sion occurs in many other places where there can be no doubt that a single
subject is intended. To the hypothesis of three distinct powers it may be
objected, that two of them would scarcely have been called Leviathan. To
the general hypothesis of more than one, it may be objected that by parity
of reasoning three swords are meant, viz. a hard one. a great one, and a
strong one. But even if three powers be intended, it is wholly impossible
to identify them, as may be inferred from the endless variety of combinations
which have been suggested ; Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia ; Egypt, Baby-
lonia, and Tyre ; Assyria, Babylonia, and Rome ; Babylonia, Media, Per-
sia, etc. etc. Gill thinks the three meant are the devil, the beast, and the
false prophet ; Cocceius, the emperor, the pope, and the devil. What is
common to all the hypotheses is, that the verse describes a power or powers
hostile and oppressive to the people of God. The most probable opinion,
therefore, is that this was what the words were intended to convey. Or if a
more specific reference must be assumed, it is worthy of remark that nearly
all the hypotheses, which apply the words to two or more of the great pow-
ers of the ancient world, make Babylonia one of them. From this induction
we may safely conclude, that the leviathan and dragon of this verse are
descriptive of a great oppressive power, with particular allusion to the Baby-
lonian empire, a conclusion perfectly consistent with the previous allusions
to the fall of Babylon and the restoration of the Jews from exile. Assuming
this to be the general meaning of the verse, that of its mere details becomes
either easy or comparatively unimportant. The word leviathan, which, from
its etymology, appears to mean contorted, coiled, is sometimes used to denote
particular species (e. g. the crocodile), and sometimes as a generic term for
huge aquatic animals, or the larger kinds of serpents, in which sense the
corresponding term "p?n is also used. They both appear to be employed in
this case to express the indefinite idea of a formidable monster, which is in
458 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII.
fact the sense now commonly attached to the word dragon. The second
epithet " ( inbp3 means tortuous, either with respect to the motion of the ser-
pent, or to its appearance when at rest. Bochart regarded the *Eyx£ka-
8og of the Greek mythology as a corruption of this Hebrew word. The
other epithet rna has been variously explained. Some of the ancients
confound it with rn"ia a bar, and suppose the serpent to be so described either
in reference to its length, or stiffness, or straightness, or strength, or its pene-
trating power, or the configuration of its head. J. D. Michaelis gives it the
sense of northern, and supposes the three objects here described to be the three
constellations which exhibit the appearance and bear the name of serpents
or dragons. This explanation, founded on Job 23 : 16, does not materially
change the meaning of the verse, since the constellations are supposed to be
referred to, as connected in some way with the fortunes of great states and
empires. The allusion however is so far-fetched and pedantic, that, al-
though it suits the taste of Michaelis and Hitzig, who delight in recondite
interpretations, it will scarcely satisfy the mind of any ordinary reader. The
only explanation of n-na which is fully justified by Hebrew usage is that of
fugitive or fleeing, which may either be a poetical equivalent to fleet, or
descriptive of the monster as a flying serpent. Hitzig objects to the suppo-
sition of a single monster, on the ground that these two epithets, flying and
coiled, are incompatible, as if the same serpent could not be described both
in motion and at rest, not to mention that the second term, as Umbreit sug-
gests, may itself be descriptive of motion. The omission of any descriptive
epithet with "pas makes it probable at least that it is not a new item in the
catalogue. There is no need of explaining D^ to mean Babylonia as in ch.
21:1, since the expression relates to the type not to the antitype, and must
be joined with "pstn to express the complex idea of a sea-serpent. For the
meaning of the phrase to visit upon, vide supra, ch. 18: 11. The sword
is a common emblem for the instruments of the divine vengeance. The
explanation of nu^ as meaning heavy is not justified by usage ; severe or
dreadful does not suit the context, as the other two epithets denote physical
qualities of a literal sword. The word no doubt means hard-edged, or, as
Lowth expresses it, well-tempered.
V. 2. On the explanation of this verse depends that of a large part of
the chapter. The two points upon which all turns, are the meaning of *\vj and
the reference of the suffix in ft\ The modern writers solve the latter by
supposing D"0 to be feminine in this one place, and when expressions after-
wards occur which are inapplicable to a vineyard, regard them as inaccura-
cies or perhaps as proofs of an uncultivated taste, whereas they only prove
that the assumed construction is a false one. The only supposition which
will meet the difficulties, both of the syntax and the exegesis, is the one
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 459
adopted by most of the old writers, to wit, that nb refers, not directly to
D-O, but to Jerusalem or the daughter of Zion, i. e. to the church or people
of God considered as his spouse (ch. 1 : 21). This reference to a subject
not expressly mentioned might be looked upon as arbitrary, but for the fact
that the assumption of it is attended with fewer difficulties than the con-
struction which it supersedes, as will be seen below. As to the other word,
tradition and authority are almost unanimous in giving it the sense of sing.
Assuming that the primary meaning of the verb is to answer, and that the
derivative strictly denotes responsive singing, Lowth, Dathe, Schnurrer, and
others, have converted the whole context to the end of v. 5, into a dialogue
between Jehovah and his vineyard. This fantastic arrangement of the text
has been rejected by most later writers, as artificial, complex, and at variance
with the genius and usage of Hebrew composition, Lowth's eloquent
plea to the contrary notwithstanding. But the same interpreters, who have
relieved the passage from this factitious burden and embarrassment, continue
for the most part to regard what follows as a song, though not a dramatic
dialogue, because the people are commanded in v. 2 to sing, and the song of
course must follow. To this exposition, which is really a relic of the old
dramatic one, there are several objections. In the first place, no one has
been able to determine with precision where the song concludes, some
choosing one place for its termination, some another. This would of course
prove nothing in a clear case, but in a case like this it raises a presumption
at the least that a song, of which the end cannot be found, has no beginning.
But in the next place, it is easy to see why the end cannot be easily defined,
to wit, because there is nothing in the next three, four or five verses to dis-
tinguish them as being any more a song than what precedes and follows,
whether with respect to imagery, rhythm, or diction. In the third place,
the presumption thus created and confirmed is corroborated further by the
obvious incongruity of making the song, which the people are supposed to
sing, begin with I Jehovah keep it etc. It is in vain that Grotius with his
usual ingenuity explains *iss as meaning ' sing in the name or person of
Jehovah,' and that other writers actually introduce thus saith the Lord at
the beginning of the song. This is only admitting indirectly that the
supposition of a song is wholly arbitrary in a case so doubtful, whatever it
might be if the mention of a song were more explicit. For in the fourth
place, there is this striking difference between the case before us and those
which are supposed to be analogous (e. g. ch. 5 : 1. 26: 1), that in these
the verb T'85 and its derivative noun of the same form are employed, whereas
here the verb is different and the noun song does not appear at all. Under
these circumstances, it would seem to be sufficient to take issas a general
exhortation to sing, without supposing that -the words of the song actually
follow, which is surely not a necessary supposition. But in the fifth place,
460
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII.
out of fifty-six cases in which the piel of W occurs, there are only three in
which the sense of singing is conceivable, and of these three one (Ps.
88: 1) is the enigmatical title of a Psalm, another (Ex.32: 18) is so
dubious that the one sense is almost as appropriate as the other, and the
third is that before us. It is true the concordances and lexicons assume
two different roots, but this is merely to accommodate the difficulties of these
three texts, and the multiplication of roots is now universally regarded as at
best a necessary evil. On such grounds the assumption of the meaning
sing could hardly be justified, even if it were far more appropriate to the
context than the common one. But in the last place, while the supposition
of a song, as we have seen, embarrasses the exposition, the usual meaning
of the verb i"iss> is perfectly appropriate. This meaning is to afflict, and
especially to afflict in an humbling and degrading manner. This may seem
to be utterly at variance with the context as it is commonly explained ; but
the common explanation rests on the supposititious meaning of the verb, and
cannot therefore be alleged in favor of that meaning. On the usual hypothe-
sis, the verse exhorts the people to sing to the vineyard or the church ; on
the one now proposed it challenges her enemies to do their worst, declaring
that God still protects her. This explanation of the verse agrees well with
the distinct allusions to the punishment of Israel in vs. 4, 7, 8, 9, which would
be comparatively out of place in a song of triumph or gratulation. Against
this explanation of is?, and of the whole verse, lies the undivided weight
of tradition and authority, so far as I can trace the exposition of the passage,
the only writer who adopts the sense afflict being Gousset (or Gussetius) in
his Comment. Ebr. as cited by Gill. So unanimous a judgment might be
looked upon as perfectly decisive of the question but for two considerations ;
first, that the proposed interpretation removes a variety of difficulties, not by
forsaking usage but by returning to it; and secondly, that none of the
interpreters consulted seem to have adverted to the facts already stated, with
respect to the usage of ns?. But besides the objection from tradition and
authority, another may be urged of a grammatical nature, viz. the unusual
connexion of the verb with its object not directly but by means of the prepo-
sition b. To this it can only be replied, in the first place, that the choice
presented is a choice of difficulties, and that those attending the construction
now in question seem to be less than those attending any other ; in the next
place, that although this verb does not elsewhere take the preposition b after
it, there are many cases in which other active verbs are separated from their
objects by it, the verb then denoting the mere action, and the b pointing out
the object as to which, or with respect to which, it is performed ; and in the
last place, that the b may have been rendered necessary here because the
nouns before the verb are also in some sense its objects. The latest German
writers, it is true, construe lan cn_3 as an absolute nominative, (as to the vine-
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 461
yard of wine) or as the subject of a verb understood (there shall be a vine-
yard of wine) but these are mere expedients to explain the rip, and must of
course give way to any simpler method of accomplishing that purpose. As
the result of this investigation, we may now translate the verse as follows.
In that day, as a vineyard of wine, afflict her, or, in that day afflict for her
the vineyard of wine. It is then a defiance or permission of the enemies of
the church to afflict her, with an intimation that in carrying out this idea
the expressions will be borrowed from the figure of a vineyard, as in ch.
5: 1-6. *ian strictly denotes fermentation, then fermented liquor, and is
used as a poetical equivalent to yw. It has been objected that this idea is
involved in that of a vineyard, but such apparent pleonasms are common in
all languages, as when we speak of a well of water or a coal of fire.
Besides d"o seems to have originally had a latitude of meaning not unlike
that of orchard in English, and we actually read of a rvn c-p (not a vine-
yard but an olive-yard) Josh. 15:5. ian may therefore have been added
to complete the phrase, or to preclude all doubt as to the meaning,
either of which suppositions renders it superfluous to borrow the sense red
wine from the Arabic, as Kimchi does, and to assume that the Hebrews seta
special value upon this sort. Much less is it necessary to amend the text
by reading Ian d-o, pleasant or beloved vineyard. The analogous expres-
sion lama-o Amos 5:11, only makes a change in this place more impro-
bable, not to mention the endless license of conjecture, which would be
introduced into the criticism of the text, by adopting the principle that
phrases, which partially resemble one another, must be made to do so alto-
gether. As a closing suggestion, not at all necessary to the exposition, but
tending to explain in some degree the form of the original, it may here be
added, that the masoretic interpunction may have been intended to suggest
an interval of time between the clauses, as if he had said, in that day (shall
this come to pass, but in the meantime) afflict her etc.
V. 3. I Jehovah (am) keeping her; every moment I will water her ;
lest any hurt her, night and day will 1 keep her. That is, in spite of the
afflictions which befall her I will still preserve her from destruction. The
antecedent of the pronouns is the same as in v. 2, viz. the church or nation
considered as a vineyard. trsvib literally means at moments or as to
moments, but its sense is determined by the analogous D" 1 "^:?? every morning.
Kimchi takes n" 1 ^ as a noun, in which he is followed by some later writers
who explain the clause to mean, lest one hurt a leaf of her, or, lest a leaf of
her be wanting. But the want of any usage to justify such an explanation
of ips 1 ?, and the construction of the same verb in v. 1 with the preposition
is, leave no doubt that the usual explanation is the true one. To visit upon
has here its common meaning of inflicting evil upon, but without any special
462 ISAIAH ; CHAP. XXVII.
reference to crime or punishment. As the expression is a relative one, it
must here be understood according to the context, as denoting fatal or at
least excessive injury.
V. 4. Of all the senses put upon this difficult verse, there are only two
which can be looked upon as natural or probable. The first may be para-
phrased as follows ; it is not because I am cruel or revengeful that I
thus afflict my people, but because she is a vineyard overrun with
thorns or briers, on account of which I must pass through her and
consume her (i. e. burn them out of her). The other is this: I am no
longer an^ry with my people ; oh that their enemies (as thorns and briers)
would array themselves against me, that I might rush upon them and con-
sume them. This last is preferred by most of the later writers. The
objection that no longer has to be supplied is of little weight. A more
important one is that the feminine suffix is referred to the masculine nouns
1T0&5 and rY?(S. To this it may be answered, first, that the feminine in
Hebrew often corresponds to the Greek and Latin neuter ; and secondly, that
a free use of the feminine, where the masculine might have been expected, is
characteristic of this passage. See particularly v. 11 below, to which some
would add the application of the feminine pronoun throughout the passage
to the masculine noun d'iS. This grammatical peculiarity, under other cir-
cumstances, would no doubt have been alleged as the mark of a different
writer. But if the author of ch. xxiv-xxvii can use expressions inch,
xxvn which he does not use in the others, why may not Isaiah as the author
of the whole book exhibit similar peculiarities in different parts of a col-
lection so extended ? It is important that the reader should take every
opportunity to mark the arbitrary nature of the proofs, by which the genuine-
ness of the prophecies has been assailed, and the strange conclusions to
which they would lead, if applied with even-handed justice. The objection
to the first interpretation of the verse is, that it puts a forced construction on
the words ^ f** n^n, and explains iJSni ">» in a manner not consistent with
the usage of the phrase. Lowth and the others who suppose a dramatic
structure are obliged to read n^'n with the Seventy, and to make this verse a
complaint of the vineyard that it has no wall, and an expression of its wish
that it had a thorn-hedge, to which God replies that he would stilt pass
through it. Schnurrer however makes even the last clause the words of the
vineyard, by arbitrarily supplying when they say, i. e. when my enemy
says, I will march against it, etc.
V. 5. Or let him lay hold of my strength and make peace with me ;
'peace let him make with me. The verbs are properly indefinite (let one
takehold etc.) but referring to the enemy described in the preceding verse
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 463
as thorns and briers. T"jSa commonly denotes a strong place or fortress,, and
is here understood by most interpreters to signify a refuge or asylum, with
allusion to the practice of laying hold upon the altar. Vitringa even goes
so far as to suppose that the horns of the altar are themselves so called
because the strength of certain animals is in their horns. Lowth gives the
word the sense of strength afforded or protection. The general meaning is
the same in either case, viz. that the alternative presented to the enemy is
that of destruction or submission. The abbreviated future is employed as
usual to express a proposition. By varying the translation of the futures,
the sentence may be made more pointed : let him make peace (or if he
will make peace) he shall make peace. But there is no sufficient reason
for the variation, and the imperative meaning of riias" 1 seems to be determined
by that of p;rp. Of the various senses ascribed to ix (such as unless, oh
that if etc.) the only one. justified by usage is the disjunctive sense of or.
Lowth's dramatic arrangement of the text assigns the first clause to Jehovah
and the second to the vineyard. J. Ah! let her rather take hold of my
protection. V. Let him make peace with me ! Peace let him make with
me. If the thorns and briers of v. 4 be referred to the internal condition of
the church, this may be understood as having reference to the church itself,
which is then called upon to make its peace with God as the only means
of escaping further punishment. Gesenius speaks of the repetition and in-
version in the last clause as a very imperfect kind of parallelism extremely
common in the Zabian books !
V. 6. (In) coming (days) shall Jacob take root, Israel shall bud and
blossom, and they shall fill the face of the earth icith fruit. The con-
struction of the first clause in the English Bible (them that come of Jacob
shall he cause to take root) is forbidden by the collocation of the words, and
by the usage of the verb, which always means to take root. The same
remark applies to another construction (them that come to Jacob) which
applies the words to the conversion of the gentiles. If there were any
sufficient reason for departing from the masoretic interpunction, the sentence
might be thus arranged with good effect: they that come (i. e. the next
generation) shall take root ; Jacob shall bud; Israel shall blossom etc. It
is best however to retain the usual construction indicated by the accents.
whiz may possibly agree with bx-ito"? as a collective ; but as the other verbs
are singular, the plural form of this appears to imply a reference to both
names, though belonging to one person. Or as xba is both an active
and a neuter verb, it may be construed with the plural noun i?e, the face of
the world shall be filled with fruit. i=n does not mean the land of Israel,
but the world, the whole expression being strongly metaphorical.
464 ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII.
V. 7. Like the smiting of his smiter did he smite him, or like the slay-
ing of his slain was he slain? Having declared in the preceding verse that
Israel should hereafter flourish, he now adds that even in the meantime he
should suffer vastly less than his oppressors. Negation, as in many other
cases, is expressed by interrogation. Did the Lord smite Israel as he smote
his smiters, or slay him as his murderers were slain ? This is now com-
monly agreed to be the meaning, although some of the older writers under-
stand the verse as asking, whether God smote Israel as his oppressors smote
him, which would yield a good sense but one less suited to the context. To
make the parallelism perfect, v;-in (his slain) should be "PJ^ri (^' s sl a y ers ) J
but this, so far from being a defect, is a beauty, since Israel could not have
been said to be slain without destroying the force of the comparison. The
suffix in "l" 1 }"^ is to be referred to the oppressors or the enemy.
V. 8. In measure, by sending her away, thou dost contend with her.
He removes her by his hard wind in the day of the east wind. The nega-
tion implied in the preceding verse is here expressed more distinctly. The
Prophet now proceeds to show that Israel was not dealt with like his enemies,
by first describing what the former suffered, then what the latter. Israel
was punished moderately, and for a time, by being removed out of his place,
as if by a transient storm or blast of wind. Of the numberless senses put
upon nsoxo, none is so good in itself, or so well suited to the context, as
the one handed down by tradition, which explains it as a reduplicated form
of rixo strictly denoting a particular dry measure, but here used to express
the general idea of measure i. e. moderation. The meaning measure for
measure, i. e. in strict justice, is preferred by some, but this would either do
away with the comparison with Israel and his enemies, or imply that the
latter suffered more than they deserved. The feminine suffixes must be
referred to the church or nation as a wife, which agrees well with the verb
r&ffi, used in the law to denote repudiation or divorce. The same verb is
also used to signify the sending down of judgments upon men, which sense
some prefer in this case, and refer the suffix both in this word and the next to
the stroke or punishment. In sending it upon them thou dost strive with it, or
try to mitigate it. But the other explanation is more natural, and has the ad-
vantage of explicitly intimating the precise form of the punishment endured.
The change of person in the last clause is abrupt, but of too frequent occur-
rence to excite surprise, nan is interpreted by Kimchi as synonymous with
"POri to remove or take away. Its object is to be supplied from the first
clause ; its subject is Jehovah. The east wind is mentioned as the most
tempestuous in Palestine. The day of the east wind is supposed by some
to denote the season of the year when it prevails ; but it is rather used to
intimate the temporary nature of the chastisement, as if he had said, one
ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII. 465
day when the east wind chanced to blow. The first tvn is by some trans-
lated spirit, and supposed to be expressive of the divine displeasure ; but it
is not probable that the word would be so soon used in a different sense,
and the very repetition adds to the force and beauty of the sentence, a
strong wind in the day of the east wind, n^n might be taken as a future
proper ; but the use of the preterite in the next clause seems to show, that
both were meant to be descriptive presents.
V. 9. Therefore (because his chastisement was temporary and remedial
in design) by this (affliction) shall Jacob's iniquity be expiated (i. e. purged
away), and this is all (its) fruit (or intended effect), to take away his sin,
(as will appear) in his placing all the stones of the (idolatrous) altar like
limestones dashed, in pieces, (so that) groves and solar images (or images of
Ashtoreth and Baal) shall arise no more. The contrast between Israel
and Babylon is still continued. Having said that the affliction of the for-