Study

22. And thou hast not called on me. He confirms by an indirect reproof what he said in the preceding verse, that it was not by any merits of his people that he was induced to act so kindly towards them. This deliverance, therefore, ought to be ascribed to no other cause than to the goodness of God. In order to prove this, he says, “Thou hast not called on me.” Calling on the name of God includes the whole of the worship of God, the chief part of which is “calling upon him;” and, therefore, following the ordinary manner of Scripture, he has put a part for the whole. But in other passages the Lord plainly shews that calling upon him is the chief part of his worship; for, after having said that he despises sacrifices and outward ceremonies, he adds,

“Call upon me in the day of trouble.” (Psalm 50:15.)

Hence also Scripture, when it speaks of the worship of God, chiefly mentions “calling on him;” for when Moses states that the worship of God had been restored, he says, “Then began men to call on the name of the Lord.” (Genesis 4:26.)

But thou hast been wearied of me. In this second clause I consider the particle כי (ki) to be disjunctive, “But rather thou hast been wearied of me.” Others render it “Because thou hast wearied;” as if he had said, “Thou hast received with dislike what was enjoined on thee;” which amounts to nearly the same thing. As the Lord demands obedience, so he wishes all that worship him to be ready and cheerful; as Paul testifies, that “the Lord loveth a cheerful giver,” (2 Corinthians 9:7,) and they who obey reluctantly cannot be called, and are not reckoned by him, true and sincere worshippers. Thus, in order to show that the Jews have not worshipped him as they ought to have done, he says that they did it reluctantly. If any one choose rather to view it as assigning the reason, and render it thus, — “Thou hast not called on me, for thou hast rendered to me no worship without regret, and what may be said to have been extorted from thee by violence,” as it makes little difference in the meaning, I do not greatly object; but the translation which I have given appears to convey more clearly what the Prophet intends. Besides, the contrast contains within itself the assigning of a reason; and therefore, if we wish that God should accept of our service, let us obey him with a cheerful disposition.

23. Theft hast not brought to me. A question arises, “Why does the Prophet bring this reproach against the Jews, who, it is evident, were very careful to offer sacrifices according to the injunction of the Law?” Some refer this to the time of the captivity, when they could not have offered sacrifices to God though they had been willing to do so; for it was not lawful for them to offer sacrifices in any other place than Jerusalem, and therefore they could not appease God by sacrifices. (Deuteronomy 12:13.) But I rather think that it is a general reproach; for at the very time when the people were sacrificing, they could not boast of their merits or personal worth, as if they had laid God under obligations in this manner; for they were wanting in the sacrifices which God chiefly approves, that is, faith and obedience, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. There was no integrity of heart, “their hands were full of blood,” (Isaiah 1:15;) everything was filled with fraud and robbery, and there was no room for justice or equity. Although, therefore, they daily brought beasts to the temple, and sacrificed them, yet he justly affirms that they offered nothing to him. Sacrifices could not be accepted by God when they were separated kern truth, and were offered to another rather than to God; for he did not demand them in themselves, but so far as the people treated them as exercises of faith and obedience, Hence we infer that the Prophet says nothing new, but continues to exhibit the same doctrine, namely, that God rejects all services that are rendered in a slavish spirit, or in any other respect are defective.

24. Thou hast not bought cane for me. He means the cane or calamus of which the precious ointment was composed, as we are informed, (Exodus 30:23;) for the high priests, the tabernacle of the congregation, and the ark of the testimony, together with its vessels, were anointed with it he says, therefore, “Although thou buy cane for me with money, yet thou oughtest not to reckon that to be expense bestowed on me, as if I approved of it.” They lost their pains in all those ceremonies, because they did not look to the proper end, since they did not exercise faith, or worship God with a pure conscience.

And thou hast not made me drunk. This corresponds to a mode of expression employed in the law, in which God testifies that sacrifices are pleasant and delightful feasts to him; not that he took pleasure in the slaughter of animals, but that by these exercises he wished to lead his people to true obedience. He means that here, on the contrary, the people did not offer sacrifices in a proper manner, because they polluted everything with impiety; and, consequently, that he might be said to be hungry and faint, because they offered nothing in a right manner, but everything was corrupted and was without savor.

But thou hast made me to serve with thy sins. The Prophet now aggravates the heinousness of that offense, by saying that the people not only were deficient in their duty, and did not submit to God, but that they even endeavored to make God submit to them, and “to serve” their will, or rather their lust. They who explain this passage as referring to Christ torture the Prophet’s meaning, and therefore I consider this interpretation to be more natural. The Lord complains that men compelled him to carry a heavy burden, instead of submitting to him with reverence, as they ought to have done; for when we rise up against God, we treat him as a slave by our rebellion and insolence. He explains this more fully when he says, Ye have wearied me; that is, that God suffered much uneasiness on account of the wickedness of his people; for in some respects we wound and “pierce him,” as the Prophet says, (Zechariah 12:10,) when we reject his voice, and do not suffer ourselves to be governed by him. Apparently he alludes to what he had formerly said about the weariness or uneasiness of the people in worshipping God; for God declares, on the contrary, that the people have given him great distress.

25. I, I am he. ¹⁷⁰¹⁷⁰     “Ce suis-je, ce suis-je.” “It is I, it is I.” He concludes the former statement by this exclamation, as if he had said, that he may boast of his right, that he blots out the iniquities of his people, and restores them to freedom; for they have no merits by which they could obtain it, since they deserve the severest punishment, and even destruction. The same word is twice repeated by him, that he may more sharply rebuke the ingratitude of men who are wont to rob him of that honor which belongs to him alone, or in some way to throw it into the shade.

He that blotteth out thy iniquities. הוא (hu) is the demonstrative pronoun He, used instead of a noun, as in many other passages. It is but a poor and feeble meaning that is attached to the words of the Prophet by those who think that God claims for himself the privilege and authority of pardoning sins, for he rather contrasts his mercy with all other causes, as if he declared that he is not induced by anything else to pardon sins, but is satisfied with his mere goodness, and, consequently, that it is wrong to ascribe either to merits or to any sacrifices the redemption of which he is the Author by free grace. The meaning may be summed up by saying, that the people ought to hope for their return for no other reason than because God will freely pardon their sins, and, being of his own accord appeased by his mercy, will stretch out his fatherly hand.

The present subject is the pardon of sins; we must see on what occasion it has been introduced. Undoubtedly the Prophet means that there will be a freely bestowed redemption, and therefore he mentions forgiveness rather than redemption, because, since they had received a severe punishment for their sins, they must have been pardoned before they were delivered. The cause of the disease must be taken away, if we wish to cure the disease itself; and so long as the Lord’s anger lasts, his chastisements will also last; and consequently his anger must be appeased, and we must be reconciled to God, before we are freed from punishments. And this form of expression ought to be carefully observed in opposition to the childish distinction of the Sophists, who say that God does indeed pardon guilt, but that we must make satisfaction by penances. Hence proceeded satisfactions, indulgences, purgatory, and innumerable other contrivances.

The Prophet does not only speak of guilt, but speaks expressly of punishment which is remitted, because sins have been freely pardoned. This is still more clearly expressed by the addition of the phrase for mine own sake. It is certain that this limitation is contrasted with all merits, that is, that God pays no regard to us, or to anything that is in us, in pardoning our sins, but that he is prompted to it solely by his goodness; for if he had regard to us, he would be in some respects our debtor, and forgiveness would not be of free grace. Accordingly, Ezekiel explains the contrast,

“Not for your sakes will I do this, O house of Jacob, but for mine own sake.” (Ezekiel 36:22.)

Hence it follows that God is his own adviser, and is freely inclined to pardon sins, for he does not find any cause in men.

Therefore I will not remember thy sins. The Prophet added this for the consolation of the godly, who, oppressed by the consciousness of their transgressions, might otherwise have fallen into despair. On this account he encourages them to cherish good hope, and confirms them in that confidence by saying, that although they are unworthy, yet he will pardon their sins, and will thus deliver them. Hence we ought to draw a useful doctrine, that no one can be certain of obtaining pardon, unless he rely on the absolute goodness of God. They who look to their works must continually hesitate, and at length despair, because, if they are not deceived by gross hypocrisy, they will always have before their eyes their own unworthiness, which will constrain them to remain in doubt as to the love of God.

When it is said that ministers also forgive sins, (John 20:23,) there is no inconsistency with this passage, for they are witnesses of this freely bestowed forgiveness. The ordinary distinction is that God forgives sins by his power, and ministers by their office; but as this distinction does not explain the Prophet’s meaning, we must keep by what I have stated, that God not only forgives sins in the exercise of his authority, but that all the blessings for which we ought to hope flow from the fountain of his absolute bounty. Thus the Lord adorned the preaching of the gospel, and its ministers, in such a manner as to reserve the full authority for himself.

26. Bring to my remembrance. Because the pride of men cannot be easily corrected, the Lord pursues this argument, and dwells much upon it, in order to lead the Jews to throw away all confidence in their works, and to make them more humble, he gives them liberty to say and argue whatever they please, in order to support their cause, if they do not acknowledge that they are vanquished. By a sort of admission in their favor, he bids them call to his remembrance; as if he had said, “If thou thinkest me to be forgetful, tell it thyself; remind me, if thou canst allege anything good; speak in thy turn, I shall be silent.” By this form of expression he taunts men more than if he had stated in the usual way how the matter stood. He shews that it is exceedingly foolish in men to claim anything for themselves; for, though he gives them liberty of boasting, they will be found utterly unable to plead, and will have nothing to say in defense of their cause.

That thou mayest be justified, that is, “In order that thou mayest gain thy cause, and carry off the victory, I allow thee to say whatever thou pleasest.” This is vehement mockery, which shuts the mouths of men more completely than if he pronounced the sentence in his own person and with the authority of a judge. Yet we must also observe the design of the Prophet; for he found it necessary to strip the Jews of the mask of personal worth, that they might humbly and meekly receive the grace of God.

27. Thy first father sinned. This passage is almost universally understood to refer to the “first parent” Adam. (Genesis 3:6.) Some prefer to interpret it as relating to Abraham; as if he had said,

“You have not alone sinned, but your father Abraham himself sinned, though he was a man of eminent holiness.” ¹⁷¹¹⁷¹     Jarchi adopts this view, and paraphrases the clause thus; “‘Thy first father sinned,’ that is, when he said, ‘How shall I know that I shall inherit it?’” (Genesis 15:8.) This passage was not likely to have occurred to modern readers as the most striking fact in Abraham’s history for proving that that eminently holy man was not absolutely perfect; and the selection of it is a curious specimen of Jewish interpretation. — Ed. (Joshua 24:2.)

By the teachers are understood to be meant Moses and Aaron, who were men of extraordinary holiness, and yet sinned: “how much more you who are far inferior to theme” (Numbers 20:12.) That would be an argument from the greater to the less. But I view the matter differently; for under the word Father he includes not one or a few of their ancestors, but many. It is an interchange of the singular and plural number, which is very frequently employed by Hebrew writers. This reproof occurs very frequently in the prophets and in the Psalms; for, knowing that God reckoned them to be “a holy people,” (Exodus 19:6,) as if this honor had been due to the excellence or merits of the fathers, they rose fiercely against God himself, and swelled with pride on account of their hereditary privilege. On this account the prophets in every age expose the crimes of the fathers; and Stephen, who followed them, says, that “they always resisted the Holy Spirit;” (Acts 7:51;) as if he had said, “You do not now for the first time begin to be wicked; long ago your fathers were base and infamous. From a bad crow has come a bad egg. But you are far worse, and exceed your fathers in wickedness; so that if I had looked at you alone, you would long ago have been destroyed and completely ruined.”

And thy teachers. ¹⁷²¹⁷²     “Thy teachers. Hebrews Interpreters.” — (Eng. Ver.) “Interpreters, or organs of communication, is a title given elsewhere to ambassadors, (2 Chronicles 32:31,) and to an interceding angel. (Job 33:23.) It here denotes all those who, under the theocracy, acted as organs of communication between God and the people, whether prophets, priests, or rulers.” — Alexander. He now adds the teachers, in order to shew that the blame did not lie with the people alone; for they who ought to have been the guides of others, that is, the priests and the prophets, were the first to stumble, and led others into error. In a word, he shews that no class was free from vices and corruptions. “Let them now go and boast of their virtues, and let them produce the very smallest reason why I ought to protect them, except my own goodness.” If it be objected that there is no reason why the sins of their fathers should be brought as an accusation against them, because it is written,

“The soul that hath sinned shall die, and the children shall not be punished instead of the fathers,” (Ezekiel 18:20,)

the answer will be easy. The Lord makes the children to bear the punishment of the sins of the fathers, when they resemble their fathers; and yet they are not punished for other men’s sins, for they themselves have sinned; and when the Lord chastises the whole body, he puts the fathers and the children together, so as to involve all in the same condemnation.

28. Therefore I will pollute. The copulative ו (vau) here means therefore, and the preterite tense, I have polluted, ought to have a future signification, though it may also be rendered in the past tense; but I have preferred the future, in order to apply it to the time of the captivity; for he directly addresses those who were to live under the captivity. If it be thought preferable to extend it to various calamities, by which God had covered his people with disgrace, and at the same time to connect with it their exile in Babylon, there will be no impropriety; and indeed it will be more appropriate to view it as a description of what frequently happened to them in former times, that they may be warned for the future, that they have no privilege which can defend them from receiving again with the deepest disgrace the punishment of their ingratitude, tie shews, therefore, the cause of this destruction. It was because the transgressions of the fathers and of the children must be punished, that is, when there was no end of sinning, but when they daily kindled the wrath of God against them, till he at length punished them.

The Lord is said to “pollute” or “profane” his Church, when he despises and throws it aside as a thing of no value. In this sense the word is used in Psalm 89:39, and in many other passages. Having been set apart and sanctified by him, we dwell under his protection and guardianship, so long as we are holy; and in like manner when we are deprived of it, we are said to be “profaned,” because we cease to be sacred, and are rendered unworthy of his protection; and he exposes as a prey to enemies those whom he formerly called “his anointed,” and forbade men to “touch.” (Psalm 105:15.) But it may be thought strange that the priests, who were Christ’s representatives, should be “profaned;” and the reason is, that they transgressed, while they ought to have been “teachers” of others.

And I will make Jacob a curse. The Hebrew word הרם, (herem,) which we have translated a curse, signifies “destruction,” but likewise signifies “a curse;” and I have thought that the latter meaning is more appropriate to this passage, for it afterwards follows, a reproach. These statements are borrowed by the Prophet from Moses, whose description he follows so closely, that it is easy to perceive the style of Moses in these words, and to see that the prophets bring forward nothing that is new or strange. The words of Moses are:

“And thou shalt be an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word among all the nations to which the Lord shall lead thee.” (Deuteronomy 28:37.)

He therefore threatens that he will afflict the people in such a manner as to make them “accursed” by all; so that whoever shall wish to pronounce a “curse” may take it for an example, and that it may be a form of “cursing;” that he will expose them to the ridicule of men, so that they shall serve as a proverb in the mouth of all who wish to utter scorn; just as at the present day we see that the name of a Jew, though in itself honorable, is in the highest degree ignominious and disgraceful. The Lord pronounced those dreadful threatenings by Isaiah, that they might know that a punishment sufficiently severe, as compared with the enormity of their transgressions, could not be inflicted; that when the Lord should chastise them, they might not complain that the punishments which they endured were too severe, or think that the Prophet’s reproofs were too sharp.