الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Isaiah 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. CHAPTER I THE DATE OF Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 ; Isaiah 49:1-26 ; Isaiah 50:1-11 ; Isaiah 51:1-23 ; Isaiah 52:1-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Isaiah 54:1-17 ; Isaiah 55:1-13 ; Isaiah 56:1-12 ; Isaiah 57:1-21 ; Isaiah 58:1-14 ; Isaiah 59:1-21 ; Isaiah 60:1-22 ; Isaiah 61:1-11 ; Isaiah 62:1-12 ; Isaiah 63:1-19 ; Isaiah 64:1-12 ; Isaiah 65:1-25 ; Isaiah 66:1-24 THE problem of the date of Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 ; Isaiah 49:1-26 ; Isaiah 50:1-11 ; Isaiah 51:1-23 ; Isaiah 52:1-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Isaiah 54:1-17 ; Isaiah 55:1-13 ; Isaiah 56:1-12 ; Isaiah 57:1-21 ; Isaiah 58:1-14 ; Isaiah 59:1-21 ; Isaiah 60:1-22 ; Isaiah 61:1-11 ; Isaiah 62:1-12 ; Isaiah 63:1-19 ; Isaiah 64:1-12 ; Isaiah 65:1-25 ; Isaiah 66:1-24 is this: In a book called by the name of the prophet Isaiah, who flourished between 740 and 700 B.C., the last twenty-seven chapters deal with the captivity suffered by the Jews in Babylonia from 598 to 538, and more particularly with the advent, about 550, of Cyrus, whom they name. Are we to take for granted that Isaiah himself prophetically wrote these chapters, or must we assign them to a nameless author or authors of the period of which they treat? Till the end of the last century it was the almost universally accepted tradition, and even still is an opinion retained by many, that Isaiah was carried forward by the Spirit, out of his own age to the standpoint of one hundred and fifty years later; that he was inspired to utter the warning and comfort required by a generation so very different from his own, and was even enabled to hail by name their redeemer, Cyrus. This theory, involving as it does a phenomenon without parallel in the history of Holy Scripture, is based on these two grounds: first, that the chapters in question form a considerable part-nearly nine-twentieths-of the Book of Isaiah; and second, that portions of them are quoted in the New Testament by the prophet’s name. The theory is also supported by arguments drawn from resemblances of style and vocabulary between these twenty-seven chapters and the undisputed oracles of Isaiah but, as the opponents of the Isaian authorship also appeal to vocabulary and style, it will be better to leave this kind of evidence aside for the present, and to discuss the problem upon other and less ambiguous grounds. The first argument, then, for the Isaian authorship of chapters 40-66 is that they form part of a book called by Isaiah’s name. But, to be worth anything, this argument must rest on the following facts: that everything in a book called by a prophet’s name is necessarily by that prophet, and that the compilers of the book intended to hand it down as altogether from his pen. Now there is no evidence for either of these conclusions. On the contrary, there is considerable testimony in the opposite direction. The Book of Isaiah is not one continuous prophecy. It consists of a number of separate orations, with a few intervening pieces of narrative. Some of these orations claim to be Isaiah’s own: they possess such titles as "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz." But such titles describe only the individual prophecies they head, and other portions of the book, upon other subjects and in very different styles, do not possess titles at all. It seems to me that those who maintain the Isaian authorship of the whole book have the responsibility cast upon them of explaining why some chapters in it should be distinctly said to be by Isaiah, while others should not be so entitled. Surely this difference affords us sufficient ground for understanding that the whole book is not necessarily by Isaiah, nor intentionally handed down by its compilers as the work of that prophet. Now, when we come to chapters 40-66, we find that, occurring in a book which we have just seen no reason for supposing to be in every part of it by Isaiah, these chapters nowhere claim to be his. They are separated from that portion of the book, in which his undisputed oracles are placed, by a historical narrative of considerable length. And there is not anywhere upon them nor in them a title nor other statement that they are by the prophet, nor any allusion which could give the faintest support to the opinion, that they offer themselves to posterity as dating from his time. It is safe to say, that, if they had come to us by themselves, no one would have dreamt for an instant of ascribing them to Isaiah; for the alleged resemblances, which their language and style bear to his language and style, are far more than overborne by the undoubted differences, and have never been employed, even by the defenders of the Isaian authorship, except in additional and confessedly slight support of their main argument, viz. , that the chapters must be Isaiah’s because they are included in a book called by his name. Let us understand, therefore, at this very outset, that in discussing the question of the authorship of "Second Isaiah," we are not discussing a question upon which the text itself makes any statement, or into which the credibility of the text enters. No claim is made by the Book of Isaiah itself for the Isaian authorship of chapters 40-66. A second fact in Scripture, which seems at first sight to make strongly for the unity of the Book of Isaiah, is that in the New Testament, portions of the disputed chapters are quoted by Isaiah’s name, just as are portions of his admitted prophecies. These citations are nine in number. { Matthew 3:3 , Matthew 8:17 , Matthew 12:17 , Luke 3:4 , Luke 4:17 , John 1:23 , John 12:38 , Acts 8:28 , Romans 10:16-20 } None is by our Lord Himself. They occur in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul. Now if any of these quotations were given in answer to the question, Did Isaiah write chapters 40-66 of the book called by his name? or if the use of his name along with them were involved in the arguments which they are borrowed to illustrate as, for instance, is the case with David’s name in the quotation made by our Lord from Psalm 110:1-7 , then those who deny the unity of the Book of Isaiah would be face to face with a very serious problem indeed. But in none of the nine cases is the authorship of the Book of Isaiah in question. In none of the nine cases is there anything in the argument, for the purpose of which the quotation has been made, that depends on the quoted words being by Isaiah. For the purposes for which the Evangelists and Paul borrow the texts, these might as well be unnamed, or attributed to any other canonical writer. Nothing in them requires us to suppose that Isaiah’s name is mentioned with them for any other end than that of reference, viz. , to point out that they lie in the part of prophecy usually known by his name. But if there is nothing in these citations to prove that Isaiah’s name is being used for any other purpose than that of reference, then it is plain-and this is all that we ask assent to at the present time-that they do not offer the authority of Scripture as a bar to our examining the evidence of the chapters in question. It is hardly necessary to add that neither is there any other question of doctrine in our way. There is none about the nature of prophecy, for, to take an example, chapter 53, as a prophecy of Jesus Christ, is surely as great a marvel if yon date it from the Exile as if you date it from the age of Isaiah. And, in particular, let us understand that no question need be started about the ability of God’s Spirit to inspire a prophet to mention Cyrus by name one hundred and fifty years before Cyrus appeared. The question is not, Could a prophet have been so inspired?-to which question, were it put, our answer might only be, God is great!-but the question is, Was our prophet so inspired? does he himself offer evidence of the fact? Or, on the contrary, in naming Cyrus does he give himself out as a contemporary of Cyrus, who already saw the great Persian above the horizon? To this question only the writings under discussion can give us an answer. Let us see what they have to say. Apart from the question of the date, no chapters in the Bible are interpreted with such complete unanimity as Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 . They plainly set forth certain things as having already taken place-the Exile and Captivity, the ruin of Jerusalem, and the devastation of the Holy Land. Israel is addressed as having exhausted the time of her penalty, and is proclaimed to be ready for deliverance. Some of the people are comforted as being in despair because redemption does not draw near; others are exhorted to leave the city of their bondage, as if they were growing too familiar with its idolatrous life. Cyrus is named as their deliverer, and is pointed out as already called upon his career, and as blessed with success by Jehovah. It is also promised that he will immediately add Babylon to his conquests, and so set God’s people free. Now all this is not predicted, as if from the standpoint of a previous century. It is nowhere said-as we should expect it to be said, if the prophecy had been uttered by Isaiah-that Assyria, the dominant world-power of Isaiah’s day, was to disappear and Babylon to take her place; that then the Babylonians should lead the Jews into an exile which they had escaped at the hands of Assyria; and that after nearly seventy years of suffering God would raise up Cyrus as a deliverer. There is none of this prediction, which we might fairly have expected had the prophecy been Isaiah’s; because, however far Isaiah carries us into the future, he never fails to start from the circumstances of his own day. Still more significant, however-there is not even the kind of prediction that we find in Jeremiah’s prophecies of the Exile, with which indeed it is most instructive to compare Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 ; Isaiah 49:1-26 ; Isaiah 50:1-11 ; Isaiah 51:1-23 ; Isaiah 52:1-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Isaiah 54:1-17 ; Isaiah 55:1-13 ; Isaiah 56:1-12 ; Isaiah 57:1-21 ; Isaiah 58:1-14 ; Isaiah 59:1-21 ; Isaiah 60:1-22 ; Isaiah 61:1-11 ; Isaiah 62:1-12 ; Isaiah 63:1-19 ; Isaiah 64:1-12 ; Isaiah 65:1-25 ; Isaiah 66:1-24 Jeremiah also spoke of exile and deliverance, but it was always with the grammar of the future. He fairly and openly predicted both; and, let us especially remember, he did so with a meagreness of description, a reserve and reticence about details, which are simply unintelligible if Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 ; Isaiah 49:1-26 ; Isaiah 50:1-11 ; Isaiah 51:1-23 ; Isaiah 52:1-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Isaiah 54:1-17 ; Isaiah 55:1-13 ; Isaiah 56:1-12 ; Isaiah 57:1-21 ; Isaiah 58:1-14 ; Isaiah 59:1-21 ; Isaiah 60:1-22 ; Isaiah 61:1-11 ; Isaiah 62:1-12 ; Isaiah 63:1-19 ; Isaiah 64:1-12 ; Isaiah 65:1-25 ; Isaiah 66:1-24 was written before his day, and by so well-known a prophet as Isaiah. No: in the statements which our chapters make concerning the Exile and the condition of Israel under it, there is no prediction, not the slightest trace of that grammar of the future in which Jeremiah’s prophecies are constantly uttered. But there is a direct appeal to the conscience of a people already long under the discipline of God; their circumstance of exile is taken for granted; there is a most vivid and delicate appreciation of their present fears and doubts, and to these the deliverer Cyrus is not only named, but introduced as an actual and notorious personage already upon the midway of his irresistible career. These facts are more broadly based than just at first sight appears. You cannot turn their flank by the argument that Hebrew prophets were in the habit of employing in their predictions what is called "the prophetic perfect"-that is, that in the ardour of their conviction that certain things would take place they talked of these, as the flexibility of the Hebrew tenses allowed them to do, in the past or perfect as if the things had actually taken place. No such argument is possible in the case of the introduction of Cyrus. For it is not only that the prophesy, with what might be the mere ardour of vision, represents the Persian as already above the horizon and upon the flowing tide of victory; but that, in the course of a sober argument for the unique divinity of the God of Israel, which takes place throughout chapters 41-48, Cyrus, alive and irresistible, already accredited by success, and with Babylonia at his feet, is pointed out as the unmistakable proof that former prophecies for a deliverance for Israel are at last coming to pass. Cyrus, in short, is not presented as a prediction, but as the proof that a prediction is being fulfilled. Unless he had already appeared in flesh and blood, and was on the point of striking at Babylon, with all the prestige of unbroken victory, a great part of Isaiah 41:1-29 - Isaiah 48:1-22 would be utterly unintelligible. This argument is so conclusive for the date of Second Isaiah, that it may be well to state it a little more in detail, even at the risk of anticipating some of the exposition of the text. Among the Jews at the close of the Exile there appear to have been two classes. One class was hopeless of deliverance, and to their hearts is addressed such a prophecy as chapter 40: "Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people." But there was another class, of opposite temperament, who had only too strong opinions on the subject of deliverance. In bondage to the letter of Scripture and to the great precedents of their history, these Jews appear to have insisted that the Deliverer to come must be a Jew, and a descendant of David. And the bent of much of the prophet’s urgency in chapter 45 is to persuade those pedants, that the Gentile Cyrus, who had appeared to be not only the biggest man of his age, but the very likely means of Israel’s redemption, was of Jehovah’s own creation and calling. Does not such an argument necessarily imply that Cyrus was already present, an object of doubt and debate to earnest minds in Israel? Or are we to suppose that all this doubt and debate were foreseen, rehearsed, and answered one hundred and fifty years before the time by so famous a prophet as Isaiah, and that, in spite of his prediction and answer, the doubt and debate nevertheless took place in the minds of the very Israelites, who were most earnest students of ancient prophecy? The thing has only to be stated to be felt to be impossible. But besides the pedants in Israel, there is apparent through these prophecies another body of men, against whom also Jehovah claims the actual Cyrus for His own. They are the priests and worshippers of the heathen idols. It is well known that the advent of Cyrus cast the Gentile religions of the time and their counsellors into confusion. The wisest priests were perplexed; the oracles of Greece and Asia Minor either were dumb when consulted about the Persian, or gave more than usually ambiguous answers. Over against this perplexity and despair of the heathen religions, our prophet confidently claims Cyrus for Jehovah’s own. In a debate in chapter 41, in which he seeks to establish Jehovah’s righteousness-that is, Jehovah’s faithfulness to His word, and power to carry out His predictions - the prophet speaks of ancient prophecies which have come from Jehovah, and points to Cyrus as their fulfilment. It does not matter to us in the meantime what those prophecies were. They may have been certain of Jeremiah’s predictions; we may be sure that they cannot have contained anything so definite as Cyrus’ name, or such a proof of Divine foresight must certainly have formed part of the prophet’s plea. It is enough that they could be quoted; our business is rather with the evidence which the prophet offers of their fulfilment. That evidence is Cyrus. Would it have been possible to refer the heathen to Cyrus as proof that those ancient prophecies were being fulfilled, unless Cyrus had been visible to the heathen, -unless the heathen had been beginning already to feel this Persian "from the sunrise" in all his weight of war? It is no esoteric doctrine which the prophet is unfolding to initiated Israelites about Cyrus. He is making an appeal to men of the world to face facts. Could he possibly have made such an appeal unless the facts had been there, unless Cyrus had been within the ken of "the natural man"? Unless Cyrus and his conquests were already historically present, the argument in 41-48 is unintelligible. If this evidence for the exilic date of Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 -for all these chapters hang together-required any additional support, it would find it in the fact that the prophet does not wholly treat of what is past and over, but makes some predictions as well. Cyrus is on the way of triumph, but Babylon has still to fall by his hand. Babylon has still to fall, before the exiles can go free. Now, if our prophet were predicting from the standpoint of one hundred and forty years before, why did he make this sharp distinction between two events which appeared so closely together? If he had both the advent of Cyrus and the fall of Babylon in his long perspective, why did he not use "the prophetic perfect" for both? That he speaks of the first as past and of the second as still to come, would most surely, if there had been no tradition the other way, have been accepted by all as sufficient evidence, that the advent of Cyrus was behind him and the fall of Babylon still in front of him, when he wrote these chapters. Thus the earlier part, at least, of Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 ; Isaiah 49:1-26 ; Isaiah 50:1-11 ; Isaiah 51:1-23 ; Isaiah 52:1-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Isaiah 54:1-17 ; Isaiah 55:1-13 ; Isaiah 56:1-12 ; Isaiah 57:1-21 ; Isaiah 58:1-14 ; Isaiah 59:1-21 ; Isaiah 60:1-22 ; Isaiah 61:1-11 ; Isaiah 62:1-12 ; Isaiah 63:1-19 ; Isaiah 64:1-12 ; Isaiah 65:1-25 ; Isaiah 66:1-24 -that is, chapters 40-48-compels us to date it between 555, Cyrus’s advent, and 538, Babylon’s fall. But some think that we may still further narrow the limits. In Isaiah 41:25 , Cyrus, whose own kingdom lay east of Babylonia, is described as invading Babylonia from the north. This, it has been thought, must refer to his union with the Medes in 549, and his threatened descent upon Mesopotamia from their quarter of the prophet’s horizon. If it be so, the possible years of our prophecy are reduced to eleven, 549-538. But even if we take the wider and more certain limit, 555 to 538, we may well say that there are very few chapters in the whole of the Old Testament whose date can be fixed so precisely as the date of chapters 40-48. If what has been unfolded in the preceding paragraphs is recognised as the statement of the chapters themselves, it will be felt that further evidence of an exilic date is scarcely needed. And those, who are acquainted with the controversy upon the evidence furnished by the style and language of the prophecies, will admit how far short in decisiveness it falls of the arguments offered above. But we may fairly ask whether there is anything opposed to the conclusion we have reached, either, first, in the local colour of the prophecies: or, second, in their language; or, third, in their thought - anything which shows that they are more likely to have been Isaiah’s than of exilic origin. 1. It has often been urged against the exilic date of these prophecies, that they wear so very little local colour, and one of the greatest of critics, Ewald, has felt himself, therefore, permitted to place their home, not in Babylonia, but in Egypt, while he maintains the exilic date. But, as we shall see in surveying the condition of the exiles, it was natural for the best among them, their psalmists and prophets, to have no eyes for the colours of Babylon. They lived inwardly; they were much more the inhabitants of their own broken hearts than of that gorgeous foreign land; when their thoughts rose out of themselves it was to seek immediately the far-away Zion. How little local colour is there in the writings of Ezekiel! Isaiah 40:1-31 ; Isaiah 41:1-29 ; Isaiah 42:1-25 ; Isaiah 43:1-28 ; Isaiah 44:1-28 ; Isaiah 45:1-25 ; Isaiah 46:1-13 ; Isaiah 47:1-15 ; Isaiah 48:1-22 ; Isaiah 49:1-26 ; Isaiah 50:1-11 ; Isaiah 51:1-23 ; Isaiah 52:1-15 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Isaiah 54:1-17 ; Isaiah 55:1-13 ; Isaiah 56:1-12 ; Isaiah 57:1-21 ; Isaiah 58:1-14 ; Isaiah 59:1-21 ; Isaiah 60:1-22 ; Isaiah 61:1-11 ; Isaiah 62:1-12 ; Isaiah 63:1-19 ; Isaiah 64:1-12 ; Isaiah 65:1-25 ; Isaiah 66:1-24 has even more to show; for indeed the absence of local colour from our prophecy has been greatly exaggerated. We shall find as we follow the exposition, break after break of Babylonian light and shadow falling across our path, -the temples, the idol-manufactories, the processions of images, the diviners and astrologers, the gods and altars especially cultivated by the characteristic mercantile spirit of the place; the shipping of that mart of nations, the crowds of her merchants; the glitter of many waters, and even that intolerable glare, which so frequently curses the skies of Mesopotamia. { Isaiah 49:10 } The prophet speaks of the hills of his native land with just the same longing, that Ezekiel and a probable psalmist of the Exile { Psalm 121:1-8 } betray, -the homesickness of a highland-born man whose prison is on a flat, monotonous plain. The beasts he mentions have for the most part been recognised as familiar in Babylonia; and while the same cannot be said of the trees and plants he names, it has been observed that the passages, into which he brings them, are passages where his thoughts are fixed on the restoration to Palestine. Besides these, there are many delicate symptoms of the presence, before the prophet, of a people in a foreign land, engaged in commerce, but without political responsibilities, each of which, taken by itself, may be insufficient to convince, but the reiterated expression of which has even betrayed commentators, who lived too early for the theory of a second Isaiah, into the involuntary admission of an exilic authorship. It will perhaps startle some to hear John Calvin quoted on behalf of the exilic date of these prophecies. But let us read and consider this statement of his: "Some regard must be had to the time when this prophecy was uttered; for since the rank of the kingdom had been obliterated, and the name of the royal family had become mean and contemptible, during the captivity in Babylon, it might seem as if through the ruin of that family the truth of God had fallen into decay; and therefore he bids them contemplate by faith the throne of David, which had been cast down." 2. What we have seen to be true of the local colour of our prophecy holds good also of its style and language. There is nothing in either of these to commit us to an Isaiah authorship, or to make an exilic date improbable; on the contrary, the language and style, while containing no stronger nor more frequent resemblances to the language and style of Isaiah than may be accounted for by the natural influence of so great a prophet upon his successors, are signalised by differences from his undisputed oracles, too constant, too subtle, and sometimes too sharp, to make it at all probable that the whole book came from the same man. On this point it is enough to refer our readers to the recent exhaustive and very able reviews of the evidence by Canon Cheyne in the second volume of his Commentary, and by Canon Driver in the last chapter of "Isaiah: His Life and Times," and to quote the following words of so great an authority as Professor A. B. Davidson. After remarking on the difference in vocabulary of the two parts of the Book of Isaiah, he adds that it is not so much words in themselves as the peculiar uses and combinations of them, and especially "the peculiar articulation of sentences and the movement of the whole discourse, by which an impression is produced so unlike the impression produced by the earlier parts of the book." 3. It is the same with the thought and doctrine of our prophecy. In this there is nothing to make the Isaian authorship probable, or an exilic date impossible. But, on the contrary, whether we regard the needs of the people or the analogies of the development of their religion, we find that, while everything suits the Exile, nearly everything is foreign both to the subjects and to the methods of Isaiah. We shall observe the items of this as we go along, but one of them may be mentioned here (it will afterwards require a chapter to itself), our prophet’s use of the terms righteous and righteousness. No one, who has carefully studied the meaning which these terms bear in the authentic oracles of Isaiah, and the use to which they are put in the prophecies under discussion, can fail to find in the difference a striking corroboration of our argument-that the latter were composed by a different mind than Isaiah’s, speaking to a different generation. To sum up this whole argument. We have seen that there is no evidence in the Book of Isaiah to prove that it was all by himself, but much testimony which points to a plurality of authors; that chapters 40-66 nowhere assert themselves to be by Isaiah; and that there is no other well-grounded claim of Scripture or doctrine on behalf of his authorship. We have then shown that chapters 40-48 do not only present the Exile as if nearly finished and Cyrus as if already come, while the fall of Babylon is still future; but that it is essential to one of their main arguments that Cyrus should be standing before Israel and the world, as a successful warrior, on his way to attack Babylon. That led us to date these chapters between 555 and 538. Turning then to other evidence, -the local colour they show, their language and style, and their theology, -we have found nothing which conflicts with that date, but, on the contrary, a very great deal, which much more agrees with it than with the date, or with the authorship, of Isaiah. It will be observed, however, that the question has been limited to the earlier chapters of the twenty-seven under discussion, viz. , to 40-48 Does the same conclusion hold good of 49 to 66? This can be properly discovered only as we closely follow their exposition; it is enough in the meantime to have got firm footing on the Exile. We can feel our way bit by bit from this standpoint onwards. Let us now merely anticipate the main features of the rest of the prophecy. A new section has been marked by many as beginning with chapter 49. This is because chapter 48, concludes with a refrain: "There is no peace, saith Jehovah, to the wicked," which occurs again at the end of chapter 57, and because with chapter 48. Babylon and Cyrus drop out of sight. But the circumstances are still those of exile, and, as Professor Davidson remarks, chapter 49 is parallel in thought to chapter 42, and also takes for granted the restoration of Israel in chapter 48, proceeding naturally from that to the statement of Israel’s world-mission. Apart from the alternation of passages dealing with the Servant of the Lord, and passages whose subject is Zion - an alternation which begins pretty early in the prophecy, and has suggested to some its composition out of two different writings-the first real break in the sequence occurs at Isaiah 52:13 , where the prophecy of the sin-bearing Servant is introduced. By most critics this is held to be an insertion, for Isaiah 54:1 follows naturally upon Isaiah 52:12 , though it is undeniable that there is also some association between Isaiah 52:13 - Isaiah 53:1-12 , and chapter 54. In chapters 54-55, we are evidently still in exile. It is in commenting on a verse of these chapters that Calvin makes the admission of exilic origin which has been quoted above. A number of short prophecies now follow, till the end of chapter 59 is reached. These, as we shall see, make it extremely difficult to believe in the original unity of "Second Isaiah." Some of them, it is true, lie in evident circumstance of exile; but others are undoubtedly of earlier date, reflecting the scenery of Palestine, and the habits of the people in their political independence, with Jehovah’s judgment-cloud still unburst, but lowering. Such is Isaiah 56:9 - Isaiah 57:1-21 , which regards the Exile as still to come, quotes the natural features of Palestine, and charges the Jews with unbelieving diplomacy-a charge not possible against them when they were in captivity. But others of these short prophecies are, in the opinion of some critics, post-exilic. Cheyne assigns chapter 56 to after the Return, when the temple was standing, and the duty of holding fasts and sabbaths could be enforced, as it was enforced by Nehemiah. I shall give, when we reach the passage, my reasons for doubting his conclusion. The chapter seems to me as likely to have been written upon the eve of the Return as after the Return had taken place. Chapter 57, the eighteenth of our twenty-seven chapters, closes with the same refrain as chapter 48, the ninth of the series: "There is no peace, saith Jehovah, to the wicked." Chapter 58, has, therefore, been regarded, as beginning the third great division of the prophecy. But here again, while there is certainly an advance in the treatment of the subject, and the prophet talks less of the redemption of the Jews and more of the glory of the restoration of Zion, the point of transition is very difficult to mark. Some critics regard chapter 58, as post-exilic; but when we come to it we shall find a number of reasons for supposing it to belong, just as much as Ezekiel, to the Exile. Chapter 59 is perhaps the most difficult portion of all, because it makes the Jews responsible for civic justice in a way they could ‘hardly be conceived to be in exile, and yet speaks, in the language of other portions of "Second Isaiah," of a deliverance that cannot well be other than the deliverance from exile. We shall find in this chapter likely marks of the fusion of two distinct addresses, making the conclusion probable that it is Israel’s earlier conscience which we catch here, following her into the days of exile, and reciting her former guilt just before pardon is assured. Chapters 60, 61, and 62 are certainly exilic. The inimitable prophecy, Isaiah 63:1-6 , complete within itself, and unique in its beauty, is either a promise given just before the deliverance from a long captivity of Israel under heathen nations ( Isaiah 63:4 ), or an exultant song of triumph immediately after such a deliverance has taken place. Isaiah 63:7 - Isaiah 64:1-12 implies a ruined temple ( Isaiah 63:10 ), but bears no traces of the writer being in exile. It has been assigned to the period of the first attempts to rebuild Jerusalem after the Return. Chapter 65 has been assigned to the same date, and its local colour interpreted as that of Palestine. But we shall find the colour to be just as probably that of Babylon, and again I do not see any certain proofs of a post-exilic date. Chapter 66, however, betrays more evidence of being written after the Return. It divides into two parts. In Isaiah 66:1-4 the temple is still unbuilt, but the building would seem to be already begun. In Isaiah 66:5-24 , the arrival of the Jews in Palestine, the resumption of the life of the sacred community, and the disappointments of the returned at the first meagre results, seem to be implied. And the music of the book dies out in tones of warning, that sin still hinders the Lord’s work with His people. This rapid survey has made two things sufficiently clear. First, that while the bulk of chapters 40-66 was composed in Babylonia during the Exile of the Jews, there are considerable portions which date from before the Exile, and betray a Palestinian origin; and one or two smaller pieces that seem-rather less evidently, how

But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob. Isaiah 43:1-4 The true relation of Israel to Jehovah J. A. Alexander. The main subject of this chapter is the true relation of Israel to Jehovah, and its application in the way both of warning and encouragement. The doctrine taught is that their segregation from the rest of men, as a peculiar people, was an act of sovereignty, independent of all merit in themselves, and not even intended for their benefit exclusively, but for the accomplishment of God's gracious purposes respecting men in general. The inferences drawn from the fact are, that Israel would certainly escape the dangers which environed him, however imminent; and, on the other hand, that he must suffer for his unfaithfulness to God. In illustration of these truths the prophet introduces several historical allusions and specific prophecies, the most striking of the former having respect to the exodus from Egypt, and of the latter to the fall of Babylon. It is important to the just interpretation of the chapter that these parts of it should be seen in their true light and proportion as incidental illustrations, not as the main subject of the prophecy, which, as already stated, is the general relation between God and His ancient people, and His mode of dealing with them, not at one time, but at all times. ( J. A. Alexander. ) The right of the Creator J. Parker, D. D. 1. In reviewing Providence, men do not go far enough back. The Lord Himself always takes a great sweep of time. Here is an instance in point. "But now, thus saith the Lord that created thee,... and He that formed thee." No argument is built upon what happened an hour ago. Thus God will have us go back to creation day, to formation time, and take in all the childhood, all the youthhood, all the manhood, all the education and strife and discipline, all the attrition and all the harmony, all the week-days and all the Sabbath-days; and He would bid us watch the mystery of time, until it comes out in blossoming and fruitfulness and benediction. We should have no pain if we had the right line of review and pursued it, and comprehended it, in its continuity and entirety. There are many creations. God is always creating life, and always forming it. There is an individual existence; there is a national organisation; there are birthdays of empires and birthdays of reform. 2. The Church must recognise its period of creation and formation. Jacob was not always a people; Israel was not always a significant name, a symbol in language; and individuals are gathered together into societies, and they are charged with the administration of the kingdom of Christ, and as such they must go back and remember their Creator, and adore their Maker, and serve their Saviour, and renew their inspiration where it was originated. 3. Right relations to God on the part of man should be realised. This appeal rises into climax, into convincing and triumphant words. I have "created thee"; that is the basal line — "formed thee," given thee shape and relation; "redeemed thee," paid for thee; "called thee By thy name," like a friend or child: "thou art Mine." Yet all this is in the Old Testament! Do we not fly from the Old Testament into the New, that we may have some sight of the tenderness of God? There is no need for such flight. There are tenderer words about God in the Old Testament than there are in the New. 4. This relation carries everything else along with it. After this there can be nothing but detail. "When thou passest," etc. (ver. 2). ( J. Parker, D. D. ) Guarantees T. Davies, M. A. Absolute ownership. He who speaks is our Creator. He claims our attention also because He knows us. Fear is the apprehension of danger, both natural and moral. With regard to natural tear, some are more timid than others. But this is no index to the moral state of the heart. Nerves which are strong do not constitute faith; nerves which are weak do not indicate distrust in God. To remove the distrust which Israel felt, three guarantees are offered — I. REDEMPTION. "For I have redeemed thee." From whence came the idea of redemption? ( Leviticus 25:25-34 .) This is the figure used in the text and elsewhere to show that God has taken away the moral disabilities under which we had fallen through sin. The principle is not without analogy. When the golden grain is enslaved in the earth, the ray of light, the drop of water, and the warm breeze come to redeem their brother. 1. The right to redeem was vested in the next of kin, hence the necessity for the incarnation of the Son of God. The transaction was confined to the family of the brother who had waxen "poor." No portion of the inheritance must ultimately go out of the family, for even if no one of the next of kin was able to redeem it, in the year of Jubilee a full restoration was made. Not only the inheritance must have remained in the family, but the redemption of it was restricted to the family, that it might ever appear of value to the members of the family as a sacred trust from God. This is the very estimate of human life which the Incarnation conveys: to redeem that life the redeemer must be one of the family. But the necessity appears, because the family of man must be impressed with the value of the inheritance which God hath given. The life of Jesus brings home to us the facts that human life is infinitely valuable, and that God has His hold upon it, although mortgaged to another. "All souls are Mine." "I know that my Redeemer liveth." 2. To free the possession the ransom must be paid. The sovereignty of the gift did not free the inheritance from encumbrances contracted by the possessor. Justice demanded the redemption price. In the interest of rectitude and the influence of the moral law, Christ "gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity," etc. As to the nature of the ransom, St. Peter says, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ." II. CALLED. "And called thee by thy name." The reference here is either to a legal form of calling out the name of the mortgagor, with the declaration that henceforth his possession was free; or to the trumpet of the Jubilee, which was a direct call to every debtor to resume his liberty. 1. Personal salvation. When we are accosted by name the whole being is involved, with every interest concerned. God calls the sinner to repentance. 2. Personal realisation. The brother who had waxen poor knew he was free, because his name had been called that he might be assured of his freedom. The deed was handed over to him re.conveying the property into his name. Faith leads to the realising of forgiveness and peace. III. REINSTATED. "Thou art Mine." The idea is that by grace man is brought back to the peace and service of God. 1. The claim is universal. Wherever the new heart is, God claims it for His own. 2. The claim is absolute. We are no longer our own, but, having been bought with a price, we glorify God in body and mind. 3. We are now on trial, but there will be a final recognition. "They shall be Mine," etc. ( T. Davies, M. A. ) The Divine responsibility R. Thomas, D. D. 1. Responsibility is not a word that can be limited to man. It must belong to those higher orders of created intelligence known to us as angels of various degrees. It must belong to the Eternal One Himself. It must be that He holds Himself responsible for the creation and its consequences. If responsibility belongs to the creature made in the image of God, it is inherited responsibility; it comes down from Him who made him. 2. Let us approach the subject cautiously. God's revelation of Himself is intended to be a light to the mind and a joy to the heart. Everyone who knows anything of Scripture knows how gradual has been the revelation of God to the human race. Not till we reach the time of David do we get the word father as applied to Deity, and then only in a figurative sort of way. Isaiah prophesies that one of the signs of the Christian dispensation shall be that the name of God as revealed in Christ shall be "the Everlasting Father." Men had known Deity as the Self-Existent God — the source of life. They had thought of Him as the God of providence, the Great Provider, who had them in His hands, and would care for them, and that is about the utmost practical view attained to in the Old Testament. In that wonderful book of Job, the epitomised life of the human race, we have the thought of an unrealised Redeemer, — but "My Father and your Father, My God and your God" is new Testament language, and post-resurrection speech at that. 3. This speech leads us to the thought of the Divine responsibility. It is not our invention but God's revelation that, like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him. We have a right, then, to say that at least the same measure of responsibility which belongs to a father for the nourishment, education, and development of his child belongs to the great Eternal Father for us all. We are not responsible for the laws which work in our own constitutions, for we did not create those laws. We are not responsible for anything which is out of our own power. I am not responsible for the original tendency to sinfulness which was in my nature when born into this world. Nor am I responsible for being born; nor for being born where I was born; nor for having just those parents which were mine; nor for being just so high and just so heavy; nor for having the temperament and disposition with which I was born. 4. I suppose that in the generations behind us there have lived people who verily persuaded themselves that they were responsible for the sin of Adam, that they were doomed because an ancestor of generations ago was a wilful sinner. Every man inherits tendencies from past generations. When the first of men wilfully disobeyed God, he started in himself a tendency which, if not resisted, would become a habit of wrong-doing — and that habit would be propagated into the next generation, and into the next, and so on. And that is what is meant by original sin — the tendency created by generations past to wrong — stamping its impress upon mind and heart, yea, upon the physical organism. It is so in the animal world. In the past, dogs have been trained to fold sheep, and the instruction has become a habit, and the habit has created a tendency in the next generation to do the same thing, and has become fixed — a second nature, as we say. And this law runs through all creation, even into the vegetable world. Now, He who made man is responsible for the original law by which tendencies to good and evil can be propagated from sire to son. The law is not evil; it is good. But good laws are often used for bad purposes. From a reservoir of pure water pipes are laid to every house in the city. Those pipes were laid for the conveyance of pure, wholesome water for the benefit of a large population. That was the original design and intention. But suppose that city should be besieged by a barbarian army — suppose the army should surround the reservoir and poison the waters, the very pipes which were laid for the conveyance of life would be conduits for the conveyance of death. But that was not their original design. And so our guilt does not extend to Deity. He is responsible for the beneficent law, not for the sin which has been transmitted along it. The very idea of intelligence involves freedom. Either there must be freedom, or there can be no intelligence and no morality. 5. We cannot conceive of an omniscient God, without admitting that He must have foreseen that the creature He made would abuse His liberty. Does the Divine responsibility extend to making such provision as would prevent it? Clearly not. We cannot conceive how it could be made, and yet leave man a free moral agent, not a machine. The Divine responsibility extends to the providing a means whereby not simply to develop an innocent man, but to save a guilty man from the spiritual consequences of his sin. From all the consequences he cannot be saved; from the fatal consequences he can. That God did anticipate the fall from innocence of His creature, and provide for meeting man in a fallen condition, is evident from one single expression, "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." Redemption was no afterthought. For our own convenience, it may be necessary at times to speak of justice, and at other times of mercy. But justice and mercy in God are never represented as in antagonism. They ever go hand-in-hand, like light and heat in the sunbeams. When God opened the eyes of the great apostle he saw this truth, that "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," or, as it is more correctly, "superabounded," abounded over and above. In this dispensation of things a lost man has not simply to reject God as a Creator, but God as a Redeemer — God in Christ — the God who has done all and everything possible to be done to nullify the fatal results of sin. 6. You remember the complimentary word uttered respecting Abraham: "I know him that he will command his children"; and in every father there is lodged the right to command — the duty to command. That weak tenderness which permits disobedience to go unrebuked and unpunished, is not Divine tenderness. It is the frailty of human irresoluteness. There is nothing of that in God. ( R. Thomas, D. D. ) Divine consolation W. Reading, M. A. The vision of Isaiah contains a representation of the present and future state of Israel and Judah. And because some of his expressions might be interpreted as if all the twelve tribes should be utterly cast away, he frequently intersperses such consolations as this, to assure the people that if they were duly corrected and reformed by their captivity, God would bring them out of it, and raise them up again to be His Church and people. I. To confirm them in the belief of such a restoration, He puts them in mind of SEVERAL ARGUMENTS AND REASONS to expect it. 1. He tells them that upon their repentance God had promised them such a restoration. 2. Isaiah calls upon the people to consider that this promise of salvation is made to them by that God "who created Jacob and formed Israel." This, indeed, is a common topic of con. solation to every pious man, that He who created him will have mercy on him, and is able, in all circumstances, to make good His promises, and preserve the work of His own hands. But it was very proper for this people, above all others, to make such inferences, because they had been in a peculiar manner created and formed of God. 3. They might conclude this from former redemptions which God had wrought for them. "Fear not, for I have redeemed thee." 4. A fourth ground of Israel's hope for God's future mercies, were the gracious appellations which He had bestowed upon them. "I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine." He had changed their father Jacob's name to Israel. He had named them His "holy nation," His "peculiar people." 5. A further argument to Israel to trust in God, were the deliverances which He had vouchsafed to some of them. "When thou goest (or hast gone) through the waters, they have not overflowed thee; and through the fire, it hath not kindled upon thee." II. The words are certainly a common topic of CONSOLATION TO ALL THE FAITHFUL SERVANTS OF GOD. So that, to find our own blessing in them, and to understand them as the voice of our own merciful Father, we have nothing else to do but to approve ourselves His obedient children; for He is no respecter of persons. 1. As God promised His people a restoration from their captivity, upon their true repentance and return to their duty, so will He rescue us from the slavery of sin and Satan, if we do in good earnest feel the oppression and misery of it, and would much rather be employed in doing God's will, and keeping His commandments. 2. Was it an argument to Israel to trust in God, because He had created them and formed them in so special a manner as is before represented? The like consideration is equally comfortable to every member of the Church of Christ. For in Him we are born again. 3. All the redemptions which God vouchsafed to Israel are proofs to us of His infinite power and goodness, and figures of greater things which He will do for us. 4. If God's gracious appellations of Israel assured them of His special regard for them, no less ground of rejoicing have we in the like assurance of His favour towards us. 5. In cases of extreme danger, particularly in perils of fire and water, God has shown Himself the same in the Christian u He was of old in the Jewish Church, a sufficient Helper to deliver out of such troubles. ( W. Reading, M. A. ) The goodness of God to Israel D. Rees. In the latter part of the preceding chapter we read of the sins, not of the obedience of Israel. After this, what might have been expected but that He would punish them still more severely, if not abandon them as incorrigible? In the text, however, He promises to magnify His mercy in doing them good. Consider — I. THE CHARACTER OF THE PEOPLE HERE SPOKEN OF. It may be inferred from the names given to them in the text. They are addressed by the convertible names of "Jacob," and "Israel." His name Jacob was changed because he had wrestled with God for His blessing till he succeeded in obtaining it. Hence, then, we may learn the character of His spiritual children — they wrestle with God in prayer for His blessing till they prevail. But this general description of them includes several particulars. Consider — 1. What they do. They pray. And does not this at once distinguish them from thousands around them? 2. To whom are their prayers addressed? To the true God. who is also their own God — the God of Israel. This also separates them from an immense number of the human race; for how many, alas, are there in the world who are totally mistaken as to the proper object of worship! 3. They pray to Him alone. There are not a few in the world who unite the worship of Jehovah with that of their own idols. 4. But what does Israel pray for? For God's blessing. This implies that they feel their need of it, and, by consequence, that they differ essentially from all persons of a self-righteous and self-sufficient spirit. 5. How do they pray? In faith. They pray also fervently. They are not like many, cold, formal, and lifeless in prayer. They persevere, too, till they prevail. But were they always such characters? No; there was a time when they were as prayerless as others. Who, then, has made them to differ? God alone. II. WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THEM IN TIME PAST; or what are the steps which He has taken to make them what they are. These steps are three — 1. He has created them. "Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob," etc. They are subjects of a creation to which all others are entire strangers. What renders this creation necessary is the corruption of our nature, which is total, since the Fall. It is a creation of good substituted for evil, a heart of flesh for a heart of stone, light for darkness, holiness for sin, faith for sense, life for death, happiness for misery. Every real Christian is the subject of it. It is ejected by the operation of the Holy Ghost. To God, therefore, belongs the whole glory of it. 2. He has redeemed them. "Fear not; for I have redeemed thee." 3. He has called them by their names. "I have called thee by thy name." And what does this imply?(1) "That they are made partakers of the heavenly calling," "the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."(2) That God well knows His people.(3) We know that when a mar of superior rank and dignity calls an inferior by his name, he is considered to treat him with uncommon marks of kindness and familiarity, and to confer upon him a peculiar honour. Such kindness and honour, then, does God bestow upon His people. He is not ashamed to be called their God, and to allow each of them, like Abraham, to be called the friend of God. 4. This, then, is what the Lord has done for Israel His people; and He therefore calls them His, saying, "Thou art Mine." Has He not the most indisputable title to their persons and services? III. WHAT HE PROMISES TO DO FOR THEM IN TIME TO COME, "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee," etc. 1. To pass through fire and water appears to have been a proverbial expression for passing through various kinds of dangers, trials, and afflictions. 2. But why does God suffer His people to be thus afflicted? Because they are children whom He loves. 3. And do their tribulations answer the ends which He has in view? Yes; there is not one of His afflicted ones who has not had cause to say, sooner or later, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted." 4. We are not, however, to suppose that afflictions of themselves ever bear these blessed fruits. Unblest and unsanctified, they have rather a contrary tendency, and produce very different effects. And were it not for the presence of God with His people, in the water and the fire, they would be injured and destroyed by them. But they need not fear; for faithful is He that hath promised. 5. Need I remind you how this promise has been verified, or how the presence of God has been with His people in every age of the Church?(1) Look, first, at Israel after the flesh. See their afflictions in Egypt, and know their sorrows. Behold the bush burning with fire, and yet not consumed. God is in the midst of it. Follow them in their passage out of that house of bondage. God is with them in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night. Observe them again during their captivity in Babylon. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the servants of the Most High God, walked in the midst of the fire, and had no hurt. They had a fourth in their company, whom even Nebuchadnezzar could not help saying was like the Son of God.(2) Look, next, into New Testament times, and even to later ages, and you will find additional evidence of the blessed truth before us. ( D. Rees. ) The exhortation and promises of God to the afflicted C. Bradley, M. A. I. THE AFFLICTIONS TO WHICH THE PEOPLE OF GOD ARE LIABLE. 1. The text intimates that they may be great. "Waters": "rivers"; calamities which seem as deep and overwhelming as sweeping torrents, and as likely to destroy them. 2. Their troubles may be diversified. They may be in the waters to-day and may have deliverance, but to-morrow they may be called on to walk through "the fire" and "the flame"; to endure trials which are unexpected and strange, different in their nature from any they have yet experienced, and far more severe and biter. 3. The text implies also that these afflictions are certain. It speaks of them as things of course. II. HOW SEASONABLE AND ENCOURAGING IS THE EXHORTATION. 1. There is a fear of afflictions which is a natural, and by no means sinful, feeling; a fear which leads us to avoid them, if the will of God will allow us to avoid them, and if not, to receive them with much thoughtfulness and prayer; to be aware of the dangers with which they are invariably accompanied, and of our utter inability in ourselves to escape or overcome them. 2. But there is a fear of another kind. It springs from unbelief, and is the cause of tour, touring, despondency, and wretchedness. It is a fear which tempts us to choose sin rather than affliction; which prevents us from praising God under our trials, and from trusting to Him to bring us out of them. Such a fear is as dishonourable to God as it is disquieting to ourselves, and He who values nothing so highly as His own honour and our happiness commands us to lay it aside. It might have been supposed that such an exhortation from such a Being would have been sufficient of itself to dispel the fears of those to whom it is addressed; but a compassionate God does not leave it to its own unaided authority. III. He supports and strengthens it by TWO MOST GRACIOUS PROMISES. 1. He promises us His own presence with us in our trials. "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee." His people are the objects of His special attention.(1) We are not, however, to infer that the afflicted Christian is always aware of the companion with whom he is walking. He often imagines himself left alone in his trials.(2) Neither are we to suppose that all the afflicted servants of the Lord have the same manifestations of His presence. Some do not need them so much as others. They have not the same temptations to withstand, nor the same burdens to bear, nor the same duties to perform. They are surrounded with more outward comforts, and consequently they less need those which are inward. Some also do not desire or seek the light of their Father's countenance so earnestly as their brethren. They lean more on earthly friends and succours. He who is infinitely wise, always suits the nature and measure of His gracious manifestations to the necessities and, in one sense, to the characters of His people. He gives them what they need, and what they desire and seek. 2. There is the promise of preservation under all our calamities. What does preservation imply? It implies that our trials shall not injure us. Rivers are likely to overflow, and flames likely to burn, those who pass through them. Affliction is likely to injure, and would inevitably ruin us, if God were not near. It tempts us to rebel against the Divine providence and to distrust the Divine goodness; to be thankless, impatient, and repining. The mind, already weakened, perhaps, and bewildered by the pressure of adversity, is easily led to apprehend still greater troubles, and faints at the prospect. This, too, is the season when our great adversary is most to be dreaded. It is in the night that the wild beasts of the forest roar after their prey; and it is in the darkness of spiritual or temporal adversity that Satan directs against us his most violent assaults. The fact is that our spiritual interests are much more endangered by tribulation than our worldly prosperity. It is the soul which is most exposed, and which most needs preservation; and preservation is here promised to it. The Christian often enters the furnace cold-hearted, earthly-minded, and comfortless; he comes out of it peaceful, confiding, burning with love for his delivering God, and thirsting after the enjoyment of His presence. IV. The Lord vouchsafes to add to His precious promises several reasons or ARGUMENTS TO ASSURE US OF THEIR FULFILMENT. 1. The first is drawn from the relation in which He stands to us as our Creator. "Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel." This language refers to our spiritual as well as to our natural existence. Here, then, is a solid ground of confidence. The Father of our spirits must be well acquainted with their infirmities and weakness. "He knoweth our frame, and remembereth that we are dust." Neither will He ever forsake the work of His own hands. 2. The Almighty draws another argument to enforce His exhortation, from the property which He has in His people, and the manner in which He acquired it. "Fear not," He says, "for I have redeemed thee," etc. We are His by creation, but He has also made us His by redemption. And what a mighty price did He pay for us! Will He then abandon that which He so much values, which cost Him so dear? 3. There is yet another reason assigned why we should cast away fear in the hour of tribulation — the covenant God has formed with His people ensures the fulfilment of His promises. "I am the Lord thy God," He says, "the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour"; thus implying that He has entered into some engagement with His Israel; that He considers Himself bound to be with them in their troubles and distresses; that His own veracity, His own faithfulness, are at stake, and would be sacrificed if Israel were forsaken or injured. He thus connects His own honour with their safety. Lessons — 1. How rich in consolation is the Word of'God! 2. How essential to our happiness is a knowledge of our interest in the Divine promises! — to appropriate them to ourselves, and rejoice in them. 3. How full of confidence and praise ought they to be, who live in the enjoyment of the Divine presence in trouble! 4. How blind to their own interest are they who reject the Gospel of Christ! ( C. Bradley, M. A. ) Love abounding, love complaining, love abiding (with vers. 22-24; Isaiah 44:21-23 ) : — (1) Notice that these three texts are very much alike in this respect — that they are each addressed to God's people under the names of Jacob and Israel.(2) These texts are like each other, again, from their overflowing with love. I do not know where the Lord's love is best seen, when He declares it and tells of what He has done and is doing for His people, or when He laments over their want of love in return, or when He promises to blot out their past sin, and invites them to return to Him and enjoy His restoring grace. I. We have in our first text, LOVE ABOUDING. 1. Notice the time when that love is declared. The first verse begins, "But now, thus saith the Lord." When was that? It was the very time when He was angry with the nation by reason of their great sins ( Isaiah 42:25 ). It was a time, then, of special sin, and of amazing hardness of heart. When a man begins to burn, he generally feels and cries out; he must be far gone in deadly apathy when he is touched with fire and yet lays it not to heart. It was a time of love with God, though a time of carelessness with His people. 2. The Lord shows His abounding love by the sweetness of His consolations, "But now, thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not." "Fear not" is a little word measured by space and letters; but it is an abyss of consolation if we remember who it is that saith it, and what a wide sweep the comfort takes. Fear hath torment, and the Lord would cast it out. You that are the people of God may be smarting, and crying, and sighing. But, oh the love of God to you. He hears your cries, and His compassions are moved towards you! Nothing touches Him like the groans of His children. There is a wonderful intensity of affection in this passage, spoken, as it is, by the great God to His people while they are under the rod which they so richly deserve. 3. The fulness of God's love is to be seen in the way in which He dwells with evident satisfaction upon His past dealings with His people. When we love some favoured one, we like to think of all our love passages in years gone by; and the Lord so loves His people, that, even when they are under His chastening hand, He still delights to remember His former loving-kindnesses. We may forget the wonders of His grace, but He doth not forget. He "created," "redeemed," "called." He dwells upon His possession of His people. "Thou art Mine." 4. If you desire to see the overflowings of God's love in another form, notice in the next verse how He declares what He means to do. "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee," etc. His love casts its eye upon your future. He loves you too well to make your way to heaven free from adversity and tribulation, for these things work your lasting good. But He does promise you that the deepest waters shall not overflow you, and the fiercest torrents shall not drown you, for this one all-sufficient reason, that He will be with you. 5. The overflowings of Divine love are seen in the Lord's avowing Himself still to be His people's God: "I am Jehovah thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour." 6. Though one would think He might have come to a close here, the Lord adds His valuation of His people, this was so high that He says, "I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee." Pharaoh and his firstborn were nobodies as compared with Jacob's seed. Further on in history, after Isaiah's day, the Lord moved Cyrus to set Israel flee from Babylon, and then gave to the son of Cyrus a rich return for liberating the Jews; for He made Him conqueror of Egypt and of Ethiopia and of Seba. God will give more than the whole world to save His Church, seeing He gave His only begotten Son. 7. Then the Lord adds another note of great love. He says that He has thought so much of His people that He regarded them as honourable. "Since thou wast precious in My sight," etc. He publishes His love, not only by His deeds, but by express words. What a wealth of grace is here! 8. Such is the Lord's love, that even in the time when they were not acting as they should, but grieving Him, He stand

43:1-7 God's favour and good-will to his people speak abundant comfort to all believers. The new creature, wherever it is, is of God's forming. All who are redeemed with the blood of his Son, he has set apart for himself. Those that have God for them need not fear who or what can be against them. What are Egypt and Ethiopia, all their lives and treasures, compared with the blood of Christ? True believers are precious in God's sight, his delight is in them, above any people. Though they went as through fire and water, yet, while they had God with them, they need fear no evil; they should be born up, and brought out. The faithful are encouraged. They were to be assembled from every quarter. And with this pleasing object in view, the prophet again dissuades from anxious fears. 43:8-13 Idolaters are called to appear in defence of their idols. Those who make them, and trust in them, are like unto them. They have the shape and faculties of men; but they have not common sense. But God's people know the power of his grace, the sweetness of his comforts, the kind care of his providence, and the truth of his promise. All servants of God can give such an account of what he has wrought in them, and done for them, as may lead others to know and believe his power, truth, and love 43:14-21 The deliverance from Babylon is foretold, but there is reference to greater events. The redemption of sinners by Christ, the conversion of the Gentiles, and the recall of the Jews, are described. All that is to be done to rescue sinners, and to bring the believer to glory, is little, compared with that wondrous work of love, the redemption of man. 43:22-28 Those who neglect to call upon God, are weary of him. The Master tired not the servants with his commands, but they tired him with disobedience. What were the riches of God's mercy toward them? I, even I, am he who yet blotteth out thy transgressions. This encourages us to repent, because there is forgiveness with God, and shows the freeness of Divine mercy. When God forgives, he forgets. It is not for any thing in us, but for his mercies' sake, his promise' sake; especially for his Son's sake. He is pleased to reckon it his honour. Would man justify himself before God? The attempt is desperate: our first father broke the covenant, and we all have copied his example. We have no reason to expect pardon, except we seek it by faith in Christ; and that is always attended by true repentance, and followed by newness of life, by hatred of sin, and love to God. Let us then put him in remembrance of the promises he has made to the penitent, and the satisfaction his Son has made for them. Plead these with him in wrestling for pardon; and declare these things, that thou mayest be justified freely by his grace. This is the only way, and it is a sure way to peace.