Fury is not in me. This verse contains excellent consolation; for it expresses the incredible warmth of love which the Lord bears towards his people, though they are of a wicked and rebellious disposition. God assumes, as we shall see, the character of a father who is grievously offended, and who, while he is offended at his son, still more pities him, and is naturally inclined to exercise compassion, because the warmth of his love rises above his anger. In short, he shews that he cannot hate his elect so as not to bear fatherly kindness towards them, even while he visits them with very severe punishments. Scripture represents God to us in various ways. Sometimes it exhibits him as burning with indignation, and having a terrific aspect, and sometimes as shewing nothing but gentleness and mercy; and the reason of this diversity is, that we are not all capable of enjoying his goodness. Thus he is constrained to be perverse towards the perverse, and holy towards the holy, as David describes him. (Psalm 18:25.) He shews himself to us what we suffer him to be, for by our rebelliousness we drive him to severity. Yet here the Prophet does not speak of all indiscriminately, but only of the Church, whose transgressions he chastises, and whose iniquities he punishes, in such a manner as not to lay aside a father's affection. This statement must therefore be limited to the Church, so as to denote the relation between God and his chosen people, to whom he cannot manifest himself otherwise than as a Father, while he burns with rage against the reprobate. Thus we see how great is the consolation that is here given; for if we know that God has called us, we may justly conclude that he is not angry with us, and that, having embraced us with a firm and enduring regard, it is impossible that he shall ever deprive us of it. It is indeed certain that at that time God hated many persons who belonged to that nation; but, with respect to their adoption, he declares that he loved them. Now, the more kindly and tenderly that God loved them, so much the more they who provoked his anger by their wickedness were without excuse. This circumstance is undoubtedly intended to aggravate their guilt, that their wickedness constrains him, in some measure, to change his disposition towards them; for, having formerly spoken of his gentleness, he suddenly exclaims, -- "Who shall engage me in battle with the brier and thorn?" or, as some render it, "Who shall set me as a brier and thorn?" Yet it might not be amiss also to read, "Who shall bring against me a brier, that I may meet it as a thorn?" for there is no copulative conjunction between those two words. Yet I willingly adhere to the former opinion, that God wishes to have to deal with thistles or thorns, which he will quickly consume by the fire of his wrath. If any one choose rather to view it as a reproof of those doubts which often arise in us in consequence of unbelief, when we think that God is inflamed with wrath against us, as if he had said, "You are mistaken in comparing me to the brier and thorn," that is, "You ascribe to me a harsh and cruel disposition," let him enjoy his opinion, though I think that it is different from what the Prophet means. [1] Others think that God assumes the character of a man who is provoking himself to rage; as if he had said, "I do not choose to be any longer so indulgent, or to exercise such forbearance as I have formerly manifested;" but this is so forced, that it does not need a lengthened refutation. It is true, indeed, that since God is gentle and merciful in his nature, and there is nothing that is more foreign to him than harshness or cruelty, he may be said to borrow a nature that does not belong to him. [2] But the interpretation which I have given will of itself be sufficient to refute others, namely, that God complains bitterly that he will as soon fight with thorns as with his vineyard, for when he considers that it is his inheritances he is compelled to spare it. I will pass through them in a hostile manner, and utterly consume them. These words confirm my former exposition; for the burning relates to "briers and thorns," and he declares that, if he had to deal with them, he would burn them all up, but that he acts more gently, because it is his vineyard. Hence we infer that, if God is not enraged against us, this must be attributed, not to any merits of men, but to his election, which is of free grace. By these words, my ytnny, (mi yittEneni,) "Who shall give me?" he plainly shews that he has just cause for contending with us, and even for destroying us in a hostile manner, were he not restrained by compassion towards his Church; for we would be as thorns and briers, and would be like wicked men, if the Lord did not separate us from them, that we might not perish along with them. If the phrase vmlchmh, (bammilhamah,) in battle, which we have translated "in a hostile manner," be connected with the question, "Who shall set me?" it will not ill agree with the meaning. [3]

Footnotes

1 - "Tellement qu'il est constraint comme l'emprunter d'ailleurs quand il se courrouce;" -- "So that he is compelled, as it were, to borrow it from another quarter when he is enraged."

2 - That is, instead of making it the beginning of the following sentence, "in battle (or, in a hostile manner) I will pass through them," it might be read as the conclusion of the question, "Who shall engage me with briers and thorns in battle?" And this concluding suggestion accords with our English version. -- Ed

3 - "Of the various senses ascribed to 'v, (O,) such as unless, oh that if, etc., the only one justified by usage is the disjunctive sense of or." -- Alexander

Fury is not in me - That is, I am angry with it no more. He had punished his people by removing them to a distant land. But although he had corrected them for their faults, yet he had not laid aside the affection of a Father.
Who would set - Hebrew, 'Who would give me.' The Septuagint renders this, 'Who would place me to keep the stubble in the field?' Great perplexity has been felt in regard to the interpretation of this passage. Lowth translates it:
'O that I had a fence of the thorn and the brier;'
evidently showing that he was embarrassed with it, and could not make of it consistent sense. The whole sentence must refer either to the people of God, or to his enemies. If to his people, it would be an indication that they were like briers and thorns, and that if his fury should rage they would be consumed, and hence, he calls upon them Isaiah 27:5 to seize upon his strength, and to be at peace with him. If it refers to his enemies, then it expresses a wish that his enemies were in his possession; or a purpose to go against them, as fire among thorns, and to consume them if they should presume to array themselves against his vineyard. This latter I take to be the true sense of the passage. The phrase 'who would set me,' or in Hebrew, 'who will give me,' may be expressed by "utinam," indicating strong desire; and may be thus paraphrased: 'I retain no anger against my people. I have indeed punished them; but my anger has ceased. I shall now defend them. If they are attacked by foes, I will guard them. When their foes approach, "I desire, I earnestly wish," that they may be in my possession, that I may destroy them - as the fire rages through briers and thorns.' It expresses a firm determination to defend his people and to destroy their enemies, unless Isaiah 27:5, which he would prefer, they should repent, and be at peace with him.
The briers and thorns - His enemies, and the enemies of his people (compare the notes at Isaiah 9:17; Isaiah 10:17). Perhaps the phrase is used here to denote enemies, because briers and thorns are so great enemies to a vineyard by impeding growth and fertility.
I would go through them - Or, rather, I would go against them in battle to destroy them.
I would burn them up together - As fire devours the thorns and briers; that is, I would completely destroy them.

Fury is not in me "I have no wall" - For חמה chemah, anger, the Septuagint and Syriac read חומה chomah, wall. An ancient MS. has חימה cheimah. For בה bad, in her, two MSS. read בם bam, in them, plural. The vineyard wishes for a wall and a fence of thorns - human strength and protection, (as the Jews were too apt to apply to their powerful neighbors for assistance, and to trust to the shadow of Egypt): Jehovah replies, that this would not avail her, nor defend her against his wrath. He counsels her, therefore, to betake herself to his protection. On which she entreats him to make peace with her.
From the above note it appears that the bishop reads, חומה chomah, wall, for חמה chemah, anger or fury, in accordance with the Syriac and Septuagint. The letter ו vau makes the only difference, which letter is frequently absent from many words where its place is supplied by the point. cholem: it might have been so here formerly; and in process of time both vau and cholem might have been lost. The Syriac supports the learned bishop's criticism, as the word shora is there used; which word in the plural is found, Hebrews 11:30 : "By faith the walls of Jericho. "The bishop thinks the Septuagint is on his side: to me, it seems neither for nor against the criticism. The words in the Vatican copy are εγω πολις οχυρα, I am a fortified city; which the Arabic follows: but instead of οχυρα, the Codex Alexandrinus has ισχυρα, I am a Strong city.
The word חומה chomah, wall, is not found in any MS. in the collections of Kennicott and De Rossi, nor in any of my own MSS.
However, one of Dr. Kennicott's MSS. has חימה cheimah; but probably that which now appears to be a י yod was formerly a ו vau, and now partially obliterated.
This song receives much light from being collated with that in chap. 5.; and perhaps the bishop's criticism will find its best support from such a collation. In Isaiah 5:5 of that chapter, God threatens to take away the wall of his vineyard: this was done; and here the vineyard complains, I have no wall, and wishes for any kind of defense rather than be thus naked. This is the only natural support of the above criticism.
"About Tripoli there are abundance of vineyards and gardens, inclosed, for the most part, with hedges, which chiefly consist of the rhamnus, paliurus, oxyacantha, "etc. Rawolf, p. 21, 22. A fence of thorns is esteemed equal to a wall for strength, being commonly represented as impenetrable. See Micah 7:4; Hosea 2:6.
Who would set the briers and thorns against me "O that I had a fence of the thorn and brier" - Seven MSS., (two ancient), and one edition, with the Syriac, Vulgate, and Aquila, read ושית veshayith, with the conjunction ו vau prefixed: Who would set the briers and thorns. מי יתנני שמיר שית mi yitteneni shamir shayith, Who shall give me the brier and thorn, i.e., for a defense: but hear Kimchi: "Who (the vineyard) hath given me (Jehovah) the brier and the thorn instead of good grapes."

Fury (d) [is] not in me: who would set the briers [and] thorns against me in battle? I would go through them, I would burn them together.
(d) Therefore he will destroy the kingdom of Satan, because he loves his Church for his own mercies sake, and cannot be angry with it, but wishes that he may pour his anger on the wicked infidels, whom he means by briers and thorns.

Fury is not in me,.... Against his vineyard he takes so much care of, his church and people, whom he has loved with an everlasting love; they are indeed deserving of his wrath, but he has not appointed them to it, but has appointed his Son to bear it for them, who has delivered them from wrath to come, and they being justified by his blood and righteousness, are saved from it; and though the Lord chastises them for their sins, yet not in wrath and sore displeasure; there is no wrath or fury in his heart towards them, nor any expressed in the dispensations of his providence:
who would set the briers and thorns against me in battle? either suggesting the weakness of his people, who, was he to deal with them as their sins and corruptions deserved, for which they may be compared to thorns and briers, they would be as unable to bear his wrath and fury as briers and thorns could to withstand a consuming fire; or rather intimating, that should such persons rise up in his vineyard, the church, as often do, comparable to briers and thorns for their unfruitfulness and unprofitableness, for the hurt and mischief they do, and the grief and trouble they give to the people of God, as hypocrites and false teachers, and all such as are of unsound principles, and bad lives and conversations, and which are very offensive to the Lord; and therefore, though there is no fury in him against his vineyard, the church, yet there is against those briers and thorns, wicked men, whom he accounts his enemies, and will fight against them in his wrath, and consume them in his fury; see 2-Samuel 23:6,
I would go through them: or, "step into it" (p); the vineyard, where those briers or thorns are set and grow up; the meaning is, that he would step into the vineyard, and warily and cautiously tread there, lest he should hurt any of the vines, true believers, while he is plucking up and destroying the briers and thorns; or contending, in a warlike manner, with carnal and hypocritical professors:
I would burn them together; or, "I would burn" out of it (q); that is, gather out of the vineyard the briers and thorns, and bind them up in bundles, as the tares in the parable, which signify the same as here, and burn them, or utterly destroy them; though the words may be rendered, "who will give, or set, me a brier and thorn in battle, that I should go against it, and burn it up together?", or wholly (r) and the meaning is, who shall irritate or provoke me to be as a brier and thorn, to hurt, grieve, and distress my people, to cause me to go into them, and against them, in a military way, in wrath and fury to consume them? no one shall. This rendering and sense well agree with the first clause of the verse. Jerom renders it thus, "who will make me an adamant stone?" as the word "shamir" is rendered in Ezekiel 3:9, Zac 7:12 and gives the sense, who will make me hard and cruel, so as to overcome my nature, my clemency, to go forth in a fierce and warlike manner, and walk upon my vineyard, which before I kept, and burn it, which I had hedged about?
(p) "gradiar in eam"; so some in Vatablus; "caute ingrediar eam", Piscator. (q) "succendam ex ea", Junius & Tremellius; "comburam illos ex ipsa", Piscator. (r) So De Dieu; and some in Vatablus; and which is approved by Noldius, who renders it in like manner, to the same sense, Ebr. Concord. Part. p. 409. No. 1671.

Fury is not in me--that is, I entertain no longer anger towards my vine.
who would set . . . in battle--that is, would that I had the briers, &c. (the wicked foe; Isaiah 9:18; Isaiah 10:17; 2-Samuel 23:6), before me! "I would go through," or rather, "against them."