Produced by Charles Bowen, from images obtained from Google Books.
Transcriber's Note: Images taken from the 1861 edition, found at
Books.Google.com., are the source of the text used for this ebook. This
original book was from Harvard University and digitized in 2006.
Unclear or missing punctuation marks were corrected by reference to the
1856 edition of this work.
The Latin diphthong oe is expressed by [oe].
Greek words are directly transliterated using the English equivalents
of the Greek; the Greek eta is transliterated as ê and omega as ô.
Diacritic marks are omitted with the exception of the initial hard
breathing mark which is indicated by an "h" before the initial vowel of
the word.
Hebrew words, which in this book are mainly represented without
the vowel and pronunciation points, are transcribed as follows:
Alef = a Lahmed = l
Bet = b Mem = m (final = M)
Gimel = g Nun = n (final = N)
Dalet = d Samekh = s
He = h Ahyin = i
Vav = v Peh = p (final = P)
Zayin = z Tsadi = c (final = C)
Het = H Qof = q
Tet = T Resh = r
Yod = i Shin = w
Kahf = k (final = K) Tav = t
[Pg i]
CLARK'S
FOREIGN
THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
NEW SERIES.
VOL. II.
Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament.
VOL. II.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: J. GLADDING; WARD AND CO.; AND JACKSON AND WALFORD
DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON
MDCCCLXI.
[Pg ii]
[Blank Page]
[Pg iii]
CHRISTOLOGY
OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT,
AND A
COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS
BY
E. W. HENGSTENBERG,
DR. AND PROF. OF THEOL. IN BERLIN.
SECOND EDITION GREATLY IMPROVED.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN
BY THE
THE REV. THEODORE MEYER.
HEBREW TUTOR IN THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
VOLUME II.
EDINBURGH:
T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.;
WARD AND CO.; JACKSON AND WALFORD, ETC. DUBLIN:
JOHN ROBERTSON, AND HODGES AND SMITH.
MDCCCLXI.
[Pg iv]
NOTICE.
_This Work is copyright in this country by arrangement with the
Author._
[Pg v]
LIST OF CONTENTS.
Page
MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.
THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
General Preliminary Remarks, 1
Chap. ii.-iv.--The Sprout of the Lord, 10
Chap. vii.--Immanuel, 26
Chap. viii. 23-ix. 6--Unto us a Child is born, 66
Chap. ix. 1-7, 75
Chap. xi., xii.--The Twig of Jesse, 94
On Matthew ii. 23, 106
Chap. xii., 133
Chaps. xiii. 1-xiv. 27, 135
Chaps. xvii., xviii., 137
Chap. xix., 141
Chap. xxiii.--The Burden upon Tyre, 146
Chaps. xxiv.-xxvii., 149
Chaps. xxviii.-xxxiii., 154
Chap. xxxv., 158
General Preliminary Remarks on Chaps, xl.-lxvi., 163
Chap. xlii. 1-9, 196
Chap. xlix. 1-9, 226
Chap. 1. 4-11, 246
Chap. li. 16, 256
Chaps. lii. 13-liii. 12, 259
I. History of the Interpretation.
A. With the Jews, 311
B. History of the Interpretation with the Christians, 319
II. The Arguments against the Messianic Interpretation, 327
III. The Arguments in favour of the Messianic
Interpretation, 330
IV. Examination of the Non-Messianic Interpretation, 334
Chap. lv. 1-5, 343
Chap. lxi. 1-3, 351
THE PROPHET ZEPHANIAH, 356
THE PROPHET JEREMIAH.
General Preliminary Remarks, 362
Chap. iii. 14-17, 373
Chap. xxiii. 1-8, 398
Chap. xxxi. 31-40, 424
Chap. xxxiii. 14-26, 459
[Pg vi]
[Blank Page]
[Pg 1]
THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
Isaiah is the principal prophetical figure in the first period of
canonical prophetism, _i.e._, the Assyrian period, just as Jeremiah is
in the second, _i.e._, the Babylonian. With Isaiah are connected in the
kingdom of Judah: Joel, Obadiah, and Micah; in the kingdom of Israel:
Hosea, Amos, and Jonah.
The name "Isaiah" signifies the "Salvation of the Lord." In this name
we have the key-note of his prophecies, just as the name Jeremiah: "The
Lord casts down," indicates the nature of his prophecies, in which the
prevailing element is entirely of a threatening character. That the
proclamation of salvation occupies a very prominent place in Isaiah,
was seen even by the Fathers of the Church. _Jerome_ says: "I shall
expound Isaiah in such a manner that he shall appear not as a prophet
only, but as an Evangelist and an Apostle;" and in another passage:
"Isaiah seems to me to have uttered not a prophecy but a Gospel." And
_Augustine_ says, _De Civ. Dei_, 18, c. 29, that, according to the
opinion of many, Isaiah, on account of his numerous prophecies of
Christ and the Church, deserved the name of an Evangelist rather than
that of a Prophet. When, after his conversion, _Augustine_ applied to
_Ambrose_ with the question, which among the Sacred Books he should
read in preference to all others, he proposed to him Isaiah, "because
before all others it was he who had more openly declared the Gospel and
the calling of the Gentiles." (_Aug. Conf._ ix. 5.) With the Fathers of
the Church _Luther_ coincides. He says in commendation of Isaiah: "He
is full of loving, comforting, cheering words for all poor consciences,
and wretched, afflicted hearts." Of course, there is in Isaiah no want
of severe reproofs and threatenings. If it were [Pg 2] otherwise, he
would have gone beyond the boundary by which true prophetism is
separated from false. "There is in it," as Luther says, "enough of
threatenings and terrors against the hardened, haughty, obdurate heads
of the wicked, if it might be of some use." But the threatenings never
form the close in Isaiah; they always at last run out into the promise;
and while, for example, in the great majority of Jeremiah's prophecies,
the promise, which cannot be wanting in any true prophet, is commonly
only short, and hinted at, sometimes consisting only of words which are
thrown into the midst of the several threatenings, _e. g._, iv. 27:
"Yet will I not make a full end,"--in Isaiah the stream of consolation
flows in the richest fulness. The promise absolutely prevails in the
second part, from chap. xl.-lxvi. The reason of this peculiarity is to
be sought for chiefly in the historical circumstances. Isaiah lived at
a time in which, in the kingdom of Judah, the corruption was far from
having already reached its greatest height,--in which there still
existed, in that kingdom, a numerous "election" which gathered round
the prophet as their spiritual centre. With a view to this circle,
Isaiah utters the words: "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people." The
contemporary prophets of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which was
poisoned in its very first origin, found a different state of things;
the field there was already ripe for the harvest of judgment. And at
the time of Jeremiah, Judah had become like her apostate sister. At
that time it was not so much needed to comfort the miserable, as to
terrify sinners in their security. It was only after the wrath of God
had manifested itself in deeds, only after the judgment of God had been
executed upon Jerusalem, or was immediately at hand,--it was only then
that, in Jeremiah, and so in Ezekiel also, the stream of promise broke
forth without hinderance.
Chronology is, throughout, the principle according to which the
Prophecies of Isaiah are arranged. In the first six chapters, we obtain
a survey of the Prophet's ministry under Uzziah and Jotham. Chap. vii.
to x. 4 belongs to the time of Ahaz. From chap. x. 4 to the close of
chap. xxxv. every thing belongs to the time of the Assyrian invasion in
the fourteenth year of Hezekiah; in the face of which invasion the
prophetic gift of Isaiah was displayed as it had never been before. The
section, chap. xxxvi.-xxxix., furnishes us with the historical
commentary on the preceding [Pg 3] prophecies from the Assyrian period,
and forms, at the same time, the transition to the second part, which
still belongs to the same period, and the starting point of which is
Judah's deliverance from Asshur. In this most remarkable year of the
Prophet's life--a year rich in the manifestation of God's glory in
judgment and mercy--his prophecy flowed out in full streams, and spread
to every side. Not the destinies of Judah only, but those of the
Gentile nations also are drawn within its sphere. The Prophet does not
confine himself to the events immediately at hand, but in his ecstatic
state, the state of an elevated, and, as it were, armed consciousness,
in which he was during this whole period, his eye looks into the
farthest distances. He sees, especially, that, at some future period,
the Babylonian power, which began, even in his time, to germinate,
would take the place of the Assyrian,--that, like it, it would find the
field of Judah white for the harvest,--that, for this oppressor of the
world, destruction is prepared by _Koresh_ (Cyrus), the conqueror from
the East, and that he will liberate the people from their exile; and,
at the close of the development, he beholds the Saviour of the world,
whose image he depicts in the most glowing colours.
Isaiah has especially brought out the view of the Prophetic and
Priestly offices of Christ, while in the former prophecies it was
almost alone the Kingly office which appeared; it is only in Deut.
xviii. that the Prophetic office, and in Ps. cx. that the Priestly
office, is pointed at. Of the two states of Christ, it is the doctrine
of the state of humiliation, the doctrine of the suffering Christ,
which here meets us, while formerly it was the state of exaltation
which was prominently brought before us,--although Isaiah too can very
well describe it when it is necessary to meet the fears regarding the
destruction of the Theocracy by the assaults of the powerful heathen
nations. The first attempt at a description of the humbled, suffering,
and expiating Christ, is found in chap. xi. 1. The real seat of this
proclamation is, however, in the second part, which is destined more
for the election, than for the whole nation. In chap. xlii. we meet the
servant of God, who, as a Saviour meek and lowly in heart, does not
break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, and by this
merciful love establishes righteousness on the whole earth. In chap.
xlix., the Prophet describes how the covenant-people requite with
ingratitude the faithful labours of the Servant of God, but that [Pg 4]
the Lord, to recompense Him for the obstinacy of Israel, gives Him the
Gentiles for an inheritance. In chap. l. we have presented to us that
aspect of the sufferings of the Servant of God which is common to
Christ and His people--viz., how, in fulfilling His calling. He offered
His back to the smiters, and did not hide His face from shame and
spitting. Then, finally, in chap. liii.--that culminating point of the
prophecy of the Old Testament--Christ is placed before our eyes in His
highest work, in His atoning and vicarious suffering, as the truth of
both the Old Testament high-priest, and the Old Testament sin-offering.
There are still the following Messianic features which are peculiar to
Isaiah. A clear Old Testament witness for the divinity of Christ is
offered by chap. ix. 5 (6); the birth by a virgin, closely connected
with His divinity, is announced in chap. vii. 14; according to chap.
viii. 23 (ix. 1.) Galilee, and, in general, the country surrounding the
Sea of Gennesareth, being that part of the country which hitherto had
chiefly been covered with disgrace, are, in a very special manner, to
be honoured by the appearance of the Saviour, who shall come to have
mercy upon the miserable, and to seek that which was lost. Isaiah has,
further, first taught that, by the redemption, the consequences of the
Fall would disappear in the irrational creation also, and that it
should return to paradisaic innocence, chap. xi. 6-9. He has first
announced to the people of God the glorious truth, that death, as it
had not existed in the beginning, should, at the end also, be expelled,
chap. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19. The healing powers which by Christ should be
imparted to miserable mankind, Isaiah has described in chap xxxv. in
words, which by the fulfilment have, in a remarkable manner, been
confirmed.
Let us endeavour to form, from the single scattered features which
occur in the prophecies of Isaiah, a comprehensive view of his
prospects into the future.
The announcement first uttered by Moses of an impending exile of the
people, and desolation of the country, is brought before us by Isaiah
in the first six chapters, in the prophecies belonging to the time of
Uzziah and Jotham, at which the future had not yet been so clearly laid
open before the Prophet as it was at a later period, at the time of
Ahaz, and, very especially, in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. A
reference to [Pg 5] the respective announcements of the Pentateuch is
found in chap. xxxvii. 26, where, in opposition to the imagination of
the King of Asshur, that, by his own power, he had penetrated as a
conqueror as far as Judah, Isaiah asks him whether he had not heard
that the Lord, long ago and from ancient times, had formed such a
resolution regarding His people. These words can be referred only to
the threatenings of the Pentateuch, which a short-sighted criticism
endeavoured to ascribe to a far later period, without considering that
the germ of this knowledge of the future is found in the Decalogue
also, the genuineness of which is, at present, almost unanimously
conceded: "In order that thy (Israel's) days may be long in the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
In the solemnly introduced short summary of the history of the
covenant-people, in chap. vi., there is, after the announcement of the
impending complete desolation of the country and the carrying away of
its inhabitants in vers. 11, 12, the indication of a _second_ judgment
which will not less make an end, in ver. 13: "But yet there is a tenth
part in it, and it shall again be destroyed;" and this goes hand in
hand with the promise that the _election_ shall become partakers of the
Messianic salvation.
The Prophet clearly sees that, by the _Syrico-Ephraemitic_ war, the
full realization of that threatening of the Pentateuch will not be
brought about, as far as Judah is concerned; that here a faint prelude
only to the real fulfilment is the point in question. Although the
allied kings speak in chap. vii. 6: "Let us go up against Judea and vex
it, and let us conquer it for us, and set a king in the midst of it,
even the son of Tabeal," the Lord speaks in chap. vii. 7: "It shall not
stand, neither shall it come to pass." And although the heart of the
king and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the wood
are moved with the wind, the Prophet says: "Fear not, let not thy heart
be tender for the tails of those two smoking firebrands."
It is Asshur that shall do more for the realization of that divine
decree first revealed by Moses. It is he who, immediately after that
expedition against Judah, shall break the power of the kingdom of the
ten tribes, chap. viii. 4: "Before the child shall be able to cry: 'My
father and my mother,'the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria
shall be carried before the King of [Pg 6] Assyria." The communion of
guilt into which it has entered with Damascus shall also implicate it
in a communion of punishment with it, chap. xvii. 3. The adversaries of
Rezin shall devour Israel with open mouth, chap. ix. 11, 12. Yea Asshur
shall, some time afterwards, put an end altogether to the kingdom of
Israel; "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken that
it shall not be a people any more," chap. vii. 8. Upon Judah also
severe sufferings shall be inflicted by Asshur. He shall invade and
devastate their land, chap. vii. 17, and chap. viii. He shall
irresistibly penetrate to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, chap. x.
28-32. But when he is just preparing to inflict the mortal blow upon
the head of the people of God, the Lord shall put a stop to him: "He
shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall
fall by the mighty one," chap. x. 34. "Asshur shall be broken in the
land of the Lord, and upon His mountains be trodden under foot; and his
yoke shall depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their
shoulders," chap. xiv. 25. "And Asshur shall fall with the sword not of
a man," chap. xxxi. 8. These prophecies found their fulfilment in the
destruction of Sennacherib's host before Jerusalem,--an event which no
human ingenuity could have known even a day beforehand. But Isaiah does
not content himself with promising to trembling Zion the help of God
against Asshur in that momentary calamity. In harmony with Hosea and
Micah, he promises to Judah, in general, security from Asshur. He says
to Hezekiah, after that danger was over, in chap. xxxviii. 6: "And I
will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the King of Assyria,
and I will defend this city."
Behind the Assyrian kingdom, the Prophet beholds a new power
germinating, viz., the Babylonian or Chaldean; and he announces most
distinctly and repeatedly that from this shall proceed a comprehensive
execution of the threatenings against unfaithful Judah. According to
chap. xxiii. 13, the Chaldeans overturn the Assyrian monarchy, and
conquer proud Tyre which had resisted the assault of the Assyrians.
Shinar or Babylon appears in chap. xi. 11, in the list of the places to
which Judah has been removed in punishment. In chap. xiii. 1-xiv. 27,
Babylon is, for the first time, distinctly and definitely mentioned as
the threatening power of the future, by which Judah is to be carried
into captivity. The corresponding announcement in chap. xxxix. is so
[Pg 7] closely and intimately interwoven with the historical context,
that even _Gesenius_ did not venture to deny its origin by Isaiah, just
as he was compelled also to acknowledge the genuineness of the prophecy
against Tyre, in which the Babylonian dominion is most distinctly
foretold, and even the duration of that dominion is fixed. The 70 years
of Jeremiah have here already their foundation.
The Prophet sees distinctly and definitely that Egypt, the rival
African world's power, on which the sharp-sighted politicians of his
time founded their hope for deliverance, would not be equal to the
Asiatic world's power representing itself in the Assyrian and
Babylonian phases. He knows what he could not know from any other
source than by immediate communication of the Spirit of God, that, by
its struggle against the Asiatic power, Egypt would altogether lose its
old political importance, and would never recover it; compare remarks
on chap. xix.
As the power which is to overthrow the Babylonian Empire appear, in
chap. xxxiii. 17, the Medes. In chap. xxi. 2, Elam, which, according to
the _usus loquendi_ of Isaiah, means Persia, is mentioned besides
Media. This power, and at its head, the conqueror from the East, Cyrus,
will bring deliverance to Judah. By it they obtain a restoration to
their native land.[1] Nevertheless Elam appears in chap. xxii. 16 as
the representative of the world's power oppressing Judah in the future;
and from chap. xi. 11 we are likewise led to expect that the world's
power will in future shew itself in an Elamitic phase also, and that
the difference between Babel and Elam is one of degree only, just as,
indeed, it appeared in history; comp. Neh. ix. 36, 37.
An intimation of an European phasis of the world's power, hostile to
the kingdom of God, is to be found in chap. xi. 11.
After the Kingdom of God has, for such protracted periods, been subject
to the world's power, the relation will suddenly be reversed; at the
end of the days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be exalted
above all the hills, and all nations shall flow into it, chap. ii. 2.
This great change shall be accomplished by the Messiah, chaps. iv.,
ix., xi., xxxiii. 17, who proceeds from the house of [Pg 8] David,
chap. ix. 6 (7), lv. 3, but only after it has sunk down to the utmost
lowliness, chap. xi. 1. With the human, He combines the divine nature.
This appears not only from the names which are given to Him in chap.
ix. 5 (6), but also from the works which are assigned to Him,--works by
far exceeding human power. He rules over the whole earth, according to
chap. xi.; He slays, according to xi. 4, the wicked with the breath of
His mouth (compare chap. l. 11, where likewise He appears as a partaker
of the omnipotent punitive power of God); He removes the consequences
of sin even from the irrational creation, chap. xi. 6-9; by His
absolute righteousness He is enabled to become the substitute of the
whole human race, and thereby to accomplish their salvation resting on
this substitution, chap. liii.
The Messiah appears at first in the form of a servant, low and humble,
chap. xi. 1, liii. 2. His ministry is quiet and concealed, chap. xlii.
2, as that of a Saviour who with tender love applies himself to the
miserable, chap. xlii. 3, lxi. 1. At first it is limited to Israel,
chap. xlix. 1-6, where it is enjoyed especially by the most degraded of
all the parts of the country, viz., that around the sea of Galilee,
chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1.) Severe sufferings will be inflicted upon Him in
carrying out His ministry. These proceed from the same people whom He
has come to raise up, and to endow (according to chap. xlii. 6, xlix.
8), with the full truth of the covenant into which the Lord has entered
with them. The Servant of God bears these suffering's with unbroken
courage. They bring about, through His mediation, the punishment of God
upon those from whom they proceeded, and become the reason why the
salvation passes over to the Gentiles, by whose deferential homage the
Servant of God is indemnified for what He has lost in the Jews, chap.
xlix. 1-9, l. 4-11. (The foundation for the detailed announcement in
these passages is given already in the sketch in chap. vi.,--according
to which an election only of the people attain to salvation, while the
mass becomes a prey to destruction.) But it is just by these
sufferings, which issue at last in a violent death, that the Servant of
God reaches the full height of His destination. They possess a
vicarious character, and effect the reconciliation of a whole sinful
world, chap. lii. 13-liii. 12. Subsequently to the suffering, and on
the ground of it, begins the exercise of the Kingly office of Christ,
chap. liii. 12. He brings law and righteousness to the [Pg 9] Gentile
world, chap. xlii. 1; light into their darkness, chap. xlii. 6. He
becomes the centre around which the whole Gentile world gathers, chap.
xi. 10: "And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse which
shall stand for an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek,
and His rest shall be glory;" comp. chap. lx., where the delighted eye
of the Prophet beholds how the crowds of the nations from the whole
earth turn to Zion; chap. xviii., where the future reception of the
Ethiopians into the Kingdom of God is specially prophecied; chap. xix.,
according to which Egypt turns to the God of Israel, and by the tie of
a common love to Him, is united with Asshur, his rival in the time of
the Prophet, and so likewise with Israel, which has so much to suffer
from him; chap. xxiii., according to which, in the time of salvation.
Tyre also does homage to the God of Israel. The Servant of God becomes,
at the same time, the _Witness_, and the Prince and Lawgiver of the
nations, chap. lv. 4. Just as the Spirit of the Lord rests upon Him,
chap. xi. 2, xlii. 1, lxi. 1, so there takes place in His days an
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, chap. xxxii. 15, xliv. 3, comp. with
chap. liv. 13. Sin is put an end to by Him, chap. xi. 9, and an end is
put especially to war, chap. ii. 4. The Gentiles gathered to the Lord
become at last the medium of His salvation for the covenant-people, who
at first had rejected it, chap. xi. 12, lx. 9, lxvi. 20, 21. The end is
the restoration of the paradisaic condition, chap. xi. 6-9, lxv. 25;
the new heavens and the new earth, chap. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22; but the
wicked shall inherit eternal condemnation, chap. lxvi. 24.
[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_: There are no predictions in reference to the
temporal deliverance of the Jewish Church, in which the Prophet shews
himself more than in those which relate to the downfall of the
Babylonian Empire, and the deliverance of the people of God by Cyrus.]
[Pg 10]
THE PROPHECY--CHAP. II.-IV.
THE SPROUT OF THE LORD.
It has been already proved, in Vol. i., p. 416 ff., that this discourse
belongs to the first period of the Prophet's ministry. It consists of
three parts. In the first, chap. ii. 2-4, the Prophet draws a picture
of the Messianic time, at which the Kingdom of God, now despised,
should be elevated above all the kingdoms of the world, should exercise
an attractive power over the Gentiles, and should cause peace to dwell
among them; comp. Vol. i., p. 437 ff. In the second part, from chap.
ii. 5-iv. 1, the Prophet describes the prevailing corruption, exhorts
to repentance, threatens divine judgments. This part is introduced, and
is connected with the preceding, by the admonition in ii. 5, addressed
to the people, to prepare, by true godliness, for a participation in
that blessedness, to beware lest they should be excluded through their
own fault. In the third part, chap. iv. 2-6, the prophet returns to the
proclamation of salvation, so that the whole is, as it were, surrounded
by the promise. It was necessary that this should be prominently
brought out, in order that sinners might not only be terrified by fear,
but also allured by hope, to repentance,--and in order that the elect
might not imagine that the sin of the masses, and the judgment
inflicted in consequence of it, did away with the mercy of the Lord
towards His people, and with His faithfulness to His promises.
Salvation does not come without judgment. This feature, by which true
prophetism is distinguished from false, which, divesting God of His
righteousness, announced salvation to unreformed sinners, to the whole
rude mass of the people,--this feature is once more prominently brought
out in ver. 4. But salvation for the elect comes as necessarily as
judgment does upon the sinners. In the midst of the deepest abasement
of the people of God, God raises from out of the midst of them the
Saviour by whom they are raised to the highest glory, chap. iv. 2. They
are installed into the dignity of the saints of God, after the penitent
ones have been renewed by His Spirit, and the [Pg 11] obstinate sinners
have been exterminated by His judgment, ver. 3, 4. God's gracious
presence affords them protection from their enemies, and from all
tribulation and danger, ver. 5, 6.
The first part, in which Isaiah follows Micah (comp. the arguments in
proof of originality in Micah, Vol. i., p. 413 ff.), has already been
expounded on a former occasion. We have here only to answer the
question, why it is that the Prophet opens his discourse with a
proclamation of salvation borrowed from Micah? His object certainly was
to render the minds of the people susceptible of the subsequent
admonition and reproof, by placing at the head a promise which had
already become familiar and precious to the people. The position which
the Messianic proclamation occupies in Isaiah is altogether
misunderstood if, with _Kleinert_ and _Ewald_, we assume that the
passage does not, in Isaiah, belong to the real substance of the
prophecy; that it is merely placed in front as a kind of text, the
abuse and misinterpretation of which the Prophet meets in that which
follows, so that the sense would be: the blessed time promised by
former prophets will come _indeed_, but _only_ after severe, rigorous
judgments upon all who had forsaken Jehovah. It is especially ver. 5
which militates against this interpretation, where, in the words: "Come
ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord,"[1] the prophet gives an
_express declaration_ as to the object of the description which he has
placed in front, and expresses himself in regard to it in perfect
harmony [Pg 12] with Heb. iv. 1: [Greek: phobêthômen oun mêpote
kataleipomenês epangelias ... dokê tis ex humôn husterêkenai.] This
shows, that after the manner of an evangelical preacher, and in
conformity with his name, he wishes to allure to repentance by pointing
to the great salvation of the future;--that the [Greek: êngike hê
basileia tôn ouranôn] of the first part serves as a foundation to the
[Greek: metanoeite oun] of the second.
The threatening of punishment contained in the second part is destitute
of any particular reference. It bears a general character,
comprehending the whole of the mischief with which the Lord is to visit
the unfaithfulness of His people. Most thoroughly was the animating
idea realized in the Roman catastrophe, the consequence of which is the
helplessness which still presses upon the people. The preparatory
steps were the decay of the people at the time of Ahaz--especially
the Chaldean overthrow--and, generally, everything which the people
had to suffer in the time of the dominion of the Assyrian, Chaldean,
Medo-Persian, and Greek kingdoms. As none of these kingdoms were as yet
on the stage, or in sight, it is quite natural that the threatening
here keeps altogether within general terms; it was given to Isaiah
himself afterwards to individualize it much more.
It is with the third part only that we have here more particularly to
employ ourselves.
Ver. 2. "_In that day the Sprout of the Lord becomes for beauty and
glory, and the fruit of the land for exaltation and ornament, to the
escaped of Israel._"
Ver. 3. "_And it shall come to pass, he that was left in Zion, and was
spared in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, every one that is written to
life in Jerusalem._"
Ver. 4. "_When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of
Zion, and shall remove the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by
the spirit of right and the spirit of destruction._"
Ver. 5. "_And the Lord creates over the place of Mount Zion, and over
her assemblies clouds by day and smoke, and the brightness of flaming
fire by night, for above all glory is a covering._"
Ver. 6. "_And a tabernacle shall be for a shadow by day from the heat,
and, for a refuge and covert from storm and from rain._"
Ver. 2. "_In that day_" _i.e._, not by any means _after_ the suffering,
but _in the midst of it_, comp. chap. iii. 18; iv. 1, where, by [Pg 13]
the words "in that day," contemporaneousness is likewise expressed.
Parallel is chap. ix. 1 (2), where the people that walketh in darkness
seeth a great light. According to Micah v. 2 (3) also, the people are
given up to the dominion of the world's powers until the time that she
who is bearing has brought forth. Inasmuch as the Messianic
proclamation bears the same general comprehensive character as the
threatening of punishment, and includes in itself beginning and end,
the suffering may partly also reach into the Messianic time. It
dismisses from its discipline those who are delivered up to it,
gradually only, after they have become ripe for a participation in the
Messianic salvation.--There cannot be any doubt that, by the "_Sprout
of the Lord_" the Messiah is designated,--an explanation which we meet
with so early as in the Chaldee Paraphrast ([Hebrew: bedna hhva ihi
mwiHa dii lHdvh vliqr]), from which even _Kimchi_ did not venture to
differ, which was in the Christian Church, too, the prevailing one, and
which Rationalism was the first to give up. The Messiah is here quite
in His proper place. The Prophet had, in chap. iii. 12-15, in a very
special manner, derived the misery of the people from their bad rulers.
What is now more rational, therefore, than that he should connect the
salvation and prosperity likewise with the person of a Divine Ruler?
comp. chap. i. 26. In the adjoining prophecies of Isaiah, especially in
chaps. vii., ix., and xi., the person of the Messiah likewise forms the
centre of the proclamation of salvation; so that, _a priori_, a mention
of it must be expected here. To the same result we are led by the
analogy of Micah; comp. Vol. i. p. 443-45, 449. _Farther_--The
representation of the Messiah, under the image of a sprout or shoot, is
very common in Scripture; comp. chap. xi. 1-10; liii. 2; Rev. v. 5. But
of decisive weight are those passages in which precisely our word
[Hebrew: cmH] occurs as a designation of the Messiah. The two passages,
Jer. xxiii. 5: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto
David a righteous Sprout;" and xxxiii. 15: "In those days, and at that
time, shall I cause the Sprout of righteousness to grow up unto David,"
may at once and plainly be considered as an _interpretation_ of the
passage before us, and as a commentary upon it; and that so much the
more that there, as well as here, all salvation is connected with this
Sprout of Jehovah; comp. Jer. xxiii. 6: "In His days Judah [Pg 14]
shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is His name
whereby he shall be called: The Lord our righteousness." The two other
passages, Zech. iii. 8: "Behold, I bring my servant _Zemach_," and vi.
12: "Behold, a man whose name is _Zemach_" are of so much the greater
consequence that in them _Zemach_ (_i.e._, Sprout) occurs as a kind of
_nomen proprium_, the sense of which is supposed as being known from
former prophecies to which the Prophet all but expressly refers; or as
_Vitringa_ remarks on these passages: "That man who, in the oracles of
the preceding Prophets (Is. and Jer.) bears the name of 'Sprout.'" Of
no less consequence, _finally_, is the parallel passage, chap. xxviii.
5: "In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and
for a diadem of beauty unto the residue of His people." The words
[Hebrew: cbi] and [Hebrew: tpart] there meet us again. The same is
there ascribed to the Lord which is here attributed to the Sprout of
the Lord. That can be readily accounted for, only if the Sprout of the
Lord be the Messiah. For the Messiah appears everywhere as the channel
through which the Lord imparts to His Church all the fulness of His
blessings, as the Immanuel by whom the promise given at the very
threshold of the Old Testament: "I dwell in the midst of them," is most
perfectly realized. "This is the name whereby He shall be called: The
Lord our righteousness," says Jeremiah, in the passage quoted.--The
"Sprout of the Lord" may designate either him whom the Lord causes to
sprout, or him who has sprouted forth from the Lord, _i.e._, the Son of
God. Against the latter interpretation it is objected by _Hoffmann_
(_Weissagung und Erfüllung._ Th. 1, S. 214): "[Hebrew: cmH] is an
intransitive verb, so that [Hebrew: cmH] may be as well connected with
a noun which says, who causes to sprout forth, as with one which says,
whence the thing sprouts forth. Now it is quite obvious that, in the
passage before us, the former case applies, and not the latter,
inasmuch as one cannot say that something, or even some one, sprouts
forth from Jehovah; it is only with a thing, not with a person, that
[Hebrew: cmH] can be connected." But it is impossible to admit that
this objection is well founded. The person may very well be conceived
of as the soil from which the sprout goes forth. Yet we must, indeed,
acknowledge that the Messiah is nowhere called a Sprout of David. But
what decides in favour of the first view are the [Pg 15] parallel
passages. In Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, the Lord raises up to David a
righteous Sprout, and causes Him to grow up unto David. Hence here,
too, the Sprout will in that sense only be the Lord's, that he does not
sprout forth out of Him, but through Him. In Zech. iii. 8 the Lord
brings his servant _Zemach_; in Ps. cxxxii. 17, it is said: "There I
cause a horn to sprout to David," and already in the fundamental
passage, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, which contains the first germ of our passage,
David says: "For all my salvation and all my pleasure should He not
make it to _sprout_ forth."--As the words "Sprout of the Lord" denote
the heavenly origin of the Redeemer, so do the words [Hebrew: pri harC]
the earthly one, the soil from which the Lord causes the Saviour to
sprout up. These words are, by _Vitringa_ and others, translated: "the
fruit of the earth," but the correct translation is "the fruit of the
_land_." The passages, Num. xiii. 26: "And shewed them the fruit of the
land;" and Deut. i. 25: "And they took in their hands of the fruit of
the land, and brought it unto us, and brought us word again, and said,
good is the land which the Lord our God doth give us,"--these two
passages are, besides that under consideration, the only ones in which
the phrase [Hebrew: pri harC] occurs; and there is here, no doubt, an
allusion to them. The excellent natural fruit of ancient times is a
type of the spiritual fruit. To the same result--that [Hebrew: harC]
designates the definite land, that land which, in the preceding verses,
in the description of the prevailing conniption, and of the divine
judgments, was always spoken of,--to this result we are led by the fact
also, that everywhere in the Old Testament where the contrariety of the
divine and human origin of the Messiah is mentioned, the human origin
is more distinctly qualified and limited. This is especially the case
in those passages which, being dependent upon that before us, maybe
considered as a commentary upon it; in Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, where
the Lord raises a Sprout unto _David_, and Zech. vi. 12, where the man
whose name is _Zemach_ (Sprout) grows up out of its soil; comp. Heb.
vii. 14, where, in allusion to the Old Testament passages of the
Sprout--the verb [Greek: anatellein] is commonly used of the sprouting
forth of the plants (see _Bleek_ on this passage)--it is said: [Greek:
ex Iouda anatetalken ho Kurios hêmôn], _Bengel_: _ut germen justitiae_;
farther, Mic. v. 1 (2), where the eternal existence of the Messiah, [Pg
16] and His birth in Bethlehem are contrasted with one another; Is. ix.
5, (6), where the words: "Unto _us_ a child is born, unto _us_ a son is
given," are contrasted with the various designations of the Messiah,
according to His divine majesty. This qualification and limitation
which everywhere takes place, have their ground in the circumstance
that the Messiah is constantly represented to the covenant-people as
their property; and that He, indeed, was, inasmuch as salvation went
out from Jews (John iv. 22), and was destined for the Jews, into whose
communion the Gentiles were to be received; comp. my Commentary on
Revel. vii. 4. "The Sprout of the Lord," "the fruit of the land," is
accordingly He whom the Lord shall make to sprout forth from Israel.
The Sprout of the Lord, the fruit of the land is to become to the
escaped of Israel for _beauty_ and _glory_, for _exaltation_ and
_ornament_. The passages to be compared are 2 Sam. i. 19, where Saul
and Jonathan are called [Hebrew: cbi iwral]; _farther_, Is. xxviii. 5:
"In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of beauty, and for
a diadem of ornament unto the residue of His people," where the words
[Hebrew: cbi] and [Hebrew: tpart] are likewise used; _finally_, chap.
xxiv. 16, where, in reference to the Messianic time, it is said: "From
the uttermost part of the earth do we hear songs of praise: beauty (
[Hebrew: cbi]) to the righteous." By the appearance of Christ, the
covenant-people, hitherto despised, were placed in the centre of the
world's history; by it the Lord took away the rebuke of His people from
off all the earth, chap. xxv. 8. There is evidently in these words a
reference to the preceding threatening of punishment, especially to
chap. iii. 18: "In that day the Lord will take away the ornament," &c.:
But _Drechsler_ is wrong in fixing and expressing this reference thus:
"Instead of farther running after strange things, Israel will find its
glory and ornament in Him who is the long promised seed of Abrahamitic
descent." For it is not the position which Israel takes that is spoken
of, but that which is granted to them. The antithesis is between the
false glory which God takes away, and the true glory which He gives.
The Lord cannot, by any possibility, for any length of time, appear
merely _taking away_; He takes those seeming blessings, only in order
to be able to give the true ones. Every taking away is a prophecy of
giving.--"_To the escaped of Israel_," who, according to the idea of a
people of God, and according to [Pg 17] the promise of the Law (comp.
Deut. xxx. 1, ff.) can never be wanting, as little as it is possible
that the salvation should be partaken of by the whole _mass_ of the
people; sifting judgments must necessarily go before and along with it.
True prophetism everywhere knows of salvation for a remnant only. On
[Hebrew: pliTh], which does not mean "deliverance," so that the
abstract would thus here stand for the concrete, but "that which has
escaped," comp. remarks on Joel iii. 5, Vol. 1, p. 338.
All which now remains is to examine those explanations of this verse
which differ from the Messianic interpretation. 1. Following the
interpretation of _Grotius_ and others, _Gesenius_, in his Commentary,
understands by the Sprout of the Lord the new growth of the people
after their various defeats. His explanation is: "Then the sprout of
Jehovah will be splendid and glorious, and the fruit of the land
excellent and beautiful for the escaped of Israel." _Fruit of the land_
he takes in its literal sense, and understands it to mean the product
of the land. The same view is held by _Knobel_: "_He becomes for beauty
and glory_, _i.e._, the people, having reformed, prosper and form a
splendid, glorious state." And _Maurer_ in his Dictionary says: "The
Sprout of Jehovah seems to be the morally improved remnant, the new,
sanctified increase of the people." But in opposition to such a view
there is, _first_, the circumstance, that according to it the [Hebrew:
l] before [Hebrew: lcbi] and [Hebrew: lkbvr] must be understood
differently from what it is in [Hebrew: lgavN], and [Hebrew: ltpart]
which immediately follow and exactly correspond with them. There are,
_secondly_, the parallel passages chap. xxviii. 5, xxiv. 16, according
to which [Hebrew: cbi] "beauty" is conferred upon the escaped, but they
themselves do not become beauty. _Finally_--It is always most natural
to suppose that [Hebrew: cmH ihvh] and [Hebrew: pri harC] correspond
with one another, and denote the same subject which is here described
after his various aspects only. For in the same manner as [Hebrew: cmH]
and [Hebrew: pri] go hand in hand, both being taken from the territory
of botany, so [Hebrew: ihvh] and [Hebrew: harC] also stand in a
contrast which is not to be mistaken. 2. _Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Meier_,
and others not only refer "the fruit of the land," but also the "Sprout
of Jehovah" to that which Jehovah makes to sprout forth.[2] It is true
that, in the prophetic [Pg 18] announcements, among the blessings of
the future the rich produce of the land is also mentioned (comp. chap.
xxx. 23-25), and the same is very expressly done in the Law also; but
in not a single one of these passages does the strange expression
occur, that this fruitfulness should serve to the escaped for beauty
and glory, for exaltation and ornament, or any other that bears the
slightest resemblance to it. Against this explanation there is, _in
addition_, the circumstance that the barrenness of the country is not
at all pointed out in the preceding context. _Finally_--When we
understand this expression as referring to the Messiah, this verse,
standing as it does at the head of the proclamation of salvation,
contains the fundamental thought; and in what follows we obtain the
expansion. In the verse before us we are told that in Christ the people
attain to glory,--and, in those which follow, how this glory is
manifested in them. But according to this view, every internal
connexion of the verse before us with what follows is entirely
destroyed. 3. According to _Hendewerk_, by the "Sprout of the Lord,"
"the collective person of the ruling portion in the state during the
Messianic happy time," is designated. This opinion is the beginning of
a return to the Messianic interpretation. But then only could that
ideal person be here referred to, if elsewhere in Isaiah too it would
come out strongly and decidedly. As this, however, is not the case; as,
on the contrary, the Messiah everywhere in Isaiah meets us in shining
clearness, it would be arbitrary to give up the _person_ in favour of a
_personification_. 4. _Umbreit_ acknowledges that, in the case of
[Hebrew: cmH ihvh], the Messianic interpretation is the only correct
one. "The two subsequent prophecies in chap. ix. and xi.," he says,
"are to be considered as a commentary on our short text." But it is
characteristic of his compromising manner that by "the fruit of the
land" he understands "the consequences of the dominion of the Messiah
for the land, the fruits which, in consequence of his appearing, the
consecrated soil brings forth,"--thus plainly overlooking the clear [Pg
19] contrast between the Sprout of the Lord, and the fruit of the land,
by which evidently the same thing is designated from different aspects.
Ver. 3. The Prophet now begins to show, more in detail, in how far the
Sprout of the Lord and the fruit of the land would serve for the honour
and glory of the Church. The words: "He that was left in Zion and was
spared in Jerusalem," take up the idea suggested by the "escaped of
Israel" in ver. 2. The double designation is intended to direct
attention to the thought that the remnant, and the remnant only, are
called to a participation in the glory. _Zion_ and _Jerusalem_, as the
centre of the covenant-people, here represent the whole; this is
evident from the circumstance that at the close of ver. 2, which is
here resumed, the escaped of _Israel_ were spoken of Ever since the
sanctuary and the royal palace were founded at Zion, it was in a
spiritual point of view, the residence of all Israel, who even
personally met there at the high festivals.--Whoever is left in Zion
"_shall be called holy_." The fundamental notion of holiness is that of
separation. God is holy, inasmuch as He is separated from all that is
created and finite, and is elevated above all that is finite; comp. my
Commentary on Rev. iv. 8. _Believers_ are holy, because they are
separated from the world as regards their moral existence and their
destiny. Here only the latter aspect is considered. Holy in a moral
sense they were already, inasmuch as it is this which forms the
condition of their being spared in the divine judgments. They became
holy because they are partakers of the beauty, of the exaltation, and
ornament which are to be bestowed upon the escaped by the Sprout of the
Lord. The circumstance that they have been installed into the dignity
of the saints of God implies that, when the Spirit of the Lord has
appeared, the world's power has no longer any dominion over them, but
that, on the contrary, they shall judge the world. In like manner we
read in Exod. xix. 6, in the description of the _reward_ for
faithfulness: "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy
nation;" comp. ver. 5: "And now if you will obey my voice and keep my
covenant, ye shall be a property unto me out of all people." In
reference to the exalted dignity and glory, holiness occurs in Deut.
vii. 6: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord
thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself out of
all the people that are upon [Pg 20] the face of the earth." When the
company of Korah said: "All the congregation, they are holy" (Numb.
xvi. 3), they had in view, not the moral holiness but the dignity--a
circumstance which is quite obvious from words added: "And in the midst
of them is the Lord." And so Moses likewise speaks of the dignity in
Numb. xvi. 7: "Whom the Lord shall choose, he is the holy one." In Rom.
i. 7; Heb. iii. 1, holiness is declared to consist in being loved,
called, and chosen by God.--As regards the fulfilment of this promise,
it has its _horas_ and _moras_. It began with the first appearance of
Christ, by which the position of the true Israel to the world was
substantially and fundamentally changed. It was not without meaning
that, as early as in the apostolic times, the "Saints" was a kind of
_nomen proprium_ of believers, comp. Acts ix. 13, 32. We are even now
the sons of God, and hence even already installed into an important
portion of the inheritance of holiness; but it has not yet appeared
what we shall be, 1 John iii. 2. But the beginning, and the
continuation pervading all ages, viz., God's dealings throughout the
whole of history, whereby he ever anew lifts up His Church from the
dust of lowliness, afford to us the guarantee for the completion,
which is, with graphic vividness, described in the last two chapters
of Revelation.--"_To be called_" is more than merely "to be;" it
indicates that the _being_ is so marked as to procure for itself
acknowledgment.--The words: "_Every one that is written to life in
Jerusalem_" anew point out that judgment will go before, and by the
side of grace. The meaning of [Hebrew: HiiM] is, according to the
fundamental passage in Ps. lxix. 29, "not living ones" (_Hoffmann_,
_Weiss._ i. S. 208), but "life." In Revelation, too, the book of life,
and not the book of the living ones, is spoken of "To be written to
life" is equivalent to being ordained to life, Acts xiii. 48; comp. my
Comment. on Ps. lxix. 29; Rev. iii. 5. Life is not naked life,--a
miserable life is, according to the view of Scripture, not to be called
a life, but is a form of death only--but life in the full enjoyment of
the favour of God; comp. my Comment. on Ps. xvi. 11, xxx. 6, xxxvi. 10;
xlii. 9; lxiii. 4. The Chaldean thus paraphrases it: "All they that are
written to eternal life shall see the consolation of Jerusalem, _i.e._
the Messiah." Comp. Dan. xii. 1; Rev. iii. 5, xiii. 8, xx. 15, xxii.
19; Phil. iv. 3; Luke x. 20. The bodily death of believers cannot
exclude them from a participation in being written to [Pg 21] life;
for, being a mere transition to life, it can, in truth, not be called a
death. Here, too, the word of Christ applies: "The maid is not dead but
sleepeth," Matt. ix. 24. The fact that there is no contradiction
between bodily death and life, _i.e._ a participation in the blessings
of the Kingdom of Christ, is pointed out by Isaiah himself in chap.
xxvi. 19: "Thy dead men shall _live_, my dead bodies shall arise, for a
dew of light is thy dew."
Ver. 4. The Prophet points out that before the Church is raised to the
dignity of the saints of God, a thorough change of its moral
conditions, an energetic expunging of the sin now prevailing in her,
must take place, "_When the Lord has washed away the filth of the
daughters of Zion._" The "daughters of Zion" are none other than those
whose haughtiness, luxury, and wantonness were described in chap. iii.
16 ff., and to whom the deepest abasement was then threatened. The
filth, under the image of which sin is here represented (comp. Prov.
xxx. 12); "A generation pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed
from their filthiness," forms the contrast to the splendid attire which
is there spoken of Behind this splendid attire the filthiness is
concealed. The filth is not washed away (1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26)
from the daughters of Jerusalem,--for, inasmuch as this washing away is
accomplished by means of the spirit of destruction, it could not apply
to them--but from Jerusalem; comp. the phrase, "from the midst
thereof," which immediately follows. Jerusalem, the city of the Lord,
in which no unclean person, and no unclean thing are permitted to
dwell, is cleansed from the filth with which its unworthy daughters
contaminate it. "_And shall remove the blood of Jerusalem._" The "blood
of Jerusalem" is the blood which attaches to Jerusalem, which has been
shed in it. The connection of the punishment of the sins of avarice on
the part of the rulers, in chap. iii. 13-15, with the punishment of the
luxury and ostentation on the part of the women, is illustrative of the
relation of filth and blood to each other. Blood is shed in order to
furnish pride and vanity with the means of their gratification. The
avarice of the rulers, and their shedding of blood, are put together in
Ezek. xxii. 13; comp. ver. 27: "Her princes are in the midst thereof
like wolves ravening the prey, shedding blood, destroying souls, to get
dishonest gain." Bloodguiltiness those too incur who deprive the poor
of the necessary means of support, Mic. iii. 2, 3. The comparison of
[Pg 22] chap. i. 15: "Your hands are full of blood," and of ver. 21:
"But now murderers," compared with vers. 17, 23, 26, shews that we have
to think especially of unjust judges and avaricious rulers. Yet, there
is no reason for limiting ourselves to the nobles and rulers _alone_;
comp. Ezek. xxii. 29: "The people of the land use oppression, and
boldly practice robbery, and vex the poor and needy, and oppress the
stranger." Where sins so gross are still prevalent, where the law of
the Lord is so wantonly broken, an installation into the dignity of
the saints of God is out of the question. For that, it is absolutely
essential that exertions be made that the high destination of the
people: "Ye shall be holy for I am holy," become a truth; that in
a moral point of view it show itself as truly separated from the
world,--and that is something so infinitely great, that men are utterly
unable for it, that it can proceed from God only, with whom nothing is
impossible.--The last words of the verse are commonly explained: "by
the spirit of _judgment_, and by the spirit of destruction or burning."
In that case the putting away of the filth and blood by the judging
activity of the Lord, by the destruction of sin, would be spoken of
[Hebrew: mwpT], however, may also be taken in the sense of "right:" by
the spirit of right which lays hold of, and changes the well disposed
(comp. Mic. iii. 8: "But I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord,
and of _right_ and might"), and by the spirit of destruction which
consumes the disobedient. In favour of the latter view are the parallel
passages; above all, chap. xxviii. 6, where it is said of the Messianic
time, "In that day the Lord will become, &c.," "And for a spirit of
right to him that sitteth for right;" farther, chap. i. 27, 28: "Zion
shall be redeemed by right, and her converts by righteousness. But the
transgressors and sinners are destroyed together, and they that forsake
the Lord are consumed." Comp. Matt. iii. 11: [Greek autos humas
baptisei en pneumati hagiô kai puri], where likewise a double washing,
that of grace and that of wrath, is spoken of. In chap. xxxii. 15:
"Until the Spirit be poured out upon us from on high," Isaiah likewise
points to the regeneration which, in the Messianic time, will be
accomplished by the Spirit; and it is, according to the whole _usus
loquendi_ of the Old Testament, most natural to think of the Spirit
transforming from within The Spirit of God scarcely occurs elsewhere in
the Old Testament as the executor of God's judgments; so that the
supposition is [Pg 23] very natural that the spirit of destruction has
been brought in by the spirit of right only.--The word [Hebrew: ber]
is, by some, understood as "burning," by others, as "destruction." We
ourselves decide in favour of the latter signification, which occurs
also in chap. iv. 13, for this reason, that it is in that signification
that [Hebrew: ber] is, in Deuteronomy, used as the _terminus technicus_
of the extirpation of the wicked. If the Church does not comply with
the command: [Greek: exareite ton ponêron ex humôn autôn], 1 Cor. v.
13; Deut. xiii. 6 (5), God himself will enforce His authority by His
Spirit, who carries out the judgments of the avenging God, just as He
carries out every influence of the Creator upon the created. On the
"Spirit of the Lord," comp. my remarks on Rev. i. 4.
Ver. 5. The image is here taken from the journey of Israel through the
wilderness. During that journey, they were guided and protected by a
symbol of God's presence, which by day presented itself as smoke, and
by night assumed the form of flaming fire. By this symbol the God of
Israel was designated as the jealous God, as the living, personal
energy, energetic in His love for His people, energetic in wrath
against His and their enemies. Comp. especially Exod. xiii. 21: "And
the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them on
the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light;" and xl.
38: "For a cloud was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by
night;" comp. Numb. ix. 15, 16. The same phenomenon is to be repeated
in future, although in a different form. In a manner the most real, the
Lord will manifest himself as the living energy of His Church, dwelling
in the midst of her, and ruling over her as a protector, so that the
world's power can no longer injure her. That such will be done in and
by His _Sprout_, in Christ, appears from the relation of the verse
under consideration to ver. 2; for the verse before us still belongs to
the expansion of the proposition placed at the head of the whole: "The
_Sprout_ of the Lord becomes for beauty and glory, and the fruit of the
land for exaltation and ornament to the escaped of Israel." Christ in
His person and Spirit is the true Shechinah, the true indwelling of God
in His Church. This indwelling is, even in the Law, designated as the
highest privilege of the covenant-people; its being raised to a higher
power is therefore to the Prophet the highest blessing of the future,
the source from which all other blessings flow. That which the heathen
in vain longed [Pg 24] for and imagined; that which Israel hitherto
possessed only very imperfectly, a _praesens numen_, whereby the
antithesis of heaven and earth is done away with, and earth is
glorified into a heaven;--that, the purified Church of the Lord
possesses in the most perfect and real manner, and in it, absolute
security against the world, a decided victory over it. The words:
"_Over her assemblies_," show that the whole life of the people shall
then bear a religious character, and shall be a continual service of
God, comp. Acts ii. 42, where, as a type of the completion of the
Church, it is said: "And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles'
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
[Hebrew: mqra] is only the name for that which is called, "the
assembly," and stands in Levit. xxiii. and Is. i. 13 of the religious
assemblies which were held on the holy days, comp. my pamphlet: _Ueber
den Tag des Herrn S_. 32. The same phenomenon is, according to its
appearance by day, designated, at the same time, as _clouds_ and
_smoke_. Smoke is never "vapour, vapoury clouds" (_Knobel_); and here
the smoke by day corresponds with the _flaming fire_ by night. If then
the smoke can be considered as a product of the fire only (comp. my
remarks on Rev. xv. 8), the cloud cannot come into consideration
according to its matter, but according to its form only. The smoke
assumes the form of a cloud which affords protection from the burning
sun of tribulations, as once, in the burning desert, from the scorching
heat of the natural sun, comp. Num. x. 34: "And the cloud of the Lord
was upon them;" Ps. cv. 39: "He spread a cloud for a covering;" Is.
xxv. 5. The cloud which thus affords protection to the Church turns a
threatening face towards her enemies. Rev. xv. 8.--The words: "_For
above all glory is a covering_," point to the ground of the protecting,
gracious presence of God in the Church. Several interpreters explain
the sense thus: "As we cover and preserve precious things more
carefully, in order that they may not be injured, so does God in His
grace surround His Church, which has been adorned with glorious
virtues, and raised to the high dignity of the saints of God, and
protects her from every danger." Others understand by [Hebrew: kl-kbvd]
the whole glory mentioned in the preceding context; but in that case we
should expect the article. One may also supply the limitation: For, _in
the Kingdom of God_, there is a covering over all glory.
[Pg 25]
Ver. 6. God--this is the same sense--protects His Church from every
danger and calamity. By His gracious presence in His Sprout, He affords
to them that protection which a hut does from sun, storms, and rain.
Luther says: "In this passage, accordingly, Christ is held up to us as
He who in all tribulations, bodily as well as spiritual, is our
protection." There is an allusion to the 21st verse of Ps. xxxi. (which
was written by David): "Thou hidest them in the secret of thy
countenance from the conspiracy of every one; thou keepest them
secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues." The pavilion in
this Psalm is a spiritual one, viz., God's grace and protection. That
word of David shall be gloriously fulfilled when the Sprout of the Lord
shall appear.--The "_Sun_" comes into consideration in its scorching
quality; and the "_heat_" is in Scripture the image of temptations,
sufferings, and trials; comp. remarks on Rev. viii. 12, xvi. 8; Song of
Sol. i. 6; Ps. cxxi. 6; Matt. xiii. 6, compared with v. 21; Is. xlix.
10, xxv. 4; and, according to the last passage, we must especially have
in view the enmity and assaults of the world's power. The "_rain_"
appears as an image of tribulation in the Song of Sol. ii. 11; Is. xxv.
4: "The spirit of the terrible ones (the passions of the kings of the
world, and conquerors) is like a violent shower against the wall;"
xxxii. 2.--A comparison of the Messianic prophecy in chap ii. with that
which we have now considered shows very clearly how necessary it is to
regard the single Messianic prophecies as fragments only, supplementing
one another, inasmuch as commonly a few aspects only were presented to
the spiritual eye of the Prophet. Just as the description in chap. ii.
receives an important supplement from the passage now considered,
inasmuch as the latter contains the mention of the personal Messiah, so
it, again, supplements that before us by announcing the participation
by the Gentiles in the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom.
[Footnote 1: Light is the image of salvation; to walk in the light is
to enjoy a participation in it. Israel is not wantonly to wander away
from the path of light which the Lord has opened up to them, into the
dark desolation of misery. In the words [Hebrew: lkv vnlkh] there is a
clear reference to [Hebrew: lkv vnelh] of the Gentile nations in ver.
3. If the Gentiles apply with such zeal for a participation in the
blessings of the Kingdom of God, how disgraceful would it be if you,
the people of the covenant, the children of the Kingdom, should lose
your glorious possession by your ungodly walk. In vers. 6-11 the
Prophet states the grounds of his admonition to the people to walk in
the light of the Lord which he had expressed in the preceding verse.
This admonition implies that there existed a danger of losing a
participation in the light; and it is this danger which the Prophet
here more particularly details. It is not without reason, so the words
may be paraphrased, that I say: "Walk ye in the light of the Lord," for
at present the Lord has _forsaken_ the people on account of their sins,
and with that, a participation in His light is incompatible. By being
full of heathenish superstition, of false confidence in earthly things,
yea, even of the most disgraceful that can be imagined for Israel,
viz., gross idolatry, they rather become more and more ripe for the
divine judgment which will break in irresistibly upon them.]
[Footnote 2: So _Gesenius_ also in the _Thesaurus_: "The whole earth
shall be holy and shall more beautifully bloom and be adorned with
plenty of fruits and corn for the benefit of those who have escaped
from those calamities." _Gesenius'_ wavering clearly shows how little
satisfaction the non-Messianic explanation affords to its own abettors.
Besides the explanations of [Hebrew: cmH ihvh] by "the new growth of
the people," and "the rich produce of the country," he advances still a
third one, viz., "a divinely favoured ruler,"--an explanation which has
even the grammar against it, as we are at liberty to translate only:
"The Sprout of the Lord;" and likewise the analogy of [Hebrew: pri
harC], according to which the Genitive can have a reference to the
_origin_ only.]
[Pg 26]
THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VII.
IMMANUEL.
A crisis of the most important nature in the history of Israel is
formed by the Syrico-Ephraemitic war, by the expedition of the allied
kings, Rezin of Damascus, and Pekah of Samaria, which had been already
prepared under the reign of Jotham, and which broke out in the first
years of Ahaz. It was in consequence of this war that Asshur came
into the land. The inroad of the Assyrian King, Pul, under Menahem
of Israel, had been transitory only, comp. Vol. 1. p. 165. It was
only with the invasion under Ahaz that the tendency of Asshur began
of making lasting conquests on the other side of the Euphrates,
which could not fail to bring about a collision with the Egyptian
power. The succeeding powers in Asia and Europe followed Asshur's
steps. "Hitherto,"--so says _Caspari_, in his pamphlet on the
Syrico-Ephraemitic war, S. 17 ff.--"hitherto Israel had to do with the
small neighbouring nations only,--now, in punishment of their sins,
oppressed by them; then, in reward of their obedience, oppressing and
ruling over them. And the Syrico-Ephraemitic war itself had been a link
only in the chain of these attacks--its last link. Israel, having
arrived at the point of being hardened, and having entered upon a path
in accordance with this tendency, required another more severe
corrective--its being crushed by the mighty world's power. The
appearance of these mighty powers, just at the period when Israel
entered upon their hardening, is most providential.--The beginning of
the end of the kingdom of the ten tribes had come, and the breaking up
of its independent political existence had commenced. As enmity to
Judah had given its origin to the kingdom of the ten tribes, so also
did it bring about its destruction; born out of it, it died of it. It
owed its existence to the incipient enmity; when the latter was
accomplished (Isa. vii. 6,) it caused its death.--The Assyrians came to
the help of Judah, but charged a high price for their help, viz.,
Judah's submission and fealty. Thirty heavy years of servitude, and, to
a great part, of [Pg 27] fears of the worst, 2 Kings xvi. 18; Is.
xxxiii. 18 (?); xxxvii. 3, followed for this kingdom also; and when, at
the close of this period, it freed itself from them after the fashion
of the kingdom of Israel, it shared nearly the same fate, 2 Kings
xviii. 31 ff. It was only to the mercy of the Lord, who looked
graciously upon the feeble beginnings of conversion, that it owed its
deliverance. The Assyrian power, which had put an end to the kingdoms
of Damascus and Israel, and which was the first power that appeared on
the stage of history and came into conflict with the people of God,
became a significant sign of the final fate of the world's power in its
attacks upon the Kingdom of God. But, as a prelude to the long series
of visitations which it had to endure from the world's power in its
different phases, Judah was even now led to the very brink of
destruction; there came a period, the 14th year of Hezekiah, when
almost nothing more of it was to be seen by the outward eye than its
metropolis exposed to the utmost danger."
A remarkable proof of the fact that the spirit which filled the
prophets was a higher one than their own, is the fact that Isaiah
recognized so distinctly and clearly the importance of the decisive
moment.
In close connection with the great crisis at which the history of the
people of God had arrived, stands the richer display of the Messianic
announcement which begins with the chapter before us. Messiah is
henceforth represented to Judah as an Immanuel against the world's
powers, as the surety for its deliverance from the severe oppressions
hanging over it, as He who at last, at His appearance, would conquer
the world, and lay it at the feet of the people of God.
After these general introductory remarks, let us turn more particularly
to the contents of the chapter before us. It was told to the house of
David: "Aram is encamped in Ephraim." The position of Ahaz was, humanly
considered, desperate. His enemies were far superior to him, and he
could scarcely hope for help from heaven, for he had an evil
conscience. The idea of seeking help from Asshur was natural. Isaiah
received a commission to oppose this idea before it became a firm
resolution. In doing so he, by no means, occupies the position of an
ingenious politician. On the contrary, the whole commission is [Pg 28]
forced upon him. It can scarcely be doubted that the Assyrians would
have penetrated to Western Asia, even if Ahaz had not called them to
his assistance. The expedition of the Syrians and Ephraimites with the
view of making conquests, could not but turn their attention to that
quarter. As the instruments of the judgments upon Damascus and Samaria,
which Isaiah announced as impending under any circumstances, we can
surely think of none but Asshur. But if once they came into these
regions, in order to chastise the haughtiness of the Syrians and
Ephraimites, who would set up as a new conquering power, then was Judah
too threatened by them. _In a political point of view it did not make
any great difference whether Ahaz sought help from the Assyrians, or
not_; on the contrary, the king of Asshur could not but be more
favourably disposed towards him for so doing. _Isaiah, throughout,
rather occupies the position of the man of God._ The kings of the
people of God were, in general, not prevented from forming alliances;
but such alliances must belong to the category of permitted human
resources. Such, however, was not the case here. Asshur was a
conquering power, altogether selfish. His help had to be purchased with
dependance, and with the danger of entire destruction; to stay upon him
was to stay upon their destroyer, Is. x. 20. Such an alliance was a _de
facto_ denial of the God of Israel, an insult to His omnipotence and
grace. If Ahaz had obeyed Him; if he had limited himself to the use of
the human means granted to him by the Lord without trusting in them,
and had placed all his confidence in the Lord, He would have delivered
him in the same manner as He afterwards delivered Hezekiah, in the
first instance from Aram and Ephraim, and then from Asshur also. But
although Ahaz did not follow the prophet, his mission was by no means
in vain. Even before the mission, this result lay open before the Lord
who sent him. The great point was to establish, before the first
conflict of Israel with the world's power, thus much, that this
conflict had been brought about by the sin of the house of David, and
that hence it did not afford any cause for doubting the omnipotence and
mercy of the Lord whose help had been offered, but rejected.
The Prophet seeks out the king at a place to which he had been driven
by his despairing disquietude which was clinging convulsively to human
resources. He endeavours, first, to exert [Pg 29] an influence upon him
by taking with him his son, whose symbolical name, containing a
prophecy of the future destinies of the people, indicated that the
king's fear of a total destruction of the State was without foundation.
After the king has thus been prepared, he endeavours to make a deeper
impression upon him by the announcement, distinct and referring to the
present case, that the enemies should not only entirely fail in their
intention of conquering and dividing between themselves the kingdom of
Judah; but that the kingdom of Ephraim was itself hastening towards
that destruction which it was preparing for its brethren, and that
after sixty-five years it should altogether lose its national
independence and existence, ver. 1-9. But Ahaz makes no reply; and his
whole deportment shows that he does not follow the Prophet's
exhortation to "take heed and be quiet," and that the words: "If ye do
not believe, ye shall not be established," with which the Prophet
closes his address, have not made any impression upon him. In order
that the greatness of the king's hardness of heart may become manifest,
the Prophet offers, in the commission of the Lord, to confirm the
certainty of his statement by a miraculous sign, which the king himself
is called upon to fix, without any restriction, in order that any
suspicion of imposition may be removed. "But Ahaz, the unbeliever, is
afraid of heavenly communications, has already chosen his help, wishes
that every thing should go on in an easy human manner, and refuses the
Lord's offer in a polite turn which even refers to the Law. A sign is
then forced upon him, because as the king of Judah, he must see and
hear for all Judah that the Lord is faithful and good."[1] The Prophet,
in ver. 14, points to the birth of the Saviour by a Virgin. How then
was it possible that in the present collision that people should be
destroyed, among whom, according to former promises. He was to be born;
that that family should be extinguished from which he was to be
descended? The name "Immanuel," by which the future Saviour is
designated as "He in whom the Lord is, in the truest manner, to be with
His people," is a guarantee for His help in the present distress also.
The Prophet then states the time in which the land shall be entirely
delivered from its present enemies. The contemporaries, as the
representative of whom [Pg 30] the child appears (the Prophet, in the
energy of his faith, has transferred the birth of this child from the
future to the present), shall, after the short space of about two
years, again obtain the full enjoyment of the products of the land,
ver. 15. For, before this period has elapsed, destruction will fall
upon the hostile kings in their own land, ver. 16. The danger,
however--and this is pointed out in ver. 17-25--will come from just
that quarter from which Ahaz expects help, viz., from Asshur. But the
security for deliverance from this danger also--the conqueror of the
world's power which was soon to begin its course in Asshur, is none
other than Immanuel, whom the Prophet, in the beginning of the
humiliation of the people of God, makes, so to say, to become man, in
order that, during the impending deep humiliation of the people of God,
He may accompany it in its history during all the stages of its
existence, until He should really become man. He is, however in this
discourse, not yet pointed out as the deliverer from Asshur, and the
world's power represented by him. The darkness of the misery to be
inflicted by Asshur should not, and could not, in the meantime, be
cleared up for Ahaz; the picture must end in night. But in the
following discourse, chap. viii. 1, ix. 6 (7), which serves as a
necessary supplement to the one before us, the Saviour is depicted
before the eyes of those despairing in the sight of Asshur; and the
two-fold repetition of His name Immanuel, in chap. viii. 8, 10, serves
to show that the two discourses are intimately connected, and form one
whole.
Ahaz persevered in his unbelief, according to 2 Kings xvi. 7, 8. He
sent messengers with large presents to Tiglath-pileser, King of
Assyria, saying: "I am _thy servant_ and _thy son_ (a word as ominous
as that: 'We have no king but Cæsar,'in John xix. 35); come up and
save me out of the hand of the King of Aram, and out of the hand of the
King of Israel which rise up against me." But before the asked-for help
came, king and people had to endure very severe sufferings from Aram
and Ephraim. Ahaz, after having first made preparations to secure
Jerusalem against the impending siege, sent out his armies. They met
with a twofold heavy defeat from the divided armies of the allied
kings,[2] from which he might have been spared by [Pg 31] being still,
and hoping. The hostile armies then came up to Jerusalem, and laid
siege to it. It was probably by the intelligence of the advance of
Asshur that they were induced to raise the siege. It was now confirmed
that the Prophet had been right in designating the two hostile kings as
mere tails of smoking firebrands. Damascus was taken by the King of
Ophir; the inhabitants were carried away into exile to Kir; Rezin was
slain, 2 Kings xvi. 9: the land of Israel was devastated; a portion of
its inhabitants was carried away into exile; the king was made
tributary, 2 Kings xv. 29. Exactly at the time fixed by the Prophet,
the overthrow of the two hostile kingdoms took place; but the
deliverance which, without any farther sacrifice, Ahaz would have
obtained, if he had believed the Prophet, had now to be purchased by
very heavy sacrifices; and with perfect justice it is said in 2 Chron.
xxviii. 20, 21, that the king of Asshur did not help him, but rather,
by coming unto him, distressed him. Ahaz purchased this help at the
price of his independence, and had probably to submit to very hard
claims being made upon him. (_Caspari_, S. 60.) The world's power, to
which Ahaz had offered a finger, seized, more and more, the whole hand,
and held it by a firm grasp. Under Hezekiah, faith broke through the
consequences of the sin of the family; but this interruption lasted as
long only as did the faith. In addition to that which Ahaz had, for his
unbelief, to suffer from Aram, Ephraim, and Asshur, came the rebellion
of the neighbouring nations,--of the Edomites, according to 2 Chron.
xxviii. 17, and of the Philistines, according to ver. 18.
Ver. 1. "_And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham,
the son of Uzziah, that Rezin, the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of
Remaliah, the king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem, to war against
it, and could not fight against it._"
In thus tracing back the pedigree of Ahaz to Uzziah, there is a
reference to chap. vi. 1: "In the year that King Uzziah [Pg 32] died,"
&c. These two chapters stand related to each other as prophecy and
fulfilment. It was in the year of Uzziah's death that the Prophet had
been seized with fearful forebodings; and by the divine word these
fearful forebodings had soon been raised into a clear knowledge of the
threatening judgments which were impending. Under Ahaz, the second
successor of Uzziah, this knowledge began to be realized, keeping pace
with the hardening which in Ahaz had become personified. He, the type
of the unbelieving Jewish people, did not hear and understand, did not
see and perceive; and the announcement of the Prophet served merely
to increase his hardening. Even as early as that, the germ of the
carrying away of the people, announced by the Prophet in chap. vi., was
formed.--The circumstance of the hostile kings being introduced as
_going up_ implies the spiritual elevation of Jerusalem; comp. remarks
on Ps. xlviii. 3; xlviii. 17. The city of God is unconquerable unless
her inhabitants and, above all, the anointed one of God, make, by their
unbelief, their glorious privilege of no avail. In the last words:
"_And could not fight against it_," (the singular [Hebrew: ikl] because
Rezin is the chief person, Rezin and Pekah being identical with Rezin
with Pekah, comp. Esth. iv. 16), the result of the siege is
anticipated; and this is easily accounted for by the consideration that
ver. 1 serves as an introduction to the whole account, stating, in
general terms, the circumstances which induced the Prophet to come
publicly forward. In the following verses, the share only is mentioned
which the Prophet took in the matter; and the account is closed after
he has discharged his commission. The apparent contradiction to 2 Kings
xvi. 5, according to which Jerusalem was really besieged,--a
contradiction which occurs also in that passage itself: "And they
besieged Ahaz, and could not fight"--is most simply reconciled by the
remark that a fruitless struggle can, as it were, not be called a
struggle, just as, _e. g._, in the Old Testament, such as have a name
little known are spoken of as being without a name.
Ver. 2, "_And it was told to the house of David, saying: Aram rests
upon Ephraim. Then his heart trembled, and the heart of his people,
like as the trembling of the trees of the wood before the wind._"
The representative of the house of David was, according to [Pg 33] ver.
1, Ahaz, to whom the suffix in [Hebrew: lbbv] refers. It is thereby
intimated that Ahaz does not come into consideration as an individual,
but as a representative of the whole Davidic family, of which the
members were responsible, conjunctly and severally, and which in Ahaz
denied their God, and gave themselves up to the world's power,--a deed
of the family from the consequences of which a heroic faith only, like
that of Hezekiah, could deliver, but in such a manner only that it at
once became valid again when this faith ceased, until at length in
Christ the house of David was raised to glory. Ver. 19 shows that
[Hebrew: nvH] must be taken in the signification "to let oneself down,"
"to sit down," "to encamp." The anguish of the natural man, who has not
his strength in God at the breaking in of danger, is most graphically
described.
Ver. 3. "_And the Lord said to Isaiah: Go out to meet Ahaz, thou and
Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in
the highway of the fuller's field._"
Why is the Prophet to seek out the king just at this place? The answer
is given by chap. xxii. 2. "And a reservoir you make between the two
walls for the waters of the old pool: and not do ye look unto him who
makes it (viz., the impending calamity), and not do ye regard him who
fashioned it long ago." When a siege of Jerusalem was imminent, in the
lower territory, the first task was to cut off the water from the
hostile army. This measure Hezekiah, according to 2 Chron. xxxii. 3,
took against Sennacherib: "And he took counsel with his princes and his
mighty men, to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the
city, and they helped him." That might be done in faith; but he who,
like Ahaz, did not stand in the faith, sought in it, _per se_, his
safety; his despairing heart clung to such measures. The stopping of
the fountains was, in his case, on a level with seeking help from the
Assyrians. It is thus in the midst of his sin that the Prophet seeks
out the king, and recalls to his conscience: "take heed and be quiet."
But why did the Prophet take his son Shearjashub with him? It surely
cannot be without significance; for otherwise it would not have been
recorded, far less would it have been done at the express command of
the Lord. As the boy does not appear actively, the reason can only be
in the signification of the name. According to chap. viii., the Prophet
was accustomed to give to [Pg 34] his sons symbolical names which had a
relation to the destinies of the nation. They were, according to chap.
viii. 18, "for signs and for wonders in Israel." But as an
interpretation of the name, the passage chap. x. 21 is to be
considered: "The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob unto the
mighty God." The word [Hebrew: wvb] can, accordingly, be understood of
returning to the Lord, of repentance only, comp. chap. i. 27; Hos. iii.
5. But with repentance the recovery of salvation is indissolubly
connected. The reason why it is impossible that they who commit the sin
against the Holy Ghost shall never recover salvation lies solely in the
circumstance, that it is impossible that they should be renewed to
repentance. The fundamental passage, which is comprehended in the name
of the Prophet's son: "And thou returnest unto the Lord thy God.... And
the Lord thy God turneth thy captivity (_i.e._, thy misery), and hath
compassion upon thee, and returneth and gathereth thee from all the
nations" (Deut. xxx. 2, 3), emphatically points out the indissoluble
connection of the return to the Lord, and of the return of the Lord to
His people. This connection comes out so much the more clearly, when we
consider that, according to Scripture, repentance is not the work of
man but of God, and is nothing else but the beginning of the bestowal
of salvation; comp. Deut. xxx. 6: "And the Lord thy God circumciseth
thine heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;" Zech.
xii. 10. King and people feared entire destruction; and it was at this
that their powerful enemies aimed. Isaiah took his son with him, "as
the living proof of the preservation of the nation, even amidst the
most fearful destruction of the greater part of it." After having in
this manner endeavoured to free their minds from the extreme of fear,
he seeks to elevate them to joyful hopes, by the prophetical
announcement proper, which showed that, from this quarter, not even the
future great judgment, which would leave a portion only, was to be
feared.
Ver. 4. "_And say unto him: Take heed and be quiet; fear not, nor let
thy heart be tender for the two ends of these smoking firebrands, for
the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah._"
[Pg 35]
The words "_Take heed_" point to the dangerous consequences of fear;
comp. ver. 9: "If ye do not believe, ye shall not be established." On
the words "_be quiet_," lit., make quiet, viz., thy heart and walk,
comp. chap. xxx. 15: "For thus saith the Lord: By returning and rest ye
shall be saved; in _quietness_ and confidence shall be your strength;
and ye would not." Such as he was, Ahaz could not respond to the
exhortations to be quiet. Quietness is a product of _faith_. But the
way of faith stood open to Ahaz every moment, and by his promising word
and by his example, the Prophet invited him to enter upon it. In the
words: "Fear not," &c., there is an unmistakable reference to Deut. xx.
1, ff., according to which passage the priest was, on the occasion of
hostile oppression, to speak to the people: "Let not your hearts be
tender, and be not terrified." That which, in the Law, the priest was
commanded to do, is here done by the Prophet, who was obliged so often
to step in as a substitute, when the class of the ordinary servants
fell short of the height of their calling.--The "firebrand" is the
image of the conqueror who destroys countries by the fire of war, comp.
remarks on Rev. viii. 8. The Prophet is just about to announce to the
hostile kings their impending overthrow; for this reason, he calls them
_ends_ of firebrands, which no longer blaze, but only glimmer. He calls
them thus because he considers them with the eye of _faith_; to the
bodily eye a bright flame still presented itself, as the last words:
"For the fierce anger," &c., and vers. 5 and 6 show. _Chrysostom_
remarks: "He calls these kings 'firebrands,'to indicate at the same
time their violence, and that they are to be easily overcome; and it is
for this reason, that he adds 'smoking,'_i.e._, that they were near
being altogether extinguished."
Vers. 5, 6. "_Because Aram meditates evil against thee, Ephraim and the
son of Remaliah, saying: Let us go up against Judah, and drive it to
extremity, and conquer it for us, and set up as a king in the midst of
it the son of Tabeal._"
We have here, farther carried out, the thought indicated by the words:
"for the fierce anger," &c. The interval, in the original text, between
vers. 6 and 7, is put in to prevent the false connection of these
verses with ver. 7 (_Hitzig_ and _Ewald_).--[Hebrew: qvC] always means
"to loathe," "to experience disgust;" here, [Pg 36] in Hiph., "to cause
disgust," "to drive to extremity;" comp. my work on Balaam, Rem. on
Num. xxii. 3.--[Hebrew: bqe] means always: "to cleave asunder," "to
open," "to conquer."--The words: "_For us_," show that Tabeal is to be
the vassal only of the two kings. The absolute confidence with which
the Prophet recognizes the futility of the plan of the two kings, forms
a glaring contrast to the modern view of Prophetism, Ver. 2 shows in
what light ordinary consciousness did, and could not fail to look on
the then existing state of things.
Ver. 7. "_Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: It shall not stand, neither
shall it come to pass._" (A plan stands when it is carried out.)
Ver. 8. "_For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is
Rezin, and in threescore and five years more, Ephraim shall be broken,
and be no more a people._"
Ver. 9. "_And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria
is Remaliah's son. If ye believe not, ye shall not be established._"
Each of these two verses forms a complete whole.--The words: "For the
head of Aram," &c., to "Rezin" receive their explanation from the
antithesis to vers. 5 and 6, where the king of Aram and the king of
Ephraim had declared their intention of extending their dominion over
Judah. As, concerning this intention and this hope, the Lord has
declared His will that it shall not be, we must understand: Not as
regards Judah, and not as regards Jerusalem. It is in vain that men's
thoughts exalt themselves against the purposes of God. From Aram, the
Prophet turns, in the second part of the verse, to Ephraim: "And even
Ephraim! What could it prevail against the Lord and His Kingdom! It
surely should give up all attempts to get more; its days are numbered,
the sword is already suspended over its own head." But inasmuch as it
is possible, although not likely, that Ephraim, before its own
overthrow, may still bring evil upon Judah, this is expressly denied in
ver. 9: Samaria, according to the counsel of God, and the limit
assigned to it, is the head of Ephraim only, and not, at the same time,
of Judah, &c. With this are then connected the closing words: "If ye
believe not, ye shall not be established" (properly, the consequence
will be that ye do not continue), which are equivalent to it: it is
hence not Samaria [Pg 37] and the son of Remaliah that you have to
fear; the enemy whom you have to dread, whom you have to contend
against with prayer and supplication, is in yourselves. Take heed lest
a similar cause produce a similar effect, as in the last clause of ver.
8 it has been threatened against Ephraim.--This prophecy and warning,
one would have expected to have produced an effect so much the deeper,
because they were not uttered by some obscure fanatic, but by a worthy
member of a class which had in its favour the sanction of the Lawgiver,
and which in the course of centuries had been so often and so
gloriously owned and acknowledged by God.[3]
[Pg 38]
Vers. 10, 11. "_And the Lord spoke farther unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee
a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it from the depth, or above from the
height._"
Ahaz observed a dignified silence after those words of the Prophet;
but his whole manner shews the Prophet that they have not made any
impression upon him. If David's spirit had rested on Ahaz, he would
surely, if he had wavered at all, have, on the word of the Prophet,
thrown himself into the arras of his God. But in order that the
depth of his apostacy, the greatness of his guilt, and the justice
of the divine judgments may become manifest, God shows him even a
deeper condescension. The Prophet offers to prove the truth of his
announcement by any miraculous work which the king himself should
determine, and from which he might, at the same time, see God's
omnipotence, and the Divine mission of the Prophet. As Ahaz refused
the offered sign, the word 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13: [Greek: ei arnoumetha,
kakeinos arnêsetai hêmas. ei apistoumen, ekeinos pistos
menei--arnêsasthai gar heauton ou dunatai] came into application.
According to Deut. vii. 9 ff. the truth and faithfulness of God must
now manifest itself in the [Pg 39] infliction of severe visitations
upon the house of David.--The character of a _sign_ is, in general,
borne by everything which serves for certifying facts which belong to
the territory of faith, and not to that of sight. 1. In some instances,
the sign consists in a mere naked word; thus in Exod. iii. 12: "And
this shall be the sign unto thee that I have sent thee: When thou hast
brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this
mountain." Moses'doubts of the truth of his Divine mission originated
in the consciousness of his own unworthiness, and in the condition of
those to whom he was sent. From these doubts he was delivered by the
announcement that, at the place where he had been called, he, at the
head of the delivered people, should serve his God. This was to him a
_sign_ that God was in earnest in calling him. 2. In other instances
the assurance given by the sign consists in its perceptibility and
corporeality; so that the word assumes, as it were, flesh and blood. A
case of this kind it is, _e.g._, when, in chap. viii. 18, Isaiah calls
his two sons, to whom, at the command of God, he had given symbolical
names, expressive of the future salvation of the covenant-people,
"Signs and wonders in Israel;" farther, chap. xx. 3, where the Prophet
walks naked and barefoot for a sign of the calamity impending over
Egypt and Ethiopia in three years. 3. In another class of signs, a fact
is announced which is, in itself, natural, but not to be foreseen by
any human combination, the coming to pass of which, in the immediate
future, furnishes the proof that, at a distant future, that will be
fulfilled which was foretold as impending. The wonderful element, and
the demonstrative power do not, in such a case, lie in the matter of
the sign, but in the telling of it beforehand. It is in this sense
that, in 1 Sam. x., Samuel gives several _signs_ to Saul, that God had
destined him to be king, _e.g._, that in a place exactly fixed, he
would meet two men who would bring him the intelligence that the lost
asses were found; that, farther onwards, he would meet with three men,
one of whom would be carrying three kids, another, three loaves of
bread, and another, a bottle of wine, &c. In 1 Sam. ii. 34, the sudden
death of his two sons is given to Eli as a sign that all the calamities
threatened against his family should certainly come to pass. In Jer.
xliv. 29, 30, the impending defeat of Pharaoh-Hophras is given as a
_sign_ of the divine vengeance breaking in upon the Jews in Egypt. Even
before the [Pg 40] thing came to pass, it could not in such a case, be
otherwise than that the previous condition and foundation brought
before the eyes in a lively manner (Jer. xliv. 30: "_Behold_, I give
Pharaoh-Hophras into the hands of his enemies") gave a powerful shock
to the doubts as to whether the fact in question would come to pass. 4.
In other cases, the assurance was given in such a manner, that all
doubts as to the truth of the announcement were set at rest by the
immediate performance of a miraculous work going beyond the ordinary
laws of nature. Thus, _e.g._, Isaiah says to Hezekiah, in chap. xxviii.
7: "And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord
will do this thing which He has spoken," and, as a _sign_ that the Lord
would add fifteen years to the life of the King, who was sick unto
death, he makes the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz to go back ten
degrees. Of this description were also the signs granted to Gideon,
and, in many respects, the plagues in Egypt also. In the passage before
us, no other sign can possibly be spoken of than one of the _two last
classes_. For it was a real, miraculous sign only which could possibly
exert any influence on a mind so darkened as was that of Ahaz, and it
was the vain offer of such an one only which was fitted to bring to
light his obduracy. If, then, the Prophet was willing and able to give
a real, miraculous sign, why, then, is the answer of Ahaz so
unsuitable? And we can surely not suppose, as _Meier_ does, that he
should have intentionally misunderstood the Prophet. The temptation of
the Lord by the children of Israel, to which the word of the Lord,
Deut. vi. 16, quoted by Ahaz, refers, consisted, according to Exod.
xvii., in their having asked _water_, as a _miraculous sign_ that the
Lord was truly in the midst of them. How could the Prophet reproach
Ahaz with having offended, not men merely, but God, unless he had
offered to prove, by a fact which lay absolutely beyond the limits of
nature, the truth of his announcement, the divinity of Him who gave it,
the divinity of his own mission, and the soundness of his advice?
_Hendewerk_ is of opinion that "it is difficult to say what the author
would have made to be the sign in the heavens; probably, a very simple
thing." But in making this objection it is forgotten that Isaiah gives
_free choice_ to the king. _Hitzig_ says: "Without knowing it, Isaiah
here plays a very dangerous game. For if Ahaz had accepted his
proposition, Jehovah would [Pg 41] probably have left His servant in
the lurch, and he would have begun to doubt of his God and of himself."
In these words, at all events, it is conceded that the prophets
themselves would not be what people in modern times would have them to
be. If such was their position towards _miracles_, then, in their own
convictions, _prophecies_, too, must be something else than general
descriptions, and indefinite forebodings. But how should it have been
possible that an order could have maintained itself for centuries, the
most prominent members of which gave themselves up to such enthusiastic
imprudence and rashness? Moreover, it is overlooked that afterwards, to
Hezekiah, our Prophet grants that in reality which here he offers to
Ahaz in vain,--[Hebrew: hemq] and [Hebrew: hgbh] are _Infin. absol._
"going high," "going low." The Imperat. [Hebrew: walh] must be
understood after [Hebrew: hgbh] also. Some explain [Hebrew: walh] by
"to hell," "down to hell;" but this is against the form of the word,
which it would be arbitrary to change. Nor does one exactly see how, if
we except, perhaps, the apparition of one dead, Isaiah could have given
to the king a sign from the Sheol; and in other passages, too (comp.
Joel iii. 3 [ii. 30]), signs in the heavens and in the earth are
contrasted with one another. _Theodoret_ remarks that both kinds of
miracles, among which the Lord here allowed a choice to Ahaz, were
granted by Him to his pious son, Hezekiah, inasmuch as He wrought a
phenomenon in _heaven_ which affected the going back of the shadow on
the sun-dial of Ahaz; and on _earth_, inasmuch as He, in a wonderful
manner, destroyed the Assyrians, and restored the king to health.
_Jerome_ farther remarks, that, from among the plagues in Egypt, the
lice, frogs, &c., were signs on earth; the hail, fire, and three day's
darkness, were signs in the heaven. It is on the passage before us that
the Pharisees take their stand, when in Matt. xvi. 1 they ask from the
Lord that He should grant them a sign from heaven. If even the Prophet
Isaiah offered to prove in such a manner his divine mission, then,
according to their opinion, Christ was much more bound to do this,
inasmuch as He set up far higher claims. But they overlooked the
circumstance that enough had already been granted for convincing those
who were well disposed, and that it can never be a duty to convince
obstinate unbelief in a manner so palpable.
[Pg 42]
Ver. 12. "_And Ahaz said: I will not ask, neither will I tempt the
Lord._"
Ahaz declines the offer by referring to Deut. vi. 16., and thus
assuming the guise of reverence for God and His commandment. "He
pretends," says _Calvin_, "to have faith in the words of the Prophet,
and not to require anything besides the word." The same declarations of
the Law, the Lord opposes to Satan, when the latter would induce Him to
do something for which he had no word of God, Matt. iv. 7. That would
really have been a tempting of God. Ahaz had no doubt that the miracle
would really be performed; but he had a dislike to enter within the
mystical sphere. Who knows whether the God who grants the miracle is
really the highest God? comp. Is. x. 10, 11, xxxvi. 18-20, xxxvii.
10-12. Who knows whether He is not laying for him a trap; whether, by
preventing him from seeking the help of man. He is not to bring upon
him the destruction which his conscience tells him he has so richly
deserved? At all events the affording of His help is clogged with a
condition which he is resolved not to fulfil, viz., his conversion. A
better and easier bargain, he thought, could be struck with the
Assyrians; how insatiable soever they might be, they did not ask the
heart. How many do even now-a-days rather perish in sin and misery,
than be converted!
Ver. 13. "_And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it too little
for you to provoke man, that you provoke also my God?_"
When Ahaz had before refused to believe in the simple announcement of
the Prophet, his sin was more pardonable; for, inasmuch as Isaiah had
not proved himself outwardly as a divine ambassador, Ahaz sinned to a
certain degree against man only, against the Prophet only, by unjustly
suspecting him of a deceitful pretension to a divine revelation. Hence,
Isaiah continues mild and gentle. But when Ahaz declined the offered
sign, _God himself_ was provoked by him, and his wickedness came
evidently to light. It is substantially the same difference as that
between the sin against the _Son of Man_, the Christ coming outwardly
and as a man only (Bengel: _quo statu conspicu, quatenus aequo tum loco
cum hominibus conversabatur_), and the sin against the Holy Ghost who
powerfully glorifies Him outwardly and inwardly. It is the antithesis
[Pg 43] of the relative ignorance of what one is doing, and of the
absolute unwillingness which purposely hardens itself to the truth
known, or easy to be known. We say _relative_ ignorance; for an element
of obduracy and hardening already existed, if he did not believe the
Prophet, even without a sign. For the fact that the Prophet was sent by
God, and spoke God's word, was testified to all who would hear it, even
by the inner voice, just as in every sin against the Son of Man there
is always already an element of the sin against the Holy Ghost.--The
truth that godlessness is the highest folly is here seen in a very
evident manner. The same Ahaz who rejects the offer of the living God,
who palpably wishes to reveal to him that He is a living God,
sacrifices his son to the dead idol Moloch, who never yet gave the
smallest sign of life! In this mirror we may see the condition of human
nature.--The circumstance that it is not Ahaz, but the house of David
that is addressed, indicates that the deed is a deed of the whole
house.--The Prophet says, "_My God_," _i.e._, the God whose faithful
servant I am, and in whom ye hypocrites have no more any share. In Ver.
11, the Prophet had still called Him the God of Ahaz.
Ver. 14. "_Therefore the Lord himself giveth you a sign: Behold the
Virgin is with child, and heareth a Son, and thou callest his name
Immanuel._"
Ahaz had refused the proffered sign; the whole depth of his apostacy
had become manifest; no further regard was to be had to him. But it was
necessary to strengthen those who feared God, in their confidence in
the Lord, and in their hope in him. For this reason, the Prophet gives
a sign, even against the will of Ahaz, by which the announcement of the
deliverance from the two kings was confirmed. Your weak, prostrate
faith, he says, may erect itself on the certain fact that, in the Son
of the Virgin, the Lord will some day be with us in the truest manner,
and may perceive therein a guarantee and a pledge of the lower help in
the present danger also.--"Therefore"--because ye will not fix upon a
sign. _Reinke_, in the ably written Monograph on this passage, assigns
to [Hebrew: lkN] the signification, "nevertheless," which is not
supported by the _usus loquendi_.--[Hebrew: itN] must be translated as
a Present; for the pregnancy of the Virgin and birth of Immanuel are
present to [Pg 44] the Prophet; and the fact cannot serve as a sign, in
so far as it manifests itself outwardly, but only in so far as, by
being foretold, it is realized as present.--[Hebrew: hva] _He_, _i.e._,
of His own accord without any co-operation, such as would have taken
place if Ahaz had asked the sign.--[Hebrew: lkM] refers by its form to
the house of David; but in determining the sign, it is not the real
condition of its representative at that time which is regarded, but as
he ought to be. In substance, the sign given to ungodly Ahaz is
destined for believers only.--[Hebrew: hnh] "behold" indicates the
energy with which the Prophet anticipates the future; in his spirit
it becomes to him the immediate present. Thus it was understood as
early as by _Chrysostom_: [Greek: monon gar ouk horôntos ên ta ginomena
kai phantazomenou kai pollên echontos huper tôn eirêmenôn plêrophorian,
tôn gar hêmeterôn ophthalmôn ekeinoi saphesteron ta mê horômena
eblepon.]--The article in [Hebrew: helmh] cannot refer to _the_ virgin
_known_ as the mother of the Saviour; for, besides the passage before
us, it is only Micah v. 2 (3) which mentions the mother of the Saviour,
and it is our passage only which speaks of her as a _virgin_. In
harmony with [Hebrew: hnh], the article in [Hebrew: helmh] might be
explained from the circumstance that the Virgin is present to the
inward perception of the Prophet--equivalent to "the virgin there." But
since the use of the article in the _generic_ sense is so general, it
is most natural to understand "the virgin" as forming a contrast to the
married or old woman, and hence, in substance, as here equivalent to
_a_ virgin. To this view we are led also by the circumstance that, in
the parallel passage, Mic. v. 2 (3) [Hebrew: ivldh] "a bearing woman"
is used without the article.--[Hebrew: elmh] is, by old expositors,
commonly derived from [Hebrew: elM] in the signification "to conceal" A
virgin, they assume, is called a _concealed_ one, with reference to the
customs of the East, where the virgins are obliged to lead a concealed
life. Thus it was understood by _Jerome_ also: "_Almah_ is not applied
to girls or virgins generally, but is used emphatically of a hidden and
concealed virgin, who is never accessible to the look of males, but who
is with great care watched by the parents." But all parties now rightly
agree that the word is to be derived from [Hebrew: elM], in the
signification, "to grow up." To offer here any arguments in proof would
be a work of supererogation, as they are offered by all dictionaries.
But with all that, _Luther's_ remark is even now in full force: "If [Pg
45] a Jew or a Christian can prove to me that in any passage of
Scripture _Almah_ means 'a married woman,'I will give him a hundred
florins, although God alone knows where I may find them." It is true
that [Hebrew: elmh] is distinguished from [Hebrew: btvlh], which
designates the virgin state as such, and in this signification occurs
in Joel i. 8. also where the bride laments over her bridegroom whom she
has lost by death. Inviolate chastity is, in itself, not implied in the
word. But certain it is that [Hebrew: elmh] designates an unmarried
person in the first years of youth; and if this be the case, un
violated chastity is a matter of course in this context; for if the
mother of the Saviour was to be an _unmarried_ person, she could be a
virgin only; and, in general, it is inconceivable that the Prophet
should have brought forward a relation of impure love. In favour of "an
unmarried person" is, in the first instance, the derivation. Being
derived from [Hebrew: elM], "to grow up," "to become marriageable,"
[Hebrew: elmh] can denote nothing else than _puella nubilis_. But still
more decisive is the _usus loquendi_. In Arabic and Syriac the
corresponding words are never used of married women, and _Jerome_
remarks, that in the Punic dialect also a virgin proper is called
[Hebrew: elmh]. Besides in the passage before us, the word occurs in
Hebrew six times (Gen. xxiv. 43; Exod. ii. 8; Ps. lxviii. 26; Song of
Sol. i. 3, vi. 8; Prov. xxx. 19); but in all these passages the word
is undeniably used of unmarried persons. In the two passages of the
Song of Solomon, the [Hebrew: elmvt] designate the nations which have
not yet attained to an union with the heavenly Solomon, but are
destined for this union. In chap. vi. 8, they are, as _brides_,
expressly contrasted with the _wives_ of the first and second class.
Marriage forms the boundary; the _Almah_ appears here distinctly as the
anti-thesis to a married woman. It is the passage in Proverbs only
which requires a more minute examination, as the opponents have given
up all the other passages, and seek in it alone a support for their
assertion that [Hebrew: elmh] may be used of a married woman also. The
passage in its connection runs as follows: Ver. 18. "There be three
things which are too wonderful for me, and four which I know not. Ver.
19. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon the rock,
the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a
maid. Ver. 20. This is the way of an adulterous woman; she [Pg 46]
eateth, and wipeth her mouth and saith: I have done no wickedness."
According to _De Wette_, _Bertheau_, and others, the _tertium
comparationis_ for every thing is to lie in this only, that the ways do
not leave any trace that could be recognized. But the traceless
disappearing is altogether without foundation; there is not one word to
indicate it; and it is quite impossible that that on which every thing
depends should have been left to conjecture. Farther,--instead of the
eagle, every other bird might have been mentioned, and the words "in
the air" would be without meaning, as well as the words "in the heart
of the sea" mentioned in reference to the ship. But the real point of
view is expressly stated in ver. 18. It is the _incomprehensible_. It
is thus only that ver. 20, for which the other verses prepare the way,
falls in with the tendency of the whole. In the way of the adulteress,
that which is pointed out is not that it cannot be known, but the moral
incomprehensibility that she, practising great wickedness which is
worthy of death, and will unavoidably bring destruction upon her,
behaves as if there were nothing wrong, as if a permitted enjoyment
were the point in question, that she eats the poisoned bread of
unchaste enjoyment as if it were ordinary bread; comp. ix. 17, xx. 17;
Ps. xiv. 4. Four incomprehensible things in the natural territory are
made use of to illustrate an incomprehensible thing in the ethical
territory. The whole purpose is _to point out the mystery of sin_. In
the case of the _eagle_, it is the boldness of his flight in which the
miraculous consists. The speed and boldness of his flight is elsewhere
also very commonly mentioned as the characteristic of the eagle; it is
just that which makes him the king of birds. In the case of the
_serpent_, the wonder is that, although wanting feet, it yet moves over
the smooth rock which is inaccessible to the proud horse; comp. Amos
vi. 12: "Do horses run upon the rock." In the _ship_, it is the
circumstance that she safely passes over the abyss which, as it would
appear, could not fail to swallow her up. _The way of a man with a
maid_ occupies the last place in order to intimate that [Hebrew: drK],
as in the case of the adulteress, denotes the _spiritual_ way. What is
here meant is the relation of the man to the virgin, _generally_, for
if any _particular_ aspect had been regarded, _e. g._, that of
boldness, cunning, or secrecy, it [Pg 47] ought to have been pointed
at. The way of the man with the maid is the secret of which mention is
made as early as in Gen. ii. 24,--the union of the strong with the weak
and tender (comp. the parallel passage, Jer. xxxi. 22), the secret
attraction which connects with one another the hearts, and at last, the
bodies. The end of the way is marriage. It is the _young_ love which
specially bears the character of the mysterious; after the relation has
been established, it attracts less wonder.--[Hebrew: hrh] is the femin.
of the verbal adj. [Hebrew: hrh]. The fundamental passage, Gen. xvi.
11, where the angel of the Lord says to Hagar: "Behold thou art with
child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because
the Lord has heard thy affliction," shows that we must translate: The
virgin _is_ with child, and not: becomes with child. The allusion to
that passage in Genesis is very significant. In that case, as well as
in the one under consideration, salvation is brought into connection
with the birth of a child. To the birth of Ishmael, the despairing
Hagar is directed as to a security for the divine favour; to the birth
of Immanuel, the desponding people are directed as to the actual proof
that God is with them. If the _Almah_ represents herself to the Prophet
as being already with child, then passages such as Is. xxix. 8, Matt.
xi. 5, are not applicable. A virgin who is with child cannot be one who
was a virgin.--The form [Hebrew: qrat] may be 3d fem. for [Hebrew:
qrah], comp. Jer. xliv. 23; but the fundamental passage in Gen. xvi. 11
is decisive for considering it as the 2d fem.: "_thou_ callest," as an
address to the virgin; in which case the form is altogether regular. It
was not a rare occurrence in Israel that mothers gave the name to
children, Gen. iv. 1, 25, xix. 37, xxix. 32. The circumstance,
therefore, that the giving of the name is assigned to the mother (the
virgin) affords no ground for supposing, as many of the older
expositors do, that this is an intimation that the child would not have
a human father. "Thou callest" can, on the contrary, according to the
custom then prevalent, be substantially equivalent to: they shall name,
Matt. [Greek: kalesousi], _Jerome_: _vocabitur_. The name is, of
course, not to be considered as an ordinary _nomen proprium_, but as a
designation of his nature and character. It may be understood in
different ways. Several interpreters, _e. g._, _Jerome_, referring to
passages such as Ps. xlvi. 8, lxxxix. 25, Is. xliii. 2, Jer. i. 8, see
[Pg 48] in it nothing else than an appeal to, and promise of divine
aid. According to others, the name is to be referred to God's becoming
man in the Messiah; thus _Theodoret_ says: "The name reveals the God
who is with us, the God who became man, the God who took upon Him the
human nature." In a similar manner _Irenaeus_, _Tertullian_,
_Chrysostom_, _Lactantius_, _Calvin_, and others, express themselves.
But those very parallel passages just quoted show that the name in
itself has no distinct reference to the incarnation of God in Christ.
But from the passage chap. ix. 5, (6), which is so closely connected
with the one before us, and in which the Messiah is called _God-hero_,
(the mighty God), and His divine nature so emphatically pointed out
(comp. also Mic. v. 1 [2],) it plainly appears that the Prophet had in
view the highest and truest form of God's being with His people, such
as was made manifest when the word became flesh. (Chrysostom says:
"Then, above all, God was with us on earth, when He was seen on earth,
and conversed with man, and manifested so great care for us.")
According, then, to the interpretation given, this verse before us
affirms that, at some future period, the Messiah should be born by a
virgin, among the covenant people, who in the truest manner would bring
God near to them, and open the treasures of His salvation. In Vol. I.
p. 500 ff., we proved that this explanation occurs already in the
Gospel according to St. Matthew. According to the interpretation of the
Apostle, the passage can refer to Christ only, and finds in him not
only the highest, but the only fulfilment. In the Christian Church,
throughout all ages, the Messianic explanation was the prevailing one.
It was held by all the Fathers of the Church, and by all other
Christian commentators down to the middle of the 18th century,--only
that some, besides the higher reference to the Messiah, assumed a lower
one to some event of that period. With the revival of faith, this view,
too, has been revived. It is proved by the parallel passage, chap. ix.
5 (6). That passage presents so remarkable an agreement with the one
now under consideration, that we cannot but assume the same subject in
both. "Behold, a virgin is with child, and beareth a son"--"A child is
born unto us, a son is given;"--"They call him Immanuel," _i.e._, Him
in whom God will be with us in the truest manner--"They call Him [Pg
49] Wonder-Counsellor, the God-Hero, Ever-Father, the Prince of Peace."
Both of these passages can the less be separated from one another, that
chap. viii. 8 is evidently intended to lead from the one to the other.
In this passage it is said of the _world's power_, which in the
meantime, and in the first place, was represented by _Asshur_: "And the
stretchings out of his wings are the fulness of the breadth of thy
land, Immanuel," i. e., his wings will cover the whole extent of thy
land,--the stretching of the wings of this immense bird of prey,
Asshur, comprehends the whole land. In the words: "Thy land, O
Immanuel," the prophecy of the wonderful Child, in chap. viii. 23-ix. 6
(ix. 1-7), is already prepared. The land in which Immanuel is to be
born, which belongs to Him, cannot remain continually the property of
heathen enemies. Every destruction is, at the same time, a prophecy of
the restoration. A look to the wonderful Child, and despair must flee.
Behind the clouds, the sun is shining. Every attempt to assign the
Immanuel to the lower sphere, must by this passage be rendered futile.
For how, in that case, could Canaan be called _His_ land? The
signification "native country" which [Hebrew: arC], it is true,
sometimes receives by the context, does not suit here. For the passage
just points out the contrast of reality and idea, that the world's
power takes possession of the land which _belongs_ to Immanuel, and
hence prepares for the announcement contained in that which follows,
viz., that this contrast shall be done away with, and that this shall
be done as soon as the legitimate proprietor comes into His kingdom.
Farther,--Decisive in favour of the Messianic explanation is also the
passage Mic. v. 1, 2, (2, 3), where, in correspondence to _virgin_
here, we have, _she who is bearing_. The latter, indeed, is not
expressly called a virgin; but it follows, as a matter of course, that
she be so, as she is to bear the Hero of Divine origin ("_of
eternity_"), who, hence, cannot have been begotten by any mortal. Both
of the prophecies mutually illustrate one another. "Micah designates
the Divine origin of the Promised One; Isaiah, the miraculous
circumstances of His birth" (_Rosenmüller_) Just as Isaiah holds up the
birth of Immanuel as the pledge that the covenant-people would not
perish in their present catastrophe; just as he points to the shining
form of Immanuel, announcing the victory over the [Pg 50] world, in
order to comfort them in the impending severe oppression by the world's
power (viii. 8);--so Micah makes the oppression by the world's power
continue only until the time that she who is bearing brings forth. As
Micah, in v. 1 (2), contrasts the divine dignity and nature with the
birth in time, so, in Isaiah, Immanuel, He in whom God will most truly
be with His people, is born by a virgin.
The arguments which the Jews, and, following their example, the
rationalistic interpreters, especially _Gesenius_, and with them
_Olshausen_, have advanced against the Messianic explanation, prove
nothing. They are these:
1. "A reference to the Messiah who, after the lapse of centuries, is to
be born of a virgin, appears to be without meaning in the present
circumstances." This argument proves too much, and, hence, nothing. _It
would be valid against Messianic prophecies in general_, the existence
of which certainly cannot be denied. Do not Jeremiah and Ezekiel, at
the time when the people were carried away into captivity, comfort them
by the announcement that the kingdom of God should, in a far more
glorious manner, be established by Messiah, whose appearance was yet
several centuries distant? The highest proof of Israel's dignity and
election, was the promise that, at some future time, the Messiah was to
be born among them. How, indeed, could the Lord leave, without the
lower help in the present calamity, a people with whom He was to be, at
some future period, in the truest manner? The Prophet refers to the
future Saviour in a way quite similar to that in which the Apostle
refers to Him, after He had appeared: "Who did not spare His only
begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, how should He not in Him give
us all things freely?" Let us only realize the truth that the hope in
the Messiah formed the centre of the life of believers; that this hope
was, by fear, repressed only, but not destroyed. All which was needed,
therefore, was to revive this hope, and with it the special hope for
the present distress also was given--the assurance, firm as a rock,
that in it the covenant-people could not perish. This revival took
place in this way, that in the mind of the Prophet, the Messianic hope
was, by the Holy Spirit, rekindled, so that at his light all might
kindle their lights. The Messianic idea here meets us in such
originality [Pg 51] and freshness, as if here were its real fountain
head. The faith already existing is only the foundation, only the point
of connexion. What is essential is the new revelation of the old truth,
and that could not fail to be affecting, overpowering to susceptible
minds.
2. "The ground of consolation is too _general_. The Messiah might be
born from the family of Ahaz without the Jewish state being preserved
in its then existing condition, and without Ahaz continuing on the
throne. The Babylonish captivity intervened, and yet Messiah was to be
born. Isaiah would thus have made himself guilty of a false sophistical
argumentation."--We answer: What they, at that time, feared, was the
total destruction of state and people. This appears sufficiently from
the circumstance that the prophet takes his son Shearjashub with him;
and indeed the intentions of the enemy in this respect are expressed
with sufficient clearness in ver. 6. It is this _extreme_ of fear which
the Prophet here first opposes. Just as, according to the preceding
verses, he met the fear of entire destruction by taking with him his
son Shearjashub, "the remnant will be converted," without thereby
excluding a temporary carrying away, so he there also prepares the mind
for the announcement contained in vers. 15, 16, of the near deliverance
from the present danger, by first representing the fear of an entire
destruction to be unfounded. A people, moreover, to whom, at some
future period, although it may be at a very remote future, a divine
_Saviour_ is to be sent, must, in the present also, be under special
divine protection. They may be visited by severe sufferings, they may
be brought to the very verge of destruction,--whether that shall be the
case the Prophet does not, as yet, declare,--but one thing is sure,
that to them all things must work together for good; and that is the
main point. He who is convinced of this, may calmly and quietly look at
the course of events.
3. "The sense in which [Hebrew: avt] is elsewhere used in Scripture, is
altogether disregarded by this interpretation. For, according to it,
[Hebrew: avt] would refer to a future event; but according to the _usus
loquendi_ elsewhere observed, [Hebrew: avt] 'is a prophesied second
event, the earlier fulfilment of which is to afford a sure guarantee
for the fulfilment of the first, which is really the point at issue.'"
But, in opposition to this, it is sufficient to [Pg 52] refer to Exod.
iii. 12, where Moses receives this as a sign of his Divine mission, and
of the deliverance of the people to be effected by him: "When thou hast
brought forth my people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this
mountain." In chap. xxxvii. 30, our Prophet himself, as a confirmation
of the word spoken in reference to the king of Asshur: "I make thee
return by the way by which thou earnest," gives this sign, that, in the
third year after this, agriculture should already have altogether
returned into its old tracks, and the cultivation of the country should
have been altogether restored.[4] The fact here given as a sign is
later than that which is to be thereby made sure. The sign consists
only in this, that the idea is vividly called up and realized in the
mind, that the land would recover from the destruction; and this of
course, implies the destruction of the enemy. But in our chapter
itself,--the name of Shearjashub affords the example of a sign (comp.
chap. vii. 18), which is taken from the territory of the distant
future. It is time that _commonly_ [Hebrew: avt] is not used of future
things; but this has its reason not in the idea of [Hebrew: avt], but
solely in the circumstance that, ordinarily, the future cannot serve
as a sign of assurance. But it is quite obvious that, in the present
case, the Messianic announcement _could_ afford such a sign, and that
in a far higher degree than the future facts given as signs in Exod.
iii., and Isa. xxxvii. The kingdom of glory which has been promised
to us, forms to us also a sure pledge that in all the distresses of
the Church, the Lord will not withhold His help from her. But the
Covenant-people stood in the same relation to the first appearance of
Christ, as we do to the second.
(4.) "The passage, chap. viii. 3, 4, presents the most marked
resemblance to the one before us. If _there_ the Messianic explanation
be decidedly inadmissible, it must be so _here_ also. The name and
birth of a child serves, there as here, for a sign of the deliverance
from the Syrian dominion. If then _there_ the mother of the child be
the wife of the Prophet, and the child a son of his, the same must be
the case _here_ also." But it is _a priori_ improbable that the Prophet
should have given [Pg 53] to two of his sons names which had reference
to the same event. To this must be added the circumstance, that the
_time is wanting_ for the birth of two sons of the Prophet. Before
Immanuel knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the country of
both the hostile kings shall be desolated, chap. vii. 15; before
Mahershalalhashbaz knows to cry My Father, My Mother, the riches of
Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried before the king of
Assyria, chap. viii. 4. The two births hence coincide. At all events,
it is impossible to find the time for a double birth by the same
mother. Several interpreters (_Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Hendewerk_,)
assume the identity of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz; but this is
altogether inadmissible, even from the difference of the names. It is
the less admissible to assume a double name for the child, as the name
Shearjashub plainly enough shews that the Prophet was in earnest with
the names of his children; and indeed, unless they had been real proper
names, there would have existed no reason at all for giving them to
them. To have assigned several names to one child would have weakened
their power. The agreement must, therefore, rather be explained from
the circumstance, that it was by the announcement in chap. vii. 14 that
the Prophet was induced to the symbolical action in chap. viii. 3, 4.
He has, in chap. vii. 14, given to the despairing people the birth of a
child, who would bring the highest salvation for Israel, as a pledge of
their deliverance. The birth of a child and its name were then required
as an actual prophecy of help in the present distress,--a help which
was to be granted with a view to that Child, who not only indicates,
but grants deliverance from all distresses, and to whom the Prophet
reverts in chap. ix., and even already in chap. viii. 8.--Moreover,
besides the agreement there is found a thorough difference. In chap.
vii. the mother of the child is called [Hebrew: helmh], whereby a
virgin only can be designated; in chap. viii., "the prophetess." In
chap. vii. there is not even the slightest allusion to the Prophet's
being the father; while in chap. viii. this circumstance is expressly
and emphatically pointed out. In chap. vii. it is the mother who gives
the name to the child; in chap. viii. it is the Prophet. Far closer is
the agreement of chap. ix. 5 (6) with chap. vii. 14. It especially
appears in the circumstances that in neither of them [Pg 54] is the
father of the child designated; and, farther, in the correspondence of
Immanuel with [Hebrew: al gbvr], God-Hero.
(5.) "Against the Messianic explanation, and in favour of that of a son
of the Prophet, is the passage chap. viii. 18, where the Prophet says
that his sons have been given to him for signs and wonders in Israel."
But although Immanuel be erroneously reckoned among the sons of the
Prophet, there still remain Shearjashub and Mahershalalhashbaz. The
latter name refers, _in the first instance only_, to Aram and Ephraim
specially; or the general truth which it declares is applied to this
relation only. But, just as the name Shearjashub announces new
_salvation_ to the prostrate _people of God_, so the second name
announces near _destruction_ to the triumphing _world_ hostile to God;
so that both the names supplement one another. As _signs_, these two
sons of the Prophet pointed to the future deliverance and salvation of
Israel, and the defeat of the world; and the very circumstance that
they did so when, humanly viewed, all seemed to be lost, was a subject
for wonder. But that we can in no case make Immanuel a third son of the
Prophet, we have already proved.
Ver. 15. _Cream and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the
evil and choose the good._ Ver. 16. _For before the boy shall know to
refuse the evil and choose the good, the country shall be forsaken of
the two kings of which thou standest in awe._
The older Messianic explanation has, in these two verses, exposed
itself to the charge of being quite arbitrary. Most of the interpreters
assume that, in ver. 15, the true humanity of the Saviour is announced.
The name Immanuel is intended to indicate the divine nature; the eating
of milk and honey the human nature. Milk and honey are in this case
considered as the ordinary food for babes; like other children. He
shall grow up, and, like them, gradually develope. Thus _Jerome_ says:
"I shall mention another feature still more wonderful: That you may not
believe that he will be born a phantasm. He will use the food of
infants, will eat butter and milk." _Calvin_ says: "In order that here
we may not think of some spectre, the Prophet states signs of humanity
from which he proves that Christ, indeed put on our flesh." In the same
manner _Irenænus_, _Chrysostom_, _Basil_, and, in our century,
_Kleuker_ and _Rosenmüller_ speak.--But this explanation [Pg 55] is
altogether overthrown by ver. 16. Most interpreters assume, in the
latter verse, a change of subject; by [Hebrew: ner], not Immanuel, but
Shearjashub, who accompanied the Prophet, is to be understood.
According to others, it is not any definite boy who is designated by
[Hebrew: ner]; but it is said in general, that the devastation of the
hostile country would take place in a still shorter time than that
which elapses between the birth of a boy and his development. Such is
_Calvin's_ view. But the supposition of a change of subject is
altogether excluded, even by the circumstance that one and the same
quality, the distinction between good and evil, is in both verses
ascribed to the subject. Others, like _J. H. Michaelis_, refer ver. 16
also to the Messiah, and seek to get out of the difficulty by a _jam
dudum_. It is not worth while to enter more particularly upon these
productions of awkward embarassment. All that is required is, to remove
the stone of offence which has caused these interpreters to stumble.
Towards this a good beginning has been made by _Vitringa_, without,
however, completely attaining the object. In ver. 14, the Prophet has
seen the birth of the Messiah as present. Holding fast this idea, and
expanding it, the Prophet makes him who has been born accompany the
people through all the stages of its existence. We have here an _ideal
anticipation of the real incarnation_, the right of which lies in the
circumstance, that all blessings and deliverances which, before Christ,
were bestowed upon the covenant-people, had their root in His future
birth, and the cause of which was given in the circumstance, that the
covenant-people had entered upon the moment of their great crisis, of
their conflict with the world's powers, which could not but address a
call to invest the comforting thought with, as it were, flesh and
blood, and in this manner to place it into the midst of the popular
life. What the Prophet means, and intends to say here is this, _that,
in the space of about a twelvemonth, the overthrow of the hostile
kingdoms would already have taken place_. As the representative of the
cotemporaries, he brings forward the wonderful child who, as it were,
formed the soul of the popular life. _At the time when this child knows
to distinguish between good and bad food, hence, after the space of
about a twelvemonth, he will not have any want of nobler food,_ ver.
15, _for before he has entered upon this stage, the land of_ [Pg 56]
_the two hostile kings shall be desolate._ In the subsequent prophecy,
the same wonderful child, grown up into a warlike hero, brings the
deliverance from Asshur, and the world's power represented by it.--We
have still to consider and discuss the particular. _What is indicated
by the eating of cream and honey?_ The erroneous answer to this
question, which has become current ever since _Gesenius_, has put
everything into confusion, and has misled expositors such as _Hitzig_
and _Meier_ to cut the knot, by asserting that ver. 15 is spurious.
Cream and honey can come into consideration as the noblest food only;
the eating of them can indicate only a _condition of plenty and
prosperity_. "A land flowing with milk and honey" is, in the books of
Moses, a standing expression for designating the rich fulness of noble
food which the Holy Land offers. A land which flows with milk and honey
is, according to Numb. xiv. 7, 8, a "very good land." The _cream_ is,
as it were, a gradation of _milk_. Considering the predilection for fat
and sweet food which we perceive everywhere in the Old Testament, there
can scarcely be anything better than cream and honey; and it is
certainly not spoken in accordance with Israelitish taste, if _Hofmann_
(_Weiss_, i. S. 227) thus paraphrases the sense: "It is not because he
does not know what tastes well and better (cream and honey thus the
evil!), that he will live upon the food which an uncultivated land can
afford, but because there is none other." In Deut. xxxii. 13, 14, cream
and honey appear among the noblest products of the Holy Land. Abraham
places cream before his heavenly guests, Gen. xviii. 8. The plenty in
honey and cream appears in Job xx. 7, as a characteristic sign of the
divine blessing of which the wicked are deprived. It is solely and
exclusively vers. 21 and 22 that are referred to for establishing the
erroneous interpretation. It is asserted that, according to these
verses, the eating of milk and honey must be considered as an evil, as
the sad consequence of a general devastation of the hind. But there are
grave objections to any attempt at explaining a preceding from a
subsequent passage; the opposite mode of proceeding is the right one.
It is altogether wrong, however, to suppose that vers. 21, 22, contain
a threatening. In those verses the Prophet, on the contrary, allows, as
is usual with him, a _ray of light_ to fall upon the dark picture of
the [Pg 57] calamity which threatens from Asshur; and it could, indeed,
_a priori_, be scarcely imagined that the threatening should not be
interrupted, at least by such a gentle allusion to the salvation to be
bestowed upon them after the misery (comp. in reference to a similar
sudden breaking through of the proclamation of salvation in Hosea, Vol.
I., p. 175, and the remarks on Micah ii. 12, 13); but then he returns
to the threatening, because it was, in the meantime, his principal
vocation to utter it, and thereby to destroy the foolish illusions of
the God-forgetting king. It is in the subsequent prophecy only, chap
viii. 1; ix. 6 (7) that that which is alluded to in vers. 21, 22 is
carried out. The little which has been left--this is the sense--the
Lord will bless so abundantly, that those who are spared in the divine
judgment will enjoy a rich abundance of divine blessings. Parallel is
the utterance of Isaiah in 2 Kings xix. 30: "And the escaped of the
house of Judah, that which has been left, taketh root downward, and
beareth fruit upward."--If thus the eating of cream and honey be
rightly understood, there is no farther necessity for explaining, in
opposition to the rules of grammar, [Hebrew: ldetv] by "(only) until he
knows" (comp. against this interpretation _Drechsler's Comment._).
[Hebrew: ldetv] can only mean: "belonging to his knowledge, _i.e._,
when he knows." _Good_ and _evil_ are, as early as Deut. i. 39: "Your
sons who to-day do not know good and evil," used more in a physical
than in a moral sense. Michaelis: "_rerum omnium ignari_." The parallel
expression, "not to be able to discern between the right hand and the
left hand," in Jonah iv. 11 (Michaelis: "_discretio rationis et
judicii, ut sciant utra manus sit dextra aut sinistra_") likewise loses
sight of the moral sense. But good and evil are very decidedly used in
a physical sense in 2 Sam. xix. 36 (35), where Barzillai says: "I am
this day fourscore years old, can I discern between good and evil, or
has thy servant a taste of what I eat or drink, or do I hear any more
the voice of singing men or singing women?" The connection with the
eating of cream and honey, by which the good and evil is qualified,
clearly proves that good and evil are, in our passage, used in a
similar sense. To the same result we are led by the circumstance also,
that the evil _precedes_, which must so much the rather have a meaning,
that nowhere else is this the case with this phrase. The evil, the [Pg
58] bad food in the time of war, precedes; the good follows after it:
Cream and honey, the good, he will eat when he knows to refuse the evil
and choose the good, _i.e._, when he is beyond the time where he does
not yet know to make any great difference between the food, and in
which, therefore, the evil, the bad food, is felt as an evil. If the
good and the evil be understood in a physical sense, then, in harmony
with chap. viii. 4, we must think of the period of about one year.
Moral consciousness develops much later than sensual liking and
disliking.--The construction of [Hebrew: mas] and [Hebrew: bHr]
with [Hebrew: b] points to the affection which accompanies the
action.--[Hebrew: ki] in ver. 16 suits very well, according to the view
which we have taken, in its ordinary signification, "for." The full
enjoyment of the good things of the land will return in the period of
about twelve months (in chap. xxxvii. 30 a longer terra is fixed,
because the Assyrian desolation was much greater than the Aramean);
_for_, even before the year has expired, devastation shall be inflicted
upon the land of the enemies. [Hebrew: hadmh] comprehends at the same
time the Syrian and Ephraimitish land.
From ver. 17-25 the Prophet describes how the Assyrians, the object of
the hope of the house of David, and also the Egyptian attracted by
them, who, however, occupy a position altogether subordinate, shall
fill the land, and change it into a wilderness. The fundamental
thought, ever true, is this: He who, instead of seeking help from his
God, seeks it from the world, is ruined by the world. This truth,
which, through the fault of Ahaz, did not gain any _saving_ influence,
obtained an _accusing_ one; it stood there as an incontrovertible
testimony that it was not the Lord who had forsaken His people, but
that they had forsaken themselves. It was a necessary condition of the
blessed influence of the impending calamity that such a testimony
should exist; without it, the calamity would not have led to
repentance, but to despair and defiance.--From the circumstance that in
ver. 17, which contains the outlines of the whole, upon the words: "The
Lord shall bring upon thee and thy people," there follow still the
words: "And upon thy father's house," it appears that the fulfilment
must not be sought for in the time of Ahaz only. In the time of Ahaz,
the _beginning_ only of the calamities here indicated can accordingly
be sought for,--the _germ_ from which all that followed [Pg 59] was
afterwards developed. Nor shall we be allowed to limit ourselves to
that which Judah suffered from the Assyrians, commonly so called. It is
significant that, in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, Nebuchadnezzar is called King
of Asshur. Asshur, as the first representative of the world's power,
represents the world's power in general.
* * * * * * * * * *
We have still to submit to an examination those explanations of vers
14-16 which differ, in essential points, from that which we have given.
Difference of opinion--the characteristic sign of error--meets us here,
and that in a very striking manner, in those who oppose the convictions
of the whole Christian Church.
1. _Rosenmüller_ expressed his adherence to the Messianic explanation,
but supposed that the Prophet was of opinion that the Messiah would be
born in his time. Even _Bruno Bauer_ (_Critik der Synopt._ i. S. 19)
could not resist the impression that Immanuel could be none other than
the Messiah. But he, too, is of opinion that Isaiah expected a Messiah,
who was to be born at once, and to become the "deliverer from the
collision of that time." This view has been expanded especially by
_Ewald_. "False," so he says, "is every interpretation which does not
see that the Prophet is here speaking of the Messiah to be born, and
hence of Him to whom the land really belongs, and in thinking of whom
the Prophet's heart beats with joyful hope, chap. viii. 8, ix. 5, 6 (6,
7)." But not being able to realize that which can be seen only by
faith--a territory, in general, very inaccessible to modern exposition
of Scripture--he, in ver. 14, puts in the _real_ Present instead of the
_ideal_, and thinks that the Prophet imagined that the conception and
birth of the Messiah would take place at once. By [Hebrew: elmh] he
understands, like ourselves, a virgin; but such an one as is so at the
present moment only, but will soon afterwards cease to be so;--and in
supposing this, he overlooks the fact that the virgin is introduced as
being already with child, and that her bearing appears as present. In
ver. 15, the time when the boy knows &c., is, according to him, the
maturer juvenile age from ten to twenty years. It is during this that
the devastation of the land by the Assyrians is to take place, of which
[Pg 60] the Prophet treats more in detail afterwards in ver. 17 ff. But
opposed to this view is the circumstance that, even before the boy
enters upon this maturer age (ver. 16), hence in a few years after
this, the allied Damascus and Ephraim shall be desolated; so little are
these two kings able to conquer Jerusalem, and so certain is it that a
divine deliverance is in store for this country in the immediate
future. And, in every point of view, this explanation shows itself to
be untenable. The supposition that a _real_ Present is spoken of in
ver. 14 saddles upon the Prophet an absurd hallucination; and nothing
analogous to it can be referred to in the whole of the Old Testament.
According to statements of the Prophet in other passages, he sees yet
many things intervening between the Messianic time and his own;
according to chap. vi. 11-13, not only the entire carrying away of the
whole people, (and he cannot well consider the Assyrians as the
instruments of it, were it only for this reason, that he is always
consistent in the announcement that they should not succeed in the
capture of Jerusalem), but also a later second divine judgment.
According to chap. xi., the Messiah is to grow up as a twig from the
stem of Jesse completely cut down. This supposition of His appearance,
the complete decay of the Davidic dynasty, did not in any way exist in
the time of the Prophet. According to chap. xxxix., and other passages,
the Prophet recognised in Babylon the appearance of a new phase of the
world's power which would, at some future period, follow the steps of
the Assyrian power which existed at the time of the Prophet, and which
should execute upon Judah the judgment of the Lord. We pointed out
(Vol. I. p. 417 ff.) that in the Prophet Micah also, the contemporary
of Isaiah, there lies a long series of events between the Present and
the time when she who is bearing brings forth. _Farther_--In harmony
with all other Prophets, Isaiah too looks for the Messiah from the
house of David, with which, by the promise of Nathan in 2 Sam. vii.
salvation was indissolubly connected, and the high importance of which
for the weal and woe of the people appears also from the circumstance
of its being several times mentioned in our chapter. Hence it would be
a son of Ahaz only of whom we could here think; and then we should be
shut up to Hezekiah, his first-born. But in that case there arises the
difficulty which Luther already brought forward against the Jews: [Pg
61] "The Jews understand thereby Hezekiah. But the blind people, while
anxious to remedy their error, themselves manifest their laziness and
ignorance; for Hezekiah was born nine years before this prophecy was
uttered!"--"The eating of cream and honey" is, in this explanation,
altogether erroneously understood as a designation of the devastated
condition of the land. From our remarks, it sufficiently appears that
the expression "to refuse the evil," &c., cannot denote the maturer
juvenile age. And many additional points might, in like manner, be
urged.
2. Several interpreters do not indeed deny the reference to the
Messiah, but suppose that, _in the first instance_, the Prophet had in
view some occurrence of his own time. They assume that the Prophet,
while speaking of a boy of his own time, makes use, under the guidance
of divine providence, of expressions, which apply more to Christ, and
can, in an improper and inferior sense only, be true of this boy. This
opinion was advanced as early as in the time of Jerome, by some
anonymous author who, on that account, is severely censured by him:
"Some Judaizer from among us asserts that the Prophet had two sons,
Shearjashub and Immanuel. Immanuel too was, according to him, born by
the prophetess, the wife of the Prophet, and a type of the Saviour, our
Lord; so that the former son Shearjashub (which means 'remnant,'or
'converting') designates the Jewish people that have been left and
afterwards converted; while the second son Immanuel, 'with us is God,'
signifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and
dwelt among us." This explanation was defended by, among others
_Grotius_, _Richard Simon_, and _Clericus_; and then, in our century,
by _Olshausen_, who says: "The unity of the reference lies in the name
Immanuel; the son of Isaiah had the _name_ but Christ the _essence_. He
was the visible God whom the former only represented." In a modified
form, this view is held by _Lowth_, _Koppe_, and _von Meyer_, also.
According to them, the Prophet is indeed not supposed to speak of a
definite boy who was to be born in his time, but yet, to connect the
destinies of his land with the name and destinies of a boy whose
conception he, at the moment, imagines to be possible. "The most
obvious meaning which would present itself to Ahaz," says _von Meyer_,
"was this: If now a girl was to marry, to become [Pg 62] pregnant, and
to bear a child, she may call him 'God with us,'for God will be with
us at his time." But the prophecy is, after all, to have an ultimate
reference to Christ. "The prophecy," says _Lowth_, "is introduced in so
solemn a manner; the sign, after Ahaz had refused the call to fix upon
any thing from the whole territory of nature according to his own
choice, is so emphatically declared to be one selected and given by God
himself; the terms of the prophecy are so unique in their kind, and the
name of the child is so expressive; they comprehend in them so much
more than the circumstances of the birth of an ordinary child require,
or could even permit, that we may easily suppose, that in minds, which
were already prepared by the expectation of a great Saviour who was to
come forth from the house of David, they excited hopes which stretched
farther than any with which the present cause could inspire them,
especially if it was found that in the succeeding prophecy, published
immediately afterwards, this child was, under the name of Immanuel,
treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who else could
this be than the heir of the throne of David, under which character a
great, and even divine person had been promised?" The reasons for the
Messianic explanation are very well exhibited in these words of
_Lowth_; but he, as little as any other of these interpreters, has been
able to vindicate the assumption of a _double sense_. When more closely
examined, the supposition is a mere makeshift. On the one hand, they
could not make up their minds to give up the Messianic explanation,
and, along with it, the authority of the Apostle Matthew. But, on the
other hand, they were puzzled by the _sanctum artificium_ by which the
Prophet, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking through him, represents
Christ as being born even before His birth, places Him in the midst of
the life of the people, and makes Him accompany the nation through all
the stages of its existence. In truth, if the real, or even the nearest
fulfilment is sought for in the time of Ahaz, there is no reason
whatever for supposing a higher reference to Christ. The [Hebrew: elmh]
is then one who was a virgin, who had nothing in common with the mother
of Jesus, Mary, who remained a virgin even after her pregnancy. The
name Immanuel then refers to the help which God is to afford in the
present distress.
[Pg 63]
3. Many interpreters deny every reference to Christ. This
interpretation remained for a long time the exclusive property of the
Jews, until _J. E. Faber_ (in his remarks on _Harmar's_ observations on
the East, i. S. 281), tried to transplant it into the Christian
soil.[5] He was followed by the Roman Catholic, _Isenbiehl_ (_Neuer
Versuch über die Weissagung vom Immanuel_, 1778) who, in consequence of
it, was deposed from his theological professorship, and thrown into
gaol. The principal tenets of his work he had borrowed from the
lectures of _J. D. Michaelis_. In their views about the _Almah_, who is
to bear Immanuel, these interpreters are very much at variance.
(a) The more ancient Jews maintained that the _Almah_ was the wife of
Ahaz, and Immanuel, his son Hezekiah. According to the _Dialog. c.
Tryph._ 66, 68, 71, 77, this view prevailed among them as early as the
time of _Justin_. But they were refuted by _Jerome_, who showed that
Hezekiah must, at that time, have already been at least nine years old.
_Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_ then resorted to the hypothesis of a second
wife of Ahaz.
(b) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is some virgin who
cannot be definitely determined by us, who was present at the place
where the king and Isaiah were speaking to one another, and to whom the
Prophet points with his finger. This view was held by _Isenbiehl_,
_Steudel_ (in a Programme, Tübingen, 1815), and others.
(c) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is not a _real_ but
only an _ideal_ virgin. Thus _J. D. Michaelis_: "At the time when one,
who at this moment is still a virgin, can bear," &c. _Eichhorn_,
_Paulus_, _Stähelin_, and others. The sign is thus made to consist in a
mere poetical figure.
(d) A composition of the two views last mentioned is the view of
_Umbreit_. The virgin is, according to him, an actual virgin whom the
Prophet perceived among those surrounding him; but the pregnancy and
birth are imaginary [Pg 64] merely, and the virgin is to suggest to the
Prophet the idea of pregnancy. But this explanation would saddle the
Prophet with something indecent. _Farther_: It is not a birth possible
which is spoken of, but an actual birth. From chap. viii. 8, it
likewise appears that Immanuel is a real individual, and He one of
eminent dignity; and this passage is thus at once in strict opposition
to both of the explanations, viz. that of any ordinary virgin, and that
of the ideal virgin. It destroys also
(e) The explanation of _Meier_, who by the virgin understands the
people of Judah, and conceives of the pregnancy and birth likewise in a
poetical manner. The fact, the acknowledgment of which has led _Meier_
to get up this hypothesis, altogether unfounded, and undeserving of any
minute refutation, is this: "_The mother is, in the passage before us,
called a virgin, and yet is designated as being with child._ The words,
when understood physically and outwardly, contain a contradiction." But
this fact is rather in favour of the Messianic explanation.
(f) Others, farther, conjecture that the wife of the Prophet is meant
by the _Almah_. This view was advanced as early as by _Abenezra_ and
_Jarchi_. By the authority of _Gesenius_, this view became, for a time,
the prevailing one. Against it, the following arguments are decisive;
part of them being opposed to the other conjectures also. As [Hebrew:
elmh] designates "virgin" only, and never a young woman, and, far less,
an older woman, it is quite impossible that the wife of the Prophet,
the mother of Shearjashub could be so designated, inasmuch as the
latter was already old enough to be able to accompany his father.
Gesenius could not avoid acknowledging the weight of this argument, and
declared himself disposed to assume that the Prophet's former wife had
died, and that he had thereupon betrothed himself to a virgin.
_Olshausen_, _Maurer_, _Hendewerk_, and others, have followed him in
this. But this is a story entirely without foundation. In chap. viii.
13, the wife of the Prophet is called simply "the prophetess." Nor
could one well see how the Prophet could expect to be understood, if,
by the general expression: "the virgin" he wished to signify his
presumptive betrothed. _There_ [Pg 65] _is an entire absence of every
intimation whatsoever of a nearer relation of the Almah to the
Prophet_; and such an intimation could not by any means be wanting if
such a relation really existed. One would, in that case at least, be
obliged to suppose, as _Plüschke_ does, that the Prophet took his
betrothed with him, and pointed to her with his finger,--a supposition
which too plainly exhibits the sign of embarrassment, just as is the
case with the remark of _Hendewerk_: "Only that, in that case, we must
also suppose that his second wife was sufficiently known at court even
then, when she was his betrothed only, although her relation to Isaiah
might be unknown; so that, for this very reason, we could not think of
a frustration of the sign on the part of the king." _Hitzig_ remarks:
"The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether
destitute of any foundation." He then, however, falls back upon the
hypothesis which _Gesenius_ himself admitted to be untenable, that
[Hebrew: elmh], "virgin" might not only denote a young woman, but
sometimes also an older woman. Not even the semblance of a proof can be
advanced in support of this. It is just the juvenile age which forms
the fundamental signification of the word. In the wife of the Prophet
we can the less think of such a juvenile age, that he himself had
already exercised his prophetic office for about twenty years. _Hitzig_
has indeed altogether declined to lead any such proof. A son of the
Prophet, as, in general, every subject except the Messiah, is excluded
by the circumstance that in chap viii. 8, Canaan is called the land of
Immanuel.--_Farther_,--In all these suppositions, [Hebrew: avt] is
understood in an inadmissible signification. It can here denote a fact
only, whereby those who were really susceptible were made decidedly
certain of the impending deliverance. This appears clearly enough from
the relation of this sign to that which Ahaz had before refused,
according to which the difference must not be too great, and must not
refer to the substance. To this may be added the solemn tone which
induces us to expect something grand and important. A mere poetical
image, such as would be before us according to the hypothesis of the
ideal virgin, or of the real virgin and the ideal birth, does [Pg 66]
surely not come up to the demand which in this context must be made in
reference to this _sign_. And if the Prophet had announced so solemnly,
and in words so sublime, the birth _of his own_ child, he would have
made himself ridiculous. _Farther_,--How then did the Prophet know that
after nine months a child would be born to him, or, if the pregnancy be
considered as having already commenced, how did he know that just a son
would be born to him? That is a question to which most of these
Rationalistic interpreters take good care not to give any reply.
_Plüschke_, indeed, is of opinion that, upon a bold conjecture, the
Prophet had ventured this statement. But in that case it might easily
have fared with him as in that well known story in _Worms_,
(_Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 664 ff.), and his whole
authority would have been forfeited if his conjecture had proved false.
And this argument holds true in reference to those also who do not
share in the Rationalistic view, of Prophetism. Predictions of such a
kind may belong to the territory of foretelling, but not to that of
Prophecy.
[Footnote 1: _Meyer_, _Blätter für höhere Wahrheit_, iii. S. 101.]
[Footnote 2: _Caspari_ very justly remarks: "Nothing can be clearer
than that 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ff. comes in between 2 Kings xvi. 5 a.
b.; that the author of the books of the Kings gives a report of the
beginning and end; the author of the Chronicles, of the middle of the
campaign." But we cannot agree with _Caspari_ in his transferring to
Idumea the victory of Rezin. According to Is. vii. 2, Aram was encamped
in Ephraim. According to 2 Kings xvi. 5, _both_ of the kings came up to
Jerusalem and besieged her. The expedition against Elath, 2 Kings xvi.
6, was secondary, and by the way only.]
[Footnote 3: The words: "In threescore and five years more, Ephraim
shall be broken and be no more a people," have, by rationalistic
critics, without and against all external arguments, been declared to
be _spurious_. The reasons which serve as fig leaves to cover their
doctrinal tendency are the following: (1) "The time does not agree,
inasmuch as the ten tribes sustained their first defeat very soon
afterwards by Tiglath-pilezer; the second, nineteen to twenty-one years
later, by Shalmanezer, who, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, carried the
inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes away into captivity." But
the question here is _the complete destruction of the national
existence of Israel_; and that took place only under King Manasseh,
when, by Azarhaddon, new Gentile colonists were brought into the land,
who expelled from it the old inhabitants who had again gathered
themselves together; comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24 with Ezra iv. 2, 10. From
that time, Israel amalgamated more and more with Judah, and never
returned to a national independence. This happened exactly sixty-five
years after the announcement by the Prophet. Chap. vi. 12 compared with
ver. 13 shows how little the desolation of the country (ver. 16) is
connected with the breaking up as a nation. It is, moreover, at least
as much the interest of those who assert the spuriousness, as it is
ours to remove the chronological difficulties; for how could it be
imagined that the supposed author should have introduced a false
chronological statement? His object surely could be none other than to
procure authority for the Prophet, by putting into his mouth a prophecy
so very evidently and manifestly fulfilled. (2) "The words contain an
unsuitable consolation, as Ahaz could not be benefitted by so late a
destruction of his enemy." But, immediately afterwards, he is even
expressly assured that this enemy will not be able to do him any
immediate harm. _Chrysostom_ remarks: "The king, hearing that they
should be destroyed after sixty-five years, might say within himself:
What about that? Although they be _then_ overthrown, of what use is it
to us, if they now take us? In order that the king might not speak
thus, the Prophet says: Be of good cheer even as to the present. At
that time they shall be _utterly_ destroyed; but even now, they shall
not have any more than their own land, for 'the head of Ephraim,'" &c.
The preceding distinct announcement of the last end of his enemy,
however, was exceedingly well fitted to break in Ahaz the opinion of
his invincibility, and to strengthen his faith in the God of Israel,
who, with a firm hand, directs the destinies of nations, and, no less,
the faith in _His servant_ whom He raises to be privy to His
secrets.--(3.) "The use of numbers so exact is against the analogy of
all oracles." But immediately afterwards (ver. 15 comp. with chap.
viii. 4), the time of the defeat is as exactly fixed, although not in
ciphers. In chap. xx. Isaiah announces that after three years the
Egyptians and Ethiopians shall sustain a defeat; in chap. xxiii. 15,
that Tyre would flourish anew seventy years after its fall; in chap.
xxxviii. 5, he announces to Hezekiah, sick unto death, that God would
add fifteen years to his life. According to Jeremiah, the Babylonish
captivity is to last seventy years; and the fulfilment has shown that
this date is not to be understood as a round number. And farther, the
year-weeks in Daniel.--But in opposition to this view, and positively
in favour of the genuineness, are the following arguments: The words
have not only, as is conceded by _Ewald_, "a true old-Hebrew
colouring," but in their emphatic and solemn brevity ("he shall be
broken from [being] a people") they do not at all bear the character of
an interpolation. If we blot them out, then the Prophet says less than
from present circumstances, from ver. 4, where he calls the kings "ends
of smoking firebrands," in opposition to ver. 6, and from the analogy
of ver. 9, where the threatening is much more severe, he was bound to
say. His saying merely that they would not get any more, was not
sufficient. He could make the right impression only when he reduced
that declaration to its foundation--_i.e._, their own destruction and
overthrow. Ver. 16, too, would go far beyond what would be announced
here, if we remove this clause. He announces destruction to the kings
themselves. Finally, the symmetrical parallelism would be destroyed by
striking out these words. The words: "If ye believe not, ye shall not
be established," would, in that case, be without the parallel members.
They are connected with the clause under discussion so much the rather,
that in them it is not specially Judah's deliverance from the Syrians
and Ephraimites that is looked at, but its salvation in general.]
[Footnote 4: By a minute and trifling exposition of what is to be
understood as a whole, and comprehensively, many misunderstandings have
been introduced into this passage. The defeat of Asshur should take
place very soon, but the devastation of the country had been so
complete that a longer time would be required before the fields would
be again _completely_ cultivated.]
[Footnote 5: _Gesenius_ mentions _Pellicanus_ as the first defender of
the Non-Messianic interpretation. But this statement seems to have
proceeded from a cursory view of an annotation by _Cramer_ on _Richard
Simon's Kritische Schriften_ i. S. 441, where the words: "this
historical interpretation _Pellicanus_ too has preferred," do not refer
to Isaiah but to Daniel. Nor is there any more ground for the
intimation that _Theodorus_ a Mopsuesta rejected the Messianic
interpretation.]
THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VIII. 23-IX. 6.
(Chap. ix. 1-7.)
UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN.
In the view of the Assyrian catastrophe, the Prophet is anxious to
bring it home to the consciences of the people that, by their own
guilt, they have brought down upon themselves this calamity, and, at
the same time, to prevent them from despairing. Hence it is that, soon
after the prophecy in chap. vii., he reverts once more to the subject
of it. The circumstances in chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7) are identical with
those in chap. vii. Judah is hard pressed by Ephraim and Aram. Still,
some time will elapse before the destruction of [Pg 67] their
territories. The term in chap. vii. 16: "Before the boy shall know to
refuse the evil and choose the good," and in chap. viii. 4: "Before the
boy shall know to cry, My father and my mother," is quite the same.
This is the less to be doubted when it is kept in mind that, in the
former passage, evil and good must be taken in a physical sense. The
sense for the difference of food is, in a child, developed at nearly
the same time as the ability for speaking. If it had not been the
intention of the Prophet to designate one and the same period, _he
ought to have fixed more distinctly the limits between the two
termini._ It might, indeed, from chap. viii. 3, appear as if at least
the nine months must intervene between the two prophecies of the
conception of the son of the Prophet, and his birth. As, however, it
cannot be denied that there is a connection between the giving of the
name, and the drawing up of the document in vers. 1 and 2, we should be
obliged to suppose that, in reference to the first two futures with
_Vav convers._ the same rule applies as in reference to [Hebrew: vicr],
in Gen. ii. 19. The progress lies first in [Hebrew: vtld]; the event
falling into that time is the birth.
Chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7), forms the necessary _supplement_ to chap.
vii., the germ of which is contained already in chap. vii. 21, 22. The
Prophet saw, by the light of the Spirit of God, that the fear of Aram
and Ephraim was unfounded; the enemy truly dangerous is Asshur, _i.e._,
_the whole world's power first represented by Asshur._ For the King of
Asshur is, so to say, an ideal person to the Prophet. The different
phases of the world's powers are intimated as early as chap. viii. 9,
where the Prophet addresses the "nations," and "all the far-off
countries;" and, at a later period, he received disclosures regarding
all the single phases of the world's power which began its course with
Asshur. With this the Prophet had only threatened in chap. vii.; here,
however, he is pre-eminently employed with it, _exhorting_,
_comforting_, _promising_, so that thus the two sections form one whole
in two divisions. _His main object is to induce his people, in the
impending oppression by the world's power, to direct their eyes
steadily to their heavenly Redeemer, who, in due time, will bring peace
instead of strife, salvation and prosperity instead of misery, dominion
instead of oppression._ As in chap. vii. 14, the [Pg 68] picture of
Immanuel is placed before the eyes of the people desponding on account
of Aram and Ephraim, so here the care, anxiety, and fear in the view of
Asshur are overcome by pointing to the declaration: "Unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given." It is of great importance for the right
understanding of the Messianic announcement in chap. viii. 23, ix. 6,
that the historical circumstances of the whole section, and its
tendency be clearly understood. As, in general, the Messianic
announcement under the Old Testament bears a one-sided character, so,
for the _present occasion_, those aspects only of the picture of the
Saviour were required which were fitted effectually to meet the
despondency of the people in the view, and under the pressure of the
world's power.
After these preliminary remarks, we must enter still more in detail
upon the arrangement and construction of the section before us.
The Prophet receives, first, the commission to write down, like a
judicial document, the announcement of the speedy destruction of the
present enemies, and to get it confirmed by trust-worthy witnesses,
chap. viii. 1, 2. He then, farther, receives the commission to give, to
a son that would be born to him about the same time, a name expressive
of the speedy destruction of the enemies, vers. 3, 4. Thus far the
announcement of the deliverance from Aram and Ephraim. There then
follows, from vers. 5-8, an announcement of the misery which is to be
inflicted by _Asshur_, of whom Ahaz and the unbelieving portion of the
people expected nothing but deliverance. _Up to this, there is a
recapitulation only, and a confirmation of chap. vii._ But this misery
is not to last for ever, is not to end in destruction. In vers. 9, 10,
the Prophet addresses exultingly the hostile nations, and announces to
them, what had already been gently hinted at at the close of ver. 8,
that their attempts to put an end to the covenant-people would be vain,
and would lead to their own destruction. The splendour of Asshur must
_fade_ before the bright image of Immanuel, which calls to the people:
"Be ye of good cheer, I have overcome the world." _Calvin_ strikingly
remarks: "The Prophet may be conceived of, as it were, standing on a
watch tower, whence he beholds the defeat of the people, and the
victorious Assyrians insolently exulting. [Pg 69] But by the name and
view of Christ he recovers himself, forgets all the evils as if he had
suffered nothing, and, freed from all misery, he rises against the
enemies whom the Lord would immediately destroy." The Prophet then
interrupts the announcement of deliverance, and exhibits the subjective
conditions upon which the bestowal of deliverance, or rather the
_partaking_ in it, depends, along with the announcement of the fearful
misery which would befal them in case these conditions were not
complied with. But, so he continues in vers. 11-16, he who is to
partake of the deliverance which the Lord has destined for His people,
must in firm faith expect it from Him, and thereby inwardly separate
himself from the unbelieving mass, who, at every appearance of danger,
tremble and give up all for lost. He who stands as ill as that mass in
the trial inflicted by the Lord; he to whom the danger becomes an
occasion for manifesting the unbelief of his heart;--he indeed will
perish in it. At the close, the prophet is emphatically admonished to
impress this great and important truth upon the minds of the
susceptible ones. In ver. 17: "And I waited upon the Lord," &c., the
Prophet reports what effect was produced upon him by this revelation
from the Lord,--thereby teaching indirectly what effect it ought to
produce upon all. In ver. 18, the Prophet directs the desponding people
to the example of himself who, according to ver. 17, is joyful in his
faith, and to the names of his sons which announced deliverance.
Deliverance and comfort are to be sought from the God of Israel only.
Vain, therefore,--this he brings out, vers. 19-22--are all other means
by which people without faith seek to procure help to themselves. They
should return to God's holy Law which, in Deut. xviii. 14, ff. commands
to seek disclosures as regards the future, and comfort from His
servants the Prophets only, and which itself abounds in comfort and
promise. If such be not done, misery without any deliverance, despair
without any comfort, are the unavoidable consequences. From ver. 23,
the Prophet continues the interrupted announcement of deliverance. That
which, in the preceding verses, he had threatened in the case of
apostacy from God's Word, and of unbelief, viz., _darkness_, _i.e._,
the absence of deliverance, will, as the Prophet, according to vers.
21, 22, foresees, really befal them in future, as [Pg 70] the people
will not fulfil the conditions held forth in vers. 16 and 20, as they
will not speak: "To the Law and to the testimony," as they will not in
faith lay hold of the promise, and trust in the Lord. The calamity
having, in the preceding verses, been represented as _darkness_, the
deliverance which, by the grace of the Lord, is to be bestowed upon the
people (for the Lord indeed chastises His people on account of their
unbelief, but does not give them up to death), is now represented as a
great _light_ which dispels the darkness. It shines most clearly just
where the darkness had been greatest--in that part of the country
which, being outwardly and inwardly given up to heathenism, seemed
scarcely still to belong to the land of the Lord, viz., the country
lying around the lake of Gennesareth. The people are filled with joy on
account of the deliverance granted to them by the Lord,--their
deliverance from the yoke of their oppressors, from the bondage of the
world which now comes to an end. As the bestower of such deliverance,
the Prophet beholds a divine child who, having obtained dominion, will
exercise it with the skill of the God-man; who will, with fatherly
love, in all eternity care for His people and create peace to them; who
will, at the same time, infinitely extend His dominion, the kingdom of
David, not by means of the force of arms, but by means of right and
righteousness, the exercise of which will attract the nations to Him;
so that with the increase of dominion, the increase of peace goes hand
in hand. The guarantee that these glorious results shall really take
place is the zeal of the Lord, and it is this to which the Prophet
points at the close.
* * * * * * * * * *
Chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1). "_For not is darkness to the land, to which is
distress; in the former time he has brought disgrace upon the land of
Zebulun and the hind of Naphtali, and in the after-time he brings it to
honour, the region on the sea, the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of
the Gentiles._"
[Hebrew: ki] stands in its ordinary signification, "for." Allow not
yourselves to be turned away by anything from trusting in the God of
Israel; hold fast by His word alone, and by His servants,--such was the
fundamental thought of the whole preceding section. It meets us last in
ver. 20, in the exhortation: [Pg 71] "To the Law and to the testimony!"
in so far as this is rich in consolation and promise. The Prophet,
after having, in the preceding verses, described the misery which will
befal those who do not follow this exhortation, supports and
establishes it by referring to the _help of the Lord_ already alluded
to in vers. 9 and 10, and to the _light of His grace_ which He will
cause to shine into the darkness of the people,--a darkness produced by
their unbelief and apostacy; and this light shall be brightest where
the darkness was greatest. All the attempts at connecting this [Hebrew:
ki] with the verse immediately preceding instead of referring it to the
main contents of the preceding section, have proved futile. [Hebrew:
ki] can neither mean "nevertheless," nor "yea;" and the strange
assertion that it is almost without any meaning at all cannot derive
any support from Isaiah xv. 1: "The _burden_ of Moab, _for_ in the
night the city of Moab is laid waste;" for only in that case is
[Hebrew: ki] without any meaning at all, if [Hebrew: mwa] be falsely
interpreted.--Ver. 22, where the phrase [Hebrew: mevP Cvqh] "darkness
of distress" is equivalent to "darkness which consists in distress"
(compare also: "behold trouble and darkness" in the same verse), shows
that [Hebrew: mveP] and [Hebrew: mvcq] are substantially of the same
meaning.--Our verse forms an antithesis to ver. 22; the latter verse
described the darkness brought on by the guilt of the people; the verse
under consideration describes, in contrast to it, the _removal_ of it
called forth by the grace of the Lord.--[Hebrew: la] may either be
connected with the noun, or it may be explained: not is darkness. It
cannot be objected to the latter view that, in that case, [Hebrew: aiN]
should rather have stood; while the analogy of the phrase: "Not didst
thou increase the joy," in chap. ix. 2 (3), seems to be in favour of
it. Here we have the negative, the ceasing of darkness; in chap. ix. 1
(2) the positive, the appearance of light. The suffix, in [Hebrew: lh]
refers, just as the suffix, in [Hebrew: bh] in ver. 21, to the omitted
[Hebrew: arC].--The [Hebrew: k] in [Hebrew: ket] is, by many
interpreters, asserted to stand in the signification of [Hebrew: kawr]:
"Just as the former time has brought disgrace," &c. But as it cannot be
proved that [Hebrew: k] has ever the meaning, "just as;" and as, on the
other hand, [Hebrew: ket] frequently occurs in the signification, "at
the time" (compare my remarks on Numb. xxiii. 13 in my work on Balaam),
we shall be obliged to take, here too, the [Hebrew: k] as a temporal
particle, and to supply, as the subject, Jehovah, who [Pg 72] always
stands before the Prophet's mind, and is often not mentioned when the
matter itself excludes another subject. Moreover, it is especially in
favour of this view that, in vers. 3 (4), the Lord himself is expressly
addressed.--As regards [Hebrew: aHrvN], either [Hebrew: ket] may be
supplied,--and this is simplest and most natural--or it may be taken as
an Accusative, "for the whole after-time."--[Hebrew: hql] means
properly to "make light," then "to make contemptible," "to cover with
disgrace," and [Hebrew: hkbid] properly then, "to make heavy," "to
honour,"--a signification which indeed is peculiar to _Piel_, but in
which the _Hiphil_, too, occurs in Jer. xxx. 19; the two verbs thus
form an antithesis. The [Hebrew: h] _locale_ in [Hebrew: arch] (the
word does not occur in Isaiah with the [Hebrew: h] _paragog._) shews
that a certain modification of the verbal notion must be assumed: "to
bring disgrace and honour." [Hebrew: arch] thus would mean "towards
the land." The scene of the disgrace and honour, which at first was
designated in general only, is afterwards _extended_. First, the land
of Zebulun and Naphtali only is mentioned, because it was upon it
that the disgrace had pre-eminently fallen, and it was, therefore,
pre-eminently to be brought to honour; then the whole territory along
the sea on both sides of it.--[Hebrew: iM] can, in this context
which serves for a more definite qualification, mean the sea of
Gennesareth only ([Hebrew: iM knrt] Numb. xxxiv. 11, and other
passages), just as, in Matt. iv. 13, the designation of Capernaum as
[Greek: hê parathalassia] receives its definite meaning from the
context.--[Hebrew: drK] occurs elsewhere also in the signification of
_versus_, _e.g._, Ezek. viii. 5, xl. 20, 46; it will be necessary to
supply after it [Hebrew: arC], just as in the case of the [Hebrew: ebr
hirdN] following. It is without any instance that [Hebrew: drK] "way"
should stand for "region," "country." The region on the sea is then
divided into its two parts [Hebrew: ebr hirdN], [Greek: peran tou
Iordanou], the land on the east bank of Jordan, and Galilee. The latter
answers to the land of Zebulun and Naphtali; for the territory of these
two tribes occupied the centre and principal part of Galilee. In
opposition to the established _usus loquendi_, many would understand
[Hebrew: ebr hirdN] as meaning the land "on the side," _i.e._, this
side "of the Jordan," proceeding upon the supposition that the local
designations must, from beginning to end, be congruous. Opposed to it
is also the circumstance that, in 2 Kings, xv. 29, the most eastward
and most northward countries, Peraea and Galilee are connected. [Pg 73]
In that passage the single places are mentioned which Tiglath-pilezer
took; then, the whole districts, "Gilead and Galilee, the whole land of
Naphtali." By the latter words, that part of Galilee is made especially
prominent upon which the catastrophe fell most severely and completely.
In the phrase, "Galilee of the Gentiles," Galilee is a geographical
designation which was already current at the time of the Prophet. There
is no reason for fixing the extent of ancient Galilee differently from
that of the more modern Galilee,--for assigning to it a more limited
extent. We are told in 1 Kings ix. 11, that the twenty cities which
Solomon gave to Hiram lay in the land of _Galil_, but not that the
country was limited to them. The qualification, "of the Gentiles," is
nowhere else met with in the Old Testament; it is peculiar to the
Prophet. It serves as a hint to point out in what the disgrace of
Galilee and Peraea consisted. This _Theodoret_ also saw. He says: "He
calls it 'Galilee of the Gentiles'because it was inhabited by other
tribes along with the Jews; for this reason, he says also of the
inhabitants of those countries, that they were walking in darkness, and
speaks of the inhabitants of that land as living in the shadow and land
of death, and promises the brightness of heavenly light." It is of no
small importance to observe that Isaiah does not designate Galilee
according to what it was at the time when this prophecy was uttered,
_but according to what it was to become in future_. The distress by the
Gentiles appears in chap. vii. and viii. everywhere as a _future one_.
At the time when the Prophet prophesied, the Jewish territory still
existed in its integrity. In vers. 4, and 5-7, he announces Asshur's
inroad into the land of Israel as a _future one_; in the present
moment, it was the kingdom of the ten tribes in connection with Aram
which attacked and threatened Judea. The superior power of the world
which, according to the clear foresight of the Prophet, was
threatening, could not but be sensibly felt in the North and East. For
these formed the border parts against the Asiatic world's power; it was
from that quarter that its invasions commonly took place; and it was to
be expected that there, in the first instance, the Gentiles would
establish themselves, just as, in former times, they had maintained
themselves longest there; comp. Judges i. 30-38; _Keil_ on 1 Kings ix.
11. But very soon after this, [Pg 74] the name "Galilee of the
Gentiles" ceased to be one merely prophetical; Tiglathpilezer carried
the inhabitants of Galilee and Gilead into exile, 2 Kings xv. 29. _At a
later period_, when the Greek empire "peopled Palestine, in the most
attractive places, with new cities, restored many which, in consequence
of the destructive wars, had fallen into decay, filled all of them,
more or less, with Greek customs and institutions, and, along with the
newly-opened extensive commerce and traffic, everywhere spread Greek
manners also," this change was chiefly limited to Galilee and Peraea;
Judea remained free from it; comp. _Ewald_, _Geschichte Israels_, iii.
2 S. 264 ff. In 1 Maccab. v. Galaaditis and Galilee appear as those
parts of the country where the existence of the Jews is almost
hopelessly endangered by the Gentiles living in the midst of, and mixed
up with them. What is implied in "Galilee of the Gentiles" may be
learned from that chapter, where even the _expression_ reverts in ver.
15. With external dependence upon the Gentiles, however, the spiritual
dependence went hand in hand. These parts of the country could the less
oppose any great resistance to the influences of heathendom, that they
were separated, by a considerable distance, from the religious centre
of the nation--the temple and _metropolis_, in which the higher
Israelitish life was concentrated. A consequence of this degeneracy was
the contempt in which the Galileans were held at the time of Christ,
John i. 47, vii. 52; Matt. xxvi. 69.--But in what consisted the
_honour_ or the _glorification_ which Galilee, along with Peraea, was
to obtain in the after-time? Chap. ix. 5 (6), where the deliverance and
salvation announced in the preceding verses are connected with the
person of the _Redeemer_, show that we must not seek for it in any
other than that of the Messianic time. Our Lord spent the greater part
of His public life in the neighbourhood of the lake of Gennesareth; it
was there that Capernaum--His ordinary residence--was situated, Matt.
ix. 1. From Galilee were most of His disciples. In Galilee He performed
many _miracles_; and it was there that the preaching of the Gospel
found much entrance, so that even the name of the Galileans passed over
in the first centuries to the Christians. _Theodoret_ strikingly
remarks: "Galilee was the native country of the holy Apostles; there
the [Pg 75] Lord performed most of His miracles; there He cleansed the
leper; there He gave back to the centurion his servant sound; there He
removed the fever from Peter's wife's mother; there He brought back to
life the daughter of Jairus who was dead; there He multiplied the
loaves; there He changed the water into wine." Very aptly has
_Gesenius_ compared Micah v. 1 (2). Just as in that passage the birth
of the Messiah is to be for the honour of the small, unimportant
Bethlehem, so here Galilee, which hitherto was covered with disgrace,
which was reproached by the Jews, that there no prophet had ever risen,
is to be brought to honour, and to be glorified by the appearance of
the Messiah. It was from the passage under review that the opinion of
the Jews was derived, that the Messiah would appear in the land of
Galilee. Comp. _Sohar_, p. 1. fol. 119 ed. Amstelod.; fol. 74 ed.
Solisbae: [Hebrew: baret dglil itgli mlka mwita]. "King Messiah will
reveal himself in the land of Galilee." But we must beware of putting
prophecy and fulfilment into a merely accidental outward relation, of
changing the former into a mere foretelling, and of supposing, in
reference to the latter, that, unless the letter of the prophecy had
existed, Jesus might as well have made Judea the exclusive scene of His
ministry. Both prophecy and history are overruled by a higher idea, by
the truth absolutely valid in reference to the Church of the Lord, that
where the distress is greatest, help is nearest. If it was established
that the misery of the covenant-people, both outward and spiritual, was
especially concentrated in Galilee, then it is also sure that He who
was sent to the lost sheep of Israel must devote His principal care
just to that part of the country. The prophecy is not exhausted by the
one fulfilment; and the fulfilment is a new prophecy. Wheresoever in
the Church we perceive a new Galilee of the Gentiles, we may, upon the
ground of this passage, confidently hope that the saving activity of
the Lord will gloriously display itself.
Chap. ix. 1 (2). "_The people that walk in darkness see a great light,
they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them light
ariseth._"
"The people" are the inhabitants of the countries mentioned in the
preceding verse; but they are not viewed in contrast to, and exclusive
of the other members of the covenant-people,--for [Pg 76] according to
chap. viii. 22, darkness is to cover the whole of it--but only as that
portion which comes chiefly into consideration. _Light_ is, in the
symbolical language of Scripture, salvation. That in which the
_salvation_ here consists cannot be determined from the words
themselves, but must follow from the context. It will not be possible
to deny that, according to it, the darkness consists, in the first
instance, in the oppression by the Gentiles, and, hence, salvation
consists in the _deliverance_ from this oppression, and in being raised
to the dominion of the world; and in ver. 2 (3) ff., we have, indeed,
the farther displaying of the light, or deliverance. But it will be as
little possible to deny that the sad companion of outward oppression by
the Gentile world is the _spiritual_ misery of the inward dependence
upon it. _Farther_,--It is as certain that the elevation of the
covenant-people to the dominion of the world cannot take place all on a
sudden, and without any farther ceremony, inasmuch as, according to a
fundamental view of the Old Testament, all outward deliverance appears
as depending upon conversion and regeneration. "Thou returnest," so we
read in Deut. xxx. 2, 3, "to the Lord thy God, and the Lord thy God
turneth to thy captivity." And in the same chapter, vers. 6, 7: "The
Lord thy God circumciseth thy heart, and _then_ the Lord thy God
putteth all these curses upon thine enemies." Before Gideon is called
to be the deliverer of the people from Midian, the Prophet must first
hold up their sin to the people, Judg. vi. 8 ff., and Gideon does not
begin his work with a struggle against the outward enemies, but must,
first of all, as Jerubbabel, declare war against sin. All the
prosperous periods in the people's history are, at the same time,
periods of spiritual revival. We need only think of David, Jehoshaphat,
and Hezekiah. Outward deliverance always presents itself in history as
an _addition_ only which is bestowed upon those seeking after the
kingdom of God. Without the inward foundation, the bestowal of the
outward blessing would be only a mockery, inasmuch as the holy God
could not but immediately take away again what He had given. But the
circumstance that it is the _outward_ salvation, the deliverance from
the heathen servitude, the elevation of the people of God to the
dominion of the world, as in Christ it so gloriously took [Pg 77]
place, which are here, in the first instance, looked at, is easily
accounted for from the historical cause of this prophetic discourse
which, _in the first instance, is directed against the fears of the
destruction of the kingdom of God by the world's power_. Ps. xxiii. 4;
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear
no evil; for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff they comfort me,"
must so much the more he considered as the fundamental passage of the
verse under consideration, that the Psalm, too, refers to the whole
Christian Church. It was in the appearance of Christ, and the salvation
brought through Him, in the midst of the deepest misery, that this
Psalm found its most glorious confirmation.--[Hebrew: clmvt], "darkness
of death," is the darkness which prevails in death or in Sheol. Such
compositions commonly occur in proper names only, not in appellatives;
and hence, by "the land of the darkness (shadow) of death," hell is to
be understood. But darkness of hell is, by way of a shortened
comparison, not unfrequently used for designating the deepest darkness.
The point of comparison is here furnished by the first member of the
verse. Parallel is Ps. lxxxviii. 4 ff., where Israel laments that the
Lord had thrust it down into dark hell. The Preterite tense of the
verbs in our verse is to be explained from the prophetical view which
converts the Future into the Present. How little soever modern exegesis
can realise this seeing by, and in faith, and how much soever it is
everywhere disposed to introduce the _real_ Present instead of the
_ideal_, yet even _Ewald_ is compelled to remark on the passage under
consideration: "The Prophet, as if he were describing something which
in his mind he had seen as certain long ago, here represents everything
in the past, and scarcely makes an exception of this in the new start
which he takes in the middle." At the time when the Prophet uttered
this Prophecy, even the _darkness_ still belonged to the future. As yet
the world's power had not gained the ascendancy over Israel; but here
the light has already dispelled the darkness.
It now merely remains for us to view more particularly the quotation of
these two verses in Matt. iv. 12-17. [Greek: Akousas de]--thus the
section begins--[Greek: hoti Iôannês paredothê, anechôrêsen eis tên
Galilaian.] Since, in these words, we are told that Jesus, after having
received the intelligence of the imprisonment of [Pg 78] John, withdrew
into Galilee, we cannot for a moment think of His having sought in
Galilee, safety from Herod; for Galilee just belonged to Herod, and
Judea afforded security against him. The verb [Greek: anachôrein]
denotes, on the contrary, the withdrawing into the _angulus terrae_
Galilee, as contrasted with the civil and ecclesiastical centre. The
_time_ of the beginning of Christ's preaching (His ministry hitherto
had been merely a kind of prelude) was determined by the imprisonment
of John, as certainly as, according to the prophecy of the Old
Testament, the territories of the activity of both were immediately
bordering upon one another, and by that very circumstance _the place_,
too, was indirectly determined; for it was fixed by the prophecy under
consideration that Galilee was to be the scene of the chief ministry of
Christ. If, then, the time for the beginning of the ministry had come,
He must also depart into Galilee. The connection, therefore, is this:
After he had received the intelligence of the imprisonment of John--in
which the call to Him for the beginning of His ministry was implied--He
departed into Galilee, and especially to Capernaum, vers. 12, 13; for
it was this part of the country which, by the prophecy, was fixed as
the main scene of His Messianic activity, vers. 14-16. It was there,
therefore, that He continued the preaching of John, ver. 17.--[Greek:
Kai katalipôn tên Nazaret]--it is said in ver. 13--[Greek: elthôn
katôkêsen eis Kapernaoum tên parathalassian, en horiois Zaboulôn kai
Nephthaleim.] Christ had hitherto had His settled abode at Nazareth,
and thence undertook His wanderings. The immediate reason why He did
not remain there is not stated by Matthew; but we learn it from Luke
and John. In accordance with his object, Matthew takes cognizance of
this one circumstance only, that, according to the prophecy of the Old
Testament, Capernaum was very specially fitted for being the residence
of Christ. The town was situated on the western shore of the Lake of
Gennesareth. Quite in opposition to his custom elsewhere, Matthew
describes the situation of the town 80 minutely, because this knowledge
served to afford a better insight into the fulfilment of the prophecy
of the Old Testament. The designation [Greek: tên parathalassian]
stands in reference to [Greek: hodon thalassês], in ver. 15. [Greek: En
horiois], &c., may either mean: "In the borders of Zebulun and
Naphtali," _i. e._ in that place where [Pg 79] the borders of both the
countries meet,--or [Greek: ta horia] may, according to the analogy of
the Hebrew [Hebrew: gbvliM], denote the borders in the sense of
"territory," as in Matt. ii. 16. From a comparison of [Greek: gê
Zaboulôn kai Nephthaleim] of the prophecy in ver. 15, to which the
words stand in direct reference, it follows that the latter view is the
correct one. Whether Capernaum lay just on the borders between the two
countries was of no consequence to the prophecy, and hence was of none
to Matthew.--The phrase [Greek: hina plêrôthê] does not, according to
the very sound remark of _De Wette_, point to the intention, but to the
objective aim. The question, however, is to what the [Greek: hina
plêrôthê] is to be referred,--whether merely to that which immediately
precedes, viz., the change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, or,
at the same time to [Greek: anechôrêsen eis tên Galilaian]. The latter
is alone correct. The prophecy which the Evangelist has in view
referred mainly to Galilee, or the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali in
general; but, according to the express remark of the Evangelist,
Nazareth itself was likewise situated in Galilee. The advantage which
Capernaum had over it was this only, that in Capernaum the [Greek:
hodon thalassês] of the prophecy was found again, and that, therefore,
thence the [Greek: peran tou Iordanou] of the prophecy also could be
better realized, inasmuch as across the lake there was an easy
communication from that place with the country beyond Jordan. The
connection is hence this: After the imprisonment of the Baptist, Jesus,
in order to enter upon His ministry, went to Galilee, and especially to
Capernaum, which was situated on the lake, in order that thus the
prophecy of Isaiah as to the glorification of Galilee, and of the
region on the lake, might be fulfilled.--Matthew has abridged the
passage. From chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1) he has taken the designation of
the part of the country, in order that the agreement of fulfilment and
prophecy might become visible. The words from [Greek: gê--tôn ethnôn]
may either be regarded as a fragment taken out of its connection,
so that they are viewed as a quotation, and as forming a period by
themselves (this, from a comparison of the original, seems most
natural);--or we may also suppose, that the Evangelist, having
broken-up the connection with the preceding, puts these words into a
new connection, so that, along with the [Greek: ho laos], which has
become an apposition, they form [Pg 80] the subject of the following
sentence. At all events, [Greek: hodon] takes here the place of the
adverb, although it may not be possible to adduce instances and proofs
altogether analogous from the Greek _usus loquendi_.--The confidence
with which Matthew explains chap. viii. 23, and ix. 1 of Christ can be
accounted for only from the circumstance that he recognized Christ as
He who in chap. ix. 5, 6, (6, 7) is described as the author of all the
blessings designated in the preceding verses. It was therefore
altogether erroneous in _Gesenius_ to assert that there was the less
reason for holding the Messianic explanation of chap. ix. 5, 6, as
there was no testimony of the New Testament in favour of it.--It is
quite obvious that Matthew does not quote the Old Testament prophecy in
reference to any single special event which happened at Capernaum; but
that rather the whole following account of the glorious deeds of Christ
in Galilee, as well as in Peraea, down to chap. xix. 1, serves to mark
the fulfilment of this Old Testament prophecy, and is subservient to
this quotation. _This passage of Matthew explains the reason, why it is
that he, and Luke and Mark who closely follow him, report henceforth,
until the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, exclusively facts which
happened in Galilee, and in Peraea, which likewise was mentioned by
Isaiah._ The circumstance that this fact, which is so obvious, was not
perceived, has called forth a number of miserable conjectures, and has
even led some interpreters to assail the credibility of the Gospel. To
Matthew, who wished to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah
promised in the Old Testament, the interest must, in the view of the
prophecy under consideration, be necessarily concentrated upon Galilee;
and Mark and Luke followed him in this, perceiving that it was not
becoming to them to open up a path altogether new. This was reserved to
the second Apostle from among the Evangelists.
Ver. 2 (3). "_Thou multipliest the nation to which thou didst not
increase the joy; they joy before thee like the joy in harvest, and as
they rejoice when they divide the spoil._"
The Prophet beholds the joy of the Messianic time as present; he
beholds the covenant-people numerous, free from all misery, and full of
joy; full of delight he turns to the Lord, and praises Him for what He
has done to His people.--One [Pg 81] of the privileges of the people of
God is the increase which at all times takes place after they are
sifted and thinned by judgments. Thus, _e.g._, it happened at the time
after their return from the captivity, comp. Ps. cvii. 38, 39: "And He
blesseth them, and they are multiplied greatly, and He suffereth not
their cattle to decrease. They who were minished and brought low
through affliction, oppression, and sorrow." But this increase took
place most gloriously at the time of Christ, when a numerous multitude
of adopted sons from among the Gentiles were received into the Church
of God, and thus the promise to Abraham: "I will make of thee a great
nation" ([Hebrew: gvi] as in the passage before us, and not [Hebrew:
eM]), received its final fulfilment. From the arguments which we
advanced in Vol. i. on Hosea ii. 1, it appears that the increase which
the Church received by the reception of the Gentiles is, according
to the biblical view, to be considered as an increase of the people
of Israel. The fundamental thought of Ps. lxxxvii. is: Zion the
birth-place of the nations; by the new birth the Gentiles are received
in Israel. The manner in which the Gentiles show their anxiety to be
received in Israel is described by Isaiah in chap. xliv. 5. The
commentary on the words: "Thou multipliest the nation," is furnished to
us by chap. liv. 1 ff., where, in immediate connection with the
prophecy regarding the Servant of God who bears the sin of the world,
it is said: "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into
singing, and shout thou that didst not travail with child; for more are
the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife,
saith the Lord." Comp. also chap. lxvi. 7-9, and Ezek. xxxvii. 25, 26:
"And my servant David shall be their prince for ever. And I make a
covenant with them and multiply them." Several interpreters, _e. g._
_Calvin_, _Vitringa_, suppose that the Prophet in this verse (and so
likewise in the two following verses) speaks, in the first instance, of
a nearer prosperity, of the rapid increase of the people after the
Babylonish captivity. _Vitringa_ directs attention to the fact, that
the Jewish people after the captivity did not only fill Judea, but
spread also in Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Greece, and
Italy. And surely we cannot deny that in this increase, no less than in
the new flourishing of the people after the defeat of Sennacherib also,
there is a _prelude_ to the real fulfilment; [Pg 82] and that so much
the more that these precursory increases, happening, as they did,
regularly after the decreases, were bestowed upon the covenant-people
with a view to the future appearance of Christ. These increases enter
into a still closer relation to the prophecy under consideration, if we
keep in mind that in chap. vii. the Prophet anticipates in spirit the
appearance of Christ, and that it is with this representation that, in
the Section before us, chap. viii. 8, 10 are connected. In order to
refute the explanation of _Umbriet_: "Thou hast multiplied the
_heathen_, and thereby thou hast removed all joy; but now," &c., it
will be quite sufficient to refer to the parallel passage, chap. xxvi.
15: "Thou increasest the _people_, O Lord, thou art glorified, thou
removest all the boundaries of the land," where, just as in the verse
before us, by [Hebrew: hgvi] "the people," Israel is designated; and
that is frequently the case where the notion of the multitude, the mass
only is concerned, comp. Gen. xii. 2.--"_Thou didst not increase the
joy_" stands for: to whom thou formerly didst not increase the joy, to
whom thou gavest but little joy, upon whom thou inflictedst severe
sufferings. The antithesis is quite the same as in chap. viii. 23 (ix.
1), where the former distress is contrasted with the light which is now
to shine upon them, the former disgrace with the later glory; and in
the same manner in chap. ix. 1 (2), where the present _light_ is
rendered brighter by being contrasted with the former _darkness_. The
contrast of the present _increase_ with the former absence of joys
shows that the joy is to be viewed as being connected with the
increase, and that if formerly the joy was less, the reason of it was
chiefly in the _decrease_. Ps. cvii. 38, 39, 41, shews how affliction
and decrease, joy and increase, go hand in hand; farther, Jerem. xxx.
19: "And out of them proceed thanksgivings, and the voice of the merry
ones; and I multiply them, and they do not decrease; and I honour them,
and they are not small." The decrease is a single symptom only of a
depressed, joyless condition, which everywhere in the kingdom of God
shall be brought to an end by Christ. Most of the ancient translators
(LXX., Chald., Syr.) follow the marginal reading [Hebrew: lv], "_to
him_" hast thou increased the joy. According to many modern
interpreters, [Hebrew: la] is supposed to be a different mode of
writing for [Hebrew: lv]. But no _proof_ that could stand the test can
be brought forward for [Pg 83] such a mode of writing; nor is there any
reason for supposing that [Hebrew: la] stands here in a different sense
from what it does in chap. viii. 23, and it would indeed be strange
that [Hebrew: lv] should have been placed before the verb. At most, it
might be supposed that the Prophet intended an ambiguous and double
sense: not/(to him) didst thou increase the joy. But altogether apart
from such an ambiguous and double sense, behind the negative, at all
events, the positive is concealed; thou multipliest the people, and
increasest to them the joy, thou who formerly didst decrease their joy,
&c.; and it is to this positive that the words refer which, in Luke ii.
10, the angels address to the shepherds: [Greek: mê phobeisthe, idou
gar euangelizomai humin charan megalên hêtis estai panti tô laô hoti
etechthê humin sêmeron sôtêr, hos esti Christos Kurios]; comp. Matth.
ii. 10.--In the following words, the Prophet expresses, in the first
instance, the nature of the joy, then its greatness. The joy over the
blessings received is a joy _before God_, under a sense of His
immediate presence. The expression is borrowed from the sacrificial
feasts in the courts before the sanctuary, at which the partakers
rejoiced _before the Lord_, Deut. xii. 7, 12, 18, xiv. 26. In Immanuel,
God with his blessings and gifts has truly entered into the midst of
His people. With the joy at _the dividing of the spoil_, the joy is
compared only to show its greatness, just as with the joy _in the
harvest_; and it is in vain that Knobel tries here to bring in a
dividing of spoil.
Vers. 3, (4). "_For the yoke of his burden and the staff of his neck,
the rod of his driver thou hast broken as in the day of Midian._"
In this verse, the reason of the people's joy announced in the
preceding verse is stated: it is the deliverance from the world's
power, under the oppression of which they groaned, or, in point of
fact, were to groan. He who imposes the _yoke_ and the _staff_, the
_driver_, (an allusion to the Egyptian taskmasters, masters, comp.
Exod. iii. 7; v. 10), is Asshur, and the _whole_ world's power hostile
to the Kingdom of God, which is represented by him, and which by Christ
was to receive, and has received, a mortal blow. A prelude to the
fulfilment took place by the defeat of Sennacherib under Hezekiah,
comp. chap. x. 5, 24, 27; xiv. 25. After him. Babel had to experience
[Pg 84] the destructive power of the Lord, the single phases of which,
pervading, as they do, all history, are here comprehended in one great
act. Although the definitive fulfilment begins first with the
appearance of Christ in the flesh, who spoke to His people: [Greek:
tharseite, egô nenikêka ton kosmon], yet after what we remarked on ver.
2, we are fully entitled to consider the former catastrophes also of
the kingdoms of the world as preludes to the real fulfilment.--[Hebrew:
wkM] "shoulder" does not suit as the _membrum cui verbera infliguntur_;
it comes, as is commonly the case, into consideration as that member
with which burdens are borne. The _staff_ or tyranny is a heavy
_burden_, comp. chap. x. 27: "His burden shall be taken away from
off thy shoulder." "_As in the day of Midian_" is equivalent to: as
thou once didst break the yoke of Midian. This event was especially
fitted to serve as a type of the glorious future victory over the
world's power, partly because the oppression by Midian was very
hard,--according to Judges vii. 12, Midian, Amalek, and the sons of
the East broke in upon the land like grasshoppers for multitude, and
their camels were without number, as the sand by the seaside for
multitude--partly because the help of the Lord (_thou_ hast broken) was
at that time specially visible. "I will be with thee," says the Lord to
Gideon in Judges vi. 16, "and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one
man;" and Judges vii. 2: "The people that are with thee are too many,
as that I could give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt
themselves against me, saying: Mine own hand hath saved me."
Vers. 4, (5). "_For every war-shoe put on with noise, and the garment
rolled in blood: it is for burning, food of fire._"
We have here the reason why the tyranny is broken: _for_ the enemies of
the Kingdom of God shall entirely and for ever be rendered incapable of
carrying on warfare. If the noisy war-shoes, and their blood-stained
garments are to be burned, they themselves must, of course, have been
previously destroyed. But, if that be the case, then all war and
tyranny are come to an end, "for the dead do not live, and the shades
do not rise," chap. xxvi. 14. The parallel passages, Ps. xlvi. 10, and
Ezek. xxxix. 9, 10, do not permit us to doubt that the burning of the
war-shoes and of the bloody garments come into consideration here as a
consequence of the destruction of [Pg 85] the conquerors. Nor can we,
according to these passages, entertain, for a moment, the idea of
_Meier_, that those bloody garments belong to _Israel_.
Vers. 5 (6). "_For unto us a child is horn, unto us a son is given, and
the government is upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called
Wonder-Counsellor, God-Hero, Ever-Father, Prince of Peace._"
The Prophet had hitherto spoken only of the salvation which is to
spread from Galilee over the rest of the country; it is first here that
its author, in all His sublime glory, comes before him; and, having
come to him, the prophecy rises to exalted feelings of joy. In chap.
vii. 14, the Prophet beholds the Saviour as being already born; hence
the Preterites [Hebrew: ild] and [Hebrew: ntN]. If any one should
imagine that from the use of these Preterites he were entitled to infer
that the subject of the prophecy must, at that time, already have been
born, he must also, on account of the Preterites in vers. 1 (2) suppose
that the announced salvation had at that time been already bestowed
upon Israel,--which no interpreter does. _Hitzig_ correctly remarks:
"Because He is still _future_, the Prophet in His first appearance,
beholds Him as a child, and as the son of another." _Whose_ son He is
we are not told; but it is supposed to be already known. Ever since the
revelation in 2 Sam. vii., the Messiah could be conceived of as the Son
of David only; compare the words: "Upon the throne of David" in vers. 6
(7), and chap. xi. 1, lv. 3. As the Son of God the Saviour appears as
early as in Ps. ii.; and it is to that Psalm that the "God-Hero"
alludes, and connects itself. Alluding to the passage before us, we
read in John iii. 16: [Greek: houtô gar êgapêsen ho theos ton kosmon]
("The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this,") vers. 6 [7],
[Greek: hôste ton huion autou ton monogenê edôken].--When grown up, the
Son has the government upon His shoulder. The Prophet contrasts Christ
with the _world's power_, which threatened destruction to the people of
God. This, then, refers to the _Kingly office_ of Christ, and the state
of glory. Parallel is the declaration of Christ in Matt. xxviii. 18,
[Greek: edothê moi pasa exousia]. The Lord has also, in John xviii. 37,
confirmed the truth that He is _King_; and it is upon the ground of His
own declaration that Pilate designates Him upon the cross as a King.
Although His Kingdom is not of [Pg 86] this world, John xviii. 36, it
is, just for that very reason, so much the more all-governing. The
[Greek: enteuthen] in that passage is contrasted with the words "from
heaven" in Dan. ii., by which, in that passage, its absolute
superiority over all the kingdoms of the world, and its crushing power
are declared to be indissolubly connected.--"_The shoulder_" comes,
here also, as in vers. 3 (4), chap. x. 27, into consideration in so far
as on it we _bear_; comp. Gen. xlix. 15; Ps. lxxxi. 7. The bearer of an
office has it, as it were, on his shoulders.--The Jewish interpreters,
despairing of being able, with any appearance of truth, to apply the
following attributes to Hezekiah, insist that, with the exception of
the last, they denote Him who calls, not Him who is called: the
Wonderful, &c., called him Prince of peace. Altogether apart from the
consideration that this is in opposition to the accents, the mentioning
of so many names of Jehovah is here quite unsuitable; and, in all other
passages, the noun put after [Hebrew: wmv qra] designates always him
who is called. Modern Exegesis has tried everything with a view to
deprive the names of their deep meaning, in order to adapt them to a
Messiah in the ordinary Jewish sense, hence, to do that of which the
Jews themselves had already despaired. But, in doing so, they have
considered the names too much by themselves, overlooking the
circumstance that the full and deeper meaning of the individual
attributes, as it at first sight presents itself, must, in the
connection in which they here occur, be so much the rather held fast.
The names are completed in the number _four_,--the mark of that which
is complete and finished. _They form two pairs, and every single name
is again compounded of two names._ The first name is [Hebrew: pla
iveC]. That these two words must be _connected_ with one another
(_Theodor._--[Greek: thaumastôs bouleuôn]) appears from the analogy of
the other names, especially of [Hebrew: al gbvr] with whom [Hebrew: pla
iveC] forms one pair; and then from the circumstance that [Hebrew:
iveC] alone would, in this connection, be too indefinite. The words do
not stand in the relation of the _Status constructus_, but are
connected in the same manner as [Hebrew: pra adM] in Gen. xvi. 12.
[Hebrew: iveC] designates the attribute which is here concerned, while
[Hebrew: pla] points out the supernatural, superhuman degree in which
the King possesses this attribute, and the infinite riches of
consolation and help which are to be found in such [Pg 87] a King. As a
_Counsellor_, He is a _Wonder_, absolutely elevate d above everything
which the earth possesses in excellency of counselling. As [Hebrew:
pla] commonly denotes "wonder" in the strictest sense (comp. chap. xxv.
1: "I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name, for thou hast done
wonders," Ps. lxxvii. 15: "Thou art the God that doest wonders;" Exod.
xv. 11); as it here stands in parallelism with [Hebrew: al] God; as the
whole context demands that we should take the words in their full
meaning;--we can consider it only as an arbitrary weakening of the
sense, that several interpreters explain [Hebrew: pla iveC]
"extraordinary Counsellor." Parallel is Judges xiii. 18 where the Angel
of the Lord, after having announced the birth of Samson, says: "Why
askest thou thus after my name?--it is wonderful," [Hebrew: plai],
_i.e._, my whole nature is wonderful, of unfathomable depth, and
cannot, therefore, be expressed by any human name. _Farther_--Revel.
xix. 12 is to be compared, where Christ has a name written that no man
knows but He himself, to intimate the immeasurable glory of His nature.
That which is here, in the first instance, said of a single attribute
of the King, applies, at the same time, to all others, holds true of
His whole nature; the King is a Wonder as a Counsellor, because His
whole person is wonderful. A proof, both of the connection of the two
words, and against the weakening of the sense, is afforded by the
parallel passage, chap. xxviii. 29, where it is said of the Most
High God [Hebrew: hplia ech], "He shows himself wonderful in His
counsel."--The second name is [Hebrew: al gbvr] "God-Hero." Besides the
ability of giving good counsel, a good government requires also
[Hebrew: gbvrh] strength, heroic power: comp. chap. xi. 2, according to
which the spirit of counsel and strength rest upon the Messiah. What
may not be expected from a King who not only, like a David in a higher
degree, possesses the greatest _human measure_ of heroic strength, but
who is also a _God-Hero_, and a _Hero-God_, so that with His appearance
there _disappears_ completely the contrast of the invisible Head of the
people of God, and of His visible substitute,--a contrast which so
often manifested itself, to the great grief of the covenant-people? The
God-Hero forms the contrast to a human hero whose heroic might is,
after all, always _limited_, [Hebrew: al gbvr] can signify God-Hero
only, a Hero who is infinitely exalted above all human heroes [Pg 88]
by the circumstance that He is _God_. To the attempts at weakening the
import of the name, chap. x. 21, where [Hebrew: al gbvr] is said of the
Most High, appears a very inconvenient obstacle,--a parallel passage
which does not occur by chance, but where [Hebrew: war iwvb] stands
with an intentional reference to chap. vii.: "The remnant shall return,
the remnant of Jacob, unto the Hero-God," who is furnished with
invincible strength for His people; comp. Ps. xxiv. 8: "The Lord strong
and a hero, the Lord a hero of war." The older Rationalistic exposition
endeavoured to set aside the deity of the Messiah by the explanation:
"strong hero." So also did _Gesenius_. This explanation, against which
chap. x. 21 should have warned, has been for ever set aside by the
remark of _Hitzig_: "Commonly, in opposition to all the _usus
loquendi_, the word is translated by: _strong hero_. But [Hebrew: al]
is always, even in passages such as Gen. xxxi. 29, "God," and in all
those passages which are adduced to prove that it means "_princeps_,"
"_potens_," the forms are to be derived not from [Hebrew: al], but from
[Hebrew: ail], which properly means 'ram,'then 'leader,''prince.'" By
this explanation, especially the passage Ezek. xxxii. 21, which had
formerly been appealed to in support of the translation "strong hero,"
is set aside; for the [Hebrew: ali gbvriM] of that passage are "rams of
heroes." Rationalistic interpreters now differ in their attempts at
getting rid of the troublesome fact. _Hitzig_ says, "Strong God"--he
erroneously views [Hebrew: gbvr], which always means "hero," as an
adjective--"the future deliverer is called by the oriental not strictly
separating the Divine and human, and He is called so by way of
exaggeration, in so far as He possesses divine qualities." A like
opinion is expressed by _Knobel_: "Strong God the Messiah is called,
because in the wars with the Gentiles He will prove himself as a hero
equipped with divine strength." The expression proves a divine nature
as little as when in Ps. lxxxii. 1-6, comp. John x. 34, 35, kings are,
in general, called [Hebrew: alhiM], "gods, _Like_ God, to be compared
to Him, a worthy representative of Him, and hence, likewise, called
God." It is true that there is one [Hebrew: al gbvr] only, and that,
according to chap. x. 21, the Messiah cannot be [Hebrew: al gbvr]
beside the Most High God, excepting _by partaking in his nature_. Such
a participation in the nature, not His being merely filled with the
power of [Pg 89] God, is absolutely required to explain the expression.
It is true that in the Law of Moses all those who have to command or to
judge, all those to whom, for some reason or other, respect or
reverence is due, are consecrated as the representatives of God on
earth; _e.g._, a court of justice is of God, and he who appears before
it appears before God. But the name _Elohim_ is there given _in general
only to the judicial court_, which represents God--to the _office_, not
to the single individuals who are invested with it. In Ps. lxxxii. 1,
the name _Elohim_ in the expression: "He judgeth among the gods" is
given to the single, judging individual; comp. also ver. 6; but this
passage forms an isolated exception. To explain, from it, the passage
before us is inadmissible, even from chap. x. 21, where [Hebrew: al
gbvr] stands in its fullest sense. It must not be overlooked that that
passage in Ps. lxxxii. belongs to higher poetry; that the author
himself there mitigates in ver. 6, in the parallel member, the strength
of the expression: "I have said ye are _Elohim_, and sons of the Most
High ye all;" and, finally, that there _Elohim_ is used as the most
vague and general name of God, while here _El_, a personal name, is
used. _Hendewerk_, _Ewald_, and others, finally, explain "_God's
hero_," _i.e._, "a divine hero, who, like an invincible God, fights and
conquers." But in opposition to this view, it has been remarked by
_Meier_ that then necessarily the words ought to run, [Hebrew: gbvr
al]. It is farther obvious that by this explanation the [Hebrew: gbvr
al] here is, in a manner not to be admitted, disconnected and severed
from those passages where it occurs as an attribute of the Most High
God; comp. besides chap. x. 21; Deut. x. 17; Jer. xxxii. 18.
The third name is _Father of eternity_. That admits of a double
explanation. Several interpreters refer to the Arabic _usus loquendi_,
according to which he is called the father of a thing who possesses it;
_e.g._, Father of mercy, _i.e._, the merciful one. This _usus
loquendi_, according to the supposition formerly very current, occurs
in Hebrew very frequently, especially in proper names, _e.g._, [Hebrew:
Tvb abi]. "Father of goodness," _i.e._, the good one. According to this
view. Father of eternity would be equivalent to Eternal one. According
to the opinion of others. Father of eternity is _he who will ever be a
Father_, _an affectionate provider_, comp. chap. xxii. 21, where
Eliakim [Pg 90] is called "_Father_ to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;"
Job xxix. 16; Ps. lxviii. 6. _Luther_, too, thus explains: "Who at all
times feeds His Kingdom and Church, in whom there is a fatherly love
without end." The _latter_ view is to be preferred unconditionally.
Against the former view is the circumstance that all the other names
stand in direct reference to the salvation of the covenant-people,
while, in the mere eternity, this reference would not distinctly enough
appear. And it has farther been rightly remarked by _Ewald_, that that
_usus loquendi_ in Arabic always belongs to the artificial, often to
jocular discourse. Whether it occur in Hebrew at all is still a matter
of controversy; _Ewald_, § 27, denies that it occurs in proper names
also. On the other hand, the paternal love, the rich kindness and
mercy, exceedingly well suit the first two names which indicate
unfathomable _wisdom_, and divine _heroic strength_. The rationalistic
interpreters labour very hard to _weaken_ the idea of _eternity_. But
the "Provider for life" agrees very ill with the _Wonder-Counsellor_,
and the _God-hero_. The absolute eternity of the Messiah's dominion is,
on the foundation of 2 Sam. vii., most emphatically declared in other
passages also (comp. vol. i., p. 132, 133), and meets us here again
immediately in the following verse. The name Ever-Father, too, leads us
to _divine Majesty_, comp. chap. xlv. 17: "Israel is saved by the Lord
with an _everlasting_ salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded
in all _eternity_" chap. lvii. 15, where God is called [Hebrew:
wkN ed] "the ever dwelling;" farther, Ps. lxviii. 6: "A _Father_ of
the fatherless, and a judge of the widows is God in His holy
habitation," where the providence of God for the _personae miserabiles_
is praised with a special reference to that which He does for His poor
people.--_Hitzig's_ explanation: "Father of prey," does not suit the
prophetic style, and has, in general, no analogy from Hebrew to adduce
in its favour. The circumstance that, in the verse immediately
following, the eternity of the government is mentioned, shows that
[Hebrew: ed] must be taken in its ordinary signification "eternity."
The fourth name, _Prince of peace_, stands purposely at the end, and is
to be considered as strongly emphatic. War, hostile oppression, the
distress of the servitude which threatens the people of God,--these are
the things which, in the first instance, [Pg 91] have directed the
Prophet's eye to the Messiah. The name points back to Solomon who
typified Christ's dominion of peace, and who himself, in the Song of
Solomon, transfers his name to Christ (comp. my Comment. S. 1 ff.);
then to the Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10 (comp. vol. i, 84, 85). We should
misunderstand the name were we to infer from it that, in the Messianic
time, all war should cease. Were such to be the case, why is it that,
immediately before, the Redeemer is designated as _God-Hero_? Peace is
the aim; it is offered to all the nations in Christ; but those who
reject it, who rise up against His Kingdom, He throws down, as the
God-Hero, with a powerful hand, and _obtains by force_ peace for His
people. But war, as far as it takes place, is carried on in a form
different from that which existed under the Old dispensation. According
to Micah v. 9 (10), ff., the Lord makes His people outwardly
defenceless, before they become in Christ world-conquering; comp. vol.
i., p. 515. According to chap. xi. 4, Christ smiteth the earth with the
rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the
wicked.
Ver. 6 (7.) "_To the increase of the government and to the peace, there
is no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, so that he
establisheth it, and supporteth it by justice and righteousness, from
henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform
this._"
There is no reason for connecting this verse with the preceding one;
in which case the sense would be: "For the increase of government and
for peace without end." _For_ chap. ii. 7; Nah. ii. 10; Job. xvi.
3--in which [Hebrew: l] with [Hebrew: qC] occurs in the very same
sense--clearly show that the [Hebrew: l] in [Hebrew: lwlvM] and
[Hebrew: lmrbh] may very well be understood as a mere sign of the
Dative. And the objection that the following [Hebrew: lhkiN], &c.
would, in that case, be unsuitable, is removed if it be explained: so
that He establisheth, &c., or: by His establishing, &c.; comp. _Ewald_,
_Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache_ § 280 d. The words designate the basis on
which the increase of government and the peace rest. The Kingdom of God
will, through the Redeemer, acquire an ever increasing _extent_, and,
along with it, perfect _peace_ shall be enjoyed by the world. For it is
not by rude force that this kingdom is to be founded and established,
as is the case with worldly kingdoms, in which increase of [Pg 92]
government and peace, far from being always connected, are, on the
contrary, irreconcilable opponents, but by _justice_ and
_righteousness_. Parallel is Ps. lxvii. In vers. 11-15 of that Psalm,
the Psalmist just points to that "by which all nations and kings are
induced to do homage to that king; it is just that which, in the whole
Psalm, appears as the root of everything else, viz., the absolute
justice of the king." _Decrease_ of government and _war_ without end
were, meanwhile, in prospect, and they were so, because those who were
sitting on the throne of David did not support his kingdom by justice
and righteousness. But the Psalmist intimates to the trembling minds
that such is not the end of the ways of God with His people; that at
last the idea of the Kingdom of God will be realized. From the
fundamental passage, Ps. lxxii. 8-11, and parallel passages, such as
chap. ii. 2, 4; Mic. v. 3 (4); Zech. ix. 10, it is obvious that, as
regards the endless increase of the government, the Prophet thinks of
all the nations of the earth. On the _peace_ without end, comp. Ps.
lxxii. 7; chap. ii. 4; Mic. v. 4 (5), and the words: "He speaketh peace
unto the heathen," Zech. ix. 10. The [Hebrew: l] designates the
substratum on which the increase of dominion and the peace manifest
themselves; the dominion of the Davidic family and its kingdom gain
infinitely in extent, and in the same degree peace also increases. In
these words the Prophet gives an intimation that the Messiah will
proceed from David's family, comp. chap. xi. 1 where he designates Him
as the twig of Jesse.--[Hebrew: hkiN] "to confirm," "to establish,"
used of throne and kingdom, 1 Sam. xiii. 13, comp. 14; 1 Kings ii. 12,
comp. ver. 24, and farther, chap. xvi. 5.--The words: "from henceforth
even for ever" do not, as _Umbreit_ supposes, refer to every thing in
this verse, but to the words immediately preceding. That the words must
be understood in their full sense, we have already proved in our
remarks on the fundamental passage, 2 Sam. vii. 13: "And I will
establish the throne of His kingdom for ever;" see Vol. i. p. 131.
_Michaelis_ says: "So that that promise to David shall never fail." The
[Hebrew: eth] does not refer to the _actual_, but to the _ideal_
present, to the first appearance of the Redeemer, to the words: "Unto
us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government is upon
His shoulder."--This great change is brought about [Pg 93] by the
_zeal_ of the Lord who raises this glorious King to His people; comp.
John iii. 16. The zeal in itself is only _energy_; the sphere of its
exercise is, in every instance, determined by the context. In Exod. xv.
5; Deut. iv. 24; Nah. i. 2, the zeal is the energy of wrath. In the
passage before us, as in the Song of Solomon viii. 6, and in chap.
xxxvii. 32: "For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and escaped
ones out of Mount Zion; the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this,"
the zeal of God means the energetic character of His love to Zion.
We must, in conclusion, still make a few remarks, on the interpretation
of vers. 5 and 6. The older interpreters were unanimous in referring
these verses to the Messiah. Even by the Jews, this explanation was
abandoned at a subsequent period only. To the Messiah this passage is
referred by the Chaldean Paraphrast, by the Commentary on Genesis known
by the name _Breshith Rabbah_ in the exposition of Genesis xli. 44 (see
_Raim. Martini Pugio fidei_, Vol. iii. sec. 3, chap. xiv. § 6), by
Rabbi _Jose Galilaeus_ in the book _Ekha Rabbati_, a Commentary on
Lamentations (see _Raim. Matt._ iii. 3 chap. 4, § 13). _Ben Sira_ (fol.
40 ed., Amstel. 1679), mentions among the eight names of the Messiah,
the following from the passage before us: Wonderful, Counsellor, El
Gibbor, Prince of Peace. But the late Jewish interpreters found it
objectionable that the Messiah, in opposition to their doctrinal views,
was here described as God; for doctrinal reasons, therefore, they gave
up the received interpretation, and sought to adapt the passage to
Hezekiah. Among these, however, _Rabbi Lipmann_ allows the Messianic
explanation to a certain degree to remain. Acknowledging that the
prophecy could not refer exclusively to Hezekiah, he extends it to all
the successors from the House of David, including the Messiah, by whom
it is to attain its most perfect fulfilment. Among Christian
interpreters, _Grotius_ was the first to abandon the Messianic
explanation. Even _Clericus_ acknowledges that the predicates are
applicable to Hezekiah "_sensu admodum diluto_" only. At the time when
Rationalism had the ascendancy, it became pretty current to explain
them of Hezekiah. _Gesenius_ modified this view by supposing that the
Prophet had connected his Messianic wishes and expectations with
Hezekiah, and [Pg 94] expected their realization by him. At present
this view is nearly abandoned; after _Gesenius_, _Hendewerk_ is the
only one who still endeavours to defend it.
Against the application to Hezekiah even this single argument is
decisive, that a glory is here spoken of, which is to be bestowed
especially upon Galilee which belonged to the kingdom of the ten
tribes. _Farther_--Although the prophecy be considered as a human
foreboding only, how could the Prophet, to whom, everywhere else such a
sharp eye is ascribed, that, from it, they endeavour to explain his
fulfilled prophecies,--how could the Prophet have expected that
Hezekiah, who was at that time a boy of about nine years of age, and
who appeared under such unfavourable circumstances, should realize the
hopes which he here utters in reference to the world's power, should
conquer that power definitively and for ever, should infinitely extend
his kingdom, and establish an everlasting dominion? How could he have
ascribed divine attributes to Hezekiah who, in his human weakness,
stood before him? _Finally_--The undeniable agreement of the prophecy
before us with other Messianic passages, especially with Ps. lxxii. and
Is. xi., where even _Gesenius_ did not venture to maintain the
reference to Hezekiah, is decidedly in opposition to the reference to
Hezekiah.
THE TWIG OF JESSE.
(Chap. xi., xii.)
These chapters constitute part of a larger whole which begins with
chap. x. 5. With regard to the time of the composition of this
discourse, it appears, from chap. x. 9-11, that Samaria was already
conquered. The prophecy, therefore, cannot be prior to the sixth year
of Hezekiah. On the other hand, the defeat of the Assyrian host, which,
under Sennacherib, invaded Judah, is announced as being still future.
The prophecy, accordingly, falls into the period between the 6th and
the 14th year of Hezekiah's reign. From the circumstance that in it [Pg
95] the king of Asshur is represented as being about to march against
Jerusalem, it is commonly inferred that it was uttered shortly before
the destruction of the Assyrian host, and hence, belongs to the
fourteenth year of Hezekiah. But this ground is not very safe. It would
certainly be overlooking the liveliness with which the prophets beheld
and represented future things as present; it would be confounding the
_ideal_ Present with the _actual_, if we were to infer from vers. 28-32
that the Assyrian army must already have reached the single stations
mentioned there. The utmost that we are entitled to infer from this
liveliness of description is, that the Assyrian army was already on its
march; but not even that can be inferred with certainty. In favour of
the immediate nearness of the danger, however, is the circumstance
that, in the prophecy, the threatening is kept so much in the
background; that, from the outset, it is comforting and encouraging,
and begins at once with the announcement of Asshur's destruction, and
Judah's deliverance. This seems to suggest that the place which,
everywhere else, is occupied by the threatening, was here taken by the
events themselves; so that of the two enemies of salvation, proud
security and despair, the latter only was here to be met. The prophecy
before us opens the whole series of the prophecies out of the 14th year
of Hezekiah, the most remarkable year of the Prophet's life, rich in
the revelations of divine glory, in which his prophecy flowed in full
streams, and spread on all sides.
The prophecy divides itself into two parts. The first, chap. x. 5-34,
contains the threatening against Asshur, who was just preparing to
inflict the deadly blow upon the people of God. The fact that in chap.
xi. we have not an absolutely new beginning before us, sufficiently
appears from the general analogy, according to which, as a rule, the
Messianic prophecy does not _begin_ the prophetical discourse; but
still more clearly from the circumstance that chap. xi. begins with
"and;" to which argument may still be added the fact that the figure in
the first verse of this chapter evidently refers to the figure in the
last verse of the preceding chapter. Asshur had there been represented
as a stately forest which was to be cut down by the hand of the Lord;
while here the house of David appears as a stem cut down, from the
roots of which a small twig shall [Pg 96] come forth, which, although
unassuming at first, is to grow up into a fruit-bearing tree. The
purpose of the whole discourse was to strengthen and comfort believers
on the occasion of Asshur's inroad into the country; to bring it home
to the convictions of those who were despairing of the Kingdom of God,
that He who is in the midst of them is greater than the world with all
its apparent power; and thereby to awaken and arouse them to resign
themselves entirely into the hands of their God. It is for this purpose
that the Prophet first describes the catastrophe of Asshur; that, then,
in chap. xi., he points to the highest glorification which in future is
destined for the Church of God by the appearance of Christ, in order
that she may the more clearly perceive that every fear regarding her
existence is folly.
The connection of the two passages appears so much the more plainly
when we consider, that that which, in chap. x., was said of Asshur, and
especially the close in vers. 33 and 34: "Behold Jehovah of hosts cuts
down the branches with power, and those of a high stature shall be hewn
down, and the high ones shall be made low. And He cuts down the
thickets of the forest with the iron, and Lebanon shall fall by the
glorious one," _refers to him as the representative of the whole
world's power_; that the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem is to
be considered as the nearest fulfilment only, but not as the _full_ and
_real_ fulfilment.
From the family of David sunk into total obscurity--such is the
substance--there shall, at some future period, rise a Ruler who, at
first low and without appearance, shall attain to great glory and
bestow rich blessings,--a Ruler furnished with the fulness of the
Spirit of God and of His gifts, filled with the fear of God, looking
sharply and deeply, and not blinded by any appearance, just and an
helper of the oppressed, an almighty avenger of wickedness, ver. 1-5.
By him all the consequences of the fall, even down to the irrational
creation, in the world of men and of nature, shall be removed, ver.
6-9. Around Him the Gentiles, formerly addicted to idols, shall gather,
ver. 10. In ver. 11-16 the Prophet describes what he is to do for
Israel, to whom the discourse was in the first instance addressed, and
upon whom it was to impress the word: "Fear not." Under Him they obtain
deliverance [Pg 97] from the condition of being scattered and exiled
from the face of the Lord, the removal of pernicious dissensions,
conquering power in relation to the world which assails them, and the
removal of all obstacles to salvation by the powerful arm of the Lord.
The reference of the prophecy to the Messiah is, among all the
explanations, the most ancient. We find it in the Targum of Jonathan,
who thus renders the first verse: [Hebrew: vipq mlka mbnvhi diwi vmwiHa
mbni bnvhi itrbi]. St. Paul quotes this prophecy in Rom. xv. 12, and
proves from it the calling of the Gentiles. In 2 Thes. ii. 8 he quotes
the words of ver. 4, and assigns to Christ what is said in it. In Rev.
v. 5, xxii. 16, Christ, with reference to ver. 1 and 10, is called the
root of David. The Messianic explanation was defended by most of the
older Jewish interpreters, especially by _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, and
_Kimchi_.[1] It is professed even by most of the rationalistic
interpreters, by the modern ones especially, without any exception
(_Eichhorn_, _De Wette_, _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, _Ewald_),
although, it is true, they distinguish between Jesus Christ and the
Messiah of the Old Testament,--as, _e.g._, _Gesenius_ has said:
"Features such as those in ver. 4 and 5 exclude any other than the
political Messiah, and King of the Israelitish state," and _Hitzig_: "A
political Messiah whose attributes, especially those assigned to him
ver. 3 and 4, are not applicable to Jesus."
But the non-Messianic interpretation, too, has found its defenders.
According to a statement of Theodoret, the passage was referred by the
Jews to Zerubbabel.[2] Interpreters more numerous and distinguished
have referred it to Hezekiah. This interpretation is mentioned as early
as by _Ephraem Syrus_; among the Rabbis it was held by _Moses
Hakkohen_, and _Abenezra_; among Christian interpreters, _Grotius_ was
the first who professed it, but in such a manner that he assumed a
higher reference to Christ. ("The Prophet returns to praise Hezekiah in
words under which the higher praises of Christ are concealed.") He was
followed by _Dathe_. The exclusive reference to Hezekiah was maintained
by _Hermann v. d._ [Pg 98] _Hardt_, in a treatise published in 1695,
which, however, was confiscated; then, by a number of interpreters at
the commencement of the age of Rationalism, at the head of whom was
_Bahrdt_. Among the expositors of the last decade, this interpretation
is held by _Hendewerk_ alone.
The reasons for the Messianic interpretation, and against making
Hezekiah the subject of the prophecy, are, among others, the
following:--
1. _The comparison of the parallel passages._ The Messiah is here
represented under the figure of a shoot or sprout. This has become so
common, as a designation of the Messiah, that the name "Sprout" has
almost become a proper name of the Messiah; compare the remarks on
chap. iv. 2. A striking resemblance to ver. 1 is presented by chap.
lviii. 2, where the Messiah, to express His lowliness at the beginning
of His course, is, in the same manner as here, compared to a feeble and
tender twig. Ps. lxxii. and the prophecies in chap. ii., iv., vii.,
ix., and Mic. v., present so many agreements and coincidences with the
prophecy under consideration, that they must necessarily be referred to
one and the same subject. The reception of the Gentile nations into the
Kingdom of God, the holiness of its members, the cessation of all
hostilities, are features which constantly recur in the Messianic
prophecies.
2. There are features interwoven with the prophecy which lead to a more
than human dignity of its subject. Even this circumstance is of
importance here, that the _whole earth_ appears as the sphere of His
dominion. Still more distinctly is the human sphere overstepped by the
announcement that, under His government, _sin_, yea, even all
destruction in the outward nature is to cease, and the earth is to
return to the happy condition in which it was before the fall.
According to ver. 4, He slays the wicked in the whole earth by His mere
word,--a thing which elsewhere is said of _God_ only; and according to
ver. 10, the heathen shall render Him religious reverence.
3. A _future_ scion of David is here promised. For [Hebrew: vica] in
ver. 1 must be taken as a _praeteritum propheticum_, as is evident from
its being connected with the preceding chapter, which has to do with
future things, and in which the preterites have a prophetic meaning; as
also by the analogy of the following preterites from which this can by
no means be separated. But [Pg 99] at the time when this prophecy was
composed, Hezekiah had long ago entered upon the government.
4. The circumstances under which the Prophet makes the King appear are
altogether different from those at the time of Hezekiah. According to
ver. 1 and 10, the royal house of David would have entirely declined,
and sunk into the obscurity of private life, at the time when the
Promised One would appear. The Messiah is there represented as a tender
twig which springs forth from the roots of a tree cut down. In the
circumstance, too, that the stem is not called after David, but after
Jesse, it is intimated that the royal family is then to have sunk back
into the obscurity of private life. This does not apply to Hezekiah,
under whom the Davidic dynasty maintained its dignity, but to Christ
only. _Farther_: In ver. 11 there is an announcement of the return of
not only the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also of the
members of the kingdom of Judah from all the countries in which they
were dispersed. This must refer to a far later time than that of
Hezekiah; for at his time no carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah
had taken place. This argument is conclusive also against the false
modified Messianic explanation as it has been advanced by _Ewald_,
according to which the Prophet is supposed to have expected that the
Messiah would appear immediately after the judgment upon the Assyrians,
and after the conversion and reform of those in the Church who had been
spared in the judgment. The facts mentioned show that between the
appearance of the Messiah, and the Present and immediate Future, there
lay to the Prophet still a wide interval in which an entire change of
the present state of things was to take place. Ver. 11 is here of
special importance. For this verse opens up to us the prospect of a
whole series of catastrophes to be inflicted upon Israel by the world's
powers, all of which are already to have taken place at the time of the
King's appearance, and which lay beyond the historical horizon at the
time of the Prophet.
A certain amount of truth, indeed, lies at the foundation of the
explanation which refers the prophecy to Hezekiah. The fundamental
thought of the prophecy before us: "The exaltation of the world's
power, is a prophecy of its abasement; the abasement of the Davidic
Kingdom is a prophecy of its exaltation," [Pg 100] was, in a prelude,
to be realized even at that time. But the Prophet does not limit
himself to these feeble beginnings. He points to the infinitely greater
realization of this idea in the distant future, where the abasement
should be much deeper, but the exaltation also infinitely higher. To
him who had first, by a living faith, laid hold of Christ's appearance,
it must be easy, even in the present difficulty, to hope for the lower
salvation.
The distinction between the "political Messiah" of the prophecy before
us, and "Jesus of Nazareth"--a distinction got up by Rationalism--rests
chiefly upon the fact that Rationalism knows Christ as the _Son of Man_
only, and is entirely ignorant of His true eternal Kingdom. Hence a
prophecy which, except the intimation, in ver. 1, of His lowliness at
first, refers altogether to the glorified Christ, could not but appear
as inapplicable. But it is just by ver. 4, to which they chiefly
appeal, that a "political Messiah" is excluded; for to such an one the
words: "He smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the
breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked" do not in the least apply.
And so likewise vers. 6-9 altogether go beyond the sphere of a
political Messiah, All that at first sight seems to lead to such an one
belongs to the imagery which was, and could not fail to be, taken from
the predecessors and types on the throne of David, since Christ was to
be represented as He in whom the Davidic Kingdom attains to its full
truth and glory.
In the whole section, the Redeemer appears as a _King_. This is
altogether a matter of course, for He forms the antithesis to the king
of Asshur. It is quite in vain that _Umbreit_ has endeavoured to bring
political elements into the description. Thereby the sense is
essentially altered. We must keep closely in view the Prophet's
starting-point. Before those who were filled with cares and fears, lest
the Davidic Kingdom should be overturned by the Assyrian kingdom, he
holds up the bright image of the Kingdom of David, in its last
completion. When they had received that into their hearts, the king of
Asshur could not fail to appear to them in a light altogether
different, as a miserable wretch. The giant at once dwindled down into
a contemptible dwarf, and with tears still [Pg 101] in their eyes they
could not avoid laughing at themselves for having stood so much in awe
of him.
As is commonly the case in the Messianic prophecies, so here, too, no
attention is paid to the development of Christ's Kingdom in time.
Everything, therefore, is fulfilled only as to its beginning; and the
complete fulfilment still stands out for that future in which, after
the fulness of the Gentiles has been brought in, and apostate Israel
has been converted, the consequences of the fall shall, in the outward
nature also, be removed.
Ver. 1. "_And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a
branch from his roots shall bear fruit._"
The circumstance that the words in the first verse are completed in the
number seven, divided into three and four, intimates that the Prophet
here enters upon the territory of the revelation of a mystery of the
Kingdom of God. Totally different--so the Prophet begins--from the fate
of Asshur, just now proclaimed, shall that of the royal house of David
be. Asshur shall be humbled at a time when he is most elevated. Lebanon
falls through the mighty One: but the house of David shall be exalted
at a time when he is most humbled. Who then would tremble and be
afraid, although it go downward? _Luther_ says: "This is a short
summary of the whole of theology and of the works of God, that Christ
did not come till the trunk had died, and was altogether in a hopeless
condition; that hence, when all hope is gone, we are to believe that it
is the time of salvation, and that God is then nearest when He seems to
be farthest off!" The same contrast appears in Ezek. xvii. 24. The Lord
brings down the high tree of the world's power, and exalts the low tree
of the Davidic house. The word [Hebrew: gze] does not mean "stem" in
general, as several rationalistic interpreters, and _Meier_ last, have
asserted, but rather stump, _truncus_, [Greek: kormos], as _Aquila_,
_Symmachus_, _Theodotion_, translate. This is proved from the following
reasons: (1) the derivation from [Hebrew: gze], in Arabic _secuit_,
equivalent to [Hebrew: gde], "to cut off," chap. ix. 9; x. 33. The
[Hebrew: gdeiM] in latter passage clearly refers to the [Hebrew: gze]
here. The proud trees of Asshur shall be _cut down_; from the cut down
trunk of David there shall grow up a _new_ tree overshadowing the
earth, and offering glorious fruits to them that dwell on it.--(2) The
_usus loquendi_. The signification, "stump," is, by [Pg 102] the
context, required in the two passages in which the word [Hebrew: gze]
still occurs. In Job xiv. 8, it is obvious. The whole passage there
from vers. 7-9 illustrates the figurative representation in the verse
under review. "For there is hope of a tree; if it be _cut down_ it will
sprout again, and its tender branch does not cease. Though the root
thereof wax old in the earth, and the _stump_ thereof die in the dust,
through the scent of waters it buds, and brings forth boughs, like one
newly planted." We have here the figure of our verse carried out. That
which water is to the natural tree decaying, the Spirit and grace of
God are to the dying tree, cut down to the very roots, of the Davidic
family. In the second passage. Is. xl. 23, 24, it is only by a false
interpretation that [Hebrew: gze] has been understood of the stem in
general. "He bringeth princes to nothing, He destroyeth the kings of
the earth. They are not planted; they are not sown; their _stump_ does
not take root in the earth." The Prophet, having previously proved
God's elevation over the creature, from the creation and preservation
of the world, now proves it from the nothingness of all that which on
earth has the greatest appearance of independent power. It costs Him no
effort to destroy all earthly greatness which places itself in
opposition to Him. He blows on them, and they have disappeared without
leaving any trace. If God's will be not with it, princes will not
attain to any firm footing and prosperity (they are not planted and
sown); they are like a cut-down stem which has no more power to take
root in the earth. A tree not planted dries up; corn not sown does not
produce fruit; a cut down tree does not take root.--(3.) The
connection. In the second member of the verse we read: "A branch from
his roots shall bear fruit." Unless we mean to adopt the altogether
unsuitable expedient of explaining it of a wild twig which shoots
forth from the roots of a still standing tree, we cannot but think of
a stem cut down to the very root. Against the opinion of _Hendewerk_
who remarks: "An indirect shoot from the root which comes forth from
the root through the stem;" and against _Meier's_ opinion: "The root
corresponds with the stem, and both together form the living tree,"
it is decisive, that in ver. 10, the Messiah is simply, and without
any mention being made of the stem, designated as [Hebrew: wrw]
"a shoot from the root." Farther, chap. liii. 2, where the Messiah
is represented [Pg 103] as a shoot from the root out of a dry
ground.--(4.) It is only when [Hebrew: gze] has the meaning, "stump,"
that it can be accounted for why the [Hebrew: gze] of Jesse, and not of
David, is spoken of--(5.) The supposition that the Messiah shall be
born at the time of the deepest humiliation of the Davidic family,
after the entire loss of the royal dignity, pervades all the other
prophetical writings. That Micah views the Davidic family as entirely
sunk at the time of Christ's appearance, we showed in vol. I. p. 508-9.
Compare farther the remarks on Amos ix. 11, and those on Matth. ii. 23
immediately following.--_Hitzig_ is obliged to confess that [Hebrew:
gze] can designate the cut-off stem only; but maintains that Jesse, as
an individual long ago dead, is designated as a cut-off tree. But
against this opinion is the relation which, as we proved, exists
between this verse and the last verses of the preceding chapter; the
undeniable correspondence of [Hebrew: gze] with [Hebrew: gdeiM] in
chap. x. 33. In that case the antithesis also, so evidently intended by
the Prophet, would be altogether lost. It is not by any means a thing
so uncommon, that a man who is already dead should have a glorious
descendant. To this it may further be added that, according to this
supposition, the circumstance is not all accounted for, that Jesse is
mentioned, and not David, the royal ancestor, as is done everywhere
else. _Finally_--In this very forced explanation, the parallel passages
are altogether left out of view, in which likewise the doctrine is
contained that, at the time of Christ's appearance, the Davidic family
should have altogether sunk. The reason of all these futile attempts at
explaining away the sense so evident and obvious, is none other than
the fear of acknowledging in the prophecy an element which goes beyond
the territory of patriotic fancy and human knowledge. But this dark
fear should here so much the more be set aside, that, according to
other passages also, the Prophet undeniably had the knowledge and
conviction that Israel's course would be more and more downward before
it attained, in Christ, to the full height of its destiny. We need
remind only of the prophecies in chap. v. and vi.; and it is so much
the more natural here to compare the latter of them, that, in it, in
ver. 13, Israel, at the time of the appearing of the Messianic Kingdom,
is represented as a felled tree,--a fact which has for its ground the
sinking of the [Pg 104] Davidic race which is here announced. We
farther direct attention to the circumstance that in our prophecy
itself, Israel's being carried away into all the countries of the earth
is foreseen as future,--a circumstance which is so much the more
analogous, that there also, as here, the foreknowledge clothes itself
in the form of the _supposition_ and not of express announcement. With
regard to the latter point, it may still be remarked that Amos also, in
chap. ix. 11, by speaking of the raising up of the tabernacle of David
which is fallen, anticipates its future lowliness.--The question still
arises:--Why is it that the Messiah is here designated as a rod of
Jesse, while elsewhere, His origin is commonly traced back to David?
_Umbreit_ is of opinion that the mention of Jesse may be explained from
the Prophet's desire to trace the pedigree as far back as possible; in
its apparent extinction, the family of the Messiah was to be pointed
out as a _very old_ one. But if this had been his intention, he would
have gone back beyond Jesse to the older ancestors whom the Book of
Ruth mentions; and if he had been so anxious to honour the family of
the Messiah, it would, at all events, have been far more suitable to
mention David than Jesse, who was only one degree removed from him. The
sound view has been long ago given by Calvin, who says: "The Prophet
does not mention David; but rather Jesse. For so much was the dignity
of that family diminished, that it seemed to be a rustic, ignoble
family rather than a royal one." It was appropriate that that family,
upon whom was a second time to be fulfilled the declaration in Ps.
cxiii. 7, 8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; He lifteth up
the needy out of the dunghill, that He may set him with princes,
with the princes of His people,"--in which, the second time, the
transition should take place from the low condition to the royal
dignity, should not be mentioned according to its royal, but according
to its rustic character. This explanation of the fact is confirmed by
the circumstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right
interpretation of [Hebrew: gze]: Jesse is mentioned and not David,
because the Davidic dignity had become a [Hebrew: gze]. The mention of
Jesse's name thus explained, agrees, then, with the birth of Christ at
Bethlehem, announced by Isaiah's cotemporary, Micah. Christ was to be
born at Bethlehem, because that residence was peculiar to the [Pg 105]
family of David during its lowliness; comp. vol. I., p. 508-9.--The
second hemistich of the verse may either be explained: "a twig from his
roots shall bear fruit," or, as agrees better with the accents: "a twig
shall from his roots bear fruit." The sense, at all events, is: A shoot
proceeding from his roots (_i.e._, the cut-off stem of Jesse) shall
grow up into a stately fruitful tree; or: As a tree cut down throws out
from its roots a young shoot which, at first inconsiderable, grows up
into a stately fruit-bearing tree, so from the family buried in
contempt and lowliness, a _King_ shall arise who, at first humble and
unheeded,[3] shall afterwards attain to great glory. Parallel is Ezek.
xvii. 22-24. The Messiah is there compared to a tender twig which is
planted by the Lord on a high hill, and sends forth branches and bears
fruit, so that all the birds dwell in the shadow of its branches.--It
has now become current to explain: "A branch breaks forth or sprouts;"
but that explanation is against the _usus loquendi_. [Hebrew: prh] is
never equivalent to [Hebrew: prH] "to break forth;" it has only the
signification "to bear," "to bear fruit," "to be fruitful." _Gesenius_
who, in the later editions of his translation, here explains [Hebrew:
prh] by, "to break forth," knows, in the _Thesaurus_, of no other
signification. In the passage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be
considered as a commentary on the verse before us, [Hebrew: ewh pri]
corresponds to the [Hebrew: iprh] here. The change of the tense, too,
suggests that [Hebrew: iprh] does not contain a mere repetition, but a
progress. This progress is necessary for the sense of the whole verse.
For it cannot be the point in question that, in general, a shoot comes
forth; but the point is that this shoot shall attain to importance and
glory. [Hebrew: iprh] comprehends and expresses in one word that which,
in the subsequent verses of the section, is carried out in detail.
First, there is the bestowal of the Spirit of the Lord whereby He is
enabled to bear fruit; then, the fruit-bearing itself.
We here subjoin the discussion of the New Testament passage which
refers to this verse.
[Footnote 1: Their testimony is collected by _Seb. Edzardi_ in the
treatise: _Cap. xi. Esaiae Christo vindicatum adversus Grotium et
sectatores ejus, imprimos Herm. v. d. Hardt._ Hamburg 1696.]
[Footnote 2: "The madness of the Jews is indeed to be lamented who
refer this prophecy to Zerubbabel."]
[Footnote 3: Although _Umbreit_ denies it, yet this is implied in the
designation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the
lowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary
consequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle
course to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may,
moreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2.]
[Pg 106]
ON MATTHEW II. 23.
[Greek: Kai elthôn katôkêsen eis polin legomenên Nazaret. hopôs
plêrôthê to rhêthen dia tôn prophêtôn, hoti Nazôraios klêthêsetai.]
We here premise an investigation as regards the name of the town of
Nazareth. Since that name occurs in the New Testament only, different
views might arise as to its orthography and etymology. One view is
this: The name was properly and originally [Hebrew: ncr]. Being the
name of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine
termination [Hebrew: a]. And, finally, on account of the original
appellative signification of the word, a [Hebrew: t], the designation
of the _status emphaticus_ of feminine nouns in [Hebrew: a], was
sometimes added. We have an analogous case in the name _Dalmanutha_,
the same place which, with the Talmudist, is called [Hebrew: clmvN].
Compare _Lightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp._ II., p. 411 sqq.
So it is likewise probably that [Greek: gabbatha], [Hebrew: gbta] is
formed from the masculine [Hebrew: gb], _dorsum_. Our view is that the
original name was _Nezer_, that this form of the name was in use along
with that which received a [Hebrew: t] added, and that this [Hebrew: t]
served for the designation of the _status emphaticus_ only; or also, if
we wish to take our stand upon the Hebrew form, was a mere hardening of
the [Hebrew: h] Femin. (either of which suppositions is equally
suitable for our purpose); and this our view we prove by the following
arguments: 1. The testimonies of the Jews. _David de Pomis_ (in _De
Dieu_, _critic. sacr._ on M. II. 23) says: [Hebrew: ncri mi wnvld beir
ncr hglil rHvq mirvwliM drK wlwt imiM] "A Nazarene is he who is born in
the town of _Nezer_, in Galilee, three days'journey from Jerusalem."
In the Talmud, in _Breshith Rabba_, and in _Jalkut Shimeoni_ on Daniel,
the contemptuous name of _Ben Nezer_, _i.e._, the Nazarene, is given to
Christ; compare the passages in _Buxtorf_, _lex. c._ 1383; in
_Lightfoot_, _disquis. chorog. Johan. praem. opp._ II., 578 sqq.;
_Eisenmenger_, I., p. 3139. It is true, _Gieseler_ (on Matth. ii. 23,
and in the _Studien u. Kritiken_, 1831, III. S. 591) has tried to give
a different interpretation to this appellation. He is of opinion that
this appellation has reference to Is. xi. 1; that it had come to the
Jews from the Christians, who called [Pg 107] their Messiah [Hebrew: bN
ncr], because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this
supposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation
was chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the
Christians maintained that Jesus was the [Hebrew: ncr] announced by
Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the
names [Hebrew: ncr napvP] "adulterous branch," and [Hebrew: ncr nteb]
"abominable branch" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp. _Eisenmenger_ I. S. 137,
138. But _Gieseler_ is wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is.
xi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only.
Against that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it
ought to have been _Nezer_ only, and not _Ben-Nezer_. _Gieseler_, it is
true, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is
called the "Son of the prophecy," and in confirmation of this _usus
loquendi_ he refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under
Hadrian assumed, with a reference to the [Hebrew: kvkb] in Numb. xxiv.
17, the name [Hebrew: bN kvkb] or [Hebrew: bN kvkba], in so far as the
star there promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only
apparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be
called _Ben-Nezer_ because He was He in whom the prophecy of the
_Nezer_ was fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellation _Ben
Nezer_ that that pseudo-Messiah could be called _Bar Cochba_, only
because it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was
fulfilled. _Reland_ has already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) that
_Barcochba_ probably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a
town or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he
laid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper
meaning in this agreement of the name of his birth-place with the
designation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the
supposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled,
was called the son of that prophecy; that, _e.g._, the Messiah, the
Servant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah,
&c., is not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself,
most improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that
this interpretation of _Ben-Nezer_ is opposed by the constant
interpretation of the Jews. _Jarchi_, in a gloss on that passage of the
Talmud referred to, explains _Ben Nezer_ by: "He who has come from the
town of Nazareth." _Abarbanel_ [Pg 108] in his book _Majenehajeshua_,
after having quoted from _Jalkut Shimeoni_ the passage in question,
observes: "Remark well how they have explained the little horn in
Daniel vii. 8, of the _Ben Nezer_ who is Jesus the _Nazarene_." From
the Lexicon _Aruch_ which forms a weighty authority, Buxtorf quotes:
"[Hebrew: ncr ncri hmqll] Nezer, (or Ben Nezer), is the accursed
_Nazarene_." _Finally_--It could not well be supposed that the Jews, in
a contest where they heap the most obnoxious blasphemies on Christ,
should have given Him an honourable epithet which they had simply
received from the Christians.
2. The result which we have obtained is confirmed by the statements of
Christian writers. Even at the time of _Eusebius_ (Hist. Eccles. i. 7),
and of _Jerome_, the place was called _Nazara_. The latter says:
"_Nazareth_: there exists up to this day in Galilee a village opposite
Legio, fifteen miles to the east of it, near Mount Tabor, called
_Nazara_" (comp. _Reland_ i. S. 497). In _Epistol._ xvii. ad
_Marcellum_ he expressly identifies the name with _Nezer_, by saying:
"Let us go to Nazareth, and according to a right interpretation of that
name, we shall see there the flower of Galilee."
3. To this may be added, that the _Gentilitia_ formed from Nazareth can
be explained only when the [Hebrew: t] is not considered as belonging
to the original form of the name. For, in that case, it must
necessarily be found again in the _Gentilitia_, just as, _e.g._, from
[Hebrew: entt] we could not by any means form [Hebrew: enti], but only
[Hebrew: entti]. In the New Testament the two forms [Greek: Nazôraios]
and [Greek: Nazarênos] only occur, never the form [Greek: Nazaretaios].
_Gieseler_ has felt the difficulty which these names present to the
common hypothesis, but has endeavoured (l. c. p. 592) to remove them by
the conjecture that this form, so very peculiar, had been coined by a
consideration of [Hebrew: ncr] which the first Christians were
accustomed to bring into connection with [Hebrew: ncrt]. But this
conjecture would, at most, be admissible, only if, with the Jews too,
the form [Hebrew: ncri] were not found throughout without a [Hebrew:
t], and if the Arabic form also were not entirely analogous.[1]
[Pg 109]
The question now is:--In what sense was [Hebrew: ncr] assigned as a
_nomen proprium_ to a place in Galilee? Certainly, we must at once
reject the supposition of _Jerome_ that Nazareth was thus called, as
being "the flower of Galilee," partly because [Hebrew: ncr] never
occurs in this signification; partly because it is not conceivable that
the place received a name which is due to it [Greek: kat'anti phrasin]
only. It is much more probable that the place received the name on
account of its smallness: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree.
In this signification [Hebrew: ncr] occurs in Is. xi. 1, xiv. 19, and
in the Talmudical _usus loquendi_ where [Hebrew: ncrim] signifies
"_virgulta salicum decorticata, vimina ex quibus corbes fiunt._" There
was so much the greater reason for giving the place this name that
people had the symbol before their eyes in its environs; for the
chalk-hills around Nazareth are over-grown with low bushes (comp.
Burkhardt II. s. 583). That which these bushes were when compared with
the stately trees which adorned other parts of the country, Nazareth
was when compared with other cities.
This _nomen_ given to the place on account of its small beginnings,
resembling, in this respect, the name of Zoar, _i.e._, a small town,
was, at the same time, an _omen_ of its future condition. The weak twig
never grew up into a tree. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Nazareth
mentioned, probably because it was built only after the return from the
captivity. Neither is it mentioned in _Josephus_. It was not, like most
of the other towns in Palestine, ennobled by any recollection from the
olden times. Yea, as it would appear, a special contempt was resting
upon it, besides the general contempt in which all Galilee was held;
just as every land has some place to which a disgrace attaches, which
has often been called forth by causes altogether trifling. This appears
not only from the question of Nathanael, in John i. 47: "Can there any
good thing come out of Nazareth?" but also from the fact, that from the
most ancient times the Jews thought to inflict upon Christ the greatest
disgrace, by calling Him the Nazarene, whilst, in later times, the
disgrace which rested on all Galilee [Pg 110] was removed by the
circumstance that the most celebrated Jewish academy, that of Tiberias,
belonged to it.
Let us now examine in how far Christ's abode at Nazareth served the
purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy. It is, throughout,
the doctrine of the prophets, that the Messiah, descending from the
family of David, sunk into utter lowliness, would at first appear
without any outward rank and dignity. The fundamental type for all
other passages here concerned is contained in that passage of Is. xi.
1, now under consideration: "And there cometh forth a twig from the
stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit," which is
strikingly illustrated in the following words of _Quenstedt_, in his
_Dissertatio de Germine Jehovae_, in the _Thesaurus theol. philol._ I.
p. 1015: "The stem of Jesse which, from low beginnings, was, in David,
raised to the glory of royal majesty, shall then not only be deprived
of all royal dignity, and all outward splendour which it received in
David, but shall again have been reduced to the private condition in
which it was before David; so that it shall present the appearance of a
stem deprived of all boughs and foliage, and having nothing left but
the roots; nevertheless out of that stem thus reduced and cut off, and,
as it appeared, almost dry, shall come forth a royal rod, and out of
its roots shall grow the twig upon whom shall rest the Spirit of the
Lord," &c. Quite in harmony with this, it is said in chap. liii. 2: "He
grew up before the Lord as a tender twig, and as a root out of a dry
ground." To [Hebrew: ncr], in chap. xi., corresponds [Hebrew: ivnq] in
chap. liii.; to [Hebrew: HTr] the [Hebrew: wrw]; to the cut-off stem
the dry land, with this difference, however, that by the latter
designation, the low condition of the Servant of God, generally, is
indicated; but His descent from the family of David sunk in lowliness,
is not specially pointed at thereby, although it is necessarily implied
in it. The same thought is further carried out in Ezek. xvii. 22-24. As
the descendant of the family of David sank in lowliness, the Messiah
appears in that passage as a small tender twig which is taken by the
Lord from a high cedar, and, being planted upon a high mountain, growls
up into a lofty tree, under which all the fowls dwell. In Jeremiah and
Zechariah, the Messiah, with reference to the image of a cut-off tree
used by Isaiah, is called the Sprout of David, or simply the Sprout;
[Pg 111] compare remarks on Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. All that is here
required is certainly only to place beside one another, on the one
hand, prophecy, and, on the other, history, in order clearly and
evidently to point out the fulfilment of the former in the latter. It
was not at Jerusalem, where there was the seat of His royal ancestor,
where there were the thrones of His house (comp. Ps. cxxii.), that the
Messiah took up his residence; but it was in the most despised place of
the most despised province that, by divine Providence, He received His
residence, after the predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled by
His having been born at Bethlehem. The name of that place by which His
lowliness was designated was the same as that by which Isaiah had
designated the lowliness of the Messiah at His appearing.
We have hitherto considered prophecy and fulfilment independently of
the quotation by St. Matthew. Let us now add a few remarks upon the
latter.
1. It seems not to have been without reason that the wider formula of
quotation: [Greek: to rhêthen dia tôn prophêtôn] is here chosen,
although _Jerome_ infers too much from it when he remarks: "If he had
wished to refer to a distinct quotation from Scripture, he would never
have said: 'As was spoken by the prophets,'but simply, 'as was said by
the prophet.'By using prophets in the plural, he shows that it is the
sense, and not the words which he has taken from Scripture." No doubt
St. Matthew has one passage chiefly in view--that in Is. xi. 1, which,
besides the general announcement of the Messiah's lowliness, contains,
in addition, a special designation of it which is found again in the
_nomen_ and _omen_ of his native place. This appears especially from
the circumstance that, if it were otherwise, the quotation: in [Greek:
hoti Nazôraios klêthêstai], would be inexplicable, since it is very
forced to suppose that "Nazarene" here designates generally one low and
despised.[2] But he chose the general formula of [Pg 112] quotation
(comp. _Gersdorf_, _Beiträge zur Sprachcharacteristik_ 1. S. 136), in
order thereby to intimate that in Christ's residence at Nazareth those
prophecies, too, were at the same time fulfilled, which, in the
essential point--in the announcement of Christ's lowliness--agree with
that of Isaiah. But it is just this additional reference which shows
that, to Matthew, this was indeed the essential point, and that the
agreement of the name of the town with the name which Christ has in
Isaiah, appears to him only as a remarkable outward representation of
the close connection of prophecy and fulfilment; just as, indeed, every
thing in the life of Christ appears to be brought about by the special
direction of Divine providence.
2. The phrase [Greek: hoti klêthêsetai] likewise is explained from the
circumstance that Matthew does not restrict himself to the passage Is.
xi. 1, but takes in, at the same time, all those other passages which
have a similar meaning. From among them, it was from Zech. vi. 12:
"Behold a man whose name is the Sprout," that the phrase [Greek: hoti
klêthêsetai] flowed. There is hence no necessity for explaining this
circumstance solely from the custom of the later Jews,[3] of claiming
as the names of the Messiah all those expressions by which, in the Old
Testament, His nature is designated, inasmuch as, in doing so, they
followed the custom of the prophets themselves, who frequently bring
forward as the name of the Messiah that which is merely one of His
attributes. This hypothesis is inadmissible, because otherwise it would
be difficult to point out any case in which the Evangelists had not
admixed something of their own with a quotation which they announced as
a literal one.
[Pg 113]
Ver. 2. "_And the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon Him, the Spirit of
wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit
of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord._"
The Spirit of the Lord is the general, the principle; and the
subsequent terms are the single forms in which he manifests himself,
and works. But, on the other hand, in a formal point of view, the
Spirit of the Lord is just co-ordinate with the Spirit of wisdom, &c.
Some, indeed, explain: the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of, &c.;
but that this is inadmissible appears with sufficient evidence from
the circumstance that, by such a view, the sacred number, seven,
is destroyed, which, with evident intention, is completed in the
enumeration; compare the _seven_ spirits of God in Rev. i. 4. To have
the Spirit is the necessary condition of every important and effective
ministry in the Kingdom of God, from which salvation is to come forth;
comp. Num. xxvii. 18. It is especially the blessed administration of
the regal office which depends upon the possession of the Spirit; comp.
1 Sam. xvi. 13 ff. where it is said of David: "And Samuel took the horn
of oil and anointed him: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him
from that day forward;" comp. 1 Sam. x. 6, 10. The circumstance that
the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon the Messiah does not form a
contradiction to His _divine nature_, which is intimated by his being
born of the Virgin, chap. vii. 14, by the name [Hebrew: al gbvr] in
chap. ix. 5, and elsewhere (comp. Vol. I., p. 490, 491), and is
witnessed even in this prophecy itself; but, on the contrary, the
pouring out of the Spirit fully and not by measure (John iii. 39) which
is here spoken of, _implies_ the divine nature. In order to receive the
Spirit of God in such a measure that He could baptize with the Holy
Spirit (John i. 33), that out of His fulness all received (John i. 16),
that, in consequence of His fulness of the Spirit overflowing from Him
to the Church, the earth could be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters covering the sea (ver. 9), He could not but be highly
exalted above human nature. It was just because they remained limited
to the insufficient substratum of human nature, that even the best
kings, that even David, the man after God's own heart, received the
Spirit in a scanty measure only, and were constantly in danger of [Pg
114] losing again that which they possessed, as is shown by David's
pitiful prayer: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Ps. li. 13). It was
just for this reason, therefore, that the theocracy possessed in the
kings a very sufficient organ of its realization, and that the stream
of the divine blessings could not flow freely. In Matt. iii. 16:
[Greek: kai eide to pneuma tou theou katabainon hôsei peristeran kai
erchomenon ep'auton], it is not the passage before us only which lies
at the foundation, but also, and indeed pre-eminently, the parallel
passage, chap. xlii. 1: "Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine Elect in
whom my soul delighteth; I put my Spirit upon Him," as is apparent from
the circumstance that it is to this passage that the voice from heaven
refers in Matt. iii. 17: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapêtos
en hô eudokêsa]. But a reference to the passage before us we meet most
decidedly in John i. 32, 33: [Greek: Tetheamai to pneuma katabainon
hôsei peristeran ex ouranou, kai emeinen ep'auton. Kagô ouk êdein
auton. all'ho pempsas me baptizein en hudati, ekeinos moi eipen. eph'hon
an idês to pneuma katabainon kai menon ep'auton, houtos estin ho
baptizôn en pneumati hagiô]. The word [Hebrew: nvH], which in Numb. xi.
25 also is used of the Spirit, combines in itself both the [Greek:
katabainein] and the [Greek: menein]; it is _requiescere_. As the
fulfilment of this prophecy, however, we must not look to that event
only where it received a symbolical representation, but also to Acts
ii. 3: [Greek: kai ôphthêsan autois diamerizomenai glôssai hôsei puros,
ekathise te eph'hena hekaston autôn]; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 14: [Greek:
hote to tês doxês kai to tou theou pneuma eph'humas anapauetai] (this
most exactly answers [Hebrew: nvH]). For it is not merely for himself
that Christ here receives the Spirit; but He receives Him as the
transforming principle for the human race; He is bestowed upon. Him as
the Head of the Church.--In the enumeration of the forms in which the
Spirit manifests himself, it was not the intention of the Prophet to
set forth _all_ the perfections of the Messiah; he rather, by way of
example, mentions some only after having comprehended all of them in
the general: The Spirit of the Lord. Thus, _e.g._, _justice_, which is
mentioned immediately afterwards in ver. 5, is omitted here.--The first
pair are wisdom and understanding. _Wisdom_ is that excellency of
knowledge which rests on moral perfection. It is opposed to [Hebrew:
nblh], foolishness in a moral sense, which may easily be combined with
the greatest ingenuity and cleverness. The excellence of knowledge
resting [Pg 115] on a moral basis manifests itself in the first
instance, and preeminently, in the [Hebrew: binh], understanding, the
sharp and penetrating eye which beholds things as they are, and
penetrates from the surface to their hidden essence, undisturbed by the
dense fogs of false notions and illusions which, in the case of the
fool, are formed by his lusts and passions. Neither of these attributes
can, in its absolute perfection, be the possession of any mortal,
because even in those who, morally, are most advanced, there ever
remains sin, and, therefore, a darkening of the knowledge.--The second
pair, counsel and might, are, just as in the passage before us,
ascribed to the Messiah in chap. ix. 5 (6), by His receiving the names
"Wonder-Counsellor," "God-Hero." From chap. xxxvi. 5 it is seen that,
for the difficult circumstances of the struggle, _counsel_ is of no
less consequence than _might_. The last pair, knowledge and fear of the
Lord, form the fundamental effect of the Spirit of the Lord; all the
great qualities of the soul, all the gifts which are beneficial for the
Kingdom of God, rest on the intimacy of the connection with God which
manifests itself in living knowledge and fear of the Lord; the latter
not being the servile but the filial fear, not opposed to love, but its
constant companion. The Prophet has put this pair at the close, only
because he intends to connect with it that which immediately follows.
We have already remarked that the Spirit of the Lord, &c., is bestowed
upon the Messiah not for himself alone, but as the renovating principle
of the Church.--Old Testament analogies and types are not wanting in
this matter. Moses puts of his spirit upon the seventy Elders, and the
spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha, and likewise on the whole crowd of
disciples who gathered around him (2 Kings ii. 9).
Ver. 3. "_And He hath His delight in the fear of the Lord, and not
after the sight of His eyes doth He judge, nor after the hearing of His
ears doth He decide._"
We now learn how the glorious gifts of the Anointed, described in ver.
2, are displayed in His government. All attempts to bring the second
and third clauses under the same point of view as the first, and to
derive them from the same source are in vain. That He has delight in
the fear of the Lord, is the consequence of the Spirit of knowledge and
of the fear of the Lord resting upon Him,--He loves what is congenial
[Pg 116] to His own nature. That He does not judge after the sight of
His eyes, &c., is the consequence of His having the Spirit of wisdom
and understanding. It is thereby that He is freed from the narrow
superficiality which is natural to man, and raised to the sphere of
that divine clearness of vision which penetrates to the depths,
[Hebrew: hriH] with the accusative is "to smell something;" with
[Hebrew: b], to "smell at something," "to smell with delight." The fear
of the Lord appears as something of a sweet scent to the Messiah. The
other explanations of the first clause abandon the sure, ascertained
_usus loquendi_ (comp. Exod. xxx. 38; Levit. xxvi. 31; Am. v. 21), and,
therefore, do not deserve any mention. On the second and third clauses
1 Sam. xvi. 7, is to be compared: "And the Lord said unto Samuel: Look
not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have
refused him; for not that which man looks at (do I look at); for man
looketh on the eyes (and, in general, on the outward appearance), and I
look on the heart." It is especially John who repeatedly mentions that
Christ really possessed the gift here assigned to Him, of judging, not
from the first appearance, and according to untrustworthy information,
but of penetrating into the innermost ground of the facts and persons,
comp. ii. 24, 25: [Greek: autos de Iêsous, ouk episteuen heautôn
autois, dia to auton ginôskein pantas, kai hoti ou chreian eichen hina
tis marturêsê peri tou anthrôpou. autos gar eginôske ti ên hen
anthrôpô.] Farther--chap. xxi. 17 where Peter says to Christ: [Greek:
Kurie su panta oidas. su ginôskeis hoti philô se.] Farther, i. 48, 49;
iv. 18, 19; vi. 64. In Revel. ii. 23, Christ says: "And all Churches
shall know that I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts."
Ver. 4. "_And He judgeth in righteousness the lowly, and doeth justice
in equity to the meek of the earth, and smiteth the earth with the rod
of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked._"
The King shall be adorned with perfect justice, and, in the exercise of
it, be supported by His omnipotence,--differently from what was the
case with David, who, for want of power, was obliged to allow heinous
crimes to pass unpunished (2 Sam. iii. 39). Just as by the excellency
of His _will_ He is infinitely exalted above all former rulers, so is
He also by the excellency of _might_. Where, as in His case, the
highest [Pg 117] might stands in the service of the best will, the
noblest results must come forth. The first two clauses refer to Ps.
lxxii., which was written by Solomon, and where, in ver. 2, it is said
of Christ: "He shall judge thy people in righteousness, and thy lowly
ones in judgment," and in ver. 4: "He shall judge the lowly of thy
people, He shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in
pieces the oppressors;" compare farther Prov. xxix. 14: "A king that in
truth judgeth the lowly, his throne shall be established for ever." The
earth forms the contrast to the limited territory which was hitherto
assigned to the theocratic kings.--In the second part of the verse
[Hebrew: arC] does not by any means stand in contrast to [Hebrew: dliM]
and [Hebrew: enviM], and, in parallelism to [Hebrew: rwe], designate
the wicked ones; but [Hebrew: arC] "earth" stands in antithesis to the
narrow territory in which earthly kings are permitted to dispense law
and justice. It is a matter of course, and is, moreover, expressly
stated in the second clause, that the earth comes into consideration
with a view to those only who are objects of His judging activity. From
that which follows, where changes are spoken of which shall take place
on the whole earth, it follows that [Hebrew: arC] must be taken in the
signification of "earth." and not of "land." Hand in hand with the
infinite extent of the King's exercise of justice goes also the manner
of it. "The whole earth," and the "breath of the mouth," correspond
with one another.--In the words "with the rod of His mouth," a tacit
antithesis lies at the foundation. As kings strike with the sceptre, so
He smiteth with His mouth.--[Hebrew: wbT], the ensign of royal dignity,
is the symbol of the whole earthly power, which, being external and
exercised by external means, must needs be limited, and insufficient
for the perfect exercise of justice. The exercise of justice on the
part of earthly kings reaches so far only as their hand armed with the
smiting sceptre. But that great King is, in the exercise of justice,
supported by His _Omnipotence_. He punishes and destroys by His mere
word. Several interpreters understand this as a mere designation of His
severity in punishing,--"the rod of His mouth" to be equivalent to
"severity of punishment;"--but that such is not the meaning appears
from the following clause, where likewise special weight is attached to
the circumstance that the Messiah inflicts punishment by His mere word;
"the breath of His lips" is equivalent [Pg 118] to "mere words," "mere
command;" compare "breath of His mouth," in Ps. xxxiii. 6. _Hitzig's_
explanation, "the angry breath of His lips," does not interpret, but
interpolate. In the future Son of David every word is, at the same
time, a deed; He speaks and it is done. The same which is here said of
the Messiah is, in other passages, attributed to _God_: compare Job xv.
30, where it is said of the wicked: "By the breath of His mouth he
shall go away;" Hos. vi. 5: "I have slain them by the word of my
mouth." In general, according to the precedent in Gen. i., doing by the
mere word is, in Scripture, the characteristic designation of Divine
Omnipotence. Parallel is chap. xlix. 2, where Christ says: "And He hath
made my mouth like a sharp sword," equivalent to: He has endowed me
with His Omnipotence, so that my word also exercises destructive
effect, just as His. In Rev. i. 16, it is said of Christ: "And out of
His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,"--to designate the destructive
power of His word borne by Omnipotence, the omnipotent punitive power
of Christ against enemies, both internal and external. An instance of
the manner in which Christ smites by the word of His mouth is offered
by Acts v. 3 (where, according to the analogy of the word spoken in the
name of God by Elijah, 2 Kings i. 10, 12, and by Elisha, 2 Kings ii.
24, v. 27, the Apostles are to be considered only as His instruments):
[Greek: akouôn de Ananias tous logous toutous pesôn exepsuxe], comp.
ver. 10; xiii. 11. The Chaldee translates: "And by the word of His lips
wicked Armillus shall die." He refers [Hebrew: rwe] not to the ideal
person of the wicked, but to an individual, _Armillus_, ([Greek:
erêmolaos], corresponding to the name of Balaam, compounded of [Hebrew:
ble] "devouring," "destruction," and [Hebrew: eM] "people") the
formidable, last enemy of the Jews who shall carry on severe wars with
them, slay the Messiah ben Joseph, but at length be slain by the
Messiah ben David with a mere word, compare _Buxtorf_, _Lex. Chald._
cap. 221-224: _Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 705 ff. In 2
Thess. ii. 8, in the description of Antichrist's destruction by Christ:
[Greek: hon ho Kurios Iêsous analôsei tô pneumati tou stomatos autou],
there is an intentional and significant allusion to the passage before
us, Antichrist there being, like [Hebrew: rwe] here, an ideal person;
for the arguments in proof, see my Comment, on Revelation, vol. ii.
Ver. 5. "_And righteousness is the girdle of His loins, and
faithfulness the girdle of His reins._"
[Pg 119]
Righteousness and faithfulness are in a similar manner connected in 1
Sam. xxvi. 13 (? Prov. xii. 17). Faithfulness is trustworthiness. The
point of comparison with the girdle is the closeness of the union;
comp. Ps. cix. 19; Jer. xiii. 1, 2, 11.
In ver. 6, the Prophet passes from the _person_ of the glorious King to
a description of His Kingdom. With regard to ver. 6-8, the question
arises, whether the description is to be understood figuratively or
literally; whether the Prophet intends to describe the cessation
of all hostility among men, or whether he expected that, in the
Messianic time, even among the irrational creation, all hostility and
destruction, every thing pernicious was to cease. Most of the ancient
interpreters are attached to the former view. Thus _Theodoret_ says:
"In a figurative manner, under the image of domesticated and wild
animals, the Prophet taught the change of the habits of men." He refers
every thing to the union, within the Christian Church, of those who, in
their natural condition, lived far separated from one another, and in
hostility the one to the other. _Jerome_ considers the opposite view as
even a species of heresy. He says: "The Jews and the Judaizers among
ourselves maintain that all this shall be fulfilled according to the
letter; that in the light of Christ who, they believe, shall come at
the end of the days, all beasts shall be reduced to tameness, so that
the wolf, giving up its former ferocity, shall dwell with the lamb,
&c." Upon the whole, he states the sense in the same manner as
_Theodoret_, from whom he sometimes differs in the allegorical
explanation of the details only. In a similar manner _Luther_ also
explains it, who, _e.g._, on ver. 6, "the wolf shall dwell with the
lambs, etc." remarks: "But these are allegories by which the Prophet
intimates that the tyrants, the self-righteous and powerful ones in the
world, shall be converted, and be received into the Church." _Calvin_
says: "By these images, the Prophet indicates that, among the people of
Christ there will be no disposition for injuring one another, nor any
ferocity or inhumanity." The circumstance that the use of animal
symbolism is widely spread throughout Scripture is in favour of this
interpretation. One may, _e.g._ compare Ps. xxii., where the enemies of
the righteous are represented under the image of dogs, lions, bulls,
and unicorns; [Pg 120] Jer. v. 6, where, by lion, wolf, and leopard,
the kingdoms of the world which are destructive to the people of God
are designated; the four beasts in Dan. vii.; but especially Is. xxxv.
9: "There (on the way of salvation which the Lord shall, in the future,
open up for His people) shall not be a lion, nor shall any ravenous
beast go up thereon,"--where the ravenous beasts are the
representatives of the world's power, hostile to the Kingdom of God.
Nevertheless, the literal interpretation, defended by several Jewish
expositors, maintains an undeniable preference. In favour of it are the
following arguments: 1. The circumstance that it is impossible to carry
through, in the details, the figurative interpretation; and it is by
this that our passage is distinguished from all the other passages in
which the wild, cruel, and destructive tendencies in the human sphere
appear under the images of their representatives in the animal world.
The supposition that "we have here before us only a poetical
enlargement of the thought that all evil shall cease" (_Hendewerk_,
_Knobel_), removes the boundaries which separate prophecy from poetry.
2. The parallelism with the condition of the creation before the fall,
as it is described to us by Holy Scripture. It is certainly not without
reason that, in the account of the creation, so much emphasis is laid
on the circumstance that all which was created was _good_. This implies
a condition of the irrational creation different from what it is now;
for in its present state it gives us a faithful copy of the first fall,
inasmuch as every heinous vice has its symbols and representatives in
the animal kingdom. According to Gen. ii. 19, 20, the animals recognize
in Adam their lord and king, peaceably gather around him, and receive
their names from him. According to Gen. i. 30, grass only was assigned
to animals for their food; the whole animal world bore the image of the
innocence and peace of the first man, and was not yet pervaded by the
law of mutual destruction. Where there was not a Cain, neither was
there a lion. The serpent has not yet its disgusting and horrible
figure, and fearlessly men have intercourse with it; comp. Vol. i. p.
15, 16. But the influence of sin pervaded and penetrated the whole
nature, and covered it with a curse (comp. Gen. iii. 17-19); so that it
not only bears evidence to the existence of God, but also to the
existence of sin. [Pg 121] Now, as it is by sin that outward discord,
and contention, and destruction _arose_ in the irrational creature, so
we may also expect that, when the cause has been removed, the effect
too will disappear; that, with the cessation of the discord and enmity
among men, which, according to ver. 9, the Prophet expected of the
Messianic time, discord and enmity in the animal world will cease also.
In the individual features, the Prophet seems even distinctly to refer
to the history of the creation; compare ver. 7: "The lion shall eat
straw like the ox," with Gen. i. 30; ver. 8: "the sucking child shall
play on the hole of the asp," with Gen. iii. 15. 3. The comparison of
other passages of Scripture, according to which likewise the reflection
of the evil in the irrational creation shall cease, after the evil has
been removed from the rational creation; compare chap. lxv. 25, lxvi,
22; Matt. xix. 28, where the Lord speaks of the [Greek: palingenesia],
the return of the whole earthly creation to its original condition;
but especially Rom. viii. 19 ff.--that classical passage of the
New Testament which is really parallel to the passage before us. 4.
A subordinate argument is still offered by the parallel descriptions
of heathen writers. From the passages collected by _Clericus_, _Lowth_,
and _Gesenius_, we quote a few only. In the description of the
golden age, _Virgil_ says, _Ecl._ iv. 21 sqq.; v. 60: _Occidet et
serpens et fallax herba veneni occidet._--_Nec magnos metuent armenta
leones._--_Nec lupus insidias pecori._ _Horat. Epod._ xiv. 53: _Nec
vespertinus circumgemit ursus ovile nec intumescit alta viperis
humus._--_Theocrit. Idyll._ xxiv. 84. Utterances such as these show how
unnatural the present condition of the earth is. They are, however, not
so much to be regarded as the remains of some outward tradition
(against such a supposition it is decisive that they occur chiefly with
_poets_), but rather as utterances of an indestructible longing in man,
which, being so deeply rooted in human nature, contains in itself the
guarantee of being gratified at some future period. But, with all this,
we must do justice to the objection drawn from the evident parallelism
of passages such as chap. xxxv. 9, and to another objection advanced by
_Vitringa_, that it is strange that there is so much spoken of animals,
and so little of men. This we shall do by remarking that, in the
description of the glorious effects which the government of Christ
shall produce on the earth, the Prophet at once proceeds to the utmost
limit of [Pg 122] them; and that the removal of hostility and
destruction from the irrational creation implies that all that will be
removed which, in the rational creation, proceeds from the principle of
hatred, inasmuch as it is certain that the former is only a reflection
of the latter, and that the Prophet speaks with a distinct reference to
this supposition which he afterwards, in ver. 9, distinctly expresses.
Hence, to a certain degree, a double sense takes place; and, in the
main, _J. H. Michaelis_ has hit the right by comparing, first, Gen. i.
and Rom. viii., and then continuing: "Parabolically, however, by the
wild beasts, wild and cruel nations are understood, which are to be
converted to Christ; or violent men who, by the Spirit of Christ, are
rendered meek and gentle, just as Paul, from a wolf, was changed into a
lamb." We are the less permitted to lose sight of the reference to the
lions and bears on the spiritual territory, that ver. 6 is, in the
first instance, connected with vers. 4 and 5, in which the all-powerful
sway of Christ's justice on earth is described, of which the
consequences must, in the first instance, appear in the _human
territory_; and, farther, that the point from which the prophecy
started, is the raging of the wolf and bear of the world's power
against the poor defenceless flock of the Lord.
Ver. 6. "_And the wolf dwelleth with the lamb, and the leopard shall
lie down with the kid, the calf, and, the lion and the fatling
together, and a little child leads them._"
Ver. 7. "_The cow and bear go to the pasture; their young ones lie down
together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox._" (The going to
pasture of the bear corresponds with the lion's eating straw [comp.
Gen. i. 30], and we are not allowed to supply the "together" in the
first clause.)
Ver. 8. "_And the sucking child playeth on the hole of the asp, and the
weaned child putteth his hand into the den of the basilisk._"
The change in the irrational creation described in the preceding verses
is a consequence of the removal of sin in the rational creation; this
removal the Prophet now proceeds to describe.
Ver. 9. "_They shall not do evil, and shall not sin in all my holy
mountain, for the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the
waters covering the sea._"
[Pg 123]
The subject are the dwellers in the Holy Mountain. The Holy Mountain
can, according to the _usus loquendi_, be Mount Zion only, and not, as
was last maintained by _Hofmann_, the whole land of Canaan, which is
never designated in that manner; comp. chap. xxvii. 13, and my
Commentary on Ps. lxxviii. 54. The second part of the verse, connected
with the first by means of _for_, agrees with the first only in the
event that Mount Zion is viewed as the spiritual dwelling place of the
inhabitants of the earth, just as, under the Old Testament
dispensation, it was the _ideal_ dwelling place of all the Israelites,
even of those who outwardly had not their residence at Jerusalem; on
the spiritual dwelling of the servants of the Lord with Him in the
temple, compare remarks on Ps. xxvii. 4, xxxvi. 9, lxv. 5, lxxxiv. 3,
and other passages. In chap. ii. 2-4, lxvi. 23, the Holy Mountain, too,
appears as the centre of the whole earth in the Messianic time. From
chap. xix. 20, 21, where, in the midst of converted Egypt, an altar is
built, and sacrifices are offered up, it appears that it is this in an
_ideal_ sense only, that under its image the _Church_ is meant. The
designation, "my Holy Mountain," intimates that the state of things
hitherto, when unholiness prevailed in the Kingdom of the Holy God, is
an unnatural one; that at some future period the _idea_ necessarily
must manifest its power and right in opposition to the _reality_.--In
the second clause, the ground and fountain of this sinlessness is
stated. In Zion, in the Church of God, there will then be no more any
sins; for the earth is then full of the knowledge of the Lord, by which
the sins are done away with. The general outpouring of the Holy Ghost
forms one of the characteristics of the Messianic time; and the
_consequence_ of this outpouring is, according to ver. 2, the knowledge
of the Lord,--so that the clause may be thus paraphrased: For, in
consequence of the Spirit poured out, in the first instance, upon Him,
the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord; comp. chap. xxxii. 15:
"Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high;" liv. 13; Joel iii.
1; ii. 28; Jer. xxxi. 34, That [Hebrew: harC] is here not the "land,"
or "country," but the "_earth_" is sufficiently evident from the
antithesis of the _sea_: as the _sea_ is full of water, so the _earth_
is full of the knowledge of the Lord. To this [Pg 124] reason it may
still be added that in vers. 6-8 changes are spoken of, which concern
the whole territory of the earthly creation, the [Greek: palingenesia]
of the whole earth. As the relation of these changes to that which is
stated here is that of cause and effect, here, too, the whole earth can
only be thought of _Finally_,--The following verse too supposes the
spreading of salvation over the whole earth. The entire relation of the
first section to the second and third makes it obvious that by [Hebrew:
harC] the whole earth is to be understood. The passage under
consideration is alluded to in Hab. ii. 14: "For the earth shall be
filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters
covering the sea." In that passage, the enforced knowledge of the
Divine glory which manifests itself in punitive justice, forms the
subject of discourse; but that enforced knowledge forms the necessary
condition of the knowledge which is voluntary and saving.
_Ver. 10. "And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse
which standeth for an ensign to the people, it shall the Gentiles seek,
and His rest is glory._"
The words, "and it shall come to pass," introduce a new section; so
that the interval in the Hebrew manuscripts is here quite in its place.
With ver. 11 again, a new section begins. In ver. 1-9 we have the
appearance of the Messiah in relation to the whole earth; then, in the
second section, the way in which he becomes a centre to the whole
_Gentile world_; and in ver. 11 ff., what He grants to the _old
covenant-people_, for whom the Prophet was, in the first instance,
prophesying, and whose future he therefore describes more in detail.
Why His relation to the Gentile world is _first spoken of_ appears from
ver. 12; the Gentiles gathered to the Lord are the medium of His
salvation to the old covenant-people.--The _root_ designates here (and
likewise in chap. liii. 2), and in the passages founded upon this,
viz., in Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16, the _product_ of the root, that whereby
the root manifests itself, the shoot from the root; just as "seed" so
very often occurs for "product of the seed." This appears from a
comparison with ver. 1, where, more fully, the Messiah is called a
twig from Jesse's roots. _Bengel_ has already directed attention to
the antithesis of the root and ensign, in his Commentary on Rom. xv.
12: "A sweet antithesis: the root is undermost, [Pg 125] the ensign
rises uppermost; so that even the nations farthest off may behold
it."--[Hebrew: drw] with [Hebrew: l], [Hebrew: al], and [Hebrew: at],
has the signification "to apply to the true God, or some imaginary god,
in order to seek protection, help, counsel, advice, disclosures
regarding the future;" comp. Is. viii. 19; Deut. xii. 4, 5, and other
passages in _Gesenius'Thesaurus_. The Gentiles feel that they cannot
do without the Redeemer; they see, at the same time, His riches and
their poverty; and this knowledge urges them on to _seek_ Him, that
from him they may obtain _light_ (chap. xlii. 6), that He may
communicate to them His _law_ (chap. xlii. 4), that he may teach them
of His ways, and that they may walk in His paths (chap. ii. 3), &c. St.
Paul, in Rom. xv. 12, following the LXX., has [Greek: ep'autô ethnê
elpiousi], which, as regards the sense, fully agrees with the original.
The beginning of the seeking took place when the representatives of the
Gentile world, the Maji from the East, came to Jerusalem, saying:
"Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star
in the East and are come to worship Him," Matt. ii. 2. The historical
foundation and the type are the homage which, from the Gentile world,
was offered to Solomon, 1 Kings x.--[Hebrew: mnvHh] "resting place,"
"dwelling place," "habitation;" comp. Ps. cxxxii. 13, 14: "For the Lord
hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His _habitation_. This is my
_rest_ ([Hebrew: mnvHti]) for ever; here will I _dwell_, for I have
desired it." The glory of the King passes over to His residence to
which the Gentile world are flowing together, in order to do homage to
Him; Comp. Ps. lxxii. 10: "The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall
bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts." The
comparison of this passage alone is sufficient to refute the absurd
interpretation, according to which [Hebrew: emiM] and [Hebrew: gviM]
are referred to the Israelitish tribes,--an interpretation which has
been tried with as little success in the fundamental passage (Gen.
xlix. 10), according to which the [Hebrew: emiM] are to adhere to
Shiloh; compare Vol. i. p. 62.
Ver. 11: "_And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall
continue a second time with His hand to ransom the remnant of His
people which has remained from Asshur and from Egypt, from Patros and
from Cush, from Elam and from Shinar, from Hamath and from the islands
of the sea._"
[Pg 126]
From the Gentiles, the Prophet now turns to Israel. The reception of
the Gentiles into the Messianic Kingdom is not by any means to take
place at the expense of the old covenant-people; even they shall be
brought back again, and shall be received into the Kingdom of God.
[Hebrew: ivsiP] must be connected with [Hebrew: lqnvt], comp. 2 Sam.
xxiv. 1: "And the Lord continued to kill," [Hebrew: lhrg]. It is
unnecessary and arbitrary to supply [Hebrew: lwlH]. [Hebrew: idv] is
Accusative, "as to His hand," equivalent to "with His hand;" comp. Ps.
iii. 5, xvii. 10, 11, 13, 14. Just the hand of God, which here comes
into consideration as the instrument of _doing_, is repeatedly
mentioned in the account of the deliverance from Egypt; comp. Exod.
iii. 20, vii. 4, xiii. 9. The expression: "_He shall continue_," in
general, points out the idea that it is not a new beginning which is
here concerned, but the continuation of former acting, by which
believing was rendered so much the more easy. The expression, "a
_second time_," points more distinctly to the type of the _deliverance
from Egypt_ with which the redemption to be effected by Christ is
frequently paralleled; comp. vers. 15, 16; Vol. i. p. 218, 219. "_From
Asshur_," &c., must not be connected with [Hebrew: lqnvt], but with
[Hebrew: iwar], comp. v. 16, those who have remained from Asshur, &c.,
_i.e._, those whom Asshur and the other places of punishment, with
their hostile influences, have left, who have been preserved in them.
The fact that destructive influences may proceed from those nations
also which do not properly belong to the number of the kingdoms of the
world, is plainly shown by the history of the Jews after Christ. It
would be against the accents, both here and in ver. 6, to connect it
with [Hebrew: lqnvt]; the words "which shall remain" would, in that
case, appear to be redundant; and, farther, it is opposed by Exod. x.
3: "And eats the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto
you from the hail," equivalent to; which the hail has left to you.
Similar to this is 2 Chron. xxx. 6, where Hezekiah exhorts the children
of Israel: "Turn again unto the Lord.... in order that He may again
return to the remnant which has been left to you from the hand of the
kings of Asshur." A question here arises, viz., whether the dispersion
of Israel which is here described, had already taken place at the time
of the Prophet, or whether the Prophet, transferring himself in the
Spirit into [Pg 127] the distant future, describes the dispersion which
took place at a later period, after the carrying away of the ten tribes
into the Assyrian exile had preceded, viz., that which took place when
Judah was carried away into the Babylonish exile, and especially after
the destruction of Jerusalem. The latter view is the correct one. The
whole tenor of the Prophet's words shows that he supposes a
_comprehensive_ dispersion of the people. It is true that, at the time
when the prophecy was written, the ten tribes had already been carried
away into captivity; but the kingdom of Judah, the subjects of which,
according to ver. 12, likewise appear as being in the dispersion, had
not yet suffered any important desolation. The few inhabitants of Judah
who, according to Joel iv. 6, (iii. 6), and Amos i. 6, 9, had been sold
as slaves by the Philistines and Ph[oe]nicians, and others, who, it may
be, in hard times had spontaneously fled from their native country,
cannot here come into consideration. Just as here, so by Hosea too, the
future carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah is anticipated; comp.
vol. i., p. 219, 220. The fundamental passage is in Deut. xxx. 3, 4,
where the gathering of Israel is promised "from all the nations whither
the Lord thy God has scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out into
the utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather
thee, and from thence will He fetch thee." This passage shows with what
clearness the future scattering lay before the eyes of the holy men,
even at the first beginnings of the people of God. In vers. 11 and 12
we have the summary of the whole of the second part of Isaiah, in which
the announcement of Israel's being gathered and brought back is
constantly repeated; and it is quite incomprehensible how some grant
the genuineness of the prophecy before us, and yet bring forward,
against this second part of Isaiah, the argument that the Prophet could
not _suppose_ the scattering, that it must really have taken place,
since he simply announces their being brought back.--As regards the
redemption from the scattering, all that which in history is realised
in a series of events, is here united in one view. There is no reason
for excluding the deliverance under Zerubbabel; for it, too, was
already granted for the sake of Christ, whose incarnation the Prophet
anticipates in faith; comp. remarks on chaps. vii., ix. This
redemption, [Pg 128] however, in which those who have been brought back
remain servants in the land of the Lord, can be considered as only a
prelude to the true one; comp. vol. i., p. 220 f. 448. The true
fulfilment began with the appearance of Christ, and is still going on
towards its completion, which can take place even without Israel's
returning to Canaan, comp. vol. i., p. 222. Asshur opens the list, and
occupies the principal place, because it was through him who, under the
very eyes of the Prophet, had carried away the ten tribes, that the
dispersion began. But the Prophet does not limit himself to that which
was obvious,--did not expect, from the Messiah, only the healing of
already existing hurts.--With Asshur, _Egypt_ is connected in one pair.
Egypt is the _African_ world's power struggling for dominion with the
_Asiatic_. Its land serves not only as a refuge to those oppressed by
the Asiatic world's power (comp. Jer. xlii. ff.), but, in that struggle
with the Asiatic power, itself invades and oppresses the land; comp.
chap. vii. 18; 2 Kings xxiii. 29 ff.: "In his days Pharaoh Necho, king
of Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria." In a similar
connection, Asshur and Egypt, the kingdoms on the Euphrates and the
Nile, appear in chap. xxvii. 13: "And it shall come to pass in that
day, that a great trumpet is blown, and they come, the perishing ones
in the land of Asshur, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and
worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem;" Micah vii. 12; Jer.
ii. 18; Lam. v. 6. As annexed to Egypt, the _second_ pair presents
itself, representing the uttermost _South_; compare the expression,
"from the four comers of the earth," in ver. 12. Pathros, in Jer. xliv.
1, 15, also appears as a dependency of Egypt; and Cush, Ethiopia, was,
at the Prophet's time, the ally of Egypt, chap. xxxvii. 9, xviii., xx.
3-6. _Gesenius_ remarks on chap. xx. 4: "Egypt and Ethiopia are, in the
oracles of this time, always connected, just as the close political
alliance of these two countries requires."--From the uttermost South,
the Prophet turns to the uttermost East. "Elam is," as _Gesenius_ in
his Commentary on chap. xxi. 2 remarks, "in the pre-exilic writers,
used for Persia in general, for which afterwards [Hebrew: prs] becomes
the ordinary name;" and according to Dan. viii. 2, the Persian
Metropolis Shushan is situated in Elam. It appears in chap. xxii. 6 as
the representative of the world's power [Pg 129] which in future will
oppress Judah, and we hence expect that it will appear in an Elamitic
phase also.--Shinar, the ancient name for Babylon, is that world's
power which, according to chaps. xiii., xiv., xxxix., and other
passages, is to follow after the Assyrian, and is to carry away Judah
into exile. Elam and Madai appear in chap. xxi. 2 as the destroyers of
the Babylonian world's power; hence the Elamitic phase of it can follow
after the Babylonish only. The geographical arrangement only can be the
reason why it is here placed first.--The last of the four pairs of
countries is formed by Hamath, representing Syria, (comp. 1 Maccab.
xii. 25, according to which passage Jonathan the Maccabee marches into
the land of Hamath against the army of Demetrius,) and the islands of
the sea, the islands and the countries on the shores of the
Mediterranean in the uttermost West. As early as in the prophecy of
Balaam, in Numb. xxiv. 24: "And ships come from the side of Chittim and
afflict Asshur, and afflict Eber, and he also perisheth," we find the
announcement that, at some future time, the Asiatic kingdoms shall be
conquered by a power which comes from the West in ships, by European
nations--an announcement which was realised in history by the dominion
of the Greeks and Romans in Asia.
Ver. 12: "_And He setteth up an ensign to the Gentiles and assembleth
the exiled of Israel, and gathereth together the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth._"
The setting up of the ensign for the Gentiles, around which they are to
assemble for the purpose of restoring Israel, took place, in a prelude,
under Cyrus; comp. chap. xiv. 2, xlix. 22: "Thus saith the Lord God:
Behold I lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to
the nations, and they bring thy sons on their bosom, and thy daughters
are carried upon their shoulders;" where the sons and daughters
correspond to the exiled men of Israel, and to the dispersed women of
Judah, equivalent to all the exiled and dispersed men and women. As
early as in the Song of Solomon, we are taught that in the Messianic
time the Gentile nations will take an active part in the restoration of
Israel. According to the first part of that Song, the appearance of the
heavenly Solomon is connected with the reception of the Gentiles into
His Kingdom, and that, through the instrumentality of the [Pg 130] old
covenant people, as is intimated by the name of the daughters of
Jerusalem; comp. my Comment. on Song of Solomon, iii. 9-11. In the
second part of that Song we have a description of the reunion of
apostate Israel with Christ,--which reunion takes place by the
co-operation of the daughters of Jerusalem, the same whom they formerly
brought to salvation. According to Is. lxvi. 20, the Gentiles,
converted to the Lord in the time of salvation, bring the children of
Israel for an offering unto the Lord,--A significant allusion to the
passage before us is found in John xi. 52: [Greek: kai ouch huper tou
ethnous monon, all'hina kai ta tekna tou Theou ta dieskorpismena
sunagagê eis hen.] It is the same mercy seeking that which is lost that
manifests itself in the gathering of apostate Israel, and in the
gathering of the Gentiles. What is said of the one furnishes, at the
same time, the guarantee for the other.
Ver. 13. "_And the envy of Ephraim departeth, and the adversaries of
Judah are cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not
vex Ephraim._"
According to the explanatory fourth clause, the "adversaries of Judah"
in the second clause, can only be those among Judah who vex Ephraim. At
the very beginning of the separation of the two kingdoms, their future
reunion had been announced by a prophet; and this must now take place
as certainly as Jehovah is God, who had promised to David and his house
the eternal dominion over all Israel. The separation had taken place
because the house of David had become unfaithful to its vocation. In
the Messiah, the promise, to the Davidic race is to be completely
realized; _and this realization has_, for its necessary consequence,
the _removal for ever_ of the separation; comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 22. It
was a _prelude_ to the fulfilment, that a portion of the subjects of
the kingdom of the ten tribes united with Judah in all those times
when, in the blessing accompanying the enterprises of a pious son of
David, the promise granted to David was, in some measure realized,--as
was the case under Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Even before
Christ appeared in the flesh, the announcement here made was all but
realized. The exile put an end to the kingdom of the ten tribes, and
hence also to the unnatural separation which had been designated as the
severest calamity of the past, chap. vii. 17. The other tribes [Pg 131]
joined Judah and the restored sanctuary; comp. Acts xxvi. 7; Luke ii.
36. The name of "_Jews_" passed over to the whole nation; the jealousy
disappeared. This blessing was conferred upon the people for Christ's
sake, and with a view to His future appearance. In Christ, the bond of
union and communion is so firmly formed that no new discord can
alienate the hearts from one another.
Ver. 14. "_And they fly upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the
West, spoil together the children of the East; Edom and Moab shall be
their assault, the children of Ammon their obedience._"
As Israel is united internally, so it shall be externally powerful.
According to the Song of Solomon vi. 10, the congregation of Israel
when, by her renewed connection with the Lord and His heavenly Solomon,
she has regained her former strength, is "terrible as an army with
banners."--The nations mentioned are those of the Davidic reign. Even
before the time of the Prophet, they had been anew conquered by
Jehoshaphat, in whom the spirit of David had been revived anew; comp. 2
Chron. xx.; Ps. lxxxiii. A prelude to the fulfilment of the prophecy
before us took place at the time of the Maccabees, comp. Vol. i. p.
467, 468. But as regards the fulfilment, we are not entitled to limit
ourselves to the names here mentioned. These names are the accidental
element in the prophecy; the thought is this: As soon as Israel
realizes its destiny, it partakes of God's inviolability, of God's
victorious power. The Prophet's sole purpose is to point out the
victorious power, to give prominence to the thought that outward
prosperity is the necessary consequence of inward holiness.--In the
first clause, the image is taken from birds of prey; comp. Hab. i. 8:
"They fly as an eagle hastening to eat," which passage refers to the
enemies of Israel at the time of wrath. In the time of _grace_, the
relation will be just the reverse.--[Hebrew: mwlH id] occurs, in a
series of passages in Deuteronomy, of that which is taken in hand,
undertaken. Edom and Moab are no longer an object of _Noli me tangere_
for them.
Ver. 15. "_And the Lord destroys the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, and
waves His hand over the River with the violence of His wind, and
smiteth it into seven streams, that one may go through in shoes._"
[Pg 132]
Ver. 16. "_And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people
which was left from Asshur; like as it was to Israel in the day that he
came up out of the land of Egypt._"
The miraculous power of the Lord shall remove all obstacles to
deliverance. These obstacles are represented by the Euphrates and the
Red Sea (the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, equivalent to the point of
it), with a reference to the fact that, among the countries, in ver.
11, from which Israel is to be delivered, there had been mentioned,
_Egypt_, between which and the Holy Land was the Red Sea, and Asshur,
situated on the other side of Euphrates. To Euphrates, upon which there
will be repeated that which, in ancient times, was done in the case of
Jordan, the Prophet assigns, in ver. 15, the last place, on account of
ver. 16. The highway in that verse is prepared by the turning off of
Euphrates, so that we might put: "And thus," at the beginning of the
verse. As regards the destroying, [Hebrew: hHrvM], it is the forced
devoting to God of that which would not spontaneously serve Him;
compare remarks on Mal. iii. 24. Objects of such devoting can properly
be _persons_ only, because they only are capable of spontaneous
sanctification to God, as well as of wilful desecration. The fact that
it is here transferred to the sea may be accounted for by its being
personified. The destruction which is inflicted upon the sea is, in it,
inflicted upon the enemies of God thereby represented, inasmuch as
it opposes the people of God, and thus, as it were, strives against
God.--_With the violence or terror of His wind_, _i.e._, with His
violent, terrible wind. There is in this an allusion to Exod. xiv. 21,
according to which the Lord dried up the Red Sea by a violent wind.
Against _Drechsler_, who thinks of "God's breathing of anger," first,
this reference to Exod. xiv. 21, and farther, the circumstance that the
[Hebrew: rvH] appears as something which the Lord has in His hand, are
decisive.--In ver. 16 we need not, after "from Asshur," supply the
other nations mentioned in ver. 11, which would be unexampled; but
Asshur appears as the representative of all the enemies of God.
Similarly in Micah also, Asshur is, with evident intention, used
typically; comp. Vol. i. p. 515, 516.
[Footnote 1: Notwithstanding the arguments which we stated in favour of
our proposition, that the original form of the name is [Hebrew: ncr].
_Ebrard_ without even attempting to refute them, assumes, in favour of
a far-fetched conjecture, that the name of the place was written
[Hebrew: nzrt] (_Kritik. d. Ev. Geschichte_ S. 843, 1st Ed.), and has
introduced this opinion even into the text of the new edition of
_Olshausen's_ Commentary, edited by him. The circumstance that
elsewhere _commonly_ the Hebrew [Hebrew: z] is, in Greek, rendered by
[Greek: z], [Hebrew: c] by [Greek: s] is, in this case, where the
special arguments in favour of [Hebrew: ncr] are so strong, of no
consequence.]
[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weissagung und Erfüllung._, II. S. 64) was the
last who assumed that the Evangelist had generally in view those
passages in which the lowliness, contempt, and rejection of Christ are
spoken of, and that, in the Old Testament passages in question, the
[Greek: Nazôraios] was not contained according to the letter, but
according to the spirit only. But this is opposed not only by the whole
manner of quotation which is given as a literal one, but also by a
whole series of analogies: Christ's birthplace in Bethlehem, His stay
in Jerusalem, His ministry in Galilee, and especially in Capernaum, His
entrance into Jerusalem,--all these are by Matthew traced back to
prophetical declarations which have a special reference to these
localities. Against the exposition given by us, _Hofmann_ advances the
assertion that neither [Hebrew: ncr] nor [Hebrew: HTr] have ever
attached to them the idea of lowliness, of unassuming appearance. But
even if a twig were not of itself something lowly and unassuming in
appearance, yet, in the passage before us, that idea is, at all events,
implied in the connection with the _stump_ and _roots_, as well as by
the contrast to [Hebrew: iprh]]
[Footnote 3: The following passage, which we take from _Raim. Martini
Pug. Fid._ III. 3, 19 p. 685, will fully illustrate that custom: R.
_Abba_ said: His name is [Hebrew: ihvh] Lord, according to the word in
Jerem. xxiii. 6; R. _Josua ben Levy_ said: "His name is Sprout,
according to what is said in Zech. vi. 12. Others say that His name
will be Comforter, Son of the strength of God, as is declared in Lam.
i. 16. Those from the School of R. _Siloh_ said: His name will be
_Shiloh_, as is written in Gen. xlix. 10: 'Until Shiloh come.'Those
from the School of R. _Chanina_ said: His name will be the Gracious
one, as Jerem. said in chap. xvi. 13. Those from the School of R.
_Jannai_ said: Jinnon shall be His name, according to Ps. lxxii. 17,
&c."]
[Pg 133]
CHAP. XII.
This chapter contains Israel's hymn of thanks after having obtained
redemption and deliverance, and is connected with chap. ix. 2 (3),
where the Prophet had, in general, mentioned the joy of the elect in
the Messianic time. Here he embodies it in words. The hymn, which forms
a kind of close, and, to a certain degree, belongs to the whole cycle
of the preceding Messianic prophecies, is based upon the hymn of
thanksgiving by Israel after having passed through the Red Sea,--that
historical fact which contained so strong a guarantee for the future
redemption, and is in harmony with chap. xi. 15, 16, where the Prophet
had announced a renewal of those wonderful leadings of the Lord. The
hymn falls into three stanzas, each consisting of two verses. In ver. 1
and 2, and in ver. 4 and 5, the redeemed ones are introduced speaking;
ver. 3 and 5, which likewise form a couple, contain an epilogue of the
Prophet on the double _jubilus_ of the congregation.
Ver. 1. "_And in that day thou sayest: I will praise thee, Lord, for
thou wast angry with me, and now thine anger is turned away, and thou
comfortest me._ Ver. 2. _Behold, God is my salvation; I trust, and am
not afraid; for my strength and song is the Lord, and He became my
Saviour._"
The words "my strength and my song," are from Exod. xv. 2. The two
members of the verse enter into the right relation to one another, and
the [Hebrew: ki] becomes intelligible, only if we keep in mind that the
words at the beginning, "The Lord is my salvation," are an expression
of the conviction of the speaker; hence are equivalent to: we
acknowledge Him as our God; so that the first part expresses the
subjective disposition of the Church; the second, the objective
circumstance of the case--that on which that disposition is founded,
and from which it grew up.
Ver. 3. "_And ye draw water in joy out of the wells of salvation._"
During the journey through the wilderness, the bestowal of salvation
had been represented under the form of granting [Pg 134] water. It is
to it that we have here an allusion. The spiritual water denotes
salvation.
Ver. 4. "_And in that day ye say: Praise the Lord, proclaim His name,
declare His doings among the nations, make mention that His name is
exalted._ Ver. 5. _Praise the Lord, for He hath done great things; this
is known in all the earth._"
Ver. 6. "_Cry out and shout thou inhabitant of Zion; for great is the
Holy One of Israel in thy midst._"
* * * * * * * * * *
There now follows a cycle of ten prophecies, which, in the
inscriptions, have the name [Hebrew: mwa] "burden," and in which the
Prophet exhibits the disclosures into the destinies of the nations
which he had received on the occasion of the threatening Assyrian
invasion under Sennacherib. For, from the prophecy against Asshur in
chap. xiv. 24, 25, which is contained in the very first burden, it
clearly appears that the cycle which, by the equality of the
inscriptions, is connected into one well arranged and congenial whole,
belongs to this period. This prophecy against Asshur forms one whole
with that against Babel, and by it the latter was suggested and called
forth. In that prophecy, the defeat of Asshur, which took place in the
14th year of Hezekiah, is announced as future. It is true that the
second burden, directed against the Philistines, in chap. xiv. 28-32,
seems to suggest another time. Of this burden it is said, in ver. 28,
that it was given in the year that king Ahaz died; not in the year in
which his death was impending, but in that in which he died, comp.
chap. vi. 1. The distressed circumstances of the new king raised the
hopes of the Philistines, who, under Ahaz, had rebelled against the
Jewish dominion. But the Prophet beholds in the Spirit that, just under
this king, the heavenly King of Zion would destroy these hopes, and
would thrust down Philistia from its imaginary height. But from the
time of the original composition of the prophecy, that of its
_repetition_ must be distinguished. That took place, as is just shewn
by the prophecy's being received in the cycle of the _burdens_, at the
time when the invasion of Sennacherib was immediately impending. The
Assyrians were the power from the _North_, [Pg 135] by whom the
threatened destruction would break in upon the Philistines; and the
truth of the word should be verified upon them, that prosperity is only
the forerunner of the fall. In the view of the fulfilment, Isaiah
repeated the prophecy.
From the series of these _burdens_, we shall very briefly comment upon
those which are of importance for our purpose. First,
CHAPTERS XIII. l.-XIV. 27.
This prophecy does not contain any characteristically expressed
Messianic element; but it is of no small consequence for bringing out
the whole picture of the future, as it was before the mind of the
Prophet. It is in it that Babel meets us distinctly and definitely as
the threatening world's power of the future, by which Judah is to be
carried away into captivity.
The genuineness is incontrovertibly testified by the close; and it is
only by a naturalistic tendency that it can be denied. With the
announcement of the deliverance from Babel is first, in chap. xiv. 24,
25, connected an announcement of deliverance from Asshur; and then
follows in ver. 26 and 27, the close of the whole prophecy from chap.
xiii. 1, onward. Vers. 26 and 27, which speak of the whole earth and of
all the nations, refer to chap. xiii., where the Prophet had spoken of
an universal judgment, comp. ver. 5, 9, 10, &c.; while, in the verses
immediately preceding, one single people, the Assyrians only, were
spoken of It is thereby rendered impossible to separate chap. xiv. 24,
27 from the whole.
Behind the world's power of the present--the Assyrian--the Prophet
beholds a new one springing up--the Babylonish. Those who have asserted
that the prophecy against Babel is altogether without foundation as
soon as Isaiah is supposed to have composed it, are utterly mistaken.
Although the prophecy was by no means destined for the contemporaries
only, as prophecy is generally destined for all times of the Church,
yet, even for the Prophet's contemporaries, every letter was of
consequence. If Israel's principal enemies belonged to the future, how
very little was to be feared from the present ones; and especially if
Israel should and must rise from even the [Pg 136] deepest abasement,
how should God not then deliver them from the lower distress and need?
But just because weak faith does not like to draw such _inferences_,
the Prophet at the close expressly adverts to the present affliction,
and gives to the weak faith a distinct and sure word of God, by which
it may support itself, and take encouragement in that affliction.
The points of connection must not be overlooked which the prophecy
in chap. xi. offers for the prophecy before us. We already met there
the total decay of the royal house of David, the carrying away of
Judah into exile, and their dispersion into all lands. It is on this
foundation that the prophecy before us takes its stand: it points
to the power by which these conditions are to be brought about.
Farther--There, as well as here, the conditions of the future are not
expressly _announced_ as such, but _supposed_: the Prophet takes his
stand in the future. There, as well as here, the Prophet draws
consolation in the sufferings of the present from a salvation to be
bestowed in a far distant future only.
From the very outset, the Prophet announces an impending carrying away
of the people, and, at the same time, that, even in this distress, the
Lord would have compassion upon His people, comp. _e.g._ chaps. v., vi.
From the very outset, the Prophet clearly saw that it was not by the
Assyrians that this carrying away would be effected. This much we
consider to be fully proved by history. The progress which the prophecy
before us offers, when compared with those former ones, consists in
this circumstance only, that the Prophet here expressly mentions the
names of the future destroyers. And in reference to this circumstance
we may remark, that, according to the testimony of history, as early as
at that time, the plan of the foundation of an independent power was
strongly entertained and fostered at Babylon, as is clearly enough
evidenced by the embassy of the viceroy of Babylon to Hezekiah.
In chap. xxiii. 13--the prophecy against Tyre, which is acknowledged to
be genuine by the greater number of rationalistic interpreters--the
Prophet shows the clearest insight into the future universal dominion
of Chaldea, which forms the point of issue for the prophecy before us.
With perfect clearness this insight meets us in chap. xxxix. also, on
which even _Gesenius_ cannot avoid remarking: "The prophetic eye of [Pg
137] Isaiah foresaw, even at that time, that, in a political point of
view, Babylon would, in a short time, altogether enter into the track
of Assyria."
CHAPTERS XVII., XVIII.
These two chapters form one whole, as, generally, the series of the
ten _burdens_ is nowhere interrupted by inserted, heterogeneous,
independent portions. Chapter xx. forms an appendix only to chapter
xix. In the same manner, the prophecy against Sebna in chap. xxii.
16-25, stands in an internal connection with vers. 1-15; in that which
befel him, the destinies of the people were to be typified. That these
two chapters belong to one another is clearly proved by the parallelism
of chap. xvii. 10, 11, and chap. xviii. 4-6.
The inscription runs: "Burden of Damascus." It is at the commencement
of the prophecy that the Syrians of Damascus are spoken of; the
threatening soon after turns against Judah and Israel. This is easily
accounted for by the consideration that the prophecy refers to a
relation where Judah and Israel appear in the retinue of Damascus. It
was from Damascus that, in the Syrico-Damascenic war, the whole
complication proceeded. Aram induced Israel to join him in the war
against Judah, and misled Judah to seek help from Asshur. In a general
religious point of view, also, all Israel, the kingdom of the ten
tribes, as well as Judah, were at that time, as it were, incorporated
into Damascus; comp. ver. 10, according to which Israel's guilt
consisted in having planted strange vines in his vineyard, with 2 Kings
xvi. 10, according to which Ahaz got an altar made at Jerusalem after
the pattern of that which he had seen at Damascus. The circumstance
that Israel had become like Damascus, was the reason why it was given
up to the Gentiles for punishment.
From the comparison of chap. x. 28-34, it appears that chap. xvii.
12-14 belongs to the time of Hezekiah, when Israel was threatened by
the invasion of Sennacherib. In chap. xvii. 1-11, in which, at first,
the overthrow of Damascus and the kingdom of the ten tribes appears as
still future, the Prophet [Pg 138] thus transfers himself back to the
stand-point of an earlier time. To this result we are also led by the
chronological arrangement of the whole collection. The Prophet,
stepping back in spirit to the beginning of the complication, surveys
the whole of the calamity and salvation which arise to Israel from the
relation to Asshur and the whole world's power represented by Asshur--a
relation into which it had been led by Damascus--and takes a view of
the punishment which it receives by its sins, by its having become
worldly, and of the Divine mercy which sends deliverance and salvation.
The threatening goes as far as chap. xvii 11. The rod of chastisement
is, in the first instance, in the hand of Asshur; but he, as has been
already mentioned, represents the world's power in general. With this,
the promise connects itself. The oppressors of the people of God are
annihilated, chap. xvii. 12-14. All the nations of the earth,
especially Ethiopia, which was, no less than Israel, threatened by
Asshur (comp. chap. xxxvii. 9), and to which Egypt at that time
occupied the position of a subordinate ally, perceive with astonishment
the catastrophe by which God brings about the destruction of His
enemies, chap. xviii. 1-3. Or, to state it more exactly: Messengers
who, from the scene of the great deeds of the Lord, hasten in ships,
first, over the Mediterranean, then, in boats up the Nile, bring the
intelligence of the catastrophe which has taken place to Cush, the land
of the rustling of the wings--thus named from the rustling of the wings
of the royal eagle of the world's power, which, being in birth equal to
Asshur, has there its seat, vers. 1 and 2; comp. chap. viii. 8. All the
inhabitants of the earth shall look with astonishment at the
catastrophe which is taking place, ver. 3, where the Prophet who, in
vers. 1 and 2, had described the catastrophe as having already taken
place, steps back to the stand-point of reality. In vers. 4-6, we have
the graphic description of the catastrophe. At the close, we have, in
ver. 7, the words which impart to the prophecy importance for our
purpose.
"_In that time shall be brought, as a present unto the Lord of hosts,
the people far stretched and shorn, and from the people terrible since
it_ (has been) _and onward, and from the people of law-law and
trampling down, whose land streams divide, to the place of the name of
the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion._"
[Pg 139]
The expression, "shall be brought as a present," (the word [Hebrew: wi]
occurs, besides in this passage, only in Ps. lxviii. 30; lxxvi. 12)
points back to the fundamental passage in Ps. lxviii. 30, where David
says, "Because of thy temple over Jerusalem shall kings bring presents
unto thee." As outwardly, so spiritually too, the sanctuary lies _over_
Jerusalem. The sanctuary of God over Jerusalem is the emblem of His
protecting power, of His saving mercy watching over Jerusalem; so that,
"because of thy temple over Jerusalem they bring," &c., is equivalent
to: On account of thy glorious manifestation as the God of Jerusalem.
Cush is in that Psalm, immediately afterwards, expressly mentioned by
the side of Egypt, which, at the Prophet's time, was closely connected
with it. "Princes shall come out of Egypt, Cush makes her hands to
hasten towards God."--According to _Gesenius_, and other interpreters,
the [Hebrew: mN] from the second clause is to be supplied before
[Hebrew: eM mmwK]. But this is both hard and unnecessary. It is quite
in order that, first, the offering of persons, and, afterwards, the
offering of their gifts should be mentioned. Parallel is chap. xlv. 14:
"The labour of Egypt and the merchandize of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans,
men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine;"
the difference is only this, that there first the goods are mentioned,
and then the men. In chap. lxvi. 20, we likewise meet men who are
brought for an offering. The designations of the people who here appear
as the type of the whole Gentile world to be converted at some future
period, and who have been chosen for this honour in consequence of the
historical circumstances which existed at the time of the Prophet, are
taken from ver. 2. _Gesenius_ is wrong in remarking in reference to
them: "All these epithets have for their purpose to designate that
distant people as a powerful and terrible one." As _Gesenius_ himself
was obliged to remark in reference to the last words, "Whose land
streams divide:" "This is a designation of a striking peculiarity of
the country, not of the people,"--the purpose of the epithets can
generally be this only, to characterise the people according to their
different prominent peculiarities.--[Hebrew: mmwK] properly "_drawn
out_," "_stretched_," Prov. xiii. 12, corresponds to the [Hebrew: anwi
mdh] "men of extension or stature," in chap. xlv. 14. High stature
appears, in classical writers also, as a characteristic sign of the [Pg
140] Ethiopians.--On [Hebrew: mvrT] "_closely shorn_," comp. chap. l.
6, where [Hebrew: mrT] is used of the plucking out of the hair of the
beard.--"To the people fearful since it and onward," equivalent to:
which all along, and throughout its whole existence, has been terrible;
compare [Hebrew: mimi hia] Nah. ii. 9, and the expression: "from this
day and forward," 1 Sam. xviii. 9. For everywhere one people only is
spoken of, comp. ver. 1, according to which Egypt cannot be thought
of--[Hebrew: qv qv] "law-law" is explained from chap. xxviii. 10, 13,
where it stands beside [Hebrew: cv cv], and designates the mass of
rules, ordinances, and statutes. This is characteristic of the
Egyptians, and likewise of the Ethiopians, who bear so close an
intellectual resemblance to them. With regard to the connection of the
verse with what precedes, _Gesenius_ remarks: "The consequence of such
great deeds of Jehovah will be, that the distant, powerful people of
the Ethiopians shall present pious offerings to Jehovah,"--more
correctly, "present themselves and their possessions to Jehovah."--A
prelude to the fulfilment Isaiah beheld with his own eyes. It is said
in 2 Chron. xxxii. 33: "And many (in consequence of the manifestation
of the glory of God in the defeat of Asshur before Jerusalem) brought
gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem." Yet, we must not limit ourselves to
that. The real fulfilment can be sought for only at a later time, as
certainly as that which the Prophet announces about the destruction of
the world's power exceeds, by far, that isolated defeat of Asshur,
which can be regarded as a prelude only to the real fulfilment; and
as certainly as he announces the destruction of Asshur generally,
and, under his image, of the world's power. "He who delights in
having pointed out the fulfilment of such prophecies in the later
history"--_Gesenius_ remarks--"may find it in Acts viii. 26 ff., and
still more, in the circumstance that Abyssinia is, up to this day, the
only larger Christian State of the East."--In consequence of the
glorious manifestation of the Lord in His kingdom, and of the
conquering power which, in Christ, He displayed in His relation to the
world's power, there once existed in Ethiopia a flourishing Christian
Church; and on the ground of this passage before us, we look at its
ruins which have been left up to this day, with the hope that the Lord
will, at some future time, rebuild it.
[Pg 141]
CHAPTER XIX.
The burden of Egypt begins with the words: "Behold the Lord rideth upon
a swift cloud, and cometh into Egypt, and the idols of Egypt are moved
at His presence, and the heart of Egypt melteth in the midst of it."
The clouds with which, or accompanied by which, the Lord comes, are, in
the Old and New Testament writings, symbolical indications and
representations of judgment; comp. my remarks on Rev. i. 7; and besides
the passages quoted there, compare in addition Jer. iv. 13; Rev. xiv.
14. But what judgment is here spoken of? According to _Gesenius_ and
other interpreters, the calamity is the victory of Psammeticus over the
twelve princes, with which physical calamities are to be joined. But
against this view, ver. 11 alone is conclusive, inasmuch as, according
to this verse, Pharaoh, at the time when this calamity breaks in upon
Egypt, is the ruler of the whole land: "How say ye unto Pharaoh: I am
the Son of the wise a (spiritual) son of the kings of ancient times,"
who are celebrated for their wisdom. In ver. 2, according to which, in
Egypt, kingdom fights against kingdom, we cannot, therefore, think of
independent kingdom s; but following the way of the LXX., [Greek: nomos
epi nomon], of provinces only. Further,--According to _Gesenius_, the
fierce lord and cruel king in ver. 4 is assumed to be Psammeticus. But
against this the plural alone is decisive. Ezek. xxx. 12--according to
which outward enemies, the [Hebrew: zriM], are the cause of the drying
up of the Nile, of the ceasing of wealth and prosperity--militates
against the assumption of a calamity independent of the political one.
The circumstance, that the prophecy under consideration belongs to the
series of the _burdens_, and was written in the view of Asshur's
advance, leaves us no room to doubt that the Lord is coming to judgment
in the oppression by the Asiatic world's power. To this may be added
the analogy of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel against Egypt,
which are evidently to be considered as a resumption of the prophecy
under consideration, and as an announcement that its realization is
constantly going on. They do not know any other calamity than being
given up to the Asiatic world's power. Compare _e.g._ Jer. xlvi. 25,
26: "And behold, I visit Pharaoh and Egypt, and their gods and their
kings, Pharaoh [Pg 142] and them that trust in him. And I deliver them
into the hand of those that seek their soul, and into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon." After what we have remarked, the
discord among the Egyptians in ver. 2, can be considered as the
consequence and concomitant of the real and main calamity only: Where
God is not in the midst, there, commonly, internal discord is wont to
follow upon severe outward affliction, inasmuch as one always imputes
to the other the cause of matters going on so badly. And what is said
of the drying up of the Nile, we shall thus likewise be obliged to
consider as a consequence of the hostile oppression. Waters are, in
Scripture, the ordinary image of prosperity; compare remarks on Rev.
xvii. 1, 8, 40; xvi. 4. Here the Nile specially is chosen as the symbol
of prosperity, inasmuch as upon it the woe and weal of Egypt chiefly
depended. In consequence of the hostile invasion which consumes all the
strength of the land, the Nile of its prosperity dries up; "its very
foundations are destroyed, all who carry on craft are afflicted."
The scope of the prophecy is this: The Lord comes to judgment upon
Egypt (through Asshur and those who follow in his tracks), ver. 1.
Instead of uniting all the strength against the common enemy, there
arises, by the curse of God, discord and dissolution, ver. 2. Egypt
falls into a helpless state of distress, ver. 3. "And I give over Egypt
into the hand of hard rule, and a fierce king (_Jonathan_: _potens_,
sc. Nebuchadnezzar) shall rule over them, saith the Lord, Jehovah of
hosts," ver. 4. The fierce king is the king of Asshur, the Asiatic
kingdom; compare the mention of Asshur in ver. 23-25; LXX. [Greek:
basileis sklêroi]. For, the fact that the unity is merely an _ideal_
one, is most distinctly and intentionally pointed at by the [Hebrew:
adniM] preceding. The prosperity of the land is destroyed, ver. 5-10.
The much boasted Egyptian wisdom can as little avert the ruin of the
country as it did formerly, in ancient times; its bearers stand
confounded and ashamed; nothing will thrive and prosper, vers. 11-15.
But the misery produces salutary fruits; it brings about the conversion
of Egypt to the God of Israel, and, with this conversion, a full
participation in all the privileges and blessings of the Kingdom of God
shall be connected, ver. 16, and especially vers. 18-25. This close of
the prophecy, which for our purpose is of special consequence, we must
still submit to a closer examination.
[Pg 143]
Ver. 18. "_In that day shall be five cities in the land of Egypt which
speak the language of Canaan and swear to the Lord of hosts; city of
destruction the one shall be called._"
_Five_, as usual, here comes into consideration as the half of _ten_,
which number represents the whole; "_five_ cities," therefore, is
equivalent to: a goodly number of cities. On the words: "Who speak the
language of Canaan," _Gesenius_ remarks: "With the spreading of a
certain religion resting on certain documents of revelation, as _e.g._
the Jewish religion, the knowledge of their language, too, must be
connected." We must not, of course, limit the thought to this, that
Hebrew was learned wherever the religion of Jehovah spread. When
viewed more deeply, the language of Canaan is spoken by all those
who are converted to the true God. Upon the Greek language, _e.g._
the character of the language of Canaan has been impressed in the
New Testament. That language which, from primeval times, has been
developed in the service of the Spirit, imparts its character to the
languages of the world, and changes their character in their deepest
foundation.--"To swear to the Lord" is to do Him homage; Michaelis:
_Juramento se Domino obstringent_; comp. chap. xlv. 23: "Unto me every
knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." In the words: "City of
destruction," [Hebrew: hrs], one shall be called, there is contained an
allusion to [Hebrew: qir hrs], "_city of the Sun_" (Heliopolis) which
was peculiar to one of the chief seats of Egyptian idolatry. It is the
celebrated _On_ or _Bethshemish_ of which Jeremiah prophesies in chap.
xliii. 13: "And he (Nebuchadnezzar) breaketh the pillars in Beth-
shemish, that is in the land of Egypt, and the houses of the gods of
Egypt he burneth with fire." This allusion was perceived as early as by
_Jonathan_, who thus paraphrases: "_Urbs domus solis quae destruetur._"
By this allusion it is intimated that salvation cannot be bestowed upon
the Gentile world in the state in which it is; that punitive justice
must prepare the way for salvation: that everywhere the destructive
activity of God must precede that which builds up; that the way to the
Kingdom of God passes through the fire of tribulation which must
consume every thing that is opposed to God; compare that which Micah,
even in reference to the covenant-people, says regarding the necessity
of taking, before giving can have place, vol. i., p. 517.
[Pg 144]
Ver. 19. "_In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst
of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord._"
That the altar is to be considered as a "monument" only is a
supposition altogether far-fetched, and which can the less find any
support in the isolated case, Josh. xxii., that that account clearly
enough intimates how decidedly the existence of an altar furnishes a
foundation for the supposition that sacrifices are to be offered up
there, a supposition intimated by the very name in Hebrew. If it was
meant to serve some other purpose, it would have been necessary
expressly to state it, or, at least, some other place of sacrifice
ought to have been assigned for the sacrifices mentioned in ver. 21.
But as it stands, there cannot be any doubt that the altar here and the
sacrifices there belong to one another. This passage under
consideration is of no little consequence, inasmuch as it shows that,
in other passages where a going up of the Gentiles to Jerusalem in the
Messianic time is spoken of, as, _e.g._, chap. lxvi. 23, we must
distinguish between the thought and the embodiment. The _pillar_ at the
border bears an inscription by which the land is designated as the
property of the Lord, just as it was the custom of the old eastern
conquerors, and especially of the Egyptians, to erect such pillars in
the conquered territories.
Ver. 20. "_And it is for a sign and for a witness to the Lord of hosts
in the land of Egypt: When they cry unto the Lord because of the
oppressors, He shall send them a Saviour and a Deliverer; and he shall
deliver them._"
Altar and pillar, as a sign and witness of the confession to the Lord,
are, at the same time, a guarantee of the deliverance to be granted by
Him. According to _Gesenius_, the Prophet speaks "without a definite
historical reference, of a saving or protecting angel." But we cannot
think of an angel on account of the plain reference to the common
formula in the Book of Judges, by which it is intimated that, as far as
redemption is concerned, Egypt has been made a partaker of the
privileges of the covenant-people. It is just this reference which has
given rise to the general expression; but it is Christ who is meant;
for the prophets, and especially Isaiah, are not cognizant of any other
Saviour for the Gentile world [Pg 145] than of Him; and it is He who is
suggested by the Messianic character of the whole description.
Ver. 21. "_And the Lord is known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians
know the Lord in that day, and offer sacrifice and oblation, and vow
vows unto the Lord, and perform them._"
Ver. 22. "_And the Lord smiteth the Egyptians so that He healeth them,
and they are converted to the Lord, and He shall be entreated by them,
and shall heal them._"
We have here simply a recapitulation. The prophet describes anew the
transition from the state of wrath to that of grace--not, as
_Drechsler_ thinks, what they experience in the latter. Upon Egypt is
fulfilled what, in Deut. xxxii. 39, has been said in reference to
Israel.
Ver. 23. "_In that day there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Asshur,
and Asshur cometh into Egypt, and Egypt into Asshur, and Egypt serveth
with Asshur._"
[Hebrew: ebd] with [Hebrew: at] has commonly the signification "to
serve some one;" here, however, [Hebrew: at] is used as a preposition:
Egypt serves God _with_ Asshur. Yet there is an allusion to the
ordinary use of [Hebrew: ebd] with [Hebrew: at] in order to direct
attention to the wonderful change: First, Egypt serves Asshur, and the
powers that follow its footsteps; then, it serves _with_ Asshur. Here
also it becomes manifest that the deliverer in ver. 20 is no ordinary
human deliverer; for such an one could help his people only by
inflicting injury upon the hostile power.
Ver. 24. "_In that day Israel shall be the third with Egypt and with
Asshur, a blessing in the midst of the earth._"
The "blessing" is not "that union of people formerly separated," but it
is _Israel_ from which the blessing is poured out upon all the other
nations; compare the fundamental passage, Gen. xii. 1-3, and the word
of the Lord: [Greek: hê sôtêria ek tôn Ioudaiôn esti], John iv. 22.
Ver. 25. "_For the Lord of Hosts blesseth him, saying: Blessed be Egypt
my people, and Asshur the work of mine hands, and Israel mine
inheritance._"
The suffix in [Hebrew: brm] refers to every thing mentioned in ver. 24.
"Assyria and Egypt are called by epithets which elsewhere are wont to
be bestowed upon Israel only."
It is scarcely necessary to point out how gloriously this, [Pg 146]
prophecy was fulfilled; how, at one time, there existed a flourishing
Church in Egypt. Although the candlestick of that Church be now removed
from its place ("_Satanas in hac gente sevit zizania_"--_Vitringa_),
yet we are confident of, and hope for, a future in which this prophecy
shall anew powerfully manifest itself The broken power of the
Mahommedan delusion opens up the prospect, that the time in which this
hope is to be realized is drawing nigh.