Isale 5 9 4

All donations to this fundraiser go to the fundraiser creator's personal checking account. Stripe, Facebook's fundraising payment processor, distributes each donation after a 7 day hold to reduce risks, such as refunds and negative balances. Commentary on Isaiah 5:1-7 (Read Isaiah 5:1-7) Christ is God's beloved Son, and our beloved Saviour. The care of the Lord over the church of Israel, is described by the management of a vineyard. The advantages of our situation will be brought into the account another day. (9) Jehovah of hosts has spoken in my ear, Surely, many houses will become desolate—even great and beautiful mansions—they will be left without occupants; (10) because a ten-acre vineyard will produce only ten gallons of wine, and ten bushels of seed will produce only one bushel of grain. (Isaiah 5:8-10). 5 1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: 2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.

• Isale 5 9 49
• Isale 5 9 45
• Isale 5 9 4 X 4

Isaiah 5:4

Jump to:

Range SpecificChapter Specific

What could I … - As a man who had done what is described in Isaiah 5:2, would have done all that 'could' be done for a vineyard, so God says that he has done all that he could, in the circumstances of the Jews, to make them holy and happy. He had chosen them; had given them his law; had sent them prophets and teachers; had defended them; had come forth in judgment and mercy, and he now appeals 'to them' to say what 'could' have been done more. This important verse implies that God had done all that he could have done; that is, all that he could consistently do, or all that justice and goodness required him to do, to secure the welfare of his people. It cannot, of course, be meant that he had no physical ability to do anything else, but the expression must be interpreted by a reference to the point in hand; and that is, an appeal to others to determine that he had done all that could be done in the circumstances of the case. In this respect, we may, without impropriety, say, that there is a limit to the power of God. It is impossible to conceive that he 'could' have given a law more holy; or that he could append to it more solemn sanctions than the threatening of eternal death; or that he could have offered higher hopes than the prospect of eternal life; or that he could have given a more exalted Redeemer. It has been maintained (see the 'Princeton Bib. Repert.,' April 1841) that the reference here is to the future, and that the question means, ‹what remains now to be done to my vineyard as an expression of displeasure?‘ or that it is asked with a view to introduce the expression of his purpose to punish his people, stated in Isaiah 5:5. But that the above is the meaning or the passage, or that it refers to what God had actually done, is evident from the following considerations:

(1) He had specified at length Isaiah 5:2 what he had done. He had performed 'all' that was usually done to a vineyard; in fencing it, and clearing it of stones, and planting in it the choicest vines, and building a wine-press in it. Without impropriety, it might be said of a man that, whatever wealth he had, or whatever power he had to do 'other' things, he 'could do nothing more to perfect a vineyard.'

(2) It is the meaning which is most naturally suggested by the original. Literally, the Hebrew is, ‹What to do more?‘ עודמה־לעשׂותmah -la‛ăs'ôth‛ôd Coverdale renders this, as it is in our translation, ‹What more could have been done for it?‘ Luther, ‹What should one do more to my vineyard, that I have not done for it?‘ Was sollte man doth mehr thun an meinem Weinberge, das ich nicht gethun babe an illin? Vulgate, Quid est quod debui ultra facere. ‹What is there which I ought to do more?‘ Septuagint, Τί ποιήσω ἔτι Tipoiēsōeti ‹What shall I do yet?‘ implying that he had done all that he could for it. The Chaldee renders it, ‹What good thing - טבאמהmahṭâbâ' - shall I say that I will do to my people that I have not done for them?‘ implying that he had done for them all the good which could be spoken of. The Syriac, ‹What remains to be done to my vineyard, and I have not done it?‘ In all these versions, the sense given is substantially the same - that God had done all that could be done to make the expectation that his vineyard would produce fruit, proper. There is no reference in one of these versions to what he 'would' do afterward, but the uniform reference is to what he 'had' done to make the expectation 'reasonable,' that his vineyard would produce fruit.

(3) That this is the fair interpretation is apparent further, because, when, in Isaiah 5:5, he says what he 'would do,' it is entirely different from what he said he 'had done.' He 'had' done all that could be done to make it proper to expect fruit; he now 'would' do what would be a proper expression of his displeasure that no fruit had been produced. He would take away its hedge; break down its walls, and lay it waste. But in the interpretation of the passage proposed by the 'Princeton Repert.,' there is an entire omission of this part of the verse - ‹that I have not done in it.‘ It is not improper, therefore, to use this passage to show that God had done all that could be consistently done for the salvation of man, and the same appeal may now be made to sinners everywhere; and it may be asked, what God 'could' have done for their salvation more than has been done? 'Could' he have given them a purer law? 'Could' he present higher considerations than have been drawn from the hope of an 'eternal' heaven, and the fear of an 'eternal' hell? Could he have furnished a more full atonement than has been made by the blood of his own Son? The conclusion to which we should come would be in accordance with what is said in the prophet, that God has done 'all' for the salvation of sinners that in the circumstances of the case could be done, and that if they are lost, they only will bear the blame.

What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?.... Or 'ought', as the Vulgate Latin: this is generally understood of good things done to it in time past; as what better culture could it have had? what greater privileges, blessings, and advantages, natural, civil, and religious, could have been bestowed on this people? what greater favour could have been shown them, or honour done them? or what of this kind remains to be done for them? they have had everything that could be desired, expected, or enjoyed: though it may be rendered, 'what is further or hereafter to be done to my vineyard'^F21מהלעשותעודלכרמי 'quid faciendum amplius fuit', Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; 'et quid ultra faciendum erat'; so some in Vatablus, Montanus. , and 'I have not done in it?' that is, by way of punishment; I have reproved and chastised them, but all in vain; what remains further for me, and which I will do, because of their ingratitude and unfruitfulness? I will utterly destroy them as a nation and church; I will cause their civil and ecclesiastical state to cease. The sense may be gathered from the answer to the question in the following verse Isaiah 5:5,

wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? that is, why have these people acted so ill a part, when such and so many good things have been bestowed upon them; on account of which it might have been reasonably expected they would have behaved in another manner? or rather the words may be rendered, 'why have I looked or expected^F23מדועקויתי 'quare expectavi?' Cocceius. that it should bring forth grapes, seeing it brought forth wild grapes?' why have I been looking for good fruit, when nothing but bad fruit for so long a time has been produced? why have I endured with so much patience and longsuffering? I will bear with them no longer, as follows. The Targum is for the former sense,

'what good have I said to do more to my people, which I have not done to them? and what is this I have said, that they should do good works, and they have done evil works?'

God has done all that could be done for the salvation of sinners, consistently with His justice and goodness. The God of nature is, as it were, amazed at the unnatural fruit of so well-cared a vineyard.

Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Ver. 4. What could have been done to my vineyard?] See the like angry expostulations, Jeremiah 2:5, Micah 6:3; when God hath done all that can be done to do wretched men good, they oft do their utmost to defeat him, and undo themselves. Quid debui facere Domino meo quod fecerim? said Augustine of himself, by way of penitent confession: quis ego, qualis ego? quid non mali ego? The cypress tree, the more it is watered, the less fruitful; so it is with many people. But God can no way be charged with their barrenness.

' At Paris ut vivat regnetque beatus,

Cogo posse negat. ' - Horat.

Isaiah 5:4

I. The first way of putting, or rather of vindicating, the question of our text is when we contend that Atheism has a far better apology for resisting the evidences of a God which are spread over creation, than worldly-mindedness for manifesting insensibility to redemption through Christ. Atheism may ask for a wider sphere of expatiation and for a more glowing stamp of divinity, for it falls within our power to conceive a richer manifestation of the Invisible Godhead. But the worldly-minded cannot ask for a more touching proof of the love of the Almighty, or for a more bounteous provision for human necessities, or for more moving motives to repentance and obedience. What has been done for the vineyard, regard being had to the augustness of the Being who did it, proclaims us ruined if we bring not forth such fruits as God requires at our hands.

II. We may affirm that as much has been done as could have been done for the vineyard, regard being had to the completeness and fulness of the work, as well as the greatness of its Author. Has not much been done for the vineyard, since redemption thus meets the every necessity of the guilty, the helpless, and the wretched—for creatures whom it found in the lowest degradation, and leaves them not till it elevates them to the noblest exaltation?

III. Much of what has been done for the vineyard consists in the greatness of the reward which the Gospel proposes to righteousness, and the greatness of the punishment which it denounces on impenitence. It was not redemption from mere temporary evil that Jesus Christ effected. The consequences of transgression spread themselves through eternity; and the Saviour, when He bowed His head and said, 'It is finished,' had provided for the removal of these consequences in all the immenseness, whether of their magnitude or their duration. Much, exceeding much, has been done by God for the vineyard, seeing that He has opened before us prospects for eternity, than which imagination can conceive none more brilliant if we close with the proffers, and none more appalling if we refuse.

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1796.

References: Isaiah 5:4.—C. C. Bartholomew, Sermons Chiefly Practical p. 219. Isaiah 5:6.—Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes: Ecclesiastes to Malachi, p. 219. Isaiah 5:9.—W. V. Robinson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxviii., p. 148. Isaiah 5:18, Isaiah 5:19.—R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, vol. i., p. 82.

What work is there belonging to the office of a master or keeper of the vineyard which I have neglected? How unworthy and inexcusable a crime is it, that you have not only been unfruitful in good works, but also filled with all the fruits of wickedness!

Was it. 'Why has it produced wild grapes, while I looked?' &c.

in it. Some codices, with one early printed edition, Aramaean, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, read 'to (or for) it'.

What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

What could have been done more to my vineyard. God has done all that could be done for the salvation of sinners, consistently with His justice and goodness.

Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? The God of nature is, as it were, amazed at the unnatural fruit of so well-cared a vineyard.

(4) What could have been done more . . .—The prophet cuts off from the people the excuse that they had been unfairly treated, that their Lord was as a hard master, reaping where he had not sown (Matthew 25:24). They had had all the external advantages that were necessary for their growth in holiness, yet they had not used them rightly. (Comp. the striking parallelism of Hebrews 6:4-8.)

What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

1:5; 2 Chronicles 36:14-16; Jeremiah 2:30,31; 6:29,30; Ezekiel 24:13; Matthew 23:37; Acts 7:51-60

Reciprocal:Genesis 6:3 - My; Exodus 37:22 - beaten work; Deuteronomy 32:32 - their grapes; 1 Samuel 12:7 - reason; 2 Kings 4:39 - a wild vine; 2 Chronicles 34:24 - I will bring; Isaiah 27:8 - thou wilt; Isaiah 28:10 - For precept; Jeremiah 2:5 - What; Jeremiah 2:21 - into the degenerate; Jeremiah 8:13 - there; Jeremiah 24:2 - naughty; Hosea 6:4

Isale 5 9 49

- what; Amos 2:11 - Is it; Zephaniah 3:7 - Surely; Matthew 13:12 - from; Matthew 21:19 - and found; Matthew 21:34 - that; Matthew 21:37 - They;

Mark 4:19 - unfruitful; Mark 11:20 -

Isale 5 9 45

General; Luke 6:43 - General; Luke 20:13 - What; Luke 24:47 - beginning; Hebrews 12:15 - any root

THE INEXCUSABILITY AND HOPELESSNESS OF UNBELIEF

Isa . What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?

In a subsequent verse God condescends to explain what is here meant by His 'vineyard,' so that there might be no doubt as to the scope and import of the passage (Isa ). God had done everything which could be done for the spiritual culture of His ancient Church (Isa 5:3-4). The assertion that 'as much had been done as could be done' is very affecting and startling. And if this could be said of the Jewish vineyard, what shall be said of the Christian?

There is a peculiar argument thus suggested, which, wrought out, will show that men are inexcusable in persisting in their unbelief, since nothing more could have been done to win them to the side of righteousness and to turn them to God. Notice carefully the variety of the arguments addressed in Scripture to the thoughtless and obdurate. At one time they are attacked with terrors, the picture being set before them of Divine wrath; at another they are acted on by the loving-kindness of God, and allured by the free mercies of the Gospel. In the text it is not precisely either the one or the other of these methods. There is nothing alleged but the greatness of what has been done for us—a greatness such that nothing more can be done, consistently, at least, with that moral accountableness which must regulate the amount of influence which God brings to bear on men. If this be so, if we are not convinced and renewed under the existing instrumentality, there is nothing that can avert from us utter destruction.

But is this so? Review the means provided and proffered for our rescue, and let us see whether any of us can be other than silent. If we were arguing with a man who disbelieved the existence of God, we should probably reason up from the creation to the Creator. Our adversary might challenge us to prove that nothing short of Infinite Power could have built and furnished this planet. It may be allowed that certain results lie beyond human agency, and yet disputed whether they need such an agency as we strictly call Divine. We do not, therefore, maintain that the evidences in creation are the strongest which can be conceived. Hence we should not perhaps feel warranted in saying to the atheist, 'What more could have been done' to produce belief in you if you resist all these tokens of God in Nature? But if we cannot say to the atheist, when pointing to the surrounding creation, 'What more could have been done that has not been done' for your conviction? we can ply the worldly-minded with this question when pointing to the scheme of salvation through Christ. We deny that the worldly-minded can appeal from what God has done on their behalf to a yet mightier interference which imagination can picture. It is the property of redemption, if not of creation, that it leaves no room for imagination. Those who turn with indifference from the proffers of the Gospel are just in the position of the atheist who should remain such after God had set before him the highest possible demonstration of Himself. It is not, we think, too bold a thing to say that, in redeeming us, God exhausted Himself—He gave Himself. And may we not argue that, resisting what has been granted, you demonstrate that you cannot be overcome, and thus your condemnation is sealed by the incontrovertible truth involved in the question of the text?

Looked at more in detail, the argument is—

I. As much has been done as could have been done, because of the Agency through which man's redemption was effected. In looking at the cross, considering our sins as laid on the Being who hangs there in weakness and ignominy, the overcoming thought is, that this Being is none other than the Everlasting God, and that however He seem mastered by the powers of wickedness, He could by a single word, uttered from the altar on which He immolates Himself, scatter the universe into nothing, and call up an assemblage of new worlds and new creatures.—What a condemning force this throws into the question of the text! If it give an unmeasured stupendousness to the work of our redemption, that He who undertook, carried on, and completed that work was 'the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person,' then surely what has been done for the 'vineyard' proclaims us ruined if we bring not forth such fruits as God requires at our hands.—If the extent of what has been done may be given in evidence that if it prove ineffectual there remains nothing more to be tried, what say you to the justice of the question? what to the condemnation under which it leaves the worldly-minded and rebellious?

II. As much has been done as could have been done, regard being had to the completeness and fulness of the work, as well as to the greatness of its Author. We might have been sure beforehand that what the Divine Agent undertook would be thoroughly effected. The sins of the whole race were laid on Christ. There is consequently nothing in our own guiltiness to make us hesitate as to the possibility of forgiveness. The penalties of a violated law have been actually discharged.

The scheme of redemption provides also for our acceptance, so that happiness may be obtained. If it met our necessities only in part, there might be excuse for refusing it our attention. When you add to the unsearchable riches of grace in Christ the continued and earnest agency of the Holy Spirit, have you a word to plead against the remonstrance of God in the text?

Mark 4:19 - unfruitful; Mark 11:20 -

Isale 5 9 45

General; Luke 6:43 - General; Luke 20:13 - What; Luke 24:47 - beginning; Hebrews 12:15 - any root

THE INEXCUSABILITY AND HOPELESSNESS OF UNBELIEF

Isa . What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?

In a subsequent verse God condescends to explain what is here meant by His 'vineyard,' so that there might be no doubt as to the scope and import of the passage (Isa ). God had done everything which could be done for the spiritual culture of His ancient Church (Isa 5:3-4). The assertion that 'as much had been done as could be done' is very affecting and startling. And if this could be said of the Jewish vineyard, what shall be said of the Christian?

There is a peculiar argument thus suggested, which, wrought out, will show that men are inexcusable in persisting in their unbelief, since nothing more could have been done to win them to the side of righteousness and to turn them to God. Notice carefully the variety of the arguments addressed in Scripture to the thoughtless and obdurate. At one time they are attacked with terrors, the picture being set before them of Divine wrath; at another they are acted on by the loving-kindness of God, and allured by the free mercies of the Gospel. In the text it is not precisely either the one or the other of these methods. There is nothing alleged but the greatness of what has been done for us—a greatness such that nothing more can be done, consistently, at least, with that moral accountableness which must regulate the amount of influence which God brings to bear on men. If this be so, if we are not convinced and renewed under the existing instrumentality, there is nothing that can avert from us utter destruction.

But is this so? Review the means provided and proffered for our rescue, and let us see whether any of us can be other than silent. If we were arguing with a man who disbelieved the existence of God, we should probably reason up from the creation to the Creator. Our adversary might challenge us to prove that nothing short of Infinite Power could have built and furnished this planet. It may be allowed that certain results lie beyond human agency, and yet disputed whether they need such an agency as we strictly call Divine. We do not, therefore, maintain that the evidences in creation are the strongest which can be conceived. Hence we should not perhaps feel warranted in saying to the atheist, 'What more could have been done' to produce belief in you if you resist all these tokens of God in Nature? But if we cannot say to the atheist, when pointing to the surrounding creation, 'What more could have been done that has not been done' for your conviction? we can ply the worldly-minded with this question when pointing to the scheme of salvation through Christ. We deny that the worldly-minded can appeal from what God has done on their behalf to a yet mightier interference which imagination can picture. It is the property of redemption, if not of creation, that it leaves no room for imagination. Those who turn with indifference from the proffers of the Gospel are just in the position of the atheist who should remain such after God had set before him the highest possible demonstration of Himself. It is not, we think, too bold a thing to say that, in redeeming us, God exhausted Himself—He gave Himself. And may we not argue that, resisting what has been granted, you demonstrate that you cannot be overcome, and thus your condemnation is sealed by the incontrovertible truth involved in the question of the text?

Looked at more in detail, the argument is—

I. As much has been done as could have been done, because of the Agency through which man's redemption was effected. In looking at the cross, considering our sins as laid on the Being who hangs there in weakness and ignominy, the overcoming thought is, that this Being is none other than the Everlasting God, and that however He seem mastered by the powers of wickedness, He could by a single word, uttered from the altar on which He immolates Himself, scatter the universe into nothing, and call up an assemblage of new worlds and new creatures.—What a condemning force this throws into the question of the text! If it give an unmeasured stupendousness to the work of our redemption, that He who undertook, carried on, and completed that work was 'the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person,' then surely what has been done for the 'vineyard' proclaims us ruined if we bring not forth such fruits as God requires at our hands.—If the extent of what has been done may be given in evidence that if it prove ineffectual there remains nothing more to be tried, what say you to the justice of the question? what to the condemnation under which it leaves the worldly-minded and rebellious?

II. As much has been done as could have been done, regard being had to the completeness and fulness of the work, as well as to the greatness of its Author. We might have been sure beforehand that what the Divine Agent undertook would be thoroughly effected. The sins of the whole race were laid on Christ. There is consequently nothing in our own guiltiness to make us hesitate as to the possibility of forgiveness. The penalties of a violated law have been actually discharged.

The scheme of redemption provides also for our acceptance, so that happiness may be obtained. If it met our necessities only in part, there might be excuse for refusing it our attention. When you add to the unsearchable riches of grace in Christ the continued and earnest agency of the Holy Spirit, have you a word to plead against the remonstrance of God in the text?

III. We are bound to regard the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the grand revelation of future punishment and reward. Until the Redeemer appeared and brought more direct tidings from the invisible would, the sanctions of eternity were scarcely, if at all, brought to bear on the occupations of time. So imperfect had been the foregoing knowledge regarding the immortality of the soul that Paul declared of Christ that He 'abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel.' Much of what has been done for the 'vineyard' consists in the greatness of the reward which the Gospel promises to righteousness, and the greatness of the punishment which it denounces on impenitence.

It was not redemption from mere temporary evil that Christ effected. Redemption does not make men immortal, but, finding them so, it sheds its influence throughout their unlimited existence, wringing the curse from its every instant, and leaving a blessing in its stead. The Gospel sets before us an array of motives, concerning which it is no boldness to say, that, if ineffectual, it is because we are immovable; if heaven fails to attract, hell to alarm—the heaven and the hell opened to us by the revelation of Scripture—it can only be because of a set determination to continue in sin. What more could have been done for the vineyard? If you are waiting to be forced, you are waiting to be ruined. 'Seek the Lord while He may be found; call on Him while He is near.'—Henry Melvill, B.D.: Golden Lectures, pp. 485-492.

4.What more ought to have been done to my vineyard? He first inquires what could have been expected from the best husbandman or householder, which he has not done to his vineyard ? Hence he concludes that they had no excuse for having basely withheld from him the fruit of his toil.

Isale 5 9 4 X 4

How did I expect that it would yield grapes? In this clause he appears to expostulate with himself for having expected any good or pleasant fruit from so wicked a people; just as, when the result does not answer to our expectation, we complain of ourselves, and are angry at having ill-bestowed our labor on ungrateful persons whose wickedness ought to have restrained us from doing what we did, and acknowledge that we are justly deceived, because we were too simple and easily imposed on. But a more natural interpretation will be this: 'Since I discharged every part of my duty, and did more than any one could have expected in dressing my vineyard, how comes it that it yields me so poor a return, and that, instead of the fruit which was expected, it yields what is absolutely bitter?'

If it be objected that God had the remedy in his hands, if he had turned the hearts of the people, this is an idle evasion as applied to those men; for their conscience holds them fast, so that they cannot escape by laying the blame on another. Though God do not pierce the hearts of men by the power of his Spirit, so as to render them obedient to him, yet they will have no right to complain that this was wanting; for every pretense of ignorance is fully and abundantly taken away by the outward call. Besides, God does not speak here of his power, but declares that he was not under any obligation to do more than he did.

1. • Available Formats
   • Availability
   • Priced From ( in USD )
2. • Printed Edition
   • Ships in 3-5 business days
   • $83.00

Customers Who Bought This Also Bought

• ISA 5.4-1991
  Priced From $83.00

• ISA 5.3-1983
  Priced From $83.00

• ISA TR88.0.03-1996
  Priced From $69.00

• ASME B16.5-2020
  Priced From $290.00

About This Item

Full Description

Browse related products from The International Society of Automation

• The International Society of Automation >Symbols, Specification Forms and General Terminology