{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30608/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30608","id":"gutenberg_30608","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30608","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Prophecies","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Messiah -- Prophecies"],"text":"Produced by Charles Bowen, from images obtained from Google Books.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note: Images taken from the 1861 edition, found at\nBooks.Google.com., are the source of the text used for this ebook. This\noriginal book was from Harvard University and digitized in 2006.\n\nUnclear or missing punctuation marks were corrected by reference to the\n1856 edition of this work.\n\nThe Latin diphthong oe is expressed by [oe].\n\nGreek words are directly transliterated using the English equivalents\nof the Greek; the Greek eta is transliterated as \u00ea and omega as \u00f4.\nDiacritic marks are omitted with the exception of the initial hard\nbreathing mark which is indicated by an \"h\" before the initial vowel of\nthe word.\n\nHebrew words, which in this book are mainly represented without\nthe vowel and pronunciation points, are transcribed as follows:\n\nAlef = a Lahmed = l\nBet = b Mem = m (final = M)\nGimel = g Nun = n (final = N)\nDalet = d Samekh = s\nHe = h Ahyin = i\nVav = v Peh = p (final = P)\nZayin = z Tsadi = c (final = C)\nHet = H Qof = q\nTet = T Resh = r\nYod = i Shin = w\nKahf = k (final = K) Tav = t\n\n\n\n\n[Pg i]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n CLARK'S\n\n\n FOREIGN\n\n\n THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY\n\n\n\n NEW SERIES.\n VOL. II.\n\n\n\n Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament.\n VOL. II.\n\n\n\n EDINBURGH:\n T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n LONDON: J. GLADDING; WARD AND CO.; AND JACKSON AND WALFORD\n DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON\n\n MDCCCLXI.\n\n\n[Pg ii]\n[Blank Page]\n\n\n[Pg iii]\n\n\n\n\n CHRISTOLOGY\n\n OF\n\n THE OLD TESTAMENT,\n\n AND A\n\n COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS\n\n\n\n BY\n E. W. HENGSTENBERG,\n DR. AND PROF. OF THEOL. IN BERLIN.\n\n\n\n SECOND EDITION GREATLY IMPROVED.\n\n\n\n TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN\n BY THE\n THE REV. THEODORE MEYER.\n HEBREW TUTOR IN THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.\n\n\n VOLUME II.\n\n\n EDINBURGH:\n T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.;\n WARD AND CO.; JACKSON AND WALFORD, ETC. DUBLIN:\n JOHN ROBERTSON, AND HODGES AND SMITH.\n\n MDCCCLXI.\n\n\n[Pg iv]\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE.\n _This Work is copyright in this country by arrangement with the\n Author._\n\n\n[Pg v]\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n Page\nMESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.\n THE PROPHET ISAIAH.\n General Preliminary Remarks, 1\n Chap. ii.-iv.--The Sprout of the Lord, 10\n Chap. vii.--Immanuel, 26\n Chap. viii. 23-ix. 6--Unto us a Child is born, 66\n Chap. ix. 1-7, 75\n Chap. xi., xii.--The Twig of Jesse, 94\n On Matthew ii. 23, 106\n Chap. xii., 133\n Chaps. xiii. 1-xiv. 27, 135\n Chaps. xvii., xviii., 137\n Chap. xix., 141\n Chap. xxiii.--The Burden upon Tyre, 146\n Chaps. xxiv.-xxvii., 149\n Chaps. xxviii.-xxxiii., 154\n Chap. xxxv., 158\n General Preliminary Remarks on Chaps, xl.-lxvi., 163\n Chap. xlii. 1-9, 196\n Chap. xlix. 1-9, 226\n Chap. 1. 4-11, 246\n Chap. li. 16, 256\n Chaps. lii. 13-liii. 12, 259\n I. History of the Interpretation.\n A. With the Jews, 311\n B. History of the Interpretation with the Christians, 319\n II. The Arguments against the Messianic Interpretation, 327\n III. The Arguments in favour of the Messianic\n Interpretation, 330\n IV. Examination of the Non-Messianic Interpretation, 334\n Chap. lv. 1-5, 343\n Chap. lxi. 1-3, 351\n THE PROPHET ZEPHANIAH, 356\n THE PROPHET JEREMIAH.\n General Preliminary Remarks, 362\n Chap. iii. 14-17, 373\n Chap. xxiii. 1-8, 398\n Chap. xxxi. 31-40, 424\n Chap. xxxiii. 14-26, 459\n\n\n[Pg vi]\n[Blank Page]\n\n\n[Pg 1]\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPHET ISAIAH.\n\n\n\n\n GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.\n\n\nIsaiah is the principal prophetical figure in the first period of\ncanonical prophetism, _i.e._, the Assyrian period, just as Jeremiah is\nin the second, _i.e._, the Babylonian. With Isaiah are connected in the\nkingdom of Judah: Joel, Obadiah, and Micah; in the kingdom of Israel:\nHosea, Amos, and Jonah.\n\nThe name \"Isaiah\" signifies the \"Salvation of the Lord.\" In this name\nwe have the key-note of his prophecies, just as the name Jeremiah: \"The\nLord casts down,\" indicates the nature of his prophecies, in which the\nprevailing element is entirely of a threatening character. That the\nproclamation of salvation occupies a very prominent place in Isaiah,\nwas seen even by the Fathers of the Church. _Jerome_ says: \"I shall\nexpound Isaiah in such a manner that he shall appear not as a prophet\nonly, but as an Evangelist and an Apostle;\" and in another passage:\n\"Isaiah seems to me to have uttered not a prophecy but a Gospel.\" And\n_Augustine_ says, _De Civ. Dei_, 18, c. 29, that, according to the\nopinion of many, Isaiah, on account of his numerous prophecies of\nChrist and the Church, deserved the name of an Evangelist rather than\nthat of a Prophet. When, after his conversion, _Augustine_ applied to\n_Ambrose_ with the question, which among the Sacred Books he should\nread in preference to all others, he proposed to him Isaiah, \"because\nbefore all others it was he who had more openly declared the Gospel and\nthe calling of the Gentiles.\" (_Aug. Conf._ ix. 5.) With the Fathers of\nthe Church _Luther_ coincides. He says in commendation of Isaiah: \"He\nis full of loving, comforting, cheering words for all poor consciences,\nand wretched, afflicted hearts.\" Of course, there is in Isaiah no want\nof severe reproofs and threatenings. If it were [Pg 2] otherwise, he\nwould have gone beyond the boundary by which true prophetism is\nseparated from false. \"There is in it,\" as Luther says, \"enough of\nthreatenings and terrors against the hardened, haughty, obdurate heads\nof the wicked, if it might be of some use.\" But the threatenings never\nform the close in Isaiah; they always at last run out into the promise;\nand while, for example, in the great majority of Jeremiah's prophecies,\nthe promise, which cannot be wanting in any true prophet, is commonly\nonly short, and hinted at, sometimes consisting only of words which are\nthrown into the midst of the several threatenings, _e. g._, iv. 27:\n\"Yet will I not make a full end,\"--in Isaiah the stream of consolation\nflows in the richest fulness. The promise absolutely prevails in the\nsecond part, from chap. xl.-lxvi. The reason of this peculiarity is to\nbe sought for chiefly in the historical circumstances. Isaiah lived at\na time in which, in the kingdom of Judah, the corruption was far from\nhaving already reached its greatest height,--in which there still\nexisted, in that kingdom, a numerous \"election\" which gathered round\nthe prophet as their spiritual centre. With a view to this circle,\nIsaiah utters the words: \"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people.\" The\ncontemporary prophets of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which was\npoisoned in its very first origin, found a different state of things;\nthe field there was already ripe for the harvest of judgment. And at\nthe time of Jeremiah, Judah had become like her apostate sister. At\nthat time it was not so much needed to comfort the miserable, as to\nterrify sinners in their security. It was only after the wrath of God\nhad manifested itself in deeds, only after the judgment of God had been\nexecuted upon Jerusalem, or was immediately at hand,--it was only then\nthat, in Jeremiah, and so in Ezekiel also, the stream of promise broke\nforth without hinderance.\n\nChronology is, throughout, the principle according to which the\nProphecies of Isaiah are arranged. In the first six chapters, we obtain\na survey of the Prophet's ministry under Uzziah and Jotham. Chap. vii.\nto x. 4 belongs to the time of Ahaz. From chap. x. 4 to the close of\nchap. xxxv. every thing belongs to the time of the Assyrian invasion in\nthe fourteenth year of Hezekiah; in the face of which invasion the\nprophetic gift of Isaiah was displayed as it had never been before. The\nsection, chap. xxxvi.-xxxix., furnishes us with the historical\ncommentary on the preceding [Pg 3] prophecies from the Assyrian period,\nand forms, at the same time, the transition to the second part, which\nstill belongs to the same period, and the starting point of which is\nJudah's deliverance from Asshur. In this most remarkable year of the\nProphet's life--a year rich in the manifestation of God's glory in\njudgment and mercy--his prophecy flowed out in full streams, and spread\nto every side. Not the destinies of Judah only, but those of the\nGentile nations also are drawn within its sphere. The Prophet does not\nconfine himself to the events immediately at hand, but in his ecstatic\nstate, the state of an elevated, and, as it were, armed consciousness,\nin which he was during this whole period, his eye looks into the\nfarthest distances. He sees, especially, that, at some future period,\nthe Babylonian power, which began, even in his time, to germinate,\nwould take the place of the Assyrian,--that, like it, it would find the\nfield of Judah white for the harvest,--that, for this oppressor of the\nworld, destruction is prepared by _Koresh_ (Cyrus), the conqueror from\nthe East, and that he will liberate the people from their exile; and,\nat the close of the development, he beholds the Saviour of the world,\nwhose image he depicts in the most glowing colours.\n\nIsaiah has especially brought out the view of the Prophetic and\nPriestly offices of Christ, while in the former prophecies it was\nalmost alone the Kingly office which appeared; it is only in Deut.\nxviii. that the Prophetic office, and in Ps. cx. that the Priestly\noffice, is pointed at. Of the two states of Christ, it is the doctrine\nof the state of humiliation, the doctrine of the suffering Christ,\nwhich here meets us, while formerly it was the state of exaltation\nwhich was prominently brought before us,--although Isaiah too can very\nwell describe it when it is necessary to meet the fears regarding the\ndestruction of the Theocracy by the assaults of the powerful heathen\nnations. The first attempt at a description of the humbled, suffering,\nand expiating Christ, is found in chap. xi. 1. The real seat of this\nproclamation is, however, in the second part, which is destined more\nfor the election, than for the whole nation. In chap. xlii. we meet the\nservant of God, who, as a Saviour meek and lowly in heart, does not\nbreak the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, and by this\nmerciful love establishes righteousness on the whole earth. In chap.\nxlix., the Prophet describes how the covenant-people requite with\ningratitude the faithful labours of the Servant of God, but that [Pg 4]\nthe Lord, to recompense Him for the obstinacy of Israel, gives Him the\nGentiles for an inheritance. In chap. l. we have presented to us that\naspect of the sufferings of the Servant of God which is common to\nChrist and His people--viz., how, in fulfilling His calling. He offered\nHis back to the smiters, and did not hide His face from shame and\nspitting. Then, finally, in chap. liii.--that culminating point of the\nprophecy of the Old Testament--Christ is placed before our eyes in His\nhighest work, in His atoning and vicarious suffering, as the truth of\nboth the Old Testament high-priest, and the Old Testament sin-offering.\n\nThere are still the following Messianic features which are peculiar to\nIsaiah. A clear Old Testament witness for the divinity of Christ is\noffered by chap. ix. 5 (6); the birth by a virgin, closely connected\nwith His divinity, is announced in chap. vii. 14; according to chap.\nviii. 23 (ix. 1.) Galilee, and, in general, the country surrounding the\nSea of Gennesareth, being that part of the country which hitherto had\nchiefly been covered with disgrace, are, in a very special manner, to\nbe honoured by the appearance of the Saviour, who shall come to have\nmercy upon the miserable, and to seek that which was lost. Isaiah has,\nfurther, first taught that, by the redemption, the consequences of the\nFall would disappear in the irrational creation also, and that it\nshould return to paradisaic innocence, chap. xi. 6-9. He has first\nannounced to the people of God the glorious truth, that death, as it\nhad not existed in the beginning, should, at the end also, be expelled,\nchap. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19. The healing powers which by Christ should be\nimparted to miserable mankind, Isaiah has described in chap xxxv. in\nwords, which by the fulfilment have, in a remarkable manner, been\nconfirmed.\n\nLet us endeavour to form, from the single scattered features which\noccur in the prophecies of Isaiah, a comprehensive view of his\nprospects into the future.\n\nThe announcement first uttered by Moses of an impending exile of the\npeople, and desolation of the country, is brought before us by Isaiah\nin the first six chapters, in the prophecies belonging to the time of\nUzziah and Jotham, at which the future had not yet been so clearly laid\nopen before the Prophet as it was at a later period, at the time of\nAhaz, and, very especially, in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. A\nreference to [Pg 5] the respective announcements of the Pentateuch is\nfound in chap. xxxvii. 26, where, in opposition to the imagination of\nthe King of Asshur, that, by his own power, he had penetrated as a\nconqueror as far as Judah, Isaiah asks him whether he had not heard\nthat the Lord, long ago and from ancient times, had formed such a\nresolution regarding His people. These words can be referred only to\nthe threatenings of the Pentateuch, which a short-sighted criticism\nendeavoured to ascribe to a far later period, without considering that\nthe germ of this knowledge of the future is found in the Decalogue\nalso, the genuineness of which is, at present, almost unanimously\nconceded: \"In order that thy (Israel's) days may be long in the land\nwhich the Lord thy God giveth thee.\"\n\nIn the solemnly introduced short summary of the history of the\ncovenant-people, in chap. vi., there is, after the announcement of the\nimpending complete desolation of the country and the carrying away of\nits inhabitants in vers. 11, 12, the indication of a _second_ judgment\nwhich will not less make an end, in ver. 13: \"But yet there is a tenth\npart in it, and it shall again be destroyed;\" and this goes hand in\nhand with the promise that the _election_ shall become partakers of the\nMessianic salvation.\n\nThe Prophet clearly sees that, by the _Syrico-Ephraemitic_ war, the\nfull realization of that threatening of the Pentateuch will not be\nbrought about, as far as Judah is concerned; that here a faint prelude\nonly to the real fulfilment is the point in question. Although the\nallied kings speak in chap. vii. 6: \"Let us go up against Judea and vex\nit, and let us conquer it for us, and set a king in the midst of it,\neven the son of Tabeal,\" the Lord speaks in chap. vii. 7: \"It shall not\nstand, neither shall it come to pass.\" And although the heart of the\nking and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the wood\nare moved with the wind, the Prophet says: \"Fear not, let not thy heart\nbe tender for the tails of those two smoking firebrands.\"\n\nIt is Asshur that shall do more for the realization of that divine\ndecree first revealed by Moses. It is he who, immediately after that\nexpedition against Judah, shall break the power of the kingdom of the\nten tribes, chap. viii. 4: \"Before the child shall be able to cry: 'My\nfather and my mother,'the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria\nshall be carried before the King of [Pg 6] Assyria.\" The communion of\nguilt into which it has entered with Damascus shall also implicate it\nin a communion of punishment with it, chap. xvii. 3. The adversaries of\nRezin shall devour Israel with open mouth, chap. ix. 11, 12. Yea Asshur\nshall, some time afterwards, put an end altogether to the kingdom of\nIsrael; \"Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken that\nit shall not be a people any more,\" chap. vii. 8. Upon Judah also\nsevere sufferings shall be inflicted by Asshur. He shall invade and\ndevastate their land, chap. vii. 17, and chap. viii. He shall\nirresistibly penetrate to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, chap. x.\n28-32. But when he is just preparing to inflict the mortal blow upon\nthe head of the people of God, the Lord shall put a stop to him: \"He\nshall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall\nfall by the mighty one,\" chap. x. 34. \"Asshur shall be broken in the\nland of the Lord, and upon His mountains be trodden under foot; and his\nyoke shall depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their\nshoulders,\" chap. xiv. 25. \"And Asshur shall fall with the sword not of\na man,\" chap. xxxi. 8. These prophecies found their fulfilment in the\ndestruction of Sennacherib's host before Jerusalem,--an event which no\nhuman ingenuity could have known even a day beforehand. But Isaiah does\nnot content himself with promising to trembling Zion the help of God\nagainst Asshur in that momentary calamity. In harmony with Hosea and\nMicah, he promises to Judah, in general, security from Asshur. He says\nto Hezekiah, after that danger was over, in chap. xxxviii. 6: \"And I\nwill deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the King of Assyria,\nand I will defend this city.\"\n\nBehind the Assyrian kingdom, the Prophet beholds a new power\ngerminating, viz., the Babylonian or Chaldean; and he announces most\ndistinctly and repeatedly that from this shall proceed a comprehensive\nexecution of the threatenings against unfaithful Judah. According to\nchap. xxiii. 13, the Chaldeans overturn the Assyrian monarchy, and\nconquer proud Tyre which had resisted the assault of the Assyrians.\nShinar or Babylon appears in chap. xi. 11, in the list of the places to\nwhich Judah has been removed in punishment. In chap. xiii. 1-xiv. 27,\nBabylon is, for the first time, distinctly and definitely mentioned as\nthe threatening power of the future, by which Judah is to be carried\ninto captivity. The corresponding announcement in chap. xxxix. is so\n[Pg 7] closely and intimately interwoven with the historical context,\nthat even _Gesenius_ did not venture to deny its origin by Isaiah, just\nas he was compelled also to acknowledge the genuineness of the prophecy\nagainst Tyre, in which the Babylonian dominion is most distinctly\nforetold, and even the duration of that dominion is fixed. The 70 years\nof Jeremiah have here already their foundation.\n\nThe Prophet sees distinctly and definitely that Egypt, the rival\nAfrican world's power, on which the sharp-sighted politicians of his\ntime founded their hope for deliverance, would not be equal to the\nAsiatic world's power representing itself in the Assyrian and\nBabylonian phases. He knows what he could not know from any other\nsource than by immediate communication of the Spirit of God, that, by\nits struggle against the Asiatic power, Egypt would altogether lose its\nold political importance, and would never recover it; compare remarks\non chap. xix.\n\nAs the power which is to overthrow the Babylonian Empire appear, in\nchap. xxxiii. 17, the Medes. In chap. xxi. 2, Elam, which, according to\nthe _usus loquendi_ of Isaiah, means Persia, is mentioned besides\nMedia. This power, and at its head, the conqueror from the East, Cyrus,\nwill bring deliverance to Judah. By it they obtain a restoration to\ntheir native land.[1] Nevertheless Elam appears in chap. xxii. 16 as\nthe representative of the world's power oppressing Judah in the future;\nand from chap. xi. 11 we are likewise led to expect that the world's\npower will in future shew itself in an Elamitic phase also, and that\nthe difference between Babel and Elam is one of degree only, just as,\nindeed, it appeared in history; comp. Neh. ix. 36, 37.\n\nAn intimation of an European phasis of the world's power, hostile to\nthe kingdom of God, is to be found in chap. xi. 11.\n\nAfter the Kingdom of God has, for such protracted periods, been subject\nto the world's power, the relation will suddenly be reversed; at the\nend of the days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be exalted\nabove all the hills, and all nations shall flow into it, chap. ii. 2.\n\nThis great change shall be accomplished by the Messiah, chaps. iv.,\nix., xi., xxxiii. 17, who proceeds from the house of [Pg 8] David,\nchap. ix. 6 (7), lv. 3, but only after it has sunk down to the utmost\nlowliness, chap. xi. 1. With the human, He combines the divine nature.\nThis appears not only from the names which are given to Him in chap.\nix. 5 (6), but also from the works which are assigned to Him,--works by\nfar exceeding human power. He rules over the whole earth, according to\nchap. xi.; He slays, according to xi. 4, the wicked with the breath of\nHis mouth (compare chap. l. 11, where likewise He appears as a partaker\nof the omnipotent punitive power of God); He removes the consequences\nof sin even from the irrational creation, chap. xi. 6-9; by His\nabsolute righteousness He is enabled to become the substitute of the\nwhole human race, and thereby to accomplish their salvation resting on\nthis substitution, chap. liii.\n\nThe Messiah appears at first in the form of a servant, low and humble,\nchap. xi. 1, liii. 2. His ministry is quiet and concealed, chap. xlii.\n2, as that of a Saviour who with tender love applies himself to the\nmiserable, chap. xlii. 3, lxi. 1. At first it is limited to Israel,\nchap. xlix. 1-6, where it is enjoyed especially by the most degraded of\nall the parts of the country, viz., that around the sea of Galilee,\nchap. viii. 23 (ix. 1.) Severe sufferings will be inflicted upon Him in\ncarrying out His ministry. These proceed from the same people whom He\nhas come to raise up, and to endow (according to chap. xlii. 6, xlix.\n8), with the full truth of the covenant into which the Lord has entered\nwith them. The Servant of God bears these suffering's with unbroken\ncourage. They bring about, through His mediation, the punishment of God\nupon those from whom they proceeded, and become the reason why the\nsalvation passes over to the Gentiles, by whose deferential homage the\nServant of God is indemnified for what He has lost in the Jews, chap.\nxlix. 1-9, l. 4-11. (The foundation for the detailed announcement in\nthese passages is given already in the sketch in chap. vi.,--according\nto which an election only of the people attain to salvation, while the\nmass becomes a prey to destruction.) But it is just by these\nsufferings, which issue at last in a violent death, that the Servant of\nGod reaches the full height of His destination. They possess a\nvicarious character, and effect the reconciliation of a whole sinful\nworld, chap. lii. 13-liii. 12. Subsequently to the suffering, and on\nthe ground of it, begins the exercise of the Kingly office of Christ,\nchap. liii. 12. He brings law and righteousness to the [Pg 9] Gentile\nworld, chap. xlii. 1; light into their darkness, chap. xlii. 6. He\nbecomes the centre around which the whole Gentile world gathers, chap.\nxi. 10: \"And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse which\nshall stand for an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek,\nand His rest shall be glory;\" comp. chap. lx., where the delighted eye\nof the Prophet beholds how the crowds of the nations from the whole\nearth turn to Zion; chap. xviii., where the future reception of the\nEthiopians into the Kingdom of God is specially prophecied; chap. xix.,\naccording to which Egypt turns to the God of Israel, and by the tie of\na common love to Him, is united with Asshur, his rival in the time of\nthe Prophet, and so likewise with Israel, which has so much to suffer\nfrom him; chap. xxiii., according to which, in the time of salvation.\nTyre also does homage to the God of Israel. The Servant of God becomes,\nat the same time, the _Witness_, and the Prince and Lawgiver of the\nnations, chap. lv. 4. Just as the Spirit of the Lord rests upon Him,\nchap. xi. 2, xlii. 1, lxi. 1, so there takes place in His days an\noutpouring of the Holy Spirit, chap. xxxii. 15, xliv. 3, comp. with\nchap. liv. 13. Sin is put an end to by Him, chap. xi. 9, and an end is\nput especially to war, chap. ii. 4. The Gentiles gathered to the Lord\nbecome at last the medium of His salvation for the covenant-people, who\nat first had rejected it, chap. xi. 12, lx. 9, lxvi. 20, 21. The end is\nthe restoration of the paradisaic condition, chap. xi. 6-9, lxv. 25;\nthe new heavens and the new earth, chap. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22; but the\nwicked shall inherit eternal condemnation, chap. lxvi. 24.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_: There are no predictions in reference to the\ntemporal deliverance of the Jewish Church, in which the Prophet shews\nhimself more than in those which relate to the downfall of the\nBabylonian Empire, and the deliverance of the people of God by Cyrus.]\n\n\n\n[Pg 10]\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPHECY--CHAP. II.-IV.\n THE SPROUT OF THE LORD.\n\n\nIt has been already proved, in Vol. i., p. 416 ff., that this discourse\nbelongs to the first period of the Prophet's ministry. It consists of\nthree parts. In the first, chap. ii. 2-4, the Prophet draws a picture\nof the Messianic time, at which the Kingdom of God, now despised,\nshould be elevated above all the kingdoms of the world, should exercise\nan attractive power over the Gentiles, and should cause peace to dwell\namong them; comp. Vol. i., p. 437 ff. In the second part, from chap.\nii. 5-iv. 1, the Prophet describes the prevailing corruption, exhorts\nto repentance, threatens divine judgments. This part is introduced, and\nis connected with the preceding, by the admonition in ii. 5, addressed\nto the people, to prepare, by true godliness, for a participation in\nthat blessedness, to beware lest they should be excluded through their\nown fault. In the third part, chap. iv. 2-6, the prophet returns to the\nproclamation of salvation, so that the whole is, as it were, surrounded\nby the promise. It was necessary that this should be prominently\nbrought out, in order that sinners might not only be terrified by fear,\nbut also allured by hope, to repentance,--and in order that the elect\nmight not imagine that the sin of the masses, and the judgment\ninflicted in consequence of it, did away with the mercy of the Lord\ntowards His people, and with His faithfulness to His promises.\nSalvation does not come without judgment. This feature, by which true\nprophetism is distinguished from false, which, divesting God of His\nrighteousness, announced salvation to unreformed sinners, to the whole\nrude mass of the people,--this feature is once more prominently brought\nout in ver. 4. But salvation for the elect comes as necessarily as\njudgment does upon the sinners. In the midst of the deepest abasement\nof the people of God, God raises from out of the midst of them the\nSaviour by whom they are raised to the highest glory, chap. iv. 2. They\nare installed into the dignity of the saints of God, after the penitent\nones have been renewed by His Spirit, and the [Pg 11] obstinate sinners\nhave been exterminated by His judgment, ver. 3, 4. God's gracious\npresence affords them protection from their enemies, and from all\ntribulation and danger, ver. 5, 6.\n\nThe first part, in which Isaiah follows Micah (comp. the arguments in\nproof of originality in Micah, Vol. i., p. 413 ff.), has already been\nexpounded on a former occasion. We have here only to answer the\nquestion, why it is that the Prophet opens his discourse with a\nproclamation of salvation borrowed from Micah? His object certainly was\nto render the minds of the people susceptible of the subsequent\nadmonition and reproof, by placing at the head a promise which had\nalready become familiar and precious to the people. The position which\nthe Messianic proclamation occupies in Isaiah is altogether\nmisunderstood if, with _Kleinert_ and _Ewald_, we assume that the\npassage does not, in Isaiah, belong to the real substance of the\nprophecy; that it is merely placed in front as a kind of text, the\nabuse and misinterpretation of which the Prophet meets in that which\nfollows, so that the sense would be: the blessed time promised by\nformer prophets will come _indeed_, but _only_ after severe, rigorous\njudgments upon all who had forsaken Jehovah. It is especially ver. 5\nwhich militates against this interpretation, where, in the words: \"Come\nye and let us walk in the light of the Lord,\"[1] the prophet gives an\n_express declaration_ as to the object of the description which he has\nplaced in front, and expresses himself in regard to it in perfect\nharmony [Pg 12] with Heb. iv. 1: [Greek: phob\u00eath\u00f4men oun m\u00eapote\nkataleipomen\u00eas epangelias ... dok\u00ea tis ex hum\u00f4n huster\u00eakenai.] This\nshows, that after the manner of an evangelical preacher, and in\nconformity with his name, he wishes to allure to repentance by pointing\nto the great salvation of the future;--that the [Greek: \u00eangike h\u00ea\nbasileia t\u00f4n ouran\u00f4n] of the first part serves as a foundation to the\n[Greek: metanoeite oun] of the second.\n\nThe threatening of punishment contained in the second part is destitute\nof any particular reference. It bears a general character,\ncomprehending the whole of the mischief with which the Lord is to visit\nthe unfaithfulness of His people. Most thoroughly was the animating\nidea realized in the Roman catastrophe, the consequence of which is the\nhelplessness which still presses upon the people. The preparatory\nsteps were the decay of the people at the time of Ahaz--especially\nthe Chaldean overthrow--and, generally, everything which the people\nhad to suffer in the time of the dominion of the Assyrian, Chaldean,\nMedo-Persian, and Greek kingdoms. As none of these kingdoms were as yet\non the stage, or in sight, it is quite natural that the threatening\nhere keeps altogether within general terms; it was given to Isaiah\nhimself afterwards to individualize it much more.\n\nIt is with the third part only that we have here more particularly to\nemploy ourselves.\n\nVer. 2. \"_In that day the Sprout of the Lord becomes for beauty and\nglory, and the fruit of the land for exaltation and ornament, to the\nescaped of Israel._\"\n\nVer. 3. \"_And it shall come to pass, he that was left in Zion, and was\nspared in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, every one that is written to\nlife in Jerusalem._\"\n\nVer. 4. \"_When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of\nZion, and shall remove the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by\nthe spirit of right and the spirit of destruction._\"\n\nVer. 5. \"_And the Lord creates over the place of Mount Zion, and over\nher assemblies clouds by day and smoke, and the brightness of flaming\nfire by night, for above all glory is a covering._\"\n\nVer. 6. \"_And a tabernacle shall be for a shadow by day from the heat,\nand, for a refuge and covert from storm and from rain._\"\n\nVer. 2. \"_In that day_\" _i.e._, not by any means _after_ the suffering,\nbut _in the midst of it_, comp. chap. iii. 18; iv. 1, where, by [Pg 13]\nthe words \"in that day,\" contemporaneousness is likewise expressed.\nParallel is chap. ix. 1 (2), where the people that walketh in darkness\nseeth a great light. According to Micah v. 2 (3) also, the people are\ngiven up to the dominion of the world's powers until the time that she\nwho is bearing has brought forth. Inasmuch as the Messianic\nproclamation bears the same general comprehensive character as the\nthreatening of punishment, and includes in itself beginning and end,\nthe suffering may partly also reach into the Messianic time. It\ndismisses from its discipline those who are delivered up to it,\ngradually only, after they have become ripe for a participation in the\nMessianic salvation.--There cannot be any doubt that, by the \"_Sprout\nof the Lord_\" the Messiah is designated,--an explanation which we meet\nwith so early as in the Chaldee Paraphrast ([Hebrew: bedna hhva ihi\nmwiHa dii lHdvh vliqr]), from which even _Kimchi_ did not venture to\ndiffer, which was in the Christian Church, too, the prevailing one, and\nwhich Rationalism was the first to give up. The Messiah is here quite\nin His proper place. The Prophet had, in chap. iii. 12-15, in a very\nspecial manner, derived the misery of the people from their bad rulers.\nWhat is now more rational, therefore, than that he should connect the\nsalvation and prosperity likewise with the person of a Divine Ruler?\ncomp. chap. i. 26. In the adjoining prophecies of Isaiah, especially in\nchaps. vii., ix., and xi., the person of the Messiah likewise forms the\ncentre of the proclamation of salvation; so that, _a priori_, a mention\nof it must be expected here. To the same result we are led by the\nanalogy of Micah; comp. Vol. i. p. 443-45, 449. _Farther_--The\nrepresentation of the Messiah, under the image of a sprout or shoot, is\nvery common in Scripture; comp. chap. xi. 1-10; liii. 2; Rev. v. 5. But\nof decisive weight are those passages in which precisely our word\n[Hebrew: cmH] occurs as a designation of the Messiah. The two passages,\nJer. xxiii. 5: \"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto\nDavid a righteous Sprout;\" and xxxiii. 15: \"In those days, and at that\ntime, shall I cause the Sprout of righteousness to grow up unto David,\"\nmay at once and plainly be considered as an _interpretation_ of the\npassage before us, and as a commentary upon it; and that so much the\nmore that there, as well as here, all salvation is connected with this\nSprout of Jehovah; comp. Jer. xxiii. 6: \"In His days Judah [Pg 14]\nshall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is His name\nwhereby he shall be called: The Lord our righteousness.\" The two other\npassages, Zech. iii. 8: \"Behold, I bring my servant _Zemach_,\" and vi.\n12: \"Behold, a man whose name is _Zemach_\" are of so much the greater\nconsequence that in them _Zemach_ (_i.e._, Sprout) occurs as a kind of\n_nomen proprium_, the sense of which is supposed as being known from\nformer prophecies to which the Prophet all but expressly refers; or as\n_Vitringa_ remarks on these passages: \"That man who, in the oracles of\nthe preceding Prophets (Is. and Jer.) bears the name of 'Sprout.'\" Of\nno less consequence, _finally_, is the parallel passage, chap. xxviii.\n5: \"In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and\nfor a diadem of beauty unto the residue of His people.\" The words\n[Hebrew: cbi] and [Hebrew: tpart] there meet us again. The same is\nthere ascribed to the Lord which is here attributed to the Sprout of\nthe Lord. That can be readily accounted for, only if the Sprout of the\nLord be the Messiah. For the Messiah appears everywhere as the channel\nthrough which the Lord imparts to His Church all the fulness of His\nblessings, as the Immanuel by whom the promise given at the very\nthreshold of the Old Testament: \"I dwell in the midst of them,\" is most\nperfectly realized. \"This is the name whereby He shall be called: The\nLord our righteousness,\" says Jeremiah, in the passage quoted.--The\n\"Sprout of the Lord\" may designate either him whom the Lord causes to\nsprout, or him who has sprouted forth from the Lord, _i.e._, the Son of\nGod. Against the latter interpretation it is objected by _Hoffmann_\n(_Weissagung und Erf\u00fcllung._ Th. 1, S. 214): \"[Hebrew: cmH] is an\nintransitive verb, so that [Hebrew: cmH] may be as well connected with\na noun which says, who causes to sprout forth, as with one which says,\nwhence the thing sprouts forth. Now it is quite obvious that, in the\npassage before us, the former case applies, and not the latter,\ninasmuch as one cannot say that something, or even some one, sprouts\nforth from Jehovah; it is only with a thing, not with a person, that\n[Hebrew: cmH] can be connected.\" But it is impossible to admit that\nthis objection is well founded. The person may very well be conceived\nof as the soil from which the sprout goes forth. Yet we must, indeed,\nacknowledge that the Messiah is nowhere called a Sprout of David. But\nwhat decides in favour of the first view are the [Pg 15] parallel\npassages. In Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, the Lord raises up to David a\nrighteous Sprout, and causes Him to grow up unto David. Hence here,\ntoo, the Sprout will in that sense only be the Lord's, that he does not\nsprout forth out of Him, but through Him. In Zech. iii. 8 the Lord\nbrings his servant _Zemach_; in Ps. cxxxii. 17, it is said: \"There I\ncause a horn to sprout to David,\" and already in the fundamental\npassage, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, which contains the first germ of our passage,\nDavid says: \"For all my salvation and all my pleasure should He not\nmake it to _sprout_ forth.\"--As the words \"Sprout of the Lord\" denote\nthe heavenly origin of the Redeemer, so do the words [Hebrew: pri harC]\nthe earthly one, the soil from which the Lord causes the Saviour to\nsprout up. These words are, by _Vitringa_ and others, translated: \"the\nfruit of the earth,\" but the correct translation is \"the fruit of the\n_land_.\" The passages, Num. xiii. 26: \"And shewed them the fruit of the\nland;\" and Deut. i. 25: \"And they took in their hands of the fruit of\nthe land, and brought it unto us, and brought us word again, and said,\ngood is the land which the Lord our God doth give us,\"--these two\npassages are, besides that under consideration, the only ones in which\nthe phrase [Hebrew: pri harC] occurs; and there is here, no doubt, an\nallusion to them. The excellent natural fruit of ancient times is a\ntype of the spiritual fruit. To the same result--that [Hebrew: harC]\ndesignates the definite land, that land which, in the preceding verses,\nin the description of the prevailing conniption, and of the divine\njudgments, was always spoken of,--to this result we are led by the fact\nalso, that everywhere in the Old Testament where the contrariety of the\ndivine and human origin of the Messiah is mentioned, the human origin\nis more distinctly qualified and limited. This is especially the case\nin those passages which, being dependent upon that before us, maybe\nconsidered as a commentary upon it; in Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, where\nthe Lord raises a Sprout unto _David_, and Zech. vi. 12, where the man\nwhose name is _Zemach_ (Sprout) grows up out of its soil; comp. Heb.\nvii. 14, where, in allusion to the Old Testament passages of the\nSprout--the verb [Greek: anatellein] is commonly used of the sprouting\nforth of the plants (see _Bleek_ on this passage)--it is said: [Greek:\nex Iouda anatetalken ho Kurios h\u00eam\u00f4n], _Bengel_: _ut germen justitiae_;\nfarther, Mic. v. 1 (2), where the eternal existence of the Messiah, [Pg\n16] and His birth in Bethlehem are contrasted with one another; Is. ix.\n5, (6), where the words: \"Unto _us_ a child is born, unto _us_ a son is\ngiven,\" are contrasted with the various designations of the Messiah,\naccording to His divine majesty. This qualification and limitation\nwhich everywhere takes place, have their ground in the circumstance\nthat the Messiah is constantly represented to the covenant-people as\ntheir property; and that He, indeed, was, inasmuch as salvation went\nout from Jews (John iv. 22), and was destined for the Jews, into whose\ncommunion the Gentiles were to be received; comp. my Commentary on\nRevel. vii. 4. \"The Sprout of the Lord,\" \"the fruit of the land,\" is\naccordingly He whom the Lord shall make to sprout forth from Israel.\nThe Sprout of the Lord, the fruit of the land is to become to the\nescaped of Israel for _beauty_ and _glory_, for _exaltation_ and\n_ornament_. The passages to be compared are 2 Sam. i. 19, where Saul\nand Jonathan are called [Hebrew: cbi iwral]; _farther_, Is. xxviii. 5:\n\"In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of beauty, and for\na diadem of ornament unto the residue of His people,\" where the words\n[Hebrew: cbi] and [Hebrew: tpart] are likewise used; _finally_, chap.\nxxiv. 16, where, in reference to the Messianic time, it is said: \"From\nthe uttermost part of the earth do we hear songs of praise: beauty (\n[Hebrew: cbi]) to the righteous.\" By the appearance of Christ, the\ncovenant-people, hitherto despised, were placed in the centre of the\nworld's history; by it the Lord took away the rebuke of His people from\noff all the earth, chap. xxv. 8. There is evidently in these words a\nreference to the preceding threatening of punishment, especially to\nchap. iii. 18: \"In that day the Lord will take away the ornament,\" &c.:\nBut _Drechsler_ is wrong in fixing and expressing this reference thus:\n\"Instead of farther running after strange things, Israel will find its\nglory and ornament in Him who is the long promised seed of Abrahamitic\ndescent.\" For it is not the position which Israel takes that is spoken\nof, but that which is granted to them. The antithesis is between the\nfalse glory which God takes away, and the true glory which He gives.\nThe Lord cannot, by any possibility, for any length of time, appear\nmerely _taking away_; He takes those seeming blessings, only in order\nto be able to give the true ones. Every taking away is a prophecy of\ngiving.--\"_To the escaped of Israel_,\" who, according to the idea of a\npeople of God, and according to [Pg 17] the promise of the Law (comp.\nDeut. xxx. 1, ff.) can never be wanting, as little as it is possible\nthat the salvation should be partaken of by the whole _mass_ of the\npeople; sifting judgments must necessarily go before and along with it.\nTrue prophetism everywhere knows of salvation for a remnant only. On\n[Hebrew: pliTh], which does not mean \"deliverance,\" so that the\nabstract would thus here stand for the concrete, but \"that which has\nescaped,\" comp. remarks on Joel iii. 5, Vol. 1, p. 338.\n\nAll which now remains is to examine those explanations of this verse\nwhich differ from the Messianic interpretation. 1. Following the\ninterpretation of _Grotius_ and others, _Gesenius_, in his Commentary,\nunderstands by the Sprout of the Lord the new growth of the people\nafter their various defeats. His explanation is: \"Then the sprout of\nJehovah will be splendid and glorious, and the fruit of the land\nexcellent and beautiful for the escaped of Israel.\" _Fruit of the land_\nhe takes in its literal sense, and understands it to mean the product\nof the land. The same view is held by _Knobel_: \"_He becomes for beauty\nand glory_, _i.e._, the people, having reformed, prosper and form a\nsplendid, glorious state.\" And _Maurer_ in his Dictionary says: \"The\nSprout of Jehovah seems to be the morally improved remnant, the new,\nsanctified increase of the people.\" But in opposition to such a view\nthere is, _first_, the circumstance, that according to it the [Hebrew:\nl] before [Hebrew: lcbi] and [Hebrew: lkbvr] must be understood\ndifferently from what it is in [Hebrew: lgavN], and [Hebrew: ltpart]\nwhich immediately follow and exactly correspond with them. There are,\n_secondly_, the parallel passages chap. xxviii. 5, xxiv. 16, according\nto which [Hebrew: cbi] \"beauty\" is conferred upon the escaped, but they\nthemselves do not become beauty. _Finally_--It is always most natural\nto suppose that [Hebrew: cmH ihvh] and [Hebrew: pri harC] correspond\nwith one another, and denote the same subject which is here described\nafter his various aspects only. For in the same manner as [Hebrew: cmH]\nand [Hebrew: pri] go hand in hand, both being taken from the territory\nof botany, so [Hebrew: ihvh] and [Hebrew: harC] also stand in a\ncontrast which is not to be mistaken. 2. _Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Meier_,\nand others not only refer \"the fruit of the land,\" but also the \"Sprout\nof Jehovah\" to that which Jehovah makes to sprout forth.[2] It is true\nthat, in the prophetic [Pg 18] announcements, among the blessings of\nthe future the rich produce of the land is also mentioned (comp. chap.\nxxx. 23-25), and the same is very expressly done in the Law also; but\nin not a single one of these passages does the strange expression\noccur, that this fruitfulness should serve to the escaped for beauty\nand glory, for exaltation and ornament, or any other that bears the\nslightest resemblance to it. Against this explanation there is, _in\naddition_, the circumstance that the barrenness of the country is not\nat all pointed out in the preceding context. _Finally_--When we\nunderstand this expression as referring to the Messiah, this verse,\nstanding as it does at the head of the proclamation of salvation,\ncontains the fundamental thought; and in what follows we obtain the\nexpansion. In the verse before us we are told that in Christ the people\nattain to glory,--and, in those which follow, how this glory is\nmanifested in them. But according to this view, every internal\nconnexion of the verse before us with what follows is entirely\ndestroyed. 3. According to _Hendewerk_, by the \"Sprout of the Lord,\"\n\"the collective person of the ruling portion in the state during the\nMessianic happy time,\" is designated. This opinion is the beginning of\na return to the Messianic interpretation. But then only could that\nideal person be here referred to, if elsewhere in Isaiah too it would\ncome out strongly and decidedly. As this, however, is not the case; as,\non the contrary, the Messiah everywhere in Isaiah meets us in shining\nclearness, it would be arbitrary to give up the _person_ in favour of a\n_personification_. 4. _Umbreit_ acknowledges that, in the case of\n[Hebrew: cmH ihvh], the Messianic interpretation is the only correct\none. \"The two subsequent prophecies in chap. ix. and xi.,\" he says,\n\"are to be considered as a commentary on our short text.\" But it is\ncharacteristic of his compromising manner that by \"the fruit of the\nland\" he understands \"the consequences of the dominion of the Messiah\nfor the land, the fruits which, in consequence of his appearing, the\nconsecrated soil brings forth,\"--thus plainly overlooking the clear [Pg\n19] contrast between the Sprout of the Lord, and the fruit of the land,\nby which evidently the same thing is designated from different aspects.\n\nVer. 3. The Prophet now begins to show, more in detail, in how far the\nSprout of the Lord and the fruit of the land would serve for the honour\nand glory of the Church. The words: \"He that was left in Zion and was\nspared in Jerusalem,\" take up the idea suggested by the \"escaped of\nIsrael\" in ver. 2. The double designation is intended to direct\nattention to the thought that the remnant, and the remnant only, are\ncalled to a participation in the glory. _Zion_ and _Jerusalem_, as the\ncentre of the covenant-people, here represent the whole; this is\nevident from the circumstance that at the close of ver. 2, which is\nhere resumed, the escaped of _Israel_ were spoken of Ever since the\nsanctuary and the royal palace were founded at Zion, it was in a\nspiritual point of view, the residence of all Israel, who even\npersonally met there at the high festivals.--Whoever is left in Zion\n\"_shall be called holy_.\" The fundamental notion of holiness is that of\nseparation. God is holy, inasmuch as He is separated from all that is\ncreated and finite, and is elevated above all that is finite; comp. my\nCommentary on Rev. iv. 8. _Believers_ are holy, because they are\nseparated from the world as regards their moral existence and their\ndestiny. Here only the latter aspect is considered. Holy in a moral\nsense they were already, inasmuch as it is this which forms the\ncondition of their being spared in the divine judgments. They became\nholy because they are partakers of the beauty, of the exaltation, and\nornament which are to be bestowed upon the escaped by the Sprout of the\nLord. The circumstance that they have been installed into the dignity\nof the saints of God implies that, when the Spirit of the Lord has\nappeared, the world's power has no longer any dominion over them, but\nthat, on the contrary, they shall judge the world. In like manner we\nread in Exod. xix. 6, in the description of the _reward_ for\nfaithfulness: \"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy\nnation;\" comp. ver. 5: \"And now if you will obey my voice and keep my\ncovenant, ye shall be a property unto me out of all people.\" In\nreference to the exalted dignity and glory, holiness occurs in Deut.\nvii. 6: \"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord\nthy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself out of\nall the people that are upon [Pg 20] the face of the earth.\" When the\ncompany of Korah said: \"All the congregation, they are holy\" (Numb.\nxvi. 3), they had in view, not the moral holiness but the dignity--a\ncircumstance which is quite obvious from words added: \"And in the midst\nof them is the Lord.\" And so Moses likewise speaks of the dignity in\nNumb. xvi. 7: \"Whom the Lord shall choose, he is the holy one.\" In Rom.\ni. 7; Heb. iii. 1, holiness is declared to consist in being loved,\ncalled, and chosen by God.--As regards the fulfilment of this promise,\nit has its _horas_ and _moras_. It began with the first appearance of\nChrist, by which the position of the true Israel to the world was\nsubstantially and fundamentally changed. It was not without meaning\nthat, as early as in the apostolic times, the \"Saints\" was a kind of\n_nomen proprium_ of believers, comp. Acts ix. 13, 32. We are even now\nthe sons of God, and hence even already installed into an important\nportion of the inheritance of holiness; but it has not yet appeared\nwhat we shall be, 1 John iii. 2. But the beginning, and the\ncontinuation pervading all ages, viz., God's dealings throughout the\nwhole of history, whereby he ever anew lifts up His Church from the\ndust of lowliness, afford to us the guarantee for the completion,\nwhich is, with graphic vividness, described in the last two chapters\nof Revelation.--\"_To be called_\" is more than merely \"to be;\" it\nindicates that the _being_ is so marked as to procure for itself\nacknowledgment.--The words: \"_Every one that is written to life in\nJerusalem_\" anew point out that judgment will go before, and by the\nside of grace. The meaning of [Hebrew: HiiM] is, according to the\nfundamental passage in Ps. lxix. 29, \"not living ones\" (_Hoffmann_,\n_Weiss._ i. S. 208), but \"life.\" In Revelation, too, the book of life,\nand not the book of the living ones, is spoken of \"To be written to\nlife\" is equivalent to being ordained to life, Acts xiii. 48; comp. my\nComment. on Ps. lxix. 29; Rev. iii. 5. Life is not naked life,--a\nmiserable life is, according to the view of Scripture, not to be called\na life, but is a form of death only--but life in the full enjoyment of\nthe favour of God; comp. my Comment. on Ps. xvi. 11, xxx. 6, xxxvi. 10;\nxlii. 9; lxiii. 4. The Chaldean thus paraphrases it: \"All they that are\nwritten to eternal life shall see the consolation of Jerusalem, _i.e._\nthe Messiah.\" Comp. Dan. xii. 1; Rev. iii. 5, xiii. 8, xx. 15, xxii.\n19; Phil. iv. 3; Luke x. 20. The bodily death of believers cannot\nexclude them from a participation in being written to [Pg 21] life;\nfor, being a mere transition to life, it can, in truth, not be called a\ndeath. Here, too, the word of Christ applies: \"The maid is not dead but\nsleepeth,\" Matt. ix. 24. The fact that there is no contradiction\nbetween bodily death and life, _i.e._ a participation in the blessings\nof the Kingdom of Christ, is pointed out by Isaiah himself in chap.\nxxvi. 19: \"Thy dead men shall _live_, my dead bodies shall arise, for a\ndew of light is thy dew.\"\n\nVer. 4. The Prophet points out that before the Church is raised to the\ndignity of the saints of God, a thorough change of its moral\nconditions, an energetic expunging of the sin now prevailing in her,\nmust take place, \"_When the Lord has washed away the filth of the\ndaughters of Zion._\" The \"daughters of Zion\" are none other than those\nwhose haughtiness, luxury, and wantonness were described in chap. iii.\n16 ff., and to whom the deepest abasement was then threatened. The\nfilth, under the image of which sin is here represented (comp. Prov.\nxxx. 12); \"A generation pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed\nfrom their filthiness,\" forms the contrast to the splendid attire which\nis there spoken of Behind this splendid attire the filthiness is\nconcealed. The filth is not washed away (1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26)\nfrom the daughters of Jerusalem,--for, inasmuch as this washing away is\naccomplished by means of the spirit of destruction, it could not apply\nto them--but from Jerusalem; comp. the phrase, \"from the midst\nthereof,\" which immediately follows. Jerusalem, the city of the Lord,\nin which no unclean person, and no unclean thing are permitted to\ndwell, is cleansed from the filth with which its unworthy daughters\ncontaminate it. \"_And shall remove the blood of Jerusalem._\" The \"blood\nof Jerusalem\" is the blood which attaches to Jerusalem, which has been\nshed in it. The connection of the punishment of the sins of avarice on\nthe part of the rulers, in chap. iii. 13-15, with the punishment of the\nluxury and ostentation on the part of the women, is illustrative of the\nrelation of filth and blood to each other. Blood is shed in order to\nfurnish pride and vanity with the means of their gratification. The\navarice of the rulers, and their shedding of blood, are put together in\nEzek. xxii. 13; comp. ver. 27: \"Her princes are in the midst thereof\nlike wolves ravening the prey, shedding blood, destroying souls, to get\ndishonest gain.\" Bloodguiltiness those too incur who deprive the poor\nof the necessary means of support, Mic. iii. 2, 3. The comparison of\n[Pg 22] chap. i. 15: \"Your hands are full of blood,\" and of ver. 21:\n\"But now murderers,\" compared with vers. 17, 23, 26, shews that we have\nto think especially of unjust judges and avaricious rulers. Yet, there\nis no reason for limiting ourselves to the nobles and rulers _alone_;\ncomp. Ezek. xxii. 29: \"The people of the land use oppression, and\nboldly practice robbery, and vex the poor and needy, and oppress the\nstranger.\" Where sins so gross are still prevalent, where the law of\nthe Lord is so wantonly broken, an installation into the dignity of\nthe saints of God is out of the question. For that, it is absolutely\nessential that exertions be made that the high destination of the\npeople: \"Ye shall be holy for I am holy,\" become a truth; that in\na moral point of view it show itself as truly separated from the\nworld,--and that is something so infinitely great, that men are utterly\nunable for it, that it can proceed from God only, with whom nothing is\nimpossible.--The last words of the verse are commonly explained: \"by\nthe spirit of _judgment_, and by the spirit of destruction or burning.\"\nIn that case the putting away of the filth and blood by the judging\nactivity of the Lord, by the destruction of sin, would be spoken of\n[Hebrew: mwpT], however, may also be taken in the sense of \"right:\" by\nthe spirit of right which lays hold of, and changes the well disposed\n(comp. Mic. iii. 8: \"But I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord,\nand of _right_ and might\"), and by the spirit of destruction which\nconsumes the disobedient. In favour of the latter view are the parallel\npassages; above all, chap. xxviii. 6, where it is said of the Messianic\ntime, \"In that day the Lord will become, &c.,\" \"And for a spirit of\nright to him that sitteth for right;\" farther, chap. i. 27, 28: \"Zion\nshall be redeemed by right, and her converts by righteousness. But the\ntransgressors and sinners are destroyed together, and they that forsake\nthe Lord are consumed.\" Comp. Matt. iii. 11: [Greek autos humas\nbaptisei en pneumati hagi\u00f4 kai puri], where likewise a double washing,\nthat of grace and that of wrath, is spoken of. In chap. xxxii. 15:\n\"Until the Spirit be poured out upon us from on high,\" Isaiah likewise\npoints to the regeneration which, in the Messianic time, will be\naccomplished by the Spirit; and it is, according to the whole _usus\nloquendi_ of the Old Testament, most natural to think of the Spirit\ntransforming from within The Spirit of God scarcely occurs elsewhere in\nthe Old Testament as the executor of God's judgments; so that the\nsupposition is [Pg 23] very natural that the spirit of destruction has\nbeen brought in by the spirit of right only.--The word [Hebrew: ber]\nis, by some, understood as \"burning,\" by others, as \"destruction.\" We\nourselves decide in favour of the latter signification, which occurs\nalso in chap. iv. 13, for this reason, that it is in that signification\nthat [Hebrew: ber] is, in Deuteronomy, used as the _terminus technicus_\nof the extirpation of the wicked. If the Church does not comply with\nthe command: [Greek: exareite ton pon\u00earon ex hum\u00f4n aut\u00f4n], 1 Cor. v.\n13; Deut. xiii. 6 (5), God himself will enforce His authority by His\nSpirit, who carries out the judgments of the avenging God, just as He\ncarries out every influence of the Creator upon the created. On the\n\"Spirit of the Lord,\" comp. my remarks on Rev. i. 4.\n\nVer. 5. The image is here taken from the journey of Israel through the\nwilderness. During that journey, they were guided and protected by a\nsymbol of God's presence, which by day presented itself as smoke, and\nby night assumed the form of flaming fire. By this symbol the God of\nIsrael was designated as the jealous God, as the living, personal\nenergy, energetic in His love for His people, energetic in wrath\nagainst His and their enemies. Comp. especially Exod. xiii. 21: \"And\nthe Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them on\nthe way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light;\" and xl.\n38: \"For a cloud was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by\nnight;\" comp. Numb. ix. 15, 16. The same phenomenon is to be repeated\nin future, although in a different form. In a manner the most real, the\nLord will manifest himself as the living energy of His Church, dwelling\nin the midst of her, and ruling over her as a protector, so that the\nworld's power can no longer injure her. That such will be done in and\nby His _Sprout_, in Christ, appears from the relation of the verse\nunder consideration to ver. 2; for the verse before us still belongs to\nthe expansion of the proposition placed at the head of the whole: \"The\n_Sprout_ of the Lord becomes for beauty and glory, and the fruit of the\nland for exaltation and ornament to the escaped of Israel.\" Christ in\nHis person and Spirit is the true Shechinah, the true indwelling of God\nin His Church. This indwelling is, even in the Law, designated as the\nhighest privilege of the covenant-people; its being raised to a higher\npower is therefore to the Prophet the highest blessing of the future,\nthe source from which all other blessings flow. That which the heathen\nin vain longed [Pg 24] for and imagined; that which Israel hitherto\npossessed only very imperfectly, a _praesens numen_, whereby the\nantithesis of heaven and earth is done away with, and earth is\nglorified into a heaven;--that, the purified Church of the Lord\npossesses in the most perfect and real manner, and in it, absolute\nsecurity against the world, a decided victory over it. The words:\n\"_Over her assemblies_,\" show that the whole life of the people shall\nthen bear a religious character, and shall be a continual service of\nGod, comp. Acts ii. 42, where, as a type of the completion of the\nChurch, it is said: \"And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles'\ndoctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.\"\n[Hebrew: mqra] is only the name for that which is called, \"the\nassembly,\" and stands in Levit. xxiii. and Is. i. 13 of the religious\nassemblies which were held on the holy days, comp. my pamphlet: _Ueber\nden Tag des Herrn S_. 32. The same phenomenon is, according to its\nappearance by day, designated, at the same time, as _clouds_ and\n_smoke_. Smoke is never \"vapour, vapoury clouds\" (_Knobel_); and here\nthe smoke by day corresponds with the _flaming fire_ by night. If then\nthe smoke can be considered as a product of the fire only (comp. my\nremarks on Rev. xv. 8), the cloud cannot come into consideration\naccording to its matter, but according to its form only. The smoke\nassumes the form of a cloud which affords protection from the burning\nsun of tribulations, as once, in the burning desert, from the scorching\nheat of the natural sun, comp. Num. x. 34: \"And the cloud of the Lord\nwas upon them;\" Ps. cv. 39: \"He spread a cloud for a covering;\" Is.\nxxv. 5. The cloud which thus affords protection to the Church turns a\nthreatening face towards her enemies. Rev. xv. 8.--The words: \"_For\nabove all glory is a covering_,\" point to the ground of the protecting,\ngracious presence of God in the Church. Several interpreters explain\nthe sense thus: \"As we cover and preserve precious things more\ncarefully, in order that they may not be injured, so does God in His\ngrace surround His Church, which has been adorned with glorious\nvirtues, and raised to the high dignity of the saints of God, and\nprotects her from every danger.\" Others understand by [Hebrew: kl-kbvd]\nthe whole glory mentioned in the preceding context; but in that case we\nshould expect the article. One may also supply the limitation: For, _in\nthe Kingdom of God_, there is a covering over all glory.\n\n[Pg 25]\n\nVer. 6. God--this is the same sense--protects His Church from every\ndanger and calamity. By His gracious presence in His Sprout, He affords\nto them that protection which a hut does from sun, storms, and rain.\nLuther says: \"In this passage, accordingly, Christ is held up to us as\nHe who in all tribulations, bodily as well as spiritual, is our\nprotection.\" There is an allusion to the 21st verse of Ps. xxxi. (which\nwas written by David): \"Thou hidest them in the secret of thy\ncountenance from the conspiracy of every one; thou keepest them\nsecretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues.\" The pavilion in\nthis Psalm is a spiritual one, viz., God's grace and protection. That\nword of David shall be gloriously fulfilled when the Sprout of the Lord\nshall appear.--The \"_Sun_\" comes into consideration in its scorching\nquality; and the \"_heat_\" is in Scripture the image of temptations,\nsufferings, and trials; comp. remarks on Rev. viii. 12, xvi. 8; Song of\nSol. i. 6; Ps. cxxi. 6; Matt. xiii. 6, compared with v. 21; Is. xlix.\n10, xxv. 4; and, according to the last passage, we must especially have\nin view the enmity and assaults of the world's power. The \"_rain_\"\nappears as an image of tribulation in the Song of Sol. ii. 11; Is. xxv.\n4: \"The spirit of the terrible ones (the passions of the kings of the\nworld, and conquerors) is like a violent shower against the wall;\"\nxxxii. 2.--A comparison of the Messianic prophecy in chap ii. with that\nwhich we have now considered shows very clearly how necessary it is to\nregard the single Messianic prophecies as fragments only, supplementing\none another, inasmuch as commonly a few aspects only were presented to\nthe spiritual eye of the Prophet. Just as the description in chap. ii.\nreceives an important supplement from the passage now considered,\ninasmuch as the latter contains the mention of the personal Messiah, so\nit, again, supplements that before us by announcing the participation\nby the Gentiles in the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Light is the image of salvation; to walk in the light is\nto enjoy a participation in it. Israel is not wantonly to wander away\nfrom the path of light which the Lord has opened up to them, into the\ndark desolation of misery. In the words [Hebrew: lkv vnlkh] there is a\nclear reference to [Hebrew: lkv vnelh] of the Gentile nations in ver.\n3. If the Gentiles apply with such zeal for a participation in the\nblessings of the Kingdom of God, how disgraceful would it be if you,\nthe people of the covenant, the children of the Kingdom, should lose\nyour glorious possession by your ungodly walk. In vers. 6-11 the\nProphet states the grounds of his admonition to the people to walk in\nthe light of the Lord which he had expressed in the preceding verse.\nThis admonition implies that there existed a danger of losing a\nparticipation in the light; and it is this danger which the Prophet\nhere more particularly details. It is not without reason, so the words\nmay be paraphrased, that I say: \"Walk ye in the light of the Lord,\" for\nat present the Lord has _forsaken_ the people on account of their sins,\nand with that, a participation in His light is incompatible. By being\nfull of heathenish superstition, of false confidence in earthly things,\nyea, even of the most disgraceful that can be imagined for Israel,\nviz., gross idolatry, they rather become more and more ripe for the\ndivine judgment which will break in irresistibly upon them.]\n\n[Footnote 2: So _Gesenius_ also in the _Thesaurus_: \"The whole earth\nshall be holy and shall more beautifully bloom and be adorned with\nplenty of fruits and corn for the benefit of those who have escaped\nfrom those calamities.\" _Gesenius'_ wavering clearly shows how little\nsatisfaction the non-Messianic explanation affords to its own abettors.\nBesides the explanations of [Hebrew: cmH ihvh] by \"the new growth of\nthe people,\" and \"the rich produce of the country,\" he advances still a\nthird one, viz., \"a divinely favoured ruler,\"--an explanation which has\neven the grammar against it, as we are at liberty to translate only:\n\"The Sprout of the Lord;\" and likewise the analogy of [Hebrew: pri\nharC], according to which the Genitive can have a reference to the\n_origin_ only.]\n\n\n\n[Pg 26]\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VII.\n IMMANUEL.\n\n\nA crisis of the most important nature in the history of Israel is\nformed by the Syrico-Ephraemitic war, by the expedition of the allied\nkings, Rezin of Damascus, and Pekah of Samaria, which had been already\nprepared under the reign of Jotham, and which broke out in the first\nyears of Ahaz. It was in consequence of this war that Asshur came\ninto the land. The inroad of the Assyrian King, Pul, under Menahem\nof Israel, had been transitory only, comp. Vol. 1. p. 165. It was\nonly with the invasion under Ahaz that the tendency of Asshur began\nof making lasting conquests on the other side of the Euphrates,\nwhich could not fail to bring about a collision with the Egyptian\npower. The succeeding powers in Asia and Europe followed Asshur's\nsteps. \"Hitherto,\"--so says _Caspari_, in his pamphlet on the\nSyrico-Ephraemitic war, S. 17 ff.--\"hitherto Israel had to do with the\nsmall neighbouring nations only,--now, in punishment of their sins,\noppressed by them; then, in reward of their obedience, oppressing and\nruling over them. And the Syrico-Ephraemitic war itself had been a link\nonly in the chain of these attacks--its last link. Israel, having\narrived at the point of being hardened, and having entered upon a path\nin accordance with this tendency, required another more severe\ncorrective--its being crushed by the mighty world's power. The\nappearance of these mighty powers, just at the period when Israel\nentered upon their hardening, is most providential.--The beginning of\nthe end of the kingdom of the ten tribes had come, and the breaking up\nof its independent political existence had commenced. As enmity to\nJudah had given its origin to the kingdom of the ten tribes, so also\ndid it bring about its destruction; born out of it, it died of it. It\nowed its existence to the incipient enmity; when the latter was\naccomplished (Isa. vii. 6,) it caused its death.--The Assyrians came to\nthe help of Judah, but charged a high price for their help, viz.,\nJudah's submission and fealty. Thirty heavy years of servitude, and, to\na great part, of [Pg 27] fears of the worst, 2 Kings xvi. 18; Is.\nxxxiii. 18 (?); xxxvii. 3, followed for this kingdom also; and when, at\nthe close of this period, it freed itself from them after the fashion\nof the kingdom of Israel, it shared nearly the same fate, 2 Kings\nxviii. 31 ff. It was only to the mercy of the Lord, who looked\ngraciously upon the feeble beginnings of conversion, that it owed its\ndeliverance. The Assyrian power, which had put an end to the kingdoms\nof Damascus and Israel, and which was the first power that appeared on\nthe stage of history and came into conflict with the people of God,\nbecame a significant sign of the final fate of the world's power in its\nattacks upon the Kingdom of God. But, as a prelude to the long series\nof visitations which it had to endure from the world's power in its\ndifferent phases, Judah was even now led to the very brink of\ndestruction; there came a period, the 14th year of Hezekiah, when\nalmost nothing more of it was to be seen by the outward eye than its\nmetropolis exposed to the utmost danger.\"\n\nA remarkable proof of the fact that the spirit which filled the\nprophets was a higher one than their own, is the fact that Isaiah\nrecognized so distinctly and clearly the importance of the decisive\nmoment.\n\nIn close connection with the great crisis at which the history of the\npeople of God had arrived, stands the richer display of the Messianic\nannouncement which begins with the chapter before us. Messiah is\nhenceforth represented to Judah as an Immanuel against the world's\npowers, as the surety for its deliverance from the severe oppressions\nhanging over it, as He who at last, at His appearance, would conquer\nthe world, and lay it at the feet of the people of God.\n\nAfter these general introductory remarks, let us turn more particularly\nto the contents of the chapter before us. It was told to the house of\nDavid: \"Aram is encamped in Ephraim.\" The position of Ahaz was, humanly\nconsidered, desperate. His enemies were far superior to him, and he\ncould scarcely hope for help from heaven, for he had an evil\nconscience. The idea of seeking help from Asshur was natural. Isaiah\nreceived a commission to oppose this idea before it became a firm\nresolution. In doing so he, by no means, occupies the position of an\ningenious politician. On the contrary, the whole commission is [Pg 28]\nforced upon him. It can scarcely be doubted that the Assyrians would\nhave penetrated to Western Asia, even if Ahaz had not called them to\nhis assistance. The expedition of the Syrians and Ephraimites with the\nview of making conquests, could not but turn their attention to that\nquarter. As the instruments of the judgments upon Damascus and Samaria,\nwhich Isaiah announced as impending under any circumstances, we can\nsurely think of none but Asshur. But if once they came into these\nregions, in order to chastise the haughtiness of the Syrians and\nEphraimites, who would set up as a new conquering power, then was Judah\ntoo threatened by them. _In a political point of view it did not make\nany great difference whether Ahaz sought help from the Assyrians, or\nnot_; on the contrary, the king of Asshur could not but be more\nfavourably disposed towards him for so doing. _Isaiah, throughout,\nrather occupies the position of the man of God._ The kings of the\npeople of God were, in general, not prevented from forming alliances;\nbut such alliances must belong to the category of permitted human\nresources. Such, however, was not the case here. Asshur was a\nconquering power, altogether selfish. His help had to be purchased with\ndependance, and with the danger of entire destruction; to stay upon him\nwas to stay upon their destroyer, Is. x. 20. Such an alliance was a _de\nfacto_ denial of the God of Israel, an insult to His omnipotence and\ngrace. If Ahaz had obeyed Him; if he had limited himself to the use of\nthe human means granted to him by the Lord without trusting in them,\nand had placed all his confidence in the Lord, He would have delivered\nhim in the same manner as He afterwards delivered Hezekiah, in the\nfirst instance from Aram and Ephraim, and then from Asshur also. But\nalthough Ahaz did not follow the prophet, his mission was by no means\nin vain. Even before the mission, this result lay open before the Lord\nwho sent him. The great point was to establish, before the first\nconflict of Israel with the world's power, thus much, that this\nconflict had been brought about by the sin of the house of David, and\nthat hence it did not afford any cause for doubting the omnipotence and\nmercy of the Lord whose help had been offered, but rejected.\n\nThe Prophet seeks out the king at a place to which he had been driven\nby his despairing disquietude which was clinging convulsively to human\nresources. He endeavours, first, to exert [Pg 29] an influence upon him\nby taking with him his son, whose symbolical name, containing a\nprophecy of the future destinies of the people, indicated that the\nking's fear of a total destruction of the State was without foundation.\nAfter the king has thus been prepared, he endeavours to make a deeper\nimpression upon him by the announcement, distinct and referring to the\npresent case, that the enemies should not only entirely fail in their\nintention of conquering and dividing between themselves the kingdom of\nJudah; but that the kingdom of Ephraim was itself hastening towards\nthat destruction which it was preparing for its brethren, and that\nafter sixty-five years it should altogether lose its national\nindependence and existence, ver. 1-9. But Ahaz makes no reply; and his\nwhole deportment shows that he does not follow the Prophet's\nexhortation to \"take heed and be quiet,\" and that the words: \"If ye do\nnot believe, ye shall not be established,\" with which the Prophet\ncloses his address, have not made any impression upon him. In order\nthat the greatness of the king's hardness of heart may become manifest,\nthe Prophet offers, in the commission of the Lord, to confirm the\ncertainty of his statement by a miraculous sign, which the king himself\nis called upon to fix, without any restriction, in order that any\nsuspicion of imposition may be removed. \"But Ahaz, the unbeliever, is\nafraid of heavenly communications, has already chosen his help, wishes\nthat every thing should go on in an easy human manner, and refuses the\nLord's offer in a polite turn which even refers to the Law. A sign is\nthen forced upon him, because as the king of Judah, he must see and\nhear for all Judah that the Lord is faithful and good.\"[1] The Prophet,\nin ver. 14, points to the birth of the Saviour by a Virgin. How then\nwas it possible that in the present collision that people should be\ndestroyed, among whom, according to former promises. He was to be born;\nthat that family should be extinguished from which he was to be\ndescended? The name \"Immanuel,\" by which the future Saviour is\ndesignated as \"He in whom the Lord is, in the truest manner, to be with\nHis people,\" is a guarantee for His help in the present distress also.\nThe Prophet then states the time in which the land shall be entirely\ndelivered from its present enemies. The contemporaries, as the\nrepresentative of whom [Pg 30] the child appears (the Prophet, in the\nenergy of his faith, has transferred the birth of this child from the\nfuture to the present), shall, after the short space of about two\nyears, again obtain the full enjoyment of the products of the land,\nver. 15. For, before this period has elapsed, destruction will fall\nupon the hostile kings in their own land, ver. 16. The danger,\nhowever--and this is pointed out in ver. 17-25--will come from just\nthat quarter from which Ahaz expects help, viz., from Asshur. But the\nsecurity for deliverance from this danger also--the conqueror of the\nworld's power which was soon to begin its course in Asshur, is none\nother than Immanuel, whom the Prophet, in the beginning of the\nhumiliation of the people of God, makes, so to say, to become man, in\norder that, during the impending deep humiliation of the people of God,\nHe may accompany it in its history during all the stages of its\nexistence, until He should really become man. He is, however in this\ndiscourse, not yet pointed out as the deliverer from Asshur, and the\nworld's power represented by him. The darkness of the misery to be\ninflicted by Asshur should not, and could not, in the meantime, be\ncleared up for Ahaz; the picture must end in night. But in the\nfollowing discourse, chap. viii. 1, ix. 6 (7), which serves as a\nnecessary supplement to the one before us, the Saviour is depicted\nbefore the eyes of those despairing in the sight of Asshur; and the\ntwo-fold repetition of His name Immanuel, in chap. viii. 8, 10, serves\nto show that the two discourses are intimately connected, and form one\nwhole.\n\nAhaz persevered in his unbelief, according to 2 Kings xvi. 7, 8. He\nsent messengers with large presents to Tiglath-pileser, King of\nAssyria, saying: \"I am _thy servant_ and _thy son_ (a word as ominous\nas that: 'We have no king but C\u00e6sar,'in John xix. 35); come up and\nsave me out of the hand of the King of Aram, and out of the hand of the\nKing of Israel which rise up against me.\" But before the asked-for help\ncame, king and people had to endure very severe sufferings from Aram\nand Ephraim. Ahaz, after having first made preparations to secure\nJerusalem against the impending siege, sent out his armies. They met\nwith a twofold heavy defeat from the divided armies of the allied\nkings,[2] from which he might have been spared by [Pg 31] being still,\nand hoping. The hostile armies then came up to Jerusalem, and laid\nsiege to it. It was probably by the intelligence of the advance of\nAsshur that they were induced to raise the siege. It was now confirmed\nthat the Prophet had been right in designating the two hostile kings as\nmere tails of smoking firebrands. Damascus was taken by the King of\nOphir; the inhabitants were carried away into exile to Kir; Rezin was\nslain, 2 Kings xvi. 9: the land of Israel was devastated; a portion of\nits inhabitants was carried away into exile; the king was made\ntributary, 2 Kings xv. 29. Exactly at the time fixed by the Prophet,\nthe overthrow of the two hostile kingdoms took place; but the\ndeliverance which, without any farther sacrifice, Ahaz would have\nobtained, if he had believed the Prophet, had now to be purchased by\nvery heavy sacrifices; and with perfect justice it is said in 2 Chron.\nxxviii. 20, 21, that the king of Asshur did not help him, but rather,\nby coming unto him, distressed him. Ahaz purchased this help at the\nprice of his independence, and had probably to submit to very hard\nclaims being made upon him. (_Caspari_, S. 60.) The world's power, to\nwhich Ahaz had offered a finger, seized, more and more, the whole hand,\nand held it by a firm grasp. Under Hezekiah, faith broke through the\nconsequences of the sin of the family; but this interruption lasted as\nlong only as did the faith. In addition to that which Ahaz had, for his\nunbelief, to suffer from Aram, Ephraim, and Asshur, came the rebellion\nof the neighbouring nations,--of the Edomites, according to 2 Chron.\nxxviii. 17, and of the Philistines, according to ver. 18.\n\nVer. 1. \"_And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham,\nthe son of Uzziah, that Rezin, the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of\nRemaliah, the king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem, to war against\nit, and could not fight against it._\"\n\nIn thus tracing back the pedigree of Ahaz to Uzziah, there is a\nreference to chap. vi. 1: \"In the year that King Uzziah [Pg 32] died,\"\n&c. These two chapters stand related to each other as prophecy and\nfulfilment. It was in the year of Uzziah's death that the Prophet had\nbeen seized with fearful forebodings; and by the divine word these\nfearful forebodings had soon been raised into a clear knowledge of the\nthreatening judgments which were impending. Under Ahaz, the second\nsuccessor of Uzziah, this knowledge began to be realized, keeping pace\nwith the hardening which in Ahaz had become personified. He, the type\nof the unbelieving Jewish people, did not hear and understand, did not\nsee and perceive; and the announcement of the Prophet served merely\nto increase his hardening. Even as early as that, the germ of the\ncarrying away of the people, announced by the Prophet in chap. vi., was\nformed.--The circumstance of the hostile kings being introduced as\n_going up_ implies the spiritual elevation of Jerusalem; comp. remarks\non Ps. xlviii. 3; xlviii. 17. The city of God is unconquerable unless\nher inhabitants and, above all, the anointed one of God, make, by their\nunbelief, their glorious privilege of no avail. In the last words:\n\"_And could not fight against it_,\" (the singular [Hebrew: ikl] because\nRezin is the chief person, Rezin and Pekah being identical with Rezin\nwith Pekah, comp. Esth. iv. 16), the result of the siege is\nanticipated; and this is easily accounted for by the consideration that\nver. 1 serves as an introduction to the whole account, stating, in\ngeneral terms, the circumstances which induced the Prophet to come\npublicly forward. In the following verses, the share only is mentioned\nwhich the Prophet took in the matter; and the account is closed after\nhe has discharged his commission. The apparent contradiction to 2 Kings\nxvi. 5, according to which Jerusalem was really besieged,--a\ncontradiction which occurs also in that passage itself: \"And they\nbesieged Ahaz, and could not fight\"--is most simply reconciled by the\nremark that a fruitless struggle can, as it were, not be called a\nstruggle, just as, _e. g._, in the Old Testament, such as have a name\nlittle known are spoken of as being without a name.\n\nVer. 2, \"_And it was told to the house of David, saying: Aram rests\nupon Ephraim. Then his heart trembled, and the heart of his people,\nlike as the trembling of the trees of the wood before the wind._\"\n\nThe representative of the house of David was, according to [Pg 33] ver.\n1, Ahaz, to whom the suffix in [Hebrew: lbbv] refers. It is thereby\nintimated that Ahaz does not come into consideration as an individual,\nbut as a representative of the whole Davidic family, of which the\nmembers were responsible, conjunctly and severally, and which in Ahaz\ndenied their God, and gave themselves up to the world's power,--a deed\nof the family from the consequences of which a heroic faith only, like\nthat of Hezekiah, could deliver, but in such a manner only that it at\nonce became valid again when this faith ceased, until at length in\nChrist the house of David was raised to glory. Ver. 19 shows that\n[Hebrew: nvH] must be taken in the signification \"to let oneself down,\"\n\"to sit down,\" \"to encamp.\" The anguish of the natural man, who has not\nhis strength in God at the breaking in of danger, is most graphically\ndescribed.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And the Lord said to Isaiah: Go out to meet Ahaz, thou and\nShearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in\nthe highway of the fuller's field._\"\n\nWhy is the Prophet to seek out the king just at this place? The answer\nis given by chap. xxii. 2. \"And a reservoir you make between the two\nwalls for the waters of the old pool: and not do ye look unto him who\nmakes it (viz., the impending calamity), and not do ye regard him who\nfashioned it long ago.\" When a siege of Jerusalem was imminent, in the\nlower territory, the first task was to cut off the water from the\nhostile army. This measure Hezekiah, according to 2 Chron. xxxii. 3,\ntook against Sennacherib: \"And he took counsel with his princes and his\nmighty men, to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the\ncity, and they helped him.\" That might be done in faith; but he who,\nlike Ahaz, did not stand in the faith, sought in it, _per se_, his\nsafety; his despairing heart clung to such measures. The stopping of\nthe fountains was, in his case, on a level with seeking help from the\nAssyrians. It is thus in the midst of his sin that the Prophet seeks\nout the king, and recalls to his conscience: \"take heed and be quiet.\"\nBut why did the Prophet take his son Shearjashub with him? It surely\ncannot be without significance; for otherwise it would not have been\nrecorded, far less would it have been done at the express command of\nthe Lord. As the boy does not appear actively, the reason can only be\nin the signification of the name. According to chap. viii., the Prophet\nwas accustomed to give to [Pg 34] his sons symbolical names which had a\nrelation to the destinies of the nation. They were, according to chap.\nviii. 18, \"for signs and for wonders in Israel.\" But as an\ninterpretation of the name, the passage chap. x. 21 is to be\nconsidered: \"The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob unto the\nmighty God.\" The word [Hebrew: wvb] can, accordingly, be understood of\nreturning to the Lord, of repentance only, comp. chap. i. 27; Hos. iii.\n5. But with repentance the recovery of salvation is indissolubly\nconnected. The reason why it is impossible that they who commit the sin\nagainst the Holy Ghost shall never recover salvation lies solely in the\ncircumstance, that it is impossible that they should be renewed to\nrepentance. The fundamental passage, which is comprehended in the name\nof the Prophet's son: \"And thou returnest unto the Lord thy God.... And\nthe Lord thy God turneth thy captivity (_i.e._, thy misery), and hath\ncompassion upon thee, and returneth and gathereth thee from all the\nnations\" (Deut. xxx. 2, 3), emphatically points out the indissoluble\nconnection of the return to the Lord, and of the return of the Lord to\nHis people. This connection comes out so much the more clearly, when we\nconsider that, according to Scripture, repentance is not the work of\nman but of God, and is nothing else but the beginning of the bestowal\nof salvation; comp. Deut. xxx. 6: \"And the Lord thy God circumciseth\nthine heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with\nall thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;\" Zech.\nxii. 10. King and people feared entire destruction; and it was at this\nthat their powerful enemies aimed. Isaiah took his son with him, \"as\nthe living proof of the preservation of the nation, even amidst the\nmost fearful destruction of the greater part of it.\" After having in\nthis manner endeavoured to free their minds from the extreme of fear,\nhe seeks to elevate them to joyful hopes, by the prophetical\nannouncement proper, which showed that, from this quarter, not even the\nfuture great judgment, which would leave a portion only, was to be\nfeared.\n\nVer. 4. \"_And say unto him: Take heed and be quiet; fear not, nor let\nthy heart be tender for the two ends of these smoking firebrands, for\nthe fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah._\"\n\n[Pg 35]\n\nThe words \"_Take heed_\" point to the dangerous consequences of fear;\ncomp. ver. 9: \"If ye do not believe, ye shall not be established.\" On\nthe words \"_be quiet_,\" lit., make quiet, viz., thy heart and walk,\ncomp. chap. xxx. 15: \"For thus saith the Lord: By returning and rest ye\nshall be saved; in _quietness_ and confidence shall be your strength;\nand ye would not.\" Such as he was, Ahaz could not respond to the\nexhortations to be quiet. Quietness is a product of _faith_. But the\nway of faith stood open to Ahaz every moment, and by his promising word\nand by his example, the Prophet invited him to enter upon it. In the\nwords: \"Fear not,\" &c., there is an unmistakable reference to Deut. xx.\n1, ff., according to which passage the priest was, on the occasion of\nhostile oppression, to speak to the people: \"Let not your hearts be\ntender, and be not terrified.\" That which, in the Law, the priest was\ncommanded to do, is here done by the Prophet, who was obliged so often\nto step in as a substitute, when the class of the ordinary servants\nfell short of the height of their calling.--The \"firebrand\" is the\nimage of the conqueror who destroys countries by the fire of war, comp.\nremarks on Rev. viii. 8. The Prophet is just about to announce to the\nhostile kings their impending overthrow; for this reason, he calls them\n_ends_ of firebrands, which no longer blaze, but only glimmer. He calls\nthem thus because he considers them with the eye of _faith_; to the\nbodily eye a bright flame still presented itself, as the last words:\n\"For the fierce anger,\" &c., and vers. 5 and 6 show. _Chrysostom_\nremarks: \"He calls these kings 'firebrands,'to indicate at the same\ntime their violence, and that they are to be easily overcome; and it is\nfor this reason, that he adds 'smoking,'_i.e._, that they were near\nbeing altogether extinguished.\"\n\nVers. 5, 6. \"_Because Aram meditates evil against thee, Ephraim and the\nson of Remaliah, saying: Let us go up against Judah, and drive it to\nextremity, and conquer it for us, and set up as a king in the midst of\nit the son of Tabeal._\"\n\nWe have here, farther carried out, the thought indicated by the words:\n\"for the fierce anger,\" &c. The interval, in the original text, between\nvers. 6 and 7, is put in to prevent the false connection of these\nverses with ver. 7 (_Hitzig_ and _Ewald_).--[Hebrew: qvC] always means\n\"to loathe,\" \"to experience disgust;\" here, [Pg 36] in Hiph., \"to cause\ndisgust,\" \"to drive to extremity;\" comp. my work on Balaam, Rem. on\nNum. xxii. 3.--[Hebrew: bqe] means always: \"to cleave asunder,\" \"to\nopen,\" \"to conquer.\"--The words: \"_For us_,\" show that Tabeal is to be\nthe vassal only of the two kings. The absolute confidence with which\nthe Prophet recognizes the futility of the plan of the two kings, forms\na glaring contrast to the modern view of Prophetism, Ver. 2 shows in\nwhat light ordinary consciousness did, and could not fail to look on\nthe then existing state of things.\n\nVer. 7. \"_Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: It shall not stand, neither\nshall it come to pass._\" (A plan stands when it is carried out.)\n\nVer. 8. \"_For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is\nRezin, and in threescore and five years more, Ephraim shall be broken,\nand be no more a people._\"\n\nVer. 9. \"_And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria\nis Remaliah's son. If ye believe not, ye shall not be established._\"\n\nEach of these two verses forms a complete whole.--The words: \"For the\nhead of Aram,\" &c., to \"Rezin\" receive their explanation from the\nantithesis to vers. 5 and 6, where the king of Aram and the king of\nEphraim had declared their intention of extending their dominion over\nJudah. As, concerning this intention and this hope, the Lord has\ndeclared His will that it shall not be, we must understand: Not as\nregards Judah, and not as regards Jerusalem. It is in vain that men's\nthoughts exalt themselves against the purposes of God. From Aram, the\nProphet turns, in the second part of the verse, to Ephraim: \"And even\nEphraim! What could it prevail against the Lord and His Kingdom! It\nsurely should give up all attempts to get more; its days are numbered,\nthe sword is already suspended over its own head.\" But inasmuch as it\nis possible, although not likely, that Ephraim, before its own\noverthrow, may still bring evil upon Judah, this is expressly denied in\nver. 9: Samaria, according to the counsel of God, and the limit\nassigned to it, is the head of Ephraim only, and not, at the same time,\nof Judah, &c. With this are then connected the closing words: \"If ye\nbelieve not, ye shall not be established\" (properly, the consequence\nwill be that ye do not continue), which are equivalent to it: it is\nhence not Samaria [Pg 37] and the son of Remaliah that you have to\nfear; the enemy whom you have to dread, whom you have to contend\nagainst with prayer and supplication, is in yourselves. Take heed lest\na similar cause produce a similar effect, as in the last clause of ver.\n8 it has been threatened against Ephraim.--This prophecy and warning,\none would have expected to have produced an effect so much the deeper,\nbecause they were not uttered by some obscure fanatic, but by a worthy\nmember of a class which had in its favour the sanction of the Lawgiver,\nand which in the course of centuries had been so often and so\ngloriously owned and acknowledged by God.[3]\n\n[Pg 38]\n\nVers. 10, 11. \"_And the Lord spoke farther unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee\na sign of the Lord thy God; ask it from the depth, or above from the\nheight._\"\n\nAhaz observed a dignified silence after those words of the Prophet;\nbut his whole manner shews the Prophet that they have not made any\nimpression upon him. If David's spirit had rested on Ahaz, he would\nsurely, if he had wavered at all, have, on the word of the Prophet,\nthrown himself into the arras of his God. But in order that the\ndepth of his apostacy, the greatness of his guilt, and the justice\nof the divine judgments may become manifest, God shows him even a\ndeeper condescension. The Prophet offers to prove the truth of his\nannouncement by any miraculous work which the king himself should\ndetermine, and from which he might, at the same time, see God's\nomnipotence, and the Divine mission of the Prophet. As Ahaz refused\nthe offered sign, the word 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13: [Greek: ei arnoumetha,\nkakeinos arn\u00easetai h\u00eamas. ei apistoumen, ekeinos pistos\nmenei--arn\u00easasthai gar heauton ou dunatai] came into application.\nAccording to Deut. vii. 9 ff. the truth and faithfulness of God must\nnow manifest itself in the [Pg 39] infliction of severe visitations\nupon the house of David.--The character of a _sign_ is, in general,\nborne by everything which serves for certifying facts which belong to\nthe territory of faith, and not to that of sight. 1. In some instances,\nthe sign consists in a mere naked word; thus in Exod. iii. 12: \"And\nthis shall be the sign unto thee that I have sent thee: When thou hast\nbrought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this\nmountain.\" Moses'doubts of the truth of his Divine mission originated\nin the consciousness of his own unworthiness, and in the condition of\nthose to whom he was sent. From these doubts he was delivered by the\nannouncement that, at the place where he had been called, he, at the\nhead of the delivered people, should serve his God. This was to him a\n_sign_ that God was in earnest in calling him. 2. In other instances\nthe assurance given by the sign consists in its perceptibility and\ncorporeality; so that the word assumes, as it were, flesh and blood. A\ncase of this kind it is, _e.g._, when, in chap. viii. 18, Isaiah calls\nhis two sons, to whom, at the command of God, he had given symbolical\nnames, expressive of the future salvation of the covenant-people,\n\"Signs and wonders in Israel;\" farther, chap. xx. 3, where the Prophet\nwalks naked and barefoot for a sign of the calamity impending over\nEgypt and Ethiopia in three years. 3. In another class of signs, a fact\nis announced which is, in itself, natural, but not to be foreseen by\nany human combination, the coming to pass of which, in the immediate\nfuture, furnishes the proof that, at a distant future, that will be\nfulfilled which was foretold as impending. The wonderful element, and\nthe demonstrative power do not, in such a case, lie in the matter of\nthe sign, but in the telling of it beforehand. It is in this sense\nthat, in 1 Sam. x., Samuel gives several _signs_ to Saul, that God had\ndestined him to be king, _e.g._, that in a place exactly fixed, he\nwould meet two men who would bring him the intelligence that the lost\nasses were found; that, farther onwards, he would meet with three men,\none of whom would be carrying three kids, another, three loaves of\nbread, and another, a bottle of wine, &c. In 1 Sam. ii. 34, the sudden\ndeath of his two sons is given to Eli as a sign that all the calamities\nthreatened against his family should certainly come to pass. In Jer.\nxliv. 29, 30, the impending defeat of Pharaoh-Hophras is given as a\n_sign_ of the divine vengeance breaking in upon the Jews in Egypt. Even\nbefore the [Pg 40] thing came to pass, it could not in such a case, be\notherwise than that the previous condition and foundation brought\nbefore the eyes in a lively manner (Jer. xliv. 30: \"_Behold_, I give\nPharaoh-Hophras into the hands of his enemies\") gave a powerful shock\nto the doubts as to whether the fact in question would come to pass. 4.\nIn other cases, the assurance was given in such a manner, that all\ndoubts as to the truth of the announcement were set at rest by the\nimmediate performance of a miraculous work going beyond the ordinary\nlaws of nature. Thus, _e.g._, Isaiah says to Hezekiah, in chap. xxviii.\n7: \"And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord\nwill do this thing which He has spoken,\" and, as a _sign_ that the Lord\nwould add fifteen years to the life of the King, who was sick unto\ndeath, he makes the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz to go back ten\ndegrees. Of this description were also the signs granted to Gideon,\nand, in many respects, the plagues in Egypt also. In the passage before\nus, no other sign can possibly be spoken of than one of the _two last\nclasses_. For it was a real, miraculous sign only which could possibly\nexert any influence on a mind so darkened as was that of Ahaz, and it\nwas the vain offer of such an one only which was fitted to bring to\nlight his obduracy. If, then, the Prophet was willing and able to give\na real, miraculous sign, why, then, is the answer of Ahaz so\nunsuitable? And we can surely not suppose, as _Meier_ does, that he\nshould have intentionally misunderstood the Prophet. The temptation of\nthe Lord by the children of Israel, to which the word of the Lord,\nDeut. vi. 16, quoted by Ahaz, refers, consisted, according to Exod.\nxvii., in their having asked _water_, as a _miraculous sign_ that the\nLord was truly in the midst of them. How could the Prophet reproach\nAhaz with having offended, not men merely, but God, unless he had\noffered to prove, by a fact which lay absolutely beyond the limits of\nnature, the truth of his announcement, the divinity of Him who gave it,\nthe divinity of his own mission, and the soundness of his advice?\n_Hendewerk_ is of opinion that \"it is difficult to say what the author\nwould have made to be the sign in the heavens; probably, a very simple\nthing.\" But in making this objection it is forgotten that Isaiah gives\n_free choice_ to the king. _Hitzig_ says: \"Without knowing it, Isaiah\nhere plays a very dangerous game. For if Ahaz had accepted his\nproposition, Jehovah would [Pg 41] probably have left His servant in\nthe lurch, and he would have begun to doubt of his God and of himself.\"\nIn these words, at all events, it is conceded that the prophets\nthemselves would not be what people in modern times would have them to\nbe. If such was their position towards _miracles_, then, in their own\nconvictions, _prophecies_, too, must be something else than general\ndescriptions, and indefinite forebodings. But how should it have been\npossible that an order could have maintained itself for centuries, the\nmost prominent members of which gave themselves up to such enthusiastic\nimprudence and rashness? Moreover, it is overlooked that afterwards, to\nHezekiah, our Prophet grants that in reality which here he offers to\nAhaz in vain,--[Hebrew: hemq] and [Hebrew: hgbh] are _Infin. absol._\n\"going high,\" \"going low.\" The Imperat. [Hebrew: walh] must be\nunderstood after [Hebrew: hgbh] also. Some explain [Hebrew: walh] by\n\"to hell,\" \"down to hell;\" but this is against the form of the word,\nwhich it would be arbitrary to change. Nor does one exactly see how, if\nwe except, perhaps, the apparition of one dead, Isaiah could have given\nto the king a sign from the Sheol; and in other passages, too (comp.\nJoel iii. 3 [ii. 30]), signs in the heavens and in the earth are\ncontrasted with one another. _Theodoret_ remarks that both kinds of\nmiracles, among which the Lord here allowed a choice to Ahaz, were\ngranted by Him to his pious son, Hezekiah, inasmuch as He wrought a\nphenomenon in _heaven_ which affected the going back of the shadow on\nthe sun-dial of Ahaz; and on _earth_, inasmuch as He, in a wonderful\nmanner, destroyed the Assyrians, and restored the king to health.\n_Jerome_ farther remarks, that, from among the plagues in Egypt, the\nlice, frogs, &c., were signs on earth; the hail, fire, and three day's\ndarkness, were signs in the heaven. It is on the passage before us that\nthe Pharisees take their stand, when in Matt. xvi. 1 they ask from the\nLord that He should grant them a sign from heaven. If even the Prophet\nIsaiah offered to prove in such a manner his divine mission, then,\naccording to their opinion, Christ was much more bound to do this,\ninasmuch as He set up far higher claims. But they overlooked the\ncircumstance that enough had already been granted for convincing those\nwho were well disposed, and that it can never be a duty to convince\nobstinate unbelief in a manner so palpable.\n\n[Pg 42]\n\nVer. 12. \"_And Ahaz said: I will not ask, neither will I tempt the\nLord._\"\n\nAhaz declines the offer by referring to Deut. vi. 16., and thus\nassuming the guise of reverence for God and His commandment. \"He\npretends,\" says _Calvin_, \"to have faith in the words of the Prophet,\nand not to require anything besides the word.\" The same declarations of\nthe Law, the Lord opposes to Satan, when the latter would induce Him to\ndo something for which he had no word of God, Matt. iv. 7. That would\nreally have been a tempting of God. Ahaz had no doubt that the miracle\nwould really be performed; but he had a dislike to enter within the\nmystical sphere. Who knows whether the God who grants the miracle is\nreally the highest God? comp. Is. x. 10, 11, xxxvi. 18-20, xxxvii.\n10-12. Who knows whether He is not laying for him a trap; whether, by\npreventing him from seeking the help of man. He is not to bring upon\nhim the destruction which his conscience tells him he has so richly\ndeserved? At all events the affording of His help is clogged with a\ncondition which he is resolved not to fulfil, viz., his conversion. A\nbetter and easier bargain, he thought, could be struck with the\nAssyrians; how insatiable soever they might be, they did not ask the\nheart. How many do even now-a-days rather perish in sin and misery,\nthan be converted!\n\nVer. 13. \"_And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it too little\nfor you to provoke man, that you provoke also my God?_\"\n\nWhen Ahaz had before refused to believe in the simple announcement of\nthe Prophet, his sin was more pardonable; for, inasmuch as Isaiah had\nnot proved himself outwardly as a divine ambassador, Ahaz sinned to a\ncertain degree against man only, against the Prophet only, by unjustly\nsuspecting him of a deceitful pretension to a divine revelation. Hence,\nIsaiah continues mild and gentle. But when Ahaz declined the offered\nsign, _God himself_ was provoked by him, and his wickedness came\nevidently to light. It is substantially the same difference as that\nbetween the sin against the _Son of Man_, the Christ coming outwardly\nand as a man only (Bengel: _quo statu conspicu, quatenus aequo tum loco\ncum hominibus conversabatur_), and the sin against the Holy Ghost who\npowerfully glorifies Him outwardly and inwardly. It is the antithesis\n[Pg 43] of the relative ignorance of what one is doing, and of the\nabsolute unwillingness which purposely hardens itself to the truth\nknown, or easy to be known. We say _relative_ ignorance; for an element\nof obduracy and hardening already existed, if he did not believe the\nProphet, even without a sign. For the fact that the Prophet was sent by\nGod, and spoke God's word, was testified to all who would hear it, even\nby the inner voice, just as in every sin against the Son of Man there\nis always already an element of the sin against the Holy Ghost.--The\ntruth that godlessness is the highest folly is here seen in a very\nevident manner. The same Ahaz who rejects the offer of the living God,\nwho palpably wishes to reveal to him that He is a living God,\nsacrifices his son to the dead idol Moloch, who never yet gave the\nsmallest sign of life! In this mirror we may see the condition of human\nnature.--The circumstance that it is not Ahaz, but the house of David\nthat is addressed, indicates that the deed is a deed of the whole\nhouse.--The Prophet says, \"_My God_,\" _i.e._, the God whose faithful\nservant I am, and in whom ye hypocrites have no more any share. In Ver.\n11, the Prophet had still called Him the God of Ahaz.\n\nVer. 14. \"_Therefore the Lord himself giveth you a sign: Behold the\nVirgin is with child, and heareth a Son, and thou callest his name\nImmanuel._\"\n\nAhaz had refused the proffered sign; the whole depth of his apostacy\nhad become manifest; no further regard was to be had to him. But it was\nnecessary to strengthen those who feared God, in their confidence in\nthe Lord, and in their hope in him. For this reason, the Prophet gives\na sign, even against the will of Ahaz, by which the announcement of the\ndeliverance from the two kings was confirmed. Your weak, prostrate\nfaith, he says, may erect itself on the certain fact that, in the Son\nof the Virgin, the Lord will some day be with us in the truest manner,\nand may perceive therein a guarantee and a pledge of the lower help in\nthe present danger also.--\"Therefore\"--because ye will not fix upon a\nsign. _Reinke_, in the ably written Monograph on this passage, assigns\nto [Hebrew: lkN] the signification, \"nevertheless,\" which is not\nsupported by the _usus loquendi_.--[Hebrew: itN] must be translated as\na Present; for the pregnancy of the Virgin and birth of Immanuel are\npresent to [Pg 44] the Prophet; and the fact cannot serve as a sign, in\nso far as it manifests itself outwardly, but only in so far as, by\nbeing foretold, it is realized as present.--[Hebrew: hva] _He_, _i.e._,\nof His own accord without any co-operation, such as would have taken\nplace if Ahaz had asked the sign.--[Hebrew: lkM] refers by its form to\nthe house of David; but in determining the sign, it is not the real\ncondition of its representative at that time which is regarded, but as\nhe ought to be. In substance, the sign given to ungodly Ahaz is\ndestined for believers only.--[Hebrew: hnh] \"behold\" indicates the\nenergy with which the Prophet anticipates the future; in his spirit\nit becomes to him the immediate present. Thus it was understood as\nearly as by _Chrysostom_: [Greek: monon gar ouk hor\u00f4ntos \u00ean ta ginomena\nkai phantazomenou kai poll\u00ean echontos huper t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n pl\u00earophorian,\nt\u00f4n gar h\u00eameter\u00f4n ophthalm\u00f4n ekeinoi saphesteron ta m\u00ea hor\u00f4mena\neblepon.]--The article in [Hebrew: helmh] cannot refer to _the_ virgin\n_known_ as the mother of the Saviour; for, besides the passage before\nus, it is only Micah v. 2 (3) which mentions the mother of the Saviour,\nand it is our passage only which speaks of her as a _virgin_. In\nharmony with [Hebrew: hnh], the article in [Hebrew: helmh] might be\nexplained from the circumstance that the Virgin is present to the\ninward perception of the Prophet--equivalent to \"the virgin there.\" But\nsince the use of the article in the _generic_ sense is so general, it\nis most natural to understand \"the virgin\" as forming a contrast to the\nmarried or old woman, and hence, in substance, as here equivalent to\n_a_ virgin. To this view we are led also by the circumstance that, in\nthe parallel passage, Mic. v. 2 (3) [Hebrew: ivldh] \"a bearing woman\"\nis used without the article.--[Hebrew: elmh] is, by old expositors,\ncommonly derived from [Hebrew: elM] in the signification \"to conceal\" A\nvirgin, they assume, is called a _concealed_ one, with reference to the\ncustoms of the East, where the virgins are obliged to lead a concealed\nlife. Thus it was understood by _Jerome_ also: \"_Almah_ is not applied\nto girls or virgins generally, but is used emphatically of a hidden and\nconcealed virgin, who is never accessible to the look of males, but who\nis with great care watched by the parents.\" But all parties now rightly\nagree that the word is to be derived from [Hebrew: elM], in the\nsignification, \"to grow up.\" To offer here any arguments in proof would\nbe a work of supererogation, as they are offered by all dictionaries.\nBut with all that, _Luther's_ remark is even now in full force: \"If [Pg\n45] a Jew or a Christian can prove to me that in any passage of\nScripture _Almah_ means 'a married woman,'I will give him a hundred\nflorins, although God alone knows where I may find them.\" It is true\nthat [Hebrew: elmh] is distinguished from [Hebrew: btvlh], which\ndesignates the virgin state as such, and in this signification occurs\nin Joel i. 8. also where the bride laments over her bridegroom whom she\nhas lost by death. Inviolate chastity is, in itself, not implied in the\nword. But certain it is that [Hebrew: elmh] designates an unmarried\nperson in the first years of youth; and if this be the case, un\nviolated chastity is a matter of course in this context; for if the\nmother of the Saviour was to be an _unmarried_ person, she could be a\nvirgin only; and, in general, it is inconceivable that the Prophet\nshould have brought forward a relation of impure love. In favour of \"an\nunmarried person\" is, in the first instance, the derivation. Being\nderived from [Hebrew: elM], \"to grow up,\" \"to become marriageable,\"\n[Hebrew: elmh] can denote nothing else than _puella nubilis_. But still\nmore decisive is the _usus loquendi_. In Arabic and Syriac the\ncorresponding words are never used of married women, and _Jerome_\nremarks, that in the Punic dialect also a virgin proper is called\n[Hebrew: elmh]. Besides in the passage before us, the word occurs in\nHebrew six times (Gen. xxiv. 43; Exod. ii. 8; Ps. lxviii. 26; Song of\nSol. i. 3, vi. 8; Prov. xxx. 19); but in all these passages the word\nis undeniably used of unmarried persons. In the two passages of the\nSong of Solomon, the [Hebrew: elmvt] designate the nations which have\nnot yet attained to an union with the heavenly Solomon, but are\ndestined for this union. In chap. vi. 8, they are, as _brides_,\nexpressly contrasted with the _wives_ of the first and second class.\nMarriage forms the boundary; the _Almah_ appears here distinctly as the\nanti-thesis to a married woman. It is the passage in Proverbs only\nwhich requires a more minute examination, as the opponents have given\nup all the other passages, and seek in it alone a support for their\nassertion that [Hebrew: elmh] may be used of a married woman also. The\npassage in its connection runs as follows: Ver. 18. \"There be three\nthings which are too wonderful for me, and four which I know not. Ver.\n19. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon the rock,\nthe way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a\nmaid. Ver. 20. This is the way of an adulterous woman; she [Pg 46]\neateth, and wipeth her mouth and saith: I have done no wickedness.\"\nAccording to _De Wette_, _Bertheau_, and others, the _tertium\ncomparationis_ for every thing is to lie in this only, that the ways do\nnot leave any trace that could be recognized. But the traceless\ndisappearing is altogether without foundation; there is not one word to\nindicate it; and it is quite impossible that that on which every thing\ndepends should have been left to conjecture. Farther,--instead of the\neagle, every other bird might have been mentioned, and the words \"in\nthe air\" would be without meaning, as well as the words \"in the heart\nof the sea\" mentioned in reference to the ship. But the real point of\nview is expressly stated in ver. 18. It is the _incomprehensible_. It\nis thus only that ver. 20, for which the other verses prepare the way,\nfalls in with the tendency of the whole. In the way of the adulteress,\nthat which is pointed out is not that it cannot be known, but the moral\nincomprehensibility that she, practising great wickedness which is\nworthy of death, and will unavoidably bring destruction upon her,\nbehaves as if there were nothing wrong, as if a permitted enjoyment\nwere the point in question, that she eats the poisoned bread of\nunchaste enjoyment as if it were ordinary bread; comp. ix. 17, xx. 17;\nPs. xiv. 4. Four incomprehensible things in the natural territory are\nmade use of to illustrate an incomprehensible thing in the ethical\nterritory. The whole purpose is _to point out the mystery of sin_. In\nthe case of the _eagle_, it is the boldness of his flight in which the\nmiraculous consists. The speed and boldness of his flight is elsewhere\nalso very commonly mentioned as the characteristic of the eagle; it is\njust that which makes him the king of birds. In the case of the\n_serpent_, the wonder is that, although wanting feet, it yet moves over\nthe smooth rock which is inaccessible to the proud horse; comp. Amos\nvi. 12: \"Do horses run upon the rock.\" In the _ship_, it is the\ncircumstance that she safely passes over the abyss which, as it would\nappear, could not fail to swallow her up. _The way of a man with a\nmaid_ occupies the last place in order to intimate that [Hebrew: drK],\nas in the case of the adulteress, denotes the _spiritual_ way. What is\nhere meant is the relation of the man to the virgin, _generally_, for\nif any _particular_ aspect had been regarded, _e. g._, that of\nboldness, cunning, or secrecy, it [Pg 47] ought to have been pointed\nat. The way of the man with the maid is the secret of which mention is\nmade as early as in Gen. ii. 24,--the union of the strong with the weak\nand tender (comp. the parallel passage, Jer. xxxi. 22), the secret\nattraction which connects with one another the hearts, and at last, the\nbodies. The end of the way is marriage. It is the _young_ love which\nspecially bears the character of the mysterious; after the relation has\nbeen established, it attracts less wonder.--[Hebrew: hrh] is the femin.\nof the verbal adj. [Hebrew: hrh]. The fundamental passage, Gen. xvi.\n11, where the angel of the Lord says to Hagar: \"Behold thou art with\nchild, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because\nthe Lord has heard thy affliction,\" shows that we must translate: The\nvirgin _is_ with child, and not: becomes with child. The allusion to\nthat passage in Genesis is very significant. In that case, as well as\nin the one under consideration, salvation is brought into connection\nwith the birth of a child. To the birth of Ishmael, the despairing\nHagar is directed as to a security for the divine favour; to the birth\nof Immanuel, the desponding people are directed as to the actual proof\nthat God is with them. If the _Almah_ represents herself to the Prophet\nas being already with child, then passages such as Is. xxix. 8, Matt.\nxi. 5, are not applicable. A virgin who is with child cannot be one who\nwas a virgin.--The form [Hebrew: qrat] may be 3d fem. for [Hebrew:\nqrah], comp. Jer. xliv. 23; but the fundamental passage in Gen. xvi. 11\nis decisive for considering it as the 2d fem.: \"_thou_ callest,\" as an\naddress to the virgin; in which case the form is altogether regular. It\nwas not a rare occurrence in Israel that mothers gave the name to\nchildren, Gen. iv. 1, 25, xix. 37, xxix. 32. The circumstance,\ntherefore, that the giving of the name is assigned to the mother (the\nvirgin) affords no ground for supposing, as many of the older\nexpositors do, that this is an intimation that the child would not have\na human father. \"Thou callest\" can, on the contrary, according to the\ncustom then prevalent, be substantially equivalent to: they shall name,\nMatt. [Greek: kalesousi], _Jerome_: _vocabitur_. The name is, of\ncourse, not to be considered as an ordinary _nomen proprium_, but as a\ndesignation of his nature and character. It may be understood in\ndifferent ways. Several interpreters, _e. g._, _Jerome_, referring to\npassages such as Ps. xlvi. 8, lxxxix. 25, Is. xliii. 2, Jer. i. 8, see\n[Pg 48] in it nothing else than an appeal to, and promise of divine\naid. According to others, the name is to be referred to God's becoming\nman in the Messiah; thus _Theodoret_ says: \"The name reveals the God\nwho is with us, the God who became man, the God who took upon Him the\nhuman nature.\" In a similar manner _Irenaeus_, _Tertullian_,\n_Chrysostom_, _Lactantius_, _Calvin_, and others, express themselves.\nBut those very parallel passages just quoted show that the name in\nitself has no distinct reference to the incarnation of God in Christ.\nBut from the passage chap. ix. 5, (6), which is so closely connected\nwith the one before us, and in which the Messiah is called _God-hero_,\n(the mighty God), and His divine nature so emphatically pointed out\n(comp. also Mic. v. 1 [2],) it plainly appears that the Prophet had in\nview the highest and truest form of God's being with His people, such\nas was made manifest when the word became flesh. (Chrysostom says:\n\"Then, above all, God was with us on earth, when He was seen on earth,\nand conversed with man, and manifested so great care for us.\")\n\nAccording, then, to the interpretation given, this verse before us\naffirms that, at some future period, the Messiah should be born by a\nvirgin, among the covenant people, who in the truest manner would bring\nGod near to them, and open the treasures of His salvation. In Vol. I.\np. 500 ff., we proved that this explanation occurs already in the\nGospel according to St. Matthew. According to the interpretation of the\nApostle, the passage can refer to Christ only, and finds in him not\nonly the highest, but the only fulfilment. In the Christian Church,\nthroughout all ages, the Messianic explanation was the prevailing one.\nIt was held by all the Fathers of the Church, and by all other\nChristian commentators down to the middle of the 18th century,--only\nthat some, besides the higher reference to the Messiah, assumed a lower\none to some event of that period. With the revival of faith, this view,\ntoo, has been revived. It is proved by the parallel passage, chap. ix.\n5 (6). That passage presents so remarkable an agreement with the one\nnow under consideration, that we cannot but assume the same subject in\nboth. \"Behold, a virgin is with child, and beareth a son\"--\"A child is\nborn unto us, a son is given;\"--\"They call him Immanuel,\" _i.e._, Him\nin whom God will be with us in the truest manner--\"They call Him [Pg\n49] Wonder-Counsellor, the God-Hero, Ever-Father, the Prince of Peace.\"\nBoth of these passages can the less be separated from one another, that\nchap. viii. 8 is evidently intended to lead from the one to the other.\nIn this passage it is said of the _world's power_, which in the\nmeantime, and in the first place, was represented by _Asshur_: \"And the\nstretchings out of his wings are the fulness of the breadth of thy\nland, Immanuel,\" i. e., his wings will cover the whole extent of thy\nland,--the stretching of the wings of this immense bird of prey,\nAsshur, comprehends the whole land. In the words: \"Thy land, O\nImmanuel,\" the prophecy of the wonderful Child, in chap. viii. 23-ix. 6\n(ix. 1-7), is already prepared. The land in which Immanuel is to be\nborn, which belongs to Him, cannot remain continually the property of\nheathen enemies. Every destruction is, at the same time, a prophecy of\nthe restoration. A look to the wonderful Child, and despair must flee.\nBehind the clouds, the sun is shining. Every attempt to assign the\nImmanuel to the lower sphere, must by this passage be rendered futile.\nFor how, in that case, could Canaan be called _His_ land? The\nsignification \"native country\" which [Hebrew: arC], it is true,\nsometimes receives by the context, does not suit here. For the passage\njust points out the contrast of reality and idea, that the world's\npower takes possession of the land which _belongs_ to Immanuel, and\nhence prepares for the announcement contained in that which follows,\nviz., that this contrast shall be done away with, and that this shall\nbe done as soon as the legitimate proprietor comes into His kingdom.\nFarther,--Decisive in favour of the Messianic explanation is also the\npassage Mic. v. 1, 2, (2, 3), where, in correspondence to _virgin_\nhere, we have, _she who is bearing_. The latter, indeed, is not\nexpressly called a virgin; but it follows, as a matter of course, that\nshe be so, as she is to bear the Hero of Divine origin (\"_of\neternity_\"), who, hence, cannot have been begotten by any mortal. Both\nof the prophecies mutually illustrate one another. \"Micah designates\nthe Divine origin of the Promised One; Isaiah, the miraculous\ncircumstances of His birth\" (_Rosenm\u00fcller_) Just as Isaiah holds up the\nbirth of Immanuel as the pledge that the covenant-people would not\nperish in their present catastrophe; just as he points to the shining\nform of Immanuel, announcing the victory over the [Pg 50] world, in\norder to comfort them in the impending severe oppression by the world's\npower (viii. 8);--so Micah makes the oppression by the world's power\ncontinue only until the time that she who is bearing brings forth. As\nMicah, in v. 1 (2), contrasts the divine dignity and nature with the\nbirth in time, so, in Isaiah, Immanuel, He in whom God will most truly\nbe with His people, is born by a virgin.\n\nThe arguments which the Jews, and, following their example, the\nrationalistic interpreters, especially _Gesenius_, and with them\n_Olshausen_, have advanced against the Messianic explanation, prove\nnothing. They are these:\n\n1. \"A reference to the Messiah who, after the lapse of centuries, is to\nbe born of a virgin, appears to be without meaning in the present\ncircumstances.\" This argument proves too much, and, hence, nothing. _It\nwould be valid against Messianic prophecies in general_, the existence\nof which certainly cannot be denied. Do not Jeremiah and Ezekiel, at\nthe time when the people were carried away into captivity, comfort them\nby the announcement that the kingdom of God should, in a far more\nglorious manner, be established by Messiah, whose appearance was yet\nseveral centuries distant? The highest proof of Israel's dignity and\nelection, was the promise that, at some future time, the Messiah was to\nbe born among them. How, indeed, could the Lord leave, without the\nlower help in the present calamity, a people with whom He was to be, at\nsome future period, in the truest manner? The Prophet refers to the\nfuture Saviour in a way quite similar to that in which the Apostle\nrefers to Him, after He had appeared: \"Who did not spare His only\nbegotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, how should He not in Him give\nus all things freely?\" Let us only realize the truth that the hope in\nthe Messiah formed the centre of the life of believers; that this hope\nwas, by fear, repressed only, but not destroyed. All which was needed,\ntherefore, was to revive this hope, and with it the special hope for\nthe present distress also was given--the assurance, firm as a rock,\nthat in it the covenant-people could not perish. This revival took\nplace in this way, that in the mind of the Prophet, the Messianic hope\nwas, by the Holy Spirit, rekindled, so that at his light all might\nkindle their lights. The Messianic idea here meets us in such\noriginality [Pg 51] and freshness, as if here were its real fountain\nhead. The faith already existing is only the foundation, only the point\nof connexion. What is essential is the new revelation of the old truth,\nand that could not fail to be affecting, overpowering to susceptible\nminds.\n\n2. \"The ground of consolation is too _general_. The Messiah might be\nborn from the family of Ahaz without the Jewish state being preserved\nin its then existing condition, and without Ahaz continuing on the\nthrone. The Babylonish captivity intervened, and yet Messiah was to be\nborn. Isaiah would thus have made himself guilty of a false sophistical\nargumentation.\"--We answer: What they, at that time, feared, was the\ntotal destruction of state and people. This appears sufficiently from\nthe circumstance that the prophet takes his son Shearjashub with him;\nand indeed the intentions of the enemy in this respect are expressed\nwith sufficient clearness in ver. 6. It is this _extreme_ of fear which\nthe Prophet here first opposes. Just as, according to the preceding\nverses, he met the fear of entire destruction by taking with him his\nson Shearjashub, \"the remnant will be converted,\" without thereby\nexcluding a temporary carrying away, so he there also prepares the mind\nfor the announcement contained in vers. 15, 16, of the near deliverance\nfrom the present danger, by first representing the fear of an entire\ndestruction to be unfounded. A people, moreover, to whom, at some\nfuture period, although it may be at a very remote future, a divine\n_Saviour_ is to be sent, must, in the present also, be under special\ndivine protection. They may be visited by severe sufferings, they may\nbe brought to the very verge of destruction,--whether that shall be the\ncase the Prophet does not, as yet, declare,--but one thing is sure,\nthat to them all things must work together for good; and that is the\nmain point. He who is convinced of this, may calmly and quietly look at\nthe course of events.\n\n3. \"The sense in which [Hebrew: avt] is elsewhere used in Scripture, is\naltogether disregarded by this interpretation. For, according to it,\n[Hebrew: avt] would refer to a future event; but according to the _usus\nloquendi_ elsewhere observed, [Hebrew: avt] 'is a prophesied second\nevent, the earlier fulfilment of which is to afford a sure guarantee\nfor the fulfilment of the first, which is really the point at issue.'\"\nBut, in opposition to this, it is sufficient to [Pg 52] refer to Exod.\niii. 12, where Moses receives this as a sign of his Divine mission, and\nof the deliverance of the people to be effected by him: \"When thou hast\nbrought forth my people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this\nmountain.\" In chap. xxxvii. 30, our Prophet himself, as a confirmation\nof the word spoken in reference to the king of Asshur: \"I make thee\nreturn by the way by which thou earnest,\" gives this sign, that, in the\nthird year after this, agriculture should already have altogether\nreturned into its old tracks, and the cultivation of the country should\nhave been altogether restored.[4] The fact here given as a sign is\nlater than that which is to be thereby made sure. The sign consists\nonly in this, that the idea is vividly called up and realized in the\nmind, that the land would recover from the destruction; and this of\ncourse, implies the destruction of the enemy. But in our chapter\nitself,--the name of Shearjashub affords the example of a sign (comp.\nchap. vii. 18), which is taken from the territory of the distant\nfuture. It is time that _commonly_ [Hebrew: avt] is not used of future\nthings; but this has its reason not in the idea of [Hebrew: avt], but\nsolely in the circumstance that, ordinarily, the future cannot serve\nas a sign of assurance. But it is quite obvious that, in the present\ncase, the Messianic announcement _could_ afford such a sign, and that\nin a far higher degree than the future facts given as signs in Exod.\niii., and Isa. xxxvii. The kingdom of glory which has been promised\nto us, forms to us also a sure pledge that in all the distresses of\nthe Church, the Lord will not withhold His help from her. But the\nCovenant-people stood in the same relation to the first appearance of\nChrist, as we do to the second.\n\n(4.) \"The passage, chap. viii. 3, 4, presents the most marked\nresemblance to the one before us. If _there_ the Messianic explanation\nbe decidedly inadmissible, it must be so _here_ also. The name and\nbirth of a child serves, there as here, for a sign of the deliverance\nfrom the Syrian dominion. If then _there_ the mother of the child be\nthe wife of the Prophet, and the child a son of his, the same must be\nthe case _here_ also.\" But it is _a priori_ improbable that the Prophet\nshould have given [Pg 53] to two of his sons names which had reference\nto the same event. To this must be added the circumstance, that the\n_time is wanting_ for the birth of two sons of the Prophet. Before\nImmanuel knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the country of\nboth the hostile kings shall be desolated, chap. vii. 15; before\nMahershalalhashbaz knows to cry My Father, My Mother, the riches of\nDamascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried before the king of\nAssyria, chap. viii. 4. The two births hence coincide. At all events,\nit is impossible to find the time for a double birth by the same\nmother. Several interpreters (_Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Hendewerk_,)\nassume the identity of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz; but this is\naltogether inadmissible, even from the difference of the names. It is\nthe less admissible to assume a double name for the child, as the name\nShearjashub plainly enough shews that the Prophet was in earnest with\nthe names of his children; and indeed, unless they had been real proper\nnames, there would have existed no reason at all for giving them to\nthem. To have assigned several names to one child would have weakened\ntheir power. The agreement must, therefore, rather be explained from\nthe circumstance, that it was by the announcement in chap. vii. 14 that\nthe Prophet was induced to the symbolical action in chap. viii. 3, 4.\nHe has, in chap. vii. 14, given to the despairing people the birth of a\nchild, who would bring the highest salvation for Israel, as a pledge of\ntheir deliverance. The birth of a child and its name were then required\nas an actual prophecy of help in the present distress,--a help which\nwas to be granted with a view to that Child, who not only indicates,\nbut grants deliverance from all distresses, and to whom the Prophet\nreverts in chap. ix., and even already in chap. viii. 8.--Moreover,\nbesides the agreement there is found a thorough difference. In chap.\nvii. the mother of the child is called [Hebrew: helmh], whereby a\nvirgin only can be designated; in chap. viii., \"the prophetess.\" In\nchap. vii. there is not even the slightest allusion to the Prophet's\nbeing the father; while in chap. viii. this circumstance is expressly\nand emphatically pointed out. In chap. vii. it is the mother who gives\nthe name to the child; in chap. viii. it is the Prophet. Far closer is\nthe agreement of chap. ix. 5 (6) with chap. vii. 14. It especially\nappears in the circumstances that in neither of them [Pg 54] is the\nfather of the child designated; and, farther, in the correspondence of\nImmanuel with [Hebrew: al gbvr], God-Hero.\n\n(5.) \"Against the Messianic explanation, and in favour of that of a son\nof the Prophet, is the passage chap. viii. 18, where the Prophet says\nthat his sons have been given to him for signs and wonders in Israel.\"\nBut although Immanuel be erroneously reckoned among the sons of the\nProphet, there still remain Shearjashub and Mahershalalhashbaz. The\nlatter name refers, _in the first instance only_, to Aram and Ephraim\nspecially; or the general truth which it declares is applied to this\nrelation only. But, just as the name Shearjashub announces new\n_salvation_ to the prostrate _people of God_, so the second name\nannounces near _destruction_ to the triumphing _world_ hostile to God;\nso that both the names supplement one another. As _signs_, these two\nsons of the Prophet pointed to the future deliverance and salvation of\nIsrael, and the defeat of the world; and the very circumstance that\nthey did so when, humanly viewed, all seemed to be lost, was a subject\nfor wonder. But that we can in no case make Immanuel a third son of the\nProphet, we have already proved.\n\nVer. 15. _Cream and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the\nevil and choose the good._ Ver. 16. _For before the boy shall know to\nrefuse the evil and choose the good, the country shall be forsaken of\nthe two kings of which thou standest in awe._\n\nThe older Messianic explanation has, in these two verses, exposed\nitself to the charge of being quite arbitrary. Most of the interpreters\nassume that, in ver. 15, the true humanity of the Saviour is announced.\nThe name Immanuel is intended to indicate the divine nature; the eating\nof milk and honey the human nature. Milk and honey are in this case\nconsidered as the ordinary food for babes; like other children. He\nshall grow up, and, like them, gradually develope. Thus _Jerome_ says:\n\"I shall mention another feature still more wonderful: That you may not\nbelieve that he will be born a phantasm. He will use the food of\ninfants, will eat butter and milk.\" _Calvin_ says: \"In order that here\nwe may not think of some spectre, the Prophet states signs of humanity\nfrom which he proves that Christ, indeed put on our flesh.\" In the same\nmanner _Iren\u00e6nus_, _Chrysostom_, _Basil_, and, in our century,\n_Kleuker_ and _Rosenm\u00fcller_ speak.--But this explanation [Pg 55] is\naltogether overthrown by ver. 16. Most interpreters assume, in the\nlatter verse, a change of subject; by [Hebrew: ner], not Immanuel, but\nShearjashub, who accompanied the Prophet, is to be understood.\nAccording to others, it is not any definite boy who is designated by\n[Hebrew: ner]; but it is said in general, that the devastation of the\nhostile country would take place in a still shorter time than that\nwhich elapses between the birth of a boy and his development. Such is\n_Calvin's_ view. But the supposition of a change of subject is\naltogether excluded, even by the circumstance that one and the same\nquality, the distinction between good and evil, is in both verses\nascribed to the subject. Others, like _J. H. Michaelis_, refer ver. 16\nalso to the Messiah, and seek to get out of the difficulty by a _jam\ndudum_. It is not worth while to enter more particularly upon these\nproductions of awkward embarassment. All that is required is, to remove\nthe stone of offence which has caused these interpreters to stumble.\nTowards this a good beginning has been made by _Vitringa_, without,\nhowever, completely attaining the object. In ver. 14, the Prophet has\nseen the birth of the Messiah as present. Holding fast this idea, and\nexpanding it, the Prophet makes him who has been born accompany the\npeople through all the stages of its existence. We have here an _ideal\nanticipation of the real incarnation_, the right of which lies in the\ncircumstance, that all blessings and deliverances which, before Christ,\nwere bestowed upon the covenant-people, had their root in His future\nbirth, and the cause of which was given in the circumstance, that the\ncovenant-people had entered upon the moment of their great crisis, of\ntheir conflict with the world's powers, which could not but address a\ncall to invest the comforting thought with, as it were, flesh and\nblood, and in this manner to place it into the midst of the popular\nlife. What the Prophet means, and intends to say here is this, _that,\nin the space of about a twelvemonth, the overthrow of the hostile\nkingdoms would already have taken place_. As the representative of the\ncotemporaries, he brings forward the wonderful child who, as it were,\nformed the soul of the popular life. _At the time when this child knows\nto distinguish between good and bad food, hence, after the space of\nabout a twelvemonth, he will not have any want of nobler food,_ ver.\n15, _for before he has entered upon this stage, the land of_ [Pg 56]\n_the two hostile kings shall be desolate._ In the subsequent prophecy,\nthe same wonderful child, grown up into a warlike hero, brings the\ndeliverance from Asshur, and the world's power represented by it.--We\nhave still to consider and discuss the particular. _What is indicated\nby the eating of cream and honey?_ The erroneous answer to this\nquestion, which has become current ever since _Gesenius_, has put\neverything into confusion, and has misled expositors such as _Hitzig_\nand _Meier_ to cut the knot, by asserting that ver. 15 is spurious.\nCream and honey can come into consideration as the noblest food only;\nthe eating of them can indicate only a _condition of plenty and\nprosperity_. \"A land flowing with milk and honey\" is, in the books of\nMoses, a standing expression for designating the rich fulness of noble\nfood which the Holy Land offers. A land which flows with milk and honey\nis, according to Numb. xiv. 7, 8, a \"very good land.\" The _cream_ is,\nas it were, a gradation of _milk_. Considering the predilection for fat\nand sweet food which we perceive everywhere in the Old Testament, there\ncan scarcely be anything better than cream and honey; and it is\ncertainly not spoken in accordance with Israelitish taste, if _Hofmann_\n(_Weiss_, i. S. 227) thus paraphrases the sense: \"It is not because he\ndoes not know what tastes well and better (cream and honey thus the\nevil!), that he will live upon the food which an uncultivated land can\nafford, but because there is none other.\" In Deut. xxxii. 13, 14, cream\nand honey appear among the noblest products of the Holy Land. Abraham\nplaces cream before his heavenly guests, Gen. xviii. 8. The plenty in\nhoney and cream appears in Job xx. 7, as a characteristic sign of the\ndivine blessing of which the wicked are deprived. It is solely and\nexclusively vers. 21 and 22 that are referred to for establishing the\nerroneous interpretation. It is asserted that, according to these\nverses, the eating of milk and honey must be considered as an evil, as\nthe sad consequence of a general devastation of the hind. But there are\ngrave objections to any attempt at explaining a preceding from a\nsubsequent passage; the opposite mode of proceeding is the right one.\nIt is altogether wrong, however, to suppose that vers. 21, 22, contain\na threatening. In those verses the Prophet, on the contrary, allows, as\nis usual with him, a _ray of light_ to fall upon the dark picture of\nthe [Pg 57] calamity which threatens from Asshur; and it could, indeed,\n_a priori_, be scarcely imagined that the threatening should not be\ninterrupted, at least by such a gentle allusion to the salvation to be\nbestowed upon them after the misery (comp. in reference to a similar\nsudden breaking through of the proclamation of salvation in Hosea, Vol.\nI., p. 175, and the remarks on Micah ii. 12, 13); but then he returns\nto the threatening, because it was, in the meantime, his principal\nvocation to utter it, and thereby to destroy the foolish illusions of\nthe God-forgetting king. It is in the subsequent prophecy only, chap\nviii. 1; ix. 6 (7) that that which is alluded to in vers. 21, 22 is\ncarried out. The little which has been left--this is the sense--the\nLord will bless so abundantly, that those who are spared in the divine\njudgment will enjoy a rich abundance of divine blessings. Parallel is\nthe utterance of Isaiah in 2 Kings xix. 30: \"And the escaped of the\nhouse of Judah, that which has been left, taketh root downward, and\nbeareth fruit upward.\"--If thus the eating of cream and honey be\nrightly understood, there is no farther necessity for explaining, in\nopposition to the rules of grammar, [Hebrew: ldetv] by \"(only) until he\nknows\" (comp. against this interpretation _Drechsler's Comment._).\n[Hebrew: ldetv] can only mean: \"belonging to his knowledge, _i.e._,\nwhen he knows.\" _Good_ and _evil_ are, as early as Deut. i. 39: \"Your\nsons who to-day do not know good and evil,\" used more in a physical\nthan in a moral sense. Michaelis: \"_rerum omnium ignari_.\" The parallel\nexpression, \"not to be able to discern between the right hand and the\nleft hand,\" in Jonah iv. 11 (Michaelis: \"_discretio rationis et\njudicii, ut sciant utra manus sit dextra aut sinistra_\") likewise loses\nsight of the moral sense. But good and evil are very decidedly used in\na physical sense in 2 Sam. xix. 36 (35), where Barzillai says: \"I am\nthis day fourscore years old, can I discern between good and evil, or\nhas thy servant a taste of what I eat or drink, or do I hear any more\nthe voice of singing men or singing women?\" The connection with the\neating of cream and honey, by which the good and evil is qualified,\nclearly proves that good and evil are, in our passage, used in a\nsimilar sense. To the same result we are led by the circumstance also,\nthat the evil _precedes_, which must so much the rather have a meaning,\nthat nowhere else is this the case with this phrase. The evil, the [Pg\n58] bad food in the time of war, precedes; the good follows after it:\nCream and honey, the good, he will eat when he knows to refuse the evil\nand choose the good, _i.e._, when he is beyond the time where he does\nnot yet know to make any great difference between the food, and in\nwhich, therefore, the evil, the bad food, is felt as an evil. If the\ngood and the evil be understood in a physical sense, then, in harmony\nwith chap. viii. 4, we must think of the period of about one year.\nMoral consciousness develops much later than sensual liking and\ndisliking.--The construction of [Hebrew: mas] and [Hebrew: bHr]\nwith [Hebrew: b] points to the affection which accompanies the\naction.--[Hebrew: ki] in ver. 16 suits very well, according to the view\nwhich we have taken, in its ordinary signification, \"for.\" The full\nenjoyment of the good things of the land will return in the period of\nabout twelve months (in chap. xxxvii. 30 a longer terra is fixed,\nbecause the Assyrian desolation was much greater than the Aramean);\n_for_, even before the year has expired, devastation shall be inflicted\nupon the land of the enemies. [Hebrew: hadmh] comprehends at the same\ntime the Syrian and Ephraimitish land.\n\nFrom ver. 17-25 the Prophet describes how the Assyrians, the object of\nthe hope of the house of David, and also the Egyptian attracted by\nthem, who, however, occupy a position altogether subordinate, shall\nfill the land, and change it into a wilderness. The fundamental\nthought, ever true, is this: He who, instead of seeking help from his\nGod, seeks it from the world, is ruined by the world. This truth,\nwhich, through the fault of Ahaz, did not gain any _saving_ influence,\nobtained an _accusing_ one; it stood there as an incontrovertible\ntestimony that it was not the Lord who had forsaken His people, but\nthat they had forsaken themselves. It was a necessary condition of the\nblessed influence of the impending calamity that such a testimony\nshould exist; without it, the calamity would not have led to\nrepentance, but to despair and defiance.--From the circumstance that in\nver. 17, which contains the outlines of the whole, upon the words: \"The\nLord shall bring upon thee and thy people,\" there follow still the\nwords: \"And upon thy father's house,\" it appears that the fulfilment\nmust not be sought for in the time of Ahaz only. In the time of Ahaz,\nthe _beginning_ only of the calamities here indicated can accordingly\nbe sought for,--the _germ_ from which all that followed [Pg 59] was\nafterwards developed. Nor shall we be allowed to limit ourselves to\nthat which Judah suffered from the Assyrians, commonly so called. It is\nsignificant that, in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, Nebuchadnezzar is called King\nof Asshur. Asshur, as the first representative of the world's power,\nrepresents the world's power in general.\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\nWe have still to submit to an examination those explanations of vers\n14-16 which differ, in essential points, from that which we have given.\nDifference of opinion--the characteristic sign of error--meets us here,\nand that in a very striking manner, in those who oppose the convictions\nof the whole Christian Church.\n\n1. _Rosenm\u00fcller_ expressed his adherence to the Messianic explanation,\nbut supposed that the Prophet was of opinion that the Messiah would be\nborn in his time. Even _Bruno Bauer_ (_Critik der Synopt._ i. S. 19)\ncould not resist the impression that Immanuel could be none other than\nthe Messiah. But he, too, is of opinion that Isaiah expected a Messiah,\nwho was to be born at once, and to become the \"deliverer from the\ncollision of that time.\" This view has been expanded especially by\n_Ewald_. \"False,\" so he says, \"is every interpretation which does not\nsee that the Prophet is here speaking of the Messiah to be born, and\nhence of Him to whom the land really belongs, and in thinking of whom\nthe Prophet's heart beats with joyful hope, chap. viii. 8, ix. 5, 6 (6,\n7).\" But not being able to realize that which can be seen only by\nfaith--a territory, in general, very inaccessible to modern exposition\nof Scripture--he, in ver. 14, puts in the _real_ Present instead of the\n_ideal_, and thinks that the Prophet imagined that the conception and\nbirth of the Messiah would take place at once. By [Hebrew: elmh] he\nunderstands, like ourselves, a virgin; but such an one as is so at the\npresent moment only, but will soon afterwards cease to be so;--and in\nsupposing this, he overlooks the fact that the virgin is introduced as\nbeing already with child, and that her bearing appears as present. In\nver. 15, the time when the boy knows &c., is, according to him, the\nmaturer juvenile age from ten to twenty years. It is during this that\nthe devastation of the land by the Assyrians is to take place, of which\n[Pg 60] the Prophet treats more in detail afterwards in ver. 17 ff. But\nopposed to this view is the circumstance that, even before the boy\nenters upon this maturer age (ver. 16), hence in a few years after\nthis, the allied Damascus and Ephraim shall be desolated; so little are\nthese two kings able to conquer Jerusalem, and so certain is it that a\ndivine deliverance is in store for this country in the immediate\nfuture. And, in every point of view, this explanation shows itself to\nbe untenable. The supposition that a _real_ Present is spoken of in\nver. 14 saddles upon the Prophet an absurd hallucination; and nothing\nanalogous to it can be referred to in the whole of the Old Testament.\nAccording to statements of the Prophet in other passages, he sees yet\nmany things intervening between the Messianic time and his own;\naccording to chap. vi. 11-13, not only the entire carrying away of the\nwhole people, (and he cannot well consider the Assyrians as the\ninstruments of it, were it only for this reason, that he is always\nconsistent in the announcement that they should not succeed in the\ncapture of Jerusalem), but also a later second divine judgment.\nAccording to chap. xi., the Messiah is to grow up as a twig from the\nstem of Jesse completely cut down. This supposition of His appearance,\nthe complete decay of the Davidic dynasty, did not in any way exist in\nthe time of the Prophet. According to chap. xxxix., and other passages,\nthe Prophet recognised in Babylon the appearance of a new phase of the\nworld's power which would, at some future period, follow the steps of\nthe Assyrian power which existed at the time of the Prophet, and which\nshould execute upon Judah the judgment of the Lord. We pointed out\n(Vol. I. p. 417 ff.) that in the Prophet Micah also, the contemporary\nof Isaiah, there lies a long series of events between the Present and\nthe time when she who is bearing brings forth. _Farther_--In harmony\nwith all other Prophets, Isaiah too looks for the Messiah from the\nhouse of David, with which, by the promise of Nathan in 2 Sam. vii.\nsalvation was indissolubly connected, and the high importance of which\nfor the weal and woe of the people appears also from the circumstance\nof its being several times mentioned in our chapter. Hence it would be\na son of Ahaz only of whom we could here think; and then we should be\nshut up to Hezekiah, his first-born. But in that case there arises the\ndifficulty which Luther already brought forward against the Jews: [Pg\n61] \"The Jews understand thereby Hezekiah. But the blind people, while\nanxious to remedy their error, themselves manifest their laziness and\nignorance; for Hezekiah was born nine years before this prophecy was\nuttered!\"--\"The eating of cream and honey\" is, in this explanation,\naltogether erroneously understood as a designation of the devastated\ncondition of the land. From our remarks, it sufficiently appears that\nthe expression \"to refuse the evil,\" &c., cannot denote the maturer\njuvenile age. And many additional points might, in like manner, be\nurged.\n\n2. Several interpreters do not indeed deny the reference to the\nMessiah, but suppose that, _in the first instance_, the Prophet had in\nview some occurrence of his own time. They assume that the Prophet,\nwhile speaking of a boy of his own time, makes use, under the guidance\nof divine providence, of expressions, which apply more to Christ, and\ncan, in an improper and inferior sense only, be true of this boy. This\nopinion was advanced as early as in the time of Jerome, by some\nanonymous author who, on that account, is severely censured by him:\n\"Some Judaizer from among us asserts that the Prophet had two sons,\nShearjashub and Immanuel. Immanuel too was, according to him, born by\nthe prophetess, the wife of the Prophet, and a type of the Saviour, our\nLord; so that the former son Shearjashub (which means 'remnant,'or\n'converting') designates the Jewish people that have been left and\nafterwards converted; while the second son Immanuel, 'with us is God,'\nsignifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and\ndwelt among us.\" This explanation was defended by, among others\n_Grotius_, _Richard Simon_, and _Clericus_; and then, in our century,\nby _Olshausen_, who says: \"The unity of the reference lies in the name\nImmanuel; the son of Isaiah had the _name_ but Christ the _essence_. He\nwas the visible God whom the former only represented.\" In a modified\nform, this view is held by _Lowth_, _Koppe_, and _von Meyer_, also.\nAccording to them, the Prophet is indeed not supposed to speak of a\ndefinite boy who was to be born in his time, but yet, to connect the\ndestinies of his land with the name and destinies of a boy whose\nconception he, at the moment, imagines to be possible. \"The most\nobvious meaning which would present itself to Ahaz,\" says _von Meyer_,\n\"was this: If now a girl was to marry, to become [Pg 62] pregnant, and\nto bear a child, she may call him 'God with us,'for God will be with\nus at his time.\" But the prophecy is, after all, to have an ultimate\nreference to Christ. \"The prophecy,\" says _Lowth_, \"is introduced in so\nsolemn a manner; the sign, after Ahaz had refused the call to fix upon\nany thing from the whole territory of nature according to his own\nchoice, is so emphatically declared to be one selected and given by God\nhimself; the terms of the prophecy are so unique in their kind, and the\nname of the child is so expressive; they comprehend in them so much\nmore than the circumstances of the birth of an ordinary child require,\nor could even permit, that we may easily suppose, that in minds, which\nwere already prepared by the expectation of a great Saviour who was to\ncome forth from the house of David, they excited hopes which stretched\nfarther than any with which the present cause could inspire them,\nespecially if it was found that in the succeeding prophecy, published\nimmediately afterwards, this child was, under the name of Immanuel,\ntreated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who else could\nthis be than the heir of the throne of David, under which character a\ngreat, and even divine person had been promised?\" The reasons for the\nMessianic explanation are very well exhibited in these words of\n_Lowth_; but he, as little as any other of these interpreters, has been\nable to vindicate the assumption of a _double sense_. When more closely\nexamined, the supposition is a mere makeshift. On the one hand, they\ncould not make up their minds to give up the Messianic explanation,\nand, along with it, the authority of the Apostle Matthew. But, on the\nother hand, they were puzzled by the _sanctum artificium_ by which the\nProphet, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking through him, represents\nChrist as being born even before His birth, places Him in the midst of\nthe life of the people, and makes Him accompany the nation through all\nthe stages of its existence. In truth, if the real, or even the nearest\nfulfilment is sought for in the time of Ahaz, there is no reason\nwhatever for supposing a higher reference to Christ. The [Hebrew: elmh]\nis then one who was a virgin, who had nothing in common with the mother\nof Jesus, Mary, who remained a virgin even after her pregnancy. The\nname Immanuel then refers to the help which God is to afford in the\npresent distress.\n\n[Pg 63]\n\n3. Many interpreters deny every reference to Christ. This\ninterpretation remained for a long time the exclusive property of the\nJews, until _J. E. Faber_ (in his remarks on _Harmar's_ observations on\nthe East, i. S. 281), tried to transplant it into the Christian\nsoil.[5] He was followed by the Roman Catholic, _Isenbiehl_ (_Neuer\nVersuch \u00fcber die Weissagung vom Immanuel_, 1778) who, in consequence of\nit, was deposed from his theological professorship, and thrown into\ngaol. The principal tenets of his work he had borrowed from the\nlectures of _J. D. Michaelis_. In their views about the _Almah_, who is\nto bear Immanuel, these interpreters are very much at variance.\n\n(a) The more ancient Jews maintained that the _Almah_ was the wife of\nAhaz, and Immanuel, his son Hezekiah. According to the _Dialog. c.\nTryph._ 66, 68, 71, 77, this view prevailed among them as early as the\ntime of _Justin_. But they were refuted by _Jerome_, who showed that\nHezekiah must, at that time, have already been at least nine years old.\n_Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_ then resorted to the hypothesis of a second\nwife of Ahaz.\n\n(b) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is some virgin who\ncannot be definitely determined by us, who was present at the place\nwhere the king and Isaiah were speaking to one another, and to whom the\nProphet points with his finger. This view was held by _Isenbiehl_,\n_Steudel_ (in a Programme, T\u00fcbingen, 1815), and others.\n\n(c) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is not a _real_ but\nonly an _ideal_ virgin. Thus _J. D. Michaelis_: \"At the time when one,\nwho at this moment is still a virgin, can bear,\" &c. _Eichhorn_,\n_Paulus_, _St\u00e4helin_, and others. The sign is thus made to consist in a\nmere poetical figure.\n\n(d) A composition of the two views last mentioned is the view of\n_Umbreit_. The virgin is, according to him, an actual virgin whom the\nProphet perceived among those surrounding him; but the pregnancy and\nbirth are imaginary [Pg 64] merely, and the virgin is to suggest to the\nProphet the idea of pregnancy. But this explanation would saddle the\nProphet with something indecent. _Farther_: It is not a birth possible\nwhich is spoken of, but an actual birth. From chap. viii. 8, it\nlikewise appears that Immanuel is a real individual, and He one of\neminent dignity; and this passage is thus at once in strict opposition\nto both of the explanations, viz. that of any ordinary virgin, and that\nof the ideal virgin. It destroys also\n\n(e) The explanation of _Meier_, who by the virgin understands the\npeople of Judah, and conceives of the pregnancy and birth likewise in a\npoetical manner. The fact, the acknowledgment of which has led _Meier_\nto get up this hypothesis, altogether unfounded, and undeserving of any\nminute refutation, is this: \"_The mother is, in the passage before us,\ncalled a virgin, and yet is designated as being with child._ The words,\nwhen understood physically and outwardly, contain a contradiction.\" But\nthis fact is rather in favour of the Messianic explanation.\n\n(f) Others, farther, conjecture that the wife of the Prophet is meant\nby the _Almah_. This view was advanced as early as by _Abenezra_ and\n_Jarchi_. By the authority of _Gesenius_, this view became, for a time,\nthe prevailing one. Against it, the following arguments are decisive;\npart of them being opposed to the other conjectures also. As [Hebrew:\nelmh] designates \"virgin\" only, and never a young woman, and, far less,\nan older woman, it is quite impossible that the wife of the Prophet,\nthe mother of Shearjashub could be so designated, inasmuch as the\nlatter was already old enough to be able to accompany his father.\nGesenius could not avoid acknowledging the weight of this argument, and\ndeclared himself disposed to assume that the Prophet's former wife had\ndied, and that he had thereupon betrothed himself to a virgin.\n_Olshausen_, _Maurer_, _Hendewerk_, and others, have followed him in\nthis. But this is a story entirely without foundation. In chap. viii.\n13, the wife of the Prophet is called simply \"the prophetess.\" Nor\ncould one well see how the Prophet could expect to be understood, if,\nby the general expression: \"the virgin\" he wished to signify his\npresumptive betrothed. _There_ [Pg 65] _is an entire absence of every\nintimation whatsoever of a nearer relation of the Almah to the\nProphet_; and such an intimation could not by any means be wanting if\nsuch a relation really existed. One would, in that case at least, be\nobliged to suppose, as _Pl\u00fcschke_ does, that the Prophet took his\nbetrothed with him, and pointed to her with his finger,--a supposition\nwhich too plainly exhibits the sign of embarrassment, just as is the\ncase with the remark of _Hendewerk_: \"Only that, in that case, we must\nalso suppose that his second wife was sufficiently known at court even\nthen, when she was his betrothed only, although her relation to Isaiah\nmight be unknown; so that, for this very reason, we could not think of\na frustration of the sign on the part of the king.\" _Hitzig_ remarks:\n\"The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether\ndestitute of any foundation.\" He then, however, falls back upon the\nhypothesis which _Gesenius_ himself admitted to be untenable, that\n[Hebrew: elmh], \"virgin\" might not only denote a young woman, but\nsometimes also an older woman. Not even the semblance of a proof can be\nadvanced in support of this. It is just the juvenile age which forms\nthe fundamental signification of the word. In the wife of the Prophet\nwe can the less think of such a juvenile age, that he himself had\nalready exercised his prophetic office for about twenty years. _Hitzig_\nhas indeed altogether declined to lead any such proof. A son of the\nProphet, as, in general, every subject except the Messiah, is excluded\nby the circumstance that in chap viii. 8, Canaan is called the land of\nImmanuel.--_Farther_,--In all these suppositions, [Hebrew: avt] is\nunderstood in an inadmissible signification. It can here denote a fact\nonly, whereby those who were really susceptible were made decidedly\ncertain of the impending deliverance. This appears clearly enough from\nthe relation of this sign to that which Ahaz had before refused,\naccording to which the difference must not be too great, and must not\nrefer to the substance. To this may be added the solemn tone which\ninduces us to expect something grand and important. A mere poetical\nimage, such as would be before us according to the hypothesis of the\nideal virgin, or of the real virgin and the ideal birth, does [Pg 66]\nsurely not come up to the demand which in this context must be made in\nreference to this _sign_. And if the Prophet had announced so solemnly,\nand in words so sublime, the birth _of his own_ child, he would have\nmade himself ridiculous. _Farther_,--How then did the Prophet know that\nafter nine months a child would be born to him, or, if the pregnancy be\nconsidered as having already commenced, how did he know that just a son\nwould be born to him? That is a question to which most of these\nRationalistic interpreters take good care not to give any reply.\n_Pl\u00fcschke_, indeed, is of opinion that, upon a bold conjecture, the\nProphet had ventured this statement. But in that case it might easily\nhave fared with him as in that well known story in _Worms_,\n(_Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 664 ff.), and his whole\nauthority would have been forfeited if his conjecture had proved false.\nAnd this argument holds true in reference to those also who do not\nshare in the Rationalistic view, of Prophetism. Predictions of such a\nkind may belong to the territory of foretelling, but not to that of\nProphecy.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Meyer_, _Bl\u00e4tter f\u00fcr h\u00f6here Wahrheit_, iii. S. 101.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Caspari_ very justly remarks: \"Nothing can be clearer\nthan that 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ff. comes in between 2 Kings xvi. 5 a.\nb.; that the author of the books of the Kings gives a report of the\nbeginning and end; the author of the Chronicles, of the middle of the\ncampaign.\" But we cannot agree with _Caspari_ in his transferring to\nIdumea the victory of Rezin. According to Is. vii. 2, Aram was encamped\nin Ephraim. According to 2 Kings xvi. 5, _both_ of the kings came up to\nJerusalem and besieged her. The expedition against Elath, 2 Kings xvi.\n6, was secondary, and by the way only.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The words: \"In threescore and five years more, Ephraim\nshall be broken and be no more a people,\" have, by rationalistic\ncritics, without and against all external arguments, been declared to\nbe _spurious_. The reasons which serve as fig leaves to cover their\ndoctrinal tendency are the following: (1) \"The time does not agree,\ninasmuch as the ten tribes sustained their first defeat very soon\nafterwards by Tiglath-pilezer; the second, nineteen to twenty-one years\nlater, by Shalmanezer, who, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, carried the\ninhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes away into captivity.\" But\nthe question here is _the complete destruction of the national\nexistence of Israel_; and that took place only under King Manasseh,\nwhen, by Azarhaddon, new Gentile colonists were brought into the land,\nwho expelled from it the old inhabitants who had again gathered\nthemselves together; comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24 with Ezra iv. 2, 10. From\nthat time, Israel amalgamated more and more with Judah, and never\nreturned to a national independence. This happened exactly sixty-five\nyears after the announcement by the Prophet. Chap. vi. 12 compared with\nver. 13 shows how little the desolation of the country (ver. 16) is\nconnected with the breaking up as a nation. It is, moreover, at least\nas much the interest of those who assert the spuriousness, as it is\nours to remove the chronological difficulties; for how could it be\nimagined that the supposed author should have introduced a false\nchronological statement? His object surely could be none other than to\nprocure authority for the Prophet, by putting into his mouth a prophecy\nso very evidently and manifestly fulfilled. (2) \"The words contain an\nunsuitable consolation, as Ahaz could not be benefitted by so late a\ndestruction of his enemy.\" But, immediately afterwards, he is even\nexpressly assured that this enemy will not be able to do him any\nimmediate harm. _Chrysostom_ remarks: \"The king, hearing that they\nshould be destroyed after sixty-five years, might say within himself:\nWhat about that? Although they be _then_ overthrown, of what use is it\nto us, if they now take us? In order that the king might not speak\nthus, the Prophet says: Be of good cheer even as to the present. At\nthat time they shall be _utterly_ destroyed; but even now, they shall\nnot have any more than their own land, for 'the head of Ephraim,'\" &c.\nThe preceding distinct announcement of the last end of his enemy,\nhowever, was exceedingly well fitted to break in Ahaz the opinion of\nhis invincibility, and to strengthen his faith in the God of Israel,\nwho, with a firm hand, directs the destinies of nations, and, no less,\nthe faith in _His servant_ whom He raises to be privy to His\nsecrets.--(3.) \"The use of numbers so exact is against the analogy of\nall oracles.\" But immediately afterwards (ver. 15 comp. with chap.\nviii. 4), the time of the defeat is as exactly fixed, although not in\nciphers. In chap. xx. Isaiah announces that after three years the\nEgyptians and Ethiopians shall sustain a defeat; in chap. xxiii. 15,\nthat Tyre would flourish anew seventy years after its fall; in chap.\nxxxviii. 5, he announces to Hezekiah, sick unto death, that God would\nadd fifteen years to his life. According to Jeremiah, the Babylonish\ncaptivity is to last seventy years; and the fulfilment has shown that\nthis date is not to be understood as a round number. And farther, the\nyear-weeks in Daniel.--But in opposition to this view, and positively\nin favour of the genuineness, are the following arguments: The words\nhave not only, as is conceded by _Ewald_, \"a true old-Hebrew\ncolouring,\" but in their emphatic and solemn brevity (\"he shall be\nbroken from [being] a people\") they do not at all bear the character of\nan interpolation. If we blot them out, then the Prophet says less than\nfrom present circumstances, from ver. 4, where he calls the kings \"ends\nof smoking firebrands,\" in opposition to ver. 6, and from the analogy\nof ver. 9, where the threatening is much more severe, he was bound to\nsay. His saying merely that they would not get any more, was not\nsufficient. He could make the right impression only when he reduced\nthat declaration to its foundation--_i.e._, their own destruction and\noverthrow. Ver. 16, too, would go far beyond what would be announced\nhere, if we remove this clause. He announces destruction to the kings\nthemselves. Finally, the symmetrical parallelism would be destroyed by\nstriking out these words. The words: \"If ye believe not, ye shall not\nbe established,\" would, in that case, be without the parallel members.\nThey are connected with the clause under discussion so much the rather,\nthat in them it is not specially Judah's deliverance from the Syrians\nand Ephraimites that is looked at, but its salvation in general.]\n\n[Footnote 4: By a minute and trifling exposition of what is to be\nunderstood as a whole, and comprehensively, many misunderstandings have\nbeen introduced into this passage. The defeat of Asshur should take\nplace very soon, but the devastation of the country had been so\ncomplete that a longer time would be required before the fields would\nbe again _completely_ cultivated.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Gesenius_ mentions _Pellicanus_ as the first defender of\nthe Non-Messianic interpretation. But this statement seems to have\nproceeded from a cursory view of an annotation by _Cramer_ on _Richard\nSimon's Kritische Schriften_ i. S. 441, where the words: \"this\nhistorical interpretation _Pellicanus_ too has preferred,\" do not refer\nto Isaiah but to Daniel. Nor is there any more ground for the\nintimation that _Theodorus_ a Mopsuesta rejected the Messianic\ninterpretation.]\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VIII. 23-IX. 6.\n (Chap. ix. 1-7.)\n UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN.\n\n\nIn the view of the Assyrian catastrophe, the Prophet is anxious to\nbring it home to the consciences of the people that, by their own\nguilt, they have brought down upon themselves this calamity, and, at\nthe same time, to prevent them from despairing. Hence it is that, soon\nafter the prophecy in chap. vii., he reverts once more to the subject\nof it. The circumstances in chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7) are identical with\nthose in chap. vii. Judah is hard pressed by Ephraim and Aram. Still,\nsome time will elapse before the destruction of [Pg 67] their\nterritories. The term in chap. vii. 16: \"Before the boy shall know to\nrefuse the evil and choose the good,\" and in chap. viii. 4: \"Before the\nboy shall know to cry, My father and my mother,\" is quite the same.\nThis is the less to be doubted when it is kept in mind that, in the\nformer passage, evil and good must be taken in a physical sense. The\nsense for the difference of food is, in a child, developed at nearly\nthe same time as the ability for speaking. If it had not been the\nintention of the Prophet to designate one and the same period, _he\nought to have fixed more distinctly the limits between the two\ntermini._ It might, indeed, from chap. viii. 3, appear as if at least\nthe nine months must intervene between the two prophecies of the\nconception of the son of the Prophet, and his birth. As, however, it\ncannot be denied that there is a connection between the giving of the\nname, and the drawing up of the document in vers. 1 and 2, we should be\nobliged to suppose that, in reference to the first two futures with\n_Vav convers._ the same rule applies as in reference to [Hebrew: vicr],\nin Gen. ii. 19. The progress lies first in [Hebrew: vtld]; the event\nfalling into that time is the birth.\n\nChap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7), forms the necessary _supplement_ to chap.\nvii., the germ of which is contained already in chap. vii. 21, 22. The\nProphet saw, by the light of the Spirit of God, that the fear of Aram\nand Ephraim was unfounded; the enemy truly dangerous is Asshur, _i.e._,\n_the whole world's power first represented by Asshur._ For the King of\nAsshur is, so to say, an ideal person to the Prophet. The different\nphases of the world's powers are intimated as early as chap. viii. 9,\nwhere the Prophet addresses the \"nations,\" and \"all the far-off\ncountries;\" and, at a later period, he received disclosures regarding\nall the single phases of the world's power which began its course with\nAsshur. With this the Prophet had only threatened in chap. vii.; here,\nhowever, he is pre-eminently employed with it, _exhorting_,\n_comforting_, _promising_, so that thus the two sections form one whole\nin two divisions. _His main object is to induce his people, in the\nimpending oppression by the world's power, to direct their eyes\nsteadily to their heavenly Redeemer, who, in due time, will bring peace\ninstead of strife, salvation and prosperity instead of misery, dominion\ninstead of oppression._ As in chap. vii. 14, the [Pg 68] picture of\nImmanuel is placed before the eyes of the people desponding on account\nof Aram and Ephraim, so here the care, anxiety, and fear in the view of\nAsshur are overcome by pointing to the declaration: \"Unto us a child is\nborn, unto us a son is given.\" It is of great importance for the right\nunderstanding of the Messianic announcement in chap. viii. 23, ix. 6,\nthat the historical circumstances of the whole section, and its\ntendency be clearly understood. As, in general, the Messianic\nannouncement under the Old Testament bears a one-sided character, so,\nfor the _present occasion_, those aspects only of the picture of the\nSaviour were required which were fitted effectually to meet the\ndespondency of the people in the view, and under the pressure of the\nworld's power.\n\nAfter these preliminary remarks, we must enter still more in detail\nupon the arrangement and construction of the section before us.\n\nThe Prophet receives, first, the commission to write down, like a\njudicial document, the announcement of the speedy destruction of the\npresent enemies, and to get it confirmed by trust-worthy witnesses,\nchap. viii. 1, 2. He then, farther, receives the commission to give, to\na son that would be born to him about the same time, a name expressive\nof the speedy destruction of the enemies, vers. 3, 4. Thus far the\nannouncement of the deliverance from Aram and Ephraim. There then\nfollows, from vers. 5-8, an announcement of the misery which is to be\ninflicted by _Asshur_, of whom Ahaz and the unbelieving portion of the\npeople expected nothing but deliverance. _Up to this, there is a\nrecapitulation only, and a confirmation of chap. vii._ But this misery\nis not to last for ever, is not to end in destruction. In vers. 9, 10,\nthe Prophet addresses exultingly the hostile nations, and announces to\nthem, what had already been gently hinted at at the close of ver. 8,\nthat their attempts to put an end to the covenant-people would be vain,\nand would lead to their own destruction. The splendour of Asshur must\n_fade_ before the bright image of Immanuel, which calls to the people:\n\"Be ye of good cheer, I have overcome the world.\" _Calvin_ strikingly\nremarks: \"The Prophet may be conceived of, as it were, standing on a\nwatch tower, whence he beholds the defeat of the people, and the\nvictorious Assyrians insolently exulting. [Pg 69] But by the name and\nview of Christ he recovers himself, forgets all the evils as if he had\nsuffered nothing, and, freed from all misery, he rises against the\nenemies whom the Lord would immediately destroy.\" The Prophet then\ninterrupts the announcement of deliverance, and exhibits the subjective\nconditions upon which the bestowal of deliverance, or rather the\n_partaking_ in it, depends, along with the announcement of the fearful\nmisery which would befal them in case these conditions were not\ncomplied with. But, so he continues in vers. 11-16, he who is to\npartake of the deliverance which the Lord has destined for His people,\nmust in firm faith expect it from Him, and thereby inwardly separate\nhimself from the unbelieving mass, who, at every appearance of danger,\ntremble and give up all for lost. He who stands as ill as that mass in\nthe trial inflicted by the Lord; he to whom the danger becomes an\noccasion for manifesting the unbelief of his heart;--he indeed will\nperish in it. At the close, the prophet is emphatically admonished to\nimpress this great and important truth upon the minds of the\nsusceptible ones. In ver. 17: \"And I waited upon the Lord,\" &c., the\nProphet reports what effect was produced upon him by this revelation\nfrom the Lord,--thereby teaching indirectly what effect it ought to\nproduce upon all. In ver. 18, the Prophet directs the desponding people\nto the example of himself who, according to ver. 17, is joyful in his\nfaith, and to the names of his sons which announced deliverance.\nDeliverance and comfort are to be sought from the God of Israel only.\nVain, therefore,--this he brings out, vers. 19-22--are all other means\nby which people without faith seek to procure help to themselves. They\nshould return to God's holy Law which, in Deut. xviii. 14, ff. commands\nto seek disclosures as regards the future, and comfort from His\nservants the Prophets only, and which itself abounds in comfort and\npromise. If such be not done, misery without any deliverance, despair\nwithout any comfort, are the unavoidable consequences. From ver. 23,\nthe Prophet continues the interrupted announcement of deliverance. That\nwhich, in the preceding verses, he had threatened in the case of\napostacy from God's Word, and of unbelief, viz., _darkness_, _i.e._,\nthe absence of deliverance, will, as the Prophet, according to vers.\n21, 22, foresees, really befal them in future, as [Pg 70] the people\nwill not fulfil the conditions held forth in vers. 16 and 20, as they\nwill not speak: \"To the Law and to the testimony,\" as they will not in\nfaith lay hold of the promise, and trust in the Lord. The calamity\nhaving, in the preceding verses, been represented as _darkness_, the\ndeliverance which, by the grace of the Lord, is to be bestowed upon the\npeople (for the Lord indeed chastises His people on account of their\nunbelief, but does not give them up to death), is now represented as a\ngreat _light_ which dispels the darkness. It shines most clearly just\nwhere the darkness had been greatest--in that part of the country\nwhich, being outwardly and inwardly given up to heathenism, seemed\nscarcely still to belong to the land of the Lord, viz., the country\nlying around the lake of Gennesareth. The people are filled with joy on\naccount of the deliverance granted to them by the Lord,--their\ndeliverance from the yoke of their oppressors, from the bondage of the\nworld which now comes to an end. As the bestower of such deliverance,\nthe Prophet beholds a divine child who, having obtained dominion, will\nexercise it with the skill of the God-man; who will, with fatherly\nlove, in all eternity care for His people and create peace to them; who\nwill, at the same time, infinitely extend His dominion, the kingdom of\nDavid, not by means of the force of arms, but by means of right and\nrighteousness, the exercise of which will attract the nations to Him;\nso that with the increase of dominion, the increase of peace goes hand\nin hand. The guarantee that these glorious results shall really take\nplace is the zeal of the Lord, and it is this to which the Prophet\npoints at the close.\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nChap. viii. 23 (ix. 1). \"_For not is darkness to the land, to which is\ndistress; in the former time he has brought disgrace upon the land of\nZebulun and the hind of Naphtali, and in the after-time he brings it to\nhonour, the region on the sea, the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of\nthe Gentiles._\"\n\n[Hebrew: ki] stands in its ordinary signification, \"for.\" Allow not\nyourselves to be turned away by anything from trusting in the God of\nIsrael; hold fast by His word alone, and by His servants,--such was the\nfundamental thought of the whole preceding section. It meets us last in\nver. 20, in the exhortation: [Pg 71] \"To the Law and to the testimony!\"\nin so far as this is rich in consolation and promise. The Prophet,\nafter having, in the preceding verses, described the misery which will\nbefal those who do not follow this exhortation, supports and\nestablishes it by referring to the _help of the Lord_ already alluded\nto in vers. 9 and 10, and to the _light of His grace_ which He will\ncause to shine into the darkness of the people,--a darkness produced by\ntheir unbelief and apostacy; and this light shall be brightest where\nthe darkness was greatest. All the attempts at connecting this [Hebrew:\nki] with the verse immediately preceding instead of referring it to the\nmain contents of the preceding section, have proved futile. [Hebrew:\nki] can neither mean \"nevertheless,\" nor \"yea;\" and the strange\nassertion that it is almost without any meaning at all cannot derive\nany support from Isaiah xv. 1: \"The _burden_ of Moab, _for_ in the\nnight the city of Moab is laid waste;\" for only in that case is\n[Hebrew: ki] without any meaning at all, if [Hebrew: mwa] be falsely\ninterpreted.--Ver. 22, where the phrase [Hebrew: mevP Cvqh] \"darkness\nof distress\" is equivalent to \"darkness which consists in distress\"\n(compare also: \"behold trouble and darkness\" in the same verse), shows\nthat [Hebrew: mveP] and [Hebrew: mvcq] are substantially of the same\nmeaning.--Our verse forms an antithesis to ver. 22; the latter verse\ndescribed the darkness brought on by the guilt of the people; the verse\nunder consideration describes, in contrast to it, the _removal_ of it\ncalled forth by the grace of the Lord.--[Hebrew: la] may either be\nconnected with the noun, or it may be explained: not is darkness. It\ncannot be objected to the latter view that, in that case, [Hebrew: aiN]\nshould rather have stood; while the analogy of the phrase: \"Not didst\nthou increase the joy,\" in chap. ix. 2 (3), seems to be in favour of\nit. Here we have the negative, the ceasing of darkness; in chap. ix. 1\n(2) the positive, the appearance of light. The suffix, in [Hebrew: lh]\nrefers, just as the suffix, in [Hebrew: bh] in ver. 21, to the omitted\n[Hebrew: arC].--The [Hebrew: k] in [Hebrew: ket] is, by many\ninterpreters, asserted to stand in the signification of [Hebrew: kawr]:\n\"Just as the former time has brought disgrace,\" &c. But as it cannot be\nproved that [Hebrew: k] has ever the meaning, \"just as;\" and as, on the\nother hand, [Hebrew: ket] frequently occurs in the signification, \"at\nthe time\" (compare my remarks on Numb. xxiii. 13 in my work on Balaam),\nwe shall be obliged to take, here too, the [Hebrew: k] as a temporal\nparticle, and to supply, as the subject, Jehovah, who [Pg 72] always\nstands before the Prophet's mind, and is often not mentioned when the\nmatter itself excludes another subject. Moreover, it is especially in\nfavour of this view that, in vers. 3 (4), the Lord himself is expressly\naddressed.--As regards [Hebrew: aHrvN], either [Hebrew: ket] may be\nsupplied,--and this is simplest and most natural--or it may be taken as\nan Accusative, \"for the whole after-time.\"--[Hebrew: hql] means\nproperly to \"make light,\" then \"to make contemptible,\" \"to cover with\ndisgrace,\" and [Hebrew: hkbid] properly then, \"to make heavy,\" \"to\nhonour,\"--a signification which indeed is peculiar to _Piel_, but in\nwhich the _Hiphil_, too, occurs in Jer. xxx. 19; the two verbs thus\nform an antithesis. The [Hebrew: h] _locale_ in [Hebrew: arch] (the\nword does not occur in Isaiah with the [Hebrew: h] _paragog._) shews\nthat a certain modification of the verbal notion must be assumed: \"to\nbring disgrace and honour.\" [Hebrew: arch] thus would mean \"towards\nthe land.\" The scene of the disgrace and honour, which at first was\ndesignated in general only, is afterwards _extended_. First, the land\nof Zebulun and Naphtali only is mentioned, because it was upon it\nthat the disgrace had pre-eminently fallen, and it was, therefore,\npre-eminently to be brought to honour; then the whole territory along\nthe sea on both sides of it.--[Hebrew: iM] can, in this context\nwhich serves for a more definite qualification, mean the sea of\nGennesareth only ([Hebrew: iM knrt] Numb. xxxiv. 11, and other\npassages), just as, in Matt. iv. 13, the designation of Capernaum as\n[Greek: h\u00ea parathalassia] receives its definite meaning from the\ncontext.--[Hebrew: drK] occurs elsewhere also in the signification of\n_versus_, _e.g._, Ezek. viii. 5, xl. 20, 46; it will be necessary to\nsupply after it [Hebrew: arC], just as in the case of the [Hebrew: ebr\nhirdN] following. It is without any instance that [Hebrew: drK] \"way\"\nshould stand for \"region,\" \"country.\" The region on the sea is then\ndivided into its two parts [Hebrew: ebr hirdN], [Greek: peran tou\nIordanou], the land on the east bank of Jordan, and Galilee. The latter\nanswers to the land of Zebulun and Naphtali; for the territory of these\ntwo tribes occupied the centre and principal part of Galilee. In\nopposition to the established _usus loquendi_, many would understand\n[Hebrew: ebr hirdN] as meaning the land \"on the side,\" _i.e._, this\nside \"of the Jordan,\" proceeding upon the supposition that the local\ndesignations must, from beginning to end, be congruous. Opposed to it\nis also the circumstance that, in 2 Kings, xv. 29, the most eastward\nand most northward countries, Peraea and Galilee are connected. [Pg 73]\nIn that passage the single places are mentioned which Tiglath-pilezer\ntook; then, the whole districts, \"Gilead and Galilee, the whole land of\nNaphtali.\" By the latter words, that part of Galilee is made especially\nprominent upon which the catastrophe fell most severely and completely.\nIn the phrase, \"Galilee of the Gentiles,\" Galilee is a geographical\ndesignation which was already current at the time of the Prophet. There\nis no reason for fixing the extent of ancient Galilee differently from\nthat of the more modern Galilee,--for assigning to it a more limited\nextent. We are told in 1 Kings ix. 11, that the twenty cities which\nSolomon gave to Hiram lay in the land of _Galil_, but not that the\ncountry was limited to them. The qualification, \"of the Gentiles,\" is\nnowhere else met with in the Old Testament; it is peculiar to the\nProphet. It serves as a hint to point out in what the disgrace of\nGalilee and Peraea consisted. This _Theodoret_ also saw. He says: \"He\ncalls it 'Galilee of the Gentiles'because it was inhabited by other\ntribes along with the Jews; for this reason, he says also of the\ninhabitants of those countries, that they were walking in darkness, and\nspeaks of the inhabitants of that land as living in the shadow and land\nof death, and promises the brightness of heavenly light.\" It is of no\nsmall importance to observe that Isaiah does not designate Galilee\naccording to what it was at the time when this prophecy was uttered,\n_but according to what it was to become in future_. The distress by the\nGentiles appears in chap. vii. and viii. everywhere as a _future one_.\nAt the time when the Prophet prophesied, the Jewish territory still\nexisted in its integrity. In vers. 4, and 5-7, he announces Asshur's\ninroad into the land of Israel as a _future one_; in the present\nmoment, it was the kingdom of the ten tribes in connection with Aram\nwhich attacked and threatened Judea. The superior power of the world\nwhich, according to the clear foresight of the Prophet, was\nthreatening, could not but be sensibly felt in the North and East. For\nthese formed the border parts against the Asiatic world's power; it was\nfrom that quarter that its invasions commonly took place; and it was to\nbe expected that there, in the first instance, the Gentiles would\nestablish themselves, just as, in former times, they had maintained\nthemselves longest there; comp. Judges i. 30-38; _Keil_ on 1 Kings ix.\n11. But very soon after this, [Pg 74] the name \"Galilee of the\nGentiles\" ceased to be one merely prophetical; Tiglathpilezer carried\nthe inhabitants of Galilee and Gilead into exile, 2 Kings xv. 29. _At a\nlater period_, when the Greek empire \"peopled Palestine, in the most\nattractive places, with new cities, restored many which, in consequence\nof the destructive wars, had fallen into decay, filled all of them,\nmore or less, with Greek customs and institutions, and, along with the\nnewly-opened extensive commerce and traffic, everywhere spread Greek\nmanners also,\" this change was chiefly limited to Galilee and Peraea;\nJudea remained free from it; comp. _Ewald_, _Geschichte Israels_, iii.\n2 S. 264 ff. In 1 Maccab. v. Galaaditis and Galilee appear as those\nparts of the country where the existence of the Jews is almost\nhopelessly endangered by the Gentiles living in the midst of, and mixed\nup with them. What is implied in \"Galilee of the Gentiles\" may be\nlearned from that chapter, where even the _expression_ reverts in ver.\n15. With external dependence upon the Gentiles, however, the spiritual\ndependence went hand in hand. These parts of the country could the less\noppose any great resistance to the influences of heathendom, that they\nwere separated, by a considerable distance, from the religious centre\nof the nation--the temple and _metropolis_, in which the higher\nIsraelitish life was concentrated. A consequence of this degeneracy was\nthe contempt in which the Galileans were held at the time of Christ,\nJohn i. 47, vii. 52; Matt. xxvi. 69.--But in what consisted the\n_honour_ or the _glorification_ which Galilee, along with Peraea, was\nto obtain in the after-time? Chap. ix. 5 (6), where the deliverance and\nsalvation announced in the preceding verses are connected with the\nperson of the _Redeemer_, show that we must not seek for it in any\nother than that of the Messianic time. Our Lord spent the greater part\nof His public life in the neighbourhood of the lake of Gennesareth; it\nwas there that Capernaum--His ordinary residence--was situated, Matt.\nix. 1. From Galilee were most of His disciples. In Galilee He performed\nmany _miracles_; and it was there that the preaching of the Gospel\nfound much entrance, so that even the name of the Galileans passed over\nin the first centuries to the Christians. _Theodoret_ strikingly\nremarks: \"Galilee was the native country of the holy Apostles; there\nthe [Pg 75] Lord performed most of His miracles; there He cleansed the\nleper; there He gave back to the centurion his servant sound; there He\nremoved the fever from Peter's wife's mother; there He brought back to\nlife the daughter of Jairus who was dead; there He multiplied the\nloaves; there He changed the water into wine.\" Very aptly has\n_Gesenius_ compared Micah v. 1 (2). Just as in that passage the birth\nof the Messiah is to be for the honour of the small, unimportant\nBethlehem, so here Galilee, which hitherto was covered with disgrace,\nwhich was reproached by the Jews, that there no prophet had ever risen,\nis to be brought to honour, and to be glorified by the appearance of\nthe Messiah. It was from the passage under review that the opinion of\nthe Jews was derived, that the Messiah would appear in the land of\nGalilee. Comp. _Sohar_, p. 1. fol. 119 ed. Amstelod.; fol. 74 ed.\nSolisbae: [Hebrew: baret dglil itgli mlka mwita]. \"King Messiah will\nreveal himself in the land of Galilee.\" But we must beware of putting\nprophecy and fulfilment into a merely accidental outward relation, of\nchanging the former into a mere foretelling, and of supposing, in\nreference to the latter, that, unless the letter of the prophecy had\nexisted, Jesus might as well have made Judea the exclusive scene of His\nministry. Both prophecy and history are overruled by a higher idea, by\nthe truth absolutely valid in reference to the Church of the Lord, that\nwhere the distress is greatest, help is nearest. If it was established\nthat the misery of the covenant-people, both outward and spiritual, was\nespecially concentrated in Galilee, then it is also sure that He who\nwas sent to the lost sheep of Israel must devote His principal care\njust to that part of the country. The prophecy is not exhausted by the\none fulfilment; and the fulfilment is a new prophecy. Wheresoever in\nthe Church we perceive a new Galilee of the Gentiles, we may, upon the\nground of this passage, confidently hope that the saving activity of\nthe Lord will gloriously display itself.\n\n\n\n\nChap. ix. 1 (2). \"_The people that walk in darkness see a great light,\nthey that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them light\nariseth._\"\n\n\"The people\" are the inhabitants of the countries mentioned in the\npreceding verse; but they are not viewed in contrast to, and exclusive\nof the other members of the covenant-people,--for [Pg 76] according to\nchap. viii. 22, darkness is to cover the whole of it--but only as that\nportion which comes chiefly into consideration. _Light_ is, in the\nsymbolical language of Scripture, salvation. That in which the\n_salvation_ here consists cannot be determined from the words\nthemselves, but must follow from the context. It will not be possible\nto deny that, according to it, the darkness consists, in the first\ninstance, in the oppression by the Gentiles, and, hence, salvation\nconsists in the _deliverance_ from this oppression, and in being raised\nto the dominion of the world; and in ver. 2 (3) ff., we have, indeed,\nthe farther displaying of the light, or deliverance. But it will be as\nlittle possible to deny that the sad companion of outward oppression by\nthe Gentile world is the _spiritual_ misery of the inward dependence\nupon it. _Farther_,--It is as certain that the elevation of the\ncovenant-people to the dominion of the world cannot take place all on a\nsudden, and without any farther ceremony, inasmuch as, according to a\nfundamental view of the Old Testament, all outward deliverance appears\nas depending upon conversion and regeneration. \"Thou returnest,\" so we\nread in Deut. xxx. 2, 3, \"to the Lord thy God, and the Lord thy God\nturneth to thy captivity.\" And in the same chapter, vers. 6, 7: \"The\nLord thy God circumciseth thy heart, and _then_ the Lord thy God\nputteth all these curses upon thine enemies.\" Before Gideon is called\nto be the deliverer of the people from Midian, the Prophet must first\nhold up their sin to the people, Judg. vi. 8 ff., and Gideon does not\nbegin his work with a struggle against the outward enemies, but must,\nfirst of all, as Jerubbabel, declare war against sin. All the\nprosperous periods in the people's history are, at the same time,\nperiods of spiritual revival. We need only think of David, Jehoshaphat,\nand Hezekiah. Outward deliverance always presents itself in history as\nan _addition_ only which is bestowed upon those seeking after the\nkingdom of God. Without the inward foundation, the bestowal of the\noutward blessing would be only a mockery, inasmuch as the holy God\ncould not but immediately take away again what He had given. But the\ncircumstance that it is the _outward_ salvation, the deliverance from\nthe heathen servitude, the elevation of the people of God to the\ndominion of the world, as in Christ it so gloriously took [Pg 77]\nplace, which are here, in the first instance, looked at, is easily\naccounted for from the historical cause of this prophetic discourse\nwhich, _in the first instance, is directed against the fears of the\ndestruction of the kingdom of God by the world's power_. Ps. xxiii. 4;\n\"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear\nno evil; for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff they comfort me,\"\nmust so much the more he considered as the fundamental passage of the\nverse under consideration, that the Psalm, too, refers to the whole\nChristian Church. It was in the appearance of Christ, and the salvation\nbrought through Him, in the midst of the deepest misery, that this\nPsalm found its most glorious confirmation.--[Hebrew: clmvt], \"darkness\nof death,\" is the darkness which prevails in death or in Sheol. Such\ncompositions commonly occur in proper names only, not in appellatives;\nand hence, by \"the land of the darkness (shadow) of death,\" hell is to\nbe understood. But darkness of hell is, by way of a shortened\ncomparison, not unfrequently used for designating the deepest darkness.\nThe point of comparison is here furnished by the first member of the\nverse. Parallel is Ps. lxxxviii. 4 ff., where Israel laments that the\nLord had thrust it down into dark hell. The Preterite tense of the\nverbs in our verse is to be explained from the prophetical view which\nconverts the Future into the Present. How little soever modern exegesis\ncan realise this seeing by, and in faith, and how much soever it is\neverywhere disposed to introduce the _real_ Present instead of the\n_ideal_, yet even _Ewald_ is compelled to remark on the passage under\nconsideration: \"The Prophet, as if he were describing something which\nin his mind he had seen as certain long ago, here represents everything\nin the past, and scarcely makes an exception of this in the new start\nwhich he takes in the middle.\" At the time when the Prophet uttered\nthis Prophecy, even the _darkness_ still belonged to the future. As yet\nthe world's power had not gained the ascendancy over Israel; but here\nthe light has already dispelled the darkness.\n\nIt now merely remains for us to view more particularly the quotation of\nthese two verses in Matt. iv. 12-17. [Greek: Akousas de]--thus the\nsection begins--[Greek: hoti I\u00f4ann\u00eas paredoth\u00ea, anech\u00f4r\u00easen eis t\u00ean\nGalilaian.] Since, in these words, we are told that Jesus, after having\nreceived the intelligence of the imprisonment of [Pg 78] John, withdrew\ninto Galilee, we cannot for a moment think of His having sought in\nGalilee, safety from Herod; for Galilee just belonged to Herod, and\nJudea afforded security against him. The verb [Greek: anach\u00f4rein]\ndenotes, on the contrary, the withdrawing into the _angulus terrae_\nGalilee, as contrasted with the civil and ecclesiastical centre. The\n_time_ of the beginning of Christ's preaching (His ministry hitherto\nhad been merely a kind of prelude) was determined by the imprisonment\nof John, as certainly as, according to the prophecy of the Old\nTestament, the territories of the activity of both were immediately\nbordering upon one another, and by that very circumstance _the place_,\ntoo, was indirectly determined; for it was fixed by the prophecy under\nconsideration that Galilee was to be the scene of the chief ministry of\nChrist. If, then, the time for the beginning of the ministry had come,\nHe must also depart into Galilee. The connection, therefore, is this:\nAfter he had received the intelligence of the imprisonment of John--in\nwhich the call to Him for the beginning of His ministry was implied--He\ndeparted into Galilee, and especially to Capernaum, vers. 12, 13; for\nit was this part of the country which, by the prophecy, was fixed as\nthe main scene of His Messianic activity, vers. 14-16. It was there,\ntherefore, that He continued the preaching of John, ver. 17.--[Greek:\nKai katalip\u00f4n t\u00ean Nazaret]--it is said in ver. 13--[Greek: elth\u00f4n\nkat\u00f4k\u00easen eis Kapernaoum t\u00ean parathalassian, en horiois Zaboul\u00f4n kai\nNephthaleim.] Christ had hitherto had His settled abode at Nazareth,\nand thence undertook His wanderings. The immediate reason why He did\nnot remain there is not stated by Matthew; but we learn it from Luke\nand John. In accordance with his object, Matthew takes cognizance of\nthis one circumstance only, that, according to the prophecy of the Old\nTestament, Capernaum was very specially fitted for being the residence\nof Christ. The town was situated on the western shore of the Lake of\nGennesareth. Quite in opposition to his custom elsewhere, Matthew\ndescribes the situation of the town 80 minutely, because this knowledge\nserved to afford a better insight into the fulfilment of the prophecy\nof the Old Testament. The designation [Greek: t\u00ean parathalassian]\nstands in reference to [Greek: hodon thalass\u00eas], in ver. 15. [Greek: En\nhoriois], &c., may either mean: \"In the borders of Zebulun and\nNaphtali,\" _i. e._ in that place where [Pg 79] the borders of both the\ncountries meet,--or [Greek: ta horia] may, according to the analogy of\nthe Hebrew [Hebrew: gbvliM], denote the borders in the sense of\n\"territory,\" as in Matt. ii. 16. From a comparison of [Greek: g\u00ea\nZaboul\u00f4n kai Nephthaleim] of the prophecy in ver. 15, to which the\nwords stand in direct reference, it follows that the latter view is the\ncorrect one. Whether Capernaum lay just on the borders between the two\ncountries was of no consequence to the prophecy, and hence was of none\nto Matthew.--The phrase [Greek: hina pl\u00ear\u00f4th\u00ea] does not, according to\nthe very sound remark of _De Wette_, point to the intention, but to the\nobjective aim. The question, however, is to what the [Greek: hina\npl\u00ear\u00f4th\u00ea] is to be referred,--whether merely to that which immediately\nprecedes, viz., the change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, or,\nat the same time to [Greek: anech\u00f4r\u00easen eis t\u00ean Galilaian]. The latter\nis alone correct. The prophecy which the Evangelist has in view\nreferred mainly to Galilee, or the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali in\ngeneral; but, according to the express remark of the Evangelist,\nNazareth itself was likewise situated in Galilee. The advantage which\nCapernaum had over it was this only, that in Capernaum the [Greek:\nhodon thalass\u00eas] of the prophecy was found again, and that, therefore,\nthence the [Greek: peran tou Iordanou] of the prophecy also could be\nbetter realized, inasmuch as across the lake there was an easy\ncommunication from that place with the country beyond Jordan. The\nconnection is hence this: After the imprisonment of the Baptist, Jesus,\nin order to enter upon His ministry, went to Galilee, and especially to\nCapernaum, which was situated on the lake, in order that thus the\nprophecy of Isaiah as to the glorification of Galilee, and of the\nregion on the lake, might be fulfilled.--Matthew has abridged the\npassage. From chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1) he has taken the designation of\nthe part of the country, in order that the agreement of fulfilment and\nprophecy might become visible. The words from [Greek: g\u00ea--t\u00f4n ethn\u00f4n]\nmay either be regarded as a fragment taken out of its connection,\nso that they are viewed as a quotation, and as forming a period by\nthemselves (this, from a comparison of the original, seems most\nnatural);--or we may also suppose, that the Evangelist, having\nbroken-up the connection with the preceding, puts these words into a\nnew connection, so that, along with the [Greek: ho laos], which has\nbecome an apposition, they form [Pg 80] the subject of the following\nsentence. At all events, [Greek: hodon] takes here the place of the\nadverb, although it may not be possible to adduce instances and proofs\naltogether analogous from the Greek _usus loquendi_.--The confidence\nwith which Matthew explains chap. viii. 23, and ix. 1 of Christ can be\naccounted for only from the circumstance that he recognized Christ as\nHe who in chap. ix. 5, 6, (6, 7) is described as the author of all the\nblessings designated in the preceding verses. It was therefore\naltogether erroneous in _Gesenius_ to assert that there was the less\nreason for holding the Messianic explanation of chap. ix. 5, 6, as\nthere was no testimony of the New Testament in favour of it.--It is\nquite obvious that Matthew does not quote the Old Testament prophecy in\nreference to any single special event which happened at Capernaum; but\nthat rather the whole following account of the glorious deeds of Christ\nin Galilee, as well as in Peraea, down to chap. xix. 1, serves to mark\nthe fulfilment of this Old Testament prophecy, and is subservient to\nthis quotation. _This passage of Matthew explains the reason, why it is\nthat he, and Luke and Mark who closely follow him, report henceforth,\nuntil the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, exclusively facts which\nhappened in Galilee, and in Peraea, which likewise was mentioned by\nIsaiah._ The circumstance that this fact, which is so obvious, was not\nperceived, has called forth a number of miserable conjectures, and has\neven led some interpreters to assail the credibility of the Gospel. To\nMatthew, who wished to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah\npromised in the Old Testament, the interest must, in the view of the\nprophecy under consideration, be necessarily concentrated upon Galilee;\nand Mark and Luke followed him in this, perceiving that it was not\nbecoming to them to open up a path altogether new. This was reserved to\nthe second Apostle from among the Evangelists.\n\nVer. 2 (3). \"_Thou multipliest the nation to which thou didst not\nincrease the joy; they joy before thee like the joy in harvest, and as\nthey rejoice when they divide the spoil._\"\n\nThe Prophet beholds the joy of the Messianic time as present; he\nbeholds the covenant-people numerous, free from all misery, and full of\njoy; full of delight he turns to the Lord, and praises Him for what He\nhas done to His people.--One [Pg 81] of the privileges of the people of\nGod is the increase which at all times takes place after they are\nsifted and thinned by judgments. Thus, _e.g._, it happened at the time\nafter their return from the captivity, comp. Ps. cvii. 38, 39: \"And He\nblesseth them, and they are multiplied greatly, and He suffereth not\ntheir cattle to decrease. They who were minished and brought low\nthrough affliction, oppression, and sorrow.\" But this increase took\nplace most gloriously at the time of Christ, when a numerous multitude\nof adopted sons from among the Gentiles were received into the Church\nof God, and thus the promise to Abraham: \"I will make of thee a great\nnation\" ([Hebrew: gvi] as in the passage before us, and not [Hebrew:\neM]), received its final fulfilment. From the arguments which we\nadvanced in Vol. i. on Hosea ii. 1, it appears that the increase which\nthe Church received by the reception of the Gentiles is, according\nto the biblical view, to be considered as an increase of the people\nof Israel. The fundamental thought of Ps. lxxxvii. is: Zion the\nbirth-place of the nations; by the new birth the Gentiles are received\nin Israel. The manner in which the Gentiles show their anxiety to be\nreceived in Israel is described by Isaiah in chap. xliv. 5. The\ncommentary on the words: \"Thou multipliest the nation,\" is furnished to\nus by chap. liv. 1 ff., where, in immediate connection with the\nprophecy regarding the Servant of God who bears the sin of the world,\nit is said: \"Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into\nsinging, and shout thou that didst not travail with child; for more are\nthe children of the desolate than the children of the married wife,\nsaith the Lord.\" Comp. also chap. lxvi. 7-9, and Ezek. xxxvii. 25, 26:\n\"And my servant David shall be their prince for ever. And I make a\ncovenant with them and multiply them.\" Several interpreters, _e. g._\n_Calvin_, _Vitringa_, suppose that the Prophet in this verse (and so\nlikewise in the two following verses) speaks, in the first instance, of\na nearer prosperity, of the rapid increase of the people after the\nBabylonish captivity. _Vitringa_ directs attention to the fact, that\nthe Jewish people after the captivity did not only fill Judea, but\nspread also in Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Greece, and\nItaly. And surely we cannot deny that in this increase, no less than in\nthe new flourishing of the people after the defeat of Sennacherib also,\nthere is a _prelude_ to the real fulfilment; [Pg 82] and that so much\nthe more that these precursory increases, happening, as they did,\nregularly after the decreases, were bestowed upon the covenant-people\nwith a view to the future appearance of Christ. These increases enter\ninto a still closer relation to the prophecy under consideration, if we\nkeep in mind that in chap. vii. the Prophet anticipates in spirit the\nappearance of Christ, and that it is with this representation that, in\nthe Section before us, chap. viii. 8, 10 are connected. In order to\nrefute the explanation of _Umbriet_: \"Thou hast multiplied the\n_heathen_, and thereby thou hast removed all joy; but now,\" &c., it\nwill be quite sufficient to refer to the parallel passage, chap. xxvi.\n15: \"Thou increasest the _people_, O Lord, thou art glorified, thou\nremovest all the boundaries of the land,\" where, just as in the verse\nbefore us, by [Hebrew: hgvi] \"the people,\" Israel is designated; and\nthat is frequently the case where the notion of the multitude, the mass\nonly is concerned, comp. Gen. xii. 2.--\"_Thou didst not increase the\njoy_\" stands for: to whom thou formerly didst not increase the joy, to\nwhom thou gavest but little joy, upon whom thou inflictedst severe\nsufferings. The antithesis is quite the same as in chap. viii. 23 (ix.\n1), where the former distress is contrasted with the light which is now\nto shine upon them, the former disgrace with the later glory; and in\nthe same manner in chap. ix. 1 (2), where the present _light_ is\nrendered brighter by being contrasted with the former _darkness_. The\ncontrast of the present _increase_ with the former absence of joys\nshows that the joy is to be viewed as being connected with the\nincrease, and that if formerly the joy was less, the reason of it was\nchiefly in the _decrease_. Ps. cvii. 38, 39, 41, shews how affliction\nand decrease, joy and increase, go hand in hand; farther, Jerem. xxx.\n19: \"And out of them proceed thanksgivings, and the voice of the merry\nones; and I multiply them, and they do not decrease; and I honour them,\nand they are not small.\" The decrease is a single symptom only of a\ndepressed, joyless condition, which everywhere in the kingdom of God\nshall be brought to an end by Christ. Most of the ancient translators\n(LXX., Chald., Syr.) follow the marginal reading [Hebrew: lv], \"_to\nhim_\" hast thou increased the joy. According to many modern\ninterpreters, [Hebrew: la] is supposed to be a different mode of\nwriting for [Hebrew: lv]. But no _proof_ that could stand the test can\nbe brought forward for [Pg 83] such a mode of writing; nor is there any\nreason for supposing that [Hebrew: la] stands here in a different sense\nfrom what it does in chap. viii. 23, and it would indeed be strange\nthat [Hebrew: lv] should have been placed before the verb. At most, it\nmight be supposed that the Prophet intended an ambiguous and double\nsense: not/(to him) didst thou increase the joy. But altogether apart\nfrom such an ambiguous and double sense, behind the negative, at all\nevents, the positive is concealed; thou multipliest the people, and\nincreasest to them the joy, thou who formerly didst decrease their joy,\n&c.; and it is to this positive that the words refer which, in Luke ii.\n10, the angels address to the shepherds: [Greek: m\u00ea phobeisthe, idou\ngar euangelizomai humin charan megal\u00ean h\u00eatis estai panti t\u00f4 la\u00f4 hoti\netechth\u00ea humin s\u00eameron s\u00f4t\u00ear, hos esti Christos Kurios]; comp. Matth.\nii. 10.--In the following words, the Prophet expresses, in the first\ninstance, the nature of the joy, then its greatness. The joy over the\nblessings received is a joy _before God_, under a sense of His\nimmediate presence. The expression is borrowed from the sacrificial\nfeasts in the courts before the sanctuary, at which the partakers\nrejoiced _before the Lord_, Deut. xii. 7, 12, 18, xiv. 26. In Immanuel,\nGod with his blessings and gifts has truly entered into the midst of\nHis people. With the joy at _the dividing of the spoil_, the joy is\ncompared only to show its greatness, just as with the joy _in the\nharvest_; and it is in vain that Knobel tries here to bring in a\ndividing of spoil.\n\nVers. 3, (4). \"_For the yoke of his burden and the staff of his neck,\nthe rod of his driver thou hast broken as in the day of Midian._\"\n\nIn this verse, the reason of the people's joy announced in the\npreceding verse is stated: it is the deliverance from the world's\npower, under the oppression of which they groaned, or, in point of\nfact, were to groan. He who imposes the _yoke_ and the _staff_, the\n_driver_, (an allusion to the Egyptian taskmasters, masters, comp.\nExod. iii. 7; v. 10), is Asshur, and the _whole_ world's power hostile\nto the Kingdom of God, which is represented by him, and which by Christ\nwas to receive, and has received, a mortal blow. A prelude to the\nfulfilment took place by the defeat of Sennacherib under Hezekiah,\ncomp. chap. x. 5, 24, 27; xiv. 25. After him. Babel had to experience\n[Pg 84] the destructive power of the Lord, the single phases of which,\npervading, as they do, all history, are here comprehended in one great\nact. Although the definitive fulfilment begins first with the\nappearance of Christ in the flesh, who spoke to His people: [Greek:\ntharseite, eg\u00f4 nenik\u00eaka ton kosmon], yet after what we remarked on ver.\n2, we are fully entitled to consider the former catastrophes also of\nthe kingdoms of the world as preludes to the real fulfilment.--[Hebrew:\nwkM] \"shoulder\" does not suit as the _membrum cui verbera infliguntur_;\nit comes, as is commonly the case, into consideration as that member\nwith which burdens are borne. The _staff_ or tyranny is a heavy\n_burden_, comp. chap. x. 27: \"His burden shall be taken away from\noff thy shoulder.\" \"_As in the day of Midian_\" is equivalent to: as\nthou once didst break the yoke of Midian. This event was especially\nfitted to serve as a type of the glorious future victory over the\nworld's power, partly because the oppression by Midian was very\nhard,--according to Judges vii. 12, Midian, Amalek, and the sons of\nthe East broke in upon the land like grasshoppers for multitude, and\ntheir camels were without number, as the sand by the seaside for\nmultitude--partly because the help of the Lord (_thou_ hast broken) was\nat that time specially visible. \"I will be with thee,\" says the Lord to\nGideon in Judges vi. 16, \"and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one\nman;\" and Judges vii. 2: \"The people that are with thee are too many,\nas that I could give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt\nthemselves against me, saying: Mine own hand hath saved me.\"\n\nVers. 4, (5). \"_For every war-shoe put on with noise, and the garment\nrolled in blood: it is for burning, food of fire._\"\n\nWe have here the reason why the tyranny is broken: _for_ the enemies of\nthe Kingdom of God shall entirely and for ever be rendered incapable of\ncarrying on warfare. If the noisy war-shoes, and their blood-stained\ngarments are to be burned, they themselves must, of course, have been\npreviously destroyed. But, if that be the case, then all war and\ntyranny are come to an end, \"for the dead do not live, and the shades\ndo not rise,\" chap. xxvi. 14. The parallel passages, Ps. xlvi. 10, and\nEzek. xxxix. 9, 10, do not permit us to doubt that the burning of the\nwar-shoes and of the bloody garments come into consideration here as a\nconsequence of the destruction of [Pg 85] the conquerors. Nor can we,\naccording to these passages, entertain, for a moment, the idea of\n_Meier_, that those bloody garments belong to _Israel_.\n\nVers. 5 (6). \"_For unto us a child is horn, unto us a son is given, and\nthe government is upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called\nWonder-Counsellor, God-Hero, Ever-Father, Prince of Peace._\"\n\nThe Prophet had hitherto spoken only of the salvation which is to\nspread from Galilee over the rest of the country; it is first here that\nits author, in all His sublime glory, comes before him; and, having\ncome to him, the prophecy rises to exalted feelings of joy. In chap.\nvii. 14, the Prophet beholds the Saviour as being already born; hence\nthe Preterites [Hebrew: ild] and [Hebrew: ntN]. If any one should\nimagine that from the use of these Preterites he were entitled to infer\nthat the subject of the prophecy must, at that time, already have been\nborn, he must also, on account of the Preterites in vers. 1 (2) suppose\nthat the announced salvation had at that time been already bestowed\nupon Israel,--which no interpreter does. _Hitzig_ correctly remarks:\n\"Because He is still _future_, the Prophet in His first appearance,\nbeholds Him as a child, and as the son of another.\" _Whose_ son He is\nwe are not told; but it is supposed to be already known. Ever since the\nrevelation in 2 Sam. vii., the Messiah could be conceived of as the Son\nof David only; compare the words: \"Upon the throne of David\" in vers. 6\n(7), and chap. xi. 1, lv. 3. As the Son of God the Saviour appears as\nearly as in Ps. ii.; and it is to that Psalm that the \"God-Hero\"\nalludes, and connects itself. Alluding to the passage before us, we\nread in John iii. 16: [Greek: hout\u00f4 gar \u00eagap\u00easen ho theos ton kosmon]\n(\"The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this,\") vers. 6 [7],\n[Greek: h\u00f4ste ton huion autou ton monogen\u00ea ed\u00f4ken].--When grown up, the\nSon has the government upon His shoulder. The Prophet contrasts Christ\nwith the _world's power_, which threatened destruction to the people of\nGod. This, then, refers to the _Kingly office_ of Christ, and the state\nof glory. Parallel is the declaration of Christ in Matt. xxviii. 18,\n[Greek: edoth\u00ea moi pasa exousia]. The Lord has also, in John xviii. 37,\nconfirmed the truth that He is _King_; and it is upon the ground of His\nown declaration that Pilate designates Him upon the cross as a King.\nAlthough His Kingdom is not of [Pg 86] this world, John xviii. 36, it\nis, just for that very reason, so much the more all-governing. The\n[Greek: enteuthen] in that passage is contrasted with the words \"from\nheaven\" in Dan. ii., by which, in that passage, its absolute\nsuperiority over all the kingdoms of the world, and its crushing power\nare declared to be indissolubly connected.--\"_The shoulder_\" comes,\nhere also, as in vers. 3 (4), chap. x. 27, into consideration in so far\nas on it we _bear_; comp. Gen. xlix. 15; Ps. lxxxi. 7. The bearer of an\noffice has it, as it were, on his shoulders.--The Jewish interpreters,\ndespairing of being able, with any appearance of truth, to apply the\nfollowing attributes to Hezekiah, insist that, with the exception of\nthe last, they denote Him who calls, not Him who is called: the\nWonderful, &c., called him Prince of peace. Altogether apart from the\nconsideration that this is in opposition to the accents, the mentioning\nof so many names of Jehovah is here quite unsuitable; and, in all other\npassages, the noun put after [Hebrew: wmv qra] designates always him\nwho is called. Modern Exegesis has tried everything with a view to\ndeprive the names of their deep meaning, in order to adapt them to a\nMessiah in the ordinary Jewish sense, hence, to do that of which the\nJews themselves had already despaired. But, in doing so, they have\nconsidered the names too much by themselves, overlooking the\ncircumstance that the full and deeper meaning of the individual\nattributes, as it at first sight presents itself, must, in the\nconnection in which they here occur, be so much the rather held fast.\nThe names are completed in the number _four_,--the mark of that which\nis complete and finished. _They form two pairs, and every single name\nis again compounded of two names._ The first name is [Hebrew: pla\niveC]. That these two words must be _connected_ with one another\n(_Theodor._--[Greek: thaumast\u00f4s bouleu\u00f4n]) appears from the analogy of\nthe other names, especially of [Hebrew: al gbvr] with whom [Hebrew: pla\niveC] forms one pair; and then from the circumstance that [Hebrew:\niveC] alone would, in this connection, be too indefinite. The words do\nnot stand in the relation of the _Status constructus_, but are\nconnected in the same manner as [Hebrew: pra adM] in Gen. xvi. 12.\n[Hebrew: iveC] designates the attribute which is here concerned, while\n[Hebrew: pla] points out the supernatural, superhuman degree in which\nthe King possesses this attribute, and the infinite riches of\nconsolation and help which are to be found in such [Pg 87] a King. As a\n_Counsellor_, He is a _Wonder_, absolutely elevate d above everything\nwhich the earth possesses in excellency of counselling. As [Hebrew:\npla] commonly denotes \"wonder\" in the strictest sense (comp. chap. xxv.\n1: \"I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name, for thou hast done\nwonders,\" Ps. lxxvii. 15: \"Thou art the God that doest wonders;\" Exod.\nxv. 11); as it here stands in parallelism with [Hebrew: al] God; as the\nwhole context demands that we should take the words in their full\nmeaning;--we can consider it only as an arbitrary weakening of the\nsense, that several interpreters explain [Hebrew: pla iveC]\n\"extraordinary Counsellor.\" Parallel is Judges xiii. 18 where the Angel\nof the Lord, after having announced the birth of Samson, says: \"Why\naskest thou thus after my name?--it is wonderful,\" [Hebrew: plai],\n_i.e._, my whole nature is wonderful, of unfathomable depth, and\ncannot, therefore, be expressed by any human name. _Farther_--Revel.\nxix. 12 is to be compared, where Christ has a name written that no man\nknows but He himself, to intimate the immeasurable glory of His nature.\nThat which is here, in the first instance, said of a single attribute\nof the King, applies, at the same time, to all others, holds true of\nHis whole nature; the King is a Wonder as a Counsellor, because His\nwhole person is wonderful. A proof, both of the connection of the two\nwords, and against the weakening of the sense, is afforded by the\nparallel passage, chap. xxviii. 29, where it is said of the Most\nHigh God [Hebrew: hplia ech], \"He shows himself wonderful in His\ncounsel.\"--The second name is [Hebrew: al gbvr] \"God-Hero.\" Besides the\nability of giving good counsel, a good government requires also\n[Hebrew: gbvrh] strength, heroic power: comp. chap. xi. 2, according to\nwhich the spirit of counsel and strength rest upon the Messiah. What\nmay not be expected from a King who not only, like a David in a higher\ndegree, possesses the greatest _human measure_ of heroic strength, but\nwho is also a _God-Hero_, and a _Hero-God_, so that with His appearance\nthere _disappears_ completely the contrast of the invisible Head of the\npeople of God, and of His visible substitute,--a contrast which so\noften manifested itself, to the great grief of the covenant-people? The\nGod-Hero forms the contrast to a human hero whose heroic might is,\nafter all, always _limited_, [Hebrew: al gbvr] can signify God-Hero\nonly, a Hero who is infinitely exalted above all human heroes [Pg 88]\nby the circumstance that He is _God_. To the attempts at weakening the\nimport of the name, chap. x. 21, where [Hebrew: al gbvr] is said of the\nMost High, appears a very inconvenient obstacle,--a parallel passage\nwhich does not occur by chance, but where [Hebrew: war iwvb] stands\nwith an intentional reference to chap. vii.: \"The remnant shall return,\nthe remnant of Jacob, unto the Hero-God,\" who is furnished with\ninvincible strength for His people; comp. Ps. xxiv. 8: \"The Lord strong\nand a hero, the Lord a hero of war.\" The older Rationalistic exposition\nendeavoured to set aside the deity of the Messiah by the explanation:\n\"strong hero.\" So also did _Gesenius_. This explanation, against which\nchap. x. 21 should have warned, has been for ever set aside by the\nremark of _Hitzig_: \"Commonly, in opposition to all the _usus\nloquendi_, the word is translated by: _strong hero_. But [Hebrew: al]\nis always, even in passages such as Gen. xxxi. 29, \"God,\" and in all\nthose passages which are adduced to prove that it means \"_princeps_,\"\n\"_potens_,\" the forms are to be derived not from [Hebrew: al], but from\n[Hebrew: ail], which properly means 'ram,'then 'leader,''prince.'\" By\nthis explanation, especially the passage Ezek. xxxii. 21, which had\nformerly been appealed to in support of the translation \"strong hero,\"\nis set aside; for the [Hebrew: ali gbvriM] of that passage are \"rams of\nheroes.\" Rationalistic interpreters now differ in their attempts at\ngetting rid of the troublesome fact. _Hitzig_ says, \"Strong God\"--he\nerroneously views [Hebrew: gbvr], which always means \"hero,\" as an\nadjective--\"the future deliverer is called by the oriental not strictly\nseparating the Divine and human, and He is called so by way of\nexaggeration, in so far as He possesses divine qualities.\" A like\nopinion is expressed by _Knobel_: \"Strong God the Messiah is called,\nbecause in the wars with the Gentiles He will prove himself as a hero\nequipped with divine strength.\" The expression proves a divine nature\nas little as when in Ps. lxxxii. 1-6, comp. John x. 34, 35, kings are,\nin general, called [Hebrew: alhiM], \"gods, _Like_ God, to be compared\nto Him, a worthy representative of Him, and hence, likewise, called\nGod.\" It is true that there is one [Hebrew: al gbvr] only, and that,\naccording to chap. x. 21, the Messiah cannot be [Hebrew: al gbvr]\nbeside the Most High God, excepting _by partaking in his nature_. Such\na participation in the nature, not His being merely filled with the\npower of [Pg 89] God, is absolutely required to explain the expression.\nIt is true that in the Law of Moses all those who have to command or to\njudge, all those to whom, for some reason or other, respect or\nreverence is due, are consecrated as the representatives of God on\nearth; _e.g._, a court of justice is of God, and he who appears before\nit appears before God. But the name _Elohim_ is there given _in general\nonly to the judicial court_, which represents God--to the _office_, not\nto the single individuals who are invested with it. In Ps. lxxxii. 1,\nthe name _Elohim_ in the expression: \"He judgeth among the gods\" is\ngiven to the single, judging individual; comp. also ver. 6; but this\npassage forms an isolated exception. To explain, from it, the passage\nbefore us is inadmissible, even from chap. x. 21, where [Hebrew: al\ngbvr] stands in its fullest sense. It must not be overlooked that that\npassage in Ps. lxxxii. belongs to higher poetry; that the author\nhimself there mitigates in ver. 6, in the parallel member, the strength\nof the expression: \"I have said ye are _Elohim_, and sons of the Most\nHigh ye all;\" and, finally, that there _Elohim_ is used as the most\nvague and general name of God, while here _El_, a personal name, is\nused. _Hendewerk_, _Ewald_, and others, finally, explain \"_God's\nhero_,\" _i.e._, \"a divine hero, who, like an invincible God, fights and\nconquers.\" But in opposition to this view, it has been remarked by\n_Meier_ that then necessarily the words ought to run, [Hebrew: gbvr\nal]. It is farther obvious that by this explanation the [Hebrew: gbvr\nal] here is, in a manner not to be admitted, disconnected and severed\nfrom those passages where it occurs as an attribute of the Most High\nGod; comp. besides chap. x. 21; Deut. x. 17; Jer. xxxii. 18.\n\nThe third name is _Father of eternity_. That admits of a double\nexplanation. Several interpreters refer to the Arabic _usus loquendi_,\naccording to which he is called the father of a thing who possesses it;\n_e.g._, Father of mercy, _i.e._, the merciful one. This _usus\nloquendi_, according to the supposition formerly very current, occurs\nin Hebrew very frequently, especially in proper names, _e.g._, [Hebrew:\nTvb abi]. \"Father of goodness,\" _i.e._, the good one. According to this\nview. Father of eternity would be equivalent to Eternal one. According\nto the opinion of others. Father of eternity is _he who will ever be a\nFather_, _an affectionate provider_, comp. chap. xxii. 21, where\nEliakim [Pg 90] is called \"_Father_ to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;\"\nJob xxix. 16; Ps. lxviii. 6. _Luther_, too, thus explains: \"Who at all\ntimes feeds His Kingdom and Church, in whom there is a fatherly love\nwithout end.\" The _latter_ view is to be preferred unconditionally.\nAgainst the former view is the circumstance that all the other names\nstand in direct reference to the salvation of the covenant-people,\nwhile, in the mere eternity, this reference would not distinctly enough\nappear. And it has farther been rightly remarked by _Ewald_, that that\n_usus loquendi_ in Arabic always belongs to the artificial, often to\njocular discourse. Whether it occur in Hebrew at all is still a matter\nof controversy; _Ewald_, \u00a7 27, denies that it occurs in proper names\nalso. On the other hand, the paternal love, the rich kindness and\nmercy, exceedingly well suit the first two names which indicate\nunfathomable _wisdom_, and divine _heroic strength_. The rationalistic\ninterpreters labour very hard to _weaken_ the idea of _eternity_. But\nthe \"Provider for life\" agrees very ill with the _Wonder-Counsellor_,\nand the _God-hero_. The absolute eternity of the Messiah's dominion is,\non the foundation of 2 Sam. vii., most emphatically declared in other\npassages also (comp. vol. i., p. 132, 133), and meets us here again\nimmediately in the following verse. The name Ever-Father, too, leads us\nto _divine Majesty_, comp. chap. xlv. 17: \"Israel is saved by the Lord\nwith an _everlasting_ salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded\nin all _eternity_\" chap. lvii. 15, where God is called [Hebrew:\nwkN ed] \"the ever dwelling;\" farther, Ps. lxviii. 6: \"A _Father_ of\nthe fatherless, and a judge of the widows is God in His holy\nhabitation,\" where the providence of God for the _personae miserabiles_\nis praised with a special reference to that which He does for His poor\npeople.--_Hitzig's_ explanation: \"Father of prey,\" does not suit the\nprophetic style, and has, in general, no analogy from Hebrew to adduce\nin its favour. The circumstance that, in the verse immediately\nfollowing, the eternity of the government is mentioned, shows that\n[Hebrew: ed] must be taken in its ordinary signification \"eternity.\"\n\nThe fourth name, _Prince of peace_, stands purposely at the end, and is\nto be considered as strongly emphatic. War, hostile oppression, the\ndistress of the servitude which threatens the people of God,--these are\nthe things which, in the first instance, [Pg 91] have directed the\nProphet's eye to the Messiah. The name points back to Solomon who\ntypified Christ's dominion of peace, and who himself, in the Song of\nSolomon, transfers his name to Christ (comp. my Comment. S. 1 ff.);\nthen to the Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10 (comp. vol. i, 84, 85). We should\nmisunderstand the name were we to infer from it that, in the Messianic\ntime, all war should cease. Were such to be the case, why is it that,\nimmediately before, the Redeemer is designated as _God-Hero_? Peace is\nthe aim; it is offered to all the nations in Christ; but those who\nreject it, who rise up against His Kingdom, He throws down, as the\nGod-Hero, with a powerful hand, and _obtains by force_ peace for His\npeople. But war, as far as it takes place, is carried on in a form\ndifferent from that which existed under the Old dispensation. According\nto Micah v. 9 (10), ff., the Lord makes His people outwardly\ndefenceless, before they become in Christ world-conquering; comp. vol.\ni., p. 515. According to chap. xi. 4, Christ smiteth the earth with the\nrod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the\nwicked.\n\nVer. 6 (7.) \"_To the increase of the government and to the peace, there\nis no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, so that he\nestablisheth it, and supporteth it by justice and righteousness, from\nhenceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform\nthis._\"\n\nThere is no reason for connecting this verse with the preceding one;\nin which case the sense would be: \"For the increase of government and\nfor peace without end.\" _For_ chap. ii. 7; Nah. ii. 10; Job. xvi.\n3--in which [Hebrew: l] with [Hebrew: qC] occurs in the very same\nsense--clearly show that the [Hebrew: l] in [Hebrew: lwlvM] and\n[Hebrew: lmrbh] may very well be understood as a mere sign of the\nDative. And the objection that the following [Hebrew: lhkiN], &c.\nwould, in that case, be unsuitable, is removed if it be explained: so\nthat He establisheth, &c., or: by His establishing, &c.; comp. _Ewald_,\n_Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache_ \u00a7 280 d. The words designate the basis on\nwhich the increase of government and the peace rest. The Kingdom of God\nwill, through the Redeemer, acquire an ever increasing _extent_, and,\nalong with it, perfect _peace_ shall be enjoyed by the world. For it is\nnot by rude force that this kingdom is to be founded and established,\nas is the case with worldly kingdoms, in which increase of [Pg 92]\ngovernment and peace, far from being always connected, are, on the\ncontrary, irreconcilable opponents, but by _justice_ and\n_righteousness_. Parallel is Ps. lxvii. In vers. 11-15 of that Psalm,\nthe Psalmist just points to that \"by which all nations and kings are\ninduced to do homage to that king; it is just that which, in the whole\nPsalm, appears as the root of everything else, viz., the absolute\njustice of the king.\" _Decrease_ of government and _war_ without end\nwere, meanwhile, in prospect, and they were so, because those who were\nsitting on the throne of David did not support his kingdom by justice\nand righteousness. But the Psalmist intimates to the trembling minds\nthat such is not the end of the ways of God with His people; that at\nlast the idea of the Kingdom of God will be realized. From the\nfundamental passage, Ps. lxxii. 8-11, and parallel passages, such as\nchap. ii. 2, 4; Mic. v. 3 (4); Zech. ix. 10, it is obvious that, as\nregards the endless increase of the government, the Prophet thinks of\nall the nations of the earth. On the _peace_ without end, comp. Ps.\nlxxii. 7; chap. ii. 4; Mic. v. 4 (5), and the words: \"He speaketh peace\nunto the heathen,\" Zech. ix. 10. The [Hebrew: l] designates the\nsubstratum on which the increase of dominion and the peace manifest\nthemselves; the dominion of the Davidic family and its kingdom gain\ninfinitely in extent, and in the same degree peace also increases. In\nthese words the Prophet gives an intimation that the Messiah will\nproceed from David's family, comp. chap. xi. 1 where he designates Him\nas the twig of Jesse.--[Hebrew: hkiN] \"to confirm,\" \"to establish,\"\nused of throne and kingdom, 1 Sam. xiii. 13, comp. 14; 1 Kings ii. 12,\ncomp. ver. 24, and farther, chap. xvi. 5.--The words: \"from henceforth\neven for ever\" do not, as _Umbreit_ supposes, refer to every thing in\nthis verse, but to the words immediately preceding. That the words must\nbe understood in their full sense, we have already proved in our\nremarks on the fundamental passage, 2 Sam. vii. 13: \"And I will\nestablish the throne of His kingdom for ever;\" see Vol. i. p. 131.\n_Michaelis_ says: \"So that that promise to David shall never fail.\" The\n[Hebrew: eth] does not refer to the _actual_, but to the _ideal_\npresent, to the first appearance of the Redeemer, to the words: \"Unto\nus a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government is upon\nHis shoulder.\"--This great change is brought about [Pg 93] by the\n_zeal_ of the Lord who raises this glorious King to His people; comp.\nJohn iii. 16. The zeal in itself is only _energy_; the sphere of its\nexercise is, in every instance, determined by the context. In Exod. xv.\n5; Deut. iv. 24; Nah. i. 2, the zeal is the energy of wrath. In the\npassage before us, as in the Song of Solomon viii. 6, and in chap.\nxxxvii. 32: \"For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and escaped\nones out of Mount Zion; the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this,\"\nthe zeal of God means the energetic character of His love to Zion.\n\nWe must, in conclusion, still make a few remarks, on the interpretation\nof vers. 5 and 6. The older interpreters were unanimous in referring\nthese verses to the Messiah. Even by the Jews, this explanation was\nabandoned at a subsequent period only. To the Messiah this passage is\nreferred by the Chaldean Paraphrast, by the Commentary on Genesis known\nby the name _Breshith Rabbah_ in the exposition of Genesis xli. 44 (see\n_Raim. Martini Pugio fidei_, Vol. iii. sec. 3, chap. xiv. \u00a7 6), by\nRabbi _Jose Galilaeus_ in the book _Ekha Rabbati_, a Commentary on\nLamentations (see _Raim. Matt._ iii. 3 chap. 4, \u00a7 13). _Ben Sira_ (fol.\n40 ed., Amstel. 1679), mentions among the eight names of the Messiah,\nthe following from the passage before us: Wonderful, Counsellor, El\nGibbor, Prince of Peace. But the late Jewish interpreters found it\nobjectionable that the Messiah, in opposition to their doctrinal views,\nwas here described as God; for doctrinal reasons, therefore, they gave\nup the received interpretation, and sought to adapt the passage to\nHezekiah. Among these, however, _Rabbi Lipmann_ allows the Messianic\nexplanation to a certain degree to remain. Acknowledging that the\nprophecy could not refer exclusively to Hezekiah, he extends it to all\nthe successors from the House of David, including the Messiah, by whom\nit is to attain its most perfect fulfilment. Among Christian\ninterpreters, _Grotius_ was the first to abandon the Messianic\nexplanation. Even _Clericus_ acknowledges that the predicates are\napplicable to Hezekiah \"_sensu admodum diluto_\" only. At the time when\nRationalism had the ascendancy, it became pretty current to explain\nthem of Hezekiah. _Gesenius_ modified this view by supposing that the\nProphet had connected his Messianic wishes and expectations with\nHezekiah, and [Pg 94] expected their realization by him. At present\nthis view is nearly abandoned; after _Gesenius_, _Hendewerk_ is the\nonly one who still endeavours to defend it.\n\nAgainst the application to Hezekiah even this single argument is\ndecisive, that a glory is here spoken of, which is to be bestowed\nespecially upon Galilee which belonged to the kingdom of the ten\ntribes. _Farther_--Although the prophecy be considered as a human\nforeboding only, how could the Prophet, to whom, everywhere else such a\nsharp eye is ascribed, that, from it, they endeavour to explain his\nfulfilled prophecies,--how could the Prophet have expected that\nHezekiah, who was at that time a boy of about nine years of age, and\nwho appeared under such unfavourable circumstances, should realize the\nhopes which he here utters in reference to the world's power, should\nconquer that power definitively and for ever, should infinitely extend\nhis kingdom, and establish an everlasting dominion? How could he have\nascribed divine attributes to Hezekiah who, in his human weakness,\nstood before him? _Finally_--The undeniable agreement of the prophecy\nbefore us with other Messianic passages, especially with Ps. lxxii. and\nIs. xi., where even _Gesenius_ did not venture to maintain the\nreference to Hezekiah, is decidedly in opposition to the reference to\nHezekiah.\n\n\n\n\n THE TWIG OF JESSE.\n (Chap. xi., xii.)\n\n\nThese chapters constitute part of a larger whole which begins with\nchap. x. 5. With regard to the time of the composition of this\ndiscourse, it appears, from chap. x. 9-11, that Samaria was already\nconquered. The prophecy, therefore, cannot be prior to the sixth year\nof Hezekiah. On the other hand, the defeat of the Assyrian host, which,\nunder Sennacherib, invaded Judah, is announced as being still future.\nThe prophecy, accordingly, falls into the period between the 6th and\nthe 14th year of Hezekiah's reign. From the circumstance that in it [Pg\n95] the king of Asshur is represented as being about to march against\nJerusalem, it is commonly inferred that it was uttered shortly before\nthe destruction of the Assyrian host, and hence, belongs to the\nfourteenth year of Hezekiah. But this ground is not very safe. It would\ncertainly be overlooking the liveliness with which the prophets beheld\nand represented future things as present; it would be confounding the\n_ideal_ Present with the _actual_, if we were to infer from vers. 28-32\nthat the Assyrian army must already have reached the single stations\nmentioned there. The utmost that we are entitled to infer from this\nliveliness of description is, that the Assyrian army was already on its\nmarch; but not even that can be inferred with certainty. In favour of\nthe immediate nearness of the danger, however, is the circumstance\nthat, in the prophecy, the threatening is kept so much in the\nbackground; that, from the outset, it is comforting and encouraging,\nand begins at once with the announcement of Asshur's destruction, and\nJudah's deliverance. This seems to suggest that the place which,\neverywhere else, is occupied by the threatening, was here taken by the\nevents themselves; so that of the two enemies of salvation, proud\nsecurity and despair, the latter only was here to be met. The prophecy\nbefore us opens the whole series of the prophecies out of the 14th year\nof Hezekiah, the most remarkable year of the Prophet's life, rich in\nthe revelations of divine glory, in which his prophecy flowed in full\nstreams, and spread on all sides.\n\nThe prophecy divides itself into two parts. The first, chap. x. 5-34,\ncontains the threatening against Asshur, who was just preparing to\ninflict the deadly blow upon the people of God. The fact that in chap.\nxi. we have not an absolutely new beginning before us, sufficiently\nappears from the general analogy, according to which, as a rule, the\nMessianic prophecy does not _begin_ the prophetical discourse; but\nstill more clearly from the circumstance that chap. xi. begins with\n\"and;\" to which argument may still be added the fact that the figure in\nthe first verse of this chapter evidently refers to the figure in the\nlast verse of the preceding chapter. Asshur had there been represented\nas a stately forest which was to be cut down by the hand of the Lord;\nwhile here the house of David appears as a stem cut down, from the\nroots of which a small twig shall [Pg 96] come forth, which, although\nunassuming at first, is to grow up into a fruit-bearing tree. The\npurpose of the whole discourse was to strengthen and comfort believers\non the occasion of Asshur's inroad into the country; to bring it home\nto the convictions of those who were despairing of the Kingdom of God,\nthat He who is in the midst of them is greater than the world with all\nits apparent power; and thereby to awaken and arouse them to resign\nthemselves entirely into the hands of their God. It is for this purpose\nthat the Prophet first describes the catastrophe of Asshur; that, then,\nin chap. xi., he points to the highest glorification which in future is\ndestined for the Church of God by the appearance of Christ, in order\nthat she may the more clearly perceive that every fear regarding her\nexistence is folly.\n\nThe connection of the two passages appears so much the more plainly\nwhen we consider, that that which, in chap. x., was said of Asshur, and\nespecially the close in vers. 33 and 34: \"Behold Jehovah of hosts cuts\ndown the branches with power, and those of a high stature shall be hewn\ndown, and the high ones shall be made low. And He cuts down the\nthickets of the forest with the iron, and Lebanon shall fall by the\nglorious one,\" _refers to him as the representative of the whole\nworld's power_; that the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem is to\nbe considered as the nearest fulfilment only, but not as the _full_ and\n_real_ fulfilment.\n\nFrom the family of David sunk into total obscurity--such is the\nsubstance--there shall, at some future period, rise a Ruler who, at\nfirst low and without appearance, shall attain to great glory and\nbestow rich blessings,--a Ruler furnished with the fulness of the\nSpirit of God and of His gifts, filled with the fear of God, looking\nsharply and deeply, and not blinded by any appearance, just and an\nhelper of the oppressed, an almighty avenger of wickedness, ver. 1-5.\nBy him all the consequences of the fall, even down to the irrational\ncreation, in the world of men and of nature, shall be removed, ver.\n6-9. Around Him the Gentiles, formerly addicted to idols, shall gather,\nver. 10. In ver. 11-16 the Prophet describes what he is to do for\nIsrael, to whom the discourse was in the first instance addressed, and\nupon whom it was to impress the word: \"Fear not.\" Under Him they obtain\ndeliverance [Pg 97] from the condition of being scattered and exiled\nfrom the face of the Lord, the removal of pernicious dissensions,\nconquering power in relation to the world which assails them, and the\nremoval of all obstacles to salvation by the powerful arm of the Lord.\n\nThe reference of the prophecy to the Messiah is, among all the\nexplanations, the most ancient. We find it in the Targum of Jonathan,\nwho thus renders the first verse: [Hebrew: vipq mlka mbnvhi diwi vmwiHa\nmbni bnvhi itrbi]. St. Paul quotes this prophecy in Rom. xv. 12, and\nproves from it the calling of the Gentiles. In 2 Thes. ii. 8 he quotes\nthe words of ver. 4, and assigns to Christ what is said in it. In Rev.\nv. 5, xxii. 16, Christ, with reference to ver. 1 and 10, is called the\nroot of David. The Messianic explanation was defended by most of the\nolder Jewish interpreters, especially by _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, and\n_Kimchi_.[1] It is professed even by most of the rationalistic\ninterpreters, by the modern ones especially, without any exception\n(_Eichhorn_, _De Wette_, _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, _Ewald_),\nalthough, it is true, they distinguish between Jesus Christ and the\nMessiah of the Old Testament,--as, _e.g._, _Gesenius_ has said:\n\"Features such as those in ver. 4 and 5 exclude any other than the\npolitical Messiah, and King of the Israelitish state,\" and _Hitzig_: \"A\npolitical Messiah whose attributes, especially those assigned to him\nver. 3 and 4, are not applicable to Jesus.\"\n\nBut the non-Messianic interpretation, too, has found its defenders.\nAccording to a statement of Theodoret, the passage was referred by the\nJews to Zerubbabel.[2] Interpreters more numerous and distinguished\nhave referred it to Hezekiah. This interpretation is mentioned as early\nas by _Ephraem Syrus_; among the Rabbis it was held by _Moses\nHakkohen_, and _Abenezra_; among Christian interpreters, _Grotius_ was\nthe first who professed it, but in such a manner that he assumed a\nhigher reference to Christ. (\"The Prophet returns to praise Hezekiah in\nwords under which the higher praises of Christ are concealed.\") He was\nfollowed by _Dathe_. The exclusive reference to Hezekiah was maintained\nby _Hermann v. d._ [Pg 98] _Hardt_, in a treatise published in 1695,\nwhich, however, was confiscated; then, by a number of interpreters at\nthe commencement of the age of Rationalism, at the head of whom was\n_Bahrdt_. Among the expositors of the last decade, this interpretation\nis held by _Hendewerk_ alone.\n\nThe reasons for the Messianic interpretation, and against making\nHezekiah the subject of the prophecy, are, among others, the\nfollowing:--\n\n1. _The comparison of the parallel passages._ The Messiah is here\nrepresented under the figure of a shoot or sprout. This has become so\ncommon, as a designation of the Messiah, that the name \"Sprout\" has\nalmost become a proper name of the Messiah; compare the remarks on\nchap. iv. 2. A striking resemblance to ver. 1 is presented by chap.\nlviii. 2, where the Messiah, to express His lowliness at the beginning\nof His course, is, in the same manner as here, compared to a feeble and\ntender twig. Ps. lxxii. and the prophecies in chap. ii., iv., vii.,\nix., and Mic. v., present so many agreements and coincidences with the\nprophecy under consideration, that they must necessarily be referred to\none and the same subject. The reception of the Gentile nations into the\nKingdom of God, the holiness of its members, the cessation of all\nhostilities, are features which constantly recur in the Messianic\nprophecies.\n\n2. There are features interwoven with the prophecy which lead to a more\nthan human dignity of its subject. Even this circumstance is of\nimportance here, that the _whole earth_ appears as the sphere of His\ndominion. Still more distinctly is the human sphere overstepped by the\nannouncement that, under His government, _sin_, yea, even all\ndestruction in the outward nature is to cease, and the earth is to\nreturn to the happy condition in which it was before the fall.\nAccording to ver. 4, He slays the wicked in the whole earth by His mere\nword,--a thing which elsewhere is said of _God_ only; and according to\nver. 10, the heathen shall render Him religious reverence.\n\n3. A _future_ scion of David is here promised. For [Hebrew: vica] in\nver. 1 must be taken as a _praeteritum propheticum_, as is evident from\nits being connected with the preceding chapter, which has to do with\nfuture things, and in which the preterites have a prophetic meaning; as\nalso by the analogy of the following preterites from which this can by\nno means be separated. But [Pg 99] at the time when this prophecy was\ncomposed, Hezekiah had long ago entered upon the government.\n\n4. The circumstances under which the Prophet makes the King appear are\naltogether different from those at the time of Hezekiah. According to\nver. 1 and 10, the royal house of David would have entirely declined,\nand sunk into the obscurity of private life, at the time when the\nPromised One would appear. The Messiah is there represented as a tender\ntwig which springs forth from the roots of a tree cut down. In the\ncircumstance, too, that the stem is not called after David, but after\nJesse, it is intimated that the royal family is then to have sunk back\ninto the obscurity of private life. This does not apply to Hezekiah,\nunder whom the Davidic dynasty maintained its dignity, but to Christ\nonly. _Farther_: In ver. 11 there is an announcement of the return of\nnot only the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also of the\nmembers of the kingdom of Judah from all the countries in which they\nwere dispersed. This must refer to a far later time than that of\nHezekiah; for at his time no carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah\nhad taken place. This argument is conclusive also against the false\nmodified Messianic explanation as it has been advanced by _Ewald_,\naccording to which the Prophet is supposed to have expected that the\nMessiah would appear immediately after the judgment upon the Assyrians,\nand after the conversion and reform of those in the Church who had been\nspared in the judgment. The facts mentioned show that between the\nappearance of the Messiah, and the Present and immediate Future, there\nlay to the Prophet still a wide interval in which an entire change of\nthe present state of things was to take place. Ver. 11 is here of\nspecial importance. For this verse opens up to us the prospect of a\nwhole series of catastrophes to be inflicted upon Israel by the world's\npowers, all of which are already to have taken place at the time of the\nKing's appearance, and which lay beyond the historical horizon at the\ntime of the Prophet.\n\nA certain amount of truth, indeed, lies at the foundation of the\nexplanation which refers the prophecy to Hezekiah. The fundamental\nthought of the prophecy before us: \"The exaltation of the world's\npower, is a prophecy of its abasement; the abasement of the Davidic\nKingdom is a prophecy of its exaltation,\" [Pg 100] was, in a prelude,\nto be realized even at that time. But the Prophet does not limit\nhimself to these feeble beginnings. He points to the infinitely greater\nrealization of this idea in the distant future, where the abasement\nshould be much deeper, but the exaltation also infinitely higher. To\nhim who had first, by a living faith, laid hold of Christ's appearance,\nit must be easy, even in the present difficulty, to hope for the lower\nsalvation.\n\nThe distinction between the \"political Messiah\" of the prophecy before\nus, and \"Jesus of Nazareth\"--a distinction got up by Rationalism--rests\nchiefly upon the fact that Rationalism knows Christ as the _Son of Man_\nonly, and is entirely ignorant of His true eternal Kingdom. Hence a\nprophecy which, except the intimation, in ver. 1, of His lowliness at\nfirst, refers altogether to the glorified Christ, could not but appear\nas inapplicable. But it is just by ver. 4, to which they chiefly\nappeal, that a \"political Messiah\" is excluded; for to such an one the\nwords: \"He smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the\nbreath of His lips He slayeth the wicked\" do not in the least apply.\nAnd so likewise vers. 6-9 altogether go beyond the sphere of a\npolitical Messiah, All that at first sight seems to lead to such an one\nbelongs to the imagery which was, and could not fail to be, taken from\nthe predecessors and types on the throne of David, since Christ was to\nbe represented as He in whom the Davidic Kingdom attains to its full\ntruth and glory.\n\nIn the whole section, the Redeemer appears as a _King_. This is\naltogether a matter of course, for He forms the antithesis to the king\nof Asshur. It is quite in vain that _Umbreit_ has endeavoured to bring\npolitical elements into the description. Thereby the sense is\nessentially altered. We must keep closely in view the Prophet's\nstarting-point. Before those who were filled with cares and fears, lest\nthe Davidic Kingdom should be overturned by the Assyrian kingdom, he\nholds up the bright image of the Kingdom of David, in its last\ncompletion. When they had received that into their hearts, the king of\nAsshur could not fail to appear to them in a light altogether\ndifferent, as a miserable wretch. The giant at once dwindled down into\na contemptible dwarf, and with tears still [Pg 101] in their eyes they\ncould not avoid laughing at themselves for having stood so much in awe\nof him.\n\nAs is commonly the case in the Messianic prophecies, so here, too, no\nattention is paid to the development of Christ's Kingdom in time.\nEverything, therefore, is fulfilled only as to its beginning; and the\ncomplete fulfilment still stands out for that future in which, after\nthe fulness of the Gentiles has been brought in, and apostate Israel\nhas been converted, the consequences of the fall shall, in the outward\nnature also, be removed.\n\nVer. 1. \"_And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a\nbranch from his roots shall bear fruit._\"\n\nThe circumstance that the words in the first verse are completed in the\nnumber seven, divided into three and four, intimates that the Prophet\nhere enters upon the territory of the revelation of a mystery of the\nKingdom of God. Totally different--so the Prophet begins--from the fate\nof Asshur, just now proclaimed, shall that of the royal house of David\nbe. Asshur shall be humbled at a time when he is most elevated. Lebanon\nfalls through the mighty One: but the house of David shall be exalted\nat a time when he is most humbled. Who then would tremble and be\nafraid, although it go downward? _Luther_ says: \"This is a short\nsummary of the whole of theology and of the works of God, that Christ\ndid not come till the trunk had died, and was altogether in a hopeless\ncondition; that hence, when all hope is gone, we are to believe that it\nis the time of salvation, and that God is then nearest when He seems to\nbe farthest off!\" The same contrast appears in Ezek. xvii. 24. The Lord\nbrings down the high tree of the world's power, and exalts the low tree\nof the Davidic house. The word [Hebrew: gze] does not mean \"stem\" in\ngeneral, as several rationalistic interpreters, and _Meier_ last, have\nasserted, but rather stump, _truncus_, [Greek: kormos], as _Aquila_,\n_Symmachus_, _Theodotion_, translate. This is proved from the following\nreasons: (1) the derivation from [Hebrew: gze], in Arabic _secuit_,\nequivalent to [Hebrew: gde], \"to cut off,\" chap. ix. 9; x. 33. The\n[Hebrew: gdeiM] in latter passage clearly refers to the [Hebrew: gze]\nhere. The proud trees of Asshur shall be _cut down_; from the cut down\ntrunk of David there shall grow up a _new_ tree overshadowing the\nearth, and offering glorious fruits to them that dwell on it.--(2) The\n_usus loquendi_. The signification, \"stump,\" is, by [Pg 102] the\ncontext, required in the two passages in which the word [Hebrew: gze]\nstill occurs. In Job xiv. 8, it is obvious. The whole passage there\nfrom vers. 7-9 illustrates the figurative representation in the verse\nunder review. \"For there is hope of a tree; if it be _cut down_ it will\nsprout again, and its tender branch does not cease. Though the root\nthereof wax old in the earth, and the _stump_ thereof die in the dust,\nthrough the scent of waters it buds, and brings forth boughs, like one\nnewly planted.\" We have here the figure of our verse carried out. That\nwhich water is to the natural tree decaying, the Spirit and grace of\nGod are to the dying tree, cut down to the very roots, of the Davidic\nfamily. In the second passage. Is. xl. 23, 24, it is only by a false\ninterpretation that [Hebrew: gze] has been understood of the stem in\ngeneral. \"He bringeth princes to nothing, He destroyeth the kings of\nthe earth. They are not planted; they are not sown; their _stump_ does\nnot take root in the earth.\" The Prophet, having previously proved\nGod's elevation over the creature, from the creation and preservation\nof the world, now proves it from the nothingness of all that which on\nearth has the greatest appearance of independent power. It costs Him no\neffort to destroy all earthly greatness which places itself in\nopposition to Him. He blows on them, and they have disappeared without\nleaving any trace. If God's will be not with it, princes will not\nattain to any firm footing and prosperity (they are not planted and\nsown); they are like a cut-down stem which has no more power to take\nroot in the earth. A tree not planted dries up; corn not sown does not\nproduce fruit; a cut down tree does not take root.--(3.) The\nconnection. In the second member of the verse we read: \"A branch from\nhis roots shall bear fruit.\" Unless we mean to adopt the altogether\nunsuitable expedient of explaining it of a wild twig which shoots\nforth from the roots of a still standing tree, we cannot but think of\na stem cut down to the very root. Against the opinion of _Hendewerk_\nwho remarks: \"An indirect shoot from the root which comes forth from\nthe root through the stem;\" and against _Meier's_ opinion: \"The root\ncorresponds with the stem, and both together form the living tree,\"\nit is decisive, that in ver. 10, the Messiah is simply, and without\nany mention being made of the stem, designated as [Hebrew: wrw]\n\"a shoot from the root.\" Farther, chap. liii. 2, where the Messiah\nis represented [Pg 103] as a shoot from the root out of a dry\nground.--(4.) It is only when [Hebrew: gze] has the meaning, \"stump,\"\nthat it can be accounted for why the [Hebrew: gze] of Jesse, and not of\nDavid, is spoken of--(5.) The supposition that the Messiah shall be\nborn at the time of the deepest humiliation of the Davidic family,\nafter the entire loss of the royal dignity, pervades all the other\nprophetical writings. That Micah views the Davidic family as entirely\nsunk at the time of Christ's appearance, we showed in vol. I. p. 508-9.\nCompare farther the remarks on Amos ix. 11, and those on Matth. ii. 23\nimmediately following.--_Hitzig_ is obliged to confess that [Hebrew:\ngze] can designate the cut-off stem only; but maintains that Jesse, as\nan individual long ago dead, is designated as a cut-off tree. But\nagainst this opinion is the relation which, as we proved, exists\nbetween this verse and the last verses of the preceding chapter; the\nundeniable correspondence of [Hebrew: gze] with [Hebrew: gdeiM] in\nchap. x. 33. In that case the antithesis also, so evidently intended by\nthe Prophet, would be altogether lost. It is not by any means a thing\nso uncommon, that a man who is already dead should have a glorious\ndescendant. To this it may further be added that, according to this\nsupposition, the circumstance is not all accounted for, that Jesse is\nmentioned, and not David, the royal ancestor, as is done everywhere\nelse. _Finally_--In this very forced explanation, the parallel passages\nare altogether left out of view, in which likewise the doctrine is\ncontained that, at the time of Christ's appearance, the Davidic family\nshould have altogether sunk. The reason of all these futile attempts at\nexplaining away the sense so evident and obvious, is none other than\nthe fear of acknowledging in the prophecy an element which goes beyond\nthe territory of patriotic fancy and human knowledge. But this dark\nfear should here so much the more be set aside, that, according to\nother passages also, the Prophet undeniably had the knowledge and\nconviction that Israel's course would be more and more downward before\nit attained, in Christ, to the full height of its destiny. We need\nremind only of the prophecies in chap. v. and vi.; and it is so much\nthe more natural here to compare the latter of them, that, in it, in\nver. 13, Israel, at the time of the appearing of the Messianic Kingdom,\nis represented as a felled tree,--a fact which has for its ground the\nsinking of the [Pg 104] Davidic race which is here announced. We\nfarther direct attention to the circumstance that in our prophecy\nitself, Israel's being carried away into all the countries of the earth\nis foreseen as future,--a circumstance which is so much the more\nanalogous, that there also, as here, the foreknowledge clothes itself\nin the form of the _supposition_ and not of express announcement. With\nregard to the latter point, it may still be remarked that Amos also, in\nchap. ix. 11, by speaking of the raising up of the tabernacle of David\nwhich is fallen, anticipates its future lowliness.--The question still\narises:--Why is it that the Messiah is here designated as a rod of\nJesse, while elsewhere, His origin is commonly traced back to David?\n_Umbreit_ is of opinion that the mention of Jesse may be explained from\nthe Prophet's desire to trace the pedigree as far back as possible; in\nits apparent extinction, the family of the Messiah was to be pointed\nout as a _very old_ one. But if this had been his intention, he would\nhave gone back beyond Jesse to the older ancestors whom the Book of\nRuth mentions; and if he had been so anxious to honour the family of\nthe Messiah, it would, at all events, have been far more suitable to\nmention David than Jesse, who was only one degree removed from him. The\nsound view has been long ago given by Calvin, who says: \"The Prophet\ndoes not mention David; but rather Jesse. For so much was the dignity\nof that family diminished, that it seemed to be a rustic, ignoble\nfamily rather than a royal one.\" It was appropriate that that family,\nupon whom was a second time to be fulfilled the declaration in Ps.\ncxiii. 7, 8: \"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; He lifteth up\nthe needy out of the dunghill, that He may set him with princes,\nwith the princes of His people,\"--in which, the second time, the\ntransition should take place from the low condition to the royal\ndignity, should not be mentioned according to its royal, but according\nto its rustic character. This explanation of the fact is confirmed by\nthe circumstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right\ninterpretation of [Hebrew: gze]: Jesse is mentioned and not David,\nbecause the Davidic dignity had become a [Hebrew: gze]. The mention of\nJesse's name thus explained, agrees, then, with the birth of Christ at\nBethlehem, announced by Isaiah's cotemporary, Micah. Christ was to be\nborn at Bethlehem, because that residence was peculiar to the [Pg 105]\nfamily of David during its lowliness; comp. vol. I., p. 508-9.--The\nsecond hemistich of the verse may either be explained: \"a twig from his\nroots shall bear fruit,\" or, as agrees better with the accents: \"a twig\nshall from his roots bear fruit.\" The sense, at all events, is: A shoot\nproceeding from his roots (_i.e._, the cut-off stem of Jesse) shall\ngrow up into a stately fruitful tree; or: As a tree cut down throws out\nfrom its roots a young shoot which, at first inconsiderable, grows up\ninto a stately fruit-bearing tree, so from the family buried in\ncontempt and lowliness, a _King_ shall arise who, at first humble and\nunheeded,[3] shall afterwards attain to great glory. Parallel is Ezek.\nxvii. 22-24. The Messiah is there compared to a tender twig which is\nplanted by the Lord on a high hill, and sends forth branches and bears\nfruit, so that all the birds dwell in the shadow of its branches.--It\nhas now become current to explain: \"A branch breaks forth or sprouts;\"\nbut that explanation is against the _usus loquendi_. [Hebrew: prh] is\nnever equivalent to [Hebrew: prH] \"to break forth;\" it has only the\nsignification \"to bear,\" \"to bear fruit,\" \"to be fruitful.\" _Gesenius_\nwho, in the later editions of his translation, here explains [Hebrew:\nprh] by, \"to break forth,\" knows, in the _Thesaurus_, of no other\nsignification. In the passage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be\nconsidered as a commentary on the verse before us, [Hebrew: ewh pri]\ncorresponds to the [Hebrew: iprh] here. The change of the tense, too,\nsuggests that [Hebrew: iprh] does not contain a mere repetition, but a\nprogress. This progress is necessary for the sense of the whole verse.\nFor it cannot be the point in question that, in general, a shoot comes\nforth; but the point is that this shoot shall attain to importance and\nglory. [Hebrew: iprh] comprehends and expresses in one word that which,\nin the subsequent verses of the section, is carried out in detail.\nFirst, there is the bestowal of the Spirit of the Lord whereby He is\nenabled to bear fruit; then, the fruit-bearing itself.\n\nWe here subjoin the discussion of the New Testament passage which\nrefers to this verse.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Their testimony is collected by _Seb. Edzardi_ in the\ntreatise: _Cap. xi. Esaiae Christo vindicatum adversus Grotium et\nsectatores ejus, imprimos Herm. v. d. Hardt._ Hamburg 1696.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"The madness of the Jews is indeed to be lamented who\nrefer this prophecy to Zerubbabel.\"]\n\n[Footnote 3: Although _Umbreit_ denies it, yet this is implied in the\ndesignation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the\nlowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary\nconsequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle\ncourse to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may,\nmoreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2.]\n\n\n\n[Pg 106]\n\n\n\n\n ON MATTHEW II. 23.\n\n\n[Greek: Kai elth\u00f4n kat\u00f4k\u00easen eis polin legomen\u00ean Nazaret. hop\u00f4s\npl\u00ear\u00f4th\u00ea to rh\u00eathen dia t\u00f4n proph\u00eat\u00f4n, hoti Naz\u00f4raios kl\u00eath\u00easetai.]\n\nWe here premise an investigation as regards the name of the town of\nNazareth. Since that name occurs in the New Testament only, different\nviews might arise as to its orthography and etymology. One view is\nthis: The name was properly and originally [Hebrew: ncr]. Being the\nname of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine\ntermination [Hebrew: a]. And, finally, on account of the original\nappellative signification of the word, a [Hebrew: t], the designation\nof the _status emphaticus_ of feminine nouns in [Hebrew: a], was\nsometimes added. We have an analogous case in the name _Dalmanutha_,\nthe same place which, with the Talmudist, is called [Hebrew: clmvN].\nCompare _Lightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp._ II., p. 411 sqq.\nSo it is likewise probably that [Greek: gabbatha], [Hebrew: gbta] is\nformed from the masculine [Hebrew: gb], _dorsum_. Our view is that the\noriginal name was _Nezer_, that this form of the name was in use along\nwith that which received a [Hebrew: t] added, and that this [Hebrew: t]\nserved for the designation of the _status emphaticus_ only; or also, if\nwe wish to take our stand upon the Hebrew form, was a mere hardening of\nthe [Hebrew: h] Femin. (either of which suppositions is equally\nsuitable for our purpose); and this our view we prove by the following\narguments: 1. The testimonies of the Jews. _David de Pomis_ (in _De\nDieu_, _critic. sacr._ on M. II. 23) says: [Hebrew: ncri mi wnvld beir\nncr hglil rHvq mirvwliM drK wlwt imiM] \"A Nazarene is he who is born in\nthe town of _Nezer_, in Galilee, three days'journey from Jerusalem.\"\nIn the Talmud, in _Breshith Rabba_, and in _Jalkut Shimeoni_ on Daniel,\nthe contemptuous name of _Ben Nezer_, _i.e._, the Nazarene, is given to\nChrist; compare the passages in _Buxtorf_, _lex. c._ 1383; in\n_Lightfoot_, _disquis. chorog. Johan. praem. opp._ II., 578 sqq.;\n_Eisenmenger_, I., p. 3139. It is true, _Gieseler_ (on Matth. ii. 23,\nand in the _Studien u. Kritiken_, 1831, III. S. 591) has tried to give\na different interpretation to this appellation. He is of opinion that\nthis appellation has reference to Is. xi. 1; that it had come to the\nJews from the Christians, who called [Pg 107] their Messiah [Hebrew: bN\nncr], because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this\nsupposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation\nwas chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the\nChristians maintained that Jesus was the [Hebrew: ncr] announced by\nIsaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the\nnames [Hebrew: ncr napvP] \"adulterous branch,\" and [Hebrew: ncr nteb]\n\"abominable branch\" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp. _Eisenmenger_ I. S. 137,\n138. But _Gieseler_ is wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is.\nxi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only.\nAgainst that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it\nought to have been _Nezer_ only, and not _Ben-Nezer_. _Gieseler_, it is\ntrue, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is\ncalled the \"Son of the prophecy,\" and in confirmation of this _usus\nloquendi_ he refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under\nHadrian assumed, with a reference to the [Hebrew: kvkb] in Numb. xxiv.\n17, the name [Hebrew: bN kvkb] or [Hebrew: bN kvkba], in so far as the\nstar there promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only\napparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be\ncalled _Ben-Nezer_ because He was He in whom the prophecy of the\n_Nezer_ was fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellation _Ben\nNezer_ that that pseudo-Messiah could be called _Bar Cochba_, only\nbecause it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was\nfulfilled. _Reland_ has already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) that\n_Barcochba_ probably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a\ntown or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he\nlaid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper\nmeaning in this agreement of the name of his birth-place with the\ndesignation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the\nsupposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled,\nwas called the son of that prophecy; that, _e.g._, the Messiah, the\nServant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah,\n&c., is not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself,\nmost improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that\nthis interpretation of _Ben-Nezer_ is opposed by the constant\ninterpretation of the Jews. _Jarchi_, in a gloss on that passage of the\nTalmud referred to, explains _Ben Nezer_ by: \"He who has come from the\ntown of Nazareth.\" _Abarbanel_ [Pg 108] in his book _Majenehajeshua_,\nafter having quoted from _Jalkut Shimeoni_ the passage in question,\nobserves: \"Remark well how they have explained the little horn in\nDaniel vii. 8, of the _Ben Nezer_ who is Jesus the _Nazarene_.\" From\nthe Lexicon _Aruch_ which forms a weighty authority, Buxtorf quotes:\n\"[Hebrew: ncr ncri hmqll] Nezer, (or Ben Nezer), is the accursed\n_Nazarene_.\" _Finally_--It could not well be supposed that the Jews, in\na contest where they heap the most obnoxious blasphemies on Christ,\nshould have given Him an honourable epithet which they had simply\nreceived from the Christians.\n\n2. The result which we have obtained is confirmed by the statements of\nChristian writers. Even at the time of _Eusebius_ (Hist. Eccles. i. 7),\nand of _Jerome_, the place was called _Nazara_. The latter says:\n\"_Nazareth_: there exists up to this day in Galilee a village opposite\nLegio, fifteen miles to the east of it, near Mount Tabor, called\n_Nazara_\" (comp. _Reland_ i. S. 497). In _Epistol._ xvii. ad\n_Marcellum_ he expressly identifies the name with _Nezer_, by saying:\n\"Let us go to Nazareth, and according to a right interpretation of that\nname, we shall see there the flower of Galilee.\"\n\n3. To this may be added, that the _Gentilitia_ formed from Nazareth can\nbe explained only when the [Hebrew: t] is not considered as belonging\nto the original form of the name. For, in that case, it must\nnecessarily be found again in the _Gentilitia_, just as, _e.g._, from\n[Hebrew: entt] we could not by any means form [Hebrew: enti], but only\n[Hebrew: entti]. In the New Testament the two forms [Greek: Naz\u00f4raios]\nand [Greek: Nazar\u00eanos] only occur, never the form [Greek: Nazaretaios].\n_Gieseler_ has felt the difficulty which these names present to the\ncommon hypothesis, but has endeavoured (l. c. p. 592) to remove them by\nthe conjecture that this form, so very peculiar, had been coined by a\nconsideration of [Hebrew: ncr] which the first Christians were\naccustomed to bring into connection with [Hebrew: ncrt]. But this\nconjecture would, at most, be admissible, only if, with the Jews too,\nthe form [Hebrew: ncri] were not found throughout without a [Hebrew:\nt], and if the Arabic form also were not entirely analogous.[1]\n\n[Pg 109]\n\nThe question now is:--In what sense was [Hebrew: ncr] assigned as a\n_nomen proprium_ to a place in Galilee? Certainly, we must at once\nreject the supposition of _Jerome_ that Nazareth was thus called, as\nbeing \"the flower of Galilee,\" partly because [Hebrew: ncr] never\noccurs in this signification; partly because it is not conceivable that\nthe place received a name which is due to it [Greek: kat'anti phrasin]\nonly. It is much more probable that the place received the name on\naccount of its smallness: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree.\nIn this signification [Hebrew: ncr] occurs in Is. xi. 1, xiv. 19, and\nin the Talmudical _usus loquendi_ where [Hebrew: ncrim] signifies\n\"_virgulta salicum decorticata, vimina ex quibus corbes fiunt._\" There\nwas so much the greater reason for giving the place this name that\npeople had the symbol before their eyes in its environs; for the\nchalk-hills around Nazareth are over-grown with low bushes (comp.\nBurkhardt II. s. 583). That which these bushes were when compared with\nthe stately trees which adorned other parts of the country, Nazareth\nwas when compared with other cities.\n\nThis _nomen_ given to the place on account of its small beginnings,\nresembling, in this respect, the name of Zoar, _i.e._, a small town,\nwas, at the same time, an _omen_ of its future condition. The weak twig\nnever grew up into a tree. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Nazareth\nmentioned, probably because it was built only after the return from the\ncaptivity. Neither is it mentioned in _Josephus_. It was not, like most\nof the other towns in Palestine, ennobled by any recollection from the\nolden times. Yea, as it would appear, a special contempt was resting\nupon it, besides the general contempt in which all Galilee was held;\njust as every land has some place to which a disgrace attaches, which\nhas often been called forth by causes altogether trifling. This appears\nnot only from the question of Nathanael, in John i. 47: \"Can there any\ngood thing come out of Nazareth?\" but also from the fact, that from the\nmost ancient times the Jews thought to inflict upon Christ the greatest\ndisgrace, by calling Him the Nazarene, whilst, in later times, the\ndisgrace which rested on all Galilee [Pg 110] was removed by the\ncircumstance that the most celebrated Jewish academy, that of Tiberias,\nbelonged to it.\n\nLet us now examine in how far Christ's abode at Nazareth served the\npurpose of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy. It is, throughout,\nthe doctrine of the prophets, that the Messiah, descending from the\nfamily of David, sunk into utter lowliness, would at first appear\nwithout any outward rank and dignity. The fundamental type for all\nother passages here concerned is contained in that passage of Is. xi.\n1, now under consideration: \"And there cometh forth a twig from the\nstump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit,\" which is\nstrikingly illustrated in the following words of _Quenstedt_, in his\n_Dissertatio de Germine Jehovae_, in the _Thesaurus theol. philol._ I.\np. 1015: \"The stem of Jesse which, from low beginnings, was, in David,\nraised to the glory of royal majesty, shall then not only be deprived\nof all royal dignity, and all outward splendour which it received in\nDavid, but shall again have been reduced to the private condition in\nwhich it was before David; so that it shall present the appearance of a\nstem deprived of all boughs and foliage, and having nothing left but\nthe roots; nevertheless out of that stem thus reduced and cut off, and,\nas it appeared, almost dry, shall come forth a royal rod, and out of\nits roots shall grow the twig upon whom shall rest the Spirit of the\nLord,\" &c. Quite in harmony with this, it is said in chap. liii. 2: \"He\ngrew up before the Lord as a tender twig, and as a root out of a dry\nground.\" To [Hebrew: ncr], in chap. xi., corresponds [Hebrew: ivnq] in\nchap. liii.; to [Hebrew: HTr] the [Hebrew: wrw]; to the cut-off stem\nthe dry land, with this difference, however, that by the latter\ndesignation, the low condition of the Servant of God, generally, is\nindicated; but His descent from the family of David sunk in lowliness,\nis not specially pointed at thereby, although it is necessarily implied\nin it. The same thought is further carried out in Ezek. xvii. 22-24. As\nthe descendant of the family of David sank in lowliness, the Messiah\nappears in that passage as a small tender twig which is taken by the\nLord from a high cedar, and, being planted upon a high mountain, growls\nup into a lofty tree, under which all the fowls dwell. In Jeremiah and\nZechariah, the Messiah, with reference to the image of a cut-off tree\nused by Isaiah, is called the Sprout of David, or simply the Sprout;\n[Pg 111] compare remarks on Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. All that is here\nrequired is certainly only to place beside one another, on the one\nhand, prophecy, and, on the other, history, in order clearly and\nevidently to point out the fulfilment of the former in the latter. It\nwas not at Jerusalem, where there was the seat of His royal ancestor,\nwhere there were the thrones of His house (comp. Ps. cxxii.), that the\nMessiah took up his residence; but it was in the most despised place of\nthe most despised province that, by divine Providence, He received His\nresidence, after the predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled by\nHis having been born at Bethlehem. The name of that place by which His\nlowliness was designated was the same as that by which Isaiah had\ndesignated the lowliness of the Messiah at His appearing.\n\nWe have hitherto considered prophecy and fulfilment independently of\nthe quotation by St. Matthew. Let us now add a few remarks upon the\nlatter.\n\n1. It seems not to have been without reason that the wider formula of\nquotation: [Greek: to rh\u00eathen dia t\u00f4n proph\u00eat\u00f4n] is here chosen,\nalthough _Jerome_ infers too much from it when he remarks: \"If he had\nwished to refer to a distinct quotation from Scripture, he would never\nhave said: 'As was spoken by the prophets,'but simply, 'as was said by\nthe prophet.'By using prophets in the plural, he shows that it is the\nsense, and not the words which he has taken from Scripture.\" No doubt\nSt. Matthew has one passage chiefly in view--that in Is. xi. 1, which,\nbesides the general announcement of the Messiah's lowliness, contains,\nin addition, a special designation of it which is found again in the\n_nomen_ and _omen_ of his native place. This appears especially from\nthe circumstance that, if it were otherwise, the quotation: in [Greek:\nhoti Naz\u00f4raios kl\u00eath\u00eastai], would be inexplicable, since it is very\nforced to suppose that \"Nazarene\" here designates generally one low and\ndespised.[2] But he chose the general formula of [Pg 112] quotation\n(comp. _Gersdorf_, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Sprachcharacteristik_ 1. S. 136), in\norder thereby to intimate that in Christ's residence at Nazareth those\nprophecies, too, were at the same time fulfilled, which, in the\nessential point--in the announcement of Christ's lowliness--agree with\nthat of Isaiah. But it is just this additional reference which shows\nthat, to Matthew, this was indeed the essential point, and that the\nagreement of the name of the town with the name which Christ has in\nIsaiah, appears to him only as a remarkable outward representation of\nthe close connection of prophecy and fulfilment; just as, indeed, every\nthing in the life of Christ appears to be brought about by the special\ndirection of Divine providence.\n\n2. The phrase [Greek: hoti kl\u00eath\u00easetai] likewise is explained from the\ncircumstance that Matthew does not restrict himself to the passage Is.\nxi. 1, but takes in, at the same time, all those other passages which\nhave a similar meaning. From among them, it was from Zech. vi. 12:\n\"Behold a man whose name is the Sprout,\" that the phrase [Greek: hoti\nkl\u00eath\u00easetai] flowed. There is hence no necessity for explaining this\ncircumstance solely from the custom of the later Jews,[3] of claiming\nas the names of the Messiah all those expressions by which, in the Old\nTestament, His nature is designated, inasmuch as, in doing so, they\nfollowed the custom of the prophets themselves, who frequently bring\nforward as the name of the Messiah that which is merely one of His\nattributes. This hypothesis is inadmissible, because otherwise it would\nbe difficult to point out any case in which the Evangelists had not\nadmixed something of their own with a quotation which they announced as\na literal one.\n\n[Pg 113]\n\nVer. 2. \"_And the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon Him, the Spirit of\nwisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit\nof knowledge and of the fear of the Lord._\"\n\nThe Spirit of the Lord is the general, the principle; and the\nsubsequent terms are the single forms in which he manifests himself,\nand works. But, on the other hand, in a formal point of view, the\nSpirit of the Lord is just co-ordinate with the Spirit of wisdom, &c.\nSome, indeed, explain: the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of, &c.;\nbut that this is inadmissible appears with sufficient evidence from\nthe circumstance that, by such a view, the sacred number, seven,\nis destroyed, which, with evident intention, is completed in the\nenumeration; compare the _seven_ spirits of God in Rev. i. 4. To have\nthe Spirit is the necessary condition of every important and effective\nministry in the Kingdom of God, from which salvation is to come forth;\ncomp. Num. xxvii. 18. It is especially the blessed administration of\nthe regal office which depends upon the possession of the Spirit; comp.\n1 Sam. xvi. 13 ff. where it is said of David: \"And Samuel took the horn\nof oil and anointed him: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him\nfrom that day forward;\" comp. 1 Sam. x. 6, 10. The circumstance that\nthe Spirit of the Lord resteth upon the Messiah does not form a\ncontradiction to His _divine nature_, which is intimated by his being\nborn of the Virgin, chap. vii. 14, by the name [Hebrew: al gbvr] in\nchap. ix. 5, and elsewhere (comp. Vol. I., p. 490, 491), and is\nwitnessed even in this prophecy itself; but, on the contrary, the\npouring out of the Spirit fully and not by measure (John iii. 39) which\nis here spoken of, _implies_ the divine nature. In order to receive the\nSpirit of God in such a measure that He could baptize with the Holy\nSpirit (John i. 33), that out of His fulness all received (John i. 16),\nthat, in consequence of His fulness of the Spirit overflowing from Him\nto the Church, the earth could be filled with the knowledge of the Lord\nas the waters covering the sea (ver. 9), He could not but be highly\nexalted above human nature. It was just because they remained limited\nto the insufficient substratum of human nature, that even the best\nkings, that even David, the man after God's own heart, received the\nSpirit in a scanty measure only, and were constantly in danger of [Pg\n114] losing again that which they possessed, as is shown by David's\npitiful prayer: \"Take not thy Holy Spirit from me\" (Ps. li. 13). It was\njust for this reason, therefore, that the theocracy possessed in the\nkings a very sufficient organ of its realization, and that the stream\nof the divine blessings could not flow freely. In Matt. iii. 16:\n[Greek: kai eide to pneuma tou theou katabainon h\u00f4sei peristeran kai\nerchomenon ep'auton], it is not the passage before us only which lies\nat the foundation, but also, and indeed pre-eminently, the parallel\npassage, chap. xlii. 1: \"Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine Elect in\nwhom my soul delighteth; I put my Spirit upon Him,\" as is apparent from\nthe circumstance that it is to this passage that the voice from heaven\nrefers in Matt. iii. 17: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agap\u00eatos\nen h\u00f4 eudok\u00easa]. But a reference to the passage before us we meet most\ndecidedly in John i. 32, 33: [Greek: Tetheamai to pneuma katabainon\nh\u00f4sei peristeran ex ouranou, kai emeinen ep'auton. Kag\u00f4 ouk \u00eadein\nauton. all'ho pempsas me baptizein en hudati, ekeinos moi eipen. eph'hon\nan id\u00eas to pneuma katabainon kai menon ep'auton, houtos estin ho\nbaptiz\u00f4n en pneumati hagi\u00f4]. The word [Hebrew: nvH], which in Numb. xi.\n25 also is used of the Spirit, combines in itself both the [Greek:\nkatabainein] and the [Greek: menein]; it is _requiescere_. As the\nfulfilment of this prophecy, however, we must not look to that event\nonly where it received a symbolical representation, but also to Acts\nii. 3: [Greek: kai \u00f4phth\u00easan autois diamerizomenai gl\u00f4ssai h\u00f4sei puros,\nekathise te eph'hena hekaston aut\u00f4n]; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 14: [Greek:\nhote to t\u00eas dox\u00eas kai to tou theou pneuma eph'humas anapauetai] (this\nmost exactly answers [Hebrew: nvH]). For it is not merely for himself\nthat Christ here receives the Spirit; but He receives Him as the\ntransforming principle for the human race; He is bestowed upon. Him as\nthe Head of the Church.--In the enumeration of the forms in which the\nSpirit manifests himself, it was not the intention of the Prophet to\nset forth _all_ the perfections of the Messiah; he rather, by way of\nexample, mentions some only after having comprehended all of them in\nthe general: The Spirit of the Lord. Thus, _e.g._, _justice_, which is\nmentioned immediately afterwards in ver. 5, is omitted here.--The first\npair are wisdom and understanding. _Wisdom_ is that excellency of\nknowledge which rests on moral perfection. It is opposed to [Hebrew:\nnblh], foolishness in a moral sense, which may easily be combined with\nthe greatest ingenuity and cleverness. The excellence of knowledge\nresting [Pg 115] on a moral basis manifests itself in the first\ninstance, and preeminently, in the [Hebrew: binh], understanding, the\nsharp and penetrating eye which beholds things as they are, and\npenetrates from the surface to their hidden essence, undisturbed by the\ndense fogs of false notions and illusions which, in the case of the\nfool, are formed by his lusts and passions. Neither of these attributes\ncan, in its absolute perfection, be the possession of any mortal,\nbecause even in those who, morally, are most advanced, there ever\nremains sin, and, therefore, a darkening of the knowledge.--The second\npair, counsel and might, are, just as in the passage before us,\nascribed to the Messiah in chap. ix. 5 (6), by His receiving the names\n\"Wonder-Counsellor,\" \"God-Hero.\" From chap. xxxvi. 5 it is seen that,\nfor the difficult circumstances of the struggle, _counsel_ is of no\nless consequence than _might_. The last pair, knowledge and fear of the\nLord, form the fundamental effect of the Spirit of the Lord; all the\ngreat qualities of the soul, all the gifts which are beneficial for the\nKingdom of God, rest on the intimacy of the connection with God which\nmanifests itself in living knowledge and fear of the Lord; the latter\nnot being the servile but the filial fear, not opposed to love, but its\nconstant companion. The Prophet has put this pair at the close, only\nbecause he intends to connect with it that which immediately follows.\nWe have already remarked that the Spirit of the Lord, &c., is bestowed\nupon the Messiah not for himself alone, but as the renovating principle\nof the Church.--Old Testament analogies and types are not wanting in\nthis matter. Moses puts of his spirit upon the seventy Elders, and the\nspirit of Elijah rests on Elisha, and likewise on the whole crowd of\ndisciples who gathered around him (2 Kings ii. 9).\n\nVer. 3. \"_And He hath His delight in the fear of the Lord, and not\nafter the sight of His eyes doth He judge, nor after the hearing of His\nears doth He decide._\"\n\nWe now learn how the glorious gifts of the Anointed, described in ver.\n2, are displayed in His government. All attempts to bring the second\nand third clauses under the same point of view as the first, and to\nderive them from the same source are in vain. That He has delight in\nthe fear of the Lord, is the consequence of the Spirit of knowledge and\nof the fear of the Lord resting upon Him,--He loves what is congenial\n[Pg 116] to His own nature. That He does not judge after the sight of\nHis eyes, &c., is the consequence of His having the Spirit of wisdom\nand understanding. It is thereby that He is freed from the narrow\nsuperficiality which is natural to man, and raised to the sphere of\nthat divine clearness of vision which penetrates to the depths,\n[Hebrew: hriH] with the accusative is \"to smell something;\" with\n[Hebrew: b], to \"smell at something,\" \"to smell with delight.\" The fear\nof the Lord appears as something of a sweet scent to the Messiah. The\nother explanations of the first clause abandon the sure, ascertained\n_usus loquendi_ (comp. Exod. xxx. 38; Levit. xxvi. 31; Am. v. 21), and,\ntherefore, do not deserve any mention. On the second and third clauses\n1 Sam. xvi. 7, is to be compared: \"And the Lord said unto Samuel: Look\nnot on his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have\nrefused him; for not that which man looks at (do I look at); for man\nlooketh on the eyes (and, in general, on the outward appearance), and I\nlook on the heart.\" It is especially John who repeatedly mentions that\nChrist really possessed the gift here assigned to Him, of judging, not\nfrom the first appearance, and according to untrustworthy information,\nbut of penetrating into the innermost ground of the facts and persons,\ncomp. ii. 24, 25: [Greek: autos de I\u00easous, ouk episteuen heaut\u00f4n\nautois, dia to auton gin\u00f4skein pantas, kai hoti ou chreian eichen hina\ntis martur\u00eas\u00ea peri tou anthr\u00f4pou. autos gar egin\u00f4ske ti \u00ean hen\nanthr\u00f4p\u00f4.] Farther--chap. xxi. 17 where Peter says to Christ: [Greek:\nKurie su panta oidas. su gin\u00f4skeis hoti phil\u00f4 se.] Farther, i. 48, 49;\niv. 18, 19; vi. 64. In Revel. ii. 23, Christ says: \"And all Churches\nshall know that I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts.\"\n\nVer. 4. \"_And He judgeth in righteousness the lowly, and doeth justice\nin equity to the meek of the earth, and smiteth the earth with the rod\nof His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked._\"\n\nThe King shall be adorned with perfect justice, and, in the exercise of\nit, be supported by His omnipotence,--differently from what was the\ncase with David, who, for want of power, was obliged to allow heinous\ncrimes to pass unpunished (2 Sam. iii. 39). Just as by the excellency\nof His _will_ He is infinitely exalted above all former rulers, so is\nHe also by the excellency of _might_. Where, as in His case, the\nhighest [Pg 117] might stands in the service of the best will, the\nnoblest results must come forth. The first two clauses refer to Ps.\nlxxii., which was written by Solomon, and where, in ver. 2, it is said\nof Christ: \"He shall judge thy people in righteousness, and thy lowly\nones in judgment,\" and in ver. 4: \"He shall judge the lowly of thy\npeople, He shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in\npieces the oppressors;\" compare farther Prov. xxix. 14: \"A king that in\ntruth judgeth the lowly, his throne shall be established for ever.\" The\nearth forms the contrast to the limited territory which was hitherto\nassigned to the theocratic kings.--In the second part of the verse\n[Hebrew: arC] does not by any means stand in contrast to [Hebrew: dliM]\nand [Hebrew: enviM], and, in parallelism to [Hebrew: rwe], designate\nthe wicked ones; but [Hebrew: arC] \"earth\" stands in antithesis to the\nnarrow territory in which earthly kings are permitted to dispense law\nand justice. It is a matter of course, and is, moreover, expressly\nstated in the second clause, that the earth comes into consideration\nwith a view to those only who are objects of His judging activity. From\nthat which follows, where changes are spoken of which shall take place\non the whole earth, it follows that [Hebrew: arC] must be taken in the\nsignification of \"earth.\" and not of \"land.\" Hand in hand with the\ninfinite extent of the King's exercise of justice goes also the manner\nof it. \"The whole earth,\" and the \"breath of the mouth,\" correspond\nwith one another.--In the words \"with the rod of His mouth,\" a tacit\nantithesis lies at the foundation. As kings strike with the sceptre, so\nHe smiteth with His mouth.--[Hebrew: wbT], the ensign of royal dignity,\nis the symbol of the whole earthly power, which, being external and\nexercised by external means, must needs be limited, and insufficient\nfor the perfect exercise of justice. The exercise of justice on the\npart of earthly kings reaches so far only as their hand armed with the\nsmiting sceptre. But that great King is, in the exercise of justice,\nsupported by His _Omnipotence_. He punishes and destroys by His mere\nword. Several interpreters understand this as a mere designation of His\nseverity in punishing,--\"the rod of His mouth\" to be equivalent to\n\"severity of punishment;\"--but that such is not the meaning appears\nfrom the following clause, where likewise special weight is attached to\nthe circumstance that the Messiah inflicts punishment by His mere word;\n\"the breath of His lips\" is equivalent [Pg 118] to \"mere words,\" \"mere\ncommand;\" compare \"breath of His mouth,\" in Ps. xxxiii. 6. _Hitzig's_\nexplanation, \"the angry breath of His lips,\" does not interpret, but\ninterpolate. In the future Son of David every word is, at the same\ntime, a deed; He speaks and it is done. The same which is here said of\nthe Messiah is, in other passages, attributed to _God_: compare Job xv.\n30, where it is said of the wicked: \"By the breath of His mouth he\nshall go away;\" Hos. vi. 5: \"I have slain them by the word of my\nmouth.\" In general, according to the precedent in Gen. i., doing by the\nmere word is, in Scripture, the characteristic designation of Divine\nOmnipotence. Parallel is chap. xlix. 2, where Christ says: \"And He hath\nmade my mouth like a sharp sword,\" equivalent to: He has endowed me\nwith His Omnipotence, so that my word also exercises destructive\neffect, just as His. In Rev. i. 16, it is said of Christ: \"And out of\nHis mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,\"--to designate the destructive\npower of His word borne by Omnipotence, the omnipotent punitive power\nof Christ against enemies, both internal and external. An instance of\nthe manner in which Christ smites by the word of His mouth is offered\nby Acts v. 3 (where, according to the analogy of the word spoken in the\nname of God by Elijah, 2 Kings i. 10, 12, and by Elisha, 2 Kings ii.\n24, v. 27, the Apostles are to be considered only as His instruments):\n[Greek: akou\u00f4n de Ananias tous logous toutous pes\u00f4n exepsuxe], comp.\nver. 10; xiii. 11. The Chaldee translates: \"And by the word of His lips\nwicked Armillus shall die.\" He refers [Hebrew: rwe] not to the ideal\nperson of the wicked, but to an individual, _Armillus_, ([Greek:\ner\u00eamolaos], corresponding to the name of Balaam, compounded of [Hebrew:\nble] \"devouring,\" \"destruction,\" and [Hebrew: eM] \"people\") the\nformidable, last enemy of the Jews who shall carry on severe wars with\nthem, slay the Messiah ben Joseph, but at length be slain by the\nMessiah ben David with a mere word, compare _Buxtorf_, _Lex. Chald._\ncap. 221-224: _Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 705 ff. In 2\nThess. ii. 8, in the description of Antichrist's destruction by Christ:\n[Greek: hon ho Kurios I\u00easous anal\u00f4sei t\u00f4 pneumati tou stomatos autou],\nthere is an intentional and significant allusion to the passage before\nus, Antichrist there being, like [Hebrew: rwe] here, an ideal person;\nfor the arguments in proof, see my Comment, on Revelation, vol. ii.\n\nVer. 5. \"_And righteousness is the girdle of His loins, and\nfaithfulness the girdle of His reins._\"\n\n[Pg 119]\n\nRighteousness and faithfulness are in a similar manner connected in 1\nSam. xxvi. 13 (? Prov. xii. 17). Faithfulness is trustworthiness. The\npoint of comparison with the girdle is the closeness of the union;\ncomp. Ps. cix. 19; Jer. xiii. 1, 2, 11.\n\nIn ver. 6, the Prophet passes from the _person_ of the glorious King to\na description of His Kingdom. With regard to ver. 6-8, the question\narises, whether the description is to be understood figuratively or\nliterally; whether the Prophet intends to describe the cessation\nof all hostility among men, or whether he expected that, in the\nMessianic time, even among the irrational creation, all hostility and\ndestruction, every thing pernicious was to cease. Most of the ancient\ninterpreters are attached to the former view. Thus _Theodoret_ says:\n\"In a figurative manner, under the image of domesticated and wild\nanimals, the Prophet taught the change of the habits of men.\" He refers\nevery thing to the union, within the Christian Church, of those who, in\ntheir natural condition, lived far separated from one another, and in\nhostility the one to the other. _Jerome_ considers the opposite view as\neven a species of heresy. He says: \"The Jews and the Judaizers among\nourselves maintain that all this shall be fulfilled according to the\nletter; that in the light of Christ who, they believe, shall come at\nthe end of the days, all beasts shall be reduced to tameness, so that\nthe wolf, giving up its former ferocity, shall dwell with the lamb,\n&c.\" Upon the whole, he states the sense in the same manner as\n_Theodoret_, from whom he sometimes differs in the allegorical\nexplanation of the details only. In a similar manner _Luther_ also\nexplains it, who, _e.g._, on ver. 6, \"the wolf shall dwell with the\nlambs, etc.\" remarks: \"But these are allegories by which the Prophet\nintimates that the tyrants, the self-righteous and powerful ones in the\nworld, shall be converted, and be received into the Church.\" _Calvin_\nsays: \"By these images, the Prophet indicates that, among the people of\nChrist there will be no disposition for injuring one another, nor any\nferocity or inhumanity.\" The circumstance that the use of animal\nsymbolism is widely spread throughout Scripture is in favour of this\ninterpretation. One may, _e.g._ compare Ps. xxii., where the enemies of\nthe righteous are represented under the image of dogs, lions, bulls,\nand unicorns; [Pg 120] Jer. v. 6, where, by lion, wolf, and leopard,\nthe kingdoms of the world which are destructive to the people of God\nare designated; the four beasts in Dan. vii.; but especially Is. xxxv.\n9: \"There (on the way of salvation which the Lord shall, in the future,\nopen up for His people) shall not be a lion, nor shall any ravenous\nbeast go up thereon,\"--where the ravenous beasts are the\nrepresentatives of the world's power, hostile to the Kingdom of God.\nNevertheless, the literal interpretation, defended by several Jewish\nexpositors, maintains an undeniable preference. In favour of it are the\nfollowing arguments: 1. The circumstance that it is impossible to carry\nthrough, in the details, the figurative interpretation; and it is by\nthis that our passage is distinguished from all the other passages in\nwhich the wild, cruel, and destructive tendencies in the human sphere\nappear under the images of their representatives in the animal world.\nThe supposition that \"we have here before us only a poetical\nenlargement of the thought that all evil shall cease\" (_Hendewerk_,\n_Knobel_), removes the boundaries which separate prophecy from poetry.\n2. The parallelism with the condition of the creation before the fall,\nas it is described to us by Holy Scripture. It is certainly not without\nreason that, in the account of the creation, so much emphasis is laid\non the circumstance that all which was created was _good_. This implies\na condition of the irrational creation different from what it is now;\nfor in its present state it gives us a faithful copy of the first fall,\ninasmuch as every heinous vice has its symbols and representatives in\nthe animal kingdom. According to Gen. ii. 19, 20, the animals recognize\nin Adam their lord and king, peaceably gather around him, and receive\ntheir names from him. According to Gen. i. 30, grass only was assigned\nto animals for their food; the whole animal world bore the image of the\ninnocence and peace of the first man, and was not yet pervaded by the\nlaw of mutual destruction. Where there was not a Cain, neither was\nthere a lion. The serpent has not yet its disgusting and horrible\nfigure, and fearlessly men have intercourse with it; comp. Vol. i. p.\n15, 16. But the influence of sin pervaded and penetrated the whole\nnature, and covered it with a curse (comp. Gen. iii. 17-19); so that it\nnot only bears evidence to the existence of God, but also to the\nexistence of sin. [Pg 121] Now, as it is by sin that outward discord,\nand contention, and destruction _arose_ in the irrational creature, so\nwe may also expect that, when the cause has been removed, the effect\ntoo will disappear; that, with the cessation of the discord and enmity\namong men, which, according to ver. 9, the Prophet expected of the\nMessianic time, discord and enmity in the animal world will cease also.\nIn the individual features, the Prophet seems even distinctly to refer\nto the history of the creation; compare ver. 7: \"The lion shall eat\nstraw like the ox,\" with Gen. i. 30; ver. 8: \"the sucking child shall\nplay on the hole of the asp,\" with Gen. iii. 15. 3. The comparison of\nother passages of Scripture, according to which likewise the reflection\nof the evil in the irrational creation shall cease, after the evil has\nbeen removed from the rational creation; compare chap. lxv. 25, lxvi,\n22; Matt. xix. 28, where the Lord speaks of the [Greek: palingenesia],\nthe return of the whole earthly creation to its original condition;\nbut especially Rom. viii. 19 ff.--that classical passage of the\nNew Testament which is really parallel to the passage before us. 4.\nA subordinate argument is still offered by the parallel descriptions\nof heathen writers. From the passages collected by _Clericus_, _Lowth_,\nand _Gesenius_, we quote a few only. In the description of the\ngolden age, _Virgil_ says, _Ecl._ iv. 21 sqq.; v. 60: _Occidet et\nserpens et fallax herba veneni occidet._--_Nec magnos metuent armenta\nleones._--_Nec lupus insidias pecori._ _Horat. Epod._ xiv. 53: _Nec\nvespertinus circumgemit ursus ovile nec intumescit alta viperis\nhumus._--_Theocrit. Idyll._ xxiv. 84. Utterances such as these show how\nunnatural the present condition of the earth is. They are, however, not\nso much to be regarded as the remains of some outward tradition\n(against such a supposition it is decisive that they occur chiefly with\n_poets_), but rather as utterances of an indestructible longing in man,\nwhich, being so deeply rooted in human nature, contains in itself the\nguarantee of being gratified at some future period. But, with all this,\nwe must do justice to the objection drawn from the evident parallelism\nof passages such as chap. xxxv. 9, and to another objection advanced by\n_Vitringa_, that it is strange that there is so much spoken of animals,\nand so little of men. This we shall do by remarking that, in the\ndescription of the glorious effects which the government of Christ\nshall produce on the earth, the Prophet at once proceeds to the utmost\nlimit of [Pg 122] them; and that the removal of hostility and\ndestruction from the irrational creation implies that all that will be\nremoved which, in the rational creation, proceeds from the principle of\nhatred, inasmuch as it is certain that the former is only a reflection\nof the latter, and that the Prophet speaks with a distinct reference to\nthis supposition which he afterwards, in ver. 9, distinctly expresses.\nHence, to a certain degree, a double sense takes place; and, in the\nmain, _J. H. Michaelis_ has hit the right by comparing, first, Gen. i.\nand Rom. viii., and then continuing: \"Parabolically, however, by the\nwild beasts, wild and cruel nations are understood, which are to be\nconverted to Christ; or violent men who, by the Spirit of Christ, are\nrendered meek and gentle, just as Paul, from a wolf, was changed into a\nlamb.\" We are the less permitted to lose sight of the reference to the\nlions and bears on the spiritual territory, that ver. 6 is, in the\nfirst instance, connected with vers. 4 and 5, in which the all-powerful\nsway of Christ's justice on earth is described, of which the\nconsequences must, in the first instance, appear in the _human\nterritory_; and, farther, that the point from which the prophecy\nstarted, is the raging of the wolf and bear of the world's power\nagainst the poor defenceless flock of the Lord.\n\nVer. 6. \"_And the wolf dwelleth with the lamb, and the leopard shall\nlie down with the kid, the calf, and, the lion and the fatling\ntogether, and a little child leads them._\"\n\nVer. 7. \"_The cow and bear go to the pasture; their young ones lie down\ntogether; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox._\" (The going to\npasture of the bear corresponds with the lion's eating straw [comp.\nGen. i. 30], and we are not allowed to supply the \"together\" in the\nfirst clause.)\n\nVer. 8. \"_And the sucking child playeth on the hole of the asp, and the\nweaned child putteth his hand into the den of the basilisk._\"\n\nThe change in the irrational creation described in the preceding verses\nis a consequence of the removal of sin in the rational creation; this\nremoval the Prophet now proceeds to describe.\n\nVer. 9. \"_They shall not do evil, and shall not sin in all my holy\nmountain, for the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the\nwaters covering the sea._\"\n\n[Pg 123]\n\nThe subject are the dwellers in the Holy Mountain. The Holy Mountain\ncan, according to the _usus loquendi_, be Mount Zion only, and not, as\nwas last maintained by _Hofmann_, the whole land of Canaan, which is\nnever designated in that manner; comp. chap. xxvii. 13, and my\nCommentary on Ps. lxxviii. 54. The second part of the verse, connected\nwith the first by means of _for_, agrees with the first only in the\nevent that Mount Zion is viewed as the spiritual dwelling place of the\ninhabitants of the earth, just as, under the Old Testament\ndispensation, it was the _ideal_ dwelling place of all the Israelites,\neven of those who outwardly had not their residence at Jerusalem; on\nthe spiritual dwelling of the servants of the Lord with Him in the\ntemple, compare remarks on Ps. xxvii. 4, xxxvi. 9, lxv. 5, lxxxiv. 3,\nand other passages. In chap. ii. 2-4, lxvi. 23, the Holy Mountain, too,\nappears as the centre of the whole earth in the Messianic time. From\nchap. xix. 20, 21, where, in the midst of converted Egypt, an altar is\nbuilt, and sacrifices are offered up, it appears that it is this in an\n_ideal_ sense only, that under its image the _Church_ is meant. The\ndesignation, \"my Holy Mountain,\" intimates that the state of things\nhitherto, when unholiness prevailed in the Kingdom of the Holy God, is\nan unnatural one; that at some future period the _idea_ necessarily\nmust manifest its power and right in opposition to the _reality_.--In\nthe second clause, the ground and fountain of this sinlessness is\nstated. In Zion, in the Church of God, there will then be no more any\nsins; for the earth is then full of the knowledge of the Lord, by which\nthe sins are done away with. The general outpouring of the Holy Ghost\nforms one of the characteristics of the Messianic time; and the\n_consequence_ of this outpouring is, according to ver. 2, the knowledge\nof the Lord,--so that the clause may be thus paraphrased: For, in\nconsequence of the Spirit poured out, in the first instance, upon Him,\nthe earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord; comp. chap. xxxii. 15:\n\"Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high;\" liv. 13; Joel iii.\n1; ii. 28; Jer. xxxi. 34, That [Hebrew: harC] is here not the \"land,\"\nor \"country,\" but the \"_earth_\" is sufficiently evident from the\nantithesis of the _sea_: as the _sea_ is full of water, so the _earth_\nis full of the knowledge of the Lord. To this [Pg 124] reason it may\nstill be added that in vers. 6-8 changes are spoken of, which concern\nthe whole territory of the earthly creation, the [Greek: palingenesia]\nof the whole earth. As the relation of these changes to that which is\nstated here is that of cause and effect, here, too, the whole earth can\nonly be thought of _Finally_,--The following verse too supposes the\nspreading of salvation over the whole earth. The entire relation of the\nfirst section to the second and third makes it obvious that by [Hebrew:\nharC] the whole earth is to be understood. The passage under\nconsideration is alluded to in Hab. ii. 14: \"For the earth shall be\nfilled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters\ncovering the sea.\" In that passage, the enforced knowledge of the\nDivine glory which manifests itself in punitive justice, forms the\nsubject of discourse; but that enforced knowledge forms the necessary\ncondition of the knowledge which is voluntary and saving.\n\n_Ver. 10. \"And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse\nwhich standeth for an ensign to the people, it shall the Gentiles seek,\nand His rest is glory._\"\n\nThe words, \"and it shall come to pass,\" introduce a new section; so\nthat the interval in the Hebrew manuscripts is here quite in its place.\nWith ver. 11 again, a new section begins. In ver. 1-9 we have the\nappearance of the Messiah in relation to the whole earth; then, in the\nsecond section, the way in which he becomes a centre to the whole\n_Gentile world_; and in ver. 11 ff., what He grants to the _old\ncovenant-people_, for whom the Prophet was, in the first instance,\nprophesying, and whose future he therefore describes more in detail.\nWhy His relation to the Gentile world is _first spoken of_ appears from\nver. 12; the Gentiles gathered to the Lord are the medium of His\nsalvation to the old covenant-people.--The _root_ designates here (and\nlikewise in chap. liii. 2), and in the passages founded upon this,\nviz., in Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16, the _product_ of the root, that whereby\nthe root manifests itself, the shoot from the root; just as \"seed\" so\nvery often occurs for \"product of the seed.\" This appears from a\ncomparison with ver. 1, where, more fully, the Messiah is called a\ntwig from Jesse's roots. _Bengel_ has already directed attention to\nthe antithesis of the root and ensign, in his Commentary on Rom. xv.\n12: \"A sweet antithesis: the root is undermost, [Pg 125] the ensign\nrises uppermost; so that even the nations farthest off may behold\nit.\"--[Hebrew: drw] with [Hebrew: l], [Hebrew: al], and [Hebrew: at],\nhas the signification \"to apply to the true God, or some imaginary god,\nin order to seek protection, help, counsel, advice, disclosures\nregarding the future;\" comp. Is. viii. 19; Deut. xii. 4, 5, and other\npassages in _Gesenius'Thesaurus_. The Gentiles feel that they cannot\ndo without the Redeemer; they see, at the same time, His riches and\ntheir poverty; and this knowledge urges them on to _seek_ Him, that\nfrom him they may obtain _light_ (chap. xlii. 6), that He may\ncommunicate to them His _law_ (chap. xlii. 4), that he may teach them\nof His ways, and that they may walk in His paths (chap. ii. 3), &c. St.\nPaul, in Rom. xv. 12, following the LXX., has [Greek: ep'aut\u00f4 ethn\u00ea\nelpiousi], which, as regards the sense, fully agrees with the original.\nThe beginning of the seeking took place when the representatives of the\nGentile world, the Maji from the East, came to Jerusalem, saying:\n\"Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star\nin the East and are come to worship Him,\" Matt. ii. 2. The historical\nfoundation and the type are the homage which, from the Gentile world,\nwas offered to Solomon, 1 Kings x.--[Hebrew: mnvHh] \"resting place,\"\n\"dwelling place,\" \"habitation;\" comp. Ps. cxxxii. 13, 14: \"For the Lord\nhath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His _habitation_. This is my\n_rest_ ([Hebrew: mnvHti]) for ever; here will I _dwell_, for I have\ndesired it.\" The glory of the King passes over to His residence to\nwhich the Gentile world are flowing together, in order to do homage to\nHim; Comp. Ps. lxxii. 10: \"The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall\nbring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.\" The\ncomparison of this passage alone is sufficient to refute the absurd\ninterpretation, according to which [Hebrew: emiM] and [Hebrew: gviM]\nare referred to the Israelitish tribes,--an interpretation which has\nbeen tried with as little success in the fundamental passage (Gen.\nxlix. 10), according to which the [Hebrew: emiM] are to adhere to\nShiloh; compare Vol. i. p. 62.\n\nVer. 11: \"_And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall\ncontinue a second time with His hand to ransom the remnant of His\npeople which has remained from Asshur and from Egypt, from Patros and\nfrom Cush, from Elam and from Shinar, from Hamath and from the islands\nof the sea._\"\n\n[Pg 126]\n\nFrom the Gentiles, the Prophet now turns to Israel. The reception of\nthe Gentiles into the Messianic Kingdom is not by any means to take\nplace at the expense of the old covenant-people; even they shall be\nbrought back again, and shall be received into the Kingdom of God.\n[Hebrew: ivsiP] must be connected with [Hebrew: lqnvt], comp. 2 Sam.\nxxiv. 1: \"And the Lord continued to kill,\" [Hebrew: lhrg]. It is\nunnecessary and arbitrary to supply [Hebrew: lwlH]. [Hebrew: idv] is\nAccusative, \"as to His hand,\" equivalent to \"with His hand;\" comp. Ps.\niii. 5, xvii. 10, 11, 13, 14. Just the hand of God, which here comes\ninto consideration as the instrument of _doing_, is repeatedly\nmentioned in the account of the deliverance from Egypt; comp. Exod.\niii. 20, vii. 4, xiii. 9. The expression: \"_He shall continue_,\" in\ngeneral, points out the idea that it is not a new beginning which is\nhere concerned, but the continuation of former acting, by which\nbelieving was rendered so much the more easy. The expression, \"a\n_second time_,\" points more distinctly to the type of the _deliverance\nfrom Egypt_ with which the redemption to be effected by Christ is\nfrequently paralleled; comp. vers. 15, 16; Vol. i. p. 218, 219. \"_From\nAsshur_,\" &c., must not be connected with [Hebrew: lqnvt], but with\n[Hebrew: iwar], comp. v. 16, those who have remained from Asshur, &c.,\n_i.e._, those whom Asshur and the other places of punishment, with\ntheir hostile influences, have left, who have been preserved in them.\nThe fact that destructive influences may proceed from those nations\nalso which do not properly belong to the number of the kingdoms of the\nworld, is plainly shown by the history of the Jews after Christ. It\nwould be against the accents, both here and in ver. 6, to connect it\nwith [Hebrew: lqnvt]; the words \"which shall remain\" would, in that\ncase, appear to be redundant; and, farther, it is opposed by Exod. x.\n3: \"And eats the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto\nyou from the hail,\" equivalent to; which the hail has left to you.\nSimilar to this is 2 Chron. xxx. 6, where Hezekiah exhorts the children\nof Israel: \"Turn again unto the Lord.... in order that He may again\nreturn to the remnant which has been left to you from the hand of the\nkings of Asshur.\" A question here arises, viz., whether the dispersion\nof Israel which is here described, had already taken place at the time\nof the Prophet, or whether the Prophet, transferring himself in the\nSpirit into [Pg 127] the distant future, describes the dispersion which\ntook place at a later period, after the carrying away of the ten tribes\ninto the Assyrian exile had preceded, viz., that which took place when\nJudah was carried away into the Babylonish exile, and especially after\nthe destruction of Jerusalem. The latter view is the correct one. The\nwhole tenor of the Prophet's words shows that he supposes a\n_comprehensive_ dispersion of the people. It is true that, at the time\nwhen the prophecy was written, the ten tribes had already been carried\naway into captivity; but the kingdom of Judah, the subjects of which,\naccording to ver. 12, likewise appear as being in the dispersion, had\nnot yet suffered any important desolation. The few inhabitants of Judah\nwho, according to Joel iv. 6, (iii. 6), and Amos i. 6, 9, had been sold\nas slaves by the Philistines and Ph[oe]nicians, and others, who, it may\nbe, in hard times had spontaneously fled from their native country,\ncannot here come into consideration. Just as here, so by Hosea too, the\nfuture carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah is anticipated; comp.\nvol. i., p. 219, 220. The fundamental passage is in Deut. xxx. 3, 4,\nwhere the gathering of Israel is promised \"from all the nations whither\nthe Lord thy God has scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out into\nthe utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather\nthee, and from thence will He fetch thee.\" This passage shows with what\nclearness the future scattering lay before the eyes of the holy men,\neven at the first beginnings of the people of God. In vers. 11 and 12\nwe have the summary of the whole of the second part of Isaiah, in which\nthe announcement of Israel's being gathered and brought back is\nconstantly repeated; and it is quite incomprehensible how some grant\nthe genuineness of the prophecy before us, and yet bring forward,\nagainst this second part of Isaiah, the argument that the Prophet could\nnot _suppose_ the scattering, that it must really have taken place,\nsince he simply announces their being brought back.--As regards the\nredemption from the scattering, all that which in history is realised\nin a series of events, is here united in one view. There is no reason\nfor excluding the deliverance under Zerubbabel; for it, too, was\nalready granted for the sake of Christ, whose incarnation the Prophet\nanticipates in faith; comp. remarks on chaps. vii., ix. This\nredemption, [Pg 128] however, in which those who have been brought back\nremain servants in the land of the Lord, can be considered as only a\nprelude to the true one; comp. vol. i., p. 220 f. 448. The true\nfulfilment began with the appearance of Christ, and is still going on\ntowards its completion, which can take place even without Israel's\nreturning to Canaan, comp. vol. i., p. 222. Asshur opens the list, and\noccupies the principal place, because it was through him who, under the\nvery eyes of the Prophet, had carried away the ten tribes, that the\ndispersion began. But the Prophet does not limit himself to that which\nwas obvious,--did not expect, from the Messiah, only the healing of\nalready existing hurts.--With Asshur, _Egypt_ is connected in one pair.\nEgypt is the _African_ world's power struggling for dominion with the\n_Asiatic_. Its land serves not only as a refuge to those oppressed by\nthe Asiatic world's power (comp. Jer. xlii. ff.), but, in that struggle\nwith the Asiatic power, itself invades and oppresses the land; comp.\nchap. vii. 18; 2 Kings xxiii. 29 ff.: \"In his days Pharaoh Necho, king\nof Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria.\" In a similar\nconnection, Asshur and Egypt, the kingdoms on the Euphrates and the\nNile, appear in chap. xxvii. 13: \"And it shall come to pass in that\nday, that a great trumpet is blown, and they come, the perishing ones\nin the land of Asshur, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and\nworship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem;\" Micah vii. 12; Jer.\nii. 18; Lam. v. 6. As annexed to Egypt, the _second_ pair presents\nitself, representing the uttermost _South_; compare the expression,\n\"from the four comers of the earth,\" in ver. 12. Pathros, in Jer. xliv.\n1, 15, also appears as a dependency of Egypt; and Cush, Ethiopia, was,\nat the Prophet's time, the ally of Egypt, chap. xxxvii. 9, xviii., xx.\n3-6. _Gesenius_ remarks on chap. xx. 4: \"Egypt and Ethiopia are, in the\noracles of this time, always connected, just as the close political\nalliance of these two countries requires.\"--From the uttermost South,\nthe Prophet turns to the uttermost East. \"Elam is,\" as _Gesenius_ in\nhis Commentary on chap. xxi. 2 remarks, \"in the pre-exilic writers,\nused for Persia in general, for which afterwards [Hebrew: prs] becomes\nthe ordinary name;\" and according to Dan. viii. 2, the Persian\nMetropolis Shushan is situated in Elam. It appears in chap. xxii. 6 as\nthe representative of the world's power [Pg 129] which in future will\noppress Judah, and we hence expect that it will appear in an Elamitic\nphase also.--Shinar, the ancient name for Babylon, is that world's\npower which, according to chaps. xiii., xiv., xxxix., and other\npassages, is to follow after the Assyrian, and is to carry away Judah\ninto exile. Elam and Madai appear in chap. xxi. 2 as the destroyers of\nthe Babylonian world's power; hence the Elamitic phase of it can follow\nafter the Babylonish only. The geographical arrangement only can be the\nreason why it is here placed first.--The last of the four pairs of\ncountries is formed by Hamath, representing Syria, (comp. 1 Maccab.\nxii. 25, according to which passage Jonathan the Maccabee marches into\nthe land of Hamath against the army of Demetrius,) and the islands of\nthe sea, the islands and the countries on the shores of the\nMediterranean in the uttermost West. As early as in the prophecy of\nBalaam, in Numb. xxiv. 24: \"And ships come from the side of Chittim and\nafflict Asshur, and afflict Eber, and he also perisheth,\" we find the\nannouncement that, at some future time, the Asiatic kingdoms shall be\nconquered by a power which comes from the West in ships, by European\nnations--an announcement which was realised in history by the dominion\nof the Greeks and Romans in Asia.\n\nVer. 12: \"_And He setteth up an ensign to the Gentiles and assembleth\nthe exiled of Israel, and gathereth together the dispersed of Judah\nfrom the four corners of the earth._\"\n\nThe setting up of the ensign for the Gentiles, around which they are to\nassemble for the purpose of restoring Israel, took place, in a prelude,\nunder Cyrus; comp. chap. xiv. 2, xlix. 22: \"Thus saith the Lord God:\nBehold I lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to\nthe nations, and they bring thy sons on their bosom, and thy daughters\nare carried upon their shoulders;\" where the sons and daughters\ncorrespond to the exiled men of Israel, and to the dispersed women of\nJudah, equivalent to all the exiled and dispersed men and women. As\nearly as in the Song of Solomon, we are taught that in the Messianic\ntime the Gentile nations will take an active part in the restoration of\nIsrael. According to the first part of that Song, the appearance of the\nheavenly Solomon is connected with the reception of the Gentiles into\nHis Kingdom, and that, through the instrumentality of the [Pg 130] old\ncovenant people, as is intimated by the name of the daughters of\nJerusalem; comp. my Comment. on Song of Solomon, iii. 9-11. In the\nsecond part of that Song we have a description of the reunion of\napostate Israel with Christ,--which reunion takes place by the\nco-operation of the daughters of Jerusalem, the same whom they formerly\nbrought to salvation. According to Is. lxvi. 20, the Gentiles,\nconverted to the Lord in the time of salvation, bring the children of\nIsrael for an offering unto the Lord,--A significant allusion to the\npassage before us is found in John xi. 52: [Greek: kai ouch huper tou\nethnous monon, all'hina kai ta tekna tou Theou ta dieskorpismena\nsunagag\u00ea eis hen.] It is the same mercy seeking that which is lost that\nmanifests itself in the gathering of apostate Israel, and in the\ngathering of the Gentiles. What is said of the one furnishes, at the\nsame time, the guarantee for the other.\n\nVer. 13. \"_And the envy of Ephraim departeth, and the adversaries of\nJudah are cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not\nvex Ephraim._\"\n\nAccording to the explanatory fourth clause, the \"adversaries of Judah\"\nin the second clause, can only be those among Judah who vex Ephraim. At\nthe very beginning of the separation of the two kingdoms, their future\nreunion had been announced by a prophet; and this must now take place\nas certainly as Jehovah is God, who had promised to David and his house\nthe eternal dominion over all Israel. The separation had taken place\nbecause the house of David had become unfaithful to its vocation. In\nthe Messiah, the promise, to the Davidic race is to be completely\nrealized; _and this realization has_, for its necessary consequence,\nthe _removal for ever_ of the separation; comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 22. It\nwas a _prelude_ to the fulfilment, that a portion of the subjects of\nthe kingdom of the ten tribes united with Judah in all those times\nwhen, in the blessing accompanying the enterprises of a pious son of\nDavid, the promise granted to David was, in some measure realized,--as\nwas the case under Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Even before\nChrist appeared in the flesh, the announcement here made was all but\nrealized. The exile put an end to the kingdom of the ten tribes, and\nhence also to the unnatural separation which had been designated as the\nseverest calamity of the past, chap. vii. 17. The other tribes [Pg 131]\njoined Judah and the restored sanctuary; comp. Acts xxvi. 7; Luke ii.\n36. The name of \"_Jews_\" passed over to the whole nation; the jealousy\ndisappeared. This blessing was conferred upon the people for Christ's\nsake, and with a view to His future appearance. In Christ, the bond of\nunion and communion is so firmly formed that no new discord can\nalienate the hearts from one another.\n\nVer. 14. \"_And they fly upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the\nWest, spoil together the children of the East; Edom and Moab shall be\ntheir assault, the children of Ammon their obedience._\"\n\nAs Israel is united internally, so it shall be externally powerful.\nAccording to the Song of Solomon vi. 10, the congregation of Israel\nwhen, by her renewed connection with the Lord and His heavenly Solomon,\nshe has regained her former strength, is \"terrible as an army with\nbanners.\"--The nations mentioned are those of the Davidic reign. Even\nbefore the time of the Prophet, they had been anew conquered by\nJehoshaphat, in whom the spirit of David had been revived anew; comp. 2\nChron. xx.; Ps. lxxxiii. A prelude to the fulfilment of the prophecy\nbefore us took place at the time of the Maccabees, comp. Vol. i. p.\n467, 468. But as regards the fulfilment, we are not entitled to limit\nourselves to the names here mentioned. These names are the accidental\nelement in the prophecy; the thought is this: As soon as Israel\nrealizes its destiny, it partakes of God's inviolability, of God's\nvictorious power. The Prophet's sole purpose is to point out the\nvictorious power, to give prominence to the thought that outward\nprosperity is the necessary consequence of inward holiness.--In the\nfirst clause, the image is taken from birds of prey; comp. Hab. i. 8:\n\"They fly as an eagle hastening to eat,\" which passage refers to the\nenemies of Israel at the time of wrath. In the time of _grace_, the\nrelation will be just the reverse.--[Hebrew: mwlH id] occurs, in a\nseries of passages in Deuteronomy, of that which is taken in hand,\nundertaken. Edom and Moab are no longer an object of _Noli me tangere_\nfor them.\n\nVer. 15. \"_And the Lord destroys the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, and\nwaves His hand over the River with the violence of His wind, and\nsmiteth it into seven streams, that one may go through in shoes._\"\n\n[Pg 132]\n\nVer. 16. \"_And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people\nwhich was left from Asshur; like as it was to Israel in the day that he\ncame up out of the land of Egypt._\"\n\nThe miraculous power of the Lord shall remove all obstacles to\ndeliverance. These obstacles are represented by the Euphrates and the\nRed Sea (the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, equivalent to the point of\nit), with a reference to the fact that, among the countries, in ver.\n11, from which Israel is to be delivered, there had been mentioned,\n_Egypt_, between which and the Holy Land was the Red Sea, and Asshur,\nsituated on the other side of Euphrates. To Euphrates, upon which there\nwill be repeated that which, in ancient times, was done in the case of\nJordan, the Prophet assigns, in ver. 15, the last place, on account of\nver. 16. The highway in that verse is prepared by the turning off of\nEuphrates, so that we might put: \"And thus,\" at the beginning of the\nverse. As regards the destroying, [Hebrew: hHrvM], it is the forced\ndevoting to God of that which would not spontaneously serve Him;\ncompare remarks on Mal. iii. 24. Objects of such devoting can properly\nbe _persons_ only, because they only are capable of spontaneous\nsanctification to God, as well as of wilful desecration. The fact that\nit is here transferred to the sea may be accounted for by its being\npersonified. The destruction which is inflicted upon the sea is, in it,\ninflicted upon the enemies of God thereby represented, inasmuch as\nit opposes the people of God, and thus, as it were, strives against\nGod.--_With the violence or terror of His wind_, _i.e._, with His\nviolent, terrible wind. There is in this an allusion to Exod. xiv. 21,\naccording to which the Lord dried up the Red Sea by a violent wind.\nAgainst _Drechsler_, who thinks of \"God's breathing of anger,\" first,\nthis reference to Exod. xiv. 21, and farther, the circumstance that the\n[Hebrew: rvH] appears as something which the Lord has in His hand, are\ndecisive.--In ver. 16 we need not, after \"from Asshur,\" supply the\nother nations mentioned in ver. 11, which would be unexampled; but\nAsshur appears as the representative of all the enemies of God.\nSimilarly in Micah also, Asshur is, with evident intention, used\ntypically; comp. Vol. i. p. 515, 516.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Notwithstanding the arguments which we stated in favour of\nour proposition, that the original form of the name is [Hebrew: ncr].\n_Ebrard_ without even attempting to refute them, assumes, in favour of\na far-fetched conjecture, that the name of the place was written\n[Hebrew: nzrt] (_Kritik. d. Ev. Geschichte_ S. 843, 1st Ed.), and has\nintroduced this opinion even into the text of the new edition of\n_Olshausen's_ Commentary, edited by him. The circumstance that\nelsewhere _commonly_ the Hebrew [Hebrew: z] is, in Greek, rendered by\n[Greek: z], [Hebrew: c] by [Greek: s] is, in this case, where the\nspecial arguments in favour of [Hebrew: ncr] are so strong, of no\nconsequence.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weissagung und Erf\u00fcllung._, II. S. 64) was the\nlast who assumed that the Evangelist had generally in view those\npassages in which the lowliness, contempt, and rejection of Christ are\nspoken of, and that, in the Old Testament passages in question, the\n[Greek: Naz\u00f4raios] was not contained according to the letter, but\naccording to the spirit only. But this is opposed not only by the whole\nmanner of quotation which is given as a literal one, but also by a\nwhole series of analogies: Christ's birthplace in Bethlehem, His stay\nin Jerusalem, His ministry in Galilee, and especially in Capernaum, His\nentrance into Jerusalem,--all these are by Matthew traced back to\nprophetical declarations which have a special reference to these\nlocalities. Against the exposition given by us, _Hofmann_ advances the\nassertion that neither [Hebrew: ncr] nor [Hebrew: HTr] have ever\nattached to them the idea of lowliness, of unassuming appearance. But\neven if a twig were not of itself something lowly and unassuming in\nappearance, yet, in the passage before us, that idea is, at all events,\nimplied in the connection with the _stump_ and _roots_, as well as by\nthe contrast to [Hebrew: iprh]]\n\n[Footnote 3: The following passage, which we take from _Raim. Martini\nPug. Fid._ III. 3, 19 p. 685, will fully illustrate that custom: R.\n_Abba_ said: His name is [Hebrew: ihvh] Lord, according to the word in\nJerem. xxiii. 6; R. _Josua ben Levy_ said: \"His name is Sprout,\naccording to what is said in Zech. vi. 12. Others say that His name\nwill be Comforter, Son of the strength of God, as is declared in Lam.\ni. 16. Those from the School of R. _Siloh_ said: His name will be\n_Shiloh_, as is written in Gen. xlix. 10: 'Until Shiloh come.'Those\nfrom the School of R. _Chanina_ said: His name will be the Gracious\none, as Jerem. said in chap. xvi. 13. Those from the School of R.\n_Jannai_ said: Jinnon shall be His name, according to Ps. lxxii. 17,\n&c.\"]\n\n\n[Pg 133]\n\n\n\n\n CHAP. XII.\n\n\nThis chapter contains Israel's hymn of thanks after having obtained\nredemption and deliverance, and is connected with chap. ix. 2 (3),\nwhere the Prophet had, in general, mentioned the joy of the elect in\nthe Messianic time. Here he embodies it in words. The hymn, which forms\na kind of close, and, to a certain degree, belongs to the whole cycle\nof the preceding Messianic prophecies, is based upon the hymn of\nthanksgiving by Israel after having passed through the Red Sea,--that\nhistorical fact which contained so strong a guarantee for the future\nredemption, and is in harmony with chap. xi. 15, 16, where the Prophet\nhad announced a renewal of those wonderful leadings of the Lord. The\nhymn falls into three stanzas, each consisting of two verses. In ver. 1\nand 2, and in ver. 4 and 5, the redeemed ones are introduced speaking;\nver. 3 and 5, which likewise form a couple, contain an epilogue of the\nProphet on the double _jubilus_ of the congregation.\n\nVer. 1. \"_And in that day thou sayest: I will praise thee, Lord, for\nthou wast angry with me, and now thine anger is turned away, and thou\ncomfortest me._ Ver. 2. _Behold, God is my salvation; I trust, and am\nnot afraid; for my strength and song is the Lord, and He became my\nSaviour._\"\n\nThe words \"my strength and my song,\" are from Exod. xv. 2. The two\nmembers of the verse enter into the right relation to one another, and\nthe [Hebrew: ki] becomes intelligible, only if we keep in mind that the\nwords at the beginning, \"The Lord is my salvation,\" are an expression\nof the conviction of the speaker; hence are equivalent to: we\nacknowledge Him as our God; so that the first part expresses the\nsubjective disposition of the Church; the second, the objective\ncircumstance of the case--that on which that disposition is founded,\nand from which it grew up.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And ye draw water in joy out of the wells of salvation._\"\n\nDuring the journey through the wilderness, the bestowal of salvation\nhad been represented under the form of granting [Pg 134] water. It is\nto it that we have here an allusion. The spiritual water denotes\nsalvation.\n\nVer. 4. \"_And in that day ye say: Praise the Lord, proclaim His name,\ndeclare His doings among the nations, make mention that His name is\nexalted._ Ver. 5. _Praise the Lord, for He hath done great things; this\nis known in all the earth._\"\n\nVer. 6. \"_Cry out and shout thou inhabitant of Zion; for great is the\nHoly One of Israel in thy midst._\"\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\nThere now follows a cycle of ten prophecies, which, in the\ninscriptions, have the name [Hebrew: mwa] \"burden,\" and in which the\nProphet exhibits the disclosures into the destinies of the nations\nwhich he had received on the occasion of the threatening Assyrian\ninvasion under Sennacherib. For, from the prophecy against Asshur in\nchap. xiv. 24, 25, which is contained in the very first burden, it\nclearly appears that the cycle which, by the equality of the\ninscriptions, is connected into one well arranged and congenial whole,\nbelongs to this period. This prophecy against Asshur forms one whole\nwith that against Babel, and by it the latter was suggested and called\nforth. In that prophecy, the defeat of Asshur, which took place in the\n14th year of Hezekiah, is announced as future. It is true that the\nsecond burden, directed against the Philistines, in chap. xiv. 28-32,\nseems to suggest another time. Of this burden it is said, in ver. 28,\nthat it was given in the year that king Ahaz died; not in the year in\nwhich his death was impending, but in that in which he died, comp.\nchap. vi. 1. The distressed circumstances of the new king raised the\nhopes of the Philistines, who, under Ahaz, had rebelled against the\nJewish dominion. But the Prophet beholds in the Spirit that, just under\nthis king, the heavenly King of Zion would destroy these hopes, and\nwould thrust down Philistia from its imaginary height. But from the\ntime of the original composition of the prophecy, that of its\n_repetition_ must be distinguished. That took place, as is just shewn\nby the prophecy's being received in the cycle of the _burdens_, at the\ntime when the invasion of Sennacherib was immediately impending. The\nAssyrians were the power from the _North_, [Pg 135] by whom the\nthreatened destruction would break in upon the Philistines; and the\ntruth of the word should be verified upon them, that prosperity is only\nthe forerunner of the fall. In the view of the fulfilment, Isaiah\nrepeated the prophecy.\n\nFrom the series of these _burdens_, we shall very briefly comment upon\nthose which are of importance for our purpose. First,\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTERS XIII. l.-XIV. 27.\n\n\nThis prophecy does not contain any characteristically expressed\nMessianic element; but it is of no small consequence for bringing out\nthe whole picture of the future, as it was before the mind of the\nProphet. It is in it that Babel meets us distinctly and definitely as\nthe threatening world's power of the future, by which Judah is to be\ncarried away into captivity.\n\nThe genuineness is incontrovertibly testified by the close; and it is\nonly by a naturalistic tendency that it can be denied. With the\nannouncement of the deliverance from Babel is first, in chap. xiv. 24,\n25, connected an announcement of deliverance from Asshur; and then\nfollows in ver. 26 and 27, the close of the whole prophecy from chap.\nxiii. 1, onward. Vers. 26 and 27, which speak of the whole earth and of\nall the nations, refer to chap. xiii., where the Prophet had spoken of\nan universal judgment, comp. ver. 5, 9, 10, &c.; while, in the verses\nimmediately preceding, one single people, the Assyrians only, were\nspoken of It is thereby rendered impossible to separate chap. xiv. 24,\n27 from the whole.\n\nBehind the world's power of the present--the Assyrian--the Prophet\nbeholds a new one springing up--the Babylonish. Those who have asserted\nthat the prophecy against Babel is altogether without foundation as\nsoon as Isaiah is supposed to have composed it, are utterly mistaken.\nAlthough the prophecy was by no means destined for the contemporaries\nonly, as prophecy is generally destined for all times of the Church,\nyet, even for the Prophet's contemporaries, every letter was of\nconsequence. If Israel's principal enemies belonged to the future, how\nvery little was to be feared from the present ones; and especially if\nIsrael should and must rise from even the [Pg 136] deepest abasement,\nhow should God not then deliver them from the lower distress and need?\nBut just because weak faith does not like to draw such _inferences_,\nthe Prophet at the close expressly adverts to the present affliction,\nand gives to the weak faith a distinct and sure word of God, by which\nit may support itself, and take encouragement in that affliction.\n\nThe points of connection must not be overlooked which the prophecy\nin chap. xi. offers for the prophecy before us. We already met there\nthe total decay of the royal house of David, the carrying away of\nJudah into exile, and their dispersion into all lands. It is on this\nfoundation that the prophecy before us takes its stand: it points\nto the power by which these conditions are to be brought about.\nFarther--There, as well as here, the conditions of the future are not\nexpressly _announced_ as such, but _supposed_: the Prophet takes his\nstand in the future. There, as well as here, the Prophet draws\nconsolation in the sufferings of the present from a salvation to be\nbestowed in a far distant future only.\n\nFrom the very outset, the Prophet announces an impending carrying away\nof the people, and, at the same time, that, even in this distress, the\nLord would have compassion upon His people, comp. _e.g._ chaps. v., vi.\nFrom the very outset, the Prophet clearly saw that it was not by the\nAssyrians that this carrying away would be effected. This much we\nconsider to be fully proved by history. The progress which the prophecy\nbefore us offers, when compared with those former ones, consists in\nthis circumstance only, that the Prophet here expressly mentions the\nnames of the future destroyers. And in reference to this circumstance\nwe may remark, that, according to the testimony of history, as early as\nat that time, the plan of the foundation of an independent power was\nstrongly entertained and fostered at Babylon, as is clearly enough\nevidenced by the embassy of the viceroy of Babylon to Hezekiah.\n\nIn chap. xxiii. 13--the prophecy against Tyre, which is acknowledged to\nbe genuine by the greater number of rationalistic interpreters--the\nProphet shows the clearest insight into the future universal dominion\nof Chaldea, which forms the point of issue for the prophecy before us.\nWith perfect clearness this insight meets us in chap. xxxix. also, on\nwhich even _Gesenius_ cannot avoid remarking: \"The prophetic eye of [Pg\n137] Isaiah foresaw, even at that time, that, in a political point of\nview, Babylon would, in a short time, altogether enter into the track\nof Assyria.\"\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTERS XVII., XVIII.\n\n\nThese two chapters form one whole, as, generally, the series of the\nten _burdens_ is nowhere interrupted by inserted, heterogeneous,\nindependent portions. Chapter xx. forms an appendix only to chapter\nxix. In the same manner, the prophecy against Sebna in chap. xxii.\n16-25, stands in an internal connection with vers. 1-15; in that which\nbefel him, the destinies of the people were to be typified. That these\ntwo chapters belong to one another is clearly proved by the parallelism\nof chap. xvii. 10, 11, and chap. xviii. 4-6.\n\nThe inscription runs: \"Burden of Damascus.\" It is at the commencement\nof the prophecy that the Syrians of Damascus are spoken of; the\nthreatening soon after turns against Judah and Israel. This is easily\naccounted for by the consideration that the prophecy refers to a\nrelation where Judah and Israel appear in the retinue of Damascus. It\nwas from Damascus that, in the Syrico-Damascenic war, the whole\ncomplication proceeded. Aram induced Israel to join him in the war\nagainst Judah, and misled Judah to seek help from Asshur. In a general\nreligious point of view, also, all Israel, the kingdom of the ten\ntribes, as well as Judah, were at that time, as it were, incorporated\ninto Damascus; comp. ver. 10, according to which Israel's guilt\nconsisted in having planted strange vines in his vineyard, with 2 Kings\nxvi. 10, according to which Ahaz got an altar made at Jerusalem after\nthe pattern of that which he had seen at Damascus. The circumstance\nthat Israel had become like Damascus, was the reason why it was given\nup to the Gentiles for punishment.\n\nFrom the comparison of chap. x. 28-34, it appears that chap. xvii.\n12-14 belongs to the time of Hezekiah, when Israel was threatened by\nthe invasion of Sennacherib. In chap. xvii. 1-11, in which, at first,\nthe overthrow of Damascus and the kingdom of the ten tribes appears as\nstill future, the Prophet [Pg 138] thus transfers himself back to the\nstand-point of an earlier time. To this result we are also led by the\nchronological arrangement of the whole collection. The Prophet,\nstepping back in spirit to the beginning of the complication, surveys\nthe whole of the calamity and salvation which arise to Israel from the\nrelation to Asshur and the whole world's power represented by Asshur--a\nrelation into which it had been led by Damascus--and takes a view of\nthe punishment which it receives by its sins, by its having become\nworldly, and of the Divine mercy which sends deliverance and salvation.\n\nThe threatening goes as far as chap. xvii 11. The rod of chastisement\nis, in the first instance, in the hand of Asshur; but he, as has been\nalready mentioned, represents the world's power in general. With this,\nthe promise connects itself. The oppressors of the people of God are\nannihilated, chap. xvii. 12-14. All the nations of the earth,\nespecially Ethiopia, which was, no less than Israel, threatened by\nAsshur (comp. chap. xxxvii. 9), and to which Egypt at that time\noccupied the position of a subordinate ally, perceive with astonishment\nthe catastrophe by which God brings about the destruction of His\nenemies, chap. xviii. 1-3. Or, to state it more exactly: Messengers\nwho, from the scene of the great deeds of the Lord, hasten in ships,\nfirst, over the Mediterranean, then, in boats up the Nile, bring the\nintelligence of the catastrophe which has taken place to Cush, the land\nof the rustling of the wings--thus named from the rustling of the wings\nof the royal eagle of the world's power, which, being in birth equal to\nAsshur, has there its seat, vers. 1 and 2; comp. chap. viii. 8. All the\ninhabitants of the earth shall look with astonishment at the\ncatastrophe which is taking place, ver. 3, where the Prophet who, in\nvers. 1 and 2, had described the catastrophe as having already taken\nplace, steps back to the stand-point of reality. In vers. 4-6, we have\nthe graphic description of the catastrophe. At the close, we have, in\nver. 7, the words which impart to the prophecy importance for our\npurpose.\n\n\"_In that time shall be brought, as a present unto the Lord of hosts,\nthe people far stretched and shorn, and from the people terrible since\nit_ (has been) _and onward, and from the people of law-law and\ntrampling down, whose land streams divide, to the place of the name of\nthe Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion._\"\n\n[Pg 139]\n\nThe expression, \"shall be brought as a present,\" (the word [Hebrew: wi]\noccurs, besides in this passage, only in Ps. lxviii. 30; lxxvi. 12)\npoints back to the fundamental passage in Ps. lxviii. 30, where David\nsays, \"Because of thy temple over Jerusalem shall kings bring presents\nunto thee.\" As outwardly, so spiritually too, the sanctuary lies _over_\nJerusalem. The sanctuary of God over Jerusalem is the emblem of His\nprotecting power, of His saving mercy watching over Jerusalem; so that,\n\"because of thy temple over Jerusalem they bring,\" &c., is equivalent\nto: On account of thy glorious manifestation as the God of Jerusalem.\nCush is in that Psalm, immediately afterwards, expressly mentioned by\nthe side of Egypt, which, at the Prophet's time, was closely connected\nwith it. \"Princes shall come out of Egypt, Cush makes her hands to\nhasten towards God.\"--According to _Gesenius_, and other interpreters,\nthe [Hebrew: mN] from the second clause is to be supplied before\n[Hebrew: eM mmwK]. But this is both hard and unnecessary. It is quite\nin order that, first, the offering of persons, and, afterwards, the\noffering of their gifts should be mentioned. Parallel is chap. xlv. 14:\n\"The labour of Egypt and the merchandize of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans,\nmen of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine;\"\nthe difference is only this, that there first the goods are mentioned,\nand then the men. In chap. lxvi. 20, we likewise meet men who are\nbrought for an offering. The designations of the people who here appear\nas the type of the whole Gentile world to be converted at some future\nperiod, and who have been chosen for this honour in consequence of the\nhistorical circumstances which existed at the time of the Prophet, are\ntaken from ver. 2. _Gesenius_ is wrong in remarking in reference to\nthem: \"All these epithets have for their purpose to designate that\ndistant people as a powerful and terrible one.\" As _Gesenius_ himself\nwas obliged to remark in reference to the last words, \"Whose land\nstreams divide:\" \"This is a designation of a striking peculiarity of\nthe country, not of the people,\"--the purpose of the epithets can\ngenerally be this only, to characterise the people according to their\ndifferent prominent peculiarities.--[Hebrew: mmwK] properly \"_drawn\nout_,\" \"_stretched_,\" Prov. xiii. 12, corresponds to the [Hebrew: anwi\nmdh] \"men of extension or stature,\" in chap. xlv. 14. High stature\nappears, in classical writers also, as a characteristic sign of the [Pg\n140] Ethiopians.--On [Hebrew: mvrT] \"_closely shorn_,\" comp. chap. l.\n6, where [Hebrew: mrT] is used of the plucking out of the hair of the\nbeard.--\"To the people fearful since it and onward,\" equivalent to:\nwhich all along, and throughout its whole existence, has been terrible;\ncompare [Hebrew: mimi hia] Nah. ii. 9, and the expression: \"from this\nday and forward,\" 1 Sam. xviii. 9. For everywhere one people only is\nspoken of, comp. ver. 1, according to which Egypt cannot be thought\nof--[Hebrew: qv qv] \"law-law\" is explained from chap. xxviii. 10, 13,\nwhere it stands beside [Hebrew: cv cv], and designates the mass of\nrules, ordinances, and statutes. This is characteristic of the\nEgyptians, and likewise of the Ethiopians, who bear so close an\nintellectual resemblance to them. With regard to the connection of the\nverse with what precedes, _Gesenius_ remarks: \"The consequence of such\ngreat deeds of Jehovah will be, that the distant, powerful people of\nthe Ethiopians shall present pious offerings to Jehovah,\"--more\ncorrectly, \"present themselves and their possessions to Jehovah.\"--A\nprelude to the fulfilment Isaiah beheld with his own eyes. It is said\nin 2 Chron. xxxii. 33: \"And many (in consequence of the manifestation\nof the glory of God in the defeat of Asshur before Jerusalem) brought\ngifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem.\" Yet, we must not limit ourselves to\nthat. The real fulfilment can be sought for only at a later time, as\ncertainly as that which the Prophet announces about the destruction of\nthe world's power exceeds, by far, that isolated defeat of Asshur,\nwhich can be regarded as a prelude only to the real fulfilment; and\nas certainly as he announces the destruction of Asshur generally,\nand, under his image, of the world's power. \"He who delights in\nhaving pointed out the fulfilment of such prophecies in the later\nhistory\"--_Gesenius_ remarks--\"may find it in Acts viii. 26 ff., and\nstill more, in the circumstance that Abyssinia is, up to this day, the\nonly larger Christian State of the East.\"--In consequence of the\nglorious manifestation of the Lord in His kingdom, and of the\nconquering power which, in Christ, He displayed in His relation to the\nworld's power, there once existed in Ethiopia a flourishing Christian\nChurch; and on the ground of this passage before us, we look at its\nruins which have been left up to this day, with the hope that the Lord\nwill, at some future time, rebuild it.\n\n[Pg 141]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n\nThe burden of Egypt begins with the words: \"Behold the Lord rideth upon\na swift cloud, and cometh into Egypt, and the idols of Egypt are moved\nat His presence, and the heart of Egypt melteth in the midst of it.\"\nThe clouds with which, or accompanied by which, the Lord comes, are, in\nthe Old and New Testament writings, symbolical indications and\nrepresentations of judgment; comp. my remarks on Rev. i. 7; and besides\nthe passages quoted there, compare in addition Jer. iv. 13; Rev. xiv.\n14. But what judgment is here spoken of? According to _Gesenius_ and\nother interpreters, the calamity is the victory of Psammeticus over the\ntwelve princes, with which physical calamities are to be joined. But\nagainst this view, ver. 11 alone is conclusive, inasmuch as, according\nto this verse, Pharaoh, at the time when this calamity breaks in upon\nEgypt, is the ruler of the whole land: \"How say ye unto Pharaoh: I am\nthe Son of the wise a (spiritual) son of the kings of ancient times,\"\nwho are celebrated for their wisdom. In ver. 2, according to which, in\nEgypt, kingdom fights against kingdom, we cannot, therefore, think of\nindependent kingdom s; but following the way of the LXX., [Greek: nomos\nepi nomon], of provinces only. Further,--According to _Gesenius_, the\nfierce lord and cruel king in ver. 4 is assumed to be Psammeticus. But\nagainst this the plural alone is decisive. Ezek. xxx. 12--according to\nwhich outward enemies, the [Hebrew: zriM], are the cause of the drying\nup of the Nile, of the ceasing of wealth and prosperity--militates\nagainst the assumption of a calamity independent of the political one.\nThe circumstance, that the prophecy under consideration belongs to the\nseries of the _burdens_, and was written in the view of Asshur's\nadvance, leaves us no room to doubt that the Lord is coming to judgment\nin the oppression by the Asiatic world's power. To this may be added\nthe analogy of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel against Egypt,\nwhich are evidently to be considered as a resumption of the prophecy\nunder consideration, and as an announcement that its realization is\nconstantly going on. They do not know any other calamity than being\ngiven up to the Asiatic world's power. Compare _e.g._ Jer. xlvi. 25,\n26: \"And behold, I visit Pharaoh and Egypt, and their gods and their\nkings, Pharaoh [Pg 142] and them that trust in him. And I deliver them\ninto the hand of those that seek their soul, and into the hand of\nNebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.\" After what we have remarked, the\ndiscord among the Egyptians in ver. 2, can be considered as the\nconsequence and concomitant of the real and main calamity only: Where\nGod is not in the midst, there, commonly, internal discord is wont to\nfollow upon severe outward affliction, inasmuch as one always imputes\nto the other the cause of matters going on so badly. And what is said\nof the drying up of the Nile, we shall thus likewise be obliged to\nconsider as a consequence of the hostile oppression. Waters are, in\nScripture, the ordinary image of prosperity; compare remarks on Rev.\nxvii. 1, 8, 40; xvi. 4. Here the Nile specially is chosen as the symbol\nof prosperity, inasmuch as upon it the woe and weal of Egypt chiefly\ndepended. In consequence of the hostile invasion which consumes all the\nstrength of the land, the Nile of its prosperity dries up; \"its very\nfoundations are destroyed, all who carry on craft are afflicted.\"\n\nThe scope of the prophecy is this: The Lord comes to judgment upon\nEgypt (through Asshur and those who follow in his tracks), ver. 1.\nInstead of uniting all the strength against the common enemy, there\narises, by the curse of God, discord and dissolution, ver. 2. Egypt\nfalls into a helpless state of distress, ver. 3. \"And I give over Egypt\ninto the hand of hard rule, and a fierce king (_Jonathan_: _potens_,\nsc. Nebuchadnezzar) shall rule over them, saith the Lord, Jehovah of\nhosts,\" ver. 4. The fierce king is the king of Asshur, the Asiatic\nkingdom; compare the mention of Asshur in ver. 23-25; LXX. [Greek:\nbasileis skl\u00earoi]. For, the fact that the unity is merely an _ideal_\none, is most distinctly and intentionally pointed at by the [Hebrew:\nadniM] preceding. The prosperity of the land is destroyed, ver. 5-10.\nThe much boasted Egyptian wisdom can as little avert the ruin of the\ncountry as it did formerly, in ancient times; its bearers stand\nconfounded and ashamed; nothing will thrive and prosper, vers. 11-15.\nBut the misery produces salutary fruits; it brings about the conversion\nof Egypt to the God of Israel, and, with this conversion, a full\nparticipation in all the privileges and blessings of the Kingdom of God\nshall be connected, ver. 16, and especially vers. 18-25. This close of\nthe prophecy, which for our purpose is of special consequence, we must\nstill submit to a closer examination.\n\n[Pg 143]\n\nVer. 18. \"_In that day shall be five cities in the land of Egypt which\nspeak the language of Canaan and swear to the Lord of hosts; city of\ndestruction the one shall be called._\"\n\n_Five_, as usual, here comes into consideration as the half of _ten_,\nwhich number represents the whole; \"_five_ cities,\" therefore, is\nequivalent to: a goodly number of cities. On the words: \"Who speak the\nlanguage of Canaan,\" _Gesenius_ remarks: \"With the spreading of a\ncertain religion resting on certain documents of revelation, as _e.g._\nthe Jewish religion, the knowledge of their language, too, must be\nconnected.\" We must not, of course, limit the thought to this, that\nHebrew was learned wherever the religion of Jehovah spread. When\nviewed more deeply, the language of Canaan is spoken by all those\nwho are converted to the true God. Upon the Greek language, _e.g._\nthe character of the language of Canaan has been impressed in the\nNew Testament. That language which, from primeval times, has been\ndeveloped in the service of the Spirit, imparts its character to the\nlanguages of the world, and changes their character in their deepest\nfoundation.--\"To swear to the Lord\" is to do Him homage; Michaelis:\n_Juramento se Domino obstringent_; comp. chap. xlv. 23: \"Unto me every\nknee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.\" In the words: \"City of\ndestruction,\" [Hebrew: hrs], one shall be called, there is contained an\nallusion to [Hebrew: qir hrs], \"_city of the Sun_\" (Heliopolis) which\nwas peculiar to one of the chief seats of Egyptian idolatry. It is the\ncelebrated _On_ or _Bethshemish_ of which Jeremiah prophesies in chap.\nxliii. 13: \"And he (Nebuchadnezzar) breaketh the pillars in Beth-\nshemish, that is in the land of Egypt, and the houses of the gods of\nEgypt he burneth with fire.\" This allusion was perceived as early as by\n_Jonathan_, who thus paraphrases: \"_Urbs domus solis quae destruetur._\"\nBy this allusion it is intimated that salvation cannot be bestowed upon\nthe Gentile world in the state in which it is; that punitive justice\nmust prepare the way for salvation: that everywhere the destructive\nactivity of God must precede that which builds up; that the way to the\nKingdom of God passes through the fire of tribulation which must\nconsume every thing that is opposed to God; compare that which Micah,\neven in reference to the covenant-people, says regarding the necessity\nof taking, before giving can have place, vol. i., p. 517.\n\n[Pg 144]\n\nVer. 19. \"_In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst\nof the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord._\"\n\nThat the altar is to be considered as a \"monument\" only is a\nsupposition altogether far-fetched, and which can the less find any\nsupport in the isolated case, Josh. xxii., that that account clearly\nenough intimates how decidedly the existence of an altar furnishes a\nfoundation for the supposition that sacrifices are to be offered up\nthere, a supposition intimated by the very name in Hebrew. If it was\nmeant to serve some other purpose, it would have been necessary\nexpressly to state it, or, at least, some other place of sacrifice\nought to have been assigned for the sacrifices mentioned in ver. 21.\nBut as it stands, there cannot be any doubt that the altar here and the\nsacrifices there belong to one another. This passage under\nconsideration is of no little consequence, inasmuch as it shows that,\nin other passages where a going up of the Gentiles to Jerusalem in the\nMessianic time is spoken of, as, _e.g._, chap. lxvi. 23, we must\ndistinguish between the thought and the embodiment. The _pillar_ at the\nborder bears an inscription by which the land is designated as the\nproperty of the Lord, just as it was the custom of the old eastern\nconquerors, and especially of the Egyptians, to erect such pillars in\nthe conquered territories.\n\nVer. 20. \"_And it is for a sign and for a witness to the Lord of hosts\nin the land of Egypt: When they cry unto the Lord because of the\noppressors, He shall send them a Saviour and a Deliverer; and he shall\ndeliver them._\"\n\nAltar and pillar, as a sign and witness of the confession to the Lord,\nare, at the same time, a guarantee of the deliverance to be granted by\nHim. According to _Gesenius_, the Prophet speaks \"without a definite\nhistorical reference, of a saving or protecting angel.\" But we cannot\nthink of an angel on account of the plain reference to the common\nformula in the Book of Judges, by which it is intimated that, as far as\nredemption is concerned, Egypt has been made a partaker of the\nprivileges of the covenant-people. It is just this reference which has\ngiven rise to the general expression; but it is Christ who is meant;\nfor the prophets, and especially Isaiah, are not cognizant of any other\nSaviour for the Gentile world [Pg 145] than of Him; and it is He who is\nsuggested by the Messianic character of the whole description.\n\nVer. 21. \"_And the Lord is known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians\nknow the Lord in that day, and offer sacrifice and oblation, and vow\nvows unto the Lord, and perform them._\"\n\nVer. 22. \"_And the Lord smiteth the Egyptians so that He healeth them,\nand they are converted to the Lord, and He shall be entreated by them,\nand shall heal them._\"\n\nWe have here simply a recapitulation. The prophet describes anew the\ntransition from the state of wrath to that of grace--not, as\n_Drechsler_ thinks, what they experience in the latter. Upon Egypt is\nfulfilled what, in Deut. xxxii. 39, has been said in reference to\nIsrael.\n\nVer. 23. \"_In that day there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Asshur,\nand Asshur cometh into Egypt, and Egypt into Asshur, and Egypt serveth\nwith Asshur._\"\n\n[Hebrew: ebd] with [Hebrew: at] has commonly the signification \"to\nserve some one;\" here, however, [Hebrew: at] is used as a preposition:\nEgypt serves God _with_ Asshur. Yet there is an allusion to the\nordinary use of [Hebrew: ebd] with [Hebrew: at] in order to direct\nattention to the wonderful change: First, Egypt serves Asshur, and the\npowers that follow its footsteps; then, it serves _with_ Asshur. Here\nalso it becomes manifest that the deliverer in ver. 20 is no ordinary\nhuman deliverer; for such an one could help his people only by\ninflicting injury upon the hostile power.\n\nVer. 24. \"_In that day Israel shall be the third with Egypt and with\nAsshur, a blessing in the midst of the earth._\"\n\nThe \"blessing\" is not \"that union of people formerly separated,\" but it\nis _Israel_ from which the blessing is poured out upon all the other\nnations; compare the fundamental passage, Gen. xii. 1-3, and the word\nof the Lord: [Greek: h\u00ea s\u00f4t\u00earia ek t\u00f4n Ioudai\u00f4n esti], John iv. 22.\n\nVer. 25. \"_For the Lord of Hosts blesseth him, saying: Blessed be Egypt\nmy people, and Asshur the work of mine hands, and Israel mine\ninheritance._\"\n\nThe suffix in [Hebrew: brm] refers to every thing mentioned in ver. 24.\n\"Assyria and Egypt are called by epithets which elsewhere are wont to\nbe bestowed upon Israel only.\"\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to point out how gloriously this, [Pg 146]\nprophecy was fulfilled; how, at one time, there existed a flourishing\nChurch in Egypt. Although the candlestick of that Church be now removed\nfrom its place (\"_Satanas in hac gente sevit zizania_\"--_Vitringa_),\nyet we are confident of, and hope for, a future in which this prophecy\nshall anew powerfully manifest itself The broken power of the\nMahommedan delusion opens up the prospect, that the time in which this\nhope is to be realized is drawing nigh.\n\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n THE BURDEN UPON TYRE.\n\n\nIn the view of Sennacherib's invasion, the eyes of the Prophet are\nopened, so that he beholds the future destinies of the nations within\nhis horizon. It is under these circumstances that it is revealed to him\nthat Tyre also, which, not long before, had successfully resisted the\nattack of Asshur, and had imagined herself to be invincible, would not,\nfor any length of time, be able to resist the attack of the Asiatic\nworld's power.\n\nThe threatening goes on to ver. 14; it is, in ver. 13, concentrated in\nthe words: \"Behold the land of the Chaldeans, this people which was\nnot, which Asshur assigns to the beasts of the wilderness,--they set up\ntheir watch-towers, they arouse her palaces, they bring them to ruin.\"\nThe correct explanation of this verse has been given by _Delitzsch_ in\nhis Commentary on Habakkuk, S. xxi. Before the capture of Tyre could be\nassigned to the Chaldeans, it was necessary to point out that they\nshould overthrow Asshur, the representative of the world's power in the\ntime of the Prophet. The Chaldeans, a people which, up to that time,\nwere not reckoned in the list of the kingdoms of the world, destroy, in\nsome future period, the Assyrian power, and shall then inflict upon\nTyre that destruction which Asshur intended in vain to bring upon it.\n\n[Pg 147]\n\nUpon the threatening there follows the promise. Ver. 15. \"_And it shall\ncome to pass in that day, and Tyre is forgotten seventy years like the\ndays of one king. After the end of seventy years, it shall be unto Tyre\naccording to the song of the harlot._ Ver. 16. _Take the harp, go about\nthe city, forgotten harlot, make sweet melody, sing many songs, that\nthou mayest be remembered._ Ver. 17. _And it shall come to pass, after\nthe end of seventy years, the Lord will visit Tyre, and she returneth\nto her hire of whoredom, and whoreth with all the kingdoms of the earth\nupon the surface of the earth._ Ver. 18. _And her gain and hire of\nwhoredom shall be holy unto the Lord; not is it treasured and laid up,\nbut to those who sit before the Lord its gain shall be, that they may\neat and be satisfied, and for durable clothing._\"\n\nOn the \"70 years, like the days of one king,\" _Michaelis_ very\npertinently remarks: \"Not of one individual, but of one reign or\nempire, _i.e._ as long as the Babylonian empire shall last, which,\nafter 70 years, was destroyed by Cyrus.\" The necessary qualification\nfollows from ver. 13. According to that verse, the one king can be the\nking of the Chaldeans only. Parallel are the 70 years which, in Jer.\nxxv. 11, 12, are assigned to the Chaldean empire: \"And these nations\nserve the king of Babylon 70 years. And it shall come to pass, when the\n70 years are accomplished, I will visit upon the king of Babylon, and\nupon that nation, saith the Lord, their iniquity.\" In the Commentary on\nRev. ii. 1, p. 75, 200, it was proved that, in Scripture, kings are\nfrequently _ideal_ persons; not individuals, but personifications of\ntheir kingdoms. _Gesenius'_ objection, that the time of the Babylonish\ndynasty, from the pretended destruction of Tyre to the destruction of\nBabylon, did not last 70 years, vanishes by the remark that the Prophet\nsays \"like the days;\" that, hence, it is expressly intimated that the\n70 years here, differently from what is the case in Jeremiah, are to be\nconsidered as a _round_ designation of the time. From a comparison of\nJeremiah we learn that the Chaldean dominion will last 70 years _in\nall_. Into which point of that period the destruction of Tyre is to\nfall, Isaiah does not disclose. It is quite proper that in reference to\nTyre the announcement should not be so definite, in point of\nchronology, as in reference to Judah. That the capture of [Pg 148] Tyre\nby the Chaldeans, which is here announced, really took place, has been\nmore thoroughly established in my book: _De rebus Tyriorum_; and\nafterwards by _Drechsler_ in his Commentary on Isaiah, and by\n_H\u00e4vernick_ in his Commentary on Ezekiel.\n\nAfter the end of the 70 years. Tyre is to resume her trade of whoring,\nand is to carry it on to a wide extent, and with great success. \"By the\nimage of whoredom\"--so we remarked in commenting upon Rev. xiv. 8--\"in\nsome passages of the Old Testament, that selfishness is designated\nwhich clothes itself in the garb of love, and, under its appearance,\nseeks the gratification of its own desires. In Is. xxiii. 15 ff., Tyre\nis, on account of her mercantile connections, called a whore, and the\nprofit from trade is designated as the reward of whoredom. The point of\ncomparison is the endeavour to please, to feign love for the sake of\ngain.\" Under the dominion of the Persians, Tyre again began to\nflourish.\n\nTyre's reward of whoredom is consecrated to the Lord, and the bodily\nwants of His servants are provided from it,--quite in agreement with\nthe words of the Apostle: [Greek: ei h\u00eameis humin ta pneumatika\nespeiramen, mega, ei \u00eameis hum\u00f4n ta sarkika therisomen]; 1 Cor. ix. 11.\nConverted Tyre offers, in these gifts, its thanks for the noble gift\nwhich it received from the sanctuary.\n\n_Vitringa_, who remarks that the Prophet was fully aware of \"the great\ninterval of time that would intervene betwixt the restoration of Tyre,\nand her dedication of herself, with her gains, to the Lord,\" is right,\nwhile _Drechsler_, who is of opinion that the doings of consecrated\nTyre also are represented under the image of whoring, is wrong. Whoring\ndesignates a sinful conversation which is irreconcilable with\nconversion to the Lord. It does not designate trade, as such, but trade\nas it is earned on by those who, with unrenewed hearts, serve the god\nMammon. We have here before us two stages, strictly separated. _First_,\nshe resumes her old whorings; _then_, she consecrates her gain to the\nLord. The severe catastrophe intervening, the new capture of Tyre, as\nit took place by Alexander, is not yet beheld by Isaiah. The\nannouncement of it was reserved for the post-exilic Prophet Zechariah,\nchap. ix. 3.\n\nThe announcement of the future conversion of Tyre received, [Pg 149] in\nthe time of Christ, a symbolical representation as it were, in the\nCanaanitish woman. _Vitringa_ says: \"The first fruits of this grace\nwere received by that wise Canaanitish woman, who had been taught, as\nif she had been in the school of Christ, to ask for divine grace; whom\nMatth. xv. 22, calls a woman of Canaan, Mark vii. 26, a Syrophenician;\nbut who was no doubt a Tyrian, inasmuch as she obtained mercy from\nChrist the Lord himself, while He sojourned in the territory of Tyre\nand Sidon. Paul found at Tyre a congregation of disciples of Christ\nalready in existence, Acts xxi. 3 ff.\" At a subsequent period, there\nexisted at Tyre a flourishing and wealthy church. _Eusebius_ and\n_Jerome_ describe to us, from their own experience, the fulfilment of\nthis prophecy.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTERS XXIV.-XXVII.\n\n\nUpon the ten single \"burdens\" as they were called forth by the\nthreatening Assyrian catastrophe, there follows here a comprehensive\ndescription of the judgments of God upon His people, and upon the\nworld's power hostile to His Kingdom, The characteristic feature in it\nis, that the Prophet abstains from all details.\n\nThe prophecy begins in chap. xxiv. 1-13, with the threatening of the\njudgment upon Judah, The fact that Judah is here spoken of, not alone,\nit is true, but together with his companions in suffering, with all the\nother nations crushed like him by the world's power in its various\nphases (verse 4 most clearly shows that it is not Judah alone which is\nspoken of; comp. the same comprehensive mode of representation in Jer.\nxxv.; Hab. ii. 6), appears from ver. 5: \"For they transgressed the\n_laws_, violated the _ordinances_, broke the everlasting _covenant_,\"\nwhere there can exist only a collateral reference to the Gentile world;\nfrom ver. 13, where the continuing gleaning is characteristic of the\ncovenant-people (comp. xvii. 6); but especially from ver. 23, where,\nafter the time of punishment, the Lord reigneth on Mount Zion.\n\nThe judgment upon Judah bears a comprehensive character. [Pg 150] As\nthe single phases of the world's power, by which the sins of the people\nof God are visited, there had been mentioned in the cycle of the\n_burdens_, Asshur in chap. xiv. 25; Babylon in chap. xiii., xiv., xxi.,\n(the circumstance that the first _burden_ of the first half of the\n_burdens_, and likewise the first _burden_ of the second half of the\n_burdens_--the ten _burdens_ being thus divided into twice five--is\ndirected against Babylon, shows that specially heavy judgments were to\nbe inflicted by Babel); Elam in chap. xxii. 6 (comp. remarks on chap.\nxi. 11). Here the idea of judgment upon the covenant-people is viewed\n_per se_, and irrespective of the particular forms of its realisation.\n\nIn vers. 14, 15, there is a sudden transition from the threatening to\nthe promise: \"They (the remnant left according to ver. 13) shall lift\ntheir voice, they shall shout for the majesty of the Lord, they shall\ncry aloud from the sea,\"--from the sea into which they were driven away\nby the storm of the judgments of the Lord. To the \"sea\" here,\ncorrespond the \"islands of the sea,\" in ver. 15; compare the mention of\nthe islands in chap. xi. 11. Ver. 15. \"Therefore, in the light praise\nye the Lord, in the isles of the sea the name of the Lord God of\nIsrael.\" The words are addressed to the elect in the time of salvation.\nThe Plural [Hebrew: ariM] denotes the _fulness_ of light or salvation,\ncomp. chap. xxvi. 19; [Hebrew: b] is, in both instances, used in a\nlocal sense. The light is the spiritual territory; the isles of the\nsea, the natural.\n\nVer. 16 returns to the threatening: \"From the uttermost parts of the\nearth we hear songs: Glory to the righteous! And I say: Misery to me,\nmisery to me, woe to me! the treacherous are treacherous, and very\ntreacherous are the treacherous.\" The song of praise of the redeemed,\nwhich is heard coming forth from a far distant future, is suppressed by\nthe same affliction which is immediately impending, by the look to the\nrod of chastisement by the world's power with its treachery, its policy\nfeigning love and concealing hatred, with which the Lord is to visit\nHis people, and the floods of which, like a new flood, are, according\nto ver. 15, to overflow the whole earth. Compare the very similar\ntransition from triumphant hope to lamentation over the misery of the\nfuture more immediately at hand, in Hab. iii. 16.\n\nIn ver. 21, ff. the promise breaks forth anew. Ver. 21: [Pg 151] \"_And\nit shall come to pass in that day: the Lord shall visit the host of the\nheight in the height, and the kings of the earth upon the earth._ Ver.\n22. _And they are all of them gathered together as prisoners in the\npit, and are shut up in the prison, and after many days they are\nvisited._ Ver. 23. _And the moon blusheth, and the sun is ashamed, for\nthe Lord of hosts reigneth on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before\nHis ancients is glory._\"\n\nIn ver. 21 the destruction of the world's power is announced. The\n\"kings of the earth\" form the explanation of the \"host of the height.\"\nIt is very common to represent rulers under the image of stars; compare\nNumb. xxiv. 17; Rev. vi. 13, viii. 10; Is. xiv. 12, xxxiv. 4, 5,\ncompared with ver. 12. [Hebrew: mrvM] is used in reference to the great\nones of the earth in ver. 4, and in chap. xxvi. 5, also. The\nexplanation by evil heavenly powers has no Old Testament analogies in\nits favour.--In ver. 22, the words: \"And after many days they are\nvisited,\" intimates that the time will appear very long to Zion, until\nthe visitation takes place. \"Many days,\" or \"a long time,\" viz., after\nthe beginning of their raging, which was to continue for a series of\ncenturies, until Christ at length spoke: \"Be of good cheer, I have\novercome the world.\" The visitation consists in their being gathered\ntogether.--In ver. 23, the words: \"The Lord reigneth,\" contain an\nallusion to the formula used in proclaiming the accession of earthly\nkings to the throne, and point to an impending new and glorious\nmanifestation of the government of the Lord,--as it were, a new\naccession to the throne; compare remarks on Ps. xciii. 1; Rev. xix. 6.\nThe \"ancients\" are the _ideal_ representatives of the Church; compare\nremarks on Rev. iv. 4. Before them is glory, inasmuch as the Lord\nimparts to them of His glory.\n\nIn chap. xxv. 1-5, the Lord is praised on account of the glorious\nredemption bestowed upon His people. \"For thou hast made\"--it is said\nin ver. 2--\"of a city a heap, of a firm city a ruin, the palace of\nstrangers to be no city; it shall not be built in eternity.\" The city,\npalace (we must think of such an one as comes up to a city, as is even\nnow the case with the palaces of the princes in India) bear an ideal\ncharacter, and represent the whole fashion of the world, the whole\nworld's power; comp. ver. 12, chaps. xxvi. 5, xxvii. 10. _Gesenius_ [Pg\n152] speaks of \"the strange conjectures of interpreters who have\nguessed all possible cities.\" But he himself has lost himself in the\nsphere of strange conjectures and guesses, by remarking: \"The city\nwhose destruction is here spoken of can be none other than Babylon.\"\nThe circumstance that Babylon is not mentioned at all in the whole\nprophecy in chaps. xxiv.-xxvii. shows plainly enough that a special\nreference to Babylon cannot here be entertained; and the less so, that\nit would be against the character of our prophecy, which abstains from\nall details.\n\nWhile in vers. 1-5 the discourse was laudatory and glorifying, and\naddressed to the Lord, in vers. 6-8 the Lord is spoken of:\n\nVer. 6. \"_And in this mountain the Lord of hosts maketh unto all people\na feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full\nof marrow, of lees well-refined._ Ver 7. _And destroyeth in the\nmountain the surface of the vail covering all the nations, and the\ncovering cast upon all the nations._ Ver. 8. _And destroyeth death for\never, and the Lord Jehovah wipeth away the tears from off all faces,\nand the rebuke of His people shall He take away from of all the earth;\nfor the Lord hath spoken._\"\n\n\"In this mountain,\" ver. 6, where He enters upon His government (chap.\nxxiv. 23), and dwells in the midst of His people in a manner formerly\nunheard of.--\"Unto all people,\" comp. chap. ii. 2 ff. The verse under\nconsideration forms the foundation for the words of Christ in Matthew\nviii. 2: [Greek: leg\u00f4 de humin hoti polloi apo anatol\u00f4n kai dusm\u00f4n\nh\u00eaxousi kai anaklith\u00easontai meta Abraam kai Isaak kai Iak\u00f4b en t\u00ea\nbasileia t\u00f4n ouran\u00f4n]; comp. xxii. 1 ff.; Luke xxii. 30. In ver. 7,\n\"the surface of the vail\" is the vail itself, inasmuch as it lies over\nit. The \"covering\" here comes into consideration as a sign of mourning,\ncomp. 2 Sam. xv. 30: \"And David went up by the ascent of Mount Olivet,\nweeping, and his head covered, and so also all the people with him.\"\nThe explanation is given in ver. 8, where the [Hebrew: ble] is\nintentionally resumed. We cannot, therefore, agree with _Drechsler_ who\nexplains the being \"covered,\" by \"dullness and deadness in reference to\nspiritual things.\"--The first part of ver. 8 is again resumed in Rev.\nvii. 17, xxi. 4. As death entered into the world by sin (Gen. ii. 17;\nRom. v. 12), [Pg 153] so it ceases when sin is completely overcome;\ncompare 1 Cor. xv. 54, where our passage is expressly quoted. Besides\ndeath, _tears_ also are mentioned, inasmuch as they flow with special\nbitterness in the case of bereavements by death.--The Lord removes the\nrebuke of His people when all their hopes, which formerly were mocked\nand laughed at, are fulfilled, and when, out of the midst of them,\nsalvation for the whole world rises.\n\nWith the people of God in their exaltation, Moab is, in vers. 9-12,\ncontrasted in its weakness and humiliation, and in its vain attempts to\nwithdraw from the supremacy of the God of Israel. Moab comes here into\nconsideration, only as the representative of all the kingdoms hostile\nto God, and obstinately persevering in their opposition to His Kingdom;\njust as Edom in chap. xxxiv., lxiii. The representative character of\nMoab was recognized by _Gesenius_ also, who thus determines the sense:\n\"Whilst Jehovah's protecting hand rests upon Zion, His enemies\nhelplessly perish.\" It is intentionally that Moab is mentioned, and not\nAsshur or Babel, because, in its case, the representative character\ncould not so easily be mistaken or overlooked.--Ver. 12 returns to the\nworld's power in general.\n\nIn chap. xxvi., the rejoicing and shouting for the salvation are\ncontinued. A characteristic Messianic feature is contained in ver. 19\nonly, in which, as in chap. xxv. 8, the ceasing of death and the\nresurrection of the righteous appear as taking place in the Messianic\ntime.\n\nVer. 19. \"_Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and\nsing, ye that dwell in dust! For a dew of light is thy dew, and thou\nmakest fall to the earth the giants._\"\n\nThe saints are raised from the earth; the giants are sunk into the\nearth. The [Hebrew: rpaiM] \"giants\" are identical with the [Hebrew:\niwbi tbl] in ver. 18. There it was said in reference to the time of\nwrath: \"We have not wrought any deliverance in the land, neither have\nthe inhabitants of the world fallen;\" compare vers. 9 and 21; Numb.\nxiv. 32. Parallel is the announcement of the defeat of the world's\npower in ver. 14. [Hebrew: rpaiM], it is true, is there used of the\ndead; but the signification of the word remains the same: The bodiless\nspirits were called _giants_, because they were objects of terror to\nthe living; comp. remarks on Ps. lxxxviii. 11. The word is, in ver. 14,\nused [Pg 154] with a certain irony.--\"Light\" is equivalent to\n\"salvation.\" The Plural signifies the fulness of light or salvation.\nThe complete fulfilment which the words, \"Thy dead shall live,\" will\nfind in the resurrection of the body, affords a guarantee for the\nfulfilment of the previous stages.\n\nIn chap. xxvii., it is especially ver. 1 which attracts our attention:\n\"_In that day the Lord with His sword, hard, great, and strong, shall\nvisit the leviathan, the tortuous serpent, and killeth the dragon that\nis in the sea._\"\n\nWe have here three designations of one and the same monster.\n_Gesenius_, on the other hand, rightly brings forward the accumulation\nof the attributes of the sword: With the three epithets applied to the\nsword, the three epithets of the monster to be killed by it pertinently\ncorrespond. The leviathan, the dragon, is, as it were, the king of the\nsea-animals, compare remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 13, 14. In the spiritual sea\nof the world, its natural antitype is the conquering world's power;\ncomp. remarks on Rev. xii. 3. But that which is meant is the whole\nworld's power, according to all its phases, which is here viewed as a\nwhole; comp. ver. 13, where it is designated by Asshur and Egypt. The\nspecial reference to Babylon rests, here also, on a mere fancy.\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nAfter the single discourses out of the Assyrian time, from chap.\nvii-xxvii., there follows in chap. xxviii.-xxxiii. the sum and\nsubstance of those not fully communicated. Even the uncommonly large\nextent of the section suggests to us such a comprehensive character.\nAnd so likewise does the fact that the same thoughts are constantly\nrecurring, as is the case in several of the minor prophets also, _e.g._\nHosea. But what is most decisive is, that in chap. xxviii. 1-4 Samaria\nappears as not yet destroyed. Considering that the chronological\nprinciple pervades the whole collection, this going back can be\naccounted for only by the circumstance that we have here a\ncomprehensive representation. And we are the more led to this opinion\nthat, in other passages of the same section, Jerusalem is represented\nas being threatened immediately. In this section, it is especially the\npassage in chap. xxviii. 16 [Pg 155] which attracts our attention;\nsince, in the New Testament, it is referred to Christ.\n\n\"_Behold I have laid for a foundation in Zion a stone, a tried_\n(stone), _a precious corner stone of perfect foundation; he that\nbelieveth need not make haste_,\" viz., for an escape or refuge for\nhimself, Ps. lv. 9. In opposition to false hopes, this stone is pointed\nto as the only true foundation, and all are threatened with unavoidable\ndestruction who do not make it their foundation. The stone is the\nKingdom of God, the Church; compare Zech. iii. 9, where the Kingdom of\nGod likewise appears under the image of the stone. But since the\nKingdom of God (which, in chap. viii. 16, had been represented under\nthe image of the quietly flowing waters of Siloah) is, for all\neternity, closely connected with the house of David which centres in\nChrist, _that which, in the first instance, is said of the kingdom of\nGod refers, at the same time, to its head and centre_. Parallel is Is.\nxiv. 32; \"The Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of His people trust\nin it.\" The [Hebrew: hamiN] here corresponds with the [Hebrew: Hsh]\nwith [Hebrew: b] there. The difference is, that there Zion itself is\nthe object of confidence, while here it is the stone which is in Zion.\n_There_, Zion is the _spiritual_ Zion; not the mountain as an\nassemblage of stones, nor the outward temple as such, but Zion in so\nfar as it is a sanctuary, the seat of the presence of the Lord. The\nLord--such is the sense--has founded His Kingdom among us; and the\ncircumstance that we are citizens of the Kingdom gives us security,\nenables us to be calm even in the midst of the greatest danger. _Here_,\non the contrary, Zion is the outward Zion, and the Kingdom of God is\nthe Church as distinguished from it. The Zion here corresponds to the\nholy mountains in Ps. lxxxvii. 1, where, in a similar manner, a\ndistinction is drawn between the material and spiritual Zion: \"His\nfoundation is in the holy mountains,\" on which I remarked in my\nCommentary: \"The foundation of Zion took place spiritually by its being\nchosen to be the seat of the sanctuary. It was then only that the\nplace, already existing, received its spiritual foundation.\" The stone\nlaid by God as a foundation in Zion, in the passage under\nconsideration, is, in substance, identical with the \"tent that He\nplaced among men,\" in Ps. lxxviii. 60. \"In substance the sanctuary was\nerected by God alone, who, by [Pg 156] fulfilling His promise, 'I dwell\nin the midst of them,'breathed the living soul into the body, and\ncaused His name to dwell there.\" In Ezek. xi. the substance of the\nsanctuary, the Shechinah, withdraws into heaven.--Our passage, farther,\ntouches very closely upon chap. viii. 14: \"And He (the Lord) becomes a\nsanctuary and a stone of offence, and a rock of stumbling to both the\nhouses of Israel, and a snare and a trap to the inhabitants of\nJerusalem.\" The stone _here_ is the Church; _there_ it is the Lord\nhimself, according to His relation to Israel, the Lord who has become\nmanifest in His Church. Another point of contact is offered by Ps.\ncxviii. 22: \"The stone which the builders rejected has become the\ncorner-stone.\" In that passage, too, the stone is the Kingdom and\npeople of God: \"The people of God whom the kingdoms of the world\ndespised, have, by the working of God, then been raised to the dignity\nof the world-ruling people.\"\n\nA simple quotation of the passage before us is found in Rom. x. 11:\n[Greek: legei gar h\u00ea graph\u00ea. pas ho pisteu\u00f4n ep'aut\u00f4 ou\nkataischunth\u00easetai.] In chap. ix. ver. 3, we have chap. viii. 14, and\nthe passage under consideration blended in a remarkable manner: [Greek:\nidou tith\u00eami en Si\u00f4n lithon prokommatos kai petran skandalou. kai pas\nho pisteu\u00f4n ep'aut\u00f4 ou kataischunth\u00easetai], and from the remarks\nalready offered, the right to this blending is evident. Peter, in 1\nPet. ii. 6, 7, adds to these two passages, that in Ps. cxviii. 22:\n[Greek: dioti periechei en t\u00ea graph\u00ea: idou tith\u00eami en Si\u00f4n lithon\nakrog\u00f4niaion, eklekton, entimon, kai ho pisteu\u00f4n ep'aut\u00f4 ou m\u00ea\nkataischunth\u00ea. humin houn h\u00ea tim\u00ea tois pisteuousin. apeithousi de\nlithon hon apedokimasan hoi oikodomountes, houtos egen\u00eath\u00ea eis kephal\u00ean\ng\u00f4nias, kai lithos proskommatos kai petra skandalou], on which _Bengel_\nremarks: \"Peter quotes, in ver. 6 and 7, three passages, the first from\nIsaiah, the second from the Psalms, the third again from Isaiah. To the\nthird he alludes in ver. 8, but to the second and first, in ver. 4,\nhaving, even then already both of them in his mind.\" Matth. xxi. 42-44\nrefers only to Ps. cxviii. and to Is. viii. 14, 15. to the latter\npassage in ver. 44; Acts iv. has Ps. cxviii. only in view.\n\nThe second Messianic passage of the section which is of importance for\nour purpose, is chap. xxxiii. 17.\n\n\"_Thine eyes shall see the King in His beauty; they shall see the land\nthat is far off._\"\n\n[Pg 157]\n\nThe \"King\" is the Messiah. This appears from the reference to the Song\nof Solomon i. 16, where the bride says to the bridegroom, the heavenly\nSolomon, \"Behold thou art _fair_, my beloved\" (comp. Ps. xlv. 3;) and\nfrom the words immediately following: \"they shall see the land that is\nfar off.\" The wide extension of the Kingdom of God is indissolubly\nconnected with the appearance of the Messiah. Those who refer the\nprophecy to Hezekiah refer \"the land that is far off\" (literally: \"the\nland of distances\") to \"a land stretching far out,\" in antithesis to\nthe siege when the people of Jerusalem were limited to its area, since\nthe whole country was occupied by the Assyrians. But the passage, chap.\nxxvi. 15: \"Thou increasest the nation, O God, thou art glorified, thou\nremovest all the boundaries of the land,\" is conclusive against this\nexplanation. Comparing this passage, as also chap. lx. 4; Zech. x. 9,\n_Michaelis_ correctly explains: \"The land of distances is the Kingdom\nof Christ most widely propagated.\" In chap. viii. 9, likewise, the\nGentile countries are designated by the \"distances of the earth.\"\n_Farther_--Hezekiah could not be designated simply by [Hebrew: mlK]\nwithout the article. It is only by the utmost violence that the whole\nannouncement can be limited to the events under Hezekiah, which\neverywhere form the foreground only. We might rather, with _Vitringa_,\nthink of Jehovah, with a comparison of ver. 22: \"For the Lord is our\njudge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save\nus,\" and of Ps. xlviii. 3, where he is called [Hebrew: mlK rb]. To\nJehovah, the passage, chap. xxx. 20, 21 also refers,--a passage which\nhas been so often misunderstood: \"And the Lord giveth you bread of\nadversity, and water of affliction, and not does thy teacher conceal\nhimself any more, and thine eyes see thy Teacher. And thine ears hear a\nvoice behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it; do not turn\nto the right hand, nor to the left.\" The affliction prepares for the\ncoming of the heavenly teacher; by it the eyes of the people have been\nopened, so that they are able to behold His glorious form. But although\nwe should understand Jehovah by \"the King in His beauty,\" we must, at\nall events, think of His glorious manifestation in Christ Jesus, who\nsaid, He who sees me sees the Father, and in whom the fulness of the\nGodhead dwells bodily; and it was indeed in Christ that God, [Pg 158]\nin the truest manner, revealed and manifested himself as the Teacher of\nHis people.\n\nThe close of the whole of the first part of Isaiah is, in chaps.\nxxxiv., xxxv. formed by a comprehensive announcement, _on the one\nhand_, of the judgments upon the God-hating world, here individualized\nby Edom, that hereditary enemy of Israel, who was so much the more\nfitted for this representation that his enmity was the most obstinate\nof all, and remained the same throughout all the phases of Israel's\noppression by the great kingdoms of the world (he always appears as he\nwho helped to bring misery upon his brethren); and, _on the other\nhand_, of the mercy and salvation which should be bestowed upon the\nChurch trampled upon by the world.\n\nOn chap. xxxiv. 4;, 5, where the heaven is that of the princes, the\nwhole order of rulers and magistrates; the stars, the single princes\nand nobles, compare my remarks on Rev. vi. 13.\n\n\n\n\nThe description of the salvation in store for the Church, in chap.\nxxxv., is pre-eminently Messianic, although the lower blessings also\nare included which preceded the appearance of Christ. The description\ncontains features so characteristic, that we must necessarily submit it\nto a closer examination.\n\nVer. 1. \"_The wilderness and dry land shall be glad for it, and the\ndesert shall rejoice and sprout like the bulb._\"\n\nThe wilderness is Zion--the Church to be devastated by the world.--\"For\nit,\"--_i.e._ for the judgment upon the world, as it was described in\nchap. xxxiv. with which the changed fate of the Church is indissolubly\nconnected.\n\nVer. 2. \"_It shall sprout, and rejoice with joy and shouting. The glory\nof Lebanon is given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon. They\nshall see the glory of the Lord, the excellency of our God._\"\n\n\"The glory of Lebanon,\" &c. is a glory like unto that of Lebanon. The\nreal condition of the glory of Zion, or the Church, is brought before\nus in the subsequent verses only; it consists in the Lords glory being\nmanifested in it. The majestic, wooded Lebanon, and fruitful Carmel,\nare contrasted with one another; the latter is put together with the\nlovely fruitful plain of Sharon, rich in flowers; compare remarks on\nSong of Sol. vii. 6. _Michaelis_ says: \"The Lebanon excels among the\nforests; the Carmel among the fruitful hills; the [Pg 159] Sharon among\nthe lovely fields or valleys.\"--To \"see the glory of the Lord, the\nexcellency _of God_\" means to behold Him in the revelation of the full\nglory of His nature. Prophecy would have fed the minds of the people\nwith vain hopes, if God had revealed himself in any other way than in\nChrist, the brightness of His glory and the express image of His\nperson, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col.\nii. 9), and who, along with His own glory, revealed, at the same time,\nthat of the Father; for it was the glory as of the only-begotten of the\nFather, John i. 14; ii. 11.\n\nVer. 3. \"_Strengthen ye the slack hands, and confirm ye the tottering\nknees._\" The words are addressed to all the members of the people of\nGod; they are to strengthen and confirm _one another_ by pointing to\nthe future revelation of the glory of the Lord.\n\nVer. 4. \"_Say to them that are of a fearful heart: Be strong, fear not;\nbehold, your God will come for vengeance, for a gift of God: He will\ncome and save you._\"\n\n\"To them that are of a fearful heart,\"--literally of a \"hasty heart,\"\nwho allow themselves to be carried away by the Present, and are\nunmindful of the _respice finem_.--[Hebrew: mqM] and [Hebrew: gmvl] are\nAccusatives, used in the same manner as in verbs of motion, to\ndesignate the object of the motion.--On [Hebrew: gmvl], \"gift,\" comp.\nremarks on Ps. vii. 5. \"The gift of God\" forms a contrast to the poor\ngifts, such as men offer. He comes for vengeance upon His enemies, and\nfor bestowing the most glorious divine gifts upon His people. The\nwords: \"He will come and save you,\" are an explanation of \"the gift of\nGod.\" It is in Christ that the words: \"He will come and save you,\"\nfound their true fulfilment,--a fulfilment to which every lower\nblessing pointed, and which is still going on, and constantly\nadvancing.--That which, in the subsequent verses, is said of the\nconcomitant circumstances of this salvation, is by far too high to\nadmit of the fulfilment being sought in any other than Christ. All\nthese forced explanations, such as: \"In their joy they feel _as if_\nthey were healed\" (_Knobel_, after the example of _Gesenius_), only\nserve to show this more clearly. They are overthrown even by the\nparallel announcement of the impending resurrection of the dead in\nchap. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19.\n\n[Pg 160]\n\nVer. 5. \"_Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of\nthe deaf shall be unstopped._\"\n\nThe blind and deaf are the individualizing designations of the\nwretched; in Luke xiv. 13-21, the blind are named along with the poor,\nlame, and maimed as an individualizing designation of the whole genus\nof _personae miserabiles_; comp. John v. 3. But this individualizing\ndesignation must be carefully distinguished from the image. The blind\nand deaf are mentioned as the most perspicuous _species_ in the\n_genus_; but they themselves are, in the first instance, meant, and\nthat which has been said must, in the first instance, be fulfilled upon\nthem. _Farther_--as blind and deaf are, without farther remark and\nqualification, spoken of, we shall, in the first instance, be obliged\nto think of the bodily blind and deaf, inasmuch as they, according to\nthe common _usus loquendi_, are thus designated. But a collateral\nreference to the _spiritually_ blind and deaf must so much the rather\nbe assumed, that they, too, form a portion of the genus here\nrepresented by the blind and deaf; and the more so that it is just\nIsaiah who so frequently speaks of spiritual blindness and deafness;\ncomp. chap. xxix. 18: \"And in that day (in the time of the future\nsalvation, when the Lord of the Church shall have put to shame the\npusillanimity and timidity of His people), the deaf hear the words of\nthe book, and the eyes of the blind see out of obscurity and darkness;\"\nxlii. 18: \"Hear ye deaf, and look ye blind and see;\" xliii. 8: \"Bring\nforth the blind people, that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears;\"\nlvi. 10; vi. 10; Matth. xv. 14; John ix. 39; Ephes. i. 18; 2 Pet. i. 9.\nSpiritual blindness and deafness are specially seen in the relation of\nthe people to the leadings of the Church, and to the promises of\nScripture. The blind cannot understand the complicated ways of God; the\ndeaf have, especially in the time of misery, no ear for His promises.\nBesides the natural and spiritual blindness, Scripture knows of still a\nthird; it designates as blind those who cannot see the way of\nsalvation, the helpless and drooping; compare my Commentary on Ps.\ncxlvi. 8; Zeph. i. 17; Isa. xlii. 7. Now, it is blindness and deafness\nof every kind which, along with all other misery, shall find a remedy\nat the time of salvation.--If we ask for the fulfilment, our eye is, in\nthe first instance, attracted by Matt. [Pg 161] xi. 5, where, with an\nevident reference to the passage before us, the Lord gives to the\nquestion of John: \"Art thou he that should come, or do we look for\nanother,\" the matter-of-fact answer, that the blind receive their\nsight, the deaf hear, the lame walk: comp. Matth. xv. 31: [Greek: h\u00f4ste\ntous ochlous thaumasai blepontas k\u00f4phous laloutas, kullous hugieis,\nch\u00f4lous peripatountas kai tuphlous blepontas]; xxi. 14; [Greek: kai\npros\u00ealthon aut\u00f4 tuphloi kai ch\u00f4loi en t\u00f4 hier\u00f4 kai etherapeusen\nautous]; Mark vii. 37, where after the healing of the deaf and dumb,\nthe people say: [Greek: kal\u00f4s panta pepoi\u00eake. kai tous k\u00f4phous poiei\nakouein, kai tous alalous lalein.] Yet shall we not be able to see, in\nthese facts, the complete fulfilment of the prophecy, in so far as it\nrefers to the healing of the bodily blind and deaf--inasmuch as it\npromises the healing of all, not of some only--but only a pledge of the\ncomplete fulfilment of it; just as Christ's raising some from the dead\nonly prefigures what He shall do in the end of the days. The complete\nfulfilment belongs to the time of the resurrection of the just, of\nwhich it is said: Whatever is here afflicted, groans, prays, shall then\ngo on brightly and gloriously. More comprehensive was the fulfilment\nwhich the prophecy received, in reference to spiritual blindness and\ndeafness, immediately at the first appearance of Christ, who declared\nthat He had come into the world, that they which see not, might see\n(John ix. 39). But even here the completion as certainly belongs to the\nfuture world, as [Greek: blepomen arti di'esoptrou hen ainigmati].\n\nVer. 6. \"_Then shall the lame leap as an hart, and the tongue of the\ndumb shall shout; for in the wilderness shall waters be opened, and\nstreams in the desert._\"\n\nThe _leaping and shouting_ imply that they have obtained deliverance\nfrom their bodily defects,--at this deliverance the preceding verse\nstopped--and proceed from the natural delight at the appearance of this\nsalvation, personal as well as general, of which these are an\nemanation. On the first words especially. Acts iii. 8 is to be\ncompared, where it is said of the lame man to whom Peter, in the name\nof Jesus spoke. Arise and walk: [Greek: kai exallomenos est\u00ea kai\nperiepatei, kai eis\u00ealthe sun autois eis to hieron, peripat\u00f4n kai\nallomenos kai ain\u00f4n ton theon]; farther. Acts viii. 7: [Greek: polloi\nde paralelumenoi kai ch\u00f4loi etherapeuth\u00easan]; xiv. 8; John v. 9. Of\n_spiritual_ lameness, Heb. xii. 13 is spoken. It appears especially in\ndark times of affliction, as _Vitringa_ says: \"In the time of wild\npersecution, and when the Church languishes, [Pg 162] not a few men\nbegin to halt, to vacillate in their views, to suspend their opinions,\"\n&c. On the words: \"the tongue of the dumb shall shout,\" compare Matt.\nxii. 22: [Greek: tote pros\u00eanechth\u00ea aut\u00f4 daimonzomenos, tuphlos kai\nk\u00f4phos. kai etherapeusen auton, h\u00f4ste ton tuphlon kai k\u00f4phon kai lalein\nkai blepein.] _Spiritual_ dumbness is the incapacity for the praise of\nGod which, in the time when salvation is withheld, so easily creeps in,\nand which is removed by the bestowal of salvation. The words: \"For in\nthe wilderness,\" &c., state the ground of the leaping and shouting,\npoint to the bestowal of salvation, which forms the cause. The _waters_\nare the waters of salvation, compare remarks on chap. xii. 3. The words\ncontain, moreover, an allusion to Exod. xvii. 3 ff.; Numb. xx. 11,\nwhere, during the journey through the wilderness, salvation is\nrepresented by the bestowal of water. The desert here is an image of\nmisery.\n\nVer. 7. \"_And the scorching heat of the sun becomes a pool, and the\nthirsty land, springs of water; in the habitation of dragons shall be\ntheir couching place, grass where formerly reeds and rushes._\"\n\n\"The scorching heat of the sun,\" stands for \"places scorched by the\nheat\" (\"parched ground,\" English version). The passage chap. xlix. 10,\nforbids us to explain it by _mirage_, the appearance of water. The\nsuffix in [Hebrew: rbch] refers to Zion. Dragons like to make their\nabode especially in the waterless wilderness. The circumstance that\nZion has there her couching place, supposes that it has been changed\ninto a garden of God; while, on the contrary, in chap. xxxiv. 13, it is\nsaid of the world that \"it becomes an habitation of dragons.\" Besides\nthe dry land, the moor-land which bears nothing but barren reeds, shall\nundergo a change; nourishing _grass_ is to take its place; [Hebrew:\nHcir] has no other signification than this.\n\nVer. 8. \"_And a high-way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be\ncalled the holy way; an unclean shall not pass over it; and it shall be\nfor them, that they may walk on it, that fools also may not err._\"\n\n\"The way\" is the way of salvation which God opens up to His people in\nthe wilderness of misery; comp. chap. xliii. 19: \"I will make a way in\nthe wilderness, rivers in the desert;\" Ps. cvii. 4: \"They wandered in\nthe wilderness, in the desert without ways,\" where the pathless\nwilderness is the image of misery; [Pg 163] Ps. xxv. 4; xxvii. 11,\nwhere the ways of God are the ways of salvation which He reveals to His\npeople, that they may walk in them. The way is _holy_ (comp. remarks on\nchap. iv. 3), because inaccessible to the profane world, to the\n_unclean_, who are not allowed to disturb the righteous walking on it;\ncomp. ver. 9, which shows how entirely out of place is the remark that\n\"the author, in his national hatred, will not allow any Gentiles to\nwalk along with the covenant-people.\" It is only as converted, as\nfellows and companions of the saints, that the Gentiles are allowed to\nenter on the way, and not as unclean and their enemies. The\ncircumstance that even the foolish cannot miss the way, indicates the\nabundant fulness of the salvation, in consequence of which it is so\neasily accessible; and no human effort, skill, or excellence, is\nrequired to attain the possession of it.\n\nVer. 9. \"_No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast go up thereon,\nit shall not be found there; and the redeemed walk on it._\"\n\nBy the lion, the ravenous beast, heathenish wickedness and tyranny, the\nworld's power pernicious to the Kingdom of God, is designated; comp.\nremarks on chap. xi. 7. The Lord declared that the fulfilment had taken\nplace, when He said: Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.\n\nVer. 10. \"_And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion,\nand everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. Joy and gladness they\nshall obtain, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away._\"\n\n\n\n\n GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON CHAPTERS XL.-LXVI.\n\n\nThe historical section, chap. xxxvi.-xxxix., forms the transition from\nthe first to the second part of the prophecies of Isaiah. Its close is\nformed by the announcement of Judah's being carried away to Babylon, an\nannouncement which Isaiah uttered to Hezekiah after the impending\ndanger from the [Pg 164] Assyrians had been successfully warded off, as\nhad been mentioned in the preceding chapter. In chap. xxxix. 6, 7, it\nis said: \"Behold days are coming, and all that is in thine house, and\nthat which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be\ncarried to Babylon, and nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of\nthy sons shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace\nof the king of Babylon.\" In this announcement, we have at the same time\nthe concentration of the rebuking and threatening mission of the\nProphet, and the point from which proceeds the _comforting_ mission\nwhich, in the second part, is pre-eminently attended to. This second\npart at once begins with the words: \"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people,\"\nwhich stand in closest connection with the preceding announcement of a\ngreat calamity, yea, even necessarily demand this. It is just for this\nreason that the historical chapters cannot be a later addition and\ninterpolation, but must be an original element of the collection\nwritten by the Prophet himself.[1]\n\nThe contents of the second part are stated at once, and generally, in\nthe introductory words, chap. xl. 1, 2: \"Comfort ye, comfort ye my\npeople, saith your God. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem, and cry unto\nher that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned,\nthat she receives of the Lord's hand double for all her sins.\" The\n_comfort_ must, accordingly, form the fundamental character of the\nsecond part. But since, for the people of God, there does not exist any\npurely external salvation; since, for them, salvation is indissolubly\nconnected with _repentance_,--_exhortation_ must necessarily go hand\nill hand with the announcement of salvation. This second feature and\nelement concealed behind the first, is, moreover, expressly brought\nforward in what immediately follows, inasmuch as by it the \"Comfort ye\"\ndoes not receive any addition, [Pg 165] but is only commented upon and\nenlarged. The servants of the Lord (the whole chorus of the messengers\nof the divine salvation is addressed in vers. 3, 5), complying with His\ncommand, announce the impending salvation, designating it as a\nmanifestation of the Lord's glory, and exhort to a worthy preparation\nfor it. Vers. 3 and 4 treat of preparing in the desert a high-way for\nthe Lord, who is to manifest himself gloriously. The way is prepared\nby repentance; the desert symbolizes the condition of bodily and\nspiritual misery. It is from this miserable condition that the Lord is\nto deliver and redeem His people; but in order that He may perform His\npart, they must, previously, have performed theirs. In ver. 5, this\nmanifestation itself is described, with which is connected the fulness\nof salvation for the covenant-people. The servants of God are to\nannounce the approach of salvation to mourning Jerusalem, in which the\ncovenant-people appears to the Prophet as personified. (Jerusalem does\nnot stand for \"the carried away Zionites;\" it is an ideal person, the\nafflicted and bowed down widow sitting on the ground in sackcloth; the\ndistressed and mourning mother of the children partly carried away, and\npartly killed,--compare chap. iii. 26, where Jerusalem, desolate and\nemptied, sits upon the ground.) But this salvation can be granted to\nthose only whose hearts are prepared to receive it. Thus the\nannouncement of salvation is preceded by the [Greek: metanoeite], by\nthe call to remove all the obstacles which render impassable the path\nthrough the desert into the land of promise; which render impossible\nthe transition from misery to salvation; which prevent the Lord from\ncoming to His people in their misery, and leading them out from it.\nThen, to those who have complied with the exhortation, the\nmanifestation of the glory of the Lord is promised--He comes to them,\nin a glorious manifestation, in the way which, in the power of His\nSpirit, they have prepared and opened up to Him--and in, and with it,\nall the glorious things which, according to ver. 2, the servants of the\nLord were to promise regarding the Future.\n\nThe comfort oftentimes moves in general terms, and consists in pointing\nto a Future full of salvation and grace. But, in other passages, the\nannouncement of salvation is more individualised, becomes more special.\nThese special announcements [Pg 166] refer to a twofold object,\n_First_--The Prophet comforts his people by announcing the deliverance\nfrom the Babylonish captivity. This deliverance he describes by the\nmost lovely images, frequently taken from the deliverance of the people\nfrom Egypt. But it is to be well observed that even those prophecies\nwhich pre-eminently refer to the lower object, have something exuberant\nand overflowing; so that, even after having been fulfilled, they cannot\nbe looked upon as antiquated. He states the name of the ruler,\n_Koresh_, the king from the rising of the sun, who, sent by the Lord,\nshall punish the oppressors of Zion, and bring back the people to their\nland. The _second_ object is the deliverance and salvation by the\nServant of God, the Messiah, who, after having passed through\nhumiliation, suffering, and death, and having thereby effected\nredemption, will remove from the glorified Kingdom of God all the evil\noccasioned by sin. Of this higher salvation the soul of the Prophet is\nso full, that the references to it are constantly pressing forward,\neven where, in the first instance, he has to do with the lower\nsalvation. In the description of the higher salvation, the relation of\ntime is not observed. Now, the Prophet beholds its Author in His\nhumiliation and suffering; then, the most distant Future of the Kingdom\nof Christ presents itself to his enraptured eye,--the time in which the\nGentile world, alienated from God, shall have returned to Him; when all\nthat is opposed to God shall have been destroyed; when inward and\noutward peace shall prevail, and all the evil caused by sin shall have\nbeen removed. Elevated above time and space, from the height in which\nthe Holy Spirit has placed him, he surveys the whole development of the\nMessianic Kingdom, from its small beginnings to its glorious end.\n\nWhile the first part, containing the predictions which the Prophet\nuttered for the present generation during the time of his ministry,\nconsists mainly of single prophecies which, separated by time and\noccasion, were first made publicly known singly, and afterwards united\nin a collected whole, having been marked out as different prophecies,\neither by inscriptions, or in any other distinguishable way,--the\nsecond part, destined as a legacy for posterity, forms a continuous,\ncollected whole. The fact, first observed by _Fr. R\u00fcckert_, that it is\ndivided into _three sections or books_, is, in the first instance,\nindicated by the [Pg 167] circumstance that, at the close of chap.\nxlviii. and chap. lvii., the same thought recurs in the same words:\n\"There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked;\" and that the same\nthought, viz. the exclusion of the wicked from the promised salvation,\nis found also a third time at the close of the whole, although there in\nanother form. Yet, if nothing else could be advanced in favour of this\ntri-partition, we might perhaps be permitted to speak of an accident as\n_Knobel_ indeed does. But a closer consideration shows that the three\nsections are, inwardly and essentially, distinguished from one another.\nBeyond chap. xlviii. 22, there is no farther mention of _Babel_, which\nin the first book is mentioned four times (chap. xliii. 14, xlvii. 1,\nxlviii. 14, 20); nor of the _Chaldeans_, which occur there five times\n(chap. xliii. 14, xlvii. 1, 5, xlviii. 14, 20); nor any farther mention\nof _Koresh_, neither of his name (chap. xliv. 28, xlv. 1), nor of his\nperson, which in chap. xl.-xlviii. is so prominently brought before us\n(chap. xli. 2, 25, xlvi. 11, xlviii. 14, 15, _i.e._ immediately at the\n_beginning_, after the introduction contained in chap. xl., at the\n_close_, and several times in the _middle_); nor of _Bel_ and _Nebo_.\n_Farther_--The whole first book is pervaded with the argumentation by\nwhich the God of Israel is proved to be the true God, from His having\nforetold the deliverance to be effected by _Koresh_. This argumentation\nwe meet with in chap. xli., immediately after the introductory chap.\nxl., and so still in the last chap. xlviii.; but never again\nafterwards. With the end of the first book, this arguing and proving\nfrom prophecy, that the Lord is the true God, as well as the reference\nto _Koresh_, the subject of this prophecy, altogether disappear. But,\nin like manner, the announcement of a personal Messiah is wanting in\nthe first book, the sole exception being chap. xlii. 1-9, where, after\nthe first announcement of the author of the lower salvation, the Author\nof the higher salvation is, by way of anticipation, _contrasted_ with\nhim. To give a more minute and finished description of the Author of\nthe higher salvation is the object of the _second_ book. In the _third_\nbook, the person of the Redeemer is spoken of briefly only, is, as it\nwere, only hinted at, in order to connect this book with the second;\njust as, by chap. xlii., the first book is connected with the second.\nThe third book in so far as it is _promising_, is taken up with the\ndescription of the [Pg 168] _glory of the Kingdom of God_, in that new\nstage upon which it enters by the Redeemer,--a glory, the culminating\npoint of which is the creation of the new heavens and the new earth,\nchap. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22. A description of the glory of Zion, like that\nin chap. lxii., is not found in the first and second book. In the third\nbook, however, _reproof and exhortation_ prevail, in contradistinction\nto the first and second book, in which the direct _promise_ prevails. A\ntransition from this, however, to the reproof and exhortation, is made\nat the close of the second book. From chap. lv. 1, the preaching of\nrepentance appears first intermingled with the announcement of\nsalvation. Up to that the prevailing tendency of the Prophet had been,\nthroughout, to comfort the godly; but from chap. lv. 1, the other\ntendency shows itself by the side of it, that of calling sinners to\nrepentance, by which alone they can obtain a participation in the\npromised salvation. In chap. lvi. 9, lvii. 21, the latter tendency\nappears distinctly and exclusively. The second book had commenced with\nthe announcement of salvation, and thence to the close had advanced to\nreproof and threatening. The third book takes the opposite course; and\nthus the two principal portions of reproof and threatening border upon\none another. Yet, the reproof and threatening do not go on without\ninterruption and distinction, so that no _boundary line_ could be\nrecognized between the two books. At the close of the second book, the\nProphet has preeminently to do with _apostates_, while, at the\nbeginning of the third, he has to do with _hypocrites_; so that thus\nthese two portions of reproof supplement one another, and conjointly\nform a complete disclosure of the prevailing corruption, according to\nits two principal tendencies. But the third book is distinguished from\nthe second by this circumstance, that in it reproof and threatening are\nnot limited to the beginning, which corresponds with the close of the\nsecond book. At the close of chap. lix. the Prophet returns to the\nannouncement of salvation; but with chap. lxiii. 7, a new preaching of\nrepentance commences, which goes on to the end of chap. lxiv. The\nProphet, in the Spirit, transposes himself into the time when the\nvisitation has already taken place, and puts into the mouth of the\npeople the words by which they are, at that time, to supplicate for the\nmercy of the Lord. This discourse [Pg 169] implies what has preceded.\nIn the view of the glorious manifestation of the Lord's mercy and grace\nwhich are there exhibited, the Prophet calls here upon the people to\nrepent and be converted, in order that they may become partakers of\nthat mercy. If they, as a people, are anxious to attain that object,\nthey must repeat what the Prophet here pronounces before them. But that\nup to this time has not been done, and hence that has taken place which\nis spoken of by St Paul: \"The election have obtained it, but the rest\nhave been blinded.\" In chap. lxv., which contains the Lord's answer to\nthis repenting prayer of the people, and is nothing else than an\nindirect _paraenesis_, reproof and threatening likewise prevail, and it\nis only at the close that the promise appears. The last chapter, too,\nbegins with reproof and threatening. Rightly have the Church Fathers\ncalled Isaiah the Evangelist among the prophets. This appears also from\nthe circumstance that the reproof is so thoroughly an appendage of the\npromise, that it is only at the _close_, after the whole riches of the\npromise have been exhibited, that it expands itself It appears,\nfarther, also from the circumstance that, even in the last book, the\nthreatening does not prevail _exclusively_, but that, even there, it is\nstill interwoven with the most glorious promises which are so\nexceedingly fitted to allure sinners to repentance.\n\nIn the whole of the second part, the Prophet, _as a rule_, takes his\nstand in the time which was announced and foretold in the former\nprophecies, and especially, with the greatest clearness and\ndistinctness, in chap. xxxix., on the threshold of the second\npart,--the time when Jerusalem is captured by the Chaldeans, the temple\ndestroyed, the country desolated, and the people carried away. It is in\nthis time that he thinks, feels, and acts; it has become present to\nhim; from it he looks out into the Future, yet in such a manner that he\ndoes not everywhere consistently maintain this ideal stand-point. He\naddresses his discourse to the people pining away in captivity and\nmisery. He comforts them by opening up a view into a better Future, and\nexhorts them to remove by repentance the obstacles to the coming\nsalvation.\n\nRationalistic Exegesis, everywhere little able to sympathize with, and\nenter into existing circumstances and conditions, and always ready to\nmake its own shadowy, coarse views the rule [Pg 170] and arbiter,\nhas been little able to enter into, and sympathize with this ideal\nstand-point occupied by the Prophet; nor has it had the earnest will to\ndo so. To its rationalistic tendencies, which took offence at the clear\nknowledge of the Future, a welcome pretext was here offered. Thus the\nopinion arose, that the second part was not written by Isaiah, but was\nthe work of some anonymous prophet, living about the end of the\nexile,--an opinion which, at the time of the absolute dominion of\nRationalism, has obtained so firm a footing, that it has become all but\nan _axiom_, and, by the power of tradition, carries away even such as\nwould not think of entertaining it, if they were to enter independently\nand without prejudice upon the investigation.\n\nThe fact which here meets us does not by any means stand isolated. The\nprophets did not prophesy in the state of rational reflection, but in\n_exstasis_. As even their ordinary name, \"seers,\" indicates, the\nobjects were presented to them in inward vision. They did not behold\nthe Future from a distance, but they were rapt into the future. This\ninward vision is frequently reflected in their representation. Very\nfrequently, that appears with them as present which, in reality, was\nstill future. They depict the Future before the eyes of their hearers\nand readers, and thus, as it were, by force, drag them into it out of\nthe Present, the coercing force of which exerts so pernicious an\ninfluence upon them. Our Prophet expressly intimates this peculiar\nmanner of the prophetic announcement by making, in chap. xlix. 7, the\nLord say: \"First I said to Zion: _Behold there, behold there_,\" by\nwhich the graphic character of prophecy is precisely expressed, and by\nwhich it is intimated that hearers and readers were led _in rem\npraesentem_ by the prophets. Even grammar has long ago acknowledged\nthis fact, inasmuch as it speaks of _Praeterita prophetica_, _i.e._,\nsuch as denote the _ideal_ Past, in contrast to those which denote the\n_real_ Past. Unless we have attained to this view and insight, it is\nonly by inconsistency that we can escape from _Eichhorn's_ view, that\nthe prophecies are, for the most part, disguised historical\ndescriptions,--a view into which even expositors, such as _Ewald_ and\n_Hitzig_, frequently relapse. Frequently, the whole of the Future\nappears with the prophets in the form of the _Present_. At other times,\nthey take their stand in the [Pg 171] more immediate Future; and this\nbecomes to them the _ideal_ Present, from which they direct the eye to\nthe distant Future. From the rich store of proofs which we can adduce\nfor our view, we shall here mention only a few.\n\nThis mode of representation meets us frequently so early as in the\nparting hymn of Moses, Deut. xxxii., which may be considered as the\ngerm of all prophetism; compare _e.g._ vers. 7 and 8. On the latter\nverse, _Clericus_ remarks: \"Moses mourns over this in his hymn, as if\nit were already past, because he foresees that it will be so, and he,\nin the Spirit, transfers himself into those future times, and says that\nwhich then only should be said.\"\n\nIn Isaiah himself, the very first chapter presents a remarkable proof\nThe Present in chap. i. 5-9 is not a _real_, but an _ideal_ Present. In\nthe Spirit, the Prophet transfers himself into the time of the calamity\nimpending upon the apostate people, and, stepping back upon the real\nPresent, he, in the farther course of the prophecy, predicts this\ncalamity as future. The reasons for this view have been thoroughly\nstated, even to exhaustion, by _Caspari_, in his _Beitr\u00e4ge zur\nEinleitung in das Buch Jesaia_. In the second half of ver. 2, the\nkingdom appears as flourishing and powerful. To the same result we are\nled also by the description of the rich sacrificial worship in vers.\n15-19. If, then, we view vers. 5-9 as a description of the Present, we\nobtain an irreconcilable contradiction. _Farther_--Everywhere else\nIsaiah always connects, with the description of the sin, that of the\npunishment following upon it, but never that of the punishment which\nhas followed it.--In chap. v. 13, in a prophecy from the first time of\nhis ministry, the _future carrying away_ of the people presents itself\nto the Prophet as present. Similarly, in vers. 25, 26, the Praet. and\nFut. with _Vav Conv._ must be understood prophetically; for in chap.\ni.-v., the Prophet has, throughout, to do with future calamity. In the\nPresent, according to ver. 19, the people are yet in a condition of\nprosperity and luxury,--as yet, it is the time of _mocking_; it is only\nof future calamity that vers. 5 and 6 in the parable speak of, the\nthreatenings of which are here detailed and expanded.--In the prophecy\nagainst Tyre, chap. xxiii., the Prophet beholds as present the siege by\nthe Chaldeans impending over the city, and describes [Pg 172] as an\neye-witness the flight of the inhabitants, and the impression which the\nintelligence of their calamity makes upon the nations connected with\nthem. From the more immediate Future, which to him has become present,\nhe then casts a glance to the more distant. He announces that after 70\nyears--counting not from the _real_, but from the _ideal_ Present--the\ncity shall again attain to its ancient greatness. His look then rises\nstill higher, and he beholds how at length, in the days of Messiah, the\nTyrians shall be received into the communion of the true God.--The\nfuture dispersion and carrying away of the people is anticipated by the\nProphet in the passage, chap. xi. 11, also, which may be considered as\na comprehensive view of the whole second part.--It is true that, in the\nsecond part, as a rule, the misery, and not the salvation, appears as\npresent; but, not unfrequently, the latter, too, is viewed as present\nby the Prophet, and spoken of in Preterites, comp. _e.g._, chap. xl. 2,\nxlvi. 1, 2, li. 3, lii. 9, 10, lx. 1. If, then, the Prophet is to be\nmeasured by the ordinary rule, these passages, too, must have been\nwritten at a time when the salvation had already taken place.--In chap.\nxlv. 20, the escaped of the nations are those Gentiles who have been\nspared in the divine judgments. They are to become wise by the\nsufferings of others. The Prophet takes his stand in a time when these\njudgments, which were to be inflicted by Cyrus, had already been\ncompleted. Even those who maintain the spuriousness of the second part\nmust here acknowledge that the Prophet takes his stand in an _ideal_\nPresent.--In chap. liii. the Prophet takes his stand between the\nsufferings and the glorification of the Messiah. The sufferings appear\nto him as past; the glorification he represents as future.\n\nHosea had, in chap. xiii., predicted to Israel great divine judgments,\nthe desolation of the country, and the carrying away of its inhabitants\nby powerful enemies. This punishment and judgment appear in chap. xiv.\n1 (xiii. 16) as still future; but in ver. 2 (1 ff.) he transfers\nhimself in spirit to the time when these judgments had already been\ninflicted. He anticipates the Future as having already taken place, and\ndoes not by any means exhort his _contemporaries_ to a sincere\nrepentance, but those upon whom the calamity had already been\ninflicted: \"O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God; for [Pg 173] thou\nhast fallen by thine iniquity.\" This parallel passage shews especially,\nwith what right it has been asserted that the addresses to the people\npining away in exile \"were out of place in the mouth of Isaiah, who, as\nhe lived 150 years before, could _prophesy_ only of the exiled\"\n(_Knobel_).--Micah says in chap. iv. 8 (compare vol. i., p. 449 ff.):\n\"And thou tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, unto thee\nit will come, and to thee cometh the former dominion.\" If the Prophet,\na cotemporary of Isaiah, speaks here of a _former dominion_, and\nannounces that it shall again come back to the house of David, he\ntransfers himself from his time, in which the royal family of David\nstill existed and flourished, into that period of which he had just\nbefore spoken, and during which the dominion of the Davidic dynasty was\nto cease. In vers. 9, 10: \"Now why dost thou raise a cry! Is there no\nking in thee, or is thy counsellor gone? For pangs have seized thee as\na woman in travail,\" &c., mourning Zion, at the time of the carrying\naway of her sons into captivity, stands before the eye of the Prophet,\nand is addressed by him. (In commenting upon this passage, we pointed\nalready to Hosea xiii. 9-11 as an analogous instance of representing as\npresent the time of the calamity.) The moment of the carrying away into\nexile forms to him the Present; the deliverance from it, the Future:\n\"There shalt thou be delivered, there the Lord thy God shall redeem\nthee out of the hand of thine enemies.\" In chap. vii. 7, Micah\nintroduces, as speaking, the people already carried away into exile,\nand makes them declare both the justice of the divine punishment, and\ntheir confidence in the divine mercy. In the answer of the Lord also,\nver. 11, the city is supposed to be destroyed; for He promises that her\nwalls shall be rebuilt.--The anticipation of the Future prevails\nthroughout the whole prophecy of Obadiah also. The song of Habakkuk in\nchap. iii. takes its stand in the midst of the anticipated misery. In\nthe announcement of the invasion of the Chaldeans in chap. i. 6 ff.,\nthe Future presents itself in the form of the Present. Here, as in the\ncase of Obadiah, _Hitzig_ and others, overlooking and misunderstanding\nthis prophetic peculiarity, and considering the _ideal_, to be the\n_real_ Present, have been led to fix the age of the Prophet in a manner\nnotoriously erroneous.--Jeremiah, in chap. iii. 22, 25, [Pg 174]\nintroduces as speaking the Israel of the Future. In chap. xxx. and\nxxxi., he anticipates the future carrying away of Judah. Even in the\nPsalms we perceive a faint trace of this prophetic peculiarity. On Ps.\nxciii. 1: \"The Lord reigneth, He hath clothed himself with majesty,\"\n&c., we remarked: \"The Preterites are to be explained from the\ncircumstance that the Singer as a _seer_ has the Future before his\neyes. He _beholds_ rejoicingly how the Lord enters upon His Kingdom,\nputs on the garment of majesty, and girds himself with the sword of\nstrength in the face of the proud world.\" A similar anticipation of\nredemption, even before the catastrophe has taken place, we meet with\nin Ps. xciv. 1. The situation in the whole Psalm, yea in the whole\ncycle to which it belongs, the lyrical echo of the second part of\nIsaiah, is not a _real_, but an _ideal_ one. This cycle bears witness\nthat the singers and seers of Israel were living in the Future, in a\nmanner which it would be so much the greater folly to measure by our\nrule as, for the people of the Old Covenant, the Future had a\nsignificance altogether different from that which it has for the people\nof the New Covenant. That which is common to all the Psalms, from\nxciii. onward, is the confident expectation of a glorious manifestation\nof the Lord, which the Psalmist, following the example of the prophets,\nbeholds as present. A counterpart is the cycle Ps. cxxxviii.-cxlv., in\nwhich David, stirred up by the promise in 2 Sam. vii., accompanies his\nhouse throughout history.\n\nSeveral interpreters cannot altogether resist the force of these facts.\nThey grant \"that other prophets also sometimes, in the Spirit, transfer\nthemselves into later times, especially into the idealistic times of\nthe Messiah,\" and draw their arguments from the circumstance only, that\nthe latter again came back to their personal stand point, whilst our\nProphet continues cleaving to the later time. Now it is true, and must\nbe conceded, that this mode of representation is here employed to an\nextent greater than it is anywhere else in the Old Testament. But, in\nmatters of this kind, measuring by the ell is quite out of place. In\nother respects also, the second part of Isaiah stands out as quite\nunique. There is, in the whole Old Testament, no other continuous\nprophecy which has so absolutely and pre-eminently proceeded from _cura\nposteritatis_. If [Pg 175] it be acknowledged that the prophesying\nactivity of Isaiah falls into two great divisions,--the one--the\nresults of which are contained in the first 39 chapters--chiefly,\npre-eminently indeed, destined for the Present; the other,--which lies\nbefore us in the second part, belonging to the evening of the Prophet's\nlife--forming a prophetical legacy, and hence, therefore, never\ndelivered in public, but only committed to writing;--then we shall find\nit quite natural that the Prophet, writing, as he did, chiefly for the\nFuture, should here also take his stand in the Future, to a larger\nextent than he has elsewhere done.\n\nThat it is in this manner only that this fact is to be accounted for,\nappears from the circumstance that, although our Prophet so extensively\nand frequently represents the Past as Present, yet he passes over, in\nnumerous passages, from the _ideal_ into the _real_ Present.[2] We find\na number of references which do not at all suit the condition of things\nafter the exile, but necessarily require the age of Isaiah, or, at\nleast, the time before the exile. If Isaiah be the author, these\npassages are easily accounted for. It is true that, in the Spirit, he\nhad transferred himself into the time of the Babylonish exile; and this\ntime had become Present to him. But it would surely be suspicious to\nus, if the real Present had not sometimes prevailed, and attracted the\neye of the Prophet. It is just thus, however, that we find it. The\nProphet frequently steps out of his ideal view and position, and refers\nto conditions and circumstances of his time. _Now_, he has before his\neyes the condition of the unhappy people in the Babylonish exile;\n_then_, the State still existing at his time, but internally deranged\nby idolatry and apostacy. This apparent contradiction cannot be\nreconciled in any other way than by assuming that Isaiah is the author.\nAs a rule, the punishment appears as already inflicted; city and\ntemple as destroyed; the country as devastated; the people as carried\naway; compare _e.g._, chap. lxiv. 10, 11. But in a series of passages,\nin which the Prophet steps back from the _ideal_, to the _real_\nstand-point, _the punishment appears as still future_; _city and temple\nas still existing_. In chap. xliii. [Pg 176] 22-28, the Prophet meets\nthe delusion, as if God had chosen Israel on account of their deserts.\nFar from having brought about their deliverance by their own merits,\nthey, on the contrary, sinned thus against Him, that, to the inward\napostacy, they added the outward also. The greater part of Israel had\nleft off the worship of the Lord by sacrifices. It is the mercy alone\nof the Lord which will deliver them from the misery into which they\nhave plunged themselves by their sins. But how can the Lord charge the\npeople in exile for the omission of a service which, according to His\nown law, they could offer to Him in their native country only, in the\ntemple consecrated to Him, but then destroyed? The words specially:\n\"Put me in remembrance,\" in ver. 26, \"of what I should have forgotten,\"\nimply that there existed a possibility of acquiring apparent merits,\nand that, hence, the view of our opponents who, in vers. 22-24, think\nof a compulsory, and hence, guiltless omission of the sacrificial\nservice during the exile, must be rejected. Vers. 27, 28 also, which\nspeak of the punishment which Israel deserves, just on account of the\nomitted service of the Lord, and which it has found in the way of its\nworks, prove that this view must be rejected, and that vers. 22-24\ncontain a reproof. The passage can, hence, have been written only at\nthe time when the temple was still standing. Of this there can so much\nthe less be any doubt that, in vers. 27, 28, the exile is expressly\ndesignated as future: \"Thy first father (the high-priestly office) hath\nsinned, and thy mediators have transgressed against me.\" (The\nsacrificial service was by a disgraceful syncretism profaned even by\nthose whose office it was to attend to it). \"Therefore I _will_ profane\nthe princes of the sanctuary, and _will_ give Jacob to the curse, and\nIsrael to reproaches.\" Even [Hebrew: vaHll] is the common Future, and\nto [Hebrew: vatnh] the [Hebrew: h] _optativum_ is added; and hence, we\ncannot by any means translate and explain it by: _I gave_.--In chap.\nlvi. 9, it is said: \"All ye beasts of the field come ye to devour all\nthe beasts in the forest.\" This utterance stands in connection with the\n[Hebrew: lnqbciv], at the close of the preceding verse. The gathering\nof Israel by God the good Shepherd, promised there, must be preceded by\nthe scattering, by being given up to the world's power--mercy, by\njudgment. By the wild beasts are to be understood the Gentiles who\nshall be sent by God upon [Pg 177] His people for punishment. This\nmission they must first fulfil before they can, according to ver. 8, be\nadded to, and gathered along with, the gathered ones of Israel. By the\n\"beasts in the forest,\" brutalized, degraded, and secularized Israel is\nto be understood, comp. Jer. xii. 7-12; Ezek. xxxiv. 5; and my\nCommentary on Rev. ii. 1.\n\nThe beasts have not yet come; they are yet to come. We can here think\nof nothing else than the invasion of the Chaldeans, which the Prophet,\nstepping back to the stand-point of his time, beholds here as future;\nwhilst, in what precedes, from his ideal stand-point, which he had\ntaken in the Babylonish exile, he had, for the most part, considered it\nas past.--In chap. lvi. 10-12, we meet with corrupted rulers of the\npeople, who are indolent, when everything depends upon warding off the\ndanger, greedy, luxurious, gormandizing upon what they have stolen. The\npeople are not under foreign dominion, but have rulers of their own,\nwho tyrannize over, and impoverish them; comp. Is. chap. v.; Micah,\nchap. iii.--In chap. lvii. 1, it is said: \"The righteous perisheth and\nno man layeth it to heart, and the men of kindness are taken away, no\none considering that, on account of the evil, the righteous is taken\naway.\" The Prophet mentions it as a sign of the people's hardening\nthat, in the death of the righteous men who were truly bearing on their\nhearts the welfare of the whole, they did not recognize a harbinger of\nsevere divine judgments, from which, according to a divine merciful\ndecree, these righteous were to be preserved by an early death. \"On\naccount of the evil,\" _i.e._, in order to withdraw them from the\njudgments, which were to be inflicted upon the ungodly people, comp.\nGen. xv. 15; 2 Kings xxii. 20; Is. xxxix. 8. The evil, _i.e._ according\nto 2 Kings xxii. 20, the Chaldean catastrophe, appears here as still\nfuture. In chap. lvii. 2: \"They enter in peace, they rest in their beds\nwho have walked before themselves in uprightness,\" the \"peace\" forms\nthe contrast to the awful condition of suffering which the survivors\nhave to encounter.--In chap. lvii. 9, it is said: \"And thou lookest on\nthe king anointed with oil, and increasest thy perfumes, and sendest\nthy messengers far off, sendest them down into hell.\" The apostacy from\nthe Lord their God is manifested not only in idolatry, but also in\ntheir not leaving untried any means to [Pg 178] procure for themselves\nhuman helpers, in their courting human aid. The personification of\nIsrael as a woman, which took place in the preceding verses, is here\ncontinued. She leaves no means untried to heighten her charms; she\nmakes every effort to please the mighty kings. The king is an ideal\nperson comprehending a real plurality within himself A parallel\npassage, in which the seeking for help among foreign nations is\nrepresented under the same image, is Ezek. xvi. 26 ff., comp. Hos. xii.\n2 (1). It occurs also in immediate connexion with seeking help from the\nidols, in chap. xxx. 1 ff. The verb [Hebrew: wvr] means always \"to\nsee,\" \"to look at;\" and this signification is, here too, quite\nappropriate: Israel is _coquetting_ with her lover, the king. The\nreproach which the Prophet here raises against the people has no\nmeaning at all in the time of the exile, when the national independence\nwas gone. We find ourselves all at once transferred to the time of\nIsaiah, who, in chap. xxxi. 1, utters a woe upon them \"that go down to\nEgypt for help,\"--who, in chap. xxx. 4, complains: \"His princes are at\nZoar, and his ambassadors come to Hanes,\"--who, in chap. vii., exhibits\nthe dangerous consequences of seeking help from Asshur. The historical\npoint at issue is brought before us by passages such as 2 Kings xvi. 7:\n\"And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser, king of Assyria, saying: I\nam thy servant and thy son; come up and save me out of the hand of the\nking of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who rise\nagainst me.\"--In chap. lvii. 11-13, the thought is this: Israel is not\nbecoming weary of seeking help and salvation from others than God. But\nHe will soon show that He alone is to be feared, that He alone can\nhelp; that they are nothing against whom, and from whom help is sought.\nThe words in ver. 11: \"Am I not silent, even of old; therefore thou\nfearest me not,\" state the cause of the foolish forgetfulness of God,\nand hence form the transition to the subsequent announcement of\njudgment. The prophecy is uttered at a time when Israel still enjoyed\nthe sparing divine forbearance, inasmuch as for time immemorial (since\nthey were in Egypt), no destructive catastrophe had fallen upon them.\nIt was in the Babylonish catastrophe only that the Egyptian received\nits counterpart. But how does this suit the time of the Babylonish\nexile, when the people were groaning under the severe judgments of God,\n[Pg 179] and had not experienced His forbearance, but, on the contrary,\nfor almost 70 years, the full energy of His punitive justice? In ver.\n13, it is said: \"In thy crying, let thy hosts (thy whole Pantheon so\nrich, and yet so miserable) help thee.\" \"In thy crying, _i.e._, when\n_thou_, in the judgment to be inflicted upon thee in future, wilt cry\nfor help.\" In chap. lxvi. the punishment appears as future; temple and\ncity as still existing; the Lord as yet enthroned in Zion. So specially\nin ver. 6: \"A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple,\nthe voice of the Lord that rendereth recompence to His enemies,\" A\ncontroversy with the hypocrites who presumed upon the temple and their\nsacrificial service, in vers. 1, 3, has, at the time of the exile, no\nmeaning at all, _Gesenius_, indeed, was of opinion that the Prophet\nmight judge of the worship of God in temples, and of the value of\nsacrifices, although they were not offered at that time; but it must be\nstrongly denied that the Prophet could do so in such a context and\nconnection. For, the fact that the Prophet has in view a definite class\nof men of his time, and that he does not bring forward at random a\n_locus communis_ which, at his time, was no longer applicable--a thing\nwhich, moreover, is not by any means his habit--appears from the close\nof the verse, and from ver. 4, where divine judgment is threatened to\nthose men: \"Because they choose their own ways, and their soul\ndelighteth in their abominations: I also will choose their derision,\nand will bring their fears upon them.\" Even in ver. 20: \"And they (the\nGentiles who are to be converted to the Lord), shall bring all your\nbrethren out of all nations for a meat-offering unto the Lord, upon\nhorses, &c., _just as the children of Israel are bringing_ ([Hebrew:\nibvav], expresses an habitual offering), _the meat-offering in a clean\nvessel into the house of the Lord_,\" the house of God appears as still\nstanding, the sacrificial service in full operation; the future\nspiritual meat-offering of the Gentiles is compared to the bodily\nmeat-offering which the children of Israel are now offering in the\ntemple.\n\n_Throughout the whole second part we perceive the people under the, as\nyet, unbroken power of idolatry._ It appears everywhere as the\nprincipal tendency of the sinful apostacy among the people; to\ncounteract it appears to be the chief object of the Prophet. The\ncontroversy with idolatry pervades everything. At the very\ncommencement, in chap. xl. 18-26, we are met [Pg 180] with a\ndescription of the nothingness of idolatry, and an impressive warning\nagainst it. In the whole series of passages, commencing with chap.\nxli.--of which we shall afterwards speak more in detail--the sole Deity\nof the God of Israel, and the vanity of the idols are proved from\nprophecy in connection with its fulfilment; and this series has for its\nsupposition the power which, at the time when the prophecy was uttered,\nidolatry yet possessed over the minds of men. Chap. xlii. 17 announces\nthat the future historical development shall bring confusion upon those\n\"that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images: Ye are our\ngods.\" In chap. xliv. 12-20, the absurdity of idolatry is illustrated\nin a brilliant description. We have here before us the real _locus\nclassicus_ of the whole Scripture in this matter, the main description\nof the nothingness of idolatry. The emotion and excitement with which\nthe Prophet speaks, shew that he has here to do with the principal\nenemy to the salvation of his people. According to chap. xlvi. the\nidols of Babel shall be overturned and carried away. From this, Israel\nmay learn the nothingness of idolatry, and the apostates may return to\nthe Lord. In the hortatory and reproving section, the punishment of\nidolatry forms the beginning; in chap. lvii. idolatry is described as\nfar-spread, manifold, advancing to the greatest horrors. The offering\nup of children as sacrifices especially appears as being in vogue; and\nit can be proved that this penetrated into Israel, from the\nneighbouring nations, at the time of the Prophet (comp. 2 Chron.\nxxviii. 3; xxxiii. 6), while, at the time of the exile, there was\nscarcely any cause for warning against it,--at least, existing\ninformation does not mention any such sacrifices among the Babylonians\n(comp. _M\u00fcnter_, _die Religion der Babylonier_, S. 72). The people\nappear as standing under the dominion of idolatry in chap. lxv. 3: \"The\npeople that provoketh me to anger continually to my face, that\nsacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon the bricks;\" comp.\nver. 7: \"Who have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me\nupon the hills;\" chap. lxvi. 17: \"They that sanctify themselves and\npurify themselves in the gardens behind one in the midst, who eat\nswine's flesh, and the abominations, and mice, shall be consumed\ntogether, saith the Lord.\" Idolatry is the service of nature, and was,\ntherefore, chiefly practised [Pg 181] in places where nature presents\nherself in all her splendour, as in gardens and on the hills. The\ngardens are mentioned in a similar way in chap. i. 29: \"Ye shall blush\non account of the _gardens_ that ye have chosen.\" (On the words which\nprecede in that verse: \"For they shall be ashamed of the _oaks_ which\nye have desired,\" chap. lvii. 5 offers an exact parallel: \"Who inflame\nthemselves among the _oaks_ under every green tree.\") In chap. lxv. 11,\nthey are denounced who forsake the Lord, forget His holy mountain (on\nwhich, at the time when this was written, the temple must still have\nstood), who prepare a table to _Fortune_, and offer drink-offerings to\n_Fate_. The second main form of sinful apostacy--hypocrisy and dead\nceremonial service--is only rarely mentioned by the Prophet (in chap.\nlvii., lxvi.), while he always anew reverts to idolatry. Now _this\nabsolutely prevailing regard to idolatry can be accounted for, only if\nIsaiah be the author of the second part._ From Solomon, down to the\ntime of the exile, the disposition to idolatry in Israel was never\nthoroughly broken. During Isaiah's ministry, it came to the fullest\ndisplay under Ahaz. Under Hezekiah it was kept down, indeed; but with\ngreat difficulty only, as appears from the fact that, under the reign\nof Manasseh, who was a king after the heart of the people, it again\nbroke openly forth; comp. 2 Kings xxi. 1-18; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1-18; 2\nKings xxi. 6, according to which Manasseh made his own son to pass\nthrough the fire. But it is a tact generally admitted, and proved by\nall the books written during and after the exile, that, with the\ncarrying away into exile, the idolatrous disposition among the people\nwas greatly shaken. This fact has its cause not only in the deep\nimpression which misery made upon their minds, but still more in the\ncircumstance that it was chiefly the godly part of the nation that was\ncarried away into captivity. The disproportionately large number of\n_priests_ among the exiled and those who returned--they constitute the\ntenth part of the people--is to be accounted for only on the\nsupposition, that the heathenish conquerors saw that the real essence\nand basis of the people consisted in the faith in the God of Israel,\nand were, therefore, above all, anxious to remove the priests as the\nmain representatives of this principle. If, for this reason, they\ncarried away the priests, we cannot think otherwise but that, in [Pg\n182] the selection of the others also, they looked chiefly to the\ntheocratic disposition on which the nationality of Israel rested. To\nthis we are led by Jer. xxiv. also, where those carried away are\ndesignated as the flower of the nation, as the nursery and hope of the\nKingdom of God. Incomprehensible, for the time of the exile, is also\nthe _strict antithesis_ between the servants of the Lord, and the\nservants of the idols--the latter hating, assailing, and persecuting\nthe former--an antithesis which meets us especially in the last two\nchapters; comp. especially chap. lxv. 5 ff. 13-15; lxvi. 16. That such\na state of things existed at the time of the Prophet is, among other\npassages, shown by 2 Kings xxi. 16, according to which Manasseh shed\nmuch innocent blood at Jerusalem, and, according to ver. 10, 11,\nespecially the blood of the prophets, who had borne a powerful\ntestimony against idolatry.\n\n_If it be assumed that the second part was composed during the exile,\nthen those passages are incomprehensible, in which the Prophet proves\nthat the God of Israel is the true God, from His predicting the\nappearance of the conqueror from the east, and the deliverance of the\npeople to be wrought by Him in connection with the fulfilment of these\npredictions._ The supernatural character of this announcement which the\nProphet asserts, and which forms the ground of its probative power,\ntook place, only if it proceeded from Isaiah, but not if it was uttered\nonly about the end of the exile, at a time when Cyrus had already\nentered upon the stage of history. These passages, at all events, admit\nonly the alternative,--either that Isaiah was the real author, or that\nthey were forged at a later period by some deceiver; and this latter\nalternative is so decidedly opposed to the whole spirit of the second\npart, that scarcely any one among the opponents will resolve to adopt\nit. Considering the very great and decisive importance of these\npassages, we must still allow them to pass in review one by one. In\nchap. xli. 1-7, the Lord addresses those who are serving idols, summons\nthem triumphantly to defend themselves against the mighty attack which\nHe was just executing against them, and describes the futility of their\nattempts at so doing. The address to the Gentiles is a mere form; to\nwork upon Israel is the real purpose. To secure them from the\nallurements of the world's religion, the Prophet points to [Pg 183] the\ngreat confusion which the Future will bring upon it. This confusion\nconsists in this:--that the prophecy of the conqueror from the East, as\nthe messenger and instrument of the Lord--a prediction which the\nProphet had uttered in the power of the Lord--is fulfilled without the\nidolators being able to prevent it. The answer on the words in ver. 2:\n\"Who hath raised up from the East him whom righteousness calleth\nwhither he goes, giveth the nations before him, and maketh kings\nsubject to him, maketh his sword like dust, and his bow like driven\nstubble?\" is this: According to the agreement of prophecy and\nfulfilment, it is none other than the Lord, who is, therefore, the only\ntrue God, to whose glory and majesty every deed of His servant Koresh\nbears witness. The argumentation is unintelligible, as soon as,\nassuming that it was Isaiah who wrote down the prophecy, it is not\nadmitted that he, losing sight of the _real_ Present, takes his\nstand-point in an _ideal_ Present, viz., the time of the appearance of\nthe conqueror from the East, by which it becomes possible to him to\ndraw his arguments from the prophecy in connection with the fulfilment.\nIt is altogether absurd, when it is asserted that the second part is\nspurious, and was composed at a time when Cyrus was already standing\nbefore Babylon. It would indeed have required an immense amount of\nimpudence on the part of the Prophet to bring forward, as an\nunassailable proof of the omniscience and omnipotence of God, an event\nwhich every one saw with his bodily eyes. By such argumentation, he\nwould have exposed himself to general _ridicule_.--In chap. xli. 21-29,\nthe discourse is formally addressed to the Gentiles; but in point of\nfact, the Prophet here, too, has to do with Judah driven into exile, to\nwhom he was called by God to offer the means to remain stedfast under\nthe temptations from the idolators by whom they were surrounded. Before\nthe eyes, and in the hearing of Israel, the Lord convinces the Gentiles\nof the nothingness of their cause. They are to prove the divinity of\ntheir idols by showing forth the announcements of the Future which\nproceeded from them. But they are not able to comply with this demand.\nIt is only the Lord, the living God, who can do that. Long before the\nappearance of the conqueror from the North and East, He caused it to be\n_foretold_, and comforted His Church with the view of the Future.\nHence, He alone is [Pg 184] God, and vanity are all those who are put\nbeside Him. It is said in ver. 22: \"Let them bring forth and shew to us\nwhat shall happen; the former things, what they be, show and we will\nconsider them and know the latter end of them; or the coming (events\nmake us to hear).\" _The former things_ are those which are prior on\nthis territory; hence the former prophecies, as the comparison of the\nparallel passage, chap. xlii 9, clearly shows. The _end_ of prophecy is\nits fulfilment. [Hebrew: hbavt] \"the coming, or future,\" are the events\nof the more distant Future. As the Prophet demands from the idols and\ntheir servants that only which the true God has already performed by\nHis servants, we have here, on the one hand, a reference to the whole\ncycle of prophecies formerly fulfilled, as _e.g._, that of the\noverthrow of the kingdoms of Damascus and Ephraim, and the defeat of\nAsshur,--and, on the other hand, to the prophecy of the conqueror from\nthe East, &c., contained in the second part. The _former_ prophecies,\nhowever, are here mentioned altogether incidentally only; the real\ndemand refers, as is shown by the words: \"What shall happen,\" only to\nthe prophecies in reference to the Future, corresponding to those of\nour Prophet regarding the conqueror from the East, whose appearance is\nhere represented as belonging altogether to the _Future_, and not to be\nknown by any human ingenuity. In ver. 26: \"Who hath declared (such\nthings) from the beginning, that we may know, and long beforehand, that\nwe may say: he is righteous?\" the [Hebrew: mraw] \"from the beginning\"\nputs insurmountable obstacles in the way of the opponents of the\ngenuineness. If the second part of Isaiah be _spurious_, then the\nidolaters might put the same scornful question to the God of Israel.\nThe [Hebrew: mraw] denotes just the opposite of a _vaticinium post\neventum_.--In chap. xlii. 9: \"The former (things), behold, they are\ncome to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth, I\nlet you hear,\" the Prophet proves the true divinity of the Lord, from\nthe circumstance that, having already proved himself by prophecies\nfulfilled, He declares here, in the second part, the future events\nbefore they spring forth, before the facts begin to sprout forth from\nthe soil of the Present, and hence could have been known and predicted\nby human combination. The words, \"before they spring forth,\" become\ncompletely enigmatical, if it be denied that Isaiah [Pg 185] wrote the\nsecond part; inasmuch as, in that case, it would have in a great part,\nto do with things which did not belong to the territory of prophetic\nforesight, but of what was plainly visible.--In chap. xliii. 8-13, the\nProphet again proves the nothingness of idolatry, and the sole divinity\nof the God of Israel, from the great work, declared beforehand by the\nLord, of the deliverance of Israel, and of the overthrow of their\nenemies. He is so deeply convinced of the striking force of this\nargument, that he ever anew reverts to it. After having called upon the\nGentiles to prove the divinity of their idols by true prophecies given\nby them, he says in ver. 9: \"Let them bring forth their witnesses, that\nthey may be justified.\" By the witnesses it is to be proved, by whom,\nto whom, and at what time the prophecies were given, in order that the\nGentiles may not refer to deceitfully forged prophecies, to _vaticinia\npost eventum_. According to the hypothesis of the spuriousness of the\nsecond part, the author pronounced his own condemnation by thus calling\nfor witnesses. \"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and witness is my\nServant whom I have chosen,\" is said in ver. 10. While the Gentiles are\nin vain called upon to bring forward witnesses for the divinity of\ntheir idols, the true God has, for His witnesses, just those whose\nservices he claimed. The prophecies which lie at the foundation of\ntheir testimony, which are to be borne witness to, are those of the\nsecond part. The Prophet may safely appeal to the testimony of the\nwhole nation, that they were uttered at a time, when their contents\ncould not be derived from human combination. \"The great unknown\"\n(_Ewald_), could not by any possibility have spoken thus.--In chap.\nxlv. 19-21, it is proved from the prophecy, in connection with the\nfulfilment, that Jehovah alone is God,--the like of which no Gentile\nnation can show of their idols. The argumentation is followed by the\ncall to all the Gentiles to be converted to this God, and thus to\nbecome partakers of His salvation--a call resting on the striking force\nof this argumentation--and with this call is, in ver. 23-25, connected\nthe solemn declaration of God, that, at some future time, this shall\ntake place; that, at some future time, there shall be one shepherd and\none flock. How would these high, solemn, words have been spoken in\nvain, if \"the great unknown\" had spoken them! In ver. 19 [Pg 186] it is\nsaid: \"I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I\nsaid not unto the seed of Jacob: Seek ye me in vain; I the Lord speak\nrighteousness, I declare rectitude.\" The Lord here says, first, in\nreference to His prophecies, those namely which He gave through our\nProphet, that _they were made known publicly_, that, hence, there could\nnot be any doubt of their genuineness,--altogether different from what\nis the case with the prophecies of idolatrous nations which make their\nappearance _post eventum_ only, _no one knowing whence_. Every one\nmight convince himself of their truth and divinity. This is expressed\nby the words: \"I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the\nearth.\" Then he says that the Lord had not deceived His people, like\nthe idols who leave their servants without disclosures regarding: the\nFuture; but that, by the prophecies granted to our Prophet, He had met\nthe longings of his people for revelations of the Future. While the\ngods of the world leave them in the lurch, just when their help is\nrequired, and never answer when they are asked, the Lord, in reference\nto prophecies, as well as in every other respect, has not spoken: \"Seek\nye me in vain,\" but rather: When ye seek, ye shall find me. And,\nfinally, he says that his prophecies are true and right; that the\nheathenish prophets commit an _unrighteousness_ by performing something\nelse than that which they promised to perform. To declare\n_righteousness_ is to declare that which is righteous, which does not\nconceal internal emptiness and rottenness under a fair outside. The\nwords: \"I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare rectitude,\" could not\nbut have died on the lips of the \"great unknown.\"--In chap. xlvi. 8-13\nthe apostates in Israel are addressed. They are exhorted to return to\nthe true God, and to be mindful, 1. of the nothingness of idols, ver.\n8; 2. of the proofs of His sole divinity which the Lord had given\nthroughout the whole of the past history; 3. of the new manifestation\nof it in announcing and sending Koresh (Cyrus), ver. 10, 11; \"Declaring\nthe end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are\nnot yet done, saying: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my\npleasure. Calling from the East an eagle, from a far country the man of\nHis counsel; I have spoken it, and will also bring it to pass; I have\nformed it, and will also do it.\" To the [Hebrew: rawnvt], the former\n[Pg 187] events, the fulfilled prophecies from former times (comp.\nxlii. 9), here the new proof of the sole divinity of the God of Israel\nis added, in that He sends Koresh: God _now_ declares. The Prophet, by\ndesignating the time in which the announcement was issued as [Hebrew:\nrawit] and [Hebrew: qdM], as beginning and ancient times, and by\nfounding the proof of the divinity of the Lord just upon the high age\nof the announcement, again puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way\nof the opponents of the genuineness. The announcement and declaration\nprove any thing in connection with the execution only; the bringing\nto pass, therefore, is connected with the declaring, the doing with\nthe speaking. These words are _now_ spoken, since, from the ideal\nstand-point, the carrying out is at hand; they form the antecedent to\nthe _calling_, of which ver. 11 treats. [Hebrew: qvM] properly \"to\nrise,\" opposed to the laying down, means \"to bring to stand,\" \"to bring\nabout,\" \"to be fulfilled.\" \"The counsel,\" _i.e._, the contents of the\nprediction which was spoken of before; it is the divine counsel and\ndecree to which Koresh served as an instrument.--_Finally_--In chap.\nxlviii., the same subject is treated of; the divinity of the Lord is\nproved from His prophecies, in three sections, ver. 1-11, ver. 12-16,\nver. 22. Here, at the close of the first book of the second part, the\nargumentation occurs once more in a very strong accumulation, because\nthe Prophet is now about to leave it, and, in general, the whole\nterritory of the lower salvation. First, in ver. 1-11: Israel should\nreturn to the Lord, who formerly had manifested and proved His sole\ndivinity by a series of prophecies and their fulfilments, and _now_ was\ngranting new and remarkable disclosures regarding the Future. Ver. 6:\n\"New things I shew thee from this time, hidden things, and thou didst\nnot know them, ver. 7. Now they have been created and not of old, and\nbefore this day thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say:\nBehold, I knew them.\" The deliverance of Israel by Cyrus--an\nannouncement uttered in the preceding, and to be repeated immediately\nafterwards--is called _new_ in contrast to the old prophecies of the\nLord already fulfilled; _hidden_ in contrast to the facts which are\nalready subjects of history, or may be known beforehand by natural\ningenuity. _To be created_ is equivalent to being made manifest,\ninasmuch as the hidden Divine counsel enters into life, only by being\nmanifested, and [Pg 188] the prophesied events are created for Israel,\nonly by the prophecy. Ver. 8: \"Thou didst not hear it, nor didst thou\nknow it, likewise thine ear was not opened beforehand; for I knew that\nthou art faithless, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.\" I\nhave, says the Lord, communicated to thee the knowledge of events of\nthe Future which are altogether unheard of, of which, before, thou\ndidst not know the least, nor couldst know. The reason of this\ncommunication is stated in the words: \"for I knew,\" &c. It is the same\nreason which, according to vers. 4, 5, called forth also the former\ndefinite prophecies regarding the Future, now already fulfilled, viz.,\nthe unbelief of the people, which requires a _palpable_ proof that the\nLord alone is God, because it is but too ingenious in finding out\nseeming reasons for justifying its apostacy. All that is perfectly in\nkeeping with, and suitable to the stand-point of Isaiah, but not to\nthat of \"the great unknown,\" at whose time the conqueror from the East\nwas already beheld with the bodily eye; and Habakkuk had long ago\nprophesied the destruction of the Babylonish world's power, and\nIsrael's deliverance; and Jeremiah had announced the destruction of\nBabylon by the Modes much more distinctly and definitely than is done\nhere in the second part of Isaiah. In ver. 16 it is said: \"Come ye near\nunto me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret;\nfrom the time that it was, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent\nme and His Spirit.\" The sense is: Ever since the foundation of the\npeople, I have given them the most distinct prophecies, and made them\npublicly known (referring to the whole chain of events, from the\ncalling of Abraham and onward, which had been objects of prophecy); by\nmine omnipotence I have fulfilled them; and now I have sent my servant\nIsaiah, and filled him with my Spirit, in order that, by a new\ndistinguished prophecy, he may bear witness to my sole divinity. It is\nonly the accompanying mission of the Spirit which gives its importance\nto that of the Prophet. It is from God's Spirit searching the depths of\nthe Godhead, and knowing His most hidden counsels, that those\nprophecies of the second part, going beyond the natural consciousness,\nhave proceeded.\n\nWe believe we have incontrovertibly proved that we are not entitled to\ndraw any arguments against Isaiah's being the [Pg 189] author of the\nsecond part, from the circumstance \"that the exile is not announced,\nbut that the author takes his stand in it, as well as in that of\nIsaiah's time, inasmuch as this stand-point is an assumed and ideal\none. But if the _form_, can prove nothing, far less can the _prophetic\ncontents_.\" It is true that these contents cannot be explained from the\nnatural consciousness of Isaiah; but it is not to be overlooked, that\nthe assailed prophecies of Isaiah are even as directly as possible\nopposed to the rationalistic notion of prophetism, which is arbitrary,\nand goes in the face of all facts, and from which the arguments against\ntheir genuineness are drawn. In a whole series of passages of the\nsecond part (the same which we have just been discussing), the Prophet\nintimates that he gives disclosures which lie beyond the horizon of his\ntime; and draws from this circumstance the arguments for his own divine\nmission, and the divinity of the God of Israel. He considers it as the\ndisgrace of idolatry that it cannot give any definite prophecies, and\nwith a noble scorn, challenges it to vindicate itself by such\nprophecies. That rationalistic notion of prophetism removes the\nboundaries which, according to the express statements of our Prophet,\nseparate the Kingdom of God from heathenism. The rationalistic\n_notional_ God, however, it is true, can as little prophesy as the\nheathenish gods of stone and wood, of whom the Psalmist says: \"They\nhave ears, but they hear not, _neither speak they through their\nthroat_.\"\n\nIt is farther to be considered that the predictions of the Future, in\nthose portions of Isaiah which are assailed just on account of them,\nare not so destitute of a foundation as is commonly assumed. There\nexisted, in the present time and circumstances of the Prophet,\nimportant actual points of connection for them. They farther rest on\nthe foundation of ideal views and conceptions of eternal truths, which\nhad been familiar to the Church of the Lord from its very beginnings.\nThey only enlarge what had already been prophesied by former prophets;\nand well secured and ascertained parallels in the prophetic\nannouncement are not wanting for them.\n\nThe carrying away of the covenant-people into exile had been actually\nprophesied by the fact, that the land had spued out its former\ninhabitants on account of their sins. The threatening of the exile\npervades the whole Pentateuch from [Pg 190] beginning to end; compare\n_Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, _p._ 270 _ff._ It is found in the\nDecalogue also: \"That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord\nthy God giveth thee.\" David shows a clear knowledge of the sufferings\nimpending over his family, and hence also over the people of God; comp.\nmy Commentary on Song of Sol. S. 243. Solomon points to the future\ncarrying away in his prayer at the consecration of the temple. Amos,\nthe predecessor of Isaiah, foresees with absolute clearness, that,\nbefore the salvation comes, all that is glorious, not only in Israel,\nbut in Judah also, must be given over to destruction, compare Vol. i.\np. 357. In like manner, too, Hosea prophesies not only the destruction\nof the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also that Judah shall be carried\naway into exile, comp. Vol. i. p. 176. In Isaiah, the foreknowledge\nof the entire devastation of the city and land, and the carrying away\ninto captivity of its inhabitants--a foreknowledge which stands in\nclose connection with the energy of the knowledge of sin with the\nProphets--meets us from the very beginning of his ministry, and also in\nthose prophecies, the genuineness of which no one ventures to assail,\nas, _e.g._, in chap. i.-vi. After the severity of God had been\nmanifested before the bodily eyes of the Prophet in the carrying away\nof the ten tribes, it could not, even from human considerations, be\ndoubtful to him, what was the fate in store for Judah.\n\nThe knowledge, that the impending carrying away of Judah would take\nplace by the Chaldeans, and that Babylon would be the place of their\nbanishment, was not destitute of a certain natural foundation. In the\ngerm, the Chaldean power actually existed even at that time. Decidedly\nerroneous is the view of _Hitzig_, that a Chaldean power in Babylon\ncould be spoken of only since the time of Nabopolassar. This power, on\nthe contrary, was very old; compare the proofs in _Delitzsch's_\nCommentary on Habakkuk, S. 21. The Assyrian power, although, when\noutwardly considered, at its height, when more closely examined, began,\neven at that time, already to sink. A weakening of the Assyrian power\nis intimated also by the circumstance, that Hezekiah ventured to rebel\nagainst the Assyrians, and the embassy of the Chaldean Merodach Baladan\nto Hezekiah, implies that, even at that time, many things gave a title\nto expect the speedy downfal of the Assyrian [Pg 191] Empire. But the\nfact that Isaiah possessed the clear knowledge that, in some future\nperiod, the dominion of the world would pass over to Babylon and the\nChaldeans,--that they would be the executors of the judgment upon\nJudah, we have already proved, in our remarks on chaps. xiii., xiv.,\nfrom the prophecies of the first part,--from chap. xxiii. 13, where the\nChaldeans are mentioned as the executors of the judgment upon the\nneighbouring people, the Tyrians, and as the destroyers of the Assyrian\ndominion,--and from chap. xxxix. The attempt of dispossessing him of\nthis knowledge is so much the more futile, that his contemporary Micah\nundeniably possesses it; comp. Vol. i. p. 464. So also does Habakkuk,\nbetween whose time and that of Isaiah, circumstances had not\nessentially changed, and who likewise still prophesied before the\nChaldean monarchy had been established.\n\nWhile this foreknowledge of the future _elevation_ of Babylon had a\n_historical_ foundation, the foreknowledge of its _humiliation and\nfate_, following soon after, rested on a _theological_ foundation. With\na heathenish people, elevation is always followed by haughtiness, with\nall its consequences; and, according to the eternal laws of the divine\ngovernment of the world, haughtiness is a matter-of-fact prophecy of\ndestruction. Proceeding from this view, the downfal of the Chaldean\nmonarchy was prophesied by Habakkuk also, at a time when it was still\ndeveloping, and was far from having attained to the zenith of its\npower. In the same manner, the foreknowledge of the future _deliverance\nof Israel_ rises on a theological foundation, and is not at all to be\nconsidered in the same light as if _e.g._, the Prophet had foretold to\nMoab its deliverance. That which the Prophet here predicts is only the\nindividualization of a general truth which meets us at the very\nbeginnings of the covenant-people. The principle which St. Paul\nadvances in Rom. xi. 2: \"God hath not cast away His people whom He\nforeknew,\" and ver. 29: \"For the gifts and calling of God are without\nrepentance,\" meets us, clearly and distinctly, as early as in the books\nof Moses. In Levit. xxvi. 42-45, the deliverance from the land of\ncaptivity is announced on the ground of the election of Israel, and of\nthe covenant with the fathers, and as a fulfilment of the promise of\nfuture election, which was given by the fact of Israel's being\ndelivered from [Pg 192] Egypt. And according to Deut. iv. 30, 31, xxx.\nff., and the close of chap. xxxii., the end of all the catastrophes\nwhich are inflicted upon the covenant-people is always Israel's\nconversion and reception into favour; behind the judgment, mercy is\nalways concealed. In the prayer of Solomon, the carrying away goes hand\nin hand with the reception into favour. But it will be altogether\nfruitless to deny to Isaiah the knowledge of the future deliverance of\nIsrael from Babylon, since his contemporary Micah, in chap. iv. 10,\nbriefly and distinctly expresses the same: \"And thou comest to Babylon;\nthere shalt thou be delivered; there shall the Lord redeem thee from\nthe hand of thine enemies.\"\n\nThe only point in the prophetic foreknowledge of the second part which\nreally seems to want, not only a historical or ideal foundation, but\nalso altogether corresponding analogies, is the mention of the name of\nKoresh. But this difficulty disappears if, in strict opposition to the\ncurrent notion, it is assumed that Cyrus was induced, by our book only,\nto appropriate to himself that name. Recent investigation has proved\nthat this name is originally not a proper name, but an honorary\ntitle,--that the Greek writers rightly explain it by _Sun_,--that the\nname of the sun was, in the East generally, and especially with the\nPersians, a common honorary title of rulers; comp. _B\u00fcrnouf_ and others\nin _H\u00e4vernick's Einleitung_, ii. 2, S. 165. This honorary title of the\nPersian kings, Isaiah might very easily learn in a natural way. And the\nfact that this _Nomen dignitatis_ became, among several others,\npeculiar to Cyrus (the mention of the name of Koresh by Isaiah does not\noriginally go beyond the announcement of the conqueror from the East)\nis explained by the circumstance that Cyrus assumed this name in honour\nof our book, and as an acknowledgment of the mission assigned to him by\nit, although the Prophet had not used this name in any other manner\nthan Balaam had that of Agag, perhaps with an allusion to its\nsignification; compare the phrases \"from the East,\" \"from the rising of\nthe sun,\" in chap. xli. 2, 25. And it is historically settled and\ncertain, that Cyrus had originally another name, viz., _Agradates_, and\nthat he assumed this name only at the time of his ascending the throne,\nwhich falls into the time when the prophecies of our book could already\nbe known to him (comp. the [Pg 193] proofs in _H\u00e4vernick's Einleit._)\nAnd as it is farther certain that the prophecies of our book made a\ndeep impression upon him, and, in important points, exercised an\ninfluence upon his actions (this appears not only from the express\nstatement of _Josephus_, [Arch. xi. c. 1. \u00a7 1, 2,] but still more from\nan authentic document, the Edict of Cyrus, in Ezra i. 1 ff., which so\nplainly implies the fact reported by _Josephus_, that _Jahn_ rightly\ncalled _Josephus'_ statement a commentary on this Edict, which refers,\n_partly_ with literal accuracy, to a series of passages from the second\npart of Isaiah, compare the particulars in _Kleinert_, _\u00fcber die\nEchtheit des Jesaias_, S. 142);--as the condition of the Persian\nreligion likewise confirms this result gained from the Edict of Cyrus\n(_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des alten Orients_, S. 373 ff., proves\nthat in the time of Cyrus, and by him, an Israelitish element had been\nintroduced into it);--there will certainly not be any reason to\nconsider our supposition to be improbable, or the result of\nembarrassment.\n\nBut to this circumstance we must still direct attention, that those\nprophetic announcements of the second part which have reference to that\nwhich, even at the time of \"the great unknown,\" still belonged to the\nfuture, are far more distinct, and can far less be accounted for from\nnatural causes, than those from which rationalistic criticism has drawn\ninferences as regards the spuriousness of the second part. The personal\nMessianic prophecies of the second part are much more characteristic\nthan those concerning Cyrus. He who cannot, by the help of history,\nsupplement and illustrate the prophecy, receives only an incomplete and\ndefective image of the latter. And, indeed, a sufficiently long time\nelapsed before even Exegesis recognised with certainty and unanimity\nthat it was Cyrus who was meant. Doubts and differences of opinion on\nthis point meet us even down to last century. The Medes and Persians\nare not at all mentioned as the conquerors of Babylon, and all which\nrefers to the person of Cyrus has an altogether ideal character; while\nthe Messiah is, especially in chap. liii., so distinctly drawn, that\nscarcely any essential feature in His image is omitted. And it is\naltogether a matter of course that here, in the antitypical\ndeliverance, a much greater clearness and distinctness should prevail;\nfor it stands [Pg 194] in a far closer relation to the idea, so that\nform and substance do far less disagree.\n\nIt would be inappropriate were we here to take up and refute all\nthe arguments against the genuineness of the second part, which\nrationalistic criticism has brought together. Besides those which we\nhave already refuted, we shall bring into view only this argument,\nwhich, at first sight indeed, may dazzle and startle even the\nwell-disposed, viz., the difference between the first and second parts,\nas regards language and mode of representation. The chief error of\nthose who have adduced this argument is, that they judge altogether\nwithout reference to person,--a matter, however, quite legitimate in\nthis case,--that they simply apply the same rule to the productions of\nIsaiah which, in the productions of less richly endowed persons, has\nindeed a _certain_ right, _e.g._, on the prophetical territory of\nJeremiah, who, notwithstanding the difference of subject, yet does not\nunderstand so to change his voice, that it should not soon be\nrecognized by the skilled More than of all the prophets that holds true\nof Isaiah, which _Fichte_, in a letter to a _K\u00f6nigsberg_ friend, writes\nof himself (in his _Life_, by his son, i. S. 196): \"I have properly no\nstyle at all, for I have them all.\" \"Just as the subject demands,\" says\n_Ewald_, without assigning to the circumstance any weight in judging of\nthe second part, \"just as the subject demands, every kind of speech,\nand every change of style are easily at his command; and it is just\nthis in which here his greatness, as, in general, one of his most\nprominent perfections, consists.\" The chief peculiarities of style in\nthe second part stand in close relation to the subject, and the\ndisposition of mind thereby called forth. The Prophet, as a rule, does\nnot address the mass of the people, but the election ([Greek: eklog\u00ea]);\nnor the sinful congregation of the Lord in the present time, but that\nof the future, purified by the judgments of the Lord, the seed and germ\nof which were the election of the Present. It is to the congregation of\nbrethren that he addresses _Comfort_. The beginning: \"Comfort ye,\nComfort ye, Zion,\" contains the keynote and principal subject. It is\nfrom this that the gentle, tender, soft character of the style is to be\naccounted for, as well as the frequent repetitions;--the comforting\nlove follows, step by step, the grief which is indefatigable in its\nrepetitions. [Pg 195] From this circumstance is to be explained the\nhabit of adding several epithets to the name of God; these are as many\nshields which are held up against despair, as many bulwarks against the\nthings in sight, by which every thought of redemption was cut off Where\nGod is the sole help, every thing must be tried to make the\nCongregation feel what they have in Him. A series of single phrases\nwhich several times recur _verbatim_, _e.g._, \"I am the Lord, and none\nelse, I do not give mine honour to any other, I am the first and the\nlast,\" are easily accounted for by the Prophet's endeavour and anxiety\nto impress upon the desponding minds truths, which they were only too\napt to forget. If other linguistic peculiarities occur, which cannot be\nexplained from the subject, it must be considered that the second part\nis not by any means a collection of single prophecies, but a closely\nconnected whole, which, as such, must necessarily have its own peculiar\n_usus loquendi_, a number of constantly recurring characteristic\npeculiarities. The character of unity must necessarily be expressed in\nlanguage and style also. The fact, however, that, notwithstanding the\ndifference of style betwixt the first and second parts, the second part\nhas a great number of characteristic peculiarities of language and\nstyle in common with the first part (a fact which cannot be otherwise,\nif Isaiah was the author of both), was first very thoroughly\ndemonstrated by _Kleinert_, while _K\u00fcper_ and _Caspari_ have been the\nfirst conclusively to prove, that the second part was known and made\nuse of by those prophets who prophesied between the time of Isaiah and\nthat of \"the great unknown.\"\n\nThe close connection of the second part with the first is, among other\nthings, proved also by the circumstance that both are equally strongly\npervaded with the Messianic announcement. Chap. i.-xii. especially\nhave, in this respect, a remarkable parallel in the second book of the\nsecond part. The fact, moreover, that the single Messianic prophecies\nof the second part agree, in the finest and most concealed features,\nwith those of the first part, will be shown in the exposition.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Chap. xxxvii. 38, (comp. 2 Kings xix. 37), describing\napparently the murder of Sennacherib as belonging to the past, does not\ndecide any thing as to the composition of this chapter by Isaiah,\n\"inasmuch as the year which is assigned for Sennacherib's death, B.C.\n696, is not historically ascertained and certain. Nor can the\nsupposition, that Isaiah lived until the time of Manasseh, and himself\narranged and edited the collection of his prophecies on the eve of his\nlife, be liable to any well-founded doubts\" (_Keil_, _Einleitung_, S.\n271). The inscription in chap. i. 1, only indicates that the collection\ndoes not contain any prophecies which go beyond the time of Hezekiah.]\n\n[Footnote 2: To a certain degree analogous are those other passages of\nthe Old Testament, in which the Past presents itself in the form of the\nPresent, as the deliverance from Egypt in Ps. lxvi. 6; lxxxi. 6. Faith,\nat the same time, makes all the old things new, fresh, and lively, and\nanticipates the Future.]\n\n[Pg 196]\n\n\n\n\n CHAP. XLII. 1-9.\n\n\nThe 40th chapter has an introductory character. It comforts the people\nof the Lord by pointing, in general, to a Future rich in salvation. In\nchap. xli. the Prophet describes the appearance of the conqueror from\nthe East for the destruction of Babylon,--an event from which he\nderives, as from a rich source, ample consolations for his poor\nwretched people, while, at the same time, he represents idolatry as\nbeing thereby put to shame. It is on purpose that, immediately after\nthe first announcement of this conqueror from the East, his antitype\nis, in chap. xlii. 1-9, contrasted with him. In the preceding chapter,\nthe Prophet had shown how, by the influence of the king from the East,\nthe Lord would put idolatry to shame, and work out deliverance for His\nChurch. In the section now before us, he describes how, by the mission\nof His servant, the Lord would effect, definitely and absolutely, that\nwhich the former had done only in a preliminary, limited, and imperfect\nmanner. In the subsequent section, the Prophet then first farther\ncarries out the image of the conqueror from the East; and from chap.\nxlix. he turns to a more minute representation of the image of the true\nSaviour. In chaps. xlii. 10, to xliii. 7, the discourse turns, from a\ngeneral description of God's instruments of salvation, to a general\ndescription of the salvation in its whole extent; just as it is the\nmanner of the second part ever again to return from the particular to\nthe general.\n\nHere, where the Servant of God is first to be introduced, He is at\nfirst spoken _of_; it is in ver. 5 that the Lord first speaks _to_ His\nservant. In chap. xlix., on the contrary, the Servant of God, being\nalready known from chap. xlii., is, without farther remark, introduced\nas speaking.\n\nIn the whole section, the Lord is speaking. It falls into three\ndivisions--First, the Lord speaks _of_ His servant, vers. 1-4; then He\nspeaks to His servant, ver. 5-7; finally. He addresses some closing\nwords to the Church, ver. 8, 9. The representation, in harmony with the\nnature of the prophetic vision, bears a dramatic character.\n\nIn ver. 1-4, the Lord, as it were, points to His servant, introduces\nHim to His Church, and commends Him to the [Pg 197] world: \"Behold my\nServant,\" &c. He, the beloved and elect One, upheld by God, and endowed\nwith the fulness of the Spirit of God, shall establish righteousness\nupon the whole earth, and bring into submission to himself the whole\nGentile world, by showing himself meek and lowly in heart, an helper of\nthe poor and afflicted, and combining with it never-failing power. The\naim: He shall bring forth right to the Gentiles. is at once expressed\nat the close of ver. 1. In ver. 2-4, the means by which He attains this\naim are then stated. The bringing forth, or the establishing of right,\nrecurs again in ver. 3 and 4, in order to point out this relation of\nver. 2-4 to ver. 1.\n\nIn ver. 6 and 7, after having pointed to His Omnipotence as affording a\nguarantee for the fulfilment of a prophecy so great that it might\nappear almost incredible, the Lord turns to His Servant and addresses\nHim. He announces to Him that it should be His glorious destination,\npartly to bring, in His person, the covenant with Israel to its full\ntruth, partly to be the light for the Gentile world,--to be, in\ngeneral, the Saviour of the whole human race.\n\nIn the closing verses, 8, 9, the Lord addresses the Church, and directs\nits attention to the object which the announcement of the mission of\nHis Servant, declared in the preceding context, serves: God, because He\nis God, is anxious for the promotion of His glory. In order, therefore,\nthat it may be known that He alone is God, He grants to His people\ndisclosures as regards the distant Future, as yet fully wrapped up in\nobscurity.\n\nThere is no doubt, and it is now generally admitted, that the Servant\nof the Lord, here described, is the same as He who is brought before us\nin chap. xlix. 4; liii., lxi. It is, hence, not sufficient to point out\nan individual to whom, apparently, the attributes contained in this\nprophecy belong; but we must add and combine all the signs and\nattributes which are contained in the parallel passages.\n\nThe Chaldean Paraphrast who, in so many instances, has faithfully\npreserved the exegetical tradition, understands the Messiah by the\nServant of God; and so, from among the later Jewish expositors, do\n_Dav. Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_, the latter of whom says of the\nnon-Messianic interpretation, [Hebrew: wkl alh] [Pg 198] [Hebrew:\nhHkmiM hkv bsnvriM] \"that all these expositors were struck with\nblindness.\" That this exposition was the current one among the Jews at\nthe time of Christ, appears from Luke ii. 32, where Simeon designates\nthe Saviour as the light to be revealed to the Gentiles [Greek: ph\u00f4s\neis apokalupsin ethn\u00f4n], with a reference to Is xlii. 6; xlix. 6. It is\nespecially the latter passage which Simeon has in view, as also St.\nPaul in Acts xiii. 46, 47, as appears from the words immediately\npreceding [Greek: hoti eidon hoi ophthalmoi mou to s\u00f4t\u00earion sou ho\nh\u00eatoimasas kata pros\u00f4pon pant\u00f4n t\u00f4n la\u00f4n], which evidently refer to\nchap. xlix. But chap. xlix. is, as regards the point which here comes\ninto consideration, a mere repetition and confirmation of chap. xlii.\n\nBy the New Testament, this exposition has been introduced and\nestablished in the Church of Christ. The words which, at the baptism of\nChrist, resounded from heaven: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho\nagap\u00eatos, en h\u00f4 eudok\u00easa], Matt. iii. 17 (comp. Mark i. 11) evidently\nrefer to ver. 1 of the chapter before us, and point out that He who had\nnow appeared was none other than He who had, centuries ago, been\npredicted by the prophets. And so do likewise the words which,\naccording to Matt. xvii. 5 (compare Mark ix. 7; Luke ix. 35; 2 Pet. i.\n17), at the transfiguration of Christ, towards the close of His\nministry, resounded from heaven in order to strengthen the Apostles:\n[Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agap\u00eatos, en h\u00f4 eudok\u00easa. autou\nakouete.] These voices at the beginning and the close of Christ's\nministry have not been sufficiently attended to by those who have\nraised doubts against the Messianic interpretation; for a doubt in this\nmust necessarily shake also the belief in the reality of those voices.\nIn both of the passages, the place of the Servant of God in chap. xlii.\n1 (which passage is indeed not so much quoted, as only, in a free\ntreatment, referred to) is taken by the Son of God, from Ps. ii. 7,\njust as, at the transfiguration, the words [Greek: autou akouete] are\nat once added from Deut. xviii. 15. The name of the Servant of God\nwas not high enough fur the sublime moment; the _Son_ formed, in the\nsecond passage, the contrast to the _mere_ servants of God, Moses and\nElijah.--In Matt. xii. 17-21, ver. 1-3 are quoted, and referred to\nChrist. The Messianic explanation of chap. xlii., xlix. lies at the\nfoundation of all the other passages also, where Christ is spoken of as\nthe [Greek: pais Theou]. In Acts iii. 13: [Greek: edoxase ton paida]\n[Pg 199] [Greek: autou I\u00easoun], we shall be obliged to follow _Bengel_\nin explaining it by: _ministrum suum_, partly on account of Matt. xii.\n18, and because the LXX. often render [Hebrew: ebd] by [Greek: pais];\npartly on account of the obvious reference to the Old Testament\npassages which treat of the Servant of God, and on account of the\nspecial allusion to chap. xlix. 3 in the [Greek: edoxase] (LXX. [Greek:\ndoulos mou ei su [Isra\u00eal] kai en soi eudoxasth\u00easomai]). And so likewise\nin Acts iii. 26; iv. 27: [Greek: epi ton hagion paida sou I\u00easoun, hon\nechrisas], where the last words refer to chap. lxi. 1; farther, in Acts\niv. 30. In all these passages it is not the more obvious [Greek:\ndoulos], but [Greek: pais] which is put, in order to remove the low\nnotions which, in Greek, attach to the word [Greek: doulos].\n\nTaking her stand partly on these authorities, partly on the natural\nsense of the passage, the Christian Church has all along referred the\npassage to Christ; and even expositors such as _Clericus_, who,\neverywhere else, whensoever it is possible, seek to set aside the\nMessianic interpretation, are here found among its most decided\ndefenders. In our century, with the awakening faith, this explanation\nhas again obtained general dominion; and wherever expositors of\nevangelical disposition do not yet profess it, this is to be accounted\nfor from the still continuing influence of rationalistic tradition.\n\nWe are led to the Messianic interpretation by the circumstance that the\nservant of God appears here as the antitype of Cyrus. A real person can\nbe contrasted with a real person only, but not with a personification,\nas is assumed by the other explanations. We are compelled to explain it\nof Christ by this circumstance also, that it is in Him only that the\nsigns of the Servant of God are to be found,--that in Him only the\ncovenant of God with Israel has become a truth,--that He only is the\nlight of the Gentiles,--that He only, without external force, by His\ngentleness, meekness, and love, has founded a Kingdom, the boundaries\nof which are conterminous with those of the earth. The connection,\nalso, with the other Messianic announcements, especially those of the\nfirst part, compels us to refer it to Christ.\n\nThe reasons against the Messianic interpretation are of little weight.\nThe assertion that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus appear as\nthe Servant of Jehovah (_Hendewerk_), is at once overthrown by Matt.\nxii. 18, as well as by the other [Pg 200] passages already quoted, in\nwhich Christ appears as [Greek: pais Theou]. Phil. ii. 7, [Greek:\nmorph\u00ean doulou lab\u00f4n] comes as near the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh], as it was\npossible, considering the low notion attached to the Greek [Greek:\ndoulos]. The passages which treat of the obedience of Christ, such as\nRom, v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8; John xvii. 4: [Greek: ton ergon\netelei\u00f4sa, ho ded\u00f4kas moi hina poi\u00eas\u00f4], give only a paraphrase of the\nnotion of the Servant of the Lord. With perfect soundness _Dr Nitzsch_\nhas remarked, that it was required by the typical connection of the two\nTestaments, that Christ should somehow, according to His [Greek:\nhupako\u00ea], [Greek: hupotag\u00ea], be represented as the perfect\nmanifestation of the [Hebrew: ebd]--The assertion: \"The Messiah is\nexcluded by the circumstance that the subject is not only to be a\nteacher of the Gentiles, who is endowed with the Spirit of God, but is\nalso to announce deliverance to Israel\" (_Gesenius_), rests only on an\nerroneous, falsely literal interpretation of ver. 7, which is not a\nwhit better than if, in ver. 3, we were to think of a natural bruised\nreed, a natural wick dimly burning.--The objection that this Servant of\nthe Lord is not foretold as a future person, but is spoken of as one\npresent, forgets that we are here on the territory of prophetic vision,\nthat the prophets had not in vain the name of _seers_, and puts the\n_real_, in place of the _ideal_ Present,--a mistake which is here the\nless pardonable that the Prophet pre-eminently uses the Future, and, in\nthis way, himself explains the ideal character of the inserted\nPreterites.--In order to refute the assertion, that the doctrine of the\nMessiah is foreign to the second part of Isaiah, that (as _Ewald_ held)\nin it the former Messianic hopes are connected with the person of a\nheathen king, viz., Cyrus (how very little have they who advance such\nopinions any idea of the nature of Holy Writ!), it is only necessary to\nrefer to chap. lv. 3, 4, where the second David, the Messiah, appears,\nat the same time, as Teacher, and as the Prince and Lawgiver of the\nnations, who is to extend the Kingdom of God far over all heathen\nnations. That which, in that passage, is declared of the Messiah, and\nthat which, in those passages which treat of the Servant of God, is\ndeclared of Him, exclude one another, as soon as, by the Servant of\nGod, any other subject than the Messiah is understood.\n\nEven this circumstance must raise an unfavourable prejudice against the\nnon-Messianic interpretation, that its defenders [Pg 201] are at one in\nthe negative only, but differ in the positive determination of the\nsubject, and that, hitherto, no one view has succeeded in overthrowing\nthe other; and farther, that ever anon new subtleties are advanced, by\nmeans of which it is attempted to patch up and conceal the\ninadmissibilities of every individual exposition.\n\nPassing over those expositions which have now become obsolete,--such as\nof Cyrus, the Prophet Isaiah himself--we shall give attention to those\nexpositions only which even now have their representatives, and which\nhave some foundation in the matter itself.\n\nThe LXX. already understood Israel by the Servant of the Lord. They\ntranslate in ver. 1: [Greek: Iak\u00f4b, ho pais mou, antil\u00eapsomai autou,\nIsra\u00eal, ho eklektos mou, prosedexato auton h\u00ea psuch\u00ea mou.] Among the\nJewish interpreters, _Jarchi_ follows this explanation, but with this\nmodification, that, by the Servant of the Lord, he understands the\ncollective body of the righteous in Israel. In modern times, this view\nis defended by _Hitzig_. It appeals especially to the circumstance\nthat, in a series of other passages of the second part, Israel, too, is\ndesignated by the Servant of God, viz. in chap. xli. 8: \"And thou\nIsrael, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham my\nfriend,\" ver. 9: \"Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,\nand called thee from its sides, and said unto thee: Thou art my\nservant, I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away,\" chap. xlii. 19,\nxliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2: \"And now hear, O Jacob my servant, and Israel\nwhom I have chosen. Thus saith the Lord that made thee, formed thee\nfrom the womb and helpeth thee: Fear not, O Jacob, my servant, and thou\nJeshurun, whom I have chosen;\" chap. xliv. 21, xlv. 4, xlviii. 20; \"Say\nye, the Lord hath redeemed His servant Jacob.\" In the face of this\nfact, we shall not be permitted to refer to \"the general signification\nof the expression, and its manifold use.\" For, generally, it is of very\nrare occurrence that Israel is personified as the Son of God (in Ps.\ncv. 6, it is not Israel, as _K\u00f6ster_ supposes, but Abraham who is\ncalled Servant of God; Jer. xxx. 10, xlvi. 27; Ezek. xxxvii. 25 are, in\nall probability, dependent upon the second part of Isaiah, by which\nthis designation first obtained a footing), and never occurs in such\naccumulation as here. For this very reason, we cannot well think [Pg\n202] of an accident; and if there was an intention, we can seek it only\nin the circumstance that there exists a close reference to those\nprophecies which, _ex professo_, have to do with the Servant of God. To\nthis we are led by another circumstance, also. While those passages in\nwhich Israel or Jacob is spoken of as the servant of God, occur in\ngreat numbers in the first book of the second part of Isaiah, they\n_disappear_ altogether in the second book, which is the proper seat of\nthe detail prophecies of the Servant of God in question, who, in the\nfirst book was, by way of anticipation only, mentioned in chap. xlii.\nAfter chap. xlviii. 20, where the words: \"The Lord hath redeemed His\nservant Jacob,\" occur with evident intention, once more at the close of\nthe first book, Jacob, the servant of God, is, in general, no more\nspoken of, but the Plural is used only of the Israelites as the\nservants of God in chap. lxiii. 17: \"For thy servants'sake, the tribes\nof thine inheritance;\" lxv. 8, 9-13, lxvi. 14,--passages which make it\nonly the more evident that the Prophet purposely avoids bringing\nforward Jacob as the ideal person of the Servant of the Lord.\n_Finally_--The idea of chance is entirely excluded by chap. xlix. 3,\nwhere the Messiah is called Israel.\n\nFrom these facts, however, we are not entitled to infer that, in the\nprophetic announcement, Israel is simply spoken of as the servant of\nGod; but on the contrary the context must be viewed in a different and\n_nicer_ way. This is evident from the circumstance that, while in the\npassages chaps. xli. 7, xlviii. 20, Israel and Jacob are intentionally\nspoken of as the servant of God, or, at least, Israel is so distinctly\npointed out that it cannot be at all misunderstood, such an express\npointing to Israel is (with the sole exception of chap. xlix. 3), as\nintentionally, avoided in the prophetic announcement of the Servant of\nGod. The phrase \"My servant Jacob,\" which, in the former passages is\nthe rule, never occurs in the latter. This circumstance clearly\nindicates that, besides the agreement, there exists a difference. The\nfacts, however, which point out the agreement, receive ample justice by\nthe supposition _that the Prophet considers Christ as the concentration\nand essence of Israel_, that he expects from Him the realization of the\ntask which was given to Israel, but had not been fulfilled by them, and\njust thereby, also, the realization of the promises given to [Pg 203]\nIsrael. But, besides other reasons, the fact that the whole description\nof the Servant of God stands in direct contradiction to what the\nProphet elsewhere says of Israel, proves that Israel is not meant in\n_opposition_ to the Messiah,--the body without the head. It is\nespecially chap. xlii. 19 which here comes into consideration: \"Who is\nso blind as my servant, or so blind as my messenger whom I send?\"\nIsrael is here called servant of the Lord, because it had been called\nby Him to preserve the true religion on earth. Parallel is the\nappellation: \"My messenger whom I send.\" Israel, as the messenger of\nGod, was to deliver His commands to the Gentiles. The Prophet sharpens\nthe reproof, in that he always contrasts what the people were, and what\nthey ought to have been, according to the destination given to them by\nthe Lord. The servant of the Lord, who, in order to execute His\ncommissions, must have a sharp eye, is blind; His messenger is deaf and\ncannot hear what He says to him. The immense contrast between idea and\nreality which is here pointed out, implies, since the idea must\nnecessarily be realized, that it shall receive another bearer; that in\nplace of the messenger, who has become blind and deaf, there should\ncome the true Messenger who first opens the eyes of Israel, and then\nthose of the Gentiles,--that the destination of Israel, which the\nmembers are unfit to realize, should be realized by the head. We are\nnot at liberty to say that the servant who had become blind and deaf\nshall be converted, shall put off the old man and put on the new man,\nand shall then accomplish the great things which, in the prophecies of\nthe Servant of God, are assigned to him. For the conversion,--on which\neverything depends, and apart from which the announcement of the\nProphet would be an empty fancy--is, in all these prophecies, not\nmentioned by a single word. On the contrary, the Servant of God is\neverywhere, from His very origin, brought before us as the absolutely\njust. No more glaring contrast can really be imagined than that which\nexists between that which the Prophet says of the ordinary Israel\n(whose outward state, as it is described in chap. xlii. 22: \"This is a\npeople robbed and spoiled, they are all of them snared in holes, and\nhid in prison-houses,\" is only a faithful image of the internal\ncondition), and the Son of God in whom His soul delighteth, who in\nexuberant love seeks [Pg 204] that which is lost, whose overflowing\nrighteousness justifies many, and who, as a substitute, can suffer for\nothers. It is in Christ only, that Israel attains to its destination,\nboth in a moral point of view, and as regards the Divine preservation\nand glorification. To this it may still be added, that neither here,\nnor in the parallel passages is [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] ever connected with\na Plural, but always with the Singular only; while elsewhere, in the\ncase of collective nouns and ideal persons, the real plurality not\nuncommonly shines forth from behind the unity; and in those passages,\nespecially, where Israel appears personified as a unity, the use of the\nSingular is interchanged with that of the Plural. Comp., _e.g._, chap.\nxli. 8: \"And thou Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed\n(_posterity_) of Abraham, my friend,\" chap. xliii. 10: \"_Ye are my\nwitnesses._ saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen.\" But a\ncircumstance, which alone would be sufficient for the proof, is the\nfact, that in chap. xli. 6, (comp. chap. xlix. 5, 6) the Servant of the\nLord is plainly distinguished from the people. How can the Lord say of\nthe people, that He will give it for a covenant of the people, that in\nit He will cause the covenant with the people to attain to its truth?\nThe fact, that this passage opposes an insurmountable barrier to the\nexplanation which makes the people the subject, sufficiently appears\nfrom the circumstance, that the expositors saw themselves obliged to\nset aside its natural sense by a forced, unphilological explanation.\n_Finally_,--In understanding the people by the Servant of God, the\nprophecies of the Servant of God are brought into irreconcileable\ncontradiction with all other prophecies, with the first part of Isaiah,\nand even with the second part, inasmuch as things would then be\nprophesied of the people which, everywhere else, are constantly\nassigned to the Messiah. This is quite openly expressed by _K\u00f6ster_:\n\"The Servant of Jehovah is the Jewish people; viewed, however, by the\nProphet in such a manner as to combine in itself the attributes of\nboth, the prophets and the Messiah.\" Prophetism would have dug its own\ngrave if its organs had, in a manner so inconsiderate, contradicted\neach other as regards the highest hopes of the people. The national\nconviction of the inspiration of the prophets, which formed the\nfoundation of their activity and efficiency, could, in that case, not\nhave arisen at [Pg 205] all. The same arguments decide partly also\nagainst a modification of this explanation which evidently has\nproceeded from embarrassment only,[1] against those who, by the Servant\nof God, understand the better portion of Israel,--such as _Maurer_,\n_Ewald_, _Oehler_ (_Ueber den Knecht Gottes_, _T\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift_,\n1840. The latter differs from the other supporters of this view in\nthis, that, according to him, the notion of the ideal Israel which, he\nthinks, prevails in chap. xlii. and xlix., is, in chap. liii., raised\nto the view of an individual--the Messiah), _Knobel_ (\"The theocratic\nsubstance of the people, to which especially the prophets and priests\nbelonged.\") By this modification, the explanation which makes the\npeople the subject, loses its only apparent foundation, inasmuch as it\ncan no more appeal to those passages in which Israel is spoken of as\nthe Servant of the Lord; for it is obvious that, in these, not merely\nthe pious portion of the people is spoken of. At the very outset, in\nver. 19, the whole of the people are undeniably designated by the\nServant of the Lord. It is they only who are blind and deaf in a\nspiritual point of view. The whole people, and not a portion of them,\nare in the condition of servitude, ver. 22. In ver. 24, Jacob and\nIsrael are expressly mentioned. The whole people, and not merely the\npious portion, are objects of the Lord's election (chap. xli. 8, xliv.\n1, 2); the whole people are to be redeemed from Babylon, chap. xlviii.\n20. The hypothesis of the pious portion of the people can as little\naccount for the unexceptional use of the singular, as the hypothesis of\nthe whole people; like it, it isolates the prophecies of the Servant of\nGod, and brings them into contradiction with all the other prophecies,\nwhich assign to Christ the same things that are here assigned to the\nServant of God. But what is especially in opposition to this hypothesis\nis ver. 3, where the Servant of God is designated as the Saviour of the\npoor and afflicted, which, in the first instance, are no other than the\nbetter portion of the people; as well as other reasons, which we shall\nbring out in commenting upon chap. liii. by which section the\nhypothesis is altogether overthrown.\n\nAccording to _De Wette_ (_de morte expiat._ p. 26) and _Gesenius_, [Pg\n206] the subject of the prophecy is the collective body of the\nprophets. Substantially, _Umbreit_ too (_Der Knecht Gottes_, Hamburg\n1840) adheres to this interpretation. He rejects the explanation which\nrefers it to Christ in the sense of the Christian Church, and on p. 13\nhe completely assents to _Gesenius_, by remarking that he could not\nfind in the prophets any supernatural, distinct predictions of future\nevents. The Prophet, according to him, formed to himself, by his own\nauthority, an \"ideal of a Messiah,\" the abstraction of what he saw\nbefore his eyes in the people, especially in the better portion of\nthem, but chiefly in the order of the prophets, and then persuaded\nhimself that this self-invented image would, at some future period,\ncome into existence as a real person. \"The highest ideal of the\nprophetic order, viewed as teaching, is represented in the unity of a\nperson.\" \"We find the prophets as a collective body in the [Hebrew:\nebd], but chiefly, the prophets who, in future only, on the regained\npaternal soil, are, in some person, to reach the highest perfection.\"\n\nThis hypothesis of the collective body of the prophets violently severs\nthe prophecy before us, and the parallel passages from those passages\nof the second part in which Israel is spoken of as the Servant of God.\nIt is quite impossible to point out anywhere in the Old Testament, and\nespecially in the second part of Isaiah, an analogous personification\nof the order of the prophets as the Servant of God. The reference to\nchap. xliv. 26: \"That establisheth the word of His servant, and\nperformeth the counsel of His messengers; that saith of Jerusalem: She\nshall be inhabited, and of the cities of Judah: They shall be built,\nand I will raise up the walls thereof,\" is, in this respect, altogether\nout of place, inasmuch as the servant of the Lord, in that verse, is\nnot the collective band of the prophets, but Isaiah himself, just as in\nchap. xxiii. The parallelism between the servant of the Lord and His\nmessengers is not a _synonymous_, but a _synthetic_ one, just as,\nafterwards, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are placed beside one\nanother. The parallel passages clearly intimate that, by the servant of\nthe Lord, Isaiah only is to be understood. Throughout, the Prophet\nrefers exclusively to his own prophecies, as regards the impending\nsalvation of Israel (the prophecies of others he mentions, everywhere\nelse, always in reference to the past only); [Pg 207] and it cannot be\nimagined that, in this single passage only, he should have designated\nhimself as one among the many. If we consider those parallel passages,\nwe must assume that the _messengers_ also are represented chiefly by\nour Prophet; that he is their mouth and organ, just as, in Rev. i. 1,\nand xxii. 6, the servants of God and the prophets are represented by\nJohn.\n\n_Farther_--It cannot be denied that a certain amount of truth lies at\nthe foundation of the explanation which makes the prophetic order the\nsubject. The Messiah appears in our prophecy pre-eminently as the\nProphet, in harmony and connection with Deut. xviii. (comp. Vol. i., p.\n107); and the substratum of the description forms chiefly the prophetic\norder, while, in the prophecies of the first part, it is chiefly the\nregal office which appears, and, in chap. liii., the priestly. But the\nmistake (as _Umbreit_ himself partly saw) is, that this explanation\nchanges the person into a personification, instead of recognizing that\nthe idea, which hitherto was only imperfectly realised by the prophetic\norder, demands a future perfect realisation in an individual, so that\nwe could not but expect such an one even if there did not exist any\nMessianic prophecy at all. Every prophet who, in human weakness,\nperformed his office, was a guarantee of the future appearance of _the_\nProphet, as surely as God never does by halves what, according to His\nnature, and as proved by the existence of the imperfect, He must do.\nBut the fact that, here, we have not before us a mere personification\nof the prophetic order, nor, as little, according to the opinion of\n_Umbreit_, a single individual by whom, in future, the idea of the\nprophetic order was to be most perfectly realised, is evident from the\ncircumstance that the Servant of God does not, by any means, represent\nhimself as being _only_ the Prophet. The contrast between Cyrus and the\nServant of God, which _G. M\u00fcller_ advances: \"Evidently, the former is a\nconqueror; the latter, a meek teacher,\" is one-sided; for the Servant\nof God appears, at the same time, as a powerful _ruler_, just as\nChrist, in chap. lv. 4, is at the same time designated as a _Witness_,\nand as Prince and Lawgiver of the nations. To the mere teacher not even\nver. 3 is applicable, if the parallel passages are compared, but far\nless ver. 4: \"The isles shall wait for _His law_.\" Nor does a mere\nteacher come up to the embodied covenant with Israel in ver. 6, nor to\n_the_ [Pg 208] _light_, _i.e._, Salvation and Saviour of the Gentiles.\nBy mere teaching, salvation cannot be wrought out. Ver. 7 also does not\napply to the mere _teacher_.\n\nThe collective body of the prophets, or the ideal prophet, is\naltogether out of place in chap. liii.; for there the Servant of God\ndoes not appear as a Prophet, but as a High Priest and Redeemer. This\nhypothesis meets with farther difficulties by the mention of Israel in\nchap. xlix. 3. _Farther_--It cannot well be conceived how the Prophet\nwho, according to these expositors, lived about the end of the exile,\ncould expect such glorious things of the prophetic order, as that\nfrom it even a preliminary and partial realization of his hopes\nshould proceed. At that time the prophetic order was already dying out;\nand a prophetic order among the exiled cannot well be spoken of\n_Finally_--That which is here ascribed to the Servant of God--the grand\ninfluence upon the heathen world--is not of such a character, as that\nthe prophets could be considered as even the precursors and companions\nin the work of _the Prophet_. Neither prophecy nor history assigns to\nthe prophets any share in this work. This hypothesis severe the second\npart from its connection with the whole remaining Old Testament,\naccording to which it is by Christ alone that the reception of the\nGentiles into the Kingdom of God shall be effected. And in this second\npart itself, it stands likewise in contradiction to chap. lv. 3, 4.\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\nVer. 1. \"_Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul\ndelighteth; I have put my Spirit upon Him, He shall bring forth\nright_[2] _to the Gentiles._\"\n\nEvery pious man is called, in general, \"servant of the Lord,\" comp. Job\ni. 8; Ps. xix. 12, 14; but ordinarily, the designation is, in a special\nsense, applied to those whom God makes use of for the execution of His\npurposes, to whom He entrusts the administration of His affaire, and\nwhom He equips for the promotion of His glory. David, who, according to\nActs xiii. 36, had in his generation served the counsel of God, calls\nhimself [Pg 209] in his prayer in 2 Sam. vii., not fewer than ten\ntimes, the servant of God, (Vol. i, p. 135, 136); and the same\ndesignation he gives to himself in the inscriptions of Ps. xviii. and\nxxxvi. The _Prophets_ are called servants of God in 2 Kings xiii. 3;\nJer. xxvi. 5. In the highest and most perfect degree, that designation\nbelongs to Christ, who, in the most perfect manner, carried out the\ndecrees of God, and to whom all former servants and instruments of the\nLord in His kingdom, pointed as types. But the designation has not\nmerely a reference to the subjective element of obedience, but points,\nat the same time, to the _dignity_ of him who is thus designated. It is\na high honour to be received by God among the number of His servants,\nwho enjoy the providence and protection of their mighty and rich Lord.\nThat this aspect--the dignity--comes here chiefly into consideration,\nin the case of Him who is the Servant of God [Greek: kat'ezoch\u00ean], and\nin whom, therefore, this dignity must reach its highest degree, so that\nthe designation, _My Servant_, borders very closely upon that of _My\nSon_, (comp. Matth. iii. 17, xvii. 5);--that this aspect comes here\nchiefly into consideration is probable even from the circumstance that,\nin those passages of the second part which treat of _Israel_ as the\nservant of God, it is just this aspect which is pre-eminently regarded.\nThus it is in chap. xli. 8: \"And thou Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I\nhave chosen, the seed of Abraham, my friend.\" To be the servant of God\nappears here as an honour, as the privilege which was bestowed upon\nIsrael in preference to the Gentiles. On ver. 9: \"Thou, whom I have\ntaken from the ends of the earth, and from her borders called thee, and\nsaid unto thee: Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not cast\nthee away,\" Luther remarks: \"The name, 'my servant,'contains the\nhighest _consolation_, both when we look to Him who speaks, viz.. He\nwho has created everything, and also to him who is addressed, viz.,\nafflicted and forsaken man.\" In chap. xliv. 1, 2: \"And now hear, O\nJacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen; thus saith the Lord\nthat made thee, and formed thee from the womb, who will help thee: Fear\nnot, O Jacob, my servant, and Jeshurun, whom I have chosen,\" all the\ndesignations of God and Israel serve only for an introduction to the\nexhortation: \"Fear not,\" by laying open the necessity which exists for\nthe promise in [Pg 210] ver. 3, which, without such ca foundation,\nwould be baseless. The context and the parallelism with \"whom I have\nchosen\" show that the designation, \"servant of God\" in these verses has\nno reference to a duty imposed, but to a privilege, a relation which is\nthe pledge of divine aid to Israel. Jeshurun stands as a kind of _nomen\nproprium_, and is not parallel to [Hebrew: ebdi], but to Jacob. In\nchap. xliv. 21: \"Remember this, O Jacob, and Israel, for thou art my\nservant, I have formed thee for a servant to me, Israel, thou shalt not\nbe forgotten of me,\" the [Hebrew: alh] \"this\" refers to the folly of\nidolatry exhibited in the preceding verses. The duty that Israel should\nremember this, is founded upon the fact, that he is the servant of the\nLord, called by Him to a glorious dignity, to high prerogatives, of\nwhich he must not rob himself by apostatizing from Him. It is He who\nhas bestowed upon him this dignity, and He will soon show by deeds,\nthat He cannot forget him, if only his heart does not forget his God.\nIn a similar manner, in chap. xlv. 4, the protecting providence and\nlove of God are looked to. The aspect of the duty and of the service\nwhich Israel has to perform to his Lord, is specially pointed out in a\nsingle passage only, in chap. xlii. 19; all the other passages place\nthe dignity in the foreground. That, in the designation. Servant of\nGod, in the passage before us, prominence is also given to the dignity,\nis confirmed by the addition of \"whom I uphold,\" which presents itself\nas an immediate consequence of the relation of a servant of God, and by\nthe parallel: \"mine elect in whom my soul delighteth.\"--[Hebrew: tmK]\n\"to take,\" \"to seize,\" \"to hold,\" when followed by [Hebrew: b], always\nsignifies _to lay hold of_, _to hold fast_, _to support_. With the\nwords: \"Behold my servant whom I uphold,\" corresponds what the Lord\nsays in John viii. 29: [Greek: ho pempsas me met'emou estin. ouk\naph\u00eake me monon ho Pat\u00ear, hoti eg\u00f4 ta aresta aut\u00f4 poi\u00f4 pantote]; comp.\nJohn iii. 2; Acts x. 38. The Preterite [Hebrew: ntti] is employed,\nbecause the communication of the Spirit is the condition of his\nbringing forth right, just as, in ver. 6, the _calling_ is the ground\nof the preservation. In the whole of the description of the Servant of\nGod, the Future prevails throughout; the _Praeteritum propheticum_ is\nemployed only, where something is to be designated, which, relatively,\nis antecedent; compare the words: \"And the Spirit of the Lord rests\nupon [Pg 211] Him,\" in chap. xi. 2; lxi. 1; Matt. iii. 16; John iii.\n34. The three passages in Isaiah which speak of the communication of\nthe Spirit to Christ are inseparably connected with one another, and,\non the whole Old Testament territory, there is no passage exactly\nparallel to them. The Hiphel of [Hebrew: ica] must not be explained by\n\"to announce,\" as some interpreters do; for in this signification it\nnowhere occurs; and according to what follows, and the parallel\npassages, the Servant of God does not by any means establish right by\nthe mere announcement, but by His holy disposition. But as little can\nwe explain [Hebrew: hvcia] by \"to lead out,\" in contrast to the\ncircumstance that, under the Old Testament, right was limited to a\nsingle nation. For in the parallel passage, chap. li. 4: \"Hearken unto\nme, my people, and give ear unto me, O my congregation, for law shalt\nproceed from me, and I will set my right for the light of the nations,\"\n[Hebrew: ica] does not mean to go _out_, but to go _forth_, _i.e._, to\nproceed. In the same way, in Hab. i. 4: \"And not does right go forth\nfor ever,\" _i.e._, it never comes forth, is never established, comp.\nVol. i., p. 442, 443. Hence [Hebrew: hvcia] here can mean only \"to\nbring to light,\" \"to bring forth.\" [Hebrew: mwpT] is, by several\ninterpreters, taken in the signification, \"religion;\" but it is just\nver. 4, by which they support their view, which shows that the ordinary\nsignification \"right,\" must be retained here. For in that verse,\n_right_ stands in parallelism with _law_, by which right is\nestablished; comp. chap. li. 4. Before God's Kingdom was, by the\nServant of God, extended to the Gentile nations, there existed among\nthem, notwithstanding all the excellence of outward legal arrangements,\na condition without right in the higher sense. Right, in its essence,\nhas its root in God, as may be seen from the Ten Commandments, which\neverywhere go back to God, and in all of which Luther, in his\nexposition of the ten commandments, rightly repeats: \"We shall fear and\nlove God.\" Where, therefore, the living God is not known, there can be\nno right. The commandment: \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,\"\n_e.g._, has any meaning only where the eye is open for the divine image\nwhich the neighbour bears, and for the redemption of which he is a\nfellow-partaker. The commandment: \"Honour thy father and thy mother\"\nwill go to the heart only where the divine paternity is known, of which\nall earthly paternity is only an image. [Pg 212] In Deut. iv. 5-8,\nIsrael's happiness is praised, in that they alone, among all the\nnations, are in possession of God's laws and commandments. Those\nprivileges of Israel are, by the Servant of God, to be extended to the\nGentiles who, because they are destitute of right, are, in Deut. xxxii.\n21, called a foolish nation. In Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20, it is said: \"He\nshoweth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and laws unto Israel. He has\nnot dealt so with any nation, and law they do not know.\" This passage\ntouches very closely upon that before us; like it, it denies right to\nthe Gentiles in general. \"The Gentiles, being without God in the world,\ndo not know any right at all. For that which they call so, is only the\nshadow of that which really deserves this name, is only a dark mixture\nof right and wrong.\" As regards the first table of the Ten\nCommandments, they grope entirely in the dark; and with respect to the\nsecond table, it is only here and there that they see a faint glimpse\nof light.--A consequence of the bringing forth of right to the Gentiles\nis the ceasing of war, as it is described in chap. ii. 4. When right\nhas obtained dominion, it cannot tolerate war beside it; where there is\ntrue right, there is also peace. The benefit which, in the first\ninstance, is conferred upon the Gentiles, is enjoyed by Israel also:\nThe intention of comforting and encouraging Israel clearly appears in\nthe parallel passage, chap. li. 4. For the right which obtains dominion\namong the Gentiles, is Israel's pride and ornament, so that, along with\ntheir God and His right, they obtain also the dominion over the Gentile\nworld, by which they were hitherto kept in bondage; and whensoever and\nwheresoever the divine right obtains dominion, the violent oppression\nmust cease, under which the people of God had been groaning up to that\ntime. The Servant of God, however, who brings forth right to the\nGentiles, forms the contrast to the worldly conqueror, of whom it was\nsaid in chap. xli. 25: \"He cometh upon princes as mortar, and, just as\nthe potter treadeth the clay.\"--The words: \"He shall bring forth\nright,\" purposely return again in ver. 3; and equally intentionally,\nthe words: \"He shall found right on the earth,\" in ver. 4, refer to\nthem. \"We have thus\"--_Stier_ pertinently remarks--\"in ver. 1, the sum\nand substance, even to its aim. But it is immediately brought more\ndistinctly to view, what [Pg 213] will be the spirit and character, the\nmode of operation, by which this aim is to be brought about.\"\n\nVer. 2; \"_He shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard\nin the street._\"\n\nAfter [Hebrew: iwa] \"he shall lift up,\" \"His voice\" must be supplied\nfrom the context. The words must not be understood in such a manner, as\nif they stood in opposition to chap. lviii. 1: \"Cry with thy throat, do\nnot refrain, lift up thy voice like the trumpet, and show my people\ntheir transgression, and to the house of Jacob their sins.\" The\nProphet, in that passage, encourages himself; and he cannot mean to\nrepresent that as objectionable, by the circumstance that, in the case\nof the Servant of God, the very ideal of all the servants of God, he\npoints out and praises the very opposite. And, in like manner, every\ninterpretation is to be avoided according to which \"dumb dogs which\ncannot bark\" find a pretext in this passage. According to Prov. i. 20:\n\"Wisdom crieth aloud without, she uttereth her voice in the streets.\"\nJust as the prohibition of swearing in Matt. v. 34 is qualified by the\nopposition to Pharisaic levity in cursing and swearing, so here, also,\nthe antithesis to the loud manner of the worldly conqueror must be kept\nin view,--the contrast to his violence which stakes every thing upon\ncarrying his own will, which cries and rages when it meets with\nopposition and resistance, (Matt. renders [Hebrew: iceq] by [Greek:\nerisei], \"He shall contend\"), to the earnestly sought publicity, to the\nintention of causing sensation, as it proceeds from vanity or pride.\nThe [Greek: kraugasei], by which Matthew renders the [Hebrew: iwa], has\nnothing in common with the [Greek: ekraxe] which, in John vii. 28, 37,\nis said of Christ. With the passionate restlessness, with which the\nconqueror from the East seeks to carry through his human plans, and to\nplace himself in the centre of the world's history, is here contrasted\nthe inward composure and deportment of the Servant of God, His\nequanimity, His freedom from excitement,--all of which are based upon\nthe clear consciousness of His dignity and mission, upon the conviction\nof the power of the truth which is of God, of the power of the Spirit\nwhich opens up the minds and hearts for it, and which has its source in\nthe declaration: \"I put my Spirit upon Him,\" by which the great wall\nof separation between Him and the conqueror from the East is set up. It\nis just [Pg 214] because of His not being beat upon carrying through\nany thing, because of His great confidence, that the Servant of God\n_gains_ everything, and obtains His object of bringing right to the\nnations.--Matt., in chap. xii. 15-21, finds the confirmation of the\ncharacter here assigned to Christ in two circumstances:--_first_, in\nHis not entering into a violent dispute with the Pharisees opposing Him\n([Greek: hoi de pharisaioi sumboulion elabon kat'autou exelthontes,\nhop\u00f4s auton apoles\u00f4sin]), in His not exciting against them the masses\nwho were devoted to Him, but in withdrawing from them ([Greek: ho de\nI\u00easous gnous anech\u00f4r\u00easen ekeithen], ver. 15), being convinced that the\ncause was not His but God's, and that there was no reason for getting\nangry with those who were contending against God; just as David said of\nShimei: \"Let him curse, because the Lord has said unto him, Curse\nDavid.\"--_Secondly_, in the circumstance that instead of availing\nhimself of the excitement of the aroused masses, He charged them that\nthey should not make known His miraculous deeds ([Greek: kai epetim\u00easen\nautois hina m\u00ea phan\u00earon auton poi\u00eas\u00f4sin], ver. 16), being convinced\nthat He did not need to seek to draw attention to himself, but that, by\nthe secret and hidden power of God, His work would be accomplished.\n\nVer. 3. \"_The bent reed shall He not break, and the dimly burning wick\nshall He not quench; in truth shall He bring forth right._\"\n\nHere, too, the antithesis to the worldly conqueror who, without mercy,\n\"Cometh upon princes as mortar, and as a potter treadeth the clay\"\n(chap. xli. 25), whose mind is bent only upon destroying and cutting\noff nations not a few (chap. x. 7), who does not give rest until he has\nfully cast down to the ground the broken power. The Servant of God, far\nfrom breaking the bent reed, shall, on the contrary--this is the\npositive opposed to the negative--care for, and assist the wretched\nwith tender love. Just thereby does He accomplish the object of His\nefforts. The confirmation of the character here assigned to Christ is,\nby Matthew, found in His healing the sick ([Greek: kai etherapeusen\nautous pantas], ver. 15), as prefiguring all that which He, who has\ndeclared the object of His coming to be to seek all that which was\nlost, did and accomplished, in general, for the misery of the human\nrace. There cannot be any doubt that the bent reed and the dimly\nburning wick are figurative designations [Pg 215] of those who, beaten\ndown by sufferings, feel themselves to be poor and miserable. These the\nweary and heavy laden, the Servant of God will not drive to despair by\nseverity, but comfort and refresh by tender love. His conduct towards\nthem is that of a Saviour. As a bent reed, [Hebrew: qnh rcvC], Pharaoh\nappears on account of his broken power, in chap. xxxvi. 6, and in chap.\nlviii. 6, the [Hebrew: rcvciM] are the oppressed. The fact, that the\n_wick_ dimly burning and near to being extinguished is an image of\nexhausted strength, is shown by chap. xliii. 17, where, in reference to\nthe Egyptians carried away by the judgment, it is said: \"They are\nextinct, they are quenched like a wick.\" In the parallel passages which\ntreat of the Servant of God, the _weary_ in chap. l. 4, and the\n_broken-hearted_ in chap. lxi. 1, correspond to it. Elsewhere, too, the\nwretched appear as objects of the loving providence of the Saviour.\nThus, in chap. xi. 4: \"And He judges in righteousness the low;\" in Ps.\nlxxii. 4: \"He shall judge the poor of the people; He shall save the\nchildren of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor;\" and in\nvers. 12-14: \"For He delivereth the needy when he crieth, and the\nmiserable, and him that hath no deliverer. From oppression and violence\nHe delivereth their soul, and precious is their blood in His sight.\"\nJust as, in the passage before us, the bringing forth of right appears\nas a consequence of the loving providence for the bent reed, and the\ndimly burning wick, so in that Psalm, the great fact: \"And all the\nkings worship Him, and all the nations serve Him,\" is traced back to\nthe tender love with which He cares for and helps the poor and needy.\nIn the Sermon on the Mount, the beatitude of the [Greek: pt\u00f4choi],\nMatt. v. 3, of the [Greek: penthountes], ver. 4, and in Matt. xi. 28,\nthe invitation of the [Greek: kopi\u00f4ntes kai pephortismenoi], exactly\ncorrespond. The wicked and ungodly, upon whom the judgments of God have\nbeen inflicted, are not included, because they are not wretched in the\nfull sense; for they harden themselves against the suffering, or seek\nto divert themselves in it; they do not take it fully to heart. The\n[Greek: t\u00f4 pneumati], \"in their consciousness,\" which in Matthew is\nadded to the simple [Greek: pt\u00f4choi], which alone we find in Luke, must\nbe understood as a matter of course. He only is poor in the full sense,\nwho feels and takes to heart his poverty. According to an\ninterpretation widely spread, repenting sinners are designated [Pg 216]\nby the bent reed, and dimly burning wick. Thus Luther writes: \"That\nmeans that the wounded conscience, those who are terrified at the sight\nof their sins, the weak in life and faith are not cast away by Him, are\nnot oppressed and condemned, but that He cares for them, tends and\nnurses them, makes them whole and embraces them with love.\" But\nrepenting sinners do not here come into consideration _per se_, but\nonly as one species of the wretched, inasmuch as, according to Luther's\nexpression, truly to feel sin is a torment beyond all torments.--The\nlast words: \"In truth shall He bring forth right\" again take up the\nclose of ver. 1, after the means have been stated, in the intervening\nwords, by which He is to bring about the result. The [Hebrew: lamt]\nmust not be translated: \"For truth\" (LXX: [Greek: eis al\u00eatheian]); for\nthere is a thorough difference between [Hebrew: l] and [Hebrew: al];\nthe former does not, like the latter, designate the motion towards some\nobject, but is rather, here also, a preposition signifying \"belonging\nto;\" hence [Hebrew: lamt] means \"belonging to truth,\" \"in a true\nmanner,\" \"in truth.\" By every other mode of dealing, right would be\nestablished _in appearance_ and _outwardly_ only. Matthew renders it:\n[Greek: he\u00f4s an ekbal\u00ea eis nikos t\u00ean krisin], \"until He has led right\nto victory.\" By the addition of [Greek: he\u00f4s] he intimates, that the\nlast words state the result which is brought about by the conduct of\nthe Servant of God described in the preceding words. [Greek: Eis\nnikos] is a free translation of [Hebrew: lamt]; [Greek: krisis] is\n\"right,\" as in chap. xxiii. 23.--How objectionable and untenable all\nthe non-Messianic explanations are, appears very clearly in this verse.\nIf Israel were the Servant of God, then the _Gentile world_ must be\nrepresented by the bent reed and dimly burning wick. But in that case,\nwe must have recourse to such arbitrary interpretations as, _e.g._,\nthat given by _K\u00f6ster_: \"The weak faith and imperfect knowledge of the\nGentiles.\" No weak faith, no imperfect knowledge, however, is spoken\nof; but the Servant of God appears as a Saviour of the poor and\nafflicted, of those broken by sufferings. Those who, by the Servant of\nGod, understand the better portion of the people, or the prophetic\norder, speak of \"the meek spirit of the mode of teaching, which does\nnot by any means altogether crush the sinner already brought low, but,\nin a gentle, affectionate manner, raises him up,\" (_Umbreit_); or say\nwith _Knobel_: \"These poor and afflicted He does not [Pg 217] humble\nstill more by hard, depressing _words_, but _speaks_ to them in a\ncomforting and encouraging way, raising them up and strengthening\nthem.\" But in this explanation everything is, without reason, drawn\ninto the territory of speech, while Matthew rightly sees, in the\nhealing of the sick by Christ, a confirmation by deeds of the prophecy\nbefore us. In chap. lxi., also, the Servant of God does not only bring\nglad tidings, but _creates_, at the same time, the blessings announced.\nAccording to chap. lxi. 3, He gives to them that mourn in Zion beauty\nfor ashes, joy for mourning, garment of praise for a weak ([Hebrew:\nkhh]) spirit. Verse 6 of the chapter before us most clearly indicates\nhow little we are allowed to limit ourselves to mere speaking; for,\naccording to that verse, the Servant of God is himself the covenant of\nthe people, and the light of the Gentiles, and according to ver. 7, He\nopens the eyes of the blind, &c.\n\nVer. 4. \"_He shall not fail nor run away until He shall have founded\nright in the earth, and for His law the isles shall wait._\"\n\nOn: \"He shall not fail,\" properly, \"He shall not become dim,\" comp.\nDeut. xxxiv. 7, where it is said of Moses, the servant of God: \"His eye\nhad not become dim, nor had his strength fled.\" The [Hebrew: la irvC]\n\"He shall not run away\" (properly, \"He shall not _run_\") is qualified\nand fixed by the parallelism with [Hebrew: la ikhh] \"He shall not\nfail.\" [Hebrew: rvC] in other passages also, several times receives, by\nthe context, the qualified signification \"to run away,\" \"to take to\nflight,\" \"to flee;\" comp. Judges viii. 21; Jer. xlix. 19. The words:\n\"He shall not fail nor run away\" imply that, in the carrying out of His\nvocation, the Servant of God shall meet with powerful _obstacles_, with\nobstinate _enemies_, and shall have to endure severe sufferings. That\nwhich is here merely hinted at, is carried out and detailed in chap.\nxlix., l., liii. How near He was to failing and running away (David,\ntoo, was obliged to say: \"Oh! that I had wings like a dove, then would\nI fly away and be at rest\") is seen from His utterance in Matt. xvii.\n17: [Greek: \u00f4 genea apistos kai diestrammen\u00ea, he\u00f4s pote esomi meth'\nhum\u00f4n; he\u00f4s pote anexomai hum\u00f4n.]--According to the current opinion,\n[Hebrew: irvC] is here assumed to be the Future of [Hebrew: rcC], for\n[Hebrew: irC], and that in the appropriate signification: \"He shall not\nbe broken.\" (Thus it was probably [Pg 218] viewed by the Chaldean\nParaphrast who renders [Hebrew: la ilai] _non laborabit_; by the LXX.,\nwho translate [Greek: ou thrauths\u00easetai], while _Aquila_ and\n_Symmachus_, according to the account of _Jerome_, render, _non\ncurret_, thus following the derivation from [Hebrew: rvC]). As [Hebrew:\nikhh] points back to [Hebrew: khh] in the preceding verse, so, in that\ncase [Hebrew: irvC] would point back to [Hebrew: rcvC] \"He shall not\nbreak that which is bent, nor quench that which is dimly burning; but\nneither shall He himself be broken or quenched.\" But this explanation\nis opposed by the circumstance, that we must make up our minds to admit\na double anomaly. The territories of the two verbs [Hebrew: rcC] and\n[Hebrew: rvC] are everywhere else kept distinct, and the former\neverywhere else means \"to break,\" and not \"to be broken.\" In the only\npassage, Eccl. xii. 6, brought forward in support of this irregularity,\n[Hebrew: rvC] \"to run,\" \"to flee away,\" being in parallelism with\n[Hebrew: nrHq] \"to be removed,\" is quite appropriate; just as in the\nsecond clause of that verse [Hebrew: rvC] \"to be crushed,\" is in\nparallelism with [Hebrew: nwbr] \"to be broken.\"--[Hebrew: aiiM] are, in\nthe _usus loquendi_ of Isaiah, not so much the real islands, as rather\nthe islands in the sea of the world, the countries and kingdoms;\ncompare remarks on Rev. vi. 14, and Ps. xcvii. 1 (second Edition). The\n_law_ for which the islands wait is not so much a ready-made code of\nlaws, as the single decisions of the living Lawgiver, which the\nGentiles, with anxious desire, shall receive as their rule in all\ncircumstances, after they have spontaneously submitted to the dominion\nof the Servant of God, having been attracted by His loving\ndispensations. Several unphilologically translate: \"for His\n_doctrine_,\" which does not even give a good sense, for it is not the\ndoctrine which is waited for; its value is known only after it has been\npreached. The Servant of God appears here as the spiritual Ruler of the\nnations; and this He becomes by being, in the fullest sense, the\nServant of God, so that His will is not different from the will of God,\nnor [Hebrew: tvrh] from that of God, just as, in a lower territory,\neven Asaph speaks the bold word: \"Hear, my people, my law.\" \"The singer\ncomes forth as one who has full authority, the 'Seer' and 'Prophet'\nutter _laws_ which leave no alternative between Salvation and\ndestruction.\" Parallel is chap. ii. 3, 4, where the nations go up to\nZion, in order there to seek laws for the regulation of their practical\nconduct, and according to which the Lord _judges_ among the nations,\nand the law goes forth [Pg 219] out of Zion, and the word of the Lord\nfrom Jerusalem. The difference is this only,--that, in that passage,\nthe matter is traced back immediately to God, while here, the Servant\nof God is mentioned as the Mediator between Him and the Gentiles. But\nwe must keep in mind that, for chap. ii. also, the parallel passages in\nchap. iv., ix., xi., furnish the supplement. We must, farther, compare\nalso chap. li. 5: \"My righteousness is near, my salvation goes forth,\n_mine arms shall judge the nations_, the isles shall wait for me, and\non mine arm shall they hope.\" The _judging_ in that passage does not\nmean divine punitive judgments; but it is rather thereby intimated that\nall the nations shall recognise the Lord as their King, to whose\ngovernment they willingly submit, and with whom they seek the decision\nof their disputes. Matthew purposely changes it into: \"And in _His\nname_ shall the Gentiles trust.\" The desire for the commands of the\nLord is an effect of the love of His _name_, _i.e._, of Him who is\nglorified by His deeds. For the name is the product of deeds,--here\nespecially of those designated in ver. 2 and 3. The commands are\ndesired and longed for, only because the person is beloved on account\nof His deeds. Matthew has only distinctly brought out that which, in\nthe original text, is intimated by the connection with the preceding\nverses. In consequence of this, His quiet, just, and merciful\ndispensation, the isles shall wait for His law.\n\nIn ver. 5-7 the Lord addresses His Servant, and promises Him that, by\nHis omnipotence, the great work for which He has called Him, shall be\ncarried out and accomplished, viz., that the covenant relation to\nIsrael shall be fully realized, and the darkness of the Gentile world\nshall be changed into light.\n\nVer. 5. \"_Thus saith God the Lord, who createth the heavens and\nstretcheth them out; who spreadeth forth the earth and that which\ncometh out of it; who giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit\nto them that walk thereon._\"\n\nThe Prophet directs attention to the omnipotence of God, in order to\ngive a firm support to faith in the promise which exceeds all human\nconception. It is by this that the accumulation of the predicates is to\nbe accounted for. He who fully realizes what a great thing it is to\nbring an apostate world back to God, to that God who has become a\nstranger to it, [Pg 220] will surely not explain this accumulation by a\n\"disposition, on the part of the Prophet, to diffuseness.\"\n\nVer. 6. \"_I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and I will\nseize thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for the covenant of\nthe people and, for the Light of the Gentiles._\"\n\nIt is so obvious that [Hebrew: bcdq] must be translated by \"in\nrighteousness,\" that the explanations which disagree with it do not\ndeserve to be even mentioned. The mission of the Servant of God has\nits root in the divine _righteousness_, which gives to every one his\ndue,--to the covenant-people, salvation. Even apart from the promise,\nthe appearance of Christ rests on the righteousness of God. For it is\nin opposition to the nature and character of a people of God to be, for\nany length of time, in misery, and shut up to one corner of the earth.\nThat which is to be accomplished for Israel by the Servant of God,\nforms, in the sequel, the first subject of discourse. But even that\nwhich He affords to the _Gentiles_ is, at the same time, given to\nIsrael, inasmuch as it is one of their prerogatives that salvation for\nthe Gentiles should go forth from them. As, here, the mission of the\nServant of God, so, in chap. xlv. 13, the appearance of the lower\ndeliverer appears as the work of divine righteousness: \"I have raised\nhim up in righteousness, and all his ways I will make straight.\"\nSimilarly also in chap. xli. 2: \"Who raised up from the East him whom\nrighteousness calls wherever he goes,\" _i.e._, him, all whose steps are\ndetermined by God's righteousness, who, in all his undertakings, is\nguided by it.--The seizing by the hand, the keeping, &c., are the\nconsequence of His being called, and are equivalent to: just because I\nhave called him, therefore will I, &c. Luther remarks: \"Namely, for\nthis reason, that Satan and the world, with all their might and wisdom,\nwill _resist_ thy work.\" In the words: \"For the Covenant of the people,\nand for the Light of the Gentiles,\" [Hebrew: eM] and [Hebrew: gviM]\nform an antithesis. The absence of the article shows that we ought\nproperly to translate: \"For a Covenant of a people, for a Light of\nGentiles.\" It is thus, in the first instance, only said that the\nServant of God should be the personal covenant for a people; but _what_\npeople that should be, cannot admit of a moment's doubt. To Israel, as\nsuch, the name of the _people_ pre-eminently belongs. Israel, in\npreference to all others, is called [Hebrew: eM] (compare _Gesenius'_\n[Pg 221] Thesaurus _s.v._ [Hebrew: gvi]), because it is only the people\nof God that is a people in the full sense, connected by an internal\nunity; the Gentiles are [Hebrew: la eM], _non-people_, according to\nDeut. xxxii. 21, because they lack the only real tie of unity. But what\nis still more decisive is the mention of the _Covenant_. The covenant\ncan belong to the covenant-people only, [Greek: h\u00f4n hai diath\u00eakai],\nRom. ix. 4,--the old, no less than the new one. The covenant with\nAbraham is an everlasting covenant of absolute exclusiveness, Gen.\nxvii. 7. The Servant of God is called the personal and embodied\nCovenant, because in His appearance the covenant made with Israel is to\nfind its full truth; and every thing implied in the very idea of a\ncovenant, all the promises flowing from this idea, are to be in Him,\nYea and Amen. The Servant of God is here called the Covenant of Israel,\njust in the same manner as in Mic. v. 4 (comp. Ephes. ii. 14), it is\nsaid of Him: \"This (man) is Peace,\" because in Him, peace, as it were,\nrepresents itself personally;--just as in chap. xlix. 6, He is called\nthe _Salvation_ of God, because this salvation becomes personal in Him,\nthe Saviour,--just as in Gen. xvii. 10, 13, circumcision is called a\ncovenant, as being the embodied covenant,--just as in Luke xxii. 20,\nthe cup, the blood of Christ, is called the New Covenant, because in it\nit has its root. The explanation: Mediator of the covenant, [Greek:\ndiath\u00eak\u00eas enguos], is meagre, and weakens the meaning. The circumstance\nthat the Servant of God is, without farther qualification, called the\nCovenant of the people, shows that He stands in a different relation to\nthe covenant from that of Moses, to whom the name of the _Mediator_ of\nthe covenant does not the less belong than to Him. From Jer. xxxi. 31,\nwe learn which are the blessings and gifts which the Servant of God is\nto bestow, and by which He represents himself as the personal Covenant.\nThey are concentrated in the closest connection to be established by\nHim between God and His people: \"I will be their God, and they shall be\nmy people.\" It is only in the New Covenant, described in that passage\nof Jeremiah, that the Old Covenant attains to its truth. The second\ndestination of the Servant of God, which, according to the context,\nhere comes into special consideration, is, to be _the Light of the\nGentiles_. By the realization of this destination, an important feature\nin [Pg 222] the former was, at the same time, realized. For it formed\npart of the promises of the covenant with Israel that, from the midst\nof them, salvation for all the families of the earth should go forth,\nas our Saviour says: [Greek: h\u00ea s\u00f4t\u00earia ek t\u00f4n Ioudai\u00f4n estin.] Light\nis here, according to the common _usus loquendi_ of Scripture, a\nfigurative designation of _salvation_. In the parallel passage, chap.\nxlix. 6, light is at once explained by salvation. The designation\nproceeds upon the supposition that the Gentiles, not less than Israel,\n(comp. chap. ix. 1 [2]) shall, until the appearance of the Servant of\nGod, sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,--that they are in\nmisery, although, in some instances, it may be a _brilliant_ misery.\nThe following verse farther carries out and declares what is implied in\nthe promise: \"Light of the Gentiles.\" Parallel is chap. lx. 3: \"And the\nheathen walk in thy (Zion's) light\"--they become partakers of the\nsalvation which shines for Zion--\"and kings in the brightness which\nriseth to thee.\"--The supporters of that opinion, which understands\nIsrael by the Servant of God, are in no small difficulty regarding this\nverse, and cannot even agree as to the means of escape from that\ndifficulty. Several assume that [Hebrew: eM] is used collectively, and\nrefer it to the Gentile nations. But opposed to this explanation is the\nevident antithesis of [Hebrew: eM] and [Hebrew: gviM]; and it is\nentirely overthrown by the parallel passage in chap. xlix. Scripture\nknows nothing of a covenant with the Gentiles. According to the view of\nthe Old, as well as of the New Testament, the Gentiles are received\ninto the communion of the covenant with Israel. Others (_Hitzig_,\n_Ewald_) explain: \"covenant-people, _i.e._, a mediatorial, connecting\npeople, a bond of union between God and the nations.\" But the passage,\nchap. xlix. 8, is most decidedly opposed to this. _Farther_--The\nparallelism with [Hebrew: avr gviM] shows that [Hebrew: brit eM] is the\n_status constructus_. But _f[oe]dus alicujus_, is, according to the\nremark of _Gesenius_, _f[oe]dus cum aliquo sancitum_. Thus in Lev.\nxxvi. 45, the covenant of the ancestors is the covenant entered into\nwith the ancestors; Deut. iv. 31; Lev. xxvi. 42 (the covenant of Jacob,\nthe covenant of Isaac, &c.) According to _Knobel_: \"the true theocrats\nare to become a covenant of the people, the restorers of the\nIsraelitish Theocracy, they themselves having connection and unity by\nfaithfully holding fast by Jehovah, and by representing His cause.\"\nThis explanation, [Pg 223] also, is opposed to the _usus loquendi_,\naccording to which \"covenant of the people\" can have the sense only of\n\"covenant with the people,\" not a covenant among the people. And,\n_farther_, the parallel passage in chap. xlix. 8 is opposed to this\ninterpretation also, inasmuch as, in that passage, the Servant of the\nLord is called [Hebrew: brit eM], not on account of what He is in\nhimself, but on account of the influence which He exercises upon\nothers, upon the whole of the people: \"That thou mayest raise up the\nland, distribute desolate heritages, that thou mayest say to the\nprisoners: Go forth,\" &c. In that passage the land, the desolate\nheritages, the prisoners, &c., evidently correspond to the people.\n_Finally_--A covenant is a relation between two parties standing\nopposite one another. \"The word is used,\" says _Gesenius_, \"of a\ncovenant formed between nations, between private persons, _e.g._, David\nand Jonathan, between Jehovah and the people of Israel.\" But here no\nparties are mentioned to be united by the covenant.\n\nVer. 7. \"_That thou mayest open blind eyes, bring out them that are\nbound from the prison, and from the house of confinement them that sit\nin darkness._\"\n\nOn account of the connection with the \"for the Light of the Gentiles,\"\nwhich would stand too much isolated, if, in the words immediately\nfollowing, Israel alone were again the subject of discourse, the\nactivity of God here mentioned refers, in the first instance, to the\n_Gentiles_; and the words: \"them that sit in darkness,\" moreover,\nevidently point back to \"for the Light of the Gentiles.\" But from chap.\nxlix. 9, and also from ver. 16 of the chapter before us, where the\nblindness of Israel is mentioned, it appears that Israel too must not\nbe excluded. Hence, we shall say: It is here more particularly\ndescribed how the Servant of God _proves_ himself as the Covenant of\nthe people and the Light of the Gentiles, how He puts an end to the\nmisery under which both equally groan. It will be better to understand\n_blindness_, in connection with imprisonment, sitting in darkness, as a\ndesignation of the need of salvation, than as a designation of\nspiritual blindness, of the want of the light of knowledge. That is\nalso suggested by the preceding: \"for the Light of the Gentiles,\"\nwhich, according to the common _usus loquendi_, and according to chap.\nix. 1 (2) is not to be referred to the spiritual illumination\nespecially, [Pg 224] but to the bestowal of salvation. To this view we\nare likewise led by a comparison of ver. 16: \"And I will lead the blind\nby a way that they knew not, I will lead them in paths that they have\nnot known, I will change the darkness before them into light, the\ncrooked things into straightness.\" The _blind_ in this verse are those\nwho do not know what to do, and how to help themselves, those who\ncannot find the way of salvation, the miserable; they are to be led by\nthe Lord on the ways of salvation, which are unknown to them. In a\nsimilar sense and connection, the blind are, elsewhere also, spoken of,\ncomp. Remarks on Ps. cxlv. 8.--On the words: \"Bring out them that are\nbound from the prison,\" _Knobel_ remarks: \"The citizens of Judah were,\nto a great extent, imprisoned; the Prophet hopes for their deliverance\nby the theocratic portion of the people.\" A strange hope! By this\ncoarsely literal interpretation, the connection with \"for the Light of\nthe Gentiles\" is broken up; and this is the less admissible that the\nwords at the close of the verse: \"those that sit in darkness,\" so\nclearly refer to it. _Imprisonment_ is a figurative designation of the\n_miserable condition_, not less than, the _darkness_, which, on account\nof the light contrasted with it, and on account of chap. ix. 1 (2),\ncannot be understood otherwise than figuratively. Under the image of\nmen bound in dark prisons, the miserable and afflicted appear also in\nPs. cvii. 10-16; Job xxxvi. 8, where the words, \"bound in fetters,\" are\nexplained by the parallel \"holden in the cords of misery.\" When David,\nin Ps. cxlii. 8, prays: \"Bring my soul out of the prison,\" he himself\nexplains this in Ps. cxliii. 11 by the parallel: \"Thou wilt bring my\nsoul out of _trouble_;\" comp. also Ps. xxv. 17: \"O bring thou me out of\nmy _distresses_.\" If we here understand the prison literally, we might,\nwith the same propriety in other passages, also, _e.g._, in Ps. lxvi.\n11, understand _literally_ the net, the snare, the trap.\n\nVer. 8: \"_I the Lord, that is my name, and my honour I will not give to\nanother, nor my glory to idols._ Ver. 9. _The former_ (things),\n_behold, they came to pass, and new_ (things) _do I declare; before\nthey spring forth, I cause you to hear._\"\n\nWe have here the solemn close and exhortation. At the close of chap.\nxli. it had been pointed out, how the prediction of the _Conqueror from\nthe East_ serves for the glory of Jehovah, [Pg 225] who thereby proves\nhimself to be the only true God. Here the zeal of God for His glory is\nindicated as the reason which has brought forth the prediction of the\n_Servant of God_ and His glorious work,--a prediction which cannot be\naccounted for from natural causes. It is thus the object of the\nprophecy which is here, in the first instance, stated. It is intended\nto manifest the true God as such, as a God who is zealously bent on His\nglory. But the same attribute of God which called forth the prophecy,\ncalls forth also the events prophesied, viz., the appearance of the\nServant of God, and the victory over the idols accomplished thereby,\nthe bringing forth of the law of God over the whole earth through Him,\nand the full realization of the covenant with Israel. The thought is\nthis:--that a God who does not manifest and prove himself as such, who\nis contented with the honour granted to Him without His interference,\ncannot be a God; that the true God must of necessity be filled with the\ndesire of absolute, exclusive dominion, and cannot but manifest and\nprove this desire. From this thought, the prophecy and that which it\npromises flow with a like necessity.--According to _Stier_, [Hebrew:\nrawnvt], \"the former (things)\" means \"the redemption of the exiled by\nCyrus,\" which in chaps. xli. xlviii. forms the historico-typical\nforeground, whose coming is here anticipated by the Prophet. But the\nparallel passages, chaps. xli. 22, xliii. 9, xlviii. 3, are conclusive\nagainst this view; for, according to these passages, it is only the\nformer already fulfilled predictions of the Prophet and his colleagues,\nfrom the beginnings of the people, which can be designated by \"the\nformer (things).\" By \"the new (things)\" therefore, is to be understood\nthe aggregate of the events which are predicted in the second part, to\nwhich belongs the prophecy of the Servant of God which immediately\nprecedes, and which the Prophet has here as pre-eminently in view\n(_Michaelis_: _et nova, imprimis de Messia_), as, in the parallel\npassage chap. xli. 22, the announcement of the conqueror from the East.\nBoth of these verses seem to round off our prophecy, by indicating that\nsuch disclosures regarding the Future are not by any means intended to\nserve for the gratification of idle curiosity, but to advance the same\nobject to which the events prophesied are also subservient, viz., the\npromotion of God's glory. The [Pg 226] modern view of Prophetism is\nirreconcileable with the verses under consideration, which evidently\nshew, that the prophets themselves were filled with a different\nconsciousness of their mission and position And in like manner it\nfollows from them, that there is no reason to put, by means of a forced\ninterpretation, the prophecy within the horizon of the Prophet's time,\nseeing that the Prophet himself shows himself to be thoroughly\npenetrated by its altogether supernatural character.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: This embarrassment becomes still more obvious in the\nexplanation of _Vatke_, who understands by the Servant of God, \"the\nharmless ideal abstract of the people;\" and that of _Beck_, who\nunderstands thereby \"the notion of the people.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: The Hebrew word is [Hebrew: mwpT], which means \"judgment,\"\n\"right,\" \"law.\" Dr. _Hengstenberg_ has translated it by _Recht_, which\nis, as nearly as possible, expressed by the English word \"right,\"\n(_jus_,) as including \"law\" and \"statutes.\"--_Tr._]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XLIX. 1-9.\n\n\nThe Servant of God, with whose person the Prophet had. by way of\npreparation, already made us acquainted in the first book of the second\npart, in chap. xlii., is here, at the beginning of the second book, at\nonce introduced as speaking, surprising, as it were, the readers. In\nver. 1-3, we have the destination and high calling which the Lord\nassigned to His Servant; in ver. 4, the contrast and contradiction of\nthe result of this mission; the covenant-people, to whom it is, in the\nfirst instance, directed, reward with ingratitude His faithful work. In\nver. 5 and 6, we are told what God does in order to maintain the\ndignity of His Servant; as a compensation for obstinate, rebellious\nIsrael, He gives Him the _Gentiles_ for an inheritance. From ver. 7 the\nProphet takes the word. In ver. 7 the original contempt which,\naccording to the preceding verses, the Servant of God meets with,\nespecially in _Israel_, is contrasted with the respectful worship of\nnations and kings which is to follow after it. Ver. 8 and 9 describe\nhow the Servant of God proves himself to be the embodied covenant of\nthe people, and form the transition to a general description of the\nenjoyment of salvation, which, in the Messianic times, shall be\nbestowed upon the Congregation of the Lord. This description goes on to\nchap. l. 3, and then, in chap. l. 4 ff., the person of the Servant of\nthe Lord is anew brought before us.\n\nThe Messianic explanation of our passage is already met with in the New\nTestament. It is with reference to it that [Pg 227] Simeon, in Luke ii.\n30, 31, designates the Saviour as the [Greek: s\u00f4t\u00earion] of God, which\nHe had prepared before the face of all people (comp. ver. 6 of our\npassage: \"That thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth\"),\nas the [Greek: ph\u00f4s eis apokalupsin ethn\u00f4n kai doxan laou sou Isra\u00eal];\ncomp. again ver. 6, according to which the Servant of God is to be at\nthe same time, the light of the Gentiles, to raise up the tribes of\nJacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel. Ver. 1: \"The Lord hath\ncalled me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath He made\nmention of my name,\" is alluded to in Luke ii. 21: [Greek: Kai ekl\u00eath\u00ea\nto onoma autou I\u00easous, to kl\u00eathen hupo tou angelou pro tou\nsull\u00eaphth\u00eanai auton en t\u00ea koilia] (comp. i. 31: [Greek: sull\u00eaps\u00ea en\ngastri kai tex\u00ea huion kai kaleseis to onoma autou I\u00easoun]) as is\nsufficiently evident from [Greek: en t\u00ea koilia] _sc. matris_, which\nexactly answers to the [Hebrew: mbTN] in the passage before us. In Acts\nxiii. 46, 47, Paul and Barnabas prove, from the passage under review,\nthe destination of Christ to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, and their\nright to offer to them the salvation despised and rejected by the Jews:\n[Greek: idou strephometha eis ta ethn\u00ea. hout\u00f4 gar entetaltai h\u00eamin ho\nKurios. tetheika se eis ph\u00f4s ethn\u00f4n tou einai se eis s\u00f4t\u00earian he\u00f4s\neschatou t\u00eas g\u00eas.] In the destination which, in Isaiah, the Lord\nassigns to Christ, Paul and Barnabas recognize an indirect command for\nhis disciples, a rule for their conduct. In 2 Cor. vi. 1, 2, ver. 8 is\nquoted, and referred to the Messianic time.\n\nIt is obvious that the Jews could not be favourable to the Messianic\ninterpretation; but the Christian Church has held fast by it for nearly\n1800 years. Even such interpreters as _Theodoret_ and _Clericus_, who\nare everywhere rather disposed to explain away real Messianic\nreferences, than to find the Messiah where He is not presented,\nconsider the Messianic interpretation to be, in this place, beyond all\ndoubt. The former says: \"This was said with a view to the Lord Christ,\nwho is the seed of Abraham, through whom the nations received the\npromise.\" And when, in our century, men returned to the faith, the\nMessianic interpretation also returned. If the Church has Christ at\nall, it is impossible that she should fail to find Him here.\n\n_Gesenius_, and those who have followed him, appeal to the\ncircumstance, that the Messiah could not well be introduced as\nspeaking, and, least of all, in such a manner, without any introduction\n[Pg 228] and preparation. But it is difficult to see how this argument\ncan be advanced by those who themselves assume that a mere\npersonification, the collective body of the prophets, or, as _Beck_\nexpresses it, the Prophet [Greek: kat'exoch\u00ean] as a general\nsubstantial individual, or even the people, can be introduced as\nspeaking. The introduction of persons is a necessary result of the\ndramatic character of prophetic Speech, comp., _e.g._, chap. xiv.,\nwhere now the king of Babylon, then the inhabitants of the Sheol, and\nagain Jehovah, are introduced as speaking. The person who is here\nintroduced as speaking is already known from chap. xlii., where _he is\nspoken of_. The prophecy before us stands to that prophecy in the very\nsame relation as does Ps. ii. 7-9, where the Anointed One suddenly\nappears as speaking, to the preceding verses, where He was spoken of\nThe Messiah is here so distinctly described, as to His nature and\ncharacter, that it is impossible not to recognise Him. Who but He\nshould be the Covenant of the people, the Light of the Gentiles, the\nSaviour for all the ends of the earth? The point which was here\nconcerned was not, first to introduce Him to the knowledge of the\npeople. His image existed there already in sharp outlines, even from\nand since Gen. xlix. 10, where the Peaceful One meets us, in whom Judah\nattains to the full height of his destination, and to whom the people\nadhere. The circumstance that it is just here that the Messiah appears\nas speaking, forms the most appropriate introduction to the second\nbook, in which He is the principal figure.--It is by a false literal\ninterpretation only that ver. 8, 9 have been advanced in opposition to\nthe Messianic interpretation.\n\nThe arbitrariness of the non-Messianic interpretation manifests\nitself in this also, that its supporters can, up to this day, not\nagree as to the subject of the prophecy. 1. According to several\ninterpreters--_Hitzig_, last of all--the Servant of God is to be\n_Israel_, and the idea this, that Israel would, at some future period,\nbe the teacher of the Gentiles, and would spread the true religion on\nearth. It is apparently only that this interpretation receives some\ncountenance from ver. 3, where the Servant of the Lord is called\nIsrael. For this name does not there stand as an ordinary _nomen\nproprium_, but as an honorary name, to designate the high dignity and\ndestination of the Servant of God. As this name had passed over from\n[Pg 229] an individual to a people, so it may again be transferred from\nthe people to that person in whom the people attain their destination,\nin which, up to that time, they had failed But decisive against this\nexplanation, which makes the whole people the subject, is ver. 5,\naccording to which the Servant of God is destined to lead back to the\nLord, Jacob and Israel (in the ordinary sense), who then must be\ndifferent from Him; ver. 6, according to which He is to raise up the\ntribes of Jacob; ver. 8, 9, according to which He is to be the Covenant\nof the people, to deliver the prisoners, &c. (_Knobel_ remarks on this\nverse: \"Nothing is clearer than that the Servant of God is not\nidentical with the mass of the people, but is something different.\")\nSupposing even that the people, destined to be the teachers of the\nGentiles, appear here as speaking, it is difficult to see how, in ver.\n4, they could say that hitherto they had laboured in vain in their\nvocation, and seen no fruits, since hitherto the people had made no\nattempt at all at the conversion of the Gentiles. 2. _Maurer_,\n_Knobel_, and others, endeavour to explain it of _the better portion of\nthe people_. But conclusive against this interpretation is ver. 6,\naccording to which the Servant of God has the destination of restoring\nthe preserved of Israel, and hence must be distinct from the better\nportion; ver. 8, according to which He is given for a Covenant of the\npeople, from which, according to ver. 4 and 6, the ungodly are\nexcluded; so that the idea of the people is identical with that of the\nbetter portion. In general, the contrasting of the better portion of\nthe people with the whole people, Jacob and Israel, the centre and\nsubstance of which was formed just by the [Greek: eklog\u00ea], can scarcely\nbe thought of, and is without any analogy. Nor is the mention of the\n_womb_. and _bowels of the mother_, in ver. 1, reconcileable with a\nmerely imaginary person, and that, moreover, a person of a character so\nindistinct and indefinite,--a character which has no definite and\npalpable historical beginnings. The parallel passages, in which the\ncalling from the womb is mentioned, treat of real persons, of\nindividuals.--3. According to several interpreters (_Jarchi_, _Kimchi_,\n_Abenezra_, _Grotius_, _Steudel_, _Umbreit_, _Hofmann_), the Servant of\nthe Lord is to be none other than _the Prophet himself_. No argument\nhas been adduced in favour of this view, except the use of the first\nperson, (\"If here, without introduction and preparation, a discourse\nbegins with the first [Pg 230] person, it refers most naturally to the\nProphet, who is the author of the Book\"),--an argument of very\nsubordinate significance, and the more so that the person of the\nProphet, everywhere else in the second part of Isaiah, steps so\nentirely into the background behind the great objects with which he is\nengaged. To follow thus the first appearance may, indeed, be becoming\nto a eunuch from Ethiopia, but not a Christian expounder of Scripture.\nThe contents of the prophecy are decidedly in opposition to this\nopinion. Even the circumstance that a single prophet should assume the\nname of Israel, ver. 3, appears an intolerable usurpation. _Farther_--\nLike all the other prophets, Isaiah was sent to the Jews, and not to\nthe Gentiles; but at the very outset, _the most distant lands and all\nthe distant nations_ are here called upon to hearken. The Lord says to\nHis Servant that the restoration of Israel was too little for Him, that\nHe should be a light and salvation for all the heathen nations from one\nend of the earth to the other; kings and Princes shall fall down before\nHim, adoring and worshipping. The Prophet would thus simply have raised\nhimself to be the Saviour. _Umbreit_ expressly acknowledges this: \"He\nis to be the holy pillar of clouds and fire which leads the people back\nto their native land, after the time of their punishment has expired.\nBut a still more glorious vocation and destination is in store for the\nprophets; they receive the highest, the Messianic destination.\" The\nusurpation of which the Servant of God would have made himself guilty,\nappears so much the more clearly, when it is known, that the work of\nthe Servant of God comprehends even all that also, which is described\nin ver. 10-23, viz., the blossoming of the Church of God, her\nenlargement by the Gentiles, &c. _It is obvious that, if the\ninterpretation which refers this prediction to the prophets were the\ncorrect one, the authority of the Old Testament prophecy would be gone;\nthe authority of the Lord himself would be endangered, inasmuch as He\nalways recognizes, in these prophets, organs of divine inspiration and\npower._ A vain attempt is made at mitigating this usurpation, by\nimperceptibly substituting the collective body of the prophets for the\nsingle prophet. This view thus leads to, and interferes with another\nwhich we shall immediately examine. But if we would not give up the\nsole argument by which this [Pg 231] exposition is supported, viz., the\nuse of the first person, everything must, in the first instance, apply\nto and be fulfilled in Isaiah; and the other prophets can come into\nconsideration only as continuators of his work and ministry. He is\nentitled to use the first person in that case only, when he is a\nperfect manifestation of prophetism.--4. According to _Gesenius_, the\nServant of the Lord is to be _the collective body of the prophets_, the\nprophetic order. In opposition to this view, _Stier_ remarks: \"We\nmaintain that, according to history, there did not at that time (the\ntime of the exile, in which _Gesenius_ places this prophecy) exist any\nprophetic order, or any distinguished blossom of it; that hence it was\nimpossible for any reasonable man to entertain this hope, when viewed\nin this way, without looking farther and higher.\" Ver. 1 is decisive\nagainst a mere personification. The name of Israel, too, in ver. 3, is\nvery little applicable to the whole prophetic order. This is\nsufficiently evident from the fact that _Gesenius_, in his Commentary,\ndeclared this word to be spurious; and it was at a later period only,\nwhen he had become bolder, that he endeavoured to adapt it to his self-\nchosen subject. Nowhere in the Old Testament do the prophets appear\nlike the Servant of God here--as the Covenant of the people, ver. 8, as\nthe Light of the Gentiles, ver. 6.\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\nVer. 1. \"_Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the\nLord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath He\nmade mention of my name._\"\n\nAs the stand-point which the Messiah occupies in the vision of the\nProphet, we have to conceive of the time, at which He had already\nentered upon His office, and had already experienced many proofs of the\nJews'unbelief and hardness of heart,--an event of the Future, the\nforesight of which was, even in a human point of view, very readily\nsuggested to the Prophet after the painful experience acquired during\nhis own long ministry; comp. chap. vi. For the fruitlessness of His\nministry among the mass of the covenant-people, ver. 4, as well as the\ngreat contempt which the Servant of God found among them, ver. 7, are\nrepresented as having already taken place; [Pg 232] while the\nenlightenment of the Gentiles, the worship of the kings, &c, which are\nto be expected by Him, are represented as being still future. In the\nsame manner, in chap. liii., the humiliation of the Servant of God\nappears as past; the glorification, as future, the reason why the\n_isles_ are addressed (comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 4) appears in ver.\n6 only, at the close of the discourse of the Servant of God, for all\nthat precedes serves as a preparation. In that verse, the Servant of\nthe Lord announces that the Lord had appointed Him to be the Light of\nthe Gentiles; that He should be His salvation unto the ends of the\nearth. It is very significant that the second book at once begins with\nan address to the Gentiles, inasmuch us, thus, we are here introduced\ninto the sphere of a redemption which does not refer to a single\nnation, like that with which the _first_ book is engaged, but to the\nends of the earth. At the close of the first book, in chap. xlviii. 20,\nit was said: \"Declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the\nearth, say ye: The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob.\" The fact that\nthe redemption, in the first instance peculiar to Jacob, is to be\nproclaimed to all the nations of the earth, leads us to expect that\nthese nations, too, have their portion in the Lord; that at some future\nperiod they are to hear a message which concerns them still _more\nparticularly_. This expectation is realized here, at the opening of the\nsecond book. The fact that the Gentiles are to listen here, as those\nwho have a personal interest in the message, is proved by the\ncircumstance, that the words: \"Unto the ends of the earth,\" in ver. 6\nof the chapter before us, point back to the same words in chap. xlviii.\n20.--_The Lord had called me from the womb._ It is sufficient to go\nthus far back in order to repress or refute the idea of His having\nhimself usurped His office, and to furnish a foundation for the\nexpectation that God would powerfully uphold and protect His Servant in\nthe office which He himself had assigned to Him. Calvin remarks on\nthese words: \"They do not indicate the commencement of the time of His\nvocation, as if God had, only from the womb, called Him; but it is just\nas if it were said: Before I came forth from the womb, God had decreed\nthat I was to undertake this office. In the same manner Paul also says\nthat he had been separated from his mother's womb, although he was\nchosen before [Pg 233] the foundation of the world.\" To be called from\nthe womb is, in itself, nothing extraordinary; it is common to all the\nservants of the Lord. Jeremiah ascribes it to himself in chap. i. 5:\n\"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest\nforth out of the womb I sanctified thee;\" and in harmony with this\npassage in Jeremiah--not with that before us--Paul says in Gal. i. 15:\n[Greek: ho theos ho aphorisas] (corresponding to: I have _sanctified_\nthee) [Greek: me ek koilias m\u00eatros mou.] But we have here merely the\n_introduction to what follows_, where the calling, to which the Servant\nof God had been destined from the womb appears as quite unique.--_From\nthe bowels of my mother hath He made mention of my name._ The name is\nhere not an ordinary proper name, but _a name descriptive of the\nnature_,--one by which His office and vocation are designated. This\nmaking mention was, in the case of Christ, not a thing concealed; the\nprophecy before us received its palpable confirmation and fulfilment;\ninasmuch as, in reference to it, Joseph received, even before His\nbirth, the command to call Him Jesus, Saviour: [Greek: texetai de huion\nkai kaleseis to onoma autou I\u00easoun. autos gar s\u00f4sei ton laon autou apo\nt\u00f4n hamarti\u00f4n aut\u00f4n], Matth. i. 21, after the same command had\npreviously come to Mary, Luke i. 31; comp. ii. 21, where, as we have\nalready remarked, there is a distinct reference to the passage before\nus.\n\nVer. 2. \"_And He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow\nof His hand hath He hid me, and He hath made me a sharpened arrow, in\nHis quiver hath He hid me._\"\n\nAccording to the common interpretation, the words: \"He hath made my\nmouth like a sharp sword. He hath made me a sharpened arrow,\" are to\nexpress only such a gift of powerful, impressive speech as is common to\nall the servants of God, to all the prophets. But the two subjoined\nclauses are opposed to that interpretation. The second and fourth\nclauses state the reason of the first and third, and point to the\nsource from which that emanates which is stated in them. There cannot\nbe any doubt but that in the second and fourth clauses, the Servant of\nGod indicates that He stands under the protection of divine\nomnipotence, so that the expression: \"Whom I uphold,\" in chap. xlii. 1,\nis parallel. The _shadow_ is the ordinary figure of protection. The\nfigure of the sword is dropped in the second clause, and hence the\nobjection, that a drawn sword does not require any protection, is out\nof place. This will [Pg 234] appear from a comparison of chap. li. 16:\n\"And I put my words in thy mouth, and I cover thee with the shadow of\nmine hand,\" where the sword is not mentioned at all, and the shadow\nbelongs simply to the person. The quiver which keeps the arrow is\nlikewise a natural image of divine protection. The two accessory\nclauses do not suit, if the first and third clauses are referred to the\n_rhetorical endowment_ of the Servant of God; _that does not flow from\nthe source of the protecting omnipotence of God_. These accessory\nclauses rather suggest the idea that, by the comparison of the _mouth_\nwith the sharp sword, of the _whole person_ with the sharpened arrow,\nthere is indicated _the absolutely conquering power which, under the\nprotection of omnipotence, adheres to the word and person of the\nServant of God_, so that He will easily put down everything which\nopposes,--equivalent to: _He has endowed me with His omnipotence, so\nthat my word produces destructive effects, and puts down all\nopposition, just as does His word_; so that there would be a parallel\nin chap. xi. 4, where the word of the Servant of God likewise appears\nas being borne by omnipotence: \"He smiteth the earth with the rod of\nHis mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked.\" To\nthe same result we are led also by a comparison of chap. li. 16, where\nthe word of the Lord, which is put into the mouth of the Servant of\nGod, is so living and powerful, so borne by omnipotence, that thereby\nthe heavens are planted, and the foundations of the earth are laid. But\nof special importance are those passages of Revelation which refer to\nthe verse under consideration. In chap. i. 16, the sharp two-edged\nsword does not by any means represent the power of the discourse\npiercing the heart for salvation; but rather the destructive power of\nthe word which is borne by omnipotence. It designates the almighty\npunitive power of Christ directed against his enemies. \"By the\ncircumstance, that the sword goes out of the mouth of Christ, that\ndestructive power is attributed to His mere word, He appears as\npartaking of divine omnipotence. For it belongs to God to slay by the\nwords of His mouth, Hos. vi. 5.\" The same applies to chap. ii. 16. On\nRev. xix. 15: \"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it\nHe should smite the nations,\" we remarked: \"the sharp sword is not that\nof a teaching king, [Pg 235] but that of omnipotence which speaks and\nit is done, and slayeth by the breath of the lips. How Christ casts\ndown His enemies by the word of His mouth is seen, in a prophetical\ninstance, John xviii. 6; Acts ix. 4, 5.\" With the sword, Christ appears\neven where He does not mean to destroy, but to bring salvation; for,\neven in those who are to be blessed, hostile powers are to be overcome.\nThe image, however, is here, in the fundamental passage, occasioned by\nthe comparison of the Servant of God with the conqueror from the East,\nwhose sword, according to chap. xli. 2, the Lord makes as dust, and his\nbow as the driven stubble. Where the mere _word_ serves as a sword, the\neffect must be much more powerful. The conquering power throwing down\nevery opposing power, which, in the first clause, is assigned to the\nmouth, is, in the third clause (\"And He hath made _me_ a sharpened\narrow\"), attributed to the whole person. He, of whom it was already\nsaid in Ps. xlv. 6: \"Thine arrows are sharp, people fall under thee,\nthey enter into the heart of the king's enemies,\" is himself to be\nesteemed as a sharp arrow.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And He said unto me: Thou art my Servant, O Israel, in whom I\nglorify myself._\"\n\n\"My Servant\" stands here as an honorary _designation_; to be the\nServant of God appears here as the highest privilege, as is evident not\nonly from the analogy of the parallel passages, which treat of the\nServant of God (comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 1), but also from the\nparallel second clause. In it, the Servant of God is called _Israel_ as\nthe concentration and consummation of the covenant-people, as He in\nwhom it is to attain to its destination, in whom its idea is to be\nrealized. (It is evident from ver. 5, and from those passages in the\nsecond part in which the people of Israel is spoken of as the Servant\nof God [comp. remarks on chap. xlii.], that Israel must here be\nunderstood as the name of the people, not as the name of the ancestor\nonly.) _H\u00e4vernick_ rightly remarks that the Messiah is here called\nIsrael, \"in contrast to the people to whom this name does not properly\nbelong.\" Analogous is Matt. ii. 15, where that which, in the Old\nTestament, is written of Israel, is referred to Christ. As the true\nIsrael, Christ himself also represents himself in John i. 52; with a\nreference to that which in Gen. xxviii. 12 is written, not of Jacob as\n[Pg 236] an individual, but as the representative of the whole race, it\nis said there: [Greek: ap'arti opsesthe ton ouranon ane\u00f4gota, kai tous\nangelous tou theou anabainontas kai katabainontas epi ton huion tou\nanthr\u00f4pou.] All those declarations of the Old Testament, in which the\nname of Jacob or Israel is used to designate the _election_, to the\nexclusion of the false seed, the true Israelites in whom there is no\nguile,--all those passages prepare the way for, and come near to the\none before us. Thus Ps. lxiii. 1: \"Truly good is God to Israel, to such\nas are of a clean heart;\" and then Ps. xxiv. 6: \"They that seek thy\nface are Jacob,\" _i.e._, those only who, with zeal and energy in\nsanctification, seek for the favour of God. In the passage before us,\nthe same principle is farther carried out. The true Israel is\ndesignated as he in whom God glorifies, or will glorify himself,\ninasmuch as his glorification will bear testimony to God's mercy and\nfaithfulness; comp. John xii. 23: [Greek: el\u00ealuthen h\u00ea h\u00f4ra hina\ndoxasth\u00ea ho huios tou anthr\u00f4pou]; xvii. 5: [Greek: kai nun doxason me\nsu pater.] The verb [Hebrew: par] means in _Piel_, \"to adorn,\" in\n_Hithp._ \"to adorn one's self,\" \"to glorify one's self.\" Thus it occurs\nin Judg. vii. 2; Is. x. 15; lx. 21: \"Work of my hands for glorifying,\"\n_i.e._, in which I glorify myself; lxi. 3: \"Planting of the Lord for\nglorifying.\" There is no reason for abandoning this well-supported\nsignification either here or in chap. xliv. 23: \"The Lord hath redeemed\nIsrael and glorified himself in Israel.\" If God glorifies himself in\nHis Servant, He just thereby gets occasion to glory in Him as a\nmonument of His goodness and faithfulness. Our Saviour prays in John\nxii. 28: [Greek: Pater doxason sou to onoma.] The Father, by glorifying\nthe Son, glorifies at the same time His name. Those who explain\n[Hebrew: atpar] by: _per quem ornabor_, overlook the circumstance that,\nalso in the phrase: \"Thou art my Servant,\" the main stress does not,\naccording to the parallel passages, lie in that which the Servant has\nto perform, but in His being the protected and preserved by God.\n\nVer. 4. \"_And I said: I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength\nfor emptiness and vanity; but my right is with the Lord, and my reward\nwith my God._\"\n\nThe Servant of God, after having spoken of His sublime dignity and\nmission, here prepares the transition for proclaiming His destination\nto be a Saviour of the Gentiles, to whom His whole discourse is\naddressed. He complains of the small [Pg 237] fruits of His ministry\namong Israel; but comforts himself by the confidence placed upon the\nrighteousness of God, that the faithful discharge of the duty committed\nto Him cannot remain without reward. The speaking on the part of the\nServant of God in this verse refers to the speaking of God in verse 3.\n_Jerome_, who remarks on this point: \"But when the Father told me that\nwhich I have repeated, I answered Him: How wilt thou be glorified in\nme, seeing that I have laboured in vain?\" recognised this reference,\nbut erroneously viewed the words as being addressed to the Lord. It is\na soliloquy which we have here before us. Instead of \"I said,\" we are\nnot at liberty to put: \"I imagined;\" the Servant of God had in reality\nexpended His strength for nothing and vanity. As the _scene_ of the\nvain labour of the Servant of God, the _heathen world_ cannot be\nthought of; inasmuch as this is, first in ver. 6, assigned to Him as an\nindemnification for that which, according to the verse before us, He\nhad lost elsewhere. It is _Israel_ only which can be the object of the\nvain labour of the Servant of God; for it was to them that, according\nto ver. 5, the mission of the Servant of God in the first instance\nreferred: The Lord had formed Him to be His Servant, to bring back to\nHim Jacob and Israel that were not gathered. Since, then, the mission\nis directed to _apostate_ Israel, it can the less be strange that the\nlabour was in vain. To the same result we are led also by the\ncircumstance that, in ver. 6, the saving activity of the Servant of God\nappears as limited to _the preserved_ of Israel, while the original\nmission had been directed to the _whole_. And this portion to which His\nactivity is limited, is comparatively a _small_ portion. For that is\nsuggested by the circumstance that to have the preserved of Israel for\nHis portion is represented as a light thing--not at all corresponding\nto the dignity of the Servant of God. As, in that verse, the preserved\nof Israel form the contrast to the mass of the people _given up_ by the\nLord, so in the verse under consideration, the opposition which the\nServant of God finds, is represented as so great, that His ministry\nwas, in the main, in vain; so that accordingly the great mass of the\npeople must have been unsusceptible of it.--In the view that a great\nportion of the people would reject the salvation offered in Christ, and\nthereby become liable to judgment, the Song of Solomon [Pg 238] had\nalready preceded our Prophet. As regards the natural grounds of this\nforesight, we remarked in the Commentary on the Song of Solomon, S.\n245: \"With a knowledge of human nature, and especially of the nature of\nIsrael, as it was peculiar to the people from the beginning, and was\nfirmly and deeply impressed upon them by the Mosaic laws,--after the\nexperience which the journey through the wilderness, the time of the\nJudges, the reign of David and of Solomon also offered, it was\nabsolutely impossible for the enlightened to entertain the hope that,\nat the appearance of the Messiah, the whole people would do homage to\nHim with sincere and cordial devotion.\" How very much this was the\ncase, the very first chapter of Isaiah can prove. It is impossible that\none who has so deeply recognized the corrupted nature of his people,\nshould give himself up to vain patriotic fancies; to such an one, the\ntime of the highest manifestation of salvation must necessarily be, at\nthe same time, a period of the highest realization of judgment. The\nsame view which is given here, we meet with also in chap. liii. 1-3. In\nharmony with Isaiah, Zechariah, too, prophesies, in chaps. xi., xiii.\n8, that the greater portion of the Jews will not believe in Christ.\nMalachi iii. 1-6, 19, 24, contrasts with the longed-for judgment upon\nthe heathen, the judgment which, in the Messianic time, is to be\nexecuted upon the people itself.--On the words: \"My right is with the\nLord, and my reward with my God,\" compare Lev. xix, 13: \"The reward of\nhim that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the\nmorning.\" The God who watches that among men the well-earned wages of\nfaithful labour shall not be withheld, will surely himself not withhold\nthem from His Servant. The right, the well-deserved reward of His\nServant is _with Him_; it is there safely kept, in order that it may be\ndelivered up to Him in due time. That which the Servant of the Lord\nhere, in the highest sense, says of himself, holds true of His inferior\nservants also. Their labour in the Lord is, in truth, never in vain.\nTheir right and their reward can never fail them.\n\nVer. 5. \"_And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be a\nServant to himself, to bring Jacob again to Him, and Israel which is\nnot gathered, and I am honoured in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was\nmy strength._ Ver. [Pg 239]6. _And He saith: It is too light a thing\nthat thou shouldest be my Servant only to raise up the tribes of Jacob,\nand to restore the preserved of Israel, and I give thee for a light to\nthe Gentiles, that thou mayest be my Salvation unto the ends of the\nearth._\"\n\nThe confidence which the Servant of the Lord has placed in Him has not\nbeen put to shame by the result, but rather has been gloriously\njustified by Him. He who was, in the first instance, sent to Israel, is\nappointed to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, in order to compensate Him\nfor the unbelief of those to whom His mission was in the first instance\ndirected. _And now_, _i.e._, since the matter stands thus (Gen. xlv.\n8),--since Israel, to whom my mission is, in the first instance,\ndirected, reject me. _Saith the Lord_--That which the Lord spoke\nfollows in ver. 6 only, which, on account of the long interruption,\nagain begins with: \"And He saith,\" equivalent to: I say. He hath\nspoken. The declaration of the Lord has reference to the destination of\nHis Servant to be the Saviour of the Gentiles. This declaration is, in\nver. 5, based upon two reasons:--_first_, the frustration of the\noriginal mission of the Servant of the Lord to the Jews; and\n_secondly_, on the intimate relation in which He stands to the Lord,\nwho cannot withhold from Him the reward which He deserves for His work.\nIn the New Testament, also, the mission of Christ appears as being at\nfirst directed to the Jews only. The Lord says, in Matt. xv. 24:\n[Greek: ouk apestal\u00ean ei m\u00ea eis ta probata ta apol\u00f4lota oikou Isra\u00eal.]\nHe says, in Matt. x. 6, to the Apostles, after having forbidden them to\ngo to the heathens, and to the Samaritans, who were nothing but\ndisguised heathens: [Greek: poreuesthe de mallon pros ta probata ta\napol\u00f4lota oikou Isra\u00eal.] Paul and Barnabas say, in Acts xiii. 46:\n[Greek: humin \u00ean anankaion pr\u00f4ton lal\u00eath\u00eanai ton logon tou Theou.\nepeid\u00ea de ap\u00f4theisthe auton kai ouk axious krinete heautous t\u00eas ai\u00f4niou\nz\u00f4\u00eas, idou strephometha eis ta ethn\u00ea.] It is rather an idle question to\nask what would have happened, if the Jews as a nation had accepted the\noffered salvation. But so much is certain that here, in the prediction,\nas well as in history, the rejection of Christ, on the part of the\nJews, appears to have been a necessary condition of His entering upon\nHis vocation as the Saviour of the Gentiles. Those who understood the\npeople by the Servant of the Lord refer [Hebrew: lwibb] to Jehovah, and\nconsider it as a Gerund. [Pg 240] _reducendo_, or _qui reducit ad se\nJacobum_. In the same way they explain also the Infinit. with [Hebrew:\nl] in the following verse, as also in chap. li. 16. But although the\nInfinit. with [Hebrew: l] is sometimes, indeed, used for the Gerund.,\nyet this is neither the original nor the ordinary use; and nowhere does\nit occur in such accumulation. Moreover, by this explanation, this\nverse, as well as the following ones, are altogether broken up, and the\nwords [Hebrew: lwvbb ieqb aliv] must indicate the destination for which\nHe was formed. And it is not possible that Jehovah's bringing Jacob\nback to himself should be a display of Israel's being formed from the\nwomb to be the Servant, inasmuch as the bringing back would not, like\nthe formation, belong to the first stage of the existence of the\npeople.--\"_And Israel, which is not gathered._\" Before [Hebrew: awr],\n[Hebrew: la] must be supplied. According to the parallel words: \"To\nbring Jacob again to Him,\" the not gathering of Israel is to be\nreferred to its having wandered away from the Lord. It was appropriate\nthat this should be expressly mentioned, and not merely supposed, as is\nthe case in: \"To bring Jacob again to Him.\" The image which lies at the\nfoundation, is that of a scattered flock; comp. Mic. ii. 12. Parallel\nis Isaiah liii. 6: \"All we _like sheep_ have gone astray, we have\nturned every one to his own way.\"--To the words under consideration the\nLord alludes in Matt. xxiii. 37: [Greek: hIerousal\u00eam ... posakis\n\u00eathel\u00easa epi sunagagein ta tekna sou hon tropon episunagei ornis ta\nnossia heaut\u00eas hupo tas pterugas kai ouk \u00eathel\u00easate]; comp. also Matt.\nix. 36: [Greek: id\u00f4n de tous ochlous esplanchnisthe peri aut\u00f4n hoti\n\u00easan eskulmenoi kai erhrimmenoi h\u00f4sei probata m\u00ea echonta poimena.] On\naccount of chap. xi. 12, it will not do to take [Hebrew: asP] in the\nsignification of \"to snatch away,\" \"to carry off,\" as is done by\n_Hitzig_. Moreover [Hebrew: nasP] means, indeed, \"to be gathered,\" but\nnever \"to be carried off\" The Mazoreths would read [Hebrew: la] for\n[Hebrew: lv]: \"And that Israel might be gathered to _Him_.\" Thus it is\nrendered, among the ancient translators, by _Aquila_ and the Chaldee;\nwhile _Symmachus_, _Theodoret_, and the Vulgate express the negation.\nMost of the modern interpreters have followed the Mazoreths. But the\nassumption of several of these, that [Hebrew: la] is only a different\nwriting for [Hebrew: lv], is altogether without foundation, compare the\nremarks on chap. ix. 2; and the reading of the Mazoreths is just like\nall the _Kris_, a mere conjecture, owing its origin, as has already\nbeen [Pg 241] remarked by _Jerome_, only to a bad Jewish patriotism.\nThe circumstance that, with the sole exception, of 2 Chron. xxx. 3,--an\nexception which, from the character of the language of that book, is of\nno importance--the verb [Hebrew: asP] in the signification \"to gather\"\nhas the person to whom it is gathered never joined to it by means of\n[Hebrew: l], but commonly by means of [Hebrew: al], is of so much the\ngreater importance, that [Hebrew: l] has nothing to do with [Hebrew:\nal]. When _Stier_ remarks that ver. 6, where Jacob and Israel were\nagain beside each other in a completely parallel clause, proves that\nIsrael's gathering can be spoken of positively only, he has overlooked\nthe essential difference of ver. 5, which refers to the position of the\nServant of God towards the whole people and ver. 6, which refers to His\ndestination for the _election_.--The words: \"And I am honoured in the\neyes of the Lord, and my God is my strength,\" _i.e._, my protection and\nhelper, recapitulate what, in ver. 2 and 3, was said about the high\ndignity of the Servant of God, of which the effect appears, in ver. 6,\nin His appointment to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, after the mission\nto Israel has been fruitless. In ver. 6, it is not the decree of the\nsalvation of the Gentiles through Christ which forms the subject (that\ndecree is an eternal one), but rather that this decree should be\ncarried out. It is for this that Israel's unbelief offers an occasion\n\"As the salvation of the elect among Israel (in reference to the great\nmass, the Servant of God had laboured in vain, ver. 4) would be too\nsmall a reward for thee, I assign to thee in addition to them, an\ninfinitely larger inheritance, viz., the whole heathen world.\" [Hebrew:\nwvb] in _Hiphil_ frequently means \"to lead back,\" in the ordinary\nsense, but sometimes also \"to lead back into the former, or _normal_\ncondition,\" \"to restore,\" compare remarks on Dan. ix. 25; Ps. lxxx. 4.\nThe parallel, \"to raise up,\" which is opposed to the _lying down_ (Ps.\nxli. 9), shows that here it stands in the sense of \"to restore.\" The\nlocal leading back belongs to the sphere of Koresh, to whom the first\nbook is dedicated; but, with that, the abnormal condition of misery and\nabasement, which is so much opposed to the idea of the people of God,\nis not completely and truly removed. That which the Servant of God\nbestows upon the elect of Israel, viz., _raising up and restoration_,\nis, in substance, the same which, according to what follows, He becomes\nto the _Gentiles_, [Pg 242] viz., _light and salvation_. By becoming\nlight and salvation to the elect of Israel, He raises them up and leads\nthem back, inasmuch as this was the normal, natural condition of the\ncovenant-people, from which they had only fallen by their sins. It is\nto that, that the election is restored by the Servant of God. By the\n_tribes of Jacob_, the better part only of the people is to be\nunderstood, to the exclusion of those souls who are cut off from their\npeople, because they have broken the covenant of the Lord, comp. ver.\n4. This appears from the addition: \"And the preserved of Israel\"\n(the _Kethibh_ [Hebrew: neiri] is an adjective form with a passive\nsignification; the marginal reading [Hebrew: ncvri] is the Part.\nPass.); just as, similarly in Ps. lxxiii. 1, Israel is limited to\nthe true Israel by the explanatory clause: \"Such as are of a clean\nheart.\" The verb [Hebrew: ncr], \"to watch,\" is, according to\n_Gesenius_, especially used _de Jehova homines custodiente et tuente._\nHence, the preserved of Israel are those whom God keeps under His\ngracious protection and care, in contrast to the great mass of the\ncovenant-breakers whom He _gives up_. Chap. lxv. 13, 14: \"Behold my\nservants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold my servants shall\ndrink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold my servants shall rejoice, but\nye shall be ashamed; behold my servants shall sing for joy of heart,\nbut ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of\nspirit,\" likewise points to a great separation which shall take place\nin the Messianic time. _Light_ (compare remarks on chap. xlii. 6), and\n_salvation_ are related to one another, as the image to the thing\nitself From the circumstance that the point here in question is the\nreward for the Servant of God, who is to be indemnified for the loss\nwhich He suffered by Israel (comp. ver. 4), it is obvious that we must\nnot explain: \"that my salvation be,\" but: \"that thou mayest be my\nsalvation;\" for it is only when He is the salvation that such an\nindemnification is spoken of Moreover, the Infinitive with [Hebrew: l]\ncan here not well be understood otherwise than in the preceding clause.\nThe servant of God is the personal salvation of the Lord for the\nheathen world; comp. chap. xlii. 6, and, in the chapter under\nconsideration, ver. 8, where He is called the _covenant_ of the people,\nbecause this covenant finds in Him its truth; compare also the\nexpression: \"This man is _peace_,\" in Mic. v. 4 (5). _Gesenius_ rightly\nremarks, that [Pg 243] there is here an allusion to the promises given\nto the Patriarchs, Gen. xii. 3, &c. In Christ, the Shiloh to whom the\npeople adhere, the old promise of the future extension of salvation to\nall the Gentiles is to be fulfilled.\n\nVer. 7. \"_Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to\nHim that is despised by every one, to the abhorrence of the people, to\nthe servant of rulers: Kings shall see and rise up, princes, and\nprostrate themselves because of the Lord that is faithful, the Holy One\nof Israel that hath chosen thee._\"\n\nHitherto, the Servant of the Lord has spoken: here, the Prophet speaks\nof Him. He gives a short and comprehensive summary of the contents of\nver. 1-6, the rejection of the Servant of God by the people to whom His\nmission was, in the first instance, directed, and His appointment to be\nthe Saviour of the Gentiles. The matter is traced back to the Redeemer\nof Israel and their Holy One, _i.e._, the high and glorious God,\nbecause the Servant of God is, in the first instance, sent to Israel as\n[Greek: diakonos peritom\u00eas huper al\u00eatheias theou eis to bebai\u00f4sai tas\nepangelias t\u00f4n pater\u00f4n], Rom. xv. 8; but still more, because He himself\nis the concentration of Israel (ver. 3), the [Greek: kephal\u00ea tou\ns\u00f4matos t\u00eas ekkl\u00easias], Col. i. 18,--He in whose glorification the true\nIsrael, as opposed to the darkened refuse, attain to their right.\nAccording to the context, the contempt, &c., must proceed chiefly _from\nthe apostate portion of the covenant-people_: The _princes and kings_\nmust, according to ver. 6 (comp. chap. lii. 15), be conceived of as\nheathenish ones. The verse under consideration merely exhibits, in\nshort outlines, the contrast already alluded to in the preceding\ncontext. It cannot appear at all strange that the Prophet foresees the\nreproach of Christ, and His sufferings from the ungodly world. In those\nPsalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, righteousness and\nthe hostility of the wicked world are represented as being inseparably\nconnected with each other. Hence it cannot be conceived of otherwise,\nbut that the Servant of God, who, in His person, represented the\n_ideal_ of righteousness, should, in a very special manner, have been\nliable to this hostility. Moreover, it can be proved that, in some\nPsalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, David has, besides\nthe individual and the whole people, in view, at the same time, his own\n[Pg 244] family, and Him in whom it was to centre; comp. my commentary\non Ps. Vol. iii. p. lxxx. ff. There seems here to be a special\nreference to Ps. xxii. 7, 8: \"And I am a worm and no man, a reproach of\nman and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn,\nopen their lips, shake their heads;\" and it is the more natural to\nassume this reference that, in chap. lii. 14; liii. 3, this passage\nalso is referred to [Hebrew: bzh] is, after the example of _Kimchi_,\nviewed by several interpreters as an infinitive form standing in place\nof a Noun, \"despising or contemning,\" instead of \"contempt,\" and this\nagain instead of \"object of contempt.\" Others view it as the _Stat.\nconstruct._ of an adjective [Hebrew: bzh] with a passive signification.\nThis latter view is more natural; and the reason which _Stier_ adduces\nagainst it, viz., that of verbs [Hebrew: lh] no such forms are found,\ncannot be considered as conclusive. [Hebrew: bzh-npw], literally the\n\"despised one of the _soul_\" might, according to Ezek. xxxvi. 5:\n\"Against Edom who have taken my land into their possession with the joy\nof all their heart, with the contempt of their soul,\" mean, \"who is\ninwardly and deeply despised,\" the soul being viewed as the seat of the\naffections. But we are led to another explanation by the fundamental\npassage, Ps. xxii. 7, and by the circumstance that [Hebrew: npw] is\n_here_ parallel to [Hebrew: nvi], and that the latter corresponds to\nthe [Hebrew: eM] in Ps. xxii. \"The despised one of the soul\" must,\naccordingly, be he who is despised of every one. The soul corresponding\nto _man_ in Ps. xxii. is, as it were, conceived of as a great concrete\nbody. In a similar manner, \"soul\" is used for all that has a soul, in\nGen. xiv. 21, where the king of Sodom says to Abraham: \"Give me the\n_soul_, and take the goods to thyself.\"--\"_To the abhorrence of the\npeople._\" [Hebrew: teb] in _Piel_ never has another signification than\n\"to abhor.\" Such is the signification in Job ix. 31 also, where the\nclothes abhor Job plunged in the dirt, resist being put on by him;\nlikewise in Ezek. xv. 25, where Judah abhors his beauty, disgracefully\ntramples under feet his glory, as if he hated it. In favour of the\nsignification: \"To cause to abhor\" (_R\u00f6diger_: _horrorem incutiens\npopulo, qui abominationi est populo_), interpreters cannot adduce even\none apparent passage, except that before us. We are, therefore, only at\nliberty to explain, after the example of _Kimchi_: \"to the ... people\nabhorring,\" _i.e._, to him against whom the [Pg 245] people feel an\nabhorrence. [Hebrew: gvi] is used of the Jewish people in Is. i. 4\nalso. _Hofmann_ is of opinion that it ought to have the article, if it\nwere to refer to the Jewish people. But no one asserts a direct\nreference to them; it designates, in itself, the mass only, in contrast\nto single individuals, just as [Hebrew: eM] in Ps. xxii. The abhorrence\nis felt by the masses--is popular. The fact that it is among Israel\nthat the Servant of God meets this general abhorrence, is not implied\nin the word itself, but is suggested by the whole context. While\n[Hebrew: npw] and [Hebrew: gvi] designate the generality of this\nhatred, [Hebrew: mwliM] points to the highest places of it. Of heathen\nrulers this word occurs in chap. xiv. 5; of native rulers, in chap.\nlii. 5; xxviii. 14. The heathen rulers can here come into\nconsideration, in so far only as they are the instruments of the native\nones; comp. John xix. 10: [Greek: legei aut\u00f4 ho Pilatos. emoi ou\nlaleis; ouk oidas hoti exousian ech\u00f4 staur\u00f4sai se kai exousian ech\u00f4\napolusai se.] The _servant of rulers_ forms the contrast to the servant\nof the Lord. But in the words: \"Kings shall see,\" &c., it is described\nhow the original dignity finally breaks forth powerfully, and reacts\nagainst the momentary humiliation. It was especially at the crucifixion\nthat Christ presented himself as \"He that was despised by every one, as\nthe abhorrence of the people, as the servant of rulers.\" The historical\ncommentary on these words we have in Matt. xxii. 39 ff.: [Greek: hoi de\nparaporeuomenoi eblasph\u00eamoun auton k.t.l. homoi\u00f4s de kai hoi archiereis\nempaizontes meta t\u00f4n grammate\u00f4n kai presbuter\u00f4n elegon. allous es\u00f4sen\nk.t.l. to d'auto kai hoi l\u00eastai hoi susaur\u00f4thentes aut\u00f4 h\u00f4neidizon\nauton.]--After [Hebrew: irav] \"they shall see,\" the object must be\nsupplied from ver. 6, viz., the brilliant turn which, under the Lord's\ndirection. His destiny shall take,--His being constituted the light and\nsalvation of the Gentiles. The kings who sit on their thrones rise up;\nthe nobles who stand around the throne prostrate themselves. The\nServant of God is the concentration of Israel, ver. 3. Hence His\nglorification is, at the close, once more traced back to the _Holy One\nof Israel_; and that so much the rather, because the glorification\nwhich is bestowed upon Him is bestowed upon Him for the benefit of the\nCongregation, whom He elevates along with himself out of the condition\nof deep abasement; comp. vers. 8 and 9. The verse before us forms the\ngerm of that which, in chap. lii. 13, is carried out and expanded.\n\n[Pg 246]\n\nVer. 8. \"_Thus saith the Lord: In the time of favour have I heard thee,\nand in the day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve\nthee, and give thee for the Covenant of the people, that thou mayest\nraise up the land, divide desolate heritages._ Ver. 9. _That thou\nmayest say to the prisoners: Go forth; to them that are in darkness:\nCome to light; they shall feed in the ways, and on all bare hills shall\nbe their pasture._\"\n\n_The time of favour_ may be either the time when God shows His delight\nin, and favour to His Servant, and, in Him, to the Church, _q. d._, of\ndelight in thee, mercy for thee,--in which case chap. lx. 10 would be\nparallel: \"In my _wrath_ I smote thee, and in my favour have I had\nmercy on thee;\" or, \"in the time of favour,\" may be equivalent to: \"at\nthe agreeable, acceptable time\" (LXX., which Paul follows in 2 Cor. vi.\n1, 2, [Greek: kair\u00f4 dekt\u00f4], Vulg. _tempore placito_); in contrast to a\npreceding unacceptable time, in which the Lord seemed to have forsaken\nHis Servant, in which it appeared as if He had laboured in vain, and\nspent His strength for nought and vanity. Acceptable is the time to all\nparties, not only to the Servant of God, but also to those who are to\nbe redeemed through Him; and not less to God, to whom it is a joy to\npour out upon His Servant the rivers of His salvation. The Preterites\nin ver. 8 must be viewed as prophetic Preterites. Concerning \"Covenant\nof the people,\" compare remarks on chap. xlii. 6. The idea of the\npeople is more closely defined and qualified by ver. 6 and 7. The souls\nwho have been cut off from their people, because they have broken the\ncovenant of the Lord, and despised His Servant, are justly passed by.\nBut since [Hebrew: eM] can here be understood of the better portion of\nthe people only, of the invisible Church in the midst of the visible,\nthe Servant of God cannot be the better portion of the people.--In the\nwords: \"That thou mayest raise up the land, divide desolate heritages,\"\nthe bestowal of salvation is described under the image of the\nrestoration of a devastated country. In ver. 9, the misery of the\nCongregation of God is described under the image of pining away in a\ndark prison; comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 7. With the second half of\nthe verse, there begins a more general description of the glorious\nsalvation which the Lord will giant to His people; and the person of\nthe Mediator [Pg 247] steps into the back-ground, in order afterwards\nto come forth more prominently. The _ways_ and _bare hills_ have come\ninto consideration as places which, in themselves, are completely\nbarren, and which the wonderful grace of God can alone cause to bud and\nflourish.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER L. 4-11.\n\n\nThe Servant of God here also appears as speaking. In ver. 4, He\nintimates His vocation: God has bestowed upon Him the gift of\ncomforting those who are weary and heavy laden. He then at once turns\nto His real subject,--the sufferings which, in fulfilment of this\nvocation he has to endure. The Lord has inwardly manifested to Him\nthat, in the exercise of His office. He shall experience severe trials;\nand willingly has He borne all these sufferings, all the ignominy and\nshame, ver. 5, 6. With this willingness and fortitude He is inspired by\nHis firm confidence in the Lord, who, he certainly knows, will help Him\nand destroy His enemies, ver. 7-9. The conclusion, in ver. 10 and 11,\nforms the prophetic announcement of the different fates of the two\nopposing parties among the people. At the foundation of this lies the\nforesight of heavy afflictions which, after the appearance of the\nServant of God, will be laid upon the covenant-people. That portion of\nthe people who are devoted to the Servant of God, are told to hope in\nthe midst of the misery, and may hope; their sorrows shall be turned\ninto joy. But the ungodly who, without regarding the Lord, and without\nhearkening to His Servant, would help themselves, will bring\ndestruction upon themselves by their self-willed doings, and shall be\nvisited by the avenging hand of the Servant of God.\n\nAn intimation of the lowliness of Christ at His first appearance occurs\nas early as in chap. xi. 1. In chap. xlii. 4, the words: \"He shall not\nfail nor run away,\" intimate that the Servant of God has to struggle\nwith great obstacles and difficulties in the exercise of His calling.\nAccording to chap. xlix. 4, He will labour in vain among the great mass\nof the covenant-people, [Pg 248] and spend his strength for nought and\nvanity. In ver. 7, it is expressly intimated that severe sufferings\nshall be inflicted upon Him by the people. That which was there alluded\nto, is here _carried out and expanded_. But the suffering of the\nServant of God is here described from that aspect only which is common\nto Christ with His members. It is first in chap. liii. that its\nvicarious power is pointed out. The Servant of God comes here before us\nin His deepest humiliation. Even in the description of His vocation in\nver. 4, the most unassuming aspect, the prophetic office only, is\nbrought forward. It is only quite at the close that a gentle intimation\nis given of the glory concealed behind the lowliness: He there appears\nas the judge of those who have rejected Him.\n\nIn the Messianic explanation of this Section, the Lord himself has gone\nbefore His Church. We read in Luke xviii. 31, 32, [Greek: paralab\u00f4n de\ntous d\u00f4deka eipe pros autous. idou anabainomen eis hIerosoluma kai\ntelesth\u00easetai panta ta gegrammena dia t\u00f4n proph\u00eat\u00f4n t\u00f4 hui\u00f4 tou\nanthr\u00f4pou. paradoth\u00easetai gar tois ethnesi kai empaichth\u00easetai kai\nhubristh\u00easetai kai emptusth\u00easetai kai mastig\u00f4santes apoktenousin\nauton.] There cannot be any doubt that the Lord here distinctly refers\nto ver. 6 of the prophecy under consideration. There is, at all events,\nno other passage in the whole of the Old Testament, except that before\nus, in which there is any mention made of being spat upon. But in other\nrespects, too, the reference is visible: \"I gave my back to the smiters\n( [Greek: mastig\u00f4santes], LXX. [Greek: eis mastigas]), and my cheeks to\nthose plucking ( [Greek: empaichth\u00easetai]--the plucking of the beard,\nan act of degrading wantonness), my face I hid not from shame ( [Greek:\nhubristh\u00easetai]) and spitting.\" _Bengel_ draws attention to the fact of\nhow highly Christ, in the passage quoted, placed the prophecy of the\nOld Testament: \"Jesus most highly valued that which was written. The\nword of God which is contained in Scripture is the rule for all which\nis to happen, even for that which is to happen in eternal life.\" If, in\nrespect of the high estimation of prophecy, our age were to follow in\nthe steps of Jesus, it would also most readily agree with Him as\nregards the subject of the prophecy before us. This alone is the cause\nof the aberration from Him, that people confined and shut up the\nprophet within the horizon of his time, and then imagined that he could\nnot know anything of the suffering of Christ. It was altogether\ndifferent in the [Pg 249] ancient Christian Church. In it, the\nMessianic interpretation prevailed throughout; and _Grotius_, who in a\nlower sense would refer the prophecy to Isaiah, and, in a higher sense\nonly, to Christ, met with general opposition, even on the part of\n_Clericus_.\n\nIn favour of the Messianic explanation there is the remarkable\nagreement existing between prophecy and fulfilment, comp. Matt. xxvi.\n67, 68: [Greek: Tote eneptusan eis to pros\u00f4pon autou kai ekolaphisan\nauton. hOi de erhrapisan legontes. proph\u00eateuson h\u00eamin, christe, tis\nestin ho paisas se]; xxvii. 30: [Greek: kai emptusantes eis auton\nelabon ton kalamon kai etupton eis t\u00ean kephal\u00ean autou],--an agreement,\nthe significance and importance of which are only enhanced by the\ncircumstance that one of the most individualizing features of the\nprophecy, viz., the plucking off of the beard, is not met with in the\nhistory of Christ; for it is just thereby that this agreement is proved\nto be a free and spontaneous one. _Farther_--The exactness with which,\nin ver. 10 and 11, the destinies of Israel, after the rejection of\nChrist, are drawn; and the destruction which the mass of the people,\nwho did not believe in the Servant of God, prepared for themselves, by\ntheir attempts to help themselves by their own strength, by enkindling\nthe flame of war, whilst those who fear the Lord and listen to the\nvoice of Hs Servant, obtain salvation. _Farther_--Ver. 11, where the\nServant of God ascribes to himself the judgment upon the unbelieving\nmass of the people: \"From _my_ hand is this to you,\" in harmony with\nMatt. xxvi. 64 and other passages, where the Son of Man appears as\nexecuting judgment upon Jerusalem. _Finally_--The parallel passages.\n\nMost of the modern interpreters assume that the Prophet himself,\nIsaiah, or Pseudo-Isaiah, is the subject of the prophecy. _Jerome_\nmentions that this explanation was the prevailing one among the Jews of\nhis time. The explanation which refers it to the better portion of the\npeople, found only one defender, viz., _Paulus_. The explanation which\nrefers it to the _whole_ of the Jewish people, or to the collective\nbody of the prophets, has been entirely abandoned, although it is\nmaintained in reference to the parallel passages.\n\nSince it is undeniable that this Section is related to the other\nprophecies which treat of the Servant of God,--and hence an identity of\nsubject is necessarily required--those who, in the [Pg 250] Section\nunder consideration, are compelled to give up their former hypothesis,\nthemselves bear witness against the correctness of it, at the same\ntime, also against the soundness of their explanation of the passage\nbefore us. For an explanation which compels to the severance of what is\nnecessarily connected, cannot be right and true. It is only then that\nExegesis has attained its object, when it has arrived at a subject in\nwhom all those features, which occur in the single prophecies which are\nconnected with each other, are found at the same time. _Knobel_, in\nsaying: \"This small unconnected Section, is the only one in the whole\ncollection, in which the Prophet speaks of himself only, and represents\nhis suffering's and hopes,\" has thereby himself pronounced judgment\nupon his own interpretation of this Section, and at the same time, of\nthe other prophecies of the Servant of God.\n\nMoreover, the Prophet would here form rather a strange figure; he would\nappear as it were, as if he had been blown in by a snow-storm.\nAccording to _Hofmann_, he describes how he is rewarded for his\nactivity and zeal in his vocation. But how does this suit the contents\nof the second part, which evidently is a whole, the single parts of\nwhich must stand in a close relation to its fundamental idea! _It is\nonly a person of central importance that is suitable to this context._\nIt is only when we refer it to Christ, that the expectations are\nsatisfied which were called forth by the words: Comfort ye, comfort ye\nmy people. This call is answered only by pointing to the future Saviour\nof the world.\n\nOne element of truth, indeed, there is in the explanation which makes\nthe Prophet the subject. It is revealed to him, indeed, that the\nServant of God shall undergo persecution, shame, and ignominy; but he\nhas the natural substratum for this knowledge in the experience of\nhimself and his colleagues, comp. Matt. xxiii. 29-37; Heb. xi. 36, 37.\nThe divine, wherever it enters into the world of sin, as well as the\nservant of truth who upholds it in the face of prevailing falsehood,\nmust undergo struggles, shame, and ignominy. This truth was confirmed\nin the case of the prophets as types, in the case of Christ as the\nantitype. All that which the prophets had to experience in their own\ncases was a prophecy by deeds of the sufferings of Christ; and we\nshould the less have any difficulty [Pg 251] in admitting their\nknowledge of this, that it would be rather strange if they were\ndestitute of such knowledge.\n\nVer. 4. \"_The Lord Jehovah hath given me a disciples tongue, that I\nshould know to help the weary with a word: He awakeneth morning by\nmorning, wakeneth mine ear, that I may hear as the disciples._\"\n\nThe greater number of expositors explain a disciple's tongue by: \"A\ntongue such as instructed people or scholars possess,--an eloquent\ntongue.\" But [Hebrew: lmd], everywhere else in Isaiah, means \"pupil,\"\n\"disciple,\" and is used especially of the disciples of the Lord, those\nwho go to His school, are instructed by Him; comp. chaps. viii. 16;\nliv. 13. A disciple's tongue is such as the disciples of the Lord\npossess. Its foundation is formed by the disciple's _ear_ mentioned at\nthe close of the verse. He who hears the Lord's words, speaks also the\nLord's words. The signification, \"learned,\" is not suitable in the last\nclause of the verse, and its reference to the first does not permit of\nour assuming a different signification in either clause. Just as here\nthe Servant of God traces back to God that which He speaks, so Jesus\nsays, in John viii. 26: [Greek: kag\u00f4 ha \u00eakousa par'autou tauta lal\u00f4\neis ton kosmon], comp. iii. 34: [Greek: hon gar apesteilen ho theos ta\nrh\u00eamata tou theou lalei.] The verb [Hebrew: smK], which occurs only\nhere, means, according to the Arabic, \"to help,\" \"to support;\"\n_Aquila_: [Greek: hupost\u00earisai], Vulg. _sustentare_. Like other similar\nverbs, _e.g._, [Hebrew: smK], in Gen. xxvii. 37, it is construed with a\ndouble accusative: \"that I may help the weary, word,\" _i.e._, may\nsupport him by comforting words. The weary or fatigued are, like the\nbent reed, the faintly burning wick, in chap. xlii. 3; the blind, the\nprisoners sitting in darkness, _ibid._, ver. 7; the broken-hearted,\nchap. lxi. 1; them that mourn, _ibid._, ver. 2. Just as here the\nServant of God represents the suffering and afflicted ones as the main\nobjects of His mission, so Christ announces, that His mission is\nspecially directed to these, comp. _e.g._, Matt. v. 4; xi. 28. In order\nto be able to fulfil this mission. He must be able to draw from the\nfulness of God, who looketh to him that is poor and of a contrite\nspirit, chap. lxvi. 2, and who alone understands to heal the broken in\nheart, and to bind up their wounds, Ps. cxlvii. 3.--In the words: \"He\nwakeneth, &c.\" we are told in what manner the Lord gives to His Servant\nthe disciple's tongue. _To waken_ [Pg 252] _the ear_ is equivalent to:\nto make attentive, to make ready for the reception of the divine\ncommunications. The expression \"morning by morning\" indicates that the\ndivine wakening is going on uninterruptedly, and that the Servant of\nGod unreservedly surrenders himself to the influences which come from\nabove, in which He has become an example to us.\n\nVer. 5. \"_The Lord Jehovah hath opened mine ear, and I was not\nrebellious, and have not turned back._\"\n\nThe phrases \"to open or uncover the ear\" have always the signification,\n\"to make known something to some one,\" \"to reveal to him something.\"\n\"to inform him,\" both in ordinary circumstances (comp. 1 Sam. xx. 12;\nRuth iv. 4), and on the religious territory, comp. 2 Sam. vii. 27: \"For\nthou, Lord of Hosts, God of Israel, hast opened the ear of thy servant,\nsaying: I will build thee an house;\" Isa. xlviii. 8: \"Thou heardest\nnot, thou knewest not, nor was formerly thine ear opened;\" chap. xlii.\n20: \"The ear was opened to him.\" According to this well established\n_usus loquendi_, \"The Lord hath opened mine ear,\" can only mean: The\nLord hath revealed to me, hath informed me inwardly; _Abenezra_:\n[Hebrew: glh svdv li] \"He has made known to me His secret.\" What the\nLord has made known to His Servant, we are not here expressly told; but\nit may be inferred from ver. 6, where the Servant declares that which,\nin consequence of the divine manifestation, He did, viz., that He\nshould give His back to the smiters, &c. The words: \"The Lord hath\nopened mine ear\" here are connected with: \"The Lord wakeneth mine ear,\nthat I may hear,\" in the preceding verse: The Lord has specially made\nknown to me that, in carrying out my vocation, I shall have to endure\nsevere sufferings. _To this subject the Servant of God quickly passes\nover, after having, in the introduction, described, by a few features,\nthe vocation, in the carrying out of which these sufferings should\nbefal Him._ As the authors of these sufferings, we must conceive of the\nparty opposed to the weary, viz., the proud, secure, unbroken sinners.\nOn \"I was not rebellious,\" compare what, in Deut. xxi. 20, is written\nof the stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his\nfather; and farther, the words: [Greek: pl\u00ean ouch h\u00f4s eg\u00f4 thel\u00f4 all'h\u00f4s\nsu], Matt. xxvi. 39.\n\n[Pg 253]\n\nVer. 6. \"_I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to the pluckers,\nI hid not my face from shame and spitting._\"\n\nThe words express in an individualizing manner the thought, that the\nServant of God, in His vocation as the Saviour of the _personae\nmiserabiles_, would experience the most shameful and ignominious\ntreatment, and would patiently bear it. In God's providence, part of\nthe contents was literally fulfilled upon Christ. But the fact that\nthis literal agreement is not the main point, but that it serves as a\nhint and indication only of the far more important _substantial_\nconformity which would take place, although the hatred of the world\nagainst the Saviour of the poor and afflicted should have manifested\nitself in forms altogether different,--this fact is evident from the\ncircumstance that regarding the fulfilment of the words: \"and my cheeks\nto the pluckers\"--plucking the cheeks, or plucking off of the beard\nbeing the greatest insult and disgrace in the East, comp. 2 Sam. x.\n4--there is no mention in the New Testament history.\n\nIn vers. 7-9 we have the future glory, which makes it easy for the\nServant of God to bear the sufferings of the Present. If God be for\nHim, who may be against Him?\n\nVer. 7. \"_But the Lord Jehovah helpeth me, therefore I am not\nconfounded, therefore I make my face like a flint, and I know that I am\nnot put to shame._\"\n\n[Hebrew: nklmti] refers to [Hebrew: klmvt] in the preceding verse. He\nwhom the Lord helps is not confounded or put to shame by all the\nignominy which the world heaps upon him. The expression: \"I make my\nface like a flint\" denotes the \"holy hardness of perseverance\"\n(_Stier_); comp. Ezek. iii. 8. In that passage it is especially the\nassailing hardness which comes into consideration; here, on the\ncontrary, it is the suffering one. There is an allusion to the passage\nbefore us, in Luke ix. 51: [Greek: egeneto de t\u00f4 sumpl\u00earousthai tas\nh\u00eameras t\u00eas anal\u00eapse\u00f4s autou, kai autos to pros\u00f4pon autou est\u00earixe tou\nporeuesthai eis hIerousal\u00eam.]\n\nVer. 8. \"_He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with one? Let\nus stand together; who has a right upon me, let him come near me._\"\n\nIn the confidence and assurance of Christ, His redeemed ones, too,\npartake,--those that hear the voice of the Servant of God, ver. 10,\ncomp. Rom. viii. 33, 34, where this and the [Pg 254] following verse\nare intentionally alluded to. The justification is one by _deeds_. It\ntook place and was fulfilled, in the first instance, in the\nresurrection and glorification of Christ, and, then, in the destruction\nof Jerusalem.--[Hebrew: bel mwpTi] literally, \"the master of my right,\"\n_i.e._, he who according to his opinion or assertion which, by the\nissue is proved to be false, has a right over me, comp. the [Greek:\nen emoi ouk echei ouden] which, in John xiv. 30, the Lord says in\nreference to the chief of His enemies.\n\nVer. 9. \"_Behold the Lord Jehovah will help me; who is he that shall\ncondemn me? Lo, they shall wax old as a garment, the moth shall eat\nthem._\"\n\nThat which is said herein reference to the enemies of Christ is, in\nchap. li. 8, with a reference to our passage, said of the opponents of\nthose who know righteousness, and in whose heart is the law: \"The moth\nshall eat them up like a garment.\" Enmity to Christ and His Church is,\nto those who entertain it, a prophecy of sure destruction. The words:\n\"The moth shall eat them,\" are farther expanded in ver. 11, where it is\ndescribed how the people who ventured to _condemn_ the Servant of God,\nbecome a prey to destruction.\n\nThe Servant of God closes with a double address; first, to the godly;\nand then, to the ungodly.\n\nVer. 10. \"_Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the\nword of His Servant? When he walketh in darkness, in which there is no\nlight to him, let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his\nGod._\"\n\nFrom the words: \"Of mine hand,\" in ver. 11, it appears that the Servant\nof God is continuing the discourse. Hence \"the voice of His Servant,\"\n_q.d._, the voice of me who am His Servant. By the words: \"Among you,\"\nthe address is directed to the whole of the people. In this two parties\nare distinguished. The first is formed by those who fear the Lord, and\nobey the voice of His Servant. Both of these things appear as\nindissolubly connected. The fear of God must necessarily prove itself\nin this, that He whom He has sent is obeyed. It is a mere imagination\non the part of the people to think that they can fear God without\nobeying the voice of His Servant; comp. John v. 23. There is in this an\nallusion to the emphatic \"Unto him ye shall hearken,\" which, in Deut.\nxviii. 15, had been said in reference to _the_ Prophet. [Pg 255] From\nver. 11 it appears that the darkness in which those walk who fear the\nLord, is not to be understood of personal individual calamity which\nbefals this or that godly one, nor of the sufferings which happen to\nthe pious godly _party_, in contrast to the ungodly wicked, but rather\nthat we have before us the foresight of a dark period of sufferings\nwhich, after the appearance of the Servant of God, shall be inflicted\nupon the whole people; so that both of the parties,--that devoted to\nthe Servant of God, and that opposed to Him,--are thereby affected, but\nwith a different issue. For in ver. 11, it is described how the\nungodly, who likewise walk in darkness, endeavour to light up their\ndarkness by a fire which they have kindled, but do so to their own\ndestruction. Behind the exhortation: \"Let him trust in the name of the\nLord, and stay upon his God,\" there is concealed the promise: he _may_\ntrust, his darkness shall be changed into light, his sorrow into joy.\nWhen the destruction of Jerusalem approached, the cry came to believing\nIsrael: \"Lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh,\" Luke\nxxi. 28. In the destruction of apostate Israel, not obeying the Servant\nof God, but persecuting His faithful ones, they beheld the beginning of\nthe victory of the true people of God over the world.\n\nVer. 11. \"_Behold all ye that kindle a fire, that gird sparks,--walk in\nthe light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. From\nmine hand is this to you; ye shall lie down in pain._\"\n\nThe image begun in the preceding verse is continued. The pious walk in\nconfidence and patience through the lightless darkness, until the Lord\nkindles a light to them. Those who do not hear the Lord, who do _not_\nobey the voice of His Servant, kindle a fire which is to light up their\ndarkness; but instead of that, they are consumed by the fire. Thus the\nServant of God, who brings this destruction upon them, obtains His\nright upon them.--The _fire_ is often in Scripture the fire of war,\nchap. ix. 18; Jer. li. 5; Rev. viii. 7-10. According to several\ninterpreters (_Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Knobel_), it is assumed that the\ndiscourse is here not of \"self-assistance by rebellion,\" but \"of the\nattacks of the wicked upon the godly, and of the destruction, into\nwhich these attacks turn out for their authors.\" But this view is\nopposed by the circumstance that the darkness [Pg 256] is common to\nboth parties; hence, it must come from some other quarter. The fire\nwhich the wicked kindle is destined to enlighten the darkness in which\nthey also are, which is especially evident from the words: \"Walk in the\n_light_ of your fire.\" They now have a light which enlightens their\ndarkness; but this self-created light consumes them.--To _gird_ stands\nfor, \"to surround one's self with a girdle,\" \"to put on a girdle.\" In\nsubstance it is equivalent \"to provide one's self with it.\"--The\n[Greek: hapax legomenon] [Hebrew: ziqvt] cannot with certainty be\nexplained from the dialects. The connection and parallelism are in\nfavour of the signification \"sparks,\" \"flames,\" which is found as early\nas in the Septuagint ( [Greek: phloga]), and Vulg. (_flammas_). In\nSyriac [Hebrew: ziqa] has the signification \"lightning.\" Those who\nexplain it by \"fiery darts\" are not at liberty to refer it to the\n[Hebrew: zqiM] in Prov. xxvi. 18. The signification \"flames\" (not\n\"sparks,\" as _Stier_ holds), is, in that passage, quite suitable;\nsimple arrows could there not be mentioned after the fiery darts\nwithout making the discourse feeble.--[Hebrew: lki] \"walk ye,\" is\nequivalent to: \"ye shall walk,\" yet with an intimation of the fact that\nthis result, as we are immediately afterwards expressly told, proceeds\nfrom the speaker: _sic volo, sic jubeo._ The words: \"From mine hand is\nthis to you,\" are, by those who make the Prophet the subject of this\nprediction, supposed to be spoken by Jehovah. But throughout the whole\nsection, the Lord is always only spoken of, and never appears as\nspeaking. The words are in harmony with the exalted dignity which,\nelsewhere also, is attributed by the Prophet to the Servant of God who\nplants the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, chap. li. 16;\nwhose mouth the Lord makes like a sharp sword, chap. xlix. 2; who is\nthe personal salvation, the Saviour for the whole earth, chap. xlix. 6;\nand the embodied Covenant for the covenant-people, chaps. xlii. 6;\nxlix. 8. The last passages, especially, are of no small importance. The\nsaving and judging activity go hand in hand, and cannot be separated.\nWe have here thus the Old Testament beginnings and preparation for the\ndoctrine of the New Testament, that the Father has given all judgment\nto the Son, The Servant of God, in the highest sense, is Lord and judge\nof the fellow servants.--The [Hebrew: l] in [Hebrew: lmecbh] serves for\ndesignating the condition: so that you belong to pain, [Hebrew: wkb]\noccurs in [Pg 257] chap. xliii. 17 of the Egyptians lying down; comp.\nPs. xli. 9: \"He that _lieth_ shall rise up no more.\" In the\nannouncement that Israel's attempt to help themselves would turn out to\ntheir destruction, the Song of Solomon, in chap. iii. 1-3; v. 7, has\npreceded our Prophet: \"The daughter of Zion, in her restlessness,\nendeavours to bring about, by worldly, rebellious doings, the Messianic\nsalvation. It is in vain; what she is seeking she does not find, but\nthe heavenly watchmen find her.\"\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER LI. 1-16.\n\n\nVer. 1. \"_And I put my words in thy mouth, and cover thee in the shadow\nof mine hand, that thou mayest plant the heaven and lay the foundation\nof the earth, and say unto Zion: Thou art my people._\"\n\nThe discourse in chap. li. to lii. 12 is not addressed to the whole of\nIsrael, but to the _election_. They are, in chap. li. 1, called those\nthat follow after righteousness, that seek the Lord; in ver. 7, those\nwho know righteousness, in whose heart is the law of the Lord. These\nthe Prophet seeks to comfort and strengthen by pointing to the future\nglorious mercies of the Lord.\n\nThe Section chap. li. 4-8 comforts the elect by the coming of the\nsalvation, by the dominion of the people of God over the whole world;\npoints to the foundation of these successes, viz., the eternity of the\nsalvation and righteousness for the Church; and exhorts them that,\nhaving this eternal salvation before them, they might patiently bear\nthe temporal reproach of the world given over to destruction.\n\nIn vers. 9-11, the Church calls upon the Lord to do as He had promised;\nand this prayer, founded upon His almighty love, which in times past\nhad so gloriously manifested itself, passes over, at the close, into\nhope and confidence.\n\nIn vers. 12-16 follows the answer of the Lord, who exhorts the Church\nto be stedfast, by reminding her that her opponents are weak mortals,\nwhile the omnipotent God is her protector; and announces that, with the\nsame omnipotence which He manifests in nature, He would soon bring\nabout her deliverance, [Pg 258] and that Ho would do so by His Servant,\nin whom all His promises should be Yea and Amen, and whom at the close\nHo addresses, committing to Him the work of redemption. According to\nthe current opinion, the discourse in ver. 16 is addressed to the\npeople. But, in that case, we must also make up our minds to view the\nInfinitive with [Hebrew: l] a Gerund, \"planting,\" or \"by planting,\"--a\nsupposition which is beset with great difficulties. It was only by an\ninconsistency that _Stier_, who, in chap. xlix. rejects this view,\ncould here agree to it. And, farther, it is obvious that the words at\nthe close: \"Thou art my people,\" are the _words_ which, according to\nthe commencement of the verse, are put into the mouth of the speaker,\nand that hence, the planting of heaven and earth, which prepares for\nthis speaking, belongs to Him. If this be not supposed, one does not at\nall see to what the: \"I put my words in thy mouth,\" is to refer. What\nfarther militates against this explanation is the unmistakable relation\nof the passage before us to chaps. xlix., l., which it is impossible to\nrefer to the people. The same reason is also against the supposition of\n_Gesenius_ and _Umbreit_, that the discourse is addressed to the\nprophetical order. Nor is it defensible to explain: \"to plant the\nheaven and lay the foundation of the earth,\" by: to establish the new\nstate of Israel. To these arguments it may be added that, according to\nthis explanation, the words: \"Thou art my people,\" are unsuitable; for\nIsrael was not the people of the Prophet, but the people of God and of\nHis Servant. The discourse is addressed rather to the Messiah, compare\nthe parallel passages, chap. xlix., especially ver. 2, and chap. l.,\nespecially vers. 4 and 5. Considering the dramatic character of the\nwhole section, the change of the person addressed is a circumstance of\nvery little importance; and chap. lix. 21, where the word of God is put\ninto the mouth of Jacob, is parallel in appearance only. Even _a\npriori_ we could not expect that, in this context, treating, as it\ndoes, of the personal Messiah, the whole section, chap. li. 1 to lii.\n12, should lack all reference to the Messiah. By the words: \"I put my\nword in thy mouth,\" the Messiah is appointed to be, in the highest\nsense, the speaker of God; the realization of the divine counsels is\ncommitted to Him. For the fact that it is not mere words which are here\ntreated of, but such as are living [Pg 259] and powerful, like those\nwhich God spoke at the creation, becomes evident by the circumstance\nthat the planting of heaven and earth is attributed to the Servant of\nGod as bearer of His words,--a thing which cannot be done by the\nordinary word; comp. Isa. xl. 4, according to which the Messiah smites\nthe earth with the rod of His mouth, and slays the wicked with the\nbreath of His lips.--_I cover thee in the shadow of mine hand_,\ndesignates the divine protection and providence which are indispensable\nin order that the Servant of God may fulfil His vocation to be God's\nspeaker. The words form an accessory thought only: I appoint thee my\nspeaker whom, as such, I will keep and protect in order that thou,\netc.;--for that which follows is that which the Servant of God is to\n_perform_ as His Speaker. By the word of Omnipotence committed to Him,\nHe plants a new heaven, and lays the foundation of a new earth, and\ninvests Zion with the dignity of the people of God.--To plant the\nheaven and lay the foundation of the earth, is equivalent to founding a\n_new_ heaven, a _new_ earth; comp. chaps. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22; Rev. xxii.\nFor, as long as the old heaven and the old earth exist, a planting and\nfounding activity cannot take place in reference to heaven and earth.\nAll that is created, in so far as it opposes the Kingdom of God, is\nunfit for being an abode of the glorified Kingdom of God, and must be\nshaken and broken to pieces, in order that this Kingdom may enter into\nits natural conditions, and find a worthy abode. The activity of God\nand His Servant, necessary for this purpose, will most completely take\nplace at the end of days, at the [Greek: palingenesia] announced by the\nLord, Matt. xix. 28; compare what is said in chap. xi., in reference to\nthe entire change of the conditions of the earth. But in a preparatory\nmanner, this activity pervades all history. The heaven, according to\nthe _usus loquendi_ of Scripture, and also of Isaiah, is not only the\nnatural heaven, but also the heaven of princes, the whole order of\nrulers and magistrates, (comp. my remarks on Rev. vi. 13), whose form\nand relation to the Kingdom of God underwent a great change, even at\nthe first appearance of Christ.--The _saying_, according to the\npreceding: That thou mayest plant, &c., is not to be referred to the\nmere announcing; but, according to the frequent _usus loquendi_, it\nincludes the performing also, just as _e.g._, in ver. 12, the [Pg 260]\ncomforting is effected by a discourse _in deeds_. The distinction\nbetween, and separation of word and deed belongs to human weakness. God\nspeaks and it is done; and what holds true of His word, applies also to\nthe word of His Servant, which he has put into His mouth.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTERS LII. 13-LIII. 12.\n\n\nThis section forms the climax of the prophecies of Isaiah, of\nprophetism in general, of the whole Old Testament, as appears even from\nthe circumstance that the Lord and His Apostles refer to no part of the\nOld Testament so frequently and so emphatically as to this,--a section\nwhich, according to _Luther's_ demand, every Christian should have\ncommitted _verbatim_. Christ is here, with wonderful clearness,\ndescribed to us in His highest work--His atoning suffering.\n\nIn vers. 13-15 of chap. lii. Jehovah speaks. These verses contain a\nshort summary of what is enlarged upon in chap. liii. The very deepest\nhumiliation of the Servant of God shall be followed by His highest\nglorification. In consequence of the salvation wrought out and\naccomplished by Him, the nations of the earth and their kings shall\nreverently submit to Him. In chap. liii. 1-10, the Prophet utters the\nsentiments of the _elect_ in Israel. At first, in His humiliation, they\nhad not recognized the Redeemer; but now they acknowledged Him as their\nRedeemer and Saviour, and saw that He had taken upon Him His sufferings\nfor our salvation, and that they had a vicarious character. The\ncommencement forms, in ver. 1, the lamentation that so many do not\nbelieve in the report of the Servant of God, that so many do not behold\nthe glory of God manifested in Him. In vers. 2 and 3, we have the cause\nof this fact, viz., the appearance of the Divine, in the form of a\nServant--the offence of the cross. In lowliness, without any outward\nsplendour, the Servant of God shall go about. Sufferings, heavier than\never befel any man, shall be inflicted upon Him. In vers. 4-6, the\nvicarious import of these sufferings is pointed out. The people, seeing\nhis sufferings, [Pg 261] and not knowing the cause of them, imagined\nthat they were the well-merited punishment of His own transgressions\nand iniquities. But the Church, now brought to believe in Him, see that\nthey were wrong in imagining thus. It was not His own transgressions\nand iniquities which were punished in Him, but ours. His sufferings\nwere voluntarily undergone by Him, and for the salvation of mankind,\nwhich else would have been given up to destruction. God himself was\nanxious to re-unite to himself those who were separated from Him, and\nwho walked in their own ways. To the vicarious import of the sufferings\nof the Servant of God corresponds, according to ver. 7, His conduct: He\nsuffers quietly and patiently. In vers. 8-10 we have the reward which\nthe Servant of God receives for His passive obedience. God takes Him to\nhimself, and He receives an unspeakably great generation, ver. 8, the\nominous burial with the rich, ver. 9, numerous seed and long life, and\nthat the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand; ver. 10. In\nvers. 11 and 12, the Lord again appears as speaking, and confirms that\nwhich has been declared by the faithful Church.\n\nThe two verses of the close, together with the exordium, chap. lii.\n13-15, occupy five verses--five being the signature of the half and\nincomplete. The main body, ten verses, is divided into seven referring\nto the humiliation and suffering, and three referring to the exaltation\nof the Servant of God. The seven are, as usual, divided into three and\nfour. In the three verses, the suffering of the Servant of God is\nexhibited; in the four, its cause and vicarious import.\n\nBy the \"_Behold_,\" with which the prophecy opens, the Prophet intimates\nthat we have here before us a vision beheld by him in the spirit. As\nthe period in which the Prophet beholds the vision, we have to suppose\nthe time between the suffering and the glorification of the Servant of\nGod. The glorification is described chiefly by Futures, the suffering\nby Preterites; but, from the fact that this stand-point is not strictly\nadhered to, it is evident that we have to do with a stand-point which\nis purely ideal.\n\nThe section forms, in a formal and material point of view, a whole by\nitself; but, notwithstanding its absolute independence, it must stand\nin a certain connection with what precedes and what follows. Let us,\ntherefore, now consider the relation [Pg 262] in which it stands to the\nportions surrounding it. Its relation to what goes before is thus\nstrikingly designated by _Calvin_: \"After Isaiah had spoken of the\nrestoration of the Church, he passes over to Christ, in whom all things\nare gathered together. He speaks of the prosperous success of the\nChurch, at a time when it was least to be expected, which calls them\nback to their King, by whom all things are to be restored, and exhorts\nthem to expect Him.\" The preceding section begins with chap. li. 1. We\nhave already stated the contents up to li. 16. Vers. 17-23 are closely\nconnected with the preceding, in which salvation and mercy were\nannounced to the Church of God. This announcement is here continued in\nnew forms. Chap. lii. 1-6: As the Lord had formerly delivered His\npeople out of the hand of Egypt and Asshur, so, now too, He will\ndeliver them. Zion appears under the image of a woman imprisoned,\nfettered, lying powerlessly in a miserable garment, on a dirty floor,\nand is called upon to arise, to strengthen herself, to throw off her\nbands, to put on festive garments, inasmuch as the time of her\ndeliverance from the misery is at hand. Vers. 7-10: In the last words\nof ver. 6, the Lord had announced that He was already at hand for the\nredemption of His Church. This salvation now presents itself vividly to\nthe spiritual eye of the Prophet, and is graphically described by him.\nHe beholds a messenger hastening with the glad tidings to Jerusalem;\n_watchmen_, who are standing on the ruins of Jerusalem in longing\nexpectation, discover him at a distance, and exultingly call upon\nthe ruins to shout aloud for joy.[1] \"How beautiful\"--so verse 7\nruns--\"upon the mountains the feet of the Messenger of joy, that\nannounceth peace, that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth\nsalvation, that saith unto Zion: Thy God reigneth.\" In Rom. x. 15, the\nApostle refers this passage to the preaching of the Gospel. That is\nmore than mere application; it is real explanation. The deliverance\nfrom Babylon is only the first faint beginning of the salvation, which\nthe Prophet has before his eye in its [Pg 263] whole extent. As the\nsubstance of the salvation, the circumstance that Zion's God reigneth,\nis intimated. There is, in this, an allusion to the formula which was\nused in proclaiming the ascension of earthly kings to the throne. Even\nthis allusion shows that the point here in question is not the\ncontinuous government of the Lord, but a new, glorious manifestation of\nHis government, as it were a new ascension to the throne. This \"the\nLord reigneth,\" found a faint beginning only of its confirmation and\nfulfilment in the destruction of Babylon, and the deliverance of\nIsrael; but as to its full import, it is Messianic. In Christ, the Lord\nhas truly assumed the government, and will still more gloriously reign\nin future.--Ver. 8: \"The _voice_ of thy watchmen! they lift up the\nvoice, they shout together; for they see eye to eye that the Lord\nreturneth to Zion.\" The watchmen are ideal persons, representatives of\nthe truth that the Lord is around His people, and that the\ncircumstances of His Church are to Him a constant call to help; or they\nmay be viewed as the holy angels who, as the servants of the watchmen\nof Israel, form the protecting power for the Church. These watchmen\ncontinue to stand even on the destroyed walls; for, even in her misery,\nthe Lord is Zion's God. The anxious waiting eye of the watchmen, and\nthe mercy-beaming eye of God returning to Zion meet one another. The\nreturning here is opposed to the forsaking, over which Zion had\nlamented in chap. xlix. 14. Instead of the concealed presence of the\nLord during the misery, which, to the feeling, so easily appears as\nentire absence, there comes the presence of God manifested in the\nsalvation. This return of the Lord to Zion truly took place in Christ\nonly, Luke i. 68.--Ver. 9: \"Break forth into joy, shout together, ye\nruins of Jerusalem, for the Lord comforteth Jerusalem, redeemeth His\npeople.\" This call goes far beyond the time of the restoration of\nJerusalem after the exile; for, even at that time, the spiritual eye\nstill beheld ruins, where the bodily eye saw firm, walled buildings.\nThe condition of the Kingdom of God was still miserable, the eye\nof the faithful remained still fixed, with hopes and longings, upon the\nFuture which was to bring, and has brought, _true_ comfort and\nconsolation.--Ver. 10: \"The Lord maketh bare His Holy arm in the eyes\nof all the nations, and all the ends of the earth see the salvation of\nour God.\" The making bare of the arm of the Lord designates the\nmanifestation, by deeds, of [Pg 264] the divine power and glory, such\nas took place by the sending of Christ, and by the wonderful elevation\nof the Church over the world,--an elevation which has it roots in Him;\ncomp. chap. liii. 1. In vers. 11 and 12 there is still the exhortation\nto the Church of the Lord that, by true repentance, she should worthily\nprepare for the impending salvation.\n\nAfter the Prophet has, in chap. li. 1 to lii. 12, described the\ntransition of the Church of God from humiliation and sorrow to\nglorification, it is quite natural that he should now turn from the\nmembers to the Head, through whose mediation this transition was to be\naccomplished, after the same contrast had been exhibited in Himself\nThere is the most intimate connection between the Church of God and His\nServant; for, all that He does and suffers. He does and suffers for\nher; and all that befals her is prefigured by the way in which He has\nbeen led by the Lord.\n\nWith what follows, too, the section before us stands in a close\nrelation. The glorification of the Servant of God described at the\nclose of chap. liii., is, in Him, bestowed at the same time, upon the\nChurch. Thus chap. liv., in which the Church is comforted by pointing\nto her future glorification, is connected with the preceding. The\nChurch of the Lord appears here as a woman who, after having been put\naway by her husband, and after having, for a long time, lived in a\nchildless, sorrowful solitude, is again received by him, and sees\nherself surrounded by numerous children. The time of punishment is now\nat an end, and the time of mercy is breaking.\n\nChap. lii. 13. \"_Behold, my Servant shall act wisely, He shall be\nexalted and extolled, and be very high._\"\n\n[Hebrew: hwkil] always means \"to act wisely\" (LXX. [Greek: sun\u00easei];\n_Aquil. Sym._: [Greek: episth\u00eamonisth\u00easetai]), never \"to be successful\"\n(the Chaldean, whom most of the modern interpreters follow, renders it\nby [Hebrew: iclH]), and this ascertained sense (comp. Remarks on Jer.\niii. 15; xxiii. 5, where the verb is used of the Messiah, just as it is\nhere), must here be maintained so much the more, that our passage\nevidently refers to David, the former servant of God. Of him it is said\nin 1 Sam. xviii. 14, 15: \"And David was acting wisely in all his ways,\nand the Lord was with him. And Saul saw that he was acting very wisely,\nand was afraid of him;\" comp. 1 Kings ii. 3, where David says to\nSolomon: \"And keep the charge of the Lord thy God ... in order [Pg 265]\nthat thou mayest act wisely in all that thou doest, and whithersoever\nthou turnest thyself;\" Ps. ci. 2, where David, speaking in the name of\nhis family, says: \"I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way;\" and 2\nKings xviii. 7, where it is said of Hezekiah: \"And the Lord was with\nhim, and whithersoever he went forth, he acted wisely.\" According to\nthese fundamental and parallel passages, the expression, \"He shall act\nwisely\" refers to the administration of government, and is equivalent\nto: He shall rule wisely like his ancestor David. _Stier_ is wrong in\nopposing the view, that the Messiah here presents himself as King. He\nsays: \"The King has here stepped behind the Prophet, Witness, Martyr,\nSaviour;\" but in chap. liii. 12, the royal office surely comes out with\nsufficient distinctness. We must never forget that the different\noffices of Christ are intimately connected with one another by the\nunity of the person. The _prosperity and success_ which the Servant of\nGod enjoys, are first brought before us and detailed in what follows;\nand appear, just as in the fundamental passages quoted, as the\nconsequence of acting wisely: \"My Servant shall, after having, through\nthe deepest humiliation, attained to dominion, administer it well, and\nthereby attain to the highest glory.\" To the words: \"He shall act\nwisely\" correspond, afterwards, the words: \"The pleasure of the Lord\nshall prosper by His hand,\" chap. liii. 10. The fact that a person acts\nwisely is, in a twofold aspect, a fruit of his connection with God:\n_first_, because God is the source and fountain of all wisdom, and,\n_secondly_, because from God the blessing proceeds which always\naccompanies his doings. The ungodly is by God involved in circumstances\nwhich, notwithstanding all his wisdom, make him appear as a fool.\nCompare only chap. xix. 11: \"The princes of Zoan become fools, the\ncounsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish; how can\nye say unto Pharaoh: a son of the wise am I, a (spiritual) son of the\n(wise) kings of ancient times?\" comp. ver. 13; Job xii. 17, 20; Eccles.\nix. 11. In the second clause the Prophet puts together the verbs which\ndenote elevation, and still adds [Hebrew: mad] \"very\" in order most\nemphatically to point out the glory of the exaltation of the Servant of\nGod.\n\nVer. 14. \"_As many were shocked at thee--so marred from man was His\nlook, and His form from the sons of man_--Ver. 15. _So shall He\nsprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their_ [Pg 266] _mouths on\naccount of Him, for they who had not been told, they see, and they who\ndid not hear, they perceive._\"\n\nVer. 14 contains the _protasis_, ver. 15 the _apodosis_. The former\ndescribes the deep humiliation, the latter the highest glorification of\nthe Servant of God. The _so_ in ver. 14 begins a parenthesis, in which\nthe reason why many were shocked is stated, and which goes on to the\nend of the verse. In keeping with the dramatic character of the\nprophetic discourse, the Lord addresses His Servant in ver. 14: \"At\nthee;\" while, in ver. 15, He speaks of Him in the third person: \"He\nshall sprinkle;\" \"on account of _Him_\" This change has been occasioned\nby the parenthetical clause which contains a remark of the Prophet, and\nin which, therefore, the Servant of God could not but be spoken of in\nthe third person. _H\u00e4vernick_ and _Stier_ refuse to admit the existence\nof a parenthesis. Their reasons: \"Parentheses are commonly an\nill-invented expedient only,\" and: \"It is not likely that the same\nparticle should have a different signification in these two clauses\nfollowing immediately the one upon the other,\" are not entirely\ndestitute of force, but are far-outweighed by counter-arguments. They\nsay that the _apodosis_ begins with the first [Hebrew: kN], and that in\nver. 15 a second _apodosis_ follows. But no tolerable thought comes out\nin this way;--it is hard to co-ordinate two _apodoses_,--and the\ntransition from the 2d to the 3d person remains unaccounted for.\n[Hebrew: wmM] \"to be desolated\" is then transferred to the spiritual\ndesolation and devastation, and receives the signification \"to be\nhorrified,\" \"to be shocked.\"--Who the many are that are shocked and\noffended at the miserable appearance of the Servant of God, appears\nfrom chap. xlix. 4, according to which the opposition to the Servant of\nGod has its seat among the covenant people; farther, from the contrast\nin ver. 15 of the chapter before us, according to which the respectful\nsurrender belongs to the _Gentiles_; and farther, from chap. liii. 1,\nwhere the unbelief of the former covenant-people is complained of; from\nvers. 2-4, where even the believers from among Israel complain that\nthey had had difficulty in surmounting the offence of the Cross.\n[Hebrew: mwHt], properly \"corruption,\" stands here as _abstractum pro\nconcreto_, in the signification, \"corrupted,\" \"marred.\" As to its form,\nit is in the _status constructus_ which, in close connections, can\nstand even [Pg 267] before Prepositions. From the corresponding\n[Hebrew: Hdl aiwiM] in chap. liii. 3, it appears that the Preposition\nstands here only for the sake of distinctness, and might as well have\nbeen omitted. The [Hebrew: mN] serves for designating the distance,\n\"from man,\" \"from the sons of men,\" so that He is no more a man, does\nno more belong to the number of the sons of men. The correctness of\nthis explanation appears from chap. liii. 3, and Ps. xxii. 7: \"I am a\nworm and no man.\" As regards the sense of the whole parenthesis, many\ninterpreters remark, that we must not stop at the bodily disfiguration\nof the Servant of God, but that the expression must, at the same time,\nbe understood figuratively. Thus, Luther says: \"The Prophet does not\nspeak of the form of Christ as to His person, but of the political and\nroyal form of a Ruler, who is to become an earthly King, and does not\nappear in royal form, but as the meanest of all servants; so that no\nmore despised man than He has been seen in the world.\" But the Prophet\nevidently speaks, in the first instance, of the bodily appearance only;\nand we can the less think of a figurative sense, that bodily\ndisfiguration forms the climax of misery, and that, in this _part_, the\n_whole_ of the miserable condition is delineated. Even the severe\ninward sufferings are a matter of course, if the outward ones have\nrisen to such a pitch. How both of these go hand in hand is seen from\nPs. xxii. These interpreters are, farther, wrong in this respect, that\nthey refer the pretended figurative expression solely to the lowliness\nand humility of the Messiah, and not, at the same time, to His\n_sufferings_ also. Thus, among the ancient interpreters, it was viewed\nby _Jerome_: \"The horrid appearance of His form is not thereby\nindicated, but that He came in humility and poverty;\" and among recent\ninterpreters by _Martini_: \"The sense of the passage does not properly\nrefer to the deformity of the face, but to the whole external weak,\npoor, and humble condition.\" But, for that, the expression is by far\ntoo strong. Mere lowliness is no object of horror (comp. 1 Cor. i. 23,\naccording to which it is the _Cross_ which offends the Jews); it does\nnot produce a deformity of the countenance; it cannot produce the\neffect that the Servant of God should, as it were, cease to be a man.\nAll this suggests an unspeakable _suffering_ of the Servant of God, and\nthat, moreover, a suffering which, in the first instance, [Pg 268]\nmanifested itself upon His own holy body. _Farther_--We must also take\ninto consideration that the _sprinkling_, in ver. 15, has for its\nbackground the shedding of blood, and is the fruit of it, at first\nconcealed. If any doubt should yet remain, it would be removed by the\nsubsequent detailed representation of that which is here given in\noutline merely. The sole reason of that narrow view is, that\ninterpreters did not understand the fundamental relation of the section\nunder consideration to the subsequent section; that they did not\nperceive that, here, we have in a complete sketch what there is given\nin detail and expansion.--Ver. 15. The verb [Hebrew: nzh] occurs in\nvery many passages, and signifies in _Hiphil_, everywhere, \"to\nsprinkle.\" It is especially set apart and used for the sprinkling with\nthe blood of atonement, and the water of purification. When \"the\nanointed priest\" had sinned, he took of the blood of the _sacrifice_,\nand _sprinkled_ it before the vail of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 6; comp.\nv. 16, 17. The high priest had, every year, on the great day of\natonement, to sprinkle the _blood_ before the Ark of the Covenant, in\norder to obtain forgiveness for the people. Lev. xvi. 14, comp. also\nvers. 18, 19: \"And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it (the altar)\nwith his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the\nuncleanness of the children of Israel.\" In the same manner the verb is\nused of the sprinkling of blood upon the healed leper, Lev. xiv. 7, and\nfrequently. According to Numb. xix. 19, the _clean_ person shall\n_sprinkle_ upon the unclean, on the third day, and on the seventh day,\n\"with the water in which are the ashes of the red heifer\" when any one\nhas become unclean by touching a dead body. The outward material\npurification frequently serves in the Old Testament to denote the\nspiritual purification. Thus, _e.g._, in Ps. i. 9: \"Purge me with\nhyssop, and I shall be clean;\" Ezek. xxxvi. 25: \"And I sprinkle clean\nwater upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness.\" In\nall those passages there lies, everywhere, at the foundation an\nallusion to the Levitical purifications (the two last quoted especially\nrefer to Numb. xix.); and this allusion is by no means so to be\nunderstood, as if he who makes the allusion were drawing the material\ninto the spiritual sphere. On the contrary, he uses as a figure that\nwhich is, in the law, used symbolically. All the laws of purification\nin the Pentateuch [Pg 269] have a symbolical and typical character.\nThat which was done to the outward impurity was, in point of fact, done\nto the _sin_ which the people of the Old Testament, well versed in the\nsymbolical language, beheld under its image. Hence, here also, the\n_sprinkling_ has the signification of _cleansing_ from sin. The\nexpression indicates that Christ is the true High Priest, to whom the\nordinary priesthood with its sprinklings typically pointed. The\nexpression is a summary of that which, in the following chapter, we are\ntold regarding the expiation through the suffering and death of the\nServant of God. The words: \"When His soul maketh a sin-offering,\" in\nver. 10, and: \"He shall justify,\" in ver. 11, correspond. Among the\nancient expositors, this translation is followed by the Syriac and\nVulgate, the _asperget_ of which _Jerome_ thus explains: \"He shall\nsprinkle many nations, cleansing them by His blood, and in baptism\nconsecrating them to the service of God.\" In the New Testament, it is\nalluded to in several passages. Thus, in 1 Pet. i. 2, where the Apostle\nspeaks of the [Greek: rhantismos haimatos I\u00easou Christou]. Farther, in\nHeb. x. 22: [Greek: erhrantismenoi tas kardias apo suneid\u00ease\u00f4s\npon\u00earas]; xii. 24: [Greek: kai haimati rhantismou kreitton lalounti\npara ton Abel], and also in chap. ix. 13, 14. Among Christian\ninterpreters, this view was always the prevailing one, was indeed the\nview held by the Church. _Schr\u00f6der observ. ad origin. Hebr._ c. viii. \u00a7\n10, raised some objections which were eagerly laid hold of, and\nincreased by the rationalistic interpreters. Even some sound orthodox\nexpositors allowed themselves to be thereby dazzled. _Stier_ declares\n\"that, for this time, he must take the part of modern Exegesis against\nthe prevailing tradition of the Church.\" Yet his disrelish for the\ndoctrine of the atonement held by the Church has no doubt exercised a\nconsiderable influence in this matter; and _Hofmann_, too, in so\ndecidedly rejecting this explanation, which rests on such strong\narguments, and is not touched by any weighty counter-arguments, seems\nnot to have been guided by exegetical reasons only. But let us submit\nthese objections to a closer examination. 1. \"The verb ought not to be\nconstrued with the Accusative of the thing to be sprinkled, but with\n[Hebrew: el].\" _Reinke_ (in his Monograph on Is. liii.) brings forward,\nagainst this objection, the passage Lev. iv. 16, 17; but he is wrong in\nthis, inasmuch as [Hebrew: at] is there not the [Pg 270] sign of the\nAccusative, but a Preposition. [Hebrew: at pni] in the signification\n\"before,\" is, elsewhere also, very frequently used. But even _Gesenius_\nis compelled to agree with _Simonis_.[2] and to acknowledge that, in\nthe proper name [Hebrew: izih] the verb is connected with an\nAccusative. The deviation is there still greater, inasmuch as the _Kal_\nis, at the same time, used transitively. But even apart from that, such\na deviation cannot appear strange. It has an analogy in chap. liii. 11,\nwhere [Hebrew: hcdiq], which everywhere else is construed with the\nAccusative, is followed by [Hebrew: l]; and likewise in [Hebrew: rpa],\nfollowed by [Hebrew: l] in chap. liii. 5. The signification of the\nverb, in such cases, undergoes a slight modification. [Hebrew: hzh]\nwith [Hebrew: el] means \"to sprinkle;\" with the Accusative, \"to\nsprinkle upon.\" This modification of the meaning has the analogy of\nother languages in its favour. In the Ethiopic, the verb [Hebrew: nzH],\nwhich corresponds to the Hebrew [Hebrew: nzh], is used of the\nsprinkling of both persons and things; Heb. ix. 19, xi. 28; Ps. li. 9.\nIn Latin, we may say: _spargere aquam_, but also _spargere corpus\naqua_; _aspergere quid alicui_, but also _re aliquem_, _conspergere_,\n_perspergere_, _respergere quem_. \"Why should not this be allowed to\nthe Jews also,\"--remarks _K\u00f6cher_--\"who have to make up for the defect\nof compound verbs by the varied use of simple verbs?\" But the Prophet\nhad a special reason, in the liberty specially afforded by the higher\nstyle, for deviating from the ordinary connection. The [Hebrew: el] had\nto be avoided, because, had it been put, the perception of the\ncorrespondence of the subsequent [Hebrew: eliv] with the [Hebrew:\neliK], in ver. 14, would have become more difficult.--2. It is asserted\nthat it is against the connection; that the contrast to [Hebrew: mwM]\ninduces us to expect something corresponding. _Beck_ says: \"A change in\nthose who formerly abhorred the Servant is to be expressed here, not _a\ndeed by the Servant himself_.\" If there were here, indeed, a contrast\nintended to the many who formerly were shocked, we might answer that,\nindirectly, the words: \"He shall sprinkle,\" suggest, indeed, an\nopposite conduct of the \"many Gentiles.\" No one is cleansed by the\nServant of God, who does not allow himself to be cleansed by [Pg 271]\nHim. But no one will desire to be cleansed by Him, who does not put his\nwhole trust in Him, who does not recognize Him as his King and Lord. To\nthe contempt and horror with which the Jews shrink back from the\nMessiah in His humiliation, would thus be opposed the faithful, humble\nconfidence, with which the heathens draw near to the glorified Messiah.\nBut the fact that the real contrast to the [Hebrew: wmmv] is not\n[Hebrew: izh], but rather [Hebrew: iqpcv], is clearly shown by [Hebrew:\neliv], which corresponds with [Hebrew: eliK]. The [Hebrew: izh]\ncorresponds rather to: \"He was disfigured.\" Just as this states the\ncause of their being shocked, so in: \"He shall sprinkle,\" the cause of\nthe shutting of the mouth is stated. This is also seen from a\ncomparison of chap. liii. 3, 4. His sufferings appeared formerly as the\nproof that He was hated by God. Now that the vicarious value of His\nsuffering manifests itself, it becomes the reason of humble, respectful\nsubmission. Just as, formerly, many were shocked at Him, because he was\nso disfigured, so, now, even kings shall shut their mouth at Him on\naccount of His atonement. Moreover, one does not exactly see how this\nreason could be brought forward, as, in a formal point of view, there\nis, at all events, \"a deed by the Servant himself\" before us, in\nwhatever way we may view the [Hebrew: izh].--3. \"If _sprinkling_ were\nmeant to be equivalent to cleansing by blood, the matter of\npurification could not be omitted. If it were objected to this, that\nthe noun 'blood' might easily be supplied from the verb's being\nordinarily used of cleansing with blood, the objection would be of no\nweight, inasmuch as sprinkling was done not only with blood, but also\nwith water and oil.\" But the sprinkling with _oil_, denoting\nsanctification, appears only quite isolated, and has for its foundation\nthe sprinkling with blood, comp. Exod. xxix. 21: \"And thou shalt take\nof the blood which is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and\nsprinkle it upon Aaron, and he shall be hallowed.\" The sprinkling with\n_water_ has likewise the shedding of blood for its foundation. It was\ndone with such water only, as had in it the ashes of the sin-offering\nof the red heifer. But the Prophet has certainly on purpose made no\nexpress mention of the blood, because that water, too, should be\nincluded. This fact, that the sprinkling here comprehends both, was\nperceived by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in chap. ix.\n13, 14: [Greek: ei gar to haima] [Pg 272] [Greek: taur\u00f4n kai trag\u00f4n kai\nspodos damale\u00f4s rhantizousa tous kekoin\u00f4menous hagiazei pros t\u00ean t\u00eas\nsarkos katharot\u00eata. mallon to haima tou Christou ... kathariei t\u00ean\nsuneid\u00easin h\u00eam\u00f4n apo nekr\u00f4n erg\u00f4n eis to latreuein The\u00f4 z\u00f4nti.] The\ndefilement by dead bodies, against which the water of purification was\nspecially used, is the most significant symbol of sinners and sins.--4.\n\"It is, in general, not probable that the Servant of God, who farther\ndown is described as a sacrificial beast (!),--who, by taking upon\nHimself the sins of His people, dies for them, should here appear as\nthe High Priest justifying them.\" Thus _Umbreit_ argues. But in\nopposition to this view, it is sufficient to refer to: \"He shall\njustify,\" in chap. liii. 11, which is parallel to \"He shall sprinkle.\"\nThat which, in the typical sacrifices, is separated, is, in the\nantitypical, most closely connected. Even at the very first beginnings\nof sacred history, it was established for all times, that the\ndifference between him who offers up, and that which is offered up,\nshould not go beyond the territory of animal sacrifice. But there is\nthe less ground for setting aside the reference to the priestly office\nof the Messiah, that, even before Isaiah, David, in Ps. cx. 4,\ndesignates Christ as the true High Priest on account of the atonement\nto be made by Him; and, after Isaiah, Zechariah says in chap. vi. 13:\n\"And He sitteth and ruleth upon the throne, and He is a Priest upon His\nthrone.\"--It has now become current to derive [Hebrew: izh] from\n[Hebrew: nzh] in the signification \"to leap\"--\"He shall cause to leap.\nThis explanation made its appearance at first in a very cautious way.\"\n_Martini_ says: \"I myself feel how very far from a right and sure\ninterpretation that is, which I am now, but very timidly, to advance,\nregarding the sense of the received reading [Hebrew: izh].\" By and by,\nhowever, expositors hardened themselves against the decisive objections\nwhich stand in the way of it. These objections are the following. 1.\nThe Hebrew _usus loquendi_ is in [Hebrew: nzh] so sure, that we are not\nentitled to take the explanation from the Arabic. The verb is, in\nHebrew, never used except of _fluids_. In _Kal_, it does not mean \"to\nleap,\" but \"to spatter,\" Lev. vi. 20 (27): \"And upon whose garment is\n_spattered_ of the blood;\" 2 Kings ix. 33; Is. lxiii. 5. In _Hiphil_,\nit is set apart and used exclusively for the holy sprinklings; and the\nmore frequently it occurs in this signification, the less are we at\nliberty to deviate from it. 2. \"He shall make to leap\" would be far too\nindefinite,--a circumstance [Pg 273] which appears from the vague and\narbitrary conjectures of the supporters of this view. _Gesenius_, in\nhis Commentary, _Stier_, and others, think of a leaping for joy, in\nsupport of which they have quoted the _Kamus_, according to which the\nverb is used of wanton asses! According to _Gesenius_ in the\n_Thesaurus_, _Hofmann_, and others, the Gentiles are to leap up, in\norder to show their _reverence_ for the Servant of God. According to\n_Hitzig_ and others, it is to leap for _astonishment_, while, according\nto _Umbreit_ and others, it is for _joyful admiration_. One sees that\nthe mere \"He shall make to leap\" is in itself too meaningless; and\ninterpreters are obliged to make the best addition which they can.--3.\nAccording to this explanation, no cause is assigned by which the homage\nof the Gentiles is called forth; and that cause can the less be\nomitted, that the horror of the Jews is traced back to its cause. The\nparenthesis in ver. 14 lacks its antithesis; and that this antithesis\nmust lie in [Hebrew: izh], is rendered probable even by the\ncircumstance, that this word signifies, in a formal point of view,\nsomething which the Servant of God does, and not something which the\nGentiles do, while we should, by the antithesis to [Hebrew: wmmv], be\nled to expect just this.[3]--In the _protasis_, the discourse is only\nof many; here, it is of many nations (_Gousset_: \"It is emphatic, so\nthat it comprehends all, and denotes, at the same time, that they are\nnumerous\"), and of kings. This is quite natural; for it was only\nmembers of the covenant-people who felt shocked, while the reverence is\nfelt by the whole Gentile world.--The _shutting of the mouth_ occurs\nelsewhere, too, repeatedly, as a sign of reverence and humble\nsubmission. The reference of [Hebrew: eliv] to [Hebrew: eliK], shows\nthat _Ewald_ is wrong in explaining it by \"besides Him.\" Since the\npreceding [Hebrew: el] designated the object of the horror,--the\nsubstratum of it--it must here, too, designate the substratum of the\nshutting of the mouth, and \"over Him,\" be equivalent to: \"on account of\nHim,\" \"out of reverence for Him.\"--In the exposition of the last words,\nthe old translations differ. We may explain them either: \"They to whom\nit had not been [Pg 274] told, see;\" thus the LXX.: [Greek: hois ouk\nan\u00eangel\u00ea peri autou, opsontai, kai hoi ouk ak\u00eakoasi, sun\u00easousi], whom\nPaul follows in Rom. xv. 21. (In that context, however, the difference\nof the two explanations is of no consequence; the passage would be\nequally suitable, even according to the other interpretation.) Or, we\nmay explain them: \"That which had not been told them, they see,\" &c.\nThus the other ancient translations explain. According to the first\nview, the connection would be this: For, in order that ye may not\nwonder at my speaking to you of nations and kings, they who, &c.\nAccording to the second view, the ground of the reverence of the\nheathen kings and their people is stated. That which formerly had not\nbeen told to them, had not been heard by them, is the expiation by the\nServant of God. By Him they receive a blessing not formerly hoped for\nor expected, and are thereby filled with silent reverence towards the\nAuthor of the gift. We decide in favour of the former view, according\nto which chap. lxvi. 19: \"That have not heard my fame, neither have\nseen my glory,\" is parallel. The contrast, in our verse, to those who\ndid not hear and who now perceive, is, in the subsequent verse, formed\nby those who do hear, and do not believe. The words: \"Who had not been\ntold, who did not hear,\" refer to the Messianic announcement which was\ngiven to Israel only, and from which the Gentiles were excluded.[4]\n\nUpon this sketch, there follows in chap. liii. 1-10, the enlargement.\nFirst, in vers. 1-3 that is expounded which, in ver. 14 had been said\nof the many being _shocked_, and of the _cause_. The commentary upon\n[Hebrew: wmmv] \"they were shocked,\" is given in ver. 1: a great portion\nof the Jews do not believe in the salvation which had appeared. The\nenlargement of: \"so marred,\" &c., is given in vers. 2, 3. The cause of\nthe [Pg 275] unbelief is, that the glory of the Servant of God is\nconcealed behind humiliation, misery, and shame.\n\nChap. liii. 1: \"_Who believes that which we hear, and the arm of the\nLord, to whom it is revealed?_\"\n\nThe Prophet, whose spiritual eye is just falling upon the large, the\nenormously large number of unbelievers, overlooks, at the moment, the\nother aspect, and, in his grief, expresses that which took place in a\nlarge _portion_ only, in such a manner as if it were general. Similar\nrepresentations we elsewhere frequently meet with, _e.g._, Ps. xiv. 3\n(compare my Commentary); Jer. v. 1--[Hebrew: wmveh] is commonly\nunderstood in the signification, \"message\" or \"discourse.\" But in\nfavour of the explanation: \"That which is heard by us,\" _q.d._, \"that\nwhich we hear,\" there is, in the first instance, the _usus loquendi_.\nThe word never occurs in any other than its original signification,\n\"that which is heard,\" and in the signification, \"rumour,\" which is\nclosely connected with the former. In Isa. xxviii. 9, a passage which\nis most confidently referred to in proof of the signification,\n_institutio_, _doctrina_, [Hebrew: wmveh] is that which the Prophet\nhears from God. The mockers who exclaim: \"Whom will he make to\nunderstand [Hebrew: wmveh]?\" take, with a sneer, out of his mouth the\nword upon which chap. xxi. 10: \"That which I have heard of the Lord of\nHosts, I declare unto you,\" forms a commentary, [Greek: Ako\u00ea] too, by\nwhich, in the New Testament, [Hebrew: wmveh] is rendered, has not at\nall the signification, \"discourse,\" \"preaching.\" [Greek: Ako\u00ea] in Rom.\nx. 16, 17, is not the preaching, but the hearing, as is shown by the\n[Greek: m\u00ea ouk \u00eakousan] in ver. 18. The [Greek: ako\u00ea], according to\nver. 17: [Greek: h\u00ea de ako\u00ea dia rh\u00eamatos Theou], is the passive to the\nactive to the word of God. \"Who believes our [Greek: ako\u00ea], our\nhearing,\" _i.e._, that which we hear, which is made known to us by the\nWord of God. In a passive sense, [Greek: ako\u00ea] stands likewise in the\npassages Matt. iv. 24, xiv. 1, xxiv. 6, which _Stier_ cites in support\nof the signification \"discourse,\" \"preaching;\" it is that which has\nbeen heard by some one, \"rumour,\" \"report.\" In Heb. iv. 2 (as also in 1\nThess. ii. 13) [Greek: logos ako\u00eas], is the word which they heard. That\npassage: [Greek: ouk \u00f4phel\u00easen ho logos t\u00eas ako\u00eas ekeinous, m\u00ea\nsunkekramenos t\u00ea pistei tois akousasi], may simply be considered as a\nparaphrase of our: Who believes that which we hear. A second argument\nin favour of our explanation: \"That which we hear\" lies in the relation\n[Pg 276] to the preceding, which, only when thus explained, arranges itself\nsuitably: \"Those understand what they formerly did not hear; Israel, on\nthe contrary, does not believe that which they have heard.\" Of great\nimportance, _finally_, is the circumstance, that it is only with this\ninterpretation that the unity of the speaker in vers. 1-10 can be\nmaintained. In the sequel, the _we_ everywhere refers to the _believing\nChurch_. But, for this reason, it is difficult to think here of the\norder of the teachers, which must be the case when we translate: \"Who\nbelieves our preaching.\" It has been objected that, even in this case,\nno real change of subject takes place, but that, in both cases, the\nProphet is speaking, with this difference only, that, in ver. 1, he\nnumbers himself among the proclaimers of the message, while, in ver. 2\nff., he reckons himself among the believing Congregation. But we shall\nbe obliged not to bring in the Prophet at all. In ver. 2 ff., the\nspeaker is the believing Church of the _Future_, in the time after the\nappearance of the Saviour, and just so, in ver. 1, the preaching, if it\nshould be spoken of at all, cannot belong to the Prophet and his\ncontemporaries, but to those only who came forward with the message of\nthe manifested Saviour; just as in John xii. 38; Rom. x. 16, our verse\nis referred to the unbelief of the Jews in the manifested Saviour. The\ncause of the unbelief over which ver. 1 laments is indeed, according to\nvers. 2 and 3, the appearance of the Saviour in the form of a Servant,\nand His bitter suffering. That, then, must first have taken place,\nbefore the unbelief manifested itself.[5] _Stier_ rightly remarks:\n\"Between 'the arm of God,'and ourselves, a [Hebrew: wmveh] is placed\nas the medium, and the point is to believe in it.\" It is the gospel,\nthe tidings of the manifested Saviour. By the side of the joy over the\nmany Gentiles who with delight hear and understand the message of the\nServant of God, there is the sorrow over the many in Israel who do not\nbelieve this message.--The _arm of the Lord_ comes into consideration\nas the seat of His divine power; comp. chap. xl. 10, li. 5-9, lii. 10.\n[Pg 277] According to the context, the manifestation of this power in\nChrist is here spoken of _Stier_ says: \"In this Servant, the redeeming\narm manifests itself, personifies itself Christ himself is, as it were,\nthe outstretched arm of the Lord.\" In Rom. i. 16, the Gospel is\ndesignated as [Greek: dunamis Theou eis s\u00f4t\u00earian panti t\u00f4 pisteuonti.]\n[Hebrew: glh] is elsewhere commonly construed with [Hebrew: al] or\n[Hebrew: l], here with [Hebrew: el]. This indicates that the revealing\nof the arm of the Lord is of a _supernatural_ kind, such an one as\nconies down from above. The Lord has revealed His arm, His power and\nglory, as He has manifested them in the mission of His servant, _in the\neyes of all_ (comp. chap. lii. 10: \"The Lord hath made bare His holy\narm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth see\nthe salvation of our God\"); but it is really seen by those only whose\neyes God opens. The deeds of God, even the most manifest, always retain\nthe nature of a mystery which remains concealed to the worldly\ndisposition. God can be recognised only by God. Of the ungodly it holds\ntrue: \"With seeing eyes they do not see, and with hearing ears they do\nnot hear.\" What was the _cause_ of this unbelief in the Son of God, we\nare told in the sequel. It is the appearance of the Divine in the form\nof a servant, which the gross carnal disposition cannot understand, and\nby which it is offended. This offence which, according to the sequel,\neven the God-fearing had to overcome, is, for the ungodly, a lasting\none.\n\nVer. 2. \"_And He grew up as the sprout before Him, and as the root from\na dry ground. He had no form nor comeliness: and we see Him, but there\nis no appearance that we should desire Him._\"\n\nThe relation of this verse to the preceding one was correctly seen by\n_Michaelis_: \"The cause of the offence is this, that He does not rise\nor stand out like the cedar, but He grows up gradually,\" &c. The\nsubject, the Servant of God, is easily inferred from [Hebrew: eliv] in\nver. 15. This is the more admissible that ver. 1, too, indirectly\nrefers to Him. He is the subject of the report in whose appearance the\narm of the Lord has been revealed. The _sprout_, the twig, designates,\neven in itself, the poor condition; and, notwithstanding _Stier's_\ncounter-remarks, it is the pointing to such a poor condition alone\nwhich suits the connection, and there is no reason why we should here\nalready [Pg 278] supply \"from a dry ground.\" A member of the royal\nhouse before its fall resembled, at his very origin, a proud tree, or,\nat least, a proud branch of such a tree. The sprout, here, supposes the\nstump, [Hebrew: gze]. in chap. xi. 8. [Hebrew: ivnq] elsewhere always\nsignifies \"suckling;\" comp. here chap. xi. 8. Of the sprout, elsewhere,\nthe feminine [Hebrew: ivnqt] is used. According to _Stier_, this\ndeviation from the common use is here not a matter of accident.\nSupposing a double sense, he finds it an indication of the helpless\ninfancy of the Redeemer, and in this a representation of His lowliness.\nThe LXX.: [Greek: h\u00f4s paidion]. The suffix in [Hebrew: lpniv] \"before\nHim\" refers to the immediately preceding [Hebrew: ihvh], not to the\npeople. _Before Him_, the Lord--known to Him, watched by Him, standing\nunder His protection, comp. Gen. xvii. 18; Job viii. 16. The lowliness\nhere, and the contempt of men in ver. 3, form the contrast; He is low,\nbut He will not remain so; for the eye of the Most High is directed\ntowards Him. Before the eyes of men who are not able to penetrate to\nthe substance through the appearance, He is concealed; but God beholds\nHim, beholds His concealed glory, beholds His high destination; and\nbecause He beholds, He also takes care, and prepares His transition\nfrom lowliness to glory. But the \"before Him\" does not by any means\nhere form the main thought; it only gives a gentle and incidental\nhint.--The _root_ denotes here, as in chap. xi. 1, 10, the product of\nthe root, that whereby it becomes visible, the sprout from the root. In\nreference to this parallel passage, _Stier_ strikingly remarks: \"It is,\nby our modern interpreters, put aside as quietly as possible; for, with\na powerful voice, it proclaims to us two truths: that the same Isaiah\nrefers to his former prophecy,--and that this Servant of the Lord here\nis none other than the Messiah there.\" A twig which grows up from a dry\nplace is insignificant and poor. Just as the Messiah is here, in\nrespect to His state of humiliation, and specially in reference to His\norigin from the house of David, sunk into complete obscurity, compared\nto a weak, insignificant twig, so He is, in Ezek. xvii. 23, in\nreference to His state of glorification, compared to a lofty, splendid\ncedar tree, under which all the fowls of heaven dwell. The Jews, in\nopposition even to ver. 22 of Ezekiel, expected that He should appear\nso from the very beginning; and since He did not appear so, they [Pg\n279] despised Him. The [Hebrew: vnrahv] is, by most of the modern\ninterpreters, in opposition to the accents, connected with the first\nmember: \"He had no form nor comeliness that _we should have seen Him_.\"\nBut from internal reasons, this explanation must be rejected. \"To see,\"\nin the sense of \"to perceive,\" would not be suitable. For, how could\nthey have such views of the condition of the Servant of God, if they\noverlooked Him? But it is not possible to adduce any real demonstrative\nparallel passage in support of [Hebrew: rah] with the Accusat., without\n[Hebrew: b], ever having the signification, \"to look at,\" \"to consider\nwith delight.\" The circumstance that the Future is used in the sense of\nthe Present: \"and we see Him,\" is explained from the Prophet's viewing\nit as present.--The statement that the Servant of God had no form, nor\ncomeliness, nor appearance, must not be referred to His lowliness\nbefore His sufferings only; we must, on the contrary, perceive, in His\nsufferings and death, the completion of this condition; in the _Ecce\nHomo_, the full historical realization of it. _Calvin_ rightly points\nout that that which here, in the first instance, is said of the Head,\nis repeated upon the Church; He says: \"This must not be understood of\nChrist's person only, who was despised by the world, and was at last\ngiven up to an ignominious death, but of His whole Kingdom which, in\nthe eyes of men, had no form, nor comeliness, nor splendour.\"\n\nVer. 3. \"_Despised and most unworthy among men, a man of pains and an\nacquaintance of disease, and like one hiding His face from us,\ndespised, and we esteemed Him not._\"\n\nIn the preceding verse, we are told what the Servant of God had _not_,\nviz., anything which could have attracted the natural man who had no\nconception of the inward glory, and as little of the cause why the\nDivine appears in the form of a Servant and a sufferer. Here we are\ntold what He had, viz.: everything to _offend_ and _repulse_ him to\nwhom the arm of the Lord had not been revealed,--the full measure of\nmisery and the cross. Instead of \"the most unworthy among men,\" the\ntext literally translated has: \"one ceasing from among men\" ( [Hebrew:\nHdl] in the signification \"ceasing\" in Ps. xxxix. 5), _i.e._, one who\nceases to belong to men, to be a man, exactly corresponding to \"from\nman,\" and \"from the sons of men,\" in the sketch, ver. 14, and to: \"I am\na worm and no man,\" in Ps. xxii. [Pg 280] The explanation: \"Forsaken by\nmen, rejected of men,\" is opposed by the _usus loquendi_, and by these\nparallel passages.--\"A man of pains\"--one who, as it were, possesses\npains as his property. There is a similar expression in Prov. xxix. 1:\n\"A man of chastenings\"--one who is often chastened. \"An acquaintance of\ndisease,\"--one who is intimately acquainted with it, who has, as it\nwere, entered into a covenant of friendship with it. The passive\nParticiple has no other signification than this, Deut. i. 13, 15, and\ndoes not occur in the signification of the active Participle\n\"knowing.\"--There is no reason for supposing that disease stands here\n_figuratively_. It comprehends also the pain arising from wounds, 1\nKings xxii. 34; Jer. vi. 7, x. 19; and there is so much the greater\nreason for thinking of it here, that [Hebrew: hHli] in ver. 10,\nevidently refers to the [Hebrew: Hli] in this place. As an acquaintance\nof disease, the Lord especially showed himself in His _passion_. And\nthen _every sorrow_ may be viewed as a disease; every sorrow has, to a\ncertain degree, disease in its train. On Ps. vi., where sickness is\nrepresented as the consequence of hostile persecution, Luther remarks:\n\"Where the heart is afflicted, the whole body is weary and bruised;\nwhile, on the other hand, where there is a joyful heart, the body is\nalso so much the more active and strong.\" [Hebrew: hstir] always means\n\"to hide;\" the whole phrase occurs in chap. l. 6, in the signification\n\"to hide the face.\" [Hebrew: mstr] is the Participle in _Hiphil_. In\nthe singular, it is true, such a form is not found any where else; but,\nin the Plural, it is, Jer. xxix. 8. In favour of the interpretation:\n\"Like one hiding His face from us,\" is the evident reference to the law\nin Lev. xiii. 45: \"The leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall\nbe rent and his head bare, _and the beard he shall have covered over_,\nand shall cry: Unclean, unclean,\"--where that which the leper crieth\nforms the commentary upon the symbolical act of the covering. They\ncovered themselves, as a sign of shame, as far as possible, in order to\nallow of breathing, up to the nose; hence the mention of the beard. In\nmy Commentary on the Song of Solomon i. 7, it was proved that covering\nhas every where the meaning of being put to shame--of being in a\nshameful condition. The leper was by the law condemned to be a living\nrepresentation of _sin_. No horror was like that which was felt in his\npresence. _Hence_ [Pg 281] _it is the highest degree of humiliation and\nabasement which is expressed by the comparison with the leper, who must\nhide his face, whom God has marked._ It is the more natural to suppose\nthis reference to the leper, that probably, the [Hebrew: Hdl aiwiM]\nlikewise pointed to the leper. The leper was \"one ceasing from men.\" In\n2 Kings xv. 5; 2 Chron. xxvi. 21, a house in which lepers dwell is\ncalled a \"house of liberty,\" _i.e._, of separation from all human\nsociety; compare the expression \"free among the dead,\" in Ps. lxxxviii.\n6. Lepers were considered as dead persons. Uzziah, while in his\nleprosy, was, according to the passage in Chronicles already cited, cut\noff from the house of the Lord, and forfeited his place there, where\nall the servants of the Lord dwell with Him. To leprosy, the term\n[Hebrew: ngve] in ver. 4 likewise points. _Beck's_ objection: \"The\npoint in question here is not that which the unfortunate man does but\nthat which others do in reference to him,\" is based upon a\nmisconception. Neither the one nor the other is spoken of The\ncomparative [Hebrew: k] must not be overlooked. The comparison with the\nleper, the culminating point of all contempt, is highly suitable to the\nparallelism with [Hebrew: nbzh]. Ordinarily [Hebrew: mstr] is now\nunderstood as a _substantivum verbale_: \"He was like hiding of the face\nbefore Him,\" _i.e._, like a thing or person before which or whom we\nhide our face, because we cannot bear its horrible and disgusting\nappearance. But with one before whom we hide our face, the Servant of\nGod could not be compared; the comparison would, in that case, be\nweak.--[Hebrew: nbzh] is not the 1st pers. Fut. but Partic. Niph.,\n\"despised.\"--The close of the verse returns to its beginning, after\nhaving been, in the middle, established and made good.\n\nThe second subdivision from ver. 4 to ver. 7 furnishes us with the key\nto the sufferings of the Servant of God described in what precedes, by\npointing to their _vicarious character_, to which (ver. 7) the conduct\nof the Servant of God under His sufferings corresponds.\n\nVer. 4. \"_But our diseases He bore, and our pains He took upon Him: and\nwe esteemed Him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted._\"\n\nThe words [Hebrew: Hli] and [Hebrew: mkab] of the preceding verse here\nappear again. He was laden with disease and pains; but these\nsufferings, the wages of sin, were not inflicted upon Him on account\n[Pg 282] of His own sins, but on account of our sins, so that the\nhorror falls back upon ourselves, and is changed into loving admiration\nof Him. _Beck_ remarks: \"Properly speaking, they had not become sick or\nunfortunate at all; this had _a priori_ been rendered impossible by the\nvicarious suffering of the Son of God; but since they deserved the\nsickness and calamity, the averting of it might be considered as a\nhealing.\" But this view is altogether the result of embarrassment.\nDisease is the inseparable companion of sin. If the persons speaking\nare subject to the latter, the disease cannot be considered as an evil\nmerely threatening them. If they speak of their diseases, we think, in\nthe first instance, of sickness by which they have already been seized;\nand the less obvious sense ought to have been expressly indicated. In\nthe same manner, the healing also suggests hurts already existing. But\nquite decisive is ver. 6, where the miserable condition clearly appears\nto have already taken place.--According to the opinion of several\ninterpreters, by diseases, all inward and outward sufferings are\nfiguratively designated; according to the opinion of others,\n_spiritual_ diseases, sins. But even from the relation of this verse to\nthe preceding, it appears that here, in the first instance, diseases\nand pains, in the ordinary sense, are spoken of; just as the blind and\ndeaf in chap. xxxv. are, in the first instance, they who are naturally\nblind and deaf.--Disease and pain here cannot be spoken of in a sense\ndifferent from that in which it is spoken of there. Diseases, in the\nsense of _sins_, do not occur at all in the Old Testament. The\ncircumstance that in the parallel passage, vers. 11 and 12, the bearing\nof the _transgressions_ and _sins_ is spoken of, does not prove\nanything. The Servant of God bears them also in their consequences, in\ntheir punishments, among which sickness and pains occupy a prominent\nplace. Of the bearing of outward sufferings, [Hebrew: nwa Hli] occurs\nin Jer. x. 19 also. If the words are rightly understood, then at once,\nlight falls upon the apostolic quotation in Matt. viii. 16, 17: [Greek:\npantas tous kak\u00f4s echontas etherapeusen, hop\u00f4s pl\u00ear\u00f4th\u00ea to rh\u00eathen dia\n\u00casaiou tou proph\u00eatou legontos. autos tas astheneias h\u00eam\u00f4n elabe kai tas\nnosous ebastase]; and this deserves a consideration so much the more\ncareful, that the Evangelist here intentionally deviates from the\nAlexandrine version ( [Greek: houtos tas hamartias h\u00eam\u00f4n pherei kai\nperi h\u00eam\u00f4n odunatai]). In doing so, \"we [Pg 283] do not give an\nexternal meaning to that which is to be understood spiritually;\" but\nwhen the Saviour healed the sick, He fulfilled the prophecy before us\nin its most proper and obvious sense. And this fulfilment is even now\ngoing on. For him who stands in a living faith in Christ, sickness,\npain, and, in general all sorrow, have lost their sting. But it has not\nyet appeared what we shall be, and we have still to expect the complete\nfulfilment. In the Kingdom of glory, sickness and pain shall have\naltogether disappeared.--Some interpreters would translate [Hebrew:\nnwa] by \"to take away;\" but even the parallel [Hebrew: sbl] is\nconclusive against such a view; and, farther, the ordinary use of\n[Hebrew: nwa] of the bearing of the punishment of sin, _e.g._, Ezek.\nxviii. 19; Num. xiv. 33; Lev. v. 1, xx. 17. But of conclusive weight is\nthe connection with the preceding verse, where the Servant of God\nappears as the intimate acquaintance of sickness, as the man of pains.\nHe has, accordingly, not only _put away_ our sicknesses and pains, but\nHe has, as our substitute, _taken them upon Him_; He has healed us by\nHis having himself become sick in our stead. This could be done only by\nHis having, in the first instance, as a substitute, appropriated our\n_sins_, of which the sufferings are the consequence; compare 1 Peter\nii. 24: [Greek: hos tas hamartias h\u00eam\u00f4n autos an\u00eanenken en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati\nautou epi to xulon.]--_Plagued_, _smitten of God_, _afflicted_, are\nexpressions which were commonly used in reference to the visitation of\nsinful men. It is especially in the word _plagued_, which is\nintentionally placed first, that the reference to a self-deserved\nsuffering is strongly expressed, compare Ps. lxxiii. 14: \"For all the\nday long am I _plagued_, and my chastisement is new every morning.\" Of\nUzziah, visited on account of his sin, it is said in 2 Kings xv. 5:\n\"And the Lord inflicted a _plague_ upon the king, and he was a leper\nunto the day of his death.\" [Hebrew: nge] \"plague\" is in Lev. xiii., as\nit were, _nomen proprium_ for the leprosy, which in the law is so\ndistinctly designated as a punishment of sin.--[Hebrew: hkh] too, is\nfrequently used of the infliction of divine punishments and judgments.\nNum. xiv. 12; Deut. xxviii. 22. The people did not err in considering\nthe suffering as a punishment of sin, but only in considering it as a\npunishment for the sins committed by the Servant of God himself.\nAccording to the view of both the Old and New Testament, every\nsuffering is [Pg 284] punishment. The suffering of a perfect saint,\nhowever, involves a contradiction, unless it be vicarious. By his\ncompletely stepping out of the territory of sin, he must also step out\nof the territory of evil, which, according to the doctrine established\nat the very threshold of revelation, is the wages of sin, for otherwise\nGod would not be holy and just. Hence, as regards the Servant of God,\nwe have only the alternatives: either His sinlessness must be doubted,\nor the vicarious nature of His sufferings must be acknowledged. The\npersons speaking took up, at first, the former position; after their\neyes had been opened, they chose the latter.\n\nVer. 5, \"_And He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our\niniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His\nwounds we are healed._\"\n\n[Hebrew: hva] \"He\" stands in front, in order emphatically to point out\nHim who suffered as a substitute, in contrast to those who had really\ndeserved the punishment: \"He, on account of our transgressions.\" There\nis no reason for deviating:, in the case of [Hebrew: Hll], from the\noriginal signification \"to pierce,\" and adopting the general\nsignification \"to wound;\" the LXX. [Greek: etraumatisth\u00ea]. _The\nchastisement of our peace_ is the chastisement whereby peace is\nacquired for us. Peace stands as an individualizing designation of\nsalvation; in the world of contentions, peace is one of the highest\nblessings. Natural man is on all sides surrounded by enemies; [Greek:\ndikai\u00f4thentes ek piste\u00f4s eir\u00ean\u00ean echomen pros ton Theo dia tou kuriou\nh\u00eam\u00f4n I\u00easou Christou], Rom. v. 1, and peace with God renders all other\nenemies innocuous, and at last removes them altogether. The peace is\ninseparable from the substitution. If the Servant of God has borne our\nsins, He has thereby, at the same time, acquired peace; for, just as He\nenters into our guilt, so we now enter into His reward. The justice of\nGod has been satisfied through Him; and thus an open way has been\nprepared for His bestowing peace and salvation. The _chastisement_ can,\naccording to the context, be only an actual one, only such as consists\nin the infliction of some _evil_. It is in misconception and narrowness\nof view that the explanation of the followers of _Menke_ originated:\n\"The instruction for our peace is with Him.\" This explanation militates\nagainst the whole context, in which not the _doctrine_ but the\n_suffering_ of the Servant of God is spoken of; against the parallelism\n[Pg 285] with: \"By His wounds we are healed;\" against the [Hebrew:\neliv], \"upon Him,\" which, according to a comparison with: \"He bore our\ndisease, and took upon Him our pains,\" must indicate that the\npunishment lay upon the sufferer like a pressing _burden_. It is only\nfrom aversion to the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ,\nthat we can account for the fact, that that doctrine could be so\ngenerally received by that theological school. More candid are the\nrationalistic interpreters. Thus _Hitzig_ remarks: \"_The chastisement\nof our peace_ is not a chastisement which would have been salutary for\nour morality, nor such as might serve for our salvation, but according\nto the parallelism, such as has served for our salvation, and has\nallowed us to come off safe and unhurt.\" _Stier_, too, endeavours to\nexplain the \"chastisement of our peace,\" in an artificial way.\nAccording to him, there is always implied in [Hebrew: mvsr] the\ntendency towards setting right and healing the chastised one himself;\nbut wherever this word occurs, a retributive pain and destruction are\nnever spoken of But, in opposition to this view, there is the fact that\n[Hebrew: mvsr] does not by any means rarely occur as signifying the\npunishments which are inflicted upon stiff-necked obduracy, and which\nbear a destructive character, and which, therefore, cannot be derived\nfrom the principle of correction, but from that of retribution only.\nThus, _e.g._, in Prov. xv. 10: \"Bad _chastisement_ shall be to those\nthat forsake the way, and he that hateth chastisement shall die,\" on\nwhich _Michaelis_ remarks: \"_In antanaclasi ad correptionem amicam et\npaternum, mortem et mala quaelibet inferens, in ira_,\" Ps. vi. 2. Of\ndestructive punishment, too, the verb is used in Jer. ii. 19. But one\ndoes not at all see how the idea of \"setting right\" should be suitable\nhere; for surely, as regards the Servant of God himself, the absolutely\nRighteous, the suffering here has the character of chastisement. It is\nnot the mere suffering, but the chastisement, which is upon Him; but\nthat necessarily requires that the punishment should proceed from the\nprinciple of _retribution_, and that the Servant of God stands forth as\nour Substitute.--[Hebrew: nrpa], Preter. Niph., hence \"healing has been\nbestowed upon us;\"--[Hebrew: rpa] with [Hebrew: l], in the\nsignification \"to bring healing,\" occurs also in chap. vi. 10, but\nnowhere else. The healing is an individualising designation of\ndeliverance from the punishments of sin, called forth by the [Pg 286]\ncircumstance that disease occupied so prominent a place among them, and\nhad therefore been so prominently brought forward in what precedes. In\nharmony with the Apostolic quotation, the expression clearly shows that\nthe punitive sufferings were already lying upon the persons speaking;\nthat by the Substitute they were not by any means delivered from the\nfuture evils, but that the punishment, the inseparable companion of\nsin, already existed, and was taken away by Him.\n\nVer. 6. \"_All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one\nto his own way, and the Lord hath made the iniquities of us all to fall\nupon Him._\"\n\n_Calvin_ remarks: \"In order the more strongly to impress upon the\nhearts of men the benefits of Christ's death, the Prophet shews how\nnecessary is that healing which was mentioned before. There is herd an\nelegant antithesis; for, in ourselves we are scattered, but, in Christ\ncollected; by nature we go astray and are carried headlong to\ndestruction,--in Christ we find the way in which we are led to the gate\nof salvation; our iniquities cover and oppress us,--but they are\ntransferred to Christ by whom we are unburdened.\"--_All we_--in the\nfirst instance, members of the covenant-people,--not, however, as\ncontrasted with the rest of mankind, but as partaking in the general\nhuman destiny.--_We have turned every one to his own way_; we walked\nthrough life solitary, forsaken, miserable, separated from God and the\ngood Shepherd, and deprived of His pastoral care. According to\n_Hofmann_, the going astray designates the _liability_ to punishment,\nbut not the misery of the speakers; and the words also: \"We have\nturned,\" &c., mean, according to him, that they chose their own ways,\nbut not that they walked sorrowful or miserable. But the ordinary use\nof the image militates against that view. In Ps. cxix. 176: \"I go\nastray like a lost sheep, seek thy servant,\" the going astray is a\nfigurative designation of being destitute of salvation. The misery of\nthe condition is indicated by the image of the scattered flock, also in\n1 Kings xxii. 17: \"I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills as sheep\nthat have not a shepherd.\" _Michaelis_ pertinently remarks: \"Nothing is\nso miserable as sheep without a shepherd,--a thing which Scripture so\noften repeats, Num. xxvii. 17,\" &c. As a commentary upon our passage,\nEzek. xxxiv. 4-6 may serve; [Pg 287] and according to that passage we\nshall be compelled to think of their being destitute of the care of a\nshepherd: \"And they are scattered, because there is no Shepherd; and\nthey become meat to all the beasts of the field. My sheep wander on all\nthe mountains, and on every high hill, and over the whole land my sheep\nare scattered, and there is none that careth for them, or seeketh\nthem.\" The point of comparison is very distinctly stated in Matt. ix.\n36 also: [Greek: id\u00f4n de tous ochlous esplanchnisthe peri aut\u00f4n, hoti\n\u00easan eskulmenoi kai erhrimenoi h\u00f4sei probata m\u00ea echonta poimena.]\nWithout doubt, turning to one's own ways is sinful, comp. chap. lvi.\n11; but here it is not so much the aspect of sin, as that of misery,\nwhich is noticed. As the chief reason of the sheep's wandering and\ngoing astray, the bad condition of the shepherd must be considered,\ncomp. Jer. l. 6: \"Perishing sheep were my people; their shepherds led\nthem astray,\" John x. 8: [Greek: pantes hosoi pro emou \u00ealthon, kleptai\neisi kai l\u00eastai.]--[Hebrew: pge] with [Hebrew: b] signifies \"to hit;\"\nhence _Hiphil_, \"to cause to hit.\" The iniquities of the whole\ncommunity _hit_ the Servant of God in their punishments; but according\nto the biblical view, their punishments can come upon Him only as such,\nonly by His coming forward as a substitute for sinners, and not because\nHe suffers for the guilt of others to which He remained a stranger. By\nthis throwing the guilt upon the Servant of God, the condition of being\nwithout a shepherd is _done_ away with, the flock is gathered from its\nscattered condition. The wall of separation which was raised by its\nguilt, and which separated it from God, the fountain of salvation, is\nnow removed by His substitution, and the words: \"The Lord is my\nShepherd,\" now become a truth, comp. John x. 4.\n\nVer. 7. \"_He was oppressed, and when He was plagued, He does not open\nHis mouth, like a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a\nsheep which is dumb before her shearers, and He does not open his\nmouth._\"\n\nIn these words, we have a description of the manner in which the\nServant of God _bore_ such sufferings. It flows necessarily from the\ncircumstance, that it was a vicarious suffering. The substitution\nimplies that He took them upon Him spontaneously; and this has patience\nfor its companion. First, the contents of ver. 6 are once more summed\nup in the word [Hebrew: ngw], \"He was oppressed:\" then, this condition\nof the Servant [Pg 288] of God is brought into connection with His\n_conduct_, which, only in this connection, appears in its full\nmajesty.--[Hebrew: ngw] is the Preterite in _Niphal_, and not, as\n_Beck_ thinks, 1st pers. Fut. _Kal_. For the Future would be here\nunusual; the verb has elsewhere the Future in _o_; the suffix is\nwanting, and the sense which then arises suits only the untenable\nsupposition that, in vers. 1-10, the _Gentiles_ are speaking. The\n_Niphal_ occurs in 1 Sam. xiii. 6, of Israel oppressed by the\nPhilistines; and in 1 Sam. xiv. 24, of those borne down by heavy toil\nand fatigue. [Hebrew: ngw] and [Hebrew: nenh] \"to be humbled,\noppressed, abused,\" do not, in themselves essentially differ; it is\nonly on account of the context, and the contrast implied in it, that\nthe same condition is once more designated by a word which is nearly\nsynonymous. The words \"and He\" separate [Hebrew: nenh] from what\nprecedes, and connect it with what follows. The explanation: \"He was\noppressed, but He suffered patiently,\" has this opposed to it, that the\ntwo _Niphals_, following immediately upon one another, cannot here\nstand in a different meaning. The idea of patience would here not be a\ncollateral, but the main idea, and hence, could not stand without a\nstronger designation.--In [Hebrew: iptH], the real Future has taken the\nplace of the ideal Past; it shows that the preceding Preterites are to\nbe considered as prophetical, and that, in point of fact, the suffering\nof the Servant of God is no less future than His glorification. The\n_lamb_ points back to Exod. xii. 3, and designates Christ as the true\npaschal lamb. With a reference to the verse under consideration, John\nthe Baptist calls Christ the Lamb of God, John i. 29; comp. 1 Pet. i.\n18, 19; Acts viii. 32-35. But since it is not the vicarious character\nof Christ's sufferings which here, in the first instance, comes into\nconsideration, but His patience under them, the lamb is associated with\nthe female sheep, and that not in relation to her slayers, but to her\nshearers. The last words: \"And He does not open His mouth,\" are not to\nbe referred to the lamb, as some think, (even the circumstance that the\npreceding [Hebrew: rHl] is a feminine noun militates against this\nview), but, like the first: \"He does not open His mouth,\" to the\nServant of God. It is an expressive repetition, and one which is\nintended to direct attention to this feature; comp. the close of ver.\n3; Gen. xlix. 4: Judges v. 16. The fulfilment is shown by 1 Pet. ii.\n23: [Pg 289] [Greek: hos loidoroumenos ouk anteloidorei, pasch\u00f4n ouk\n\u00eapeilei, paredidou de t\u00f4 krinonti dikai\u00f4s]; and likewise Matt. xxvii.\n12-14: [Greek: kai en t\u00f4 kat\u00eagoreisthai auton hupo t\u00f4n archiere\u00f4n kai\nt\u00f4n presbuter\u00f4n ouen apekrinato. Tote legei aut\u00f4 ho Pilatos. ouk\nakoueis posasou katamarturousi; kai ouk apekrith\u00ea aut\u00f4 pros ouden hen\nrh\u00eama, h\u00f4ste thaumazein ton h\u00eagemona lian.] Comp. xxvi. 62; Mark xv. 5;\nLuke xxiii. 9; John xix. 9.\n\nThe third subdivision of the principal portion, vers. 8-10, describes\n_the reward of the Servant of God_, by expanding the words: \"Kings\nshall shut their mouths on account of Him,\" in chap. lii. 15, and \"He\nshall be exalted,\" in ver. 13.\n\nVer. 8. \"_From oppression and from judgment He was taken, and His\ngeneration who can think it out; for He was cut of out of the land of\nthe living for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._\"\n\nGod--such is the sense--takes Him to himself from heavy oppression, and\nHe who apparently was destroyed without leaving a trace, receives an\ninfinitely numerous generation (compare John xii. 32: [Greek: kag\u00f4\nhean hups\u00f4th\u00f4 ek t\u00eas g\u00eas pantas helkus\u00f4 pros emauton]), as a deserved\nreward for having, by His violent death, atoned for the sins of His\npeople, delivered them from destruction, and acquired them for His\nproperty.--[Hebrew: ecr] \"oppression,\" as Ps. cvii. 39, properly,\naccording to the signification of the verb: \"Shutting up,\"\n\"restraining,\" \"hindering.\" From what goes before, where the evils from\nwhich the Servant of God is here delivered are described more in\ndetail, it appears that here we have not to think of a prison properly\nso called; for there, it is not a prison, but abuse and oppression\nwhich are spoken of.--[Hebrew: mwpT] is commonly referred to the\njudgment which the enemies of the Servant of God passed upon Him, The\npremised [Hebrew: ecr] then furnishes the distinct qualification of the\njudgment, shows that that which, in a formal point of view, presents\nitself as a judicial proceeding, is, in point of fact, heavy\noppression. But, at the same time, [Hebrew: mwpT] serves as a\nlimitation for [Hebrew: ecr]. We learn from it that the hatred of the\nenemies moved within the limits of judicial proceedings,--just as it\nhappened in the history of Christ. But behind the human judgment, the\n_divine_ is concealed, Jer. i. 16; Ezek. v. 8; Ps. cxliii. 2. This is\nshown by what precedes, where the suffering of the Servant of God is so\nemphatically and repeatedly designated as the punishment of sin\ninflicted upon [Pg 290] Him by God.--[Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN]\n\"to be taken away from;\" according to _Stier_: \"taken away from\nsuffering, being delivered from it by God's having taken Him to\nhimself, to the land of eternal bliss.\" This view, according to which\nthe words refer to the glorification of the Servant of God, has been\nadopted by the Church. It is adopted by the Vulgate: \"_De angustia\net judicio sublatus est_;\" by _Jerome_, who says on this passage:\n\"From tribulation and judgment He ascended, as a conqueror, to the\nFather;\" and by _Michaelis_ who thus interprets it: \"He was taken\naway, and received at the right hand of the Majesty.\" By several\ninterpretations, the words are still referred to the state of\nhumiliation of the Servant of God: \"_Through_ oppression and judgment\nHe was _dragged to execution_.\" But the Prophet has already, in ver. 3,\nfinished the description of the mere sufferings of the Servant of\nGod--vers. 4-7 exhibit the cause of His sufferings and His conduct\nunder them; [Hebrew: lqH] cannot, by itself, signify \"to be dragged to\nexecution\"--in that case, as in Prov. xxiv. 11, \"to death\" would have\nbeen added; [Hebrew: mN] must be taken in the signification, \"from,\"\n\"out of,\" as in the subsequent [Hebrew: marC], compare 2 Kings iii. 9,\nwhere [Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN] signifies \"to take from.\" In the\npassage under consideration, as well as in those two passages which\nrefer to the ascension of Elijah, there is a distinct allusion to Gen.\nv. 24, where it is said of Enoch: \"And he was no more, for God had\n_taken_ him.\"--_And His generation who can think it out?_ [Hebrew:\ndvr], properly \"circle,\" is not only the communion of those who are\nconnected by co-existence, but also of those who are connected by\ndisposition, be it good or bad.[6] Thus, the generation of the children\nof God in Ps. lxxiii. 15; the generation of the righteous, Ps. xiv. 5;\nthe generation of the upright, in Ps. cxii. 2. Here, the generation of\nthe Servant of God is the communion of those who are animated by His\nSpirit, filled with His life. This company will, after His death,\nincrease to an infinite greatness. [Hebrew: wvH] and [Hebrew: wiH] \"to\nmeditate,\" is commonly connected with [Hebrew: b] of the object, but\noccurs also with [Pg 291] the simple Accusative, in the signification\n\"to meditate upon something,\" in Ps. cxlv. 5. There is, as it appears,\nan allusion to the promise to Abraham, Gen. xiii. 16: \"And I make thy\nseed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of\nthe earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered,\"--a promise which\nreceived its complete fulfilment just by the Servant of God. The\nexplanation which we have given was adopted by the LXX.: [Greek: t\u00ean\ngenean autou tis di\u00eag\u00easetai.] Next to it, comes the explanation: \"Who\ncan think out His _posterity_;\" but against this, it is conclusive that\n[Hebrew: dvr] never occurs in the signification \"posterity.\" The\nparallel passage in ver. 10: \"He shall see seed,\" or \"posterity,\" holds\ngood even for our view; for since the posterity is a _spiritual_ one,\nit is substantially identical with _generation_ here. But it may, _a\npriori_, be expected that the same thing shall be designated from\nvarious aspects. If \"generation\" be taken in the signification\n\"posterity,\" then the words: \"He shall see seed\" would be a mere\nrepetition. The appropriateness of the sense which, according to our\nexplanation, comes out, will become especially evident, if we consider\nthat, in vers. 8-10, we have the carrying out of that which, in the\nsketch, was said of the respectful homage of the many nations and\nkings. A whole host of explanations assigns to [Hebrew: dvr]\nsignifications which cannot be vindicated. Thus, the translation of\n_Luther_: \"Who shall disclose the length of His life?\" that of\n_Hitzig_: His destiny; that of _Beck_: His importance and influence in\nthe history of the world; that of _Knobel_: His dwelling place, _i.e._,\nHis grave, who considered? The signification, \"dwelling place,\" does\nnot at all belong to [Hebrew: dvr]. In Isaiah xxxviii. 12, [Hebrew:\ndvr] are the cotemporaries from whom the dying man is taken away, and\nwho are withdrawn from him: \"My _generation_ is taken away, and removed\nfrom me like a shepherd's tent\"--dying Hezekiah there laments.\nInadmissible, likewise, is the explanation: \"Who of His cotemporaries\nwill consider, or considered, it\" for [Hebrew: at], the sign of the\nAccusative, cannot stand before the _Nomin. Absol._ In Nehem. ix. 34,\nthis use is by no means certain, and, at all events, we cannot draw any\ninference from the language of Nehemiah as to that of Isaiah. The\nEllipses: \"the true cause of His death,\" \"the importance and fruit of\nHis death,\" \"the salvation lying behind it\" (_Stier_), are very [Pg\n292] hard, and the sense which is purchased by such sacrifices is\nrather a common-place one, little suitable to this context, and to the\nrelation to chap. lii. 15.--\"_For He was cut off from the land of the\nliving, for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._\" The\nreason is here stated why the Servant of God receives so glorious a\nreward; why, after He has been removed to God, a generation so\ninfinitely great is granted to Him. _He has deserved this reward by His\nhaving suffered for the sins of His people, as their substitute._ The\nfirst clause must not be separated from the second: \"for the\ntransgression,\" &c. For it is not the circumstance, that the Servant of\nGod suffered a violent death at all, but that for the sin of His people\nHe took it upon Him, which is the ground of His glorification. [Hebrew:\nngzr] \"to be cut off\" never occurs of a quiet, natural death; not even\nin the passage, quoted in support of this use of the word, viz., Psa.\nlxxxviii. 6; Lam. iii. 54, but always of a violent, premature death.\nThe cognate [Hebrew: ngrz] also has, in Psa. xxxi. 23, the\nsignification of extermination. [Hebrew: lmv], poetical form for\n[Hebrew: lhM], refers to the collective [Hebrew: eM]. Before it, the\nrelative pronoun is to be understood: for the sin of my people, whose\nthe punishment, _q.d._, whose property the punishment was, to whom it\nbelonged. _Stier_ prefers to adopt the most violent interpretation\nrather than to conform and yield to this so simple sense, which, as he\nsays, could be entertained only by that obsolete theory of substitution\nwhere one saves the other from suffering. Several interpreters take the\nsuffix in [Hebrew: lmv] as a Singular: \"on account of the transgression\nof my people, punishment was to Him.\" And passages, indeed, are not\nwanting where the supposition that [Hebrew: mv] designates the\nSingular, has some appearance of probability; but, upon a closer\nexamination, this appearance everywhere vanishes.[7] Moreover, as we\nhave already remarked, it is, on account of the sense, inadmissible to\nseparate the two clauses.--By [Hebrew: emi] \"my people,\" the hypothesis\nof the non-Messianic interpreters is set aside, that in [Pg 293] vers.\n1-10 the _Gentiles_ are speaking. It is a single people to which the\nspeakers belong, the covenant-people, for whose benefit the atonement\nand substitution of the Servant of God were, _in the first instance_,\nintended (comp. [Greek: s\u00f4sei ton laon hautou apo t\u00f4n hamarti\u00f4n aut\u00f4n],\nMatth. i. 21) yea, were, to a certain degree, exclusively intended,\ninasmuch as the believing Gentiles were received into it as adopted\nchildren. It is a forced expedient to say: every single individual of\nthe Gentiles, or of their princes, says that the Servant of God has\nsuffered for the sin of His people, hence also for His own. And just as\ninadmissible is the supposition that a representative of the heathen\nworld is speaking; the whole heathen world cannot be designated as a\npeople.\n\nVer. 9. \"_And they gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich\nin His death, because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit\nin His mouth._\"\n\n[Hebrew: vitN] is intentionally without a definite Subject, _q.d._: it\nwas given to Him, _Ewald_ \u00a7 273a. The acting subject could not be at\nall more distinctly marked out, because there was a _double_ subject.\nMen fixed for Him the ignominious grave with criminals; by the\nprovidence of God, He received the honourable grave with a rich, and\nthat for the sake of His innocent sufferings, as a prelude to the\ngreater glorification which, as a reward, was to be bestowed upon Him,\nas an example of what is said in ver. 12: \"He shall divide spoil with\nthe strong.\" The _wicked_ who are buried apart from others, can be the\nreal criminals only, the transgressors in ver. 12. Criminals received,\namong the Jews, an ignominious burial. Thus _Josephus_, Arch. iv. 8, \u00a7\n6, says: \"He who has blasphemed God shall, after having been stoned, be\nhung up for a day, and be buried quietly and without honour.\"\n_Maimonides_ (see _Iken_ on this passage in the Biblia Hagana ii. 2)\nsays: \"Those who have been executed by the court of justice are not by\nany means buried in the graves of their ancestors; but there are two\ngraves appointed for them by the court of justice,--one for the stoned\nand burnt; the other for the decapitated and strangled.\" Just as the\nProphet had, in the preceding verse, said that the Servant of God would\ndie a violent death like a criminal, so he says here, that they had\nalso fixed for Him a grave in common with executed criminals. _And with\na rich_ [Pg 294] (they gave Him His grave) _in His death_: they gave\nHim His grave, first with the wicked; but, indeed, He received it with\na rich, since God's providence was watching over the dead body of His\nServant. [Hebrew: vitN], in so far as it refers to the first clause,\nreceives its limitation by the second. Before their fulfilment, the\nwords had the character of a holy riddle; but the fulfilment has solved\nthis riddle. The designation of Joseph of Arimathea as [Greek:\nanthr\u00f4pos plousios] in Matt. xxvi. 57, is equivalent to an express\nquotation. Although it was by a special divine providence that the\nSingular was chosen, yet we may suppose that, in the first instance,\nthe rich man here is contrasted with the wicked men, and is an ideal\nperson, the personified idea of the species. _In His death_ is, in\npoint of fact, equivalent to: \"after He had died;\" but,\nnotwithstanding, there is no necessity for giving to the [Hebrew: b]\nthe signification \"after.\" Death rather denotes the _condition of\ndeath_; _in death_ is contrasted with: _in life_. Altogether in the\nsame manner we find in Lev. xi. 31: \"Whosoever doth touch them in their\ndeath,\" for, \"after they have died.\" _Farther_--1 Kings xiii. 31: \"In\nmy death you shall bury me in the sepulchre.\" The Plural [Hebrew:\nmvtiM] \"the deaths,\" \"conditions of death,\" cannot be adduced as a\nproof that the subject of the prophecy must be a collective person;\nfor, in that case, rather the Plural of the suffix would be required\n(Ps. lxxviii. 64 is a rare exception); and in Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10,\ndeath is likewise spoken of in the Plural. The Plural is formed after\nthe analogy of [Hebrew: HiiM], for which reason it commends itself to\nexplain [Hebrew: arC HiiM] in the preceding verse, \"land of life,\"\ninstead of \"land of the living.\" But the Plural can here the less\noccasion any difficulty, that it is not dying which is spoken of, but\nthe continuing condition of death.--_Because He had done no violence_,\n&c. [Hebrew: el] very frequently denotes the cause upon which the\neffect depends, _e.g._, in 1 Kings xvi. 7; Ps. xliv. 23, lxix. 8; Jer.\nxv. 15; Job xxxiv. 6. The whole following clause is treated as a noun.\nOrdinarily, it is explained: Although, &c. But this use of [Hebrew: el]\nis quite isolated; it occurs only in two passages of the Book of Job,\nin x. 7 and xxxiv. 6. The former explanation is found in the Alexand.\nversion: [Greek: hoti anomian ouk epoi\u00ease.] The innocence is designated\nnegatively, and in an external manner ( [Hebrew: Hms] and [Hebrew:\nmrmh] are gross sins). The reason of this is [Pg 295] in the intention\nof His enemies, which is expressed in the preceding words, to give Him\nHis grave with the wicked. Since He had not acted like them, God took\ncare that He did not receive their ignominious burial, but an\nhonourable one. In reference to the passage under consideration, it is\nsaid in 1 Pet. ii. 22: [Greek: hos amartian ouk epoi\u00ease oude heurethe\ndolos en t\u00f4 stomati autou]. Instead of \"violence,\" Peter intentionally\nemploys \"sin.\"--_Hofmann_ has advanced the following arguments against\nthe explanation which we have given. 1. \"By what is this contrast\n(which, according to our explanation, is contained in the words: They\ngave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death)\nto be recognized in the text? There remains no trace of a contrast,\nunless it be contained in [Hebrew: rweiM] and [Hebrew: ewir]. Are these\nreally two ideas so contradictory, that they alone are sufficient to\nbring into contrariety two clauses which have altogether the appearance\nof being intended for the same purpose?\" But in this argument,\n_Hofmann_ overlooks the circumstance, that the wicked are specially\n_criminals_--for they alone had a peculiar grave--and that it is not\nthe general relation of the wicked and rich to one another which comes\ninto consideration, but especially the relation in which they stand to\none another as regards the _burial_. If this be kept in view, it is at\nonce evident that the contrariety is expressed with sufficient\nclearness. From Isa. xxii. 16; Job xxi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 57, it appears\nthat the rich man, and the honourable grave, are closely connected with\neach other. Hence, it must have been by an opposite activity that to\nthe Servant of God a grave was assigned with the wicked, and with a\nrich. 2. \"To be rich is not in itself a sin which deserved an\nignominious burial, far less received it, but on the other hand, to\nfind his grave with a rich man is not an indemnification to the just\nfor the disgrace of having died the death of a criminal.\" But the fact\nthat the first Evangelist reports it so minutely (Matt. xxvii. 57-61)\nclearly enough shows the importance of the circumstance; comp. also how\nJohn, in chap. xix. 33 ff., points out the circumstance that Christ's\nlegs were not broken, as were those of the malefactors. In the little,\nthe great is prepared and prefigured. And although the burial with a\nrich man is, in itself, of no small importance when viewed as the first\npoint where the exaltation [Pg 296] began--in the connection with the\npreceding and following verses, we cannot but look upon it as being\nsymbolically significant and important. And how could it be otherwise,\nsince the burial of the Servant of God with a rich man implies that the\nrich man himself has been gained for Him? It has, farther, been\nobjected that Christ was not buried _with_ Joseph, but in his grave\nonly, but in an ideal point of view _with_ has its full right. Comp.\nchap. xiv. 19, where it is said to the king of Babylon: \"But thou art\ncast out of thy grave,\" although, bodily, he had not yet been in the\ngrave; but he had a right to come like his ancestors; he had, in an\nideal point of view, taken his place there.--_Beck_ says: \"The orthodox\nexpositors are strongly embarrassed with these words.\" That is indeed a\nremarkable interchange of positions. Embarrassment!--that is the sign\nof everything which unscriptural exegesis advances on this verse. It is\nconcentrated in the [Hebrew: ewir]. The most varied conjectures and\nfreaks are here so many symptoms of helpless embarrassment. According\nto the opinion of several interpreters, the rich man here stands in the\nsense of the ungodly. In this, even _Luther_ (marginal note: \"rich man,\none who in his doings founds himself on riches,\" _i.e._, an ungodly\nman), and _Calvin_ had preceded them. The assertion that the rich, can\nsimply stand for the wicked, can neither be proved from Job xxvii. 19\n(for there, according to the context, the rich is equivalent to \"he who\nis wicked, notwithstanding his riches\"), nor from the word of the Lord\nin Matt. xix. 23: [Greek: duskol\u00f4s plousios eiseleusetai eis t\u00ean\nbasileian t\u00f4n ouran\u00f4n.] For that which, on a special occasion, the Lord\nhere says of the rich, applies to the poor also. Poverty, not less than\nwealth, is encompassed with obstacles to conversion, which can be\nremoved only by the omnipotence of divine grace. According to Matt.\nxiii. 22, the word is not only choked by the deceitfulness of riches,\nbut is as much so by care also, the dangers of which are particularly\nset forth by our Lord in Matt. vi. 25 ff. In Prov. xxx. 8, 9 it is\nsaid: \"Give me neither poverty nor riches, lest I be full and deny\nthee, and say: Where is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take\nthe name of my God in vain.\" The dangers of riches are more frequently\npointed out in Scripture than those of poverty; but this fact is\naccounted for by the circumstance, that riches are surrounded [Pg 297]\nwith a glittering appearance, and that it is therefore necessary to\nwarn those who are apt to choose them for their highest good. _Stier_\nrightly calls to mind the promise of earthly blessings to those who\nfear God. But the circumstance must not be overlooked that the rich\ncomes here into consideration, chiefly as to his _burial_. The Prophet\nwould then not only proceed from the idea that all rich people are\nwicked, but also would simply suppose that all the rich receive an\nignominious burial. But of that, the parable of the rich man in Luke\nxvi. 22, knows nothing: [Greek: apethane de kai ho plousios kai\netaph\u00ea], according to his riches; it is in hell only that he receives\nhis reward. In opposition to _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_ remarks: \"That\ntransition of the signification is a fable.\" Following the example of\n_Martini_ he derives [Hebrew: ewir] from the Arabic. But in opposition\nto that, _Gesenius_ again remarks in the _Thesaurus_: \"_Sed haud\nminoribus difficultatibus laborat ea ratio, qua improbitatis\nsignificatum voluerunt Martinius et Hitzigius, collata nimirum radice_\n[Hebrew: ewr] \"_caespitavit_.\" _Tum enim haec radix nullam prorsum cum\nverbo_ [Hebrew: ewr] _necessitudinem habet, ita ut_ [Hebrew: ewir] _h.\nl._ [Greek: ap. leg.] _esset; tum caespitandi vis nusquam ad peccatum,\nlicet ad fortunam adversam, translata est._\" If, with words of such\nfrequent occurrence, it were allowable to search in the dialects, the\nbusiness of the expounder would be a very ungrateful one. Nor does the\nform, which is commonly passive, favour this interpretation. According\nto _Beck_, [Hebrew: ewir] is another form for [Hebrew: eriC]. Others\nwould change the reading. _Ewald_ proposes [Hebrew: ewiq]; B\u00f6ttcher,\n[Hebrew: ewi re]. Against all those conjectures, moreover, the\ncircumstance militates, that, according to them, the verse would still\nbelong to the humiliation of the Servant of God; whereas the\ndescription of the glorification had already begun in the preceding\nverse. For [Hebrew: bmvtiv] \"in His death,\" _Gesenius_ and others\npropose to read [Hebrew: bmvtiv], to which they assign the\nsignification \"His tomb-hill.\" But, altogether apart from this\narbitrary change of the vowels, there is opposed to this conjecture the\ncircumstance, that [Hebrew: bmh] never occurs of the grave. According\nto _Gesenius_, [Hebrew: bmvt], in Ezek. xliii. means \"tombs;\" but the\ncommon signification \"high places,\" must be retained there also. In a\nspiritual point of view the sanctuaries of the Lord had become \"high\nplaces.\"\n\nVer. 10. \"_And the Lord was pleased painfully to crush_ [Pg 298] _Him:\nwhen His soul hath given restitution, He shall see seed, He shall\nprolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through\nHis hand._\"\n\n_And the Lord was pleased_--This pleasure of the Lord is not such an\none as proceeds from caprice. The ground on which it rests has already\nbeen minutely exhibited in what precedes. By the vicarious influence of\nthis suffering, peace is to be acquired for mankind; and since this\nobject is based upon the divine nature, upon God's mercy, the choice of\nthe means also, by which alone it could be attained (for, without a\nviolation of the divine character, sin could not remain unpunished),\nmust be traced to the divine character. _Here_ the ground on which the\npleasure rests is stated in the words immediately following,--a\nconnection which is clearly indicated by the obvious relation in which\nthe [Hebrew: HpC ihvh] of the close stands to [Hebrew: ihvh HpC] of the\nbeginning; so that the sense is: It was the pleasure, &c., and this for\nthe purpose that, after having made an offering for sin, He should see\nseed, &c. Hence the pleasure of the Lord has this in view:--that the\nwill of the Lord should be realized, His Servant glorified, and the\nsalvation of mankind promoted. _Painfully to crush Him._ [Hebrew: Hlh]\n\"to be sick,\" \"to suffer pains.\" In this sense the _Niphal_ occurs in\nAmos vi. 6, and the participle [Hebrew: nHlh] in the signification\n\"painful,\" \"grievous,\" in Nah. iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17, and other\npassages, In _Hiphil_ it means: \"to make painful,\" Mic. vi. 13. The\ncommon explanation, \"The Lord was pleased to crush Him, He has made Him\nsick,\" has this against it, that Copula and Suffix are wanting in\n[Hebrew: hHli], and that the word would come in unconnected, and in a\nvery disagreeable manner. And then the passage in Micah, which we have\nquoted, decides against it.--_When His soul hath given restitution._\nThere cannot be any doubt that, in a formal point of view, it is the\nsoul which gives restitution. _Knobel's_ explanation: \"His soul gives\nitself,\" is not countenanced by the _usus loquendi_; [Hebrew: wiM] is\nnot a reflective verb. As little can we suppose with _Hofmann_ that\n[Hebrew: twiM] is the second person, and an address to Jehovah. In\nopposition to this view, there is not only the circumstance that\nJehovah is spoken _of_ before and afterwards, but, in a material point\nof view, the circumstance also, that offerings for sin, and, generally,\nall sacrifices, were never offered up _by_ God, [Pg 299] but always\n_to_ God. The fact also, that according to the sequel, the Servant of\nGod receives the reward for His meritorious work, proves that it is He\nwho offers up the sacrifice. But, on the other hand, it is, in point of\nfact, the soul only which can be the _offering_, the _restitution_;\nfor it could scarcely be imagined that, just here, that should be\nomitted on which everything mainly depends. It is sufficiently evident,\nfrom what precedes, _who_ it is that offers the restitution; what\nthe restitution was, it was necessary distinctly to point out.\n_Farther_--In the case of sacrifices, it is just the soul upon which\nevery thing depends; so that if the soul be mentioned in a context\nwhich treats of sacrifices, it is, _a priori_, probable that it will be\nthe object offered up. In Lev. xvii. 11, it is said: \"For the soul of\nthe flesh is in the blood, and I give it to you upon the altar, to\natone for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for\nthe soul,\" viz., by the soul \"_per animam, vi animae in eo sanguine\nconstantis_\" (_Gussetius_).[8] The soul, when thus considered as the\npassive object, is here therefore in a high degree in its proper place;\nand there can the less be any doubt of its occurring here in this\nsense, that it occurs twice more in vers. 11 and 12, of the natural\npsychical life of the Servant of God, which was given up to suffering\nand death. But, on the other hand, if the soul be considered as the\nactive object, it stands here at all events rather idle,--a\ncircumstance which is sufficiently apparent from the supposition of\nseveral interpreters, that [Hebrew: npw] \"soul,\" stands here simply for\nthe personal pronoun,--\"His soul,\" for \"He,\" a _usus loquendi_ which\noccurs in Arabic, but not in Hebrew. And, strictly speaking, the\noffering of the sacrifice does not belong to the soul, but to the\nspirit of the Servant of God, compare Heb. ix. 14, according to which\npassage, Christ [Greek: dia pneumatos ai\u00f4niou heauton pros\u00eanenken\nam\u00f4mon t\u00f4 The\u00f4]; and on the subject of the difference between soul and\nspirit, compare my Commentary on Ps. iv. p. lxxxvii. But how will it\nnow be possible to reconcile and harmonize [Pg 300] our two results,\nthat, in a formal point of view, the soul is that which offers up, and,\nin a material point of view, that which is offered up? By the\nhypothesis that, _in a rhetorical way of speaking, that is here\nassigned to the soul as an action which, in point of fact, is done upon\nit._ All that is necessary is to translate: \"If His soul puts or gives\na trespass-offering;\" for, \"to put,\" stands here, as it does so\nfrequently, in the sense of \"to give,\" compare Ezek. xx. 28, where it\nis used in this sense in reference to sacrifice. But, in point of fact,\nthis is equivalent to: \"If it is made a trespass-offering,\" or, \"If He,\nthe Servant of God, offers it as a trespass-offering.\" It is analogous\nto this when, in Job xiv. 22, the soul of the deceased laments; and a\ncognate mode of representation prevails in Rev. vi. 9, where, to the\nsouls of the slain, life is assigned for the sole purpose of their\ngiving utterance to that which was the result of the thought regarding\nthem, in combination with the circumstances of the time. To a certain\ndegree analogous is also chap. lx. 7, where it is said of the\nsacrificial animals: \"They ascend, for my pleasure, mine altar.\" The\nfact that it is in reality the soul which is offered up, is confirmed\nalso by the remarkable reference to the passage before us in the\ndiscourses of our Lord. Our Lord says in John x. 12: [Greek: eg\u00f4 eimi\nho poim\u00ean ho kalos. ho poim\u00ean ho kalos t\u00ean chuch\u00ean hautou tith\u00easin\nhuper t\u00f4n probat\u00f4n.] Ver. 15: [Greek: kai t\u00ean chuch\u00ean mou tith\u00eami huper\nt\u00f4n probat\u00f4n.] Vers. 17, 18: [Greek: dia touto ho pat\u00ear me agapa, hoti\neg\u00f4 tith\u00eami t\u00ean psuch\u00ean mou hina palin lab\u00f4 aut\u00ean. Oudeis airei aut\u00ean\nap'emou, all'eg\u00f4 tith\u00eami aut\u00ean ap'emautou. exousian ech\u00f4 theinai\naut\u00ean, kai exousian ech\u00f4 palin labein aut\u00ean.] In John xv. 13: [Greek:\nmeizona taut\u00eas agap\u00ean oudeis echei hina tis t\u00ean psuch\u00ean autou th\u00ea huper\nphil\u00f4n hautou.] The expression: \"To put one's soul for some one,\" does\nnot, independently and by itself, occur anywhere else in the New\nTestament; in John xiii. 37, 38, Peter takes the word out of the mouth\nof the Saviour, and in 1 John iii. 16, it is used in reference to those\ndeclarations of our Lord. The expression is nowhere met with in any\nprofane writers, nor in the Hellenistic _usus loquendi_. The following\nreasons prove that it refers to the Old Testament, and especially to\nthe passage under consideration. 1. Its Hebraizing character. _De\nWette_ and _L\u00fccke_ erroneously take [Greek: theinai] in the sense of\nlaying down; but that is too negative. It is evident that the Hebraism\n\"to put,\" instead of \"to give,\" has been [Pg 301] transferred into\nGreek, as is proved by the synonymous [Greek: dounai t\u00ean psuch\u00ean\nhautou] in Mark x. 45; Matt. xx. 28.--2. The fact that the same\nuncommon expression occurs not fewer than five times in the same\ndiscourse of Christ, and that so intentionally and emphatically, is\nexplicable only when it was thereby intended to point to an important\nfundamental passage of the Old Testament.--3. In the discourses of our\nLord, the expression is, no less than in the passage before us, used of\nHis sacrificial death.--If, then, it be established that those passages\nin which our Lord speaks of a _putting_ of His soul, refer to the\npassage under consideration, this must be acknowledged of those also in\nwhich He speaks of a _giving_ of His soul, as in Matt. xx. 28: [Greek:\ndounai t\u00ean psuch\u00ean hautou lutron anti poll\u00f4n], where the [Greek:\nlutron] clearly points to the [Hebrew: awM] here. In all those\nutterances, the Saviour simply has reduced the words to what they\nsignify, just as, in quoting the passage Zech. xiii. 7, in Matt. xxvi.\n31, He likewise drops the rhetorical figure, the address to the sword.\nHe himself appears simply as He who offers up; the soul is that which\nis offered up.--[Hebrew: awM] is, in Numb. v. 5, called that of\nwhich some one has unjustly robbed another, and which he is bound\nto _repay_ to him. An essential feature of sin is the _robbing of\nGod_ which is thereby committed, the debt thereby incurred, which\nimplies the necessity of _recompence_. All sin-offerings are, in\nthe Mosaic economy, at the same time debt-offerings; and this feature\nis very intentionally and emphatically pointed out in them. If,\nbesides the sin-offerings, there is still established a kind of\ntrespass-offerings, the [Hebrew: awM], for sins in which the idea of\nincurring a debt comes out with special prominence, this is done only\nwith the view, that this feature, thus brought forward by itself and\nindependently, may be so much the more deeply impressed, in order that,\nin the other sin-offerings too, it may be the more clearly perceived.\nCompare the investigation on the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings\nin my work on the _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, ii. p. 174 ff. But\nthe sin- and trespass-offerings of the Old Testament typically point to\na true spiritual sin- and trespass-offering; and their chief object was\nto awaken in the people of God the consciousness of the necessity of\nsubstitution (compare my Book: _Die Opfer der Heil. Schrift_, Berlin\n1852). This antetypical sacrifice will be offered up by the true\nHigh-Priest. For the sins of the human race which [Pg 302] without\ncompensation, cannot be forgiven, He furnishes the restitution which\ncould not be paid by the sinners, and thereby works out the\njustification of the sinner before God.--To the trespass-offering here,\nall those passages of the New Testament point, in which Christ is\nspoken of as the sacrifice for our sins, especially 2 Cor. v. 21, where\nthe apostle says that God made Christ to be [Greek: hamartia] for us,\nthat in Him we might be made righteous before God; Rom. viii. 3,\naccording to which God sent Christ [Greek: peri hamartias], as a\nsin-offering; Rom. iii. 25, where Christ is called [Greek:\nhilast\u00earion], propitiation; 1 John ii. 2: [Greek: kai autos hilasmos\nesti peri t\u00f4n hamarti\u00f4n h\u00eam\u00f4n], iv. 10; Heb. ix. 14.--The [Hebrew: aM]\nat the beginning must not be explained by \"_as_\" a signification,\nwhich it never has; it has its ordinary signification \"when,\" and the\nFuture is to be understood as a real Future: the offering of the\ntrespass-offering is the _condition_ of His seeing, &c., and, according\nto the context, indeed, the absolutely _necessary_ condition. The\ntranslation: \"Even if\" could proceed from one only who had not\nunderstood this context. It is not death in general, but sacrificial\ndeath, which is specially spoken of; and to such a death, which is a\nnecessary foundation of the glorification, and especially the\nfoundation of \"He shall see seed,\" \"when\" only is suitable, and not\n\"even if.\"--In the words: \"He shall see seed, prolong His days,\" that\nis, in a higher sense, promised to this Servant of God, which, under\nthe Old Testament, was considered as a distinguished divine blessing.\nThe spiritual interpretation has the less difficulty, that it must\nnecessarily be granted in the case of [Hebrew: awM], immediately\npreceding. Just in the same relation in which the sin-offering of the\nServant of God stands to the sin-offering of the bullocks and goats,\ndoes His posterity, the length of His days, stand to the ordinary\nposterity and length of days. The _seed_ of the Servant of God,\nidentical with His generation, in ver. 8, are just those for whom,\naccording to the words immediately preceding, He offers His soul as a\ntrespass-offering--the many who, according to ver. 12, are assigned to\nHim as His portion; who, according to chap. lii. 15, are to be\nsprinkled by Him; who, according to ver. 11, are to be justified by\nHim; they whose sins He has taken upon Him (ver. 5), and for whom He\nintercedes before God, ver. 12. Even in the Old Testament, the word\n\"children\" is frequently used in a spiritual [Pg 303] sense. In Gen.\nvi. 2, believers appear as the children of God. The Israelites are not\nunfrequently designated as sons of Jehovah. Those prophets who were\nendowed with specially rich gifts, were surrounded by a crowd of _sons_\nof the prophets. The wise man, too, looks upon his disciples as his\nspiritual sons, Prov. iv. 20, xix. 27; Eccles. xii. 12. In the New\nTestament, the Lord addresses the man sick of the palsy by [Greek:\nteknon]. Matt. ix. 2; and with special emphasis. His apostles as\n_little children_, [Greek: teknia eti mikron meth'hum\u00f4n eimi], John\nxiii. 33; and the Apostles, too, consider those who have been awakened\nby their ministry as their spiritual children, 1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i.\n2; 1 Pet. v. 13. _The thought is this--that in the sacrificial death of\nthe Servant of God there will be an animating power; that, just\nthereby, He will found His Church._ The words: \"He shall prolong His\ndays,\" allude, as it appears, to the promise which was given to David\nand his seed, comp. Ps. xxi 5: \"He asked life of thee, and thou gavest\nit to him, even length of days for ever and ever;\" 1 Sam. vii. 13: \"I\nwill establish the throne of His kingdom for ever,\" comp. ver. 16; Ps.\nlxxxix. 5, cxxxii. 12,--a promise which found its final fulfilment in\nChrist. But the long life here must not be viewed as _isolated_, but\nmust be understood in close connection both with what precedes and what\nfollows. It is the life of the Servant of God in communion with His\nseed, in carrying out the will of God. [Hebrew: HpC] never means\n\"business,\" but always \"pleasure;\" and this signification, which occurs\nin chap. xliv. 28 also, is here the less to be given up, that the\n[Hebrew: HpC] here, at the close, evidently refers to the [Hebrew: HpC]\nat the beginning. By this reference, the reason is stated why it was\nthe _pleasure_ of the Lord to crush Him. According to vers. 11 and 12,\nit is the pleasure of God that sinners should be justified through Him,\non the foundation of His vicarious suffering; according to chap. xlii.\nand xlix., that Israel should be redeemed, and the Gentiles saved.\nWhile the pleasure of the Lord is prospering through His hand, he, at\nthe same time, sees seed.\n\nIn vers. 11 and 12, we have the closing words of the Lord.\n\nVer. 11. \"_On account of the sufferings of His soul He seeth, He is\nsatisfied; by His knowledge He, the Righteous One, my Servant, shall\njustify the many, and He shall bear their iniquities._\"\n\n[Pg 304]\n\nThe [Hebrew: mN] in [Hebrew: meml] is \"on account of.\" In ver. 10, to\nwhich the discourse of the Lord is, in the first instance, connected,\nthe suffering likewise appears as the cause of the glorification. The\nVulgate translates: \"_Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus_;\" the LXX.\nrather feebly: [Greek: apo tou ponou t\u00eas psuch\u00eas autou]. With [Hebrew:\nirah] the object is omitted, and that purposely, in order that the\nwords of God may be immediately connected with ver. 10. We must supply:\nthe fruits and rewards of His sufferings announced there (just as, in a\nmanner quite similar, in chap. xlix. 7, \"they shall see,\" refers to the\npreceding verse), specially that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper\nthrough His hand,--which, in the sequel, is enlarged upon. The words:\n\"He is satisfied,\" point out that the blissful consequences of the\natoning suffering will take place in the highest fulness. [Hebrew:\nbdetv] must, according to the accents, be connected with the subsequent\nwords. The knowledge does not belong to the Servant of God, in so far\nas it dwells in Him, but as it concerns Him; just as the [Greek: agap\u00ea\ntou Theou] in Luke xi. 42, and in other passages does not mean the love\nwhich dwells in God, but the love which has God for its object. \"By His\nknowledge\" is thus equivalent to: by their knowing Him, getting\nacquainted with Him, This knowledge of the Servant of God according to\nHis principal work, as it was described in what precedes, viz.,\nmediatorial office, or _faith_, is the subjective condition of\njustification. As the efficient cause of it, the vicarious suffering of\nthe Servant of God was represented in the preceding context. It is just\nthis, which is subjectively appropriated by the knowledge of the\nServant of God, and which must be conceived of as essential and living.\nThus _J. H. Michaelis_ says: _Per scientiam sui_ (_Clericus_:\n_Cognitione sui_), _non qua ipse cognoscit, sed qua vera fide et\nfiducia ipse tanquam propitiator cognoscitur._ The explanation: \"By His\nknowledge (in the sense of understanding) or wisdom,\" gives a sense\nunsuitable to the context. In the whole prophecy, the Servant of God\ndoes not appear as a Teacher, but as a Redeemer; and the relation of\n[Hebrew: cdiq] to [Hebrew: hcdiq] shows that here, too, He is\nconsidered as such. To supply, as is done by some interpreters: \"in\nwhich (knowledge) He perceived the only possible means of redemption\nand reconciliation, and gave practical effect to this knowledge,\" is,\nafter all, too unnatural; the [Pg 305] discourse would in that case be\nso incomplete that we should have been shut up to conjectures. Others\ntranslate: \"By His doctrine;\" but [Hebrew: det] never means \"doctrine.\"\nThe explanation: \"By His full, absolute knowledge of the divine\ncounsel\" (_H\u00e4vernick_), or, \"by the absolute knowledge of God\"\n(_Umbreit_), puts into the simple word, which only means \"knowledge,\"\nmore than is implied in it. According to the parallelism with the\nsubsequent words: \"He shall bear their iniquities.\" and according to\nthe context (for, in the whole section, the Servant of God is not\ndescribed as a _Teacher_, but as a _Priest_, as He who, in order to\nexpiate our sin, has offered himself up as a sacrifice), [Hebrew:\nhcdiq] must not be translated \"to convert,\" but to \"justify.\" In favour\nof this translation is also the construction with [Hebrew: l], which is\nto be accounted for from a modification of the signification: \"to bring\nrighteousness.\" But it is specially the position of [Hebrew: cdiq]\nwhich is decisive in favour of it. It is for the justification only\nthat the personal righteousness of the Servant of God has that\nsignificant meaning which is, in this manner, assigned to it. Moreover,\nin the _usus loquendi_, the meaning _to justify_ only occurs. In it,\nthe verb is used, chap. v. 23, l. 8; and there is no reason for\ndeviating from it in the only passage which can be adduced in favour of\nthe signification \"to convert,\" viz., Dan. xii. 3: \"And the wise,\n[Hebrew: mwkiliM], shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and\n_justify_ many as the stars, for ever and ever.\" In this passage, that\nis applied to believers which, in chap. liii., was ascribed to Christ.\nEven a certain strangeness in the style makes us suppose such a\ntransference; and the fact, that Daniel had our passage specially in\nview, cannot be doubted, if we compare the [Hebrew: mwkiliM] of Daniel\nwith the [Hebrew: iwkil] with which the prophecy under consideration\nopens (chap, lii, 13), and Daniel's: \"justify many,\" with the passage\nbefore us. The justification, which in its full sense belongs to Christ\nthe Head only, is by Daniel ascribed to the \"wise,\" because they are\nthe instruments through whom many attain justification; _Calvin_: _Quia\ncausa sunt ministerialis justitiae et salutis multorum._ _H\u00e4vernick_\nrefers, for a comparison, to 1 Tim. iv. 16: \"For, in doing this, thou\nshalt save both thyself and them that hear thee.\" [Hebrew: ediq] must\nnot be immediately connected with [Hebrew: ebdi]; for, in that case, it\nought to have stood after it, and been qualified [Pg 306] by the\narticle. On the contrary, [Hebrew: ediq] stands first, because it\nstands by itself and substantively: \"The righteous One, My Servant.\" A\nsimilar construction occurs, Jer. iii., vii. 10: \"And she does not turn\nunto me, the treacherous one, [Hebrew: bgirh], her sister Judah.\" By\nthus making [Hebrew: cdiq] prominent, and connecting it immediately\nwith [Hebrew: hcdiq], it is intended to point out the close connection\nin which the righteousness of the Servant of God, who, although\naltogether innocent and sinless, ver. 9, yet suffered the punishment of\nsin, stands with the justification to be bestowed by Him. _Maurer_ thus\npertinently expresses this: \"To many, for righteous is my Servant,\nshall He procure righteousness.\" By these words thus the [Hebrew: izh],\nin chap. lii. 15, is explained; and the seal of the divine confirmation\nis impressed upon that which, in vers. 4-6, the believing Church had\nsaid, especially upon the words: \"By His wounds we are healed,\" ver. 5.\nThe \"many\" points back to chap. liii. 15, and forms the contrast not to\n_all_ (_Stier_: \"Because He cannot, overturning all laws, save all by\ncoercion, or arbitrary will,\"--a limitation which would in this context\nbe out of place), but to _few_: The one, the many, Rom. v. 15.--\"And He\nshall bear their iniquities;\" the iniquities and their punishment, as a\nheavy burden which the Servant of God lifts off from those who are\ngroaning under their weight, and takes upon himself _Jerome_ says: \"And\nHe himself shall bear the iniquities which they could not bear, and by\nthe weight of which they were borne down.\" _Calvin_ expresses himself\nthus: \"A wonderful change indeed! Christ justifies men by giving them\nHis righteousness, and in exchange. He takes upon Him their sins, that\nHe may expiate them.\" In opposition to those who translate: \"He _bore_\ntheir iniquities,\" (the Future might, in that case, he accounted for\nfrom the Prophet's viewing the whole transaction as present), even\n_Gesenius_ has remarked that the preceding and subsequent Futures all\nrefer to the state of glorification. Even the parallelism with [Hebrew:\nicdiq] shows that we must translate as the LXX. do: [Greek: kai tas\nhamartias aut\u00f4n autos anoisei]. Moreover, the subject of discourse in\nthe whole verse is not the _acquiring_ of the righteousness, which was\ndone in the state of humiliation, but the _communication_ of it, as the\nsubjective condition of which the knowledge of the Servant of God was\nmentioned in the preceding clause. [Pg 307] In the case of every one\nwho, after the exaltation of the Servant of God, fulfils this\ncondition, He takes upon Himself their sins, _i.e._, He causes His\nvicarious suffering to be imputed to them, and grants them pardon. The\nexpression: \"He shall bear their iniquities\" is, in point of fact,\nidentical with: \"He shall _justify_ them.\" The Servant of God has borne\nthe sin once for all; by the power of His substitution, effected by the\nshedding of His blood, He takes upon himself the sins of every\nindividual who _knows_ Him. The \"taking away\" is implied in [Hebrew:\nvsbl] in so far only, as it is done by _bearing_. It was only because\nhe was misled by his rationalistic tendencies, that _Gesenius_\nexplains: \"And He lightens the burden of their sins, _i.e._, by His\ndoctrine He shall correct them, and thereby procure to them pardon.\" By\nsuch an explanation he contradicts himself, inasmuch as, in ver. 4, he\nreferred the bearing of the diseases and pains to the vicarious\nsatisfaction. It cannot, in any way, be said of the Teacher, that he\ntakes upon himself iniquities.\n\nVer. 12. \"_Therefore will I give Him a portion in the many, and He\nshall divide the spoil with the strong, because He hath poured out His\nsoul unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, and He beareth\nthe sin of many, and for the transgressors He shall make\nintercession._\"\n\nThe first words are thus explained by many interpreters: \"Therefore I\nwill give Him mighty ones for His portion, and strong ones He shall\ndivide as a spoil.\" But [Hebrew: Hlq] with [Hebrew: b] cannot mean\nsimply \"to allot,\" (although, indeed, this explanation is given by the\nLXX.; [Greek: dia touto autos kl\u00earonom\u00easei pollous]; Vulg.: _ideo\ndispertiam ei plurimos_); it only signifies \"to give a portion in,\" Job\nxxxix. 17. From the comparison with [Hebrew: rbiM] in ver. 11 and at\nthe close of this verse, as well as from the reference to the _many\nnations_ in the sketch, ver. 15, it is evident that [Hebrew: rbiM]\nhere, too, cannot mean \"mighty ones,\" but \"many.\" Even elsewhere, the\nsignification \"great ones,\" \"mighty ones,\" appears oftentimes to be\nonly forced upon [Hebrew: rbiM]. In Job xxxv. 9, the \"many\" are the\nmany evil-doers; and in Job xxxii. 9, the utterance: \"Not the _many_\nare wise,\" is explained from the circumstance, that the view given by\nJob's friends was that of the great mass. The fact that the [Hebrew:\nat] in the second clause is not the sign of the Accusative, but a\nPreposition, [Pg 308] is probable even from the circumstance, that the\nformer [Hebrew: at] commonly stands before qualified nouns only; and,\nfarther from the corresponding; \"with the transgressors.\" But what is\nconclusive is, that the phrase [Hebrew: Hlq wll] always means \"to\ndivide spoil,\" never \"to distribute as spoil,\" and that the phrase\n[Hebrew: Hlq wll at gaiM] \"to divide spoil with the proud\" occurs in\nProv. xvi. 19. The reason of the use of this expression lies in the\nreference to ordinary victors and conquerors of the world, especially\nto Cyrus. By His sufferings and death, the Servant of God shall secure\nto himself the same successes as they do by sword and bow. Although\nparticipating in the government of the world, and dividing spoil are\nhere ascribed to the Servant of God, yet the participation in worldly\ntriumphs is not spoken of On the contrary, behind the _equality_ which\nhas given rise to the secular-looking expression (the thought is merely\nthis, that through Christ and His sacrificial death, the Kingdom of God\nenters into the rank of world-conquering powers), a contrast lies\nconcealed,--as appears, 1. From what is stated, in the preceding\nverses, about the manner in which the Servant of God has attained to\nthis glory. Worldly triumphs are not acquired by the deepest\n_humiliation_, by sufferings and death voluntarily undergone for the\nsalvation of mankind. 2. From that which the Servant of God, in the\nstate of glory, is to do to those who turn to Him. According to chap.\nlii. 15, He is to sprinkle them with His blood; and this sprinkling is\nthere expressly stated as the reason of the reverential homage of the\nGentile world. He is to justify them and to bear their sins, ver. 11,\nand to make intercession for them, ver. 12. All that does not apply to\na worldly conqueror and ruler.--The merits of the Servant of God are\nthen once more pointed out,--the merits by which He has acquired so\nexalted and all-important a position to himself, and, at the same time,\nto the Kingdom of God, of which He is the Head. \"Because He hath poured\nout His soul unto death,\" [Hebrew: erh] in the _Niphal_, \"to be poured\nout,\" means in _Piel_ \"to pour out,\" Gen. xxiv. 20, and Ps. cxli. 8,\nwhere it is said of the soul: \"Do not pour out my soul,\" just as here\nthe _Hiphil_ is used. The term has been transferred to the _soul_ from\nthe _blood_, in which is the soul. Gen. ix. 4: \"Flesh with its soul\n(namely with its blood) you shall not eat.\" Ver. 5: \"Your blood in [Pg\n309] which your souls.\" [Hebrew: nmnh], \"He was numbered,\" is here,\naccording to the context, equivalent to: He caused himself to be\nnumbered; for it is only that which was undergone voluntarily which can\nbe stated as the reason of the _reward_. This voluntary undergoing,\nhowever, is not implied in the word itself, but only in the connection\nwith: \"He hath poured out His soul;\" for that signifies a voluntary\nact. The [Hebrew: pweiM] here, just as the [Hebrew: rweiM] in ver. 9,\nare not sinners, but criminals. This appears from the connection in\nwhich the being \"numbered with the transgressors\" stands with the\n\"pouring out of the soul unto death.\" We can hence think of executed\ncriminals only. The pure, innocent One was not only numbered with\nsinners, such as all men are, but He was numbered with _criminals_. It\nis in this sense also that our Lord understands the words, in His\nquotation of them in Luke xxii. 37: [Greek: leg\u00f4 gar humin, hoti heti\ntouto to gegrammenon dei telesth\u00eanai en emoi, to. kai meta anom\u00f4n\nelogisth\u00ea, kai gar ta peri emou telos echei]; Compare Matt. xxvi. 54,\nwhere the Lord strengthens His disciples against the offence of His\nbeing taken a prisoner, by saying, with a view to the passage before\nus: [Greek: p\u00f4s oun pl\u00ear\u00f4th\u00f4sin hai graphai, hoti hout\u00f4 dei genesthai];\nver. 56, where, after having reproached the guards for having numbered\nHim with criminals: [Greek: h\u00f4s epi l\u00east\u00ean ex\u00ealthete meta machair\u00f4n kai\nxul\u00f4n sullabein me], He says to them: [Greek: touto de holon gegonen\nhina pl\u00ear\u00f4th\u00f4sin hai graphai t\u00f4n proph\u00eat\u00f4n]. Mark, in chap. xv. 28,\ndesignates the fact that two robbers were crucified with Christ, as the\nmost perfect fulfilment of our prophecy. It was in this fact that it\ncame out most palpably, that Christ had been made like criminals. The\nrulers of the people caused two common criminals to be crucified with\nHim, just that they might declare that they put Him altogether among\ntheir number.--\"And He beareth the sin of many, and for the\ntransgressors He shall make intercession.\" By [Hebrew: vhva], it is\nindicated that the subsequent words are no more to be viewed as\ndepending on [Hebrew: tHt awr].--[Hebrew: ipgie] must not, as is done\nby the LXX., be referred to the state of humiliation; for the Future in\nthe preceding verses has reference to the exaltation. The parallel\n[Hebrew: nwa] must therefore be viewed as a _Praeteritum propheticum_.\nIt corresponds with [Hebrew: isbl] in ver. 11, and, like it, does not\ndesignate something done but once by the Servant of God, but something\nwhich He does constantly. The intercession is [Pg 310] here brought\ninto close connection with the bearing of the sin, by which Christ\nrepresents himself as being the true _sin-offering_ (comp. ver. 10,\nwhere He was designated as the true _trespass-offering_), and hence it\nis equivalent to: He will make intercession for sinners, by taking upon\nhimself their sin,--of which the thief on the cross was the first\ninstance. This close connection, and the deep meaning suggested by it,\nare overlooked and lost by those expositors who, in the intercession,\nthink of prayer only. _The servant of God, on the contrary, makes\nintercession, by pleading before God His merit, as the ground of the\nacceptance of the transgressors, and of the pardon of their sins._ This\nis evident from the connection also in which: \"For the transgressors He\nshall make intercession,\" stands with: \"He was numbered with the\ntransgressors.\" The vicarious suffering is thereby pointed out as the\nground of the intercession. _Calvin_ says: \"Under the Old Testament\ndispensation, the High-priest, who never went in without blood, made\nintercession for the people. What was there foreshadowed has been\nfulfilled in Christ. For, in the first place. He offered up the\nsacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, and thus suffered the\npunishment due to us. And, in the second place, in order that the\nexpiation might profit us. He undertakes the office of an advocate, and\nmakes intercession for all who, by faith, lay hold of this sacrifice.\"\nComp. Rom. viii. 34: [Greek: hos kai entunchanei huper h\u00eam\u00f4n]; Hebr.\nix. 24, according to which passage Christ is entered into the holy\nplaces [Greek: nun emphanisth\u00eanai t\u00f4 pros\u00f4p\u00f4 tou Theou huper h\u00eam\u00f4n]; 1\nJohn ii. 1: [Greek: parakl\u00eaton echomen pros ton patera I\u00easoun Christon\ndikaion].\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\nWe have hitherto expounded the passage before us without any regard to\nthe difference of the interpretation as to the whole, and have supposed\nthe reference to Christ to be the correct one. But it is still\nincumbent upon us: I. to give the history of the interpretation; II.\nto refute the arguments against the Messianic interpretation; III. to\nstate the arguments in favour of it; and IV. to show that the\nnon-Messianic interpretation is untenable.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: One needs only to consider passages such as this, to be\nenabled to distinguish between the ideal and real Present, and to be\nconvinced of the utter futility of the chief argument against the\ngenuineness of the second part, viz., that the Babylonish exile appears\nas present. \"Proceeding from the certainty of deliverance\"--so _Hitzig_\nremarks--\"the Prophet here _beholds_ in spirit that going on, to which,\nin chap. xl. 9, he exhorts.\" If the Prophet beholds at all in the\nspirit, why should he not see in spirit the misery also?]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Simonis. Onom._: [Hebrew: izih], _quem aspergat_, _i.e._,\n_purificet et expiet Domimus_; _Gesenius_: _quod vix aliter explicari\npotest quam_: _quem consperget_, _i.e._, _expiabit Jehova._ _F\u00fcrst_\ngives a different derivation; but it at once shows itself to be\nuntenable.]\n\n[Footnote 3: In order to defend this explanation, interpreters have\nreferred to the LXX: [Greek: hout\u00f4 thaumasontai ethn\u00ea polla ep'aut\u00f4];\nbut even _Martini_ remarks: \"From a dark passage, they have tried, by\ningenious conjecturing, to bring out any sense whatsoever.\"]\n\n[Footnote 4: Thus _Theodoret_ says: \"For they who did not receive the\nprophetic promises and announcements, but served idols, shall, through\nthe messengers of the truth, see the power of the promised One, and\nperceive His greatness.\" _Jerome_: \"The rulers of the world, who had\nnot the Law and the Prophets, and to whom no prophecies concerning Him\nwere given, even they shall see and perceive. By the comparison with\nthem, the hardness of the Jews is reproved, who, although they saw and\nheard, yet verified Isaiah's prophecy against them.\" _Calvin_: \"The\nJews had, through the Law and the Prophets, heard something of Christ,\nbut to the Gentiles He was altogether unknown. Hence it follows that\nthese words properly refer to the Gentiles.\"]\n\n[Footnote 5: According to _Knobel_, the author is supposed to speak, in\nchap. liii. 1, in his own name and that of the other prophets; in vers.\n2-6, in the name of the whole people; in vers. 7-10, in his own name.\nAn explanation which is compelled to resort to such changes, without\ntheir being in any way clearly and distinctly intimated, pronounces its\nown condemnation.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Gesenius_: _Neglecta actatis notione saepe est genus\nhominum, in bonam partem--in malam partem_;--and in reference to the\npassage under consideration: _Genus ejus, Servi Jehovae, sunt homines\nqui iisdem cum illo studiis tenentur._ In the same manner it is\nexplained by _Maurer_, who refers to Ps. xiv. 5, xxiv. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The double [Hebrew: lmv] in Deut. xxxiii. 2 refers to\nIsrael, not to God. In reference to the [Hebrew: lmv] in Is. xliv. 15,\n_J. H. Michaelis_ remarks: _iis talibus diis._ ver. 7. But the suffix\nrather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp. [Hebrew: mhM] in ver. 15. If\nconstrued thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2,\n[Hebrew: mwkil] is used collectively. In Ps. xi. 7, the plural suffix\nis to be explained from the richness and fulness of the Divine Being.\nThese are all the passages which _Ewald_ quotes in \u00a7 247 d.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Thus _B\u00e4hr_, _Symbolik_, ii. S. 207, says: It is not the\nmaterial elements of the blood which make it a means of expiation, but\nit is the [Hebrew: npw] which is connected with it, which is in it,\nwhose instrument and bearer it is, which gives to it atoning power. The\n[Hebrew: npw] is thus the centre around which, in the last instance,\neverything moves. This is especially confirmed by the circumstance,\nthat the object of the expiation to be effected by the [Hebrew: npw] in\nthe sacrificial blood, is, according to this passage, the [Hebrew: npw]\nof him who offers up the sacrifice.]\n\n\n\n[Pg 311]\n\n\n\n I. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.\n\n\n A. WITH THE JEWS.\n\n1. There cannot be any doubt that, in those earlier times, when the\nJews were still more firmly attached to the tradition of their\nFathers,--when the carnal disposition had not yet become so entirely\nprevalent among them,--and when controversy with the Christians had not\nmade them so narrow-minded in their Exegesis, the Messianic explanation\nwas pretty generally received, at least by the better portion of the\npeople. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert\nthe prophecy, _e.g._, _Abenezra_, _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, _Moses\nNachmanides_. _Gesenius_ also says: \"It was only the later Jews who\nabandoned this interpretation,--no doubt, in consequence of their\ncontroversies with the Christians.\" We shall here collect, from the\nexisting Jewish writings, the principal passages in which this\ninterpretation occurs. The whole translation of the Chaldee Paraphrast,\n_Jonathan_, notwithstanding the many perversions in which he indulges,\nrefers the prophecy to Christ. He paraphrases the very first clause:\n[Hebrew: ha iclH ebdi mwiha] \"behold my Servant Messiah shall prosper.\"\nThe _Medrash Tanchuma_, an old commentary on the Pentateuch (ed.\nCracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7), remarks on the words: [Hebrew: hnh iwkil\nebdi] (ed. Cracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7): [Hebrew: hmwiH irvM vgbh vnwa\nmavd vriM mN abrhM vnwa mmwh vgdh mN mlaki hwrt zh mlK] (\"this is the\nKing Messiah who is high and lifted up, and very exalted, more exalted\nthan Abraham, elevated above Moses, higher than the ministering\nangels\"). This passage is remarkable for this reason also, that it\ncontains the doctrine of the exaltation of the Messiah above all\ncreated beings, and even above the angels themselves, and, hence, the\ndoctrine of His divinity,--a doctrine contested by the later Jews.\nStill more remarkable is a passage from the very old book _Pesikta_,\ncited in the treatise _Abkath Rokhel_ ([Hebrew: abqt rvkl], printed\nseparately at Venice in 1597, and reprinted in _Hulsii Theologia\nJudaica_, where [Pg 312] this passage occurs p. 309): \"When God created\nHis world He stretched out His hand under the throne of His glory, and\nbrought forth the soul of the Messiah. He said to Him: 'Wilt thou heal\nand redeem my sons after 6000 years?'He answered Him: 'I will.'Then\nGod said to Him: 'Wilt thou then also bear the punishment in order to\nblot out their sins, as it is written: '_But he bore our diseases_'\n(chap. liii. 4)? And He answered Him: I will joyfully bear them.\" In\nthis passage, as well as in several others which will be afterwards\ncited, the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah is\ncontained, and derived from Is. liii., although the later Jews rejected\nthis doctrine. In a similar manner, Rabbi _Moses Haddarshan_ expresses\nhimself on Gen. i. 3 (Latin in _Galatinus_, _De Arcanis Cath. ver._ p.\n329; in the original in _Raimund Martini Pug. Fid._ fol. 333; comp.\n_Wolf_, _Bibl. Hebr._ i. p. 818): \"Jehovah said: Messiah, thou my\nrighteous One, those who are concealed with thee will be such that\ntheir sins will bring a heavy yoke upon thee.--The Messiah answered:\nLord of the universe, I cheerfully take upon myself all those plagues\nand sufferings; and immediately the Messiah, out of love, took upon\nhimself all those plagues and sufferings, as is written in Is. liii.:\nHe was abused and oppressed.\" Compare another passage, in which ver. 5\nis referred to the Messiah, in _Raim. Martin_, fol. iv. 30. In the\nTalmud (_Gemara_, _tract. Sanhedrim_, chap. xi.), it is said of the\nMessiah: \"He sits before the gates of the city of Rome among the sick\nand the leprous\" (according to ver. 3). To the question: What is the\nname of the Messiah, it is answered: He is called [Hebrew: Hivvra]\n\"_the leper_,\" and, in proof, ver. 4 is quoted according to the\nerroneous interpretation of [Hebrew: ngve] by _leprosus_,--an\ninterpretation which is met with in _Jerome_ also.--In the work\n_Rabboth_ (a commentary on the Pentateuch and the five _Megilloth_,\nwhich, as to its principal portions, is very old, although much\ninterpolated at later periods, and which, according to the statements\nof the Jews, was composed about the year of our Lord 300, comp. _Wolf_,\nI. c. II., p. 1423, sqq. in commentary on Ruth ii. 14 [p. 46, _ed.\nCracov._]), the fifth verse is quoted, and referred to the sufferings\nof the Messiah.--In the _Medrash Tillim_ (an allegorical commentary on\nthe Psalms, printed at Venice in 1546), it is said in Ps. ii. 7, (fol.\n4): \"The things of King Messiah and His mysteries are announced [Pg\n313] in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the Prophets,\n_e.g._, in the passage Is. lii. 13, and xlii. 1; in the Hagiographa,\n_e.g._, Ps. cx. and Dan. vii. 13.\" In the book _Chasidim_ (a collection\nof moral tales, printed at Venice and Basle in 1581) p. 60, the\nfollowing story is to be found: \"There was, among the Jews, a pious\nman, who in summer made his bed among fleas, and in winter put his feet\ninto cold water; and when it froze, his feet froze at the same time.\nWhen asked why he did so, he answered, that he too must make some\nlittle expiation, since the Messiah bears the sin of Israel ([Hebrew:\nmwiH svbl evnvt iwral]).\" The ancient explanation is, from among the\nlater interpreters, assented to by _Rabbi Alschech_ (his commentary on\nIs. liii. is given entire in _Hulsii Theologia Judaica_, p. 321 sqq.).\nHe says: \"Upon the testimony of tradition, our old Rabbins have\nunanimously admitted that King Messiah is here the subject of\ndiscourse. For the same reason, we, in harmony with them, conclude that\nKing David, _i.e._, the Messiah, must be considered as the subject of\nthis prophecy,--a view which is indeed quite obvious.\" We shall see,\nhowever, subsequently, that he adheres to the right explanation only in\nthe first three verses, and afterwards abandons it. But passages\nespecially remarkable are found in the cabbalistic book _Sohar_. It is\ntrue that the age of the book is very uncertain; but it cannot be\nproved to have been composed under Christian influence. We shall here\nquote only some of the principal passages. (_Sohar_, ed. Amstelod. p.\nii. fol. 212; ed. _Solisbac._ p. ii. f. 85; _Sommeri_ theol. _Sohar_ p.\n94.) \"When the Messiah is told of the misery of Israel in their\ncaptivity, and that they are themselves the cause of it, because they\nhad not cared for, nor sought after the knowledge of their Lord, He\nweeps aloud over their sins; and for this reason it is written in\nScripture (Isa. liii. 5): He was wounded for our transgressions, He was\nsmitten for our iniquities.\"--\"In the garden of Eden there is an\napartment which is called the sick chamber. The Messiah goes into this\napartment, and summons all the diseases, all the pains, and all the\nchastisements of Israel to come upon Him, and they all come upon Him.\nAnd unless He would take them away from Israel, and lay them upon\nhimself, no man would be able to bear the chastisements of Israel,\nwhich are inflicted upon them on account of the Law, as it is [Pg 314]\nwritten: But He took upon himself our sicknesses,\" &c. In another\npassage (_Sohar_, _ed. Amstelod_ p. iii. f. 218; _Solisbac._ iii. f.\n88; _Sommeri theol. Sohar_ p. 89; _Ausz\u00fcge aus dem Buche Sohar, mit\nDeutscher Uebersetzung_, Berlin 52, S. 32), it is said: \"When God\nwishes to give to the world a means of healing. He smites one of the\npious among them, and for his sake He gives healing to the whole world.\nWhere, in Scripture, do we find this confirmed? In Isa. liii. 5, where\nit is said: He was wounded for our transgressions. He was crushed for\nour sins.\"\n\nWhat has been said will be a sufficient proof that the ancient Jews,\nfollowing tradition, referred the passage to the Messiah; and, as it\nappears from the majority of the passages quoted, referred it indeed to\nthe suffering Messiah. But it would really have been a strange\nphenomenon, if this interpretation had remained the prevailing one\namong the Jews. According to the declaration of the Apostle, the Cross\nof Christ is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks\nfoolishness. The idea of a suffering and expiating Messiah was\nrepugnant to the carnally minded Jews. And the reason why it was\nrepugnant to them is, that they did not possess that which alone makes\nthat doctrine acceptable, viz., the knowledge of sin, and the\nconsciousness of the need of salvation,--because, not knowing the\nholiness of God, and being ignorant of the import of the Law, they\nimagined that through their own strength, by the works of the Law, they\ncould be justified before God. What they wished for was only an outward\ndeliverance from their misery and their oppressors, not an internal\ndeliverance from sin. For this reason, they looked exclusively to those\npassages of the Old Testament in which the Messiah in glory is\nannounced; and those passages they interpreted in a carnal manner. In\naddition to this, there were other reasons which could not fail to\nrender them averse to refer this passage to the suffering Messiah. As\nthey could not compare the prophecy with the fulfilment,--the deep\nabasement of the Messiah which is here announced, the contempt which He\nendures, His violent death, appeared to them irreconcileable with those\npassages in which nothing of the kind is mentioned, but, on the\ncontrary, the glorified Messiah only is foretold. They had too little\nknowledge of the nature [Pg 315] of prophetic vision to enable them to\nperceive that the prophecies are connected with the circumstances of\nthe time, and, therefore, exhibit a one-sided character,--that they\nconsist of separate fragments which must be put together in order that\na complete representation of the subject may be obtained. They imagined\nthat because, in some passages, the Messiah is at once brought before\nus in glory, just because He, in this way, represented Himself to the\nprophets. He must also appear at once in glory. And, lastly, by their\ncontroversy with Christians, they were led to seek for other\nexplanations. As long as they understood the passage as referring to a\nsuffering Messiah, they could not deny that there existed the closest\nagreement between the prophecy and the history of Christ. Now since the\nChristians, in their controversies with the Jews, always proceeded from\nthe passages, which by _Hulsius_ is pertinently called a _carnificina\nJudaeorum_, and always returned to it,--since they saw what impression\nwas, in numerous cases, produced by the controversy of the Christians\nfounded upon this passage, nothing was more natural, than that they\nshould endeavour to discover an expedient for remedying this evil. And\nthe discovery of such an expedient was the more easy to them, the more\nthat, in general, they were destitute of a sense of truth, and\nespecially of exegetical skill, so that they could not see any reason\nfor rejecting an interpretation on the ground of its being forced and\nunnatural.\n\nIn proof of what we have said, we here briefly present the arguments\nwith which _Abarbanel_ opposes the explanation of a suffering and\nexpiating divine Messiah. In the first place, by the absurd remark that\nthe ancient teachers did not intend to give a literal, but an\nallegorical explanation, he seeks to invalidate the authority of the\ntradition on which the later Jewish interpreters laid so great a\nstress, whensoever and wheresoever it agrees with their own\ninclination; and, at the same time, he advances the assertion that they\nreferred the first four verses only to the Messiah,--an assertion which\nthe passages quoted by us show to be utterly erroneous. Then, after\nhaving combatted the doctrine of original sin, he continues: \"Suppose\neven that there exists such a thing as original sin,--when God, whose\npower is infinite, was willing to pardon, was His hand too short to\nredeem (Isa. l. 2), so [Pg 316] that, on this account, He was obliged\nto take flesh, and to impose chastisements upon himself? And even\nalthough I were to grant that it was necessary that a single individual\nof the human race should bear this punishment, in order to make\nsatisfaction for all, it would, at all events, have been at least more\nappropriate that some one from among ourselves, some wise man or\nprophet, had taken upon him the punishment, than that God himself\nshould have done so. For, supposing even that He became incarnate,\nHe would not be like one of us.--It is altogether impossible and\nself-contradictory that God should assume a body; for God is the first\ncause, infinite, and omnipotent. He cannot, therefore, assume flesh,\nand subsist as a finite being, and take upon himself man's punishment,\nof which nothing whatsoever is written in Scripture.--If the prophecy\nreferred to the Messiah, it must refer either to the Messiah ben\nJoseph, or the Messiah ben David (compare the Treatises at the close of\nthis work). The former will perish in the beginning of his wars;\nneither that which is said of the exaltation, nor that which is said of\nthe humiliation of the Servant of God applies to him; much less can the\nlatter be intended.\" (There then follows a quotation of several\npassages treating of the exalted Messiah.)\n\nThat it was nevertheless difficult for the carnally-minded among the\nJews to reject the tradition, is seen from the paraphrase of\n_Jonathan_. This forms a middle link between the ancient\ninterpretation--which was retained, even at a later period, by the\nbetter portion of the nation--and the recent interpretation. _Jonathan_\n(see his paraphrase, among others, in _Lowth's_ comment, edited by\n_Koppe_, on the passage; and in _Hulsii Theol. Judaica_) acknowledges\nthe tradition, in so far, that he refers the whole prophecy to the\nMessiah. On the other hand, he endeavours to satisfy his repugnance to\nthe doctrine of a suffering and expiating Messiah, by referring,\nthrough the most violent perversions and most arbitrary interpolations,\nto the state of glory, every thing which is here said of the state of\nhumiliation. A trace of the right interpretation may yet perhaps be\nfound in ver. 12, where _Jonathan_ says that the Messiah will give\n_His_ soul unto death; but it may be that thereby he understands\nmerely the intrepid courage with which the Messiah will expose himself\nto all [Pg 317] dangers, in the conflict with the enemies of the\ncovenant-people.\n\nThis mode of dealing with the text, however, could satisfy only a few.\nThey, therefore, went farther, and sought for an entirely different\nsubject of the prophecy. How very little they were themselves convinced\nof the soundness of their interpretation, and satisfied with its\nresults, may be seen from the example of _Abarbanel_, who advances two\nexplanations which differ totally, viz., one referring it to the Jewish\npeople, and the other to king Josiah, and then allows his readers to\nmake their choice betwixt the two. It is in truth only, that there is\nunanimity and certainty; error is always accompanied by disagreement\nand uncertainty. This will appear from the following enumeration of the\nvarious interpretations of this passage, which, at a subsequent period,\nwere current among the Jews. (The principal non-Messianic\ninterpretations of this passage are found in the Rabbinical Bibles, and\nalso in _Hulsius_, _l.c._, p. 339, both in the original and\ntranslation.) The interpreters may be divided into two main classes: 1.\nThose who by [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] understand some collective body; and,\n2. Those who refer the prophecy to a single individual. The first class\nagain falls into two subdivisions, (_a_), those who make the whole\nJewish people the subject, in contrast to the Gentiles; and (_b_) those\nwho make the better portion of the Jewish people the subject, in\ncontrast to the ungodly portion. These views, and their supporters, we\nshall now proceed to submit to a closer examination.\n\n1. (_a._) Among the non-Messianic interpreters, the most prevalent\nopinion is, that the Jewish people are the subject of the prophecy.\nThis opinion is found at an early period. At this we need not be\nsurprised, as the cause which produced the deviation from the Messianic\ninterpretation existed at a period equally early. When _Origen_ was\nmaking use of this passage against some learned Jews, they answered:\nthat \"that which here was prophesied of one, referred to the whole\npeople, and was fulfilled by their dispersion.\" This explanation is\nfollowed by _R. Salomo Jarchi_, _Abenezra_, _Kimchi_, _Abarbanel_,\n_Lipmann_ ([Hebrew: spr ncHvN], fol. 131). The main features of this\nview are the following: The prophecy is supposed to describe the misery\nof the people in their present exile, the firmness with [Pg 318] which\nthey bear it for the glory of God, and resist every temptation to\nforsake His law and worship; and the prosperity, power, and glory which\nshall be bestowed upon them at the time of the redemption. In vers.\n1-10, the Gentiles are supposed to be introduced as speaking, and\nmaking a humble and penitent confession that hitherto they had adopted\nan erroneous opinion of the people of God, and had unjustly despised\nthem on account of their sufferings, inasmuch as their glory now shows,\nthat it was not for the punishment of their sins that these sufferings\nwere inflicted upon them. Some of these interpreters, _e.g._,\n_Abenezra_ and _Rabbi Lipmann_, understand, indeed, by the [Hebrew: ebd\nihvh], the pious portion only of the people who remained faithful to\nJehovah; but this makes no material difference, inasmuch as they, too,\ncontrast the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] with the heathen nations, and not with\nthe ungodly, or less righteous portion of the nation, as is done by the\ninterpreters of the following class.\n\n(_b_). Others consider the appellation [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] as a\ncollective designation of the pious, and find in this section the idea\nof a kind of vicarious satisfaction made by them for the ungodly. Those\ninterpreters come nearer the true explanation, in so far as they do\nnot, like those of the preceding class, set aside the doctrine of\nvicarious satisfaction, either by a figurative explanation, or, like\n_Kimchi_, by the absurd remark, that this doctrine is an error put into\nthe mouth of the Gentiles. On the other hand, they depart from the true\nexplanation, in so far that they generalize that which belongs to a\ndefinite subject, and that, flattering the pride of the natural man,\nthey ascribe to mere man what belongs only to the God-man. Most\ndistinctly was this view expressed by the Commentator on the book\n[Hebrew: eiN ieqb] or [Hebrew: eiN iwral], which has been very\nfrequently printed, and which contains all sorts of tales from the\nTalmud. He says: \"It is right to suppose that the whole section\ncontains a prophecy regarding the righteous ones who are visited by\nsufferings.\" He then makes two classes of righteous men:--those who in\ngeneral must endure many sufferings and much misery: and those who are\npublicly executed, as _Rabbi Akiba_ and others. He supposes that the\nProphet shows the dignity of both of these classes of righteous men, to\nboth of which the name of a Servant of God is justly due. A similar\nopinion is held by _Rabbi_ [Pg 319] _Alshech_. As we have already seen,\nhe refers only chap. lii. 13-15 to the Messiah, and to His great glory\nacquired by His great sufferings. Then the Prophet speaks, as he\nsupposes, in the name of all Israel, approves of what God had said, and\nconfesses that, by this declaration of God regarding the sufferings of\nthe Messiah, they have received light regarding the sufferings of the\ngodly in general. They perceive it to be erroneous and rash to infer\nguilt from suffering; and, henceforth, when they see a righteous man\nsuffering, they will think of no other reason, than that he bears their\ndiseases, and that his chastisements are for their salvation. The\nServant of God is thus supposed to be as it were, a personification of\nthe righteous ones.--A similar view probably lies at the foundation of\nthose passages of the Talmud, where some portions of the prophecy under\nconsideration are referred to Moses, and others to _Rabbi Akiba_, who\nis revered as a martyr by the Jews. It does not appear that the\nprophecy was confined to Moses or Akiba; but it was referred to them,\nonly in so far as they belonged to the collective body which is\nsupposed to be the subject of it.\n\n2. That view which makes a single individual other than the Messiah the\nsubject of the prophecy, has found, with the Jews, comparatively the\nfewest defenders. We have already seen, that, besides the explanation\nwhich makes the Jewish people the subject, _Abarbanel_ advances still\nanother, which refers it to king Josiah. _Rabbi Saadias Haggaon_\nexplained the whole section of Jeremiah.\n\nNotwithstanding all these efforts, however, the Rabbins have not\nsucceeded in entirely supplanting the right explanation, and in thus\ndivesting the passage of all that is dangerous to their system. Among\nthe Cabbalistical Jews, it is even still the prevailing one. In\nnumerous cases, it was just this chapter which formed, to proselytes\nfrom Judaism, the first foundation of their conviction of the truth of\nChristianity.\n\n\n B. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION WITH THE CHRISTIANS.\n\nAmong Christians, the interpretation has taken nearly the same course\nas among the Jews. Similar causes have produced [Pg 320] similar\neffects in both cases. By both, the true explanation was relinquished,\nwhen the prevailing tendencies had become opposed to its results. And\nif we descend to particulars, we shall find a great resemblance even\nbetween the modes of interpretation proposed by both.\n\n1. Even, _a priori_, we could not but suppose otherwise than that the\nChristian Church, as long as she possessed Christ, found Him here also,\nwhere He is so clearly and distinctly set before our eyes,--that as\nlong as she in general still acknowledged the authority of Christ, and\nof the Apostles, she could not but, here too, follow their distinct,\noften-repeated testimony. And so, indeed, do we find it to be. With the\nexception of a certain Silesian, called _Seidel_--who, given up to\ntotal unbelief, asserted that the Messiah had never yet come, nor would\never come, (comp. _Jac. Martini l._ 3, _de tribus Elohim_, p. 592)--and\nof _Grotius_, both of whom supposed Jeremiah to be the subject, no one\nin the Christian Church has, for seventeen centuries, ventured to call\nin question the Messianic interpretation. On the contrary, this passage\nwas always considered to be the most distinct and glorious of all the\nMessianic prophecies. Out of the great mass of testimonies, we shall\nquote a few. _Augustine_, _De Civitate Dei_, i. 18, c. 29, says:\n\"Isaiah has not only reproved the people for their iniquity, and\ninstructed them in righteousness, and foretold to the people calamities\nimpending over them in the Future; but he has also a greater number of\npredictions, than the other prophets, concerning Christ and the Church,\n_i.e._, concerning the King, and the Kingdom established by Him; so\nthat some interpreters would rather call him an Evangelist than a\nProphet.\" In proof of this assertion, he then quotes the passage under\nconsideration, and closes with the words: \"Surely that may suffice!\nThere are in those words some things too which require explanation; but\nI think that things which are so clear should compel even enemies,\nagainst their will, to understand them.\" In a similar manner he\nexpresses himself in: _De consensu Evangelistarum_ l. i. c. 31.\n_Theodoret_ remarks on this passage (_opp. ed. Hal._ t. ii. p. 358):\n\"The Prophet represents to us, in this passage, the whole course of His\n(Christ's) humiliation unto death. Most wonderful is the power of the\nHoly Spirit. For that which was to take place after many generations.\nHe showed [Pg 321] to the holy prophets in such a manner that they did\nnot merely hear Him declare these things, but saw them.\" In a similar\nmanner, _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Cyril_ of Alexandria, and _Jerome_,\nexpress themselves. From the Churches of the Reformation, we shall here\nquote the testimonies of two of their founders only. _Zwingle_, in\n_Annot. ad h. l._ (opp. t. iii. Tur. 1544, fol. 292) says: \"That which\nnow follows is so clear a testimony of Christ, that I do not know\nwhether, anywhere in Scripture, there could be found anything more\nconsistent, or that anything could be more distinctly said. For it is\nquite in vain that the obstinacy and perversity of the Jews have tried\nit from all sides.\" _Luther_ remarks on the passage: \"And, no doubt,\nthere is not, in all the Old Testament Scriptures, a clearer text or\nprophecy, both of the suffering and the resurrection of Christ, than in\nthis chapter. Wherefore it is but right that it should be well known to\nall Christians, yea should be committed to memory, that thereby we may\nstrengthen our faith, and defend it, chiefly against the stiff-necked\nJews who deny their only promised Christ, solely on account of the\noffence of His cross.\"\n\nIt was reserved to the last quarter of the last century to be the first\nto reject the Messianic interpretation. _At a time when Naturalism\nexercised its sway, it could no longer be retained._[1] For, if\nthis passage contains a Messianic prophecy at all, its contents\noffer so striking an agreement with the history of Christ, that its\norigin cannot at all be accounted for in the natural way. Expedients\nwere, therefore, sought for; and these were so much the more easily\nfound, that the Jews had, in this matter, already opened up the way.\nAll that was necessary, was only to appropriate their arguments and\ncounter-arguments, and to invest them with the semblance of solidity by\nmeans of a learned apparatus.\n\nThe non-Messianic interpretation among Christians, like those among the\nJews, may be divided into two main classes: 1. Those which are founded\nupon the supposition that a collective [Pg 322] body is the subject of\nthe prophecy; and 2, those which, by the Servant of God, understand any\nother single individual except the Messiah. The first class, again,\nfalls into several sub-divisions: (_a._), those interpretations which\nrefer the prophecy to the whole Jewish people; (_b._), those which\nrefer it to the Jewish people in the abstract; (_c._), those which\nrefer it to the pious portion of the Jewish people; (_d._), those which\nrefer it to the order of the priests; (_e._), those which refer it to\nthe order of the prophets.\n\n1. (_a._) Comparatively the greatest number of non-Messianic\ninterpreters make the whole Jewish people the subject of the prophecy.\nThis hypothesis is adopted, among others, by _Doederlein_, (in the\npreface and annotations, in the third edition of Isaiah, but in such a\nmanner that he still wavers betwixt this and the Messianic\ninterpretation, which formerly he had defended with great zeal); by\n_Schuster_ (in a special treatise, G\u00f6ttingen 1794); by _Stephani_\n(_Gedanken \u00fcber die Entstehung u. Ausbildung der Idee von inem\nMessias_, _N\u00fcrnberg_ 1787); by the author of the letters on Isaiah\nliii., in the 6th vol. of _Eichhorn's Bibliothek_; by _Eichhorn_ (in\nhis exposition of the Prophets); by _Rosenm\u00fcller_ (in the second\nedition of his Commentary, leaving to others the interpretation which\nreferred the prophecy to the prophetic order, although he himself had\nfirst recommended it), and many others. The last who defend it are\n_Hitzig_, _Hendewerk_, and _K\u00f6ster_ (_de Serv. Jeh._ Kiel, 38).\nSubstantially, it has remained the same as we have seen it among the\nJews. The only difference is, that these expositors understand, by the\nsufferings of the Servant of God, the sufferings of the Jewish people\nin the Babylonish captivity; while the Jewish interpreters understand\nthereby the sufferings of the Jewish people in their present exile.\nThey, too, suppose that, from vers. 1 to 10, the Gentile nations are\nintroduced as speaking, and make the penitent confession that they have\nformed an erroneous opinion of Israel, and now see that its suffering's\nare not the punishment of its own sins, but that it had suffered as a\nsubstitute for their sins.\n\n(_b._) The hypothesis which makes the Jewish people in the abstract--in\nantithesis to its single members--the subject of this prophecy, was\ndiscovered by _Eckermann_, _theol. Beitr\u00e4ge_, [Pg 323] Bd. i. H. i. S.\n192 ff. According to _Ewald_, the prophecy refers to \"Israel according\nto its true idea.\" According to _Bleek_, the Servant of God is a\n\"designation of the whole people, but not of the people in its actual\nreality, but as it existed in the imagination of the author,--the ideal\nof the people.\"\n\n(_c._) The hypothesis, that the pious portion of the Jewish people--in\ncontrast to the ungodly--are the subject, has been defended especially\nby _Paulus_ (_Memorabilien_, Bd. 3, S. 175-192, and _Clavis_ on\nIsaiah). His view was adopted by _Ammon_ (_Christologie_, S. 108 ff.).\nThe principal features of this view are the following:--It was not on\naccount of their own sins that the godly portion of the nation were\npunished and carried into captivity along with the ungodly, but on\naccount of the ungodly who, however, by apostatising from the religion\nof Jehovah, knew how to obtain a better fate. The ungodly drew from it\nthe inference that the hope of the godly, that Jehovah would come to\ntheir help, had been in vain. But when the captivity came to an end,\nand the godly returned, they saw that they had been mistaken, and that\nthe hope of the godly was well founded. They, therefore, full of\nrepentance, deeply lament that they had not long ago repented of their\nsins. This view is adopted also by _Von C\u00f6lln_ in his _Biblische\nTheologie_; by _Thenius_ in _Wiener's Zeitschrift_, ii. 1; by _Maurer_\nand _Knobel_. The latter says: \"Those who were zealous adherents of the\nTheocracy had a difficult position among their own people, and had to\nsuffer most from foreign tyrants.\" The true worshippers of Jehovah were\ngiven up to mockery and scorn, to persecution and the grossest abuse,\nand were in a miserable and horrible condition, unworthy of men and\nalmost inhuman. The punishments for sin had to be endured chiefly by\nthose who did not deserve them. Thus the view easily arose that the\ngodly suffered in substitution for the whole people.\n\n(_d._) The hypothesis which makes the priestly order the subject, has\nbeen defended by the author of: _Ausf\u00fchrliche Erkl\u00e4rung der s\u00e4mmtlichen\nWeissagungen des A. T._ 1801.\n\n(_e._) The hypothesis which makes the collective body of the prophets\nthe subject, was first advanced by _Rosenm\u00fcller_ in the treatise:\n_Leiden und Hoffnungen der Propheten Jehovas_, [Pg 324] in _Gablers\nNeuestes theol. Journal_, vol. ii. S. 4, p. 333 ff. From him it came as\na legacy to _De Wette_ (_de morte Jes. Chr. expiatoria_, p. 28 sqq.),\nand to _Gesenius_. According to _Schenkel_ (_Studien und Kritiken_ 36)\n\"the prophetic order was the quiet, hidden blossom, which early storms\nbroke.\" According to _Umbreit_ the Servant of God is the collective\nbody of the prophets, or the prophetic order, which is here plainly\nrepresented as the sacrificial beast (!) taking upon itself the sins of\nthe people. He finds it \"rather strange that the Prophet who, in chap.\nlxvi. 3 (of course according to a false interpretation), plainly\nrejects sacrifice altogether, should speak of the shedding of the blood\nof a man, and, moreover, of a pure, sinless man, in the room of the\nguilty.\" The manner in which _Umbreit_ seeks to gain a transition to\nthe Messianic interpretation, although not in the sense held by the\nChristian Church, has been pointed out by us on a former occasion, in\nthe remarks on chap. xlii. _Hofmann_ (_Schriftbeweis_, ii. 1 S. 89 ff.)\nhas got up a mixture composed of these explanations which refer the\nprophecy to the people, to the godly, to the prophetic order, and, if\none will, of that also which refers it to the Messiah. He says: \"The\npeople as a people are called to be the servant of God; but they do not\nfulfil their vocation as a congregation of the faithful; and it is,\ntherefore, the work of the prophets to restore that congregation, and\nhence also the fulfilment of its vocation.--Prophetism itself is\nrepresented not in its present condition only, when it exists in a\nnumber of messengers and witnesses of Jehovah, in the first instance in\nIsaiah himself, but also in the final result, into which the fulfilment\nof its vocation will lead, when the Servant of Jehovah unites in His\nperson the offices of a proclaimer of the impending work of salvation,\nand of its Mediator, and, from the shame and suffering attached to His\nvocation as a witness, passes over into the glory of the salvation\nrealised in Him.\" In order to render such a mixture possible,\neverything is tried in order to remove the vicarious character of the\nsufferings of the Servant of God, since that character is peculiar to\nChrist, and excludes every comparison. \"Of a priestly self-sacrifice of\nthe Servant of God\"--says _Hofmann_, S. 101, 2--\"I cannot find\nanything. The assertion that the words [Hebrew: izh gviM], denote a\npriestly work, no longer requires a refutation. His [Pg 325] vocation\nis to be the mediator of a revelation of God in words; and although the\nfulfilment of this vocation brings death upon Him, without His\nendeavouring to escape, this is not a proof nor a part of His priestly\nvocation. In just the same case is the assertion that the Messiah\nappears here as a King also.\" As long as we proceed from the\nsupposition that the Prophet predicts truth, we are, by that very\nsupposition, forbidden to distribute the property of the one among the\nmany; but that is thus violently set aside. The Rationalistic\ninterpreters have in this respect an easier task. They allow the\nsubstitution to stand; but they consider it as a vain fancy. The fact\nthat _Hofmann_ does not recoil from even the most violent\ninterpretations, in order to remove the exclusive reference to Christ,\nappears, _e.g._, from his remark, S. 132, that \"the chastisement of our\npeace\" designates an actual chastisement, which convinces them of their\nsin, and of the earnestness of divine holiness, and thus serves for\ntheir salvation. Surely _Gesenius_ and _Hitzig's_ explanations are far\nmore unbiassed.\n\n2. Among the interpretations which refer the prophecy to a single\nindividual other than the Messiah, scarcely any one has found another\ndefender than its own author. They are of importance only in so far, as\nthey show that most decidedly does the prophecy make the impression,\nthat its subject is a real person, not a personification; and, farther,\nthat it could not by any means be an exegetical interest which induced\nrationalism to reject the interpretation which referred it to Christ.\nThe persons that have been guessed at are the following: King Uzziah,\n(_Augusti_), King Hezekiah, (_Konynenburg_ and _Bahrdt_), the Prophet\nIsaiah himself, (_St\u00e4udlin_), an unknown prophet supposed to have been\nkilled by the Jews in the captivity (an anonymous author in _Henke's\nMagazin_, Bd. i. H. 2), the royal house of David, which suffered\ninnocently when the children of the unhappy king Zedekiah were killed\nat the command of Nebuchadnezzar (_Bolten_ on Acts viii. 33), the\nMaccabees (an anonymous writer in the _Theologische Nachrichten_, 1821,\nS. 79 ff.) Even at this present time, this kind of explanation is not\naltogether obsolete. _Schenkel_ thinks that \"the chapter under\nconsideration may, perhaps, belong to the period of the real Isaiah,\nwhose language equals that of the description of the Servant of God now\n[Pg 326] under consideration, in conciseness and harshness, and may\nhave been originally a Psalm of consolation in sufferings, which was\ncomposed with a view to the hopeful progeny of some pious man or\nprophet innocently killed, and which was rewritten and interpreted by\nthe author of the book, and embodied in it.\" _Ewald_ (Proph. ii. S.\n407) says: \"Farther, the description of the Servant of God is here\naltogether very strange, especially v. 8 f., inasmuch as,\nnotwithstanding all the liveliness with which the author of the book\nconceives of Him, He is nowhere else so much and so obviously viewed as\nan historical person, as a single individual of the Past. How little\nsoever the author may have intended it, it was very obvious that the\nlater generations imagined that they would here find the historical\nMessiah. We are therefore of opinion, that the author here inserted a\npassage, which appeared to him to be suitable, from an older book where\nreally a single martyr was spoken of.--It is not likely that the modern\ncontroversy on chap. liii. will ever cease as long as this truth is not\nacknowledged;--a truth which quite spontaneously suggested itself, and\nimpressed itself more and more strongly upon my mind.\" These are, no\ndoubt, assertions which cannot be maintained, and are yet of interest,\nin so far as they show, how much even those who refuse to acknowledge\nit are annoyed by a two-fold truth, viz., that Isaiah is the author of\nthe prophecy, and that it refers to a personal Messiah.\n\nAt all times, however, that explanation which refers the prophecy\nto Christ has found able defenders; and at no period has the\nanti-Messianic explanation obtained absolute sway. Among the authors of\ncomplete Commentaries on Isaiah, the Messianic explanation was defended\nby _Dathe_, _Doederlein_ (who, however, wavers in the last edition of\nhis translation), _Hensler_, _Lowth_, _Kocher_, _Koppe_, _J. D.\nMichaelis_, _v. d. Palm_, _Schmieder_. In addition to these we may\nmention: _Storr_, _dissertatio qua Jes. liii. illustratur_, T\u00fcbingen,\n1790; _Hansi Comment. in Jes. liii._, Rostock 1791 (this work has\nconsiderably promoted the interpretation, although its author often\nshows himself to be biassed by the views of the time, and especially,\nin the interest of Neology, seeks to do away with the doctrine of\nsatisfaction); _Kr\u00fcger_, _Comment. de Jes. liii., interpret_; _Jahn_,\n_Append. ad Hermen. fasc ii._; _Steudel_, [Pg 327] _Observ. ad Jes.\nliii._, _T\u00fcbingen_ 1825, 26; _Sack_, in the _Apologetik_; _Reinke_,\n_exegesis in Jes. liii._, M\u00fcnster 1836; _Tholuck_, in his work: _Das A.\nT. in N. T._; _H\u00e4vernick_, in the lectures on the Theology of the Old\nTestament; _Stier_, in the Comment. on the second part of Isaiah.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The author of the article: _Ueber die Mess. Zeiten_ in\n_Eichhorn's Bibliothek d. bibl. Literatur_, Bd. 6, p. 655, confesses\nquite candidly, that the Messianic interpretation would soon find\ngeneral approbation among Bible expositors, had they not, in recent\ntimes, obtained the conviction, \"that the prophets do not foretel any\nthing of future things, except what they know and anticipate without\nspecial divine inspiration.\"]\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n II. THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION.\n\n\nThe arguments against the Messianic interpretation cannot be designated\nin any other way than as _insignificant_. There is not one among them\nwhich could be of any weight to him who is able to judge. It is\nasserted that the Messiah is nowhere else designated as the Servant of\nGod. Even if this were the fact, it would not prove anything. But this\nname is assigned to the Messiah in Zech. iii. 8--a passage which\ninterpreters are unanimous in referring to the Messiah--where the Lord\ncalls the Messiah His Servant _Zemach_, and which the Chaldee\nParaphrast explains by [Hebrew: mwiHa vitgli] \"_Messiam et\nrevelabitur_;\" farther, in Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, not to mention Is.\nxlii. 1, xlix. 3, 6, l. 10.--It is farther asserted that in the\nMessianic interpretation everything is viewed as _future_; but that\nthis is inadmissible for grammatical and philological reasons. The\nsuffering, contempt, and death of the Servant of God are here,\nthroughout, represented as past, since in chap. liii. 1-10, all the\nverbs are in the Preterite. It is the glorification only which appears\nas future, and is expressed in the Future tense. The writer, therefore,\noccupies a position between the sufferings and the glorification, and\nthe latter is still impending. But the stand-point of the Prophet is\nnot an actual, but a supposed one,--not a real, but an ideal one. In\norder to distinguish between condition and consequence,--in order to\nput sufferings and glorification in the proper relation, he takes his\nstand between the sufferings and the glorification of the Servant of\nGod, and from that position, that appears to him as being already past\nwhich, in reality, was [Pg 328] still future. It is only an interpreter\nso thoroughly prosaic as _Knobel_ who can advance the assertion: \"No\nprophet occupies, in prophecy, another stand-point than that which in\nreality be occupies.\" In this, _e.g._, _Hitzig_ does not by any means\nassent to him; for be (_Hitzig_) remarks on chap. lii. 7: \"Proceeding\nfrom the certainty of the salvation, the Prophet sees, in the Spirit,\nthat already coming to pass which, in chap. xl. 9, he called upon them\nto do.\" And the same expositor farther remarks on Jer. vi. 24-26: \"This\nis a statement of how people would then speak, and, thereby, a\ndescription of the circumstances of that time.\" But in our remarks on\nchap. xi. and in the introduction to the second part, we have already\nproved that the prophets very frequently occupy an ideal stand-point,\nand that such is the case here, the Prophet has himself expressly\nintimated. In some places, he has passed from the prophetical\nstand-point to the historical, and uses the Future even when he speaks\nof the sufferings,--a thing which appears to have been done\ninvoluntarily, but which, in reality, is done intentionally. Thus there\noccurs [Hebrew: iptH] in ver. 7, [Hebrew: twiM] in ver. 10, and,\naccording to the explanations of _Gesenius_ and others, also [Hebrew:\nipgie] in ver. 12 while, on the other hand, he sometimes speaks of the\nglorification in the Preterite.[1] Compare [Hebrew: lqH] in ver. 8,\n[Hebrew: nwa] in ver. 12. This affords a sure proof that we are here\naltogether on an ideal territory. The ancient translators too have not\nunderstood the Preterites as a designation of the real Past, and\nfrequently render them by Futures. Thus the LXX. ver. 14: [Greek:\nekst\u00easontai--adox\u00easei]; _Aqui._ and _Theod._, ver. 2, [Greek:\nanab\u00easetai].--It is farther asserted, that the idea of a suffering and\nexpiating Messiah is foreign to the Old Testament, and stands in\ncontradiction even to its prevailing views of the Messiah. But this\nobjection cannot be of any weight; nor can it prove anything, as long\nas, in the Church of Christ, the authority of Christ is still\nacknowledged, who Himself declares that His whole suffering had been\nforetold in the books of the Old Testament, and explained to His\ndisciples the prophecies concerning it. Even the fact, that at [Pg 329]\nthe time when Christ appeared the knowledge of a suffering Messiah was\nundeniably possessed by the more enlightened, proves that the matter\nstands differently. This knowledge is shown not only by the Baptist,\nbut also by Simeon, Luke ii. 34, 35. An assertion to the contrary can\nproceed only from the erroneous opinion, that every single Messianic\nprophecy exhibits the whole view of the Messiah, whereas, indeed, the\nMessianic announcements bear throughout a fragmentary, incidental\ncharacter,--a mode of representation which is generally prevalent in\nScripture, and by which Scripture is distinguished from a system of\ndoctrines. But even if there had existed an appearance of such a\ncontradiction, it would long ago have been removed by the fulfilment.\nBut even the appearance of a contradiction is here inadmissible,\ninasmuch as the Servant of God is here not only represented as\nsuffering and expiating, but, at the same time, as an object of\nreverence to the whole Gentile world; and the _ground_ of this\nreverence is His suffering and expiation. As regards the other passages\nof the Old Testament where a suffering Messiah is mentioned, we must\ndistinguish between the Messiah simply suffering, and the Messiah\nsuffering as a substitute. The latter, indeed, we meet with in this\npassage only. But to make up for this isolated mention, the\nrepresentation here is so full and exhaustive, so entirely excludes\nall misunderstanding, except that which is bent upon misunderstanding,\nor which is the result of evil disposition, is so affecting and so\nindelibly impressive, is indeed so exactly in the tone of doctrinal\ntheology, and therefore different from the ordinary treatment, which is\nalways incidental, and requires to be supplemented from other passages,\nthat this single isolated representation, which sounds through the\nwhole of the New Testament, is quite sufficient for the Church. The\nsuffering and dying Messiah, on the other hand, we meet with frequently\nin other passages of the Old Testament also, although, indeed, not so\nfrequently as the Messiah in glory. In this light He is brought before\nus, _e.g._, in chap. xlix. 50; in Dan. ix.; in Zech. ix. 9, 10, xi. 12,\n13. The fact that the humiliation of Christ would precede His\nexaltation is distinctly pointed out in the first part of Isaiah also,\nin chap. xi. 1,--a passage which contains, in a germ, all that, in the\nsecond part, [Pg 330] is more fully stated regarding the suffering\nMessiah, and which has many striking points of contact specially with\nchap. liii. And just so it is with Isaiah's contemporary, Micah, who,\nin chap. v. 1 (2), makes the Messiah proceed, not from Jerusalem, the\nseat of the Davidic family after it was raised to the royal dignity,\nbut from Bethlehem, where Jesse, the ancestor, lived as a peasant,--as\na proof that the Messiah would proceed from the family of David sank\nback into the obscurity of private life. This knowledge, that the\nMessiah should proceed from the altogether abased house of David,--a\nknowledge which appears as early as in Amos, and which pervades the\nwhole of prophecy--touches very closely upon the knowledge of His\nsufferings. Lowliness of origin, and exaltation of destination, can\nhardly be reconciled without severe conflicts. But it is _a priori_\nimpossible, that the idea of the suffering Messiah should be wanting in\nthe Old Testament. Since, in the Old Testament, throughout,\nrighteousness and suffering in this world of sin are represented as\nbeing indissolubly connected, the Messiah, being [Greek: kat'exoch\u00ean]\nthe Righteous One, must necessarily appear also as He who suffers in\nthe highest degree. If that were not the case, the Messiah would be\ntotally disconnected from all His types, especially from David, who,\nthrough the severest sufferings, attained to glory, and who in his\nPsalms, everywhere considers this course as the normal one, both in the\nPsalms which refer to the suffering righteous in general, and in those\nwhich especially refer to his family reaching their highest elevation\nin the Messiah; compare my Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iv., p. lxxx.\nff.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The same thing occurs also in the parallel passages, chap.\nxlix. 9, on which _Gesenius_ was constrained to remark: \"As the\ndeliverance was still impending, the Preterites cannot well be\nunderstood in any other way than as Futures.\"]\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n III. THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION.\n\n\nEven the fact that this is among the Jews the original interpretation,\nwhich was given up from their evil disposition only, makes us\nfavourably inclined towards it. The authority of tradition is here of\nso much the greater consequence, the more that the Messianic\ninterpretation was opposed to the disposition [Pg 331] of the people.\nHow deeply rooted was this interpretation, appears even from the\ndeclaration of John the Baptist, John i. 29: [Greek: ide ho amnos tou\nTheou ho air\u00f4n t\u00ean hamartian tou kosmou]. There cannot be any doubt\nthat, in this declaration, he points to the prophecy under\nconsideration, inasmuch as this passage is the first in Holy Scripture\nin which the sin-bearing lamb is spoken of in a spiritual sense.\n_Bengel_, following the example of _Erasmus_, remarks, in reference to\nthe article before [Greek: amnos]: \"The article looks back to the\nprophecy which was given concerning Him under this figure, in Is. liii.\n7.\" As regards [Greek: Theou], compare ver. 10: \"It pleased the Lord\npainfully to crush Him,\" and ver. 2: \"Before Him;\" as regards [Greek:\nho air\u00f4n], &c. comp. ver. 4, rendered by the LXX.: [Greek: houtos tas\nhamartias h\u00eam\u00f4n pherei]; comp. ver. 11.\n\nAn external argument of still greater weight is the testimony of the\nNew Testament. Above all, it is the declarations of our Lord himself\nwhich here come into consideration. In Luke xxii. 37, He says that the\nprophecies concerning Him were drawing near their perfect fulfilment\n([Greek: ta peri emou telos echei]), comp. Matt. xxvi. 51, and that\ntherefore the declaration: \"And He was reckoned among the\ntransgressors\" must be fulfilled in Him. In Mark ix. 12, the Lord asks:\n[Greek: p\u00f4s gegraptai epi ton huion tou anthr\u00f4pou, hina polla path\u00ea kai\nexouden\u00f4th\u00ea], with a reference to \"from man,\" and \"from the sons of\nman\" in lii. 14,--to \"He had no form nor comeliness\" in ver. 2,--to\n\"despised,\" [Hebrew: nbzh], which, by _Symmachus_ and _Theodotian_ is\nrendered by [Greek: exouden\u00f4menos], in ver. 3. In the Gospel of John,\nthe Lord emphatically and repeatedly points out, that the words: \"When\nHis soul hath given restitution,\" are written concerning Him; compare\nremarks on ver. 10. After these distinct quotations and references, we\nshall be obliged to think chiefly of our passage, in Luke xxiv. 25-27,\n44-46 also. The opponents themselves grant that, if in any passage of\nthe Old Testament the doctrine of a suffering and atoning Messiah is\ncontained, it is in the passage under review. The circumstance also,\nthat the disciples of the Lord refer, on every occasion, and with such\nconfidence, the passage to the Lord, likewise proves that Christ\nespecially interpreted it of His sufferings and exaltation. Of Matt.\nviii. 17, and Mark xv. 28, we have already spoken. John, in chap. xii.\n37, 38, and Paul in Rom. x. 16, [Pg 332] find a fulfilment of chap.\nliii. 1 in the unbelief of the Jews. In Acts viii. 28-35, Philip, on\nthe question of the eunuch from Ethiopia, as to whom the prophecy\nreferred, explained it of Christ. After the example of _De Wette_,\n_Gesenius_ lays special stress on the circumstance, that the passage\nwas never quoted in reference to the atoning death of Christ. But\nPeter, when speaking of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, makes a\nliteral use of the principal passages of the prophecy under\nconsideration, 1 Pet. ii. 21-25; and it is, in general, quite the usual\nway of the New Testament to support its statements by our passage,\nwhensoever the discourse falls upon this subject; comp. _e.g._, besides\nthe texts quoted at ver. 10, Mark ix. 12; Rom. iv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 2\nCor. v. 21; 1 John iii. 5; Pet. i. 19; Rev. v. 6, xiii. 8. Even\n_Gesenius_ himself acknowledges elsewhere, that we have here the text\nfor the whole Apostolic preaching on the atoning death of Jesus. \"Most\nHebrew readers\"--so he says, Th. iii. S. 191--\"who were so familiar\nwith the ideas of sacrifice and substitution, could not by any means\nunderstand the passage in any other way; and there is no doubt that the\nwhole apostolic notion of the atoning death of Christ is chiefly based\nupon this passage.\" The circumstance, that the reference to this\npassage appears commonly only in the form of an allusion, and not of\nexpress quotation, proves only so much the more clearly, that its\nreference to the atoning death of Christ was a point absolutely settled\nin the ancient Church.\n\nIn favour of the Messianic interpretation are not only the passages\nfrom the second part, chap. xlii., &c., but also, from the first part,\nthe passage chap. xi. 1, which so remarkably agrees with chap. liii. 2,\nthat both must be referred to the same subject.\n\nTo these external reasons, the internal must be added. The Christian\nChurch--the best judge--has at all times recognised in this prophecy\nthe faithful and wonderfully accurate image of her Lord and Saviour in\nHis atoning sufferings and the glory following upon them, in His\ninnocence and righteousness, in His meekness and silent patience (the\nNew Testament, in speaking of them, frequently points back to our\npassage), and in the burial with a rich man, ver. 9. The most\ncharacteristic feature is the atoning character of the suffering of the\n[Pg 333] Servant of God, and of the shedding of His blood. Several\ninterpreters have endeavoured to explain away this feature which they\ndislike. _Kimchi_ says: \"One must not imagine that the case really\nstands thus, that in Israel the captivity actually bears the sins and\ndiseases of the heathens (for that would be opposed to the justice of\nGod), but that the Gentiles at that time, when seeing the glorious\ndeliverance of Israel, would thus judge concerning it.\" A futile\nevasion! It is not the Gentiles who speak in chap. liii. 1-10, but the\nbelieving Church. Every sincere reader will at once feel, that it is\nnot the foolish fancies of others which the Prophet communicates in\nthese verses, but the divine truth made known to him. The doctrine of\nthe substitution, the Prophet, moreover, states in his own name, by\nsaying, \"He shall sprinkle many nations;\" and so likewise in the name\nof God, in chap. liii. 11, 12. According to _Martini_, _De Wette_, and\nothers, the expressions are to be understood figuratively, and the\ncontents and substance to be this only, that those severe calamities\nwhich that divine minister would have to sustain would be useful and\nsalutary to His compatriots. But the fact that the same doctrine\nconstantly returns under the most varied expressions, is decidedly in\nfavour of the literal interpretation. Thus, it is said in chap. lii.\n15, that the Servant of God should sprinkle many nations; in liii. 4,\nthat He bore our diseases and took upon Him our pains; in ver. 5, that\nHe was pierced for our transgressions; in ver. 8, that He bore the\npunishment which the people ought to have borne; in ver. 10, that He\noffered his soul as a sin-offering; in ver. 11, that by His\nrighteousness many should be justified; in ver. 12, that He bore the\nsins of many, and poured out His soul unto death, and that He could\nmake intercession for transgressors, because He was numbered with them.\nTo this it may still be added that in chap. lii. 15 ([Hebrew: izh]),\nliii. 10 ([Hebrew: awM]), and ver. 12: \"He bears the sins of many,\"\n(compare Levit. xvi. 21, 22; _Michaelis_: \"_Ut typice hircus pro\nIsra\u00eblitis_\") the Servant of God appears as the antitype of the Old\nTestament sin-offerings in which, as has been proved (compare my\npamphlet: _Die Opfer der heil. Schrift_, S. 12 ff.), the idea of\nsubstitution in the doctrine of the Old Testament finds its foundation.\nThere cannot be the least doubt, that the Prophet could not express\nhimself more clearly, strongly, [Pg 334] and distinctly, if his\nintention was to state the doctrine of substitution; and those who\nundertake to explain it away, would not, by so doing, leave any thing\nfirm and certain in Scripture. _Rosenm\u00fcller_ (_Gabler's_ Journal, ii.\nS. 365), _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_ have indeed candidly confessed that the\npassage contained the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, after\n_Alshech_ had, among the Jews, given the honour to truth.\n\n\n\n\n IV. EXAMINATION OF THE NON-MESSIANIC INTERPRETATIONS.\n\n\nPassing over mere whims, three explanations present themselves which\nrequire a closer examination, viz.--(1), that which makes the whole\nJewish people the subject; (2), that which refers it to the godly\nportion of the Jewish people; and (3), that which refers it to the\ncollective body of the Prophets. The following reasons militate against\nall the three interpretations simultaneously.\n\n1. According to them, the contents of the section in question present\nthemselves as a mere _fancy_; and its principal thought, the vicarious\nsuffering of the Servant of God is an absurdity. According to them, the\nprophets can no longer be considered as godly men who spake as they\nwere moved by the Holy Spirit; and their name [Hebrew: nbia], by which\nthey claimed divine inspiration, is a mere pretence. And this\nreflection is, at the same time, cast upon the Lord, who, throughout,\ntreats these visionaries as organs of immediate divine communications.\n\n2. According to all the three explanations, the subject is not a real\nperson, but an ideal one, a personified collective. But not one sure\nanalogous instance can be quoted in favour of a personification carried\non through a whole section, without the slightest intimation, that it\nis not a single individual who is spoken of. In ver. 3, the subject is\ncalled [Hebrew: aiw]; in vers. 10 and 12 a soul is ascribed to Him;\ngrave and death are used so as to imply a subject in the Singular.\nScripture never leaves any thing to be guessed. If we had an allegory\nbefore us, distinct hints as to the interpretation would certainly [Pg\n335] not be wanting. It is, _e.g._, quite different in those passages\nwhere the Prophet designates Israel by the name of the Servant of the\nLord. In them, all uncertainty is prevented by the addition of the\nnames of Jacob and Israel, xli. 8, 9; xliv. 1, 2, 21; xlv. 4; xlviii.\n20; and in them, moreover, the Prophet uses the Plural by the side of\nthe Singular, to intimate that the Servant of the Lord is an ideal\nperson, a collective, _e.g._, xlii. 24, 25; xlviii. 20, 21; xliii.\n10-14.\n\n3. The first condition of the vicarious satisfaction which, according\nto our prophecy, is to be performed by the Servant of God, is,\naccording to ver. 9 (\"Because He had done no violence, neither was any\ndeceit in His mouth\"), but more especially still, according to ver. 11\n(\"He, the righteous one, my Servant, shall justify the many\") the\nabsolute righteousness of the suffering subject. He who is himself\nsinful cannot undergo punishment for the sins of others. He is, on the\ncontrary, visited for his own sins, both as a righteous retribution,\nand for sanctification. Of such an one that would indeed be true which,\naccording to the second clause of ver. 4, was only erroneously supposed\nin reference to the Servant of God. All the three interpretations,\nhowever, are unable to prove that this condition existed. All the three\ninterpretations move on the purely human territory; but on that,\nabsolute righteousness is not to be found. At the very threshold of\nHoly Writ, in Gen. ii. and 3, compare v. 3, the doctrine of the\nuniversal sinfulness of mankind meets us; and how deep a knowledge of\nsin pervades the Old Testament, is proved by passages such as Gen. vi.\n5, viii. 21; Job xiv. 4, xv. 14-16; Ps. xiv., li. 7; Prov. xx. 9. That\nis not a soil on which ideas of substitution could thrive.--The\ndoctrine of a substitution by men is indeed nowhere else found in the\nOld Testament; and _Gesenius_, who (l. c., S. 189) endeavoured to prove\nthat \"it is very general\" has not adduced any arguments which are\ntenable or even plausible. The guilt of the fathers is visited upon the\nchildren, only when the latter walk in the steps of their fathers, and\nthe latter are first punished; comp. _Genuineness and Authenticity of\nthe Pentateuch_, Vol. ii. p. 446 ff. The same holds true in reference\nto 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14, The evil spirit which filled Saul, pervaded his\nfamily, at the same time, as we here see in the instance of Michal. It\nwas probably in the [Pg 336] interest of his family, and with their\nconcurrence, that the wicked deed had been perpetrated. (_Michaelis_\nsays: \"In order that he might appropriate their goods to himself and to\n_his family_, under the pretext of a pious zeal for Judah and Israel.\")\nAs Saul himself was already overtaken by the divine judgment, the crime\nwas punished in the family who were accomplices. In 2 Sam. xxiv. the\npeople do not suffer as substitutes for the sin, which David had\ncommitted in numbering the people; but the spirit of pride which had\nincited the king to number the people, was widely spread among them.\nBut the fact, that the king himself was punished in his subjects, is\nbrought out by his beseeching the Lord, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, that He\nmight rather visit the sin directly upon himself The sin of David and\nBathsheba is not atoned for by the death of the child (2 Sam. xii.\n15-18), for David had already obtained pardon, ver. 13. It is not the\nchild which suffers, but David, whose repentance was to be deepened by\nthis visitation. In the fact, that the whole army must suffer for what\nAchan has committed (Josh. vii. 1), a distinct intimation is implied,\nthat the criminal does not stand alone, but that, to a certain degree,\nthe whole community was implicated in his guilt. Substitution is quite\nout of the question, inasmuch as Achan himself, with his whole family\nand posterity, was burnt. Least of all, finally, can Dan. xi. 35 come\ninto consideration. According to _Gesenius_, it is there said: \"And\nthey of understanding shall fall, in order to purge, purify, and make\nwhite those (the others).\" But [Hebrew: bhM] refers rather to the\n[Hebrew: mwkiliM] themselves. Thus, nowhere in the Old Testament, is\neven the slightest trace found of a satisfaction to be accomplished by\nman for man; nor can it be found there, because, from its very\ncommencement. Scripture most emphatically declares: [Greek: pantas\nhuph'hamartian einai], Rom. iii. 9.\n\nThe explanation, which makes the _Jewish people_ the subject, has\nalready been overthrown by the parallel passages, before arriving: at\nthe section under consideration. \"Even so far back as chap. xlii. 1,\ndifficulties are met with,\" remarks _Beck_. \"How is it possible that\nthe people who, in ver. 19 of that chapter, are described as blind and\ndeaf, should here appear as being altogether penetrated by the Spirit,\nso as to become the teachers of the Gentiles?\" \"Chap. xlix. is a true\n[Pg 337] cross for the interpreters.\" \"Finally, the section, chap. l.,\n_Hitzig_ himself is obliged to explain as referring to the Prophet; and\nthus this interpretation forfeits the boast of most strictly holding\nfast the unity of this notion.\"\n\nBut still more decisively is the interpretation overthrown by the\ncontents of the section under discussion. The Servant of God has,\naccording to it, voluntarily taken upon Himself His sufferings\n(according to ver. 10, He offers himself as a sacrifice for sin;\naccording to ver. 12, He is crowned with glory because He has poured\nout His soul unto death). Himself sinless, He bears the sins of others,\nvers. 4-6, 9. His sufferings are the means by which the justification\nof many is effected. He suffers quietly and patiently, ver. 7. Not one\nof these four signs can be vindicated for the people of Israel. (a).\nThe Jews did not go voluntarily into the Babylonish exile, but were\ndragged into it by force. (b). The Jewish people were not without sin\nin suffering; but they suffered, in the captivity, the punishment of\ntheir own sins. Their being carried away had been foretold by Moses as\na punitive judgment. Lev. xxvi. 14 ff.; Deut. xxviii. 15 ff. xxix. 19\nff., and as such it is announced by all the prophets also. In the\nsecond part, Isaiah frequently reminds Judah that they shall be cast\ninto captivity by divine justice, and be delivered from it by divine\nmercy only; comp. chaps. lvi.-lix., especially chap. lix. 2: \"Your\niniquities separate between you and your God, and your sins hide His\nface from you that He doth not hear. For your hands are defiled with\nblood, and your fingers with iniquity, your lips speak lies, and your\ntongue meditates perverseness. Their feet run to evil, and they make\nhaste to shed innocent blood, their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity,\nwasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they know\nnot, and there is no right in their paths; they pervert their paths;\nwhosoever goeth therein doth not know peace. Apostacy and denying the\nLord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt,\nconceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.\" Comp. chap.\nxlii. 24: \"Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did\nnot the Lord, He against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they\nwould not walk, neither were they obedient unto His law.\" Farther, [Pg\n338] chap. xliii. 26, 27, where the detailed proof that Israel's merits\ncould not be the cause of their deliverance, inasmuch as they did not\nexist at all, is, by the Prophet, wound up by the words: \"Put me in\nremembrance, let us plead together, declare then that thou mayest be\njustified. Thy first father hath sinned, and thy mediators have\ntransgressed against me. Therefore I profane the princes of the\nsanctuary, and give Jacob to the destruction, and Israel to\nreproaches.\" It is solely to the mercy of God that, according to chap.\nxlviii. 11, Israel owes deliverance from the severe suffering into\nwhich they fell in the way of their sins. One may confidently assert\nthere is not a single page in the whole book, which does not offer a\nstriking refutation of this view. And most miserable are the expedients\nto which, in the face of such facts, the defenders of this view betake\nthemselves. _Rosenm\u00fcller_ was of opinion, that the Prophet introduced\nthose Gentiles only as speaking, who, by this flattery, wished to gain\nthe favour of the Jews,--without considering that it is just in the\nwords of the Lord, in ver. 11, that the absolute righteousness of the\nServant of God is most strongly expressed. _Hitzig_ is of opinion, that\nthe people had indeed suffered for their sins; but that the punishment\nhad been greater than their sins, and that by this surplus the Gentiles\nwere benefited. But the Prophet expressly contradicts such a gross\nview. He repeatedly declares that the punishment was still mitigated by\nmercy; that, in the way of their works, Israel would have found total\ndestruction. Thus, _e.g._, chap. xlviii. 9: \"For my name's sake will I\nbe long-suffering, and for my praise will I moderate mine anger unto\nthee, that I cut thee not off;\" chap. i. 9: \"Except the Lord of Hosts\nhad left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom; we\nshould have been like unto Gomorrah.\" In order to be fully convinced\nhow much this view of Israel, enforced upon the godly men of the Old\nTestament, is in contradiction to their own view, the prayer of Ezra\nmay still be compared in Neh. ix., especially ver. 20 ff.--(c.) The\nsufferings of the Jewish people cannot be vicarious, because they are\ndestitute of the very first condition of substitution, viz.,\nsinlessness and righteousness. That even _Hitzig_ does not venture to\nclaim for them. But how can an ungodly man, even supposing that his\npunishment is too severe, justify others [Pg 339] by a righteousness of\nhis which does not exist? _Finally_--The fourth sign, patience, so\nlittle belongs to the Jewish people, that it is one of the main tasks\nof our Prophet himself to oppose their murmuring impatience; comp.\n_e.g._, chap. xlv. 9 ff.\n\nAgainst the hypothesis that the people are the subject of the prophecy,\nthere is the circumstance that it carries along with it the unnatural\nsupposition that, in chap. liii. 1-10, the heathens are introduced as\nspeaking. Decisive against this supposition are specially the\ndesignation [Hebrew: emi] in ver. 8, and the most forced explanation to\nwhich it compels us, in some verses, especially ver. 2.\n\nThe interpretation which considers the godly portion of the people to\nbe the subject of the prophecy, is overthrown by the fact that,\naccording to the view of Scripture, even those who, in the ordinary\nsense, are righteous, are unable to render a vicarious satisfaction for\nothers. For such, absolute righteousness is required. But the\n\"righteous ones\" are begotten by sinful seed (Ps. li.), and they have\nneed daily to pray that God would pardon their secret sins, Ps. xix.\n13; they themselves live only by the pardoning mercy of God, and cannot\nthink of atoning for others, Ps. xxxii. Even for believers, the\ncaptivity is, according to chap. xlii., the merited punishment of their\nsins. In that passage, the greatness of the mercy of God is pointed\nout, who grants a twofold salvation for sins, while infinite punishment\nshould be their natural consequence. It is not to a single portion of\nthe people, but to the whole, that, in the passages formerly quoted,\nevery share in effecting deliverance and salvation is denied. How\nlittle an absolute righteousness existed in the elect, sufficiently\nappears from the fact, that, in the second part, it forms a main object\nof the Prophet to oppose their want of courage, their despair and\ndistrust of God. _Farther_--The ungodly could not by any means consider\nthe sufferings of the righteous ones as vicarious, because they\nthemselves suffered as much; and as little could they despise the godly\non account of their sufferings. It is a mere invention, destitute of\nevery historical foundation, to assert that it was especially the\nGod-fearing who had to suffer so grievously in the captivity. On the\ncontrary, their fear of God gained for them the respect of the\nGentiles; and among [Pg 340] their own people also, whose sinful\ndisposition was broken by the punishment, they occupied an honourable\nposition. Ezekiel we commonly find surrounded by the elders of the\npeople, listening to his words; and Daniel, Esther, and Mordecai, Ezra,\nand Nehemiah, richly furnished with the goods of this world, enjoyed\nhigh esteem in the Gentile world. The fact that the supporters of this\nhypothesis are compelled to have recourse to such an unhistorical\nfiction, which has been carried to the extreme, especially by _Knobel_,\nsufficiently proves it to be untenable.\n\nIn opposition to the interpretation which refers the prophecy to the\ncollective body of the Prophets, _Hitzig_ very justly remarks: \"The\nsupposition that, by the Servant of God, the prophetic order is to be\nunderstood, is destitute of all foundation and probability.\" In\ncommenting on chap. xlii. we remarked, that there are no analogous\ncases at all in favour of such a personification of the prophetic\norder. Moreover, the defenders of this view commonly deny, at the same\ntime, the genuineness of the second part. From this stand-point it\nbecomes still more evident, how untenable this hypothesis is. A\nprophetic order can, least of all, be spoken of during the time of the\nBabylonish captivity. With the captivity, Prophetism began to die out.\nJeremiah in Jerusalem, and Ezekiel among the exiled, already stood very\nmuch isolated. Jeremiah, during the last days of the Jewish state,\nstands out everywhere as a single individual, opposed to the whole mass\nof the false prophets. \"There is no more any prophet,\" is, at the time\nof the destruction by the Chaldeans, the lamentation of the author of\nPs. lxxiv. in ver. 9. According to an unanimous tradition (comp. 1\nMaccab. ix. 27, iv. 46, xiv. 41, and the passages from the Talmud and\nother Jewish writings in _Knibbe's_ history of the Prophets, S. 347\nff., and in _Joh. Smithi Dissert. de Prophetis_, in the Appendix to\n_Clericus'_ Commentary on the Prophets, chap. xii.), Haggai, Zechariah,\nand Malachi were the last of the prophets, and according to the\nhistorical books and their own prophecies, the only prophets of their\ntime. How, now, were it possible that the Prophet should speak of a\ngreat corporation of the prophets, who become not only the founders and\nrulers of the new state, but who are to enlighten all the other nations\nof the earth with the light of the time religion, [Pg 341] and\nincorporate them into the church of God? Of all that is characteristic\nof the vocation of the prophets, nothing is found here; while, on the\nother hand, almost everything which is said of the Servant of God is in\nopposition to the vocation and destination of the prophets. That which\nhere, above everything, comes into consideration is the _vicarious\nsatisfaction_. Chap. vi., where the Prophet when, after having\nadministered the prophetic office for several years, he beheld the\nLord, exclaims: \"Woe is unto me for I am undone, because I am a man of\nunclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips,\" is\nsufficient to show how far the thoughts of such a vicarious\nsatisfaction were from the prophets. Such is surely not the ground from\nwhich the delusion of being substitutes for others can grow up. All\nthose who entertained such a delusion, such as _Gichtel_, _Bourignon_,\n_Guyon_, were misled into it by proudly shutting their eyes to their\nown sinfulness. It would surely be abasing the prophets without any\ncause, if we were to assign to them that delusion. Moreover, the hopes\nwhich here, according to these interpreters, are uttered in reference\nto the prophetic order, contradict its idea, and institution. A\nprophetic pride would here come out, such as is not equalled by\npriestly pride in all history. _Schenkel_, no doubt, is right in\nremarking against the interpretation which makes the Jewish people the\nsubject of the prophecy,--an interpretation of which _Hitzig_ is the\nrepresentative: \"Is it to believed that the prophets, whose object all\nalong it was to suppress the moral pride of the people, should wantonly\nhave awakened it by such a thought?\" But _Hitzig_ is equally in the\nright when, in opposition to _Schenkel_ and others who refer this\nprediction to the prophetic order, he remarks: \"It is quite obvious,\nhow very unsuitable it would be to limit the hitherto wretched\ncondition and the future glory of the people to the prophets, as if\nthey alone, as true [Greek: katakurieuontes t\u00f4n kl\u00ear\u00f4n], constituted\nthe people.\" According to this hypothesis, the prophets are supposed to\nflatter themselves with the hope that they would be the rulers of\nthe state again flourishing, and would celebrate worldly triumphs.\nAltogether apart from the folly of this hope, it was entirely opposed\nto the destiny of the prophetic order. By divine institution, the\ndominion in the Kingdom of God had for ever been given over to\nDavid [Pg 342] and his family. By usurping it, the prophets would\nhave rebelled against God, whose lights they were called to\nuphold.--_Farther_, As the principal sphere of the ministry of the\nServant of God, the heathen world here appears. But with it, the\nprophets have, nowhere else, any thing to do; their mission is\neverywhere to Israel only.--The sufferings which the prophets had to\nendure during the captivity, were not different from those of the\npeople. Every proof, yea, even every probability, is wanting that,\nduring the time of the captivity, the prophets--and history mentions\nand knows only Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel--were pre-eminently\nafflicted. On the contrary, they occupy an honourable position.\nJeremiah receives, after the capture of Jerusalem, proofs of esteem\nfrom Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel is entrusted with the highest public\noffices. Ezekiel is held in honour by his compatriots. How then could\nthe people despise the prophets on account of their sufferings? How\ncould they imagine that they had been smitten by God? How could they\nafterwards conceive the idea that the sufferings of the prophets had a\nvicarious character?--To what quarter soever we look, impossibilities\npresent themselves; and if, moreover, we also look at the parallel\npassages, we must indeed wonder, that a hypothesis altogether so\nuntenable should ever have been listened to.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER LV. 1-5.\n\n\nThe Lord exhorts those who are anxious to be saved, to appropriate the\nblessings of salvation which are so liberally offered, and which,\nalthough bestowed without money and price, can alone truly satisfy the\nsoul, vers. 1 and 2. For He is to make with them a covenant of\neverlasting duration, in which the eternal mercy promised to the family\nof David is to be realized, ver. 3. David--such is the salvation in\nstore for the Church--is to be a witness, prince, and lawgiver of all\nthe Gentiles who, with joyful readiness, shall unite themselves to\nIsrael.\n\n[Pg 343]\n\nVer. 1. \"_Ho, all ye that thirst, come ye to the water, and ye that\nhave no silver, come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk\nwithout silver and without price._\"\n\nThe discourse is addressed to the members of the Church pining away in\nmisery. By the water, salvation is denoted, as is not unfrequently the\ncase, comp. chap. xii. 3: \"And with joy ye shall draw water out of the\nwells of salvation,\" xliv. 3; Ps. lxxxvii. 7, lxxxiv. 7, cvii. 35. The\nthirsty one is he who stands in need of salvation. To the words: \"Ho,\nall ye that thirst, come ye to the water,\" the Lord refers in John vii.\n37: [Greek: ean tis dipsa erchesth\u00f4 pros me kai pinet\u00f4], where the\n[Greek: pros me] had been added from ver. 3. It is to be observed that\nChrist there appropriates to himself what Jehovah is here speaking.\n_Michaelis_ says: \"Christ, in consequence of the highest identity,\nmakes the words of the Father His own.\" There is an evident reference\nto the same words in Rev. xxi. 6 also: [Greek: eg\u00f4 t\u00f4 dips\u00f4nti d\u00f4s\u00f4 ek\nt\u00eas p\u00eag\u00eas tou hudatos t\u00eas z\u00f4\u00eas d\u00f4rean]. Similarly in Rev. xxii. 17:\n[Greek: kai ho dips\u00f4n erchesth\u00f4, ho thel\u00f4n labet\u00f4 hud\u00f4r z\u00f4\u00eas d\u00f4rean].\nIn a somewhat more distant relation to the words before us, but yet\nundeniably depending upon them, is John iv. 10: [Greek: su an \u00eat\u00easas\nauton kai ed\u00f4ken an soi hud\u00f4r z\u00f4n]. Vers. 13, 14: [Greek: pas ho pin\u00f4n\nek tou hudatos toutou dips\u00easei palin. hos d'an pi\u00ea ek tou hudatos, hou\neg\u00f4 d\u00f4s\u00f4 aut\u00f4 ou m\u00ea dips\u00eas\u00ea eis ton ai\u00f4na]. And so does, in another\naspect. Matt. xi. 28: [Greek: deute pros me hoi kopi\u00f4ntes kai\npephortismenoi kag\u00f4 anapaus\u00f4 humas], which, however, has still nearer\npoints of resemblance to ver. 3; for [Greek: deute pros me] corresponds\nto [Hebrew: lkv ali] in that verse; the words [Greek: kag\u00f4 anapaus\u00f4\nhumas], to: \"Your soul shall live\" there, but yet in such a way that\nthere is, at the same time, a reference to Jer. vi. 16; the [Greek:\nkopi\u00f4ntes kai pephortismenoi] are the thirsty ones in the verse before\nus. It is remarkable to see how important this unassuming declaration\nwas to our Lord, and how much He had it at heart. We are thereby\nurgently called upon, by means of deep and earnest study and\nmeditation, to arrive at the full meaning of the Old Testament, which\nis everywhere connected with the New Testament, not only by the strong\nand firm ties of express quotations, but also by the nicest and most\ntender threads of gentle allusions. Even Matt. v. 6: [Greek: makarioi\nhoi pein\u00f4ntes kai dips\u00f4ntes t\u00ean dikaiosun\u00ean] comes into a close\nrelation to our passage, as soon as it is recognized that [Greek:\ndikaiosun\u00ean] is not the subjective righteousness [Pg 344] which is\nexcluded from that context, but rather righteousness as a gift of God,\nthe actual justification, such as takes place in the bestowal of\nsalvation; so that, hence, the righteousness there corresponds with the\n_water_ here. The subsequent \"eat\" furnishes the foundation for the\nfact, that the need of and desire for salvation, is designated by\n_hunger_ also,--\"_Come ye, buy and eat._\" [Hebrew: wbr] \"to break,\" is\nused of the appeasing of thirst (comp. Ps. civ. 11), and hunger (comp.\nGen. xlii. 19); and corn is called [Hebrew: wbr] for this reason that\nit breaks the hunger. The verb never means \"to buy\" in general, but\nonly such a buying as affords the means of appeasing hunger and thirst.\nNor does it, in itself, stand in any relation to corn, except in so far\nonly as the latter is a chief moans of appeasing hunger. This we see\nnot only from Ps. civ. 11, but also from that which here immediately\nfollows, where it is used of the buying of wine and milk. The buying of\nnecessary provisions is commonly designated by the _Kal_; the selling\nby the _Hiphil_. In Gen. xli. 26, the selling too is designated by the\n_Kal_. He who causes that one can break or appease, may himself also be\ndesignated as he who breaks or appeases. This verb, so very peculiar,\nand the noun [Hebrew: wbr], occur in a certain accumulation, in the\nhistory of Joseph only; elsewhere, their occurrence is sporadic only.\nIt is then to the hunger of Israel in ancient times, and to its being\nappeased by Joseph, that the double [Hebrew: wbrv] alludes; and from\nthis circumstance also the fact is to be explained, that it is first\nused in reference to food; comp. [Hebrew: wbrv vaklv] in our verse,\nwith [Hebrew: wbr akl] in Gen. xlii. 7-10. Christ is the true Joseph,\nwho puts an end to the hunger and thirst of the people of God, by\noffering true food and true drink.--The word \"eat\" suggests substantial\nfood, bread in contrast to the drink by which it is surrounded on both\nsides; compare John vi. 35: [Greek: eg\u00f4 eimi ho artos t\u00eas z\u00f4\u00eas. ho\nerchomenos pros me ou m\u00ea peinas\u00ea] [Hebrew: wbrv] [Greek: kai ho\npisteu\u00f4n eis eme ou m\u00ea dips\u00eas\u00ea p\u00f4pote]. Ver. 55: [Greek: h\u00ea gar\nsarx mou al\u00eath\u00f4s esti br\u00f4sis, kai to hima mou al\u00eath\u00f4s esti posis]. From\nthe sequel (comp. vers. 6, 7), it appears that the thrice repeated\n_coming_ and the _buying_ are accomplished by true repentance, the\n[Greek: metanoia], which is the indispensable condition of the\nparticipation in the salvation. In John vi. 35, the words: [Greek: ho\nerchomenos pros me] are explained by: [Greek: ho pisteu\u00f4n eis eme].\nFaith is the soul of repentance.--The circumstance that the [Pg 345]\nbuying is done without money, intimates that the blessings of salvation\nare a pure gift of divine grace. These blessings of salvation are first\ndesignated by water; afterwards, by _wine_ and _milk_,--thus\napproximating to those passages in which the blessings of the Kingdom\nof Christ appear under the image of a rich repast, to which the members\nof the Kingdom are invited as guests, Ps. xxii. 26-30; Matt. viii. 11,\nxxii. 2; Luke xiv. 16; Rev. xix. 9.--Some Rationalistic interpreters\nunderstand, by the offered blessings, the salutary admonitions of the\nProphet; but decisive against these are vers. 3 and 11, according to\nwhich it is not present, but future blessings, not words, but real\nthings which are spoken of, viz., the salvation which is to be brought\nthrough Christ. What that is which constitutes the substance of this\nsalvation, we learn from chap. liii. It is the redemption and\nreconciliation by the Servant of God. Yet we must not, after the manner\nof several ancient interpreters, limit ourselves to the \"evangelical\nrighteousness.\" On the contrary, the whole fulness of the salvation in\nChrist is comprehended in it; and according to vers. 4 and 5, this\nincludes the dominion over the world by the Kingdom of God,--its\ndominion over the Gentile world, and the investiture of its members\nwith the full liberty and glory of the children of God.\n\nVer. 2. \"_Wherefore do ye weigh money for that which is not bread, and\nyour labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken, hearken unto me,\nand eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in\nfatness._\"\n\nFrom ver. 3, we see that it is not the Prophet, but the Lord who\nspeaks. \"That which is not bread,\" and \"that which satisfieth not,\" is\nsomething which outwardly has the appearance of good and nutritious\nfood, and to obtain which the hungry ones therefore strive, and exert\nthemselves with all their might, but which afterwards shows itself to\nbe food in appearance only, and which has not the power of satisfying.\n\"That which is not bread,\" is, in the first instance, the imagined\nsalvation which they sought to obtain from idols for much money. This\nappears from the intentional literal reference to chap. xlvi. 6, where\nthe Prophet reproves the folly of those who, in the face of the living\nGod, \"lavish gold out of the bag, and _weigh silver_ in the balance,\nand hire a goldsmith, [Pg 346] that he make it a god, work also and\nfall down.\" With perfect justice _Stier_ remarks: \"Notwithstanding the\nconnection with, and allusion to, the circumstances of that time, the\nword of the Prophet is to be understood in a general, spiritual way, as\na melancholy, bitter lamentation over the general misery, and man's\ndeep-rooted perverseness in running with effort and exertion, after\nthat which is pernicious to the soul, and in serving some Baal better\nthan Jehovah.\" \"Fatness\" occurs as a figurative designation of the\nglorious gifts of God, in Ps. xxxvi. 9 also.\n\nVer. 3. \"_Incline your ears and come unto me, hear and your soul shall\nlive, and I will grant to you an everlasting covenant, the constant\nmercies of David._\"\n\nThe introductory words allude, in a graceful manner, to two Messianic\npsalms, and remind us of the fact, that the prophecy before us moves on\nthe same ground as these psalms. On \"incline your ear, and come unto\nme, hear,\" comp. Ps. xlv. 11: \"Hear, O daughter, and see, and _incline\nthine ear_ (from the fundamental passage, the Singular is here\nretained), and forget thy people and thy father's house.\" On \"your soul\nshall live,\" comp. Ps. xxii. 27: \"The meek shall eat and be satisfied,\nthey shall praise the Lord that seek Him, _your heart shall live for\never_.\" Analogous are the references to Ps. lxxii. in chap. xi. The\nsoul _dies_ in care and grief In the words: \"I will grant to you,\" &c.,\nthere follow the glad tidings which are to heal the dying hearts.\n[Hebrew: krt brit] is used of God, even where no reciprocal agreement\ntakes place, but where He simply confers grace; because every grace\nwhich He bestows imposes, at the same time, an obligation, and may\nhence be considered as a covenant. The onesidedness is, in such a case,\nindicated by the construction with [Hebrew: l], comp. chap. lxi. 8:\n\"And I give them their reward in truth, and I make (grant) to them an\neverlasting covenant,\" Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; Ps. lxxxix. 4.\nSince _to make a covenant_ is here identical with _granting mercy_,\n[Hebrew: akrth] may also be connected with the subsequent \"the constant\nmercies of David,\" and there is no necessity for supposing a Zeugma.\nThe everlasting covenant here, is the new covenant in Jer. xxxi. 31-34;\nfor the words \"I _will_ make\" show that, here too, a new covenant is\nspoken of. The substance of the covenant to be made is expressed in the\nwords: [Pg 347] \"The constant mercies of David,\" &c. By \"David,\" many\ninterpreters here understand the descendant of David, the Messiah, who,\nin other passages also, _e.g._, Jer. xxx. 9, bears the name of His\ntype. Even _Abenezra_ refers to the fact that, in ver. 4, the Messiah\nis necessarily required as the subject. The _constant_ mercies of David\nare, according to this view--in parallelism with the \"everlasting\ncovenant\"--the mercies constantly continuing, in contrast to the merely\ntransitory mercies, such as had been those of the first David.\nAccording to the opinion of other interpreters, David designates here,\nas in Hos. iii. 5, the family of David who, in Ps. xviii., and in a\nseries of other psalms, speaks in the name of his whole family. As\nregards the sense, this explanation arrives at the same result. For,\naccording to it, the Messiah is He in whom the Davidic house attains to\nits fall destiny, the channel through which the mercies of David flow\nin upon the Church. For the latter interpretation, however, is decisive\nthe evident reference to the divine promise to David, in 2 Sam. vii.,\nespecially vers. 15, 16: \"And my mercy shall not depart from him (thy\nrace) ... and constant ([Hebrew: namN]) is thine house, and thy kingdom\nfor ever before thee, thy throne shall be firm for ever;\" compare Ps.\nlxxxix. 29: \"My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant\nis constant in him.\" Ps. lxxxix. 2, 50: \"Lord, where are thy former\nmercies which thou swarest unto David in thy truth?\" likewise suggest\nthat, by David, not simply Christ is to be understood, but the Davidic\nfamily. The constant mercies of David are, accordingly, the mercies\nwhich have been sworn to the Davidic house as _constant_, which,\ntherefore, can never rest until Christ has appeared with His\neverlasting Kingdom, in which they find their true and full\nrealization. In the expectation of the Messiah from the house of David,\nthe prophecy under consideration goes hand in hand with chap. xi. 1,\nwhere the Messiah appears as a twig which proceeds from the cut-down\ntree of Jesse; and with chap. ix. 6, according to which He sits on the\nthrone of David. This passage alone is fully sufficient against those\n(_Ewald_, _Umbreit_, and others) who advance the strange assertion,\nthat the Prophet had altogether given up the idea of a Messiah from the\nhouse of David, and had distributed His property between Cyrus and the\nprophetic order, [Pg 348] or the pious portion of the people. It is of\nthe greatest importance for the explanation of those passages which\ntreat of the Servant of God, and forms a point of union for the\nMessianic passages of the first and second part. The passage before us\nis quoted in Acts xiii. 34: [Greek: hoti de anest\u00easen auton ek nekr\u00f4n,\nm\u00eaketi mellonta hupostrephein eis diaphthoran hout\u00f4s, eir\u00eaken. hoti\nd\u00f4s\u00f4 humin ta hosia Dabid ta pista]. [Greek: hOsia Dabid], _sancta\nDavidis_, are the sacred, inviolable, inalienably guaranteed mercies\nand blessings which have been promised to the house of David. As\ncertainly as these must be granted, so certainly Christ, who was to\nbring them, could not remain in the power of death.\n\nVer. 4. \"_Behold, I give him for a witness to the people, for a prince\nand lawgiver of the people._\"\n\nHere, and in ver. 5, we have the expansion of the mercies of David.\nTheir greatness and glory appear from the circumstance that, around his\nscion, the whole heathen world, which hitherto was hostile and\npernicious to the Church of God, will gather. The Suffix in [Hebrew:\nnttiv] can refer only to David, or the family of David. From the\nconnection with chap. liii., it appears that it is in his descendant,\nthe righteous One, to whom the heathen and their kings do homage, that\nDavid will attain to the dignity here announced. [Hebrew: ed] has no\nother signification than \"witness.\" Every true doctrine bears the\ncharacter of a witness. The teacher sent by God does not teach on his\nown authority, [Greek: a m\u00ea e\u00f4raken embateu\u00f4n], but only witnesses what\nhe has seen and heard. With a reference to, and in explanation of the\npassage before us, Christ says to Pilate, in John xviii. 37: \"For this\nend was I born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should\nbear _witness_ unto the truth.\" And the passages, Rev. i. 5: \"And from\nJesus Christ who is the faithful witness,\" and Rev. iii. 14: \"These\nthings says the Amen, the faithful and true witness,\" likewise point\nback to the passage before us; compare farther, John iii. 11, 32, 33.\nIn John xviii. 37, Rev. i. 5, His being a witness is, just as in the\npassage before us, connected with His being a King; so that the\nreference to this passage cannot be at all doubtful. It is\nintentionally that [Hebrew: ed] is put at the head. It is intended to\nintimate that the future dominion of the Davidic dynasty over the\nheathen world shall be essentially different from that which, in former\ntimes, it exercised [Pg 349] over some neighbouring people. It is not\nbased upon the power of arms, but upon the power of truth. He in whom\nthe Davidic dynasty is to centre shall connect the prophetic with the\nregal office; just as already, in the prophecy of the Shiloh, in Gen.\nxlix. 10, the prophetic office is concealed behind the royal. The\ncontrast to the first David can the less be doubtful, that, while\n[Hebrew: ed] is never applied to him, it is just the subsequent\n[Hebrew: ngid] which, in a series of passages, is ascribed to him. In 2\nSam. vi. 21, David himself says that the Lord appointed him to be\n_ruler_ over the people of the Lord, over Israel; in 2 Sam. vii. 8,\nNathan says: \"I took thee from the sheep-cot to be _ruler_ over my\npeople, over Israel;\" comp. 1 Sam. xxv. 30; 2 Sam. v. 5. In those\npassages, however, David is always spoken of as a ruler over Israel; so\nthat even as regards the [Hebrew: ngid], the second David, the prince\nof the _people_, is not only placed on a level with the first David,\nbut is elevate d above him. For the dominion by force which David\nexercised over some heathen nations, [Hebrew: ngid] was the less\nappropriate designation, inasmuch as it designates the ruler as the\nchief of his people.\n\nVer. 5. \"_Behold, thou shall call a nation that thou knowest not, and\nnations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, because of the Lord thy\nGod, and of the Holy One of Israel, for He adorneth thee._\"\n\nThe words here are addressed to the true Israel, to the exclusion of\nthose souls who are cut off from among their people, compare Ps.\nlxxiii. 1, where Israel and those that are of a clean heart go hand in\nhand,--and, in substance, they also were addressed in vers. 1 and 2.\nFor the thirsty ones, who are there called upon to partake of the\nblessings so liberally offered by the Lord, are just the members of the\nChurch. In connection with that glorification of David, the Church\nshall invite nations from a great distance, who were hitherto unknown\nto it, to its communion; and those nations who hitherto scarcely knew\nby name the Church of God shall joyfully and willingly comply with the\ninvitation; comp. chap. ii. 2. This great change proceeds from the\nLord, the Almighty and Holy One, who, as the protector and Covenant-God\nof His Church, has resolved to glorify it; for _He adorneth thee_. This\nglorification consists, according to chap. iv. 2, in the appearance of\n[Pg 350] Christ, the immediate consequence of which is the conversion\nof the heathen world.\n\nWe must now review that exposition by which Rationalism has endeavoured\nto deprive our passage of its Messianic import,--an attempt in which\n_Grotius_ led the way. _Gesenius_, whom _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, _Ewald_,\nand _Knobel_ follow, translates in vers. 3 and 4: \"That I may make with\nyou an everlasting covenant, may show to you constant mercies, as once\nto David. Behold, I have made him a ruler of the nations, a prince and\nlawgiver of the nations,\" and refers both of the verses to the first\nDavid. In ver. 5, then, the mercy is to follow which, in some future\ntime, God will bestow upon the whole people, as gloriously as once upon\nthe single David. But this explanation proves itself to be, in every\naspect, untenable.[1]\n\nWe are the less entitled to put \"mercies _like_ David's\" instead of\n\"the mercies of David,\" that these mercies are, elsewhere also,\nmentioned in reference to the eternal dominion promised to David for\nhis family; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 2, 50. With the epithet, \"constant,\"\nthese interpreters do not know what to do. Apart from the promise of\nthe eternal dominion of his house, no constant mercies can, in the case\nof David, be pointed out which would be equally bestowed upon the\npeople, and upon him. Moreover, [Hebrew: namniM] distinctly points back\nto 2 Sam. vii. Ver. 4 forms, according to this explanation, \"a\nhistorical reminiscence, most unsuitable in the flow of a prophetic\ndiscourse\" (_Umbreit_). But what in itself is quite conclusive is the\ncircumstance, that the first David could not by any possibility be\ndesignated as the _witness_ of the Gentile nations. It indeed sounds\nrather _na\u00efve_ that _Knobel_, after having endeavoured to explain\n[Hebrew: ed] of the \"opening up of the law,\" feels himself obliged to\nadd: \"The word does not, however, occur anywhere else in this\nsignification.\" Nor could David, without farther limitation, be\ndesignated as \"the prince and lawgiver of the _peoples_;\" and that so\nmuch the more [Pg 351] that, in ver. 5, there is an invitation to the\nGentile world, and that, in ver. 4, too, the Gentile world, in the\nwidest sense, is to be thought of.\n\nAfter the promise, there follows, in vers. 6-13, the admonition to\nrepentance based upon it. Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at\nhand, vers. 6, 7. Do not doubt that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand,\nbecause it does not seem probable to you. For the counsels of God go\nbeyond all the thoughts of men; and, therefore. He and His work must\nnot be judged by a human measure, vers. 8, 9. With Him, word and deed\nare inseparably connected, vers. 10, 11. This will be manifested in\nyour redemption and glorification, vers. 12, 13.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_ already remarked in opposition to it: \"This\nexposition is rather far fetched, and is the weakest of all that can be\nadvanced. I add, that the constancy of the promises given to David does\nnot appear, if we exclude the Kingdom of the Messiah. But are any other\npromises of constant and eternal blessings, such as are here promised,\nto be thought of?\"]\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPHECY--CHAP. LXI. 1-3.\n\n\nAs in chaps. xlix. and l., so here, the Servant of God is introduced as\nspeaking, and announces to the Church what a glorious office the Lord\nhad bestowed upon Him, namely, to deliver them from the misery in which\nthey had hitherto been lying, and to work a wonderful change in their\ncondition. In vers. 4-9, the Prophet takes the word, and describes the\nsalvation to be bestowed by the Servant of God. In vers. 10 and 11, the\nChurch appears, and expresses her joy and gratitude.\n\nAccording to the Jewish and Rationalistic interpreters, the Prophet\nhimself is supposed to be speaking in vers. 1-3. That opinion was last\nexpressed by _Knobel_: \"The author places before his promises a\nremembrance of his vocation as a preacher of consolation.\" In favour of\nthe Messianic interpretation, in which our Lord himself preceded His\nChurch (Luke iv. 17-19), are conclusive, not only the parallel\npassages, but also the contents of the prophecy itself, which go far\nbeyond the prophetic territory, and the human territory generally. The\nspeaker designates himself as He who is called, not merely to announce\nthe highest blessings to the Church, [Pg 352] but actually to grant\nthem. He does not represent himself as a mere Evangelist, but rather as\na Saviour.\n\nVer. 1. \"_The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, because the Lord\nhath anointed me to preach glad tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me\nto bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and\nopening to them that are bound._\"\n\nOn the words: \"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me,\" compare\nchap. xi. 2, xlii. 1. [Hebrew: ieN] always means \"because of\" The whole\nsucceeding clause stands instead of a noun, so that, in substance,\n\"because of\" is equivalent to \"because;\" but it never can mean\n\"therefore.\" Nor would the latter signification afford a good sense.\nThe verb [Hebrew: mwH] must, in that case, be subjected to arbitrary\nexplanations. The anointing, whether it occurs as a symbolical action\nreally carried out, or as a mere figure, is always a designation of the\ngifts of the Holy Spirit; compare 1 Sam. x. 1, xvi. 13, 14, and remarks\non Dan. ix. 24. Since, then, the anointing is identical with the\nbestowal of the Spirit, the words: \"because the Lord hath anointed me\"\nmust not be isolated, but must be understood in close connection with\nthe subsequent words; so that the sense is: And He hath, for this\nreason, endowed me with His Spirit, in order that I may preach good\ntidings, &c. The [Hebrew: enviM] are the [Greek: praeis] in Matt. v. 5;\n[Hebrew: eni] and [Hebrew: env] are never confounded with one another.\nThe LXX., whom Luke follows, have [Greek: pt\u00f4chois]. This rendering\ndoes not differ so much from the original text as to make it appear\nexpedient to give up the version at that time received. In the world of\nsin, the meek are, at the same time, those who are suffering; and the\nglad tidings which imply a contrast to their misery, show that, here\nespecially, the meek are to be conceived of as sufferers. The [Hebrew:\nenviM], in contrast to the wicked, appear, in chap. xi. also, as the\npeople of the Messiah.--\"The binding up\"--_Stier_ remarks--\"already\npasses over into the actual bestowal of that which is announced.\" The\nterm [Hebrew: qra drvr] is taken from the Jubilee year, which was a\nyear of general deliverance for all those who, on account of debts, had\nbecome slaves; compare Lev. xxv. 10: \"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth\nyear, and proclaim liberty throughout the land for all the inhabitants\nthereof; it shall be a jubilee year unto you, and ye [Pg 353] shall\nreturn every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man\nunto his family.\" Such a great year of liberty is both to be proclaimed\nand to be brought about by the Servant of God. For He does not announce\nany thing which He does not, at the same time, grant, as is clearly\nshown by ver. 3. His saying is based upon His being and nature; He\ndelivers from the service of the world, and brings into the glorious\nliberty of the children of God.--Most of the modern interpreters agree\nwith the ancient versions in declaring it to be wrong to divide the\nword [Hebrew: pqHqvH], although this writing is found in most of the\nmanuscripts. The word is, \"by its form of reduplication, the most\nemphatic term for the most complete opening,\" and designates, \"opening,\nunclosing of every kind, of the eyes, ears, and heart, of every barrier\nand tie from within, or from without.\" The LXX., proceeding upon the\nfact that [Hebrew: pqH] occurs, with especial frequency, of the opening\nof the eyes, translate: [Greek: kai tuphlois anablepsin]. Luke does not\nwish to set aside this version, because it gives one feature of the\nsense; and partly also because of the close resemblance to the parallel\npassage, chap. xlii. 7, which, in this way, was brought in and\nconnected with the passage under consideration. But since outward\ndeliverance and redemption are, in the first instance, to be thought\nof, when opening to the captives is spoken of, be, in order to complete\nthe sense, adds: [Greek: aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei],\nborrowing the expression from the Alexand. Vers. itself in chap. lviii.\n6.\n\nVer. 2. \"_To proclaim a year of acceptance to the Lord, and a day of\nvengeance to our God, to comfort all that mourn._\"\n\n\"A year ... to the Lord\" is a year when the Lord shows himself gracious\nand merciful to His people; compare chap. xlix. 8. The words farther\nstill allude to the Jubilee year; and it is in consequence of this\nallusion, that we can account for its being a _year_ instead of a\n_time_, indefinitely. In that year, a complete _restitutio in integrum_\ntook place. It was, for all in misery, a year of mercy, a type of the\ntimes of refreshing (Acts iii. 19) which the Lord grants to His Church,\nafter it has been exercised by the Cross. Hand in hand with the year of\nmercy goes the day of vengeance. When the Lord shows mercy to the meek,\nand to them that mourn, this shall, at the same time, be accompanied by\na manifestation of anger [Pg 354] against the enemies of God, and of\nHis Church. The one cannot be thought of without the other. The mercy\nof the Lord towards His people is, among other things also, manifested\nin His sitting in judgment upon His and their enemies, upon the proud\nworld which afflicts and oppresses them. It is only in this respect\nthat the vengeance here comes into consideration; and it is for this\nreason also, that the first feature at once reappears in the third\nverse. The Lord, in quoting the verse, limits himself to the first\nclause, \"His first coming into the world was in the form of meekness,\"\nand, therefore, in the meantime, the bright side only is brought out.\n\nVer. 3. \"_To put upon them that mourn in Zion,--to give them a crown\nfor ashes, oil of joy for mourning, garment of praise for a spirit of\nheaviness; and they shall be called terebinths of righteousness,\nplanting of the Lord for glorifying._\"\n\nIt is in this verse that it comes clearly out, that the speaker is not\nmerely to announce the mercy of God, but, at the same time, to bestow\nit; that the announcement is not an empty one, but one which brings\nalong with it that which is promised; that it is not a Prophet or\nEvangelist who speaks, but the Saviour. Such a change cannot be\neffected by merely _announcing_ it. Everywhere, in the second part, it\nis brought about, not by words, but by deeds. How were it possible that\nby mere words, as long as the reality stood in glaring contrast to\nthem, the believers could become terebinths of righteousness, a\nglorious planting of the Lord?--The connection of the two verbs\n[Hebrew: wvM] and [Hebrew: ntN] is to be accounted for from the\ncircumstance, that the pronoun suited the first noun only--the ornament\nfor the head. It is only when [Hebrew: wvM] is understood in the sense,\n\"to put upon,\" or, \"to put on,\" that there is a sufficient reason for\nadding [Hebrew: ntN]; but that is not the case when it is taken in the\nsignification \"to grant,\" \"to appoint.\" [Hebrew: par] \"crown,\" and\n[Hebrew: apr] \"ashes,\" are connected with one another, because mourners\nwere accustomed to strew ashes on their heads. The expression \"oil of\njoy,\" which is to be explained from the custom of people anointing\nthemselves with oil in cases of joy, is taken from Ps. xlv. 8. As the\nMessiah there appears as the possessor of the oil of joy, so, here, He\nappears as the bestower. In chap. lv. 3, there is [Pg 355] likewise an\nallusion to Ps. xlv., and along with it, to Ps. xxii. The \"spirit of\nheaviness\" refers to chap. xlii. 3. The fact that, instead of it, they\nreceive \"garments of praise,\" intimates that they shall be altogether\nclothed with praise, songs of praise for the divine goodness which\nmanifested itself in them; on the garments as symbols of the condition,\ncompare remarks on Rev. vii. 14. The \"righteousness\" which is\nappropriate to the spiritual terebinths, is the actual justification,\nwhich the Lord grants to His people at the appearance of the Messiah.\nThere is in it an allusion to the planting of paradise; God now\nprepares for himself a new paradisaical plantation, consisting of\nliving trees.\n\n[Pg 356]\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPHET ZEPHANIAH.\n\n\nBy the inscription, the Prophet's origin is, in a way rather uncommon,\ntraced back to his fourth ancestor, Hezekiah,--no doubt the king. He\nappeared as a prophet under the reign of Josiah--before the time,\nhowever, at which the reforms of that king had attained their\ncompletion, which took place in the 18th year of his reign--and, hence,\nprophesied, like his predecessor Habakkuk, in the view of the Chaldean\ncatastrophe. The prophecy begins with threatening judgment upon the\nsinners, and closes with announcing salvation to the believers,--a\ncircumstance which proves that it forms one whole. The threatening is\ndistinguished from that of Habakkuk by the circumstance, that it has\nmore of a general comprehensive character, and does not, as is done in\nHabakkuk, view the Chaldean catastrophe as a particular historical\nevent. It is not an incidental circumstance, that the Chaldeans are not\nexpressly mentioned by Zephaniah, as is done by Habakkuk, and was done\nby Isaiah. The Prophet can, therefore, have had them in view as being,\n_in the first instance_ only, the instruments of Divine punishment.\n\nThe prophecy begins, in chap. i. 2, 3, with announcing the judgment\nimpending over the whole world. Then, the Prophet shows how it\nmanifests itself in Judah; first, in general outlines, vers. 4-7; then,\nin detail, vers. 8-18. In close connection, this is followed by a call\nto repent, in chap. ii. 1-3. This call is founded on the fearful\ncharacter of the impending judgment which, according to vers. 4-15,\nwill be inflicted not only upon Judah, but also upon the world, and\nwill especially bring destruction upon all the neighbouring nations: in\nthe [Pg 357] West, upon the Philistines; in the East, upon Ammon and\nMoab; in the South, on Cush; in the North, upon Nineveh, upon whose\ndestruction the Prophet especially dwells, since, up to that time, it\nhad been the bearer of the world's power.\n\nIn chap. iii., in the first instance, the threatening against Judah is\nresumed. Apostate Jerusalem, corrupt in its head and members,\nirresistibly hastens on towards judgment. But, notwithstanding, \"the\nafflicted and poor people of the land\" shall not despair. On the\ncontrary, as salvation cannot proceed from the midst of the people,\nthey are to put their trust in the Lord. By His judgments (viz., those\ndeclared in chap. ii., which at last shall bring forth the peaceable\nfruits of righteousness, compare Isa. xxvi. 9: \"For when thy judgments\nare in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness\")\nwill He break the pride of the Gentile world, and bring about their\nconversion,--and the converted Gentile world will bring back to\nJerusalem the scattered Congregation. Being purified and justified, it\nwill then enjoy the full mercy of the Lord.\n\nThe principal passage is chap. iii. 8-13.\n\nVer. 8. \"_Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that\nI rise up to the prey; for my right is_ (_i.e._, the exercise of my\nright consists in this) _to gather the nations, and to assemble the\nkingdoms, to pour out upon them mine indignation, all the heat of mine\nanger; for all the earth shall be devoured by the fire of my jealousy._\nVer. 9. _For then will I turn unto the nations a clean lip, that they\nmay all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one\nshoulder._ Ver. 10. _From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia shall they\nbring my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed for a meat-offering\nto me._ Ver. 11. _In that day shall thou not be ashamed for all thy\ndoings wherein thou hast transgressed against me; for then will I take\naway out of the midst of thee them that proudly rejoice in thee, and\nthou shall no more be haughty on mine holy mountain._ Ver. 12. _And I\nleave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they trust\nin the name of the Lord._ Ver. 13. _The remnant of Israel shall not do\niniquity nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in\ntheir mouth; for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them\nafraid._\"\n\n[Pg 358]\n\nZephaniah, who opens the series of the prophets who are preeminently\ndependent upon other prophets, just as Habakkuk closes the series of\nthose pre-eminently independent, leans, in this section, chiefly upon\nIsaiah; and it is from this circumstance that it appears, that the\nperson of the Messiah, although not appearing here, stands in the\nbackground and forms the invisible centre.\n\n\"_Therefore_\" ver. 8: Since the salvation cannot proceed from the midst\nof the people, inasmuch as, in the way of their works, they receive\nnothing but destructive punishment. On the words: \"Wait ye upon me,\"\ncompare Hab. ii. 3. \"The day that the Lord rises up to the prey\" is the\ntime when He will begin His great triumphal march against the Gentile\nworld. With the words: \"For my right,\" &c., a new argument for the call\n\"Wait ye upon me,\" commences. But this does not by any means close with\nthe 8th verse, but goes on to the end of ver. 10. First: Wait, for I\nwill judge the nations. It is not without meaning that, as regards your\nhope, I refer you to the judgment upon the Gentiles; for, in\nconsequence of this judgment, their conversion will take place, and a\nconsequence of their conversion is, that they bring back to Zion her\nscattered members. In the thought, that the judgments upon the Gentile\nworld will break their hardness of heart, and prepare them for their\nconversion, Zephaniah follows Isaiah, who, _e.g._ in chap. xix.,\nexemplifies it in the case of Egypt, and in chap. xxiii. in that of\nTyre. The bruised reed and the faintly burning wick is not merely a\ndesignation of the single individuals who have been endowed with the\nright disposition for the kingdom of God, but of whole nations. \"The\nclean lip\" in ver. 9 forms the contrast to the unclean lips in Is. vi.\nWith unclean lips they had, in the time of the long-suffering of God,\ninvoked their idols, Ps. xvi. 4. On the words: \"To serve Him with one\nshoulder,\" comp. Is. xix. 23: \"And Egypt serves with Asshur.\" The\nwords: \"From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia,\" in ver. 10, rest on Is.\nxviii. 1. In both of the passages, Ethiopia is the type of the whole\nGentile world to be converted in future. In Is. xviii. Ethiopia offers\nitself and all which it has to the Lord; here it brings the scattered\nmembers of the community of the Israelitish people to the Kingdom of\nGod. [Hebrew: etr] always means \"to supplicate,\" [Pg 359] never \"to\nburn incense.\" Ezek. viii. 11 must thus be translated: \"Every man, his\ncenser in his hand, and the _supplication_ of the cloud of incense went\nup;\" compare remarks on Rev. v. 8. The dispersed members of the Church\n_supplicate_ that the Lord would again receive them into His communion\n(compare Hos. xiv. 3; Jer. xxxi. 9, 18; Zech. xii. 10); and these\nsupplications cannot remain without an answer, since they from whom\nthey proceed stand in a close relation to the Lord. \"The daughter of my\ndispersed\" is the daughter or communion, consisting of the dispersed of\nthe Lord, just as in the phrase \"the daughter of the Chaldeans,\" the\nChaldeans themselves are the daughter or virgin. The designation, in\nitself, plainly suggests the dispersed members of the old Congregation,\ninasmuch as they only can be designated as the dispersed of the Lord.\nTo this, moreover, must be added the reference to Deut. iv. 27: \"And\nthe Lord _disperses_ you among the nations;\" xxviii. 64: \"And the Lord\n_disperses_ thee among all the nations from the one end of the earth\neven unto the other,\"--an announcement which, at the time of Zephaniah,\nhad already been fulfilled upon the ten tribes, and the fulfilment of\nwhich was soon to commence upon Judah. It is only when the members of\nthe old Congregation are understood by the suppliants and dispersed,\nthat the call, \"Wait ye upon me\" is here established and confirmed. The\noffering of the meat-offering signifies, in the symbolism of the Mosaic\nlaw, diligence in good works, such as is to be peculiar to the\nredeemed. A single manifestation of it is the missionary zeal which is\nhere shown by the converted Gentiles.\n\nIn harmony with the Song of Solomon, Isaiah announces in several\npassages, that the converted Gentiles shall, at some future period,\nlabour for the restoration of Israel; compare the remarks on Is. xi.\n12. Zephaniah here specially refers to the remarkable passage, Is.\nlxvi. 18-21, which we must here subject to a somewhat closer\nexamination: Ver. 18. \"And I ... their works and their thoughts; _the\ntime cometh to gather_ all Gentiles and tongues, and they come and\n_see_ my glory.\" The first hemistich still belongs to the threatening.\nThe holy God and unholy men, the unholy members of the Church to which\nthe Lord spake: \"Ye shall be holy, for I am holy,\" and their sinful\nthoughts and words are simply placed beside one another, [Pg 360]\nother, and it is left to every one to draw from it the inference as to\nthe fate awaiting them. \"I and their works\"--what an immense contrast,\na contrast which must be adjusted by the judgment! With the\nthreatening, the Prophet then connects, by a suitable contrast to the\nrejection of a great part of the covenant-people, the calling of the\nGentiles. The glory of the Lord, which the Gentiles see, is His glory\nwhich, up to that time, was concealed, but is now manifested; compare\nIs. xl. 5, lx. 2, lii. 10, liii. 1. Ver. 19. \"And I set a sign among\nthem, and send from among them escaped ones unto the nations, to\nTarshish, &c., to the isles afar off that have not heard my fame,\nneither have seen my glory, and they declare my glory among the\nGentiles,\"--The suffix in [Hebrew: bhM] can refer to those only from\namong the nations and tongues who have come and seen the glory of God.\nThey are sent out to bring the message of the living God, the message\nof salvation to those also who hitherto have not come. By the\ndemonstration of the Spirit and power, they are marked out as blessed\nof the Lord, as His servants, separated from the world given up to\ndestruction. Just as the wicked, the servants of the prince of this\nworld, have their _mark_, Gen. iv. 50, so have the servants of God\ntheirs also, which may be recognised by all who are well disposed. It\nis only by one's own fault, and at one's own risk, that the sign is not\nunderstood. The fact that \"unto the nations\" forms the beginning, and\nthe \"isles afar off\"--isles in the sea of the world, kingdoms--the\nclose, shows that the single names, Tarshish, &c., are only\nindividualizations. In the following verse, too, all the heathens\nare spoken of Ver. 20: \"And they bring, out of all nations, your\nbrethren for a meat-offering unto the Lord, upon horses, &c., to\nmy holy mountain to Jerusalem, as the children of Israel bring the\nmeat-offering in a clean vessel unto the house of the Lord.\" It is in\nthis verse that it clearly appears, that Zephaniah depends upon it; and\nit is by the offering of the spiritual meat-offering that his\ndependence is recognized. The subject in \"they bring\" is the Gentiles,\nto whom the message of salvation has been brought. They, having\nthemselves attained salvation, offer to the Lord, as a meat-offering,\nthe former members of His Kingdom who were separated from it. It is\nthey, not the Gentiles who have become believers, who in the second [Pg\n361] part of Isaiah, are throughout designated as the _brethren_.\nSalvation is first to pass from Israel to the Gentiles, and shall then,\nfrom them, return to Israel. The two verses before us thus contain a\nsanction for the mission among the heathens and among Israel. Vers. 18\nand 19 divide the conversion of the Gentiles into two main stations; it\nis only when the Church has arrived at the second, that the missionary\nwork among Israel will fully thrive and prosper. To the _clean vessel_\nin which the outward sacrifice was offered, correspond the faith and\nlove with which they, who were formerly heathens, offer the spiritual\nmeat-offering. Ver. 21: \"And of them also will I take for Levitical\npriests, saith the Lord.\" Of them, _i.e._, of those who formerly were\nheathens; for it is to them that, in the words preceding, a priestly\nfunction, viz., the offering of the meat-offering, is assigned. Of them\n_also_; not merely from among the old covenant-people, to whom, under\nthe former dispensation, the priestly office was limited. The fact that\nthe priests are designated as Levitical priests, is intended to keep\nout the thought that the point in question related only to priests in a\nlower sense, beside whom the Levitical priesthood, attached to natural\ndescent, would continue to exist in full vigour. Priests with full\ndignities and rights are here so much the more required, that,\naccording to what precedes, the point in question does not refer merely\nto a personal relation to the Lord, to immediate access to the throne\nof grace, but to the priestly office proper.\n\nVers. 11-13 describe the internal condition of the redeemed Church of\nthe future,--a condition so different from the present one. The\nexpression, \"they that proudly rejoice in them,\" is from Is. xiii. 3.\n[Hebrew: ki] in ver. 13 is to be accounted for from the fact, that\nwherever there exists the blessing promised by the Law of God (Lev.\nxxvi. 6) to faithfulness, faithfulness itself must exist.\n\nIn ver. 14 ff., the Jerusalem of the future is addressed; compare the\nexpression, \"at that time,\" ver. 20.\n\n[Pg 362]\n\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPHET JEREMIAH.\n\n\n\n\n GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.\n\n\nIn Malachi iii. 1, the Lord promises that He would send His messenger\nwho should prepare the way before _Him_, who was to come to His temple,\njudging and punishing; vers. 23, 24 (iv. 5, 6): that before the coming\nof His great and dreadful day, before He smites the land with a curse,\nHe would send another Elijah, who should bring back the heart of the\nfathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their\nfathers. Even before this prophecy was expressed in words, it had\n_actually_ been given in the existence of Jeremiah, who, during the\nwhole long period of forty-one years, before the destruction, announced\nthe judgments of the Lord,--who, with burning zeal and ardent love to\nthe people, preached repentance,--and who, even after the destruction,\nsought the small remnant that had been left, and was anxious to secure\nit against the new day of the Lord, which, by its obstinate\nimpenitence, it was drawing down upon itself. It is this typical\nrelation of Jeremiah to John the Baptist and Christ, of which the\nJewish tradition had an anticipation, although it misunderstood and\nexpressed it in a gross, outward manner, by teaching that, at the end\nof days, Jeremiah would again appear on earth,--it is this, which\ninvests with a peculiar charm the contemplation of his ministry, and\nthe study of his prophecies.\n\nThe name of the Prophet is to be explained from Exod. xv. 1, from which\nit is probably taken. It signifies \"The Lord throws.\" He who bore it\nwas consecrated to that God who with an almighty hand throws to the\nground all His enemies. From chap. i. 10: \"See, I set thee to-day over\nthe nations [Pg 363] and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull\ndown, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant,\" it appears\nthat it was by a dispensation of divine providence, that the Prophet\nbore this name with full right, and that the character of his mission\nis thereby designated. The judging and destructive activity which the\nProphet, as an instrument of God, is to exercise, is here not only\nplaced at the commencement, but four appellations are also devoted to\nit, whilst only two are devoted to his healing and planting activity.\nAs the object of the _throwing_, we have to conceive, not of the\nunfaithful covenant-people only. This appears from the mention of the\n_nations and kingdoms_ here, and farther, from ver. 14, where the Lord\nsays to the Prophet: \"Out of the North the evil breaks forth upon all\nthe inhabitants of the earth.\" To be the herald of the judgment to be\nexecuted upon the whole world by the Chaldeans, was so much the destiny\nof the Prophet, that, in chap. i. 3, the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in\nwhich this judgment was brought to a close, as far as Judah was\nconcerned, is mentioned as the closing point of his ministry. The\nProphet, as is reported by the book itself, still continued his\nministry even among the remnant of the people; but that is lost sight\nof The \"carrying away of Jerusalem\" is treated as the great closing\npoint; just as, in a manner altogether similar, it is, in the case of\nDaniel, in chap. i. 21, the year of Israel's deliverance, although,\naccording to chap. x. 1, his prophetic ministry extended beyond that\nperiod.\n\nJeremiah was called to his office when still a youth, in the 13th year\nof king Josiah, and hence one year after the first reformation of this\nking, who, as early as in the 16th year of his life, and the 8th of his\nreign, which lasted 31 years, began to seek the Lord. A king such as\nhe, unto whom no king before him was like, who turned to the Lord with\nall his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, (2 Kings\nxxiii. 25), in the midst of an evil and adulterous generation, is a\nremarkable phenomenon, as little conceivable from natural causes as the\nexistence of Melchizedec without father, without descent--isolated from\nall natural development--in the midst of the Canaanites who, with rapid\nstrides and irresistibly, hastened on to the completion of their sin.\nHis existence has the same root as that of Jeremiah,--a fact which\nbecomes the [Pg 364] more evident when we take into consideration the\nconnection of the Regal and Prophetical offices in Christ for the\nsalvation of the people hastening anew to its destruction, and the\nfaithfulness of the Covenant-God, and His long-suffering which makes\nevery effort to lead the apostate children to repentance. The zeal of\nboth, of Josiah and Jeremiah,--although supported by manifold\nassistance from other quarters, as _e.g._ by the prophetess Huldah and\nthe prophet Zephaniah--was unable to stem the tide of prevailing\ncorruption, and, hence, to stop the tide of the divine judgments. The\ncorruption was so deeply rooted, that only single individuals could be\nsaved, like brands from the burning. It had made fearful progress under\nthe protracted reign of Manasseh, whose disposition must be regarded as\na product of the spirit of the time then prevailing, of which he must\nnot be considered as the creator, but as the representative only, 2\nKings xxiii. 26, 27, xxiv. 3, 4. The scanty fruits of his late\nconversion had been again entirely consumed under the short reign of\nhis wicked son Amon; it had indeed so little of a comprehensive or\nlasting influence, that the author of the Book of Kings thought himself\nentitled altogether to pass it over. It was even difficult to put\nlimits to outward idolatry; and how imperfectly he succeeded in this,\nis seen from the prophecies of Jeremiah uttered after the reformation.\nAnd even where he was successful in his efforts; even where an emotion\nwas manifested, a wish to return to the living fountain which they had\nforsaken, even there, the corruption soon broke forth again, only in a\ndifferent form. With deep grief, Jeremiah reprovingly reminds the\npeople of this, whose righteousness was like the morning dew, in chap.\niii. 4, 5: \"Hast thou not but lately called me: My Father, friend of my\nyouth, thou? Will He reserve His anger for ever, will He keep it to the\nend? Behold, thus thou spakest, and soon thou didst the evil, didst\naccomplish\"--an _accomplishment_ quite different from that of the\nancestor. Gen. xxxii. 29. Since the disease had not been healed, but\nhad only been driven out from one part of the diseased organism, the\nfoolish inclination to idolatry was followed by as foolish a confidence\nin the miserable righteousness by works, in the divine election,--the\noffering up of sacrifices, &c., being considered as the sole condition\nof its validity. \"Trust ye not in lying words\"--so [Pg 365] the Prophet\nis obliged to admonish them in chap. vii. 4--\"saying, The temple of the\nLord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are they\" (the\npeople imagined that they could not be destroyed, because the Lord had,\naccording to their opinion, for ever established His residence among\nthem; compare 1 Cor. iii. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 15). \"Thou sayest, I am\ninnocent; His anger hath entirely turned from me; behold I plead with\nthee, because thou sayest: I have not sinned,\" chap. ii. 35. \"To what\npurpose shall there come for me incense from Sheba, and sweet cane, the\ngoodly, from a far country? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable,\nnor your sacrifices pleasant unto me,\" chap. vi. 20. Towards the end of\nJosiah's reign, the approaching judgment of God upon Judah became more\nperceptible. The former Asiatic dominion of the Assyrians passed over\nentirely to the Chaldeans, whose fresh and youthful strength so much\nthe more threatened Judah with destruction, that from the Assyrians\nthey had inherited the enmity to Egypt, on account of which Judah\nobtained great importance in their eyes. According to the announcement\nof the prophets generally, and of Jeremiah especially, who, at his very\nvocation, had it assigned to him as his main task to announce the\ncalamity from the North, it was by the Chaldeans that the deadly stroke\nshould be inflicted upon the people implicated in the conflicts of\nthese hostile powers; but it was the Egyptians who inflicted upon them\nthe first severe wound. Josiah fell in the battle with Pharaoh Necho.\nThe people, conscious of guilt, were, by his death, filled with a\nfearful expectation of the things that were to come. They had\nforebodings that they were now standing at the boundary line where\ngrace and anger separate (compare remarks on Zech. xii. 11); and these\nforebodings were soon converted into bitter certainty by experience.\nJehoiakim ascended the throne, after Jehoahaz or Shall um, had, after a\nshort reign, been carried away by the Egyptians. He stood to his father\nJosiah in just the same relation as did the people to God, in reference\nto the mercy which He had offered to them in Josiah. A more glaring\ncontrast (see its exhibition in chap. xxii.) can hardly be imagined.\nThroughout, Jehoiakim shows himself to be entirely destitute not only\nof love to God, but also of the fear of God; he furnishes the complete\nimage of a king whom God had given in anger. He [Pg 366] is a\nblood-thirsty tyrant, an exasperated enemy to truth. At the beginning\nof his reign, some influence of Josiah's spirit is still seen. The\npriests and false prophets, rightly understanding the signs of the\ntime, came forward with the manifestation of their long restrained\nhatred against Jeremiah, in whom they hate their own conscience. They\nbring against him a charge of life and death, because he had prophesied\ndestruction to the city and temple; but the rulers of the people acquit\nhim, chap. xxvi. This influence, however, soon ceased. The king became\nthe centre around whom gathered all that was ungodly, which, under\nJosiah, had timorously withdrawn into concealment. Soon it became a\npower, a torrent overflowing the whole country; and that the more\neasily, the weaker were the dams which still existed from the time of\nJosiah. One of the first victims for truth who fell, was the prophet\nUrijah. The king, imagining that he was able to kill truth itself in\nthose who proclaimed it, could not bear the thought that he was still\nliving, although it was in distant Egypt, and caused him to be brought\nthence (see l. c). The fact that Jeremiah escaped every danger of death\nduring the eleven years of this king's reign, although he ever anew\nthreatened death to the king and destruction to the people, was a\nconstant miracle, a glorious fulfilment of the divine promise given to\nhim when he was called (i. 19): \"They shall fight against thee, and\nthey shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith _the\nLord_, to deliver thee.\" The threatened divine punishment advanced,\nunder Jehoiakim, several steps towards its completion. In the fourth\nyear of his reign, Jerusalem was, for the first time, taken by the\nChaldeans (compare \"_Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_,\" p.\n45 ff.), after the power of the Egyptian Empire had been for ever\nbroken by the battle at Carchemish on the Euphrates. The victor this\ntime acted with tolerable mildness; the sin of the people was to appear\nin its full light by the circumstance, that God gave them time for\nrepentance, and did not at once proceed to the utmost rigour, but\nadvanced, step by step, in His judgments. But here too it was seen that\ncrime, in its highest degree, becomes madness; the more nearly that\npeople and king approached the abyss, the greater became the speed with\nwhich they hastened towards it. It is true that they [Pg 367] did not\nremain altogether insensible when the threatenings of the Prophet began\nto be fulfilled. This is seen from the day of fasting and repentance\nwhich was appointed in remembrance of the first capture by the\nChaldeans (compare \"_Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_,\" p.\n49); but fleeting emotions cannot stop the course of sin. Soon it\nbecame worse than it had been before; and therefore the divine\njudgments also reached a new station. Even political wisdom advised the\nking quietly to submit to dependence on the Chaldeans, which was,\ncomparatively, little oppressive. It was obvious that, unsupported, he\ncould effect nothing against the Chaldean power; and, to the\n_unprejudiced_ eye, it was as obvious that the Egyptians could not help\nhim; and even had it been possible, he would only have changed masters.\nBut, according to the counsel of God, who takes away the understanding\nof the wise, these political reasons, obvious though they were, should\nnot exercise any influence upon him, because his obdurate heart\nprevented him from listening to the religious arguments which Jeremiah\nbrought before him. _Melancthon_ (opp. ii., p. 407 ff.) points it out\nas a remarkable circumstance that, while other prophets, _e.g._,\nSamuel, Elisha, Isaiah, exhort to a vigorous opposition to the enemies,\nand, in that case, promise divine assistance, yea that, to some extent,\nthey even took an active part in the deliverance, Jeremiah, on the\nother hand, always preaches unconditional submission. The issue, which\nis as different as the advice, shows that this difference has not, by\nany means, its foundation in the persons, but in the state of things.\nThe seventy years of Chaldean servitude were irrevocably decreed upon\nJudah; even the exact statement of years, which else is so uncommon in\nreference to the fate of the covenant-people, shows how firm and\ndetermined was that decree. They had altogether, and more fully than at\nany other time, given themselves over to the internal power of\nheathenism; according to a divine necessity, they must therefore also\nbe given over to the external power of the heathen, both for punishment\nand reform. God himself could not change that decree, for it rested on\nHis nature. Hence, it would be in vain though even the greatest\nintercessors, Moses and Samuel, should stand before Him, Jer. xv. 1 ff.\nIntercessory prayer can be effectual, only if it be offered in [Pg 368]\nthe name of God. But if such were the case, how foolish was it to rebel\nagainst the Chaldean power; to attempt to remove the effect, while they\nallowed the cause to remain; to stop the brook, while the source still\ncontinued to send forth its waters. It would have been foolish, even if\nthe relative power of the Jews and Chaldeans had been altogether\nreversed. For when the Lord sells a people, one can chase a thousand,\nand two can put ten thousand to flight (Deut. xxxii. 30). But the\nshepherd of the people had become a fool, and did not enquire after the\nLord. He could not, therefore, act wisely; and the whole flock was\nscattered, Jer. x. 21. Jehoiakim rebelled against the Chaldeans, and\nfor some years he was allowed to continue in the delusion of having\nacted very wisely, for Nebuchadnezzar had more important things to mind\nand to settle. But then he went up against Jerusalem, and put an end to\nhis reign and life, Jer. xxii. 1-12; 2 Kings xxiv. 2; \"_Dissertations\non the Genuineness of Daniel_,\" p. 49. As yet, the long-suffering of\nGod, and, hence, the patience of the Chaldeans, were not at an end.\nJehoiachin or Jeconiah was raised to the throne of his father. Even the\nshort reign of three months gave to the youth sufficient occasion to\nmanifest the wickedness of his heart, and his enmity to God. Suspicions\nagainst his fidelity arose; a Chaldean army anew entered the city, and\ncarried away the king, and, along with him, the great mass of the\npeople. This was the first great deportation. In the providence of God\nit was so arranged that, among those who were carried away, there was\nthe very flower of the nation. The apparent suffering was to them a\nblessing. They were, for their good, sent away from the place over\nwhich the storms of God's anger were soon to discharge themselves, into\nthe land of the Chaldeans, and formed there the nucleus for the Kingdom\nof God, in its impending new form, Jer. xxiv. Nothing now seemed to\nstand in the way of the divine judgment upon the wicked mass that had\nbeen left behind, like bad figs that no one can eat for badness,--they\nwhom the Lord had threatened that He would give them over to hurt and\ncalamity in all the kingdoms of the earth, to reproach, and a proverb,\nand a taunt, and a curse, in all places whither He would drive them,\nJer. xxiv. 9. And still the Lord was waiting before He carried out this\n[Pg 369] threatening, and smote the land to cursing. Mattaniah or\nZedekiah, the son of Josiah, the uncle of Jehoiachin, who was given to\nthem for a king, might, at least partially, have averted the evil. But\nhe too had to learn that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of\nwisdom. From various quarters, attempts have been made to exculpate\nhim, on the plea that his fault was only weakness, which made him\nthe tool of a corrupt party; but Scripture forms a different estimate\nof him, and he who looks deeper will find its judgment to be\ncorrect,--will be able to grant to him that preference only over\nJehoiakim which _C. B. Michaelis_ assigned to him in the words:\n\"Jehoiakim was of an obdurate and wild disposition; Zedekiah had some\nfear of God, although it was a servile, hypocritical fear, but\nJehoiakim had none at all.\" And even this preference, when more\nnarrowly examined, amounts to nothing, for it belongs to nature, and\nnot to grace. Whether corruption manifests itself as weakness, or as a\ncarnal, powerful opposition to divine truth, is accidental, and depends\nupon the diversity of mental and bodily organization. The fact that\nZedekiah did not altogether put away from himself the truth and its\nmessengers (_Dahler_ remarks: \"He respected the Prophet, without having\nthe power of following his advice; he even protected his life against\nhis persecutors, but he did not venture to secure him against their\nvexation\") cannot be put down to his credit; _he was, against his will,\nforced to do so_; and indeed he could not resist a powerful impression\nof any kind. In a man of Jehoiakim's character, the same measure of the\nfear of God would induce us to mitigate our opinion; for in such a one\nit could not exist without some support from within. Confiding in the\nhelp of the neighbouring nations, especially the Egyptians; persuaded\nby the false prophets and the nobles; himself seized by that spirit of\ngiddiness and intoxication which, with irresistible power, carried away\nthe people to the abyss, Zedekiah broke the holy oath which he had\nsworn to the Chaldeans, and, after an obstinate resistance, Jerusalem\nwas taken and destroyed. As yet, the long suffering of God, and, hence,\nalso that of man, was not _altogether_ at an end. The conquerors left a\ncomparatively small portion of the inhabitants in the land. The grace\nof God gave them Gedaliah, an excellent man, for their civil superior,\nand Jeremiah for their ecclesiastical [Pg 370] superior. The latter\npreferred to remain in the smoking ruins, rather than follow the\nbrilliant promises of the Chaldeans, and was willing to persevere to\nthe last in the discharge of his duty, although he was by this time far\nadvanced in life, and oppressed with deep grief But it appears as if\nthe people had been bent upon emptying, to the last drop, the cup of\ndivine wrath. Gedaliah is assassinated. Even those who did not partake\nin the crime fled to Egypt, disregarding the word of the Lord through\nthe Prophet, who announced a curse upon them if they fled, but a\nblessing if they remained.\n\nWhat the Prophet had to suffer under such circumstances, one may easily\nimagine even without consulting history. Even although he had remained\nfree from all personal vexations and attacks, it could not but be an\nimmeasurable grief to him to dwell in the midst of such a generation,\nto see their corruption increasing more and more, to see the abyss\ncoming nearer and nearer, to find all his faithful warnings unheeded,\nand his whole ministry in vain, at least as far as the mass of the\npeople were concerned. \"O that they would give me in the wilderness a\nlodging-place for wayfaring men\"--so he speaks as early as under\nJosiah, chap. ix. 1 (2)--\"and I would leave my people and go from them;\nfor they are all adulterer, an assembly of treacherous men.\" But from\nthese personal vexations and attacks, he neither was, nor could be\nexempted. Mockery, hatred, calumny, ignominy, curses, imprisonment,\nbonds were his portion. To bear such a burden would have been difficult\nto any man, but most of all to a man of his disposition. \"The more\ntender the heart, the deeper the smart.\" He was not a second Elijah; he\nhad a soft disposition, a lively sensibility; his eyes were easily\nfilled with tears. And he who would have liked so much to live in peace\nand love with all, having entered into the service of truth, was\nobliged to become a second Ishmael, his hand against every man, and\nevery man's hand against him. He who so ardently loved his people, must\nsee this love misconstrued and rejected; must see himself branded as a\ntraitor to the people, by those men who were themselves traitors. All\nthese things were to him the cause of violent struggles and conflicts,\nwhich he candidly lays before us in various passages, especially in\nchap. xii. and [Pg 371] xx., because, by the victory, the Lord, who\nalone could give it, was glorified.\n\nHe was sustained by inward consolations, by wonderful deliverances, by\nthe remarkable fulfilment of his prophecies which he himself lived to\nwitness; but especially by the circumstance that the Lord caused him to\nbehold His future salvation with the same clearness as His judgments;\nso that he could consider the latter only as transient, and, even by\nthe most glaring contrast between the appearance and the idea, never\nlost the firm hope of the final victory of the former. This hope formed\nthe centre of his whole life. For a long series of years, he is\nsomewhat cautious in giving utterance to it; for, just as Hosea in the\nkingdom of the ten tribes, so he too has to do with secure and gross\nsinners, who must be terrified by the preaching of the Law, and the\nmessage of wrath. But, even here, single sunbeams everywhere constantly\nbreak through the dark clouds. But towards the close, when the total\ndestruction is already at hand, and his commission to root out and\ndestroy draws to an end, because now the Lord himself is to speak by\ndeeds, he can, to the full desire of his heart, carry out the second\npart of his calling, viz., to plant and to build (compare chap. i.);\nand it is now, that his mouth is overflowing, that it is seen how full\nof it his heart had always been. The whole vocation of the Prophet,\n_Calvin_ strikingly expresses in these words: \"I say simply that\nJeremias was sent by God to announce to the people the last defeat,\nand, farther, to proclaim the future redemption, but in such a manner,\nthat he always puts in the seventy years'exile.\" That, according to\nhim, this redemption is not destined for Israel only, but that the\nGentiles also partake in it, appears not incidentally only in the\nprophecies to his own people; but it is also prominently brought out in\nthe prophecies against the foreign nations themselves, _e.g._, in the\nprophecy against Egypt, chap. xlvi. 26; against Moab, chap. xlviii. 47;\nagainst Ammon, xlix. 6.\n\nIn announcing the Messiah from the house of David (chap, xxii. 5, xxx.\n9, xxxiii. 15), Jeremiah agrees with the former prophets. The Messianic\nfeatures peculiar to him are the following:--The announcement of a\nrevelation of God, which by far outshines the former one from above the\nArk of the Covenant, and by which the Ark of the Covenant, with every\n[Pg 372] thing attached to it, shall become antiquated, chap. iii.\n14-17; the announcement of a new covenant, distinguished from the\nformer by greater richness in the forgiveness of sins, and the\noutpouring of the Holy Spirit: \"I give my law in their inward parts,\nand I will write it in their hearts,\" chap. xxxi. 31-34; the intimation\nof the impending realization of the promise of Moses: \"Ye shall be to\nme a kingdom of priests,\" with which the abolition of the poor form of\nthe priesthood hitherto is connected, chap. xxxiii. 14-26.\n\nAs regards the style of Jeremiah, _Cunaeus_ (_de repub. Hebr._ i. 3, c.\n7) pertinently remarks: \"The whole majesty of Jeremiah lies in his\nnegligent language; that rough diction becomes him exceedingly well.\"\nIt is certainly very superficial in _Jerome_ to seek the cause of that\n_humilitas dictionis_ of the Prophet, whom he, at the same time, calls\n_in majestate sensuum profundissimum_, in his origin from the _viculus\nAnathoth_. It would be unnatural if it were otherwise. The style of\nJeremiah stands on the same ground as the hairy garment and leather\ngirdle of Elijah. He who is sorrowful and afflicted in his heart, whose\neyes fail with tears (Lament. ii. 11), cannot adorn and decorate\nhimself in his dress or speech.\n\nFrom chap. xi. 21, xii. 5, 6, several interpreters have inferred, that\nthe Prophet first came forward in his native place Anathoth, and that,\nbecause they there said to him: \"Thou shalt not prophecy in the name of\nthe Lord, else thou shalt die by our hand,\" he then went to Jerusalem.\nBut those passages rather refer to an experience which the Prophet made\nat an incidental visit in his native place, quite similar to what our\nSaviour experienced at Nazareth, according to Luke iv. 24. For in chap.\nxxv. 3, Jeremiah says to \"all the inhabitants of Jerusalem,\" that he\nhad spoken to _them_ since the thirteenth year of Josiah. As early as\nin chap. ii. 2, at the beginning of a discourse which bears a general\nintroductory character, and which immediately follows, and is connected\nwith his vocation in chap. i., he receives the command: \"Go, and cry\ninto the ears of Jerusalem.\" The opening speech itself cannot,\naccording to its contents, have been spoken in some corner of the\ncountry, but in the metropolis only, in the temple more specially, the\ncentre of the nation and its spiritual dwelling place. It was there\nthat that must be delivered which was to be told to the whole people as\nsuch.\n\n[Pg 373]\n\n\n\n\n THE SECTION, CHAP. III, 14-17.\n\n\nThe whole Section, from chap. iii. 6, to the end of chap. vi., forms\none connected discourse, separated from the preceding context by the\ninscription in chap. iii. 6, and from the subsequent context, by the\ninscription in chap. vii. 1. This separation, however, is more external\nthan internal. The contents and tone remain the same through the whole\nseries of chapters which open the collection of the prophecies of\nJeremiah, and that to such a degree, that we are compelled to doubt the\ncorrectness of the proceeding of those interpreters, who would\ndetermine the chronological order of the single portions, and fix the\nexact period in the reign of Josiah to which every single portion\nbelongs. If such a proceeding were admissible, why should the Prophet\nhave expressed himself, in the inscription of the Section before us, in\nterms so general as: \"And the Lord said unto me in the days of Josiah\nthe king?\" Every thing on which these interpreters endeavour to found\nmore accurate determinations in regard to the single Sections,\ndisappears upon a closer consideration. Thus, _e.g._, the twofold\nreference to the seeking of help from Egypt, in chap. ii. 16 ff.,\nxxxvi., xxxvii., on which _Eichhorn_ and _Dahler_ lay so much stress.\nWe are not entitled here to suppose a reference to a definite\nhistorical event, which, moreover, cannot be historically pointed\nout in the whole time of Josiah, but can only be supposed on unsafe\nand unfounded conjectures. In both of the passages something future\nis spoken of, as is evident from vers. 16 and 19. The thought is\nthis:--that Asshur, _i.e._, the power on the Euphrates (compare 2 Kings\nxxiii. 29), which had. for a long time opened its mouth to swallow up\nJudah, just as it had already swallowed up the kingdom of the ten\ntribes, would not be conciliated, and that Egypt could not grant help\nagainst him. This thought refers to historical circumstances which had\nalready existed, and continued to exist for some centuries, and which,\nin reference to Israel, is given utterance to as early as by Hosea,\ncompare Vol. i. p. 164, f. Our view is this: We have here before us,\nnot so much a series of prophecies, each of which had literally been so\nuttered at some particular [Pg 374] period in the reign of Josiah, as\nrather a _resum\u00e9_ of the whole prophetic ministry of Jeremiah under\nJosiah; a collection of all which, being independent of particular\ncircumstances of that time, had, in general, the destiny to give an\ninward support to the outward reforming activity of Josiah, a specimen\nof the manner in which the Prophet discharged the divine commission\nwhich he had received a year after the first reformation of Josiah.\nEven the manner in which chap ii. is connected with chap. i. places\nthis relation to his call beyond any doubt. We have thus before us here\nthe same phenomenon which we have already perceived in several of the\nminor prophets; comp. _e.g._, the introduction to Micah.\n\nIn the section before us, the Prophet is engaged with a two-fold\nobject,--first, with the proclamation of salvation for Israel, chap.\niii. 6-iv. 2; secondly, with the threatening for Judah, chap. iv. 3, to\nthe end of chap. vi. It is only incidentally, in chap. iii. 18, that it\nis intimated that Judah also, after the threatening has been fulfilled\nupon them, shall partake in the salvation. It is self-evident that\nthese two objects must not be considered as lying beside one another.\nAccording to the whole context, the announcement of salvation for\nIsrael cannot have any other object than that of wounding Judah. This\nobject even comes out distinctly in ver. 6-11, and the import of the\ndiscourse may, therefore, be thus stated: Israel does not continue to\nbe rejected as pharisaical Judah imagined; Judah does not continue to\nbe spared.--When the Prophet entered upon his ministry, ninety-four\nyears had already elapsed since the divine judgment had broken in upon\nIsrael; every hope of restoration seemed to have vanished. Judah,\ninstead of being thereby warned; instead of beholding, in the sin of\nothers, the image of its own; instead of perceiving, in the destruction\nof the kingdom of its brethren, a prophecy of its own destruction, was,\non the contrary, strengthened in its obduracy. The fact that it still\nexisted, after Israel had, long ago, hopelessly perished, as they\nimagined, appeared to them as a seal which God impressed upon their\nways. They rejoiced at Israel's calamity, because, in it, they thought\nthat they saw a proof of their own excellency, just as, at the time of\nChrist, the blindness of the Jews was increased by the circumstance\nthat they still considered themselves as the sole members of [Pg 375]\nthe Kingdom of God, and imagined the Gentiles to be excluded from it.\nThe Saviour's announcement of the calling of the Gentiles stands in the\nsame relation as the Prophet's announcement of the restoration of\nIsrael.\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\nVer. 14. \"_Turn, O apostate children, saith the Lord, for I marry\nmyself unto you, and I take one of a city, and two of a family, and\nbring you to Zion._\"\n\nThe question here is:--To whom is the discourse here addressed,--to the\nmembers of Israel, _i.e._, the kingdom of the ten tribes, as most of\nthe interpreters suppose (_Abarbanel_, _Calvin_, _Schmid_, and others),\nor, as others assume, to the inhabitants of Judea? The decision has\nconsiderable influence upon the exposition of the whole passage; but it\nmust unhesitatingly and unconditionally be given in favour of the first\nview. There is not one word to indicate a transition; the very same\nphrase, \"turn, O apostate children,\" occurs, in ver. 22, of Israel.\nApostate Israel is, in the preceding verses (6, 8, 11,) the standing\nexpression, while Judah is designated as treacherous, ver. 8-11. The\nmeasure of guilt is determined by the measure of grace. The relation of\nthe Lord to Judah was closer, and hence, her apostacy was so much the\nmore culpable. _Farther_--A detailed announcement of salvation for\nJudah would here not be suitable, inasmuch as no threatening preceded;\nand ver. 18 (\"In those days, the house of Judah shall come by the side\nof [literally, 'over'] the house of Israel,\" according to which the\nreturn of Judah is, in the meantime, a subordinate point which has here\nbeen mentioned incidentally) clearly shows that that announcement of\nsalvation, contained in vers. 14-17, refers to Israel. To Israel the\nProphet immediately returns in ver. 19; for, from the contrast to the\nhouse of Judah in ver. 18, and to Judah and Jerusalem in chap. iv. 3,\nit is evident that by the house of Israel in ver. 20, and by the sons\nof Israel in ver. 21, Israel, in the stricter sense, is to be\nunderstood. _Finally_--It will be seen from the exposition, that it is\nonly on the supposition that Israel is addressed, that the contents of\nver. 16, 17, become intelligible.--In our explanation of the words\n[Hebrew: ki anki belti atkM], we follow the precedent of the Vulgate\n(_quia ego vir vester_), of _Luther_ (\"I will [Pg 376] marry you to\nme\"), of _Calvin_, _Schimd_, and others. On the other hand, others,\nespecially _Pococke_, _ad P.M._ p. 2, _Schultens_ on Prov. xxx. 22,\n_Venema_, _Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_, _Winer_, _Bleek_, have made every\nendeavour to prove that [Hebrew: bel] is used _sensu malo_ here, as\nwell as in chap. xxxi. 32, where it occurs in a connection altogether\nsimilar; so that the decision must be valid for both of the passages at\nthe same time. This signification they seek to make out in a twofold\nway. Some altogether give up the derivation from the Hebrew _usus\nloquendi_, and refer solely to the Arabic, where [Hebrew: bel] means\n_fastidire_. Others derive from the Hebrew signification, \"to rule,\"\nthat of a tyrannical dominion, and support their right in so doing, by\nreferring, with _Gesenius_, to other verbs in which the signification,\n_to subdue_, _to be distinguished_, _to rule_, has been changed into\nthat of _looking down_, _despising_, and _contemning_. As regards the\n_first_ derivation, even if the Arabic _usus loquendi_ were proved, we\ncould not from it make any certain inference as regards the Hebrew\n_usus loquendi_. But with respect to this Arabic _usus loquendi_, it is\nfar from being proved and established. It is true that such would not\nbe the case if there indeed occurred in Arabic the expression [Arabic:\n**] _fastidivit vir mulierem eamque expulit, s. repudiavit_; but it is\nonly by a strange _quid pro quo_ that interpreters, even _Schultens_\namong them, following the example of _Kimchi_, have saddled this\nexpression upon the Arabic. The error lies in a hasty view of _Adul\nWalid_, who, instead of it, has [Arabic: **] _any one is embarrassed in\nhis affair_. The signification _fastidire_, _rejicere_, is, in general,\nquite foreign to the Arabic. The verb [Arabic: **] denotes only: _mente\nturbatus_, _attonitus fuit_, _i.e._, _to be possessed_, _deprived of\nthe use of one's strength_, _to be embarrassed_, _not to know how to\nhelp one's self_: compare the _Camus_ in _Schultens_ and _Freytag_. As\nsoon as the plain connection of this signification with the ordinary\none is perceived, it is seen at once, that it is here out of the\nquestion. As regards the second derivation, we must bring this\nobjection against it, that the fundamental signification of _ruling_,\nfrom which that of _ruling tyrannically_ is said to have arisen, is\nentirely foreign to the Hebrew. More clearly than by modern\nLexicographers it was seen by _Cocceius_, that the fundamental, yea the\nonly signification of [Hebrew: bel], is that of _possessing_, [Pg 377]\n_occupying_. It may, indeed, be used also of rulers, as, _e.g._ Isa.\nxxvi. 13, and 1 Chron. iv. 22; but not in so far as they rule, but in\nso far as they possess. On the former passage: \"Jehovah our God,\n[Hebrew: belvnv advniM zvltiM], Lords beside thee have dominion over\nus,\" _Schultens_, it is true, remarks: \"Every one here easily\nrecognizes a severe and tyrannical dominion;\" but it is rather the\ncircumstance that the land of the Lord has at all foreign possessors,\nwhich is the real sting of the grief of those lamenting, and which so\nmuch occupies them, that they scarcely think of the way and manner of\nthe possessing.--Passages such as Is. liv. 1,[1] lxii. 4, compare Job\ni. 8, where a relation is spoken of, founded on most cordial love, show\nthat the signification \"_to marry_,\" does not by any means proceed from\nthat of ruling, and is not to be explained from the absolute, slavish\ndependence of the wife in the East, but rather from the signification\n\"to possess.\" And this is farther proved by passages such as Deut. xxi.\n10-13, xxvi. 1, where the _copula carnalis_ is pointed out as that by\nwhich the [Hebrew: bel] is completed. And, finally, it is seen from the\nArabic, where the wife is also called, [Hebrew: belh], [Arabic: **],\njust as the husband is called [Hebrew: bel], [Arabic: **].--It is\nfarther obvious that, in the frequent compositions of [Hebrew: bel]\nwith other nouns, in order, by way of paraphrasis, to form adjectives,\nthe signification \"lord\" is far less suitable than that of \"possessor,\"\n_e.g._, [Hebrew: bel Hlmvt], _the dreamer_, [Hebrew: bel aP], _the\nangry one_, [Hebrew: bel npw], _the covetous one_, [Hebrew: bel mzmzt],\n_the deceitful one_, [Hebrew: beli eir] _oppidani_, [Hebrew: beli\nbrit], _the members of the covenant_, etc. We arrive at the same\nconclusion, if we look to the dialects. Here, too, the signification\n\"to possess\" appears as the proper and original signification. In the\nEthiopic, the verb signifies _multum possedit, dives fuit._ In Arabic,\nthe significations are more varied; but they may all be traced back to\none root. Thus, _e.g._ [Arabic: **], [Hebrew: bel], according to the\n_Camus_, \"a high and elevated land which requires only one annual rain;\nfarther, a palm-tree, or any other tree or plant which is not watered,\nor which the sky alone irrigates;\" _i.e._, a land, a tree, a plant\nwhich themselves _possess_, which do not require to _borrow_ from\nothers. This reason of the appellation clearly appears in _Dsheuhari_\n(compare [Pg 378] _Schultens_ l. c.): \"It is used of the palm-tree,\nwhich, by its roots, provides for itself drink and sap, so that there\nis no need for watering it.\" In favour of the signification \"to rule\"\nin this verb, the following gloss from the _Camus_ only can be quoted:\n\"Both (the 1st and 10th conjugations) when construed with [Hebrew:\nelih] _super illum_, denote: he has taken possession of a thing, and\nbehaved himself proudly towards it.\" But the latter clause must be\nstruck out; for it has flowed only from the false reading [Arabic: **]\nin _Schultens_, for which (compare _Freytag_) [Arabic: **] _noluit_\nmust be read, [Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: el] accordingly signifies \"to\nbe the possessor of a thing, and, as such, not to be willing to give it\nup to another.\" And thus every ground has been taken from those who,\nfrom the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, would interpret [Hebrew: bel] in a bad\nsense,--The same result, however, which we have reached upon\nphilological grounds, we shall obtain also, when we look to the\ncontext. From it, they are most easily refuted, who, like _Schultens_,\nunderstand the whole verse as a threatening. That which precedes, as\nwell as that which follows, breathes nothing but pure love to poor\nIsrael. She is not terrified by threatenings, like Judah who has not\nyet drunk of the cup of God's wrath, but allured by the call: \"Come\nunto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, _for_ I will give you\nrest.\" But they also labour under great difficulties who, after the\nexample of _Kimchi_ (\"_ego fastidivi vos, eo scil. quod praeteriit\ntempore, ac jam colligam vos_\"), refer the [Hebrew: ki] not so much to\n[Hebrew: belti], as rather to [Hebrew: lqhti]: \"For I have, it is true,\nrejected you formerly, but now I take,\" &c. This is the only shape in\nwhich this interpretation can still appear; for it is altogether\narbitrary to explain [Hebrew: ki] by \"although,\" an interpretation\nstill found in _De Wette_. If it had been the intention of the Prophet\nto express this sense, nothing surely was less admissible, than to omit\njust those words, upon which everything depended--the words _formerly_\nand _now_. [Hebrew: lqHti] and [Hebrew: belti] evidently stand here in\nthe same relation; both together form the ground for the return to the\nLord. To these reasons we may still add the circumstance that,\naccording to our explanation, we obtain the beautiful parallelism with\nver. 12: \"Return thou, apostate Israel, saith the Lord; I will not\ncause mine anger to fall upon you; _for_ I am merciful; I do not keep\nanger for ever,\"--a circumstance which has already been [Pg 379]\npointed out by _Calvin_. Israel's haughtiness is broken; but\ndespondency now keeps them from returning to the Lord. He, therefore,\never anew repeats His invitation, ever anew founds it upon the fact,\nthat He delights in showing mercy and love to those who have forsaken\nHim. The rejection of Israel had, in ver. 8, been represented under the\nimage of divorce: \"Because apostate Israel had committed adultery, I\nhad put her away, and given her the bill of divorce.\" What, therefore,\nis more natural, than that her being received again, which was offered\nto her out of pure mercy, should appear under the image of a new\nmarriage; and that so much the more, that the apostacy had, even in the\npreceding verse, been represented as adultery and whoredom? (\"_Thou\nhast scattered thy ways_, _i.e._, thou hast been running about\nto various places after the manner of an impudent whore seeking\nlovers\"--_Schmid_; compare ver. 6.) Farther to be compared is ver. 22:\n\"Return ye apostate children, (for) I will heal your apostacy. Behold\nwe come unto thee, _for_ thou art the Lord our God.\" The objection that\n[Hebrew: bel], in the signification \"to take in marriage\" is construed\nwith the Accusative only, is of no weight. In a manner altogether\nsimilar, [Hebrew: zkr], which else is connected with the simple\nAccusative, is, in ver. 16, followed by the Preposition [Hebrew: b].\n[Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: b] altogether corresponds to our \"to join\nonesself in marriage;\" and the construction has perhaps a certain\nemphasis, and indicates the close and indissoluble connection. Of still\nless weight is another objection, viz., that, in that case, the _Suffix\nPlur._ is inadmissible. It is just the Israelites who are the wife; and\nthis is so much the more evident that, in the preceding verses, and\neven still in ver. 13, they had been treated as such. Hence nothing\nremains but to determine the sense of our passage, as was done by\n_Calvin_: \"Because despair might take hold of them, in such a manner\nthat they might be afraid of approaching Him.... He saith that He would\nmarry himself to them, and that He had not yet forgotten that union\nwhich He once had bestowed upon them.\" This is the only correct view;\nand by thus determining the sense, we at the same time obtain the sure\nfoundation for the exposition of chap. xxxi. 32; just as, _vice versa_,\nthe sense which will result from an independent consideration of that\npassage, [Pg 380] will serve to confirm that which was here\nestablished.[2] In the right determination of the sense of the\nsubsequent words, too, _Calvin_ distinguishes himself advantageously\nfrom the earlier, and most of the later interpreters: \"God shows that\nthere was no reason why some should wait for others; and farther,\nalthough the very body of the people might be utterly corrupted in\ntheir sins, yet, if even a few were to return. He would show himself\nmerciful to them. The covenant had been entered into with the _whole_\npeople. The single individual might, therefore, have been disposed to\nimagine that his repentance was in vain. But in opposition to such\nfears, the Prophet says: 'Although only one of a town should come to\nme, he shall find an open door; although only two of one tribe come to\nme, I will admit even them.'\" After him _Loscanus_ too (in his\nDissertation on this passage, Frankf. 1720) has thus correctly stated\nthe sense: \"The small number shall not prevent God from carrying out\nHis counsel.\" Thus it is seen--and this is alone suitable in this\ncontext--that the apparent limitation of the promise is, in truth, an\nextension of it. How great must God's love and mercy be to Israel, in\nhow wide an extent must the declaration be true: [Greek: ametamel\u00eata ta\ncharismata kai h\u00ea kl\u00easis tou Theo], Rom. xi. 29, if even a single\nrighteous Lot is by God delivered from the Sodom of Israel; if Joshua\nand Caleb, untouched by the pefunishment of the sins of the thousands,\nreach the Holy Land; if every penitent heart at once finds a gracious\nGod! Thus it appears that this passage is not by any means in\ncontradiction to other passages by which a complete restoration of\nIsrael is promised. On the contrary, the [Greek: epitunchanein] of the\n[Greek: eklog\u00ea] (Rom. xi. 7) announced here, is a pledge and guarantee\nfor the more comprehensive and general mercy.--Expositors are at\nvariance as to the historical reference of the prophecy. Some, _e.g._\n_Theodoret_, _Grotius_, think exclusively of the return from the\nBabylonish captivity. Others (after the example of _Jerome_ and the\nJewish interpreters) think of the Messianic time. It need [Pg 381]\nscarcely be remarked, that here, as in so many other passages, this\nalternative is out of place. The prophecy has just the very same extent\nas the matter itself, and, hence, refers to all eternity. It was a\ncommencement, that, at the time of Cyrus, many from among the ten\ntribes, induced by true love to the God of Israel, joined themselves to\nthe returning Judeans, and were hence again engrafted by God into the\nolive-tree. It was a continuation of the fulfilment that, in later\ntimes, especially those of the Maccabees, this took place more and more\nfrequently. It was a preparation and prelude of the complete\nfulfilment, although not the complete fulfilment itself, that, at the\ntime of Christ, the blessings of God were poured upon the whole [Greek:\nd\u00f4dekaphulon], Acts xxvi. 7. The words: \"I bring you to Zion,\" in the\nverse under consideration, and: \"They shall come out of the land of the\nNorth to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto their\nfathers,\" in ver. 18, do not at all oblige us to limit ourselves to\nthose feeble beginnings; the idea appears here only in that form, in\nwhich it must be realised, in so far as its realisation belonged to the\ntime of the Old Testament. Zion and the Holy Land were, at that time,\nthe seat of the Kingdom of God; so that the return to the latter was\ninseparable from the return to the former. Those from among Israel who\nwere converted to the true God, either returned altogether to Judea,\nor, at least, there offered up their sacrifices. But Zion and the Holy\nLand likewise come into consideration, as the seat of the Kingdom of\nGod _only_; and, for that very reason, the course of the fulfilment\ngoes on incessantly, even in those times when even the North has become\nZion and Holy Land.--The circumstance that two are assigned to a\nfamily, while only one is assigned to a town, shows that we must here\nthink of a larger family which occupied several towns; and the\ncircumstance that the town is put together with the family, shows that\nit is cities of the land of Israel which are here spoken of, and not\nthose which the exiled ones inhabited.\n\nVer. 15. \"_And I give you shepherds according to mine heart, and they\nfeed you with knowledge and understanding._\"\n\nThe question is:--Who are here to be understood by the shepherds?\n_Calvin_ thinks that it is especially the prophets and priests,\ninasmuch as it was just the bad condition of these [Pg 382] which had\nbeen the principal cause of the ruin of the people; and that it is the\ngreatest blessing for the Church, when God raises up true and sincere\nteachers. Similar is the opinion of _Vitringa_ (_obs._ lib. vi., p.\n417), who, in a lower sense, refers it to Ezra and the learned men of\nthat time, and, in a higher sense, to Christ. Among the Fathers of the\nChurch, _Jerome_ remarked: \"These are the apostolical men who did not\nfeed the multitude of the believers with Jewish ceremonies, but with\nknowledge and doctrine.\" Others refer it to leaders of every kind; thus\n_Venema_: _Pastores sunt rectores, ductores._ Others, finally, limit\nthemselves to rulers; thus _Kimchi_ (_gubernatores Israelis cum rege\nMessia_), _Grotius_, and _Clericus_. The latter interpretation is, for\nthe following reasons, to be unconditionally preferred. 1. The image of\nthe shepherd and of feeding occurs sometimes, indeed, in a wider sense,\nbut ordinarily of the ruler specially. Thus, in the fundamental\npassage, 2 Sam. v. 2, it occurs of David, compare Micah v. 3. Thus also\nin Jeremiah ii. 8: \"The _priests_ said not. Where is the Lord, and they\nthat handle the law knew me not, and the shepherds transgressed against\nme, and the prophets prophesied in the name of Baal;\" comp. ver. 26:\n\"They, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their\nprophets.\" 2. The word [Hebrew: klbi] contains an evident allusion to 1\nSam. xiii. 14, where it is said of David: \"The Lord hath sought him, a\nman after His own heart, and the Lord hath appointed him to be a prince\nover His people.\" 3. All doubt is removed by the parallel passage,\nchap. xxiii. 4: \"And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them,\nand they fear no more, nor are dismayed.\" That, by the shepherds, in\nthis verse, only the rulers can be understood, is evident from the\ncontrast to the bad rulers of the present, who were spoken of in chap.\nxxii., no less than from the connection with ver. 5, where that which,\nin ver. 4, was expressed in general, is circumscribed within narrow\nlimits, and the concentration of the fulfilment of the preceding\npromise is placed in the Messiah: \"Behold, days come, saith the Lord,\nand I raise unto David a righteous _Branch_, and He reigneth as a king\nand acteth wisely, and setteth up judgment and justice in the land.\"\nThis parallel passage is, in so far also, of importance, as it shews\nthat the prophecy under consideration likewise had its final reference\nto the [Pg 383] Messiah. The kingdom of the ten tribes was punished by\nbad kings for its apostacy from the Lord, and from His visible\nrepresentative. In the whole long series of Israelitish kings, we do\nnot find any one like Jehoshaphat, or Hezekiah, or Josiah. And that is\nvery natural, for the foundation of the Israelitish throne was\nrebellion. But, with the cessation of sin, punishment too shall cease.\nIsrael again turns to that family which is the medium and channel\nthrough which all the divine mercies flow upon the Church of the Lord;\nand so they receive again a share in them, and particularly in their\nrichest fulness in the exalted scion of David, the Messiah. The passage\nunder consideration is thus completely parallel to Hosea iii. 5: \"And\nthey seek Jehovah their God, and David their king;\" and that which we\nremarked on that passage is here more particularly applicable; compare\nalso Ezek. xxxiv. 23: \"And I raise over them one Shepherd, and He\nfeedeth them, my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be\ntheir shepherd.\" The antithesis to the words: \"According to mine\nheart,\" is formed by the words in Hos. viii. 4: \"They have set up kings\nnot by me, princes whom I knew not,\"--words which refer to the past\nhistory of Israel. Formerly, the rebellious chose for themselves kings\naccording to the desires of their own hearts. Now, they choose Him whom\nGod hath chosen, and who, according to the same necessity, must be an\ninstrument of blessing, as the former were of cursing.--[Hebrew: deh]\nand [Hebrew: hwkil] stand adverbially. [Hebrew: hwkil] \"to act wisely\"\nis, in appearance only, intransitive in _Hiphil_. The foundation of\nwisdom and knowledge is the living communion with the Lord, being\naccording to His heart, walking after Him. The foolish counsels of the\nformer rulers of Israel, by which they brought ruin upon their people,\nwere a consequence of their apostacy from the Lord. The two fundamental\npassages are, Deut. iv. 6: \"And ye shall keep and do (the law); for\nthis is your wisdom and understanding;\" xxix. 8 (9): \"Ye shall keep the\nwords of this covenant and do them, that ye may act wisely.\" Besides\nthe passage under consideration, the passages Josh. i. 7; 1 Sam. xviii.\n14, 15; 1 Kings ii. 3; Is. lii. 13; Jer. x. 21, xxiii. 5, are founded\nupon these two passages. If all these passages are compared with one\nanother, and with the fundamental passages, one cannot but wonder at\nthe arbitrariness [Pg 384] of interpreters and lexicographers who,\nsevering several of these passages from the others, have forced upon\nthe verb [Hebrew: hwkil] the signification \"to prosper,\"--a\nsignification altogether fanciful _God's_ servants act wisely, because\nthey look up to God; and he who acts wisely finds prosperity for\nhimself and his people. Hence, it is a proof of the greatest mercy of\nGod towards His people, when He gives them His _servants_ for kings.\n\nVer. 16. \"_And it cometh to pass, when ye be multiplied and fruitful in\nthe land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more: The\nArk of the Covenant of the Lord! And it will not come into the heart,\nneither shall they remember it, nor miss it, nor shall it be made\nagain._\"\n\nFirst, we shall explain some particulars. The words: \"When ye be,\" &c.\nrefer to Gen. i. 28, As it is God's general providence which brings\nabout the fruitfulness of all creatures, so it is His special\nprovidence which brings about the increase of His Church whose ranks\nhave been thinned by His judgments; and it is thus that His promise to\nthe patriarchs is carried on towards its fulfilment; compare remarks on\nHos, ii. 1. God's future activity in this respect, has an analogy in\nHis former activity in Egypt, Exod. i. 12. The words: \"The Ark of the\nCovenant\" must be viewed as an exclamation, in which an ellipsis, in\nconsequence of the emotion, must be supposed, _q.d._ it is the aim of\nall our desires, the object of all our longings. The mere mention of\nthe object with which the whole heart is filled, is sufficient for the\nlively emotion. _Venema's_ exposition; _Arca f[oe]deris Jehovae_ sc.\n_est_, and that of _De Wette_: \"They shall no more speak of the Ark of\nthe Covenant of Jehovah,\" are both feeble and un philological. How were\nit possible that [Hebrew: amr] with the Accusative should mean \"to\nspeak of something?\"--[Hebrew: elh el-lb] is, in a similar context,\njust as it is here, connected with [Hebrew: zkr] in Is. lxv. 17: \"For\nbehold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not\nbe remembered nor come into the heart,\" comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii.\n31; 1 Cor. ii. 9. [Hebrew: zkr] with [Hebrew: b] does not simply stand\ninstead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a\nremembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent\nlongings. [Hebrew: pqd] is, by many interpreters, understood in the\nsense of \"to visit,\" but the signification \"to miss\" (Is. xxxiv. 16; 1\nSam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kings [Pg 385] xx. 39) is recommended by the\nconnection with the following clause: \"Nor shall it be made again.\"\nThis supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant\nshall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which\nwas so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3] God,\nhowever, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that\nmen will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any\nattempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The\nmain question now arises:--In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant\nhere come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The\nArk of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now,\nin a perfect sense, become the throne of God. The Ark of the Covenant\ncomes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of God, in an\nimperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there\nhave been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current\nview was this, that God, as the Covenant God, had _constantly_\nmanifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a\nvisible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view\nproceeded from _Vitringa_ who, in the _Obs. sac._ t. i. p. 169,\nadvances, among other arguments, the following: \"It is not by any means\nnecessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or\nthe temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but\nit may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine\nhabitation, and it was for this reason said that God was present in the\nplace between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the\nrevelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was\npresent.\" But this view of _Vitringa_, that it was [Pg 386] merely in\nan invisible manner that God was present over the Ark of the Covenant,\nmet with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows,\nthat he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. By\n_Thalemann_, a pupil of _Ernesti_, it was afterwards advanced far more\ndecidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through,\nwhether it was true or not, in the _Dissertatio de nube super arcam\nfoederis_ (Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not\ndeny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned\nopponent in _John Eberhard Rau_, Professor at Herborn (_Ravius_, _de\nnube super arcam foederis_, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in which\n_Thalemann's_ Treatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very\nsimple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between\nthe two. From the principal passage, in Lev. xvi. 2, it is evident\nthat, at the annual entry of the High Priest into the holy of holies,\nthe invisible presence of God embodied itself in a cloud, as formerly\nit also did, on extraordinary occasions, during the journey through the\nwilderness, and at the dedication of the tabernacle and temple. In that\npassage, Aaron is exhorted not to enter the holy of holies at all\ntimes, for that would prove a want of reverence, but only once a year,\n\"for in the cloud I shall appear over the lid of expiation,\" (this is\nthe right explanation of [Hebrew: kprt] compare _Genuineness of the\nPentateuch_, p. 525 f.) The place where God manifests himself in so\nvisible a manner when the High Priest enters into it, cannot fail to be\na most holy place to him. It is true that _Vitringa_ (S. 171), and\nstill more _Thalemann_ (S. 39 in _Rau_), have endeavoured to remove\nthis objection by their interpretation; but with so plain a violation\nof all the laws of interpretation, that it is scarcely worth while to\nenter farther upon this exposition, (compare the refutation in _Rau_,\nS. 40 ff.), although _J. D. Michaelis_, _Vater_, _Rosenm\u00fcller_, and\n_B\u00e4hr_, (_Symbol. des Mos. Cultus_, i. S. 395), have approved of it.[4]\nOn the other hand, [Pg 387] there is nothing to favour the supposition\nof an ordinary and constant presence of the cloud in the holy of\nholies. With such a view, questions at once arise, such as: Whether it\ncame also to the Philistines? All that _Rau_ advances in favour of it,\nmerely proves the invisible presence of God, which surely cannot be\nconsidered and called a merely imaginary thing, as is done by him, p.\n35. For what, in that case, would be the Lord's presence in the hearts\nof believers, and in the Lord's supper? It is true that Ezekiel, in\nchap. xi. 22, beholds the glory of the Lord over the cherubim as being\nlifted up, and forsaking the temple before its destruction; but how can\nwe draw any reference, as to the actual state of things, from visions\nwhich, according to their nature, surround with a body all that is\ninvisible? Still, as we already remarked, this whole controversy has\nreference to the _manner_ only, and not to the _fact_ of God's presence\nover the Ark of the Covenant; and the Ark of the Covenant stands here\nin a wider sense, and comprehends the cherubim, and \"the glory of the\nLord dwelling over them.\" From a vast number of passages, it can be\nproved that this glory of the Lord was constantly and really present\nover the Ark of the Covenant, although it was in extraordinary cases\nonly that it manifested itself in an outward, visible form; compare,\nbesides Lev. xvi. 2, Lev. ix. 24, where, after Aaron's consecration to\nthe priesthood, the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people in\nconfirmation of his office. To these passages belong all those in which\nGod is designated as dwelling over the cherubim, such as 1 Chron. xiii.\n6; Ps. lxxx. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4. To it refers the designation of the ark\nof the covenant, in a narrower sense, as the footstool of God; comp. 1\nChron. xxviii. 2, where David says: \"I had in mine heart to build an\nhouse of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and for the\nfootstool of our God;\" Ps. xcix. 5, cxxxii. 7; Lam. ii. 1. From this\ncircumstance the fact is explained, that the prayer in distress, as\nwell as the thanks for deliverance, were offered up before, or towards\n[Pg 388] the Ark of the Covenant. After the defeat before Ai (Josh.\nvii. 5 ff.), Joshua \"rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his\nface, before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, until the eventide,\nhe and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads, and Joshua\nsaid: Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people\nover Jordan?\" After the Lord had appeared to Solomon at Gibeah, and had\ngiven him the promise, he went before the Ark of the Covenant of the\nLord, and offered burnt-offerings, and thank-offerings, 1 Kings iii.\n15. In 2 Sam. xv. 32, we are told that David went up the Mount of\nOlives very sorrowfully, and when he was come to the place, _where\npeople were accustomed to worship God_, Hushai met him. According to\nthat passage, it was the custom of the people, when on the top of the\nMount of Olives, they gained, for the first or last time, a view of the\nsanctuary, to prostrate themselves before the God of Israel who dwelt\nthere. To the Ark of the Covenant, all those passages refer in which it\nis said that God dwelleth in the midst of Israel; that He dwelleth in\nthe temple; that He dwelleth at Zion or Jerusalem, compare _e.g._, the\npromise in Exodus xxix. 45: \"I dwell in the midst of the children of\nIsrael,\" and farther, Ps. ix. 12, cxxxii. 13, 14; 1 Kings vi. 12, 13,\nwhere God promises to Solomon that if he should only walk in His\ncommandments, and execute His judgments, then would He dwell among the\nchildren of Israel; and afterwards fulfils this promise by solemnly\nentering into his temple. Indissolubly connected with this, was the\ndeep reverence in which the Ark of the Covenant was held in Israel. It\nwas considered as the most precious jewel of the people, as the centre\nof their whole existence. Being the place where the glory of God dwelt\n(Ps. xxvi. 8), where He manifested himself in His most glorious\nrevelation, it was called _the glory of Israel_, compare 1 Sam. iv. 21,\n22; Ps. lxxviii. 61. The High Priest Eli patiently and quietly heard\nall the other melancholy tidings--the defeat of Israel, and the death\nof his sons. But when he who had escaped added: \"And the Ark of God is\ntaken,\" he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate; and\nhis neck brake, and he died. When his daughter-in-law heard the tidings\nthat the Ark of the Covenant was taken, she bowed herself and\ntravailed; for her pains came upon her. And about the time of [Pg 389]\nher death, the women that stood by her said unto her: Fear not, for\nthou hast borne a son. But she answered not, neither did she take it to\nheart, and she named the child Ichabod, and said. The glory is departed\nfrom Israel, because the Ark of the Covenant was taken, and said again:\n\"The glory is departed from Israel, for the Ark of God is taken.\" But\nin what manner may this dwelling of God over the Ark of the Covenant be\nconceived of? Should the Most High God, whom all the heavens, and the\nheaven of heavens cannot contain (1 Kings viii. 27), whose throne is\nthe heaven, and whose footstool is the earth (Is. lxvi. 1), dwell in a\ntemple made by the hands of men? (Acts vii. 48, ff.) Evidently not in\nthe manner in which men dwell in a place, who are _in_ it only, not\n_out_ of it. Nor in such a manner as the carnally minded suppose, who,\nto the warnings of the prophets, opposed their word: \"Is not the Lord\namong us? none evil can come upon us\" (Micah iii. 11), or: \"Here is the\ntemple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple\nof the Lord\" (Jer. vii. 4), imagining that God could not forsake the\nplace which he had chosen, could not take away the free gift of His\ngrace. The matter rather stands thus: That which constitutes the\nsubstance and centre of the whole relation of Israel to God, is, that\nthe God of the heavens and the earth became the God of Israel; that the\nCreator of heaven and earth became the Covenant-God, that His general\nprovidence in blessing and punishing became a special one. In order to\nmake the relation familiar to the people, and thus to make it the\nobject of their love and fear, God gave them a _praesens numen_ in His\nsanctuary, as a prefiguration, and, at the same time, a prelude of the\ncondescension with which He whom the whole universe cannot contain,\nrested in the womb of Mary. And in so doing, He gave them not a\nsymbolical representation merely, but an embodiment of the idea, so\nthat they who wished to seek Him as the God of Israel, could find Him\nin the temple, and over the Ark of the Covenant only. The circumstance\nthat it was just there that He took His seat, shows the difference\nbetween this truly _praesens numen_, and that merely imaginery one of\nthe Gentiles. There was in this no partial favour for Israel, nothing\nfrom which careless sinners could derive any comfort, God's dwelling\namong Israel rested on [Pg 390] His holy Law. According as the Covenant\nis kept or not, and the Law is observed or not, it manifests itself by\nincreased blessing, or by severer punishment. If the Covenant be\nentirely broken, the consequence is that God leaves His dwelling, and\nit is only the curse which remains, and which is greater than the curse\ninflicted upon those among whom He never dwelt, and which, by its\ngreatness, indicates the greatness of the former grace.--Now, if this\nbe the case with the Ark of the Covenant; if it be the substance and\ncentre of the whole former dispensation, what, and how much would not\nfall along with it, if it fell; and how infinitely great must the\ncompensation be which was to be granted for it, if, in consequence of\nit, no desire and longing after it was to rise at all, if it was to be\nregarded as belonging to the [Greek: pt\u00f4cha stoicheia], and was to be\nforgotten as a mere image and shadow! The fact that the Ark of the\nCovenant was made before any thing else, sufficiently shows that every\nthing sacred under the Old Testament dispensation depended upon it.\n_Witsius Misc. t._ i. p. 439, very pertinently remarks: \"The Ark of the\nCovenant being, as it were, the heart of the whole Israelitish\nreligion, was made first of all.\" Without Ark of the Covenant--no\ntemple; for it became a sanctuary by the Ark of the Covenant only; for\nholy, so Solomon says in 2 Chron. viii. 11, is the place whereunto the\nArk of the Covenant hath come. Without Ark of the Covenant, no\npriesthood; for what is the use of servants when there is no Lord\npresent? Without temple and priesthood, no sacrifice. We have thus\nbefore us the announcement of the entire destruction of the previous\nform of the Kingdom of God, but such a destruction of the form as\nbrings about, at the same time, the highest completion of the\nsubstance,--a perishing like that of the seed-corn, which dies only, in\norder to bring forth much fruit; like that of the body, which is sown\nin corruption, in order to be raised in incorruption. _Dahler_ remarks:\n\"Because a more sublime religion, a more glorious state of things will\ntake the place of the Mosaic dispensation, there will be no cause for\nregretting the loss of the symbol of the preceding dispensation, and\npeople will no more remember it.\"--It is quite natural that the\nprophecy should give great offence, and prove a stumbling-block to\nJewish interpreters. Its subject, its high dignity, just [Pg 391]\nconsists in the announcement that, at some future period, the shadow\nshould give way to the substance; but it is just the confounding of the\nshadow with the substance, the rigid adherence to the former, which\ncharacterises Judaism, which considers even the Messiah as a minister\nof the old dispensation only, and views the great changes to be\neffected by Him, mainly as external ones. The embarrassment arising\nfrom this, is very clearly expressed in the following words of\n_Abarbanel_: \"This promise is, then, bad, and uproots the whole Law.\nHow is it then that Scripture mentions it as good?\" Rabbi _Arama_, in\nhis commentary on the Pentateuch, fol. 101, says, in reference to this\nprophecy, [Hebrew: nbvkv kl hmprwiM] \"all interpreters have been\nperplexed by it.\" The interpretations by means of which they endeavour\nto rid themselves of this embarrassment (see the collection of them in\n_Frischmuth's_ dissertation on this passage, Jena; reprinted in the\n_Thes. Ant._) are only calculated plainly to manifest it. _Kimchi_\ngives this explanation: \"Although ye shall increase and be multiplied\non the earth, yet the nations shall not envy you, nor wage war against\nyou; and it shall no more be necessary for you to go to war with the\nArk of the Covenant, as was usual in former times, when they took the\nArk of the Covenant out to war. In that time, there will be no\nnecessity for so doing, as they shall not have any war.\" The weak\npoints of this explanation are at once obvious. That which, in the\nverse under consideration, is, in a general way, said of the Ark of the\nCovenant, is, by it, referred to an altogether special use of it, a\nregard to which is excluded by the evident antithesis in ver. 17.\n_Abarbanel_ rejects this explanation. He says: \"For there is, in the\ntext, no mention at all of war; and therefore I cannot approve of this\nexposition, although _Jonathan_, too, inclines towards it.\" He himself\nbrings out this sense: The Ark of the Covenant would then, indeed,\nstill continue to exist, and be the seat of the Lord; but no more the\nexclusive one, no longer the sole sanctuary. \"The whole of Jerusalem\nshall, as regards holiness and glory, equal the Ark of the Covenant.\nFor there shall cease with them every evil thing, and every evil\nimagination; and there shall be such holiness in the land, that in the\nsame manner as formerly the Ark was the holiest of all things, so at\nthat time, Jerusalem shall be [Pg 392] the throne of the Lord.\" But, by\nthis explanation, justice is not done to the text. For it is an entire\ndoing away with the Ark of the Covenant which is spoken of in it, not a\nmere diminution of its dignity, produced by the circumstance, that that\nwhich formerly was low shall be exalted. This is particularly evident\nfrom the words: \"They will not miss it, neither shall it be made\nagain.\" To this argument we may still add that, by this exposition, not\neven the object is gained for the sake of which it was advanced. The\nnature and substance of the Ark of the Covenant is destroyed, as soon\nas it is put on a level with anything else. It is then no more _the_\nthrone of the Lord; and for this reason, the previous form can no\nlonger continue to exist, and, along with it, the temple and priesthood\ntoo must fall. If every place in Jerusalem, if every inhabitant of it,\nbe equally holy, how then can institutions still continue, which are\nbased on the difference between holy and unholy?--Here a question still\narises. There was no Ark of the Covenant in the second temple. In what\nrelation to the prophecy under consideration stands this absence of the\nArk of the Covenant, the restoration of which the Jews expect at the\nend of the days? There cannot be any doubt that it was really wanting.\nEvery proof of its existence is wanting. _Josephus_, in enumerating the\ncatalogue of the _spolia Judaica_, borne before in the triumph, does\nnot mention it. He says expressly (de Bell. Jud. v. 5, \u00a7 5), that the\nholy of holies had been altogether empty. Some of the Jewish writers\nassert that it had been carried away to Babylon; while most of them,\nfollowing the account given in 2 Maccabees, tell us that Josiah or\nJeremiah had concealed it; compare the Treatise by _Calmet_, Th. 6, S.\n224-258, _Mosh._ In asking _why_ such was the case, other analogous\nphenomena, the absence of the _Urim and Thummim_, the cessation of\nprophetism soon after the return from the captivity, must not be lost\nsight of. Every thing was intended to impress upon the people the\nconviction that their condition was provisional only. It was necessary\nthat the Theocracy should sink beneath its former glory, in order that\nthe future glory, which was far to outshine it, should so much the more\nbe longed for. After having thus determined _why_ it was that the Ark\nof the Covenant was wanting, at the second temple, it is easy to [Pg\n393] determine the relation of this absence to the prophecy under\nconsideration. It was the beginning of its fulfilment. In the Kingdom\nof God, nothing perishes, without something new arising out of this\ndecay. The extinction of the old was the guarantee, that something new\nwas approaching. On the other hand, the absence of the Ark of the\nCovenant was, it is true, at the same time, a matter-of-fact prophecy\nof a sad character. To those who clung to the form, without having in a\nliving manner laid hold of the substance, and who, therefore, were not\nable to partake in the more glorious display of the substance,--to\nthese it announced that the time was approaching when the form, to\nwhich they had attached themselves with their whole existence, was\nto be broken. Since already one of the great privileges of the\ncovenant-people, the [Greek: doxa] (Rom. ix. 4), had disappeared,\nsurely all that might and would soon share the same fate, which existed\nonly for the sake of it, and in it only had its significance. In this\nrespect, the non-restoration of the Ark of the Covenant showed that the\nChaldean destruction and that by the Romans were connected as\ncommencement and completion; while, in the other aspect, it declared\nthat, with the return from the captivity, the realization of God's\ngreat plan of salvation was being prepared. Inasmuch as the most\ncomplete _fuga vacui_ is peculiar to the Covenant-God, the emptiness in\nthat place where formerly the glory of God dwelt, proclaimed aloud the\nfuture fulness.--_Finally_, we have still to determine the special\nreference of our verse to Israel, _i.e._, the former kingdom of the ten\ntribes. This reference is, by most interpreters, entirely lost sight\nof, and is very superficially and erroneously determined by those who,\nlike _Calvin_, pay attention to it. In the preceding verse, it had been\npromised to Israel, that those blessings should again be bestowed upon\nthem, which they had forfeited by their rebellion against the Davidic\nhouse, and that they should be restored to them with abundant interest.\nFor David's house is to attain to its completion in its righteous\nSprout. This Shepherd, who is, in the fullest sense, what His ancestor\nhad only imperfectly been--a man according to the heart of God--shall\nfeed them with knowledge and understanding. _Here_, a compensation is\npromised for the second, infinitely greater loss, which [Pg 394] had,\nat all times, been acknowledged as such by the faithful in the kingdom\nof the ten tribes. The revelation of the Lord over the Ark of the\nCovenant was the magnet which constantly drew them to Jerusalem. Many\nsacrificed all their earthly possessions, and took up their abode in\nJudea. Others went on a pilgrimage from their natural to their\nspiritual home, to the \"throne of the glory exalted from the\nbeginning,\" Jer. xvii. 12. In vain was every thing which the kings of\nIsrael did in order to stifle their indestructible longing. Every new\nevent by which \"the glory of Israel\" manifested itself as such, kindled\ntheir ardour anew. But here also the great blessing and privilege,\nwhich the believers missed with sorrow, the unbelievers without it, is\nto the returning ones given back, not in its previous form, but in a\nglorious completion. The whole people have now received eyes to\nrecognise the value of the matter in its previous form; and yet this\nprevious form is now looked upon by them as nothing, because the new,\ninfinitely more glorious form of the same matter occupied their\nattention.\n\nVer. 17. \"_At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the\nLord; and all the nations shall be gathered into it, because the name\nof the Lord is at Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the\nwickedness of their evil heart._\"\n\nMany interpreters, proceeding upon the supposition that the emphasis\nrests upon Jerusalem, have been led to give an altogether erroneous\nexplanation. It is no more the Ark of the Covenant which will then be\nthe throne of the Lord, but _all_ Jerusalem. Thus, _e.g._, after the\nexample of _Jarchi_ and _Abarbanel_, _Manasseh ben Israel_,\n_Conciliator_, p. 196: \"If we keep in mind that, in the tabernacle or\ntemple, the Ark was the place where the Lord dwelt (hence Ex. xxv. 22:\n'I will speak with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two\ncherubim'), we shall find that the Lord here says, that the Ark indeed\nhad formerly been the dwelling-place of the Godhead, but that, at the\ntime of Messiah, not some one part of the temple only would be filled\nwith the Godhead, but that this glory should be given to all Jerusalem;\nso that whosoever would be in her would have the prophetic spirit.\" If\nit had been the intention of the Prophet to convey this meaning, the\nword _all_ could not have been omitted. The throne of the [Pg 395]\nLord, Jerusalem had been even formerly, in so far as she possessed in\nher midst the Ark of the Covenant, and hence was the residence of\nJehovah, the city of the great King, Ps. xlviii. 3. The words in the\nparallel member: \"Because the name of the Lord is at Jerusalem,\" show\nthat Jerusalem is called the throne of the Lord, because there is now\nin her the true throne of the Lord, just as, formerly, the Ark of the\nCovenant. The antithesis to what precedes leads us to expect a\ngradation, not in point of quantity, but of quality. The emphasis rests\nrather on: \"The throne of the Lord;\" and these words receive from the\nantithesis the more definite qualification: the true throne of the\nLord. Quite similarly, those who boasted that over the Cherubim was the\nthrone of God, and that the Ark of the Covenant was His footstool, are\ntold in Is. lxvi. 1: \"The heaven is my (true) throne, and the earth my\n(true) footstool;\" comp. the passages according to which the Ark of the\nCovenant is designated as the footstool of God, and, hence, the place\nover the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant as the throne of the Lord,\np. 387; and farther, Is. lx. 13; Ezra i. 26.--The highest prerogative\nof the covenant-people, their highest privilege over the world, is to\nhave God in the midst of them; and this prerogative, this privilege, is\nnow to be bestowed upon them in the most perfect manner; so that idea\nand reality shall coincide. Perfectly parallel in substance are such\npassages as Ezek. xliii., in which the Shechinah which, at the\ndestruction of the temple had withdrawn, returns to the new temple, the\nKingdom of God in its new and more glorious form. Ver. 2. \"And behold\nthe glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East; and its\nvoice was like the voice of great waters, and the earth shone with its\nsplendour.\" Ver. 7. \"And He said unto me, son of man, behold the place\nof _my throne_, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will\ndwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and the house of\nIsrael shall no more defile my holy place.\" Zech. ii. 14 (10): \"Sing\nand rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come and dwell in the midst\nof thee,\" with an allusion to Exod. xxix. 45: \"And I dwell among the\nchildren of Israel, and will be their God.\" The Prophet declares that\nthe full realization of this promise is reserved for the future; but it\ncould not be so, unless it had already been realised, throughout all\npast history, in God's [Pg 396] dwelling over the Ark of the Covenant;\ncompare Zech. viii. 3: \"Thus saith the Lord, I return unto Zion, and\ndwell in the midst of Jerusalem.\"--If we enquire after the fulfilment,\nwe are at once met by the words in John i. 14: [Greek: kai ho logos\nsarx egeneto kai esk\u00ean\u00f4sen en h\u00eamin, kai etheasametha t\u00ean doxan autou,\ndoxan h\u00f4s monogenous para patros]; and that so much the more that these\nwords contain an evident allusion to the former dwelling of God in the\ntemple, of which the incarnation of the Logos is looked upon as the\nhighest consummation. It is true that the dwelling of God among His\npeople by means of the [Greek: pneuma Christou] must not be separated\nfrom the personal manifestation of God in Christ, in whom dwelt the\nfulness of the Godhead bodily, [Greek: s\u00f4matik\u00f4s]. The former stands to\nthe latter in the same relation, as does the river to the fountain; it\nis the river of living water flowing forth from the body of Christ.\nBoth together form the true tabernacle of God among men, the new true\nArk of the Covenant; for the old things are the [Greek: skia t\u00f4n\nmellont\u00f4n, to de s\u00f4ma Christou], Col. ii. 17; comp. Rev. xxi. 22:\n[Greek: kai naon ouk eidon en aut\u00ea. ho gar Kurios, ho Theos ho\npantokrat\u00f4r naos aut\u00eas esti, kai to arnion]. The typical import of the\nArk of the Covenant is expressly declared in Heb. ix. 4, 5, and that\nwhich was typified thereby is intimated in chap. iv. 16: [Greek:\nproserch\u00f4mtha de meta parhr\u00easias t\u00f4 thron\u00f4 t\u00eas charitos], where Christ\nis designated as the true mercy-seat, as the true Ark of the Covenant.\nJust as, formerly, God could be found over the Ark of the Covenant\nonly, by those from among his people who sought Him; so we have now,\nthrough Christ, boldness and access with confidence in God (Eph. iii.\n12); and it is only when offered in His name, in living union with Him,\nthat our prayers are acceptable, John xvi. 23. A consequence of that\nhighest realization of the idea of the kingdom of God, and, at the same\ntime, a sign that it has taken place, and a measure of the blessings\nwhich Israel has to expect from its re-union with the Church of God, is\nthe gathering of the Gentiles into it, such as, by way of type and\nprelude, took place even at the lower manifestations of the presence of\nGod among the people; compare, _e.g._, Josh. ix. 9: \"And they (the\nGibeonites) said unto him: From a very far country thy servants are\ncome, because of the name ([Hebrew: lwM]) of Jehovah thy God, for we\nhave heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, [Pg 397] and\nall that He did to the two kings of the Amorites,\" &c. In a manner\nquite similar it is, in Zech. ii. 15 (11) also, connected with the\nLord's dwelling in Jerusalem: \"And many nations shall be joined to the\nLord in that day; and they shall be my people; and I dwell in the midst\nof thee.\"--[Hebrew: lwM ihvh lirvwliM] must be literally translated:\n\"On account of the name of the Lord (belonging) to Jerusalem,\" for:\nbecause the name of the Lord belongs to Jerusalem--is there at home The\nname of the Lord is the Lord himself, in so far as He reveals His\ninvisible nature, manifests himself In the name, His deeds are\ncomprehended; and hence it forms a bridge betwixt existing and knowing.\nA God without a name is a [Greek: theos agn\u00f4stos], Acts xviii. 23.\nThere is an allusion to Deut. xii. 5: \"But unto the place which the\nLord your God shall choose out of all your tribes _to put His name\nthere_, to dwell in it, unto it ye shall seek, and thither ye shall\ncome.\" Formerly, when God put His name in an imperfect manner only,\nIsrael only assembled themselves; but now, all the Gentiles.--The last\nwords: \"Neither shall they walk any more,\" &c., are not by any means to\nrefer to the Gentiles, but to the members of the kingdom of Israel, or\nalso to the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to all the members\nof the Kingdom of God, including the subjects of the kingdom of Israel.\nThis appears from a comparison of the fundamental passage of the\nPentateuch, as well as of the parallel passages in Jeremiah. Wherever\n[Hebrew: wrirvt] occurs, the covenant-people are spoken of; everywhere\nthe walking after [Hebrew: wrirvt] of the heart is opposed to the\nwalking after the revealed law of Jehovah, which Israel alone\npossessed. [Hebrew: wrirvt], which properly means \"firmness,\" is then\nused of hardness in sin, of wickedness.[5]\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_ very correctly remarks on this passage:\n\"[Hebrew: bel], properly [Greek: ho ech\u00f4n], he who has any thing in his\npossession is, by an ellipsis, applied to the husband who, in Exod.\nxxi. 3, is rightly called [Hebrew: bel awh] _one who has a wife_.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: Against the explanation of _Maurer_: \"For I am your Lord;\"\nand that of _Ewald_: \"I take you under my protection,\" it is decisive\nthat [Hebrew: bel] never means \"to be Lord,\" far less \"to take under\nprotection.\" [Hebrew: bel], which properly means \"to possess,\" is very\ncommonly used of marriage;--as early as in the Decalogue, the wife\nappears as the noblest _possession_ of the husband--so that _a priori_\nthis signification is suggested and demanded.]\n\n[Footnote 3: It is from the circumstance that modern Exegesis is unable\nto comprehend the prophetic anticipation of the Future, that the\nassertion has proceeded (_Movers_, _Hitzig_) that, even before the\nChaldean destruction, the Ark \"must have disappeared in a mysterious\nmanner.\" In the view of the Chaldean destruction the Lord is, in Ps.\nxcix. 1 (comp. Ps. lxxx. 2), designated as He who sitteth over the\nCherubim. In 2 Chron. xxxv. 3, we have a distinct historical witness\nfor the existence of the Ark, so late as the 18th year of Josiah. The\nfable in 2 Maccab. ii. 4, ff., supposes that the Ark was at its\nordinary place, down to the time of the breaking in of the Chaldean\ncatastrophe. One might as well infer from chap. iii. 18, that, at the\ntime when these words were spoken, Judah must already, \"in a mysterious\nmanner,\" have come into the land of the North.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _B\u00e4hr_ advances the assertion, \"In a (the) cloud\" is\nequivalent to: \"in darkness.\" But the parallel passages, Exod. xl. 34\nff., Numb. ix. 15, 16, quoted by _J. H. Michaelis_, are quite\nsufficient to overthrow this assertion. And these parallel passages are\nso much the more to the point, that by the article the cloud is\ndesignated as being already known; compare _Hofmann_, _Schriftbeweis_\nii. 1, S. 36. The cloud in ver. 13 is not identical with that in ver.\n2, but is its necessary parallel. The cloud in ver. 2 symbolises the\ntruth that the Lord is a consuming fire (compare my remarks on Rev. i.\n7); that in ver. 13 is an embodied _Kyrie eleison_, compare remarks on\nRev. v. 8. Cloud with cloud,--that is a noble advice for the Church\nwhen she is threatened by the judgments of God. A thorough refutation\nof _B\u00e4hr_ has been given by _W. Neumann_: _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Symbolik des\nMos. Cultus_, _Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol._, 1851, i.]\n\n[Footnote 5: In a certain sense, one may say that [Hebrew: wrirvt lb]\nis a [Greek: hapax legomenon]. It occurs independently in one single\npassage only, in Deut. xxix. 18; in the other passages (eight times in\nJeremiah, and besides, in Ps. lxxxi. 13), it was evidently not taken\nfrom the living _usus loquendi_ from which it had disappeared, but from\nthe fundamental passage in the written code of law. This fact will, _a\npriori_, appear probable, when we keep in mind that, among all the\nbooks of the Pentateuch, Jeremiah has chiefly Deuteronomy before his\neyes; and among all the chapters of Deuteronomy, none more than the\n29th; and that Ps. lxxxi. is pervaded by literal allusions to the\nPentateuch. But it is put beyond all doubt, when we enter upon a\ncomparison of the passage in Deuteronomy with the parallel passages.\nHere we must begin with Jer. xxiii. 17, where the verbal agreement\ncomes out most strongly, and then we shall, in the other passages also\n(vii. 24, ix. 13, xi. 8, xvi. 12, xviii. 12, and the passage under\nconsideration), easily perceive that the word has been borrowed. From a\ncomparison with the fundamental passage, it appears that it is the\nintention of the Prophet to convey here the promise of an eternal\nduration of the regained blessing, and to keep off the thought that\npossibly the people might again, as formerly, fall from grace. Of him\nwho walks after the [Hebrew: wrirvt] of his heart, it is said in Deut.\nxxix. 19 (20): \"The Lord will not be willing to forgive him; for then\nthe anger of the Lord and His jealousy shall smoke against that man,\nand all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him,\nand the Lord blots out his name from under heaven.\"]\n\n\n\n[Pg 398]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.\n\n\nThese verses form a portion only of a greater whole, to which, besides\nthe whole of chap. xxii., chap. xxiii. 9-40 also belongs. For these\nverses contain a prophecy against the false prophets, and by the way\nalso, against the degenerated priesthood (comp. ver. 11); and this\nprophecy easily unites itself with the preceding prophecy against the\nkings, so as to form one prophecy against the corrupt leaders of the\npeople of God. But, for the exposition of the verses before us, it is\nonly the connection with chap. xxii. which is of importance, and that\nso much so that, without carefully attending to it, they cannot at all\nbe thoroughly understood. For this reason, we shall confine ourselves\nto bring it out more clearly.\n\nThe Prophet reproves and warns the kings of Judah, first, in general,\nannouncing to them the judgments of the Lord upon them and their\npeople,--the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut. xxix. 22 ff.--if\nthey are to continue in their hitherto ungodly course, chap. xxii. 1-9.\nIn order to make a stronger impression, he then particularizes the\ngeneral threatening, showing how God's recompensing justice manifests\nitself in the fate of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz is\nbrought forward, the son and the immediate successor of Josiah, whom\nPharaoh-Necho dethroned and carried with him to Egypt, vers. 10-12. The\ndeclaration concerning him forms a commentary on the name Shallum,\n_i.e._, the recompensed one, he whom the Lord recompenses according to\nhis deeds,--which name the Prophet gives to him instead of the\nmeaningless name Jehoahaz, _i.e._, God holds. His father, who met his\ndeath in the battle against the Egyptians, may be called happy when\ncompared with him; for he never returns to his native [Pg 399] land; he\nlives and dies in a foreign land. The next whom he brings forward is\nJehoiakim, vers. 13-19. He is a despot who does every thing to ruin the\npeople committed to him. There is, therefore, the most glaring contrast\nbetween his beautiful name and his miserable fate. The Lord, instead of\nraising him up, will cast him down to the lowest depth; not even an\nhonourable burial is to be bestowed upon him. No one weeps or laments\nover him; like a trodden down carcass, he lies outside the gates of\nJerusalem, the city of the great King, which he attempted to wrest from\nhim, and make his own. Then follows a parenthetical digression, vers.\n20-23. Apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is not\none with which she has nothing to do, as little as their guilt belongs\nto them as individuals only. It is, at the same time a judgment upon\nthe people which, by the Lord's anger which they have called forth by\ntheir wickedness, is thrown down into the depth, from the height on\nwhich the Lord's mercy had raised them.--Next follows Jehoiachin, vers.\n24-30. In his name \"The _Lord_ will establish,\" the word _will_ has no\nfoundation; the Lord _will_ reject him, cast him away, and break him in\npieces like a worthless vessel. With his mother, he shall be carried\naway from his native land, and die in exile and captivity. Irrevocable\nis the Lord's decree, that none of his sons shall ascend the throne of\nDavid, so that he, having begotten children in vain, is to be esteemed\nas one who is childless.\n\nAt the commencement of the section under consideration (vers. 1 and 2),\nthe contents of chap. xxii. are comprehended into one sentence. \"Woe to\nthe shepherds that destroy and scatter the flock of the Lord.\" Woe,\nthen, to those shepherds who have done so. With this is then,\nin vers. 3-8, connected the announcement of salvation for the poor\nscattered flock. For the same reason, that the Lord visits upon those\nwho have hitherto been their shepherds, the wickedness of their\ndoings--viz., because of His being the chief Shepherd, or because of\nHis covenant-faithfulness, He will in mercy remember them also, gather\nthem from their dispersion, give, instead of the bad shepherds, a good\none, viz., the long promised and longed for great descendant of David,\nwho, being a _righteous_ King, shall diffuse justice and righteousness\nin the land, and thus [Pg 400] acquire for it righteousness and\nsalvation from the Lord. So great shall the mercy of the Future be,\nthat thereby the greatest mercy in the people's past history--their\ndeliverance out of Egypt--shall be altogether cast into the shade.\n\nThere cannot be any doubt that the whole prophecy belongs to the reign\nof Jehoiakim; for the end of Jehoiakim and the fate of Jehoiachin are\nannounced as future events.\n\n_Eichhorn_ asserts that this section was composed under Zedekiah; but\nhe could do so only by proceeding from his erroneous fundamental view,\nthat the prophecies are veiled descriptions of historical events. \"When\nJeremiah\"--so he says--\"delivered this discourse, Jehoiakim had not\nonly already met his ignominious end (xxii. 19), but Jeconiah also was,\nwith his mother, already carried away captive to Babylon.\" It is matter\nof astonishment that _Dahler_, without holding the same fundamental\nview, could yet adopt its result. He specially refers to the\ncircumstance that, in ver. 24, Jehoiachin is addressed as king,--a\ncircumstance by which _Berthold_ also supports his view, who, cutting\nthe knot, advances the position that vers. 1-19 belong to the reign of\nJehoiakim, but vers. 20--xxxii. 8 to the time when Jehoiachin was\ncarried away to Babylon. (_Maurer_ and _Hitzig_ too suppose that vers.\n20 ff. were added at a later period, under the reign of Jehoiachin).\nBut what difficulty is there in supposing that the Prophet transfers\nhimself into the time, when he who is now a hereditary prince will be\nking,--of which the address is then a simple consequence? It is\nundeniable that a connection with chap. xxi. takes place, in which\nchapter Jeremiah announces to Zedekiah, threatened by the Chaldeans,\nthe fall of the Davidic house, and the capture and destruction of the\ncity. And this connection is to be accounted for by the fact that\nJeremiah here connects with this announcement a former prophecy, in\nwhich, under the reign of Jehoiakim, he had foretold the fall of the\nDavidic house. The fate of the house of David is the subject common to\nboth the discourses. _K\u00fcper_ (_Jeremias_, _libror. Sacror. interpres_,\np. 58), supposes that, in the message to Zedekiah, Jeremiah had, at\nthat time, repeated his former announcement; but this supposition is\nopposed by the circumstance that, in chaps. xxii., xxiii., there is no\ntrace of a reference to Zedekiah and his embassy. _Ewald_ asserts that\nJeremiah [Pg 401] here only puts together what \"perhaps\" he had\nformerly spoken regarding the three kings; but the words in chap. xxii.\n1: \"Go down into the house of the king of Judah and speak there this\nword,\" is conclusive against this assertion. For, according to these\nwords, we have here not something put together, but a discourse which\nwas delivered at a distinct, definite time; although nothing prevents\nus from supposing that the going down was done in the Spirit only.\n\nWe have here still to make an investigation concerning the names of the\nthree kings occurring in chap. xxii., the result of which is of\nimportance for the exposition of ver. 5.--It cannot but appear strange\nthat the same king who, in the Book of the Kings, is called Jehoahaz,\nis here called Shallum only; that the same who is there called\nJehoiachin, has here the name of Jeconias, which is abbreviated into\nConias. The current supposition is, that the two kings had two names\neach. But this supposition is unsatisfactory, because, by the context\nin which they stand, the names employed by Jeremiah too clearly appear\nas _nomina realia_, as new names given to them by which the contrast\nbetween the name and thing was to be removed, and hence are evidently\nof the same nature with the _nomen reale_ of the good Shepherd in chap.\nxxiii. 6, which, with quite the same right, could have been changed\ninto a _nomen proprium_ in the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done\nby the LXX. The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name\noccurs as a designation of the nature and character, _e.g._, Is. ix. 5,\nlxii. 4; Jer. xxxiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name\nwhich has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes\nplace here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15\n[in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in\nthe Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1], and the name Jeconias\nlikewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the\nBook of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that\nthose later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be\nconsidered as a _nomen proprium_; but, on the contrary, that there is a\nstrong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes\ncertainty when that name occurs, either _alone_, as _e.g._, Shallum, or\n_first_, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20;\nthe abbreviated [Pg 402] Coniah in xxxvii. 1, while, which is well to\nbe observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31,\nJehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially\nwhen this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom,\nelsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be\npointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more\nthreatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which\nannounced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as\nmany actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be\nsuch, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their\napostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring\ncontrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of\nJehoahaz. He whom the Lord should _hold_, was violently and\nirresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him\nShallum, _i.e._, the _recompensed_,--not _retribution_, as _Hiller_,\n_Simonis_, and _Roediger_ think, nor _retributor_ according to _F\u00fcrst_\n(comp. _Ewald_ \u00a7 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called\nShallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord\nhas visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim\nand Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of\nthese names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is\nsaid: \"And I cause to rise up ([Hebrew: vhqimti]) thy seed after thee,\nwhich shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish ([Hebrew:\nvhkinti]) his kingdom.\" This passage contains the ground of _both_\nnames; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have\none author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been\ngiven to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When\nPharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself\nshows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a\nproposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that\nchange in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to\nthe promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as\nHe who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God\nof Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we\ncannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety,\nnothing is more natural [Pg 403] than to account for it from an\nopposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was\nformed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the\nDavidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in\nthe Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim\nmocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the\nfuture into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he\npresented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this\nprotest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find\nexpressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first\noverthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and\nJehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right\ninterpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap.\nxxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim,\ncontents himself with the _actual_ contrast, and omits to substitute a\ntruly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be\naccounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be\nunsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then\nreigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The\nfirst change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the\ntwo names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second\nchange into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is\nput first, in order that, by cutting off the [Hebrew: i], the sign of\nthe Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the [Hebrew: i]\nsays only God establishes, but not that He _will_ establish. In\nreference to these names, _Grotius_ came near the truth; but he erred\nin the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of\nthe matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: \"The\nJod,\" he says, \"with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate\nthat his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a\nsign of contempt, _q.d._ that Coniah!\" _Lightfoot_ comes nearer to the\ntruth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against\nhim _Hiller_ and _Simonis_ who thought his views scarcely worth\nrefuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (_Harmon._ p.\n275): \"By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would\nnot establish to the progeny of Solomon the [Pg 404] uninterrupted\ngovernment and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his\nson, seems to have expected.\" Besides these two, compare farther,\n_Alting_, _de Cabbala sacra_ \u00a7 73.\n\nIn conclusion, we must still direct attention to chap. xx. 3. Who,\nindeed, could infer from that passage, that, by way of change, _Pashur_\nwas called also _Magor-Missabib_?\n\nChap. xxiii. 1. \"_Woe to shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep\nof my pasture, saith the Lord._\"\n\nIt must be well observed that [Hebrew: reiM] is here without the\narticle, but, in ver. 2, with it. _Venema_ remarks on this: \"A general\nwoe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the\nshepherds of Judah, _q.d._, since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all\nbad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds,\" &c. By the \"shepherds,\"\nseveral interpreters would understand only the false prophets and\npriests. Others would at least have them thought of, along with the\nkings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the\nunderstanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it\noccasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether\nforeign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds\nrefer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the\ndescription of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has\nreference to Him as a King. But the very circumstance that, according\nto a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description,\nis a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be\nunderstood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close\nconnection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In\ncommenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are\ndesignated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and\nthe imitation and first interpretation of the passage under review by\nEzekiel, in chap. xxxiv. Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71: \"He chose David his\nservant, and took him from the sheep-folds. He took him from behind the\newes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance,\" shows\nthat a typical interpretation of the former circumstances of David\nlies at the foundation of this _usus loquendi_; compare Ezek. xxxiv.\n23, 24: \"And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my\nservant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be [Pg 405] their\nshepherd.\"--What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering,\nmust be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff. of the preceding\nchapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us. The former\npassages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions\nand extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2,\n3: \"Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should\nnot the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you\nwith the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with\ncruelty ye rule them\"), while the latter passage shows that it is\nchiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration,\nviz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being\ncarried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish\npolitical counsels, which were based upon ungodliness (comp. chap. x.\n21), the negative (_Venema_: \"It was their duty to take care that the\ntrue religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and\nproperly exercised\"), and positive promotion of ungodliness, and of\nimmorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were\nforcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality\n(_Calvin_: \"It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a\ndestroyer\"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that\nit is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, is\n_God's_ flock. (_Calvin_: \"God intimates that, by the unworthy\nscattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against\nhimself\") [Hebrew: caN mreiti] must not be explained by: \"the flock of\nmy feeding,\" _i.e._, which I feed. For, wherever [Hebrew: mreit] occurs\nby itself, it always has the signification \"pasture,\" but never the\nsignification _pastio_, _pastus_ commonly assigned to it. This\nsignification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word,\nmust therefore be retained in those passages also where it occurs in\nconnection with [Hebrew: caN], when it always denotes the relation of\nIsrael to God. Israel is called the flock of God's pasture, because He\nhas given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my\nremarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of\nthe rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every\nmore searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one\nanother; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation,\nand are, at the same time, a punishment [Pg 406] of its wickedness sent\nby God. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind\nthat the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the\npeople. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness\nwas naturally connected with that of the people. This _natural_\nconnection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the\nexample of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine\ngrace. Nor were they justified by the circumstance, that they were rods\nof chastisement in the hand of God. To this the Prophet himself\nalludes, by substituting, in ver. 3: \"I have driven away,\" for \"you\nhave driven away,\" in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend\nto their vocation and duty; the carrying out of God's counsels belonged\nto Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we\nwould altogether misunderstand the expression \"flock of my pasture,\" if\nwe were to infer from it a contrast of the _innocent_ people with the\nguilty kings. _Calvin_ remarks: \"In short, when God calls the Jews the\nflock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what\nthey have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed\nupon the seed of Abraham.\" The kings have nothing to do with the moral\ncondition of the people; they have to look only to God's covenant with\nthem, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and\nmore binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more\nglorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a\ncertain degree, not even concern God; how bad soever it is, He looks to\nHis covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering\nof the flock is a gathering.\n\nVer. 2. \"_Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel, against the\nshepherds that feed my people: Ye have scattered my flock and driven\nthem away, and have not visited them; behold, I visit upon you the\nwickedness of your doings, saith the Lord._\"\n\nIn the designation of God as Jehovah the God of Israel, there is\nalready implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because God is\nJehovah, the God of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same\ntime, a _sacrilegium_; they have desecrated God. It was just here that\nit was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people\nstill continued to [Pg 407] be God's people. In another very important\naspect, they were indeed called _Lo-Ammi_ (Hos. i. 9); but that aspect\ndid not here come into consideration. _Calvin_: \"They had estranged\nthemselves from God; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced\nthem. But, in one respect, God might consider them as aliens, while, in\nrespect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence\nHe calls them His people.\"--The words \"that feed my people,\" render the\nidea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple \"the shepherds\"\nwould have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast\npresented by the reality. The words \"you have not visited them,\" seem,\nat first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be\nfeeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only\nby that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation,\nthey ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts\nthe greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek.\nxxxiv. 3: \"Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill\nthem that are fed, and ye feed not the flock.\" The visiting forms the\ngeneral foundation of every single activity of the shepherd, so that\nthe [Hebrew: la pqdtM] comprehends within itself all that which Ezekiel\nparticularly mentions in chap. xxxiv. 4: \"The weak ye strengthen not,\nand the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye bind not up, and the\nscattered ye bring not back, and the perishing ye seek not.\"--The\nwords: \"the wickedness of your doings,\" look back to Deut. xxviii. 20:\n\"The Lord shall send upon thee curse, terror, and ruin in all thy\nundertakings, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly,\n_because of the wickedness of thy doings_, that thou hast forsaken me.\"\nThe gentle allusion to that fearful threatening in that portion of the\nPentateuch, which was the best known of all, was sufficient to make\nevery one supplement from it that, which was there actually and\nexpressly uttered. Such an allusion to that passage of Deuteronomy can\nbe traced out, wherever the phrase [Hebrew: re melliM] occurs, which,\nin later times, had become obsolete; compare chap. iv. 4 and xxi. 12\n(in both of these passages [Hebrew: mpni], too, is introduced); Is. i.\n16; Ps. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 15.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the\ncountries whither I have driven them away, and I_ [Pg 408] _bring them\nback again to their folds, and they are fruitful and increase._\"\n\nCompare chap. xxix. 14, xxxi. 8, 10; Ezek. xxxiv. 12, 13: \"As a\nshepherd looketh after his flock in the day that he is in the midst of\nhis flock, the scattered, so will I look after my flock, and I deliver\nthem out of all the places, where they have been scattered in the day\nof clouds and of darkness. And I bring them out from the nations, and\ngather them from the countries, and bring them to their land, and feed\nthem upon the mountains of Israel, in the valleys, and in all the\ndwelling places of the land.\"--A spiritless clinging to the letter has,\nhere too, led several interpreters to suppose, that the Prophet had\nhere in view merely the return from the Babylonish captivity, and\nperhaps, also, the blessings of the times of the Maccabees, besides and\nin addition to it. Altogether apart from the consideration that, in\nthat case, the fulfilment would very little correspond to the\npromise,--for, to the returning ones, Canaan was too little the land of\nGod to allow of our seeing, in this return, the whole fulfilment of\nGod's promise--we can, from the context, easily demonstrate the\nopposite. With the gathering and bringing back appears, in ver. 4,\nclosely connected the raising of the good shepherds; and according to\nver. 5, that promise is to find, if not its sole fulfilment, at all\nevents its substance and centre, in the raising of David's righteous\nBranch, the Messiah. And from vers. 7, 8, it appears that it is here\naltogether inadmissible to suppose that these events will take place,\none after the other. The particle [Hebrew: lkN] with which these verses\nbegin, and which refers to the whole sum and substance of the preceding\npromises, shows that the bringing back from the captivity, and the\nraising of the Messiah, cannot, by any means, be separated from one\nanother; and to the same result we are led by the contents of the two\nverses also. How indeed could it be said of the bodily bringing back\nfrom the captivity, that it would far outshine the former deliverance\nfrom Egypt, and would cause it to be altogether forgotten? The correct\nview was stated as early as by _Calvin_, who says: \"There is no doubt\nthat the Prophet has in view, in the first instance, the free return of\nthe people; but Christ must not be separated from this blessing of the\ndeliverance, for, otherwise, it would be difficult to [Pg 409] show the\nfulfilment of this prophecy.\" The right of thus assuming a concurrent\nreference to Christ is afforded to us by the circumstance, that Canaan\nhad such a high value for Israel, not because it was its fatherland in\nthe lower sense, but because it was the land of God, the place where\nHis glory dwelt. From this it follows that a bodily return was to the\ncovenant-people of value, in so far only as God manifested himself as\nthe God of the land. And since, before Christ, this was done in a\nmanner very imperfect, as compared with what was implied in the idea,\nthe value of such a return could not be otherwise than very\nsubordinate. And in like manner, it follows from it, that the gathering\nand bringing back by Christ is included in the promise. For wherever\nGod is, there is Canaan. Whether it be the old fold, or a new one, is\nsurely of very little consequence, if only the good Shepherd be in the\nmidst of His sheep. _As a rule_, such externalities lie without the\ncompass of prophecy, which, having in view the substance, refers, as to\nthe way of its manifestation, to history. Into what ridiculous\nassertions a false clinging to the letter may lead, appears from\nremarks such as those of _Grotius_ on the second hemistich of the\nfollowing verse: \"They shall live in security under the powerful\nprotection of the Persian kings.\" Protection by the world, and\noppression by the world, differed very slightly only, in the case of\nthe covenant-people. The circumstance that Gentiles ruled over them at\nall, was just that which grieved them; and this grief must therefore\ncontinue (compare Neh. ix. 36, 37), although, by the grace of God, a\nmild rule had taken the place of the former severe one; for this grace\nof God had its proper value only as a prophecy and pledge of a future\ngreater one. The circumstance that it is to the _remnant_ only that the\ngathering is promised (compare Is. x. 22; Rom. ix. 27), points to the\ntruth, that the divine mercy will be accompanied with justice. _Calvin_\nremarks on this point: \"The Prophet again confirms what I formerly\nsaid, viz., mercy shall not be exercised until He has cleansed His\nChurch of filthiness, so great and so horrid, in which she at that time\nabounded.\" One must beware of exchanging the Scriptural hope of a\nconversion of Israel on a large scale, in contrast to the small [Greek:\neklog\u00ea] at the time of Christ and the Apostles, for the hope of a\n_general_ conversion in the strict sense. [Pg 410] When considering the\nrelation of God to the free human nature, the latter is absolutely\nimpossible. When consistently carried out, it necessarily leads to the\ndoctrine of universal restoration. It is beyond doubt, that God _wills_\nthat all men should be saved; and it would necessarily follow that all\nmen could be saved, if all the members of one nation could be saved.\nThere is no word of Scripture in favour of it, except the [Greek: pas]\nin Paul, which must just be interpreted and qualified by the contrast\nto the _small_ [Greek: eklog\u00ea], while there are opposed to it a number\nof declarations of Scripture,--especially all those passages of the\nprophets where, to the remnant, to the escaped ones of Israel only,\nsalvation is promised. And, besides the Word of God, there are opposed\nto it His deeds also,--especially the great typical prefiguration of\nthings spiritual by things external at the deliverance of the people\nfrom Egypt, when the _remnant_ only came to Canaan, while the bodies of\nthousands fell in the wilderness; and no less at the deliverance from\nBabylon, when by far the greatest number preferred the temporary\ndelight in sin to delight in the Lord in His land.\n\nVer. 4. \"_And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them; and they\nshall fear no more, nor be terrified, neither be lost, saith the\nLord._\"\n\nEven here, the reference to 2 Sam. vii. 12, and to the name of\nJehoiakim, is manifest, although, in the subsequent verse, it appears\nstill more distinctly, compare p. 401. This reference also is a proof\nin favour of this prophecy's having been written under Jehoiakim. The\nreference was, at that time, easily understood by every one; even the\nslightest allusion was sufficient. This reference farther shows that\n_Venema_, and several others who preceded him in this view, are wrong\nin here thinking of the Maccabees. These are here quite out of the\nquestion, inasmuch as they were not descended from David. Besides the\ncontrast between the people's apostacy and God's covenant-faithfulness,\nthe Prophet evidently has still another in view, viz., that between the\napostacy of the Davidic house, and God's faithfulness in the fulfilment\nof the promise given to David. The single apostate members of this\nfamily are destroyed, although, appropriating to themselves the\npromise, they, in their names, promise deliverance and salvation to [Pg\n411] themselves. But from the family itself, God's grace cannot depart;\njust because Jehovah is God, a true Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin must rise\nout of it. It thus appears that the Maccabees are here as little\nreferred to as Ezra and Nehemiah, of whom _Grotius_ thinks. Much\nstronger ground is there for thinking of Zerubbabel, for his appearance\nhad really some reference to the promise to David, although as a weak\ntype and prelude only of the true fulfilment, to which he occupies the\nsame relation, as does the gathering from the Babylonish captivity to\nthe gathering by Christ. If, after all, we wish to urge the Plural, we\nmust not, by any means, sever our verse from ver. 5, and declare this\nto be the sense: _first_ will I raise up to you shepherds; _then_, the\nMessiah. We must, in that case, following _C. B. Michaelis_, rather\nsupplement: specially one, the Messiah. In _none_ of Jeremiah's\nprophecies are there different stages and degrees in the salvation;\neverywhere he has in his view the whole in its completion. Where this\nis overlooked, the whole interpretation must necessarily take a wrong\ndirection, as is most clearly seen in the case of _Venema_. But there\nis no reason at all for laying so much stress on the Plural. Every\nPlural may be used for designating the idea of the whole species; and\nthis kind of designation was here so much the more obvious, that the\nbad species, with which the good is here contrasted, consisted of a\nseries of individuals. With the bad pastoral office, the Prophet here\n_first_ contrasts the good one; _then_ he gives, in ver. 5, a more\ndetailed description of the individual who is to represent the species,\nin whom the idea of the species is to be completely realised. The\ncorrectness of this interpretation is confirmed by the comparison of\nthe parallel passage in chap. xxxiii. 15, which, almost _verbatim_,\nagrees with that under consideration, and in which only one descendant\nof David, viz., the Messiah, is spoken of And that is quite natural;\nfor, in that passage, there is no antithesis to the bad shepherds,\nwhich was the cause that here, at first, the species was made\nprominent. And another confirmation is afforded by Ezek. xxxiv. With\nhim, too, one good shepherd is mentioned in contrast with the bad\nshepherds.--The words: \"And they feed them\" stand in contrast to \"Who\nfeed my people,\" in ver. 2. The shepherds mentioned in ver. 2 ought to\nfeed the flock; but, instead of doing [Pg 412] that, they feed\nthemselves (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2); the shepherds, however, mentioned\nin our verse, really feed. The former are shepherds in name only, but,\nin reality, wolves; the latter are shepherds, both in name and reality.\n[Hebrew: pqd] must be taken in the signification \"to be missing,\"\n\"lacking.\" (Compare the Remarks on chap. iii. 16.) There is an allusion\nto [Hebrew: la pqdtM] in ver. 2. Because the bad shepherd does not\nvisit, the sheep are not sought, _q.d._, they are lost; but those who\ndid not visit, are now, in a very disagreeable manner, visited by God\n([Hebrew: pqd elikM]); the good shepherd visits, and, therefore, the\nsheep need not be sought. The clause: \"They shall fear no more, nor be\nterrified,\" receives its explanation from Ezek. xxxiv. 8: \"Because my\nflock are a prey, and meat to every beast of the field, because they\nhave no shepherd, and because my shepherds do not concern themselves\nwith the flock.\"\n\nVer. 5. \"_Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David\na righteous Branch, and He ruleth as a King, and acteth wisely, and\nworketh justice and righteousness in the land._\"\n\nThe expression: \"Behold the days come,\" according to the constant _usus\nloquendi_ of Jeremiah, does not designate a progress in time, in\nreference to what precedes, but only directs attention to the greatness\nof that which is to be announced. It contains, at the same time, an\nallusion to the contrast presented by the visible state of things,\nwhich affords no ground for such a thing. How dark soever the present\nstate of things may be, the time is _still_ coming; although the heart\nmay loudly say. _No_, the word of _God_ must be more certain.\nConcerning [Hebrew: cmH], compare Isa. iv. 2, and the passages of\nZechariah there quoted, [Hebrew: cdiq] stands here in the same\nsignification as in Zech. ix. 9,--different from that which it has in\nIsa. liii. 11. In the latter passage, where the Servant of God is\ndescribed as the High Priest and sin-offering. His righteousness comes\ninto consideration as the fundamental condition of justification; here,\nwhere He appears as King only,--as the cause of the diffusion of\njustice and righteousness in the land. That there is implied in this a\ncontrast to the former kings, was pointed out as early as by\n_Abarbanel_: \"He shall not be an unrighteous seed, such as Jehoiakim\nand his son, but a righteous [Pg 413] one.\" _Calvin_ also points out\n\"the obvious antithesis between Christ and so many false, and, as it\nwere, adulterous sons. For we know for certain that He alone was the\nrighteous seed of David; for although Hezekiah and Josiah were\nlegitimate successors, yet, when we look to others, they were, as it\nwere, monsters. Except three or four, all the rest were degenerate and\ncovenant-breakers.\" The words: \"I raise unto David a righteous Branch\"\nare here, as well as in chap. xxxiii. 15, not by any means equivalent\nto: a righteous Branch of David. On the contrary, David is designated\nas he to whom the act of raising belongs, for whose sake it is\nundertaken. God has promised to him the eternal dominion of his house.\nHow much soever, therefore, the members of this family may sin against\nthe Lord,--how unworthy soever the people may be to be governed by a\nrighteous Branch of David, God, as surely as He is God, must raise Him\nfor the sake of David. The word [Hebrew: mlK] must not be overlooked.\nIt shows that [Hebrew: mlK], which, standing by itself, may designate\nalso another government than by a king, such as, _e.g._, that of\nZerubbabel, is to be taken in its full sense. And this qualification\nwas so much the more necessary, that the deepest abasement of the house\nof David, announced by the Prophet in chap. xxii., compare especially\nver. 30, was approaching, and that thereby every hope of its rising to\n_complete_ prosperity seemed to be set aside. Since, therefore, the\nfaith in this event rested merely on the word, it was necessary that\nthe word should be as distinct as possible, in order that no one might\npervert, or explain it away. _Calvin_ remarks: \"He shall rule as a\nKing, _i.e._, He shall rule gloriously; so that there do not merely\nappear some relics of former glory, but that He flourish and be\npowerful as a King, and attain to a perfection, such as existed under\nDavid and Solomon; and even much more excellent.\"--As regards [Hebrew:\nhwkil], we have already, in our remarks on chap. iii. 15, proved that\nit never and nowhere means \"to prosper,\" \"to be prosperous,\" but always\n\"to act wisely.\" It has been shown by _Calvin_ that even the context\nhere requires the latter signification. He says: \"The Prophet seems\nhere rather to speak of right judgment than of prosperity and success;\nfor we must read this in connexion with one another: He shall act\nwisely, and then work justice and [Pg 414] righteousness. He shall be\nendowed with the spirit of wisdom, as well as of justice and\nrighteousness; so that he shall perform all the offices and duties of a\nking.\" Yet _Calvin_ has not exhausted the arguments which may be\nderived from the context. The _whole_ verse before us treats of the\nendowments of the King; the whole succeeding one, of the prosperity\nwhich, by these endowments, is imparted to the people. To this may\nstill be added the evident contrast to the folly of the former\nshepherds, which was the consequence of their wickedness, and which, in\nthe preceding chapter, had been described as the cause of their own,\nand the people's destruction; compare chap. x. 21: \"For the shepherds\nare become brutish, and do not seek the Lord; therefore they do not act\nwisely, and their whole flock is scattered.\" But if here the\nsignification \"to act wisely\" be established, then it is also in all\nthose passages where [Hebrew: hwkil] is used of David; compare remarks\non chap. iii. For the fact, that the Prophet has in view these\npassages, and that, according to him, the reign of David is, in a more\nglorious manner, to be revived in his righteous Branch, appears from\nthe circumstance that every thing else has its foundation in the\ndescription of David's reign, in the books of Samuel. Thus the words:\n\"And he ruleth as a king, and worketh justice and righteousness in the\nland,\" refer back to 2 Sam. viii. 15: \"And David reigned over all\nIsrael, and David wrought justice and righteousness unto all his\npeople.\" The foundation of the announcement of ver. 6 is formed by 2\nSam. viii. 14 (compare ver. 6): \"And the Lord gave prosperity ([Hebrew:\nvivwe]) to David in all his ways.\" But if [Hebrew: hwkil], wherever it\noccurs of David, must be taken in this sense, then the LXX. are right\nalso in translating Is. lii. 13 by [Greek: sun\u00easei]: for, in that\npassage, just as in the verse under consideration, David is referred to\nas the type of the Messiah. The phrase [Hebrew: ewh mwpT vcdqh] is by\n_De Wette_ commonly translated: \"to _exercise_ justice and\nrighteousness.\" But the circumstance that, in Ps. cxlvi. 7, he is\nobliged to give up this translation, proves that it is wrong. [Hebrew:\newh] must rather be explained by \"to work,\" \"to establish.\" [Hebrew:\nmwpT] is here, as everywhere else, the objective right and justice;\n[Hebrew: cdqh], the subjective righteousness. The _working_ of justice\nis the means by which _righteousness_ is wrought. The forced dominion\nof justice is necessarily followed by the voluntary, [Pg 415] just as\nthe judgments of God, by means of which He is sanctified _upon_\nmankind, are, at the same time, the means by which He is sanctified\n_in_ them. The high vocation of the King to work justice and\nrighteousness rests upon His dignity, as the bearer of God's image;\ncomp. Ps. cxlvi. 7; chap. ix. 23: \"For I the Lord work love, justice,\nand righteousness in the land.\" Chap. xxii. 15 is, moreover, to be\ncompared, where it is said of Josiah, the true descendant of David, \"he\nwrought justice and righteousness,\" and chap. xxii. 3, where his\nspurious descendants are admonished: \"Work justice and righteousness,\nand deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do not\noppress the stranger; the fatherless and the widow do not wrong,\nneither shed innocent blood in this place.\" Farther, still, is the\nprogress to be observed: the King is righteous, his righteousness\npasseth over from him to the subjects; then follows salvation and\nrighteousness from the Lord.--To explanations, such as that of\n_Grotius_, who, by the righteous Branch, understands Zerubbabel, we\nhere need the less to pay any attention, that the fact of his being in\nthis without predecessors or followers palpably proves it to be\nerroneous. If, indeed, we could rely on _Theodoret's_ statement (\"The\nblinded Jews endeavour, with great impudence, to refer this to\nZerubbabel\"--then follows the refutation), the older Jews must have led\nthe way to this perverted interpretation. But we cannot implicitly rely\non _Theodoret's_ statements of this kind. In the Jewish writings\nthemselves, not the slightest trace of such an interpretation is to be\nfound. The Chaldean Paraphrast is decidedly in favour of the Messianic\ninterpretation: [Hebrew: atN amr ii vaqiM ha ivmia ldvd mwiH dcdqh]\n\"Behold the days shall come, and I will raise up to David the righteous\nMessiah, (not [Hebrew: dcdqia] 'the Messiah of the righteous,' as many\nabsurdly read), saith the Lord.\" _Eusebius_ (compare _Le Moyne_, _de\nJehova justitia nostra_, p. 23), it is true, refutes the interpretation\nwhich refers it to Joshua, the son of Josedech; but we are not entitled\nto infer from this circumstance, that this view found supporters in his\ntime. His intention is merely to guard against the erroneous\ninterpretation of [Greek: I\u00f4sedek] of the following verse in the\nAlexandrian version ([Greek: kai touto to onoma autou, ho kalesei auton\nkurios, I\u00f4sedek]). It can scarcely be imagined that the translators\nthemselves proceeded from this erroneous view. For [Pg 416] Josedech,\nthe father of Joshua the high-priest, is a person altogether obscure.\nAll which they intended, by their retaining the Hebrew form, was\ncertainly only the wish, to express that it was a _nomen proprium_\nwhich occurred here; and they were specially induced to act thus by the\ncircumstance, that this name was, in their time, generally current, as\none of the proper names of the Messiah.\n\nVer. 6. \"_And in His days Judah is endowed with salvation, and Israel\ndwelleth safely; and this is the name whereby they shall call him: The\nLord our righteousness._\"\n\nIt has already been pointed out that the first words here look back to\nDavid. That which Jeremiah here expresses by several words, Zechariah\nexpresses more briefly, by calling the Sprout of David [Hebrew: cdiq\nvnvwe] \"righteous, and protected by God.\" It makes no difference that,\nin that passage, the salvation, the inseparable concomitant of\nrighteousness, is ascribed to the King, its possessor; while, here, it\nis ascribed to the people. For, in that passage, too, it is for his\nsubjects that salvation is attributed to the King who comes for Zion,\njust as he is righteous for Zion also. Israel must here be taken either\nin the restricted sense, or in the widest, either as the ten tribes\n_alone_, or as the ten tribes along with Judah. It is a favourite\nthought of Jeremiah, which recurs in all his Messianic prophecies, that\nthe ten tribes are to partake in the future prosperity and salvation.\nHe has a true tenderness for Israel; his bowels roar when he remembers\nthem, who were already, for so long a time, forsaken and rejected. His\nlively hope for Israel is a great testimony of his lively faith. For,\nin the case of Israel, the visible state of things afforded still less\nground for hope than in the case of Judah. There is here an allusion to\nDeut. xxxiii. 28: (\"And He thrusteth out thine enemy from before thee,\nand saith: Destroy\") \"And Israel dwelleth in safety ([Hebrew: viwkN\niwral bTH]), alone, Jacob looketh upon a land of corn and wine, and his\nheavens drop dew.\" There can be the less doubt of the existence of this\nallusion, that this expression occurs, besides in Deuteronomy, and\nin the verse under consideration, only once more in chap. xxxiii.\n16,--that a reference to the majestic close of the blessing of Moses,\nwhich certainly was in the hearts and mouths of all the pious, was very\nnatural, and that the word [Hebrew: tvwe] has there its analogy in ver.\n29: [Pg 417] \"Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, a people\nsaved ([Hebrew: nvwe]) by the Lord, the shield of thy help, thy proud\nsword; and thine enemies flatter thee, and thou treadest upon their\nhigh places.\" This glorious destination of the covenant-people, which,\nhitherto, had been so imperfectly only realized (most perfectly\nunder David, compare 2 Sam. viii. 6, 14), shall, under the reign\nof the Messiah, be carried out in such a manner that idea and reality\nshall fully coincide. The covenant-people is to appear in its full\ndignity.--In the second hemistich of the verse, the reading requires\nfirst to be established. Instead of the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] which\nis found in the text, and which is the third pers. Sing. with the\nSuffix, several MSS. (compare _De Rossi_), have the third pers. Plur.\n[Hebrew: iqrav]. Several controversial writers, such as _Raim.\nMartini_, _Pug. Fid._ p. 517, and _Galatinus_, iii. 9, p. 126, (The\nJews of our time assert that here Jeremiah did not say \"they shall\ncall,\" [Hebrew: iqrav], as we read it, but \"he shall call him,\"\n[Hebrew: iqrav]; and they declare this to be the sense: \"This is the\nname of Him who shall call him, viz., the Messiah: Our righteous God,\")\ndeclare the latter to be unconditionally correct, and assert that the\nother had originated from an intentional Jewish corruption, got up for\nthe purpose of setting aside the divinity of the Messiah, which, to\nthem, was so offensive. This allegation, however, is certainly\nunfounded. It is true, that some Jewish interpreters availed themselves\nof the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] for the purpose stated. Thus _Rabbi\nSaadias Haggaon_, according to _Abenezra_ and _Manasseh Ben Israel_,\nwho explain: \"And this is the name by which the Lord will call him: Our\nrighteousness.\" But it by no means follows from this, that they\ninvented the reading; it may have existed, and they only connected\ntheir perversion with it. That the latter was indeed the case, appears\nfrom the circumstance that by far the greater number of Jewish\ninterpreters and controversialists rejected this perversion, because it\nwas in opposition to the accents (compare especially _Abenezra_ and\n_Norzi_ on the passage), and acknowledged [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv] to be\nthe name of the Messiah. The reading [Hebrew: iqrav] must be\nunconditionally rejected, because it has by far the smallest external\nauthority in its favour. It is true, that its supporters (comp.\nespecially _Schulze_, _vollst. Critik der gew\u00f6hnlichen_ [Pg 418]\n_Bibelausgaben_, S. 321) have endeavoured to make up for its deficiency\nin manuscript authority, by appealing to the authority of the ancient\ntranslators, all of whom, with the sole exception of the Alexandrian\nversion, according to them, express it. But this assertion is entirely\nwithout foundation. The _vocabunt eum_ of _Jonathan_ and the Vulgate is\nthe correct translation of [Hebrew: iqrav]. And when _Jerome_, in\nopposition to the Alex., remarks that, according to the Hebrew, the\ntranslation ought to be: _Nomen ejus vocabunt_, he does not contend\nagainst their use of the Singular _per se_, but only against their\narbitrarily supplying \"Jehovah\" as the subject; against their\nexplaining \"The Lord shall call,\" instead of \"one\" shall call. The\nmanner in which the false reading [Hebrew: iqrav] first arose, is\nclearly seen from the reasons by which its later defenders endeavour to\nsupport it; compare especially _Schulze_ l. c. The chief argument is\nthe erroneous supposition that the third Plur. only could be used\nimpersonally. To this was farther added the use of the rarer Suffix\n[Hebrew: v] instead of the common [Hebrew: -hv]--But from internal\nreasons, too, the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] is objectionable; the\ndesignation of the object of calling cannot be omitted.--There cannot\nbe any doubt that we are not allowed to refer the Suffix in [Hebrew:\niqrav] to Israel, (_Ewald_: \"And this is their name by which they call\nthem,\") but to the Messiah. For it is only in this case, that those who\ncall, viz., Judah or Israel, the Members of the Church, are indirectly\nmentioned in the preceding words; and the Messiah is, in both verses,\nthe chief person to whom all the other clauses refer. At all events,\nthe _then_ could not, in that case, have been omitted, as in this\ncontext every thing depends upon the connection of the salvation with\nthe person of the King; and this connection must be clearly and\ndistinctly expressed. We now come to [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv]. Great\ndifference of opinion prevails as to the explanation of these words.\nThe better portion of the Jewish interpreters, indeed, likewise\nconsider them as names of the Messiah, but not in such a manner that He\nis called \"Jehovah,\" and then, in apposition to it, \"Our\nrighteousness,\" but rather in such a manner that [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv]\nis an abbreviation of the whole sentence. Thus the Chaldean, who thus\nparaphrases: \"And this is the name by which they shall call him:\nRighteousness [Pg 419] will be bestowed upon us from the face of the\nLord;\" _Kimchi_, \"Israel shall call the Messiah by this name: The Lord\nour righteousness, because at His time, the righteousness of the Lord\nwill be to us firm, continuous, everlasting;\" the [Hebrew: spr eqriM]\n(in _Le Moyne_, p. 20): \"Scripture calls the name of the Messiah: The\nLord our righteousness, because He is the Mediator of God, and we\nobtain the righteousness of God by His ministry.\" Besides to chap.\nxxxiii. 16, they refer to passages such as Exod. xvii. 15, where Moses\ncalls the altar \"Jehovah my banner;\" to Gen. xxxiii. 20, where Jacob\ncalls it [Hebrew: al alhi iwral]. _Grotius_ follows these expositors,\nonly that he dilutes the sense still more. The other Christian\nexpositors, (the Vulgate excludes every other interpretation, even by\nits translation: _Dominus justus noster_) on the contrary, contend with\nall their might for the opinion, that the Messiah is here called\nJehovah, and hence must be truly God. That which _Dassov_ i. h. 1.\nremarks: \"Since then the Messiah is called Jehovah, we have firm ground\nfor inferring, that He is truly God, inasmuch as that name is peculiar\nand essential to the true God,\" is the argument common to all of them.\n_Le Moyne_ wrote in defence of this explanation a whole book, which we\nhave already quoted, but from which little is to be learned. Even\n_Calvin_, who elsewhere sometimes erred from an exaggerated dread of\ndoctrinal prejudice, decidedly adopts it. He remarks: \"Those who judge\nwithout prejudice and bitterness, easily see that that name belongs to\nChrist, in so far as He is God, just as the name of the Son of David is\nassigned to Him in reference to His human nature. To all those who are\njust and unprejudiced, it will be clear that Christ is here\ndistinguished by a twofold attribute; so that the Prophet commends Him\nto us, both as regards the glory of His deity, and his true human\nnature.\" By righteousness he, too, understands justification through\nthe merits of Christ, \"for Christ is not righteous for himself, but\nreceived righteousness in order to communicate it to us\" (1 Cor. i.\n30). We have the following observations to make in reference to this\nexposition. 1. The principal mistake in it is this, that it has been\noverlooked that the Prophet here expresses the nature of the Messiah\nand of His time in the form of a _nomen proprium_. If the words were\nthus: \"And this is Jehovah our righteousness,\" we should be fully [Pg\n420] entitled to take Jehovah as a personal designation of the Messiah.\nBut in reference to a name, it is as common, as it is natural, to take\nfrom a whole sentence the principal words only, and to leave it to the\nreader or hearer to supply the rest. In the case of all _naming_,\nbrevity is unavoidable, as is proved by the usual abbreviation of even\nthose proper names which consist of one word only. The two cases\nmentioned by _Kimchi_ will serve as instances. \"Jehovah my Banner\" is a\nconcise expression for: \"This altar is consecrated to Jehovah my\nBanner;\" [Hebrew: al alhi iwral] for: \"This altar belongs to the\nAlmighty, the God of Israel.\" A number of other instances might easily\nbe quoted; one need only compare, in _Hiller's_ and _Simonis'_\nOnomastica, the names which are compounded with Jehovah. Thus, _e.g._,\nJehoshua, _i.e._, Jehovah salvation, is a concise expression for:\nJehovah will grant me salvation; Jehoram, _i.e._, _Jehovah altus_, for:\nI am consecrated to the exalted God of Israel. Most perfectly\nanalogous, however, is the name Zedekiah, _i.e._, the righteousness of\nthe Lord, for: He under whose reign the Lord will grant righteousness\nto His people. This name, moreover, seems to refer directly to the\nprophecy before us. Just as Eliakim, by changing his name into\nJehoiakim, intended to represent himself as he in whom the prophecy in\n2 Sam. vii. would be fulfilled; so he who was formerly called Mattaniah\nchanged, at the instance of Nebuchadnezzar (who had, indeed, no other\nobject in view than that, as a sign of his supremacy, his name should\nbe different from that by which he was formerly called, and who left\nthe choice of the name to Mattaniah himself), his name into Zedekiah,\nimagining that in a manner so easy, he would become the Jehovah Zidkenu\nannounced by Jeremiah, and longed for by the people. 2. The preceding\nargument only showed that there is nothing opposed to the exposition:\nHe by whom and under whom Jehovah will be our righteousness. A positive\nproof, however, in favour of it is offered by the parallel passage,\nchap. xxxiii. 15, 16: \"In those days and at that time will I cause a\nrighteous Branch to grow up unto David; and He worketh justice and\nrighteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and\nJerusalem shall dwell safely, and this is the name which they shall\ngive to _her_: Jehovah our righteousness.\" Here Jehovah Zidkenu by no\nmeans [Pg 421] appears as the name of the Messiah, but as that of\nJerusalem in the Messianic time. In vain are all the attempts which\nhave been made to set aside this troublesome argument. They only serve\nto show, that it cannot be invalidated. _Le Moyne_, \"in order that no\nway of escape may be left to the enemies,\" brings forward, p. 298 ff.,\nfive different expedients among which the reader may choose. But their\nvery difference is a plain sign of arbitrariness; and that appears\nstill more clearly, when we begin to examine them individually. Several\ninterpreters assume an _enallage generis_ [Hebrew: lh] = [Hebrew: lv],\n\"and thus shall they call _him_.\" _Le Moyne_ thinks that we need have\nno difficulty in assuming such an _enallage_. Others explain: \"And he\nwho shall call, _i.e._, invite her, is Jehovah our righteousness.\" A\nsimple reference to the passage before us is decisive against it; the\nparallelism of the two passages is too close to admit of [Hebrew: iqra]\nin the second passage being understood in a sense altogether different.\nBy the same argument, the explanations by _Hottinger_ (Thesaur.\nPhilolog. p. 17l), and _Dassov_: \"This shall come to pass when the Lord,\nthe Lord our righteousness, shall call her,\" are also refuted, quite\napart from the consideration, that [Hebrew: awr] cannot by any means\nsignify _when_. The most recent defender of the old orthodox view,\n_Schmieder_, cuts the knot by simply severing our passage from chap.\nxxxiii. 16-3. The ancient explanation, which refers [Hebrew: cdqnv],\n\"our righteousness,\" to the remission of sins, does not even correctly\nunderstand this word. It is true that the remission of sins is often\nrepresented as one of the chief blessings of the Messianic time; but\nhere it is out of place. According to the context, it is actual\njustification, _i.e._, salvation according to another mode of viewing\nit, which is here spoken of (compare remarks on Mal. iii. 20).\nRighteousness in this sense implies, of course, the forgiveness of\nsins; but, besides, the righteousness of life is comprehended in it.\nRighteousness stands here in parallelism with salvation, and the order\nand progress is this: righteousness of the king, righteousness of the\nsubjects, then salvation and righteousness as a reward from God, To\nthis argument may still be added the contrast to the former time.\nConnected with the unrighteousness of the kings was that of the people;\nand hence it was that the country was deprived of salvation, and\nsmitten by the divine judgments. That [Pg 422] which Jeremiah\ncomprehends in the name _Jehovah Zidkenu_, Ezekiel, in the parallel\npassage, chap. xxxiv. 25-31, farther carries out and expands. The Lord\nenters into a covenant of peace with them; rich blessing is bestowed\nupon them; He breaks their yoke and delivers them from servitude; they\ndo not become a prey to the Gentiles.--_Schmieder_ has objected, that\nthe name would be without meaning for the promised King, unless the\nname Jehovah belonged to him. But the King, by being called _Jehovah\nZidkenu_, is designated as the channel, through which the divine\nblessings flow upon the Church, as the Mediator of Salvation, as the\nSaviour. We must not, however, omit to remark that this ancient\nexplanation was wrong only in endeavouring to draw out from the word\nthat which, no doubt, is contained in the matter itself No one born of\na woman is _righteous_, in the full sense of the word; and if there be\nanything wanting in the personal righteousness of the King, the\nworking of justice and righteousness, too, will at once be deficient;\nand salvation and righteousness are not granted in their full extent\nfrom above. To no one among all the former kings did the attribute\n[Hebrew: cdiq] belong in a higher degree than to David; and yet in how\nimperfect a degree did even he possess it! The calamity which, by this\nimperfection, was inflicted upon the people, is, _e.g._, seen in the\nnumbering of the people. And it was not only the _will_ to work justice\nand righteousness which was imperfect, but the power also was\nimperfect, and the knowledge limited. He only who truly rules as a\nking, and is truly wise (compare the words [Hebrew: vmlK mlK vhwkil])\ncan come up to, and realize the idea, after which David was striving in\nvain. All the three offices of Christ, the royal no less than the\nprophetic and priestly, imply His divinity; and the conviction that, in\nthe way hitherto pursued, nothing was to be effected; that it was only\nby the divine entering into the earthly, that such splendid promises\ncould be fulfilled,--this conviction surely must have been plain to a\nJeremiah, whose fundamental sentiment is, \"all flesh is grass,\" and who\nlived at a time which, more than any other, was fitted to cure that\nPelagianism which always seeks to gather grapes from thorns. If then,\nfarther, we keep in mind that Jeremiah had before him the clear\nannouncements of the former prophets, as regards the divinity of the\nMessiah (compare [Pg 423] remarks on Mic. v. 1; Is. ix. 5), we can\naccount for the fact, that he does not expressly speak of it, only\nbecause it was not suitable in this context, in which only the fact\nitself comes into consideration, but not the particular way.\n\nVer. 7. \"_Wherefore, behold days come, saith the Lord, that they shall\nno more say: As the Lord liveth who brought up the children of Israel\nout of the land of Egypt_; ver. 8, but: _As the Lord liveth, who\nbrought up, and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the\nNorth country, and from all the countries whither I have driven them;\nand they dwell in their land._\"\n\nThe sense is this: The future prosperity and salvation shall by far\noutshine the greatest deliverance and salvation of the Past. _Calvin_\nremarks: \"If the first deliverance be valued by itself, it will be\nworthy of everlasting remembrance; but if it be compared with the\nsecond deliverance, it will almost vanish;\" compare, besides chap. xvi.\n14, 15, where the verses now under consideration already occurred\nalmost _verbatim_ (Jeremiah is fond of such repetitions, which are any\nthing but vain repetitions; and this fondness forms one of his\npeculiarities); chap. iii. 16, where, in the same sense, it is said of\nthe Ark of the Covenant that it shall be forgotten in future; Is.\nxliii. 18, 19, lxv. 17.--[Hebrew: Hi-ihvh] \"living (is) Jehovah,\" for:\n\"As Jehovah liveth.\" It is quite natural that, when God is invoked as a\nwitness and judge, He should be designated as the _living one_; and it\nis as natural that, on such an occasion, the greatest sign of life\nwhich He gave should be pointed to. But that, under the Old Testament\ndispensation, was the deliverance from Egypt, the strongest and most\nimpressive of all those deeds by which the delusion was dissipated,\nthat God was walking upon the vault of heaven, and did not judge\nthrough the clouds. In future, a still stronger manifestation of life\nis to take place. Hence the formula of the oath is altogether general;\nthe deliverance from Egypt comes into consideration as a manifestation\nof life, and not as an act of grace. This was overlooked by _Calvin_\nwhen he remarked: \"Whensoever they saw themselves so oppressed, that\nthey did not see any other end to their evils than in the grace of God,\nthey said that the same God, who, in former times, had been the\ndeliverer of His people, was still living, and His power undiminished.\"\n\n[Pg 424]\n\n\n\n\n CHAP. XXXI. 31-40.\n\n\nThe 30th and 31st chapters may rightly be called the grand hymn of\nIsrael's deliverance. They are connected into one whole, not only a\nmaterial, but also by a formal unity; so that we must indeed wonder at\nviews such as those of _Venema_ and _Rosenm\u00fcller_, who assume that the\nsection is composed of fragments loosely connected, and written at\ndifferent times; but still more at the views of _Movers_ and _Hitzig_,\nwho assert that a whole number of strange interpolations had been\nintroduced into the text; compare _K\u00fcper_, Jerem. S. 170 ff.\n\nWith respect to the time of the composition, we must not allow\nourselves to be deceived by the circumstance that, as a rule, Judah\nappears no less that Israel, already far away from the land of the\nLord, in captivity. The Prophet, taking his stand in the time when the\ncatastrophe has already taken place, speaks from an ideal Present. The\nfact that the destruction of Jerusalem was indeed imminent, and\nimmediately in view, but had not yet taken place, becomes probable even\nfrom the inscriptions in chap. xxxii. and xxxiii., according to which\nthese two chapters, which are so closely related to the two before us,\nbelong to the tenth year of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was besieged by\nthe Chaldeans. This is rendered certain by chap. xxx. 5-7, where the\nfinal catastrophe upon the covenant-people, which belongs to the time\nof Jeremiah, is represented as still impending. Hitherto the\nthreatening had prevailed in the predictions of the Prophet; but now,\nin the view of their fulfilment, when the thunders of the judgment were\nalready heard from the heavens, the promise flows in full streams. The\nfalse prophets had prophesied prosperity and salvation, at a time when,\nto the human eye, there was no. cause for fear; but Jeremiah just steps\nforth to announce salvation, at a time when all human hope had\nvanished.\n\nThe Prophet begins, in chap. xxx., with the promise of salvation for\n_all_ Israel; and after a detailed description, he comprehends and sums\nit up, in ver. 22, in the words, brief but infinitely rich and\ncomprehensive: \"And ye shall be my people [Pg 425] and I will be your\nGod.\"[1] The majestic close of the promise for the true Israel is, in\nvers. 23, 24, formed by the threatening against those who are Israel in\nappearance only,--analogous to the words of Isaiah: \"There is no peace\nto the wicked.\" Let them not, in their foolish delusion, seize the\npromise for themselves. The time of the highest blessing for the godly,\nand for those who are willing to become godly, the [Hebrew: ahrit\nhimiM]. will be for them, at the same time, a time of the highest\ncurse. The climax of the manifestation of grace has the climax of the\nmanifestation of justice as its inseparable companion. \"Behold the\nstorm of the Lord, glowing fire, goeth forth, a _continuing_ storm, on\nthe head of the wicked it shall remain. The fierce anger of the Lord\nshall not return, until He have done, and until He have performed the\nintents of His heart; at the end of days ye shall consider it.\"\nFormerly, in chap. xxiii. 19, 20, in a threatening prophecy which\nreferred to the exile, the Prophet had uttered the same words. By their\nverbal repetition, he intimates that the matter was not by any means\nsettled with the exile; that the latter must not be considered as the\nabsolute and final punishment for the sins of the whole nation, but\nthat, as truly as God is Jehovah, so surely His words will revive, as\noften as the circumstances again exist, to which they originally\nreferred.\n\n[Pg 426]\n\nThe more specific the consolation is, the more impressive is it, and\nthe more does it reach the heart. After having announced salvation,\ntherefore, to _all_ Israel, the Prophet now proceeds to the consolation\nfor the two divisions of Israel. He begins with Israel in the\nrestricted sense--the ten tribes (chap. xxxi. 1-22), and with them he\ncontinues longest, because, when looking to the outward appearance,\nthey seemed to be lost beyond all hope of recovery, to be for ever\nrejected by the Lord. The thought, that we have here an original and\nindependent announcement of salvation for Israel, is set aside even by\nthe relation of ver. 1 to ver. 22 of the preceding chapter. For it is\nto this verse that the Prophet immediately connects his discourse;\nvers. 23 and 24 are only a parenthetical remark, an _Odi profanum\nvulgus et arceo_, addressed to those to whom the promise did not\nbelong. Upon the words: \"You shall be my people, and I will be your\nGod,\" follow in an inverted order, the words: \"At that time, saith the\nLord, I will (specially) be the God of all the families of Israel, and\nthey shall be my people.\" Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin,\nweeping over her sons, vers. 15-17, is so much the more suited to\nrepresent Israel, that the tribe of Benjamin also, as to its principal\nportion, belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; compare my\ncommentary on Ps. lxxx. Upon Israel there follows, in vers. 23-26,\nJudah. The announcement closes in ver. 26 with the words so often\nmisunderstood: \"Upon this I awaked, and I beheld, and my sleep was\nsweet unto me.\" The Prophet has lost sight of the Present; like a\nsleeping man, he is not susceptible of its impressions, compare remarks\non Zech. iv. 1. Then he awakes for a moment from his sweet dream (an\nallusion to Prov. iii. 24), which, however, is not, like ordinary\ndreams, without foundation. He looks around; every thing is dark,\ndreary, and cold; nowhere is there consolation for the weary soul.\n\"Ah,\" he exclaims, \"I have sweetly dreamed,\"--and immediately the hand\nof the Lord again seizes him, and carries him away from the scenes of\nthe Present.\n\nThere is not by any means a different salvation destined for Israel and\nJudah; it is one salvation to be partaken of by both, who are in future\nto be re-united into one covenant-people, into a nation of brethren.\nFrom the parts, therefore, [Pg 427] the description returns, in vers.\n27-40, to the whole from which it had proceeded, and is thus completely\nrounded off, especially by the circumstance that, just in this close,\nthere is contained the crown of the promises, the substance and centre\nof the declaration recurring here in ver. 33: \"And I will be their God,\nand they shall be my people.\"\n\nThe whole description in both chapters is Messianic; and after what we\nhave already had frequent occasion to remark, no farther proof is\nnecessary to show how inadmissible is a proceeding like that of\n_Venema_, who cuts it all up into small pieces, and here assumes an\nexclusive reference to the return from the captivity; there, to the\nMaccabees, whom he almost raises to Saviours; in another place, to\nChrist and His Kingdom. We ought therefore, indeed, to give an\nexposition of the whole section; but, for external reasons, we are\nobliged to limit ourselves to an exposition of the principal portion,\nchap. xxxi. 31-40.\n\nIt is chap. xxxi. 22 only which we shall briefly explain, because that\npassage was, in former times, understood by many interpreters to\ncontain a personal Messianic prophecy. \"_How long wilt thou turn aside,\nO thou apostate daughter? for the Lord createth a new thing in the\nland, woman shall compass about man._\" The last words of the verse are,\nby the ancient interpreters, commonly explained as referring to\nChrist's birth by a virgin. Thus, _e.g._, _Cocceius_: \"It could not be\nsaid more distinctly, at least not without ceasing to be enigmatical,\nunless he had said that a virgin has born Christ the Son of God.\" But\nquite apart from other arguments, this explanation is opposed by the\nobvious consideration, in that case, just that would here be stated\nwhich, in the birth of Christ by a virgin, is _not_ peculiar. For\n[Hebrew: gbr] and [Hebrew: nqbh] are a designation of the sex; the fact\nthat the woman brings forth the man (since [Hebrew: gbr] is asserted to\ndesignate _proles mascula_), is something altogether common; but the\nimportant feature is wanting, that the woman is to be a virgin, and the\nman, the Son of God. But certainly not a whit better than this\nexplanation is that which modern interpreters (_Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_,\n_Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Maurer_), have advanced in its stead: \"The woman shall\nprotect the man, shall perform for him the _munus excubitoris\ncircumeuntis_.\" This, surely, is a \"_ridiculus_ [Pg 428] _mus_\"--an\nargument quite unique. We must fully agree with _Schnurrer_, who\nremarks: \"This, surely, is something new, uncommon, unheard of;\" but\nnot every thing _new_ is, for that reason, suitable for furnishing an\neffectual motive for conversion. The sense at which _Ewald_ arrives: \"A\nwoman transforming herself into a man,\" is surely not worthy of being\nentertained at the expense of a change in the reading. The correct view\nis the following:--The Prophet founds his exhortation to return to the\nLord upon the most effectual argument possible, viz., upon the fact\nthat the Lord was to return to them, that the time of wrath was now\nover, that they might hasten back into the open arms of God's love.\nWithout hope of mercy, there cannot be a conversion. The perverse and\ndesponding heart of man must, by His preventing love, be allured to\ncome to God. How important and valuable the \"new thing\" is which the\nLord is to create, the Prophet shows by the terms which he has\nselected. It is just the _nomina sexus_ which here are suitable; the\nomission of the article also is intentional. The relation is\nrepresented in its general aspect; and thereby the look is more\nsteadily directed to its fundamental nature and substance. \"Woman shall\ncompass about (Ps. xxxii. 7, 10) man;\" the strong will again take the\nweak and tender into His intimate communion, under His protection and\nloving care. The woman art thou, O Israel, who hitherto hast\nsufficiently experienced, what a woman is without the man, how she is a\nreed exposed to, and a sport of, all winds. The man is the Lord. How\nfoolish would it be on thy part, if thou wert to persevere any longer\nin thine independence and dissoluteness, and if thou didst refuse to\nreturn into the sweet relation of dependence and unconditional\nsurrender, which alone, being the only natural relation, can be\nproductive of happiness! In favour of this explanation is also the\nclear reference of [Hebrew: tsvbb] to [Hebrew: ttHmqiN], and to\n[Hebrew: hwvbbh], which, in the case of the latter word, is even\noutwardly expressed by the alliteration. How foolish would it be still\nfarther to _depart_, as now the time is at hand when the Lord is\napproaching.--It is obvious that, even according to our interpretation,\nthe prophecy retains its Messianic character.\n\n[Pg 429]\n\nThe contents of the section, vers. 31-40, are as follows:--The Lord is\nfar from punishing with entire rejection the contempt of His former\ngifts and blessings. On the contrary, by increased grace, He will renew\nthe bond between Him and the people, and render it for ever\nindissoluble. The foundation of this is formed by the remission of\nsins, of which the richer outpouring of the Spirit is a consequence;\nand it is now, when the Law no more comes to Israel as an outward\nletter, but is written in their hearts, that Israel attain their\ndestination; they will truly be the people of God, and God will be\ntruly their God, vers. 31-34. To the people conscious of their guilt,\nand still groaning under the judgments of God, such a manifestation of\nGod's continuous grace appears incredible; but God most emphatically\nassures them, that this election is still in force, and must continue\nfor ever, as truly as He is God, vers. 31-37. The city of God shall\ngloriously arise out of its ashes. While formerly the unholy\nabomination entered into her, the holy one, even into her innermost\nparts, she _now_ shall extend her boundaries beyond the territory of\nthe unholy; and the Lord, who is sanctified _within_ her, will sanctify\nhimself _upon_ her also. There shall be no more destruction.\n\n\n * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\nVer. 31. \"_Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I make a new covenant\nwith the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah._\"\n\nVer. 32. \"_Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the\nday that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of\nEgypt, which my covenant they brake; but I marry them to me, saith the\nLord._\"\n\nThe first question which we have here to examine is: What is to be\nunderstood by the making of a covenant? We cannot here think of a\nformal transaction, of a mutual contract, such as the covenant made\non Sinai. This appears from ver. 32, according to which the old\ncovenant was concluded on the day when the Lord took Israel by\nthe hand, in order to bring them out of Egypt; but at that time a\ncovenant-transaction proper was not yet mentioned. Most interpreters\nerroneously suppose that by the words: \"In the day,\" &c., the abode at\nSinai is [Pg 430] designated. But since the _day_ of the deliverance\nfrom Egypt is commonly thus spoken of (comp. Exod. xii. 51 ff.); since\nthis _day_ was, as such, marked out by the annually returning feast of\nthe Passover, we must, here also, take [Hebrew: ivM], \"day,\" in its\nproper sense. And there is the less reason for abandoning this most\nobvious sense that, in Exod. vi. 4; Ezek. xvi. 8; Hag. ii. 5, a\ncovenant with Israel is spoken of, which was not first concluded on\nSinai, but was already concluded when they went out from Egypt.\n_Farther_--No obligation is spoken of in reference to the new covenant;\nblessing and gifts are mentioned, and nothing but these. But are we to\nadopt the opinion of _Frischmuth_ (_de foedere nov._ in the _Thes.\nAnt._ i. p. 857), and of many other interpreters and lexicographers,\nand say that [Hebrew: brit] \"does not only signify a covenant entered\nupon by two or several parties, but also [Greek: prothesin],\n_propositum Dei_, [Greek: epangelias], His gratuitous and unconditional\npromises, as well as His constant ordinances?\" That might after all be\nobjectionable. [Hebrew: krt brit] cannot _signify_ any thing but to\nmake a covenant.[2] But the question is, whether the making of a\ncovenant cannot be spoken of in passages, where there is no mention of\ntransactions of a mutual agreement between two parties. The substance\nof the covenant evidently precedes the outward conclusion of the\ncovenant, and forms the foundation of it. The conclusion of the\ncovenant does not first form the relation, but is merely a solemn\nacknowledgment of the relation already existing. Thus it is ever in\nhuman relations; the contract, as a rule, only fixes and settles\noutwardly, a relation already existing. And that is still more the case\nin the relation between God and man. By every benefit from God, an\nobligation is imposed upon him who receives it, whether it may, in\nexpress words, have been stated by God, and have been outwardly\nacknowledged by the recipient or not. This is clearly seen in the case\nunder consideration. At the giving of the Law on Sinai, the obligatory\npower of the commandments of [Pg 431] God is founded upon the fact,\nthat God brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.\nHence, it appears that the Sinaitic covenant existed, in substance,\nfrom the moment that the Lord led Israel out of Egypt. By apostatizing\nfrom the Lord, the people would have broken the covenant, even if it\nhad not been solemnly confirmed on Sinai; just as their apostacy, in\nthe time between their going out and the transactions on Sinai, was\ntreated as a violation of the covenant. It would have been a breach of\nthe covenant, if the people had answered, in the negative, the solemn\nquestions of God, whether they would enter into a covenant with Him.\nThis appears so much the more clearly, when we keep in mind, that the\nNew Covenant was not at all sanctioned by such an external solemn act.\nBut if, nevertheless, it is a covenant in the strictest sense; if,\nhere, the relation is independent upon its acknowledgment,--then, under\nthe Old Testament too, this acknowledgment must be a secondary element.\nThe same is the case with all the other passages commonly quoted in\nproof, that [Hebrew: krt brit] may also be used of mere blessings and\npromises. Thus, _e.g._, Gen. ix. 9: \"Behold, I establish my covenant\nwith you, and with your seed after you.\" That which is here designated\nas a covenant is not the promise _per se_, that in future the course of\nnature should, on the whole, remain undisturbed, but in so far only, as\nit imposes upon them who receive it, the obligation to glorify, by\ntheir walk, the Lord of the order of nature. In part, this obligation\nis afterwards outwardly fixed in the commandments concerning murder,\neating of blood, &c. Gen. xv. 18: \"In the same day God made a covenant\nwith Abraham, saying: Unto thy seed I give this land.\" In what\nprecedes, a promise only is contained; but this promise itself is, at\nthe same time, an obligation; and this obligation existed even then,\nalthough it was at a later period only, solemnly undertaken by\nreceiving the sign of the covenant, circumcision. Exod. xxxiv. 10: \"And\nHe said: Behold I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do\nmarvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation;\nand all the people among whom thou art, shall see the work of the Lord;\nfor it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.\" The covenant on\nSinai is here already made; the making of the new covenant here spoken\nof consists [Pg 432] in the mercies by which God will manifest himself\nto His people as their God. Every one of these mercies involves a new\nobligation for the people; every one is a question in deeds: This I do\nto thee, what doest thou to me?--It will now be possible to determine\nin what sense the Old Covenant is here contrasted with the New, The\npoint in question cannot be a new and more perfect revelation of the\nLaw of God; for that is common to both the dispensations. No jot or\ntittle of it can be lost under the New Testament, and as little can a\njot or tittle be added. God's law is based on His nature, and that is\neternal and unchangeable, compare Mal. iii. 22 (iv. 4). The revelation\nof the Law does not belong to the going out from Egypt, to which the\nmaking of the former covenant is here attributed, but to Sinai. As\nlittle can the discourse be of the introduction of an entirely new\nrelation, which is not founded at all upon the former one. On this\nsubject, _David Kimchi's_ remark is quite pertinent: \"It will not be\nthe newness of the covenant, but its stability.\" The covenant with\nIsrael is an everlasting covenant. Jehovah would not be Jehovah, if an\nentirely new commencement could take place; [Greek: leg\u00f4 de]--so the\nApostle writes in Rom. xv. 8--[Greek: I\u00easoun Christon diakonon\ngegen\u00easthai peritom\u00eas huper al\u00eatheias theou eis to bebai\u00f4sai tas\nepangelias t\u00f4n pater\u00f4n. ta de ethn\u00ea huper eleous doxasai ton theon].\nThe sending of Christ with His gifts and blessings, the making of the\nNew Covenant, is thus the consequence of the covenant-faithfulness of\nGod. If then the Old and New Covenants are here contrasted, the former\ncannot designate the relation of God to Israel _per se_, and in its\nwhole extent, but it must rather designate the former mode only, in\nwhich this relation was manifested,--that whereby the Lord had, up to\nthe time of the Prophet, manifested himself as the God of Israel. With\nthis former imperfect form, the future more perfect form is here\ncontrasted, under the name of the New Covenant. The New Covenant which\nis to take the place of the Old, when looking to the form (comp. Heb.\nviii. 13: [Greek: en t\u00f4 legein. Kain\u00ean, pepalai\u00f4ke t\u00ean pr\u00f4t\u00ean. to de\npalaioumenon kai g\u00earaskon, engus aphanismou]), is, in substance, the\nrealization of the Old. These remarks are in perfect harmony with that\nwhich was formerly said concerning the meaning of [Hebrew: krt brit].\nWe saw that this expression does not designate an act only once done,\n[Pg 433] by which a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather that it\nis used of every action, by which a covenant-relation is instituted or\nconfirmed.--If, then, the Old Covenant is the former form of the\ncovenant with Israel; and the New Covenant the future form of it,\nanother question is:--Which among the manifold differences of those two\nforms are here specially regarded by the Prophet? The answer to this\nquestion is supplied by that which the Prophet declares concerning the\nNew Covenant. For since it is _not_ to be like the former covenant, the\nexcellences of the New must be as many defects of the Old. These\nexcellences, however, are all of a spiritual nature,--first, the\nforgiveness of sins, and then the writing of the Law in the heart.\nIt follows from this, that the blessings of the Old Covenant were\n_pre-eminently_ (for we shall afterwards see that an entire absence of\nthese spiritual blessings cannot be spoken of, and that the difference\nbetween the Old and the New Covenant is, in this respect, a relative\none only, not an absolute one) of an external nature; and this is also\nsuggested by the circumstance, that it is represented as being\nconcluded when the people were led out of Egypt; in which fact, all the\nlater similar deliverances and blessings are comprehended. The Prophet,\nif any one, had learned that, in the way hitherto pursued, they could\nnot successfully continue. The sinfulness of the people had, at his\ntime, manifested itself in such fearful outbreaks, that, even when\nlooking at the matter from a human point of view, he could not but feel\nmost deeply that, with outward blessings and gifts, with an outward\ndeliverance from servitude, the people were very little benefited. What\nis the use of a mercy which, according to divine necessity, must be\nimmediately followed by a punishment so much the more severe? The\nnecessary condition for the true and lasting bestowal of outward\nsalvation, is the bestowal of the internal salvation; without the\nlatter the former is only a mockery. It is this internal salvation,\ntherefore, which is the highest aim of the Prophet's longings; to it he\nhere points as the highest blessing of the Future; compare also chap.\nxxxii. 40: \"And I make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will no\nmore turn away from them to do them good, and I will put my fear in\ntheir hearts that they shall not depart from me.\"--The closing words of\nver. 32 are frequently misunderstood. [Pg 434] The erroneous\ninterpretation of [Hebrew: awr] by \"_quia_,\" which is found with most\nexpositors, is of less consequence. [Hebrew: awr] indicates, in\ngeneral, the connection with what precedes. We may explain it either\nby: \"which my covenant they brake,\" as is done by _Ewald_; or, \"since\n(Deut. iii. 24) they brake my covenant,\" in which latter case, [Hebrew:\nawr] refers at the same time to \"I marry them unto me.\" We have here\nfarther carried out and detailed that which previously was said of the\nmaking of a new covenant; and the sense is: Although they have broken\nmy former covenant, yet I marry them unto me, or make a new covenant\nwith them. Of greater importance is the difference in the\ninterpretation of [Hebrew: belti]. By far the greater number of\ninterpreters understand this _sensu malo_; the ancient interpreters in\ndoing so refer to the words [Greek: kag\u00f4 \u00eamel\u00easa aut\u00f4n], (Heb. viii.\n9); but these can scarcely prove anything. For the author of that\nepistle, whose sole object it is to show that the new covenant stands\nhigher than the old--the insufficiency of the latter was, as the\nProphet's expressions show, sufficiently felt even by those who lived\nunder it--has, in these words, which do not stand in any relation to\nthe object which he has in view, followed the LXX. But it is a rather\ndoubtful and suspicious circumstance that, in determining the sense,\nthese interpreters greatly vary. Some, referring to the Arabic, explain\n[Hebrew: bel] by \"_fastidire_;\" others, as they allege, from the Hebrew\n_usus loquendi_, by \"to tyrannize.\" Thus, _e.g._ _Buddeus_ (_de\npraerogat. fidelium N. T._ in the Miscell. p. 106): \"We may readily\nunderstand thereby every severe chastisement by the neighbouring\nnations, such as frequently happened: they did not remain in my\ncovenant, therefore I made them to bear the yoke of others, [Greek:\n\u00eamel\u00easa aut\u00f4n], _neglexi eos_.\" But we have already seen (comp. remarks\non chap. iii. 14), that for neither of these significations is there\nany foundation; and this has been felt by those also who, in order to\nbring out a bad signification, such as, according to their view, the\ntext requires, undertook to change the reading, as _e.g._ _Cappellus_,\nwho would read [Hebrew: gelti], and _Grotius_, who would read [Hebrew:\nbhlti].[3] The signification \"to betroth onesself,\" \"to [Pg 435] take\nin marriage,\" which in that passage we vindicated for [Hebrew: bel]\nwith [Hebrew: b], is, here too, quite applicable; comp. Jer. ii. 1.\nThis signification the Chaldee Paraphrast too seems to have had in\nview; for he translates [Hebrew: atreiti] \"_cupio vos_,\" \"_delector\nvobis_.\" And is there anything to indicate, that here the reason is to\nbe stated, why the old covenant is abolished? That reason can be\nbrought in only by very forced explanations (comp. _e.g._ _Maurer_ and\n_Hitzig_); and it is, moreover, sufficiently expressed, as the author\nof the Epistle to the Hebrews has shown. Even in the announcement of a\n_new_ covenant, the declaration is implied that the old covenant was\ninsufficient: [Greek: ei gar h\u00ea pr\u00f4t\u00ea ekein\u00ea \u00ean amemptos, ouk an\ndeuteras ez\u00eateito topos] (Heb. viii. 7), as well as the reason why it\nwas so, viz., on account of human sinfulness and hardness of heart,\nwhich are not helped and remedied by pre-eminently outward blessings\nand benefits, be they never so great. This their former greatness is\nindicated by the words: \"When I took them by the hand,\"--words which\nimply the most tender love. To this subjective cause of the\ninsufficiency of the old covenant there is a reference in the words:\n[Greek: memphomenos gar autois legei], in Heb. viii. 8, which by _De\nWette_ and _Bleek_ are erroneously translated: \"For reprovingly He says\nto them.\" The Dative [Greek: autois] belongs to [Greek: memphomenos]\n(comp. _Mathiae_, S. 705); if it were otherwise it would be redundant,\nand would the less be in its place, that the discourse is not addressed\nto the children of Israel. The reason why a better covenant was\nrequired, such a one [Greek: h\u00eatis epi kreittosin epangeliais\nnenomothet\u00eatai], Heb. viii. 6, appears sufficiently from that which, in\nvers. 33, 34, is said of this new covenant in contrast to the old.\nHere, however, it is rather the infinite love of God, the greatness of\nHis covenant-faithfulness which are pointed out; and this thought is,\nfrom among all others, best suited to the context. [Hebrew: hmh] and\n[Hebrew: anki] form an emphatic contrast. _They_, in wicked\ningratitude, have broken the former covenant, have shaken off the\nobligations [Pg 436] which God's former mercies imposed upon them. God\ntoo--so it might be expected--ought now to annul the old covenant, and\nfor ever withdraw from them the old mercies. But, instead of doing so,\nHe grants the new covenant, the greater mercy. He anew takes in\nmarriage apostate Israel, and in such a manner that now the bond of\nlove becomes firm and indestructible. _Bleek_ objects to our\ninterpretation: \"The object is not the city of Jerusalem, or even the\nCongregation of Israel, but the single Israelites, who may indeed be\ndesignated as the children of Jehovah, but not as His spouse.\" But, in\nsuch personifications, it is quite a common thing that the real\nplurality should take the place of the ideal unity. In Exod. xxxiv.\n15, for instance, it is said: \"And they go a whoring after their\ngods,\"--instead of the congregation, to which the _whoring_ properly\nbelongs, (comp. Is. lvii. 7), the individual members are mentioned;\ncomp. Hos. ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, ii. 19).\n\nVer. 33. \"_For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of\nIsrael after these days, saith the Lord: I give my law in their inward\nparts, and will write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and\nthey shall be my people._\"\n\n[Hebrew: ki] is, by some interpreters, here supposed to mean \"but;\" so\nmuch, only, however, is correct that \"but\" might _also_ have been put;\n_for_ is here quite in its place. The words: \"Not as the covenant,\"\n&c., in the preceding verse, are here vindicated, and expanded by a\npositive definition of the nature and substance of the New Covenant. It\nis just because it is of such a nature, that it is not like the former\ncovenant. [Hebrew: hhM] does not, by any means, as is erroneously\nsupposed by _Venema_ and _Hitzig_, refer to the days mentioned in ver.\n31, in which the New Covenant was to be made. \"These days,\" on the\ncontrary, are a designation of the Present; \"after these days,\"\nequivalent to [Hebrew: bahrit himiM] \"at the end of days.\" The Prophet\nso repeatedly and emphatically points to the Future, because unbelief\nand weak faith imagined that, with the Present, the history of the\ncovenant-people was finished, and that no Future was in store for them.\n_Calvin_ pertinently remarks: \"It is just as if the Prophet had said,\nthat the grace of which he was prophesying could not be apprehended,\nunless they, believers, kept their minds composed, and patiently waited\nuntil the [Pg 437] time of the promised salvation had come.\" As regards\nthe following enumeration of the blessings, in and by the bestowal of\nwhich the new covenant-relation is to be established, _Venema_ very\ncorrectly remarks: \"The blessings are distinguished into radical or\ncausal ones, and subsequent or derived ones.\" The second [Hebrew: ki],\nin ver. 34: \"_For_ I will forgive their sin,\" proves the correctness of\nthis division, which is also pointed out by the _Athnach_.--[Hebrew:\ntvrh] is, by many interpreters, here understood to signify \"doctrine.\"\nThus _Buddeus_: \"By the word [Hebrew: tvrh], the whole New Testament\ndoctrine is to be understood.\" This interpretation, however, is\nobjectionable, and destructive of the sense, [Hebrew: tvrh] never means\n\"doctrine,\" but always \"law;\" and the fact that it is only _the_ law of\nGod, the eternal expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to\nboth the Old and New Covenants, which can be here spoken of, and not a\nnew constitution for the latter, is seen from the reference in which\nthe giving in the inward parts and the writing on the heart (the tables\nof the heart, 2 Cor. iii. 3), stands to the outward communication and\nthe writing on the tables of stone on Sinai. The law is the same; the\nrelation only is different in which God places it to man, (\"_lex cum\nhomine conciliatur quasi_,\" _Michaelis_.) One might easily infer from\nthe passage before us a confirmation of the error, that the law under\nthe Old Covenant was _only_ an outward dead letter. Against this error\n_Buddeus_ already contended, who, S. 117, acknowledges that it is a\nrelative difference and contrast only, which are here spoken of He\nsays: \"This, of course, was the case with the Old Testament believers\nalso; here, however, God promises a richer fulness and higher degree of\nthis blessing.\" _Calvin_ declares the opinion that, under the Old\nTestament dispensation, there did not exist any regeneration, to be\nabsurd, and says: \"we know that, under the Law, the grace of God was\nrare and dark; but that, under the Gospel, the gifts of the Spirit were\n_poured_ out, and that God dealt much more liberally with His Church.\"\nThe idea of a purely outward giving of the Law is indeed one which is\nquite inconceivable. God would, in that case, have done nothing else\ntowards Israel than He did to the traitor Judas, in whose conscience He\nproclaimed His holy Law, without communicating to him strength for\nrepentance. But such a proceeding can be conceived of, only where there\nis a subjective impossibility [Pg 438] of [Greek: anakainizein eis\nmetanoian]. Every outward manifestation of God _must_, according to the\nconstitution of human nature, be accompanied by the inward\nmanifestation, since it is inconceivable that He who knows our nature,\nshould mock us by the semblance of a blessing. As soon as we know the\noutward fact of the deliverance from Egypt, we know, at the same time,\nthat God has then powerfully touched the heart of Israel. As soon as it\nis established that the Law on Sinai was written on tables of stone by\nthe finger of God, it is also established that He, at the same time,\nwrote it on the tables of Israel's heart. But that which is thus\nimplied in the matter itself, is confirmed by the testimony of history.\nIn the Law itself, circumcision is designated as the pledge and seal of\nthe bestowal, not merely of outward blessings, but of the circumcision\nof the heart, of the removal of sin attaching to every one by birth; so\nthat man can love God with all his heart, all his sold, and all his\npowers, Deut. xxx. 6. This circumcision of the heart which, in the\noutward circumcision, was at the same time _required_ and promised by\nGod (comp. Deut. l. c. with x. 16), is not substantially different from\nthe writing of the Law on the heart. _Farther_--If the Law of the Lord\nhad, for Israel, been a mere outward letter, how could the animated\npraise of it in the Holy Scriptures, _e.g._, in Ps. xix., be accounted\nfor? Surely, a bridge must already have been formed between the Law and\nhim who can speak of it as rejoicing the heart, as enlightening the\neyes, as converting the soul, as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.\nThat is no more the Law in its isolation which worketh wrath, but it is\nthe Law in its connection with the Spirit, whose commandments are not\ngrievous; comp. my commentary on Ps. xix. 8 ff. A _new_ heart was\ncreated under the Old Testament also, Ps. li. 12; and not to know the\nnature of this creation was, for a teacher in Israel, the highest\ndisgrace, John iii. 10. Yea, that which is here promised for the\nFuture, a pious member of the Old Covenant expresses, in Ps. xl. 9, _in\nthe same form_, as being already granted to him as his present\nspiritual condition: \"I delight to do thy will, O my God, and thy Law\nis in the midst of my bowels,\"--words which imply the same contrast to\nthe Law as outward letter, as being written on tables of stone, comp.\nProv. iii. 1-3: \"My son, [Pg 439] forget not my law, and let thine\nheart keep my commandments ... bind them about thy neck, write them\nupon the table of thine heart;\" compare my commentary on Psalms, Vol.\niii. p. lxvii.--But how is it to be explained that the contrariety\nwhich, in itself, is relative, appears here under the form of the\nabsolute contrariety,--the difference in degree, as a difference in\nkind? Evidently in the same manner as the same phenomenon must be\nexplained elsewhere also, _e.g._ John i. 17, where it is said that the\nLaw was given by Moses, but mercy and truth by Christ. By overlooking\nthis fact, so many errors have been called forth. The blessings of the\nOld Covenant which, when considered in themselves, are so important and\nrich, appear, when compared with the much fuller and more important\nblessings of the New Covenant, to be so trifling that they vanish\nentirely out of sight. It is quite similar when, in chap. iii. 16, the\nProphet represents the highest sanctuary of the Old Covenant, the Ark\nof the Covenant, as sinking into entire oblivion in future; when, in\nchap. xxiii. 7, 8, he describes the deliverance from Egypt as no longer\nworthy of being mentioned. Parallel to the passage under consideration\nis the promise of Joel of the pouring out of the Spirit, chap. iii. 1,\n2 (ii. 28, 29); so that that which we remarked on that passage, is\napplicable here also. But, in that passage, the relative nature of the\npromise appears more clearly than it does here, just because, in\ngeneral, under the New Covenant, in its relation to the Old, there is\nnowhere an absolutely new beginning, but always a completion only (just\nin the same manner as, on the other hand, under the New Covenant\nitself, it is in the relation of the _regnum gloriae_ to the _regnum\ngratiae_). Joel, in reference to the communication of the Spirit, puts\nthe abundance in the place of the scarcity; the many in the place of\nthe few. Compare, moreover, chap. xxiv. 7: \"And I give them a heart to\nknow me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be\ntheir God;\" xxxii. 39: \"And I give them one heart and one way, that\nthey may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children\nafter them;\" but especially Ezek. xi. 19, 20, xxxvi. 26, 27.--The\nremarks of Jewish interpreters on the passage under consideration, in\nwhich they cannot avoid seeing that, in it, a purely moral revelation\nis prophesied, [Pg 440] in contrast to a mere external one, clearly\nshow how strongly the Old Testament is opposed to that carnal Jewish\ndelusion of the condition of the Messianic Kingdom (as it is most\nglaringly expressed in the Talmudic passage _Massechet Sanhedrim_, fol.\n119: \"There is no other difference between the days of the Messiah and\nthe present state of things, excepting only that the kingdoms shall be\nour slaves),\"--a delusion which is quite analogous to the expectations\nwhich are entertained by revolutionists concerning the Future, and\nwhich flow from the same source. Thus Rabbi _Bechai_ (see _Frischmuth_)\nremarks: \"This means that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away,\nand every desire to covet any thing;\" _Moses Nachmanides_ (_ibid._ S.\n861): \"And this is nothing else than that every evil concupiscence\nshall be taken away, so that the heart, by an internal impulse, does\nwhat is right.--In the days of Messiah there will not exist any\nevil desire, but, from the impulse of his nature, man will do what\nis right. And there will, therefore, not be innocence and guilt,\ninasmuch as these depend upon concupiscence.\" But if once bent upon it,\npre-conceived opinions will overcome every, even the strongest,\ncontradiction offered by the matter itself This may be seen from the\nexample of _Grotius_, who here explains: \"I will cause that all of\nthem keep my Law in memory,--in the first instance, by the multitude\nof synagogues which, at that time, were built, and in which the\nLaw was taught thrice a-week.\" Thrice a-week! Surely that will produce\nfirst-rate men, viz., such as are described in Isa. lviii. 2. It is not\nwithout meaning, that the words: \"And I will be their God,\" &c., follow\nupon: \"And I give my Law in their inward parts,\" &c. The Law is the\nexpression of God's nature; it is only by the Law being written in the\nheart that man can become a partaker of God's nature; that His name can\nbe sanctified in him. And it is this participation in the nature of\nGod, this sanctification of God's name, which forms the foundation of:\n\"I will be their God, and they shall be my people.\" Without this, the\nrelation cannot exist at all, as truly as God is not an idol, but the\nTrue and Holy One. These words express, as _Buddeus_, S. 94, rightly\nremarks: \"That He will impart himself altogether to them.\" But how were\nit possible that God, with His blessings and gifts, should [Pg 441]\nimpart himself entirely and unconditionally to them who are not of His\nnature? Of all unnatural things, this would be the most unnatural.\nHere, however, likewise the relative character of the promise most\nclearly appears. As early as to Abraham, God had promised that He would\nbe a God to _him_, and to his seed after him; and this promise he had\nafterwards repeated to the whole people, Lev. xxvi. 12, comp. Exod.\nxxix. 45: \"And I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel and will\nbe their God.\" In the consciousness that this promise was fulfilled in\nthe time then present, David exclaims in Ps. xxxiii. 12: \"Blessed is\nthe nation whose God is Jehovah, the generation whom He hath chosen for\nHis inheritance.\" Hence, here too, there is nothing absolutely new. If\nsuch were the subject of discourse, then the whole Kingdom of God under\nthe Old Testament dispensation would be changed into a mere semblance\nand illusion. But the small measure of the condition--with which even\nGod himself cannot dispense, but of which He may vouchsafe a larger\nmeasure, viz., the writing of the Law in the heart, whereby man becomes\na copy of God, the personal Law--was necessarily accompanied by the\nsmall measure of the consequence, The perfect fulfilment of God's\npromise to Abraham and Israel, to which the prophet here alludes,\ncould, therefore, be expected from the future only.\n\nVer. 34. \"_And they shall teach no more a man his neighbour, and a man\nhis brother, saying: Know the Lord; for they all shall know me, small\nand great, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I\nwill remember their sin no more._\"\n\nEven from ancient times, the first hemistich of the verse has created\ngreat embarrassment to interpreters, from which very few of them, not\nexcepting even _Calvin_, manage to extricate themselves skilfully. The\ndeclaration that, because all will be taught by God, human instruction\nin things divine is to cease, has, at first sight, something fanatical\nin it, and, indeed, was made use of by Anabaptists and other\nenthusiasts in vindication of their delusion.[4] Many interpreters\nattempt an evasion, [Pg 442] by referring the words to the future life;\nthus _Theodoret_, _Augustine_, (_de Spirit. et lit._ c. 24) and _Este_,\nwho, in a manner almost _na\u00efve_, remarks: \"This difficulty, it seems,\nis very simply avoided by those who refer this promise to the future\nworld, where, no doubt, all care about teaching will cease.\" But the\nmatter is, indeed, not at all difficult. All that is necessary is to\nkeep in mind that human instruction is here excluded, in so far only as\nit is opposed to divine instruction concerning God himself; that hence,\nthat which is here spoken of, is _mere_ human instruction, by which men\nare trained and drilled in religion, just as in every other branch of\ncommon knowledge,--a result of which is, that they may learn for ever\nwithout ever coming to the knowledge of the truth. Such an instruction\nmay be productive of historical faith, of belief in human authority;\nbut it is just by this, that the nature of religion will be altogether\ndestroyed. Even the true God becomes an idol when He is not known\nthrough himself, when He himself does not prepare the heart as a place\nto dwell in. He is, and remains a mere idea that can impart no strength\nin the struggle against sin which is a real power, and no comfort in\naffliction. Now, such a condition was very frequent under the Old\nTestament dispensation. The mass of the people possessed only a\nknowledge of God, which was chiefly, although not exclusively, obtained\nthrough human instrumentality. By the New Covenant, richer gifts of the\nSpirit were to be bestowed, and along with them, the number of those\nwas to be increased who were to partake in them, just as Isaiah, in\nchap. vii. 16, represents believers under the Old Testament as being\ntaught by the Lord, while in chap. liv. 13, in reference to the\nMessianic time, he announces: \"And all thy children shall be taught of\nthe Lord.\" Under the New Covenant, the antithesis of teaching by God,\nand teaching by man, is to cease. The teachers do not teach in their\nown strength, but as servants and instruments of the Lord. It is not\nthey who speak, Init the Holy Spirit in them. Those who are taught by\nthem hear the word that comes to them through men, not as man's word,\nbut as God's word; and they receive it, not because it satisfies their\nlimited human reason, but because the Spirit testifies that the Spirit\nis truth. How this antithesis is done away with, and reconciled in a\nhigher unity, is, among other passages, [Pg 443] shown by 2 Cor. iii.\n3: \"You are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with\nink, but with the Spirit of the living God.\" They are [Greek:\ntheodidaktoi], but through the ministry of the Apostle who, in so far\nas he performs this service, is not different from God, but only a\nconductor of His power, a channel through which the oil of the Holy\nSpirit flows to the Church of God; compare remarks on Zech. iv. The\nsame is taught in 1 John ii. 20: [Greek: Kai humeis chrisma echete apo\ntou hagiou, kai oidate panta. Ouk egrapsa humin, hoti ouk oidate t\u00ean\nal\u00eatheian, all'hoti oidate aut\u00ean.] Ver. 27: [Greek: Kai humeis to\nchrisma, ho elabete ap'autou, en humin, menei kai ou chreian echete,\nhina tis didask\u00ea humas, all'hos to auto chrisma didaskei humas peri\npant\u00f4n k. t. l.] The [Greek: didaskein] here signifies the human\nteaching in contrast to that which is divine, such an one as undertakes\nby its own power to work knowledge in him who is taught. Such a\nteaching cannot take place under the new covenant. A fundamental\nknowledge is already imparted to all its members; the [Greek:\nparakl\u00eatos], the Holy Ghost, alone teaches them, John xiv. 26; He leads\nthem into all truth, John xvi. 13. But, just because this is the case,\nthe teaching by means of those whom God has given, in His Church, as\napostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers (Eph. iv. 11), to whom He has\ncommunicated His [Greek: charismata], is quite in its place. The\napostle writes just _because_ they know the truth. If it were\notherwise, his efforts would be altogether in vain. Of what use is it\nto give instruction about colours to him who is blind? In things\ndivine, the truth becomes truth to the single individual, only because\nhis knowledge of God is founded on his being in God; and that can be\naccomplished only by his being connected to God through God. Being,\nlife, and hence, also, real living knowledge, can proceed only from the\nfountain of all being and life. But in the case of those who are in\nGod, who possess the fundamental knowledge, this knowledge must be\ndeveloped, carried on, and brought to full consciousness through the\ninstrumentality of those to whom God has granted the gifts for it. A\nglance into the deep meaning of our passage was obtained by the author\nof the book _Jelammedenu_, which is quoted by _Abarbanel_ (in\n_Frischmuth_, S. 863); he says: \"Under the present dispensation, Israel\nlearns the Law from mortal men, and therefore forgets it; for as flesh\nand blood pass away (comp. [Pg 444] Matt. xvi. 17, where the antithesis\nexisting between a knowledge of divine things which rests on human\nground, and that which rests on divine ground, is brought before us in\nits strictest form), so also its instruction passes away. But a time\nshall come when a man shall not learn from the mouth of a man, but from\nthe mouth of the blessed God, for it is written: 'All thy children\nshall be taught by God.'In these words, it is implied that hitherto\nthe knowledge of the Law was an artificial one obtained by mortal men.\nBut for that reason, it cannot stand long, for the effect stands in\nproportion to its cause. At the time of the deliverance, however, the\nknowledge of the Law will be obtained in a miraculous manner.\" It is,\nhowever, quite obvious that this promise, too, must be understood\nrelatively only. All the pious men of the Old Covenant were [Greek:\ntheodidaktoi]; and under the New Covenant, the number of those is\ninfinitely great who, through their own guilt, stand to truth in a\nrelation which is entirely or preeminently mediate.--Instead of the\n\"small,\" by way of individualization, servants and handmaids are\nmentioned in Joel iii. 2 (ii. 29); compare remarks on Rev. xi. 18.--We\nhave already seen that in the last words of the verse, the fundamental\nblessing is promised. But whether [Hebrew: ki] be referred only to that\nwhich immediately precedes, or to every thing which goes before\n(_Venema_: _vocala_ [Hebrew: ki] _non ad proxime praecedentia\nreferenda, sed ad totam pericopam, qua bona foederis recensita sunt,\nextenda_), amounts to nearly the same thing; for that which immediately\nprecedes includes all the rest. We have before us nothing but\ndesignations of the same thing from various aspects; everything depends\nupon the richer bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit. This has the\nforgiveness of sins for its necessary foundation; for, before God can\ngive, He must first take. The sins which separate the people and their\nGod from one another, must first be taken away; it is then only that\nthe inward means can be bestowed, so that the people may become truly\nGod's people, and God's name may be sanctified in them. It is obvious\nthat, here too, a relative difference only between the Old and New\nCovenant can be spoken of A covenant-people without forgiveness of sins\nis no covenant-people; a God with whom there is not forgiveness, in\norder that He may be feared, who does not heal the bones [Pg 445] which\nHe has broken, who in this respect gives promises for the Future only,\nis no God, and no blessing. For if He does not grant this, He cannot\ngrant any thing else, inasmuch as every thing else implies this, and is\nof no value without it. Forgiveness of sins is the essence of the\nPassover as the feast of the covenant. On the Ark of the Covenant, it\nwas represented by the _Capporeth_ (see _Genuineness of the\nPentateuch_, Vol. ii., p. 525 f.). Without it the sin-offerings\nappointed by God are a lie; without it, all that is untrue which God\nsays of himself as the covenant-God, that He is gracious and merciful,\nExod. xxxiv. 6. The holy Psalmists often acknowledge with praise and\nthanks that God _has_ forgiven sins; comp. _e.g._ Ps. lxxxv. 3: \"Thou\nhast taken away the iniquities of thy people, thou hast covered all\ntheir sins.\" In the same manner they are loud in praising the high\nblessing bestowed upon the individual by the forgiveness of sins; comp.\nPs. xxxii. 51. The consciousness that their sins are forgiven, forms\nthe foundation of the disposition of heart which we perceive in the\nPsalmists; see Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iii. p. lxv. f. \"What a\n[Greek: pl\u00earophoria]\"--so _Buddeus_ remarks, p. 109--\"what a\nconfidence, what a joy of a tranquil and quiet conscience shines forth\nin the psalms and prayers of David!\" We have thus before us merely a\ndifference in degree. To the believers of that time, the sin of the\ncovenant-people appeared to be too great to admit of its being\nforgiven. Driven away from the face of the Lord, so they imagined, it\nwould close its miserable existence in the land of Nod; never would the\n[Greek: kairoi anapsuxe\u00f4s] return. But, in opposition to such fears,\nthe Prophet declares, in the name of the Lord, that they would not only\nreturn, but come, for the first time, in the true and full sense; that\nwhere they imagined to behold the end to the forgiveness of sins, there\nwould be its real beginning; that where sin abounded, the grace of God\nshould there so much the more abound. Only, they should not despair,\nand thus place a barrier in the way of God's mercy. Your God is not a\nmere hard task-master; He himself will sow and then reap, as surely as\nHe is God, the gracious and merciful One.\n\nVer. 35. \"_Thus saith the Lord, giving the sun for a light by day, and\nthe ordinances of the moon and of the stars for_ [Pg 446] _a light by\nnight, agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar, the Lord of hosts\nis His name._\"\n\nVer. 36. \"_If these ordinances will cease before me, saith the Lord,\nthen the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me\nfor ever._\"\n\nInterpreters commonly assume that, already in ver. 35, the discourse is\nof the firm and immutable divine laws which every thing must obey. But\nopposed to this view are the words: \"Agitating the sea, and the waves\nthereof roar,\" in which no definite perceptible rule, no uninterrupted\nreturn takes place. To this argument may be added the comparison of the\nfundamental passage, Isa. li. 15, in which the omnipotence only of God\nis to be brought out: \"And I am the Lord thy God, who agitates the sea,\nand its waves roar, the Lord of hosts is His name;\" comp. also Amos.\nix. 5, 6. It thus appears that, in ver. 35, God's omnipotence only is\nspoken of, which establishes that He is God and not man; and this forms\nthe foundation for the declaration set forth in ver. 36, which is so\nfull of comfort for the despairing covenant-people,--the proposition,\nnamely, that, while all men are liars, He does not lie; that He can\nnever repent of His covenant and promises. The \"ordinances\" (moon and\nstars are, in their regular return, themselves, as it were, embodied\nordinances), are mentioned already in ver. 35, because just the\ncircumstance that, according to eternal and inviolable laws, sun and\nmoon must appear every day at a fixed time, and have done so for\nthousands and thousands of years, testifies more strongly for His\nomnipotence and absolute power, never liable to any foreign influence\nor interference, than if they at one time appeared, and, at another,\nfailed to appear. God's omnipotence, as it is testified by a look to\nnature (_Calvin_: \"The Prophet contents himself with pointing out what\neven boys knew, viz., that the sun makes his daily circuit round the\nwhole earth, that the moon does the same, and that the stars in their\nturn succeed, so that, as it were, the moon with the stars exercises\ndominion by night, and, afterwards, the sun reigns by day\"), results\nfrom the fact that He is the pure, absolute, being (Jehovah His name,\ncomp. remarks on Mal. iii. 6); and it is just because He is this, that\nHis counsels, which He declared without any condition attached to them,\nmust be [Pg 447] unchangeable. To believe that He has for ever rejected\nIsrael, is to degrade Him, to make Him an idol, a creature.--In ver.\n36, the immutability of God's counsel of grace is put on a level with\nthe immutability of God's order of nature; but this is done with a view\nto the weakness of the people, who receive, for a pledge of their\nelection, that which is most firm among visible things; so that every\nrising of the sun and moon is to them a guarantee of it; compare Ps.\nlxxxix. 37, 38. But considered in itself, the counsels of God's grace\nare _much firmer_ than the order of nature. The heavens wax old as a\ngarment, and as a vesture He changes them and they are changed (Ps.\ncii. 27-29); heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of God\nshall not pass away.--From chap. xxxiii. 24: \"They despise my people\n([Hebrew: emi]) that they should be still a nation ([Hebrew: gvi])\nbefore them\" it appears why it is that [Hebrew: gvi] is here used, and\nnot [Hebrew: eM]. The covenant-people in their despair imagined that\ntheir national existence, which, in the Present, was destroyed, was\ngone for ever. If only their national existence was sure, then\nalso was their existence as a covenant-people. For, just as their\nnational existence had ceased, because they had ceased to be the\ncovenant-people, so they could again obtain a national existence as the\ncovenant-people only.\n\nVer. 37. \"_Thus saith the Lord: If the heavens above be measured, and\nthe foundations of the earth beneath be searched out, I will also cast\noff all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the\nLord._\"\n\nIt is not without meaning that the Prophet so frequently repeats: Thus\nsaith the Lord. This formed the [Greek: A] and [Greek: \u00d4]; His word was\nthe _sole_ ground of hope for Israel. Apart from it, despair was as\nreasonable, as now it was unreasonable. The measuring of heaven, and\nthe searching out of the innermost parts of the earth, come here into\nconsideration as things impossible. The words: \"All the seed of\nIsrael,\" take from the hypocrites that consolation which they might be\ndisposed to draw from these promises. It is as much in opposition to\nthe nature of God that He should permit all the seed of Israel, the\nfaithful with the unbelievers, to perish, as that He should save all\nthe seed of Israel, unbelievers as well as believers. The promise, as\nwell as the threatening, always leaves a remnant. All that the covenant\ngrants is, that the whole cannot [Pg 448] perish (the discourse is\nhere, of course, of definite rejection); but it gives no security to\nthe individual sinner. The words: \"For all that they have done,\" are\nadded intentionally, because the greatness of the sins of the people\nwas the _punctum saliens_ in the believers'despair of the mercy of\nGod. _Calvin_ says: \"The Prophet here intentionally brings forward the\nsins of the people, in order that we may know that the grace of God is\ngreater still, and that the multitude of so many wicked men would not\nbe an obstacle to God's granting pardon.\"\n\nVer. 38. \"_Behold, days, saith the Lord, and the city is built to the\nLord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner._ Ver. 39.\n_And the measuring line goeth yet farther over against it, over the\nhill Gareb_ (the leper), _and turneth towards Goah_ (place of\nexecution). Ver. 40. _And the whole valley of the carcasses and of the\nashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, and from thence\nunto the horsegate, towards the East,_ (all this is) _holiness unto the\nLord. No more shall it be destroyed, nor shall it be laid waste for\never._\"\n\nThis prophecy embraces two features: _first_, the restoration of the\nKingdom of God, represented under the figure of a restoration of\nJerusalem, which, under the Old Covenant, was its seat and centre (it\nis this aspect only which Zechariah, in resuming this prophecy, has\nbrought forward in chap. xiv. 10); and, _secondly_, the glorification\nof the Kingdom of God, which now is so strengthened and increased, that\nit can undertake to attack and assail the dark kingdom of evil, and\nsubject it to itself, while formerly it was attacked and assailed by\nit, and often could not prevent the enemy from penetrating into the\ninnermost heart of its territory. This thought the Prophet graphically\nclothes in a perceptible form, and in such a manner that he describes\nhow the unholy places, by which Jerusalem, the holy city, was\nsurrounded on all sides, are included in its circumference, and become\nholiness unto the Lord. In former times, the victory of the world over\nthe Kingdom of God had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations\nof sin and idolatry had penetrated into the very temple; compare chap.\nvii. 11: \"Is then this house, which is called by the name of the Lord,\na den of robbers, saith the Lord?\" Other passages will be mentioned\nwhen we come to comment upon Dan. ix. 27. This inward victory must,\naccording to divine necessity, [Pg 449] be followed by the outward one.\nThe covenant-people which, inwardly, had submitted to the world, which,\nby its own guilt, had profaned itself, was, outwardly also, given up to\nthe world, and was profaned in punishment. And this profanation,\ninflicted upon it as a punishment, again manifested itself just at that\nplace, where the profanation by the guilt had chiefly manifested\nitself, viz., in the holy city, and in the holy temple. It is with a\nview to the former manifestation of the victory of the world over the\nKingdom of God, that here the victory of the Kingdom of God over the\nworld is described; and the imagery is just simple imagery. To the\noutward holiness of the city and of the temple, the outward unholiness\nof the places around Jerusalem is opposed. While the victory of the\nworld over the Kingdom of God had been manifested by the profanation of\nthese places, the victory of the Kingdom of God now appears under the\nimage of the sanctification of these formerly unholy places. By what\nmeans that great change had been brought about; by what means the\nKingdom of God, which now lay so powerlessly prostrate, should again\nobtain powers which it had never before possessed; by what means the\nservant was to be changed into a lord, it was unnecessary for the\nProphet here to point out; it had been already mentioned in vers.\n32-34. The difference consists in this, that the New Covenant is not\nlike the Old, but that it first furnishes the right weapons by which\nsin and the world can be overcome, viz., an infinitely richer measure\nof the forgiveness of sins, of the graces of the Spirit.--We must still\npremise a general remark concerning the determination of the boundaries\nof the New Jerusalem here given, because this must guide us in\ndetermining the single doubtful places which are here mentioned. The\ncorrect view has been already given by _Vitringa_ in his Commentary on\nIsaiah xxx. 33: \"The Prophet promises to the returning ones the\nrestoration of the city of Jerusalem in its whole circumference; and he\ndescribes it in this way, that he begins from the Eastern wall, passes\non thence, through the North side, to the West side, and thence, by the\nSouth side, returns to the East.\" For the Prophet begins with the tower\nof Hananeel which was situated at the East side of the town, near the\nsheep-gate; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 10. Thence he proceeds to [Pg\n450] the corner-gate, which was situated in that corner where the North\nand East met (compare l. c.), and hence comprehends the whole North\nside. He closes with the horse-gate, of which he expressly states that\nit was situated towards the East, and hence points out that he had\nagain arrived at the place from which he set out. We have thus gained a\nfirm foundation for determining those among the places mentioned, the\nsituation of which is, in itself, doubtful.--Let us now proceed to the\nconsideration of particulars. After [Hebrew: imiM], the _Keri_ inserts\n[Hebrew: baiM]. It is true that this fuller expression is commonly used\nby the Prophet; but, for that very reason, the more concise one is to\nbe preferred, which alone has the authority of the MSS. in its favour,\nwhile the _Keri_ is nothing but a conjecture, perhaps not even that.\nThe full expression having already occurred so frequently in the\npassage under consideration, the Prophet here, at the close, and for a\nchange, contents himself with the mere intimation. The Prophet says\nintentionally: \"The city is built to the Lord,\" so that \"to the Lord\"\nmust be connected with \"is built;\" not \"the city of the Lord.\" The\nlatter expression had become so much a _nomen proprium_ of Jerusalem,\nthat the full depth of its meaning was no more thought of. This new\ncity is no more to be called simply the city of the Lord; it is truly\nto be built to the Lord, so that it belongs to Him.--In the first two\npoints of the boundary, the tower of Hananeel and the Corner-gate, the\nsecond main idea of the passage does not yet come out so prominently.\nThis is to be accounted for simply by the circumstance, that on the\nwhole North side of the town there was not any unholy places. The\nSuffix in [Hebrew: ngdv] refers to the Corner-gate; the measuring line,\n[Hebrew: qvh] according to the _Kethibh_, [Hebrew: qv hmdh], which is\nthe common form, according to the _Keri_, goes yet farther over against\nit, &c. By the words \"over against,\" it is intimated that it now goes\nbeyond the former dimensions of the town. [Hebrew: el] \"over\" (_Hitzig_\nerroneously translates it \"towards,\" or \"by the side of it\"), shows\nthat the hill Gareb is included within the circumference of the new\ncity. From the remarks formerly made, it appears that the hill Gareb,\nand Goah, places which are nowhere else mentioned, must have been\nsituated on the West side; and, moreover, Gareb on the North-west [Pg\n451] side[5] and Goah on the South-west side, [Hebrew: grb] has no\nother signification than \"the leper;\" and \"the hill of the leper\" can\nbe the hill only, where the lepers had their abode. For, as early as in\nthe second year after the Exodus from Egypt, these lepers were obliged\nto remain without the camp (comp. Numb. v. 3: \"Without the camp shall\nye send them, and not shall they defile their camp in the midst whereof\nI dwell\"); and this law was so strictly enforced, that even Moses'\nsister was removed out of the camp. When they had come to Canaan, the\nprovisions of the law in reference to the camp were transferred to the\ntowns; comp. farther Lev. xiii. 46: \"All the days that he has the\nleprosy, he shall be defiled; he shall dwell alone, without the camp\nshall his habitation be;\" Luke xvii. 12. Even Uzziah could not be\nreleased from it; he lived without the city in Beth Chofshith, 2 Kings\nxv. 5, which is commonly translated \"house of the sick,\" instead of\n\"house of emancipation,\" viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord\nhad manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks\non Psa. lxxxviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict\nin the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the\nnumberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the\nreligious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of\nMoses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not\nallowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings\nvii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage,\nit is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that\nregulation. _J. D. Michaelis_ (Mos. Recht. iv. \u00a7 210) has his answer at\nonce in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to\nthe point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other\nview. Because _to him_ the temporal objects and aims are the highest,\nhe at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also.\nThe ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to\nprevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity\nagainst the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the\nhealthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all\nevents, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch.\n(_Michaelis_ himself remarks: \"Except in the case of cohabitation, one\nmay be quite safe.\") But this severity against the sick must appear in\na still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes\neven ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations\nconcerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes,\nbare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came\nnear them, that they were unclean. Even _Michaelis_ grants that those\nregulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He\nremarks: \"But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his\nreally shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected\ntouch.\" But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves\nis surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all\nthe relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt\nlove thy neighbour as thyself. _Farther_--From mere sanitary or police\nconsiderations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and\nhouses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of\nmen, cannot be accounted for. The reason which _Michaelis_ advances for\nthe law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even\nthe most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one.\nThe leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which,\nalthough not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern\nfor the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he\nordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the\nviews on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of\nthis, he could not have been an ambassador of God,--even apart\naltogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and\nuntenableness of _Michaelis'_ view will appear still more strongly,\nwhen we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy\nis the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the\nleper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore,\nwas a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the\nworld. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city,\nconveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by\nJohn, in Revel. xxi. 27: [Greek: Kai ou m\u00ea eiselth\u00ea eis aut\u00ean] [Pg 453]\n[Greek: pan koinon kai poioun bdelugma kai pseudos], and by Paul, in\nEphes. v. 5: [Greek: touto gar iste gin\u00f4skontes, hoti pas pornos, \u00ea\nakathartos, \u00ea pleonekt\u00eas ... ouk echei kl\u00earonomian en t\u00ea basileia tou\nChristou kai Theou]; comp. Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what\nis the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the\nholy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom\nof God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners\nhad done violence to the Kingdom of God. It is only when we take this\nview of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease\nso frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of\nsin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before God, is\nrepresented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circumstance\nthat he must exhibit before men the image of sin. God took care that\nordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident;\nalthough, no doubt, there were exceptions,--cases where God, according\nto His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in\nthe case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that\nwould not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore _our_\ndisease), had to bear the image of sin, _e.g._, in the case of such as\nwere in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment,\nleprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had\nsurrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men,\nprevents them from appearing as sinners, _e.g._, in the case of Miriam,\nUzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings\nagainst it, _e.g._, Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29,\nthat the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of\nwicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only\nas an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev.\nxiv. 49: \"And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar\nwood, and scarlet, and hyssop; ver. 53: and make an atonement for the\nhouse, and it shall be clean.\" The procedure here is quite the same as\nthat which was applied in the case of sin and sinners; and since the\nhouse cannot sin, it follows that a symbolical action only can here be\nspoken of.--Goah, in this context, in the midst of unclean places, can\nhardly be anything else than some unclean place; and it is a very\nobvious supposition that this nature is expressed in the very [Pg 454]\nname. This signification interpreters usually endeavour to obtain by\nderiving the word from [Hebrew: geh] \"to roar,\" of which it is properly\nthe Partic. Fem., hence \"the roaring one;\" but it is more easily\nobtained by adopting the derivation from [Hebrew: gve], just as\n[Hebrew: wve] is derived from [Hebrew: wve], a derivation which was\nfirst proposed by _Hiller_, S. 127. [Hebrew: gve] is used of a violent\ndeath, no less than of a natural death; thus Numb. xvii. 27, 28, of a\ndeath like that of the company of Korah, Datham, and Abiram; comp.\nZech. xiii. 8. This derivation being assumed, Goah would denote\n\"expiring,\" \"hill[6] of expiring,\" which would be a very suitable name\nof the place for the execution of criminals. _Vitringa_, in commenting\nupon Is. xxx. 33, already expressed the conjecture that Goah, [Hebrew:\ngl gveth] might perhaps be identical with Golgotha, but retracted it,\nbecause the Evangelists explain Golgotha by [Greek: kraniou topos]. But\nthis is no sufficient and conclusive reason. When the Aramean became\nthe prevailing language, the name of the place may have received a new\netymology, just as the Fathers of the Church derive [Greek: pascha],\nfrom [Greek: paschein], and many similar instances. It has already been\nobserved that the appellation, \"place of skulls,\" is rather strange,\ninasmuch as the skulls did not remain in the place of execution.[7] The\nuse of \"skull\" for \"the place of skulls,\" as well as the omission of\nthe _L_, have been found strange. But all that is easily accounted for,\nif the new signification, which substantially agreed with the former,\nwas merely transferred to the word. The identity of Goah and Golgotha\ncannot be disputed,--at least, not from the situation. From Heb. xiii.\n12, it is certain that Golgotha, as an unclean place, was situated\noutside the city; that it was situated on the West side is, it is [Pg\n455] true, testified by tradition only; comp. _Krafft_, S. 168 ff.;\n_Ritter_, _Erdk._ xvi. 1, S. 422 ff.--We now come to the valley of\ncarcasses and of ashes. Even from the position, it becomes probable\nthat this is the valley of Hinnom. The North and West sides are already\ndone, and hence the South and East sides only remain. But the valley of\nHinnom was situated towards the South, or South-east of Jerusalem,\ncomp. _Krafft_, S 2; v. _Raumer_, S. 269. The valley of the carcasses\nis here brought into immediate connection with _all_ the fields\n(_q.d._, all the other fields), unto the brook Kidron, and is hence\ndesignated as a portion of the valley of Kidron. But the valley of\nHinnom was the Southern, or South-eastern continuation of the valley of\nKidron, which extended on the East side. To this it may be added that,\nin this context, we must necessarily expect the mention of the valley\nof Hinnom, but that otherwise it would be wanting. Among all the\nunclean places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. There could\nbe no greater victory of the Kingdom of God over the world, than if\nthis strictest antithesis to the holy city, this image of hell, was\nincluded within the Holy City. It is only with respect to the cause of\nthe appellation, that some doubt may exist, [Hebrew: pgr], [Hebrew:\npgriM] is a common designation of dead bodies, of carcasses. There is\nnot one among the twenty-two passages in which it occurs, where it\nrefers to deceased righteous ones. It is used of the dead bodies of\nanimals, of idols, Lev. xxvi. 30; of the dead bodies of those whom the\nLord has smitten in His anger and wrath, Jer. xxxiii. 5; 1 Sam. xvii.\n46; Amos viii. 3; Neh. iii. 3; Is. lxvi. 24; of such as are, after\ndeath, treated like beasts, Jer. i. 49. Hence, opinions such as that of\n_Venema_ fall to the ground, who supposes that the valley had that\nname, because it was the public burying-ground. But there is,\nnevertheless, scope for difference of opinion. One may understand by\n[Hebrew: pgriM] the carcasses of animals;--the valley of Hinnom would,\nin that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable,\nand it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2\nKings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not\nwanting evident traces that, [Pg 456] even in former times, the valley\nserved this purpose. In Is. xxx. 33, it is said in reference to the\nAssyrians: \"For Tophet (_Gesenius_ arbitrarily changes the _nomen\nproprium_ into an _appellativum_, and translates: the place for\nburning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made\ndeep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance.\" This\npassage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or\nTophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however,\nused for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly\nburning in it, on which the carcasses of animals were burned. Such a\nplace of execution and burial is already prepared for the carcasses of\nthe Assyrians rebelling against God. Even the existence of the name\nTophet, _i.e._, _horror_, _abomination_, bears witness to the impure\ndestination. The second passage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City,\nthe place where formerly the carcasses of the beasts were lying, there\nnow lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in\ntimes past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is\ntrue, that _Vitringa's_ objection, that it can scarcely be imagined\nthat the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very\nplausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it\ncannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very\nwell be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our\npurpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet\nlooks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and\nthat by [Hebrew: pgriM] here the corpses of transgressors are to be\nunderstood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be\nburied in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too\nfar-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet,\nas the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those\npassages and that before us.--But, besides the arguments already\nadvanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is\nreally the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in [Hebrew:\nhemq] forbids us to view it as being in the _Stat. construct._ and\nconnected with the following words. We must translate: \"And the whole\nvalley, (viz. the valley of) the carcasses and ashes.\" The place is,\nhence, first designated as \"the valley,\" without any further\nqualification, and receives this qualification only afterwards. But it\nis just the valley of Hinnom which, in Jer. ii. 23, is [Pg 457]\ndesignated as the valley [Greek: kat' exoch\u00ean], and the gate leading to\nit, as the gate of the valley, in Neh. ii. 13, 15; comp. remarks on\nZech. xi. 13.--In reference to [Hebrew: dwN], _Gousset_ Lex. p. 368,\nremarks: \"The words [Hebrew: dwN], and [Hebrew: dwN] are used only of\nthe ashes of the sacrificial animals, and their removal.\" This\nobservation is confirmed by every careful examination of the passages\nin question. Never are [Hebrew: dwN] and [Hebrew: dwN] used otherwise\nthan of the ashes of sacrificial animals; comp. Lev. i. 16; vi. 3, 4; 1\nKings xiii. 5; Numb. iv. 13; Exod. xxvii. 3. The derivation of the\nsignification \"ashes,\" from the fundamental signification \"fat,\" as\nadvanced by _Winer_ and others (_cinis_ = _pinguefactio agrorum_), is\ntherefore wrong. On the contrary, even the burnt fat was still\nconsidered as fat; the ashes of the fat are the [Hebrew: warit], the\nresiduum of the fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation\nis very much facilitated. In Lev. vi. 3, 11, it is said: \"And he (the\npriest, after having offered up the burnt-offering) shall put off his\ngarments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without\nthe camp into a clean place.\" According to this regulation, the ashes\nof the sacrificial animals were considered as relatively unclean. The\npriest had to put off his holy garments, and to put on common garments,\nand to carry the ashes without the camp,--afterwards without the Holy\nCity. Hence, in contrast to the sacrifices themselves, the ashes were\nconsidered as the impure residuum which is found in everything which\nmen do in relation to God, as the image of sinful contamination\nattaching to all, even the best works, and to the holiest elevation of\nthe heart. If, then, the place where the ashes are deposited is to be\nincluded within the boundaries of the Holy City; is, in holiness, to be\nequal to the place where the sacrifices themselves are offered,--what\nelse can be signified thereby, than that the unholy is to be\noverpowered by the holy, the earthly by the divine, by means of a more\nglorious communication of the Holy Spirit? It is quite analogous, when\nZechariah represents the horses as being in future adorned by the Lord\nwith the symbol of holiness, which formerly the High-priest only wore;\ncompare remarks on Zech. xiv. 20. This one argument might be brought\nforward against the explanation which we have given, viz., that we\ncannot well imagine that this was the destination of [Pg 458] the\nvalley of Hinnom, because, according to the Law, the ashes of the\nsacrifices were to be carried to a _clean_ place; because that which\nonce stood in connection with that which is most holy and pure,\nalthough, in itself, it may be unclean, must not be mingled with that\nwhich is absolutely and constantly unclean. But in opposition to this\nwe remark, that it was not this whole valley that was unclean, but only\nthe place Tophet in it; and that if sometimes the whole is designated\nas unclean, it is only because it included this most unclean among\nall unclean places; comp. chap. vii. 31, xxxii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii.\n10.--There cannot be any doubt that \"the [Hebrew: wrmvt] unto the brook\nKidron\" are identical with the fields of Kidron, [Hebrew: wdmvt qdrvN],\nmentioned in 2 Kings xxiii.; but much to be doubted is the correctness\nof the common supposition (after the example of _Kuypers_, _ad varia V.\nT. loca_, in the _Syll. Dissert. sub praes. Schultens, et Schroederi_,\nt. 1. p. 537), that [Hebrew: wrmvt] is identical with [Hebrew: wdmvt].\nIf that were the case, we could not see why Jeremiah should have\nexchanged the common word for an uncommon one, which elsewhere does not\noccur. Jeremiah is fond of exchanging words of similar sounds, and\nespecially words differing from one another merely by one letter, and\nespecially by [Hebrew: d] and [Hebrew: r]; but these exchanges are\nalways significant. (Compare _K\u00fcper_. Jerem. p. xiv. and 43, and\n_History of Balaam_, p. 447 f.) Although we cannot, with certainty, fix\nthe meaning of [Hebrew: wrmvt], yet so much seems to be sure, that this\nword was one which more accurately designated the nature of those\nplaces than the current _nomen proprium_, inasmuch as it would be\nabsurd to substitute for it another name, if there had not been deeper\nreasons. One need only compare the [Hebrew: hr hmwHit] itself which, in\nthe simple historical prose, is used of the Mount of Olives, 2 Kings\nxxiii. 13. The most simple and natural supposition is the following.\nAll the significations of the verbs [Arabic: **], [Arabic: **],\n[Arabic: **] in Arabic run together in that of _cutting off_. [Hebrew:\nwdmvt] the Plural of the Feminine of the Adjective [Hebrew: wrm] are,\naccordingly, _loca abscissa_, places which are cut off and excluded\n[from the Holy City] outwardly (_Aq._: [Greek: proasteia]), and, at the\nsame time, inwardly. Thus we obtain a striking contrast between their\npresent nature and future destination. What is now distinctly separated\nfrom the holy, [Pg 459] then become holiness, [Hebrew: qdw]. From 2\nKings xxiii. it appears, moreover, that the fields of Kidron were\nunclean. It was thither as to an unclean place, that Josiah caused all\nthe abominations of idolatry to be carried, and to be burnt; comp. ver.\n4 (Josiah commanded all the vessels which had been made to Baal and\nAshera to be brought forth out of the temple): \"And he burned them\n_without Jerusalem_ in the fields of Kidron.\" Ver. 6: \"And he brought\nout the Ashera out of the house of the Lord, _without Jerusalem_, unto\nthe brook Kidron, and he burned them in the valley of Kidron.... And\ncast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people.\"\nThese last words (the children of the people = the mob, high and low,\nwho had polluted themselves by idolatry, comp. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4: \"And\nhe strewed the dust upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto\nthem\") enable us perhaps to conjecture the cause of the uncleanness of\nthese fields. They served as a burying ground to the adherents of the\nworship of Moloch, who were anxious to rest in the neighbourhood of\ntheir idol, which dwelt in the neighbouring Tophet; and this is the\nmore easily accounted for, that it is very probable that the sacrifices\noffered up to the idol were, in a great measure, sacrifices offered for\nthe dead.--[Hebrew: qdw lihvh] refers to every thing mentioned in the\nverse before us. As regards the last words, comp. Remarks on Zech. xiv.\n11.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The person of the Messiah meets us as the living centre of\nthe salvation in ver. 9: \"And they serve the Lord their God, and David\ntheir King, whom I will raise up unto them;\" on which words _Jonathan_\nremarks: \"And the Messiah the Son of David;\" and _Abarbanel_: \"This is\nKing Messiah, who is of the house of David, and is therefore called by\nhis name.\" From the parallel passages, Hos. iii. 5; Is. lv. 3, our\npassage differs in this, that David here does not, as in those\npassages, designate the family of David which centres in Christ, but\nthe person of the Messiah. The commentary is furnished by chap. xxiii.\n5: \"I raise unto David a righteous Sprout.\" The circumstance, that it\nis not the Sprout of David, but David, that is spoken of here, is\nexplained from a reference to the words which the ten tribes spoke at\ntheir rebellion, 1 Kings xii. 16: \"We have no portion in David, neither\nhave we inheritance in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel.\" To\nthe person of the Messiah the Prophet reverts once more towards the\nclose also: \"And their glorious one shall be out of themselves, and\ntheir governor shall proceed from the midst of them (compare Mic. v. 1,\n2, [2, 3]), and I cause him to draw near, and he approacheth unto me;\nfor who is surety for his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord?\"\nGod himself receives the King of the Future into the closest communion\nwith Him,--\"I and the Father are one\"--a communion which no one can\nusurp by his own power, and which, in the case of the former kings,\neven in that of David, was frequently disturbed by their sinful\nweakness.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._ 1 S. 138) assigns to the\nphrase the meaning: \"to make an arrangement.\" But decisive against this\nis not only the derivation, (comp. _Gesenius Thesaurus_), but the\ncircumstance also, that it is almost exclusively and quite manifestly\nused of a relation resting on reciprocity, of the making of a covenant\nin the ordinary sense; and that the few instances where there is\napparently a reference to one party, form an exception only to the\nrule.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Even the most recent interpreters, who take [Hebrew: bel]\n_ sensu malo_, still greatly differ,--a proof that this interpretation\nhas a very insufficient foundation on which to rest. _Gesenius_, _De\nWette_, _Bleek_ (on Heb. viii. 9), retain the explanation by\n_fastidire_, _rejicere_; _Maurer_ translates: _dominarer_, _domini\npartes sustinerem_, contrasting tyrannical dominion with a relation of\nlove; _Ewald_: \"Seeing that I am her master and protector;\" _Hitzig_:\n\"And I got possession of her.\" All these interpretations are opposed by\nthe _usus loquendi_, according to which [Hebrew: bel] has only the two\nsignifications: \"to possess,\" and \"to take for a wife,\" the latter\nbeing the ordinary and prevailing one.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Not less than these, _Hitzig_ too has allowed himself to\nbe carried away by the appearance. He says: \"Then, indeed, the office\nof religious instructors must cease.\"]\n\n[Footnote 5: According to _Krafft_ (_sur Topographie Jerus._ S. 158),\nit is only the hill Bezetha which, by the third wall of Agrippa, was\nadded to the town, that can correspond to the situation of Gareb.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Thenius_, in the appendix to the Commentary on the Books\nof Kings, S. 24, remarks: \"[Hebrew: gl] does not, in any of the\ndialects, denote the natural hill of rocks, but merely stones heaped\nup.\" Hence, the hill would be an artificial hill for the execution of\ncriminals. (Compare the German word _Rabenstein_, lit. \"raven-stone,\"\nfor: place of execution.)]\n\n[Footnote 7: This objection would be removed if, following _Thenius_\nand _Krafft_, S. 158, we were to explain the name from the form of the\nhill, which is that of a skull. But _none_ of the Evangelists at least\nhave advanced this explanation. The fact that three of them add the\nGreek explanation to the name (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix.\n17), and one translated it into Greek (Luke xxiii. 33) shows that it\nstood in connection with the event in question. But this circumstance\nis quite decisive, that three Evangelists explain it by [Greek: kraniou\ntopos], \"place of a skull.\"]\n\n[Footnote 8: Compare the Book _Kosri_, p. 72. _Buxtorff_ says: \"Gehenna\nwas a well-known place near Jerusalem, viz., a valley in which the fire\nwas never extinguished, and where unclean bones, carcasses, and other\nunclean things, were burned.\"]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXXIII. 14-26.\n\n\nStill before the destruction, but in the view of it, the Prophet, while\nin the outer court of the prison, was favoured with the revelation\ncontained in chap. xxxii., and with that revelation of which our\nsection forms a portion. It may appear strange that, in the\nintroduction, the revelation of great things hitherto unknown to him is\npromised to the Prophet, and which he is told to seek by calling unto\nthe Lord; while, after all, the subsequent prophecy contains scarcely\nany prominent, peculiar feature. But this is easily explained, when we\ntake into consideration that, throughout Scripture, dead [Pg 460]\nknowledge is not regarded as knowledge; that the hope of restoration\nhad, in the natural man, in the Prophet as well as in all believers, an\nenemy that strove to darken and extinguish it; that, therefore, the\npromise of restoration was ever new, and the word of God always great\nand exalted. In the first part of the revelation, after the destruction\nhad been represented as unavoidable, and all human hope had been cut\noft, the restoration is described more in general terms. In the second\npart, the Lord meets a two-fold special grief of the believers. The\ntime was approaching when the house of David was to be most deeply\nhumbled, when every trace of its former glory was to be done away with.\nWith it, the hopes of the people seem to be buried. God himself had\ndeclared this house to be the medium, through which all the mercies\nwere to come, which He, as the King, had promised to bestow upon His\npeople. But what was to become of the mercies, if the channel was\ndestroyed, through which they were to be bestowed upon the people? The\ntemple which, through the guilt of the people, had been changed into a\nden of robbers, was to be destroyed. But, with the existence of the\ntemple, the existence of the Levitical priesthood was bound up, and if\nthe latter was done away with, how was to be obtained forgiveness of\nsins, which, in the Law, had been connected with the mediation of the\nLevitical priesthood? These fears and cares the Lord now meets by\ndeclaring that, in both respects, the perishing would be an arising,\nthat life should arise from death.\n\nThe genuineness of this section has been assailed by _Jahn_ (_Vaticinia\nMess._ iii. p. 112, ff.[1]), after the example of _J. D. Michaelis_,\nwho, in the German translation of the Bible, inclosed it within\nbrackets. For the present, we mention only the internal\nreason--deferring the refutation till we come to the exposition of\nparticulars--because we require it in order to set aside the external\nreason. Jahn, p. 121, sums it up in these words: \"The matter stands in\nopposition to all the prophecies of Jeremiah and all the other\nProphets. For all of them limit themselves to the one David who was to\ncome [Pg 461] after the captivity, and do not mention any successor to\nhim, far less such a multitude of descendants of David and of Levites,\nwhich is promised to the people under the name of a blessing, but which\nwould, in reality, have been a very heavy burden to the people, at\nwhose expense they were to be splendidly maintained.\" The external\nreason is the omission of the section in the Alexandrian version.\nProceeding upon the altogether gratuitous assumption of a double\nrecension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, people imagine that, by the\nomission in the Alexandrian version, they are entitled to suppose that,\nin that recension which the LXX. followed, this section was not\ncontained. But the arguments are most unsatisfactory, by which the\nattempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the\nLXX., were not found by them in their manuscripts. Where there\nnotoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want\nof a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are\nout of place which suppose just the opposite of all these (comp.\n_e.g._, the inferences in _Jahn_, S. 116 ff.) Although we cannot\nsometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make\nany omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the\ntext, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, _a priori_, expect\nanything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim? It\nis quite sufficient that in a multitude of passages we can point out\nthe most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions,\nalterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we\nare in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable\nevery where to expect reasons. Now, to these passages, that before us\nlikewise belongs; so that, even supposing that the ground of the\ndeviation sometimes lies in a different recension, our passage cannot\nbe regarded as belonging to this class; and, hence, from its omission,\nnothing can be inferred against its genuineness. A twofold reason here\npresents itself, which may have induced them to the omission: 1.\nImportant elements of the prophecy under consideration have already\noccurred, vers. 15, 16, almost _verbatim_, in chap. xxiii. 3, 6; vers.\n20-25, as regards the thought, altogether, and as regards the words,\npartly agree with chap. xxxi. 35-37; and it is certain that the LXX.\noften omitted [Pg 462] that which had occurred previously, because they\nwere unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repetition, and\ntransferred their own ignorance to the Prophet. 2. In that which\nwas peculiar to the passage before us, it was just the principal\nthought--the same which _J. D. Michaelis_ and _Jahn_ advance against\nthe genuineness--which must have been most objectionable to the LXX.,\nwho were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning. An increase of\nthe Levites and of the family of David as the stare of the heavens and\nthe sand of the sea, is a thought of which the Prophet must be freed,\nwhether he entertained it or not. The omission in the Alexandrian\nversion, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000\nyears before _J. D. Michaelis_, _Jahn_, _Hitzig_, and _Movers_, there\nwere men who were as little able to understand the text as these\nexpositors.\n\nVer. 14. \"_Behold days come, saith the Lord, and I perform the good\nword which I leave spoken unto the house of Israel, and concerning the\nhouse of Judah._\"\n\nThe \"good word\" may, in a more general way, be understood of all the\ngracious promises of God to Israel, in contrast to the evil word, the\nthreatenings which hitherto had been fulfilled upon Israel; comp. 1\nKings viii. 56, where Solomon, in the prayer at the consecration of the\ntemple, says: \"Blessed be the Lord, that has given rest unto His people\nIsrael, according to all which He spoke; there has not failed (the\nopposite of [Hebrew: qvM]) one word of all His good word which He spoke\nthrough Moses His servant.\" In Deut. xxviii. the _good_ word and the\n_evil_ word are placed beside one another; and the former is blessed,\nfrom vers. 1-14; afterwards, the curse is declared. The centre and\nsubstance of this good word was the promise to David, through whose\nrighteous Sprout all the promises to Israel should find their final\nfulfilment. But we may also suppose that, by the \"good word,\" the\nProphet specially denotes this promise to David, which he had repeated\nin chap. xxiii. 5, 6. This latter supposition is preferable, since, in\nvers. 15, 16, that repetition of it is quoted, and ver. 17 contains an\nallusion to the fundamental promise. The change of [Hebrew: al] and\n[Hebrew: el] is significant; Judah is considered as the object of the\nproclamation of salvation, because salvation cometh from the Jews. The\ncorrectness of this view is proved by [Pg 463] vers. 15, 16, where that\nonly is spoken of, which, in the first instance, belongs to Judah; so\nthat Israel is only received into the communion of the salvation, in\nthe first instance, destined for Judah.\n\nVer. 15, 16. \"_In those days and at that time will I cause a righteous\nSprout to grow up unto David, and he worketh justice and righteousness\nin the land. In those days Judah is endowed with salvation, and\nJerusalem dwelleth safely; and this is the name by which she shall be\ncalled: The Lord our righteousness._\"\n\nIt is intentionally that the promise is here repeated in the former\nshape, in order to show that it still existed; that the glaring\ncontrast presented by the present state of things was not able to annul\nit; that even in the view of the destruction, of the deepest abasement\nof the house of David, it still retained its right and power. Instead\nof [Hebrew: hqimvti], the more suitable [Hebrew: acmiH] is here used,\nbecause the reference to Jehoiakim does not take place in this passage,\nas it did in the previous one. Instead of Israel, which is found there,\nwe have here Jerusalem, because it was just the restoration of\nJerusalem, which it was so difficult for the faithful to believe, after\nits destruction had been described in ver. 4 ff. For the same reason,\nthe Prophet here assigns the same name to Jerusalem which he did there\nto the Sprout of David. The same city, which as yet is groaning under\nthe wrath of God, shall, in future, be endowed with righteousness by\nthe Lord.\n\nVer. 17. \"_For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut of from\nDavid a man sitting upon the throne of the house of Israel._\"\n\nThe connection with what precedes is pertinently brought out by\n_Calvin_: \"The Prophet had spoken of the restoration of the Church;\nthat doctrine he now confirms by promising, that both the kingly and\npriestly office should be perpetual; and it was just these two things\nwhich constituted the salvation of the people. For, without a king,\nthey were just like a cut-off tree, or a mutilated body; without a\npriest they were in a state of dispersion. For the priest was the\nmediator between God and the people, but the king represented the\nperson of God.\" The expression [Hebrew: la ikrt], \"there shall not be\ncut off,\" &c., is a simple repetition of the promise to David, in [Pg\n464] that form in which it had been quoted by David himself, shortly\nbefore his death, in his address to Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 4, and\nafterwards twice by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 25, ix. 5. It does not\ndesignate an uninterrupted succession, but forms the contrast only to a\nbreaking off for ever. This appears even from the circumstance that, in\nthe fundamental promise, God reserves to himself the punishment of the\napostate members of the Davidic house, and that in Jeremiah the\nannouncement of its utter abasement is so frequently repeated.\n\nVer. 18, \"_And to the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off\nbefore me a man, offering burnt-offerings, and kindling meat-offerings,\nand doing sacrifice all days._\"\n\nIn order rightly to understand these words, it is necessary to go back\nto their cause; for it is from the grief only that the comfort receives\nits explanation. The Prophet has here not by any means to do with\nmembers of the tribe of Levi mourning over the loss of the prerogatives\nof their tribe. If such were the case, it would be necessary to hold\nfast by the letter, inasmuch as it is only when the letter is adhered\nto, that the promise can afford consolation for such grief. The\nProphet's consolations, on the contrary, are destined for all the\nbelievers, who were mourning over the destruction of the relation to\nGod, which hitherto had existed through the mediation of the tribe of\nLevi. If only the relation remained, it was of little importance\nwhether it was realised by the tribe of Levi, as heretofore, or in some\nother way. Just as the grief has respect to the substance only, so has\nthe consolation also. Israel, in future too, shall retain free access\nto his reconciled God,--that is the fundamental thought; and every\nthing by which this thought was manifested and realised in history, in\nwhat form soever it might be, must be viewed as comprehended in it. We\nthus obtain a threefold fulfilment: 1. In the time after the return\nfrom the captivity, the consolation was realised in the form in which\nit is here expressed. The fact, that God admitted and promoted the\nrebuilding of the temple, was an actual declaration that the Levitical\npriesthood was reinstated in its mediatorial office. 2. In the highest\ndegree the idea of the Levitical priesthood was realised through\nChrist, who, as a High-Priest and Mediator, bore the sins of His\npeople, and made intercession for the transgressors, and [Pg 465] in\nwhom the Levitical priesthood ceased, just as the seed-corn disappears\nin the stalk. 3. Through Christ, the believers themselves became\npriests, and obtained free access to the Father.--The following reasons\nshow that we have a right to maintain this independence of the thought\nupon the form: 1. The Prophet is so penetrated with the thought of the\nglory of the New Dispensation far outshining that of the Old, that,\n_even a priori_, we could not suppose that, as regards the priesthood,\nhe expected an eternal duration of its form, hitherto so poor. It is\nthe substance only which, in his view, is permanent. One need only\ncompare the section, chap. xxxi. 31 ff. How intentionally does he here\nbring forward the idea that the New Covenant would not be like the Old;\nhow does he point from the shadow to the substance! But it is\nespecially chap. iii. 16 which, in this respect, is to be regarded. In\nthat passage, the ceasing of the former dignity of the Ark of the\nCovenant is announced repeatedly, and in the strongest terms; and we\nhave already seen that, along with the Ark of the Covenant, the temple,\nthe Levitical priesthood, the whole sacrificial service stands in the\nclosest and most indissoluble connection; so that all this must fall\nalong with it. 2. A very important proof is furnished by ver. 22, which\nmust be regarded as a declaration, by the Prophet himself, as to the\nmanner in which he wishes to be understood. Now, in that verse, it is\npromised that all the descendants of Abraham shall be changed into\nLevites; and this is declared to form a part of the eternal acceptance\nof the tribe of Levi, promised in the verse under consideration. This\nshows then, that, in the verse under review, the Levites cannot come\ninto consideration as descendants of Levi after the flesh, but only as\nregards their destination and vocation. 3. As the most ancient and\nauthentic interpreter of Jeremiah, Zechariah must be considered. He was\nmost anxious to obviate the same fears which Jeremiah here meets; and,\nin him, the first two of the three features which Jeremiah comprehends\nin the unity of the idea, appear separated, but in such a manner that\nthe connecting unity of the idea is not lost sight of In Zech. iii.,\nGod assures the people that, notwithstanding the greatness of their\nsins, He would not only allow the office of High-priest to continue as\nheretofore, and accept his mediation, but that, at some future period,\n[Pg 466] He would also send the true High-priest, who should make a\ncomplete and everlasting atonement. In ver. 8, the High-priest and his\ncolleagues in the priestly office are designated as types of Christ\nwho, putting most completely to shame the people's despair in God's\nmercy, should fully accomplish the expiation and atonement which the\nformer had effected only imperfectly. In chap. iv. the priestly is,\nalong with the royal order, designated as one of the two sons of the\noil, the two anointed ones of the Lord, whose anointing remaineth for\never; and from chap. vi. 13, where the Messiah appears as the true\nHigh-priest and King at the same time, it appears that, here too, the\nshadow only belongs to the Levitical priesthood, but the substance to\nChrist. 4. Elsewhere, too, plain examples are not wanting, in which the\nidea of the priesthood only is regarded, while the peculiar form of its\nmanifestation under the Old Testament is lost sight of. Among those is\nIs. lxi. 6, where, in reference to all Israel, it is said: \"And ye\nshall be named priests of Jehovah, ministers of our God shall they call\nyou.\" Here the change of all Israel into the tribe of Levi is\nannounced; and the objection which, perhaps, might be brought forward,\nthat here only priests in general are spoken of, while Jeremiah speaks\nof Levitical priests, is met by the second passage, chap. lxvi. 21:\n\"And from them also will I take for _Levitical_ priests saith the\nLord.\" It makes no difference for our purpose whether \"from them\" be\nreferred to the Gentiles (which is the correct view, compare p. 360),\nas is done by _Vitringa_ and _Gesenius_, or to the Israelites living in\nexile. For, although the latter interpretation be received, yet so much\nis certain, that such shall be taken for Levitical priests as were not\ndescendants of Levi: for, otherwise, no _taking_, no special divine\nmercy would have taken place. Even the Law already knows an _ideal_\npriesthood by the side of the ordinary one; and such an one meets us\nalso in Ps. xcix. 6; compare my Commentary on that passage.--After\nhaving thus fixed the sense of the promise referring to the Levitical\npriesthood, it will not be difficult to discover the right view in\nreference to the family of David. Here, too, a threefold fulfilment\ntakes place. 1. It was realized in the times immediately after the\ncaptivity, when Zerubbabel, a scion of the Davidic house, became the\nmediator of the mercies which God [Pg 467] as King, vouchsafed to His\npeople. To a certain degree, that mercy too comes in here which, at a\nlater period, God, in His capacity as King, bestowed upon the people by\nmeans of civil rulers, who were not from the house of David. For, since\nthe dominion had been for ever transferred to the house of David, these\nrulers can be considered only as being engrafted into it, as\nrepresentatives and vice-regents,--much in the same way as the\nblessing, which was bestowed upon the people by the priestly office of\nthe non-priest Samuel, must be considered as being included in the\npromise in reference to the Aaronic priesthood. For all that God\nvouchsafed through those rulers, was for the sake of the Davidic house\nonly, which for ever had been destined to be the channel of His regal\nblessings. If the kingdom of David had really been at an end, He would\nnot have given to the people even those rulers, and the deliverance and\nprosperity granted to them,--as is clearly seen from a comparison of\nthe times, after the great Hero of David's race ascended the throne,\nwhen every trace of the regal grace of God in raising other rulers\nceased; for now, that the race of David itself rules again, and for\never, no representation of it can any more take place. But, in the\npassage under consideration, it would the less be suitable to separate\neverything which does not, in the strictest sense, belong to it, that\nhere the promise to David is not viewed with reference to him and his\nhouse, but solely with reference to the people. Hence, the\nmanifestation of the regal grace of God forms the centre; and the house\nof David comes into consideration, only in so far as it was destined to\nbe the mediator of this grace. 2. It was fulfilled in Christ; and from\nvers. 15, 16, it appears that the Prophet had this fulfilment chiefly\nin view. These two fulfilments are connected with one another by\nZechariah also, in chap. iv.--3. It was realized by the raising of the\nwhole true posterity of Abraham to the royal dignity, through Christ.\nThis most striking antithesis to the despair--the despair saying: there\nis no king in Israel; the consolation: all Israel are kings--is\nexpressly brought forward in ver. 22.--We still remark that we must\nnot, by any means, as is commonly done, translate: \"To the priests and\nLevites,\" but, as also in Is. lxvi. 21: To the Levitical priests;\ncompare the arguments in proof in _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, p.\n329 ff. The epithet, [Pg 468] \"Levitical,\" is added in order to prevent\nthe thought that, perhaps, priests in another than the literal sense\nare spoken of, compare p. 360. It serves therefore the same purpose as\nthe expression: \"He ruleth as a king,\" in chap. xxxiii. 5.--As regards\nthe sacrifices, we must not by any means suppose, as is done by the\nancient interpreters, that spiritual sacrifices are here simply spoken\nof. The correct view rather is, that the Prophet represents the\nsubstance under its present form, in and with which it would now soon\nbe lost for a season; and as he has to do with the substance only, he\ndoes not say anything as to whether this substance would, in future,\nrise again in the same form, and whether it was to continue for ever in\nthat form. History has answered the first in the affirmative, and the\nsecond in the negative; and from chap. iii. 16, it appears that the\nProphet, too, would, upon _inquiry_, have answered in the negative as\nregards the last point. Moreover, how well they knew, even under the\nOld Testament dispensation, to distinguish, in reference to the\nsacrifices, between the substance and the form, considering the latter\nas a thing merely accidental, is seen from passages such as Hosea xiv.\n3 (2): \"Take with you words, and turn to the Lord and say unto Him:\n_Take_ all iniquity, and _give_ good, and we will recompense to thee\nbulls, our lips.\" Here the thanks are represented as the substance of\nthe thank-offering, and, indeed, so perfectly, that the thank-offering,\nthe bullocks, is _entirely_ where only thanks, the lips, are. The\noutward sacrifice is the vessel only in which the gift is presented to\nGod. _Farther_--Ps. iv. 14, where, in contrast to the merely external\nsacrifices, it is said: \"Offer unto God thanksgivings;\" Mal. i. 11, and\nmany other passages.\n\nVers. 19, 20. \"_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: Thus\nsaith the Lord, If ye will make void my covenant, the day, and my\ncovenant, the night, so that there shall be no more day and night in\ntheir season_; Ver. 21. _Then also shall be void my covenant with\nDavid, my servant, that he shall not have one who reigns on his throne,\nand with the Levitical priests, my servants._\"\n\nThe word [Hebrew: tprv] is very significant. _Calvin_ says: \"The\nProphet indirectly reproves the wickedness of the people, because, as\nmuch as lay with them, they destroyed the covenant [Pg 469] of God by\ntheir obstreperous cries.... This incredulity, therefore, the Prophet\nblames, and it is as if he were saying: To what are these complaints to\nlead? It is just as if you were trying to draw down sun and moon from\nheaven, and to do away with the difference between day and night, and\noverturn all the laws of nature, because it is I, the same God, whose\nwill it was that the night should follow the day, who have also\npromised, &c.\"--[Hebrew: hivM] and [Hebrew: hlilh] are appositions to:\nMy covenant. The day and night in their regular succession are the\ncovenant which is here spoken of The phrase [Hebrew: ivmM vlilh], which\nsignifies \"by day and night,\" \"daily and nightly,\" stands here for:\n_tempus diurnum et nocturnum_. \"The covenant,\" [Hebrew: brit], does not\nby any means stand here in the signification _stabilis ordinatio_; nor\nis it be considered as being entered into with the day and night;\nthese, on the contrary, are the covenant-blessings. God, who vouchsafed\n_them_, and all that is connected with them, that the sun shines by\nday, and the moon by night, enters thereby, according to the\nexplanation given on chap. xxxi. 32, into a covenant with man. By the\ninviolable maintenance of the course of nature, He binds himself to the\ninviolable maintenance of the moral order. This clearly appears when we\nconsider that, after the great flood, the covenant with nature is anew\nentered into, and its inviolability anew established; comp. Gen. ix. 9:\n\"Behold, I establish my covenant _with you_, and with your seed after\nyou;\" viii. 22: \"All the days of the earth, seed time and harvest, and\nheat and cold, and summer and autumn, and day and night shall not cease\nany more.\" With these covenant-promises, covenant-laws and obligations\nare connected, which the covenant imposes. With this covenant of\nnature, which is common to all men, and which, at Noah's time, was not\nmade for the first time, but only renewed, the covenant of grace, which\nis peculiar to Israel only, stands on a level. To assert that the\nlatter has become void, is nothing else than to attempt to pull sun and\nmoon down from heaven. For it is one and the same God who has made both\ncovenants.\n\nVer. 22. \"_As the host of heaven is not numbered, and as the sand of\nthe sea is not measured, so will I increase the seed of David, my\nservant, and the Levites that minister unto me._\"\n\nEven considered in itself, the literal fulfilment of this verse [Pg\n470] involves an absurdity. Such an increase of the bodily descendants\nof David lies beyond the bounds of possibility; and even if this were\nnot the case, yet this increase, just as the similar increase of the\nLevites, would not have the nature of a promise, but that of a\nthreatening. At all events, the consolation would have no relation to,\nor connection with, the grief For the latter did not refer to the\nnumber of the descendants of David, and that of the Levites, but to\ntheir acceptance with God, and, in them, to the acceptance of the\npeople; but that acceptance has nothing to do with number. To this,\nanother reason is still to be added. It cannot be denied that there is\na verbal reference to the promise to Abraham in Gen. xv. 5, xxii. 17.\nSince, then, these words, which originally referred to all Israel, are\nhere transferred to the family of David, and to the Levites, it is\nthereby sufficiently intimated that all Israel shall be changed into\nthe family of David, and into the tribe of Levi. This idea need not at\nall surprise us. It has its foundation in the Law itself All that is\nannounced here is, that the vocation and destination of the\ncovenant-people, which is already expressed in the Law, but which\nhitherto was realised only very imperfectly, is, at some future period,\nto be perfectly realised. In Exod. xix. 6, God says of Israel: \"Ye\nshall be unto me a kingdom of priests, [Hebrew: mmlkt khniM].\"[2]\nHence, first a kingdom. The nature of a kingdom is, not to have any\npower over it other than the Divine power, and to have everything else\nunder its authority. By this declaration, the dominion of the world was\nsecured to the people of God. This high prerogative always remained\nwith the covenant-people so long as they had not, by their guilt,\nspontaneously got under a moral servitude to the world. The outward\nservitude was always a reflection of the inward only. It never was\ninflicted upon the covenant-people as such, but always upon that\ncovenant-people which had become like the world. And even when this\n_unnatural_ condition took place, this high dignity was not forfeited\nby the single individuals who, knowing that they were purchased at a\nhigh price, had kept themselves inwardly free from the bondage of the\nworld. Although in fetters and bonds, they yet remained inwardly free.\nWorld, [Pg 471] sin, death, and hell, could do them no harm. Yea,\nnotwithstanding all outward appearance of victory, those enemies were,\nin reality, ruled by them; and even their outward servitude was, when\nmore deeply considered, a sign of their dominion. For the Law of the\nLord of Hosts was in their inward parts; it was the living principle of\ntheir existence. It was according to this Law that the whole world was\ngoverned; and it was according to it that the servitude of their people\nalso took place. They were thus co-regents with God, and, as such,\nruled over their rulers.--All the single members of this kingdom, which\nconsists entirely of kings, were, at the same time, to be priests. In\nthese words it was already implied and declared, that the Levitical\npriesthood, which was instituted at a later period, could not have that\nimportance which the priesthood had with other nations of antiquity,\nwhere priests and people stood in an absolute antithesis, which\nadmitted of no mediation, and where it was the priests only who stood\nin an immediate relation to God. It was thereby implied and declared,\nthat the priests, in one aspect, (in other respects, they were types\nand foreshadowings of Christ) possessed rights that were only\ntransferred to them; that they were representatives of Christ, and\nthat, hence, their mediation would, at some future period, disappear\naltogether. And in order that the people might always remain fully\nconscious of this; in order that they might know that they themselves\nwere the real bearers of the priestly dignity, they retained, even\nafter the institution of the Levitical priesthood, that priestly\nfunction which formed the root and foundation of all others, viz., the\nslaying of the covenant-sacrifice, of the paschal lamb, which formed\nthe centre of all other sacrifices, inasmuch as the latter served only\nas a supplement to it. That, even under the Old Testament dispensation,\nthis importance of the paschal rite was duly recognized, is seen from\n_Philo_, _de vita Mos._ (p. 686, Francf.): \"In offering up the paschal\nlamb, the office of the laymen is by no means simply to bring the\nsacrificial animals to the altar, that they may be slain and offered up\nby the priests; but, according to the regulations of the Law, the whole\npeople exercise priestly functions, inasmuch as every one in his own\nbehalf offers up the prescribed sacrifice.\"--We have thus here before\n[Pg 472] us the highest completion of the comfort for the mourning\ncovenant-people. They are not merely to receive back their king, their\npriests; nay, they are altogether to be changed into a kingly and\npriestly generation. It must not be overlooked that, in substance, this\nwas already contained in the promise to Abraham. We have already proved\nin Vol. i. p. 211, ff., that this promise to Abraham does not refer to\na great number of bodily descendants, _tales quales_, but that, on the\ncontrary, it refers only to such sons of Abraham as are, at the same\ntime, sons of God; hence, to a royal and priestly generation.--If now\nwe look to the fulfilment, the passage which, above all, presents\nitself, is 1 Pet. ii. 9: [Greek: humeis de genos eklekton, basileion\nhierateuma k.t.l.] Here that passage of Exodus is represented as a\nprophecy which, in the present only, was fulfilled. Israel has now\nbecome that which, according to its destiny, it ought always to have\nbeen, a host of royal priests,--priests who at the same time have a\nroyal nature and character. That which now already exists perfectly in\nthe germ, shall, at some future period, come forth in full development,\naccording to Rev. v. 10: [Greek: kai epoi\u00easas autous t\u00f4 the\u00f4 h\u00eam\u00f4n\nbasileis kai hiereis, kai basileusousin epi t\u00eas g\u00eas.] Believers, when\nsin has been extirpated in them, shall have the freest access to God.\nWhen His will shall have become theirs, and when, at the same time, His\ndominion over the whole world appears more visibly, they shall\nunconditionally rule with Him. How this dignity of theirs has its\nfoundation in Christ, is seen from Rev. i. 5, 6, where the words:\n[Greek: kai epoi\u00easen h\u00eamas basileian, hiereis t\u00f4 the\u00f4 kai patri\nhautou], stand in close connection to [Greek: ho arch\u00f4n t\u00f4n basile\u00f4n\nt\u00eas g\u00eas], and to [Greek: kai lusanti h\u00eamas apo t\u00f4n hamarti\u00f4n h\u00eam\u00f4n en\nt\u00f4 haimati hautou.]\n\nVer. 23. \"_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying:_ Ver. 24.\n_Dost thou not see what this people are speaking, and say: The two\nfamilies which the Lord hath chosen, He hath now rejected them, and my\npeople they despise, that they should still be a people before them._\"\n\nIt is scarcely conceivable how modern interpreters can assert that by\n\"this people,\" not the Israelites, but Gentiles, the Egyptians or\nChaldeans, or the \"neighbours of the Jews on the Chaboras,\" (_Hitzig_),\nor the Samaritans (_Movers_), are to be understood. In advancing such\nassertions, it is overlooked [Pg 473] that the Prophet has here quite\nthe same persons in view as in the whole remaining section, and as in\nthese chapter's throughout, viz., those among Israel--and to them more\nor less all belonged, even those most faithful--who, because they saw\nIsrael prostrate, for ever despaired of its deliverance and salvation;\nand, indeed, for the most part, in such a manner as to give to this\ndespair a good aspect, viz., that of humility. They imagined, and said\nthat the people had sinned in such a manner against God, that He was\nfree from all his obligations, and could not at all receive them again.\nTo those the Prophet shows that such a thought is, notwithstanding the\nfair appearance, blasphemy. All despair abases God into an idol, into a\ncreature. Faith holds fast by the word, by the promise. It says:\nAlthough sin abounds with us, the grace of God does much more abound.\nAs truly as God always remains God, so surely His people will always\nremain His people. He indeed chastises them, but He does not give them\nover to death. One need only consider the [Hebrew: tprv] in ver.\n20.--The expression \"this people,\" is contemptuous, comp. Is. viii. 11.\nThe Prophet thereby intimates that those who use such language, cease\nthereby to be members of the people of God. The \"two families\" are\nJudah and Israel. These had, in the preceding verses, likewise been, in\nsubstance, the subject of discourse; for the election and rejection of\nthe tribe of Levi, and of the house of David, had been treated of in so\nfar only, as they stood in relation to the election or rejection of the\npeople; so that here only the same thing is repeated in a different\nform, in consideration of the fact, that weak faith and despair are so\nslow to hear. The words: \"He hath now rejected them,\" were, in a\ncertain sense, true; but not in the sense of the speakers. They, on the\ncontrary, maintained, in opposition to the election, a rejection for\never, which was tantamount to: Jehovah, the eternal and unchangeable\nOne, is no more Jehovah; He is a man that He lieth, and a son of man\nthat He repenteth. As surely as God is Jehovah, so surely also [Greek:\nametamel\u00eata ta charismata kai h\u00ea kl\u00easis tou theou], Rom. xi. 29. The\nexpression \"_my_ people,\" directs attention to how God is now despised\nin Israel. On the contrast between \"_my_ people\" and \"a people,\"\ncompare remarks on chap. xxxi. 36.\n\nVer. 25. \"_Thus saith the Lord: If not my covenant daily_ [Pg 474] _and\nnightly, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and\nearth_;\"--\n\nCompare ver. 20. The covenant daily and nightly, _i.e._, the covenant\nwhich refers to the constant and regular alternation of day and night.\nThe ordinances of heaven and earth denote the whole course of\nnature,--especially the relations of sun, moon, and stars, to the\nearth, comp. chap. xxxi. 35--in so far as it is regulated by God's\nordinance, and is, therefore, a lasting one.\n\nVer. 26. \"_So will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David, my\nservant, that I do not take farther from his seed rulers over the seed\nof Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will turn to their captivity, and\nhave mercy upon them._\"\n\nThe casting away of the seed of Jacob, and that of the seed of David,\nare inseparably connected. For since, by the promise to David, the\nkingdom had been for ever bound together with his race, Israel was no\nmore the people of God, and no more a people at all, if David was no\nmore the servant of God. The Plural [Hebrew: mwliM] is easily accounted\nfor, from the circumstance that it was not the number, but only the\n_fact_ that was here concerned (comp. remarks on chap. xxiii. 4, and,\nat the same time, those on ver. 18); but it is beyond any doubt, that\nthe Prophet has here in view the revival of the dominion of David in\nthe Messiah,--has it, at least, chiefly in view. The enumeration of the\nthree Patriarchs recalls to mind the whole series of the promises\ngranted to them. The words: \"I will turn to their captivity\" (not: \"I\nwill turn their captivity,\" compare remarks on Ps. xiv. 7; captivity is\nan image of misery), rest on Deut. xxx. 3.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: They have been joined by _Movers_ (_de utriusque recens.\nJerem. indole_), who declares ver. 18 and 21-24 to be a later\ninterpolation (comp. against this view _K\u00fcper_, S. 173, and\n_Wichelhaus_, de Jerem. Vers. Alex., p. 170), and _Hitzig_, according\nto whom the whole portion, vers. 14-26, consists of \"a series of single\nadditions from a later period.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: Compare the discussions on this passage in my Commentary\non Rev. i. 6.]\n\n\n\n\n END OF VOLUME SECOND.","title":"Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Vol. 2","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":200869}