Albert Barnes Commentary Isaiah 5

Now will I sing - This is an indication that what follows is poetic, or is adapted to be sung or chanted.

To my well-beloved - The word used here - ידיד yedîyd - is a term of endearment. It properly denotes a friend, a favorite, one greatly beloved. It is applied to saints as being the beloved, or the favorites of God, in (Psalms 127:2); (Deuteronomy 33:12).

In this place, it is evidently applied to Yahweh, the God of the Jewish people. As there is some reason to believe that the God of the Jews - the manifested Deity who undertook their deliverance from Egypt, and who was revealed as “their” God under the name of ‘the Angel of the covenant’ - was the Messiah, so it may be that the prophet here meant to refer to him. It is not, however, to the Messiah “to come.” It does not refer to the God incarnate - to Jesus of Nazareth - but to the God of the Jews, in his capacity as their lawgiver and protector in the time of Isaiah, not to him in the capacity of an incarnate Saviour.

A Song of my beloved - Lowth, ‘A song of loves,’ by a slight change in the Hebrew. The word דוד dôd usually denotes ‘an uncle,’ a father’s brother. But it also means one beloved, a friend, a lover (Song of Solomon 1:13–14; Song of Solomon 1:16; Song of Solomon 2:3; Song of Solomon 2:8; Song of Solomon 2:9; Song of Solomon 4:16). Here it refers to Jehovah, and expresses the tender and affectionate attachment which the prophet had for his character and laws.

Touching his vineyard - The Jewish people are often represented under the image of a vineyard, planted and cultivated by God (Jeremiah 2:21; Jeremiah 12:10). Our Saviour also used this beautiful figure to denote the care and attention which God had bestowed on his people (Matthew 21:33 and following; Mark 12:1 and following).

My beloved - God.

Hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill - Hebrew ‘On a horn of the son of oil.’ The word “horn” used here in the Hebrew, denotes the “brow, apex,” or sharp point of a hill. The word is thus used in other languages to denote a hill, as in the Swiss words “shreckhorn, buchorn.” Thus “Cornwall,” in England, is called in the old British tongue “Kernaw,” as lessening by degrees, like a horn, running out into promontories, like so many horns; for the Britons called a horn “corn,” and in the plural “kern.” The term ‘horn’ is not unfrequently applied to hills.

Thus, Pococke tells us (vol. ii. p. 67), that there is a low mountain in Galilee which has both its ends raised in such a manner as to look like two mounts, which are called the ‘Horns of Hutin.’ Harmer, however, supposes that the term is used here to denote the land of Syria, from its resemblance to the shape of a horn; Obs. iii. 242. But the idea is, evidently, that the land on which God represents himself as having planted his vineyard, was like an elevated hill that was adapted eminently to such a culture.

It may mean either the “top” of a mountain, or a little mountain, or a “peak” divided from others. The most favorable places for vineyards were on the sides of hills, where they would be exposed to the sun. - Shaw’s “Travels,” p. 338. Thus Virgil says:

- denique apertos
Bacchus amat colles.

‘Bacchus loves open hills;’ “Georg.” ii. 113. The phrase, “son of oil,” is used in accordance with the Jewish custom, where “son” means descendant, relative, etc. (see the note at Matthew 1:1). Here it means that it was so fertile that it might be called the very “son of oil,” or fatness, that is, fertility.

The image is poetic, and very beautiful; denoting that God had planted his people in circumstances where he had a right to expect great growth in attachment to him. It was not owing to any want of care on his part, that they were not distinguished for piety. The Chaldee renders this verse, ‘The prophet said, I will sing now to Israel, who is compared to a vineyard, the seed of Abraham my beloved: a song of my beloved to his vineyard.’

And he fenced it - Margin, ‘Made a wall about it.’ The word used here is thought more likely to mean “to dig about, to grub,” as with a pick-axe or spade. - Gesenius. It has this meaning in Arabic and in one place in the Jewish Talmud. - Kimchi. The Vulgate and the Septuagint understand it as making a hedge or fence, probably the first work in preparing a vineyard. And since ‘a hedge’ is expressly mentioned in (Isaiah 5:5), it seems most probable that this is its meaning here.

And gathered out the stones ... - So that it might be easily cultivated. This was, of course, a necessary and proper work.

And planted it with the choicest vine - Hebrew, ‘With the sorek.’ This was a choice species of vine, the grapes of which, the Jewish commentators say, had very small and scarcely perceptible stones, and which, today, is called “serki” in Morocco; in Persia, “kishmis.” - Gesenius.

And built a tower - For the purpose of watching and defending it. These towers were probably placed so as to overlook the whole vineyard and were thus posts of observation; compare the note at (Isaiah 1:8); see also the note at (Matthew 21:33).

And also made a wine-press - A place in which to put the grapes for the purpose of expressing the juice; see the note at (Matthew 21:33).

And he looked - He waited in expectation, as a farmer waits patiently for the vines to grow and to bear grapes.

Wild grapes - The word used here is derived from the verb באשׁ bâ'ash — “to be offensive, to corrupt, to putrefy;” and is thought by Gesenius to mean “monk’s-hood,” a poisonous herb, offensive in smell, which produces berries like grapes. Such a meaning suits the connection better than the supposition of grapes that were wild or uncultivated. The Vulgate understands it as the weed called “wild vine - labruscas.” The Septuagint translates it by “thorns,” ἄκανθας akanthas.

That there were vines in Judea which produced such poisonous berries, though resembling grapes, is evident; see (2 Kings 4:39–41): And one went out into the fields to gather pot herbs, and he found a field vine, and he gathered from it wild fruit. Moses also refers to a similar vine (Deuteronomy 32:32–33): For their vine is as the vine of Sodom; their grapes are grapes of gall; their clusters are bitter. Hasselquist thinks that the prophet here means the “nightshade.” The Arabs, he says, call it “wolf-grapes.” It grows extensively in vineyards and is very pernicious to them. Some poisonous, offensive berries, growing on wild vines, are doubtless intended here.

The general meaning of this parable is not difficult to understand; compare the notes at (Matthew 21:33). Jerome has attempted to trace out the allegory and explain the particular parts.

He says, ‘By the metaphor of the vineyard, we are to understand the people of the Jews, whom He surrounded or enclosed by angels; by gathering out the stones, the removal of idols; by the tower, the temple erected in the midst of Judea; and by the wine-press, the altar.’ There is no appropriateness, however, in attempting to explain the particular parts of the figure so minutely.

The general meaning is that God had chosen the Jewish people. He had bestowed great care on them by giving them his law, defending them, and providing for them. He had omitted nothing that was adapted to produce piety, obedience, and happiness. Yet, they had abused it all and, instead of being obedient, had become exceedingly corrupt.

And now ... - This is an appeal which God makes to the Jews themselves, in regard to the justice and propriety of what He was about to do. A similar appeal He makes in Micah 6:3: O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me. He intended to “punish” them (Isaiah 5:5–6), and He appeals to them for the justice of it. He would do to them as they would do to a vineyard that had been carefully prepared and guarded, and which yet was valueless. A similar appeal He makes in Isaiah 1:18; and our Savior made an application remarkably similar in His parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21:40–43).

It is not improbable that He had His eye on this very place in Isaiah; and it is, therefore, the more remarkable that the Jews did not understand the bearing of His discourse.

What could I... - As a man who had done what is described in (Isaiah 5:2) would have done all that “could” be done for a vineyard, so God says that he has done all that he could, in the circumstances of the Jews, to make them holy and happy. He had chosen them; had given them his law; had sent them prophets and teachers; had defended them; had come forth in judgment and mercy, and he now appeals “to them” to say what “could” have been done more.

This important verse implies that God had done all that he could have done; that is, all that he could consistently do, or all that justice and goodness required him to do, to secure the welfare of his people. It cannot, of course, be meant that he had no physical ability to do anything else, but the expression must be interpreted by a reference to the matter at hand; and that is, an appeal to others to determine that he had done all that could be done in the circumstances of the case. In this respect, we may, without impropriety, say, that there is a limit to the power of God.

It is impossible to conceive that he “could” have given a law more holy; or that he could append to it more solemn sanctions than the threatening of eternal death; or that he could have offered higher hopes than the prospect of eternal life; or that he could have given a more exalted Redeemer. It has been maintained (see the “Princeton Bib. Repert.,” April 1841) that the reference here is to the future, and that the question means, ‘what remains now to be done to my vineyard as an expression of displeasure?’ or that it is asked with a view to introduce the expression of his purpose to punish his people, stated in (Isaiah 5:5). But that the above is the meaning of the passage, or that it refers to what God had actually done, is evident from the following considerations:

1. He had specified at length (Isaiah 5:2) what he had done. He had performed “all” that was usually done to a vineyard; in fencing it, and clearing it of stones, and planting in it the choicest vines, and building a wine-press in it. Without impropriety, it might be said of a man that, whatever wealth he had, or whatever power he had to do “other” things, he “could do nothing more to perfect a vineyard.”

2. It is the meaning which is most naturally suggested by the original. Literally, the Hebrew is, ‘What to do more?’ עוד מה־לעשׂות mah - la‛ăs'ôth ‛ôd. Coverdale renders this, as it is in our translation, ‘What more could have been done for it?’ Luther, ‘What should one do more to my vineyard, that I have not done for it?’ Was sollte man doch mehr thun an meinem Weinberge, das ich nicht gethun habe an ihm?

   Vulgate, Quid est quod debui ultra facere. ‘What is there which I ought to do more?’ Septuagint, Τί ποιήσω ἔτι Ti poiēsō eti, ‘What shall I do yet?’ implying that he had done all that he could for it. The Chaldee renders it, ‘What good thing—טבא מה mah ṭâbâ'—shall I say that I will do to my people that I have not done for them?’ implying that he had done for them all the good which could be spoken of.

   The Syriac, ‘What remains to be done to my vineyard, and I have not done it?’ In all these versions, the sense given is substantially the same—that God had done all that could be done to make the expectation that his vineyard would produce fruit, proper. There is no reference in one of these versions to what he “would” do afterward, but the uniform reference is to what he “had” done to make the expectation “reasonable,” that his vineyard would produce fruit.

3. That this is the fair interpretation is apparent further, because, when, in (Isaiah 5:5), he says what he “would do,” it is entirely different from what he said he “had done.” He “had” done all that could be done to make it proper to expect fruit; he now “would” do what would be a proper expression of his displeasure that no fruit had been produced. He would take away its hedge; break down its walls, and lay it waste.

But in the interpretation of the passage proposed by the “Princeton Repert.,” there is an entire omission of this part of the verse—that I have not done in it. It is not improper, therefore, to use this passage to show that God had done all that could be consistently done for the salvation of man, and the same appeal may now be made to sinners everywhere; and it may be asked, what God “could” have done for their salvation more than has been done? “Could” he have given them a purer law? “Could” he present higher considerations than have been drawn from the hope of an “eternal” heaven, and the fear of an “eternal” hell?

Could he have furnished a more full atonement than has been made by the blood of his own Son? The conclusion to which we should come would be in accordance with what is said in the prophet, that God has done “all” for the salvation of sinners that in the circumstances of the case could be done, and that if they are lost, they only will bear the blame.

Go to - The Hebrew word here is one that is commonly translated, ‘I ask you,’ and is used “to call the attention to” what is said. It is the word from which we have derived the adverb “now,” נא nā'.

I will take away the hedge - A “hedge” is a fence of thorns, made by allowing thorn-bushes to grow so thick that nothing can pass through them. Here it means that God would withdraw His protection from the Jews, and leave them exposed to be overrun and trodden down by their enemies, as a vineyard would be by wild beasts if it were not protected.

The wall ... - Vineyards, it seems, had a “double” enclosure. - “Gesenius.” Such a double protection might be necessary, as some animals might scale a wall that would yet find it impossible to pass through a thorn-hedge. The sense here is, that though the Jews had been protected in every way possible, yet that protection would be withdrawn, and they would be left defenseless.