Albert Barnes Commentary Isaiah 62:10

"Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up an ensign for the peoples." — Isaiah 62:10 (ASV)

Go through, go through the gates - The connection of this with what precedes is not very apparent, and there has been a great diversity of opinion regarding it among interpreters. Grotius supposes that it refers to the priests and Levites who are also referred to in the previous verses, and that it is a command for them to enter into the temple. Calvin supposes that it refers to the Christian church, and that the idea is, that its gates should be continually open for the return of penitent sinners. Rosenmuller supposes that it is an address to the cities lying between Babylon and Jerusalem, and that the idea is, that their gates would be thrown open for the return of the exiles, and that all obstacles would be taken out of the way. Others suppose that it refers to the Jews, and that the command is to them to go through the gates of Babylon, and an immediate order is added to the people to prepare the way for them.

This last interpretation seems to me to be the sense of the passage. It is a direction to the exiles in Babylon to go out and return to their own land. The gates, so long closed against their return, would be thrown open, and they would now have freedom to depart for their own country. Thus explained, the connection is apparent. The watchmen were commanded to pray until this was done (Isaiah 62:7); the prophet had said that he would not rest until it was done (Isaiah 62:1); Yahweh had promised this in a most solemn manner (Isaiah 62:8–9); and now those prayers are heard, and that promise is about to be fulfilled. They are commanded to leave the city and begin their journey to their own land (Compare to the notes at Isaiah 52:10-12).

Prepare you the way of the people - (Compare to the notes at Isaiah 40:3).

Cast up, cast up the highway - (See the notes at Isaiah 57:14).

Gather out the stones - Clear it from the stones; in other words, make a smooth path on which they can travel with ease. The word used here (סקל sāqal) commonly denotes to stone, or to pelt with stones, a species of capital punishment among the Hebrews (2 Samuel 16:6–13). Therefore, it means to pile up stones in a heap; and it also has the meaning of removing stones from a field (Isaiah 5:2), and here of removing them from the way when they are an obstruction to the traveler.

Harmer supposes that the word here means to pile up stones at proper distances as a kind of landmark in the deserts, to mark the way for travelers—a practice which, he says, is quite common in Arabia. But the more correct interpretation is that they were to remove the stones from the way, so that the journey might be made with ease.

Lift up a standard - As when an army is about to march. They were about to be collected from their dispersions and restored to their own land, and the command is given that the banner should be raised so that they might rally around it (see the notes at Isaiah 10:18; Isaiah 59:19; Isaiah 49:22).

But they rebelled - Against God. This charge is often made against the Jews; and indeed their history is little more than a record of a series of rebellions against God.

And vexed - Or rather ‘grieved.’ The Hebrew word עצב ‛âtsab, in Piel, means to pain, to afflict, to grieve. This is the idea here. Their conduct was such as was suited to produce the deepest pain—for there is nothing which we more deeply feel than the ingratitude of those who have been benefited by us. Our translators have supposed that the word conveyed the idea of provoking to wrath by their conduct (thus the Septuagint translates it παρώξυναν τὸ πνεύμα, κ.τ.λ. parōxunan to pneuma, etc.; but the more appropriate sense is, that their conduct was such as to produce pain or grief. Compare Ephesians 4:30: Grieve not the Holy Spirit (μὴ λυπεῖτε mē lupeite). Psalms 78:40; Psalms 95:10. Hebrews 3:10–17.

His Holy Spirit - The Chaldee translates this, ‘But they were unwilling to obey, and they irritated (provoked, blasphemed רגז râgaz) against the words of the prophets.’ But the reference seems rather to be to the Spirit of God who renewed, comforted, enlightened, and sanctified them. Grotius, Rosenmuller, and Gesenius, suppose that this means God himself—a Spirit of holiness. However, with the revelation of the New Testament before us, we can hardly doubt that the real reference here is to the third person of the Trinity—the renewer and sanctifier of the people of God.

It may be admitted, perhaps, that the ancient Hebrews would refer this to God himself, and that their views of the offices of the different persons in the divine nature were not very clearly marked or very distinct.

But this does not prove that the real reference may not have been to ‘the Holy Spirit.’ The renewer and sanctifier of the human heart at all times has been the same.

And when any operations of the mind and heart pertaining to salvation are referred to in the Old Testament, nothing should prevent us from applying the clear light of the New Testament to the explanation of the expressions and the facts—in the same way that when the ancients speak of phenomena in the physical world, we do not consider it improper to apply the established doctrines of modern physical sciences to their explanation. By this, we by no means intend to say that the ancients had the same knowledge we have, or that the language they used conveyed the same idea to them that it does to us now. Rather, the events occurred in accordance with laws we now understand, and their language can be explained by the light of modern science.

Thus, the word ‘eclipse’ conveyed a somewhat different idea to them than it does to us. They supposed it was produced by different causes. Still, they accurately described the facts in the case, and we are now permitted to apply the principles of modern science to the explanation of those facts.

So too, the Old Testament describes facts occurring under the influence of truth. The facts were clearly understood. What, then, should hinder us from applying the clearer light of the New Testament in explaining them?

Admitting this obvious principle, I suppose that the reference here was really to the third person of the Trinity. The sense is that their conduct was such as was suited to cause grief to their Sanctifier and Comforter, in the same way that it is said in the New Testament this is done now.

He was turned - He abandoned them for their sins, and left them to reap the consequences.

And he fought against them - He favored their enemies and gave them the victory. He gave them up to a series of disasters which finally terminated in their long and painful captivity, and in the destruction of their temple, city, and nation. The sentiment is, that when we grieve the Spirit of God, he abandons us to our chosen course, and leaves us to a series of spiritual and temporal disasters.