Verses 1-9
I.—THE TWO CHIEF PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE BIRTH OF THE VIRGIN’S SON AND OF THE PROPHETS SON
I.—THE PROPHECY OF THE VIRGIN’S SON IMMANUEL
a) Isaiah and Ahaz at the conduit of the upper pool
1And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not 27prevail against it.
2And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria 28is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. 3Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and 29Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the 30highway of the fuller’s field; and say unto him,
4Take heed, and be quiet;
Fear not, 31neither be faint hearted
32For the two tails of these smoking fire-brands,
For the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
5Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah,
Have 33taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
6Let us go up against Judah, and 34 35vex it,
And let us make a breach therein for us,And set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:
7Thus saith the 36Lord God,
It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8For the head of Syria is Damascus,
And the head of Damascus is Rezin;
And within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, 37that it be not a people.
9And the head of Ephraim is Samaria.
And the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son.
38 39If ye will not believe, surely, ye shall not be established.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Chap. 7 Isaiah 7:1. עָלָה is used not only of motion towards a place that is conceived of as higher (e. g., 1 Kings 12:27 sqq.; 2 Kings 24:1, and יָרַד of the opposite, e. g. 1 Kings 22:2; 2 Kings 8:29) but also of any hostile proceeding, entering on a plan (1Sa 17:23; 1 Samuel 17:25; Micah 2:13; Nehemiah 2:2, etc).—יָכֹל changed 2 Kings 16:5 to יָכְלוּ comes from the preceding עָלָה, and from the additional idea, perhaps, that Rezin was the chief person.
Isaiah 7:2. נוּחַ is never used in the sense of niti, confidere. But it is used of swarms of birds, grasshoppers and flies, that settle down somewhere (Isaiah 7:19; Exodus 10:14; 2 Samuel 21:10). Such is its meaning here: the army of Syria has settled down like a swarm of grasshoppers on the spot where the army of Ephraim was encamped. Comp. 2 Samuel 17:12. On the fem. נָחָה after אֲרָם comp. 2 Samuel 8:5; 2 Samuel 10:10; coll. Isaiah 14:15; Isaiah 14:18.
Isaiah 7:3. תְּעָלָה occurs again in Isaiah only Isaiah 36:2. מִסְלָּה Isaiah used often beside here: Isaiah 36:2; Isaiah 11:16; Isaiah 19:23; Isaiah 33:8; Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 49:11; Isaiah 59:7; Isaiah 62:10. כּוֹבֵם only here and Isaiah 36:2, in Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:4. After הִשָּׁמֵר should follow properly a negative notion, whence the word always has after it the conjunctions פֶּן or אַל or the preposition מִן (as solitary exceptions, comp. Exodus 19:12; Exodus 23:13). Therefore a negation must be supplied out of the following השׁקט, “take heed of (unbelieving, thus sinful) disquietude, but rather be quiet.” The direct causative Hiphil הַשְׁקֵט has evidently the meaning that Ahaz must control his anxiety, quiet himself. The word occurs in Isaiah again Isaiah 30:15; Isaiah 32:17; Isaiah 57:20, whereas the Niph. נִשְׁמַר occurs in Isaiah only here. יֵרַךְ Niph. of רָכַךְ; with the exception of Psalms 55:22, it always occurs in connection with לֵבָב or לֵב in the sense of becoming weak, timorous (Deuteronomy 20:3; Jer 51:46; 2 Kings 22:19; Job 33:16); it does not occur again in Isa. Only once he uses the Pual Isaiah 1:6. זָנָב (according to Isaiah 9:13-14; Isaiah 19:15) “the tail, the end piece.” אוּד (found beside only Amos 4:11; Zechariah 3:2) is the charred stick of wood that may have been used to stir the fire. עָשֵׁן “smoking,” only here in Isaiah, and Exodus 20:18. בחרי אף וגו, to understand the prefix בְּ to be of time–“while glowing” (Drechsler, Delitzsch, Knobel, Gesenius ) seems to me unsuitable. מִן marks the object of fear. בְּ following rather distributes the common notion “smoking firebrands” to the two so-named, as בְּ often stands after general expressions of number, (especially after כֹּל). Comp. Exodus 12:19, “whosoever eateth leaven shall be cut off בַּגֵּר וּבְאֶזְרַח הָאָֽרֶץ.” Genesis 7:21; Genesis 9:2; Genesis 9:10. Comp. Ewald, § 217 sq. The LXX. translates singularly ὅταν γὰρ ὀργὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ μου γένηται, πάλιν ἰάσομαι. Καὶ ὁ υίὸς τοῦ Ἀρἀμ καὶ ὁ υιὸς τοῦ P̔ομελίου, etc. Gesenius correctly conjectures that the translator instead of אפרצין reads ארפאכן, or rather ארפאובן.
Isaiah 7:6. הֵקִיץ is Hiph. from קָץ. The fundamental meaning is: “to experience a shaking, a shock.” From this are derived the meanings a) timere, “trembling, quaking,” (Isaiah 7:16, Exodus 1:12; Numbers 22:3); b) taedere, fastidire. Disgust brings about a shock (comp. “es schüttelt mich”) which, when it is powerful, occasions vomiting (קוֹא) (comp. e.g. Genesis 27:46; Numbers 21:5); c) in the Hiphil: “to wake up;” for waking up is the effect of a shock that the sleeper experiences from without or within. In this sense, however, the Hiphil is evidently a direct causative, since it properly means “to make a shaking, a shaker.” Wherever else this Hiph. הקיץ occurs, except our verse, it means “to awake.” Our verse is therefore the only one where the word occurs as the causative of the notion קָץ = timere (verse 16). Many expositors therefore have hesitated to take the word in this sense. Thus Fuerst (Concord., p. 988) would give our הֵקִיץ the meaning incidere, impungere, or abscindere, in that he combines it with קוֹץ “thorn,” or with קַיִץ tempus abscissionis, “harvest.” Gesenius, (Thes. p. 1208) proposes to read נְצִיקֶנְָה coarctemus, urgeamus, (Isaiah 29:2; Isaiah 29:7). However, as this Hiphil is in any case unusual, it seems better to take it in a sense that is suggested by something near at hand, Isaiah 7:16. The feminine suffix here and afterwards in נבקענה and בתוכה relates plainly to Judah as land. The meaning of the Hiph. הבקיע is not quite clear. The fundamental meaning of the word is: “to split.” It is used of splitting wood (Ecclesiastes 10:9, coll. Genesis 22:3) of eggshells (Isaiah 59:5) of the earth from which springs forth the fountain (Ps. 124:15) of the waters of the Red Sea (Psalms 78:13); it is said that a besieged city is split when it is taken, that is, a breach is made in its walls (2 Kings 25:4; Jeremiah 39:2; Jeremiah 52:7; Ezekiel 26:10). In the last-named sense it is used 2 Chronicles 32:1, where it is said of Sennacherib: “He encamped against the fenced cities and thought לְבִקְעָם אֵלָיו,” where the constructio praegnans is important to the exposition of our passage. The word however is also used of a land. 2 Chronicles 21:17 we read of the Philistines and Arabians: “they came up into Judah, וַיִבְקָעוּהָ, and carried away all the substance,” etc. Beside the present place, the Hiph. occurs only 2 Kings 3:26, where it is used of an intended breaking forth on the part of an enclosed army. According to all this, the use of the word for breaking through, forcing a fortified city, seems to me to settle the meaning. A land is forced, broken through, as well as a city, when the living wall that defends it, the defensive army is broken through. Thus the sense of our passage will be: let us break through it (the land of Judah) i. e., take it by breaking through the protecting army, and thereby take it to ourselves. There lies in the expression, beside the pregnant construction, at the same time a metonomy.
It is not known who “the son of Tabeal” was. טָב is the Hebrew טוֹכ (comp. טַבְרִמּוֹן 1 Kings 15:18); the ending אַל changed in the pause from אֵל, whereby, perhaps intentionally, arises the meaning “not good” (good for nothing). If the name was of Israelitish origin (comp. טוּבָיִּה) then likely that Tabeal or his son was a fugitive of Judea of note. The name is found again Ezra 4:7. On the Assyrian monuments of the time of Tiglath-Pileser is mentioned however an I-ti-bi’-i-lu, or Ti-bi’-i-lu, with the addition “mat A-ru-mu” i. e., from the land of Aram.
Isaiah 7:8 b. The position of these words is surprising. Why do they not stand after Isaiah 7:9 a? And how is the ו at the beginning of Isaiah 7:8 to be construed? Is it that paratactic Vav, that is determined only by the connection? And what is it that so determines it? Shall we regard it as causal, which were quite grammatical? (Comp. Genesis 24:50; Deuteronomy 17:16; Psalms 7:10, etc. Ewald’s Gram., § 353 a; Gesen. § 155, 1 c). Or shall we, like Chrysostom and Calvin, with whom Tholuck agrees, take it in the sense of νῦν or. interea? Take one or the other and it is not satisfactory. It seems to me to answer best, to assume that the words are a sample of the oracle-like, lapidary style (Lapidarstils) and thence no grammatically correct construction is to be looked for. Did the words in question stand after 9 b, whither Lowth has transposed them, then indeed the disposition of the sentence would be more correct, but the construction would be monotonous. ראשׁ occurring four times in succession would sound bad. By the interposition of Isaiah 7:8 b, this evil is avoided. Thus manifoldness is combined with equilibrium. And thus, without ignoring the difficulties, we will still recognize the possibility of the passage being genuine as it is, against which there is grammatically nothing to oppose (comp. Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, and Ewald). Examples of the construction ובעוד שׁשׁים ו׳ Genesis 40:13; Genesis 40:19; Jos 1:11; 2 Samuel 12:22; Isaiah 21:16; Jeremiah 28:3; Jeremiah 28:11; Amos 4:7. יֵחַת is imp. Kal. from חָתַת fractus est. Isaiah 30:31; Isaiah 31:4; Isaiah 51:6, etc.—מֵעַם מִחְיוֹת עַם, comp. Isaiah 17:1; Isaiah 23:1; Isaiah 62:10.
Isaiah 7:9. Niph. נֶֽאְמֲן is firmum, stabilem, perennem esse (Isaiah 22:23; Isaiah 22:25; Isaiah 33:16; Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 55:3; Isaiah 60:4). כִּי is pleonastic, but very expressive, and is to be treated as dependent on an ideal verbum dicendi (Numbers 22:29; Numbers 22:33; Psalms 128:4).
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. And it came to pass——with the wind.—
Isaiah 7:1-2. This war expedition of the united Syrians and Ephraimites is mentioned 2 Kings 15:37; 2 Kings 16:5 sq. and 2 Chronicles 28:5 sq. Were one to follow the statement of 2 Kings 15:30, then Pekah did not at all live to see Ahaz. For there it reads: “And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah, and smote him and slew him, and reigned in his stead in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.” If Pekah was killed after Jotham’s death under Ahaz, it must any way read “in the first year of Ahaz.” But according to all other data, Pekah must undoubtedly have lived to see Ahaz. For 2 Kings 15:1 it reads that Ahaz became king in the seventeenth year of Pekah, who, according to 2 Kings 15:27, reigned twenty years. How otherwise could Pekah, according to Isaiah 7:1, wage war against Ahaz? How could Tiglath-Pileser, according to 2 Kings 15:29, whom Ahaz summoned (2 Kings 16:7), in Pekah’s day, still occupy the region of Ephraim and carry the people away? But the statement of 2 Kings 15:30 b proves itself false in other ways. For, 2 Kings 15:32-33, we read that Jotham became king in the second year of Pekah, and reigned sixteen years. Accordingly Jotham must have died in the eighteenth year of Pekah. Therefore Pekah survived Jotham, and not Jotham Pekah, as 2 Kings 15:30 gives the impression. Hitzig (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. I. p. 212) makes the original form of the statement to be: “And he killed him in the twentieth year of his reign, and became king in his stead;” but the following “of Jotham the son of Uzziah,” etc., are the superscription of 2 Kings 15:32 sqq.
However this may be, the statement of 2 Kings 15:30 b is in any case incorrect. Therefore we have here a plain example of the corruption of the text, unless we assume an inexact or erroneous use of original sources.
Pekah not only survived Jotham, but he lived during three years of Ahaz, because, according to 2 Kings 15:27, Pekah reigned twenty years, and in his seventeenth year Ahaz became king. Therefore in these three years must occur the events related in Isaiah 7:8. Drechsler says correctly, the spoiling of Ephraim, spoken of 2 Kings 15:29, presupposes the conception, birth, and learning to talk of “Hasten-spoil, Quick-prey” (Isaiah 8:3 sqq.); consequently one must say that the attack of Rezin and Pekah must be located in the first half of the three years that the latter lived in common with Ahaz.
Rezin was the last king of independent Syria—for by his overthrow it became an Assyrian province. The founder of the kingdom of Syria of Damascus was Rezin (רְזוֹן), who, having run away from his lord Hadadeser, king of Syria of Zobah, gathered a horde of fighting men, and settled with them in Damascus (1 Kings 11:23 sqq.). From that period we find the Syrian power, hitherto divided into many small kingdoms, concentrated under the king of Damascus. Rezin is followed by Hezion (חֶזְיוֹן, if he is not identical with רְזוֹן as Ewald,Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. 151, and Thenius, on 1 Kings 15:19, conjecture); he by his son Tabrimon, who, according to 1 Kings 15:19, appears to have made a league with Abijam the king of Judah, which Benhadad, son and successor of Tabrimon, renewed with king Asa; an un-theocratic proceeding, which, according to 2 Chronicles 16:7, provoked the sharp censure of the prophet Hanani. We have, then, here the example of a league that a king of Judah made with the heathen king of Syria in order to war upon Baasha, king of Israel, to which in addition must be observed the grave fact that Benhadad at the very time was in league with Baasha, and consequently must have been solicited to break an existing alliance.
Thus the league between Pekah and Rezin against Ahaz appears as a retribution for the league that Asa had made with Benhadad against Baasha. That Benhadad, whom we may call Benhadad I., was suceeeded by Benhadad II., of whom we read that he combined thirty-two kings under his supreme command against Israel (1 Kings 20:1 sqq.). Benhadad II. was succeeded by Hazael, who murdered his master (1 Kings 19:15; 2 Kings 8:7 sqq.). Hazael was succeeded by Benhadad III., his son (2 Kings 13:24); finally Rezin succeeded him; his name possibly is identical with that of Rezin, the founder of the dynasty, as Gesenius (Thesaur. p. 1307) and Baihinger (Herzog’sReal-Encyclop. VII. p. 44) conjecture. The sounds ז and צ, as is well known, being nearly related (ds and ts; comp. צָעַקִ and &צָהַר זָעַק, and &עָלַץ זָהַר and &צָעַר עָלַז and Aram. זְעַר, etc.). But if רְזוֹן and רָזוֹן (Proverbs 14:28, where the word is parallel with מֶלֶךְ) and רֹזֵן (Judges 5:3; Psalms 2:2, gravis, augustus, princeps, stand related in root and meaning, we would then see this kingdom of Damascus also begin and end with an Augustus.
Pekah, son of Remaliah, an otherwise unknown name, was שָׁלִישׁ of the king Pekahiah. Luther translates the word by Ritter = “knight,” but it means properly “chariot warrior,” because three always stood on a chariot (comp. Exodus 14:7; Exodus 15:4). It signifies a follower generally (2 Kings 10:25), as well as particularly a favored follower, on whose hand the king leaned (2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:17; 2 Kings 7:19). Pekah killed his master after a reign of two years (2 Kings 15:23 sqq.). Like all other rulers of the kingdom of Israel, “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord,” 2 Kings 15:28. Our passage is explained by the parallel passages, 2 Kings 16:5 sqq. and 2 Chronicles 28:5 sqq.
The words of 2 Kings 16:5 sqq. correspond almost verbatim with Isaiah 7:1. Such difference as there is indicates that the author of 2 Kings meant, not that Jerusalem itself, but only the king, was hard pressed,—meaning, of course, the king as representative of the land. Moreover that the author of 2 Kings drew from Isaiah, and not the reverse, appears to me beyond doubt. For 2 Kings is without doubt a much more recent book than Isaiah. At most, Isaiah could only have used one of the sources used by the writer of 2 Kings. But why need the Prophet look into the archives of the kingdom for a summary notice of an event of his own times, and known to all his contemporaries? Combining then the accounts of 2 Kings and 2 Chron. we obtain the following facts: 1, the hostile incursion of Rezin and Pekah into Judah; 2, a defeat of Ahaz by Rezin (2 Chronicles 28:5); 3, a defeat of Ahaz by Pekah (Isaiah 7:6-15); 4, the taking of Elath by the Syrians (2 Kings 16:6); 5, an expedition of Rezin and Pekah against Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1), with which also the notice Isaiah 7:2 of the fact that “Syria has settled upon Ephraim” has more or less connection.
The question arises: Is the expedition referred to in our passage identical with that related 2 Kings and 2 Chron.? or if not, did it occur before or after the latter? At the first glance, indeed, one is liable to regard Isaiah 6:1 as a brief, summary notice of all the transactions of that war. But then it is surprising that this notice—with the promises that follow it in close connection—gives the impression that the war progressed in a way wholly favorable for Judah; whereas we know from the parallel passages that Judah suffered severe defeats and prodigious loss. Therefore we cannot take our verse as such a parallel and summary account. But it is impossible also that what our passage recounts preceded the defeats of which we have account in the parallel passage. For then the statements of our passages would equally disagree with the event. They would announce only good, whereas in reality great misfortunes occurred. We must therefore assume that our passage refers to an expedition that occurred after the events of 2 Kings 16:5 sqq., and 2 Isaiah 28:5 sqq.; and we must conceive of the matter as follows: Rezin and Pekah operated at first separately, as is expressly indicated, 2 Chronicles 28:5. The former, likely, traversed the East of Judah’s territory and proceeded at once south toward Elath. But Pekah engaged in battle with Ahaz to the north of Jerusalem, with the bad result for Ahaz, related 2 Chronicles 28:5 b sqq. After these preliminary successes, Rezin and Pekah united their armies and marched against Jerusalem itself. This is the expedition of which our passage informs us, and this is the meaning of נחה Isaiah 7:2. The expedition, however, did not succeed. For Ahaz had applied to the King of Assyria, and the news that the latter was in motion in response to the request of Ahaz, moved the allied kings to hasten home into their countries. Thus is explained why Isaiah 7:1 speaks only of an intended war against the city of Jerusalem, and why the author of 2 Kings who mistook our passage for a general notice, and used it as such, resorted to the alterations we have noticed (viz., the omission of “against it,” and “they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him” 2 Kings 16:5). This is essentially the view of Caspari too (in the Universitäts-Programm über den syrisch-ephraimitischen Krieg, Christiani, 1849), with which Delitzsch agrees (in his review of the foregoing writing in Reuter’sReport., April, 1851, reprinted in his commentary).
In regard to Isaiah 7:1 b, a double matter is to be noticed: 1. that it does not say “he could not take it, or make a conquest of it” or the like; but he could not make war upon it. That must plainly mean that Rezin and Pekah could not find even time to begin the siege. 2. The clause “he could not,” etc., must be construed as anticipation of the result, which the Prophet, after the well-known Hebrew manner of writing history, joins on to the account of the beginning. What follows then Isaiah 7:2, and after, is thus, as to time, to be thought of as coming between Isaiah 7:1 a and b.
To the house of David.
Isaiah 7:2. This expression (found again in Isaiah only, Isaiah 7:13; Isaiah 22:22) can, indeed, mean the race of David, (comp. 1Sa 20:16; 1 Kings 12:16; 1 Kings 12:20; 1 Kings 12:26, etc.); and Isaiah 7:13 the plural שִׁמְעוּ, “hear ye,” seems really to commend this meaning. But the singular suffix in לְבָבוֹ and עַמּוֹ “his heart,” “his people,” proves that the meaning is not just the same. Therefore it seems to me that “house of David” here means the palace, the royal residence. There was the seat of government, the king’s cabinet; thither was the intelligence brought. It is as when one says: it was told the cabinet of St. James, or the Sublime Porte. Of course the expression involves reference to the living possessor of the government building, and the governing power, the king. Hence the language proceeds with pronouns (suffixes) in the singular.
2. Then said the Lord—the son of Remaliah.
Isaiah 7:3-4. The Prophet receives command to go and meet the king, who had gone out, and thus whose return was to be looked for. But he must not go alone, but in company with his son, Shear-jashub. The son is no where else mentioned. The name signifies the chief contents of all prophecy, according to its two aspects. In the notion שְׁאָרShear, is indicated the entire fulness of the divine judgments, that the Prophets had to announce: whereas יָשׁוּבJashub opens up the glorious prospect of the final deliverance. [The name means a remnant may return.—Tr.] Comp. Isaiah 1:8-9; Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 10:20 sqq. (especially Isaiah 7:21 where the words שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב expressly recur). We have shown in commenting on Jeremiah 3:0 sqq.; Jeremiah 31:16-22 what an important part the notion שׁוּב “to return,” plays in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The significance of Shear-jashub’s name, however, makes us notice, too, that the Prophet himself bears a significant name. יְשַׁעְיָהוּ means “salvation of Jehovah.” And that the proclamation of salvation, comfort is the chief contents of His prophecies Israel has long known, and acknowledged. An old rabbinical saying, quoted by Abarb. reads בפר יאעיהו כלוּ נהמתא comp. Introduction. Threatening and consolation therefore go to meet Ahaz embodied in the persons of Isaiah and his son, yet so that consolation predominates, as also the words that Isaiah has to speak are for the most part consolatory. Had Israel only been susceptible of this consolation!
The locality where Isaiah was to meet the king is mentioned Isaiah 36:2, and in the same words. There, Rabshakeh, the envoy of Sennacherib, according to that passage, held his interview with the men that Hezekiah sent out to him. It must, therefore, have been an open, roomy spot, suited for conferences. According to the researches of Robinson, against which the results of Krafft, Williams and Hitzig prove not to be tenable, (comp. Arnold in Herzog’sR. Encycl. XVIII. p. 632 sq.), the upper-pool is identical with the Birket-el Mamilla, which in the west of Jerusalem his in the basin that forms the beginning of the Vale of Hinnom, about 2100 feet from the Jaffa Gate. Moreover this pool is identical with “the old pool” mentioned Isaiah 22:11. Hezekiah, when he saw that Sennacherib was coming (2 Chronicles 32:2 sqq.), stopped up the fountains outside of the city, and conducted the water of the fountain of Gihon and that of the upper-pool in a new conduit between the two walls (Isaiah 22:11 coll.2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30), in contrast with which it was that the upper-pool was called the older. The fuller’s field, the place where the fullers washed, fulled and dried their stuffs, must have been in the neighborhood of a pool. Now Josephus (Bell. Jud. V. 4, 2) speaks of a μνῆμα γναφέως, “fuller’s monument,” that must have had its position north of the city. For this reason many (Williams, Krafft, Hitzig) look for the fuller’s field in the neighborhood of the fuller’s monument. But fuller’s field and fuller’s monument need not necessarily be near one another. For the latter does not necessarily concern the place of the fullers as such, but may have been erected on that spot to a fuller or by a fuller for any particular reason unknown to us. And anyway the existence of a pool in ancient times north of Jerusalem cannot be proved. Therefore the fuller’s field lay probably in the neighborhood of the upper-pool west of the city.
Ahaz had probably a similar end in view at the upper pool to Hezehiah’s, according to 2 Chronicles 32:2 sqq. It was to deprive the enemy of all fountains, brooks and pools, and yet preserve them for the use of the city. The end was obtained by covering them over above and conducting them into the city. Perhaps in this respect Ahaz did preparatory work for Hezekiah (comp. Arnold,l. c.). The Prophet warned the king against sinning through unbelieving despondency. The expression “fear not, neither be fainthearted,” is here and Jeremiah 51:46, borrowed from Deuteronomy 20:3, where it is said to the people how they must conduct themselves when they stand opposed in fight to superior forces of the enemy. The expression occurs only in the three places named. Why Ahaz should not fear is expressed in this, that the enemy that threatened him are compared to quenched firebrands and stumps of torches. Two firebrands are mentioned in the first clause, and yet the idea is distributed over three bearers, Rezin, Syria and the son of Remaliah. We see that the Prophet takes prince and people as one; and here he names the two halves of the whole, as instantly afterwards Isaiah 7:5, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, bat the second time he does not mention Rezin at all, but only opposes Syria to Ephraim and its king. There appears to me to lie in this an expression of contempt for Rezin, who first is named in connection with his nation and the second time, not at all, so that he plainly appears as a secondary person. On the other hand contempt was expressed for Pekah by calling him only the son of Remaliah. But what is the son of Remaliah, a man utterly unknown, opposed to the son of David!
3. Because Syria—shall not be established.
Isaiah 7:5-9. The conclusion of the premise “because Syria, etc., have taken evil counsel,” etc., begins Isaiah 7:7, “thus saith the Lord.” The evil counsel is set forth Isaiah 7:6. “It shall not come to pass,” says literally, what is expressed figuratively by לִא תקום = it shall not stand. For there underlies the latter expression the figure of a prostrate body that attains to standing, therefore gets to its feet and to life. Comp. Isaiah 14:24; Isaiah 28:18; Isaiah 46:10; Proverbs 19:21. Had this promise been given at the first beginning of the Syro-Ephraimite war, it would have found no complete, corresponding fulfilment. For, as shown above, the counsel did not remain quite unaccomplished. Precisely the הַכְקִעַ (Isaiah 7:6), “the forcing a breach,” succeeded, according to 2 Chronicles 28:5. Hence we must, in accordance too with נָחָה Isaiah 7:2, assume, that Isaiah addressed this prophecy to Ahaz after the beginning of the second act of that war.
For the head of Syria,etc.
Isaiah 7:8. These words are very difficult. Especially has the second clause of Isaiah 7:8, given great offense both by its contents and by its position. Many expositors therefore attempt, either to alter the text, or to reject the words וכעוד to מעם as a gloss. These, in some instances very ingenious, attempts may be found recapitulated in Gesenius. The Prophet had said, Isaiah 7:6, that Syria and Ephraim had the purpose of making the son of Tabeal king in Judah. That shall not come to pass, says Isaiah 7:7. This assertion is established by the double statement Isaiah 7:8-9. The latter consist of two members each, of which the first corresponds to the third, and the second to the fourth. The first and third member are constructed in pyramidal form: Syria, Damascus, Rezin,—Ephraim, Samaria, Pekah. But the third member is quite conformed to the first in reference to what is affirmed of the subjects. Thus it says: the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. And likewise; the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Pekah. Saying that Damascus had dominion over Syria and Rezin over Damascus, accurately designates the limits of the power of Rezin and Damascus. They may command within these limits and no more. Therefore they have not the power to set a king over Judah according to their pleasure. Moreover, if Damascus is head of Syria and Rezin the head of Damascus, the question arises, too: what sort of a head is it? Is it a strong, mighty head to which no other is equal, that is therefore safe in its sphere of power, and unassailable in it? This question must be negatived. For how can it be said of Damascus, the great, beautiful, and rich city, but still the profane and heathen city, that she enjoys the privilege of being unassailable; that she is able under all circumstances to protect and maintain her dominion? And what of Rezin? Is he an elect? Can his name give a guaranty of the permanence of the region he rules? Not at all. Quite otherwise is it in Judah, where Jerusalem, the city of God, stands opposed to the city of Damascus, and the theocratic king of David’s line to the profane, heathen ruler. Behind Jerusalem and the house of David, stands the Lord as the true head in chief of Israel. What is then the head of Syria, and Damascus compared with the head of Judah and Jerusalem? Thus is explained why Judah has nothing to fear from Rezin and Syria. But of Ephraim Isaiah 7:9, the same thing is affirmed. Plainly the Prophet would intimate that Pekah and Samaria, too, have only a sphere of power limited to Ephraim, and that Samaria is not to be brought into comparison with Jerusalem, nor the son of Remaliah with the son of David, that consequently, Ephraim is essentially the same as the heathen nation Syria, and just as little to be dreaded by Judah. Thus the meaning of Isaiah 7:8 a, and 9a, as also their relation to one another is perfectly clear. But what of the two other members Isaiah 7:8 b, Isaiah 7:9b? If we had only to do with 9b, it would be an easy affair; for it contains a very appropriate conclusion to 8a, 9a. It is, if I may so speak, double-edged. Judah is not to appropriate unconditionally the comfort of the promise given to it. Only if it believes and obeys its Lord, need it have nothing to fear from Syria and Ephraim. But if it does not believe in the Lord, it shall itself fall to pieces as the others. It cannot be said that anything essential would be wanting if Isaiah 7:8 b were not there. Neither can it be said, that in that case an essential member would be abstracted from the outward structure. For 8a and 9a correspond; but 9b is the one conclusion that corresponds to both these members in common. Only if 9b, were wanting, would there be an essential member missing. For then it would appear strange that 9a, should have no conclusion like 8a, and an appropriate termination to the whole address would be wanting. But even if 8b appear unnecessary in the context, that is not saying that it is generally out of place. Many have affirmed this, because it contradicts Isaiah 7:16, because it does not suit the cheering character of the address, and because the Prophets anyway never have such exact figures. As regards the relation to Isaiah 7:16, it was long ago pointed out that to the desertion of the land, that was the consequence of the Syro-Ephraimite war (2 Kings 15:29), in fact to the deportation by Salmanassar, not sixty-five years, but a much less number of years elapsed. Hence, after the example of Piscator, Jacob Cappellus and others, Usher (Ann. V. T., at the year 3,327) proposed to take as the concluding point of the sixty-five years, the planting of Assyrian subjects in the deserted region of Ephraim (2 Kings 17:24) which, according to Ezra 4:2, took place under Esar-haddon. This fact, which indeed may be regarded as the sealing of the doom of Ephraim in regard to its existence as a state, must coincide with the time of Manasseh, and can with the carrying away this king, which according to the assumption of the Jewish chronology in Seder Olam. p. 67, took place in the twenty-second year of his reign. This would of course bring out the sixty-five years.
14 years of Ahaz.29 years of Hezekiah.22 years of Manasseh.65 years.
This reckoning, indeed, rests on no sure data, but it is still possible, and we can meanwhile quiet ourselves and say: if the Prophet meant the sixty-five years so, there exists no contradiction of Isaiah 7:16, and תעזב, shall be forsaken, is not to be taken in an absolute sense. And the comfort that Ahaz was to find in the ruin of Ephraim that was to happen only after sixty-five years, was this, that he could say: a city devoted to remediless ruin, even though not in a very short time, is not to be feared. But as for the exact data of figures, Tholuck (D. Proph. u. ihre Weiss., 1861, p. 116 sqq.), has proved the existence of such in the Old Testament (Isaiah 16:14; Isaiah 20:3; Isaiah 21:16; Isaiah 38:5; comp. Ezekiel 4:5 sqq.; etc.). Whatever may be thought of the reason of the matter, the fact itself cannot be denied; and I do not comprehend how Diestel (in Knobel’sKomm. 4 Aufl. p. 66) can contend against this reality, on which everything here depends.
In order that Judah may partake of the blessing of this promise, it must itself fulfil a condition; the condition especially on which depends the blessed fulfilment of all promises: it must believe. If it believes not, which, alas, was the actual case, then it will not continue to exist itself.[J. A. Alexander on Isaiah 7:4. The comparison of Rezin and Pekah to the tails or ends of firebrands, instead of firebrands themselves, is not a mere expression of contempt, nor a mere intimation of their approaching late, as Barnes and Henderson explain it, but a distinct allusion to the evil which they had already done, and which should never be repeated. If the emphasis were only on the use of the word tails, the tail of anything else would have been qually appropriate. The smoking remnant of a firebrand implies a previous flame, if not a conflagration. This confirms the conclusion before drawn, that Judah had already been ravaged.
Pekah being termed simply the son of Remaliah, is supposed by some to be intended to express contempt for him, though the difference may after all, be accidental, or have only a rhythmical design. The patronymic, like our English surname, can be used contemptuously only when it indicates ignoble origin, in which sense it may be applied to Pekah, who was a usurper
On Isaiah 7:5. The suppression of Pekah’s proper name in this clause, and of Rezin’s altogether in the first, has given rise to various far-fetched explanations, though it seems in fact, to show that the use of names in the whole passage is rather euphonic or rhythmical than significant.
On Isaiah 7:9. Another rendering equally natural to that of Luther (viz.: if ye believe not, then ye abide not) is; “if ye do not believe (it is) because ye are not to be established.”]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On Isaiah 7:1. “Hierosolyma oppugnatur, etc. Jerusalem is assaulted but not conquered. The church is pressed but not oppressed.”—Foerster.
2. On Isaiah 7:2. “Quando ecclesia, etc. When the Church is assaulted and Christ crucified over again in His elect, Rezin and Pekah, Herod and Pilate are wont to form alliance and enter into friendly relations. There are, so to speak, the foxes of Samson, joined indeed by the tails, but their heads are disconnected.”—Foerster.—“He that believes flees not (Isaiah 28:16). ‘The righteous is bold as a lion’ (Proverbs 28:1). Hypocrites and those that trust in works (work-saints) have neither reason nor faith. Therefore they cannot by any means quiet their heart. In prosperity they are, indeed, overweening, but in adversity they fall away (Jeremiah 17:9).” Cramer.
3. On Isaiah 7:9. (“If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.”) “Insignis sententia, etc. A striking sentiment that may be adapted generally to all temptation, because all earnest endeavor after anything, as you know, beguiles us in temptation. But only faith in the word of promise makes us abide and makes sure whatever we would execute. He warns Ahaz, therefore, as if he said: I now promise you by the word, it shall be that those two kings shall not hurt you. Believe this word! For if you do not, whatever you afterwards devise will deceive you: because all confidence is vain which is not supported by the word of God.”—Luther.
4. On Isaiah 7:10-12. “Wicked Ahaz pretends to great sanctity in abstaining from asking a sign through fear of God. Thus hypocrites are most conscientious where there is no need for it: on the other hand, when they ought to be humble, they are the most insolent. But where God commands to be bold, one must be bold. For to be obedient to the word is not tempting God. That is rather tempting God when one proposes something without having the word for it. It is, indeed, the greatest virtue to rest only in the word, and desire nothing more. But where God would add something more than the word, then it must not be thought a virtue to reject it as superfluous. We must therefore exercise such a faith in the word of God that we will not despise the helps that are given in addition to it as aids to faith. For example the Lord offers us in the gospel all that is necessary to salvation. Why then Baptism and the Lord’s Supper? Are they to be treated as superfluous? By no means. For if one believes the word he will at the same time exhibit an entire obedience toward God. We ought therefore to learn to join the sign with the word, for no man has the power to sever the two.
But do you ask: is it permitted to ask God for a sign? We have an example of this in Gideon. Answer: Although Gideon was not told of God to ask a sign, yet he did it by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, and not according to his own fancy. We must not therefore abuse his example, and must be content with the sign that is offered by the Lord. But there are extraordinary signs or miracles, like that of the text, and ordinary ones like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Yet both have the same object and use. For as Gideon was strengthened by that miraculous event, so, too, are we strengthened by Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, although no miracle appears before our eyes.” Heim and Hoffmann after Luther. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, also asked the Lord to show him the right wife for Isaac by means of a sign of His own choosing, (Genesis 24:14).
It ought to be said that this asking a sign (opening the Bible at a venture, or any other book) does not suit Christian perfection (Hebrews 6:1). A Christian ought to be inwardly sensible of the divine will. He ought to content himself with the guarantees that God Himself offers. Only one must have open eyes and ears for them. This thing of demanding a sign, if it is not directly an effect of superstition (Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4; 1 Corinthians 1:22), is certainly childish, and, because it easily leads to superstitious abuses, it is dangerous.
5. On Isaiah 7:13. “Non caret, etc. That the Prophet calls God his God is not without a peculiar emphasis. In Zechariah 2:12 it is said, that whoever touches the servants of God touches the pupil of God’s eye. Whoever opposes teacher and preacher will have to deal with God in heaven or with the Lord who has put them into office.”—Foerster.
6. On Isaiah 7:14. “The name Immanuel is one of the most beautiful and richest in contents of all the Holy Scripture. ‘God with us’ comprises God’s entire plan of salvation with sinful humanity. In a narrower sense it means ‘God-man’ (Matthew 1:23), and points to the personal union of divinity and humanity, in the double nature of the Son of God become man. Jesus Christ was a God-with-us, however, in this, that for about 33 years He dwelt among us sinners (John 1:11; John 1:14). In a deeper and wider sense still He was such by the Immanuel’s work of the atonement (2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Timothy 2:3). He will also be such to every one that believes on Him by the work of regeneration and sanctification and the daily renewal of His holy and divine communion of the Spirit (John 17:23; John 17:26; John 14:19-21; John 14:23). He is such now by His high-priestly and royal administration and government for His whole Church (Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 7:25). He will be snch in the present time of the Church in a still more glorious fashion (John 10:16). The entire and complete meaning of the name Immanuel, however, will only come to light in the new earth, and in the heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:3; Revelation 21:23; Revelation 22:5).”—Wilh. Fried. Roos.
Isaiah 8:7. On Isaiah 8:5 sqq. “Like boastful swimmers despise small and quiet waters, and on the other hand, for the better display of their skill, boast of the great sea and master it, but often are lost in it,—thus, too, did the hypocrites that despised the small kingdom of Judah, and bragged much and great things of the power and splendor of the kingdom of Israel and of the Syrians; such hypocrites are still to be found now-a-days—such that bear in their eye the admiranda Romae, the splendor, riches, power, ceremonies and pomp of the Romish church, and thereupon ‘set their bushel by the bigger-heap.’ It is but the devil’s temptation over again: ‘I will give all this to thee.’ ”—Cramer.—“Fons Siloa,” etc. “The fountain of Siloam, near the temple, daily reminded the Jews that Christ was coming.”—Calvin on John 9:7.
8. On Isaiah 8:10. “When the great Superlatives sit in their council chambers and have determined everything, how it ought to be, and especially how they will extinguish the gospel, then God sends the angel Gabriel to them, who must look through the window and say: nothing will come of it.”—Luther.—“Christ, who is our Immanuel, is with us by His becoming man, for us by His office of Mediator, in us by the work of His sanctification, by us by His personal, gracious presence.”—Cramer.
9. On Isaiah 8:14-15. Christ alone is set by God to be a stone by which we are raised up. That He is, however, an occasion of offence to many is because of their purpose, petulance and contempt (1 Peter 2:8). Therefore we ought to fear lest we take offence at Him. For whoever falls on this stone will shatter to pieces (Matthew 21:44).” Cramer.
10. On Isaiah 8:16 sqq. He warns His disciples against heathenish superstition, and exhorts them to show respect themselves always to law and testimony. “They must not think that God must answer them by visions and signs, therefore He refers them to the written word, that they may not become altogether too spiritual, like those now-a-days who cry: spirit! spirit! … Christ says, Luke 16:0 : They have Moses and the prophets, and again John 5:39 : Search the Scriptures. So Paul says, 2 Timothy 3:16 : The Scripture is profitable for doctrine. So says Peter, 2 Peter 1:9 : We have a sure word of prophecy. It is the word that changes hearts and moves them. But revelations puff people up and make them insolent.” Heim and Hoffmann after Luther.
Chap. 9–11. On Isaiah 9:1 sqq. (2). “Postrema pars, etc. The latter part of chap. 8 was νομικὴ καὶ (legal and threatening) so, on the other hand, the first and best part of chap. 9 is εὐαγγελικὴ καὶ παραμυθητική, (evangelical and comforting). Thus must ever law and gospel, preaching wrath and grace, words of reproof and words of comfort, a voice of alarm and a voice of peace follow one another in the church.” Foerster.
12. On Isaiah 9:1 (2). Both in the Old Testament and New Testament Christ is often called light. Thus Isaiah calls Him “a light to the gentiles,” Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6. The same Prophet says: “Arise, shine (make thyself light), for thy light is come,” Isaiah 60:1. And again Isaiah 9:19 : “The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light.” In the New Testament it is principally John that makes use of this expression: “The life was the light of men,” John 1:4, “and the light shined in the darkness,” John 9:5. John was not that light, but bore testimony to the light, John 9:8. “That was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” John 9:9. And further: “And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,” John 3:19. “I am the light of the world,” (John 8:12; John 9:5; comp. John 12:35).
13. On Isaiah 9:1 (2). The people that sit in darkness may be understood to comprise three grades. First, the inhabitants of Zebulon and Naphtali are called so (Isaiah 8:23), for the Prophet’s gaze is fixed first on that region lying in the extreme end of Palestine, which was neighbor to the heathen and mixed with them, and on this account was held in low esteem by the dwellers in Judah. The night that spreads over Israel in general is darkest there. But all Israel partakes of this night, therefore all Israel, too, may be understood, as among the people sitting in darkness. Finally, no one can deny that this night extends over the borders of Israel to the whole human race. For far as men dwell extends the night which Christ, as light of the world, came to dispel, Luke 1:76 sqq.
14. On Isaiah 9:5 (6). Many lay stress on the notion “child,” inasmuch as they see in that the reason for the reign of peace spoken of afterwards. It is not said a man, a king, a giant is given to us. But this is erroneous. For the child does not remain a child. He becomes a man: and the six names that are ascribed to Him and also the things predicted of His kingdom apply to Him, not as a child, but as a man. That His birth as a child is made prominent, has its reason in this, that thereby His relation to human kind should be designated as an organic one. He does not enter into humanity as a man, i.e. as one whose origin was outside of it, but He was born from it, and especially from the race of David. He is Son of man and Son of David. He is a natural offshoot, but also the crowning bloom of both. Precisely because He was to be conceived, carried and born of a human mother, and indeed of a virgin, this prophecy belongs here as the completion and definition of the two prophetic pictures Isaiah 7:10 sqq.; Isaiah 8:1 sqq.—“He came down from heaven for the sake of us men, and for our bliss (1 Timothy 1:15; Luke 2:7). For our advantage: for He undertook not for the seed of angels, but for the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16). Not sold to us by God out of great love, but given (Romans 5:15; John 3:16). Therefore every one ought to make an application of the word ‘to us’ to himself, and to learn to say: this child was given to me, conceived for me, born to me.”—Cramer.—“Cur oportuit, etc. Why did it become the Redeemer of human kind to be not merely man nor merely God, but God and man conjoined or θεάνθρωπον? Anselm replies briefly, indeed, but pithily: Deum qui posset, hominem, qui deberet.” Foerster.
15. On Isaiah 9:5 (6). “You must not suppose here that He is to be named and called according to His person, as one usually calls another by his name; but these are names that one must preach, praise and celebrate on account of His act, works and office.” Luther.
16. On Isaiah 9:6. “Verba pauca, etc. A few words, but to be esteemed great, not for their number but for their weight.” Augustine. “Admirabilis in, etc. Wonderful in birth, counsellor in what He preaches, God in working, strong in suffering, father of the world to come in resurrection, Prince of peace in bliss perpetual.” Bernard of Clairvaux. In reference to “a child is born,” and “a son is given,” Joh. Cocceius remarks in his Heb. Lex. s. v. יֶלֶד: “respectu, etc., in respect to His human nature He is said to be born, and in respect to His divine nature and eternal generation not indeed born, but given, as, John 3:16, it reads God gave His only begotten Son.”
“In the application of this language all depends on the words is born to us, is given to us.” The angels are, in this matter, far from being as blessed as we are. They do not say: To us a Saviour is born this day, but; to you. As long as we do not regard Christ as ours, so long we shall have little joy in Him. But when we know Him as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, as a gift that our heavenly Father designed for us, we will appropriate Him to ourselves in humble faith, and take possession of all His redeeming effects that He has acquired. For giving and taking go together. The Son is given to us; we must in faith receive Him.” J. J. Rambach, Betracht. über das Ev. Esaj., Halle, 1724.
On Isaiah 9:6 (7). “The government is on His shoulders.” “It is further shown how Christ differs in this respect from worldly kings. They remove from themselves the burden of government and lay it on the shoulders of the privy counsellors. But He does not lay His dominion as a burden on any other; He needs no prime minister and vicegerent to help Him bear the burden of administration, but He bears all by the word of His power as He to whom all things are given of the Father. Therefore He says to the house of Jacob (Isaiah 46:3 sq.): Hearken unto me ye who were laid on my shoulders from your mothers’ womb. I will carry you to old age. I will do it, I will lift, and carry and deliver,—on the contrary the heathen must bear and lift up their idols, (Isaiah 46:1; Isaiah 46:7).”—Rambach. “In the first place we must keep in mind His first name: He is called Wonderful. This name affects all the following.” “All is wonderful that belongs to this king: wonderfully does He counsel and comfort; wonderfully He helps to acquire and conquer, and all this in suffering and want of strength. (Luther, Jen. germ. Tom. III. Fol. 184 b.). ” “He uses weakness as a means of subduing all things to Himself. A wretched reed, a crown of thorns and an infamous cross, are the weapons of this almighty God, by means of which He achieves such great things. In the second place, He was a hero and conqueror in that just by death, He robbed him of his might who had the power of death, i.e., the devil (Hebrews 2:14); in that He, like Samson, buried His enemies with Himself, yea, became poison to death itself, and a plague to hell (Hosea 13:14) and more gloriously resumed His life so freely laid down, which none of the greatest heroes can emulate.”—Rambach.
17. On Isaiah 9:18 (19) sqq. True friendship can never exist among the wicked. For every one loves only himself. Therefore they are enemies one of another; and they are in any case friends to each other, only as long as it concerns making war on a third party.
Isaiah 10-18. On Isaiah 10:4. (Comp. the same expression in chap. 10). God’s quiver is well filled. If one arrow does not attain His object, He takes another, and so on, until the rights of God, and justice have conquered.
19. On Isaiah 10:5-7. “God works through men in a threefold way. First, we all live, move and have our being in Him, in that all activity is an outflow of His power. Then, He uses the services of the wicked so that they mutually destroy each other, or He chastises His people by their hand. Of this sort the Prophet speaks here. In the third place, by governing His people by the Spirit of sanctification: and this takes place only in the elect.”—Heim and Hoffmann.
20. On Isaiah 10:5 sqq. “Ad hunc, etc. Such places are to be turned to uses of comfort. Although the objects of temptation vary and enemies differ, yet the effects are the same, and the same spirit works in the pious. We are therefore to learn not to regard the power of the enemy nor our own weakness, but to look steadily and simply into the word, that will assuredly establish our minds that they despair not, but expect help of God. For God will not subdue our enemies, either spiritual or corporal, by might and power, but by weakness, as says the text: my strength is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9).—Luther.
21. On Isaiah 10:15. “Efficacia agendi penes Deum est, homines ministerium tantum praebent. Quare nunc sibilo suo se illos evocaturum minabatur (cap. Isaiah 5:26; Isaiah 7:18); nunc instar sagenae sibi fore ad irretiendos, nunc mallei instar ad feriendos Israelitas. Sed praecipue tum declaravit, quod non sit otiosus in illis, dum Sennacherib securim vocat, quae ad secandum manu sua et destinata fuit et impacta. Non male alicubi Augustinus ita definit, quod ipsi peccant, eorum esse; quod peccando hoc vel illud agant, ex virtute Dei esse, tenebras prout visum est dividentis (De praedest Sanctt.).”—Calvin Inst. II. 4, 4.
22. On Isaiah 10:20-27. “In time of need one ought to look back to the earlier great deliverances of the children of God, as to the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, or later, from the hand of the Midianites. Israel shall again grow out of the yoke.”—Diedrich.
Isaiah 11-23. On Isaiah 11:4. “The staff of His mouth.” “Evidence that the kingdom of Christ will not be like an earthly kingdom, but consist in the power of the word and of the sacraments; not in leathern, golden or silver girdles, but in girdles of righteousness and faith.”—Cramer.
24. On Isaiah 11:10 sqq. If the Prophet honors the heathen in saying that they will come to Christ before Israel, he may be the more readily believed, when Isaiah 11:11 sqq., he gives the assurance that the return out of the first, the Egyptian exile, shall be succeeded by a return out of the second, the Assyrian exile, (taking this word in the wider sense of Isaiah). It is manifest that the return that took place under Zerubbabel and Ezra was only an imperfect beginning of that promised return. For according to our passage this second return can only take place after the Messiah has appeared. Farthermore, all Israelites that belong to “the remnant of Israel,” in whatever land they may dwell, shall take part in it. It will be, therefore, a universal, not a partial return. If now the Prophet paints this return too with the colors of the present (Isaiah 11:13 sqq.), still that is no reason for questioning the reality of the matter. Israel will certainly not disappear, but arise to view in the church of the new covenant. But if the nation is to be known among the nations as a whole, though no more as a hostile contrast, but in fraternal harmony, why then shall not the land, too, assume a like position among the lands? But the nation can neither assume its place among nations, nor the land its place among lands, if they are not both united: the people Israel in the land of their fathers.
25. On Isaiah 11:0 “We may here recall briefly the older, so-called spiritual interpretation. Isaiah 11:1-5 were understood of Christ’s prophetic office that He exercised in the days of His flesh, then of the overthrow of the Roman Empire and of Antichrist, who was taken to be the Pope. But the most thorough-going of those old expositors must acknowledge, at Isaiah 11:4, that the Antichrist is not yet enough overthrown, and must be yet more overthrown. If such is the state of the case, then this interpretation is certainly false, for Isaiah 11:4 describes not a gradual judgment, but one accomplished at once. There have been many Antichrists, and among the Popes too, but the genuine Antichrist described 2 Thessalonians 2:0, is yet to be expected, and also the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:4 of our chapter. Thereby is proved at the same time that the peaceful state of things in the brute world and the return of the Jews to their native land are still things of the future, for they must happen in that period when the Antichristian world, and its head shall be judged by Christ. But then, too, the dwelling together of tame and wild beasts is not the entrance of the heathen into the church, to which they were heretofore hostile, and the return of the Jews is not the conversion of a small part of Israel that took place at Pentecost and after. The miracles and signs too, contained in Isaiah 11:15-16 did not take place then. We see just here how one must do violence to the word if he will not take it as it stands. But if we take it as we have done, then the whole chapter belongs to the doctrine of hope (Hoffnungslehre) of the Scripture, and constitutes an important member of it. The Lord procures right and room for His church. He overthrows the world-kingdom, together with Antichrist. He makes of the remnant of Israel a congregation of believers filled with the Spirit, to whom He is near in an unusual way, and from it causes His knowledge to go out into all the world. He creates peace in the restless creatures, and shows us here in advance what more glorious things we may look for in the new earth. He presents to the world a church which, united in itself, unmolested by neighbors, stands under God’s mighty protection. All these facts are parts of a chain of hope that must be valuable and dear to our hearts. The light of this future illumines the obscurity of the present; the comfort of that day makes the heart fresh.” Weber, der Prophet Jesaja, 1875.
Chap. 12–26. On Isaiah 12:4 sq. “These will not be the works of the New Testament: sacrificing and slaying, and make pilgrimage to Jerusalem and to the Holy Sepulchre, but praising God and giving thanks, preaching and hearing, believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth. For to praise our God is good; such praise is pleasant and lovely” (Psalms 147:1). Cramer.
27. On Chap. 12 “With these words conclude the prophetic discourses on Immanuel. Through what obscurity of history have we not had to go, until we came to the bright light of the kingdom of Christ! How Israel and the nations had to pass through the fire of judgment before the sun arises in Israel and the entire gentile world is illumined! It is the, same way that every Christian has to travel. In and through the fire we become blessed. Much must be burnt up in us, before we press to the full knowledge of God and of His Son, before we become entirely one with Him, entirely glad and joyful in Him. Israel was brought up and is still brought up for glory, and we too. O that our end too were such a psalm of praise as this psalm!” Weber, Der Pr. Jes. 1875.
Footnotes:
[28]Heb. resteth on Ephraim.
[29]That is, The remnant shall return.
[30]Or, causeway.
[31]Heb. let not thy heart be tender.
[32]Before these two smoking torch-ends.
[33]devised evil.
[34]Or, waken.
[35]shake it.
[36]the Lord Jehovah.
[37]Heb. from a people.
[38]Or, Do ye not believe? it is because ye are not stable.
[39]If ye believe not, then ye continue not.
Be the first to react on this!
