Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 11

Rationalistic Exegesis, everywhere little able to sympathize with, and enter into existing circ.u.mstances and conditions, and always ready to make its own shadowy, coa.r.s.e views the rule [Pg 170] and arbiter, has been little able to enter into, and sympathize with this ideal stand-point occupied by the Prophet; nor has it had the earnest will to do so. To its rationalistic tendencies, which took offence at the clear knowledge of the Future, a welcome pretext was here offered. Thus the opinion arose, that the second part was not written by Isaiah, but was the work of some anonymous prophet, living about the end of the exile,--an opinion which, at the time of the absolute dominion of Rationalism, has obtained so firm a footing, that it has become all but an _axiom_, and, by the power of tradition, carries away even such as would not think of entertaining it, if they were to enter independently and without prejudice upon the investigation.

The fact which here meets us does not by any means stand isolated. The prophets did not prophesy in the state of rational reflection, but in _exstasis_. As even their ordinary name, "seers," indicates, the objects were presented to them in inward vision. They did not behold the Future from a distance, but they were rapt into the future. This inward vision is frequently reflected in their representation. Very frequently, that appears with them as present which, in reality, was still future. They depict the Future before the eyes of their hearers and readers, and thus, as it were, by force, drag them into it out of the Present, the coercing force of which exerts so pernicious an influence upon them.

Our Prophet expressly intimates this peculiar manner of the prophetic announcement by making, in chap. xlix. 7, the Lord say: "First I said to Zion: _Behold there, behold there_," by which the graphic character of prophecy is precisely expressed, and by which it is intimated that hearers and readers were led _in rem praesentem_ by the prophets. Even grammar has long ago acknowledged this fact, inasmuch as it speaks of _Praeterita prophetica_, _i.e._, such as denote the _ideal_ Past, in contrast to those which denote the _real_ Past. Unless we have attained to this view and insight, it is only by inconsistency that we can escape from _Eichhorn's_ view, that the prophecies are, for the most part, disguised historical descriptions,--a view into which even expositors, such as _Ewald_ and _Hitzig_, frequently relapse.

Frequently, the whole of the Future appears with the prophets in the form of the _Present_. At other times, they take their stand in the [Pg 171] more immediate Future; and this becomes to them the _ideal_ Present, from which they direct the eye to the distant Future. From the rich store of proofs which we can adduce for our view, we shall here mention only a few.

This mode of representation meets us frequently so early as in the parting hymn of Moses, Deut. x.x.xii., which may be considered as the germ of all prophetism; compare _e.g._ vers. 7 and 8. On the latter verse, _Clericus_ remarks: "Moses mourns over this in his hymn, as if it were already past, because he foresees that it will be so, and he, in the Spirit, transfers himself into those future times, and says that which then only should be said."

In Isaiah himself, the very first chapter presents a remarkable proof The Present in chap. i. 5-9 is not a _real_, but an _ideal_ Present. In the Spirit, the Prophet transfers himself into the time of the calamity impending upon the apostate people, and, stepping back upon the real Present, he, in the farther course of the prophecy, predicts this calamity as future. The reasons for this view have been thoroughly stated, even to exhaustion, by _Caspari_, in his _Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Buch Jesaia_. In the second half of ver. 2, the kingdom appears as flouris.h.i.+ng and powerful. To the same result we are led also by the description of the rich sacrificial wors.h.i.+p in vers.

15-19. If, then, we view vers. 5-9 as a description of the Present, we obtain an irreconcilable contradiction. _Farther_--Everywhere else Isaiah always connects, with the description of the sin, that of the punishment following upon it, but never that of the punishment which has followed it.--In chap. v. 13, in a prophecy from the first time of his ministry, the _future carrying away_ of the people presents itself to the Prophet as present. Similarly, in vers. 25, 26, the Praet. and Fut. with _Vav Conv._ must be understood prophetically; for in chap.

i.-v., the Prophet has, throughout, to do with future calamity. In the Present, according to ver. 19, the people are yet in a condition of prosperity and luxury,--as yet, it is the time of _mocking_; it is only of future calamity that vers. 5 and 6 in the parable speak of, the threatenings of which are here detailed and expanded.--In the prophecy against Tyre, chap. xxiii., the Prophet beholds as present the siege by the Chaldeans impending over the city, and describes [Pg 172] as an eye-witness the flight of the inhabitants, and the impression which the intelligence of their calamity makes upon the nations connected with them. From the more immediate Future, which to him has become present, he then casts a glance to the more distant. He announces that after 70 years--counting not from the _real_, but from the _ideal_ Present--the city shall again attain to its ancient greatness. His look then rises still higher, and he beholds how at length, in the days of Messiah, the Tyrians shall be received into the communion of the true G.o.d.--The future dispersion and carrying away of the people is antic.i.p.ated by the Prophet in the pa.s.sage, chap. xi. 11, also, which may be considered as a comprehensive view of the whole second part.--It is true that, in the second part, as a rule, the misery, and not the salvation, appears as present; but, not unfrequently, the latter, too, is viewed as present by the Prophet, and spoken of in Preterites, comp. _e.g._, chap. xl. 2, xlvi. 1, 2, li. 3, lii. 9, 10, lx. 1. If, then, the Prophet is to be measured by the ordinary rule, these pa.s.sages, too, must have been written at a time when the salvation had already taken place.--In chap.

xlv. 20, the escaped of the nations are those Gentiles who have been spared in the divine judgments. They are to become wise by the sufferings of others. The Prophet takes his stand in a time when these judgments, which were to be inflicted by Cyrus, had already been completed. Even those who maintain the spuriousness of the second part must here acknowledge that the Prophet takes his stand in an _ideal_ Present.--In chap. liii. the Prophet takes his stand between the sufferings and the glorification of the Messiah. The sufferings appear to him as past; the glorification he represents as future.

Hosea had, in chap. xiii., predicted to Israel great divine judgments, the desolation of the country, and the carrying away of its inhabitants by powerful enemies. This punishment and judgment appear in chap. xiv.

1 (xiii. 16) as still future; but in ver. 2 (1 ff.) he transfers himself in spirit to the time when these judgments had already been inflicted. He antic.i.p.ates the Future as having already taken place, and does not by any means exhort his _contemporaries_ to a sincere repentance, but those upon whom the calamity had already been inflicted: "O Israel, return unto the Lord thy G.o.d; for [Pg 173] thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." This parallel pa.s.sage shews especially, with what right it has been a.s.serted that the addresses to the people pining away in exile "were out of place in the mouth of Isaiah, who, as he lived 150 years before, could _prophesy_ only of the exiled"

(_k.n.o.bel_).--Micah says in chap. iv. 8 (compare vol. i., p. 449 ff.): "And thou tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, unto thee it will come, and to thee cometh the former dominion." If the Prophet, a cotemporary of Isaiah, speaks here of a _former dominion_, and announces that it shall again come back to the house of David, he transfers himself from his time, in which the royal family of David still existed and flourished, into that period of which he had just before spoken, and during which the dominion of the Davidic dynasty was to cease. In vers. 9, 10: "Now why dost thou raise a cry! Is there no king in thee, or is thy counsellor gone? For pangs have seized thee as a woman in travail," &c., mourning Zion, at the time of the carrying away of her sons into captivity, stands before the eye of the Prophet, and is addressed by him. (In commenting upon this pa.s.sage, we pointed already to Hosea xiii. 9-11 as an a.n.a.logous instance of representing as present the time of the calamity.) The moment of the carrying away into exile forms to him the Present; the deliverance from it, the Future: "There shalt thou be delivered, there the Lord thy G.o.d shall redeem thee out of the hand of thine enemies." In chap. vii. 7, Micah introduces, as speaking, the people already carried away into exile, and makes them declare both the justice of the divine punishment, and their confidence in the divine mercy. In the answer of the Lord also, ver. 11, the city is supposed to be destroyed; for He promises that her walls shall be rebuilt.--The antic.i.p.ation of the Future prevails throughout the whole prophecy of Obadiah also. The song of Habakkuk in chap. iii. takes its stand in the midst of the antic.i.p.ated misery. In the announcement of the invasion of the Chaldeans in chap. i. 6 ff., the Future presents itself in the form of the Present. Here, as in the case of Obadiah, _Hitzig_ and others, overlooking and misunderstanding this prophetic peculiarity, and considering the _ideal_, to be the _real_ Present, have been led to fix the age of the Prophet in a manner notoriously erroneous.--Jeremiah, in chap. iii. 22, 25, [Pg 174]

introduces as speaking the Israel of the Future. In chap. x.x.x. and x.x.xi., he antic.i.p.ates the future carrying away of Judah. Even in the Psalms we perceive a faint trace of this prophetic peculiarity. On Ps.

xciii. 1: "The Lord reigneth, He hath clothed himself with majesty,"

&c., we remarked: "The Preterites are to be explained from the circ.u.mstance that the Singer as a _seer_ has the Future before his eyes. He _beholds_ rejoicingly how the Lord enters upon His Kingdom, puts on the garment of majesty, and girds himself with the sword of strength in the face of the proud world." A similar antic.i.p.ation of redemption, even before the catastrophe has taken place, we meet with in Ps. xciv. 1. The situation in the whole Psalm, yea in the whole cycle to which it belongs, the lyrical echo of the second part of Isaiah, is not a _real_, but an _ideal_ one. This cycle bears witness that the singers and seers of Israel were living in the Future, in a manner which it would be so much the greater folly to measure by our rule as, for the people of the Old Covenant, the Future had a significance altogether different from that which it has for the people of the New Covenant. That which is common to all the Psalms, from xciii. onward, is the confident expectation of a glorious manifestation of the Lord, which the Psalmist, following the example of the prophets, beholds as present. A counterpart is the cycle Ps. cx.x.xviii.-cxlv., in which David, stirred up by the promise in 2 Sam. vii., accompanies his house throughout history.

Several interpreters cannot altogether resist the force of these facts.

They grant "that other prophets also sometimes, in the Spirit, transfer themselves into later times, especially into the idealistic times of the Messiah," and draw their arguments from the circ.u.mstance only, that the latter again came back to their personal stand point, whilst our Prophet continues cleaving to the later time. Now it is true, and must be conceded, that this mode of representation is here employed to an extent greater than it is anywhere else in the Old Testament. But, in matters of this kind, measuring by the ell is quite out of place. In other respects also, the second part of Isaiah stands out as quite unique. There is, in the whole Old Testament, no other continuous prophecy which has so absolutely and pre-eminently proceeded from _cura posteritatis_. If [Pg 175] it be acknowledged that the prophesying activity of Isaiah falls into two great divisions,--the one--the results of which are contained in the first 39 chapters--chiefly, pre-eminently indeed, destined for the Present; the other,--which lies before us in the second part, belonging to the evening of the Prophet's life--forming a prophetical legacy, and hence, therefore, never delivered in public, but only committed to writing;--then we shall find it quite natural that the Prophet, writing, as he did, chiefly for the Future, should here also take his stand in the Future, to a larger extent than he has elsewhere done.

That it is in this manner only that this fact is to be accounted for, appears from the circ.u.mstance that, although our Prophet so extensively and frequently represents the Past as Present, yet he pa.s.ses over, in numerous pa.s.sages, from the _ideal_ into the _real_ Present.[2] We find a number of references which do not at all suit the condition of things after the exile, but necessarily require the age of Isaiah, or, at least, the time before the exile. If Isaiah be the author, these pa.s.sages are easily accounted for. It is true that, in the Spirit, he had transferred himself into the time of the Babylonish exile; and this time had become Present to him. But it would surely be suspicious to us, if the real Present had not sometimes prevailed, and attracted the eye of the Prophet. It is just thus, however, that we find it. The Prophet frequently steps out of his ideal view and position, and refers to conditions and circ.u.mstances of his time. _Now_, he has before his eyes the condition of the unhappy people in the Babylonish exile; _then_, the State still existing at his time, but internally deranged by idolatry and apostacy. This apparent contradiction cannot be reconciled in any other way than by a.s.suming that Isaiah is the author.

As a rule, the punishment appears as already inflicted; city and temple as destroyed; the country as devastated; the people as carried away; compare _e.g._, chap. lxiv. 10, 11. But in a series of pa.s.sages, in which the Prophet steps back from the _ideal_, to the _real_ stand-point, _the punishment appears as still future_; _city and temple as still existing_. In chap. xliii. [Pg 176] 22-28, the Prophet meets the delusion, as if G.o.d had chosen Israel on account of their deserts.

Far from having brought about their deliverance by their own merits, they, on the contrary, sinned thus against Him, that, to the inward apostacy, they added the outward also. The greater part of Israel had left off the wors.h.i.+p of the Lord by sacrifices. It is the mercy alone of the Lord which will deliver them from the misery into which they have plunged themselves by their sins. But how can the Lord charge the people in exile for the omission of a service which, according to His own law, they could offer to Him in their native country only, in the temple consecrated to Him, but then destroyed? The words specially: "Put me in remembrance," in ver. 26, "of what I should have forgotten,"

imply that there existed a possibility of acquiring apparent merits, and that, hence, the view of our opponents who, in vers. 22-24, think of a compulsory, and hence, guiltless omission of the sacrificial service during the exile, must be rejected. Vers. 27, 28 also, which speak of the punishment which Israel deserves, just on account of the omitted service of the Lord, and which it has found in the way of its works, prove that this view must be rejected, and that vers. 22-24 contain a reproof. The pa.s.sage can, hence, have been written only at the time when the temple was still standing. Of this there can so much the less be any doubt that, in vers. 27, 28, the exile is expressly designated as future: "Thy first father (the high-priestly office) hath sinned, and thy mediators have transgressed against me." (The sacrificial service was by a disgraceful syncretism profaned even by those whose office it was to attend to it). "Therefore I _will_ profane the princes of the sanctuary, and _will_ give Jacob to the curse, and Israel to reproaches." Even ????? is the common Future, and to ?????

the ? _optativum_ is added; and hence, we cannot by any means translate and explain it by: _I gave_.--In chap. lvi. 9, it is said: "All ye beasts of the field come ye to devour all the beasts in the forest."

This utterance stands in connection with the ???????, at the close of the preceding verse. The gathering of Israel by G.o.d the good Shepherd, promised there, must be preceded by the scattering, by being given up to the world's power--mercy, by judgment. By the wild beasts are to be understood the Gentiles who shall be sent by G.o.d upon [Pg 177] His people for punishment. This mission they must first fulfil before they can, according to ver. 8, be added to, and gathered along with, the gathered ones of Israel. By the "beasts in the forest," brutalized, degraded, and secularized Israel is to be understood, comp. Jer. xii.

7-12; Ezek. x.x.xiv. 5; and my Commentary on Rev. ii. 1.

The beasts have not yet come; they are yet to come. We can here think of nothing else than the invasion of the Chaldeans, which the Prophet, stepping back to the stand-point of his time, beholds here as future; whilst, in what precedes, from his ideal stand-point, which he had taken in the Babylonish exile, he had, for the most part, considered it as past.--In chap. lvi. 10-12, we meet with corrupted rulers of the people, who are indolent, when everything depends upon warding off the danger, greedy, luxurious, gormandizing upon what they have stolen. The people are not under foreign dominion, but have rulers of their own, who tyrannize over, and impoverish them; comp. Is. chap. v.; Micah, chap. iii.--In chap. lvii. 1, it is said: "The righteous perisheth and no man layeth it to heart, and the men of kindness are taken away, no one considering that, on account of the evil, the righteous is taken away." The Prophet mentions it as a sign of the people's hardening that, in the death of the righteous men who were truly bearing on their hearts the welfare of the whole, they did not recognize a harbinger of severe divine judgments, from which, according to a divine merciful decree, these righteous were to be preserved by an early death. "On account of the evil," _i.e._, in order to withdraw them from the judgments, which were to be inflicted upon the unG.o.dly people, comp.

Gen. xv. 15; 2 Kings xxii. 20; Is. x.x.xix. 8. The evil, _i.e._ according to 2 Kings xxii. 20, the Chaldean catastrophe, appears here as still future. In chap. lvii. 2: "They enter in peace, they rest in their beds who have walked before themselves in uprightness," the "peace" forms the contrast to the awful condition of suffering which the survivors have to encounter.--In chap. lvii. 9, it is said: "And thou lookest on the king anointed with oil, and increasest thy perfumes, and sendest thy messengers far off, sendest them down into h.e.l.l." The apostacy from the Lord their G.o.d is manifested not only in idolatry, but also in their not leaving untried any means to [Pg 178] procure for themselves human helpers, in their courting human aid. The personification of Israel as a woman, which took place in the preceding verses, is here continued. She leaves no means untried to heighten her charms; she makes every effort to please the mighty kings. The king is an ideal person comprehending a real plurality within himself A parallel pa.s.sage, in which the seeking for help among foreign nations is represented under the same image, is Ezek. xvi. 26 ff., comp. Hos. xii.

2 (1). It occurs also in immediate connexion with seeking help from the idols, in chap. x.x.x. 1 ff. The verb ??? means always "to see," "to look at;" and this signification is, here too, quite appropriate: Israel is _coquetting_ with her lover, the king. The reproach which the Prophet here raises against the people has no meaning at all in the time of the exile, when the national independence was gone. We find ourselves all at once transferred to the time of Isaiah, who, in chap. x.x.xi. 1, utters a woe upon them "that go down to Egypt for help,"--who, in chap.

x.x.x. 4, complains: "His princes are at Zoar, and his amba.s.sadors come to Hanes,"--who, in chap. vii., exhibits the dangerous consequences of seeking help from a.s.shur. The historical point at issue is brought before us by pa.s.sages such as 2 Kings xvi. 7: "And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser, king of a.s.syria, saying: I am thy servant and thy son; come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who rise against me."--In chap.

lvii. 11-13, the thought is this: Israel is not becoming weary of seeking help and salvation from others than G.o.d. But He will soon show that He alone is to be feared, that He alone can help; that they are nothing against whom, and from whom help is sought. The words in ver.

11: "Am I not silent, even of old; therefore thou fearest me not,"

state the cause of the foolish forgetfulness of G.o.d, and hence form the transition to the subsequent announcement of judgment. The prophecy is uttered at a time when Israel still enjoyed the sparing divine forbearance, inasmuch as for time immemorial (since they were in Egypt), no destructive catastrophe had fallen upon them. It was in the Babylonish catastrophe only that the Egyptian received its counterpart.

But how does this suit the time of the Babylonish exile, when the people were groaning under the severe judgments of G.o.d, [Pg 179] and had not experienced His forbearance, but, on the contrary, for almost 70 years, the full energy of His punitive justice? In ver. 13, it is said: "In thy crying, let thy hosts (thy whole Pantheon so rich, and yet so miserable) help thee." "In thy crying, _i.e._, when _thou_, in the judgment to be inflicted upon thee in future, wilt cry for help."

In chap. lxvi. the punishment appears as future; temple and city as still existing; the Lord as yet enthroned in Zion. So specially in ver.

6: "A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, the voice of the Lord that rendereth recompence to His enemies," A controversy with the hypocrites who presumed upon the temple and their sacrificial service, in vers. 1, 3, has, at the time of the exile, no meaning at all, _Gesenius_, indeed, was of opinion that the Prophet might judge of the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d in temples, and of the value of sacrifices, although they were not offered at that time; but it must be strongly denied that the Prophet could do so in such a context and connection. For, the fact that the Prophet has in view a definite cla.s.s of men of his time, and that he does not bring forward at random a _locus communis_ which, at his time, was no longer applicable--a thing which, moreover, is not by any means his habit--appears from the close of the verse, and from ver.

4, where divine judgment is threatened to those men: "Because they choose their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations: I also will choose their derision, and will bring their fears upon them." Even in ver. 20: "And they (the Gentiles who are to be converted to the Lord), shall bring all your brethren out of all nations for a meat-offering unto the Lord, upon horses, &c., _just as the children of Israel are bringing_ (?????, expresses an habitual offering), _the meat-offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord_," the house of G.o.d appears as still standing, the sacrificial service in full operation; the future spiritual meat-offering of the Gentiles is compared to the bodily meat-offering which the children of Israel are now offering in the temple.

_Throughout the whole second part we perceive the people under the, as yet, unbroken power of idolatry._ It appears everywhere as the princ.i.p.al tendency of the sinful apostacy among the people; to counteract it appears to be the chief object of the Prophet. The controversy with idolatry pervades everything. At the very commencement, in chap. xl. 18-26, we are met [Pg 180] with a description of the nothingness of idolatry, and an impressive warning against it. In the whole series of pa.s.sages, commencing with chap.

xli.--of which we shall afterwards speak more in detail--the sole Deity of the G.o.d of Israel, and the vanity of the idols are proved from prophecy in connection with its fulfilment; and this series has for its supposition the power which, at the time when the prophecy was uttered, idolatry yet possessed over the minds of men. Chap. xlii. 17 announces that the future historical development shall bring confusion upon those "that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images: Ye are our G.o.ds." In chap. xliv. 12-20, the absurdity of idolatry is ill.u.s.trated in a brilliant description. We have here before us the real _locus cla.s.sicus_ of the whole Scripture in this matter, the main description of the nothingness of idolatry. The emotion and excitement with which the Prophet speaks, shew that he has here to do with the princ.i.p.al enemy to the salvation of his people. According to chap. xlvi. the idols of Babel shall be overturned and carried away. From this, Israel may learn the nothingness of idolatry, and the apostates may return to the Lord. In the hortatory and reproving section, the punishment of idolatry forms the beginning; in chap. lvii. idolatry is described as far-spread, manifold, advancing to the greatest horrors. The offering up of children as sacrifices especially appears as being in vogue; and it can be proved that this penetrated into Israel, from the neighbouring nations, at the time of the Prophet (comp. 2 Chron.

xxviii. 3; x.x.xiii. 6), while, at the time of the exile, there was scarcely any cause for warning against it,--at least, existing information does not mention any such sacrifices among the Babylonians (comp. _Munter_, _die Religion der Babylonier_, S. 72). The people appear as standing under the dominion of idolatry in chap. lxv. 3: "The people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face, that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon the bricks;" comp.

ver. 7: "Who have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills;" chap. lxvi. 17: "They that sanctify themselves and purify themselves in the gardens behind one in the midst, who eat swine's flesh, and the abominations, and mice, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord." Idolatry is the service of nature, and was, therefore, chiefly practised [Pg 181] in places where nature presents herself in all her splendour, as in gardens and on the hills. The gardens are mentioned in a similar way in chap. i. 29: "Ye shall blush on account of the _gardens_ that ye have chosen." (On the words which precede in that verse: "For they shall be ashamed of the _oaks_ which ye have desired," chap. lvii. 5 offers an exact parallel: "Who inflame themselves among the _oaks_ under every green tree.") In chap.

lxv. 11, they are denounced who forsake the Lord, forget His holy mountain (on which, at the time when this was written, the temple must still have stood), who prepare a table to _Fortune_, and offer drink-offerings to _Fate_. The second main form of sinful apostacy--hypocrisy and dead ceremonial service--is only rarely mentioned by the Prophet (in chap. lvii., lxvi.), while he always anew reverts to idolatry. Now _this absolutely prevailing regard to idolatry can be accounted for, only if Isaiah be the author of the second part._ From Solomon, down to the time of the exile, the disposition to idolatry in Israel was never thoroughly broken. During Isaiah's ministry, it came to the fullest display under Ahaz. Under Hezekiah it was kept down, indeed; but with great difficulty only, as appears from the fact that, under the reign of Mana.s.seh, who was a king after the heart of the people, it again broke openly forth; comp. 2 Kings xxi.

1-18; 2 Chron. x.x.xiii. 1-18; 2 Kings xxi. 6, according to which Mana.s.seh made his own son to pa.s.s through the fire. But it is a tact generally admitted, and proved by all the books written during and after the exile, that, with the carrying away into exile, the idolatrous disposition among the people was greatly shaken. This fact has its cause not only in the deep impression which misery made upon their minds, but still more in the circ.u.mstance that it was chiefly the G.o.dly part of the nation that was carried away into captivity. The disproportionately large number of _priests_ among the exiled and those who returned--they const.i.tute the tenth part of the people--is to be accounted for only on the supposition, that the heathenish conquerors saw that the real essence and basis of the people consisted in the faith in the G.o.d of Israel, and were, therefore, above all, anxious to remove the priests as the main representatives of this principle. If, for this reason, they carried away the priests, we cannot think otherwise but that, in [Pg 182] the selection of the others also, they looked chiefly to the theocratic disposition on which the nationality of Israel rested. To this we are led by Jer. xxiv. also, where those carried away are designated as the flower of the nation, as the nursery and hope of the Kingdom of G.o.d. Incomprehensible, for the time of the exile, is also the _strict ant.i.thesis_ between the servants of the Lord, and the servants of the idols--the latter hating, a.s.sailing, and persecuting the former--an ant.i.thesis which meets us especially in the last two chapters; comp. especially chap. lxv. 5 ff. 13-15; lxvi. 16.

That such a state of things existed at the time of the Prophet is, among other pa.s.sages, shown by 2 Kings xxi. 16, according to which Mana.s.seh shed much innocent blood at Jerusalem, and, according to ver.

10, 11, especially the blood of the prophets, who had borne a powerful testimony against idolatry.

_If it be a.s.sumed that the second part was composed during the exile, then those pa.s.sages are incomprehensible, in which the Prophet proves that the G.o.d of Israel is the true G.o.d, from His predicting the appearance of the conqueror from the east, and the deliverance of the people to be wrought by Him in connection with the fulfilment of these predictions._ The supernatural character of this announcement which the Prophet a.s.serts, and which forms the ground of its probative power, took place, only if it proceeded from Isaiah, but not if it was uttered only about the end of the exile, at a time when Cyrus had already entered upon the stage of history. These pa.s.sages, at all events, admit only the alternative,--either that Isaiah was the real author, or that they were forged at a later period by some deceiver; and this latter alternative is so decidedly opposed to the whole spirit of the second part, that scarcely any one among the opponents will resolve to adopt it. Considering the very great and decisive importance of these pa.s.sages, we must still allow them to pa.s.s in review one by one. In chap. xli. 1-7, the Lord addresses those who are serving idols, summons them triumphantly to defend themselves against the mighty attack which He was just executing against them, and describes the futility of their attempts at so doing. The address to the Gentiles is a mere form; to work upon Israel is the real purpose. To secure them from the allurements of the world's religion, the Prophet points to [Pg 183] the great confusion which the Future will bring upon it. This confusion consists in this:--that the prophecy of the conqueror from the East, as the messenger and instrument of the Lord--a prediction which the Prophet had uttered in the power of the Lord--is fulfilled without the idolators being able to prevent it. The answer on the words in ver. 2: "Who hath raised up from the East him whom righteousness calleth whither he goes, giveth the nations before him, and maketh kings subject to him, maketh his sword like dust, and his bow like driven stubble?" is this: According to the agreement of prophecy and fulfilment, it is none other than the Lord, who is, therefore, the only true G.o.d, to whose glory and majesty every deed of His servant Koresh bears witness. The argumentation is unintelligible, as soon as, a.s.suming that it was Isaiah who wrote down the prophecy, it is not admitted that he, losing sight of the _real_ Present, takes his stand-point in an _ideal_ Present, viz., the time of the appearance of the conqueror from the East, by which it becomes possible to him to draw his arguments from the prophecy in connection with the fulfilment.

It is altogether absurd, when it is a.s.serted that the second part is spurious, and was composed at a time when Cyrus was already standing before Babylon. It would indeed have required an immense amount of impudence on the part of the Prophet to bring forward, as an una.s.sailable proof of the omniscience and omnipotence of G.o.d, an event which every one saw with his bodily eyes. By such argumentation, he would have exposed himself to general _ridicule_.--In chap. xli. 21-29, the discourse is formally addressed to the Gentiles; but in point of fact, the Prophet here, too, has to do with Judah driven into exile, to whom he was called by G.o.d to offer the means to remain stedfast under the temptations from the idolators by whom they were surrounded. Before the eyes, and in the hearing of Israel, the Lord convinces the Gentiles of the nothingness of their cause. They are to prove the divinity of their idols by showing forth the announcements of the Future which proceeded from them. But they are not able to comply with this demand.

It is only the Lord, the living G.o.d, who can do that. Long before the appearance of the conqueror from the North and East, He caused it to be _foretold_, and comforted His Church with the view of the Future.

Hence, He alone is [Pg 184] G.o.d, and vanity are all those who are put beside Him. It is said in ver. 22: "Let them bring forth and shew to us what shall happen; the former things, what they be, show and we will consider them and know the latter end of them; or the coming (events make us to hear)." _The former things_ are those which are prior on this territory; hence the former prophecies, as the comparison of the parallel pa.s.sage, chap. xlii 9, clearly shows. The _end_ of prophecy is its fulfilment. ????? "the coming, or future," are the events of the more distant Future. As the Prophet demands from the idols and their servants that only which the true G.o.d has already performed by His servants, we have here, on the one hand, a reference to the whole cycle of prophecies formerly fulfilled, as _e.g._, that of the overthrow of the kingdoms of Damascus and Ephraim, and the defeat of a.s.shur,--and, on the other hand, to the prophecy of the conqueror from the East, &c., contained in the second part. The _former_ prophecies, however, are here mentioned altogether incidentally only; the real demand refers, as is shown by the words: "What shall happen," only to the prophecies in reference to the Future, corresponding to those of our Prophet regarding the conqueror from the East, whose appearance is here represented as belonging altogether to the _Future_, and not to be known by any human ingenuity. In ver. 26: "Who hath declared (such things) from the beginning, that we may know, and long beforehand, that we may say: he is righteous?" the ???? "from the beginning" puts insurmountable obstacles in the way of the opponents of the genuineness. If the second part of Isaiah be _spurious_, then the idolaters might put the same scornful question to the G.o.d of Israel.

The ???? denotes just the opposite of a _vaticinium post eventum_.--In chap. xlii. 9: "The former (things), behold, they are come to pa.s.s, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth, I let you hear," the Prophet proves the true divinity of the Lord, from the circ.u.mstance that, having already proved himself by prophecies fulfilled, He declares here, in the second part, the future events before they spring forth, before the facts begin to sprout forth from the soil of the Present, and hence could have been known and predicted by human combination. The words, "before they spring forth," become completely enigmatical, if it be denied that Isaiah [Pg 185] wrote the second part; inasmuch as, in that case, it would have in a great part, to do with things which did not belong to the territory of prophetic foresight, but of what was plainly visible.--In chap. xliii. 8-13, the Prophet again proves the nothingness of idolatry, and the sole divinity of the G.o.d of Israel, from the great work, declared beforehand by the Lord, of the deliverance of Israel, and of the overthrow of their enemies. He is so deeply convinced of the striking force of this argument, that he ever anew reverts to it. After having called upon the Gentiles to prove the divinity of their idols by true prophecies given by them, he says in ver. 9: "Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified." By the witnesses it is to be proved, by whom, to whom, and at what time the prophecies were given, in order that the Gentiles may not refer to deceitfully forged prophecies, to _vaticinia post eventum_. According to the hypothesis of the spuriousness of the second part, the author p.r.o.nounced his own condemnation by thus calling for witnesses. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and witness is my Servant whom I have chosen," is said in ver. 10. While the Gentiles are in vain called upon to bring forward witnesses for the divinity of their idols, the true G.o.d has, for His witnesses, just those whose services he claimed. The prophecies which lie at the foundation of their testimony, which are to be borne witness to, are those of the second part. The Prophet may safely appeal to the testimony of the whole nation, that they were uttered at a time, when their contents could not be derived from human combination. "The great unknown"

(_Ewald_), could not by any possibility have spoken thus.--In chap.

xlv. 19-21, it is proved from the prophecy, in connection with the fulfilment, that Jehovah alone is G.o.d,--the like of which no Gentile nation can show of their idols. The argumentation is followed by the call to all the Gentiles to be converted to this G.o.d, and thus to become partakers of His salvation--a call resting on the striking force of this argumentation--and with this call is, in ver. 23-25, connected the solemn declaration of G.o.d, that, at some future time, this shall take place; that, at some future time, there shall be one shepherd and one flock. How would these high, solemn, words have been spoken in vain, if "the great unknown" had spoken them! In ver. 19 [Pg 186] it is said: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I said not unto the seed of Jacob: Seek ye me in vain; I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare rect.i.tude." The Lord here says, first, in reference to His prophecies, those namely which He gave through our Prophet, that _they were made known publicly_, that, hence, there could not be any doubt of their genuineness,--altogether different from what is the case with the prophecies of idolatrous nations which make their appearance _post eventum_ only, _no one knowing whence_. Every one might convince himself of their truth and divinity. This is expressed by the words: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth." Then he says that the Lord had not deceived His people, like the idols who leave their servants without disclosures regarding: the Future; but that, by the prophecies granted to our Prophet, He had met the longings of his people for revelations of the Future. While the G.o.ds of the world leave them in the lurch, just when their help is required, and never answer when they are asked, the Lord, in reference to prophecies, as well as in every other respect, has not spoken: "Seek ye me in vain," but rather: When ye seek, ye shall find me. And, finally, he says that his prophecies are true and right; that the heathenish prophets commit an _unrighteousness_ by performing something else than that which they promised to perform. To declare _righteousness_ is to declare that which is righteous, which does not conceal internal emptiness and rottenness under a fair outside. The words: "I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare rect.i.tude," could not but have died on the lips of the "great unknown."--In chap. xlvi. 8-13 the apostates in Israel are addressed. They are exhorted to return to the true G.o.d, and to be mindful, 1. of the nothingness of idols, ver.

8; 2. of the proofs of His sole divinity which the Lord had given throughout the whole of the past history; 3. of the new manifestation of it in announcing and sending Koresh (Cyrus), ver. 10, 11; "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. Calling from the East an eagle, from a far country the man of His counsel; I have spoken it, and will also bring it to pa.s.s; I have formed it, and will also do it." To the ??????, the former [Pg 187]

events, the fulfilled prophecies from former times (comp. xlii. 9), here the new proof of the sole divinity of the G.o.d of Israel is added, in that He sends Koresh: G.o.d _now_ declares. The Prophet, by designating the time in which the announcement was issued as ????? and ???, as beginning and ancient times, and by founding the proof of the divinity of the Lord just upon the high age of the announcement, again puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the opponents of the genuineness. The announcement and declaration prove any thing in connection with the execution only; the bringing to pa.s.s, therefore, is connected with the declaring, the doing with the speaking. These words are _now_ spoken, since, from the ideal stand-point, the carrying out is at hand; they form the antecedent to the _calling_, of which ver. 11 treats. ??? properly "to rise," opposed to the laying down, means "to bring to stand," "to bring about," "to be fulfilled." "The counsel,"

_i.e._, the contents of the prediction which was spoken of before; it is the divine counsel and decree to which Koresh served as an instrument.--_Finally_--In chap. xlviii., the same subject is treated of; the divinity of the Lord is proved from His prophecies, in three sections, ver. 1-11, ver. 12-16, ver. 22. Here, at the close of the first book of the second part, the argumentation occurs once more in a very strong acc.u.mulation, because the Prophet is now about to leave it, and, in general, the whole territory of the lower salvation. First, in ver. 1-11: Israel should return to the Lord, who formerly had manifested and proved His sole divinity by a series of prophecies and their fulfilments, and _now_ was granting new and remarkable disclosures regarding the Future. Ver. 6: "New things I shew thee from this time, hidden things, and thou didst not know them, ver. 7. Now they have been created and not of old, and before this day thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say: Behold, I knew them." The deliverance of Israel by Cyrus--an announcement uttered in the preceding, and to be repeated immediately afterwards--is called _new_ in contrast to the old prophecies of the Lord already fulfilled; _hidden_ in contrast to the facts which are already subjects of history, or may be known beforehand by natural ingenuity. _To be created_ is equivalent to being made manifest, inasmuch as the hidden Divine counsel enters into life, only by being manifested, and [Pg 188]

the prophesied events are created for Israel, only by the prophecy.

Ver. 8: "Thou didst not hear it, nor didst thou know it, likewise thine ear was not opened beforehand; for I knew that thou art faithless, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." I have, says the Lord, communicated to thee the knowledge of events of the Future which are altogether unheard of, of which, before, thou didst not know the least, nor couldst know. The reason of this communication is stated in the words: "for I knew," &c. It is the same reason which, according to vers. 4, 5, called forth also the former definite prophecies regarding the Future, now already fulfilled, viz., the unbelief of the people, which requires a _palpable_ proof that the Lord alone is G.o.d, because it is but too ingenious in finding out seeming reasons for justifying its apostacy. All that is perfectly in keeping with, and suitable to the stand-point of Isaiah, but not to that of "the great unknown," at whose time the conqueror from the East was already beheld with the bodily eye; and Habakkuk had long ago prophesied the destruction of the Babylonish world's power, and Israel's deliverance; and Jeremiah had announced the destruction of Babylon by the Modes much more distinctly and definitely than is done here in the second part of Isaiah. In ver.

16 it is said: "Come ye near unto me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, I was there, and now the Lord G.o.d hath sent me and His Spirit." The sense is: Ever since the foundation of the people, I have given them the most distinct prophecies, and made them publicly known (referring to the whole chain of events, from the calling of Abraham and onward, which had been objects of prophecy); by mine omnipotence I have fulfilled them; and now I have sent my servant Isaiah, and filled him with my Spirit, in order that, by a new distinguished prophecy, he may bear witness to my sole divinity. It is only the accompanying mission of the Spirit which gives its importance to that of the Prophet. It is from G.o.d's Spirit searching the depths of the G.o.dhead, and knowing His most hidden counsels, that those prophecies of the second part, going beyond the natural consciousness, have proceeded.

We believe we have incontrovertibly proved that we are not ent.i.tled to draw any arguments against Isaiah's being the [Pg 189] author of the second part, from the circ.u.mstance "that the exile is not announced, but that the author takes his stand in it, as well as in that of Isaiah's time, inasmuch as this stand-point is an a.s.sumed and ideal one. But if the _form_, can prove nothing, far less can the _prophetic contents_." It is true that these contents cannot be explained from the natural consciousness of Isaiah; but it is not to be overlooked, that the a.s.sailed prophecies of Isaiah are even as directly as possible opposed to the rationalistic notion of prophetism, which is arbitrary, and goes in the face of all facts, and from which the arguments against their genuineness are drawn. In a whole series of pa.s.sages of the second part (the same which we have just been discussing), the Prophet intimates that he gives disclosures which lie beyond the horizon of his time; and draws from this circ.u.mstance the arguments for his own divine mission, and the divinity of the G.o.d of Israel. He considers it as the disgrace of idolatry that it cannot give any definite prophecies, and with a n.o.ble scorn, challenges it to vindicate itself by such prophecies. That rationalistic notion of prophetism removes the boundaries which, according to the express statements of our Prophet, separate the Kingdom of G.o.d from heathenism. The rationalistic _notional_ G.o.d, however, it is true, can as little prophesy as the heathenish G.o.ds of stone and wood, of whom the Psalmist says: "They have ears, but they hear not, _neither speak they through their throat_."

It is farther to be considered that the predictions of the Future, in those portions of Isaiah which are a.s.sailed just on account of them, are not so dest.i.tute of a foundation as is commonly a.s.sumed. There existed, in the present time and circ.u.mstances of the Prophet, important actual points of connection for them. They farther rest on the foundation of ideal views and conceptions of eternal truths, which had been familiar to the Church of the Lord from its very beginnings.

They only enlarge what had already been prophesied by former prophets; and well secured and ascertained parallels in the prophetic announcement are not wanting for them.

The carrying away of the covenant-people into exile had been actually prophesied by the fact, that the land had spued out its former inhabitants on account of their sins. The threatening of the exile pervades the whole Pentateuch from [Pg 190] beginning to end; compare _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, _p._ 270 _ff._ It is found in the Decalogue also: "That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy G.o.d giveth thee." David shows a clear knowledge of the sufferings impending over his family, and hence also over the people of G.o.d; comp.

my Commentary on Song of Sol. S. 243. Solomon points to the future carrying away in his prayer at the consecration of the temple. Amos, the predecessor of Isaiah, foresees with absolute clearness, that, before the salvation comes, all that is glorious, not only in Israel, but in Judah also, must be given over to destruction, compare Vol. i.

p. 357. In like manner, too, Hosea prophesies not only the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also that Judah shall be carried away into exile, comp. Vol. i. p. 176. In Isaiah, the foreknowledge of the entire devastation of the city and land, and the carrying away into captivity of its inhabitants--a foreknowledge which stands in close connection with the energy of the knowledge of sin with the Prophets--meets us from the very beginning of his ministry, and also in those prophecies, the genuineness of which no one ventures to a.s.sail, as, _e.g._, in chap. i.-vi. After the severity of G.o.d had been manifested before the bodily eyes of the Prophet in the carrying away of the ten tribes, it could not, even from human considerations, be doubtful to him, what was the fate in store for Judah.

The knowledge, that the impending carrying away of Judah would take place by the Chaldeans, and that Babylon would be the place of their banishment, was not dest.i.tute of a certain natural foundation. In the germ, the Chaldean power actually existed even at that time. Decidedly erroneous is the view of _Hitzig_, that a Chaldean power in Babylon could be spoken of only since the time of Nabopola.s.sar. This power, on the contrary, was very old; compare the proofs in _Delitzsch's_ Commentary on Habakkuk, S. 21. The a.s.syrian power, although, when outwardly considered, at its height, when more closely examined, began, even at that time, already to sink. A weakening of the a.s.syrian power is intimated also by the circ.u.mstance, that Hezekiah ventured to rebel against the a.s.syrians, and the emba.s.sy of the Chaldean Merodach Baladan to Hezekiah, implies that, even at that time, many things gave a t.i.tle to expect the speedy downfal of the a.s.syrian [Pg 191] Empire. But the fact that Isaiah possessed the clear knowledge that, in some future period, the dominion of the world would pa.s.s over to Babylon and the Chaldeans,--that they would be the executors of the judgment upon Judah, we have already proved, in our remarks on chaps. xiii., xiv., from the prophecies of the first part,--from chap. xxiii. 13, where the Chaldeans are mentioned as the executors of the judgment upon the neighbouring people, the Tyrians, and as the destroyers of the a.s.syrian dominion,--and from chap. x.x.xix. The attempt of dispossessing him of this knowledge is so much the more futile, that his contemporary Micah undeniably possesses it; comp. Vol. i. p. 464. So also does Habakkuk, between whose time and that of Isaiah, circ.u.mstances had not essentially changed, and who likewise still prophesied before the Chaldean monarchy had been established.

While this foreknowledge of the future _elevation_ of Babylon had a _historical_ foundation, the foreknowledge of its _humiliation and fate_, following soon after, rested on a _theological_ foundation. With a heathenish people, elevation is always followed by haughtiness, with all its consequences; and, according to the eternal laws of the divine government of the world, haughtiness is a matter-of-fact prophecy of destruction. Proceeding from this view, the downfal of the Chaldean monarchy was prophesied by Habakkuk also, at a time when it was still developing, and was far from having attained to the zenith of its power. In the same manner, the foreknowledge of the future _deliverance of Israel_ rises on a theological foundation, and is not at all to be considered in the same light as if _e.g._, the Prophet had foretold to Moab its deliverance. That which the Prophet here predicts is only the individualization of a general truth which meets us at the very beginnings of the covenant-people. The principle which St. Paul advances in Rom. xi. 2: "G.o.d hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew," and ver. 29: "For the gifts and calling of G.o.d are without repentance," meets us, clearly and distinctly, as early as in the books of Moses. In Levit. xxvi. 42-45, the deliverance from the land of captivity is announced on the ground of the election of Israel, and of the covenant with the fathers, and as a fulfilment of the promise of future election, which was given by the fact of Israel's being delivered from [Pg 192] Egypt. And according to Deut. iv. 30, 31, x.x.x.

ff., and the close of chap. x.x.xii., the end of all the catastrophes which are inflicted upon the covenant-people is always Israel's conversion and reception into favour; behind the judgment, mercy is always concealed. In the prayer of Solomon, the carrying away goes hand in hand with the reception into favour. But it will be altogether fruitless to deny to Isaiah the knowledge of the future deliverance of Israel from Babylon, since his contemporary Micah, in chap. iv. 10, briefly and distinctly expresses the same: "And thou comest to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there shall the Lord redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies."

The only point in the prophetic foreknowledge of the second part which really seems to want, not only a historical or ideal foundation, but also altogether corresponding a.n.a.logies, is the mention of the name of Koresh. But this difficulty disappears if, in strict opposition to the current notion, it is a.s.sumed that Cyrus was induced, by our book only, to appropriate to himself that name. Recent investigation has proved that this name is originally not a proper name, but an honorary t.i.tle,--that the Greek writers rightly explain it by _Sun_,--that the name of the sun was, in the East generally, and especially with the Persians, a common honorary t.i.tle of rulers; comp. _Burnouf_ and others in _Havernick's Einleitung_, ii. 2, S. 165. This honorary t.i.tle of the Persian kings, Isaiah might very easily learn in a natural way. And the fact that this _Nomen dignitatis_ became, among several others, peculiar to Cyrus (the mention of the name of Koresh by Isaiah does not originally go beyond the announcement of the conqueror from the East) is explained by the circ.u.mstance that Cyrus a.s.sumed this name in honour of our book, and as an acknowledgment of the mission a.s.signed to him by it, although the Prophet had not used this name in any other manner than Balaam had that of Agag, perhaps with an allusion to its signification; compare the phrases "from the East," "from the rising of the sun," in chap. xli. 2, 25. And it is historically settled and certain, that Cyrus had originally another name, viz., _Agradates_, and that he a.s.sumed this name only at the time of his ascending the throne, which falls into the time when the prophecies of our book could already be known to him (comp. the [Pg 193] proofs in _Havernick's Einleit._) And as it is farther certain that the prophecies of our book made a deep impression upon him, and, in important points, exercised an influence upon his actions (this appears not only from the express statement of _Josephus_, [Arch. xi. c. 1. -- 1, 2,] but still more from an authentic doc.u.ment, the Edict of Cyrus, in Ezra i. 1 ff., which so plainly implies the fact reported by _Josephus_, that _Jahn_ rightly called _Josephus'_ statement a commentary on this Edict, which refers, _partly_ with literal accuracy, to a series of pa.s.sages from the second part of Isaiah, compare the particulars in _Kleinert_, _uber die Echtheit des Jesaias_, S. 142);--as the condition of the Persian religion likewise confirms this result gained from the Edict of Cyrus (_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des alten Orients_, S. 373 ff., proves that in the time of Cyrus, and by him, an Israelitish element had been introduced into it);--there will certainly not be any reason to consider our supposition to be improbable, or the result of embarra.s.sment.

But to this circ.u.mstance we must still direct attention, that those prophetic announcements of the second part which have reference to that which, even at the time of "the great unknown," still belonged to the future, are far more distinct, and can far less be accounted for from natural causes, than those from which rationalistic criticism has drawn inferences as regards the spuriousness of the second part. The personal Messianic prophecies of the second part are much more characteristic than those concerning Cyrus. He who cannot, by the help of history, supplement and ill.u.s.trate the prophecy, receives only an incomplete and defective image of the latter. And, indeed, a sufficiently long time elapsed before even Exegesis recognised with certainty and unanimity that it was Cyrus who was meant. Doubts and differences of opinion on this point meet us even down to last century. The Medes and Persians are not at all mentioned as the conquerors of Babylon, and all which refers to the person of Cyrus has an altogether ideal character; while the Messiah is, especially in chap. liii., so distinctly drawn, that scarcely any essential feature in His image is omitted. And it is altogether a matter of course that here, in the ant.i.typical deliverance, a much greater clearness and distinctness should prevail; for it stands [Pg 194] in a far closer relation to the idea, so that form and substance do far less disagree.

It would be inappropriate were we here to take up and refute all the arguments against the genuineness of the second part, which rationalistic criticism has brought together. Besides those which we have already refuted, we shall bring into view only this argument, which, at first sight indeed, may dazzle and startle even the well-disposed, viz., the difference between the first and second parts, as regards language and mode of representation. The chief error of those who have adduced this argument is, that they judge altogether without reference to person,--a matter, however, quite legitimate in this case,--that they simply apply the same rule to the productions of Isaiah which, in the productions of less richly endowed persons, has indeed a _certain_ right, _e.g._, on the prophetical territory of Jeremiah, who, notwithstanding the difference of subject, yet does not understand so to change his voice, that it should not soon be recognized by the skilled More than of all the prophets that holds true of Isaiah, which _Fichte_, in a letter to a _Konigsberg_ friend, writes of himself (in his _Life_, by his son, i. S. 196): "I have properly no style at all, for I have them all." "Just as the subject demands," says _Ewald_, without a.s.signing to the circ.u.mstance any weight in judging of the second part, "just as the subject demands, every kind of speech, and every change of style are easily at his command; and it is just this in which here his greatness, as, in general, one of his most prominent perfections, consists." The chief peculiarities of style in the second part stand in close relation to the subject, and the disposition of mind thereby called forth. The Prophet, as a rule, does not address the ma.s.s of the people, but the election (??????); nor the sinful congregation of the Lord in the present time, but that of the future, purified by the judgments of the Lord, the seed and germ of which were the election of the Present. It is to the congregation of brethren that he addresses _Comfort_. The beginning: "Comfort ye, Comfort ye, Zion," contains the keynote and princ.i.p.al subject. It is from this that the gentle, tender, soft character of the style is to be accounted for, as well as the frequent repet.i.tions;--the comforting love follows, step by step, the grief which is indefatigable in its repet.i.tions. [Pg 195] From this circ.u.mstance is to be explained the habit of adding several epithets to the name of G.o.d; these are as many s.h.i.+elds which are held up against despair, as many bulwarks against the things in sight, by which every thought of redemption was cut off Where G.o.d is the sole help, every thing must be tried to make the Congregation feel what they have in Him. A series of single phrases which several times recur _verbatim_, _e.g._, "I am the Lord, and none else, I do not give mine honour to any other, I am the first and the last," are easily accounted for by the Prophet's endeavour and anxiety to impress upon the desponding minds truths, which they were only too apt to forget. If other linguistic peculiarities occur, which cannot be explained from the subject, it must be considered that the second part is not by any means a collection of single prophecies, but a closely connected whole, which, as such, must necessarily have its own peculiar _usus loquendi_, a number of constantly recurring characteristic peculiarities. The character of unity must necessarily be expressed in language and style also. The fact, however, that, notwithstanding the difference of style betwixt the first and second parts, the second part has a great number of characteristic peculiarities of language and style in common with the first part (a fact which cannot be otherwise, if Isaiah was the author of both), was first very thoroughly demonstrated by _Kleinert_, while _Kuper_ and _Caspari_ have been the first conclusively to prove, that the second part was known and made use of by those prophets who prophesied between the time of Isaiah and that of "the great unknown."

The close connection of the second part with the first is, among other things, proved also by the circ.u.mstance that both are equally strongly pervaded with the Messianic announcement. Chap. i.-xii. especially have, in this respect, a remarkable parallel in the second book of the second part. The fact, moreover, that the single Messianic prophecies of the second part agree, in the finest and most concealed features, with those of the first part, will be shown in the exposition.

[Footnote 1: Chap. x.x.xvii. 38, (comp. 2 Kings xix. 37), describing apparently the murder of Sennacherib as belonging to the past, does not decide any thing as to the composition of this chapter by Isaiah, "inasmuch as the year which is a.s.signed for Sennacherib's death, B.C.

696, is not historically ascertained and certain. Nor can the supposition, that Isaiah lived until the time of Mana.s.seh, and himself arranged and edited the collection of his prophecies on the eve of his life, be liable to any well-founded doubts" (_Keil_, _Einleitung_, S.

271). The inscription in chap. i. 1, only indicates that the collection does not contain any prophecies which go beyond the time of Hezekiah.]

[Footnote 2: To a certain degree a.n.a.logous are those other pa.s.sages of the Old Testament, in which the Past presents itself in the form of the Present, as the deliverance from Egypt in Ps. lxvi. 6; lx.x.xi. 6. Faith, at the same time, makes all the old things new, fresh, and lively, and antic.i.p.ates the Future.]

[Pg 196]