commission. They were sent by Christ to teach the truths of religion in
his stead. It was an arduous work; and in the execution of it they
needed and enjoyed much divine assistance. But forming right conceptions
of Christianity in their own minds, was not the great work assigned to
the Apostles. If the divine assistance reached only to this, it reached
only to that which concerned them as private men, and which they might
have possessed though they had never been commissioned to teach others.
As Apostles, they were to preach the Gospel to all who could be brought
to hear it, and to make a record of divine truth for the benefit of
future ages. Now is it at all reasonable to suppose, that the divine
assistance afforded them had no respect to their main business, and
that, in the momentous and difficult work of communicating the truths of
religion, either orally or by writing, they were left to themselves, and
so exposed to all the errors and inadvertencies of uninspired men? But
our reasoning does not stop here. For that divine assistance which we
might reasonably suppose would have been granted to the Apostles in the
work of teaching divine truth, is the very thing which Christ promised
them in the texts before cited. I shall refer only to Matt. x, 19, 20,
‘When they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall
speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh
in you.’ This promise, as Knapp understands it, implies, that divine
assistance should extend not only to _what_ they should say, but to the
_manner_ in which they should say it. It is not, however, to be
understood as implying, that the Apostles were not rational and
voluntary agents in the discharge of their office. But it implies that,
in consequence of the influence of the Spirit to be exercised over them,
they should say what God would have them to say, without any liability
to mistake, either as to matter or manner. From the above-cited promise,
taken in connection with the instances of its accomplishment which are
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it becomes evident that God may
exert his highest influence upon his servants, so as completely to guide
them in thought and in utterance, in regard to subjects which lie
chiefly within the province of their natural faculties. For in those
speeches of the Apostles which are left on record, we find that most of
the things which they declared, were things which, for aught that
appears, they might have known, and might have expressed to others, in
the natural exercise of their own faculties. This principle being
admitted, and kept steadily in view, will relieve us of many
difficulties in regard to the doctrine of inspiration. The passage, 1
Cor. ii, 12, 13, already cited as proof of the inspiration of the
Apostles, is very far from favouring the opinion that inspiration had no
respect whatever to their language, or that it related exclusively to
their thoughts. ‘Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.’ The Apostle avoided
the style and the manner of teaching which prevailed among the wise men
of Greece, and made use of a style which corresponded with the nature of
his subject, and the end he had in view. And this, he tells us, he did,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. His language, or manner of
teaching, was the thing to which the divine influence imparted to him
particularly referred. Storr and Flatt give the following interpretation
of this text: Paul, they say, asserts that the doctrines of Christianity
were revealed to him by the almighty agency of God himself; and,
finally, that the inspiration of the divine Spirit extended even to his
words, and to all his exhibitions of revealed truths. They add, that St.
Paul clearly distinguishes between the doctrine itself, and the manner
in which it is communicated.”
INTERMEDIATE STATE. Beside questions concerning the nature of the
happiness of heaven, there have also arisen questions concerning the
state of the soul in the interval between death and the general
resurrection. If we believe, with Dr. Priestley, that the soul is not a
substance distinct from the body, we must believe with him that the
whole of the human machine is at rest after death, till it be restored
to its functions at the last day; but if we are convinced of the
immateriality of the soul, we shall not think it so entirely dependent
in all its operations upon its present companion, but that it may exist
and act in an unembodied state. And if once we are satisfied that a
state of separate existence is possible, we shall easily attach credit
to the interpretation commonly given of the various expressions in
Scripture, which intimate that the souls of good men are admitted to the
presence of God immediately after death, although we soon find that a
bound is set to our speculations concerning the nature of this
intermediate state. But when we leave philosophical probability, and
come to the doctrine of Scripture, the only ground of certainty on all
such subjects, a great number of passages are so explicit, that no
ingenuity of interpretation has been sufficient to weaken their evidence
on this point. One branch of the opinions that have been held concerning
an intermediate state is the Popish doctrine of purgatory; a doctrine
which appears upon the slightest inspection of the texts that have been
adduced in support of it to derive no evidence from Scripture; which
originated in the error of the church of Rome in assigning to personal
suffering a place in the justification of a sinner; and which is
completely overturned by the doctrine of justification by faith, and by
the general strain of Scripture, which represents this life as a state
of probation, upon our conduct during which our everlasting condition
depends. The holy Lazarus is carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom; and
the rich and careless sinner lifts up his eyes in hell, and is separated
from the place of bliss by an impassable gulf. This at once disproves
the doctrine of purgatory, and demonstrates an intermediate conscious
state of happiness and misery.
IRON, ברזל; occurs first in Gen. iv, 22, and afterward frequently; and
the Chaldee פרזל, in Dan. ii, 33, 41, and elsewhere often in that book;
σίδηρος, Rev. xviii, 12, and the adjectives, Acts xii, 10; Rev. ii, 27;
ix, 9; xii, 5; xix, 15; a well known and very serviceable metal. The
knowledge of working it was very ancient, as appears from Genesis iv,
22. We do not, however, find that Moses made use of iron in the fabric
of the tabernacle in the wilderness, or Solomon in any part of the
temple at Jerusalem. Yet, from the manner in which the Jewish legislator
speaks of iron, the metal, it appears, must have been in use in Egypt
before his time. He celebrates the great hardness of it, Lev. xxvi, 19;
Deut. xxviii, 23, 48; takes notice that the bedstead of Og, king of
Bashan, was of iron, Deut. iii, 11; he speaks of mines of iron, Deut.
viii, 9; and he compares the severity of the servitude of the Israelites
in Egypt to the heat of a furnace for melting iron, Deut. iv, 20. We
find, also, that swords, Num. xxxv, 16, axes, Deut. xix, 5, and tools
for cutting stones, Deut. xxvii, 5, were made of iron. By the “northern
iron,” Jer. xv, 12, we may probably understand the hardened iron, called
in Greek χάλυψ, from the Chalybes, a people bordering on the Euxine sea,
and consequently lying on the north of Judea, by whom the art of
tempering steel is said to have been discovered. Strabo speaks of this
people by the name of Chalybes, but afterward Chaldæi; and mentions
their iron mines. These, however, were a different people from the
Chaldeans, who were united with the Babylonians.
ISAAC, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was born in the year of the world
2108. His name, which signifies _laughter_, was given him by his mother,
because when it was told her by an angel that she should have a son, and
that at a time of life when, according to the course of nature, she was
past child-bearing, she privately laughed, Gen. xviii, 10–12. And when
the child was born she said, “God hath made me to laugh, so that all
that hear will laugh with me,” Gen. xxi, 6. The life of Isaac, for the
first seventy-five years of it, is so blended with that of his
illustrious father, that the principal incidents of it have been already
noticed under the article _Abraham_. His birth was attended with some
extraordinary circumstances: it was the subject of various promises and
prophecies; an event most ardently desired by his parents, and yet
purposely delayed by Divine Providence till they were both advanced in
years, no doubt for the trial of their faith, and that Isaac might more
evidently appear to be the gift of God, and “the child of promise.” At
an early period of life he was the object of the profane contempt of
Ishmael, the son of the bond woman, by whom he was persecuted; and as in
the circumstances attending his birth there was something typical of the
birth of Abraham’s greater Son, the Messiah, the promised Seed; so, in
the latter instance, we contemplate in him a resemblance of real
Christians, who, as Isaac was, are “the children of promise,” invested
in all the immunities and blessings of the new covenant; but, as then,
“he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the
Spirit, even so it is now,” Gal. iv, 29.
When Isaac had arrived at a state of manhood, he was required to give a
signal proof of his entire devotedness to God. Abraham was commanded to
offer up his beloved son in sacrifice, Genesis xxii, 1. This remarkable
transaction, so far as Abraham was concerned in it, has already been
considered under the article _Abraham_. But, if from this trial of the
faith of the parent we turn our attention to the conduct of Isaac, the
victim destined for the slaughter, we behold an example of faith and of
dutiful obedience equally conspicuous with that of his honoured parent.
Isaac submitted, as it should seem, without resistance, to be bound and
laid on the altar, exposing his body to the knife that was lifted up to
destroy him. How strikingly calculated is this remarkable history to
direct our thoughts to a more exalted personage, whom Isaac prefigured;
and to a more astonishing transaction represented by that on Mount
Moriah! Behold Jesus Christ, that Seed of Abraham, in whom all the
families of the earth were to be blessed, voluntarily going forth, in
obedience to the command of his heavenly Father, and laying down his
life, as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
In the progress of Isaac’s history, we find him, in the time of his
greatest activity and vigour, a man of retired habits and of remarkable
calmness of mind. He appears to have been affectionately attached to his
mother Sarah, and, even at the age of forty, was not insusceptible of
great sorrow on occasion of her death. But he allows his father to
choose for him a suitable partner in life; and Rebekah was selected from
among his own kindred, in preference to the daughters of Canaan, in the
midst of whom he dwelt. In a few years afterward, he who had mourned for
his mother, was called to weep over his father’s grave; and in that last
act of filial duty, it is pleasing to find the two rival brothers, Isaac
and Ishmael, meeting together for the interment of Abraham. The
occasion, indeed, was well calculated to allay all existing jealousies
and contentions, and cause every family broil to cease, Gen. xxv, 9.
After the death of Abraham, “God blessed his son Isaac;” but, though the
latter had now been married twenty years, Rebekah was childless. “Isaac
entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord
was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived,” Gen. xxv, 21. God
also promised to multiply Isaac’s seed, and his promise was fulfilled.
Two children were born to him at one time, concerning whom the divine
purpose was declared to the mother, and no doubt to the father also,
that “the elder should serve the younger.” A famine which came upon the
country in the days of Isaac, obliged him to remove his family and
flocks and retire to Gerar, in the country of the Philistines, of which
Abimelech was at that time king. The possessions of Isaac multiplied so
prodigiously, that the inhabitants of the country became envious of him,
and even Abimelech, to preserve peace among them, was under the
necessity of requesting him to retire, because he was become too
powerful. He accordingly withdrew, and pitched his tent in the valley of
Gerar, where he digged new wells, and, after a time, returned to
Beersheba, where he fixed his habitation, Genesis xxvi, 1–23. Here the
Lord appeared to him, and renewed to him the covenant which he had made
with Abraham, promising to be his God, and to make him a blessing to
others. Abimelech now sought his friendship, and, to form an alliance
with him, paid him a visit; on which occasion Isaac displayed his
magnificence by a sumptuous entertainment, A. M. 2240.
When he was a hundred and thirty-seven years of age, and his sight had
so failed him that he could not distinguish one of his sons from the
other, Jacob craftily obtained from him the blessing of primogeniture.
Yet Isaac survived many years after this, to him, distressing
occurrence. He sent Jacob into Mesopotamia, there to take a wife of his
own family, Genesis xxviii, 1, 2, and to prevent his marrying among the
Canaanites as his brother Esau had done. And when Jacob returned, after
a lapse of twenty years, Isaac was still living, and continued to live
twenty-three years longer. He then died at the age of a hundred and
eighty years, and was buried with Abraham by his sons Esau and Jacob,
Gen. xxxv, 29. See ESAU and JACOB.
ISAIAH. Though fifth in the order of time, the writings of the Prophet
Isaiah are placed first in order of the prophetical books, principally
on account of the sublimity and importance of his predictions, and
partly also because the book which bears his name is larger than all the
twelve minor prophets put together. Concerning his family and descent,
nothing certain has been recorded, except what he himself tells us,
Isaiah, i, 1, namely, that he was the son of Amos, and discharged the
prophetic office “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,
kings of Judah,” who successively flourished between A. M. 3194 and
3305. There is a current tradition that he was of the blood royal; and
some writers have affirmed that his father Amoz or Amos was the son of
Joash, and consequently brother of Uzziah, king of Judah. Jerom, on the
authority of some rabbinical writers, says, that the prophet gave his
daughter in marriage to Manasseh, king of Judah; but this opinion is
scarcely credible, because Manasseh did not commence his reign until
about sixty years after Isaiah had begun to discharge his prophetic
functions. He must, indeed, have exercised the office of a prophet
during a long period of time, if he lived to the reign of Manasseh; for
the lowest computation, beginning from the year in which Uzziah died,
when he is by some supposed to have received his first appointment to
that office, brings it to sixty-one years. But the tradition of the
Jews, which has been adopted by most Christian commentators, that he was
put to death by Manasseh, is very uncertain; and Aben Ezra, one of the
most celebrated Jewish writers, is rather of opinion that he died before
Hezekiah; which Bishop Lowth thinks most probable. It is, however,
certain, that he lived at least to the fifteenth or sixteenth year of
Hezekiah; which makes the least possible term of the duration of his
prophetic office to be about forty-eight years. The name of Isaiah, as
Vitringa has remarked after several preceding commentators, is in some
measure descriptive of his high character, since it signifies the
_salvation of Jehovah_; and was given with singular propriety to him,
who foretold the advent of the Messiah, through whom “all flesh shall
see the salvation of God,” Isa. xl, 5; Luke iii, 6; Acts iv, 12. Isaiah
was contemporary with the Prophets Amos, Hosea, Joel, and Micah.
Isaiah is uniformly spoken of in the Scriptures as a prophet of the
highest dignity: Bishop Lowth calls him the prince of all the prophets,
and pronounces the whole of his book to be poetical, with the exception
of a few detached passages. It is remarkable, that his wife is styled a
prophetess in Isaiah viii, 3; whence the rabbinical writers have
concluded that she possessed the spirit of prophecy: but it is very
probable that the prophets’ wives were called prophetesses, as the
priests’ wives were termed priestesses, only from the quality of their
husbands. Although nothing farther is recorded in the Scriptures
concerning the wife of Isaiah, we find two of his sons mentioned in his
prophecy, who were types or figurative pledges; and their names and
actions were intended to awaken a religious attention in the persons
whom they were commissioned to address and to instruct. Thus,
Shear-jashub signifies, “a remnant shall return,” and showed that the
captives who should be carried to Babylon should return thence after a
certain time, Isaiah vii, 3; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which denotes,
“make speed (or _run swiftly_) to the spoil,” implied that the kingdoms
of Israel and Syria would in a short time be ravaged, Isaiah viii, 1, 3.
Beside the volume of prophecies, which we are now to consider, it
appears from 2 Chron. xxvi, 22, that Isaiah wrote an account of “the
acts of Uzziah,” king of Judah: this has perished with some other
writings of the prophets, which, as probably not written by inspiration,
were never admitted into the canon of Scripture. There are also two
apocryphal books ascribed to him, namely, The Ascension of Isaiah, and
The Apocalypse of Isaiah; but these are evidently forgeries of a later
date, and the Apocalypse has long since perished.
The scope of Isaiah’s predictions is threefold, namely, 1. To detect,
reprove, aggravate, and condemn, the sins of the Jewish people
especially, and also the iniquities of the ten tribes of Israel, and the
abominations of many Gentile nations and countries; denouncing the
severest judgments against all sorts and degrees of persons, whether
Jews or Gentiles. 2. To invite persons of every rank and condition, both
Jews and Gentiles, to repentance and reformation, by numerous promises
of pardon and mercy. It is worthy of remark, that no such promises are
intermingled with the denunciations of divine vengeance against Babylon,
although they occur in the threatenings against every other people. 3.
To comfort all the truly pious, in the midst of all the calamities and
judgments denounced against the wicked, with prophetic promises of the
true Messiah, which seem almost to anticipate the Gospel history, so
clearly do they foreshow the divine character of Christ.
Isaiah has, with singular propriety, been denominated the evangelical
prophet, on account of the number and variety of his prophecies
concerning the advent and character, the ministry and preaching, the
sufferings and death, and the extensive permanent kingdom, of the
Messiah. So explicit and determinate are his predictions, as well as so
numerous, that he seems to speak rather of things past than of events
yet future; and he may rather be called an evangelist than a prophet. No
one, indeed, can be at a loss in applying them to the mission and
character of Jesus Christ, and to the events which are cited in his
history by the writers of the New Testament. This prophet, says Bishop
Lowth, abounds in such transcendent excellencies, that he may be
properly said to afford the most perfect model of prophetic poetry. He
is at once elegant and sublime, forcible and ornamented; he unites
energy with copiousness, and dignity with variety. In his sentiments
there is uncommon elevation and majesty; in his imagery, the utmost
propriety, elegance, dignity, and diversity; in his language, uncommon
beauty and energy; and, notwithstanding the obscurity of his subjects, a
surprising degree of clearness and simplicity. To these we may add, that
there is such sweetness in the poetical composition of his sentences,
whether it proceed from art or genius, that, if the Hebrew poetry at
present is possessed of any remains of its native grace and harmony, we
shall chiefly find them in the writings of Isaiah: so that the saying of
Ezekiel may most justly be applied to this prophet:--
“Thou art the confirmed exemplar of measures,
Full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.”
Ezekiel xxviii, 12.
Isaiah also greatly excels in all the graces of method, order,
connection, and arrangement: though in asserting this we must not forget
the nature of the prophetic impulse, which bears away the mind with
irresistible violence, and frequently in rapid transitions from near to
remote objects, from human to divine. We must likewise be careful in
remarking the limits of particular predictions, since, as they are now
extant, they are often improperly connected, without any marks of
discrimination; which injudicious arrangement, on some occasions,
creates almost insuperable difficulties.