John Calvin Commentary Isaiah 1:1

"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." — Isaiah 1:1 (ASV)

The vision of Isaiah. The Hebrew word חזון (chazon), though it is derived from חזה (chazah), he saw, and literally is a vision, yet commonly signifies a prophecy. For when Scripture mentions special visions that were presented to the prophets in a symbolic manner, when God willed that some extraordinary event should receive confirmation, in such cases the word מראה (mar'eh), vision, is used.

Not to multiply quotations, in a passage that relates to prophecy in general the writer says that the word of God was precious, because חזון (chazon), vision, was of rare occurrence (1 Samuel 3:1). A little later, the word מראה (mar'eh) is used to denote the vision by which God revealed Himself to Samuel (1 Samuel 3:13).

In distinguishing between two ordinary methods of revelation, a vision and a dream, Moses speaks of a vision (מראה) as the special method (Numbers 12:6). It is evident, however, that the seer, הראה (haro'eh), was the name formerly given to prophets (1 Samuel 9:9), preeminently so because God revealed His counsel to them in an intimate manner.

Regarding the present passage, this word unquestionably denotes the certainty of the doctrine, as if to say that everything contained in this book was made known to Isaiah by God Himself. The derivation of the word, therefore, deserves attention.

For by it we learn that the prophets did not speak of their own accord or draw from their own imaginations; rather, they were enlightened by God, who opened their eyes to perceive those things they otherwise would not have been able to comprehend by themselves. Thus, the inscription of Isaiah commends the doctrine of this book to us—as containing no human reasoning but the oracles of God—to convince us that it contains only what was revealed by the Spirit of God.

Concerning Judah. If we were to translate it as 'to Judah,' it would make little difference, for the preposition על (al) has both meanings. The meaning would still be that everything contained in this book belongs strictly to Judah and Jerusalem.

For although many things are scattered throughout it that relate to Babylon, Egypt, Tyre, and other cities and countries, it was not necessary for those places to be expressly enumerated in the title. It was only necessary to announce the principal subject and to explain to whom Isaiah was chiefly sent: that is, to Jerusalem and the Jews. Everything else contained in his prophecies may be considered incidental and not central to his primary commission.

And yet it was not inconsistent with his prophetic office to announce to other nations the calamities that would overtake them. For similarly, Amos did not go beyond the limits of his calling when he did not spare the Jews, though he was not sent to them (Amos 2:4–5).

A more familiar example is found in the calling of Peter and Paul; the former was appointed to the Jews and the latter to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8). Yet Peter did not exceed the limits of his office by preaching to the Gentiles (for example, when he went to Cornelius; Acts 10:17), nor did Paul, when he offered his services to the Jews, whom he immediately approached upon entering any city (Acts 13:5; Acts 14:1; 17:2, 10; 18:4, 19).

We should view Isaiah in the same light. For while he is careful to instruct the Jews and directs his labors expressly toward that object, he does not transgress his proper limits when he also makes passing mention of other nations.

Judah and Jerusalem. He takes Judah to mean the whole nation and Jerusalem the chief city in the kingdom. He does not distinguish between Jerusalem and the Jews but mentions Jerusalem preeminently (κατ’ ἐξοχήν) as the capital, just as if a prophet today were to address the kingdom of France and Paris, its capital.

This was very important so that the inhabitants of Jerusalem might not consider themselves exempt—as if, due to their high rank, they were free from all blame or above the law—and thus send the common people to be instructed by less distinguished prophets.

It is a mistake, however, to suppose that Jerusalem is mentioned separately because it was situated in the tribe of Benjamin, for the half of that tribe that was subject to David’s descendants is included under the name Judah.