THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VIII. 23-IX. 6.

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 anysavinginfluence, obtained anaccusingone; 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, thebeginningonly of the calamities here indicated can accordingly be sought for,--thegermfrom which all that followedwas 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.Rosenmüllerexpressed his adherence to the Messianic explanation, but supposed that the Prophet was of opinion that the Messiah would be born in his time. EvenBruno 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 byEwald. "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 therealPresent instead of theideal, and thinks that the Prophet imagined that the conception and birth of the Messiah would take place at once. Byעלמהhe 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 whichthe 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 arealPresent 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:"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 othersGrotius,Richard Simon, andClericus; and then, in our century, byOlshausen, who says: "The unity of the reference lies in the name Immanuel; the son of Isaiah had thenamebut Christ theessence. He was the visible God whom the former only represented." In a modified form, this view is held byLowth,Koppe, andvon 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," saysvon Meyer, "was this: If now a girl was to marry, to becomepregnant, 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," saysLowth, "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 ofLowth; but he, as little as any other of these interpreters, has been able to vindicate the assumption of adouble 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 thesanctum artificiumby 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. Theעלמהis 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.

3. Many interpreters deny every reference to Christ. This interpretation remained for a long time the exclusive property of the Jews, untilJ. E. Faber(in his remarks onHarmar'sobservations 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 ofJ. D. Michaelis. In their views about theAlmah, who is to bear Immanuel, these interpreters are very much at variance.

(a) The more ancient Jews maintained that theAlmahwas the wife of Ahaz, and Immanuel, his son Hezekiah. According to theDialog. c. Tryph.66, 68, 71, 77, this view prevailed among them as early as the time ofJustin. But they were refuted byJerome, who showed that Hezekiah must, at that time, have already been at least nine years old.KimchiandAbarbanelthen resorted to the hypothesis of a second wife of Ahaz.

(b) According to the view of others, theAlmahis 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 byIsenbiehl,Steudel(in a Programme, Tübingen, 1815), and others.

(c) According to the view of others, theAlmahis not arealbut only anidealvirgin. ThusJ. 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 ofUmbreit. The virgin is, according to him, an actual virgin whom the Prophet perceived among those surrounding him; but the pregnancy and birth are imaginarymerely, 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 ofMeier, 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 ledMeierto 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 theAlmah. This view was advanced as early as byAbenezraandJarchi. By the authority ofGesenius, 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. Asעלמהdesignates "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.Thereis 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, asPlüschkedoes, 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 ofHendewerk: "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."Hitzigremarks: "The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether destitute of any foundation." He then, however, falls back upon the hypothesis whichGeseniushimself admitted to be untenable, thatעלמה, "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.Hitzighas 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,אותis 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, doessurely not come up to the demand which in this context must be made in reference to thissign. And if the Prophet had announced so solemnly, and in words so sublime, the birthof his ownchild, 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 inWorms, (Eisenmenger,entdecktes Judenthumii. 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.

[1]Meyer,Blätter für höhere Wahrheit, iii. S. 101.]

[2]Casparivery 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 withCaspariin his transferring to Idumea the victory of Rezin. According to Is. vii. 2, Aram was encamped in Ephraim. According to 2 Kings xvi. 5,bothof the kings came up to Jerusalem and besieged her. The expedition against Elath, 2 Kings xvi. 6, was secondary, and by the way only.

[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 bespurious. 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 isthe 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.Chrysostomremarks: "The king, hearing that they should be destroyed after sixty-five years, might say within himself: What about that? Although they bethenoverthrown, 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 beutterlydestroyed; 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 inHis servantwhom 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 byEwald, "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.

[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 againcompletelycultivated.

[5]GeseniusmentionsPellicanusas the first defender of the Non-Messianic interpretation. But this statement seems to have proceeded from a cursory view of an annotation byCrameronRichard Simon's Kritische Schrifteni. S. 441, where the words: "this historical interpretationPellicanustoo has preferred," do not refer to Isaiah but to Daniel. Nor is there any more ground for the intimation thatTheodorusa Mopsuesta rejected the Messianic interpretation.

(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 oftheir 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 withVav convers.the same rule applies as in reference toויצר, in Gen. ii. 19. The progress lies first inותלה; the event falling into that time is the birth.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7), forms the necessarysupplementto 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, thepicture 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 thepresent 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 byAsshur, 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 mustfadebefore the bright image of Immanuel, which calls to the people: "Be ye of good cheer, I have overcome the world."Calvinstrikingly 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.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 thepartakingin 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, asthe 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 asdarkness, 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 greatlightwhich 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."

כיstands 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:"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 thehelp of the Lordalready alluded to in vers. 9 and 10, and to thelight of His gracewhich 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 thisכיwith the verse immediately preceding instead of referring it to the main contents of the preceding section, have proved futile.כיcan 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: "Theburdenof Moab,forin the night the city of Moab is laid waste;" for only in that case isכיwithout any meaning at all, ifמשאbe falsely interpreted.--Ver. 22, where the phraseמעוף צוקה"darkness of distress" is equivalent to "darkness which consists in distress" (compare also: "behold trouble and darkness" in the same verse), shows thatמועףandמוצקare 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, theremovalof it called forth by the grace of the Lord.--לאmay 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,איןshould 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, inלהrefers, just as the suffix, inבהin ver. 21, to the omittedארץ.--Theכinכעתis, by many interpreters, asserted to stand in the signification ofכאשר: "Just as the former time has brought disgrace,"&c. But as it cannot be proved thatכhas ever the meaning, "just as;" and as, on the other hand,כעתfrequently 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, theכas a temporal particle, and to supply, as the subject, Jehovah, whoalways 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 regardsאחרון, eitherכעתmay be supplied,--and this is simplest and most natural--or it may be taken as an Accusative, "for the whole after-time."--הקלmeans properly to "make light," then "to make contemptible," "to cover with disgrace," andהכבידproperly then, "to make heavy," "to honour,"--a signification which indeed is peculiar toPiel, but in which theHiphil, too, occurs in Jer. xxx. 19; the two verbs thus form an antithesis. Theהlocaleinארצה(the word does not occur in Isaiah with theהparagog.) shews that a certain modification of the verbal notion must be assumed: "to bring disgrace and honour."ארצהthus would mean "towards the land." The scene of the disgrace and honour, which at first was designated in general only, is afterwardsextended. 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.--יםcan, in this context which serves for a more definite qualification, mean the sea of Gennesareth only (ים כנרתNumb. xxxiv. 11, and other passages), just as, in Matt. iv. 13, the designation of Capernaum asἡ παραθαλασσίαreceives its definite meaning from the context.--דרךoccurs elsewhere also in the signification ofversus,e.g., Ezek. viii. 5, xl. 20, 46; it will be necessary to supply after itארץ, just as in the case of theעבר הירדןfollowing. It is without any instance thatדרך"way" should stand for "region," "country." The region on the sea is then divided into its two partsעבר הירדן,πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, 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 establishedusus loquendi, many would understandעבר הירדןas 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.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 ofGalil, 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. ThisTheodoretalso 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 afuture 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 afuture 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;Keilon 1 Kings ix. 11. But very soon after this,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 theexpressionreverts 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 andmetropolis, 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 thehonouror theglorificationwhich 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 theRedeemer, 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 manymiracles; 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.Theodoretstrikingly remarks: "Galilee was the native country of the holy Apostles; there theLord 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 hasGeseniuscompared 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:בארעת דגליל יתגלי מלכא משיתא. "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,--foraccording to chap. viii. 22, darkness is to cover the whole of it--but only as that portion which comes chiefly into consideration.Lightis, in the symbolical language of Scripture, salvation. That in which thesalvationhere 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 thedeliverancefrom 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 thespiritualmisery 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, andthenthe 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 anadditiononly 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 theoutwardsalvation, 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 tookplace, 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.--צלמות, "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 therealPresent instead of theideal, yet evenEwaldis 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 thedarknessstill 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.Ἀκούσας δὲ--thus the section begins--ὅτι Ἰωάννης παρεδόθη, ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.Since, in these words, we are told that Jesus, after having received the intelligence of the imprisonment ofJohn, 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 verbἀναχώρεῖνdenotes, on the contrary, the withdrawing into theangulus terraeGalilee, as contrasted with the civil and ecclesiastical centre. Thetimeof 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 circumstancethe 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.--Καὶ καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρὲτ--it is said in ver. 13--ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς Καπερναοὺμ τὴν παραθαλασσίαν, ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλείμ.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 designationτὴν παραθαλασσίανstands in reference toὁδὸν θαλάσσης, in ver. 15.Ἐν ὁρίοις, &c., may either mean: "In the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali,"i. e.in that place wherethe borders of both the countries meet,--orτὰ ὅριαmay, according to the analogy of the Hebrewגבולים, denote the borders in the sense of "territory," as in Matt. ii. 16. From a comparison ofγῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφαλείμof 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 phraseἵνα πληρωθῇdoes not, according to the very sound remark ofDe Wette, point to the intention, but to the objective aim. The question, however, is to what theἵνα πληρωθῆis to be referred,--whether merely to that which immediately precedes, viz., the change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, or, at the same time toἀνεχώρησεν εἰν τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. 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 theὁδὸν θαλάσσηςof the prophecy was found again, and that, therefore, thence theπέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνουof 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 fromγῆ--τῶν ἐθνῶνmay 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 theὁ λαός, which has become an apposition, they formthe subject of the following sentence. At all events,ὁδόνtakes here the place of the adverb, although it may not be possible to adduce instances and proofs altogether analogous from the Greekusus 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 inGeseniusto 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.--Oneof 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" (גויas in the passage before us, and notעם), 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.Vitringadirects 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 apreludeto the real fulfilment;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 ofUmbriet: "Thou hast multiplied theheathen, 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 thepeople, O Lord, thou art glorified, thou removest all the boundaries of the land," where, just as in the verse before us, byהגוי"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 presentlightis rendered brighter by being contrasted with the formerdarkness. The contrast of the presentincreasewith 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 thedecrease. 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 readingלו, "to him" hast thou increased the joy. According to many modern interpreters,לאis supposed to be a different mode of writing forלו. But noproofthat could stand the test can be brought forward forsuch a mode of writing; nor is there any reason for supposing thatלאstands here in a different sense from what it does in chap. viii. 23, and it would indeed be strange thatלוshould have been placed before the verb. At most, it might be supposed that the Prophet intended an ambiguous and double sense:not/to himdidst 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:μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ, ὅς ἐστι Χριστὸς Κύριος; 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 joybefore 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 rejoicedbefore 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 atthe dividing of the spoil, the joy is compared only to show its greatness, just as with the joyin 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 theyokeand thestaff, thedriver, (an allusion to the Egyptian taskmasters, masters, comp. Exod. iii. 7; v. 10), is Asshur, and thewholeworld'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 experiencethe 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:θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον, 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.--שכם"shoulder" does not suit as themembrum cui verbera infliguntur; it comes, as is commonly the case, into consideration as that member with which burdens are borne. Thestaffor tyranny is a heavyburden, 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 (thouhast 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:forthe 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 ofthe conquerors. Nor can we, according to these passages, entertain, for a moment, the idea ofMeier, that those bloody garments belong toIsrael.

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 Preteritesילדandנתן. 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.Hitzigcorrectly remarks: "Because He is stillfuture, the Prophet in His first appearance, beholds Him as a child, and as the son of another."Whoseson 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:οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον("The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this,") vers. 6 [7],ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν.--When grown up, the Son has the government upon His shoulder. The Prophet contrasts Christ with theworld's power, which threatened destruction to the people of God. This, then, refers to theKingly officeof Christ, and the state of glory. Parallel is the declaration of Christ in Matt. xxviii. 18,ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία. The Lord has also, in John xviii. 37, confirmed the truth that He isKing; 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 ofthis world, John xviii. 36, it is, just for that very reason, so much the more all-governing. Theἐντεῦθενin 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 webear; 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 afterשמו קראdesignates 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 numberfour,--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 isפלא יועץ. That these two words must beconnectedwith one another (Theodor.--θαυμαστῶς βουλεύων) appears from the analogy of the other names, especially ofאל גבּורwith whomפלא יועץforms one pair; and then from the circumstance thatיועץalone would, in this connection, be too indefinite. The words do not stand in the relation of theStatus constructus, but are connected in the same manner asפלא אדםin Gen. xvi. 12.יועץdesignates the attribute which is here concerned, whileפלאpoints 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 sucha King. As aCounsellor, He is aWonder, absolutely elevate d above everything which the earth possesses in excellency of counselling. Asפלאcommonly 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 withאלGod; 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 explainפלא יועץ"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,"פלאי,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 Godהפליא עצה, "He shows himself wonderful in His counsel."--The second name isאל גבּור"God-Hero." Besides the ability of giving good counsel, a good government requires alsoגבורהstrength, 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 greatesthuman measureof heroic strength, but who is also aGod-Hero, and aHero-God, so that with His appearance theredisappearscompletely 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, alwayslimited,אל גבורcan signify God-Hero only, a Hero who is infinitely exalted above all human heroesby the circumstance that He isGod. To the attempts at weakening the import of the name, chap. x. 21, whereאל גבורis said of the Most High, appears a very inconvenient obstacle,--a parallel passage which does not occur by chance, but whereשאר ישובstands 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 didGesenius. This explanation, against which chap. x. 21 should have warned, has been for ever set aside by the remark ofHitzig: "Commonly, in opposition to all theusus loquendi, the word is translated by:strong hero. Butאלis 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 fromאל, but fromאיל, 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 theאלי גבּוריםof that passage are "rams of heroes." Rationalistic interpreters now differ in their attempts at getting rid of the troublesome fact.Hitzigsays, "Strong God"--he erroneously viewsגבּור, 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 byKnobel: "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, calledאלהים, "gods,LikeGod, to be compared to Him, a worthy representative of Him, and hence, likewise, called God." It is true that there is oneאל גבּורonly, and that, according to chap. x. 21, the Messiah cannot beאל גבּורbeside the Most High God, exceptingby partaking in his nature. Such a participation in the nature, not His being merely filled with the power ofGod, 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 nameElohimis there givenin general only to the judicial court, which represents God--to theoffice, not to the single individuals who are invested with it. In Ps. lxxxii. 1, the nameElohimin 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, whereאל גבּורstands 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 areElohim, and sons of the Most High ye all;" and, finally, that thereElohimis used as the most vague and general name of God, while hereEl, 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 byMeierthat then necessarily the words ought to run,גבור אל. It is farther obvious that by this explanation theגבור אלhere 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.

Back to Index Next