Isaiah 63:9,10

‘In all their affliction he was afflicted,

And the angel of his presence (face) saved them,

In his love and in his pity he redeemed them,

And he bore them and carried them all the days of old.

But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit,

Therefore he was turned to be their enemy,

Himself fought against them.

The way in which He had saved them in the past is described in summary. He had shared sympathetically in their afflictions, feeling them deeply Himself. This was especially so in Egypt (Exodus 3:7). He had acted for them through ‘the angel of His face', as One personally present and seeing what was happening (Exodus 3:7; Exodus 3:9). In His love and pity He had delivered them by His power, and He had borne them and carried them all through their early years in the wilderness, and then in Canaan.

But instead of responding in gratitude they had rebelled against Him, they had grieved His holy Spirit, and this to such an extent that He had become their enemy and fought against them, allowing enemies to triumph against them (Numbers 14:43; Judges 3:8; Judges 3:12; Judges 4:2 and often). Yet unlike in the final case of Edom, the enmity was only for a time, and then He had had mercy on them, for He had remembered Moses and He had remembered that He had chosen them as His people.

We note in these verses reference to the ‘angel of His presence (face)' and the holy Spirit. To Isaiah both represented the essential of nature of Yahweh. The ‘angel of His face' probably refers to the outward manifestations of His personal presence among them, the burning flame in the bush, the pillar of cloud and fire, the glory on the Tabernacle, the powerful effect of the Ark on the Jordan, the Captain of Yahweh's host (Joshua 5:14), the Angel of Yahweh (Judges 2:1; Judges 6:11; Judges 13:9), and so on. And yet within descriptions of the Angel of Yahweh are hints at distinctiveness within the Godhead. There is a sameness and yet a distinctiveness (compare Zechariah 1:12).

‘The holy Spirit' refers to the Spirit of God in His holiness, where God had worked regularly through chosen men in distinctive power so that what they accomplished was seen to be of God. But God could be grieved within His Spirit, and then His powerful effects were withdrawn (compare especially Saul - 1 Samuel 16:14). The thought is of times when there were no Spirit-empowered leaders to lead Israel.

We note that in these references to Yahweh, to the Angel of Yahweh and to His holy Spirit there is already a hint of distinctiveness and threeness within the Godhead, yet a working of total unity.

Note on ‘In all their affliction (tsarah) He was afflicted (tsar).'

This first clause in the verse is famous as the subject of discordant and even contradictory interpretations. This has been caused by a doubt as to the text. The original text is ‘in all their tsarah He was not tsar'. But the Masora notes this as one of fifteen places in which lo' (not) is written by mistake for lo (to him or it). Another instance of the same alleged error in the text of Isaiah is found in Isaiah 9:2. On the basis of this change Aben Ezra suggested that it should signify ‘in all their distress there was distress to Him', and thus as above “in all their affliction He was afflicted.” This explanation is approved by a number of expositors. It is favoured, not only by the strong and moving sense which it yields, but by the analogy of Judges 10:16; Judges 11:7, in one of which places the same phrase is used to denote human suffering, and in the other God is represented as sympathising with it.

However, objections to it are:

· (Isaiah 63:1) That it gratuitously renders necessary another anthropopathic explanation.

· (Isaiah 63:2) That the natural wording if this were the meaning, would be ‘ar lo' as in 2 Samuel 1:26.

· (Isaiah 63:3) That the negative (as in the Kethib) is expressed by all the ancient versions.

· (Isaiah 63:4) That the critical presumption is in favour of ‘the Kethib', or textual reading, as the more ancient, a reading which the Masoretes merely corrected in the margin (the Qere), without venturing to change it, and which ought not now to be abandoned, if a coherent sense can be put upon it, as it can in this case.

Another suggestion is to translate, ‘in all their affliction (tsar) He was not an adversary (tsarah) to them.' This would fit in with what follows but is liable to the objection that it takes tsar and tsarah in entirely different senses, something which should only be done in the same context when there is no alternative. Possibly the best suggstion is that it means, ‘in all their being an enemy (against Him) He was not an enemy (to them)', which was proved in that ‘He saved them'.

End of note.