The third name isFather of eternity. That admits of a double explanation. Several interpreters refer to the Arabicusus loquendi, according to which he is called the father of a thing who possesses it;e.g., Father of mercy,i.e., the merciful one. Thisusus loquendi, according to the supposition formerly very current, occurs in Hebrew very frequently, especially in proper names,e.g.,טוב אבי. "Father of goodness,"i.e., the good one. According to this view. Father of eternity would be equivalent to Eternal one. According to the opinion of others. Father of eternity ishe who will ever be a Father,an affectionate provider, comp. chap. xxii. 21, where Eliakimis called "Fatherto the inhabitants of Jerusalem;" Job xxix. 16; Ps. lxviii. 6.Luther, too, thus explains: "Who at all times feeds His Kingdom and Church, in whom there is a fatherly love without end." Thelatterview is to be preferred unconditionally. Against the former view is the circumstance that all the other names stand in direct reference to the salvation of the covenant-people, while, in the mere eternity, this reference would not distinctly enough appear. And it has farther been rightly remarked byEwald, that thatusus loquendiin Arabic always belongs to the artificial, often to jocular discourse. Whether it occur in Hebrew at all is still a matter of controversy;Ewald, § 27, denies that it occurs in proper names also. On the other hand, the paternal love, the rich kindness and mercy, exceedingly well suit the first two names which indicate unfathomablewisdom, and divineheroic strength. The rationalistic interpreters labour very hard toweakenthe idea ofeternity. But the "Provider for life"agrees very ill with theWonder-Counsellor, and theGod-hero. The absolute eternity of the Messiah's dominion is, on the foundation of 2 Sam. vii., most emphatically declared in other passages also (comp. vol. i., p. 132, 133), and meets us here again immediately in the following verse. The name Ever-Father, too, leads us todivine Majesty, comp. chap. xlv. 17: "Israel is saved by the Lord with aneverlastingsalvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded in alleternity" chap. lvii. 15, where God is calledשכן עד"the ever dwelling;" farther, Ps. lxviii. 6: "AFatherof the fatherless, and a judge of the widows is God in His holy habitation," where the providence of God for thepersonae miserabilesis praised with a special reference to that which He does for His poor people.--Hitzig'sexplanation: "Father of prey," does not suit the prophetic style, and has, in general, no analogy from Hebrew to adduce in its favour. The circumstance that, in the verse immediately following, the eternity of the government is mentioned, shows thatעדmust be taken in its ordinary signification "eternity."
The fourth name,Prince of peace, stands purposely at the end, and is to be considered as strongly emphatic. War, hostile oppression, the distress of the servitude which threatens the people of God,--these are the things which, in the first instance,have directed the Prophet's eye to the Messiah. The name points back to Solomon who typified Christ's dominion of peace, and who himself, in the Song of Solomon, transfers his name to Christ (comp. my Comment. S. 1 ff.); then to the Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10 (comp. vol. i, 84, 85). We should misunderstand the name were we to infer from it that, in the Messianic time, all war should cease. Were such to be the case, why is it that, immediately before, the Redeemer is designated asGod-Hero? Peace is the aim; it is offered to all the nations in Christ; but those who reject it, who rise up against His Kingdom, He throws down, as the God-Hero, with a powerful hand, andobtains by forcepeace for His people. But war, as far as it takes place, is carried on in a form different from that which existed under the Old dispensation. According to Micah v. 9 (10), ff., the Lord makes His people outwardly defenceless, before they become in Christ world-conquering; comp. vol. i., p. 515. According to chap. xi. 4, Christ smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked.
Ver. 6 (7.) "To the increase of the government and to the peace, there is no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, so that he establisheth it, and supporteth it by justice and righteousness, from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform this."
There is no reason for connecting this verse with the preceding one; in which case the sense would be: "For the increase of government and for peace without end."Forchap. ii. 7; Nah. ii. 10; Job. xvi. 3--in whichלwithקץoccurs in the very same sense--clearly show that theלinלשלוםandלמרבהmay very well be understood as a mere sign of the Dative. And the objection that the followingלהכין, &c. would, in that case, be unsuitable, is removed if it be explained: so that He establisheth, &c., or: by His establishing, &c.; comp.Ewald,Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache§ 280 d. The words designate the basis on which the increase of government and the peace rest. The Kingdom of God will, through the Redeemer, acquire an ever increasingextent, and, along with it, perfectpeaceshall be enjoyed by the world. For it is not by rude force that this kingdom is to be founded and established, as is the case with worldly kingdoms, in which increase ofgovernment and peace, far from being always connected, are, on the contrary, irreconcilable opponents, but byjusticeandrighteousness. Parallel is Ps. lxvii. In vers. 11-15 of that Psalm, the Psalmist just points to that "by which all nations and kings are induced to do homage to that king; it is just that which, in the whole Psalm, appears as the root of everything else, viz., the absolute justice of the king."Decreaseof government andwarwithout end were, meanwhile, in prospect, and they were so, because those who were sitting on the throne of David did not support his kingdom by justice and righteousness. But the Psalmist intimates to the trembling minds that such is not the end of the ways of God with His people; that at last the idea of the Kingdom of God will be realized. From the fundamental passage, Ps. lxxii. 8-11, and parallel passages, such as chap. ii. 2, 4; Mic. v. 3 (4); Zech. ix. 10, it is obvious that, as regards the endless increase of the government, the Prophet thinks of all the nations of the earth. On thepeacewithout end, comp. Ps. lxxii. 7; chap. ii. 4; Mic. v. 4 (5), and the words: "He speaketh peace unto the heathen," Zech. ix. 10. Theלdesignates the substratum on which the increase of dominion and the peace manifest themselves; the dominion of the Davidic family and its kingdom gain infinitely in extent, and in the same degree peace also increases. In these words the Prophet gives an intimation that the Messiah will proceed from David's family, comp. chap. xi. 1 where he designates Him as the twig of Jesse.--הכין"to confirm," "to establish," used of throne and kingdom, 1 Sam. xiii. 13, comp. 14; 1 Kings ii. 12, comp. ver. 24, and farther, chap. xvi. 5.--The words: "from henceforth even for ever" do not, asUmbreitsupposes, refer to every thing in this verse, but to the words immediately preceding. That the words must be understood in their full sense, we have already proved in our remarks on the fundamental passage, 2 Sam. vii. 13: "And I will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever;" see Vol. i. p. 131.Michaelissays: "So that that promise to David shall never fail." Theעתהdoes not refer to theactual, but to theidealpresent, to the first appearance of the Redeemer, to the words: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government is upon His shoulder."--This great change is brought aboutby thezealof the Lord who raises this glorious King to His people; comp. John iii. 16. The zeal in itself is onlyenergy; the sphere of its exercise is, in every instance, determined by the context. In Exod. xv. 5; Deut. iv. 24; Nah. i. 2, the zeal is the energy of wrath. In the passage before us, as in the Song of Solomon viii. 6, and in chap. xxxvii. 32: "For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and escaped ones out of Mount Zion; the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this," the zeal of God means the energetic character of His love to Zion.
We must, in conclusion, still make a few remarks, on the interpretation of vers. 5 and 6. The older interpreters were unanimous in referring these verses to the Messiah. Even by the Jews, this explanation was abandoned at a subsequent period only. To the Messiah this passage is referred by the Chaldean Paraphrast, by the Commentary on Genesis known by the nameBreshith Rabbahin the exposition of Genesis xli. 44 (seeRaim. Martini Pugio fidei, Vol. iii. sec. 3, chap. xiv. § 6), by RabbiJose Galilaeusin the bookEkha Rabbati, a Commentary on Lamentations (seeRaim. Matt.iii. 3 chap. 4, § 13).Ben Sira(fol. 40 ed., Amstel. 1679), mentions among the eight names of the Messiah, the following from the passage before us: Wonderful, Counsellor, El Gibbor, Prince of Peace. But the late Jewish interpreters found it objectionable that the Messiah, in opposition to their doctrinal views, was here described as God; for doctrinal reasons, therefore, they gave up the received interpretation, and sought to adapt the passage to Hezekiah. Among these, however,Rabbi Lipmannallows the Messianic explanation to a certain degree to remain. Acknowledging that the prophecy could not refer exclusively to Hezekiah, he extends it to all the successors from the House of David, including the Messiah, by whom it is to attain its most perfect fulfilment. Among Christian interpreters,Grotiuswas the first to abandon the Messianic explanation. EvenClericusacknowledges that the predicates are applicable to Hezekiah "sensu admodum diluto" only. At the time when Rationalism had the ascendancy, it became pretty current to explain them of Hezekiah.Geseniusmodified this view by supposing that the Prophet had connected his Messianic wishes and expectations with Hezekiah, andexpected their realization by him. At present this view is nearly abandoned; afterGesenius,Hendewerkis the only one who still endeavours to defend it.
Against the application to Hezekiah even this single argument is decisive, that a glory is here spoken of, which is to be bestowed especially upon Galilee which belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes.Farther--Although the prophecy be considered as a human foreboding only, how could the Prophet, to whom, everywhere else such a sharp eye is ascribed, that, from it, they endeavour to explain his fulfilled prophecies,--how could the Prophet have expected that Hezekiah, who was at that time a boy of about nine years of age, and who appeared under such unfavourable circumstances, should realize the hopes which he here utters in reference to the world's power, should conquer that power definitively and for ever, should infinitely extend his kingdom, and establish an everlasting dominion? How could he have ascribed divine attributes to Hezekiah who, in his human weakness, stood before him?Finally--The undeniable agreement of the prophecy before us with other Messianic passages, especially with Ps. lxxii. and Is. xi., where evenGeseniusdid not venture to maintain the reference to Hezekiah, is decidedly in opposition to the reference to Hezekiah.
(Chap. xi., xii.)
These chapters constitute part of a larger whole which begins with chap. x. 5. With regard to the time of the composition of this discourse, it appears, from chap. x. 9-11, that Samaria was already conquered. The prophecy, therefore, cannot be prior to the sixth year of Hezekiah. On the other hand, the defeat of the Assyrian host, which, under Sennacherib, invaded Judah, is announced as being still future. The prophecy, accordingly, falls into the period between the 6th and the 14th year of Hezekiah's reign. From the circumstance that in itthe king of Asshur is represented as being about to march against Jerusalem, it is commonly inferred that it was uttered shortly before the destruction of the Assyrian host, and hence, belongs to the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. But this ground is not very safe. It would certainly be overlooking the liveliness with which the prophets beheld and represented future things as present; it would be confounding theidealPresent with theactual, if we were to infer from vers. 28-32 that the Assyrian army must already have reached the single stations mentioned there. The utmost that we are entitled to infer from this liveliness of description is, that the Assyrian army was already on its march; but not even that can be inferred with certainty. In favour of the immediate nearness of the danger, however, is the circumstance that, in the prophecy, the threatening is kept so much in the background; that, from the outset, it is comforting and encouraging, and begins at once with the announcement of Asshur's destruction, and Judah's deliverance. This seems to suggest that the place which, everywhere else, is occupied by the threatening, was here taken by the events themselves; so that of the two enemies of salvation, proud security and despair, the latter only was here to be met. The prophecy before us opens the whole series of the prophecies out of the 14th year of Hezekiah, the most remarkable year of the Prophet's life, rich in the revelations of divine glory, in which his prophecy flowed in full streams, and spread on all sides.
The prophecy divides itself into two parts. The first, chap. x. 5-34, contains the threatening against Asshur, who was just preparing to inflict the deadly blow upon the people of God. The fact that in chap. xi. we have not an absolutely new beginning before us, sufficiently appears from the general analogy, according to which, as a rule, the Messianic prophecy does notbeginthe prophetical discourse; but still more clearly from the circumstance that chap. xi. begins with "and;" to which argument may still be added the fact that the figure in the first verse of this chapter evidently refers to the figure in the last verse of the preceding chapter. Asshur had there been represented as a stately forest which was to be cut down by the hand of the Lord; while here the house of David appears as a stem cut down, from the roots of which a small twig shallcome forth, which, although unassuming at first, is to grow up into a fruit-bearing tree. The purpose of the whole discourse was to strengthen and comfort believers on the occasion of Asshur's inroad into the country; to bring it home to the convictions of those who were despairing of the Kingdom of God, that He who is in the midst of them is greater than the world with all its apparent power; and thereby to awaken and arouse them to resign themselves entirely into the hands of their God. It is for this purpose that the Prophet first describes the catastrophe of Asshur; that, then, in chap. xi., he points to the highest glorification which in future is destined for the Church of God by the appearance of Christ, in order that she may the more clearly perceive that every fear regarding her existence is folly.
The connection of the two passages appears so much the more plainly when we consider, that that which, in chap. x., was said of Asshur, and especially the close in vers. 33 and 34: "Behold Jehovah of hosts cuts down the branches with power, and those of a high stature shall be hewn down, and the high ones shall be made low. And He cuts down the thickets of the forest with the iron, and Lebanon shall fall by the glorious one,"refers to him as the representative of the whole world's power; that the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem is to be considered as the nearest fulfilment only, but not as thefullandrealfulfilment.
From the family of David sunk into total obscurity--such is the substance--there shall, at some future period, rise a Ruler who, at first low and without appearance, shall attain to great glory and bestow rich blessings,--a Ruler furnished with the fulness of the Spirit of God and of His gifts, filled with the fear of God, looking sharply and deeply, and not blinded by any appearance, just and an helper of the oppressed, an almighty avenger of wickedness, ver. 1-5. By him all the consequences of the fall, even down to the irrational creation, in the world of men and of nature, shall be removed, ver. 6-9. Around Him the Gentiles, formerly addicted to idols, shall gather, ver. 10. In ver. 11-16 the Prophet describes what he is to do for Israel, to whom the discourse was in the first instance addressed, and upon whom it was to impress the word: "Fear not." Under Him they obtain deliverancefrom the condition of being scattered and exiled from the face of the Lord, the removal of pernicious dissensions, conquering power in relation to the world which assails them, and the removal of all obstacles to salvation by the powerful arm of the Lord.
The reference of the prophecy to the Messiah is, among all the explanations, the most ancient. We find it in the Targum of Jonathan, who thus renders the first verse:ויפק מלכא מבנוהי דישי ומשיחא מבני בנוהי יתרבי. St. Paul quotes this prophecy in Rom. xv. 12, and proves from it the calling of the Gentiles. In 2 Thes. ii. 8 he quotes the words of ver. 4, and assigns to Christ what is said in it. In Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16, Christ, with reference to ver. 1 and 10, is called the root of David. The Messianic explanation was defended by most of the older Jewish interpreters, especially byJarchi,Abarbanel, andKimchi.[1]It is professed even by most of the rationalistic interpreters, by the modern ones especially, without any exception (Eichhorn,De Wette,Gesenius,Hitzig,Maurer,Ewald), although, it is true, they distinguish between Jesus Christ and the Messiah of the Old Testament,--as,e.g.,Geseniushas said: "Features such as those in ver. 4 and 5 exclude any other than the political Messiah, and King of the Israelitish state," andHitzig: "A political Messiah whose attributes, especially those assigned to him ver. 3 and 4, are not applicable to Jesus."
But the non-Messianic interpretation, too, has found its defenders. According to a statement of Theodoret, the passage was referred by the Jews to Zerubbabel.[2]Interpreters more numerous and distinguished have referred it to Hezekiah. This interpretation is mentioned as early as byEphraem Syrus; among the Rabbis it was held byMoses Hakkohen, andAbenezra; among Christian interpreters,Grotiuswas the first who professed it, but in such a manner that he assumed a higher reference to Christ. ("The Prophet returns to praise Hezekiah in words under which the higher praises of Christ are concealed.") He was followed byDathe. The exclusive reference to Hezekiah was maintained byHermann v. d.Hardt, in a treatise published in 1695, which, however, was confiscated; then, by a number of interpreters at the commencement of the age of Rationalism, at the head of whom wasBahrdt. Among the expositors of the last decade, this interpretation is held byHendewerkalone.
The reasons for the Messianic interpretation, and against making Hezekiah the subject of the prophecy, are, among others, the following:--
1.The comparison of the parallel passages.The Messiah is here represented under the figure of a shoot or sprout. This has become so common, as a designation of the Messiah, that the name "Sprout" has almost become a proper name of the Messiah; compare the remarks on chap. iv. 2. A striking resemblance to ver. 1 is presented by chap. lviii. 2, where the Messiah, to express His lowliness at the beginning of His course, is, in the same manner as here, compared to a feeble and tender twig. Ps. lxxii. and the prophecies in chap. ii., iv., vii., ix., and Mic. v., present so many agreements and coincidences with the prophecy under consideration, that they must necessarily be referred to one and the same subject. The reception of the Gentile nations into the Kingdom of God, the holiness of its members, the cessation of all hostilities, are features which constantly recur in the Messianic prophecies.
2. There are features interwoven with the prophecy which lead to a more than human dignity of its subject. Even this circumstance is of importance here, that thewhole earthappears as the sphere of His dominion. Still more distinctly is the human sphere overstepped by the announcement that, under His government,sin, yea, even all destruction in the outward nature is to cease, and the earth is to return to the happy condition in which it was before the fall. According to ver. 4, He slays the wicked in the whole earth by His mere word,--a thing which elsewhere is said ofGodonly; and according to ver. 10, the heathen shall render Him religious reverence.
3. Afuturescion of David is here promised. Forויצאin ver. 1 must be taken as apraeteritum propheticum, as is evident from its being connected with the preceding chapter, which has to do with future things, and in which the preterites have a prophetic meaning; as also by the analogy of the following preterites from which this can by no means be separated. Butat the time when this prophecy was composed, Hezekiah had long ago entered upon the government.
4. The circumstances under which the Prophet makes the King appear are altogether different from those at the time of Hezekiah. According to ver. 1 and 10, the royal house of David would have entirely declined, and sunk into the obscurity of private life, at the time when the Promised One would appear. The Messiah is there represented as a tender twig which springs forth from the roots of a tree cut down. In the circumstance, too, that the stem is not called after David, but after Jesse, it is intimated that the royal family is then to have sunk back into the obscurity of private life. This does not apply to Hezekiah, under whom the Davidic dynasty maintained its dignity, but to Christ only.Farther: In ver. 11 there is an announcement of the return of not only the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also of the members of the kingdom of Judah from all the countries in which they were dispersed. This must refer to a far later time than that of Hezekiah; for at his time no carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah had taken place. This argument is conclusive also against the false modified Messianic explanation as it has been advanced byEwald, according to which the Prophet is supposed to have expected that the Messiah would appear immediately after the judgment upon the Assyrians, and after the conversion and reform of those in the Church who had been spared in the judgment. The facts mentioned show that between the appearance of the Messiah, and the Present and immediate Future, there lay to the Prophet still a wide interval in which an entire change of the present state of things was to take place. Ver. 11 is here of special importance. For this verse opens up to us the prospect of a whole series of catastrophes to be inflicted upon Israel by the world's powers, all of which are already to have taken place at the time of the King's appearance, and which lay beyond the historical horizon at the time of the Prophet.
A certain amount of truth, indeed, lies at the foundation of the explanation which refers the prophecy to Hezekiah. The fundamental thought of the prophecy before us: "The exaltation of the world's power, is a prophecy of its abasement; the abasement of the Davidic Kingdom is a prophecy of its exaltation,"was, in a prelude, to be realized even at that time. But the Prophet does not limit himself to these feeble beginnings. He points to the infinitely greater realization of this idea in the distant future, where the abasement should be much deeper, but the exaltation also infinitely higher. To him who had first, by a living faith, laid hold of Christ's appearance, it must be easy, even in the present difficulty, to hope for the lower salvation.
The distinction between the "political Messiah" of the prophecy before us, and "Jesus of Nazareth"--a distinction got up by Rationalism--rests chiefly upon the fact that Rationalism knows Christ as theSon of Manonly, and is entirely ignorant of His true eternal Kingdom. Hence a prophecy which, except the intimation, in ver. 1, of His lowliness at first, refers altogether to the glorified Christ, could not but appear as inapplicable. But it is just by ver. 4, to which they chiefly appeal, that a "political Messiah" is excluded; for to such an one the words: "He smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked" do not in the least apply. And so likewise vers. 6-9 altogether go beyond the sphere of a political Messiah, All that at first sight seems to lead to such an one belongs to the imagery which was, and could not fail to be, taken from the predecessors and types on the throne of David, since Christ was to be represented as He in whom the Davidic Kingdom attains to its full truth and glory.
In the whole section, the Redeemer appears as aKing. This is altogether a matter of course, for He forms the antithesis to the king of Asshur. It is quite in vain thatUmbreithas endeavoured to bring political elements into the description. Thereby the sense is essentially altered. We must keep closely in view the Prophet's starting-point. Before those who were filled with cares and fears, lest the Davidic Kingdom should be overturned by the Assyrian kingdom, he holds up the bright image of the Kingdom of David, in its last completion. When they had received that into their hearts, the king of Asshur could not fail to appear to them in a light altogether different, as a miserable wretch. The giant at once dwindled down into a contemptible dwarf, and with tears stillin their eyes they could not avoid laughing at themselves for having stood so much in awe of him.
As is commonly the case in the Messianic prophecies, so here, too, no attention is paid to the development of Christ's Kingdom in time. Everything, therefore, is fulfilled only as to its beginning; and the complete fulfilment still stands out for that future in which, after the fulness of the Gentiles has been brought in, and apostate Israel has been converted, the consequences of the fall shall, in the outward nature also, be removed.
Ver. 1. "And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit."
The circumstance that the words in the first verse are completed in the number seven, divided into three and four, intimates that the Prophet here enters upon the territory of the revelation of a mystery of the Kingdom of God. Totally different--so the Prophet begins--from the fate of Asshur, just now proclaimed, shall that of the royal house of David be. Asshur shall be humbled at a time when he is most elevated. Lebanon falls through the mighty One: but the house of David shall be exalted at a time when he is most humbled. Who then would tremble and be afraid, although it go downward?Luthersays: "This is a short summary of the whole of theology and of the works of God, that Christ did not come till the trunk had died, and was altogether in a hopeless condition; that hence, when all hope is gone, we are to believe that it is the time of salvation, and that God is then nearest when He seems to be farthest off!" The same contrast appears in Ezek. xvii. 24. The Lord brings down the high tree of the world's power, and exalts the low tree of the Davidic house. The wordגזעdoes not mean "stem" in general, as several rationalistic interpreters, andMeierlast, have asserted, but rather stump,truncus,κορμός, asAquila,Symmachus,Theodotion, translate. This is proved from the following reasons: (1) the derivation fromגזע, in Arabicsecuit, equivalent toגדע, "to cut off," chap. ix. 9; x. 33. Theגדעיםin latter passage clearly refers to theגזעhere. The proud trees of Asshur shall becut down; from the cut down trunk of David there shall grow up anewtree overshadowing the earth, and offering glorious fruits to them that dwell on it.--(2) Theusus loquendi. The signification, "stump," is, bythe context, required in the two passages in which the wordגזעstill occurs. In Job xiv. 8, it is obvious. The whole passage there from vers. 7-9 illustrates the figurative representation in the verse under review. "For there is hope of a tree; if it becut downit will sprout again, and its tender branch does not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and thestumpthereof die in the dust, through the scent of waters it buds, and brings forth boughs, like one newly planted." We have here the figure of our verse carried out. That which water is to the natural tree decaying, the Spirit and grace of God are to the dying tree, cut down to the very roots, of the Davidic family. In the second passage. Is. xl. 23, 24, it is only by a false interpretation thatגזעhas been understood of the stem in general. "He bringeth princes to nothing, He destroyeth the kings of the earth. They are not planted; they are not sown; theirstumpdoes not take root in the earth." The Prophet, having previously proved God's elevation over the creature, from the creation and preservation of the world, now proves it from the nothingness of all that which on earth has the greatest appearance of independent power. It costs Him no effort to destroy all earthly greatness which places itself in opposition to Him. He blows on them, and they have disappeared without leaving any trace. If God's will be not with it, princes will not attain to any firm footing and prosperity (they are not planted and sown); they are like a cut-down stem which has no more power to take root in the earth. A tree not planted dries up; corn not sown does not produce fruit; a cut down tree does not take root.--(3.) The connection. In the second member of the verse we read: "A branch from his roots shall bear fruit." Unless we mean to adopt the altogether unsuitable expedient of explaining it of a wild twig which shoots forth from the roots of a still standing tree, we cannot but think of a stem cut down to the very root. Against the opinion ofHendewerkwho remarks: "An indirect shoot from the root which comes forth from the root through the stem;" and againstMeier'sopinion: "The root corresponds with the stem, and both together form the living tree," it is decisive, that in ver. 10, the Messiah is simply, and without any mention being made of the stem, designated asשרש"a shoot from the root." Farther, chap. liii. 2, where the Messiah is representedas a shoot from the root out of a dry ground.--(4.) It is only whenגזעhas the meaning, "stump," that it can be accounted for why theגזעof Jesse, and not of David, is spoken of--(5.) The supposition that the Messiah shall be born at the time of the deepest humiliation of the Davidic family, after the entire loss of the royal dignity, pervades all the other prophetical writings. That Micah views the Davidic family as entirely sunk at the time of Christ's appearance, we showed in vol. I. p. 508-9. Compare farther the remarks on Amos ix. 11, and those on Matth. ii. 23 immediately following.--Hitzigis obliged to confess thatגזעcan designate the cut-off stem only; but maintains that Jesse, as an individual long ago dead, is designated as a cut-off tree. But against this opinion is the relation which, as we proved, exists between this verse and the last verses of the preceding chapter; the undeniable correspondence ofגזעwithגדעיםin chap. x. 33. In that case the antithesis also, so evidently intended by the Prophet, would be altogether lost. It is not by any means a thing so uncommon, that a man who is already dead should have a glorious descendant. To this it may further be added that, according to this supposition, the circumstance is not all accounted for, that Jesse is mentioned, and not David, the royal ancestor, as is done everywhere else.Finally--In this very forced explanation, the parallel passages are altogether left out of view, in which likewise the doctrine is contained that, at the time of Christ's appearance, the Davidic family should have altogether sunk. The reason of all these futile attempts at explaining away the sense so evident and obvious, is none other than the fear of acknowledging in the prophecy an element which goes beyond the territory of patriotic fancy and human knowledge. But this dark fear should here so much the more be set aside, that, according to other passages also, the Prophet undeniably had the knowledge and conviction that Israel's course would be more and more downward before it attained, in Christ, to the full height of its destiny. We need remind only of the prophecies in chap. v. and vi.; and it is so much the more natural here to compare the latter of them, that, in it, in ver. 13, Israel, at the time of the appearing of the Messianic Kingdom, is represented as a felled tree,--a fact which has for its ground the sinking of theDavidic race which is here announced. We farther direct attention to the circumstance that in our prophecy itself, Israel's being carried away into all the countries of the earth is foreseen as future,--a circumstance which is so much the more analogous, that there also, as here, the foreknowledge clothes itself in the form of thesuppositionand not of express announcement. With regard to the latter point, it may still be remarked that Amos also, in chap. ix. 11, by speaking of the raising up of the tabernacle of David which is fallen, anticipates its future lowliness.--The question still arises:--Why is it that the Messiah is here designated as a rod of Jesse, while elsewhere, His origin is commonly traced back to David?Umbreitis of opinion that the mention of Jesse may be explained from the Prophet's desire to trace the pedigree as far back as possible; in its apparent extinction, the family of the Messiah was to be pointed out as avery oldone. But if this had been his intention, he would have gone back beyond Jesse to the older ancestors whom the Book of Ruth mentions; and if he had been so anxious to honour the family of the Messiah, it would, at all events, have been far more suitable to mention David than Jesse, who was only one degree removed from him. The sound view has been long ago given by Calvin, who says: "The Prophet does not mention David; but rather Jesse. For so much was the dignity of that family diminished, that it seemed to be a rustic, ignoble family rather than a royal one." It was appropriate that that family, upon whom was a second time to be fulfilled the declaration in Ps. cxiii. 7, 8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; He lifteth up the needy out of the dunghill, that He may set him with princes, with the princes of His people,"--in which, the second time, the transition should take place from the low condition to the royal dignity, should not be mentioned according to its royal, but according to its rustic character. This explanation of the fact is confirmed by the circumstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right interpretation ofגזע: Jesse is mentioned and not David, because the Davidic dignity had become aגזע. The mention of Jesse's name thus explained, agrees, then, with the birth of Christ at Bethlehem, announced by Isaiah's cotemporary, Micah. Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, because that residence was peculiar to thefamily of David during its lowliness; comp. vol. I., p. 508-9.--The second hemistich of the verse may either be explained: "a twig from his roots shall bear fruit," or, as agrees better with the accents: "a twig shall from his roots bear fruit." The sense, at all events, is: A shoot proceeding from his roots (i.e., the cut-off stem of Jesse) shall grow up into a stately fruitful tree; or: As a tree cut down throws out from its roots a young shoot which, at first inconsiderable, grows up into a stately fruit-bearing tree, so from the family buried in contempt and lowliness, aKingshall arise who, at first humble and unheeded,[3]shall afterwards attain to great glory. Parallel is Ezek. xvii. 22-24. The Messiah is there compared to a tender twig which is planted by the Lord on a high hill, and sends forth branches and bears fruit, so that all the birds dwell in the shadow of its branches.--It has now become current to explain: "A branch breaks forth or sprouts;" but that explanation is against theusus loquendi.פרהis never equivalent toפרח"to break forth;" it has only the signification "to bear," "to bear fruit," "to be fruitful."Geseniuswho, in the later editions of his translation, here explainsפרהby, "to break forth," knows, in theThesaurus, of no other signification. In the passage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be considered as a commentary on the verse before us,עשה פריcorresponds to theיפרהhere. The change of the tense, too, suggests thatיפרהdoes not contain a mere repetition, but a progress. This progress is necessary for the sense of the whole verse. For it cannot be the point in question that, in general, a shoot comes forth; but the point is that this shoot shall attain to importance and glory.יפרהcomprehends and expresses in one word that which, in the subsequent verses of the section, is carried out in detail. First, there is the bestowal of the Spirit of the Lord whereby He is enabled to bear fruit; then, the fruit-bearing itself.
We here subjoin the discussion of the New Testament passage which refers to this verse.
[1]Their testimony is collected bySeb. Edzardiin the treatise:Cap. xi. Esaiae Christo vindicatum adversus Grotium et sectatores ejus, imprimos Herm. v. d. Hardt.Hamburg 1696.
[1]Their testimony is collected bySeb. Edzardiin the treatise:Cap. xi. Esaiae Christo vindicatum adversus Grotium et sectatores ejus, imprimos Herm. v. d. Hardt.Hamburg 1696.
[2]"The madness of the Jews is indeed to be lamented who refer this prophecy to Zerubbabel."
[2]"The madness of the Jews is indeed to be lamented who refer this prophecy to Zerubbabel."
[3]AlthoughUmbreitdenies it, yet this is implied in the designation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the lowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary consequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle course to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may, moreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2.]
[3]AlthoughUmbreitdenies it, yet this is implied in the designation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the lowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary consequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle course to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may, moreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2.]
Καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ· ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται.
We here premise an investigation as regards the name of the town of Nazareth. Since that name occurs in the New Testament only, different views might arise as to its orthography and etymology. One view is this: The name was properly and originallyנצר. Being the name of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine terminationא. And, finally, on account of the original appellative signification of the word, aת, the designation of thestatus emphaticusof feminine nouns inא, was sometimes added. We have an analogous case in the nameDalmanutha, the same place which, with the Talmudist, is calledצַלְמוֹן. CompareLightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp.II., p. 411 sqq. So it is likewise probably thatγαββαθὰ,גַבְתָאis formed from the masculineגַב,dorsum. Our view is that the original name wasNezer, that this form of the name was in use along with that which received aתadded, and that thisתserved for the designation of thestatus emphaticusonly; or also, if we wish to take our stand upon the Hebrew form, was a mere hardening of theהFemin. (either of which suppositions is equally suitable for our purpose); and this our view we prove by the following arguments: 1. The testimonies of the Jews.David de Pomis(inDe Dieu,critic. sacr.on M. II. 23) says:נצרי מי שנולד בעיר נֵצָר הגליל רחוק מירושלים דרך שלשת ימים"A Nazarene is he who is born in the town ofNezer, in Galilee, three days' journey from Jerusalem." In the Talmud, inBreshith Rabba, and inJalkut Shimeonion Daniel, the contemptuous name ofBen Nezer,i.e., the Nazarene, is given to Christ; compare the passages inBuxtorf,lex. c.1383; inLightfoot,disquis. chorog. Johan. praem. opp.II., 578 sqq.;Eisenmenger, I., p. 3139. It is true,Gieseler(on Matth. ii. 23, and in theStudien u. Kritiken, 1831, III. S. 591) has tried to give a different interpretation to this appellation. He is of opinion that this appellation has reference to Is. xi. 1; that it had come to the Jews from the Christians, who calledtheir Messiahבן נצר, because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this supposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation was chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the Christians maintained that Jesus was theנצרannounced by Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the namesנצר נאפוף"adulterous branch," andנצר נתעב"abominable branch" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp.EisenmengerI. S. 137, 138. ButGieseleris wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is. xi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only. Against that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it ought to have beenNezeronly, and notBen-Nezer.Gieseler, it is true, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is called the "Son of the prophecy," and in confirmation of thisusus loquendihe refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under Hadrian assumed, with a reference to theכוכבin Numb. xxiv. 17, the nameבן כוכבorבר כוכבא, in so far as the star there promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only apparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be calledBen-Nezerbecause He was He in whom the prophecy of theNezerwas fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellationBen Nezerthat that pseudo-Messiah could be calledBar Cochba, only because it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was fulfilled.Relandhas already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) thatBarcochbaprobably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a town or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he laid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper meaning in this agreement of the name of his birth-place with the designation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the supposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled, was called the son of that prophecy; that,e.g., the Messiah, the Servant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah, &c., is not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself, most improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that this interpretation ofBen-Nezeris opposed by the constant interpretation of the Jews.Jarchi, in a gloss on that passage of the Talmud referred to, explainsBen Nezerby: "He who has come from the town of Nazareth."Abarbanelin his bookMajenehajeshua, after having quoted fromJalkut Shimeonithe passage in question, observes: "Remark well how they have explained the little horn in Daniel vii. 8, of theBen Nezerwho is Jesus theNazarene." From the LexiconAruchwhich forms a weighty authority, Buxtorf quotes: "נצר נצרי המקללNezer, (or Ben Nezer), is the accursedNazarene."Finally--It could not well be supposed that the Jews, in a contest where they heap the most obnoxious blasphemies on Christ, should have given Him an honourable epithet which they had simply received from the Christians.
2. The result which we have obtained is confirmed by the statements of Christian writers. Even at the time ofEusebius(Hist. Eccles. i. 7), and ofJerome, the place was calledNazara. The latter says: "Nazareth: there exists up to this day in Galilee a village opposite Legio, fifteen miles to the east of it, near Mount Tabor, calledNazara" (comp.Relandi. S. 497). InEpistol.xvii. adMarcellumhe expressly identifies the name withNezer, by saying: "Let us go to Nazareth, and according to a right interpretation of that name, we shall see there the flower of Galilee."
3. To this may be added, that theGentilitiaformed from Nazareth can be explained only when theתis not considered as belonging to the original form of the name. For, in that case, it must necessarily be found again in theGentilitia, just as,e.g., fromענתתwe could not by any means formענתי, but onlyענתתי. In the New Testament the two formsΝαζωραῖοςandΝαζαρηνὸςonly occur, never the formΝαζαρεταῖος.Gieselerhas felt the difficulty which these names present to the common hypothesis, but has endeavoured (l. c. p. 592) to remove them by the conjecture that this form, so very peculiar, had been coined by a consideration ofנצרwhich the first Christians were accustomed to bring into connection withנצרת. But this conjecture would, at most, be admissible, only if, with the Jews too, the formנצריwere not found throughout without aת, and if the Arabic form also were not entirely analogous.[1]
The question now is:--In what sense wasנצרassigned as anomen propriumto a place in Galilee? Certainly, we must at once reject the supposition ofJeromethat Nazareth was thus called, as being "the flower of Galilee," partly becauseנצרnever occurs in this signification; partly because it is not conceivable that the place received a name which is due to itκατʼ ἀντί φρασινonly. It is much more probable that the place received the name on account of its smallness: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree. In this significationנצרoccurs in Is. xi. 1, xiv. 19, and in the Talmudicalusus loquendiwhereנצריםsignifies "virgulta salicum decorticata, vimina ex quibus corbes fiunt." There was so much the greater reason for giving the place this name that people had the symbol before their eyes in its environs; for the chalk-hills around Nazareth are over-grown with low bushes (comp. Burkhardt II. s. 583). That which these bushes were when compared with the stately trees which adorned other parts of the country, Nazareth was when compared with other cities.
Thisnomengiven to the place on account of its small beginnings, resembling, in this respect, the name of Zoar,i.e., a small town, was, at the same time, anomenof its future condition. The weak twig never grew up into a tree. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Nazareth mentioned, probably because it was built only after the return from the captivity. Neither is it mentioned inJosephus. It was not, like most of the other towns in Palestine, ennobled by any recollection from the olden times. Yea, as it would appear, a special contempt was resting upon it, besides the general contempt in which all Galilee was held; just as every land has some place to which a disgrace attaches, which has often been called forth by causes altogether trifling. This appears not only from the question of Nathanael, in John i. 47: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" but also from the fact, that from the most ancient times the Jews thought to inflict upon Christ the greatest disgrace, by calling Him the Nazarene, whilst, in later times, the disgrace which rested on all Galileewas removed by the circumstance that the most celebrated Jewish academy, that of Tiberias, belonged to it.
Let us now examine in how far Christ's abode at Nazareth served the purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy. It is, throughout, the doctrine of the prophets, that the Messiah, descending from the family of David, sunk into utter lowliness, would at first appear without any outward rank and dignity. The fundamental type for all other passages here concerned is contained in that passage of Is. xi. 1, now under consideration: "And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit," which is strikingly illustrated in the following words ofQuenstedt, in hisDissertatio de Germine Jehovae, in theThesaurus theol. philol.I. p. 1015:"The stem of Jesse which, from low beginnings, was, in David, raised to the glory of royal majesty, shall then not only be deprived of all royal dignity, and all outward splendour which it received in David, but shall again have been reduced to the private condition in which it was before David; so that it shall present the appearance of a stem deprived of all boughs and foliage, and having nothing left but the roots; nevertheless out of that stem thus reduced and cut off, and, as it appeared, almost dry, shall come forth a royal rod, and out of its roots shall grow the twig upon whom shall rest the Spirit of the Lord," &c. Quite in harmony with this, it is said in chap. liii. 2: "He grew up before the Lord as a tender twig, and as a root out of a dry ground." Toנצר, in chap. xi., correspondsיונקin chap. liii.; toחטרtheשרש; to the cut-off stem the dry land, with this difference, however, that by the latter designation, the low condition of the Servant of God, generally, is indicated; but His descent from the family of David sunk in lowliness, is not specially pointed at thereby, although it is necessarily implied in it. The same thought is further carried out in Ezek. xvii. 22-24. As the descendant of the family of David sank in lowliness, the Messiah appears in that passage as a small tender twig which is taken by the Lord from a high cedar, and, being planted upon a high mountain, growls up into a lofty tree, under which all the fowls dwell. In Jeremiah and Zechariah, the Messiah, with reference to the image of a cut-off tree used by Isaiah, is called the Sprout of David, or simply the Sprout;compare remarks on Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. All that is here required is certainly only to place beside one another, on the one hand, prophecy, and, on the other, history, in order clearly and evidently to point out the fulfilment of the former in the latter. It was not at Jerusalem, where there was the seat of His royal ancestor, where there were the thrones of His house (comp. Ps. cxxii.), that the Messiah took up his residence; but it was in the most despised place of the most despised province that, by divine Providence, He received His residence, after the predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled by His having been born at Bethlehem. The name of that place by which His lowliness was designated was the same as that by which Isaiah had designated the lowliness of the Messiah at His appearing.
We have hitherto considered prophecy and fulfilment independently of the quotation by St. Matthew. Let us now add a few remarks upon the latter.
1. It seems not to have been without reason that the wider formula of quotation:τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶνis here chosen, althoughJeromeinfers too much from it when he remarks: "If he had wished to refer to a distinct quotation from Scripture, he would never have said: 'As was spoken by the prophets,' but simply, 'as was said by the prophet.' By using prophets in the plural, he shows that it is the sense, and not the words which he has taken from Scripture." No doubt St. Matthew has one passage chiefly in view--that in Is. xi. 1, which, besides the general announcement of the Messiah's lowliness, contains, in addition, a special designation of it which is found again in thenomenandomenof his native place. This appears especially from the circumstance that, if it were otherwise, the quotation: inὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται, would be inexplicable, since it is very forced to suppose that "Nazarene" here designates generally one low and despised.[2]But he chose the general formula ofquotation (comp.Gersdorf,Beiträge zur Sprachcharacteristik1. S. 136), in order thereby to intimate that in Christ's residence at Nazareth those prophecies, too, were at the same time fulfilled, which, in the essential point--in the announcement of Christ's lowliness--agree with that of Isaiah. But it is just this additional reference which shows that, to Matthew, this was indeed the essential point, and that the agreement of the name of the town with the name which Christ has in Isaiah, appears to him only as a remarkable outward representation of the close connection of prophecy and fulfilment; just as, indeed, every thing in the life of Christ appears to be brought about by the special direction of Divine providence.
2. The phraseὅτι κληθήσεταιlikewise is explained from the circumstance that Matthew does not restrict himself to the passage Is. xi. 1, but takes in, at the same time, all those other passages which have a similar meaning. From among them, it was from Zech. vi. 12: "Behold a man whose name is the Sprout,"that the phraseὅτι κληθήσεταιflowed. There is hence no necessity for explaining this circumstance solely from the custom of the later Jews,[3]of claiming as the names of the Messiah all those expressions by which, in the Old Testament, His nature is designated, inasmuch as, in doing so, they followed the custom of the prophets themselves, who frequently bring forward as the name of the Messiah that which is merely one of His attributes. This hypothesis is inadmissible, because otherwise it would be difficult to point out any case in which the Evangelists had not admixed something of their own with a quotation which they announced as a literal one.
Ver. 2. "And the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord."
The Spirit of the Lord is the general, the principle; and the subsequent terms are the single forms in which he manifests himself, and works. But, on the other hand, in a formal point of view, the Spirit of the Lord is just co-ordinate with the Spirit of wisdom, &c. Some, indeed, explain: the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of, &c.; but that this is inadmissible appears with sufficient evidence from the circumstance that, by such a view, the sacred number, seven, is destroyed, which, with evident intention, is completed in the enumeration; compare thesevenspirits of God in Rev. i. 4. To have the Spirit is the necessary condition of every important and effective ministry in the Kingdom of God, from which salvation is to come forth; comp. Num. xxvii. 18. It is especially the blessed administration of the regal office which depends upon the possession of the Spirit; comp. 1 Sam. xvi. 13 ff. where it is said of David: "And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him from that day forward;" comp. 1 Sam. x. 6, 10. The circumstance that the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon the Messiah does not form a contradiction to Hisdivine nature, which is intimated by his being born of the Virgin, chap. vii. 14, by the nameאל גבורin chap. ix. 5, and elsewhere (comp. Vol. I., p. 490, 491), and is witnessed even in this prophecy itself; but, on the contrary, the pouring out of the Spirit fully and not by measure (John iii. 39) which is here spoken of,impliesthe divine nature. In order to receive the Spirit of God in such a measure that He could baptize with the Holy Spirit (John i. 33), that out of His fulness all received (John i. 16), that, in consequence of His fulness of the Spirit overflowing from Him to the Church, the earth could be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters covering the sea (ver. 9), He could not but be highly exalted above human nature. It was just because they remained limited to the insufficient substratum of human nature, that even the best kings, that even David, the man after God's own heart, received the Spirit in a scanty measure only, and were constantly in danger oflosing again that which they possessed, as is shown by David's pitiful prayer: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Ps. li. 13). It was just for this reason, therefore, that the theocracy possessed in the kings a very sufficient organ of its realization, and that the stream of the divine blessings could not flow freely. In Matt. iii. 16:καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν, it is not the passage before us only which lies at the foundation, but also, and indeed pre-eminently, the parallel passage, chap. xlii. 1: "Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine Elect in whom my soul delighteth; I put my Spirit upon Him," as is apparent from the circumstance that it is to this passage that the voice from heaven refers in Matt. iii. 17:οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. But a reference to the passage before us we meet most decidedly in John i. 32, 33:Τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν· Κᾀγὼ οὐκ ᾕδειν αὐτόν· ἀλλ’ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι, ἐκεῖνος μοι εἶπεν· ἐφ’ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ’ αὐτόν, οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. The wordנוח, which in Numb. xi. 25 also is used of the Spirit, combines in itself both theκαταβαίνεινand theμένειν; it isrequiescere. As the fulfilment of this prophecy, however, we must not look to that event only where it received a symbolical representation, but also to Acts ii. 3:καὶ ὤφθησαν αὐτοῖς διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός, ἐκάθισέ τε ἐφ’ ἕνα ἕκαστον αὐτῶν; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 14:ὅτε τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται(this most exactly answersנוח). For it is not merely for himself that Christ here receives the Spirit; but He receives Him as the transforming principle for the human race; He is bestowed upon. Him as the Head of the Church.--In the enumeration of the forms in which the Spirit manifests himself, it was not the intention of the Prophet to set forthallthe perfections of the Messiah; he rather, by way of example, mentions some only after having comprehended all of them in the general: The Spirit of the Lord. Thus,e.g.,justice, which is mentioned immediately afterwards in ver. 5, is omitted here.--The first pair are wisdom and understanding.Wisdomis that excellency of knowledge which rests on moral perfection. It is opposed toנבלה, foolishness in a moral sense, which may easily be combined with the greatest ingenuity and cleverness. The excellence of knowledge restingon a moral basis manifests itself in the first instance, and preeminently, in theבינה, understanding, the sharp and penetrating eye which beholds things as they are, and penetrates from the surface to their hidden essence, undisturbed by the dense fogs of false notions and illusions which, in the case of the fool, are formed by his lusts and passions. Neither of these attributes can, in its absolute perfection, be the possession of any mortal, because even in those who, morally, are most advanced, there ever remains sin, and, therefore, a darkening of the knowledge.--The second pair, counsel and might, are, just as in the passage before us, ascribed to the Messiah in chap. ix. 5 (6), by His receiving the names "Wonder-Counsellor," "God-Hero." From chap. xxxvi. 5 it is seen that, for the difficult circumstances of the struggle,counselis of no less consequence thanmight. The last pair, knowledge and fear of the Lord, form the fundamental effect of the Spirit of the Lord; all the great qualities of the soul, all the gifts which are beneficial for the Kingdom of God, rest on the intimacy of the connection with God which manifests itself in living knowledge and fear of the Lord; the latter not being the servile but the filial fear, not opposed to love, but its constant companion. The Prophet has put this pair at the close, only because he intends to connect with it that which immediately follows. We have already remarked that the Spirit of the Lord, &c., is bestowed upon the Messiah not for himself alone, but as the renovating principle of the Church.--Old Testament analogies and types are not wanting in this matter. Moses puts of his spirit upon the seventy Elders, and the spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha, and likewise on the whole crowd of disciples who gathered around him (2 Kings ii. 9).
Ver. 3. "And He hath His delight in the fear of the Lord, and not after the sight of His eyes doth He judge, nor after the hearing of His ears doth He decide."
We now learn how the glorious gifts of the Anointed, described in ver. 2, are displayed in His government. All attempts to bring the second and third clauses under the same point of view as the first, and to derive them from the same source are in vain. That He has delight in the fear of the Lord, is the consequence of the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord resting upon Him,--He loves what is congenialto His own nature. That He does not judge after the sight of His eyes, &c., is the consequence of His having the Spirit of wisdom and understanding. It is thereby that He is freed from the narrow superficiality which is natural to man, and raised to the sphere of that divine clearness of vision which penetrates to the depths,הריחwith the accusative is "to smell something;" withב, to "smell at something," "to smell with delight." The fear of the Lord appears as something of a sweet scent to the Messiah. The other explanations of the first clause abandon the sure, ascertainedusus loquendi(comp. Exod. xxx. 38; Levit. xxvi. 31; Am. v. 21), and, therefore, do not deserve any mention. On the second and third clauses 1 Sam. xvi. 7, is to be compared: "And the Lord said unto Samuel: Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have refused him; for not that which man looks at (do I look at); for man looketh on the eyes (and, in general, on the outward appearance), and I look on the heart." It is especially John who repeatedly mentions that Christ really possessed the gift here assigned to Him, of judging, not from the first appearance, and according to untrustworthy information, but of penetrating into the innermost ground of the facts and persons, comp. ii. 24, 25:αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς, οὐκ ἐπίστευεν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς, διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας, καὶ ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα τὶς μαρτυρήση περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἦν ἕν ἀνθρῴπῳ. Farther--chap. xxi. 17 where Peter says to Christ:Κύριε σὺ πάντα οἶδας· σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε.Farther, i. 48, 49; iv. 18, 19; vi. 64. In Revel. ii. 23, Christ says: "And all Churches shall know that I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts."
Ver. 4. "And He judgeth in righteousness the lowly, and doeth justice in equity to the meek of the earth, and smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked."
The King shall be adorned with perfect justice, and, in the exercise of it, be supported by His omnipotence,--differently from what was the case with David, who, for want of power, was obliged to allow heinous crimes to pass unpunished (2 Sam. iii. 39). Just as by the excellency of HiswillHe is infinitely exalted above all former rulers, so is He also by the excellency ofmight. Where, as in His case, the highestmight stands in the service of the best will, the noblest results must come forth. The first two clauses refer to Ps. lxxii., which was written by Solomon, and where, in ver. 2, it is said of Christ: "He shall judge thy people in righteousness, and thy lowly ones in judgment," and in ver. 4: "He shall judge the lowly of thy people, He shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressors;" compare farther Prov. xxix. 14: "A king that in truth judgeth the lowly, his throne shall be established for ever." The earth forms the contrast to the limited territory which was hitherto assigned to the theocratic kings.--In the second part of the verseארץdoes not by any means stand in contrast toדליםandענוים, and, in parallelism toרשע, designate the wicked ones; butארץ"earth" stands in antithesis to the narrow territory in which earthly kings are permitted to dispense law and justice. It is a matter of course, and is, moreover, expressly stated in the second clause, that the earth comes into consideration with a view to those only who are objects of His judging activity. From that which follows, where changes are spoken of which shall take place on the whole earth, it follows thatארץmust be taken in the signification of "earth." and not of "land." Hand in hand with the infinite extent of the King's exercise of justice goes also the manner of it. "The whole earth," and the "breath of the mouth," correspond with one another.--In the words "with the rod of His mouth," a tacit antithesis lies at the foundation. As kings strike with the sceptre, so He smiteth with His mouth.--שבט, the ensign of royal dignity, is the symbol of the whole earthly power, which, being external and exercised by external means, must needs be limited, and insufficient for the perfect exercise of justice. The exercise of justice on the part of earthly kings reaches so far only as their hand armed with the smiting sceptre. But that great King is, in the exercise of justice, supported by HisOmnipotence. He punishes and destroys by His mere word. Several interpreters understand this as a mere designation of His severity in punishing,--"the rod of His mouth" to be equivalent to "severity of punishment;"--but that such is not the meaning appears from the following clause, where likewise special weight is attached to the circumstance that the Messiah inflicts punishment by His mere word; "the breath of His lips" is equivalentto "mere words," "mere command;" compare "breath of His mouth," in Ps. xxxiii. 6.Hitzig'sexplanation, "the angry breath of His lips," does not interpret, but interpolate. In the future Son of David every word is, at the same time, a deed; He speaks and it is done. The same which is here said of the Messiah is, in other passages, attributed toGod: compare Job xv. 30, where it is said of the wicked: "By the breath of His mouth he shall go away;" Hos. vi. 5: "I have slain them by the word of my mouth." In general, according to the precedent in Gen. i., doing by the mere word is, in Scripture, the characteristic designation of Divine Omnipotence. Parallel is chap. xlix. 2, where Christ says: "And He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword," equivalent to: He has endowed me with His Omnipotence, so that my word also exercises destructive effect, just as His. In Rev. i. 16, it is said of Christ: "And out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,"--to designate the destructive power of His word borne by Omnipotence, the omnipotent punitive power of Christ against enemies, both internal and external. An instance of the manner in which Christ smites by the word of His mouth is offered by Acts v. 3 (where, according to the analogy of the word spoken in the name of God by Elijah, 2 Kings i. 10, 12, and by Elisha, 2 Kings ii. 24, v. 27, the Apostles are to be considered only as His instruments):ἀκούων δὲ Ἁνανίας τοὺς λόγους τούτους πεσὼν ἐξέψυξε, comp. ver. 10; xiii. 11. The Chaldee translates: "And by the word of His lips wicked Armillus shall die." He refersרשעnot to the ideal person of the wicked, but to an individual,Armillus, (ἐρημόλαος, corresponding to the name of Balaam, compounded ofבלע"devouring," "destruction," andעם"people") the formidable, last enemy of the Jews who shall carry on severe wars with them, slay the Messiah ben Joseph, but at length be slain by the Messiah ben David with a mere word, compareBuxtorf,Lex. Chald.cap. 221-224:Eisenmenger,entdecktes Judenthumii. S. 705 ff. In 2 Thess. ii. 8, in the description of Antichrist's destruction by Christ:ὃν ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἀναλώσει τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, there is an intentional and significant allusion to the passage before us, Antichrist there being, likeרשעhere, an ideal person; for the arguments in proof, see my Comment, on Revelation, vol. ii.