HERE begins a series of connected prophecies (ch. VII-XII), belonging to the reign of Ahaz, and relating in general to the same great subjects, the deliverance of Judah from Syria and Israel, its subsequent subjection to _4assyria and other foreign powers, the final destruction of its enemies, the advent of Messiah, and the nature of his kingdom. This series admits of different divisions, but it is commonly agreed that one distinct portion is contained in the seventh chapter. Hendewerk and Henderson suppose it to include two independent prophecies (vs. 1-9 and 10-25), and Ewald separates the same two parts as distinct portions of the same prophecy. The common division is more natural, however, which supposes vs. 1—16:to contain a promise of deliverance from Syria and Israel, and vs. 17—25 a threatening of worse evils to be brought upon Judah by the Assyrians in whom they trusted.
The chapter begins with a brief historical statement of the iftxasion of Judah by Rezin and Pekah, and of the fear which it excited, to relieve which Isaiah is commissioned to meet Ahaz in a public place, and to assure him that there is nothing more to fear from the invading powers, that their evil design cannot be accomplished, that one of them is soon, to perish, and that in the mean time both are to remain without enlargement, vs. 1-9.
Seeing the king to be incredulous, the Prophet invites him to assure himself by choosing any sign or pledge of the event, which he refuses to do, under the pretext of confidence in God, but is charged with unbelief by the Prophet, who nevertheless renews the promise of deliverance in a symbolical form, and in connexion with a prophecy of the miraculous conception and nativity of Christ, both as a pledge of the event, and as a measure’of the time in which it is to take place, vs. 10—16.
To this assurance of immediate deliverance, he adds a threatening of ulterior evils, to arise from the Assyrian protection which the king preferred to that of God, to wit, the loss of independence, the successive domination of foreign powers, the harassing and predatory occupation of the land by strangers, the removal of its people, the neglect of tillage, and the transformation of its choicest vineyards, fields, and gardens, into wastes or pastures, vs. 17-25.
1. Rezin, the king of Damascene Syria or Aram, from whom Uriah had taken Elath, a port on the Red Sea, and restored it to Judah (2 Kings 14: 22), appears to have formed an alliance with Pekah, the murderer and successor of Pekahiah king of Israel (2 Kings 15: 27), during the reign of Jotham (ib. v. 37), but-to have deferred the actual invasion of Judah until that king’s death and the accession of his feeble son, in the first year of whose reign it probably took place, with most encouraging success, as the army of Ahaz was entirely destroyed, and 200,000 persons taken captive, who were afterwards sent back at the instance of the Prophet Oded (2 Chron. 28: 5-15). But notwithstanding this success, they were unable to effect their main design, the conquest of Jerusalem, whether repelled by the natural strength and artificial defences of the place itself, or interrupted in the siege by the actual or dreaded invasion of their own dominions by the king of Assyria (2 Kings 16: 7-9). It seems to be at a point of time between their first successes and their final retreat, that the Prophet’s narrative begins. And it was—happened, came to pass—in the days of Ahaz, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, Icing of Judah, that Rezin Icing of Aram—or Syria—and Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to—or against—Jerusalem, to war against it; and he was not able to war against it. As war is both a verb and noun in English, it may be used to represent the Hebrew verb and noun in this sentence. Some give a different meaning to the two, making one mean to fight and the other to conquer (Vulgate) or take (Henderson); but this distinction is implied, not expressed, and the simple meaning of the words is that he (put by a common license for they, or meaning each of them, or referring to Rezin as the principal confederate) could not do what he attempted. There is no need of taking bs; in the absolute sense of prevailing (Vitringa), which would require a different construction. It is sufficient to supply the idea of success in either case; they wished of course to war successfully against it, which they could not do. Gesenius sets the first part of this chapter down as the production of another hand, because it speaks of Isaiah in the third person, and becausethe first verse nearly coincides with 2 Kings 16: 5. But as that may just as well have been derived from this—a supposition favoured by the change of bbj into sfcaj — and as the use of the third person is common among ancient writers, sacred and profane, Isaiah himself notexcepted (ch. 20, 37, 38), there is no need even of supposing with Vitringa, that the last clause was added at a later period, by the sacred scribes, or with Hengstenberg and Ewald, that the verse contains a general summary, in which the issue of the war is stated by anticipation. It is not improbable, indeed, that this whole prophecy was written some time after it was first delivered; but even this supposition is not necessary for the removal of the alleged difficulty, which arises wholly from assuming, that this verse and the next relate to the beginning of the enterprise, when Rezin and Pekah first invaded Judah, whereas they relate to the attack upon Jerusalem, after the country had been ravaged, and the disappointment with which they are. threatened below is the disappointment of their grand design upon the royal city, which was the more alarming in consequence of what they had already effected. This view of the matter brings the two accounts in Kings and Chronicles into perfect harmony, without supposing what is here described to be either the first (Grotius, Usher,) or second (Jerome, Theodoret, Jarchi, Vitringa, Rosenmuller,) of two different invasions, or that although they relate to the same event (Lightfoot), the account in Chronicles is chargeable with ignorant exaggeration (Gesenius). Another view of the matter, which also makes the two accounts refer to one event, is that of Hengstenberg, who supposes the victory of Pekah described in Chronicles to have been the consequence of the unbelief of Ahaz, and his refusal to accept the divine promise. But the promise, instead of being retracted, is renewed, and the other supposition, that Pekah’s victory preceded what is here recorded, seems to agree better with the terror of Ahaz, and with the comparison in v. 3. Either hypothesis, however, may be entertained, without materially affecting the details of the interpretation. The invaders are said to have come up to Jerusalem, not merely as a military phrase (Vitringa), nor with exclusive reference to its natural position (Knobel), its political pre-eminence (Henderson), or its moral elevation (C. B. Michaelis), but with allusion, more or less distinct, to all the senses in which the holy city was above all others. On the construction of Jerusalem directly with the verb of motion, see Gesenius, § 116. 1.
2. And it was told the house of David — the court, the royal family, of Judah — saying, Syria resteth — or is resting — upon Ephraim: and his heart — i. e. the king’s, as the chief and representative of the house of David — and the heart of his people shook, like the shaking of the trees of a wood before a wind. This is commonly applied to the effect produced by the first news of the coalition between Rezin and Pekah or the junction of their forces. The oldest writers understand the news to be that Syria is confederate or joined with Ephraim (Septuagint, Targum, Peshito, Vulgate, Calvin, English Version, etc). Some, however, read, in violation of the accents, ftni, and translate thus — Syria is marching or leading his forces towards Ephraim (J. D. Michaelis) or with Ephraim (Henderson). Others, Syria relies upon — or is supported by — Ephraim (Lowth, Barnes) % Others, Syria influences or controls Ephraim (Vitringa). But most interpreters, especially the latest, Syria is encamped upon (the territory of) Ephraim, or, as Steudel understands it, near (the city of) Ephraim. It is equally natural, and more consistent with the history, to understand the words as having reference to a later date, i. e. either the time of the advance upon Jerusalem, or that of the retreat of the invaders, laden with the spoil of Judah, and with two hundred thousand captives. In the one case, Syria,’ i. e. the Syrian’ army, may be said to, rest upon (the army of) Ephraim, in the modern military sense, with reference to their relative position on the field of battle; in the other, Syria may be described as literally resting or reposing in the territory of Ephraim, on its homeward march, and as thereby filling Ahaz with the apprehension of a fresh attack. Although neither of these explanations may seem altogether natural, they are really as much so as any.of the others which have been proposed, and in a case where we have at best a choice of difficulties, these may claim the preference as tend ing to harmonize the prophecy with history as given both in Kings and Chronicles. We read in 2 Kings 16: 7-9, that Ahaz applied to Tiglathpileser, king of Assyria, to help him against Syria a»d Israel, which he did. At what precise period of the war this alliance was formed, it is not easy to determine; but there seems to be no doubt that Ahaz, at the time -here mentioned, was relying upon some human aid in preference to God. — The construction of the feminine verb nns with the masculine d-ix is to be explained, not by supplying m^Va (Jarchi) or my (Rosenmiiller) before the latter, but by the idiomatic usage which connects the names of countries, where they stand for the inhabitants, with verbs of this form, as in Job 1: 15, 1 Sam. 17: 21, and 2 Sam. 8: 6, where this very name is so construed.
3. From this alarm Isaiah \s ^fiffit,^ frft<? tft« king. And Jehovah said to Isaiah($on of AmozjGo out to meet Ahaz, thou and Shearjashub thy son, to the end of the conduit of the upper pool, to the highway of the fuller’s field. The mention of these now obscure localities, although it detracts nothing from the general clearness of the passage, is an incidental proof of authenticity, which no later writer would or could have forged. The upper pool, which has been placed by different writers upon almost every side of Jerusalem, is identified by Robinson and Smith with a large tank at the head of the Valley of Hinnom, about seven hundred yards west-north-west from the Jaffa gate. It is full in the rainy season, and its waters are then conducted by a small rude aqueduct to the vicinity of the gate just mentioned, and so to the Pool of Hezekiah within the walls. This aqueduct is probably the conduit mentioned in the text, and the end of this conduit the point where it enters the city, as appears from the fact, that when Rabshakeh afterwards conferred with the ministers of Hezekiah at this same spot, he was heard by the people on the city wall (ch. 36: 2, 12). From the same passage it may be inferred that-this was a frequented spot, which some sup pose to be the reason that Isaiah was directed to it, while others understand the direction as implying that Ahaz was about to fortify the city, or rather to cut off a supply of water from the invaders, as Hezekiah afterwards did when besieged by Sennacherib (2 Chr. 32: 4); an example often followed afterwards, particularly in the sieges of Jerusalem by Pompey, Titus, and Godfrey of Bouillon. The Prophet is therefore commanded to go out, not merely from his house, but from the city, to meet Ahaz, which does not imply that the king was seeking him, or coming to him, but merely specifies the object which he was to seek himself. For the various opinions with respect to the position of the Upper Pool—so called in relation to the Lower Pool, mentioned in chap. 22: 9, and situated lower down in the same valley? south of the Jaffa Gate—see Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Hitzig on this passage, Winer’s Realworterbuch s. v. Teiche, and Robinson’s Palestine, vol. i. pp. 352, 483. The Fuller’s Field was of course without the city, and the highway or causeway mentioned may have led either to it or along it, so as to divide it from the aqueduct.—The command to take his son with him might be regarded merely as an incidental circumstance, but for the factthat the name Shear-jashub is significant, and as we may suppose it to have been already known, and the people were familiar with the practice of conveying instruction in this form, the very sight of the child would perhaps suggest a prophecy, or recall one previously uttered, or at least prepare the mind for one to come; and accordingly we find in ch. 10: 21 this very phrase employed, not as a name, but in its proper sense, a remnant shall return. Cocceius assigns two other reasons for the presence of the child— that he might early learn the duties of a prophet—and that the sight of him might prove to all who heard the ensuing prophecy, that the mother mentioned in v. 14 could not be the Prophet’s wife. But this precaution would have answered little purpose against modern license of conjecture; for Gesenius does not scruple to assume a second marriage.
4. The assurance, by which Ahaz is encouraged, is that the. danger isjspoj£jr, that the fire is nearly quenched, that the enemies, who lately seemed like flaming firebrands of war, are now mere smoking ends of fire brands; he is therefore exhorted to be quiet and confide in the divine pro-
tection,- And thou shalt say to him, Be cautious and be quiet—or take care to be quiet—fear not, nor let -thy heart be soft, before—or on account of— these two smoking tails of firebrands, in the heat of the anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah. The comparison of Rezin and Pekah to the tails or ends of firebrands, instead of firebrands themselves, is not a mere expression of contempt, as most interpreters suppose, nor a mere intimation of their approaching fate, as Barnes and Henderson explain it, but a distinct allusion to the evil which they had already done, and which should never be repeated. If the emphasis were only in the use of the word tails, the tail of any thing else would have been equally appropriate. The smoking remnant of a firebrand implies a previous flame, if not a conflagration. This confirms the conclusion before drawn, that Judah had already been ravaged, and that the narratives in Kings and Chronicles are perfectly consistent and relate to the same subject. The older versions construe the demonstrative with firebrands—(the tails of these two smoking firebrands;’ the moderns more correctly with tails—’ these two tails or ends of smoking firebrands.’—The last clause of the verse is not to be construed with d^i??s— *( *smoking in the anger of Rezin etc.’ but with the verbs preceding—’ fear not, nor let thy heart be faint in the anger etc’.’ The reason implied in the connexion is that the hot fire of their anger was now turned to smoke and almost quenched.—The distinct mention of Rezin and Syria, while Pekah is simply termed the son of Remaliah, is supposed by some to be intended to express contempt for the latter, though the difference may after all be accidental, or have only a rhythmical design. The patronymic, like our English surname, can be used contemptuously only when it indicates ignoble origin, in which sense it may be applied to Pekah, who was a usurper, as the enemies of apoleon Nalways chose to call him Buonaparte, because the name betrayed an origin both foreign and obscure.
5. Because Syria has devised, meditated, purposed, evil against thee, also Ephraim and Remaliah’s son, saying. Hendewerk, and most of the early writers, connect this with what goes before, as a further explanation of the king’s terror—*l *fear not, nor let thy heart be faint, because Syria etc.’ But Gesenius, Hitzig, Henderson, Ewald and Umbreit, make it the beginning of a sentence, the apodosis of which is contained in v. 7—c be cause (or although) Syria has devised etc. therefore (or nevertheless) thus saith the Lord etc.’ The two constructions may be blended by regarding this verse and the next as a link or connecting clause between the exhortation in v. 4 and the promise in v. 7. < Fear not because Syria and Israel thus threaten, for on that very account the Lord declares etc.’ Here again Syria appears as the prime agent and controlling power, although Ephraim is added in the second clause. The suppression of Pekah’s proper name in this clause, and of Rezin’s altogether in the first, has given rise to various far-fetched explanations, though it seems in fact to show, that the use of names in the whole passage is rather euphonic or rhythmical than significant.
6. The invaders themselves are now introduced as holding counsel or addressing one another, not at the present moment, but at the “time when their plan was first concerted. We will go up, or let us go up, into Judah or against it, although this is.rather implied than expressed, and vex (i. e. harass or distress) it, and make a breach in it (thereby subduing it) to ourselves, and let us make a Icing in the midst of it, to wit, the son of Tabeal or Tabeel, as the name is written out of pause, Ezra 4: 7. The feminine suffixes probably refer, not to Judah (Henderson) but to Jerusalem (Gesenius, Rosenmuller), although the same terms are applied to the whole country elsewhere (2 Chron. 21: 17). The reference to Jerusalem is re quired by the history, according to which they did succeed in their attack upon the kingdom, but were foiled in their main design of conquering the royal city. The entrance into Judah was proposed only as a means to this end, and it is the failure of this end that is predicted in the next verse. The reference to the city is also recommended by the special reference to the capital cities of Syria and Ephraim in vs. 8, 9. fissipj is explained to mean let us arouse her by the Vulgate (suscitemus earn), Luther (aufwecken), Calvin and others, which supposes the verb to be derived from “pfcft (y£?) ‘ to awaken. Others, deriving it from ysg to cut off, explain it to mean let us dismember or divide it (Vitringa, Augusti), or subvert, destroy it (Peshito, J. D. Michaelis, Schroeder, Henderson). The simplest etymology, and that most commonly adopted, derives it from y*ip to be distressed or terrified, and in the Hiphil to alarm (Hitzig), or to distress, with special reference to the hardships of a siege (Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Cocceius, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Ewald etc.). Oppress (Barnes) is too indefinite. The other verb has also been variously explained, as meaning let us level it (from rtspa a plain), let us tear it away (Vulgate: avellamus ad nos), let us divide or rend it (Luther, Cocceius, Alting, J. W. Michaelis, Vitringa, Barnes). • It is now commonly agreed, however, that it means to make a breach or opening (Calvin: faire bresche ou ouverture, Hendewerk, Henderson), and thereby take or conquer (Ewald, Knobel). The creation of tributary kings by conquerors is mentioned elsewhere in the sacred history (e.g. 2 Kings 23: 34. 24: 17.) Son of Tabeal, like Son of Remaliah, is commonly explained as a contemptuous expression, implying obscurity or mean extraction. But such an ex pression would hardly have been put into the mouths of his patrons, unless we suppose that they selected him expressly on account of his ignoble origin or insignificance, which is a very improbable assumption. They would be far more likely to bestow the crown on some prince either of Ephraim or Syria, which some suppose to be implied in the Syriac form of the name, equivalent to the Hebrew Tobijah (Neh. 2: 15), and analogous to Tabrimmon, from whom Benhadad king of Syria was descended (1 Kings 15:18). So in Ezra 4: 7, Tabcel is named as one of those who wrote to the king in the Syrian (Aramean) tongue. This whole speculation, though ingenious, and illustrated by Gesenius with a profusion of etymological learning (Comm. vol. 1. p. 281, note), is probably fanciful and certainly of no exegetical importance, which last is also true of Calvin’s suggestion that the Son of Tabeal may have been a disaffected Jew. There is something curious in the Jewish explanation of the name by that form of the cabbala called Albam (because it puts a for I, b for m, and so forth), as identical with X^EI (i. q. Ji^a^i.) A more important observation is, that this familiar reference en passant to the names of persons now forgotten, as if familiar to contemporary readers, is a strong incidental proof of authenticity.
7. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, it shall not stand—or it shall not arise—and it shall not be, or come lo^ pass. This, as was said before, is taken by Gesenius and others as the conclusion of a sentence beginning in v. 5, but may just as naturally be explained as the commencement of a new one. The feminine verbs may be referred to counsel (ttS3>) under stood or taken indefinitely, which is a common Hebrew construction. (Vide supra, ch. 1: 6.) As wp means both to rise and stand, the idea here ex pressed may be either that the thing proposed shall not even come into existence (Hitzig), or that it shall not continue or be permanent (Gesenius, Hengstenberg, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit). The general sense is clear, viz. that their design should be defeated. The name frfi”1, being here preceded by -oh:*, takes the vowels of cortex. The accumulation of divine names is, as usual, emphatic, and seems here intended to afford a pledge of the event, derived from the supremacy and power of the Being who predicts it.
Vs. 8, 9. The plans of the enemy cannot be accomplished, because God has decreed that while the kingdoms of Syria and Israel continue to exist, they shall remain without enlargement, or at least without the addition of Jerusalem or Judah to their territories. It shall not stand or come to pass, because the head (or capital) of Aram is Damascus (and shall be so still), and the head (chief or sovereign) of Damascus is Rezin (and shall be so still—and as for the other power there is as little cause of fear) for in yet sixty and five years (in sixty-five years more) shall Ephraim be broken from a people (i. e. from being a people, so as not to be a people—and even in the mean time, it shall not be enlarged by the addition of Judah) for the head (or capital) of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head (chief or sovereign) of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If you will not believe (it is) because you are not to be established. Here again Syria is the prominent object, and Ephraim subjoined, as if by an afterthought. The order of ideas is that Syria shall remain as it is, and as for Ephraim it is soon to be destroyed, but while it does last, it shall remain as it is likewise; Pekah shall never reign in any other capital, nor Samaria be the capital of any other kingdom. To this natural expression of the thought corresponds the rhythmical arrange ment of the sentences, the first clause of the eighth verse answering exactly to the first clause of the ninth, while the two last clauses, though dissimilar, complete the measure. i For the head of Syria is Damascus— And the head of Damascus Rezin—
And in sixty-five years more etc. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria— And the head of Samaria Remaliah’s son— If ye will not believe etc. Whether this be poetry or not, its structure is as regular as that of any other period of equal length in the writings of Isaiah. As to the substance of these verses, the similar clauses have already been explained, as a prediction that the two invading powers should remain without enlargement. The first of the uneven clauses, i. e. the last of v. 8, adds to this prediction, that Ephraim, or the kingdom of the ten tribes, shall cease to exist within a prescribed period, which period is so defined as to include the three successive strokes by which that power was annihilated—first, the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, two or three years after the date of this prediction (2 Kings, 15: 29. 16: 9)— then, the conquest of Samaria, and the deportation of the ten tribes, by Shalmeneser, about the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kings 17: 6)—and finally, the introduction of another -race by Esar-haddon in the reign of Manasseh (2 Kings 17: 24. Ezra 4: 2. 2 Chron. 33: 11). Within sixty-five years all these events were to occur, and Ephraim, in all these senses, was to cease to be a people. It seems then that the language of this clause, has been carefully selected, so as to include the three events which might be represented as destructive of Ephraim, while in form it balances the last clause of the next verse, and is therefore essential to the rhythmical completeness of the passage. And yet this very clause has been rejected as a gloss, not only by Houbigant, and others of that school, but by Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer and Knobel, expressly on the ground that it violates the truth of history and the parallelism of the sentence. In urging the latter reason none of these critics seems to have observed that the omission of the clause would leave the verses unequal; while the puerile suggestion that the similar clauses ought to come together, would apply to any case in Greek, Latin, or modern poetry, where two balanced ver.ses are divided by a line of different length or termination, as in the Stabat Mater OR Cowper’s Ode to Friendship. Such an objection to the clause is especially surprising on the part of those who insist upon subjecting even. Hebrew prose to the principles, if not the rules, of Greek and Latin prosody.—As to the more serious historical objection, it is applicable only to the theory of Usher, Lowth, Hengstenberg, and Henderson, that the conquest of Israel by Tiglath-pileser and.Shalmeneser are excluded from the prophecy, and that it has relation solely to what took place under Esar-haddon; whereas all three are included. If a historian should say that in one and twenty years from the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Emperor Napoleon had ceased to be, he could not be charged with the error of reckoning to the time of his death, instead of his first or second abdication, because all.these would be really included, and the larger term chosen only for the purpose of embracing every sense in which the Emperor ceased to be. So in the case before us, the invasion by Tiglath-pileser, and the deportation by Shalmeneser are included, but the term of sixty-five years is assigned, because with it expired every possible pretension of the ten tribes to be reckoned as a state or nation, though the real downfall of the government had happened many years before. Nor is it improbable that if the shorter periods of three or twenty years had been named, the same.class of critics would have made the exclusion of the wind ing up under Esar-haddon a ground of similar objection to the clause. The propriety of including this event is clear from the repeated mention of Israel as a people still subsisting until it took place (2 Kings 23: 19, 20. 2 Chr. 34: 6, 7. 35: 18), and from the fact that Esar-haddon placed his colonists in the cities of Samaria, instead, of the children of Israel (2 Kings 27: 24), thereby completing their destruction as a people. The same considerations furnish an answer to the objection that the time fixed for the overthrow of Ephraim is too remote to allay the fears of Ahaz; not to mention that this was only one design of the prediction, and that the encouragement was meant to be afforded by what follows, and which seems to have been added for the very purpose, as if he had said, c Ephraim is to last but sixty-five years at most, and even while it does last the head etc.’ That the order of the numerals, sixty and five instead of five. and sixty is no proof of later origin (Gesenius), may be inferred from the occurrence of the same collocation at least three times in Genesis (4: 24. 18: 28. 46: 15.) The alleged inconsistency between this clause and v. 16 rests on a gratuitous assumption that the desolation threatened there and the destruction here are perfectly identical. To allege that lisa is elsewhere used to denote the precise time of an event (Gen. 40: 13, 19. Jos. 1: 11. 3: 2. Jer. 28: 3, 11), is only to allege that a general expression admits of a specific ap plication. The Hebrew phrase corresponds exactly to the English phrase in sixty-five years more, and like it may either be applied to something HO ISAIAH, CHAP. VII.
happening at the end of that period, or to something happening at any time within it, or to both, which is really its application here. To the objection, that the precise date of the immigration under Esar-haddon is a matter of conjecture, the answer is, that since this event and the sixty-fifth year from the date of the prediction, both fall within the reign of Manasseh, the suppp- ‘ sition that they coincide is less improbable than the supposition that they do not. To reject the clause on such a ground is to assume that whatever is not proved (or rather twice proved) must be false, however probable. Enough has now been said, not only to vindicate the clause as genuine, but to preclude the necessity of computing the sixty-five years from any other period than the date of the prediction, as for instance from the death of Jeroboam II. with Cocceius, or from the leprosy of Uzziah with the Rabbins, both which hypotheses, if necessary, might be plausibly defended. It also supersedes the necessity of emendation in the text. Grotius and Cappellus drop the plural termination of tnaa and thus convert it into six. But even if Isaiah could have written six and Jive instead of eleven, the latter number would be too small, as Cappellus in his computation overlooks an interregnum which the best chronologers assume between Pekah and Hoshea. See Gesenius in loc. Vitringa supposes asm n^aa to have arisen out of asm ‘^aa (a common abbreviation in Hebrew manuscripts), and this out of asm ‘i aa, six, ten, and Jive, the exact number of years between the prophecy and Shalmaneser’s conquest, viz. sixteen of Ahaz and five of Hezekiah, which he therefore supposes to be separately stated. But even if letters were used for ciphers in Isaiah’s time, which is highly improbable, it is still more improbable that both modes of notation would have been mixed up in a single number. Gesenius sneers at Vitringa’s thanking God for the discovery of this emendation; but it is more than matched by two of later date and German origin. Steudel proposes to read ftbttj (for msi) in the sense of repeatedly, and to supply days after sixty- Jive! Hendewerk more boldly reads ma asm traa lirs while the robbers and the murderer are a sleep (i. e. asleep)! This he thinks so schbn und herrlich, and the light which it sheds so ganz wunderbar, that he even prefers it to Hensler’s proposition to read six or Jive (i. q. five or six,) i. e. a few. Luzzatto gives this latter sense to the common text, which he ex plains as a round number, or rather as two round numbers, sixty being used in the Talmud indefinitely for a large number, and^e even in Scripture for a small one. Ewald seems willing to admit that sixty-Jive itself is here put as a period somewhat shorter than the term of human life, but rejects the clause as a quotation from an older prophecy, transferred from the margin to the text of Isaiah. Besides these emendations of the text, the view which has been taken of the prophecy enables us to dispense with various forced constructions of the first clause—such as Aben Ezra’s—e *it shall not come to pass (with respect to you) but (with respect to) the head of Syria (which is) Damascus etc.’ Or this—c though the head of Syria is Damascus (a great city), and the head of Damascus is Rezin (a great prince), yet in sixty-five years etc.’ Hitzig reverses this, and makes it an expression of contempt— ‘for the head of Syria is (only) Damascus, and the head of Damascus (only) Rezin (a smoking fire-brand.)’—The last clause of the verse has also been variously construed. J. D. Michaelis supposes a threatening or indignant pause in the midst of it—’* If ye will not believe—for (I see that) ye will not believe.’ Grotius makes it interrogative-:—’ will ye not believe, unless ye are confirmed’ or assured by a sign? The construction now most commonly adopted makes n3 a particle of asseveration (Rosenmuller, Henderson) or even of swearing (Maurer), or supposes it to introduce the apodosis and to be equivalent to then (Gesenius). Luther’s version of the clause, thus understood, has been much admired, as a successful imitation of the paronomasia in He brew: Gldubet ihr nicht, so bleibet ihr nicht. This explanation of the clause is strongly favoured by the analogy of 2 Chron. 20: 20; but another •equally natural is the one already given in translation—’ if ye do not believe (it is) because ye are not to be established.’ For other constructions and conjectural emendations of the several clauses, see Gesenius and Rosenmuller on the passage.
10. And he (i. e. God, by the mouth of Isaiah) added to speak unto Ahaz, saying—which, according to usage, may either mean that he spoke again, on a different occasion, or that he spoke further, on the same occasion, which last is the meaning here. This verse, it is true, is supposed to commence a new division of the prophecy by Ewald, and an entirely distinct prediction by Hendewerk, who connects it with the close of the fifth chapter, and by Henderson, who regards all that follows as having reference to the invasion of Judah by Assyria. A sufficient refutation of the two last hypotheses is involved in the admission made by both these writers, that the offer of a sign has reference to nothing in the context, but to something not recorded; whereas it was naturally called forth by the in credulity which some suppose to have been betrayed by the king’s silence (Hengstenberg) or his looks (Rosenmuller), and which is certainly referred to in the last clause of v. 9.
11. Ask for thee (i. e. for thy own satisfaction), a sign from Je h ova h thy God (literally from with him, i. e. from his presence and his power)— ask deep or high above—or make deep thy request or make it high—i. e. ask it either above or below. A sign is not necessarily a miracle, nor necessarily a prophecy, but a sensible pledge of the truth of something else, whether present, past, or future; sometimes consisting in a miracle (Isai. 38:’ 8. Judg. 6: 37. Ex. 4:8), but sometimes in a mere prediction (Ex. 3: 12.
1 Sam. 2: 34. 2 Kings 19:. 29), and sometimes only in a symbol, especially a symbolical name or action (Isai. 38: 18. 20: 3. Ezek. 4:8). The sign here offered is a proof of Isaiah’s divine legation, which Ahaz seemed to doubt. He is allowed to choose, not only the place of its exhibition (Pliischke), but the sign itself. The offer is a general one, including all the kinds of signs which have been mentioned, though the only one which would have answered the purpose of accrediting the Prophet, was a present miracle, as in the case of Moses (Ex. 4: 30). Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, seem to have read ribxia to the grave or lower world (fid&v- VOV-EIS «<^)j which is adopted by Jerome, Michaelis, Lowth, and also by Ewald but without a change of text, as he supposes t&w& to be simply a euphonic variation for nVxia intended to assimilate it to nbsalj. Thus under stood, the word may refer to the opening of the earth or the raising of the dead, in opposition to a miracle in heaven. But as heaven is not particularly mentioned, there is no need of departing from the old explanation of nbsttJ as.a paragogic imperative (comp. Dan. 9: 19. B. 41: 5), signifying ask thou. The two preceding verbs may then be taken also as imperatives, go deep, ask, i. e. in asking, or as infinitives equivalent to» adverbs, ask deep, ask high; or the construction may be simplified still further by explaining H^jjttS as a noun equivalent to «”^xa5 and governed directly by the two verbs as imperatives—make deep (thy) request, make (it) high. There may either be a reference to the distinction between signs in heaven and signs on earth (Matt. 16: 1), which Jerome illustrates by the case of the Egyptian plagues, or the words may be more indefinitely understood as meaning any where, up or down, above or below (Calvin). The phrase thy God is emphatic and intended to remind Ahaz of his official relation to Jehovah, and as it were to afford him a last opportunity of profiting by the connexion.
12. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt Jehovah. Some regard this as a contemptuous irony, implying a belief that God would not be able to perform his promise (Grotius, Gesenius etc.) or a disbelief in the existence of a personal God (Umbreit.) We have no reason to doubt, however, that Ahaz believed in the existence of Jehovah, at least as one among many gods, as a local and national if not a supreme deity. It is better, therefore, to understand the words as a hypocritical excuse for not obeying the command, with obvious allusion to the prohibition in Deut. 6:__6, which is of course inapplicable to the case of one who is exhorted to choose. His refusal probably arose not from speculative doubts or politic considerations, but from the state of his affections, his aversion to the service of Jehovah and his predilection for that of other gods, perhaps combined with a belief that in this case human aid would be sufficient and a divine interposition superfluous; to which may be added a specific expectation of assistance from Assyria, for which he had perhaps already sued (*2 Kings 16: 7—9). To tempt God is not lo try him in the way of trusting him (Hoheisel), nor simply to call in question his power, knowledge, or veracity (Gesenius, Hitzig), but to put him practically to the test. The character of Ahaz is illustrated by a comparison of this refusal with the thankful acceptance of such signs by others, and especially by his own son Hezekiah, to whom, as Jerome observes, signs both in heaven and on earth were granted.
13. At first Ahaz seemed to doubt only the authority and divine legation of the Prophet; but his refusal to.accept the offered attestation was an insult to God himself, and is therefore indignantly rebuked by the Prophet. And he said, hear, I pray you, oh house of David! is it too little for you (is it not enough for you) to weary men (i. e. to try men’s patience) that you (must) weary (or try the patience of) my God 1 The meaning is not merely that it is worse to weary God than man (Chrysostom), or that it was not man but God whom they were wearying (Jerome); but that having first wearied man i.’e. the Prophet by disputing his commission, they were now wearying God, by refusing the offered attestation, nixbrr is not to regard as weak or impotent (Kimchi), but to try or exhaust the patience of another. The plural form of the address does not imply that the Prophet turned away from Ahaz to others (Jerome), but that members of his family and court were, in the Prophet’s view, already implicated in his unbelief.
14. The king having refused to ask a sign, the Prophet gives him one, by renewing the promise of deliverance (vs. 8, 9) and connecting it with the birth of a child, whose significant name is made a symbol of the divine interposition, and his progress a measure of the subsequent events.. Instead of saying that God would be present to deliver them, he says the child shall be called Immanuel (God-with-us); instead of mentioning a term of years, he says, before the child is able to distinguish good from evil; instead of saying that until that time the land shall lie waste, he represents the child as eating curds and honey, spontaneous products, here put in opposition to the fruits of cultivation. At the same time, the form of expression is descriptive. Instead of saying simply that the child shall experience all this, he represents its birth and infancy as actually passing in his sight; he sees the child brought forth and named Immanuel; he sees the child eating curds and honey till a certain age. Therefore (because you have refused to choose) the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold! the virgin pregnant and bringing forth a son, and she calls Ms name Immanuel (God with us)—curds.and honey shall he eat (because the land lies waste) until he shall know (how) to reject the evil and to choose the good (but no longer); for before the child shall know (how) to reject the evil and to choose the 8. good, the land, of whose two kings thou art afraid (i.e. Syria and Israel),. shall le forsaken (i. e. desolate), which of course implies the previous deliverance of Judah.—Mil interpreters appear to be agreed that these three verses contain a threatening of destruction to the enemies of Judah, if not a direct promise of deliverance, and that this event is connected, in some way, with the birth of a child, as the sign or pledge of its certain occurrence. But what child is meant, or who is the Immanuel here predicted? The various answers to this question may. be all reduced to three fundamental hypotheses, each of which admits of several minor variations.
I. The first hypothesis is that the only birth and infancy referred to in these verses are the birth and infancy of a.child born (or supposed to be born), in the ordinary course of nature, and in the days of Isaiah himself. The unessential variations, of which this hypothesis is susceptible, have reference chiefly to the question what particular child is intended. 1. The Jews of old supposed it to be Hezekiah; but this was exploded by Jerome’s suggestion, that he was already at least nine years old, since his father reigned but sixteen years, and he succeeded him at twenty-five (2 Kings 16: 2,18: 2). 2. Kimchi and Abarbenel suppose Immanuel to be a younger son of Ahaz, by a second marriage.’ 3. Isenbiehl, Bauer, Cube, Steudel, and Hitzig, understand by Fra^stt, a woman who was present, and at whom the Prophet pointed. 4. J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler, Ammon, under stand the Prophet to predict not a real but an ideal birth, as if he had said, should one now a virgin conceive and bear a son, she might call his name Immanuel, etc. 5. Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Faber, Pluschke, Gesenius, Maurer, Hendewerk, Knobel, suppose him to be speaking of his own wife, and the birth of his own son; and as Shearjashub was already born, Gesenius assumes a second marriage of the Prophet, and supposes two events to be predicted: first, the deliverance of Judah at the birth of the child, and then the desolation of Syria and Israel before he should be able to distinguish good and evil. To this last supposition, it is justly objected by Hengstenberg that it assumes too great an interval between the deliverance of Judah and the desolation of the other countries, as well as between the former and the resumption of agricultural employments. It is besides unnecessary, as the interposition denoted by the name Immanuel need not be restricted to the time of the child’s birth, and as the desolation of Syria and Israel is said to take place before, but not immediately before the child’s attaining to a certain age; to which it may be added that the age itself is left somewhat indefinite. But besides these objections to Gesenius’s assumption of a two fold prophecy, his whole hypothesis, with all the others which have • been enumerated, except perhaps the fourth, may be justly charged with gratuitously assuming facts of which we have no evidence, and which are not necessary to the interpretation of the passage; such as the second marriage of Ahaz, or that of Isaiah, or the presence of a pregnant woman, or the Prophet’s pointing at her. A further objection to all the variations of this first hypothesis is, that although they may afford a sign, in one of the senses of that term, to wit, that of an emblem or symbol, they do not afford such a sign as the context would lead us to expect. Ahaz had been offered the privilege of choosing any sign whatever, in heaven or on earth. Had he actually chosen one, it would no doubt have been something out of the ordinary course of nature, as in the case of Gideon (Judges 6: 37-40) and Hezekiah (Isai. 38: 7, 8). On his refusal to choose, a sign is given him unasked, and although it does not necessarily follow that it was precisely such as he would have selected—since the object was no longer simply to remove his doubts, but to verify the promise and to mark the event when it occurred as something which had been predicted—yet it s%ems very improbable that after such an offer, the sign bestowed would be merely a thing of every-day occurrence, or at most the application 6f a symbolical name. This presumption is strengthened by the solemnity with which the Prophet speaks of the predicted birth, not as a usual and natural event, but as some thing which excites his own astonishment, as he beholds it in prophetic vision. This may prove nothing by itself, but is significant when taken in connexion with the other reasons. The same thing may be said of the address to Immanuel, in ch. 8: 8, and the allusion to the name in v. 11, which, although they may admit of explanation in consistency with this first hypothesis, agree much better with the supposition that the prophecy relates to something more than a natural and ordinary birth. A still stronger reason for the same conclusion is afforded by the parallel passage in ch. 9: 5, 6, occurring in the same connected series of prophecies. There, as here, the birth of a child is given as a pledge of safety and deliverance, but with the important addition of a full description, which, as we shall see be low, is wholly inapplicable to any ordinary human child, however high in rank or full of promise. If led by these remarkable coincidences to examine more attentively the terms of the prophecy itself, we find the mother of the promised child described, not as a woman or as any particular woman merely, but as na^?rj a term which has been variously derived from dbs to conceal, and from.JLc to grow up, but which, in the six places where it occurs elsewhere, is twice applied to young unmarried females certainly (Gen. 24: 43, Ex. 2: 8), and twice most probably (Ps. 68: 25, Sol. S. 1: 3), while in the two remaining cases (Sol. S. 1: 8, Prov. 30: 19) this ap plication is at least as probable as any other. It would therefore naturally suggest the idea of a virgin, or at least of an unmarried woman. It is said indeed, that if this had been intended, the word n^na would have been em ployed; but even that word is not invariably used in its strict sense (see- Deut. 22: 19, Joel 1: 8), so that there would still have been room for the same cavils, and perhaps for the assertion that the idea of a virgin could not be expressed except by a periphrasis. It is enough for us to know that a virgin or unmarried woman is designated here as distinctly as she could be by a single word. But why should this description be connected with a fact which seems to render it inapplicable, that of parturition? That the I word means simply a young woman, whether married or unmarried, a virgin or a mother, is a subterfuge invented by the later Greek translators who, as Justin Martyr tells us, read veavie, instead of the old version na,Q&wog, which had its rise before the prophecy became a subject of dispute between the I ^Jews and Christians. That the word denotes one who is a virgin or unmarried now, without implying that she is to remain so, is certainly conceivable; but, as was said before, its use in this connexion, especially when added to the other reasons previously mentioned, makes it, to say the least, extremely probable that the event foretold is something more than a birth in the ordinary course of nature. So too, the name Immanucl, although it might be used to signify God’s providential presence merely (Ps. 46: 8, 12, 89: 25, Josh. 1: 5, Jer. 1: 8, Isai. 43: 2), has a latitude and pregnancy of meaning which can scarcely be fortuitous, and which, combined with all the rest, makes the conclusion almost unavoidable, that it was here intended to express a personal as well as a providential presence. If to this we add the early promise of salvation through the seed of the woman (Gen. 3: 15)r rendered more definite by later revelations, and that remarkable expression of Isaiah’s contemporary prophet Micah (5: 2), until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth, immediately following the promise of a ruler, to be born in Bethlehem, but whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting—the balance of probabilities, as furnished by the Old Testament exclusively, preponderates decidedly in favour of the supposition, that Isaiah’s words had reference to a miraculous conception and nativity. When we read, therefore, in the gospel of Matthew, that Jesus Christ was actually born of a virgin, and that all the circumstances of his birth came to pass that this very prophecy might be fulfilled, it has less the appearance of an unexpected application, than of a conclusion rendered necessary, by a series of antecedent facts and reasons, the last link in a long chain of intimations more or less explicit. The same considerations seem to show that the prophecy is not merely transferred or accommodated to another subject by the evangelist, which is moreover clear from the emphatic form of the citation (rovro olov ytyovw Iva filijgm&rj’x. r. A.), making it impossible to prove the existence of any quotation, in the proper sense, if this be not one, and from the want of any similarity between the two events, viz. a natural and miraculous conception, upon which a mere illustrative accommodation of the words could have been founded. The idea, insidiously suggested by J. D. Michaelis, that the first two chapters of Matthew may be spurious, is so far from deriving any countenance from this application of the prophecy, that on the contrary its wonderful agreement with the scattered but harmonious intimations of the Old Testament, too numerous and too detached to be fortuitous, affords a strong though incidental proof that these very chapters are genuine and authentic. • The rejection of Matthew’s authority in toto, as an interpreter of the prediction, is not only inconsistent with the proofs of his inspiration drawn from other quarters, but leaves unexplained the remarkable coincidence between his interpretation and the original form of expression, the context, and the parallel passages. That these should all conspire to recommend an ignorant or random explanation, of the prophecy, is more incredible, than that the explanation should be true, and the words of Isaiah a prediction of something more than the birth of a real or ideal child, in the ordinary course of nature, and in the days of the Prophet himself. The question, however, still arises, how the birth of Christ, if here predicted, is to be connected with the promise made to Ahaz, as -a sign of the event, or as a measure of the’time of its fulfilment?
II. The second hypothesis removes this difficulty by supposing that the prophecy relates to two distinct births and two different children. Of this general theory there are two important modifications. 1. The first supposes one child to be mentioned in v. 14, and another in v. 16. As to v. 15, some connect it with the one before and some with the one after it. Thus Junius understands v. 14 to refer to Christ, but vs. 15, 16 to Shearjashub; Usher applies vs. 14, 15 to Christ, and v. 16 to Shearjashub; Calvin vs. 14, 15 to Christ, but v. 16 to a child, i. e., any child indefinitely. They all agree that the prophecy contains two promises: first, that Christ should^be born of a virgin, and then, that Judah should be delivered_before Shear]ashub_(or before any child born within a certain time) could distingmsji_good from evil. To such of these interpretations as refer v. 15 to the infancy of Christ, it may be objected that they put a sense upon that verse which its expressions will not bear, and which is inconsistent with the use of the same terms in v. 22. It will be seen below that the eating of curds and honey is predicted as a sign of general desolation, or at least of interrupted tillage. Another objection which applies to all the forms of this interpretation is the sudden change of subject, in the fifteenth or sixteenth verse, from Immanuel to Shearjashub, or to any child indefinitely. Nothing but extreme exegetical necessity could justify the reference of vs. 15, 16> to> any person not referred to in v. 14. 2. This difficulty is avoided in the second modification of the general hypothesis that the passage (as a whole) refers to two distinct births and to different children, by assuming that both are mentioned in the fourteenth verse itself. This is the supposition of a double sense, though some refuse to recognize it by that name. The essence the theory is this, that while v. 14, in its obvious and primary sense. relates to the birth of a child in the ordinary course of nature, its terms are so selected as to be descriptive, in a higher sense, of the miraculous nativity of Christ. This theory is mentioned by Jerome as the opinion of a certain Judaizing Christian,, whom he does not name (quidam de nostris judai’zans), and by Calvin, as a compromise between the orthodox and Jewish expositions, but has since had many eminent and able advocates. The minor variations o( this general hypothesis have reference chiefly to the particular child, in tended by the prophecy in its lower sense, whether a son of Isaiah himself, as Grotius, Clericus, ai}d Barnes suppose, or any child born within a certain time, as Lowth, with more probability, assumes. The advantage of these interpretations is that they seem to account for the remarkable expressions which the prophet uses, as if to intimate a deeper meaning than the primary and obvious one, and at the same time answer the conditions, both of the context in Isaiah, and of the application in Matthew, giving a sign analogous to others given before and after by this very prophet (eh. 7: 3, 8: 2), and at the same time furnishing believers with a striking prophecy of the Messiah. The objections to it are its complexity, and what seems to be the arbitrary nature of the assumption upon which it rests. It seems to be a feeling common to learned and unlearned readers, that although a double sense is not impossible, and must in certain cases be assumed, it is unreasonable to assume it, when any other explanation is admissible. The improbability in this case is increased by the want of similarity be tween the two events, supposed to be predicted in the very same words, the one miraculous, the other not only natural but common and of every day occurrence. That two^c^iiclL_fic^jjrrences should be described in the same words, simply because th^y_^^re_both s^g-7Z5 orpledges of a promise, though not impossible, can only be made probable by strong corroborating proofs, especially if any simpler mode of exposition be at all admissible. Another objection, which lies equally against this hypothesis and the one first mentioned is, that in its primary and lower sense it does not afford such a sign as the context and the parallel passages would lead us to expect, unless we suppose that the higher secondary sense was fully understood at the time of the prediction, and in that case, though the birth of the Messiah from a virgin would be doubtless a sufficient sign, it would, for that very reason, seem to make the lower one superfluous. Dathe’s courageous supposition, that the primary reference is to a miraculous conception and birth in the days of Isaiah, only aggravates the -difficulty which it would diminish, though it certainly escapes the force of some of the objections to the supposition of a double sense, to wit, those founded on the inadequacy of the sign. and the dissimilarity of the events. None of these reasons seem however to be decisive against the supposition of a double sense, as commonly under stood, unless there be some other way in which its complexity and arbitrary character may be avoided, and at the same time the connexion be tween the birth of the Messiah and the deliverance of Judah satisfactorily explained.
III. The third general hypothesis proposes to effect this by applying all three verses directly and exclusively to the Messiah, as the only child whose birth is there predicted, and his growth made the measure of the subsequent events. The minor variations of this general hypothesis relate to the time when these events were to occur, and to the sense in which the growth of the Messiah is adopted as the measure of them. 1. The simplest form in which this theory has been applied, is that exhibited by J. H. Michaelis and others, who suppose the prediction to relate to the real time of Christ’s appearance, and the thing foretold to be the desolation which should take place before the Saviour reached a certain age. To this it is an obvious objection that it makes the event predicted too remote to answer the conditions of the con text, or the purpose of the prophecy itself. A similar objection has indeed been urged by the Rabbins and oth^s, to a prophecy of Christ’s birth as a sign of the promise made to Ahaz. But the cases are entirely dissimilar. The promise of immediate deliverance might be confirmed by an appeal to an event long posterior, if the one necessarily implied the other, as included in it, or as a necessary previous condition. Thus the promise that Israel should worship God at Sinai, was a” sign to Moses, that they should first be delivered from Egypt (Ex. 3: 12), and the promise that the^tillage interrupted by Sennacherib’s invasion should be resumed, was a sign to Hezekiah, that the invasion was itself to cease (Is. 37: 30). In like manner, the assurance that Christ was to be born in Judah, of its royal family, might be a sign to Ahaz, that the kingdom should not perish in his day; and so far was the remoteness of the sign in this case from making it absurd or inappropriate, that the further off it was, the stronger the promise of continuance to Judah, which it guaranteed. Especially is this the case if we suppose it to have been a familiar doctrine of the ancient church, that the Messiah was to come, and that for his sake Israel existed as a nation. But according to the theory now in question, not only is the sign remote, but also the thing signified; not only the pledge of the event, but the event itself. The Prophet’s contemporaries might have been encouraged to expect deliverance from present danger by the promise ‘of Christ’s coming, but a promise of deliverance before the end of seven hundred years could. afford no encouragement at all. That this objection to the theory in question has been felt by some of its most able advocates, may be inferred from several facts. One is that J, H. Michaelis is obliged to insert the words long since (dudum deserta erit), and yet to leave the promise wholly indefinite. Another is that Henderson departs from the ancient and almost universal explanation of £he passage as a promise, and converts it into a threatening, not only against Israel, but against Judah; both of which kingdoms were to lose their kings before the. twelfth year of our Saviour, when Archelaus was. banished from Judea. A third is that Cocceius, though one of the most accurate philologists of his own or any other age, and only too decided in his exegetical judgments, hesitates between the interpretation now in question and the ungrammatical and arbitrary reference of v. 16 to a different child. At all events, it may be safely assumed that the application of these three verses to the time of Christ’s actual appearance has no claim to be received, if there is any other form of the same general hypothesis, by which the connexion of the promise with the context can be made more natural. 2. This end Vitringa has attempted to secure, by supposing the language to be hypothetical, or that the Prophet, while he views the birth of Christ as a remote event, makes it the measure of events at hand—q. d. before the Messiah, if he were born now, could know how to distinguish good from evil, etc. The only objection to this ingenious explanation is that the conditional expression on which all depends, if he were born now, is precisely that which is omitted, and of which the text contains no intimation. And that the Prophet, without such intimation, would make this use of an event which he distinctly saw’to be remote, though not incredible, ought surely not to be assumed without necessity. 3. Another modification of the hypo thesis which refers the three verses all to the Messiah, is that proposed by Rosenmuller, in the second and subsequent editions of his Scholia, and substantially renewea by Ewald, viz. that Tsaiah really expected the Messiah to be born at once, and therefore naturally made the progress of his infancy the measure of a proximate ‘futurity. Neither of these writers supposes any reference to Christ, both regarding the prediction as a visionary anticipation. But Hengstenberg has clearly shown that such a positive belief and expectation, on Isaiah’s part, is not only inconsistent with other prophecies, but with the sequel of this, in which a series of calamitous events is described as intervening between the approaching deliverance and the nativity of the Messiah. To the merely negative assumption that the time of the advent formed no part of this particular revelation, he thinks there is not the same objection. 4. Accordingly, his own interpretation of the passage is, that the birth of the Messiah being presented to the Prophet in connexion with the proximate deliverance of which it was the sign or pledge, without regard to chronological relations, and seen by him in prophetic ecstasy as actually present, he naturally makes the one the measure of the other. As if he had said, I see the virgin bringing forth a son, and calling his name Immanuel; I see him living in the midst of desolation till a certain age; but before that time arrives, 1 see the land of our invaders lying desolate. The only objection to this ingenious improvement on Vitringa’s ingenious exposition, is that it rests upon a certain theory as to the nature of prophetic inspiration or of the mental state in which the prophets received and uttered their communications, which, however probable, is not at present generally current with believers in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, nor perhaps maintained by Hengstenberg himself.
In expounding this difficult and interesting passage, it has been considered more important to present a tolerably full view of the different opinions, arranged according to the principles on which they rest, than to assert the exclusive truth of any one interpretation as to all its parts. In summing up the whole, however, it may be confidently stated, that the first hypothesis is false; that the first modifications of the second and third are untenable; and that the-choice lies between the supposition of a double sense and that of a reference to Christ exclusively, but in connexion with the promise of immediate deliverance to Ahaz. The two particular interpretations which appear to me most plausible and least beset with difficulties, are those of Lowth and Vitringa, with which last Hengstenberg’s is essentially identical. Either the Prophet, while he foretells the birth of Christ, foretells that of anotherchild, during whose infancy the promised deliverance shall be experienced; or else he makes the infancy of Christ himself, whether foreseen as still remote or not, the sign and measure of that same deliverance. While some diversity of judgment ought to be expected and allowed, in relation to this secondary question, there is no ground, grammatical, historical, or logical, for doubt as to the main point, that the church in all ages has been right in regarding this passage as a signal and explicit prediction of the miraculous conception and nativity of Jesus Christ.
As to the form of the expression, i^will only be necessary further to remark that rnn is not a verb or participle (Vitringa, Rosenrmiller), but a feminine adjective, signifying pregnant, and here connected with an active participle, to denote that the object is described • as present to the Prophet’s view. Behold, the virgin, pregnant and bringing forth a son, and she calls his name Immanuel. The future form adopted by the Septuagint ($;£(, rt^srai) is retained in the New Testament, because the words are there considered simply as a prophecy; but in order to exhibit the full force which they have in their original connexion, the present form must be restored. The form of the sentence is evidently copied from the angel’s address to Hagar (Gen. 16:’ 11), and so closely that the verb nan)? remains unchanged; not, however, as the second person feminine (though all the other Greek versions h^ve xcde’da?, and Junius likewise, who supplies o virgo to remove the ambiguity), but as the third person feminine, analogous to rtrs (Lev. 25: 21), nx^BS (Ps. 118: 23), nx2n (Gen. 33: 11). The form nfinp> itself occurs (Deut. 31: 29, Jer. 44: 23), but in another sense (See Nordheimer, <§> 422.) Calvin, with a strange lapse of memory, alleges that in Scripture mothers never name their children, and that a departure from the constant usage here is a prophetic intimation that the child would have no human father.. The error of fact is easily corrected by referring to the exercise of this prerogative by Eve, Leah, Rachel, Hannah, and others (Gen. 4: 1-25. 19: 37. 29: 32-35. 30: 6-24. 1 Sam. 1: 20. 1 Chron. 4: 9. 7: 16.) That the same act is frequently ascribed to the father, needs of course no proof. In the case before us, it is so far from being an important question, who was to impose the name, that it matters very little whether it was ever imposed at all; or rather, it is certain that the name is merely descriptive or symbolical, and that its actual use in real life was no more necessary to the fulfilment of the prophecy, than that the Messiah should be commonly known by the titles of Wonderful, Counsellor, the Prince of Peace (Isai. 9: 6), or the Lord our Righteousness (Jer. 23: 6). Hence in Matthew 1: 23, the singular rung, is changed into the plural xatiaovtii, they shall call, i. e. they indefinitely, as in our familiar phrase they say, cor responding to the French on dit and the German man sagt, which last construction is adopted by Augusti in his version of this sentence (man w,ird nennen seinen Namen). With equal adherence to the spirit, and equal departure from the letter of the prophecy, the Peshito and Vulgate give the verb a passive form, his name shall be called. As to the meaning of the name itself, its higher sense is evident from Matthew’s application, notwithstanding Hitzig’s paradoxical denial, and its lower sense from the usage of analogous expressions in Ps. 46: 8, 12. 89: 25. Josh. 1: 5. Jer. 1: 8. Isai. 43: 2. •
15. This verse and the next have already been translated in connexion with the fourteenth, upon which connexion their interpretation must depend. It will here be necessary only to explain one or two points more distinctly. Butter (or curds) and honey shall he eat, until he knows (how) to reject the evil and to choose the good. The simple sense of the prediction is that the desolation of Judah, caused by the invasion of Rezin and Pekah, should be only temporary. This idea is symbolically expressed by making the new-born child subsist during his infancy on curds and honey, instead of the ordinary food of an agricultural population. This is clearly the meaning of the same expression in v. 22, as we shall see below; it cannot therefore here denote the real humanity of the person mentioned (Calvin, Vitringa, Henderson, etc.), which is besides«sum*ciently implied in his being born of a human mother, and could riot be asserted here without interrupting the connexion between the fourteenth and sixteenth verses. It cannot denote his poverty or low condition (Calovius),or that of the family of David (Alting), because no such idea is suggested by the words. It cannot, on the other. hand, denote abundance or prosperity in general (Grotius, Cocceius, Junius, etc.), because such a diet is no proof of that condition, and because, according to v. 22, the words are descriptive only of such abundance as arises from a sparse population and neglected tillage. That this desolation should be temporary, is expressed by representing it as coextensive with the early childhood of the person mentioned, iite’ibis explained by Jarchi, Lowth, Hitzig, Henderson, and Ewald, to mean when he knows; by most other writers, till or before he knows (LXX TTQIV q yvtivai). The Vulgate, Luther, Junius, and Clericus?refer it, not to time at all, but to the design or effect of his eating curds and honey, that he may ~know. It is clear however, from the next verse, that this one must contain a specification of time, however vague. The difference between the versions when and till, and also in relation to the age described—which J. D. Michaelis puts as high as twenty-one, Ewald from ten to twenty, Henderson at twelve, but Kimchi and most others at about^ three years—is not so important as it might at first sight seem, because the description was probably intended to be somewhat indefinite. The essential idea is that the desolation should not last until a child then born could reach maturity, and probably not longer than his first few years. Clericus supposes good and evil to mean pleasant and unpleasant food, as in 1 Sam. 19: 35; but the same words elsewhere constantly relate to moral distinctions and the power to perceive them (Gen. 3: 5. Deut. 1: 39. 1 Kings 3: 9. Jonah 4:2). Nothing short of the strongest exegetical necessity could justify the reference of this verse to Shearjashub (Junius, Usher), or to any other subject than the one referred to in the verse preceding, namely, Immanuelrthe child whose birth the Prophet there describes as just at hand, and whose infancy he here describes as passed in the midst of surrounding desolation. To the explanation of this verse as having reference to Isaiah’s own son or a son of Ahaz on the one hand, or to the time of our Saviour’s actual appearance on the other, sufficient objections have already been adduced in the interpretation of the fourteenth verse.
16. The desolation shall be temporary—for before the child shall know (how) to reject the evil and to choose the good, the land> of whose two kings thou art afraid (or by whose two kings thou art distressed), shall be forsaken, i. e. left by its inhabitants and given up to desolation, in which sense the same verb is used elsewhere by Isaiah (ch. 17: 2. 27: 10. 62: 12. Comp. 6: 12). Instead of taking atstj thus absolutely, most of the older writers, and a few of later date, connect it with *»iB«, and •pfc with “>£^. The land which thou abhorrest (or for which thou fearest) shall be forsaken by both its kings—i. e. Judah shall be forsaken by Rezin and Pekah, whom Steudel supposes to be called its kings de facto—or Syria and Israel shall be deprived of Rezin and Pekah—or Canaan (including Israel and Judah) shall lose both its kings. This last is the inter- 124 pretation given by Henderson, who also reads the land which thou destroyest. Clericus takes ststo absolutely, in the sense of being desolate, but translates the rest, which thou abhorrest on account of its two kings. To some of these constructions it may be objected that they make the land and not the kings the object of abhorrence, and to all, that they construe y£ directly with “im, which i<? contrary to usage, and disjoin it from 13 a a, by which it is followed in at least two other places (Ex. 3: 12. Num. 22: 3); to which may be added that according to the Hebrew idiom, this construction is the only one that could be used to signify before (or on account of) whose two kings thou art in terror. This construction, which is given by Castalio and DeDieu, is adopted by Cocceius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Ewald, and most other modern writers, who are also agreed that the land here meant is Syria and Israel, spoken of as one because confederate against.Judah. The wasting of these kingdoms and the deportation of their people by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15: 29. 16: 9) is here predicted, which (3f course implies the previous deliverance of Judah and the brief duration of its own calamity, so that this verse assigns a reason for the representation in the one preceding. There is no need, therefore, of imposing upon “3, at the beginning of the verse, the sense of nay (Piscator), indeed (Calvin), although (Alting), or but (Umbreit), or any other than its usual and proper one of for, because. Nor is it necessary to regard the fifteenth verse as a parenthesis, with Cocceius and Rosenmiiller; much less to reject it as a gloss, with Hitzig, and as breaking the connexion between the name Immanuel in v. 14, and the explanation of it in v. 16. The true connexion of the verses has been well explained by Maurer and Knobel to be this, that Judah shall lie waste for a short time, and only for a short time, for before that short time is expired, its invaders shall themselves be invaded and de stroyed. This view of the connexion is sufficient to evince, that the reference of this verse to Shearjashub (Lowth) or to any child indefinitely (Calvin) is as unnecessary as it is ungrammatical. A child is born—he learns to distinguish good and evil—but before the child is able to distinguish good and evil, something happens. If these three clauses, thus succeeding one another, do not speak of the same child, it is impossible for language to be so employed as to identify the subject without actually saying that it is the same.
17. Again addressing Ahaz, he assures him that although he shall escape the present danger, God will inflict worse evils on himself and his successors, by means of those very allies whose assistance he is now seek ing. Jehovah will bring upon thee—not merely as an individual, but as a king—and on thy people—and on thy father’s house—or family—the royal line of Judah—days which have not come since the departure of Ephraim from Judah, to wit, the Icing of Assyria. It is possible to construe the sentence so a^ to make it refer to the retreat of the invaders—Jehovah will bring upon thee days which have not come (never come before), from the day that Ephraim departs from Judah, i. e. as soon as this invasion ceases, worse times shall begin. This construction, which is permitted, if not favoured, by the Masoretic accents, has the advantage of giving to £sa its strict sense, as implying the removal of a burden or infliction (see Exod. 10: 28, and Gesenius s. v.) rather than a mere revolt or schism, and also that of making the expression stronger (days which have not come at all, or never come) and at the same time less indefinite b) specifying when the days were to begin. But as the absolute use of the phrase which have not come is rather harsh and unusual, and as the compound forms di*B*J and waJj are elsewhere used only in relation to the past (Judg. 19: 30. 2 Sam. 7: 6. 2 Kings 19: 25. Mai. 3: 7), although the simple forms n^a and izna some times denote the future (Exod. 12: 15. Lev. 22: 27. Ez. 38: 8), it is safer to adhere to the unanimous decision of all versions and interpreters, so far as’f can trace it, and understand the verse as declaring the days threatened to be worse than any which had come upon Judah since the revolt of the ten tribes, here called Ephraim, from the largest and most powerful tribe, that to which Jeroboam belonged, and within which the chief towns of the kingdom were situated. This declaration seems at first sight inconsistent with the fact, demonstrable from sacred history, that the injuries sus tained by Judah, during the interval here specified, from other foreign powers, as for- example from the Egyptians in the reign of Rehoboam (2 Chron. 12: 2—9), from the Philistines and Arabians in the reign of Jehoram (2 Chron. 21: 16, 17), from the Syrians in the reign of Joash (2 Chron. 24: 23, 24), not to mention the less successful attacks of the Ethiopians in the reign of Asa. (2 Chron. 14: 8—15), and of Moab and Ammon in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20: 1-30), or the frequent incur sions of the ten tribes, must have greatly overbalanced the invasion of Sennacherib, by far the most alarming visitation of Judah by the armies of Assyria. This apparent discrepancy is not to be explained by regarding the prophecy before us, with Gesenius, as a mere threat (blosses Drohwort), nor by alleging that the days here threatened are not described as worse than any former days, but only as different from them. Even granting that the prophecy implies not merely change of condition, but a change for the worse, it may be justified in either of two ways. According to Cocceius, Vitringa, Henderson, and others, the king of As syria may here include the kings of Babylon, to whom the title is applied in 2 Kings 23: 29,1f not in Neh. 9: 32, as it is to the kings of Persia in Ezra 6: 22, considered as successors to the Assyrian power, in accordance with which usage, Herodotus calls Babylon a city of Assyria.
But even this supposition, although highly probable, is not here necessary. Let it be observed that the days here threatened were to be worse, not simply with respect to individual suffering or temporary difficulties of the state itself, but to the loss of its independence, its transition to a servile state, from which it was never permanently freed, the domination of Assyria being soon succeeded by that of Egypt,.and this by that of Babylon, Persia, Syria, and Rome, the last ending only in the downfall of the state, and that general dispersion-of the people which continues to this day.’ The revolt of Hezekiah and even longer intervals of liberty in later times, are mere interruptions of the customary and prevailing bondage. Of this critical change it surely might be said, even though it were to cost not a single drop of blood, nor the personal freedom of a single captive, that the Lord was about to bring upon Judah days which had not been witnessed from the time of Ephraim’s apostasy, or according to the other construction of the text, at any time whatever; since none of the evils suffered, from Solomon to Ahaz, had destroyed the independence of Judah, not even the Egyptian domination in the reign of Rehoboam, which only lasted long enough to teach the Jews the difference between God’s service and the service of the ‘kingdoms of the countries (2 Chron. 12: 8). This view of the matter is abundantly sufficient to reconcile the prophecy with history, whether Assyria, be understood to.mean the kingdom properly so called, or to include the empires which succeeded it; and whether the threatening be referred exclusively to Ahaz and his times, as Gesenius and Rosenmiiller say it must be, or to him and his successors jointly, which appears to be the true sense of thy people and thy father’s house, as distinguished from himself and his own house; but even on the other supposition, as the change of times, i. e. the transition from an independent to a servile state, took place before the death of Ahaz, the expressions used are perfectly consistent with the facts. It is implied, of course, in this interpretation, that Sennacherib’s invasion was not the beginning of the days here threatened, which is rather to be sought in the alliance between Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser, who came unto him, and distressed him, and strengthened him not (2 Chron. 28: 19, 20), but exacted repeated contri butions from him as a vassal; which degrading and oppressive intercourse continued till his death, as appears from the statement (2 Kings 18: 7) that Hezekiah’rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not, clearly implying that he did at first, as he offered to do afterwards, on Sennacherib’s approach, with confession of his fault, a renewal of his tribute, and a repetition of his father’s sacrilege (2 Kings 18: 13-16). That during the whole teta of this foreign ascendency, Judah was Infested by Assyrian intruders, and by frequent visitations for the purpose of extorting their unwilling tribute, till at last the revolt of Hezekiah, no longer able to endure the burden, led to a formal occupation of the country, is not only probable in itself, but seems to be implied in the subsequent context (vs. 18-20.) The abrupt commencement of this verse, without a connecting particle, led Alting to regard it as the apodosis of the sentence beginning with v. 16— ’ before the child shall know etc. and before the land shall be forsaken, Jehovah will bring upon thee, etc.’ But besides the unusual length and involution of the sentence, and the arbitrary repetition of before with and, it cannot be explained, on this hypothesis, to what desolation v. 16 alludes, as the overthrow of Israel preceded the invasion of Judah by Assyria. The abrupt commencement of the sentence is regarded by Maurer as a proof that the remainder of the chapter is of later date • by Hitzig as marking the commencement of the prophecy itself, what precedes being introductory wit. Vitringa supposes that the Prophet paused, as if unwilling to proceed; Houbigant, as usual, amends the text by inserting vav; while Lowth and others follow the Septuagint by supplying but. According to Hendewerk, however, the adversative particle is out of place, as he denies that what now follows is a threatening appended to a previous promise, and regards it as an amplification of the threatening in v. 1*5; but that relates to the Syrian invasion, this to the Assyrian domination. Aiting’s translation of?p£s by against thee, though it does not change the general sense, destroys its figurative dress, in which there is an obvious allusion to the bringing of water or the like upon a person, so as to destroy him. Compare Joshua 23: 15 and 24: 7.—The last words of this verse (mm “£a nx) have been rejected as a gloss by Houbigant, Seeker, Lowth, Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Mau- •rer, Hendewerk, Umbreit, and Knobel, on the ground that they contain an inelegant anticipation of what follows, and an explanation of what goes before, at once superfluous and incorrect, since Egypt as well as Assyria is mentioned afterwards. That Assyria might be naturally named alone, as first in time and in importance, is admitted by Eichhorn, who rejects the clause on other grounds; and Maurer, who does the same, speaks with contempt of the objection founded on the days being explained to mean the king (id nihil est). As for the rhetorical objection that the words are too prosaic, it is founded on the modern notion that the prophets were mere poets. The objections to the explanation which the Clause contains, as superfluous and incorrect, may cancel one another, as both cannot well be true. Gesenius thinks the supposition of a gloss the more probable because he has detected several others in this prophecy; while Ewald, on the other hand, retains the words as genuine, because they recur below in v. 20 and in ch. 8: 7. The external evidence is all in favour of the clause. There is no need of making nj< a preposition meaning by, though, or from, as Jerome, Luther, Grotius, and Clericus do; nor is it necessary to regard the words as in apposition to ta^aj, since they are rather a second object to the verb JO^P, which may be considered as repeated before ru*, as Hengstenberg suggests—he shall bring upon thee days etc. (he shall bring upon thee) the king of Assyria.
18. The evil times just threatened are here more explicitly described as arising from the presence and oppression of foreigners, especially Assyrian’s’and Egyptians, whose number and vexatious impositions • are expressed by comparing them to swarms of noxious and annoying insects, pouring into the country by divine command. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day (in the days just threatened) that Jehovah will hiss (or whistle) to (or for) the fly which (is) in the end (or edge) of the rivers of Egypt, and to ‘ (or for) the bee which is in Assyria. The fly is peculiarly appropriate to Egypt, where the marshy grounds produce it in abundance, and there may be a reference, as Barnes supposes, to the plague of flies in Exodus. Knobel and others think there may be also an allusion to the abounding of bees in Assyria; but the Prophet probably intended only to combine two familiar and annoying kinds of insects, and not to describe the distinctive qualities of the two nations, the fierceness and boldness of the Assyrians, the filth (Ba sil), cowardice (Jerome), or buzzing speech (Cyril) of the Egyptians. The end of the streams of Egypt is referred by some to the adjacent countries (Junius, Piscator); but it evidently means something belonging to Egypt itself, viz. the arms of the Delta (Vitringa, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Hendewerk, Henderson), or the remotest streams (Gesenius, Maurer, Ewald), implying that the flies should come from the very extremities, or from the whole land (Barnes). By making ri^p denote the lateral extremity or edge, and rendering it brink or border, as the common version does in Josh. 3: 8. Ex. 16: 35, an equally good sense is obtained, viz. that the flies shall come from the banks of the streams, where they are most abundant.— The hiss or whistle, denoting God’s control over these enemies of Judah, has the same sense as in ch. 5: 26. Assyria and Egypt are not here named indefinitely (Hendewerk), but as the two great rival powers who disturbed the peace of Western Asia, and to whom the land of Israel was both a place and subject of contention. The bee cannot of itself denote an army (Barnes), nor is the reference exclusively to actual invasion, but to the ajinoying and oppressive occupation of the country by civil and military agents of these foreign powers. It was not merely attacked but infested, by the flies and bees of Egypt and Assyria. Fly is understood as a generic term including gnats, mosquitoes etc. by Henderson, and bee as including wasps and hornets by Hitzig and Umbreit.
19. Carrying out the figures of the preceding verse, the Prophet, instead of simply saying that the land shall be infested by foreigners, represents it as completely filled with bees and flies, who are described as settling upon all the places commonly frequented by such insects. And they come and rest (or settle) all of them in the desolate (or precipitous) valleys, and in the clefts of rocks, and in all thorn-hedges, and in all pastures. Accord ing to Clericus, the places mentioned are those suited for the encampment of troops; but this supposes a different meaning of the words.translated desolate valleys and thorn-hedges. The exclusive reference to invading armies is assumed by other writers also; but although this may have been the prominent idea, the words seem naturally to express the general notion of a country overrun, infested, filled with foreigners and enemies, not only by military occupation but in other ways. The opinion of Kimchi and Forerius, that the sites of towns are here described, overlooks the beautiful allusion to the habits of the insects mentioned. The same objection lies in part against the supposition of an antithesis between deserted and frequented places (Cocceius), or between worthless and valuable products, *i *thorns and shrubbery of pleasure’ (Barnes), which rests moreover upon etymologies now commonly.abandoned. Grotius suggests that these four terms have reference to the two kinds of insects alternately, the first and third denoting customary haunts of flies, the second and fourth of bees. The version above given is the one adopted by the latest writers (Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, Hendewerk, Henderson, Umbreit, Knobel). For a great variety of older explanations see Rosenmuller on the passage and Gesenius’s Thesaurus s. v.
20. Had the Prophet, as Hendewerk suggests, represented the invaders as locusts, he would probably have gone on to describe them as devouring the land; but having chosen bees and flies as the emblem, he proceeds- to express the idea of their spoliations by a different figure, that of a body closely shorn or shaven by a razor under the control of God and in his ser vice. In that day (the same day mentioned in v. 19) will the Lord shave, with a razor hired in the parts beyond the river (Euphrates), (that is to say) with the Icing of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet (i. e. of both extremities, or of the whole body), and also the beard will it (the razor) take, away. The words iim “f^n are rejected by Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, Knobel, for the same reason, or rather with as little reason, as in v. 17. They are retained by Hendewerk and Ewald. Aben Ezra arid Abarbenel follow the Targum and Peshito in making the king of Assyria the subject of the operation here described, and suppose the destroying angel to be called a hired razor, i. e. one of the best temper and condition. Theodoret also understands the king of Assyria to be here described as shaved, but by the Medes and Persians as a razor. These constructions wholly disregard the preposition before ^a, or take it in the sense of in ‘ will shave in the king of Assyria, the head,’ etc. Some understand 9
as an additional description of the razor — ‘with a hired razor, with those beyond the river, with the king of Assyria.’ But as h^nrs and “QSa are never used in reference to persons, the former no doubt here de notes the place of hiring — a razor hired in the parts beyond the river.’ If so, irnisiu cannot be a noun (novacula conductions), but must be taken as a verbal adjective, equivalent to a passive participle, of which this is a common form in Chaldee. There is no need of changing the division of the words, so as to read ii^b ^7?5’ smce tne article before the noun may be omitted by poetic license, and I?P) is construed as a feminine with n&ofl. Instead of hired (pspia&copsvcp), the Alexandrian MS. of the Septuagint reads drunken ((u-ps&vGftwcp), which is also the version of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; and accordingly J. D. Michaelis would read rn^tEJ, understanding by a drunken razor one employed as a drunkard would employ it, i. e. recklessly and rashly. The same reading seems to be implied in the common text of the Peshito, though Ephrem Syrus gives the Syriac adjective the sense of sharp. According to the common reading, which is no doubt genuine, the king of Assyria is called a hired razor, not because men use what is hired more unsparingly than if it were their own (Calvin) — nor simply because he was allured or hired by the hope of conquest (Jerome, Grotius, J. D. Michaelis, etc.) — nor simply because Ahaz had already hired him (Junius, Piscator, Glassius, etc.) — but for the last two reasons put together, that as Ahaz had profaned and robbed God’s house to hire a foreign razor, with which Israel and Syria might be shaven, so God would make use of that self-same razor to shave Judah, i. e. to remove its population, or its wealth, or both. The rabbinical interpretation of nsND c^JH is a poor conceit, the adoption of which by Gesenius, if indicative of nothing worse, says but little for the taste and the ’ aesthetic feeling ‘ which so often sits in judgment on the language of the Prophet. The true sense is no doubt the one expressed by Ewald (von oben bis unten), and before him by Clericus, who justly says of the rabbinical expounders of the phrase £ rem turpiculam de suo Prophetae admetiri videntur.’ ‘ The separate mention of the beard may have reference to the oriental fondness for it and associations of dishonour with the loss of it. The specific explanation of the beard as meaning the ministers of religion (Vitringa), Sennacherib (Vatablus), etc., and a like explanation of the other terms, are not only arbitrary and capricious,’ but destructive of a beautiful and simple metaphor, which represents the spoiling of Judah by foreign invaders and intruders as the shaving of the hair from a whole body. The same remark applies to Hendewerk’s suggestion, that the parts of a country are often represented by those of a human body, and that the hair of the head may possibly denote the wooded hills of Palestine. Lowth supplies Vav before inj; but the latter may be poetically used for the Euphrates, even without the article (Jer. 2: 18). Barnes explains fifiori in a passive sense; but this requires -^t, as well as 1513, to be taken as a feminine noun contrary to usage, a concurrence of anomalies by no.means probable. Henderson makes hs&ft a stronger expression than nh1?, and translates it shall scrape off, which is given by Gesenius as the primary sense, but that of causing to cease or removing is the one best sustained by usage. The Targum paraphrases nsn as denoting various kinds of weapons used in war, and the Vulgate almost seems to make the razor itself the object to be shaved.
Vs. 21, 22. In consequence of these spoliations, the condition of the country will be wholly changed. The population left shall not be agricultural but pastoral. Instead of living on the fruits of the soil, they shall subsist upon spontaneous products, such as milk and honey, which shall be abundant only because the people will be few and the uncultivated grounds extensive. And it shall be in that day (that) a man shall save (or keep) alive a young cow and two sheep; and it shall be (that) from the abundance of the, making (yielding or production) of milk., he shall eat butter (or curds or cheese or cream); for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the midst of (or within) the land. There is no need of assuming a conditional construction—c q. d. if one should keep ‘—as J. H. Michaelis, Maurer, and DeWette do—since this idea is sufficiently implied in an exact translation. tfii« does not necessarily mean every man, implying that the poorest of the people should have so much cattle (Gesenius), or that the richest should have no more (Calvin), but simply one indefinitely (Hitzig, Ewald). The Piel of fijft nowhere else signifies to “ keep, own, feed “ (Barnes), nor to hold, possess (Gesenius, Ewald, etc.). Its primary meaning is to give life originally (Job 33: 4), or to restore it after death (1 Sam. 2:6); whence by a natural transition it is used to denote the preservation of one’s life in danger (Ps. 30: 4); so that unless we depart from its proper meaning here, it must denote not merely the keeping or raising of the cow and sheep, but their being saved from a greater number, and preserved with difficulty, not for want of pasture, which was more than ever plentiful, but from the presence of invaders and enemies. Thus understood, the word throws light upon the state of the country, as described in the context. Hendewerk thinks it not improbable that by a cow and two sheep we are to understand a herd of cows and two flocks of sheep, because so small a number would not yield abundance of milk. But the abundance is of course to be relatively understood, with respect to the small number of persons to be fed, and is there fore an additional and necessary stroke in the prophetic picture—few cattle left, and yet those few sufficient to afford milk in abundance to the few inhabitants. This abundance is expressed still more strongly by describing them as eating not the milk itself, but that which is produced from it, and which of course must bear a small proportion to the whole; and as this is the essential idea meant to be conveyed by mentioning theft«»fl, it matters little whether it be understood to mean butter (Septuagint, etc.), cheese (Hendewerk), cream (Hitzig, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel), or curds (Gesenius, etc.), though the last seems to agree best with what we know of oriental usages. It is here mentioned neither as a delicacy nor as plain and ordinary food, but as a kind of diet independent of the cultivation of the earth, and therefore implying a neglect of tillage and a pastoral mode of life, as well as an unusual extent of pasturage, which may have reference, as Barnes suggests, not only to the milk but to the honey. The rabbinical interpretation of these verses, as a promise of abundance in the reign of Hezekiah after Sennacherib’s retreat (2 Chron. 32: 27-29), and the adaptation of the same exposition to the time of Christ (Grotius, Cocceius, etc.), appear to have arisen from confounding what is here said of butter and honey, with a frequent description of the promised land as flowing with milk and honey. But not to insist upon the circumstance, that this is a literal and that a metaphorical description, and that even in the latter the idea of abundance is conveyed by the flowing of the land with milk and honey, which is not here mentioned; let it be observed that even the abundance thus asserted of the promised land is not fertility, but the abundance of spontaneous products, not dependent upon tillage; and that after Israel was possessed of Canaan and had become an agricultural people, the natural emblem of abundance would no longer be milk and honey, but corn and wine, or flesh and fruits, so that the prospect of subsisting on the first two, if it did not suggest the idea of personal privation, would suggest that of general desolation, or at least that of interrupted or suspended cultivation. Thus Boswell, in the journal of his tour with Dr. Johnson to the Hebrides, observes of the inhabitants of one of the poor islands, that “ they lived all the spring without meal, upon milk and curds and whey alone.” This verse, then, is descriptive of abundance only as connected with a paucity of people and a general neglect of tillage. It was designed indeed to be directly expressive neither of abundance nor of poverty (Barnes), but of a change in the condition of the country and of the remaining people, which is further described in the ensuing context. The older interpreters were probably misled by the peculiar mode in which a threatening is here uttered in the tone of a promise, or as Knobel expresses it, the words sound promising (klingen verheissend) but contain a threat. The same thing had been observed before by Henderson, and most of the recent writers are agreed in giving to the twenty-second verse its true sense as a prophecy of desolation. This of course determines that of the fifteenth, to which Hendewerk sup poses Isaiah to refer directly, as if he had said, i *this is what I meant by saying that the child should eat curds and honey, *for curds and honey shall every one eat that is left in the midst of the land.’
23. Having described the desolation of the country indirectly, by saying what the food of the inhabitants should be, the Prophet now de scribes it more directly, by predicting the growth of thorns and briers, even in spots which had been sedulously cultivated, for example the most valuable vineyards. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day (that) every place, where there shall be a thousand vines at (or for) a thousand silverlings (pieces or shekels of silver), shall be for (or become) thorns and briers, or shall be (given up) to the thorn and to the brier. Kimchi reverses the prediction, so as to make it mean thab every place now full of thorns and briers shall hereafter abound in valuable vines, which is, of course, an impossible construction. Calvin supposes the thousand silverlings or shekels to be.mentioned as a very low price, and understands the verse to mean that every place planted with a thousand vines should, in these days of desolation, be sold for only so much, on account of the thorns and briers which had overrun them. All other writers seem to confine the threatening to the thorns and briers, and to regard t)O3 tjlbxa as a part of the description of a valuable vineyard, though they differ on the question whether this was the price for which the vineyard might be sold, or its annual rent, as in Sol. Song 8:11, where, however, it is said to be the price of the fruit, and the number of vines is not mentioned. The vines of the Johannisberg are valued at a ducat each, according to J. D. Michaelis, who thinks, however, that, allowance being made for the change in the value of money, the price mentioned in the text was probably a high one, even for a valuable vineyard. Henderson computes that it was nearly one-half more than the price at which the vineyards of Mount Lebanon were sold in 1811, according to Burckhardt, namely a piastre for each vine.— The substantive verb with b may signify either to belong to (Hitzig, Ewald), to be given up to (Umbreit), or to become (DeWette, Knobel), which last is its most usual meaning. The irregular repetition of the verb is occasioned by the length of the parenthetical clause. The construction of the sentence is entirely changed in Henderson’s version—in every place, etc. there shall be briers and thorns.
24. So complete shall be the desolation of these once favoured spots that men shall pass through them armed as they would through a wilderness. With arrows and with bow shall one (or shall a mail) go thither, because thorns and briers shall the whole land be. The essential idea, as the last clause shows, is that of general desolation; there is no need, therefore, of supposing that the bows and arrows have exclusive reference to protection against enemies (Kimchi) or beasts (Jarchi) or robbers (Clericus), or to hunting (Calvin), as neither is particularly mentioned, and as it would be natural to carry weapons into such a region both for protection and the chase (Lowth, Gesenius). It is no objection to the mention of the latter, that the people had just been represented as subsisting upon milk. and honey, since these two methods of subsistence often coexist, as belonging to the same state of society, and both imply a general neglect of tillage. The exact sense of the last clause is not that the land shall become thorns and briers (English version), as in v. 24, but that it shall actually be thorns and briers.
25. Not only the fields, not only the vineyards, shall be overrun with thorns and briers, but the very hills, now laboriously cultivated with the hand, shall be given up to like desolation. And all the hills (i.e. even all the hills) which are digged with the hoe (because inaccessible to the plough)—thou shalt not go (even) there, for fear of briers and thorns, and (being thus uncultivated) they shall be for a sending-place of cattle and a trampling-place of sheep (i. e. a place where cattle may be sent to pasture, and which may be trodden down by sheep). The reference is probably to the hills of Judea, anciently cultivated to the very top, by means of terraces that still exist, for an account of which by eye-witnesses, see Keith’s Land of Israel, chapter xn., and Robinson’s Palestine, vol. II. p. 187. Thus understood, the verse merely strengthens the foregoing description, by declaring that even the most carefully cultivated portions of the land should not escape the threatened desolation. It is not necessary, therefore, to give f^n in v. 24 the arbitrary sense of lowlands as distinguished from the mountains mentioned here (Henderson); much less to understand E^n itself as meaning mounds or hillocks formed by the hoe (Forerius). It is equally gratuitous, and therefore inadmissible, to take thorns and briers in a different sense from that which they have in the preceding verses, e. g. in that of a thorn hedge, implying that the vineyard should no longer be enclosed (Grotius, Cocceius, Vitringa), an arbitrary change which cannot be justified by Matthew Henry’s epigrammatic observation, that the thorns, instead of growing where they would be useful, should spring up in abundance where they were not wanted. With this explanation of thorns and briers is connected an erroneous construction of »i’2n as a verb in the third person, agreeing with rx^ as its subject—the fear of thorns and briers shall not come thither’—i. e. there shall be no hinderance to their growth (Ewald), or no regard to them (Junius) or no thorn hedges (Grotius). Kimchi and Abarbenel connect this same construction with the natural and proper sense of thorns and briers, and thus convert the verse into a promise that in the mountains there should be no fear of desolation; while Cyril and Calvin make it a threatening in the form of a promise (like v. 22), by explaining it to mean that even if the hills where the remaining inhabitants take refuge should be tilled, and thus escape the fear of thorns and briers, it would only be because the rest of the country should be desolate. The simplest and most satisfactory construction is the one now commonly adopted, which takes Kiaft as the second person used indefinitely (thou for any one), and FX^ as a noun used adverbially to denote for fear of, which is more agreeable to Hebrew usage than to sup pose an ellipsis of the preposition “^ (Rosenmiiller).. Thus understood, the verse continues and completes the description of the general desolation, as manifested first by the people’s living upon milk and honey, then by the growth of thorns and briers in the choicest vineyards and the terraced hills, and by the conversion of these carefully tilled spots into dangerous solitudes, hunting-grounds, and pastures.
