John Calvin Commentary Isaiah 29:1

"Ho Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped! add ye year to year; let the feasts come round:" — Isaiah 29:1 (ASV)

This appears to be another discourse, in which Isaiah threatens the city of Jerusalem. He calls it “Altar” because the city's chief defense was in the “Altar”; for although the citizens relied on other bulwarks, of which they had a great abundance, they still placed more reliance on the Temple (Jeremiah 7:4) and the altar than on their other defenses.

While they thought they were invincible in power and resources, they considered their strongest and most invincible fortress to consist in being defended by the protection of God. They concluded that God was with them as long as they enjoyed the altar and the sacrifices. Some think the temple is called “Ariel” here because of its resemblance to the shape of a lion—broader in front and narrower behind; but I think it is better to take it simply as denoting “the Altar,” since Ezekiel also (Ezekiel 43:15) gives it this name.

This prediction is indeed directed against the whole city, but we must look at the Prophet's design; for he intended to strip the Jews of their foolish confidence in imagining that God would assist them as long as the altar and the sacrifices could remain, in which they falsely gloried, thinking they had fully discharged their duty, though their conduct was base and detestable.

The city where David dwelt. He now proceeds to the city, which he dignifies with the commendation of its high rank because it was formerly inhabited by David, but he intends, by this admission, to scatter the smoke of their vanity.

Some understand by it the lesser Jerusalem, that is, the inner city, which was also surrounded by a wall; for there was a sort of twofold Jerusalem, because it had increased and extended its walls beyond where they originally stood. But I think this passage must be understood to relate to the whole city.

He mentions David because they gloried in his name and boasted that God's blessing continually dwelt in his palace; for the Lord had promised that the kingdom of David would be for ever (2 Samuel 7:13; Psalms 89:37).

Hence we may infer how absurdly the Papists, in the present day, consider the Church to be bound to Peter’s chair, as if God could find no habitation in the whole world except in the See of Rome. We do not now dispute whether Peter was Bishop of the Church of Rome or not; but even if we should admit that this is fully proved, was any promise made to Rome such as was made to Jerusalem?

This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell, for I have chosen it (Psalms 132:14). And if even this were granted, do we not see what Isaiah declares about Jerusalem? That God is driven from it when there is no room for doctrine, when the worship of God is corrupted.

What then shall be said of Rome, which has no testimony? Can she boast of anything in preference to Jerusalem? If God pronounces a curse on the most holy city, which He had chosen in an especial manner, what must we say of the rest, who have overturned His holy laws and all godly institutions?

Add year to year. This was added by the Prophet because the Jews thought they had escaped punishment when any delay was granted to them. Wicked men think that God has made a truce with them when they see no destruction close at hand; and therefore they promise themselves unceasing prosperity as long as the Lord permits them to enjoy peace and quietness.

In opposition to this assurance of their safety, the Prophet threatens that, though they continue to “offer sacrifices” and renew them year by year, the Lord will still execute His vengeance.

We ought to learn from this that when the Lord delays to punish and to take vengeance, we ought not, on that account, to seize the occasion for delaying our repentance. For although He spares and bears with us for a time, our sin is not therefore blotted out, nor do we have any reason to promise that we shall make a truce with Him. Let us not then abuse His patience, but let us be more eager to obtain pardon.