Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 3

_the two hostile kings shall be desolate._ In the subsequent prophecy, the same wonderful child, grown up into a warlike hero, brings the deliverance from a.s.shur, and the world's power represented by it.--We have still to consider and discuss the particular. _What is indicated by the eating of cream and honey?_ The erroneous answer to this question, which has become current ever since _Gesenius_, has put everything into confusion, and has misled expositors such as _Hitzig_ and _Meier_ to cut the knot, by a.s.serting that ver. 15 is spurious.

Cream and honey can come into consideration as the n.o.blest food only; the eating of them can indicate only a _condition of plenty and prosperity_. "A land flowing with milk and honey" is, in the books of Moses, a standing expression for designating the rich fulness of n.o.ble food which the Holy Land offers. A land which flows with milk and honey is, according to Numb. xiv. 7, 8, a "very good land." The _cream_ is, as it were, a gradation of _milk_. Considering the predilection for fat and sweet food which we perceive everywhere in the Old Testament, there can scarcely be anything better than cream and honey; and it is certainly not spoken in accordance with Israelitish taste, if _Hofmann_ (_Weiss_, i. S. 227) thus paraphrases the sense: "It is not because he does not know what tastes well and better (cream and honey thus the evil!), that he will live upon the food which an uncultivated land can afford, but because there is none other." In Deut. x.x.xii. 13, 14, cream and honey appear among the n.o.blest products of the Holy Land. Abraham places cream before his heavenly guests, Gen. xviii. 8. The plenty in honey and cream appears in Job xx. 7, as a characteristic sign of the divine blessing of which the wicked are deprived. It is solely and exclusively vers. 21 and 22 that are referred to for establis.h.i.+ng the erroneous interpretation. It is a.s.serted that, according to these verses, the eating of milk and honey must be considered as an evil, as the sad consequence of a general devastation of the hind. But there are grave objections to any attempt at explaining a preceding from a subsequent pa.s.sage; the opposite mode of proceeding is the right one.

It is altogether wrong, however, to suppose that vers. 21, 22, contain a threatening. In those verses the Prophet, on the contrary, allows, as is usual with him, a _ray of light_ to fall upon the dark picture of the [Pg 57] calamity which threatens from a.s.shur; and it could, indeed, _a priori_, be scarcely imagined that the threatening should not be interrupted, at least by such a gentle allusion to the salvation to be bestowed upon them after the misery (comp. in reference to a similar sudden breaking through of the proclamation of salvation in Hosea, Vol.

I., p. 175, and the remarks on Micah ii. 12, 13); but then he returns to the threatening, because it was, in the meantime, his princ.i.p.al vocation to utter it, and thereby to destroy the foolish illusions of the G.o.d-forgetting king. It is in the subsequent prophecy only, chap viii. 1; ix. 6 (7) that that which is alluded to in vers. 21, 22 is carried out. The little which has been left--this is the sense--the Lord will bless so abundantly, that those who are spared in the divine judgment will enjoy a rich abundance of divine blessings. Parallel is the utterance of Isaiah in 2 Kings xix. 30: "And the escaped of the house of Judah, that which has been left, taketh root downward, and beareth fruit upward."--If thus the eating of cream and honey be rightly understood, there is no farther necessity for explaining, in opposition to the rules of grammar, ????? by "(only) until he knows"

(comp. against this interpretation _Drechsler's Comment._). ????? can only mean: "belonging to his knowledge, _i.e._, when he knows." _Good_ and _evil_ are, as early as Deut. i. 39: "Your sons who to-day do not know good and evil," used more in a physical than in a moral sense.

Michaelis: "_rerum omnium ignari_." The parallel expression, "not to be able to discern between the right hand and the left hand," in Jonah iv.

11 (Michaelis: "_discretio rationis et judicii, ut sciant utra ma.n.u.s sit dextra aut sinistra_") likewise loses sight of the moral sense. But good and evil are very decidedly used in a physical sense in 2 Sam.

xix. 36 (35), where Barzillai says: "I am this day fourscore years old, can I discern between good and evil, or has thy servant a taste of what I eat or drink, or do I hear any more the voice of singing men or singing women?" The connection with the eating of cream and honey, by which the good and evil is qualified, clearly proves that good and evil are, in our pa.s.sage, used in a similar sense. To the same result we are led by the circ.u.mstance also, that the evil _precedes_, which must so much the rather have a meaning, that nowhere else is this the case with this phrase. The evil, the [Pg 58] bad food in the time of war, precedes; the good follows after it: Cream and honey, the good, he will eat when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, _i.e._, when he is beyond the time where he does not yet know to make any great difference between the food, and in which, therefore, the evil, the bad food, is felt as an evil. If the good and the evil be understood in a physical sense, then, in harmony with chap. viii. 4, we must think of the period of about one year. Moral consciousness develops much later than sensual liking and disliking.--The construction of ??? and ???

with ? points to the affection which accompanies the action.--?? in ver. 16 suits very well, according to the view which we have taken, in its ordinary signification, "for." The full enjoyment of the good things of the land will return in the period of about twelve months (in chap. x.x.xvii. 30 a longer terra is fixed, because the a.s.syrian desolation was much greater than the Aramean); _for_, even before the year has expired, devastation shall be inflicted upon the land of the enemies. ????? comprehends at the same time the Syrian and Ephraimitish land.

From ver. 17-25 the Prophet describes how the a.s.syrians, 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 G.o.d, seeks it from the world, is ruined by the world. This truth, which, through the fault of Ahaz, did not gain any _saving_ influence, obtained an _accusing_ one; it stood there as an incontrovertible testimony that it was not the Lord who had forsaken His people, but that they had forsaken themselves. It was a necessary condition of the blessed influence of the impending calamity that such a testimony should exist; without it, the calamity would not have led to repentance, but to despair and defiance.--From the circ.u.mstance that in ver. 17, which contains the outlines of the whole, upon the words: "The Lord shall bring upon thee and thy people," there follow still the words: "And upon thy father's house," it appears that the fulfilment must not be sought for in the time of Ahaz only. In the time of Ahaz, the _beginning_ only of the calamities here indicated can accordingly be sought for,--the _germ_ from which all that followed [Pg 59] was afterwards developed. Nor shall we be allowed to limit ourselves to that which Judah suffered from the a.s.syrians, commonly so called. It is significant that, in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, Nebuchadnezzar is called King of a.s.shur. a.s.shur, 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. _Rosenmuller_ expressed his adherence to the Messianic explanation, but supposed that the Prophet was of opinion that the Messiah would be born in his time. Even _Bruno Bauer_ (_Critik der Synopt._ i. S. 19) could not resist the impression that Immanuel could be none other than the Messiah. But he, too, is of opinion that Isaiah expected a Messiah, who was to be born at once, and to become the "deliverer from the collision of that time." This view has been expanded especially by _Ewald_. "False," so he says, "is every interpretation which does not see that the Prophet is here speaking of the Messiah to be born, and hence of Him to whom the land really belongs, and in thinking of whom the Prophet's heart beats with joyful hope, chap. viii. 8, ix. 5, 6 (6, 7)." But not being able to realize that which can be seen only by faith--a territory, in general, very inaccessible to modern exposition of Scripture--he, in ver. 14, puts in the _real_ Present instead of the _ideal_, and thinks that the Prophet imagined that the conception and birth of the Messiah would take place at once. By ???? he understands, like ourselves, a virgin; but such an one as is so at the present moment only, but will soon afterwards cease to be so;--and in supposing this, he overlooks the fact that the virgin is introduced as being already with child, and that her bearing appears as present. In ver.

15, the time when the boy knows &c., is, according to him, the maturer juvenile age from ten to twenty years. It is during this that the devastation of the land by the a.s.syrians is to take place, of which [Pg 60] the Prophet treats more in detail afterwards in ver. 17 ff. But opposed to this view is the circ.u.mstance that, even before the boy enters upon this maturer age (ver. 16), hence in a few years after this, the allied Damascus and Ephraim shall be desolated; so little are these two kings able to conquer Jerusalem, and so certain is it that a divine deliverance is in store for this country in the immediate future. And, in every point of view, this explanation shows itself to be untenable. The supposition that a _real_ Present is spoken of in ver. 14 saddles upon the Prophet an absurd hallucination; and nothing a.n.a.logous to it can be referred to in the whole of the Old Testament.

According to statements of the Prophet in other pa.s.sages, 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 a.s.syrians 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. x.x.xix., and other pa.s.sages, 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 a.s.syrian 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 circ.u.mstance of its being several times mentioned in our chapter. Hence it would be a son of Ahaz only of whom we could here think; and then we should be shut up to Hezekiah, his first-born. But in that case there arises the difficulty which Luther already brought forward against the Jews: [Pg 61] "The Jews understand thereby Hezekiah. But the blind people, while anxious to remedy their error, themselves manifest their laziness and ignorance; for Hezekiah was born nine years before this prophecy was uttered!"--"The eating of cream and honey" is, in this explanation, altogether erroneously understood as a designation of the devastated condition of the land. From our remarks, it sufficiently appears that the expression "to refuse the evil," &c., cannot denote the maturer juvenile age. And many additional points might, in like manner, be urged.

2. Several interpreters do not indeed deny the reference to the Messiah, but suppose that, _in the first instance_, the Prophet had in view some occurrence of his own time. They a.s.sume 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 a.s.serts 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 G.o.d,'

signifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This explanation was defended by, among others _Grotius_, _Richard Simon_, and _Clericus_; and then, in our century, by _Olshausen_, who says: "The unity of the reference lies in the name Immanuel; the son of Isaiah had the _name_ but Christ the _essence_. He was the visible G.o.d whom the former only represented." In a modified form, this view is held by _Lowth_, _Koppe_, and _von Meyer_, also.

According to them, the Prophet is indeed not supposed to speak of a definite boy who was to be born in his time, but yet, to connect the destinies of his land with the name and destinies of a boy whose conception he, at the moment, imagines to be possible. "The most obvious meaning which would present itself to Ahaz," says _von Meyer_, "was this: If now a girl was to marry, to become [Pg 62] pregnant, and to bear a child, she may call him 'G.o.d with us,' for G.o.d will be with us at his time." But the prophecy is, after all, to have an ultimate reference to Christ. "The prophecy," says _Lowth_, "is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign, after Ahaz had refused the call to fix upon any thing from the whole territory of nature according to his own choice, is so emphatically declared to be one selected and given by G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstances of the birth of an ordinary child require, or could even permit, that we may easily suppose, that in minds, which were already prepared by the expectation of a great Saviour who was to come forth from the house of David, they excited hopes which stretched farther than any with which the present cause could inspire them, especially if it was found that in the succeeding prophecy, published immediately afterwards, this child was, under the name of Immanuel, treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who else could this be than the heir of the throne of David, under which character a great, and even divine person had been promised?" The reasons for the Messianic explanation are very well exhibited in these words of _Lowth_; but he, as little as any other of these interpreters, has been able to vindicate the a.s.sumption of a _double sense_. When more closely examined, the supposition is a mere makes.h.i.+ft. On the one hand, they could not make up their minds to give up the Messianic explanation, and, along with it, the authority of the Apostle Matthew. But, on the other hand, they were puzzled by the _sanctum artificium_ by which the Prophet, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking through him, represents Christ as being born even before His birth, places Him in the midst of the life of the people, and makes Him accompany the nation through all the stages of its existence. In truth, if the real, or even the nearest fulfilment is sought for in the time of Ahaz, there is no reason whatever for supposing a higher reference to Christ. The ???? is then one who was a virgin, who had nothing in common with the mother of Jesus, Mary, who remained a virgin even after her pregnancy. The name Immanuel then refers to the help which G.o.d is to afford in the present distress.

[Pg 63]

3. Many interpreters deny every reference to Christ. This interpretation remained for a long time the exclusive property of the Jews, until _J. E. Faber_ (in his remarks on _Harmar's_ observations on the East, i. S. 281), tried to transplant it into the Christian soil.[5] He was followed by the Roman Catholic, _Isenbiehl_ (_Neuer Versuch uber die Weissagung vom Immanuel_, 1778) who, in consequence of it, was deposed from his theological professors.h.i.+p, and thrown into gaol. The princ.i.p.al tenets of his work he had borrowed from the lectures of _J. D. Michaelis_. In their views about the _Almah_, who is to bear Immanuel, these interpreters are very much at variance.

(a) The more ancient Jews maintained that the _Almah_ was the wife of Ahaz, and Immanuel, his son Hezekiah. According to the _Dialog. c.

Tryph._ 66, 68, 71, 77, this view prevailed among them as early as the time of _Justin_. But they were refuted by _Jerome_, who showed that Hezekiah must, at that time, have already been at least nine years old.

_Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_ then resorted to the hypothesis of a second wife of Ahaz.

(b) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is some virgin who cannot be definitely determined by us, who was present at the place where the king and Isaiah were speaking to one another, and to whom the Prophet points with his finger. This view was held by _Isenbiehl_, _Steudel_ (in a Programme, Tubingen, 1815), and others.

(c) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is not a _real_ but only an _ideal_ virgin. Thus _J. D. Michaelis_: "At the time when one, who at this moment is still a virgin, can bear," &c. _Eichhorn_, _Paulus_, _Stahelin_, and others. The sign is thus made to consist in a mere poetical figure.

(d) A composition of the two views last mentioned is the view of _Umbreit_. The virgin is, according to him, an actual virgin whom the Prophet perceived among those surrounding him; but the pregnancy and birth are imaginary [Pg 64] merely, and the virgin is to suggest to the Prophet the idea of pregnancy. But this explanation would saddle the Prophet with something indecent. _Farther_: It is not a birth possible which is spoken of, but an actual birth. From chap. viii. 8, it likewise appears that Immanuel is a real individual, and He one of eminent dignity; and this pa.s.sage is thus at once in strict opposition to both of the explanations, viz. that of any ordinary virgin, and that of the ideal virgin. It destroys also

(e) The explanation of _Meier_, who by the virgin understands the people of Judah, and conceives of the pregnancy and birth likewise in a poetical manner. The fact, the acknowledgment of which has led _Meier_ to get up this hypothesis, altogether unfounded, and undeserving of any minute refutation, is this: "_The mother is, in the pa.s.sage before us, called a virgin, and yet is designated as being with child._ The words, when understood physically and outwardly, contain a contradiction." But this fact is rather in favour of the Messianic explanation.

(f) Others, farther, conjecture that the wife of the Prophet is meant by the _Almah_. This view was advanced as early as by _Abenezra_ and _Jarchi_. By the authority of _Gesenius_, this view became, for a time, the prevailing one. Against it, the following arguments are decisive; part of them being opposed to the other conjectures also. As ????

designates "virgin" only, and never a young woman, and, far less, an older woman, it is quite impossible that the wife of the Prophet, the mother of Shearjashub could be so designated, inasmuch as the latter was already old enough to be able to accompany his father. Gesenius could not avoid acknowledging the weight of this argument, and declared himself disposed to a.s.sume that the Prophet's former wife had died, and that he had thereupon betrothed himself to a virgin. _Olshausen_, _Maurer_, _Hendewerk_, and others, have followed him in this. But this is a story entirely without foundation. In chap. viii. 13, the wife of the Prophet is called simply "the prophetess." Nor could one well see how the Prophet could expect to be understood, if, by the general expression: "the virgin" he wished to signify his presumptive betrothed. _There_ [Pg 65] _is an entire absence of every intimation whatsoever of a nearer relation of the Almah to the Prophet_; and such an intimation could not by any means be wanting if such a relation really existed. One would, in that case at least, be obliged to suppose, as _Pluschke_ does, that the Prophet took his betrothed with him, and pointed to her with his finger,--a supposition which too plainly exhibits the sign of embarra.s.sment, just as is the case with the remark of _Hendewerk_: "Only that, in that case, we must also suppose that his second wife was sufficiently known at court even then, when she was his betrothed only, although her relation to Isaiah might be unknown; so that, for this very reason, we could not think of a frustration of the sign on the part of the king." _Hitzig_ remarks: "The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether dest.i.tute of any foundation." He then, however, falls back upon the hypothesis which _Gesenius_ himself admitted to be untenable, that ????, "virgin" might not only denote a young woman, but sometimes also an older woman. Not even the semblance of a proof can be advanced in support of this. It is just the juvenile age which forms the fundamental signification of the word. In the wife of the Prophet we can the less think of such a juvenile age, that he himself had already exercised his prophetic office for about twenty years. _Hitzig_ has indeed altogether declined to lead any such proof. A son of the Prophet, as, in general, every subject except the Messiah, is excluded by the circ.u.mstance that in chap viii. 8, Canaan is called the land of Immanuel.--_Farther_,--In all these suppositions, ??? is understood in an inadmissible signification. It can here denote a fact only, whereby those who were really susceptible were made decidedly certain of the impending deliverance. This appears clearly enough from the relation of this sign to that which Ahaz had before refused, according to which the difference must not be too great, and must not refer to the substance.

To this may be added the solemn tone which induces us to expect something grand and important. A mere poetical image, such as would be before us according to the hypothesis of the ideal virgin, or of the real virgin and the ideal birth, does [Pg 66] surely not come up to the demand which in this context must be made in reference to this _sign_.

And if the Prophet had announced so solemnly, and in words so sublime, the birth _of his own_ child, he would have made himself ridiculous.

_Farther_,--How then did the Prophet know that after nine months a child would be born to him, or, if the pregnancy be considered as having already commenced, how did he know that just a son would be born to him? That is a question to which most of these Rationalistic interpreters take good care not to give any reply. _Pluschke_, indeed, is of opinion that, upon a bold conjecture, the Prophet had ventured this statement. But in that case it might easily have fared with him as in that well known story in _Worms_, (_Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 664 ff.), and his whole authority would have been forfeited if his conjecture had proved false. And this argument holds true in reference to those also who do not share in the Rationalistic view, of Prophetism. Predictions of such a kind may belong to the territory of foretelling, but not to that of Prophecy.

[Footnote 1: _Meyer_, _Blatter fur hohere Wahrheit_, iii. S. 101.]

[Footnote 2: _Caspari_ very justly remarks: "Nothing can be clearer than that 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ff. comes in between 2 Kings xvi. 5 a. b.; that the author of the books of the Kings gives a report of the beginning and end; the author of the Chronicles, of the middle of the campaign." But we cannot agree with _Caspari_ in his transferring to Idumea the victory of Rezin. According to Is. vii. 2, Aram was encamped in Ephraim. According to 2 Kings xvi. 5, _both_ of the kings came up to Jerusalem and besieged her. The expedition against Elath, 2 Kings xvi. 6, was secondary, and by the way only.]

[Footnote 3: The words: "In threescore and five years more, Ephraim shall be broken and be no more a people," have, by rationalistic critics, without and against all external arguments, been declared to be _spurious_. The reasons which serve as fig leaves to cover their doctrinal tendency are the following: (1) "The time does not agree, inasmuch as the ten tribes sustained their first defeat very soon afterwards by Tiglath-pilezer; the second, nineteen to twenty-one years later, by Shalmanezer, who, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, carried the inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes away into captivity." But the question here is _the complete destruction of the national existence of Israel_; and that took place only under King Mana.s.seh, 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sured that this enemy will not be able to do him any immediate harm. _Chrysostom_ remarks: "The king, hearing that they should be destroyed after sixty-five years, might say within himself: What about that? Although they be _then_ overthrown, of what use is it to us, if they now take us? In order that the king might not speak thus, the Prophet says: Be of good cheer even as to the present. At that time they shall be _utterly_ destroyed; but even now, they shall not have any more than their own land, for 'the head of Ephraim,'" &c.

The preceding distinct announcement of the last end of his enemy, however, was exceedingly well fitted to break in Ahaz the opinion of his invincibility, and to strengthen his faith in the G.o.d of Israel, who, with a firm hand, directs the destinies of nations, and, no less, the faith in _His servant_ whom He raises to be privy to His secrets.--(3.) "The use of numbers so exact is against the a.n.a.logy 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.

x.x.xviii. 5, he announces to Hezekiah, sick unto death, that G.o.d would add fifteen years to his life. According to Jeremiah, the Babylonish captivity is to last seventy years; and the fulfilment has shown that this date is not to be understood as a round number. And farther, the year-weeks in Daniel.--But in opposition to this view, and positively in favour of the genuineness, are the following arguments: The words have not only, as is conceded by _Ewald_, "a true old-Hebrew colouring," but in their emphatic and solemn brevity ("he shall be broken from [being] a people") they do not at all bear the character of an interpolation. If we blot them out, then the Prophet says less than from present circ.u.mstances, from ver. 4, where he calls the kings "ends of smoking firebrands," in opposition to ver. 6, and from the a.n.a.logy of ver. 9, where the threatening is much more severe, he was bound to say. His saying merely that they would not get any more, was not sufficient. He could make the right impression only when he reduced that declaration to its foundation--_i.e._, their own destruction and overthrow. Ver. 16, too, would go far beyond what would be announced here, if we remove this clause. He announces destruction to the kings themselves. Finally, the symmetrical parallelism would be destroyed by striking out these words. The words: "If ye believe not, ye shall not be established," would, in that case, be without the parallel members.

They are connected with the clause under discussion so much the rather, that in them it is not specially Judah's deliverance from the Syrians and Ephraimites that is looked at, but its salvation in general.]

[Footnote 4: By a minute and trifling exposition of what is to be understood as a whole, and comprehensively, many misunderstandings have been introduced into this pa.s.sage. The defeat of a.s.shur should take place very soon, but the devastation of the country had been so complete that a longer time would be required before the fields would be again _completely_ cultivated.]

[Footnote 5: _Gesenius_ mentions _Pellica.n.u.s_ as the first defender of the Non-Messianic interpretation. But this statement seems to have proceeded from a cursory view of an annotation by _Cramer_ on _Richard Simon's Kritische Schriften_ i. S. 441, where the words: "this historical interpretation _Pellica.n.u.s_ too has preferred," do not refer to Isaiah but to Daniel. Nor is there any more ground for the intimation that _Theodorus_ a Mopsuesta rejected the Messianic interpretation.]

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

(Chap. ix. 1-7.) UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN.

In the view of the a.s.syrian 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 circ.u.mstances in chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7) are identical with those in chap. vii. Judah is hard pressed by Ephraim and Aram. Still, some time will elapse before the destruction of [Pg 67] their territories. The term in chap. vii. 16: "Before the boy shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good," and in chap. viii. 4: "Before the boy shall know to cry, My father and my mother," is quite the same.

This is the less to be doubted when it is kept in mind that, in the former pa.s.sage, 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 doc.u.ment in vers. 1 and 2, we should be obliged to suppose that, in reference to the first two futures with _Vav convers._ the same rule applies as in reference to ????, in Gen.

ii. 19. The progress lies first in ????; the event falling into that time is the birth.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7), forms the necessary _supplement_ to chap.

vii., the germ of which is contained already in chap. vii. 21, 22. The Prophet saw, by the light of the Spirit of G.o.d, that the fear of Aram and Ephraim was unfounded; the enemy truly dangerous is a.s.shur, _i.e._, _the whole world's power first represented by a.s.shur._ For the King of a.s.shur 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 a.s.shur. With this the Prophet had only threatened in chap. vii.; here, however, he is pre-eminently employed with it, _exhorting_, _comforting_, _promising_, so that thus the two sections form one whole in two divisions. _His main object is to induce his people, in the impending oppression by the world's power, to direct their eyes steadily to their heavenly Redeemer, who, in due time, will bring peace instead of strife, salvation and prosperity instead of misery, dominion instead of oppression._ As in chap. vii. 14, the [Pg 68] picture of Immanuel is placed before the eyes of the people desponding on account of Aram and Ephraim, so here the care, anxiety, and fear in the view of a.s.shur 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 circ.u.mstances of the whole section, and its tendency be clearly understood. As, in general, the Messianic announcement under the Old Testament bears a one-sided character, so, for the _present occasion_, those aspects only of the picture of the Saviour were required which were fitted effectually to meet the despondency of the people in the view, and under the pressure of the world's power.

After these preliminary remarks, we must enter still more in detail upon the arrangement and construction of the section before us.

The Prophet receives, first, the commission to write down, like a judicial doc.u.ment, the announcement of the speedy destruction of the present enemies, and to get it confirmed by trust-worthy witnesses, chap. viii. 1, 2. He then, farther, receives the commission to give, to a son that would be born to him about the same time, a name expressive of the speedy destruction of the enemies, vers. 3, 4. Thus far the announcement of the deliverance from Aram and Ephraim. There then follows, from vers. 5-8, an announcement of the misery which is to be inflicted by _a.s.shur_, 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 a.s.shur must _fade_ before the bright image of Immanuel, which calls to the people: "Be ye of good cheer, I have overcome the world." _Calvin_ strikingly remarks: "The Prophet may be conceived of, as it were, standing on a watch tower, whence he beholds the defeat of the people, and the victorious a.s.syrians insolently exulting. [Pg 69] But by the name and view of Christ he recovers himself, forgets all the evils as if he had suffered nothing, and, freed from all misery, he rises against the enemies whom the Lord would immediately destroy." The Prophet then interrupts the announcement of deliverance, and exhibits the subjective conditions upon which the bestowal of deliverance, or rather the _partaking_ in it, depends, along with the announcement of the fearful misery which would befal them in case these conditions were not complied with. But, so he continues in vers. 11-16, he who is to partake of the deliverance which the Lord has destined for His people, must in firm faith expect it from Him, and thereby inwardly separate himself from the unbelieving ma.s.s, who, at every appearance of danger, tremble and give up all for lost. He who stands as ill as that ma.s.s 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d's Word, and of unbelief, viz., _darkness_, _i.e._, the absence of deliverance, will, as the Prophet, according to vers.

21, 22, foresees, really befal them in future, as [Pg 70] the people will not fulfil the conditions held forth in vers. 16 and 20, as they will not speak: "To the Law and to the testimony," as they will not in faith lay hold of the promise, and trust in the Lord. The calamity having, in the preceding verses, been represented as _darkness_, the deliverance which, by the grace of the Lord, is to be bestowed upon the people (for the Lord indeed chastises His people on account of their unbelief, but does not give them up to death), is now represented as a great _light_ which dispels the darkness. It s.h.i.+nes 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 G.o.d-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._"

?? stands in its ordinary signification, "for." Allow not yourselves to be turned away by anything from trusting in the G.o.d of Israel; hold fast by His word alone, and by His servants,--such was the fundamental thought of the whole preceding section. It meets us last in ver. 20, in the exhortation: [Pg 71] "To the Law and to the testimony!" in so far as this is rich in consolation and promise. The Prophet, after having, in the preceding verses, described the misery which will befal those who do not follow this exhortation, supports and establishes it by referring to the _help of the Lord_ already alluded to in vers. 9 and 10, and to the _light of His grace_ which He will cause to s.h.i.+ne into the darkness of the people,--a darkness produced by their unbelief and apostacy; and this light shall be brightest where the darkness was greatest. All the attempts at connecting this ?? with the verse immediately preceding instead of referring it to the main contents of the preceding section, have proved futile. ?? can neither mean "nevertheless," nor "yea;" and the strange a.s.sertion that it is almost without any meaning at all cannot derive any support from Isaiah xv. 1: "The _burden_ of Moab, _for_ in the night the city of Moab is laid waste;" for only in that case is ?? without any meaning at all, if ???

be falsely interpreted.--Ver. 22, where the phrase ???? ???? "darkness of distress" is equivalent to "darkness which consists in distress"

(compare also: "behold trouble and darkness" in the same verse), shows that ???? and ???? are substantially of the same meaning.--Our verse forms an ant.i.thesis to ver. 22; the latter verse described the darkness brought on by the guilt of the people; the verse under consideration describes, in contrast to it, the _removal_ of it called forth by the grace of the Lord.--?? may either be connected with the noun, or it may be explained: not is darkness. It cannot be objected to the latter view that, in that case, ??? should rather have stood; while the a.n.a.logy of the phrase: "Not didst thou increase the joy," in chap. ix. 2 (3), seems to be in favour of it. Here we have the negative, the ceasing of darkness; in chap. ix. 1 (2) the positive, the appearance of light. The suffix, in ?? refers, just as the suffix, in ?? in ver. 21, to the omitted ???.--The ? in ??? is, by many interpreters, a.s.serted to stand in the signification of ????: "Just as the former time has brought disgrace," &c. But as it cannot be proved that ? has ever the meaning, "just as;" and as, on the other hand, ??? frequently occurs in the signification, "at the time" (compare my remarks on Numb. xxiii. 13 in my work on Balaam), we shall be obliged to take, here too, the ? as a temporal particle, and to supply, as the subject, Jehovah, who [Pg 72]

always stands before the Prophet's mind, and is often not mentioned when the matter itself excludes another subject. Moreover, it is especially in favour of this view that, in vers. 3 (4), the Lord himself is expressly addressed.--As regards ?????, either ??? may be supplied,--and this is simplest and most natural--or it may be taken as an Accusative, "for the whole after-time."--??? means properly to "make light," then "to make contemptible," "to cover with disgrace," and ????? properly then, "to make heavy," "to honour,"--a signification which indeed is peculiar to _Piel_, but in which the _Hiphil_, too, occurs in Jer. x.x.x. 19; the two verbs thus form an ant.i.thesis. The ?

_locale_ in ???? (the word does not occur in Isaiah with the ?

_paragog._) shews that a certain modification of the verbal notion must be a.s.sumed: "to bring disgrace and honour." ???? thus would mean "towards the land." The scene of the disgrace and honour, which at first was designated in general only, is afterwards _extended_. First, the land of Zebulun and Naphtali only is mentioned, because it was upon it that the disgrace had pre-eminently fallen, and it was, therefore, pre-eminently to be brought to honour; then the whole territory along the sea on both sides of it.--?? can, in this context which serves for a more definite qualification, mean the sea of Gennesareth only (??

???? Numb. x.x.xiv. 11, and other pa.s.sages), just as, in Matt. iv. 13, the designation of Capernaum as ? pa?a?a?a.s.s?a receives its definite meaning from the context.--??? occurs elsewhere also in the signification of _versus_, _e.g._, Ezek. viii. 5, xl. 20, 46; it will be necessary to supply after it ???, just as in the case of the ???

????? following. It is without any instance that ??? "way" should stand for "region," "country." The region on the sea is then divided into its two parts ??? ?????, p??a? t?? ???d????, 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 princ.i.p.al part of Galilee. In opposition to the established _usus loquendi_, many would understand ??? ????? as meaning the land "on the side," _i.e._, this side "of the Jordan," proceeding upon the supposition that the local designations must, from beginning to end, be congruous. Opposed to it is also the circ.u.mstance that, in 2 Kings, xv.