John Calvin Commentary Isaiah 6

In the year that king Uzziah died. This is usually the beginning of the sixth chapter, but some think that it is the beginning of the book itself, and that an error was committed in collecting the prophecies of Isaiah. The reason they assign is that the Prophet here declines the office of a teacher, which he would not have refused if he had discharged it until now. They also argue that he appears to be a mere novice, still unacquainted with his calling, and besides, that he declares that he has now seen the Lord, and that he had not seen him before.

But, as I have already noted, I consider such arguments to be too weak and unsatisfactory. I reply that it should not be thought strange that he was so completely overpowered by this extraordinary vision as to forget that he was a prophet. For there was no feeling in him that was not overpowered by the presence of God, so that, like one who had lost his senses, he willingly plunged himself into darkness, or rather, like one who despaired of life, he voluntarily chose to die.

It is necessary that the godly should be affected in this manner when the Lord gives them tokens of His presence, so that they may be humbled and utterly confounded. Besides, in the person of His servant, God intended to strike His rebellious people with alarm. Therefore, we should not wonder if he offers an apology for himself under the overwhelming influence of fear, and also because he had not felt the weight of his office as he now felt it, after having beheld an illustrious display of the majesty of God.

But why was this vision not shown to him at the beginning? I answer: it was necessary considering the time, so that he might be more and more confirmed in the discharge of his office. We have an example of this in the Apostles themselves. At first, they were sent out with an injunction not to pass beyond the limits of Judea (Matthew 10:5). But after Christ had risen, He again set them apart in a new and solemn manner, breathed on them, bidding them receive the Holy Ghost (John 20:21–22). Not only so, but sending His Spirit from heaven in the forms of tongues of fire, He invested them with extraordinary power (Acts 2:3).

Thus, on account of the various changes of times and of kings, it was necessary that Isaiah should be encouraged and again confirmed by a new vision. This was so that he might be spurred on to perseverance and might afterward proceed with greater cheerfulness in his course, and also so that the Jews might perceive his ministry to be supported by heavenly authority.

This appears to me to be a sufficient reason why this vision was not shown to him at the very beginning, but after he had for some time discharged the office of a teacher. That this was not the beginning of the prophecy is evident enough from the consideration that the preface, which we have already examined, is much better suited for the commencement, and more appropriate than what is contained in this chapter. Every approach having been closed off by the hard-hearted obstinacy of the people, it was proper that he should burst forth in this forceful manner.

Besides, it is probable that he had long performed the office of a teacher under King Uzziah, who, I think, was dead before this prediction was published. In short, the Prophet means that it was not until he had begun his work that God appeared to him.

Some think that death here means leprosy, which undoubtedly was a civil death, when the king was compelled to withdraw from human society and to lay down the reins of government (2 Kings 15:5). However, I prefer to take death in its literal sense. Therefore, I think that Isaiah uttered the former predictions during the reign of Uzziah, even after he had been stricken with leprosy, and that when Uzziah had died and Jotham had succeeded him, this vision was presented to Isaiah.

We know what various commotions are produced by a change of kings, so we should not wonder that Isaiah had his calling confirmed again. But the prophecy itself, which follows, will sufficiently show that he had been a public teacher for some time before he saw the Lord. For it relates the blinding of the people, whose obstinacy he had experienced to such an extent that he might have been induced to cease from his undertaking, for he saw that he was doing no good. The Lord, therefore, confirms him by this vision, so that the opposition may not prevent him from boldly discharging his office and performing what he undertook at the commandment of God.

I saw the Lord. It is asked, how could Isaiah see God, who is a Spirit (John 4:24) and, therefore, cannot be seen with bodily eyes? Moreover, since human understanding cannot rise to His boundless height, how can He be seen in a visible shape? We should be aware that when God revealed Himself to the Fathers, He never appeared as He truly is, but in a way that human capacity could receive.

Though men may be said to crawl on the ground, or at least dwell far below the heavens, it is not absurd to suppose that God comes down to them in such a manner as to cause some kind of mirror to reflect the rays of His glory. Therefore, such a form was shown to Isaiah as enabled him, according to his capacity, to perceive the inconceivable majesty of God. Thus, he attributes to God a throne, a robe, and a bodily appearance.

From this we learn a valuable doctrine: whenever God grants any sign of His presence, He is undoubtedly present with us, for He does not amuse us with meaningless forms, as men wickedly disfigure Him by their contrivances. Therefore, since that appearance was not a deceptive representation of the presence of God, Isaiah justly declares that he saw him. Similarly, when it is said that John saw the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove (John 1:32), the name of the Holy Spirit is applied to the outward sign, because in the representation there was no deception. Yet he did not see the essence of the Spirit but had clear and undeniable proof, so that he could not doubt that the Spirit of God rested on Christ.

Secondly, it is asked, who was that Lord? John tells us that it was Christ (John 12:41), and justly, for God never revealed Himself to the Fathers except in His eternal Word and only-begotten Son. Yet I think it is wrong to limit this, as some do, to the person of Christ; for, on the contrary, the Prophet calls Him God indefinitely. Nor do their views derive any support from the word אדוני (adonai), which seems particularly to apply to Christ, for it is often applied to God in an absolute and unrestricted manner. In this passage, therefore, God is mentioned indefinitely, and yet it is correctly said that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, for at that very time He was the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

Sitting upon a throne. He could not have given a better description of God, regarding place, than in the person of a Judge, so that His majesty might strike greater terror into the Jews; for we shall afterward see the dreadful judgment which the Lord pronounced from His judgment-seat. But so that we do not suppose that the Prophet invented the manner in which he would depict God, we should know that he faithfully describes the very form in which God was represented and shown to him.

It may be questioned whether the Prophet was conducted into the temple or saw this vision while he was asleep. Though many things are frequently brought forward on both sides, which tend to leave the matter in doubt, yet it may be conjectured with some probability that even if he had not been within the temple, this vision might have been presented to him, either in his own house or in a field, in the same manner as to other prophets.

And his remotest parts filled the temple. Almost all commentators understand by this the fringes of His robe, though it may be understood to refer to the extremities of the judgment-seat, indicating that its dimensions were so vast as to extend to every part of the temple.

He intends to ascribe to God a venerable aspect, far beyond any human form. There is great weight in the circumstance that He appeared in the temple, for He had promised that He would meet with His people there, and the people expected His answers from that place, as Solomon had expressly stated at its dedication (1 Kings 8:30). Therefore, so that the people might understand that these things came from God, whom they called upon every day and on whom they relied with an empty confidence that puffed them up, this vision was shown to the Prophet in the temple.

It significantly contributed to the certainty of what was said that he openly proclaimed that the message was not delivered to him by any mortal man, but was a heavenly oracle, uttered by that God whose name they were accustomed disdainfully to use as a pretext whenever they wished to make any extravagant claims. Otherwise, this prophecy would have been harsh and repulsive and would have needed great confirmation. It was also not uncommon for the Prophets to say that the Lord spoke to them from his temple, or from his sanctuary.

And the seraphim stood upon it. Having declared that God appeared to him full of majesty and glory, he adds that God was attended by angels, whom the Prophet calls seraphim on account of their fervor. Though the etymology of this word is well known, various reasons are cited. Some think that they are called seraphim because they burn with the love of God; others, because they are swift like fire; others, because they are bright. However that may be, this description presents to us, as in sunbeams, the brightness of God’s infinite majesty, so that we may learn from it to behold and adore His wonderful and overwhelming glory.

Many think that there were two seraphim, as there were two cherubim that surrounded the ark of the testimony. I willingly adopt this opinion, though I do not venture to make any assertion where Scripture is silent. As sacred writers customarily adapt their descriptions of God to those outward signs commonly used and familiarly known among the godly, it is possible that the Prophet saw a representation of this kind. While I hold this to be a probable conjecture, I leave room for other interpretations which some may be inclined to prefer; for Daniel saw not two angels only, but thousands of thousands of angels (Daniel 7:10).

Each one had six wings. This representation is instructive, for those wings thus arranged contained some mystery which the Lord willed should not remain entirely unknown. The two wings with which the angels fly mean nothing other than their ready and cheerful performance of the commandments of God.

On this point the resemblance is so clear and evident that it will be immediately admitted by all who do not take delight in controversy. The two wings with which they cover their face show plainly enough that even angels cannot endure God’s brightness, and that they are dazzled by it in the same manner as when we attempt to gaze upon the radiance of the sun.

And if angels are overwhelmed by the majesty of God, how great will be the rashness of men if they venture to intrude so far! Let us, therefore, learn that our inquiries concerning God ought never to go beyond what is proper and lawful, so that our knowledge may soberly and modestly taste what is far above our capacity.

And yet the angels do not cover their face in such a way that they are not favored with beholding God to some degree, for their flight is not at random. Similarly, we too ought to look at God, but only as far as our capacity enables us.

As to the remaining two wings, which were placed lower, the difficulty is somewhat greater. Some think that the angels covered their feet, so that they might not touch the earth and contract any defilement from it, as human beings like us are accustomed to do; for in walking we gather filth and dust, and accordingly, as long as we dwell on earth, we are always tainted by some kind of contagion. This reminds believers that they will have no interaction with angels until they raise themselves high and are no longer fastened to the earth.

Such is the interpretation given by some interpreters. But I rather agree with those who think that the use of those wings was opposite to that of the upper wings; for, as by the upper wings they cover their face, so that they may not be overpowered by God’s brightness, so they also have lower wings to conceal them from our view. Now, if it is true that we cannot behold the small and feeble rays of the Divine brightness without being completely overpowered, how could we gaze upon that unspeakably bright and glorious majesty which lays prostrate all our faculties? Let people learn, therefore, that they are far distant from a perfect knowledge of God, since they cannot even attain to the angels. The latter appears to me to be the more correct interpretation, but I do not disapprove of the former.

And they cried one to another. It was necessary that all these things should be presented to the Prophet in a vision, to produce a stronger impression on the people and on Isaiah himself. The vision was no less necessary for him than for the whole nation, because sharp and painful struggles awaited him, and he could not have boldly announced those events if he had not been previously confirmed. The people also, being warned by this vision how great and how awesome was the majesty of God, by whom this condemnation was pronounced, had good reason for being alarmed.

He who now came forth to public view is God, at the sight of whom the very angels tremble, whose praises they continually and loudly proclaim, and whom, in a word, they serve and obey. Yet humans, whom he had been pleased to adopt as his children, obstinately and rebelliously opposed him.

Now, when we are informed that the angels are employed in proclaiming the glory of God, let us understand that their example is set before us for imitation. For the most holy service that we can render to him is to be engaged in praising his name. When he associates us with angels, it is so that, while we live on earth, we may resemble and be joined to the inhabitants of heaven. So that the harmony between us and the angels may be complete in every respect, we must take care not only that the praises of God may be sounded by our tongues, but also that all the actions of our life may correspond to our professions; and this will only be done if the chief aim of our actions is the glory of God.

Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts. The ancients quoted this passage when they wished to prove that there are three persons in one essence of the Godhead. I do not disagree with their opinion; but if I had to contend with heretics, I would rather choose to employ stronger proofs. For they become more obstinate and assume an air of triumph when inconclusive arguments are brought against them; and they might easily and readily maintain that, in this passage, as in other parts of Scripture, the number “three” denotes perfection.

Although, therefore, I have no doubt that the angels here describe One God in Three Persons (and, indeed, it is impossible to praise God without also proclaiming the praises of the Father, of the Son, and of the Spirit), yet I think that it would be better to employ more conclusive passages, lest, in proving an article of our faith, we should expose ourselves to the scorn of heretics. And, indeed, this repetition rather points to unwearied perseverance, as if the Prophet had said that the angels never cease from their melody in singing the praises of God, as the holiness of God supplies us with inexhaustible reasons for them.

The whole earth is full of his glory. Literally it is, the fullness of the whole earth, which might be understood to refer to the fruits, and animals, and manifold riches with which God has enriched the earth. This might convey the meaning that in the ornaments and great variety of furnishings of the world the glory of God shines, because they are so many proofs of a father’s love.

But the more simple and natural interpretation is that the glory of God fills the whole world, or is spread through every region of the earth. There is also, I think, an implied contrast by which he refutes the foolish boasting of the Jews, who thought that the glory of God was to be seen nowhere but among themselves and wished to have it confined within their own temple.

But Isaiah shows that it is so far from being confined to such narrow limits that it fills the whole earth. And the prophecy that immediately follows (Isaiah 6:10) about the blinding of the Jews agrees with this, which opened up admission into the Church of God for the Gentiles; for they occupied the place that the Jews had forsaken and left empty.

And the lintels of the posts were moved. This noise was an indication that it was not a human voice that the Prophet had heard, for no mortal man has a voice so powerful as to be capable of making the lintels and posts shake. Now, the Lord intended not only to establish the authority of his voice over the Prophet, but also to confirm it to posterity for all ages, so that it might never be forgotten. Let us, therefore, know that this noise confirms even today the voice of God, so that we may tremble whenever he speaks; for if inanimate and mute creatures are moved, what ought we to do, who feel, smell, taste, and understand for no other purpose than to obey his word in a holy and reverent manner?

And the house was filled with smoke. This was the common and ordinary sign that the Lord employed with his ancient people; for we read that, whenever Moses entered into the tabernacle, smoke would usually be diffused through it in such a way that the people could not see either Moses or the tabernacle (Exodus 33:9). The smoke, therefore, that Isaiah describes was not an unusual occurrence; but in the usual way God intended to demonstrate that he would display his power in executing judgment on the people.

But it may be asked, why did God manifest his presence by this sign rather than by any other? This question may be answered in two ways. First, it was always the will of God to repress the insolence of people in pushing their inquiries about his majesty beyond what is proper; for on this point, almost all people are too rash and daring.

They wish to rise above the clouds and to penetrate into the secrets of God, while they do not see what lies at their feet. From this arises a labyrinth of errors, and when human minds have been entangled in it, they adopt false and pretended modes of worship; for when people allow themselves to adopt any false notions about God, there is nothing that they will not venture to attempt against him.

It was not without good reason, therefore, that he made use of smoke to remind people of their weakness; and yet he did not intend that they should be blind or stupid (that is, that they should have the stupidity and error that the papists disguise under the name of simplicity), but he forbids us to inquire or search beyond what he has revealed to us in his word; for, as Augustine says, “that is a learned ignorance.” Whenever, therefore, smoke of this kind is mentioned, let us recognize that it restrains us from indulging curiosity in our inquiries into the purpose of God.

Secondly, this smoke ought to strike terror, as David, when describing an angry and terrible God, says that clouds and darkness are round about him (Psalms 97:2). This also agrees well with the present passage, for he pronounces a dreadful judgment, namely, the blinding of the Jews. Others think that it indicated the burning by which he consumed the temple, but the view that I have given is more probable.

Woe to me! for I am undone. The Prophet now relates how powerfully he was affected by that vision, namely, that he was so terrified by seeing God that he expected immediate destruction. He assigns the reason for believing that it is all over with him: because, says he, I am a man of unclean lips.

I wonder why Jerome renders it, because I was silent; since there is no ambiguity in the expression. דמה (damah) does indeed signify to be silent, but here the undoubted mark of a passive verb is added. This passage may likewise be rendered, Woe to me! for I have been reduced to silence. In the Scriptures, silence is often taken for death, and those who have been buried are said to have been reduced to silence. But as the meaning is the same, I will not dispute much about the translation.

The Prophet, therefore, means that he was so terrified as to resemble a dead man. And certainly, we need not wonder at this, for the whole man, as far as relates to the flesh, must be reduced to nothing so that it may be renewed according to God.

From where does it come that men live—that is, imagine that they live—and are swelled with vain confidence in their wisdom or strength, but because they do not know God? Accordingly, until God reveals Himself to us, we do not think that we are men, or rather, we think that we are gods; but when we have seen God, we then begin to feel and know what we are.

From this springs true humility, which consists in this: that a man makes no claims for himself and depends wholly on God. Therefore, on this point, the present and similar passages ought to be carefully studied.

It was customary with the godly fathers, whenever they saw God, to break out into these words:

I am gone; I am utterly undone. (Judges 13:22)

Our life, therefore, until our minds earnestly draw near to God, is a vain delusion. We walk in darkness and can distinguish truth from falsehood only with difficulty; but when we come into the light, it is easy to perceive the difference. So, when God draws near to us, He brings light with Him, so that we may perceive our worthlessness, which we could not formerly see while we entertained a false opinion of ourselves.

And yet my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts. But does the sight of God bring death to men? For it appears strange that the sight of God or approach to Him should take away life, of which He is the source and giver.

I reply that this is an accidental result, for it takes place through our fault and not on account of the nature of God. Death is within us, but we do not perceive it unless it is compared with the life of God.

This is unquestionably what the Prophet means, for he does not merely say that he is dead but assigns the reason: because he has unclean lips.

But why does he confine the pollution to the lips? Was he pure in understanding or in the other parts of the body?

I answer: the Prophet mentions that which he regarded as the most valuable—his tongue, which was consecrated to God, for God had appointed him to be a Prophet. Even though he was in other respects a sinner, yet because the office which he held was holy, this part of his body was sacred.

And as it does not correspond to the divine holiness, he confesses that, even in that part which in itself is more holy, he is polluted. Such appears to me to be the true and natural meaning of this passage, in the explanation of which commentators have until now been unsuccessful.

And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips. This is added by way of explanation, for he includes himself as an individual in the number of the common people, tainted with that pollution which extends to the whole body, and forgets the purity which he had received from God because it cannot dwell in His presence.

Hence, it is evident that they are mistaken who imagine that the Prophet spoke under erroneous views, as the common people are accustomed to contrive a variety of false notions concerning God. For, as I have said, the presence of God and approach to Him is the destruction of our flesh because it shows that we are nothing in ourselves.

When he who is conscious of his wretchedness sees God, what can he expect but destruction? For God is our judge, to whom, we know, nothing is concealed or unknown, and in whose sight our purity is impure. And if this happened to the Prophet, what ought we to think of ourselves?

For what are we in comparison to him? Even if the LORD has begun to cleanse us, we still ought to acknowledge our pollution, the remains of which always continue in our flesh.

From this, we also ought to draw a universal doctrine: that the lips of all men are impure and polluted until the Lord has cleansed them. From this, it also follows that human doctrines have an uncleanness that betrays them, and that there is nothing pure but what has come from God.