his reign, when Pekah, the son of Remaliah, was reigning in Samaria, Tiglath-Pileser, the king of Assyria, came and captured Aijon and Abel, the house of Maacah, and Janoah and Kedesh and Hazor and Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and he resettled them in Assyria (2 Kings 15:18-19). From this it is shown that all these things are narrated as a warning by the neighboring destruction of Samaria to the two tribes. But Ozias himself is the same person who is also called Azarias with a double name. And indeed, at the same time we know that Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and Amos prophesied, from the kings who are mentioned in the title. But the beginning of the word of the Lord was with Hosea, son of Beeri. However, Amos is the father of Isaiah, not as most people think, he is the third of the twelve Prophets, but another; they are written in different letters among the Hebrews. This one has the first and last letters Aleph and Sade (); that one has Ainet Samech (): and this one is interpreted by some as strength or robust; that one as a hard or heavy people: about which we have spoken more fully in Amos. Not only this prophet, but also others with the title 'Vision seen by Isaiah or Obadiah' do not reveal what they saw. For example: 'I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a high and lofty throne, and the two seraphim were around Him.' But what was said, they tell, that is, 'Hear, heaven, and listen, earth' (Isa. 6:1-2). And: 'This is what the Lord God says to Edom. I have heard an announcement from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent to the nations' (Obad. 1:1). For the prophets were previously called seers, who were able to say: Our eyes are always towards the Lord (Psalm 14:15). And: To you, I lift up my eyes, you who are enthroned in heaven (Psalm 123:1). Therefore, the Savior commanded the Apostles: Lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are already white for harvest (John 4:35). The bride in the Song of Songs also had these eyes of the heart, to whom the bridegroom says: You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride, with one glance of your eyes (Song of Songs 4:9). And in the Gospel we read: The light of your body is your eye (Matt. VI, 22). It is also said in the old Scriptures that the people saw the voice of God (Exod. XX, 18). From this, the delusions of the Montanists are silenced, who in their ecstasy thought that the prophets spoke of future events from a deranged mind, for they could not see what they were ignorant of. I know that some interpret Judah and Jerusalem to mean heavenly things, and Isaiah to represent the Lord Savior: that it foreshadows the captivity of that province in our land, and later the return and ascent to the holy mountain in the last days. We despise everything that is contrary to the Christian faith, judging it, and following the truth of history, we interpret it spiritually so that whatever they dream about the heavenly Jerusalem, we refer it to the Church of Christ, and to those who either leave it because of sin or return to the original seat because of repentance, and also because we consider that this is said in the same Prophet: 'Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. For darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon you, and his glory will appear over you. Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. Lift up your eyes and look around; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from far away, and your daughters shall be carried on their nurses' arms. Then you shall see and be radiant; your heart shall thrill and rejoice, because the abundance of the sea shall be brought to you, the wealth of the nations shall come to you. A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you; they shall be acceptable on my altar, and I will glorify my glorious house.' And it is stated in the title that he prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. This is not to be understood in a confused manner like in other prophets, so that we do not know what was said under which specific king. Rather, it is referred to the end of the book to indicate what was separately revealed to him by the Lord under Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Let us also know that Hezekiah began to reign in Jerusalem in the 12th year of Romulus, who founded a city in Italy bearing his name, so that it is clear how much older our histories are than those of other nations. Isaiah is interpreted as the Savior of the Lord; Judah, the confession; Jerusalem, the vision of peace; Uzziah, the strength of the Lord; Jotham, the perfection of the Lord; Ahaz, the one who holds or is strong; Hezekiah, the rule of the Lord. Therefore, whoever is saved with the Lord presiding is the son of Amos, that is, strong and mighty; he spiritually perceives the vision of confession while lamenting the ancient sins, and the peace while moving from repentance to light, and he rests in eternal peace. And all his times pass under the strength, perfection, and power of the Lord. And when he has done all things, he will say that evangelical saying: We are useless servants: for what we ought to have done, we have done (Luke 17:10).

The word of the holy prophets is always difficult to surmise. It is filled with hidden meanings and is pregnant with announcements of divine mysteries. The end of the law and prophets is Christ, as Scripture says. Those who want to expound these subtle matters must be diligent, I believe, to work in a logical way to thoroughly examine all of the symbols in the text to gain spiritual insight. First, the interpreter must determine the historical meaning and then interpret the spiritual meaning, in order for readers to derive benefit from every part of the text. The exposition must be clearly seen to be complete in every way.

17. The vision of Isaiah the son of Amos. This book is divided into two parts: into a preface, and a treatise, which begins where it says, hear, O you heavens (Isa 1:2). The preface is introduced like a title to make the work that follows manifest. It is made manifest, however, from four things: first, from the genus of the work; second, from the author, where it says, Isaiah; third, from the matter, where it says, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem; fourth, from the time, where it says, in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias, kings of Judah. The genus of the work is shown where it says the vision, in which it differs from historical books, because it is prophecy: I have multiplied visions, and it continues: I have used similitudes by the hands of the prophets (Hos 12:10). 18. Here it is necessary to see three things: first, in what way vision relates to prophecy; second, concerning the modes of prophetic vision; third, concerning the difference of prophetic vision from other visions. Concerning the first, it should be known that "prophecy" can have a double interpretation, in as far as it can come from phanos, which means "apparition," or from for, faris ("to speak"). According to the first derivation, a prophet is said to have an apparition of things which are far off; and hence, prophecy differs from vision in mode, because apparition signifies the relation of the visible thing to the one who sees, but vision signifies the converse. Again, prophecy and vision relate to each other by addition: because a vision may be of anything, but prophecy is of things which are far off. Things are said to be far off from our knowledge in two ways; simply, and relatively. Future things that are contingent on something are far off simply; determinate knowledge of them cannot be grasped either in themselves or in their causes, and prophecy is properly of these things. Things are far off relatively when knowledge of them is separated from the knower, as certain past and present things, and prophecy is of these things not simply, but with respect to those who are ignorant of them. But according to the second derivation, a prophet is so called because he is speaking far off [procul fans], as it were. And thus prophecy adds upon vision an act of exterior declaration, and vision will be material in respect to prophecy. 19. Concerning the second, it should be known that the modes of prophetic vision are distinguished according to those things in which foreknowledge of future contingencies are received. This, however, is either an image made in the senses and is called corporeal vision, because the senses accept images from the present bodies whose images they are; or it is an image received in the imagination and is called spiritual vision, because, in it, act and property are first manifested spiritually, which is to know a thing abstracted from matter; or it is an image existing only in the intellect and is called intellectual vision. And it should be known that prophecy is kept in these three as a potential whole in its parts, whose nature is that it is in one according its perfect power, and in the others there is a certain participation and mode of it; just as in the soul, because its whole power is preserved in the rational soul, the sensitive soul does not have the perfect power of the soul, and still less the vegetative soul. Because of this, Gregory says that plants do not live by soul but by vigor. Similarly, corporeal and spiritual (or imaginary) vision also are certain kinds of prophecy, but they cannot be called true prophecies unless intellectual vision is added, in which is the complete notion of prophecy: for there is need of understanding in a vision (Dan 10:1), which is preceded by: and he (that is, Daniel) understood the word. "Vision," however, is first and properly applied to corporeal vision. And because all our knowledge comes from the senses, among which vision is the most powerful both in subtlety and universality, because it shows us more differences of things; therefore the name of seeing is transferred to other interior kinds of knowledge. 20. Concerning the third, it should be known that not every intellectual vision is prophetic vision. For there is a certain vision for which the natural light of the intellect suffices, as the contemplation of invisible things by the principles of reason; and philosophers have placed the supreme happiness of man in this contemplation. Again, there is a certain contemplation to which man is elevated sufficiently by the light of faith, as that of the saints while on earth. There is also a certain contemplation of the blessed in heaven to which the intellect is elevated by the light of glory, seeing the essence of God, inasmuch as he is the object of beatitude; and this is only found fully or perfectly in heaven, although sometimes one is suddenly elevated to it while existing in this mortal life, as happened in the rapture of Paul, I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knows), such a one caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2). There the Gloss says that he saw as those who are from the third hierarchy. However, none of these visions is prophetic vision, because neither natural light nor the light of faith suffices for this vision; but the intellect of the prophet is elevated to it by the light of a gratuitous grace, which is the gift of prophecy, for it does not attain to seeing God as he is the object of beatitude, but as he is the cause [ratio] of things which pertain to the disposition of men in the world. Similarly, not every corporeal or imaginary vision is called prophecy, but only that vision which is made by an image specially ordained by divine power to be a sign of some future thing, whether he who sees or another receives understanding. 21. The author is touched upon where it says, Isaiah the son of Amos. And although this Amos was a prophet, because he is placed in the title of a prophecy according to the rule of the Hebrews, nevertheless, he is not the Amos who is one of the twelve prophets, because they are written with different letters in Hebrew. 22. The matter is touched upon where he says, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, because of these things that pertain to Judah and Jerusalem, so that concerning [super] is given as of [de] in the translation of Symmachus or as against [contra] in the Septuagint. And Judah is taken for the land of the two tribes, and Jerusalem for the chief city of this region. Or Judah is taken for the lot of Judah and Jerusalem for the lot of Benjamin, because Jerusalem was in Benjamin's lot as to the body of the city, which was on the slope; although as to the top of the mountain, where the tower of David and the temple were, it belonged to the house of God, as can be gathered from Joshua 15. 23. In the days. Here, the work is made known from the time, and four kings are named, in whose time Isaiah proclaimed this prophecy. Hence some divide this book according the times of the kings under whom he received revelation, so that in the first part are placed the things that were seen in the time of Ozias; in the second, those that were seen in the time of Joathan, in chapter 6, in the year that king Ozias died; in the third, the things which were seen in the time of Achaz, from chapter 7 to the end of chapter 14, where is said, in the year that king Achaz died (Isa 14:28); and from there to the end, the things which were seen in the time of Ezechias. 24. But it is asked: why does he not make mention of the kings of Israel, as Hosea in his title (Hos 1:1) makes mention of Jeroboam, the son of Joas, when they were contemporary? To this is to be said that Isaiah prophesied principally against the two tribes, and therefore he only has their kings in the title, whereas Hosea prophesied against both Judah and Israel. 25. Likewise, it is asked why no mention is made of Manasseh king of Judah, under whom Isaiah also lived, when it is certain that he did not lose the spirit of prophecy. To this is to be said that everything which was written in this book, he saw in the times of the prophets, but it was not fitting that a prophecy which is principally of consolation should be ended in a threat, or that the consolation of God should be preached in the time of a bad king who provoked the wrath of God: I will give them up to the rage of all the kingdoms of the earth (Jer 15:4).

General title to the whole Book, Jer 1:1-3. Jeremiah receives a commission to prophesy concerning nations and kingdoms, a work to which in the Divine purpose he had been appointed before his birth, Jer 1:4-10. The vision of the rod of an almond tree and of the seething pot, with their signification, Jer 1:11-16. Promises of Divine protection to Jeremiah in the discharge of the arduous duties of his prophetical office, Jer 1:17-19.

The vision of Isaiah - It seems doubtful whether this title belongs to the whole book, or only to the prophecy contained in this chapter. The former part of the title seems properly to belong to this particular prophecy; the latter part, which enumerates the kings of Judah under whom Isaiah exercised his prophetical office, seems to extend it to the whole collection of prophecies delivered in the course of his ministry. Vitringa - to whom the world is greatly indebted for his learned labors on this prophet and to whom we should have owed much more if he had not so totally devoted himself to Masoretic authority - has, I think, very judiciously resolved this doubt. He supposes that the former part of the title was originally prefixed to this single prophecy; and that, when the collection of all Isaiah's prophecies was made, the enumeration of the kings of Judah was added, to make it at the same time a proper title to the whole book. As such it is plainly taken in Ch2 32:32, where the book of Isaiah is cited by this title: "The vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz." The prophecy contained in this first chapter stands single and unconnected, making an entire piece of itself. It contains a severe remonstrance against the corruptions prevailing among the Jews of that time, powerful exhortations to repentance, grievous threatenings to the impenitent, and gracious promises of better times, when the nation shall have been reformed by the just judgments of God. The expression, upon the whole, is clear; the connection of the several parts easy; and in regard to the images, sentiments, and style, it gives a beautiful example of the prophet's elegant manner of writing; though perhaps it may not be equal in these respects to many of the following prophecies.

THE GENERAL TITLE OR PROGRAM applying to the entire book: this discountenances the Talmud tradition, that he was sawn asunder by Manasseh. Isaiah--equivalent to "The Lord shall save"; significant of the subject of his prophecies. On "vision," see Sa1 9:9; Num 12:6; and see my Introduction. Judah and Jerusalem--Other nations also are the subjects of his prophecies; but only in their relation to the Jews (Isa. 13:1-23:18); so also the ten tribes of Israel are introduced only in the same relation (Isa. 7:1-9:21). Jerusalem is particularly specified, being the site of the temple, and the center of the theocracy, and the future throne of Messiah (Psa 48:2-3, Psa 48:9; Jer 3:17). Jesus Christ is the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" (Rev 5:5). Uzziah--called also Azariah (Kg2 14:21; Ch2 26:1, Ch2 26:17, Ch2 26:20). The Old Testament prophecies spiritually interpret the histories, as the New Testament Epistles interpret the Gospels and Acts. Study them together, to see their spiritual relations. Isaiah prophesied for only a few years before Uzziah's death; but his prophecies of that period (Isa. 1:1-6:13) apply to Jotham's reign also, in which he probably wrote none; for Isa. 7:1-25 enters immediately on Ahaz' reign, after Uzziah in Isa 6:1-13; the prophecies under Hezekiah follow next.

In passing to our exposition of the book, the first thing which strikes us is its traditional title - Yeshaiah (Isaiah). In the book itself, and throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, the prophet is called Yeshayahu; and the shorter form is found in the latest books as the name of other persons. It was a common thing in the very earliest times for the shorter forms of such names to be used interchangeably with the longer; but in later times the shorter was the only form employed, and for this reason it was the one adopted in the traditional title. The name is a compound one, and signifies "Jehovah's salvation." The prophet was conscious that it was not merely by accident that he bore this name; for ישׁע (he shall save) and ישׁוּעה (salvation) are among his favourite words. It may be said, in fact, that he lived and moved altogether in the coming salvation, which was to proceed from Jehovah, and would be realized hereafter, when Jehovah should come at last to His people as He had never come before. This salvation was the goal of the sacred history (Heilsgeschichte, literally, history of salvation); and Jehovah was the peculiar name of God in relation to that history. It denotes "the existing one," not however "the always existing," i.e., eternal, as Bunsen and the Jewish translators render it, but "existing evermore," i.e., filling all history, and displaying His glory therein in grace and truth. The ultimate goal of this historical process, in which God was ever ruling as the absolutely free One, according to His own self-assertion in Exo 3:14, was true and essential salvation, proceeding outwards from Israel, and eventually embracing all mankind. In the name of the prophet the tetragrammaton יהוה is contracted into יהו (יה) by the dropping of the second ה. We may easily see from this contraction that the name of God was pronounced with an a sound, so that it was either called Yahveh, or rather Yahaveh, or else Yahvâh, or rather Yahavâh. According to Theodoret, it was pronounced ̓Ιαβε (Yahaveh) by the Samaritans; and it is written in the same way in the list of the names of the Deity given in Epiphanius. That the ah sound was also a customary pronunciation, may not only be gathered from such names as Jimnah, Jimrah, Jishvah, Jishpah (compare Jithlah, the name of a place), but is also expressly attested by the ancient variations, Jao, Jeuo, Jo (Jer 23:6, lxx), on the one hand, and on the other hand by the mode of spelling adopted by Origen (Jaoia) and Theodoret (Aia, not only in quaest, in Ex. 15, but also in Fab. haeret. "Aia signifies the existing one; it was pronounced thus by Hebrews, but the Samaritans call it Jabai, overlooking the force of the word"). The dull-sounding long a could be expressed by omega quite as well as by alpha. Isidor follows these and similar testimonies, and says (Orig. vii. 7), "The tetragrammaton consisted of ia written twice (iaia), and with this reduplication it constituted the unutterable and glorious name of God." The Arabic form adopted by the Samaritans leaves it uncertain whether it is to be pronounced Yahve or Yahva. They wrote to Job Ludolf (in the Epistola Samaritana Sichemitarum tertia, published by Bruns, 1781), in opposition to the statement of Theodoret, that they pronounced the last syllable with damma; that is to say, they pronounced the name Yahavoh (Yahvoh), which was the form in which it was written in the last century by Velthusen, and also by Muffi in his Disegno di lezioni e di ricerche sulla lingua Ebraica (Pavia, 1792). The pronunciation Jehovah (Yehovah) arose out of a combination of the Keri and the chethib, and has only become current since the time of the Reformation. Genebrard denounces it in his Commentary upon the Psalms with the utmost vehemence, in opposition to Beza, as an intolerable innovation. "Ungodly violators of what is most ancient," he says, "profaning and transforming the unutterable name of God, would read Jova or Jehova - a new, barbarous, fictitious, and irreligious word, that savours strongly of the Jove of the heathen." Nevertheless his Jehova (Jova) forced its way into general adoption, and we shall therefore retain it, notwithstanding the fact that the o sound is decidedly wrong. To return, then: the prophet's name signifies "Jehovah's salvation." In the Septuagint it is always written ̔Ησαΐ̀ας, with a strong aspirate; in the Vulgate it is written Isaias, and sometimes Esaias. In turning from the outward to the inward title, which is contained in the book itself, there are two things to be observed at the outset: (1.) The division of the vv. indicated by soph pasuk is an arrangement for which the way was prepared as early as the time of the Talmud, and which was firmly established in the Masoretic schools; and consequently it reaches as far back as the extreme limits of the middle ages - differing in this respect from the division of vv. in the New Testament. The arrangement of the chapters, however, with the indications of the separate sections of the prophetic collection, is of no worth to us, simply because it is not older than the thirteenth century. According to some authorities, it originated with Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury († 1227); whilst others attribute it to Cardinal Hugo of St. Caro († 1262). It is only since the fifteenth century that it has been actually adopted in the text. (2.) The small ring or star at the commencement points to the footnote, which affirms that Isaiah 1:1-28 (where we find the same sign again) was the haphtarah, or concluding pericope, taken from the prophets, which was read on the same Sabbath as the parashah from the Pentateuch, in Deu 1:1. It was, as we shall afterwards see, a very thoughtful principle of selection which led to the combination of precisely these two lessons.

Title of the collection, as given in Isa 1:1 : "Seeing of Jesha'-yahu, son of Amoz, which he saw over Judah and Jerusalem in the days of 'Uzziyahu, Jotham, Ahaz, and Yehizkiyahu, the kings of Judah." Isaiah is called the "son of Amoz." There is no force in the old Jewish doctrine (b. Megilla 15a), which was known to the fathers, that whenever the name of a prophet's father is given, it is a proof that the father was also a prophet. And we are just as incredulous about another old tradition, to the effect that Amoz was the brother of Amaziah, the father and predecessor of Uzziah (b. Sota 10b). There is some significance in this tradition, however, even if it is not true. There is something royal in the nature and bearing of Isaiah throughout. He speaks to kings as if he himself were a king. He confronts with majesty the magnates of the nation and of the imperial power. In his peculiar style, he occupies the same place among the prophets as Solomon among the kings. Under all circumstances, and in whatever state of mind, he is completely master of his materials - simple, yet majestic in his style - elevated, yet without affectation - and beautiful, though unadorned. But this regal character had its roots somewhere else than in the blood. All that can be affirmed with certainty is, that Isaiah was a native of Jerusalem; for notwithstanding his manifold prophetic missions, we never find him outside Jerusalem. There he lived with his wife and children, and, as we may infer from Isa 22:1, and the mode of his intercourse with king Hezekiah, down in the lower city. And there he laboured under the four kings named in Isa 1:1, viz., Uzziah (who reigned 52 years, 811-759), Jotham (16 years, 759-743), Ahaz (16 years, 743-728), and Hezekiah (29 years, 728-699). The four kings are enumerated without a Vav cop.; there is the same asyndeton enumerativum as in the titles to the books of Hosea and Micah. Hezekiah is there called Yehizkiyah, the form being almost the same as ours, with the simple elision of the concluding sound. The chronicler evidently preferred the fullest form, at the commencement as well as the termination. Roorda imagines that the chronicler derived this ill-shaped form from the three titles, were it is a copyist's error for וחזקיּהוּ or וחזקיּה; but the estimable grammarian has overlooked the fact that the same form is found in Jer 15:4 and Kg2 20:10, where no such error of the pen can have occurred. Moreover, it is not an ill-shaped form, if, instead of deriving it from the piel, as Roorda does, we derive it from the kal of the verb "strong is Jehovah," an imperfect noun with a connecting i, which is frequently met with in proper names from verbal roots, such as Jesimil from sim, Ch1 4:36 : vid., Olshausen, 277, p. 621). Under these four kings Isaiah laboured, or, as it is expressed in Isa 1:1, saw the sight which is committed to writing in the book before us. Of all the many Hebrew synonyms for seeing, חזה (cf., Cernere, κρίνειν, and the Sanscrit and Persian kar, which is founded upon the radical notion of cutting and separating) is the standing general expression used to denote prophetic perception, whether the form in which the divine revelation was made to the prophet was in vision or by word. In either case he saw it, because he distinguished this divine revelation from his own conceptions and thoughts by means of that inner sense, which is designated by the name of the noblest of all the five external senses. From this verb Chazah there came both the abstract Chazon, seeing, and the more concrete Chizzayon, a sight (visum), which is a stronger from of Chizyon (from Chazi = Chazah). The noun Chazon is indeed used to denote a particular sight (comp. Isa 29:7 with Job 20:8; Job 33:15), inasmuch as it consists in seeing (visio); but here in the title of the book of Isaiah the abstract meaning passes over into the collective idea of the sight or vision in all its extent, i.e., the sum and substance of all that was seen. It is a great mistake, therefore, for any one to argue from the use of the word Chazon (vision), that Isa 1:1 was originally nothing more than the heading to the first prophecy, and that it was only by the addition of Isa 1:1 that it received the stamp of a general title to the whole book. There is no force in the argument. Moreover, the chronicler knew the book of Isaiah by this title (Ch2 32:32); and the titles of other books of prophecy, such as Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, are very similar. A more plausible argument in favour of the twofold origin of Isa 1:1 has been lately repeated by Schegg and Meier, namely, that whilst "Judah and Jerusalem" are appropriate enough as defining the object of the first prophecy, the range is too limited to apply to all the prophecies that follow; since their object is not merely Judah, including Jerusalem, but they are also directed against foreign nations, and at chapter 7 the king of Israel, including Samaria, also comes within the horizon of the prophet's vision. And in the title to the book of Micah, both kingdoms are distinctly named. But it was necessary there, inasmuch as Micah commences at once with the approaching overthrow of Samaria. Here the designation is a central one. Even, according to the well-known maxims a potiori, and a proximo, fit denominatio, it would not be unsuitable; but Judah and Jerusalem are really and essentially the sole object of the prophet's vision. For within the largest circle of the imperial powers there lies the smaller one of the neighbouring nations; and in this again, the still more limited one of all Israel, including Samaria; and within this the still smaller one of the kingdom of Judah. And all these circles together form the circumference of Jerusalem, since the entire history of the world, so far as its inmost pragmatism and its ultimate goal were concerned, was the history of the church of God, which had for its peculiar site the city of the temple of Jehovah, and of the kingdom of promise. The expression "concerning Judah and Jerusalem" is therefore perfectly applicable to the whole book, in which all that the prophet sees is seen from Judah - Jerusalem as a centre, and seen for the sake and in the interests of both. The title in Isa 1:1 may pass without hesitation as the heading written by the prophet's own hand. This is admitted not only by Caspari (Micah, pp. 90-93), but also by Hitzig and Knobel. But if Isa 1:1 contains the title to the whole book, where is the heading to the first prophecy? Are we to take אשׁר as a nominative instead of an accusative (qui instead of quam, sc. visionem), as Luzzatto does? This is a very easy way of escaping from the difficulty, and stamping Isa 1:1 as the heading to the first prophetic words in Chapter 1; but it is unnatural, as חזון אשׁר חזה, according to Ges. (138, note 1), is the customary form in Hebrew of connecting the verb with its own substantive. The real answer is simple enough. The first prophetic address is left intentionally without a heading, just because it is the prologue to all the rest; and the second prophetic address has a heading in Isa 2:1, although it really does not need one, for the purpose of bringing out more sharply the true character of the first as the prologue to the whole.