THIS chapter is occupied with promises of restoration and deliverance, external safety and internal peace, to God’s own people, as contrasted with the ruin previously threatened to their enemies. Borrowing his imagery from the fall of the Assyrian forest, just before predicted, the Prophet represents a shoot as springing from the prostrate trunk of Jesse, or rather from his roots, and invested by the Spirit of Jehovah with all the necessary attributes of a righteous judge and ruler, vs. 1—4. The pacific effect of the Messiah’s reign is then described by the beautiful figure of wild and domestic animals dwelling and feeding together, and of children unhurt by the most venomous reptiles; to which is added an express prediction that all mutual injuries shall cease in consequence of the universal prevalence of the know ledge of Jehovah, vs. 5—9. To these figures borrowed from the animal creation, the Prophet now adds others from the history of Israel, but in tended to express the same idea. The Messiah is here represented as a signal set up to the nations, gathering the outcasts of his people from all quarters, and uniting them again into one undivided body, free from all sectional and party animosities, vs. 10-13. Under figures of the same kind, the triumph of the church is then represented as a conquest over the old enemies of Israel, especially those nearest to the Holy Land; while the interposition of God’s power to effect this and the preceding promises is vividly described as a division of the Red Sea and Euphrates, and a deliverance from Egypt and Assyria, vs. J4-16.
The evidently figurative character of some parts of this chapter seems to furnish a sufficient key to the interpretation of those parts which in themselves would be more doubtful.
1. The figure of the preceding verse is continued but applied to a new subject, the downfall of the house of David and the Jewish state, which is contrasted with the downfall of Assyria. The Assyrian forest was to fall forever, but that of Judah was to sprout again. And there shall come forth a twig (or shoot) from the stock (or stump) of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall grow. According to Aben Ezra, Hendewerk and others, this refers to Hezekiah exclusively, and according to Grotius as a type of Christ. But Hezekiah was already born, and the house from which he sprang was not in the condition here described. Others refer it to Zerubbabel, and others to the Maccabees, who were not even descend ants of Jesse. The Targum explicitly applies it to the Messiah (szkv. Eichhorn, Bauer, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, DeWette, Hitzig, E\vald, also apply it to an ideal Messiah whom Isaiah looked for. The modern Jews of course suppose it to be yet unfulfilled. The only application of the passage that can be sustained is that to Jesus Christ, who sprang from the family of Jesse when reduced to its lowest estate, and to whom alone the subsequent description is literally applicable. Abarbenel objects that Christ was not a descendant of Jesse unless he was really the son of Joseph. But even if Mary had been of another tribe, her marriage would entitle her offspring to be reckoned as a Son of David; much more when she herself was of the same lineage. It is enough to know, however, that the fact of Christ’s descent from David is not only repeatedly affirmed, but constantly presupposed in the New Testament, as a fact too notorious to be called in question or to call for proof.— sta is not the seed (Aben Ezra) nor the root (Septuagint) nor even the trunk or whole stem of a tree (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk), but the stump or part remaining above ground when the tree is felled, as translated by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (xoQfiov), and explained by Kimchi (pfo i» pt> JT» •sfost) t>p). Together with the parallel term roots, it is an emblem not of mere descent or derivation, as alleged by Hitzig and Hendewerk, but of derivation from a reduced and almost extinct family, as explained by Calvin, Cocceius, Vitringa, Hengstenberg, Ewald and Umbreit. Jesse is supposed by Hitzig and Hendewerk to be named instead of David for the purpose of excluding the latter, or of intimating a correlative descent from the same ancestor. According to Kimchi, he is named as the last progenitor before the family attained to royal rank; according to Umbreit, simply to indicate the antiquity of the house. Vitringa’s explanation is more probable, viz. because Jesse resided at Bethlehem,where Christ was to be born, and because the family is here considered as reduced to the same obscure condition in which Jesse lived, as contrasted with that to which David was exalted, and which the mention of the latter would naturally have recalled to mind. This last reason is also given by Calvin and Hengstenberg.
2. The person, whose origin and descent are metaphorically de scribed in the preceding verse, is here described by his personal qualities, as one endowed with the highest intellectual and moral gifts by the direct influences of the Holy Spirit. And upon him shall rest the Spirit of Jehovah, a Spirit of wisdom and understanding, a Spirit of counsel and strength, a Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah. The Targum seems to explain srjrn n^n as the first item in the catalogue, meaning the spirit of prophecy or inspiration. Gataker takes it as the cause of which the others are effects. But Kimchi more correctly understands it as a general designation of the self-same spirit which is afterwards described in detail. So Saadias and Aben Ezra understand it—’ the Spirit of Jehovah which is a Spirit of wisdom’ etc. Hengstenberg understands the Spirit of Jehovah, a stronger expression than the Spirit of God, the former having more explicit reference to the government and edification of the church. Gesenius, as usual, explains the Spirit of Jehovah as an influence, but it obviously means a person. The following genitives do not denote qualities but effects of the Spirit. The Spirit of Jehovah is not here described as being himself wise etc. but as the author of wisdom in others. This is evident from the last clause, where the fear of Jehovah cannot be an attribute of his Spirit, but must be a fruit of his influence. The qualities enumerated are not to be confounded as mere synonymes, nor on the other hand distinguished with metaphysical precision. That the latter process must be an arbitrary one, may be seen by a comparison of any two or more attempts to define the terms precisely. On the same etymological basis have been founded the most opposite interpretations. Thus the gift of prophetic in spiration is supposed to be intended both by the Spirit of Jehovah (Vitringa) and the Spirit of counsel (Reinhard), both suppositions being perfectly gratuitous. When Hengstenberg, who takes a just view of the principle on which the passage ought to be interpreted, departs so far from it in practice as to attempt a precise discrimination between JtEsn and Mi^a, he proposes one directly opposite to that proposed by Hendewerk, though both agree that one relates to theoretical and the other to practical wisdom. The truth is that none of these terms is entirely exclusive of the others. Wis dom, understanding, the knowledge of God, the fear of God, are all familiar scriptural descriptions of religion or piety in general. Wisdom and under standing are often joined as equivalent expressions. The latter, according to its etymology, strictly denotes the power of discernment or discrimination. Both are applied to theoretical and practical wisdom, and especially to moral and religious subjects. Counsel and strength are the ability to plan and the ability to execute, neither of which can avail without the other. The knowledge of God does not in itself mean the love of him (Vitringa), although it may infer it as a necessary consequence. The correct know ledge of him certainly produces godly fear or holy reverence, and the two are probably put here for religion in the general, and are so explained in the Septuagint (jvwae&s x«« evGsfisias) and Vulgate (scientiae et pietatis). The six attributes here enumerated are grouped in three distinct pairs, the first and last of which, as Hengstenberg supposes, have respect to personal qualities, the second to such as are official; but Ewald distinguishes the first as theoretical, the second as practical, the third as spiritual or religious. Hendewerk ingeniously and earnestly maintains that all these epithets relate to Hezekiah and are verified in his history—the wisdom in 2 Kings 18:7, he acted wisely (^sur) whithersoever he went—the spirit of counsel and might in 2 Kings 18: 20, and in his subduing the Philistines (-2 Kings 18:8) etc. The simple statement of this exposition is sufficient to refute it. The only person in whom the terms of this prediction have been verified is Jesus Christ, whose wisdom displayed itself in early life and is expressly ascribed to a special divine influence; who proved himself a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; whose ministry was not only characterized by forti tude and boldness, but attested by miracles and mighty deeds; whose knowledge of divine things far surpassed that of all other men; and who was himself a living model of all piety. This application is maintained, not only by the older Christian writers, and by Hengstenberg and Hender son, but also by Umbreit. It is an old opinion that the seven spirits of the Apocalypse have reference to the sevenfold n*n of this passage.
3. The Messiah is now described as taking pleasure in true piety and recognizing its existence by an infallible sagacity or power of discerning good and evil, which would render him superior to the illusions of the senses and to every external influence. This faculty is figuratively described as an exquisite olfactory perception, such as enables its possessor to distinguish be tween different odours. And his sense of smelling (i. e. his power of perception, with a seeming reference to the pleasure it affords him) shall be exercised in (or upon) the fear of Jehovah (as an attribute of others), and (being thus infallible) not by the sight (or according to the sight) of his eyes shall he judge, and not by the hearing of his ears shall he decide. The Septuagint (followed by J. D. Michaelis, Doederlein, Hensler, Koppe, Kuinol, Cube) takes irmn as a preterite with a suffix, and explains the verb as meaning to fill with the Spirit or inspire. Forerius, Clericus, Herder, Vanderpalm, Hendewerk and Ewald, make it mean to breathe. ‘His breath is in the fear of Jehovah.’ Nihil nisi pietatem spirabit (Forerius). Reinhart makes it mean to blow, as an expression of anger. But the only sense confirmed by usage is to smell—his smell is in the fear of Jehovah. Schmidius applies this to the sweet-smelling savour of our Lord’s atoning sacrifice, and J. H. Michaelis to his sacerdotal functions. Sanctius and Paulus understand it to denote his odour as perceived by others. But it rather denotes actively his smelling or olfactory perception. This is understood by Jarchi, Kimchi, Eichhorn, Henderson and Umbreit, as a figure for discernment or discrimination between false and true religion; and by Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, DeWette, Barnes and Knobel, for the act of taking pleasure as the sense does in a grateful odour. But these two meanings are perfectly consistent, and the phrase is therefore best ex plained by Cocceius, Vitringa, Lowth and Hengstenberg, as comprehending an infallible discernment and a feeling of complacency. He shall take de light in goodness, and be able to distinguish it without fail from its counter-
feits. Gataker understands mninx^a as denoting that this power of discernment should be exercised in sacred, not in secular affairs; Junius, Piscator, and Vatablus, that it should be joined with or attended by the fear of God. But the a is really a connective, which the verb n-nn commonly takes after it, and adds no more to the meaning of the phrase than the English prepositions when we speak of smelling to or o/a thing instead of simply smelling it. The meaning therefore must be that the fear of God or piety in others would itself be the object upon which this faculty was to exert itself. Grotius, Clericus, Gesenius, and Henderson, understand by the hearing of his ears reports or rumours, Hitzig and others complaints and arguments before a judge, both which interpretations are too much restricted. I jThe sight of the eyes and the hearing of the ears are put for the testimony j of those senses by which men are chiefly governed in their judgments. The same erroneous view of the passage, which led Hitzig to restrict the hearing of the ear to forensic litigation, has led Barnes and Umbreit to apply the whole of the last clause to judicial partiality or respect of persons. Hendewerk extends this application only to the sight of the eye, and makes the hearing of the ear relate to actual deception of the judge by arguments or testimony. All this is implicitly included in the text, but it includes much more. It is no doubt true that as a judge the Messiah would be equally exempt from all disposition to favour the rich and the great at the expense of the poor, and from all liability to imposition; but it is also true, and here declared, that he should not judge of character at all by the senses, but by an infallible sagacity or power of discerning good and evil.—According to Cocceius, the mention of eyes and ears implies the real humanity of the Messiah. Aben Ezra explains the clause to mean that he would rely upon the sense of smelling rather than that of sight or hearing, and Kimchi even says instead of sight and hearing. This interpretation is connected with an old Jewish notion, that the Messiah may be known, when he appears, by his power to distinguish moral character through the sense of smell. In this way the famous false Messiah Bar Kokba (son of a star), is said to have been proved an impostor, and his name changed to Bar Kozba (son of a lie). The original authorities are cited by Gill in his Commentary on this place. Traces of this opinion have been found by some in the New Testament (Luke 7: 39. John 1: 49), but on very insufficient grounds. Grotius applies the verse to Hezekiah in the following manner. His consolation (in’nsi) shall be in the fear of the Lord (L e. afforded by religion). He shall not judge according to the sight of his eyes (i. e. shall not despair even under the most discouraging appearances). He shall not reason (rpsi*1) according to the hearing of his ears (i. e. he shall draw no conclusions from the rumours that may reach him, but believe the declarations of the Prophets). Thus explained, the passage is certainly an accurate description of that good king’s conduct during the time of the Assyrian invasion. In the English Version and by Lowth, r^si”1 is explained as meaning to reprove—by Luther, Junius, Clericus and Hengstenberg, to punish—by the Septuagint, Vulgate, Calvin, Cocceius, and Vitringa, to convince or convict but by J. H. Michaelis, Gesenius, Ewald, and others, to decide—and as |j this includes the others, and makes the parallelism more exact, it is undoubt- ‘ edly to be preferred.
4. The Messiah, as a righteous judge, is now exhibited in contrast with the unjust magistrates of Judah, as described in ch. 1: 23. 10: 2. 5: 23. And he shall judge in righteousness the weak (or poor) and do justice with equity (or impartiality) to the meek of the earth, and shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall slay the wicked.—By the earth to be smitten, Gesenius and others understand the inhabitants of the earth. But the expression seems at least to include the smiting of the earth itself, which is elsewhere represented as the object of God’s wrath, and is here described as cursed on man’s account. By a breath of his lips, some understand a sentence of death, or command to kill (Cocceius, Clericus, Hitzig, Hendewerk)—others a natural expression of anger (Gesenius, DeWette)—others a secret, imperceptible influence, producing conviction (Kimchi, Abarbenel, Vitringa). But the true sense:/ seems to be the one expressed by Calvin and Ewald—a mere word, or ) a mere breath, as something even less than a word, and yet sufficient to effect his purpose. The Targum adds to stB’n the word bi^a-w, used by the old Jews to denote the last great enemy of their religion, who is to kill Messiah the son of Joseph, but to be killed by Messiah the son of David. Paul, in 1 Thess. 2: 8, applies these words, with little change, to the destruction of Antichrist at the coming of Christ. It does not follow, how ever, that this is a specific and exclusive prophecy of that event, but only that it comprehends it, as it evidently does. If one of the Messiah’s works is to destroy his enemies, it cannot be fulfilled without the destruction of the last and greatest of those enemies to whom the Scriptures make allusion. ,j But as Hengstenberg observes, if the promise in the first clause is of general!* import, the threatening in the last must be coextensive with it.
5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithful ness the girdle of his reins, i. e. he shall be clothed or invested with these attributes, and they shall adhere closely to him. The metaphor of putting on or clothing one’s self with moral attributes is not unfrequent in the Scriptures. The girdle is mentioned as an essential part of oriental dress, and I that which keeps the others in their proper place, and qualifies the wearer 1 for exertion. Calvin supposes a particular reference to decoration, and Hendewerk to the military use of the girdle as a sword-belt. Lowth imagines -ntst in one of the clauses to be an error for iian, because all the ancient versions vary the expression except that of Symmachus, and because the common text is an inelegant tautology. But Gesenius gives a number of analogous examples from this very book, and the recurrence of the word has in fact a good effect, and none the less because the other words are varied. According to Hendewerk, the insertion of Tian would do violence to usage, because that is a generic term for all belts or girdles, including the •nts or military sword-belt, the •nisp or female sash, and the ii33x or sacer dotal cincture. These distinctions are not noticed in the lexicons. The Septuagint takes iit» in both clauses as a passive participle (-rtTx) agreeing with the subject of the verb (Ifttopfro?). The Chaldee paraphrase of this verse makes it mean, that the Messiah would be constantly surrounded by just and faithful men.
6. Here, as in ch. 2: 4 and 9: 5, 6, universal peace is represented as a consequence of the Messiah’s reign, but under a new and striking figure.—And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and young lion and failing together, and a little child shall lead them. The *iaj, so called from its spots, includes the leopard and the panther, and perhaps the tiger. The *PB3 is a lion old enough to roar and raven. The KB1}’1, rendered ox by the Septuagint and Peshito, and explained to be a particular kind of wild ox by Aben Ezra and Bochart, denotes more probably any fatted beast, and may here be mentioned because beasts of prey select such as their victims. The wolf is introduced as the natural enemy of the lamb, and the leopard, as Bochart tries to prove from Aelian, sustains the same relation to the kid. isia does not mean to dwell in general, but to sojourn as a stranger or a guest, and implies that the lamb should, as it were, receive the wolf into its home. The verb ya1! is specially appropriated to express the lying down of sheep and other animals. Here it may denote that the leopard, accustomed to crouch while waiting for its prey, shall now lie down peaceably beside it; or there may be an allusion to the restlessness and fleetness of the wild beast, now to be succeeded by the quiet habits of the ruminating species. The unusual construction fia Mib has led some to take s in the sense of among, and others to regard attb as a noun meaning leader or conductor. But the truth is that the insertion of 1 between words which seem to cohere most closely, is a common idiom of Hebrew syntax. (Vide supra, ch. 9: 1, 2.) sru is properly to lead, but may include the idea of driving, as a shepherd does his flock.—Some supply the substantive verb with virp— shall be together—but a simpler construction is to connect it with the verb in the preceding clause—the leopard and the kid shall lie down together, the calf, the young lion, and the fatted beast together.—Jerome speaks of the Jews and some judaizing Christians as believing that a literal change in the nature of wild beasts is here predicted. Kimchi regards it as a promise of immunity from wild beasts, to be enjoyed by the Jews alone in the days of the Messiah. Most Christian writers, ancient and modern, with Aben Ezra and Maimonides among the Jews, explain the p^rophecy^a^.wholly metaphorical, and descriptive of the peace to be enjoyed by God’s ^people— according to Grotius, after Sennacherib’s retreat—but according to the rest, under the new dispensation. Cocceius and Clericus apply the passage to the external peace between the church and the world, but it is commonly regarded as descriptive of the change wrought by Christianity in wicked men themselves. Vitringa gives a specific meaning to each figure in the landscape, making the lamb, the calf, and the fatted beast, denote successive stages in the Christian’s progress, the lion open enemies, the leopard more disguised ones, the wolf treacherous and malignant ones, the little child the ministry. This kind of exposition not only mars the beauty but obscures the real meaning of the prophecy. Calvin and Hengstenberg suppose the passage to include a promise of a future change in the material creation, restoring it to its original condition (Rom. 8: 19-22), while they agree with other writers in regarding the pacific effects of true religion as the primary subject of the prophecy.
7. And the cow and the bear shall feed—together shall their young lie down—and the lion like the ox shall eat straw. According to Vitringa, there is here a climax, not in form but in sense; not only shall the nobler lion be at peace with the domesticated animals, but even the less generous and more ferocious bear. The Septuagint and Peshito repeat “Hrn, in which they are followed by most interpreters, and Lowth inserts it in the text. But according to Hitzig, the wonder is not that the bear grazes with the cow, but that it grazes at all, the cow being mentioned only to show what kind of pasture is intended. The sense will then be simply that the bear grazes like the cow, the very form of expression used in the last clause with respect to the lion. He mentions straw as a common kind of fodder— hordei stipulam bubus gratissimam—palea plures gentium pro foeno utuntur. (Pliny, Nat. Hist, xviii. 30.) The lion’s eating straw implies not only /i cohabitation with domestic cattle, but a change of his carnivorous habits./’ Vitringa carries out his allegorical hypothesis by making the cow the representative of Christians who have reached the point of giving as well as receiving instruction, of yielding milk as well as drinking it. He apologizes for the use of straw as an emblem of divine truth or the gospel, on the ground that its doctrines are so simple and uninviting to fastidious appetites. The arbitrary character of such interpretations is betrayed by Gill’s remark 15 that straw here means true doctrine, elsewhere false (1 Cor. 3: 12). The truth is that neither the straw nor the lion means any thing by itself; but the lion’s eating straw denotes a total change of habit, and indeed of nature, and is therefore a fit emblem for the revolution which the gospel, in proportion to its influence, effects in the condition of society, with some allusion possibly, as before suggested, to the ultimate deliverance of the y.riaig or irrational creation from that bondage of corruption, to which, for man’s sake, it is now subjected.
8. To express the idea still more strongly, venomous serpents are represented as innoxious, not to other beasts, but to the human species, and to the most helpless and unthinking of that species. And the sucking child shall play on (or over) the hole of the asp, and, on the den of the basilisk (or cerastes”) shall the weaned child stretch (or place) its hand.—*.TI is omitted by the Septuagint, and explained by Ewald as denoting the feelers of a horned snake, and the same sense is ascribed to rnsixa by J. D. Michaelis. But both words really denote a hole or cavity, STI^ISE properly a lighthole or aperture admitting light. Gesenius in his commentary follows Bochart in deriving it by permutation from miSE; but in his Thesaurus. he admits the derivation from ^n’tf. Aben Ezra and Kimchi make it mean the eye of the serpent itself, and Hitzig the shield between the eyes of the basilisk. The precise discrimination of the species of serpents here referred to, is of no importance to the exegesis. All that is necessary to a correct understanding of the verse is that both words denote extremely venomous and deadly reptiles. The weaned child means of course a child just weaned, which idea is expressed in translation by Vitringa (nuper depulsus a lacte), Lowth (the new-weaned child), and Gesenius (der kaum Entwohnte). The parallel terms are rendered by Henderson the suckling and the weanling. According to Jerome, this verse predicts the casting out of devils by our Lord’s disciples; according to Vitringa, the conversion or destruction of heretical teachers; while Cocceius makes it a specific prophecy of Luther, Calvin, and Huss, as the children who were to thrust their hands into the den of the antichristian serpents. It is really a mere continuation of the metaphor begun in v. 7, and expresses, by an additional figure, the change to be effected in society by the prevalence of true religion, destroying noxious influences and rendering it possible to live in safety.
9. The strong figures of the foregoing context are now resolved into literal expressions. They (indefinitely, men in general) shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, because the land is full of the knowledge of Jehovah (literally, of knowing him) like the waters covering the sea.— Aben Ezra seems to think that the verbs in the first clause must agree with the nouns in the preceding verse—they (the animals just mentioned) shall not hurt, etc. But the absence of the copulative shows that this is not so much a direct continuation of the previous description as a summary explanation of it. The true construction, therefore, is indefinite. Rosenmiiller distinguishes the two verbs as meaning to injure others and to injure themselves; but they are evidently used as mere equivalent expressions. My holy mountain does not mean the whole land of Israel, so called as being higher than all other countries (Kimchi)—nor the mountainous part of it (Jahn), to which there could be no reason for specially alluding, and of which the singular form -tii is not descriptive—but Zion, or Moriah, or the city built upon them, not considered simply as a capital city, in which a reformation was particularly needed (Hitzig), but as the seat of the true religion, and at that time the local habitation of the church. What was true of the church there is true of the church everywhere. The first clause clearly shows that the foregoing description is to be figuratively understood. That the wolf and the lamb should lie down together, means in other words, that none should hurt or destroy in the Messiah’s kingdom. The reason is given in the last clause, -ps may mean the land of Israel as the abode of the true religion, and the whole earth so far as the church was to become coextensive with it. For the syntax of the verbal noun with the accusative, see Gesenius <§> 130. 1. The sea, according to Kimchi and Gesenius. means the bottom or the basin of the sea. The construction of this clause by Luther and Augusti (as if covered with the waters of the sea) is very inexact. The *> is used instead of the more usual b?. The strict sense of the words is, covering with respect to the sea. The point of comparison is not the mere extent of surface (Vatablus) nor the depth (Vitringa), but the fulness of the land to the extent of its capacity. This passage is descriptive of the reign of the Messiah, not at any one period, but as a whole. A historian, as Vitringa well observes, in giving a general description of the reign of David, would not use language applicable only to its beginning. The prophecy is therefore one of gradual fulfilment. So far as the cause operates, the effect follows, and when the cause shall operate without restraint, the effect will be complete and universal. The use of the future in the first clause and the preterite in the second may imply, that the prevalence of the knowledge of Jehovah must precede that of universal peace. It is not till the land has been filled, with that knowledge, that men will cease to injure and destroy.—It will be sufficient to record without comment, that according to Cocceius the holy mountain is the reformed church. as the basilisk’s den was the church of Rome, and that the reconciliation here predicted is a mere external one between the people of God and their oppressors.
10. Having described the Messiah’s reign and its effects, he now brings his person into view again. And in that day shall the root of Jesse which (is) standing (or set up) be for a signal to the nations — unto him shall the gentiles seek, and his rest (or residence) shall be glorious. — Al most all interpreters take ttjrt in the indefinite sense, it shall be or come to pass, as a mere idiomatic introduction to what follows, leaving iznfci to be construed as a nominative absolute. But Ewald makes thfti itself the subject of «i^7, which is a simpler construction. — The root of Jesse is explained by Kimchi and most other writers to be put by metonymy for that which grows out of his roots and therefore equivalent to iah and ^ in v. 1. So the Q%a /lafiid of Rev. 5: 5 and 22: 16 is explained by Stuart as mean ing “ not root of David, but a root-shoot from the trunk or stem of David.” But Vitringa supposes the Messiah to be called the root of Jesse, because by him the family of Jesse is sustained and perpetuated; Cocceius, because he was not only his descendant but his Maker and his Saviour. Hitzig understands by the root that in which the root is reproduced and reappears. But Umbreit takes the word in its proper sense, and understands the prophecy to mean that the family of Jesse now under ground should reappear and rise to the height of a w, not a military standard, but a signal, especially one raised to mark a place of rendezvous, for which purpose lofty trees are said to have been sometimes used. A signal of the nations then is one displayed to gather them. ^2 describes it as continuing or permanently fixed. The reference is not to Christ’s crucifixion, but to his manifestation to the gentiles through the preaching of the gospel. Bias is here used as a synonyme of s^is, meaning not the tribes of Israel but other nations. To seek to is not merely to inquire about, through curiosity — or to seek one’s favour in the general — or to pay religious honours — but more specifically to consult as an oracle or depository of religious truth. By his rest we are not to understand his grave — or his death — or his sab bath — or the rest he gives his people — but his place of rest, his residence. There is no need of supplying a preposition before glory, which is an abstract used for a concrete — glory for glorious. The church, Christ’s home, shall be glorious from his presence and the accession of the gentiles. Forerius and J. D. Michaelis needlessly read “Ir.nj’o his offering.
1. 1. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day — not the days of Hezekiah (Grotius), nor the days of Cyrus and Darius (Sanctius), nor the days of the Maccabees (Jahn), but the days of the Messiah — the Lord shall add his hand (or add to apply his hand) a second time — not second in reference to the overthrow of Pekah and Rezin (Sanctius), or the return from Babylon (Forerius), or the first preaching of the gospel to the Jews (Cocceius), but to the deliverance from Egypt, r^uj is not pleonastic (Gesenius) but emphatic. His hand—not his arm (Hitzig)—as a symbol of strength (Targum)—not in apposition with the Lord, the Lord even his hand (Hitzig, Hendewerk), nor governed bji show understood (rov foi^ai), nor qualifying mspb (Grotius), but either governed by rVbz& understood (Luther, ausstrecken), or directly by q-O’T (Vulg. adjiciet manum). nisp is not the infinitive of WJ? (LXX. fyl&aat, Clericus), but of ns£. It does not mean merely to possess (Vulgate) but to acquire (Luther), especially by pur chase, and so to redeem from bondage and oppression (Vitringa), as ‘is-a is to subject them to it (Gesenius), although the true opposite of the latter verb seems to be STIB (Hendewerk). The remnant of his people—not the survivors of the original captives (Aben Ezra, Hendewerk)—but those liv ing at the time of the deliverance, or still more restrictedly, the remnant according to the election of grace (Calvin).—From Assyria etc. to be construed not with nispb (Abarbenel), but with ixisn, as appears from v. 16. The countries mentioned are put for all in which the Jews should be scattered.—There is no importance to be attached to the order in which they are enumerated (Cocceius), nor is the precise extent of each material. Assyria and Egypt are named first and together, as the two great foreign powers, with which the Jews were best acquainted. Pathros is not Parthia (Calvin), nor Arabia Petrsea (Forerius), nor Pharusis in Ethiopia (Grotius), nor Patures, in the Delta of the Nile (Brocard, Adrichomius), but Thebais or Upper Egypt, as appears not only from a comparison of Scriptures (Bochart), but also from the Egyptian etymology of the name (Jablonsky), as denoting the region of the south (Gesenius). It is distinguished from Egypt by the classical writers also.—s^s? is a dual form, properly denoting either upper and lower or middle and lower Egypt.— Cush is not merely Ethiopia proper (Gesenius), or the land of Midian (Bochart), or Babylonia (Septuagint), or India (Targum), but Ethiopia, perhaps including part of Arabia, from which it appears to have been settled (Calvin, J. D. Michaelis).—Shinar is properly the plain in which Babylon was built, thence put for Babylonia. Elam is not the rising of the sun (Septuagint), but Elymais, a province of Persia, contiguous to Media, sometimes put for the whole country. Hamath is not Arabia (Septuagint), but a city of Syria on the Orontes. (Vide supra, ch. 10: 9.) Islands of the sea, not regions (Henderson) which is too vague, nor coasts in general (J. D. Michaelis), nor islands in the strict sense (Clericus), but the shores of the Mediterranean, whether insular or continental, and substantially equivalent to Europe (Cocceius), meaning the part of it then known, and here put last, according to Cocceius, as being the most important.—This prophecy does not relate to the gentiles or the Christian church (Cocceius), but to the Jews (Jerome). The dispersions spoken of are not merely such as had already taken place at the date of the prediction (Gesenius), but others then still future (Hengstenberg), including not only the Babylonish exile but the present dispersion. The prophecy was not fulfilled in the return of the refugee^ after Sennacherib’s discomfiture (Grotius), nor in the return from Babylon (Sanctius), and but partially in the preaching of the gospel to the Jews. The complete fulfilment is to be expected when all Israel shall be saved. The prediction must be figuraatively understood, because the nations mentioned in this verse have long ceased to exist. The event prefigured is, according to Keith and others, the return of the Jews to Palestine; but according to Calvin, Vitringa, and Hengstenberg, their admission to Christ’s kingdom on repentance and reception of the Christian faith.
12. And he (Jehovah) shall set up a signal to the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel, and the dispersed of Judah shall he bring together from the four wings of the earth.—03 is not necessarily a banner (Luther) but a sign or signal (LXX. a^ior, Vulg. signum) dis played for the purpose of assembling troops or others at some one point.— To the nations, not among them (Luther), nor for them (English Version), which though essentially correct, is not so simple and exact as to the nations, i. e. in their sight. The nations thus addressed are not the Jews but the gentiles, and, as most interpreters suppose, those gentiles among whom the Jews were scattered, and who are summoned by the signal here displayed to set the captives free, or to assist them in returning, or, according to the rabbins, actually to bring them as an offering to Jehovah, a figure elsewhere used in this same book (ch. 66: 19,20). Hitzig indeed with double assurance pronounces that passage to be not only written by another hand but founded upon a misapprehension of the one before us. But the very same idea is expressed in ch. 14: 2. 49: 22. There is, however, another view of the passage, which supposes the nations or gentiles to be here mentioned as distinct from the Jews, and unconnected with them. The verse then contains two successive predictions, first, that the gentiles shall be called, and then that the Jews shall be restored, which agrees exactly with Paul’s account of the connexion between these events. Blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the gentiles be come in (Rom. 11: 25, 26). On this hypothesis, the signal is displayed to the gentiles, not that they may send or bring the Jews back, but that they may come themselves, and then the gathering of Israel and Judah is added, as a distinct if not a subsequent event. This last interpretation is favoured by the analogy of a New Testament prophecy, the first by an analogous prophecy of Isaiah himself.—Israel and Judah are put together to denote the race in general. Outcasts and dispersed are of different genders. The latter, which is feminine in form, is supposed by the older writers to agree with some word understood—such as souls (Pagninus), members (Junius), sheep (Piscator), families (Clericus), women (Gataker)—implying that no sex or rank would be passed by. According to Gesenius, the construction is an idiomatic one, both predicates belonging to both subjects, the exiled men of Israel and the scattered women of Judah, meaning the exiled men and scattered women both of Israel and Judah. (For other examples of this merismus or parallage elliptica, see ch. 18: 6. Zech. 9: 17. Prov. 10: 1.) At the same time he regards it as an example of another idiom which combines the genders to express totality. (Vide supra, ch. 3: 1.) But these two explanations are hardly compatible, and Henderson, with more consistency, alleges that there is no distinct allusion to the sex of the wanderers, and that the feminine form is added simply to express universality. Ewald, on the contrary, makes the distinction of the sexes prominent by adding to the participles man and wife. C]$3 is properly the wing of a bird, then the skirt or edge of a garment, then the extremity of the earth, in which sense it is used both in the singular and plural. The same idea is expressed by the four winds, with which in the New Testament are mentioned the four corners, and this last expression is used even here by Clericus and in the old French version. The reference of course is to the cardinal points of the compass, as determined by the rising and setting of the sun.—If this verse be understood as predicting the agency of the gen tiles in restoring the Jews, it may be said to have been partially fulfilled in the return from Babylon under the auspices of Cyrus, and again in all efforts made by gentile Christians to convert the Jews; but its full accomplishment is still prospective, and God may even now be lifting up a signal to the gentiles for this very purpose.—Hendewerk’s notion that this prophecy was fulfilled when many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem., and presents to HezeJciah king of Judah, so that he was lifted up (Kbs*^) in the sight of all nations from thenceforth (2 Chron. 32: 23), neither requires nor admits of refutation. The same may perhaps be said of Cocceius’s opinion, that this verse relates wholly or chiefly to the healing of divisions in the Christian church.
13. A.nd the envy of Ephraim shall depart (or cease), and the enemies of Judah shall be cut off. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex (oppress or harass) Ephraim. Jacob, in his prophetic statement of the fortunes of his sons, disregards the rights of primogeniture and gives the pre-eminence to Judah and Joseph (Gen. 49: 8-12. 22-26), and in the family of the latter to the younger son Ephraim (Gen. 48: 19). Hence from the time of the exodus, these two were regarded as the leading tribes of Israel. Judah was much more numerous than Ephraim (Num. 1: 27, 33)—took precedence during the journey in the wilderness (Num. 2:3. 10: 14)—and received the largest portion in the promised land. But Joshua was an Ephraimite (Num. 13: 8), and Shiloh, where the tabernacle long stood (Jos. 18: 1. 1 Sam. 4: 3), was probably within the limits of the same tribe. The ambitious jealousy of the Ephraimites towards other tribes appears in their conduct to Gideon and Jephtha (Judges 8:1. 12: 1). Their special jealousy of Judah showed itself in their temporary refusal to submit to David after the death of Saul—in their adherence to Absalom against his father—and in the readiness with which they joined in the revolt of Jeroboam, who was himself of the tribe of Ephraim (1 Kings 11:26). This schism was, therefore, not a sudden or fortuitous occurrence, but the natural result of causes which had long been working. The mutual relation of the two kingdoms is expressed in the recorded fact, that there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and between Asa and Baasha, all their days (I Kings 14: 30. 15: 16). Exceptions to the general rule, as in the case of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, were rare, and a departure from the principles and ordinary feelings of the parties. The ten tribes, which assumed the name of Israel after the division, and per haps before it, regarded the smaller and less warlike state with a con tempt which is well expressed by Jehoash in his parable of the cedar and the thistle (2 Kings 14: 9), unless the feeling there displayed be rather personal than national. On the other hand, Judah justly regarded Israel as guilty, not only of political revolt, but of religious apostasy (Ps. 78: 9-11), and the jealousy of Ephraim towards Judah would of course be increased by the fact that Jehovah had forsaken the tabernacle of Shiloh (Ps. 78: 60), that he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved (ib. vs. 67, 68). To these historical facts Gesenius refers, as showing the incorrectness of DeWette’s assertion, that the hatred and jealousy existed only on the part of Judah—a paradox which may indeed be looked upon as neutralized by the counter-paradox of Hitzig, that they existed only on the part of Ephraim! They were no doubt indulged on both sides, but with this difference, that Ephraim or Israel was in the wrong from the beginning, and as might have been expected, more malignant in its en mity. This view of the matter will serve to explain why it is that when the Prophet would foretell a state of harmony and peace, he does so by declaring that the hereditary and proverbial enmity of Judah and Israel should cease. It also explains why he lays so much more stress upon the envy of Ephraim than upon the enmity of Judah, viz. because the latter was only an indulgence of unhallowed feeling, to which, in the other case, were superadded open rebellion and apostasy from God. Hence the first three members of the verse before us speak of Ephraim’s enmity to Judah, and only the fourth of Judah’s enmity to Ephraim; as if it had occurred to the Prophet, that although it was Ephraim whose disposition needed chiefly to be changed, yet Judah also had a change to undergo, which is therefore intimated in the last clause, as a kind of after-thought. The envy of Ephraim against Judah shall depart—the enemies of Judah (in the kingdom of the ten tribes) shall be cut off—Ephraim shall no more envy Judah—yes, and Judah in its turn shall cease to vex Ephraim. There is indeed another construction of the verse, ancient and sanctioned by very high authority, which makes the Prophet represent the parties as precisely alike, and predict exactly the same change in both. This construction supposes rviin1? “nnbs to mean> not the enemies of Judah (whether foreign, as Cocceius thinks, or in the sister kingdom), but the enemies (of Ephraim) in Judah, or those of Judah who are enemies to Ephraim. This construction, which is copied by Rosenmuller and Gesenius from Albert Schultens, is really as old as Kimchi, who remarks upon the clause, for of old there were in Judah enemies to Ephraim. Against it may be urged, not only the general principle of Hebrew syntax, that a noun in regimen with an active participle denotes the object of the action, but the specific usage of this very word. Hainan is called c^n^ri Tn’s, the enemy (or oppressor) of the Jews (Esther 3: 10), and Amos (5: 12) speaks of those who treat the righteous as an enemy (P^rs ^s). In all the cases where a different construction of the participle with a noun has been alleged, either the usual one is precluded by the connexion or the nature of the subject, or the syntax is more doubtful than in the case before us (e. g. Ex. 5: 14. 1 Sam. 19: 29. 1 Kings 2: 7. 5: 32). Knobel’s assertion that the participle is used as a noun, and does therefore signify the object of the action, is contradicted by the usage of ^s, already stated. A still more arbitrary method of attaining the same end is that proposed by Seeker and approved by Lowth, who read h^s as an abstract meaning enmity, or the modification suggested by Gesenius, of taking the active participle itself as an abstract noun. These constructions are so violent, and the contrary usage so plain, that the question naturally arises, why should the latter be departed from at all? The answer is, because the favourite notion of exact parallelism requires it. All the writers who maintain this opinion assume that the second clause must express the same idea with the first, and in the same order. Luther indeed was satisfied with an inverted order, and by giving to the first phrase the sense of envy against Ephraim (which is not more unauthorized than to make the other mean enemies in Judah), has contrived to make the first clause correspond to the fourth, and the second to the third (und der Neid wider Ephraim wird aufhoren, u. s. w.). But the modern writers must have a parallelism still more exact, and to this rhetorical chimera both the syntax and the true sense of the passage must be sacrificed. In this case we are able to produce an instance from another prophet, an older contemporary of Isaiah, in which the structure of the sentence coincides precisely with the one before us, that is to say, there are several successive clauses relating to one of the parties mentioned, and then a final one relating to the other. This example is found in Hos. 3: 3, And I said to her, thou shalt abide for me many days—thou shalt not play the harlot—and thou shalt not be another man’s—and I will also (act thus) to thee. So here, the jealousy of Ephraim shall cease—the enemies of Judah among them shall be cut off—Ephraim shall then no longer envy Judah—and Judah in return shall no longer be the enemy of Ephraim. The objection that the passage in Hosea is mere prose, is not only gratuitous, but concedes the liberty of assuming the same thing in the case before us. The influence exerted on interpretation by this theory of perfect parallels is clear in this case, from the fact that Hengstenberg follows Gesenius without any hesitation, and that Ewald (though he modifies the meaning of *ns) adopts the same construction, in direct opposition to his own authority (Heb. Gr. $ 208), which Hitzig had cited in defence of the true interpretation. The tendency of this theory is moreover apparent from the conclusion to which Hitzig himself comes, that although nW^ “n^bf can only mean the enemies of Judah, the second clause evidently puts the other sense upon it, and is there fore an interpolation! Umbreit alone of the recent German writers has the good sense and taste to reject at once this wanton mutilation of the text and the forced construction of the sentence, and to understand the sentence in the simple and obvious meaning put upon it by the ancient versions and by the older writers who have not been mentioned.—The fulfilment of this prophecy is found by Hendewerk in Hezekiah’s efforts to reclaim the Israelites to the worship of Jehovah (2 Chron. 30). That it was not fulfilled in the return from exile, is sufficiently notorious. That it had not been fulfilled when Christ came, is plain from the continued enmity between the Jews, Samaritans, and Galileans. The only fulfilment it has ever had is in the abolition of all national and sectional distinctions in the Christian church (Gal. 3: 27, 29. 5: 6), to which converted Jews as well as others must submit. Its full accomplishment is yet to come, in the re-union of the tribes of Israel under Christ their common head (Hos. 1: 11).—Jarchi explains the verse to mean that Messiah the son o Joseph and Messiah the son of Judah shall not envy one another—Aben Ezra, that Ephraim shall not be jealous because the Messiah is to come of Judah. Cocceius applies the prophecy exclusively to future reconciliations in the Christian church.— -ns: is not to envy, as Schultens argues from the Arabic analogy, nor to be turbulent, as Ewald gives it, but to treat in a hostile manner, rno is strictly to depart, i. e. cease or be removed, as in ch. 10: 27.
14. Instead of assailing or annoying one another, they are represented as making common cause against a common enemy. And they (Ephraim and Judah, undivided Israel) shall fly (like a bird of prey) upon the shoulder of the Philistines towards the sea (or westwards)—together they shall spoil the sons of the east (the Arabians and perhaps the Syrians) Edom and Moab the stretching out of their hand (i. e. the object of that action) and the children of Ammon their obedience (i. e. their subjects). All the names are those of neighbouring nations with whom the Hebrews were accustomed to wage war. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, may be specially named for an additional reason, viz. that they were nearly related to Israel, and yet among his most inveterate enemies. The Jews explain this as a literal prediction having respect to the countries formerly possessed by the races here enumerated. Most Christian writers understand it spiritually of the conquests to be achieved by the true religion, and sup pose the nations here named to be simply put for enemies in general, or for the heathen world; this method of description being rendered more emphatic by the historical associations which the names awaken.—To fly upon means here to fly at, or, as Henderson expresses it, to pounce upon, the figure being that of an eagle or other bird of prey. The almost innumerable meanings put upon this verse and its peculiar expressions, may be found in Pool, Rosenmiiller, and Gesenius.
15. To the destruction of the enemies of Israel is added a prediction that all obstacles, even the most formidable, to the restoration of God’s people, shall be overcome or taken away by his almighty power. This idea is naturally expressed by the dividing of the Red Sea and Euphrates, because Egypt and Assyria are the two great powers from which Israel had suffered and was yet to be delivered. And Jehovah will destroy (by drying up) the tongue (or bay) of the sea of Egypt (i. e. the Red Sea), and he will wave his hand (as a gesture of menace or a symbol of miraculous power) over the river (Euphrates), in the violence of his wind (or breath), and smite it (the Euphrates) into- seven streams, and make (his people) tread (it) in shoes (i. e. dry-shod). The meaning of c”nnn is not to split, divide (Knobel), for which there is nothing but an Arabic analogy and a doubtful interpretation of nnnLev. 21: 18—but properly to consecrate by an irrevocable vow, and then by implication to destroy, which in this case could be done only by drying up. This last idea, therefore, is included, but there is no need of reading S’nnn, as Houbigant, Lowth, and Rosenmiiller do, on the authority of the ancient versions.—Tongue, which is applied in other languages to projecting points of land, is here descriptive of a bay or indentation in a shore. The sea of Egypt is not the Nile, as some suppose, although the name sea has been certainly applied to it from the earliest times—but the Red Sea, called the Sea of Egypt for the same reason that it is called the Arabian Gulf. The tongue of this sea is the narrow gulf or bay in which it terminates to the north-west near Suez, called by the old writers the Sinus HeroopoKtanut, to distinguish it from the Sinus Elaniticus, the north-east extremity. Through the former the Israelites passed when they left Egypt, and it is now predicted that it shall be utterly destroyed, i. e. dried up. At the same time the Euphrates is to be smitten into seven streams, and so made fordable, as Cyrus is said to have reduced the Gyndes by diverting its water into 360 artificial channels. Vitringa supposes a specific overthrow of Egypt and Assyria to be here predicted; Grotius, the division of the latter into several kingdoms. But the terms are probably strong figures drawn from the early history and experience of Israel. Gesenius, in the last edition of his lexicon, appears to favour the reading of ess for d^s (in the strength of his wind), suggested by Luzzatto, on the ground of the resemblance between n and s in the old He brew alphabet. The other reading, which occurs only here, is commonly explained to mean violent heat, and then secondarily violence in general.
16. And there shall be a highway for the remnant of my people, which shall be left, from Assyria, as there was for Israel, in the day of his coming up from the land of Egypt. This verse admits of two intepretations. According to one, it is a comparison of the former deliverance from Egypt with the future one from Assyria and the neighbouring countries, where most Jewish exiles were to be found. According to the other, it is a repetition of the preceding promise, that previous deliverances, particularly those from Egypt and Assyria, should be repeated in the future history of the church. The fulfilment has been sought by different interpreters, in the return from Babylon, in the general progress of the gospel, and in the future restoration of the Jews. The first of these can at most be regarded only as a partial or inchoate fulfilment, and against the last lies the obvious objection, that the context contains promises and threatenings which are obviously figurative, although so expressed as to contain allusions to remarkable events in the experience of Israel. Such is the dividing or drying up of the tongue of the Red Sea, which must either be figuratively understood, or supposed to refer to a future miracle, which last hypothesis is certainly not necessary, and therefore can be fully justified by nothing but the actual event.—nh?B is not simply a way, as the ancient versions give it, nor a fortified way as Cocceius explains it (via munita), but a highway as explained by Junius (agger) and Henderson (causey), an artificial road formed by casting up the earth (from ^b& to raise), and thus distinguished from a path worn by the feet (rp3 or in^ni). Knobel and some other of the later writers suppose an allusion to the desert after the crossing of the water, whereas all the older writers understand a way through the water itself. Grotius and Knobel connect i SPSS 13 with!”&?«, others with •Ktst], as in v. 11. The ambiguity of the Hebrew construction is skilfully retained in the English Version.
