John Calvin Commentary Isaiah 50

Where is that bill of divorcement? There are various interpretations of this passage, but very few commentators have understood the Prophet’s meaning. To gain a general understanding, we must observe the union by which the Lord everywhere testifies that his people are bound to him: he occupies the place of a husband, and we occupy the place of a wife. It is a spiritual marriage, consecrated by his eternal doctrine and sealed by the blood of Christ. Therefore, just as he takes us under his protection as a dearly beloved wife, on condition that we preserve our fidelity to him by chastity; so when we have been unfaithful to him, he rejects us; and then he is said to issue a lawful divorce against us, as when a husband banishes an adulterous wife from his house.

Thus, when the Jews were oppressed by so many and great calamities that it was easy to conclude God had rejected and divorced them, the cause of the divorce became the subject of inquiry. Now, as people are usually eloquent in apologizing for themselves and try to shift the blame to God, the Jews at that time also complained about their condition, as if the Lord had wronged them by divorcing them. They were far from thinking that their crimes had voided the promises and annulled the covenant. They even blamed their ancestors, as if they were punished for the sins of others. Hence those taunts and complaints which Ezekiel relates.

Our fathers ate a sour grape, and our teeth are set on edge (Ezekiel 18:2).

Since speeches of this kind were widespread among them, the Lord demands that they produce the “bill of divorcement,” by which they might prove they are free from blame and were rejected without cause.

Now, a “bill of divorcement” was granted to wives who were unjustly divorced, for by it the husband was compelled to testify that his wife had lived chastely and honorably, making it evident that the only reason for the divorce was that she did not please the husband.

Thus the woman was free to go away, and the blame rested solely on the husband, to whose sullenness and bad temper the cause of the divorce was ascribed (Deuteronomy 24:1). This law of divorcement, as Ezekiel shows (Matthew 19:8), was given by Moses on account of the hard-heartedness of that nation.

By a highly appropriate metaphor, therefore, the Lord shows that he is not the author of the divorce, but that the people went away by their own fault and followed their lusts, so that they had utterly broken the bond of marriage. This is the reason he asks where is “that bill” of which they boasted; for there is emphasis in the demonstrative pronoun, זה (zeh), that, by which he intended to expose their idle excuses. It is as if he had said that they cast off the accusation and lay blame on God, as if they had been provided with a defense, whereas they had violated the bond of marriage and could produce nothing to make the divorce lawful.

Or who is the creditor to whom I sold you? By another metaphor, he demonstrates the same thing. When a man was overwhelmed by debt, so that he could not satisfy his creditors, he was compelled to give his children in payment. The Lord therefore asks, “Has he been constrained to do this? Has he sold them, or given them in payment to another creditor? Is he like spendthrifts or bad managers, who allow themselves to be overwhelmed by debt?” It is as if he had said, “You cannot bring this reproach against me; and therefore it is evident that, on account of your transgressions, you have been sold and reduced to slavery.”

Lo, for your iniquities you have been sold. Thus the Lord defends his majesty from all slanders and refutes them by this second clause, in which he declares that it is by their own fault that the Jews have been divorced and “sold.”

The same mode of expression is employed by Paul when he says that we are sold under sin (Romans 7:14), but in a different sense, just as the Hebrew writers are accustomed to speak of abandoned men whose wickedness is desperate. Here, however, the Prophet intended merely to charge the Jews with guilt, because by their own transgressions they had brought upon themselves all the evils that they endured.

If it is asked, “Did the Lord divorce his heritage? Did he make void the covenant?” Certainly not. But the Lord is said to “divorce,” as he is elsewhere said to profane his heritage (Psalms 89:39; Ezekiel 24:21), because no other conclusion can be drawn from present appearances. For when he did not bestow upon them his accustomed favor, it was a kind of divorce or rejection. In a word, we should attend to these two contrasts: that the wife is divorced either by the husband’s fault or because she is unchaste and adulterous; and likewise, that children are sold either for their father’s poverty or by their own fault. And thus the course of argument in this passage will be clear.

Why did I come? This might be one reason given: that the people have not only brought upon themselves an immense mass of evils by provoking God’s anger, but have also, by their obstinacy, cut off the hope of obtaining pardon and salvation. But I think that God proceeds even further.

After explaining that he had good reason for divorcing the people—because they had, of their own accord, given themselves up to bondage when they might have been free—he adds that it is still not he who prevents them from being immediately set at liberty. As he showed in the former verse that the whole blame rests with the Jews, so now he declares that it is their own fault that they grow old and rot in their distresses. For the Lord was ready to assist them, if they had not rejected his grace and kindness.

In short, he shows that both the beginning and the progress of the evil arise from the fault of the people, so that he may free God from all blame and show that the Jews act wickedly in accusing him as the author of evil, or in complaining that he will not assist them.

First, then, the Lord says that he “came.” And why, unless it was that he might stretch out his hand to the Jews? From this it follows that they are justly deprived, for they would not receive his grace. Now, the Lord is said to “come” when he gives any token of his presence. He approaches by the preaching of the Word, and he also approaches by various benefits which he bestows on us, and by the tokens he uses to manifest his fatherly kindness toward us.

As Moses says, “Was there ever any people,” “that saw so many signs, and heard the voice of God speaking, like this people?” (Deuteronomy 4:33).

Since constant invitation was of no advantage to them when he held out the hope of pardon and exhorted them to repentance, it is with good reason that he speaks of it as a monstrous thing and asks why there was no one to meet him. They are therefore considered convicted of ingratitude because, while they ought to have sought God, they did not even choose to meet him when he came. For it is an instance of extreme ingratitude to refuse to accept the grace of God which is freely offered.

Why did I call, and no one answered? In the word call, there is a repetition of the same statement in different words. When God “calls,” we ought to be ready and submissive, for this is the “answer” which, he complains, was refused to him; that is, we ought to yield implicitly to his word.

But this expression applies strictly to the matter at hand, because God, when he offered an end to their distresses, was obstinately despised, as if he had spoken to the deaf and dumb. Therefore, he infers that the blame for not having been delivered sooner lies with them. He supports this with former proofs, because he had previously shown to the fathers that he possessed abundant power to assist them.

Again, so that they may not quibble and excuse themselves by saying that they had not obtained salvation, though they heartily desired it, he maintains, on the other hand, that the cause of the situation ought to be sought somewhere else than in him (for his power was not at all diminished). Therefore, he would not have delayed to stretch out his hand to them in distress if they had not wickedly refused his aid.

By shortening has my hand been shortened? By this interrogation, he expresses greater boldness, as if he were affirming what could not be called into question. For who would venture to plead against God that his power was diminished?

He therefore relates how powerfully he rescued his people out of Egypt, so that they may not now imagine that he is less powerful, but may acknowledge that their sins were the hindrance.

He says that by his reproof he “dried up the sea,” as if he had struck terror by a threatening word. For by his authority and at his command, the seas were divided, so that a passage was opened up (Exodus 14:21), and Jordan was driven back (Joshua 3:16). The consequence was that “the fishes,” being deprived of water, died and putrefied.

I clothe the heavens with blackness. He also mentions that thick darkness which was spread over all Egypt for three days (Exodus 10:22).

At that time, the heaven was clothed as with a mourning dress. For, as fine weather has a joyful influence, so blackness and darkness produce melancholy. Therefore, he says, that the heavens were covered as with sackcloth or with a mourning dress, as if they were tokens and expressions of mourning.

If anyone prefers to view them as general statements, let him enjoy his opinion. But I think it probable that he alludes to the history of the deliverance from Egypt, from which it might easily be inferred that God, who had so miraculously assisted the fathers, was prevented by their ingratitude from granting relief to the miseries which now oppressed them.

The Lord Jehovah. After having twice convicted them of guilt, he adds a consolation in his usual manner; for when the Lord covers us with shame, he intends immediately to free us from shame. Although, therefore, he showed that the people had been rejected for the best possible reasons, and had perished by their own fault, because they proved themselves to be even unworthy of deliverance, yet he promises assistance to them.

Again, because in a matter so difficult to believe there needed more than ordinary proof, he begins by saying that God has sent and instructed him to execute his commands. This passage is commonly explained as relating to Christ, as if it had not been applicable to the Prophet, because he afterwards says that he had been beaten with rods, which we nowhere read was done to Isaiah.

But there is no great force in this argument, for David complains that his garments were divided (Psalms 22:18), which applies literally to Christ (Matthew 27:35; John 19:24), and yet it does not follow that this did not happen to David himself. For my own part, I have no doubt that Isaiah comes forward as one who represents all the servants of God, not only those who were from the beginning, but also those who would come afterwards.

Hath given me the tongue of the learned. He says that the Lord has given him a "tongue," so that the promises by which he cheers the people may have greater weight. Our faith wavers if we suspect that a man speaks from himself, and the condition of that people was so wretched that no human arguments could induce them to entertain the hope of deliverance.

It amounts to this: that the message of approaching salvation is brought to them from heaven, and if any person does not receive it, he proves himself to be rebellious and disobedient. Although these words are literally intended by the Prophet to secure the belief of his statements, yet we may infer from them generally that no one is fit to teach who has not first been qualified by God.

This reminds all godly teachers to ask from the Spirit of God what they could not otherwise possess. They must indeed study diligently, so that they do not ascend the pulpit until they have been fully prepared; but they must hold to this principle, that all things necessary for discharging their office are gifts of the Holy Spirit. And indeed, if they were not organs of the Holy Spirit, it would be extreme rashness to come forth publicly in the name of God.

That I may know a word in season to the weary. Some verb must be supplied here, such as, 'to administer' or 'to utter.' The word "know" includes wisdom and skill, which a pastor ought to possess, so that the word of God may be faithfully and profitably administered by him; as if he had said that he has been well instructed in the school of God, and thus knows well what is suitable for those who are wretched and who groan under a burden.

The term "weary" is applied to those who are overwhelmed by many afflictions, as we have formerly seen, who giveth strength to the weary (Isaiah 40:29). Thus also Christ speaks, Come to me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden (Matthew 11:28). He therefore means that God has been his teacher and instructor, so that he may be able to soothe wretched men by appropriate consolation, through which their dejected hearts may be encouraged by feeling the mercy of God.

Hence we infer that the most important duty of the ministers of the word is to comfort wretched men, who are oppressed by afflictions, or who bend under their weight, and, in short, to point out what is true rest and serenity of mind, as we have formerly seen (Isaiah 33:20). We are likewise taught what each of us ought chiefly to seek in the Scriptures: namely, that we may be furnished with doctrine appropriate and suitable for relieving our distresses. He who, by seasonable consolation, in afflictive or even desperate circumstances, can cheer and support his heart, ought to know that he has made good proficiency in the Gospel.

I acknowledge that doctrine has indeed various uses; for not only is it useful for comforting the afflicted and feeble, but it likewise contains severe reproofs and threats against the obstinate (2 Timothy 3:16). But Isaiah shows that the chief duty incumbent on him is to bring some consolation to the Jews who, in the present distress, are ready to faint.

He will waken in the morning. The Prophet here testifies that the Lord is so careful about wretched and oppressed persons that he aids them "in the morning," that is, seasonably. I do acknowledge that we are often destitute of consolation; but, although God often permits us to languish, yet he knows every moment that is suitable for seasonably meeting the need with his aid. Besides, if his assistance is somewhat late, this happens through our own fault, for not only by our indolence, but likewise by rebellion, we withdraw ourselves from his grace.

However that may be, he always watches carefully and runs to give aid; and even when we fly and resist, he calls us to him, so that we may be refreshed by tasting his grace and kindness.

He twice repeats the phrase "in the morning," by which he expresses continuance and earnestness, so that we may not think that he is liable to sudden impulses like men, to cast off or quickly forget those whom he has once undertaken to guard, whom he continues, on the contrary, to make the objects of his grace until the end, and never leaves destitute of consolation.

That I may hear as the learned. He means that his ear has not only been pulled or twitched, as is done for sluggish and indolent persons, but has been formed and trained. Yet by his example he shows that God efficaciously teaches all whose ministry he intends to employ for the salvation of his Church; for it would have been a small matter to be instructed after the manner of men, if they had not had within them the Spirit of God as their instructor.

This makes still more evident the truth of what we have formerly said: that none are good teachers but those who have been good scholars. He calls them "learned" and "well-instructed"; for they who do not deign to learn, because they think that they are wise enough, are doubly fools.

Since they alone, in the judgment of God, are reckoned to be "well-instructed" and "learned," who permit themselves to be taught before discharging the office of teachers, so that they may have clear knowledge of those things which they communicate to others, and may publicly bring forward nothing but what they can testify to have proceeded from God. And, in a word, they alone are "learned," who, by continually learning, do not refuse to make constant progress.

Some read the word in the accusative, meaning, "that I may hear as (hearing) the learned"; but that is harsh and at variance with the true meaning.

The Lord Jehovah hath opened mine ear. He again repeats what he had previously said, and here includes everything that belongs to the office of a teacher. For the “opening of the ear” must be understood to refer not only to doctrine but also to the whole calling; that is, when he takes someone to be his servant, informs the one whom he has determined to send of his duty, gives commands, and directs him to carry out what he commands. But the Lord “opens the ear” not only when he declares what is his will, but also when he powerfully affects a person’s heart and moves him to render obedience, as it is said:

Thou hast bored mine ear (Psalms 40:6).

And Christ says:

Whosoever hath heard and learned from the Father cometh to me (John 6:45).

Such is also the import of the second clause, And I was not rebellious, the meaning of which may be thus summed up: “He undertakes nothing at random, but, being fully convinced of God’s calling, he discharges the office of a teacher, though it is laborious and difficult, because he is ready to obey.”